A RIGID EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF EVIDENCE RATHER THAN A GUARANTEE
AGAINST CONVICTION ON INHERENTLY UNTRUSTWORTHY EVIDENCE.  WE HAVE
REFUSED TO HOLD IT TO ENACT AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN THE CASE OF OTHER
ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE.  WOLF V. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25; SCHWARTZ
V. TEXAS, 334 U.S. 199; SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97.  SEE
ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46; UNITED STATES V. CARIGNAN, 342 U.S.
36.  COERCED CONFESSIONS ARE NOT MORE STAINED WITH ILLEGALITY THAN
OTHER EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF LAW.  BUT RELIANCE ON A COERCED
CONFESSION VITIATES A CONVICTION BECAUSE SUCH A CONFESSION COMBINES THE
PERSUASIVENESS OF APPARENT CONCLUSIVENESS WITH WHAT JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE
SHOWS TO BE ILLUSORY AND DECEPTIVE EVIDENCE.  A FORCED CONFESSION IS A
FALSE FOUNDATION FOR ANY CONVICTION, WHILE EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY ILLEGAL
SEARCH AND SEIZURE, WIRE TAPPING, OR LARCENY MAY BE AND OFTEN IS OF THE
UTMOST VERITY.  SUCH POLICE LAWLESSNESS THEREFORE MAY NOT VOID STATE
CONVICTIONS WHILE FORCED CONFESSIONS WILL DO SO. 

WE FIND NO ERROR IN REFUSING THE INSTRUCTION ASKED IN THIS CASE. 

BUT THIS DOES NOT EXHAUST PETITIONERS' ARSENAL OF OBJECTIONS.  THEY
ARGUE THAT EVEN IF THE JURY WERE PERMITTED TO FIND THE VERDICT, A
REVIEWING COURT MUST SET IT ASIDE.  THEY SAY THAT AFFIRMANCE WITHOUT
OPINION MAY MEAN THAT, WHILE THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THE TREATMENT
OF THE CONFESSIONS ERRONEOUS, IT MAY HAVE AFFIRMED ON THE BASIS THAT,
IN VIEW OF OTHER SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS.  THE NEW
YORK STATUTE, (FN36) LIKE THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
(FN37) COMMANDS REVIEWING COURTS TO DISREGARD ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES
WHICH DO NOT AFFECT SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.  THAT SUCH A GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE MANDATE IS CONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT IN QUESTION.  IF THE
GENERAL RULE IS NOT PROHIBITED, THE QUESTION IN EACH CASE BECOMES ONE
AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF ITS APPLICATION TO THE EVIDENCE.  IN A TRIAL
SUCH AS THIS, LASTING SEVEN WEEKS, WHERE OBJECTIONS BY THREE DEFENSE
COUNSEL REQUIRED IN EXCESS OF THREE HUNDRED RULINGS BY THE TRIAL COURT
WITHOUT THE LONG DELIBERATION AND DEBATE POSSIBLE FOR APPELLATE COURT
CONSIDERATION, IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE IF THERE WERE NOT SOME QUESTIONS
ON WHICH AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD RULE OTHERWISE THAN DID THE TRIAL
JUDGE.  THE HARMLESS-ERROR STATUTES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED TO GIVE
DISCRETION TO OVERLOOK ERRORS WHICH CANNOT BE SEEN TO DO INJUSTICE. 

BUT, WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE GROUNDS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WE
BASE OUR DECISION, NOT UPON GROUNDS THAT ERROR HAS BEEN HARMLESS, BUT
UPON THE GROUND THAT WE FIND NO CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR.  WE HAVE POINTED
OUT THAT IT WAS NOT ERROR IF THE JURY ADMITTED AND RELIED ON THE
CONFESSION AND WAS NOT ERROR IF THEY REJECTED IT AND CONVICTED ON OTHER
EVIDENCE.  TO SAY THAT ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE TRIAL AN
APPELLATE COURT MUST REVERSE WOULD REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION BY MORE
AUTHORITY THAN WE ARE ABLE TO DISCOVER. 

                           VI.  WISSNER'S CASE. 

WISSNER'S CASE IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT AND ITS DISPOSITION INVOLVES
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.  WISSNER NEVER CONFESSED, BUT HE WAS IMPLICATED
BY THOSE WHO DID.  HIS OBJECTIONS RAISE QUESTIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY OF
THE CONFESSIONS TO WHICH HE WAS NOT A PARTY. 

HOWEVER, WE FIND AS REGARDS WISSNER NO CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR SUCH AS
WOULD JUSTIFY OUR SETTING ASIDE HIS CONVICTION. 

OUR HOLDING THAT IT WAS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE STATE COURTS TO FIND THAT
THE CONFESSIONS WERE VOLUNTARY TAKES AWAY THE SUPPORT FOR WISSNER'S
POSITION HERE.  BUT, EVEN IF THE CONFESSIONS WERE CONSIDERED TO HAVE
BEEN INVOLUNTARY, THEIR USE WOULD NOT HAVE VIOLATED ANY FEDERAL RIGHT
OF WISSNER'S.  MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 410-412.  THIS COURT
THERE REFUSED TO REVERSE THE CONVICTION OF RUDISH, A CODEFENDANT OF
MALINSKI WHO HAD BEEN NAMED IN THE LATTER'S CONFESSION.  IT IS TRUE
THAT RUDISH'S NAME WAS THERE DELETED AND AN "X" SUBSTITUTED IN ITS
PLACE BEFORE THE JURY GOT THE CONFESSION.  USE OF THIS DEVICE DOES NOT
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING IN THE COURT'S DECISION AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING, POINTED OUT WHAT NO ONE QUESTIONED, THAT "THE
DEVICES WERE SO OBVIOUS AS PERHAPS TO EMPHASIZE THE IDENTITY OF THOSE
THEY PURPORTED TO CONCEAL."  P. 430.  ON REMAND, THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE ORDERED A NEW TRIAL FOR RUDISH AS WELL AS
MALINSKI.  294 N.Y. 500, 63 N.E.2D 77.  SURELY IN THE LIGHT OF THE
OTHER TESTIMONY SUCH A DELETION FROM THE CONFESSIONS HERE WOULD NOT
HAVE DIVERTED THEIR INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS FROM WISSNER TO AN
ANONYMOUS NOBODY. 

WISSNER, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT HIS FEDERAL RIGHTS WERE INFRINGED
BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE ACCUSING WITNESSES, I.E., THE
CONFESSORS.  HE CONTENDS THAT THE "PRIVILEGE OF CONFRONTATION" IS
SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, RELYING ON ONE SENTENCE IN SNYDER
V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 107.  (FN38)  HOWEVER, THE WORDS CITED
WERE QUOTED VERBATIM FROM DOWDELL V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 325, 330,
IN WHICH THE LANGUAGE WAS USED TO DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT PROVISION ON CONFRONTATION IN FEDERAL CASES.  IT WAS
TRANSPOSED TO SNYDER SOLELY TO POINT OUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A
RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION AND A MERE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO BE PRESENT AT
HIS OWN TRIAL.  (FN39)  THE COURT IN SNYDER SPECIFICALLY REFRAINED FROM
HOLDING THAT THERE WAS ANY RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, (FN40) AND CLEARLY HELD TO THE CONTRARY IN WEST V.
LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258, IN WHICH IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION DID NOT PRECLUDE LOUISIANA FROM USING AFFIDAVITS ON A
CRIMINAL TRIAL. 

BASICALLY, WISSNER'S OBJECTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE
CONFESSIONS IS THAT AS TO HIM THEY ARE HEARSAY.  THE HEARSAY-EVIDENCE
RULE, WITH ALL ITS SUBTLETIES, ANOMALIES AND RAMIFICATIONS, WILL NOT BE
READ INTO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CF. WEST V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA. 

PERHAPS THE METHODS ADOPTED BY THE NEW YORK COURTS TO PROTECT WISSNER
AGAINST ANY DISADVANTAGE FROM THE STATE'S USE OF THE COOPER AND STEIN
CONFESSIONS WERE NOT THE MOST EFFECTIVE CONCEIVABLE.  BUT "ITS
PROCEDURE DOES NOT RUN FOUL OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE ANOTHER
METHOD MAY SEEM TO OUR THINKING TO BE FAIRER OR WISER OR TO GIVE A
SURER PROMISE OF PROTECTION TO THE PRISONER AT THE BAR."  SNYDER V.
MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA, AT 105. 

         VII. 

THIRD-DEGREE VIOLENCE HAS BEEN TOO OFTEN DENOUNCED BY COURTS FOR
ANYTHING USEFUL TO COME OUT OF MERE REPETITION OF INVECTIVES.  IT IS A
CRIME UNDER STATE LAW AND, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, UNDER FEDERAL LAW. 
SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91; KOEHLER V. UNITED STATES, 189
F.2D 711, 342 U.S. 852. 

WHEN THE PENALTY IS DEATH, WE, LIKE STATE COURT JUDGES, ARE TEMPTED
TO STRAIN THE EVIDENCE AND EVEN, IN CLOSE CASES, THE LAW IN ORDER TO
GIVE A DOUBTFULLY CONDEMNED MAN ANOTHER CHANCE.  BUT WE CANNOT SEE THE
SLIGHTEST JUSTIFICATION FOR READING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO DENY
THE STATE OF NEW YORK THE POWER TO HOLD THESE DEFENDANTS GUILTY ON THE
RECORD BEFORE US.  (FN41) 

WE ARE NOT WILLING TO DISCREDIT CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES FOR
PROTECTION OF THE INNOCENT BY MAKING OF THEM MERE TECHNICAL LOOPHOLES
FOR THE ESCAPE OF THE GUILTY.  THE PETITIONERS HAVE HAD FAIR TRIAL AND
FAIR REVIEW.  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  A HOMICIDE COMMITED BY A PERSON ENGAGED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
FELONY.  IT IS FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AND CARRIES A MANDATORY DEATH
SENTENCE UNLESS THE JURY RECOMMENDS LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  NEW YORK PENAL
LAW, SECS. 1044(2), 1045, 1045-A.  NO SUCH RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE
HERE. 

FN2  PEOPLE V. COOPER, 303 N.Y. 856, 104 N.E.2D 917. 

FN3  344 U.S. 815. 

FN4  THE DEFENSE ARGUED THAT WATERBURY'S RECOLLECTION WAS INACCURATE
AND THAT HE HAD ONLY 25% VISION IN ONE EYE. 

FN5  THE DEFENSE SAYS THAT THIS CONSTITUTES A COERCED CONFESSION -
STEIN HAVING MADE THE STATEMENT IN POLICE CUSTODY.  IT WAS NOT A
CONFESSION OF GUILT BUT AN ADMISSION OF A SPECIFIC FACT.  ALTHOUGH NEW
YORK MAY IMPOSE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY ON AN ADMISSION
AS IT DOES ON A CONFESSION, SEE PEOPLE V. REILLY, 181 APP. DIV. 522,
528, 169 N.Y.S. 119, 123, AFF'D, 224 N.Y. 90, 120 N.E. 113, SUCH
UTTERANCES ARE NOT USUALLY SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS ON
ADMISSIBILITY AS ARE CONFESSIONS.  SEE 3 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED.) 
SEC.  821(3).  IN THE FACE OF THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY,
IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT IS IMPOSED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  EVEN IF THIS ADMISSION WERE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
RELIABILITY TESTS AS CONFESSIONS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT STEIN WAS
UNDER ANY COERCION THIRTY HOURS AFTER HIS CONFESSION OF JUNE 7. 

FN6  THE DEFENSE POINTS OUT THAT:  WATERBURY WENT THROUGH THE LINEUP
TWO OR THREE TIMES BEFORE IDENTIFYING WISSNER; THE LINEUP CONSISTED OF
WISSNER AND SEVERAL STATE TROOPERS, EACH OF WHOM WAS SEVERAL INCHES
TALLER THAN WISSNER; TWO LADIES WHO HAD SEEN A MAN WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN
THE KILLER LURKING IN THE VICINITY OF THE READER'S DIGEST ON APRIL 3
ALSO WENT THROUGH THE LINEUP, AND EACH OF THEM IDENTIFIED AS THAT MAN
ONE OF THE STATE TROOPERS IN THE LINEUP WHO WAS IN LONG ISLAND ON THE
DAY OF THE MURDER.  THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE LINEUP WAS NOT SO
CONSTRUCTED AS TO SUGGEST WISSNER AS THE MAN TO BE IDENTIFIED. 

FN7  N.Y. CODE CRIM. PROC., SEC. 399.  PEOPLE V. GOLDSTEIN, 285 N.Y.
376, 34 N.E.2D 362. 

FN8  THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY OF HOMISHAK AND DORFMAN,
THE FORMER PLACING THE FOUR CONSPIRATORS ON APRIL 3 AT A PLACE
DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHERE DORFMAN SAYS THEY WERE. 

FN9  JEPPESON STATED THAT THE TRUCK WAS RENTED IN EACH CASE ON A
SATURDAY AND RETURNED ON TWO OCCASIONS EARLY MONDAY MORNING, WHICH
CONTRADICTS DORFMAN'S TESTIMONY THAT EACH JUNKET TO PLEASANTVILLE HAD
BEEN ON A MONDAY MORNING.  JEPPESON WAS TESTIFYING FROM RECOLLECTION,
UNAIDED BY RECORD. 

FN10  THE DEFENSE SOUGHT, UNSUCCESSFULLY, TO INTRODUCE AN AFFIDAVIT
SUBMITTED ON A PRIOR MOTION BY STEIN'S COUNSEL WHICH, ACCORDING TO
STEIN'S BRIEF HERE, SET FORTH AN ACCOUNT WHICH COUNSEL RECEIVED FROM
STEIN CONCERNING POLICE BRUTALITY.  (THIS AFFIDAVIT, THOUGH MARKED FOR
IDENTIFICATION, WAS NOT MADE PART OF THE RECORD HERE.)  DURING ORAL
ARGUMENT ON TRIAL, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS MADE MANY ALLUSIONS AS TO
VIOLENT CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE POLICE; AND PETITIONER COOPER MADE
AN OUTBURST ACCUSING A POLICE WITNESS OF LYING, BUT DID NOT BECOME HIS
OWN WITNESS.  OTHER THAN THIS, DEFENDANTS TOOK NO ACTION TO ESTABLISH
THEIR CONTENTIONS.  PRIOR TO THE TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS BROUGHT A
PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY TO HAVE THE TWO
CONFESSIONS SUPPRESSED ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE ILLEGALLY
OBTAINED.  THE PROSECUTION DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT
WHICH THE DEFENDANTS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION AND, IN VIEW OF
THE CONFLICT IN THE EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
CONFESSIONS WAS POSTPONED UNTIL THE TRIAL. 

FN11  DR. VOSBURGH, THE PHYSICIAN WHO HAD EXAMINED PETITIONERS ON
JUNE 9, TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO STATE EXACTLY HOW LONG THE
BRUISES HAD BEEN THERE; THAT THE BRUISES ON COOPER'S BODY COULD HAVE
BEEN AS MUCH AS SIX DAYS OLD (HE HAD BEEN IN CUSTODY THREE DAYS); AND
THAT STEIN'S BRUISES COULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED PRIOR TO ARREST. 

FN12  THIS EVIDENCE WAS HEARSAY, BUT WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE
DEFENDANTS. 

FN13  A PRIOR DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS INDICATES THAT IT WILL
REVERSE WHENEVER A COERCED CONFESSION APPEARS IN EVIDENCE, REGARDLESS
OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE.  SEE PEOPLE V. LEYRA, 302 N.Y. 353, 364, 98
N.E.2D 553, 559.  HOWEVER, IT APPEARS PROBABLE THAT THE COURT THERE WAS
APPLYING A DOCTRINE, NOT OF NEW YORK LAW, BUT ONE WHICH IT CONSIDERED
TO BE IMPOSED BY THIS COURT AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE NEW YORK
RULE DOES NOT APPEAR TO US TO BE FREE FROM DOUBT.  SEE PEOPLE V.
FISHER, 249 N.Y. 419, 426, 164 N.E. 336, 338; PEOPLE V. SAMUELS, 302
N.Y. 163, 173, 96 N.E.2D 757, 762; PEOPLE V. LEYRA, 304 N.Y. 468, 108
N.E.2D 673. 

FN14  N.Y. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 6. 

FN15  N.Y. CODE CRIM. PROC., SEC. 395.  PRIOR TO 1881, COERCED
CONFESSIONS WERE EXCLUDED UNDER COMMON-LAW DOCTRINES OF EVIDENCE.  SEE
PEOPLE V. MONDON, 103 N.Y. 211, 8 N.E.  496; PEOPLE V. MCMAHON, 15 N.Y.
384. 

FN16  N.Y. CODE CRIM. PROC., SEC. 528. 

FN17  THE JURY WERE INSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS: 

"LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THERE HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DEFENDANT CALMAN COOPER AND
THE DEFENDANT HARRY A. STEIN.  IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE PEOPLE THAT
THESE STATEMENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CONFESSIONS AND THAT THEY WERE
MADE FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS THE CONTENTION
MADE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT CALMAN COOPER AND ON BEHALF OF THE
DEFENDANT HARRY A. STEIN THAT THESE ALLEGED CONFESSIONS ARE VALUELESS
AS EVIDENCE AGAINST EITHER OF THEM, BECAUSE IT IS CONTENDED ON BEHALF
OF EACH OF THESE DEFENDANTS THAT THESE STATEMENTS WERE MADE BECAUSE OF
FORCE AND INTIMIDATION AND FEAR VISITED UPON EACH OF THEM BY CERTAIN
MEMBERS OF THE STATE POLICE AND IMPLIED COERCION BECAUSE OF THE MANNER
IN WHICH THEY WERE KEPT IN CUSTODY FROM THE TIME OF APPREHENSION UNTIL
THE ALLEGED CONFESSIONS WERE MADE.  YOU MUST FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT THESE CONFESSIONS, OR EITHER OF THEM, WAS A VOLUNTARY ONE
BEFORE YOU WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO CONSIDER EITHER OF THEM. 

"I CHARGE YOU THAT THE LAW OF THIS STATE WITH RESPECT TO A CONFESSION
IS THIS, THAT A CONFESSION MADE BY A DEFENDANT, WHETHER IN THE COURSE
OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING OR TO A PRIVATE PERSON, CAN BE GIVEN IN
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM UNLESS MADE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF FEAR PRODUCED
BY THREATS  ...  ." 

THE JUDGE FURTHER INSTRUCTED THEM THAT IF THEY FOUND THAT THE
CONFESSIONS WERE VOLUNTARY THEY WERE THEN TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEIR
CONTENTS, OR ANY PART OF THEM, WERE TRUE. 

THE JURY ALSO WAS INSTRUCTED THAT THEY SHOULD NOT CONSIDER A
STATEMENT BY ONE DEFENDANT AS ANY EVIDENCE OF GUILT AGAINST ANY OTHER
DEFENDANT. 

THESE PORTIONS OF THE COURT'S CHARGE WERE NOT OBJECTED TO. 

FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE PETITIONERS HERE CLAIM THAT THIS CHARGE SET
FORTH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTARINESS UNDER STATE LAW, BUT DID NOT
SET FORTH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTARINESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THEY CONSTRUE THE COURT'S CHARGE AS INSTRUCTING THE JURY
THAT "IMPLIED COERCION" DOES NOT MAKE A CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY.  WE DO
NOT AGREE WITH THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHARGE, AND THE FACT THAT NO
OBJECTION WAS MADE TO IT INDICATES THAT THEY DID NOT SO CONSTRUE IT AT
THE TIME IT WAS MADE.  IN ANY EVENT, FAILURE TO OBJECT MADE THE MATTER
UNAVAILABLE HERE. 

FN18  N.Y. CODE CRIM. PROC., SEC. 465. 

FN19  SEE PEOPLE V. TRYBUS, 219 N.Y. 18, 113 N.E. 538. 

FN20  AS WAS DONE, WITHOUT SUCCESS, IN WITT V. UNITED STATES, 196
F.2D 285.  IN WITT, THE DEFENDANT HAD TESTIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
JURY - AS HE COULD UNDER FEDERAL PROCEDURE - AS TO THE VOLUNTARINESS OF
A CONFESSION.  AFTER THE COURT HAD DETERMINED THAT IT WAS ADMISSIBLE,
THE DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO TESTIFY FURTHER ON THE SAME SUBJECT IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY, BUT REQUESTED AN ORDER IN ADVANCE FROM THE COURT
THAT IF HE DID SO CROSS-EXAMINATION WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO WHAT HAD
BEEN SAID ON DIRECT.  THE COURT REFUSED TO SO ORDER, AND DEFENDANT
REFRAINED FROM TAKING THE STAND.  SEE ALSO RAFFEL V. UNITED STATES, 271
U.S. 494, 497. 

FN21  PETITIONERS' PRIOR CONVICTIONS WERE AS FOLLOWS:

                                            COOPER 

1928     WAYCROSS, GA          AUTO THEFT          PROBATION   2
YEARS. 

1930     NORFOLK, VA           AUTO THEFT    ATLANTA            3
YEARS. 

1934     BROOKLYN, N.Y    ATTEMPTED GRAND                        3
YEARS

                   LARCENY. 
(SUSPENDED). 

1934     BROOKLYN, N.Y         MURDER   SING SING          20 YEARS
TO LIFE. 

1948     U.S. COURT,           DYER ACT            LEWISBURG
3 YEARS. 

         N.Y.C.                             STEIN 

1918    NEW YORK              GRAND LARCENY  SENTENCE SUSPENDED. 

1918     NEW YORK              PETTY LARCENY
SENTENCE SUSPENDED. 

1921   BRONX, N.Y            ROBBERY             SING SING 10 YEARS. 

1931     NEW YORK              ROBBERY   SING SING          25
YEARS. 

1933     U.S. COURT,    PERJURY             LEWISBURG          2
YEARS. 

N.Y.C.                                  WISSNER 

1928 BROOKLYN, N.Y         ATTEMPTED           REFORM SCHOOL,

                         ROBBERY.            ELMIRA, N.Y. 

1934     WESTCHESTER CO        ROBBERY             SING SING
15 YEARS. 

FN22  SEE CASES CITED IN 3 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SEC.  861. 

FN23  SEE ANNOTATION IN 148 A.L.R. 546.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
CARIGNAN, 342 U.S. 36, 38, FOR THE RULE IN FEDERAL COURTS. 

FN24  THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IN NEWMAN V. STATE, 148
TEX. CR. R. 645, 651-652, 187 S.W.2D 559, 562-563, SAID: 

"THE VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF A CONFESSION IS DETERMINED
BY A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER THE ACCUSED AT THE TIME HE CONFESSES IS
IN POSSESSION OF MENTAL FREEDOM TO CONFESS OR TO DENY A SUSPECTED
PARTICIPATION IN A CRIME AND TO DETERMINE WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES WILL ITSELF MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE
FACTS AND, FROM THAT EXAMINATION, REACH A CONCLUSION BASED UPON WHAT IT
FINDS TO BE THE CONCEDED AND UNCONTROVERTED FACTS. 

   *         *         *         *         * 

"  ...  THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES HAS POTENTIAL JURISDICTION IN ALL STATE CASES
WHERE IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ACCUSED THAT THE CONVICTION WAS BASED UPON
HIS INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION. 

"SUCH BEING TRUE, THE POSITION THIS COURT OCCUPIES IN RELATION TO
SUCH CASES IS BOTH UNIQUE AND DIFFICULT - UNIQUE, IN THAT BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THIS STATE (CONST.  ART.  5, SEC. 5; ART.
812, C.C.P.)  WE ARE THE COURT OF LAST RESORT IN CRIMINAL CASES.  IF WE
REACH A CONCLUSION THAT THE CONFESSION WAS INVOLUNTARY, SUCH CONCLUSION
IS BINDING UPON THE STATE AND SOCIETY, FOR UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION (ART.
5, SEC. 26) THE STATE IS EXPRESSLY DENIED THE RIGHT OF APPEAL IN A
CRIMINAL CASE AND IS THEREFORE BARRED FROM SEEKING A REVIEW OF THAT
CONCLUSION BY THE SUPREME COURT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY, SUCH CONCLUSION IS IN NO SENSE
FINAL, BINDING THE ACCUSED ONLY UNTIL REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES." 

FN25  SEE PEOPLE V. BARBATO, 254 N.Y. 170, 172 N.E. 458. 

FN26  N.Y. CODE CRIM. PROC., SEC. 618-B; CF. FED. RULES CRIM. PROC.,
46(B). 

FN27  MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401; WATTS V. INDIANA, 338 U.S.
49; TURNER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 338 U.S. 62; HARRIS V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 338
U.S. 68; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143. 

FN28  LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, AT 229, 239. 

FN29  AN OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT, SUBSEQUENT TO HIS CONFESSION, "HE
(STEIN) SAID 'THAT ROTTEN - - - - COOPER, IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE HE
WOULD PUT ME IN THE WAY HE DID; HE PUT ME RIGHT INTO THE  ...  '
(CONTINUING) - INTO THE SEAT; I WAS THE BEST FRIEND HE EVER HAD; WELL,
IF I MUST GO, I WILL TAKE HIM WITH ME." 

FN30  UNDER NEW YORK LAW, A DEFENDANT MUST BE PROMPTLY TAKEN BEFORE A
MAGISTRATE, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEC. 165, AND FAILURE TO DO SO
RENDERS THE ARRESTING OFFICER LIABLE TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  N.Y.
PENAL LAW, SEC. 1844. 

FN31  UNDER NEW YORK LAW, THE FACT THAT A CONFESSION WAS GIVEN DURING
A PERIOD OF ILLEGAL DETENTION IS ONE FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS VOLUNTARY; BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE THE
CONFESSION INADMISSIBLE PER SE.  PEOPLE V. TRYBUS, 219 N.Y. 18, 113
N.E. 538; PEOPLE V. MUMMIANI, 258 N.Y. 394, 180 N.E. 94. 

FN32  ADMISSIBILITY IN FEDERAL COURTS IS GOVERNED BY "PRINCIPLES OF
THE COMMON LAW AS THEY MAY BE INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE LIGHT OF REASON AND EXPERIENCE."  FED.  RULES CRIM.
PROC., 26. 

FN33  COMPARE MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, WITH STROBLE V.
CALIFORNIA, 343 U.S. 181, 197; WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383,
WITH WOLF V. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25; NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S.
379, AND WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 321, 329, WITH SCHWARTZ V.
TEXAS, 344 U.S. 199.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. CARIGNAN, 342 U.S. 36. 

FN34  N.Y. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 6. 

FN35  BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, HAS BEEN CITED AS
AUTHORITY, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT AN INADMISSIBLE CONFESSION
AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRES REVERSAL, BECAUSE OF THIS LANGUAGE (P. 541):
"HAVING BEEN OFFERED AS A CONFESSION AND BEING ADMISSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE
OF THAT FACT, A CONSIDERATION OF THE MEASURE OF PROOF WHICH RESULTED
FROM IT DOES NOT ARISE IN DETERMINING ITS ADMISSIBILITY.  IF FOUND TO
HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY ADMITTED, REVERSIBLE ERROR WILL RESULT, SINCE THE
PROSECUTION CANNOT ON THE ONE HAND OFFER EVIDENCE TO PROVE GUILT, AND
WHICH BY THE VERY OFFER IS VOUCHED FOR AS TENDING TO THAT END, AND ON
THE OTHER HAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
ERROR, CAUSED BY ITS WRONGFUL ADMISSION, BE HEARD TO ASSERT THAT THE
MATTER OFFERED AS A CONFESSION WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL BECAUSE IT DID NOT
TEND TO PROVE GUILT."  BUT THE LANGUAGE, WHILE SUPERFICIALLY APPLICABLE
TO THE QUESTION AT HAND, WAS ADDRESSED TO NO SUCH PROBLEM IN THE BRAM
CASE.  THERE THE PROSECUTION HAD INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE A
CONVERSATION BETWEEN AN ILLEGALLY HELD AND UNCOUNSELED PRISONER AND A
DETECTIVE IN WHICH THE PRISONER STATED, IN REPLY TO AN ALLEGATION THAT
ONE "X" HAD SEEN THE PRISONER COMMIT A CRIME FROM HIS VANTAGE POINT AT
SHIP'S WHEEL, THAT "HE (X) COULD NOT SEE ME FROM THERE."  THE
GOVERNMENT TOOK THE POSITION IN THE BRAM CASE THAT THIS STATEMENT, EVEN
IF NOT VOLUNTARY, WAS NOT A CONFESSION, SINCE ITS AUTHOR PURPORTED TO
DENY, NOT ADMIT, GUILT.  THE QUOTED LANGUAGE OF THE COURT IS THE ANSWER
TO THIS POSITION.  AS THE COURT POINTS OUT, THE EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED
ON THE THEORY THAT IT TENDED TO ADMIT GUILT, AND ONLY ON THAT THEORY
WOULD IT HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE.  IT THEREFORE MUST BE TREATED AS A
CONFESSION.  THE SENTENCES IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE QUOTED LANGUAGE
BRING THIS OUT:  "IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE SOLE GROUND UPON WHICH THE
PROOF OF THE CONVERSATION WAS TENDERED WAS THAT IT WAS A CONFESSION, AS
THIS WAS THE ONLY CONCEIVABLE HYPOTHESIS UPON WHICH IT COULD HAVE BEEN
LEGALLY ADMITTED TO THE JURY.  IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE PROPER FOUNDATION WAS LAID FOR ITS ADMISSION, WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED WITH HOW FAR THE CONFESSION TENDED TO PROVE GUILT." 

THUS, BRAM MERELY DECIDED THAT A CONFESSION OTHERWISE ERRONEOUS COULD
NOT BE USED MERELY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THAT IT DID NOT
INCRIMINATE HIM.  THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THIS COURT SUBSEQUENTLY HELD
IN WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530. 

IN ANY EVENT, THE BRAM CASE WAS A FEDERAL CASE WHERE WE EXERCISED
SUPERVISORY POWER RATHER THAN MERELY ENFORCED THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  IT IS NOT A ROCK UPON WHICH TO BUILD CONSTITUTIONAL
DOCTRINE.  ACCORDING TO WIGMORE (3D ED., VOL. 3, PP. 240-241, N. 2),
THIS DECISION REPRESENTS "THE HEIGHT OF ABSURDITY IN MISAPPLICATION OF
THE LAW," AND HAS BEEN DISCREDITED BY SUBSEQUENT CASES. 

FN36  N.Y. CODE CRIM. PROC., SEC. 542. 

FN37  FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., SEC. 52(A). 

FN38  "'IT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED UPON
DEPOSITIONS OR EX PARTE AFFIDAVITS, AND PARTICULARLY TO PRESERVE THE
RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO TEST THE RECOLLECTION OF THE WITNESS IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.'"  PETITIONER WISSNER
ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMES THAT "IT" AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SENTENCE REFERS
TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FN39  SNYDER INVOLVED A CONTENTION BY A STATE CONVICT THAT HE WAS
DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE COURT PREVENTED HIM FROM GOING ALONG WHEN
THE JURY WENT TO VIEW THE AREA WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.  AMONG
THE MANY BASES FOR DECIDING AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, THE COURT, THROUGH
MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IF HE HAD A FEDERAL RIGHT TO
CONFRONTATION (AND THE COURT INDICATED HE DID NOT) HIS EXCLUSION FROM A
VIEW WOULD NOT OFFEND IT.  HENCE THE USE OF THE LANGUAGE QUOTED
DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION. 

FN40  "FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE ASSUME THAT THE PRIVILEGE IS
REINFORCED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THOUGH THIS HAS NOT BEEN
SQUARELY HELD.  (CITING CASES, ONE OF WHICH IS WEST V. LOUISIANA.)" 
291 U.S., AT 106. 

FN41  SEE HALL, POLICE AND LAW IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, 28 IND. L.J.
133, 175-176; INBAU, THE CONFESSION DILEMMA IN THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT, 43 ILL. L. REV. 442. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

I CONCUR IN MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' OPINION. 

MORE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS GO HERE - ONE, THE RIGHT OF A PERSON
TO BE FREE FROM ARBITRARY SEIZURE, SECRET CONFINEMENT AND POLICE
BLUDGEONING TO MAKE HIM TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF IN ABSENCE OF RELATIVE,
FRIEND OR COUNSEL; ANOTHER, THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO CONFRONT AND
CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES WHO SWEAR HE IS GUILTY OF CRIME.  TYRANNIES
HAVE ALWAYS SUBJECTED LIFE AND LIBERTY TO SUCH SECRET INQUISITORIAL AND
OPPRESSIVE PRACTICES.  BUT IN MANY CASES, BEGINNING AT LEAST AS EARLY
AS CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, THIS COURT SET ASIDE STATE
CONVICTIONS AS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS WHEN BASED ON CONFESSIONS
EXTRACTED BY STATE POLICE WHILE SUSPECTS WERE HELD INCOMMUNICADO.  THAT
LINE OF CASES IS GREATLY WEAKENED IF NOT REPUDIATED BY TODAY'S SANCTION
OF THE ARBITRARY SEIZURE AND SECRET QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANTS
HERE.  STATE POLICE WISHING TO SEIZE AND HOLD PEOPLE INCOMMUNICADO ARE
NOW GIVEN A GREEN LIGHT.  MOREOVER, THE COURT ACTUALLY HOLDS
(UNNECESSARILY, I THINK) THAT STATES ARE FREE TO DENY DEFENDANTS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY AGAINST
THEM, EVEN IN DEATH CASES.  THIS ALSO RUNS COUNTER TO WHAT WE HAVE SAID
DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES AN ACCUSED.  IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257, 273.*
LASTLY, TODAY'S OPINION TAKES THIS OPPORTUNITY TO NARROW THE SCOPE THIS
COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY GIVEN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE THAT NO
PERSON "SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF."  BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 544, HELD THAT THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FORBIDS FEDERAL OFFICERS TO "BROWBEAT" AN
ACCUSED, OR TO "PUSH HIM INTO A CORNER, AND TO ENTRAP HIM INTO FATAL
CONTRADICTIONS  ...  ."  THE COURT ADDS THE BRAM CASE TO THOSE IT
REPUDIATES TODAY, APPARENTLY AGREEING WITH PROFESSOR WIGMORE THAT MR.
JUSTICE WHITE'S OPINION THERE REPRESENTS "THE HEIGHT OF ABSURDITY  ...
." 

*I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT WEST V. LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258, HELD THE
CONTRARY.  IT DID HOLD AT PP. 263-264 THAT A STATE COULD INTRODUCE
DEPOSITIONS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ACCUSED HAD "BEEN ONCE CONFRONTED
WITH THE WITNESS AND HAS HAD OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM  ...  ,
AND HE IS A NON-RESIDENT AND IS PERMANENTLY BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF
THE STATE  ...  ." 

IN SHORT, THE COURT'S HOLDING AND OPINION BREAK DOWN BARRIERS THAT
HAVE HERETOFORE STOOD IN THE WAY OF SECRET AND ARBITRARY GOVERNMENTAL
ACTION DIRECTED AGAINST PERSONS SUSPECTED OF CRIME OR POLITICAL
UNORTHODOXY.  MY OBJECTION TO SUCH ACTION BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL AGENT OR
AGENCY HAS BEEN SET OUT IN MANY OPINIONS.  SEE FOR ILLUSTRATION,
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, AND ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143,
327 U.S. 274 (ALLEGED CONFESSIONS EXTRACTED WITHOUT VIOLENCE WHILE
SUSPECTS HELD INCOMMUNICADO AT THE MERCY OF POLICE OFFICERS); IN RE
OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257 (SECRET CONVICTION BASED ON INCOMMUNICADO
QUESTIONING BY THREE JUDGES WHERE THE ACCUSED HAD NEITHER RELATIVE,
FRIEND NOR COUNSEL PRESENT); JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE V.
MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 123, 142 (ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PUBLIC CONDEMNATION OF
GROUPS AS TREASONABLE AND SUBVERSIVE BASED ON SECRET INFORMATION
WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING); DISSENTING OPINIONS, GALLEGOS V. NEBRASKA,
342 U.S. 55, 73 (ARBITRARY ARREST, SECRET IMPRISONMENT AND SYSTEMATIC
QUESTIONING TO OBTAIN AN ALLEGED CONFESSION); CARLSON V. LANDON, 342
U.S. 524, 547 (ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DENIAL OF BAIL BASED ON SECRET
CHARGES BY SECRET INFORMERS WITHOUT AFFORDING ACCUSED A HEARING);
LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160, 173 (ATTORNEY GENERAL'S JUDICIALLY
UNREVIEWABLE BANISHMENT OF AN ALIEN BASED ON SECRET UNDISCLOSED
INFORMATION AND WITHOUT A HEARING); SHAUGHNESSY V. UNITED STATES EX
REL.  MEZEI, 345 U.S. 206, 216 (ATTORNEY GENERAL'S JUDICIALLY
UNREVIEWABLE IMPRISONMENT AND DENIAL OF BAIL TO AN ALIEN BASED ON
SECRET UNDISCLOSED INFORMATION AND WITHOUT A HEARING). 

I JOIN MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN PROTESTING
THE COURT'S ACTION IN THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

1.  OF COURSE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS NOT TO BE APPLIED SO AS TO
TURN THIS COURT INTO A TRIBUNAL FOR REVISION OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS IN
THE STATE COURTS.  I HAVE ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION EXPRESSED MY STRONG
BELIEF THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS DO NOT HAMPER THE STATES,
BEYOND THE NARROW LIMITS OF IMPOSING UPON THEM STANDARDS OF DECENCY
DEEPLY FELT AND WIDELY RECOGNIZED IN ANGLO-AMERICAN JURISDICTIONS,
EITHER IN PENALIZING CONDUCT OR IN DEFINING PROCEDURES APPROPRIATE FOR
SECURING OBEDIENCE TO PENAL LAWS.  NOR IS THIS SUBSTANTIAL AUTONOMY OF
THE STATES TO BE CURTAILED IN CAPITAL CASES.    2.  IT IS COMMON GROUND
THAT THE THIRD DEGREE - THE COLLOQUIAL TERM FOR SUBJECTING AN ACCUSED
TO POLICE PRESSURES IN ORDER TO EXTRACT CONFESSIONS - MAY REACH A POINT
WHERE CONFESSIONS, ALTHOUGH NOT RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF
PHYSICAL FORCE, ARE AS A MATTER OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE EQUALLY THE RESULTS
OF COERCION IN ANY FAIR MEANING OF THAT TERM AND THEREFORE NOT
"VOLUNTARY" IN ANY RELEVANT SENSE.  DIFFERENCES OF VIEW INEVITABLY
ARISE AMONG JUDGES IN DECIDING WHEN THAT POINT HAS BEEN REACHED.  SUCH
DIFFERENCES ARE REFLECTED IN A LONG SERIES OF CASES IN THIS COURT.  AN
IMPORTANT FACTOR, NO DOUBT, INFLUENCING THE DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS IS
THE VARYING INTENSITY OF FEELING ON THE PART OF DIFFERENT JUDGES THAT
COERCIVE POLICE METHODS NOT ONLY MAY BRING INTO QUESTION THE
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF A CONFESSION BUT TEND TO BRUTALIZE HABITS OF FEELING
AND ACTION ON THE PART OF THE POLICE, THEREBY ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE
MORAL TONE OF THE COMMUNITY. 

OF COURSE, THE MOST SERIOUS DEFERENCE IS TO BE ACCORDED THE
CONCLUSION REACHED BY A STATE COURT THAT A CONFESSION WAS NOT COERCED. 
SEE MY CONCURRING OPINIONS IN MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 412;
HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596, 601.  BUT THE DUTY OF DEFERENCE CANNOT BE
ALLOWED IMPERCEPTIBLY TO SLIDE INTO AN ABDICATION BY THIS COURT OF ITS
OBLIGATION TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A
PARTICULAR CASE, A CONFESSION REPRESENTS NOT THE CANDOR OF A GUILTY
CONSCIENCE, THE NEED OF AN ACCUSED TO UNBURDEN HIMSELF, BUT THE MEANS
OF RELEASE FROM THE TIGHTENING OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL POLICE SCREWS. 
THIS ISSUE MUST BE DECIDED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONFIRMATION OF
DETAILS IN THE CONFESSION BY RELIABLE OTHER EVIDENCE.  THE
DETERMINATION MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY AN IRRELEVANT FEELING OF
CERTITUDE THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME TO WHICH HE
CONFESSED.   ABOVE ALL, IT MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY KNOWLEDGE, HOWEVER
IT MAY HAVE REVEALED ITSELF, THAT THE ACCUSED IS A BAD MAN WITH A LONG
CRIMINAL RECORD.  ALL THIS, NOT OUT OF TENDERNESS FOR THE ACCUSED BUT
BECAUSE WE HAVE REACHED A CERTAIN STAGE OF CIVILIZATION. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, I AM COMPELLED TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE CONFESSIONS HERE WERE THE PRODUCT OF COERCIVE POLICE PRESSURE.  I
CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THESE CONFESSIONS, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH THEY WERE ELICITED, WOULD BE ADMITTED IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL
IN ENGLAND, OR IN THE COURTS OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA OR INDIA.  I REGRET
THAT THE COURT REACHES ANOTHER CONCLUSION ON THE RECORD, THOUGH I
RESPECT A CONSCIENTIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE RECORD DIFFERING FROM
MINE. 

3.  BUT THE COURT GOES BEYOND A MERE EVALUATION OF THE FACTS OF THIS
RECORD.  IT MAKES A NEEDLESSLY BROAD RULING OF LAW WHICH OVERTURNS WHAT
I HAD ASSUMED WAS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  IT DOES
SO SUA SPONTE.  THE QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED AND NOT ARGUED AND HAS
EMERGED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  UNLESS I AM
MISTAKEN ABOUT THE REACH OF THE COURT'S OPINION, AND I PROFOUNDLY HOPE
THAT I AM, THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT A CRIMINAL CONVICTION SUSTAINED BY
THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE, AND MORE ESPECIALLY ONE INVOLVING A
SENTENCE OF DEATH, IS NOT TO BE REVERSED FOR A NEW TRIAL, EVEN THOUGH
THERE ENTERED INTO THE CONVICTION A COERCED CONFESSION WHICH IN AND OF
ITSELF DISREGARDS THE PROHIBITION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR A
DEFENDANT TO ESTABLISH IN THIS COURT THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF A
PROTECTION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AFFORDS HIM; HE
MUST ALSO PROVE THAT IF THE EVIDENCE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ADMITTED WERE
EXCISED THERE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH LEFT TO AUTHORIZE THE JURY TO FIND
GUILT. 

AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF OPINION, NEVER QUESTIONED BY ANY DECISION OR
EXPRESSION OF THIS COURT, HAS ESTABLISHED A CONTRARY PRINCIPLE.  AND
THIS NOT ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF COERCED
CONFESSIONS; THE PRINCIPLE HAS GOVERNED OTHER ASPECTS OF DISREGARD OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN STATE TRIALS.  I REFER
INTER ALIA TO CASES OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF PERSONNEL OF
A GRAND JURY WHICH FOUND AN INDICTMENT.  WE HAVE REVERSED IN SUCH CASES
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL ITSELF. 

4.  IT IS PAINFUL TO BE COMPELLED TO SAY THAT THE COURT IS TAKING A
RETROGRESSIVE STEP IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  I CAN
ONLY HOPE THAT IT IS A TEMPORARY, PERHAPS AN AD HOC, DEVIATION FROM A
LONG COURSE OF DECISIONS.  BY ITS CHANGE OF DIRECTION THE COURT AFFORDS
NEW INDUCEMENT TO POLICE AND PROSECUTORS TO EMPLOY THE THIRD DEGREE,
WHOSE USE THE WICKERSHAM COMMISSION FOUND "WIDESPREAD" MORE THAN THIRY
YEARS AGO AND WHICH IT UNSPARINGLY CONDEMNED AS "CONDUCT ... VIOLATIVE
OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY."  IV REPORTS,
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, 1, 4, 6
(1931).* 

*THE GREAT WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO THE FINDINGS OF THE WICKERSHAM
COMMISSION IS ATTESTED BY THE IMPRESSIVE EXPERIENCE REPRESENTED BY THE
MEMBERS OF THAT COMMISSION.  THE CHAIRMAN, GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM, WAS
ONE OF THE MOST NOTABLE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN THE HISTORY OF THAT
OFFICE; NEWTON D. BAKER, AFTER A DISTINGUISHED PUBLIC CAREER AS MAYOR
OF CLEVELAND AND SECRETARY OF WAR, BECAME A RECOGNIZED LEADER OF OUR
BAR; WILLIAM I. GRUBB HAD A LONG CAREER AS ONE OF THE MOST ESTEEMED
JUDGES ON THE FEDERAL BENCH; WILLIAM S. KENYON SERVED WITH DISTINCTION
FIRST AS A UNITED STATES SENATOR AND LATER AS A FEDERAL JUDGE; MONTE M.
LEMANN CONTRIBUTED THE BALANCED JUDGMENT DERIVED FROM HIS RECOGNIZED
POSITION AT THE BAR; FRANK L. LOESCH, APART FROM HIS GENERAL
QUALIFICATIONS, BROUGHT TO THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION SPECIALIZED
COMPETENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW; PAUL J. MCCORMICK
WAS A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE OF CONSPICUOUS COURAGE AND
HARDHEADEDNESS; DEAN ROSCOE POUND'S "CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA" IS
ONLY ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE OF THE AUTHORITY WITH WHICH HE SPEAKS IN THIS
FIELD. 

THE WICKERSHAM COMMISSION DEEMED IT ITS DUTY "TO LAY THE FACTS - THE
NAKED, UGLY FACTS - OF THE EXISTING ABUSES BEFORE THE PUBLIC," ID., AT
6, IN THE HOPE OF AROUSING PUBLIC AWARENESS, AND THEREBY PUBLIC
CONDEMNATION, OF SUCH ABUSES.  IT SURELY IS NOT SELF-DELUDING OR
BOASTFUL TO BELIEVE THAT THE SERIES OF CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT
REVERSED CONVICTIONS BECAUSE OF SUCH ABUSES HELPED TO EDUCATE PUBLIC
OPINION AND TO AROUSE IN PROSECUTORS AND POLICE NOT ONLY A WHOLESOME
FEAR BUT ALSO A MORE CONSCIENTIOUS FEELING AGAINST RESORT TO THESE
LAZY, BRUTAL METHODS. 

IN ADDRESSING HIMSELF TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, DIRECTOR J. EDGAR
HOOVER OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HAS MADE THESE
OBSERVATIONS:  "ONE OF THE QUICKEST WAYS FOR ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER TO BRING PUBLIC DISREPUTE UPON HIMSELF, HIS ORGANIZATION AND
THE ENTIRE PROFESSION IS TO BE FOUND GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS  ...  .  CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ARE ALL THE MORE REGRETTABLE
BECAUSE THEY ARE SO UNNECESSARY.  PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT PROVIDE FOR FIGHTING CRIME WITH INTELLIGENCE RATHER THAN
FORCE."  (FBI LAW ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN, SEPTEMBER, 1952, P. 1.)  BUT IF
LAW OFFICERS LEARN THAT FROM NOW ON THEY CAN COERCE CONFESSIONS WITHOUT
RISK, SINCE TRIAL JUDGES MAY ADMIT SUCH CONFESSIONS PROVIDED ONLY THAT,
PERHAPS THROUGH THE VERY PROCESS OF EXTORTING THEM, OTHER EVIDENCE HAS
BEEN PROCURED ON WHICH A CONVICTION CAN BE SUSTAINED, POLICE IN THE
FUTURE EVEN MORE SO THAN IN THE PAST WILL TAKE THE EASY BUT UGLY PATH
OF THE THIRD DEGREE.  I DO NOT REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT ANY SUCH RESULT IS
COMTEMPLATED BY THE COURT.  BUT IT WILL NOT BE THE FIRST TIME THAT
RESULTS NEITHER DESIRED NOR FORESEEN BY AN OPINION HAVE FOLLOWED. 

5.  THE MATTERS WHICH I HAVE THUS BRIEFLY STATED CUT SO DEEP AS TO
CALL FOR FULL EXPOSITION.  SINCE PROMPTNESS IN THE DISPOSITION OF
CRIMINAL CASES IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR A CIVILIZED
SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, I MUST CONTENT MYSELF NOW WITH THIS SUMMARY
OF MY VIEWS WITHOUT THEIR ELABORATION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

IF THE OPINION OF THE COURT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS, WE ARE ENTERING UPON
A NEW REGIME OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT SHOULD GIVE EVERY CITIZEN
PAUSE.  HERETOFORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE HAD GREATER DIGNITY THAN
RULES OF EVIDENCE.  THEY HAVE CONSTITUTED GUARANTEES THAT ARE
INVIOLABLE.  THEY HAVE BEEN A BULWARK AGAINST OVERZEALOUS
INVESTIGATORS, INHUMAN POLICE, AND UNSCRUPULOUS PROSECUTORS.   THEY
HAVE PLACED A PROHIBITION ON PRACTICES WHICH HISTORY SHOWED WERE
INFAMOUS.  AN OFFICER WHO INDULGED IN THE PROHIBITED PRACTICES WAS
ACTING LAWLESSLY; AND HE COULD NOT IN ANY WAY EMPLOY THE PRODUCTS OF
HIS LAWLESS ACTIVITIES AGAINST THE CITIZEN WHOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WERE INFRINGED.  BUT NOW IT IS SAID THAT IF PREJUDICE IS NOT SHOWN, IF
THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CONVICT REGARDLESS OF THE INVASION OF THE
CITIZEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION MUST STAND
AND THE DEFENDANT BE SENT TO HIS DEATH. 

IN TAKING THAT COURSE THE COURT CHOOSES A SHORT CUT WHICH DOES
VIOLENCE TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME. 

THE DENIAL OF A RIGHT GUARANTEED TO A DEFENDANT BY THE CONSTITUTION
HAS NEVER BEEN TREATED BY THIS COURT AS A MATTER OF MERE ERROR IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BELOW WHICH, IF NOT AFFECTING SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, MIGHT BE
DISREGARDED. 

POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, ESTABLISHED THE RULE THAT DUE PROCESS
REQUIRES, IN CERTAIN CASES AT LEAST, THAT THE STATE COURT APPOINT
COUNSEL TO REPRESENT AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT.  AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL APPOINTED IN TIME TO ALLOW ADEQUATE
PREPARATION OF THE CASE.  NEITHER IN THE POWELL CASE NOR IN ANY OF
THOSE WHICH FOLLOWED IT HAS THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT BEEN DEEMED RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONVICTION.  SEE SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329; WILLIAMS V. KAISER,
323 U.S. 471; TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485; DE MEERLEER V.
MICHIGAN, 329 U.S. 663.  IN HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271, AT 278, WE
SAID: 

"CONTINUANCE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN USEFUL TO THE ACCUSED, BUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN A SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGE
AFTER ARRAIGNEMTN IS TOO LARGE TO PERMIT SPECULATION ON ITS EFFECT  ...
. 

"PETITIONER STATES A GOOD CAUSE OF ACTION WHEN HE ALLEGES FACTS WHICH
SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT THROUGH DENIAL OF ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS HE HAS NOT HAD THE KIND OF TRIAL IN A STATE COURT WHICH THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES." 

A SIMILAR RULE PREVAILS WHERE THE PROSECUTION HAS MADE KNOWING USE OF
PERJURED TESTIMONY TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED.  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S.
103, 112; HYSLER V. FLORIDA, 315 U.S. 411; PYLE V. KANSAS, 317 U.S.
213.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT NECESSARY TO ATTEMPT TO WEED THE
PERJURED TESTIMONY FROM THE NONPERJURED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING
THE DEGREE OF PREJUDICE WHICH RESULTED. 

IN IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257, WE REVERSED A CONVICTION FOR CONTEMPT
BASED ON A SECRET TRIAL IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED REASONABLE
NOTICE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM, THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE A DEFENSE,
THE RIGHT TO TESTIFY ON HIS OWN BEHALF, THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE
WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AND THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  NO
ONE, I SUPPOSE, WOULD ARGUE THAT SUCH A CONVICTION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
MERELY BECAUSE THE RECORD INDICATED QUITE CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE
DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY. 

IN MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86, THE COURT DEALT WITH A CLAIM THAT
THE DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN CONVICTED IN A TRIAL DOMINATED BY A MOB.  THE
DEFENDANTS WERE CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF ONE LEE.  THEY PROFESSED
THEIR INNOCENCE BEFORE THE COURT.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES DISPOSED OF THE
ASSERTION WITH THESE WORDS: 

"THE PETITIONERS SAY THAT LEE MUST HAVE BEEN KILLED BY OTHER WHITES,
BUT THAT WE LEAVE ON ONE SIDE AS WHAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS NOT THE
PETITIONERS' INNOCENCE OR GUILT BUT SOLELY THE QUESTION WHETHER THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN PRESERVED." 

ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION IS THE PRACTICE OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
NEGROES IN THE SELECTION OF JURIES.   IN NONE OF THE CASES FROM NEAL V.
DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370, AND CARTER V. TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442, DOWN TO
AVERY V. GEORGIA, 345 U.S. 559, DECIDED MAY 25, 1953, HAS THE LACK OF A
SHOWING OF ACTUAL PREJUDICE PRECLUDED REVERSAL.  WE INDEED SAID IN THE
AVERY CASE THAT IF THE JURY COMMISSIONERS FAILED IN THEIR DUTY TO USE A
NONDISCRIMINATORY METHOD OF SELECTING A JURY, THE "CONVICTION MUST BE
REVERSED - NO MATTER HOW STRONG THE EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER'S GUILT." 
345 U.S., AT 561.  THE REASON IS PLAIN.  THE CONSTITUTION GIVES NEGROES
THE RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY JURIES DRAWN FROM THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, NOT
HAND-PICKED FROM THE WHITE PEOPLE ALONE.  MUST A NEGRO NOW SHOW THAT HE
SUFFERED ACTUAL PREJUDICE BECAUSE NONE OF HIS RACE SERVED ON THE JURY? 

THE REQUIREMENT OF COUNSEL, THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE CONFRONTED
WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, HIS RIGHT TO BE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE
CHARGE, HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL, HIS RIGHT TO A JURY
DRAWN FROM A FAIR CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY - NONE OF THESE
GUARANTEES GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE PRECISE THAN THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST COERCED CONFESSIONS. 

THE RULE NOW ANNOUNCED IS, INDEED, CONTRARY TO OUR PRIOR DECISIONS
DEALING WITH THE EFFECT OF A COERCED CONFESSION ON A JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION.  SEE MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 404; STROBLE V.
CALIFORNIA, 343 U.S. 181, 190; LYONS V. OKALHOMA, 322 U.S. 596, 597;
HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596, 599; AND GALLEGOS V. NEBRASKA, 342 U.S.
55, 63. 

THE COURT'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THESE RULINGS AS DICTA IS NOT
CORRECT.  IN THE MALINSKI CASE A CONVICTION WAS REVERSED EVEN THOUGH
OTHER EVIDENCE MIGHT HAVE SUPPORTED THE VERDICT.  IN THE LYONS CASE
(WHERE THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION) WE NOTED (322 U.S.,
AT 598) THAT A THIRD CONFESSION WAS INTRODUCED WITHOUT OBJECTION.  YET
IN SPITE OF THAT FACT WE DEVOTED A WHOLE OPINION TO AN ANALYSIS OF
WHETHER THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY.  IN THE STROBLE CASE THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAD HELD THAT THE USE OF A CHALLENGED
CONFESSION HAD NOT DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF DUE PROCESS, SINCE IT DID NOT
APPEAR THAT THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE
CONFESSION HAD BEEN EXCLUDED.  343 U.S., AT 189.  WE DISAPPROVED THAT
VIEW AND PROCEEDED ON THE AUTHORITY OF OUR DECISIONS IN THE MALINSKI
AND LYONS CASES TO EXAMINE THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE CONFESSION TO SEE
IF IT WAS VOLUNTARY.  ID., AT 190-191.    IN EACH OF THOSE THREE CASES
WE DEALT WITH THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE
COERCED - A WHOLLY UNNECESSARY TASK HAD THE RULE AS STATED IN THE
MALINSKI CASE NOT BEEN CONTROLLING. 

AND WITH RESPECT TO THE MALINSKI CASE, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT,
DESPITE A DISSENT BY FOUR JUSTICES, NO ONE TOOK EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
THAT THE USE OF A COERCED CONFESSION VIOLATES DUE PROCESS. 

PERHAPS THE DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASES IS PREMISED ON THE VIEW
THAT DUE PROCESS PROHIBITS THE USE OF COERCED CONFESSIONS MERELY
BECAUSE OF THEIR INHERENT UNTRUSTWORTHINESS.  IF SO, THAT TOO IS A
RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THE RATIONALE OF OUR PRIOR DECISIONS.  IN
LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 236, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, SPEAKING
FOR THE COURT CONCERNING THE INADMISSIBILITY OF COERCED CONFESSIONS,
SAID: 

"THE AIM OF THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS IS NOT TO EXCLUDE
PRESUMPTIVELY FALSE EVIDENCE, BUT TO PREVENT FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS IN
THE USE OF EVIDENCE, WHETHER TRUE OR FALSE." 

AS MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER STATES IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION, THAT
RULE IS THE PRODUCT OF A CIVILIZATION WHICH, BY RESPECTING THE DIGNITY
EVEN OF THE LEAST WORTHY CITIZEN, RAISES THE STATURE OF ALL OF US AND
BUILDS AN ATMOSPHERE OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT. 

THE PRACTICE NOW SANCTIONED IS A PLAIN VIOLATION OF THE COMMAND OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH
(SEE BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278, 286; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309
U.S. 227, 238), THAT NO MAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST
HIMSELF.*  THAT SHOULD BE THE GUIDE TO OUR DECISIONS UNTIL AND UNLESS
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS ITSELF AMENDED TO INCORPORATE THE RULE THE COURT
TODAY ANNOUNCES. 

*FROM THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THESE CONFESSIONS
WOULD BE CONDEMNED IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOOL OF THOUGHT WHICH
PREVAILED WHEN HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596, WATTS V. INDIANA, 338 U.S.
49, TURNER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 338 U.S. 62, AND HARRIS V. SOUTH CAROLINA,
338 U.S. 68, WERE DECIDED STILL WAS THE DOMINANT ONE. 
..END :



















BRIDGES V. UNITED STATES 346 U.S. 209 


NO. 548.  ARGUED MAY 4, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 15, 1953 - 199 F.2D 811,
REVERSED. 


IN 1945, PETITIONERS TESTIFIED IN A NATURALIZATION HEARING WHICH
RESULTED IN PETITIONER BRIDGES' ADMISSION TO CITIZENSHIP.  IN 1949, ALL
THREE WERE INDICTED UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE OLD CRIMINAL CODE, 35 STAT.
1096, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 371, FOR CONSPIRING TO DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES BY OBSTRUCTING THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF ITS
NATURALIZATION LAWS, BRIDGES WAS INDICTED UNDER SEC. 346(A)(1) OF THE
NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 FOR TESTIFYING FALSELY IN THE NATURALIZATION
PROCEEDING THAT HE WAS NOT AND HAD NOT BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY, AND PETITIONERS SCHMIDT AND ROBERTSON WERE INDICTED UNDER SEC.
346(A)(5) OF THE SAME ACT FOR WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY AIDING BRIDGES TO
OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION BY FALSE AND FRAUDULENT
STATEMENTS.  HELD:  THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 18
U.S.C. (SUPP. V), SEC. 3282, IS APPLICABLE TO EACH OF THE OFFENSES
CHARGED, AND THE INDICTMENT CAME TOO LATE.  PP. 210-228. 

1.  THE RUNNING OF THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS
NOT SUSPENDED BY THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT IN RELATION
TO THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN ANY OF THE COUNTS.  PP. 215-224. 

(A)  THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT APPLIES TO OFFENSES
INVOLVING THE DEFRAUDING OF THE UNITED STATES IN ANY MANNER, BUT ONLY
WHEN THE FRAUD IS OF A PECUNIARY NATURE OR AT LEAST OF A NATURE
CONCERNING PROPERTY; AND NONE OF THE OFFENSES HERE CHARGED WERE OF SUCH
A NATURE.  PP. 215-221. 

(B)  THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS IN
THE LANGUAGE OF THIS ACT, OR SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN COMPARABLE ACTS, IS
LIMITED STRICTLY TO OFFENSES IN WHICH DEFRAUDING OR ATTEMPTING TO
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE
CHARGED.  P. 221. 

(C)  NOTHING IN SEC. 346(A)(1) MAKES FRAUD AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF
THE OFFENSE OF MAKING A FALSE MATERIAL STATEMENT UNDER OATH IN A
NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING.  P. 222. 

(D)  NOTHING IN SEC. 346(A)(5) MAKES FRAUD AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF
THE OFFENSE OF AIDING SOMEONE TO COMMIT A VIOLATION OF SEC. 346(A)(1),
AND THE INSERTION IN THE INDICTMENT OF THE WORDS "PROCURED BY FRAUD"
DOES NOT CHANGE THE RESULT.  PP. 222-223. 

(E)  A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CERTAIN SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE
IS NOT ENTITLED TO A LONGER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAN THE CHARGE OF
COMMITTING THE OFFENSE ITSELF.  P. 223. 

(F)  THAT SEC. 37 OF THE OLD CRIMINAL CODE, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 371, ALSO APPLIES TO CONSPIRACIES TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES "IN
ANY MANNER OR FOR ANY PURPOSE" DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT AS
TO THE CHARGE THEREUNDER IN THIS CASE.  PP. 223-224. 

2.  THE SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 21 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948,
CODIFYING THE CRIMINAL CODE, DOES NOT "SAVE" THE SPECIAL FIVE-YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 346(G) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 SO
AS TO APPLY IT TO THE VIOLATIONS OF THE LATTER ACT CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT.  PP. 224-227. 

BRIDGES ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED PETITIONERS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THEIR
INDICTMENTS, 86 F. SUPP.  922, AND THEY WERE CONVICTED.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED, 199 F.2D 811, AND DENIED REHEARING EN BANC, 201 F.2D
254.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 904.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 228. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS PROCEEDING WE ARE LIMITED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:  (1) IS IT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
AND, IF NOT, (2) IS IT BARRED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA, OR
ESTOPPEL, OR THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT?  FOR THE
REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT IT IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  WE DO NOT REACH OR DISCUSS THE SECOND QUESTION. 

THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE FIRST QUESTION ARE: 

1.  WHETHER THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT (FN1) HAS
SUSPENDED THE RUNNING OF THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
(FN2) IN RELATION TO THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN. 

COUNT I, UNDER THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE.  (FN3) 

COUNT II, UNDER SEC. 346(A)(1) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940; (FN4)
OR. 

COUNT III, UNDER SEC. 346(A)(5) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940; (FN5)
AND. 

2.  WHETHER THE SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 21 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948,
WHICH ENACTED THE PRESENT CRIMINAL CODE INTO LAW, (FN6) CONTINUED IN
EFFECT THE SPECIAL FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 346(G) OF
THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 (FN7) IN RELATION TO VIOLATIONS OF SEC.
346(A) OF THAT ACT. 

FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH, WE REACH A NEGATIVE CONCLUSION ON EACH OF
THE ABOVE ISSUES. 

PETITIONER HARRY BRIDGES ENTERED THE UNITED STATES IN 1920 AS AN
IMMIGRANT SEAMAN FROM AUSTRALIA.  SUBSEQUENTLY, HE DEFEATED TWO
ATTEMPTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO DEPORT HIM BECAUSE OF HIS ALLEGED
COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERSHIP OR AFFILIATION.  THE SECOND SUCH ATTEMPT
CULMINATED JUNE 18, 1945, IN BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135. 

JUNE 23, 1945, HE APPLIED, IN THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL
AND A PRELIMINARY FORM FOR PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION.  AUGUST 8, HE
APPEARED, WITH PETITIONERS SCHMIDT AND ROBERTSON, BEFORE AN EXAMINER
FOR A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.  EACH OF THE THREE TESTIFIED THAT
BRIDGES WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. 

SEPTEMBER 17, 1945, BRIDGES APPEARED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT IN SAN
FRANCISCO FOR THE NATURALIZATION HEARING.  SCHMIDT AND ROBERTSON
TESTIFIED THAT THEY HAD KNOWN BRIDGES FOR FIVE YEARS OR LONGER, THAT HE
WAS A RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THAT TIME AND THAT THEY
VOUCHED FOR HIS LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES.  BRIDGES GAVE THE
FOLLOWING ANSWERS UNDER OATH: 

"Q.  DO YOU NOW, OR HAVE YOU EVER, BELONGED TO ANY ORGANIZATION THAT
ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE? 

"A.  NO. 

"Q.  DO YOU NOW, OR HAVE YOU EVER, BELONGED TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN
THE UNITED STATES? 

"A.  I HAVE NOT, I DO NOT." 

HE WAS THEN ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP. 

MAY 25, 1949, MORE THAN THREE YEARS LATER, A GRAND JURY IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RETURNED
THE PRESENT INDICTMENT IN THREE COUNTS. 

COUNT I CHARGES THE THREE PETITIONERS WITH A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
THE UNITED STATES BY IMPAIRING, OBSTRUCTING AND DEFEATING THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF ITS NATURALIZATION LAWS BY HAVING BRIDGES
FRAUDULENTLY PETITION FOR AND OBTAIN NATURALIZATION BY FALSELY AND
FRAUDULENTLY STATING TO THE NATURALIZATION COURT THAT HE HAD NEVER
BELONGED TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT SUCH
STATEMENT WAS KNOWN AT ALL TIMES BY EACH OF THE PETITIONERS TO BE FALSE
AND FRAUDULENT.  THE APPEARANCE AND TESTIMONY OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE
NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING WERE ALLEGED AS THE OVERT ACTS IN THE
CONSPIRACY. 

THAT COUNT IS LAID UNDER THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE: 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE EITHER TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN ANY MANNER OR FOR
ANY PURPOSE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PARTIES DO ANY ACT TO EFFECT THE
OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH OF THE PARTIES TO SUCH CONSPIRACY SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE
THAN TWO YEARS, OR BOTH."  SEC. 37 OF THE OLD CRIMINAL CODE, 35 STAT.
1096, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP.  V) SEC. 371. 

COUNT II CHARGES BRIDGES WITH WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY MAKING A FALSE
STATEMENT UNDER OATH IN THE NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING WHEN HE TESTIFIED
THAT HE WAS NOT AND HAD NOT BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. 
COUNT II IS LAID UNDER SEC. 346(A)(1) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940,
54 STAT. 1163, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 746(A)(1), WHICH MAKES IT A FELONY FOR ANY
PERSON: 

"KNOWINGLY TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH, EITHER ORALLY OR IN
WRITING, IN ANY CASE, PROCEEDING, OR MATTER RELATING TO, OR UNDER, OR
BY VIRTUE OF ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO NATURALIZATION OR
CITIZENSHIP."  (FN8) 

COUNT III CHARGES SCHMIDT AND ROBERTSON WITH WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY
AIDING BRIDGES, WHO WAS NOT ENTITLED THERETO, TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE
OF NATURALIZATION WHICH WAS TO BE PROCURED BY FALSE AND FRAUDULENT
STATEMENTS.  IT AVERS THAT THEY KNEW THAT BRIDGES WAS A MEMBER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY AND THAT HE HAD MADE FALSE AND FRAUDULENT
REPRESENTATIONS IN THE NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING.  COUNT III IS LAID
UNDER SEC. 346(A)(5) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT.  1164, 8
U.S.C. SEC. 746(A)(5), WHICH MAKES IT A FELONY: 

"TO ENCOURAGE, AID, ADVISE, OR ASSIST ANY PERSON NOT ENTITLED THERETO
TO OBTAIN, ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE ANY CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL, DECLARATION
OF INTENTION, CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION, OR CERTIFICATE OF
CITIZENSHIP, OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF NATURALIZATION OR OF
CITIZENSHIP: 

"A.  KNOWING THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN PROCURED BY FRAUD; ...  ."  (FN9) 

PETITIONERS EACH MOVED TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND, INTER
ALIA, THAT EACH COUNT WAS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THE
MOTIONS WERE DENIED.  86 F. SUPP. 922.  THE TRIAL RESULTED IN A JURY
VERDICT OF GUILTY ON EACH COUNT.  BRIDGES RECEIVED CONCURRENT SENTENCES
OF IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO YEARS ON COUNT I AND FIVE YEARS ON COUNT II.
THE OTHER PETITIONERS EACH RECEIVED CONCURRENT SENTENCES OF
IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO YEARS ON EACH OF COUNTS I AND III.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  199 F.2D 811.  REHEARING EN BANC WAS DENIED.  201
F.2D 254.  BECAUSE OF AN INDICATED CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT DECISION AND
PART OF THE DECISION IN MARZANI V. UNITED STATES, 83 U.S. APP. D.C. 78,
168 F.2D 133, AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 335 U.S. 895, 336
U.S. 922, AS WELL AS ITS CONFLICT IN PART WITH UNITED STATES V.
OBERMEIER, 186 F.2D 243 (C.A.2D CIR.), AND BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE ISSUES, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 345 U.S. 904.  (FN10) 

THE ACTS CHARGED OCCURRED IN 1945.  ACCORDINGLY, UNLESS THE GENERAL
THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS SUSPENDED OR SUPERSEDED, THE
INDICTMENT, FOUND IN 1949, WAS OUT OF TIME AND MUST BE DISMISSED. 
(FN11) 

I. THE RUNNING OF THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS
NOT SUSPENDED BY THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT IN RELATION
TO THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN ANY OF THE COUNTS. 

A. THE SUSPENSION PRESCRIBED BY THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS
ACT APPLIES TO OFFENSES INVOLVING THE DEFRAUDING OF THE UNITED STATES
OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, WHETHER BY CONSPIRACY OR NOT, AND IN ANY MANNER,
BUT ONLY WHERE THE FRAUD IS OF A PECUNIARY NATURE OR AT LEAST OF A
NATURE CONCERNING PROPERTY. 

THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT CREATES AN EXCEPTION TO A
LONG-STANDING CONGRESSIONAL "POLICY OF REPOSE" THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO
OUR SOCIETY AND OUR CRIMINAL LAW.  FROM 1790 TO 1876, THE GENERAL
LIMITATION APPLICABLE TO NONCAPITAL OFFENSES WAS TWO YEARS AND SINCE
THEN IT HAS BEEN THREE YEARS.  (FN12)  IN RELATION TO A COMPARABLE
EXCEPTION STATED IN SEC. 1110(A) AS THE LIMITATION APPLICABLE UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, (FN13) MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, SPEAKING FOR THE
COURT, SAID: 

"MOREOVER, THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF THE SECTION, THOUGH DENOMINATED A
PROVISO, IS AN EXCEPTING CLAUSE AND THEREFORE TO BE NARROWLY
CONSTRUED.  UNITED STATES V. MCELVAIN, 272 U.S. 633, 639.  (FN14)  AND
AS THE SECTION HAS TO DO WITH STATUTORY CRIMES IT IS TO BE LIBERALLY
INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF REPOSE, AND OUGHT NOT TO BE EXTENDED BY
CONSTRUCTION TO EMBRACE SO-CALLED FRAUDS NOT SO DENOMINATED BY THE
STATUTES CREATING OFFENSES."  UNITED STATES V. SCHARTON, 285 U.S. 518,
521-522. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS EXCEPTION EMPHASIZES THE PROPRIETY OF
ITS CONSERVATIVE INTERPRETATION.  IT INDICATES A PURPOSE TO SUSPEND THE
GENERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ONLY AS TO WAR FRAUDS OF A PECUNIARY
NATURE OR OF A NATURE CONCERNING PROPERTY.  IT NOWHERE SUGGESTS A
PURPOSE TO SWALLOW UP THE THREE-YEAR LIMITATION TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY
TO REACH THE OFFENSES BEFORE US. 

THE PRESENT SUSPENSION ACT HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE ACT OF AUGUST 24,
1942.  (FN15)  SEE UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 342 U.S. 225, 226-227.  THAT
ACT WAS A WARTIME MEASURE REVIVING FOR WORLD WAR II SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH, FROM 1921
TO 1927, HAD BEEN DIRECTED AT THE WAR FRAUDS OF WORLD WAR I. (FN16) 

THE COMMITTEE REPORTS SHOW THAT IN 1921 CONGRESS AIMED THE PROVISO AT
THE PECUNIARY FRAUDS GROWING OUT OF WAR CONTRACTS.  (FN17)  CONGRESS
WAS CONCERNED WITH THE EXCEPTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES THAT WERE INHERENT IN ITS GIGANTIC AND HASTILY ORGANIZED
PROCUREMENT PROGRAM.  IT SOUGHT TO HELP SAFEGUARD THE TREASURY FROM
SUCH FRAUDS BY INCREASING THE TIME ALLOWED FOR THEIR DISCOVERY AND
PROSECUTION.  IN 1942, THE REPORTS AND PROCEEDINGS DEMONSTRATE A LIKE
PURPOSE, COUPLED WITH A DESIGN TO READOPT THE WORLD WAR I POLICY. 
(FN18) 

THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE 1942 PROVISION WAS EXPRESSLY
APPROVED IN MARZANI V. UNITED STATES, 83 U.S. APP. D.C. 78-82, 168 F.2D
133-137.  AS TO NINE COUNTS BASED UPON THE AMENDED FALSE CLAIMS ACT,
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT HELD THAT THE
1942 WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT DID NOT SUSPEND THE THREE
YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THOSE COUNTS CHARGED THAT FALSE
STATEMENTS HAD BEEN MADE TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN RELATION TO
COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERSHIP, IN CONNECTION WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A
POSITION IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE.  REFERRING TO UNITED STATES V.
GILLILAND, 312 U.S. 86, THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID: 

"THUS, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES IN A
PECUNIARY OR FINANCIAL SENSE IS NOT A CONSTITUENT INGREDIENT OF
OFFENSES UNDER THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT. 

"IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS, IN OUR VIEW, THAT THE SUSPENSION ACT DOES
NOT APPLY TO OFFENSES UNDER THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT.  THE SUPREME COURT
HAS CLEARLY SAID (1) THAT A STATUTE IDENTICAL IN PERTINENT PART WITH
THE SUSPENSION ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO OFFENSES OF WHICH DEFRAUDING THE
UNITED STATES IN A PECUNIARY WAY IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT; AND
(2) THAT SUCH DEFRAUDING OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL
INGREDIENT OF OFFENSES UNDER THE FALSE CLAIMS STATUTE."  83 U.S. APP.
D.C., AT 81, 168 F.2D, AT 136. 

BROUGHT HERE ON SEVERAL ISSUES, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OF THE NINE
COUNTS, THAT CASE WAS TWICE AFFIRMED, WITHOUT OPINION, BY AN EVENLY
DIVIDED COURT.  335 U.S. 895, 336 U.S. 922.  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V.
COHN, 270 U.S. 339.  (FN19) 

AS THE OFFENSES HERE CHARGED ARE THOSE OF KNOWINGLY MAKING A FALSE
STATEMENT UNDER OATH IN A PROCEEDING RELATING TO NATURALIZATION (COUNT
II), OR OF CONSPIRING TO HAVE SOMEONE DO SO (COUNT I), OR OF AIDING
SOMEONE TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION KNOWING IT TO BE
PROCURED BY FRAUD (COUNT III), NONE OF THEM INVOLVE THE DEFRAUDING OF
THE UNITED STATES IN ANY PECUNIARY MANNER OR IN A MANNER CONCERNING
PROPERTY.  WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT, FOR THAT REASON, THE WARTIME
SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE OFFENSES. 

B. A FURTHER GROUND FOR OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THIS COURT ALREADY HAS
INTERPRETED THE LANGUAGE BEFORE US, OR SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN COMPARABLE
ACTS, TO MEAN THAT THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS IS LIMITED STRICTLY TO OFFENSES IN WHICH DEFRAUDING OR
ATTEMPTING TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF
THE OFFENSE CHARGED.  DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, MADE PRIOR TO 1942, HAD
SO INTERPRETED THE EARLIER LEGISLATION THAT ITS SUBSTANTIAL
REENACTMENT, IN 1942, CARRIED WITH IT THE INTERPRETATION ABOVE STATED. 
UNITED STATES V. SCHARTON, 285 U.S. 518; UNITED STATES V. MCELVAIN, 272
U.S. 633; UNITED STATES V. NOVECK, 271 U.S. 201.  SEE ALSO, BRAVERMAN
V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 49, 54-55, AND UNITED STATES V. COHN, 270
U.S. 339. 

THE SIMPLEST DEMONSTRATION OF THIS POINT APPEARS IN COUNT II.  THE
OFFENSE THERE CHARGED IS THAT BRIDGES KNOWINGLY MADE A FALSE MATERIAL
STATEMENT IN A NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING.  IN THAT OFFENSE, AS IN THE
COMPARABLE OFFENSE OF PERJURY, FRAUD IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT. 
THE OFFENSE IS COMPLETE WITHOUT PROOF OF FRAUD, ALTHOUGH FRAUD OFTEN
ACCOMPANIES IT.  THE ABOVE-CITED CASES SHOW THAT EVEN THOUGH THE
OFFENSE MAY BE COMMITTED IN A PECUNIARY TRANSACTION INVOLVING A
FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE GOVERNMENT, THAT FACT, ALONE, IS NOT ENOUGH TO
SUSPEND THE RUNNING OF THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  UNDER
THE DOCTRINE OF THESE CASES, THE SUSPENSION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE
OFFENSE CHARGED UNLESS, UNDER THE STATUTE CREATING THE OFFENSE, FRAUD
IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF IT.  THE PURPOSE OF THE WARTIME
SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT IS NOT THAT OF GENERALLY SUSPENDING THE
THREE-YEAR STATUTE, E.G., IN CASES OF PERJURY, LARCENY AND LIKE
CRIMES.  IT SEEKS TO SUSPEND THE RUNNING OF IT ONLY WHERE FRAUD AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE CRIME.  IN VIEW OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT SUCH FRAUDS IN TIME OF WAR, AND IN VIEW OF THE
DIFFICULTY OF THEIR PROMPT DISCOVERY AND PROSECUTION, THE GOVERNMENT
SEEKS EXTRA TIME TO DEAL WITH THEM.  NOTHING IN SEC. 346(A)(1) MAKES
FRAUD AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE OF MAKING A FALSE MATERIAL
STATEMENT UNDER OATH IN A NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING. 

LIKEWISE, IN COUNT III, THE AIDING OF SOMEONE TO COMMIT THAT OFFENSE,
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 346(A)(5), DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF OF FRAUD AS AN
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT.  IF, AS HERE, THE MAIN OFFENSE IS COMPLETE WITH
THE PROOF OF PERJURY, THE SUSPENSION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CHARGE OF
AIDING IN THE COMMISSION OF THAT OFFENSE.  THE INSERTION IN THE
INDICTMENT OF THE WORDS "PROCURED BY FRAUD" DOES NOT CHANGE THE OFFENSE
CHARGED.  THE EMBELLISHMENT OF THE INDICTMENT DOES NOT LENGTHEN THE
TIME FOR PROSECUTION.  IT IS THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF THE OFFENSE
THAT DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS COMES WITHIN
THE SUSPENSION ACT. 

SO IT IS WITH COUNT I. A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CERTAIN
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A LONGER STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
THAN THE CHARGE OF COMMITTING THE OFFENSE ITSELF.  THERE IS NO
ADDITIONAL TIME PRESCRIBED FOR INDICTMENTS FOR CONSPIRACIES AS SUCH. 
THE INSERTION OF SURPLUS WORDS IN THE INDICTMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE
NATURE OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED. 

"THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO CANNOT REASONABLY BE READ TO INCLUDE ALL
CONSPIRACIES AS DEFINED BY SEC. 37.  THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY SECTION OF
THE OLD CRIMINAL CODE, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 371.  BUT IF THE
PROVISO COULD BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE ANY CONSPIRACIES, OBVIOUSLY IT
WOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE TO COMMIT THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES WHICH IT
COVERS."  UNITED STATES V. MCELVAIN, 272 U.S. 633, 639. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY ACT (FN20) UNDER
WHICH COUNT I IS LAID COMPRISES TWO CLASSES OF CONSPIRACIES: (1) "TO
COMMIT ANY OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES" AND (2) "TO DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES IN ANY MANNER OR FOR ANY PURPOSE."  IT URGES THAT THE
INDICTMENT HERE CHARGES A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE SECOND CLAUSE.  IT SUGGESTS THAT, UNDER THAT CLAUSE, PROOF OF A
SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEFRAUD IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE
AND THUS BRINGS COUNT I WITHIN THE SUSPENSION ACT.  THE FALLACY IN THAT
ARGUMENT IS THAT, WHILE THE INDICTMENT MAY BE FRAMED IN THE LANGUAGE OF
THE SECOND CLAUSE, BOTH IT AND THE PROOF TO SUPPORT IT RELY SOLELY ON
THE FACT OF A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES VIOLATING
SEC. 346(A)(1) OR SEC. 346(A)(5) AS CHARGED IN COUNTS II AND III. 
COUNT I ACTUALLY CHARGES THAT PETITIONERS CONSPIRED TO "DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES" ONLY BY CAUSING THE COMMISSION OF THE IDENTICAL OFFENSES
CHARGED IN COUNTS II AND III.  THE USE IN COUNT I OF LANGUAGE COPIED
FROM THE SECOND CLAUSE OF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE MERELY CLOAKS A
FACTUAL CHARGE OF CONSPIRING TO CAUSE, OR KNOWINGLY TO AID, BRIDGES TO
MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH IN HIS NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, OR
TO OBTAIN BY FALSE STATEMENTS A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION TO WHICH
HE WAS NOT ENTITLED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS IN MARZANI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WAS
CONVINCED THAT THE SUSPENSION ACT DID NOT APPLY TO SUCH OFFENSES, AS
THOSE HERE INVOLVED, UNDER THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT, NO MATTER WHAT WORDS
DESCRIPTIVE OF FRAUD WERE ADDED TO THE INDICTMENT, SO LONG AS FRAUD WAS
NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE DEFINED IN THE STATUTE. 
ANOTHER COURT OF APPEALS ARRIVED AT A LIKE CONCLUSION IN UNITED STATES
V. OBERMEIER, 186 F.2D 243, 256-257, WITH RESPECT TO OFFENSES UNDER THE
STATUTE INVOLVED IN COUNT II OF THE INSTANT INDICTMENT. 

II.  THE SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 21 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, DOES
NOT "SAVE" THE SPECIAL FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE
NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 SO AS TO APPLY IT TO THE VIOLATIONS OF THAT ACT
CHARGED IN COUNTS II AND III. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, ALTERNATIVELY, THAT THE INDICTMENT, WHICH
WAS FOUND MAY 25, 1949, WAS TIMELY AS TO COUNTS II AND III, EVEN IF THE
SUSPENSION ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS INDICTMENT.  ITS ALTERNATIVE
CONTENTION IS THAT THOSE COUNTS RESPECTIVELY CHARGE VIOLATIONS OF SEC.
346(A)(1) AND (5) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 WHICH OCCURRED IN 1945
AND THAT THE INDICTMENT FOR THEM WAS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIAL FIVE-YEAR
LIMITATION OF SEC. 346(G) OF THAT ACT.  (FN21)  IT APPEARS, HOWEVER,
THAT SEC. 346(A-H) WAS EXPRESSLY REPEALED, AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, BY
SEC. 21 OF THE ACT CLAUSE, THAT REPEALING SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS:
CLAUSE, THAT REPEALING SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS; 

"SEC. 21.  THE SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF OF THE REVISED STATUTES OR
STATUTES AT LARGE ENUMERATED IN THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE ARE HEREBY
REPEALED.  (FN22)  ANY RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES NOW EXISTING UNDER SUCH
STAT. 862. 

BY SUCH REPEAL OF SEC. 346(G), THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS BECAME APPLICABLE.  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3282.  (FN23)
THREE YEARS HAVING EXPIRED BEFORE THE INDICTMENT WAS FOUND, SEC. 3282
BARS THE INSTANT INDICTMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT
THE ABOVE-QUOTED SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 21 REFERS NOT ONLY TO
SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITIES BUT ALSO TO THE PERIOD DURING WHICH A CRIME MAY
BE PROSECUTED AND THUS INCLUDES THE SPECIAL FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION
CONTAINED IN SEC. 346(G).  THIS ISSUE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN THE INSTANT CASE AND WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. 
199 F.2D 811, 819-820.  IN DOING SO, THE COURT RELIED IN PART UPON A
LIKE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN
UNITED STATES V. OBERMEIER, SUPRA. THAT CASE RELATED TO AN INDICTMENT
IN TWO COUNTS FOR KNOWINGLY MAKING, IN 1945, IN A NATURALIZATION
PROCEEDING, AS HERE, FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH IN RELATION TO
MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  THE REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
AND COURT DECISIONS MADE THERE NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE IN REACHING
THE SAME RESULT - THAT THE SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 21 DID NOT KEEP THE
SPECIAL FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION ALIVE AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 1948.  (FN24) 

THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO SUBSTITUTE THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR
LIMITATION IN PLACE OF THE SPECIAL FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION IS INDICATED IN
THE REVISER'S NOTE TO 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3282 WHICH SAYS:

"IN THE CONSOLIDATION OF THESE SECTIONS THE 5-YEAR PERIOD OF
LIMITATION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE NATIONALITY CODE, PROVIDED FOR IN SAID
REDUCED TO 3 YEARS.  THERE SEEMED NO SOUND BASIS FOR CONSIDERING 3
YEARS ADEQUATE IN THE CASE OF HEINOUS FELONIES AND GROSS FRAUDS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES BUT INADEQUATE FOR MISUSE OF A PASSPORT OR FALSE
STATEMENT TO A NATURALIZATION EXAMINER." 

TO ADOPT THE INTERPRETATION PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PRODUCE
THE SITUATION THAT OFFENSES COMMITTED IN AUGUST, 1948, WOULD BE
INDICTABLE UNTIL AUGUST, 1953, WHEREAS LIKE OFFENSES COMMITTED IN THE
FOLLOWING OCTOBER, 1948, WOULD NOT BE INDICTABLE AFTER OCTOBER, 1951. 
THE LONGER PERIOD FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THE EARLIER OFFENSES HAS NO
RELATION TO WAR CONDITIONS.  SUCH A RESULT IS NOT TO BE INFERRED
WITHOUT A CLEAR DIRECTION TO THAT EFFECT. 

FINALLY, TO INTERPRET THE WORDS "RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES" IN THE SAVING
CLAUSE AS INCLUDING SUCH PROCEDURAL INCIDENTS AS THE PERIOD WITHIN
WHICH INDICTMENTS MAY BE FOUND WOULD OVERLOOK THE PRACTICE OF CONGRESS
TO SPECIFY THE SAVING OF SUCH LIMITATIONS EXPRESSLY WHEN AND IF
CONGRESS WISHED THEM TO BE "SAVED."  IN THE REVISED STATUTES OF 1874,
SEC. 5598 PRESERVED "ALL OFFENSES COMMITTED, AND ALL PENALTIES OR
FORFEITURES" BUT, NEVERTHELESS, SEC. 5599 WAS INSERTED TO ADD "ALL ACTS
OF LIMITATION, WHETHER APPLICABLE TO CIVIL CAUSES AND PROCEEDINGS, OR
TO THE PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES, OR FOR THE RECOVERY OF PENALTIES OR
FORFEITURES  ...  ."  (FN25)  THE 1909 CRIMINAL CODE CONTAINED SIMILAR
PROVISIONS IN SECS.  343 AND 344.  35 STAT. 1159.  IN 1933, WHEN THE
REVISED STATUTES WERE REEXAMINED AND OBSOLETE SECTIONS (INCLUDING SEC.
5598) WERE REPEALED, SEC. 5599 WAS RETAINED.  47 STAT. 1431.  THE
REASON THEN GIVEN FOR ITS RETENTION WAS THAT THE SURVIVAL CLAUSE IN THE
GENERAL REPEALING STATUTE, 47 STAT. 1431, REFERRED "ONLY TO 'RIGHTS'
AND 'LIABILITIES' AND NOT TO REMEDIES, RECOURSE TO WHICH MAY BE BARRED
BY LIMITATION."  S. REP. NO. 1205, 72D CONG., 2D SESS. 3.  SEE CAMPBELL
V. HOLT, 115 U.S. 620. 

AS THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS APPLICABLE TO
EACH OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED AND HAS BEEN NEITHER SUSPENDED BY THE
WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT, NOR MADE INAPPLICABLE BY SEC. 21
OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, THE INDICTMENT IN THIS PROCEEDING CAME TOO
LATE TO BE EFFECTIVE.  THE MOTION TO DISMISS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GRANTED WHEN FIRST MADE.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
ACCORDINGLY, IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3287. 

FN2  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3282. 

FN3  SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 35 STAT. 1096, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88,
NOW 18 U.S.C.  (SUPP. V) SEC. 371. 

FN4  54 STAT. 1163, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 746(A)(1), NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 1015(A). 

FN5  54 STAT. 1164, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 746(A)(5), NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 1425. 

FN6  62 STAT. 862. 

FN7  54 STAT. 1167, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 746(G). 

FN8  SECTION 346(A) WAS REPEALED BY SEC. 21 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25,
1948, 62 STAT. 862, 868.  SIMULTANEOUSLY, SEC. 346(A)(1) WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED IN 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1015(A).  FOR THE
EFFECT, IF ANY, OF THE SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 21 UPON THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS RELATING TO SEC. 346(A), SEE PP. 224-227, INFRA. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA, AS TO REPEAL OF SEC. 346(A).  SIMULTANEOUSLY,
SEC. 346(A)(5) WAS SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED IN 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
1425. 

FN10  THE GRANT WAS LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 PRESENTED BY THE
PETITION FOR THE WRIT, VIZ.: 

"(1)  WHETHER, IN VIEW OF PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS (INCLUDING THE
DETERMINATION OF THIS COURT IN BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135), THIS
PROCEEDING IS BARRED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY THE PRINCIPLES OF RES
JUDICATA, OR ESTOPPEL, OR THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

"(2)  WHETHER THIS PROCEEDING IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS." 

FN11  "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY LAW, NO PERSON SHALL
BE PROSECUTED, TRIED, OR PUNISHED FOR ANY OFFENSE, NOT CAPITAL, UNLESS
THE INDICTMENT IS FOUND OR THE INFORMATION IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THREE
YEARS NEXT AFTER SUCH OFFENSE SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED."  18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 3282. 

FN12  1 STAT. 119; R.S. SEC. 1044; 19 STAT. 32-33.  THE LIMITATION AS
TO TREASON OR OTHER CAPITAL OFFENSES WAS THREE YEARS FROM 1790 UNTIL IT
WAS REMOVED IN 1939.  1 STAT. 119; R.S. SEC. 1043; 53 STAT. 1198; 18
U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3281. 

FN13  44 STAT. 114-115, 18 U.S.C. (1925 ED., SUPP. V) SEC. 585. 

FN14  "  ...  THE PURPOSE OF THE ADDED PROVISO TO THE GENERAL
LIMITATION SECTION WAS TO CARVE OUT A SPECIAL CLASS OF CASES.  IT IS TO
BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY, AND HELD TO APPLY ONLY TO CASES SHOWN TO BE
CLEARLY WITHIN ITS PURPOSE."  UNITED STATES V. MCELVAIN, 272 U.S. 633,
639. 

FN15  "  ...  THE RUNNING OF ANY EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES INVOLVING THE DEFRAUDING OR ATTEMPTS TO DEFRAUD
THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, WHETHER BY CONSPIRACY OR NOT,
AND IN ANY MANNER, AND NOW INDICTABLE UNDER ANY EXISTING STATUTES,
SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL JUNE 30, 1945, OR UNTIL SUCH EARLIER TIME AS
THE CONGRESS BY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, OR THE PRESIDENT, MAY DESIGNATE
...  ."  56 STAT. 747-748. 

THIS WAS AMENDED IN 1944 BY THE INSERTION OF MORE SPECIFIC REFERENCES
TO WAR CONTRACTS AND TO THE HANDLING OF PROPERTY UNDER THE SURPLUS
PROPERTY ACT OF 1944.  58 STAT. 667 AND 781.  SINCE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948,
18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3287 HAS PROVIDED THAT: 

"WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR THE RUNNING OF ANY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ANY OFFENSE (1) INVOLVING FRAUD OR ATTEMPTED
FRAUD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF IN ANY MANNER,
WHETHER BY CONSPIRACY OR NOT, OR (2) COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ACQUISITION, CARE, HANDLING, CUSTODY, CONTROL OR DISPOSITION OF ANY
REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR (3) COMMITTED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE NEGOTIATION, PROCUREMENT, AWARD, PERFORMANCE,
PAYMENT FOR, INTERIM FINANCING, CANCELATION, OR OTHER TERMINATION OR
SETTLEMENT, OF ANY CONTRACT, SUBCONTRACT, OR PURCHASE ORDER WHICH IS
CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR, OR WITH ANY
DISPOSITION OF TERMINATION INVENTORY BY ANY WAR CONTRACTOR OR
GOVERNMENT AGENCY, SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THREE YEARS AFTER THE
TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES AS PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT OR BY A
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS  ...  ." 

THE PRESIDENT PROCLAIMED THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES OF WORLD WAR
II, DECEMBER 31, 1946.  3 CFR, 1946 SUPP., 77-78. 

FN16  "SEC.  1044  ...  .  :  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IN OFFENSES
INVOLVING THE DEFRAUDING OR ATTEMPTS TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OR
ANY AGENCY THEREOF, WHETHER BY CONSPIRACY OR NOT, AND IN ANY MANNER,
AND NOW INDICTABLE UNDER ANY EXISTING STATUTES, THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION SHALL BE SIX YEARS  ...  ."  42 STAT. 220, NOVEMBER 17,
1921.    THIS PROVISO WAS ELIMINATED BY 45 STAT. 51, DECEMBER 27,
1927. 

FN17  IN 1921, H.R. REP. NO. 365, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1, SUPPORTING
THE BILL TO ENACT THE PROVISO, SAID: 

"THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE INVESTIGATION AND
IS NOW ENGAGED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF VARIOUS ALLEGED OFFENSES,
CONSISTING LARGELY OF FRAUDS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WHICH ARE CLAIMED
TO HAVE OCCURRED DURING THE WAR WITH GERMANY AND SINCE ITS CONCLUSION. 
MANY OF THESE ALLEGED OFFENSES GREW OUT OF THE CONTRACTUAL RELATION OF
THE GOVERNMENT WITH VARIOUS PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN THE
FURNISHING OF MILITARY AND NAVAL SUPPLIES OF VARIOUS KINDS.  MANY OF
THESE TRANSACTIONS REQUIRE THE MOST MINUTE INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO
ASCERTAIN THE EXACT FACTS, AND IN EVERY CASE A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD MUST
ELAPSE BEFORE SUCH FACTS MAY BE GATHERED FROM THE FILES AND OTHER
SOURCES THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY KNOW WHETHER PROSECUTIONS ARE JUSTIFIED
OR NOT.  IN MANY CASES MONTHS, AND PERHAPS CONSIDERABLE LONGER PERIODS,
WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SUCH INVESTIGATIONS."  SEE ALSO, 61 CONG. REC.
7060-7061, 7640. 

IN 1927, H.R. REP. NO. 16, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1, SUPPORTING THE
BILL TO ELIMINATE THE 1921 PROVISO, SAID: 

"IN 1921 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REPRESENTED THAT HE WAS DESIROUS OF
HAVING FURTHER TIME TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED WAR FRAUDS, AND THAT OWING
TO THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MIGHT
RUN BEFORE IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN INDICTMENTS, AND HE THEREFORE
REQUESTED THAT THE PERIOD OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE
EXTENDED FROM THREE YEARS TO SIX YEARS.  THE CONGRESS COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUEST AND THE LIMITATION WAS EXTENDED FROM THREE TO SIX YEARS AS TO
THAT PARTICULAR CLASS OF OFFENSES. 

"THE REASONS FOR THE ABOVE CHANGE HAVE CEASED TO EXIST; THAT IS, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCED SOME TIME AGO THAT IT DID NOT PROPOSE
TO ATTEMPT ANY FURTHER PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES OF THAT CHARACTER, THAT
IS TO SAY, OFFENSES GIVING RISE TO THE STATUTE."  SEE ALSO, 69 CONG.
REC. 473, 842. 

FN18  IN 1942, S. REP. NO. 1544, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 1, 2,
SUPPORTING THE SUSPENSION OF THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE, SAID: 

"THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS TO SUSPEND ANY EXISTING
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES INVOLVING THE DEFRAUDING
OR ATTEMPTS TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, FOR THE
PERIOD OF THE PRESENT WAR.  CONTRACTING FOR THE UNITED STATES IS DONE
THROUGH ITS VARIOUS AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENTS AND INDEPENDENT
ESTABLISHMENTS AND GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS, AND FRAUDS AGAINST ALL OF THESE AGENCIES ARE INTENDED TO
BE EMBRACED BY THE BILL. 

"DURING THE WORLD WAR MANY FRAUDS COMMITTED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
WERE NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL THE 3-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD ALMOST
EXPIRED, AND AS STATED IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO,
MANY OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSES WERE BARRED FROM PROSECUTION.  THE GENERAL
CRIMINAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (REV. STATS., SEC. 1044) WAS AMENDED ON
NOVEMBER 17, 1921, EXTENDING THE PERIOD TO 6 YEARS IN RESPECT TO
OFFENSES INVOLVING FRAUDS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"DURING NORMAL TIMES THE PRESENT 3-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY
AFFORD THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUFFICIENT TIME TO INVESTIGATE,
DISCOVER, AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO PROSECUTE FRAUDS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, IS ENGAGED IN A GIGANTIC WAR
PROGRAM.  HUGE SUMS OF MONEY ARE BEING EXPENDED FOR MATERIALS AND
EQUIPMENT IN ORDER TO CARRY ON THE WAR SUCCESSFULLY.  ALTHOUGH STEPS
HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO PREVENT AND TO PROSECUTE FRAUDS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT IN THE VARIED DEALINGS OPPORTUNITIES
WILL NO DOUBT BE PRESENTED FOR UNSCRUPULOUS PERSONS TO DEFRAUD THE
GOVERNMENT OR SOME AGENCY.  THESE FRAUDS MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DISCOVER
AS IS OFTEN TRUE OF THIS TYPE OF OFFENSE AND MANY OF THEM MAY NOT COME
TO LIGHT FOR SOME TIME TO COME.  THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT IS ALSO BUSILY ENGAGED IN ITS MANY DUTIES, INCLUDING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ESPIONAGE, SABOTAGE, AND OTHER LAWS." 

A SIMILAR STATEMENT WAS MADE IN H.R. REP. NO. 2051, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS. 1-2, SUPPORTING THE SAME BILL, H.R. 6484.  SEE ALSO, 88 CONG.
REC. 6160.  THIS BILL, READOPTING THE 1921 POLICY, WAS INTRODUCED AT
THE SUGGESTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN LIEU OF A PROPOSAL THEN
PENDING TO SUSPEND THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR EVERY
OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  HEARINGS
BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 4 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON
H.R. 4916, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 6, 8, AND SEE 88 CONG. REC. 4759
4760. 

FN19  HAAS V. HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462, AND HAMMERSCHMIDT V. UNITED
STATES, 265 U.S. 182, ARE NOT TO THE CONTRARY.  THE STATEMENTS THERE
MADE REFER TO CONSPIRACIES TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES "IN ANY MANNER
OR FOR ANY PURPOSE" AS USED IN THE SECOND CLAUSE OF THE GENERAL
CONSPIRACY SECTION.  SEE SEC. 37 OF THE OLD CRIMINAL CODE, 35 STAT.
1096, NOW SEC. 371 OF THE NEW CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V).  SEE
ALSO, UNITED STATES V. GILLILAND, 312 U.S. 86.  THEY DO NOT CONTROL THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF
LIMITATIONS ACT DISCUSSED IN THIS OPINION. 

FN20  SEC. 37 OF THE OLD CRIMINAL CODE, 35 STAT. 1096, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
88, NOW 18 U.S.C.  (SUPP. V) SEC. 371, SEE P. 213, SUPRA. 

FN21  "(G)  NO PERSON SHALL BE PROSECUTED, TRIED, OR PUNISHED FOR ANY
CRIME ARISING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT UNLESS THE INDICTMENT IS
FOUND OR THE INFORMATION IS FILED WITHIN FIVE YEARS NEXT AFTER THE
COMMISSION OF SUCH CRIME."  54 STAT. 1167, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 746(G). 

FN22  IN THAT SCHEDULE OF REPEALED SECTIONS, AT 62 STAT. 868, ARE
SECS. 346(A-H), (1), AND 347 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, ALSO
IDENTIFIED AS FROM CHAPTER 876, 54 STAT. 1163-1168, APPROVED OCTOBER
14, 1940. 

FN23  SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA. 

FN24  IN UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 342 U.S. 225, 226-227, N. 1, WE
ASSUMED, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THIS RESERVATION HAD NO EFFECT ON THE
RUNNING OF A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

FN25  SEE ALSO, THE GENERAL SAVING CLAUSE THAT WAS IN THE REVISED
STATUTES BUT HAS BEEN REGARDED AS NOT APPLICABLE TO MATTERS OF REMEDY
AND PROCEDURE: 

"SEC. 13.  THE REPEAL OF ANY STATUTE SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT TO
RELEASE OR EXTINGUISH ANY PENALTY, FORFEITURE, OR LIABILITY INCURRED
UNDER SUCH STATUTE, UNLESS THE REPEALING ACT SHALL SO EXPRESSLY
PROVIDE, AND SUCH STATUTE SHALL BE TREATED AS STILL REMAINING IN FORCE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUSTAINING ANY PROPER ACTION OR PROSECUTION FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH PENALTY, FORFEITURE, OR LIABILITY." 

SEE 1 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 109; HALLOWELL V. COMMONS, 239 U.S. 506;
HERTZ V. WOODMAN, 218 U.S. 205, 218; GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 208 U.S. 452. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON
JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE LIMITATION FOR PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE SECOND CLAUSE OF 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 371, CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES, FORMERLY FIXED AT
THREE YEARS BY 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3282, LIMITATION FOR OFFENSES NOT
CAPITAL, IS SUSPENDED FOR US BY THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS
ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3287.  THE CODE SECTIONS SO FAR AS APPLICABLE
APPEAR BELOW.  (FN1)  AS STATED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, THE INDICTMENT
UNDER SEC. 371 WAS BROUGHT MORE THAN THREE YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED
OFFENSE BUT WITHIN TIME IF THE WARTIME SUSPENSION APPLIES.  THE
APPLICABILITY OF THAT SECTION, SEC. 3287, DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THE
CONSPIRACY CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT WAS AN OFFENSE "INVOLVING FRAUD
... AGAINST THE UNITED STATES  ...  IN ANY MANNER, WHETHER BY
CONSPIRACY OR NOT," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SAID SEC. 3287. 

AN INDICTMENT UNDER SEC. 371 MAY BE FOUND FOR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
ANY OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES.  THESE ARE ALTERNATIVE, DISJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS.  ONE ADDRESSES
ITSELF TO THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES SPECIFIED UNDER
OTHER STATUTES; THE OTHER TO A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES.  SUCH A CONSPIRACY IS ITSELF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE CHARGED IN
THE INDICTMENT.  THIS CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS
WITHOUT VARIATION.  (FN2) 

THE INDICTMENT, COUNT I, CHARGES CONSPIRACY "TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES BY IMPAIRING, OBSTRUCTING AND DEFEATING THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF ITS NATURALIZATION LAWS" BY CAUSING BRIDGES FALSELY
AND FRAUDULENTLY TO STATE THAT HE "HAD NEVER BELONGED TO THE COMMUNIST
PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES."  WE THINK THAT THIS ALLEGED OFFENSE, SINCE
IT IS AN EFFORT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES BY IMPAIRING OR
OBSTRUCTING OR DEFEATING ITS NATURALIZATION LAWS, OBVIOUSLY FALLS
WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS, SEC.  3287,
"INVOLVING FRAUD" "BY CONSPIRACY." 

WE SEE NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 3287 TO RAISE A
QUESTION AS TO ITS APPLICABILITY TO THIS INDICTMENT.  THE OPINION OF
THE COURT QUOTES EXCERPTS FROM REPORTS CONCERNING THE NEED OF
SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION FOLLOWING THE FIRST WORLD WAR.  A STATUTE WAS
THEN PASSED, WHICH WE ACCEPT AS HAVING BEEN ENACTED FOR THE SAME
PURPOSE AND WITH THE SAME COVERAGE AS THE PRESENT LEGISLATION.  SEE N.
15 OF THE COURT'S OPINION.  THOSE REPORTS DO SHOW THAT WAR FRAUDS OF A
PECUNIARY NATURE WERE UPPERMOST IN THE MINDS OF CONGRESS.  COURT'S
OPINION, N. 17.  THIS WAS ONLY NATURAL IN VIEW OF THE HASTE AND WASTE
OF WAR BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW LOGICALLY THAT FRAUDS AGAINST THE PROPER
EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS ARE EXCLUDED.  THE CITED EXCERPTS DO
NOT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE THEM.  CERTAINLY FRAUDS IMPAIRING, OBSTRUCTING
OR DEFEATING SELECTIVE SERVICE, (FN3) ALIEN PROPERTY, (FN4)
ADMINISTRATION OF PRICES AND WAGES (FN5) AND THE ALLOTMENT OF SCARCE
MATERIAL, (FN6) AS WELL AS THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACTS, WOULD
HARDLY BE OMITTED KNOWINGLY BY CONGRESS FROM A SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION
FOR FRAUDS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  YET, MANY OF THESE WOULD FALL UNDER
THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION THAT WARTIME SUSPENSION APPLIES ONLY TO WAR
FRAUDS OF A PECUNIARY NATURE OR OF A NATURE CONCERNING PROPERTY.  IT
WAS AS HARD, PERHAPS HARDER, TO FIND AND PUNISH FRAUDS AGAINST
ADMINISTRATION AS THOSE OF A PECUNIARY OR PROPERTY NATURE.  A GENERAL
AMNESTY BILL AGAINST WAR FRAUDS WOULD BE FAIRER THAN TO HOLD ONLY THOSE
GUILTY OF FINANCIAL FRAUDS.  BOTH THE PURPOSE AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE
SUSPENSION ACT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT FRAUDS AGAINST
ADMINISTRATION ARE WITHIN ITS SCOPE. 

THE COURT ASSERTS THAT THE WARTIME SUSPENSION ACT SHOULD BE LIMITED
TO THOSE FRAUDS OF A PECUNIARY OR PROPERTY NATURE BECAUSE THE ACT IS AN
EXCEPTION TO A "LONGSTANDING CONGRESSIONAL 'POLICY OF REPOSE.'"  OF
COURSE, STATUTES OF LIMITATION ARE STATUTES OF REPOSE.  BUT OUR PUBLIC
POLICY IS FIXED BY CONGRESS, NOT BY THE COURTS.  (FN7)  THE PUBLIC
POLICY ON REPOSE FOR WARTIME FRAUDS IS FIXED BY THE SUSPENSION ACT AND
IT IS THE WORDS OF THAT ACT THAT DETERMINE OUR POLICY, NOT SOME GENERAL
FEELING THAT LITIGATION OVER FRAUDS SHOULD END. 

NOR CAN WE ACCEPT THE COURT'S RELIANCE ON MARZANI V. UNITED STATES,
83 U.S. APP. D.C.  78, 82, 168 F.2D 133, 137, AS A SOUND PRECEDENT FOR
CONSTRUING THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT TO APPLY ONLY TO
FRAUDS OF A PECUNIARY OR PROPERTY NATURE.  ON REVIEW THIS COURT WAS
EVENLY DIVIDED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE WARTIME SUSPENSION
ACT DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE "THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLEARLY SAID (1) THAT
A STATUTE IDENTICAL IN PERTINENT PART WITH THE SUSPENSION ACT DOES NOT
APPLY TO OFFENSES OF WHICH DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES IN A PECUNIARY
WAY IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT; AND (2) THAT SUCH DEFRAUDING OF THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF OFFENSES UNDER THE
FALSE CLAIMS STATUTE."  83 U.S. APP. D.C., AT 81, 168 F.2D.  AT 136. 
MARZANI WAS INDICTED UNDER THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT.  (FN8) 

THE CASES RELIED UPON FOR THE FIRST POINT ARE UNITED STATES V.
NOVECK, 271 U.S. 201; UNITED STATES V. MCELVAIN, 272 U.S. 633; AND
UNITED STATES V. SCHARTON, 285 U.S. 518.  NOVECK'S CASE HELD THAT AN
INDICTMENT FOR PERJURY IN AN INCOME TAX RETURN WAS BARRED, DESPITE A
SUSPENSION STATUTE MUCH LIKE SEC. 3287, BECAUSE FRAUD WAS NOT AN
ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF PERJURY.  MCELVAIN'S CASE HELD SIMILARLY AS TO
THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE OF A WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE A TAX. 
SCHARTON'S CASE FOLLOWED NOVECK'S AND HELD THAT FRAUD ON THE UNITED
STATES WAS NOT AN INGREDIENT OF EVADING A TAX BY FALSE STATEMENTS. 

UNDER THE SECOND POINT, THE COURT OF APPEALS RELIED UPON UNITED
STATES V. GILLILAND, 312 U.S. 86.  THERE THIS COURT HELD THAT THE 1934
AMENDMENT TO CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 35, 48 STAT. 996, ENLARGED SEC. 35 SO
AS TO INCLUDE FALSE REPRESENTATIONS IN ANY DOCUMENTS "WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES."  312
U.S., AT 90.  THUS THE FORMER HOLDING OF THIS COURT THAT THE FALSE
CLAIMS ACT WAS RESTRICTED TO "PECUNIARY OR PROPERTY LOSS," UNITED
STATES V. COHN, 270 U.S. 339, 346, 347, WAS MADE INAPPLICABLE TO THE
GILLILAND DECISION MEANT THAT DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES IN A
FINANCIAL SENSE IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT UNDER THE FALSE CLAIMS
ACT.  THEREFORE THE SUSPENSION ACT DID NOT APPLY.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
GOTTFRIED, 165 F.2D 360, 367.  IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE COURT OF
APPEALS WAS CORRECT IN THINKING THAT DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES IN A
FINANCIAL SENSE WAS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE FALSE CLAIMS
ACT.  WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES IS AN
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THIS CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER SEC. 371.  WE
DO NOT THINK MARZANI ADDS STRENGTH TO THE COURT'S POSITION THAT THE
SUSPENSION ACT APPLIES ONLY TO FINANCIAL FRAUD.    THE CASES BOTH UNDER
THE FIRST AND SECOND POINTS OF THE MARZANI DECISION DEAL WITH THE
SUSPENSION STATUTES AS APPLIED TO SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES THAT DID NOT
REQUIRE PROOF OF FRAUD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR CONVICTION.  IT
WAS ENOUGH THAT THE CHARGE AND PROOF SHOWED PERJURY, FALSE SWEARING OR
MISREPRESENTATION TO A GOVERNMENT AGENCY.  FRAUD WAS NOT AN ESSENTIAL
INGREDIENT.  THE CONTRARY IS TRUE IN THE PRESENT PROSECUTION UNDER
COUNT I.    AS WE SHOWED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THIS OPINION, THE
SUBSTANTIVE CRIME HERE CHARGED IS THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES, PUNISHABLE AS A CONSPIRACY.  THE FRAUD IS AN ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THIS CRIME, DENOUNCED BY SEC. 371,
COVERS NONPECUNIARY OR NONPROPERTY FRAUDS.  THIS HAS BEEN TRUE SINCE
HAAS V. HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462, 479.  (FN9)  WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE
COURT'S ANALYSIS OF THE INDICTMENT THAT THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN COUNT I
ARE "KNOWINGLY MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT" IN A NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING
OR AIDING TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION BY FRAUD.  THESE
ARE THE OVERT ACTS OF THE COUNT I CONSPIRACY, NOT THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE OF DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES
CHARGED IN COUNT I.

AS COUNT I DESCRIBES THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE OF CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
THE UNITED STATES, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE COURT'S STATEMENT THAT:

"THE USE IN COUNT I OF LANGUAGE COPIED FROM THE SECOND CLAUSE OF THE
CONSPIRACY STATUTE MERELY CLOAKS A FACTUAL CHARGE OF CONSPIRING TO
CAUSE, OR KNOWINGLY TO AID, BRIDGES TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT UNDER
OATH IN HIS NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, OR TO OBTAIN BY FALSE STATEMENTS
A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION TO WHICH HE WAS NOT ENTITLED." 

TO PROVE THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER SEC. 371 IT IS
NECESSARY TO PROVE THE FRAUD.  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A FALSE STATEMENT
AS TO COMMUNIST MEMBERSHIP IN A NATURALIZATION HEARING WOULD NOT BE A
FRAUD AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATURALIZATION LAWS WITHIN THE
LANGUAGE OF HAAS V. HENKEL, SUPRA, OF "IMPAIRING, OBSTRUCTING OR
DEFEATING THE LAWFUL FUNCTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT."  P.
479. 

WE THEREFORE WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW AS TO COUNT I.
PETITIONERS HAVE ALSO CONTENDED HERE THAT THE CONVICTION IS BARRED
BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL REQUIRE
US TO HOLD THAT BRIDGES' NONMEMBERSHIP DURING THE CRUCIAL PERIOD HAS
BEEN JUDICIALLY DETERMINED.  THEY POINT TO THE LANDIS PROCEEDINGS OF
1938, REFERRED TO IN BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135, 138, THIS COURT'S
DECISION IN THAT CASE, AND THE NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS THEMSELVES OF
1945.  NONE OF THESE, THOUGH, ARE RES JUDICATA, SINCE THIS IS A
CRIMINAL CAUSE.  NOR CAN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BE INVOKED.  THERE HAS
BEEN NO COURT HOLDING THAT BRIDGES HAS NOT BEEN A COMMUNIST.  THE
LANDIS DETERMINATION OF THEN NONMEMBERSHIP WAS NOT A JUDICIAL ONE. 
PEARSON V. WILLIAMS, 202 U.S. 281.  IN BRIDGES V. WIXON, SUPRA, NO
HOLDING ON THE FACTUAL QUESTION OF MEMBERSHIP WAS REACHED.  AND THE
NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS DID NOT DETERMINE NONMEMBERSHIP, BECAUSE
BRIDGES COULD LEGALLY HAVE BEEN GRANTED CITIZENSHIP EVEN HAD HE BEEN
FOUND BY THE COURT TO HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  SEE 8
U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SECS.  705, 707, WHICH MERELY PROHIBITED GRANT OF
NATURALIZATION TO MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS ADVOCATING THE OVERTHROW OF
THE GOVERNMENT, OR TO THOSE NOT ATTACHED TO THE CONSTITUTION.  THIS HAS
BEEN CHANGED.  8 U.S.C.A. SEC. 1424(A)(2).  THERE IS NO NECESSARY
IDENTITY IN LAW BETWEEN COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERS AND SUCH PERSONS.  SEE
SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118.  CF. CARLSON V. LANDON,
342 U.S. 524, 536, N. 22. 

AS OUR VIEWS HAVE NOT PREVAILED AS TO COUNT I, WE FORBEAR TO EXPRESS
ANY VIEWS AS TO COUNTS II AND III. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. SEC. 371: 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE EITHER TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY AGENCY
THEREOF IN ANY MANNER OR FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH
PERSONS DO ANY ACT TO EFFECT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,
OR BOTH." 

ID., SEC. 3282: 

"EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY LAW, NO PERSON SHALL BE
PROSECUTED, TRIED, OR PUNISHED FOR ANY OFFENSE, NOT CAPITAL, UNLESS THE
INDICTMENT IS FOUND OR THE INFORMATION IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THREE YEARS
NEXT AFTER SUCH OFFENSE SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED." 

ID., SEC. 3287: 

"WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR THE RUNNING OF ANY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ANY OFFENSE (1) INVOLVING FRAUD OR ATTEMPTED
FRAUD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF IN ANY MANNER,
WHETHER BY CONSPIRACY OR NOT,  ...  SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THREE
YEARS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES AS PROCLAIMED BY THE
PRESIDENT OR BY A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS." 

FN2  FALTER V. UNITED STATES, 23 F.2D 420, 423-424; MILLER V. UNITED
STATES, 24 F.2D 353, 360; UNITED STATES V. HOLT, 108 F.2D 365, 368. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. MANTON, 107 F.2D 834, 838-839, A CASE IN WHICH TWO
JUSTICES OF THIS COURT SAT AS CIRCUIT JUSTICES. 

FN3  SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948, 62 STAT. 604, 50 U.S.C. APP.
SECS. 321, 451-470, 1001-1017. 

FN4  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 40 STAT. 411, AS AMENDED, 55 STAT.
839, 50 U.S.C. APP.  SEC. 1 ET SEQ. 

FN5  DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950, 64 STAT. 798, AS AMENDED, 65
STAT. 131, 66 STAT. 298, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 2061 ET SEQ., SECS. 2101
2110. 

FN6  IBID., SECS. 1912, 2072, 2073. 

FN7  HURD V. HODGE, 334 U.S. 24, 34-35. 

FN8  18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  80, SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 287. 

FN9  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. COHN, 270 U.S. 339, 346; HAMMERSCHMIDT
V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S. 182, 188; CF. UNITED STATES V. LEPOWITCH,
318 U.S. 702. 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. GRAINGER 346 U.S. 235 


NO. 634.  ARGUED MAY 4-5, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 15, 1953 - REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 


1.  THE RUNNING OF THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON
FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS FOR CRIMES, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3282, WAS
SUSPENDED BY THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 3287, AS TO VIOLATIONS, IN 1945 AND 1946, OF THE FALSE
CLAIMS CLAUSE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
287.  PP. 240-244. 

(A)  THE OFFENSES CHARGED HERE OF ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN PAYMENTS FROM
THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION IN AMOUNTS BASED UPON KNOWINGLY FALSE
CERTIFICATIONS TO THAT CORPORATION BY THE ACCUSED THAT CERTAIN
PURCHASES OF WOOL HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM WHEN HE KNEW THAT NO SUCH
PURCHASES HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM OR, AT LEAST, THAT NO SUCH PURCHASES HAD
BEEN MADE BY HIM AT PRICES AS HIGH AS THOSE HE CERTIFIED THAT HE PAID,
ARE OFFENSES OF A PECUNIARY NATURE.  PP. 240-241. 

(B)  OFFENSES WHICH OCCURRED IN 1945 OR 1946, PRECEDING THE
PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION OF DECEMBER 31, 1946, DECLARING THAT THE
HOSTILITIES OF WORLD WAR II TERMINATED ON THAT DAY, COME WITHIN THE
PERIOD TO WHICH THE SUSPENSION ACT APPLIES.  P. 241. 

(C)  FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF
VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS CLAUSE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 18
U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 287.  PP. 241-243. 

(D)  IN THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT, THE PHRASE
"INVOLVING FRAUD  ...  IN ANY MANNER" MAKES THE ACT APPLICABLE TO
OFFENSES WHICH ARE FAIRLY IDENTIFIABLE AS THOSE IN WHICH FRAUD IS AN
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT, BY WHATEVER WORDS THEY BE DEFINED; IT DOES NOT
LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO SUCH OFFENSES AS CONGRESS HAS
DENOMINATED AS "FRAUDS" BY USING THAT VERY WORD OR ONE OF ITS
DERIVATIVES.  THE SAME REASONING APPLIES TO CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT SUCH
OFFENSES.  PP. 243-244. 

2.  THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT HAD THE EFFECT OF
EXTENDING THROUGH 1952 THE TIME FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THE OFFENSES TO
WHICH IT APPLIED.  PP. 244-246. 

3.  IN RELATION TO THOSE OFFENSES HERE INVOLVED WHICH WERE COMMITTED
IN 1945 AND 1946, DURING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, THE GENERAL THREE
YEAR LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY 18 U.S.C.  (SUPP. V) SEC. 3282 BEGAN TO
RUN FOR THE FIRST TIME ON JANUARY 1, 1950, AND EXPIRED DECEMBER 31,
1952.  PP. 246-247. 

4.  THE CODIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, JUNE 25, 1948, EFFECTIVE
SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, DID NOT CHANGE THE SITUATION RESPECTING THE
EXTENSION THROUGH 1952 OF THE TIME FOR PROSECUTING THE OFFENSES TO
WHICH THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT APPLIED.  PP. 247-248. 

5.  THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE
INDICTMENTS HERE INVOLVED FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED IN 1945 AND 1946 AND
THE UNITED STATES COULD THUS PROSECUTE THEM IN 1952, EXCEPT THAT (1)
THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY OVERT ACT ALLEGED IN NO. 636 TO
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN 1947, AND (2) THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT APPLY TO
OVERT ACTS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS 2, 3, AND 4, UNDER COUNT TWO OF THE
INDICTMENT IN NO. 636, WHICH ARE NOT EXPLICIT ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE
ISSUANCE OR ENDORSEMENT OF CERTAIN CHECKS THERE DESCRIBED CONSTITUTED
AN ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 236-248; P. 237, N. 1. 

UNITED STATES V. GRAINGER. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 635, UNITED STATES V. CLAVERE ET AL., AND NO. 636,
UNITED STATES V. CLAVERE ET AL., BOTH ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME
COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES WERE ARGUED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING NO. 548, BRIDGES V.
UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 209.  THEY CONCERN THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF
LIMITATIONS ACT WHICH WE FOUND INAPPLICABLE TO THE OFFENSES STATED IN
THE BRIDGES INDICTMENT.  THESE CASES, HOWEVER, INVOLVE DIFFERENT
OFFENSES AND WE HOLD THE SUSPENSION ACT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT
INDICTMENTS FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED IN 1945 AND 1946 AND WE HOLD THAT
THE UNITED STATES MAY THUS PROSECUTE THEM IN 1952.  (FN1) 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS HERE ARE:  (1) WHETHER THE WARTIME SUSPENSION
OF LIMITATIONS ACT (FN2) SUSPENDED THE RUNNING OF THE GENERAL THREE
YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FN3) AS TO VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS
CLAUSE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT, (FN4) AND (2) IF SO, WHETHER THE
INDICTMENTS FOR SUCH OFFENSES, FOUND IN 1952, WERE TIMELY.  FOR THE
REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, OUR ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION IS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. 

THESE INDICTMENTS WERE FILED IN 1952 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.  THE INDICTMENT IN NO.
634 CHARGES APPELLEE GRAINGER, IN 16 COUNTS, WITH HAVING "UNLAWFULLY,
KNOWINGLY, WILFULLY AND FRAUDULENTLY" PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT TO THE
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION, AT VARIOUS TIMES IN 1945, CLAIMS UPON
THAT CORPORATION CERTIFYING THAT APPELLEE HAD MADE CERTAIN PURCHASES OF
WOOL AT CERTAIN PRICES, KNOWING SUCH CLAIMS "TO BE FALSE, FICTITIOUS
AND FRAUDULENT  ...  ."  IT CHARGES, FURTHER, THAT APPELLEE KNOWINGLY
AND FALSELY CERTIFIED TO THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION THAT HE HAD
PAID HIGHER PRICES FOR THE WOOL THAN HE ACTUALLY DID.  (FN5) 

THE INDICTMENT IN NO. 635 CHARGES APPELLEES CLAVERE AND KENNEDY, IN
15 COUNTS, WITH LIKE OFFENSES COMMITTED IN 1946, INCLUDING SEVERAL
CLAIMS BASED UPON THEIR FALSE CERTIFICATIONS OF PURCHASES OF WOOL WHEN
THEY KNEW THAT THEY HAD MADE NO SUCH PURCHASES. 

THE INDICTMENT IN NO. 636 CHARGES APPELLEES CLAVERE AND KENNEDY, IN
ONE COUNT, WITH CONSPIRING TO MAKE FALSE, FICTITIOUS AND FRAUDULENT
CLAIMS UPON THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION (FN6) BY MAKING SOMEWHAT
COMPARABLE CLAIMS IN 1946 AND 1947.  A SECOND COUNT CHARGES APPELLEES
CLAVERE, KENNEDY AND SHAPIRO WITH ENGAGING IN A LIKE CONSPIRACY, WITH
OVERT ACTS COMMITTED IN 1946.  (FN7) 

APPELLEES MOVED TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENTS ON THE GROUND, AMONG
OTHERS, THAT EACH WAS BARRED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 
THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTIONS AND DISMISSED THE INDICTMENTS. 
THAT COURT'S UNREPORTED OPINION CONCLUDES WITH THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT: 

"ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT HOLDS THAT, AS TO ALL THREE INDICTMENTS, THE
THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FIXED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 582 AND
ITS SUCCESSOR, 18 U.S.C. SUPP. V SECTION 3282, APPLIES.  BECAUSE THE
STATUTE THAT THE VARIOUS DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED WITH HAVING VIOLATED OR
WITH HAVING CONSPIRED TO VIOLATE DOES NOT 'DENOMINATE' THE ACTS
PROSCRIBED THEREIN AS 'FRAUDS,' OR DOES NOT, IN SO MANY WORDS, HAVE AS
AN 'INGREDIENT' A 'DEFRAUDING OR AN ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES,' NEITHER THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT OF 1942 NOR
ITS SUCCESSOR OF 1948 CAN APPLY." 

THE UNITED STATES APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT, UNDER 18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 3731.  (FN8) 

1.  THE RUNNING OF THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
(FN9) WAS SUSPENDED BY THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT (FN10)
AS TO VIOLATIONS, IN 1945 AND 1946, OF THE FALSE CLAIMS CLAUSE OF THE
FALSE CLAIMS ACT.  (FN11) 

A. WHILE THE OFFENSES CHARGED HERE ARE NOT SPELLED OUT IN DETAIL,
THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AT LEAST TO SHOW ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN
PAYMENTS FROM THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION IN AMOUNTS BASED UPON
KNOWINGLY FALSE CERTIFICATIONS TO THAT CORPORATION BY THE ACCUSED THAT
CERTAIN PURCHASES OF WOOL HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM WHEN HE KNEW THAT NO
SUCH PURCHASES HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM OR, AT LEAST, THAT NO SUCH
PURCHASES HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM AT PRICES AS HIGH AS THOSE HE CERTIFIED
THAT HE PAID.  THE OFFENSES CHARGED ARE, THEREFORE, OF A PECUNIARY
NATURE AND WE ARE NOT REQUIRED IN THESE CASES TO PASS UPON THE
CONTENTION, DISCUSSED IN THE BRIDGES CASE, THAT, IN ORDER FOR THE
SUSPENSION ACT TO APPLY TO THEM, THE OFFENSES NOT ONLY MUST INVOLVE
DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES OR AN AGENCY THEREOF, BUT THEY ALSO MUST
BE OF A PECUNIARY NATURE OR OF A NATURE CONCERNING PROPERTY. 

B. THE OFFENSES WITH WHICH WE CONCERN OURSELVES HERE ARE ALLEGED TO
HAVE OCCURRED IN 1945 OR 1946.  THEY, THEREFORE, PRECEDE THE
PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION OF DECEMBER 31, 1946, WHICH DECLARED THAT THE
HOSTILITIES OF WORLD WAR II TERMINATED ON THAT DAY.  (FN12)  THE
OFFENSES THUS COME WITHIN THE PERIOD TO WHICH THE SUSPENSION ACT
APPLIES.  UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 342 U.S. 225. 

C. FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE
OFFENSES CHARGED.  THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN CASES NO. 634 AND NO. 635
ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS CLAUSE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE
FALSE STATEMENT CLAUSE, OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT.  SUCH FALSE CLAIMS
CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT: 

"WHOEVER SHALL  ...  PRESENT  ...  FOR PAYMENT OR APPROVAL, TO  ...
ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER,
ANY CLAIM UPON OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  OR
ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER,
KNOWING SUCH CLAIM TO BE FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR FRAUDULENT  ...  SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS,
OR BOTH."  52 STAT. 197, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 80, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 287. 

THE INDICTMENTS SHOW THAT IT IS THE FALSE CLAIMS CLAUSE THAT IS
INVOLVED.  AND, WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE ISSUE HERE, THE OFFENSE
DEFINED BY THAT CLAUSE IS THE KIND OF OFFENSE AT WHICH THE SUSPENSION
ACT IS DIRECTED. 

THE SUSPENSION ACT PROVIDES THAT: 

"WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR THE RUNNING OF ANY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ANY OFFENSE (1) INVOLVING FRAUD OR ATTEMPTED
FRAUD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF IN ANY MANNER,
WHETHER BY CONSPIRACY OR NOT  ...  SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THREE YEARS
AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES AS PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT OR
BY A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS."  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
3287. 

IN DETERMINING THE KIND OF OFFENSES TO WHICH THAT SECTION APPLIES, WE
HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE CONCLUSION HERETOFORE REACHED BY THIS COURT
THAT SUCH OFFENSES ARE LIMITED TO THOSE WHICH INCLUDE FRAUD AS AN
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT.  (FN13)  THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHAT CONSTITUTES
THE REQUIRED FRAUD.  OUR PROBLEM IS SIMPLER THAN IN THE BRIDGES CASE
AND IN THOSE CASES WHICH INVOLVE VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE STATEMENT
CLAUSE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT.  IN THOSE CASES THERE IS A QUESTION
WHETHER THE MERE MAKING OF A FALSE STATEMENT IN THE CONNECTION
SPECIFIED NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE INGREDIENT OF FRAUD REQUIRED BY THE
SUSPENSION ACT.  IN THE INSTANT CASES THAT QUESTION IS NOT INVOLVED
BECAUSE THE OFFENSES INCLUDE MORE THAN THAT.  THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES
HERE CHARGED INCLUDE THE MAKING OF CLAIMS UPON THE GOVERNMENT FOR
PAYMENTS INDUCED BY KNOWINGLY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS - CONSTITUTING
VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS CLAUSE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT.  THE
STATEMENT OF THE OFFENSES HERE CARRIES WITH IT THE CHARGE OF INDUCING
OR ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE THE PAYMENT OF A CLAIM FOR MONEY OR PROPERTY
INVOLVING THE ELEMENT OF DECEIT THAT IS THE EARMARK OF FRAUD.  (FN14)
THE FALSE STATEMENT CLAUSE CONTAINS NO SUCH INGREDIENT.  THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE CLAUSES IS EMPHASIZED IN THE 1948 CODIFICATION WHICH HAS
PLACED THE FORMER IN SEC. 287 AND THE LATTER IN SEC. 1001 OF 18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V). 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT HAS ADDED
TIME WITHIN WHICH TO PROSECUTE THE WARTIME FRAUDS INVOLVED IN
VIOLATIONS OF THE FALSE CLAIMS CLAUSE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT. 

APPELLEES HAVE PLACED EMPHASIS ALSO UPON THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, IN UNITED STATES V.
SCHARTON, 285 U.S. 518, 521-522: 

"MOREOVER, THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF THE SECTION, THOUGH DENOMINATED A
PROVISO, IS AN EXCEPTING CLAUSE AND THEREFORE TO BE NARROWLY
CONSTRUED.  UNITED STATES V. MCELVAIN, 272 U.S. 633, 639.  AND AS THE
INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF REPOSE, AND OUGHT NOT TO BE EXTENDED BY
CONSTRUCTION TO EMBRACE SO-CALLED FRAUDS NOT SO DENOMINATED BY THE
STATUTES CREATING OFFENSES." 

APPELLEES ARGUE THAT THIS LANGUAGE LIMITS THE SUSPENSION ACT NOT
MERELY TO THOSE OFFENSES IN WHICH FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES IS AN
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT, BUT TO SUCH OF THOSE OFFENSES AS CONGRESS HAS
"DENOMINATED" AS "FRAUDS" BY USING THAT VERY WORD OR, AT LEAST, ONE OF
ITS DERIVATIVES. 

WE BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT BY ITS PHRASE "INVOLVING FRAUD  ...
IN ANY MANNER" (FN15) TO MAKE THE SUSPENSION ACT APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES
WHICH ARE FAIRLY IDENTIFIABLE AS THOSE IN WHICH FRAUD IS AN ESSENTIAL
INGREDIENT, BY WHATEVER WORDS THEY BE DEFINED, AND THAT CONGRESS DID
NOT SEEK TO LIMIT ITS APPLICABILITY TO SUCH OF THOSE IDENTIFIABLE
OFFENSES AS ALSO ARE LABELED WITH A PARTICULAR SYMBOL.  IN THE FALSE
CLAIMS CLAUSE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT, CONGRESS MET THE REQUIREMENT BY
IDENTIFYING THE OFFENSE AS THAT OF MAKING "ANY CLAIM UPON  ...  THE
UNITED STATES  ...  KNOWING SUCH CLAIM TO BE FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR
FRAUDULENT  ...  ."  (FN16)  THE COMBINATION OF EITHER FALSITY, FICTION
OR FRAUD WITH THE CLAIM IS ENOUGH.  THE SAME REASONING APPLIES TO A
CONSPIRACY TO MAKE FALSE CLAIMS, AS ALLEGED IN NO. 636. 

2.  THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT EXTENDED THE TIME FOR
FINDING THE INDICTMENTS THROUGH 1952. 

A. THE SUSPENSION ACT HAD THE EFFECT OF EXTENDING THROUGH 1952 THE
TIME FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THE OFFENSES TO WHICH IT APPLIED. 

WHEN ENACTED AUGUST 24, 1942, DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF WORLD WAR II,
IT PROVIDED FOR THE INCEPTION AND EXPIRATION OF ITS EFFECT ON EXISTING
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  THE RUNNING OF ANY EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE
TO OFFENSES INVOLVING THE DEFRAUDING OR ATTEMPTS TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, WHETHER BY CONSPIRACY OR NOT, AND IN ANY
MANNER, AND NOW INDICTABLE UNDER ANY EXISTING STATUTES, SHALL BE
SUSPENDED UNTIL JUNE 30, 1945, OR UNTIL SUCH EARLIER TIME AS THE
CONGRESS BY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, OR THE PRESIDENT, MAY DESIGNATE  ...
."  56 STAT. 747-748. 

THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD "RUNNING" IN THAT
ENACTMENT.  THE RUNNING OF ANY EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SIMPLY
WAS TO BE SUSPENDED UNTIL JUNE 30, 1945 - THAT IS, FOR ABOUT THREE
YEARS - UNLESS SUCH SUSPENSION WAS CUT SHORT BY CONGRESS OR THE
PRESIDENT.  THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE WAS TO ADD ABOUT THREE YEARS (OR A
SHORTER WARTIME PERIOD) TO THE TIME OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR THE
PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN WARTIME FRAUDS. 

THE PRESENT DIFFICULTY WAS INTRODUCED BY THE AMENDMENT OF JULY 1,
1944.  IT ADDED NOT ONLY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AS TO WAR CONTRACTS BUT IT
CHANGED THE EXPIRATION CLAUSE TO READ: 

"THE RUNNING OF ANY EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ANY
OFFENSE  ...  (1) INVOLVING DEFRAUDING  ...  THE UNITED STATES  ...  OR
(2) COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ...  PERFORMANCE ...  OF ANY
CONTRACT  ...  RELATED TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT WAR  ...
SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THREE YEARS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF
HOSTILITIES IN THE PRESENT WAR AS PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT OR BY A
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS  ...  ."  58 STAT.
667. 

THE EFFECT OF THIS LANGUAGE, WHEN READ WITH THE ACT OF 1942, IS
INESCAPABLE.  THE PHRASE AS TO "RUNNING OF ANY EXISTING STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS" REMAINS PRECISELY AS IT WAS IN 1942, BUT THE EXPIRATION
DATE OF THE SUSPENSION IS CHANGED FROM JUNE 30, 1945 (OR AN EARLIER
DATE TO BE DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENT), TO A NEW DATE. 
THE NEW DATE IS NOT FIXED AS ONE TO COME THREE YEARS LATER.  IT IS MADE
A MOVABLE DATE WHICH CAN OCCUR ONLY THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF THE
TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES AS PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS. 
UNDER THE 1942 ACT, THE RUNNING OF THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE WAS
SUSPENDED FOR THREE YEARS OR LESS.  UNDER THE 1944 AMENDMENT, THE
RUNNING IS JUST AS CLEARLY SUSPENDED UNTIL THREE YEARS HAS EXPIRED
AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES. 

THE PRECISE LANGUAGE OF THE JULY 1, 1944, AMENDMENT WAS REENACTED
OCTOBER 3, 1944, WHEN A CLAUSE WAS ADDED DEALING WITH OFFENSES
CONNECTED WITH THE HANDLING OF PROPERTY UNDER THE SURPLUS PROPERTY ACT
OF 1944, 58 STAT. 781.  THE LANGUAGE WAS THEN CARRIED INTO 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 590A. 

WHEN THE PRESIDENT, DECEMBER 31, 1946, PROCLAIMED THE TERMINATION OF
HOSTILITIES OF WORLD WAR II, 3 CFR, 1946 SUPP., 77-78, THIS
AUTOMATICALLY CAUSED THE RESUMPTION OF THE RUNNING OF STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS ON DECEMBER 31, 1949.  ACCORDINGLY, IN RELATION TO THE
INSTANT OFFENSES COMMITTED IN 1945 AND 1946, DURING THE PERIOD OF
SUSPENSION, THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY 18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 3282 BEGAN TO RUN FOR THE FIRST TIME ON JANUARY 1, 1950,
AND EXPIRED DECEMBER 31, 1952.   UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 342 U.S. 225,
HELD THAT THE OFFENSES TO WHICH THE SUSPENSION ACT APPLIED WERE ONLY
THOSE ACTUALLY COMMITTED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES DECEMBER
31, 1946.  THE LENGTH OF THE PERIOD FOR THEIR PROSECUTION WAS NOT THERE
IN CONTROVERSY BECAUSE THE OFFENSES OCCURRED IN 1947.  THAT PERIOD,
HOWEVER, WAS MENTIONED EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY IMPLICATION IN THE
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINIONS PUBLISHED ON BEHALF OF A MAJORITY OF
THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT.  THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS MADE IN THE
CONCURRING OPINION: 

"THESE CASES CLEARLY ILLUSTRATE THAT THE SUSPENSION STATUTE WAS NOT
INTENDED TO AND SHOULD NOT EMBRACE OFFENSES COMMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO
DECEMBER 31, 1946.  IT APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENSES COMMITTED BETWEEN
AUGUST 25, 1939, AND DECEMBER 31, 1946.  FOR THOSE OFFENSES WHICH
OCCURRED BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE 1942 ACT AND THE CESSATION OF
HOSTILITIES, CONGRESS' INTENTION WAS TO GIVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SIX YEARS FROM THE LATTER DATE TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE.  FOR THOSE
OFFENSES WHICH OCCURRED BEFORE THE DATE OF THE 1942 ACT, CONGRESS'
INTENTION WAS TO GIVE THE DEPARTMENT THREE YEARS AFTER THE CESSATION OF
HOSTILITIES PLUS WHATEVER PORTION OF THE REGULAR THREE-YEAR
LIMITATIONS' PERIOD HAD NOT YET RUN WHEN THE 1942 ACT WAS PASSED."  P.
231. 

THIS ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE COURT IN NO. 527, UNITED STATES V. KLINGER,
WHICH THIS DAY IS AFFIRMED BY AN EVENLY DIVIDED COURT, 345 U.S. 979. 
IN THAT CASE, HOWEVER, THERE WAS PRESENTED NOT ONLY THIS ISSUE BUT ALSO
AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE OFFENSE CHARGED WAS ONE INVOLVING FRAUD OF A
PECUNIARY NATURE UPON THE UNITED STATES. 

B. THE CODIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, JUNE 25, 1948, EFFECTIVE
SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, DID NOT CHANGE THE SITUATION.  IT REPEALED THE
SUSPENSION ACT, AS AMENDED OCTOBER 3, 1944, BY REFERENCE TO IT AS SEC.
28 OF CHAPTER 479, 58 STAT. 781, AND AS 18 U.S.C. SEC. 590A.  62 STAT.
862, 868.  AT THE SAME TIME, CONGRESS SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED THE
SUSPENSION ACT AS 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3287.  62 STAT. 828.  THE
APPELLEES POINT OUT THAT THE SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 21 OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 862, SAVES ONLY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES THEN EXISTING UNDER THE REPEALED SECTIONS.  THEY SUGGEST
ALSO THAT ANY EXTENDED PERIODS OF LIMITATION RESULTING FROM THE
SUSPENSION ACT WERE THUS REPEALED AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, LEAVING
APPLICABLE THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH WOULD
TERMINATE THE PERIOD FOR PROSECUTION SEPTEMBER 1, 1951.  WE DO NOT
AGREE WITH THAT SUGGESTION.  THE REENACTMENT OF THE SUSPENSION ACT AS
SEC. 3287, JUNE 25, 1948, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, LIKE THE
REENACTMENT OF THE GENERAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS SEC.
3282, CARRIED WITH IT THE PURPOSE OF THE CODIFICATION.  THAT PURPOSE
MAKES SECS. 3287 AND 3282 APPLICABLE NOT MERELY PROSPECTIVELY TO
SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES, BUT FORTHWITH TO EXISTING OFFENSES IN THE SAME
MANNER AND WITH THE SAME EFFECT AS IF THE REENACTED PROVISIONS HAD
REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY IN EFFECT IN THEIR SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL
PRECODIFICATION FORM.  CODIFICATION CONTEMPLATES, IMPLIES AND PRODUCES
CONTINUITY OF EXISTING LAW IN CLARIFIED FORM RATHER THAN ITS
INTERRUPTION. 

THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT THEREFORE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY OVERT ACT ALLEGED IN NO.
636 TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN 1947.  ANY SUCH ACT WAS COMMITTED AFTER
THE PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION OF THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES DECEMBER
31, 1946, 3 CFR, 1946 SUPP., 77-78, AND, THEREFORE, AFTER THE PERIOD TO
WHICH THE SUSPENSION ACT APPLIED.  UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 342 U.S.
225. 

THE INDICTMENT IN NO. 636 IS NOT EXPLICIT ENOUGH AS TO THE OVERT ACTS
SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS NUMBERED 2, 3 AND 4, UNDER COUNT TWO, TO SHOW
THAT THE ISSUANCE OR ENDORSEMENT OR CERTAIN CHECKS THERE DESCRIBED
CONSTITUTED AN ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES.  THE SUSPENSION
ACT, ACCORDINGLY, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE APPLICABLE TO THEM.  THESE
ITEMS HAVE NOT BEEN SEPARATELY DISCUSSED BY THE PARTIES, AND ARE
MENTIONED HERE TO AVOID THE APPLICATION OF OUR GENERAL CONCLUSIONS TO
THEM IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 

FN2  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3287. 

FN3  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3282. 

FN4  SEC. 35(A) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 52 STAT. 197, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
80, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 287. 

FN5  COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION WAS A DELAWARE CORPORATION IN WHICH
THE UNITED STATES WAS A STOCKHOLDER.  IN 1945 AND 1946 IT SERVED AS AN
AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES IN MAKING LOANS OR PURCHASES IN CONNECTION
WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE PRODUCTION OF MANY COMMODITIES.  15 U.S.C.
SECS. 713-713A-9; 1 CFR, 1938, 659-678.  SEE ALSO, COMMODITY CREDIT
CORPORATION CHARTER ACT OF JUNE 29, 1948, 62 STAT. 1070, AS AMENDED, 15
U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SECS. 714-714O. 

FN6  SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 35 STAT. 1096, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88,
NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 371.  SEE ALSO, 52 STAT. 197, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 83, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 286. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN8  "AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES
FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS DIRECT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES: 

"FROM A DECISION OR JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE, OR DISMISSING ANY
INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION, OR ANY COUNT THEREOF, WHERE SUCH DECISION OR
JUDGMENT IS BASED UPON THE INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION IS FOUNDED. 

     *         *         *         *    * 

"FROM THE DECISION OR JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A MOTION IN BAR, WHEN THE
DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN JEOPARDY  ...  ."  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 3731. 

IN ITS NOTICES OF APPEAL, THE UNITED STATES SAID MERELY THAT IT
APPEALED FROM THE SEVERAL ORDERS DISMISSING THE RESPECTIVE
INDICTMENTS.  IN ITS COMBINED STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION IT RELIED UPON
ITS RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A MOTION IN BAR WHERE
THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN JEOPARDY.  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER,
NOW SUGGESTS THAT ITS APPEALS ARE BASED UPON THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTES UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENTS ARE FOUNDED AND
IT SEEKS TO RESTRICT US TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
VIEW OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THOSE STATUTES AND THE SUSPENSION ACT,
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF APPELLEES THAT THE EXTENSION OF TIME
PROVIDED BY THE SUSPENSION ACT EXPIRED BEFORE THE INDICTMENTS WERE
FOUND.  WE TREAT THE APPEALS AS PRESENTING BOTH ISSUES.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188; UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT
CORP., 299 U.S. 304.  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V. HARK, 320 U.S. 531,
536; UNITED STATES V. GOLDMAN, 277 U.S. 229, 236-237; UNITED STATES V.
BARBER, 219 U.S. 72, 78; AND UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, 218 U.S. 601,
606. 

FN9  "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY LAW, NO PERSON SHALL
BE PROSECUTED, TRIED, OR PUNISHED FOR ANY OFFENSE, NOT CAPITAL, UNLESS
THE INDICTMENT IS FOUND OR THE INFORMATION IS INSTITUTED WITHIN THREE
YEARS NEXT AFTER SUCH OFFENSE SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED."  18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 3282. 

FN10  "WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR THE RUNNING OF ANY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ANY OFFENSE (1) INVOLVING FRAUD OR ATTEMPTED
FRAUD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF IN ANY MANNER,
WHETHER BY CONSPIRACY OR NOT, OR (2) COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ACQUISITION, CARE, HANDLING, CUSTODY, CONTROL OR DISPOSITION OF ANY
REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR (3) COMMITTED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE NEGOTIATION, PROCUREMENT, AWARD, PERFORMANCE,
PAYMENT FOR, INTERIM FINANCING, CANCELATION, OR OTHER TERMINATION OR
SETTLEMENT, OF ANY CONTRACT, SUBCONTRACT, OR PURCHASE ORDER WHICH IS
CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR, OR WITH ANY
DISPOSITION OF TERMINATION INVENTORY BY ANY WAR CONTRACTOR OR
GOVERNMENT AGENCY, SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THREE YEARS AFTER THE
TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES AS PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT OR BY A
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS."  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3287. 

THE ABOVE ACT ORIGINATED IN 1942 AND WAS AMPLIFIED IN 1944.  IN 1945
AND 1946, IT CONTAINED SUBSTANTIALLY THE TERMS SHOWN ABOVE WHICH WENT
INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1, 1948.  56 STAT. 747-748, 58 STAT. 667, 781, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 590A. 

FN11  52 STAT. 197, 18 U.S.C. SECS. 80, 83, 84, 85.  IN THE
CODIFICATION OF 1948, SEC. 80 WAS SUBDIVIDED BY PLACING ITS FALSE
CLAIMS CLAUSE IN SEC. 287, AND ITS FALSE STATEMENT CLAUSE IN SEC. 1001,
OF 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V).  THE SPECIAL CONSPIRACY CLAUSE, FOUND IN SEC.
83, BECAME SEC. 286 IN SUPP. V. 

FN12  3 CFR, 1946 SUPP., 77-78. 

FN13  UNITED STATES V. SCHARTON, 285 U.S. 518; UNITED STATES V.
MCELVAIN, 272 U.S. 633; UNITED STATES V. NOVECK, 271 U.S. 201. 

FN14  THE FALSE STATEMENT CLAUSE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT, WHICH WAS
INVOLVED IN MARZANI V. UNITED STATES, 83 U.S. APP. D.C. 78, 168 F.2D
133, AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 335 U.S. 895, 336 U.S. 922,
PROVIDES MERELY THAT "WHOEVER SHALL  ...  MAKE  ...  ANY FALSE OR
FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS  ...  IN ANY MATTER WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY
CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER  ...
SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN
YEARS, OR BOTH."  52 STAT. 197, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 80, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP.
V) SEC. 1001.  CASES ARISING UNDER THAT CLAUSE NEED NOT BE DISCUSSED
HERE AND THE REFERENCES MADE IN THEM TO OFFENSES ARISING GENERALLY
UNDER THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT SHOULD BE READ AS REFERRING TO ITS FALSE
STATEMENT CLAUSE RATHER THAN TO ITS FALSE CLAIMS CLAUSE OR TO THE ACT
AS A WHOLE. 

FN15  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3287. 

FN16  52 STAT. 197. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS,
ADOPTING THE REASONING IN THE OPINION OF JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN UNITED
STATES V. KLINGER, 199 F.2D 645, WOULD AFFIRM THE DISTRICT COURT IN
DISMISSING THESE INDICTMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











BARROWS V. JACKSON 346 U.S. 249 


NO. 517.  ARGUED APRIL 28-29, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 15, 1953 - 112 CAL.
APP. 2D 534, 247 P.2D 99, AFFIRMED. 


THE ENFORCEMENT OF A COVENANT FORBIDDING USE AND OCCUPANCY OF REAL
ESTATE BY NON-CAUCASIANS, BY AN ACTION AT LAW IN A STATE COURT TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FROM A CO-COVENANTOR FOR A BREACH OF THE COVENANT, IS
BARRED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP.
251-260. 

(A)  THE ACTION OF A STATE COURT IN THUS SANCTIONING A RACIAL
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WOULD CONSTITUTE STATE ACTION WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 254. 

(B)  STATE ACTION IN ALLOWING DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A COVENANT NOT TO
PERMIT NON-CAUCASIANS TO USE AND OCCUPY THEIR PROPERTY WOULD DEPRIVE
SUCH NON-CAUCASIANS, UNIDENTIFIED BUT IDENTIFIABLE, OF EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 254. 

(C)  THE PRINCIPLE THAT A PERSON CANNOT CHALLENGE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE UNLESS HE SHOWS THAT HE HIMSELF IS
INJURED BY ITS OPERATION HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE INSTANT CASE, IN
WHICH RESPONDENT HAS BEEN SUED FOR DAMAGES TOTALING $11,600, AND IN
WHICH A JUDGMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT WOULD CONSTITUTE A DIRECT
POCKETBOOK INJURY TO HER.  PP. 254-256. 

(D)  UNDER THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE REASONS WHICH
UNDERLIE THE RULE DENYING STANDING TO RAISE ANOTHER'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, WHICH IS ONLY A RULE OF PRACTICE, ARE OUTWEIGHED BY THE NEED TO
PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WHICH WOULD BE DENIED BY PERMITTING THE
DAMAGES ACTION TO BE MAINTAINED.  P. 257. 

(E)  THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS
A "PERSONAL" RIGHT, GUARANTEED TO THE INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN TO GROUPS
OR CLASSES, IS NOT HERE VIOLATED, SINCE IT IS NOT NON-CAUCASIANS AS A
GROUP WHOSE RIGHTS ARE ASSERTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE DAMAGES ACTION,
BUT THE RIGHTS OF PARTICULAR NON-CAUCASIAN WOULD-BE USERS OF RESTRICTED
LAND.  PP. 259-260. 

(F)  THE PROVISION OF ART. I, SEC. 10 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
THAT "NO STATE SHALL  ...  PASS ANY  ...  LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION
OF CONTRACTS," IS NOT VIOLATED BY THE REFUSAL OF A STATE COURT TO
ENFORCE A RACIAL RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, SINCE THAT PROVISION IS DIRECTED
AGAINST LEGISLATIVE ACTION ONLY, NOT AGAINST THE JUDGMENTS OF COURTS. 
P. 260. 

(G)  THE PLAINTIFFS IN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A RACIAL
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ARE NOT DENIED DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS BY THE STATE COURT'S REFUSAL TO ENFORCE THE COVENANT, SINCE
THE CONSTITUTION CONFERS UPON NO INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ACTION
BY THE STATE WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS TO OTHERS.  P. 260. 

BARROWS ET AL. V. JACKSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT. 

PETITIONERS SUED RESPONDENT IN A CALIFORNIA STATE COURT TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF A RACIAL RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.  THE
TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT.  THE DISTRICT COURT
OF APPEAL AFFIRMED.  112 CAL. APP. 2D 534, 247 P.2D 99.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT DENIED A HEARING.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  345
U.S. 902.  AFFIRMED, P. 260. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS COURT HELD IN SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1, THAT RACIAL
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS COULD NOT BE ENFORCED IN EQUITY AGAINST NEGRO
PURCHASERS BECAUSE SUCH ENFORCEMENT WOULD CONSTITUTE STATE ACTION
DENYING EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO THE NEGROES, IN VIOLATION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE QUESTION WE
NOW HAVE IS: CAN SUCH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BE ENFORCED AT LAW BY A
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST A CO-COVENANTOR WHO ALLEGEDLY BROKE THE
COVENANT? 

PETITIONERS (FN1) SUED RESPONDENT AT LAW FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO AS OWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL
REAL ESTATE IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA.  THE
PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT ALLEGED IN PART: 

"THAT BY THE TERMS OF SAID AGREEMENT EACH OF THE SIGNERS PROMISED AND
AGREED IN WRITING AND BOUND HIMSELF, HIS HEIRS, EXECUTORS,
ADMINISTRATORS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS, BY A CONTINUING COVENANT THAT
NO PART OF HIS SAID REAL PROPERTY, DESCRIBED THEREIN, SHOULD EVER AT
ANY TIME BE USED OR OCCUPIED BY ANY PERSON OR PERSONS NOT WHOLLY OF THE
WHITE OR CAUCASIAN RACE, AND ALSO AGREED AND PROMISED IN WRITING THAT
THIS RESTRICTION SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN ALL PAPERS AND TRANSFERS OF
LOTS OR PARCELS OF LAND HEREINABOVE REFERRED TO; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT SAID RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOT PREVENT THE EMPLOYMENT BY THE OWNERS
OR TENANTS OF SAID REAL PROPERTY OF DOMESTIC SERVANTS OR OTHER
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT WHOLLY OF THE WHITE OR CAUCASIAN RACE; PROVIDED,
FURTHER, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO OCCUPY SAID
REAL PROPERTY ONLY WHEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN SUCH EMPLOYMENT.  THAT SAID
AGREEMENT WAS AGREED TO BE A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND.  THAT EACH
PROVISION IN SAID AGREEMENT WAS FOR THE BENEFIT FOR ALL THE LOTS
THEREIN DESCRIBED." 

THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT BROKE THE COVENANT IN
TWO RESPECTS:  (1) BY CONVEYING HER REAL ESTATE WITHOUT INCORPORATING
IN THE DEED THE RESTRICTION CONTAINED IN THE COVENANT; AND (2) BY
PERMITTING NON-CAUCASIANS TO MOVE IN AND OCCUPY THE PREMISES.  THE
TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT, THE DISTRICT COURT
OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT AFFIRMED, 112 CAL. APP. 2D
534, 247 P.2D 99, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA DENIED HEARING. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 345 U.S. 902, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION INVOLVED AND TO CONSIDER THE CONFLICT WHICH HAS
ARISEN IN THE DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURTS SINCE OUR RULING IN THE
SHELLEY CASE, SUPRA.  LIKE THE CALIFORNIA COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE,
THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN SUSTAINED THE DISMISSAL OF A CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A RACIAL RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, PHILLIPS V. NAFF,
332 MICH. 389, 52 N.W.2D 158.  SEE ALSO ROBERTS V. CURTIS, 93 F. SUPP.
604 (DIST. COL.).  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI REACHED A CONTRARY
RESULT, WEISS V. LEAON, 359 MO. 1054, 225 S.W.2D 127, WHILE THE SUPREME
COURT OF OKLAHOMA HAS HELD THAT A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES MAY BE MAINTAINED
AGAINST A WHITE SELLER, AN INTERMEDIATE STRAW MAN, AND A NON-CAUCASIAN
PURCHASER FOR A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE COVENANT, CORRELL V. EARLEY,
205 OKLA. 366, 237 P.2D 1017. 

THE TRIAL COURT IN THE CASE HERE HELD THAT A PARTY TO A COVENANT
RESTRICTING USE AND OCCUPANCY (FN2) OF REAL ESTATE TO CAUCASIANS COULD
NOT MAINTAIN A SUIT AT LAW AGAINST A CO-COVENANTOR FOR BREACH OF THE
COVENANT BECAUSE OF OUR RULING IN SHELLEY, SUPRA. IN SHELLEY, THIS
COURT HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE LOWER COURTS IN GRANTING EQUITABLE
RELIEF IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH COVENANTS CONSTITUTED STATE ACTION
DENYING TO NEGROES, AGAINST WHOM THE COVENANT WAS SOUGHT TO BE
ENFORCED, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THIS COURT SAID: 

"WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS STANDING
ALONE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS VIOLATIVE OF ANY RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO
PETITIONERS BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SO LONG AS THE PURPOSES OF
THOSE AGREEMENTS ARE EFFECTUATED BY VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE TO THEIR TERMS,
IT WOULD APPEAR CLEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTION BY THE STATE AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT HAVE NOT BEEN VIOLATED  ...  ."  334
U.S. 1, 13. 

THAT IS TO SAY, THE LAW APPLICABLE IN THAT CASE DID NOT MAKE THE
COVENANT ITSELF INVALID, NO ONE WOULD BE PUNISHED FOR MAKING IT, AND NO
ONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY THE COVENANTOR'S VOLUNTARY
ADHERENCE THERETO.  SUCH VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE WOULD CONSTITUTE
INDIVIDUAL ACTION ONLY.  WHEN, HOWEVER, THE PARTIES CEASE TO RELY UPON
VOLUNTARY ACTION TO CARRY OUT THE COVENANT AND THE STATE IS ASKED TO
STEP IN AND GIVE ITS SANCTION TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE COVENANT, THE
FIRST QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHETHER A COURT'S AWARDING DAMAGES
CONSTITUTES STATE ACTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  TO COMPEL
RESPONDENT TO RESPOND IN DAMAGES WOULD BE FOR THE STATE TO PUNISH HER
FOR HER FAILURE TO PERFORM HER COVENANT TO CONTINUE TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST NON-CAUCASIANS IN THE USE OF HER PROPERTY.  THE RESULT OF THAT
SANCTION BY THE STATE WOULD BE TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS.  TO THAT EXTENT, THE STATE WOULD ACT TO PUT ITS SANCTION
BEHIND THE COVENANTS.  IF THE STATE MAY THUS PUNISH RESPONDENT FOR HER
FAILURE TO CARRY OUT HER COVENANT, SHE IS COERCED TO CONTINUE TO USE
HER PROPERTY IN A DISCRIMINATORY MANNER, WHICH IN ESSENCE IS THE
PURPOSE OF THE COVENANT.  THUS, IT BECOMES NOT RESPONDENT'S VOLUNTARY
CHOICE BUT THE STATE'S CHOICE THAT SHE OBSERVE HER COVENANT OR SUFFER
DAMAGES.  THE ACTION OF A STATE COURT AT LAW TO SANCTION THE VALIDITY
OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT HERE INVOLVED WOULD CONSTITUTE STATE ACTION
AS SURELY AS IT WAS STATE ACTION TO ENFORCE SUCH COVENANTS IN EQUITY,
AS IN SHELLEY, SUPRA. 

THE NEXT QUESTION TO EMERGE IS WHETHER THE STATE ACTION IN ALLOWING
DAMAGES DEPRIVES ANYONE OF RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  IF A
STATE COURT AWARDS DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, A
PROSPECTIVE SELLER OF RESTRICTED LAND WILL EITHER REFUSE TO SELL TO NON
CAUCASIANS OR ELSE WILL REQUIRE NON-CAUCASIANS TO PAY A HIGHER PRICE TO
MEET THE DAMAGES WHICH THE SELLER MAY INCUR.  SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR
RACE, NON-CAUCASIANS WILL BE UNABLE TO PURCHASE, OWN, AND ENJOY
PROPERTY ON THE SAME TERMS AS CAUCASIANS.  DENIAL OF THIS RIGHT BY
STATE ACTION DEPRIVES SUCH NON-CAUCASIANS, UNIDENTIFIED BUT
IDENTIFIABLE, OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE SHELLEY, SUPRA. 

BUT UNLIKE SHELLEY, SUPRA, NO NON-CAUCASIAN IS BEFORE THE COURT
CLAIMING TO HAVE BEEN DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  MAY
RESPONDENT, WHOM PETITIONERS SEEK TO COERCE BY AN ACTION TO PAY DAMAGES
FOR HER FAILURE TO HONOR HER RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, RELY ON THE INVASION
OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS IN HER DEFENSE TO THIS ACTION? 

ORDINARILY, ONE MAY NOT CLAIM STANDING IN THIS COURT TO VINDICATE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF SOME THIRD PARTY.  REFERENCE TO THIS RULE IS
MADE IN VARIED SITUATIONS.  SEE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMM. V.
MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 123, 149-154 (CONCURRING OPINION).  THE REQUIREMENT
OF STANDING IS OFTEN USED TO DESCRIBE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION ON
THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO "CASES" AND "CONTROVERSIES."  SEE
COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, 464 (CONCURRING OPINION).  APART FROM
THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT, THIS COURT HAS DEVELOPED A
COMPLEMENTARY RULE OF SELF-RESTRAINT FOR ITS OWN GOVERNANCE (NOT ALWAYS
CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION) WHICH
ORDINARILY PRECLUDES A PERSON FROM CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
STATE ACTION BY INVOKING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.  SEE ASHWANDER V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 346-348 (CONCURRING
OPINION).  THE COMMON THREAD UNDERLYING BOTH REQUIREMENTS IS THAT A
PERSON CANNOT CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE UNLESS HE
SHOWS THAT HE HIMSELF IS INJURED BY ITS OPERATION.  (FN3) THIS
PRINCIPLE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE INSTANT CASE IN WHICH RESPONDENT
HAS BEEN SUED FOR DAMAGES TOTALING $11,600, AND IN WHICH A JUDGMENT
AGAINST RESPONDENT WOULD CONSTITUTE A DIRECT, POCKETBOOK INJURY TO
HER. 

THERE ARE STILL OTHER CASES IN WHICH THE COURT HAS HELD THAT EVEN
THOUGH A PARTY WILL SUFFER A DIRECT SUBSTANTIAL INJURY FROM APPLICATION
OF A STATUTE, HE CANNOT CHALLENGE ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY UNLESS HE CAN
SHOW THAT HE IS WITHIN THE CLASS WHOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE
ALLEGEDLY INFRINGED.  BODE V. BARRETT, 344 U.S. 583, 585; JEFFREY MFG.
CO. V. BLAGG, 235 U.S. 571, 576; NEW YORK EX REL. HATCH V. REARDON, 204
U.S. 152, 160-161; SEE ALSO TENNESSEE ELEC.  POWER CO. V. TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY, 306 U.S. 118, 144.  (FN4)  ONE REASON FOR THIS RULING
IS THAT THE STATE COURT, WHEN ACTUALLY FACED WITH THE QUESTION, MIGHT
NARROWLY CONSTRUE THE STATUTE TO OBLITERATE THE OBJECTIONABLE FEATURE,
OR IT MIGHT DECLARE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS SEPARABLE.  NEW
YORK EX REL. HATCH V. REARDON, SUPRA, AT 160-161; WUCHTER V. PIZZUTTI,
276 U.S. 13, 26-28 (DISSENTING OPINION).  IT WOULD INDEED BE
UNDESIRABLE FOR THIS COURT TO CONSIDER EVERY CONCEIVABLE SITUATION
WHICH MIGHT POSSIBLY ARISE IN THE APPLICATION OF COMPLEX AND
COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION.  NOR ARE WE SO READY TO FRUSTRATE THE
EXPRESSED WILL OF CONGRESS OR THAT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES.  CF.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167, 172. 

THIS IS A SALUTARY RULE, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH WE REAFFIRM.  BUT IN
THE INSTANT CASE, WE ARE FACED WITH A UNIQUE SITUATION IN WHICH IT IS
THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURT WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN A DENIAL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IN WHICH IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT IF NOT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PERSONS WHOSE RIGHTS ARE ASSERTED TO PRESENT THEIR
GRIEVANCE BEFORE ANY COURT.  UNDER THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, WE BELIEVE THE REASONS WHICH UNDERLIE OUR RULE DENYING STANDING
TO RAISE ANOTHER'S RIGHTS, WHICH IS ONLY A RULE OF PRACTICE, ARE
OUTWEIGHED BY THE NEED TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WHICH WOULD BE
DENIED BY PERMITTING THE DAMAGES ACTION TO BE MAINTAINED.  CF. QUONG
HAM WAH CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACC.  COMM'N, 184 CAL. 26, 192 P. 1021. 

IN OTHER UNIQUE SITUATIONS WHICH HAVE ARISEN IN THE PAST, BROAD
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY HAS LED THE COURT TO PROCEED WITHOUT REGARD TO
ITS USUAL RULE.  IN PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, A STATE
STATUTE REQUIRED ALL PARENTS (WITH CERTAIN IMMATERIAL EXCEPTIONS) TO
SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  A PRIVATE AND A PAROCHIAL
SCHOOL BROUGHT SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT
IT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PARENTS AND GUARDIANS.  NO
PARENT OR GUARDIAN TO WHOM THE ACT APPLIED WAS A PARTY OR BEFORE THE
COURT.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
"UNREASONABLY INTERFERES WITH THE LIBERTY OF PARENTS AND GUARDIANS TO
DIRECT THE UPBRINGING AND EDUCATION OF CHILDREN UNDER THEIR CONTROL." 
PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, SUPRA, AT 534-535.  IN SHORT, THE SCHOOLS
WERE PERMITTED TO ASSERT IN DEFENSE OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PARENTS AND GUARDIANS.  SEE ALSO JOINT
ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMM. V. MCGRATH, SUPRA, AT 141, 153-154; COLUMBIA
BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407, 422-423; HELVERING
V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; UNITED STATES
V. RAILROAD CO., 17 WALL.  322; QUONG HAM WAH CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACC. 
COMM'N, SUPRA; CF. UNITED STATES V. JEFFERS, 342 U.S. 48, 52; FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. SANDERS BROTHERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470;
WUCHTER V. PIZZUTTI, SUPRA. 

THERE IS SUCH A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
HERE AND THE SANCTION OF A STATE COURT WHICH WOULD PUNISH RESPONDENT
FOR NOT GOING FORWARD WITH HER COVENANT, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE
COVENANT ITSELF, THAT RELAXATION OF THE RULE IS CALLED FOR HERE.  IT
SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS THAT MULCTING IN DAMAGES OF RESPONDENT WILL BE
SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING VITALITY TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT,
THAT IS TO SAY, TO PUNISH RESPONDENT FOR NOT CONTINUING TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST NON-CAUCASIANS IN THE USE OF HER PROPERTY.  THIS COURT WILL NOT
PERMIT OR REQUIRE CALIFORNIA TO COERCE RESPONDENT TO RESPOND IN DAMAGES
FOR FAILURE TO OBSERVE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT THIS COURT WOULD
DENY CALIFORNIA THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE IN EQUITY, SHELLEY, SUPRA; OR THAT
THIS COURT WOULD DENY CALIFORNIA THE RIGHT TO INCORPORATE IN A STATUTE,
BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60; OR THAT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED IN A
FEDERAL JURISDICTION BECAUSE SUCH A COVENANT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO
PUBLIC POLICY: 

"IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO
PERMIT FEDERAL COURTS IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL TO EXERCISE GENERAL
EQUITABLE POWERS TO COMPEL ACTION DENIED THE STATE COURTS WHERE SUCH
STATE ACTION HAS BEEN HELD TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE GUARANTY OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  WE CANNOT PRESUME THAT THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
THE UNITED STATES MANIFESTS A LESSER CONCERN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SUCH
BASIC RIGHTS AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY ACTION OF FEDERAL COURTS THAN
AGAINST SUCH ACTION TAKEN BY THE COURTS OF THE STATES."  HURD V. HODGE,
334 U.S. 24, 35-36.  SEE ALSO ROBERTS V. CURTIS, SUPRA.    CONSISTENCY
IN THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE IN THIS COURT DOES NOT
REQUIRE US IN THIS UNIQUE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO PUT THE STATE IN SUCH
AN EQUIVOCAL POSITION SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE INJURY
IS DIRECTED IS NOT BEFORE THE COURT TO SPEAK FOR HIMSELF.  THE LAW WILL
PERMIT RESPONDENT TO RESIST ANY EFFORT TO COMPEL HER TO OBSERVE SUCH A
COVENANT, SO WIDELY CONDEMNED BY THE COURTS, SINCE SHE IS THE ONE IN
WHOSE CHARGE AND KEEPING REPOSES THE POWER TO CONTINUE TO USE HER
PROPERTY TO DISCRIMINATE OR TO DISCONTINUE SUCH USE.  THE RELATION
BETWEEN THE COERCION EXERTED ON RESPONDENT AND HER POSSIBLE PECUNIARY
LOSS THEREBY IS SO CLOSE TO THE PURPOSE OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, TO
VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THOSE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, THAT
RESPONDENT IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE ADVERSARY OF THE UNWORTHY COVENANT IN
ITS LAST STAND.  SHE WILL BE PERMITTED TO PROTECT HERSELF AND, BY SO
DOING, CLOSE THE GAP TO THE USE OF THIS COVENANT, SO UNIVERSALLY
CONDEMNED BY THE COURTS. 

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS A
"PERSONAL" RIGHT, GUARANTEED TO THE INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN TO GROUPS OR
CLASSES.  FOR INSTANCE, DISCRIMINATORY DENIAL OF SLEEPING-CAR AND
DINING-CAR FACILITIES TO AN INDIVIDUAL NEGRO CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON THE
GROUND THAT THERE IS LITTLE DEMAND FOR SUCH FACILITIES BY NEGROES AS A
GROUP.  MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO., 235 U.S. 151, 161-162.  SEE
SWEATT V. PAINTER, 339 U.S. 629, 635.  THIS DESCRIPTION OF THE RIGHT AS
"PERSONAL," WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN USED,
OBVIOUSLY HAS NO BEARING ON THE QUESTION OF STANDING.  NOR DO WE
VIOLATE THIS PRINCIPLE BY PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS NOT
IDENTIFIED IN THIS RECORD.  FOR INSTANCE, IN THE PIERCE CASE, THE
PERSONS WHOSE RIGHTS WERE INVOKED WERE IDENTIFIED ONLY AS "PRESENT AND
PROSPECTIVE PATRONS" OF THE TWO SCHOOLS.  PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS,
SUPRA, AT 535.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT NON-CAUCASIANS AS A
GROUP WHOSE RIGHTS ARE ASSERTED BY RESPONDENT, BUT THE RIGHTS OF
PARTICULAR NON-CAUCASIAN WOULD-BE USERS OF RESTRICTED LAND. 

IT IS CONTENDED BY PETITIONERS THAT FOR CALIFORNIA COURTS TO REFUSE
TO ENFORCE THIS COVENANT IS TO IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THEIR
CONTRACTS.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:
"NO STATE SHALL  ...  PASS ANY  ...  LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF
CONTRACTS  ...  ."  THE SHORT ANSWER TO THIS CONTENTION IS THAT THIS
PROVISION, AS ITS TERMS INDICATE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST LEGISLATIVE
ACTION ONLY. 

"IT HAS BEEN SETTLED BY A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS, THAT THE PROVISION
OF SEC. 10, ARTICLE I, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, PROTECTING THE
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS AGAINST STATE ACTION, IS DIRECTED ONLY AGAINST
IMPAIRMENT BY LEGISLATION AND NOT BY JUDGMENTS OF COURTS  ...  ." 
TIDAL OIL CO. V. FLANAGAN, 263 U.S. 444, 451. 

IT IS FINALLY CONTENDED THAT PETITIONERS ARE DENIED DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS BY THE FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE COVENANT. 
THE ANSWER TO THAT PROPOSITION IS STATED BY THE COURT IN SHELLEY,
SUPRA, IN THESE WORDS: 

"THE CONSTITUTION CONFERS UPON NO INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO DEMAND
ACTION BY THE STATE WHICH RESULTS IN THE DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS  ...  ."  334 U.S. 1, 22. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PETITIONER PIKAAR WAS NOT A SIGNER OF THE COVENANT BUT IS
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF A SIGNER. 

FN2  THERE IS NO QUESTION OF RESTRAINT OF SALE HERE, AS AGREEMENTS
RESTRAINING SALE OF LAND TO MEMBERS OF DEFINED RACIAL GROUPS HAVE LONG
BEEN HELD UNENFORCEABLE IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THEY CONTRAVENED THE
STATE'S STATUTORY RULE AND PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST RESTRAINTS ON
ALIENATION.  WAYT V. PATEE, 205 CAL. 46, 269 P. 660; TITLE GUARANTEE &
TRUST CO. V. GARROTT, 42 CAL. APP. 152, 183 P. 470. 

FN3  SEE FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 486-489 (FEDERAL
TAXPAYER SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE A FEDERAL STATUTE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
WHICH FEDERAL REVENUES WERE APPLIED); DOREMUS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION,
342 U.S. 429, 434 (STATE TAXPAYER UNABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS "A
MEASURABLE APPROPRIATION OR DISBURSEMENT OF  ...  FUNDS OCCASIONED
SOLELY BY THE STATE ACTIVITIES COMPLAINED OF"); TILESTON V. ULLMAN, 318
U.S. 44 (DOCTOR SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A STATE STATUTE
WOULD DEPRIVE CERTAIN OF HIS PATIENTS OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW); TYLER V. JUDGES OF THE COURT OF REGISTRATION, 179 U.S.
405, 410 (LANDOWNER SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE THE NOTICE PROVISIONS FOR A
LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDING IN WHICH HE HAD NOT MADE HIMSELF A PARTY,
ALTHOUGH HE HAD NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND EVEN THOUGH "HIS
INTEREST IN THE LAND WOULD REMAIN UNAFFECTED" IF THE ACT WERE
SUBSEQUENTLY DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL); GANGE LUMBER CO. V. ROWLEY,
326 U.S. 295; ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 478-480; CF.
MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO., 235 U.S. 151, 162-164 (FOUR NEGROES
WHO SOUGHT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRIMINATORY STATE ACTION DENIED
RELIEF ON THE GROUND THAT THEY FAILED TO ALLEGE THAT THEY THEMSELVES
HAD SUFFERED, OR WERE ABOUT TO SUFFER, DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT FOR
WHICH THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW).  AND COMPARE DOREMUS V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA, WITH ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203, 206, 234. 

FN4  CF. GOLDSTEIN V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 114; HALE V. HENKEL,
201 U.S. 43, 69-70, AND THE LOWER COURT CASES WHICH RESTRICT TO THE
PERSON WHOSE PREMISES WERE INVADED THE RIGHT TO HAVE ILLEGALLY-SEIZED
EVIDENCE EXCLUDED.  THE RIGHTS IN THESE CASES ARE OBVIOUSLY CLOSELY
LINKED TO THE PERSON OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE, WE ARE TOLD, IS "UNIQUE."  I AGREE WITH THE
CHARACTERIZATION.  THE COURT, BY A UNIQUE SPECIES OF ARGUMENTS, HAS
DEVELOPED A UNIQUE EXCEPTION TO AN OTHERWISE EASILY UNDERSTOOD
DOCTRINE.  WHILE I MAY HOPE THAT THE MAJORITY'S USE OF "UNIQUE" IS BUT
ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT THE DECISION TODAY WILL BE RELEGATED TO ITS
PRECISE FACTS TOMORROW, I MUST VOICE MY DISSENT. 

THE MAJORITY SEEMS TO RECOGNIZE, ALBEIT IGNORES, A PROPOSITION WHICH
I THOUGHT WAS MADE PLAIN IN THE SHELLEY CASE.  (FN1)  THAT PROPOSITION
IS THIS:  THESE RACIAL RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHATEVER WE MAY THINK OF
THEM, ARE NOT LEGAL NULLITIES SO FAR AS ANY DOCTRINE OF FEDERAL LAW IS
CONCERNED; IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL TO MAKE THEM; IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL TO
ENFORCE THEM UNLESS THE METHOD BY WHICH THEY ARE ENFORCED IN SOME WAY
CONTRAVENES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR A FEDERAL STATUTE. 

THUS, IN THE SHELLEY CASE, IT WAS NOT THE COVENANTS WHICH WERE STRUCK
DOWN BUT JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF THEM AGAINST NEGRO VENDEES.  THE
QUESTION WHICH WE DECIDED WAS SIMPLY WHETHER A STATE COURT COULD DECREE
THE OUSTER OF NEGROES FROM PROPERTY WHICH THEY HAD PURCHASED AND WHICH
THEY WERE ENJOYING.  WE HELD THAT IT COULD NOT.  WE HELD THAT SUCH
JUDICIAL ACTION, WHICH OPERATED DIRECTLY AGAINST THE NEGRO PETITIONERS
AND DEPRIVED THEM OF THEIR RIGHT TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY SOLELY BECAUSE
OF THEIR RACE, WAS STATE ACTION AND CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF "EQUAL
PROTECTION."  (FN2) 

THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT. 

THE MAJORITY IDENTIFIES NO NON-CAUCASIAN WHO HAS BEEN INJURED OR
COULD BE INJURED IF DAMAGES ARE ASSESSED AGAINST RESPONDENT FOR
BREACHING THE PROMISE WHICH SHE WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE TO
PETITIONERS, A PROMISE WHICH NEITHER THE FEDERAL LAW NOR THE
CONSTITUTION PROSCRIBES.  INDEED, THE NON-CAUCASIAN OCCUPANTS OF THE
PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WILL CONTINUE THEIR OCCUPANCY
UNDISTURBED, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE SUIT.  THE STATE COURT
WAS ASKED TO DO NOTHING WHICH WOULD IMPAIR THEIR RIGHTS OR THEIR
ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 

THE PLAIN, ADMITTED FACT THAT THERE IS NO IDENTIFIABLE NON-CAUCASIAN
BEFORE THIS COURT WHO WILL BE DENIED ANY RIGHT TO BUY, OCCUPY OR
OTHERWISE ENJOY THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED IN THIS LAWSUIT, OR ANY OTHER
PARTICULAR PROPERTIES, IS DECISIVE TO ME.  IT MEANS THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, PRESENT IN THE SHELLEY CASE, IS REMOVED FROM
THIS CASE.  IT MEANS THAT THIS COURT HAS NO POWER TO DEAL WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WHICH RESPONDENT SEEKS TO INJECT IN THIS
LITIGATION AS A DEFENSE TO HER BREACH OF CONTRACT.  IT MEANS THAT THE
COVENANT, VALID ON ITS FACE, CAN BE ENFORCED BETWEEN THE PARTIES -
UNLESS CALIFORNIA LAW OR CALIFORNIA POLICY FORBIDS ITS ENFORCEMENT -
WITHOUT RUNNING AFOUL OF ANY DOCTRINE EVER PROMULGATED BY THIS COURT,
WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE FROM THIS COURT. 

I TURN, FIRST, TO THE MATTER OF OUR POWER TO DECIDE THIS CASE.  THE
MAJORITY STATES THE ISSUE: 

"  ...  MAY RESPONDENT, WHOM PETITIONERS SEEK TO COERCE BY AN ACTION
TO PAY DAMAGES FOR HER FAILURE TO HONOR HER RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, RELY
ON THE INVASION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS IN HER DEFENSE TO THIS
ACTION?" 

LOGICALLY THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE MET WHERE SUCH AN ISSUE IS USUALLY MET
- AT THE "THRESHOLD"; (FN3) THIS DECISION SHOULD PRECEDE ANY DISCUSSION
OF THE MERITS OF RESPONDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.  YET IT IS NOT
AMISS TO POINT OUT THAT THE MAJORITY HAS FAILED TO PUT FIRST THINGS
FIRST; IT DECIDES THE MERITS AND THEN, COMFORTED BY ITS DECISION ON THE
MERITS, RESOLVES ITS DOUBTS THAT IT HAS POWER TO DECIDE THE MERITS. 

A LINE OF DECISIONS - LONG ENOUGH TO WARRANT THE RESPECT OF EVEN THE
MOST HARDENED SKEPTIC OF THE STRENGTH OF STARE DECISIS AS AN EFFECTIVE
LIMITATION UPON THIS COURT'S EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IN CONSTITUTIONAL
CASES - ESTABLISHES THE PRINCIPLE (FN4) WHICH SHOULD STAY THIS COURT
FROM DECIDING WHAT IT DECIDES TODAY - FROM DOING WHAT IT DOES TODAY -
FROM IMPOSING A NOVEL CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION UPON THE POWER OF THE
COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES TO ENFORCE THEIR OWN CONTRACT LAWS AS THEY
CHOOSE.  THIS DEEP-ROOTED, VITAL DOCTRINE DEMANDS THAT THE COURT
REFRAIN FROM DECIDING A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE UNTIL IT HAS A PARTY
BEFORE IT WHO HAS STANDING TO RAISE THE ISSUE.  (FN5)  THE MAJORITY
AGREES THAT THIS IS A "SALUTARY" PRINCIPLE, AND SUPPLIES US WITH BUT A
SMALL SAMPLING OF THE CASES TO SHOW THAT IT HAS BEEN RIGOROUSLY APPLIED
IN MANY VARIED SITUATIONS, AND SURELY NO SOPHISTRY IS REQUIRED TO APPLY
IT TO THIS CASE.  ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENT MUST SHOW, AT THE OUTSET,
THAT SHE, HERSELF, AND NOT SOME UNNAMED PERSON IN AN AMORPHOUS CLASS,
IS THE VICTIM OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION OF WHICH SHE
COMPLAINS.  (FN6) 

RESPONDENT MAKES NO SUCH SHOWING.  SHE DOES NOT ASK THE COURT TO
PROTECT HER OWN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, NOR EVEN THE RIGHTS OF THE
PERSONS WHO NOW OCCUPY HER PROPERTY.  INSTEAD, SHE ASKS THE COURT TO
PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE NON-CAUCASIONS - WHOEVER THEY MAY BE - WHO
MIGHT, AT SOME POINT, BE PROSPECTIVE VENDEES OF SOME OTHER PROPERTY
ENCUMBERED BY SOME OTHER SIMILAR COVENANT.  HAD RESPONDENT FAILED TO
DESIGNATE HERSELF AS THE AGENT OF THIS ANONYMOUS, AMORPHOUS CLASS, THE
MAJORITY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO VINDICATE ITS RIGHTS.  YET,
BECAUSE RESPONDENT HAPPENS TO HAVE DECIDED TO ACT AS THE SELF-APPOINTED
AGENT OF THESE PRINCIPALS WHOM SHE CANNOT IDENTIFY - IN ORDER TO
RELIEVE HERSELF OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF HER OWN COVENANT - THE MAJORITY
FINDS ITSELF ABLE TO ASSERT THE POWER OVER STATE COURTS WHICH IT
ASSERTS TODAY.  I DO NOT THINK THAT SUCH TENUOUS CIRCUMSTANCES CAN
SPAWN THE BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION UPON STATE COURTS WHICH
SPRINGS FROM TODAY'S DECISION.   (FN7) 

YET WE ARE TOLD THAT THE RULE WHICH RESTRICTS OUR POWER TO IMPOSE
THIS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION IS BUT A RULE OF "SELF-RESTRAINT."  SO
IS EVERY OTHER JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION WHICH DEPENDS, IN THE LAST
ANALYSIS, SOLELY UPON THIS COURT'S WILLINGNESS TO GOVERN ITS OWN
EXERCISE OF POWER.  AND CERTAINLY TO CHARACTERIZE THE RULE AS SELF
IMPOSED DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS SELF-REMOVABLE BY A SIMPLE SELF
SERVING PROCESS OF ARGUMENT.  YET THE MAJORITY'S LOGIC, REDUCED TO ITS
BAREST OUTLINES, SEEMS TO PROCEED IN THAT FASHION.  WE ARE TOLD THAT
THE REASONS FOR THE SELF-IMPOSED RULE, WHICH PRECLUDES US FROM REACHING
THE MERITS, HAVE BEEN DISSIPATED IN THIS CASE, BUT THE ONLY REASON WHY
THE REASONS DO NOT EXIST IS BECAUSE THE COURT FIRST HOLDS FOR
RESPONDENT, AND, HAVING THUS DECIDED THE MERITS, IT FEELS FREE TO
ABANDON THE RULE WHICH SHOULD PRECLUDE IT FROM REACHING THE MERITS.  IN
MY VIEW, RESPONDENT CANNOT SURMOUNT THE HURDLE OF OUR WELL-ESTABLISHED
RULE BY PROCEEDING WITH AN ARGUMENT WHICH CARRIES HER IN A CIRCLE RIGHT
BACK TO HER PRECISE POINT OF DEPARTURE.  IF IT SHOULD BE, AS THE
MAJORITY ASSUMES, THAT THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THAT THE RIGHTS OF
UNIDENTIFIED NON-CAUCASIANS CAN BE VINDICATED IN COURT, THAT IS ONLY AN
ADMISSION THAT THERE IS NO WAY IN WHICH A SUBSTANTIAL CASE OR
CONTROVERSY CAN BE PREDICATED UPON THE RIGHT WHICH THE MAJORITY IS SO
ANXIOUS TO PASS UPON.  I CANNOT ASSENT TO A MANNER OF VINDICATING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNKNOWN WHICH PUTS PERSONAL
PREDISPOSITION IN A PARAMOUNT POSITION OVER WELL-ESTABLISHED
PROSCRIPTIONS ON POWER. 

BUT EVEN IF THE MERITS ARE TO BE REACHED, EVEN IF WE MUST DECIDE
WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF THIS COVENANT IN A LAWSUIT OF THIS KIND IS STATE
ACTION WHICH CONTRAVENES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, I THINK THAT THE
ABSENCE OF ANY DIRECT INJURY TO ANY IDENTIFIABLE NON-CAUCASIAN IS
DECISIVE.  THE SHELLEY CASE, RESTING ON THE EXPRESS DETERMINATION THAT
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ARE VALID BETWEEN THE PARTIES, DEALT ONLY WITH A
STATE COURT'S ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THEM DIRECTLY AGAINST INNOCENT THIRD
PARTIES WHOSE RIGHT TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY WOULD SUFFER IMMEDIATE
HARM.    IN THIS CASE, THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SOUGHT SUCH RELIEF.  THE
SUIT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE VERY PERSON WHOSE SOLEMN PROMISE HELPED TO
BRING THE COVENANT INTO EXISTENCE.  THE PLAINTIFFS ASK ONLY THAT
RESPONDENT DO WHAT SHE IN TURN HAD A RIGHT TO ASK OF PLAINTIFFS -
INDEMNIFY PLAINTIFFS FOR THE BRINGING ABOUT OF AN EVENT WHICH SHE
RECOGNIZED WOULD CAUSE INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFFS.  WE NEED NOT CONCERN
OURSELVES NOW WITH ANY QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS INJURY IS FANCIED OR
REAL.  THE SHORT OF THAT MATTER IS THAT THE PARTIES THOUGHT THAT ANY
INFLUX OF NON-CAUCASIAN NEIGHBORS WOULD IMPAIR THEIR ENJOYMENT OF THEIR
PROPERTIES, AND, WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG, EACH HAD THE RIGHT TO CONTROL
THE USE OF HIS PROPERTY AGAINST THAT EVENT AND TO EXACT A PROMISE FROM
HIS OR HER NEIGHBOR THAT HE OR SHE WOULD ACT ACCORDINGLY.  AND THAT IS
PRECISELY WHAT PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT DID.  MOREOVER, WE MUST, AT
THIS PLEADING STAGE OF THE CASE, ACCEPT IT AS A FACT THAT RESPONDENT
HAS THUS FAR PROFITED FROM THE EXECUTION OF THIS BARGAIN; OBSERVANCE OF
THE COVENANT BY PETITIONERS RAISED THE VALUE OF RESPONDENT'S
PROPERTIES.  BY THIS SUIT, THE PLAINTIFFS SOUGHT ONLY TO HAVE
RESPONDENT DISGORGE THAT WHICH WAS GAINED AT THE EXPENSE OF
DEPRECIATION IN HER NEIGHBORS' PROPERTY. 

THE MAJORITY SPEAKS OF THIS AS AN ATTEMPT TO "COERCE" RESPONDENT TO
CONTINUE TO ABIDE BY HER AGREEMENT.  YET THE CONTRACT HAS ALREADY BEEN
BREACHED.  THE NON-CAUCASIANS ARE IN UNDISTURBED OCCUPANCY. 
FURTHERMORE, THE RESPONDENT CONSENTED TO THE "COERCION" - IF "COERCION"
THERE BE - BY ENTERING INTO THE COVENANT.  PLAINTIFFS ASK ONLY THAT
RESPONDENT NOW PAY WHAT SHE LEGALLY OBLIGATED HERSELF TO PAY FOR AN
INJURY WHICH SHE RECOGNIZED WOULD OCCUR IF SHE DID WHAT SHE DID. 

OF COURSE, THERE MAY BE OTHER ELEMENTS OF COERCION.  COERCION MIGHT
RESULT ON THE MINDS OF SOME CAUCASIAN PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE SIGNED A
COVENANT SUCH AS THIS, FOR THEY MAY NOW FEEL AN ECONOMIC COMPULSION TO
ABIDE BY THEIR AGREEMENTS.  BUT VISITING COERCION UPON THE MINDS OF
SOME UNIDENTIFIED CAUCASIAN PROPERTY OWNERS IS NOT AT ALL THE STATE
ACTION WHICH WAS CONDEMNED IN THE SHELLEY CASE.  IN THAT CASE, THE
STATE COURT HAD DIRECTED "THE FULL COERCIVE POWER OF GOVERNMENT"
AGAINST THE NEGRO PETITIONERS - FORCEFULLY REMOVING THEM FROM THEIR
PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY FELL IN A CLASS DISCRIMINATORILY DEFINED.  BUT IN
THIS CASE, WHERE NO IDENTIFIABLE THIRD PERSON CAN BE DIRECTLY INJURED
IF RESPONDENT IS MADE TO DISGORGE ENOUGH TO INDEMNIFY PETITIONERS, THE
COURT SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE TO HOLD THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT STANDS
AS A BAR TO THE STATE COURT'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS CONTRACT LAW. 

OBVIOUSLY WE CAN ONLY INTERFERE IN THIS CASE IF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT COMPELS US TO DO SO, FOR THAT IS THE ONLY BASIS UPON WHICH
RESPONDENT SEEKS TO SUSTAIN HER DEFENSE.  WHILE WE ARE LIMITED TO
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE STATE COURTS ARE NOT; THEY
MAY DECLINE TO RECOGNIZE THE COVENANTS FOR OTHER REASONS.  SINCE WE
MUST REST OUR DECISION ON THE CONSTITUTION ALONE, WE MUST SET ASIDE
PREDILECTIONS ON SOCIAL POLICY AND ADHERE TO THE SETTLED RULES WHICH
RESTRICT THE EXERCISE OF OUR POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - REMEMBERING
THAT THE ONLY RESTRAINT UPON THIS POWER IS OUR OWN SENSE OF SELF
RESTRAINT.  (FN8) 

BECAUSE I CANNOT SEE HOW RESPONDENT CAN AVAIL HERSELF OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF TOTAL STRANGERS - THE ONLY RIGHTS WHICH
SHE HAS CHOSEN TO ASSERT - AND SINCE I CANNOT SEE HOW THE COURT CAN
FIND THAT THOSE RIGHTS WOULD BE IMPAIRED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BY
REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO PAY PETITIONERS FOR THE INJURY WHICH SHE
RECOGNIZES THAT SHE HAS BROUGHT UPON THEM, I AM UNWILLING TO JOIN THE
COURT IN TODAY'S DECISION. 

FN1  SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). 

FN2  THE STATE ACTION WHICH WE STRUCK DOWN WAS EPITOMIZED IN THIS
LANGUAGE, 334 U.S., AT 19: 

"WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THERE HAS BEEN STATE ACTION IN THESE CASES IN
THE FULL AND COMPLETE SENSE OF THE PHRASE.  THE UNDISPUTED FACTS
DISCLOSE THAT PETITIONERS WERE WILLING PURCHASERS OF PROPERTIES UPON
WHICH THEY DESIRED TO ESTABLISH HOMES.  THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES
WERE WILLING SELLERS; AND CONTRACTS OF SALE WERE ACCORDINGLY
CONSUMMATED.  IT IS CLEAR THAT BUT FOR THE ACTIVE INTERVENTION OF THE
STATE COURTS, SUPPORTED BY THE FULL PANOPLY OF STATE POWER, PETITIONERS
WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WITHOUT
RESTRAINT. 

"THESE ARE NOT CASES, AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, IN WHICH THE STATES HAVE
MERELY ABSTAINED FROM ACTION, LEAVING PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS FREE TO
IMPOSE SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS AS THEY SEE FIT.  RATHER, THESE ARE CASES
IN WHICH THE STATES HAVE MADE AVAILABLE TO SUCH INDIVIDUALS THE FULL
COERCIVE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO DENY TO PETITIONERS, ON THE GROUNDS OF
RACE OR COLOR, THE ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN PREMISES WHICH
PETITIONERS ARE WILLING AND FINANCIALLY ABLE TO ACQUIRE AND WHICH THE
GRANTORS ARE WILLING TO SELL  ...  ." 

FN3  COMPARE MONTGOMERY BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL V.
LEDBETTER ERECTION CO., 344 U.S. 178, 179 (1952); UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS
V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, 86 (1947). 

FN4  THE PRINCIPLE DERIVES, OF COURSE, FROM THE NATURE OF THE
JUDICIAL POWER CONFERRED BY ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION.  AT A VERY
EARLY STAGE IN THIS COURT'S HISTORY, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL PUT THE
MATTER THUS: 

"  ...  THE ARTICLE DOES NOT EXTEND THE JUDICIAL POWER TO EVERY
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH MAY POSSIBLY TAKE PLACE, BUT TO 'A
CASE IN LAW OR EQUITY,' IN WHICH A RIGHT, UNDER SUCH LAW, IS ASSERTED
IN A COURT OF JUSTICE.  IF THE QUESTION CANNOT BE BROUGHT INTO A COURT,
THEN THERE IS NO CASE IN LAW OR EQUITY, AND NO JURISDICTION IS GIVEN BY
THE WORDS OF THE ARTICLE  ...  ."  COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264,
405 (1821). 

AND SEE THE DISCUSSION OF THIS PRINCIPLE AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS IN MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS' CONCURRING OPINION IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 341 (1936). 

FN5  MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307
U.S. 433, 460 (1939), SETS FORTH THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPLE WHICH I
BELIEVE THE COURT HAS FAILED TO OBSERVE TODAY: 

"IN ENDOWING THIS COURT WITH 'JUDICIAL POWER' THE CONSTITUTION
PRESUPPOSED AN HISTORIC CONTENT FOR THAT PHRASE AND RELIED ON
ASSUMPTION BY THE JUDICIARY OF AUTHORITY ONLY OVER ISSUES WHICH ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR DISPOSITION BY JUDGES  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"  ...  IT IS OUR ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHO MAY INVOKE
OUR JUDGMENT AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES  ...  .  THE SCOPE AND
CONSEQUENCES OF OUR DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATIVE ACTION SHOULD MAKE US OBSERVE FASTIDIOUSLY THE BOUNDS OF
THE LITIGIOUS PROCESS WITHIN WHICH WE ARE CONFINED.  NO MATTER HOW
SERIOUSLY INFRINGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION MAY BE CALLED INTO QUESTION,
THIS IS NOT THE TRIBUNAL FOR ITS CHALLENGE EXCEPT BY THOSE WHO HAVE
SOME SPECIALIZED INTEREST OF THEIR OWN TO VINDICATE, APART FROM A
POLITICAL CONCERN WHICH BELONGS TO ALL.  STEARNS V. WOOD, 236 U.S. 75;
FAIRCHILD V. HUGHES, 258 U.S. 126. 

     *         *         * *         * 

"WE CAN ONLY ADJUDICATE AN ISSUE AS TO WHICH THERE IS A CLAIMANT
BEFORE US WHO HAS A SPECIAL, INDIVIDUALIZED STAKE IN IT.  ONE WHO IS
MERELY THE SELF-CONSTITUTED SPOKESMAN OF A CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF VIEW
CAN NOT ASK US TO PASS ON IT ...  ." 

FN6  TYLER V. JUDGES OF THE COURT OF REGISTRATION, 179 U.S. 405
(1900), WHILE NOT THE FIRST, IS GENERALLY CITED AS THE LEADING CASE ON
THIS ASPECT OF THE RULES GOVERNING OUR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.  THE
COURT SAID: 

"THE PRIME OBJECT OF ALL LITIGATION IS TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT ASSERTED
BY THE PLAINTIFF OR TO SUSTAIN A DEFENCE SET UP BY THE PARTY PURSUED. 
SAVE IN A FEW INSTANCES WHERE, BY STATUTE OR THE SETTLED PRACTICE OF
THE COURTS, THE PLAINTIFF IS PERMITTED TO SUE FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ANOTHER, HE IS BOUND TO SHOW AN INTEREST IN THE SUIT PERSONAL TO
HIMSELF, AND EVEN IN A PROCEEDING WHICH HE PROSECUTES FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE PUBLIC, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN CASES OF NUISANCE, HE MUST GENERALLY
AVER AN INJURY PECULIAR TO HIMSELF, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE GREAT
BODY OF HIS FELLOW CITIZENS."  179 U.S., AT 406. 

THIS HISTORIC VIEW HAS BEEN VOICED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND APPLIED IN
VARIOUS SITUATIONS DOWN THROUGH THE DECADES.  SEE, E.G., LAMPASAS V.
BELL, 180 U.S. 276 (1901); CRONIN V. ADAMS, 192 U.S. 108 (1904); THE
WINNEBAGO, 205 U.S. 354 (1907); ROSENTHAL V. NEW YORK, 226 U.S. 260
(1912); MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO., 235 U.S. 151 (1914); JEFFREY
MANUFACTURING CO. V. BLAGG, 235 U.S. 571 (1915); SPROUT V. CITY OF
SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163 (1928); TILESTON V. ULLMAN, 318 U.S. 44
(1943); GANGE LUMBER CO. V. ROWLEY, 326 U.S. 295 (1945); BODE V.
BARRETT, 344 U.S. 583 (1953). 

FN7  SIMILARLY, I THINK THAT RESPONDENT'S RELIANCE, IN HER BRIEF, ON
BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60 (1917), AS A PRECEDENT TO SHOW THAT SHE
HAS MET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ON STANDING, IS MISPLACED.  IN THAT
CASE, A WHITE VENDOR ATTACKED A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH PROHIBITED THE
SALE OF HIS PROPERTY TO ANY NEGROES.  THE COURT HELD HE HAD STANDING TO
ATTACK THE ORDINANCE SINCE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK WAS FOUNDED ON THE
THEORY THAT THE ORDINANCE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABRIDGED HIS RIGHT TO SELL
HIS PROPERTY TO ANY WILLING PURCHASER, AND NOT ON THE THEORY THAT IT
ABRIDGED THE NEGRO VENDEE'S RIGHT TO BUY PROPERTY WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT
TO DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATE.  THE COURT THEN HELD THE STATUTE
INVALID AS AN UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION. 

SIMILARLY, IN PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), UPON
WHICH THE MAJORITY RELIES, A PRIVATE SCHOOL CHALLENGED A STATE LAW
FORBIDDING PRIVATE EDUCATION ON THE THEORY THAT THE STATUTE
UNREASONABLY ABRIDGED ITS (THE SCHOOL'S) PROPERTY RIGHTS.  IT WAS THE
ASSERTION OF THE SCHOOL'S PROPERTY RIGHTS WHICH THE COURT CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE. 

FN8  SEE MR. JUSTICE STONE DISSENTING IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297
U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936). 
..END :

















SHELTON V. UNITED STATES 346 U.S. 270 


NO. 235, MISC. - DECIDED JUNE 15, 1953 - 197 F.2D 827, JUDGMENTS VACATED
AND CASE REMANDED. 


CLAIMING ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE, A FEDERAL PRISONER PETITIONED A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER RULE 41(E) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RETURN OF PROPERTY SEIZED BY FEDERAL
OFFICERS AND FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF ITS USE IN EVIDENCE.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DENIED SUCH RELIEF.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  THE PRISONER
PETITIONED THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  CONFESSING THAT THE
LEGALITY OF PART OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS DOUBTFUL, THE GOVERNMENT
TOOK THE POSITION THAT EVERYTHING EXCEPT STOLEN PROPERTY SHOULD BE
RETURNED TO THE PRISONER AND SUGGESTED THAT THE JUDGMENTS BELOW BE
VACATED AND THE CASE BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  HELD: CERTIORARI GRANTED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONFESSION OF ERROR AND AFTER A REVIEW OF THE RECORD IN
THE CASE, BOTH JUDGMENTS ARE VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

SHELTON V. UNITED STATES. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS GRANTED.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONFESSION OF ERROR, AFTER REVIEWING THE RECORD IN THIS
CASE, WE VACATE THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN LIGHT OF THE CONFESSION OF ERROR. 
..END :



















ROSENBERG V. DENNO 346 U.S. 271 


NO. 1, MISC., JUNE 15 SPECIAL TERM, 1953.  - DECIDED JUNE 15, 1953. 


THE ROSENBERGS HAD BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917, AND THE TIME OF EXECUTION HAD BEEN FIXED FOR
THE WEEK OF JUNE 15, 1953.  AS THE COURT WAS ABOUT TO ADJOURN THE
OCTOBER TERM, 1952, ON JUNE 15, 1953, THEIR COUNSEL SUBMITTED A MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
STAY OF EXECUTION.  LATER THAT AFTERNOON, THE COURT MET IN SPECIAL TERM
PURSUANT TO A CALL BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAVING THE APPROVAL OF ALL THE
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE COURT WERE PRESENT.  HELD:
LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED. 

ROSENBERG ET AL. V. DENNO, WARDEN. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND STAY OF EXECUTION. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS IS DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

THE DISPOSITION OF AN APPLICATION TO THIS COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS IS
SO RARELY TO BE MADE BY THIS COURT DIRECTLY THAT CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE
COURT AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER SUCH AN APPLICATION TO AN APPROPRIATE
DISTRICT COURT.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2241.  I DO NOT FAVOR SUCH A
DISPOSITION OF THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
ALLEGATIONS NOW MADE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND ON REVIEW BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  NEITHER CAN I JOIN THE COURT IN
DENYING THE APPLICATION WITHOUT MORE.  I WOULD SET THE APPLICATION DOWN
FOR HEARING BEFORE THE FULL COURT TOMORROW FORENOON.  ORAL ARGUMENT
FREQUENTLY HAS A FORCE BEYOND WHAT THE WRITTEN WORD CONVEYS. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. NUGENT 346 U.S. 1 


NO. 540.  ARGUED MAY 1, 4, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1953 - 200 F.2D 46 AND
200 F.2D 540, REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 6(J) OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948, A PERSON WHOSE
CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR HAS BEEN REJECTED BY
HIS LOCAL DRAFT BOARD MAY APPEAL TO AN APPEAL BOARD, WHICH IS REQUIRED
TO REFER THE CLAIM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR A RECOMMENDATION,
WHICH THE APPEAL BOARD IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER BUT IS NOT BOUND TO
FOLLOW.  BEFORE MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION, THE DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED
TO MAKE AN "APPROPRIATE INQUIRY" AND TO HOLD A "HEARING."  AFTER
INVESTIGATING THE APPELLANT'S BACKGROUND AND REPUTATION FOR SINCERITY,
THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTS A HEARING, AT WHICH THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED TO
APPEAR IN PERSON, ACCOMPANIED BY AN ADVISOR AND WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN
HIS BEHALF.  UPON REQUEST, HE IS ENTITLED TO BE INSTRUCTED "AS TO THE
GENERAL NATURE AND CHARACTER" OF ANY "UNFAVORABLE" EVIDENCE DEVELOPED
BY THE INVESTIGATION; BUT HE IS NOT PERMITTED TO SEE THE INVESTIGATOR'S
REPORT, NOR IS HE INFORMED OF THE NAMES OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED BY THE
INVESTIGATOR.  HELD: 

1.  THIS PROCEDURE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  PP. 2-9. 

(A)  THE STATUTORY SCHEME FOR REVIEW OF EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED BY
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS DOES NOT ENTITLE THEM TO HAVE THE
INVESTIGATOR'S REPORTS PRODUCED FOR THEIR INSPECTION.  PP. 5-6. 

(B)  THE DEPARTMENT SATISFIES ITS DUTIES UNDER SEC. 6(J) WHEN IT
ACCORDS THE REGISTRANT A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS VIEWS BEFORE
AN IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER, PERMITS HIM TO PRODUCE ALL RELEVANT
EVIDENCE IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND SUPPLIES HIM WITH A FAIR RESUME OF ANY
ADVERSE EVIDENCE IN THE INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT.  P. 6. 

(C)  THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 6(J), THAT THE DEPARTMENT AFFORD THE
REGISTRANT A "HEARING," DOES NOT REQUIRE IT TO ENTERTAIN AN ALL-OUT
COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE TESTIMONY OBTAINED IN THE PREHEARING
INVESTIGATION.  PP. 6-9. 

2.  AS THUS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, THE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 9-10. 

3.  IN NEITHER OF THESE CASES CAN THE REGISTRANT COMPLAIN OF ANY
FAILURE OF THE DEPARTMENT TO SUPPLY HIM WITH A FAIR RESUME OF THE
INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT, BECAUSE ONE OF THEM DID NOT REQUEST IT AND IN
NEITHER CASE WAS THE INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT TRANSMITTED TO THE APPEAL
BOARD OR REPRESENTED TO IT AS BEING UNFAVORABLE.  P. 6, NOTE 10. 

UNITED STATES V. NUGENT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 573, UNITED STATES V. PACKER, ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SAME COURT. 

RESPONDENTS WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SEC. 12 OF THE SELECTIVE
SERVICE ACT OF 1948, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V) SEC. 462, BY WILLFULLY
REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  200 F.2D 46, 540.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 915.  REVERSED, P. 10. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FROM MILITARY SERVICE - PARTIAL OR FULL, DEPENDING UPON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES - FOR ANY PERSON "WHO, BY REASON OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING
AND BELIEF, IS CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO PARTICIPATION IN WAR IN ANY
FORM."  IF THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR'S CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER THIS
REVIEW BY AN "APPROPRIATE APPEAL BOARD."  ALL SUCH APPEALS ARE REFERRED
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR AN "APPROPRIATE INQUIRY" AND A
"HEARING."  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THEN MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE APPEAL BOARD, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT FOLLOW IT IN REVIEWING THE LOCAL
BOARD'S CLASSIFICATION. 

THESE TWO CASES ARE CONCERNED WITH THE PROCEDURE, ESTABLISHED BY
REGULATION AND PRACTICE, (FN2) WHICH IS FOLLOWED WHEN A CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTOR'S APPEAL IS REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  THE
DEPARTMENT HAS REGULARLY USED THE FBI TO INVESTIGATE EACH APPEALING
REGISTRANT'S BACKGROUND AND REPUTATION FOR SINCERITY.  A HEARING IS
THEN HELD BEFORE A DESIGNATED "HEARING OFFICER."  THE REGISTRANT IS
ALLOWED TO APPEAR IN PERSON, AND, IF HE CHOOSES, HE MAY BRING WITH HIM
AN ADVISOR AND WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN HIS BEHALF.  (FN3)  UPON
REQUEST, HE IS ENTITLED TO BE INSTRUCTED "AS TO THE GENERAL NATURE AND
CHARACTER" OF ANY "UNFAVORABLE" EVIDENCE DEVELOPED BY THE DEPARTMENT'S
INVESTIGATION.  (FN4)  BUT HE IS NOT PERMITTED TO SEE THE FBI REPORT,
NOR IS HE INFORMED OF THE NAMES OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED BY THE
INVESTIGATORS. 

IT IS THE DEPARTMENT'S REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE THE ENTIRE FBI REPORTS
WHICH PRECIPITATES THE ISSUES NOW BEFORE US.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS HELD THAT THIS PROCEDURE VIOLATES A REGISTRANT'S
RIGHTS UNDER THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.  (FN5)  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
345 U.S. 915, BECAUSE THAT DETERMINATION SEEMED IN CONFLICT WITH THE
DECISIONS OF OTHER COURTS OF APPEALS (FN6) AND BECAUSE IT DEALT WITH AN
IMPORTANT PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT. 

EACH OF THE RESPONDENTS CLAIMS TO BE A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
ENTITLED TO TOTAL EXEMPTION FROM MILITARY SERVICE.  EACH HAS BEEN
CONVICTED OF WILFULLY REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION IN THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.  (FN7)  AT THEIR TRIALS, RESPONDENTS
CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THEIR SELECTIVE SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONS,
CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE FIXED WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT (FN8) AND WITHOUT
ADHERENCE TO THE PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 6(J) OF THE ACT; (FN9)
EACH CLAIMED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S FAILURE TO SHOW HIM THE
FBI REPORTS RENDERED HIS CLASSIFICATION ILLEGAL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS,
REVERSING EACH RESPONDENT'S CONVICTION, SUSTAINED THE CLAIMS. 

WE THINK THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED.  WE THINK THAT THE
STATUTORY SCHEME FOR REVIEW, WITHIN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, OF
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED BY CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS ENTITLES THEM TO NO
GUARANTEE THAT THE FBI REPORTS MUST BE PRODUCED FOR THEIR INSPECTION. 
WE THINK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SATISFIES ITS DUTIES UNDER SEC. 6(J)
WHEN IT ACCORDS A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO THE REGISTRANT TO SPEAK HIS PIECE
BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER; WHEN IT PERMITS HIM TO PRODUCE ALL
RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND AT THE SAME TIME SUPPLIES HIM
WITH A FAIR RESUME OF ANY ADVERSE EVIDENCE IN THE INVESTIGATOR'S
REPORT.  (FN10) 

RESPONDENTS URGE THAT THIS IS NOT ENOUGH.  THE ARGUMENT RIDES HARD
UPON THE WORD "HEARING" IN SEC. 6(J).  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE
"HEARING" PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS WAS PURPOSELY DESIGNED TO ALLOW THE
REGISTRANT TO REFUTE - ITEM BY ITEM, IF NECESSARY - THE MATTERS
DISCUSSED IN THE INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT.  (FN11)  IN SUM, RESPONDENTS
ASSIMILATE THE "HEARING" IN SEC. 6(J) TO A TRIAL AND INSIST THAT IT
IMPORTS A RIGHT TO CONFRONT EVERY INFORMANT WHO MAY HAVE RENDERED
ADVERSE COMMENT TO THE FBI. 

THE STATUTE DOES ENTITLE THE REGISTRANT TO A "HEARING," AND OF COURSE
NO SHAM SUBSTITUTE WILL MEET THIS REQUIREMENT; BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT
THE WORD "HEARING" - WHEN PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE SCHEME FOR
REVIEW SET FORTH IN SEC. 6(J) - COMPREHENDS THE FORMAL AND LITIGIOUS
PROCEDURES WHICH RESPONDENTS' INTERPRETATION WOULD ATTRIBUTE TO IT.
INSTEAD, THE WORD TAKES ITS MEANING IN THIS INSTANCE FROM AN ANALYSIS
OF THE PRECISE FUNCTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED UPON THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE IN SEC. 6(J).  (FN12) 

THE DUTY TO CLASSIFY - TO GRANT OR DENY EXEMPTIONS TO CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTORS - RESTS UPON THE DRAFT BOARDS, LOCAL AND APPELLATE, AND NOT
UPON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  THE REGISTRANT MUST FIRST LOOK TO HIS
LOCAL BOARD FOR THE RELIEF HE CLAIMS; HE MUST CONVINCE THIS BODY -
COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS OWN COMMUNITY - OF THE DEPTH AND
SINCERITY OF HIS CONVICTIONS.  HE MUST FILL OUT FORMS, CALCULATED TO
PUT HIM TO THE TEST; (FN13) HE MUST SUPPLY ANY ADDITIONAL DETAILED
INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR A SEARCHING INVESTIGATION OF HIS
CLAIM; AND, IF HE OR HIS LOCAL BOARD DEMANDS IT, HE MAY APPEAR IN
PERSON TO EXPLAIN HIS POSITION TO THE PERSONS CHARGED WITH DETERMINING
ITS VALIDITY.  (FN14) 

IF THE LOCAL BOARD DENIES THE CLAIM, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REVIEW,
IF SOUGHT, FALLS UPON THE APPEAL BOARD.  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TAKES NO ACTION WHICH IS DECISIVE.  ITS DUTY IS TO ADVISE, TO RENDER AN
AUXILIARY SERVICE TO THE APPEAL BOARD IN THIS DIFFICULT CLASS OF
CASES.  CONGRESS WAS UNDER NO COMPULSION TO SUPPLY THIS AUXILIARY
SERVICE - TO PROVIDE FOR A MORE EXHAUSTIVE PROCESSING OF THE
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR'S APPEAL.  REGISTRANTS WHO CLAIM EXEMPTION FOR
SOME REASON OTHER THAN CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION, AND WHOSE CLAIMS ARE
DENIED, ARE ENTITLED TO NO "HEARING" BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT.  YET IN
THIS SPECIAL CLASS OF CASES, INVOLVING AS IT DOES DIFFICULT ANALYSES OF
FACTS AND INDIVIDUALIZED JUDGMENTS, CONGRESS DIRECTED THAT THE
ASSISTANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT BE MADE AVAILABLE WHENEVER A REGISTRANT
INSISTS THAT HIS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION CLAIM HAS BEEN MISJUDGED BY
HIS LOCAL BOARD.  OBSERVERS SYMPATHETIC TO THE PROBLEMS OF THE
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THIS PROVISION IN THE
STATUTE IMPROVES THE SYSTEM OF REVIEW BY HELPING THE APPEAL BOARDS TO
REACH A MORE INFORMED JUDGMENT ON THE APPEALING REGISTRANT'S CLAIMS. 
(FN15)  BUT IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT'S
"APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION" NOR ITS "HEARING" IS THE DETERMINATIVE
INVESTIGATION AND THE DETERMINATIVE HEARING IN EACH CASE.  IT HAS
REGULARLY BEEN ASSUMED THAT IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS AUXILIARY
PROCEDURE TO PROVIDE A FULL-SCALE TRIAL FOR EACH APPEALING REGISTRANT. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE STANDARDS OF PROCEDURE TO WHICH THE DEPARTMENT MUST
ADHERE ARE SIMPLY STANDARDS WHICH WILL ENABLE IT TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTY
TO FORWARD SOUND ADVICE, AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, TO THE APPEAL
BOARD.  CERTAINLY, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT AND DELICATE RESPONSIBILITY,
BUT WE DO NOT THINK THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE DEPARTMENT TO ENTERTAIN AN
ALL-OUT COLLATERAL ATTACK AT THE HEARING ON THE TESTIMONY OBTAINED IN
ITS PREHEARING INVESTIGATION. 

RESPONDENTS URGE THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SUCH A PROCEDURE UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT IS A COMPREHENSIVE STATUTE DESIGNED TO
PROVIDE AN ORDERLY, EFFICIENT AND FAIR PROCEDURE TO MARSHAL THE
AVAILABLE MANPOWER OF THE COUNTRY, TO IMPOSE A COMMON OBLIGATION OF
MILITARY SERVICE ON ALL PHYSICALLY FIT YOUNG MEN.  IT IS A VALID
EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER.  IT IS CALCULATED TO FUNCTION - IT FUNCTIONS
TODAY - IN TIMES OF PERIL.  EVEN SO, CONGRESS TOOK CARE TO PROVIDE
SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR THOSE WHO COULD NOT RECONCILE PARTICIPATION IN
THE DEFENSE EFFORT WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS - IF THOSE BELIEFS WERE
A MATTER OF SINCERE CONVICTION.  PROFITING FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF THE
FIRST WORLD WAR, CONGRESS ADOPTED A NEW AND SPECIAL PROCEDURE TO SECURE
THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE, WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN EXPRESS STATUTORY
RECOGNITION. 

IT IS ALWAYS DIFFICULT TO DEVISE PROCEDURES WHICH WILL BE ADEQUATE TO
DO JUSTICE IN CASES WHERE THE SINCERITY OF ANOTHER'S RELIGIOUS
CONVICTIONS IS THE ULTIMATE FACTUAL ISSUE.  IT IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT
WHEN THESE PROCEDURES MUST BE GEARED TO MEET THE IMPERATIVE NEEDS OF
MOBILIZATION AND NATIONAL VIGILANCE - WHEN THERE IS NO TIME FOR
"LITIGIOUS INTERRUPTION."  FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, 554
(1944).  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED, WE CANNOT HOLD THAT THE
STATUTE, AS WE CONSTRUE IT, VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.  (FN16). 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 6(J) APPEARED IN THE 1940 SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AS SEC.
5(G), 54 STAT.  885, 889.  IT WAS REENACTED AS SEC. 6(J) OF THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948.  62 STAT.  604, 613, 50 U.S.C. SEC.
456(J).  THE ACT WAS AMENDED IN 1951, 65 STAT. 75, 86, 50 U.S.C.  APP.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 456(J), AND THE PRESENT LANGUAGE OF SEC. 6(J) DIFFERS IN
IMMATERIAL RESPECTS FORM THE LANGUAGE IN THE EARLIER STATUTES. 

THE FULL TEXT OF SEC. 6(J) OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948
READS: 

"NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS TITLE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE ANY
PERSON TO BE SUBJECT TO COMBATANT TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES WHO, BY REASON OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND
BELIEF, IS CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO PARTICIPATION IN WAR IN ANY
FORM.  RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF IN THIS CONNECTION MEANS AN
INDIVIDUAL'S BELIEF IN A RELATION TO A SUPREME BEING INVOLVING DUTIES
SUPERIOR TO THOSE ARISING FROM ANY HUMAN RELATION, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE
ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, OR PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS OR A MERELY
PERSONAL MORAL CODE.  ANY PERSON CLAIMING EXEMPTION FROM COMBATANT
TRAINING AND SERVICE BECAUSE OF SUCH CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS WHOSE
CLAIM IS SUSTAINED BY THE LOCAL BOARD SHALL, IF HE IS INDUCTED INTO THE
ARMED FORCES UNDER THIS TITLE, BE ASSIGNED TO NONCOMBATANT SERVICE AS
DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT, OR SHALL, IF HE IS FOUND TO BE
CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO PARTICIPATION IN SUCH NONCOMBATANT SERVICE,
BE DEFERRED.  ANY PERSON CLAIMING EXEMPTION FROM COMBATANT TRAINING AND
SERVICE BECAUSE OF SUCH CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS SHALL, IF SUCH CLAIM
IS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE LOCAL BOARD, BE ENTITLED TO AN APPEAL TO THE
APPROPRIATE APPEAL BOARD.  UPON THE FILING OF SUCH APPEAL, THE APPEAL
BOARD SHALL REFER ANY SUCH CLAIM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR
INQUIRY AND HEARING.  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AFTER APPROPRIATE
INQUIRY, SHALL HOLD A HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARACTER AND GOOD
FAITH OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PERSON CONCERNED, AND SUCH PERSON SHALL
BE NOTIFIED OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF SUCH HEARING.  THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE SHALL, AFTER SUCH HEARING, IF THE OBJECTIONS ARE FOUND TO BE
SUSTAINED, RECOMMEND TO THE APPEAL BOARD THAT (1) IF THE OBJECTOR IS
INDUCTED INTO THE ARMED FORCES UNDER THIS TITLE, HE SHALL BE ASSIGNED
TO NONCOMBATANT SERVICE AS DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT, OR (2) IF THE
OBJECTOR IS FOUND TO BE CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO PARTICIPATION IN
SUCH NONCOMBATANT SERVICE, HE SHALL BE DEFERRED.  IF AFTER SUCH HEARING
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FINDS THAT HIS OBJECTIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINED,
IT SHALL RECOMMEND TO THE APPEAL BOARD THAT SUCH OBJECTIONS BE NOT
SUSTAINED.  THE APPEAL BOARD SHALL, IN MAKING ITS DECISION, GIVE
CONSIDERATION TO, BUT SHALL NOT BE BOUND TO FOLLOW, THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOGETHER WITH THE RECORD ON APPEAL FROM
THE LOCAL BOARD.  EACH PERSON WHOSE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FROM COMBATANT
TRAINING AND SERVICE BECAUSE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS IS SUSTAINED
SHALL BE LISTED BY THE LOCAL BOARD ON A REGISTER OF CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTORS." 

THERE IS A DEARTH OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY REFLECTING DISCUSSION IN
CONGRESS ABOUT THIS PHASE OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.  THE PROBLEM
WAS DISCUSSED RATHER BRIEFLY DURING THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON THE 1940
ACT.  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS UNITED
STATES SENATE ON S. 4164, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., AND HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 10132,
76TH CONG., 3D SESS.  COMPARE H.R. REP. NO. 2903, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.,
P. 5. 

FN2  SEE 32 CFR SEC. 1626.25 (1949 ED.); SEE ALSO 17 FED. REG. 5449,
JUNE 18, 1952. 

FN3  SEE, INSTRUCTIONS TO REGISTRANTS WHOSE CLAIMS FOR EXEMPTION AS
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS HAVE BEEN APPEALED (A LETTER SENT TO THE
APPEALING REGISTRANT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL)
REPRODUCED IN PART IN THE RECORD IN THE NUGENT CASE, AT P. 54. 

FN4  IBID. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. NUGENT, 200 F.2D 46, AND UNITED STATES V.
PACKER, 200 F.2D 540. 

FN6  SEE E.G., IMBODEN V. UNITED STATES, 194 F.2D 508 (C.A. 6TH CIR.
1952); ELDER V. UNITED STATES, 202 F.2D 465 (C.A. 9TH CIR. 1953). 
FN7  50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V) SEC. 462. 

FN8  COX V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 442 (1947). 

FN9  ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114 (1946). 

FN10  AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A "FAIR RESUME" SEE IMBODEN V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. OLLER, 107 F. SUPP. 54 (D.
CONN. 1952), AND UNITED STATES V. BOUZIDEN, 108 F. SUPP. 395 (W.D.
OKLA. 1952). 

WE NEED NOT REACH THAT QUESTION IN THESE CASES BECAUSE IN OUR VIEW
RESPONDENTS CANNOT COMPLAIN OF ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO SUPPLY THEM WITH A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE. 

RESPONDENT NUGENT FIRST INDICATED TO HIS LOCAL BOARD THAT HE WOULD
ONLY SERVE AS A NONCOMBATANT.  THEREAFTER, WHEN REQUIRED TO SUBMIT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, HE STATED THAT HE WAS OPPOSED TO ANY MILITARY
SERVICE WHATSOEVER.  THE LOCAL BOARD, AFTER A HEARING, CLASSIFIED HIM
AS 1-A-O WHICH RENDERED HIM ELIGIBLE ONLY FOR NONCOMBATANT MILITARY
SERVICE.  HE APPEALED, CLAIMING TOTAL EXEMPTION.  PURSUANT TO SEC. 6(J)
HIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 

INSTRUCTIONS MAILED TO RESPONDENT NUGENT INFORMED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO
"REQUEST" THE HEARING OFFICER TO "ADVISE" HIM OF THE "GENERAL NATURE
AND CHARACTER OF ANY EVIDENCE" WHICH WAS "UNFAVORABLE" TO HIS CLAIM. 
RESPONDENT NEVER REQUESTED THE HEARING OFFICER FOR ANY SUMMARY OF THE
FBI INVESTIGATION.  HE CLAIMS HE WAS MISLED BY THE HEARING OFFICER'S
SECRETARY WHO TOLD HIM THAT THE "FILES" WERE "FAVORABLE."  BUT
RESPONDENT MADE NO EFFORT TO VERIFY THIS STATEMENT; AT NO TIME DID HE
SAY ANYTHING OR MAKE ANY REQUEST TO THE HEARING OFFICER CONCERNING THE
FBI REPORT. 

MOREOVER, THE HEARING OFFICER, IN HIS OWN REPORT ON THE CASE, SAID
NOTHING WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THE SECRETARY'S COMMENT WAS
ERRONEOUS.  HE DID NOT PURPORT TO BASE HIS RECOMMENDATION ON MATERIAL
SUBMITTED BY THE FBI; RATHER HIS RECOMMENDATION SEEMS BASED UPON
NUGENT'S OWN CONDUCT AND TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING COUPLED WITH THE FACT
THAT RESPONDENT, IN HIS ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE, HAD
INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO SERVE AS A NONCOMBATANT - THE CLASSIFICATION
TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED. 

AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY A SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, FORWARDING THE HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT TO THE APPEAL BOARD,
ALSO MADE NO MENTION THAT THERE WAS ADVERSE MATTER IN THE FBI REPORT. 

NO PART OF THE FBI REPORT WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE APPEAL BOARD.  THUS
THE RECORD BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD CONTAINED NO EVIDENCE SECURED BY THE
FBI.  IN VIEW OF THIS, AND IN VIEW OF HIS FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUEST
TO THE HEARING OFFICER, WE THINK THAT NUGENT WAS NOT DENIED ANY RIGHT. 

NOR WAS RESPONDENT PACKER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO BE ADVISED OF THE
GENERAL NATURE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FBI REPORT WHICH MIGHT DEFEAT HIS
CLAIM.  IN RESPONSE TO HIS QUESTION, THE HEARING OFFICER TOLD HIM THAT
THERE WAS NOTHING UNFAVORABLE IN IT.  THE HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT,
WHICH WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE APPEAL BOARD, CORROBORATES THIS VIEW. 
NOTHING IN THE FBI REPORT WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE APPEAL BOARD, AND THUS
IT WAS GIVEN NO INDICATION THAT THE FBI REPORT WAS UNFAVORABLE. 

FN11  SEE UNITED STATES V. GEYER, 108 F. SUPP. 70 (D. CONN. 1952), AN
OPINION HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN ITS OPINION IN
THE NUGENT CASE. 

FN12  NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294
(1933). 

FN13  THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM REQUIRES CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS TO
FILL OUT A SPECIAL FORM.  THIS FORM SUPPLIES THE REGISTRANT WITH THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE - BY POINTING TO PAST EXAMPLES, REFERRING TO
CHARACTER WITNESSES AND RECOUNTING THE BACKGROUND OF HIS TRAINING AND
BELIEFS - THE SINCERITY OF HIS CLAIM. 

FN14  32 CFR (1949 ED.)  PART 1624. 

FN15  SEE SIBLEY AND JACOB, CONSCRIPTION OF CONSCIENCE (1952), 71
76. 

FN16  CF. NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
WILLIAMS V. NEW YORK, 337 U.S. 241 (1949). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THAT SO STRONG A COURT AND ONE SO STRONG IN LITERARY ENDOWMENT -
SWAN, C.J., LEARNED HAND AND FRANK, JJ. - SHOULD RELY, AS DID THE COURT
OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE, 200 F.2D 46, 49-50, ON THE OPINION OF A
DISTRICT JUDGE, IMPRESSIVELY ATTESTS THE PERSUASIVENESS OF THAT
OPINION.  CHIEF JUDGE HINCKS HAS STATED ALSO FOR ME THE COMPELLING
REASONS WHY THE REFUSAL TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE FBI REPORT ON A
REGISTRANT CLAIMING EXEMPTION AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR INVALIDATES,
ON ANY FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE
ACT, HIS CLASSIFICATION AS 1-A. 

"IT IS TRUE THAT ON THE PRECISE POINT OF LAW INVOLVED THE (SELECTIVE
SERVICE) ACT IS NOT EXPLICIT:  WHEN IT DIRECTS THE BOARD TO REFER THE
REGISTRANT'S CLAIM OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION 'FOR INQUIRY AND HEARING'
BY THE DEPARTMENT (OF JUSTICE), IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT THE PRODUCT
BOTH OF THE INQUIRY AND OF THE HEARING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
BOARD.  BUT NEITHER DOES THE ACT SUGGEST ANY REASON WHY THE PRODUCT OF
THE HEARING SHOULD GO FORWARD TO THE BOARD, AS IT DID HERE AS A MATTER
OF COURSE, AND THE PRODUCT OF THE INQUIRY SHOULD BE WITHHELD. 

"THERE ARE, HOWEVER, OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE ACT FROM WHICH I THINK
ONE MUST IMPLY A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE ACCESS
TO THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.  THE SAME SECTION OF THE ACT PROCEEDS TO
PROVIDE THAT AFTER INQUIRY A HEARING SHALL BE HAD OF WHICH THE
REGISTRANT SHALL BE NOTIFIED.  THE NATURAL IMPORT OF THIS PROVISION IS,
I THINK, THAT THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT RESULTING FROM THE INQUIRY SHALL
BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD FOR CONSIDERATION BY ALL DIRECTLY
CONCERNED WITH THE CLASSIFICATION.  UNDER THE CONTEMPLATED PROCEDURE
THE REGISTRANT HAS ALREADY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE DRAFT BOARD TO
PUT EVERYTHING DESIRED INTO THE RECORD.  THAT BEING SO THERE WOULD BE
NO POINT TO NOTIFY HIM TO APPEAR IN THE DEPARTMENTAL HEARING JUST TO
PUT IN MORE EVIDENCE.  THUS, BY ELIMINATION, THE ONLY USEFUL PURPOSE OF
NOTICE AT THAT STAGE WAS TO GIVE THE REGISTRANT OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE
CONTENTS OF THE REPORT  ...  . 

     *         *         *  *         * 

"CONGRESS WAS NOT USING EMPTY WORDS WHEN IN SEC. 451 OF THE ACT IT
SOLEMNLY DECLARED 'THAT IN A FREE SOCIETY THE OBLIGATIONS AND
PRIVILEGES OF SERVING IN THE ARMED FORCES AND THE RESERVE COMPONENTS
THEREOF SHOULD BE SHARED GENERALLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SYSTEM OF
SELECTION WHICH IS FAIR AND JUST, AND WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
MAINTENANCE OF AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL ECONOMY.'  A SYSTEM IN WHICH
SELECTIONS MIGHT BE MADE IN UNINFORMED RELIANCE UPON THE RECOMMENDATION
OF AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER BOTTOMED PERHAPS ON SECRET POLICE REPORTS,
WOULD INDEED MAKE A MOCKERY OF THAT HIGH DECLARATION OF POLICY.  ONLY
IF THE ACT BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THAT THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS SHALL
BECOME A PART OF THE RECORD OPEN TO THE APPEAL BOARD AND ALL CONCERNED
IS THE 'SYSTEM OF SELECTION  ...  FAIR AND JUST' WITHIN OUR ANGLO-SAXON
CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE AND DUE PROCESS."  UNITED STATES V. GEYER, 108 F.
SUPP. 70, 71-72. 

THERE IS A NOTE OF UNEASINESS IN THE COURT'S RECOGNITION OF THE
DIFFICULTY OF "DEVISING" PROCEDURES "ADEQUATE TO DO JUSTICE IN CASES
WHERE THE SINCERITY OF ANOTHER'S RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS" IS IN ISSUE. 
COURTS ARE, NO DOUBT, CLOSELY CIRCUMSCRIBED IN "DEVISING" SUCH
PROCEDURES WHERE CONGRESS HAS, WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY, BOUND THE
ALLOWABLE JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN APPLYING LEGISLATION.  AND, OF COURSE,
ONLY WITHIN NARROW LIMITS MAY COURTS REJECT A PROCEDURE, DEVISED BY
CONGRESS, ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE CANNOT BE
BENT TO WHAT A JUDGE MAY PRIVATELY THINK IS WISDOM IN RESPECTING
DISSIDENT VIEWS.  BUT HERE THE COURT OUGHT NOT TO FEEL AN IMPOTENT
UNEASINESS.  IT IS NOT CALLED UPON TO DEVISE A JUST PROCEDURE; MERELY
TO APPLY ONE.  CONSIDERING THE TRADITIONALLY HIGH RESPECT THAT DISSENT,
AND PARTICULARLY RELIGIOUS DISSENT, HAS ENJOYED IN OUR VIEW OF A FREE
SOCIETY, THIS COURT OUGHT NOT TO REJECT A CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
LANGUAGE WHICH ASSURES JUSTICE IN CASES WHERE THE SINCERITY OF
ANOTHER'S RELIGIOUS CONVICTION IS AT STAKE AND WHERE PRISON MAY BE THE
ALTERNATIVE TO AN ABANDONMENT OF CONSCIENCE.  THE ENEMY IS NOT YET SO
NEAR THE GATE THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW RESPECT FOR TRADITIONS OF FAIRNESS,
WHICH HAS HERETOFORE PREVAILED IN THIS COUNTRY, TO BE OVERBORNE BY
MILITARY EXIGENCIES. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT THE REGISTRANTS IN THESE CASES HAVE WAIVED THEIR
RIGHTS BY NOT ASKING FOR "A FAIR RESUME" OF ANY ADVERSE EVIDENCE IN THE
INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT SEEMS TO ME AN INSTANCE OF KEEPING THE WORD OF
PROMISE TO THE EAR AND BREAKING IT TO THE HOPE.  THE VERY PURPOSE OF A
HEARING IS TO GIVE REGISTRANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ADVERSE
EVIDENCE.  IT MAKES A MOCKERY OF THAT PURPOSE TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH
ADVERSE EVIDENCE CAN BE EFFECTIVELY MET IF ITS PROVENANCE IS UNKNOWN. 
NOR IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE CONFIDENT THAT A "RESUME IS FAIR" WHEN ONE
CANNOT KNOW WHAT IT IS A RESUME OF.  THIS DOES NOT SUGGEST PURPOSEFUL
UNFAIRNESS, STILL LESS, WANT OF ZEAL.  LANGUAGE IS TREACHEROUS AND THE
MEANING OF WHAT IS WRITTEN TO NO SMALL DEGREE DERIVES FROM HIM WHO
READS IT. IN A COUNTRY WITH OUR MORAL AND MATERIAL STRENGTH THE
MAINTENANCE OF FAIR PROCEDURES CANNOT HANDICAP OUR SECURITY.  EVERY
ADHERENCE TO OUR MORAL PROFESSIONS REINFORCES OUR STRENGTH AND
THEREFORE OUR SECURITY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I CONCUR IN MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S OPINION AND ONLY ADD A WORD. 
THE USE OF STATEMENTS BY INFORMERS WHO NEED NOT CONFRONT THE PERSON
UNDER INVESTIGATION OR ACCUSATION HAS SUCH AN INFAMOUS HISTORY THAT IT
SHOULD BE ROOTED OUT FROM OUR PROCEDURE.  A HEARING AT WHICH THESE
FACELESS PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO PRESENT THEIR WHISPERED RUMORS AND YET
ESCAPE THE TEST AND TORTURE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IS NOT A HEARING IN
THE ANGLO-AMERICAN SENSE.  WE SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE PRACTICE -
WHETHER THE LIFE OF A MAN IS AT STAKE, OR HIS REPUTATION, OR ANY MATTER
TOUCHING UPON HIS STATUS OR HIS RIGHTS.  IF FBI REPORTS ARE DISCLOSED
IN ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, IT MAY BE THAT VALUABLE
UNDERGROUND SOURCES WILL DRY UP. BUT THAT IS NOT THE CHOICE.  IF THE
AIM IS TO PROTECT THE UNDERGROUND OF INFORMERS, THE FBI REPORT NEED NOT
BE USED.  IF IT IS USED, THEN FAIRNESS REQUIRES THAT THE NAMES OF THE
ACCUSERS BE DISCLOSED.  WITHOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE INFORMER THE PERSON
INVESTIGATED OR ACCUSED STANDS HELPLESS.  THE PREJUDICES, THE
CREDIBILITY, THE PASSIONS, THE PERJURY OF THE INFORMER ARE NEVER
KNOWN.  IF THEY WERE EXPOSED, THE WHOLE CHARGE MIGHT WITHER UNDER THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
..END :
















DALEHITE V. UNITED STATES 346 U.S. 15 


NO. 308.  ARGUED APRIL 6-8, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1953 - 197 F.2D 771,
AFFIRMED. 


IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FOR A DEATH RESULTING FROM THE DISASTROUS EXPLOSION AT
TEXAS CITY, TEX., OF AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZER PRODUCED AT THE
INSTANCE, ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
UNITED STATES, FOR EXPORT TO INCREASE THE FOOD SUPPLY IN AREAS UNDER
MILITARY OCCUPATION FOLLOWING WORLD WAR II, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT THE EXPLOSION RESULTED FROM NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN ADOPTING THE FERTILIZER EXPORT PROGRAM AS A WHOLE, IN ITS
CONTROL OF VARIOUS PHASES OF MANUFACTURING, PACKAGING, LABELING AND
SHIPPING THE PRODUCT, IN FAILING TO GIVE NOTICE OF ITS DANGEROUS NATURE
TO PERSONS HANDLING IT AND IN FAILING TO POLICE ITS LOADING ON
SHIPBOARD.  HELD: AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE FACTS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT
COURT CANNOT GIVE IT JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE UNDER THE ACT, BECAUSE
THE CLAIM IS "BASED UPON THE EXERCISE OR PERFORMANCE OR THE FAILURE TO
EXERCISE OR PERFORM A DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION OR DUTY ON THE PART OF A
FEDERAL AGENCY OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT," WITHIN THE MEANING OF
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2680(A), WHICH MAKES THE ACT INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH
CLAIMS.  PP. 17-45. 

(A)  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT DISCLOSES THAT SEC. 2680(A)
WAS INCLUDED TO ASSURE PROTECTION FOR THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST TORT
LIABILITY FOR ERRORS IN ADMINISTRATION OR IN THE EXERCISE OF
DISCRETIONARY FUNCTIONS.  PP. 24-30. 

(B)  THE "DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION OR DUTY" THAT CANNOT FORM A BASIS
FOR SUIT UNDER THE ACT INCLUDES MORE THAN THE INITIATION OF PROGRAMS
AND ACTIVITIES; IT ALSO INCLUDES DETERMINATIONS MADE BY EXECUTIVES OR
ADMINISTRATORS IN ESTABLISHING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS OR SCHEDULES OF
OPERATIONS.  ACTS OF SUBORDINATES IN CARRYING OUT THE OPERATIONS OF
GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OFFICIAL DIRECTIONS CANNOT BE
ACTIONABLE.  PP. 30-36. 

(C)  THE ACTS OF "NEGLIGENCE" FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT DO NOT
SUBJECT THE GOVERNMENT TO LIABILITY, BECAUSE THE DECISIONS FOUND
CULPABLE WERE ALL RESPONSIBLY MADE IN THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AT A
PLANNING RATHER THAN AN OPERATIONAL LEVEL AND INVOLVED CONSIDERATIONS
MORE OR LESS IMPORTANT TO THE PRACTICABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
FERTILIZER PROGRAM.  PP. 37-42. 

(D)  THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE COAST GUARD AND OTHER
AGENCIES WERE NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO PREVENT THE FIRE BY REGULATING
STORAGE OR LOADING OF THE FERTILIZER IS CLASSICALLY WITHIN THE
EXCEPTION RELATING TO ACTS BASED ON LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  PP. 42-43. 

(E)  THE ALLEGED FAILURE IN FIGHTING THE FIRE IS ALSO OUTSIDE THE
COVERAGE OF THE ACT, FOR THE ACT DID NOT CHANGE THE NORMAL RULE THAT AN
ALLEGED FAILURE OR CARELESSNESS OF PUBLIC FIREMEN DOES NOT CREATE
PRIVATE ACTIONABLE RIGHTS.  PP. 43-44. 

(F)  SINCE THE ACT MAY BE INVOKED ONLY ON A "NEGLIGENT OR WRONGFUL
ACT OR OMISSION" OF AN EMPLOYEE, IT CREATED NO ABSOLUTE LIABILITY OF
THE GOVERNMENT BY VIRTUE OF ITS OWNERSHIP OF AN "INHERENTLY DANGEROUS
COMMODITY" OR PROPERTY, OR OF ITS ENGAGING IN AN "EXTRA-HAZARDOUS"
ACTIVITY.  PP. 44-45. 

DALEHITE ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT,
THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDED A JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFFS.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  197 F.2D 771.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344
U.S. 873.  AFFIRMED, P. 45. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS SEEK DAMAGES FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DEATH OF
HENRY G. DALEHITE IN EXPLOSIONS OF FERTILIZER WITH AN AMMONIUM NITRATE
BASE, AT TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, ON APRIL 16 AND 17, 1947.  THIS IS A TEST
CASE, REPRESENTING SOME 300 SEPARATE PERSONAL AND PROPERTY CLAIMS IN
THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.  CONSOLIDATED
TRIAL WAS HAD IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ON THE FACTS AND THE CRUCIAL QUESTION OF FEDERAL LIABILITY GENERALLY. 
THIS WAS DONE UNDER AN ARRANGEMENT THAT THE RESULT WOULD BE ACCEPTED AS
TO THOSE MATTERS IN THE OTHER SUITS.  JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED FOLLOWING
SEPARATE PROOF OF DAMAGES FOR THESE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS IN THE SUM OF
$75,000.  DAMAGES IN THE OTHER CLAIMS REMAIN TO BE DETERMINED.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED, HOWEVER,
IN RE TEXAS CITY DISASTER LITIGATION, 197 F.2D 771, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 344 U.S. 873, BECAUSE THE CASE PRESENTED AN IMPORTANT
PROBLEM OF FEDERAL STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. 

THE SUITS WERE FILED UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, 28 U.S.C.
SECS. 1346, 2671-2678, 2680.  THAT ACT WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM
SUIT FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIED TORTS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  IT DID NOT
ASSURE INJURED PERSONS DAMAGES FOR ALL INJURIES CAUSED BY SUCH
EMPLOYEES. 

THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, "SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF (THE ACT)," ARE TO HAVE: 

"EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, FOR MONEY DAMAGES, ACCRUING ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1945, FOR
INJURY OR LOSS OF PROPERTY, OR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CAUSED BY THE
NEGLIGENT OR WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION OF ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT
WHILE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE UNITED STATES, IF A PRIVATE PERSON, WOULD BE
LIABLE TO THE CLAIMANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE
THE ACT OR OMISSION OCCURRED."  SEC. 1346(B). 

THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FROM THE SCOPE OF THIS PROVISION.  SECTION 2680
READS: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND SECTION 1346(B) OF THIS TITLE
SHALL NOT APPLY TO: 

"(A)  ANY CLAIM BASED UPON AN ACT OR OMISSION OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
GOVERNMENT, EXERCISING DUE CARE, IN THE EXECUTION OF A STATUTE OR
REGULATION, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH STATUTE OR REGULATION BE VALID, OR
BASED UPON THE EXERCISE OR PERFORMANCE OR THE FAILURE TO EXERCISE OR
PERFORM A DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION OR DUTY ON THE PART OF A FEDERAL
AGENCY OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCRETION
INVOLVED BE ABUSED." 

SUING UNDER THIS GRANT OF JURISDICTION, THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIMED
NEGLIGENCE, SUBSTANTIALLY ON THE PART OF THE ENTIRE BODY OF FEDERAL
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN A PROGRAM OF PRODUCTION OF THE
MATERIAL - FERTILIZER GRADE AMMONIUM NITRATE (FGAN HEREAFTER) - IN
WHICH THE ORIGINAL FIRE OCCURRED AND WHICH EXPLODED.  THIS FERTILIZER
HAD BEEN PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED AT THE INSTANCE, ACCORDING TO THE
SPECIFICATIONS AND UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE ADAPTABILITY OF THE MATERIAL FOR USE IN AGRICULTURE HAD BEEN
RECOGNIZED LONG PRIOR TO 1947.  THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN THE MATTER
BEGAN IN 1943 WHEN THE TVA, ACTING UNDER ITS STATUTORY DELEGATION TO
UNDERTAKE EXPERIMENTS AND "MANUFACTURE" FERTILIZER, 48 STAT.  61, 16
U.S.C. SEC. 831D, FIRST BEGAN PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. 
(FN1)  TVA USED PLANT FACILITIES FORMERLY USED FOR PRODUCTION OF
AMMONIUM NITRATE FOR EXPLOSIVES.  IN THE YEAR 1943, THE WAR PRODUCTION
BOARD, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRODUCTION AND ALLOCATION OF WAR MATERIALS,
EXEC. ORDER 9024, JANUARY 16, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 329, INSTITUTED A
PROGRAM OF YEARLY PRODUCTION OF 30,000 TONS A MONTH OF FGAN FOR PRIVATE
DOMESTIC AGRICULTURAL USE THROUGH PLANTS NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR
AMMUNITION PRODUCTION.  ADMINISTRATION WAS TO BE CARRIED ON THROUGH THE
ARMY'S BUREAU OF ORDNANCE.  THE TVA SPECIFICATIONS WERE FOLLOWED AND
ADVICE GIVEN BY ITS EXPERTS.  THIS EARLY PRODUCTION FOR DOMESTIC USE
FURNISHED A TEST FOR MANUFACTURE AND UTILITY OF FGAN. 

THE PARTICULAR FGAN INVOLVED AT TEXAS CITY CAME TO BE PRODUCED FOR
FOREIGN USE FOR THESE REASONS: FOLLOWING THE WORLD WAR II HOSTILITIES,
THE UNITED STATES' OBLIGATIONS AS AN OCCUPYING POWER, (FN2) AND THE
DANGER OF INTERNAL UNREST, FORCED THIS GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH THE
PROBLEM OF FEEDING THE POPULATIONS OF GERMANY, JAPAN AND KOREA.  DIRECT
SHIPMENT OF FOODSTUFFS WAS IMPRACTICAL; AVAILABLE FERTILIZER WAS IN
SHORT SUPPLY, AND REQUIREMENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES WERE ESTIMATED AT
ABOUT 800,000 TONS.  HOWEVER, SOME 15 ORDNANCE PLANTS HAD BEEN
DEACTIVATED AND TURNED OVER TO THE WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATION, 44 CFR,
1949, PART 401, FOR DISPOSAL.  UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR ROYALL SUGGESTED
IN MAY OF 1946, AND SECRETARY PATTERSON AGREED, THAT THESE BE USED FOR
PRODUCTION OF FERTILIZER NEEDED FOR EXPORT.  (FN3)  THE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF WAR MOBILIZATION AND RECONVERSION, 58 STAT.  785, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 1651 ET SEQ. (1946 ED.), ACTING UNDER THE POWER DELEGATED BY
THE PRESIDENT IN EXEC. ORDER 9347, MAY 27, 1943, 8 FED. REG. 7207, AND
EXEC. ORDER 9488, OCTOBER 3, 1944, 9 FED. REG. 12145, ORDERED THE
PLANTS INTO OPERATION.  CABINET APPROVAL FOLLOWED.  THE WAR DEPARTMENT
ALLOCATED FUNDS FROM ITS APPROPRIATIONS FOR "SUPPLIES" AND "MILITARY
POSTS" FOR 1946; DIRECT APPROPRIATIONS FOR RELIEF IN THE OCCUPIED AREAS
WERE MADE BY CONGRESS IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR.  (FN4)  THE ARMY'S CHIEF
OF ORDNANCE WAS DELEGATED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PLAN,
AND WAS AUTHORIZED PARTICULARLY TO ENTER INTO COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE
CONTRACTS WITH PRIVATE COMPANIES FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PLANTS'
FACILITIES.  HE IN TURN APPOINTED THE FIELD DIRECTOR OF AMMUNITION
PLANTS (FDAP) TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM.  THEREAFTER THE DEPARTMENT
ENTERED INTO A NUMBER OF CONTRACTS WITH PRIVATE FIRMS - INCLUDING THE
DU PONT CO. AND HERCULES POWDER CO. - TO "OPERATE THE INSTALLATION  ...
DESCRIBED HEREIN FOR THE GRAINING OF AMMONIUM NITRATE (FERTILIZER
GRADE)," BUT SUBJECTING "THE WORK TO BE DONE BY THE CONTRACTOR  ...  TO
THE GENERAL SUPERVISION, DIRECTION, CONTROL AND APPROVAL OF THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER."  A DETAILED SET OF SPECIFICATIONS WAS DRAWN UP
AND SENT TO EACH PLANT WHICH INCLUDED FDAP "SPECIFICATIONS FOR
PRODUCTS" AND A SIMILAR TVA PAPER.  ARMY PERSONNEL WERE APPOINTED FOR
EACH PLANT.  THESE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THESE
SPECIFICATIONS, LIAISON WITH SUPPLY OFFICIALS, AND SATISFACTION OF
PRODUCTION SCHEDULES, PURSUANT TO AN ARMY STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE.  BEYOND THIS, OPERATIONS WERE CONTROLLED BY THE
ADMINISTERING CORPORATION WHICH SUPPLIED THE PERSONNEL AND PRODUCTION
EXPERIENCE REQUIRED.  (FN5) 

FGAN'S BASIC INGREDIENT WAS AMMONIUM NITRATE, LONG USED AS A
COMPONENT IN EXPLOSIVES.  ITS ADAPTABILITY AS A FERTILIZER STEMMED FROM
ITS HIGH FREE NITROGEN CONTENT.  HERCULES POWDER COMPANY HAD FIRST
MANUFACTURED A FERTILIZER COMPOUND IN THIS FORM ON THE BASIS OF CAIRNS'
EXPLOSIVE PATENT, NO. 2,211,738, OF AUGUST 13, 1940.  THE CAIRNS
PROCESS CONTEMPLATES A PRODUCT SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE TEXAS
CITY FGAN.  THE PROCESS WAS LICENSED TO THE UNITED STATES.  THE
GOVERNMENT PRODUCED AMMONIUM NITRATE AT CERTAIN OTHER FEDERAL PLANTS,
AND SHIPPED IT IN SOLUTION TO THE REACTIVATED GRAINING CENTERS FOR
CONCENTRATION.  THEREAFTER, IN ADDITION TO CLAY, A MIXTURE OF
PETROLATUM, ROSIN AND PARAFFIN (PRP HEREAFTER) WAS ADDED TO INSURE
AGAINST CAKING THROUGH WATER ABSORPTION.  THE MATERIAL WAS THEN GRAINED
TO FERTILIZER SPECIFICATION, DRIED AND PACKAGED IN 6-PLY PAPER BAGS,
MARKED "FERTILIZER (AMMONIUM NITRATE)." 

AT THE INCEPTION OF THE PROGRAM, HOWEVER, IT APPEARED THAT THESE
PARTICULAR PLANTS WERE UNABLE TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES OF
FERTILIZER TO MEET THE EARLY NEEDS OF THE PLANNED ALLOCATION.  SO EARLY
SHIPMENTS TO THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES WERE MADE UP OF LOTS PRIVATELY
PRODUCED, AND RELEASED TO THE WAR DEPARTMENT BY THE COMBINED FOOD BOARD
AND PURCHASED BY THE UNITED STATES, PURSUANT TO AN ALLOCATION
ARRANGEMENT APPROVED BY THE BOARD ACTING THROUGH THE CIVILIAN
PRODUCTION ADMINISTRATION, ESTABLISHED BY EXEC. ORDER 9638, OCTOBER 4,
1945, 10 FED. REG. 12591.  THEREAFTER THE PRIVATE PRODUCERS COULD
REPLENISH THEIR SUPPLY FOR PRIVATE SALE BY PURCHASING GOVERNMENT
PRODUCED FGAN, IF THEY SO DESIRED. 

THE PARTICULAR FGAN TRANSPORTED TO TEXAS CITY HAD BEEN PRODUCED AT
THREE OF THE PLANTS ACTIVATED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FOREIGN
FERTILIZER PROGRAM, AND ALLOTTED TO THE LION OIL CO., WHICH HAD
PREVIOUSLY SOLD FGAN TO THE ARMY PURSUANT TO THEIR SELL-BACK
AGREEMENT.  THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT TITLE WAS TO PASS TO LION ON
PAYMENT.  THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT OF SALE TO THE ARMY HAVING PROVIDED
THAT LION COULD DESIGNATE A RECIPIENT OTHER THAN ITSELF FOR THE
REPLACEMENT FGAN, LION CONTRACTED WITH THE WALSEN COMPANY FOR RESALE. 
WALSEN OPERATED AS BROKER FOR THE FRENCH SUPPLY COUNCIL REPRESENTING
THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT WHICH HAD SECURED A PREFERENTIAL FERTILIZER
ALLOCATION FROM THE CIVILIAN PRODUCTION ADMINISTRATION.  PURSUANT
THERETO WALSEN TRANSMITTED THE FRENCH SHIPPING ORDERS TO LION WHO
TURNED THEM OVER TO THE ARMY FOR EXECUTION.  THE FGAN WAS CONSIGNED TO
THE FRENCH SUPPLY COUNCIL AT TEXAS CITY BY GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING. 
THE COUNCIL INSURED THE SHIPMENT IN ITS OWN NAME, ARRANGED FOR CREDIT
WITH NEW YORK BANKS AND ASSIGNED PART THEREOF TO LION, SUFFICIENT TO
COVER THE SHIPMENTS HERE INVOLVED, PAYABLE ON PRESENTATION OF SHIPPING
DOCUMENTS.  IT ALSO DIRECTED LION TO "CONSIGN ALL LOTS FRENCH SUPPLY
COUNCIL FOR STORAGE AND EVENTUAL EXPORTATION TEXAS CITY TERMINAL
TEXAS." 

BY APRIL 15, 1947, FOLLOWING THREE WEEKS' WAREHOUSE STORAGE AT TEXAS
CITY ON ORDERS OF THE FRENCH COUNCIL, SOME 1,850 TONS OF THE FGAN THUS
RESOLD HAD BEEN LOADED ON THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT-OWNED STEAMSHIP
GRANDCAMP, AND SOME 1,000 TONS ON THE PRIVATELY OWNED HIGH FLYER BY
INDEPENDENT STEVEDORES HIRED BY THE FRENCH.  (FN6)  THE GRANDCAMP
CARRIED IN ADDITION A SUBSTANTIAL CARGO OF EXPLOSIVES, AND THE HIGH
FLYER 2,000 TONS OF SULPHUR AT THE TIME.  AT ABOUT 8:15 A.M. OF THE
NEXT DAY SMOKE WAS SIGHTED IN THE GRANDCAMP HOLD AND ALL EFFORTS TO
HALT THE FIRE WERE UNAVAILING.  (FN7)  BOTH SHIPS EXPLODED AND MUCH OF
THE CITY WAS LEVELED AND MANY PEOPLE KILLED. 

SINCE NO INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE COULD BE SHOWN, THE SUITS FOR
DAMAGES THAT RESULTED NECESSARILY PREDICATED GOVERNMENT LIABILITY ON
THE PARTICIPATION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE MANUFACTURE AND THE
TRANSPORTATION OF FGAN.  FOLLOWING THE DISASTER, OF COURSE, NO ONE
COULD FAIL TO BE IMPRESSED WITH THE BLUNT FACT THAT FGAN WOULD
EXPLODE.  IN SUM, PETITIONERS CHARGED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD
BROUGHT LIABILITY ON ITSELF FOR THE CATASTROPHE BY USING A MATERIAL IN
FERTILIZER WHICH HAD BEEN USED AS AN INGREDIENT OF EXPLOSIVES FOR SO
LONG THAT INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE GAVE NOTICE THAT OTHER COMBINATIONS OF
AMMONIUM NITRATE WITH OTHER MATERIAL MIGHT EXPLODE.  THE NEGLIGENCE
CHARGED WAS THAT THE UNITED STATES, WITHOUT DEFINITIVE INVESTIGATION OF
FGAN PROPERTIES, SHIPPED OR PERMITTED SHIPMENT TO A CONGESTED AREA
WITHOUT WARNING OF THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPLOSION UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS.  THE DISTRICT COURT ACCEPTED THIS THEORY.  HIS JUDGMENT WAS
BASED ON A SERIES OF FINDINGS OF CAUSAL NEGLIGENCE WHICH, FOR OUR
PURPOSES, CAN BE ROUGHLY DIVIDED INTO THREE KINDS - THOSE WHICH HELD
THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN CARELESS IN DRAFTING AND ADOPTING THE
FERTILIZER EXPORT PLAN AS A WHOLE, THOSE WHICH FOUND SPECIFIC
NEGLIGENCE IN VARIOUS PHASES OF THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND THOSE
WHICH EMPHASIZED OFFICIAL DERELICTION OF DUTY IN FAILING TO POLICE THE
SHIPBOARD LOADING.  THE COURT OF APPEALS EN BANC UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED,
BUT SINCE ONLY THREE OF THE SIX JUDGES EXPLICITLY REJECTED THE BULK OF
THESE FINDINGS, WE SHALL CONSIDER THE CASE AS ONE IN WHICH THEY COME TO
US UNIMPAIRED.  CF.  LABOR BOARD V. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO., 340 U.S.
498, 503; UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364,
395.  EVEN ASSUMING THEIR CORRECTNESS ARGUENDO, THOUGH, IT IS OUR
JUDGMENT THAT THEY DO NOT ESTABLISH A CASE WITHIN THE ACT.  (FN8)  THIS
IS FOR THE REASON THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW THE FACTS FOUND CANNOT GIVE
THE DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS
ACT. 

I. THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT WAS PASSED BY THE SEVENTY-NINTH
CONGRESS IN 1946 AS TITLE IV OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT, 60
STAT. 842, AFTER NEARLY THIRTY YEARS OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION. 
IT WAS THE OFFSPRING OF A FEELING THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ASSUME THE
OBLIGATION TO PAY DAMAGES FOR THE MISFEASANCE OF EMPLOYEES IN CARRYING
OUT ITS WORK.  AND THE PRIVATE BILL DEVICE WAS NOTORIOUSLY CLUMSY. 
(FN9)  SOME SIMPLIFIED RECOVERY PROCEDURE FOR THE MASS OF CLAIMS WAS
IMPERATIVE.  THIS ACT WAS CONGRESS' SOLUTION, AFFORDING INSTEAD EASY
AND SIMPLE ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR TORTS WITHIN ITS SCOPE. 
(FN10)    THE MEANING OF THE GOVERNMENTAL REGULATORY FUNCTION EXCEPTION
FROM SUITS, SEC. 2680(A), SHOWS MOST CLEARLY IN THE HISTORY OF THE TORT
CLAIMS BILL IN THE SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS.  THE SEVENTY-NINTH, WHICH
PASSED THE ACT, HELD NO RELEVANT HEARINGS.  INSTEAD, IT INTEGRATED THE
LANGUAGE OF THE SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, WHICH HAD FIRST CONSIDERED
THE EXCEPTION, INTO THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT AS TITLE IV. 

EARLIER TORT CLAIMS BILLS CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS CONTAINED
RESERVATIONS FROM THE ABDICATION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.  PRIOR TO 1942
THESE EXCEPTIONS WERE COUCHED IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC SPHERES OF FEDERAL
ACTIVITY, SUCH AS POSTAL SERVICE, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, OR THE COLLECTION OF TAXES.  (FN11)  IN 1942,
HOWEVER, THE SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS DRAFTED A TWOFOLD ELIMINATION OF
CLAIMS BASED ON THE EXECUTION OF A REGULATION OR STATUTE OR ON THE
EXERCISE OF A DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILLS THEN
INTRODUCED IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE, IN FACT, WAS IDENTICAL WITH
THAT OF SEC. 2680(A) AS ADOPTED.  (FN12)  THE EXCEPTION WAS DRAFTED AS
A CLARIFYING AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSE BILL TO ASSURE PROTECTION FOR THE
GOVERNMENT AGAINST TORT LIABILITY FOR ERRORS IN ADMINISTRATION OR IN
THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONARY FUNCTIONS.  (FN13) AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, APPEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ESPECIALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE,
(FN14) EXPLAINED IT AS AVOIDING "ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THE ACT MAY BE
CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE DAMAGE SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT GROWING OUT
OF A LEGALLY AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY," MERELY BECAUSE "THE SAME CONDUCT BY
A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE TORTIOUS."  IT WAS NOT "INTENDED THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION, THE LEGALITY OF REGULATIONS, OR THE
PROPRIETY OF A DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE ACT, SHOULD BE TESTED
THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF A DAMAGE SUIT FOR TORT.  THE SAME HOLDS TRUE OF
OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NOT OF A REGULATORY NATURE, SUCH AS THE
EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL FUNDS, THE EXECUTION OF A FEDERAL PROJECT AND
THE LIKE."  (FN15)  REFERRING TO A PRIOR BILL WHICH HAD NOT CONTAINED
THE "DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION" EXEMPTION, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY WAS ADVISED THAT "THE CASES EMBRACED WITHIN THE NEW
SUBSECTION WOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPTED FROM THE PRIOR BILL BY JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION.  IT IS NOT PROBABLE THAT THE COURTS WOULD EXTEND A TORT
CLAIMS ACT INTO THE REALM OF THE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION OR
DISCRETIONARY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, BUT H.R. 6463 MAKES THIS
SPECIFIC."  (FN16) 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES THAT WHILE CONGRESS DESIRED TO
WAIVE THE GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY FROM ACTIONS FOR INJURIES TO PERSON AND
PROPERTY OCCASIONED BY THE TORTIOUS CONDUCT OF ITS AGENTS ACTING WITHIN
THEIR SCOPE OF BUSINESS, (FN17) IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED THAT THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO LIABILITY ARISING FROM ACTS OF A
GOVERNMENTAL NATURE OR FUNCTION.  (FN18)  SECTION 2680(A) DRAWS THIS
DISTINCTION.  UPPERMOST IN THE COLLECTIVE MIND OF CONGRESS WERE THE
ORDINARY COMMON-LAW TORTS.  (FN19)  OF THESE, THE EXAMPLE WHICH IS
REITERATED IN THE COURSE OF THE REPEATED PROPOSALS FOR SUBMITTING THE
UNITED STATES TO TORT LIABILITY IS "NEGLIGENCE IN THE OPERATION OF
VEHICLES."  (FN20)  ON THE OTHER HAND THE COMMITTEE'S REPORTS EXPLAIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAIVED, AS DEFINED BY THIS
SEC. 2680 EXCEPTION, WITH ONE PARAGRAPH WHICH APPEARS TIME AND AGAIN
AFTER 1942, AND IN THE HOUSE REPORT OF THE CONGRESS THAT ADOPTED IN
SEC. 2680(A) THE LIMITATION IN THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED FOR THE 77TH
CONGRESS.  (FN21)  IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE IN ALMOST THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S EXPLANATION.  THIS
PARAGRAPH CHARACTERIZES THE GENERAL EXEMPTION AS "A HIGHLY IMPORTANT
EXCEPTION, INTENDED TO PRECLUDE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THE BILL MIGHT BE
CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT GROWING
OUT OF AN AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY, SUCH AS A FLOOD-CONTROL OR IRRIGATION
PROJECT, WHERE NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF ANY GOVERNMENT AGENT IS
SHOWN, AND THE ONLY GROUND FOR SUIT IS THE CONTENTION THAT THE SAME
CONDUCT BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE TORTIOUS  ...  .  THE BILL IS
NOT INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE A SUIT FOR DAMAGES TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF OR
PROVIDE A REMEDY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DISCRETIONARY ACTS EVEN THOUGH
NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED AND INVOLVING AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION." 

II.  TURNING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, OUR REASONING AS TO
ITS APPLICABILITY TO THIS DISASTER STARTS FROM THE ACCEPTED
JURISPRUDENTIAL PRINCIPLE THAT NO ACTION LIES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE HAS AUTHORIZED IT.  (FN22)  THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ACT MAKES THE UNITED STATES LIABLE "RESPECTING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
TITLE RELATING TO TORT CLAIMS, IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES."  28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2674.  THIS STATUTE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE PROGRESSIVE
RELAXATION BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS OF THE RIGOR OF THE IMMUNITY
RULE.  THROUGH SUCH STATUTES THAT CHANGE THE LAW, ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT
EXPRESSES THE SOCIAL PURPOSES THAT MOTIVATE ITS LEGISLATION.  OF
COURSE, THESE MODIFICATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO A CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL
ACCOMPLISH THEIR AIM, (FN23) THAT IS, ONE THAT WILL CARRY OUT THE
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR
NEGLIGENCE WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS TO THAT
POLICY.  IN INTERPRETING THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERALITY OF THE GRANT,
COURTS INCLUDE ONLY THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE WITHIN THE WORDS AND
REASON OF THE EXCEPTION.  (FN24) THEY CANNOT DO LESS SINCE PETITIONERS
OBTAIN THEIR "RIGHT TO SUE FROM CONGRESS AND THEY NECESSARILY MUST TAKE
IT SUBJECT TO SUCH RESTRICTIONS AS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED."  FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION V. BURR, 309 U.S. 242, 251. 

SO, OUR DECISIONS HAVE INTERPRETED THE ACT TO REQUIRE CLEAR
RELINQUISHMENT OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY TO GIVE JURISDICTION FOR TORT
ACTIONS.  (FN25)  WHERE JURISDICTION WAS CLEAR, THOUGH, WE HAVE ALLOWED
RECOVERY DESPITE ARGUABLE PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS.  (FN26) 

ONE ONLY NEED READ SEC. 2680 IN ITS ENTIRETY TO CONCLUDE THAT
CONGRESS EXERCISED CARE TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT FROM CLAIMS, HOWEVER
NEGLIGENTLY CAUSED, THAT AFFECTED THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS. 
NEGLIGENCE IN ADMINISTERING THE ALIEN PROPERTY ACT, OR IN ESTABLISHING
A QUARANTINE, ASSAULT, LIBEL, FISCAL OPERATIONS, ETC., WAS BARRED.  AN
ANALYSIS OF SEC. 2680(A), THE EXCEPTION WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED,
EMPHASIZES THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO EXCEPT THE ACTS HERE CHARGED AS
NEGLIGENCE FROM THE AUTHORIZATION TO SUE.  (FN27)  IT WILL BE NOTED
FROM THE FORM OF THE SECTION, SEE P. 18, SUPRA, THAT THERE ARE TWO
PHRASES DESCRIBING THE EXCEPTED ACTS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  THE
FIRST DEALS WITH ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, EXERCISING
DUE CARE IN CARRYING OUT STATUTES OR REGULATIONS WHETHER VALID OR NOT. 
IT BARS TESTS BY TORT ACTION OF THE LEGALITY OF STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS.  THE SECOND IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.  IT EXCEPTS ACTS
OF DISCRETION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OR DUTY
"WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCRETION INVOLVED BE ABUSED."  NOT ONLY AGENCIES
OF GOVERNMENT ARE COVERED BUT ALL EMPLOYEES EXERCISING DISCRETION. 
(FN28)  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE JUST-QUOTED CLAUSE AS TO ABUSE CONNOTES
BOTH NEGLIGENCE AND WRONGFUL ACTS IN THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION
BECAUSE THE ACT ITSELF COVERS ONLY "NEGLIGENT OR WRONGFUL ACT OR
OMISSION OF ANY EMPLOYEE," "WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICE" "WHERE THE
UNITED STATES, IF A PRIVATE PERSON, WOULD BE LIABLE."  28 U.S.C. SEC.
1346(B).  THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION COULD NOT BE ABUSED WITHOUT
NEGLIGENCE OR A WRONGFUL ACT.  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS, NOTE 21, SUPRA,
SHOW THIS.  THEY SAY SEC. 2680(A) IS TO PRECLUDE ACTION FOR "ABUSE OF
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY  ...  WHETHER OR NOT NEGLIGENCE IS ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED."  THEY SPEAK OF EXCEPTING A "REMEDY ON ACCOUNT OF
SUCH DISCRETIONARY ACTS EVEN THOUGH NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED AND INVOLVING
AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION."  (FN29) 

SO WE KNOW THAT THE DRAFTSMEN DID NOT INTEND IT TO RELIEVE THE
GOVERNMENT FROM LIABILITY FOR SUCH COMMON-LAW TORTS AS AN AUTOMOBILE
COLLISION CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE, SEE P. 28, SUPRA, OF
THE ADMINISTERING AGENCY.  WE KNOW IT WAS INTENDED TO COVER MORE THAN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF A STATUTE OR REGULATION BECAUSE IT APPEARS
DISJUNCTIVELY IN THE SECOND PHRASE OF THE SECTION.  THE "DISCRETION"
PROTECTED BY THE SECTION IS NOT THAT OF THE JUDGE - A POWER TO DECIDE
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF POSITIVE RULES OF LAW SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. 
IT IS THE DISCRETION OF THE EXECUTIVE OR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ACT
ACCORDING TO ONE'S JUDGMENT OF THE BEST COURSE, A CONCEPT OF
SUBSTANTIAL HISTORICAL ANCESTRY IN AMERICAN LAW.  (FN30) 

THIS CONTENTION IS MET BY PETITIONERS WITH THESE ARGUMENTS: 

"TO ACCEPT THE FOREGOING CLOSE AND NARROW REASONING OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, WHICH IS UNREALISTIC, IS TO SAY THAT A PROGRAM AND UNDERTAKING
AND OPERATION, HOWEVER LIKE IT MAY BE TO SOME PRIVATE CORPORATION OR
OPERATION SUCH AS THE MANUFACTURE OF AN EXPLOSIVE, IS NEVERTHELESS
THROUGHOUT DISCRETIONARY, IF THE CONCEPT THEREOF IS BORN IN DISCRETION
...  .  PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT IN THE MANUFACTURING  ...  OF FGAN,
...  THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT CHARGED WITH ANY DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION OR
OPPORTUNITY OF DISCRETION, BUT WAS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF DUE AND
REASONABLE CARE. 

"THIS COURT HAS ALWAYS APPLIED THE THEORY OF DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION
ONLY TO THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE LEVELS, AND HAS MADE SUCH
FUNCTION THE BASIS OF FREEDOM FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE COURTS A
PERSONAL ONE TO THE PARTICULAR EXECUTIVE OR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. 
SUCH DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION MAY NOT BE DELEGATED DOWN TO SUBORDINATES
AND TO OTHERS." 

"THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT, ADOPTED BY JUDGE RIVES, IS THAT THE
RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WERE CHOOSING BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE
COURSES OF ACTION IN THE STEPS THEY TOOK  ...  .  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT
THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE WAS IN THE EXERCISE OF 'DISCRETION' SIMPLY
BECAUSE IT INVOLVED A CHOICE. 

     *         *       *         *         * 

"THE NEGLIGENCE INVOLVED HERE WAS FAR REMOVED FROM ANY CABINET
DECISION TO PROVIDE AID TO GERMANS AND JAPANESE  ...  .  IT IS DIRECTED
ONLY TO THE MISTAKES OF JUDGMENT AND THE CARELESS OVERSIGHT OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO WERE CARRYING OUT A PROGRAM OF MANUFACTURING
AND SHIPPING FERTILIZER AND WHO FAILED TO CONCERN THEMSELVES AS A
REASONABLE MAN SHOULD WITH THE SAFETY OF OTHERS  ...  . CONGRESS
DELEGATED TO ORDNANCE NO 'DISCRETION' THUS TO COMMIT WRONG." 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DEFINE, APART FROM THIS CASE, PRECISELY WHERE
DISCRETION ENDS.  IT IS ENOUGH TO HOLD, AS WE DO, THAT THE
"DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION OR DUTY" THAT CANNOT FORM A BASIS FOR SUIT
UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT INCLUDES MORE THAN THE INITIATION OF PROGRAMS
AND ACTIVITIES.  IT ALSO INCLUDES DETERMINATIONS MADE BY EXECUTIVES OR
ADMINISTRATORS IN ESTABLISHING PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS OR SCHEDULES OF
OPERATIONS.  (FN31)  WHERE THERE IS ROOM FOR POLICY JUDGMENT AND
DECISION THERE IS DISCRETION.  IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT ACTS OF
SUBORDINATES IN CARRYING OUT THE OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH OFFICIAL DIRECTIONS CANNOT BE ACTIONABLE.  IF IT WERE NOT SO, THE
PROTECTION OF SEC. 2680(A) WOULD FAIL AT THE TIME IT WOULD BE NEEDED,
THAT IS, WHEN A SUBORDINATE PERFORMS OR FAILS TO PERFORM A CAUSAL STEP,
EACH ACTION OR NONACTION BEING DIRECTED BY THE SUPERIOR, EXERCISING,
PERHAPS ABUSING, DISCRETION.  (FN32) 

III.  THAT THE CABINET-LEVEL DECISION TO INSTITUTE THE FERTILIZER
EXPORT PROGRAM WAS A DISCRETIONARY ACT IS NOT SERIOUSLY DISPUTED.  NOR
DO WE THINK THAT THERE IS ANY DOUBT THAT THE NEED FOR FURTHER
EXPERIMENTATION WITH FGAN TO DETERMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS
EXPLOSION, UNDER CONDITIONS LIKELY TO BE ENCOUNTERED IN SHIPPING, AND
ITS COMBUSTIBILITY WAS A MATTER TO BE DETERMINED BY THE DISCRETION OF
THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE PRODUCTION.  OBVIOUSLY, HAVING MANUFACTURED AND
SHIPPED THE COMMODITY FGAN FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS WITHOUT EVEN MINOR
ACCIDENTS, THE NEED FOR FURTHER EXPERIMENTATION WAS A MATTER OF
DISCRETION.  REPORTED INSTANCES OF HEATING OR BAG DAMAGE WERE
INVESTIGATED AND EXPERIMENTS, TO THE EXTENT DEEMED NECESSARY, WERE
CARRIED ON.  IN DEALING WITH AMMONIUM NITRATE IN ANY FORM, THE
INDUSTRY, AND OF COURSE ORDNANCE, WERE WELL AWARE THAT CARE MUST BE
TAKEN.  THE BEST INDICATION OF THE CARE NECESSARY CAME FROM EXPERIENCE
IN FGAN PRODUCTION.  THE TVA HAD PRODUCED FGAN SINCE 1943, AND THEIR
EXPERIENCE, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, PP. 18-20, WAS NOT ONLY AVAILABLE TO
ORDNANCE BUT WAS USED BY THEM TO THE MOST MINUTE DETAIL.  IT IS, WE
THINK, JUST SUCH MATTERS OF GOVERNMENTAL DUTIES THAT WERE EXCEPTED FROM
THE ACT. 

WE TURN, THEREFORE, TO THE SPECIFIC ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE CHARGED IN THE
MANUFACTURE.  EACH WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND DONE UNDER,
SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS AS TO HOW THE FGAN WAS PRODUCED AT THE
PLANTS.  THE BASIC "PLAN" WAS DRAFTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE FIELD
DIRECTOR OF AMMUNITION PLANTS IN JUNE, 1946, PRIOR TO BEGINNING
PRODUCTION.  (FN33)  IT WAS DRAWN UP IN THE LIGHT OF PRIOR EXPERIENCE
BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND THE TVA.  IN FACT IT WAS, AS WE HAVE POINTED
OUT, BASED ON THE LATTER AGENCY'S ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES, AND
SPECIFICALLY ADOPTED THE TVA PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND SPECIFICATIONS. 
(FN34)  THIS PLAN WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE VARIOUS PLANTS AT THE
INCEPTION OF THE PROGRAM. 

BESIDES ITS GENERAL CONDEMNATION OF THE MANUFACTURE OF FGAN, THE
DISTRICT COURT CITED FOUR SPECIFIC ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE IN MANUFACTURE. 
(FN35)  EACH OF THESE ACTS LOOKED UPON AS NEGLIGENCE WAS DIRECTED BY
THIS PLAN.  APPLICABLE EXCERPTS FOLLOW.  BAGGING TEMPERATURE WAS
FIXED.  (FN36)  THE TYPE OF BAGGING (FN37) AND THE LABELING THEREOF
(FN38) WERE ALSO ESTABLISHED.  THE PRP COATING, TOO, WAS INCLUDED IN
THE SPECIFICATIONS.  (FN39)  THE ACTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT WERE
THUS PERFORMED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A PLAN DEVELOPED AT A HIGH LEVEL
UNDER A DIRECT DELEGATION OF PLAN-MAKING AUTHORITY FROM THE APEX OF THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS PLAN, DELEGATED TO THE
FIELD DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, SUPRA, P. 20, CLEARLY REQUIRED THE EXERCISE OF
EXPERT JUDGMENT.    THIS IS TO BE SEEN, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE MATTER OF
THE COATING.  THE PRP WAS ADDED IN ORDER TO INSURE AGAINST WATER
ABSORPTION.  AT STAKE WAS NO MERE MATTER OF TASTE; AMMONIUM NITRATE
WHEN WET CAKES AND IS DIFFICULT TO SPREAD ON FIELDS AS A FERTILIZER. 
SO THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT DICTATED THE DECISIONS WERE CRUCIAL ONES,
INVOLVING THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROGRAM ITSELF, BALANCED AGAINST
PRESENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE EFFECT OF SUCH A COATING AND THE GENERAL
CUSTOM OF SIMILAR PRIVATE INDUSTRIES. 

AND, ASSUMING THAT HIGH BAGGING TEMPERATURES IN FACT OBTAINED AS THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND, THE DECISION TO BAG AT THE TEMPERATURE FIXED WAS
ALSO WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  MAXIMUM BAGGING TEMPERATURES WERE FIRST
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE TVA SPECIFICATIONS.  THAT THEY WERE THE PRODUCT
OF AN EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT, REQUIRING CONSIDERATION OF A VAST SPECTRUM
OF FACTORS, INCLUDING SOME WHICH TOUCHED DIRECTLY THE FEASIBILITY OF
THE FERTILIZER EXPORT PROGRAM, IS CLEAR.  FOR INSTANCE, IT APPEARS
SEVERAL TIMES IN THE RECORD THAT THE QUESTION OF BAGGING TEMPERATURES
WAS DISCUSSED BY THE ARMY PLANT OFFICIALS, AMONG OTHERS.  IN JANUARY,
1947, THE BUREAU OF EXPLOSIVES OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS
WROTE TO ORDNANCE CONCERNING A BOXCAR FIRE OF FGAN.  THE LETTER
SUGGESTED A REDUCTION OF BAGGING TEMPERATURES.  THE FIELD DIRECTOR OF
AMMUNITION PLANTS CONSULTED THE COMMANDING OFFICERS ON THE MATTER. 
THOSE OF TWO OF THE PLANTS WHICH MANUFACTURED THE TEXAS CITY FGAN
REPLIED THAT LOADING WAS EFFECTED AT ABOUT 200 DEGREES.  BOTH, HOWEVER,
RECOMMENDED THAT REDUCED TEMPERATURES WOULD BE INADVISABLE.  IT WOULD
BE POSSIBLE TO KEEP THE PRODUCT IN GRAINING KETTLES FOR LONGER PERIOD
OR TO INSTALL COOLING EQUIPMENT.  BUT BOTH METHODS WOULD RESULT IN
GREATLY INCREASED PRODUCTION COSTS AND/OR GREATLY REDUCED PRODUCTION. 
THIS KIND OF DECISION IS NOT ONE WHICH THE COURTS, UNDER THE ACT, ARE
EMPOWERED TO CITE AS "NEGLIGENCE"; ESPECIALLY IS THIS SO IN THE LIGHT
OF THE CONTEMPORARY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FGAN.  (FN40) 

AS WELL, SERIOUS JUDGMENT WAS INVOLVED IN THE SPECIFICATION OF THE
BAG LABELS AND BILLS OF LADING.   THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS RESTS ON THE
FACT THAT IT IS THE LATEST POINT IN TIME AND GEOGRAPHY WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT DID ANYTHING DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE FIRE, FOR AFTER BAGGING
THE FGAN WAS OF COURSE PHYSICALLY IN THE HANDS OF VARIOUS NON
GOVERNMENTAL AGENTS.  SO, SINCE THERE WAS SERIOUS ROOM FOR SPECULATION
THAT THE MOST DIRECT OPERATIVE FACT CAUSING THE IMMEDIATE FIRE ON THE
GRANDCAMP AROSE FROM ERRORS THAT THE FRENCH COUNCIL, LONGSHOREMEN OR
SHIP STAFF COMMITTED, IT WAS AND IS IMPORTANT FOR THE PETITIONERS TO
EMPHASIZE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE ALLEGED LABELING MISTAKE. 

THIS, TOO, THOUGH, FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION FOR ACTS OF
DISCRETION.  THE PLAN HAD BEEN PREPARED IN THIS REGARD BY THE
TRANSPORTATION OFFICER OF THE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE.  HIS DECISION IN THE
MATTER WAS DICTATED BY THE ICC REGULATIONS.  THESE DID NOT PROVIDE FOR
A SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATION FOR THE MATERIAL OTHER THAN AS FERTILIZER. 
LABELING IT AS ANYTHING BUT "OXIDIZING MATERIAL" WAS NOT REQUIRED -
INDEED WAS PROBABLY FORBIDDEN - AND EVEN THIS REQUIREMENT WAS WAIVED
FOR BAGS OF LESS THAN 200 POUNDS.  TO THE EXTENT, THEN, THAT THE ARMY
HAD A CHOICE IN THE MATTER, ITS DECISION NOT TO SEEK TO LIST ITS FGAN
IN ANY OTHER FASHION WAS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  THE IMMUNITY OF A
DECISION AS TO LABELING, IN FACT, IS QUITE CLEARLY SHOWN BY THE FACT
THAT THE ICC'S REGULATIONS, FOR INSTANCE, COULD NOT BE ATTACKED BY
CLAIMANTS UNDER THE ACT BY VIRTUE OF THE FIRST PHRASE OF SEC. 2680(A). 

IN SHORT, THE ALLEGED "NEGLIGENCE" DOES NOT SUBJECT THE GOVERNMENT TO
LIABILITY.  THE DECISIONS HELD CULPABLE WERE ALL RESPONSIBLY MADE AT A
PLANNING RATHER THAN OPERATIONAL LEVEL AND INVOLVED CONSIDERATIONS MORE
OR LESS IMPORTANT TO THE PRACTICABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FERTILIZER
PROGRAM. 

"THERE MUST BE KNOWLEDGE OF A DANGER, NOT MERELY POSSIBLE, BUT
PROBABLE," MACPHERSON V. BUICK MOTOR CO., 217 N.Y. 382, 389, 111 N.E.
1050, 1053.  HERE, NOTHING SO STARTLING WAS ADDUCED.  THE ENTIRETY OF
THE EVIDENCE COMPELS THE VIEW THAT FGAN WAS A MATERIAL THAT FORMER
EXPERIENCE SHOWED COULD BE HANDLED SAFELY IN THE MANNER IT WAS HANDLED
HERE.  EVEN NOW NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE IGNITION OF FGAN WAS
ANYTHING BUT A COMPLEX RESULT OF THE INTERACTING FACTORS OF MASS, HEAT,
PRESSURE AND COMPOSITION. 

IV.  THE FINDINGS OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE COAST GUARD IN
FAILING TO SUPERVISE THE STORAGE OF THE FGAN, AND IN FIGHTING THE FIRE
AFTER IT STARTED, WERE REJECTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
197 F.2D, AT 777, 780, 781.  WE DO NOT ENTER INTO AN EXAMINATION OF
THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS.  WE PREFER, AGAIN, TO REST OUR DECISION ON THE
ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE COAST GUARD AND OTHER AGENCIES
WERE NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO PREVENT THE FIRE BY REGULATING STORAGE OR
LOADING OF THE FERTILIZER IN SOME DIFFERENT FASHION IS LIKE HIS
SPECIFIC CITATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE DISCUSSED ABOVE.  THEY ARE CLASICALLY
WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  "THE POWER TO ADOPT REGULATIONS OR BY-LAWS  ...
FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, OR TO PASS ORDINANCES
PRESCRIBING AND REGULATING THE DUTIES OF POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN  ... ARE
GENERALLY REGARDED AS DISCRETIONARY, BECAUSE, IN THEIR NATURE, THEY ARE
LEGISLATIVE."  WEIGHTMAN V. CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, 1 BLACK 39, 49. 
THE COURTS HAVE TRADITIONALLY REFUSED TO QUESTION THE JUDGMENTS ON
WHICH THEY ARE BASED.  ZYWICKI V. JOS.  R. FOARD CO., 206 F. 975;
GUTOWSKI V. MAYOR OF BALTIMORE, 127 MD. 502, 96 A. 630; STATE V.
GENERAL STEVEDORING CO., 213 F. 51. 

AS TO THE ALLEGED FAILURE IN FIGHTING THE FIRE, WE THINK THIS TOO
WITHOUT THE ACT.  THE ACT DID NOT CREATE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE
NONE EXISTED BEFORE. 

"  ...  THE LIABILITY ASSUMED BY THE GOVERNMENT HERE IS THAT CREATED
BY 'ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES,' NOT THAT WHICH A FEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
MIGHT CREATE.  WE FIND NO PARALLEL LIABILITY BEFORE, AND WE THINK NO
NEW ONE HAS BEEN CREATED BY, THIS ACT.  ITS EFFECT IS TO WAIVE IMMUNITY
FROM RECOGNIZED CAUSES OF ACTION AND WAS NOT TO VISIT THE GOVERNMENT
WITH NOVEL AND UNPRECEDENTED LIABILITIES."  FERES V. UNITED STATES, 340
U.S. 135, 142. 

IT DID NOT CHANGE THE NORMAL RULE THAT AN ALLEGED FAILURE OR
CARELESSNESS OF PUBLIC FIREMEN DOES NOT CREATE PRIVATE ACTIONABLE
RIGHTS.  OUR ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION IS DETERMINED BY WHAT WAS SAID IN
THE FERES CASE.  SEE 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1346 AND 2674.  THE ACT, AS WAS
THERE STATED, LIMITED UNITED STATES LIABILITY TO "THE SAME MANNER AND
TO THE SAME EXTENT AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES." 
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2674.  HERE, AS THERE, THERE IS NO ANALOGOUS LIABILITY;
IN FACT, IF ANYTHING IS DOCTRINALLY SANCTIFIED IN THE LAW OF TORTS IT
IS THE IMMUNITY OF COMMUNITIES AND OTHER PUBLIC BODIES FOR INJURIES DUE
TO FIGHTING FIRE.  THIS CASE, THEN, IS MUCH STRONGER THAN FERES.  WE
POINTED OUT ONLY ONE STATE DECISION WHICH DENIED GOVERNMENT LIABILITY
FOR INJURIES INCIDENT TO SERVICE TO ONE IN THE STATE MILITIA.  THAT
CITIES, BY MAINTAINING FIRE-FIGHTING ORGANIZATIONS, ASSUME NO LIABILITY
FOR PERSONAL INJURIES RESULTING FROM THEIR LAPSES IS MUCH MORE SECURELY
ENTRENCHED.  THE ACT, SINCE IT RELATES TO CLAIMS TO WHICH THERE IS NO
ANALOGY IN GENERAL TORT LAW, DID NOT ADOPT A DIFFERENT RULE.  SEE
STEITZ V. CITY OF BEACON, 295 N.Y. 51, 64 N.E.2D 704.  TO IMPOSE
LIABILITY FOR THE ALLEGED NONFEASANCE OF THE COAST GUARD WOULD BE LIKE
HOLDING THE UNITED STATES LIABLE IN TORT FOR FAILURE TO IMPOSE A
QUARANTINE FOR, LET US SAY, AN OUTBREAK OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE. 

V. THOUGH THE FINDINGS OF SPECIFIC AND GENERAL NEGLIGENCE DO NOT
SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OF GOVERNMENT LIABILITY, THERE IS YET TO BE DISPOSED
OF SOME SLIGHT RESIDUE OF THEORY OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT. 
THIS IS REFLECTED BOTH IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE FGAN
CONSTITUTED A NUISANCE, AND IN THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS HERE.  WE
AGREE WITH THE SIX JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, 197 F.2D 771, 776,
781, 786, THAT THE ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO SUCH SITUATIONS, THOUGH OF
COURSE WELL KNOWN IN TORT LAW GENERALLY.  IT IS TO BE INVOKED ONLY ON A
"NEGLIGENT OR WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION" OF AN EMPLOYEE.  ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY, OF COURSE, ARISES IRRESPECTIVE OF HOW THE TORTFEASOR
CONDUCTS HIMSELF; IT IS IMPOSED AUTOMATICALLY WHEN ANY DAMAGES ARE
SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION TO ENGAGE IN THE DANGEROUS
ACTIVITY.  THE DEGREE OF CARE USED IN PERFORMING THE ACTIVITY IS
IRRELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION OF THAT DOCTRINE.  BUT THE STATUTE
REQUIRES A NEGLIGENT ACT.  SO IT IS OUR JUDGMENT THAT LIABILITY DOES
NOT ARISE BY VIRTUE EITHER OF UNITED STATES OWNERSHIP OF AN "INHERENTLY
DANGEROUS COMMODITY" OR PROPERTY, OR OF ENGAGING IN AN "EXTRA
HAZARDOUS" ACTIVITY.  UNITED STATES V. HULL, 195 F.2D 64, 67. 

PETITIONERS RELY ON THE WORD "WRONGFUL" THOUGH AS SHOWING THAT
SOMETHING IN ADDITION TO NEGLIGENCE IS COVERED.  THIS ARGUMENT, AS WE
HAVE POINTED OUT, DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE FACT THAT THE ACT DOES REQUIRE
SOME BRAND OF MISFEASANCE OR NONFEASANCE, AND SO COULD NOT EXTEND TO
LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT; IN ADDITION, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
WORD INDICATES CLEARLY THAT IT WAS NOT ADDED TO THE JURISDICTIONAL
GRANT WITH ANY OVERTONES OF THE ABSOLUTE LIABILITY THEORY.  RATHER,
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION INDICATES THAT IT HAD A MUCH NARROWER INSPIRATION:
"TRESPASSES" WHICH MIGHT NOT BE CONSIDERED STRICTLY NEGLIGENT. 
HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ON S. 2690, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. 43-44.  HAD AN ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
THEORY BEEN INTENDED TO HAVE BEEN INJECTED INTO THE ACT, MUCH MORE
SUITABLE MODELS COULD HAVE BEEN FOUND, SEE E.G., THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY
ACT, 41 STAT. 525, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 742-743, IN REGARD TO MAINTENANCE AND
CURE.  STREET, TORT LIABILITY OF THE STATE:  THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS
ACT AND THE CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT, 47 MICH. L. REV. 341, 350. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE HERCULES POWDER COMPANY HELD THE ORIGINAL CAIRNS EXPLOSIVE
PATENT ON THE FGAN PROCESS, WHICH CONTEMPLATED A PRODUCT SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR TO THAT FINALLY PRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE USE OF
AN ORGANIC INSULATOR.  SEE P. 21, INFRA. 

FN2  THE HAGUE CONVENTIONS OF 1899 (II) AND 1907 (IV) RESPECTING THE
LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, ARTICLE 43. 

FN3  THESE WERE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING 70,000 TONS A MONTH. 

FN4  MILITARY APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1946, 59 STAT. 384, 390, 395
(1945), AND MILITARY APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1947, 60 STAT. 541, 560
(1946).  THE LATTER WAS MENTIONED AS DIRECTED TOWARD THE FERTILIZER
PROGRAM.  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS ON H.R. 6837, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 16, 85.  SEE ALSO
H.J. RES. 153, 61 STAT. 125, MAY 31, 1947, SPECIFICALLY APPROPRIATING
MONEYS FOR RELIEF ASSISTANCE OF ALL KINDS. 

FN5  BY 1946, AT LEAST TWO COMPANIES IN ADDITION TO HERCULES WERE
PRODUCING FGAN COMMERCIALLY. 

FN6  SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND TONS OF FGAN HAD BEEN SHIPPED THROUGH
TEXAS CITY DURING THE PREVIOUS SIX MONTHS. 

FN7  THE GRANDCAMP EXPLODED ABOUT AN HOUR AFTER THE FIRE WAS
NOTICED.  MEANWHILE THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP HAD ORDERED ALL PERSONNEL
OFF AND THE HATCHES CLOSED.  STEAM WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE HOLDS.   ALL
ADMIT THAT THIS IS NORMAL FIRE-FIGHTING PROCEDURE ABOARD SHIPS, BUT
THAT IT WAS LESS THAN EFFECTIVE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE OXIDIZING
PROPERTIES OF THE FGAN.  WHETHER OR NOT THE CAPTAIN WAS NEGLIGENT THIS
COURT IS NOT CALLED UPON TO SAY. 

FN8  WE ARE THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED TO WEIGH EACH FINDING ANEW AS
"CLEARLY ERRONEOUS."  THEY WERE CHARACTERIZED BELOW AS "PROFUSE,
PROLIFIC, AND SWEEPING."  WE AGREE.  FED. RULES CIV. PROC., RULE 52(A),
IN TERMS, CONTEMPLATES A SYSTEM OF FINDINGS WHICH ARE "OF FACT" AND
WHICH ARE "CONCISE."  THE WELL-RECOGNIZED DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING
BETWEEN LAW AND FACT CLEARLY DOES NOT ABSOLVE DISTRICT COURTS OF THEIR
DUTY IN HARD AND COMPLEX CASES TO MAKE A STUDIED EFFORT TOWARD
DEFINITENESS.  STATEMENTS CONCLUSORY IN NATURE ARE TO BE ESCHEWED IN
FAVOR OF STATEMENTS OF THE PRELIMINARY AND BASIC FACTS ON WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT RELIED.  KELLEY V. EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 319
U.S. 415, AND CASES CITED.  OTHERWISE, THEIR FINDINGS ARE USELESS FOR
APPELLATE PURPOSES.  IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, NO PROPER REVIEW COULD BE
EXERCISED BY TAKING THE "FACT" FINDINGS OF "NEGLIGENCE" AT FACE VALUE. 
AND, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE OF LAW, OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT BINDING
ON APPEAL.  E.G., GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. SUPERMARKET
EQUIPMENT CORP., 340 U.S. 147, 153-154, AND CONCURRING OPINION AT 155
156. 

FN9  "IN THE SIXTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS ABOUT 2,200 PRIVATE CLAIM BILLS
WERE INTRODUCED, OF WHICH 250 BECAME LAW  ...  . 

"IN THE SEVENTIETH CONGRESS 2,268 PRIVATE CLAIM BILLS WERE
INTRODUCED, ASKING MORE THAN $100,000,000.  OF THESE, 336 WERE ENACTED,
APPROPRIATING ABOUT $2,830,000, OF WHICH 144, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$562,000, WERE FOR TORT. 

"IN EACH OF THE SEVENTY-FOURTH AND SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESSES OVER
2,300 PRIVATE CLAIM BILLS WERE INTRODUCED, SEEKING MORE THAN
$100,000,000.  IN THE SEVENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS APPROXIMATELY 2,000 BILLS
WERE INTRODUCED, OF WHICH 315 WERE APPROVED, FOR A TOTAL OF $826,000. 

"IN THE SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, OF THE 1,829 PRIVATE CLAIM BILLS
INTRODUCED AND REFERRED TO THE CLAIMS COMMITTEE, 593 WERE APPROVED FOR
A TOTAL OF $1,000,253.30.  IN THE SEVENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS 1,644 BILLS
WERE INTRODUCED; 549 OF THESE WERE APPROVED FOR A TOTAL OF
$1,355,767.12."  H.R. REP. NO. 1287, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 
FN10  CERTAIN TENTATIVE EXPERIMENTS IN THIS DIRECTION SHOULD BE NOTED. 
IN 1855, CONGRESS ESTABLISHED THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND CONSENTED TO SUIT
THEREIN ON CLAIMS BASED ON CONTRACT OR FEDERAL LAW OR REGULATION.  THIS
CONSENT WAS ENLARGED IN 1887 TO INCLUDE ALL CASES FOR DAMAGES NOT
SOUNDING IN TORT.  AT THE SAME TIME, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS WERE
GIVEN CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF CLAIMS UP TO $10,000.  IN 1910,
CONGRESS CONSENTED TO SUITS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT.  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER THE OPERATION OF THE
RAILROADS DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR, CONGRESS MADE THE UNITED STATES
SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE, PERSONAL
INJURY, AND DEATH AS THE PRIVATE OWNERS WOULD HAVE BEEN.  IN 1920 AND
1925, THE GOVERNMENT CONSENTED TO SUITS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS UPON
ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME TORTS INVOLVING GOVERNMENT VESSELS, WITHOUT
LIMITATION AS TO AMOUNT. 

FROM THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS WE LEARN THAT THE PREVIOUS 85 YEARS HAD
WITNESSED A STEADY ENCROACHMENT UPON THE ORIGINALLY UNBROKEN DOMAIN OF
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM LEGAL PROCESS FOR THE DELICTS OF ITS AGENTS. 
YET A LARGE AND HIGHLY IMPORTANT AREA REMAINED IN WHICH NO SATISFACTORY
REMEDY HAD BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE WRONGS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES, THE ORDINARY "COMMON LAW" TYPE OF TORT, SUCH AS PERSONAL
INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF AN
AUTOMOBILE.  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON
H.R. 5373 AND H.R. 6463, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 24. 

FN11  SUCH SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS APPEARED FIRST AS AN AMENDMENT TO H.R.
9285, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. THE AMENDMENT WAS OFFERED FROM THE FLOOR OF
THE HOUSE, 69 CONG. REC. 3131.  SEE ALSO H.R. 7236 AND S. 2690, 76TH
CONG., 1ST SESS; H.R. 5373, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN12  H.R. 6463, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. 2207, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.
THE FIRST BROAD GOVERNMENTAL EXEMPTION WAS CONSIDERED IN S. 4567, 72D
CONG., 1ST SESS., AND IN S. 1833, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., WHERE IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR "ANY CLAIM ON
ACCOUNT OF THE EFFECT OR ALLEGED EFFECT OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS,
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, OR OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR INDEPENDENT
ESTABLISHMENT." 

FN13  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R.
5373 AND H.R. 6463, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1, 4. 

FN14  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 5373 AND H.R. 6463, P. 6. 

FN15  IBID., PP. 25, 33. 

FN16  STATEMENT BY THE THEN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANCIS M.
SHEA AT HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, H. OF REP.,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 5373 AND H.R. 6463, P. 29. 

FN17  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
CLAIMS, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., ON A GENERAL TORT BILL, P. 17; HEARINGS
BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON
H.R. 7236, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 5, 16; HEARINGS BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 2690, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS., P. 27; HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY ON H.R. 5373 AND H.R. 6463, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 28, 37,
39, 66; H.R. REP. NO. 2428, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 3; H.R. REP. NO.
2245, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 10; H.R. REP. NO. 1287, 79TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 5; S. REP. NO. 1400, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 31. 

FN18  H.R. REP. NO. 2800, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS., P. 13; HEARINGS ON
H.R. 5373 AND H.R.  6463, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 28, 33, 38, 45, 65
66; S. REP. NO. 1196, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 7; H.R. REP. NO. 1287,
79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5; 86 CONG. REC. 12021-12022. 

FN19  THAT CONGRESSIONAL THOUGHT WAS CENTERED ON GRANTING RELIEF FOR
THE RUN-OF-THE-MINE ACCIDENTS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM INJURY FROM
PERFORMING DISCRETIONARY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, IS INDICATED BY THE
MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT IN 1942 TO THE 77TH CONGRESS
RECOMMENDING PASSAGE OF A TORT CLAIMS STATUTE.  THE PRESIDENT FAVORED A
$7,500 LIMIT ON JURISDICTION AND SPOKE CHIEFLY OF THE INTERFERENCE FROM
NUMEROUS BILLS INTRODUCED - AROUND TWO THOUSAND EACH CONGRESS - AND THE
SIMPLIFICATION OF PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY.  88 CONG.  REC. 313-314. 

FN20  H.R. REP. NO. 2428, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 3; HEARINGS ON
H.R. 5373 AND H.R.  6463, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 66; HEARINGS ON H.R.
7236, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 7, 16, 17; HEARINGS ON S. 2690, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS., P. 9; 69 CONG. REC. 2192, 2193, 3118; 86 CONG.  REC.
12024.  SEE ALSO NOTE 8. 

FN21  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2245, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 10; S. REP.
NO. 1196, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 7; H.R. REP. NO. 1287, 79TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 5-6; HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COM. ON JUDICIARY ON H.R.
5373 AND H.R. 6463, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 33.  THE PARAGRAPH READS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 402 SPECIFIES THE CLAIMS WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE
BILL. 

"THE FIRST SUBSECTION OF SECTION 402 EXEMPTS FROM THE BILL CLAIMS
BASED UPON THE PERFORMANCE OR NONPERFORMANCE OF DISCRETIONARY FUNCTIONS
OR DUTIES ON THE PART OF A FEDERAL AGENCY OR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE,
WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCRETION INVOLVED BE ABUSED, AND CLAIMS BASED UPON
THE ACT OR OMISSION OF A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE EXERCISING DUE CARE IN THE
EXECUTION OF A STATUTE OR REGULATION, WHETHER OR NOT VALID.  THIS IS A
HIGHLY IMPORTANT EXCEPTION, INTENDED TO PRECLUDE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT
THE BILL MIGHT BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT GROWING OUT OF AN AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY, SUCH AS A FLOOD
CONTROL OR IRRIGATION PROJECT, WHERE NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF ANY
GOVERNMENT AGENT IS SHOWN, AND THE ONLY GROUND FOR SUIT IS THE
CONTENTION THAT THE SAME CONDUCT BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE
TORTIOUS, OR THAT THE STATUTE OR REGULATION AUTHORIZING THE PROJECT WAS
INVALID.  IT IS ALSO DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE APPLICATION OF THE BILL TO A
CLAIM AGAINST A REGULATORY AGENCY, SUCH AS THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
OR THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, BASED UPON AN ALLEGED ABUSE
OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY BY AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, WHETHER OR NOT
NEGLIGENCE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.  TO TAKE ANOTHER EXAMPLE,
CLAIMS BASED UPON AN ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT EXERCISE BY THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT OF THE BLACKLISTING OR FREEZING POWERS ARE ALSO INTENDED TO
BE EXCEPTED.  THE BILL IS NOT INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE A SUIT FOR DAMAGES
TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF OR PROVIDE A REMEDY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH
DISCRETIONARY ACTS EVEN THOUGH NEGLIGENTLY PERFORMED AND INVOLVING AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  NOR IS IT DESIRABLE OR INTENDED THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION, OR THE LEGALITY OF A RULE OR
REGULATION SHOULD BE TESTED THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF A DAMAGE SUIT FOR
TORT.  HOWEVER, THE COMMON-LAW TORTS OF EMPLOYEES OF REGULATORY
AGENCIES WOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE BILL TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS TORTS OF NONREGULATORY AGENCIES.  THUS, SECTION 402(5) AND
(10), EXEMPTING CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT OR THE FISCAL OPERATIONS OF THE TREASURY, ARE NOT
INTENDED TO EXCLUDE SUCH COMMON-LAW TORTS AS AN AUTOMOBILE COLLISION
CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT OR
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY ADMINISTERING THOSE FUNCTIONS." 

FN22  FERES V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 135, 139; UNITED STATES V.
SHAW, 309 U.S. 495; UNITED STATES V. ECKFORD, 6 WALL.  484.  CF.
BLACKSTONE, BOOK I, C. 7 (SOVEREIGNTY). 

FN23  UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 340 U.S. 543, 555; KEIFER &
KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, 306 U.S. 381. 

FN24  UNITED STATES V. DICKSON, 15 PET. 141, 165; WALLING V.
JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564, 571; A.H. PHILLIPS, INC. V.
WALLING, 324 U.S. 490, 493. 

FN25  IN FERES V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 135, THIS COURT HELD THAT
THE ACT DID NOT WAIVE IMMUNITY FOR TORT ACTIONS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES FOR INJURIES TO THREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHILE ON
ACTIVE DUTY.  THE INJURIES WERE ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE OF
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES.   THE EXISTENCE OF A UNIFORM
COMPENSATION SYSTEM FOR INJURIES TO THOSE BELONGING TO THE ARMED
SERVICES LED US TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS HAD NOT INTENDED TO DEPART
FROM THIS SYSTEM AND ALLOW RECOVERY BY A TORT ACTION DEPENDENT ON STATE
LAW.  RECOVERY WAS PERMITTED BY A SERVICE MAN FOR NONSERVICE
DISABILITIES IN BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 49. 

IN UNITED STATES V. SPELAR, 338 U.S. 217, WE HELD THAT OUR COURTS DID
NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRY A TORT ACTION FOR INJURY BY A FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE TO A COMPLAINANT BECAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT AT OUR AIR BASE IN
NEWFOUNDLAND.  THIS CONCLUSION WAS REACHED BECAUSE OF THE EXCEPTION,
SEC. 2680(K), OF "ANY CLAIM ARISING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY."  THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES DID NOT EXTEND OVER THE BASE. 

FN26  UNITED STATES V. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO., 338 U.S. 366. 
INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF THE PERSON INJURED, MAY BRING SUIT
UNDER THE ACT IN SPITE OF ANTI-ASSIGNMENT STATUTE. 

UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 340 U.S. 543.  UNITED STATES MAY BE
SUED FOR CONTRIBUTION, AND ALSO BE IMPLEADED AS A THIRD PARTY
DEFENDANT. 

FN27  THE STATUTE IS UNIQUE IN ANGLO-AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE IN ITS
EXPLICIT EXCEPTION FOR DISCRETION.  THE ENGLISH CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT,
1947, CONTAINS NOTHING DIRECTLY COMPARABLE, THOUGH SEE SEC. 11, SAVING
THE "PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN," 6 HALSBURY'S STATUTES OF ENGLAND (2D
ED.)  56.  THE EXTENT OF THIS PROVISION IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR, BUT 6
HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND (2D ED.)  443-590, ASSUMES THE TERM TO COVER
A WIDE AREA OF OFFICIAL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING "THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS AND THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY" BY "THE
CUSTOMARY OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS," UNDER PARLIAMENTARY ENACTMENTS. 
IBID., 459-460.  STREET, TORT LIABILITY OF THE STATE, 47 MICH. L. REV.
341, 353, HOWEVER, SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE PRINCIPAL PROTECTION FOR
THE EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL DISCRETION WILL COME THROUGH THE ACCEPTED
PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW AS TO TORTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACTING
WITHIN THEIR DELEGATED AUTHORITY.  SEE ALSO BARNES, THE CROWN
PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1947, 26 CANADIAN BAR REVIEW 387, 390, AND THE CROWN
PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1950, 28 NEW ZEALAND L.J. 49, 50, 52-53. 

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND HAD HAD SIMILAR STATUTES FOR SOME YEARS. 
THEY LEFT "OPEN TO GRAVE DOUBT HOW FAR, IF AT ALL, IT WAS INTENDED BY
THOSE ACTS TO GIVE THE SUBJECT RIGHTS OF ACTION WHICH IN THE RESULT
WOULD INTERFERE SERIOUSLY WITH THE ORDINARY ADMINISTRATIVE WORK OF THE
GOVERNMENT  ...  ."  ENEVER V. THE KING, 3 COM. L.R. 969, 988 (1906);
SEE ALSO DAVIDSON V. WALKER, 1 N.S.W. ST. R. 196, 208-213 (1901), AND
HAWLEY V. STEELE, 6 CH. D. 521 (QUOTED THEREIN):  "'IN OTHER WORDS, I
THINK THE DISCRETION IS VESTED IN THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT, HAVING
AUTHORITY OVER MILITARY MATTERS, TO DETERMINE FOR WHICH, OF THESE
VARIOUS MILITARY PURPOSES FOR WHICH LAND MAY FAIRLY BE REQUIRED, THE
PARTICULAR LAND IN QUESTION IS TO BE APPROPRIATED.  IT IS NOT FOR THE
JUDGE TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE MADE A BAD SELECTION.'"  1 N.S.W. ST. R.
211. 

FN28  "'EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT' INCLUDES  ...  MEMBERS OF THE
MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND PERSONS ACTING ON
BEHALF OF A FEDERAL AGENCY IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY."  28 U.S.C. SEC.
2671. 

FN29  INDEED, IT HAS BEEN SO HELD BY THOSE DISTRICT COURTS WHICH HAVE
DISMISSED COMPLAINTS CHARGING NEGLIGENCE, FOLLOWING THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE PLEA THAT THE ACTS ALLEGED TO BE CULPABLE FELL
WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  E.G., BOYCE V. UNITED STATES, 93 F. SUPP. 866;
COATES V. UNITED STATES, 181 F.2D 816; DENNY V. UNITED STATES, 171 F.2D
365; OLSON V. UNITED STATES, 93 F. SUPP. 150; TOLEDO V. UNITED STATES,
95 F. SUPP. 838; THOMAS V. UNITED STATES, 81 F. SUPP. 881. 

FN30  IT SEEMS SUFFICIENT TO CITE MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137,
170; SPALDING V. VILAS, 161 U.S. 483, 498; ALZUA V. JOHNSON, 231 U.S.
106; LOUISIANA V. MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627, 633; PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL
CO., 310 U.S. 113, 131. 

FN31  THERE ARE, OF COURSE, AMERICAN STATE CASES WHICH ARE PREMISED
ON A SIMILAR POLICY JUDGMENT, E.G., BARRETT V. STATE OF NEW YORK, 220
N.Y. 423, 116 N.E. 99; GOLDSTEIN V. STATE OF NEW YORK, 281 N.Y. 396, 24
N.E.2D 97.  SIMILARLY IN ENGLAND THE COURTS HAVE BEEN WARY NOT TO
PENALIZE DISCRETIONARY ACTS OF PUBLIC BODIES.  ONE OF THE MORE
INTERESTING CASES IN THE FIELD IS EAST SUFFOLK RIVERS CATCHMENT BOARD
V. KENT, (1941) A.C. 74, INVOLVING CERTAIN ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT
ACTIVITIES BY THE BOARD IN DRAINING INUNDATED LANDS OF THE PRIVATE
PLAINTIFFS.  LORD ROMER STATED THAT THE BOARD, UNDER ITS ENABLING ACT,
MERELY HAD THE POWER TO DRAIN; "WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD EXERCISE
THAT POWER WAS A MATTER ENTIRELY WITHIN THEIR OWN DISCRETION."  "I KNOW
OF NO AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IN SELECTING THE TIME WITHIN
WHICH, THE EXTENT TO WHICH, AND THE METHOD BY WHICH ITS STATUTORY POWER
IS TO BE EXERCISED THE BOARD OWES ANY DUTY WHATSOEVER."  IBID., AT 97,
98.  SEE ALSO SHEPPARD V. GLOSSOP CORPORATION, (1921) 3 K.B. 132:  "THE
STATUTE LEAVES IT TO THE CORPORATION'S DISCRETION WHETHER THEY WILL
LIGHT THE DISTRICT OR ANY PART OF IT, AND HOW LONG THE LAMPS SHALL BE
KEPT LIT IN ANY PORTION OF THE DISTRICT WHICH THEY ELECT TO LIGHT." 
SEE ALSO WHITING V. MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL, (1948) 1 K.B. 162. 

FN32  THE COURTS THAT HAVE PASSED UPON THE APPLICATION OF SEC.
2680(A) TO SUITS UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT HAVE INTERPRETED THE
EXCEPTION OF DISCRETIONARY FUNCTIONS, GENERALLY, IN CONFORMITY WITH OUR
HOLDING THAT NEGLIGENCE IN POLICIES OR PLANS FOR AUTHORIZED
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES CANNOT SUPPORT DAMAGE SUITS.    PLAINTIFF IN
BOYCE V. UNITED STATES, 93 F. SUPP. 866, CHARGED THAT HE HAD SUFFERED
DAMAGE BY VIRTUE OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENTALLY-CONDUCTED BLASTING
OPERATIONS.  THE UNITED STATES, BY WAY OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, SHOWED
THAT THE BLASTING HAD BEEN CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO DETAILED PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS DRAWN BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS WHO, IN TURN, HAD BEEN
SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED "DISCRETION OF THE BROADEST CHARACTER" TO DRAFT
A PLAN FOR DEEPENING THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER CHANNEL.  THE EXCEPTION WAS
APPLIED.  THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL CASES OF LIKE IMPORT DEALING WITH THE
EXECUTION OF WATERWAY PROJECTS.  IN COATES V. UNITED STATES, 181 F.2D
816, DAMAGES WERE SOUGHT FOR INJURY TO CROPS AND LAND FROM ACTION OF
THE GOVERNMENT IN NEGLIGENTLY CHANGING THE COURSE OF THE MISSOURI.  IT
WAS HELD THAT NO JURISDICTION EXISTED UNDER THE ACT.  THE CASE WAS
FOLLOWED IN NORTH V. UNITED STATES, 94 F. SUPP. 824.  THERE THE
PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO HIS CELLAR AND CESSPOOL
OCCASIONED BY A GOVERNMENT DAM HAVING RAISED THE LEVEL OF THE LOCAL
GROUND WATER.  A LIKE RESULT OBTAINED IN LAUTERBACH V. UNITED STATES,
95 F. SUPP. 479, WHERE CLAIMANT SUED TO RECOVER DAMAGES RESULTING FROM
RELEASE OF FLOOD WATERS AT BONNEVILLE DAM. 

OLSON V. UNITED STATES, 93 F. SUPP. 150, INVOLVED ANOTHER CLAIM OF
WATER DAMAGE.  IN THAT CASE, EMPLOYEES OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE "WILFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY OPENED THE FLOOD
GATES" OF A CERTAIN DAM, CAUSING LOSS OF PLAINTIFF'S LIVESTOCK.  THE
DAM WAS OPERATED FOR "THE PURPOSE OF STORING WATER FOR THE PROPAGATING
OF FISH AND WILDLIFE" AND THE COURT HELD THAT "WHEN FLOOD WATERS ARE TO
BE RELEASED AND HOW MUCH WATER IS TO BE RELEASED CERTAINLY CALLS FOR
THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT."  93 F. SUPP., AT 151, 152-153.  SICKMAN V.
UNITED STATES, 184 F.2D 616, ALSO INVOKED SEC. 2680(A).  THERE
PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT RECOVERY FOR CROP DEPREDATIONS BY WILD
BIRDS INDUCED TO FEED ON HIS LAND BY A NEARBY GOVERNMENTAL GAME
PRESERVE. 

IN TOLEDO V. UNITED STATES, 95 F. SUPP. 838, PLAINTIFF'S AUTOMOBILE
HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY A PARTIALLY ROTTEN TREE FALLING PERCHANCE AT A TIME
WHEN HE HAD PARKED UNDER IT.  THE TREE HAD BEEN PLANTED AND GROWN AT A
GOVERNMENT PLANT EXPERIMENTAL STATION IN PUERTO RICO.  IT WAS OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC FOR INSTRUCTION AND OBSERVATION.  THE OPINION HOLDS THAT THE
OPERATION OF THE STATION ITSELF, AND THE DECISION TO PLANT AND PRESERVE
THIS PARTICULAR TREE TO FURTHER ITS EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES, WERE
"PECULIARLY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE APPROPRIATE EMPLOYEES OF THE
STATION," BUT THAT NEGLIGENT REMOVAL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.  95 F. SUPP.,
AT 841. 

FN33  THIS PLAN "CONTAINS A TABULATION OF THE INSTALLATIONS INVOLVED
TOGETHER WITH PERTINENT INFORMATION ON THOSE INSTALLATIONS FOR USE BOTH
IN THIS PART AND IN CONNECTION WITH PART 400; RATES OF PRODUCTION;
DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTION PROCESSES; INFORMATION ON INSPECTION AND
ACCEPTANCE; AND INFORMATION ON SHIPPING AND STORAGE.  THIS PART DOES
NOT INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRODUCTION FACILITIES, RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THE OPERATION OF THESE FACILITIES, AND PROBLEMS AND METHODS
INVOLVED IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION, WHICH ARE COVERED IN SUCCEEDING
PARTS." 

FN34  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND SECTION 1346(B) OF THIS
TITLE SHALL NOT APPLY TO  ... ANY CLAIM ARISING FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF
THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2680(L). 

FN35  SEE APPENDIX, P. 45, THIS OPINION. 

FN36  "WATER SHALL BE TURNED OFF AND DISCHARGING OF KETTLE COMMENCED
WHEN TEMPERATURE REACHES 200 DEGREES F." 

THE RELEVANCE OF THE BAGGING TEMPERATURE APPARENTLY STEMMED FROM
CERTAIN TESTIMONY THAT LARGE MASSES OF FGAN, IF MAINTAINED AT
TEMPERATURES OF AROUND 300 DEGREES F., MIGHT SPONTANEOUSLY IGNITE UNDER
CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF MASS AND CONFINEMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT PROFFERED
EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THAT THE FGAN SHIPPED TO TEXAS CITY DID
NOT LEAVE THE PLANTS AT NEARLY THAT TEMPERATURE, AND OF COURSE THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE AS TO THE TEMPERATURE AT WHICH IT WAS LOADED ON THE SHIPS. 

FN37  "PACKAGING.  AMMONIUM NITRATE FOR FERTILIZER SHALL BE PACKED
100 LBS. PER BAG.  MOISTURE PROOF PAPER OR BURLAP BAGS, AS DESCRIBED
BELOW, SHALL BE USED.  (SPECIFICATIONS AS TO SIZE MAY HAVE TO BE
ALTERED TO MEET THE MANUFACTURER'S REQUIREMENT)."  THEN FOLLOW DETAILED
SPECIFICATIONS. 

FN38  MARKING:  FERTILIZER (AMMONIUM NITRATE) 32.5% NITROGEN. 

NOTICE OF CONTENTS APPEARED ON THE BILL OF LADING, SO FAR AS
IMPORTANT, AS FOLLOWS:  1,000 BAGS, FERTILIZING COMPOUNDS (MANUFACTURED
FERTILIZER) NOIBN, DRY IN PAPER BAGS. 

FN39  "THE PRP MIXTURE IS COMPOSED OF ONE PART PARAFFIN, THREE PARTS
ROSIN, AND ONE PART PETROLATUM, THOROUGHLY MIXED AND MELTED.  THIS
PROVIDES A COATING WHICH REPELS MOISTURE AND HOLDS THE CLAY IN PLACE
AROUND EACH GRANULE." 

FN40  CAPTAIN HIRSCH, COMMANDING ONE OF THE THREE PLANTS WHICH
MANUFACTURED THE TEXAS CITY FGAN, WROTE TO THE FIELD DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
REQUESTING "THAT YOUR OFFICE STIPULATE A MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE AT WHICH
FERTILIZER MAY BE LOADED IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE" BAG DETERIORATION
THROUGH HEAT.  IN REPLY, THE OFFICE STATED THAT IT "HAS HAD DISCUSSIONS
CONCERNING A LOADING TEMPERATURE LOWER THAN 200 DEGREES F. FOR AMMONIUM
NITRATE FERTILIZER, BUT IT IS FELT THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF PROCESS
CONTROL AND NOT PROPERLY AN ITEM TO BE INCORPORATED INTO
SPECIFICATIONS."  HIRSCH INTERPRETED THIS AS MEANING THAT "THIS
FACILITY SHOULD NOT TAKE ANY ACTIVE INTEREST IN THE CONDITION THAT THE
AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZER REACHES ITS DESTINATION."  IN REPLY FROM
THE FIELD DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, THIS WAS LABELED A "DISTORTION OF OUR
STATEMENT CONCERNING THE BAGGING TEMPERATURE AS A MATTER OF PROCESS
CONTROL INTO INDIFFERENCE TO ANY ASPECT OF ACCEPTABILITY OR
SUITABILITY."  THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE LEFT UNCHANGED AS TO BAGS OR
BAGGING TEMPERATURES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

                       APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE
MANUFACTURE WAS FORESHADOWED BY HIS THEORY OF THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE
RISK WHICH HE SET OUT EARLY IN THE FINDINGS.  HIS FIRST FINDING OF FACT
CONTAINED THESE WORDS:  "THIS RECORD DISCLOSES BLUNDERS, MISTAKES, AND
ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE, BOTH OF OMISSION AND COMMISSION, ON THE PART OF
DEFENDANT, ITS AGENTS, SERVANTS, AND EMPLOYEES, IN DECIDING TO BEGIN
THE MANUFACTURE OF THIS INHERENTLY DANGEROUS FERTILIZER."  IT WAS HIS
CONCLUSION THAT, THROUGH EARLY EXPERIMENTS, THE UNITED STATES HAD
"LEARNED MANY FACTS, BUT DID NOT PURSUE SUCH INVESTIGATION FAR ENOUGH
TO LEARN ALL THE FACTS,  ...  .  WHAT FACTS IT DID LEARN, HOWEVER, WERE
SUFFICIENT TO GIVE DEFENDANT KNOWLEDGE AND TO PUT DEFENDANT ON NOTICE,
AND IF NOT, THEN UPON INQUIRY THAT WOULD IF PURSUED, HAVE LED TO
KNOWLEDGE AND NOTICE THAT SUCH FERTILIZER WHICH IT DECIDED TO AND BEGAN
TO MANUFACTURE WAS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, A
DANGEROUS EXPLOSIVE, AND A FIRE HAZARD.  SUCH FACTS LEARNED BY
DEFENDANT POINTED TO AND SHOWED THAT SUCH FERTILIZER SHOULD NOT BE
MANUFACTURED, IN THAT IT WAS, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES, MOST DANGEROUS TO EVERYONE HANDLING IT IN ANY WAY AND TO
THE PUBLIC.  YET DEFENDANT'S SERVANTS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES, IN WHOSE
HANDS DEFENDANT HAD LEFT THE MATTER, NEGLIGENTLY WENT FORWARD IN THE
MANUFACTURE, HANDLING, DISTRIBUTION, SHIPPING, ETC. OF SUCH FERTILIZER
...  . 

"AFTER THE MANUFACTURE AND/OR THE SHIPPING, DISTRIBUTION, AND
HANDLING OF FERTILIZER HAD BEGUN, THERE WERE EXPERIMENTS, EVENTS AND
INCIDENTS OF WHICH DEFENDANT KNEW, OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT COULD HAVE
KNOWN BY THE USE OF THE DILIGENCE OF A REASONABLE PRUDENT PERSON,
SHOWING SUCH FERTILIZER TO BE VERY DANGEROUS, BOTH FROM THE STANDPOINT
OF FIRE AND EXPLOSION.  WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE
CEASED THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SUCH FERTILIZER, OR SHOULD HAVE
TAKEN STEPS TO INSURE THE SAFETY OF PERSONS MANUFACTURING AND HANDLING
SUCH FERTILIZER AND THE PUBLIC  ...  ." 

"DEFENDANT IN MANUFACTURING SUCH FERTILIZER, AND PARTICULARLY THE
FERTILIZER ON THE GRANDCAMP AND HIGH FLYER, DID SO BY A FORMULA MADE
AND EVOLVED BY DEFENDANT OR UNDER ITS DIRECTION.  IT USED AS A COATING
OF SUCH FERTILIZER, A SUBSTANCE OR SUBSTANCES WHICH RENDERED SAME
HIGHLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO FIRE OR EXPLOSION.  THERE WERE VARIOUS TYPES OF
COATING, BUT THE COATING FINALLY USED MADE THE FERTILIZER A VERY
DANGEROUS EXPLOSIVE AND FIRE HAZARD.  MORE THAN ANY OTHER ONE THING, I
THINK THIS COATING MADE THIS COMMODITY ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS OF
EXPLOSIVES,  ...  ." 

"  ...  SUCH FERTILIZER WAS BY DEFENDANT, OR UNDER ITS DIRECTION,
PLACED OR SACKED IN BAGS MADE FROM PAPER OR OTHER SUBSTANCES WHICH WERE
EASILY IGNITED BY CONTACT WITH FIRE OR BY SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION OR
SPONTANEOUS IGNITION OF THE FERTILIZER.  SUCH BAGS ALSO BECAME TORN AND
RAGGED IN SHIPPING AND PARTICLES OF THE BAGS BECAME MIXED WITH THE
FERTILIZER AND RENDERED SAME MORE DANGEROUS AND MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO
FIRE AND EXPLOSION." 

"  ...  SUCH FERTILIZER WAS PLACED AND PACKED IN BAGS AT HIGH DEGREES
OF TEMPERATURE, WHICH TEMPERATURE RENDERED THE FERTILIZER MORE
SUSCEPTIBLE TO FIRE AND EXPLOSION.  SUCH FERTILIZER WAS SO PACKED THAT
IT DID NOT COOL, BUT CONTINUED AT HIGH TEMPERATURE WHILE BEING
SHIPPED.  THIS WAS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THE FERTILIZER WHICH EXPLODED
ON THE STEAMSHIPS GRANDCAMP AND HIGH FLYER.  SAME WAS PACKED IN SACKS
AT A HIGH DEGREE OF TEMPERATURE, WHICH TEMPERATURE CONTINUED WITH ONLY
SLIGHT REDUCTION, IF ANY, WHEN THE FERTILIZER WAS SHIPPED ACROSS THE
NATION TO TEXAS CITY AND THERE LOADED ONTO SUCH STEAMSHIPS." 

"DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT MARKED AND
LABELLED SUCH SACKS OF FERTILIZER, INCLUDING THE FERTILIZER ON THE
GRANDCAMP AND HIGH FLYER, IN THAT SAME WAS NOT LABELLED AND MARKED AS A
DANGEROUS EXPLOSIVE AND FIRE HAZARD AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION  ...  . 

     *         *        *         *         * 

"  ...  IT WAS THE DUTY OF DEFENDANT, WELL KNOWING AS IT DID THE
DANGEROUS NATURE AND CHARACTER OF SUCH FERTILIZER WHICH DEFENDANT
SHIPPED OR CAUSED TO BE SHIPPED TO TEXAS CITY, TO NOTIFY AND ADVISE ALL
THE CARRIERS HANDLING SAME, INCLUDING THE STEAMSHIPS GRANDCAMP AND HIGH
FLYER, AND TO NOTIFY AND ADVISE THE CITY AND STATE OFFICERS AT TEXAS
CITY, OF THE DANGEROUS NATURE AND CHARACTER OF SUCH FERTILIZER, TO THE
END THAT SUCH CARRIERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES AND SUCH OFFICERS COULD, IF
POSSIBLE PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE DANGER OF FIRES
FROM AND EXPLOSIONS OF SUCH FERTILIZER." 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED: 

"CLEARLY SUCH FERTILIZER OUGHT NEVER TO HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED.  FROM
THE BEGINNING ON DOWN, IT WAS A DANGEROUS COMMODITY AND A DANGEROUS
NUISANCE." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

ALL DAY, APRIL 15, 1947, LONGSHOREMEN LOADED BAGS OF AMMONIUM NITRATE
FERTILIZER ABOARD THE S.S. GRANDCAMP, DOCKED AT TEXAS CITY, TEXAS. 
SHORTLY AFTER 8 A.M. NEXT MORNING, WHEN WORK RESUMED, SMOKE WAS SEEN
COMING FROM THE NO. 4 HOLD AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT FIRE HAD BROKEN
OUT IN THE FERTILIZER.  THE SHIP'S MASTER ORDERED THE HATCH COVERED AND
BATTENED DOWN, AND STEAM WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE HOLD.  LOCAL FIRE
FIGHTING APPARATUS SOON ARRIVED, BUT THE COMBINED EFFORTS TO EXTINGUISH
THE FIRE WERE UNAVAILING.  LESS THAN AN HOUR AFTER SMOKE WAS FIRST
SEEN, 880 TONS OF FERTILIZER IN THE NO. 4 HOLD EXPLODED AND, IN TURN,
DETONATED THE FERTILIZER STORED IN THE NO. 2 HOLD.  FIRE SPREAD TO THE
DOCK AREA OF TEXAS CITY AND TO THE S.S. HIGH FLYER, BERTHED AT AN
ADJOINING PIER AND CARRYING A CARGO OF SULPHUR AND AMMONIUM NITRATE
FERTILIZER.  FURTHER EFFORTS TO EXTINGUISH OR EVEN CONTAIN THE FIRE
FAILED AND, ABOUT 11 P.M., TUGS UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED TO TOW THE
HIGH FLYER OUT TO SEA.  SHORTLY AFTER ONE O'CLOCK ON THE MORNING OF
APRIL 17, THE SULPHUR AND FERTILIZER ABOARD THE HIGH FLYER EXPLODED,
DEMOLISHING BOTH THAT SHIP AND THE S.S. WILSON B. KEENE, LYING
ALONGSIDE.  MORE THAN 560 PERSONS PERISHED IN THIS HOLOCAUST, AND SOME
3,000 WERE INJURED.  THE ENTIRE DOCK AREA OF A THRIVING PORT WAS
LEVELED AND PROPERTY DAMAGE RAN INTO MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. 

THIS WAS A MAN-MADE DISASTER; IT WAS IN NO SENSE AN "ACT OF GOD." 
THE FERTILIZER HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED IN GOVERNMENT-OWNED PLANTS AT THE
GOVERNMENT'S ORDER AND TO ITS SPECIFICATIONS.  IT WAS BEING SHIPPED AT
ITS DIRECTION AS PART OF ITS PROGRAM OF FOREIGN AID.  THE DISASTER WAS
CAUSED BY FORCES SET IN MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT, COMPLETELY CONTROLLED
OR CONTROLLABLE BY IT.  ITS CAUSATIVE FACTORS WERE FAR BEYOND THE
KNOWLEDGE OR CONTROL OF THE VICTIMS; THEY WERE NOT ONLY INCAPABLE OF
CONTRIBUTING TO IT, BUT COULD NOT EVEN TAKE SHELTER OR FLIGHT FROM IT. 

OVER 300 SUITS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, ALLEGING THAT ITS NEGLIGENCE WAS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE DISASTER.  AFTER CONSOLIDATING THE SUITS, THE DISTRICT COURT
ORDERED THE CASE OF THE PRESENT PETITIONERS TO BE TRIED.  THE PARTIES
TO ALL OF THE SUITS, IN EFFECT, AGREED THAT THE COMMON ISSUE OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S NEGLIGENCE SHOULD ABIDE THE OUTCOME OF THIS TEST
LITIGATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE
TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS.  (FN1)  SUPPORTING THAT
REVERSAL, THE GOVERNMENT HERE URGES THAT (1) A PRIVATE PERSON WOULD NOT
BE LIABLE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND (2) EVEN IF A PRIVATE PERSON WERE
LIABLE, THE GOVERNMENT IS SAVED FROM LIABILITY BY THE STATUTE'S
EXCEPTION OF DISCRETIONARY ACTS.  (FN2) 

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES THAT A JUDGE IS LIKELY TO LEAVE BY THE
SAME DOOR THROUGH WHICH HE ENTERS.  AS WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY A MASTER OF
OUR CRAFT, "SOME THEORY OF LIABILITY, SOME PHILOSOPHY OF THE END TO BE
SERVED BY TIGHTENING OR ENLARGING THE CIRCLE OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES, IS
AT THE ROOT OF ANY DECISION IN NOVEL SITUATIONS WHEN ANALOGIES ARE
EQUIVOCAL AND PRECEDENTS ARE SILENT."  (FN3) SO, WE BEGIN BY AVOWING A
CONCEPTION OF THE FUNCTION OF LEGAL LIABILITY IN CASES SUCH AS THIS
QUITE OBVIOUSLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE APPROACH OF THE COURT.    CONGRESS
HAS DEFINED THE TORT LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT AS ANALOGOUS TO THAT
OF A PRIVATE PERSON.  TRADITIONALLY, ONE FUNCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
FOR NEGLIGENCE IS TO SUPPLY A SANCTION TO ENFORCE THE DEGREE OF CARE
SUITABLE TO THE CONDITIONS OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY AND APPROPRIATE TO
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  THE CIVIL DAMAGE ACTION, PROSECUTED AND
ADJUSTED BY PRIVATE INITIATIVE, NEITHER BURDENING OUR OVERWORKED
CRIMINAL PROCESSES NOR CONFINED BY THE LIMITS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY, IS
ONE OF THE LAW'S MOST EFFECTIVE INDUCEMENTS TO THE WATCHFULNESS AND
PRUDENCE NECESSARY TO AVOID CALAMITY FROM HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS IN THE
MIDST OF AN UNSHIELDED POPULACE. 

UNTIL RECENTLY, THE INFLUENCE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN
EXERTED IN THE FIELD OF TORT LAW TO TIGHTEN LIABILITY AND LIBERALIZE
REMEDIES.  (FN4)  CONGRESS HAS EVEN IMPOSED CRIMINAL LIABILITY WITHOUT
REGARD TO KNOWLEDGE OF DANGER OR INTENT WHERE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS
ARTICLES ARE INTRODUCED INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  (FN5)  BUT, WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT IS BROUGHT INTO COURT AS A TORT DEFENDANT, THE VERY PROPER
ZEAL OF ITS LAWYERS TO WIN THEIR CASE AND THE LESS COMMENDABLE ZEAL OF
OFFICIALS INVOLVED TO CONCEAL OR MINIMIZE THEIR CARELESSNESS MILITATE
AGAINST THIS TREND.  THE GOVERNMENT, AS A DEFENDANT, CAN EXERT AN
UNCTUOUS PERSUASIVENESS BECAUSE IT CAN CLOTHE OFFICIAL CARELESSNESS
WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST.  HENCE, ONE OF THE UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES
OF THE TORT CLAIMS ACT HAS BEEN TO THROW THE WEIGHT OF GOVERNMENT
INFLUENCE ON THE SIDE OF LAX STANDARDS OF CARE IN THE NEGLIGENCE CASES
WHICH IT DEFENDS. 

IT IS OUR FEAR THAT THE COURT'S ADOPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW IN
THIS CASE MAY INAUGURATE AN UNFORTUNATE TREND TOWARD RELAXATION OF
PRIVATE AS WELL AS OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN MAKING, VENDING OR
TRANSPORTING INHERENTLY DANGEROUS PRODUCTS.  FOR WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING
HERE EVERYDAY COMMODITIES OF COMMERCE OR PRODUCTS OF NATURE BUT A
COMPLEX COMPOUND NOT ONLY PROVEN BY THE EVENT TO BE HIGHLY DANGEROUS,
BUT KNOWN FROM THE BEGINNING TO LIE SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE
DANGEROUS.  AMMONIUM NITRATE, AS THE COURT POINTS OUT, HAD BEEN "LONG
USED AS A COMPONENT IN EXPLOSIVES."  THIS GRADE OF IT WAS MANUFACTURED
UNDER AN EXPLOSIVES PATENT, IN PLANTS FORMERLY USED FOR THE MANUFACTURE
OF ORDNANCE, UNDER GENERAL SUPERVISION OF THE ARMY'S CHIEF OF ORDNANCE,
AND UNDER THE LOCAL DIRECTION OF THE ARMY'S FIELD DIRECTOR OF
AMMUNITION PLANTS.  ADVICE ON DETAILED OPERATIONS WAS SOUGHT FROM SUCH
EXPERIENCED COMMERCIAL PRODUCERS OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES AS THE DU PONTS AND
THE ATLAS AND THE HERCULES POWDER CONCERNS.  THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST
BASIS FOR ANY OFFICIAL BELIEF THAT THIS WAS AN INNOCUOUS PRODUCT. 

BECAUSE OF RELIANCE ON THE RESERVATION OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FOR
ACTS OF DISCRETION, THE COURT AVOIDS DIRECT PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE DUTY
OWING BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES BUT DOES SOUND
OVERTONES AND UNDERTONES WITH WHICH WE DISAGREE.  WE WHO WOULD HOLD THE
GOVERNMENT LIABLE HERE CANNOT AVOID CONSIDERATION OF THE BASIC CRITERIA
BY WHICH COURTS DETERMINE LIABILITY IN THE CONDITIONS OF MODERN LIFE. 
THIS IS A DAY OF SYNTHETIC LIVING, WHEN TO AN EVER-INCREASING EXTENT
OUR POPULATION IS DEPENDENT UPON MASS PRODUCERS FOR ITS FOOD AND DRINK,
ITS CURES AND COMPLEXIONS, ITS APPAREL AND GADGETS.  THESE NO LONGER
ARE NATURAL OR SIMPLE PRODUCTS BUT COMPLEX ONES WHOSE COMPOSITION AND
QUALITIES ARE OFTEN SECRET.  SUCH A DEPENDENT SOCIETY MUST EXACT
GREATER CARE THAN IN MORE SIMPLE DAYS AND MUST REQUIRE FROM
MANUFACTURERS OR PRODUCERS INCREASED INTEGRITY AND CAUTION AS THE ONLY
PROTECTION OF ITS SAFETY AND WELL-BEING.  PURCHASERS CANNOT TRY OUT
DRUGS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY KILL OR CURE.  CONSUMERS CANNOT TEST
THE YOUNGSTER'S COWBOY SUIT OR THE WIFE'S SWEATER TO SEE IF THEY ARE
APT TO BURST INTO FATAL FLAMES.  CARRIERS, BY LAND OR BY SEA, CANNOT
EXPERIMENT WITH THE COMBUSTIBILITY OF GOODS IN TRANSIT.  WHERE
EXPERIMENT OR RESEARCH IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OR THE
DEGREE OF DANGER, THE PRODUCT MUST NOT BE TRIED OUT ON THE PUBLIC, NOR
MUST THE PUBLIC BE EXPECTED TO POSSESS THE FACILITIES OR THE TECHNICAL
KNOWLEDGE TO LEARN FOR ITSELF OF INHERENT BUT LATENT DANGERS.  THE
CLAIM THAT A HAZARD WAS NOT FORESEEN IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ONE WHO DID
NOT USE FORESIGHT APPROPRIATE TO HIS ENTERPRISE. 

FORWARD-LOOKING COURTS, SLOWLY BUT STEADILY, HAVE BEEN ADAPTING THE
LAW OF NEGLIGENCE TO THESE CONDITIONS.  (FN6)  THE LAW WHICH BY STATUTE
DETERMINES THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY IS THAT OF THE PLACE WHERE THE
NEGLIGENT ACT OR OMISSION OCCURRED.  (FN7)  THIS FERTILIZER WAS
MANUFACTURED IN IOWA AND NEBRASKA, THENCE SHIPPED TO TEXAS. 
SPECULATION AS TO WHERE THE NEGLIGENCE OCCURRED IS UNNECESSARY, SINCE
EACH OF THESE JURISDICTIONS RECOGNIZES THE GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT A
MANUFACTURER IS LIABLE FOR DEFECTS IN HIS PRODUCT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN
AVOIDED BY THE EXERCISE OF DUE CARE.  (FN8)  WHERE THERE ARE NO
SPECIFIC STATE DECISIONS ON THE POINT, FEDERAL JUDGES MAY TURN TO THE
GENERAL DOCTRINES OF ACCEPTED TORT LAW, WHENCE STATE JUDGES DERIVE
THEIR GOVERNING PRINCIPLES IN NOVEL CASES.  WE BELIEVE THAT WHATEVER
THE SOURCE TO WHICH WE LOOK FOR THE LAW OF THIS CASE, IF THE SOURCE IS
AS MODERN AS THE CASE ITSELF, IT SUPPORTS THE EXACTION OF A HIGHER
DEGREE OF CARE THAN POSSIBLY CAN BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN EXERCISED HERE. 

WE BELIEVE IT IS THE BETTER VIEW THAT WHOEVER PUTS INTO CIRCULATION
IN COMMERCE A PRODUCT THAT IS KNOWN OR EVEN SUSPECTED OF BEING
POTENTIALLY INFLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO KNOW HIS
OWN PRODUCT AND TO ASCERTAIN WHAT FORCES HE IS TURNING LOOSE.  IF, AS
OFTEN WILL BE THE CASE, A DANGEROUS PRODUCT IS ALSO A USEFUL ONE, HE IS
UNDER A STRICT DUTY TO FOLLOW EACH STEP OF ITS DISTRIBUTION WITH
WARNING OF ITS DANGERS AND WITH INFORMATION AND DIRECTIONS TO KEEP
THOSE DANGERS AT A MINIMUM. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE COURT'S ONLY CHOICE IS TO HOLD THE
GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY TO BE NOTHING OR TO BE VERY HEAVY, INDEED.  BUT
THE MAGNITUDE OF THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY IS DUE TO THE ENORMITY OF THE
DISASTER AND THE MULTITUDE OF ITS VICTIMS.  THE SIZE OF THE CATASTROPHE
DOES NOT EXCUSE LIABILITY BUT, ON ITS FACE, ELOQUENTLY PLEADS THAT IT
COULD NOT HAVE RESULTED FROM ANY PRUDENTLY OPERATED GOVERNMENT PROJECT,
AND THAT INJURY SO SUDDEN AND SWEEPING SHOULD NOT LIE WHERE IT HAS
FALLEN.  IT SHOULD AT LEAST RAISE IMMEDIATE DOUBTS WHETHER THIS IS ONE
OF THOSE "DISCRETIONARY" OPERATIONS CONGRESS SOUGHT TO IMMUNIZE FROM
LIABILITY.  WITH THIS STATEMENT OF OUR GENERAL APPROACH TO THE
LIABILITY ISSUE, WE TURN TO ITS APPLICATION TO THIS CASE. 

IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT EVEN A PRIVATE PERSON WOULD NOT BE LIABLE, THE
GOVERNMENT MUST SHOW THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT ARE
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  (FN9)  IT POINTS TO WHAT IT CLAIMS ARE PATENT
ERRORS IN THE LENGTHY FINDINGS MADE UPON A RECORD OF OVER 30,000 PAGES
IN 39 PRINTED VOLUMES AND APPARENTLY URGES UPON US A RULE OF "ERROR IN
UNO, ERROR IN OMNIBUS."  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT SOME OR EVEN MANY ERRORS
IN A RECORD SUCH AS THIS WILL IMPEACH ALL OF THE FINDINGS.  WE CONCLUDE
THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL FINDING MUST STAND OR FALL ON THE BASIS OF THE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.  THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT THE EXPLOSIONS
RESULTED FROM A FIRE IN THE FERTILIZER WHICH HAD STARTED BY SOME
PROCESS AKIN TO SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS
NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO ANTICIPATE AND TAKE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST SUCH AN
OCCURRENCE. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTACK ON THE PURELY FACTUAL DETERMINATION BY THE
TRIAL JUDGE SEEMS TO US UTTERLY UNCONVINCING.  REPUTABLE EXPERTS
TESTIFIED TO THEIR OPINION THAT THE FIRE COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY
SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION.  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT IT WAS
PROBABLY CAUSED BY SOMEONE SMOKING ABOUT THE HOLD BROUGHT FORTH SHARP
CONFLICT IN THE TESTIMONY.  THERE WAS NO ERROR IN ADOPTING ONE OF TWO
PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES AS TO THE FIRE'S ORIGIN.  AND, IN VIEW OF THE
ABSENCE OF ANY WARNING THAT FGAN WAS INFLAMMABLE OR EXPLOSIVE, WE WOULD
THINK SMOKING BY LONGSHOREMEN ABOUT THE JOB WOULD NOT BE AN ABNORMAL
PHENOMENON. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THIS TYPE OF FERTILIZER HAD BEEN
MANUFACTURED FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS AT THE TIME OF THE EXPLOSION IN TEXAS
CITY.  PETITIONERS' EXPERTS TESTIFIED TO THEIR BELIEF THAT AT LEAST A
SEGMENT OF INFORMED SCIENTIFIC OPINION AT THE TIME REGARDED AMMONIUM
NITRATE AS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS, ESPECIALLY WHEN COMBINED WITH
CARBONACEOUS MATERIAL AS IT WAS IN THIS FERTILIZER.  ONE WITNESS HAD
BEEN HIRED BY THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD TO CONDUCT TESTS INTO EXPLOSION
AND FIRE HAZARDS OF THIS PRODUCT.  THE BOARD TERMINATED THESE TESTS AT
AN INTERMEDIATE STAGE, AGAINST THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE LABORATORY AND
IN THE FACE OF THE SUGGESTION THAT FURTHER RESEARCH MIGHT POINT UP
SUSPECTED BUT UNVERIFIED DANGERS.  IN ADDITION, THERE WAS A
CONSIDERABLE HISTORY OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS OF UNEXPLAINED FIRES AND
EXPLOSIONS INVOLVING SUCH AMMONIUM NITRATE.  THE ZEAL AND SKILL OF
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL TO DISTINGUISH EACH OF THESE FIRES ON ITS FACTS
APPEARS TO EXCEED THAT OF SOME OF THE EXPERTS ON WHOSE TESTIMONY THEY
RELY.  THE GOVERNMENT ENDEAVORED TO IMPEACH THE OPINIONS OF
PETITIONERS' EXPERTS, INTRODUCED EXPERTS OF ITS OWN, AND SOUGHT TO SHOW
THAT PRIVATE PERSONS WHO MANUFACTURED SIMILAR FERTILIZER TOOK NO MORE
PRECAUTIONS THAN DID THE GOVERNMENT. 

IN THIS SITUATION, EVEN THE SIMPLEST GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COULD
ANTICIPATE LIKELIHOOD OF CLOSE PACKING IN LARGE MASSES DURING SEA
SHIPMENT, WITH AGGRAVATION OF ANY ATTENDANT DANGERS.  WHERE THE RISK
INVOLVED IS AN EXPLOSION OF A CARGO-CARRYING TRAIN OR SHIP, PERHAPS IN
A CONGESTED RAIL YARD OR AT A DOCK, THE PRODUCER IS NOT ENTITLED AS A
MATTER OF LAW TO TREAT INDUSTRY PRACTICE AS A CONCLUSIVE GUIDE TO DUE
CARE.  OTHERWISE, ONE FREE DISASTER WOULD BE PERMITTED AS TO EACH NEW
PRODUCT BEFORE THE SANCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY WAS THROWN ON THE SIDE
OF HIGH STANDARDS OF SAFETY. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY THAT EACH OF THE MANY FINDINGS OF NEGLIGENCE BY THE
TRIAL JUDGE SURVIVE THE "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS" TEST OF APPELLATE REVIEW. 
WITHOUT PASSING ON THE REST OF HIS FINDINGS, WE FIND THAT THOSE AS TO
THE DUTY OF FURTHER INQUIRY AND NEGLIGENCE IN SHIPMENT AND FAILURE TO
WARN ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT.  (FN10)  WE CONSTRUE THESE
LATTER FINDINGS NOT AS MEANING THAT EACH OMISSION IN THE PROCESS OF
BAGGING, SHIPPING, AND FAILURE TO WARN, IF STANDING ALONE, WOULD HAVE
IMPOSED LIBAILITY ON THE GOVERNMENT, BUT RATHER THAT DUE CARE IS NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THIS SERIATIM RESOLUTION OF EVERY CONFLICT BETWEEN
SAFETY AND EXPEDIENCY IN FAVOR OF THE LATTER.  THIS COURT CERTAINLY
WOULD HOLD A PRIVATE CORPORATION LIABLE IN THIS SITUATION, AND THE
STATUTE IMPOSES THE SAME LIABILITY UPON THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS IT CAN
BRING ITSELF WITHIN THE ACT'S EXCEPTION, TO WHICH WE NOW TURN.  (FN11) 

THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT EACH ACT OR OMISSION UPON WHICH THE
CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE IS PREDICATED - THE DECISIONS AS TO DISCONTINUING
THE INVESTIGATION OF HAZARDS, BAGGING AT HIGH TEMPERATURE, USE OF PAPER
BAGGING MATERIAL, ABSENCE OF LABELING AND WARNING - INVOLVED A
CONSCIOUS WEIGHING OF EXPEDIENCY AGAINST CAUTION AND WAS THEREFORE
WITHIN THE IMMUNITY FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS PROVIDED BY THE TORT CLAIMS
ACT.  IT FURTHER ARGUES, BY WAY OF SHOWING THAT BY SUCH A CONSTRUCTION
THE RESERVATION WOULD NOT COMPLETELY SWALLOW THE WAIVER OF IMMUNITY,
THAT SUCH DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS ARE TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE
MADE BY A TRUCK DRIVER AS TO THE SPEED AT WHICH HE WILL TRAVEL SO AS TO
KEEP THE LATTER WITHIN THE REALM OF LIABILITY. 

WE DO NOT PREDICATE LIABILITY ON ANY DECISION TAKEN AT "CABINET
LEVEL" OR ON ANY OTHER HIGH-ALTITUDE THINKING.  OF COURSE, IT IS NOT A
TORT FOR GOVERNMENT TO GOVERN, AND THE DECISION TO AID FOREIGN
AGRICULTURE BY MAKING AND DELIVERING FERTILIZER IS NO ACTIONABLE
WRONG.  NOR DO WE FIND ANY INDICATION THAT IN THESE DELIBERATIONS ANY
DECISION WAS MADE TO TAKE A CALCULATED RISK OF DOING WHAT WAS DONE, IN
THE WAY IT WAS DONE, ON THE CHANCE THAT WHAT DID HAPPEN MIGHT NOT
HAPPEN.  THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT DETERRED BY FEAR THAT GOVERNMENTAL
LIABILITY IN THIS CASE WOULD MAKE THE DISCRETION OF EXECUTIVES AND
ADMINISTRATORS TIMID AND RESTRAINED.  HOWEVER, IF DECISIONS ARE BEING
MADE AT CABINET LEVELS AS TO THE TEMPERATURE OF BAGGING EXPLOSIVE
FERTILIZERS, WHETHER PAPER IS SUITABLE FOR BAGGING HOT FERTILIZER, AND
HOW THE BAGS SHOULD BE LABELED, PERHAPS AN INCREASED SENSE OF CAUTION
AND RESPONSIBILITY EVEN AT THAT HEIGHT WOULD BE WHOLESOME.  THE COMMON
SENSE OF THIS MATTER IS THAT A POLICY ADOPTED IN THE EXERCISE OF AN
IMMUNE DISCRETION WAS CARRIED OUT CARELESSLY BY THOSE IN CHARGE OF
DETAIL.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE THERE IS
IMMUNITY FOR EVERY BALANCING OF CARE AGAINST COST, OF SAFETY AGAINST
PRODUCTION, OF WARNING AGAINST SILENCE. 

ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS NOT CLEAR, THE
GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO SUPPORT ITS VIEW BY RESORT TO SELECTIONS FROM AN
INCONCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  WE REFER IN THE MARGIN TO
APPROPRIATE EXCERPTS WHICH, IN SPITE OF THE COURT'S RELIANCE ON THEM,
WE BELIEVE SUPPORT OUR CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE.  (FN12) 

THE GOVERNMENT ALSO RELIES ON THE BODY OF LAW DEVELOPED IN THE FIELD
OF MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR TORTS WHICH DEAL WITH DISCRETIONARY, AS
OPPOSED TO MINISTERIAL, ACTS.  WHATEVER THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THIS
DICHOTOMY, THE CASES WHICH HAVE INTERPRETED IT ARE IN HOPELESS
CONFUSION; SOME HAVE USED "DISCRETIONARY" AND "MINISTERIAL"
INTERCHANGEABLY WITH "PROPRIETARY" AND "GOVERNMENTAL," WHILE OTHERS
HAVE RATHER UNCRITICALLY BORROWED THE SAME TERMINOLOGY FROM THE LAW OF
MANDAMUS.  (FN13)  BUT EVEN CASES CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT HOLD THAT,
ALTHOUGH THE MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT BE HELD FOR ITS DECISION TO UNDERTAKE
A PROJECT, IT IS LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT EXECUTION OR UPKEEP.  (FN14) 
WE THINK THAT THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, THE RELIABLE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
AND THE COMMON-SENSE BASIS OF THE RULE REGARDING MUNICIPALITIES, ALL
POINT TO A USEFUL AND PROPER DISTINCTION PRESERVED BY THE STATUTE OTHER
THAN THAT URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  WHEN AN OFFICIAL EXERTS
GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY IN A MANNER WHICH LEGALLY BINDS ONE OR MANY, HE
IS ACTING IN A WAY IN WHICH NO PRIVATE PERSON COULD.  SUCH ACTIVITIES
DO AND ARE DESIGNED TO AFFECT, OFTEN DELETERIOUSLY, THE AFFAIRS OF
INDIVIDUALS, BUT COURTS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THE PUBLIC POLICY THAT
SUCH OFFICIAL SHALL BE CONTROLLED SOLELY BY THE STATUTORY OR
ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE AND NOT BY THE ADDED THREAT OF PRIVATE DAMAGE
SUITS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR FALSE
ARREST IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A PRIVATE PERSON PERFORMING THE SAME ACT
WOULD BE LIABLE, (FN15) AND SUCH CASES COULD BE MULTIPLIED.  (FN16) THE
OFFICIAL'S ACT MIGHT INFLICT JUST AS GREAT AN INJURY AND MIGHT BE JUST
AS WRONG AS THAT OF THE PRIVATE PERSON, BUT THE OFFICIAL IS NOT
ANSWERABLE.  THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE OF THE TORT CLAIMS ACT PROTECTS THE
PUBLIC TREASURY WHERE THE COMMON LAW WOULD PROTECT THE PURSE OF THE
ACTING PUBLIC OFFICIAL. 

BUT MANY ACTS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS DEAL ONLY WITH THE HOUSEKEEPING
SIDE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.  THE GOVERNMENT, AS LANDOWNER, AS
MANUFACTURER, AS SHIPPER, AS WAREHOUSEMAN, AS SHIPOWNER AND OPERATOR,
IS CARRYING ON ACTIVITIES INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE PERFORMED BY
PRIVATE PERSONS.  IN THIS AREA, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO STRETCH THE
LEGISLATIVE TEXT TO IMMUNIZE THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS OFFICERS FROM
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTS, IF DONE WITHOUT APPROPRIATE CARE FOR THE
SAFETY OF OTHERS.  MANY OFFICIAL DECISIONS EVEN IN THIS AREA MAY
INVOLVE A NICE BALANCING OF VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS, BUT THIS IS THE
SAME KIND OF BALANCING WHICH CITIZENS DO AT THEIR PERIL AND WE THINK IT
IS NOT WITHIN THE EXCEPTION OF THE STATUTE. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S NEGLIGENCE HERE WAS NOT IN POLICY DECISIONS OF A
REGULATORY OR GOVERNMENTAL NATURE, BUT INVOLVED ACTIONS AKIN TO THOSE
OF A PRIVATE MANUFACTURER, CONTRACTOR, OR SHIPPER.  READING THE
DISCRETIONARY EXCEPTION AS WE DO, IN A WAY BOTH WORKABLE AND FAITHFUL
TO LEGISLATIVE INTENT, WE WOULD HOLD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS LIABLE
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  SURELY A STATUTE SO LONG DEBATED WAS MEANT
TO EMBRACE MORE THAN TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS.  IF NOT, THE ANCIENT AND
DISCREDITED DOCTRINE THAT "THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG" HAS NOT BEEN
UPROOTED; IT HAS MERELY BEEN AMENDED TO READ, "THE KING CAN DO ONLY
LITTLE WRONGS." 

FN1  IN RE TEXAS CITY DISASTER LITIGATION, 197 F.2D 771. 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2680. 

FN3  CARDOZO, THE GROWTH OF THE LAW, P. 102.  (EMPHASIS HIS OWN.) 

FN4  SEE, E.G., THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC.
51 ET SEQ., WHICH ABOLISHED THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND
CHANGED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE FROM A COMPLETE BAR TO RECOVERY TO A
FACTOR WHICH MITIGATED DAMAGES; THE JONES ACT, 46 U.S.C.  SEC. 688 ET
SEQ., WHICH GAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYERS TO SEAMEN,
UNDER THE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF THE F.E.L.A.; THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION ACT OF 1916, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 751 ET SEQ., IN WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT SET UP A COMPENSATION SYSTEM FOR ITS OWN EMPLOYEES; THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901
ET SEQ., WHICH SETS UP A SYSTEM OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION FOR THE
DESCRIBED EMPLOYEES AND IMPOSES LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT ON THEIR
EMPLOYERS.  IN CASES ARISING UNDER THE LAST-NAMED ACT, THE GOVERNMENT
IS A PARTY TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ANY AWARD, REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS
OF THE CLAIMANT.  SEE O'LEARY V. BROWN-PACIFIC-MAXON, INC., 340 U.S.
504. 

FN5  BOYCE MOTOR LINES V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 337. 

FN6  JUDGE LUMMUS, FOR THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS,
ARTICULATED THIS DEVELOPMENT IN CARTER V. YARDLEY & CO., LTD., 319
MASS. 92, 64 N.E.2D 693.  THAT OPINION CONTAINS WHAT IS PERHAPS A MORE
DECISIVE STATEMENT OF THE TREND THAN DOES THE EARLIER LANDMARK OPINION
OF JUDGE CARDOZO FOR THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, MACPHERSON V. BUICK
MOTOR CO., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050.  THE FOLLOWING CASES REPRESENT
EXAMPLES OF THE TYPE OF CLAIMS BASED ON DAMAGE FROM COMPLEX
MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS WHICH COME BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS IN THE
PRESENT DAY.  COLEMAN CO. V. GRAY, 192 F.2D 265 (ABSENCE OF SAFETY
DEVICE ON GASOLINE VAPOR PRESSING IRON); ROETTIG V. WESTINGHOUSE MFG.
CO., 53 F. SUPP 588 (EXPLOSION OF HEATING UNIT IN ELECTRIC STOVE);
ESCOLA V. COCA COLA BOTTLING CO. OF FRESNO, 24 CAL. 2D 453, 150 P.2D
436 (DEFECT IN COCA COLA BOTTLE); GALL V. UNION ICE CO., 108 CAL. APP.
2D 303, 239 P.2D 48 (ABSENCE OF WARNING LABEL ON DRUM OF SULFURIC ACID
WHICH BURST); LINDROTH V. WALGREEN CO. 407 ILL. 121, 94 N.E.2D 847
(DEFECTIVE VAPORIZER WHICH MELTED, CAUSING FIRE WHICH BURNED
PLAINTIFF); EBERS V. GENERAL CHEMICAL CO., 310 MICH. 261, 17 N.W.2D 176
(DAMAGE FROM CHEMICAL DESIGNED TO KILL PEACH-TREE BORERS); WILLEY V.
FYROGAS CO., 363 MO. 406, 251 S.W.2D 635 (DEFECT IN AUTOMATIC CUTOFF
VALVES ON GAS HEATER); DI VELLO V. GARDNER MACHINE CO. (OHIO COM. PL.),
102 N.E.2D 289 (DISINTEGRATING GRINDING WHEEL); SAENA V. ZENITH OPTICAL
CO., 135 W. VA. 795, 65 S.E.2D 205 (EXPLODING GLASS COFFEE MAKER). 
RECOVERY WAS NOT HAD IN ALL OF THESE CASES, BUT ALL OF THEM HAVE
EMPHASIZED THAT THE MANUFACTURER OWES SOME DUTY OF CARE TO CERTAIN
CLASSES OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE INJURED BY DEFECTS IN HIS PRODUCT. 

FN7  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1346. 

FN8  MCAFEE V. TRAVIS GAS CORP., 137 TEX. 314, 153 S.W.2D 442; TEXAS
DRUG CO. V. CALDWELL (TEX. CIV. APP.), WRIT DISMISSED, 237 S.W. 968;
TEGLER V. FARMERS UNION GAS & OIL CO., 124 NEB. 336, 246 N.W. 721.  AS
RECENTLY AS 1949, CIRCUIT JUDGE DUFFY, IN DISCUSSING IOWA LAW WHICH WAS
APPLICABLE IN A DIVERSITY SUIT IN FEDERAL COURT, SAID THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF IOWA HAD NOT YET PASSED SQUARELY ON THE QUESTION, BUT WAS OF
THE OPINION THAT THEY WOULD FOLLOW THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.  ANDERSON
V. LINTON, 178 F.2D 304.  AN OLDER IOWA CASE IMPOSES A DUTY OF CARE ON
DEALERS IN POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES, AT LEAST AS TO THOSE IN
CONTRACTUAL PRIVITY, ELLIS V. REPUBLIC OIL CO., 133 IOWA 11, 110 N.W.
20; AND EVEN THE GOVERNMENT HERE DOES NOT RELY ON THE ABSENCE OF
CONTRACTUAL PRIVITY TO BAR PETITIONERS FROM RECOVERY. 

FN9  RULE 52(A), FED. RULES CIV. PROC. 

FN10  THE FOLLOWING ARE EXCERPTS FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE: "(G)  ...  DEFENDANT LEARNED MANY FACTS, BUT DID NOT PURSUE SUCH
INVESTIGATION FAR ENOUGH TO LEARN ALL THE FACTS, BUT NEGLIGENTLY
STOPPED SHORT OF LEARNING ALL OF THE FACTS.  WHAT FACTS IT DID LEARN,
HOWEVER, WERE SUFFICIENT TO GIVE DEFENDANT KNOWLEDGE AND TO PUT
DEFENDANT ON NOTICE, AND IF NOT, THEN UPON INQUIRY THAT WOULD IF
PURSUED, HAVE LED TO KNOWLEDGE AND NOTICE THAT SUCH FERTILIZER WHICH IT
DECIDED TO AND BEGAN TO MANUFACTURE WAS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, A DANGEROUS EXPLOSIVE, AND A FIRE HAZARD  ...  .
(1) DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT PREPARED SUCH
FERTILIZER, INCLUDING THE FERTILIZER ON THE GRANDCAMP AND HIGH FLYER,
FOR SHIPMENT.  SUCH FERTILIZER WAS BY DEFENDANT, OR UNDER ITS
DIRECTION, PLACED OR SACKED IN BAGS MADE FROM PAPER OR OTHER SUBSTANCES
WHICH WERE EASILY IGNITED BY CONTACT WITH FIRE OR BY SPONTANEOUS
COMBUSTION OR SPONTANEOUS IGNITION OF THE FERTILIZER.  SUCH BAGS ALSO
BECAME TORN AND RAGGED IN SHIPPING AND PARTICLES OF THE BAGS BECAME
MIXED WITH THE FERTILIZER AND RENDERED SAME MORE DANGEROUS AND MORE
SUSCEPTIBLE TO FIRE AND EXPLOSION.  SUCH NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF SUCH FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS AND THE INJURIES OF WHICH PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAIN  ...  .  (O) DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN DELIVERING OR CAUSING
TO BE DELIVERED SUCH FERTILIZER, INCLUDING THE FERTILIZER ON THE
GRANDCAMP AND HIGH FLYER, SO PLACED IN PAPER BAGS TO THE RAILROAD AND
OTHER CARRIERS OVER WHICH IT WAS SHIPPED, WITHOUT INFORMING SUCH
CARRIERS THAT IT WAS DANGEROUS, INFLAMMATORY, AND EXPLOSIVE IN
CHARACTER, AND THAT IT WAS DANGEROUS TO PERSONS HANDLING SAME AND TO
THE PUBLIC.  SUCH NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF SUCH FIRES AND
EXPLOSIONS AND THE INJURIES OF WHICH PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN. 

FN11  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2680:  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND

"(A)  ANY CLAIM BASED UPON AN ACT OR OMISSION OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
GOVERNMENT, EXERCISING DUE CARE, IN THE EXECUTION OF A STATUTE OR
REGULATION, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH STATUTE OR REGULATION BE VALID, OR
BASED UPON THE EXERCISE OR PERFORMANCE OR THE FAILURE TO EXERCISE OR
PERFORM A DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION OR DUTY ON THE PART OF A FEDERAL
AGENCY OR AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THE DISCRETION
INVOLVED BE ABUSED  ...  ." 

FN12  SEE N. 21 OF THE COURT'S OPINION.  WE BELIEVE THAT THIS OFT
REPEATED PARAGRAPH APPEARING IN THE HOUSE REPORTS SHOWS QUITE PLAINLY
THAT WHAT WAS MEANT IS THAT TYPE OF DISCRETION WHICH GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES EXERCISE IN REGULATING PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.  THE MAJORITY
CHOOSES INSTEAD TO FIX AN AMORPHOUS, ALL-INCLUSIVE MEANING TO THE WORD,
AND THEN TO DELIMIT THE EXCEPTION NOT BY WHETHER AN ACT WAS
DISCRETIONARY BUT BY WHO EXERCISED THE DISCRETION.  THE STATUTE ITSELF
CONTAINS NOT THE VAGUEST INTIMATION OF SUCH A TEST WHICH LEAVES
ACTIONABLE ONLY THE MISCONDUCT OF FILE CLERKS AND TRUCK DRIVERS. 

FN13  SEE PATTERSON, MINISTERIAL AND DISCRETIONARY OFFICIAL ACTS, 20
MICH. L. REV. 848. 

FN14  E.G., KEELEY V. PORTLAND, 100 ME. 260, 262, 61 A. 180, 181-182;
CUMBERLAND V. TURNEY, 177 MD. 297, 311, 9 A.2D 561, 567; GALLAGHER V.
TIPTON, 133 MO. APP. 557, 113 S.W. 674. 

FN15  GREGOIRE V. BIDDLE, 177 F.2D 579. 

FN16  SPALDING V. VILAS, 161 U.S. 483 (POSTMASTER GENERAL); WILKES V.
DINSMAN, 7 HOW.  89 (OFFICER OF MARINE CORPS); OTIS V. WATKINS, 9
CRANCH 339 (DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS); YASELLI V. GOFF, 12 F.2D 396,
AFF'D 275 U.S. 503 (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL).  THE
OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IN THE STATES IS TO THE SAME EFFECT. 
SEE 42 AM.  JUR.  SEC.  257.
..END :













AUTOMATIC CANTEEN COMPANY OF AMERICA V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 346
U.S. 61 


NO. 89.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 15, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1953 - 194 F.2D
433, REVERSED. 


ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE "KNOWINGLY TO INDUCE OR RECEIVE A
DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE WHICH IS PROHIBITED" BY THE ACT, BUT THE ACT
DOES NOT PROHIBIT A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL WHICH MAKES ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE
FOR COST DIFFERENCES.  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ISSUED A COMPLAINT
CHARGING VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(F) BY PETITIONER, A LARGE BUYER OF CANDY
AND CONFECTIONS FOR RESALE THROUGH AUTOMATIC VENDING MACHINES OPERATED
IN MANY STATES.  AT THE HEARING, THE COMMISSION INTRODUCED EVIDENCE
THAT PETITIONER RECEIVED, AND IN SOME INSTANCES SOLICITED, PRICES THAT
PETITIONER KNEW WERE AS MUCH AS 33% LOWER THAN THE PRICES TO OTHER
BUYERS.  PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND
THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NOT MADE A PRIMA FACIE CASE WAS DENIED; AND, ON
PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION ENTERED A
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  HELD: 

1.  A BUYER DOES NOT VIOLATE SEC. 2(F) IF THE LOWER PRICES HE INDUCES
ARE EITHER WITHIN ONE OF THE SELLER'S DEFENSES, SUCH AS THE COST
JUSTIFICATION, OR NOT KNOWN BY HIM NOT TO BE WITHIN ONE OF THOSE
DEFENSES.  PP. 69-74. 

2.  PROOF THAT THE BUYER KNEW THAT THE PRICE HE INDUCED OR RECEIVED
WAS LOWER THAN THAT OFFERED OTHER BUYERS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SHIFT TO
THE BUYER THE BURDEN OF INTRODUCING EVIDENCE TO SHOW JUSTIFICATION. 
PP. 74-81. 

AUTOMATIC CANTEEN COMPANY OF AMERICA V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A PROCEEDING AGAINST PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 2(F) OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C.  SEC. 13, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENTERED A
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  46 F.T.C. 861.  ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  194 F.2D 433.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 809.   REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 82. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, DIRECTED PRIMARILY AGAINST SELLERS WHO
DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF LARGE BUYERS, INCLUDES A PROVISION UNDER WHICH
PROCEEDINGS MAY BE HAD AGAINST BUYERS WHO KNOWINGLY INDUCE OR RECEIVE
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES.  THAT PROVISION, SEC. 2(F) OF THE ACT, IS HERE
FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR THE FIRST TIME AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT ISSUED
BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AGAINST PETITIONER, A LARGE BUYER OF
CANDY AND OTHER CONFECTIONARY PRODUCTS FOR RESALE THROUGH 230,000-ODD
AUTOMATIC VENDING MACHINES OPERATED IN 33 STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  PETITIONER, INCORPORATED IN 1931, HAS ENJOYED RAPID GROWTH
AND HAS ATTAINED, SO WE ARE TOLD, A DOMINANT POSITION IN THE SALE OF
CONFECTIONARY PRODUCTS THROUGH VENDING MACHINES. 

THE COMMISSION INTRODUCED EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER RECEIVED, AND IN
SOME INSTANCES SOLICITED, PRICES IT KNEW WERE AS MUCH AS 33% LOWER THAN
PRICES QUOTED OTHER PURCHASERS, BUT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO
SHOW THAT THE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS EXCEEDED ANY COST SAVINGS THAT
SELLERS MAY HAVE ENJOYED IN SALES TO PETITIONER.  PETITIONER MOVED TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NOT MADE A
PRIMA FACIE CASE.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED; THE COMMISSION STATED THAT A
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF VIOLATION HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY PROOF THAT THE
BUYER RECEIVED LOWER PRICES ON LIKE GOODS THAN OTHER BUYERS, "WELL
KNOWING THAT IT WAS BEING FAVORED OVER COMPETING PURCHASERS," UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE REQUISITE EFFECT ON COMPETITION HAD BEEN
SHOWN.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS MADE MORE THAN DUE
ALLOWANCE FOR COST DIFFERENTIALS DID NOT NEED TO BE DECIDED "AT THIS
STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING."  ON PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO INTRODUCE
EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION MADE FINDINGS THAT PETITIONER KNEW THE PRICES
IT INDUCED WERE BELOW LIST PRICES AND THAT IT INDUCED THEM WITHOUT
INQUIRY OF THE SELLER, OR ASSURANCE FROM THE SELLER, AS TO COST
DIFFERENTIALS WHICH MIGHT JUSTIFY THE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS.  THE
COMMISSION THEREUPON ENTERED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  46 F.T.C. 861. 
ON REVIEW, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, (FN1) HOLDING THAT THE
COMMISSION'S PRIMA FACIE CASE UNDER SEC. 2(F) DOES NOT REQUIRE SHOWING
ABSENCE OF A COST JUSTIFICATION.  194 F.2D 433. 

TO BUYERS, OF SECTIONS OF THE ACT DEALING WITH DISCRIMINATION BY
SELLERS, IS A VITAL PROHIBITION IN THE ENFORCEMENT SCHEME OF THE ACT. 
IN SITUATIONS WHERE BUYERS MAY HAVE DIFFICULTY IN PROVING THEIR
SELLERS' COSTS, SEC. 2(F) COULD, IF THE COMMISSION'S VIEW IN THIS CASE
PREVAILS, BECOME A MAJOR RELIANCE FOR SIMPLIFIED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT
NOT ONLY BY THE COMMISSION BUT BY PLAINTIFFS SUING FOR TREBLE DAMAGES. 
SUCH ENFORCEMENT, HOWEVER, MIGHT READILY EXTEND BEYOND THE PROHIBITIONS
OF THE ACT AND, IN DOING SO, HELP GIVE RISE TO A PRICE UNIFORMITY AND
RIGIDITY IN OPEN CONFLICT WITH THE PURPOSES OF OTHER ANTITRUST
LEGISLATION.  WE THEREFORE THOUGHT IT NECESSARY TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 
344 U.S. 809. 

ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAYTON ACT'S ORIGINAL DECLARATION AGAINST PRICE
DISCRIMINATION WAS SO FRUSTRATED BY INADEQUACIES IN THE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE THAT CONGRESS IN 1936 ENACTED THE SWEEPING AMENDMENTS TO THAT
ACT CONTAINED IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  49 STAT.
1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13.  CHIEF AMONG THE INADEQUACIES HAD BEEN EXPRESS
EXEMPTION OF PRICE DISCRIMINATION IN THE SALES OF DIFFERENT QUANTITIES
OF LIKE GOODS, AN EXEMPTION THAT WAS INTERPRETED AS LEAVING QUANTITY
DISCOUNT SELLERS FREE TO GRANT DISCOUNTS TO QUANTITY BUYERS THAT
EXCEEDED ANY COST SAVINGS IN SELLING TO SUCH BUYERS.  GOODYEAR TIRE &
RUBBER CO. V. F.T.C., 101 F.2D 620.  IN AN EFFORT TO TIGHTEN THE
RESTRICTION AGAINST PRICE DISCRIMINATION INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, CONGRESS ENACTED TWO PROVISIONS BEARING ON THE ISSUES IN THIS
CASE.  (FN2)  IT MADE PRICE DISCRIMINATION IN THE SALE OF LIKE GOODS
UNLAWFUL WITHOUT REGARD TO QUANTITY, ALTHOUGH QUANTITY DISCOUNTS, LIKE
OTHER PRICE DIFFERENTIALS, COULD STILL BE JUSTIFIED IF THEY MADE NO
MORE THAN "DUE ALLOWANCE" FOR COST DIFFERENCES IN SALES TO DIFFERENT
BUYERS.  CONGRESS IN ADDITION SOUGHT TO REACH THE LARGE BUYER, CAPABLE
OF EXERTING PRESSURE ON SMALLER SELLERS, BY MAKING IT UNLAWFUL
"KNOWINGLY TO INDUCE OR RECEIVE A DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE WHICH IS
PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION." 

SINCE PRECISION OF EXPRESSION IS NOT AN OUTSTANDING CHARACTERISTIC OF
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, EXACT FORMULATION OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS
NECESSARY TO AVOID INADVERTENT PRONOUNCEMENT ON STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN
ONE CONTEXT WHEN THE SAME LANGUAGE MAY REQUIRE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION
IN OTHER SETTINGS.  FAMILIAR BUT LOOSE LANGUAGE AFFORDS TOO READY A
TEMPTATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE BUT LOOSE CONSTRUCTION.  WE THEREFORE
THINK IT IMPERATIVE IN THIS CASE TO CONFINE OURSELVES AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE TO WHAT IS IN DISPUTE HERE. 

WE ARE HERE ASKED TO SETTLE A CONTROVERSY INVOLVING SIMPLY THE BURDEN
OF COMING FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE UNDER SEC. 2(F) OF THE ACT.  THE
RECORD, SO ABUNDANT IN ITS INSTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS THAT
THE COMMISSION ITSELF FELT BOUND TO ANIMADVERT ON UNDUE PROLIFERATION
OF THE EVIDENCE BY GOVERNMENT LAWYERS, (FN3) MAY BE TAKEN AS PRESENTING
VARYING DEGREES OF BARGAINING PRESSURE EXERTED BY A BUYER ON A SELLER
TO OBTAIN PRICES BELOW THOSE QUOTED OTHER PURCHASERS.  IN SOME
INSTANCES, SO THE COMMISSION FOUND, PETITIONER'S METHOD WAS TO "INFORM
PROSPECTIVE SUPPLIERS OF THE PRICES AND TERMS OF SALE WHICH WOULD BE
ACCEPTABLE TO (PETITIONER) WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OR INQUIRY AS TO
WHETHER SUCH SUPPLIER COULD JUSTIFY SUCH A PRICE ON A COST BASIS OR
WHETHER IT WAS BEING OFFERED TO OTHER CUSTOMERS OF THE SUPPLIER."  46
F.T.C., AT 888.  A TYPICAL INSTANCE OF THE MAXIMUM PRESSURE FOUND BY
THE COMMISSION WAS A SERIES OF NEGOTIATIONS IN WHICH REPRESENTATIVES OF
PETITIONER SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN TO A PROSPECTIVE SUPPLIER THE KIND OF
SAVINGS HE MIGHT ENJOY IN SALES TO PETITIONER AND MIGHT MAKE THE BASIS
OF A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL.  IN SUCH INSTANCES, PETITIONER SOMETIMES GAVE
THE SUPPLIER ESTIMATES OF WHAT IT CONSIDERED "REPRESENTATIVE"
PERCENTAGE SAVINGS ON VARIOUS COSTS SUCH AS FREIGHT, SALES COSTS,
PACKAGING, AND RETURNS AND ALLOWANCES.  (FN4) 

THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDING NEGATIVING THE EXISTENCE OF COST
SAVINGS OR STATING THAT WHATEVER COST SAVINGS THERE WERE DID NOT AT
LEAST EQUAL PRICE DIFFERENTIALS PETITIONER MAY HAVE RECEIVED.  IT DID
NOT MAKE ANY FINDINGS AS TO PETITIONER'S KNOWLEDGE OF ACTUAL COST
SAVINGS OF PARTICULAR SELLERS AND FOUND ONLY, AS TO KNOWLEDGE, THAT
PETITIONER KNEW WHAT THE LIST PRICES TO OTHER BUYERS WERE.  PETITIONER,
FOR ITS PART, FILED OFFERS OF PROOF THAT MANY SELLERS WOULD TESTIFY
THAT THEY HAD NEVER TOLD PETITIONER THAT THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL
EXCEEDED COST SAVINGS.  AN OFFER OF PROOF WAS IN TURN MADE BY THE
COMMISSION AS TO THE TESTIMONY OF THESE SELLERS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION;
SUCH PROOF WOULD HAVE BROUGHT OUT THAT PETITIONER NEVER INQUIRED OF ITS
SUPPLIERS WHETHER THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL WAS IN EXCESS OF COST SAVINGS,
NEVER ASKED FOR A WRITEEN STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT THAT THE PRICE
DIFFERENTIALS DID NOT EXCEED SUCH SAVINGS, AND NEVER INQUIRED WHETHER
THE SELLER HAD MADE UP "ANY EXACT COST FIGURES" SHOWING COST SAVINGS IN
SERVING PETITIONER. 

PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT, ON THIS RECORD, MADE A
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF KNOWING INDUCEMENT OF PRICES THAT "MADE MORE 'THAN
DUE ALLOWANCE FOR'" COST DIFFERENCES, WHILE THE COMMISSION CONTENDS
THAT IT HAS ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE, JUSTIFYING ENTRY OF A CEASE
AND DESIST ORDER WHERE THE BUYER FAILS TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE.  BEFORE
PROCEEDING TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, IT IS
DESIRABLE TO CONSIDER THE KIND OF EVIDENCE ABOUT WHICH THIS DISPUTE
CENTERS.  PETITIONER IS SAYING IN EFFECT THAT, UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
VIEW, THE BURDEN OF INTRODUCING EVIDENCE AS TO THE SELLER'S COST
SAVINGS AND THE BUYER'S KNOWLEDGE THEREOF IS PUT ON THE BUYER; THIS
BURDEN, PETITIONER INSISTS, IS SO DIFFICULT TO MEET THAT IT WOULD BE
UNREASONABLE TO CONSTRUE THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS HAS USED AS IMPOSING IT.
IF SO CONSTRUED, THE STATUTE, PETITIONER CONTENDS, WOULD CREATE A
PRESUMPTION SO LACKING RATIONAL CONNECTION WITH THE FACT ESTABLISHED AS
TO VIOLATE DUE PROCESS. 

WE HAVE BEEN INVITED TO CONSIDER IN THIS CONNECTION SOME OF THE
INTRICACIES INHERENT IN THE ATTEMPT TO SHOW COSTS IN A ROBINSON-PATMAN
ACT PROCEEDING.  THE ELUSIVENESS OF COST DATA, WHICH APPARENTLY CANNOT
BE OBTAINED FROM ORDINARY BUSINESS RECORDS, IS REFLECTED IN PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST SELLERS.  (FN5)  SUCH PROCEEDINGS MAKE US AWARE OF HOW
DIFFICULT THESE PROBLEMS ARE, BUT THIS RECORD HAPPILY DOES NOT REQUIRE
US TO EXAMINE COST PROBLEMS IN DETAIL.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT,
WHENEVER COSTS HAVE BEEN IN ISSUE, THE COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN CONTENT
WITH ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES; A STUDY SEEMS TO BE REQUIRED, INVOLVING
PERHAPS STOP-WATCH STUDIES OF TIME SPENT BY SOME PERSONNEL SUCH AS
SALESMEN AND TRUCK DRIVERS, NUMERICAL COUNTS OF INVOICES OR BILLS AND
IN SOME INSTANCES OF THE NUMBER OF ITEMS OR ENTRIES ON SUCH RECORDS, OR
OTHER SUCH QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS. 
(FN6)  WHAT KIND OF PROOF WOULD BE REQUIRED OF A BUYER WE DO NOT KNOW. 
THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT KNOWLEDGE GENERALLY AVAILABLE TO THE BUYER
FROM PUBLISHED DATA OR EXPERIENCE IN THE TRADE COULD BE USED BY
PETITIONER TO MAKE A REASONABLE SHOWING OF HIS SELLERS' COSTS.  THERE
WAS NO SUGGESTION IN THE COMMISSION'S OPINION, HOWEVER, THAT IT WOULD
TAKE A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE TOWARD COST SHOWINGS BY A BUYER THAN IT HAS
TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO SELLERS, AND "GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRADE," TO
USE THE COMMISSION'S PHRASE, UNSUPPORTED BY FACTUAL ANALYSIS HAS AS YET
BEEN FAR FROM ACCEPTABLE, AND INDEED HAS BEEN STRONGLY REPROVED BY
COMMISSION ACCOUNTANTS, AS THE BASIS FOR COST SHOWINGS IN OTHER
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  (FN7) 

NO DOUBT THE BURDEN PLACED ON PETITIONER TO SHOW HIS SELLERS' COSTS,
UNDER PRESENT COMMISSION STANDARDS, IS HEAVY.  ADDED TO THE
CONSIDERABLE BURDEN THAT A SELLER HIMSELF MAY HAVE IN DEMONSTRATING
COSTS IS THE FACT THAT THAT THE DATA NOT ONLY ARE NOT IN THE BUYER'S
HANDS BUT ARE ORDINARILY OBTAINABLE EVEN BY THE SELLER ONLY AFTER
DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF THE BUSINESS.  A SUBPOENA OF THE SELLER'S
RECORDS IS NOT LIKELY TO BE ADEQUATE.  IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF
OBTAINING INFORMATION IN THE SELLER'S HANDS.  (FN8)  IT IS A MATTER OF
STUDYING THE SELLER'S BUSINESS AFRESH.  INSISTENCE ON PROOF OF COSTS BY
THE BUYER MIGHT THUS HAVE OTHER IMPLICATIONS; IT WOULD ALMOST
INEVITABLY REQUIRE A DEGREE OF COOPERATION BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER, AS
AGAINST OTHER BUYERS, THAT MAY OFFEND OTHER ANTITRUST POLICIES, AND IT
MIGHT ALSO EXPOSE THE SELLER'S COST SECRETS TO THE PREJUDICE OF ARM'S
LENGTH BARGAINING IN THE FUTURE.  FINALLY, NOT ONE BUT, AS HERE,
APPROXIMATELY 80 DIFFERENT SELLERS' COSTS MAY BE IN ISSUE. 

IT IS AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND THAT THE PRESENT DISPUTE ARISES.  THE
LEGISLATIVE SETTING INDICATES CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE NEED TO
CHARGE BUYERS WITH A RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRICE DISCRIMINATION
COMPARABLE, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO THAT PLACED ON SELLERS.  THUS, AT
THE LEAST, WE CAN BE CONFIDENT IN READING THE WORDS IN SEC. 2(F), "A
DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION," AS A
REFERENCE TO THE SUBSTANTIVE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BY
SELLERS DEFINED ELSEWHERE IN THE ACT.  (FN9)  IT IS THEREFORE APPARENT
THAT THE DISCRIMINATORY PRICE THAT BUYERS ARE FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 2(F) TO
INDUCE CANNOT INCLUDE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS THAT ARE NOT FORBIDDEN TO
SELLERS IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT, AND, WHAT IS PERTINENT IN THIS
CASE, A BUYER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM INDUCING A LOWER PRICE BASED ON
COST DIFFERENCES THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE SELLER WITH A DEFENSE.  THIS
READING IS, INDEED, NOT SERIOUSLY DISPUTED BY THE PARTIES.  FOR WE ARE
NOT DEALING SIMPLY WITH A "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE"; (FN10) THE
"DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE" IN SEC.  2(F) MUST BE ONE "WHICH IS
PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION."  EVEN IF ANY PRICE DIFFERENTIAL WERE TO BE
COMPREHENDED WITHIN THE TERM "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE," SEC. 2(F),
WHICH SPEAKS OF PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATIONS, CANNOT BE READ AS DECLARING
OUT OF BOUNDS PRICE DIFFERENTIALS WITHIN ONE OR MORE OF THE "DEFENSES"
AVAILABLE TO SELLERS, SUCH AS THAT THE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS REFLECT COST
DIFFERENCES, FLUCTUATING MARKET CONDITIONS, OR BONA FIDE ATTEMPTS TO
MEET COMPETITION, AS THOSE DEFENSES ARE SET OUT IN THE PROVISOS OF
SECS. 2(A) AND 2(B).    THIS IS NOT TO SAY, HOWEVER, THAT THE CONVERSE
FOLLOWS, FOR SEC. 2(F) DOES NOT REACH ALL CASES OF BUYER RECEIPT OF A
PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION IN PRICES.  IT LIMITS ITSELF TO CASES OF
KNOWING RECEIPT OF SUCH PRICES.  THE COMMISSION SEEMS TO ARGUE, IN
PART, THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION OCCURS IF THE BUYER KNOWS ONLY
THAT THE PRICES ARE LOWER THAN THOSE OFFERED OTHER BUYERS.  SUCH A
READING NOT ONLY DISTORTS THE LANGUAGE BUT WOULD LEAVE THE WORD
"KNOWINGLY" ALMOST ENTIRELY WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE IN SEC. 2(F).  A BUYER
WITH NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER OF FACTS INDICATING THE POSSIBILITY THAT
PRICE DIFFERENCES WERE NOT BASED ON COST DIFFERENCES WOULD BE LIABLE IF
IN FACT THEY WERE NOT.  WE HAVE SEEN ABOVE THAT SEC. 2(F) DOES NOT
REFER TO ALL PRICE DIFFERENTIALS.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT PRICE
DIFFERENTIALS, EVEN AS A MATTER OF UNCRITICAL IMPRESSION, COME SO OFTEN
WITHIN THE PROHIBITED RANGE OF PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS THAT THE LANGUAGE
CAN IN ANY WAY BE READ ONE WAY FOR SOME PURPOSES AND ANOTHER IN
RELATION TO THE WORD "KNOWINGLY." 

THE COMMISSION'S ATTEMPTS IN THIS CASE TO LIMIT THE WORD "KNOWINGLY"
TO A MORE REASONABLE AREA OF PROHIBITION ARE NOT, WE THINK, JUSTIFIED
BY THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS HAS USED.  THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT CONGRESS
WAS ATTEMPTING TO REACH BUYERS WHO THROUGH THEIR OWN ACTIVITIES OBTAIN
A SPECIAL PRICE AND THAT "KNOWINGLY TO INDUCE OR RECEIVE" CAN BE READ
AS CHARGING SUCH BUYERS WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHATEVER UNLAWFUL
PRICES RESULT.  BUT THAT ARGUMENT WOULD COMPREHEND ANY BUYER WHO
ENGAGES IN BARGAINING OVER PRICE.  IF THE COMMISSION MEANS BUYERS WHO
EXERT UNDUE PRESSURE, THE ARGUMENT MIGHT FIND GREATER SUPPORT IN THE
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND BUT LESS IN THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS HAS EMPLOYED. 
SUCH A READING NOT ONLY IGNORES THE WORD "RECEIVE" BUT OPENS UP EVEN
MORE ENTANGLING DIFFICULTIES WITH INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS UNDUE
PRESSURE.  (FN11) 

THE COMMISSION ALSO URGES, FROM LEGISLATIVE EXPLANATION OF SIMILAR
LANGUAGE IN SEC.  2(A), THAT THE WORD "RECEIVE" CAN IN SOME WAY BE
LIMITED TO A CONTINUED AND SYSTEMATIC RECEIPT OF LOWER PRICES THAT
COULD FAIRLY CHARGE THE RECIPIENT WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ILLEGALITY.  (FN12)
WHILE WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER SYSTEMATIC RECEIPT OF PRICES IN
ITSELF COULD EVER BE SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THE BUYER THE REQUISITE
KNOWLEDGE, (FN13) WE THINK, AS THE ARGUMENT ITSELF RECOGNIZES, THAT THE
INQUIRY MUST BE INTO THE BUYER'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE ILLEGALITY. 

NOT ONLY ARE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION UNSATISFYING, BUT WE
THINK A FAIRER READING OF THE LANGUAGE AND OF WHAT LIMITED LEGISLATIVE
ELUCIDATION WE HAVE POINTS TOWARD A READING OF SEC. 2(F) MAKING IT
UNLAWFUL ONLY TO INDUCE OR RECEIVE PRICES KNOWN TO BE PROHIBITED
DISCRIMINATIONS.  (FN14) FOR SEC. 2(F) WAS EXPLAINED IN CONGRESS AS A
PROVISION UNDER WHICH A SELLER, BY INFORMING THE BUYER THAT A PROPOSED
DISCOUNT WAS UNLAWFUL UNDER THE ACT, COULD DISCOURAGE UNDUE PRESSURE
FROM THE BUYER.   (FN15)  OF COURSE, SUCH DEVICES FOR PRIVATE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT THROUGH FEAR OF PROSECUTION COULD EQUALLY WELL
HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED BY PROVIDING THAT THE BUYER WOULD BE LIABLE IF,
THROUGH THE SELLER OR OTHERWISE, HE LEARNED THAT THE PRICE HE SOUGHT OR
RECEIVED WAS LOWER THAN THAT ACCORDED COMPETITORS, BUT WE ARE UNABLE,
IN THE LIGHT OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AS EXPRESSED IN OTHER ANTITRUST
LEGISLATION, TO READ THIS AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE AS PUTTING THE BUYER AT
HIS PERIL WHENEVER HE ENGAGES IN PRICE BARGAINING.  SUCH A READING MUST
BE REJECTED IN VIEW OF THE EFFECT IT MIGHT HAVE ON THAT STURDY
BARGAINING BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER FOR WHICH SCOPE WAS PRESUMABLY LEFT
IN THE AREAS OF OUR ECONOMY NOT OTHERWISE REGULATED.  (FN16)  ALTHOUGH
DUE CONSIDERATION IS TO BE ACCORDED TO ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION
WHERE ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION IS FAIRLY OPEN, IT IS OUR DUTY TO
RECONCILE SUCH INTERPRETATION, EXCEPT WHERE CONGRESS HAS TOLD US NOT
TO, WITH THE BROADER ANTITRUST POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN BY
CONGRESS.  EVEN IF THE COMMISSION HAS, BY VIRTUE OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN
ACT, BEEN GIVEN SOME AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP POLICIES IN CONFLICT WITH
THOSE OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN ORDER TO MEET THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS CREATED
BY PRICE DISCRIMINATION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION HERE HAS
ADEQUATELY MADE MANIFEST REASONS FOR ENGENDERING SUCH A CONFLICT SO AS
TO ENABLE US TO ACCEPT ITS CONCLUSION.  CF. EASTERN-CENTRAL MOTOR
CARRIERS ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 194, 211-212. 

WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT A BUYER IS NOT LIABLE UNDER SEC. 2(F) IF
THE LOWER PRICES HE INDUCES ARE EITHER WITHIN ONE OF THE SELLER'S
DEFENSES SUCH AS THE COST JUSTIFICATION OR NOT KNOWN BY HIM NOT TO BE
WITHIN ONE OF THOSE DEFENSES.  THIS CONCLUSION IS OF COURSE ONLY A
NECESSARY PRELIMINARY IN THIS CASE.  AS WE HAVE NOTED EARLIER, THE
PRECISE ISSUE IN THE CASE BEFORE US IS THE BURDEN OF INTRODUCING
EVIDENCE - A SEPARATE ISSUE, THOUGH OF COURSE RELATED TO THE
SUBSTANTIVE PROHIBITION.  THIS ISSUE, INVOLVING AS IT DOES SOME OF THE
SAME CONSIDERATIONS, REQUIRES US FURTHER TO CONSIDER A BALANCE OF
CONVENIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF WHATEVER EVIDENTIARY RULES CONGRESS HAS
LAID DOWN FOR PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT.  ASSUMING, AS WE HAVE FOUND,
THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION IF THE BUYER DID NOT KNOW THAT
THE PRICES IT INDUCED OR RECEIVED WERE NOT COST-JUSTIFIED, WE MUST IN
THIS CASE DETERMINE WHETHER PROOF THAT THE BUYER KNEW THAT THE PRICE
WAS LOWER IS SUFFICIENT TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF INTRODUCING EVIDENCE TO
THE BUYER. 

THE COMMISSION, IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION THAT IT NEED ONLY SHOW THE
BUYER'S KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PRICES WERE LOWER, EMPLOYS FAMILIAR
INTERPRETATIVE TOOLS WITHOUT ADEQUATE REGARD TO THEIR IMMEDIATE
SERVICEABILITY.  IT LABELS A SELLER'S DEFENSE, SUCH AS THE COST
JUSTIFICATION, AS AN "EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL PROHIBITION" AND FROM
THIS ARGUES THAT UNDER CONVENTIONAL RULES OF EVIDENCE THE COMMISSION
NEED COME FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION ONLY OF THE "GENERAL
PROHIBITION."  THIS INTERPRETATION HAS FOUNDATION IN THE MANY
COMMONSENSICAL READINGS OF COMPARABLE PROHIBITIONS SO AS TO PUT THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING A JUSTIFICATION ON THE ONE WHO CLAIMS ITS BENEFITS. 
WE HAVE SAID AS MUCH EVEN IN CONNECTION WITH THAT PART OF SEC. 2(B) OF
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT WHICH ATTEMPTS TO LAY DOWN THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE UNDER THE ACT.  (FN17)  THAT SECTION PROVIDES, "UPON PROOF
BEING MADE ...  THAT THERE HAS BEEN DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE  ...  THE
BURDEN OF REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING
JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE UPON THE PERSON CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF THIS
THAT WE HELD IN THE MORTON SALT CASE THAT THE BURDEN OF SHOWING A COST
JUSTIFICATION IS ON THE SELLER IN A SEC. 2(A) PROCEEDING, AND ARGUES
THAT THE SAME BURDEN IS ON THE BUYER.  IT ARGUES THAT THE "PRIMA-FACIE
CASE THUS MADE" CLEARLY REFERS BACK TO "PROOF (OF) DISCRIMINATION IN
PRICE" AND THUS, FROM OUR DECISION IN MORTON SALT, THAT THE PRIMA FACIE
CASE OF A PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION TO WHICH SEC. 2(B) REFERS CONSISTS
ONLY OF PROOF OF A DIFFERENCE IN PRICES IN THE SALE OF LIKE GOODS
HAVING THE REQUISITE EFFECT ON COMPETITION.  SAYING THAT SEC.  2(F)
DIFFERS FROM SEC. 2(A) "ONLY IN CONTAINING THE EXPRESS REQUIREMENT THAT
THE BUYER SHALL HAVE 'KNOWINGLY' INDUCED OR RECEIVED SUCH PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS," THE COMMISSION ASKS US TO HOLD THAT A PRIMA FACIE
CASE UNDER SEC. 2(F) IS MADE OUT WITH A SHOWING OF THE PRIMA FACIE CASE
OF SEC. 2(A) VIOLATION "PLUS THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENT OF HAVING INDUCED
OR RECEIVED SUCH DISCRIMINATION WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS WHICH MADE
IT VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 2(A)." 

WE NEED NOT CONCERN OURSELVES WITH THE COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION OF
THE WORDS "PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS MADE" IN SEC. 2(B) AND THE RESULTING
CONCLUSION THAT IF SEC. 2(A) AND SEC. 2(F) ARE TO BE READ AS
COUNTERPARTS, THE ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR A PRIMA FACIE CASE UNDER SEC.
2(A) ARE SUFFICIENT FOR A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF THE "DISCRIMINATION IN
PRICE WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION" IN SEC. 2(F).  HOWEVER THAT
MAY BE, THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT THERE IS AN "ADDITIONAL ELEMENT"
RESULTING FROM THE WORD "KNOWINGLY" IN SEC. 2(F), AND, OF COURSE, IT IS
THAT ELEMENT ABOUT WHICH THE CONTROVERSY HERE CENTERS AND TO WHICH WE
MUST ADDRESS OURSELVES.  WE MAY, HOWEVER, NOTE IN PASSING THAT
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN SEC. 2(A) AND SEC. 2(F) BOTH AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES
THE PROHIBITED "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE" AND AS TO THE ELEMENTS OF A
PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF THE PROHIBITED "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE" WOULD
NOT BE DISTURBED BY A HOLDING AGAINST THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE, FOR
WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH THE PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF KNOWLEDGE,
ADMITTEDLY AN INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 2(F) ABOVE
AND BEYOND THAT OF SEC. 2(A). 

THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF KNOWLEDGE IS MADE
OUT WHEN IT IS SHOWN THAT THE BUYER KNEW THE FACTS MAKING THE PRICE
DIFFERENTIAL VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 2(A).  AT ANOTHER POINT IT URGES THAT IT
MUST NOW SHOW ONLY "THAT THE BUYER AFFIRMATIVELY CONTRIBUTED TO
OBTAINING THE DISCRIMINATORY PRICES BY SPECIAL SOLICITATION,
NEGOTIATION OR OTHER ACTION TAKEN BY HIM."  HOWEVER THE ARGUMENT IS
PHRASED, THE COMMISSION IS, ON THIS RECORD, INSISTING THAT ONCE
KNOWLEDGE OF A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL IS SHOWN, (FN18) THE BURDEN OF
INTRODUCING EVIDENCE SHIFTS TO THE BUYER.  THE COMMISSION'S MAIN
RELIANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT IS SEC. 2(B), WHICH, AS WE HAVE STATED ABOVE,
WE INTERPRETED IN THE MORTON SALT CASE AS PUTTING THE BURDEN OF COMING
FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE OF A COST JUSTIFICATION ON THE SELLER, ON THE
ONE, THAT IS, WHO CLAIMED THE BENEFITS OF THE JUSTIFICATION. 

TO THIS IT IS ANSWERED THAT ALTHOUGH SEC. 2(B) DOES SPEAK NOT OF THE
SELLER BUT OF THE "PERSON CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION,"
OTHER LANGUAGE IN SEC. 2(B) AND ITS PROVISO SEEMS DIRECTED MAINLY TO
SELLERS, (FN19) THAT THE LEGISLATIVE CHRONOLOGY OF THE VARIOUS
PROVISIONS ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT INDICATES
THAT SEC.  2(B) WAS DRAFTED WITH SELLERS IN MIND, AND THAT THE FEW
CASES SO FAR DECIDED HAVE DEALT ONLY WITH SELLERS. 

A CONFIDENT ANSWER CANNOT BE GIVEN; SOME ANSWER MUST BE GIVEN.  WE
THINK WE MUST READ THE INFELICITOUS LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2(B) AS ENACTING
WHAT WE TAKE TO BE ITS PURPOSE, THAT OF MAKING IT CLEAR THAT ORDINARY
RULES OF EVIDENCE WERE TO APPLY IN ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT PROCEEDINGS. 
(FN20)  IF SEC. 2(B) IS TO APPLY TO SEC. 2(F), ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT
DECIDE THAT IT DOES BECAUSE WE REACH THE SAME RESULT WITHOUT IT, WE
THINK IT MUST BE SO READ.  CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS AND CONVENIENCE
OPERATIVE IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS MUST, WE THINK, HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING IN
THE DRAFTING OF SEC. 2(B), FOR IT WOULD REQUIRE FAR CLEARER LANGUAGE
THAN WE HAVE HERE TO REACH A CONTRARY RESULT.  CF. ADDISON V. HOLLY
HILL CO., 322 U.S. 607, 617-618.  IF THAT IS SO, HOWEVER, DECISIONS
STRIKING THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE FOR COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
SELLERS ARE BESIDE THE POINT.  (FN21)  AND WE THINK THE FACT THAT THE
BUYER DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, AND FOR GOOD REASON
SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN IT, HAS CONTROLLING IMPORTANCE IN
STRIKING THE BALANCE IN THIS CASE.  THIS RESULT MOST NEARLY
ACCOMMODATES THIS CASE TO THE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY JUDGES
AND LEGISLATORS FOR THE RULE OF SEC. 2(B), THAT IS, THAT THE BURDEN OF
JUSTIFYING A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL OUGHT TO BE ON THE ONE WHO "HAS AT HIS
PECULIAR COMMAND THE COST AND OTHER RECORD DATA BY WHICH TO JUSTIFY
SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS."  (FN22)  WHERE, AS HERE, SUCH CONSIDERATIONS ARE
INAPPLICABLE, WE THINK WE MUST DISREGARD WHATEVER CONTRARY INDICATIONS
MAY BE DRAWN FROM A MERELY LITERAL READING OF THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS HAS
USED.  IT WOULD NOT GIVE FAIR EFFECT TO SEC. 2(B) TO SAY THAT THE
BURDEN OF COMING FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE AS TO COSTS (FN23) AND THE
BUYER'S KNOWLEDGE THEREOF SHIFTS TO THE BUYER AS SOON AS IT IS SHOWN
THAT THE BUYER KNEW THE PRICES DIFFERED.  CERTAINLY THE COMMISSION WITH
ITS BROAD POWER OF INVESTIGATION AND SUBPOENA, PRIOR TO THE FILING OF A
COMPLAINT, IS ON A BETTER FOOTING TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION THAN THE
BUYER.  INDEED, THOUGH IT IS OF COURSE NOT FOR US TO ENTER THE DOMAIN
OF THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION IN SUCH MATTERS, THE COMMISSION MAY IN
MANY INSTANCES FIND IT NOT INCONVENIENT TO JOIN THE OFFENDING SELLER IN
THE PROCEEDINGS. 

IF THE REQUIREMENT OF KNOWLEDGE IN SEC. 2(F) HAS ANY SIGNIFICANT
FUNCTION, IT IS TO INDICATE THAT THE BUYER WHOM CONGRESS IN THE MAIN
SOUGHT TO REACH WAS THE ONE WHO, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THERE WAS
LITTLE LIKELIHOOD OF A DEFENSE FOR THE SELLER, NEVERTHELESS PROCEEDED
TO EXERT PRESSURE FOR LOWER PRICES.  ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 2(F) AGAINST SUCH A BUYER SHOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT.  PROOF OF A
COST JUSTIFICATION BEING WHAT IT IS, TOO OFTEN NO ONE CAN ASCERTAIN
WHETHER A PRICE IS COST-JUSTIFIED.  BUT TRADE EXPERIENCE IN A
PARTICULAR SITUATION CAN AFFORD A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE TO
PROVIDE A BASIS FOR PROSECUTION.  BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, A BUYER WHO KNOWS
THAT HE BUYS IN THE SAME QUANTITIES AS HIS COMPETITOR AND IS SERVED BY
THE SELLER IN THE SAME MANNER OR WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF EXERTION AS
THE OTHER BUYER CAN FAIRLY BE CHARGED WITH NOTICE THAT A SUBSTANTIAL
PRICE DIFFERENTIAL CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED.  THE COMMISSION NEED ONLY SHOW,
TO ESTABLISH ITS PRIMA FACIE CASE, THAT THE BUYER KNEW THAT THE METHODS
BY WHICH HE WAS SERVED AND QUANTITIES IN WHICH HE PURCHASED WERE THE
SAME AS IN THE CASE OF HIS COMPETITOR.  IF THE METHODS OR QUANTITIES
DIFFER, THE COMMISSION MUST ONLY SHOW THAT SUCH DIFFERENCES COULD NOT
GIVE RISE TO SUFFICIENT SAVINGS IN THE COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE OR
DELIVERY TO JUSTIFY THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL, AND THAT THE BUYER, KNOWING
THESE WERE THE ONLY DIFFERENCES, SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THEY COULD NOT
GIVE RISE TO SUFFICIENT COST SAVINGS.  THE SHOWING OF KNOWLEDGE, OF
COURSE, WILL DEPEND TO SOME EXTENT ON THE SIZE OF THE DISCREPANCY
BETWEEN COST DIFFERENTIAL AND PRICE DIFFERENTIAL, SO THAT THE TWO
QUESTIONS ARE NOT ISOLATED.  A SHOWING THAT THE COST DIFFERENCES ARE
VERY SMALL COMPARED WITH THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL AND COULD NOT
REASONABLY HAVE BEEN THOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE PRICE DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE
SUFFICIENT.    WHAT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE SHOWN TO INDICATE
KNOWLEDGE ON THE BUYER'S PART THAT THE PRICES CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WE
NEED NOT NOW ATTEMPT TO ILLUSTRATE; (FN24) BUT SURELY IT WILL NOT BE AN
UNDUE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN TO EXPLAIN WHY OTHER PROOF MAY BE
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF INTRODUCING EVIDENCE THAT
THE BUYER IS OR IS NOT AN UNSUSPECTING RECIPIENT OF PROHIBITED
DISCRIMINATIONS.  WE THINK, IN ANY EVENT, IT IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO
SPELL OUT THE NEED FOR IMPOSITION OF SUCH A HARSH BURDEN OF INTRODUCING
EVIDENCE AS IT APPEARS TO HAVE SOUGHT IN THIS CASE.   CERTAINLY WE
SHOULD HAVE A MORE SOLID BASIS THAN AN UNEXPLAINED CONCLUSION BEFORE WE
SANCTION A RULE OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS ANTITRUST POLICY AND THE
ORDINARY REQUIREMENTS OF FAIRNESS.  WHILE THIS COURT OUGHT SCRUPULOUSLY
TO ABSTAIN FROM REQUIRING OF THE COMMISSION PARTICULARIZATION IN ITS
FINDINGS SO EXACTING AS TO MAKE THIS COURT IN EFFECT A COURT OF REVIEW
ON THE FACTS, IT IS NO LESS IMPORTANT, SINCE WE ARE CHARGED WITH THE
DUTY OF REVIEWING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STANDARDS WHICH THE COMMISSION
APPLIES AND THE ESSENTIAL FAIRNESS OF THE MODE BY WHICH IT REACHES ITS
CONCLUSIONS, THAT THE COMMISSION DO NOT SHELTER BEHIND UNCRITICAL
GENERALITIES OR SUCH LOOSENESS OF EXPRESSION AS TO MAKE IT ESSENTIALLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO DETERMINE WHAT REALLY LAY BEHIND THE CONCLUSIONS
WHICH WE ARE TO REVIEW.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. &
P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 510-511. 

BECAUSE OF OUR VIEW OF THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT REACH PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION
IS IN EFFECT SAYING THAT KNOWLEDGE OF A DIFFERENCE IN PRICES CREATES A
PRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PRICE WAS UNLAWFUL, A PRESUMPTION IT
CLAIMS WOULD FALL FOR LACK OF RATIONAL CONNECTION UNDER TOT V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 463.  CF. NOTE, EDMUND M. MORGAN, 56 HARV. L. REV.
1324.  IT HAS SEEMED TO US UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO SPEAK OF
PRESUMPTIONS, AND WE NEED ONLY CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IN THIS
CASE, AS IN THE TOT CASE, WE HAVE DEALT ONLY WITH THE BURDEN OF
INTRODUCING EVIDENCE AND NOT WITH THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION, AS TO WHICH
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS MAY APPLY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ACCORDINGLY, IS REVERSED AS TO
THE CHARGES IN COUNT II OF THE COMPLAINT (COUNT I IS NOT BEFORE US),
AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND IT
TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FOR SUCH FURTHER ACTION AS IS OPEN
UNDER THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE COURT ALSO GRANTED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER ON A CROSS
PETITION BY THE COMMISSION.  THE COMMISSION CONCEDES THE IMPROPRIETY OF
THIS ACTION UNDER OUR DECISION IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. RUBEROID
CO., 343 U.S. 470, RENDERED AFTER THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE US.  IN VIEW OF THIS CONCESSION, WE ASSUME THAT
THE COURT OF APPEALS, ON THE REMAND OF THIS CASE, WILL, WITHOUT FURTHER
DIRECTION, RECONSIDER ITS ORDER FOR ENFORCEMENT. 

FN2  THE TWO PROHIBITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 2.  (A)  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE, IN THE COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF
COMMODITIES OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY, WHERE EITHER OR ANY OF THE
PURCHASES INVOLVED IN SUCH DISCRIMINATION ARE IN COMMERCE, WHERE SUCH
COMMODITIES ARE SOLD FOR USE, CONSUMPTION, OR RESALE WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES OR ANY TERRITORY THEREOF OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR ANY
INSULAR POSSESSION OR OTHER PLACE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION MAY BE
SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY
LINE OF COMMERCE, OR TO INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT COMPETITION WITH
ANY PERSON WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH
DISCRIMINATION, OR WITH CUSTOMERS OF EITHER OF THEM: PROVIDED, THAT
NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT DIFFERENTIALS WHICH MAKE ONLY
DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR
DELIVERY RESULTING FROM THE DIFFERING METHODS OR QUANTITIES IN WHICH
SUCH COMMODITIES ARE TO SUCH PURCHASERS SOLD OR DELIVERED:  ...  . 

(THE OTHER PROVISOS OF SEC. 2(A), NOT RELEVANT HERE, CONCERN THE
GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH QUANTITY LIMITS,
RECOGNITION OF THE SELLER'S RIGHT TO SELECT HIS CUSTOMERS UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS, AND EXEMPTION OF PRICE CHANGES MADE IN RESPONSE TO CHANGING
MARKET CONDITIONS.) 

     *         *         *         *   * 

"(F)  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE,
IN THE COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE, KNOWINGLY TO INDUCE OR RECEIVE A
DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION." 

FN3  THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THE NEED, COMMON IN ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, FOR CARE ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS NOT TO
OVERBURDEN THE RECORD.  "THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE
REASON FOR SUCH A PLETHORA OF CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE AS WAS ADDUCED BY
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL IN THE INSTANT MATTER.  NEITHER HARASSMENT OF
LITIGANTS NOR THE WASTE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS IN NEEDLESS REITERATION
THROUGH CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE COUNTENANCED, NOR DOES IT SEEM
THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO NAME 14 SELLERS AS TYPICAL OF A GROUP FROM
WHICH RESPONDENTS HAD INDUCED OR RECEIVED DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE, AND
CERTAINLY THE RECORDS OF NOT MORE THAN 5 OF SUCH SELLERS WOULD HAVE
SUPPLIED AMPLE EVIDENCE OF SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS OR PRICE
DIFFERENTIALS."  IN RE AUTOMATIC CANTEEN CO. OF AMERICA, 46 F.T.C. 861,
892.  FAILURE TO LIMIT THE EVIDENCE IN SOME SUCH WAY TO TYPICAL
TRANSACTIONS WOULD CREATE AN ESPECIALLY HEAVY BURDEN IN A PROCEEDING
AGAINST A BUYER UNDER SEC. 2(F) SUCH AS THAT HERE, WHERE DISCRIMINATORY
SALES WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY ABOUT 80 OF THE BUYER'S 115
SUPPLIERS. 

FN4  ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION RECITED SUCH INSTANCES, IT DID NOT
RELATE THEM TO WHAT THE BUYER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN AS TO COSTS.  IT DID
NOT FIND FROM SUCH INSTANCES THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD HAVE
PROVOKED INQUIRY IN THE MIND OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN.  IN SHORT, WE DO
NOT HAVE A CASE IN WHICH THE COMMISSION IN ITS INFORMED JUDGMENT WAS
LED TO CONCLUDE THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES KNOWING ACCEPTANCE OF
INDUCEMENT OF A PREFERENCE JUSTIFIED AN INFERENCE OF KNOWLEDGE AS TO
COSTS. 

FN5  FOR A COLLECTION OF RELEVANT AUTHORITIES AND SECONDARY MATERIAL
AVAILABLE ON COST SHOWINGS UNDER THE ACT, SEE NOTE, 65 HARV. L. REV.
1011.  SEE ALSO FUCHS, THE REQUIREMENT OF EXACTNESS IN THE
JUSTIFICATION OF PRICE AND SERVICE DIFFERENTIALS UNDER THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT, 30 TEX. L. REV. 1; HASLETT, PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS AND THEIR
JUSTIFICATIONS UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT OF 1936, 46 MICH. L. REV.
450, 472; SAWYER, ACCOUNTING AND STATISTICAL PROOF IN PRICE
DISCRIMINATION CASES, 36 IOWA L. REV. 244.  FOR DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC
COST CASES UNDER THE ACT, SEE ARONSON, DEFENSES UNDER THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT, IN BUSINESS AND THE ROBINSON-PATMAN LAW (WERNE ED.), 212,
227; TAGGART, THE COST PRINCIPLE IN MINIMUM PRICE REGULATION, 110, 8
MICH. BUS.  STUDIES 151, 260 (1938); WARMACK, COST ACCOUNTING PROBLEMS
UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, CCH ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT SYMPOSIUM (1947)
105; COMMENT, 35 ILL. L. REV. 60. 

FN6  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION RULINGS IN SOME COST CASES "DEMONSTRATE
THAT EXPERT TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE EXTRINSIC TO AN ACTUAL COST
ANALYSIS WILL BE GIVEN LITTLE WEIGHT BY THE COMMISSION.  THE FTC
APPARENTLY BELIEVES THAAT SUCH MATERIALS LACK THE OBJECTIVITY AND
RELEVANCE OF THE APPROVED METHOD OF ANALYSIS."  NOTE, 65 HARV. L. REV.
1011, 1013-1014.  SEE ALSO WARMACK, SUPRA, NOTE 5.  COMPARE IN RE
MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO., 44 F.T.C. 351, 394, A CASE IN
WHICH "AN EXTENSIVE COST STUDY" RESULTING FROM "SINCERE AND EXTENSIVE
EFFORTS" WAS IN PART ACCEPTED. 

FN7  SEE, E.G., WARMACK, SUPRA, NOTE 5, AT 107, 110. 

FN8  CF. LONGMAN, DISTRIBUTION COST ANALYSIS, 250, AND ARTICLES CITED
SUPRA, NOTE 5. 

FN9  SEE, E.G., 80 CONG. REC. 6428, 9419; H.R. REP. NO. 2951, 74TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 8. 

FN10  WERE THAT THE CASE, IT MIGHT STRICTLY BE ARGUED THAT THE
SELLER'S "DEFENSES" ARE NOT RELEVANT IN A SEC. 2(F) PROCEEDING AND THAT
WHAT IS PROHIBITED IS THE KNOWING INDUCEMENT OR RECEIPT OF A PRICE
LOWER THAN THAT ACCORDED COMPETING BUYERS.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION HAS
AMBIGUOUS LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT.  CONGRESSMAN UTTERBACK, IN SUBMITTING
THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO THE HOUSE, STATED, "  ...  A DISCRIMINATION IS
MORE THAN A MERE DIFFERENCE.  UNDERLYING THE MEANING OF THE WORD IS THE
IDEA THAT SOME RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE
DISCRIMINATION WHICH ENTITLES THEM TO EQUAL TREATMENT, WHEREBY THE
DIFFERENCE GRANTED TO ONE CASTS SOME BURDEN OR DISADVANTAGE UPON THE
OTHER."  80 CONG. REC. 9416.  PLAINLY ENOUGH, UNDER THIS STATEMENT, A
DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE MAY MEAN EITHER A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL IN SALES
TO TWO COMPETITORS, OR A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL IN SALES TO TWO COMPETITORS
WHICH, BECAUSE OF AN ABSENCE OF COST OR OTHER JUSTIFICATION, PUTS THE
UNFAVORED COMPETITOR AT A DISADVANTAGE.  COMPARE HASLETT, SUPRA, NOTE
5, AT 453-466, WITH MCALLISTER, PRICE CONTROL BY LAW IN THE UNITED
STATES, 4 LAW & COMTEMP.  PROB.  273, 291.  IN ANY EVENT, CONTROVERSY
OVER THE MEANING OF THE ISOLATED PHRASE "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE" IS
BESIDE THE POINT HERE. 

FN11  TIME AND AGAIN THERE WAS RECOGNITION IN CONGRESS OF A FREEDOM
TO ADOPT AND PASS ON TO BUYERS THE BENEFITS OF MORE ECONOMICAL
PROCESSES, SEE, E.G., H.R. REP. NO. 2287, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 10, 17;
80 CONG. REC. 9415, 9417; BUYER PRESSURE TO OBTAIN THE BENEFITS OF SUCH
SAVINGS COULD CERTAINLY NOT BE UNDUE PRESSURE.  CF. EDWARDS,
MAINTAINING COMPETITION, 161.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS DO NOT SUGGEST
SUCH A DISCREPANCY IN BARGAINING POSITION BETWEEN THIS BUYER AND HIS
SUPPLIERS AS TO WARRANT CHARACTERIZING THE BUYER AS "BLUDGEONING."  THE
COMMISSION DID FIND THAT THOSE ON WHOM THE GREATEST "PRESSURE" WAS
EXERTED WERE SUCH NOT INCONSIDERABLE CANDY MANUFACTURERS AS THE CURTISS
CANDY CO. AND W.F.  SCHRAFFT & SONS CORP. 

FN12  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2951, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 5-6, EXPLAINING
THE LANGUAGE IN SEC.  2(A) QUOTED SUPRA, NOTE 2, "OR PREVENT
COMPETITION WITH ANY PERSON WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE
BENEFIT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION," AS FOLLOWS:  THE PURPOSE OF THE
ADDITION OF THE WORD "KNOWINGLY" "IS TO EXEMPT FROM THE MEANING OF THE
SURROUNDING CLAUSE THOSE WHO INCIDENTALLY RECEIVE DISCRIMINATORY PRICES
IN THE ROUTINE COURSE OF BUSINESS WITHOUT SPECIAL SOLICITATION,
NEGOTIATION, OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT FOR THEM ON THE PART OF THE BUYER OR
SELLER, AND WHO ARE THEREFORE NOT JUSTLY CHARGEABLE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT
THEY ARE RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION."  THE CONTEXT IN
WHICH THIS EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN, AS WELL AS THE PRECISE LANGUAGE, SO
DIFFERS FROM SEC. 2(F) THAT THIS INTERPRETATION DOES NOT PRESENT A
CONTRADICTION BETWEEN IT AND OUR READING OF SEC. 2(F). 

FN13  SEE PP. 80-81, POST. 

FN14  WE OF COURSE DO NOT, IN SO READING SEC. 2(F), PURPORT TO PASS
ON THE QUESTION WHETHER A "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE" INCLUDES THE
PROHIBITIONS IN SUCH OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT AS SECS. 2(D) AND 2(E). 

FN15  CONGRESSMAN UTTERBACK, IN PRESENTING THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO
THE HOUSE, SPOKE QUITE CLEARLY IN TERMS INDICATING THAT THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 2(F) CONTEMPLATED ONLY THE BUYER WHO KNEW THAT THE PRICE WAS
NOT JUSTIFIED BY COSTS.  SECTION 2(F) "MAKES IT EASIER (FOR THE
MANUFACTURER) TO RESIST THE DEMAND FOR SACRIFICIAL PRICE CUTS COMING
FROM MASS-BUYER CUSTOMERS, SINCE IT ENABLES HIM TO CHARGE THEM WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE ILLEGALITY OF THE DISCOUNT, AND EQUAL LIABILITY FOR
IT, BY INFORMING THEM THAT IT IS IN EXCESS OF ANY DIFFERENTIAL WHICH
HIS DIFFERENCE IN COST WOULD JUSTIFY AS COMPARED WITH HIS OTHER
CUSTOMERS."  80 CONG. REC. 9419. 

FN16  CF. ADELMAN, EFFECTIVE COMPETITION AND THE ANTITRUST LAWS, 61
HARV. L. REV. 1289, 1331; EDWARDS, MAINTAINING COMPETITION, 161. 

FN17  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 44
45.  CF. S. REP. NO. 1502, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 3.  SECTION 2(B) IN ITS
ENTIRETY READS AS FOLLOWS:  "(B)  UPON PROOF BEING MADE, AT ANY HEARING
ON A COMPLAINT UNDER THIS SECTION, THAT THERE HAS BEEN DISCRIMINATION
IN PRICE OR SERVICES OR FACILITIES FURNISHED, THE BURDEN OF REBUTTING
THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE UPON
THE PERSON CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, AND UNLESS
JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN, THE COMMISSION IS
AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TERMINATING THE DISCRIMINATION:  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT A SELLER REBUTTING
THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING THAT HIS LOWER PRICE OR THE
FURNISHING OF SERVICES OR FACILITIES TO ANY PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS WAS
MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR, OR THE
SERVICES OR FACILITIES FURNISHED BY A COMPETITOR."  THROUGHOUT THIS
OPINION, A REFERENCE TO SEC. 2(B) IS TO THE PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE
PRECEDING THE PROVISO; THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO, WHICH WE CONSTRUED
IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 340 U.S. 231, IS REFERRED
TO ONLY WHEN WE SPEAK OF THE "PROVISO OF SEC. 2(B)." 

FN18  IN THIS CONNECTION, SEE SUPRA, NOTE 4, AND POST, NOTE 24. 

FN19  FOR EXAMPLE, THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(B)
CONCERNING PRICE DIFFERENTIALS MADE TO MEET COMPETITION REFERS ONLY TO
"A SELLER"; FURTHER, THE AUTHORITY GIVEN THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 2(B)
WHEN JUSTIFICATION IS NOT SHOWN IS "TO ISSUE AN ORDER TERMINATING THE
DISCRIMINATION," AN ORDER THAT COULD NOT USEFULLY BE DIRECTED TO
BUYERS.  BUT CF. 80 CONG.  REC. 9418.    FN20  CONGRESSMAN PATMAN,
DESCRIBING THE SEC. 2(B) RULE AS TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF, SAID: "IT
MEANS EXACTLY THE RULE OF LAW TODAY.  IT IS A RESTATEMENT OF EXISTING
LAW.  SO FAR AS I AM CONCERNED YOU CAN STRIKE IT OUT.  IT MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE.  IT IS THE LAW OF THIS LAND EXACTLY AS IT IS WRITTEN
THERE."  80 CONG. REC. 8231. 

FN21  IT DOES NOT AID UNDERSTANDING TO SUGGEST THAT SEC. 2(F) HAS THE
SAME SIGNIFICANCE, AS TO A KNOWING BUYER, AS OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT
HAVE AS TO A KNOWING SELLER.  A BUYER KNOWING HE IS RECEIVING A LOWER
PRICE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IN THE SAME POSITION AS A SELLER GRANTING A
LOWER PRICE.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE BARS SUCH A CONSTRUCTION. 
EVEN IF THE BUYER HAS THE "SAME" BURDEN AS THE SELLER, THE FACT THAT A
SELLER HAS THE BURDEN TO SHOW HIS COSTS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY, BY
VIRTUE OF SEC. 2(F), BECOME A BUYER'S BURDEN TO SHOW THE SELLER'S
COST.  NOR HAS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. STALEY MFG. CO., 324 U.S.
746, 759-760, ANY HELPFUL RELATION TO THE PROBLEM OF THIS CASE, IF FOR
NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT THAT CASE DID NOT CALL FOR A DETAILED
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROCEDURAL PORTIONS OF SEC. 2(B). 

FN22  80 CONG. REC. 3599.  SAMUEL H. MOSS, INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 148 F.2D 378, 379; 80 CONG. REC. 8241. 

FN23  OUR VIEW THAT SEC. 2(B) PERMITS CONSIDERATION OF CONVENTIONAL
RULES OF FAIRNESS AND CONVENIENCE OF COURSE REQUIRES APPLICATION OF
THOSE RULES TO THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCE IN QUESTION.  EVIDENCE, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAT THE SELLER'S PRICE WAS MADE TO MEET A COMPETING SELLER'S
OFFER TO A BUYER CHARGED UNDER SEC. 2(F) MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO A BUYER
MORE READILY EVEN THAN TO A SELLER. 

FN24  WE NEED NOT IN THIS CASE CONSIDER THE WEIGHT THAT CAN BE
ATTACHED TO AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENTS BY THE SELLER TO THE BUYER THAT A
PRICE WAS OR WAS NOT COST-JUSTIFIED, SINCE THERE WERE NO SUCH
STATEMENTS IN THIS CASE.  SEE SUPRA, P. 67.  WE NEED NOT NOW CONSIDER
WHETHER IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE THE COMMISSION MAY FIND IT NECESSARY TO
SUBJECT SUCH STATEMENTS TO CAREFUL SCRUTINY.  THUS, FOR INSTANCE, THE
COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER THAT A SELLER STATING THAT A PRICE WOULD BE
UNLAWFUL MIGHT IN SOME SITUATIONS BE PUFFING RATHER THAN STATING
ANYTHING WHICH A BUYER CAN RELY ON OR SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, THE COMMISSION MAY IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WISH TO REFUSE TO
ACCEPT A BUYER'S CLAIM THAT HE RELIED ON AN AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER
ASSURANCE FROM THE SELLER THAT PRICE DIFFERENTIALS WERE COST-JUSTIFIED;
THE FURNISHING OF SUCH AN ASSURANCE MIGHT, TOGETHER WITH OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES, INDICATE A SUFFICIENT ABSENCE OF ARM'S-LENGTH BARGAINING
TO RAISE SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO THE WEIGHT THE ASSURANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN
IN SUPPORT OF A BUYER'S CLAIM. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED
CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THIS DECISION IS A GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE WAY IN WHICH A STATUTE
CAN BE READ WITH ENERVATING EFFECT. 

ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, 49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(B), PROVIDES THAT
WHERE PROOF IS MADE THAT THERE HAS BEEN "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE OR
SERVICES OR FACILITIES FURNISHED, THE BURDEN OF REBUTTING THE PRIMA
FACIE CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE UPON THE PERSON
CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, AND UNLESS JUSTIFICATION
SHALL BE AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN, THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AN
ORDER TERMINATING THE DISCRIMINATION  ...  ." 

"KNOWINGLY TO INDUCE OR RECEIVE A DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE WHICH IS
PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION." 

THE WORDS "THE PERSON CHARGED" AS USED IN SEC. 2(B) AND THE WORDS
"ANY PERSON" USED IN SEC. 2(F) PLAINLY INCLUDE BUYERS AS WELL AS
SELLERS. 

THE NATURE OF THE DISCRIMINATION CONDEMNED IS MADE CLEAR IN SEC.
2(A).  IT OUTLAWS DISCRIMINATION "IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS
OF COMMODITIES OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY" WHERE THE EFFECT IS
SUBSTANTIALLY TO PREVENT OR LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A
MONOPOLY AS RESPECTS ANY PERSON "WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY
RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION."  BUT IT PERMITS PRICE
DIFFERENTIALS "WHICH MAKE ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE
COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR DELIVERY RESULTING FROM THE DIFFERING
METHODS OR QUANTITIES" IN WHICH THE COMMODITIES ARE SOLD OR DELIVERED. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COURT DETERMINES THAT EVEN THOUGH A "BUYER
KNEW THAT THE PRICE WAS LOWER," SUCH KNOWLEDGE IS INSUFFICIENT TO
"SHIFT THE BURDEN OF INTRODUCING EVIDENCE TO THE BUYER."  BUT SEC. 2(B)
REQUIRES THE PERSON SHOWN TO HAVE PRACTICED A DISCRIMINATION TO
ESTABLISH A JUSTIFICATION.  SECTION 2(F) WAS INTENDED TO MAKE CLEAR
THAT THE SAME BANS AND BURDENS ARE ON A KNOWING BUYER OBTAINING
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES AS WE HELD IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. STALEY
MFG. CO., 324 U.S. 746, 759-760, APPROVED IN STANDARD OIL CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 340 U.S. 231, ARE ON A KNOWING SELLER WHO
GRANTS THEM. 

THE RECORD SHOWS PERSISTENT AND CONTINUOUS EFFORTS OF THIS LARGE
BUYER IN WHEEDLING AND COERCING SUPPLIERS INTO GRANTING IT
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES.  THE COMMISSION SUMMARIZED PETITIONER'S
ACTIVITIES IN FAR MORE SEDATE TERMS THAN THEIR BIZARRE NATURE
JUSTIFIED: 

"RESPONDENT USED VARIOUS METHODS TO INDUCE ITS SUPPLIERS TO GRANT
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES.  ONE OF THESE WAS TO INFORM PROSPECTIVE
SUPPLIERS OF THE PRICES AND TERMS OF SALE WHICH WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO
THE RESPONDENT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OR INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER SUCH
SUPPLIER COULD JUSTIFY SUCH A PRICE ON A COST BASIS OR WHETHER IT WAS
BEING OFFERED TO OTHER CUSTOMERS OF THE SUPPLIER.  AT OTHER TIMES THE
RESPONDENT REFUSED TO BUY UNLESS THE PRICE TO IT WAS REDUCED BELOW
PRICES AT WHICH THE PARTICULAR SUPPLIER SOLD THE SAME MERCHANDISE TO
OTHERS.  IN OTHER INSTANCES RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN TO THE
PROSPECTIVE SUPPLIER THAT CERTAIN ALLEGED SAVINGS WOULD ACCRUE TO THE
SUPPLIER IN SELLING TO RESPONDENT OR THAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE
SUPPLIER'S COST COULD BE ELIMINATED, WHICH WOULD, IN RESPONDENT'S
OPINION, JUSTIFY A LOWER PRICE.  IN CARRYING OUT THIS FORM OF
INDUCEMENT, RESPONDENT WOULD ADVISE A SUPPLIER OR PROSPECTIVE SUPPLIER
OF THE PRICE WHICH IT CONSIDERED 'STANDARD PRICE.'  IN LETTERS WRITTEN
TO THE CURTISS CANDY COMPANY ON NOVEMBER 15, 1939, AND TO W.F. SCHRAFFT
& SONS CORPORATION ON FEBRUARY 15, 1937, RESPONDENT SUMMARIZED ALLEGED
SAVINGS TO THESE COMPANIES AS FOLLOWS:

CURTISS       SCHRAFFT 

"         ALLEGED SAVINGS        CO.          CORP. 

(1)  FREIGHT SAVINGS OF           6%         5% TO 7% 

(2)  SALES COST SAVINGS OF               7%               7% 

(3)  24-COUNT CARTONS SAVINGS OF           5%               5% 

(4)  RETURN AND ALLOWANCES SAVINGS OF      1%         1% TO 2% 

(5)  FREE DEALS AND SAMPLES SAVINGS OF     8%         2% TO X% 

(6)  SHIPPING AND CONTAINERS SAVINGS OF               1% TO 2% 

TOTAL DEDUCTIONS                          27%        21% TO 25% 

"RESPONDENT ADVISED THESE COMPANIES THAT SUCH ALLEGED SAVINGS COULD
BE MADE BECAUSE OF THE METHOD BY WHICH RESPONDENT MADE PURCHASES AND
BECAUSE CERTAIN SERVICES COULD BE ELIMINATED IN SELLING TO IT." 

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE LARGE BUYERS WIELD CLUBS THAT GIVE THEM
POWERFUL ADVANTAGES OVER THE SMALL MERCHANTS.  OFTEN LARGE MERCHANTS
GAIN ADVANTAGES OVER OTHER SELLERS OF THE SAME MERCHANDISE BY OBTAINING
PRICE CONCESSIONS BY PRESSURE ON THEIR SUPPLIERS.  THE EVIL WAS
ACKNOWLEDGED IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S.
37, 43.  THE CONGRESS PLAINLY ENDEAVORED TO CURB THE BUYER OF THE KIND
OF ACTIVITIES DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD.  AS THE HOUSE REPORT REVEALS,
THE LINE SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN WAS BETWEEN THOSE WHO INCIDENTALLY RECEIVE
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES AND THOSE WHO ACTIVELY SOLICIT AND NEGOTIATE
THEM.  H.R. REP. NO. 2951, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 5-6. 

THE COURT DISREGARDS THIS HISTORY.  THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION NOT ONLY
REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO SHOW THAT THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE NOT
JUSTIFIED; IT ALSO MAKES THE COMMISSION PROVE WHAT LAY IN THE BUYER'S
MIND.  I WOULD LET THE ACTS OF THE BUYER SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.  WHERE,
AS HERE, THE BUYER UNDERTAKES TO BLUDGEON SELLERS INTO PRICES THAT GIVE
HIM A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, THERE IS NO UNFAIRNESS IN MAKING HIM SHOW
THAT THE PRIVILEGES HE DEMANDED HAD COST JUSTIFICATIONS.  THIS BUYER
OVER AND AGAIN HELD ITSELF OUT AS A COST EXPERT.*  I WOULD HOLD IT TO
ITS PROFESSIONS.  SINCE IT WAS THE COERCIVE INFLUENCE, THERE IS NO
UNFAIRNESS IN MAKING IT GO FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE
COMMISSION'S PRIMA FACIE CASE. 

*A READING OF THE RECORD LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT PETITIONER KNEW IN
NUMEROUS INSTANCES THAT IT WAS SQUEEZING A PRICE FROM THE SELLER WHICH
WAS LESS THAN THE SELLER'S COSTS. 
..END :







FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. RCA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 346 U.S.
86 


NO. 567.  ARGUED APRIL 29-30, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1953 - 91 U.S. APP.
D.C. 289, 201 F.2D 694, VACATED AND REMANDED. 


UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, THE COMMISSION
AUTHORIZED A RADIOTELEGRAPH COMPANY, WHICH WAS THEN SERVING 39 OVERSEAS
POINTS, TO OPEN TWO NEW CIRCUITS, TO PORTUGAL AND THE NETHERLANDS.  THE
AUTHORIZATION WAS OPPOSED BY ANOTHER COMPANY WHICH PROVIDED SIMILAR
SERVICE BY MEANS OF 65 CIRCUITS, INCLUDING CIRCUITS TO EACH OF THOSE
COUNTRIES.  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT DUPLICATE FACILITIES SHOULD
BE AUTHORIZED BECAUSE OF THE "NATIONAL POLICY IN FAVOR OF
COMPETITION."  FROM THIS POLICY, THE COMMISSION SAID, IT FOLLOWS THAT,
WHERE COMPETITION IS "REASONABLY FEASIBLE," IT IS IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  HELD: 

1.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORIZATION CANNOT
BE SUSTAINED.  PP.  87-97. 

(A)  IN REVIEWING SUCH A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION, CONGRESS HAS
CHARGED THE COURTS WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE
COMMISSION HAS FAIRLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION WITHIN THE BOUNDS
EXPRESSED BY THE STANDARD OF "PUBLIC INTEREST" AND WHETHER THE
COMMISSION HAS BEEN GUIDED BY PROPER CONSIDERATIONS IN BRINGING ITS
EXPERIENCE AND EXPERT JUDGMENT TO BEAR ON APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  PP. 90-91. 

(B)  ENCOURAGEMENT OF COMPETITION AS SUCH IS NOT THE SINGLE OR
CONTROLLING RELIANCE FOR SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE FIELD
OF RADIOTELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION; AND THIS CONSIDERATION, STANDING
ALONE, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY AN AUTHORIZATION TO DUPLICATE
EXISTING SERVICES WHENEVER COMPETITION IS REASONABLY FEASIBLE.  PP. 89
95. 

(C)  IN GRANTING THE AUTHORIZATION IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSION DID
NOT PROPERLY DISCHARGE ITS RESPONSIBILITY, BECAUSE ITS ACTION WAS NOT
BASED ON ITS OWN JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BUT ON
ITS UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS THOUGHT AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THE
SOLE PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING COMPETITION WERE DESIRABLE.  PP. 95-96. 

(D)  IF THE COMMISSION, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS OWN JUDGMENT, REACHES
A CONCLUSION THAT DUPLICATING AUTHORIZATIONS ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
WHEREVER COMPETITION IS REASONABLY FEASIBLE, IT NEED NOT MAKE SPECIFIC
FINDINGS OF TANGIBLE BENEFIT; BUT THERE MUST BE GROUND FOR REASONABLE
EXPECTATION THAT COMPETITION MAY HAVE SOME BENEFICIAL EFFECT.  PP. 96
97. 

2.  THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORIZATION IN THIS CASE DOES NOT VIOLATE SEC.
314 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT BY REASON OF THE CORPORATE AFFILIATION OF
THE RADIOTELEGRAPH COMPANY WITH THE CABLE COMPANY IN QUESTION - THE
COMMISSION HAVING DETERMINED, UPON ADEQUATE FINDINGS, THAT THE GRANT OF
SUCH AUTHORIZATION WOULD NOT DECREASE COMPETITION.  PP. 97-98. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. RCA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 568, MACKAY RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO., INC. V. RCA
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

ON REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WAS REVERSED.   91 U.S. APP. D.C. 289, 201
F.2D 694.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 902.  JUDGMENT
VACATED AND CASE REMANDED, P. 98. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE MACKAY RADIO AND TELEGRAPH CO. (MACKAY) PROVIDES RADIOTELEGRAPH
SERVICE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND A NUMBER OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 
OVER THE OPPOSITION OF RCA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (RCAC), WHICH PROVIDES
SIMILAR SERVICE BY MEANS OF A TOTAL OF 65 CIRCUITS INCLUDING ONES TO
PORTUGAL AND THE NETHERLANDS, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
AUTHORIZED MACKAY, AT THAT TIME AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE WITH 39
OVERSEAS POINTS, TO OPEN TWO NEW CIRCUITS, TO PORTUGAL AND THE
NETHERLANDS.  RCAC CLAIMS THAT DUPLICATE CIRCUITS, ALREADY AUTHORIZED
FOR RCAC AND MACKAY TO 11 OTHER POINTS, ARE NOT HERE "IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST," IN THAT MACKAY HAS BEEN UNABLE TO SHOW ANY TANGIBLE BENEFIT
TO THE PUBLIC, SUCH AS BETTER, CHEAPER OR MORE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE,
TO BE DERIVED FROM THE AUTHORIZATION OF MACKAY'S CIRCUITS.  RCAC ALSO
URGES, AS A SECOND OBJECTION TO THE AUTHORIZATIONS, THAT BECAUSE OF
MACKAY'S CORPORATE AFFILIATION WITH THE COMMERCIAL CABLE CO.
(COMMERCIAL), WHICH CONDUCTS CABLE SERVICE TO THESE POINTS IN
COMPETITION WITH ANOTHER CABLE CARRIER, WESTERN UNION, AS WELL AS WITH
RADIOTELEGRAPH SERVICE, AUTHORIZATION OF MACKAY WOULD LESSEN
COMPETITION BETWEEN RADIO AND CABLE SERVICE AND WOULD WEAKEN THE
COMPETITIVE EFFICIENCY OF COMMERCIAL, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 314 OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT COMPETITION, THAT IS, DUPLICATION OF
RADIOTELEGRAPH FACILITIES, WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF THE EXISTING
RADIO CARRIER, RCAC, AND CABLE CARRIERS TO RENDER ADEQUATE SERVICE. 
MORE FACILITIES ARE AT PRESENT AUTHORIZED THAN ARE NECESSARY TO HANDLE
THE PRESENT AND EXPECTED VOLUME OF TELEGRAPH TRAFFIC UNDER NORMAL
OPERATING CONDITIONS, BUT MACKAY'S PROPOSED SERVICE WOULD BE ADEQUATE
AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL NEW INVESTMENT.  FOR SUCH REASONS THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT COMPETITION WAS "REASONABLY FEASIBLE."  IN
ADDITION, ALTHOUGH IT DID "NOT APPEAR THAT MACKAY'S PROPOSED SERVICE TO
EACH OF THE POINTS AT ISSUE WILL RESULT IN LOWER RATES OR SPEEDIER
SERVICE, OR WILL OTHERWISE BE SUPERIOR TO OR MORE COMPREHENSIVE THAN
THE SERVICE NOW AVAILABLE VIA RCAC," THE PROPOSED SERVICE WOULD BE
SUPERIOR TO THAT NOW PROVIDED BY MACKAY ITSELF AND ITS AFFILIATED CABLE
COMPANY, COMMERCIAL.  FINDING THAT "OVER-ALL COMPETITION FOR TELEGRAPH
TRAFFIC GENERALLY" WOULD BE INCREASED, AND MORE EFFECTIVE
RADIOTELEGRAPH COMPETITION INTRODUCED, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT
DUPLICATE FACILITIES SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED BECAUSE OF THE "NATIONAL
POLICY IN FAVOR OF COMPETITION."  FROM THIS POLICY, THE COMMISSION
SAID, IT FOLLOWS THAT "COMPETITION" IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHERE
COMPETITION IS "REASONABLY FEASIBLE."  THE COMMISSION, WITH TWO MEMBERS
DISSENTING, THEREUPON AUTHORIZED MACKAY'S PROPOSED SERVICE TO PORTUGAL
AND THE NETHERLANDS.  - F.C.C. - .  RCAC SOUGHT REVIEW AND WAS
SUCCESSFUL IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ON ITS CLAIM THAT AN APPLICANT MUST
DEMONSTRATE, AS THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT MACKAY HAD FAILED TO DO HERE,
THAT TANGIBLE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC WOULD BE DERIVED FROM THE
AUTHORIZATION.  91 U.S. APP. D.C. 289, 294, 201 F.2D 694, 699,
PRETTYMAN, J., DISSENTING. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THIS CASE, THE FIRST IN WHICH THE GRANT
OF DUPLICATE RADIOTELEGRAPH CIRCUITS HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS,
PRESENTS AN ISSUE OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE IN AUTHORIZATION, UNDER THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, OF INTERNATIONAL RADIOTELEGRAPH
CIRCUITS.  345 U.S. 902. 

WITH THE CHAOTIC SCRAMBLE FOR DOMESTIC AIR SPACE THAT DEVELOPED SOON
AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR A MORE
ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE AIR WAVES THAN HAD BEEN ACHIEVED UNDER PRIOR
LEGISLATION.  (FN1)  ALTHOUGH THE RADIO ACT OF 1912 HAD FORBIDDEN THE
OPERATION OF RADIO APPARATUS WITHOUT A LICENSE FROM THE SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE AND LABOR, JUDICIAL DECISION LEFT HIM POWERLESS TO PREVENT
LICENSEES FROM USING UNASSIGNED FREQUENCIES, TO RESTRICT THEIR
TRANSMITTING HOURS AND POWER, OR TO DENY A LICENSE ON THE GROUND THAT A
PROPOSED STATION WOULD NECESSARILY INTERFERE WITH EXISTING STATIONS. 
(FN2)  SEE NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190,
212.  CONGRESS THEREUPON, IN THE RADIO ACT OF 1927, CREATED THE FEDERAL
RADIO COMMISSION WITH WIDE LICENSING AND REGULATORY POWERS OVER
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

CONGRESS DID NOT PURPORT TO TRANSFER ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE
UNBOUNDED DISCRETION OF THE REGULATORY BODY.  IN CHOOSING AMONG
APPLICANTS, THE COMMISSION WAS TO BE GUIDED BY THE "PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY," A CRITERION WE HELD NOT TO BE TOO
INDEFINITE FOR FAIR ENFORCEMENT.  NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12.  THE STATUTORY STANDARD NO DOUBT LEAVES
WIDE DISCRETION AND CALLS FOR IMAGINATIVE INTERPRETATION.  NOT A
STANDARD THAT LENDS ITSELF TO APPLICATION WITH EXACTITUDE, IT EXPRESSES
A POLICY, BORN OF YEARS OF UNHAPPY TRIAL AND ERROR, THAT IS "AS
CONCRETE AS THE COMPLICATED FACTORS FOR JUDGMENT IN SUCH A FIELD OF
DELEGATED AUTHORITY PERMIT."  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V.
POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 138. 

CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE MADE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO LICENSE NOT
REVIEWABLE.  ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SUGGESTED - OR IMPLIED BY THE GRANT OF
POWER TO REVIEW - THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE RESERVED TO ITSELF OR TO
THE COMMISSION FINAL DESIGNATION OF THOSE WHO WOULD BE PERMITTED TO
UTILIZE THE AIR WAVES, PRECIOUS AS THEY HAVE BECOME WITH TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCE, IT HAS NOT DONE SO.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SCOPE OF THIS
COURT'S DUTY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, AS AMENDED, 47 U.S.C. SEC.
151 ET SEQ., HAS BEEN CAREFULLY DEFINED.  OURS IS NOT THE DUTY OF
REVIEWING DETERMINATIONS OF "FACT," IN THE NARROW, COLLOQUIAL SCOPE OF
THAT CONCEPT.  CONGRESS HAS CHARGED THE COURTS WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF SAYING WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS FAIRLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION
WITHIN THE VAGUISH, PENUMBRAL BOUNDS EXPRESSED BY THE STANDARD OF
"PUBLIC INTEREST."  IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY WHETHER THE
COMMISSION HAS BEEN GUIDED BY PROPER CONSIDERATIONS IN BRINGING THE
DEPOSIT OF ITS EXPERIENCE, THE DISCIPLINED FEEL OF THE EXPERT, TO BEAR
ON APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

IN THIS CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS RULED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS
GUIDED BY A MISINTERPRETATION OF NATIONAL POLICY, IN THAT IT THOUGHT
THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF COMPETITION IS IN ITSELF A SUFFICIENT GOAL OF
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS POLICY SO AS TO MAKE IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSE MERELY BECAUSE COMPETITION, I.E., DUPLICATION OF
EXISTING FACILITIES, WAS "REASONABLY FEASIBLE."  RCAC RELIES ON THE
HOLDING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE COMMISSION MUST DECIDE, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPLICATION, THAT COMPETITION IS NOT MERELY
FEASIBLE BUT BENEFICIAL. 

THE COMMISSION HAS NOT IN THIS CASE CLEARLY INDICATED EVEN THAT ITS
OWN EXPERIENCE, ENTIRELY APART FROM THE TANGIBLE DEMONSTRATION OF
BENEFIT FOR WHICH RCAC CONTENDS, LEADS IT TO CONCLUDE THAT COMPETITION
IS HERE DESIRABLE.  IT SEEMS TO HAVE RELIED ALMOST ENTIRELY ON ITS
INTERPRETATION OF NATIONAL POLICY.  SINCE THE COMMISSION PROFESSED TO
DISPOSE OF THE CASE MERELY UPON ITS VIEW OF A PRINCIPLE WHICH IT
DERIVED FROM THE STATUTE AND DID NOT BASE ITS CONCLUSION ON MATTERS
WITHIN ITS OWN SPECIAL COMPETENCE, IT IS FOR US TO DETERMINE WHAT THE
GOVERNING PRINCIPLE IS.  CF. FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON BROS. CO.,
289 U.S. 266, 276. 

THAT THERE IS A NATIONAL POLICY FAVORING COMPETITION CANNOT BE
MAINTAINED TODAY WITHOUT CAREFUL QUALIFICATION.  IT IS ONLY IN A BLUNT,
UNDISCRIMINATING SENSE THAT WE SPEAK OF COMPETITION AS AN ULTIMATE
GOOD.  CERTAINLY, EVEN IN THOSE AREAS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY WHERE THE
PLAY OF PRIVATE FORCES HAS BEEN SUBJECTED ONLY TO THE NEGATIVE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN LAW, THIS COURT HAS NOT HELD THAT
COMPETITION IS AN ABSOLUTE.  SEE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED
STATES, 246 U.S. 231; CF. MASON, MONOPOLY IN LAW AND ECONOMICS, 47 YALE
L.J. 34. 

PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION LIKE THE SHERMAN LAW, DEFINING THE AREA
WITHIN WHICH "COMPETITION" MAY HAVE FULL PLAY, OF COURSE LOSES ITS
EFFECTIVENESS AS THE PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS INCREASE; AS SUCH
CONSIDERATIONS SEVERELY LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SEPARATE ENTERPRISES THAT
CAN EFFICIENTLY, OR CONVENIENTLY, EXIST, THE NEED FOR CAREFUL
QUALIFICATION OF THE SCOPE OF COMPETITION BECOMES MANIFEST.  SURELY IT
CANNOT BE SAID IN THESE SITUATIONS THAT COMPETITION IS OF ITSELF A
NATIONAL POLICY.  TO DO SO WOULD DISREGARD NOT ONLY THOSE AREAS OF
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY SO LONG COMMITTED TO GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY AS NO LONGER
TO BE THOUGHT OPEN TO COMPETITION, SUCH AS THE POST OFFICE, CF., E.G.,
17 STAT. 292 (CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO ESTABLISH UNAUTHORIZED POST OFFICE;
PROVISION SINCE SUPERSEDED), AND THOSE AREAS, LOOSELY SPOKEN OF AS
NATURAL MONOPOLIES OR - MORE BROADLY - PUBLIC UTILITIES, IN WHICH
ACTIVE REGULATION HAS BEEN FOUND NECESSARY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE
INABILITY OF COMPETITION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE REGULATION.  IT WOULD MOST
STRIKINGLY DISREGARD AREAS WHERE POLICY HAS SHIFTED FROM ONE OF
PROHIBITING RESTRAINTS ON COMPETITION TO ONE OF PROVIDING RELIEF FROM
THE RIGORS OF COMPETITION, AS HAS BEEN TRUE OF RAILROADS.  COMPARE,
E.G., UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, AND
UNITED STATES V. JOINT TRAFFIC ASSN., 171 U.S. 505, WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 456, 480; CONSOLIDATION OF
RAILROADS, 63 I.C.C. 455. 

FEDERAL LEGISLATION AFFECTING RAILROADS IS A FAMILIAR BUT FAR FROM
UNIQUE EXAMPLE OF THOSE MANY AREAS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN WHICH
SERIOUS INROADS HAVE BEEN MADE ON AN ORIGINAL POLICY FAVORING
COMPETITION.  INDEED, AS TO THE INDUSTRY BEFORE US IN THIS CASE, THERE
HAS BEEN SERIOUS QUALIFICATION OF COMPETITION AS THE REGULATING
MECHANISM.  THE VERY FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO ENTER INTO THE
COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION OF COMMUNICATIONS EMBODIED IN THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 CONTRADICTS THE NOTION THAT NATIONAL POLICY
UNQUALIFIEDLY FAVORS COMPETITION IN COMMUNICATIONS.  THE ACT BY ITS
TERMS PROHIBITS COMPETITION BY THOSE WHOSE ENTRY DOES NOT SATISFY THE
"PUBLIC INTEREST" STANDARD.  IN THIS FIELD, THE REASON FOR SUCH
RESTRICTION UNDOUBTEDLY LIES PRIMARILY IN THE LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, RECOGNIZED IN A SERIES OF
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.  (FN3)  OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MAY ALSO HAVE
APPLIED:  CONGRESS MAY HAVE CONSIDERED THE POSSIBLE INCONVENIENCE TO
THE PUBLIC OF DUPLICATE FACILITIES - AS WOULD MORE CLEARLY BE THE CASE
WITH TELEPHONES - OR THE POSSIBLE INADEQUACY OF THE DEMAND FOR
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS TO MAKE MORE THAN ONE ENTERPRISE
ECONOMICALLY OR SOCIALLY DESIRABLE.  WHATEVER THE REASONS, THEY ARE NOT
FOR US TO WEIGH; IT IS FOR US TO RECOGNIZE THAT ENCOURAGEMENT OF
COMPETITION AS SUCH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED THE SINGLE OR CONTROLLING
RELIANCE FOR SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  (FN4) 

OF COURSE, THE FACT THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL REGULATION DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE REGULATORY AGENCY FROM DRAWING ON COMPETITION FOR
COMPLEMENTARY OR AUXILIARY SUPPORT.  SATISFACTORY ACCOMMODATION OF THE
PECULIARITIES OF INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRIES TO THE DEMANDS OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST NECESSARILY REQUIRES IN EACH CASE A BLEND OF PRIVATE FORCES
AND PUBLIC INTERVENTION.  THE COMMISSION ITSELF HAS RECOGNIZED AS MUCH
BY ITS CHANGING POLICY TOWARD AUTHORIZATION OF DUPLICATE FACILITIES. 
(FN5)  BUT THIS MERELY REINFORCES OUR CONCLUSION THAT IT IS IMPROPER
FOR THE COMMISSION TO SUPPOSE THAT THE STANDARD IT HAS ADOPTED IS TO BE
DERIVED WITHOUT MORE FROM A NATIONAL POLICY DEFINED BY LEGISLATION AND
BY THE COURTS.  HAD THE COMMISSION CLEARLY INDICATED THAT IT RELIED ON
ITS OWN EVALUATION OF THE NEEDS OF THE INDUSTRY RATHER THAN ON WHAT IT
DEEMED A NATIONAL POLICY, ITS ORDER WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT FOUNDATION. 
THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT COMPETITION IS A RELEVANT FACTOR IN WEIGHING
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  CF.  MCLEAN TRUCKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321
U.S. 67, 86-88.  OUR DIFFICULTY ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT WHILE THE
COMMISSION RECITES THAT COMPETITION MAY HAVE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS, IT
DOES SO IN AN ABSTRACT, STERILE WAY.  (FN6)  ITS OPINION RELIES IN THIS
CASE NOT ON ITS INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION, FROM THE IMPACT UPON IT OF THE
TRENDS AND NEEDS OF THIS INDUSTRY, THAT COMPETITION IS DESIRABLE BUT
PRIMARILY ON ITS READING OF NATIONAL POLICY, A READING TOO LOOSE AND
TOO MUCH CALCULATED TO MISLEAD IN THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION
ENTRUSTED TO IT. 

TO SAY THAT NATIONAL POLICY WITHOUT MORE SUFFICES FOR AUTHORIZATION
OF A COMPETING CARRIER WHEREVER COMPETITION IS REASONABLY FEASIBLE
WOULD AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO ABDICATE WHAT WOULD SEEM TO USE ONE
OF THE PRIMARY DUTIES IMPOSED ON IT BY CONGRESS.  AND SINCE WE READ THE
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION AS SAYING PRECISELY THAT, WE THINK THE CASE
MUST BE REMANDED FOR ITS RECONSIDERATION.   WE THEREFORE DO NOT SAY
THAT AUTHORIZATION OF MACKAY UNDER ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES,
INCLUDING THE SIGNIFICANCE THE COMMISSION MAY RIGHTLY ATTRIBUTE TO THE
FACTS ON THE BASIS OF ITS EXPERIENCE, MAY NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  (FN7)  WE THINK IT NOT INADMISSIBLE FOR THE COMMISSION, WHEN
IT MAKES MANIFEST THAT IN SO DOING IT IS CONSCIENTIOUSLY EXERCISING THE
DISCRETION GIVEN IT BY CONGRESS, TO REACH A CONCLUSION WHEREBY
AUTHORIZATIONS WOULD BE GRANTED WHEREVER COMPETITION IS REASONABLY
FEASIBLE.  THIS IS SO PRECISELY BECAUSE THE EXERCISE OF ITS FUNCTIONS
GIVES IT ACCUMULATING INSIGHT NOT VOUCHSAFED TO COURTS DEALING
EPISODICALLY WITH THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN SUCH
DETERMINATION.  HERE, HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION WAS NOT BASED ON THE
COMMISSION'S OWN JUDGMENT BUT RATHER ON THE UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTION THAT
IT WAS CONGRESS' JUDGMENT THAT SUCH AUTHORIZATIONS ARE DESIRABLE.  CF.
TEXAS & PAC. R. CO. V. GULF, C.&S.F.R. CO., 270 U.S. 266, 277. 

IN REACHING A CONCLUSION THAT DUPLICATING AUTHORIZATIONS ARE IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST WHEREVER COMPETITION IS REASONABLY FEASIBLE, THE
COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF TANGIBLE
BENEFIT.  IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO GRANT AUTHORIZATIONS ONLY IF THERE IS A
DEMONSTRATION OF FACTS INDICATING IMMEDIATE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC.  TO
RESTRICT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION TO CASES IN WHICH TANGIBLE EVIDENCE
APPROPRIATE FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION IS AVAILABLE WOULD DISREGARD A
MAJOR REASON FOR THE CREATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, BETTER
EQUIPPED AS THEY ARE FOR WEIGHING INTANGIBLES "BY SPECIALIZATION, BY
INSIGHT GAINED THROUGH EXPERIENCE, AND BY MORE FLEXIBLE PROCEDURE." 
FAR EAST CONF. V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 570, 575.  IN THE NATURE OF
THINGS, THE POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF COMPETITION DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO
DETAILED FORECAST, CF. LABOR BOARD V. SEVEN-UP CO., 344 U.S. 344, 348,
BUT THE COMMISSION MUST AT LEAST WARRANT, AS IT WERE, THAT COMPETITION
WOULD SERVE SOME BENEFICIAL PURPOSE SUCH AS MAINTAINING GOOD SERVICE
AND IMPROVING IT. ALTHOUGH WE THINK RCAC'S CONTENTION THAT AN APPLICANT
MUST DEMONSTRATE TANGIBLE BENEFITS IS ASKING TOO MUCH, IT IS NOT TOO
MUCH TO ASK THAT THERE BE GROUND FOR REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT
COMPETITION MAY HAVE SOME BENEFICIAL EFFECT.  MERELY TO ASSUME THAT
COMPETITION IS BOUND TO BE OF ADVANTAGE, IN AN INDUSTRY SO REGULATED
AND SO LARGELY CLOSED AS IS THIS ONE, IS NOT ENOUGH. 

RCAC ASKS US TO UPHOLD THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ON ANOTHER
GROUND, THAT THE GRANT OF AUTHORIZATION TO MACKAY WOULD VIOLATE SEC.
314 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, WHICH FORBIDS COMMON OWNERSHIP, CONTROL
OR OPERATION OF RADIO AND CABLE IN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION WHOSE
PURPOSE OR EFFECT MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION, RESTRAIN
COMMERCE OR UNLAWFULLY TO CREATE A MONOPOLY.  WE CANNOT AGREE.  THERE
HAS BEEN IN RECENT YEARS A CONSIDERABLE SHIFT OF INTERNATIONAL
TELEGRAPH TRAFFIC FROM CABLE TO RADIO, A SHIFT STRONGLY ACCENTUATED IN
SOME COUNTRIES, INCLUDING PORTUGAL AND THE NETHERLANDS, WHERE THE
OVERSEAS CORRESPONDENT OF AMERICAN COMPANIES IS A GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED
MONOPOLY WHICH STRONGLY ADVOCATES RADIO TRANSMISSION.  RCAC, IN THE TWO
INSTANCES BEFORE US, IS THE BENEFICIARY OF THIS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
CABLE TRANSMISSION; WITH NEGLIGIBLE EXCEPTION, IT HAS A MONOPOLY OF
RADIO TRAFFIC TO THESE COUNTRIES.  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
WE THINK THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT THE GRANT OF
MACKAY'S AUTHORIZATION WOULD INCREASE, RATHER THAN DECREASE,
COMPETITION.  ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE RELATIONSHIP OF MACKAY
TO COMMERCIAL IS SUCH THAT THERE IS, AND WOULD BE, NO COMPETITION
BETWEEN THEM, WE THINK THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO LOOK AT THE
ENTIRE COMPETITIVE SCENE AND NOT CONFINE ITSELF TO ONE ASPECT OF IT.
MACKAY AND ITS AFFILIATED CABLE COMPANY HAD A SMALLER SHARE OF TRAFFIC
IN 1947 THAN EITHER RCAC OR WESTERN UNION NOT ONLY WITH PORTUGAL AND
THE NETHERLANDS BUT ALSO WITH THE ENTIRE EUROPEAN AREA.  THAT THIS
AUTHORIZATION WOULD BETTER ENABLE THE MACKAY SYSTEM TO COMPETE WITH
RCAC AND WESTERN UNION, AND WOULD BREAK UP RCAC'S MONOPOLY OF RADIO
TRAFFIC WITH THESE COUNTRIES, SEEMS TO US AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS UNDER SEC. 314. 

RCAC'S ARGUMENTS BASED ON COMPARABLE LANGUAGE IN THE CLAYTON ACT AND
ON DECISIONS UNDER THAT ACT AND UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW CANNOT, WE THINK,
BE SUSTAINED.  WHAT MAY SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION IN THOSE AREAS
WHERE COMPETITION IS THE MAIN RELIANCE FOR REGULATION OF THE MARKET
CANNOT BE AUTOMATICALLY TRANSPLANTED TO AREAS IN WHICH ACTIVE
REGULATION IS ENTRUSTED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY; FOR REASONS WE
HAVE INDICATED ABOVE, WHAT COMPETITION IS AND SHOULD BE IN SUCH AREAS
MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE
INFLUENCED CONGRESS TO MAKE SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR THE PARTICULAR
INDUSTRY.  WE THEREFORE THINK THAT THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT
THE GRANT OF AUTHORIZATION TO MACKAY WOULD NOT DECREASE COMPETITION, IN
THE SPECIAL SENSE IN WHICH THAT WORD IS TO BE USED IN THIS CONTEXT, IS
SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS AND SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 314. 

FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE INDICATED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND IT TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR
SUCH DISPOSITION AS IS OPEN UNDER THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  A BRIEF OUTLINE OF EARLIER FEDERAL REGULATION OF RADIO AND WIRE
COMMUNICATION IS GIVEN IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IN GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES, MONOGRAPH OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, S. DOC. NO. 186, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PART
3, 81-84.  EARLY EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE ACTION REGARDING THE LAYING
OF FOREIGN CABLES IS REVIEWED IN 22 OP. ATTY. GEN. 13 (1898). 

FN2  SEE HOOVER V. INTERCITY RADIO CO., 52 APP. D.C. 339, 286 F.
1003; UNITED STATES V. ZENITH RADIO CORP., 12 F.2D 614; 35 OP. ATTY.
GEN. 126. 

FN3  SEE DONOVAN, THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF RADIO LAW, 21-26. 

FN4  WE NEED NOT IN THIS CASE ATTEMPT TO SUGGEST WITH ANY PRECISION
WHERE THE BALANCE IS STRUCK.  CERTAINLY THE PRESENCE OF SECS. 313 AND
314 IN THE ACT, PROHIBITING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON COMPETITION,
INDICATES THE RELEVANCE OF SOME COMPETITIVE CRITERIA, ALTHOUGH IT
HARDLY DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO RELY ON "COMPETITION." 

FN5  SEE BRIEF FOR COMMISSION, P. 6:  "FROM 1934 UNTIL 1939, WHEN
RADIOTELEGRAPH WAS JUST EMERGING FROM ITS INFANCY, THE COMMISSION
GENERALLY DENIED APPLICATIONS FOR CIRCUITS TO COUNTRIES ALREADY SERVED
BY OTHER AMERICAN RADIOTELEGRAPH CARRIERS.  FROM 1939 TO 1942 THE
COMMISSION GENERALLY GRANTED APPLICATIONS FOR NEW CIRCUITS, REGARDLESS
OF WHETHER THE POINTS INVOLVED WERE SERVED BY AN EXISTING
RADIOTELEGRAPH CIRCUIT.  FROM 1942 TO 1943 AN AFFIRMATIVE POLICY OF
AUTHORIZING DUPLICATING AMERICAN CIRCUITS (A 'DUPLICATE CIRCUIT
POLICY') WAS FOLLOWED AS A WAR MEASURE AT THE BEHEST OF THE DEFENSE
COMMUNICATIONS BOARD.  FROM 1943 UNTIL 1945, ALSO AS A WAR MEASURE, THE
REVERSE COURSE (A 'SINGLE CIRCUIT POLICY') WAS FOLLOWED AT THE BEHEST
OF THE BOARD OF WAR COMMUNICATIONS (THE SUCCESSOR OF THE DEFENSE
COMMUNICATIONS BOARD). 

"FROM 1945 UNTIL THE DECISION IN THE PRESENT CASE (1951) THE
COMMISSION GRANTED A NUMBER OF DUPLICATING CIRCUITS."  (CITATIONS AND
FOOTNOTES OMITTED.) 

FN6  THE COMMISSION STATED IN ITS OPINION:  "COMPETITION CAN
GENERALLY BE EXPECTED TO PROVIDE A POWERFUL INCENTIVE FOR THE RENDITION
OF BETTER SERVICE AT LOWER COST.  THOSE SEEKING THE PATRONAGE OF
CUSTOMERS ARE SPURRED ON TO INSTALL THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ART
IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR SERVICES OR PRODUCTS, AND IN ORDER TO ENABLE
THEM TO REDUCE EXPENSES AND THEREBY LOWER THEIR RATES OR PRICES.  THE
BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM COMPETITION SHOULD, THEREFORE, NOT BE
LIGHTLY DISCARDED."  R. 623.  SURELY ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE FROM THIS BARE
STATEMENT THAT THE COMMISSION, WHATEVER UNDISCLOSED AWARENESS IT MAY
HAVE OF THE PROBLEM, HAS SUFFICIENTLY LAID BARE ITS MIND TO ENABLE US
TO PERFORM OUR REVIEWING FUNCTION.  AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT FOR US TO
SAY, AT LEAST IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THAT AUTHORIZATION WOULD BE
DESIRABLE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

FN7  WE NEED NOT STOP TO CONSIDER RCAC'S ARGUMENT THAT A PRIOR
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION, THE SO-CALLED OSLO DECISION, AFFIRMED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, STANDS IN
THE WAY.  MACKAY RADIO & TEL. CO. V. F.C.C., 68 APP. D.C. 336, 97 F.2D
641.  ALTHOUGH IN THAT CASE THE FACTS WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE HERE, THE
COMMISSION THERE DECIDED THAT DUPLICATE FACILITIES SHOULD NOT BE
AUTHORIZED.  IN AFFIRMING, THE COURT OF APPEALS SIMPLY AFFIRMED THAT
COMPETITION IS NOT NECESSARILY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT THAT IT IS
NEVER IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE COURT STATED:  "APPELLANT CONTENDS
THAT THE COMMISSION COMMITTED ERROR OF LAW IN FAILING TO INTERPRET
'PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST OR NECESSITY' AS NECESSARILY REQUIRING
THE LICENSING OF A COMPETING RADIO CIRCUIT TO NORWAY SO AS TO END WHAT
APPELLANT DESCRIBES AS THE MONOPOLY OF RCAC."  68 APP. D.C., AT 337, 97
F.2D, AT 642.  IT CONCLUDED, "IN OUR OPINION, THE COMMISSION DID NOT
ERR AS MATTER OF LAW IN REFUSING TO TREAT 'PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE
OR NECESSITY' AS REQUIRING, BY DEFINITION, THE LICENSING OF
APPELLANT."  68 APP. D.C., AT 339, 97 F.2D, AT 644.  WE THINK THE
PRECISE HOLDING OF THAT CASE RATHER SUPPORTS OUR CONCLUSION IN THIS
CASE.  SEE PRETTYMAN, J., DISSENTING BELOW, 91 U.S. APP. D.C., AT 294,
295, 201 F.2D, 699, 700. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT, THAT THE FINDINGS ADEQUATELY
SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT IT IS NECESSARY UNDER THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LICENSING OF A COMPETITIVE
SERVICE OFFERS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF SOME BENEFICIAL EFFECT,
MEASURED BY THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THAT WAS INDEED THE VIEW OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS.  BUT ON THIS RECORD THE FACTS ARE THAT: 

- EXISTING FACILITIES ARE IN EXCESS OF THOSE REQUIRED TO HANDLE
PRESENT AND EXPECTED TRAFFIC. 

- THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS WILL REDISTRIBUTE PRESENT TRAFFIC RATHER
THAN GENERATE NEW TRAFFIC. 

- THE PROPOSED SERVICE WILL NOT LOWER RATES NOR SPEED UP TRANSMISSION
NOR IMPROVE THE EXISTING SERVICE IN ANY RESPECT. 

- THE PROPOSED SERVICE WILL AID MACKAY FINANCIALLY AND BE DETRIMENTAL
TO RCA. 

- THIS IS A FIELD WHERE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED SERVICE THERE IS ACTIVE
COMPETITION AND AN EXCESS OF FACILITIES TO MEET PRESENT OR EXPECTED
NEEDS. 

I THEREFORE AGREE WITH JUDGE EDGERTON'S OPINION FOR THE COURT OF
APPEALS (91 U.S. APP.  D.C. 289, 201 F.2D 694) THAT ON THIS SHOWING THE
COMMISSION ACTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND THAT ITS ORDER SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE.  ON THE RECORD BEFORE US THE FACTS ARE SO UNEQUIVOCAL THAT THERE
IS NO APPARENT WAY FOR THE COMMISSION TO MEET THE STANDARD APPROVED
BOTH HERE AND BELOW.  THERE IS THEREFORE NO OCCASION FOR A REMAND.  I
WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 
..END :



















DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. JOHN R. THOMPSON CO., INC. 346 U.S. 100 


NO. 617.  ARGUED APRIL 30, MAY 1, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1953 - 92 U.S.
APP. D.C. 34, 203 F.2D 579, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS
HAD POWER TO DELEGATE ITS LAWMAKING AUTHORITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CREATED BY THE ORGANIC ACT OF
1871 FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  PP. 104-110. 

(A)  THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17 OF THE
CONSTITUTION TO GRANT SELF-GOVERNMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS AS
GREAT AS ITS AUTHORITY TO DO SO IN THE CASE OF TERRITORIES.  PP. 106
107. 

(B)  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RELATES NOT
ONLY TO "NATIONAL POWER" BUT TO ALL THE POWERS OF LEGISLATION WHICH MAY
BE EXERCISED BY A STATE IN DEALING WITH ITS AFFAIRS.  P. 108. 

(C)  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE DELEGATION BY CONGRESS TO THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF FULL LEGISLATIVE POWER, SUBJECT TO
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS TO WHICH ALL LAWMAKING IS SUBSERVIENT AND TO
THE POWER OF CONGRESS AT ANY TIME TO REVISE, ALTER, OR REVOKE THE
AUTHORITY GRANTED.  PP. 108-109. 

(D)  IN THE PROVISION OF ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION,
EMPOWERING CONGRESS "TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" OVER THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE WORD "EXCLUSIVE" WAS EMPLOYED TO ELIMINATE
ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE
DISTRICT WOULD BE DEEMED CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF THE CEDING STATES; AND
IT DOES NOT MAKE THE POWER NONDELEGABLE.  PP. 109-110. 

2.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 18 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF 1871, THE
"RIGHTFUL SUBJECTS OF LEGISLATION" TO WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT EXTENDED WAS AS BROAD AS THE POLICE
POWER OF A STATE, AND INCLUDED A LAW PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATIONS
AGAINST NEGROES BY RESTAURANTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  P. 110. 

3.  IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RESPONDENT
WAS PROSECUTED FOR REFUSAL TO SERVE CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE NEGRO RACE
AT ONE OF ITS RESTAURANTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SOLELY ON ACCOUNT
OF THE RACE AND COLOR OF THOSE PERSONS.  THE INFORMATION WAS IN FOUR
COUNTS, THE FIRST CHARGING A VIOLATION OF THE ACT OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JUNE 20, 1872, AND THE OTHERS
CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JUNE 26, 1873.  EACH ACT MAKES IT A CRIME TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A PERSON ON ACCOUNT OF RACE OR COLOR OR TO REFUSE
SERVICE TO HIM ON THAT GROUND.  HELD:  THE ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873
SURVIVED SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AND ARE PRESENTLY ENFORCEABLE, EXCEPT THAT THE COURT DOES NOT
REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE 1872 ACT WAS REPEALED BY THE 1873 ACT
AND LEAVES THAT QUESTION OPEN ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  PP. 110-118. 

(A)  THE ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873 ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACTS OF
CONGRESS OF 1874 AND 1878, AND THEY SURVIVED THE LATTER ACTS.  PP. 110
111. 

(B)  THE ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873 WERE NOT REPEALED BY THE CODE OF 1901,
SINCE, AS ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS GOVERNING RESTAURANTS IN THE
DISTRICT, THEY ARE "POLICE REGULATIONS" AND ACTS "RELATING TO MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THIRD EXCEPTION IN SEC.  1636 OF THE
CODE.  PP. 112-113. 

(C)  THE ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873 WERE NOT ABANDONED OR REPEALED AS A
RESULT OF NON-USE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  THE FAILURE OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO ENFORCE A LAW DOES NOT RESULT IN ITS MODIFICATION
OR REPEAL.  PP. 113-115. 

(D)  THE ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873 MERELY REGULATE A LICENSED BUSINESS,
AND (WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE PROVISION MAKING MANDATORY THE
FORFEITURE OF THE LICENSE TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT) COULD NOT BE
MODIFIED, ALTERED, OR REPEALED BY THE EXERCISE OF THE LICENSING
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS.  PP. 115-117. 

(E)  CASES OF HARDSHIP WHERE CRIMINAL LAWS SO LONG IN DISUSE AS TO BE
NO LONGER KNOWN TO EXIST ARE ENFORCED AGAINST INNOCENT PARTIES, DO NOT
BEAR ON THE CONTINUING VALIDITY OF THE LAW; THAT IS ONLY AN
AMELIORATING FACTOR IN ENFORCEMENT.  P. 117. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. JOHN R. THOMPSON CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ON AN
INFORMATION CHARGING RESPONDENT WITH VIOLATIONS OF ACTS OF 1872 AND
1873 OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE COURT
OF APPEALS HELD THE ACTS UNENFORCEABLE AND ORDERED DISMISSAL OF THE
INFORMATION.  92 U.S. APP. D.C. 34, 203 F.2D 579.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 921.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 118. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PROSECUTED BY INFORMATION AGAINST
RESPONDENT FOR REFUSAL TO SERVE CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE NEGRO RACE AT
ONE OF ITS RESTAURANTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF
THE RACE AND COLOR OF THOSE PERSONS.  THE INFORMATION IS IN FOUR
COUNTS, THE FIRST CHARGING A VIOLATION OF THE ACT OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, (FN1) JUNE 20, 1872, AND THE
OTHERS CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, (FN2) JUNE 26, 1873, DIST. COL.  LAWS 1871
1873, PP. 65, 116.  EACH ACT MAKES IT A CRIME TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A
PERSON ON ACCOUNT OF RACE OR COLOR OR TO REFUSE SERVICE TO HIM ON THAT
GROUND. 

THE MUNICIPAL COURT QUASHED THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE
1872 AND 1873 ACTS HAD BEEN REPEALED BY IMPLICATION ON THE ENACTMENT BY
CONGRESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF JUNE 11, 1878, 20 STAT. 102.  ON APPEAL
THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE 1872 AND 1873 ACTS WERE
VALID WHEN ENACTED, THAT THE FORMER ACT, INSOFAR AS IT APPLIES TO
RESTAURANTS, HAD BEEN REPEALED, BUT THAT THE LATTER ACT WAS STILL IN
EFFECT.  IT THEREFORE AFFIRMED THE MUNICIPAL COURT INSOFAR AS IT
DISMISSED THE COUNT BASED ON THE 1872 ACT AND REVERSED THE MUNICIPAL
COURT ON THE OTHER COUNTS.  81 A.2D 249.  ON CROSS-APPEAL, THE COURT OF
APPEALS HELD THAT THE 1872 AND 1873 ACTS WERE UNENFORCEABLE AND THAT
THE ENTIRE INFORMATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  92 U.S. APP. D.C. 34, 203
F.2D 579.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 921. 

                          I. 

THE HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA BEGINS WITH THE ACT OF JULY 16, 1790, 1 STAT. 130, BY WHICH
THE DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED AS THE PERMANENT SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.  WE NEED NOT REVIEW FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE
THE VARIETY OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS PERTAINING TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
THE AFFAIRS OF THE DISTRICT BETWEEN THAT DATE AND 1871.  IT IS WITH THE
ORGANIC ACT OF FEBRUARY 21, 1871, 16 STAT. 419, THAT WE ARE
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED. 

THAT ACT CREATED A GOVERNMENT BY THE NAME OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, CONSTITUTED IT "A BODY CORPORATE FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES" WITH
ALL OF THE POWERS OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION "NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT," AND GAVE IT JURISDICTION OVER ALL THE TERRITORY WITHIN THE LIMITS
OF THE DISTRICT.  SEC. 1.  THE ACT VESTED "LEGISLATIVE POWER AND
AUTHORITY" IN A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY CONSISTING OF A COUNCIL AND A
HOUSE OF DELEGATES, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL TO BE APPOINTED BY THE
PRESIDENT WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE AND MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF DELEGATES TO BE ELECTED BY MALE CITIZENS RESIDING IN THE
DISTRICT.  SECS. 5, 7.  THE ACT PROVIDED, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL
HERE, (FN3) THAT "THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE DISTRICT SHALL EXTEND TO
ALL RIGHTFUL SUBJECTS OF LEGISLATION WITHIN SAID DISTRICT, CONSISTENT
WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT."  SEC. 18.  ALL ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY WERE MADE SUBJECT
AT ALL TIMES "TO REPEAL OR MODIFICATION" BY CONGRESS.  SEC. 18.  AND IT
WAS PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THE ACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO DEPRIVE
CONGRESS OF "THE POWER OF LEGISLATION" OVER THE DISTRICT "IN AS AMPLE
MANNER AS IF THIS LAW HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED."  SEC. 18.  EXECUTIVE POWER
WAS VESTED IN A GOVERNOR APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT BY AND WITH THE
ADVICE OF THE SENATE.  SEC. 2.  AND IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE DISTRICT
SHOULD HAVE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AN ELECTED DELEGATE HAVING
THE SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AS THOSE OF DELEGATES FROM FEDERAL
TERRITORIES.  SEC. 34. 

THIS GOVERNMENT (WHICH WAS SHORT-LIVED (FN4) ) WAS CHARACTERIZED BY
THE COURT AS A "TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT."  ECKLOFF V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 135 U.S. 240, 241.  THE ANALOGY IS AN APT ONE.  THE GRANT TO
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY BY SEC. 18 OF LEGISLATIVE POWER WHICH EXTENDS
"TO ALL RIGHTFUL SUBJECTS OF LEGISLATION" IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL
WITH THE GRANT OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS WHICH
READS:  "THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF EVERY TERRITORY SHALL EXTEND TO ALL
RIGHTFUL SUBJECTS OF LEGISLATION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  R.S. SEC. 1851. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE DISTRICT AND ITS POWER OVER THE
TERRITORIES ARE PHRASED IN VERY SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "THE
CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION IN
ALL CASES WHATSOEVER, OVER SUCH DISTRICT (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES
SQUARE) AS MAY, BY CESSION OF PARTICULAR STATES, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF
CONGRESS, BECOME THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES." 
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS CONGRESS AUTHORITY
OVER TERRITORIES IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: 

"THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO DISPOSE OF AND MAKE ALL NEEDFUL
RULES AND REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES  ...  ." 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DELEGATE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO A TERRITORY IS
WELL SETTLED.  SIMMS V. SIMMS, 175 U.S. 162, 168; BINNS V. UNITED
STATES, 194 U.S. 486, 491; CHRISTIANSON V. KING COUNTY, 239 U.S. 356,
365.  THE POWER WHICH CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY DELEGATE TO A
TERRITORY (SUBJECT OF COURSE TO "THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO REVISE,
ALTER, AND REVOKE," HORNBUCKLE V. TOOMBS, 18 WALL.  648, 655) COVERS
ALL MATTERS "WHICH, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A STATE, ARE REGULATED BY THE
LAWS OF THE STATE ONLY."  (FN5)  SIMMS V. SIMMS, SUPRA, P. 168. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO GRANT SELF-GOVERNMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA UNDER ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD SEEM TO
BE AS GREAT AS ITS AUTHORITY TO DO SO IN THE CASE OF TERRITORIES.  BUT
A MAJORITY OF THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT CONGRESS HAD
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE "MUNICIPAL" BUT NOT "GENERAL"
LEGISLATIVE POWERS AND THAT THE ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873, BEING IN THE
NATURE OF CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION, FELL IN THE LATTER GROUP AND WERE
FOR CONGRESS ALONE TO ENACT.  IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION THE COURT OF
APPEALS RELIED UPON TWO DECISIONS OF THE COURT, STOUTENBURGH V.
HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141, AND METROPOLITAN R. CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
132 U.S. 1.  THE FIRST OF THESE CASES INVOLVED AN ACT OF THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE DISTRICT IMPOSING A LICENSE TAX ON
BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DISTRICT.  THE COURT HELD, FOLLOWING ROBBINS V.
SHELBY COUNTY, 120 U.S. 489, THAT IT COULD NOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
APPLIED TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF A MARYLAND COMPANY SOLICITING ORDERS IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME, AS THE
ROBBINS CASE INDICATES, HAD A STATE RATHER THAN THE DISTRICT ENACTED
SUCH A LAW.  SO, WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURT SPOKE OF THE AUTHORITY
OF CONGRESS TO DELEGATE TO THE DISTRICT THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE "LOCAL
REGULATION" BUT NOT "GENERAL LEGISLATION," THOSE WORDS IN THE SETTING
OF THE CASE SUGGEST NO MORE THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOCAL MATTERS
ON THE ONE HAND AND NATIONAL MATTERS, SUCH AS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ON
THE OTHER. 

THE SECOND OF THESE CASES, METROPOLITAN R. CO. V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 132 U.S. 1, PRESENTED THE QUESTION OF THE CAPACITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO SUE.  THE COURT HELD THAT IT MIGHT DO SO,
NOTING THAT WHILE THE DISTRICT WAS "A SEPARATE POLITICAL COMMUNITY,"
ITS SOVEREIGN POWER WAS LODGED IN THE CONGRESS.  "THE SUBORDINATE
LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF A MUNICIPAL CHARACTER WHICH HAVE BEEN OR MAY BE
LODGED IN THE CITY CORPORATIONS, OR IN THE DISTRICT CORPORATION, DO NOT
MAKE THOSE BODIES SOVEREIGN.  CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE DISTRICT ARE NOT
CRIMES AGAINST THE DISTRICT, BUT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THEREFORE,
WHILST THE DISTRICT MAY, IN A SENSE, BE CALLED A STATE, IT IS SUCH IN A
VERY QUALIFIED SENSE."  P. 9.  BUT THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THAT CASE
THAT CONGRESS LACKS THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO DELEGATE
THE POWERS OF HOME RULE TO THE DISTRICT. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RELATES NOT ONLY
TO "NATIONAL POWER" BUT TO "ALL THE POWERS OF LEGISLATION WHICH MAY BE
EXERCISED BY A STATE IN DEALING WITH ITS AFFAIRS."  ATLANTIC CLEANERS &
DYERS V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 427, 435.  AND SEE STOUTENBURGH V.
HENNICK, SUPRA, P. 147.  THERE IS NO REASON WHY A STATE, IF IT SO
CHOOSES, MAY NOT FASHION ITS BASIC LAW SO AS TO GRANT HOME RULE OR SELF
GOVERNMENT TO ITS MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.  THE COURT IN BARNES V.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 91 U.S. 540, 544, IN CONSTRUING THE ORGANIC ACT
OF FEBRUARY 21, 1871, THE ONE WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED,
STATED: 

"A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, IN THE EXERCISE OF ALL OF ITS DUTIES,
INCLUDING THOSE MOST STRICTLY LOCAL OR INTERNAL, IS BUT A DEPARTMENT OF
THE STATE.  THE LEGISLATURE MAY GIVE IT ALL THE POWERS SUCH A BEING IS
CAPABLE OF RECEIVING, MAKING IT A MINIATURE STATE WITHIN ITS
LOCALITY." 

THIS IS THE THEORY WHICH UNDERLIES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS OF
SOME STATES ALLOWING CITIES TO HAVE HOME RULE.  (FN6)  SO IT IS THAT
DECISION AFTER DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE DELEGATED POWER OF
MUNICIPALITIES IS AS BROAD AS THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE, EXCEPT AS
THAT POWER MAY BE RESTRICTED BY TERMS OF THE GRANT OR BY THE STATE
CONSTITUTION.  SEE MCQUILLIN, THE LAW OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (3D ED.
1949), SEC. 16.02 ET SEQ. AND CERTAINLY SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT LEGISLATION WHICH
PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE IN THE USE OF FACILITIES
SERVING A PUBLIC FUNCTION IS WITHIN THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATES. 
SEE RAILWAY MAIL ASSN. V. CORSI, 326 U.S. 88, 93-94; BOB-LO EXCURSION
CO. V. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28, 34.  IT WOULD SEEM THEN THAT ON THE
ANALOGY OF THE DELEGATION OF POWERS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT AND HOME RULE
BOTH TO MUNICIPALITIES AND TO TERRITORIES THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL
BARRIER TO THE DELEGATION BY CONGRESS TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF
FULL LEGISLATIVE POWER, SUBJECT OF COURSE TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
TO WHICH ALL LAWMAKING IS SUBSERVIENT AND SUBJECT ALSO TO THE POWER OF
CONGRESS AT ANY TIME TO REVISE, ALTER, OR REVOKE THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED. 

THERE IS, HOWEVER, A SUGGESTION THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS "TO
EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" GRANTED BY ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17 OF
THE CONSTITUTION IS NONDELEGABLE BECAUSE IT IS "EXCLUSIVE."  BUT IT IS
CLEAR FROM THE HISTORY OF THE PROVISION THAT THE WORD "EXCLUSIVE" WAS
EMPLOYED TO ELIMINATE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER THE DISTRICT WAS TO BE CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF THE CEDING
STATES.  SEE THE FEDERALIST, NO. 43; 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES (2D ED. 1876),
PP. 432-433; 2 STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES (4TH ED. 1873), SEC. 1218.  MADISON SUMMED UP THE NEED FOR AN
"EXCLUSIVE" POWER IN THE CONGRESS AS FOLLOWS: 

"LET ME REMARK, IF NOT ALREADY REMARKED, THAT THERE MUST BE A
CESSION, BY PARTICULAR STATES, OF THE DISTRICT TO CONGRESS, AND THAT
THE STATES MAY SETTLE THE TERMS OF THE CESSION.  THE STATES MAY MAKE
WHAT STIPULATION THEY PLEASE IN IT, AND, IF THEY APPREHEND ANY DANGER,
THEY MAY REFUSE IT ALTOGETHER.  HOW COULD THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT BE
GUARDED FROM THE UNDUE INFLUENCE OF PARTICULAR STATES, OR FROM INSULTS,
WITHOUT SUCH EXCLUSIVE POWER?"  ELLIOT'S OP. CIT., SUPRA, P. 433. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CONGRESS HAD THE AUTHORITY UNDER ART. I, SEC. 8,
CL. 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DELEGATE ITS LAWMAKING AUTHORITY TO THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHICH WAS CREATED BY
THE ORGANIC ACT OF 1871 AND THAT THE "RIGHTFUL SUBJECTS OF LEGISLATION"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 18 OF THAT ACT WAS AS BROAD AS THE POLICE
POWER OF A STATE SO AS TO INCLUDE A LAW PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATIONS
AGAINST NEGROES BY THE OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF RESTAURANTS IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

                         II. 

THE ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873 SURVIVED, WE THINK, ALL SUBSEQUENT CHANGES
IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND REMAIN TODAY A PART
OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRICT.  THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY WAS ABOLISHED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1874, 18
STAT. 116.  THAT ACT PROVIDED THAT THE DISTRICT SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY A
COMMISSION.  SEC. 2.  THE REVISED STATUTES RELATING TO THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, APPROVED JUNE 20, 1874, (FN7) KEPT IN FULL FORCE THE PRIOR
LAWS AND ORDINANCES "NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS CHAPTER, AND EXCEPT AS
MODIFIED OR REPEALED BY CONGRESS OR THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE
DISTRICT."  SEC. 91.  THOSE ACTS WERE FOLLOWED BY THE PRESENT ORGANIC
ACT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROVED JUNE 11, 1878, 20 STAT. 102,
WHICH PROVIDES THAT "ALL LAWS NOW IN FORCE RELATING TO THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL REMAIN
IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT."  SEC. 1.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE 1874 ACT
NOR IN THE 1878 ACT INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACTS HERE IN QUESTION.  AND
WE FIND NO OTHER INTERVENING ACT WHICH WOULD EFFECT A REPEAL OF THEM. 
NOR IS THERE ANY SUGGESTION IN THE BRIEFS OR ORAL ARGUMENT THAT THE
ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873, PRESENTLY LITIGATED, DID NOT SURVIVE THE ACTS OF
1874 AND 1878.  IT INDEED APPEARS THE ACTS OF 1874 AND 1878 PRECLUDED
THE REPEAL OF THESE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS EXCEPT BY AN ACT OF
CONGRESS.  AS METROPOLITAN R. CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SUPRA, AT P.
7, SAYS, THE "LEGISLATIVE POWERS" OF THE DISTRICT CEASED WITH THE
ORGANIC ACT AND THEREAFTER MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT WAS CONFINED "TO MERE
ADMINISTRATION." 

THE COMMISSIONERS BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF FEBRUARY 26, 1892, 27
STAT. 394, WERE VESTED WITH LOCAL LEGISLATIVE POWER AS RESPECTS
"REASONABLE AND USUAL POLICE REGULATIONS."  (FN8)  BUT THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT THEIR POWER TO MAKE LOCAL ORDINANCES WAS EVER EXERCISED
TO SUPPLANT THESE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
WITH NEW AND DIFFERENT ORDINANCES.  RATHER THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE
1872 AND 1873 ACTS WERE REPEALED BY THE CODE OF 1901, 31 STAT. 1189. 

"ALL ACTS AND PARTS OF ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND GENERAL AND PERMANENT IN THEIR NATURE, ALL LIKE ACTS AND PARTS
OF ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND
ALL LIKE ACTS AND PARTS OF ACTS OF CONGRESS APPLYING SOLELY TO THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN FORCE IN SAID DISTRICT ON THE DAY OF THE
PASSAGE OF THIS ACT ARE HEREBY REPEALED, EXCEPT: 

"THIRD.  ACTS AND PARTS OF ACTS RELATING TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE
DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, OR TO ITS OBLIGATIONS, OR THE POWERS OR DUTIES OF
THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR THEIR SUBORDINATES OR
EMPLOYEES, OR TO POLICE REGULATIONS, AND GENERALLY ALL ACTS AND PARTS
OF ACTS RELATING TO MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ONLY, INCLUDING THOSE REGULATING
THE CHARGES OF PUBLIC-SERVICE CORPORATIONS  ...  ." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THESE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS WERE
"GENERAL AND PERMANENT" LEGISLATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1636 AND
REPEALED BY IT, NOT BEING SAVED BY THE EXCEPTIONS.  THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE PRESENTS AN ELABORATE ARGUMENT, BASED ON THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE 1901 CODE, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
LAWS HERE INVOLVED WERE NOT "GENERAL AND PERMANENT" LAWS WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 1636.  BUT THE LINES OF ANALYSIS PRESENTED ARE QUITE
SHADOWY; AND WE FIND IT DIFFICULT NOT TO AGREE THAT THE 1872 AND 1873
ACTS WERE "GENERAL AND PERMANENT" AS CONTRASTED TO STATUTES WHICH ARE
PRIVATE, SPECIAL, OR TEMPORARY.  THAT IS THE SENSE IN WHICH WE BELIEVE
THE WORDS "GENERAL AND PERMANENT" WERE USED IN THE CODE.  WE CONCLUDE,
HOWEVER, THAT THEY WERE SAVED FROM REPEAL BY THE THIRD EXCEPTION CLAUSE
QUOTED ABOVE. 

IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THESE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS GOVERNING
RESTAURANTS IN THE DISTRICT ARE "POLICE REGULATIONS" AND ACTS "RELATING
TO MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THIRD EXCEPTION IN SEC.
1636.  THE COURT OF APPEALS IN UNITED STATES V. CELLA, 37 APP. D.C.
433, 435, IN CONSTRUING AN ACT PROVIDING THAT PROSECUTIONS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF PENAL STATUTES "IN THE NATURE OF POLICE OR MUNICIPAL
REGULATIONS" SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF THE DISTRICT, SAID: 

"A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE OR POLICE REGULATION IS PECULIARLY APPLICABLE
TO THE INHABITANTS OF A PARTICULAR PLACE; IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS LOCAL
IN CHARACTER." 

THE LAWS WHICH REQUIRE EQUAL SERVICE TO ALL WHO EAT IN RESTAURANTS IN
THE DISTRICT ARE AS LOCAL IN CHARACTER AS LAWS REGULATING PUBLIC
HEALTH, SCHOOLS, STREETS, AND PARKS.  IN JOHNSON V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 30 APP. D.C. 520, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT AN ACT OF
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PROHIBITING CRUELTY TO ANIMALS WAS A POLICE
REGULATION SAVED FROM REPEAL BY THE THIRD EXCEPTION TO SEC. 1636.  THE
COURT SAID IT WAS LEGISLATION "IN THE INTEREST OF PEACE AND ORDER" AND
CONDUCIVE "TO THE MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY."  P.
522.  REGULATION OF PUBLIC EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE
DISTRICT HAS BEEN DELEGATED BY CONGRESS TO THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.  (FN9)  IN TERMS OF THE HISTORY OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THERE IS INDEED NO SUBJECT OF LEGISLATION MORE
FIRMLY IDENTIFIED WITH LOCAL AFFAIRS THAN THE REGULATION OF
RESTAURANTS. 

THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION ONLY WHETHER THE ACTS OF 1872 AND
1873 WERE ABANDONED OR REPEALED AS A RESULT OF NON-USE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  THERE WAS ONE VIEW IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
THAT THESE LAWS ARE PRESENTLY UNENFORCEABLE FOR THAT REASON.  WE DO NOT
AGREE.  THE FAILURE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO ENFORCE A LAW DOES NOT
RESULT IN ITS MODIFICATION OR REPEAL.  SEE LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 740, 759; UNITED STATES V. MORTON SALT CO., 338
U.S. 632, 647, 648.  THE REPEAL OF LAWS IS AS MUCH A LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTION AS THEIR ENACTMENT.  (FN10) 

CONGRESS HAS HAD THE POWER TO REPEAL THE 1872 AND 1873 ACTS FROM THE
DATES OF THEIR PASSAGE BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.  BUT AS WE HAVE
SEEN, IT HAS NOT DONE SO. 

CONGRESS ALSO HAS HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE TO A MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT FOR THE DISTRICT THE POWER TO PASS LAWS WHICH WOULD ALTER OR
REPEAL THE ACTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE
ORGANIC ACT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROVED JUNE 11, 1878,
WITHDREW LEGISLATIVE POWERS FROM THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.  IN 1892 THE
COMMISSIONERS WERE GIVEN LEGISLATIVE POWER AS RESPECTS "REASONABLE AND
USUAL POLICE REGULATIONS."  (FN11)  THAT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY COULD
HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED TO REPEAL THE ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873.  SEE STEVENS V.
STOUTENBURGH, 8 APP. D.C. 513.  FOR AS WE HAVE NOTED, REGULATION OF
RESTAURANTS IS A MATTER PLAINLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF POLICE
REGULATIONS.  BUT THE COMMISSIONERS PASSED NO ORDINANCES DEALING WITH
THE RIGHTS OF NEGROES IN THE RESTAURANTS OF THE DISTRICT.  IT IS ARGUED
THAT THEIR POWER TO DO SO WAS WITHDRAWN BY CONGRESS IN THE CODE OF
1901.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE CODE OF 1901 KEPT IN FORCE THE ACTS,
ORDINANCES, AND REGULATIONS NOT REPEALED; (FN12) AND FROM THAT THE
CONCLUSION IS DRAWN THAT ONLY CONGRESS COULD THEREAFTER AMEND OR REPEAL
THESE ENACTMENTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO RESOLVE THAT QUESTION.  FOR EVEN IF WE
ASSUME THAT AFTER THE CODE OF 1901 THE COMMISSIONERS HAD THE AUTHORITY
TO REPLACE THESE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS WITH OTHER ONES, WE FIND NO
INDICATION THAT THEY EVER DID SO.  CERTAINLY NO ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED
WHICH PURPORTED TO REPEAL OR MODIFY THOSE LAWS OR WHICH, BY PROVIDING A
DIFFERENT MEASURE OF A RESTAURANT OWNER'S DUTY, ESTABLISHED A STANDARD
IN CONFLICT WITH THAT PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THE LICENSING AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS OVER
RESTAURANTS HAS BEEN EMPLOYED FOR 75 YEARS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE EQUAL
SERVICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1872 AND 1873 ACTS, THAT NO LICENSES HAVE
BEEN FORFEITED FOR VIOLATIONS OF THOSE ACTS, AND THAT THE LICENSING
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAS BEEN EMPLOYED IN EFFECT TO REPEAL OR
SET ASIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THOSE ACTS.  BUT THOSE REGULATIONS ARE
HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SANITARY MEASURES.  (FN13)  THEY DO NOT PURPORT TO
BE A COMPLETE CODIFICATION OF ORDINANCES REGULATING RESTAURANTS.  THEY
CONTAIN NEITHER A REQUIREMENT THAT NEGROES BE SEGREGATED NOR THAT
NEGROES BE TREATED WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION.  THE CASE THEREFORE APPEARS
TO US NO DIFFERENT THAN ONE WHERE THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT NEGLECTS OR
REFUSES TO ENFORCE A REQUIREMENT LONG PRESCRIBED BY THE LEGISLATURE. 

IT WOULD BE A MORE TROUBLESOME CASE IF THE 1872 AND 1873 ACTS WERE
LICENSING LAWS WHICH THROUGH THE YEARS HAD BEEN MODIFIED AND CHANGED
UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS.  BUT THESE ACTS
DO NOT PROVIDE ANY MACHINERY FOR THE GRANTING AND REVOCATION OF
LICENSES.  THEY ARE REGULATORY LAWS PRESCRIBING IN TERMS OF CIVIL
RIGHTS THE DUTIES OF RESTAURANT OWNERS TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.  UPON
CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING THEIR PROVISIONS, PENALTIES ARE IMPOSED. 
THERE IS A FINE AND IN ADDITION A FORFEITURE OF LICENSE WITHOUT RIGHT
OF RENEWAL FOR A YEAR.  BUT THESE ACTS, UNLIKE THE SANITARY
REQUIREMENTS LAID UPON RESTAURANTS, (FN14) DO NOT PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE.  LIKE THE REGULATION OF WAGES AND HOURS
OF WORK, THE EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS, AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT RESTAURANTS
HAVE FLAMEPROOF DRAPERIES, (FN15) THESE LAWS MERELY REGULATE A LICENSED
BUSINESS.  THEREFORE, THE EXERCISE OF THE LICENSING AUTHORITY OF THE
COMMISSIONERS COULD NOT MODIFY, ALTER, OR REPEAL THESE LAWS.  (FN16)
NOR CAN WE DISCOVER ANY OTHER LEGISLATIVE FORCE WHICH HAS REMOVED THEM
FROM THE EXISTING BODY OF LAW. 

CASES OF HARDSHIP ARE PUT WHERE CRIMINAL LAWS SO LONG IN DISUSE AS TO
BE NO LONGER KNOWN TO EXIST ARE ENFORCED AGAINST INNOCENT PARTIES.  BUT
THAT CONDITION DOES NOT BEAR ON THE CONTINUING VALIDITY OF THE LAW; IT
IS ONLY AN AMELIORATING FACTOR IN ENFORCEMENT. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT THE ACTS OF 1872 AND 1873 SURVIVED THE INTERVENING
CHANGES IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ARE PRESENTLY
ENFORCEABLE.  WE WOULD SPEAK MORE ACCURATELY IF WE SAID THAT THE 1873
ACT SURVIVED.  FOR THERE IS A SUBSIDIARY QUESTION, WHICH WE DO NOT
REACH AND WHICH WILL BE OPEN ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS, WHETHER THE 1872 ACT UNDER WHICH THE FIRST COUNT OF THE
INFORMATION IS LAID WAS REPEALED BY THE 1873 ACT.  ON THAT WE EXPRESS
NO OPINION.   REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 3 OF THIS ACT PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT ANY RESTAURANT KEEPER OR PROPRIETOR, ANY HOTEL KEEPER OR
PROPRIETOR, PROPRIETORS OR KEEPERS OF ICE-CREAM SALOONS OR PLACES WHERE
SODA-WATER IS KEPT FOR SALE, OR KEEPERS OF BARBER SHOPS AND BATHING
HOUSES, REFUSING TO SELL OR WAIT UPON ANY RESPECTABLE WELL-BEHAVED
PERSON, WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF
SERVITUDE, OR ANY RESTAURANT, HOTEL, ICE-CREAM SALOON OR SODA FOUNTAIN,
BARBER SHOP OR BATHING-HOUSE KEEPERS, OR PROPRIETORS, WHO REFUSE UNDER
ANY PRETEXT TO SERVE ANY WELL-BEHAVED, RESPECTABLE PERSON, IN THE SAME
ROOM, AND AT THE SAME PRICES AS OTHER WELL-BEHAVED AND RESPECTABLE
PERSONS ARE SERVED, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON
CONVICTION IN A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION, SHALL BE FINED ONE HUNDRED
DOLLARS, AND SHALL FORFEIT HIS OR HER LICENSE AS KEEPER OR OWNER OF A
RESTAURANT, HOTEL, ICE-CREAM SALOON, OR SODA FOUNTAIN, AS THE CASE MAY
BE, AND IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR THE REGISTER OR ANY OFFICER OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO ISSUE A LICENSE TO ANY PERSON OR PERSONS, OR TO
THEIR AGENT OR AGENTS, WHO SHALL HAVE FORFEITED THEIR LICENSE UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, UNTIL A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR SHALL HAVE ELAPSED
AFTER SUCH FORFEITURE." 

FN2  SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE 1873 ACT PROVIDE FOR THE POSTING OF A
SCHEDULE OF PRICES BY RESTAURANTS AND OTHER EATING OR DRINKING
ESTABLISHMENTS AND FOR THE FILING OF THOSE SCHEDULES WITH THE REGISTER
OF THE DISTRICT.  SECTION 3 PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THAT THE PROPRIETOR OR PROPRIETORS, KEEPER OR KEEPERS, OF ANY
LICENSED RESTAURANT, EATING-HOUSE, BAR-ROOM, SAMPLE-ROOM, ICE-CREAM
SALOON, OR SODA-FOUNTAIN ROOM SHALL SELL AT AND FOR THE USUAL OR COMMON
PRICES CHARGED BY HIM, HER, OR THEM, AS CONTAINED IN SAID PRINTED CARDS
OR PAPERS, ANY ARTICLE OR THING KEPT FOR SALE BY HIM, HER, OR THEM TO
ANY WELL-BEHAVED AND RESPECTABLE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO MAY DESIRE THE
SAME, OR ANY PART OR PARTS THEREOF, AND SERVE THE SAME TO SUCH PERSON
OR PERSONS IN THE SAME ROOM OR ROOMS IN WHICH ANY OTHER WELL-BEHAVED
PERSON OR PERSONS MAY BE SERVED OR ALLOWED TO EAT OR DRINK IN SAID
PLACE OR ESTABLISHMENT." 

THE LICENSE AND A PROHIBITION AGAINST ITS REISSUANCE FOR A PERIOD OF
ONE YEAR AFTER THE FORFEITURE. 

FN3  THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON THE STATES BY ART. I, SEC. 10 OF THE
CONSTITUTION WERE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRICT.  SEC. 18.  THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY WAS DENIED THE POWER TO PASS DESIGNATED "SPECIAL
LAWS" INCLUDING THE GRANTING OF DIVORCES, THE REMISSION OF FINES,
PENALTIES, OR FORFEITURES, CHANGING THE LAW OF DESCENT, CREATING ANY
BANK OF CIRCULATION, OR AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTES FOR
CIRCULATION AS MONEY OR CURRENCY.  SEC. 17. 

FN4 THE TEMPORARY ORGANIC ACT OF JUNE 20, 1874, 18 STAT. 116,
SUBSTITUTED A TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT OF THREE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY
THE PRESIDENT.  THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS PLACED ON A PERMANENT BASIS
BY THE ORGANIC ACT OF JUNE 11, 1878, 20 STAT. 102. 

AN ACCOUNT OF THE "TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT" IS CONTAINED IN PROCTOR,
WASHINGTON PAST AND PRESENT - A HISTORY (1930), VOL. I, PP. 130-141. 

FN5  THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF TERRITORIAL STATUTES
DEALING WITH A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS:  CLINTON V. ENGLEBRECHT, 13 WALL. 
434 (REGULATION OF THE METHODS OF OBTAINING JURY PANELS); SNOW V.
UNITED STATES, 18 WALL.  317 (PROVISION FOR AN ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ELECTED BY THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE, TO REPRESENT THE TERRITORY AND
TO PROSECUTE CRIMES AGAINST ITS LAWS); HORNBUCKLE V. TOOMBS, 18 WALL. 
648 (REGULATION OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN THE COURTS); MAYNARD V. HILL, 125
U.S. 190 (STATUTE GRANTING DIVORCE); COPE V. COPE, 137 U.S. 682
(REGULATION OF INTESTATE SUCCESSION OF PROPERTY); ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R.
CO. V. SOWERS, 213 U.S. 55 (LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES); CHRISTIANSON V. KING COUNTY, 239 U.S. 356 (PROVISION FOR
ESCHEAT). 

FN6  SEE ARIZ. CONST., ART. XIII, SEC. 2; CALIF. CONST., ART. XI,
SEC. 11; COLO. CONST., ART. XX, SEC. 6; MICH. CONST., ART. VIII, SEC.
21; MINN. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 36; MO.  CONST., ART. VI, SEC. 19; NEB.
CONST., ART. XI, SECS. 2-4; NEW YORK CONST., ART. IX, SEC.  12; OHIO
CONST., ART. XVIII, SEC. 3; OKLA. CONST., ART. XVIII, SEC. 3(A); ORE. 
CONST., ART. XI, SEC. 2; TEX. CONST., ART. XI, SEC. 5; WASH. CONST.,
ART. XI, SEC. 10; W.VA. CONST., ART. VI, SEC. 39(A); WIS. CONST., ART.
XI, SEC. 3.  AND SEE FORDHAM AND ASHER, HOME RULE POWERS IN THEORY AND
PRACTICE, 9 OHIO ST. L.J. 18; MCGOLDRICK, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF
MUNICIPAL HOME RULE (1933).    FN7  ALTHOUGH THE COMPILATION OF THESE
STATUTES CARRIES THE NOTATION "APPROVED JUNE 22, 1874," IT APPEARS THAT
THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY APPROVED THE BILL ON JUNE 20, 1874.  SEE HOUSE
JOURNAL, 43D CONGRESS, FIRST SESS., PP. 1286-1287.    FN8  SECTION 2 OF
THAT ACT AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSIONERS "TO MAKE AND ENFORCE ALL SUCH
REASONABLE AND USUAL POLICE REGULATIONS  ...  AS THEY MAY DEEM
NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIVES, LIMBS, HEALTH, COMFORT AND QUIET
OF ALL PERSONS AND THE PROTECTION OF ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA." 

THE EARLIER ACT OF JANUARY 26, 1887, 24 STAT. 368, HAD GIVEN THE
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORITY TO MAKE AND ENFORCE "USUAL AND REASONABLE
POLICE REGULATIONS" OVER SPECIFIED MATTERS. 

FN9  SEE ACT OF MAY 3, 1802, 2 STAT. 195, 197 (EMPOWERING THE CITY OF
WASHINGTON TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF "RETAILERS OF
LIQUORS"); THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 24, 1804, 2 STAT. 254, 255 (AUTHORIZING
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON "TO LICENSE AND REGULATE,
EXCLUSIVELY, HACKNEY COACHES, ORDINARY KEEPERS, RETAILERS AND
FERRIES"); THE ACT OF MAY 15, 1820, 3 STAT. 583, 587 (AUTHORIZING THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WASHINGTON TO PROVIDE "FOR LICENSING, TAXING,
AND REGULATING, AUCTIONS, RETAILERS, ORDINARIES"). 

FN10  SEE SNOWDEN V. SNOWDEN, 1 BLAND (MD.)  550, 556; PEARSON V.
INTERNATIONAL DISTILLERY, 72 IOWA 348, 357, 34 N.W. 1, 5-6. 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH THE TYPE OF PROBLEM PRESENTED BY
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349, 352, WHERE WANT
OF ASSERTION OF POWER WAS DEEMED SIGNIFICANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE
POWER HAD ACTUALLY BEEN CONFERRED.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FACT THAT
THERE HAVE BEEN NO ATTEMPTS OVER THE YEARS TO ENFORCE THE 1872 AND 1873
ACTS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, SINCE
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THOSE ACTS MADE UNLAWFUL THE REFUSAL TO SERVE A
PERSON IN A RESTAURANT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BECAUSE HE WAS A
NEGRO. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN12  SECTION 1636 PROVIDED: 

"ALL ACTS AND PARTS OF ACTS INCLUDED IN THE FOREGOING EXCEPTIONS, OR
ANY OF THEM, SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE SAME ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH OR ARE REPLACED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE." 

MOREOVER, SEC. 1640 PROVIDED, "NOTHING IN THE REPEALING CLAUSE OF
THIS CODE CONTAINED SHALL BE HELD TO AFFECT THE OPERATION OR
ENFORCEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  ...  OF ANY MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE OR REGULATION, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE SAME MAY BE
INCONSISTENT WITH, OR IS REPLACED BY, SOME PROVISION OF THIS CODE." 

FN13  CONGRESS HAS GRANTED TO THE COMMISSIONERS AUTHORITY TO LICENSE
CERTAIN BUSINESSES, INCLUDING RESTAURANTS.  D.C. CODE (1951) SECS. 47
2301, 47-2327.  THE COMMISSIONERS ARE AUTHORIZED TO PROMULGATE
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE ISSUANCE AND REVOCATION OF SUCH LICENSES. 
ID., SEC. 47-2345. 

THE COMMISSIONERS IN THE POLICE REGULATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA (1944) HAVE PROVIDED VARIOUS REGULATIONS OF RESTAURANTS, E.G.,
A REQUIREMENT THAT A CERTIFICATE BE OBTAINED FROM THE HEALTH OFFICER
THAT THE "PREMISES ARE IN PROPER SANITARY CONDITION," ART. XVII, SEC.
19; REGULATION PERTAINING TO GARBAGE DISPOSAL, ART. XXI, SECS. 2, 3; A
REQUIREMENT THAT DRAPERIES AND DECORATIONS IN RESTAURANTS BE FIREPROOF,
ART. XVII, SEC.  2.  THE COMMISSIONERS ON APRIL 1, 1942, PROMULGATED
"REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
RESTAURANTS, DELICATESSENS AND CATERING ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA."  THESE REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED FEBRUARY 23, 1951, IMPOSE
VARIOUS SANITATION REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE STRUCTURES, FIXTURES,
UTENSILS, AND PERSONNEL EMPLOYED IN RESTAURANTS.  THEY PROVIDE FOR
REVOCATION OF LICENSES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS AND
IMPOSE A FINE OF $300 FOR VIOLATIONS. 

CONGRESS HAS ALSO PROVIDED NUMEROUS HEALTH MEASURES TO REGULATE THE
SALE OF FOOD.  SEE D.C. CODE (1951) SEC. 33-101 ET SEQ.; SEC. 22-3416
ET SEQ. RESTAURANTS WHICH SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE REGULATED UNDER
D.C. CODE (1951) SEC. 25-101 ET SEQ. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 13, SUPRA. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 13, SUPRA. 

FN16  THE 1872 AND 1873 ACTS MAKE MANDATORY THE FORFEITURE OF THE
LICENSE TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT ONCE A VIOLATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 
SEE NOTES 1 AND 2, SUPRA.  MORE RECENT LAWS, ENACTED BY CONGRESS, STATE
THE TERMS ON WHICH LICENSES OF VARIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDING
RESTAURANTS MAY BE GRANTED AND REVOKED.  SEE D.C. CODE (1951) SECS. 47
2301, 47-2302, 47-2327, 47-2345.  SEC. 47-2345 GRANTS THE COMMISSIONERS
AUTHORITY TO REVOKE A LICENSE "WHEN, IN THEIR JUDGMENT, SUCH IS DEEMED
DESIRABLE IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC DECENCY OR THE PROTECTION OF LIVES,
LIMBS, HEALTH, COMFORT, AND QUIET OF THE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON THEY MAY DEEM SUFFICIENT."  SPECIAL
PROVISIONS ARE ALSO INCLUDED FOR THE LICENSING OF PERSONS SELLING
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND FOR THE REVOCATION OF THOSE LICENSES.  D.C.
CODE (1951) SECS. 25-111, 25-115, 25-118.  WHETHER THE PROVISIONS FOR
FORFEITURE OF LICENSES CONTAINED IN THE 1872 AND 1873 ACTS HAVE BEEN
MODIFIED OR SUPERSEDED BY THE LICENSING PROVISIONS OF THOSE LAWS IS A
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT QUESTION ON WHICH WE INTIMATE NO OPINION.  EVEN
IF IT WERE HELD THAT THE BASIS FOR REVOCATION OF A RESTAURANT OWNER'S
LICENSE AND THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THAT REVOCATION IS EFFECTED ARE
GOVERNED BY THE LATER LAWS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NEW LICENSING LAWS
LEAVE UNAFFECTED THE MANDATE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON RACIAL GROUNDS
AND THE PROVISION FOR A FINE OF $100 CONTAINED IN THE 1872 AND 1873
ACTS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. RALSTON PURINA CO. 346 U.S. 119 


NO. 512.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1953 - 200 F.2D 85,
REVERSED. 


WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES
ACT OF 1933, A CORPORATION OFFERED SHARES OF ITS STOCK TO A NUMBER OF
ITS "KEY EMPLOYEES."  THESE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD ACCESS
TO THE KIND OF INFORMATION WHICH REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT WOULD
DISCLOSE.  HELD: THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT EXEMPTED UNDER SEC. 4(1)
OF THE ACT AS TRANSACTIONS "NOT INVOLVING ANY PUBLIC OFFERING."  PP.
120-127. 

(A)  A TRANSACTION "NOT INVOLVING ANY PUBLIC OFFERING," WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 4(1), IS ONE WITH PERSONS WHO DO NOT NEED THE
PROTECTION OF THE ACT.  PP. 124-125. 

(B)  THE NUMBER OF OFFEREES INVOLVED IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF WHETHER
AN OFFERING IS "PUBLIC" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 4(1).  P. 125. 

(C)  THE SEC. 4(1) EXEMPTION DOES NOT DEPRIVE CORPORATE EMPLOYEES, AS
A CLASS, OF THE SAFEGUARDS OF THE ACT.  PP. 125-126. 

(D)  IN VIEW OF THE BROADLY REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF THE ACT, IT IS
REASONABLE TO PLACE ON AN ISSUER WHO PLEADS THE SEC. 4(1) EXEMPTION THE
BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE PURCHASERS HAD ACCESS TO THE KIND OF
INFORMATION WHICH REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT WOULD DISCLOSE.  PP. 126
127. 

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. RALSTON PURINA CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

ON A COMPLAINT BROUGHT BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
UNDER SEC. 20(B) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SEEKING TO ENJOIN
RESPONDENT'S UNREGISTERED OFFERINGS OF ITS STOCK TO ITS EMPLOYEES, THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD THE EXEMPTION OF SEC. 4(1) APPLICABLE AND DISMISSED
THE SUIT.  102 F. SUPP. 964.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  200 F.2D
85.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 903.  REVERSED, P. 127. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN ISSUER NOT INVOLVING ANY PUBLIC OFFERING" (FN1) FROM THE
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 5.  (FN2)  WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER
RALSTON PURINA'S OFFERINGS OF TREASURY STOCK TO ITS "KEY EMPLOYEES" ARE
WITHIN THIS EXEMPTION.  ON A COMPLAINT BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION UNDER
SEC. 20(B) OF THE ACT SEEKING TO ENJOIN RESPONDENT'S UNREGISTERED
OFFERINGS, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE EXEMPTION APPLICABLE AND
DISMISSED THE SUIT.  (FN3)  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  (FN4)  THE
QUESTION HAS ARISEN MANY TIMES SINCE THE ACT WAS PASSED; AN APPARENT
NEED TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE PRIVATE OFFERING EXEMPTION PROMPTED
CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 903. 

RALSTON PURINA MANUFACTURES AND DISTRIBUTES VARIOUS FEED AND CEREAL
PRODUCTS.  ITS PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ARE SCATTERED
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, STAFFED BY SOME 7,000
EMPLOYEES.  AT LEAST SINCE 1911 THE COMPANY HAS HAD A POLICY OF
ENCOURAGING STOCK OWNERSHIP AMONG ITS EMPLOYEES; MORE PARTICULARLY,
SINCE 1942 IT HAS MADE AUTHORIZED BUT UNISSUED COMMON SHARES AVAILABLE
TO SOME OF THEM.  BETWEEN 1947 AND 1951, THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE
RECORD IN THIS CASE, RALSTON PURINA SOLD NEARLY $2,000,000 OF STOCK TO
EMPLOYEES WITHOUT REGISTRATION AND IN SO DOING MADE USE OF THE MAILS. 

IN EACH OF THESE YEARS, A CORPORATE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED THE SALE OF
COMMON STOCK "TO EMPLOYEES ...  WHO SHALL, WITHOUT ANY SOLICITATION BY
THE COMPANY OR ITS OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES, INQUIRE OF ANY OF THEM AS TO
HOW TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK OF RALSTON PURINA COMPANY."  A MEMORANDUM
SENT TO BRANCH AND STORE MANAGERS AFTER THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED
ADVISED THAT "THE ONLY EMPLOYEES TO WHOM THIS STOCK WILL BE AVAILABLE
WILL BE THOSE WHO TAKE THE INITIATIVE AND ARE INTERESTED IN BUYING
STOCK AT PRESENT MARKET PRICES."  AMONG THOSE RESPONDING TO THESE
OFFERS WERE EMPLOYEES WITH THE DUTIES OF ARTIST, BAKESHOP FOREMAN, CHOW
LOADING FOREMAN, CLERICAL ASSISTANT, COPYWRITER, ELECTRICIAN, STOCK
CLERK, MILL OFFICE CLERK, ORDER CREDIT TRAINEE, PRODUCTION TRAINEE,
STENOGRAPHER, AND VETERINARIAN.  THE BUYERS LIVED IN OVER FIFTY WIDELY
SEPARATED COMMUNITIES SCATTERED FROM GARLAND, TEXAS, TO NASHUA, NEW
HAMPSHIRE, AND VISALIA, CALIFORNIA.  THE LOWEST SALARY BRACKET OF THOSE
PURCHASING WAS $2,700 IN 1949, $2,435 IN 1950 AND $3,107 IN 1951.  THE
RECORD SHOWS THAT IN 1947, 243 EMPLOYEES BOUGHT STOCK, 20 IN 1948, 414
IN 1949, 411 IN 1950, AND THE 1951 OFFER, INTERRUPTED BY THIS
LITIGATION, PRODUCED 165 APPLICATIONS TO PURCHASE.  NO RECORDS WERE
KEPT OF THOSE TO WHOM THE OFFERS WERE MADE; THE ESTIMATED NUMBER IN
1951 WAS 500. 

THE COMPANY BOTTOMS ITS EXEMPTION CLAIM ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF ALL
OFFEREES AS "KEY EMPLOYEES" IN ITS ORGANIZATION.  ITS POSITION ON TRIAL
WAS THAT "A KEY EMPLOYEE  ...  IS NOT CONFINED TO AN ORGANIZATION
CHART.  IT WOULD INCLUDE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR PROMOTION,
AN INDIVIDUAL WHO ESPECIALLY INFLUENCES OTHERS OR WHO ADVISES OTHERS, A
PERSON WHOM THE EMPLOYEES LOOK TO IN SOME SPECIAL WAY, AN INDIVIDUAL,
OF COURSE, WHO CARRIES SOME SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY, WHO IS SYMPATHETIC
TO MANAGEMENT AND WHO IS AMBITIOUS AND WHO THE MANAGEMENT FEELS IS
LIKELY TO BE PROMOTED TO A GREATER RESPONSIBILITY."  THAT AN OFFERING
TO ALL OF ITS EMPLOYEES WOULD BE PUBLIC IS CONCEDED. 

THE SECURITIES ACT NOWHERE DEFINES THE SCOPE OF SEC. 4(1)'S PRIVATE
OFFERING EXEMPTION.  NOR IS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF MUCH HELP IN
STAKING OUT ITS BOUNDARIES.  THE PROBLEM WAS FIRST DEALT WITH IN SEC.
4(1) OF THE HOUSE BILL, H.R. 5480, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., WHICH EXEMPTED
"TRANSACTIONS BY AN ISSUER NOT WITH OR THROUGH AN UNDERWRITER; ...  ." 
THE BILL, AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, ADDED "AND NOT INVOLVING
ANY PUBLIC OFFERING."  H.R. REP. NO. 85, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. 1.  THIS
WAS THOUGHT TO BE ONE OF THOSE TRANSACTIONS "WHERE THERE IS NO
PRACTICAL NEED FOR THE BILL'S APPLICATION OR WHERE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS
ARE TOO REMOTE."  ID., AT 5.  (FN5)  THE EXEMPTION AS THUS DELIMITED
BECAME LAW.  (FN6)  IT ASSUMED ITS PRESENT SHAPE WITH THE DELETION OF
"NOT WITH OR THROUGH AN UNDERWRITER" BY SEC. 203(A) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 906, A CHANGE REGARDED AS THE
ELIMINATION OF SUPERFLUOUS LANGUAGE.  H.R. REP. NO. 1838, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS. 41. 

DECISIONS UNDER COMPARABLE EXEMPTIONS IN THE ENGLISH COMPANIES ACTS
AND STATE "BLUE SKY" LAWS, THE STATUTORY ANTECEDENTS OF FEDERAL
SECURITIES LEGISLATION, HAVE MADE ONE THING CLEAR - TO BE PUBLIC AN
OFFER NEED NOT BE OPEN TO THE WHOLE WORLD.  (FN7)  IN SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMM'N V. SUNBEAM GOLD MINES CO., 95 F.2D 699 (C.A. 9TH CIR.
1938), THIS POINT WAS MADE IN DEALING WITH AN OFFERING TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF TWO CORPORATIONS ABOUT TO BE MERGED.  JUDGE DENMAN
OBSERVED THAT: 

"IN ITS BROADEST MEANING THE TERM 'PUBLIC' DISTINGUISHES THE POPULACE
AT LARGE FROM GROUPS OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SEGREGATED
BECAUSE OF SOME COMMON INTEREST OR CHARACTERISTIC.  YET SUCH A
DISTINCTION IS INADEQUATE FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES; MANIFESTLY, AN
OFFERING OF SECURITIES TO ALL RED-HEADED MEN, TO ALL RESIDENTS OF
CHICAGO OR SAN FRANCISCO, TO ALL EXISTING STOCKHOLDERS OF THE GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION OR THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, IS NO
LESS 'PUBLIC', IN EVERY REALISTIC SENSE OF THE WORD, THAN AN
UNRESTRICTED OFFERING TO THE WORLD AT LARGE.  SUCH AN OFFERING, THOUGH
NOT OPEN TO EVERYONE WHO MAY CHOOSE TO APPLY, IS NONE THE LESS 'PUBLIC'
IN CHARACTER, FOR THE MEANS USED TO SELECT THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS
TO WHOM THE OFFERING IS TO BE MADE BEAR NO SENSIBLE RELATION TO THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE SELECTION IS MADE  ...  .  TO DETERMINE THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'PUBLIC' AND 'PRIVATE' IN ANY PARTICULAR CONTEXT,
IT IS ESSENTIAL TO EXAMINE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE
DISTINCTION IS SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED AND TO CONSIDER THE PURPOSES
SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY SUCH DISTINCTION."  95 F.2D, AT 701. 

THE COURTS BELOW PURPORTED TO APPLY THIS TEST.  THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SUNBEAM DECISION, THAT "THE PURPOSE OF THE
SELECTION BEARS A 'SENSIBLE RELATION' TO THE CLASS CHOSEN," FINDING
THAT "THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE 'SELECTION' IS TO KEEP PART STOCK
OWNERSHIP OF THE BUSINESS WITHIN THE OPERATING PERSONNEL OF THE
BUSINESS AND TO SPREAD OWNERSHIP THROUGHOUT ALL DEPARTMENTS AND
ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS."  (FN8)  THE COURT OF APPEALS TREATED THE
CASE AS INVOLVING "AN OFFERING, WITHOUT SOLICITATION, OF COMMON STOCK
TO A SELECTED GROUP OF KEY EMPLOYEES OF THE ISSUER, MOST OF WHOM ARE
ALREADY STOCKHOLDERS WHEN THE OFFERING IS MADE, WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF ENABLING THEM TO SECURE A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE COMPANY OR TO
INCREASE THE INTEREST ALREADY HELD BY THEM."  (FN9) 

EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT IS
THE QUESTION.  THE DESIGN OF THE STATUTE IS TO PROTECT INVESTORS BY
PROMOTING FULL DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION THOUGHT NECESSARY TO INFORMED
INVESTMENT DECISIONS.  (FN10)  THE NATURAL WAY TO INTERPRET THE PRIVATE
OFFERING EXEMPTION IS IN LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY PURPOSE.  SINCE EXEMPT
TRANSACTIONS ARE THOSE AS TO WHICH "THERE IS NO PRACTICAL NEED FOR THE
BILL'S APPLICATION," THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 4(1) SHOULD TURN ON
WHETHER THE PARTICULAR CLASS OF PERSONS AFFECTED NEEDS THE PROTECTION
OF THE ACT.  AN OFFERING TO THOSE WHO ARE SHOWN TO BE ABLE TO FEND FOR
THEMSELVES IS A TRANSACTION "NOT INVOLVING ANY PUBLIC OFFERING." 

THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE US GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND HOLD THAT "AN
OFFERING TO A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE PUBLIC" IS NOT EXEMPT UNDER
SEC. 4(1).  WE ARE ADVISED THAT "WHATEVER THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES,
THE COMMISSION HAS CONSISTENTLY INTERPRETED THE EXEMPTION AS BEING
INAPPLICABLE WHEN A LARGE NUMBER OF OFFEREES IS INVOLVED."  BUT THE
STATUTE WOULD SEEM TO APPLY TO A "PUBLIC OFFERING" WHETHER TO FEW OR
MANY.  (FN11)  IT MAY WELL BE THAT OFFERINGS TO A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF
PERSONS WOULD RARELY BE EXEMPT.  INDEED NOTHING PREVENTS THE
COMMISSION, IN ENFORCING THE STATUTE, FROM USING SOME KIND OF NUMERICAL
TEST IN DECIDING WHEN TO INVESTIGATE PARTICULAR EXEMPTION CLAIMS.  BUT
THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR SUPERIMPOSING A QUANTITY LIMIT ON PRIVATE
OFFERINGS AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. 

THE EXEMPTION, AS WE CONSTRUE IT, DOES NOT DEPRIVE CORPORATE
EMPLOYEES, AS A CLASS, OF THE SAFEGUARDS OF THE ACT.  WE AGREE THAT
SOME EMPLOYEE OFFERINGS MAY COME WITHIN SEC. 4(1), E.G., ONE MADE TO
EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL WHO BECAUSE OF THEIR POSITION HAVE ACCESS TO THE
SAME KIND OF INFORMATION THAT THE ACT WOULD MAKE AVAILABLE IN THE FORM
OF A REGISTRATION STATEMENT.  (FN12) ABSENT SUCH A SHOWING OF SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, EMPLOYEES ARE JUST AS MUCH MEMBERS OF THE INVESTING
"PUBLIC" AS ANY OF THEIR NEIGHBORS IN THE COMMUNITY.  ALTHOUGH WE DO
NOT RELY ON IT, THE REJECTION IN 1934 OF AN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED EMPLOYEE STOCK OFFERINGS SUPPORTS THIS
CONCLUSION.  THE HOUSE MANAGERS, COMMENTING ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT,
SAID THAT "THE PARTICIPANTS IN EMPLOYEES' STOCK-INVESTMENT PLANS MAY BE
IN AS GREAT NEED OF THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY AVAILABILITY OF
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ISSUER FOR WHICH THEY WORK AS ARE MOST OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC."  H.R. REP. NO. 1838, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 41. 
(FN13) 

KEEPING IN MIND THE BROADLY REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF FEDERAL SECURITIES
LEGISLATION, IMPOSITION OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON AN ISSUER WHO WOULD
PLEAD THE EXEMPTION SEEMS TO US FAIR AND REASONABLE.  SCHLEMMER V.
BUFFALO, R.&P.R. CO., 205 U.S. 1, 10 (1907).  AGREEING, THE COURT BELOW
THOUGHT THE BURDEN MET PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE RESPONDENT'S PURPOSE IN
SINGLING OUT ITS KEY EMPLOYEES FOR STOCK OFFERINGS.  BUT ONCE IT IS
SEEN THAT THE EXEMPTION QUESTION TURNS ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
OFFEREES, THE ISSUER'S MOTIVES, LAUDABLE THOUGH THEY MAY BE, FADE INTO
IRRELEVANCE.  THE FOCUS OF INQUIRY SHOULD BE ON THE NEED OF THE
OFFEREES FOR THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY REGISTRATION.  THE EMPLOYEES
HERE WERE NOT SHOWN TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE KIND OF INFORMATION WHICH
REGISTRATION WOULD DISCLOSE.  THE OBVIOUS OPPORTUNITIES FOR PRESSURE
AND IMPOSITION MAKE IT ADVISABLE THAT THEY BE ENTITLED TO COMPLIANCE
WITH SEC. 5.  REVERSED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 77, AS AMENDED, 48 STAT. 906, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77D. 

FN2  "SEC.  5.  (A)  UNLESS A REGISTRATION STATEMENT IS IN EFFECT AS
TO A SECURITY, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY: 

"(1)  TO MAKE USE OF ANY MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION OR
COMMUNICATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR OF THE MAILS TO SELL OR OFFER
TO BUY SUCH SECURITY THROUGH THE USE OR MEDIUM OF ANY PROSPECTUS OR
OTHERWISE; OR: 

"(2) TO CARRY OR CAUSE TO BE CARRIED THROUGH THE MAILS OR IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BY ANY MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, ANY
SUCH SECURITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OR FOR DELIVERY AFTER SALE ...
."  48 STAT. 77, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77E. 

FN3  102 F. SUPP. 964 (D.C.E.D. MO. 1952). 

FN4  200 F.2D 85 (C.A. 8TH CIR. 1952). 

FN5  "  ...  THE BILL DOES NOT AFFECT TRANSACTIONS BEYOND THE NEED OF
PUBLIC PROTECTION IN ORDER TO PREVENT RECURRENCES OF DEMONSTRATED
ABUSES."  ID., AT 7.  IN A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT TENOR, THE REPORT SPOKE
OF THIS AS AN EXEMPTION OF "TRANSACTIONS BY AN ISSUER UNLESS MADE BY OR
THROUGH AN UNDERWRITER SO AS TO PERMIT AN ISSUER TO MAKE A SPECIFIC OR
AN ISOLATED SALE OF ITS SECURITIES TO A PARTICULAR PERSON, BUT
INSISTING THAT IF A SALE OF THE ISSUER'S SECURITIES SHOULD BE MADE
GENERALLY TO THE PUBLIC THAT THAT TRANSACTION SHALL COME WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE ACT."  ID., AT 15, 16. 

FN6  THE ONLY SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE WAS AN OBLIQUE ONE IN THE
STATEMENT OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT:  "SALES OF
STOCK TO STOCKHOLDERS BECOME SUBJECT TO THE ACT UNLESS THE STOCKHOLDERS
ARE SO SMALL IN NUMBER THAT THE SALE TO THEM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A
PUBLIC OFFERING."  H.R. REP. NO. 152, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. 25. 

FN7  NASH V. LYNDE, (1929) A.C. 158; IN RE SOUTH OF ENGLAND NATURAL
GAS AND PETROLEUM CO., LTD., (1911) 1 CH. 573; CF. SHERWELL V. COMBINED
INCANDESCENT MANTLES SYNDICATE, LTD., 23 T.L.R. 482 (1907).  SEE 80
SOL.  J. 785 (1936). 

PEOPLE V. MONTAGUE, 280 MICH. 610, 274 N.W. 347 (1937); IN RE LEACH,
215 CAL. 536, 12 P.2D 3 (1932); MARY PICKFORD CO. V. BAYLY BROS., 68
P.2D 239 (1937), MODIFIED, 12 CAL. 2D 501, 86 P.2D 102 (1939). 

FN8  102 F. SUPP., AT 968, 969. 

FN9  200 F.2D, AT 91.    FN10  A.C. FROST & CO. V. COEUR D'ALENE
MINES CORP., 312 U.S. 38, 40 (1941).  THE WORDS OF THE PREAMBLE ARE
HELPFUL:  "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FULL AND FAIR DISCLOSURE OF THE CHARACTER
OF SECURITIES SOLD IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE AND THROUGH THE
MAILS, AND TO PREVENT FRAUDS IN THE SALE THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES."  48 STAT. 74. 

FN11  SEE VISCOUNT SUMNER'S FREQUENTLY QUOTED DICTUM IN NASH V.
LYNDE:  "'THE PUBLIC'  ...  IS OF COURSE A GENERAL WORD.  NO PARTICULAR
NUMBERS ARE PRESCRIBED.  ANYTHING FROM TWO TO INFINITY MAY SERVE:
PERHAPS EVEN ONE, IF HE IS INTENDED TO BE THE FIRST OF A SERIES OF
SUBSCRIBERS, BUT MAKES FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NEEDLESS BY HIMSELF
SUBSCRIBING THE WHOLE."  (1929) A.C. 158, 169.    FN12  THIS WAS ONE OF
THE FACTORS STRESSED IN AN ADVISORY OPINION RENDERED BY THE
COMMISSION'S GENERAL COUNSEL IN 1935.  "I ALSO REGARD AS SIGNIFICANT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ISSUER AND THE OFFEREES.  THUS, AN
OFFERING TO THE MEMBERS OF A CLASS WHO SHOULD HAVE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF
THE ISSUER IS LESS LIKELY TO BE A PUBLIC OFFERING THAN IS AN OFFERING
TO THE MEMBERS OF A CLASS OF THE SAME SIZE WHO DO NOT HAVE THIS
ADVANTAGE.  THIS FACTOR WOULD BE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN OFFERINGS TO
EMPLOYEES, WHERE A CLASS OF HIGH EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WOULD HAVE A
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE ISSUER WHICH SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEES WOULD
NOT ENJOY."  11 FED. REG. 10952. 

FN13  A STATEMENT ENTITLED TO MORE WEIGHT THAN DIFFERENT VIEWS
EXPRESSED BY ONE OF THE CONFEREES IN SENATE DEBATE.  SEE 78 CONG. REC.
10181, 10182. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO. V. NOTHNAGLE 346 U.S. 128 


NO. 525.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1953 - 139 CONN. 278,
93 A.2D 165, AFFIRMED. 


A PASSENGER BOUGHT FROM A RAILROAD A TICKET FOR A JOURNEY FROM
MERIDEN, CONN., TO FALL RIVER, MASS., VIA NEW HAVEN, CONN.  ON ARRIVING
AT NEW HAVEN, SHE ALIGHTED TO TRANSFER TO ANOTHER TRAIN LEAVING ABOUT
AN HOUR LATER.  AT THE STATION, HER SUITCASE WAS SOLICITED BY A REDCAP
EMPLOYEE OF THE RAILROAD, TO WHOM SHE HANDED IT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
RETURN IT AT THE FALL RIVER TRAIN.  NO BAGGAGE CHECK WAS GIVEN AND NO
MONEY PAID.  THE SUITCASE WAS LOST, AND THE PASSENGER SUED IN A STATE
COURT.  THE RAILROAD COMPANY CLAIMED THAT ITS LIABILITY WAS LIMITED TO
$25 BY A TARIFF FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE
STATE COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR $615, THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE LOST
BAGGAGE.  HELD:  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  PP. 129-136. 

(A)  THE TRANSACTION WAS INCIDENT TO AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY, AND THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT CONTROLS, TO WHATEVER EXTENT ITS PROVISIONS
APPLY.  PP. 130-131. 

(B)  THE SUITCASE IN QUESTION WAS NOT "BAGGAGE CARRIED ON PASSENGER
TRAINS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST EXCEPTION ADDED IN 1916 TO THE
CARMACK AMENDMENT, 39 STAT. 442, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11).  PP. 131-135. 

(C)  NOR DID THE TARIFF FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
CONTROL, SINCE THERE WAS NO "VALUE DECLARED IN WRITING BY THE SHIPPER
OR AGREED UPON IN WRITING," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND EXCEPTION
TO THE CARMACK AMENDMENT.  P. 135. 

(D)  ONLY BY GRANTING ITS CUSTOMERS A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN HIGHER AND LOWER LIABILITY BY PAYING A CORRESPONDINGLY GREATER
OR LESSER CHARGE CAN A CARRIER LAWFULLY LIMIT RECOVERY TO AN AMOUNT
LESS THAN THE ACTUAL LOSS SUSTAINED.  PP. 135-136. 

NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO. V. NOTHNAGLE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT. 

A CONNECTICUT STATE COURT AWARDED RESPONDENT A JUDGMENT AGAINST A
RAILROAD FOR THE LOSS OF A SUITCASE ENTRUSTED TO A REDCAP.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  139 CONN. 278, 93 A.2D 165.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 903.  AFFIRMED, P. 136. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CONCERNS THE EXTENT OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER'S LIABILITY
FOR A PASSENGER'S BAGGAGE LOSS.   ON OCTOBER 5, 1949, MRS. NOTHNAGLE,
RESPONDENT HERE, PURCHASED A RAILWAY TICKET FROM PETITIONER IN MERIDEN,
CONNECTICUT, FOR A JOURNEY TO FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS, VIA NEW HAVEN,
CONNECTICUT.  SHE BOARDED A TRAIN IN MERIDEN AT 11:19 A.M. AND ARRIVED
SHORTLY AFTER 11:30 A.M. IN NEW HAVEN WHERE SHE ALIGHTED FOR TRANSFER
TO ANOTHER TRAIN.  ON THE STATION PLATFORM HER SUITCASE WAS SOLICITED
BY A REDCAP EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER, AND SHE HANDED IT TO HIM WITH
ORDERS TO RETURN IT AT THE FALL RIVER TRAIN DEPARTING AT 12:40 P.M.  NO
BAGGAGE CHECK WAS GIVEN; NO MONEY WAS PAID.  THE SUITCASE VANISHED, AND
RESPONDENT SUED.  AT TRIAL IN THE MERIDEN CITY COURT THE PARTIES
STIPULATED THAT THE BAGGAGE AND CONTENTS ACTUALLY WORTH $615 WERE LOST
DUE TO PETITIONER'S NEGLIGENCE.  PETITIONER INSISTED, HOWEVER, THAT ITS
LIABILITY AS AN INTERSTATE CARRIER WAS GOVERNED BY A TARIFF SCHEDULE
FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH LIMITED A RECOVERY
FOR BAGGAGE LOSS TO $25 UNLESS THE PASSENGER HAD IN WRITING DECLARED A
HIGHER VALUATION. 

THE STATE COURTS GRANTED FULL RECOVERY TO RESPONDENT.  THE TRIAL
COURT FOUND THAT ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT HAD NOT DECLARED A GREATER VALUE,
SHE HAD NEITHER ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF PETITIONER'S ASSERTED RESTRICTION
NOR WAS NOTIFIED OF ITS EXISTENCE BY A LEGEND ON A BAGGAGE RECEIPT OR
POSTED SIGNS.  IN ANY EVENT, THE COURT CONCLUDED, PETITIONER HAD
ACCEPTED THE BAGGAGE ONLY "FOR SAFE-KEEPING AND NOT FOR
TRANSPORTATION," SO THAT THE PARTIES' RIGHTS WERE DETERMINABLE BY
CONNECTICUT PRINCIPLES OF BAILMENTS RATHER THAN ANY RULE OF FEDERAL
LAW.  (FN1)  THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS AFFIRMED, VIEWING
RESPONDENT'S JOURNEY FROM MERIDEN TO FALL RIVER AS NOT "CONTINUOUS,"
AND "SUSPENDED FOR A SUBSTANTIAL TIME IN NEW HAVEN" TO BE RESUMED ONLY
WHEN SHE BOARDED THE FALL RIVER TRAIN.  (FN2)  ACCORDINGLY, THAT COURT
DEEMED THE CASE GOVERNED BY CONNECTICUT LAW UNDER WHICH PETITIONER WAS
HELD LIABLE FOR $615.  (FN3)  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THIS DECISION
IMPAIRS FEDERAL RIGHTS SECURED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI TO EXAMINE THE SCOPE OF THAT STATUTORY PROTECTION. 
345 U.S. 903. 

WE HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS INCIDENT TO AN
INTERSTATE JOURNEY WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
NEITHER CONTINUITY OF INTERSTATE MOVEMENT NOR ISOLATED SEGMENTS OF THE
TRIP CAN BE DECISIVE.  "THE ACTUAL FACTS GOVERN.  FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE
DESTINATION INTENDED BY THE PASSENGER WHEN HE BEGINS HIS JOURNEY AND
KNOWN TO THE CARRIER, DETERMINES THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCE." 
SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 168 (1928).  AND SEE BALTIMORE &
OHIO S.W.R. CO. V. SETTLE, 260 U.S. 166, 171 (1922); GALVESTON,
H.&S.A.R. CO. V. WOODBURY, 254 U.S. 357 (1920).  IN THIS CASE
RESPONDENT UNDERTOOK A JOURNEY FROM CONNECTICUT TO MASSACHUSETTS, WITH
A TEMPORARY STOPOVER FOR TRANSFER ALONG THE WAY.  AND IT GOES
UNCHALLENGED HERE THAT THE REDCAP TO WHOM SHE ENTRUSTED HER BAGGAGE WAS
A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE PERFORMING FUNCTIONS, WHETHER VIEWED AS SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH AN INTERRUPTED THROUGH TRIP FROM MERIDEN TO FALL RIVER
OR WITH THE SECOND UNQUESTIONABLY INTERSTATE LEG OF RESPONDENT'S
JOURNEY, INCIDENT TO INTERSTATE TRAVEL AND REACHED BY THE TERMS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  CF. WILLIAMS V. JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL CO.,
315 U.S. 386, 394, 397 (1942); STOPHER V. CINCINNATI UNION TERMINAL
CO., 246 I.C.C. 41 (1941).  (FN4)  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
THEREFORE, MUST CONTROL TO WHATEVER EXTENT ITS PROVISIONS APPLY. 

WITH THE ENACTMENT IN 1906 OF THE CARMACK AMENDMENT, CONGRESS
SUPERSEDED DIVERSE STATE LAWS WITH A NATIONALLY UNIFORM POLICY
GOVERNING INTERSTATE CARRIERS' LIABILITY FOR PROPERTY LOSS.  E.G.,
ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. CRONINGER, 226 U.S. 491, 504-505 (1913); KANSAS
CITY S.R. CO. V. CARL, 227 U.S. 639, 648-649 (1913).  INSOFAR AS NOW
PERTINENT THAT ENACTMENT PROVIDED THAT ANY INTERSTATE RAILROAD
"RECEIVING PROPERTY FOR TRANSPORTATION  ...  SHALL ISSUE A RECEIPT OR
BILL OF LADING THEREFOR AND SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE LAWFUL HOLDER
THEREOF FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE, OR INJURY TO SUCH PROPERTY CAUSED BY IT
...  , AND NO CONTRACT, RECEIPT, RULE, OR REGULATION SHALL EXEMPT SUCH
...  RAILROAD  ... FROM THE LIABILITY HEREBY IMPOSED."  (FN5)  IN 1915
CONGRESS FORTIFIED THE CARMACK AMENDMENT BY ADDING, IN PART, THAT "ANY
SUCH LIMITATION, WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE MANNER OR FORM IN WHICH IT IS
SOUGHT TO BE MADE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL AND VOID."  (FN6)
ONE YEAR LATER, HOWEVER, A PROVISO QUALIFIED THAT PROHIBITION BY
RENDERING IT INAPPLICABLE "FIRST, TO BAGGAGE CARRIED ON PASSENGER
TRAINS  ...  , OR TRAINS  ...  CARRYING PASSENGERS; SECOND, TO PROPERTY
...  RECEIVED FOR TRANSPORTATION CONCERNING WHICH THE CARRIER SHALL
HAVE BEEN OR SHALL HEREAFTER BE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED OR REQUIRED BY
ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN
RATES DEPENDENT UPON THE VALUE DECLARED IN WRITING BY THE SHIPPER OR
AGREED UPON IN WRITING AS THE RELEASED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, IN WHICH
CASE SUCH DECLARATION OR AGREEMENT SHALL HAVE NO OTHER EFFECT THAN TO
LIMIT LIABILITY AND RECOVERY TO AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING THE VALUE SO
DECLARED OR RELEASED  ...  ."  (FN7) 

WE ASSUME THAT PETITIONER'S TARIFF WAS PROPERLY FILED PURSUANT TO A
LAWFUL AUTHORIZATION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  IN STOPHER
V. CINCINNATI UNION TERMINAL CO., 246 I.C.C. 41, 44-47 (1941), THE
COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD'S REDCAP SERVICES
CONSTITUTED RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION AS DEFINED BY THE ACT, AND DIRECTED
THAT A TARIFF COVERING SERVICE CHARGES BE FILED.  (FN8)  SEE ALSO
DAYTON UNION R. CO. TARIFF FOR REDCAP SERVICE, 256 I.C.C. 289 (1943);
REDCAP SERVICE, CINCINNATI, COLUMBUS, INDIANAPOLIS, 277 I.C.C. 427
(1950).  PETITIONER RAILROAD PARTICIPATED IN FILING NEW ENGLAND JOINT
TARIFF RC NO. 3-N WITH THE COMMISSION.  CF. AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS
CO. V. LINDENBURG, 260 U.S. 584, 588-589 (1923).  IN ADDITION TO
LISTING A SCHEDULE OF CHARGES PER PIECE AND TRUCKLOAD OF BAGGAGE, THAT
TARIFF DECLARES THAT "CARRIERS WILL NOT ACCEPT A GREATER LIABILITY THAN
TWENTY-FIVE (25) DOLLARS PER BAG OR PARCEL  ...  HANDLED BY RED CAPS
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TARIFF, UNLESS A GREATER VALUE IS DECLARED
IN WRITING BY THE PASSENGER.  IF A GREATER VALUE IS SO DECLARED IN
WRITING BY THE PASSENGER, AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF TEN (10) CENTS PER
BAG OR PARCEL WILL BE MADE FOR EACH ONE HUNDRED (100) DOLLARS OR
FRACTION THEREOF ABOVE TWENTY-FIVE (25) DOLLARS SO DECLARED.  ANY BAG
OR PARCEL WHICH IS DECLARED BY THE PASSENGER TO HAVE A VALUE IN EXCESS
OF FIVE HUNDRED (500) DOLLARS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR HANDLING BY RED
CAPS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TARIFF." 

CLEARLY THAT LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS VOIDED BY THE ACT UNLESS
SAVED BY THE STATUTORY PROVISO.  ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. DARDEN, 265 U.S.
265 (1924); CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V. MCCAULL-DINSMORE CO., 253
U.S. 97 (1920).  THE EXCEPTED "BAGGAGE CARRIED ON PASSENGER TRAINS"
REFERS SOLELY TO FREE BAGGAGE CHECKED THROUGH ON A PASSENGER FARE. 
SEE, E.G., BOSTON & MAINE R. CO. V. HOOKER, 233 U.S. 97, 117 (1914). 
(FN9)  IT CANNOT APPLY TO REDCAP SERVICE FOR WHICH THE CARRIER EXACTS A
SEPARATE CHARGE BECAUSE THE COST OF PROVIDING THAT FACILITY IS NOT AN
ELEMENT IN THE DETERMINATION OF PASSENGER RATES.  REDCAP SERVICE,
CINCINNATI, COLUMBUS, INDIANAPOLIS, 277 I.C.C. 427, 436 (1950).  (FN10)
THE LIMITATION MUST THEREFORE QUALIFY UNDER THE PROVISO AS PART OF AN
AUTHORIZED SCHEDULE OF RATES GRADUATED ACCORDING TO PROPERTY VALUATIONS
IN WRITING.  PETITIONER'S TARIFF ON ITS FACE DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM THE
STATUTORY STANDARD, AND IT MAY BE READ AS COMPLYING WITH THE LAW.  CF.
AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. LINDENBURG, SUPRA; CINCINNATI,
N.O.&T.P.R. CO. V. RANKIN, 241 U.S. 319, 327 (1916). 

BUT THE FACTS HERE DO NOT BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE STATUTORY
CONDITIONS.  THERE WAS NO "VALUE DECLARED IN WRITING BY THE SHIPPER OR
AGREED UPON IN WRITING"; IN FACT, NOT EVEN A BAGGAGE CHECK RECITING A
LIMITATION PROVISION CHANGED HANDS.  (FN11)  MOREOVER, THE ACTUAL VALUE
OF RESPONDENT'S BAGGAGE EXCEEDED $500; THE TARIFF ITSELF DEEMS SUCH
HIGHLY VALUED PROPERTY UNACCEPTABLE FOR HANDLING BY REDCAPS.  BUT ONLY
BY GRANTING ITS CUSTOMERS A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HIGHER
OR LOWER LIABILITY BY PAYING A CORRESPONDINGLY GREATER OR LESSER CHARGE
CAN A CARRIER LAWFULLY LIMIT RECOVERY TO AN AMOUNT LESS THAN THE ACTUAL
LOSS SUSTAINED.  BOSTON & MAINE R. CO. V. PIPER, 246 U.S. 439, 444-445
(1918); UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. BURKE, 255 U.S. 317, 321-323 (1921);
CF. THE ANSALDO SAN GIORGIO I V. RHEINSTROM BROS. CO., 294 U.S. 494,
497-498 (1935).  BINDING RESPONDENT BY A LIMITATION WHICH SHE HAD NO
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCOVER WOULD EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVE HER OF THE
REQUISITE CHOICE; (FN12) SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WOULD AMOUNT TO A
FORBIDDEN ATTEMPT TO EXONERATE A CARRIER FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS
OWN NEGLIGENT ACTS.  IBID; CF.  WATSON BROS. TRANSP.  CO. V. FEINBERG
CO., 193 F.2D 283, 286 (1951).  "THE GREAT OBJECT OF THE LAW GOVERNING
COMMON CARRIERS WAS TO SECURE THE UTMOST CARE IN THE RENDERING OF A
SERVICE OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY.  A CARRIER WHO
STIPULATES NOT TO BE BOUND TO THE EXERCISE OF CARE AND DILIGENCE 'SEEKS
TO PUT OFF THE ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.'  IT IS RECOGNIZED
THAT THE CARRIER AND THE INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER ARE NOT ON AN EQUAL
FOOTING.  'THE LATTER CANNOT AFFORD TO HIGGLE OR STAND OUT AND SEEK
REDRESS IN THE COURTS.'  "  SANTE FE, P.&P.R. CO. V. GRANT BROS.
CONSTRUCTION CO., 228 U.S. 177, 184-185 (1913).  IN SUM, RESPONDENT
CANNOT BE HELD BOUND BY PETITIONER'S LIMITATION, AND THE JUDGMENT OF
THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  R. 7-9.  THE DECISION OF THE MERIDEN CITY COURT IS NOT
REPORTED. 

FN2  139 CONN. 278, 282, 93 A.2D 165, 167 (1952). 

FN3  139 CONN., AT 283, 93 A.2D, AT 167. 

FN4  NEITHER HERE NOR IN WILLIAMS WAS THE COMMISSION'S RULING IN THE
STOPHER CASE CHALLENGED. 

FN5  34 STAT. 595, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11). 

FN6  38 STAT. 1197, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11).  THE 1915 AMENDMENT WAS
QUALIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING PROVISO:  "PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE
GOODS ARE HIDDEN FROM VIEW BY WRAPPING, BOXING, OR OTHER MEANS, AND THE
CARRIER IS NOT NOTIFIED AS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE GOODS, THE CARRIER
MAY REQUIRE THE SHIPPER TO SPECIFICALLY STATE IN WRITING THE VALUE OF
THE GOODS, AND THE CARRIER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE BEYOND THE AMOUNT SO
SPECIFICALLY STATED, IN WHICH CASE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
MAY ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN RATES FOR TRANSPORTATION, DEPENDENT UPON THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHIPPED AS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN WRITING BY THE
SHIPPER."  THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION WAS THE IMPOSITION OF FULL
LIABILITY ON CARRIERS EXCEPT (1) "WHERE THE PROPERTY SHIPPED IS HIDDEN
FROM VIEW BY WRAPPING, SO THAT THE REPRESENTATION AS TO VALUE MADE BY
THE SHIPPER SHOULD IN ALL CASES BE BINDING UPON HIM"; (2) WHERE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZES RATES BASED UPON VALUE AS
REPRESENTED BY THE SHIPPER, IN WHICH CASE THE CARRIER'S LIABILITY IS
LIMITED TO THE REPRESENTED VALUE.  S. REP. NO. 407, 63D CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 3; H.R. REP. NO. 1341, 63D CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2.  THE
COMMISSION HELD THE FIRST EXCEPTION APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGER BAGGAGE AND RECOGNIZED CARRIERS' RIGHT TO PROMULGATE
PERTINENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS DEPENDENT ON PASSENGERS' DECLARED
VALUATIONS.  IN RE THE CUMMINS AMENDMENT, 33 I.C.C. 682, 696-697
(1915).  IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, CONGRESS IN EFFECT OVERRULED THAT
DETERMINATION.  SEE NOTE 7, INFRA. 

FN7  39 STAT. 442, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11).  THE COMMITTEE REPORT
ACCOMPANYING THE 1916 LEGISLATION OBSERVED IN REFERENCE TO THE 1915
PROVISO:  "THE CONSTRUCTION PUT UPON THE PROVISO BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS RESULTED IN SOME VEXATIOUS REQUIREMENTS
INSISTED UPON BY CARRIERS AND IN SOME INJUSTICE.  FOR INSTANCE, IT HAS
BEEN HELD BY THE COMMISSION THAT UNDER THE PROVISO THE CARRIER MAY
COMPEL THE SHIPPER TO STATE THE VALUE OF THE GOODS TENDERED FOR
SHIPMENT AND THAT IF THE TRUE VALUE IS NOT STATED THE SHIPPER IS LIABLE
TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE ACT TO REGULATE
COMMERCE.  THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION IN THE
INTERPRETATION SO PLACED UPON THE PROVISO, BUT THERE IS NO WAY IN WHICH
TO REMEDY THE MATTER EXCEPT TO MAKE THE INTENT OF CONGRESS SO CLEAR
THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MISUNDERSTAND IT.  FURTHER, THE COMMISSION HAS
HELD THAT BAGGAGE CARRIED ON PASSENGER TRAINS UPON THE TICKET OF A
PASSENGER IS WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE LAW.  WHETHER THIS CONSTRUCTION IS
CORRECT OR INCORRECT, IT IS PALPABLE THAT BAGGAGE SO TRANSPORTED ON A
PASSENGER FARE OUGHT NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE RULE WHICH CONTROLS
ORDINARY FREIGHT, AND IN THE BILL NOW REPORTED IT IS EXCEPTED IN
EXPRESS TERMS."  CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE 1915 PROVISO, THEREFORE, AND
EXPLAINED THE AIM OF THE 1916 LEGISLATION "TO RESTORE THE LAW OF FULL
LIABILITY AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE CARMACK AMENDMENT OF 1906, SO THAT
WHEN PROPERTY IS LOST OR DAMAGED IN THE COURSE OF TRANSPORTATION UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO MAKE THE CARRIER LIABLE RECOVERY IS HAD FOR
FULL VALUE OR ON THE BASIS OF FULL VALUE.  FROM THIS GENERAL RULE THERE
IS EXCEPTED, FIRST, BAGGAGE CARRIED ON PASSENGER TRAINS.  THIS IS DONE
FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.  SECOND, OTHER PROPERTY  ...  , WITH RESPECT TO
WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS FIXED OR AUTHORIZED
AFFIRMATIVELY A RATE DEPENDENT UPON VALUE, EITHER AN AGREED OR A
RELEASED VALUE."  S. REP. NO. 394, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

FN8  SEE 49 U.S.C. SECS. 1(1), 1(3), 1(5)(A), 6(1). 

FN9  CF. 49 U.S.C. SEC. 22, REFERRING TO "FREE BAGGAGE" CARRIED ON
PASSENGER TICKETS.  SEE ALSO NOTES 7, SUPRA, AND 10, INFRA. 

FN10  THAT DISTINCTION HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMISSION. 
NATIONAL BAGGAGE COMMITTEE V. ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO., 32 I.C.C. 152
(1914); IN RE THE CUMMINS AMENDMENT, 33 I.C.C. 682, 696 (1915); ELLISON
WHITE CHAUTAUQUA SYSTEM V. DIRECTOR GENERAL, 68 I.C.C. 492, 495
(1922).  IN FACT, ONLY RECENTLY THE COMMISSION DISALLOWED A PROPOSED
TARIFF OF CHARGES FOR PASSENGER BAGGAGE BECAUSE OF "THE LONG AND
UNIVERSALLY ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF PERMITTING A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF A
PASSENGER'S BAGGAGE, WHETHER IN THE BAGGAGE CAR OR IN HIS PERSONAL
POSSESSION, TO BE CARRIED AS A PART OF THE PASSENGER-FARE CONTRACT, AND
THE APPARENTLY UNIFORM SANCTION OF SUCH A PRACTICE BY THE COURTS AND
THE REGULATORY BODIES."  SERVICE CHARGES FOR CHECKING BAGGAGE, 288
I.C.C. 691, 695 (1953). 

FN11  SEE CATEN V. SALT CITY MOVERS & STORAGE CO., 149 F.2D 428, 432
(1945).  WE NEED NOT NOW CONSIDER WHETHER AN INSCRIBED BAGGAGE RECEIPT
WOULD CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT WRITING TO SATISFY THE STATUTE, COMPARE
AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. LINDENBURG, 260 U.S. 584, 590-591
(1923), OR WHETHER A CARRIER'S REFUSAL TO HANDLE PROPERTY ABOVE A
CERTAIN VALUE IS PERMISSIBLE AT ALL. 

FN12  BOSTON & MAINE R. CO. V. HOOKER, 233 U.S. 97 (1914), AND NEW
YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. BEAHAM, 242 U.S. 148 (1916), CANNOT CONTROL THIS
CASE.  NEITHER DECISION INVOLVED THE ACT AS AMENDED BY THE 1915 AND
1916 LEGISLATION; BOTH DEALT WITH FREE BAGGAGE CHECKED THROUGH ON A
PASSENGER TICKET; THE CARRIER IN BOTH CASES HAD SUPPLIED SOME NOTICE OF
ITS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.  IN GALVESTON, H.&S.A.R. CO. V. WOODBURY,
254 U.S. 357 (1920), THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED OR CONSIDERED RELATED TO THE
INTERSTATE NATURE OF THE PASSENGER'S JOURNEY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :















CENTRAL BANK V. UNITED STATES 345 U.S. 639 


NO. 521.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1953 - 123 CT. CL.
237, 105 F. SUPP. 992, REVERSED. 


PURSUANT TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF 1940, A GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTOR IN 1945 ASSIGNED TO A BANK THE PROCEEDS OF ITS CONTRACT WITH
THE NAVY.  AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT, THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT
PAYMENTS TO THE ASSIGNEE SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO SETOFF FOR ANY
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CONTRACTOR ARISING INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CONTRACT. 
THE CONTRACTOR FAILED TO PAY OVER FEDERAL INCOME AND SOCIAL SECURITY
TAXES WITHHELD BY IT FROM THE WAGES OF ITS EMPLOYEES PERFORMING WORK
UNDER THE CONTRACT.  HELD:  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, THE
CONTRACTOR'S TAX INDEBTEDNESS AROSE "INDEPENDENTLY OF" THE CONTRACT AND
COULD NOT BE SET OFF AGAINST MONEY OWED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON THE
CONTRACT TO THE ASSIGNEE.  PP. 640-647. 

(A)  THE CONTRACTOR'S TAX INDEBTEDNESS WAS IMPOSED BY SECS. 1401 AND
1622 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  IT WAS THUS AN INDEBTEDNESS
"ARISING INDEPENDENTLY OF" THE CONTRACT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF 1940.  PP. 645-646. 

(B)  TO PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO SET OFF THE TAX INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST
THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE
WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF 1940 TO
ENCOURAGE THE PRIVATE FINANCING OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.  PP. 646-647. 

CENTRAL BANK V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS DENIED A CLAIM BY A BANK AS ASSIGNEE OF THE
PROCEEDS OF A NAVY CONTRACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS
ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE CONTRACTOR'S TAX INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THE
AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT.  123 CT. CL. 237, 105 F. SUPP. 992. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 903.  REVERSED, P. 647. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS GRANT OF CERTIORARI REQUIRES US TO CONSTRUE THE PROVISION OF THE
ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1029, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 203,
WHICH PROVIDES: 

"ANY CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT OR THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT MAY PROVIDE THAT PAYMENTS TO AN ASSIGNEE OF ANY CLAIM
ARISING UNDER SUCH CONTRACT SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REDUCTION OR SET
OFF, AND IF IT IS SO PROVIDED IN SUCH CONTRACT, SUCH PAYMENTS SHALL NOT
BE SUBJECT TO REDUCTION OR SET-OFF FOR ANY INDEBTEDNESS OF THE ASSIGNOR
TO THE UNITED STATES ARISING INDEPENDENTLY OF SUCH CONTRACT."  (FN1) 

THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE GRAHAM SHIP REPAIR
COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR SHIP
REPAIR WORK WITH THE NAVY DEPARTMENT ON DECEMBER 30, 1944.  AS
PERMITTED BY THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF 1940, THE CONTRACT
AUTHORIZED THE GRAHAM COMPANY TO ASSIGN THE PROCEEDS OF THE CONTRACT TO
A BANK AND PAYMENTS TO THE ASSIGNEE BANK WERE NOT TO BE "SUBJECT TO
REDUCTION OR SET-OFF FOR ANY INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CONTRACTOR TO THE
GOVERNMENT ARISING INDEPENDENTLY OF THIS CONTRACT." 

AFTER THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN MADE, THE GRAHAM COMPANY ARRANGED WITH
PETITIONER, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION, FOR THE FINANCING OF THE
SHIP REPAIR WORK.  AS SECURITY FOR THE FUNDS TO BE ADVANCED, GRAHAM
ASSIGNED THE PROCEEDS PAYABLE UNDER THE CONTRACT TO PETITIONER.  THIS
ASSIGNMENT WAS MADE ON JANUARY 31, 1945.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER,
BUREAU OF SHIPS, NAVY DEPARTMENT, THE DISBURSING OFFICER AND THE
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WERE DULY NOTIFIED OF THE ASSIGNMENT AS
REQUIRED BY THE ACT. 

PURSUANT TO THE ASSIGNMENT, THE GRAHAM COMPANY RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL
SUMS OF MONEY FROM PETITIONER FOR USE IN PERFORMING THE CONTRACT. 
DURING THE COURSE OF PERFORMANCE GRAHAM FAILED TO REMIT TO THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE $453,469.55 IN WITHHOLDING TAXES, AND
$11,462.91 IN FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES, WHICH IT HAD WITHHELD,
PURSUANT TO SECS. 1401 AND 1622 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, FROM THE
SALARIES AND WAGES OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ENGAGED IN WORK CALLED FOR
BY THE NAVY CONTRACT.  INSTEAD OF REMITTING THESE SUMS TO THE
COLLECTOR, GRAHAM HAD CONVERTED THEM TO ITS OWN USE.  BECAUSE OF THIS
DERELICTION THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED BY THE NAVY ON MARCH 31, 1946,
AND THE INDIVIDUALS OF THE GRAHAM PARTNERSHIP PLEADED GUILTY TO AN
INDICTMENT FOR WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE PAYMENT OF THE WITHHELD
TAXES. 

AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED, GRAHAM'S OBLIGATION TO THE
GOVERNMENT FOR THE UNPAID WITHHOLDING TAXES, WITH INTEREST AND
PENALTIES, AGGREGATED $616,750.95.  AT THAT TIME THE SUM OF $110,966.08
WAS DUE GRAHAM FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR WORK PERFORMED UNDER THE
CONTRACT.  ALSO AT THAT TIME GRAHAM WAS INDEBTED TO PETITIONER IN AN
AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $110,966.08 FOR ADVANCES MADE BY PETITIONER
PURSUANT TO THE ASSIGNMENT. 

PETITIONER, AS ASSIGNEE, FILED A CLAIM FOR THE BALANCE DUE FROM THE
GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CONTRACT.   THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
ALSO CLAIMED THAT AMOUNT.  THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL RULED THAT THE
$110,966.08 WAS A PROPER SET-OFF AGAINST GRAHAM'S TAX INDEBTEDNESS AND
ACCORDINGLY REDUCED SUCH INDEBTEDNESS TO $415,018.17. 

THEREAFTER PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THAT
COURT HELD THAT THE SET-OFF MADE BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL WAS PROPER
BECAUSE THE TAX DEDUCTIONS WITHHELD WERE "NOT ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF
SUCH CONTRACT," CENTRAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 123 CT. CL. 237, 105 F.
SUPP. 992, 994, AND THAT PETITIONER WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO
RECOVER UNDER THE ASSIGNMENT. 

PRIOR TO 1940, AN ASSIGNMENT SUCH AS GRAHAM MADE TO PETITIONER WOULD
HAVE BEEN OF NO EFFECT AS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  UNDER THE ANTI
ASSIGNMENT STATUTES (R.S. SECS. 3477 AND 3737), WHILE THE ASSIGNMENT
MIGHT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN GOOD AS BETWEEN THE ASSIGNOR AND
ASSIGNEE (MARTIN V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 588), IT COULD NOT
OPERATE TO THE DETRIMENT OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  ANY SET-OFF
WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAD AGAINST AN ASSIGNOR WOULD HAVE BEEN
EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE ASSIGNEE. 

THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF 1940, AMENDING THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT
STATUTES, (FN2) VALIDATED THE ASSIGNMENT OF MONEYS DUE OR TO BECOME DUE
UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT CONTRACT IF THE ASSIGNMENT WERE MADE TO A
FINANCING INSTITUTION.  THE ACT AUTHORIZED THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS
TO LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT'S PREVIOUS RIGHTS OF SET-OFF.  SEE R.S. SECS.
3477, 3737, AS AMENDED.  IT PROVIDED, SEE 31 U.S.C. SEC. 203, P. 640,
SUPRA, "THAT PAYMENTS TO AN ASSIGNEE OF ANY CLAIM ARISING UNDER SUCH
CONTRACT SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REDUCTION OR SET-OFF." 

THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF 1940 WAS EVIDENTLY DESIGNED TO ASSIST
IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM THROUGH FACILITATING THE FINANCING OF
DEFENSE CONTRACTS BY LIMITING THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO REDUCE PROPERLY
ASSIGNED PAYMENTS.  (FN3)  BORROWERS WERE NOT TO BE PENALIZED IN
SECURITY BECAUSE ONE CONTRACTING PARTY WAS THE GOVERNMENT.  CONTRACTORS
MIGHT WELL HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES NOT IMPOSED BY THE
CONTRACT FROM WHICH THE PAYMENTS FLOWED, AS FOR EXAMPLE THE
CONTRACTOR'S INCOME TAX FOR PRIOR EARNINGS UNDER THE CONTRACT.  THE
TAXES HERE INVOLVED ARE ANOTHER GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF THE DANGERS TO
LENDERS. 

THE CLAUSE IN QUESTION WHICH PROHIBITS SET-OFFS FOR "ANY INDEBTEDNESS
OF THE ASSIGNOR TO THE UNITED STATES ARISING INDEPENDENTLY OF SUCH
CONTRACT," WAS EMBODIED IN AN AMENDMENT INTRODUCED BY SENATOR BARKLEY
DURING DEBATE ON THE ACT.  (FN4)  IN PROPOSING THE AMENDMENT, THE
SENATOR STATED: 

"MR. PRESIDENT, THE AMENDMENT MERELY PROVIDES THAT WHEN A CONTRACTOR,
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN MONEY SO THAT HE MAY PERFORM HIS CONTRACT WITH THE
GOVERNMENT UNDER THE DEFENSE PROGRAM, ASSIGNS HIS CONTRACT TO A BANK OR
TRUST COMPANY IN ORDER TO GET MONEY WITH WHICH TO PROCEED WITH THE
WORK, IT SHALL NOT BE PERMISSIBLE TO OFFSET AGAINST THE CLAIM OR
CONTRACT LATER AN INDEBTEDNESS WHICH THE CONTRACTOR MAY OWE THE
GOVERNMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SOME OTHER CONTRACT OR SOME OTHER SITUATION
...  ." 

OTHERWISE: 

"  ...  THE GOVERNMENT COULD COME IN AND ASSERT A CLAIM AGAINST THE
CONTRACTOR ON ACCOUNT OF SOMETHING ELSE WHICH HAD NO RELATIONSHIP
WHATEVER TO THE CONTRACT AND THE DEFENSE PROGRAM." 

IN THE DECISION BELOW THE COURT SAID: 

"THE ASSIGNEE KNEW THAT THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO WITHHOLD
AND PAY TAXES TO THE DEFENDANT.  THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR
THE TAXES IN QUESTION AROSE BEFORE THE PARTNERS CONVERTED SUCH TAXES TO
THEIR OWN USE AND SUCH OBLIGATION WAS THEREFORE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CONTRACT. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"IN ORDER TO BE INDEPENDENT, AS WE THINK THAT TERM WAS USED AND
INTENDED BY THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT, THE INDEBTEDNESS MUST ARISE
IRRESPECTIVE OF, EXCLUSIVE OF, AND SEPARATE FROM THE CONTRACT, AND MUST
HAVE NO DIRECT RELATION WITH SUCH CONTRACT."  (FN5) 

TO SUPPORT ITS POSITION, THE WORDS OF UNITED STATES V. MUNSEY TRUST
CO. WERE RELIED UPON: 

"ONE IS NOT COMPELLED TO LESSEN HIS OWN CHANCE OF RECOVERING WHAT IS
DUE HIM BY SETTING UP A FUND UNDIMINISHED BY HIS CLAIM, SO THAT OTHERS
MAY SHARE IT WITH HIM."  332 U.S. 234, 240. 

THE MUNSEY CASE IS INAPPLICABLE.  IT TURNS ON THE ABILITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO REIMBURSE ITSELF AHEAD OF A SURETY FOR SUMS EXPENDED TO
PAY LABORERS OUT OF FUNDS WITHHELD BY THE UNITED STATES FROM THE
SURETY'S PRINCIPAL.  NO PROBLEM OF ASSIGNMENT WAS INVOLVED AND WE HELD
THE GOVERNMENT COULD SET OFF ITS INDEPENDENT CLAIM AGAINST THE SURETY. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT GRAHAM WITHHOLD TAXES FROM THE "PAYMENT OF
WAGES" TO ITS EMPLOYEES AND PAY THE SAME OVER TO THE UNITED STATES DID
NOT ARISE FROM THE CONTRACT.  THE REQUIREMENT IS SQUARELY IMPOSED BY
SECS. 1401 AND 1622 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  (FN6)  WITHOUT A
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT GRAHAM WOULD OWE THE STATUTORY DUTY TO PAY OVER THE
TAXES DUE, JUST AS IT WOULD TO PAY ITS INCOME TAX ON PROFITS EARNED. 
GRAHAM'S EMBEZZLEMENT LAY NEITHER IN EXECUTION NOR IN BREACH OF THE
CONTRACT.  IT AROSE FROM THE CONVERSION OF THE WITHHELD TAXES WHICH
GRAHAM HELD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO SEC. 3661 OF
THE CODE.  (FN7)  ASSIGNOR GRAHAM'S INDEBTEDNESS TO THE UNITED STATES
AROSE, WE THINK, "INDEPENDENTLY" OF THE CONTRACT. 

FINALLY IT IS URGED THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO PROTECT
THE UNITED STATES.  THE SHORT ANSWER TO THIS IS THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED SO AS TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO ENCOURAGE THE
PRIVATE FINANCING OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.  (FN8)  TO GRANT THE
GOVERNMENT ITS SOUGHT-FOR RIGHTS OF SET-OFF UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE, WOULD BE TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  IT WOULD
REQUIRE THE ASSIGNEE TO POLICE THE ASSIGNOR'S ACCOUNTING AND PAYMENT
SYSTEM.  IT WOULD INCREASE THE RISK TO THE ASSIGNEE, THE DIFFICULTY OF
THE ASSIGNOR IN FINANCING THE PERFORMANCE, AND THE ULTIMATE COST TO THE
GOVERNMENT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AMENDED SO AS TO INCLUDE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE BY THE
ACT OF JULY 26, 1947, 61 STAT. 501, 508, 31 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
203. 

FN2  THE ISSUE BEFORE US HAS BEEN PROSPECTIVELY SETTLED FOR OTHERS BY
THE 1951 ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT (65 STAT. 41, 31 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 203).  THAT ACT AMENDED THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF 1940 BY
REPHRASING SUBSECTION 4 SO AS TO BAR BY SPECIFIC WORDS THE UNITED
STATES FROM SETTING OFF "ANY LIABILITY OF THE ASSIGNOR ON ACCOUNT OF
(1) RENEGOTIATION  ...  (2) FINES, (3) PENALTIES ...  , OR (4) TAXES,
SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS, OR THE WITHHOLDING OR NONWITHHOLDING OF
TAXES OR SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS, WHETHER ARISING FROM OR
INDEPENDENTLY OF SUCH CONTRACT. 

"EXCEPT AS HEREIN OTHERWISE PROVIDED, NOTHING IN THIS ACT, AS
AMENDED, SHALL BE DEEMED TO AFFECT OR IMPAIR RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS
HERETOFORE ACCRUED."  65 STAT. 41, 42. 

THIS AMENDMENT WAS CAUSED BY UNEASINESS AMONG LENDERS BECAUSE OF
RULINGS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL: 

"IN AN OPINION DATED MAY 17, 1949, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL HELD THAT,
IN THE EVENT OF A PRICE REVISION UNDER A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT, ANY
AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE CONTRACT PRICE AS SO REVISED MAY EITHER BE
WITHHELD FROM PAYMENT TO THE ASSIGNEE 'OR RECOVERED DIRECTLY FROM THE
ASSIGNEE IF ALREADY PAID.'  GENERALLY, WHEN ANY PAYMENT IS RECEIVED BY
AN ASSIGNEE BANK, IT IS IMMEDIATELY APPLIED TO THE CONTRACTOR'S LOAN,
AND THE EXCESS IS RELEASED TO THE BORROWER.  IN SEVERAL INSTANCES, LONG
AFTER FULL PAYMENT OF A BANK'S LOAN TO A CONTRACTOR, THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL HAS MADE CLAIMS FOR RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS PREVIOUSLY MADE TO THE
BANK ASSIGNEE. 

"IT HAD ALSO BEEN THE UNDERSTANDING OF BANKS THAT THE STATUTE
PROTECTED THEM AGAINST SET-OFF BY THE GOVERNMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY
CLAIMS BY THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR ARISING OUTSIDE OF THE
TERMS OF THE ASSIGNED CONTRACT.  HOWEVER, IN AN OPINION DATED MAY 15,
1950, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL RULED THAT CLAIMS BY THE GOVERNMENT
AGAINST A CONTRACTOR ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID SOCIAL-SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS
AND WITHHELD INCOME TAXES WERE CLAIMS WHICH DID NOT ARISE INDEPENDENTLY
OF THE ASSIGNED CONTRACT."  S. REP. NO. 217, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
2. 

FN3  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY ON
S. 4340, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2 ET SEQ.; 86 CONG. REC. 12803; H.R.
REP. NO. 2925, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2; S. REP. NO. 2136, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2. 

FN4  86 CONG. REC. 12803. 

FN5  CENTRAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 123 CT. CL. 237, 244, 245, 105 F.
SUPP. 992, 994. 

FN6  "SEC.  1400.  RATE OF TAX. 

"IN ADDITION TO OTHER TAXES, THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND
PAID UPON THE INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL A TAX EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING
PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES ...  . 

"SEC. 1401.  DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM WAGES - (A)  REQUIREMENT. 

"THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTION 1400 SHALL BE COLLECTED BY THE EMPLOYER
OF THE TAXPAYER, BY DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX FROM THE WAGES AS
AND WHEN PAID. 

"(B)  INDEMNIFICATION OF EMPLOYER. 

"EVERY EMPLOYER REQUIRED SO TO DEDUCT THE TAX SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX, AND SHALL BE INDEMNIFIED AGAINST THE CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS OF ANY PERSON FOR THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUCH PAYMENT MADE BY SUCH
EMPLOYER. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"SEC. 1622.  INCOME TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE - (A)  REQUIREMENT OF
WITHHOLDING. 

"EVERY EMPLOYER MAKING PAYMENT OF WAGES SHALL DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD
UPON SUCH WAGES A TAX EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE FOLLOWING:  ...  ." 

FN7  "SEC.  3661.  ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY FOR TAXES COLLECTED. 

"WHENEVER ANY PERSON IS REQUIRED TO COLLECT OR WITHHOLD ANY INTERNAL
REVENUE TAX FROM ANY OTHER PERSON AND TO PAY SUCH TAX OVER TO THE
UNITED STATES, THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO COLLECTED OR WITHHELD SHALL BE HELD
TO BE A SPECIAL FUND IN TRUST FOR THE UNITED STATES.  THE AMOUNT OF
SUCH FUND SHALL BE ASSESSED, COLLECTED, AND PAID IN THE SAME MANNER AND
SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS (INCLUDING PENALTIES) AS
ARE APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE TAXES FROM WHICH SUCH FUND AROSE." 
FN8  UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478, 483.  IN THE
GUARANTY TRUST CASE THE UNITED STATES SOUGHT PRIORITY UNDER R.S. SEC.
3466 FOR ITS DEBTS FROM EMBARRASSED RAILROADS.  TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1920, TIT. II, SECS. 207, 209, 210, 41 STAT. 456, 457-469.  ALTHOUGH
THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC WAIVER OF SEC. 3466, SIMILAR TO THE WAIVER OF THE
RIGHT OF SET-OFF OR REDUCTION HERE CLAIMED, THIS COURT HELD:    "TO
HAVE GIVEN PRIORITY TO DEBTS DUE THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO TITLE
II, WOULD HAVE DEFEATED THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  IT NOT ONLY WOULD
HAVE PREVENTED THE REESTABLISHMENT OF RAILROAD CREDIT AMONG BANKERS AND
INVESTORS, BUT IT WOULD EVEN HAVE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED THE MARKET VALUE
OF OUTSTANDING RAILROAD SECURITIES.  IT WOULD HAVE DEPRIVED THE
CARRIERS OF THE CREDIT COMMONLY ENJOYED FROM SUPPLYMEN AND OTHERS;
WOULD HAVE SERIOUSLY EMBARRASSED THE CARRIERS IN THEIR DAILY
OPERATIONS; AND WOULD HAVE MADE NECESSARY A GREAT ENLARGEMENT OF THEIR
WORKING CAPITAL.  THE PROVISION FOR LOANS UNDER SEC. 210 WOULD HAVE
BEEN FRUSTRATED.  FOR, CARRIERS COULD ILL AFFORD VOLUNTARILY TO
CONTRACT NEW DEBTS THEREUNDER WHICH WOULD DISPLACE, PRO TANTO, THEIR
EXISTING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.  THE ENTIRE SPIRIT OF THE ACT MAKES CLEAR
THE PURPOSE THAT THE RULE LEADING TO SUCH CONSEQUENCES SHOULD NOT BE
APPLIED."  280 U.S., AT 485. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




















LEVINSON V. DEUPREE 345 U.S. 648 


NO. 439.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5-6, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1953 - 199 F.2D
760, AFFIRMED. 


A NEW YORK GIRL WAS KILLED IN A COLLISION BETWEEN TWO MOTORBOATS ON
THE OHIO RIVER IN KENTUCKY.  RESPONDENT OBTAINED A DEFECTIVE
APPOINTMENT AS ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR OF HER ESTATE AND FILED A TIMELY
LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN KENTUCKY AGAINST THE
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF THE MOTORBOATS FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE KENTUCKY
WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE, WHICH PRESCRIBED A ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  RESPONDENT LATER OBTAINED AN UNDOUBTEDLY VALID
APPOINTMENT AND, MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE DEATH, MOVED TO AMEND HIS
LIBEL TO ALLEGE HIS NEW APPOINTMENT.  THIS WAS NOT PERMITTED UNDER
KENTUCKY LAW, BECAUSE A NEW SUIT WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED BY THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS.  HELD:  THE SUIT BEING IN ADMIRALTY, FEDERAL PRACTICE
CONTROLS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR, HOLDING AN EFFECTIVE APPOINTMENT UNDER
KENTUCKY LAW, SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO AMEND HIS LIBEL SO AS TO ALLEGE
THAT APPOINTMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
WOULD BAR A NEW SUIT.  PP. 649-652. 

LEVINSON ET AL. V. DEUPREE, ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN ADMINISTRATOR'S LIBEL TO
RECOVER FOR A WRONGFUL DEATH OCCURRING ON A NAVIGABLE RIVER.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  186 F.2D 297.  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI.  341
U.S. 915.  ON REMAND, THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDED A DECREE TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  199 F.2D 760.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 903.  AFFIRMED, P. 652. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

KATHERINE WING OF NEW YORK WAS KILLED IN A COLLISION BETWEEN TWO
MOTORBOATS ON THE OHIO RIVER WITHIN CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY, ON JUNE
19, 1948.  ON DECEMBER 7, 1948, DEUPREE WAS APPOINTED ANCILLARY
ADMINISTRATOR OF KATHERINE WING'S ESTATE BY THE COUNTY COURT OF KENTON
COUNTY, KENTUCKY, AND ON THE SAME DAY HE FILED IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY A LIBEL SEEKING TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FOR HER DEATH FROM PETITIONERS LEVINSON AND HALL, THE
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF THE BOATS WHICH HAD COLLIDED.  THE LIBEL
ALLEGED DEUPREE'S APPOINTMENT AS ADMINISTRATOR.  ON MARCH 3, 1949,
PETITIONERS ANSWERED WITH A GENERAL DENIAL.  ON JULY 7, 1949,
PETITIONERS HAVING MOVED FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
PROVIDE SECURITY FOR COSTS, DEUPREE FILED AN "AFFIDAVIT FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN FORMA PAUPERIS."  THIS AFFIDAVIT STATED THAT "DECEDENT WAS
POSSESSED OF NO ESTATE OUT OF WHICH COSTS OR EXPENSES HEREIN CAN BE
PAID OR FROM WHICH SECURITY THEREFOR CAN BE GIVEN."  ON THE SAME DAY
PETITIONERS FILED A SPECIAL DEMURRER PUTTING IN ISSUE DEUPREE'S
CAPACITY TO SUE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR
IN A COUNTY WHERE THERE IS NO ESTATE IS VOID.  JEWEL TEA CO. V.
WALKER'S ADMINISTRATOR, 290 KY. 328, 331, 161 S.W.2D 66, 68.  DEUPREE
THEREUPON OBTAINED ANOTHER APPOINTMENT AS ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR, THIS
TIME FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY, WHERE THE CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH, ITSELF AN ESTATE, HAD ITS LOCUS.  ON JULY
29, 1949, DEUPREE FILED A MOTION TO AMEND HIS LIBEL BY ALLEGING THIS
NEW APPOINTMENT.  TO THE AMENDED LIBEL, PETITIONERS, ON SEPTEMBER 9,
1949, ENTERED A GENERAL DEMURRER. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED BOTH THE GENERAL AND SPECIAL DEMURRERS. 
IT HELD THAT THE KENTON COUNTY APPOINTMENT OF DEUPREE AS ADMINISTRATOR
WAS VOID AND THAT THE AMENDED LIBEL ALLEGING THE CAMPBELL COUNTY
APPOINTMENT "CANNOT RELATE BACK TO THE INCEPTION OF THE LIBEL
PROCEEDING."  THE CLAIM AS SET OUT IN THE AMENDED LIBEL, THE COURT
HELD, WAS THEREFORE BARRED BY THE KENTUCKY ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, AND THE LIBEL HAD TO BE DISMISSED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AGREED THAT UNDER KENTUCKY LAW THE KENTON COUNTY
APPOINTMENT WAS DEFECTIVE, ALTHOUGH IT HELD THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A
CAUSE OF ACTION ALONE IS SUFFICIENT, IN KENTUCKY, TO SUPPORT THE
APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR, AND HENCE THAT THE CAMPBELL COUNTY
APPOINTMENT WAS VALID.  THE COURT AGREED ALSO THAT UNDER THE KENTUCKY
LAW THE AMENDED LIBEL WAS BARRED.  BUT, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, AS
TO THIS MATTER, KENTUCKY LAW WAS NOT CONTROLLING.  AND IT REVERSED AND
REMANDED FOR TRIAL.  186 F.2D 297.  WE DENIED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
TO REVIEW THIS JUDGMENT, 341 U.S. 915, BUT, AFTER A DECREE HAD BEEN
AWARDED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD AFFIRMED, 199
F.2D 760, WE GRANTED THE PRESENT PETITION.  344 U.S. 903.  ALTHOUGH THE
ISSUE, EMBEDDED AS IT IS IN PECULIARITIES OF KENTUCKY LAW, IS NOW SEEN
TO BE A NARROW ONE, IT APPEARED TO US AT FIRST THAT THERE WAS INVOLVED
A BROADER AND MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE BINDING FORCE OF LOCAL LAW
IN FEDERAL ADMIRALTY COURTS ADMINISTERING REMEDIES CREATED BY THAT
LAW. 

THE MARITIME LAW DOES NOT ALLOW RECOVERY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH.  THE
HARRISBURG, 119 U.S. 199; BUTLER V. BOSTON & SAVANNAH STEAMSHIP CO.,
130 U.S. 527, 555.  IN 1920, CONGRESS ADOPTED A LORD CAMPBELL'S ACT
RESTRICTED TO DEATHS ON THE HIGH SEAS, 41 STAT. 537 ET SEQ., 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 761 ET SEQ. IN FURTHER ALLEVIATION OF THE MARITIME LAW, WE HAVE
HELD THAT "WHERE DEATH  ...  RESULTS FROM A MARITIME TORT COMMITTED ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN A STATE WHOSE STATUTES GIVE A RIGHT OF ACTION
ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT, THE ADMIRALTY COURTS WILL
ENTERTAIN A LIBEL IN PERSONAM FOR THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THOSE TO
WHOM SUCH RIGHT IS GIVEN."  WESTERN FUEL CO. V. GARCIA, 257 U.S. 233,
242.  LIKE THE GARCIA SUIT, THE PRESENT LIBEL WAS BROUGHT UNDER A STATE
WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE.  KY. REV. STAT., 1946, SEC. 411.130.  AS WE
HELD IN GARCIA, A TIME LIMITATION DEEMED ATTACHED TO THE RIGHT OF
ACTION CREATED BY THE STATE IS BINDING IN THE FEDERAL FORUM.  THE
HARRISBURG, SUPRA, 119 U.S., AT 214.  SIMILARLY, WHEN THE STATUTE, AS
IT DOES IN THIS CASE, VESTS THE RIGHT OF ACTION IN "THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEDENT," IT IS NOT FOR THE FORUM PROVIDED BY
ANOTHER JURISDICTION TO VEST THE RIGHT ELSEWHERE; SUCH A FORUM MUST
LOOK TO THE LOCAL LAW TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE."  BUT THE NARROW QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER SUCH A FORUM,
ACCEPTING AND ENFORCING THE LIMITED SCOPE GIVEN TO THE RIGHT BY THE
LOCAL LAW WHICH CREATED IT, MUST ALSO BE BOUND BY THE DUBIOUS AND
PERHAPS CONFLICTING INTIMATIONS ON ELEGANTIA JURIS TO BE FOUND IN LOCAL
DECISIONS, WHETHER, THAT IS, A FEDERAL COURT IS IMPRISONED BY
PROCEDURAL NICETIES RELATING TO AMENDMENTS OF PLEADINGS. 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
HEARD THIS SUIT SITTING IN ADMIRALTY.  ITS JURISDICTION DID NOT DERIVE
FROM DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP; INDEED THERE WAS NO SUCH DIVERSITY. 
ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, IS IRRELEVANT.  THE COURT IN THIS
CASE WAS NOT "IN EFFECT, ONLY ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE," GUARANTY
TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, 108.  THE REASONS WHY THE COURT HEARD
THE SUIT AND WHY IT DEEMED ITSELF CONTROLLED BY THE KENTUCKY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS AND BY THE KENTUCKY DEFINITION OF "PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE"
ARE QUITE DIFFERENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ADOPTED AND ENFORCED THE
OBLIGATIO CREATED BY THE STATE OF KENTUCKY NOT BECAUSE IT SITS IN
KENTUCKY AND RESPONDS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF UNIFORMITY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WITHIN THAT STATE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, THE COURT ADOPTED AND ENFORCED THE OBLIGATIO
CREATED BY KENTUCKY AS IT WOULD ONE ORIGINATING IN ANY FOREIGN
JURISDICTION.  LA BOURGOGNE, 210 U.S. 95, 138; THE HAMILTON, 207 U.S.
398, 405.  AND IT WAS BOUND TO ENFORCE IT AS IT FOUND IT, BUT NOT BOUND
BEYOND THAT TO STRIVE FOR UNIFORMITY OF RESULTS IN PROCEDURAL NICETIES
WITH THE COURTS OF THE JURISDICTION WHICH ORIGINATED THE OBLIGATIO. 
EVEN IN DIVERSITY CASES, WHEN "A RIGHT IS ENFORCEABLE IN A FEDERAL AS
WELL AS IN A STATE COURT," AND THE FEDERAL COURT SITS AS "ANOTHER COURT
OF THE STATE," WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT "THE FORMS AND MODE OF ENFORCING
THE RIGHT MAY AT TIMES, NATURALLY ENOUGH, VARY BECAUSE THE TWO JUDICIAL
SYSTEMS ARE NOT IDENTIC."  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, SUPRA, 326 U.S.,
AT 108.  WHETHER, IF THIS WERE A DIVERSITY CASE, WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT
WE ARE HERE DEALING WITH "FORMS AND MODES" OR WITH MATTERS MORE
SERIOUSLY AFFECTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RIGHT, IT IS CLEAR THAT WE
ARE NOT DEALING WITH AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RIGHT CREATED BY
KENTUCKY. 

WE HOLD THAT FEDERAL PRACTICE CONTROLS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
ADMINISTRATOR, HOLDING AN EFFECTIVE APPOINTMENT UNDER KENTUCKY LAW,
SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO AMEND HIS LIBEL SO AS TO ALLEGE THAT
APPOINTMENT, AT A TIME WHEN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WOULD
BAR A NEW SUIT.  AND WE HOLD THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD BE PERMITTED
TO DO SO.  RULE 23, RULES OF PRACTICE IN ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME CASES;
CF. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. KINNEY, 260 U.S. 340, 346.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :













TRANSCONTINENTAL & WESTERN AIR, INC. V. KOPPAL 345 U.S. 653 


NO. 509.  ARGUED APRIL 8-9, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1953 - 199 F.2D 117,
REVERSED. 


A DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE OF A CARRIER THAT WAS SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT, CLAIMING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND THE REQUISITE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN MISSOURI
AN ACTION UNDER MISSOURI LAW FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE.  HE FAILED TO SHOW
THAT HE HAD EXHAUSTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PRESCRIBED BY HIS
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.  THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS A MISSOURI CONTRACT
AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PRESCRIBED THEREIN WERE CONSISTENT WITH
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  HELD:  THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT.  PP. 654-662. 

(A)  A DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE OF A CARRIER THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THAT ACT FROM RESORTING TO A
STATE-RECOGNIZED CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE.  PP. 660-662. 

(B)  IN AN ACTION UNDER STATE LAW FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE, BROUGHT BY
A DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE OF A CARRIER THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT, THE EMPLOYEE MUST SHOW THAT HE HAS EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES UNDER HIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, IF THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW
SO REQUIRES.  PP. 654-657, 660-662. 

(C)  UNDER THE LAW OF MISSOURI, A DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE WHO BRINGS AN
ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE MUST SHOW EXHAUSTION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN HIS CAUSE OF ACTION.  PP. 657-660. 

TRANSCONTINENTAL & WESTERN AIR, INC. V. KOPPAL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER, BASED ON
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE A VERDICT FOR
RESPONDENT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED
AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  199 F.2D 117.  THIS
COURT GRANTED A LIMITED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 933.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 662. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS TWO QUESTIONS:  (1) WHETHER A DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE
OF A CARRIER THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS PRECLUDED BY
THAT ACT FROM RESORTING TO A STATE-RECOGNIZED CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE AND, IF NOT, (2) WHETHER, IN SUCH ACTION, HE MUST
SHOW THAT HE HAS EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, UNDER HIS
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, OUR ANSWER
TO THE FIRST QUESTION IS NO AND TO THE SECOND, YES, PROVIDED THE
APPLICABLE STATE LAW SO REQUIRES.  AFTER STATING THE CASE, WE SHALL
DISCUSS THE SECOND QUESTION FIRST. 

RESPONDENT KOPPAL IS A CITIZEN OF KANSAS WHO, IN 1949, WAS EMPLOYED
AS A MASTER MECHANIC IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, BY PETITIONER,
TRANSCONTINENTAL & WESTERN AIR, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION.  AT ALL
TIMES MATERIAL TO THIS CASE, PETITIONER HAS BEEN A CARRIER BY AIR,
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SUBJECT TO TITLE II OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT.  (FN1)  THE TERMS OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WERE
STATED IN A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS.  THAT ASSOCIATION WAS A UNION WHICH, FOR
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING PURPOSES, REPRESENTED RESPONDENT AND THE OTHER
MECHANICS IN THE EMPLOY OF PETITIONER, ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT WAS NOT A
MEMBER OF THE UNION. 

NOVEMBER 8, 1949, RESPONDENT REPORTED TO HIS EMPLOYER BY TELEPHONE
THAT HE WAS NOT WELL AND WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WORK THAT DAY.  BEFORE
NOON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM PETITIONER'S INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DEPARTMENT MADE AN UNEXPECTED CALL AT RESPONDENT'S HOME.  HE FOUND
RESPONDENT THERE WITH TWO OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES, ONE OF WHOM ALSO
HAD TAKEN SICK LEAVE.  WHILE THE TESTIMONY IS CONFLICTING, THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY ILL TO JUSTIFY HIS STAYING HOME AND THAT, BY
PREARRANGEMENT, HE MET THERE WITH TWO OTHER EMPLOYEES WHILE PREPARING
TO TAKE AN EXAMINATION TO QUALIFY AS A FLIGHT ENGINEER.  ON
RESPONDENT'S RETURN TO WORK THE NEXT DAY, HE WAS SUSPENDED FROM
EMPLOYMENT ON A CHARGE OF ABUSE OF THE SICK-LEAVE PROVISIONS OF HIS
CONTRACT AND NOTIFIED THAT A HEARING WOULD BE HELD ON THAT CHARGE
NOVEMBER 11, PURSUANT TO THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE IN HIS CONTRACT.  HE
ATTENDED THE HEARING, WHICH WAS HELD BEFORE A REPRESENTATIVE OF
PETITIONER OTHER THAN THE ONE BRINGING THE COMPLAINT.  AT ITS
CONCLUSION, THE HEARING OFFICER STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SEVERE
ABUSE OF THE SICK-PAY POLICY AND THAT RESPONDENT WOULD BE DISCHARGED. 
IN VIEW OF RESPONDENT'S PAST FAVORABLE RECORD, THE HEARING OFFICER
ASKED HIM WHETHER HE WOULD PREFER TO RESIGN AND ADVISED HIM THAT HE
COULD APPEAL EVEN IF HE RESIGNED. 

RESPONDENT RESIGNED, STATING THAT HE DID SO "UNDER PROTEST."  HE TOOK
NO APPEAL UNDER HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BUT, JUNE 30, 1950, INSTITUTED
THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, CLAIMING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND
SEEKING $7,500 COMPENSATORY AND $15,000 PUNITIVE DAMAGES. 

DURING THE TRIAL, WHICH WAS BEFORE A JURY, PETITIONER (THEN
DEFENDANT) MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT IN ITS FAVOR AND MADE A SIMILAR
MOTION AT THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE.  BOTH MOTIONS WERE DENIED AND THE JURY
RETURNED A VERDICT OF $7,500 FOR RESPONDENT.  THE COURT SET ASIDE THE
VERDICT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD
FAILED TO APPEAL THE ORIGINAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER AND HAD
OTHERWISE FAILED TO EXHAUST THE REMEDIES PRESCRIBED IN HIS EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED
THAT JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  199 F.2D
117.  BECAUSE OF DIFFERING OPINIONS EXPRESSED AS TO THE EFFECT OF OUR
DECISIONS IN MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 312 U.S. 630, AND SLOCUM
V. DELAWARE, L.&W.R. CO., 339 U.S. 239, AND DUE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE CASE IN RELATION TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
344 U.S. 933.  (FN2) 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT RESTED UPON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP AND AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.  THE COMPLAINT
SOUGHT JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL
DISCHARGE OF RESPONDENT IN VIOLATION OF A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT MADE
IN MISSOURI, TO BE PERFORMED IN MISSOURI AND AGREED BY THE PARTIES TO
BE A "MISSOURI CONTRACT."  ACCORDINGLY, IF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WERE
NOT INVOLVED, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW
OF MISSOURI SHOULD DETERMINE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION,
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT AND THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES TO BE
APPLIED.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64; KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR
ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 313 U.S. 487. 

NO DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI HAS BEEN CITED ON THE
POINT BUT THE LAW OF MISSOURI HAS BEEN SHOWN, BY THE FOLLOWING CASES,
TO BE THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER
HIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN HIS CAUSE OF ACTION IN
SUCH A CASE. 

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, IN 1934,
AFFIRMED A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI TO THAT EFFECT.  HARRISON V. PULLMAN CO., 68 F.2D
826.  THAT WAS A DIVERSITY CASE, REMOVED FROM A MISSOURI STATE COURT,
IN WHICH A DISCHARGED PORTER SUED HIS EMPLOYER, THE PULLMAN COMPANY,
FOR DAMAGES FOR HIS ALLEGED UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE IN NOVEMBER, 1926.  THE
TERMS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WERE STATED IN A PRINTED AGREEMENT WHICH
CONTAINED A COMPLETE CODE FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF SUCH DISPUTES.  THE
CODE CALLED FOR AN INITIAL APPEAL BY THE EMPLOYEE TO A DISTRICT
OFFICIAL OF THE COMPANY, A SUBSEQUENT APPEAL TO THE HIGHEST LOCAL
OFFICER OF THE COMPANY DESIGNATED TO HANDLE SUCH MATTERS, THEN AN
APPEAL TO THE ZONE GENERAL COMMITTEE AND FINALLY TO THE BUREAU OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.  THE PORTER MADE NO SUBSTANTIAL ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW
THIS PROCEDURE BEYOND THE DISTRICT OFFICIAL AND NONE WHATEVER TO REACH
THE ZONE GENERAL COMMITTEE.  INSTEAD, ABOUT FIVE YEARS LATER, HE
BROUGHT SUIT AND, IN THAT LITIGATION, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS, IN AFFIRMING A DIRECTED VERDICT FOR THE EMPLOYER, SAID: 

"APPELLANT IN TERMS SUES BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED BREACH OF THIS
CONTRACT, AND, TO PREVAIL, HE MUST SHOW THAT HE HAS BROUGHT HIMSELF
WITHIN ITS TERMS AND HAS BEEN UNABLE TO SECURE A SATISFACTORY
ADJUSTMENT BY THE MEANS THEREIN EXPRESSLY PROVIDED.  THIS HE HAS FAILED
TO DO, AND FOR THIS REASON HE IS UNABLE TO PRESENT HIS CASE IN COURT AS
A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY."  ID., AT 827. 

SIMILARLY, IN 1936, THE ST. LOUIS COURT OF APPEALS, MISSOURI, IN REED
V. ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO., 95 S.W.2D 887 (NOT PUBLISHED IN STATE
REPORTS), TOOK A LIKE POSITION.  THERE A DISCHARGED CONDUCTOR SUED HIS
EMPLOYER, THE ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, FOR DAMAGES FOR
HIS ALLEGED UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE IN 1928.  THE TERMS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT
WERE STATED IN A WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ORDER OF RAILWAY
CONDUCTORS AND THE RAILROAD.  THIS PRESCRIBED A COMPLETE CODE FOR THE
HEARING AND REVIEW OF DISCHARGES.  THE CONDUCTOR WAS CHARGED WITH
INTOXICATION AND ATTENDED A PRESCRIBED HEARING, WHICH WAS HELD ON THAT
CHARGE, BEFORE AN ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF THE COMPANY.  THIS
RESULTED IN THE CONDUCTOR'S DISCHARGE BUT HE RESORTED TO NONE OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS PRESCRIBED IN THE CODE.  INSTEAD, HE SUED HIS
EMPLOYER IN A STATE COURT AND WON A VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES
DUE TO HIS DISCHARGE.  THE ST. LOUIS COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THAT
JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT HAD FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE EMPLOYER'S
DEMURRER WHICH WAS BASED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDUCTOR HAD FAILED TO
EXHAUST THE REMEDIES PRESCRIBED IN HIS CONTRACT.  (FN3) 

RESPONDENT'S CONTRACT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, CONSISTED SIMPLY OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT BY PETITIONER PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE MECHANICS AND RELATED EMPLOYEES IN ITS
SERVICE, AS REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS.  THAT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF TITLE II OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AS AMENDED  ...  ." 
IT CONTAINED DETAILED PROVISIONS AS TO GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND SICK
LEAVE.  IT INCLUDED PROVISIONS THAT NO EMPLOYEE IN RESPONDENT'S STATUS
SHALL BE DISCHARGED: 

"WITHOUT A FAIR HEARING BEFORE A DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
COMPANY OTHER THAN THE ONE BRINGING COMPLAINT AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE ...
.  AT A REASONABLE TIME PRIOR TO THE HEARING, SUCH EMPLOYEE AND HIS
DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE APPRISED, IN WRITING, OF THE
PRECISE CHARGE AND GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE THE
PRESENCE OF NECESSARY WITNESSES  ...  .  A WRITTEN DECISION WILL BE
ISSUED WITHIN FIVE (5) WORK DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF SUCH HEARING.  IF
THE DECISION IS NOT SATISFACTORY, THEN APPEAL MAY BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN STEP 3." 

STEP 3 PROVIDED FOR AN APPEAL TO THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE
COMPANY.  NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL MUST BE IN WRITING AND MADE WITHIN
TEN WORK DAYS AFTER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED DECISION WHICH IS PART OF STEP
2.  IF THE DECISION IN STEP 3 IS NOT SATISFACTORY TO THE UNION, THE
MATTER THEN MAY BE REFERRED BY THE SYSTEM GENERAL CHAIRMAN, ACTING FOR
THE UNION, TO THE SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR, BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT,
TO ARBITRATION.  THIS PROCEDURE IS COMPARABLE TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE AND
A CARRIER "SHALL BE HANDLED IN THE USUAL MANNER UP TO AND INCLUDING THE
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CARRIER DESIGNATED TO HANDLE SUCH
DISPUTES," THEN BY APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT BOARDS AND FINALLY BY THE
NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  49 STAT. 1189-1190, 45 U.S.C.
SECS. 184, 185. 

UNDER THE LAW OF MISSOURI, AS SHOWN ABOVE, RESPONDENT WAS REQUIRED TO
SHOW EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER HIS EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN HIS CAUSE OF ACTION.  AS HE DID NOT DO SO,
THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF HIS COMPLAINT WAS JUSTIFIED, UNLESS
THE FACT THAT PETITIONER WAS A CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT
OR THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS DRAFTED PURSUANT TO THAT
ACT SHOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. 

THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT WHILE THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CONFORMS TO
THE POLICY OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE ACT PROVIDES A PROCEDURE
FOR HANDLING GRIEVANCES SO AS TO AVOID LITIGATION AND INTERRUPTIONS OF
SERVICE, THE ACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE AN EMPLOYEE OF HIS RIGHT TO SUE HIS
EMPLOYER FOR AN UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE IF THE EMPLOYEE CHOOSES TO DO SO. 

"WE FIND NOTHING IN THAT (RAILWAY LABOR) ACT WHICH PURPORTS TO TAKE
AWAY FROM THE COURTS THE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE A CONTROVERSY OVER A
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR TO MAKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING A PREREQUISITE
TO FILING A SUIT IN COURT  ...  .  THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY DECIDED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT REQUIRED BY
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT TO SEEK ADJUSTMENT OF HIS CONTROVERSY WITH THE
RAILROAD AS A PREREQUISITE TO SUIT FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE."  MOORE V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 312 U.S. 630, 634, 636. 

WE AMPLIFIED THE FOREGOING STATEMENT IN SLOCUM V. DELAWARE, L.&W.R.
CO., 339 U.S. 239, 244, AS FOLLOWS: 

"MOORE IN 312 U.S. 630 WAS DISCHARGED BY THE RAILROAD.  HE COULD HAVE
CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF HIS DISCHARGE BEFORE THE BOARD, SEEKING
REINSTATEMENT AND BACK PAY.  INSTEAD HE CHOSE TO ACCEPT THE RAILROAD'S
ACTION IN DISCHARGING HIM AS FINAL, THEREBY CEASING TO BE AN EMPLOYEE,
AND BROUGHT SUIT CLAIMING DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.  AS WE THERE
HELD, THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT DOES NOT BAR COURTS FROM ADJUDICATING SUCH
CASES.  A COMMON-LAW OR STATUTORY ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE DIFFERS
FROM ANY REMEDY WHICH THE BOARD HAS POWER TO PROVIDE, AND DOES NOT
INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF FUTURE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND ITS
OTHER EMPLOYEES.  IF A COURT IN HANDLING SUCH A CASE MUST CONSIDER SOME
PROVISION OF A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT, ITS INTERPRETATION
WOULD OF COURSE HAVE NO BINDING EFFECT ON FUTURE INTERPRETATIONS BY THE
BOARD." 

THE RESULT IS THAT, WHEREAS, UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO ADJUST GRIEVANCES AND
JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES OF THE TYPE INVOLVED IN THE SLOCUM CASE, THAT
BOARD DOES NOT HAVE LIKE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIM OF AN
EMPLOYEE THAT HE HAS BEEN UNLAWFULLY DISCHARGED.  SUCH EMPLOYEE MAY
PROCEED EITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
PRESCRIBED IN HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT OR HE MAY RESORT TO HIS ACTION AT
LAW FOR ALLEGED UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE IF THE STATE COURTS RECOGNIZE SUCH A
CLAIM.  WHERE THE APPLICABLE LAW PERMITS HIS RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
WITHOUT SHOWING HIS PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, HE
MAY SO RECOVER, AS HE DID IN THE MOORE LITIGATION, SUPRA, UNDER
MISSISSIPPI LAW.  (FN4)    ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE APPLICABLE LOCAL
LAW, AS IN MISSOURI, REQUIRES AN EMPLOYEE TO EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES UNDER HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN HIS CAUSE OF
ACTION, HE MUST SHOW THAT HE HAS DONE SO.  HERE RESPONDENT WAS EMPLOYED
BY A CARRIER, SUBJECT TO TITLE II OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AND HIS
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CONTAINED MANY ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS FOR HIS RELIEF,
ALL OF WHICH WERE CONSISTENT WITH THAT ACT.  ACCORDINGLY, WHILE HE WAS
FREE TO RESORT TO THE COURTS FOR RELIEF, HE WAS THERE REQUIRED BY THE
LAW OF MISSOURI TO SHOW THAT HE HAD EXHAUSTED THE VERY ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE CONTEMPLATED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE,
HE WAS NOT ABLE TO DO SO AND HIS COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, THEREFORE, IS REVERSED.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO
IT.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 1189 ET SEQ., 45 U.S.C. SECS. 181-188. 

FN2  THE GRANT WAS LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 PRESENTED BY THE
PETITION FOR THE WRIT, VIZ.: 

"1.  WHETHER IN A DIVERSITY ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE BY AN
EMPLOYEE AGAINST A CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT, THE ACT PRECLUDES THE APPLICATION BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF
STATE LAW, OTHERWISE CONTROLLING, GOVERNING THE RIGHT TO BRING THE
ACTION. 

"2.  WHETHER THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL
R. CO., 312 U.S. 630, AND SLOCUM V. DELAWARE, L.&W.R. CO., 339 U.S.
239, BAR THE APPLICATION OF STATE LAW REQUIRING AN EMPLOYEE TO ATTEMPT
TO ADJUST HIS DISPUTE WITH HIS EMPLOYER BEFORE HE MAY SEEK REDRESS IN
STATE COURTS FOR ALLEGED BREACH OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
MADE PURSUANT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT." 

FN3  "  ...  THIS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IS BASED UPON THE RULE THAT
WHERE A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDES, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THAT A
DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE MAY SEEK REDRESS BY APPEALING TO CERTAIN DESIGNATED
OFFICERS, BOARDS, OR TRIBUNALS, SUCH AN EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO PURSUE
AND EXHAUST HIS CONTRACT REMEDY AND CANNOT PROPERLY COMPLAIN TO A COURT
FOR REDRESS UNTIL HE HAS EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES ACCORDED HIM BY HIS
CONTRACT.  THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN."  ID., AT 888-889. 

"  ...  IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT, WHERE CONTRACTING PARTIES EITHER
AGREE OR ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO RESORT TO A DESIGNATED TRIBUNAL FOR THE
ADJUSTMENT OF CONTROVERSIES, THEY MUST EXHAUST SUCH REMEDY BEFORE
RESORTING TO THE COURTS FOR REDRESS."  GLASS V. HOBLITZELLE, 83 S.W.2D
796, 802 (TEX. CIV. APP.).  SEE ALSO, BELL V. WESTERN R. CO., 228 ALA.
328, 153 SO. 434.  THIS QUOTATION AND CITATION ARE RELIED ON IN THE
REED CASE, AT 889. 

FN4  MOORE RECEIVED A JUDGMENT FOR $4,183.20, AS DAMAGES FOR HIS
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE, WITHOUT ESTABLISHING HIS EXHAUSTION OF HIS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.  FOR RELATED
PROCEEDINGS, SEE MOORE V. YAZOO & M.V.R. CO., 176 MISS.  65, 166 SO.
395; MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 180 MISS.  276, 176 SO. 593; 24
F. SUPP.  731; 112 F.2D 959; 136 F.2D 412.  SEE ALSO, TEXAS & N.O.R.
CO. V. MCCOMBS, 143 TEX. 257, 183 S.W.2D 716. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















POLIZZI V. COWLES MAGAZINES, INC. 345 U.S. 663 


NO. 287.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1953 - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1953 - 197 F.2D 74,
REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT, AN IOWA CORPORATION WHICH PUBLISHES A NATIONAL MAGAZINE,
MAINTAINS NO OFFICES IN FLORIDA, BUT SELLS THE MAGAZINE TO TWO
INDEPENDENT WHOLESALE COMPANIES WHICH DISTRIBUTE IT TO RETAILERS IN
FLORIDA.  PETITIONER, A RESIDENT OF FLORIDA, SUED RESPONDENT IN A
FLORIDA STATE COURT FOR ALLEGEDLY LIBELOUS MATTER PUBLISHED IN THE
MAGAZINE.  RESPONDENT REMOVED THE ACTION TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE STATE COURT WAS LOCATED.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1391(C).  HELD:  THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DISMISSED THE
ACTION FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT
TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF THE ACTION AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENT BY PROPER SERVICE.  PP. 664-667. 

(A)  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1391(C) IS INAPPLICABLE TO AN ACTION WHICH HAS
BEEN REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, AND THE
QUESTION WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS "DOING BUSINESS" IN FLORIDA, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THAT SECTION, IS IRRELEVANT.  PP. 665-666. 

(B)  THE VENUE OF REMOVED ACTIONS IS GOVERNED BY 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1441(A).  UNDER THAT SECTION VENUE IN THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY LAID.  PP.
665-666. 

POLIZZI V. COWLES MAGAZINES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY PETITIONER IN A STATE COURT, AND REMOVED BY
RESPONDENT TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  197 F.2D 74.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 853. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, P. 667. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, AN IOWA CORPORATION WHICH PUBLISHES LOOK MAGAZINE,
MAINTAINS NO OFFICES IN FLORIDA, BUT SELLS ITS MAGAZINES TO TWO
INDEPENDENT WHOLESALE COMPANIES WHICH DISTRIBUTE THEM TO RETAILERS IN
FLORIDA.  RESPONDENT DOES EMPLOY TWO "CIRCULATION ROAD MEN" WHOSE JOB
IS TO CHECK RETAIL OUTLETS IN A MULTI-STATE AREA WHICH INCLUDES
FLORIDA.  THESE TWO ROAD MEN COVER SEPARATE AND MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
DISTRICTS, AND NEITHER EXERCISES ANY SUPERVISION OVER THE OTHER. 
PETITIONER, A RESIDENT OF FLORIDA, BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR ALLEGEDLY LIBELOUS
MATTER PRINTED IN LOOK MAGAZINE.  RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS OR IN
LIEU THEREOF TO QUASH THE RETURN OF SERVICE, MADE ON AN AGENT OF ONE OF
THE DISTRIBUTING WHOLESALERS.  BEFORE THE STATE COURT ACTED ON THIS
MOTION, RESPONDENT REMOVED THE ACTION TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.  SEE 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SECS. 1332, 1441, 1446, 1447(B).  THAT COURT ISSUED AN ADDITIONAL
SUMMONS WHICH WAS SERVED ON BRIARDY, ONE OF RESPONDENT'S ROAD MEN, "AS
A MANAGING AGENT OF RESPONDENT TRANSACTING BUSINESS FOR IT IN THE STATE
OF FLORIDA  ...  ."  SEE 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1448; FED. RULES CIV.
PROC., 4(D)(3), (7); FLA. STAT. ANN., 1943, SEC. 47.17(5).  ON
PETITIONER'S MOTION, THE ORIGINAL STATE COURT SERVICE WAS QUASHED. 
RESPONDENT THEN MOVED THE COURT "TO DISMISS THIS ACTION OR IN LIEU
THEREOF TO QUASH THE RETURN OF PURPORTED OR ATTEMPTED SERVICE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SUMMONS  ... ."  THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHOUT PASSING UPON
THE MOTION TO QUASH THE RETURN OF SERVICE, DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THE
GROUND THAT IT DID "NOT HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 1391, SUB
NOT, AT THE TIME OF THE SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS, DOING BUSINESS IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA."  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED ON THE SAME GROUND, 197 F.2D 74, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 853. 

THE ONLY QUESTION IN THIS CASE ON THE RECORD BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE
DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. 

BOTH COURTS BELOW HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION,
BUT THEY REACHED THAT CONCLUSION BY DECIDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT
"DOING BUSINESS" IN FLORIDA WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 1391(C).  SECTION 1391 IS A GENERAL VENUE STATUTE.  IN A CASE
WHERE IT APPLIES, IF ITS REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT SATISFIED, THE DISTRICT
COURT IS NOT DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED IF A TIMELY OBJECTION TO THE VENUE WERE INTERPOSED. 
28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1406.  BUT EVEN ON THE QUESTION OF VENUE, SEC.
1391 HAS NO APPLICATION TO THIS CASE BECAUSE THIS IS A REMOVED ACTION. 
THE VENUE OF REMOVED ACTIONS IS GOVERNED BY 28 U.S.C.  (SUPP. V) SEC.
1441(A), AND UNDER THAT SECTION VENUE WAS PROPERLY LAID IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.  LEE V. CHESAPEAKE & O.R. CO., 260 U.S. 653;
GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE & M.S.R. CO., 260 U.S. 261, 270
279; MOSS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 157 F.2D 1005.  (FN1)  THE
PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE TWO STATUTES ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN. 
(FN2)  SECTION 1391(A) LIMITS THE DISTRICT IN WHICH AN ACTION MAY BE
"BROUGHT."  SECTION 1391(C) SIMILARLY LIMITS THE DISTRICT IN WHICH A
CORPORATION MAY BE "SUED."  THIS ACTION WAS NOT "BROUGHT" IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, NOR WAS RESPONDENT "SUED" THERE; THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT
IN A STATE COURT AND REMOVED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  SECTION 1441(A)
EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT THE PROPER VENUE OF A REMOVED ACTION IS "THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT AND DIVISION
EMBRACING THE PLACE WHERE SUCH ACTION IS PENDING."  THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IS THE DISTRICT EMBRACING DADE COUNTY, THE PLACE
WHERE THIS ACTION WAS PENDING.  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 89. 

THEREFORE, THE QUESTION WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS "DOING BUSINESS" IN
FLORIDA WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1391(C) IS IRRELEVANT, AND THE
DISCUSSION OF THAT QUESTION IS BESIDE THE POINT.  THE DISTRICT COURT
BASED ITS HOLDING THAT IT LACKED JURISDICTION ON A STATUTE WHICH HAS NO
APPLICATION TO THE CASE, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE SAME
REASONING. 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS "DOING BUSINESS" IN
FLORIDA WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, BECAUSE RESPONDENT
HAS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE INTERNATIONAL SHOE TEST IS NOT MET.  (FN3)
NOR DO WE DECIDE WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OF
THE PERSON OF RESPONDENT BY PROPER SERVICE, BECAUSE THE LOWER COURTS
DID NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION OF SERVICE.  THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF THE ACTION AND DETERMINE WHETHER
THE DISTRICT COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENT BY PROPER
SERVICE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE ALSO 1 BARRON AND HOLTZOFF, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE,
SEC. 101; CHARLES W. BUNN, JURISDICTION AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES (5TH ED., CHARLES BUNN, 1949), 146-148; MOORE,
COMMENTARY ON THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL CODE, 199. 

FN2  "SEC.  1391.  VENUE GENERALLY. 

"(A)  A CIVIL ACTION WHEREIN JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED ONLY ON
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP MAY, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, BE
BROUGHT ONLY IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHERE ALL PLAINTIFFS OR ALL
DEFENDANTS RESIDE. 

     *         *     *         *         * 

"(C)  A CORPORATION MAY BE SUED IN ANY JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH IT
IS INCORPORATED OR LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS OR IS DOING BUSINESS, AND
SUCH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SHALL BE REGARDED AS THE RESIDENCE OF SUCH
CORPORATION FOR VENUE PURPOSES." 

"SEC. 1441.  ACTIONS REMOVABLE GENERALLY. 

"(A)  EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY ACT OF CONGRESS, ANY
CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT OF WHICH THE DISTRICT COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, MAY BE REMOVED BY THE
DEFENDANT OR THE DEFENDANTS, TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT AND DIVISION EMBRACING THE PLACE WHERE SUCH ACTION IS
PENDING." 

FN3  "IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE THE COURT NO QUESTION OF DUE PROCESS IS
INVOLVED."  BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
P. 9.  "ALL THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DUE PROCESS ...  ."  BRIEF FOR
RESPONDENT, P. 17. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, NOT HAVING HEARD THE ARGUMENT, TOOK NO PART
IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, CONCURRING IN
PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. 

POLIZZI LIVES IN CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA.  HE HAS BEEN IN THE
CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS THERE FOR SOME YEARS.  COWLES MAGAZINES, INC., AN
IOWA CORPORATION, PUBLISHES LOOK, A MAGAZINE CIRCULATING NATIONALLY. 
MAY 23, 1950, LOOK CARRIED AN ARTICLE BRANDING POLIZZI AS ONE OF THE
RINGLEADERS OF A NATIONAL GANG OF MURDEROUS, BLACKMAILING PROSTITUTE
PANDERING CRIMINALS.  NEARLY 50,000 COPIES COVERED FLORIDA.  MANY WERE
DISPLAYED AND DISTRIBUTED IN POLIZZI'S HOME TOWN.  HE AT ONCE WROTE THE
PUBLISHER THAT THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM WERE FALSE, DEMANDING BOTH
RETRACTION AND APOLOGY.  IT DID NOTHING.  POLIZZI THEN BROUGHT THIS
LIBEL SUIT IN THE STATE CIRCUIT COURT OF HIS HOME COUNTY.  APPEARING
"SPECIALLY" IN THE LOCAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, THE COWLES
CORPORATION OBTAINED AN ORDER FOR REMOVAL OF THE CASE FROM STATE TO
FEDERAL COURT.  IT ASKED THE DISTRICT COURT TO DISMISS THE CASE WITHOUT
GIVING POLIZZI A CHANCE TO HAVE IT TRIED ON THE MERITS.  THE REASONS
URGED WERE THAT COWLES WAS AN IOWA CORPORATION, WAS NOT AND HAD NOT
BEEN "DOING BUSINESS" IN FLORIDA AND CONSEQUENTLY COULD NOT BE SUED IN
THE FLORIDA COURT UNLESS IT CONSENTED TO BE SUED THERE.  THE EFFECT OF
THIS CONTENTION WAS THAT WHILE POLIZZI COULD BRING HIS LIBEL SUIT IN A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN THE CORPORATION'S HOME STATE OF IOWA, NO SUCH
SUIT COULD BE MAINTAINED IN A FEDERAL COURT IN THE STATE WHERE POLIZZI
LIVED AND WHERE THE CRIMINAL CHARGES WERE LIKELY TO DO HIM THE MOST
HARM.   AGREEING WITH COWLES, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED POLIZZI'S
SUIT WITHOUT GIVING HIM A CHANCE TO TRY THE CASE ON ITS MERITS.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FOR MANY REASONS I THINK THE DISMISSAL WAS
WRONG AND THEREFORE CONCUR IN THIS COURT'S REVERSAL OF THAT DISMISSAL. 
FROM THIS POINT ON, HOWEVER, I PART COMPANY WITH THE COURT. 

THIS COURT REVERSES SOLELY BECAUSE BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS IN DISMISSING REFERRED TO AND RELIED ON THE "DOING
BUSINESS" PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1391(C), A VENUE STATUTE NOT
APPLICABLE TO REMOVAL CASES LIKE THIS BUT TO SUITS ORIGINALLY FILED
AGAINST CORPORATIONS IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.  FOR THIS
REASON, NOT SUGGESTED BY COWLES OR POLIZZI, THE COURT REFUSES TO PASS
ON THE "DOING BUSINESS" CONTENTION WHICH COWLES DID MAKE AND WHICH BOTH
COURTS BELOW DECIDED.  (FN1)  THIS MEANS THE CASE GOES BACK FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE SAME OLD "DOING BUSINESS" QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN
HANGING FIRE FOR THREE YEARS.  IT TOOK THREE YEARS FOR POLIZZI TO GET
HERE AND HAVE THE COURT BY-PASS THE "DOING BUSINESS" QUESTION THIS
TIME.  IF HE IS LUCKY ENOUGH TO GET THAT QUESTION BACK HERE AND DECIDED
FOR HIM IN THREE MORE YEARS, HE MAY THEN LOOK FORWARD TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A JURY TRY HIS CASE SOMETIME ALONG ABOUT 1957. 

I THINK THIS COURT SHOULD HERE AND NOW REJECT COWLES' DILATORY
CONTENTIONS.  THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME REASON FOR SNARLING UP LAWSUITS
AGAINST FOREIGN CORPORATIONS A HUNDRED YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF NEWLY
EXPANDING ACTIVITIES OF MIGRATORY BUSINESS.  BUT THERE IS NO SUCH
EXCUSE NOW.  A LARGE PART OF THE BUSINESS IN EACH AND EVERY STATE IS
DONE TODAY BY CORPORATIONS CREATED UNDER THE LAWS OF OTHER STATES.  TO
ADJUST THE PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF LAW TO THIS SITUATION THE COURT
IN RECENT YEARS HAS REFUSED TO BE BOUND BY OLD RIGID CONCEPTS (FN2)
ABOUT "DOING BUSINESS."  WHETHER CASES ARE TO BE TRIED IN ONE LOCALITY
OR ANOTHER IS NOW TO BE TESTED BY BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, (FN3)
UNLESS, AS SEEMS POSSIBLE, THIS CASE REPRESENTS A THROWBACK TO WHAT I
CONSIDER LESS ENLIGHTENED PRACTICES. 

UNDER ANY OF THE CONCEPTS, OLD OR NEW, I THINK COWLES WAS DOING
BUSINESS IN FLORIDA.  IT HAD A REGULAR AGENT THERE, PAID BY THE MONTH,
WHOSE SOLE JOB WAS TO CARRY ON ACTIVITIES FOR COWLES IN ORDER TO
INCREASE LOOK'S CIRCULATION IN THAT STATE.  ON THIS AGENT, WHO MANAGED
FOR THE PUBLISHING CORPORATION ALL THE BUSINESS IT CARRIED ON IN
FLORIDA, PROCESS WAS SERVED.  THESE FACTS, TOGETHER WITH OTHERS WHICH I
NEED NOT LABOR, SHOW THE FRIVOLOUS NATURE OF THE "DOING BUSINESS"
QUESTION.  THEY SHOW ALSO THE LACK OF MERIT IN THE QUESTION THE COURT
TELLS THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO PASS ON: SHOULD THE 1950 NOTICE BY SERVICE
ON THE CORPORATION'S REGULAR FLORIDA REPRESENTATIVE BE HELD SUFFICIENT
TO REQUIRE IT TO DEFEND, OR SHOULD THE DISTRICT COURT NOW AFTER THREE
YEARS' LITIGATION QUASH THAT SERVICE AND REQUIRE THAT NEW NOTICE OF THE
SUIT THE CORPORATION IS HERE DEFENDING BE SERVED ON SOME OTHER COMPANY
EMPLOYEE?  I VENTURE TO SUGGEST THAT IF THIS QUESTION WERE RAISED
ANYWHERE EXCEPT IN A COURT, IT WOULD BE DISMISSED AS LUDICROUS. 

BUT ASIDE FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, THERE IS A NEW STATUTE WHICH GIVES
AN ANACHRONISTIC FLAVOR, A SORT OF IRRELEVANCE TO ALL OF COWLES'
DILATORY MOTIONS AND ARGUMENTS.  I REFER TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A),
WHICH HAS CODIFIED THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  THAT STATUTE
GIVES DISTRICT JUDGES BROAD POWERS TO TRANSFER CIVIL ACTIONS FROM ONE
DISTRICT TO ANOTHER "IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE."  (FN4)  AND THE HEART
OF COWLES' CONTENTION IS THAT IT WOULD BE UNFAIR, INCONVENIENT AND
UNJUST TO SUBJECT IT TO A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA.  BUT
THE IOWA CORPORATION HAS NOT DENIED AT ALL THAT IT COULD BE SUBJECTED
TO THIS LIBEL SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN IOWA OR IN SOME
OTHER DISTRICT WHERE THE CORPORATION IS "DOING BUSINESS."  THEREFORE,
THE QUESTION COWLES HAS BEEN RAISING FROM THE BEGINNING IS:  IN WHAT
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DOES THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE REQUIRE
THAT THIS LAWSUIT BE TRIED?  THIS POSES PRECISELY THE PROBLEM WHICH THE
RULE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IS DESIGNED TO MEET AND SOLVE.  IN LIGHT
OF THAT RULE I THINK WE SHOULD REJECT COWLES' OLD DILATORY MOTIONS AND
DIRECT THE DISTRICT COURT IN FLORIDA TO TRY THIS CASE AT ONCE, UNLESS
COWLES CAN SHOW THAT COURT THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
TO TRY THE CASE IN ANOTHER DISTRICT.  BUT THE COURT REFUSES TO DISCARD
OLD OUTDATED CONCEPTS FOR THE NEW RULE OF CONVENIENCE AND FAIRNESS. 
INSTEAD POLIZZI IS SENT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT NOT TO TRY HIS CASE
ON THE MERITS BUT TO LISTEN A FEW MORE YEARS TO A DEBATE OVER WHETHER
COWLES HAS HAD ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THIS SUIT AND WHETHER THE CORPORATION
IS "DOING BUSINESS" IN FLORIDA.  IN THE MEANTIME, POLIZZI STANDS
CONVICTED IN THE EYES OF HIS COMMUNITY ON THE BASIS OF AN UNPROVED
STORY.  AT LEAST SINCE MAGNA CHARTA SOME PEOPLE HAVE THOUGHT THAT TO
DELAY JUSTICE MAY BE TO DENY JUSTICE.  I WOULD ORDER THAT POLIZZI BE
GIVEN THE TRIAL HE SEEKS.  (FN5)    FN1  THE RECORD MAKES CLEAR THAT
THE "DOING BUSINESS" QUESTION WAS THE GROUND ON WHICH COWLES MADE THE
MOTION TO DISMISS, THE GROUND ON WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
LAWSUIT, THE GROUND ON WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, AND A
GROUND ON WHICH COWLES ASKED US TO AFFIRM THE DISMISSAL.  THE
CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS ASSERTED THAT "THE DEFENDANT IS A
CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF IOWA AND WAS NOT DOING OR
CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN FLORIDA AT THE TIME OF SUCH PURPORTED OR
ATTEMPTED SERVICE AND IS NOT DOING AND HAS NEVER DONE BUSINESS WITHIN
THE STATE OF FLORIDA SO AS TO BE PRESENT IN FLORIDA  ... ."  EVIDENCE
OF A NUMBER OF WITNESSES WAS HEARD ON THIS "DOING BUSINESS" QUESTION. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED BY FINDING "AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT
DEFENDANT WAS NOT, AT THE TIME OF THE SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS, DOING
BUSINESS IN THIS DISTRICT  ...  " AND THEN RELATED THE DISMISSAL TO 28
U.S.C. SEC. 1391(C).  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE SAME GROUND,
SAYING THAT THE COMPANY COULD NOT "BE SAID TO BE DOING BUSINESS IN THE
STATE SO AS TO BE SUBJECT TO SUIT THERE."  IT REACHED THIS CONCLUSION
BECAUSE IT THOUGHT THE COMPANY'S ACTIVITIES WERE NOT WITHIN "THE
MEANING OF DOING BUSINESS" AS "DISCUSSED IN THE AUTHORITIES" TO WHICH
IT REFERRED, NAMELY, INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S.
310, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES OF THIS COURT CITED IN FOOTNOTE 2, 197
F.2D 74, 76.  AND IN THIS COURT THE CORPORATION ARGUED SPECIFICALLY
THAT " ...  THE CONCLUSION IS INEVITABLE THAT THE COURTS BELOW IN
HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT TRANSACTING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA FAIRLY FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE INTERNATIONAL
SHOE CO. CASE." 

FN2  CF. VON JHERING, IN THE HEAVEN OF LEGAL CONCEPTS, TRANSLATED IN
COHEN AND COHEN, READINGS IN JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL PHILOSOPHY, 678
689. 

FN3  SEE ON THIS POINT INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S.
310; TRAVELERS HEALTH ASSN. V. VIRGINIA, 339 U.S. 643; UNITED STATES V.
SCOPHONY CORP. OF AMERICA, 333 U.S. 795. 

FN4  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A) PROVIDES: 

"FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES AND WITNESSES, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE, A DISTRICT COURT MAY TRANSFER ANY CIVIL ACTION TO ANY OTHER
DISTRICT OR DIVISION WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT." 

A COMPANION STATUTE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1406(A), PROVIDES: 

"THE DISTRICT COURT OF A DISTRICT IN WHICH IS FILED A CASE LAYING
VENUE IN THE WRONG DIVISION OR DISTRICT SHALL DISMISS, OR IF IT BE IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,  TRANSFER SUCH CASE TO ANY DISTRICT OR
DIVISION IN WHICH IT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT." 

FN5  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2106 PROVIDES THAT THIS COURT IN REVERSING
JUDGMENTS MAY DIRECT THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER SUCH ORDERS AS ARE
"JUST UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES." 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. 

I AGREE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY
REFERRED TO THE WRONG VENUE STATUTE IN DECIDING THE QUESTION OF "DOING
BUSINESS."  LIKE MR. JUSTICE BLACK I THINK IT UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS
CASE MUST BE PROLONGED BY A REMAND TO CONSIDER AGAIN THE SAME "DOING
BUSINESS" QUESTION UNDER ANOTHER STATUTE.  UNLIKE MR. JUSTICE BLACK,
HOWEVER, I FIND NOTHING IN THE MAJORITY OPINION TO SUGGEST THAT THE
ENLIGHTENED RATIONALE OF OUR MORE RECENT CASES SUCH AS INTERNATIONAL
SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, HAS BEEN ABANDONED OR IMPAIRED. 
NOR DO I FIND ANY HINT IN THE MAJORITY OPINION THAT ANYTHING IN THE
CONSTITUTION OR OTHER FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE IN A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN FLORIDA.  MY OBJECTION IS THAT THE
MAJORITY HAVE NOT RULED ON THIS QUESTION AT ALL. 
..END :











AVERY V. GEORGIA 345 U.S. 559 


NO. 648.  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 25, 1953 - 209 GA. 116, 70
S.E.2D 716, REVERSED. 


NOTWITHSTANDING A TIMELY CHALLENGE, ON THE GROUND OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION CONTRARY TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, OF THE ARRAY OF PETIT JURORS SELECTED TO TRY HIS
CASE IN A STATE COURT, PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS CONVICTED OF RAPE. 
AFTER THE NAMES OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS HAD BEEN SELECTED BY JURY
COMMISSIONERS, THE NAMES OF WHITE PERSONS WERE PRINTED ON WHITE TICKETS
AND THE NAMES OF NEGROES ON YELLOW TICKETS, WHICH WERE PLACED TOGETHER
IN A JURY BOX.  A JUDGE THEN DREW A NUMBER OF TICKETS FROM THE BOX; AND
HE TESTIFIED, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT HE HAD NOT DISCRIMINATED IN
THE DRAWING.  THE TICKETS DRAWN WERE HANDED TO A SHERIFF, WHO ENTRUSTED
THEM TO A CLERK, WHOSE DUTY IT WAS TO "ARRANGE" THE TICKETS AND TO TYPE
IN FINAL FORM THE LIST OF PERSONS TO BE CALLED TO SERVE ON THE PANEL. 
ABOUT 60 PERSONS WERE ON THE PANEL FROM WHICH THE JURY WAS SELECTED AND
NONE OF THEM WAS A NEGRO, ALTHOUGH MANY NEGROES WERE AVAILABLE FOR
SERVICE.  HELD:  THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED.  PP. 560-563. 

(A)  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, PETITIONER MADE A PRIMA FACIE
SHOWING OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS PARTICULAR JURY
PANEL.  PP. 561-562. 

(B)  PETITIONER HAVING PROVED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DISCRIMINATION IN
THE SELECTION OF THE JURY, THE BURDEN WAS UPON THE STATE TO OVERCOME
THIS PRIMA FACIE CASE, AND IT FAILED TO DO SO.  PP. 562-563. 

AVERY V. GEORGIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

IN A GEORGIA TRIAL COURT, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF RAPE AND
SENTENCED TO DEATH.  THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AFFIRMED.  209 GA.
116, 70 S.E.2D 716.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  345 U.S. 903. 
REVERSED, P. 563. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS TRIED FOR RAPE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY,
GEORGIA.  HE WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO DEATH.  THE SUPREME COURT
OF GEORGIA AFFIRMED AFTER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE
JURY WHICH CONVICTED HIM HAD BEEN SELECTED BY A MEANS REPUGNANT TO THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  (FN1)  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THIS CLAIM.  345 U.S. 903. 

THE INDICTMENT, UPON WHICH PETITIONER WAS TRIED, WAS RETURNED BY A
GRAND JURY IN WALKER COUNTY, GEORGIA.  A CHANGE OF VENUE WAS GRANTED
AND THE CAUSE REMOVED TO FULTON COUNTY.  BY PROPER PLEADINGS
PETITIONER, A NEGRO, CHALLENGED THE ARRAY OF PETIT JURORS SELECTED TO
TRY HIS CASE; HE CHARGED THAT DISCRIMINATION HAD BEEN PRACTICED AGAINST
MEMBERS OF HIS RACE.  TESTIMONY WAS THEN TAKEN, AND THEREAFTER THE
TRIAL COURT OVERRULED THE CHALLENGE. 

THE SALIENT FACTS, DEVELOPED IN THIS HEARING, ARE UNDISPUTED.  UNDER
GEORGIA LAW THE TASK OF ORGANIZING PANELS OF PETIT JURORS FOR CRIMINAL
CASES FALLS UPON A COUNTY BOARD OF JURY COMMISSIONERS.  IN DISCHARGING
THIS RESPONSIBILITY THE COMMISSIONERS, AT STATED INTERVALS, SELECT
PROSPECTIVE JURORS FROM THE COUNTY TAX RETURNS.  THEIR LIST IS THEN
PRINTED; THE NAMES OF WHITE PERSONS ON THIS LIST ARE PRINTED ON WHITE
TICKETS; THE NAMES OF NEGROES ARE PRINTED ON YELLOW TICKETS.  THESE
TICKETS - WHITE AND YELLOW - ARE PLACED IN A JURY BOX.  A JUDGE OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT THEN DRAWS A NUMBER OF TICKETS FROM THE BOX.  THE
TICKETS ARE HANDED TO A SHERIFF WHO IN TURN ENTRUSTS THEM TO A CLERK. 
IT IS THE CLERK'S DUTY TO "ARRANGE" THE TICKETS AND TO TYPE UP, IN
FINAL FORM, THE LIST OF PERSONS TO BE CALLED TO SERVE ON THE PANEL. 

APPROXIMATELY SIXTY PERSONS WERE SELECTED TO MAKE UP THE PANEL FROM
WHICH THE JURY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WAS DRAWN.  THE JUDGE WHO PICKED
OUT THE TICKETS - BEARING THE NAMES OF PERSONS COMPOSING THE PANEL -
TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT, NOR HAD HE EVER, PRACTICED DISCRIMINATION IN
ANY WAY, IN THE DISCHARGE OF THAT DUTY.  THERE IS NO CONTRADICTORY
EVIDENCE.  YET THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE NEGRO IN
THAT PANEL.  THE STATE CONCEDES THAT NEGROES ARE AVAILABLE FOR JURY
SERVICE IN FULTON COUNTY, AND WE ARE TOLD THAT NEGROES GENERALLY DO
SERVE ON JURIES IN THE COURTS OF THAT COUNTY.  THE QUESTION WE MUST
DECIDE, BASED UPON OUR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD, (FN2) IS
WHETHER PETITIONER HAS MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF DISCRIMINATION IN
THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS PARTICULAR PANEL.  WE THINK HE HAS. 

THE JURY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE OTHER OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
SELECTION OF THIS PANEL, WERE UNDER A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO FOLLOW A
PROCEDURE - "A COURSE OF CONDUCT" - WHICH WOULD NOT "OPERATE TO
DISCRIMINATE IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS ON RACIAL GROUNDS."  HILL V.
TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, 404 (1942).  IF THEY FAILED IN THAT DUTY, THEN
THIS CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED - NO MATTER HOW STRONG THE EVIDENCE OF
PETITIONER'S GUILT.  THAT IS THE LAW ESTABLISHED BY DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT SPANNING MORE THAN SEVENTY YEARS OF INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING
OF "EQUAL PROTECTION."  (FN3) 

PETITIONER'S CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE JURY SELECTION IN THIS
CASE SPRINGS FROM THE JURY COMMISSIONERS' USE OF WHITE AND YELLOW
TICKETS.  OBVIOUSLY THAT PRACTICE MAKES IT EASIER FOR THOSE TO
DISCRIMINATE WHO ARE OF A MIND TO DISCRIMINATE.  FURTHER, THE PRACTICE
HAS NO AUTHORIZATION IN THE GEORGIA STATUTES - WHICH SIMPLY ENJOIN THE
COMMISSIONERS TO SELECT "UPRIGHT AND INTELLIGENT MEN TO SERVE AS JURORS
...  ."  (FN4)  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF
GEORGIA, IN THIS CASE, SPECIFICALLY DISAPPROVED OF THE USE OF
SEPARATELY COLORED TICKETS IN FULTON COUNTY, SAYING THAT IT CONSTITUTED
"PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION." 

WE AGREE.  EVEN IF THE WHITE AND YELLOW TICKETS WERE DRAWN FROM THE
JURY BOX WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, OPPORTUNITY WAS AVAILABLE TO RESORT TO
IT AT OTHER STAGES IN THE SELECTION PROCESS.  AND, IN VIEW OF THE CASE
BEFORE US, WHERE NOT A SINGLE NEGRO WAS SELECTED TO SERVE ON A PANEL OF
SIXTY - THOUGH MANY WERE AVAILABLE - WE THINK THAT PETITIONER HAS
CERTAINLY ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DISCRIMINATION. 

THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED, HOWEVER, BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO
PROVE SOME PARTICULAR ACT OF DISCRIMINATION BY SOME PARTICULAR OFFICER
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE JURY; AND THE STATE NOW ARGUES
THAT IT IS PETITIONER'S BURDEN TO FILL THIS "FACTUAL VACUUM."  WE
CANNOT AGREE.  IF THERE IS A "VACUUM" IT IS ONE WHICH THE STATE MUST
FILL, BY MOVING IN WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DISPEL THE PRIMA FACIE
CASE OF DISCRIMINATION.  WE HAVE HELD BEFORE, (FN5) AND THE GEORGIA
SUPREME COURT, ITSELF, RECENTLY FOLLOWED THESE DECISIONS, (FN6) THAT
WHEN A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DISCRIMINATION IS PRESENTED, THE BURDEN
FALLS, FORTHWITH, UPON THE STATE TO OVERCOME IT.  THE STATE FAILED TO
MEET THIS TEST.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AVERY V. STATE, 209 GA. 116, 70 S.E.2D 716 (1952). 

FN2  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587 (1935). 

FN3  E.G., NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370 (1881); ROGERS V. ALABAMA,
192 U.S. 226 (1904); NORRIS V. ALABAMA, SUPRA; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306
U.S. 354 (1939); CASSELL V. TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282 (1950). 

FN4  GA. CODE ANN. SEC. 59-106.  SEE CRUMB V. STATE, 205 GA. 547, 54
S.E.2D 639 (1949). 

FN5  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 294 U.S., AT 594-595, 598; HILL V.
TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, 405-406 (1942); PATTON V. MISSISSIPPI, 332 U.S.
463 (1947). 

FN6 CRUMB V. STATE, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE REVERSAL.  MY CONCURRENCE IS BASED ON THE UNDISPUTED
FACTS PRESENTED BY THE RECORD.  THE FACTS THAT MAKE A PRIMA FACIE CASE
OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF PETITIONER'S JURY ARE AS
FOLLOWS.  THE POPULATION OF FULTON COUNTY IS 691,797.  NEGROES COMPRISE
25% OR 165,814.  THE TAX RECEIVER'S DIGEST FROM WHICH THE JURY LIST IS
SELECTED HAS 105,035 WHITE CITIZENS AND 17,736 NEGROES - 14%.  THE JURY
LIST FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION HAD 20,509 WHITE AND 1,115 NEGROES - 5%.
FROM THAT LIST A NUMBER, 150 TO 200, WERE DRAWN FOR SERVICE ON EACH OF
THE DIVISIONS OF THE COURT.  EVIDENTLY THESE WERE FOR A WEEK OR A
TERM'S SERVICE.  THE VENIRE FROM WHICH THE TRIAL JURY FOR AVERY WAS
SELECTED NUMBERED 60.  ALL WERE WHITE. 

THESE FACTS ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH THE
RECORD DOES NOT REBUT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE DRAWINGS HERE WERE MADE FROM A BOX
CONTAINING WHITE AND COLORED SLIPS DIFFERENTIATED ACCORDING TO RACIAL
LINES, WHITE FOR WHITE VENIREMEN AND YELLOW FOR COLORED.  THE SLIPS
WERE INDISCRIMINATELY PLACED IN THE BOX AND WERE DRAWN FROM THE BOX BY
A COUNTY COURT JUDGE.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY FROM A RECENT MEMBER OF THE
COUNTY BOARD OF JURY COMMISSIONERS THAT THE USE OF THESE WHITE AND
YELLOW SLIPS WAS DESIGNED FOR PURPOSES OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, AND IT
HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THEY COULD SERVE ANY OTHER PURPOSE.  SO FAR AS
THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE CONCERNED, WE MAY ACCEPT THE
TESTIMONY OF THE JUDGE WHO DREW THE SLIPS FROM THE BOX AS TO THE
HONESTY OF HIS PURPOSE; THAT TESTIMONY DOES NOT REFUTE THE FACT THAT
THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCRIMINATE, AS EXPERIENCE TELLS US THERE
WILL INEVITABLY BE WHEN SUCH DIFFERENTIATING SLIPS ARE USED.  IN THIS
CASE THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE OBVIOUS, PARTLY BECAUSE THE APERTURE IN THE
BOX WAS SUFFICIENTLY WIDE TO MAKE OPEN TO VIEW THE COLOR OF THE SLIPS
AND PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT USE OR ABUSE THAT COULD BE MADE OF
THE SLIPS HOWEVER FAIRLY DRAWN.  HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, OPPORTUNITY FOR
WORKING OF A DISCRIMINATORY SYSTEM EXISTS WHENEVER THE MECHANISM FOR
JURY SELECTION HAS A COMPONENT PART, SUCH AS THE SLIPS HERE, THAT
DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN WHITE AND COLORED; SUCH A MECHANISM CERTAINLY
CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED WHEN A DISCRIMINATORY RESULT IS REACHED.  THE
STARK RESULTING PHENOMENON HERE WAS THAT SOMEHOW OR OTHER, DESPITE THE
FACT THAT OVER 5% OF THE SLIPS WERE YELLOW, NO NEGRO GOT ONTO THE PANEL
OF 60 JURORS FROM WHICH AVERY'S JURY WAS SELECTED.  THE MIND OF
JUSTICE, NOT MERELY ITS EYES, WOULD HAVE TO BE BLIND TO ATTRIBUTE SUCH
AN OCCURRENCE TO MERE FORTUITY. 

ACCORDINGLY, I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :















TINDER V. UNITED STATES 345 U.S. 565 


NO. 113.  ARGUED APRIL 9-10, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 25, 1953 - 193 F.2D 720,
REVERSED. 


AS IT EXISTED IN 1950, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1708 MADE IT AN OFFENSE TO STEAL
FROM A MAILBOX ANY MAIL, LETTER, OR "ANY ARTICLE OR THING CONTAINED
THEREIN."  IT PROVIDED THAT AN OFFENDER SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN
$2,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH; AND PROVIDED
FURTHER THAT IF THE VALUE OF "ANY SUCH ARTICLE OR THING" DOES NOT
EXCEED $100, THE OFFENDER SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH.  HELD:  A DEFENDANT
CONVICTED IN 1950 OF THEFT FROM A MAILBOX OF A LETTER NOT SHOWN TO HAVE
HAD A VALUE OF MORE THAN $100 WAS IMPROPERLY SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT
FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR.  PP. 566-570. 

(A)  THE WORDS "ARTICLE OR THING" IN THE CONCLUDING PROVISO INCLUDED
LETTERS; THE SECTION DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THEFT OF MAIL AND
THEFT OF AN ARTICLE OR THING CONTAINED IN A PIECE OF MAIL.  PP. 567
569. 

(B)  THE ELIMINATION OF THE CONCLUDING PROVISION OF SEC. 1708 BY THE
ACT OF JULY 1, 1952, 66 STAT. 314, IS INAPPLICABLE TO A PRIOR
CONVICTION UNDER THAT SECTION.  P. 569. 

TINDER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF MAIL THEFT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC.
1708, AND SUBSEQUENTLY MOVED TO VACATE OR CORRECT THE SENTENCE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  193 F.2D 720.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S.
976.  REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR CORRECTION OF
SENTENCE, P. 570. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1950, PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY TO A SIX-COUNT
INDICTMENT CHARGING THE THEFT OF SIX SEPARATE LETTERS FROM THE
MAILBOXES OF THE SIX ADDRESSEES IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1708. 
PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT ON EACH COUNT,
THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.  193 F.2D 720.  AFTER SERVING ALMOST
A YEAR OF HIS TERM, PETITIONER, ON AUGUST 3, 1951, FILED A MOTION UNDER
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2255 TO VACATE OR CORRECT SENTENCE ON THE GROUND THAT
THE INDICTMENT DID NOT ALLEGE THAT ANY OF THE LETTERS STOLEN FROM THE
MAILBOXES HAD A VALUE OF MORE THAN $100, HENCE THAT THE INDICTMENT
CHARGED MISDEMEANORS UNDER SEC. 1708, THE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR EACH OF
WHICH WAS ONE YEAR, INSTEAD OF FELONIES FOR WHICH THE MAXIMUM PENALTY
WAS FIVE YEARS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  BOTH OF THE COURTS
BELOW HELD THAT THE MISDEMEANOR PROVISION OF SEC. 1708 APPLIES ONLY TO
THEFTS OF "ANY ARTICLE OR THING" WHICH IN TURN HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM A
LETTER OR PACKAGE, AND NOT TO THEFTS OF INTACT UNITS OF MAIL.  AS THIS
RESULT WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN ARMSTRONG V. UNITED STATES, 187 F.2D
954, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE THAT CONFLICT.  343 U.S. 976. 
THE STATUTE IN QUESTION APPEARS IN THE MARGIN.  (FN1) 

ACCORDING TO THE VIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT ADOPTED BY THE
COURTS BELOW, THE LESSER PENALTY IS LIMITED TO THEFTS FROM MAIL AS
OPPOSED TO THEFTS OF MAIL FOR WHICH THE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT MAY BE
IMPOSED.  UNDER THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSTRUCTION, THE PHRASE "ARTICLE OR
THING" DOES NOT REFER TO MAIL OR LETTERS.  THUS THE ONE-YEAR MAXIMUM
SENTENCE BECOMES APPROPRIATE ONLY WHEN MAIL IS RECEIVED IN A MANNER NOT
PROHIBITED BY THE STATUTE, AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF THEN ILLEGALLY
REMOVED.  WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS DISTINCTION. 

AS EARLY AS 1810 CONGRESS PROHIBITED AND PUNISHED MAIL THEFT (2 STAT.
598).  THAT STATUTE PROVIDED A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT FOR
THE THEFT OF LETTERS CONTAINING "ANY ARTICLE OF VALUE," AND A MAXIMUM
PUNISHMENT OF A FINE OF $500 FOR THE THEFT OF LETTERS "NOT CONTAINING
ANY ARTICLE OF VALUE OR EVIDENCE THEREOF."  IN 1825 THE STATUTE WAS
AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED PENALTIES FOR THE TWO OFFENSES AND THE
VALUE DISTINCTION WAS RETAINED (4 STAT. 109).  UNDER AN 1872 REVISION,
HOWEVER, THE PUNISHMENT DISTINCTION AS TO THE VALUE OR THE NATURE OF
THE MAIL STOLEN WAS ELIMINATED (17 STAT. 318).  UNDER THIS REVISION THE
MAXIMUM SENTENCE WHICH COULD BE IMPOSED FOR MAIL THEFT WAS FIVE YEARS. 
THIS OVER-ALL MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS WAS CARRIED OVER IN THE 1909 ACT
(35 STAT. 1125) AND IN 18 U.S.C. SEC. 317, THE ANTECEDENT PROVISION OF
18 U.S.C. SEC. 1708, ENACTED IN 1948.  IN 1948 THE ENTIRE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL CODE RECEIVED COMPREHENSIVE REVISION.  AMONG OTHER CHANGES NOT
HERE PERTINENT, THE 1948 REVISION ADDED THE PHRASE "BUT IF THE VALUE OR
FACE VALUE OF ANY SUCH ARTICLE OR THING DOES NOT EXCEED $100, HE SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR
BOTH."  THE REVISER'S NOTE ON THIS ADDITION WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE BILL
AND EXPLAINED THE CHANGES TO CONGRESS STATES THAT "THE SMALLER PENALTY
FOR AN OFFENSE INVOLVING $100 OR LESS WAS ADDED."  (18 U.S.C. SEC.
1708.)  THIS NOTE ALSO CALLED ATTENTION TO SIMILAR ADJUSTMENTS OF
PENALTIES IN SECS. 641 AND 645, WHICH RELATE TO ILLEGAL ABSTRACTIONS OF
GOVERNMENT RECORDS, VOUCHERS AND OTHER THINGS OF VALUE.  NOTHING WAS
SAID OF THE DISTINCTION TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOW HAVE US
ACCEDE.  (FN2) 

AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THE ARMSTRONG DECISION, "IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A
SIMPLE MATTER FOR THE REVISER, OR CONGRESS, TO HAVE MADE CLEAR, HAD
SUCH BEEN THE INTENT, THAT STEALING 'AN ARTICLE OR THING' FROM AN ITEM
OF MAIL, LEAVING THE ITEM OF MAIL OTHERWISE INTACT, IS TO BE REGARDED
AS A LESS SERIOUS OFFENSE THAN STEALING THE ITEM OF MAIL ITSELF.  A
HIGHLY TECHNICAL DISTINCTION OF THIS SORT, WHICH COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN
SPELLED OUT, CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON THE GENERAL WORDS 'ANY SUCH ARTICLE
OR THING' IN THE CONCLUDING PROVISO OF SEC. 1708.  THOSE WORDS MUST BE
DEEMED TO INCLUDE ANY ARTICLE OR THING PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IN SEC.
1708, WHETHER IT IS DESCRIBED SPECIFICALLY AS A 'LETTER' OR GENERALLY
AS 'AN ARTICLE OR THING.'"  187 F.2D 954, 956. 

FOLLOWING THE ARMSTRONG DECISION, THE POSTMASTER GENERAL AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED CONGRESS TO ELIMINATE THE MISDEMEANOR PROVISION
FROM SEC. 1708 BECAUSE THE CRIME OF THEFT OF MAIL HAD BEEN DIVIDED INTO
"FELONIES AND MISDEMEANORS, WITH THE VALUE OF THE MATTER STOLEN AS THE
DETERMINING FACTOR."  S. REP. NO 980, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 304;
H.R. REP. NO. 1674, 82D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 3-5.  SUBSEQUENT TO OUR
GRANTING CERTIORARI, JUNE 9, 1952, THE PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THE
MISDEMEANOR PROVISION WAS APPROVED, JULY 1, 1952.  66 STAT. 314. 
ALTHOUGH CONGRESS THUS ELIMINATED THE CONFLICT WHICH LED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI, THE CHANGE IN THE STATUTE CAN HAVE NO EFFECT ON A PRIOR
CONVICTION SUCH AS PETITIONER'S.  IN OUR VIEW, UNDER THE THEN WORDING
OF SEC. 1708, AND ITS PURPOSE AS SHOWN BY THE REVISER'S NOTES,
PETITIONER WAS IMPROPERLY CONVICTED OF A FELONY. 

THIS COURT HAS POWER TO DO JUSTICE AS THE CASE REQUIRES.  (FN3)  28
U.S.C. SEC. 2106.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND
THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO CORRECT THE SENTENCE. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "WHOEVER STEALS, TAKES, OR ABSTRACTS, OR BY FRAUD OR DECEPTION
OBTAINS, OR ATTEMPTS SO TO OBTAIN, FROM OR OUT OF ANY MAIL, POST
OFFICE, OR STATION THEREOF, LETTER BOX, MAIL RECEPTACLE, OR ANY MAIL
ROUTE OR OTHER AUTHORIZED DEPOSITORY FOR MAIL MATTER, OR FROM A LETTER
OR MAIL CARRIER, ANY LETTER, POSTAL CARD, PACKAGE, BAG, OR MAIL, OR
ABSTRACTS OR REMOVES FROM ANY SUCH LETTER, PACKAGE, BAG, OR MAIL, ANY
ARTICLE OR THING CONTAINED THEREIN, OR SECRETES, EMBEZZLES, OR DESTROYS
ANY SUCH LETTER, POSTAL CARD, PACKAGE, BAG, OR MAIL, OR ANY ARTICLE OR
THING CONTAINED THEREIN, OR: 

"WHOEVER STEALS, TAKES, OR ABSTRACTS, OR BY FRAUD OR DECEPTION
OBTAINS ANY LETTER, POSTAL CARD, PACKAGE, BAG, OR MAIL, OR ANY ARTICLE
OR THING CONTAINED THEREIN WHICH HAS BEEN LEFT FOR COLLECTION UPON OR
ADJACENT TO A COLLECTION BOX OR OTHER AUTHORIZED DEPOSITORY OF MAIL
MATTER; OR: 

"WHOEVER BUYS, RECEIVES, OR CONCEALS, OR UNLAWFULLY HAS IN HIS
POSSESSION, ANY LETTER, POSTAL CARD, PACKAGE, BAG, OR MAIL, OR ANY
ARTICLE OR THING CONTAINED THEREIN, WHICH HAS BEEN SO STOLEN, TAKEN,
EMBEZZLED, OR ABSTRACTED, AS HEREIN DESCRIBED, KNOWING THE SAME TO HAVE
BEEN STOLEN, TAKEN, EMBEZZLED, OR ABSTRACTED: 

"SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE
YEARS, OR BOTH; BUT IF THE VALUE OR FACE VALUE OF ANY SUCH ARTICLE OR
THING DOES NOT EXCEED $100, HE SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 

FN2  THE CHIEF REVISER EXPLAINED THE PURPOSE OF SUCH CHANGES TO THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE LAWS AS FOLLOWS:

                       "CHANGES IN PUNISHMENT 

"OUR WORK REVEALED MANY INCONSISTENCIES IN PUNISHMENTS.  SOME
APPEARED TOO LENIENT AND OTHERS TOO HARSH WHEN COMPARED WITH CRIMES OF
SIMILAR GRAVITY.  OUR PROBLEM WAS TWOFOLD. 

"FIRST, WE FOUND THAT IN SPITE OF OUR EXACT DEFINITION OF FELONIES
AND MISDEMEANORS, 29 PUNISHMENTS WERE INACCURATELY LABELED, RESULTING
IN CONFLICTING COURT OPINIONS.  WE SOLVED THIS PROBLEM BY OMITTING FROM
EACH OF THE 29 PUNISHMENTS ANY DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE AS A FELONY
OR MISDEMEANOR, LEAVING THE TEST AS TO THE KIND OF CRIME, TO OUR
DEFINITIVE SECTION. 

"SECOND, WE DISCOVERED SERIOUS DISPARITIES IN PUNISHMENTS WHEN WE
CONSIDERED THE NATURE OF VARIOUS CRIMES.  BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO
ELIMINATE THESE DIFFERENCES WE PREPARED A MASTER TABLE SHOWING THE
NATURE OF EACH OFFENSE AND ITS PUNISHMENT.  IN THIS WAY WE ELIMINATED
MANY INEQUALITIES AND BROUGHT UNIFORMITY OUT OF THE CONFLICTS WHICH
TIME HAD DEVELOPED."  HEARINGS ON H.R. 5450, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., P.
6. 

FN3  PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600, 607; MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL
TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551, 555; WALLING V. JAMES V. REUTER, INC., 321 U.S.
671, 676. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON,
DISSENTING, WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THAT COURT, 193
F.2D 720. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, NOT HAVING HEARD ALL OF THE ORAL ARGUMENT, TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :

















LAURITZEN V. LARSEN 345 U.S. 571 


NO. 226.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 25, 1953 - 196 F.2D 220,
REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT IN PERSONAM UNDER THE JONES ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688,
IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEW YORK, BY A FOREIGN SEAMAN AGAINST A
FOREIGN SHIPOWNER FOR AN INJURY SUSTAINED IN A FOREIGN PORT, PROCESS
WAS SERVED ON DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK AND DEFENDANT APPEARED GENERALLY
AND ANSWERED.  HELD:  THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE ASSERTED CAUSE OF ACTION WAS WELL FOUNDED.  PP. 574-575. 

2.  WHILE TEMPORARILY IN NEW YORK, A DANISH SEAMAN JOINED THE CREW OF
A SHIP OF DANISH FLAG AND REGISTRY OWNED BY A DANISH CITIZEN.  THE
SEAMAN SIGNED SHIP'S ARTICLES PROVIDING THAT THE RIGHTS OF CREW MEMBERS
WOULD BE GOVERNED BY DANISH LAW AND BY THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRACT WITH THE
DANISH SEAMEN'S UNION, OF WHICH THE SEAMAN WAS A MEMBER.  HE WAS
NEGLIGENTLY INJURED ABOARD THE SHIP, IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT,
WHILE IN HAVANA HARBOR.  HE SUED THE SHIP'S OWNER IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT IN NEW YORK FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE JONES ACT.  HELD:  THE JONES
ACT WAS INAPPLICABLE.  PP. 573-593. 

(A)  ALLOWANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL REMEDY UNDER THE JONES ACT WOULD
CONFLICT SHARPLY WITH THE POLICY AND LETTER OF DANISH LAW.  PP. 575
576. 

(B)  BY USAGE AS OLD AS THE NATION, SHIPPING LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES WRITTEN IN ALL-INCLUSIVE GENERAL TERMS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED TO
APPLY ONLY TO AREAS AND TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH AMERICAN LAW WOULD BE
CONSIDERED OPERATIVE UNDER PREVALENT DOCTRINES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. 
PP. 576-579. 

(C)  THE LOCALITY TEST AFFORDS NO SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION OF
AMERICAN LAW IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE INJURY OCCURRED ON A DANISH SHIP
IN CUBAN WATERS.  PP. 583-584. 

(D)  IT IS SETTLED AMERICAN DOCTRINE THAT THE LAW OF THE FLAG GOVERNS
ALL MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE ON A SHIP AND ALL THINGS DONE ON BOARD WHICH
AFFECT ONLY THE SHIP AND THOSE BELONGING TO HER, AND WHICH DO NOT
INVOLVE THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE COUNTRY OR THE TRANQUILLITY OF THE
PORT.  PP. 584-586. 

(E)  THE SEAMAN'S PRESENCE IN NEW YORK WAS TRANSITORY AND CREATED NO
SUCH NATIONAL INTEREST IN, OR DUTY TOWARD, HIM AS TO JUSTIFY
APPLICATION OF THE JONES ACT.  PP. 586-587. 

(F)  THE UTMOST LIBERALITY IN DISREGARDING THE FORMALITY OF A SHIP'S
REGISTRATION IN A COUNTRY OTHER THAN THAT OF THE ALLEGIANCE OF ITS
OWNER DOES NOT SUPPORT APPLICATION OF AMERICAN LAW IN THIS CASE.  PP.
587-588. 

(G)  THAT THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WAS MADE IN NEW YORK DOES NOT
REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT, SINCE THE PLACE OF CONTRACT IS NOT A
SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE IN THE CHOICE BETWEEN COMPETING LAWS TO GOVERN A
MARITIME TORT, AND THE CONTRACT ITSELF VALIDLY PROVIDED FOR APPLICATION
OF DANISH LAW.  PP. 588-589. 

(H)  JUSTICE DOES NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION OF THIS CASE UNDER
AMERICAN LAW TO SAVE THIS SEAMAN EXPENSE AND LOSS OF TIME IN RETURNING
TO A FOREIGN FORUM.  PP. 589-590. 

(I)  THAT AN AMERICAN FORUM HAS PERFECTED ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE
PARTIES AND THAT THE DEFENDANT DOES FREQUENT AND REGULAR BUSINESS IN
THE FORUM STATE DOES NOT JUSTIFY APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF THE FORUM IN
THIS CASE.  PP. 590-593. 

LAURITZEN V. LARSEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AWARDED RESPONDENT A JUDGMENT AGAINST
PETITIONER FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE JONES ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  196 F.2D 220.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 810.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 593. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE KEY ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THIS CLAIM OF MARITIME TORT.  LARSEN, A DANISH
SEAMAN, WHILE TEMPORARILY IN NEW YORK JOINED THE CREW OF THE RANDA, A
SHIP OF DANISH FLAG AND REGISTRY, OWNED BY PETITIONER, A DANISH
CITIZEN.  LARSEN SIGNED SHIP'S ARTICLES, WRITTEN IN DANISH, PROVIDING
THAT THE RIGHTS OF CREW MEMBERS WOULD BE GOVERNED BY DANISH LAW AND BY
THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRACT WITH THE DANISH SEAMEN'S UNION, OF WHICH LARSEN
WAS A MEMBER.  HE WAS NEGLIGENTLY INJURED ABOARD THE RANDA IN THE
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, WHILE IN HAVANA HARBOR. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT UNDER THE JONES ACT (FN1) ON THE LAW SIDE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND DEMANDED A
JURY.  PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT DANISH LAW WAS APPLICABLE AND THAT,
UNDER IT, RESPONDENT HAD RECEIVED ALL OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH HE
WAS ENTITLED.  HE ALSO CONTESTED THE COURT'S JURISDICTION. 
ENTERTAINING THE CAUSE, THE COURT RULED THAT AMERICAN RATHER THAN
DANISH LAW APPLIED, AND THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT OF $4,267.50.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT, AFFIRMED.  (FN2)  ITS DECISION, AT
LEAST SUPERFICIALLY, IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS OWN EARLIER ONES (FN3) AND
CONFLICTS WITH ONE BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  (FN4)  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  (FN5) 

THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IS SHORTLY ANSWERED.  A SUIT TO RECOVER
DAMAGES UNDER THE JONES ACT IS IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE SHIP'S OWNER AND
NOT ONE IN REM AGAINST THE SHIP ITSELF.  (FN6)  THE DEFENDANT APPEARED
GENERALLY, ANSWERED AND TENDERED NO OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION OF HIS
PERSON.  AS FREQUENTLY HAPPENS, A CONTENTION THAT THERE IS SOME BARRIER
TO GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM IS CAST IN TERMS OF AN EXCEPTION TO
JURISDICTION OF SUBJECT MATTER.  A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER OUR LAW WAS
ASSERTED HERE, AND THE COURT HAD POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS OR
WAS NOT WELL FOUNDED IN LAW AND IN FACT.  CF. MONTANA-DAKOTA CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 341 U.S. 246, 249. 

DENMARK HAS ENACTED A COMPREHENSIVE CODE TO GOVERN THE RELATIONS OF
HER SHIPOWNERS TO HER SEAGOING LABOR WHICH BY ITS TERMS AND INTENTIONS
CONTROLS THIS CLAIM.  THOUGH IT IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE, IT IS
PLAUSIBLY CONTENDED THAT ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNER GROWING OUT OF
DANISH LAW HAVE BEEN PERFORMED OR TENDERED TO THIS SEAMAN.  THE
SHIPOWNER, SUPPORTED HERE BY THE DANISH GOVERNMENT, ASSERTS THAT THE
DANISH LAW SUPPLIES THE FULL MEASURE OF HIS OBLIGATION AND THAT
MARITIME USAGE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AS ACCEPTED BY THE UNITED STATES
EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF OUR INCOMPATIBLE STATUTE. 

THAT ALLOWANCE OF AN ADDITIONAL REMEDY UNDER OUR JONES ACT WOULD
SHARPLY CONFLICT WITH THE POLICY AND LETTER OF DANISH LAW IS PLAIN FROM
A GENERAL COMPARISON OF THE TWO SYSTEMS OF DEALING WITH SHIPBOARD
ACCIDENTS.  BOTH ASSURE THE ILL OR INJURED SEAFARING WORKER THE
CONVENTIONAL MAINTENANCE AND CURE AT THE SHIPOWNER'S COST, REGARDLESS
OF FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF ANYONE.  BUT, WHILE WE LIMIT THIS
TO THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH MAXIMUM POSSIBLE CURE CAN BE EFFECTED,
FARRELL V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 511, THE DANISH LAW LIMITS IT TO A
FIXED PERIOD OF TWELVE WEEKS, AND THE MONETARY MEASUREMENT IS
DIFFERENT.  THE TWO SYSTEMS ARE IN SHARPEST CONFLICT AS TO TREATMENT OF
CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY, PARTIAL OR COMPLETE, WHICH ARE PERMANENT, OR
WHICH OUTLAST THE LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE, TO WHICH CLASS
THIS CLAIM BELONGS.  SUCH INJURIES DANISH LAW RELIEVES UNDER A STATE
OPERATED PLAN SIMILAR TO OUR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SYSTEMS.  CLAIMS
FOR SUCH DISABILITY ARE NOT MADE AGAINST THE OWNER BUT AGAINST THE
STATE'S DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES OF
ACCIDENTS.  THEY MAY BE PRESENTED DIRECTLY OR THROUGH ANY DANISH
CONSULATE.  THEY ARE ALLOWED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, NOT BY
LITIGATION, AND DEPEND NOT UPON FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE BUT ONLY ON THE
FACT OF INJURY AND THE EXTENT OF DISABILITY.  OUR OWN LAW, APART FROM
INDEMNITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE SHIP'S UNSEAWORTHINESS, MAKES NO
SUCH COMPENSATION FOR SUCH DISABILITY IN THE ABSENCE OF FAULT OR
NEGLIGENCE.  BUT, WHEN SUCH FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE IS ESTABLISHED BY
LITIGATION, IT ALLOWS RECOVERY FOR ELEMENTS SUCH AS PAIN AND SUFFERING
NOT COMPENSATED UNDER DANISH LAW AND LETS THE DAMAGES BE FIXED BY
JURY.  IN THIS CASE, SINCE NEGLIGENCE WAS FOUND, UNITED STATES LAW
PERMITS A LARGER RECOVERY THAN DANISH LAW.  IF THE SAME INJURY WERE
SUSTAINED BUT NEGLIGENCE WAS ABSENT OR NOT PROVABLE, THE DANISH LAW
WOULD APPEAR TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION WHERE OURS WOULD NOT. 

RESPONDENT DOES NOT DENY THAT DANISH LAW IS APPLICABLE TO HIS CASE. 
THE CONTENTION AS STATED IN HIS BRIEF IS RATHER THAT "A CLAIMANT MAY
SELECT WHATEVER FORUM HE DESIRES AND RECEIVE THE BENEFITS RESULTING
FROM SUCH CHOICE" AND "A SHIP OWNER IS LIABLE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
FORUM WHERE HE DOES BUSINESS AS WELL AS IN HIS OWN COUNTRY."  THIS
CONTENTION THAT THE JONES ACT PROVIDES AN OPTIONAL CUMULATIVE REMEDY IS
NOT BASED ON ANY EXPLICIT TERMS OF THE ACT, WHICH MAKES NO PROVISION
FOR CASES IN WHICH REMEDIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED OR ARE OBTAINABLE UNDER
FOREIGN LAW.  RATHER HE RELIES UPON THE LITERAL CATHOLICITY OF ITS
TERMINOLOGY.  IF READ LITERALLY, CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED AN AMERICAN
RIGHT OF ACTION WHICH REQUIRES NOTHING MORE THAN THAT PLAINTIFF BE "ANY
SEAMAN WHO SHALL SUFFER PERSONAL INJURY IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT."  IT MAKES NO EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT THAT EITHER THE SEAMAN,
THE EMPLOYMENT OR THE INJURY HAVE THE SLIGHTEST CONNECTION WITH THE
UNITED STATES.  UNLESS SOME RELATIONSHIP OF ONE OR MORE OF THESE TO OUR
NATIONAL INTEREST IS IMPLIED, CONGRESS HAS EXTENDED OUR LAW AND OPENED
OUR COURTS TO ALL ALIEN SEAFARING MEN INJURED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD IN
SERVICE OF WATERCRAFT OF EVERY FOREIGN NATION - A HAND ON A CHINESE
JUNK, NEVER OUTSIDE CHINESE WATERS, WOULD NOT BE BEYOND ITS LITERAL
WORDING. 

BUT CONGRESS IN 1920 WROTE THESE ALL-COMPREHENDING WORDS, NOT ON A
CLEAN SLATE, BUT AS A POSTSCRIPT TO A LONG SERIES OF ENACTMENTS
GOVERNING SHIPPING.  ALL WERE ENACTED WITH REGARD TO A SEASONED BODY OF
MARITIME LAW DEVELOPED BY THE EXPERIENCE OF AMERICAN COURTS LONG
ACCUSTOMED TO DEALING WITH ADMIRALTY PROBLEMS IN RECONCILING OUR OWN
WITH FOREIGN INTERESTS AND IN ACCOMMODATING THE REACH OF OUR OWN LAWS
TO THOSE OF OTHER MARITIME NATIONS. 

THE SHIPPING LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, SET FORTH IN TITLE 46 OF THE
U.S.C.  COMPRISE A PATCHWORK OF SEPARATE ENACTMENTS, SOME TRACING FAR
BACK IN OUR HISTORY AND MANY DESIGNED FOR PARTICULAR EMERGENCIES. 
WHILE SOME HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC IN APPLICATION TO FOREIGN SHIPPING AND
OTHERS IN BEING CONFINED TO AMERICAN SHIPPING, MANY GIVE NO EVIDENCE
THAT CONGRESS ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THEIR FOREIGN APPLICATION AND ARE IN
GENERAL TERMS WHICH LEAVE THEIR APPLICATION TO BE JUDICIALLY DETERMINED
FROM CONTEXT AND CIRCUMSTANCE.  BY USAGE AS OLD AS THE NATION, SUCH
STATUTES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED TO APPLY ONLY TO AREAS AND TRANSACTIONS IN
WHICH AMERICAN LAW WOULD BE CONSIDERED OPERATIVE UNDER PREVALENT
DOCTRINES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.  THUS, IN UNITED STATES V. PALMER, 3
WHEAT.  610, THIS COURT WAS CALLED UPON TO INTERPRET A STATUTE OF 1790
(1 STAT. 115) PUNISHING CERTAIN ACTS WHEN COMMITTED ON THE HIGH SEAS BY
"ANY PERSON OR PERSONS," TERMS WHICH, AS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
OBSERVED, ARE "BROAD ENOUGH TO COMPREHEND EVERY HUMAN BEING."  BUT THE
COURT DETERMINED THAT THE LITERAL UNIVERSALITY OF THE PROHIBITION "MUST
NOT ONLY BE LIMITED TO CASES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE, BUT
ALSO TO THOSE OBJECTS TO WHICH THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO APPLY THEM"
(P. 631) AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT REACH A PERSON PERFORMING THE
PROSCRIBED ACTS ABOARD THE SHIP OF A FOREIGN STATE ON THE HIGH SEAS. 

THIS DOCTRINE OF CONSTRUCTION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE LONG-HEEDED
ADMONITION OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL THAT "AN ACT OF CONGRESS OUGHT
NEVER TO BE CONSTRUED TO VIOLATE THE LAW OF NATIONS IF ANY OTHER
POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION REMAINS  ...  ."  THE CHARMING BETSY, 2 CRANCH
64, 118.  SEE THE NEREIDE, 9 CRANCH 388, 423; MACLEOD V. UNITED STATES,
229 U.S. 416, 434; SANDBERG V. MCDONALD, 248 U.S. 185, 195.  AND IT HAS
LONG BEEN ACCEPTED IN MARITIME JURISPRUDENCE THAT "  ...  IF ANY
CONSTRUCTION OTHERWISE BE POSSIBLE, AN ACT WILL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS
APPLYING TO FOREIGNERS IN RESPECT TO ACTS DONE BY THEM OUTSIDE THE
DOMINIONS OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER ENACTING.  THAT IS A RULE BASED ON
INTERNATIONAL LAW BY WHICH ONE SOVEREIGN POWER IS BOUND TO RESPECT THE
SUBJECTS AND THE RIGHTS OF ALL OTHER SOVEREIGN POWERS OUTSIDE ITS OWN
TERRITORY."  LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN IN THE QUEEN V. JAMESON, (1896) 2
Q.B. 425, 430.  THIS IS NOT, AS SOMETIMES IS IMPLIED, ANY IMPAIRMENT OF
OUR OWN SOVEREIGNTY, OR LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS.  "THE LAW
OF THE SEA," WE HAVE HAD OCCASION TO OBSERVE, "IS IN A PECULIAR SENSE
AN INTERNATIONAL LAW, BUT APPLICATION OF ITS SPECIFIC RULES DEPENDS
UPON ACCEPTANCE BY THE UNITED STATES."  FARRELL V. UNITED STATES, 336
U.S. 511, 517.  ON THE CONTRARY, WE ARE SIMPLY DEALING WITH A PROBLEM
OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RATHER COMMONPLACE IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM BY
WHICH COURTS OFTEN HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER "ANY" OR "EVERY" REACHES TO
THE LIMITS OF THE ENACTING AUTHORITY'S USUAL SCOPE OR IS TO BE APPLIED
TO FOREIGN EVENTS OR TRANSACTIONS.  (FN7) 

THE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE BEFORE US BEGINS WITH THE 1915 ENACTMENT
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAFOLLETTE ACT, ENTITLED, "AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE
WELFARE OF AMERICAN SEAMEN IN THE MERCHANT MARINE OF THE UNITED STATES;
TO ABOLISH ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT AS A PENALTY FOR DESERTION AND TO
SECURE THE ABROGATION OF TREATY PROVISIONS IN RELATION THERETO; AND TO
PROMOTE SAFETY AT SEA."  38 STAT. 1164.  MANY SECTIONS OF THIS ACT WERE
IN TERMS OR BY OBVIOUS IMPLICATION RESTRICTED TO AMERICAN SHIPS.  (FN8)
THREE SECTIONS WERE MADE SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO FOREIGN VESSELS,
(FN9) AND THESE PROVOKED CONSIDERABLE DOUBT AND DEBATE.  (FN10)  OTHERS
WERE PHRASED IN TERMS WHICH ON THEIR FACE MIGHT APPLY TO THE WORLD OR
TO ANYTHING LESS.  IN THIS CATEGORY FELL SEC. 20, A CRYPTIC PARAGRAPH
DEALING WITH THE FELLOW-SERVANT DOCTRINE, TO WHICH THIS COURT ASCRIBED
LITTLE, IF ANY, OF ITS INTENDED EFFECT.  CHELENTIS V. LUCKENBACH S.S.
CO., 247 U.S. 372.  IN 1920, CONGRESS, UNDER THE TITLE "AN ACT TO
PROVIDE FOR THE PROMOTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE AMERICAN MERCHANT
MARINE.  ...  " AND OTHER SUBJECTS NOT RELEVANT, PROVIDED A PLAN TO AID
OUR MERCANTILE FLEET AND INCLUDED THE REVISED PROVISION FOR INJURED
SEAMEN NOW BEFORE US FOR CONSTRUCTION.  41 STAT. 988, 1007.  IT DID SO
BY REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WHICH WE HAVE
HELD NOT APPLICABLE TO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN'S INJURY SUSTAINED IN CANADA
WHILE IN SERVICE OF AN AMERICAN EMPLOYER.  NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V.
CHISHOLM, 268 U.S. 29.  AND IT DID NOT GIVE THE SEAMAN THE ONE REALLY
EFFECTIVE SECURITY FOR A CLAIM AGAINST A FOREIGN OWNER, A MARITIME
LIEN.  (FN11) 

CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF THE NECESSITY OF CONSTRUCTION
IMPOSED UPON COURTS BY SUCH GENERALITY OF LANGUAGE AND WAS WELL WARNED
THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MORE DEFINITE DIRECTIONS THAN ARE CONTAINED IN
THE JONES ACT IT WOULD BE APPLIED BY THE COURTS TO FOREIGN EVENTS,
FOREIGN SHIPS AND FOREIGN SEAMEN ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USUAL
DOCTRINE AND PRACTICES OF MARITIME LAW. 

RESPONDENT PLACES GREAT STRESS UPON THE ASSERTION THAT PETITIONER'S
COMMERCE AND CONTACTS WITH THE PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE FREQUENT
AND REGULAR, AS THE BASIS FOR APPLYING OUR STATUTES TO INCIDENTS ABOARD
HIS SHIPS.  BUT THE VIRTUE AND UTILITY OF SEA-BORNE COMMERCE LIES IN
ITS FREQUENT AND IMPORTANT CONTACTS WITH MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY.  IF, TO
SERVE SOME IMMEDIATE INTEREST, THE COURTS OF EACH WERE TO EXPLOIT EVERY
SUCH CONTACT TO THE LIMIT OF ITS POWER, IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT
A MULTIPLICITY OF CONFLICTING AND OVERLAPPING BURDENS WOULD BLIGHT
INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE BY SEA.  HENCE, COURTS OF THIS AND OTHER
COMMERCIAL NATIONS HAVE GENERALLY DEFERRED TO A NON-NATIONAL OR
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW OF IMPRESSIVE MATURITY AND UNIVERSALITY. 
(FN12)  IT HAS THE FORCE OF LAW, NOT FROM EXTRATERRITORIAL REACH OF
NATIONAL LAWS, NOR FROM ABDICATION OF ITS SOVEREIGN POWERS BY ANY
NATION, BUT FROM ACCEPTANCE BY COMMON CONSENT OF CIVILIZED COMMUNITIES
OF RULES DESIGNED TO FOSTER AMICABLE AND WORKABLE COMMERCIAL
RELATIONS. 

INTERNATIONAL OR MARITIME LAW IN SUCH MATTERS AS THIS DOES NOT SEEK
UNIFORMITY AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO RESTRICT ANY NATION FROM MAKING AND
ALTERING ITS LAWS TO GOVERN ITS OWN SHIPPING AND TERRITORY.  HOWEVER,
IT AIMS AT STABILITY AND ORDER THROUGH USAGES WHICH CONSIDERATIONS OF
COMITY, RECIPROCITY AND LONG-RANGE INTEREST HAVE DEVELOPED TO DEFINE
THE DOMAIN WHICH EACH NATION WILL CLAIM AS ITS OWN.  MARITIME LAW, LIKE
OUR MUNICIPAL LAW, HAS ATTEMPTED TO AVOID OR RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN
COMPETING LAWS BY ASCERTAINING AND VALUING POINTS OF CONTACT BETWEEN
THE TRANSACTION AND THE STATES OR GOVERNMENTS WHOSE COMPETING LAWS ARE
INVOLVED.  THE CRITERIA, IN GENERAL, APPEAR TO BE ARRIVED AT FROM
WEIGHING OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ONE OR MORE CONNECTING FACTORS BETWEEN
THE SHIPPING TRANSACTION REGULATED AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST SERVED BY
THE ASSERTION OF AUTHORITY.  IT WOULD NOT BE CANDID TO CLAIM THAT OUR
COURTS HAVE ARRIVED AT SATISFACTORY STANDARDS OR APPLY THOSE THAT THEY
PROFESS WITH PERFECT CONSISTENCY.  BUT IN DEALING WITH INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCE WE CANNOT BE UNMINDFUL OF THE NECESSITY FOR MUTUAL FORBEARANCE
IF RETALIATIONS ARE TO BE AVOIDED; NOR SHOULD WE FORGET THAT ANY
CONTACT WHICH WE HOLD SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT APPLICATION OF OUR LAW TO A
FOREIGN TRANSACTION WILL LOGICALLY BE AS STRONG A WARRANT FOR A FOREIGN
COUNTRY TO APPLY ITS LAW TO AN AMERICAN TRANSACTION. 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US, TWO FOREIGN NATIONS CAN CLAIM SOME CONNECTING
FACTOR WITH THIS TORT - DENMARK, BECAUSE, AMONG OTHER REASONS, THE SHIP
AND THE SEAMAN WERE DANISH NATIONALS; CUBA, BECAUSE THE TORTIOUS
CONDUCT OCCURRED AND CAUSED INJURY IN CUBAN WATERS.  THE UNITED STATES
MAY ALSO CLAIM CONTACTS BECAUSE THE SEAMAN HAD BEEN HIRED IN AND WAS
RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES, WHICH ALSO IS THE STATE OF THE FORUM. 
WE THEREFORE REVIEW THE SEVERAL FACTORS WHICH, ALONE OR IN COMBINATION,
ARE GENERALLY CONCEDED TO INFLUENCE CHOICE OF LAW TO GOVERN A TORT
CLAIM, PARTICULARLY A MARITIME TORT CLAIM, AND THE WEIGHT AND
SIGNIFICANCE ACCORDED THEM. 

1.  PLACE OF THE WRONGFUL ACT.  - THE SOLUTION MOST COMMONLY ACCEPTED
AS TO TORTS IN OUR MUNICIPAL AND IN INTERNATIONAL LAW IS TO APPLY THE
LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ACTS GIVING RISE TO THE LIABILITY OCCURRED,
THE LEX LOCI DELICTI COMMISSI.  (FN13)  THIS RULE OF LOCALITY, OFTEN
APPLIED TO MARITIME TORTS, (FN14) WOULD INDICATE APPLICATION OF THE LAW
OF CUBA, IN WHOSE DOMAIN THE ACTIONABLE WRONG TOOK PLACE.  THE TEST OF
LOCATION OF THE WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION, HOWEVER SUFFICIENT FOR TORTS
ASHORE, IS OF LIMITED APPLICATION TO SHIPBOARD TORTS, BECAUSE OF THE
VARIETIES OF LEGAL AUTHORITY OVER WATERS SHE MAY NAVIGATE.  THESE RANGE
FROM PORTS, HARBORS, ROADSTEADS, STRAITS, RIVERS AND CANALS WHICH FORM
PART OF THE DOMAIN OF VARIOUS STATES, THROUGH BAYS AND GULFS, AND THAT
BAND OF THE LITTORAL SEA KNOWN AS TERRITORIAL WATERS, OVER WHICH
CONTROL IN A LARGE, BUT NOT UNLIMITED, DEGREE IS CONCEDED TO THE
ADJACENT STATE.  IT INCLUDES, OF COURSE, THE HIGH SEAS AS TO WHICH THE
LAW WAS PROBABLY SETTLED AND OLD WHEN GROTIUS WROTE THAT IT CANNOT BE
ANYONE'S PROPERTY AND CANNOT BE MONOPOLIZED BY VIRTUE OF DISCOVERY,
OCCUPATION, PAPAL GRANT, PRESCRIPTION OR CUSTOM.  (FN15) 

WE HAVE SOMETIMES UNCOMPROMISINGLY ASSERTED TERRITORIAL RIGHTS, AS
WHEN WE HELD THAT FOREIGN SHIPS VOLUNTARILY ENTERING OUR WATERS BECOME
SUBJECT TO OUR PROHIBITION LAWS AND OTHER LAWS AS WELL, EXCEPT AS WE
MAY IN PURSUANCE OF OUR OWN POLICY FOREGO OR LIMIT EXERTION OF OUR
POWER.  CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO. V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 100, 124.  THIS
DOCTRINE WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE CUBAN LAW FOR THIS CASE.  BUT THE
TERRITORIAL STANDARD IS SO UNFITTED TO AN ENTERPRISE CONDUCTED UNDER
MANY TERRITORIAL RULES AND UNDER NONE THAT IT USUALLY IS MODIFIED BY
THE MORE CONSTANT LAW OF THE FLAG.  THIS WOULD APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE PRACTICE OF CUBA, WHICH APPLIES A WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
SYSTEM IN PRINCIPLE NOT UNLIKE THAT OF DENMARK TO ALL ACCIDENTS
OCCURRING ABOARD SHIPS OF CUBAN REGISTRY.  (FN16)  THE LOCALITY TEST,
FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH, AFFORDS NO SUPPORT FOR THE APPLICATION OF
AMERICAN LAW IN THIS CASE AND PROBABLY REFERS US TO DANISH IN
PREFERENCE TO CUBAN LAW, THOUGH THIS POINT WE NEED NOT DECIDE, FOR
NEITHER PARTY URGES CUBAN LAW AS CONTROLLING. 

2.  LAW OF THE FLAG.  - PERHAPS THE MOST VENERABLE AND UNIVERSAL RULE
OF MARITIME LAW RELEVANT TO OUR PROBLEM IS THAT WHICH GIVES CARDINAL
IMPORTANCE TO THE LAW OF THE FLAG.  EACH STATE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
MAY DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH IT WILL GRANT ITS
NATIONALITY TO A MERCHANT SHIP, THEREBY ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT
AND ACQUIRING AUTHORITY OVER IT. NATIONALITY IS EVIDENCED TO THE WORLD
BY THE SHIP'S PAPERS AND ITS FLAG.  THE UNITED STATES HAS FIRMLY AND
SUCCESSFULLY MAINTAINED THAT THE REGULARITY AND VALIDITY OF A
REGISTRATION CAN BE QUESTIONED ONLY BY THE REGISTERING STATE.  (FN17) 

THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT THE LAW OF THE FLAG SUPERSEDES THE
TERRITORIAL PRINCIPLE, EVEN FOR PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF
PERSONNEL OF A MERCHANT SHIP, BECAUSE IT "IS DEEMED TO BE A PART OF THE
TERRITORY OF THAT SOVEREIGNTY WHOSE FLAG IT FLIES, AND NOT TO LOSE THAT
CHARACTER WHEN IN NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
ANOTHER SOVEREIGNTY."  ON THIS PRINCIPLE, WE CONCEDE A TERRITORIAL
GOVERNMENT INVOLVED ONLY CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF OFFENSES ABOARD OUR
SHIPS.   UNITED STATES V. FLORES, 289 U.S. 137, 155-159, AND CASES
CITED.  SOME AUTHORITIES REJECT, AS A RATHER MISCHIEVOUS FICTION, THE
DOCTRINE THAT A SHIP IS CONSTRUCTIVELY A FLOATING PART OF THE FLAG
STATE, (FN18) BUT APPLY THE LAW OF THE FLAG ON THE PRAGMATIC BASIS THAT
THERE MUST BE SOME LAW ON SHIPBOARD, THAT IT CANNOT CHANGE AT EVERY
CHANGE OF WATERS, AND NO EXPERIENCE SHOWS A BETTER RULE THAN THAT OF
THE STATE THAT OWNS HER. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO US HERE THAT THE WEIGHT GIVEN TO THE ENSIGN
OVERBEARS MOST OTHER CONNECTING EVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABLE LAW. 
AS THIS COURT HELD IN UNITED STATES V. FLORES, SUPRA, AT 158, AND
ITERATED IN CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO. V. MELLON, SUPRA, AT 123: 

"AND SO BY COMITY IT CAME TO BE GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD AMONG CIVILIZED
NATIONS THAT ALL MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE AND ALL THINGS DONE ON BOARD
WHICH AFFECTED ONLY THE VESSEL OR THOSE BELONGING TO HER, AND DID NOT
INVOLVE THE PEACE OR DIGNITY OF THE COUNTRY, OR THE TRANQUILLITY OF THE
PORT, SHOULD BE LEFT BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE
AUTHORITIES OF THE NATION TO WHICH THE VESSEL BELONGED AS THE LAWS OF
THAT NATION OR THE INTERESTS OF ITS COMMERCE SHOULD REQUIRE  ...  ." 

THIS WAS BUT A REPETITION OF SETTLED AMERICAN DOCTRINE.  (FN19) 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE OF SUCH WEIGHT IN FAVOR OF DANISH AND
AGAINST AMERICAN LAW IN THIS CASE THAT IT MUST PREVAIL UNLESS SOME
HEAVY COUNTERWEIGHT APPEARS. 

3.  ALLEGIANCE OR DOMICILE OF THE INJURED.  - UNTIL RECENT TIMES
THERE WAS LITTLE OCCASION FOR CONFLICT BETWEEN THE LAW OF THE FLAG AND
THE LAW OF THE STATE OF WHICH THE SEAFARER WAS A SUBJECT, FOR THE LONG
STANDING RULE, AS PRONOUNCED BY THIS COURT AFTER EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW OF
AUTHORITY, WAS THAT THE NATIONALITY OF THE VESSEL FOR JURISDICTIONAL
PURPOSES WAS ATTRIBUTED TO ALL HER CREW.  IN RE ROSS, 140 U.S. 453,
472.  (FN20)  SURELY DURING SERVICE UNDER A FOREIGN FLAG SOME DUTY OF
ALLEGIANCE IS DUE.  BUT, ALSO, EACH NATION HAS A LEGITIMATE INTEREST
THAT ITS NATIONALS AND PERMANENT INHABITANTS BE NOT MAIMED OR DISABLED
FROM SELF-SUPPORT.  IN SOME LATER AMERICAN CASES, COURTS HAVE BEEN
PROMPTED TO APPLY THE JONES ACT BY THE FACT THAT THE WRONGFUL ACT OR
OMISSION ALLEGED CAUSED INJURY TO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OR DOMICILIARY. 
(FN21)  WE NEED NOT, HOWEVER, WEIGH THE SEAMAN'S NATIONALITY AGAINST
THAT OF THE SHIP, FOR HERE THE TWO COINCIDE WITHOUT RESORT TO FICTION. 
ADMITTEDLY, RESPONDENT IS NEITHER CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.  WHILE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION HE ANSWERED LEADING QUESTIONS THAT
HE WAS LIVING IN NEW YORK WHEN HE JOINED THE RANDA, THE ARTICLES WHICH
HE SIGNED RECITED, AND ON CROSS-EXAMINATION HE ADMITTED, THAT HIS HOME
WAS SILKEBURG, DENMARK.  HIS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK WAS TRANSITORY AND
CREATED NO SUCH NATIONAL INTEREST IN, OR DUTY TOWARD, HIM AS TO JUSTIFY
INTERVENTION OF THE LAW OF ONE STATE ON THE SHIPBOARD OF ANOTHER. 

4.  ALLEGIANCE OF THE DEFENDANT SHIPOWNER.  - A STATE "IS NOT
DEBARRED BY ANY RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FROM GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF
ITS OWN CITIZENS UPON THE HIGH SEAS OR EVEN IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHEN
THE RIGHTS OF OTHER NATIONS OR THEIR NATIONALS ARE NOT INFRINGED." 
SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69, 73.  STEELE V. BULOVA WATCH CO., 344
U.S. 280, 282.  UNTIL RECENT TIMES THIS FACTOR WAS NOT A FREQUENT
OCCASION OF CONFLICT, FOR THE NATIONALITY OF THE SHIP WAS THAT OF ITS
OWNERS.  (FN22)  BUT IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN RECENT YEARS A
PRACTICE HAS GROWN, PARTICULARLY AMONG AMERICAN SHIPOWNERS, TO AVOID
STRINGENT SHIPPING LAWS BY SEEKING FOREIGN REGISTRATION EAGERLY OFFERED
BY SOME COUNTRIES.  (FN23)  CONFRONTED WITH SUCH OPERATIONS, OUR COURTS
ON OCCASION HAVE PRESSED BEYOND THE FORMALITIES OF MORE OR LESS NOMINAL
FOREIGN REGISTRATION TO ENFORCE AGAINST AMERICAN SHIPOWNERS THE
OBLIGATIONS WHICH OUR LAW PLACES UPON THEM.  (FN24)  BUT HERE AGAIN THE
UTMOST LIBERALITY IN DISREGARD OF FORMALITY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
APPLICATION OF AMERICAN LAW IN THIS CASE, FOR IT APPEARS BEYOND DOUBT
THAT THIS OWNER IS A DANE BY NATIONALITY AND DOMICILE. 

5.  PLACE OF CONTRACT.  - PLACE OF CONTRACT, WHICH WAS NEW YORK, IS
THE FACTOR ON WHICH RESPONDENT CHIEFLY RELIES TO INVOKE AMERICAN LAW. 
IT IS ONE WHICH OFTEN HAS SIGNIFICANCE IN CHOICE OF LAW IN A CONTRACT
ACTION.  BUT A JONES ACT SUIT IS FOR TORT, IN WHICH RESPECT IT DIFFERS
FROM ONE TO ENFORCE LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  AS WE HAVE
SAID OF THE LATTER, "IN THE UNITED STATES THIS OBLIGATION HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED CONSISTENTLY AS AN IMPLIED PROVISION IN CONTRACTS OF MARINE
EMPLOYMENT.  CREATED THUS WITH THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, THE
LIABILITY, UNLIKE THAT FOR INDEMNITY OR THAT LATER CREATED BY THE JONES
ACT, IN NO SENSE IS PREDICATED ON THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE
SHIPOWNER."  AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724, 730.  DE ZON V.
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, 318 U.S. 660, 667; CALMAR S.S. CORP. V.
TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525, 527.  BUT THIS ACTION DOES NOT SEEK TO RECOVER
ANYTHING DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT OR DAMAGES FOR ITS BREACH. 

THE PLACE OF CONTRACTING IN THIS INSTANCE, AS IS USUAL TO SUCH
CONTRACTS, WAS FORTUITOUS.  A SEAMAN TAKES HIS EMPLOYMENT, LIKE HIS
FUN, WHERE HE FINDS IT; A SHIP TAKES ON CREW IN ANY PORT WHERE IT NEEDS
THEM.  THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF MAKING THE LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS GOVERN
ALL TORT CLAIMS DURING THE SERVICE WOULD BE TO SUBJECT A SHIP TO A
MULTITUDE OF SYSTEMS OF LAW, TO PUT SOME OF THE CREW IN A MORE
ADVANTAGEOUS POSITION THAN OTHERS, AND NOT UNLIKELY IN THE LONG RUN TO
DIMINISH HIRINGS IN PORTS OF COUNTRIES THAT TAKE BEST CARE OF THEIR
SEAMEN. 

BUT IF CONTRACT LAW IS NONETHELESS TO BE CONSIDERED, WE FACE THE FACT
THAT THIS CONTRACT WAS EXPLICIT THAT THE DANISH LAW AND THE CONTRACT
WITH THE DANISH UNION WERE TO CONTROL.  EXCEPT AS FORBIDDEN BY SOME
PUBLIC POLICY, THE TENDENCY OF THE LAW IS TO APPLY IN CONTRACT MATTERS
THE LAW WHICH THE PARTIES INTENDED TO APPLY.  (FN25)  WE ARE AWARE OF
NO PUBLIC POLICY THAT WOULD PREVENT THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTRACT, WHICH
CONTEMPLATES PERFORMANCE IN A MULTITUDE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS
AND ON THE HIGH SEAS, FROM SO SETTLING UPON THE LAW OF THE FLAG-STATE
AS THEIR GOVERNING CODE.  THIS ARRANGEMENT IS SO NATURAL AND COMPATIBLE
WITH THE POLICY OF THE LAW THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS
PROVISION IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN IMPLIED.  THE BELGENLAND, 114
U.S. 355, 367; THE HANNA NIELSEN, 273 F. 171.  WE THINK A QUITE
DIFFERENT RESULT WOULD FOLLOW IF THE CONTRACT ATTEMPTED TO AVOID
APPLICABLE LAW, FOR EXAMPLE, SO AS TO APPLY FOREIGN LAW TO AN AMERICAN
SHIP. 

HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME THAT HE IS RELYING ON THE PLACE OF THE
CONTRACT, RESPONDENT ATTACKS THE WHOLE CONTRACT AS VOID BECAUSE THE
ARTICLES DO NOT DESCRIBE THE VOYAGE WITH SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS WITHIN
THE RULE APPLIED IN THE QUOQUE, 261 F. 414, AFF'D 266 F. 696.  THIS
CASE DEALT WITH AN AMERICAN SHIP AND ITS HOLDING WAS FOUNDED UPON A
STATUTE ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN 1873 AND HELD BY THOSE COURTS THAT HAVE
DEALT WITH THE PROBLEM APPLICABLE ONLY TO AMERICAN SHIPS.  THE
MONTAPEDIA, 14 F. 427; THE ELSWICK TOWER, 241 F. 706.  THE CONTENTION
IS WITHOUT MERIT. 

WE DO NOT THINK THE PLACE OF CONTRACT IS A SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE IN
THE CHOICE BETWEEN COMPETING LAWS TO GOVERN A MARITIME TORT. 

6.  INACCESSIBILITY OF FOREIGN FORUM.  - IT IS ARGUED, AND
PARTICULARLY STRESSED BY AN AMICUS BRIEF, THAT JUSTICE REQUIRES
ADJUDICATION UNDER AMERICAN LAW TO SAVE SEAMEN EXPENSE AND LOSS OF TIME
IN RETURNING TO A FOREIGN FORUM.  THIS MIGHT BE A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT
FOR EXERCISING A DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION TO ADJUDGE A CONTROVERSY;
BUT IT IS NOT PERSUASIVE AS TO THE LAW BY WHICH IT SHALL BE JUDGED.  IT
IS POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THE STATUTES OF AT LEAST ONE MARITIME
COUNTRY (PANAMA) ALLOW SUIT UNDER ITS LAW BY INJURED SEAMEN ONLY IN ITS
OWN COURTS.  THE EFFECT OF SUCH A PROVISION IS DOUBTFUL IN VIEW OF OUR
HOLDING THAT SUCH VENUE RESTRICTIONS BY ONE OF THE STATES OF THE UNION
WILL NOT PRECLUDE ACTION IN A SISTER STATE, TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R.
CO. V. GEORGE, 233 U.S. 354. 

CONFINING OURSELVES TO THE CASE IN HAND, WE DO NOT FIND THIS SEAMAN
DISADVANTAGED IN OBTAINING HIS REMEDY UNDER DANISH LAW FROM BEING IN
NEW YORK INSTEAD OF DENMARK.  THE DANISH COMPENSATION SYSTEM DOES NOT
NECESSITATE DELAYED, PROLONGED, EXPENSIVE AND UNCERTAIN LITIGATION.  IT
IS STIPULATED IN THIS CASE THAT CLAIMS MAY BE MADE THROUGH THE DANISH
CONSULATE.  THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST SHOWING THAT TO OBTAIN ANY
RELIEF TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER DANISH LAW WOULD REQUIRE HIS
PRESENCE IN DENMARK OR NECESSITATE HIS LEAVING NEW YORK.  AND, EVEN IF
IT WERE SO, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT HE WAS OFFERED AND DECLINED FREE
TRANSPORTATION TO DENMARK BY PETITIONER. 

7.  THE LAW OF THE FORUM.  - IT IS URGED THAT, SINCE AN AMERICAN
FORUM HAS PERFECTED ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES AND DEFENDANT
DOES MORE OR LESS FREQUENT AND REGULAR BUSINESS WITHIN THE FORUM STATE,
IT SHOULD APPLY ITS OWN LAW TO THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THEM.  THE
"DOING BUSINESS" WHICH IS ENOUGH TO WARRANT SERVICE OF PROCESS MAY FALL
QUITE SHORT OF THE CONSIDERATIONS NECESSARY TO BRING EXTRATERRITORIAL
TORTS TO JUDGMENT UNDER OUR LAW.  UNDER RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION, ALL
THAT IS NECESSARY TO BRING A FOREIGN TRANSACTION BETWEEN FOREIGNERS IN
FOREIGN PORTS UNDER AMERICAN LAW IS TO BE ABLE TO SERVE AMERICAN
PROCESS ON THE DEFENDANT.  WE HAVE HELD IT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW WHEN A STATE OF THE UNION ATTEMPTS TO DRAW INTO CONTROL OF ITS LAW
OTHERWISE FOREIGN CONTROVERSIES, ON SLIGHT CONNECTIONS, BECAUSE IT IS A
FORUM STATE.  HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. DELTA & PINE LAND
CO., 292 U.S. 143; HOME INSURANCE CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397.  THE
PURPOSE OF A CONFLICT-OF-LAWS DOCTRINE IS TO ASSURE THAT A CASE WILL BE
TREATED IN THE SAME WAY UNDER THE APPROPRIATE LAW REGARDLESS OF THE
FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH OFTEN DETERMINE THE FORUM.  JURISDICTION
OF MARITIME CASES IN ALL COUNTRIES IS SO WIDE AND THE NATURE OF ITS
SUBJECT MATTER SO FAR-FLUNG THAT THERE WOULD BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
ALTERING THE LAW OF A CONTROVERSY JUST BECAUSE LOCAL JURISDICTION OF
THE PARTIES IS OBTAINABLE. 

IT IS POINTED OUT THAT OUR STATUTE ON LIMITATION OF SHIPOWNER'S
LIABILITY WHICH FORMERLY APPLIED IN TERMS TO "ANY VESSEL" WAS APPLIED
BY OUR COURTS TO FOREIGN CAUSES.  (FN26)  HENCE, IT IS ARGUED BY
ANALOGY THAT "ANY SEAMAN" SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO TO APPLY.  BUT THE
SITUATION IS INVERTED.  THE LIMITATION-OF-LIABILITY STATUTE WAS
CONSTRUED TO THUS APPLY ONLY AGAINST THOSE WHO HAD CHOSEN TO SUE IN OUR
COURTS ON FOREIGN TRANSACTIONS.  (FN27)  BECAUSE A LAW OF THE FORUM IS
APPLIED TO PLAINTIFFS WHO VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO IT IS NO
ARGUMENT FOR IMPOSING THE LAW OF THE FORUM UPON THOSE WHO DO NOT. 
FURTHERMORE, THIS APPLICATION OF THE LIMITATION ON LIABILITY BROUGHT
OUR PRACTICE INTO HARMONY WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER MARITIME NATIONS,
(FN28) WHILE THE APPLICATION OF THE JONES ACT HERE ADVOCATED WOULD
BRING US INTO CONFLICT WITH THE MARITIME WORLD. 

THIS REVIEW OF THE CONNECTING FACTORS WHICH EITHER MARITIME LAW OR
OUR MUNICIPAL LAW OF CONFLICTS REGARDS AS SIGNIFICANT IN DETERMINING
THE LAW APPLICABLE TO A CLAIM OF ACTIONABLE WRONG SHOWS AN OVERWHELMING
PREPONDERANCE IN FAVOR OF DANISH LAW.  THE PARTIES ARE BOTH DANISH
SUBJECTS, THE EVENTS TOOK PLACE ON A DANISH SHIP, NOT WITHIN OUR
TERRITORIAL WATERS.  AGAINST THESE CONSIDERATIONS IS ONLY THE FACT THAT
THE DEFENDANT WAS SERVED HERE WITH PROCESS AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF
SIGNED ON IN NEW YORK, WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN OUR FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  THE LATTER EVENT IS OFFSET BY PROVISION OF HIS CONTRACT THAT
THE LAW OF DENMARK SHOULD GOVERN.  WE DO NOT QUESTION THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO CONDITION ACCESS TO OUR PORTS BY FOREIGN-OWNED VESSELS UPON
SUBMISSION TO ANY LIABILITIES IT MAY CONSIDER GOOD AMERICAN POLICY TO
EXACT.  BUT WE CAN FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INTERPRETING THE JONES ACT
TO INTERVENE BETWEEN FOREIGNERS AND THEIR OWN LAW BECAUSE OF ACTS ON A
FOREIGN SHIP NOT IN OUR WATERS. 

IN APPARENT RECOGNITION OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE LEGAL ARGUMENT, A
CANDID AND BRASH APPEAL IS MADE BY RESPONDENT AND BY AMICUS BRIEFS TO
EXTEND THE LAW TO THIS SITUATION AS A MEANS OF BENEFITING SEAMEN AND
ENHANCING THE COSTS OF FOREIGN SHIP OPERATION FOR THE COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE OF OUR OWN.  WE ARE NOT SURE THAT THE INTEREST OF THIS
FOREIGN SEAMAN, WHO IS ABLE TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE, IS THE INTEREST OF ALL
SEAMEN OR THAT HIS INTEREST IS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES.  NOR DO WE
STOP TO INQUIRE WHICH LAW DOES WHOM THE GREATER OR THE LESSER GOOD. 
THE ARGUMENT IS MISADDRESSED.  IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE PROPRIETIES IF
ADDRESSED TO CONGRESS.  COUNSEL FAMILIAR WITH THE TRADITIONAL ATTITUDE
OF THIS COURT IN MARITIME MATTERS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED IT FOR US.
(FN29) 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO DISTRICT
COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  "ANY SEAMAN WHO SHALL SUFFER PERSONAL INJURY IN THE COURSE OF
HIS EMPLOYMENT MAY, AT HIS ELECTION, MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AT
LAW, WITH THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, AND IN SUCH ACTION ALL STATUTES
OF THE UNITED STATES MODIFYING OR EXTENDING THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OR
REMEDY IN CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES SHALL APPLY
...  ."  46 U.S.C.  SEC. 688. 

FN2  196 F.2D 220. 

FN3  IN THE PAULA, 91 F.2D 1001, THE THEN CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
SECOND CIRCUIT, HELD THE JONES ACT INAPPLICABLE TO A SUIT BY AN ALIEN
SEAMAN AGAINST THIS SAME PETITIONER, AND EXPRESSLY REFUSED TO FOLLOW
DICTA BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ARTHUR V. COMPAGNIE
GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 72 F.2D 662, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ACT GAVE
A RIGHT OF ACTION TO "ALL SEAMEN REGARDLESS OF NATIONALITY."  THE PAULA
DECISION IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR DECISIONS OF THE COURT
RENDERING IT.  SEE THE HANNA NIELSEN, 273 F. 171; THE PINAR DEL RIO, 16
F.2D 984, AFF'D 277 U.S. 151.  A FEW YEARS LATER, IN GAMBERA V.
BERGOTY, 132 F.2D 414, THAT SAME COURT GRANTED RELIEF UNDER THE JONES
ACT TO A PLAINTIFF WHO WAS A LONG-TIME RESIDENT, THOUGH NOT A CITIZEN,
OF THIS COUNTRY, AND WHO SUFFERED INJURY IN AMERICAN TERRITORIAL WATERS
WHILE SERVING ON A GREEK SHIP.  IN KYRIAKOS V. GOULANDRIS, 151 F.2D
132, THE COURT (OVER THE DISSENT OF JUDGE LEARNED HAND) HELD THAT THE
ACT APPLIED TO INJURIES SUSTAINED WHILE ASHORE IN THE UNITED STATES BY
A GREEK SEAMAN EMPLOYED BY A GREEK SHIPOWNER.  IN O'NEILL V. CUNARD
WHITE STAR, 160 F.2D 446, THAT COURT HELD THAT A BRITISH SEAMAN INJURED
ON A BRITISH VESSEL ON THE HIGH SEAS COULD NOT SUE UNDER THE JONES
ACT.  IN TAYLOR V. ATLANTIC MARITIME CO., 179 F.2D 597, IT REVERSED A
DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT DISMISSING A JONES ACT SUIT BY A PANAMANIAN
CITIZEN, ALLEGEDLY RESIDING IN NEW YORK, AGAINST A SHIP OF PANAMANIAN
REGISTRY FOR INJURIES APPARENTLY RECEIVED ON THE HIGH SEAS.  JUDGE
LEARNED HAND, WRITING FOR THE COURT, INDICATED THAT A MAJORITY OF THE
PANEL THOUGHT THAT THE JONES ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO ALIEN SEAMEN,
BUT THAT "IN SPITE OF WHAT WE SHOULD HOLD, WERE WE FREE" THEY WERE
BOUND BY THE DECISION IN KYRIAKOS.  IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE US THE COURT
AFFIRMED PER CURIAM ON THE AUTHORITY OF KYRIAKOS AND TAYLOR.  NO TWO OF
THESE CASES PRESENT EXACTLY THE SAME BASIS FOR APPLICATION OF AMERICAN
LAW AND THEIR CONTRARY RESULTS DO NOT NECESSARILY MEAN INCONSISTENCY. 
BUT THEY ILLUSTRATE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS WHICH INFLUENCE CHOICE OF
LAW IN MARITIME TORT CASES. 

FN4  SONNESEN V. PANAMA TRANSPORT CO., 298 N.Y. 262, 82 N.E.2D 569. 
SUCH A CONFLICT CAN ARISE BECAUSE JONES ACT SUITS MAY BE BROUGHT IN
STATE AS WELL AS FEDERAL COURTS.  ENGEL V. DAVENPORT, 271 U.S. 33. 

FN5  344 U.S. 810. 

FN6  SEE PLAMALS V. PINAR DEL RIO, 277 U.S. 151. 

FN7  CHEATHAM AND REESE, CHOICE OF THE APPLICABLE LAW, 52 COL. L.
REV. 959, 961, DEALING WITH STATE STATUTES, PUTS THE PROBLEM IN THIS
FASHION: 

"THERE IS ONE RULE OR POLICY WHICH, WHEREVER APPLICABLE, TAKES
PRECEDENCE OVER OTHERS AND, TO A LARGE EXTENT, SAVES THE COURTS FROM
FURTHER PAIN OF DECISION.  THAT CONTROLLING POLICY, OBVIOUS AS IT MAY
BE, IS THAT A COURT MUST FOLLOW THE DICTATES OF ITS OWN LEGISLATURE TO
THE EXTENT THAT THESE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT, ALTHOUGH CHOICE OF LAW
CONSTITUTES NO EXCEPTION TO THIS FUNDAMENTAL RULE, RARELY CAN THE
PRINCIPLE BE APPLIED IN PRACTICE.  THE VAST RUN OF STATUTES ARE ENACTED
WITH ONLY THE INTRASTATE SITUATION IN MIND.  THE APPLICATION OF A
STATUTE TO OUT-OF-STATE OCCURRENCES, THEREFORE, MUST GENERALLY BE
DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINARY CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES.  AND
THIS IS SO EVEN IF, AS IS FREQUENTLY THE CASE, THE STATUTE EMPLOYS SUCH
SWEEPING TERMS AS 'EVERY CONTRACT' OR 'EVERY DECEDENT.'  UNLESS IT
APPEARS THAT THE DRAFTSMEN SO INTENDED, LANGUAGE OF THIS SORT IS NOT TO
BE TAKEN LITERALLY TO MEAN THAT THE STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO EVERY
TRANSACTION WHEREVER OCCURRING OR TO EVERY CASE BROUGHT IN THE FORUM. 
WHERE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS ACTUALLY
ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE CHOICE OF LAW PROBLEM, THE COURTS, SUBJECT TO
THE LIMITATION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, MUST GIVE EFFECT TO ITS
INTENTIONS." 

FN8  SECTION 1, REQUIRING LOST SEAMEN TO BE REPLACED, DIRECTED THE
MASTER TO REPORT SUCH REPLACEMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSUL AT THE
FIRST PORT AT WHICH HE SHALL ARRIVE THEREAFTER.  SECTION 2 PROVIDED
CERTAIN REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE DUTIES OF CREW MEMBERS ABOARD "ALL
MERCHANT VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES."  SECTION 5 PROVIDED THAT ON
COMPLAINT OF THE OFFICERS OR CREW OF "ANY VESSEL" IN A FOREIGN PORT
THAT THE VESSEL IS UNSEAWORTHY OR INADEQUATELY PROVISIONED "THE CONSUL"
MAY APPOINT SOMEONE TO MAKE INQUIRY.  SECTION 6 SET FORTH CERTAIN
SANITATION REQUIREMENTS FOR "MERCHANT VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES." 
PERCENTAGE OF ABLE-BODIED SEAMEN CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE.  SECTION 19 WAS CONCERNED WITH THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED
BEFORE AMERICAN CONSULS ABROAD IN CERTAIN MATTERS INVOLVING AMERICAN
SEAMEN. 

FN9  SECS. 4, 11, AND 14.  SECTION 4 GAVE SEAMEN THE RIGHT TO DEMAND
CERTAIN WAGE PAYMENTS ON COMING INTO PORT.  ITS CLOSING PORTION
PROVIDED "  ...  THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO SEAMEN ON FOREIGN VESSELS
WHILE IN HARBORS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES SHALL BE OPEN TO SUCH SEAMEN FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT."  SECTION 11
RE-ENACTED, WITH SOME CHANGES, AN 1898 STATUTE PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF
ADVANCE WAGES TO SEAMEN; ONE SUBSECTION STATED "THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY AS WELL TO FOREIGN VESSELS WHILE IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES,
AS TO VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ANY MASTER, OWNER, CONSIGNEE,
OR AGENT OF ANY FOREIGN VESSEL WHO HAS VIOLATED ITS PROVISIONS SHALL BE
LIABLE TO THE SAME PENALTY THAT THE MASTER, OWNER, OR AGENT OF A VESSEL
OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE FOR SIMILAR VIOLATION." 

FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THESE TWO SECTIONS SEE PATTERSON V. BARK EUDORA,
190 U.S. 169; SANDBERG V. MCDONALD, 248 U.S. 185, AND STRATHEARN S.S.
CO. V. DILLON, 252 U.S. 348. 

SHOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE TO FOREIGN VESSELS LEAVING UNITED STATES
PORTS. 

FN10  SEE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND
FISHERIES, H.R. REP.  NO. 852, 63D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 18, 20; 50
CONG. REC. 5761-5792. 

FN11  PLAMALS V. PINAR DEL RIO, N. 6, SUPRA. 

FN12  SEE THE FAMOUS OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE STORY IN DE LOVIO V.
BOIT, FED. CAS. NO. 3,776, 2 GALL.  398; THE SALLY, 8 CRANCH 382 AND 2
CRANCH 406; THE SCOTIA, 14 WALL.  170; DICKINSON, THE LAW OF NATIONS AS
PART OF THE NATIONAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, 101 U. OF PA. L. REV.
26, 28-29, 792, 803-816. 

FN13  SEE SLATER V. MEXICAN NATIONAL R. CO., 194 U.S. 120; NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO. V. CHISHOLM, 268 U.S. 29; RHEINSTEIN, THE PLACE OF
WRONG, 19 TULANE L. REV. 4, 165; CF.  SANDBERG V. MCDONALD, 248 U.S.
185, 195. 

FN14  CARR V. FRACIS TIMES & CO., (1902) A.C. 176; CF. URAVIC V.
JARKA CO., 282 U.S. 234.  SEE RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 404. 

FN15  GROTIUS, DE JURE PRAEDAE, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT PUBLICATION 1950,
207, 220, 222, 223, 231-233, 234, 237.  SEE DUMBAULD, GROTIUS ON THE
LAW OF PRIZE, 1 J. PUB. L. 370, 372, 387. 

FN16  SEE CUBA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW, DECREE NO. 2687, NOVEMBER
15, 1933, ARTS. XI, XL. 

FN17  THE LEADING CASE IS THE VIRGINIUS, SEIZED IN 1873 BY THE
SPANISH WHEN EN ROUTE TO CUBA.  PRESIDENT GRANT TOOK THE POSITION THAT
"IF THE SHIP'S PAPERS WERE IRREGULAR OR FRAUDULENT, THE CRIME WAS
COMMITTED AGAINST THE AMERICAN LAWS AND ONLY ITS TRIBUNALS WERE
COMPETENT TO DECIDE THE QUESTION."  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOOK THE SAME
POSITION.  THE SHIP WAS RESTORED.  2 MOORE'S DIGEST 895-903.  HIGGINS &
COLOMBOS, INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA (2D ED.), 201. 

FN18  THE THEORETICAL BASIS USED BY THIS COURT APPARENTLY PREVAILED
IN 1928 WITH THE PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE IN THE CASE
OF THE LOTUS, P.C.I.J., SERIES A, NO. 10.  FOR CRITICISM OF IT SEE
HIGGINS AND COLUMBOS, INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA (2D ED.), 193-195. 
WE LEAVE THE CONTROVERSY WHERE WE FIND IT, FOR EITHER BASIS LEADS TO
THE SAME RESULT IN THIS CASE, THOUGH THIS MIGHT NOT BE SO WITH SOME
OTHER PROBLEMS OF SHIPPING. 

FN19  WILDENHUS'S CASE, 120 U.S. 1; BROWN V. DUCHESNE, 19 HOW.  183. 
FOR APPLICATION OF THIS DOCTRINE IN TORT CASES SEE BONSALEM V. BYRON
S.S. CO., 50 F.2D 114; CAIN V. ALPHA S.S. CORP., 35 F.2D 717; GRAND
TRUNK R. CO. V. WRIGHT, 21 F.2D 814; RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS,
SEC. 405. 

FN20  SEE ALSO RAINEY V. NEW YORK & P.S.S. CO., 216 F. 449. 

FN21  SEE URAVIC V. JARKA CO., SUPRA; SHORTER V. BERMUDA & WEST
INDIES S.S. CO., 57 F.2D 313; GAMBERA V. BERGOTY, 132 F.2D 414.  BUT
SEE THE ORISKANY, 3 F. SUPP. 805; CLARK V. MONTEZUMA TRANSPORTATION
CO., 217 APP. DIV. 172, 216 N.Y. SUPP. 295. 

FN22  MANY NATIONS (INCLUDING BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND DENMARK)
STILL ALLOW ONLY THOSE SHIPS WHOLLY OR PREDOMINANTLY OWNED BY ITS
NATIONALS TO REGISTER UNDER ITS FLAG.  SEE 46 U.S.C. SECS. 11, 808;
DENMARK, MARITIME LAW OF MAY 7, 1937, SEC. 1. 

FN23  MCFEE, THE LAW OF THE SEA, 152-154.  SEE MERCHANT MARINE STUDY
AND INVESTIGATION (TRANSFER OF AMERICAN SHIPS TO FOREIGN REGISTRY),
HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN24  SEE GERRADIN V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 60 F.2D 927; CF. CENTRAL
VERMONT CO. V. DURNING, 294 U.S. 33. 

FN25  SEE YNTEMA, "AUTONOMY" IN CHOICE OF LAW, 1 AM. J. COMP. L.
341. 

FN26  THE SCOTLAND, 105 U.S. 24; THE TITANIC, 233 U.S. 718.  AT THE
TIME THESE CASES WERE DECIDED THE STATUTE PURPORTED TO APPLY TO "ANY
VESSEL."  IN 1936 IT WAS AMENDED SO AS EXPRESSLY TO APPLY TO FOREIGN,
AS WELL AS DOMESTIC, VESSELS.  49 STAT. 1479. 

FN27  "IT IS TRUE THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS DOES NOT CONTROL OR
PROFESS TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF A BRITISH SHIP ON THE HIGH SEAS.  SEE
AMERICAN BANANA CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S. 347, 356.  IT IS TRUE
THAT THE FOUNDATION FOR A RECOVERY UPON A BRITISH TORT IS AN OBLIGATION
CREATED BY BRITISH LAW.  BUT IT ALSO IS TRUE THAT THE LAWS OF THE FORUM
MAY DECLINE ALTOGETHER TO ENFORCE THAT OBLIGATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT
IS CONTRARY TO THE DOMESTIC POLICY, OR MAY DECLINE TO ENFORCE IT EXCEPT
WITHIN SUCH LIMITS AS IT MAY IMPOSE.  CUBA RAILROAD CO. V. CROSBY, 222
U.S. 473, 478, 480.  DICEY, CONFLICT OF LAWS, 2D ED., 647.  IT IS
COMPETENT THEREFORE FOR CONGRESS TO ENACT THAT IN CERTAIN MATTERS
BELONGING TO ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION PARTIES RESORTING TO OUR COURTS
SHALL RECOVER ONLY TO SUCH EXTENT OR IN SUCH WAY AS IT MAY MARK OUT. 
BUTLER V. BOSTON & SAVANNAH STEAMSHIP CO., 130 U.S. 527.  THE QUESTION
IS NOT WHETHER THE OWNER OF THE TITANIC BY THIS PROCEEDING CAN REQUIRE
ALL CLAIMANTS TO COME IN AND CAN CUT DOWN RIGHTS VESTED UNDER ENGLISH
LAW, AS AGAINST, FOR INSTANCE, ENGLISHMEN LIVING IN ENGLAND WHO DO NOT
APPEAR.  IT IS ONLY WHETHER THOSE WHO DO SEE FIT TO SUE IN THIS COUNTRY
ARE LIMITED IN THEIR RECOVERY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ENGLISH LAW.  THAT
THEY ARE SO LIMITED RESULTS IN OUR OPINION FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT.  FOR ON WHAT GROUND WAS THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY ALLOWED IN
THE SCOTLAND OR LA BOURGOGNE?  ...  .  THE ESSENTIAL POINT WAS THAT THE
LIMITATION MIGHT BE APPLIED TO FOREIGN SHIPS IF SUED IN THIS COUNTRY
ALTHOUGH THEY WERE NOT SUBJECT TO OUR SUBSTANTIVE LAW."  THE TITANIC,
SUPRA, AT 732-733 (PER HOLMES, J.). 

FN28  LIMITATION OF LIABILITY HAS BEEN AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE
MARITIME LAW OF EVERY MARITIME NATION SINCE THE GRAND ORDONNANCE OF
LOUIS XIV IN 1681.  SEE DISCUSSION IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BROWN
IN THE MAIN V. WILLIAMS, 152 U.S. 122. 

FN29  CF. THE PETERHOFF, 5 WALL.  28, 57:  "IN CASES SUCH AS THAT NOW
IN JUDGMENT, WE ADMINISTER THE PUBLIC LAW OF NATIONS, AND ARE NOT AT
LIBERTY TO INQUIRE WHAT IS FOR THE PARTICULAR ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE
OF OUR OWN OR ANOTHER COUNTRY." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AGREES WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS AND WOULD AFFIRM
ITS JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, NOT HAVING HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT, TOOK NO PART IN
THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :
























TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING CO. V. UNITED STATES 345 U.S. 594 


NO. 374.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 25, 1953 - 105 F. SUPP.
670, REVERSED. 


A PUBLISHING COMPANY OWNS AND PUBLISHES IN NEW ORLEANS A MORNING AND
EVENING NEWSPAPER.  ITS SOLE COMPETITOR IS THE DAILY NEWSPAPER FIELD IS
AN INDEPENDENT EVENING NEWSPAPER.  CLASSIFIED AND GENERAL DISPLAY
ADVERTISERS IN THE COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS MAY PURCHASE ONLY COMBINED
INSERTIONS APPEARING IN BOTH ITS MORNING AND EVENING PAPERS, NOT IN
EITHER SEPARATELY.  THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE
COMPANY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, CHALLENGING THE USE OF THESE "UNIT"
CONTRACTS AS AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1,
AND AS AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2.  HELD:
THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CHARGED VIOLATIONS OF
SEC. 1 AND SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 596-628. 

(A) THE CHALLENGED ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 602, N. 11. 

(B)  A "TYING" ARRANGEMENT VIOLATES SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT WHEN A
SELLER ENJOYS A MONOPOLISTIC POSITION IN THE MARKET FOR THE "TYING" A
PRODUCT AND A SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF COMMERCE IN THE "TIED" PRODUCT IS
RESTRAINED.  INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392. 
PP. 608-609. 

(C)  SINCE THE CHARGE AGAINST THE COMPANY WAS NOT OF TYING SALES TO
ITS READERS BUT ONLY TO BUYERS OF GENERAL AND CLASSIFIED SPACE IN ITS
PAPERS, DOMINANCE IN THE NEW ORLEANS NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING MARKET, NOT
IN THE READERSHIP, IS THE DECISIVE FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE LEGALITY
OF THE COMPANY'S UNIT PLAN.  P. 610. 

(D)  SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT OUTLAWS MONOPOLIZATION OF ANY
"APPRECIABLE PART" OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND SEC. 1 BANS UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCE INVOLVED.  P. 611. 

(E)  THE ESSENCE OF ILLEGALITY IN TYING AGREEMENTS IS THE WIELDING OF
MONOPOLISTIC LEVERAGE; A SELLER EXPLOITS HIS DOMINANT POSITION IN ONE
MARKET AND EXPAND INTO ANOTHER.  SOLELY FOR TESTING THE STRENGTH OF
THAT LEVER, THE WHOLE AND NOT PART OF A RELEVANT MARKET MUST BE
ASSIGNED CONTROLLING WEIGHT.  P. 611. 

(F)  THE COMPANY'S MORNING NEWSPAPER DID NOT ENJOY IN THE NEWSPAPER
ADVERTISING MARKET IN NEW ORLEANS THAT POSITION OF "DOMINANCE" WHICH,
TOGETHER WITH A "NOT INSUBSTANTIAL" VOLUME OF TRADE IN THE "TIED"
PRODUCT, WOULD RESULT IN A SHERMAN ACT OFFENSE UNDER THE RULE OF
INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392.  PP. 608-613. 

(G)  THE COMMON CORE OF THE ADJUDICATED UNLAWFUL TYING ARRANGEMENTS
IS THE FORCED PURCHASE OF A SECOND DISTINCT COMMODITY WITH THE DESIRED
PURCHASE OF A DOMINANT "TYING" PRODUCT, RESULTING IN ECONOMIC HARM TO
COMPETITION IN THE "TIED" MARKET.  PP. 613-614. 

(H)  IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING TWO DISTINCT
COMMODITIES SOLD BY THE PUBLISHING COMPANY, NEITHER THE RATIONALE NOR
THE DOCTRINES OF THE "TYING" CASES CAN DISPOSE OF THE COMPANY'S
ADVERTISING CONTRACTS CHALLENGED HERE.  THEY MUST THEREFORE BE TESTED
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT'S GENERAL PROHIBITION ON UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS
OF TRADE.  PP. 613-615. 

(I)  THE INQUIRY TO DETERMINE REASONABLENESS UNDER SEC. 1 IN THIS
CASE MUST FOCUS ON THE PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESS CONTROLLED, THE STRENGTH
OF THE COMPETITION, AND WHETHER THE CHALLENGED ACTIVITY SPRINGS FROM
BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS OR FROM PURPOSE TO MONOPOLIZE.  P. 615. 

(J)  THE FACTUAL DATA IN THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DO NOT DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE COMPANY'S ADVERTISING CONTRACTS UNDULY HANDICAPPED THE
EXISTING COMPETING NEWSPAPER.  PP. 615-622. 

(K)  THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROVED IN THIS CASE NEITHER ACTUAL UNLAWFUL
EFFECTS NOR FACTS WHICH RADIATE A POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE HARM.  P. 622. 

(L)  WHILE EVEN OTHERWISE REASONABLE TRADE ARRANGEMENTS MUST FALL IF
CONCEIVED TO ACHIEVE FORBIDDEN ENDS, THE COMPANY'S ADOPTION OF THE UNIT
PLAN IN THIS CASE WAS PREDOMINANTLY MOTIVATED BY LEGITIMATE BUSINESS
AIMS.  P. 622. 

(M)  ALTHOUGH EMULATION OF THE COMPETITOR'S ILLEGAL PLAN DOES NOT
JUSTIFY AN UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICE, THAT FACTOR IS RELEVANT IN
DETERMINING INTENT, PARTICULARLY WHEN PLANNED INJURY TO THAT COMPETITOR
IS THE CRUX OF THE CHARGE OF SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION.  P. 623. 

(N)  ALTHOUGH LONG-TOLERATED TRADE ARRANGEMENTS ACQUIRE NO VESTED
IMMUNITY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, THAT CONSIDERATION IS RELEVANT WHEN
MONOPOLISTIC PURPOSE RATHER THAN EFFECT IS TO BE GAUGED.  PP. 623-624. 

(O)  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE SHOWS NEITHER UNLAWFUL EFFECTS NOR
AIMS.  PP. 615-624. 

(P)  THE COMPANY'S REFUSAL TO SELL ADVERTISING SPACE EXCEPT EN BLOC,
VIEWED ALONE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 624-626. 

(Q)  A SPECIFIC INTENT TO DESTROY COMPETITION OR TO BUILD MONOPOLY IS
ESSENTIAL TO GUILT OF AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AND SUCH INTENT IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE RECORD IN
THIS CASE.  PP. 626-627. 

TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF LOUISIANA.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 375, UNITED STATES V. TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING
CO. ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AT ISSUE IS THE LEGALITY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT OF THE TIMES-PICAYUNE
PUBLISHING COMPANY'S CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF NEWSPAPER CLASSIFIED AND
GENERAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING SPACE.  THE COMPANY IN NEW ORLEANS OWNS AND
PUBLISHES THE MORNING TIMES-PICAYUNE AND THE EVENING STATES.  BUYERS OF
SPACE FOR GENERAL DISPLAY AND CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING IN ITS
PUBLICATIONS MAY PURCHASE ONLY COMBINED INSERTIONS APPEARING IN BOTH
THE MORNING AND EVENING PAPERS, AND NOT IN EITHER SEPARATELY.  (FN1)
THE UNITED STATES FILED A CIVIL SUIT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, CHALLENGING
THESE "UNIT" OR "FORCED COMBINATION" CONTRACTS AS UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINTS OF INTERSTATE TRADE, BANNED BY SEC. 1, AND AS TOOLS IN AN
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE A SEGMENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 2.  (FN2) AFTER INTENSIVE TRIAL OF THE FACTS, THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND VIOLATIONS OF BOTH SECTIONS OF THE LAW AND ENTERED A DECREE
ENJOINING THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S USE OF THESE UNIT CONTRACTS AND
RELATED ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE MARKETING OF ADVERTISING SPACE.  (FN3)  IN
NO. 374, THE PUBLISHING COMPANY APPEALS THE MERITS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S HOLDING UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT; THE GOVERNMENT, IN NO. 375,
SEEKS RELIEF BROADER THAN THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE.  BOTH APPEALS
COME DIRECTLY HERE UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT.  (FN4) 

TESTIMONY IN A VOLUMINOUS RECORD RETRACES A HISTORY OF OVER TWENTY
FIVE YEARS.  (FN5)  PRIOR TO 1933, FOUR DAILY NEWSPAPERS SERVED NEW
ORLEANS.  THE ITEM COMPANY, LTD., PUBLISHED THE MORNING TRIBUNE AND THE
EVENING ITEM.  THE MORNING TIMES-PICAYUNE WAS PUBLISHED BY ITS PRESENT
OWNERS, AND THE DAILY STATES PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD., AN INDEPENDENT
ORGANIZATION, DISTRIBUTED THE EVENING STATES.  IN 1933, THE TIMES
PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY PURCHASED THE NAME, GOOD WILL, CIRCULATION,
AND ADVERTISING CONTRACTS OF THE STATES, AND CONTINUED TO PUBLISH IT
EVENINGS.  THE MORNING TRIBUNE OF THE ITEM CO., LTD., SUSPENDED
PUBLICATION IN 1941.  TODAY THE TIMES-PICAYUNE, ITEM, AND STATES,
REMAIN THE SOLE SIGNIFICANT NEWSPAPER MEDIA FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF
NEWS AND ADVERTISING TO THE RESIDENT OF NEW ORLEANS. 

THE TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY DISTRIBUTES THE LEADING
NEWSPAPER IN THE AREA, THE TIMES-PICAYUNE.  THE 1933 ACQUISITION OF THE
STATES DID NOT INCLUDE ITS PLANT AND OTHER PHYSICAL ASSETS; SINCE THE
STATES' ABSORPTION THE PUBLISHING COMPANY HAS UTILIZED FACILITIES AT A
SINGLE PLANT FOR PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTING THE TIMES-PICAYUNE AND THE
STATES.  UNIFIED FINANCIAL, PURCHASING, AND SALES ADMINISTRATION, IN
ADDITION TO A SUBSTANTIAL SEGMENT OF PERSONNEL SERVICING BOTH
PUBLICATIONS, RESULTS IN FURTHER JOINT OPERATION.  ALTHOUGH BOTH
PUBLICATIONS ADHERE TO A SINGLE GENERAL EDITORIAL POLICY, DISTINCT
FEATURES AND FORMAT DIFFERENTIATE THE MORNING TIMES-PICAYUNE FROM THE
EVENING STATES.  1950 DATA REVEAL A DAILY AVERAGE CIRCULATION OF
188,402 FOR THE TIMES-PICAYUNE, 114,660 FOR THE ITEM, AND 105,235 FOR
THE STATES.  THE TIMES-PICAYUNE THUS SOLD NEARLY AS MANY COPIES AS THE
CIRCULATION OF THE ITEM AND STATES TOGETHER. 

EACH OF THESE NEW ORLEANS PUBLICATIONS SELLS ADVERTISING IN VARIOUS
FORMS.  THREE PRINCIPAL CLASSES OF ADVERTISING SPACE ARE SOLD:
CLASSIFIED, GENERAL, AND LOCAL DISPLAY.  CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING, KNOWN
AS "WANT ADS," INCLUDES INDIVIDUAL INSERTIONS UNDER VARIOUS HEADINGS;
GENERAL, ALSO CALLED NATIONAL, ADVERTISING TYPICALLY COMPRISES DISPLAYS
BY NATIONAL MANUFACTURERS OR WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS OF BRAND-NAME
GOODS; LOCAL, OR RETAIL, DISPLAY GENERALLY PUBLICIZES BARGAINS BY LOCAL
MERCHANTS SELLING DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC.  FROM 1924 UNTIL THE MORNING
TRIBUNE'S DEMISE IN 1941, THE ITEM COMPANY SOLD CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
SPACE SOLELY ON THE UNIT PLAN BY WHICH ADVERTISERS PAID A SINGLE RATE
FOR IDENTICAL INSERTIONS APPEARING IN BOTH THE MORNING AND EVENING
PAPERS AND COULD NOT PURCHASE SPACE IN EITHER ALONE.  AFTER THE TIMES
PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY ACQUIRED THE STATES IN 1933, IT OFFERED
GENERAL ADVERTISERS AN OPTIONAL PLAN BY WHICH SPACE COMBINED IN BOTH
PUBLICATIONS COULD BE BOUGHT FOR LESS THAN THE SUM OF THE SEPARATE
RATES FOR EACH.  TWO YEARS LATER IT ADOPTED THE UNIT PLAN OF ITS
COMPETITOR, THE ITEM CO., LTD., IN SELLING SPACE FOR CLASSIFIED ADS. 
GENERAL ADVERTISERS IN THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S NEWSPAPERS WERE ALSO
AVAILED VOLUME DISCOUNTS SINCE 1940, BUT HAD TO COMBINE INSERTIONS IN
BOTH PUBLICATIONS IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL DISCOUNTS ON
PURCHASES OF MORE THAN 10,000 LINES PER YEAR.  LOCAL DISPLAY ADS AS
EARLY AS 1935 WERE MARKETED UNDER A STILL EFFECTIVE VOLUME DISCOUNT
SYSTEM WHICH FOR DETERMINING THE DISCOUNT BRACKET IN THE STATES
PERMITTED CUMULATION OF LINAGE PLACED IN THE TIMES-PICAYUNE AS WELL. 
IN 1950, HOWEVER, THE PUBLISHING COMPANY ELIMINATED ALL OPTIONAL PLANS
FOR GENERAL ADVERTISERS, AND INSTITUTED THE UNIT PLAN THERETOFORE
APPLIED SOLELY TO CLASSIFIED ADS.  AS A RESULT, SINCE 1950 GENERAL AND
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISERS CANNOT BUY SPACE IN EITHER THE TIMES-PICAYUNE OR
THE STATES ALONE, BUT MUST INSERT IDENTICAL COPY IN BOTH OR NONE. 
AGAINST THAT PRACTICE THE GOVERNMENT LEVELS ITS ATTACK GROUNDED ON
SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT AT THE OUTSET DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT HOLDING THE UNIT CONTRACTS PER SE
VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 1, THE CASE WENT TO TRIAL AND EVENTUATED IN
COMPREHENSIVE AND DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT:  (FN6)  THE TIMES-PICAYUNE
AND THE STATES, THOUGH PUBLISHED BY A SINGLE PUBLISHER, WERE TWO
DISTINCT NEWSPAPERS WITH INDIVIDUAL FORMAT, NEWS AND FEATURE CONTENT,
REACHING SEPARATE READER GROUPS IN NEW ORLEANS.  THE TIMES-PICAYUNE,
THE SOLE LOCAL MORNING DAILY WHICH FOR TWENTY YEARS OUTDISTANCED THE
STATES AND ITEM IN CIRCULATION, PUBLISHED PAGES, AND ADVERTISING
LINAGE, WAS THE "DOMINANT" NEWSPAPER IN NEW ORLEANS; INSERTIONS IN THAT
PAPER WERE DEEMED ESSENTIAL BY ADVERTISERS DESIRING TO COVER THE LOCAL
MARKET.  ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL PUBLISHING FIELD PERMITS ENTRY BY
ADDITIONAL COMPETITORS, THE ITEM TODAY IS THE SOLE EFFECTIVE DAILY
COMPETITION WHICH THE TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S TWO
NEWSPAPERS MUST MEET.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THEIR QUEST FOR ADVERTISING
LINAGE ENCOUNTERS THE COMPETITION OF OTHER MEDIA, SUCH AS RADIO,
TELEVISION, AND MAGAZINES.  NEVERTHELESS, THE DISTRICT COURT
DETERMINED, THE ADOPTION OF UNIT SELLING CAUSED A SUBSTANTIAL RISE IN
CLASSIFIED AND GENERAL ADVERTISING LINAGE PLACED IN THE STATES,
ENABLING IT TO ENHANCE ITS COMPARATIVE POSITION TOWARD THE ITEM.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND, MOREOVER, THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD INSTITUTED THE
UNIT SYSTEM, ECONOMICALLY ENFORCEABLE AGAINST BUYERS SOLELY BECAUSE OF
THE TIMES-PICAYUNE'S "DOMINANT" OR "MONOPOLY POSITION," IN ORDER TO
"RESTRAIN GENERAL AND CLASSIFIED ADVERTISERS FROM MAKING AN UNTRAMMELED
CHOICE BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE ITEM IN PURCHASING ADVERTISING SPACE,
AND ALSO TO SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH THE COMPETITIVE VIGOR OF THE ITEM." 
(FN7) 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS, THE DISTRICT JUDGE HELD THE UNIT
CONTRACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE CONTRACTS WERE VIEWED
AS TYING ARRANGEMENTS WHICH THE PUBLISHING COMPANY BECAUSE OF THE TIMES
PICAYUNE'S "MONOPOLY POSITION" COULD FORCE UPON ADVERTISERS.  (FN8)
POSTULATING THAT CONTRACTS FORECLOSING COMPETITORS FROM A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF THE MARKET RESTRAIN TRADE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1 OF THE
ACT, AND THAT EFFECT ON COMPETITION TESTS THE REASONABLENESS OF A
RESTRAINT, THE COURT DEEMED A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF ADVERTISING
ACCOUNTS IN THE NEW ORLEANS PAPERS UNLAWFULLY "RESTRAINED."  (FN9)
FURTHER, A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 WAS FOUND:  DEFENDANTS BY USE OF THE
UNIT PLAN "ATTEMPTED TO MONOPOLIZE THAT SEGMENT OF THE AFTERNOON
NEWSPAPER GENERAL AND CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING FIELD WHICH WAS
REPRESENTED BY THOSE ADVERTISERS WHO ALSO REQUIRED MORNING NEWSPAPER
SPACE AND WHO COULD NOT BECAUSE OF BUDEGETARY LIMITATIONS OR FINANCIAL
INABILITY PURCHASE SPACE IN BOTH AFTERNOON NEWSPAPERS."  (FN10) 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WAS ACCORDINGLY DECREED.  THE DISTRICT COURT
ENJOINED THE TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY FROM (A) SELLING
ADVERTISING SPACE IN ANY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED BY IT "UPON THE CONDITION,
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, THAT THE PURCHASES OR SUCH SPACE WILL CONTRACT
FOR OR PURCHASE ADVERTISING SPACE IN ANY OTHER NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED BY
IT"; (B) REFUSING TO SELL ADVERTISING SPACE SEPARATELY IN EACH
NEWSPAPER WHICH IT PUBLISHES; (C) USING ITS "DOMINANT POSITION" IN THE
MORNING FIELD "TO SELL ANY NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING AT RATES LOWER THAN
THOSE APPROXIMATING EITHER (1) THE COST OF PRODUCING AND SELLING SUCH
ADVERTISING OR (2) COMPARABLE NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING RATES IN NEW
ORLEANS."  HENCE THESE APPEALS.  (FN11) 

THE DAILY NEWSPAPER, THOUGH ESSENTIAL TO THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF
OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM, HAS IN RECENT YEARS SUFFERED DRASTIC ECONOMIC
DECLINE.  A VIGOROUS AND DAUNTLESS PRESS IS A CHIEF SOURCE FEEDING THE
FLOW OF DEMOCRATIC EXPRESSION AND CONTROVERSY WHICH MAINTAINS THE
INSTITUTIONS OF A FREE SOCIETY.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326
U.S. 1, 20 (1945); CF. WIEMAN V. UPDEGRAFF, 344 U.S. 183, 191 (1952);
BURSTYN, INC. V. WILSON, 343 U.S. 495, 501 (1952).  BY INTERPRETING TO
THE CITIZEN THE POLICIES OF HIS GOVERNMENT AND VIGILANTLY SCRUTINIZING
THE OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF THOSE WHO ADMINISTER THE STATE, AN INDEPENDENT
PRESS STIMULATES FREE DISCUSSION AND FOCUSES PUBLIC OPINION ON ISSUES
AND OFFICIALS AS A POTENT CHECK ON ARBITRARY ACTION OR ABUSE.  CF.
GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936); NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 716-718 (1931).  THE PRESS, IN FACT, "SERVES
ONE OF THE MOST VITAL OF ALL GENERAL INTERESTS:  THE DISSEMINATION OF
NEWS FROM AS MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES, AND WITH AS MANY DIFFERENT FACETS
AND COLORS AS IS POSSIBLE.  THAT INTEREST IS CLOSELY AKIN TO, IF INDEED
IT IS NOT THE SAME AS, THE INTEREST PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT;
IT PRESUPPOSES THAT RIGHT CONCLUSIONS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE GATHERED
OUT OF A MULTITUDE OF TONGUES, THAN THROUGH ANY KIND OF AUTHORITATIVE
SELECTION.  TO MANY THIS IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE FOLLY; BUT WE HAVE
STAKED UPON IT OUR ALL."  (FN12)  YET TODAY, DESPITE THE VITAL TASK
THAT IN OUR SOCIETY THE PRESS PERFORMS, THE NUMBER OF DAILY NEWSPAPERS
IN THE UNITED STATES IS AT ITS LOWEST POINT SINCE THE CENTURY'S TURN:
IN 1951, 1,773 DAILY NEWSPAPERS SERVED 1,443 AMERICAN CITIES, COMPARED
WITH 2,600 DAILIES PUBLISHED IN 1,207 CITIES IN THE YEAR 1909.  (FN13)
MOREOVER, WHILE 598 NEW DAILIES BRAVED THE FIELD BETWEEN 1929 AND 1950,
373 OF THESE SUSPENDED PUBLICATION DURING THAT PERIOD - LESS THAN HALF
OF THE NEW ENTRANTS SURVIVED.  (FN14)  CONCURRENTLY, DAILY NEWSPAPER
COMPETITION WITHIN INDIVIDUAL CITIES HAS BROWN NEARLY EXTINCT:  IN
1951, 81% OF ALL DAILY NEWSPAPER CITIES HAD ONLY ONE DAILY PAPER; 11%
MORE HAD TWO OR MORE PUBLICATIONS, BUT A SINGLE PUBLISHER CONTROLLED
BOTH OR ALL.  (FN15)  IN THAT YEAR, THEREFORE, ONLY 8% OF DAILY
NEWSPAPER CITIES ENJOYED THE CLASH OF OPINION WHICH COMPETITION AMONG
PUBLISHERS OF THEIR DAILY PRESS COULD PROVIDE. 

ADVERTISING IS THE ECONOMIC MAINSTAY OF THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS. 
GENERALLY, MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS OF A NEWSPAPER'S TOTAL REVENUES FLOW
FROM THE SALE OF ADVERTISING SPACE.  LOCAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING BRINGS
IN ABOUT 44% OF REVENUES; GENERAL - 14%; CLASSIFIED - 13%; CIRCULATION,
ALMOST THE REST.  (FN16)  OBVIOUSLY, NEWSPAPERS MUST SELL ADVERTISING
TO SURVIVE.  AND WHILE NEWSPAPERS IN 1929 GARNERED 79% OF TOTAL
NATIONAL ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES, BY 1951 OTHER MASS MEDIA HAD CUT
NEWSPAPERS' SHARE DOWN TO 34.7%.  (FN17)  WHEN THE TIMES-PICAYUNE
PUBLISHING COMPANY IN 1949 ANNOUNCED ITS FORTHCOMING INSTITUTION OF
UNIT SELLING TO GENERAL ADVERTISERS, ABOUT 180 OTHER PUBLISHERS OF
MORNING-EVENING NEWSPAPERS HAD PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED THE UNIT PLAN. 
(FN18)  OF THE 598 DAILY NEWSPAPERS WHICH BROKE INTO PUBLICATION
BETWEEN 1929 AND 1950, 38% STILL PUBLISHED WHEN THAT PERIOD CLOSED. 
FORTY-SIX OF THESE ENTERING DAILIES, HOWEVER, ENCOUNTERED THE
COMPETITION OF ESTABLISHED DAILIES WHICH UTILIZED UNIT RATES;
SIGNIFICANTLY, BY 1950, OF THESE 46, 41 HAD COLLAPSED.  (FN19)  THUS A
NEWCOMER IN THE DAILY NEWSPAPER BUSINESS COULD CALCULATE HIS CHANCES OF
SURVIVAL AS 11% IN CITIES WHERE UNIT PLANS HAD TAKEN HOLD.  VIEWED
AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF RAPIDLY DECLINING COMPETITION IN THE DAILY
NEWSPAPER BUSINESS, SUCH A TRADE PRACTICE BECOMES SUSPECT UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT. 

TYING ARRANGEMENTS, WE MAY READILY AGREE, FLOUT THE SHERMAN ACT'S
POLICY THAT COMPETITION RULE THE MARTS OF TRADE.  BASIC TO THE FAITH
THAT A FREE ECONOMY BEST PROMOTES THE PUBLIC WEAL IS THAT GOODS MUST
STAND THE COLD TEST OF COMPETITION; THAT THE PUBLIC, ACTING THROUGH THE
MARKET'S IMPERSONAL JUDGMENT, SHALL ALLOCATE THE NATION'S RESOURCES AND
THUS DIRECT THE COURSE ITS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WILL TAKE.  YET "TYING
AGREEMENTS SERVE HARDLY ANY PURPOSE BEYOND THE SUPPRESSION OF
COMPETITION."  STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, 337
U.S. 293, 305 (1949).  (FN20)  BY CONDITIONING HIS SALE OF ONE
COMMODITY ON THE PURCHASE OF ANOTHER, A SELLER COERCES THE ABDICATION
OF BUYERS' INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO THE "TIED" PRODUCT'S MERITS AND
INSULATES IT FROM THE COMPETITIVE STRESSES OF THE OPEN MARKET.  BUT ANY
INTRINSIC SUPERIORITY OF THE "TIED" PRODUCT WOULD CONVINCE FREELY
CHOOSING BUYERS TO SELECT IT OVER OTHERS, ANYWAY.  THUS "IN THE USUAL
CASE ONLY THE PROSPECT OF REDUCING COMPETITION WOULD PERSUADE A SELLER
TO ADOPT SUCH A CONTRACT AND ONLY HIS CONTROL OF THE SUPPLY OF THE
TYING DEVICE, WHETHER CONFERRED BY PATENT MONOPOLY OR OTHERWISE
OBTAINED, COULD INDUCE A BUYER TO ENTER ONE."  ID., AT 306. 
CONVERSELY, THE EFFECT ON COMPETING SELLERS ATTEMPTING TO RIVAL THE
"TIED" PRODUCT IS DRASTIC:  TO THE EXTENT THE ENFORCER OF THE TYING
ARRANGEMENT ENJOYS MARKET CONTROL, OTHER EXISTING OR POTENTIAL SELLERS
ARE FORECLOSED FROM OFFERING UP THEIR GOODS TO A FREE COMPETITIVE
JUDGMENT; THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY EXCLUDED FROM THE MARKETPLACE. 

FOR THAT REASON, TYING AGREEMENTS FARE HARSHLY UNDER THE LAWS
FORBIDDING RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. GRATZ, 253
U.S. 421 (1920), DECIDED THAT A COMPLAINT WHICH CHARGED A SELLER WITH
CONDITIONING HIS SALE OF STEEL TIES ON PURCHASES OF JUTE BAGGING DID
NOT, BECAUSE IT FAILED TO ALLEGE HIS MONOPOLISTIC PURPOSE OR MARKET
CONTROL, STATE AN ACTIONABLE "UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  (FN21)  UNITED
SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451 (1922), (FN22)
HELD, HOWEVER, THAT A SELLER OCCUPYING A "DOMINANT POSITION" IN THE
SHOE MACHINERY INDUSTRY, WITHOUT MORE, VIOLATED SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT BY CONTRACTS TYING TO THE LEASE OF HIS MACHINES THE PURCHASE OF
OTHER TYPES OF MACHINERY AND INCIDENTAL SUPPLIES.  (FN23)  POTENTIAL
LESSENING OF COMPETITION, REQUISITE TO ILLEGALITY UNDER SEC. 3, WAS
AUTOMATICALLY INFERRED FROM THE SELLER'S "DOMINATING POSITION."  ID.,
AT 457-458.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. SINCLAIR REFINING CO., 261
U.S. 463 (1923), EXTENDED THE PRINCIPLES OF GRATZ TO THE CLAYTON ACT;
PURCHASES OF GASOLINE WERE TIED TO THE LEASE OF PUMPS AT NOMINAL RATES,
BUT NEITHER MONOPOLISTIC PURPOSE OR POWER NOR POTENTIAL HARM TO
COMPETITION WAS SHOWN.  AND, IN ANY EVENT, THE "TIE" WAS VOLUNTARY
SINCE BUYERS COULD TAKE THE GASOLINE WITHOUT TAKING THE PUMPS.  ID., AT
474-475.   INDEED, THE ARRANGEMENT MERELY PREVENTED LESSEES FROM
DISPENSING OTHER TYPES OF GASOLINE THROUGH THE LESSOR'S BRAND PUMPS AND
WAS THUS VIEWED AS A MEANS OF PROTECTING THE GOODWILL OF THE LESSOR'S
BRANDED GAS.  SEE ALSO PICK MFG. CO. V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 299 U.S.
3 (1936).  (FN24)  THE BOUNDS OF THAT DOCTRINE WERE DRAWN BY
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V. UNITED STATES.  298 U.S. 131
(1936).  WHEN COMPETING SELLERS COULD MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE
"TIED" PRODUCT, IN THAT CASE TABULATING CARDS HITCHED BY CONTRACT TO
THE SALE OF COMPUTING MACHINES, SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT OUTLAWED THE
TYING ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE THE "SUBSTANTIAL" AMOUNT OF COMMERCE IN THE
"TIED" PRODUCT INDICATED POTENTIAL LESSENING OF COMPETITION AS A
RESULT.  ID., AT 136, 139.  (FN25) 

WITH ITS DECISION IN INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332
U.S. 392 (1947), THIS COURT WOVE THE STRANDS OF PAST CASES INTO THE
LAW'S PRESENT PATTERN.  THERE LEASES OF PATENTED MACHINES FOR
DISPENSING INDUSTRIAL SALT WERE CONDITIONED ON THE LESSEES' PURCHASE OF
THE LESSOR'S SALT.  A UNANIMOUS COURT AFFIRMED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ADJUDICATING THE ARRANGEMENT UNLAWFUL UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT
AND SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AS WELL.  THE PATENTS ON THEIR FACE
CONFERRED MONOPOLISTIC, ALBEIT LAWFUL, MARKET CONTROL, AND THE VOLUME
OF SALT AFFECTED BY THE TYING PRACTICE WAS NOT "INSIGNIFICANT OR
INSUBSTANTIAL."  ID., AT 396.  CLAYTON ACT VIOLATION FOLLOWED AS A
MATTER OF COURSE FROM THE DOCTRINES EVOLVED IN PRIOR "TYING" CASES. 
SEE ALSO STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 293,
304-306, 305, NN. 7-8.  AND SINCE THE COURT DEEMED IT "UNREASONABLE,
PER SE, TO FORECLOSE COMPETITORS FROM ANY SUBSTANTIAL MARKET," NEITHER
COULD THE TYING ARRANGEMENT SURVIVE SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  332
U.S., AT 396.  THAT PRINCIPLE UNDERPINNED THE DECISIONS IN THE MOVIE
CASES, HOLDING UNLAWFUL THE "BLOCKBOOKING" OF COPYRIGHTED FILMS BY
LESSORS, UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, 334 U.S. 131, 156-159
(1948), AS WELL AS A BUYER'S WIELDING OF LAWFUL MONOPOLY POWER IN ONE
MARKET TO COERCE CONCESSIONS THAT HANDICAPPED COMPETITION FACING HIM IN
ANOTHER.  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, 106-108 (1948). 
FROM THE "TYING" CASES A PERCEPTIBLE PATTERN OF ILLEGALITY EMERGES:
WHEN THE SELLER ENJOYS A MONOPOLISTIC POSITION IN THE MARKET FOR THE
"TYING" PRODUCT, OR IF A SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF COMMERCE IN THE "TIED"
PRODUCT IS RESTRAINED, A TYING ARRANGEMENT VIOLATES THE NARROWER
STANDARDS EXPRESSED IN SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT BECAUSE FROM EITHER
FACTOR THE REQUISITE POTENTIAL LESSENING OF COMPETITION IS INFERRED. 
AND BECAUSE FOR EVEN A LAWFUL MONOPOLIST IT IS "UNREASONABLE, PER SE,
TO FORECLOSE COMPETITORS FROM ANY SUBSTANTIAL MARKET," A TYING
ARRANGEMENT IS BANNED BY SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT WHENEVER BOTH
CONDITIONS ARE MET.  (FN26)  IN EITHER CASE, THE ARRANGEMENT
TRANSGRESSES SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, SINCE
MINIMALLY THAT SECTION REGISTERS VIOLATIONS OF THE CLAYTON AND SHERMAN
ACTS.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MOTION PICTURE ADVERTISING SERVICE
CO., 344 U.S. 392, 395 (1953); FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CEMENT
INSTITUTE, 333 U.S. 683, 690-694 (1948); FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457, 463 (1941). 

IN THIS CASE, THE RULE OF INTERNATIONAL SALT CAN APPLY ONLY IF BOTH
ITS INGREDIENTS ARE MET.  THE GOVERNMENT AT THE OUTSET ELECTED TO
PROCEED NOT UNDER THE CLAYTON BUT THE SHERMAN ACT.  (FN27) WHILE THE
CLAYTON ACT'S MORE SPECIFIC STANDARDS ILLUMINATE THE PUBLIC POLICY
WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT WAS DESIGNED TO SUBSERVE, E.G., UNITED STATES V.
COLUMBIA STEEL CO., 334 U.S. 495, 507, N. 7 (1948); FASHION
ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457, 463
(1941), THE GOVERNMENT HERE MUST MEASURE UP TO THE CRITERIA OF THE MORE
STRINGENT LAW.  SEE STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES,
337 U.S. 293, 297, 311-314 (1949); UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451, 459-460 (1922). 

ONCE GRANTED THAT THE VOLUME OF COMMERCE AFFECTED WAS NOT
"INSIGNIFICANT OR INSUBSTANTIAL," (FN28) THE TIMES-PICAYUNE'S MARKET
POSITION BECOMES CRITICAL TO THE CASE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT
THE TIMES-PICAYUNE OCCUPIED A "DOMINANT POSITION" IN NEW ORLEANS; THE
SOLE MORNING DAILY IN THE AREA, IT LED ITS COMPETITORS IN CIRCULATION,
NUMBER OF PAGES AND ADVERTISING LINAGE.  BUT EVERY NEWSPAPER IS A DUAL
TRADER IN SEPARATE THOUGH INTERDEPENDENT MARKETS; IT SELLS THE PAPER'S
NEWS AND ADVERTISING CONTENT TO ITS READERS; IN EFFECT THAT READERSHIP
IS IN TURN SOLD TO THE BUYERS OF ADVERTISING SPACE.  THIS CASE CONCERNS
SOLELY ONE OF THESE MARKETS.  THE PUBLISHING COMPANY STANDS ACCUSED NOT
OF TYING SALES TO ITS READERS BUT ONLY TO BUYERS OF GENERAL AND
CLASSIFIED SPACE IN ITS PAPERS.  FOR THIS REASON, DOMINANCE IN THE
ADVERTISING MARKET, NOT IN READERSHIP, MUST BE DECISIVE IN GAUGING THE
LEGALITY OF THE COMPANY'S UNIT PLAN.  CF. LORAIN JOURNAL V. UNITED
STATES, 342 U.S. 143, 149-150, 152-153 (1951); UNITED STATES V.
PARAMOUNT PICTURES, SUPRA, AT 166-167; INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUB. CO.
V. PRAIRIE FARMER PUB. CO., 293 U.S. 268, 278-279 (1934). 

THE "MARKET," AS MOST CONCEPTS IN LAW OR ECONOMICS, CANNOT BE
MEASURED BY METES AND BOUNDS.  NOR DOES THE SUBSTANCE OF SHERMAN ACT
VIOLATIONS TYPICALLY DEPEND ON SO FLEXIBLE A GUIDE.  SECTION 2 OUTLAWS
MONOPOLIZATION OF ANY "APPRECIABLE PART" OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND BY
SEC. 1 UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS ARE BANNED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF
INVOLVED.  LORAIN JOURNAL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 151, N. 6; UNITED
STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, SUPRA, AT 173; UNITED STATES V. YELLOW
CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218, 225-226 (1947).  (FN29)  BUT THE ESSENCE OF
ILLEGALITY IN TYING AGREEMENTS IS THE WIELDING OF MONOPOLISTIC
LEVERAGE; A SELLER EXPLOITS HIS DOMINANT POSITION IN ONE MARKET TO
EXPAND HIS EMPIRE INTO THE NEXT.  SOLELY FOR TESTING THE STRENGTH OF
THAT LEVER, THE WHOLE AND NOT PART OF A RELEVANT MARKET MUST BE
ASSIGNED CONTROLLING WEIGHT.  CF. UNITED STATES V. COLUMBIA STEEL CO.,
SUPRA, AT 524. 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE TIMES-PICAYUNE OCCUPIED A "DOMINANT"
POSITION IN THE NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING MARKET IN NEW ORLEANS.  UNLIKE
OTHER "TYING" CASES WHERE PATENTS OR COPYRIGHTS SUPPLIED THE REQUISITE
MARKET CONTROL, ANY EQUIVALENT MARKET "DOMINANCE" IN THIS CASE MUST
REST ON COMPARATIVE MARKETING DATA.  (FN30)  EXCLUDING ADVERTISING
PLACED THROUGH OTHER COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA AND INCLUDING GENERAL AND
CLASSIFIED LINAGE INSERTED IN ALL NEW ORLEANS DAILIES, AS WE MUST SINCE
THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE WHICH COULD CIRCUMSCRIBE A BROADER OR
NARROWER "MARKET" DEFINED BY BUYERS' HABITS OR MOBILITY OF DEMAND,
(FN31) THE TIMES-PICAYUNE'S SALES OF BOTH GENERAL AND CLASSIFIED LINAGE
OVER THE YEARS HOVERED AROUND 40%.  (FN32)  OBVIOUSLY NO MAGIC INHERES
IN NUMBERS; "THE RELATIVE EFFECT OF PERCENTAGE COMMAND OF A MARKET
VARIES WITH THE SETTING IN WHICH THAT FACTOR IS PLACED."  UNITED STATES
V. COLUMBIA STEEL CO., SUPRA, AT 528; CF. UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL
LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319, 352-353 (1947).  IF EACH OF THE NEW ORLEANS
PUBLICATIONS SHARED EQUALLY IN THE TOTAL VOLUME OF LINAGE, THE TIMES
PICAYUNE WOULD HAVE SOLD 33 1/3%; IN THE ABSENCE OF PATENT OR COPYRIGHT
CONTROL, THE SMALL EXISTING INCREMENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE
DISCLOSED (FN33) CANNOT CONFER THAT MARKET "DOMINANCE" WHICH, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A "NOT INSUBSTANTIAL" VOLUME OF TRADE IN THE "TIED"
PRODUCT, WOULD RESULT IN A SHERMAN ACT OFFENSE UNDER THE RULE OF
INTERNATIONAL SALT. 

YET ANOTHER CONSIDERATION VITIATES THE APPLICABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL
SALT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED THAT THE TIMES-PICAYUNE AND THE
STATES WERE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT NEWSPAPERS, THOUGH PUBLISHED UNDER
SINGLE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL.  BUT THAT READERS CONSCIOUSLY
DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THESE TWO PUBLICATIONS DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY
THAT ADVERTISERS BOUGHT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PRODUCTS WHEN INSERTIONS
WERE PLACED IN THE TIMES-PICAYUNE AND THE STATES.  SO TO CONCLUDE HERE
WOULD INVOLVE SPECULATION THAT ADVERTISERS BOUGHT SPACE MOTIVATED BY
CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN CUSTOMER COVERAGE; THAT THEIR MEDIA
SELECTIONS, IN EFFECT, RESTED ON GENERIC QUALITIES DIFFERENTIATING
MORNING FROM EVENING READERS IN NEW ORLEANS.  ALTHOUGH ADVERTISING
SPACE IN THE TIMES-PICAYUNE, AS THE SOLE MORNING DAILY, WAS DOUBTLESS
ESSENTIAL TO BLANKET COVERAGE OF THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER READERSHIP,
NOTHING IN THE RECORD SUGGESTS THAT ADVERTISERS VIEWED THE CITY'S
NEWSPAPER READERS, MORNING OR EVENING, AS OTHER THAN FUNGIBLE CUSTOMER
POTENTIAL.  (FN34)  WE MUST ASSUME, THEREFORE, THAT READERSHIP "BOUGHT"
BY ADVERTISERS IN THE TIMES-PICAYUNE WAS THE SELFSAME "PRODUCT" SOLD BY
THE STATES AND, FOR THAT MATTER, THE ITEM. 

THE FACTUAL DEPARTURE FROM THE "TYING" CASES THEN BECOMES MANIFEST. 
THE COMMON CORE OF THE ADJUDICATED UNLAWFUL TYING ARRANGEMENTS IS THE
FORCED PURCHASE OF A SECOND DISTINCT COMMODITY WITH THE DESIRED
PURCHASE OF A DOMINANT "TYING" PRODUCT, RESULTING IN ECONOMIC HARM TO
COMPETITION IN THE "TIED" MARKET.  HERE, HOWEVER, TWO NEWSPAPERS UNDER
SINGLE OWNERSHIP AT THE SAME PLACE, TIME, AND TERMS SELL
INDISTINGUISHABLE PRODUCTS TO ADVERTISERS; NO DOMINANT "TYING" PRODUCT
EXISTS (IN FACT, SINCE SPACE IN NEITHER THE TIMES-PICAYUNE NOR THE
STATES CAN BE BOUGHT ALONE, ONE MAY BE VIEWED AS "TYING" AS THE OTHER);
NO LEVERAGE IN ONE MARKET EXCLUDES SELLER IN THE SECOND, BECAUSE FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES THE PRODUCTS ARE IDENTICAL AND THE MARKET THE SAME. 
CF. STANDARD OIL CO. (INDIANA) V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 176-178
(1931); UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, 424
(1945); COMPARE INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUB. CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER PUB.
CO., 293 U.S. 268, 278-280 (1934).  IN SHORT, NEITHER THE RATIONALE NOR
THE DOCTRINES EVOLVED BY THE "TYING" CASES CAN DISPOSE OF THE
PUBLISHING COMPANY'S ARRANGEMENTS CHALLENGED HERE. 

THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S ADVERTISING CONTRACTS MUST THUS BE TESTED
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT'S GENERAL PROHIBITION ON UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS
OF TRADE.  FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 1, "A RESTRAINT MAY BE UNREASONABLE
EITHER BECAUSE A RESTRAINT OTHERWISE REASONABLE IS ACCOMPANIED WITH A
SPECIFIC INTENT TO ACCOMPLISH A FORBIDDEN RESTRAINT OR BECAUSE IT FALLS
WITHIN THE CLASS OF RESTRAINTS THAT ARE ILLEGAL PER SE."  UNITED STATES
V. COLUMBIA STEEL CO., 334 U.S. 495, 522 (1948).  SINCE THE REQUISITE
INTENT IS INFERRED WHENEVER UNLAWFUL EFFECTS ARE FOUND, UNITED STATES
V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, 105, 108 (1948); UNITED STATES V. PATTEN,
226 U.S. 525, 543 (1913), AND THE RULE OF INTERNATIONAL SALT IS OUT OF
THE WAY, THE CONTRACTS MAY YET BE BANNED BY SEC. 1 IF UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT WAS EITHER THEIR OBJECT OR EFFECT.  ALTHOUGH THESE UNIT
CONTRACTS DO NOT IN EXPRESS TERMS PRECLUDE BUYERS FROM PURCHASING
ADDITIONAL SPACE IN COMPETING NEWSPAPERS, THE ACT DEALS WITH
COMPETITIVE REALITIES, NOW WORDS.  UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316
U.S. 265, 280 (1942).  THUS, WHILE WE "DO NOT THINK THIS CONCESSION
RELIEVES THE CONTRACT OF BEING A RESTRAINT OF TRADE, ALBEIT A LESS
HARSH ONE" THAN OTHERWISE, INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332
U.S. 392, 397 (1947); SEE UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, 334 U.S.
131, 156-158 (1948), (FN35) THE "OPEN END" FEATURE OF THE CONTRACTS
HERE MINIMIZES THE RESTRAINT.  FOR OUR INQUIRY TO DETERMINE
REASONABLENESS UNDER SEC. 1 MUST FOCUS ON "THE PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESS
CONTROLLED, THE STRENGTH OF THE REMAINING COMPETITION AND WHETHER THE
ACTION SPRINGS FROM BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS OR PURPOSE TO MONOPOLIZE." 
334 U.S., AT 527; COMPARE STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED
STATES, 337 U.S. 293, 312-313 (1949).    THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH
RELEVANT STATISTICAL DATA.  THE VOLUME DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE TO LOCAL
DISPLAY BUYERS WERE NOT HELD UNLAWFUL BY THE DISTRICT COURT, AND THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ASSAIL THE PRACTICE HERE.  THAT SEGMENT OF
ADVERTISING LINAGE, BY FAR THE LARGEST REVENUE PRODUCER OF THE THREE
LINAGE CLASSES SOLD BY ALL NEW ORLEANS NEWSPAPERS, (FN36) IS THUS
ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION.  CONSEQUENTLY, ONLY CLASSIFIED AND
DISPLAY LINAGE DATA CAN BE SCRUTINIZED FOR POSSIBLE FORBIDDEN EFFECTS. 

CLASSIFIED. - THE ITEM COMPANY, THEN PUBLISHING THE MORNING TRIBUNE
AND THE EVENING ITEM, UTILIZED UNIT RATES FOR CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING IN
ITS PAPERS IN THE YEAR THE TIMES-PICAYUNE COMPANY ABSORBED THE EVENING
STATES.  IN 1933, THE ITEM COMPANY'S CLASSIFIED LINAGE TOTALED 2.72
MILLION, COMPARED WITH THE TIMES-PICAYUNE COMPANY'S TOTAL OF 2.12
MILLION.  (FN37)  EQUALIZING THE COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIP, THE TIMES
PICAYUNE COMPANY IN 1935 COUNTERED BY ADOPTING THE UNIT-RATE SYSTEM OF
ITS RIVAL.  IN THAT YEAR THE TIMES-PICAYUNE SOLD 2.84 MILLION, TO THE
ITEM COMPANY'S 2.35 MILLION, LINES.  WHILE THUS EVENLY MATCHED, THE
TIMES-PICAYUNE OVER THE YEARS STEADILY INCREASED ITS LEAD.  THAT
COMPANY SOLD 3.52 MILLION LINES IN 1938, AND 3.76 IN 1939; THE ITEM
COMPANY TOTALED 2.23 AND 2.18, RESPECTIVELY.  IN FACT THE TIMES
PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY IN EVERY YEAR BUT 1938 ADVANCED ITS LINAGE
TOTAL; SINCE 1936 THE ITEM COMPANY'S TOTALS DECLINED YEARLY, SOLELY
EXCEPTING 1940. 

AT THE END OF THAT YEAR THE ITEM COMPANY'S MORNING TRIBUNE SUSPENDED
PUBLICATION; (FN38) A NEW LOCAL COMPETITIVE STRUCTURE TOOK FORM.  IN
THAT FIRST YEAR THE ITEM, AS SOLE COMPETITOR OF THE TIMES-PICAYUNE
COMPANY'S TWO DAILIES, SOLD 1.23 MILLION LINES OF CLASSIFIED LINAGE,
COMPARED WITH 2.09 MILLION FOR THE TIMES-PICAYUNE AND 2.08 FOR THE
STATES; THE ITEM'S SHARE THUS ACCOUNTED FOR ROUGHLY 23% OF THE TOTAL. 
TEN YEARS LATER THE ITEM'S SHARE HAD DECLINED TO APPROXIMATELY 20%:  IN
1950 IT SOLD 2.17 MILLION LINES, COMPARED WITH THE TIMES-PICAYUNE
PUBLISHING COMPANY'S TOTAL LINAGE OF 8.91 MILLION, COMPRISING 4.36
MILLION FOR THE TIMES-PICAYUNE AND 4.55 FOR THE STATES.  MEASURED
AGAINST THE EVENING STATES ALONE, THE ITEM'S PERCENTAGE ATTRITION IS
COMPARABLE.  IN 1941 IT SOLD 37% OF THE TWO EVENING PAPERS' TOTAL
LINAGE; BY 1950 THAT SHARE HAD DECLINED TO 32%.  THUS, OVER A PERIOD OF
TEN YEARS' COMPETITION WHILE FACING ITS MORNING-EVENING RIVAL'S
COMPULSORY UNIT RATE THE NEW ORLEANS ITEM'S SHARE OF THE NEW ORLEANS
CLASSIFIED LINAGE MARKET DECLINED 3%; VIEWED SOLELY IN RELATION TO ITS
EVENING COMPETITOR, ITS PERCENTAGE LOSS AMOUNTED TO 5%. 

GENERAL DISPLAY.  - BECAUSE THE UNIT RATE APPLICABLE TO GENERAL
DISPLAY LINAGE WAS INSTITUTED TO BECOME EFFECTIVE 1950, ONLY ONE YEAR'S
COMPARATIVE DATA ARE IN THE RECORD.  IN 1949, GENERAL DISPLAY LINAGE IN
ALL NEW ORLEANS DAILIES TOTALED 6.84 MILLION, COMPRISING 3.04 MILLION
LINES IN THE TIMES-PICAYUNE, 1.93 MILLION IN THE STATES, AND 1.87
MILLION IN THE ITEM; THE PUBLISHING COMPANY RAN 73% OF THE TOTAL. 
(FN39)  ONE YEAR'S EXPERIENCE WITH THE UNIT RATE FOR GENERAL DISPLAY
ADVERTISING SHOWED A NEW ORLEANS TOTAL VOLUME OF 7.37 MILLION LINES,
ROUGHLY APPORTIONED AS 2.96 MILLION IN THE TIMES-PICAYUNE, 2.55 MILLION
IN THE STATES, AND 1.85 MILLION IN THE ITEM; THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S
SHARE HAD RISEN TO 75%.  COMPARED WITH THE STATES ALONE, THE ITEM IN
1949 ACCOUNTED FOR 49% OF THE TWO EVENING PAPERS' TOTAL; IN 1950, THAT
HAD DECLINED TO 42%. 

IN THAT YEAR, A REALLOCATION OF ADVERTISING ACCOUNTS ALSO TOOK
PLACE.  (FN40)  IN 1949, 23.7% OF GENERAL DISPLAY ADVERTISERS UTILIZED
THE TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS EXCLUSIVELY; ONE
YEAR LATER THAT PERCENTAGE HAD RISEN TO 41%.  CONCURRENTLY, HOWEVER,
ACCOUNTS ADVERTISING SOLELY IN THE TIMES-PICAYUNE DECLINED FROM 22.7%
TO 5.8%, AND SOLE ADVERTISERS IN THE STATES DROPPED FROM 2% TO .4%. ON
THE OTHER HAND, IN 1950 10.6%, COMPARED WITH 9.6% THE YEAR BEFORE, OF
GENERAL DISPLAY ACCOUNTS INSERTED SOLELY IN THE ITEM; AND THE SEGMENT
OF ADVERTISING ACCOUNTS INSERTING IN ALL THREE PUBLICATIONS ROSE FROM
30.4% IN 1949 TO 39% IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR.  IN FACT, WHILE IN 1949
ONLY 51.6% OF GENERAL DISPLAY ACCOUNTS UTILIZED THE ITEM EITHER
EXCLUSIVELY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER NEW ORLEANS DAILIES, ONE YEAR
LATER 52.8% OF THE ACCOUNTS SO PATRONIZED THE ITEM. 

THE RECORD'S FACTUAL DATA, IN SUM, DO NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
PUBLISHING COMPANY'S ADVERTISING CONTRACTS UNDULY HANDICAPPED ITS
EXTANT COMPETITOR, THE ITEM.  IN THE EARLY YEARS WHEN FOUR-CORNERED
NEWSPAPER COMPETITION FOR CLASSIFIED LINAGE PREVAILED IN NEW ORLEANS,
THE ASCENDANCY OF THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S PAPERS OVER THEIR MORNING
EVENING COMPETITOR SOON BECAME MANIFEST.  WITH UNIT PLAN PITTED ON EVEN
TERMS AGAINST UNIT PLAN, OVER THE YEARS THE LOCAL MARKET PATTERN
STEADILY EVOLVED FROM THE TIMES-PICAYUNE COMPANY'S RISE AND THE ITEM
COMPANY'S DECLINE.  WITH THE MORNING TRIBUNE'S DEMISE IN 1940, THE
MARKET SHRANK BUT THE PATTERN REMAINED.  THE ITEM CONTINUED ITS
GRADUALLY DECLINING SHARE OF THE MARKET, THOUGH IN FACT THE TIMES
PICAYUNE'S UNIT RATE FOR "CLASSIFIED" BETWEEN 1940 AND 1950 COINCIDED
WITH A REVERSAL OF THE TREND MARKING THE ITEM'S ABSOLUTE VOLUME
DECLINE.  EVEN LESS COMPETITIVE HURT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE PUBLISHING
COMPANY'S UNIT RATE FOR GENERAL DISPLAY LINAGE.  TRUE, IN THE SINGLE
RECORDED YEAR OF ITS EXISTENCE THE COMBINATION PLAN DID DIMINISH BY 7%
THE ITEM'S SHARE OF LINAGE IF MEASURED SOLELY AGAINST THE STATES. 
VERSUS THE LINAGE SOLD BY THE PUBLISHING COMPANY IN ITS TWO NEWSPAPERS,
HOWEVER, THE ITEM'S SHARE OF THE TOTAL MARKET DECLINED BUT 2%.  THAT
APPARENT INCONGRUITY IS SIMPLY EXPLAINED:  COMPARED WITH 1949 MONTHLY
VOLUME DATA, THE UNIT RATE IN EACH OF THE 11 MONTHS OF ITS OPERATION IN
1950 DREW LINAGE AWAY FROM THE TIMES-PICAYUNE AND TOWARD THE STATES. 
(FN41)  IN EFFECT, THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S UNIT PLAN MERELY
REALLOCATED THE LINAGE SOLD BY ITS TWO CONSTITUENT PAPERS.  AND NOT
ONLY DID THE UNIT PLAN TAKE FROM THE TIMES-PICAYUNE AND GIVE TO THE
STATES.  APPARENTLY IT ALSO LED MORE ADVERTISERS TO INSERT IN THE ITEM,
WHICH SOLD GENERAL DISPLAY SPACE TO A PROPORTIONATELY GREATER NUMBER OF
ACCOUNTS IN 1950 THAN IN 1949. 

MEANWHILE THE ITEM FLOURISHES.  THE TEN YEARS PRECEDING THIS TRIAL
MARKED ITS MORE THAN 75% GROWTH IN CLASSIFIED LINAGE.  BETWEEN 1946 AND
1950 ITS GENERAL DISPLAY VOLUME INCREASED ALMOST 25%.  THE ITEM'S LOCAL
DISPLAY LINAGE IS TWICE THE EQUIVALENT LINAGE IN THE STATES.  (FN42)
AND 1950, THE ITEM'S PEAK YEAR FOR TOTAL LINAGE COMPRISING ALL THREE
CLASSES OF ADVERTISING, MARKED ITS GREATEST CIRCULATION IN HISTORY AS
WELL.  IN FACT, SINCE IN NEWSPAPERS OF THE ITEM'S CIRCULATION BRACKET
GENERAL DISPLAY AND CLASSIFIED LINAGE TYPICALLY PROVIDE NO MORE THAN
32% OF TOTAL REVENUES, THE DEMONSTRATED DIMINUTION OF ITS NEW ORLEANS
MARKET SHARES IN THESE ADVERTISING CLASSES MIGHT WELL NOT HAVE RESULTED
IN REVENUE LOSSES EXCEEDING 1%. (FN43)  MOREOVER, BETWEEN 1943 AND 1949
THE ITEM EARNED OVER $1.4 MILLION NET BEFORE TAXES, ENABLING ITS THEN
PUBLISHER IN THE LATTER YEAR TO TRANSFER HIS EQUITY AT A NEW PROFIT OF
$600,000.  THE ITEM, THE ALLEGED VICTIM OF THE TIMES-PICAYUNE COMPANY'S
CHALLENGED TRADE PRACTICES, APPEARED, IN SHORT, TO BE DOING WELL. 

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE THUS DOES NOT DISCLOSE EVIDENCE FROM WHICH
DEMONSTRABLY DELETERIOUS EFFECTS ON COMPETITION MAY BE INFERRED.  TO BE
SURE, ECONOMIC STATISTICS ARE EASILY SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGERDEMAIN, AND
ONLY THE ORGANIZED CONTEXT OF ALL RELEVANT FACTORS CAN VALIDLY
TRANSLATE RAW DATA INTO LOGICAL CAUSE AND EFFECT.  BUT WE MUST TAKE THE
RECORD AS WE FIND IT, AND HACK THROUGH THE JUNGLE AS BEST WE CAN.  IT
MAY WELL BE THAT ANY ENHANCEMENT OF THE TIMES-PICAYUNE'S MARKET
POSITION DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ASSAILED ARRANGEMENTS RESULTED FROM
BETTER SERVICE OR LOWER PRICES, OR WAS DUE TO SUPERIOR PLANNING
INITIATIVE OR MANAGERIAL SKILLS; (FN44) CONVERSELY, IT IS EQUALLY
POSSIBLE THAT BUT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIT CONTRACTS ITS MARKET
POSITION MIGHT HAVE TURNED FOR THE WORSE.  NOR CAN WE BE CERTAIN THAT
THE CHALLENGED PRACTICE, THOUGH NOT DESTRUCTIVE OF EXISTING
COMPETITION, DID NOT ABORT YET UNBORN COMPETITORS EQUALLY WITHIN THE
CONCERN OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S.
100, 107 (1948); AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781,
814 (1946); ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 13 (1945). 
BUT THIS SUIT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO ADJUDICATE A TRADE PRACTICE AS BANNED
BY SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS WHICH BY A CLEARLY DEFINED PUBLIC
POLICY DISPENSE WITH DIFFICULT STANDARDS OF ECONOMIC PROOF.  COMPARE
STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 293, 311-313
(1949).  AND THE CASE HAS NOT MET THE PER SE CRITERIA OF SHERMAN ACT
SEC. 1 FROM WHICH PROSCRIBED EFFECT AUTOMATICALLY MUST BE INFERRED. 
CF. INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392 (1947). 
UNDER THE BROAD GENERAL POLICY DIRECTED BY SEC. 1 AGAINST UNREASONABLE
TRADE RESTRAINTS, GUILT CANNOT REST ON SPECULATION; THE GOVERNMENT HERE
HAS PROVED NEITHER ACTUAL UNLAWFUL EFFECTS NOR FACTS WHICH RADIATE A
POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE HARM. 

WHILE EVEN OTHERWISE REASONABLE TRADE ARRANGEMENTS MUST FALL IF
CONCEIVED TO ACHIEVE FORBIDDEN ENDS, LEGITIMATE BUSINESS AIMS
PREDOMINANTLY MOTIVATED THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S ADOPTION OF THE UNIT
PLAN.  BECAUSE THE ANTITRUST LAWS STRIKE EQUALLY AT NASCENT AND
ACCOMPLISHED RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, MONOPOLISTIC DESIGNS AS WELL AS
RESULTS ARE REACHED BY THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  UNITED
STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 224, N. 59 (1940);
UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, 402 (1927).  THE
UNIT RATE FOR CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING, HOWEVER, WAS ADOPTED IN 1935
OBVIOUSLY TO COUNTERACT THE COMPETITION OF THE ITEM AND MORNING TRIBUNE
WHICH CONFRONTED THE TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY WITH AN
ESTABLISHED UNIT RATE.  TO BE SURE, AN UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICE MAY NOT
BE JUSTIFIED AS AN EMULATION OF ANOTHER'S ILLEGAL PLAN.  CF. FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. STALEY MFG. CO., 324 U.S. 746, 753-754 (1945).  BUT
THAT FACTOR IS CERTAINLY RELEVANT TO ILLUMINATE AMBIGUOUS INTENT,
PARTICULARLY WHEN PLANNED INJURY TO THAT OTHER COMPETITOR IS THE CRUX
OF THE CHARGE.  IN ANY EVENT, UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY SUGGESTS THAT
UNIT INSERTIONS OF CLASSIFIED ADS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE PUBLISHER'S
OVERHEAD COSTS.  (FN45) APPROXIMATELY THIRTY SEPARATE OPERATIONS ARE
NECESSARY TO TRANSLATE AN ADVERTISER'S ORDER INTO A PUBLISHED LINE OF
PRINT.  A REASONABLE PRICE FOR A CLASSIFIED AD IS NECESSARILY LOW.  AND
THE PUBLISHING COMPANY PROCESSED ABOUT 2,300 CLASSIFIED ADS FOR
PUBLICATION EACH DAY.  CERTAINLY A PUBLISHER'S STEPS TO RATIONALIZE
THAT OPERATION DO NOT BESPEAK A PURPOSIVE QUEST FOR MONOPOLY OR
RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

SIMILARLY, COMPETITIVE BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS APPARENTLY ACTUATED
THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIT RATE FOR GENERAL DISPLAY LINAGE IN 1950.  AT
THAT TIME ABOUT 180 OTHER PUBLISHERS, THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORNING
EVENING OWNERS, HAD PREVIOUSLY INSTITUTED SIMILAR UNIT PLANS. 
DOUBTLESS, LONG-TOLERATED TRADE ARRANGEMENTS ACQUIRE NO VESTED IMMUNITY
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT; NO PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS ACCRUE BY THE
PROSECUTOR'S DELAY.  CF. UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., SUPRA,
AT 225-228.  THAT CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, IS NOT WHOLLY IRRELEVANT WHEN
MONOPOLISTIC PURPOSE RATHER THAN EFFECT REMAINS TO BE GAUGED.  IBID.
BY ADOPTING THE UNIT PLAN FOR GENERAL DISPLAY LINAGE AT THE TIME IT
DID, THE PUBLISHING COMPANY DEVISED NOT A NOVEL RESTRICTIVE SCHEME BUT
ALIGNED ITSELF WITH THE INDUSTRY'S GUIDE, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL IN
PARTICULAR CASES THAT IS FOUND TO BE.  MOREOVER, THE UNIT RATE WAS
VIEWED AS A COMPETITIVE WEAPON IN THE RIVALRY FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING
ACCOUNTS.  LOWER MILLINE RATES VISUALIZED AS CONSEQUENCE OF UNIT
INSERTIONS MIGHT ATTRACT NATIONAL LINAGE FROM ADVERTISERS UTILIZING
NEWSPAPERS IN OTHER CITIES, AS WELL AS COUNTERACT A NATIONAL
ADVERTISERS' TREND AWAY FROM NEWSPAPERS TOWARD OTHER MASS
COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA.  (FN46)  IN SUMMARY, NEITHER UNLAWFUL EFFECTS NOR
AIMS ARE SHOWN BY THE RECORD.  (FN47) 

CONSEQUENTLY, NO SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED UNLESS THE
PUBLISHING COMPANY'S REFUSAL TO SELL ADVERTISING SPACE EXCEPT EN BLOC,
VIEWED ALONE, CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  REFUSALS TO SELL,
WITHOUT MORE, DO NOT VIOLATE THE LAW.  (FN48)  THOUGH GROUP BOYCOTTS,
OR CONCERTED REFUSALS TO DEAL, CLEARLY RUN AFOUL OF SEC. 1, KIEFER
STEWART CO. V. SEAGRAM & SONS, 340 U.S. 211, 214 (1951); ASSOCIATED
PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1 (1945); SEE UNITED STATES V.
COLUMBIA STEEL CO., 334 U.S. 495, 522 (1948), DIFFERENT CRITERIA HAVE
LONG APPLIED TO QUALIFY THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL SELLER.  BEGINNING
WITH UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250 U.S. 300 (1919), THIS COURT'S
DECISIONS HAVE RECOGNIZED INDIVIDUAL REFUSALS TO SELL AS A GENERAL
RIGHT, THOUGH "NEITHER ABSOLUTE NOR EXEMPT FROM REGULATION."  LORAIN
JOURNAL V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 143, 155 (1951).  IF ACCOMPANIED BY
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OR AGREEMENT, OR CONCEIVED IN MONOPOLISTIC PURPOSE OR
MARKET CONTROL, EVEN INDIVIDUAL SELLERS' REFUSALS TO DEAL HAVE
TRANSGRESSED THE ACT.  LORAIN JOURNAL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED
STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL CO., 321 U.S. 707, 721-723 (1944);
EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO MATERIALS CO., 273 U.S. 359, 375
(1927); UNITED STATES V. SCHRADER'S SON, INC., 252 U.S. 85, 99 (1920);
CF. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 808 (1946);
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO., 257 U.S. 441, 453
455 (1922).  (FN49)  STILL, ALTHOUGH MUCH HEDGED ABOUT BY LATER CASES,
COLGATE'S PRINCIPLE PROTECTS THE TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S
SIMPLE REFUSAL TO SELL ADVERTISING SPACE IN THE TIMES-PICAYUNE OR
STATES SEPARATELY UNLESS OTHER FACTORS DESTROY THE LIMITED DISPENSATION
WHICH THAT CASE CONFERS.    IN OUR VIEW, HOWEVER, NO ADDITIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES BRING THIS CASE WITHIN SEC. 1.  THOUGH OPERATING TWO
CONSTITUENT NEWSPAPERS, THE TIMES-PICAYUNE IS A SINGLE CORPORATION, AND
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT ABANDONED A CHARGE OF UNLAWFUL
CONCERT AMONG THE CORPORATE OFFICERS.  (FN50)  WITH THE ADVERTISING
CONTRACTS IN THIS PROCEEDING VIEWED AS IN THEMSELVES LAWFUL AND NO
FURTHER ELEMENTS OF COMBINATION APPARENT IN THE CASE, SEC. 2 CRITERIA
MUST BECOME DISPOSITIVE HERE.    AN INSUFFICIENT SHOWING OF SPECIFIC
INTENT VITIATES THIS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE.  WHILE THE
COMPLETED OFFENSE OF MONOPOLIZATION UNDER SEC. 2 DEMANDS ONLY A GENERAL
INTENT TO DO THE ACT, "FOR NO MONOPOLIST MONOPOLIZES UNCONSCIOUS OF
WHAT HE IS DOING," A SPECIFIC INTENT TO DESTROY COMPETITION OR BUILD
MONOPOLY IS ESSENTIAL TO GUILT FOR THE MERE ATTEMPT NOW CHARGED. 
UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, 431-432 (1945);
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, 105 (1948); AMERICAN TOBACCO
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 814 (1946); SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 396 (1905).  THIS CASE DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE AN
ATTEMPT BY A MONOPOLIST ESTABLISHED IN ONE AREA TO NOSE INTO A SECOND
MARKET, SO THAT PAST MONOPOLISTIC SUCCESS BOTH ENHANCES THE PROBABILITY
OF FUTURE HARM AND SUPPLIES A MOTIVATION FOR FURTHER FORAYS.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, SUPRA; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
AND UNLIKE LORAIN JOURNAL V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 143 (1951), WHERE
A SINGLE NEWSPAPER'S REFUSAL TO SELL SPACE TO ADVERTISERS UNLESS THEY
FOREWENT ADVERTISING OVER A COMPETING LOCAL RADIO STATION MANIFESTED
"BOLD, RELENTLESS, AND PREDATORY COMMERCIAL BEHAVIOR," ID., AT 149, NO
REMOTELY COMPARABLE CHARGE IS BORNE OUT HERE.  THIS BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CASE COMPRISED ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S
ACQUISITION OF THE STATES IN 1933 WAS ONE ELEMENT IN A COOL AND
CALCULATED QUEST FOR MONOPOLY CONTROL; THAT THE COMPANY DELIBERATELY
OPERATED THE EVENING STATES AT A FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
COMPETING ITEM; AND THAT IT INTERFERED WITH THE ITEM'S DISTRIBUTION ON
THE STREETS OF NEW ORLEANS.  THE DISTRICT COURT, AND MUCH EVIDENCE
SUPPORTS ITS CONCLUSIONS, DETERMINED THAT THE 1933 PURCHASE OF THE
STATES THEN SEEMED A LEGITIMATE MEANS OF BUSINESS EXPANSION; ASSUMED
THAT THE COMPANY'S COST AND REVENUE ALLOCATIONS BETWEEN ITS TWO
PUBLICATIONS WERE MERE BOOKKEEPING TRANSACTIONS WITHOUT ECONOMIC
SIGNIFICANCE; AND CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANY RATHER THAN OBSTRUCT
STREET SALES OF THE ITEM MERELY SOUGHT TO ASSURE EQUAL TREATMENT BY
NEWS VENDORS OF THE ITEM AND STATES.  (FN51)  BECAUSE THESE PILLARS OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S SEC. 2 CASE THUS COLLAPSED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, ONLY
THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIT RATES REMAINS TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGED VIOLATION
OF SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  SINCE WE HAVE VIEWED THAT STEP AS
PREDOMINANTLY MOTIVATED BY LEGITIMATE BUSINESS AIMS, THIS RECORD CANNOT
BEAR OUT THE SPECIFIC INTENT ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAIN AN ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE UNDER SEC. 2. 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THIS RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE
CHARGED VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 1 AND SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  WE DO NOT
DETERMINE THAT UNIT ADVERTISING ARRANGEMENTS ARE LAWFUL IN OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES OR IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS.  OUR DECISION ADJUDICATES SOLELY
THAT THIS RECORD CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW OF THIS
CASE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  ON SUNDAYS THE TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY ALSO
DISTRIBUTES THE TIMES-PICAYUNE-STATES.  UNDER THE EXISTING UNIT PLAN,
GENERAL DISPLAY ADVERTISERS ALTERNATIVELY MAY INSERT IN A COMBINATION
OF EITHER DAILY PAPER WITH THE SUNDAY PAPER.  ADDITIONALLY, THE
COMPANY'S UNIT PLAN FOR CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING EXCLUDES SOME
ADVERTISING, KNOWN AS "OVER-THE-RIVER" CLASSIFIED, PLACED FROM A SMALL
LOCAL AREA.  AS NEITHER THE PARTIES NOR THE DISTRICT COURT ATTACHED ANY
SIGNIFICANCE TO THESE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CHALLENGED UNIT RATES FOR
GENERAL DISPLAY AND CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING SPACE IN THE PUBLISHING
COMPANY'S DAILY PAPERS, WE MENTION THEM SOLELY FOR COMPLETENESS. 

FN2  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE,
OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONT THE SEVERAL
STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL: ...  ."  15
U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

"EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE, OR ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE, OR
COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO MONOPOLIZE ANY
PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR,  ...  ."  15 U.S.C.
SEC. 2. 

"THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE INVESTED WITH
JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT; AND IT
SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE UNITED
STATES, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY TO PREVENT AND
RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS  ...  ."  15 U.S.C. SEC. 4. 

THE COMPLAINT NAMED AS DEFENDANTS THE TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING
COMPANY AND FOUR OF ITS OFFICERS.  TWO OF THESE INDIVIDUALS REMAIN AS
PARTIES IN THESE APPEALS, ONE DIED AFTER THE APPEALS WERE FILED, AND
THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AS TO ANOTHER.  FOR
CONVENIENCE WE REFER TO THE FORMER PARTIES DEFENDANT AS THE "TIMES
PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY" OR "PUBLISHING COMPANY." 

FN3  105 F. SUPP. 670 (D.C.E.D. LA. 1952). 

FN4  15 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 29.  PROBABLE JURISDICTION WAS NOTED ON
NOVEMBER 10, 1952. 

FN5  THE PRINTED RECORD HERE COMPRISES 1,644 PAGES OF TESTIMONY AND
EXHIBITS OF VARIOUS DEGREES OF PERTINENCE TO THE ISSUES. 

FN6  SEE R. 1252-1261. 

FN7  FDG.  31; CF. 105 F. SUPP., AT 678. 

FN8  IBID. 

FN9  ID., AT 678-679. 

FN10  ID., AT 681. 

FN11  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S BROAD INTERPREATIONS OF THOSE
RELEVANT CONCEPTS, IT IS NOW BEYOND DISPUTE THAT THE ACTIVITIES
CHALLENGED IN THIS CASE ARE SUFFICIENTLY "TRADE OR COMMERCE" RELATING
TO THE INTERSTATE ECONOMY TO FALL UNDER THE WIDE SWEEP OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  CF., E.G., LORAIN JOURNAL V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 143 (1951);
UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL ASSN. OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS, 339 U.S. 485
(1950); MANDEVILLE ISLAND FARMS V. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO., 334 U.S.
219 (1948); UNITED STATES V. FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES, 324 U.S. 293
(1945); UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533
(1944); WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942); INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE
PUB. CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER PUB. CO., 293 U.S. 268 (1934). 

FN12  LEARNED HAND, J., IN UNITED STATES V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 52 F.
SUPP. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943), AFF'D, 326 U.S. 1 (1945). 

FN13  EDITOR & PUBLISHER 1952 INTERNATIONAL YEARBOOK NUMBER, P. 17;
COMMENT, LOCAL MONOPOLY IN THE DAILY NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY, 61 YALE L.J.
948, 949 (1952), A COMPREHENSIVE INDUSTRY STUDY.  SEE ALSO RAY,
ECONOMIC FORCES AS FACTORS IN DAILY NEWSPAPER CONCENTRATION, 29 JOURN. 
Q. 31 (1952); RAY, COMPETITION IN THE NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY, 15 J.
MARKETING 444 (1951); NIXON, CONCENTRATION AND ABSENTEEISM IN DAILY
NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP, 22 JOURN.  Q. 97 (1945). 

FN14  AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, NEWSPAPER MORTALITY
SINCE 1929 (BULLETIN NO. 5203, JULY 27, 1950).  DEMISE OF INDIVIDUAL
NEWSPAPERS OCCURRED MAINLY THROUGH MERGER WITH OTHER PUBLICATIONS OR
OUTRIGHT SUSPENSION OF PUBLICATION. 

FN15  61 YALE L.J., AT 950. 

FN16  ID., AT 977.  SOME SMALL DAILIES ALSO DERIVE INCOME FROM
MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES SUCH AS JOB PRINTING.  IN THIS CASE THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND THAT ADVERTISING AND CIRCULATION ACCOUNTED FOR
APPROXIMATELY 98% OF NEW ORLEANS NEWSPAPERS' TOTAL REVENUES.  FDG. 
27. 

FN17  MASS COMMUNICATIONS (SCHRAMM ED. 1949), 549; PRINTERS' INK,
AUGUST 8, 1952, P. 35.  AND SEE BORDEN, TAYLOR AND HOVDE, NATIONAL
ADVERTISING IN NEWSPAPERS, 33 ET SEQ. (1946). 

FN18  FDG.  26. 

FN19  COMPARISON BETWEEN BULLETIN, NOTE 14, SUPRA, AT TABLES 2 AND 3,
AND EDITOR & PUBLISHER INTERNATIONAL YEARBOOK NUMBERS 1929 TO 1953. 

FN20  SEE MILLER, UNFAIR COMPETITION, 199 ET SEQ. (1941); LOCKHART
AND SACKS, THE RELEVANCE OF ECONOMIC FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER
EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENTS VIOLATE SECTION 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 65 HAR. 
L. REV. 913, 942 ET SEQ. (1952); NOTE, 49 COL. L. REV. 241, 246 (1949);
CF. EDWARDS, MAINTAINING COMPETITION, 175-178 (1949); WATKINS, PUBLIC
REGULATION OF COMPETITIVE PRACTICES IN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, 220 ET SEQ.
(1940). 

FN21  "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE  ...  ARE HEREBY
DECLARED UNLAWFUL."  15 U.S.C. SEC. 45.  IN THE GRATZ CASE, DECIDED ON
A POINT OF PLEADING, THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE "COMPLAINT CONTAINS NO
INTIMATION THAT WARREN, JONES & GRATZ DID NOT PROPERLY OBTAIN THEIR
TIES AND BAGGING AS MERCHANTS USUALLY DO; THE AMOUNT CONTROLLED BY THEM
IS NOT STATED; NOR IS IT ALLEGED THAT THEY HELD A MONOPOLY OF EITHER
TIES OR BAGGING OR HAD ABILITY, PURPOSE OR INTENT TO ACQUIRE ONE."  253
U.S., AT 428.  "ALL QUESTION OF MONOPOLY OR COMBINATION," THEREFORE,
WAS "OUT OF THE WAY."  IBID. 

FN22  UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO., 247 U.S. 32 (1918),
IS NOT RELIED ON BY THE PARTIES. 

FN23  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, IN
THE COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE, TO LEASE OR MAKE A SALE OR CONTRACT FOR
SALE OF GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE, MACHINERY, SUPPLIES, OR OTHER
COMMODITIES, WHETHER PATENTED OR UNPATENTED, FOR USE, CONSUMPTION, OR
RESALE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES  ...  OR FIX A PRICE CHARGED THEREFOR,
OR DISCOUNT FROM, OR REBATE UPON, SUCH PRICE, ON THE CONDITION,
AGREEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LESSEE OR PURCHASER THEREOF SHALL
NOT USE OR DEAL IN THE GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE, MACHINERY, SUPPLIES,
OR OTHER COMMODITIES OF A COMPETITOR OR COMPETITORS OF THE LESSOR OR
SELLER, WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH LEASE, SALE, OR CONTRACT FOR SALE OR
SUCH CONDITION, AGREEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY
LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF
COMMERCE."  15 U.S.C. SEC. 14. 

THAT SECTION RELATES TO SIMPLE EXCLUSIVE DEALING ARRANGEMENTS, CF.,
E.G., STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 293
(1949), NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AS WELL AS TO TYING SALES.  FOR
PURPOSES OF THE CLAYTON ACT, THE REQUISITE CONDITION NOT TO DEAL IN THE
GOODS OF ANOTHER MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE
TYING ARRANGEMENT.  INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 298 U.S. 131, 135 (1936); THOMSON MFG. CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 150 F.2D 952, 956 (1945); SIGNODE STEEL STRAPPING CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 132 F.2D 48, 52 (1942); LORD V. RADIO CORP.
OF AMERICA, 24 F.2D 565, 568 (1928).  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
SINCLAIR REFINING CO., 261 U.S. 463, 473-474 (1923). 

FN24  AFFIRMING, PER CURIAM, 80 F.2D 641 (1935). 

FN25  SEE ALSO SIGNODE STEEL STRAPPING CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 132 F.2D 48, 54 (1942); THOMSON MFG. CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 150 F.2D 952, 958 (1945). 

FN26  DEALING WITH THE MONOPOLIZATION OFFENSE UNDER SHERMAN ACT SEC.
2, A CHARGE NOT RAISED OR CONSIDERED HERE, THE COURT IN UNITED STATES
V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, 106-108 (1948), POINTEDLY OBSERVED:  "ANYONE
WHO OWNS AND OPERATES THE SINGLE THEATRE IN A TOWN, OR WHO ACQUIRES THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT A FILM, HAS A MONOPOLY IN THE POPULAR
SENSE.  BUT HE USUALLY DOES NOT VIOLATE SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT
UNLESS HE HAS ACQUIRED OR MAINTAINED HIS STRATEGIC POSITION, OR SOUGHT
TO EXPAND HIS MONOPOLY, OR EXPANDED IT BY MEANS OF THOSE RESTRAINTS OF
TRADE WHICH ARE COGNIZABLE UNDER SEC. 1  ...  .  THE USE OF MONOPOLY
POWER, HOWEVER, LAWFULLY ACQUIRED, TO FORECLOSE COMPETITION, TO GAIN A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, OR TO DESTROY A COMPETITOR, IS UNLAWFUL  ...  .
IF MONOPOLY POWER CAN BE USED TO BEGET MONOPOLY, THE ACT BECOMES A
FEEBLE INSTRUMENT INDEED."  SEE ALSO LEVI, A TWO LEVEL ANTI-MONOPOLY
LAW, 47 NORTHWESTERN U.L. REV. 567, 580-585 (1952). 

FN27  ON ORAL ARGUMENT HERE, THE GOVERNMENT EXPLANATORILY REFERRED TO
AN EARLY INFORMAL FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION OPINION TO THE EFFECT THAT
ADVERTISING SPACE WAS NOT A "COMMODITY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT (CF. NOTE 23, SUPRA).  81 CONG. REC. APP. 2336-2337. 
CF. FLEETWAY, INC. V. PUBLIC SERVICE INTERSTATE TRANSP.  CO., 72 F.2D
761 (1934); UNITED STATES V. INVESTORS DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, 102 F.
SUPP. 645 (1951).  WE EXPRESS NO VIEWS ON THAT STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION.  COMPARE NOTE 11, SUPRA. 

FN28  THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE DID NOT FIND THE VOLUME OF
COMMERCE AFFECTED BY THE RESTRAINT, BUT DETERMINED SOLELY THAT A
SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF ADVERTISING ACCOUNTS IN NEW ORLEANS PAPERS
WAS RESTRAINED BY THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S UNIT PLAN.  FDG.  30; CF.
FDG.  22.  IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE WE MAY ASSUME,
THOUGH NOT DECIDING, THAT THE SHERMAN ACT'S SUBSTANTIALITY TEST WAS
MET. 

FN29  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150,
224, N. 59 (1940); GAMCO, INC. V. PROVIDENCE FRUIT & PRODUCE BLDG., 194
F.2D 484 (1952); WHITE BEAR THEATRE CORP. V. STATE THEATRE CORP., 129
F.2D 600 (1942). 

FN30  "A PATENT,  ...  ALTHOUGH IN FACT THERE MAY BE MANY COMPETING
SUBSTITUTES FOR THE PATENTED ARTICLE, IS AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
OF MARKET CONTROL."  STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES,
337 U.S. 293, 307 (1949).  CF. ID., AT 303; OXFORD VARNISH CORP. V.
AULT & WIBORG CORP., 83 F.2D 764, 766 (1936); MILLER, UNFAIR
COMPETITION (1941), 199; LOCKHART AND SACKS, NOTE 20, SUPRA, AT 943
944; NOTE, 49 COL. L. REV. 241, 243 (1949).    FN31  FOR EVERY PRODUCT,
SUBSTITUTES EXIST.  BUT A RELEVANT MARKET CANNOT MEANINGFULLY
EONCOMPASS THAT INFINITE RANGE.  THE CIRCLE MUST BE DRAWN NARROWLY TO
EXCLUDE ANY OTHER PRODUCT TO WHICH, WITHIN REASONABLE VARIATIONS IN
PRICE, ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF BUYERS WILL TURN; IN TECHNICAL TERMS,
PRODUCTS WHOSE "CROSS-ELASTICITIES OF DEMAND" ARE SMALL.  USEFUL TO
THAT DETERMINATION IS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE TRADE'S OWN
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PRODUCTS INVOLVED.  THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY
AND ITS CUSTOMERS, FOR EXAMPLE, MARKEDLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN
ADVERTISING IN NEWSPAPERS AND IN OTHER MASS MEDIA.  SEE, E.G., FREY,
ADVERTISING (2D ED. 1953), CC. 12, 15; DUFFY, ADVERTISING MEDIA AND
MARKETS (2D ED. 1951), CC. 3, 4; HEPNER, EFFECTIVE ADVERTISING, C. 20
(1949); BORDEN, TAYLOR AND HOVDE, NATIONAL ADVERTISING IN NEWSPAPERS,
PASSIM (1946); SANDAGE, ADVERTISING THEORY AND PRACTICE (3D ED.  1948),
CC. XX, XXI. 

FN32  SEE TABLES, NOTES 37 AND 39, INFRA. 

FN33  CF., E.G., SITUATIONS WHERE SEVERAL COMPETITORS TOGETHER
CONTROLLING A LARGE SHARE OF THE MARKET ACTING INDIVIDUALLY OR IN
CONCERT ADOPT AN IDENTICAL TRADE PRACTICE.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. MOTION PICTURE ADVERTISING SERVICE CO., 344 U.S. 392
(1953); SIGNODE STEEL STRAPPING CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 132
F.2D 48, 54 (1942).  AND, OBVIOUSLY, IF A PRODUCER CONTROLLING AN EVEN
LESSER SHARE THAN HERE IS RINGED BY NUMEROUS SMALLER SATELLITES
TOGETHER ACCOUNTING FOR THE REST, HIS MASTERY OF THE MARKET IS GREATER
THAN WERE HE FACING FIERCE RIVALRY OF OTHER LARGE SELLERS.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319, 346-348, 352-353 (1947);
UNITED STATES V. COLUMBIA STEEL CO., 334 U.S. 495, 527-528 (1948). 
FEWNESS OF SELLERS, ON THE OTHER HAND, MAY FACILITATE CONCERTED
ACTION.  SEE FELLNER, COMPETITION AMONG THE FEW (1949), PASSIM;
STIGLER, THE THEORY OF PRICE, 228 ET SEQ. (REV. ED. 1952). 

FN34  IN FACT, A SURVEY (R. 1484) IN 1940 DISCLOSED THAT 27.6% OF
STATES HOME CARRIER SUBSCRIBERS SUBSCRIBED TO THE TIMES-PICAYUNE BY
HOME CARRIER AS WELL. 

FN35  IN INTERNATIONAL SALT, THE LESSOR'S TYING ARRANGEMENT PERMITTED
THE LESSEE'S PURCHASE OF THE "TIED" PRODUCT IN THE OPEN MARKET WHENEVER
THE LESSOR DECLINED TO MATCH THE GOING MARKET PRICE.  THAT, THIS COURT
THOUGHT, "DOES NOT AVOID THE STIFLING EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT ON
COMPETITION.  THE LESSOR HAD AT ALL TIMES A PRIORITY ON THE BUSINESS AT
EQUAL PRICES."  332 U.S., AT 397.  AND THE "BLOCKBOOKING" FOUND
UNLAWFUL IN THE PARAMOUNT CASE DID NOT, OF COURSE, IMPOSE ANY EXPRESS
RESTRICTIONS ON LICENSEES DESIRING TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL FILMS
ELSEWHERE.  IN FACT, BY SPECIFYING THAT A PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF THE
"TIED" PRODUCT BE TAKEN AND THAT AMOUNT COVERS THE BUYER'S TOTAL
REQUIREMENTS, A TYING ARRANGEMENT MAY ACHIEVE A RESULT EQUIVALENT TO
TOTAL EXCLUSION OF OTHER SELLERS WITHOUT THE FORMALITY OF EXPRESSLY
SAYING SO.  SEE ALSO NOTE 23, SUPRA. 

FN36  SEE 61 YALE L.J., AT 977, N. 162; NOTE 43, INFRA. 

FN37  THESE AND THE FOLLOWING CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING DATA ARE DERIVED
FROM THE TABLE BELOW (R. 1448): 

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING LINAGE CARRIED BY NEW ORLEANS DAILY
NEWSPAPERS,

                                    1933-1950

               TIMES-              STATES              ITEM
  TRIBUNE

               PICAYUNE           EVENING             EVENING
  MORNING

  MORNING 

1933             1,484,740             633,332           1,369,729
  1,349,577 

1934             1,344,479             642,347           1,185,832
  1,142,753 

1935             1,490,316           1,344,849     1,180,850
1,169,733 

1936             1,789,838           1,786,773           1,308,983
  1,298,880 

1937             1,832,728           1,834,845           1,252,840
  1,228,357 

1938             1,761,830      1,759,477           1,113,160
1,113,115 

1939             1,881,673           1,882,970           1,097,277
  1,086,777 

1940             1,954,535           1,955,117           1,277,140
 *1,248,712 

1941       2,085,566           2,083,812           1,231,540 

1942             1,954,870           1,957,057             910,275 

1943             2,849,190           2,843,097           1,241,787 

1944             3,021,616           3,027,236        1,857,741 

1945             3,245,566           3,265,686           1,899,926 

1946             3,930,313    4,083,664           2,181,640 

1947             4,353,943           4,507,427           2,210,193 

1948             4,501,599           4,664,403           2,437,268 

1949        4,271,302           4,420,193           2,232,617 

1950             4,357,713           4,549,238           2,166,518 

*MORNING TRIBUNE DISCONTINUED (JANUARY 1941). 

FN38  THIS RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE EXPLAINING THE MORNING
TRIBUNE'S DEMISE.  WE MUST THEREFORE ASSUME THAT THE TIMES-PICAYUNE
PUBLISHING COMPANY'S CHALLENGED TRADE PRACTICES ARE IN NO WAY LINKED TO
THE SUSPENSION OF THAT COMPETING DAILY NEWSPAPER. 

FN39  ALL GENERAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING DATA ARE DERIVED FROM THE TABLE
BELOW (R. 1450):

         GENERAL DISPLAY ADVERTISING LINAGE CARRIED BY NEW ORLEANS

           DAILY                   NEWSPAPERS, 1949-1950

           TIMES-              STATES         ITEM

           PICAYUNE            EVENING             EVENING

           MORNING           1949 - MONTHLY TOTALS 

JAN                   190,708             130,761
110,940 

FEB       231,656             158,252             154,008 

MARCH                 305,782             205,740
183,383 

APRIL                 295,603             179,186      164,288 

MAY                   282,080             171,509
177,725 

JUNE                   275,249         162,481             165,681 

JULY                  227,896             136,380
133,669 

AUG           180,019             118,031             124,768 

SEPT                  248,078             154,362
151,187 

OCT                   291,072             200,552          181,548 

NOV                   281,356 173,898             157,516 

DEC                   228,701            143,780             165,741 

TOTAL 3,038,200           1,934,932           1,870,454

                  1950 - MONTHLY TOTALS 

JAN       237,517             171,564             176,184 

FEB*                  229,367             166,536
167,309 

MARCH                 283,568             210,413      164,734 

APRIL                 262,997             199,803
162,523 

MAY                   276,036        229,662             154,058 

JUNE                  260,248             222,657
170,420 

JULY          213,550             194,800             121,387 

AUG                   181,522             176,400
115,256 

SEPT                  241,167             221,574         147,051 

OCT                   300,757             293,723
158,052 

NOV                   265,956           266,869             168,339 

DEC  211,735             196,794             148,630 

TOTAL           2,964,420           2,550,795           1,853,943 

*UNIT RATE BECAME EFFECTIVE ON FEB. 1, 1950. 

FN40  DATA ARE DERIVED FROM TABLES AND GRAPHS AT R. 1453-1456. 

FN41  SEE TABLE AT NOTE 39, SUPRA. 

FN42  MEDIA RECORDS, 11 (1950). 

FN43  FOR THE AVERAGE DAILY NEWSPAPER OF GREATER THAN 100,000
CIRCULATION, A 1951 INDUSTRY SURVEY REVEALED THE FOLLOWING TYPICAL
PERCENTAGE SOURCES OF TOTAL REVENUES (EDITOR & PUBLISHER, APRIL 12,
1952, P. 74): 

LOCAL DISPLAY             37.24% 

GENERAL DISPLAY           16.98% 

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING    14.60% 

CIRCULATION               29.47% 

A 3% DECLINE IN CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING, ACCOUNTING FOR 14,6% OF TOTAL
REVENUES, AND A 2% LOSS IN GENERAL DISPLAY, RESPONSIBLE FOR 16,98% OF
REVENUES, WOULD AMOUNT TO A TOTAL REVENUE LOSS OF .78%. COMPARE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37 (1948), WHERE THE
COMPOSITION OF A BUYER'S INVENTORY NECESSITATED PROTECTION AGAINST
COMPETITIVE HARM IN THE PURCHASING OF EVEN A FRACTIONAL PART OF HIS
STOCK IN TRADE.  ID., AT 49. 

FN44 THE RECORD DOES, IN FACT, CONTAIN EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT
THE TIMES-PICAYUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S MILLINE RATES (COST TO
ADVERTISERS OF ONE AGATE LINE PER MILLION CIRCULATION) RANGED ROUGHLY
FROM $2.14 TO $1.96, COMPARED TO THE ITEM'S CORRESPONDING RATES FROM
$2.96 TO $2.58.  R. 296, 1115.  MOREOVER, THOUGH NO INFERENCE
NECESSARILY FLOWS FROM THAT FACT, THE ITEM CHANGED OWNERSHIP AT LEAST
TWICE IN THE PAST TWENTY YEARS. 

FN45  R. 1127-1129.  CF. BORDEN, TAYLOR AND HOVDE, NATIONAL
ADVERTISING IN NEWSPAPERS, 461-462 (1946).  OBVIOUSLY, EQUIVALENT
ECONOMIES FLOW FROM VOLUNTARY UNIT INSERTIONS. 

FN46  BUT CF. ID., AT 461-464; NIXON, CONCENTRATION AND ABSENTEEISM
IN DAILY NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP, 22 JOURN.  Q. 97, 110-113 (1945), FOR
ADVERTISERS' REACTIONS TO UNIT RATES. 

FN47  THE GOVERNMENT PLACES MUCH EMPHASIS ON A MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY
THE PUBLISHING COMPANY'S ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVES, REFERRING TO THE
COMPANY'S ADOPTION OF THE UNIT PLAN AS ONE WAY "TO ELIMINATE TO A GREAT
EXTENT THE DELETERIOUS SELLING ON THE PART OF OUR EVENING CONTEMPORARY
WHICH IN THE LONG RUN IS NOT TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
MANUFACTURER."  AS POINTED OUT BY THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, THE
AUTHOR OF THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINED THAT "IN A NUMBER OF CASES  ...  THE
ADVERTISING AGENCIES FAVORED THE COMPULSORY OR UNIT RATE, BECAUSE ONCE
AN AGENCY HAD MADE ITS SELECTION OR ITS RECOMMENDATION OR MEDIA TO THE
ADVERTISER, THE AGENCY COULD RESIST ANY PRESSURE BROUGHT TO MAKE A
CHANGE IN MEDIA BY POINTING TO THE UNIT RATE AS MAKING SUCH CHANGE
IMPOSSIBLE."  105 F. SUPP., AT 675-676.  THAT EXPLANATION ACCORDS WITH
PREVAILING AGENCY PRACTICES AND ATTITUDES.  SEE BORDEN, TAYLOR AND
HOVDE, NATIONAL ADVERTISING IN NEWSPAPERS, 207-212 (1946). 

FN48  SEE, GENERALLY, COMMENT, REFUSALS TO SELL AND PUBLIC CONTROL OF
COMPETITION, 58 YALE L.J. 1121 (1949). 

FN49  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. KLEARFLAX LINEN LOOMS, 63 F. SUPP. 32
(1945).  "IF ALL THE NEWSPAPERS IN A CITY, IN ORDER TO MONOPOLIZE THE
DISSEMINATION OF NEWS AND ADVERTISING BY ELIMINATING A COMPETING RADIO
STATION, CONSPIRED TO ACCEPT NO ADVERTISEMENTS FROM ANYONE WHO
ADVERTISED OVER THAT STATION, THEY WOULD VIOLATE SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  (CITING CASES).  IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT RESULT TO
HOLD HERE THAT A SINGLE NEWSPAPER, ALREADY ENJOYING A SUBSTANTIAL
MONOPOLY IN ITS AREA, VIOLATES THE 'ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE' CLAUSE OF
SEC. 2 WHEN IT USES ITS MONOPOLY TO DESTROY THREATENED COMPETITION." 
LORAIN JOURNAL V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 143, 154 (1951). 

FN50  COMPARE TIMKEN ROLLER BEARING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S.
593, 598, 606 (1951); NELSON RADIO & SUPPLY CO. V. MOTOROLA, 200 F.2D
911, 914 (1952); UNITED STATES V. LORAIN JOURNAL, 92 F. SUPP. 794,799
800 (1950). 

FN51  105 F. SUPP., AT 676-677, 680. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS,
AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE MAJORITY OPINION SEEKS TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF UNITED STATES V.
GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, AND OF INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES,
332 U.S. 392, BY TAKING THE POSITION THAT THE TIMES-PICAYUNE DOES NOT
ENJOY A "DOMINANT POSITION" IN THE GENERAL NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING MARKET
OF NEW ORLEANS, INCLUDING ALL THREE PAPERS, AS A SINGLE MARKET.  THE
COMPLAINT, HOWEVER, IS NOT AND NEED NOT BE DEPENDENT UPON THE RELATION
OF THE TIMES-PICAYUNE TO THAT ENTIRE MARKET. 

THE COMPLAINT IS THAT THE TIMES-PICAYUNE ENJOYS A DISTINCT, CONCEDED
AND COMPLETE MONOPOLY OF ACCESS TO THE MORNING NEWSPAPER READERS IN THE
NEW ORLEANS AREA AND THAT IT USES THAT MONOPOLY TO RESTRAIN
UNREASONABLY THE COMPETITION BETWEEN ITS EVENING NEWSPAPER, THE NEW
ORLEANS STATES, AND THE INDEPENDENT NEW ORLEANS ITEM, IN THE
COMPETITIVE FIELD OF EVENING NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING.  INSISTENCE BY THE
TIMES-PICAYUNE UPON ACCEPTANCE OF ITS COMPULSORY COMBINATION
ADVERTISING CONTRACTS MAKES PAYMENT FOR, AND PUBLICATION OF, CLASSIFIED
AND GENERAL ADVERTISING IN ITS OWN EVENING PAPER AN INESCAPABLE PART OF
THE PRICE OF ACCESS TO THE ALL-IMPORTANT COLUMNS OF THE SINGLE MORNING
PAPER.  I AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT SUCH CONDUCT VIOLATES THE
SHERMAN ACT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENTED.  SEE ALSO, FED.
RULES CIV. PROC., 52(A), "FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE
UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS  ...  "  AND LORAIN JOURNAL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 342 U.S. 143.  IN VIEW OF THE DISPOSITION MADE OF THIS CASE BY
THE MAJORITY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE TERMS OF THE DECREE. 
..END :









UNITED STATES V. W.T. GRANT CO. 345 U.S. 629 


NO. 532.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 25, 1953 - 112 F. SUPP.
336, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SEC. 15 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, THE UNITED STATES SUED IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN AN INDIVIDUAL AND SIX CORPORATIONS FROM
VIOLATING SEC. 8 THROUGH THE HOLDING BY THE INDIVIDUAL OF INTERLOCKING
DIRECTORATES IN THREE PAIRS OF COMPETING CORPORATIONS.  THEREAFTER, THE
INDIVIDUAL RESIGNED HIS DIRECTORSHIP IN ONE OUT OF EACH PAIR OF
CORPORATIONS AND FILED AFFIDAVITS DISCLAIMING ANY INTENTION OF RESUMING
SUCH DIRECTORATES.  ON MOTION OF THE DEFENDANTS, THE COURT THEN GRANTED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE SUIT.  HELD: 

1.  THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 11 TO
ENFORCE SEC. 8 IS NOT EXCLUSIVE, AND THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION UNDER
SEC. 15 TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT.  PP. 631-632. 

2.  THE TERMINATION OF THE INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES DID NOT RENDER
THE CASE MOOT.  PP.  632-633. 

3.  THE COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO GRANT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  PP. 633-636. 

UNITED STATES V. W.T. GRANT CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE GOVERNMENT'S SUIT TO ENJOIN
VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 8 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 19.  112 F.
SUPP. 336.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29,
AFFIRMED, P. 636. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE CLAYTON ACT IN 1914 THE
COURT IS CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER SEC. 8'S PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
INTERLOCKING CORPORATE DIRECTORATES.  (FN1)  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALS
FROM JUDGMENTS DISMISSING CIVIL ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST HANCOCK AND
THREE PAIRS OF CORPORATIONS WHICH HE SERVED AS A DIRECTOR, W.T. GRANT
CO. AND S.H. KRESS & CO., SEARS ROEBUCK & CO. AND BOND STORES, INC.,
AND KROGER CO. AND JEWEL TEA CO., INC. ALLEGING THAT THE SIZE AND
COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIP OF EACH SET OF COMPANIES BROUGHT THE
INTERLOCKS WITHIN THE REACH OF SEC. 8, THE COMPLAINTS ASKED THE COURT
TO ORDER THE PARTICULAR INTERLOCKS TERMINATED AND TO ENJOIN FUTURE
VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 8 BY THE INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE DEFENDANTS.  SOON
AFTER THE COMPLAINTS WERE FILED, HANCOCK RESIGNED FROM THE BOARDS OF
KRESS, KROGER AND BOND.  DISCLOSING THE RESIGNATIONS BY AFFIDAVIT, ALL
OF THE DEFENDANTS THEN MOVED TO DISMISS THE ACTIONS AS MOOT.  TREATED
AS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (FN2) THEY WERE GRANTED BY THE
DISTRICT JUDGE.  HE CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NOT "THE SLIGHTEST THREAT
THAT THE DEFENDANTS WILL ATTEMPT ANY FUTURE ACTIVITY IN VIOLATION OF
336, 338.  THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THIS DIRECT APPEAL UNDER SEC. 2 OF
THE EXPEDITING ACT, 32 STAT. 823, AS AMENDED, 62 STAT. 989, 15 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 29, CONTENDING THAT THE CASES WERE NOT RENDERED MOOT BY
HANCOCK'S RESIGNATIONS AND THAT IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO REFUSE ANY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 

APPELLEES SUGGEST, WITHOUT ARGUING THE POINT IN EXTENSO, THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE SEC. 11 OF THE CLAYTON ACT VESTS
EXCLUSIVE SEC. 8 ENFORCEMENT POWERS IN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 
(FN3)  SECTION 11 DOES AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO ENFORCE SEC. 8.  BUT
ANY INFERENCE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION WAS INTENDED TO BE
EXCLUSIVE FALLS BEFORE THE PLAIN WORDS OF SEC. 15:  "THE SEVERAL
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE HEREBY INVESTED WITH
JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT  ...  ." 
38 STAT. 736, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 25.  AND THE CASES HAVE SPOKEN OF
CONGRESS' DESIGN TO PROVIDE A SCHEME OF DUAL ENFORCEMENT FOR THE
CLAYTON ACT.  UNITED STATES ALKALI EXPORT ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 325
U.S. 196, 208 (1945); STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 293,
310, NOTE 13 (1949).  APPELLEES' FAILURE TO PRESS THE POINT DENOTES ITS
MERITS.  THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ENTERTAINED THE SUITS. 

BOTH SIDES AGREE TO THE ABSTRACT PROPOSITION THAT VOLUNTARY CESSATION
OF ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL CONDUCT DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE TRIBUNAL OF POWER TO
HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CASE, I.E., DOES NOT MAKE THE CASE MOOT.  UNITED
STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290 (1897); WALLING V.
HELMERICH & PAYNE, INC., 323 U.S. 37 (1944); HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, 321
U.S. 321 (1944).  A CONTROVERSY MAY REMAIN TO BE SETTLED IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416,
448 (1945), E.G., A DISPUTE OVER THE LEGALITY OF THE CHALLENGED
PRACTICES.  WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, INC., SUPRA; CARPENTERS UNION
V. LABOR BOARD, 341 U.S. 707, 715 (1951).  THE DEFENDANT IS FREE TO
RETURN TO HIS OLD WAYS.  (FN4)  THIS, TOGETHER WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST
IN HAVING THE LEGALITY OF THE PRACTICES SETTLED, MILITATES AGAINST A
MOOTNESS CONCLUSION.  UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN.,
SUPRA, AT 309, 310.  FOR TO SAY THAT THE CASE HAS BECOME MOOT MEANS
THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A DISMISSAL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT,
LABOR BOARD V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 179 F.2D 221 (1950).  THE COURTS
HAVE RIGHTLY REFUSED TO GRANT DEFENDANTS SUCH A POWERFUL WEAPON AGAINST
PUBLIC LAW ENFORCEMENT.  (FN5) 

THE CASE MAY NEVERTHELESS BE MOOT IF THE DEFENDANT CAN DEMONSTRATE
THAT "THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THE WRONG WILL BE
REPEATED."  (FN6)  THE BURDEN IS A HEAVY ONE.  HERE THE DEFENDANTS TOLD
THE COURT THAT THE INTERLOCKS NO LONGER EXISTED AND DISCLAIMED ANY
INTENTION TO REVIVE THEM.  SUCH A PROFESSION DOES NOT SUFFICE TO MAKE A
CASE MOOT ALTHOUGH IT IS ONE OF THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF GRANTING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
NOW-DISCONTINUED ACTS. 

ALONG WITH ITS POWER TO HEAR THE CASE, THE COURT'S POWER TO GRANT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SURVIVES DISCONTINUANCE OF THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT. 
HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, SUPRA; GOSHEN MFG. CO. V. MYERS MFG. CO., 242 U.S.
202 (1916).  THE PURPOSE OF AN INJUNCTION IS TO PREVENT FUTURE
VIOLATIONS, SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 311, 326 (1928),
AND, OF COURSE, IT CAN BE UTILIZED EVEN WITHOUT A SHOWING OF PAST
WRONGS.  BUT THE MOVING PARTY MUST SATISFY THE COURT THAT RELIEF IS
NEEDED.  THE NECESSARY DETERMINATION IS THAT THERE EXISTS SOME
COGNIZABLE DANGER OF RECURRENT VIOLATION, SOMETHING MORE THAN THE MERE
POSSIBILITY WHICH SERVES TO KEEP THE CASE ALIVE.  THE CHANCELLOR'S
DECISION IS BASED ON ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES; HIS DISCRETION IS
NECESSARILY BROAD AND A STRONG SHOWING OF ABUSE MUST BE MADE TO REVERSE
IT.  TO BE CONSIDERED ARE THE BONA FIDES OF THE EXPRESSED INTENT TO
COMPLY, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DISCONTINUANCE AND, IN SOME CASES, THE
CHARACTER OF THE PAST VIOLATIONS. 

THE FACTS RELIED ON BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION
IN THIS CASE ARE THESE: HANCOCK'S THREE INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES
VIEWED AS THREE DISTINCT VIOLATIONS, HIS FAILURE TO TERMINATE THEM
UNTIL AFTER SUIT WAS FILED DESPITE FIVE YEARS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ATTEMPTS TO PERSUADE HIM OF THEIR ILLEGALITY, HIS EXPRESS REFUSAL TO
CONCEDE THAT THE INTERLOCKS IN QUESTION WERE ILLEGAL UNDER THE STATUTE
AND HIS FAILURE TO PROMISE NOT TO COMMIT SIMILAR VIOLATIONS IN THE
FUTURE. 

WERE WE SITTING AS A TRIAL COURT, THIS SHOWING MIGHT BE PERSUASIVE. 
BUT THE GOVERNMENT MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE BASIS
FOR THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S DECISION.  (FN7)  IN THIS WE THINK IT FAILS. 
AN INDIVIDUAL PROCLIVITY TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE NEED NOT BE INFERRED
FROM THE FACT THAT THREE VIOLATIONS WERE CHARGED, PARTICULARLY SINCE IT
IS ONLY RECENTLY THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ATTEMPTED SYSTEMATIC
ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 8.  (FN8)  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT DEALING WITH
A DEFENDANT WHO FOLLOWS ONE ADJUDICATED VIOLATION WITH OTHERS.  THE
ONLY MATERIAL BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE ON THE SUPPOSED FIVE YEARS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PERSUASION COULD EASILY SUPPORT AN INFERENCE THAT DURING
THAT TIME THE DEFENDANT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WERE EACH TRYING
TO DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF HIS DIRECTORSHIPS.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
REMEDY UNDER THE STATUTE WAS PLAIN.  POSTPONEMENT OF SUIT INDICATES
DOUBT ON THE PROSECUTOR'S PART AS MUCH AS INTRANSIGENCE ON THE
DEFENDANT'S.  HOW MUCH CONTRITION SHOULD BE EXPECTED OF A DEFENDANT IS
HARD FOR US TO SAY.  THIS SURELY IS A QUESTION BETTER ADDRESSED TO THE
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT.  THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF THE LIMITED
DISCLAIMER OF FUTURE INTENT. 

ASSUMING WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE CORPORATIONS WERE PROPERLY
JOINED AS DEFENDANTS, (FN9) THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN REFUSING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST HANCOCK APPLIES A
FORTIORI IN THEIR CASE.  NONE OF THE CORPORATIONS APPEARED TO HAVE
ENGAGED IN MORE THAN ONE ALLEGED VIOLATION.  AND AFFIDAVITS FILED WITH
THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS INDICATED THAT THESE DEFENDANTS WERE IGNORANT OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN THE INTERLOCKS UNTIL THE SUITS WERE
FILED.  INDEED THE EMPHASIS ON THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE IS PLACED ON THE
REFUSAL OF RELIEF AGAINST HANCOCK.  THE FAILURE TO POINT TO
CIRCUMSTANCES COMPELLING FURTHER RELIEF AGAINST THE CORPORATIONS SPEAKS
FOR ITSELF. 

ESSENTIALLY, THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM IS THAT IT WAS DEPRIVED OF A
TRIAL ON THE RELIEF ISSUE.  BUT AT NO TIME WAS OBJECTION RAISED TO THE
PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE CASE WAS HANDLED.  OF COURSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PROCEDURE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED WERE THERE A "GENUINE ISSUE AS
TO ANY MATERIAL FACT."  FED. RULES CIV. PROC. 56.  HOWEVER, AFTER THE
DEFENDANTS HAD MOVED TO DISMISS, THE GOVERNMENT ELECTED NOT TO FILE ANY
COUNTERVAILING AFFIDAVITS OR AMEND ITS COMPLAINT AND STATED ON ORAL
ARGUMENT THAT THE TRUTH OF THE DEFENDANTS' AFFIDAVITS WAS NOT
QUESTIONED.  TO FRAME A FACTUAL DISPUTE, THAT LEFT THE COMPLAINT, THE
ONLY RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF WHICH READS:  "16.  THE DEFENDANTS HAVE
THREATENED TO CONTINUE AND WILL CONTINUE THE AFORESAID VIOLATION OF
GRANTED."  "THE AFORESAID VIOLATIONS," THE SPECIFIC INTERLOCKS, HAD
BEEN VOLUNTARILY TERMINATED AND INTENTION TO RESUME THEM HAD BEEN
NEGATIVED UNDER OATH.  AS TO THE PRAYER THAT THE DEFENDANTS BE ENJOINED
FROM ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 8, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED NO
THREATENED VIOLATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY CHARGED.  IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DISTRICT JUDGE COULD DECIDE THAT THERE WAS NO
SIGNIFICANT THREAT OF FUTURE VIOLATION AND THAT THERE WAS NO FACTUAL
DISPUTE ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A THREAT. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT, ALTHOUGH THE ACTIONS WERE NOT MOOT, NO ABUSE OF
DISCRETION HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED IN THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO AWARD
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  MOREOVER, THE COURT STATED ITS DISMISSALS "WOULD
NOT BE A BAR TO A NEW SUIT IN CASE POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS ARISE IN THE
FUTURE."  THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  8  ...  . 

"NO PERSON AT THE SAME TIME SHALL BE A DIRECTOR IN ANY TWO OR MORE
CORPORATIONS, ANY ONE OF WHICH HAS CAPITAL, SURPLUS, AND UNDIVIDED
PROFITS AGGREGATING MORE THAN $1,000,000, ENGAGED IN WHOLE OR IN PART
IN COMMERCE,  ...  IF SUCH CORPORATIONS ARE OR SHALL HAVE BEEN
THERETOFORE, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR BUSINESS AND LOCATION OF OPERATION,
COMPETITORS, SO THAT THE ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION BY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THEM WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF
ANY OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS  ...  ."  38 STAT. 730, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 19. 

FN2  FED. RULES CIV. PROC. 12(B)(6), 56. 

FN3  "SEC.  11.  THAT AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTIONS
2, 3, 7, AND 8 OF THIS ACT BY THE PERSONS RESPECTIVELY SUBJECT THERETO
IS HEREBY VESTED  ...  IN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WHERE APPLICABLE
TO ALL OTHER CHARACTER OF COMMERCE TO BE EXERCISED AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHENEVER THE COMMISSION  ...  SHALL HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY
PERSON IS VIOLATING OR HAS VIOLATED ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS
2, 3, 7, AND 8 OF THIS ACT, IT SHALL ISSUE AND SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL A COMPLAINT STATING ITS CHARGES IN THAT
RESPECT, AND CONTAINING A NOTICE OF HEARING  ...  .  IF UPON SUCH
HEARING THE COMMISSION  ...  SHALL BE OF THE OPINION THAT ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTIONS HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING VIOLATED, IT SHALL
MAKE A REPORT IN WRITING, IN WHICH IT SHALL STATE ITS FINDINGS AS TO
THE FACTS, AND SHALL ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED ON SUCH PERSON AN
ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH VIOLATIONS,
AND DIVEST ITSELF OF THE STOCK, OR OTHER SHARE CAPITAL, OR ASSETS, HELD
OR RID ITSELF OF THE DIRECTORS CHOSEN CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THE TIME FIXED BY SAID ORDER  ...  ."  64 STAT. 1126, 15 U.S.C., SUPP.
V, SEC. 21. 

FN4  CF. UNITED STATES V. HAMBURG-AMERIKANISCHE PACKETFAHRT-ACTIEN
GESELLSCHAFT, 239 U.S. 466 (1916). 

FN5  "WHEN DEFENDANTS ARE SHOWN TO HAVE SETTLED INTO A CONTINUING
PRACTICE OR ENTERED INTO A CONSPIRACY VIOLATIVE OF ANTITRUST LAWS,
COURTS WILL NOT ASSUME THAT IT HAS BEEN ABANDONED WITHOUT CLEAR PROOF
...  .  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURTS TO BEWARE OF EFFORTS TO DEFEAT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BY PROTESTATIONS OF REPENTANCE AND REFORM, ESPECIALLY
WHEN ABANDONMENT SEEMS TIMED TO ANTICIPATE SUIT, AND THERE IS
PROBABILITY OF RESUMPTION."  UNITED STATES V. OREGON STATE MEDICAL
SOCIETY, 343 U.S. 326, 333 (1952). 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, SUPRA, AT P. 448. 

FN7  CF. UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 340 U.S. 76, 89
(1950), ON REVIEW OF PARTICULAR ANTITRUST DECREE PROVISIONS. 

FN8  SEE KRAMER, INTERLOCKING DIRECTORSHIPS AND THE CLAYTON ACT AFTER
35 YEARS, 59 YALE L.J. 1266. 

FN9  WE SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS DECIDING WHETHER CORPORATIONS CAN
VIOLATE SEC. 8 OR, FOR OTHER REASONS, BE ENJOINED UNDER THE STATUTE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

MONOPOLY AND RESTRAINTS OF TRADE ARE SOMETIMES THE PRODUCTS OF
PRACTICES AND DEVICES AS INGENIOUS AS THE MINDS OF MEN.  SOMETIMES THEY
FOLLOW A BLUNT AND DIRECT COURSE AS IS INVOLVED IN THE ACQUISITION OF
THE ASSETS OF A COMPETITOR - A WAY OF GROWTH OF MONOPOLY POWER TO WHICH
THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT HAVE GIVEN A POWERFUL IMPETUS AND
ENCOURAGEMENT.  SEE ESPECIALLY UNITED STATES V. COLUMBIA STEEL CO., 334
U.S. 495.  MORE SUBTLE ARE INTERLOCKING ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN
DIRECTORATES.  THIS CAN ACCOMPLISH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES, AS MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS POINTED OUT FORTY YEARS AGO.  INTERLOCKING
DIRECTORATES BETWEEN COMPANIES WHICH COMPETE STIFLE THE COMPETITION. 
OR TO USE THE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, THE PRACTICE SUBSTITUTES
"THE PULL OF PRIVILEGE FOR THE PUSH OF MANHOOD."  (FN1)  MOREOVER,
THOSE ENTWINED RELATIONS ARE THE STUFF OUT OF WHICH CONCENTRATION OF
FINANCIAL POWER OVER AMERICAN INDUSTRY WAS BUILT AND IS MAINTAINED. 
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS GAVE ONE EXAMPLE:  (FN2)    "THEY, THE BANKERS,
CONTROL THE RAILROADS, AND CONTROLLING THE RAILROADS, THEY WERE ABLE TO
CONTROL THE ISSUE AND SALE OF SECURITIES.  BEING BANKERS, THEY BOUGHT
THOSE SECURITIES AT A PRICE WHICH THEY HAD A PART IN FIXING OR COULD
HAVE A PART IN FIXING.  THEY SOLD THOSE SECURITIES, AS BANKERS, TO
INSURANCE COMPANIES IN WHICH THEY WERE ABLE TO EXERCISE SOME CONTROL AS
DIRECTORS.  THEY GOT THE MONEY WITH WHICH TO BUY THOSE SECURITIES FROM
RAILROADS THROUGH THEIR CONTROL OF THE GREAT BANKING INSTITUTIONS, AND
THEN, IN THEIR CAPACITY OF HAVING CONTROL OF THE RAILROADS, THEY
UTILIZED THAT MONEY TO PURCHASE FROM GREAT CORPORATIONS, LIKE THE STEEL
CORPORATION, WHAT THE RAILROADS NEEDED, AND IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
CONTROLLING OTHER CORPORATIONS THEY BOUGHT FROM THE STEEL CORPORATION
AGAIN, AND SO ON UNTIL WE HAD THE ENDLESS CHAIN." 

THE WEB THAT IS WOVEN MAY TIE MANY INDUSTRIES, INSURANCE COMPANIES,
AND FINANCIAL HOUSES TOGETHER INTO A VAST AND FRIENDLY ALLIANCE THAT
TAKES THE EDGE OFF COMPETITION. 

THAT CONDITION IS AGGRAVATED HERE.  THE INTERLOCKING CONTROL IN THE
PRESENT CASE IS NOT INDIRECT.  MR. HANCOCK SERVED AS A DIRECTOR FOR
EACH OF THREE SETS OF COMPANIES WHICH, ON THE STATE OF THE PLEADINGS
BEFORE US, WE MUST ASSUME TO HAVE BEEN COMPETITIVE.  THE FACT THAT HE
RESIGNED UNDER THE PRESSURE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT DISPOSE OF
THE CASE.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH PROFESSIONALS WHOSE TECHNIQUE FOR
CONTROLLING ENTERPRISES AND BUILDING EMPIRES WAS FULLY DEVELOPED AND
WELL KNOWN LONG BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS WAS CRYING OUT AGAINST THE
EVILS OF "THE MONEY TRUST."  MR. HANCOCK IS AND HAS BEEN FOR SOME YEARS
A PARTNER IN THE INVESTMENT BANKING FIRM OF LEHMAN BROS.  IN 1940 HE
TESTIFIED THAT WHEN LEHMAN BROS. DID FINANCING FOR A COMPANY IT WAS
THEIR "TRADITIONAL PRACTICE" TO ASK FOR REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS.  (FN3) 

IT THEREFORE SEEMS TO ME THAT A DISTRICT JUDGE, FACED WITH VIOLATIONS
SUCH AS WERE INVOLVED HERE, WOULD WANT TO KNOW FIRST, HOW INVESTMENT
BANKERS BUILT THEIR EMPIRES; SECOND, HOW THIS PARTICULAR FIRM BUILT ITS
OWN EMPIRE; THIRD, THE EFFECT OF THESE BANKER EMPIRES ON COMPETITION
BETWEEN THE COMPANIES WHICH ARE TIED TO THEM. 

THE FACT THAT THE LEHMAN PARTNER RESIGNED TO AVOID A DECISION ON THE
MERITS HAS LITTLE, IF ANY, RELEVANCY TO THE ISSUE IN THE CASE, FOR WE
ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH THE PROCLIVITY OF THE HOUSE TO INDULGE IN THE
PRACTICE. 

THE RELEVANT ISSUES HAVE NEVER BEEN WEIGHED IN THIS CASE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT'S RULING WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY
IF THOSE VARIOUS FACTORS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT
MADE NO SUCH CONSIDERED JUDGMENT.  IT DISPOSED OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS
OF MOOTNESS, A RULING NOW CONCEDED TO BE ERRONEOUS.  THE CASE SHOULD GO
BACK FOR A CONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE WEB WHICH THIS
INVESTMENT BANKING HOUSE HAS WOVEN OVER INDUSTRY AND ITS EFFECT ON THE
"ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT.  (FN4)  UNLESS WE KNOW THAT MUCH, WE ARE IN NO POSITION TO
JUDGE THE SERVICE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE VIOLATIONS MAY DO.
UNLESS WE KNOW THAT MUCH, WE ARE IN NO POSITION TO CARRY OUT WOODROW
WILSON'S POLICY EXPRESSED IN SEC. 8 OF THE CLAYTON ACT THAT THOSE
INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES SHOULD BE PREVENTED WHICH MAKE "THOSE WHO
AFFECT TO COMPETE IN FACT PARTNERS AND MASTERS OF SOME WHOLE FIELD OF
BUSINESS."  MESSAGE, JOINT SESSION OF THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS, JAN. 20,
1914. 

FN1  SEE BRANDEIS, THE ENDLESS CHAIN, HARPER'S WEEKLY, DEC. 6, 1913,
P. 13, QUOTED IN LIEF, THE BRANDEIS GUIDE TO THE MODERN WORLD, P. 111. 

FN2  SEE HIS TESTIMONY IN HEARINGS, H.R. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
63D CONG., 2D SESS., ON TRUST LEGISLATION, VOL. 2, P. 922, QUOTED IN
LIEF, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 1, P. 113. 

FN3  HEARINGS, TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 3D
SESS., PT. 24, P. 12400. 

FN4  IN UNITED STATES V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 111 F. SUPP. 614, 616,
DECIDED APRIL 28, 1953, THE COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY SEC.
8 "TO NIP IN THE BUD INCIPIENT VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS BY
REMOVING THE OPPORTUNITY OR TEMPTATION TO SUCH VIOLATIONS THROUGH
INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES." 
..END :



WELLS V. SIMONDS ABRASIVE CO. 345 U.S. 514 


NO. 394.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 18, 1953 - 195 F.2D 814,
AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER'S DECEDENT WAS KILLED IN ALABAMA BY THE BURSTING OF A
GRINDING WHEEL MANUFACTURED BY RESPONDENT, A CORPORATION WITH ITS
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN PENNSYLVANIA.  MORE THAN ONE YEAR BUT
LESS THAN TWO YEARS LATER, PETITIONER SUED FOR DAMAGES IN A FEDERAL
COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA, BASING JURISDICTION ON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP.  THE ALABAMA WRONGFUL-DEATH STATUTE PERMITTED SUIT WITHIN
TWO YEARS, BUT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE OUTLAWED SUCH SUITS AFTER ONE
YEAR.  HOLDING THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE GOVERNING CONFLICTS OF LAWS
REQUIRED APPLICATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA LIMITATION, THE COURT GRANTED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  HELD:  THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE
GOVERNING CONFLICTS OF LAWS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION; AND THE JUDGMENT IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 515
519. 

(A)  APPLYING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE FORUM TO A FOREIGN
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT DOES NOT DENY FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  P. 516. 

(B)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED MERELY BECAUSE A DIFFERENT
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS INCLUDED IN A FOREIGN STATUTE CREATING A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT UNKNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW.  PP. 517-518. 

(C)  ENGEL V. DAVENPORT, 271 U.S. 33; HUGHES V. FETTER, 341 U.S. 609;
AND FIRST NAT. BANK V. UNITED AIR LINES, 342 U.S. 396, DISTINGUISHED. 
PP. 518-519. 

WELLS, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. SIMONDS ABRASIVE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN PETITIONER'S SUIT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  102 F. SUPP. 519.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  195 F.2D 814.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
344 U.S. 815.  AFFIRMED, P. 519. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CHEEK WELLS WAS KILLED IN ALABAMA WHEN A GRINDING WHEEL WITH WHICH HE
WAS WORKING BURST.  THE WHEEL HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED BY THE RESPONDENT,
A CORPORATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN PENNSYLVANIA. 
THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHEEK WELLS BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR
DAMAGES IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AFTER ONE YEAR, BUT WITHIN TWO YEARS, AFTER THE DEATH.  JURISDICTION
WAS BASED UPON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP. 

THE SECTION OF THE ALABAMA CODE (FN1) UPON WHICH PETITIONER
PREDICATED HER ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PROVIDED THAT ACTION "  ...
MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM AND AFTER THE DEATH  ... ."  THE
RESPONDENT MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THE PENNSYLVANIA
WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE REQUIRED SUIT TO BE COMMENCED WITHIN ONE YEAR. 
(FN2)  IN AN OPINION (FN3) ON THAT MOTION, THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOUND
THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE, WHICH WAS ANALOGOUS TO THE ALABAMA
STATUTE, HAD A ONE-YEAR LIMITATION.  HE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE
PENNSYLVANIA CONFLICT OF LAWS RULE CALLED FOR THE APPLICATION OF ITS
OWN LIMITATION RATHER THAN THAT OF THE PLACE OF THE ACCIDENT.  DEEMING
HIMSELF BOUND BY THE PENNSYLVANIA CONFLICTS RULE, HE ORDERED SUMMARY
JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  (FN4) 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI (FN5) LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS
PENNSYLVANIA CONFLICTS RULE VIOLATES THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
(FN6) OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THE STATES ARE FREE TO ADOPT SUCH RULES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS AS THEY
CHOOSE, KRYGER V. WILSON, 242 U.S. 171 (1916), SUBJECT TO THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.  THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT COMPEL A STATE TO ADOPT ANY
PARTICULAR SET OF RULES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS; IT MERELY SETS CERTAIN
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WHICH EACH STATE MUST OBSERVE WHEN ASKED TO APPLY
THE LAW OF A SISTER STATE. 

LONG AGO, WE HELD THAT APPLYING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE
FORUM TO A FOREIGN SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT DID NOT DENY FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT, MCELMOYLE V. COHEN, 13 PET. 312 (1839); TOWNSEND V. JEMISON, 9
HOW.  407 (1850); BACON V. HOWARD, 20 HOW.  22 (1857).  RECENTLY WE
REFERRED TO "  ...  THE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF CONFLICT OF LAWS
THAT 'IF ACTION IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE FORUM,
NO ACTION CAN BE MAINTAINED THOUGH ACTION IS NOT BARRED IN THE STATE
WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE.'  RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS SEC.
603 (1934)."  ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS V. WOLFE, 331 U.S.
586, 607 (1947).  (FN7) 

THE RULE THAT THE LIMITATIONS OF THE FORUM APPLY (WHICH THIS COURT
HAS SAID MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT) IS THE USUAL
CONFLICTS RULE OF THE STATES.  (FN8)  HOWEVER, THERE HAVE BEEN
DIVERGENT VIEWS WHEN A FOREIGN STATUTORY RIGHT UNKNOWN TO THE COMMON
LAW HAS A PERIOD OF LIMITATION INCLUDED IN THE SECTION CREATING THE
RIGHT.  THE ALABAMA STATUTE HERE INVOLVED CREATES SUCH A RIGHT AND
CONTAINS A BUILT-IN LIMITATION.  THE VIEW IS HELD IN SOME JURISDICTIONS
THAT SUCH A LIMITATION IS SO INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH THE RIGHT THAT
IT MUST BE ENFORCED IN THE FORUM STATE ALONG WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHT.  (FN9) 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE REASONS WHICH HAVE LED SOME STATES FOR
THEIR OWN PURPOSES TO ADOPT THE FOREIGN LIMITATION, INSTEAD OF THEIR
OWN, IN SUCH A SITUATION.  THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE COMPELS THEM TO DO SO.  OUR PREVAILING RULE IS THAT
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT COMPEL THE FORUM STATE TO USE
THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF A FOREIGN STATE.  WE SEE NO REASON IN THE
PRESENT SITUATION TO GRAFT AN EXCEPTION ONTO IT.  DIFFERENCES BASED
UPON WHETHER THE FOREIGN RIGHT WAS KNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW OR UPON THE
ARRANGEMENT OF THE CODE OF THE FOREIGN STATE ARE TOO UNSUBSTANTIAL TO
FORM THE BASIS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTIONS UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE. 

WE AGREE WITH THE RESPONDENT THAT ENGEL V. DAVENPORT, 271 U.S. 33
(1926), HAS NO APPLICATION HERE.   IT PRESENTED AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
PROBLEM.  CONGRESS HAD GIVEN A STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION TO SEAMEN FOR
CERTAIN PERSONAL INJURIES, PLACING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN THE STATE
AND FEDERAL COURTS.  IN ENGEL, SUPRA, THE TWO-YEAR FEDERAL LIMITATION
RATHER THAN THE ONE-YEAR CALIFORNIA LIMITATION FOR SIMILAR ACTIONS WAS
HELD CONTROLLING IN AN ACTION BROUGHT IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS.  ONCE
IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS WAS THAT THE TWO-YEAR
LIMITATION WAS MEANT TO APPLY IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS UNDER
OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THAT WAS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. 
(FN10) 

OUR DECISIONS IN HUGHES V. FETTER, 341 U.S. 609 (1951), AND FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED AIR LINES, 342 U.S. 396 (1952), DO NOT CALL FOR
A CHANGE IN THE WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE THAT THE FORUM STATE IS PERMITTED
TO APPLY ITS OWN PERIOD OF LIMITATION.  THE CRUCIAL FACTOR IN THOSE TWO
CASES WAS THAT THE FORUM LAID AN UNEVEN HAND ON CAUSES OF ACTION
ARISING WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE FORUM STATE.  CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING
IN SISTER STATES WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.  HERE PENNSYLVANIA APPLIES
HER ONE-YEAR LIMITATION TO ALL WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS WHEREVER THEY MAY
ARISE.  THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE MAY MAINTAIN AN ACTION, AND RECOVER
SUCH DAMAGES AS THE JURY MAY ASSESS IN A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION WITHIN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, AND NOT ELSEWHERE FOR THE
WRONGFUL ACT, OMISSION, OR NEGLIGENCE OF ANY PERSON OR PERSONS, OR
CORPORATION, HIS OR THEIR SERVANTS OR AGENTS, WHEREBY THE DEATH OF HIS
TESTATOR OR INTESTATE WAS CAUSED, IF THE TESTATOR OR INTESTATE COULD
HAVE MAINTAINED AN ACTION FOR SUCH WRONGFUL ACT, OMISSION, OR
NEGLIGENCE, IF IT HAD NOT CAUSED DEATH.  SUCH ACTION SHALL NOT ABATE BY
THE DEATH OF THE DEFENDANT, BUT MAY BE REVIVED AGAINST HIS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE; AND MAY BE MAINTAINED, THOUGH THERE HAS NOT BEEN
PROSECUTION, OR CONVICTION, OR ACQUITTAL OF THE DEFENDANT FOR THE
WRONGFUL ACT, OR OMISSION, OR NEGLIGENCE; AND THE DAMAGES RECOVERED ARE
NOT SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS OR LIABILITIES OF THE TESTATOR
OR INTESTATE, BUT MUST BE DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE OF
DISTRIBUTIONS.  SUCH ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM AND
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR OR INTESTATE."  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT.
7, SEC. 123. 

FN2  PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., 1931, TIT. 12, SEC. 1603. 

FN3  102 F. SUPP. 519 (1951). 

FN4  195 F.2D 814 (1952).  SEE ALSO QUINN V. SIMONDS ABRASIVE CO.,
199 F.2D 416 (1952). 

FN5  344 U.S. 815 (1952). 

FN6  "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE
PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE." 
U.S. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 1, CL. 1. 

FN7  CF. DISSENTING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, ORDER OF UNITED
COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS V. WOLFE, 331 U.S. 625 (1947). 

FN8  RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 603 (1934). 

FN9  CRISTILLY V. WARNER, 87 CONN. 461, 88 A. 711 (1913), OVERRULED
ON ANOTHER GROUND, DAURY V. FERRARO, 108 CONN. 386, 143 A. 630 (1928);
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. BURKHART, 154 KY. 92, 157 S.W. 18
(1913) (DICTUM); NEGAUBAUER V. GREAT NORTHERN R. CO., 92 MINN. 184, 99
N.W. 620 (1904).  CONTRA:  WHITE V. GOVATOS, 40 DEL. 349, 10 A.2D 524
(1939); TIEFFENBRUN V. FLANNERY, 198 N.C. 397, 151 S.E. 857 (1930);
ROSENZWEIG V. HELLER, 302 PA. 279, 153 A. 346 (1931).  SEE ALSO
RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 397, COMMENT B, AND SEC. 605
(1934). 

FN10  "THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH
SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH
SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND
THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE
CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  U.S. CONST., ART. VI, CL. 2. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, NOT HAVING HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT, TOOK NO PART IN
THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OR FOLLOW THE REASONING OF THE
COURT.  PETITIONER'S DECEDENT, A RESIDENT OF ALABAMA, WAS KILLED IN
THAT STATE BY A BURSTING EMERY WHEEL ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DEFECTIVE. 
IT WAS MANUFACTURED BY RESPONDENT, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION.  FINDING
IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SERVE PROCESS ON THE DEFENDANT IN ALABAMA, PETITIONER
BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA.  HER ACTION WAS BASED ON A STATUTE OF ALABAMA WHICH
CONFERRED A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR WRONGFULLY CAUSING DEATH AND REQUIRED
THAT THE ACTION BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DEATH.  THIS SHE
DID, BUT HER COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT, SINCE THE
FEDERAL COURT WAS SITTING IN PENNSYLVANIA, IT WAS BOUND BY THE
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF ONE YEAR AND, HENCE, THAT HER
ACTION WAS BARRED.  I BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, THOUGH
SITTING IN PENNSYLVANIA, SHOULD APPLY THE LAW OF ALABAMA, BOTH AS TO
LIABILITY AND AS TO LIMITATION. 

THE RESPONDENT RELIES UPON THE LINE OF CASES THAT BEGAN WITH ERIE R.
CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.   A CAREFUL READING OF THE ERIE DECISION
WILL SHOW THAT, SO FAR AS IT APPLIES AT ALL, IT IS AUTHORITY FOR THE
PLAINTIFF'S AND NOT THE DEFENDANT'S POSITION.  THE ERIE INJURY OCCURRED
IN PENNSYLVANIA, BUT THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT IN NEW YORK.  ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL COURT SAT IN NEW YORK, THIS
COURT HELD THAT IT MUST DECIDE LIABILITY BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW, THAT IS,
BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF INJURY, NOT THAT OF THE FORUM STATE, WHICH
HOLDING, IF APPLIED HERE, WOULD REQUIRE THAT THIS CASE BE ADJUDGED BY
THE LAW OF ALABAMA EVEN THOUGH IT IS BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING
IN ANOTHER STATE.  THAT OPINION, BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, WILL BE
SEARCHED IN VAIN FOR ANY HINT THAT THIS RESULT DEPENDED ON THE NEW YORK
LAW OF CONFLICTS, WHICH IS NOT EVEN PAID THE RESPECT OF MENTION.  ERIE
R. CO. V. TOMPKINS HELD THAT THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF TORTS
AND THAT FEDERAL COURTS MUST NOT IMPROVISE ONE OF THEIR OWN BUT MUST
FOLLOW THAT STATE'S LAW WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE. 

THAT THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW WAS THAT OF PENNSYLVANIA, INSTEAD OF
THAT OF THE FORUM, WAS ASSUMED WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE REASON BECAUSE
IT WAS PURSUANT TO WHAT IS PROBABLY THE BEST-SETTLED RULE OF CONFLICTS
IN TORT CASES.  IT WAS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, AS FOLLOWS:  "
...  IT IS ESTABLISHED AS THE LAW OF THIS COURT THAT WHEN A PERSON
RECOVERS IN ONE JURISDICTION FOR A TORT COMMITTED IN ANOTHER HE DOES SO
ON THE GROUND OF AN OBLIGATION INCURRED AT THE PLACE OF THE TORT THAT
ACCOMPANIES THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT ELSEWHERE, AND THAT IS NOT ONLY
THE GROUND BUT THE MEASURE OF THE MAXIMUM RECOVERY."  WESTERN UNION
TELEGRAPH CO. V. BROWN, 234 U.S. 542, 547.  SEE ALSO SLATER V. MEXICAN
NATIONAL R. CO., 194 U.S. 120, 126; CARDOZO, J. IN LOUCKS V. STANDARD
OIL CO., 224 N.Y. 99, 120 N.E. 198.  THE EXISTENCE AND JUSTICE OF THIS
PRINCIPLE IS RECOGNIZED BY ITS ADOPTION AS THE POLICY OF FEDERAL LAW. 
THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT MAKES THE BASIC TEST OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
LIABILITY WHETHER A PRIVATE PERSON "WOULD BE LIABLE TO THE CLAIMANT
...  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ACT OR OMISSION
OCCURRED."  60 STAT. 812, 843. 

KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487, ALSO CITED BY RESPONDENT,
CONTAINS LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SEEM TO MAKE ALL CONFLICT QUESTIONS DEPEND
ON THE LAW OF THE FORUM.  BUT THAT WAS AN ACTION ON CONTRACT IN WHICH
CONFLICT CONSIDERATIONS PREVAIL THAT ARE NOT PRESENT IN TORT CASES.  IT
IS BUT DICTUM SO FAR AS IT TOUCHES THIS STATUTORY TORT CASE.   MOST OF
THESE DECISIONS ARE ACTUATED BY A LAUDABLE BUT UNDISCRIMINATING YEN FOR
UNIFORMITY WITHIN THE FORUM STATE.  THUS, "OTHERWISE, THE ACCIDENT OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP WOULD CONSTANTLY DISTURB EQUAL ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE IN COORDINATE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS SITTING SIDE BY
SIDE."  KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., SUPRA, AT 496, CITING THE ERIE CASE;
AND THE COURT'S OPINION HERE REFERS TO IT AS A "CRUCIAL FACTOR" THAT
"THE FORUM LAID AN UNEVEN HAND ON CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING WITHIN AND
WITHOUT THE FORUM STATE." 

BUT THE ESSENCE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS THAT UNIFORMITIES OTHER THAN JUST THOSE WITHIN THE
STATE ARE TO BE OBSERVED IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM.  THE WHOLE PURPOSE AND
THE ONLY NEED FOR REQUIRING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO FOREIGN LAW IS
THAT IT DOES DIFFER FROM THAT OF THE FORUM.  BUT THAT DISPARITY DOES
NOT CAUSE THE TYPE OF EVIL AIMED AT IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA,
NAMELY, THAT THE SAME EVENT MAY BE JUDGED BY TWO DIFFERENT LAWS,
DEPENDING UPON WHETHER A STATE COURT OR A FEDERAL FORUM WITHIN THAT
STATE IS AVAILABLE.  APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
PREVENTS THIS DISPARITY BY REQUIRING THAT THE LAW WHERE THE CAUSE OF
ACTION AROSE WILL FOLLOW THE CAUSE OF ACTION IN WHATEVER FORUM IT IS
PURSUED.    THE COURT'S DECISION, IN CONTRAST WITH OUR POSITION, WOULD
ENABLE SHOPPING FOR FAVORABLE FORUMS.  SUPPOSE THIS PLAINTIFF MIGHT
HAVE OBTAINED SERVICE OF PROCESS IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT STATES - AN
ASSUMPTION NOT EXTRAVAGANT IN THE CASE OF MANY NATIONAL CORPORATIONS. 
UNDER THE COURT'S HOLDING, SHE COULD CHOOSE FROM AS MANY VARIETIES OF
LAW AS OF FORUMS.  UNDER OUR THEORY, WHEREVER SHE ELECTED TO SUE (IF
SHE HAD A CHOICE), SHE WOULD TAKE ALABAMA LAW WITH HER.  SUPPOSE EVEN
NOW SHE CAN GET SERVICE IN A STATE WITH NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR A
LONG ONE; CAN SHE THEREBY REVIVE A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT HAS EXPIRED
UNDER ALABAMA LAW?  THE COURT'S LOGIC WOULD SO INDICATE.  THE LIFE OF
HER CAUSE OF ACTION IS THEN DETERMINED BY THE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT ENABLE HER TO MAKE SERVICE OF PROCESS IN A CERTAIN STATE OR
STATES. 

ANOTHER VERY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION INDICATES THE UNWORKABILITY OF A
DOCTRINE FOR FEDERAL COURTS THAT THE PLACE OF TRIAL IS THE SOLE FACTOR
WHICH DETERMINES THE LAW OF THE CASE.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A)
AUTHORIZES CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF ANY CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE TO STATE
FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES OR OF PARTIES, OR IN THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE.  THE PURPOSE WAS TO ADOPT FOR FEDERAL COURTS THE PRINCIPLES OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  EX PARTE COLLETT, 337 U.S. 55.  THESE ARE BROAD
AND IMPRECISE AND INVOLVE SUCH CONSIDERATIONS AS THE STATE OF THE
COURT'S DOCKET.  GULF OIL CORP. V. GILBERT, 330 U.S. 501.  ARE WE THEN
TO UNDERSTAND THAT PARTIES MAY GET A CHANGE OF LAW AS A BONUS FOR A
CHANGE OF VENUE?  IF THE LAW OF THE FORUM IN WHICH THE CASE IS TRIED IS
TO BE THE SOLE TEST OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW, BURDEN OF PROOF, CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE, MEASURE OF DAMAGES, LIMITATIONS, ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE,
CONFLICT OF LAWS AND OTHER DOCTRINES, SEE GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK,
326 U.S. 99, AT 109, THEN SHOPPING FOR A FAVORABLE LAW VIA THE FORUM
NON CONVENIENS ROUTE OPENS UP POSSIBILITIES OF CONFLICT, CONFUSION AND
INJUSTICE GREATER THAN ANYTHING SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1, EVER HELD. 

THIS CASE IS IN UNITED STATES COURT, NOT BY GRACE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
BUT BY AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS, AND WHAT I SAID IN FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
CHICAGO V. UNITED AIR LINES, 342 U.S. 396, 398, SEEMS TO ME APPLICABLE
HERE.  I HAD SUPPOSED, BEFORE HUGHES V. FETTER, 341 U.S. 609, THAT THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COULD CLOSE ITS COURTS TO TRIAL OF THIS
CASE.  BUT NO ONE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED, I SHOULD THINK, THAT IF THE
CAUSE WERE ENTERTAINED IT MUST BE TRIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF
THE PLACE OF THE WRONG.  NEITHER GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S.
99, NOR RAGAN V. MERCHANTS TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO., 337 U.S. 530,
INDICATE TO THE CONTRARY OR HAVE PERTINENCE HERE, FOR IN BOTH CASES THE
CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF THE FORUM AND NO
CONFLICT, OR NEED TO RESORT TO FOREIGN LAW, WAS PRESENT.  THEY WERE
ISSUES BETWEEN FEDERAL IMPROVISED LAW AND SETTLED STATE LAW. 

WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND OF THE LAW OF
CONFLICTS WILL CARRY A GENERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS INTO THE STATE OF
THE FORUM ALONG WITH THE RIGHT IS A MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION IN THE
LIGHT OF OUR PRECEDENTS.  MCELMOYLE V. COHEN, 13 PET. 312. 

EARLY CASES DREW SHARP DISTINCTION BETWEEN RULES OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW
AND RULES OF PROCEDURE.  THEY CLASSIFIED STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AS
PROCEDURAL AND HENCE EXCLUDED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE.  THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IN THE ATMOSPHERE
OF THOSE TIMES.  MANY STATE LEGISLATURES ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE STATUTES
OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO EQUITABLE, COMMON-LAW, AND STATUTORY
CASES.  FOLLOWING THE EXAMPLE OF THE EARLY FIELD CODE, THE LAW OF
LIMITATIONS NOT INFREQUENTLY WAS INCORPORATED INTO CODES OF PROCEDURE
AND THUS WAS CLASSIFIED AS PROCEDURAL BY THE LEGISLATURES.  IN THOSE
DAYS, FEDERAL COURTS WERE REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCAL RULES OF
PROCEDURE, ALTHOUGH OFTEN INDEPENDENT OF LOCAL SUBSTANTIVE LAW UNDER
SWIFT V. TYSON, SUPRA.  TODAY THAT RELATIONSHIP IS COMPLETELY
INVERTED.  FEDERAL PROCEDURE IS NOT SUBSERVIENT TO STATE LAW;
SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS.

BUT, IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, SUPRA, THIS COURT RIDDLED THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN "SUBSTANTIVE" AND "PROCEDURAL," ON WHICH MCELMOYLE
V. COHEN, SUPRA, RESTS.  EVEN AS TO GENERAL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
RECENT DECISIONS HAVE BOUND THE RIGHT AND THE LIMITATION INTO A SINGLE
BUNDLE TO BE TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL COURT AS A WHOLE.  "SINCE THAT CAUSE
OF ACTION IS CREATED BY LOCAL LAW, THE MEASURE OF IT IS TO BE FOUND
ONLY IN LOCAL LAW.  IT CARRIES THE SAME BURDEN AND IS SUBJECT TO THE
SAME DEFENSES IN THE FEDERAL COURT AS IN THE STATE COURT  ...  .  IT
ACCRUES AND COMES TO AN END WHEN LOCAL LAW SO DECLARES  ...  ."  RAGAN
V. MERCHANTS TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO., SUPRA, AT 533.   WE HAVE ALSO
REQUIRED THAT UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES A FORUM MUST APPLY A FOREIGN
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO A CONTRACT CASE.  ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL
TRAVELERS OF AMERICA V. WOLFE, 331 U.S. 586. 

BUT WHATEVER MAY BE THE ARGUMENT CONCERNING GENERAL STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS AS APPLIED TO COMMON-LAW CAUSES, THIS COURT LONG AGO
RECOGNIZED A DISTINCTION AS TO LIMITATIONS ON THE ACTION CREATED BY
STATUTES IN THE PATTERN OF THE LORD CAMPBELL ACT.  THIS COURT EARLY
HELD SUCH AN ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT TO BE BARRED BY THE LIMITATION
CONTAINED IN THE APPLICABLE STATE STATUTE.  THE REASONING OF MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE WAITE IS JUST AS VALID WHEN IT LEADS TO A CONTRARY RESULT.  FOR
A UNANIMOUS COURT, HE WROTE:  "  ...  THE STATUTES CREATE A NEW LEGAL
LIABILITY, WITH THE RIGHT TO A SUIT FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT, PROVIDED THE
SUIT IS BROUGHT WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, AND NOT OTHERWISE.  THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH THE SUIT MUST BE BROUGHT OPERATES AS A LIMITATION OF THE
LIABILITY ITSELF AS CREATED, AND NOT OF THE REMEDY ALONE  ...  .  TIME
HAS BEEN MADE OF THE ESSENCE OF THE RIGHT, AND THE RIGHT IS LOST IF THE
TIME IS DISREGARDED.  THE LIABILITY AND THE REMEDY ARE CREATED BY THE
SAME STATUTES, AND THE LIMITATIONS OF THE REMEDY ARE, THEREFORE, TO BE
TREATED AS LIMITATIONS OF THE RIGHT  ...  " THE HARRISBURG, 119 U.S.
199, 214. 

SUBSEQUENTLY, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES TWICE WROTE FOR THE COURT TO THE
SAME EFFECT.  IN DAVIS V. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451, AT 454, HE SAID: 

"  ...  BUT, AS THE SOURCE OF THE OBLIGATION IS THE FOREIGN LAW, THE
DEFENDANT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF WHATEVER
CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS THE FOREIGN LAW CREATES.   SLATER V. MEXICAN
NATIONAL RAILROAD, 194 U.S. 120.  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS GENERAL
PROPOSITION IS QUALIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE ORDINARY LIMITATIONS OF
ACTIONS ARE TREATED AS LAWS OF PROCEDURE AND AS BELONGING TO THE LEX
FORI, AS AFFECTING THE REMEDY ONLY AND NOT THE RIGHT.  BUT IN CASES
WHERE IT HAS BEEN POSSIBLE TO ESCAPE FROM THAT QUALIFICATION BY A
REASONABLE DISTINCTION COURTS HAVE BEEN WILLING TO TREAT LIMITATIONS OF
TIME AS STANDING LIKE OTHER LIMITATIONS AND CUTTING DOWN THE
DEFENDANT'S LIABILITY WHEREVER HE IS SUED.  THE COMMON CASE IS WHERE A
STATUTE CREATES A NEW LIABILITY AND IN THE SAME SECTION OR IN THE SAME
ACT LIMITS THE TIME WITHIN WHICH IT CAN BE ENFORCED, WHETHER USING
WORDS OF CONDITION OR NOT  ...  ." 

AND IN ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. BURNETTE, 239 U.S. 199, AT 201,
HE WROTE:  "  ...  BUT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ACT OF
CONGRESS IS PARAMOUNT, WHEN A LAW THAT IS RELIED ON AS A SOURCE OF AN
OBLIGATION IN TORT, SETS A LIMIT TO THE EXISTENCE OF WHAT IT CREATES,
OTHER JURISDICTIONS NATURALLY HAVE BEEN DISINCLINED TO PRESS THE
OBLIGATION FARTHER  ...  ." 

IN ALL THREE OF THESE CASES THE BENEFIT OF THIS DOCTRINE THAT THE
REMEDY IS INSEPARABLE FROM THE RIGHT ACCRUED TO DEFENDANTS.  BUT THE
VALIDITY OF A DOCTRINE DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHOSE OX IT GORES.  IN ENGEL
V. DAVENPORT, 271 U.S. 33, 38, THIS COURT EMPLOYED THE SAME PREMISE AS
TO THE UNITY OF THE RIGHT AND THE LIMITATION TO HOLD A PLAINTIFF
ENTITLED TO THE LONGER PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN FEDERAL LEGISLATION INSTEAD
OF THE SHORT STATUTORY PERIOD OF THE FORUM STATE, SAYING OF THE
LIMITATION, "THIS PROVISION IS ONE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, SETTING A
LIMIT TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE OBLIGATION WHICH THE ACT CREATES  ...  .
AND IT NECESSARILY IMPLIES THAT THE ACTION MAY BE MAINTAINED, AS A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, IF COMMENCED WITHIN THE TWO YEARS." 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HAS HELD THE SAME DOCTRINE APPLICABLE TO
THE VERY STATUTE IN QUESTION, SAYING, "THIS IS NOT A STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, BUT OF THE ESSENCE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION, TO BE DISCLOSED
BY AVERMENT AND PROOF."  PARKER V. FIES & SONS, 243 ALA. 348, 350, 10
SO. 2D 13, 15.   THE DOCTRINE IS WELL RECOGNIZED IN THE LITERATURE OF
THE LAW OF CONFLICTS.* 

*SEE GOODRICH, CONFLICT OF LAWS (3D ED.), SEC. 86, FOR DISCUSSION AND
CITATIONS; BLUME AND GEORGE, LIMITATIONS AND THE FEDERAL COURTS, 49
MICH. L. REV. 937. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN A WELL
CONSIDERED AND DOCUMENTED OPINION HELD THAT A FEDERAL COURT IN THE
DISTRICT TRYING AN ACTION BROUGHT UNDER THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACT OF
NEBRASKA MUST APPLY THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION OF THE NEBRASKA ACT AND NOT
THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION OF THE LAW OF THE FORUM.  JUDGE PROCTOR,
ADMITTING "CONSIDERABLE AUTHORITY" TO THE CONTRARY, SAID: "HOWEVER,
THERE IS A LINE OF OPPOSING AUTHORITY WHICH TAKES THE VIEW THAT AS TO
RIGHTS OF ACTION OF A PURELY STATUTORY NATURE, SUCH AS THE SO-CALLED
WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTES, THE TIME THEREBY PRESCRIBED FOR FILING SUIT
OPERATES AS A LIMITATION OF THE LIABILITY ITSELF AS CREATED BY THE
STATUTE, AND NOT OF THE REMEDY ALONE.  IT IS DEEMED TO BE A CONDITION
ATTACHED TO THE RIGHT TO SUE.  AS SUCH, TIME HAS BEEN MADE OF THE
ESSENCE OF THE RIGHT, WHICH IS LOST IF THE TIME IS DISREGARDED.  THE
LIABILITY AND THE REMEDY BEING CREATED BY THE SAME STATUTE, LIMITATION
OF THE REMEDY MUST BE TREATED AS LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT."  LEWIS V.
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, 85 U.S. APP. D.C. 339, 340, 177
F.2D 654, 655.  CF. YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, 87 U.S. APP. D.C. 145, 184
F.2D 587.  SEE ALSO WILSON V. MASSENGILL, 124 F.2D 666, CERT. DENIED
316 U.S. 686; MAKI V. COOKE CO., 124 F.2D 663, CERT. DENIED 316 U.S.
686. 

WE THINK THAT THE BETTER VIEW OF THE CASE BEFORE US WOULD BE THAT IT
IS ALABAMA LAW WHICH GIVETH AND ONLY ALABAMA LAW THAT TAKETH AWAY. 
..END :











MAY V. ANDERSON 345 U.S. 528 


NO. 244.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 18, 1953 - 157 OHIO ST.
436, 105 N.E.2D 648, REVERSED. 


IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING ATTACKING THE RIGHT OF A MOTHER TO
RETAIN POSSESSION OF HER MINOR CHILDREN, AN OHIO COURT IS NOT BOUND BY
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO GIVE
EFFECT TO A WISCONSIN DECREE AWARDING CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THEIR
FATHER, WHEN THAT DECREE WAS OBTAINED BY THE FATHER IN AN EX PARTE
DIVORCE ACTION IN A WISCONSIN COURT THAT HAD NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION
OVER THE MOTHER.  PP. 528-535. 

MAY V. ANDERSON. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING TO TEST THE RIGHT AS BETWEEN A FATHER
AND MOTHER TO IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN, THE OHIO
TRIAL COURT ORDERED THE CHILDREN DISCHARGED FROM FURTHER RESTRAINT BY
THE MOTHER.  THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  91 OHIO APP. 557,
107 N.E.2D 358.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED AN APPEAL.  157 OHIO
ST. 436, 105 N.E.2D 648.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, THE APPEAL IS
TREATED AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, CERTIORARI IS GRANTED,
AND THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 535. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER, IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING
ATTACKING THE RIGHT OF A MOTHER TO RETAIN POSSESSION OF HER MINOR
CHILDREN, AN OHIO COURT MUST GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A WISCONSIN
DECREE AWARDING CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THEIR FATHER WHEN THAT
DECREE IS OBTAINED BY THE FATHER IN AN EX PARTE DIVORCE ACTION IN A
WISCONSIN COURT WHICH HAD NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTHER. 
FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, OUR ANSWER IS NO. 

THIS PROCEEDING BEGAN JULY 5, 1951, WHEN OWEN ANDERSON, HERE CALLED
THE APPELLEE, FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE
PROBATE COURT OF COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO.  HE ALLEGED THAT HIS FORMER
WIFE, LEONA ANDERSON MAY, HERE CALLED THE APPELLANT, WAS ILLEGALLY
RESTRAINING THE LIBERTY OF THEIR CHILDREN, RONALD, SANDRA AND JAMES,
AGED, RESPECTIVELY, 12, 8 AND 5, BY REFUSING TO DELIVER THEM TO HIM IN
RESPONSE TO A DECREE ISSUED BY THE COUNTY COURT OF WAUKESHA COUNTY,
WISCONSIN, FEBRUARY 5, 1947.  WITH BOTH PARTIES AND THEIR CHILDREN
BEFORE IT, THE PROBATE COURT ORDERED THAT, UNTIL THIS MATTER BE FINALLY
DETERMINED, THE CHILDREN REMAIN WITH THEIR MOTHER SUBJECT TO THEIR
FATHER'S RIGHT TO VISIT THEM AT REASONABLE TIMES. 

AFTER A HEARING "ON THE PETITION, THE STIPULATION OF COUNSEL FOR THE
PARTIES AS TO THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND THE TESTIMONY," THE
PROBATE COURT DECIDED THAT IT WAS OBLIGED BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (FN1) TO ACCEPT THE
WISCONSIN DECREE AS BINDING UPON THE MOTHER.  ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDING
TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE UPON THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE STIPULATIONS
OF COUNSEL, IT ORDERED THE CHILDREN DISCHARGED FROM FURTHER RESTRAINT
BY HER.  THAT ORDER HAS BEEN HELD IN ABEYANCE AND THE CHILDREN ARE
STILL WITH HER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO,
AFFIRMED.  91 OHIO APP. 557, 107 N.E.2D 358.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
OHIO, WITHOUT OPINION, DENIED A MOTION DIRECTING THE COURT OF APPEALS
TO CERTIFY ITS RECORD FOR REVIEW, AND DISMISSED AN APPEAL ON THE GROUND
THAT NO DEBATABLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WAS INVOLVED.  157 OHIO ST.
436, 105 N.E.2D 648, 25 OHIO BAR 199. 

ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION.  INASMUCH,
HOWEVER, AS NEITHER THE COURT OF APPEALS NOR THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
RELIED UPON THE OHIO STATUTE ALLEGED TO BE THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL, WE
HAVE TREATED THE APPEAL AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, GRANTED
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 2103, WHILE CONTINUING, FOR
CONVENIENCE, TO REFER TO THE PARTIES AS APPELLANT AND APPELLEE.  (FN2) 

THE PARTIES WERE MARRIED IN WISCONSIN AND, UNTIL 1947, BOTH WERE
DOMICILED THERE.  AFTER MARITAL TROUBLES DEVELOPED, THEY AGREED IN
DECEMBER, 1946, THAT APPELLANT SHOULD TAKE THEIR CHILDREN TO LISBON,
COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO, AND THERE THINK OVER HER FUTURE COURSE.  BY
NEW YEAR'S DAY, SHE HAD DECIDED NOT TO RETURN TO WISCONSIN AND, BY
TELEPHONE, SHE INFORMED HER HUSBAND OF THAT DECISION. 

WITHIN A FEW DAYS HE FILED SUIT IN WISCONSIN, SEEKING BOTH AN
ABSOLUTE DIVORCE AND CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN.  THE ONLY SERVICE OF
PROCESS UPON APPELLANT CONSISTED OF THE DELIVERY TO HER PERSONALLY, IN
OHIO, OF A COPY OF THE WISCONSIN SUMMONS AND PETITION.  SUCH SERVICE IS
AUTHORIZED BY A WISCONSIN STATUTE FOR USE IN AN ACTION FOR A DIVORCE
BUT THAT STATUTE MAKES NO MENTION OF ITS AVAILABILITY IN A PROCEEDING
FOR THE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.  (FN3)  APPELLANT ENTERED NO APPEARANCE
AND TOOK NO PART IN THIS WISCONSIN PROCEEDING WHICH PRODUCED NOT ONLY A
DECREE DIVORCING THE PARTIES FROM THE BONDS OF MATRIMONY BUT A DECREE
PURPORTING TO AWARD THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THEIR FATHER,
SUBJECT TO A RIGHT OF THEIR MOTHER TO VISIT THEM AT REASONABLE TIMES. 
APPELLANT CONTESTS ONLY THE VALIDITY OF THE DECREE AS TO CUSTODY.  SEE
ESTIN V. ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541, AND KREIGER V. KREIGER, 334 U.S. 555,
RECOGNIZING THE DIVISIBILITY OF DECREES OF DIVORCE FROM THOSE FOR
PAYMENT OF ALIMONY. 

ARMED WITH A COPY OF THE DECREE AND ACCOMPANIED BY A LOCAL POLICE
OFFICER, APPELLEE, IN LISBON, OHIO, DEMANDED AND OBTAINED THE CHILDREN
FROM THEIR MOTHER.  THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE WHAT TOOK PLACE
BETWEEN 1947 AND 1951, EXCEPT THAT THE CHILDREN REMAINED WITH THEIR
FATHER IN WISCONSIN UNTIL JULY 1, 1951.  HE THEN BROUGHT THEM BACK TO
LISBON AND PERMITTED THEM TO VISIT THEIR MOTHER.  THIS TIME, WHEN HE
DEMANDED THEIR RETURN, SHE REFUSED TO SURRENDER THEM. 

RELYING UPON THE WISCONSIN DECREE, HE PROMPTLY FILED IN THE PROBATE
COURT OF COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO, THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS NOW BEFORE US.  UNDER OHIO PROCEDURE THAT WRIT TESTS ONLY THE
IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO POSSESSION OF THE CHILDREN.  IT DOES NOT OPEN THE
DOOR FOR THE MODIFICATION OF ANY PRIOR AWARD OF CUSTODY ON A SHOWING OF
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES.  NOR IS IT AVAILABLE AS A PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING
THE FUTURE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. 

"IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT THE PROPER OR
APPROPRIATE ACTION TO DETERMINE, AS BETWEEN PARENTS, WHO IS ENTITLED TO
THE CUSTODY OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN. 

"THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS DISCLOSED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT
THE CHILDREN WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF THEIR MOTHER.  THERE BEING NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD A SUPERIOR RIGHT TO THEIR CUSTODY, THAT
COURT WAS FULLY WARRANTED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE CHILDREN WERE NOT
ILLEGALLY RESTRAINED OF THEIR LIBERTY."  IN RE COREY, 145 OHIO ST. 413,
418, 61 N.E.2D 892, 894-895.  (FN4) 

THE NARROW ISSUE THUS PRESENTED WAS NOTED BUT NOT DECIDED IN HALVEY
V. HALVEY, 330 U.S. 610, 615-616.  THERE A MOTHER INSTITUTED A SUIT FOR
DIVORCE IN FLORIDA.  SHE OBTAINED SERVICE ON HER ABSENT HUSBAND BY
PUBLICATION AND HE ENTERED NO APPEARANCE.  THE FLORIDA COURT GRANTED
HER A DIVORCE AND ALSO AWARDED HER THE CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILD.  THERE
WAS, THEREFORE, INHERENT IN THAT DECREE THE QUESTION "WHETHER IN
ABSENCE OF PERSONAL SERVICE THE FLORIDA DECREE OF CUSTODY HAD ANY
BINDING EFFECT ON THE HUSBAND; ...  ."  ID., AT 615.  WE WERE NOT
COMPELLED TO ANSWER IT THERE AND A DECISION ON IT WAS EXPRESSLY
RESERVED. 

SEPARATED AS OUR ISSUE IS FROM THAT OF THE FUTURE INTERESTS OF THE
CHILDREN, WE HAVE BEFORE US THE ELEMENTAL QUESTION WHETHER A COURT OF A
STATE, WHERE A MOTHER IS NEITHER DOMICILED, RESIDENT NOR PRESENT, MAY
CUT OFF HER IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO THE CARE, CUSTODY, MANAGEMENT AND
COMPANIONSHIP OF HER MINOR CHILDREN WITHOUT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER
HER IN PERSONAM.  RIGHTS FAR MORE PRECIOUS TO APPELLANT THAN PROPERTY
RIGHTS WILL BE CUT OFF IF SHE IS TO BE BOUND BY THE WISCONSIN AWARD OF
CUSTODY. 

"IT IS NOW TOO WELL SETTLED TO BE OPEN TO FURTHER DISPUTE THAT THE
'FULL FAITH AND CREDIT' CLAUSE AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS PASSED PURSUANT
TO IT (FN5) DO NOT ENTITLE A JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM TO EXTRA-TERRITORIAL
EFFECT IF IT BE MADE TO APPEAR THAT IT WAS RENDERED WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON SOUGHT TO BE BOUND."  BAKER V. BAKER,
ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394, 401, AND SEE 403; THOMPSON V. WHITMAN, 18
WALL.  457; D'ARCY V. KETCHUM, 11 HOW.  165. 

IN ESTIN V. ESTIN, SUPRA, AND KREIGER V. KREIGER, SUPRA, THIS COURT
UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF A NEVADA DIVORCE OBTAINED EX PARTE BY A HUSBAND,
RESIDENT IN NEVADA, INSOFAR AS IT DISSOLVED THE BONDS OF MATRIMONY.  AT
THE SAME TIME, WE HELD NEVADA POWERLESS TO CUT OFF, IN THAT PROCEEDING,
A SPOUSE'S RIGHT TO FINANCIAL SUPPORT UNDER THE PRIOR DECREE OF ANOTHER
STATE.  (FN6)  IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT A MOTHER'S RIGHT
TO CUSTODY OF HER CHILDREN IS A PERSONAL RIGHT ENTITLED TO AT LEAST AS
MUCH PROTECTION AS HER RIGHT TO ALIMONY. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE OHIO COURTS GAVE WEIGHT TO APPELLEE'S
CONTENTION THAT THE WISCONSIN AWARD OF CUSTODY BINDS APPELLANT BECAUSE,
AT THE TIME IT WAS ISSUED, HER CHILDREN HAD A TECHNICAL DOMICILE IN
WISCONSIN, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE NEITHER RESIDENT NOR PRESENT THERE. 
(FN7)  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE CHILDREN'S LEGAL
DOMICILE BECAUSE, EVEN IT IT BE WITH THEIR FATHER, THAT DOES NOT GIVE
WISCONSIN, CERTAINLY AS AGAINST OHIO, THE PERSONAL JURISDICTION THAT IT
MUST HAVE IN ORDER TO DEPRIVE THEIR MOTHER OF HER PERSONAL RIGHT TO
THEIR IMMEDIATE POSSESSION.  (FN8) 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, ACCORDINGLY, IS REVERSED
AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE
PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE. 
AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH
ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE EFFECT
THEREOF."  ART. IV, SEC. 1. 

FN2  THE STATE STATUTE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN QUESTION BY
APPELLANT AS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS SEC. 7996 OF THE
OHIO GENERAL CODE OF 1910 PROVIDING THAT "THE HUSBAND IS THE HEAD OF
THE FAMILY.  HE MAY CHOOSE ANY REASONABLE PLACE OR MODE OF LIVING, AND
THE WIFE MUST CONFORM THERETO."  THE PROBATE COURT WAS SAID TO HAVE
UPHELD THAT SECTION AS ESTABLISHING THE LEGAL DOMICILE OF THE CHILDREN
WITH THEIR FATHER AND, ON THAT BASIS, TO HAVE UPHELD THE WISCONSIN
DECREE AS VALIDLY DEPRIVING THEIR MOTHER OF HER CUSTODY OVER HER
CHILDREN, ALTHOUGH THE WISCONSIN COURT NEVER OBTAINED PERSONAL
JURISDICTION OVER HER. 

FN3  "262.12 PUBLICATION OR SERVICE OUTSIDE STATE, WHEN PERMITTED. 

WHEN THE SUMMONS CANNOT WITH DUE DILIGENCE BE SERVED WITHIN THE
STATE, THE SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS MAY BE MADE WITHOUT THE STATE OR BY
PUBLICATION UPON A DEFENDANT WHEN IT APPEARS FROM THE VERIFIED
COMPLAINT THAT HE IS A NECESSARY OR PROPER PARTY TO AN ACTION OR
SPECIAL PROCEEDING AS PROVIDED IN RULE 262.13, IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
CASES: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(5)  WHEN THE ACTION IS FOR A DIVORCE OR FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"262.13 PUBLICATION OR SERVICE OUTSIDE STATE; ...  MODE OF SERVICE. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(4)  IN THE CASES SPECIFIED IN RULE 262.12 THE PLAINTIFF MAY, AT HIS
OPTION AND IN LIEU OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION, CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED TO
ANY DEFENDANT PERSONALLY WITHOUT THE STATE A COPY OF THE SUMMONS AND
VERIFIED COMPLAINT OR NOTICE OF OBJECT OF ACTION AS THE CASE MAY
REQUIRE, WHICH DELIVERY SHALL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS A COMPLETED
PUBLICATION AND MAILING  ...  ."  WIS. STAT., 1949. 

FN4  THIS LIMITATION CONTRASTS WITH THE PROCEDURE IN STATES WHERE A
COURT, UPON SECURING THE PRESENCE BEFORE IT OF THE PARENTS AND CHILDREN
IN RESPONSE TO A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, MAY PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE
FUTURE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN.  SEE E.G., HALVEY V. HALVEY, 330 U.S.
610 (NEW YORK PROCEDURE); BOOR V. BOOR, 241 IOWA 973, 43 N.W.2D 155;
HELTON V. CRAWLEY, 241 IOWA 296, 41 N.W.2D 60. 

FN5  SEE 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1738, AS DEVELOPED FROM THE ACT OF
MAY 26, 1970, 1 STAT.  122. 

FN6  "  ...  THE FACT THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT,
SO FAR AS JUDGMENT ARE CONCERNED, ARE EXACTING, IF NOT INEXORABLE
(SHERRER V. SHERRER, SUPRA (334 U.S. 343)), DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER,
THAT THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE OF ONE SPOUSE MAY, THROUGH THE USE OF
CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE, ENTER A DECREE THAT CHANGES EVERY LEGAL INCIDENCE
OF THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP. 

     *         *         *     *         * 

"THE RESULT IN THIS SITUATION IS TO MAKE THE DIVORCE DIVISIBLE - TO
GIVE EFFECT TO THE NEVADA DECREE INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTS MARITAL STATUS
AND TO MAKE IT INEFFECTIVE ON THE ISSUE OF ALIMONY."  334 U.S., AT 546,
549. 

FN7  BY STIPULATION, THE PARTIES RECOGNIZED HER DOMICILE IN OHIO. 
SEE ALSO, ESTIN V. ESTIN, SUPRA; KREIGER V. KREIGER, SUPRA; WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287. 

FOR THE GENERAL RULE THAT IN CASES OF THE SEPARATION OF PARENTS,
APART FROM ANY AWARD OF CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN, THE DOMICILE OF THE
CHILDREN IS THAT OF THE PARENT WITH WHOM THEY LIVE AND THAT ONLY THE
STATE OF THAT DOMICILE MAY AWARD THEIR CUSTODY, SEE RESTATEMENT,
CONFLICT OF LAWS (1934), SECS. 32 AND 146, ILLUSTRATIONS 1 AND 2. 

FN8  "  ...  THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IS IN FAVOR OF CONFINING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN AN ACTION FOR DIVORCE, WHERE THE DEFENDANT
IS A NON-RESIDENT AND DOES NOT APPEAR, AND PROCESS UPON THE DEFENDANT
IS BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ONLY, TO A DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THE
PARTIES  ...  . THIS RULE OF LAW EXTENDS TO CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHEN THE DECREE IS RENDERED, WHERE THE
DEFENDANT IS NOT A RESIDENT OF THE STATE OF THE SEAT OF THE COURT, AND
HAS NEITHER BEEN PERSONALLY SERVED WITH PROCESS NOR APPEARED TO THE
ACTION  ... .  (CITING CASES.)    "BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CASES SUPRA,
A DECREE OF THE CUSTODY OF A MINOR CHILD UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED
IS VOID."  WEBER V. REDDING, 200 IND. 448, 454-455, 163 N.E.  269,
271.  SEE ALSO, SANDERS V. SANDERS, 223 MO. APP. 834, 837-838, 14
S.W.2D 458, 459-460; CARTER V. CARTER, 201 GA. 850, 41 S.E.2D 532. 

THE INSTANT CASE DOES NOT PRESENT THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT
ARISE WHERE A PARENT, WITH OR WITHOUT MINOR CHILDREN, LEAVES A
JURISDICTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESCAPING PROCESS OR OTHERWISE EVADING
JURISDICTION, AND WE DO NOT HAVE HERE THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARISE
WHEN CHILDREN ARE UNLAWFULLY OR SURREPTITIOUSLY TAKEN BY ONE PARENT
FROM THE OTHER. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, NOT HAVING HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT, TOOK NO PART IN
THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MY BROTHER JACKSON MAKE IT IMPORTANT THAT I
STATE, IN JOINING THE COURT'S OPINION, WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE COURT TO
BE DECIDING AND WHAT IT IS NOT DECIDING IN THIS CASE. 

WHAT IS DECIDED - THE ONLY THING THE COURT DECIDES - IS THAT THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE OHIO, IN DISPOSING OF THE
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN IN OHIO, TO ACCEPT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US,
THE DISPOSITION MADE BY WISCONSIN.  THE OHIO SUPREME COURT FELT ITSELF
SO BOUND.  THIS COURT DOES NOT DECIDE THAT OHIO WOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM
RECOGNIZING, AS A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW, THE DISPOSITION MADE BY THE
WISCONSIN COURT.  FOR OHIO TO GIVE RESPECT TO THE WISCONSIN DECREE
WOULD NOT OFFEND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  OHIO IS NO MORE PRECLUDED
FROM DOING SO THAN A COURT OF ONTARIO OR MANITOBA WOULD BE, WERE THE
MOTHER TO BRING THE CHILDREN INTO ONE OF THESE PROVINCES. 

PROPERTY, PERSONAL CLAIMS, AND EVEN THE MARRIAGE STATUS (SEE, E.G.,
SHERRER V. SHERRER, 334 U.S. 343), GENERALLY GIVE RISE TO INTERESTS
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE RELEVANT TO THE DISCHARGE OF A STATE'S CONTINUING
RESPONSIBILITY TO CHILDREN WITHIN HER BORDERS.  CHILDREN HAVE A VERY
SPECIAL PLACE IN LIFE WHICH LAW SHOULD REFLECT.  LEGAL THEORIES AND
THEIR PHRASING IN OTHER CASES READILY LEAD TO FALLACIOUS REASONING IF
UNCRITICALLY TRANSFERRED TO DETERMINATION OF A STATE'S DUTY TOWARDS
CHILDREN.  THERE ARE, OF COURSE, ADJUDICATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE
PERTAINING TO CHILDREN, AS FOR INSTANCES DECREES OF ALIMONY, WHICH MAY
NOT BE DEFINITIVE EVEN IN THE DECREEING STATE, LET ALONE BINDING UNDER
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  INTERESTS OF A STATE OTHER THAN ITS
DUTY TOWARDS CHILDREN MAY ALSO PREVAIL OVER THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL
UNITY THAT UNDERLIES THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  BUT THE CHILD'S
WELFARE IN A CUSTODY CASE HAS SUCH A CLAIM UPON THE STATE THAT ITS
RESPONSIBILITY IS OBVIOUSLY NOT TO BE FORECLOSED BY A PRIOR
ADJUDICATION REFLECTING ANOTHER STATE'S DISCHARGE OF ITS RESPONSIBLITY
AT ANOTHER TIME.  RELIANCE ON OPINIONS REGARDING OUT-OF-STATE
ADJUDICATIONS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, PERSONAL CLAIMS OR THE MARITAL STATUS
IS BOUND TO CONFUSE ANALYSIS WHEN A CLAIM TO THE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN
BEFORE THE COURTS OF ONE STATE IS BASED ON AN AWARD PREVIOUSLY MADE BY
ANOTHER STATE.  WHATEVER LIGHT MAY BE HAD FROM SUCH OPINIONS, THEY
CANNOT GIVE CONCLUSIVE ANSWERS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT APPARENTLY IS HOLDING THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
PROHIBITS OHIO FROM RECOGNIZING THE VALIDITY OF THIS WISCONSIN DIVORCE
DECREE INSOFAR AS IT SETTLES CUSTODY OF THE COUPLE'S CHILDREN.  IN THE
LIGHT OF SETTLED AND UNCHALLENGED PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT, SUCH A
DECISION CAN ONLY REST UPON THE PROPOSITION THAT WISCONSIN'S COURTS HAD
NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE SUCH A DECREE BINDING UPON APPELLANT.  BAKER V.
BAKER, ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394, 401; ESENWEIN V. COMMONWEALTH, 325
U.S. 279, 281. 

A CONCLUSION THAT A STATE MUST NOT RECOGNIZE A JUDGMENT OF A SISTER
COMMONWEALTH INVOLVES VERY DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS THAN A CONCLUSION
THAT IT MUST DO SO.  IF WISCONSIN HAS RENDERED A VALID JUDGMENT, THE
CONSTITUTION NOT ONLY REQUIRES EVERY STATE TO GIVE IT FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT, BUT 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1738, REFERRING TO SUCH JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, COMMANDS THAT THEY "SHALL HAVE THE SAME FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES AND
POSSESSIONS AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE,
TERRITORY OR POSSESSION FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN."  (FN1)  THE ONLY
ESCAPE FROM OBEDIENCE LIES IN A HOLDING THAT THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN
WISCONSIN, AT LEAST AS TO CUSTODY, IS VOID AND ENTITLED TO NO STANDING
EVEN IN WISCONSIN.  IT IS VOID ONLY IF IT DENIES DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE OHIO COURTS REASONED THAT ALTHOUGH PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
WIFE WAS LACKING, DOMICILE OF THE CHILDREN IN WISCONSIN WAS A
SUFFICIENT JURISDICTIONAL BASIS TO ENABLE WISCONSIN TO BIND ALL PARTIES
INTERESTED IN THEIR CUSTODY.  THIS DETERMINATION THAT THE CHILDREN WERE
DOMICILED IN WISCONSIN HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED EITHER AT OUR BAR OR
BELOW.  THEREFORE, UNDER OUR PRECEDENTS, IT IS CONCLUSIVE.  WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 302.  THE HUSBAND, PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE,
WAS AT ALL TIMES DOMICILED IN WISCONSIN; THE DEFENDANT-WIFE WAS A
WISCONSIN NATIVE, WAS MARRIED THERE AND BOTH WERE DOMICILED IN THAT
STATE UNTIL HER MOVE IN DECEMBER 1946, WHEN THE PARTIES STIPULATE THAT
SHE ACQUIRED AN OHIO DOMICILE.  THE CHILDREN WERE BORN IN WISCONSIN,
WERE ALWAYS DOMICILED THERE, AND WERE PHYSICALLY RESIDENT IN WISCONSIN
AT ALL TIMES UNTIL DECEMBER 1946, WHEN THEIR MOTHER TOOK THEM TO OHIO
WITH HER.  BUT THE OHIO COURT SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT SHE BROUGHT THE
CHILDREN TO OHIO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF SHE DECIDED NOT TO GO
BACK TO WISCONSIN THE CHILDREN WERE TO BE RETURNED TO THAT STATE.  IN
SPITE OF THE FACT THAT SHE DID DECIDE NOT TO RETURN, SHE KEPT THE
CHILDREN IN OHIO.  IT WAS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE WISCONSIN
DECREE WAS RENDERED IN FEBRUARY 1947, LESS THAN TWO MONTHS AFTER THE
WIFE HAD GIVEN UP HER PHYSICAL RESIDENCE IN WISCONSIN AND HELD THE
CHILDREN OUT OF THE STATE IN BREACH OF HER AGREEMENT. 

THE HUSBAND SUBSEQUENTLY WENT TO OHIO, RETRIEVED THE CHILDREN AND
TOOK THEM BACK TO WISCONSIN, WHERE THEY REMAINED WITH HIM FOR FOUR
YEARS.  THEN HE VOLUNTARILY BROUGHT THEM TO OHIO FOR A VISIT WITH THEIR
MOTHER, WHEREUPON SHE REFUSED TO SURRENDER THEM, AND HE SOUGHT HABEAS
CORPUS IN THE OHIO COURTS.  IN THIS SITUATION WISCONSIN WAS NO MEDDLER
REACHING OUT TO DRAW TO ITS COURTS CONTROVERSIES THAT AROSE IN AND
CONCERNED OTHER LEGAL COMMUNITIES.  IF EVER DOMICILE OF THE CHILDREN
PLUS THAT OF ONE SPOUSE IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CUSTODY DECREE
BINDING ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, IT SHOULD BE IN THIS CASE.  (FN2)  CF.
YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202, 210. 

I AM QUITE AWARE THAT IN RECENT TIMES THIS COURT HAS BEEN CHIPPING
AWAY AT THE CONCEPT OF DOMICILE AS A CONNECTING FACTOR BETWEEN THE
STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL TO DETERMINE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.  (FN3)
WE ARE A MOBILE PEOPLE, HISTORICALLY ON THE MOVE, AND PERHAPS THE RIGID
CONCEPT OF DOMICILE DERIVED BY COMMON LAW FROM FEUDAL ATTACHMENT TO THE
LAND IS TOO RIGID FOR A SOCIETY SO RESTLESS AS OURS.  BUT IF OUR
FEDERAL SYSTEM IS TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE LEGAL COMMUNITIES, AS THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE EVIDENTLY CONTEMPLATES, THERE MUST BE SOME TEST
FOR DETERMINING TO WHICH OF THESE A PERSON BELONGS.  IF, FOR THIS
PURPOSE, THERE IS A BETTER CONCEPT THAN DOMICILE, WE HAVE NOT YET HIT
UPON IT.  ABANDONMENT TO THIS ANCIENT DOCTRINE WOULD LEAVE PARTIAL
VACUUMS IN MANY BRANCHES OF THE LAW.  IT SEEMS TO BE ABANDONED HERE. 

THE COURT'S DECISION HOLDS THAT THE STATE IN WHICH A CHILD AND ONE
PARENT ARE DOMICILED AND WHICH IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT HIS WELFARE
CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ADJUDICATE CONTROVERSIES AS TO HIS
GUARDIANSHIP.  THE STATE'S POWER HERE IS DEFEATED BY THE ABSENCE OF THE
OTHER PARENT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS.  THE CONVENIENCE OF A LEAVE
TAKING PARENT IS PLACED ABOVE THE WELFARE OF THE CHILD, BUT NEITHER
PARTY IS GREATLY AIDED IN OBTAINING A DECISION.  THE WISCONSIN COURTS
CANNOT BIND THE MOTHER, AND THE OHIO COURTS CANNOT BIND THE FATHER.  A
STATE OF THE LAW SUCH AS THIS, WHERE POSSESSION APPARENTLY IS NOT
MERELY NINE POINTS OF THE LAW BUT ALL OF THEM AND SELF-HELP THE
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, HAS LITTLE TO COMMEND IT IN LEGAL LOGIC OR AS A
PRINCIPLE OF ORDER IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

NOR CAN I AGREE ON PRINCIPLE WITH THE COURT'S TREATMENT OF THE
QUESTION OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THE WIFE.  I AGREE WITH ITS
CONCLUSION AND THAT OF THE OHIO COURTS THAT WISCONSIN NEVER OBTAINED
JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS ACTION AND
THEREFORE THE JURISDICTION MUST BE RESTED ON DOMICILE OF THE HUSBAND
AND CHILDREN.  CF. MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S. 457.  AND I HAVE
HERETOFORE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT SUCH PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS
NECESSARY IN CASES WHERE THE DOMICILE IS OBVIOUSLY A CONTRIVED ONE OR
THE CLAIM OF IT A SHAM.  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, AT 311;
RICE V. RICE, 336 U.S. 674, 676.  BUT HERE THE COURT REQUIRES PERSONAL
SERVICE UPON A SPOUSE WHO DECAMPS BEFORE THE STATE OF GOOD-FAITH
DOMICILE CAN MAKE PROVISION FOR CUSTODY AND SUPPORT OF THE CHILDREN
STILL LEGALLY DOMICILED WITHIN IT.  WISCONSIN HAD A FAR MORE REAL
CONCERN WITH THE TRANSACTIONS HERE LITIGATED THAN HAVE MANY OF THE
DIVORCE-MILL FORUMS WHOSE JUDGMENTS WE HAVE COMMANDED THEIR SISTER
STATES TO RECOGNIZE. 

IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT JUDGES AND LAW WRITERS LONG HAVE RECOGNIZED
THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DIVORCE AND
FOR CUSTODY, (FN4) THIS DECISION APPEARS TO EQUATE THE JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR A CUSTODY DECREE TO THOSE FOR AN IN PERSONAM MONEY
JUDGMENT.  ONE READS THE OPINION IN VAIN TO DISCOVER REASONS FOR THIS
CHOICE, UNLESS IT IS FOUND IN THE REMARK THAT FOR THE WIFE "RIGHTS FAR
MORE PRECIOUS  ...  THAN PROPERTY WILL BE CUT OFF" IN THE CUSTODY
PROCEEDING.  THE FORCE OF THIS CARDIAC CONSIDERATION IS SELF-EVIDENT,
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME TO REFLECT A MISAPPREHENSION AS TO THE NATURE OF A
CUSTODY PROCEEDING OR A REVISION OF THE VIEWS THAT HAVE HERETOFORE
PREVAILED.  WHEN COURTS DEAL WITH INANIMATE PROPERTY BY THE
CONVENTIONAL IN REM PROCEEDING, THEIR PRINCIPAL CONCERN IS THE
DISTRIBUTION OF RIGHTS IN THAT PROPERTY, RATHER THAN WITH THE WELFARE
OF THE PROPERTY APART FROM ITS OWNERSHIP CLAIMS.  BUT EVEN WHERE
DEALING SOLELY WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHERE CONCERN WITH THE "RES" IS
MINIMAL AND CONCERN WITH THE CLAIMANTS IS PARAMOUNT, COURTS MAY
EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN REM OVER THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING PERSONAL
JURISDICTION OVER ALL OF THE CLAIMANTS.  (FN5)  ONLY WHEN THEY SEEK TO
RENDER A PARTY LIABLE TO SOME PERSONAL PERFORMANCE MUST THEY ACQUIRE
PERSONAL JURISDICTION.  (FN6) 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROCEEDING INVOLVING THE STATUS, CUSTODY AND
SUPPORT OF CHILDREN AND ONE INVOLVING ADJUDICATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
IS TOO APPARENT TO REQUIRE ELABORATION.  IN THE FORMER, COURTS ARE NO
LONGER CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH THE PROPRIETARY CLAIMS OF THE
CONTESTANTS FOR THE "RES" BEFORE THE COURT, BUT WITH THE WELFARE OF THE
"RES" ITSELF.  CUSTODY IS VIEWED NOT WITH THE IDEA OF ADJUDICATING
RIGHTS IN THE CHILDREN, AS IF THEY WERE CHATTELS, BUT RATHER WITH THE
IDEA OF MAKING THE BEST DISPOSITION POSSIBLE FOR THE WELFARE OF THE
CHILDREN.  TO SPEAK OF A COURT'S "CUTTING OFF" A MOTHER'S RIGHT TO
CUSTODY OF HER CHILDREN, AS IF IT RAISED PROBLEMS SIMILAR TO THOSE
INVOLVED IN "CUTTING OFF" HER RIGHTS IN A PLOT OF GROUND, IS TO
OBLITERATE THESE OBVIOUS DISTINCTIONS.  PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF ALL
PARTIES TO BE AFFECTED BY A PROCEEDING IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE, TO MAKE
CERTAIN THAT THEY HAVE HAD VALID NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. 
BUT THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT OVERRIDES ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND IN
ITS ABSENCE A STATE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOTENT TO RESOLVE QUESTIONS
OF CUSTODY FLIES IN THE FACE OF OUR OWN CASES.  THE WIFE'S MARITAL TIES
MAY BE DISSOLVED WITHOUT PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER HER BY A STATE
WHERE THE HUSBAND HAS A GENUINE DOMICILE BECAUSE THE CONCERN OF THAT
STATE WITH THE WELFARE AND MARITAL STATUS OF ITS DOMICILIARY IS FELT TO
BE SUFFICIENTLY URGENT.  CERTAINLY THE CLAIM OF THE DOMICILED PARENT TO
RELIEF FOR HIMSELF FROM THE LEAVE-TAKING PARENT DOES NOT EXHAUST THE
POWER OF THE STATE.  THE CLAIM OF CHILDREN AS WELL AS THE HOME-KEEPING
PARENT TO HAVE THEIR STATUS DETERMINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, AND
TO BE FREE FROM AN INCESSANT TUG OF WAR BETWEEN SQUABBLING PARENTS, IS
EQUALLY URGENT. 

THE MOTHER IN THIS CASE WOULD IN ALL PROBABILITY NOT BE PERMANENTLY
PRECLUDED FROM ATTEMPTING TO REDETERMINE THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. 
IF THE WISCONSIN COURTS WOULD ALLOW MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE UPON A
SHOWING OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH MODIFICATION COULD BE
ACCOMPLISHED BY ANOTHER STATE WHICH ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE
PARTIES.  HALVEY V. HALVEY, 330 U.S. 610; CF. LYNDE V. LYNDE, 181 U.S.
183.  AND, OF COURSE, NO JUDGMENT SETTLING CUSTODY RIGHTS AS BETWEEN
THE PARENTS WOULD ITSELF PREVENT ANY STATE WHICH MAY FIND ITSELF
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN FROM TAKING ACTION ADVERSE
TO EITHER PARENT.  NO SUCH CASE IS BEFORE US. 

I FEAR THIS DECISION WILL AUTHOR NEW CONFUSIONS.  THE INTERPRETATIVE
CONCURRENCE, IF IT BE A TRUE INTERPRETATION, SEEMS TO REDUCE THE LAW OF
CUSTODY TO A RULE OF SEIZE-AND-RUN.  I WOULD AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE
OHIO COURTS THAT THEY SHOULD RESPECT THE JUDGMENT OF THE WISCONSIN
COURT, UNTIL IT OR SOME OTHER COURT WITH EQUAL OR BETTER CLAIMS TO
JURISDICTION SHALL MODIFY IT. 

FN1  NONE OF THE CASES INVOLVING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE ARE IN POINT
HERE.  SEE, E.G., FALL V. EASTIN, 215 U.S. 1.    FN2  AMERICAN LAW
INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS (1934), SECS. 117, 144-147. 

FN3  CF. CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357; STATE TAX COMMISSION V.
ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174; THE DORRANCE LITIGATION, 298 U.S. 678, 115 N.J.
EQ. 268, 170 A. 601, 309 PA. 151, 163 A. 303. 

FN4  SEE GOODRICH, CUSTODY OF CHILDREN IN DIVORCE SUITS, 7 CORN. 
L.Q. 1. 

FN5  HARRIS V. BALK, 198 U.S. 215; THOMPSON V. WHITMAN, 18 WALL. 
457. 

FN6  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, DISSENTING. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT AND THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DEAL
WITH A JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION NOT RAISED ON THE RECORD. 

AS I UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF OHIO, "PARENTS ARE THE LEGAL AND NATURAL
CUSTODIANS OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN AND EACH PARENT HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT
TO THEIR CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDER, JUDGMENT, OR DECREE OF A
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION FIXING THEIR CUSTODY.  SECTION 8032,
GENERAL CODE.  IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT THE PROPER
OR APPROPRIATE ACTION TO DETERMINE, AS BETWEEN PARENTS, WHO IS ENTITLED
TO THE CUSTODY OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN."  IN RE COREY, 145 OHIO ST.
413, 418, 61 N.E.2D 892, 894-895. 

THE INSTANT CASE WAS A PROCEEDING IN OHIO BY HABEAS CORPUS BROUGHT BY
THE FATHER AGAINST THE MOTHER FOR THE POSSESSION OF THE MINOR
CHILDREN.  THE FATHER COULD NOT SUCCEED IN THIS HABEAS CORPUS ACTION
UNLESS HE COULD SHOW THAT HE HAD AN ORDER OF A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION AWARDING HIM THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN.  HE PRODUCED AN
AUTHENTICATED COPY OF A DECREE OF THE COUNTY COURT OF WAUKESHA COUNTY,
WISCONSIN, VALID ON ITS FACE AND UNAPPEALED FROM, WHICH AWARDED HIM THE
CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THIS DECREE IS VOID
UPON ITS FACE, NOR DID APPELLANT, THE MOTHER, CHALLENGE ITS VALIDITY IN
OHIO BY ANY RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 

THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE THE OHIO COURT WAS WHETHER THAT COURT SHOULD
GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE WISCONSIN DECREE.  THAT UNAPPEALED
DECREE WAS VALID ON ITS FACE, AND ITS VALIDITY WAS NOT ATTACKED BY ANY
PLEADING.  THE VALIDITY OF THE DECREE IS NOT AFFECTED BY ANY ADMISSION
IN THIS CASE, ON OR OFF THE RECORD.  AS FAR AS THIS RECORD IS
CONCERNED, THE DECREE OF THE WISCONSIN COURT WAS WHAT IT PURPORTED TO
BE ON ITS FACE.  SINCE APPELLANT FAILED TO CHALLENGE ITS VALIDITY BY
ANY PLEADING, THE DECREE WAS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN OHIO
UNDER ART. IV, SEC. 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  THE OHIO
COURT PROPERLY ACCORDED THE DECREE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, AND IT WAS
EVIDENCE, TOGETHER WITH PARENTHOOD, WHICH PROVED THE FATHER'S RIGHT TO
POSSESSION OF THE CHILDREN AND ENTITLED HIM TO SUCCEED IN THE
PROCEEDING. 

I WOULD THEREFORE AFFIRM. 
..END :






















WATSON V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE 345 U.S. 544 


NO. 290.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 18, 1953 - 197 F.2D 56,
AFFIRMED. 


FOR SEVERAL YEARS, A TAXPAYER HELD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN AN ORANGE
GROVE AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GROWING AND SELLING THE ORANGES IT
PRODUCED.  IN THE MIDST OF THE 1944 GROWING SEASON, SHE SOLD HER
INTEREST IN THE GROVE, INCLUDING AN UNMATURED CROP THEN ON THE TREES. 
HELD:  FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, UNDER SEC. 117(J) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS IN EFFECT IN 1944, SHE MUST TREAT THAT PART
OF HER PROFIT FROM THE SALE WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNMATURED CROP
AS ORDINARY INCOME - NOT AS A CAPITAL GAIN.  PP. 545-553. 

(A)  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE LAND
IS SITUATED, AN UNMATURED, UNHARVESTED CROP IS TREATED AS REAL PROPERTY
FOR MANY PURPOSES.  P. 551. 

(B)  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE
FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CROP WERE DERIVED FROM PROPERTY "HELD BY THE
TAXPAYER PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS
TRADE OR BUSINESS," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 117(J), AS IT EXISTED IN
1944.  PP. 551-552. 

WATSON ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED A DEFICIENCY ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE AGAINST PETITIONERS, BUT REDUCED THE AMOUNT.  15 T.C.
800.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  197 F.2D 56.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 895.  AFFIRMED, P. 553. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RELATES TO A TAXPAYER WHO, FOR SEVERAL YEARS, HELD AN
UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN AN ORANGE GROVE AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
GROWING AND SELLING THE ORANGES IT PRODUCED.  IN THE MIDST OF THE 1944
GROWING SEASON, SHE SOLD HER INTEREST IN THE GROVE, INCLUDING AN
UNMATURED CROP THEN ON THE TREES.  THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER,
FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, SHE MUST TREAT THAT PART OF HER PROFIT
FROM THE SALE WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNMATURED CROP AS ORDINARY
INCOME OR AS A CAPITAL GAIN.  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, SHE
MUST TREAT IT AS ORDINARY INCOME. 

IN 1944, MRS. M. GLADYS WATSON, ONE OF THE PETITIONERS HERE, AND HER
TWO BROTHERS, EACH OWNED AN INDIVIDUAL ONE-THIRD INTEREST IN A 110-ACRE
NAVEL ORANGE GROVE NEAR EXETER, TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.  ITS
MANAGEMENT HAD BEEN SUPERVISED BY HER BROTHERS SINCE 1912 AND, SINCE
1942, SHE AND HER BROTHERS HAD OPERATED IT AS A PARTNERSHIP.  IT WAS
THE OLDEST AND ONE OF THE BEST GROVES IN THE LOCALITY.  ITS PRODUCTION
PER ACRE WAS ABOUT TWICE THE AVERAGE OF SUCH PRODUCTION IN THE COUNTY. 
IN EACH OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS THE VALUE OF ITS CROP HAD INCREASED OVER
THAT OF THE YEAR BEFORE.  IN 1943 IT PRODUCED 79,851 LOOSE BOXES OF
ORANGES, YIELDING A GROSS INCOME OF $136,808.71.  AFTER DEDUCTING ALL
EXPENSES OF CULTIVATION, OPERATION, PICKING AND HAULING, A NET INCOME
OF $92,153.05 WAS LEFT.  (FN1)  ANTICIPATING A HEAVY FROST AFTER
NOVEMBER, 1944, ONE OF THE BROTHERS ADVOCATED SELLING THE GROVE BEFORE
THEN.  ACCORDINGLY, IN MAY OR JUNE, IT WAS OFFERED FOR $197,100,
COMPLETE, INCLUDING LAND, TREES, UNMATURED CROP, IMPROVEMENTS,
EQUIPMENT AND A FIVE-ACRE PEACH ORCHARD.  AT ABOUT THAT TIME THE 1944
ORANGE CROP WAS IN BLOOM. 

BY JULY THE SMALLER FRUIT HAD DROPPED FROM THE TREES AND THE CROP WAS
"SET," BUT NOT ASSURED.  A PURCHASER BECAME INTERESTED BUT DELAYED HIS
DECISION SO AS TO DETERMINE MORE ACCURATELY THE PROBABLE CROP AND TO
CAUSE THE SELLERS TO BEAR MORE OF THE EXPENSE OF ITS CARE.  HE EXAMINED
PAST PRODUCTION RECORDS AND, BY EARLY AUGUST, RECEIVED ESTIMATES THAT
THE 1944 CROP MIGHT BE FROM 70,000 TO 80,000 BOXES, WHICH, AT CURRENT
PRICES, WOULD BRING HIM $120,000 FOR THE CROP ABOVE EXPENSES.  ONE OF
MRS. WATSON'S BROTHERS ALSO ESTIMATED THE 1944 CROP AT 70,000 BOXES IF
IT MATURED.  AUGUST 10, THE SALES PRICE OF $197,000 WAS AGREED UPON,
PAYABLE $10,000 IN CASH AND THE BALANCE SEPTEMBER 1.  NO ALLOCATION OF
THE PRICE BETWEEN THE CROP AND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY WAS SPECIFIED
BUT THE SELLER BORE THE EXPENSE OF CARING FOR THE CROP UP TO SEPTEMBER
1, AMOUNTING TO $16,020.54.  THE SALE WAS CARRIED THROUGH AND THERE WAS
NO SERIOUS FROST.  THE CROP FILLED 74,268 BOXES.  THE PURCHASER SOLD
THEM FOR $146,000, YIELDING HIM A NET RETURN OF $126,000. 

MRS. WATSON FILED A JOINT RETURN WITH HER HUSBAND, TAKING FULL
DEDUCTIONS FOR HER ONE-THIRD SHARE OF ALL OF THE BUSINESS EXPENSES
INCURRED IN THE CULTIVATION OF THE CROP, BUT TREATING HER GAIN FROM THE
SALE OF THE GROVE, INCLUDING THE UNMATURED CROP, AS A LONG-TERM CAPITAL
GAIN.  ON THAT BASIS, HER NET GAIN FROM THE SALE OF THE GROVE WAS SHOWN
AS $48,819.82, BUT, TREATING IT AS A LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN, ONLY 50%
OF IT, OR $24,409.91, WAS INCLUDED IN HER TAXABLE INCOME.  (FN2) 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY AGAINST
PETITIONERS, LARGELY BASED ON HIS CLAIM THAT WHATEVER PART OF MRS.
WATSON'S INCOME WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNMATURED CROP SHOULD BE
TREATED AS ORDINARY INCOME.  HE ALLOCATED $122,500, OUT OF THE $197,100
RECEIVED FOR THE GROVE, AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNMATURED CROP.  ON THAT
PREMISE, HE ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY OF $24,101.35 AGAINST PETITIONERS ON
THEIR JOINT RETURN.  ON REVIEW, THE TAX COURT, WITH TWO JUDGES
DISSENTING, SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER IN PRINCIPLE BUT REDUCED TO
$40,000 THE PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CROP.  15 T.C.
800.  WITH OTHER ADJUSTMENTS, NOT MATERIAL HERE, THE TAX COURT REDUCED
THE DEFICIENCY TO $6,920.35.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  197 F.2D
56.  IN THE MEANTIME, THE TAX COURT MADE COMPARABLE DECISIONS IN MCCOY
V. COMMISSIONER, 15 T.C. 828, AND OWEN V. COMMISSIONER, P-H TC MEMO,
PARA. 50,300, EACH OF WHICH WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL, 192 F.2D 486 (C.A.
10TH CIR.), AND 192 F.2D 1006 (C.A. 5TH CIR.).  SHORTLY BEFORE THE
LATTER DECISIONS, THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951 AMENDED THE STATUTE IN
RELATION TO TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1950, TO PERMIT
PROCEEDS FROM CERTAIN SALES OF UNHARVESTED CROPS TO BE TREATED AS
CAPITAL GAINS.  (FN3)  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THE INSTANT CASE TO
RESOLVE THE ABOVE-INDICATED CONFLICT OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION STILL
AFFECTING MANY SALES MADE BEFORE 1951.  344 U.S. 895. 

THE ISSUE BEFORE US TURNS UPON THE ACTS OF CONGRESS.  IN 1951,
CONGRESS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, DEALT EXPRESSLY AND SPECIFICALLY WITH
THIS SUBJECT.  (FN4)  WHILE THAT ACTION WAS PROSPECTIVE ONLY, ITS TERMS
THROW LIGHT ON THE PROBLEMS OF PRIOR YEARS.  (FN5)  THE ADOPTION OF
THAT AMENDMENT EMPHASIZED THE POINT THAT THE QUESTION WAS ONE OF
FEDERAL LAW.  ITS ADOPTION ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT, IN ORDER FOR SUCH
INCOME TO BE A CAPITAL GAIN, AN AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT BY CONGRESS WAS
NEEDED.  FINALLY, IT NOT ONLY PERMITTED PROCEEDS OF UNHARVESTED CROPS
TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT IT
PROVIDED THAT, UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT DEDUCT
FROM HIS TAXABLE INCOME THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF
THE UNHARVESTED CROP.  THOSE EXPENSES THEREAFTER MUST BE TREATED AS
CAPITAL INVESTMENTS ADDED TO THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THEY
RELATE.  THIS EMPHASIZES THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE INTERPRETATION
ADVOCATED BY MRS. WATSON IN THE INSTANT CASE.  SHE SEEKS TO DEDUCT HER
SHARE OF THE CROP CULTIVATION EXPENSES AT 100% UP TO THE DATE OF THE
SALE.  AT THE SAME TIME, SHE CLAIMS A RIGHT TO REPORT ONLY 50% OF HER
GAIN ON THE SALE OF THOSE CROPS TO WHICH THE CULTIVATION EXPENSES
RELATE.  (FN6) 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE ARE DEPENDENT UPON SEC. 117(J) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS IN EFFECT IN 1944.  (FN7)  THE CONTROLLING
LANGUAGE IN THAT SUBSECTION THEN REQUIRED THAT, IN ORDER FOR GAINS FROM
THE SALE OF PROPERTY TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS, THE PROPERTY SOLD
MUST BE "USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS" OF THE TAXPAYER, "HELD FOR MORE
THAN 6 MONTHS," AND NOT "HELD BY THE TAXPAYER PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO
CUSTOMERS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS TRADE OR BUSINESS."  IN THE
INSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER CONTENDS THAT, WHILE THE LAND AND TREES
MET THESE AND ALL OTHER TESTS OF THE SUBSECTION, THE UNMATURED,
UNHARVESTED CROP OF ORANGES MET NONE OF THE ABOVE THREE. 

EACH DAY BROUGHT THE ANNUAL CROP CLOSER TO ITS AVAILABILITY FOR SALE
IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THAT BUSINESS.  WHILE THE UNCERTAINTY OF ITS
CONDITION AT MATURITY DISCOUNTED ITS CURRENT VALUE, NEVERTHELESS, ITS
PRESENCE CONTRIBUTED SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE VALUE OF THE GROVE.  THE
COMMISSIONER ALLOCATED TO THE UNMATURED CROP, AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, A
VALUE OF $122,500 OUT OF THE $197,100.  THE TAX COURT REDUCED THIS TO
$40,000.  WE ACCEPT THE LATTER AMOUNT NOW CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PARTIES TO THIS SALE DID IN FACT
ATTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIAL VALUE TO THE UNMATURED CROP.  IF, AT ANY MOMENT,
THE CROP HAD BEEN STRIPPED FROM THE TREES OR DESTROYED BY FROST, THERE
WOULD HAVE RESULTED AT ONCE A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE SALES VALUE
OF THE GROVE. 

ASSUMING $40,000 TO BE THE VALUE FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRESENCE
OF THE CROP IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, 1944, IT REMAINS FOR THE TAXPAYER
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SEC. 117(J) HAS AUTHORIZED THAT VALUE, IN ADDITION
TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND, TREES, IMPROVEMENTS AND EQUIPMENT, TO BE
TREATED AS A CAPITAL GAIN. 

MRS. WATSON AND THE COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH AND TENTH
CIRCUITS HAVE PLACED EMPHASIS UPON A CLAIM THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF THE
STATE WHERE THE LAND IS SITUATED, AN UNMATURED, UNHARVESTED CROP, FOR
MANY PURPOSES, IS TREATED AS REAL PROPERTY.  WE REGARD THAT AS
IMMATERIAL.  WHETHER OR NOT THE CROP BE REAL PROPERTY, THE FEDERAL
INCOME TAX UPON THE GAIN RESULTING FROM ITS SALE IS, IN ITS NATURE, A
SUBJECT OF FEDERAL LAW. 

THE COMMISSIONER URGES TWO GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF HIS POSITION THAT
SEC. 117(J) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE TAXPAYER'S TREATMENT OF THE PROCEEDS
OF THE UNMATURED CROP AS A CAPITAL GAIN.  THE FIRST IS THAT THE
PROCEEDS FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CROP ARE DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD
BY THE TAXPAYER PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE
OF THE TAXPAYER'S TRADE OR BUSINESS.  WE AGREE WITH THAT CONTENTION. 
ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY WAS NOT SEVERABLE AT THE DATE OF ITS SALE, THERE
IS NOTHING IN THE ACT REQUIRING IT TO BE SEVERABLE.  WHILE, IN PREVIOUS
YEARS, LIKE CROPS WERE HELD FOR A SALE THAT OCCURRED AFTER MATURITY, IN
1944 THE DATE OF THAT SALE CAME SEPTEMBER 1.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
ACT THAT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN THE TAXABLE CHARACTER OF A GAIN DERIVED
FROM A PRESENT SALE DISCOUNTING THE HAZARDS OF THE FUTURE, AND ONE
DERIVED FROM A LATER SALE WHEN THE HAZARDS ARE PAST.  AFTER THE
TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE GROVE, THE CROP ON THE TREES RETAINED ITS
CHARACTER AND CONTINUED TO BE HELD FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS OF THE GROVE
OWNER IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE OWNER'S TRADE OR BUSINESS. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S TREATMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SALES OF UNMATURED
CROPS AS ORDINARY INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT TO
THE CONTRARY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY EVIDENCED IN WILLIAMS V.
MCGOWAN, 152 F.2D 570, 572, WHICH ESTABLISHED IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT, IN
1945, THE DOCTRINE THAT "UPON THE SALE OF A GOING BUSINESS IT (THE
SALES PRICE) IS TO BE COMMINUTED INTO ITS FRAGMENTS, AND THESE ARE TO
BE SEPARATELY MATCHED AGAINST THE DEFINITION IN SEC. 117(A)(1)  ...
."  IT IS CONSISTENT ALSO WITH THE POLICY OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE AND THE TAX COURT, DATING, AT LEAST, FROM THE STATEMENT MADE BY
THE BUREAU IN 1946, THAT, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES COMPARABLE TO THOSE
BEFORE US, "REGARDLESS OF THEIR STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, ANY GAIN REALIZED
FROM THE SALE OF GROWING CROPS IS ORDINARY INCOME."  (FN8) 

WE DO NOT HAVE HERE THE SITUATION WHICH ARISES FROM THE SALE OF LAND,
INCLUDING COAL OR OTHER MINERAL WEALTH NOT SEPARATED FROM ITS NATURAL
STATE AND NOT IN THE COURSE OF ANNUAL GROWTH LEADING TO A SEASONAL
SEPARATION.  SEE BUTLER CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 6 T.C.
183.  THE INSTANT CASE ALSO IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT OF GROWING
TIMBER WHICH IS NOT IN ITSELF AN ANNUAL OR SHORT-TERM PRODUCT.  SEE
CARROLL V. COMMISSIONER, 70 F.2D 806; CAMP MANUFACTURING CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 3 T.C. 467. 

HAVING REACHED THIS CONCLUSION, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON
THE COMMISSIONER'S SECOND CONTENTION THAT, BECAUSE THE CROP DID NOT
COME INTO EXISTENCE BEFORE IT WAS "SET" IN JULY, OR AT LEAST BEFORE IT
WAS IN BLOOM IN MAY OR JUNE, IT HAD NOT BEEN HELD BY MRS. WATSON FOR
MORE THAN SIX MONTHS AT THE TIME OF ITS SALE. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN 1942 IT YIELDED 54,939 BOXES WITH A GROSS INCOME OF
$82,521.17 AND A NET OF $49,790.10.  ITS AVERAGE ANNUAL YIELD FROM 1934
TO 1943 WAS 55,097 BOXES WITH A GROSS INCOME OF $46,512.68 AND A NET OF
$22,141.42. 

FN2  SEC. 117(B) AND (C)(2), I.R.C., AS AMENDED BY SEC. 150(C) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, C. 619, 56 STAT. 843-844, 26 U.S.C. (1940 ED.,
SUPP. V) SEC. 117(B) AND (C)(2). 

FN3  65 STAT. 500-501, 26 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SECS. 117(J), 24(F),
113(B)(1). 

FN4  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951 ADDED TO SEC. 117(J) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE: 

"(3)  SALE OF LAND WITH UNHARVESTED CROP.  - IN THE CASE OF AN
UNHARVESTED CROP ON LAND USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS AND HELD FOR
MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, IF THE CROP AND THE LAND ARE SOLD OR EXCHANGED (OR
COMPULSORILY OR INVOLUNTARILY CONVERTED AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (2))
AT THE SAME TIME AND TO THE SAME PERSON, THE CROP SHALL BE CONSIDERED
AS 'PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS.'"  65 STAT. 500, 26 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 117(J)(3). 

AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT, IT ADDED TO SEC. 24 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE: 

"(F)  SALE OF LAND WITH UNHARVESTED CROP.  - WHERE AN UNHARVESTED
CROP SOLD BY THE TAXPAYER IS CONSIDERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
117(J)(3) AS 'PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS,' IN COMPUTING NET
INCOME NO DEDUCTION (WHETHER OR NOT FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR OF THE SALE
AND WHETHER FOR EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION, OR OTHERWISE) ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH CROP SHALL BE ALLOWED."   ID., AT 501, 26 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 24(F). 

FN5  THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO MAKE THIS AMENDMENT PROSPECTIVE,
RATHER THAN RETROACTIVE, IS EMPHASIZED IN THE VERY NEXT SECTION OF THE
1951 ACT.  THAT SECTION MADE RETROACTIVE TO 1942 ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO
SEC. 117(J).  IT REDEFINED CAPITAL GAINS SO AS TO INCLUDE THE PROCEEDS
OF CERTAIN SALES OF LIVESTOCK, PROVIDED SUCH STOCK BE HELD FOR DRAFT,
BREEDING OR DAIRY PURPOSES.  STOCK SO HELD IS COMPARABLE TO THE ORANGE
TREES RATHER THAN TO THE ORANGE CROP IN THE INSTANT CASE.    FN6  IN
THIS CONNECTION, THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, WHEN REPORTING THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN 1951, SAID: 

"YOUR COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT SALES OF LAND TOGETHER WITH GROWING
CROPS OR FRUIT ARE NOT SUCH TRANSACTIONS AS OCCUR IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF BUSINESS AND SHOULD THUS RESULT IN CAPITAL GAINS RATHER THAN
IN ORDINARY INCOME.  SECTION 323 OF THE BILL SO PROVIDES.    "YOUR
COMMITTEE RECOGNIZES, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN THE TAXPAYER KEEPS HIS
ACCOUNTS AND MAKES HIS RETURNS ON THE CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
BASIS, THE EXPENSES OF GROWING THE UNHARVESTED CROP OR THE UNRIPE FRUIT
WILL BE DEDUCTED IN FULL FROM ORDINARY INCOME, WHILE THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE CROP, AS SUCH, WILL BE VIEWED AS A
CAPITAL GAIN.  ACTUALLY, OF COURSE, THE TRUE GAIN IN SUCH CASES IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT PART OF THE SELLING PRICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
CROP OR FRUIT AND THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS PRODUCTION. 
THEREFORE, YOUR COMMITTEE'S BILL PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE
ALLOWED WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH CROPS OR FRUIT,
BUT THAT THE DEDUCTIONS SO DISALLOWED SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE BASIS OF
THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE APPLICABLE TO SALES OR OTHER
DISPOSITIONS OCCURRING IN TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31,
1950. 

"THE REVENUE LOSS UNDER THIS PROVISION IS EXPECTED TO BE ABOUT $3
MILLION ANNUALLY."  S. REP. NO. 781, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS. 47-48. 

FN7  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 846: 

"SEC. 117.  CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(J)  GAINS AND LOSSES  ...  FROM THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS: 

"(1)  DEFINITION OF PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS.  - "FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE TERM 'PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE
OR BUSINESS' MEANS PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, OF A
CHARACTER WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION PROVIDED
IN SECTION 23(1), HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, AND REAL PROPERTY USED
IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, WHICH IS NOT (A)
PROPERTY OF A KIND WHICH WOULD PROPERLY BE INCLUDIBLE IN THE INVENTORY
OF THE TAXPAYER IF ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, OR (B)
PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS IN THE
ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS TRADE OR BUSINESS. 

"(2)  GENERAL RULE.  - IF, DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, THE RECOGNIZED
GAINS UPON SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS
...  EXCEED THE RECOGNIZED LOSSES FROM SUCH SALES, EXCHANGES, AND
CONVERSIONS, SUCH GAINS AND LOSSES SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS GAINS AND
LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR MORE THAN 6
MONTHS.  IF SUCH GAINS DO NOT EXCEED SUCH LOSSES, SUCH GAINS AND LOSSES
SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
CAPITAL ASSETS  ...  ."  SEE 26 U.S.C. SEC. 117(J). 

FN8  "THE PRODUCTION OF FRUIT FROM ORCHARDS OR GROVES CONSTITUTES A
BUSINESS, AND SECTION 117(J) OF THE CODE, SUPRA, IS APPLICABLE TO THE
SALES OF AN ORCHARD OR GROVE.  THE CROPS ARE PRODUCED WITH THE PRIMARY
PURPOSE OF SELLING THE FRUIT TO CUSTOMERS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE
BUSINESS.  THEREFORE, REGARDLESS OF THEIR STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, ANY
GAIN REALIZED FROM THE SALE OF GROWING CROPS IS ORDINARY INCOME. 

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS HELD THAT, FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX
PURPOSES, WHERE CITRUS GROVES ARE SOLD WITH FRUIT ON THE TREES, A
PORTION OF THE SELLING PRICE MUST BE ALLOCATED TO THE FRUIT AND THE
BALANCE TO THE LAND AND TREES.  GAIN FROM THE SALE OF THE FRUIT WILL
CONSTITUTE ORDINARY INCOME.   GAIN FROM THE SALE OF THE LAND AND TREES
MAY BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 117(J) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, PROVIDED THE RECOGNIZED GAINS FROM ALL TRANSACTIONS
COMING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THAT SECTION EXCEED THE RECOGNIZED LOSSES
THEREUNDER."  1946-2 CUM. BULL.  31. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS JOIN, DISSENTING FROM THE COURT'S OPINION AND JUDGMENT. 

THE QUESTION IS:  SHOULD THE SALE AND CONVEYANCE OF THIS LAND FOR A
LUMP SUM BE TREATED WHOLLY AS A SALE OF REAL ESTATE TAXABLE AS A LONG
TERM CAPITAL GAIN, OR SHOULD THE CROP OF IMMATURE ORANGES BE SEGREGATED
AND ITS VALUE TAXED AS ORDINARY INCOME? 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN. 
(FN1)  MRS. WATSON DOES NOT CONTEND THAT THE GROWING ORANGES WERE
CAPITAL ASSETS AS DEFINED IN SEC. 117(A), BUT INSTEAD SHE CLAIMS THAT
THEY WERE "PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS" AS DEFINED IN SEC.
117(J) AND THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO CAPITAL GAINS TREATMENT UNDER THAT
WERE:  (1) REAL PROPERTY; (2) USED IN HER TRADE OR BUSINESS; AND (3)
HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS; AND THAT THEY WERE NEITHER (4) PROPERLY
INCLUDIBLE IN INVENTORY; NOR (5) HELD PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS
IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HER BUSINESS. 

FIRST.  THE IMMATURE ORANGES WERE REAL PROPERTY WHEN THE ORANGE GROVE
WAS SOLD.  MRS. WATSON AND HER BROTHERS SOLD THE GREEN ORANGES AS PART
OF THE LAND, WITHOUT SEVERANCE, CONSTRUCTIVE OR OTHERWISE.  HOW THIS
TRANSACTION SHOULD BE TREATED UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW DOES NOT NECESSARILY
CONTROL ITS TREATMENT TAXWISE UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  BURNET V.
HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110.  HOWEVER, REAL PROPERTY IS NOT DEFINED IN
THE REVENUE ACT, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DEFINITION WE MUST LOOK TO
THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA TO DETERMINE WHAT IS REAL PROPERTY.  UNDER THAT
LAW, THIS CROP OF ORANGES PASSED AS REAL ESTATE.  WILSON V. WHITE, 161
CAL. 453, 460, 119 P. 895, 898; YOUNG V. BANK OF CALIFORNIA, 88 CAL.
APP.  2D 184, 187-188, 198 P.2D 543, 545-546.  THE IMMATURE FRUIT, FROM
THE FALLING OF THE BLOSSOMS UNTIL THE HARVESTING, IS A PART OF THE
REALTY, AS ITS VERY EXISTENCE AND GROWTH ARE WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON THE
GROUND FROM WHICH IT TAKES ITS LIFE AND GAINS ITS SUSTENANCE.  ACTUALLY
SEVERED FROM THE GROUND BEFORE MATURITY, THE FRUIT IS WORTHLESS.  ITS
LIFE, AND HENCE ITS VALUE, LIES IN THE SOIL OF WHICH IT IS A PART. 

SECOND.  THE COMMISSIONER URGES THAT, UNLIKE THE TREES, THE ORANGES
ARE THE ULTIMATE PRODUCT OF THE ENTERPRISE, AND AS SUCH ARE NOT "USED"
IN THE BUSINESS.  WE DO NOT INTERPRET THE WORD "USED" SO NARROWLY.  WE
BELIEVE THAT THE PHRASE "USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS" IS SIMPLY
DESIGNED TO DIFFERENTIATE BUSINESS ASSETS FROM THE TAXPAYER'S PERSONAL
ASSETS AND HIS NONBUSINESS, INCOME-PRODUCING PROPERTY.  IT IS NOT
DISPUTED THAT MRS. WATSON'S BUSINESS WAS RAISING AND SELLING ORANGES
NOR THAT THE LAND AND ORANGE TREES WERE USED IN HER BUSINESS.  AT THE
TIME THE ORANGE GROVE WAS SOLD, THE ORANGES WERE AS MUCH A PART OF THE
TREES AS THE LEAVES AND THE BARK.  THEREFORE, THE ORANGES WERE
"PROPERTY USED IN MRS. WATSON'S TRADE OR BUSINESS." 

THIRD.  WERE THE ORANGES "HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS" BEFORE THE
SALE?  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LAND AND TREES HAD BEEN HELD SINCE JANUARY
1, 1942, OVER TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS PRIOR TO THE SALE.  AS WE HAVE
JUST SAID, THE ORANGES WERE REAL PROPERTY, AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
TREES ON WHICH THEY GREW.  THEREFORE, THE HOLDING PERIOD FOR THE
ORANGES IS THE SAME AS FOR THE TREES, AND THE ORANGES WERE "HELD FOR
MORE THAN 6 MONTHS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 117(J). 

FOURTH.  THE BUREAU ITSELF HAS SAID THAT THE GROWING ORANGES WERE NOT
"PROPERLY  ...  INCLUDIBLE IN MRS. WATSON'S INVENTORY."  THE BUREAU'S
RULING PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART: 

"WHILE FARMERS MAY REPORT THEIR GROSS INCOME UPON THE ACCRUAL BASIS
(IN WHICH AN INVENTORY TO DETERMINE PROFITS IS USED), THEY ARE NOT
PERMITTED TO INVENTORY GROWING CROPS FOR THE REASON THAT THE AMOUNT AND
VALUE OF SUCH CROPS ON HAND AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE TAXABLE
YEAR CAN NOT BE A,CURATELY DETERMINED  ...  ."  (FN2) 

FIFTH.  WE BELIEVE THAT THE GROWING ORANGES WERE NOT "HELD  ...
PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF MRS. WATSON'S
TRADE OR BUSINESS."  WHAT WAS THE BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER?  SHE WAS IN
THE BUSINESS OF RAISING AND SELLING MATURED FRUIT.  SHE WAS NOT IN THE
BUSINESS OF SELLING LAND AND TREES AND GREEN FRUIT GROWING UPON THE
TREES.  SHE WAS GOING OUT OF THE BUSINESS IN WHICH SHE HAD LONG BEEN
ENGAGED.  SHE SOLD EVERYTHING FOR ONE LUMP SUM, WITHOUT ANY ALLOCATION
TO LAND, TREES OR GREEN FRUIT.  IT WAS NOT AN ORDINARY BUSINESS
TRANSACTION.  IT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY TRANSACTION.  IT WAS NOT A SALE
IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS.  IT WAS A SALE OUT OF THE COURSE OF
BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.  IT WAS NOT A SALE
TO AN ORDINARY CUSTOMER, WHO BOUGHT RIPE FRUIT IN QUANTITIES LESS THAN
THE WHOLE CROP, AS MRS. WATSON HAD BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO SELL THEM.  IT
WAS A SALE OF LAND AND GREEN FRUIT TO ONE NOT A CUSTOMER.  MRS. WATSON
DID NOT SPLIT THE SALE UP INTO LAND, TREES, AND GREEN FRUIT.  SHE SOLD
ALL AS ONE, AND AT THE SAME TIME.  IT IS THE COMMISSIONER WHO BREAKS UP
HER SALE INTO PARTS AND MAKES SOMETHING OUT OF IT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT
IT WAS, AND THEN PROCEEDS TO TAX THE TRANSACTION AS HE REMADE IT.  I
HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT TAX LAWS DEAL WITH REALITIES.  IT IS
UNREALISTIC TO TREAT AN EXTRAORDINARY SALE FOR ONE CONSIDERATION OF
REAL PROPERTY, PART OF WHICH IS IMMATURE GREEN FRUIT, WHICH SALE WILL
PUT THE SELLER COMPLETELY OUT OF BUSINESS, AS AN ORDINARY SALE IN THE
COURSE OF TRADE OR BUSINESS, WHEN THE BUSINESS BEING CLOSED OUT HAD
BEEN ONE THAT DEALT ONLY IN THE SALE OF MATURED FRUIT.  THE
COMMISSIONER IS NOT FREE TO REMAKE THE TRANSACTION AS HE SEES FIT. 

THE TENTH CIRCUIT AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION FROM THAT OF THE TAX COURT AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN THE
INSTANT CASE.  IN MCCOY V. COMMISSIONER, 192 F.2D 486 (C.A. 10TH CIR.),
THE COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE SALE OF LAND WITH A GROWING CROP OF
WHEAT UPON IT.  IN OWEN V. COMMISSIONER, 192 F.2D 1006 (C.A. 5TH CIR.),
AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE SALE OF AN
ORANGE GROVE.  MOREOVER, TWO DISTRICT COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE SELLER
OF AN ORANGE GROVE IS ENTITLED TO CAPITAL GAINS TREATMENT OF THE VALUE
OF THE IMMATURE ORANGES.  COLE V. SMYTH, 96 F. SUPP. 745; IRRGANG V.
FAHS, 94 F. SUPP. 206.  I AGREE WITH THESE COURTS THAT THE ORANGES IN
THE INSTANT CASE WERE "PROPERTY USED IN MRS. WATSON'S TRADE OR
BUSINESS" AS DEFINED BY THE REVENUE ACT.  THE SALE OF THE ORANGE GROVE
WAS NOT TO BE BROKEN UP TO ENABLE THE COMMISSIONER TO TAX AS PERSONALTY
THAT WHICH WAS REAL PROPERTY.  THE IMMATURE CROP OF GREEN ORANGES WAS
NOT PROPERTY HELD PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF TRADE OR BUSINESS. 

IN AMENDING THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951, CONGRESS TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE
CONSTRUCTION PLACED ON SEC. 117(J)(1) BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE TAX
COURT, AND AMENDED THE SECTION TO MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT
UNHARVESTED CROPS WERE A PART OF THE REALTY UPON WHICH THEY WERE
GROWING AND WERE TO BE GIVEN CAPITAL GAINS TREATMENT.  65 STAT. 500, 26
U.S.C.  (SUPP. V) SEC. 117(J)(3). 

AFTER DISCUSSING THE CONFLICT THAT HAD ARISEN OVER THE COMMISSIONER'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE AS TO GROWING IMMATURE CROPS, THE SENATE
COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS AMENDMENT STATES: 

"YOUR COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT SALES OF LAND TOGETHER WITH GROWING
CROPS OR FRUIT ARE NOT SUCH TRANSACTIONS AS OCCUR IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF BUSINESS AND SHOULD THUS RESULT IN CAPITAL GAINS RATHER THAN
IN ORDINARY INCOME  ...  ."  (FN3) 

CONGRESS WAS CORRECTING A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE REVENUE ACT BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND THE TAX COURT.  IT WAS MAKING CLEAR WHAT THE
COMMISSIONER AND THE TAX COURT HAD OBFUSCATED.  I SEE NO REASON WHY WE
SHOULD STRAIN TO UPHOLD A TAX WHICH CONGRESS HAS BY RECENT LEGISLATION
DETERMINED TO BE INCORRECT. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  "SEC.  117.  CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES. 

"(A)  DEFINITIONS.  - AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER: 

"(1)  CAPITAL ASSETS.  - THE TERM 'CAPITAL ASSETS' MEANS PROPERTY
HELD BY THE TAXPAYER (WHETHER OR NOT CONNECTED WITH HIS TRADE OR
BUSINESS), BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE STOCK IN TRADE OF THE TAXPAYER OR OTHER
PROPERTY OF A KIND WHICH WOULD PROPERLY BE INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY OF
THE TAXPAYER IF ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, OR PROPERTY
HELD BY THE TAXPAYER PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF HIS TRADE OR BUSINESS, OR PROPERTY, USED IN THE TRADE OR
BUSINESS, OF A CHARACTER WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPRECIATION PROVIDED IN SECTION 23(1)  ...  OR REAL PROPERTY USED IN
THE TRADE OR BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER  ...  ."  53 STAT. 50, AS
AMENDED, 26 U.S.C.  SEC. 117(A)(1). 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(J)  GAINS AND LOSSES FROM INVOLUNTARY CONVERSION AND FROM THE SALE
OR EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS: 

"(1)  DEFINITION OF PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS. 

"FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, THE TERM 'PROPERTY USED IN THE
TRADE OR BUSINESS' MEANS PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, OF A
CHARACTER WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION PROVIDED
IN SECTION 23(1), HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, AND REAL PROPERTY USED
IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, WHICH IS NOT (A)
PROPERTY OF A KIND WHICH WOULD PROPERLY BE INCLUDIBLE IN THE INVENTORY
OF THE TAXPAYER IF ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, OR (B)
PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS IN THE
ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS TRADE OR BUSINESS.    "(2)  GENERAL RULE. 

"IF, DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, THE RECOGNIZED GAINS UPON SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS  ...  EXCEED THE
RECOGNIZED LOSSES FROM SUCH SALES, EXCHANGES, AND CONVERSIONS, SUCH
GAINS AND LOSSES SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS.  IF SUCH GAINS
DO NOT EXCEED SUCH LOSSES, SUCH GAINS AND LOSSES SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED AS GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL
ASSETS  ...  ."  56 STAT. 846, 26 U.S.C.  SEC. 117(J). 

FN2  I-1 CUM. BULL.  72.    FN3  S. REP. NO. 781, 82D CONG., 1ST
SESS. 47. 
..END :







TERRY V. ADAMS 345 U.S. 461 


NO. 52.  ARGUED JANUARY 16, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 4, 1953 - 193 F.2D 600,
REVERSED. 


PETITIONERS, QUALIFIED NEGRO VOTERS IN A TEXAS COUNTY, SUED TO
DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF THEIR BEING EXCLUDED, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR
RACE AND COLOR, FROM VOTING IN ELECTIONS HELD BY AN ASSOCIATION
CONSISTING OF ALL QUALIFIED WHITE VOTERS IN THE COUNTY.  THE
ASSOCIATION HELD AN ELECTION IN EACH ELECTION YEAR TO SELECT CANDIDATES
FOR COUNTY OFFICES TO RUN FOR NOMINATION IN THE OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARY.  THE ASSOCIATION'S ELECTIONS WERE NOT GOVERNED BY STATE LAWS
AND DID NOT UTILIZE STATE ELECTIVE MACHINERY OR FUNDS.  CANDIDATES
ELECTED BY THE ASSOCIATION WERE NOT CERTIFIED BY THE ASSOCIATION AS ITS
CANDIDATES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, BUT FILED THEIR OWN NAMES AS
CANDIDATES.  HOWEVER, FOR MORE THAN 60 YEARS, THE ASSOCIATION'S COUNTY
WIDE CANDIDATES HAD INVARIABLY BEEN NOMINATED IN THE DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARIES AND ELECTED TO OFFICE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE
ASSOCIATION WAS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OR PARTY AND THAT ITS CHIEF
OBJECT HAD ALWAYS BEEN TO DENY NEGROES ANY VOICE OR PART IN THE
ELECTION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS.  HELD: 

1.  THE COMBINED ELECTION MACHINERY OF THE ASSOCIATION AND THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEPRIVES PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE ON ACCOUNT
OF THEIR RACE AND COLOR, CONTRARY TO THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 470. 

2.  THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER SUCH ORDERS
AND DECREES AS ARE NECESSARY AND PROPER UNDER THE JURISDICTION IT HAS
RETAINED UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2202.  P. 470. 

3.  IN EXERCISING THIS JURISDICTION, THE DISTRICT COURT IS LEFT FREE
TO HOLD HEARINGS TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE WHAT PROVISIONS ARE
ESSENTIAL TO AFFORD NEGRO CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY FULL PROTECTION FROM
SUCH FUTURE DISCRIMINATORY ELECTION PRACTICES WHICH DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF
VOTING RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOR.  P. 470. 

FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND
MR. JUSTICE BURTON, SEE POST, P. 462. 

FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, SEE POST, P. 470. 

FOR CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE CLARK, JOINED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, SEE POST, P. 477. 

FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MINTON, SEE POST, P. 484. 

TERRY ET AL. V. ADAMS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT HOLDING INVALID
RACIAL DISCRIMINATIONS IN A PRE-PRIMARY ELECTION IN A TEXAS COUNTY,
DECLINED TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION, BUT RETAINED JURISDICTION TO GRANT
FURTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  90 F. SUPP. 595.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  193 F.2D 600.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S.
883.  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FUTHER PROCEEDINGS, P. 470. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN OPINION
IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN. 

IN SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649, WE HELD THAT RULES OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TEXAS EXCLUDING NEGROES FROM VOTING IN THE PARTY'S
PRIMARIES VIOLATED THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WHILE NO STATE LAW
DIRECTED SUCH EXCLUSION, OUR DECISION POINTED OUT THAT MANY PARTY
ACTIVITIES WERE SUBJECT TO CONSIDERABLE STATUTORY CONTROL.  THIS CASE
RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF A TEXAS COUNTY
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION CALLED THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OR
JAYBIRD PARTY TO EXCLUDE NEGROES FROM ITS PRIMARIES ON RACIAL GROUNDS. 
THE JAYBIRDS DENY THAT THEIR RACIAL EXCLUSIONS VIOLATE THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THEY CONTEND THAT THE AMENDMENT APPLIES ONLY TO ELECTIONS
OR PRIMARIES HELD UNDER STATE REGULATION, THAT THEIR ASSOCIATION IS NOT
REGULATED BY THE STATE AT ALL, AND THAT IT IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY BUT
A SELF-GOVERNING VOLUNTARY CLUB.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE JAYBIRD
RACIAL DISCRIMINATIONS INVALID AND ENTERED JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  90 F.
SUPP. 595.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL OR CONGRESSIONAL BAR TO THE ADMITTED DISCRIMINATORY
EXCLUSION OF NEGROES BECAUSE JAYBIRD'S PRIMARIES WERE NOT TO ANY EXTENT
STATE CONTROLLED.  193 F.2D 600.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S.
883. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT: 

THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION OR PARTY WAS ORGANIZED IN 1889.  ITS
MEMBERSHIP WAS THEN AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN LIMITED TO WHITE PEOPLE; THEY
ARE AUTOMATICALLY MEMBERS IF THEIR NAMES APPEAR ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF
COUNTY VOTERS.  IT HAS BEEN RUN LIKE OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES WITH AN
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NAMED FROM THE COUNTY'S VOTING PRECINCTS.  EXPENSES
OF THE PARTY ARE PAID BY THE ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE IN ITS
PRIMARIES.  CANDIDATES FOR COUNTY OFFICES SUBMIT THEIR NAMES TO THE
JAYBIRD COMMITTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMAL PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY
REGULAR POLITICAL PARTIES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.  ADVERTISEMENTS AND
POSTERS PROCLAIM THAT THESE CANDIDATES ARE RUNNING SUBJECT TO THE
ACTION OF THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY.  WHILE THERE IS NO LEGAL COMPULSION ON
SUCCESSFUL JAYBIRD CANDIDATES TO ENTER DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, THEY HAVE
NEARLY ALWAYS DONE SO AND WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS SINCE 1889 HAVE RUN AND
WON WITHOUT OPPOSITION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND THE GENERAL
ELECTIONS THAT FOLLOWED.  THUS THE PARTY HAS BEEN THE DOMINANT
POLITICAL GROUP IN THE COUNTY SINCE ORGANIZATION, HAVING ENDORSED EVERY
COUNTY-WIDE OFFICIAL ELECTED SINCE 1889. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT JAYBIRD ACTIVITIES FOLLOW A PLAN PURPOSEFULLY
DESIGNED TO EXCLUDE NEGROES FROM VOTING AND AT THE SAME TIME TO ESCAPE
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT'S COMMAND THAT THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO VOTE
SHALL NEITHER BE DENIED NOR ABRIDGED ON ACCOUNT OF RACE.  THESE WERE
THE ADMITTED PARTY PURPOSES ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY OF THE
JAYBIRD'S PRESIDENT: 

Q. ...  NOW MR. ADAMS, WILL YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS THE
SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF HOLDING THESE ELECTIONS AND CARRYING ON THIS
ORGANIZATION LIKE YOU DO? 

A. GOOD GOVERNMENT. 

Q. NOW I WILL ASK YOU TO STATE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE OPINION AND
POLICY OF THE ASSOCIATION THAT TO CARRY ON GOOD GOVERNMENT THEY MUST
EXCLUDE NEGRO CITIZENS? 

A. WELL, WHEN WE STARTED IT WAS AND IT IS STILL THAT WAY, I THINK. 

Q. AND THEN ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF YOUR ORGANIZATION IS FOR THE
SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING NEGROES FROM VOTING, ISN'T IT? 

A. YES. 

Q. AND THAT IS YOUR POLICY? 

A. YES. 

Q. I WILL ASK YOU, THAT IS THE REASON YOU HOLD YOUR ELECTION IN MAY
RATHER THAN IN JUNE OR JULY, ISN'T IT? 

A. YES. 

Q. BECAUSE IF YOU HELD IT IN JULY YOU WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE
STATUTES AND THE LAW BY LETTING THEM VOTE? 

A. THEY DO VOTE IN JULY. 

Q. AND IF YOU HELD YOURS AT THAT TIME THEY WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TOO,
WOULDN'T THEY? 

A. WHY SURE. 

Q. AND YOU HOLD IT IN MAY SO THEY WON'T HAVE TO? 

A. WELL, THEY DON'T VOTE IN OURS BUT THEY CAN VOTE ON ANYBODY IN THE
JULY ELECTION THEY WANT TO. 

Q. BUT YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION.  MY QUESTION IS THAT YOU
HOLD YOURS IN MAY SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO LET THEM VOTE, DON'T YOU? 

A. YES. 

Q. AND THAT IS YOUR PURPOSE? 

A. YES. 

Q. AND YOUR INTENTION? 

A. YES. 

Q. AND TO HAVE A VOTE OF THE WHITE POPULATION AT A TIME WHEN THE
NEGROES CAN'T VOTE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? 

A. THAT'S RIGHT. 

Q. THAT IS THE WHOLE POLICY OF YOUR ASSOCIATION? 

A. YES. 

Q. AND THAT IS ITS PURPOSE? 

A. YES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION WAS A POLITICAL
ORGANIZATION OR PARTY; THAT THE MAJORITY OF WHITE VOTERS GENERALLY
ABIDE BY THE RESULTS OF ITS PRIMARIES AND SUPPORT IN THE DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARIES THE PERSONS ENDORSED BY THE JAYBIRD PRIMARIES; AND THAT THE
CHIEF OBJECT OF THE ASSOCIATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO DENY NEGROES ANY
VOICE OR PART IN THE ELECTION OF FORT BEND COUNTY OFFICIALS. 

THE FACTS AND FINDINGS BRING THIS CASE SQUARELY WITHIN THE REASONING
AND HOLDING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT IN ITS TWO
RECENT DECISIONS ABOUT EXCLUDING NEGROES FROM DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES IN
SOUTH CAROLINA.  RICE V. ELMORE, 165 F.2D 387, AND BASKIN V. BROWN, 174
F.2D 391.  (FN1)  SOUTH CAROLINA HAD REPEALED EVERY TRACE OF STATUTORY
OR CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES.  IT DID THIS IN
THE HOPE THAT THEREAFTER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR DEMOCRATIC "CLUBS" OF
SOUTH CAROLINA WOULD BE FREE TO CONTINUE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
AGAINST NEGROES AS VOTERS.  THE CONTENTION THERE WAS THAT THE
DEMOCRATIC "CLUBS" WERE MERE PRIVATE GROUPS; THE CONTENTION HERE IS
THAT THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION IS A MERE PRIVATE GROUP.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN INVALIDATING THE SOUTH CAROLINA PRACTICES ANSWERED THESE
FORMALISTIC ARGUMENTS BY HOLDING THAT NO ELECTION MACHINERY COULD BE
SUSTAINED IF ITS PURPOSE OR EFFECT WAS TO DENY NEGROES ON ACCOUNT OF
THEIR RACE AN EFFECTIVE VOICE IN THE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS OF THEIR
COUNTRY, STATE, OR COMMUNITY.  IN DOING SO THE COURT RELIED ON THE
PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED IN SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, SUPRA, AT 664, THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING "
...  IS NOT TO BE NULLIFIED BY A STATE THROUGH CASTING ITS ELECTORAL
PROCESS IN A FORM WHICH PERMITS A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION TO PRACTICE
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE ELECTION." 

THE SOUTH CAROLINA CASES ARE IN ACCORD WITH THE COMMANDS OF THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE LAWS PASSED PURSUANT TO IT.  THAT AMENDMENT
PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE SHALL NOT BE
DENIED OR ABRIDGED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF
RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE." 

THE AMENDMENT BANS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING BY BOTH STATE AND
NATION.  IT THUS ESTABLISHES A NATIONAL POLICY, OBVIOUSLY APPLICABLE TO
THE RIGHT OF NEGROES NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AS VOTERS IN
ELECTIONS TO DETERMINE PUBLIC GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES OR TO SELECT PUBLIC
OFFICIALS, NATIONAL, STATE, OR LOCAL.  SHORTLY AFTER ITS ADOPTION MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE SPEAKING FOR THIS COURT SAID: 

"IT FOLLOWS THAT THE AMENDMENT HAS INVESTED THE CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES WITH A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WHICH IS WITHIN THE
PROTECTING POWER OF CONGRESS.  THAT RIGHT IS EXEMPTION FROM
DISCRIMINATION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE ON ACCOUNT OF
RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE."  UNITED STATES V.
REESE, 92 U.S. 214, 218. 

OTHER CASES HAVE REEMPHASIZED THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT'S SPECIFIC
GRANT OF THIS NEW CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  (FN2)  NOT CONTENT TO REST
CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO PROTECT THIS NEW CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ON THE
NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT'S FRAMERS ADDED SEC. 2, READING: 

"THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE THIS ARTICLE BY APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATION." 

AND MR. JUSTICE MILLER SPEAKING FOR THIS COURT DECLARED THAT THE
AMENDMENT'S GRANTED RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM RACIAL DISCRIMINATION "  ...
SHOULD BE KEPT FREE AND PURE BY CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS WHENEVER THAT
IS NECESSARY."  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651, 665.  SEE ALSO UNITED
STATES V. REESE, SUPRA, AT 218.  AND SEE MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY'S OPINION
ON CIRCUIT IN UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 1 WOODS 308, 314-316, 320
323.  ACTING PURSUANT TO THE POWER GRANTED BY THE SECOND SECTION OF THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, CONGRESS IN 1870 PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE OTHERWISE QUALIFIED BY LAW
TO VOTE AT ANY ELECTION BY THE PEOPLE IN ANY STATE, TERRITORY,
DISTRICT, COUNTY, CITY, PARISH, TOWNSHIP, SCHOOL DISTRICT,
MUNICIPALITY, OR OTHER TERRITORIAL SUBDIVISION, SHALL BE ENTITLED AND
ALLOWED TO VOTE AT ALL SUCH ELECTIONS, WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF RACE,
COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE; ANY CONSTITUTION, LAW,
CUSTOM, USAGE, OR REGULATION OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, OR BY OR UNDER
ITS AUTHORITY, TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  8 U.S.C. SEC. 31. 

THE AMENDMENT, THE CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT AND THE CASES MAKE
EXPLICIT THE RULE AGAINST RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONDUCT OF
ELECTIONS.  TOGETHER THEY SHOW THE MEANING OF "ELECTIONS."  CLEARLY THE
AMENDMENT INCLUDES ANY ELECTION IN WHICH PUBLIC ISSUES ARE DECIDED OR
PUBLIC OFFICIALS SELECTED.   (FN3)  JUST AS CLEARLY THE AMENDMENT
EXCLUDES SOCIAL OR BUSINESS CLUBS.  AND THE STATUTE SHOWS THE
CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION WHETHER THE VOTING ON
PUBLIC ISSUES AND OFFICIALS IS CONDUCTED IN COMMUNITY, STATE OR
NATION.  SIZE IS NOT A STANDARD. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT PRECISELY THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS AS THOSE
PRESCRIBED BY TEXAS ENTITLING ELECTORS TO VOTE AT COUNTY-OPERATED
PRIMARIES ARE ADOPTED AS THE SOLE QUALIFICATIONS ENTITLING ELECTORS TO
VOTE AT THE COUNTY-WIDE JAYBIRD PRIMARIES WITH A SINGLE PROVISO -
NEGROES ARE EXCLUDED.  EVERYONE CONCEDES THAT SUCH A PROVISO IN THE
COUNTY-OPERATED PRIMARIES WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE JAYBIRD PARTY
THUS BRINGS INTO BEING AND HOLDS PRECISELY THE KIND OF ELECTION THAT
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT SEEKS TO PREVENT.  WHEN IT PRODUCES THE
EQUIVALENT OF THE PROHIBITED ELECTION, THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE. 

FOR A STATE TO PERMIT SUCH A DUPLICATION OF ITS ELECTION PROCESSES IS
TO PERMIT A FLAGRANT ABUSE OF THOSE PROCESSES TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSES OF
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE USE OF THE COUNTY-OPERATED PRIMARY TO
RATIFY THE RESULT OF THE PROHIBITED ELECTION MERELY COMPOUNDS THE
OFFENSE.  IT VIOLATES THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT FOR A STATE, BY SUCH
CIRCUMVENTION, TO PERMIT WITHIN ITS BORDERS THE USE OF ANY DEVICE THAT
PRODUCES AN EQUIVALENT OF THE PROHIBITED ELECTION. 

THE ONLY ELECTION THAT HAS COUNTED IN THIS TEXAS COUNTY FOR MORE THAN
FIFTY YEARS HAS BEEN THAT HELD BY THE JAYBIRDS FROM WHICH NEGROES WERE
EXCLUDED.  THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY AND THE GENERAL ELECTION HAVE BECOME
NO MORE THAN THE PERFUNCTORY RATIFIERS OF THE CHOICE THAT HAS ALREADY
BEEN MADE IN JAYBIRD ELECTIONS FROM WHICH NEGROES HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED. 
IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE STATE DOES NOT CONTROL THAT PART OF THIS
ELECTIVE PROCESS WHICH IT LEAVES FOR THE JAYBIRDS TO MANAGE.  THE
JAYBIRD PRIMARY HAS BECOME AN INTEGRAL PART, INDEED THE ONLY EFFECTIVE
PART, OF THE ELECTIVE PROCESS THAT DETERMINES WHO SHALL RULE AND GOVERN
IN THE COUNTY.  THE EFFECT OF THE WHOLE PROCEDURE, JAYBIRD PRIMARY PLUS
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY PLUS GENERAL ELECTION, IS TO DO PRECISELY THAT WHICH
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS - STRIP NEGROES OF EVERY VESTIGE OF
INFLUENCE IN SELECTING THE OFFICIALS WHO CONTROL THE LOCAL COUNTY
MATTERS THAT INTIMATELY TOUCH THE DAILY LIVES OF CITIZENS. 

WE REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEALS' JUDGMENT REVERSING THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  WE AFFIRM THE DISTRICT COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE
COMBINED JAYBIRD-DEMOCRATIC-GENERAL ELECTION MACHINERY HAS DEPRIVED
THESE PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE AND
COLOR.  THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER SUCH ORDERS
AND DECREES AS ARE NECESSARY AND PROPER UNDER THE JURISDICTION IT HAS
RETAINED UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2202.  IN EXERCISING THIS JURISDICTION,
THE COURT IS LEFT FREE TO HOLD HEARINGS TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE WHAT
PROVISIONS ARE ESSENTIAL TO AFFORD NEGRO CITIZENS OF FORT BEND COUNTY
FULL PROTECTION FROM FUTURE DISCRIMINATORY JAYBIRD-DEMOCRATIC-GENERAL
ELECTION PRACTICES WHICH DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF VOTING RIGHTS BECAUSE OF
THEIR COLOR.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS A CRUCIAL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY CASES.  THERE, IT IS
SAID, THE NAMES OF DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES WERE PLACED ON THE STATE'S
GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS AS DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES.  HERE JAYBIRD NOMINEES
ARE NOT PUT ON ANY BALLOT AS JAYBIRD NOMINEES; THEY ENTER THEIR OWN
NAMES AS CANDIDATES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.  THIS DISTINCTION IS NOT
ONE OF SUBSTANCE BUT OF FORM, AND A STATEMENT OF THIS COURT IN SMITH V.
ALLWRIGHT, SUPRA, AT 661, SEEMS APPROPRIATE:  "SUCH A VARIATION IN THE
RESULT FROM SO SLIGHT A CHANGE IN FORM INFLUENCES US TO CONSIDER ANEW
THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE DISTINCTION WHICH HAS RESULTED IN BARRING
NEGROES FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE NOMINATIONS OF CANDIDATES OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN TEXAS."  THE SAME MAY BE SAID ABOUT THE ATTEMPTED
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE "TWO-STEP" EXCLUSION PROCESS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
AND THE "THREE-STEP" EXCLUSION PROCESS IN TEXAS.    FN2  "IN UNITED
STATES V. REESE, ET AL., SUPRA, P. 214, WE HOLD THAT THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT HAS VESTED THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH A NEW
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, WHICH IS, EXEMPTION FROM DISCRIMINATION IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR
PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE.  FROM THIS IT APPEARS THAT THE RIGHT
OF SUFFRAGE IS NOT A NECESSARY ATTRIBUTE OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP; BUT
THAT EXEMPTION FROM DISCRIMINATION IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT ON
ACCOUNT OF RACE, &C., IS.  THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE STATES COMES FROM
THE STATES; BUT THE RIGHT OF EXEMPTION FROM THE PROHIBITED
DISCRIMINATION COMES FROM THE UNITED STATES.  THE FIRST HAS NOT BEEN
GRANTED OR SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; BUT THE
LAST HAS BEEN."  UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 555-556.  TO
THE SAME EFFECT, SEE EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651, 664-665; LOGAN
V. UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263, 286.  THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HELD "SELF
EXECUTING."  SEE GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347, 362-363. 

FN3  "WE MAY MYSTIFY ANY THING.  BUT IF WE TAKE A PLAIN VIEW OF THE
WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND GIVE TO THEM A FAIR AND OBVIOUS
INTERPRETATION, WE CANNOT FAIL IN MOST CASES OF COMING TO A CLEAR
UNDERSTANDING OF ITS MEANING.  WE SHALL NOT HAVE FAR TO SEEK.  WE SHALL
FIND IT ON THE SURFACE, AND NOT IN THE PROFOUND DEPTHS OF
SPECULATION."  EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S. 371, 393. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

PETITIONERS ARE NEGROES WHO CLAIM THAT THEY AND ALL NEGROES SIMILARLY
SITUATED IN FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, ARE DENIED ALL VOICE IN THE
PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY OFFICES BY THE ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENT
ASSOCIATION, THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION.  THE JAYBIRD
ASSOCIATION WAS ORGANIZED IN 1889 AND FROM THAT TIME UNTIL THE PRESENT
HAS SELECTED, FIRST IN MASS MEETINGS BUT FOR SOME TIME BY BALLOT OF ITS
MEMBERS, PERSONS WHOM THE ORGANIZATION INDORSES FOR ELECTION IN THE
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR COUNTY OFFICE.  THE ASSOCIATION HAS NEVER
PERMITTED NEGROES TO PARTICIPATE IN ITS SELECTION OF THE CANDIDATES TO
BE INDORSED; BALLOTING IS OPEN ONLY TO ALL WHITE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY
QUALIFIED UNDER STATE LAW TO VOTE.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT NEGROES IN THE COUNTY BE ALLOWED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE BALLOTING OF THE ASSOCIATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, SAYING THAT ALTHOUGH THE WHITE VOTERS IN THE COUNTY ARE
"VAINLY HOLDING" TO "OUTWORN AND OUTMODED" PRACTICES, THE ACTION OF THE
ASSOCIATION WAS NOT "ACTION UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW" AND THEREFORE NOT
IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. 

THE EVIDENCE, SUMMARIZED BY FORMAL STIPULATION, SHOWS THAT ALL RULES
OF THE ASSOCIATION ARE MADE BY ITS MEMBERS THEMSELVES OR BY ITS
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  MEMBERSHIP, DEFINED BY THE RULES OF THE
ASSOCIATION, CONSISTS OF THE ENTIRE WHITE VOTING POPULATION AS SHOWN IN
POLL LISTS PREPARED BY THE COUNTY.  THE TIME OF BALLOTING, IN WHAT ARE
CALLED THE JAYBIRD PRIMARIES, IS SET BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
ASSOCIATION FOR A DAY EARLY IN MAY OF EACH ELECTION YEAR.  THE EXPENSES
OF THESE PRIMARIES, THE OFFICIATING PERSONNEL, THE BALLOTING PLACES,
THE DETERMINATION OF THE WINNER - ALL ASPECTS OF THESE PRIMARIES ARE
EXCLUSIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE ASSOCIATION.  THE BALLOTING RULES IN
GENERAL FOLLOW THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE LAWS REGULATING
PRIMARIES.  SEE VERNON'S TEX. STAT., 1948 (REV. CIV. STAT.), TIT. 50,
C. 13, NOW REVISED, 9 VERNON'S TEX. CIV.  STAT., 1952, C. 13.  BUT
FORMAL STATE ACTION, EITHER BY WAY OF LEGISLATIVE RECOGNITION OR
OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION, IS WHOLLY WANTING. 

THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES IN THE JAYBIRD PRIMARIES, IN FORMAL
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE RULES IN THAT REGARD, FILE INDIVIDUALLY AS
CANDIDATES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY HELD ON THE FOURTH SATURDAY IN
JULY.  NO MENTION IS MADE IN THE FILING OR IN THE LISTING OF THE
CANDIDATES ON THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY BALLOT THAT THEY ARE THE JAYBIRD
INDORSEES.  THAT FACT IS CONVEYED TO THE PUBLIC BY WORD OF MOUTH,
THROUGH NEWSPAPERS, AND BY OTHER PRIVATE MEANS.  THERE IS NO
RESTRICTION ON FILING BY ANYONE ELSE AS A CANDIDATE IN THE DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARY, NOR ON VOTING BY NEGROES IN THAT OFFICIAL PRIMARY. 

FOR THE SIXTY YEARS OF THE ASSOCIATION'S EXISTENCE, THE CANDIDATE
ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR EVERY COUNTY-WIDE
OFFICE WAS THE MAN INDORSED BY THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION.  INDEED, OTHER
CANDIDATES ALMOST NEVER FILE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.  THIS
CONTINUOUS SUCCESS OVER SUCH A PERIOD OF TIME HAS BEEN THE RESULT OF
ACTION BY PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE QUALIFIED ELECTORATE OF THE COUNTY,
BARRING NEGROES. 

THIS CASE IS FOR ME BY NO MEANS FREE OF DIFFICULTY.  WHENEVER THE LAW
DRAWS A LINE BETWEEN PERMISSIVE AND FORBIDDEN CONDUCT CASES ARE BOUND
TO ARISE WHICH ARE NOT OBVIOUSLY ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.  THESE
DUBIOUS SITUATIONS DISCLOSE THE LIMITED UTILITY OF THE FIGURE OF
SPEECH, A "LINE," IN THE LAW.  DRAWING A "LINE" IS NECESSARILY
EXERCISING A JUDGMENT, HOWEVER CONFINED THE CONSCIENTIOUS JUDGMENT MAY
BE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS, THE
COURSE OF DECISIONS, AND THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. 
IF "LINE" IS IN THE MAIN A FRUITFUL TOOL FOR DIVIDING THE SHEEP FROM
THE GOATS, IT MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT SINCE THE "LINE" IS FIGURATIVE
THE PLACE OF THIS OR THAT CASE IN RELATION TO IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED
EXTERNALLY BUT IS A MATTER OF THE MIND. 

CLOSE ANALYSIS OF WHAT IT IS THAT THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS
MUST BE MADE BEFORE IT CAN BE DETERMINED WHAT THE RELEVANT LINE IS IN
THE SITUATION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE.  THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, NOT THE
FOURTEENTH, OUTLAWED DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR COLOR WITH
RESPECT TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE.  CONCRETELY, OF COURSE, IT WAS DIRECTED
AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO BAR NEGROES FROM HAVING THE SAME POLITICAL
FRANCHISE AS WHITE FOLK.  "THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
TO VOTE SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ANY
STATE ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE." 
U.S. CONST., AMEND. XV, SEC. 1.  THE COMMAND AGAINST SUCH DENIAL OR
ABRIDGMENT IS DIRECTED TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE INDIVIDUAL
STATES.  THEREFORE, VIOLATION OF THIS AMENDMENT AND THE ENACTMENTS
PASSED IN ENFORCEMENT OF IT MUST INVOLVE THE UNITED STATES OR A STATE. 
IN THIS CASE THE CONDUCT THAT IS ASSAILED PERTAINS TO THE ELECTION OF
LOCAL TEXAS OFFICIALS.  TO FIND A DENIAL OR ABRIDGMENT OF THE
GUARANTEED VOTING RIGHT TO COLORED CITIZENS OF TEXAS SOLELY BECAUSE
THEY ARE COLORED, ONE MUST FIND THAT THE STATE HAS HAD A HAND IN IT. 

THE STATE, IN THESE SITUATIONS, MUST MEAN NOT PRIVATE CITIZENS BUT
THOSE CLOTHED WITH THE AUTHORITY AND THE INFLUENCE WHICH OFFICIAL
POSITION AFFORDS.  THE APPLICATION OF THE PROHIBITION OF THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO "ANY STATE" IS TRANSLATED BY LEGAL JARGON TO READ "STATE
ACTION."  THIS PHRASE GIVES RISE TO A FALSE DIRECTION IN THAT IT
IMPLIES SOME IMPRESSIVE MACHINERY OR DELIBERATIVE CONDUCT NORMALLY
ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT ORATORS CALL A SOVEREIGN STATE.  THE VITAL
REQUIREMENT IS STATE RESPONSIBILITY - THAT SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW, TO SOME
EXTENT, THERE BE AN INFUSION OF CONDUCT BY OFFICIALS, PANOPLIED WITH
STATE POWER, INTO ANY SCHEME BY WHICH COLORED CITIZENS ARE DENIED
VOTING RIGHTS MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE COLORED. 

AS THE ACTION OF THE ENTIRE WHITE VOTING COMMUNITY, THE JAYBIRD
PRIMARY IS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THE INSTRUMENT OF THOSE FEW IN THIS
SMALL COUNTY WHO ARE POLITICALLY ACTIVE - THE OFFICIALS OF THE LOCAL
DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND, WE MAY ASSUME, THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE
COUNTY.  AS A MATTER OF PRACTICAL POLITICS, THOSE CHARGED BY STATE LAW
WITH THE DUTY OF ASSURING ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES AT THE PRIMARY - THE COUNTY
ELECTION OFFICIALS WHO ARE NORMALLY LEADERS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES -
PARTICIPATE BY VOTING IN THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY.  THEY JOIN THE WHITE
VOTING COMMUNITY IN PROCEEDING WITH ELABORATE FORMALITY, IN ALMOST ALL
RESPECTS PARALLEL TO THE PROCEDURES DICTATED BY TEXAS LAW FOR THE
PRIMARY ITSELF, TO EXPRESS THEIR PREFERENCES IN A WHOLLY SUCCESSFUL
EFFORT TO WITHDRAW SIGNIFICANCE FROM THE STATE-PRESCRIBED PRIMARY, TO
SUBVERT THE OPERATION OF WHAT IS FORMALLY THE LAW OF THE STATE FOR
PRIMARIES IN THIS COUNTY. 

THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY MUST BE TESTED AGAINST
THE CASES WHICH, IN AN ENDEAVOR TO SCREEN WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY AN
EXERTION OF STATE AUTHORITY IN PREVENTING NEGROES FROM EXERCISING THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FRANCHISE, HAVE PIERCED THE VARIOUS
MANIFESTATIONS OF ASTUTENESS.  IN THE LAST OF THE SERIES, SMITH V.
ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649, WE HELD THAT THE STATE REGULATION THERE OF
PRIMARIES CONDUCTED BY A POLITICAL PARTY MADE THE PARTY "REQUIRED TO
FOLLOW THESE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIONS AN AGENCY OF THE STATE IN SO FAR AS
IT DETERMINES THE PARTICIPANTS IN A PRIMARY ELECTION."  ID., AT 663. 
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE JAYBIRD
PRIMARY IS "SO SLIGHT A CHANGE IN FORM," ID., AT 661, THAT THE RESULT
SHOULD NOT DIFFER IN SUBSTANCE FROM THAT OF SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION IS A POLITICAL PARTY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATION REGULATING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF PRIMARIES BY POLITICAL PARTIES; IT SAID THAT THE
ASSOCIATION COULD NOT AVOID THAT RESULT BY HOLDING ITS PRIMARY ON A
DIFFERENT DATE AND BY UTILIZING DIFFERENT METHODS THAN THOSE PRESCRIBED
BY THE STATUTES. 

WHETHER THE ASSOCIATION IS A POLITICAL PARTY REGULATED BY TEXAS AND
THUS SUBJECT TO A DUTY OF NONDISCRIMINATION, OR IS, AS IT CLAIMS,
CLEARLY NOT A PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT LEGISLATION, FAILING AS
IT DOES TO ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH A NUMBER OF THE STATE REQUIREMENTS,
PARTICULARLY AS TO THE DATE OF THE "PRIMARY," IS A QUESTION OF STATE
LAW NOT TO BE ANSWERED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY A FEDERAL COURT.  WE DO
NOT KNOW WHAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WOULD SAY.  AN OPERATION SUCH AS
THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY MAY BE FOUND BY THE TEXAS COURT TO SATISFY TEXAS
LAW ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE FORMAL DEFINITION; IT MAY SO
BE FOUND BECAUSE LONG-ACCEPTED CUSTOMS AND THE HABITS OF A PEOPLE MAY
GENERATE "LAW" AS SURELY AS A FORMAL LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION, AND
INDEED, SOMETIMES EVEN IN THE FACE OF IT.  SEE, E.G., NASHVILLE,
CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, 369.  BUT
EVEN IF THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION IS A POLITICAL PARTY, A FEDERAL COURT
CANNOT SAY THAT A POLITICAL PARTY IN TEXAS IS TO HOLD A PRIMARY OPEN TO
ALL ON A DAY OTHER THAN THAT FIXED BY TEXAS STATUTE.  THIS WOULD BE AN
INADMISSIBLE INTERVENTION OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY INTO THE POLITICAL
PROCESS OF A STATE.  IF SUCH A REMEDY IS TO BE DERIVED FROM A FINDING
THAT THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION IS A POLITICAL PARTY, IT IS ONE THAT MUST
BE DEVISED BY THE TEXAS COURTS.  FOR THE SAME REASON, WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY IS A "PRIMARY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF TEXAS LAW
AND SO REGULATED BY TEXAS LAW THAT SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT WOULD APPLY. 

BUT ASSUMING, AS I THINK WE MUST, THAT THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION IS NOT
A POLITICAL PARTY HOLDING A STATE-REGULATED PRIMARY, WE SHOULD
NONETHELESS DECIDE THIS CASE AGAINST RESPONDENTS ON THE GROUND THAT IN
THE PRECISE SITUATION BEFORE US THE STATE AUTHORITY HAS COME INTO
PLAY. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS ENTERED INTO A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF
REGULATION OF POLITICAL PRIMARIES, INCLUDING PROCEDURES BY WHICH
ELECTION OFFICIALS SHALL BE CHOSEN.  THE COUNTY ELECTION OFFICIALS ARE
THUS CLOTHED WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO SECURE OBSERVANCE OF
THE STATE'S INTEREST IN "FAIR METHODS AND A FAIR EXPRESSION" OF
PREFERENCES IN THE SELECTION OF NOMINEES.  CF. WAPLES V. MARRAST, 108
TEX. 5, 12, 184 S.W. 180, 183.  IF THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION, ALTHOUGH
NOT A POLITICAL PARTY, IS A DEVICE TO DEFEAT THE LAW OF TEXAS
REGULATING PRIMARIES, AND IF THE ELECTORAL OFFICIALS, CLOTHED WITH
STATE POWER IN THE COUNTY, SHARE IN THAT SUBVERSION, THEY CANNOT DIVEST
THEMSELVES OF THE STATE AUTHORITY AND HELP AS PARTICIPANTS IN THE
SCHEME.  UNLAWFUL ADMINISTRATION OF A STATE STATUTE FAIR ON ITS FACE
MAY BE SHOWN "BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE SHOWING A DISCRIMINATORY DESIGN TO
FAVOR ONE INDIVIDUAL OR CLASS OVER ANOTHER NOT TO BE INFERRED FROM THE
ACTION ITSELF," SNOWDEN V. HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1, 8; HERE, THE COUNTY
ELECTION OFFICIALS AID IN THIS SUBVERSION OF THE STATE'S OFFICIAL
SCHEME OF WHICH THEY ARE TRUSTEES, BY HELPING AS PARTICIPANTS IN THE
SCHEME. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE OF OCCASIONAL EFFORTS TO MASS VOTING STRENGTH. 
NOR IS THIS A CASE OF BOSS-CONTROL, WHETHER CRUDELY OR SUBTLY
EXERCISED.  NOR IS THIS A CASE OF SPONTANEOUS EFFORTS BY CITIZENS TO
INFLUENCE VOTES OR EVEN CONTINUED EFFORTS BY A FRACTION OF THE
ELECTORATE IN SUPPORT OF GOOD GOVERNMENT.  THIS IS A CASE IN WHICH
COUNTY ELECTION OFFICIALS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN AND CONDONED A CONTINUED
EFFORT EFFECTIVELY TO EXCLUDE NEGROES FROM VOTING.  THOUGH THE ACTION
OF THE ASSOCIATION AS SUCH MAY NOT BE PROSCRIBED BY THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT, ITS ROLE IN THE ENTIRE SCHEME TO SUBVERT THE OPERATION OF
THE OFFICIAL PRIMARY BRINGS IT "WITHIN REACH OF THE LAW  ...  .  THEY
ARE BOUND TOGETHER AS THE PARTS OF A SINGLE PLAN.  THE PLAN MAY MAKE
THE PARTS UNLAWFUL."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, IN
SWIFT AND COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 396.    THE STATE
HERE DEVISED A PROCESS FOR PRIMARY ELECTIONS.  THE RIGHT OF ALL
CITIZENS TO SHARE IN IT, AND NOT TO BE EXCLUDED IN TEXAS NOMINATION IN
THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IS TANTAMOUNT TO ELECTION.  THE EXCLUSION OF THE
NEGROES FROM MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION IN THE ONLY PRIMARY SCHEME SET UP
BY THE STATE WAS NOT AN ACCIDENTAL, UNSOUGHT CONSEQUENCE OF THE
EXERCISE OF CIVIC RIGHTS BY VOTERS TO MAKE THEIR COMMON VIEWPOINT
COUNT.  IT WAS THE DESIGN, THE VERY PURPOSE OF THIS ARRANGEMENT THAT
THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY IN MAY EXCLUDE NEGRO PARTICIPATION IN JULY.  THAT
IT WAS THE ACTION IN PART OF THE ELECTION OFFICIALS CHARGED BY TEXAS
LAW WITH THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF THE PRIMARIES, BRINGS IT WITHIN THE
REACH OF THE LAW.  THE OFFICIALS MADE THEMSELVES PARTY TO MEANS WHEREBY
THE MACHINERY WITH WHICH THEY ARE ENTRUSTED DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE
FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED. 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, HOWEVER, THAT THE RELIEF GRANTED BELOW WAS
PROPER.  SINCE THE VICE OF THIS SITUATION IS NOT THAT THE JAYBIRD
PRIMARY ITSELF IS THE PRIMARY DISCRIMINATORILY CONDUCTED UNDER STATE
LAW BUT IS THAT THE DETERMINATION THERE MADE BECOMES, IN FACT, THE
DETERMINATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY BY VIRTUE OF THE PARTICIPATION
AND ACQUIESCENCE OF STATE AUTHORITIES, A FEDERAL COURT CANNOT REQUIRE
THAT PETITIONERS BE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY.  THE EVIL
HERE IS THAT THE STATE, THROUGH THE ACTION AND ABDICATION OF THOSE WHOM
IT HAS CLOTHED WITH AUTHORITY, HAS PERMITTED WHITE VOTERS TO GO THROUGH
A PROCEDURE WHICH PREDETERMINES THE LEGALLY DEVISED PRIMARY.  TO SAY
THAT NEGROES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE IN THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY WOULD BE
TO SAY THAT THE STATE IS UNDER A DUTY TO SEE TO IT THAT NEGROES MAY
VOTE IN THAT PRIMARY.  WE CANNOT TELL THE STATE THAT IT MUST
PARTICIPATE IN AND REGULATE THIS PRIMARY; WE CANNOT TELL THE STATE WHAT
MACHINERY IT WILL USE.  BUT A COURT OF EQUITY CAN FREE THE LAWFUL
POLITICAL AGENCY FROM THE COMBINATION THAT SUBVERTS ITS CAPACITY TO
FUNCTION.  WHAT MUST BE DONE IS THAT THIS COUNTY BE RID OF THE MEANS BY
WHICH THE UNLAWFUL "USAGE," R.S. SEC. 2004, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 31, IN THIS
CASE ASSERTS ITSELF. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED, AND
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN, CONCURRING. 

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF FORT BEND
COUNTY, TEXAS, BY EXCLUDING NEGROES FROM ITS PRIMARIES HAS DENIED TO
NEGRO CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY A RIGHT TO VOTE SECURED BY THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  ON MARCH 16, 1950, PETITIONERS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
SIMILARLY SITUATED NEGRO CITIZENS IN FORT BEND COUNTY INSTITUTED A
CLASS ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENTS INDIVIDUALLY AND AS OFFICERS OF THE
JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION.  (FN1)  THE COMPLAINT, IN SUBSTANCE,
CHARGED THAT THE NEGRO PETITIONERS WERE DULY QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE
STATE OF TEXAS WHO FOR MANY YEARS AND SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE AND
COLOR HAD BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES OF THE
ASSOCIATION, A POLITICAL PARTY.  CONTENDING THAT THESE PRACTICES
TRANSGRESSED THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, (FN2)
PETITIONERS SOUGHT DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  (FN3)
RESPONDENTS INSISTED THAT THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION WAS NOT A
POLITICAL PARTY REGULATED BY TEXAS STATUTES BUT MERELY A PRIVATE
VOLUNTARY GROUP.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC
ASSOCIATION WAS A POLITICAL PARTY, AND RULED ITS DISCRIMINATORY
EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM THE PRIMARY INVALID.  (FN4)  JUDGMENT
ACCORDINGLY ENTERED DECLARED PETITIONERS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO VOTE IN
THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY.  THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED AN INJUNCTION BUT
RETAINED JURISDICTION TO GRANT FURTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  (FN5)  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED; IN ITS VIEW THE DISCRIMINATORY EXCLUSIONS
WERE NOT REACHED BY THE TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENTS.  (FN6) 

AN OLD PATTERN IN NEW GUISE IS REVEALED BY THE RECORD.  (FN7)  THE
JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF FORT BEND COUNTY WAS FOUNDED IN 1889
TO PROMOTE "GOOD GOVERNMENT" IN THE POST-RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD.  DURING
ITS ENTIRE LIFE SPAN THE ASSOCIATION HAS RESTRICTED MEMBERSHIP TO
WHITES.  IN EARLIER YEARS, THE MEMBERS AT MASS MEETINGS DETERMINED
THEIR CHOICE OF CANDIDATES TO SUPPORT AT FORTHCOMING OFFICIAL
ELECTIONS.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSOCIATION DEVELOPED A SYSTEM CLOSELY
PARALLELING THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  THE ASSOCIATION IS
GOVERNED BY AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF TWENTY-TWO PERSONS, ONE FROM EACH
VOTING PRECINCT IN THE COUNTY.  THE COMMITTEE IN EACH ELECTION YEAR
SETS THE DATE OF THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY FOR SELECTING BY BALLOT THE
CANDIDATES TO BE ENDORSED BY THE ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN THE
COUNTY.  THE MACHINERY OF THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION PRIMARY
NOW DIFFERS FROM THE STATE-REGULATED DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY MAINLY IN
THE ASSOCIATION'S PROHIBITION OF MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS FOR
OFFICEHOLDERS, THE ABSENCE OF A PLEDGE ON THE BALLOT AT THE JAYBIRD
PRIMARY, AND THE ASSOCIATION'S PRACTICE OF NOT OFFICIALLY FILING AS A
TICKET THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES SUCCESSFUL IN ITS BALLOTING.  AND FOR
MORE THAN A HALF CENTURY THE ASSOCIATION HAS ADHERED TO ITS GUIDING
PRINCIPLE:  TO DENY THE NEGRO VOTERS OF FORT BEND COUNTY ANY EFFECTIVE
VOICE IN THEIR GOVERNMENT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT, LARGELY RELIED
ON WHAT IT DEEMED "THE SETTLED COURSE OF DECISION CULMINATING IN
COLLINS V. HARDYMAN, 341 U.S. 651,  ...  THAT IT WAS NOT AGAINST
INDIVIDUAL, BUT AGAINST STATE, ACTION THAT THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENTS AND 8 U.S.C.A. SECS. 43 AND 47 WERE, AND ARE, DIRECTED." 
(FN8)  BUT COLLINS DEALT NOT WITH RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AT THE BALLOT
BOX BUT MERELY "A LAWLESS POLITICAL BRAWL, PRECIPITATED BY A HANDFUL OF
WHITE CITIZENS AGAINST OTHER WHITE CITIZENS."  341 U.S., AT 662.  IN
ANY EVENT, COLLINS ADJUDICATED THAT CONGRESS IN THE NARROW CLASS OF
CONSPIRACIES DEFINED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES HAD NOT INCLUDED THE
CONSPIRACY CHARGED IN THAT PARTICULAR COMPLAINT; EXPRESSLY REFRAINING
FROM CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, IBID., THAT CASE CANNOT BE HELD
CONTROLLING HERE.  (FN9) 

IN OUR VIEW, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS MISCONCEIVED THE THRUST OF OUR
RECENT DECISIONS.  THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT SECURES THE FRANCHISE
EXERCISED BY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY ANY
STATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR COLOR.  IN SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S.
649 (1944), THIS COURT HELD THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ITSELF, AND
PERFORCE ANY OTHER POLITICAL PARTY, IS PROHIBITED BY THAT AMENDMENT
FROM CONDUCTING A RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY PRIMARY ELECTION.  BY THE
RULE OF THAT CASE, ANY "PART OF THE MACHINERY FOR CHOOSING OFFICIALS"
BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTION'S RESTRAINTS.  ID., AT 664.  THERE,
AS HERE, WE DEALT WITH AN ORGANIZATION THAT TOOK THE FORM OF "VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATION" OF UNOFFICIAL CHARACTER.  BUT BECAUSE IN FACT IT
FUNCTIONED AS A PART OF THE STATE'S ELECTORAL MACHINERY, WE HELD IT
CONTROLLED BY THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS THAT RULED THE
OFFICIAL GENERAL ELECTION. 

WE AGREE WITH CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE KENNERLY THAT THE JAYBIRD
DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION IS A POLITICAL PARTY (FN10) WHOSE ACTIVITIES
FALL WITHIN THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT'S SELF-EXECUTING BAN.  SEE GUINN V.
UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347, 363 (1915); MYERS V. ANDERSON, 238 U.S.
368, 379-380 (1915).  (FN11)  NOT EVERY PRIVATE CLUB, ASSOCIATION OR
LEAGUE ORGANIZED TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC CANDIDACIES OR POLITICAL ACTION
MUST CONFORM TO THE CONSTITUTION'S RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL PARTIES. 
CERTAINLY A LARGE AREA OF FREEDOM PERMITS PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY AND
CONCERTED PRIVATE ACTION FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES TO BE EXERCISED
SEPARATELY BY WHITE AND COLORED CITIZENS ALIKE.  MORE, HOWEVER, IS
INVOLVED HERE. 

THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OPERATES
AS PART AND PARCEL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AN ORGANIZATION EXISTING
UNDER THE AUSPICES OF TEXAS LAW.  (FN12)  EACH MAINTAINS THE SAME BASIC
QUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP:  ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE UNDER TEXAS LAW. 
ALTHOUGH THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN TEXAS SINCE SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT,
SUPRA, NO LONGER CAN RESTRICT ITS MEMBERSHIP TO WHITES, THE JAYBIRD
DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION BARS NEGROES FROM ITS RANKS.  IN MAY OF EACH
ELECTION YEAR IT CONDUCTS A FULL-SCALE WHITE PRIMARY IN WHICH EACH
CANDIDATE CAMPAIGNS FOR HIS CANDIDACY SUBJECT TO THE ACTION OF THAT
PRIMARY AND THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY OF JULY, LINKING THE TWO PRIMARIES
TOGETHER.  AFTER GAINING THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION'S
ENDORSEMENT, THE ANNOUNCED WINNERS AFTER FULL PUBLICITY THEN FILE IN
THE JULY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.  THE RECORD REVEALS THAT 3,910 ELIGIBLE
VOTERS WERE LISTED IN FORT BEND COUNTY IN THE PRESIDENTIAL YEAR 1944;
THOUGH ONLY 2,032 PARTICIPATED IN THE JULY PRIMARY UNDER THE DEMOCRATIC
BANNER, 3,790 MEMBERS VOTED IN THE MAY BALLOTING OF THE JAYBIRD
DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION.  IN 1946, AN OFF-YEAR FOR PRESIDENTIAL
BALLOTING, ELIGIBLE VOTERS NUMBERED 4,460; THE ASSOCIATION'S MAY
PRIMARY POLLED 3,309 VOTES, AND THE DEMOCRATIC JULY PRIMARY COUNTED BUT
2,996.  AND WHILE THE LISTS IN 1948, AGAIN A PRESIDENTIAL YEAR, SHOW
ONLY 3,856 ELIGIBLE ELECTORS IN THE COUNTY, THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY
MUSTERED A TOTAL VOTE OF 4,055, COMPARED WITH 3,108 IN THE PRIMARY
VOTING IN JULY.  SIGNIFICANTLY, SINCE 1889 THE WINNERS OF THE JAYBIRD
DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION BALLOTING, WITH BUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION SHOWN BY
THIS RECORD, (FN13) RAN UNOPPOSED AND INVARIABLY WON IN THE DEMOCRATIC
JULY PRIMARY AND THE SUBSEQUENT GENERAL ELECTIONS FOR COUNTY-WIDE
OFFICE. 

QUITE EVIDENTLY THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OPERATES AS AN
AUXILIARY OF THE LOCAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY ORGANIZATION, SELECTING ITS
NOMINEES AND USING ITS MACHINERY FOR CARRYING OUT AN ADMITTED DESIGN OF
DESTROYING THE WEIGHT AND EFFECT OF NEGRO BALLOTS IN FORT BEND COUNTY. 
TO BE SURE, THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY AND THE GENERAL ELECTION ARE
NOMINALLY OPEN TO THE COLORED ELECTOR.  BUT HIS MUST BE AN EMPTY VOTE
CAST AFTER THE REAL DECISIONS ARE MADE.  AND BECAUSE THE JAYBIRD
INDORSED NOMINEE MEETS NO OPPOSITION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, THE
NEGRO MINORITY'S VOTE IS NULLIFIED AT THE SOLE STAGE OF THE LOCAL
POLITICAL PROCESS WHERE THE BARGAINING AND INTERPLAY OF RIVAL POLITICAL
FORCES WOULD MAKE IT COUNT. 

THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION DEVICE, AS A RESULT, STRIKES TO
THE CORE OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN FORT BEND COUNTY.  WHETHER VIEWED
AS A SEPARATE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OR AS AN ADJUNCT TO THE LOCAL
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION IS THE DECISIVE
POWER IN THE COUNTRY'S RECOGNIZED ELECTORAL PROCESS.  OVER THE YEARS
ITS BALLOTING HAS EMERGED AS THE LOCUS OF EFFECTIVE POLITICAL CHOICE. 
CONSONANT WITH THE BROAD AND LOFTY AIMS OF ITS FRAMERS, THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AS THE FOURTEENTH, "REFERS TO EXERTIONS OF STATE POWER IN
ALL FORMS."  SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1, 20 (1948).  ACCORDINGLY,
WHEN A STATE STRUCTURES ITS ELECTORAL APPARATUS IN A FORM WHICH
DEVOLVES UPON A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION THE UNCONTESTED CHOICE OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS, THAT ORGANIZATION ITSELF, IN WHATEVER DISGUISE, TAKES ON
THOSE ATTRIBUTES OF GOVERNMENT WHICH DRAW THE CONSTITUTION'S SAFEGUARDS
INTO PLAY.  SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, SUPRA, AT 664; CF. UNITED STATES V.
CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 324 (1941); LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268, 275
(1939). 

IN SUM, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC
ASSOCIATION FALL WITHIN THE BROAD PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN SMITH V.
ALLWRIGHT, SUPRA.  FOR THAT REASON WE JOIN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

FN1  SEE FED. RULES CIV. PROC. 23. 

FN2  PETITIONERS MAINLY RESTED THEIR CLAIMS ON THE FOURTEENTH AND
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS, AND 8 U.S.C. SEC. 31. 

ARTICLE XIV.  "SECTION 1.  ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE.  NO STATE SHALL
MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE
DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

ARTICLE XV.  "SECTION 1.  THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
TO VOTE SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ANY
STATE ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE. 

"SECTION 2.  THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE THIS ARTICLE BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION." 

8 U.S.C. SEC. 31:  "ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE
OTHERWISE QUALIFIED BY LAW TO VOTE AT ANY ELECTION BY THE PEOPLE IN ANY
STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT, COUNTY, CITY, PARISH, TOWNSHIP, SCHOOL
DISTRICT, MUNICIPALITY, OR OTHER TERRITORIAL SUBDIVISION, SHALL BE
ENTITLED AND ALLOWED TO VOTE AT ALL SUCH ELECTIONS, WITHOUT DISTINCTION
OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE; ANY CONSTITUTION,
LAW, CUSTOM, USAGE, OR REGULATION OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, OR BY OR
UNDER ITS AUTHORITY, TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." 

FN3  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SECS. 1331, 2201.  PETITIONERS ABANDONED A
CLAIM TO MONEY DAMAGES, APPARENTLY GROUNDED ON 8 U.S.C. SECS. 43, 47. 

FN4  90 F. SUPP. 595 (D.C.S.D. TEX. 1950).  THE DISTRICT JUDGE
SUPPORTED HIS CONCLUSIONS BY REFERENCE TO ART. 3163, VERNON'S TEXAS
CIVIL STATUTES (1925): 

"ART. 3163.  PARTIES WITHOUT STATE ORGANIZATION: 

"ANY POLITICAL PARTY WITHOUT A STATE ORGANIZATION DESIRING TO
NOMINATE CANDIDATES FOR COUNTY AND PRECINCT OFFICES ONLY MAY NOMINATE
SUCH CANDIDATES THEREFOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE BY PRIMARY
ELECTIONS OR BY A COUNTY CONVENTION HELD ON THE LEGAL PRIMARY ELECTION
DAY, WHICH CONVENTION SHALL BE COMPOSED OF DELEGATES FROM VARIOUS
ELECTION PRECINCTS IN SAID COUNTY, ELECTED THEREIN AT PRIMARY
CONVENTIONS HELD IN SUCH PRECINCTS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF EIGHT A.M. AND
TEN P.M. OF THE PRECEDING SATURDAY.  ALL NOMINATIONS MADE BY ANY SUCH
PARTIES SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY CLERK BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COUNTY COMMITTEE OF SUCH PARTY, AND, AFTER TAKING THE SAME COURSE AS
NOMINATIONS OF OTHER PARTIES SO CERTIFIED, SHALL BE PRINTED ON THE
OFFICIAL BALLOT IN A SEPARATE COLUMN, HEADED BY THE NAME OF THE PARTY;
PROVIDED, A WRITTEN APPLICATION FOR SUCH PRINTING SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE
TO THE COUNTY JUDGE, SIGNED AND SWORN TO BY THREE PER CENT OF THE
ENTIRE VOTE CAST IN SUCH COUNTY AT THE LAST GENERAL ELECTION."  THIS
PROVISION HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY RECODIFIED AS ART. 13.54, VERNON'S
TEXAS ELECTION CODE (1952).    FN5  "FURTHER NECESSARY OR PROPER RELIEF
BASED ON A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR DECREE MAY BE GRANTED, AFTER
REASONABLE NOTICE AND HEARING, AGAINST ANY ADVERSE PARTY WHOSE RIGHTS
HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY SUCH JUDGMENT."  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
2202. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE REFUSED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BECAUSE THE AFFAIRS OF
THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION ARE CONTROLLED BY AN EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF TWENTY-TWO PERSONS; THE FOUR NAMED DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE
COURT HAD NOT THE POWER TO PERMIT PETITIONERS TO VOTE IN THE JAYBIRD
BALLOTING. 

FN6  193 F.2D 600 (C.A. 5TH CIR. 1952). 

FN7  CF. NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536 (1927); NIXON V. CONDON, 286
U.S. 73 (1932); SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649 (1944). 

FN8  193 F.2D, AT 602.  AND SEE ID., AT 605. 

FN9  SINCE IN THIS CASE WE DEEM THE ACTIVITIES OF THE JAYBIRD
DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION UNLAWFUL UNDER THE INDEPENDENT REACH OF THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE APPLICABILITY OF 8 U.S.C. SEC. 31 NEED NOT BE
CONSIDERED NOW.  SEE UNITED STATES V. REESE, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876);
UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 555-556 (1876).  CF. JAMES V.
BOWMAN, 190 U.S. 127 (1903), WITH EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651
(1884), AND MYERS V. ANDERSON, 238 U.S. 368, 379 (1915). 

FN10  SEE SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649, 662 (1944); NIXON V.
CONDON, 286 U.S. 73, 88-89 (1932).  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN11  SEE ALSO NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370, 389-390 (1881); EX
PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651, 665 (1884). 

FN12  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE COMPRISES NOT ONLY A CONCISE
STIPULATION OF FACTS, BUT ALSO 43 ADDITIONAL PAGES OF DIRECTLY RELEVANT
TESTIMONY.  OBVIOUSLY THE WHOLE OF THE RECORD UNDERLAY THE
DETERMINATIONS OF THE COURTS BELOW, AND MUST BE CONSIDERED IN AN
APPELLATE REVIEW OF THEIR DECISIONS. 

FN13  IN 1944, MR. CHARLES SCHULTZ EMERGED VICTORIOUS FROM THE
JAYBIRD BALLOTING AND WAS INDORSED AS ITS CANDIDATE FOR COUNTY JUDGE. 
IN THE JULY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, SCHULTZ TRIUMPHED BY A VOTE OF 2,025 TO
1 FOR MR. MIKE DORNAK.  SCHULTZ HELD OFFICE FOR TWO TERMS UNTIL 1948. 
IN THAT YEAR, IN ACCORD WITH A JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION RULE PROHIBITING
MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS IN OFFICE, MR. BAKER RECEIVED THE
JAYBIRD INDORSEMENT FOR THE COUNTY JUDGESHIP.  SCHULTZ, HOWEVER,
INSISTED ON RUNNING IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY; HE LOST OUT TO BAKER BY
A VOTE OF 2,209 TO 803.  SEE R. 34, 79.  THE RECORD REVEALS, HOWEVER,
THAT THE JAYBIRD-INDORSED CANDIDATES FOR PRECINCT OFFICE WERE NOT QUITE
AS CONSISTENTLY SUCCESSFUL. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, DISSENTING. 

I AM NOT CONCERNED IN THE LEAST AS TO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE JAYBIRDS OR
THEIR UNWORTHY SCHEME.  I AM CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THIS COURT SAYS IS
STATE ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION.  FOR, AFTER ALL, THIS COURT HAS POWER TO REDRESS A WRONG
UNDER THAT AMENDMENT ONLY IF THE WRONG IS DONE BY THE STATE.  THAT HAS
BEEN THE HOLDING OF THIS COURT SINCE THE EARLIEST CASES.  THE CHIEF
JUSTICE FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN THE RECENT CASE OF SHELLEY V. KRAEMER,
334 U.S. 1, 13, STATED THE LAW AS FOLLOWS: 

"SINCE THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S.
3 (1883), THE PRINCIPLE HAS BECOME FIRMLY EMBEDDED IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT THE ACTION INHIBITED BY THE FIRST SECTION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS ONLY SUCH ACTION AS MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO
BE THAT OF THE STATES.  THAT AMENDMENT ERECTS NO SHIELD AGAINST MERELY
PRIVATE CONDUCT, HOWEVER DISCRIMINATORY OR WRONGFUL."* 

*THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT AS HERE INVOLVED IS ALSO DIRECTED AT STATE
ACTION ONLY. 

AS I UNDERSTAND MR. JUSTICE BLACK'S OPINION, HE WOULD HAVE THIS COURT
REDRESS THE WRONG EVEN IF IT WAS INDIVIDUAL ACTION ALONE.  I CAN
UNDERSTAND THAT PRAISE-WORTHY POSITION, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IT IS NOT IN
ACCORD WITH THE CONSTITUTION.  STATE ACTION MUST BE SHOWN. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER RECOGNIZES THAT IT MUST BE STATE ACTION BUT
HE SEEMS TO THINK IT IS ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE STATE ACTION IF A STATE
OFFICIAL PARTICIPATES IN THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY.  THAT I CANNOT FOLLOW. 
FOR IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT EVERYTHING DONE BY A PERSON WHO IS AN
OFFICIAL IS NOT DONE OFFICIALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE. 
HOWEVER, I FIND NOTHING IN THIS RECORD THAT SHOWS THE STATE OR COUNTY
OFFICIALS PARTICIPATING IN THE JAYBIRD PRIMARY. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK SEEMS TO RECOGNIZE THAT STATE ACTION MUST BE
SHOWN.  HE FINDS STATE ACTION IN ASSUMPTION, NOT IN FACTS.  THIS RECORD
WILL BE SEARCHED IN VAIN FOR ONE IOTA OF STATE ACTION SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT AN ANEMIC INFERENCE THAT THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION IS IN ANY WAY
ASSOCIATED WITH OR FORMS A PART OF OR COOPERATES IN ANY MANNER WITH THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE COUNTY OR STATE, OR WITH THE STATE.  IT CALLS
ITSELF THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION BECAUSE ITS INTEREST IS ONLY
IN THE CANDIDATES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE COUNTY, A POSITION
UNDERSTANDABLE IN TEXAS.  IT IS A GRATUITOUS ASSUMPTION ON THE PART OF
MR. JUSTICE CLARK THAT:  "QUITE EVIDENTLY THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC
ASSOCIATION OPERATES AS AN AUXILIARY OF THE LOCAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY
ORGANIZATION, SELECTING ITS NOMINEES AND USING ITS MACHINERY FOR
CARRYING OUT AN ADMITTED DESIGN OF DESTROYING THE WEIGHT AND EFFECT OF
NEGRO BALLOTS IN FORT BEND COUNTY."  THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION IN THE
RECORD SHOWS THE UNSUBSTANTIALITY OF THAT STATEMENT JUST QUOTED FROM
MR. JUSTICE CLARK'S OPINION.  I QUOTE THE STIPULATION: 

"THERE IS NO COMPULSION UPON ANY PERSON WHO RECEIVES THE INDORSEMENT
OF THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, FOR A
PARTICULAR OFFICE, TO RUN FOR THAT OFFICE OR ANY OTHER OFFICE.  IN THE
EVENT SUCH INDORSEE OF THE ASSOCIATION DOES DESIRE TO RUN FOR SUCH
OFFICE HE MAY DO SO; BUT IF HE DOES SO RUN FOR SUCH OFFICE HE MUST
HIMSELF FILE HIS APPLICATION WITH THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OR COMMITTEE
OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR THE POSITION ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BALLOT
FOR THE JULY PRIMARY OF SUCH DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AND MUST HIMSELF PAY THE
FEE AS PROVIDED BY LAW.  NEITHER THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION NOR
ITS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FILES AN APPLICATION WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OR CHAIRMAN THAT THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION
NOMINEE BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY JULY PRIMARY
ELECTION.  THERE IS NOTHING ON THE BALLOT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
PRIMARY TO INDICATE THAT ANY PERSON APPEARING THEREON DOES OR DOES NOT
HAVE THE INDORSEMENT OF THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION. 

"THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT FOR A PLACE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BALLOT
IS NOT PLACED ON SAID BALLOT UNLESS HE COMPLIES WITH THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF TEXAS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH APPLICANT WERE INDORSED BY THE JAYBIRD
DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION; AND EVERY QUALIFIED APPLICANT WHO MAKES THE
REQUIRED APPLICATION TO THE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND PAYS THE
REQUISITE FEE IS PLACED ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY BALLOT FOR THE
JULY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY THOUGH NOT INDORSED BY THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC
ASSOCIATION. 

"NO MEMBER OF THE NEGRO RACE, NOR ANY OTHER PERSON QUALIFIED UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS TO BECOME A CANDIDATE, HAS BEEN REFUSED
A PLACE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY BALLOT FOR FORT BEND COUNTY,
TEXAS, BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY." 

NEITHER IS THERE ANY MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION
AVAILS ITSELF OF OR CONFORMS IN ANY MANNER TO ANY LAW OF THE STATE OF
TEXAS.  AS TO THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION'S RELATION TO THE STATE, I AGAIN
QUOTE THE STIPULATION IN THE RECORD: 

"THERE IS NO POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, BY
THE OFFICIAL NAME OR DESIGNATION 'JAYBIRD PARTY'.  AT ALL TIMES SINCE
1889, HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN AND STILL IS, AN ORGANIZATION IN FORT
BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, BY THE NAME OF 'JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS'.  SAID ASSOCIATION, HOWEVER, HAS NOT SINCE
1938, AND IT DOES NOT:  (A) HAVE A STATE ORGANIZATION; (B) FOLLOW OR
ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 3163 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES OF TEXAS, OR OF ANY OTHER STATUTES OF THE STATE OF
TEXAS WITH REFERENCE TO PRIMARY ELECTIONS OR GENERAL ELECTIONS; (C)
HOLD ANY CONVENTION OR 'PRIMARY ELECTION' ON THE LEGAL PRIMARY ELECTION
DAY, TO-WIT:  THE FOURTH SATURDAY IN JULY OR THE FOURTH SATURDAY IN
AUGUST, OF ANY YEAR; (D) HOLD ANY PRIMARY CONVENTION IN ANY PRECINCT ON
THE SATURDAY PRECEDING A LEGAL PRIMARY ELECTION DAY; (E) BY THE
CHAIRMAN OF A COUNTY COMMITTEE, OR OTHERWISE, CERTIFY TO THE COUNTY
CLERK OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, OR TO THE COUNTY JUDGE THEREOF, OR TO
ANY OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEMOCRATIC OR
REPUBLICAN PARTY, ANY NOMINATIONS OR INDORSEMENTS MADE BY THE
ASSOCIATION; (F) HAVE, OR CAUSE TO BE, PRINTED IN A SEPARATE COLUMN
HEADED BY THE ASSOCIATION NAME ANY NOMINATIONS ON ANY OFFICIAL BALLOT
USED, OR FOR USE IN, A PRIMARY OR GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON A LEGAL
PRIMARY ELECTION DAY OR GENERAL ELECTION DAY; (NOR DOES THE NAME,
JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, OR ANY PART
OR INDICATION THEREOF, APPEAR ON ANY BALLOT IN ANY ELECTION OTHER THAN
THE PRIMARIES, OR OTHER SPECIAL VOTING OCCASIONS, HELD BY THE
ASSOCIATION ITSELF AND ALONE); (G) MAKE, OR CAUSE TO BE MADE, A WRITTEN
APPLICATION TO THE COUNTY JUDGE FOR SUCH PRINTING, SIGNED AND SWORN TO
BY 3% OF THE ENTIRE VOTE CAST IN FORT BEND COUNTY AT THE LAST PRECEDING
GENERAL ELECTION. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"NO OFFICER NOR COMMITTEE OF SUCH ASSOCIATION CERTIFIES THE RESULT OF
THE ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP VOTE, NOR ANY NOMINATIONS OF THE
ASSOCIATION, TO THE COUNTY CLERK OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, NOR TO THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NOR TO THE COMMITTEE OR OFFICIAL
OF ANY PARTY WITH A STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"IN THE LAST FEW YEARS SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE NEGRO RACE HAVE
OFFERED TO VOTE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARIES AND NO MEMBER OF THE
NEGRO RACE WHO HAD QUALIFIED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS TO
VOTE HAS BEEN REFUSED THE RIGHT TO VOTE.  SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
NEGRO RACE HAVE OFFERED TO VOTE IN A GENERAL ELECTION IN FORT BEND
COUNTY, TEXAS, AND NO MEMBER OF THE NEGRO RACE QUALIFIED TO VOTE HAS
BEEN REFUSED A VOTE. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, IS
NOT, AND DOES NOT HAVE, A STATE ORGANIZATION, BUT LIMITS ITS MAY AND
JUNE ASSOCIATION PRIMARIES TO ONLY THE COUNTY AND PRECINCT OFFICES,
EXCEPT THAT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE ASSOCIATION DOES VOTE ITS PREFERENCE
FOR THE OFFICE OF DISTRICT CLERK IN FORT BEND COUNTY. 

"THE PERSONS SEEKING THE INDORSEMENT OF THE JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC
ASSOCIATION OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, AT ITS MAY OR JUNE PRIMARIES
ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE ASSOCIATION TO FILE ANY EXPENSE ACCOUNT AND DO
NOT FILE EXPENSE ACCOUNTS WITH ANY STATE OR LOCAL OFFICIAL, COMMITTEE
OR BOARD." 

THESE STIPULATIONS FROM THE RECORD SHOW THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW OR PRACTICE, OR COOPERATION BY OR WITH
THE STATE.  EVEN IF IT BE SAID TO BE A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, THE
JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION AVAILS ITSELF OF NO STATE LAW OPEN TO POLITICAL
ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS ART. 3163. 

HOWEVER, ITS ACTION IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
TEXAS.  DOES SUCH FAILURE OF THE STATE TO ACT TO PREVENT INDIVIDUALS
FROM DOING WHAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT AS INDIVIDUALS TO DO AMOUNT TO
STATE ACTION?  I VENTURE THE OPINION IT DOES NOT. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK'S OPINION AGREES WITH DISTRICT JUDGE KENNERLY THAT
THIS JAYBIRD DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION IS A POLITICAL PARTY WHOSE
ACTIVITIES FALL WITHIN THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT'S SELF-EXECUTING BAN. 
IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, HE ADMITS THAT NOT ALL MEETINGS FOR POLITICAL
ACTION COME UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL BAN.  SURELY WHITE OR COLORED
MEMBERS OF ANY POLITICAL FAITH OR ECONOMIC BELIEF MAY HOLD CAUCUSES. 
IT IS ONLY WHEN THE STATE BY ACTION OF ITS LEGISLATIVE BODIES OR ACTION
OF SOME OF ITS OFFICIALS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY COOPERATES WITH
SUCH POLITICAL PARTY OR GIVES IT DIRECTION IN ITS ACTIVITIES THAT THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MAY COME INTO PLAY.  A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION NOT
USING STATE MACHINERY OR DEPENDING UPON STATE LAW TO AUTHORIZE WHAT IT
DOES COULD NOT BE WITHIN THE BAN OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AS THE
STIPULATION QUOTED SHOWS, THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION DID NOT ATTEMPT TO
CONFORM OR IN ANY WAY TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTES OF TEXAS COVERING
PRIMARIES.  NO ACTION OF ANY LEGISLATIVE OR QUASI-LEGISLATIVE BODY OR
OF ANY STATE OFFICIAL OR AGENCY EVER IN ANY MANNER DENIED THE VOTE TO
NEGROES, EVEN IN THE JAYBIRD PRIMARIES. 

SO IT SEEMS TO ME CLEAR THERE IS NO STATE ACTION, AND THE JAYBIRD
DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION IS IN NO SENSE A PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 
IF IT IS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, IT HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO USE THE
STATE, OR THE STATE TO USE IT, TO CARRY ON ITS POLL. 

RICE V. ELMORE, 165 F.2D 387, IS CITED AS AUTHORITY FOR THE POSITION
OF THE PETITIONERS.  IN THAT CASE, SOUTH CAROLINA HAD REPEALED ALL ITS
LAWS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES.  THE ONLY PRIMARY CONDUCTED
WAS BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES
ADOPTED BY THE PARTY.  IT WAS STIPULATED ON THE TRIAL OF THAT CASE THAT
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY "CONDUCTS NOMINATING PRIMARIES AND THEREAFTER
PRINTS ITS BALLOTS FOR USE IN THE GENERAL ELECTIONS WITH THE NAMES OF
ITS NOMINEES THEREON WHICH BALLOTS ARE DISTRIBUTED BY PARTY OFFICIALS
AND PLACED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION PRECINCTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA FOR USE
BY ANY ELECTORS WHO CHOOSE TO USE SUCH BALLOT IN VOTING IN ANY SUCH
GENERAL ELECTION IN SOUTH CAROLINA."  THE DISTRICT COURT SPECIFICALLY
FOUND IN FINDING 19:  "THERE IS NO GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IN SOUTH
CAROLINA.  THE ONLY PRINTED BALLOTS AVAILABLE IN GENERAL ELECTIONS IN
SOUTH CAROLINA ARE BALLOTS PREPARED BY THE POLITICAL PARTIES GIVING
ONLY THE NAMES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES."  FINDING 14 STATED:
"DURING THE PAST 25 YEARS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF SOUTH CAROLINA HAS
BEEN THE ONLY POLITICAL PARTY IN SOUTH CAROLINA WHICH HAS HELD STATE
WIDE PRIMARIES FOR NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR FEDERAL AND STATE
OFFICES." 

THUS IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THERE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FURNISHED NOT
ONLY THE CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, BUT IT ALSO FURNISHED THE
ONLY BALLOT ONE COULD VOTE IN THAT ELECTION.  SO THE STATE IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION ACCEPTED THE BALLOT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS ITS
OFFICIAL BALLOT, AND ON THAT BALLOT NO NEGRO HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO
VOTE.  CLEARLY, THE STATE ADOPTED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S PROCEDURE AS
ITS ACTION.  THE STATE AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY EFFECTIVELY COOPERATED
TO CARRY ON THIS TWO-STEP ELECTION PROCEDURE. 

NO SUCH ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION.  IT NEITHER
FILES, CERTIFIES, NOR SUPPLIES ANYTHING FOR THE PRIMARY OR ELECTION. 
THE WINNER OF THE POLL IN THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION CONTEST FILES IN THE
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, WHERE HE MAY AND SOMETIMES HAS RECEIVED OPPOSITION,
AND SUCESSFUL OPPOSITION, IN PRECINCT CONTESTS FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND CONSTABLE.  THERE IS NO RULE OF THE JAYBIRD
ASSOCIATION THAT REQUIRES THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY IN ITS POLL TO FILE IN
THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY OR ELSEWHERE.  IT IS ALL INDIVIDUAL, VOLUNTARY
ACTION.  NEITHER THE STATE NOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AVAILS ITSELF OF
THE ACTION OF OR COOPERATES IN ANY MANNER WITH THE JAYBIRD
ASSOCIATION. 

SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649, IS IN NO MANNER CONTROLLING.  IN
THAT CASE, THE STATE HAD SET UP THE MACHINERY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
TO CONDUCT ITS PRIMARY.  THE STATE OF TEXAS MADE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
ITS AGENT FOR THE CONDUCTING OF A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.  OF COURSE, THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY COULD NOT RUN THAT PRIMARY, SET UP UNDER THE AUSPICES
OF THE STATE, IN A MANNER TO EXCLUDE CITIZENS OF TEXAS THEREFROM
BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.  THAT SUCH IS THE BASIS OF THE COURT'S OPINION
IN SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, SUPRA, IS APPARENT FROM THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION
TAKEN FROM THAT CASE: 

"PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE CONDUCTED BY THE PARTY UNDER STATE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY.  THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SELECTS PRECINCT ELECTION
OFFICIALS AND THE COUNTY, DISTRICT OR STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES,
RESPECTIVELY, CANVASS THE RETURNS.  THESE PARTY COMMITTEES OR THE STATE
CONVENTION CERTIFY THE PARTY'S CANDIDATES TO THE APPROPRIATE OFFICERS
FOR INCLUSION ON THE OFFICIAL BALLOT FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION.  NO NAME
WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SO CERTIFIED MAY APPEAR UPON THE BALLOT FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION AS A CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY  ...  . 

     *         *         *        *         * 

"WE THINK THAT THIS STATUTORY SYSTEM FOR THE SELECTION OF PARTY
NOMINEES FOR INCLUSION ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT MAKES THE PARTY
WHICH IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THESE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIONS AN AGENCY OF
THE STATE IN SO FAR AS IT DETERMINES THE PARTICIPANTS IN A PRIMARY
ELECTION.  THE PARTY TAKES ITS CHARACTER AS A STATE AGENCY FROM THE
DUTIES IMPOSED UPON IT BY STATE STATUTES; THE DUTIES DO NOT BECOME
MATTERS OF PRIVATE LAW BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFORMED BY A POLITICAL
PARTY."  321 U.S. 649, 663. 

THIS CASE DOES NOT HOLD THAT A GROUP OF DEMOCRATS, WHITE, BLACK,
MALE, FEMALE, NATIVE-BORN OR FOREIGN, ECONOMIC ROYALISTS OR WORKINGMEN,
MAY NOT CAUCUS OR CONDUCT A STRAW VOTE.  WHAT THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION
DID HERE WAS TO CONDUCT AS INDIVIDUALS, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR THE STATE, A STRAW VOTE AS TO WHO SHOULD RECEIVE
THE ASSOCIATION'S ENDORSEMENT FOR COUNTY AND PRECINCT OFFICES.  IT HAS
BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN SEEING THAT THOSE WHO RECEIVE ITS ENDORSEMENT ARE
NOMINATED AND ELECTED.  THAT IS TRUE OF CONCERTED ACTION BY ANY GROUP. 
IN NUMBERS THERE IS STRENGTH.  IN ORGANIZATION THERE IS EFFECTIVENESS. 
OFTEN A SMALL MINORITY OF STOCKHOLDERS CONTROL A CORPORATION.  INDEED,
IT IS ALMOST AN AXIOM OF CORPORATE MANAGEMENT THAT A SMALL, COHESIVE
GROUP MAY CONTROL, ESPECIALLY IN THE LARGER CORPORATIONS WHERE THE
HOLDINGS ARE WIDELY DIFFUSED. 

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERTED ACTION OF INDIVIDUALS WHICH IS
SUCCESSFUL SOMEHOW BECOMES STATE ACTION.  HOWEVER, THE CANDIDATES
ENDORSED BY THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION HAVE SEVERAL TIMES BEEN DEFEATED IN
PRIMARIES AND ELECTIONS.  USUALLY BUT NOT ALWAYS SINCE 1938, ONLY THE
JAYBIRD-ENDORSED CANDIDATE HAS BEEN ON THE DEMOCRATIC OFFICIAL BALLOT
IN THE COUNTY. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS PROVIDED FOR ELECTIONS
AND PRIMARIES.  THIS IS SEPARATE AND APART AND WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE
JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION'S ACTIVITIES.  ITS ACTIVITIES ARE CONFINED TO ONE
COUNTY WHERE A GROUP OF CITIZENS HAVE APPOINTED THEMSELVES THE CENSORS
OF THOSE WHO WOULD RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICES.  APPARENTLY SO FAR THEY HAVE
SUCCEEDED IN CONVINCING THE VOTERS OF THIS COUNTY IN MOST INSTANCES
THAT THEIR SUPPORTED CANDIDATES SHOULD WIN.  THIS SEEMS TO DIFFER VERY
LITTLE FROM SITUATIONS COMMON IN MANY OTHER PLACES FAR NORTH OF THE
MASON-DIXON LINE, SUCH AS AREAS WHERE A CANDIDATE MUST OBTAIN THE
APPROVAL OF A RELIGIOUS GROUP.  IN OTHER LOCALITIES, CANDIDATES ARE
CAREFULLY SELECTED BY BOTH PARTIES TO GIVE PROPER WEIGHT TO JEW,
PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC, AND CERTAIN POSTS ARE CONSIDERED THE SOLE
POSSESSION OF CERTAIN ETHNIC GROUPS.  THE PROPRIETY OF THESE PRACTICES
IS SOMETHING THE COURTS SENSIBLY HAVE LEFT TO THE GOOD OR BAD JUDGMENT
OF THE ELECTORATE.  IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT ELECTIONS AND OTHER
PUBLIC BUSINESS ARE INFLUENCED BY ALL SORTS OF PRESSURES FROM CAREFULLY
ORGANIZED GROUPS.  WE HAVE PRESSURE FROM LABOR UNIONS, FROM THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, FROM THE SILVER SHIRTS, FROM THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, FROM THE KU
KLUX KLAN AND OTHERS.  FAR FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE GROUPS BEING
PROPERLY LABELED AS STATE ACTION, UNDER EITHER THE FOURTEENTH OR THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, THEY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE
OR OBTAIN STATE ACTION. 

THE COURTS DO NOT NORMALLY PASS UPON THESE PRESSURE GROUPS, WHETHER
THEIR CAUSES ARE GOOD OR BAD, HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL OR ONLY SO-SO.  IT IS
DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SEE HOW THIS JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION IS ANYTHING BUT
SUCH A PRESSURE GROUP.  APPARENTLY IT IS BELIEVED IN BY ENOUGH PEOPLE
IN FORT BEND COUNTY TO OBTAIN A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES FOR ITS APPROVED
CANDIDATES.  THIS DIFFERS LITTLE FROM THE SITUATION IN MANY PARTS OF
THE "BIBLE BELT" WHERE A CHURCH STAMP OF APPROVAL OR THAT OF THE ANTI
SALOON LEAGUE MUST BE PUT ON ANY CANDIDATE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO LOSE
THE ELECTION. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN ITS ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES TAKES NO COGNIZANCE
OF THIS JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION.   THE STATE TREATS ITS DECISIONS
APPARENTLY WITH THE SAME DISDAIN AS IT WOULD THE APPROVAL OR
CONDEMNATION OF JUDICIAL CANDIDATES BY A BAR ASSOCIATION POLL OF ITS
MEMBERS. 

IN THIS CASE THE MAJORITY HAVE FOUND THAT THIS PRESSURE GROUP'S WORK
DOES CONSTITUTE STATE ACTION.   THE BASIS OF THIS CONCLUSION IS RATHER
DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN.  APPARENTLY IT DERIVES MAINLY FROM A DISLIKE OF
THE GOALS OF THE JAYBIRD ASSOCIATION.  I SHARE THAT DISLIKE.  I FAIL TO
SEE HOW IT MAKES STATE ACTION.  I WOULD AFFIRM. 
..END :























ESSO STANDARD OIL CO. V. EVANS 345 U.S. 495 


NO. 330.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 4, 1953 - 194 TENN. 377,
250 S.W.2D 659, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANT, A PRIVATE CORPORATION, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, UNDER WHICH, FOR A FEE, APPELLANT STORED GOVERNMENT
OWNED GASOLINE IN TANKS IN TENNESSEE OWNED BY APPELLANT OR LEASED BY
APPELLANT FROM ANOTHER PRIVATE CORPORATION.  THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO
ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ALL STATE TAXES.  TENNESSEE LEVIED ON APPELLANT A
"SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TAX" OF SIX CENTS PER GALLON "FOR ENGAGING IN AND
CARRYING ON SUCH BUSINESS" IN THE STATE.  HELD:  SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
DOES NOT PROHIBIT THIS TAX.  PP. 496-501. 

(A)  UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174, DISTINGUISHED. 
PP. 498-499. 

(B)  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXTEND SOVEREIGN EXEMPTION FROM STATE
TAXATION TO CORPORATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS, CONTRACTING WITH THE UNITED
STATES, MERELY BECAUSE THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE USEFUL TO THE GOVERNMENT OR
BECAUSE THE TAX WOULD BURDEN THE GOVERNMENT FINANCIALLY.  P. 500. 

(C)  TENNESSEE HAS NOT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
BY DENYING IMMUNITY IN THIS CASE AFTER RECOGNIZING THE IMMUNITY OF A
PUBLIC BODY FROM THE SAME TAX IN TENNESSEE OIL CO. V. MCCANLESS, 178
TENN. 683, 157 S.W.2D 267, WHERE THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT.  PP. 500
501. 

ESSO STANDARD OIL CO. V. EVANS, COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND TAXATION, ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 378, UNITED STATES V. EVANS, COMMISSIONER OF
FINANCE AND TAXATION, ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF A TAX LEVIED
ON APPELLANT UNDER 2 WILLIAMS TENN. CODE SECS. 1126-1147, FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF STORING GOVERNMENT-OWNED GASOLINE IN THE STATE FOR THE
GOVERNMENT.  194 TENN. 377, 250 S.W.2D 659.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 501. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE, AFFIRMING A
CHANCERY COURT JUDGMENT FOR SOME $196,000 IN FAVOR OF THE STATE
COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND TAXATION, AGAINST ESSO STANDARD OIL CO.,
THE PARTY OF RECORD IN NO. 330.  ULTIMATELY LIABLE, THE UNITED STATES
INTERVENED IN THAT LITIGATION AND BROUGHT A SEPARATE APPEAL HERE, NO.
378.  IT CONTENDED THAT THE STATE TAX INVOLVED IS BARRED BY PRINCIPLES
OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.  THIS IS A TEST CASE.  WE ARE TOLD THAT IF THE
TAX IS SUSTAINED, A LIABILITY FOR UPWARDS OF $4,000,000 WILL RESULT. 

THE FACTS ARE THESE.  DURING WORLD WAR II THE GOVERNMENT WAS ACTIVELY
ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION AND PROCUREMENT OF HIGH OCTANE AVIATION
FUEL.  ALL SUCH GASOLINE PRODUCED WAS PURCHASED BEFORE IT LEFT THE
REFINERY AND, BY FORMAL PASSAGE OF TITLE, BECAME IMMEDIATELY THE
PROPERTY OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION, A CORPORATION WHOLLY
OWNED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, 6 FED. REG. 2972, AS
AMENDED 6 FED. REG. 3363, AND SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT FROM STATE STORAGE
AND USE TAXES, 55 STAT. 248.  RELEASE FROM STORAGE BY THE PRODUCING
COMPANIES OCCURRED ONLY ON NOTIFICATION BY THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION
FOR WAR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALLOCATION OF SPECIFIC LOTS OF FUEL TO
VARIOUS OFFICIAL CONSUMERS, INCLUDING THE SERVICES AND THE ALLIES.  THE
AIR FORCE, IN PARTICULAR, THEN ARRANGED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF ITS
VARIOUS ALLOTMENTS - SOMETIMES BY GOVERNMENT CARRIER - FROM THE
REFINERIES TO THE NEAREST CONSUMING POINT. 

WE ARE CONCERNED WITH CERTAIN LOTS OF AIR FORCE FUEL PRODUCED IN THE
SOUTH AT VARIOUS PLANTS AND SHIPPED THROUGH MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.  IT
APPEARS THAT IN 1943 A SHORTAGE OF STORAGE FACILITIES DEVELOPED IN THE
AREA, FORCING RESORT TO PRIVATELY OWNED TANKS.  APPELLANT ESSO AND THE
LION OIL COMPANY WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICE THROUGH TANKS AT
VARIOUS POINTS NEAR MEMPHIS.  AS A RESULT, THE GOVERNMENT ENTERED INTO
EXTENSIVE CONTRACTS WITH ESSO WHICH IN TURN RENTED THE LION TANKS,
PROVIDING THAT THE COMPANY WOULD "RENDER SERVICES  ...  IN RECEIVING,
STORING, HANDLING AND LOADING GOVERNMENT-OWNED FUEL."  THE COMPANY'S
SERVICE CHARGE RANGED FROM 18/100 OF A CENT TO 6 3/10 CENTS PER
GALLON.  THE UNITED STATES AGREED TO ASSUME LIABILITY FOR ALL STATE
TAXES.  PURSUANT THERETO, ALLOTMENTS OF GASOLINE WERE MOVED BY BARGE
FROM REFINERIES TO THESE PRIVATE TANKS, STORED THERE PENDING NEED, AND
LATER RESHIPPED BY TRUCK TO CONSUMING AIRFIELDS ON ORDER OF THE AIR
FORCE.  THE OPERATIONS CONTINUED FROM 1943 THROUGH 1946 UNDER SEVERAL
CONTRACTS OF SIMILAR IMPORT. 

AUGUST 2, 1949, THE STATE, AFTER INVESTIGATION, DEMANDED THAT ESSO
PAY TAXES IN CONNECTION WITH THESE OPERATIONS UNDER THE TENNESSEE
GASOLINE TAX, 2 WILLIAMS TENN. CODE SECS. 1126-1147.  THIS STATUTE, IN
MATERIAL PART, PROVIDED: 

"EVERY DISTRIBUTOR WHEN ENGAGED IN SUCH BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, SHALL
PAY TO THE STATE COMPTROLLER, THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND
TAXATION, FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE STATE, A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TAX,
IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER TAXES, FOR ENGAGING IN AND CARRYING ON SUCH
BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO SIX CENTS FOR EACH GALLON
OF GASOLINE, AND SIX CENTS FOR EACH GALLON OF DISTILLATE REFINED,
MANUFACTURED, PRODUCED, OR COMPOUNDED BY SUCH DISTRIBUTOR AND SOLD,
STORED OR DISTRIBUTED BY HIM IN THIS STATE, OR SHIPPED, TRANSPORTED OR
IMPORTED BY SUCH DISTRIBUTOR INTO, AND DISTRIBUTED, STORED OR SOLD BY
HIM WITHIN THIS STATE DURING SUCH YEAR; ...  ."  SEC. 1127. 

AND SEC. 1126 DEFINES DISTRIBUTION AS: 

"EVERY PERSON WHO ENGAGES IN THE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF REFINING,
MANUFACTURING, PRODUCING, OR COMPOUNDING GASOLINE OR DISTILLATE, AND
SELLING OR STORING THE SAME IN THIS STATE; AND ALSO EVERY PERSON WHO
ENGAGES IN THE BUSINESS IN THIS STATE OF TRANSPORTING, IMPORTING, OR
CAUSING TO BE IMPORTED, GASOLINE OR DISTILLATE INTO THIS STATE, AND
DISTRIBUTING, STORING, OR MAKING ORIGINAL SALES OF THE SAME IN THIS
STATE, FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER." 

ESSO PAID THE REQUIRED TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF STORING GASOLINE
MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT STORED DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1944 - THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAVING RUN IN REGARD TO 1943 OPERATIONS - AND
SUED TO RECOVER.  THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENED IN THE TRIAL COURT AND
ENTERED ITS PLEA, ECHOED BY ESSO, THAT THE TAX WAS BARRED BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THAT TO CONSTRUE
THE TENNESSEE STATUTE AS APPLICABLE TO STORAGE OF GASOLINE OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES MAKES IT REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND VOID.  BOTH
THE CHANCERY COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED THE CLAIMED
IMMUNITY AND HELD THE STATUTE VALID AS APPLIED.  194 TENN. 377, 250
S.W.2D 659.  WE NOTED OUR PROBABLE JURISDICTION ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1257(2). 

THE APPELLANTS TAKE A FIRM STAND ON UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY
COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174, WHICH THEY CONTEND IS AN ANALOGOUS CASE THAT
COMPELS REVERSAL OF THIS DECISION.  THEY SAY, IN EFFECT, THAT THE TAX
HERE IS NO LESS "ON" THE PROPERTY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAN IT WAS
IN THAT CASE, AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIMED SIMILARITY THEY POINT TO
THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:  THAT THE STATUTE GREW OUT OF THE STATE'S EFFORT
TO TAX SALES TO THE FINAL CONSUMER, THAT THE TAX IS PAID BUT ONCE, AND
THIS BY THE FIRST PRODUCER OR IMPORTER, AND THAT REFUNDS WHEN THE FUEL
IS SUBSEQUENTLY EXPORTED ARE PROVIDED.  THUS THE "TRUE CHARACTER" OF
THE TAX, AS ONE "ON THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES," IT IS CLAIMED,
IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS THAT IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY. 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY, HOWEVER, WAS QUITE DIFFERENT.  THE UNITED STATES
HAD LEASED CERTAIN MACHINERY TO THE MESTA MACHINE COMPANY.  IN IMPOSING
THE STATE AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX, PENNSYLVANIA INCLUDED IN THE MESTA
ASSESSMENT BOTH THE PRIVATELY OWNED LAND AND BUILDINGS, AND THE
GOVERNMENT MACHINERY.  ID., AT 179-180, 186.  SO THE VALUE OF THE
FEDERAL PROPERTY WAS, IN PART, THE MEASURE OF THE TAX.  WE HELD THE
SUBSTANCE OF THIS PROCEDURE WAS "TO LAY AN AD VALOREM GENERAL PROPERTY
TAX ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES," ID., AT 185, AND THEREFORE
INVALID.  OUR HOLDING WAS NOT "DEPENDENT UPON THE ULTIMATE RESTING
PLACE OF THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX."  ID., AT 189. 

THIS TAX WAS IMPOSED BECAUSE ESSO STORED GASOLINE.  IT IS NOT, AS THE
ALLEGHENY COUNTY TAX WAS, BASED ON THE WORTH OF THE GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY.  INSTEAD, THE AMOUNT COLLECTED IS GRADUATED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE EXERCISE OF ESSO'S PRIVILEGE TO ENGAGE IN SUCH OPERATIONS; SO
IT IS NOT "ON" THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AS WAS PENNSYLVANIA'S.  FEDERAL
OWNERSHIP OF THE FUEL WILL NOT IMMUNIZE SUCH A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR FROM
THE TAX ON STORAGE.  IT MAY GENERALLY, AS IT DID HERE, BURDEN THE
UNITED STATES FINANCIALLY.  BUT SINCE JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO.,
302 U.S. 134, 151, THIS HAS BEEN NO FATAL FLAW.  WE MUST LOOK FURTHER,
AND FIND EITHER A STATED IMMUNITY CREATED BY CONGRESS IN THE EXERCISE
OF A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, (FN1) OR ONE ARISING BY IMPLICATION FROM OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF DUAL GOVERNMENT.  (FN2)  NEITHER CONDITION
APPLIES TO THE KIND OF GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS HERE INVOLVED.  THERE IS
NO CLAIM OF A STATED IMMUNITY.  AND WE FIND NONE IMPLIED.  THE UNITED
STATES, TODAY, IS ENGAGED IN VAST AND COMPLICATED OPERATIONS IN
BUSINESS FIELDS, AND IMPORTANT PURCHASING, FINANCIAL, AND CONTRACT
TRANSACTIONS WITH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXTEND
SOVEREIGN EXEMPTION FROM STATE TAXATION TO CORPORATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS,
CONTRACTING WITH THE UNITED STATES, MERELY BECAUSE THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE
USEFUL TO THE GOVERNMENT.  WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
DOES NOT PROHIBIT THIS TAX. 

APPELLANTS PRESS A FURTHER POINT, THAT THE TENNESSEE COURTS HAVE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE RESULT IN THIS
CASE.  THEY POINT TO THE FACT THAT HERETOFORE, SPECIFICALLY IN
TENNESSEE OIL CO. V. MCCANLESS, 178 TENN. 683, 157 S.W.2D 267, A CLAIM
OF IMMUNITY BY A PUBLIC BODY WAS SUSTAINED WHERE THE PUBLIC BODY HAD
LEASED THE TANKS FROM THE PRIVATE DEALER.  APPARENTLY, APPELLANTS FEEL
THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THAT CASE AND THIS IS SO FINE AS TO
REQUIRE SIMILAR RESULTS FROM ANY FAIR-MINDED COURT.  WE DO NOT AGREE. 
HAD THE UNITED STATES SIMILARLY RENTED THE TANKS FROM ESSO, AND THUS
STOOD FIRMLY IN ITS SHOES AS THE ORGANIZATION EXERCISING THE PRIVILEGE
OF STORAGE, IT WOULD HAVE FALLEN WITHIN THE MCCANLESS PRECEDENT.  IT
DID NOT DO SO, BUT INSTEAD PAID ESSO TO RECEIVE, STORE, HANDLE AND LOAD
THE FUEL.  THE DIFFERENT RESULTS IN THE TWO CASES THUS ACCORD WITH OUR
CONCEPTION OF THE OPERATION OF THE TENNESSEE STATUTE AS A PRIVILEGE
TAX.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, 308 U.S. 21; CARSON V.
ROANE-ANDERSON CO., 342 U.S. 232; DAMERON V. BRODHEAD, 345 U.S. 322. 

FN2  MAYO V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 441, 447; UNITED STATES V.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, SUPRA. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, NOT HAVING HEARD THE ARGUMENT, TOOK NO PART
IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :









UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CO. 345 U.S. 502 


NO. 508.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 4, 1953 - 199 F.2D 12,
REVERSED. 


IN 1942 THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES
AGAINST RESPONDENT FOR THE TAXABLE YEARS 1933, 1938 AND 1939,
DETERMINING THAT THE PROPER BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION OF RESPONDENT'S
LEASEHOLD WAS $385,000, NOT $860,000 AS CLAIMED BY RESPONDENT. 
RESPONDENT PETITIONED THE TAX COURT FOR REVIEW.  THEREAFTER, PURSUANT
TO A STIPULATION FILED BY RESPONDENT AND THE COMMISSIONER, AND WITHOUT
A HEARING, THE TAX COURT ENTERED FORMAL DECISIONS THAT THERE WERE NO
DEFICIENCIES FOR THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION.  IN 1948 THE
COMMISSIONER ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES AGAINST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS
1943, 1944 AND 1945, AGAIN CHALLENGING RESPONDENT'S CLAIMED BASIS FOR
DEPRECIATION.  HELD: UPON THIS RECORD, THE DECISIONS OF THE TAX COURT
FOR THE YEARS 1933, 1938 AND 1939 WERE NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE FACT
THAT THE BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION WAS $860,000.  PP. 503-506. 

(A)  IN A SUBSEQUENT ACTION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES ON A DIFFERENT
CLAIM, A JUDGMENT IS CONCLUSIVE ONLY AS TO THE POINT OR QUESTION
ACTUALLY LITIGATED AND DETERMINED IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION, NOT AS TO
WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LITIGATED AND DETERMINED.  PP. 504-505. 

(B)  THE DECISIONS ENTERED BY THE TAX COURT FOR THE YEARS 1933, 1938
AND 1939 WERE ONLY PRO FORMA ACCEPTANCE BY THE TAX COURT OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO SETTLE THEIR CONTROVERSY FOR REASONS
UNDISCLOSED.  P. 505. 

UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY RESPONDENT TO RECOVER ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF FEDERAL
INCOME TAXES, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AGAINST RESPONDENT.  97 F. SUPP.
595.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  199 F.2D 12.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 927.  REVERSED, P. 506. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, A MISSOURI CORPORATION, OWNS A LEASEHOLD OF A PLOT OF
GROUND TOGETHER WITH AN OFFICE BUILDING ERECTED ON IT.  IN 1942 THE
COMMISSIONER ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES AGAINST RESPONDENT FOR THE TAXABLE
YEARS 1933, 1938, AND 1939, DETERMINING THAT IT HAD CLAIMED AN
EXCESSIVE VALUE AS ITS BASIS FOR DEPRECIATING THE PROPERTY.  THESE
DEFICIENCIES WERE PREDICATED ON A BASIS OF $385,000 AMORTIZED OVER THE
LIFE OF THE LEASE.  RESPONDENT, WHO CLAIMED A BASE OF $860,000
AMORTIZED OVER A SHORTER PERIOD, FILED PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WITH THE
TAX COURT.  MEANWHILE RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION UNDER CH. X OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT WHICH ENDED IN A CONFIRMED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION. 
ALTHOUGH THE COLLECTOR FILED PROOF OF CLAIM FOR THE DEFICIENCIES IN
THOSE PROCEEDINGS, HE LATER WITHDREW THE CLAIM UNDER A STIPULATION THAT
THE WITHDRAWAL WAS "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A
DETERMINATION OF OR PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ANY
TAXES WITH RESPECT TO ANY YEAR OTHER THAN THOSE INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM. 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER RESPONDENT AND THE COMMISSIONER FILED STIPULATIONS
IN THE PENDING TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS STATING THAT "THERE IS NO
DEFICIENCY IN FEDERAL INCOME TAX DUE" FROM RESPONDENT FOR THE TAXABLE
YEARS IN QUESTION, THAT THE TAX LIABILITY FOR EACH OF THE YEARS WAS
NIL, AND THAT THE JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT WAS ABATED.*  THE TAX COURT,
PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, ENTERED FORMAL DECISIONS THAT THERE WERE
NO DEFICIENCIES FOR THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION.  THE TAX COURT,
HOWEVER, HELD NO HEARING; NO STIPULATIONS OF FACT WERE ENTERED INTO; NO
BRIEFS WERE FILED OR ARGUMENT HAD.  THE ISSUE AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF
THE BASIS OF DEPRECIATION USED BY RESPONDENT WAS, HOWEVER, THE BASIS OF
ITS APPEAL TO THE TAX COURT.  AND SO, WHEN THE COMMISSIONER IN 1948
ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES FOR THE YEARS 1943, 1944, AND 1945, CHALLENGING
ONCE MORE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE BASIS OF DEPRECIATION, RESPONDENT PAID
THE DEFICIENCIES AND BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RECOVER, ALLEGING INTER ALIA
THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE TAX COURT FOR THE YEARS 1933, 1938, AND 1939
WERE RES JUDICATA OF THE FACT THAT THE BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION WAS
$860,000.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AGAINST RESPONDENT.  97 F. SUPP.
595.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  199 F.2D 12.  BECAUSE OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT DECISION AND TRAPP V. UNITED STATES, 177 F.2D 1,
DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 927. 

*THE STIPULATION FOR THE YEAR 1933, WHICH IS TYPICAL, READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT THERE IS NO DEFICIENCY IN FEDERAL
INCOME TAX DUE FROM THE PETITIONER FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR 1933 AND THAT
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT SHOWS THE PETITIONER'S FEDERAL INCOME TAX
LIABILITY FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR 1933: 

"TAX LIABILITY                  NONE 

"ASSESSMENT (JEOPARDY):

"JANUARY 23, 1942 (NOT PAID)           $2,188.12 

"ASSESSMENT TO BE ABATED                 $2,188.12" 

THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE IS STATED IN CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, 94
U.S. 351, 352-353.  A JUDGMENT IS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO A SUBSEQUENT
ACTION ON THE SAME CLAIM. 

"BUT WHERE THE SECOND ACTION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES IS UPON A
DIFFERENT CLAIM OR DEMAND, THE JUDGMENT IN THE PRIOR ACTION OPERATES AS
AN ESTOPPEL ONLY AS TO THOSE MATTERS IN ISSUE OR POINTS CONTROVERTED,
UPON THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH THE FINDING OR VERDICT WAS RENDERED. 
IN ALL CASES, THEREFORE, WHERE IT IS SOUGHT TO APPLY THE ESTOPPEL OF A
JUDGMENT RENDERED UPON ONE CAUSE OF ACTION TO MATTERS ARISING IN A SUIT
UPON A DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION, THE INQUIRY MUST ALWAYS BE AS TO THE
POINT OR QUESTION ACTUALLY LITIGATED AND DETERMINED IN THE ORIGINAL
ACTION, NOT WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THUS LITIGATED AND DETERMINED.  ONLY
UPON SUCH MATTERS IS THE JUDGMENT CONCLUSIVE IN ANOTHER ACTION." 

AND SEE TAIT V. WESTERN MD. R. CO., 289 U.S. 620, 623; MERCOID CORP.
V. MID-CONTINENT CO., 320 U.S. 661, 671; COMMISSIONER V. SUNNEN, 333
U.S. 591, 597-598.  ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT, OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AS IT
IS OFTEN CALLED, IS APPLICABLE IN THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX FIELD.  TAIT
V. WESTERN MD. R. CO., SUPRA, AT 624; COMMISSIONER V. SUNNEN, SUPRA, AT
598. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DECISIONS ENTERED BY THE TAX COURT FOR THE YEARS
1933, 1938, AND 1939 WERE ONLY A PRO FORMA ACCEPTANCE BY THE TAX COURT
OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO SETTLE THEIR CONTROVERSY FOR
REASONS UNDISCLOSED.  THERE IS NO SHOWING EITHER IN THE RECORD OR BY
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE (SEE RUSSELL V. PLACE, 94 U.S. 606, 608) THAT THE
ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE TAX COURT FOR
DETERMINATION OR DETERMINED BY THAT COURT.  THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE
BEEN AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES.  PERHAPS, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS
INFERRED, THE PARTIES DID AGREE ON THE BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION.  PERHAPS
THE SETTLEMENT WAS MADE FOR A DIFFERENT REASON, FOR SOME EXIGENCY
ARISING OUT OF THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  AS THE CASE REACHES US, WE
ARE UNABLE TO TELL WHETHER THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WAS BASED ON
THE MERITS OR ON SOME COLLATERAL CONSIDERATION.  CERTAINLY THE
JUDGMENTS ENTERED ARE RES JUDICATA OF THE TAX CLAIMS FOR THE YEARS
1933, 1938 AND 1939, WHETHER OR NOT THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENTS ON
WHICH THEY REST REACHED THE MERITS.  BUT UNLESS WE CAN SAY THAT THEY
WERE AN ADJUDICATION OF THE MERITS, THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL BY
JUDGMENT WOULD SERVE AN UNJUST CAUSE:  IT WOULD BECOME A DEVICE BY
WHICH A DECISION NOT SHOWN TO BE ON THE MERITS WOULD FOREVER FORECLOSE
INQUIRY INTO THE MERITS.  ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT INCLUDES MATTERS IN A
SECOND PROCEEDING WHICH WERE ACTUALLY PRESENTED AND DETERMINED IN AN
EARLIER SUIT.  SEE COMMISSIONER V. SUNNEN, SUPRA, AT 598.  A JUDGMENT
ENTERED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES MAY INVOLVE A DETERMINATION OF
QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW BY THE COURT.  BUT UNLESS A SHOWING IS MADE
THAT THAT WAS THE CASE, THE JUDGMENT HAS NO GREATER DIGNITY, SO FAR AS
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IS CONCERNED, THAN ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED ONLY AS A
COMPROMISE OF THE PARTIES.  REVERSED. 
..END :


















CALLANAN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CO. V. UNITED STATES 345 U.S. 507 


NO. 488.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 1953 - DECIDED MAY 4, 1953 - 107 F. SUPP. 184,
AFFIRMED. 


A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO OPERATE AS A COMMON
CARRIER BY WATER, ISSUED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER
SEC. 309 OF PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
AMENDED BY AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION RESTRICTING THE CARRIER'S
OPERATIONS TO FREIGHTAGE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM TOWAGE, AND THE AMENDED
CERTIFICATE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CARRIER.  APPELLANT SOUGHT AND OBTAINED
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A TRANSFER OF THE AMENDED CERTIFICATE TO
APPELLANT.  THEREAFTER APPELLANT CLAIMED THE RIGHT UNDER THE
CERTIFICATE TO ENGAGE IN TOWAGE OPERATIONS.  THE COMMISSION DENIED THE
RIGHT, AND APPELLANT SUED TO SET ASIDE ITS ORDER.  HELD: 

1.  APPELLANT HAD NO STANDING TO RAISE, IN THIS COLLATERAL
PROCEEDING, THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO MODIFY THE
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE.  PP. 508-512.   2.  HAVING INVOKED THE POWER OF
THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF THE AMENDED CERTIFICATE,
APPELLANT WAS ESTOPPED TO DENY THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ISSUE THE
CERTIFICATE IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT WAS WHEN APPELLANT SOUGHT ITS
TRANSFER.  P. 513. 

CALLANAN ROAD IMPROVEMENT CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, 285 I.C.C. 75, A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT HELD AGAINST
APPELLANT.  107 F. SUPP. 184.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 513. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1941, ONE JOSEPH R. HUTTON APPLIED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION FOR A PERMIT TO OPERATE AS A CONTRACT CARRIER BY WATER
BETWEEN POINTS ON LONG ISLAND SOUND, NEW YORK HARBOR, THE HUDSON RIVER,
THE NEW YORK STATE BARGE CANAL SYSTEM, THE NIAGARA RIVER, AND
CONTIGUOUS PORTS.  IN THE ALTERNATIVE, HE PRAYED A CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IF HE BE FOUND TO BE A COMMON CARRIER.  THE
APPLICATION WAS A "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 309 OF
PART III, WATER CARRIERS, OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 941,
49 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  909. 

THE COMMISSION, AFTER HEARING AND INVESTIGATION, MADE FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THEREON TO THE EFFECT THAT FOR 37 YEARS
HUTTON HAD BEEN IN OPERATION; THAT "HE OWNS AND MANAGES 1 STEAM POWER
BOAT OF ABOUT 240 HORSEPOWER, AND 4 BARGES, ALL OF WHICH ARE OPERATED
AS A UNIT.  THE POWER BOAT IS USED TO TOW THE BARGES BUT ALSO CARRIES
ABOUT 150 GROSS TONS OF FREIGHT.  ON OCCASION OTHER BARGES ARE RENTED
OR CHARTERED FOR OPERATION IN APPLICANT'S FLEET."  IT WAS FURTHER FOUND
THAT DURING AND SINCE 1939 AND 1940, "APPLICANT'S OPERATION HAS BEEN
THAT OF A COMMON CARRIER OF COMMODITIES GENERALLY BETWEEN POINTS ON NEW
YORK HARBOR, THE HUDSON RIVER BELOW ITS JUNCTION WITH THE NEW YORK
STATE BARGE CANAL, THE NEW YORK STATE BARGE CANAL BETWEEN THE HUDSON
RIVER AND THE NIAGARA RIVER INCLUDING THE OSWEGO BRANCH, AND THE
NIAGARA RIVER."  THE COMMISSION FURTHER FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT WAS IN
OPERATION JANUARY 1, 1940, THE CRITICAL DATE PROVIDED IN SEC. 309 FOR
"GRANDFATHER" PROCEEDINGS, AND BY REASON OF HIS LONG, CONTINUOUS
OPERATION, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WOULD BE SERVED BY
CONTINUANCE OF SUCH OPERATION, AND SPECIFICALLY FOUND: 

"WE FIND THAT APPLICANT IS A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER; THAT PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE OPERATION BY APPLICANT AS A COMMON
CARRIER IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OF COMMODITIES GENERALLY,
BETWEEN POINTS ON NEW YORK HARBOR AS DETERMINED IN EX PARTE NO. 140,
POINTS ON THE HUDSON RIVER BELOW ITS JUNCTION WITH THE NEW YORK STATE
BARGE CANAL, THE NEW YORK STATE BARGE CANAL BETWEEN THE HUDSON RIVER
AND THE NIAGARA RIVER INCLUDING THE OSWEGO BRANCH, AND THE NIAGARA
RIVER; THAT APPLICANT IF FIT, WILLING AND ABLE PROPERLY TO PERFORM SAID
TRANSPORTATION; AND THAT APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE
AUTHORIZING SUCH OPERATION, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO GENERAL CONDITIONS
WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT, WITH RESPECT TO SUCH OPERATION, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PART III OF THE ACT AND THE ORDERS, RULES, AND
REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION THEREUNDER." 

THE COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER ON JULY 17, 1942, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER
5, 1942, GRANTING THE CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO
HUTTON.  THIS ORDER RECITED THE FACT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS AND
INCORPORATED THEM BY REFERENCE.  250 I.C.C. 804. 

THUS IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND THE OPERATIONS OF
HUTTON TO BE THOSE OF ACOMMON CARRIER BY WATER OF COMMODITIES GENERALLY
IN SELF-PROPELLED VESSELS WHICH HE OWNED AND WHICH HE ALSO USED TO TOW
BARGES HE OWNED, RENTED, OR CHARTERED.  THERE IS NO FINDING THAT HIS
OPERATIONS INCLUDED THE TOWING OF BARGES WHICH HE DID NOT OWN, RENT, OR
CHARTER.  THE CERTIFICATE WAS ACCEPTED BY HUTTON, AND, AS FAR AS
APPEARS ON THIS RECORD, HE OPERATED UNDER IT UNTIL MARCH 7, 1944, IN
THE SAME MANNER AS HE HAD BEFORE. 

ON MARCH 7, 1944, THE COMMISSION OF ITS OWN MOTION OPENED THE RECORD
IN HUTTON'S ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND, AFTER RECONSIDERING ITS FORMER
FINDINGS, SPECIFIED THE TYPE OF VESSELS TO BE USED IN THE EXERCISE OF
ITS AUTHORITY THERETOFORE GRANTED.  260 I.C.C. 804.  THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER OF MARCH 7, 1944, IN PERTINENT PART READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONTINUANCE OF
OPERATION BY APPLICANT AS A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, BY SELF-PROPELLED
VESSELS AND BY NON-SELF-PROPELLED VESSELS WITH THE USE OF SEPARATE
TOWING VESSELS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, IN THE TRANSPORTATION
OF COMMODITIES GENERALLY BETWEEN POINTS IN THE AREA DEFINED BY THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION  ...  ." 

THIS AMENDED CERTIFICATE, WHICH LIMITED HUTTON TO THE IDENTICAL
OPERATIONS HE HAD LONG CARRIED ON AND UPON WHICH HIS SEC. 309 RIGHTS
WERE AUTHORIZED, WAS ACCEPTED BY HIM WITHOUT QUESTION, AND HE CONTINUED
TO OPERATE UNDER IT UNTIL HIS DEATH SEVERAL MONTHS LATER. 

THE CALLANAN ROAD IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, THE APPELLANT HERE, SOUGHT TO
PURCHASE THE AMENDED CERTIFICATE FROM HUTTON'S ADMINISTRATRIX FOR
OPERATIONS LIMITED TO THE HUDSON RIVER AND NEW YORK HARBOR.  BY SEC.
312 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 944, 49 U.S.C. (1946 ED.) 
SEC.  912, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S AUTHORIZATION IS
REQUIRED FOR SUCH A TRANSFER.  AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL WAS FILED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ADMINISTRATRIX.  AFTER
HEARING, THE COMMISSION BY ORDER DATED AUGUST 18, 1947 (265 I.C.C.
813), AUTHORIZED THE TRANSFER OF THE AMENDED CERTIFICATE TO THE
APPELLANT IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT, FOLLOWING CONSUMMATION OF THE SALE TO
THE TRANSFEREE OF THE OPERATING RIGHTS COVERED BY SAID AMENDED
CERTIFICATE, SAID TRANSFEREE MAY PERFORM TO THE EXTENT ABOVE DESCRIBED,
THE WATER-CARRIER SERVICE HERETOFORE AUTHORIZED UNDER SAID AMENDED
CERTIFICATE DATED MARCH 7, 1944, IN NO. W-103." 

ON FEBRUARY 5, 1948, THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN AMENDED CERTIFICATE TO
THE APPELLANT, PURSUANT TO ITS ORDER OF AUGUST 18, 1947.  THUS, THE
APPELLANT SOUGHT AND RECEIVED A TRANSFER OF THE AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF
MARCH 7, 1944, LIMITED BY CONSENT AS TO WATERS TO BE OPERATED UPON. 

ON JANUARY 5, 1951, THE APPELLANT FILED A PETITION WITH THE
COMMISSION FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDED CERTIFICATE IT HAD
PURCHASED FROM HUTTON'S ADMINISTRATRIX.  CORNELL STEAMBOAT COMPANY,
ENGAGED ONLY IN TOWING ON THE WATERS IN QUESTION, APPEARED AND OFFERED
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APPELLANT.  IN THIS PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT
CLAIMED THE RIGHT UNDER ITS CERTIFICATE TO ENGAGE IN TOWING SERVICE AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM FREIGHTING SERVICE.  IT IS AND WAS THE CONTENTION OF
THE APPELLANT THAT UNDER THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO HUTTON IN
1942, THE LATTER WAS A COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS GENERALLY, AND THAT THE
LIMITATIONS OR MODIFICATION OF THIS CERTIFICATE BY THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION OF MARCH 7, 1944, WHICH DENIED HUTTON THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN
TOWING SERVICES WAS UNAUTHORIZED, AND, AS TRANSFEREE, THE APPELLANT WAS
ENTITLED TO ENGAGE IN TOWING SERVICE AND TO PROMULGATE AND FILE TARIFFS
THEREFOR.  THE COMMISSION AFTER HEARING HELD THE APPELLANT WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO ENGAGE IN THE SERVICE OF TOWING AND CANCELLED THE TARIFFS
FILED BY THE APPELLANT COVERING TOWING SERVICES.  285 I.C.C. 75. 

THE APPELLANT FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TO SET ASIDE THAT ORDER. 
A STATUTORY THREE-JUDGE COURT REFUSED TO SET IT ASIDE, 107 F. SUPP.
184, AND THIS APPEAL FOLLOWED. 

WE NEED NOT GO INTO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOWAGE AND FREIGHTAGE. 
IT IS ADMITTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THAT THE LIMITATIONS
PLACED BY THE ORDER OF MARCH 7, 1944, UPON THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE
ISSUED HUTTON IN 1942, HAD THE EFFECT OF RESTRICTING HIS OPERATIONS TO
FREIGHTAGE AND DENIED HIM THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN TOWAGE.  THE APPELLANT
CANNOT NOW RAISE THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO MODIFY
THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF JULY 17, 1942, BY THE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED
IN THE ORDER OF MARCH 7, 1944.  WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN
REOPENING THE 1942 PROCEEDINGS AND PLACING THE LIMITATIONS ON THE
CERTIFICATE THERETOFORE ISSUED WAS RIGHT OR WRONG, THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COMMISSION WAS NOT DESTROYED THEREBY.  A DIRECT ATTACK IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES WAS THE REMEDY. 

HUTTON NOT ONLY DID NOT OBJECT.  HE ACCEPTED THE MODIFIED CERTIFICATE
AND OPERATED UNDER IT, JUST AS HE HAD ALWAYS OPERATED.  HIS OPERATION
WAS NOT CUT DOWN BY THE LIMITATIONS PLACED UPON THE CERTIFICATE.  THE
APPELLANT, AS TRANSFEREE OF THAT MODIFIED CERTIFICATE, STANDS IN NO
BETTER POSITION THAN HUTTON STOOD.  CF. GREGG CARTAGE & STORAGE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 74, 82-83.  INDEED, IN THE 1947 TRANSFER
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION WHEN THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE
HUTTON'S AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF MARCH 7, 1944, THE APPELLANT OBJECTED
THAT THE PROTESTANT THERE COULD NOT RAISE THE QUESTION OF THE
COMMISSION'S POWER TO MODIFY THE CERTIFICATE, AS THIS WOULD BE A
COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE
APPELLANT SEEKS TO DO HERE.  IT CANNOT IN THIS COLLATERAL PROCEEDING
ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF MARCH 7, 1944. 
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N V. CENTRAL-ILLINOIS SEC. CORP., 338 U.S.
96, 143; STANLEY V. SUPERVISORS, 121 U.S. 535, 550; RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORP. V. LIGHTSEY, 185 F.2D 167; CITY OF TULSA V. MIDLAND
VALLEY R. CO., 168 F.2D 252, 254; BROWN CO. V. ATLANTIC PIPE LINE, 91
F.2D 394, 398.  THE APPELLANT MUST TAKE THE CERTIFICATE AS IT STOOD AT
THE TIME IT SOUGHT AND RECEIVED THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL FOR ITS
TRANSFER. 

FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT, HAVING INVOKED THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF THE AMENDED CERTIFICATE TO IT, IS
NOW ESTOPPED TO DENY THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE IN
ITS PRESENT FORM AND AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE TIME THE APPELLANT
SOUGHT ITS TRANSFER.  UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 278 U.S.
300, 307-308; ST. LOUIS MALLEABLE CASTING CO. V. PRENDERGAST
CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 469.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN VIEW OF THE
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION AT THE 1947 TRANSFER HEARING THAT THE PROTESTANT
IN THAT HEARING COULD NOT RAISE THE QUESTION THERE WHICH THE APPELLANT
SEEKS TO RAISE HERE, AS IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  THE APPELLANT CANNOT BLOW HOT AND COLD AND
TAKE NOW A POSITION CONTRARY TO THAT TAKEN IN THE PROCEEDINGS IT
INVOKED TO OBTAIN THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.  IF THE APPELLANT THEN HAD
TAKEN THE POSITION IT SEEKS NOW, THE COMMISSION MIGHT CONCEIVABLY HAVE
REFUSED ITS APPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER.  THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED THE
TRANSFER WITH THE LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN THE CERTIFICATE.  THE
APPELLANT NOW WILL NOT BE HEARD TO SAY IT IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MORE
THAN ITS TRANSFEROR HAD OR THE CERTIFICATE TRANSFERRED GAVE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :















POPE V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY 345 U.S. 379 


NO. 322.  ARGUED JANUARY 16, 1953 - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1953 - 209 GA.
187, 71 S.E.2D 243, REVERSED. 


1.  A GEORGIA TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A GENERAL DEMURRER TO RESPONDENT'S
SUIT TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM PROSECUTING A SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT IN
AN ALABAMA STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  THE
STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED, HOLDING THAT GEORGIA LAW GAVE GEORGIA
COURTS POWER TO ENJOIN GEORGIA RESIDENTS FROM BRINGING VEXATIOUS SUITS
IN FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS.  UNDER GEORGIA PROCEDURE, PETITIONER COULD
HAVE RETURNED TO THE GEORGIA TRIAL COURT AND INTERPOSED SOME OTHER
DEFENSE TO RESPONDENT'S SUIT FOR INJUNCTION; BUT PETITIONER CONCEDED
THAT HIS CASE RESTED SOLELY UPON HIS FEDERAL CLAIM AND THAT HE HAD NO
OTHER DEFENSE TO INTERPOSE.  HELD:  UNDER THESE PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT WAS "FINAL,"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257, AND THIS COURT HAS
JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE.  PP. 380-383. 

2.  UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, PETITIONER SUED
RESPONDENT, AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD, IN AN ALABAMA STATE COURT FOR
INJURIES SUSTAINED DURING THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT - ALTHOUGH THE
INJURY OCCURRED IN GEORGIA, WHICH WAS ALSO THE PLACE OF PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYMENT AND RESIDENCE.  RESPONDENT SUED IN A GEORGIA STATE COURT TO
ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM PROSECUTING HIS SUIT IN ALABAMA, ALLEGING THAT
PETITIONER DELIBERATELY SOUGHT TO "HARASS" RESPONDENT BY SUBJECTING IT
TO THE BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF DEFENDING THE CLAIM IN A DISTANT FORUM. 
HELD:  UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE ACT, PETITIONER HAD A RIGHT TO SUE IN
ALABAMA, WHERE RESPONDENT WAS DOING BUSINESS, AND THE GEORGIA COURT WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO ENJOIN PROSECUTION OF THE SUIT IN AN ALABAMA STATE
COURT.  PP. 383-387. 

(A)  SECTION 6 DISPLACES THE TRADITIONAL POWER OF A STATE COURT TO
ENJOIN ITS CITIZENS, ON THE GROUND OF OPPRESSIVENESS, FROM SUING UNDER
THE ACT IN THE COURTS OF ANOTHER STATE.  MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R.
CO., 315 U.S. 698.  P. 383. 

(B)  THE PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A) THAT, "FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES AND WITNESSES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, A
DISTRICT COURT MAY TRANSFER ANY CIVIL ACTION TO ANY OTHER DISTRICT OR
DIVISION WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT" IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO CASES
BROUGHT IN FEDERAL COURTS AND DOES NOT GRANT TO A STATE COURT ANY
AUTHORITY TO ENJOIN A CITIZEN OF ITS STATE FROM PROSECUTING IN A COURT
OF ANOTHER STATE A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  EX
PARTE COLLETT, 337 U.S. 55, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 383-384. 

(C)  THE REVISER'S NOTE TO SEC. 1404(A), CITING BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44, AS "AN EXAMPLE OF THE NEED" FOR ITS
ENACTMENT, DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT IN THIS CASE.  PP. 384
387. 

POPE ET AL V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

A GEORGIA TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A GENERAL DEMURRER TO A SUIT BY
RESPONDENT TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM PROSECUTING IN AN ALABAMA COURT A
SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA REVERSED.  209 GA. 187, 71 S.E.2D 243. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 863.  REVERSED, P. 387. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

INVOKING THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, (FN1) PETITIONER SUED
HIS EMPLOYER, AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD COMPANY, FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED
DURING THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, ALLEGEDLY THROUGH RESPONDENT'S
NEGLIGENCE.  THE INJURY OCCURRED IN BEN HILL COUNTY, GEORGIA, WHICH WAS
THE PLACE OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT AS WELL AS THE PLACE OF HIS
RESIDENCE.  BUT PETITIONER FILED HIS COMPLAINT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA; JURISDICTION AND VENUE WERE GROUNDED ON SEC.
6 OF THE ACT.  (FN2) 

RESPONDENT THEN INITIATED A SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
BEN HILL COUNTY AND ASKED THAT PETITIONER BE RESTRAINED FROM
PROSECUTING HIS ACTION IN ALABAMA.  RESPONDENT'S PETITION TO THE BEN
HILL COUNTY COURT CONTAINED ALLEGATIONS THAT PETITIONER HAD
DELIBERATELY SOUGHT TO "HARASS" HIS EMPLOYER BY SUBJECTING IT TO THE
BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF DEFENDING THE CLAIM IN A DISTANT FORUM, FAR FROM
THE SCENE OF THE ACCIDENT AND THE RESIDENCES OF THE WITNESSES. 

THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A GENERAL DEMURRER TO THIS PETITION.  THE
GEORGIA SUPREME COURT REVERSED - HOLDING THAT GEORGIA LAW PROVIDED
GEORGIA COURTS WITH THE POWER TO ENJOIN GEORGIA RESIDENTS FROM BRINGING
VEXATIOUS SUITS IN FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS.  PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT SEC.
6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT PROHIBITED SUCH AN INJUNCTION
IN THIS CASE WAS OVERRULED.  209 GA. 187, 71 S.E.2D 243.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 344 U.S. 863, FOR THE DECISION HAD INTERPRETED AN IMPORTANT
FEDERAL STATUTE, AND THE INTERPRETATION WAS ASSERTED TO BE IN CONFLICT
WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315
U.S. 698 (1942), AND BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44
(1941). 

IN OUR GRANT OF CERTIORARI, WE ALSO DIRECTED COUNSEL TO BRIEF AND
ARGUE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
WAS "FINAL."  THE STATUTE WHICH VESTS US WITH JURISDICTION TO REVIEW
THE DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST COME FROM
THE "HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD," AND IT
MUST BE "FINAL."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257.  THE CASE AT BAR CLEARLY MET THE
FIRST REQUIREMENT, BUT WE WERE IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER IT SATISFIED THE
SECOND. 

CONGRESS HAS LIMITED OUR POWER TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS FROM STATE COURTS
LEST THE COURT'S JURISDICTION BE EXERCISED IN PIECEMEAL PROCEEDINGS TO
RENDER ADVISORY OPINIONS.  WERE OUR REVIEWING POWER NOT LIMITED TO
"FINAL" JUDGMENTS, LITIGANTS WOULD BE FREE TO COME HERE AND SEEK A
DECISION ON FEDERAL QUESTIONS WHICH, AFTER LATER PROCEEDINGS, MIGHT
SUBSEQUENTLY PROVE TO BE UNNECESSARY AND IRRELEVANT TO A COMPLETE
DISPOSITION OF THE LITIGATION.  (FN3)  ORDINARILY, THEN, THE OVERRULING
OF A DEMURRER, LIKE THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, (FN4) IS
NOT A "FINAL" JUDGMENT. 

YET WE ARE NOT BOUND TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF FINALITY
FROM A MERE EXAMINATION OF THE "FACE OF THE JUDGMENT."  (FN5)  WE HAVE
NOT INTERPRETED SEC. 1257 SO AS TO PRECLUDE REVIEW OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS
WHICH ARE IN FACT RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION WHEN TESTED AGAINST THE POLICY
OF SEC. 1257.  (FN6) 

THE FINALITY PROBLEM ARISES IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE
GEORGIA SUPREME COURT DID NOT, ON ITS FACE, END THE LITIGATION.  BOTH
PARTIES AGREE THAT GEORGIA PROCEDURE WOULD PERMIT PETITIONER TO RETURN
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BEN HILL COUNTY AND INTERPOSE SOME OTHER
DEFENSE TO RESPONDENT'S SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION.  BUT PETITIONER HAS NO
OTHER DEFENSE TO INTERPOSE.  HE HAS BEEN BOTH EXPLICIT AND FREE WITH
HIS CONCESSION THAT HIS CASE RESTS UPON HIS FEDERAL CLAIM AND NOTHING
MORE.  IF THE COURT BELOW DECIDED THAT CLAIM CORRECTLY, THEN NOTHING
REMAINS TO BE DONE BUT THE MECHANICAL ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY THE TRIAL
COURT.  THUS, AS THE CASE COMES TO US, THE FEDERAL QUESTION IS THE
CONTROLLING QUESTION; "THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO BE DECIDED."  (FN7)
UNDER THESE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE
CAUSE, RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329 U.S. 69 (1946); AND WE
REACH THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE GEORGIA SUPREME
COURT HAS FAILED TO GIVE PROPER EFFECT TO THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

ALABAMA.  IT PROVIDES THAT THE EMPLOYEE MAY BRING HIS SUIT WHEREVER THE
CARRIER "SHALL BE DOING BUSINESS," AND ADMITTEDLY RESPONDENT DOES
BUSINESS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA.  CONGRESS HAS DELIBERATELY
CHOSEN TO GIVE PETITIONER A TRANSITORY CAUSE OF ACTION; AND WE HAVE
HELD BEFORE, IN A CASE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THIS ONE, THAT SEC. 6
DISPLACES THE TRADITIONAL "POWER OF A STATE COURT TO ENJOIN ITS
CITIZENS, ON THE GROUND OF OPPRESSIVENESS  ...  FROM SUING  ...  IN THE
STATE COURTS OF ANOTHER STATE ...  ."  MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R.
CO., SUPRA, 315 U.S., AT 699.  RESPONDENT ADMITS THAT THE MILES CASE
DEALT WITH PRECISELY THE ISSUE BEFORE US, BUT RESPONDENT TELLS US THAT
MILES IS NOW NO LONGER THE LAW BECAUSE CONGRESS OVERRULED IT, BY
IMPLICATION, WITH THE PASSAGE OF SEC. 1404(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE IN
1948.  (FN8)  SECTION 1404(A) PROVIDES: 

"FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES AND WITNESSES, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE, A DISTRICT COURT MAY TRANSFER ANY CIVIL ACTION TO ANY OTHER
DISTRICT OR DIVISION WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT." 

WE HAVE HERETOFORE HELD THAT SEC. 1404(A) MAKES THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM
NON CONVENIENS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT CASES
BROUGHT IN FEDERAL COURTS AND PROVIDES FOR THE TRANSFER OF SUCH ACTIONS
TO A MORE CONVENIENT FORUM.  EX PARTE COLLETT, 337 U.S. 55 (1949). 
RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE US EXTEND THAT DECISION, TO HOLD THAT SEC.
1404(A) ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE POWER ASSERTED BY THE GEORGIA COURT IN
THIS CASE.  WE DO NOT AGREE; WE DO NOT THINK THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE SUGGESTS ANY SUCH IMPLIED GRANT OF BROAD POWER TO THE STATE
COURTS. 

ADDRESSES ITSELF ONLY TO THAT FEDERAL FORUM IN WHICH A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN
INITIATED; ITS FUNCTION IS TO VEST SUCH A FEDERAL FORUM WITH THE POWER
TO TRANSFER A TRANSITORY CAUSE OF ACTION TO A MORE CONVENIENT FEDERAL
COURT.  IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO STATE COURTS, AND IT SAYS NOTHING
CONCERNING THE POWER OF SOME COURT OTHER THAN THE FORUM WHERE A LAWSUIT
IS INITIATED TO ENJOIN THE LITIGANT FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING A
TRANSITORY CAUSE OF ACTION IN SOME OTHER JURISDICTION.  NOR DOES SEC.
1404(A) CONTEMPLATE THE COLLATERAL ATTACK ON VENUE NOW URGED BY
RESPONDENT; IT CONTAINS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE VENUE QUESTION MAY BE
RAISED AND SETTLED BY THE INITIATION OF A SECOND LAWSUIT IN A COURT IN
A FOREIGN JURISDICTION; ITS LIMITED PURPOSE IS TO AUTHORIZE, UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRANSFER OF A CIVIL ACTION FROM ONE FEDERAL
FORUM TO ANOTHER FEDERAL FORUM IN WHICH THE ACTION "MIGHT HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT." 

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1404(A) CONTAINS NO
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE POWER ASSERTED IN THIS CASE, RESPONDENT DIRECTS
OUR ATTENTION TO REMARKS IN THE REVISER'S NOTE TO THAT PROVISION OF THE
CODE.  THE REVISER'S NOTES WERE BEFORE CONGRESS WHEN IT CONSIDERED
ENACTMENT OF THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE 1948 JUDICIAL CODE AND
CONGRESS RELIED UPON THEM TO EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE AND SCOPE OF EACH

BASING ITS ARGUMENT UPON THE TEXT OF THE REVISER'S NOTE TO SEC.
1404(A), RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS, IF NOT ITS EXPRESSED PURPOSE, THAT SEC. 1404(A) BE CONSTRUED
AS RESPONDENT WOULD CONSTRUE IT. 

THE REVISER'S NOTE TO SEC. 1404(A) RECITES THAT THIS COURT'S DECISION
IN BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER, SUPRA, FURNISHED "AN EXAMPLE OF
THE NEED" FOR ENACTMENT OF SEC. 1404(A).  IN THE KEPNER CASE, WE HELD
THAT A STATE COURT WAS NOT FREE TO EXERCISE ITS EQUITY JURISDICTION TO
ENJOIN A RESIDENT OF THE STATE FROM PROSECUTING A FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT SUIT IN A DISTANT FEDERAL COURT.  WE REASONED THAT
CONGRESS HAD PURPOSELY GIVEN THE EMPLOYEE A RIGHT TO ESTABLISH VENUE IN
THE FEDERAL COURT WHERE HE HAD SUED, AND, WHAT CONGRESS HAD SO
EXPRESSLY GIVEN, THE COURTS SHOULD NOT TAKE AWAY. 

THE REFERENCE TO THE KEPNER CASE IN THE REVISER'S NOTE IN NOWISE
CONFLICTS WITH WHAT WE THINK IS THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 1404(A) ITSELF.  THE KEPNER CASE WAS SIMPLY CITED AS AN APT
EXAMPLE OF AN INEQUITABLE SITUATION WHICH COULD BE CURED BY PROVIDING
THE FEDERAL COURTS WITH THE POWER TO TRANSFER AN ACTION ON GROUNDS OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  THE FULL TEXT OF THE REVISER'S NOTE (FN10) MAKES
IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURT TO TRANSFER, AND
NOT THE POWER OF THE STATE COURT TO ENJOIN, WHICH WAS THE REMEDY
ENVISIONED FOR ANY INJUSTICE WROUGHT BY SEC. 6 IN THE KEPNER CASE. 

THUS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TRANSFER POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE
FEDERAL COURTS BY SEC. 1404(A), CONGRESS DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO LEAVE
THIS COURT'S DECISION IN THE KEPNER CASE INTACT.  INDEED, WE HAVE SAID
AS MUCH BEFORE: 

"SECTION 6 OF THE LIABILITY ACT DEFINES THE PROPER FORUM; SEC.
1404(A) OF THE CODE DEALS WITH THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER AN ACTION PROPERLY
BROUGHT.  THE TWO SECTIONS DEAL WITH TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
PROBLEMS.  SECTION 1404(A) DOES NOT LIMIT OR OTHERWISE MODIFY ANY RIGHT
GRANTED IN SEC. 6 OF THE LIABILITY ACT OR ELSEWHERE TO BRING SUIT IN A
PARTICULAR DISTRICT  ...  ."  EX PARTE COLLETT, SUPRA, 337 U.S., AT
60. 

CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE GONE FURTHER; IT MIGHT HAVE VESTED STATE COURTS
WITH THE POWER ASSERTED HERE.  IN FACT, THE SAME CONGRESS WHICH ENACTED
SEC. 1404(A) REFUSED TO ENACT A BILL WHICH WOULD HAVE AMENDED SEC. 6 OF
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT BY LIMITING THE EMPLOYEE'S CHOICE
OF VENUE TO THE PLACE OF HIS INJURY OR TO THE PLACE OF HIS RESIDENCE. 

THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT - THE JENNINGS BILL (FN11) - FOCUSED
CONGRESS' ATTENTION ON THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN BOTH THE MILES
AND THE KEPNER CASES.  THE BROAD QUESTION - INVOLVING MANY POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS - OF WHETHER VENUE SHOULD BE MORE NARROWLY RESTRICTED,
WAS REOPENED; COGENT ARGUMENTS - BOTH PRO AND CON - WERE RESTATED. 
PROPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENT ASSERTED THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE MILES AND
KEPNER DECISIONS, INJURED EMPLOYEES WERE LEFT FREE TO ABUSE THEIR VENUE
RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 6 AND "HARASS" THEIR EMPLOYERS IN DISTANT FORUMS
WITHOUT RESTRICTION.  THEY INSISTED THAT THESE ABUSES BE CURTAILED. 
(FN12)  THESE ARGUMENTS PREVAILED IN THE HOUSE, WHICH PASSED THE
JENNINGS BILL, (FN13) BUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DIED IN THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
WAS LEFT JUST AS THIS COURT HAD CONSTRUED IT.  (FN14) 

SINCE THE NARROW QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS SIMPLY WHETHER THE MILES
CASE IS STILL CONTROLLING; SINCE WE FIND NO LEGISLATION WHICH HAS
DEVITALIZED IT IN ANY WAY, AND SINCE WE FIND AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE THAT
CONGRESS CHOSE TO LET IT STAND, THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  45 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

FN2  45 U.S.C. SEC. 56. 

FN3  SEE RADIO STATION WOW V. JOHNSON, 326 U.S. 120, 123-124 (1945);
GOSPEL ARMY V. LOS ANGELES, 331 U.S. 543 (1947).  CF. HERB V. PITCAIRN,
324 U.S. 117, 125-126 (1945). 

FN4  CF. MONTGOMERY BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL V.
LEDBETTER CO., 344 U.S. 178 (1952). 

FN5  SEE GOSPEL ARMY V. LOS ANGELES, SUPRA, 331 U.S., AT 546. 

FN6  SEE RADIO STATION WOW V. JOHNSON, SUPRA. 

FN7  CLARK V. WILLARD, 292 U.S. 112, 118 (1934). 

FN8  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A). 

FN9  EX PARTE COLLETT, SUPRA, 337 U.S., AT 65-70. 

FN10  THE PERTINENT PART OF THE REVISER'S NOTE READS: 

"SUBSECTION (A) WAS DRAFTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM
NON CONVENIENS, PERMITTING TRANSFER TO A MORE CONVENIENT FORUM, EVEN
THOUGH THE VENUE IS PROPER.  AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE NEED OF SUCH A
PROVISION, SEE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER, 1941, 62 S. CT. 6,
314 U.S. 44, 86 L. ED. 28, WHICH WAS PROSECUTED UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IN NEW YORK, ALTHOUGH THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED
AND THE EMPLOYEE RESIDED IN OHIO.  THE NEW SUBSECTION REQUIRES THE
COURT TO DETERMINE THAT THE TRANSFER IS NECESSARY FOR CONVENIENCE OF
THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES, AND FURTHER, THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE TO DO SO." 

FN11  H.R. 1639, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN12  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 613, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1947); HEARINGS
BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 4 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON
H.R. 1639, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1947); HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 1567 AND H.R. 1639, 80TH
CONG., 2D SESS. (1948).  THE JENNINGS BILL WAS DEBATED EXTENSIVELY ON
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.  SEE 93 CONG. REC. 9178-9193.    FN13  93 CONG.
REC. 9194. 

FN14  SEE EX PARTE COLLETT, SUPRA, 337 U.S., AT 62-65. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AGREES THAT THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT
WAS "FINAL" AND CONCURS IN REVERSING THAT JUDGMENT FOR THE REASONS
GIVEN IN THIS COURT'S OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING.  I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE GEORGIA
JUDGMENT IS NOT FINAL.  COMPARE CLARK V. WILLARD, 292 U.S. 112.  AS
THIS VIEW DOES NOT PREVAIL, I JOIN IN THE REST OF THE OPINION AND THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING.    POPE BROUGHT AN ACTION UNDER
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AGAINST THE ATLANTIC COAST LINE
RAILROAD, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON
COUNTY, ALABAMA.  THE ACTION DERIVED FROM AN INJURY SUSTAINED BY POPE
WHILE EMPLOYED IN THE RAILROAD'S SHOPS AT FITZGERALD, GEORGIA. 
FITZGERALD IS A TOWN IN BEN HILL COUNTY, OF WHICH POPE IS, AND FOR MANY
YEARS HAS BEEN, A RESIDENT.  BEFORE THE ALABAMA ACTION CAME TO TRIAL,
THE RAILROAD FILED THIS SUIT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BEN HILL COUNTY
TO ENJOIN POPE FROM PROCEEDING WITH HIS ACTION.  IN ADDITION TO
AVERRING THE FACTS JUST RECITED, THE RAILROAD MADE ALLEGATIONS RELATING
TO THE AVAILABILITY OF WITNESSES FOR BOTH PARTIES AND OTHER FACTORS
RELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION OF THE FAIRNESS OF PURSUING THE LITIGATION
IN ALABAMA.  A GENERAL DEMURRER TO THIS ATTEMPT TO ENJOIN POPE FROM
SEEKING TO ENFORCE HIS CLAIM IN ALABAMA WAS SUSTAINED BY THE SUPERIOR
COURT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, ACTING UNDER THE EQUITABLE
DOCTRINE OF GEORGIA LAW WHICH PERMITS RESTRAINING A PERSON WITHIN THE
STATE'S JURISDICTION "FROM DOING AN INEQUITABLE THING," REVERSED.  209
GA. 187, 71 S.E.2D 243.  "THE INEQUITABLE THING" WHICH THE COURT DEEMED
IT PROPER TO RESTRAIN HERE WAS THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF "THE EMPLOYEE'S
PURPOSE  ...  TO OBTAIN AN INEQUITABLE AND UNCONSCIONABLE ADVANTAGE
OVER THE EMPLOYER" BY BRINGING HIS ACTION IN ALABAMA.  209 GA., AT 196,
71 S.E.2D, AT 249. 

HAD POPE'S ACTION AGAINST THE RAILROAD IN ALABAMA NOT BEEN BASED ON
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, OR HAD IT BEEN A NEGLIGENCE
ACTION BY A PASSENGER, A GEORGIA COURT COULD, NO DOUBT, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGED IN THIS SUIT, HAVE ENJOINED POPE OR THE PASSENGER
FROM PROCEEDING.  DO THE DECISIONS IN BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. KEPNER,
314 U.S. 44, AND MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698, IN
LIGHT OF THEIR BASIS AND OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSE TO THEM IN SEC.
1404(A) OF TITLE 28 OF THE U.S.C.  AS REVISED IN 1948, RESTRICT THE
EXERCISE OF SUCH GENERAL EQUITY POWERS BY GEORGIA? 

I ACCEPT THE KEPNER AND MILES DECISIONS IN THE SENSE THAT I WOULD NOT
OVERRULE THEM HAD CONGRESS LEFT THEM UNDISTURBED.  BUT CONGRESS HAS CUT
THE GROUND FROM UNDER THEM. 

THE COURT FOUND IN THOSE TWO CASES THAT CONGRESS, BY SEC. 6 OF THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, HAD GIVEN PLAINTIFFS UNRESTRAINABLE
FREEDOM IN THE CHOICE OF A FORUM AMONG THE COURTS - STATE AND FEDERAL -
WHICH WERE AUTHORIZED TO ENTERTAIN ACTIONS UNDER THE ACT.  FOLLOWING
THE DECISIONS IN KEPNER AND MILES, CONGRESS ENACTED SEC. 1404(A),
PERMITTING THE TRANSFER OF "ANY CIVIL ACTION" FROM ONE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT TO ANOTHER.  THE RATIONALE OF KEPNER AND MILES FORECLOSED, SO WE
HAD INDICATED, THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A TRANSFER IN FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES.  SEE GULF OIL CORP. V. GILBERT, 330 U.S. 501, 505.  IN
EX PARTE COLLETT, 337 U.S. 55, WE HELD THAT SEC. 1404(A) HAD REMOVED
THE BARRIER OF THE KEPNER AND MILES DECISIONS AND MADE THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS APPLICABLE TO CASES ARISING IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AS WELL AS TO THE GENERALITY
OF CASES.  CONGRESS, WE SAID, NATURALLY ENOUGH, HAD NOT REPEALED SEC.
6, WHICH KEPNER AND MILES CONSTRUED, BUT HAD REMOVED THE "JUDICIAL
GLOSS" REPRESENTED BY THE COURT'S OPINIONS IN THOSE TWO CASES.  337
U.S., AT 61. 

THE COURT NOW REAFFIRMS THIS "GLOSS" BY TREATING IT AS AN IRON
RESTRICTION NOT TO BE TOUCHED BEYOND THE LITERAL SCOPE OF ITS
CONGRESSIONAL REJECTION.  IN THE COLLETT OPINION THE COURT EXAMINED IN
DETAIL THE LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS PERTAINING TO SEC. 1404(A).  IT GAVE
NO INTIMATION THAT CONGRESS DID ANY LESS THAN TO REMOVE THE ENTIRE
GLOSS OF KEPNER AND MILES, THEREBY FREEING US FROM THE COMPULSIONS
THESE TWO CASES FOUND IN SEC. 6.  CONGRESS PLAINLY INDICATED THAT THE
COMPULSIONS WERE THE COURT'S ARTIFACT, NOT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS. 
THE COLLETT CASE RESTS TO NO SMALL EXTENT ON THE ILLUMINATION CAST ON
SEC. 1404(A) BY THE REVISER'S NOTES IN THEIR EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO
KEPNER AS "AN EXAMPLE OF THE NEED OF  ...  A PROVISION" "PERMITTING
TRANSFER TO A MORE CONVENIENT FORUM."  H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., APP. 132.  KEPNER WAS OF COURSE NOT A CASE OF TRANSFER FROM
ONE FEDERAL FORUM TO ANOTHER.  IT SEEMS STRANGE TO DERIVE FROM THE
REVISER'S REFERENCE AN INTENTION TO REMEDY A SITUATION NOT PRESENTED BY
THE FACTS OF THE KEPNER CASE, AND YET TO LEAVE UNTOUCHED A RESULT VERY
MUCH LIKE THAT OF KEPNER, WHICH, INDEED, AS WAS FOUND IN MILES, WAS A
NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF KEPNER. 

SUCH TREATMENT OF LEGISLATION SEEMS TO ME THE OPPOSITE OF OBEDIENCE
TO A STATUTORY COMMAND.  IT IS BESIDE THE POINT TO URGE THAT SEC.
1404(A) SPEAKS ONLY OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AND
NOT OF STATE COURT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE SUITS.  IF SEC.
1404(A) IS TO BE GIVEN A STRICTLY LITERAL SCOPE, WHAT IS TO BE MADE OF
THE REVISER'S CITATION OF THE KEPNER CASE, WHICH IS AN INAPT REFERENCE
ON THE SCORE OF LITERALNESS, BUT QUITE APT IF WE CONSIDER THE "NEED"
THAT CONGRESS WAS MEETING? 

LEGISLATION WAS READ IN THIS HOSTILE SPIRIT IN THE MID-VICTORIAN DAYS
WHEN IT WAS REGARDED, IN THE MAIN, AS WILFUL AND ARBITRARY INTERFERENCE
WITH THE HARMONY OF THE COMMON LAW AND WITH ITS RATIONAL UNFOLDING BY
JUDGES.  THIS IS AN ATTITUDE THAT TREATS WORDS AS ENDS AND NOT AS
VEHICLES TO CONVEY MEANING.  ONE HAD SUPPOSED THAT THIS NIGGARDLY VIEW
OF THE FUNCTION OF LEGISLATION HAD LONG SINCE BECOME OUTMODED. 
STATUTES, EVEN AS DECISIONS, ARE NOT TO BE DEEMED SELF-ENCLOSED
INSTANCES; THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS STARTING POINTS OF REASONING, AS
MEANS FOR SECURING COHERENCE AND FOR EFFECTUATING PURPOSE.  SEE LANDIS,
STATUTES AND THE SOURCES OF LAW, HARVARD LEGAL ESSAYS 213-246. 

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT; A POLICY, AS THE REVISER'S NOTES
WERE ASTUTE TO INDICATE, CONTRARY TO THAT REPRESENTED BY KEPNER, AND
ITS OFFSPRING, MILES.  (FN1)  IT IS MORE THAN DIFFICULT TO ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS AIMED AT THE RESULT WHICH THIS COURT REACHED IN THE COLLETT
CASE, AND AT THE SAME TIME DESIRED THE RESULT OF MILES AND OF KEPNER TO
CONTINUE TO BE LAW.  NOT TO REJECT SUCH AN ASSUMPTION IS TO ATTRIBUTE
TO CONGRESS A DISREGARD OF THE DESIRABILITY OF UNIFORMITY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT; MORE THAN THAT,
IT IS TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS A WISH TO CREATE WHAT MAY FAIRLY BE
CALLED, AS WE SHALL SEE, CAPRICIOUS AND WHIMSICAL RESULTS. 

THE PROBLEM OF AVOIDING ABUSE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IS NOT ONE THAT
ARISES ONLY IN ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS.  INDEED, MOST OF THE ACTIONS UNDER THAT ACT ARE
BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURTS.  THERE IS NO RHYME OR REASON IN ASSUMING
THAT CONGRESS WAS EAGER TO SHUT OFF ABUSES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BUT
FORBADE THEIR PREVENTION BY STATE COURTS.  (FN2) CONGRESS DEALT
SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ABUSES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS SINCE, IN TITLE 28,
IT WAS ADDRESSING ITSELF TO FEDERAL COURTS.  BUT THE CENTRAL FACT IS
THAT CONGRESS WAS FORMULATING A POLICY.  TO DISREGARD THE NATURAL
IMPLICATIONS OF A STATUTE AND TO IMPRISON OUR READING OF IT IN THE
SHELL OF THE MERE WORDS IS TO COMMIT THE CARDINAL SIN IN STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION, BLIND LITERALNESS. 

THE DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED BY KEPNER AND MILES AT LEAST MADE FOR
UNIFORMITY IN THE OPERATION OF SEC. 6, IN THAT THOSE CASES TREATED THE
GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS TO ENTERTAIN FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACTIONS AS THE GRANT OF AN UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO
PLAINTIFFS, INDEFEASIBLE REGARDLESS OF THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
AFFECTED IN ITS EXERCISE.  (FN3)  NOW, UNDER SEC. 1404(A), FEDERAL
COURTS MAY FREELY APPLY, AND DO APPLY, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS TO FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES.  EX PARTE COLLETT,
SUPRA.  SO MAY STATE COURTS.  SOUTHERN R. CO. V. MAYFIELD, 340 U.S. 1. 
ALABAMA IS ONE OF A MINORITY OF THE STATES WHICH HAS RULED THAT IT WILL
NOT RECOGNIZE THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  SEE BARRETT, THE
DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, 35 CALIF. L. REV. 380, AT 388, N.
40.  ONLY IF HE BRINGS HIS ACTION IN A COURT OF ONE OF THESE STATES CAN
A PLAINTIFF BE SURE, UNDER TODAY'S DECISION, THAT NO MATTER HOW
UNJUSTIFIABLE HIS CHOICE, THE FORUM IN WHICH THE ACTION IS BROUGHT WILL
BE THE FORUM IN WHICH IT IS TRIED.  THE SOLE EFFECT OF OUR ADHERENCE TO
KEPNER-MILES NOW IS THE CREATION OF A HAVEN IN WHICH THE CHOICE OF A
HARASSING FORUM, AN ACTIVITY WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONDEMNED IN SEC.
1404(A) AND WHICH THEREFORE WE NO LONGER OUGHT TO REGARD AS LEGITIMATE,
MAY BE CARRIED ON BY VIRTUE OF OUR "JUDICIAL GLOSS," ALTHOUGH IT WOULD
NOT BE TOLERATED IN OTHER COURTS IN THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THOSE
OVER WHICH WE HAVE SUPERVISING AUTHORITY. 

IS IT REASONABLE TO SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED THIS
SITUATION?  IS IT FAIR TO INFER THAT CONGRESS REMOVED THE "JUDICIAL
GLOSS" ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STRICTEST READING OF ITS WORDS
INDICATES, NO MATTER HOW MUTILATED THIS LEFT THE POLICY WHICH CONGRESS,
AS THE REVISER'S NOTES SHOW, CLEARLY AVOWED? 

IF THE SUIT NOW BEFORE US HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT OUTSIDE
GEORGIA, OR IN ANY ONE OF A NUMBER OF OTHER STATE COURTS, IT WOULD IN
ALL PROBABILITY HAVE BEEN TRIED IN GEORGIA SINCE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS THE CRITERIA WHICH DETERMINED THE EXERCISE BY
GEORGIA OF ITS EQUITY POWERS WOULD HAVE BEEN EQUALLY DECISIVE.  THIS
RESULT, THAT IS, TRIAL IN GEORGIA ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENT, DOES NOT RUN COUNTER TO THE POLICY OF THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT; WE DECREED ITS EQUIVALENT IN
COLLETT.  NOR IS IT THAT THE DEVICE EMPLOYED BY GEORGIA TO PREVENT
TRIAL IN ALABAMA IS OBJECTIONABLE, FOR IT IS A FAMILIAR REMEDY OF
EQUITY EMPLOYED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.  WE HAVE SANCTIONED ITS USE
IN OTHER APPROPRIATE INSTANCES, SEE COLE V. CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107,
AND SHOULD NOT DENY ITS USE TO GEORGIA IN EFFECTUATING AN END WHOSE
DESIRABILITY IS NO LONGER OPEN TO QUESTION. 

BY NOTHING THAT I HAVE SAID DO I MEAN TO IMPLY THAT EVERY APPLICATION
BY A STATE COURT OF THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN AN ACTION
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, OR EVERY COGNATE
INJUNCTION, IS NECESSARILY PROPER, AND THAT NONE MAY RUN AFOUL OF THAT
ACT.  BY NO TECHNICAL OR LOCAL PROCEDURAL DEVICE CAN A STATE DEFEAT THE
EFFECTIVE ENJOYMENT OF A FEDERAL RIGHT.  SEE AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS
CO. V. LEVEE, 263 U.S. 19; DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22.  BUT ON THE
ADMITTED FACTS NOW BEFORE US THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE CHOICE OF
ALABAMA AS A FORUM WAS PURELY VEXATIOUS.  ON THIS RECORD THERE IS NOT
THE LEAST SHRED OF RELEVANT CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS LITIGATION AND
ALABAMA. 

FN1  NO SUGGESTION OF A POLICY INCONSISTENT WITH THAT EXPRESSED BY
SEC. 1404(A), AS ILLUMINED BY THE REVISER'S NOTE CONCERNING IT, CAN BE
DERIVED FROM THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE JENNINGS BILL, H.R.
1639, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THAT BILL PROPOSED TO AMEND "THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT BY REMOVING FROM SECTION 6 (45 U.S.C. 56) THE
PROVISION PERMITTING ACTIONS TO BE BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, OR IN
WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, OR IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE
DOING BUSINESS AT THE TIME OF COMMENCING SUCH ACTION."  THE BILL
PROPOSED AS WELL TO AMEND "THE JUDICIAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH
TO SECTION 51 (28 U.S.C. 112) TO PROVIDE THE VENUE IN ANY ACTION
BROUGHT AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMON CARRIERS BY RAILROAD FOR DAMAGES
RESULTING FROM WRONGFUL DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURIES."  H.R. REP. NO.
613, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AT P. 2.  IN BOTH ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND THE OTHER SPECIFIED ACTIONS AGAINST
RAILROADS, THE JENNINGS BILL WOULD HAVE PERMITTED SUIT ONLY IN THE
DISTRICT OR COUNTY IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF RESIDED OR THE ACCIDENT
OCCURRED.  NO DOUBT THE ABUSES WHICH ARE CURABLE BY DISCRETIONARY
DISMISSALS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS OR, AS IN THIS
CASE, BY MEANS OF AN INJUNCTION, COULD BE CURED ALSO IN THE MANNER OF
THE JENNINGS BILL.  BUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO METHODS OF
ATTACK IS QUITE PLAIN.  THE JENNINGS BILL REPRESENTED A MEAT-AX
APPROACH AND WAS OPPOSED ON PRECISELY THAT GROUND BY THE MINORITY IN
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.  THE MINORITY POINTED OUT THAT
THE EVIL OF "TRAFFICKING IN, AND SOLICITATION OF, LAWSUITS" ORIGINATED
WITH OUR KEPNER AND MILES DECISIONS.  THE MINORITY'S AIM WAS TO HAVE
LAWSUITS "MOVED AROUND FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE LAWS" RATHER
THAN BE GOVERNED BY THE INFLEXIBLE VENUE PROVISIONS OF THE JENNINGS
BILL.  ID., AT PART 2, PP. 3-4.  IF A CONGRESSIONAL POLICY CAN BE
DERIVED FROM REJECTION OF THE JENNINGS BILL, IT IS A POLICY WHICH
COINCIDES WITH THAT EXPRESSED IN THE REVISER'S NOTE TO SEC. 1404(A),
THE POLICY, THAT IS, WHICH THE COURT DISREGARDS. 

FN2  TO SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS, IF IT SAW FIT, COULD "VEST" IN STATE
COURTS THE POWER WHICH THIS COURT NOW DENIES THEM IS, OF COURSE, TO
MISCONCEIVE OUR PROBLEM.  THE ISSUE IS NOT WHAT CONGRESS MIGHT GRANT TO
STATE JUDICIARIES BUT WHETHER IT HAS DEPRIVED THEM OF A POWER WHICH
INHERES IN THEM.    FN3  TO BE SURE, DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H.&H.R.
CO., 279 U.S. 377, WAS NOT OVERRULED, AND A STATE COURT WAS PRESUMABLY
FREE TO TRY TO DISMISS AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS BROUGHT IN A FORUM NON CONVENIENS. 
THIS, HOWEVER, WAS NOT A VERY LIKELY OCCURRENCE IN VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE
OF THE KEPNER AND MILES OPINIONS, AND SO THE PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE OF A
FORUM WAS ALMOST ALWAYS CERTAIN TO BE RESPECTED IN BOTH FEDERAL AND
STATE COURTS. 
..END :









POULOS V. NEW HAMPSHIRE 345 U.S. 395 


NO. 341.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1953 - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1953 - 97 N.H.
352, 88 A.2D 860, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CITY ORDINANCE FORBADE THE HOLDING OF A RELIGIOUS MEETING IN A
PUBLIC PARK WITHOUT A LICENSE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED IT AS
LEAVING TO THE LICENSING OFFICIALS NO DISCRETION AS TO THE GRANTING OF
LICENSES, NO POWER TO DISCRIMINATE, AND NO CONTROL OVER SPEECH, AND AS
CALLING MERELY FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE UNRESTRAINED EXERCISE OF
RELIGIOUS WITH THE REASONABLE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THE WHOLE
CITY.  HELD:  AS THUS CONSTRUED, THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 402-408. 

(A)  APPELLANT'S ATTACK ON THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED TO HIM, ON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS REPUGNANT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
AND A DETERMINATION OF ITS VALIDITY BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT,
REQUIRED THIS COURT TO TAKE JURISDICTION ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1257(2).  P. 402. 

(B)  THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS A
PROMISE THAT EVERYONE WITH OPINIONS OR BELIEFS TO EXPRESS MAY GATHER
AROUND HIM AT ANY PUBLIC PLACE AND AT ANY TIME A GROUP FOR DISCUSSION
OR INSTRUCTION.  P. 405. 

(C)  KUNZ V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 290, AND SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S.
558, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 406-408. 

2.  HAVING BEEN ARBITRARILY AND UNLAWFULLY DENIED A LICENSE,
APPELLANT PROCEEDED TO HOLD A RELIGIOUS MEETING IN A PUBLIC PARK
WITHOUT A LICENSE AND WAS CONVICTED AND FINED FOR A VIOLATION OF THE
ORDINANCE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROPER STATE REMEDY
FOR WRONGFUL DENIAL OF THE LICENSE WAS BY CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE
UNLAWFUL ACTION OF THE LICENSING OFFICIALS, NOT BY HOLDING PUBLIC
RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN THE PARK WITHOUT A LICENSE AND THEN DEFENDING
BECAUSE THE REFUSAL OF THE LICENSE WAS ARBITRARY.  HELD:  THE
CONVICTION DID NOT VIOLATE APPELLANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
PP. 408-414. 

(A)  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT FAILURE OF OFFICIALS TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH STATE LAW, REDRESSABLE BY STATE JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, ARE STATE
ACTS VIOLATIVE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 409. 

(B)  NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT A STATE'S REQUIREMENT THAT REDRESS FOR
UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF THE LICENSE BE SOUGHT THROUGH APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL
PROCEDURE VIOLATES DUE PROCESS.  P. 409. 

(C)  ROYALL V. VIRGINIA, 116 U.S. 572; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296; AND THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 410
414. 

(D)  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE VIOLATION OF A
REASONABLE REQUIREMENT FOR A LICENSE TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC PARKS BECAUSE
AN OFFICIAL ERROR OCCURRED IN REFUSING A PROPER APPLICATION.  P. 414. 

POULOS V. NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF A VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINANCE FORBIDDING
THE HOLDING OF A RELIGIOUS MEETING IN A PUBLIC PARK WITHOUT A LICENSE
WAS SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.  97 N.H. 352, 88
A.2D 860.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 414. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL PRESENTS THE VALIDITY OF A CONVICTION OF APPELLANT FOR
CONDUCTING RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN A PUBLIC PARK OF PORTSMOUTH, NEW
HAMPSHIRE, WITHOUT A REQUIRED LICENSE, WHEN PROPER APPLICATION FOR THE
LICENSE HAD BEEN ARBITRARILY AND UNREASONABLY REFUSED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.  THE CONCLUSION DEPENDS UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE PRINCIPLES
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT SECURED AGAINST STATE ABRIDGMENT BY THE
FOURTEENTH.  (FN1) 

APPELLANT IS ONE OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  PERMISSION FOR APPELLANT
AND ANOTHER WITNESS, NOW DECEASED, WAS SOUGHT TO CONDUCT SERVICES IN
GOODWIN PARK ON JUNE 25 AND JULY 2.  THEY OFFERED TO PAY ALL PROPER
FEES AND CHARGES, AND COMPLIED WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
OBTAINING PERMISSION TO USE THE PARK.  WHEN THE LICENSE WAS REFUSED ON
MAY 4, APPELLANT NEVERTHELESS HELD THE PLANNED SERVICES AND CONTINUED
THEM UNTIL ARRESTED.  HE WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF SEC. 22 OF THE
CITY ORDINANCE SET OUT BELOW.  (FN2)  ON CONVICTION IN THE MUNICIPAL
COURT HE WAS FINED $20 AND TOOK AN APPEAL WHICH ENTITLED HIM TO A
PLENARY TRIAL BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT.  BEFORE THAT TRIAL APPELLANT
MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS ON THE GROUND THAT "THE ORDINANCE AS
APPLIED WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID."  THIS MOTION ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, PURSUANT TO NEW HAMPSHIRE PRACTICE, WAS
TRANSFERRED TO THE SUPREME COURT.  IT RULED, AS IT HAD ON A FORMER
PROSECUTION UNDER A DIFFERENT CLAUSE OF AN IDENTICAL SECTION, SO FAR AS
PERTINENT, OF A NEW HAMPSHIRE STATUTE, AGAINST ONE COX, STATE V. COX,
91 N.H. 137, 143, 16 A.2D 508, 513, THAT: 

"THE DISCRETION THUS VESTED IN THE AUTHORITY (CITY COUNCIL) IS
LIMITED IN ITS EXERCISE BY THE BOUNDS OF REASON, IN UNIFORMITY OF
METHOD OF TREATMENT UPON THE FACTS OF EACH APPLICATION, FREE FROM
IMPROPER OR INAPPROPRIATE CONSIDERATIONS AND FROM UNFAIR
DISCRIMINATION.  A SYSTEMATIC, CONSISTENT AND JUST ORDER OF TREATMENT,
WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONVENIENCE OF PUBLIC USE OF THE HIGHWAYS, IS THE
STATUTORY MANDATE.  THE LICENSING AUTHORITY HAS NO DELEGATION OF POWER
IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH THE LEGISLATURE GRANTING THE POWER HAS AND THE
LEGISLATURE ATTEMPTED TO DELEGATE NO POWER IT DID NOT POSSESS."  STATE
V. DERRICKSON, 97 N.H. 91, 93, 81 A.2D 312, 313. 

IN COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, WE AFFIRMED ON APPEAL FROM THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE CONVICTION OF COX, ACKNOWLEDGING THE USEFULNESS, P. 576,
OF THE STATE COURT'S CAREFULLY PHRASED INTERPRETIVE LIMITATION ON THE
LICENSING AUTHORITY.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WENT ON TO
HOLD THE CHALLENGED CLAUSE IN THIS PRESENT PROSECUTION VALID ALSO IN
THESE WORDS: 

"THE ISSUE WHICH THIS CASE PRESENTS IS WHETHER THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
CAN PROHIBIT RELIGIOUS AND CHURCH MEETINGS IN GOODWIN PARK ON SUNDAYS
UNDER A LICENSING SYSTEM WHICH TREATS ALL RELIGIOUS GROUPS IN THE SAME
MANNER.  WHETHER A CITY COULD PROHIBIT RELIGIOUS MEETINGS IN ALL OF ITS
PARKS IS A DOUBTFUL QUESTION WHICH WE NEED NOT DECIDE IN THIS CASE. 
WHAT WE DO DECIDE IS THAT A CITY MAY TAKE ONE OF ITS SMALL PARKS AND
DEVOTE IT TO PUBLIC AND NONRELIGIOUS PURPOSES UNDER A SYSTEM WHICH IS
ADMINISTERED FAIRLY AND WITHOUT BIAS OR DISCRIMINATION."  97 N.H., AT
95, 81 A.2D, AT 315. 

THEREUPON IT DISCHARGED THE CASE. 

THE RESULT OF THIS ACTION WAS TO OPEN THE CASE NOW HERE IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT FOR TRIAL.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE, APPELLANT
RAISED FEDERAL ISSUES BY A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SET OUT
BELOW.  (FN3)  THE SUPERIOR COURT PASSED UPON THE ISSUES RAISED.  IT
HELD THAT COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, DETERMINED THE VALIDITY
OF THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER ATTACK; THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE
LICENSES BY THE CITY COUNCIL WAS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE, BUT
REFUSED TO DISMISS THE PROSECUTION ON THAT GROUND BECAUSE: 

"THE RESPONDENTS COULD HAVE RAISED THE QUESTION OF THEIR RIGHT TO
LICENSES TO SPEAK IN GOODWIN PARK BY PROPER CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS
COURT, BUT THEY CHOSE TO DELIBERATELY VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE." 

ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AFFIRMED.  (FN4)  IT
HELD THE ORDINANCE VALID ON ITS FACE UNDER COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312
U.S. 569.  WHILE THE COX CASE INVOLVED THE CLAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE,
SEC. 22, RELATING TO "PARADE OR PROCESSION UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET OR
WAY," THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT THOUGHT THE PRESENT PROSECUTION
WAS "UNDER A VALID ORDINANCE WHICH REQUIRES A LICENSE BEFORE OPEN AIR
PUBLIC MEETINGS MAY BE HELD."  THIS WAS THE FIRST RULING ON THE PUBLIC
SPEECH CLAUSE.  CF. STATE V. COX, 91 N.H., AT 143, 16 A.2D, AT 513; COX
V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S., AT 573.  AS THE ORDINANCE WAS VALID ON ITS
FACE THE STATE COURT DETERMINED THE REMEDY WAS BY CERTIORARI TO REVIEW
THE UNLAWFUL REFUSAL OF THE COUNCIL TO GRANT THE LICENSE, NOT BY
HOLDING PUBLIC RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN THE PARK WITHOUT A LICENSE, AND
THEN DEFENDING BECAUSE THE REFUSAL OF THE LICENSE WAS ARBITRARY. 

APPELLANT'S CHALLENGE ON FEDERAL GROUNDS TO THE ACTION AND CONCLUSION
OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE COURTS IS DIFFICULT TO EPITOMIZE.  BY PARAGRAPH 3
OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS, NOTE 3, SUPRA, APPELLANT RELIED ON THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR PROTECTION AGAINST THE CITY
ORDINANCE.  IN HIS STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION, THE QUESTION PRESENTED,
NO. I, THE ILLEGAL DENIAL OF HIS APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE, WAS URGED
AS A DENIAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES.  (FN5)  IN HIS BRIEF, HE
PHRASES THE ISSUE DIFFERENTLY AS INDICATED BELOW.  (FN6)  WE CONCLUDE
THAT APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS ARE, FIRST, NO LICENSE FOR CONDUCTING
RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES IN GOODWIN PARK MAY BE REQUIRED BECAUSE SUCH A
REQUIREMENT WOULD ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION GUARANTEED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; SECOND, EVEN THOUGH A LICENSE MAY BE
REQUIRED, THE ARBITRARY REFUSAL OF SUCH A LICENSE BY THE COUNCIL,
RESULTING IN DELAY, IF APPELLANT MUST, AS NEW HAMPSHIRE DECIDED, PURSUE
JUDICIAL REMEDIES, WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREE
SPEECH AND A PROHIBITION OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  THE
ABRIDGMENT WOULD BE BECAUSE OF DELAY THROUGH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO
OBTAIN THE RIGHT OF SPEECH AND TO CARRY OUT RELIGIOUS EXERCISES.  THE
DUE PROCESS QUESTION RAISED BY APPELLANT AS A PART OF THE LATTER
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION DISAPPEARS BY OUR HOLDING, AS INDICATED LATER
IN THIS OPINION, THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE AND NEW
HAMPSHIRE'S REQUIREMENT FOR FOLLOWING A JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR THE
ARBITRARY REFUSAL ARE VALID.  THIS ANALYSIS SHOWING AN ATTACK ON THE
ORDINANCE AS APPLIED AS REPUGNANT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND A DETERMINATION OF ITS VALIDITY BY THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT REQUIRES US TO TAKE JURISDICTION BY APPEAL.  (FN7) THE
STATE GROUND FOR AFFIRMANCE, I.E., THE FAILURE TO TAKE CERTIORARI FROM
THE ACTION REFUSING A LICENSE, DEPENDS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE ORDINANCE. 

FIRST.  WE CONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT A
LICENSE FROM THE CITY MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE CONDUCTING RELIGIOUS
EXERCISES IN GOODWIN PARK.  OUR CONCLUSION TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE
INTERPRETIVE LIMITATION REPEATED FROM STATE V. COX, QUOTED AT P. 398 OF
THIS OPINION.  THIS STATE INTERPRETATION IS AS THOUGH WRITTEN INTO THE
ORDINANCE ITSELF.  WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507, 514.  IT REQUIRES
UNIFORM, NONDISCRIMINATORY AND CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATION OF THE
GRANTING OF LICENSES FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS ON PUBLIC STREETS OR WAYS OR
SUCH A PARK AS GOODWIN PARK, ABUTTING THEREON.  (FN8)  THE TWO OPINIONS
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DO NOT STATE IN PRECISE WORDS
THAT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC RELIGIOUS OR OTHER MEETINGS ON
PUBLIC PROPERTY MUST BE GRANTED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE TO SUCH RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS AS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  IN THE FORMER APPEAL OF THIS
CONTROVERSY IN THE DERRICKSON CASE, SUPRA, NEW HAMPSHIRE DECIDED THAT
THE CITY COULD EXCLUDE, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, ALL RELIGIOUS MEETINGS
FROM GOODWIN PARK, IF IT SO DESIRED, LEAVING THAT ONE PARK, AMONG
SEVERAL, THERE BEING NO SHOWING OF ITS UNIQUE ADVANTAGES FOR RELIGIOUS
MEETINGS, AS A RETREAT FOR QUIETNESS, CONTEMPLATION OR OTHER
NONRELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES.  THE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO DETERMINE
WHETHER RELIGIOUS MEETINGS COULD BE EXCLUDED FROM ALL PARKS AT ALL
TIMES.  THAT HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL.  INFORMED WITNESSES
AT THIS TRIAL WITHOUT CONTRADICTION TESTIFIED THAT NO PUBLIC RELIGIOUS
SERVICES WERE EVER LICENSED IN ANY PORTSMOUTH PARK.  THERE WAS NO
ALLOCATION OF PARKS BETWEEN RELIGIOUS AND NONRELIGIOUS MEETINGS.  THE
SUPERIOR COURT HELD THE REFUSAL OF THIS LICENSE ARBITRARY AND
UNREASONABLE.  OBVIOUSLY THE LICENSE REQUIRED IS NOT THE KIND OF
PREPUBLICATION LICENSE DEEMED A DENIAL OF LIBERTY SINCE THE TIME OF
JOHN MILTON BUT A MINISTERIAL, POLICE ROUTINE FOR ADJUSTING THE RIGHTS
OF CITIZENS SO THAT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR EFFECTIVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH MAY
BE PRESERVED.  (FN9)  WHILE THERE WAS NO ASSERTION OF THE INVALIDITY OF
THE ORDINANCE ON ITS FACE, THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINED THE VALIDITY OF
THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED.  SEE DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S.
282, 287; CHARLESTON ASSN. V. ALDERSON, 324 U.S. 182, 185-186.  (FN10)
WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE FROM THESE DECISIONS THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE HAS HELD THAT THE ORDINANCE IS VALID AND, AS NOW WRITTEN,
MADE IT OBLIGATORY UPON PORTSMOUTH TO GRANT A LICENSE FOR THESE
RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN GOODWIN PARK.  THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT
THE COUNCIL'S APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE SO AS TO BAR ALL RELIGIOUS
MEETINGS IN GOODWIN PARK WITHOUT A LICENSE, MADE THE ORDINANCE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE.  APPELLANT'S BRIEF, P. 3, CONTINUES THE CLAIM IN THIS COURT
AS FOLLOWS: 

"THIS EXCEPTION PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE
QUESTION.  IT IS WHETHER THE ORDINANCE AS ENFORCED BY THE CITY COUNCIL,
UNDER ITS POLICY TO REFUSE RELIGIOUS MEETINGS IN THE PARK, WAS A
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION." 

BY ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORDINANCE THE STATE LEFT TO THE LICENSING
OFFICIALS NO DISCRETION AS TO GRANTING PERMITS, NO POWER TO
DISCRIMINATE, NO CONTROL OVER SPEECH.  THERE IS THEREFORE NO PLACE FOR
NARROWLY DRAWN REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS OR AUTHORITY.  THE ORDINANCE
MERELY CALLS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE UNRESTRAINED EXERCISE OF
RELIGIONS WITH THE REASONABLE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THE WHOLE
CITY.  HAD THE REFUSAL OF THE LICENSE NOT BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THE
ORDINANCE, THE SUPREME COURT WOULD NOT, WE ARE SURE, HAVE REQUIRED THE
APPELLANT IN ITS NEXT APPLICATION TO GO THROUGH THE FUTILE GESTURE OF
CERTIORARI ONLY TO BE TOLD THE PORTSMOUTH COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF A
LICENSE WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF MUNICIPAL DISCRETION UNDER THE
ORDINANCE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SUCH STATE CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT
INVALID, ALTHOUGH THEY LEAVE OPPORTUNITY FOR ARBITRARY REFUSALS THAT
DELAY THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS. 

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS A
PROMISE THAT EVERYONE WITH OPINIONS OR BELIEFS TO EXPRESS MAY GATHER
AROUND HIM AT ANY PUBLIC PLACE AND AT ANY TIME A GROUP FOR DISCUSSION
OR INSTRUCTION.  IT IS A NON SEQUITUR TO SAY THAT FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS MAY NOT BE REGULATED BECAUSE THEY HOLD A PREFERRED POSITION IN
THE HIERARCHY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF THE INCIDENTS OF
FREEDOM.  THIS COURT HAS NEVER SO HELD AND INDEED HAS DEFINITELY
INDICATED THE CONTRARY.  IT HAS INDICATED APPROVAL OF REASONABLE
NONDISCRIMINATORY REGULATION BY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY THAT PRESERVES
PEACE, ORDER AND TRANQUILLITY WITHOUT DEPRIVATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES OF FREE SPEECH, PRESS AND THE EXERCISE OF
RELIGION.  (FN11)  WHEN CONSIDERING SPECIFICALLY THE REGULATION OF THE
USE OF PUBLIC PARKS, THIS COURT HAS TAKEN THE SAME POSITION.  SEE THE
QUOTATION FROM THE HAGUE CASE (BELOW) AND KUNZ V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S.
290, 293-294; SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558, 562.  IN THESE CASES, THE
ORDINANCES WERE HELD INVALID, NOT BECAUSE THEY REGULATED THE USE OF THE
PARKS FOR MEETING AND INSTRUCTION BUT BECAUSE THEY LEFT COMPLETE
DISCRETION TO REFUSE THE USE IN THE HANDS OF OFFICIALS.  "THE RIGHT TO
BE HEARD IS PLACED IN THE UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION OF THE CHIEF OF
POLICE."  334 U.S., AT 560.  "WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY CONDEMNED LICENSING
SYSTEMS WHICH VEST IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DISCRETION TO GRANT OR
WITHHOLD A PERMIT UPON BROAD CRITERIA UNRELATED TO PROPER REGULATION OF
PUBLIC PLACES."  340 U.S., AT 294. 

THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT FREEDOM AND ORDER ARE NOT
COMPATIBLE.  THAT WOULD BE A DECISION OF DESPERATION.  REGULATION AND
SUPPRESSION ARE NOT THE SAME, (FN12) EITHER IN PURPOSE OR RESULT, AND
COURTS OF JUSTICE CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE.  WE MUST AND DO ASSUME THAT
WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THAT THE
PRESENT ORDINANCE ENTITLES JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TO HOLD RELIGIOUS
SERVICES IN GOODWIN PARK AT REASONABLE HOURS AND TIMES, THE PORTSMOUTH
COUNCIL WILL PROMPTLY AND FAIRLY ADMINISTER THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IN
ISSUING PERMITS ON REQUEST.    SECOND.  NEW HAMPSHIRE'S DETERMINATION
THAT THE ORDINANCE IS VALID AND THAT THE COUNCIL COULD BE COMPELLED TO
ISSUE THE REQUESTED LICENSE ON DEMAND BRINGS US FACE TO FACE WITH
ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM.  MAY THIS MAN BE CONVICTED FOR HOLDING
A RELIGIOUS MEETING WITHOUT A LICENSE WHEN THE PERMIT REQUIRED BY A
VALID ENACTMENT - THE ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE - HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY
REFUSED BY THE MUNICIPALITY? 

APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS THAT SINCE THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES THE
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, THE COUNCIL'S UNLAWFUL REFUSAL TO ISSUE THE
LICENSE IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO THIS PROSECUTION.  HIS ARGUMENT
ASSERTS THAT IF HE CAN BE PUNISHED FOR VIOLATION OF THE VALID ORDINANCE
BECAUSE HE EXERCISED HIS RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, AFTER THE WRONGFUL
REFUSAL OF THE LICENSE, THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS
ILLUSORY.  HE OBJECTS THAT BY THE COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF A LICENSE, HIS
RIGHT TO PREACH MAY BE POSTPONED UNTIL A CASE, POSSIBLY AFTER YEARS,
REACHES THIS COURT FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
POULOS TAKES THE POSITION THAT HE MAY RISK SPEAKING WITHOUT A LICENSE
AND DEFEAT PROSECUTION BY SHOWING THE LICENSE WAS ARBITRARILY
WITHHELD. 

IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT JUDICIAL CORRECTION OF ARBITRARY REFUSAL BY
ADMINISTRATORS TO PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES UNDER VALID LAWS IS
EXULCERATING AND COSTLY.  BUT TO ALLOW APPLICANTS TO PROCEED WITHOUT
THE REQUIRED PERMITS TO RUN BUSINESSES, ERECT STRUCTURES, PURCHASE
FIREARMS, TRANSPORT OR STORE EXPLOSIVES OR INFLAMMATORY PRODUCTS, HOLD
PUBLIC MEETINGS WITHOUT PRIOR SAFETY ARRANGEMENTS OR TAKE OTHER
UNAUTHORIZED ACTION IS APT TO CAUSE BREACHES OF THE PEACE OR CREATE
PUBLIC DANGERS.  THE VALID REQUIREMENTS OF LICENSE ARE FOR THE GOOD OF
THE APPLICANTS AND THE PUBLIC.  IT WOULD BE UNREAL TO SAY THAT SUCH
OFFICIAL FAILURES TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, REDRESSABLE BY
STATE JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, ARE STATE ACTS VIOLATIVE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  DELAY IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT THE EXPENSE AND ANNOYANCE OF
LITIGATION IS A PRICE CITIZENS MUST PAY FOR LIFE IN AN ORDERLY SOCIETY
WHERE THE RIGHTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAVE A REAL AND ABIDING
MEANING.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT A STATE'S REQUIREMENT THAT REDRESS MUST
BE SOUGHT THROUGH APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL PROCEDURE VIOLATES DUE PROCESS. 
(FN13) 

IT IS SAID THAT ROYALL V. VIRGINIA, 116 U.S. 572; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 306, AND THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516,
STAND AS DECISIONS CONTRARY TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDGMENT.  IN THE
ROYALL CASE TWO STATUTES WERE INVOLVED.  ONE LAID DOWN THE REQUIREMENT
THAT BEFORE ATTORNEYS COULD PRACTICE LAW IN VIRGINIA THEY HAD TO OBTAIN
A SPECIAL "REVENUE LICENSE."  AT THE TIME THIS STATUTE WAS ENACTED,
VIRGINIA LAW PERMITTED LICENSE FEES TO BE PAID IN EITHER "TAX DUE
COUPONS" OR MONEY.  SUBSEQUENTLY VIRGINIA PASSED ANOTHER STATUTE WITH
WHICH THE ROYALL CASE WAS CONCERNED.  IT PROVIDED THAT LICENSE FEES
COULD ONLY BE PAID IN "LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES."  ROYALL
TENDERED "TAX DUE COUPONS" FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE LICENSE FEE, HAD THEM
REFUSED, AND ROYALL THEN PROCEEDED TO PRACTICE LAW WITHOUT THE
LICENSE. 

THE STATUTE REQUIRING PAYMENT IN MONEY WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL: 

"ADMITTING THIS, IT IS STILL CONTENDED, ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMONWEALTH, THAT IT WAS UNLAWFUL FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR TO
PRACTICE HIS PROFESSION WITHOUT A LICENSE, AND THAT HIS REMEDY WAS
AGAINST THE OFFICERS TO COMPEL THEM TO ISSUE IT.  IT IS DOUBTLESS TRUE,
AS A GENERAL RULE, THAT WHERE THE OFFICER, WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO ISSUE A
LICENSE, REFUSES TO DO SO, AND THAT DUTY IS MERELY MINISTERIAL, AND THE
APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT ENTITLE HIM TO IT,
THE REMEDY BY MANDAMUS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO COMPEL THE OFFICER TO
ISSUE IT.  THAT RULE WOULD APPLY TO CASES WHERE THE REFUSAL OF THE
OFFICER WAS WILFUL AND CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH HE WAS
COMMISSIONED TO ACT.  BUT HERE THE CASE IS DIFFERENT.  THE ACTION OF
THE OFFICER IS BASED ON THE AUTHORITY OF AN ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE STATE, WHICH, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE NULL AND VOID, BECAUSE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS AGAINST THE APPLICANT, GIVES THE COLOR OF OFFICIAL
CHARACTER TO THE CONDUCT OF THE OFFICER IN HIS REFUSAL; AND, ALTHOUGH
AT THE ELECTION OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY THE OFFICER MIGHT BE SUBJECTED
TO THE COMPULSORY PROCESS OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE PERFORMANCE OF AN
OFFICIAL DUTY, NEVERTHELESS THE APPLICANT, WHO HAS DONE EVERYTHING ON
HIS PART REQUIRED BY THE LAW, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS VIOLATING THE LAW
IF, WITHOUT THE FORMALITY OF A LICENSE WRONGFULLY WITHHELD FROM HIM, HE
PURSUES THE BUSINESS OF HIS CALLING, WHICH IS NOT UNLAWFUL IN ITSELF,
AND WHICH, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
PROSECUTE.  AS TO THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, THE ACT OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA FORBIDDING PAYMENT OF HIS LICENSE TAX
IN ITS COUPONS, RECEIVABLE FOR THAT TAX BY A CONTRACT PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND ITS
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY INFECTS AND NULLIFIES THE ANTECEDENT LEGISLATION OF
THE STATE, OF WHICH IT BECOMES A PART, WHEN APPLIED, AS IN THIS CASE,
TO ENFORCE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENT AGAINST A PARTY, NOT ONLY
WITHOUT FAULT, BUT SEEKING MERELY TO EXERCISE A RIGHT SECURED TO HIM BY
THE CONSTITUTION  ...  . 

"IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR HAS BEEN PREVENTED FROM
OBTAINING A LICENSE TO PRACTICE HIS PROFESSION IN VIOLATION OF HIS
RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  TO PUNISH HIM FOR
PRACTICING IT WITHOUT A LICENSE THUS WITHHELD IS EQUALLY A DENIAL OF
HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE LAW,
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH THIS IS ATTEMPTED, MUST ON THAT ACCOUNT
AND IN HIS CASE BE REGARDED AS NULL AND VOID."  116 U.S., AT 582-583. 

IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, THE STATUTE IN QUESTION FORBADE
SOLICITATION FOR RELIGIOUS CAUSES WITHOUT A LICENSE WITH THIS
DISCRETIONARY POWER IN THE SECRETARY OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE COUNCIL: 

"UPON APPLICATION OF ANY PERSON IN BEHALF OF SUCH CAUSE, THE
SECRETARY SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH CAUSE IS A RELIGIOUS ONE OR IS A
BONA FIDE OBJECT OF CHARITY OR PHILANTHROPY AND CONFORMS TO REASONABLE
STANDARDS OF EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY, AND, IF HE SHALL SO FIND, SHALL
APPROVE THE SAME AND ISSUE TO THE AUTHORITY IN CHARGE A CERTIFICATE TO
THAT EFFECT."  310 U.S., AT 302. 

WE SAID, SPEAKING OF THE SECRETARY: 

"IF HE FINDS THAT THE CAUSE IS NOT THAT OF RELIGION, TO SOLICIT FOR
IT BECOMES A CRIME.  HE IS NOT TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE AS A MATTER OF
COURSE.  HIS DECISION TO ISSUE OR REFUSE IT INVOLVES APPRAISAL OF
FACTS, THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT, AND THE FORMATION OF AN OPINION.  HE
IS AUTHORIZED TO WITHHOLD HIS APPROVAL IF HE DETERMINES THAT THE CAUSE
IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.  SUCH A CENSORSHIP OF RELIGION AS THE MEANS OF
DETERMINING ITS RIGHT TO SURVIVE IS A DENIAL OF LIBERTY PROTECTED BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND INCLUDED IN THE LIBERTY WHICH IS WITHIN THE
PROTECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH."  ID., AT 305. 

IN THE THOMAS CASE, A STATUTE OF TEXAS WAS INVOLVED THAT REQUIRED
LABOR UNION ORGANIZERS TO OBTAIN AN ORGANIZER'S CARD BEFORE SOLICITING
MEMBERSHIP.  SEC. 5, 323 U.S., AT 519, NOTE 1.  HE WAS ENJOINED FROM
SOLICITING MEMBERSHIP WITHOUT THE CARD AND VIOLATED THE INJUNCTION. 
ID., AT 518.  THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT THOMAS WAS FORBIDDEN BY THE
STATUTE FROM MAKING LABOR UNION SPEECHES ANYWHERE IN TEXAS WITHOUT A
PERMIT FOR SOLICITATION OF MEMBERSHIP.  ID., AT 532 ET SEQ. THE COURT
TREATED THE STATUTE AS A PROHIBITION OF LABOR UNION DISCUSSION WITHOUT
AN ORGANIZER'S CARD ANYWHERE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF TEXAS LEGISLATIVE
POWER.  IT SAID: 

"WE THINK A REQUIREMENT THAT ONE MUST REGISTER BEFORE HE UNDERTAKES
TO MAKE A PUBLIC SPEECH TO ENLIST SUPPORT FOR A LAWFUL MOVEMENT IS
QUITE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT."  ID.,
AT 540. 

THE COURT ALLOWED THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE TO BE USED
AS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO CONTEMPT OF THE INJUNCTION. 

IT IS CLEAR TO US THAT NEITHER OF THESE DECISIONS IS CONTRARY TO THE
DETERMINATION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.  IN BOTH OF THE
ABOVE CASES THE CHALLENGED STATUTES WERE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IN THE
ROYALL CASE, THE STATUTE REQUIRING PAYMENT OF THE LICENSE FEE IN MONEY
WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IN THE CANTWELL CASE, THE STATUTE HAD NOT BEEN
CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT "TO IMPOSE A MERE MINISTERIAL DUTY ON THE
SECRETARY OF THE WELFARE COUNCIL."  THE RIGHT TO SOLICIT DEPENDED ON
HIS DECISION AS TO A "RELIGIOUS CAUSE."  310 U.S., AT 306.  THEREFORE
WE HELD THAT A STATUTE AUTHORIZING THIS PREVIOUS RESTRAINT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EVEN THOUGH AN ERROR MIGHT BE CORRECTED AFTER TRIAL. 
IN THE THOMAS CASE, THE SECTION OF THE TEXAS ACT WAS HELD PROHIBITORY
OF LABOR SPEECHES ANYWHERE ON PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHOUT
REGISTRATION.  THIS MADE SEC. 5 UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE STATUTES WERE AS
THOUGH THEY DID NOT EXIST.  THEREFORE THERE WERE NO OFFENSES IN
VIOLATION OF A VALID LAW.  IN THE PRESENT PROSECUTION THERE WAS A VALID
ORDINANCE, AN UNLAWFUL REFUSAL OF A LICENSE, WITH REMEDIAL STATE
PROCEDURE FOR THE CORRECTION OF THE ERROR.  THE STATE HAD AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE REASONABLE METHOD FOR CORRECTION
OF THE ERROR, THAT IS, BY CERTIORARI.  OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT WE APPROVE THE VIOLATION OF A REASONABLE REQUIREMENT FOR A
LICENSE TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC PARKS BECAUSE AN OFFICIAL ERROR OCCURRED IN
REFUSING A PROPER APPLICATION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160. 

CONSTITUTION, FIRST AMENDMENT: 

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION,
OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO
ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." 

ID., FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: 

"  ...  NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE
THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR
SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY,
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

FN2  "SECTION 22.  LICENSE REQUIRED.  NO THEATRICAL OR DRAMATIC
REPRESENTATION SHALL BE PERFORMED OR EXHIBITED AND NO PARADE OR
PROCESSION UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET OR WAY, AND NO OPEN AIR PUBLIC
MEETING UPON ANY GROUND ABUTTING THEREON SHALL BE PERMITTED UNLESS A
LICENSE THEREFOR SHALL FIRST BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. 

"SECTION 23.  LICENSE FORM.  EVERY SUCH LICENSE SHALL BE IN WRITING
AND SHALL SPECIFY THE DAY AND HOUR OF THE PERMIT TO PERFORM OR EXHIBIT,
OR OF SUCH PARADE, PROCESSION OR OPEN AIR PUBLIC MEETING. 

"SECTION 24.  FEE.  THE FEE FOR SUCH LICENSE SHALL BE NOT MORE THAN
THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY SUCH LICENSEE SHALL PERFORM OR
EXHIBIT OR SUCH PARADE, PROCESSION, OR OPEN AIR PUBLIC MEETING SHALL
TAKE PLACE, BUT THE FEE FOR A LICENSE TO EXHIBIT IN ANY HALL SHALL NOT
EXCEED FIFTY DOLLARS. 

"SECTION 25.  PENALTY.  ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES SECTION 22 OF THIS
ARTICLE SHALL BE FINED TWENTY DOLLARS." 

FN3  "1.  THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL AND THE CITY COUNCIL ITSELF ACTED ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY AND
WITHOUT SUPPORT OF LAW AND OF FACT WHEN THEY DENIED THE APPLICATION
MADE BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS TO DELIVER THE
PUBLIC TALKS UPON THE OCCASIONS IN QUESTION. 

"2.  THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PARK IN QUESTION IS A
PUBLIC PARK, DEDICATED AS SUCH WITHOUT ANY LIMITATIONS IN THE DEED OF
DEDICATION OR IN THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH AND THE
DEFENDANTS HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DELIVER THE TALKS IN THE PARK AND IT
WAS THE DUTY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ISSUE TO THE DEFENDANTS PERMITS TO
USE THE PUBLIC PARK IN QUESTION FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PUBLIC TALKS. 

"3.  IF THE ORDINANCE IS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED SO AS TO JUSTIFY
CONVICTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS UNDER THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, THEN THE
ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED BECAUSE IT
ABRIDGES THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANTS TO FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, CONTRARY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSTITUTION AND THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN4  STATE V. POULOS, 97 N.H. 352, 88 A.2D 860. 

FN5  "IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAWS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE
ORDINANCE IN QUESTION - SO AS TO COMPLETELY DENY THE APPELLANT THE
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ORDINANCE, AS
ENFORCED, CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT TO
PUNISH APPELLANT FOR HOLDING A MEETING AND GIVING A SPEECH IN THE CITY
PARK OF PORTSMOUTH WITHOUT A PERMIT, WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR AND
ILLEGALLY DENIED ACCORDING TO THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS BELOW - AN
ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF APPELLANT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY
CONTRARY TO THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES?" 

FN6  "IS THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE BY THE
CITY COUNCIL, REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR HOLDING MEETINGS IN THE PARKS OF
PORTSMOUTH SO AS TO DENY ALL APPLICATIONS MADE BY RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS TO HOLD RELIGIOUS MEETINGS AND DELIVER RELIGIOUS TALKS IN
THE PARKS OF PORTSMOUTH, AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY
AND WORSHIP IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?" 

"DOES THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE LAW
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SO AS TO REQUIRE APPELLANT TO APPLY FOR A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI AS THE ONLY REMEDIES TO CORRECT THE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE, AND ALSO SO AS TO
DENY THE DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION AND
APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL WAS IN VIOLATION OF
HIS RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AMOUNT TO AN
ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY AND WORSHIP CONTRARY TO THE
FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?" 
FN7  KING MFG. CO. V. AUGUSTA, 277 U.S. 100; JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S.
413.  WHEN THE APPEAL WAS DOCKETED WE POSTPONED DETERMINATION OF
JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL TO THE HEARING ON THE MERITS.  28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1257(2); RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT, NO. 12(5).    FN8  STATE V.
DERRICKSON, 97 N.H. 91, 94, 81 A.2D 312, 314. 

FN9  NIEMOTKO V. MARYLAND, 340 U.S. 268, CONCURRENCE AT 282:  "A
LICENSING STANDARD WHICH GIVES AN OFFICIAL AUTHORITY TO CENSOR THE
CONTENT OF A SPEECH DIFFERS TOTO CAELO FROM ONE LIMITED BY ITS TERMS,
OR BY NONDISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE, TO CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND THE LIKE." 

FN10  "IT HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY THE DEFENSE ON THIS TRANSFER, AS WELL
AS ON THE FIRST ONE, THAT THE ORDINANCE IS VALID ON ITS FACE.  IT IS
IDENTICAL IN LANGUAGE WITH THE STATUTE THAT WAS CONSTRUED AS VALID IN
STATE V. COX, 91 N.H. 137, WHICH WAS AFFIRMED IN COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE,
312 U.S. 569.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ORDINANCE APPLIES TO THE
PARK THAT WAS THE SCENE OF THE OPEN AIR MEETINGS IN QUESTION.  NO
OBJECTION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE TO THE
AREAS WHERE THE MEETINGS TOOK PLACE, AND NO EXCEPTION TAKEN TO ANY
FINDING OR RULING WITH RESPECT THERETO."  97 N.H. 352, 354, 88 A.2D
860, 861. 

"AGAIN WE CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IN THIS JURISDICTION IF A
LICENSING STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND APPLIES TO THOSE SEEKING A
LICENSE, THE REMEDY HERE PROVIDED CONSISTS OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
LICENSING AUTHORITY THAT HAS WRONGFULLY DENIED THE LICENSE."  97 N.H.,
AT 356, 88 A.2D, AT 862-863. 

DISTINGUISHING HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, WHERE A DEFENSE OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY WAS ALLOWED IN A PROSECUTION FOR HOLDING A PUBLIC
MEETING WITHOUT A LICENSE, THE STATE COURT SAID:  "PERMITS HAD BEEN
REFUSED FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS, BUT, UNLIKE THE CASE AT BAR, THE
PROSECUTIONS WERE CONTEMPLATED UNDER ORDINANCES THAT WERE INVALID."  97
N.H., AT 356-357, 88 A.2D, AT 863. 

"THE REMEDY OF THE DEFENDANT POULOS FOR ANY ARBITRARY AND
UNREASONABLE CONDUCT OF THE CITY COUNCIL WAS ACCORDINGLY IN CERTIORARI
OR OTHER APPROPRIATE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS."  97 N.H., AT 357, 88 A.2D, AT
863. 

THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS THE RULE IN STATE V. STEVENS, 78 N.H. 268,
269-270, 99 A. 723, 724-725, THAT WHERE A LICENSE STATUTE IS VALID AN
ERRONEOUS REFUSAL OF THE LICENSE CANNOT BE ATTACKED COLLATERALLY ON
PROSECUTION FOR ACTING WITHOUT A LICENSE. 

FN11  CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO CIRCULATE PUBLICATIONS DOES
NOT INCLUDE DOOR-TO-DOOR CANVASSING FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS CONTRARY TO THE
REASONABLE LIMITATIONS OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE.  SEE BREARD V.
ALEXANDRIA, 341 U.S. 622, 641. 

LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 451: 

"THE ORDINANCE IS COMPREHENSIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE METHOD OF
DISTRIBUTION.  IT COVERS EVERY SORT OF CIRCULATION 'EITHER BY HAND OR
OTHERWISE.'  THERE IS THUS NO RESTRICTION IN ITS APPLICATION WITH
RESPECT TO TIME OR PLACE.  IT IS NOT LIMITED TO WAYS WHICH MIGHT BE
REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER OR AS
INVOLVING DISORDERLY CONDUCT, THE MOLESTATION OF THE INHABITANTS, OR
THE MISUSE OR LITTERING OF THE STREETS.  THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITS THE
DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE OF ANY KIND AT ANY TIME, AT ANY PLACE, AND
IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE CITY MANAGER." 

IN CONSIDERING A REQUIRED PERMIT IN HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496,
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, IN CONSIDERING AN ORDINANCE THAT GAVE THE DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISCRETION AS TO ISSUE OF PARK PERMITS, P. 502,
WROTE: 

"WHEREVER THE TITLE OF STREETS AND PARKS MAY REST, THEY HAVE
IMMEMORIALLY BEEN HELD IN TRUST FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC AND, TIME OUT
OF MIND, HAVE BEEN USED FOR PURPOSES OF ASSEMBLY, COMMUNICATING
THOUGHTS BETWEEN CITIZENS, AND DISCUSSING PUBLIC QUESTIONS.  SUCH USE
OF THE STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES HAS, FROM ANCIENT TIMES, BEEN A PART
OF THE PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES, RIGHTS, AND LIBERTIES OF CITIZENS.  THE
PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES TO USE THE STREETS AND
PARKS FOR COMMUNICATION OF VIEWS ON NATIONAL QUESTIONS MAY BE REGULATED
IN THE INTEREST OF ALL; IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE, BUT RELATIVE, AND MUST BE
EXERCISED IN SUBORDINATION TO THE GENERAL COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE, AND
IN CONSONANCE WITH PEACE AND GOOD ORDER; BUT IT MUST NOT, IN THE GUISE
OF REGULATION, BE ABRIDGED OR DENIED."  PP. 515-516. 

SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160-161: 

"MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, AS TRUSTEES FOR THE PUBLIC, HAVE THE DUTY TO
KEEP THEIR COMMUNITIES' STREETS OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR MOVEMENT OF
PEOPLE AND PROPERTY, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE TO WHICH THE STREETS ARE
DEDICATED.  SO LONG AS LEGISLATION TO THIS END DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY OF ONE RIGHTFULLY UPON THE STREET TO IMPART
INFORMATION THROUGH SPEECH OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE, IT MAY
LAWFULLY REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF THOSE USING THE STREETS.  FOR EXAMPLE,
A PERSON COULD NOT EXERCISE THIS LIBERTY BY TAKING HIS STAND IN THE
MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET, CONTRARY TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, AND
MAINTAIN HIS POSITION TO THE STOPPAGE OF ALL TRAFFIC; A GROUP OF
DISTRIBUTORS COULD NOT INSIST UPON A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FORM A
CORDON ACROSS THE STREET AND TO ALLOW NO PEDESTRIAN TO PASS WHO DID NOT
ACCEPT A TENDERED LEAFLET; NOR DOES THE GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
OR OF THE PRESS DEPRIVE A MUNICIPALITY OF POWER TO ENACT REGULATIONS
AGAINST THROWING LITERATURE BROADCAST IN THE STREETS.  PROHIBITION OF
SUCH CONDUCT WOULD NOT ABRIDGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY SINCE SUCH
ACTIVITY BEARS NO NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP TO THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK,
WRITE, PRINT OR DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION OR OPINION." 

CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 306-307: 

"EVEN THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION MAY BE AT SOME SLIGHT INCONVENIENCE IN
ORDER THAT THE STATE MAY PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM INJURY.  WITHOUT
DOUBT A STATE MAY PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM FRAUDULENT SOLICITATION BY
REQUIRING A STRANGER IN THE COMMUNITY, BEFORE PERMITTING HIM PUBLICLY
TO SOLICIT FUNDS FOR ANY PURPOSE, TO ESTABLISH HIS IDENTITY AND HIS
AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE CAUSE WHICH HE PURPORTS TO REPRESENT.  THE
STATE IS LIKEWISE FREE TO REGULATE THE TIME AND MANNER OF SOLICITATION
GENERALLY, IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY, PEACE, COMFORT OR
CONVENIENCE.  BUT TO CONDITION THE SOLICITATION OF AID FOR THE
PERPETUATION OF RELIGIOUS VIEWS OR SYSTEMS UPON A LICENSE, THE GRANT OF
WHICH RESTS IN THE EXERCISE OF A DETERMINATION BY STATE AUTHORITY AS TO
WHAT IS A RELIGIOUS CAUSE, IS TO LAY A FORBIDDEN BURDEN UPON THE
EXERCISE OF LIBERTY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION." 

IN CONSIDERING CONVICTION, FOR AN UNLICENSED RELIGIOUS PARADE, UNDER
A STATUTE WITH PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THIS ORDINANCE, WE SAID: 

"CIVIL LIBERTIES, AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IMPLY THE
EXISTENCE OF AN ORGANIZED SOCIETY MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER WITHOUT
WHICH LIBERTY ITSELF WOULD BE LOST IN THE EXCESSES OF UNRESTRAINED
ABUSES.  THE AUTHORITY OF A MUNICIPALITY TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS IN ORDER
TO ASSURE THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE USE OF PUBLIC
HIGHWAYS HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH CIVIL LIBERTIES
BUT RATHER AS ONE OF THE MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING THE GOOD ORDER UPON
WHICH THEY ULTIMATELY DEPEND.  THE CONTROL OF TRAVEL ON THE STREETS OF
CITIES IS THE MOST FAMILIAR ILLUSTRATION OF THIS RECOGNITION OF SOCIAL
NEED.  WHERE A RESTRICTION OF THE USE OF HIGHWAYS IN THAT RELATION IS
DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE IN THE INTEREST OF ALL, IT
CANNOT BE DISREGARDED BY THE ATTEMPTED EXERCISE OF SOME CIVIL RIGHT
WHICH IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION.  ONE
WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FAMILIAR RED TRAFFIC LIGHT
BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT HIS RELIGIOUS DUTY TO DISOBEY THE MUNICIPAL
COMMAND OR SOUGHT BY THAT MEANS TO DIRECT PUBLIC ATTENTION TO AN
ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS OPINIONS."  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569,
574. 

"IF A MUNICIPALITY HAS AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE USE OF ITS PUBLIC
STREETS FOR PARADES OR PROCESSIONS, AS IT UNDOUBTEDLY HAS, IT CANNOT BE
DENIED AUTHORITY TO GIVE CONSIDERATION, WITHOUT UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION,
TO TIME, PLACE AND MANNER IN RELATION TO THE OTHER PROPER USES OF THE
STREETS.  WE FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE LIMITED AUTHORITY
CONFERRED BY THE LICENSING PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN QUESTION AS
THUS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT CONTRAVENED ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT."  ID., AT 576. 

FN12  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 712; BREARD V. ALEXANDRIA, 341
U.S. 622, 641; FIRST AMENDMENT. 

FN13  IT MAY BE THAT IN SOME STATES, THE PROOF OF PROPER APPLICATION
AND UNLAWFUL REFUSAL IS A SUFFICIENT DEFENSE.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT
OTHERS PUNISH ACTIVITIES WITHOUT A LICENSE, FOLLOWING AN UNLAWFUL
REFUSAL.  COMMONWEALTH V. MCCARTHY, 225 MASS. 192, 114 N.E. 287; STATE
V. STEVENS, 78 N.H. 268, 99 A. 723; PHOENIX CARPET CO. V. STATE, 118
ALA. 143, 22 SO. 627; CITY OF MONTPELIER V. MILLS, 171 IND. 175, 85
N.E. 6; COMMONWEALTH V. GARDNER, 241 MASS.  86, 134 N.E. 638; STATE V.
ORR, 68 CONN. 101, 35 A. 770; CITY OF MALDEN V. FLYNN, 318 MASS. 276,
61 N.E.2D 107.  A CLOSE PARALLEL EXISTS BETWEEN UNLAWFUL REFUSALS AND
FAILURE TO APPLY FOR LICENSE ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH APPLICATION WOULD
BE UNAVAILING.  SUCH A DEFENSE IS NOT ALLOWED.  "IT IS WELL SETTLED
THAT WHERE A LICENSING ORDINANCE, VALID ON ITS FACE, PROHIBITS CERTAIN
CONDUCT UNLESS THE PERSON HAS A LICENSE, ONE WHO WITHOUT A LICENSE
ENGAGES IN THAT CONDUCT CAN BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED WITHOUT BEING
ALLOWED TO SHOW THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE WOULD HAVE BEEN
UNAVAILING  ...  .  IN SHORT, THE INDIVIDUAL IS GIVEN THE CHOICE OF
SECURING A LICENSE, OR STAYING OUT OF THE OCCUPATION, OR, BEFORE HE
ACTS, SEEKING A REVIEW IN THE CIVIL COURTS OF THE LICENSING AUTHORITY'S
REFUSAL TO ISSUE HIM A LICENSE.  LIKEWISE IN THE CASE AT BAR THE
DEFENDANTS ARE GIVEN THE CHOICE OF COMPLYING WITH THE REGULATION, OR
NOT ENGAGING IN THE REGULATED ACTIVITY, OR, BEFORE THEY ACT,
PETITIONING THE APPROPRIATE CIVIL TRIBUNALS FOR A MODIFICATION OF OR
EXCEPTION FROM THE REGULATION."  UNITED STATES V. SLOBODKIN, 48 F.
SUPP. 913, 917.  SEE CASES CITED, PARTICULARLY HALL V. GEIGER-JONES
CO., 242 U.S. 539, 554. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 

I AM CONSTRAINED TO PROTEST AGAINST THE COURT'S DISCUSSION UNDER
FIRST BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH AN ISSUE THAT IS NOT HERE. 

IN NO AREA OF ADJUDICATION IS THE ADAGE "SILENCE IS GOLDEN" MORE
PERTINENT, WHEN THERE IS NO DUTY TO SPEAK, THAN IN THE SERIES OF
PROBLEMS TO WHICH A JUDICIAL RECONCILIATION BETWEEN LIBERTY AND ORDER
GIVES RISE.  IT IS MORE THAN A COUNSEL OF WISDOM.  WHEN THERE IS NO
DUTY TO SPEAK ON SUCH ISSUES THERE IS A DUTY NOT TO SPEAK.  THIS IS NOT
SO MERELY BECAUSE CONSTITUTIONAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WHEN A CASE BEFORE THE
COURT DOES NOT CALL FOR THEM, VIOLATE A CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE
SANCTIONED BY HISTORY AND REINFORCED BY THE COSTLY EXPERIENCE OF
OCCASIONAL DEPARTURES FROM IT.  THE PRACTICE IS ESPECIALLY COMPELLING
IN CASES INVOLVING THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  THESE PRESENT PERHAPS THE
MOST DIFFICULT ISSUES FOR COURTS.  BY THEIR VERY VASTNESS, THE THEMES
TO BE TRANSLATED INTO LAW LEND THEMSELVES TOO READILY TO THE INNOCENT
DECEPTIONS OF RHETORIC.  EVERY NEW ATTEMPT TO TRANSLATE THE LEGAL
CONTENT OF THESE LIBERTIES IMPLIEDLY BRINGS INTO QUESTION PRIOR
ATTEMPTS; AT THE LEAST IT ENCOURAGES FURTHER EFFORTS AT EXEGESIS. 

THE COURT'S OPINION HAS CAREFULLY AND, IF I MAY SAY SO, CORRECTLY
DEFINED THE QUESTION TO WHICH IT ADDRESSES ITSELF IN FIRST.  THE COURT
FINDS THAT POULOS PRESENTS TWO CONTENTIONS: 

"FIRST, NO LICENSE FOR CONDUCTING RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES IN GOODWIN
PARK MAY BE REQUIRED BECAUSE SUCH A REQUIREMENT WOULD ABRIDGE THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT;
SECOND, EVEN THOUGH A LICENSE MAY BE REQUIRED, THE ARBITRARY REFUSAL OF
SUCH A LICENSE BY THE COUNCIL, RESULTING IN DELAY, IF APPELLANT MUST,
AS NEW HAMPSHIRE DECIDED, PURSUE JUDICIAL REMEDIES, WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREE SPEECH AND A PROHIBITION OF
THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION." 

IF LUCID ENGLISH MEANS WHAT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY SAYS, THE "FIRST"
CONTENTION IN THE ABOVE QUOTATION - "NO LICENSE FOR CONDUCTING
RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES IN GOODWIN PARK MAY BE REQUIRED BECAUSE SUCH A
REQUIREMENT WOULD ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION GUARANTEED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT" - MEANS THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BARS NEW HAMPSHIRE FROM REQUIRING A LICENSE FOR
"AN OPEN AIR PUBLIC MEETING," AS IS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE OF
PORTSMOUTH.  (FN1)  AND THIS IN LEGAL TERMS IS A CLAIM BY THE APPELLANT
THAT THE ORDINANCE (FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES, A STATUTE) IS VOID ON
ITS FACE.  SUCH PRECISELY WAS THE EXPLICIT CLAIM MADE IN COX V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569.  IN THE COX CASE THE CLAIM WAS THAT THE SCHEME
OF LICENSING AS SUCH WAS OUT OF CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS.  IT WAS TO THAT
ISSUE THAT OUR UNANIMOUS DECISION WAS DIRECTED.  FROM THE BEGINNING OF
THE LITIGATION THAT CLAIM WAS EXPLICITLY REJECTED IN THE PRESENT CASE
AND AT NO SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THE LITIGATION HAS POULOS CLAIMED THAT
THE LICENSING SCHEME AS SUCH WAS VOID.  NO SUCH CLAIM IS MADE IN HIS
STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION, IN HIS REPLY TO THE STATEMENT IN
OPPOSITION, OR IN HIS BRIEF AND REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS.  KAI GAR, AS
THE EXPRESSIVE GREEK PHRASE RAN - NATURALLY SO.  EXPERIENCED COUNSEL
FOR POULOS TRIED TO TAKE HIMSELF FROM UNDER THE COX DECISION AND
DISTINGUISHED IT FROM THIS CASE IN THAT HERE "THE RESPONDENTS (THE
CODEFENDANT, DERRICKSON, DIED AFTER THE TRIAL IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPERIOR COURT) HAVE ATTEMPTED TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE AND OFFERED
TO PAY THE NECESSARY FEE AND EXPENSES."  IT IS NOT THAT POULOS ESTOPPED
HIMSELF, BY APPLYING FOR A LICENSE, FROM THEREAFTER ASSAILING THE
STATUTE AS VOID.  IT IS THAT THROUGHOUT HE CONCEDED THE ORDINANCE TO BE
"VALID ON ITS FACE."  STATE V. POULOS, 97 N.H. 352, 354, 88 A.2D 860,
861.    THE REAL CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK THAT POULOS MAKES IN THE
PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE HERE UNDER REVIEW, IN ALL THE BRIEFS THAT ARE
HERE FILED, AND IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT, IS FOUNDED ON THE FACT THAT HE
WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SET UP IN A PROSECUTION, UNDER SEC. 25 OF
THE PORTSMOUTH ORDINANCE, FOR SPEAKING WITHOUT A LICENSE, THE CLAIM
THAT IN DENYING THE LICENSE FOR WHICH HE APPLIED THE PORTSMOUTH CITY
COUNCIL ACTED ARBITRARILY AND UNREASONABLY.  THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES
FROM THE PROCEEDINGS HAD IN THE PORTSMOUTH MUNICIPAL COURT, WHICH FINED
POULOS $20, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, WHICH SUSTAINED THE FINE, AND IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, WHICH AFFIRMED THE SUPERIOR COURT, WAS
WHETHER THE REMEDY FOR THE CONCEDEDLY WRONGFUL REFUSAL TO GRANT POULOS
A LICENSE WAS MANDAMUS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.  THESE COURTS ALL AGREED
THAT HE COULD NOT SET UP AS A DEFENSE IN THE PROSECUTION FOR SPEAKING
WITHOUT A LICENSE THE ARBITRARY CONDUCT OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN DENYING
HIM ONE. 

THE MATTER WAS PUT WITH ENTIRE ACCURACY IN THE RULING OF THE SUPERIOR
COURT, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT FOUND UNEXCEPTIONABLE: 

"COUNSEL HAVE TRIED THESE CASES ON THE THEORY THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE
CITY COUNCIL TO GRANT LICENSES TO THE RESPONDENTS WAS IN ISSUE.  IT IS
FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN REFUSING TO
GRANT LICENSES TO THE RESPONDENTS WAS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE, BUT
THE COURT RULES AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOT PROPERLY
BEFORE IT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS."  SEE STATE V. POULOS, SUPRA, 97 N.H.,
AT 353, 88 A.2D, AT 861. 

THE VALIDITY OF THIS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE - THAT
THE REMEDY FOR AN UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF A LICENSE IS MANDAMUS OR
CERTIORARI - IS THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
HAD BEFORE IT: 

"ACCORDING TO THE SUPERIOR COURT, THE DEFENDANTS MISCONCEIVED THEIR
REMEDY.  IT HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY THE DEFENSE ON THIS TRANSFER OF THE
CASE FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT, AS WELL AS ON THE FIRST ONE, THAT THE
ORDINANCE IS VALID ON ITS FACE.  IT IS IDENTICAL IN LANGUAGE WITH THE
STATUTE THAT WAS CONSTRUED AS VALID IN STATE V. COX, 91 N.H. 137, WHICH
WAS AFFIRMED IN COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED
THAT THE ORDINANCE APPLIES TO THE PARK THAT WAS THE SCENE OF THE OPEN
AIR MEETINGS IN QUESTION.  NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE TO THE AREAS WHERE THE MEETINGS TOOK
PLACE, AND NO EXCEPTION TAKEN TO ANY FINDING OR RULING WITH RESPECT
THERETO."  SEE STATE V. POULOS, SUPRA, 97 N.H., AT 354, 88 A.2D, AT
861. 

NOWHERE IN ANY ONE OF THE FOUR DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT ON
BEHALF OF POULOS IS THERE ANY SHOWING THAT MORE THAN THIS PROCEDURAL
ISSUE IS BEFORE US.  THE GRIEVANCE THAT IS HERE IS NOT THAT A LICENSE
WAS REQUIRED FOR SPEAKING IN GOODWIN PARK.  THE CLAIM IS THAT, HAVING
DULY COMPLIED WITH THIS REQUIREMENT BY APPLYING FOR A LICENSE THAT WAS
THEN WRONGFULLY REFUSED, POULOS WAS FREE TO SPEAK WITHOUT A LICENSE,
AND THAT HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GO TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR A MANDAMUS
AGAINST THE CITY COUNCIL. 

IN SHORT, WHAT IS DISCUSSED UNDER FIRST IN THE COURT'S OPINION WOULD
HAVE BEEN PRECISELY APPROPRIATE HAD POULOS MADE THE CLAIM MADE IN COX,
NAMELY, THAT THE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WERE NOT REQUIRED
TO APPLY FOR A LICENSE, BUT IS WHOLLY WITHOUT PERTINENCE ON THE PRESENT
RECORD. 

TO BE SURE, POULOS MAKES THE CLAIM - HAVING CONCEDED THAT THE STATUTE
IS VALID ON ITS FACE - THAT THE ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL "AS
APPLIED" "UNDER THE FACTS IN THIS CASE."  BUT WHAT "FACTS"?  THE FACTS
ARE THESE:  HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE REQUIRING A LICENSE, HE
WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SET UP AS A DEFENSE FOR ITS VIOLATION THE FACT THAT
THE WANT OF A LICENSE WAS DUE TO THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE LICENSING
AGENCY. 

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IS CORRECTLY DEFINED BY THE COURT AS THE
"SECOND" CONTENTION: 

"SECOND, EVEN THOUGH A LICENSE MAY BE REQUIRED, THE ARBITRARY REFUSAL
OF SUCH A LICENSE BY THE COUNCIL, RESULTING IN DELAY, IF APPELLANT
MUST, AS NEW HAMPSHIRE DECIDED, PURSUE JUDICIAL REMEDIES, WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREE SPEECH AND A PROHIBITION OF
THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION." 

BUT THAT IS NOT THE "SECOND" CONTENTION.  IT IS THE ONLY CONTENTION. 
IT IS THE ONLY CONTENTION THAT WAS BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME
COURT IN THE PROCEEDING WE ARE REVIEWING, AND IT IS THE ONLY
CONTENTION, HOWEVER VARIOUSLY PHRASED, ON WHICH POULOS CAN OBTAIN
REVIEW HERE.  (FN2)  AND THIS IS THE CONTENTION - THE STATUTE "AS
APPLIED" IN THIS SENSE - THAT THE COURT TREATS IN ITS DISCUSSION UNDER
SECOND. 

ON THIS, THE ONLY ISSUE THAT IS HERE, I AGREE THAT NEW HAMPSHIRE WAS
NOT BARRED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FROM REQUIRING POULOS TO MANDAMUS
THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER IT HAD UNLAWFULLY REFUSED HIM A PERMIT.  NEW
HAMPSHIRE MAY IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AGREE, REFUSE HIM PERMISSION TO
SET UP THE COUNCIL'S ARBITRARY DENIAL OF HIS APPLICATION AS A DEFENSE
TO PROSECUTION UNDER THE ORDINANCE, WHICH FIXES THE PENALTY AT $20. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE REMEDY TO WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CONFINED POULOS EFFECTIVELY FRUSTRATED
HIS RIGHT OF UTTERANCE, LET ALONE THAT IT CIRCUMVENTED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BY A PROCEDURAL PRETENSE.  POULOS' APPLICATION FOR
A PERMIT WAS DENIED ON MAY 4, 1950, AND THE MEETINGS FOR WHICH HE
SOUGHT THE PERMIT WERE TO BE HELD ON JUNE 25 AND JULY 2.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT POULOS DID NOT HAVE AVAILABLE A PROMPT
JUDICIAL REMEDY (FN3) TO SECURE FROM THE COUNCIL HIS RIGHT, JUDICIALLY
ACKNOWLEDGED AND EMPHATICALLY CONFIRMED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AT THE
BAR OF THIS COURT, THE REQUIREMENT BY NEW HAMPSHIRE THAT POULOS INVOKE
RELIEF BY WAY OF MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI AND NOT TAKE THE LAW INTO HIS
OWN HANDS DID NOT HERE INFRINGE THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACES UPON NEW HAMPSHIRE.  IT WOULD
TRIVIALIZE THAT CLAUSE TO BAR NEW HAMPSHIRE FROM DETERMINING THAT LEGAL
ISSUES RAISED BY DENIAL OF A LICENSE, UNDER A CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
SYSTEM, SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDICATED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN POLICE
COURTS OR, IN ANY EVENT, SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN AN APPROPRIATELY
DESIGNED PROCEDURE AND NOT AS A DEFENSE TO A PENAL ACTION. 

IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT DID NOT
CONSTRUE THE ORDINANCE; IT DID NOT, IN THE TECHNICAL MEANING OF THE
PHRASE, APPLY THE STATUTE.  "WE SEE NO REASON," SAID THAT COURT, "FOR
OVERRULING THE LAW AS STATED IN THIS JURISDICTION THAT A WRONGFUL
REFUSAL TO LICENSE IS NOT A BAR TO A PROSECUTION FOR ACTING WITHOUT A
LICENSE."  STATE V. POULOS, SUPRA, 97 N.H., AT 354, 88 A.2D, AT 861. 
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ENFORCED WAS NOT A PART OF THE
LICENSING ORDINANCE BUT THE GENERAL PROCEDURAL LAW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
IT STRETCHES THE DOCTRINE OF DAHNKE-WALKER MILLING CO. V. BONDURANT,
257 U.S. 282, BEYOND REASONABLE LIMITS TO FIND THAT A REQUIREMENT OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE PROCEDURE IS AN APPLICATION OF THE LICENSING STATUTE,
RATHER THAN AN APPLICATION OF THE COMMON LAW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
THEREFORE, I THINK, THE CASE IS PROPERLY HERE ON CERTIORARI AND NOT
APPEAL. 

FN1  WHEN THE CASE WAS FIRST BEFORE THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
ON A STIPULATION OF FACTS ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FINDINGS ON
WHICH THE DECISION IN THE PRESENT CASE MUST REST, THERE WAS IN ISSUE
THE CLAIM THAT THE CITY MAY NOT REFUSE A LICENSE FOR RELIGIOUS MEETINGS
IN ONE PARK EVEN "IF THERE ARE STILL ADEQUATE PLACES OF ASSEMBLY FOR
THOSE WHO WISH TO HOLD PUBLIC OPEN AIR CHURCH MEETINGS."  THIS QUESTION
WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE CASE UPON REMAND FOR THE TRIAL WHICH RESULTED IN
THE CONVICTION NOW BEFORE US.  IT WAS THEN FOUND THAT THE REFUSAL TO
GRANT A LICENSE IN THIS CASE WAS "ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE."  IN ITS
SECOND REVIEW OF THE CASE, IN THE ONLY DECISION THAT IS NOW HERE, THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT ASSUMED THAT THE COUNCIL'S ACTION WAS
UNLAWFUL.  ACCORDINGLY ALL THAT IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW NOW IS THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE PROCEDURAL LAW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, IN RELATION TO AN
ILLEGALLY WITHHELD LICENSE, MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY OPERATE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  SEE, E.G., NELSON V. MORSE, 91 N.H. 177, 178, 16 A.2D 61, 62. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT'S HOLDING IN THIS CASE IS ONE MORE IN A SERIES OF RECENT
DECISIONS WHICH FAIL TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF AMERICANS TO SPEAK
FREELY.  I JOIN MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' FORCEFUL DISSENT AND WISH TO ADD
ONLY A FEW WORDS. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE SPEECH LICENSING
PHASE OF THIS NEW HAMPSHIRE LAW WAS NOT UPHELD IN COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE,
312 U.S. 569.  THAT CASE MERELY RECOGNIZED THAT THE POWER OF A STATE TO
REGULATE STREETS FOR TRAFFIC PURPOSES CARRIED WITH IT A RIGHT TO
REGULATE STREET PARADES.   (FN1)  NOTHING SAID THERE INDICATED THAT A
STATE'S POWER TO REGULATE TRAFFIC CARRIED WITH IT A RIGHT TO CENSOR
PUBLIC SPEECHES OR SPEAKERS MERELY BECAUSE THE STATE DID NOT WISH
CERTAIN SPEAKERS TO BE HEARD.  HERE THE RECORD SHOWS BEYOND DOUBT THAT
OBJECTION TO POULOS' TALKING WAS NOT ROOTED IN A PERMISSIBLE REGULATION
AS TO THE TIME AND PLACE STREET OR PARK SPEECHES COULD BE MADE.  FOR
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT TELLS US THAT ITS OFFICIALS
"ARBITRARILY AND UNREASONABLY" REFUSED TO GRANT POULOS A "LICENSE" TO
TALK.  THIS SHOWS THAT THE STATE'S SPEECH LICENSING OFFICIALS ACTUALLY
DENIED POULOS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  (FN2)  THE
COURT NOW HOLDS POULOS CAN BE BRANDED A CRIMINAL FOR MAKING A TALK AT
THE VERY TIME AND PLACE WHICH THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD ITS
LICENSING OFFICIALS COULD NOT LEGALLY FORBID.  I DO NOT CHALLENGE THE
COURT'S ARGUMENT THAT NEW HAMPSHIRE COULD PROSECUTE A MAN WHO REFUSED
TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW TO PROCURE A LICENSE TO "RUN
BUSINESSES," "ERECT STRUCTURES," "PURCHASE FIREARMS," "STORE
EXPLOSIVES," OR, I MAY ADD, TO RUN A PAWNSHOP.  BUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
AFFORDS FREEDOM OF SPEECH A SPECIAL PROTECTION; I BELIEVE IT PROHIBITS
A STATE FROM CONVICTING A MAN OF CRIME WHOSE ONLY OFFENSE IS THAT HE
MAKES AN ORDERLY RELIGIOUS APPEAL AFTER HE HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY,
"ARBITRARILY AND UNREASONABLY" DENIED A "LICENSE" TO TALK.  THIS TO ME
IS A SUBTLE USE OF A CREEPING CENSORSHIP LOOSE IN THE LAND. 

FN1  "THEY (APPELLANTS) WERE NOT PROSECUTED FOR DISTRIBUTING
LEAFLETS, OR FOR CONVEYING INFORMATION BY PLACARDS OR OTHERWISE, OR FOR
ISSUING INVITATIONS TO A PUBLIC MEETING, OR FOR HOLDING A PUBLIC
MEETING, OR FOR MAINTAINING OR EXPRESSING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  THEIR
RIGHT TO DO ANY ONE OF THESE THINGS APART FROM ENGAGING IN A 'PARADE OR
PROCESSION' UPON A PUBLIC STREET IS NOT HERE INVOLVED AND THE QUESTION
OF THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE ADDRESSED TO ANY OTHER SORT OF CONDUCT
THAN THAT COMPLAINED OF IS NOT BEFORE US."  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312
U.S. 569, 573. 

FN2  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT POULOS TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL'S REFUSAL TO "LICENSE" HIM TO SPEAK WAS "ARBITRARY AND
UNREASONABLE" AND IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT FREELY TO ASSEMBLE, SPEAK
AND WORSHIP GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  THE
STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE SUPERIOR COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE
COUNCIL'S REFUSAL WAS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE COURT CONCEDES, AS INDEED IT MUST UNDER OUR DECISIONS (SEE ROYALL
V. VIRGINIA, 116 U.S. 572; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516), THAT IF
DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO SPEAK HAD BEEN CONTAINED IN A STATUTE, APPELLANT
WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO FLOUT THE LAW, TO EXERCISE HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, TO MAKE THE ADDRESS ON JULY 2,
1950, AND WHEN ARRESTED AND TRIED FOR VIOLATING THE STATUTE, TO DEFEND
ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
STATUTE IS NOT NECESSARILY A NULLITY; IT MAY HAVE INTERMEDIATE
CONSEQUENCES BINDING UPON PEOPLE.  SEE CHICOT COUNTY DIST. V. BANK, 308
U.S. 371.  BUT WHEN A LEGISLATURE UNDERTAKES TO PROSCRIBE THE EXERCISE
OF A CITIZEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, IT ACTS LAWLESSLY;
AND THE CITIZEN CAN TAKE MATTERS IN HIS OWN HANDS AND PROCEED ON THE
BASIS THAT SUCH A LAW IS NO LAW AT ALL.  SEE DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299
U.S. 353, 365. 

THE REASON IS THE PREFERRED POSITION GRANTED FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
FREEDOM OF PRESS, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  SEE THOMAS V. COLLINS, SUPRA, P. 530; MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 115.  THE COMMAND OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
(MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH) IS THAT THERE SHALL
BE NO LAW WHICH ABRIDGES THOSE CIVIL RIGHTS.  THE MATTER IS BEYOND THE
POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO REGULATE, CONTROL, OR CONDITION.  THE CASE
IS THEREFORE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM IN THE FIELD OF
BUSINESS, LABOR, HOUSING, AND THE LIKE WHERE REGULATION IS PERMISSIBLE
AND THE CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY USUALLY CAN BE DETERMINED ONLY BY
THE MANNER OR DEGREE OF APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO AN AGGRIEVED
PERSON. 

A LEGISLATURE THAT UNDERTAKES TO LICENSE OR CENSOR THE RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH IS IMPOSING A PRIOR RESTRAINT (SEE NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S.
697), ODIOUS IN OUR HISTORY.  THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS THAT GOVERNMENT
KEEP ITS HANDS OFF THE EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  NO MATTER
WHAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY SAY, A MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE HIS SPEECH,
PRINT HIS HANDBILL, COMPOSE HIS NEWSPAPER, AND DELIVER HIS SERMON
WITHOUT ASKING ANYONE'S PERMISSION.  THE CONTRARY SUGGESTION IS
ABHORRENT TO OUR TRADITIONS.    IF THE CITIZEN CAN FLOUT THE
LEGISLATURE WHEN IT UNDERTAKES TO TAMPER WITH HIS FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS, I FAIL TO SEE WHY HE MAY NOT FLOUT THE OFFICIAL OR AGENCY WHO
ADMINISTERS A LICENSING LAW DESIGNED TO REGULATE THE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  DEFIANCE OF A STATUTE IS HARDLY LESS HARMFUL TO
AN ORDERLY SOCIETY THAN DEFIANCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.  THE VICE
OF A STATUTE, WHICH EXACTS A LICENSE FOR THE RIGHT TO MAKE A SPEECH, IS
THAT IT ADDS A BURDEN TO THE RIGHT.  THE BURDEN IS THE SAME WHEN THE
OFFICIALS ADMINISTERING THE LICENSING SYSTEM WITHHOLD THE LICENSE AND
REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO SPEND MONTHS OR YEARS IN THE COURTS IN ORDER
TO WIN A RIGHT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION SAYS NO GOVERNMENT SHALL DENY. 

IT WAS SAID BY WAY OF DICTUM IN ROYALL V. VIRGINIA, SUPRA, P. 582,
THAT "AS A GENERAL RULE," IF AN OFFICER, ENTRUSTED WITH A LICENSING
POWER, HAS ONLY "MINISTERIAL" DUTIES TO PERFORM, "THE REMEDY BY
MANDAMUS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO COMPEL THE OFFICER" TO ISSUE THE
LICENSE.  I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE PRESENT STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED BY THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE COURT, IMPOSES MERELY A MINISTERIAL DUTY ON THE CITY
COUNCIL.  THE CONSTRUCTION, BY WHICH WE ARE BOUND, GIVES WIDE RANGE TO
THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COUNCIL: 

"THE DISCRETION THUS VESTED IN THE AUTHORITY IS LIMITED IN ITS
EXERCISE BY THE BOUNDS OF REASON, IN UNIFORMITY OF METHOD OF TREATMENT
UPON THE FACTS OF EACH APPLICATION, FREE FROM IMPROPER OR INAPPROPRIATE
CONSIDERATIONS AND FROM UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION.  A SYSTEMATIC,
CONSISTENT AND JUST ORDER OF TREATMENT, WITH REFERENCE TO THE
CONVENIENCE OF PUBLIC USE OF THE HIGHWAYS (HERE THE PARKS), IS THE
STATUTORY MANDATE.  THE LICENSING AUTHORITY HAS NO DELEGATION OF POWER
IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH THE LEGISLATURE GRANTING THE POWER HAS AND THE
LEGISLATURE ATTEMPTED TO DELEGATE NO POWER IT DID NOT POSSESS."  STATE
V. COX, 91 N.H. 137, 143, 16 A.2D 508, 513. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LICENSING AUTHORITY STAY WITHIN "THE BOUNDS
OF REASON" AND THAT IT BE "FREE FROM IMPROPER OR INAPPROPRIATE
CONSIDERATIONS AND FROM UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION" IS A COMMAND THAT IT ACT
REASONABLY, NOT CAPRICIOUSLY OR ARBITRARILY.  BUT EVEN A REASONABLE
REGULATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  (FN1)  OF COURSE, A STATE COULD DENY THE USE OF A PARK TO
ONE RELIGIOUS GROUP IF A PRIOR APPLICATION HAD BEEN GRANTED TO ANOTHER
GROUP AND THE MEETINGS WOULD CONFLICT.  BUT THERE IS NO SUGGESTION BY
NEW HAMPSHIRE THAT ITS SYSTEM OF REGULATION VESTS THE LICENSING
AUTHORITY WITH ONLY THAT LIMITED POWER.  THE GLOSS WHICH THE NEW
HAMPSHIRE COURT HAS PLACED ON THE STATUTE GRANTS A POWER REASONABLY TO
REGULATE FREE SPEECH.  THAT UNFORTUNATELY IS A DOCTRINE THAT HAS BEEN
SLOWLY CREEPING INTO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  (FN2)  IT HAS NO PLACE
THERE.  IT IS A DOCTRINE DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
GREAT RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

SO, ONE ANSWER TO THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE GONE
INTO COURT TO COMPEL THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE IS THAT THE LICENSING
POWER WAS DISCRETIONARY NOT MINISTERIAL AND THAT A DISCRETIONARY POWER
TO LICENSE FREE SPEECH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

THERE IS ANOTHER ANSWER WHICH IS FOUND IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT,
310 U.S. 296.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS ARGUED THAT A LICENSING POWER IN A
STATE STATUTE BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO LIMIT THE POWER OF THE LICENSING
AUTHORITY TO MINISTERIAL ACTS.  WE REJECTED THAT OFFER ON TWO GROUNDS. 
IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE STATUTE HAD NOT BEEN SO NARROWLY CONSTRUED BY
THE STATE COURT.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL
RELIEF WOULD NOT IN ANY EVENT SAVE THE STATUTE.  WHAT MR. JUSTICE
ROBERTS, WRITING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, SAID WAS THIS (310 U.S., AT
306): 

"  ...  THE AVAILABILITY OF A JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR ABUSES IN THE
SYSTEM OF LICENSING STILL LEAVES THAT SYSTEM ONE OF PREVIOUS RESTRAINT
WHICH, IN THE FIELD OF FREE SPEECH AND PRESS, WE HAVE HELD
INADMISSIBLE.  A STATUTE AUTHORIZING PREVIOUS RESTRAINT UPON THE
EXERCISE OF THE GUARANTEED FREEDOM BY JUDICIAL DECISION AFTER TRIAL IS
AS OBNOXIOUS TO THE CONSTITUTION AS ONE PROVIDING FOR LIKE RESTRAINT BY
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION." 

WHAT MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS SAID NEEDS TO BE REPEATED OVER AND AGAIN. 
THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH IN THE SENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN
PERMISSION MUST BE OBTAINED FROM AN OFFICIAL BEFORE A SPEECH CAN BE
MADE.  THAT IS A PREVIOUS RESTRAINT CONDEMNED BY HISTORY AND AT WAR
WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THE NATURE OF THE PARTICULAR OFFICIAL WHO
HAS THE POWER TO GRANT OR DENY THE AUTHORITY DOES NOT MATTER.  THOSE
WHO WROTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT CONCEIVED OF THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AS
WHOLLY INDEPENDENT OF THE PRIOR RESTRAINT OF ANYONE.  THE JUDICIARY WAS
NOT GRANTED A PRIVILEGE OF RESTRAINT WITHHELD FROM OTHER OFFICIALS. 
FOR HISTORY PROVED THAT JUDGES TOO WERE SOMETIMES TYRANTS. 

FN1 THIS MARKS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PRESENT CASE AND COX V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569.  THERE THE SOLE CHARGE AGAINST APPELLANTS WAS
THAT THEY WERE "TAKING PART IN A PARADE OR PROCESSION" ON PUBLIC
STREETS WITHOUT A LICENSE.  WE ONLY HELD THAT NEW HAMPSHIRE'S METHOD OF
CONTROLLING TRAVEL ON THE STREETS OF CITIES WAS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE
POLICE POWER OF THE STATES.  WE DISTINGUISHED THAT PROBLEM FROM LIKE
CASES ARISING UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, P. 573: 

"THE SOLE CHARGE AGAINST APPELLANTS WAS THAT THEY WERE 'TAKING PART
IN A PARADE OR PROCESSION' ON PUBLIC STREETS WITHOUT A PERMIT AS THE
STATUTE REQUIRED.  THEY WERE NOT PROSECUTED FOR DISTRIBUTING LEAFLETS,
OR FOR CONVEYING INFORMATION BY PLACARDS OR OTHERWISE, OR FOR ISSUING
INVITATIONS TO A PUBLIC MEETING, OR FOR HOLDING A PUBLIC MEETING, OR
FOR MAINTAINING OR EXPRESSING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.   THEIR RIGHT TO DO
ANY ONE OF THESE THINGS APART FROM ENGAGING IN A 'PARADE OR PROCESSION'
UPON A PUBLIC STREET IS NOT HERE INVOLVED AND THE QUESTION OF THE
VALIDITY OF A STATUTE ADDRESSED TO ANY OTHER SORT OF CONDUCT THAN THAT
COMPLAINED OF IS NOT BEFORE US." 

FN2  BEAUHARNAIS V. ILLINOIS, 343 U.S. 250; DENNIS V. UNITED STATES,
341 U.S. 494; FEINER V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 315.  CF. BREARD V.
ALEXANDRIA, 341 U.S. 622; AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339
U.S. 382; OSMAN V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 846. 
..END :





CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORP. V. SCOTT 345 U.S. 427 


NO. 303.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1953 - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1953 - 197 F.2D
795, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


PETITIONER CHARTERED A VESSEL TO THE UNITED STATES FOR A VOYAGE IN THE
WINTER OF 1941-42 TO A PORT OR PORTS IN THE PHILIPPINES AND RETURN, AND
BRITISH UNDERWRITERS ISSUED A POLICY OF WAR-RISK INSURANCE ON THE
VESSEL FOR THE VOYAGE.  AFTER THE VOYAGE HAD COMMENCED, AUSTRALIA WAS
DULY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PHILIPPINES AS THE OUTBOUND DESTINATION.  IN
AUSTRALIA THE VESSEL WAS REQUISITIONED BY ALLIED AUTHORITIES AND
EMPLOYED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.  IT WAS DAMAGED BY ENEMY AIRCRAFT AND
ABANDONED.  A WARRANTY IN THE POLICY PROVIDED:  "FREE OF CLAIMS ARISING
FROM (BRITISH OR ALLIED) CAPTURE OR  ...  REQUISITION  ...  BUT UNLESS
THE INSURED VESSEL IS CONDEMNED THIS WARRANTY SHALL NOT EXCLUDE LOSSES
...  CAUSED BY  ...  IMPLEMENTS OF WAR  ...  ."  HELD:  THIS POLICY
INSURED AGAINST THE LOSS IN THIS CASE, AND IT WAS IN FORCE WHEN THAT
LOSS OCCURRED, SINCE NO EXPLICIT DECISION HAD BEEN REACHED BY THE
REQUISITIONING AUTHORITIES TO PREVENT THE VESSEL FROM COMPLETING,
WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, THE VOYAGE FOR WHICH THE INSURANCE WAS
ISSUED.  PP. 428-444. 

CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORP. V. SCOTT ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY TO RECOVER UPON A POLICY OF WAR-RISK INSURANCE
ISSUED TO COVER A VOYAGE BY PETITIONER'S VESSEL, THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD THE UNDERWRITERS LIABLE.  103 F. SUPP. 243.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  197 F.2D 795.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S.
853.  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED TO
THAT COURT, P. 444. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST BRITISH UNDERWRITERS ON A WAR
RISK POLICY ISSUED TO COVER THE CALMAR CORPORATION'S S.S. PORTMAR FOR A
VOYAGE, IN THE WINTER OF 1941-1942, FROM THE UNITED STATES TO A PORT OR
PORTS IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND RETURN TO AN ATLANTIC OR PACIFIC
PORT IN THE UNITED STATES.  AFTER THE VOYAGE HAD COMMENCED AUSTRALIA
WAS DULY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AS THE OUTBOUND
DESTINATION.  THE PORTMAR WAS UNDER CHARTER TO THE UNITED STATES.  THIS
SUIT, BASED ON DAMAGE INFLICTED BY ENEMY AIRCRAFT, WAS TRIED TOGETHER
WITH A LIBEL AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CLAIMING RECOVERY FOR THE SAME
DAMAGE AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL CHARTER HIRE.  SEE POST, 446.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD THE UNDERWRITERS LIABLE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL
LOSS OF THE VESSEL.  103 F. SUPP. 243.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
197 F.2D 795.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 344 U.S. 853, BECAUSE WIDE USE,
SO THE COURT WAS ADVISED, OF THE CLAUSES OF THIS POLICY MAKES THEIR
CONSTRUCTION, A NECESSARY ISSUE HERE, A MATTER OF MORE THAN INDIVIDUAL
CONCERN. 

PURSUANT TO THE CHARTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CALMAR CORPORATION AND
THE UNITED STATES, THE PORTMAR LEFT SAN FRANCISCO FOR MANILA ON
NOVEMBER 28, 1941.  SHE CARRIED HIGH-OCTANE GASOLINE, AMMUNITION AND
OTHER MILITARY SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT.  SHE WAS SOME 600 MILES
SOUTHEAST OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS ON DECEMBER 7, WHEN PEARL HARBOR WAS
ATTACKED.  HER MASTER AT THAT TIME PUT HER ON A SOUTHERLY COURSE SO AS
TO AVOID THE COMBAT AREA.  ON DECEMBER 11, UNITED STATES NAVAL ROUTING
ORDERS WERE RECEIVED BY RADIO ON THE PORTMAR.  FROM THAT DAY UNTIL SHE
WAS DAMAGED AND ABANDONED, A LITTLE OVER TWO MONTHS LATER, HER EVERY
MOVEMENT WAS IN OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS ISSUED BY COMPETENT UNITED STATES
AND AUSTRALIAN AUTHORITIES.  THE PORTMAR, WHICH FLEW THE AMERICAN FLAG,
WAS SUBJECT TO THESE ORDERS. 

ON DECEMBER 30, THE PORTMAR ARRIVED AT SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA.  (FN1)
WITHOUT BEING PERMITTED TO DISCHARGE CARGO, SHE WAS DISPATCHED UP THE
COAST TO BRISBANE.  THERE HER CARGO WAS UNLOADED AND SORTED, PART OF IT
WAS PUT BACK ON HER, AND SHE WAS SENT ALMOST HALF-WAY AROUND THE ISLAND
TO PORT DARWIN.  SHE HAD BEEN IN BRISBANE A WEEK AND HAD LEFT ON
JANUARY 9, 1942.  SHE WAS IN DARWIN ON THE 19TH AND LAY AT ANCHOR TILL
THE 31ST, WAITING TO DOCK AND DISCHARGE CARGO.  THIS SHE THEN DID, IN
PART.  STILL CARRYING TWO THOUSAND DRUMS OF HER ORIGINAL LOAD OF
GASOLINE, SHE LEFT ON FEBRUARY 4 FOR A RELATIVELY SHORT TRIP ACROSS
JOSEPH BONAPARTE GULF TO WYNDHAM, WHERE SHE ARRIVED ON THE 8TH.  SHE
RETURNED EMPTY TO DARWIN ON THE 12TH.  SHE THEN TOOK ABOARD TROOPS WITH
EQUIPMENT AND ARMAMENT AND JOINED AN EXCEEDINGLY PERILOUS EXPEDITION TO
KOEPANG, ON THE ISLAND OF TIMOR, SOME 500-ODD MILES NORTHWEST OF
DARWIN.  THIS EXPEDITION RAN INTO HEAVY AIR ATTACKS AND TURNED BACK. 
ON THE 18TH OF FEBRUARY, THE PORTMAR WAS AT DARWIN AGAIN, AWAITING HER
TURN TO DOCK AND DISCHARGE THE PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT SHE HAD TAKEN
ON.  WHILE THUS AT ANCHOR ON THE MORNING OF THE 19TH, SHE UNDERWENT
BOMBING AND STRAFING BY JAPANESE AIRPLANES AND SUSTAINED THE DAMAGE
WHICH FORCED HER MASTER TO BEACH HER AND CAUSED HIM TO ABANDON HER. 

ARTICLE 2.17 OF THE CHARTER AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE PORTMAR SAILED
PROVIDED THAT HER OWNERS MIGHT OBTAIN WAR-RISK INSURANCE, TO BE PAID
FOR BY THE UNITED STATES.  BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE VOYAGE, CALMAR
TOOK OUT THE WAR-RISK POLICY NOW IN QUESTION ON THE HULL AND MACHINERY
OF THE PORTMAR, VALUED AT $860,000.  THIS POLICY INSURED "ONLY AGAINST
THE RISKS OF WAR, STRIKES, RIOTS AND CIVIL COMMOTIONS."  IT WAS
ASSEMBLED - THAT SEEMS AN APPROPRIATE WORD - BY SUPERIMPOSING ON THE
AGE-OLD LLOYD'S FORM LAYER UPON LAYER OF WARRANTIES AND RIDERS. 
WARRANTIES FREE THE UNDERWRITERS FROM OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY RIDERS,
AND SUBSEQUENT RIDERS THEN REIMPOSE OBLIGATIONS THUS AVOIDED. 

"TOUCHING THE ADVENTURES AND PERILS WHICH WE THE ASSURERS ARE
CONTENTED TO BEAR AND DO TAKE UPON US IN THIS VOYAGE," THE BASIC
LLOYD'S POLICY STATES, "THEY ARE, OF THE SEAS, MEN-OF-WAR  ... ENEMIES
...  TAKINGS AT SEA, ARRESTS, RESTRAINTS AND DETAINMENTS OF ALL KINGS,
PRINCES AND PEOPLE ...  ."  THE POLICY IS THEN "WARRANTED FREE FROM
...  CAPTURE, SEIZURE, ARREST, RESTRAINT OR DETAINMENT, OR THE
CONSEQUENCES THEREOF  ...  OR ANY TAKING OF THE VESSEL, BY REQUISITION
OR OTHERWISE  ...  ALSO FROM ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE
OPERATIONS  ...  ."  THIS WARRANTY IS KNOWN AS THE CAPTURE AND SEIZURE
WARRANTY.  IT IS SUPERSEDED BY A WAR-RISK RIDER, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"IT IS AGREED THAT THIS INSURANCE COVERS ONLY THOSE RISKS WHICH WOULD
BE COVERED BY THE ATTACHED POLICY  ...  IN THE ABSENCE OF THE C.&S.
WARRANTY  ...  BUT WHICH ARE EXCLUDED BY THAT WARRANTY. 

"THIS INSURANCE IS ALSO SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE FOLLOWING WARRANTIES
AND ADDITIONAL CLAUSES: 

"THE ADVENTURES AND PERILS CLAUSE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS INCLUDING THE
RISKS OF PIRACY, CIVIL WAR, REVOLUTION, REBELLION OR INSURRECTION OR
CIVIL STRIFE ARISING THEREFROM, FLOATING AND/OR STATIONARY MINES AND/OR
TORPEDOES WHETHER DERELICT OR NOT AND/OR MILITARY OR NAVAL AIRCRAFT
...  AND WARLIKE OPERATIONS AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF SANCTIONS BY MEMBERS
OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS  ...  BUT EXCLUDING ARREST  ...  UNDER CUSTOMS
OR QUARANTINE REGULATIONS, AND SIMILAR ARRESTS, RESTRAINTS OR
DETAINMENTS NOT ARISING FROM ACTUAL OR IMPENDING HOSTILITIES OR
SANCTIONS." 

A FURTHER WARRANTY, KNOWN AS THE FREE OF BRITISH CAPTURE WARRANTY,
CARVES A SPECIFIC EXCEPTION OUT OF THE WAR-RISK RIDER.  IT HOLDS THE
UNDERWRITERS: 

"FREE OF CLAIMS ARISING FROM CAPTURE, SEIZURE, ARREST, RESTRAINT,
DETAINMENT, REQUISITION, NATIONALIZATION OR CONDEMNATION BY OR UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN OR ANY OF ITS
DOMINIONS  ...  OR ALLIES, OR BY ANY FORCES ACTING IN COOPERATION WITH
OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THEM OR ANY OF THEM." 

BUT A SAVING CLAUSE, FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY, PROVIDES THAT: 

"UNLESS THE INSURED VESSEL IS CONDEMNED THIS WARRANTY SHALL NOT
EXCLUDE LOSSES OTHERWISE COVERED BY THIS POLICY WHICH ARE CAUSED BY
GUNFIRE, TORPEDOES, BOMBS, MINES OR OTHER IMPLEMENTS OF WAR, OR BY
STRANDING, SINKING, BURNING OR COLLISION, PROVIDED SUCH LOSSES WOULD
NOT BE COVERED BY A MARINE INSURANCE POLICY (IN THE FORM HERETO
ATTACHED) WARRANTED FREE OF CLAIMS ARISING FROM CAPTURE, SEIZURE OR
DETENTION." 

CONSTRUING SUCH CONGLOMERATE PROVISIONS REQUIRES A SKILL NOT UNLIKE
THAT CALLED FOR IN THE DECIPHERMENT OF OBSCURE PALIMPSEST TEXTS.  A
JUDICIAL SIGH RECENTLY UTTERED AT THE SEAT OF LLOYD'S EVOKES A
SYMPATHETIC ECHO.  "FREIGHT INSURANCE ENTERED INTO ON THE OLD FORM OF
MARINE INSURANCE POLICY WITH DELETIONS OR ADDITIONS TO ADAPT THE FORM
TO THE INTENDED CONTRACT HAS ALMOST INVARIABLY GIVEN RISE TO
DIFFICULTIES, AND THE PRESENT CASE IS NO EXCEPTION."  MR. JUSTICE
SELLERS IN ATLANTIC MARITIME CO. V. GIBBON, (1953) 1 ALL E.R. 893,
899.  (FN2)  ONE ENVIES NOT MERELY THE PERCEPTIVENESS OF LORD MANSFIELD
IN MATTERS OF COMMERCIAL LAW BUT HIS GENIAL MEANS OF INFORMING
HIMSELF.  WE CANNOT RESORT TO THE ELASTIC PROCEDURE BY WHICH MANSFIELD
SOUGHT ENLIGHTENMENT AT DINNERS WITH "KNOWING AND CONSIDERABLE
MERCHANTS," (FN3) NOR HAVE WE ANY ELDER BRETHREN OF TRINITY HOUSE TO
HELP US.  TO BE SURE, WE HAVE IN THIS CASE THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWS OF
THE MOST EXPERIENCED OF ADMIRALTY JUDGES.  CONSIDERING THE SCANTY
CONTACT THIS COURT HAS THESE DAYS WITH MARITIME LAW, WE PAY ESPECIAL
DEFERENCE TO THE WEIGHTY JUDGMENT BEFORE US.  BUT SINCE IT IS BEFORE
US, WE CANNOT ABDICATE THE DUTY TO DECIDE AND MUST IN THE END EXERCISE
OUR OWN JUDGMENT HOWEVER UNSURE IT BE. 

ASSUMING THAT THE POLICY WAS IN FORCE WHEN THE PORTMAR WAS ATTACKED,
THERE IS NO DOUBT WHATEVER THAT THE UNDERWRITERS WOULD BE LIABLE FOR
THE DAMAGE UNDER THE BASIC ADVENTURES AND PERILS CLAUSE TAKEN ALONE. 
CF. STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 76.  THE CAPTURE AND
SEIZURE WARRANTY, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD, OF COURSE, HOLD THE
UNDERWRITERS FREE.  WE UNDERSTAND THE WAR-RISK RIDER TO PROVIDE AS
FOLLOWS:  RISKS WHICH ARE COVERED BY THE ADVENTURES AND PERILS CLAUSE,
BUT WHICH ARE EXCLUDED BY THE CAPTURE AND SEIZURE WARRANTY, AND ONLY
SUCH RISKS, REMAIN COVERED.  THESE RISKS INCLUDE, IN THE LANGUAGE OF
THE ADVENTURE AND PERILS CLAUSE, "RESTRAINTS AND DETAINMENTS OF ALL
KINGS, PRINCES AND PEOPLE," OR, IN THAT OF THE CAPTURE AND SEIZURE
WARRANTY, "RESTRAINT OR DETAINMENT, OR THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF  ...
OR ANY TAKING OF THE VESSEL, BY REQUISITION OR OTHERWISE."  (FN4)  THE
FREE BRITISH CAPTURE WARRANTY WOULD, IN TURN, AGAIN VERY LIKELY AVOID
LIABILITY IN THIS CASE.  BUT THE WAR-RISK RIDER MAKES THE LOSS OF THE
PORTMAR ONE WHICH IS "OTHERWISE COVERED BY THIS POLICY" WITHIN THE
TERMS OF THE SAVING CLAUSE IN THE BRITISH CAPTURE WARRANTY.  THE LOSS
IS "OTHERWISE COVERED BY THIS POLICY" BECAUSE IT IS INSURED AGAINST
ELSEWHERE WITHIN IT, THAT IS, IN THE WAR-RISK RIDER.  SINCE THE PORTMAR
HAD NOT BEEN "CONDEMNED" WHEN SHE WAS DAMAGED BY "IMPLEMENTS OF WAR,"
THE SAVING CLAUSE THUS REINSTATES, IN THIS CASE, COVERAGE AVOIDED BY
THE FREE OF BRITISH CAPTURE WARRANTY, STILL ASSUMING, OF COURSE, THAT
THE POLICY WAS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE LOSS.  (FN5) 

THE UNDERWRITERS CONTEND THAT THE PHRASE "LOSSES OTHERWISE COVERED BY
THIS POLICY" IN THE SAVING CLAUSE REFERS TO LOSSES WHICH THE POLICY
WOULD COVER IF THEY WERE NOT THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ALLIED RESTRAINT OR
DETAINMENT.  A LOSS SUCH AS THAT OF THE PORTMAR, THEY SAY, IS NOT
OTHERWISE COVERED BECAUSE IT FOLLOWED A DEVIATION WHICH, HAD IT NOT
OCCURRED PURSUANT TO NAVAL ORDERS, WOULD NOT BE EXCUSABLE AND WOULD
HAVE TERMINATED COVERAGE.  THE PHRASE IN ITS CONTEXT PRECLUDES SUCH
SOPHISTICAL READING.  IT IS PLAINLY INTENDED, TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISO
AT THE END RESTRICTING THE CLAUSE TO LOSSES WHICH THE CAPTURE AND
SEIZURE WARRANTY WOULD EXCLUDE AND WHICH THE WAR-RISK RIDER THEREFORE
TAKES IN, TO MAKE CERTAIN AND DOUBLY CERTAIN THAT THE COVERAGE OF THE
POLICY AS A WHOLE IS IN NO EVENT ENLARGED.  (FN6)  MOREOVER, IF THE
SENSE WERE GIVEN TO THE "OTHERWISE COVERED" PHRASE WHICH THE
UNDERWRITERS PRESS UPON US, THE SAVING CLAUSE AS A WHOLE WOULD BE LEFT
QUITE DEVOID OF ANY MEANING.  IT WOULD THEN USELESSLY PRESERVE COVERAGE
ONLY FOR LOSSES WHICH ARE SECURELY COVERED ANYWAY, DESPITE THE PRESENCE
OF THE FREE OF BRITISH CAPTURE WARRANTY. 

THE UNDERWRITERS RESORT TO A SECOND ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE SAVING
CLAUSE.  THEY CONTEND, NOT QUITE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE EARLIER
ARGUMENT, THAT THE CLAUSE WAS MEANT TO SAVE LOSSES WHICH OCCUR WHILE A
VESSEL IS UNDER CERTAIN ALLIED RESTRAINTS, LIMITED IN NUMBER, BUT NOT
UNDER OTHERS.  THE UNDERWRITERS, UPON THE TRIAL, OFFERED TO PROVE AS
MUCH BY AN EXPERT WITNESS.  NO MORE NEED BE SAID THAN THAT TO VARY THE
TERMS OF THE SAVING CLAUSE SO AS TO MAKE IT MEAN WHAT THE EXPERT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT SAID IT MEANT (FN7) - WHICH ON ITS FACE IT CANNOT MEAN -
WOULD BE TO REFORM THE CONTRACT, AND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF REFORMATION ARE NOT MET IN THIS CASE. 

WE THUS READ THE PROVISIONS OF THIS POLICY AS INSURING AGAINST A LOSS
SUCH AS THAT OF THE PORTMAR, THOUGH IT BE THE CONSEQUENCE OF SEIZURE BY
A BRITISH ALLY.  SO, REASONING SUBSTANTIALLY ALONG THESE LINES, DID THE
DISTRICT COURT, AND IT PROCEEDED TO HOLD THE UNDERWRITERS LIABLE.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS ASSUMED THAT THE "LABYRINTH OF VERBIAGE, WITHIN WHICH
LURKS WHATEVER CONTRACT WAS MADE, IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO AGREE THAT,
ALTHOUGH THE SHIP MIGHT AT THE TIME BE UNDER THE 'RESTRAINT OF
PRINCES,' THE POLICY SHOULD COVER HER LOSS ...  ."  BUT IT HELD THAT
"THE POLICY WAS NO LONGER IN FORCE WHEN THE LOSS OCCURRED, THE INSURED
VOYAGE HAVING BEFORE THEN COME TO AN END AND THE POLICY WITH IT."  197
F.2D, AT 796.  THE VOYAGE HAD ENDED, THE COURT SAID, BECAUSE THE
DOMINION EXERCISED OVER THE PORTMAR BY ALLIED AUTHORITIES WAS COMPLETE,
AND WAS VERY PROBABLY INTENDED TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY.  THE POLICY,
IN TURN, WAS NO LONGER IN FORCE BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN FOR A VOYAGE AND
COULD NOT OUTLAST IT, ANY MORE THAN A VOYAGE CHARTER WOULD.  PRECISELY
AS FRUSTRATION OF THE VOYAGE WOULD END THE LATTER, SO IT RELEASES AN
UNDERWRITER FROM FURTHER LIABILITY. 

THE FACTS FROM WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS DEDUCED THAT THE DETAINMENT
OF THE PORTMAR WAS TO BE PROLONGED INDEFINITELY ARE THESE.  WHEN THE
PORTMAR REACHED SYDNEY, THE JAPANESE HAD A WORKING NAVAL COMMAND OF THE
PACIFIC, AND AUSTRALIA WAS THREATENED WITH INVASION.  THE NEED FOR
SHIPPING WAS DIRE, AS THE USE MADE OF THE PORTMAR HERSELF SHOWS. 
INDEED, AFTER SHE WAS DAMAGED AND BEACHED, MILITARY AUTHORITIES SALVED
HER AND PATCHED HER UP HASTILY.  THE UNITED STATES EVENTUALLY
REQUISITIONED TITLE TO HER, AND SHE WAS USED TILL FINALLY DESTROYED. 
AN AMERICAN COLONEL IN CHARGE OF TRANSPORTATION IN AUSTRALIA WHEN THE
PORTMAR WAS THERE TESTIFIED AT THE TRIAL TO THE SERIOUS SHORTAGE OF
SHIPPING, WHICH, HE SAID, CONTINUED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR 1942.  BUT AS
LATE AS JANUARY 19, WHEN THE PORTMAR WAS IN DARWIN, THE OWNERS LEARNED
FROM AN AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION THAT SHE WOULD
LOAD CHROME ORE LATE IN FEBRUARY AND COULD BE EXPECTED IN PHILADELPHIA
IN APRIL.  AUSTRALIA WAS NOT, OF COURSE, THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THERE WAS
A DEARTH OF SHIPPING AT THE TIME, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO
SHOW THAT A COLONEL ON THE SPOT HAD THE LAST WORD AS TO THE FUTURE USE
OF AN OCEAN-GOING VESSEL; IF THERE WERE, IT WOULD STRAIN CREDULITY. 
TWO FURTHER POINTS ARE TO BE NOTED.  FIRST, WHEN THE ARMY SALVED AND
USED THE PORTMAR AFTER SHE WAS DAMAGED, SHE WAS NO LONGER IN ANY
CONDITION TO MAKE OCEAN VOYAGES, AND COULD NOT READILY BE RETURNED TO
SUCH A CONDITION.  AND IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT THE UNITED STATES
FORMALLY REQUISITIONED HER - AT THAT TIME FOR THE FIRST TIME.  SECOND,
THERE WAS TESTIMONY INDICATING THAT OTHER VESSELS DETAINED IN AUSTRALIA
EARLY IN 1942 WERE HELD THROUGH THE YEAR.  BUT THERE IS NO TESTIMONY
THAT ANY VESSELS SIMILAR TO THE PORTMAR WERE SO HELD.  THE WITNESS -
THE ARMY COLONEL IN CHARGE - SPOKE OF "SOME 21 SMALL DUTCH VESSELS." 

IN POINT OF TIME, THE COURT OF APPEALS FIXED FRUSTRATION OF THE
VOYAGE AS HAVING TAKEN PLACE AT BRISBANE, DURING THE PERIOD OF JANUARY
5 TO 9, 1942.  AND SO THE UNDERWRITERS CONTEND HERE.  PART OF THE
PORTMAR'S CARGO, WHICH WAS UNLOADED AT BRISBANE FOR SORTING, WAS, AS WE
HAVE SEEN, PUT BACK ON HER THERE, AND SHE WAS SENT WITH IT TO DARWIN. 
IT CAN HARDLY BE MAINTAINED THAT THE VESSEL'S TRIPS ALONG THE
AUSTRALIAN COAST AFTER BRISBANE, WHILE SHE WAS STILL CARRYING PARTS OF
HER ORIGINAL CARGO, OR THE TRIP FROM SYDNEY TO BRISBANE, CONSTITUTED A
DEPARTURE FROM HER VOYAGE, WHETHER OR NOT EXCUSABLE.  FOR THE VOYAGE
SPECIFIED IN THE PORTMAR'S INSURANCE POLICY WAS NOT TO A SINGLE PORT AS
THE OUTBOUND DESTINATION, BUT TO A "PORT OR PORTS" AND BACK, "VIA PORT
OR PORTS IN ANY ORDER."  (FN8)  THAT BEING SO, WE CANNOT FIND THAT THE
VOYAGE ENDED AT BRISBANE ON THE THEORY THAT IT WAS THERE THAT DOMINION
OVER THE PORTMAR BY REQUISITIONING AUTHORITIES BECAME COMPLETE AND
HENCE THERE THAT THE INTENTION TO CAUSE HER TO ABANDON HER VOYAGE WAS
FORMED OR MANIFESTED.  IT IS NOT MAINTAINED, NOR COULD IT BE, THAT AN
EXPLICIT DECISION, OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE, NOT TO ALLOW THE PORTMAR TO
CONTINUE ON HER VOYAGE WAS EVER REACHED BY THE AUTHORITIES, AND THERE
IS NO SHOWING WHATEVER THAT HER OWNERS OR CHARTERER HAD ANY INTENTION
OF DISCONTINUING THE VOYAGE.  ON THE EVIDENCE, THIS IS NOT A CASE IN
WHICH A CHANGE OF VOYAGE, RELEASING THE UNDERWRITERS, CAN BE SHOWN
BEFORE THE VESSEL IS OVERTLY EMPLOYED IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PURPOSE OR ROUTE OF THE ORIGINAL VOYAGE.  COMPARE THELLUSSON V.
FERGUSON, 1 DOUG.  361, WITH TASKER V. CUNNINGHAME, 1 BLIGH 87, AND
WOOLDRIDGE V. BOYDELL, 1 DOUG.  16; SEE 1 ARNOULD, MARINE INSURANCE
(13TH ED., BY LORD CHORLEY 1950), SECS. 381, 385.  CONSEQUENTLY,
DOMINION OR NO, THE PORTMAR WAS COVERED BY HER INSURANCE AT BRISBANE
AND LATER, TILL SHE STARTED ON THE KOEPANG EXPEDITION, OR JUST BEFORE,
AS SHE IS CONCEDED TO HAVE BEEN COVERED BEFORE BRISBANE, WHILE UNDER
EQUALLY COMPLETE DOMINION OF NAVAL AUTHORITIES.  CF. RICKARDS V.
FORESTAL LAND, TIMBER AND RAILWAYS CO., (1942) A.C. 50, 80. 

THE KOEPANG EXPEDITION WAS UNDOUBTEDLY A VENTURE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE VOYAGE SPECIFIED IN THE PORTMAR'S INSURANCE.  (FN9)  WE ARE
PREPARED TO ASSUME, THOUGH OF COURSE WE DO NOT DECIDE, THAT THE KOEPANG
TRIP WOULD HAVE TERMINATED, ON GROUNDS OF ABANDONMENT OF VOYAGE, THE
COVERAGE OF A POLICY WARRANTED FREE OF WAR RISKS OR OF ONE WARRANTED
COMPLETELY FREE OF BRITISH CAPTURE, AND THAT, UNDER SUCH A POLICY, HAD
THE PORTMAR SUBSEQUENTLY SUSTAINED DAMAGE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO WAR
CAUSES, CF., E.G., STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 54,
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO RECOVERY.  WE ASSUME THAT IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD HAVE INFERRED AS IT DID, ON
THE BASIS OF THE KOEPANG VENTURE AND OF THE MILITARY SITUATION, THAT
THE PORTMAR WAS TO BE RETAINED INDEFINITELY UNDER REQUISITION, AND THAT
HER VOYAGE WAS THEREFORE OVER.  BUT THE POINT OF THIS POLICY IS THAT
HERE THE UNDERWRITERS, BY VIRTUE OF THE SAVING CLAUSE, DID INSURE
AGAINST RISKS OF BRITISH REQUISITION.  THEY INSURED, IN OTHER WORDS,
AGAINST CONSEQUENCES OF A FORCED INTERRUPTION OF THE VOYAGE, WHICH MUST
NECESSARILY THROW INTO DOUBT THE CHANCES OF COMPLETING THE VOYAGE AS
PLANNED.  CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY MAKE OUT A CHANGE OF VOYAGE AND CAUSE
TERMINATION OF COVERAGE UNDER A POLICY WARRANTED FREE OF RISKS ARISING
FROM SEIZURE NEED NOT DO SO UNDER ONE OF INSURANCE AGAINST SUCH RISKS. 
IN ONE AS IN THE OTHER, IF THEY ARE BOTH WRITTEN FOR A VOYAGE, THERE IS
AN IMPLIED WARRANTY THAT NO DIFFERENT VOYAGE WILL BE UNDERTAKEN.  BUT
IT IS A WARRANTY WHICH MUST BE CONSTRUED IN LIGHT OF THE EXPRESS
PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY, AND WHICH MAY MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS IN
DIFFERENT POLICIES. 

IF, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AN OWNER WHO BOUGHT INSURANCE
AGAINST DAMAGE RESULTING FROM ALLIED REQUISITION AND ONE WHO BOUGHT A
POLICY EXCLUDING SUCH LOSSES ENTIRELY STAND ON NO DIFFERENT FOOTING IN
RESPECT OF A SOVEREIGN'S INTENTION TO RETAIN THEIR VESSELS
INDEFINITELY, THEY HARDLY STAND ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING IN ANY
SUBSTANTIAL RESPECT.  AND THE ONE RECEIVED VERY LITTLE, IF ANYTHING,
MORE THAN THE OTHER.  FOR INFERENCES OF PERMANENCE, AS STRONG AS THOSE
IN THIS CASE, WILL SURELY BE PERMISSIBLE FROM MOST EVERY REQUISITION BY
A FRIENDLY SOVEREIGN FOR MILITARY USES.  IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE A
MILITARY SITUATION SERIOUS ENOUGH TO LEAD A COMMANDER IN THE FIELD TO
TAKE IT UPON HIMSELF TO REQUISITION A FRIENDLY VESSEL, WHICH IS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS TO MAKE THAT REQUISITION OF PRESUMPTIVELY
INDEFINITE, OR AT LEAST UNDERTAIN, DURATION IN HIS MIND.  THUS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POLICY CONTAINING A FREE OF BRITISH CAPTURE
WARRANTY WITH A SAVING CLAUSE, SUCH AS WE HAVE IN THIS CASE, AND ONE
WITHOUT A LIKE SAVING CLAUSE NARROWS DOWN, UNDER THE HOLDING OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS, TO THIS:  ON THE FIRST POLICY, UNDERWRITERS MAY BE
HELD LIABLE FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO A SMALL CLASS OF ALLIED
RESTRAINTS WHICH ARE BY THEIR NATURE LIMITED IN DURATION, THE MOST
COMMON EXAMPLE BEING DETAINMENT FOR INSPECTION.  ON THE SECOND POLICY,
UNDERWRITERS MAY NOT BE SO HELD.  THIS, OF COURSE, IS EXACTLY THE
RESULT WHICH WOULD FLOW FROM THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED ON THE SAVING
CLAUSE BY THE UNDERWRITERS' EXPERT WITNESS, (FN10) A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRARY TO THAT ASSUMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS TO BE THE CORRECT
ONE.  AS TO OTHER RESTRAINTS, THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD NORMALLY ALLOW
NO RECOURSE AGAINST THE UNDERWRITERS TO EITHER OWNER, THE ONE WHO
BOUGHT THE FIRST TYPE OF POLICY OR THE ONE WHO BOUGHT THE SECOND; TO
ONE ON ONE THEORY, TO THE OTHER ON ANOTHER; TO ONE BECAUSE HE EXPRESSLY
AGREED HIMSELF TO BEAR ALL RISKS ARISING FROM ALLIED RESTRAINTS, TO THE
OTHER DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE PAID FOR INSURANCE AGAINST SUCH RISKS
AND COULD HAVE HAD EVERY EXPECTATION, ON THE FACE OF THE POLICY WRITTEN
FOR HIM, THAT HE HAD EFFECTIVELY OBTAINED IT.  THUS A SIGNIFICANT PART
OF THE COVERAGE OF WAR-RISK INSURANCE, WHICH IS PURCHASED SEPARATELY,
OVER AND ABOVE ORDINARY INSURANCE, AND AT GREAT EXPENSE, WOULD BE
RENDERED NUGATORY. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY CONTAIN NO TIME LIMITATIONS ON THE
DETAINMENTS AGAINST WHICH THEY INSURE.  THE DISTRICT COURT
CONSEQUENTLY, ALTHOUGH RECOGNIZING THAT "INDEED, THAT IS BROAD
COVERAGE]", FELT CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT COVERAGE WOULD EXTEND
THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF A DETAINMENT, NO MATTER WHAT ITS NATURE, AND
PAST THE TIME WHEN THE VOYAGE INSURED FOR HAD DEFINITELY BEEN
FRUSTRATED.  THE COURT THUS, IN EFFECT, READ THE IMPLIED WARRANTY
CONCERNING CHANGES OF VOYAGE AS REFERRING, IN THIS POLICY, TO VOLUNTARY
CHANGES OF VOYAGE ONLY.  RICKARDS V. FORESTAL LAND, TIMBER AND RAILWAYS
CO., (1942) A.C. 50, MAY SUPPORT THE POSITION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
(FN11)  IT IS PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY, SINCE "THERE ARE SPECIAL REASONS
FOR KEEPING IN HARMONY WITH THE MARINE INSURANCE LAWS OF ENGLAND, THE
GREAT FIELD OF THIS BUSINESS  ...  ."  QUEEN INS. CO. V. GLOBE INS.
CO., 263 U.S. 487, 493.  BUT WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BROAD
GROUND ON WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT RESTED.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED HERE
THAT ANYTHING DONE BY ANY OFFICER OR OFFICIAL ON THE SCENE OR ELSEWHERE
BEFORE THE PORTMAR WAS DAMAGED MADE IT EXPLICIT - AND NOW OBJECTIVELY
PROVABLE - THAT SHE WOULD BE DETAINED INDEFINITELY OR EVEN FOR SUCH A
PERIOD OF TIME AS MIGHT BE THOUGHT TO POSTPONE HER RETURN VOYAGE
UNREASONABLY.  SUCH AN EXPLICIT DECISION MIGHT AT LEAST MORE LIKELY
HAVE COME TO THE PROMPT ATTENTION OF THE OWNERS, WHEREAS IN ITS
ABSENCE, AS HERE, NO OWNER, WHETHER ON THE SCENE OR NOT, COULD SO MUCH
AS MAKE AN INFORMED GUESS CONCERNING THE FATE OF THE VOYAGE.  WE DO NOT
DECIDE THAT CASE, BUT WE DO HOLD THAT IF A POLICY SUCH AS THIS IS TO
PROVIDE ANY APPRECIABLE AND SAFELY PREDICTABLE PROTECTION OVER AND
ABOVE THAT OF A POLICY WHICH DOES NOT INSURE AT ALL AGAINST
CONSEQUENCES OF ALLIED DETAINMENTS, COVERAGE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE
ENDED BEFORE AN UNAMBIGUOUS, OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE DECISION HAS BEEN
MADE BY THE REQUISITIONING SOVEREIGN TO CAUSE ABANDONMENT OF THE
VOYAGE. 

A NUMBER OF SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS IN THE CASE WERE ALL DECIDED IN
FAVOR OF THE OWNERS BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE MOST IMPORTANT IS
RAISED BY THE CONTENTION THAT THE VESSEL WAS NEVER A CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL
LOSS AND WAS NOT VALIDLY ABANDONED AS SUCH.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN
VIEW OF ITS DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS.  THEY ARE NOT RELATED TO THE MAJOR ISSUE IN THE
CASE, AND SO WE REMIT THEM TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE VACATED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  NOT UNTIL JANUARY 19 DID WORD REACH CALMAR THAT THE PORTMAR HAD
BEEN DIVERTED TO AUSTRALIA FROM THE ORIGINAL COURSE SHE HAD SET FOR
MANILA.  THIS WAS NOT DUE TO ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE MASTER,
WHO THROUGHOUT THE ADVENTURE MADE STURDY AND INSISTENT EFFORTS TO KEEP
IN TOUCH WITH HIS OWNERS.  IT WAS SIMPLY THE RESULT OF SECURITY
REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES, AND OF DIFFICULTIES OF
COMMUNICATION.  WHEN CALMAR RECEIVED THIS NEWS, IT CHOSE TO ACT UNDER A
CLAUSE IN THE POLICY PROVIDING: 

"HELD COVERED IN THE EVENT OF ANY BREACH OF WARRANTY AS TO DATE OF
SAILING OR DEVIATION OR CHANGE OF VOYAGE, PROVIDED PROMPT NOTICE BE
GIVEN THESE INSURERS WHEN SUCH FACTS ARE KNOWN TO THE ASSURED AND/OR
THEIR MANAGERS AND AN ADDITIONAL PREMIUM PAID IF REQUIRED."  CALMAR
COMMUNICATED THE CHANGE IN DESTINATION TO THE UNDERWRITERS.  THE LATTER
AGREED TO HOLD THE PORTMAR COVERED BY LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1942. 
THIS AGREEMENT WAS RETROACTIVE.  NO ADDITIONAL PREMIUM WAS REQUIRED. 

FN2  "THE TRUTH IS THAT THE LAW OF MARINE INSURANCE IS NOTHING MORE
THAN A COLLECTION OF RULES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANCIENT FORM OF
POLICY AND SUCH ADDITIONS AS ARE FROM TIME TO TIME ANNEXED TO IT.  THE
ANCIENT FORM DATES BACK AT LEAST TO THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY, AND IT IS A
DOCUMENT WHICH THE LATE SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK CHARACTERIZED, WITH
JUSTIFIABLE ASPERITY, AS 'CLUMSY, IMPERFECT, AND OBSCURE.'  ...  . 

"INNUMERABLE CLAUSES HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN DEVISED TO
SUPPLEMENT THE ANCIENT FORM.  UNHAPPILY TRADITION SEEMS TO HAVE CAUSED
THEM ALSO IN VERY MANY CASES TO BE 'CLUMSY, IMPERFECT, AND OBSCURE,'
...   . ODDLY ENOUGH, THE TRADITION HAS EVEN INFECTED THE LEGISLATURE
WITH A MICROBE OF INACCURACY.  IN 1746 AN ACT  ...  MADE RE-INSURANCE
ILLEGAL, EXCEPT IN THE CASE WHERE 'THE ASSURER SHALL BE INSOLVENT,
BECOME A BANKRUPT, OR DIE.'  IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT AN INSOLVENT
UNDERWRITER SHOULD DESIRE TO RE-INSURE, AND OBVIOUSLY THE EVIL AIMED AT
WAS DOUBLE INSURANCE BY THE ASSURED.  'RE-INSURANCE,' HOWEVER, HAD THEN
ITS PRESENT WELL KNOWN MEANING, AND THE DRAFTSMAN OF THE ACT USED THE
WRONG WORD IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE TRADITION OF OBSCURITY." 
MACKINNON, L.J., IN FORESTAL LAND, TIMBER AND RAILWAYS CO. V. RICKARDS,
(1941) 1 K.B. 225, 246-247. 

FN3  LEWIS V. RUCKER, 2 BURR.  1167, 1168. 

"LORD MANSFIELD CONVERTED AN OCCASIONAL INTO A REGULAR INSTITUTION,
AND TRAINED A CORPS OF JURORS AS A PERMANENT LIAISON BETWEEN LAW AND
COMMERCE.  HE WON THEIR CONFIDENCE BY SOCIAL, AS BY PROFESSIONAL
CONDESCENSION, 'NOT ONLY CONVERSING FREELY WITH THEM IN COURT, BUT
INVITING THEM TO DINE WITH HIM.'"  FIFOOT, LORD MANSFIELD, 105, QUOTING
FROM 2 CAMPBELL, LIVES OF CHIEF JUSTICES, 407. 

FN4  THE WAR-RISK RIDER IS NOT WITHOUT ITS SLIGHT AMBIGUITY.  THE
WORD "ONLY" IN ITS FIRST PARAGRAPH COULD BE READ TO INDICATE THAT THAT
PARAGRAPH SIMPLY SETS THE OUTER LIMIT OF THE COVERAGE BUT IS NOT ITSELF
AN INSURING CLAUSE, THAT IS, DOES NOT REINSTATE ANY OF THE COVERAGE OF
THE ADVENTURES AND PERILS CLAUSE.  WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE
UNDERWRITERS TO URGE SUCH A READING, AND WE DO NOT THINK THEY COULD
REASONABLY DO SO. FOLLOWING ITS FIRST PARAGRAPH, THE RIDER INSURES
AGAINST SOME RISKS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE ADVENTURES AND
PERILS CLAUSE, AND ALSO EXCLUDES FROM COVERAGE CERTAIN DETAINMENTS NOT
CONNECTED WITH "ACTUAL OR IMPENDING HOSTILITIES."  IF THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH OF THE RIDER IS NOT TO BE READ AS AN INSURING CLAUSE, WHY IS
THE SUBSEQUENT INSURING CLAUSE REFERRED TO IN THE RIDER AS AN
"ADDITIONAL" ONE?  WHAT SENSE IS THERE IN SINGLING OUT AS RISKS TO BE
INSURED AGAINST EXCLUSIVELY THOSE RISKS WHICH MIGHT BE THOUGHT NOT TO
BE CLEARLY COVERED IN THE ADVENTURES AND PERILS CLAUSE?  WHY SHOULD WAR
RISK INSURANCE, PURCHASED AT A TIME OF IMPENDING WAR AND COVERING "ONLY
AGAINST THE RISKS OF WAR, STRIKES, RIOTS, AND CIVIL COMMOTIONS," INSURE
COMPREHENSIVELY AGAINST THE PERILS OF CIVIL WAR BUT NOT AGAINST THOSE
OF WAR ITSELF?  FINALLY, WHY SHOULD INSURANCE BE WRITTEN IN LANGUAGE
CONSTRUING A NON-OPERATIVE CLAUSE?    FN5  THE FINAL PROVISO IN THE
SAVING CLAUSE - THAT THE LOSSES MUST BE SUCH AS WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY
A POLICY IN WHICH THE CAPTURE AND SEIZURE WARRANTY IS IN FULL FORCE -
IS AUTOMATICALLY COMPLIED WITH ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE LOSS IN
THIS CASE IS "OTHERWISE COVERED BY THIS POLICY."  FOR IT IS "OTHERWISE
COVERED" BY VIRTUE OF THE WAR-RISK RIDER, WHICH IN TURN COVERS ONLY
LOSSES EXCLUDED BY THE CAPTURE AND SEIZURE WARRANTY.  THESE RIDERS AND
WARRANTIES, WHICH, WHEN ASSEMBLED, CONSTITUTE THE POLICY, ARE OFTEN
INDEPENDENTLY DEVELOPED.  THAT MAY EXPLAIN OVERLAPPING PROVISIONS SUCH
AS THESE.  MOREOVER, IT IS NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY EXTREME CAUTION
IS EXERCISED IN MAKING CERTAIN THAT ONLY WAR RISKS ARE INSURED AGAINST
BY WAR-RISK RIDERS AND SAVING CLAUSES.  FOR WAR-RISK INSURANCE IS OFTEN
- AS IT WAS IN THIS CASE - WRITTEN SEPARATELY FROM ORDINARY MARINE
INSURANCE, AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO EXCLUDE LOSSES, CAUSED BY COLLISION
OR STRANDING, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ORDINARY
HAZARDS OF NAVIGATION. 

FN6  SEE N. 5, SUPRA. 

FN7  THE WITNESS, WILLIAM D. WINTER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF A
LEADING MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE UNITED STATES, MANAGER, FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS, OF THE AMERICAN MARINE INSURANCE SYNDICATE, AND A
FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE UNDERWRITERS,
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"DURING THE WAR  ...  GREAT BRITAIN AND HER ALLIES TOOK VESSELS INTO
CONTROL PORTS IN ORDER TO SEE WHETHER THEY HAD CONTRABAND  ...  ON
THEM.  THE SHIP AT THAT POINT  ...  WAS IN THE CONTROL OF THE
GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES, OR IT WAS CAPTURED  ...  .  GOING INTO THOSE
CONTROL PORTS, WAS A VERY DANGEROUS OPERATION  ...  . 

"THE CASES HAD BEEN SETTLED, THAT THE UNDERWRITERS WERE NOT LIABLE. 
THE UNDERWRITERS DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS DOING THEIR PART OF THEIR JOB. 
SO THEY CONSTRUCTED  ...  THIS CLAUSE TO GO ON HULL POLICIES  ...  TO
SHOW THAT THEY WERE WILLING, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THIS VESSEL
HAD BEEN CAPTURED, NEVERTHELESS, IF IN ENTERING A CONTROL PORT SHE WAS
BLOWN UP BY A MINE, OR IF SHE WENT ASHORE  ...  THEY WOULD NOT REFUSE
THE CLAIM BECAUSE OF THAT HAPPENING.  IT WAS TO SAVE THE ASSURED FROM
SOMETHING OVER WHICH HE HAD NO CONTROL IN A VERY LIMITED SITUATION,
WHERE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAD NOT CAPTURED IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF, AT
THAT POINT, CONDEMNING THE BOAT BECAUSE WE SAY THAT IF CONDEMNED, WE
WERE NOT LIABLE, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING OUT WHETHER THE BOAT,
PERHAPS, SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, AND THE UNDERWRITERS FELT THAT UNDER
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS THEIR DUTY TO GO AHEAD WITH THEIR ASSURED
AND TAKE CARE OF THIS UNUSUAL SITUATION.  BUT IT WAS ALWAYS WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF THAT VOYAGE, OF THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT OF THE VOYAGE. 
THE WORDS ARE GENERAL, I AGREE  ...  ." 

THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD THIS TESTIMONY SUBJECT TO A LATER RULING ON
ITS ADMISSIBILITY, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE FREE OF
BRITISH CAPTURE WARRANTY WAS OR WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS.  THE COURT FOUND
THAT THE LANGUAGE WAS NOT, AND RULED THAT MR. WINTER'S TESTIMONY WAS
INADMISSIBLE. 

FN8  TO BE SURE, GOING FROM BRISBANE TO DARWIN INSTEAD OF DISCHARGING
ALL CARGO AT SYDNEY OR BRISBANE MEANT EXPOSING THE VESSEL TO GREATER
RISK.  THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF RETURNING TO AN ATLANTIC RATHER THAN A
PACIFIC PORT IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE POLICY PERMITTED EITHER.  THE
UNDERWRITERS COULD HAVE AVOIDED ALL THESE POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL RISKS BY
WRITING A POLICY FOR A VOYAGE FROM ONE SPECIFIC PORT TO ANOTHER AND
BACK.  THEY DID NOT.  NOR CAN THE UNDERWRITERS COMPLAIN THAT IN GOING
FROM BRISBANE TO DARWIN THE PORTMAR HUGGED THE COAST, THUS INCREASING
HER SAILING TIME AND, IN ONE SENSE, AGAIN, THE RISK.  FOR SHE DID IT
FOR HER SAFETY, JUST AS SHE JUSTIFIABLY TURNED SOUTH ON THE DAY PEARL
HARBOR WAS ATTACKED. 

FN9  IT WAS A DEVIATION, BUT IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT, IN VIEW
PRECISELY OF THE FACT THAT THE PORTMAR WAS UNDER THE COMPLETE AND
INESCAPABLE DOMINION OF COMPETENT NAVAL AUTHORITIES, IT WAS EXCUSABLE,
AND HENCE NOT SUCH A DEVIATION AS MIGHT, WITHOUT MORE, RELEASE THE
UNDERWRITERS FROM ALL FURTHER OBLIGATIONS.  THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE TRUE
EVEN HAD THE PORTMAR'S POLICY BEEN WARRANTED FREE OF ALL WAR RISKS, IN
WHICH CASE THE KOEPANG TRIP WOULD HAVE BEEN A DEVIATION OCCASIONED BY A
PERIL NOT INSURED AGAINST.  CF. ROBINSON V. MARINE INS. CO., 2 JOHNS. 
(N.Y.)  89, AND SCOTT V. THOMPSON, 1 BOS.  & PUL.  (N.R.)  181; SEE 1
ARNOULD, SUPRA, SEC. 435.  BUT CF. AKTIEBOLAGET M. BANK V. AMERICAN
MERCHANT MARINE INS. CO., 241 N.Y. 197, 149 N.E. 830.  NOT UNLESS THE
KOEPANG TRIP MARKET A PERMANENT CHANGE OF VOYAGE, AN ABANDONMENT OF THE
ORIGINAL ONE, COULD IT BE SAID THAT THE COVERAGE OF EVEN SUCH A POLICY
HAD UNDOUBTEDLY COME TO AN END. 

FN10  SEE N. 7, SUPRA. 

FN11  IN THE RICKARDS CASE, THE HOUSE OF LORDS DEALT WITH VOYAGE
POLICIES ON CARGO, INSURING AGAINST DETAINMENTS.  NO FREE OF BRITISH
CAPTURE WARRANTY WAS INVOLVED.  UPON DECLARATION OF WAR WITH GERMANY IN
SEPTEMBER 1939, THE MASTERS OF THE THREE VESSELS IN QUESTION PUT INTO
NEUTRAL PORTS AND THEN, UNDER ORDERS OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT, OF WHICH
THEY WERE SUBJECTS, PROCEEDED TO RUN THE BLOCKADE AND TRY TO MAKE
GERMAN PORTS.  THIS CONSTITUTED ABANDONMENT OF THE VOYAGES INSURED
FOR.  ONE OF THE VESSELS MADE A GERMAN PORT.  THE OTHER TWO WERE
INTERCEPTED AND, AGAIN UNDER ORDERS FROM THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT,
SCUTTLED BY THEIR MASTERS TO AVOID CAPTURE.  THE HOUSE OF LORDS HELD
THAT THE ABANDONMENT OF THE VOYAGES, OCCASIONED BY RESTRAINT OF PRINCES
- I.E., THE ORDERS OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT, WHICH WERE BINDING ON THE
MASTERS - DID NOT RELIEVE THE UNDERWRITERS OF LIABILITY.  THE
UNDERWRITERS HERE ATTEMPTED TO DISTINGUISH THE RICKARDS CASE ON THE
GROUND THAT IT DEALT WITH CARGO RATHER THAN HULL INSURANCE, AND ON
OTHER GROUNDS.  WE DO NOT PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF THESE GROUNDS OF
DISTINCTION.  BUT THE RICKARDS CASE DOES DEFINITELY DISPOSE OF AN
ARGUMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE, WHICH APPEARED IN THE RICKARDS
POLICIES AND WHICH IS PRESENT IN THE POLICY BEFORE US NOW: "WARRANTED
FREE OF ANY CLAIM BASED UPON LOSS OF OR FRUSTRATION OF THE INSURED
VOYAGE OR ADVENTURE CAUSED BY ARRESTS, RESTRAINTS OR DETAINMENTS, OF
KINGS, PRINCES, OR PEOPLES."  IT WAS URGED IN RICKARDS THAT THIS
WARRANTY MEANS THAT WHENEVER DAMAGE OR LOSS RESULTING FROM A RESTRAINT
FRUSTRATES THE VOYAGE, THE UNDERWRITERS ARE RELIEVED OF ANY LIABILITY
ARISING FROM THAT RESTRAINT.  IT IS HENCE UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER
OR NOT FRUSTRATION OF THE VOYAGE BEFORE THE DAMAGE OCCURRED ENDED
COVERAGE.  THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE CLAIM MADE
WAS NOT "BASED UPON LOSS OF OR FRUSTRATION OF THE INSURED VOYAGE"; IT
WAS BASED UPON LOSS OF THE CARGO, AS IN THIS CASE IT IS BASED UPON LOSS
OF THE VESSEL.  OF COURSE, WHENEVER AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A RESTRAINT A
VESSEL OR CARGO IS LOST, OR EVEN SEVERLY DAMAGED, THE VOYAGE IS
FRUSTRATED.  IF THE FRUSTRATION WARRANTY APPLIES IN SUCH CASES,
THEREFORE, ITS EFFECT IS TO HOLD THE UNDERWRITERS FREE OF LIABILITY FOR
ANY TOTAL LOSS, INDEED, FOR MOST LOSSES, RESULTING FROM DETAINMENT.  WE
ARE AUTHORITATIVELY TOLD THAT THE CLAUSE WAS NOT INTENDED TO ACHIEVE
SUCH A SWEEPING RESULT.  SEE THE OBSERVATIONS OF VISCOUNT MAUGHAM,
(1942) A.C., AT 72-73, OF LORD PORTER, I.D., AT 106, AND OF MACKINNON,
L.J., (1941) 1 K.B., AT 252. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF
CIRCUIT JUDGE LEARNED HAND, 197 F.2D 795. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND I, HAVING VOTED TO GRANT CERTIORARI IN THIS
CASE, WOULD NOW DISMISS IT AS HAVING BEEN IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  NO
PRINCIPLE OF LAW, REQUIRING RESTATEMENT OR CLARIFICATION,* IS
INVOLVED.  WE HAVE HERE ONLY A QUESTION WHETHER UNDER THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THERE WAS A FRUSTRATION OF THE VENTURE BY
THE SEIZURE OF THE VESSEL AT BRISBANE OR AT SOME LATER POINT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THERE WAS NOT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPEAKING
UNANIMOUSLY THROUGH JUDGE LEARNED HAND, FOUND THAT THERE WAS.  THE
DECISION TURNS ON THE WEIGHING OF MANY FACTORS AND CONDITIONS AGAINST A
BACKGROUND OF ADMIRALTY PRACTICE AND CUSTOM WITH WHICH WE ARE NOWHERE
NEAR AS FAMILIAR AS THE EXPERIENCED ADMIRALTY JUDGES BELOW.  IT SEEMS
TO ME QUITE IMPROVIDENT FOR US TO REWEIGH THE FRAGMENTS OF THE EVIDENCE
WHICH LEARNED HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, AND HARRIE B. CHASE, JJ., WEIGHED
(SEE 197 F.2D 795, 799-801) AND TO REVISE THE DECISION WHICH THEIR
EXPERIENCED MINDS REACHED ON THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 
YET IF WE WERE TO DO SO WE COULD NOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
VOYAGE HAD BEEN FRUSTRATED AT LEAST BY THE TIME THE PORTMAR REACHED
DARWIN ON FEBRUARY 12, 1942.  FOR AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT CONCEDES,
BY THAT TIME THE VESSEL HAD BEEN EMPTIED OF HER ORIGINAL CARGO AND WAS
BEING LOADED WITH TROOPS, EQUIPMENT, AND ARMAMENT FOR "AN EXCEEDINGLY
PERILOUS EXPEDITION TO KOEPANG, ON THE ISLAND OF TIMOR, SOME 500-ODD
MILES NORTHWEST OF DARWIN."  AS THE COURT SAYS: 

"THIS EXPEDITION RAN INTO HEAVY AIR ATTACKS AND TURNED BACK.  ON THE
18TH OF FEBRUARY, THE PORTMAR WAS AT DARWIN AGAIN, AWAITING HER TURN TO
DOCK AND DISCHARGE THE PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT SHE HAD TAKEN ON.  WHILE
THUS AT ANCHOR ON THE MORNING OF THE 19TH, SHE UNDERWENT BOMBING AND
STRAFING BY JAPANESE AIRPLANES AND SUSTAINED THE DAMAGE WHICH FORCED
HER MASTER TO BEACH HER AND CAUSED HIM TO ABANDON HER." 

*THERE IS, FOR EXAMPLE, NO USURPATION OF THE FACT FINDING FUNCTION
SUCH AS WE COMMONLY FIND IN CASES ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  SEE WILKERSON V. MCCARTHY, 336 U.S. 53. 

CERTAINLY BY THE 12TH OF FEBRUARY THE PURPOSES OF THE VENTURE,
COMMERCIALLY SPEAKING, HAD ENDED.  THE SHIP WAS NOW ENGAGED IN AN
ENTERPRISE FAR BEYOND THE VOYAGE CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES. 
..END :













CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORP. V. UNITED STATES 345 U.S. 446 


NO. 262.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1953 - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1953 - 197 F.2D
795, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE FILING AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF LIBELS IN PERSONAM
CONCERNING VESSELS "OPERATED BY OR FOR THE UNITED STATES" AND "EMPLOYED
AS MERCHANT VESSELS," A PRIVATELY OWNED VESSEL OPERATED FOR HIRE FOR
THE UNITED STATES IS "EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL" ALTHOUGH THE
VESSEL BE ENGAGED ON A WAR MISSION.  PP. 446-456. 

CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORP. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ASSUMED JURISDICTION OF A LIBEL UNDER THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT AND AWARDED A DECREE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON PART OF
THE LIBELLANT'S CLAIM.  103 F. SUPP. 243.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  197 F.2D 795.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S.
853.  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED TO
THAT COURT, P. 456. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT (FN1) THE UNITED STATES CONSENTS, UNDER
DEFINED CONDITIONS, TO THE FILING AGAINST IT IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF
LIBELS IN PERSONAM.  LIBELS WHICH CONCERN VESSELS "OPERATED BY OR FOR
THE UNITED STATES" AND "EMPLOYED AS MERCHANT VESSELS" ARE AUTHORIZED. 
THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER A PRIVATELY OWNED STEAMSHIP,
UNDOUBTEDLY "OPERATED  ...  FOR THE UNITED STATES," WAS "EMPLOYED AS A
MERCHANT VESSEL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT WHILE CARRYING MILITARY
SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT FOR HIRE.  SINCE A CONSIDERABLE VOLUME OF
LITIGATION APPEARS TO BE AFFECTED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 344 U.S. 853,
ON A PETITION WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT OPPOSE. 

THE VESSEL HERE, THE S.S. PORTMAR, AND THE VOYAGE ARE THOSE INVOLVED
IN NO. 303, CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORP V. SCOTT, ANTE, P. 427, WHICH WAS
TRIED TOGETHER WITH THIS SUIT.  CALMAR'S CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES IS FOR ADDITIONAL CHARTER HIRE AND FOR THE LOSS OF ITS VESSEL. 
THE LATTER CLAIM IS BASED ON TWO THEORIES.  THE UNITED STATES, IT IS
SAID, IS LIABLE AS AN INSURER TO THE EXTENT THAT WAR-RISK INSURANCE
PURCHASED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 2.17 OF THE CHARTER
(FN2) DOES NOT COVER THE LOSS.  THE UNITED STATES IS ALSO LIABLE,
CALMAR CONTENDS, BECAUSE THE LOSS OF THE PORTMAR WAS A RESULT OF
COMPLIANCE BY ITS MASTER WITH ORDERS ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND THE LATTER AGREED IN ARTICLE 2.11 OF THE CHARTER
(FN3) TO HOLD THE OWNERS HARMLESS FROM ALL CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH
COMPLIANCE. 

OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER ARE AS FOLLOWS:  THE "GOOD
STEEL STEAMSHIP PORTMAR  ... WITH HULL, MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IN A
THOROUGHLY EFFICIENT STATE" WAS CHARTERED "FOR TRADING FOR ONE ROUND
VOYAGE."  CALMAR AGREED TO DELIVER THE PORTMAR TO THE UNITED STATES
"READY TO RECEIVE CARGO WITH CLEAN-SWEPT HOLDS AND  ...  TIGHT,
STAUNCH, STRONG AND IN EVERY WAY FITTED FOR SERVICE" AND MANNED BY "A
MASTER AND A FULL COMPLEMENT OF OFFICERS AND CREW FOR A VESSEL OF HER
TONNAGE."  CALMAR WAS TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE "TO MAINTAIN THE VESSEL
IN SUCH STATE DURING THE CURRENCY OF THIS CHARTER."  THE PORTMAR WAS TO
BE EMPLOYED, THE CHARTER FURTHER PROVIDED, "IN CARRYING LAWFUL
MERCHANDISE, INCLUDING PETROLEUM OR ITS PRODUCTS IN PROPER CONTAINERS,
BETWEEN SAFE PORTS OR PLACES, IN LAWFUL TRADES WITHIN THE TRADING
LIMITS OF THIS CHARTER, AS THE CHARTERER OR ITS AGENTS SHALL DIRECT." 
HIRE WAS TO BE PAYABLE, "IN THE CASE OF A CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL LOSS, TO
THE TIME OF THE CASUALTY RESULTING IN SUCH CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL LOSS." 
OTHERWISE HIRE WAS DUE FOR PERIODS DURING WHICH THE VESSEL WAS
PREVENTED FROM WORKING BY DAMAGE RESULTING FROM WARLIKE ACTS OR CAUSED
BY THE FAULT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE WAGES OF THE MASTER, OFFICERS
AND CREW WERE TO BE PAID BY CALMAR.  DRYDOCKING, CLEANING AND PAINTING
EXPENSES WERE LIKEWISE TO BE BORNE BY CALMAR.  "THE MASTER (ALTHOUGH
APPOINTED BY THE OWNER) WAS TO BE UNDER THE ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS OF
THE CHARTERER AS REGARDS EMPLOYMENT, AGENCY, AND PROSECUTION OF THE
VOYAGES; AND CHARTERER WAS TO LOAD, STOW, TRIM AND DISCHARGE THE CARGO
AT ITS EXPENSE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE MASTER, WHO WAS TO SIGN
BILLS OF LADING FOR CARGO AS PRESENTED  ...  .  THE MASTER, OFFICERS
AND CREW OF THE VESSEL IN SUPERVISING LOADING, STOWING, TRIMMING,
TALLYING AND DISCHARGING, WERE TO BE DEEMED THE AGENTS OF THE
CHARTERER, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS SUCH SUPERVISION PERTAINED TO THE SAFETY
OF THE VESSEL."  CALMAR AGREED TO INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS OF THE UNITED
STATES AGAINST THE MASTER, OFFICERS AND CREW AND MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES
IN APPOINTMENTS.  FINALLY, THE CHARTER SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT
"NOTHING HEREIN STATED IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS A DEMISE OF THE VESSEL TO
THE CHARTERER." 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE PORTMAR: 

"WAS PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED FOR THE PROFIT OF THE OWNER, IN
CHARGE OF A MASTER AND CREW, SELECTED AND EMPLOYED BY THE OWNER AND
RESPONSIBLE TO IT ALONE.  THAT THE CARGO WAS PUBLIC STORES AND
MUNITIONS DID NOT RENDER 'PUBLIC' THE CHARACTER OF THE VESSEL.  SHE WAS
OWNED NEITHER ABSOLUTELY NOR PRO HAC VICE BY THE UNITED STATES.  PUBLIC
SERVICE DID NOT ALTER THE MERCHANT CHARACTER OF THE VESSEL  ...  ." 
103 F. SUPP. 243, 263. 

CONSEQUENTLY THE DISTRICT COURT ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER THE SUITS
IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  IT AWARDED CALMAR A DECREE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
FOR $238.50 DUE, IN ADDITION TO THE CHARTER HIRE PAID BY THE
GOVERNMENT, AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY
19, 1942, WHEN THE PORTMAR WAS DAMAGED AND ABANDONED.  (FN4)  BUT THE
COURT HELD AGAINST CALMAR ON THE MERITS OF THE LATTER'S CLAIM FOR
CHARTER HIRE FOR THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THAT DATE.  IT HELD ALSO THAT THE
UNITED STATES WAS NOT ON ANY THEORY LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF THE VESSEL. 
ID., AT 269. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  WHILE, IT SAID, THE PORTMAR COULD,
INDEED, UNDER ITS CHARTER, HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED AS A "MERCHANT VESSEL" IN
FOREIGN COMMERCE, THE CARGO SHE IN FACT CARRIED INDICATED THAT SHE WAS
NOT SO EMPLOYED.  FOR HER LOAD CONSISTED ENTIRELY OF "WAR MATERIEL." 
SHE CARRIED MILITARY SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT, AMMUNITION, AND HIGH
OCTANE GASOLINE FOR USE IN WAR PLANES.  A SHIP "WHILE SO EMPLOYED,"
THAT IS, WHILE CARRYING SUCH CARGO, THE COURT HELD, IS NOT "EMPLOYED AS
A MERCHANT VESSEL."  THIS WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN "ABUNDANTLY
ESTABLISHED" BY THE WESTERN MAID, 257 U.S. 419, AND BY BRADEY V. UNITED
STATES, 151 F.2D 742, UNITED STATES V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 8 F.2D 270,
AND THE NORMAN BRIDGE, 290 F. 575, AND TO HAVE BEEN "AT LEAST
RECOGNIZED" IN UNITED STATES GRAIN CORPORATION V. PHILLIPS, 261 U.S.
106.  197 F.2D 795, 801-802. 

IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION, THE COURT OF APPEALS ADOPTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S POSITION BELOW.  IN THIS COURT, THE GOVERNMENT CHANGED ITS
TUNE.  MILDLY SUGGESTING THAT THE VIEW IT PRESSED ON THE COURT OF
APPEALS "HAS SOME SUPPORT," THE GOVERNMENT URGES NOW "THAT THE VIEW
THAT JURISDICTION EXISTED UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT IS BETTER
GROUNDED."  THE CASES RELIED ON BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE GOVERNMENT
NOW ARGUES, DEALT WITH A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT PROBLEM THAN ARISES
UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT AND DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE NATURE OF THE CARGO IS A NECESSARY CRITERION FOR DETERMINING
WHETHER A PRIVATELY OWNED VESSEL IS "EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL"
WITHIN THE TERMS OF THAT ACT.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT DOES NOT IMPOSE
THIS CRITERION.  THE PHRASE, "EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL," THE
GOVERNMENT NOW CONTENDS, IS MORE APPROPRIATELY READ TO REFER SIMPLY TO
PRIVATELY OWNED VESSELS OPERATED FOR THE UNITED STATES FOR HIRE.  SUCH
A READING IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND, UNLIKE
THAT ADOPTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, TENDS TO REGARD THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT AS ITS SISTER STATUTE, THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, 43 STAT.
1112, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 781, WHICH PERMITS SUITS "FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A
PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES," (FN5) AS MANIFESTATIONS OF A
SINGLE LARGER PURPOSE, JOINTLY FORMING A RATIONAL SYSTEM FREE OF RANDOM
OMISSIONS AND EXCEPTIONS.  MOREOVER, THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT, A TEST
UNDER WHICH THE ARRANGEMENTS EFFECTUATED BY THE CHARTER-PARTY ARE THE
CONTROLLING FACTS LENDS ITSELF, UNLIKE THE CARGO TEST, TO SIMPLE AND
EXPEDITIOUS APPLICATION, REASONABLY PREDICTABLE IN RESULT.  WE AGREE
WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION HERE. 

THE WESTERN MAID, SUPRA, DEALT WITH ATTEMPTS TO BRING IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS "PROCEEDINGS IN REM FOR COLLISIONS THAT OCCURRED WHILE THE
VESSELS LIBELED WERE OWNED, ABSOLUTELY OR PRO HAC VICE, BY THE UNITED
STATES, AND EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE."  257 U.S., AT 429.  THE
WESTERN MAID ITSELF WAS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.  THE LIBERTY AND THE
CAROLINIAN, THE OTHER TWO VESSELS INVOLVED, WERE, AT THE TIME OF THE
COLLISIONS, OPERATED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER BAREBOAT CHARTERS.  THE
CAROLINIAN WAS AN ARMY TRANSPORT MANNED BY AN ARMY CREW.  THE LIBERTY
WAS COMMISSIONED AND EMPLOYED AS A NAVAL DISPATCH BOAT, MANNED, OF
COURSE, BY A NAVY CREW.  THE WESTERN MAID SERVED AS A TRANSPORT.  SHE
CARRIED FOODSTUFFS FOR EUROPEAN RELIEF, WHICH, IF NOT DISTRIBUTED IN
WHAT HAD BEEN ENEMY TERRITORY, WERE TO BE SOLD BY THE APPROPRIATE
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.  BUT WHILE, AS WE HAVE NOTED, ALL THREE VESSELS
WERE IN GOVERNMENT HANDS AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISIONS ON WHICH THE
LIBELS WERE BASED, AT THE TIME OF SUIT THE CAROLINIAN AND THE LIBERTY,
THOUGH NOT THE WESTERN MAID, WERE PRIVATELY OWNED.  AND SO THE
PRINCIPAL QUESTION IN THE CASE, "THE ONLY QUESTION REALLY OPEN TO
DEBATE," ID., AT 432, TO WHICH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, FOR THE COURT,
ADDRESSED HIMSELF, WAS WHETHER AN ENFORCEABLE LIABILITY COULD HAVE BEEN
CREATED WHEN THOSE TWO VESSELS PASSED INTO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, ALTHOUGH
NO SUCH LIABILITY AROSE WHEN THE COLLISIONS OCCURRED.  THE WESTERN
MAID, IT WAS CLAIMED, ALTHOUGH PUBLICLY OWNED, WAS EMPLOYED "SOLELY" AS
A MERCHANT VESSEL, AND HENCE AS TO IT THE COLLISION AT THE TIME IT
OCCURRED GAVE RISE TO A LIABILITY ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
BY VIRTUE OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916 AS CONSTRUED, A LIABILITY
ENFORCEABLE IN REM AND SUBJECTING THE VESSEL TO SEIZURE.  (FN6)  IT WAS
THIS CONTENTION, ON THESE FACTS, UNDER THIS ACT SO CONSTRUED, THAT MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES DISPOSED OF IN PASSING BY STATING "THE OBVIOUS TRUTH,
THAT THE WESTERN MAID WAS ENGAGED IN A PUBLIC SERVICE THAT WAS ONE OF
THE CONSTITUENTS OF OUR ACTIVITY IN THE WAR AND ITS SEQUEL AND THAT HAD
NO MORE TO DO WITH ORDINARY MERCHANDIZING THAN IF SHE HAD CARRIED A
REGIMENT OF TROOPS."  IDEM. 

OF THE OTHER CASES RELIED ON BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE NORMAN
BRIDGE, SUPRA, LIKE THE WESTERN MAID, INVOLVED AN ATTEMPTED SEIZURE
UNDER THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916.  THE VESSEL WAS OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES PRO HAC VICE.  UNITED STATES V. CITY OF NEW YORK, SUPRA, AROSE
UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, BUT THE VESSEL IN QUESTION WAS OWNED
BY THE UNITED STATES AND ENGAGED IN PUBLIC BUSINESS.  SHE WAS IN NO
SENSE OPERATED FOR HIRE.  THE VESSEL IN BRADEY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
WAS ALSO OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AND IN NO SENSE OPERATED FOR HIRE. 
UNITED STATES GRAIN CORPORATION V. PHILLIPS, SUPRA, DID NOT CONCERN THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY OR PUBLIC VESSELS OR SHIPPING ACTS.  IT WAS A SUIT
BY A NAVAL OFFICER UNDER AN ANCIENT STATUTE FOR A COMMISSION ON GOLD
CARRIED BY THE DESTROYER HE COMMANDED.  THE CITATION BY THE COURT IN
PHILLIPS OF THE WESTERN MAID WAS APT, BUT IT FAILS TO RENDER THE
PHILLIPS CASE AN APT CITATION HERE. 

THE UNITED STATES TODAY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SUIT ON THE FACTS OF THE
WESTERN MAID UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  BUT A VESSEL OPERATED FOR,
OR OWNED BY, THE UNITED STATES CANNOT NOW, BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 1 OF THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, BE SEIZED, WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS "EMPLOYED AS
A MERCHANT VESSEL."  IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PHRASE, "EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL," PRESENTED A MATERIALLY
DIFFERENT PROBLEM UNDER THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916 THAN IT DOES UNDER THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  NOR IS THE PROBLEM THE SAME WHEN A VESSEL
OWNED, ABSOLUTELY OR PRO HAC VICE, BY THE UNITED STATES IS INVOLVED AS
WHEN ONE PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED IS IN QUESTION.  IN THE FORMER
CASE THE CONSEQUENCE OF HOLDING THAT A VESSEL WAS NOT "EMPLOYED AS A
MERCHANT VESSEL" IS, IN THE GREAT NUMBER OF INSTANCES, THAT THE LIBEL
IS DISMISSED UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT ONLY TO BE HEARD UNDER
THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT IN THE SAME ADMIRALTY COURT.  WHEN AS HERE THE
VESSEL IS PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED, HOWEVER, TO HOLD THAT SHE WAS
NOT EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL IS TO RELEGATE THE LIBELANT, ON A
CONTRACT CLAIM SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH NOT TO BE COGNIZABLE ON THE LAW SIDE
UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 1346, TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  (FN7)  YET THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE, IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM,
THE ACCUSTOMED FORUM IN MATTERS OF ADMIRALTY; EVERYTHING ELSE BEING
EQUAL, NO EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO DIVERT THIS TYPE OF LITIGATION TO
JUDGES LESS EXPERIENCED IN ADMIRALTY.  THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT AND
THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS DISCRETE ENACTMENTS
TREATING RELATED SITUATIONS IN ISOLATION.  HENCE THERE IS NO REASON WHY
A CLAIM ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH A VESSEL BAREBOAT CHARTERED BY THE
UNITED STATES AND CARRYING WAR MATERIEL SHOULD BE HEARD BY A DISTRICT
COURT, WHILE A LIKE CLAIM RELATING TO A VESSEL CHARTERED AS WAS THE
PORTMAR AND CARRYING THE SAME TYPE OF CARGO, SHOULD REQUIRE AN ACTION
TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  (FN8) NOR IS THERE ANY REASON WHY
A COLLISION INVOLVING THE ONE VESSEL SHOULD RESULT IN AN ADMIRALTY SUIT
UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, WHILE ON THE SAME FACTS, RECOVERY IN THE
CASE OF THE OTHER VESSEL SHOULD HAVE TO BE SOUGHT ON THE LAW SIDE. 
(FN9)  WE HAVE NO AUTHORITATIVE INDICATION THAT CONGRESS WISHED SUCH
RESULTS, AND IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING FOR US, IN THE ABSENCE OF
GUIDANCE FROM CONGRESS, TO ASSUME THAT IT DID.    WE HOLD THAT THE
PORTMAR, A PRIVATELY OWNED VESSEL OPERATED FOR HIRE FOR THE UNITED
STATES, WAS "EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, ALTHOUGH ENGAGED ON A WAR MISSION.  WE DO NOT
CONSIDER THE MERITS OF CALMAR'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WHICH
THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT, IN VIEW OF ITS DISPOSITION OF THE LIBEL,
PASS ON. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE VACATED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH
THE UNITED STATES OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES SHALL OWN THE ENTIRE
OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK OR IN THE POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES OR
OF SUCH CORPORATION OR OPERATED BY OR FOR THE UNITED STATES OR SUCH
CORPORATION, AND NO CARGO OWNED OR POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY
SUCH CORPORATION, SHALL, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION HEREIN MADE FOR A
LIBEL IN PERSONAM, BE SUBJECT TO ARREST OR SEIZURE BY JUDICIAL PROCESS
IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS POSSESSIONS:  PROVIDED, THAT THIS CHAPTER
SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY."  41 STAT. 525, 46
U.S.C.  SEC. 741. 


"IN CASES WHERE IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED, OR
IF SUCH CARGO WERE PRIVATELY OWNED AND POSSESSED, A PROCEEDING IN
ADMIRALTY COULD BE MAINTAINED AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
ACTION HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, A LIBEL IN PERSONAM MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST ANY CORPORATION MENTIONED IN SECTION (1)
OF THIS TITLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, PROVIDED THAT SUCH VESSEL IS
EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL OR IS A TUGBOAT OPERATED BY SUCH
CORPORATION.  SUCH SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PARTIES SO SUING, OR ANY OF
THEM, RESIDE OR HAVE THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED
STATES, OR IN WHICH THE VESSEL OR CARGO CHARGED WITH LIABILITY IS FOUND
...  ."  41 STAT. 525, 46 U.S.C. SEC.  742. 

FN2  "ARTICLE 2.17.  THE OWNER MAY PROVIDE, AND THE CHARTERER SHALL
PAY FOR, OR, IF THE CHARTERER SHALL SO ELECT AND GIVE NOTICE OF SUCH
ELECTION TO THE OWNER AT OR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF DELIVERY OF THE VESSEL
...  THE CHARTERER SHALL PROVIDE  ...  INSURANCE ON THE VESSEL, WHICH
SHALL BE MADE PAYABLE TO THE OWNER  ...  UNDER FULL FORM OF  ...  WAR
RISK POLICIES  ...  . 

"THE VESSEL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO SAIL ON ANY VOYAGE UNTIL THE
INSURANCE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE OWNER OR
PROVIDED OR ASSUMED BY THE CHARTERER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT WRITTEN OR TELEGRAPHIC NOTICE OF ASSUMPTION BY THE
CHARTERER SHALL BE SUFFICIENT." 

FN3  "ARTICLE 2.11.  SUBJECT ALWAYS TO THE DIRECTION OF THE
CHARTERER, THE MASTER SHALL PROSECUTE HIS VOYAGES WITH THE UTMOST
DISPATCH  ...  . 

"THE CHARTERER SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE OWNER, THE
MASTER AND THE VESSEL FROM ALL CONSEQUENCES AND LIABILITIES WHATSOEVER
ARISING FROM COMPLIANCE WITH ANY ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS OF THE CHARTERER
OR ITS AGENTS, GIVEN PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE OR ANY OTHER ARTICLE OF
THIS CHARTER." 

FN4  THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS RESTRICTED TO THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, AND
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT INTIMATED THAT THE AWARD OF $238.50 TO CALMAR
WAS IN ERROR ON THE MERITS. 

FN5  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT PROVIDES: 

"A LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES  ...  FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND FOR COMPENSATION FOR TOWAGE AND SALVAGE SERVICES, INCLUDING
CONTRACT SALVAGE, RENDERED TO A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES:
PROVIDED, THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE AFTER THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL,
1920."  46 U.S.C. SEC. 781. 

FN6  SECTION 9 OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, 39 STAT. 728, 730, AS
AMENDED, 40 STAT.  900, 41 STAT. 994, 49 STAT. 1987, 2016, 52 STAT.
964, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 808, PROVIDES IN PART:

"EVERY VESSEL PURCHASED, CHARTERED, OR LEASED FROM THE UNITED STATES
MARITIME COMMISSION SHALL, UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE
COMMISSION, BE OPERATED ONLY UNDER SUCH REGISTRY OR ENROLLMENT AND
LICENSE.  SUCH VESSELS WHILE EMPLOYED SOLELY AS MERCHANT VESSELS SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND LIABILITIES GOVERNING MERCHANT
VESSELS, WHETHER THE UNITED STATES BE INTERESTED THEREIN AS OWNER, IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, OR HOLD ANY MORTGAGE, LIEN, OR OTHER INTEREST
THEREIN." 

THE LAKE MONROE, 250 U.S. 246, PERMITTED SEIZURE, UNDER THE PROVISION
JUST QUOTED, "OF A STEAM VESSEL  ...  OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES," 250 U.S., AT 248.  WE HAVE SAID THAT
THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT "WAS PASSED TO AVOID THE ENBARRASSMENT TO
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT FOUND ITSELF SUBJECTED BY THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 7,
1916, C. 451, 39 STAT. 728, BY THE NINTH SECTION OF WHICH VESSELS IN
WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAD AN INTEREST AND WHICH WERE EMPLOYED AS
MERCHANT VESSELS WERE MADE LIABLE AS SUCH TO ARREST OR SEIZURE FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF MARITIME LIENS.  THE LAKE MONROE, 250 U.S. 246." 
BLAMBERG BROS. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 452, 458.  CONGRESS, IN
PASSING THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, WAS NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE
CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS WHICH PROMPTED PASSAGE OF THE SHIPPING ACT
OF 1916, AND LATER OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  CONGRESS COMPENSATED FOR
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SEIZURES IN SEC. 1 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY
ACT WITH THE WAIVER OF IMMUNITY IN SEC. 2.  SECTION 1 STATES:  "NO
VESSEL OWNED  ...  SHALL, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION HEREIN MADE FOR A
LIBEL IN PERSONAM, BE SUBJECT TO ARREST  ...  ."  SEE SUPRA, N. 1. 
SURELY THE CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS WHICH HAVE WEIGHED WITH CONGRESS
IN ALL ITS ACTIONS IN THIS FIELD INDICATE THAT, FOR WANT OF VALID
REASONS TO THE CONTRARY, THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 1 AND THE WAIVER OF
SEC. 2 AND OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT SHOULD BE MORE OR LESS
COEXTENSIVE.  WE DO NOT IN ANY WAY IMPLY THAT THIS ATTITUDE OF FAIRNESS
CAN DECIDE CONCRETE CASES, OR THAT CONGRESS MEANT IT TO.  BUT IT POINTS
A DIRECTION. 

FN7  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 1491.  THE LITIGANT CANNOT HEDGE BY
FILING A SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ONE UNDER THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, AS HE MIGHT WELL WANT TO DO BECAUSE OF THE
UNCERTAINTIES INHERENT IN THE CARGO TEST APPLIED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  (THE OWNER, AS WAS TRUE IN THIS CASE, MAY NOT KNOW THE NATURE
OF THE CARGO.  THE MANIFEST HERE WAS SECRET.  THE VESSEL MAY CARRY
MIXED CARGO, OR IT MAY, BETWEEN VOYAGES, BE WITHOUT CARGO.)  28 U.S.C.
(SUPP. III) SEC. 1500 PROVIDES THAT THE "COURT OF CLAIMS SHALL NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION OF ANY CLAIM  ... IN RESPECT TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFF OR HIS
ASSIGNEE HAS PENDING IN ANY OTHER COURT ANY SUIT  ...  AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES  ...  ."  TIME LIMITATIONS DIFFER UNDER THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT AND IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE LIMITATION IS TWO YEARS
UNDER THE FORMER, 41 STAT. 526, 46 U.S.C.  SEC. 745, AND SIX YEARS IN
THE LATTER, 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 2501.  THE STARTING POINTS FOR
ACCRUAL OF INTEREST VARY AS WELL.  COMPARE 41 STAT. 526, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
745, WITH 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 2516; SEE DE LA RAMA S.S. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 344 U.S. 386, 390. 

FN8  IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT ALL CLAIMS SOUNDING IN CONTRACT CAN
FORM THE BASIS OF A SUIT UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  THE ACT
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES TOWAGE AND SALVAGE CLAIMS.  WE INTIMATE NO OPINION
AS TO OTHER CLAIMS, AND DO NOT SUGGEST THAT ALL OR ANY OF THE CAUSES OF
ACTION IN THIS VERY SUIT WOULD OR WOULD NOT QUALIFY UNDER THE PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT.  THERE ARE CASES IN WHICH JURISDICTION OVER CONTRACT
CLAIMS OTHER THAN TOWAGE OR SALVAGE HAS BEEN ASSUMED.  THOMASON V.
UNITED STATES, 184 F.2D 105; UNITED STATES V. LOYOLA, 161 F.2D 126. 
BUT CF. EASTERN S.S. LINES V. UNITED STATES, 187 F.2D 956.  ALL THAT
MATTERS FOR OUR PURPOSE IS THAT THERE IS A CLASS OF CASES, NO MATTER
HOW NARROW, WHICH, IF THE CARGO TEST OF JURISDICTION IS APPLIED, WILL
BE HEARD BY THE DISTRICT COURTS IN ADMIRALTY WHEN A VESSEL OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES IS INVOLVED, AND IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS WHEN THE VESSEL
WAS CHARTERED AS WAS THE PORTMAR.  IT IS NOT OUR TASK, OF COURSE, TO
TORTURE THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY AND PUBLIC VESSELS ACTS INTO AN ALL
INCLUSIVE GRANT OF JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURTS.  BUT EQUIVOCAL
LANGUAGE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO SECURE THE MOST HARMONIOUS
RESULTS. 

FN9  SUIT WOULD LIE IN MOST INSTANCES UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, 60
STAT. 842. 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. CARROLL 345 U.S. 457 


NO. 442.  ARGUED MARCH 11-12, 1953 - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1953 - AFFIRMED. 


1.  APPELLEE WAS INDICTED ON 101 COUNTS UNDER SEC. 145(A) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE
"RETURNS" ON TREASURY FORM 1099 COVERING 101 PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF $600
MADE TO A NAMED INDIVIDUAL.  UNDER TREASURY REGULATIONS 111, SEC.
29.147-1, SUCH FORMS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE SIGNED BUT ARE TO BE FILED
"WITH RETURN FORM 1096" SIGNED BY THE PAYOR.  HELD: THE "RETURN"
SPECIFIED IN SEC. 145(A) IS THAT PROVIDED IN FORM 1096, NOT THE ONE
PROVIDED IN FORM 1099; AND, SINCE THE ONLY OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE 101
COUNTS WERE FAILURES TO FILE FORM 1099, THE INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY
DISMISSED.  PP. 458-460. 

2.  THIS DIRECT APPEAL UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731 FROM A DECISION OF A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE INDICTMENT, IS PROPERLY BEFORE
THIS COURT, BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT RESTED ITS DECISION ON THE
"CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE."  WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER OBJECTIONS TO
THE INDICTMENT, SUCH AS QUESTIONS OF VENUE, WHICH MIGHT ALSO LEAD TO
DISMISSAL IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT ON THIS APPEAL.  P. 459,
FOOTNOTE. 

UNITED STATES V. CARROLL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF MISSOURI. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN INDICTMENT OF APPELLEE ON 101 COUNTS
UNDER SEC. 145 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS
COURT UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731, AFFIRMED, P. 460. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
3731, FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING AN INDICTMENT. 
THE INDICTMENT CONTAINS 101 COUNTS.  EACH COUNT ALLEGES THAT APPELLEE
MADE PAYMENT OF A SUM IN EXCESS OF $600 A YEAR TO A NAMED INDIVIDUAL -
SOME IN 1948, SOME IN 1949, AND THE REST IN 1950.  THE OFFENSE CHARGED
AS TO EACH SUCH PAYMENT IS A WILFUL FAILURE TO MAKE A RETURN ON
TREASURY FORM 1099 IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 145(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE, AS AMENDED, SEC. 5(C), CURRENT TAX PAYMENT ACT OF 1943, 57 STAT.
126, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 145(A). 

ACT OF 1948, 62 STAT. 110, PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON MAKING A PAYMENT TO
ANOTHER OF $600 OR MORE IN ANY CALENDAR YEAR "SHALL RENDER A TRUE AND
ACCURATE RETURN TO THE COMMISSIONER, UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AND IN SUCH
FORM AND MANNER AND TO SUCH EXTENT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY HIM WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY." 

TREASURY REGULATIONS 111, SEC. 29.147-1, AS AMENDED T.D. 5313, 1944
CUM. BULL.  308, T.D.  5687, 1949-1 CUM. BULL.  9, PROVIDES THAT ALL
PERSONS MAKING ANY SUCH PAYMENT IN ANY CALENDAR YEAR (WITH EXCEPTIONS
NOT RELEVANT HERE) SHALL MAKE A "RETURN" ON FORM 1099, "ACCOMPANIED BY
TRANSMITTAL FORM 1096 SHOWING THE NUMBER OF RETURNS FILED."  FORM 1099
IS REQUIRED TO BE PREPARED AND FILED FOR EACH PAYEE, SHOWING THE NAME
AND ADDRESS OF THE PAYEE, THE KIND AND AMOUNT OF INCOME PAID, AND THE
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON MAKING THE PAYMENT.  FORM 1099 ON ITS
FACE IS CALLED AN "INFORMATION RETURN"; AND ITS INSTRUCTIONS SAY THAT
IT IS TO BE FORWARDED "WITH RETURN FORM 1096."  FROM 1099 CONTAINS NO
FORMAL DECLARATION BY THE PAYOR NOR ANY SIGNATURE BY HIM.  THOSE ARE
PROVIDED IN FORM 1096. 

FORM 1096 IS CALLED "ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN."  IT MUST BE SIGNED
BY THE PAYOR WITH A STATEMENT OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ON FORM 1099
WHICH ARE ATTACHED.  IT CONTAINS A DECLARATION THAT "TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF THE ACCOMPANYING REPORTS ON FORM 1099" CONSTITUTE
"A TRUE AND COMPLETE RETURN OF PAYMENTS" OF THE PRESCRIBED CHARACTER
MADE DURING THE SPECIFIED CALENDAR YEAR. 

REGULATIONS "TO MAKE A RETURN  ...  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
COMPUTATION, ASSESSMENT, OR COLLECTION OF ANY ESTIMATED TAX OR TAX
IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER, WHO WILLFULLY FAILS TO  ...  MAKE SUCH RETURN"
SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION BE FINED NOT MORE
THAN $10,000 OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH. 

THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT THE "RETURN" SPECIFIED IN SEC. 145(A)
WAS THAT PROVIDED IN FORM 1096, NOT THE ONE PROVIDED IN FORM 1099, AND
THAT SINCE THE ONLY OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE 101 COUNTS WERE FAILURES TO
FILE FORM 1099 THE INDICTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED.* 

*WE POSTPONED THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION TO A HEARING ON THE MERITS
IN VIEW OF APPELLEE'S CONTENTION IN HIS STATEMENT OPPOSING JURISDICTION
THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS BASED NOT ONLY UPON THE "CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
3731, BUT ALSO, AS RESPECTS THE FIRST 45 COUNTS, ON A QUESTION OF
VENUE.  WE DO NOT READ THE ORAL OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT
WAY.  WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT RESTED ITS DECISION AS RESPECTS ALL
101 COUNTS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER
OBJECTIONS TO THE INDICTMENT WHICH MIGHT ALSO LEAD TO DISMISSAL IS
THEREFORE NOT PROPERLY HERE ON THIS APPEAL.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 193. 

THE QUESTION IS NOT WITHOUT DIFFICULTY.  BUT WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT REACHED THE CORRECT RESULT. 

THE "RETURN" REQUIRED BY SEC. 147(A) IS TO BE MADE "IN SUCH FORM AND
MANNER" AS ARE PRESCRIBED IN THE REGULATIONS.  THE REGULATIONS PROVIDE
IN SEC. 29.147-1, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THAT A "RETURN SHALL BE MADE IN
EACH CASE ON FORM 1099, ACCOMPANIED BY TRANSMITTAL FORM 1096 SHOWING
THE NUMBER OF RETURNS FILED."  THE "FORM AND MANNER" PRESCRIBED
THEREFORE SEEM TO CONSIST OF THE VERIFIED FORM 1096 TOGETHER WITH THE
FORMS 1099.  ALL OF THEM TOGETHER APPARENTLY CONSTITUTE THE "RETURN"
REFERRED TO IN SEC. 147(A).  THE VARIOUS FORMS 1099 SEEM TO HAVE THE
SAME RELATION TO FORM 1096 AS SCHEDULES HAVE TO AN ORDINARY INCOME TAX
RETURN.  FORM 1099 SUPPLIES THE DETAILS WHICH UNDERLIE FORM 1096.  THAT
CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT FORM 1096 IS THE ONLY ONE
WHICH IS SIGNED AND VERIFIED. 

WE HESITATE TO CONCLUDE THAT A FAILURE TO FILE AN UNVERIFIED SCHEDULE
IS GIVEN THE SAME DIGNITY AS THE FAILURE TO FILE THE VERIFIED RETURN. 
WE ARE DEALING WITH CRIMINAL SANCTIONS IN THE COMPLICATED, TECHNICAL
FIELD OF THE REVENUE LAW.  THE CODE AND THE REGULATIONS MUST BE
CONSTRUED IN LIGHT OF THE PURPOSE TO LOCATE AND CHECK UPON RECIPIENTS
OF INCOME AND THE AMOUNTS THEY RECEIVE.  SEE S. REP. NO. 103, 65TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 20.  BUT AT THE SAME TIME EVERY CITIZEN IS ENTITLED TO
FAIR WARNING OF THE TRAPS WHICH THE CRIMINAL LAW LAYS.  WHERE THE
"RETURN" PRESCRIBED IS A VERIFIED FORM 1096 TOGETHER WITH ALL THE
UNVERIFIED FORMS 1099 IT DOES NOT SEEM FAIR WARNING TO CHARGE A PERSON
FOR MORE THAN THE FAILURE TO MAKE THAT RETURN.  TO MULTIPLY THE CRIMES
BY THE NUMBER OF FORMS 1099 REQUIRED TO BE FILED IS TO REVISE THE
REGULATORY SCHEME.  SO FAR AS THESE INFORMATION RETURNS ARE CONCERNED,
THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 145(A) SEEMS TO US TO BE FULFILLED WHEN THE
SANCTION IS APPLIED ONLY TO A FAILURE TO FILE FORM 1096.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. JONES 345 U.S. 377 


NO. 556.  DECIDED APRIL 13, 1953 - 108 F. SUPP. 266, REMANDED TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS. 


INVOKING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731, THE GOVERNMENT
APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF
AN INFORMATION CHARGING APPELLEE WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 242.  THE INITIAL ISSUE - AND A CRITICAL ISSUE -
RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL INVOLVED QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE
DISTRICT COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE INFORMATION AND NOT TO THAT
COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.  HELD:
THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO
A COURT OF APPEALS; AND, IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED UPON IT IN
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BY 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731, THIS COURT REMANDS THE
APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THAT COURT. 
PP. 377-378. 

UNITED STATES V. JONES. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

PER CURIAM. 

INVOKING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731, THE
GOVERNMENT APPEALS FROM A DISMISSAL OF A TWO-COUNT INFORMATION CHARGING
APPELLEE WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 242. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUED THE INFORMATION TO CHARGE THAT APPELLEE,
AN OFFICER IN A FLORIDA STATE PRISON, WHIPPED CERTAIN PRISONERS
ENTRUSTED TO HIS CUSTODY "FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE INTENT OF
DISCIPLINING SAID PRISONERS."  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT MERE
DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY STATE PRISON OFFICIALS IS NO OFFENSE UNDER THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, SUPRA, AND DISMISSED THE INFORMATION.  108 F. SUPP.
266. 

ON APPEAL, THE GOVERNMENT PREDICATES ITS ARGUMENT FOR REVERSAL UPON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE INFORMATION CHARGES FAR MORE THAN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND IT CHARGED.  THE GOVERNMENT CONSTRUES THE INFORMATION TO
CHARGE THAT APPELLEE WILFULLY EXTORTED CONFESSIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF
PRISON RULES FROM THE PRISONERS AND WILFULLY INFLICTED ILLEGAL SUMMARY
PUNISHMENT UPON THEM, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF FLORIDA AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THUS, THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL - THE
THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION - IS BASED UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
INFORMATION WHICH DIFFERS SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS PLACED UPON IT. 

THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, SUPRA, STRICTLY LIMITS THE SCOPE OF OUR
JURISDICTION OVER THIS APPEAL.  WE MAY ONLY ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS
RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, SUPRA, AND ITS
APPLICABILITY TO THIS INFORMATION.  WE CANNOT RE-EXAMINE THE
INFORMATION AND CONSTRUE IT DE NOVO, FOR WE ARE BOUND BY THE DISTRICT
COURT'S CONSTRUCTION.  UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188
(1939). 

UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, WE HAVE THE POWER TO REMAND THIS CASE
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS IF WE ARE OF THE "OPINION" THAT THE APPEAL
"SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO A COURT OF APPEALS."  18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731. 
WE THINK THIS CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER WHICH
CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED TO OUR DISCRETION.  THE INITIAL ISSUE - AND A
CRITICAL ISSUE - RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL OBVIOUSLY INVOLVES
QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INFORMATION AND NOT TO THAT COURT'S INTERPRETATION
OF THE SCOPE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, SUPRA.  THOSE QUESTIONS CANNOT BE
RESOLVED IN A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, BUT THEY CAN BE REVIEWED
SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT.  ACCORDINGLY, WE REMAND THIS APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THAT COURT.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 
..END :




WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CORP. V. WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 345 U.S.
247 


NO. 150.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15-16, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1953 - 197 F.2D
1012, 1013, ORDERS VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


1.  REFERRING TO A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
46(C) PROVIDES THAT, "CASES AND CONTROVERSIES SHALL BE HEARD AND
DETERMINED BY A COURT OR DIVISION OF NOT MORE THAN THREE JUDGES, UNLESS
A HEARING OR REHEARING BEFORE THE COURT IN BANC IS ORDERED BY A
MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT WHO ARE IN ACTIVE
SERVICE."  HELD: 

(A)  THIS STATUTE IS SIMPLY A GRANT OF POWER TO ORDER HEARINGS AND
REHEARINGS EN BANC AND TO ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE
EXERCISE OF THAT POWER.  PP. 250-259, 267. 

(B)  LITIGANTS ARE GIVEN NO STATUTORY RIGHT TO COMPEL EACH MEMBER OF
THE COURT TO GIVE FORMAL CONSIDERATION TO AN APPLICATION FOR A
REHEARING EN BANC.  PP. 256-259, 267. 

(C)  THE STATUTE DOES NOT COMPEL THE COURT TO ADOPT ANY PARTICULAR
PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER; BUT, WHATEVER PROCEDURE
IS ADOPTED, IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY EXPLAINED, SO THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE
COURT AND LITIGANTS IN THE COURT MAY BECOME THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH
IT.  PP. 259-261, 267. 

(D)  WHATEVER PROCEDURE IS ADOPTED, IT SHOULD NOT PREVENT A LITIGANT
FROM SUGGESTING TO THOSE JUDGES WHO, UNDER THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY
THE COURT, HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INITIATING A REHEARING EN BANC,
THAT HIS CASE IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER.  PP.
261-262, 268. 

2.  HAVING LOST THEIR CASE IN A THREE-JUDGE DIVISION OF A COURT OF
APPEALS, PETITIONERS APPLIED FOR A REHEARING BEFORE THE COURT OF
APPEALS EN BANC.  THE DIVISION OF THREE JUDGES DENIED REHEARING AND
STRUCK AS UNAUTHORIZED BY LAW OR PRACTICE THE REQUEST THAT THE
REHEARING BE EN BANC.  PETITIONERS THEN APPLIED FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION TO REINSTATE THEIR PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC, CLAIMING THAT
SUCH A REQUEST WAS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND REQUIRED THE ATTENTION OF
THE FULL COURT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, EN BANC, DECLINED TO ENTERTAIN
THIS SECOND APPLICATION AND ANNOUNCED THAT THEREAFTER EACH PETITION FOR
REHEARING EN BANC IN A CASE DETERMINED BY A DIVISION OF THREE JUDGES
WOULD BE CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF BY SUCH DIVISION OF THREE JUDGES AS
AN ORDINARY PETITION FOR REHEARING.  HELD: 

(A)  THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION DENYING PETITIONERS A REHEARING AND
THE ORDER OF THE FULL COURT DENYING PETITIONERS LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION
TO REINSTATE THEIR PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC ARE VACATED; AND THE
CASE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  PP.
263-267. 

(B)  ON REMAND, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF
THE STATUTE AND THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR ITS EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION, THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD DETERMINE AND CLEARLY SET
FORTH THE PARTICULAR PROCEDURE IT WILL FOLLOW, HENCEFORTH, IN
EXERCISING ITS EN BANC POWER.  P. 268. 

(C)  IF THE COURT OF APPEALS CHOOSES TO ABIDE BY A PROCEDURE WHICH
ENTRUSTS THE INITIATION OF REHEARINGS EN BANC TO THE DIVISION, THEN THE
COURT SHOULD GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE DIVISION FOR APPROPRIATE
CONSIDERATION OF THAT QUESTION IN THIS CASE.  P. 268. 

WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CORP. ET AL. V. WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 160, METZGER ET AL. V. WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
CO. ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN PETITIONERS' SUIT FOR AN ACCOUNTING, RELIEF WAS DENIED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  85 F. SUPP. 868.  A DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, 197 F.2D 994, AND DENIED REHEARING AND STRUCK A PETITION THAT
REHEARING BE EN BANC.  197 F.2D 1012.  SITTING EN BANC, THE COURT OF
APPEALS DECLINED TO ENTERTAIN A PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO
REINSTATE THE PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC.  197 F.2D 1013.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 809.  ORDERS VACATED AND CAUSE
REMANDED, PP. 267-268. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS IN THESE CAUSES - A CORPORATION AND SOME OF ITS
STOCKHOLDERS - SEEK AN ACCOUNTING FROM RESPONDENTS - CERTAIN OTHER
CORPORATIONS WHICH, PRIOR TO A REORGANIZATION IN 1943, WERE
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE PETITIONING CORPORATION.  IT IS PETITIONERS' THEORY
THAT RESPONDENTS HAD UNJUSTLY ENRICHED THEMSELVES BY WRONGFULLY
APPROPRIATING A "TAX LOSS" INCURRED BY PETITIONER WESTERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD CORPORATION AND APPLYING IT TO THE SOLE BENEFIT OF RESPONDENT
WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. 

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND UPON WHICH PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT WAS FOUNDED
IS AS COMPLICATED AS IT IS UNIQUE.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, WE MAY PASS
OVER IT.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS FOUNDED ON A
THEORY OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT; JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WAS
INVOKED UPON THE GROUNDS OF THE DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED RELIEF, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED
BY A TWO-TO-ONE VOTE.  PETITIONERS THEN APPLIED FOR A REHEARING BEFORE
THE COURT OF APPEALS EN BANC.  WITH ONE DISSENT, THE REHEARING WAS
DENIED; THE COURT IN ITS ORDER STRUCK THE REQUEST THAT THE REHEARING BE
EN BANC.  PETITIONERS THEN FILED A SECOND APPLICATION PROTESTING THAT
THE ACTION OF THE TWO JUDGES, WHO STRUCK OUT THE REQUEST FOR A
REHEARING EN BANC, WAS ERROR BECAUSE SUCH A REQUEST WAS AUTHORIZED BY
STATUTE AND REQUIRED THE ATTENTION OF THE FULL COURT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, EN BANC, DECLINED TO ENTERTAIN THIS SECOND
APPLICATION.  CHIEF JUDGE DENMAN DISSENTED.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI;
AMONG OTHER THINGS, WE DEEMED IT IMPORTANT TO RESOLVE THE EN BANC
QUESTIONS PRECIPITATED BY THIS LITIGATION.  344 U.S. 809. 

THE ISSUES STEM FROM 28 U.S.C. SEC. 46(C).  IT READS: 

"CASES AND CONTROVERSIES SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY A COURT OR
DIVISION OF NOT MORE THAN THREE JUDGES, UNLESS A HEARING OR REHEARING
BEFORE THE COURT IN BANC IS ORDERED BY A MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES
OF THE CIRCUIT WHO ARE IN ACTIVE SERVICE.  A COURT IN BANC SHALL
CONSIST OF ALL ACTIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT." 

IT IS PETITIONERS' CLAIM THAT THE CODE VESTS IN A DEFEATED PARTY THE
RIGHT TO ASK FOR A REHEARING EN BANC; THE COURT AS A WHOLE MUST ACT
UPON SUCH A PETITION; THUS THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REFUSING TO
ENTERTAIN THE APPLICATION IN THIS CASE. 

OBVIOUSLY, THE CLAIM CALLS FOR CLOSE ANALYSIS OF SEC. 46(C).  WHAT
PARTICULAR RIGHT, IF ANY, DOES IT GIVE TO A LITIGANT IN A COURT OF
APPEALS?  TO WHAT EXTENT IS HE ENTITLED TO PUT THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE
BEFORE EACH MEMBER OF THE COURT IN PRESSING HIS DEMAND FOR A HEARING OR
A REHEARING BEFORE THE ENTIRE COURT? 

IN OUR VIEW, SEC. 46(C) IS NOT ADDRESSED TO LITIGANTS.  IT IS
ADDRESSED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  IT IS A GRANT OF POWER.  IT VESTS
IN THE COURT THE POWER TO ORDER HEARINGS EN BANC.  IT GOES NO FURTHER. 
IT NEITHER FORBIDS NOR REQUIRES EACH ACTIVE MEMBER OF A COURT OF
APPEALS TO ENTERTAIN EACH PETITION FOR A HEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC. 
THE COURT IS LEFT FREE TO DEVISE ITS OWN ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY TO
PROVIDE THE MEANS WHEREBY A MAJORITY MAY ORDER SUCH A HEARING. 

THE STATUTE, ENACTED IN 1948, IS BUT A LEGISLATIVE RATIFICATION OF
TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 326 (1941) - A
DECISION WHICH WENT NO FURTHER THAN TO SUSTAIN THE POWER OF A COURT OF
APPEALS TO ORDER A HEARING EN BANC.  WHEN THE STATUTE IS CAST IN
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, THIS BECOMES MORE READILY APPARENT. 

AS EARLY AS 1938, THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES
(FN1) RECOMMENDED THAT THE JUDICIAL CODE BE AMENDED TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT "THE MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR A
COURT OF MORE THAN THREE JUDGES WHEN IN THEIR OPINION UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE SUCH ACTION ADVISABLE."  (FN2) THE RECOMMENDATION
WAS RENEWED IN 1939 AND AGAIN IN 1940.  (FN3) THEREAFTER, IN 1941, WHEN
A CONFLICT DEVELOPED BETWEEN CIRCUITS (FN4) AS TO THE POWER TO SIT EN
BANC UNDER THE OLD JUDICIAL CODE, IDENTICAL BILLS WERE INTRODUCED IN
BOTH THE HOUSE (H.R. 3390) AND THE SENATE (S. 1053) TO AMEND THE CODE
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE.  THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TOOK
THE FORM OF A PROVISO TO SEC. 117: 

"  ...  PROVIDED, THAT, IN A CIRCUIT WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN THREE
CIRCUIT JUDGES, THE MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES MAY PROVIDE FOR A
COURT OF ALL THE ACTIVE AND AVAILABLE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT TO
SIT IN BANC FOR THE HEARING OF PARTICULAR CASES, WHEN IN THEIR OPINION
SUCH ACTION IS ADVISABLE."  H.R. 3390, S. 1053, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

WHEN THIS LEGISLATION CAME UP FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SENATOR DANAHER EXPRESSLY RAISED THE PROBLEM, "ON
WHOSE MOTION WOULD THE COURT ASSEMBLE EN BANC?"  HE WAS TOLD THAT
COUNSEL MIGHT MAKE A "SUGGESTION," BUT THAT "THE CONVENING OF THE FULL
COURT WOULD BE AT THE INITIATIVE OF THE COURT," AND THAT IT WOULD NOT
BE DESIRABLE "TO ENCOURAGE THE INITIATION OF THIS SUGGESTION BY
COUNSEL."  SENATOR MCFARLAND SAID THAT FROM LOOKING AT THE PROVISION HE
GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT "THEY (THE COURT) WOULD BE THE ONES TO DO THE
ACTING."  SENATOR KILGORE AGREED.  SENATOR DANAHER CONCLUDED THAT THE
AMENDMENT WOULD BE "IMPRACTICAL UNLESS WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT  ... THE
JUDGES THEMSELVES DECIDE."  (FN5)

THIS BIT OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS SIGNIFICANT.  CONGRESS WAS
ATTEMPTING TO FRAME LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD EMPOWER A MAJORITY OF
CIRCUIT JUDGES IN ANY COURT OF APPEALS TO "PROVIDE" FOR HEARINGS EN
BANC.  THE PROBLEM WAS IMMEDIATELY RAISED:  HOW WOULD A COURT BE
CONVENED EN BANC - WOULD THE LEGISLATION, AS FRAMED, GIVE LITIGANTS THE
RIGHT TO COMPEL EVERY JUDGE TO ACT ON AN APPLICATION FOR A FULL COURT? 
THE PROPONENTS OF THE LEGISLATION, AND THOSE WHO STUDIED IT, WORKED OUT
THIS ANSWER IN THEIR STUDY OF THE PROBLEM:  THE DETERMINATION OF HOW
THE EN BANC POWER WAS TO BE EXERCISED WAS TO REST WITH THE COURT ITSELF
- LITIGANTS SHOULD BE FREE TO SUGGEST THAT A PARTICULAR CASE WAS
APPROPRIATE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE FULL COURT, BUT THEY SHOULD BE
GIVEN NO RIGHT TO COMPEL ALL CIRCUIT JUDGES TO TAKE FORMAL ACTION ON
THE SUGGESTION. 

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF LATER PROPOSALS - DRAFTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR LANGUAGE - DISCLOSES NO CHANGE IN PURPOSE.  THE AMENDMENT TO
SEC. 117 OF THE OLD JUDICIAL CODE PASSED THE HOUSE, BUT IT WAS NEVER
ACTED UPON BY THE SENATE.  (FN6)  IT MAY HAVE DIED BECAUSE THIS COURT'S
DECISION IN TEXTILE MILLS INTERVENED. 

THE INTER-CIRCUIT CONFLICT WHICH BROUGHT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
SEC. 117, AND WHICH WAS LATER RESOLVED BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN
TEXTILE MILLS, WAS PURELY A DISPUTE OVER THE POWER TO SIT EN BANC; IT
NEVER REACHED THE PROBLEM OF HOW EN BANC PROCEEDINGS WERE TO BE
INITIATED.  IN LANG'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 97 F.2D 867 (1938), THE
NINTH CIRCUIT HAD HELD THAT UNDER SEC. 117 THERE WAS NO WAY IN WHICH A
CIRCUIT OF MORE THAN THREE JUDGES COULD PROVIDE THE MEANS TO CONVENE
ITSELF EN BANC.  BUT THE THIRD CIRCUIT, IN TEXTILE MILLS, (FN7) REACHED
A CONTRARY CONCLUSION: 

"  ...  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH JUDGE DENMAN'S CONTRARY CONCLUSION IN
LANG'S ESTATE  ...  .  WE CONCLUDE THAT THIS COURT HAS POWER TO
PROVIDE, AS IT HAS DONE BY RULE 4(1), FOR SESSIONS OF THE COURT EN
BANC, CONSISTING OF ALL THE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT IN ACTIVE
SERVICE."  117 F.2D 62, 70-71. 

IN AFFIRMING THE THIRD CIRCUIT, THIS COURT DID NO MORE THAN SUSTAIN
THAT COURT'S EXERCISE OF THE "POWER TO PROVIDE  ...  FOR SESSIONS OF
THE COURT EN BANC."  THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT DECISION TO INDICATE THAT
WE RECOGNIZED ANY RIGHT IN PARTIES TO HAVE THEIR CASES PASSED UPON BY
MORE THAN THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES. 

THIS WAS THE STATE OF THE LAW IN 1944, WHEN THE MOVEMENT TO REVISE
THE JUDICIAL CODE WAS IN ITS EARLY STAGES.  AT THAT TIME, JUDGE MARIS,
CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON THE REVISION OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, SUBMITTED A MEMORANDUM TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
REVISION OF LAWS.  POINTING TO THIS COURT'S DECISION IN TEXTILE MILLS,
HE URGED THAT THE NEW CODE SHOULD EXPRESSLY PROVIDE "THAT EXCEPT IN
CASES AND CONTROVERSIES  ...  WHICH THE COURT BY RULE OR SPECIAL ORDER
DIRECTS TO BE HEARD BY THE FULL COURT, ALL CASES AND CONTROVERSIES
BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT SHALL BE HEARD BY NOT MORE THAN THREE
JUDGES."  (FN8)  THIS PROPOSAL WAS THE GENESIS OF THE PRESENT SEC.
46(C).  (FN9)  IT WAS MOTIVATED BY A DUAL PURPOSE:  TO GIVE EXPRESS
RECOGNITION TO THE DOCTRINE OF TEXTILE MILLS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
SECURING THE TRADITION OF THREE-JUDGE COURTS AGAINST ANY FURTHER
INTRUSION. 

THE FIRST LEGISLATIVE DRAFT OF SEC. 46(C) DID NOT DIFFER IN ANY
MATERIAL RESPECT FROM ITS PRESENT FORM, (FN10) AND THE PROVISION PASSED
THROUGH THE SUCCEEDING DRAFTS AND STAGES OF LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT
WITHOUT ATTRACTING ANY SPECIFIC COMMENT.  BUT WE ARE NOT LEFT
UNASSISTED WHEN WE SEEK TO DIVINE THE LEGISLATORS' UNDERSTANDING OF
SEC. 46(C).  WE HAVE THE REVISER'S NOTES, WHICH ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT
WEIGHT.  (FN11)  THESE COMMENTS WERE BEFORE CONGRESS WHEN IT REVIEWED
THE PROPOSED REVISION OF THE CODE, AND WERE RELIED UPON TO "EXPLAIN
...  THE SOURCE OF THE LAW AND THE CHANGES MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE
CODIFICATION AND REVISION."  (FN12) 

THE REVISER'S NOTES TELL US THAT THEIR PURPOSE WAS TWO-FOLD:  TO
"AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIVISIONS OF THE COURT," AND TO
"PROVIDE FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES FOR HEARINGS" EN BANC. 
(FN13)  REFERRING TO THE LATTER PURPOSE, THE NOTES QUOTE EXTENSIVELY
FROM THIS COURT'S OPINION IN TEXTILE MILLS.  (FN14)  THE LANGUAGE THEY
QUOTE IS SIGNIFICANT.  IT DESCRIBES CERTAIN HOUSEKEEPING FUNCTIONS OF A
COURT OF APPEALS - FUNCTIONS WHICH CANNOT BE DISCHARGED BY THE COURT
UNLESS, ON ITS OWN MOTION, IT CONVENES ITSELF AS A BODY AND ACTS AS A
BODY - SUCH AS RULE MAKING, APPOINTING CLERKS AND FIXING THE TIMES WHEN
COURT SHALL BE HELD.  CLEARLY THE REVISER'S NOTES ASSIMILATED THE POWER
TO SIT EN BANC TO THE POWER TO DISCHARGE THESE HOUSEKEEPING FUNCTIONS,
AND IT WAS PRECISELY THAT DESCRIPTION OF THE POWER WHICH THE REVISERS
SAW FIT TO USE IN DESCRIBING TO CONGRESS WHAT THEY DEEMED TO BE THE
NATURE OF THE POWER CONFERRED BY SEC. 46(C). 

FURTHERMORE, THE NOTES MAKE IT APPARENT THAT IF THE REVISERS INTENDED
TO DO ANYTHING MORE THAN CODIFY TEXTILE MILLS, THEIR CONCERN WAS WITH
PRESERVING THE "TRADITION" OF THREE-JUDGE COURTS AGAINST ANY FURTHER
INROADS.  (FN15)  AN INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 46(C), WHICH AUTHORIZES
LITIGANTS, OF RIGHT, TO COMPEL NONSITTING JUDGES TO ACT IN EVERY CASE,
IS CERTAINLY A DEPARTURE FROM THE TRADITION OF THREE-JUDGE COURTS - A
MOST CONTROVERSIAL CHANGE WHICH WAS PLAINLY NOT ANTICIPATED BY TEXTILE
MILLS.  YET CONGRESS' PURPOSE WAS CODIFICATION, NOT ALTERATION, OF THE
RULES PERTAINING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS.  THE SENATE WAS
TOLD BY ITS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT "GREAT CARE HAS BEEN EXERCISED TO
MAKE NO CHANGES IN THE EXISTING LAW WHICH WOULD NOT MEET WITH
SUBSTANTIALLY UNANIMOUS APPROVAL."  (FN16)  SIMILARLY, JUDGE MARIS TOLD
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY THAT THE NEW CODE "EMBODIES A
NUMBER OF PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE JUDICIAL MACHINERY OF A WHOLLY
NONCONTROVERSIAL NATURE WHICH HAVE RESULTED FROM SUGGESTIONS
ORIGINATING WITH THE JUDGES WHOSE DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION OF THE
VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CODE GIVES THEM A SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE
OF THESE MATTERS."  (FN17) 

A FIRST READING OF SEC. 46(C) MAY WELL LEAVE ONE WITH DOUBTS.  IT
REPOSES POWER IN "A MAJORITY OF ACTIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES," AND SAYS NO
MORE.  PERHAPS, WITHOUT FURTHER STUDY, ONE MIGHT BE INCLINED TO FALL
BACK UPON THE GENERAL EXPERIENCE OF OUR JURISPRUDENCE, AND DETERMINE
THAT THE LITIGANT IS, BY IMPLICATION, GIVEN THE RIGHT TO COMPEL THE
FULL COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WILL EXERCISE ITS POWER IN A GIVEN
CASE.  BUT A STUDY OF THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND OF SEC. 46(C) DISPELS
SUCH AN IDEA AND MAKES IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE DRAFTSMEN INTENDED TO
GRANT THE EN BANC POWER AND NO MORE; THE COURT ITSELF WAS TO ESTABLISH
THE PROCEDURE FOR EXERCISE OF THE POWER. 

THIS INTERPRETATION MAKES FOR AN HARMONIOUS READING OF THE WHOLE OF
SEC. 46.  (FN18)  IN THIS SECTION, CONGRESS SPEAKS TO THE COURTS OF
APPEALS:  THE COURT, ITSELF, AS A BODY, IS AUTHORIZED TO ARRANGE ITS
CALENDAR AND DISTRIBUTE ITS WORK AMONG ITS MEMBERSHIP; THE COURT,
ITSELF, AS A BODY, MAY DESIGNATE THE PLACES WHERE IT WILL SIT. 
ORDINARILY, ADDED CONGRESS, CASES ARE TO BE HEARD BY DIVISIONS OF
THREE.  BUT CONGRESS WENT FURTHER; IT LEFT NO DOUBT THAT THE COURT, BY
A MAJORITY VOTE, COULD CONVENE ITSELF EN BANC TO HEAR OR REHEAR
PARTICULAR CASES.    THE JUXTAPOSITION OF THIS LAST ENACTMENT WITH THE
OTHERS NEGATES PETITIONERS' INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT.  LITIGANTS ARE
CERTAINLY GIVEN NO SPECIAL STANDING TO PARTAKE, AS OF RIGHT, IN THE
COURT'S DECISIONS PERTAINING TO ARRANGEMENT OF ITS CALENDAR AND THE
ASSIGNMENT OF ITS CASES TO DIVISIONS.  JUST AS THE STATUTE MAKES NO
PROVISION BINDING THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN EVERY REQUEST THAT A
PARTICULAR CASE BE ASSIGNED TO A PARTICULAR DIVISION, SO IT SHOULD NOT
BE CONSTRUED TO COMPEL THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN, EN BANC, MOTIONS FOR A
HEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC. 

A CONTRARY READING - ONE WHICH WOULD SUSTAIN PETITIONERS - WOULD
OBVIOUSLY REQUIRE A PRACTICE WHICH MIGHT THRUST UNWARRANTED EXTRA
BURDENS ON THE COURT.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO GIVE AN AUTOMATIC, SECOND APPEAL TO EACH LITIGANT IN A
COURT OF APPEALS COMPOSED OF MORE THAN THREE JUDGES.  YET PETITIONERS
WOULD HAVE US HOLD THAT SUCH A "HORIZONTAL" APPEAL IS IMPLICIT IN SEC.
46.  AND, IF PETITIONERS ARE CORRECT AS TO THEIR CLAIM THAT PETITIONS
FOR REHEARING EN BANC MUST, AS A MATTER OF LAW, BE PASSED UPON BY THE
FULL BENCH, THE ARGUMENT SHOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO PETITIONS REQUESTING
THAT THE INITIAL HEARING OF THE CASE BE EN BANC, BECAUSE SEC. 46(C)
TREATS "HEARINGS" AND "REHEARINGS" WITH EQUALITY.  BUT, AGAIN, THERE IS
NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT EVERY PARTY IN EVERY CASE IN EVERY COURT OF
APPEALS MAY SUBMIT, AS OF RIGHT, A PETITION TO EVERY JUDGE - A PETITION
IN THE NATURE OF A PRELIMINARY APPEAL - ASKING THAT THE FULL BENCH
EXAMINE HIS CAUSE AND FORMALLY RULE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT SHALL
BE HEARD EN BANC. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT SEC. 46(C) DOES NOT REQUIRE A COURT OF
APPEALS TO DO WHAT PETITIONERS CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THIS
CASE.  THE STATUTE DEALS, NOT WITH RIGHTS, BUT WITH POWER.  THE MANNER
IN WHICH THAT POWER IS TO BE ADMINISTERED IS LEFT TO THE COURT ITSELF. 
A MAJORITY MAY CHOOSE TO ABIDE BY THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BY
ENTRUSTING THE INITIATION OF A HEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC TO THE
THREE JUDGES WHO ARE SELECTED TO HEAR THE CASE.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
THERE IS NOTHING IN SEC. 46(C) WHICH REQUIRES THE FULL BENCH TO ADHERE
TO A RULE WHICH DELEGATES THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO THE DIVISION.  BECAUSE
SEC. 46(C) IS A GRANT OF POWER, AND NOTHING MORE, EACH COURT OF APPEALS
IS VESTED WITH A WIDE LATITUDE OF DISCRETION TO DECIDE FOR ITSELF JUST
HOW THAT POWER SHALL BE EXERCISED.  (FN19) 

BUT EVEN IF THE STATUTE GRANTS ONLY POWER PLUS THE DISCRETION FOR ITS
EXERCISE, THAT DOES NOT MARK THE END OF OUR REVIEW OF THE EN BANC PHASE
OF THIS CASE.  THE EN BANC POWER, CONFIRMED BY SEC. 46(C), IS, AS WE
EMPHASIZED IN THE TEXTILE MILLS CASE, A NECESSARY AND USEFUL POWER -
INDEED TOO USEFUL THAT WE SHOULD EVER PERMIT A COURT TO IGNORE THE
POSSIBILITIES OF ITS USE IN CASES WHERE ITS USE MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. 
(FN20)  IF SEC. 46(C) IS TO ACHIEVE ITS FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE, CERTAIN
FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE OBSERVED BY THE COURTS OF APPEALS. 
IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR "GENERAL POWER TO SUPERVISE THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS," (FN21) THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH
THIS COURT TO DEFINE THESE REQUIREMENTS AND INSURE THEIR OBSERVANCE. 

IT IS ESSENTIAL, OF COURSE, THAT A CIRCUIT COURT, AND THE LITIGANTS
WHO APPEAR BEFORE IT, UNDERSTAND THE PRACTICE - WHATEVER IT MAY BE -
WHEREBY THE COURT CONVENES ITSELF EN BANC.  IN PROMULGATING THE RULES
GOVERNING THAT PROCEDURE THE COURT SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE FULL SCOPE OF
ITS POWERS UNDER SEC. 46(C).  CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE, THE COURT
MAY, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, ADOPT A PRACTICE WHEREBY THE MAJORITY OF THE
FULL BENCH MAY DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WILL BE HEARINGS OR REHEARINGS
EN BANC, OR THEY MAY DELEGATE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INITIATION OF
THE EN BANC POWER TO THE DIVISIONS OF THE COURT.  BUT IN RECOGNIZING
THE FULL SCOPE OF SEC. 46(C), THE FULL MEMBERSHIP OF THE COURT WILL BE
MINDFUL, OF COURSE, THAT THE STATUTE COMMITS THE EN BANC POWER TO THE
MAJORITY OF ACTIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES SO THAT A MAJORITY ALWAYS RETAINS THE
POWER TO REVISE THE PROCEDURE AND WITHDRAW WHATEVER RESPONSIBILITY MAY
HAVE BEEN DELEGATED TO THE DIVISION.  AND, RECOGNIZING THE VALUE OF AN
EFFICIENT USE OF THE EN BANC POWER, THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT SUCH MEANS
AS WILL ENABLE ITS FULL MEMBERSHIP TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COURT'S
ADMINISTRATION OF THE POWER IS ACHIEVING THE FULL PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTE SO THAT THE COURT WILL BETTER BE ABLE TO CHANGE ITS EN BANC
PROCEDURE, SHOULD IT DEEM CHANGE ADVISABLE. 

IT IS ALSO ESSENTIAL THAT LITIGANTS BE LEFT FREE TO SUGGEST TO THE
COURT, OR TO THE DIVISION - DEPENDING UPON WHERE POWER OF INITIATION
RESIDES, AS DETERMINED BY THE ACTIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE COURT - THAT
A PARTICULAR CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR CONSIDERATION BY ALL THE JUDGES. 
A COURT MAY TAKE STEPS TO USE THE EN BANC POWER SPARINGLY, BUT IT MAY
NOT TAKE STEPS TO CURTAIL ITS USE INDISCRIMINATELY.  COUNSEL ARE OFTEN
WELL EQUIPPED TO POINT UP SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND IMPORTANT
IMPLICATIONS CALLING FOR EN BANC CONSIDERATION OF THE CASES WHICH THEY
ASK THE COURT TO DECIDE.  (FN22)  IF, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION
UNDER SEC. 46(C), A COURT DENIES LITIGANTS THE PRIVILEGE OF REACHING
THE EAR OF EVERY CIRCUIT JUDGE ON THE EN BANC QUESTION, THERE IS STILL
NO REASON TO DENY THEM ACCESS TO THE FEW CIRCUIT JUDGES WHO MUST ACT
INITIALLY, AND PERHAPS DECISIVELY, ON THE MATTER FOR THE OTHERS. 
COUNSEL'S SUGGESTION NEED NOT REQUIRE ANY FORMAL ACTION BY THE COURT;
IT NEED NOT BE TREATED AS A MOTION; IT IS ENOUGH IF THE COURT SIMPLY
GIVES EACH LITIGANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CALL ATTENTION TO CIRCUMSTANCES
IN A PARTICULAR CASE WHICH MIGHT WARRANT A REHEARING EN BANC.  (FN23)
AND OF COURSE TO HOLD THAT COUNSEL ARE ENTITLED TO SPEAK TO THE EN BANC
QUESTION, IS NOT TO HOLD THAT THE COURT ITSELF IS IN ANY WAY DEPRIVED
OF THE POWER TO INITIATE EN BANC HEARINGS SUA SPONTE.  THE STATUTE
COMMITS THE POWER OF INITIATION TO THE COURT; THE LITIGANTS' FUNCTION
MUST THEREFORE BE LIMITED; BUT, CERTAINLY, IF THE EN BANC POWER IS TO
BE WISELY UTILIZED, THERE IS NO REASON TO DENY THE LITIGANTS ANY CHANCE
TO AID THE COURT IN ITS EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATUTE. 

FINALLY, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A
CAUSE SHOULD BE HEARD EN BANC IS AN ISSUE WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A
REHEARING BY THE DIVISION.  THE THREE JUDGES WHO DECIDE AN APPEAL MAY
BE SATISFIED AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THEIR DECISION.  YET, UPON
REFLECTION, AFTER FULLY HEARING AN APPEAL, THEY MAY COME TO BELIEVE
THAT THE CASE IS OF SUCH SIGNIFICANCE TO THE FULL COURT THAT IT
DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF THE FULL COURT. 

THE FOREGOING SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT REJECTION OF PETITIONERS'
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 46(C) DOES NOT COMPEL AFFIRMANCE OF ALL THAT WAS
DONE BELOW IN DISPOSING OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR A REHEARING EN BANC. 
IT SHOULD ALSO BE DECIDED WHETHER THE EN BANC ISSUE HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY
TREATED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  A REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
CONVINCES US THAT FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THAT COURT IS APPROPRIATE. 

AFTER THE DIVISION WHICH HEARD THE APPEAL HAD ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION,
PETITIONERS ASKED FOR A REHEARING EN BANC.  A PER CURIAM ISSUED FROM
THE DIVISION: 

"THE PETITIONS OF THE APPELLANTS AND INTERVENORS FOR A REHEARING ARE
DENIED.  INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONS SEEK A REHEARING EN BANC, THEY ARE
STRICKEN AS BEING WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN LAW OR IN THE RULES OR PRACTICE
OF THE COURT.  SEE KRONBERG V. HALE, 9 CIR., 181 F.2D 767."  197 F.2D,
AT 1012. 

THE STRIKING OF PETITIONERS' MOTION IS CERTAINLY AMBIGUOUS.  IF WE
ACCORD FULL LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THIS ORDER, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE
DIVISION RULED THAT COUNSEL WERE NOT FREE TO SUGGEST, EVEN TO THE
DIVISION, THAT THE CASE WAS APPROPRIATE FOR A REHEARING EN BANC. 
ENOUGH HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS ERROR. 

INDEED, IF THE THREE JUDGES WHO DECIDED THE MERITS OF THIS CAUSE WERE
OF THE OPINION THAT COUNSEL'S REQUEST WAS "WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN LAW,"
IT MAY WELL BE THAT THEY SIMPLY CONSIDERED THEMSELVES POWERLESS TO ACT
IN ANY WAY ON THE EN BANC QUESTION.  TWO JUDGES ON THE PANEL WERE
DISTRICT JUDGES.  (FN24)  ONE DISTRICT JUDGE DISSENTED FROM THE DENIAL
OF A REHEARING, AND HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCEDURE WHICH THE COURT
OF APPEALS UTILIZED TO CONVENE ITS FULL BENCH SEEMS TO DIFFER FROM WHAT
WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ANNOUNCED BY SIX MEMBERS OF THE COURT.  (FN25)
INDEED, AT THAT TIME, IT WAS BY NO MEANS CLEAR JUST WHAT PROCEDURE THE
COURT FOLLOWED TO CONVENE ITSELF EN BANC.  (FN26) 

FOLLOWING THE SECOND DECISION OF THE DIVISION, PETITIONERS REVEWED
THEIR DEMAND FOR A REHEARING EN BANC BY ASKING THE COURT TO REINSTATE
THEIR PETITION.  CHIEF JUDGE DENMAN CONVENED THE ACTIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES
SO THAT THE COURT MIGHT DETERMINE ITS AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER, SET
FORTH ITS INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 46(C) AND FULLY ADVISE THE BAR OF ITS
DETERMINATION.  ACCORDINGLY THE COURT, EN BANC, DECLINED TO ENTERTAIN
PETITIONERS' APPLICATION AND PROCEEDED TO EXPLAIN WHY.  CONSTRUING SEC.
46(C) THE COURT SAID, 197 F.2D, AT 1015: 

"THE STATUTE, IT WILL BE RECALLED, COMMITS TO A 'COURT OR DIVISION OF
NOT MORE THAN THREE JUDGES' THE POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CASES
AND CONTROVERSIES ASSIGNED TO IT.  OBVIOUSLY ITS DETERMINATION OF ANY
SUCH CASE OR CONTROVERSY IS A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND AS
SUCH IS A FINAL DECISION, SUBJECT TO REVIEW ONLY AS PRESCRIBED BY 28
U.S.C.A. SEC. 1254.  CIRCUIT JUDGES OTHER THAN THOSE DESIGNATED TO SIT
ON SUCH COURT OR DIVISION ARE NOT MEMBERS OF IT, AND OFFICIALLY THEY
PLAY, AND ARE ENTITLED TO PLAY, NO PART IN ITS DELIBERATIONS AT ANY
STAGE.  THAT THIS IS SO IS MADE CLEAR BY SUBDIVISION (A) OF SEC. 46
...  PROVIDING THAT 'CIRCUIT JUDGES SHALL SIT ON THE COURT AND ITS
DIVISIONS IN SUCH ORDER AND AT SUCH TIMES AS THE COURT DIRECTS.'  IF
REGARD BE HAD FOR THIS MANDATE CIRCUIT JUDGES MAY NOT INTRUDE
THEMSELVES, OR BE COMPELLED ON PETITION OF A LOSING PARTY TO INTRUDE,
UPON A COURT OR DIVISION ON WHICH THEY HAVE NOT BY ORDER OF THE COURT
BEEN DIRECTED TO SIT. 

"A PETITION FOR REHEARING IN ANY SUCH CASE, WHATEVER ITS FORM OR
WORDING, MUST NECESSARILY BE TREATED AS ADDRESSED TO AND IS SOLELY FOR
DISPOSITION BY THE COURT OR DIVISION TO WHICH THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED FOR
DETERMINATION  ...  .  FROM THIS TIME FORWARD PETITIONS, IF ANY, FOR
REHEARING IN BANC IN CASES DETERMINED BY DIVISIONS OF THREE JUDGES WILL
BE CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF BY THE LATTER AS ORDINARY PETITIONS FOR
REHEARING." 

THIS LANGUAGE SUGGESTS THAT THE FULL BENCH HAS REFUSED COMPLETELY TO
CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE EN BANC REQUEST.  INSTEAD, THE COURT RULED
THAT, "FROM THIS TIME FORWARD," THE DIVISION, ALONE, IS ENTRUSTED WITH
THAT RESPONSIBILITY.  YET THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THIS PROCEDURE,
WHICH THE FULL BENCH SAID WAS TO GOVERN HENCEFORTH, HAD BEEN FOLLOWED
BY THE DIVISION IN THIS CASE.  ON THE CONTRARY, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, THE
DIVISION IN THIS APPARENTLY ACTED ON THE THEORY THAT IT WAS "WITHOUT
AUTHORITY IN LAW" TO CONSIDER THE EN BANC REQUEST. 

THIS LANGUAGE ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THE COURT THOUGHT THAT IT HAD NO
DISCRETION IN ADMINISTERING THE EN BANC POWER, THAT SEC. 46(C)
"NECESSARILY" LIMITED CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE
SHOULD BE A HEARING EN BANC TO THE DIVISION.  PERHAPS OTHER LANGUAGE IN
THE OPINION (FN27) NEGATES THE INFERENCE THAT THE FULL COURT RULED AS
IT DID BECAUSE IT BELIEVED THE STATUTE REQUIRED THAT RESULT AND
PERMITTED NO ALTERNATIVE PRACTICE.  BUT, AT THE VERY LEAST, WE ARE LEFT
IN DOUBT.  CERTAINLY CHIEF JUDGE DENMAN, WHO DISSENTED VIGOROUSLY,
THOUGHT THAT THE COURT'S RULING CAME AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY
COMPULSION.  AND OF COURSE IF IT DID, IT RESTS ON AN ERRONEOUS
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 46(C). 

WE HAVE, THEN, A RECORD WHICH SEEMS TO TELL US THAT THE DIVISION OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH DECIDED THE MERITS OF THIS DIFFICULT AND
COMPLICATED LITIGATION, TURNED A DEAF EAR TO COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR A
FULL BENCH - QUITE CONCEIVABLY ON THE THEORY THAT THE DIVISION LACKED
THE POWER TO ACT.  LIKEWISE THE FULL BENCH REFUSED TO COUNTENANCE THE
REQUEST, SAYING THAT THE INITIAL RESPONSIBILITY "NECESSARILY" LAY WITH
THE DIVISION ALONE - ALTHOUGH THE DIVISION MAY HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF
THAT RESPONSIBILITY.  POSSIBLY ACTING UNDER A MISCONCEPTION OF THE
BREADTH OF ITS POWERS, THE FULL BENCH HAS PROMULGATED RULES FOR THE
HEARING OF CASES EN BANC, AND IF THE COURT HAS MISCONCEIVED ITS POWERS
PERHAPS IT MAY NOW WISH TO ADOPT SOME OTHER PRACTICE TO ADMINISTER SEC.
46(C). 

THE STATUTE WHICH WE HAVE CONSTRUED IS NOT WITHOUT AMBIGUITY; PERHAPS
THAT DIFFICULTY IS NOW RESOLVED.  THE ACTION OF THE COURT BELOW IS ALSO
NOT WITHOUT AMBIGUITY, FOR THE COURT ANNOUNCED A PRACTICE WHICH, "FROM
THIS TIME FORWARD," WAS TO GOVERN THE ORDERING OF REHEARINGS EN BANC,
BUT THAT PRACTICE WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE; NEITHER THE FULL BENCH
NOR THE DIVISION - WHOSE DECISION WAS TO GOVERN HENCEFORTH - GAVE ANY
INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF THE EN BANC ISSUE IN THIS
CASE. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE VACATE THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION DENYING PETITIONERS
A REHEARING AND VACATE THE ORDER OF THE FULL COURT DENYING PETITIONERS
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO REINSTATE THEIR PETITION FOR REHEARING EN
BANC; WE REMAND THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  WE HOLD THAT THE STATUTE IS SIMPLY A GRANT OF POWER TO
ORDER HEARINGS AND REHEARINGS EN BANC AND TO ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURE
GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER.  WE HOLD THAT LITIGANTS ARE GIVEN
NO STATUTORY RIGHT TO COMPEL EACH MEMBER OF THE COURT TO GIVE FORMAL
CONSIDERATION TO AN APPLICATION FOR A REHEARING EN BANC.  WE HOLD THAT
THE STATUTE DOES NOT COMPEL THE COURT TO ADOPT ANY PARTICULAR PROCEDURE
GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER; BUT WHATEVER THE PROCEDURE WHICH
IS ADOPTED, IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY EXPLAINED, SO THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE
COURT AND LITIGANTS IN THE COURT MAY BECOME THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH
IT; AND FURTHER, WHATEVER THE PROCEDURE WHICH IS ADOPTED, IT SHOULD NOT
PREVENT A LITIGANT FROM SUGGESTING TO THOSE JUDGES WHO, UNDER THE
PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY THE COURT, HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
INITIATING A REHEARING EN BANC, THAT HIS CASE IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR
THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER.  ON REMAND, AND IN LIGHT OF OUR
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE AND THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR
ITS EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION, THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE AND CLEARLY
SET FORTH THE PARTICULAR PROCEDURE IT WILL FOLLOW, HENCEFORTH, IN
EXERCISING ITS EN BANC POWER.  IF THE COURT CHOOSES TO ABIDE BY A
PROCEDURE WHICH ENTRUSTS THE INITIATION OF REHEARINGS EN BANC TO THE
DIVISION, THEN THE COURT SHOULD GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE DIVISION FOR
APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION OF THAT QUESTION IN THIS CASE. 

FN1  NOW THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

FN2  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1938) P. 23.  FOR A FULL
TREATMENT OF STATUTORY DIFFICULTIES WHICH GAVE RISE TO SOME DOUBTS AS
TO THE POWER TO SIT EN BANC, SEE TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 326, 328-330. 

FN3  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1939) PP. 15, 16.  REPORT
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES (1940) P. 7. 

FN4  LANG'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 97 F.2D 867 (C.A. 9TH CIR. 1938);
COMMISSIONER V. TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORP., 117 F.2D 62 (C.A. 3D
CIR. 1940), DISCUSSED IN TEXT INFRA. 

FN5  THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS FOUND IN THE HEARINGS BEFORE
A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 1053,
77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN6  87 CONG. REC. 8117.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1246, 77TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.  MUCH OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS SET OUT IN FOOTNOTE 14 OF
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' OPINION FOR THE COURT IN TEXTILE MILLS. 

FN7  SUPRA, NOTE 4. 

FN8  MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 18, 1944, SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
REVISION OF LAWS ON AUGUST 21, 1944.  SEE NOTE 9, INFRA. 

FN9  REVISION OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CODE, PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF H.R.
3498, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., COMMITTEE PRINT (1945), P. 11.  THE
REVISER'S NOTES TO SEC. 46(C) IN THIS PRELIMINARY DRAFT CONTAINED THE
FOLLOWING:  "SUCH SUBSECTION (C) IS BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF CIRCUIT
JUDGE ALBERT B. MARIS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN HIS MEMORANDUM DATED
AUGUST 18, 1944, AND SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE LAWS
ON AUGUST 21, 1944." 

FN10  H.R. 3498, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. SEC. 46(C) READ: 

"(C)  IN EACH CIRCUIT CASES SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY A COURT
OR DIVISION OF NOT MORE THAN THREE JUDGES UNLESS A HEARING OR REHEARING
BEFORE THE COURT IN BANC IS ORDERED BY A MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES
OF THE CIRCUIT WHO ARE IN ACTIVE SERVICE.  A COURT IN BANC SHALL
CONSIST OF ALL ACTIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES PRESENT AND AVAILABLE IN THE
CIRCUIT." 

THE SECTION CAME INTO ITS PRESENT FORM IN THE NEXT DRAFT, H.R. 7124,
79TH CONG., 2D SESS.  SEC. 46(C). 

FN11  EX PARTE COLLETT, 337 U.S. 55, 68-71 (1949). 

FN12  S. REP. NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2. 

FN13  THE FULL TEXT OF THE REVISER'S NOTE (6 U.S. CONG. SERV. '48,
PP. 1707-1708) READS: 

"BASED IN PART ON TITLE 28, U.S.C., 1940 ED., SEC. 212 (MAR. 3, 1911,
CH. 231, SEC. 117, 36 STAT. 1131). 

"SUBSECTIONS (A)-(C) AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIVISIONS OF THE
COURT AND PROVIDE FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES FOR HEARINGS AND
REHEARINGS IN BANC. 

"THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS RULED THAT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE THREE-JUDGE PROVISION OF SECTION 212 OF TITLE 28,
U.S.C., 1940 ED., A COURT OF APPEALS MIGHT LAWFULLY CONSIST OF A
GREATER NUMBER OF JUDGES, AND THAT THE FIVE ACTIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF
THE THIRD CIRCUIT MIGHT SIT IN BANC FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN
APPEAL.  (SEE TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, 1941, 62 S. CT. 272, 314 U.S. 326, 86 L. ED. 249.) 

"THE SUPREME COURT IN UPHOLDING THE UNANIMOUS VIEW OF THE FIVE JUDGES
AS TO THEIR RIGHT TO SIT IN BANC, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTRARY OPINION
IN LANGS ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 1938, 97 F.2D 867,
SAID IN THE TEXTILE MILLS CASE:  "THERE ARE NUMEROUS FUNCTIONS OF THE
COURT, AS A "COURT OF RECORD, WITH APPELLATE JURISDICTION", OTHER THAN
HEARING AND DECIDING APPEALS.  UNDER THE JUDICIAL CODE THESE EMBRACE:
PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF WRITS AND OTHER PROCESS AND THE FORM AND STYLE
OF ITS SEAL (28 U.S.C., SEC. 219); THE MAKING OF RULES AND REGULATIONS
(28 U.S.C., SEC. 219); THE APPOINTMENT OF A CLERK (28 U.S.C., SEC. 221)
AND THE APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF DEPUTY CLERKS (28
U.S.C., SEC. 222); AND THE FIXING OF THE "TIMES" WHEN COURT SHALL BE
HELD (28 U.S.C., SEC. 223).  FURTHERMORE, THOSE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE PROVIDE THAT EACH OF THESE FUNCTIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED
BY THE COURT.' 

"THIS SECTION PRESERVES THE INTERPRETATION ESTABLISHED BY THE TEXTILE
MILLS CASE BUT PROVIDES IN SUBSECTION (C) THAT CASES SHALL BE HEARD BY
A COURT OF NOT MORE THAN THREE JUDGES UNLESS THE COURT HAS PROVIDED FOR
HEARING IN BANC.  THIS PROVISION CONTINUES THE TRADITION OF A THREE
JUDGE APPELLATE COURT AND MAKES THE DECISION OF A DIVISION, THE
DECISION OF THE COURT, UNLESS REHEARING IN BANC IS ORDERED.  IT MAKES
JUDGES AVAILABLE FOR OTHER ASSIGNMENTS, AND PERMITS A ROTATION OF
JUDGES IN SUCH MANNER AS TO GIVE TO EACH A MAXIMUM OF TIME FOR THE
PREPARATION OF OPINIONS. 

"WHETHER DIVISIONS SHOULD SIT SIMULTANEOUSLY AT THE SAME OR DIFFERENT
PLACES IN THE CIRCUIT IS A MATTER FOR EACH COURT TO DETERMINE." 

FN14  314 U.S., AT 332. 

FN15  SEE THE NEXT TO FINAL PARAGRAPH QUOTED IN NOTE 13, SUPRA. 

FN16  S. REP. NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2. 

FN17  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 1600 AND H.R. 2055,
80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 19. 

FN18  THE FULL TEXT OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 46 READS: 

"ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES; DIVISIONS; HEARINGS; QUORUM. 

"(A)  CIRCUIT JUDGES SHALL SIT ON THE COURT AND ITS DIVISIONS IN SUCH
ORDER AND AT SUCH TIMES AS THE COURT DIRECTS. 

"(B)  IN EACH CIRCUIT THE COURT MAY AUTHORIZE THE HEARING AND
DETERMINATION OF CASES AND CONTROVERSIES BY SEPARATE DIVISIONS, EACH
CONSISTING OF THREE JUDGES.  SUCH DIVISIONS SHALL SIT AT THE TIMES AND
PLACES AND HEAR THE CASES AND CONTROVERSIES ASSIGNED AS THE COURT
DIRECTS. 

"(C)  CASES AND CONTROVERSIES SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY A
COURT OR DIVISION OF NOT MORE THAN THREE JUDGES, UNLESS A HEARING OR
REHEARING BEFORE THE COURT IN BANC IS ORDERED BY A MAJORITY OF THE
CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT WHO ARE IN ACTIVE SERVICE.  A COURT IN
BANC SHALL CONSIST OF ALL ACTIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT. 

"(D)  A MAJORITY OF THE NUMBER OF JUDGES AUTHORIZED TO CONSTITUTE A
COURT OR DIVISION THEREOF, AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (C), SHALL
CONSTITUTE A QUORUM." 

FN19  HAVING WIDE DISCRETION THE COURT MAY PROVIDE THAT THE POWER MAY
BE CALLED INTO PLAY BY ANY PROCEDURE CONVENIENT TO THE COURT.  THE
STATUTE SIMPLY PROVIDES THAT "A MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE
CIRCUIT WHO ARE IN ACTIVE SERVICE" MAY ORDER THE HEARING OR REHEARING
EN BANC.  THIS SHOULD NOT COMPEL THE FULL COURT TO ASSEMBLE, FORMALLY,
EN BANC, TO ISSUE AN ORDER CONVENING THE FULL COURT.  A MORE INFORMAL
PROCEDURE MAY BE USED; SUCH AN ORDER MAY BE ISSUED BY THE CHIEF JUDGE
THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL ACTION OF THE NECESSARY CIRCUIT JUDGES WITHOUT
THE NECESSITY OF CONVENING THE FULL COURT. 

FN20  SEE 314 U.S., AT 334-336.  FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE
UTILITY AND IMPORTANCE OF PERMITTING COURTS OF APPEALS TO SIT EN BANC,
REFLECTING THE PURPOSE BEHIND SEC. 46(C), SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1246, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 1053, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 39
40.  SEE ALSO ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1939) PP. 15, 16;
REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES (1940) P.
7.  THAT THIS COURT HAS DEEMED THE EN BANC POWER TO BE AN IMPORTANT AND
USEFUL DEVICE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS
IS APPARENT FROM OUR ACTION IN UNITED STATES EX REL. ROBINSON V.
JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 649 (1942), AND CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD V. AMERICAN
AIR TRANSPORT, INC., 344 U.S. 4 (1952).  IN THE ROBINSON CASE, SUPRA,
WHERE IT APPEARED THAT A "CONFLICT OF VIEWS" HAD ARISEN "AMONG THE
JUDGES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT," WE REMANDED THE CASE "FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING LEAVE TO PETITIONER TO APPLY FOR A HEARING
BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC."  316 U.S. 649, 650.  IN THE AMERICAN AIR
TRANSPORT CASE, SUPRA, WHERE THE DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS "WERE
UNABLE TO AGREE ON A DISPOSITION OF THE CASE," WE SAID, AFTER
DISMISSING THE CERTIFICATE:  "PERHAPS THE COURT OF APPEALS MAY NOW WISH
TO HEAR THIS CASE EN BANC TO RESOLVE THE DEADLOCK INDICATED IN THE
CERTIFICATE AND GIVE FULL REVIEW TO THE ENTIRE CASE."  344 U.S., AT 5. 

FN21  SEE UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, 334 U.S. 573, 589
(1948). 

FN22  CF. UNITED STATES EX REL. ROBINSON V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 649
(1942); CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD V. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC., 344
U.S. 4 (1952). 

FN23  SIMILARLY, TO HOLD THAT COUNSEL CAN "SUGGEST" THAT THE COURT
EXERCISE ITS EN BANC POWER IS NOT TO HOLD THAT COUNSEL ARE ENTITLED, AS
OF RIGHT, TO PETITION THE FULL COURT TO ORDER THAT THE INITIAL HEARING
OF A CASE BE EN BANC.  SUGGESTIONS FILED WITH THE COURT PRIOR TO THE
ASSIGNMENT OF A CASE TO A DIVISION OR PRIOR TO THE HEARING BEFORE A
DIVISION SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE SPECIAL ADVANCE CONSIDERATION
BY THE COURT.  THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED WHENEVER THE COURT OR DIVISION
DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THEM, AND NO FORMAL ACTION NEED BE
TAKEN UPON THE SUGGESTION. 

FN24  THAT A COURT OF APPEALS MAY BE SO CONSTITUTED IS, OF COURSE,
CLEAR.  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 292(A).  AND WE DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT
THE DIVISION WHICH HEARD THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL WAS ANY LESS A
DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIVISION OF
THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES. 

FN25  THE DISSENTING JUDGE WROTE, 197 F.2D, AT 1013: 

"I THEREFORE SUGGEST TO THE COURT OF APPEALS A REHEARING EN BANC OF
ALL THE CIRCUIT JUDGES.  FOR THIS THERE IS PRECEDENT IN THIS CIRCUIT. 
THE PRACTICE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, SUBSTANTIALLY ACCORDS WITH THAT OF
THE THIRD CIRCUIT, WHICH IS ADMIRABLE.  INASMUCH AS THIS MIGHT BE THE
COURT OF LAST RESORT IN THIS CASE, IT SEEMS FAIRER TO HAVE THE ISSUES
DISPOSED OF BY CIRCUIT JUDGES." 

FN26  COMPARE CRUTCHFIELD V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 170, 178, NOTE
3, (1943); INDEPENDENCE LEAD MINES CO. V. KINGSBURY, 175 F.2D 983, 992
(1949); AND KRONBERG V. HALE, 181 F.2D 767 (1950).  SEE 63 HARV. L.
REV. 1449 (1950). 

FN27  THUS THE COURT WROTE: 

"ON THESE CONSIDERATIONS AND IN HARMONY WITH ITS UNDERSTANDING OF THE
STATUTORY SCHEME, THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY RETAINED TO ITSELF AS A
MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND INTRAMURAL CONCERN ONLY THE PROBLEM
WHETHER OR NOT ANY GIVEN CASE SHOULD BE HEARD OR REHEARD IN BANC. 
ACCORDINGLY, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION THE COURT
HAS DECLINED ALTOGETHER TO ENTERTAIN PETITIONS OF LITIGANTS FOR SUCH
HEARINGS.  THE POSITION IT TAKES IS THAT, APART FROM THE POSSIBLE
DISQUALIFICATION OF A JUDGE, THE COMPOSITION OF THE COURT TO WHICH A
CASE MAY BE ASSIGNED FOR DETERMINATION IS A MATTER WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE
PROVINCE OF THE PARTIES."  197 F.2D, AT 1016. 

IN BRADLEY MINING CO. V. BOICE, 198 F.2D 790 (C.A. 9TH CIR. 1952),
JUDGE POPE DISSENTING FROM THE DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR A REHEARING EN
BANC WROTE: 

"  ...  I DO NOT THINK THE STATUTE INTENDED THAT I, NOT A MEMBER OF
THE DIVISION WHICH HEARD THE WESTERN PACIFIC CASE, SHOULD HAVE TO READ
ALL THE RECORD IN THAT CASE, AS I MIGHT WELL FIND NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
VOTE INTELLIGENTLY UPON THE PETITION. 

"THERE IS LANGUAGE IN SUBDIVISION (C) OF SEC. 46 OF TITLE 28 WHICH
WOULD SEEM TO GRANT TO A MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT
THE RIGHT TO ORDER A HEARING OR REHEARING IN BANK IN ANY CASE, A
PROCEDURE WHICH I AM OF COURSE NOT PROPOSING HERE.  THAT IS A QUESTION
WHICH WAS NOT DETERMINED BY THE MAJORITY OPINION IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC
CASE, ALTHOUGH JUDGE DENMAN SEEMS TO THINK THAT IT WAS.  UPON THAT
QUESTION I RESERVE JUDGMENT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS DETERMINATION BECOMES
NECESSARY."  198 F.2D, AT 792, NOTE 2. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

WE HELD IN TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S.
326, CONSTRUING AN AMBIGUOUS STATUTE, THAT COURTS OF APPEALS CONSISTING
OF MORE THAN THREE ACTIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES HAD INHERENT POWER TO SIT EN
BANC.  THEREAFTER CONGRESS PLACED THIS POWER ON A STATUTORY BASIS.  28
U.S.C. SEC. 46(C).  PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE CLAIM THAT, IN EXERCISING
THE AUTHORITY TO SIT EN BANC FOR THE REHEARING OF A CAUSE ADJUDICATED
BY A THREE-JUDGE PANEL, ALL THE ACTIVE JUDGES OF A COURT OF APPEALS
MUST FORMALLY CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE DEFEATED PARTY'S FORMAL MOTION
FOR SUCH A REHEARING.  I AGREE WITH THE COURT IN ITS REJECTION OF THIS
CLAIM.  I EQUALLY AGREE THAT, AS AN ABSTRACT PROPOSITION, EN BANC
SITTING EXPRESSES THE COURT'S POWER AND NOT THE LITIGANT'S RIGHT.  I
AGREE, FINALLY, THAT COURTS OF APPEALS MAY HAVE GENERAL RULES, WHETHER
FORMALLY PROMULGATED OR TRADITIONALLY RECOGNIZED, CONCERNING THE
EXERCISE OF THIS DISCRETIONARY POWER, AND THAT IT IS FOR THEM AND NOT
FOR US TO ESTABLISH SUCH RULES. 

NO ONE CAN FEEL MORE STRONGLY THAN I DO THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE
COURTS OF APPEALS IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM REQUIRES THAT THEIR
INDEPENDENCE, WITHIN THE AREA OF THEIR AUTHORITY, BE SAFEGUARDED. 
"CERTAINLY THIS COURT SHOULD IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY ATTRIBUTE TO THEM A
PRESTIGE WHICH INVITES RELIANCE FOR THE BURDENS OF APPELLATE REVIEW
EXCEPT IN THOSE CASES, RELATIVELY FEW, IN WHICH THIS COURT IS CALLED
UPON TO ADJUDICATE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OR OTHER QUESTIONS OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE."  EX PARTE PERU, 318 U.S. 578, 590, 602 (DISSENTING
OPINION).  AND SO WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT TO BE READ AS SUGGESTING
SUBORDINATION OF THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS TO
OUR DIRECTION.    THE LANGUAGE OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 46(C) AND ITS HISTORY
DO NOT, I BELIEVE, INDICATE EITHER THAT CONGRESS EXPECTED COURTS OF
APPEALS TO SIT EN BANC FOR THE DISPOSITION OF MOTIONS PRAYING THAT THEY
HEAR OR REHEAR CAUSES EN BANC, OR THAT CONGRESS EXPECTED THEY WOULD NOT
DO SO.  THE HEARINGS ON S. 1053 - THE PREDECESSOR PROPOSAL OF SEC.
46(C), WHICH FAILED OF PASSAGE - ARE EQUIVOCAL ON THIS POINT.  REMARKS,
SUCH AS SENATOR MCFARLAND'S, THAT THE COURTS "WOULD BE THE ONES TO DO
THE ACTING" GRAZE THE PROBLEM.  IT WAS NOT URGED THAT COUNSEL SHOULD DO
THE "ACTING" IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD BE MANDATORY TO GRANT A MOTION
FOR REHEARING EN BANC WHENEVER ONE WAS MADE.  THERE WAS ON THE OTHER
HAND THE TESTIMONY OF CHIEF JUSTICE GRONER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE DISTRICT, WHO INDICATED QUITE CLEARLY THAT COUNSEL WOULD BE
EXPECTED TO MOVE THE COURTS TO SIT EN BANC.  HEARINGS BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 1050, S.
1051, S. 1052, S. 1053, S. 1054 AND H.R. 138, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AT
PP. 17, 40.  THE VIEW OF SO EXPERIENCED AND WISE A JUDGE CARRIES GREAT
WEIGHT.  IN ANY EVENT, THIS IS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF A BILL WHICH
NEVER BECAME LAW.  NO LEGISLATIVE LIGHT WAS SHED ON SEC. 46(C). 

IT IS RIGHT TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS LEFT IT TO THE COURTS OF
APPEALS TO DECIDE HOW THEY WOULD EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWER TO
SIT EN BANC.  BUT IT IS NO LESS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COURTS
OF APPEALS ARE TO EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION SO AS TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION.  BEFORE I PROCEED WITH CONSIDERATION OF
THE MODES BY WHICH THE POWER TO SIT EN BANC MAY BE BROUGHT INTO PLAY,
IN LIGHT OF THE ENDS TO BE ACHIEVED BY IT, A WORD ABOUT REHEARINGS IN
GENERAL BECOMES RELEVANT. 

REHEARINGS ARE NOT A HEALTHY STEP IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS; SURELY
THEY OUGHT NOT TO BE DEEMED A NORMAL PROCEDURE.  YET ONE WHO HAS PAGED
THE FEDERAL REPORTER FOR NEARLY FIFTY YEARS IS STRUCK WITH WHAT APPEARS
TO BE A GROWTH IN THE TENDENCY TO FILE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING IN THE
COURTS OF APPEALS.  I HAVE NOT MADE A QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF THE FACTS,
BUT ONE GAINS THE IMPRESSION THAT IN SOME CIRCUITS THESE PETITIONS ARE
FILED ALMOST AS A MATTER OF COURSE.  THIS IS AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL
ENERGY.  IT RESULTS IN NEEDLESS DELAY.  IT AROUSES FALSE HOPES IN
DEFEATED LITIGANTS AND WASTES THEIR MONEY.  IF PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
WERE JUSTIFIED, EXCEPT IN RARE INSTANCES, IT WOULD BESPEAK SERIOUS
DEFECTS IN THE WORK OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS, AN ASSUMPTION WHICH MUST
BE REJECTED.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR THIS IN MIND IN APPROACHING 28
U.S.C. SEC. 46(C).  THAT SECTION IS DIRECTED AT THOSE RELATIVELY FEW
INSTANCES WHICH CALL FOR REHEARINGS, THOUGH AGAIN RARELY, IN THE NINE
COURTS OF APPEALS THAT SIT IN PANELS. 

REHEARINGS EN BANC BY THESE COURTS, WHICH SIT IN PANELS, ARE TO SOME
EXTENT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN PANELS.  THIS IS
THE DOMINANT CONCERN.  MOREOVER, THE MOST CONSTRUCTIVE WAY OF RESOLVING
CONFLICTS IS TO AVOID THEM.  HENCE, INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, DETERMINATIONS
EN BANC ARE INDICATED WHENEVER IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT A MAJORITY OF ALL
THE ACTIVE JUDGES WOULD REACH A DIFFERENT RESULT THAN THE PANEL
ASSIGNED TO HEAR A CASE OR WHICH HAS HEARD IT.  HEARINGS EN BANC MAY BE
A RESORT ALSO IN CASES EXTRAORDINARY IN SCALE - EITHER BECAUSE THE
AMOUNT INVOLVED IS STUPENDOUS OR BECAUSE THE ISSUES ARE INTRICATE
ENOUGH TO INVOKE THE POOLED WISDOM OF THE CIRCUIT.  ANY PROCEDURE
DEVISED BY A COURT OF APPEALS WHICH IS SENSIBLY CALCULATED TO ACHIEVE
THESE DOMINANT ENDS OF AVOIDING OR RESOLVING INTRA-CIRCUIT CONFLICTS
MAY BE ADOPTED AGREEABLY WITH SEC. 46(C).  A RULE PROVIDING THAT
PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC MAY BE MADE TO, AND WILL BE CONSIDERED
BY, THE COURT EN BANC WOULD, OF COURSE, BE SO CALCULATED.  AND, TO
REPEAT, THAT BEING SO, IT IS NOT FOR US TO PASS ON THE ADVANTAGES OR
DISADVANTAGES OF SUCH A RULE, THOUGH ONE MAY THINK, AS I DO, THAT IT IS
LIKELY TO IMPOSE AN UNDUE BURDEN BY UNWITTINGLY ENCOURAGING THE LAX
INCLINATION OF COUNSEL TO FILE PRO FORMA PETITIONS AUTOMATICALLY IN
EVERY CASE. 

THE ENDS OF SEC. 46(C) MAY BE SERVED IN OTHER WAYS THAN BY PERMITTING
PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC.  A COURT MAY DECIDE THAT IT WILL ACT
UNDER SEC. 46(C) ONLY SUA SPONTE AND WILL DO SO WHENEVER THE NEED IS
MADE EVIDENT, NOT BY WASTEFUL USE OF JUDICIAL RESOURCES THROUGH
EXCESSIVE PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION EN BANC TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THE NEED EXISTS, BUT BY THE PROCESS OF HAVING EACH PANEL CIRCULATE ITS
OPINIONS, BEFORE THEY ARE EMITTED, TO ALL THE ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE
COURT.  THIS, IT APPEARS, WAS THE PRACTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE DISTRICT UNDER CHIEF JUSTICE GRONER.  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUPRA, AT P.
39.  IT ACCOMPLISHES WHAT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE POWER TO SIT EN BANC EXISTS, SINCE IT ACQUAINTS
ALL ACTIVE JUDGES ON THE COURT "WITH THE PROPOSED OPINION THAT IS
COMING DOWN, SO IF THEY DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT ANY
CONFLICT, OR SOMETHING OF THE KIND, IT MAY BE DONE  ...  ."  IBID.
(TESTIMONY OF GRONER, C.J.).  TO BE SURE, THE NONSITTING JUDGES HAVE
NOT HEARD THE ARGUMENT NOR READ THE BRIEFS, AND HAVE NO VOTE AS FAR AS
THE OPINION OF THE PANEL IS CONCERNED.  PRESUMABLY, HOWEVER, AN OPINION
STATES THE ISSUES AND GIVES THE GROUNDS FOR ITS CONCLUSION AND THEREBY
SUFFICIENTLY ALERTS THE MINDS OF EXPERIENCED JUDGES TO WHAT IS AT
STAKE.  IT TAPS THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY LEAD,
ON THE INITIATIVE OF A NON-SITTING OR OF A SITTING JUDGE, TO A
DETERMINATION BY THE ENTIRE COURT OF WHETHER OR NOT A REHEARING EN BANC
IS CALLED FOR. 

THERE MAY BE - THERE DOUBTLESS ARE - OTHER WAYS IN WHICH A COURT OF
APPEALS, ACTING SUA SPONTE, MAY ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO SIT EN
BANC.  BUT I DO NOT SEE HOW ANY PROCEDURE CAN DO SO WHOSE EFFECT IS NOT
TO APPRISE ALL ACTIVE JUDGES EITHER OF ALL DECISIONS OF PANELS OF THE
COURT, OR OF THOSE DECISIONS WHICH COUNSEL BRING TO THE COURT'S
ATTENTION, BY MOTION OR SUGGESTION - THE NOMENCLATURE IS IMMATERIAL -
AS RAISING THE PROBLEMS AT WHICH THE GRANT OF POWER IN SEC. 46(C) IS
DIRECTED.  FOR THIS REASON I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A DELEGATION OF
AUTHORITY TO THE PANEL WHICH HEARD THE CASE TO DISPOSE FINALLY, IN
BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE COURT, OF PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC - IF
THERE ARE TO BE SUCH PETITIONS AND IF THROUGH THEM ALONE SEC. 46(C) IS
TO BE IMPLEMENTED - WOULD CONSTITUTE ADOPTION OF A PERMISSIBLE
PROCEDURE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED BY SEC. 46(C).  IT
MAY BE PROPER TO REQUIRE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC TO BE MADE TO
THE PANEL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, BUT TO ALLOW THE DISCRETIONARY
FUNCTION UNDER SEC. 46(C) TO BE DISCHARGED DEFINITIVELY BY THE PANEL
WHOSE JUDGMENT MAY CALL FOR EN BANC ACTION IS TO TREAT THE STATUTE AS
AN EMPTY, PURPOSELESS FORM OF WORDS. 

SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THIS CASE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS, AS A
WHOLE, AT ANY TIME EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 46(C)
BY CONSIDERING THE PETITION FOR A REHEARING EN BANC ON ITS MERITS, AND
SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THAT COURT HAS ESTABLISHED, AND FOLLOWED
IN THIS CASE, ANY OTHER PROCEDURE FOR THE EXERCISE OF ITS STATUTORY
POWER IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE REASONS FOR ITS GRANT, I CONCUR
IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT VACATING THE ORDER BELOW AND REMANDING THE
CAUSE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I WOULD NOT PROLONG THIS ALREADY AGED LITIGATION BY REMANDING IT FOR
THE COURT OF APPEALS TO RECONSIDER WHETHER IT WILL HOLD A REHEARING EN
BANC.  THE DECISION THAT AN INDIVIDUAL LITIGANT HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE HIS
PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC CONSIDERED BY AT LEAST THREE JUDGES OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS STEMS NOT FROM STATUTE, BUT FROM THIS COURT'S
EXERCISE OF ITS VAGUE SUPERVISORY POWERS OVER FEDERAL COURTS. 

IF I FELT IT INCUMBENT UPON ME TO HELP SETTLE FOR COURTS OF APPEALS
WHETHER THEY WILL SANCTION A PRACTICE OF PETITIONING BY LITIGANTS FOR
EN BANC REHEARINGS, I WOULD DECIDE IN THE NEGATIVE.  IN CASES OF
INTRACIRCUIT CONFLICT OR OTHER EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS WHICH ACTUALLY
DEMAND THE ATTENTION OF THE FULL COURT, THE JUDGES OF A COURT SHOULD BE
TRUSTED TO CONVENE ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE.  (FN1)  A SUCCESSFUL PARTY
HAS GOOD CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT IF HE IS PUT THROUGH THE ADDED EXPENDITURE
OF THIS DILATORY STEP EXCEPT WHERE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE REQUIRES IT. REHEARINGS EN BANC ARE NOT
APPROPRIATE WHERE THE EFFECT IS SIMPLY TO INTERPOSE ANOTHER REVIEW BY
AN ENLARGED COURT OF APPEALS BETWEEN DECISION BY A CONVENTIONAL THREE
JUDGE COURT AND PETITION TO THIS COURT.  DELAY, COST, AND UNCERTAINTY,
WHICH TAKE THEIR TOLL OF BOTH THE SUCCESSFUL AND THE UNSUCCESSFUL, THE
JUST AND THE UNJUST LITIGANT, ARE EACH INCREASED BY AN ADDITIONAL
APPEAL TO A HYBRID INTERMEDIATE COURT.  MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THE
COURT LEAVES THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE RIGHT WHICH IT CONFERS ON THE
LOSING LITIGANT SO UNSETTLED AND EQUIVOCAL WOULD LEAD ME TO CONCLUDE
THAT THE EN BANC QUESTION IS ONE WHICH THE LITIGANT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN
STANDING TO RAISE. 

IF I WERE TO PREDICT, I WOULD GUESS THAT TODAY'S DECISION WILL EITHER
BE IGNORED OR IT WILL BE REGRETTED.  PERHAPS ITS REQUIREMENTS MAY BE
MET IF THE PANEL WHICH HEARD THE CASE WILL APPEND TO ITS DENIAL OF
REHEARING THE FURTHER STATEMENT "AND REHEARING EN BANC DENIED."  THIS
WOULD BE ITS MOST INNOCUOUS POSSIBLE EFFECT.  UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER,
MORE SIGNIFICANT RESULTS MAY FOLLOW.  IT IS LIKELY TO OPEN NEW
COMPLEXITIES IN FEDERAL PRACTICE AND GENERATE A NEW BODY OF PROCEDURAL
LAW TO VEX COURTS AND IMPOVERISH LITIGANTS.  THE LITIGANT'S PETITION
FOR REHEARING EN BANC IS NOT A MOTION; IT IS A "SUGGESTION."  HE IS
URGED TO POINT OUT TO THE JUDGES THE "CIRCUMSTANCES IN A PARTICULAR
CASE WHICH MIGHT WARRANT A REHEARING EN BANC."  THERE MAY YET BE
CHAPTERS IN FUTURE MANUALS OF FEDERAL PRACTICE EXPLORING THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A MOTION AND A "SUGGESTION," AND CASES IN THE
COURTS DECIDING JUST WHAT MORE THE SUGGESTING LITIGANT IS ENTITLED TO
THAN THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE WORDS "PETITION DENIED" INSTEAD OF "PETITION
STRICKEN."  THIS INCREASE IN THE PONDEROUSNESS OF THE FEDERAL COURT
SYSTEM MAY BE A MINOR RATHER THAN A MAJOR EVIL, BUT IT IS
COUNTERBALANCED, AT MOST, ONLY BY A NEGLIGIBLE GOOD. 

BUT JUST AS SURELY AS I AM PERSUADED THAT EN BANC HEARINGS SHOULD BE
DISCOURAGED IN MOST CASES AND LEFT TO BE INITIATED BY THE JUDGES SUA
SPONTE, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE WHOLE PRACTICE ON THE SUBJECT IS BEST
LEFT TO EACH COURT OF APPEALS.  A DIVERSITY OF PRACTICES HAS GROWN UP
IN THE VARIOUS COURTS, (FN2) PRESUMABLY IN RESPONSE TO THEIR DIFFERENT
CONDITIONS OR PREVAILING DESIRES.  IF CONGRESS HAD REQUIRED THAT
LITIGANTS' PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC RECEIVE THE CONSIDERATION OF
THE COURTS OF APPEALS, THE POLICY WOULD BE OURS TO ENFORCE WITHOUT
QUESTIONING ITS DESIRABILITY.  BUT IT IS CONCEDED THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT
DONE THIS.  IT IS WE OURSELVES WHO ARE MAKING THE POLICY, AND SO IT IS
ESPECIALLY DESIRABLE TO VINDICATE OUR NEW RULE WITH REASONS AND
BOUNDS.  YET, ALL THAT WE ARE VOUCHSAFED IN THE COURT'S OPINION IS THAT
THE POWER TO SIT EN BANC IS A "NECESSARY AND USEFUL POWER," WITH A
CITATION TO OUR HOLDING THAT A COURT OF APPEALS HAS POWER TO SIT EN
BANC.  TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 326. 
WHEN IT IS REMEMBERED THAT THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED HERE IS NOT
WHETHER COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE POWER TO SIT EN BANC, ABOUT WHICH THERE
IS NO DISPUTE, BUT RATHER WHETHER A LITIGANT MAY COMPEL THE JUDGES TO
HEAR AND DECIDE HIS PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC, THE FEEBLENESS OF
THIS REED IS CLEAR.  I THINK BOTH WISDOM AND HUMILITY WOULD BE WELL
SERVED BY LEAVING THIS PROBLEM TO THE SOLUTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME
SUGGESTED TO EACH CIRCUIT BY ITS OWN EXPERIENCE. 

THE CASE BEFORE US PRESENTS INTERESTING QUESTIONS ON WHICH THERE
APPEARS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN PANELS; IN FACT, IT IS SO UNIQUE THAT IT IS
WITHOUT PRECEDENT AND IS LIKELY TO BE WITHOUT PROGENY.  A REHEARING
BEFORE THE ENTIRE CIRCUIT EN BANC WOULD SIMPLY BE AN APPEAL FROM THE
THREE-JUDGE COURT TO A SWOLLEN CIRCUIT COURT.  SINCE I WOULD NOT
REVERSE ON THE PROCEDURAL POINT, I REACH THE MERITS OF THE
CONTROVERSY. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, PRESENCE OF THE
REQUISITE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, AND STATES THAT "THIS IS A CIVIL
ACTION IN EQUITY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES."  BECAUSE
FEDERAL JURISDICTION WAS GROUNDED IN DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP,
CALIFORNIA LAW IS THE LAW OF THE FORUM AND MAY GOVERN THE CASE. 
HOWEVER, FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, ACTS COMMITTED IN OTHER STATES, FEDERAL
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS AND FEDERAL TAX RULINGS ARE SCRAMBLED IN THE
LEGAL SITUATION AND LAW OF OTHER STATES MAY BE INVOLVED.  CALIFORNIA
CERTAINLY RECOGNIZES A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON UNJUST ENRICHMENT,
WHETHER IT BE TREATED AS A COMMON COUNT, MINOR V. BALDRIDGE, 123 CAL.
187, 190, 55 P. 783, 784-785, OR AS A WAIVER OF A TORT AND SUIT IN
ASSUMPSIT, BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSN. V. HILL, 9
CAL. 2D 495, 71 P.2D 258.  WHETHER WE RESORT TO CALIFORNIA LAW, OTHER
STATE LAW OR FEDERAL LAW, NONE REJECTS THE GENERAL DOCTRINE OF UNJUST
ENRICHMENT AND FIDUCIARY DUTY OF CORPORATE MANAGEMENTS, ALTHOUGH IT
WOULD BE SURPRISING IF THERE WERE AN EXACT PRECEDENT ANYWHERE FOR THIS
UNIQUE SITUATION.  THUS, THE COURTS BELOW WOULD HAVE TO ANALYZE THE
FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT, WITH
SUCH AID AS THEY MAY OBTAIN ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUES FROM ANALOGY.    WE
HAVE TWO AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS SUBJECT TO CONSIDERABLE, IF NOT
COMPLETE, COMMON CONTROL, BUT WITH DIFFERENT MINORITY INTERESTS.  ONE
HAS REALIZED A HUGE LOSS; THE OTHER HAS ENJOYED LARGE NET INCOME.  IF
THESE TWO CAN BE BROUGHT TOGETHER, A TAX SAVING AMOUNTING IN THIS CASE
TO SOME SEVENTEEN MILLION DOLLARS CAN BE MADE FOR THE PROFITABLE
COMPANY.  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED, BUT HAS NOT REQUIRED, THAT THESE TWO
BE MERGED BY MEANS OF A CONSOLIDATED TAX RETURN.  EACH HAS THE RIGHT,
BUT NO LEGAL DUTY, UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO JOIN IN CONSOLIDATED RETURNS. 
IT MAY SEEM ANOMALOUS AT FIRST GLANCE THAT A SUSTAINED LOSS CAN BE
REALIZED UPON AS AN ASSET.  BUT IT IS NOT THE LOSS; IT IS THE RIGHT TO
USE THE LOSS AS AN OFFSET THAT IS VALUABLE.  THE MARKET FOR IT IS
RESTRICTED, OF COURSE, BUT THIS DETRACTS NOTHING FROM ITS VALUE TO ONE
IN A POSITION TO UTILIZE IT. 

EACH OF THESE CORPORATIONS HAD SOMETHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO A TAX
SAVING PLAN.  EITHER ONE ALONE WAS HELPLESS.  BUT I KNOW OF NO MORAL OR
LEGAL OBLIGATION TO GIVE AWAY ANY LEGAL OPPORTUNITY OR ADVANTAGE JUST
BECAUSE ITS OWNER CANNOT UTILIZE IT HIMSELF. 

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING REMOTELY ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER IF THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION HAD DEMANDED SOME COMPENSATION
FOR ITS LOSS PRIVILEGES.  INDEED, IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE INTENTION OF
THE STATUTE PERMITTING THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO POSITIONS WAS TO
PROVIDE SALVAGE FOR THE LOSER, NOT PROFIT FOR ONE WHICH SUSTAINED NO
LOSS. 

EACH CORPORATION THEN HAD A BARGAINING POSITION.  THE STAKES WERE
HIGH.  NEITHER COULD WIN THEM ALONE, ALTHOUGH EACH HAD AN INDISPENSABLE
SOMETHING THAT THE OTHER WAS WITHOUT.  IT WAS AS IF A TREASURE OF
SEVENTEEN MILLION DOLLARS WERE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO WHOEVER
MIGHT HAVE TWO KEYS THAT WOULD UNLOCK IT.  EACH OF THESE PARTIES HAD
BUT ONE KEY, AND HOW CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE HOLDER OF THE OTHER KEY
HAD NOTHING WORTH BARGAINING FOR? 

THE MANAGEMENT, PROBABLY WITHOUT IMPROPER INTENT, FAILED TO CLAIM FOR
THE PLAINTIFF THE ADVANTAGES OF ITS POSITION, TURNING THEM OVER WITHOUT
COMPENSATION FOR THE ADVANTAGE AND PROFIT OF ANOTHER AFFILIATED
CORPORATION.  ON THE FACE OF IT, THE CONCLUSION WOULD SEEM WARRANTED
THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO WHAT FAIR ARM'S-LENGTH BARGAINING
WOULD PROBABLY HAVE YIELDED.  TO ASK THIS CAN HARDLY BE STIGMATIZED AS
CAPITALIZING MERE NUISANCE VALUE.  THIS IS NOT THE BLACKMAILING
TRANSACTION WHICH OFFERS TO FOREGO DOING ANOTHER INJURY IF BOUGHT OFF. 
THIS MERELY SEEKS A SHARE IN THE BENEFIT WHICH IT TRANSFERRED. 

I WOULD REVERSE AND REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FINDINGS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SKETCHILY STATED DOCTRINE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT. 

FN1  THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS FOLLOWED THIS PROCEDURE ON SEVERAL
OCCASIONS.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GUTHRIE, 186 F.2D 926; HOPPER V.
UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 181; PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 139 F.2D 298; EVAPORATED MILK ASSOCIATION V.
ROCHE, 130 F.2D 843. 

FN2  5 STAN.  L. REV. 332, 337, NOTES THE PRACTICES OF SOME OF THE
COURTS OF APPEALS AS FOLLOWS, BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE
CLERKS OF THE RESPECTIVE COURTS:  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CONSIDERS ALL MOTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC; THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT AND THE TENTH CIRCUIT SIT ONLY ON THE MOTION OF ONE OF
THE JUDGES; THE SECOND CIRCUIT SIMPLY DOES NOT SIT EN BANC. 
..END :













HEALY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE 345 U.S. 278 


NO. 76.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1953 - 194 F.2D
662, AFFIRMED - 194 F.2D 536, REVERSED. 


AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER RECEIVED A SALARY FROM A CLOSELY HELD
CORPORATION AND REPORTED IT IN FULL IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE
YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED.  IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IT WAS DETERMINED
THAT THE SALARY WAS EXCESSIVE AND THE TAXPAYER WAS REQUIRED AS
TRANSFEREE TO MAKE PAYMENTS ON TAX DEFICIENCIES OF THE CORPORATION FOR
PRIOR YEARS.  HELD:  THE TAXPAYER'S INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH HE
RECEIVED THE EXCESSIVE SALARY MAY NOT BE RECOMPUTED SO AS TO EXCLUDE
FROM HIS INCOME FOR THAT YEAR THAT PART OF HIS SALARY HELD TO BE
EXCESSIVE AND WHICH RESULTED IN HIS TRANSFEREE LIABILITY.  PP. 279
285. 

(A)  HAVING RECEIVED THE SALARY UNDER A "CLAIM OF RIGHT," THE
TAXPAYER WAS REQUIRED TO REPORT IT AS INCOME AND TO PAY A TAX THEREON. 
PP. 281-282. 

(B)  FUNDS ARE HELD UNDER A "CLAIM OF RIGHT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
NORTH AMERICAN OIL V. BURNET, 286 U.S. 417, WHEN RECEIVED AND TREATED
BY A TAXPAYER AS BELONGING TO HIM, EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM MAY
SUBSEQUENTLY BE FOUND INVALID.  P. 282. 

(C)  THAT THE RECEIPT OF THE EXCESSIVE PORTION OF THE SALARY RESULTED
IN TRANSFEREE LIABILITY AS A "CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE" DOES NOT PREVENT
APPLICATION OF THE "CLAIM OF RIGHT" DOCTRINE.  PP. 282-283. 

(D)  NOR CAN THE SALARY BE TREATED AS MONEY RECEIVED SUBJECT TO A
"RESTRICTION ON ITS USE" WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE "CLAIM OF RIGHT"
DOCTRINE, EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS WHICH ULTIMATELY GAVE RISE TO THE
TRANSFEREE LIABILITY WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE END OF THE TAXABLE YEAR. 
PP. 283-284. 

(E)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT, IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, AN INEQUITY MIGHT RESULT FROM REQUIRING THE TAXPAYER
TO TREAT AS INCOME AN AMOUNT WHICH EVENTUALLY TURNED OUT NOT TO BE
INCOME.  PP. 284-285. 

HEALY ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 138, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. SMITH, ON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

NO. 76.  THE TAX COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONERS' INCOME FOR A PRIOR
YEAR SHOULD BE RECOMPUTED TO THEIR ADVANTAGE.  16 T.C. 200.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  194 F.2D 662.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
344 U.S. 811.  AFFIRMED, P. 285. 

NO. 138.  THE TAX COURT HELD THAT RESPONDENT'S INCOME FOR A PRIOR
YEAR SHOULD BE RECOMPUTED TO HIS ADVANTAGE.  11 T.C. 174.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  194 F.2D 536.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344
U.S. 813.  REVERSED, P. 285. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY OF THREE INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS FOR A GIVEN
YEAR IS HERE BEFORE THE COURT.  ONLY A SINGLE QUESTION, COMMON TO ALL
THE CASES, IS INVOLVED.  THE TAX COURT HELD A VIEW FAVORABLE TO THE
TAXPAYERS.  (FN1)  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SOUGHT REVIEW
BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE COURTS OF APPEALS.  AS TO TWO OF THE TAXPAYERS,
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED, (FN2) WHILE THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TOOK A CONTRARY VIEW OF THE
LAW.  (FN3)  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT.  (FN4) 

ALL CONTROLLING FACTS IN THE THREE SITUATIONS ARE SIMILAR.  EACH
TAXPAYER REPORTS HIS INCOME ON THE CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
METHOD.  EACH, IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS INVOLVED, RECEIVED A SALARY FROM
A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION IN WHICH HE WAS BOTH AN OFFICER AND A
STOCKHOLDER.  THE FULL AMOUNT OF SALARY SO RECEIVED WAS REPORTED AS
INCOME FOR THE YEAR RECEIVED.  SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER AUDIT OF THE
CORPORATE RETURNS, THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION BY THE
CORPORATIONS OF PARTS OF THE SALARIES AS EXCEEDING REASONABLE
COMPENSATION.  AS A RESULT, DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME TAXES WERE
DETERMINED AGAINST THE CORPORATIONS.  THE COMMISSIONER ALSO DETERMINED
THAT THE OFFICERS WERE LIABLE AS TRANSFEREES UNDER SEC. 311 OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THE CORPORATE DEFICIENCIES.  THE RECEIPT OF
EXCESSIVE SALARY WAS THE TRANSFER UPON WHICH THE TRANSFEREE LIABILITY
WAS PREDICATED.  AS A RESULT OF EITHER LITIGATION (FN5) OR NEGOTIATION,
VARIOUS AMOUNTS BECAME ESTABLISHED AS DEFICIENCIES OF THE CORPORATIONS
AND AS TRANSFEREE LIABILITIES OF EACH OF THE THREE OFFICERS.  IN EACH
CASE, THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF DETERMINING THESE AMOUNTS - FROM THE START
OF THE AUDIT BY AGENTS OF THE COMMISSIONER TO THE FINAL ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE LIABILITIES - OCCURRED AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE
SALARY WAS RECEIVED AND REPORTED. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER PART OF THE SALARY SHOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM TAXABLE INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT SINCE PART WAS
EXCESSIVE SALARY AND LED TO TRANSFEREE LIABILITY FOR THE UNPAID TAXES
OF THE CORPORATIONS.  THE TAXPAYERS CONTEND THAT AN ADJUSTMENT SHOULD
BE MADE IN THE YEAR OF ORIGINAL RECEIPT OF THE SALARY; THE GOVERNMENT
THAT AN ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE MADE IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT OF THE
TRANSFEREE LIABILITY. 

ONE OF THE BASIC ASPECTS OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS THAT THERE BE
AN ANNUAL ACCOUNTING OF INCOME.  (FN6)  EACH ITEM OF INCOME MUST BE
REPORTED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS PROPERLY REPORTABLE AND IN NO
OTHER.  FOR A CASH BASIS TAXPAYER, AS THESE THREE ARE, THE CORRECT YEAR
IS THE YEAR IN WHICH RECEIVED.  (FN7) 

NOT INFREQUENTLY, AN ADVERSE CLAIMANT WILL CONTEST THE RIGHT OF THE
RECIPIENT TO RETAIN MONEY OR PROPERTY, EITHER IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT OR
SUBSEQUENTLY.  IN NORTH AMERICAN OIL V. BURNET, 286 U.S. 417 (1932), WE
CONSIDERED WHETHER SUCH UNCERTAINTY WOULD RESULT IN AN AMOUNT OTHERWISE
INCLUDIBLE IN INCOME BEING DEFERRED AS REPORTABLE INCOME BEYOND THE
ANNUAL PERIOD IN WHICH RECEIVED.  THAT DECISION ESTABLISHED THE CLAIM
OF RIGHT DOCTRINE "NOW DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM."  (FN8)
THE USUAL STATEMENT OF THE RULE IS THAT BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN THE
NORTH AMERICAN OIL OPINION: "IF A TAXPAYER RECEIVES EARNINGS UNDER A
CLAIM OF RIGHT AND WITHOUT RESTRICTION AS TO ITS DISPOSITION, HE HAS
RECEIVED INCOME WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO RETURN, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY
STILL BE CLAIMED THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RETAIN THE MONEY, AND EVEN
THOUGH HE MAY STILL BE ADJUDGED LIABLE TO RESTORE ITS EQUIVALENT."  286
U.S., AT 424. 

THE PHRASE "CLAIM OF RIGHT" IS A TERM KNOWN OF OLD TO LAWYERS.  ITS
TYPICAL USE HAS BEEN IN REAL PROPERTY LAW IN DEALING WITH TITLE BY
ADVERSE POSSESSION, WHERE THE RULE HAS BEEN THAT TITLE CAN BE ACQUIRED
BY ADVERSE POSSESSION ONLY IF THE OCCUPANT CLAIMS THAT HE HAS A RIGHT
TO BE IN POSSESSION AS OWNER.  (FN9)  THE USE OF THE TERM IN THE FIELD
OF INCOME TAXATION IS ANALOGOUS.  THERE IS A CLAIM OF RIGHT WHEN FUNDS
ARE RECEIVED AND TREATED BY A TAXPAYER AS BELONGING TO HIM.  THE FACT
THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE CLAIM IS FOUND TO BE INVALID BY A COURT DOES NOT
CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM DID EXIST.  A MISTAKEN CLAIM IS
NONETHELESS A CLAIM, UNITED STATES V. LEWIS, 340 U.S. 590 (1951). 

HOWEVER, WE ARE TOLD THAT THE SALARIES WERE NOT RECEIVED AS BELONGING
TO THE TAXPAYERS, BUT RATHER THEY WERE RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYERS AS
"CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEES" FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CREDITORS OF THE
CORPORATION.  ADMITTEDLY, RECEIPTS BY A TRUSTEE EXPRESSLY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ANOTHER ARE NOT INCOME TO THE TRUSTEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY, FOR HE "HAS RECEIVED NOTHING  ...  FOR HIS SEPARATE USE AND
BENEFIT," EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 211 (1920). 

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THESE TAXPAYERS WERE TRUSTEES IN THE SENSE
THAT THE SALARIES WERE NOT RECEIVED FOR THEIR SEPARATE USE AND
BENEFIT.  UNDER THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE THAT THE FUNDS OF A CORPORATION
ARE A TRUST FUND FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, A STOCKHOLDER RECEIVING
FUNDS WITHOUT ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION FROM AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION MAY
BE HELD, IN SOME JURISDICTIONS, TO HOLD THE FUNDS AS A CONSTRUCTIVE
TRUSTEE.  (FN10) SO IT WAS THAT THESE TAXPAYERS WERE DECLARED
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEES AND WERE LIABLE AS TRANSFEREES IN EQUITY.  A
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IS A FICTION IMPOSED AS AN EQUITABLE DEVICE FOR
ACHIEVING JUSTICE.  (FN11)  IT LACKS THE ATTRIBUTES OF A TRUE TRUST,
AND IS NOT BASED ON ANY INTENTION OF THE PARTIES.  EVEN THOUGH IT HAS A
RETROACTIVE EXISTENCE IN LEGAL FICTION, FICTION CANNOT CHANGE THE
"READILY REALIZABLE ECONOMIC VALUE" (FN12) AND PRACTICAL "USE AND
BENEFIT" (FN13) WHICH THESE TAXPAYERS ENJOYED DURING A PRIOR ANNUAL
ACCOUNTING PERIOD, ANTECEDENT TO THE DECLARATION OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE
TRUST. 

WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE SALARIES WERE RECEIVED UNDER A CLAIM OF
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT - NOT UNDER A CLAIM OF RIGHT AS A TRUSTEE.  INDEED ONE
OF THE PARTIES CONCEDES, AS IS MANIFESTLY SO, THAT THE REPORTING OF THE
SALARY ON THE INCOME TAX RETURNS INDICATED THAT THE INCOME WAS HELD
UNDER A CLAIM OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.  THE TAXPAYERS ARGUE THAT THE SALARY
WAS SUBJECT TO A RESTRICTION ON ITS USE.  (FN14)  SINCE ALL THE FACTS
WHICH ULTIMATELY GAVE RISE TO THE TRANSFEREE LIABILITY WERE IN
EXISTENCE AT THE END OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, WE ARE TOLD THOSE FACTS WERE
A LEGAL RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF THE SALARY.  ACTUALLY IT COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN SAID AT THE END OF EACH OF THE YEARS INVOLVED THAT THE
TRANSFEREE LIABILITY WOULD MATERIALIZE.  THE COMMISSIONER MIGHT NOT
HAVE AUDITED ONE OR ALL OF THESE PARTICULAR RETURNS; THE COMMISSIONER
MIGHT NOT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CORRECT PROCEDURE OR HAVE PRODUCED
ENOUGH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO MEET HIS BURDEN OF PROVING TRANSFEREE
LIABILITY; (FN15) OR, THROUGH SUBSEQUENT PROFITABLE OPERATIONS, THE
CORPORATIONS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE PAID THEIR TAXES OBVIATING
THE NECESSITY OF RESORT TO THE TRANSFEREES.  (FN16) 

THERE IS NO NEED TO ATTEMPT TO LIST HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS NOT
BEFORE US WHICH PUT SUCH RESTRICTIONS ON USE AS TO PREVENT THE RECEIPT
UNDER CLAIM OF RIGHT FROM GIVING RISE TO TAXABLE INCOME.  BUT A
POTENTIAL OR DORMANT RESTRICTION, SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED, WHICH DEPENDS
UPON THE FUTURE APPLICATION OF RULES OF LAW TO PRESENT FACTS, IS NOT A
"RESTRICTION ON USE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF NORTH AMERICAN OIL V.
BURNET, SUPRA. 

THE INEQUITIES OF TREATING AN AMOUNT AS INCOME WHICH EVENTUALLY TURNS
OUT NOT TO BE INCOME ARE URGED UPON US.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT
EACH OF THESE TAXPAYERS IS ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION FOR A LOSS IN THE
YEAR OF REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT EARLIER INCLUDED IN INCOME.  (FN17)  IN
SOME CASES, THIS TREATMENT WILL BENEFIT THE TAXPAYER; IN OTHERS IT WILL
NOT.  FACTORS SUCH AS THE TAX RATES IN THE YEARS INVOLVED AND THE
BRACKETS IN WHICH THE INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER FALLS WILL BE
CONTROLLING.  A RULE WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE ADJUSTMENT BE MADE IN THE
EARLIER YEAR OF RECEIPT INSTEAD OF THE LATER YEAR OF REPAYMENT WOULD
GENERALLY BE UNFAVORABLE TO TAXPAYERS, FOR THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
WOULD FREQUENTLY BAR ANY ADJUSTMENT OF THE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE
EARLIER YEAR.  (FN18)  CONGRESS HAS ENACTED AN ANNUAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
UNDER WHICH INCOME IS COUNTED UP AT THE END OF EACH YEAR.  IT WOULD BE
DISRUPTIVE OF AN ORDERLY COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE TO RULE THAT THE
ACCOUNTING MUST BE DONE OVER AGAIN TO REFLECT EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER
THE YEAR FOR WHICH THE ACCOUNTING IS MADE, AND WOULD VIOLATE THE SPIRIT
OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.  THIS BASIC PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE
CHANGED SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS OF ADVANTAGE TO A TAXPAYER OR TO THE
GOVERNMENT IN A PARTICULAR CASE THAT A DIFFERENT RULE BE FOLLOWED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN NO.
76, BEING CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION, IS AFFIRMED, WHILE THE CONTRARY
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN NO. 138 IS
REVERSED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  GORDON W. HARTFIELD AND EDWIN E. HEALY, 16 T.C. 200
(1951)(CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS); HALL C. SMITH, 11 T.C. 174 (1948). 

FN2  COMMISSIONER V. HARTFIELD, 194 F.2D 662 (1952). 

FN3  COMMISSIONER V. SMITH, 194 F.2D 536 (1952). 

FN4  344 U.S. 811, 813 (1952). 

FN5  CHARLES E. SMITH & SONS CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 184 F.2D 1011
(1950). 

FN6  REO MOTORS V. COMMISSIONER, 338 U.S. 442 (1950); HEINER V.
MELLON, 304 U.S. 271 (1938); BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS CO., 282 U.S.
359 (1931).  SEE I.R.C., SEC. 41. 

FN7  I.R.C., SEC. 42(A).  OTHER PERMISSIVE METHODS OF ACCOUNTING FOR
TAX PURPOSES ARE THE ACCRUAL BASIS, I.R.C., SECS. 41 AND 42, AND THE
INSTALLMENT BASIS, I.R.C., SEC. 44. 

FN8  UNITED STATES V. LEWIS, 340 U.S. 590, 592 (1951). 

FN9  4 TIFFANY, REAL PROPERTY, SEC. 1147. 

FN10  15A FLETCHER, CYCLOPEDIA CORPORATIONS, SECS. 7369-7389. 

FN11  3 SCOTT ON TRUSTS, SEC. 462.1; 3 BOGERT, TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES,
SEC. 471. 

FN12  RUTKIN V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 130, 137 (1952). 

FN13  EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 211 (1920). 

FN14  THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN NORTH AMERICAN OIL V. BURNET, SUPRA,
REQUIRES A RECEIPT WITHOUT "RESTRICTION ON USE" AS WELL AS UNDER A
CLAIM OF RIGHT. 

FN15  I.R.C., SEC. 1119 IMPOSES UPON THE COMMISSIONER THE BURDEN OF
PROVING TRANSFEREE LIABILITY.  THIS MAY BE CONTRASTED TO THE RULE THAT
NORMALLY THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE TAXPAYER CONTESTING THE
DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER.  I.R.C., SEC. 1111; RULE 32, TAX
COURT OF UNITED STATES. 

FN16  TRANSFEREE LIABILITY IS SECONDARY TO THE PRIMARY LIABILITY OF
THE TRANSFEROR.  TO SUSTAIN TRANSFEREE LIABILITY THE COMMISSIONER MUST
PROVE THAT HE IS UNABLE TO COLLECT THE DEFICIENCY FROM THE TRANSFEROR. 
9 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, SEC. 53.29. 

FN17  G.C.M. 16730, XV-1 CUM. BULL.  179 (1936). 

FN18  I.R.C., SEC. 322(B).  SEE ALSO I.R.C., SECS. 275 AND 311(B). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :











IN RE DISBARMENT OF ISSERMAN 345 U.S. 286 


NO. 5, MISC.  DECIDED APRIL 6, 1953. 


AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE NINE-MONTHS' TRIAL OF THE ELEVEN DEFENDANTS
WHOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT IN DENNIS V. UNITED
STATES, 341 U.S. 494, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE SENTENCED THE DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS, INCLUDING RESPONDENT, TO JAIL FOR CONTEMPT.  THE
CONTEMPTUOUS ACTS CONSISTED MAINLY OF REPETITIOUS AND INSOLENT
OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS AFTER THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE RULINGS AND ORDERED
A HALT TO FURTHER ARGUMENTS ON THE POINTS INVOLVED.  FOLLOWING
AFFIRMANCE OF THE CONTEMPT SENTENCE HERE, 343 U.S. 1, THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW JERSEY ORDERED RESPONDENT DISBARRED.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 2,
PAR. 5, OF THE RULES OF THIS COURT, AN ORDER WAS THEN ISSUED BY THIS
COURT REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE DISBARRED
HERE.  UPON THE RETURN TO THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, HELD:  RESPONDENT HAS
FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN WHICH WAS UPON HIM TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE WHY HE
SHOULD NOT BE DISBARRED, AND IT IS ORDERED THAT HE BE DISBARRED FROM
PRACTICE IN THIS COURT.  PP. 286-290. 

IN RE DISBARMENT OF ISSERMAN. 

ON RETURN TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON ANNOUNCED THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON JOIN. 

ABRAHAM J. ISSERMAN, RESPONDENT HEREIN, WAS ATTORNEY FOR SEVERAL OF
THE ELEVEN DEFENDANTS WHOSE CONVICTIONS WERE AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT IN
DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, THE TRIAL JUDGE SENTENCED ALL SIX DEFENSE ATTORNEYS,
INCLUDING RESPONDENT, TO JAIL FOR CONTEMPT.  THERE WAS ONE CHARGE OF
CONSPIRACY BY THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO OBSTRUCT THE TRIAL AND THIRTY
NINE CHARGES OF SPECIFIC ACTS OF CONTEMPT, SIX OF WHICH RELATED TO THE
RESPONDENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AS TO THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE
BUT AFFIRMED AS TO THIRTY-SEVEN OF THE SPECIFIC ACTS OF CONTEMPT,
INCLUDING ALL SIX NAMING THE RESPONDENT, UNITED STATES V. SACHER, 182
F.2D 416 (1950).  UPON A LIMITED GRANT OF CERTIORARI, THIS COURT ALSO
AFFIRMED, SACHER V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 1 (1952). 

RESPONDENT HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF NEW JERSEY.  FOLLOWING THE
AFFIRMANCE OF THE CONTEMPT SENTENCE HERE, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE ISSUED AN ORDER DISBARRING RESPONDENT.  (FN1) 

WE THEN ISSUED A RULE FOR THE RESPONDENT TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE WHY HE
SHOULD NOT BE DISBARRED HERE.  (FN2)  THIS WAS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RULE 2, PAR. 5, OF THIS COURT: 

"WHERE IT IS SHOWN TO THE COURT THAT ANY MEMBER OF ITS BAR HAS BEEN
DISBARRED FROM PRACTICE IN ANY STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT, OR INSULAR
POSSESSION, OR HAS BEEN GUILTY OF CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE
BAR OF THIS COURT, HE WILL BE FORTHWITH SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICE BEFORE
THIS COURT, AND UNLESS, UPON NOTICE MAILED TO HIM AT THE ADDRESS SHOWN
IN THE CLERK'S RECORDS AND TO THE CLERK OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT OR INSULAR POSSESSION, TO WHICH HE BELONGS,
HE SHOWS GOOD CAUSE TO THE CONTRARY WITHIN FORTY DAYS HE WILL BE
DISBARRED." 

THIS COURT (AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL COURTS IN GENERAL) DOES NOT
CONDUCT INDEPENDENT EXAMINATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO ITS BAR.  TO DO SO
WOULD BE TO DUPLICATE NEEDLESSLY THE MACHINERY ESTABLISHED BY THE
STATES WHOSE FUNCTION IT HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN TO DETERMINE WHO SHALL
STAND TO THE BAR.  RATHER OUR RULES PROVIDE FOR ELIGIBILITY IN OUR BAR
OF THOSE ADMITTED TO PRACTICE FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS BEFORE THE
HIGHEST COURT OF ANY STATE.  (FN3)  THE OBVIOUS PREMISE OF THE RULE IS
THE CONFIDENCE WHICH THIS COURT HAS IN THE BARS MAINTAINED BY THE
STATES OF THE UNION.  RESPONDENT HIMSELF CAME TO OUR BAR UPON
PRESENTING A CERTIFICATE OF HIS ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE HIGHEST
COURT OF NEW JERSEY, WHICH NOW NO LONGER FINDS HIM QUALIFIED FOR ITS
BAR. 

DISBARMENT BY A STATE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY DISBAR MEMBERS OF OUR
BAR, BUT THIS COURT WILL, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME GRAVE REASON TO THE
CONTRARY, FOLLOW THE FINDING OF THE STATE THAT THE CHARACTER REQUISITE
FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR IS LACKING, SELLING V. RADFORD, 243 U.S. 46
(1917).  BUT WE DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULE USED IN SOME STATE COURTS THAT
DISBARMENT IN A SISTER STATE IS FOLLOWED AS A MATTER OF COMITY.  (FN4) 

THE CONTEMPTUOUS ACTS HAVE BEEN CATALOGUED ELSEWHERE AND NEED NOT BE
DETAILED HERE AGAIN.  (FN5) IN THE MAIN, THEY CONSISTED OF REPETITIOUS
AND INSOLENT OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS AFTER THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE
RULINGS AND THEN ORDERED A HALT TO FURTHER ARGUMENT ON THE POINTS
INVOLVED.  AS WE OBSERVED IN AFFIRMING THE CONTEMPT SENTENCES, SUCH "
...  CONDUCT HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BY EVERY JUDGE WHO HAS EXAMINED THIS
RECORD UNDER A DUTY TO REVIEW THE FACTS."  (FN6)  NOW WE HAVE
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL VOICES CONDEMNING SUCH CONDUCT - THE UNANIMOUS
OPINION OF THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH CHIEF JUSTICE
VANDERBILT. 

OUR RULE PUTS THE BURDEN UPON RESPONDENT TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE WHY HE
SHOULD NOT BE DISBARRED.  LET US EXAMINE THE REASONS ADVANCED AS
MEETING THAT BURDEN.  IT IS SAID THAT RESPONDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN
PUNISHED ENOUGH FOR HIS CONTEMPT AND THAT TO DISBAR HIM IS EXCESSIVE,
VINDICTIVE PUNISHMENT.  SUCH AN ATTITUDE MISCONCEIVES THE PURPOSE OF
DISBARMENT.  THERE IS NO VESTED RIGHT IN AN INDIVIDUAL TO PRACTICE
LAW.  RATHER THERE IS A RIGHT IN THE COURT TO PROTECT ITSELF, AND HENCE
SOCIETY, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF JUSTICE.  THAT TO THE INDIVIDUAL DISBARRED
THERE IS A LOSS OF STATUS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT AND
CANNOT DETER THE COURT FROM ITS DUTY TO STRIKE FROM ITS ROLLS ONE WHO
HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT INCONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARD EXPECTED OF
OFFICERS OF THE COURT.  IN SO DOING, WE DO NOT LAY DOWN A RULE OF
DISBARMENT FOR MERE CONTEMPT; (FN7) RATHER WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIC
NATURE OF THE ACTIONS WHICH WERE CONTEMPTUOUS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO
THE FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIARY. 

THE ABSENCE OF A CONSPIRACY IS GIVEN AS A GROUND AGAINST DISBARMENT. 
NOTHING IN OUR RULES REFERS TO CONSPIRACY AS A FACTOR.  TO MAKE IT THE
TURNING POINT IN THIS DISBARMENT PROCEEDING WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO OUR
STATING THAT RECURRING DISOBEDIENCE IS NOT CAUSE FOR DISBARMENT UNLESS
ACCOMPANIED BY A CONSPIRACY. 

IT IS URGED UPON US THAT A PERIOD OF SUSPENSION AT MOST IS
APPROPRIATE, FOR THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK ONLY SAW FIT TO SUSPEND RESPONDENT FOR TWO YEARS.  BUT THAT WAS
BEFORE RESPONDENT WAS DISBARRED IN NEW JERSEY.  IT IS PREMATURE TO SAY
WHAT ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BY THAT COURT UNDER ITS RULES (FN8) AS A
RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S DISBARMENT IN NEW JERSEY. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, IN ITS NINE-PAGE OPINION, DEVOTED
ONE SENTENCE TO NOTING THAT RESPONDENT HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF STATUTORY
RAPE IN 1925 AND THEREUPON SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICE FOR A SHORT PERIOD. 
(FN9)  THAT ONE SENTENCE IS FOLLOWED BY THIS LANGUAGE:  "THE
CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION IN REACHING A DETERMINATION AS TO THE MEASURE
OF DISCIPLINE, HOWEVER, IS RESPONDENT'S SCANDALOUS AND INEXCUSABLE
BEHAVIOUR IN SEEKING TO BRING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE INTO
DISREPUTE IN A TRIAL THAT LASTED NINE MONTHS."  (FN10)  IT MAY BE
NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE FILES IN THE OFFICE OF OUR CLERK SHOW THAT THE
RESPONDENT DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS CONVICTION AND SUSPENSION FROM
PRACTICE IN HIS APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO OUR BAR, (FN11) SO THAT WE
DID NOT SANCTION THAT CONDUCT IN GRANTING HIM ADMISSION. 

THE ORDER OF THE COURT PLACED THE BURDEN UPON RESPONDENT TO SHOW
GOOD CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE DISBARRED.  IN OUR JUDGMENT, HE HAS
FAILED TO MEET THIS TEST.  AN ORDER DISBARRING HIM FROM PRACTICE IN
THIS COURT SHOULD ISSUE.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  IN RE ISSERMAN, 9 N.J. 269, 87 A.2D 903 (1952). 

FN2 JOURNAL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 2, 1952,
P. 222. 

FN3  RULE 2, PAR. 1: 

"IT SHALL BE REQUISITE TO THE ADMISSION OF ATTORNEYS OR COUNSELLORS
TO PRACTICE IN THIS COURT, THAT THEY SHALL HAVE BEEN SUCH FOR THREE
YEARS PAST IN THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT, OR
INSULAR POSSESSION, AND THAT THEIR PRIVATE AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERS
SHALL APPEAR TO BE GOOD." 

FN4  IN RE VAN BEVER, 55 ARIZ. 368, 101 P.2D 790 (1940); IN RE
LEVERSON, 195 MINN. 42, 261 N.W. 480 (1935); COPREN V. STATE BAR, 64
NEV. 364, 183 P.2D 833 (1947); IN RE BROWN, 60 S.D. 628, 245 N.W. 824
(1932); STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS V. BROWN, 53 WYO. 42, 77 P.2D 626
(1938). 

FN5  THE CONTEMPT CERTIFICATE IN FULL IS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES
V. SACHER, 182 F.2D 416, AT 430 (1950). 

FN6  SACHER V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 1, 13 (1952). 

FN7  SEE EX PARTE TILLINGHAST, 4 PET. 108 (1830). 

FN8  "THE COURT SHALL MAKE AN ORDER DISBARRING A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF
THIS COURT (1) WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED IN ANY FEDERAL, STATE, OR
TERRITORIAL COURT OF AN OFFENSE WHICH IS A FELONY IN THE JURISDICTION
OF SUCH CONVICTION; OR (2) WHO HAS BEEN DISBARRED BY ANY COURT OF
RECORD, FEDERAL, STATE OR TERRITORIAL."  RULE 5(B), DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

FN9  IN RE ISSERMAN, 9 N.J. 269, 279, 87 A.2D 903, 907 (1952). 

FN10  IBID. 

FN11  RULE 2, PAR. 2, AND THE APPLICATION FORM FOR ADMISSION DID NOT
REQUIRE INFORMATION AS TO PRIOR SUSPENSIONS AT THE TIME ISSERMAN WAS
ADMITTED.  SUCH INFORMATION IS NOW REQUIRED BY RULE 2, PAR. 2. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION IN
THIS PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER
AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING OPINION. 

THIS PROCEEDING TO DISBAR ABRAHAM J. ISSERMAN RESULTS FROM HIS BEING
ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT IN THE TRIAL OF UNITED STATES
V. DENNIS, 183 F.2D 201, 341 U.S. 494.  THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT HIS
CONTEMPTUOUS ACTS WERE PURSUANT TO A CONSPIRACY AMONG COUNSEL TO
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND SENTENCED HIM, WITH OTHERS, TO JAIL.  BUT THE
COURT OF APPEALS, WHILE AFFIRMING THE COUNTS CHARGING SPECIFIC ACTS OF
CONTEMPT, REVERSED THE CONSPIRACY COUNT.  UNITED STATES V. SACHER, 182
F.2D 416.  THIS COURT LIMITED ITS REVIEW TO QUESTIONS OF LAW AND
AFFIRMED.  SACHER V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 1. 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, IN WHICH ISSERMAN
WAS GIVEN A FULL HEARING, AND AGAIN THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE WAS NOT
SUSTAINED.  A PERIOD OF SUSPENSION FROM PRACTICE AT THE BAR OF THE
COURT AGAINST WHICH THE CONTEMPT WAS COMMITTED WAS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE
TO THE OFFENSE.  HOWEVER, THE COURTS OF NEW JERSEY HAVE DISBARRED
ISSERMAN AND UNDER OUR RULE HE MUST BE DISBARRED HERE UNLESS HE SHOWS
GOOD CAUSE TO THE CONTRARY.  (FN1) 

WHILE WE HAVE EXPRESSED DIFFERENT VIEWS AS TO THE MERITS OF THE
CONTEMPT CHARGES, AND EACH ADHERES TO HIS FORMER EXPRESSIONS, WE ARE
AGREED THAT THERE IS GOOD CAUSE FOR WITHHOLDING THIS COURT'S DECREE OF
DISBARMENT. 

PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THESE CONTEMPTS, THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DISBARRED ISSERMAN.  IT ALSO CONSIDERED HIS CONVICTION IN THAT STATE OF
STATUTORY RAPE IN 1925.  AT THE TIME OF CONVICTION, HOWEVER, THE NEW
JERSEY COURTS FOUND SUCH EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ONLY A SMALL
FINE AND A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION FROM PRACTICE WERE DEEMED TO MAKE THE
PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME.  (FN2)  FIVE YEARS AFTER THIS CONVICTION,
THIS COURT, ASKING NO QUESTION WHICH WOULD HAVE CALLED FOR DISCLOSURE
OF THE CONVICTION, ADMITTED ISSERMAN TO ITS BAR, IT APPEARING THAT HE
WAS THEN IN GOOD STANDING BEFORE THE COURTS OF NEW JERSEY.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT THINK WE CAN NOW ATTACH ANY WEIGHT TO THIS
DERELICTION. 

WE THINK THIS COURT SHOULD NOT ACCEPT FOR ITSELF A DOCTRINE THAT
CONVICTION OF CONTEMPT PER SE IS GROUND FOR A DISBARMENT.  IT FORMERLY
HELD, IN AN OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, THAT A LAWYER SHOULD
BE ADMITTED TO THIS BAR EVEN THOUGH FOR CONTEMPT HE HAD BEEN DISBARRED
BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ACTION - "  ...  ONE WHICH THE COURT DO NOT
MEAN TO SAY WAS NOT DONE FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE, OR THAT IT IS NOT ONE OF
A SERIOUS CHARACTER; BUT THIS COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER ITSELF AUTHORIZED
TO PUNISH HERE FOR CONTEMPTS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN THAT
COURT."  EX PARTE TILLINGHAST, 4 PET. 108, 109.  THE REMEDY FOR
COURTROOM CONTEMPT SHOULD BE PROMPT AND DIRECT PUNISHMENT PROPORTIONED
TO THE OFFENSE.  ISSERMAN HAS BEEN SEVERELY PUNISHED.  HIS PENALTY HAS
INCLUDED WHAT IS RARE IN THE PUNISHMENT OF LAWYERS' CONTEMPTS - A
SUBSTANTIAL JAIL SENTENCE. 

WE DO NOT RECALL ANY PREVIOUS INSTANCE, THOUGH NOT VENTURING TO ASSERT
THAT THERE IS NONE, WHERE A LAWYER HAS BEEN DISBARRED BY ANY COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES OR OF A STATE MERELY BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF
A CONTEMPT.  (FN3)  BUT WE DO KNOW OF OCCASIONS WHEN MEMBERS OF THE BAR
HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF SERIOUS CONTEMPT WITHOUT THEIR STANDING AT
THE BAR BEING BROUGHT INTO QUESTION.  IT WILL SUFFICIENTLY ILLUSTRATE
THE POINT TO REFER TO THE TACTICS OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE OF WILLIAM
M. TWEED.  THOSE EMINENT LAWYERS DELIBERATELY AND IN CONCERT MADE AN
ATTACK UPON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PRESIDING JUDGE NOAH DAVIS, CHARGING
HIM WITH BIAS AND PREJUDICE.  AT THE END OF THAT TRIAL, AFTER HE HAD
PRONOUNCED SENTENCE ON TWEED, JUDGE DAVIS DECLARED SEVERAL DEFENSE
COUNSEL GUILTY OF CONTEMPT.  NOT ONE OF THESE LAWYERS, APPARENTLY, WAS
SUBJECTED TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS IN CONSEQUENCE OF THAT JUDGMENT. 
AMONG THEM WERE ELIHU ROOT, LATER TO BECOME ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED
OF AMERICAN LAWYER-STATESMEN, AND WILLARD BARTLETT, DESTINED TO BECOME
CHIEF JUDGE OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  THESE TWO WERE EXCUSED
FROM ANY PENALTY, BEYOND A LECTURE ON THEIR ETHICS, ON THE GROUND OF
YOUTH AND DOMINATION BY THEIR SENIORS - A REBUKE PERHAPS MORE
HUMILIATING THAN A SENTENCE.  (FN4)  ONE OF THE SENIORS WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THE CONTEMPT, AND CERTAINLY ONE OF ITS CHIEF
ARCHITECTS, WAS DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.  HE LATER WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.  (FN5) 

THERE HAS BEEN HUE AND CRY BOTH FOR AND AGAINST THESE LAWYERS FOR
COMMUNIST DEFENDANTS.  THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK THE RESPECTABILITY OF
THE BAR REQUIRES THEIR EXPULSION.  THERE ARE THOSE WHO LAMENT THAT ANY
PUNISHMENT OF THEIR CONDUCT WILL SO FRIGHTEN THE LEGAL PROFESSION THAT
IT WILL NOT DARE TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTY TO CLIENTS.  WE MAKE COMMON
CAUSE WITH NEITHER.  IN DEFENDING THE ACCUSED COMMUNISTS, THESE MEN
WERE PERFORMING A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, WHICH IS
UNDER A DUTY TO LEAVE NO MAN WITHOUT A DEFENDER WHEN HE IS CHARGED WITH
CRIME.  IN PERFORMING THAT DUTY, IT HAS BEEN ADJUDGED THAT THEY WENT
BEYOND BOUNDS THAT ARE TOLERABLE EVEN IN OUR ADVERSARY SYSTEM.  FOR
THIS, ISSERMAN HAS PAID A HEAVY PENALTY.    IF THE PURPOSE OF
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS BE CORRECTION OF THE DELINQUENT, THE COURTS
DEFEAT THE PURPOSE BY RUINING HIM WHOM THEY WOULD REFORM.  IF THE
PURPOSE BE TO DETER OTHERS, DISBARMENT IS BELATED AND SUPERFLUOUS, FOR
WHAT LAWYER WOULD NOT FIND DETERRENT ENOUGH IN THE JAIL SENTENCE, THE
TWO-YEAR SUSPENSION FROM THE BAR OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
AND THE DISAPPROVAL OF HIS PROFESSION?  IF THE DISBARMENT RESTS, NOT ON
THESE SPECIFIC PROVEN OFFENSES, BUT ON ATMOSPHERIC CONSIDERATIONS OF
GENERAL UNDESIRABILITY AND COMMUNISTIC LEANINGS OR AFFILIATION, THESE
HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED AND HE HAS HAD NO CHANCE TO MEET THEM.  WE CANNOT
TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THEM.  ON THE OCCASIONS WHEN ISSERMAN HAS BEEN
BEFORE THIS COURT, OR BEFORE AN INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE, HIS CONDUCT HAS
BEEN UNEXCEPTIONABLE AND HIS PROFESSIONAL ABILITY CONSIDERABLE. 

WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE HERE IF THE RECORD STOOD THAT
ISSERMAN, WITH OTHERS, ENTERED INTO A DELIBERATE CONSPIRACY OR PLANS TO
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.  BUT THAT CHARGE HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS TO LACK SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE, AND AGAIN IN THE DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDING IN DISTRICT COURT IT WAS NOT FOUND TO BE PROVEN.  WHAT
REMAINS IS A FINDING THAT HE WAS GUILTY OF SEVERAL UNPLANNED
CONTUMACIOUS OUTBURSTS DURING A LONG AND BITTER TRIAL. 

PERHAPS CONSCIOUSNESS OF OUR OWN SHORT PATIENCE MAKES US UNDULY
CONSIDERATE OF THE FAILING TEMPERS OF OTHERS OF OUR CONTENTIOUS CRAFT. 
BUT TO PERMANENTLY AND WHOLLY DEPRIVE ONE OF HIS PROFESSION AT
ISSERMAN'S TIME OF LIFE, AND AFTER HE HAS PAID SO DEARLY FOR HIS FAULT,
IMPRESSES US AS A SEVERITY WHICH WILL SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE FOR THE
BAR, THE COURT OR THE DELINQUENT. 

FN1  RULE 2, PAR. 5, READS: 

"WHERE IT IS SHOWN TO THE COURT THAT ANY MEMBER OF ITS BAR HAS BEEN
DISBARRED FROM PRACTICE IN ANY STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT, OR INSULAR
POSSESSION, OR HAS BEEN GUILTY OF CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE
BAR OF THIS COURT, HE WILL BE FORTHWITH SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICE BEFORE
THIS COURT, AND UNLESS, UPON NOTICE MAILED TO HIM AT THE ADDRESS SHOWN
IN THE CLERK'S RECORDS AND TO THE CLERK OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT OR INSULAR POSSESSION, TO WHICH HE BELONGS,
HE SHOWS GOOD CAUSE TO THE CONTRARY WITHIN FORTY DAYS HE WILL BE
DISBARRED." 

FN2  IN RE ISSERMAN, 6 N.J. MISC. 146. 

FN3  IN THE TRIAL OF JOHN PETER ZENGER, IN 1735, THE SUPREME COURT OF
JUDICATURE FOR THE PROVINCE OF NEW-YORK DISBARRED TWO OF HIS DEFENSE
COUNSEL FOR "HAVING PRESUMED (NOTWITHSTANDING THEY WERE FOREWARNED BY
THE COURT OF THEIR DISPLEASURE IF THEY SHOULD DO IT) TO SIGN" AND FILE
A DOCUMENT QUESTIONING LEGALITY OF THE JUDGES' COMMISSIONS, WHICH WAS
ADJUDGED TO BE A CONTEMPT FOR WHICH THEY WERE PEREMPTORILY EXCLUDED
FROM FURTHER PRACTICE AND THEIR NAMES STRUCK FROM THE ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS.  RUTHERFORD, JOHN PETER ZENGER, 50; 17 HOW.  ST. TR. 683,
686. 

FN4 JESSUP, ELIHU ROOT, 80-93. 

FN5  ROGERS, AMERICAN BAR LEADERS, 50. 
..END :














UNITED STATES V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA 345 U.S. 295 



NO. 205.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1953 - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1953 - REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT POWER COMPANY PRODUCES ELECTRICITY IN CALIFORNIA, PARTIALLY
BY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LICENSED UNDER PART I OF THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT, AS AMENDED BY TITLE II OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY ACT OF 1935, AND
SELLS A PORTION OF IT TO THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AND TO A NEVADA COUNTY FOR
CONSUMPTION IN NEVADA.  THE POWER IS TRANSMITTED AT HIGH VOLTAGE TO THE
COMPANY'S SUBSTATION IN CALIFORNIA, WHENCE IT IS TRANSMITTED OVER LINES
OWNED BY THE NAVY AND BY THE COUNTY INTO NEVADA, WHERE IT IS STEPPED
DOWN FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMPTION.  THE POWER SOLD TO THE
NAVY IS USED LARGELY IN OFFICIAL OPERATIONS AT A NAVY DEPOT, THOUGH
PART IS DISTRIBUTED FOR PRIVATE CONSUMPTION AT A NEARBY NAVY HOUSING
PROJECT.  THE  POWER SOLD TO THE COUNTY IS PRACTICALLY ALL RESOLD TO
LOCAL CONSUMERS.  HELD:  THE RATES FOR SUCH SALES OF POWER FOR RESALE
ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER PART II
OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  PP. 299-318. 

1.  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 201(B)
OF THE ACT, WHICH EXTENDS "TO THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO THE SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE"; AND REGULATION OF THE RATES OF SUCH SALES IS
AUTHORIZED BY SECS. 205(A) AND 206(A).  PP. 299-300. 

(A)  THE OPERATIONS IN QUESTION ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 201(B) OF THE ACT; AND THE FACT THAT THE ELECTRICITY IS
TRANSMITTED ACROSS THE STATE BOUNDARY OVER LINES OWNED BY THE NAVY AND
BY THE COUNTY, AS PURCHASERS, IS IRRELEVANT.  PP. 299-300. 

(B)  THE LIMITATION IN PART II OF THE ACT THAT FEDERAL REGULATION
SHALL "EXTEND ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION
BY THE STATES" DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE; AND SEC. 20 OF
PART I OF THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT.  PP. 300-311. 

(C)  FEDERAL RATE JURISDICTION UNDER PART II IS NOT EXCLUDED BY THE
FACT THAT SOME PORTION OF THE POWER SOLD ORIGINATED IN HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECTS FEDERALLY LICENSED UNDER PART I. P. 302. 

(D)  BY SEC. 20 OF PART I, CONGRESS DID NOT CONFER ON THE STATES
JURISDICTION OVER HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY TRANSMITTED ACROSS STATE LINES
FOR RESALE.  PP. 303-305. 

(E)  CONGRESS IN SEC. 20 OF PART I DID NOT CHARGE THE STATES WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF REGULATING RATES OF INTERSTATE SALES OF ELECTRICITY
THROUGH THE USE OF THE FEDERAL POWER OVER GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.  P.
305. 

(F)  THE LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 201(A) ON FEDERAL REGULATION CANNOT, AND
WERE NOT INTENDED TO, PRESERVE AN EXCLUSIVE STATE REGULATION OF
WHOLESALE HYDROELECTRIC SALES ACROSS STATE BORDERS.  PP. 310-311. 

2.  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE SALES TO THE
COUNTY AND TO THE NAVY.  PP. 312-316. 

(A)  THE PROVISION OF SUBSECTION (C) OF SEC. 201 THAT "SALE OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY AT WHOLESALE" MEANS A SALE TO ANY "PERSON" FOR RESALE,
IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS EXCLUDING SALES TO A MUNICIPALITY OR TO THE
NAVY.  PP. 312-316. 

(B)  THE ADDITION OF THE WORD "PERSON" IN THE DEFINITIONS IN SEC.
201(D) WAS NOT INTENDED AS A LIMITATION ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION.  P. 313. 

3.  THE SALES HERE WERE NOT EXEMPT FROM COMMISSION JURISDICTION UNDER
SEC. 201(B) AS SALES OVER "LOCAL DISTRIBUTION" FACILITIES, AND THEY
WERE "FOR RESALE" THOUGH THE CONTRACTS DID NOT SO SPECIFY.   P. 316. 

4.  WHETHER THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION MAY EXERCISE RATE AUTHORITY
OVER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF POWER SOLD OR MERELY THAT WHICH IS RESOLD BY
THE NAVY IS A QUESTION WHICH IS NOT RIPE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS
COURT ON THE INSTANT RECORD.  PP. 316-318. 

UNITED STATES V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 206, COUNTY OF MINERAL, NEVADA, V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SAME COURT. 

ORDERS OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ASSERTED
JURISDICTION OVER RATES FOR CERTAIN SALES OF ELECTRIC POWER BY THE
RESPONDENT POWER COMPANY.  50 CAL. P.U.C. 749; 89 P.U.R.(N.S.)  359. 
THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED REVIEW, THUS AFFIRMING THE ORDERS.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 810.  REVERSED, P. 318. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY PRODUCES ELECTRICITY IN
CALIFORNIA, PARTIALLY BY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS LICENSED UNDER PART I
OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, 41 STAT. 1063, AS AMENDED BY TITLE II OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 838, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 791A ET SEQ.,
AND MARKETS THE GREATER PORTION OF IT, SUBJECT TO RESPONDENT PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY, IN THAT STATE.  THE JURISDICTIONAL
DISPUTE WHICH IS OUR PRESENT CONCERN RELATES ONLY TO CERTAIN POWER
SALES BY THE COMPANY TO THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AND TO MINERAL COUNTY,
NEVADA, FOR CONSUMPTION THERE.  THIS POWER, FOLLOWING PRODUCTION, IS
TRANSMITTED AT 55,000 VOLTS TO THE COMPANY'S MILL CREEK SUBSTATION IN
CALIFORNIA, ABOUT 25 MILES FROM THE BORDER, ON ITS OWN LINES.  THERE IT
IS FIGURATIVELY TAKEN OVER BY THE NAVY AND BY THE COUNTY, AND DELIVERED
ON THEIR LINES AT THE SAME HIGH VOLTAGE TO HAWTHORNE, NEVADA, WHERE IT
IS STEPPED DOWN FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMPTION.  THE NAVY'S
POWER IS USED AT ITS AMMUNITION DEPOT, LARGELY IN OFFICIAL INDUSTRIAL
OPERATIONS; BETWEEN 15% AND 29%, HOWEVER, IS DISTRIBUTED FOR
CONSUMPTION IN THE PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS AND ENTERPRISES OF TENANTS AT THE
NAVY'S LOW-COST HOUSING PROJECT NEARBY.  THESE SALES ARE METERED
INDIVIDUALLY AND EACH PURCHASER IS BILLED ACCORDING TO HIS OWN USE. 
THE POWER PURCHASED BY THE COUNTY IS ALL RESOLD TO LOCAL CONSUMERS,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MINOR LINE LOSSES AND OFFICIAL USE. 

THE NAVY'S CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF THE POWER WAS NEGOTIATED IN 1943,
AND PROVIDED FOR TERMINATION ON 60-DAY NOTICE; THE COUNTY'S WAS ENTERED
INTO IN 1945 FOR A STATED PERIOD OF THREE YEARS.  IN 1947 THE POWER
COMPANY APPLIED TO THE STATE COMMISSION FOR A GENERAL RATE INCREASE
WHICH, AFTER HEARINGS AT WHICH THE NAVY WAS REPRESENTED, WAS GRANTED. 
THEREAFTER, THE COMPANY TERMINATED ITS NAVY CONTRACT AND FAILED TO
RENEW THAT WITH THE COUNTY, GIVING NOTICE OF ITS INTENTION TO APPLY THE
NEW SCHEDULE TO THESE SALES.  BOTH PURCHASERS DEMURRED, AND THE COMPANY
REAPPLIED TO THE STATE COMMISSION FOR A RULING AS TO THE APPLICABILITY
OF THE GENERAL SCHEDULE TO THESE PARTICULAR OPERATIONS.  AFTER SOME
EARLY STATE EXPLORATORY HEARINGS, THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, ON
FEBRUARY 15, 1950, ISSUED AN ORDER TO THE COMPANY TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO
WHY THE RATES WERE NOT SUBJECT TO EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  THUS
JOINED, THE ISSUES WERE HEARD BY BOTH AGENCIES AT A JOINT PROCEEDING ON
MARCH 20 AND 21, 1950.  BOTH EVENTUALLY DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THEIR OWN
ASSERTED AUTHORITY.  (FN1)  THE STATE COMMISSION'S SUPPORTING OPINION
WAS DENIED REVIEW BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ON JANUARY 21, 1952,
THUS AFFIRMING ITS HOLDING, WHILE THAT OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
WAS LIKEWISE APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT, CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 199
F.2D 206.  AS A FEDERAL QUESTION CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF PART
II OF THE ACT WAS RAISED, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 344 U.S. 810, TO
BRING THE RECORD HERE FROM THE STATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1257(3). 

                                        I. 

FEDERAL AUTHORITY, WHICH WE THINK OBTAINS, IS ASSERTED UNDER PART II
OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  THIS APPLIES "TO THE TRANSMISSION OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO THE SALE OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  SEC. 201(B).  REGULATION
OF THE RATES OF SUCH SALES - OTHER TYPES OF AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION
WITH SUCH INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION OPERATIONS ARE GRANTED IN OTHER
PRELIMINARY ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE OPERATIONS IN QUESTION FALL WITHIN
THE CONCEPT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ON WHICH THE FEDERAL POWER
INITIALLY DEPENDS, CAN BE SHORTLY DISPOSED OF, FOR POWELL V. UNITED
STATES CARTRIDGE CO., 339 U.S. 497, 509-515, FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THAT
COMMERCE INCLUDES THE TRANSPORTATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY, WHILE THE
IRRELEVANCE OF THE FACT THAT THIS ELECTRICITY IS TRANSMITTED ACROSS THE
STATE BOUNDARY OVER LINES OWNED BY THE NAVY AND BY THE COUNTY, AS
PURCHASERS, MAY BE SEEN FROM JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 319 U.S. 61, 69, 71, AND ILLINOIS GAS CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498. 

THE MOST SERIOUS CONTENTIONS PRESSED IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION OF
PART II, ARISE FROM THE SELF-LIMITING STATEMENT THEREIN THAT THE ACT IS
"TO EXTEND ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY
THE STATES."  (FN4)  SO RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT POWER COMMISSION
JURISDICTION ONLY BEGINS WHERE THE LOCAL REGULATORY POWER ENDS, AND
POINT TO PART I, SEC. 20, AS SUPPORTING THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE
LIMITATION APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  SECTION 20 PROVIDES THAT
WHEN POWER FROM PROJECTS LICENSED UNDER PART I, WHICH THAT ENERGY SOLD
TO THE NAVY AND THE COUNTY INCLUDES: 

"SHALL ENTER INTO INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE THE RATES  ...  AND
THE SERVICE  ...  BY ANY  ... LICENSEE  ...  OR BY ANY PERSON,
CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION PURCHASING POWER FROM SUCH LICENSEE FOR
SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OR USE IN PUBLIC SERVICE SHALL BE REASONABLE  ...
TO THE CUSTOMER  ... AND WHENEVER ANY OF THE STATES DIRECTLY CONCERNED
HAS NOT PROVIDED A COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION WITHIN SUCH STATE  ...  OR SUCH STATES ARE
UNABLE TO AGREE THROUGH THEIR PROPERLY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES ON THE
SERVICES ...  OR ON THE RATES  ... JURISDICTION IS HEREBY CONFERRED
UPON THE COMMISSION  ...  TO REGULATE  ...  SO MUCH OF THE SERVICES
...  AND ...  RATES  ...  THEREFOR AS CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE  ...  ."  41 STAT. 1073, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 813. 

BOTH NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA HAVE REGULATORY AGENCIES WITH CERTAIN RATE
POWERS.  AND WE MAY ASSUME, THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS OTHERWISE,
THAT BOTH AGENCIES CAN ENFORCE REASONABLE RATE ORDERS AND HAVE NOT
DISAGREED.  (FN5)  RESPONDENTS POINT TO THIS AS SATISFYING SEC. 20, AND
THUS OUSTING ANY PART II REGULATION.  IN SHORT, THEY CONTEND - WHAT AT
FIRST BLUSH MAY APPEAR ANOMALOUS - THAT FEDERAL RATE JURISDICTION UNDER
PART II MAY BE PROHIBITED BY THE FACT THAT SOME PORTION OF THE POWER
SOLD ORIGINATED IN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS FEDERALLY LICENSED UNDER PART
I. WE DO NOT AGREE. 

ADMITTEDLY, SEC. 20 CONTEMPLATED STATE REGULATION.  AND IT MAY WELL
BE, AS INDICATED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, (FN6) THAT CONGRESS
QUITE FRANKLY CHOSE THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO REGULATE THE BULK OF
INTERSTATE SALES OF ELECTRICITY FROM LICENSED PROJECTS.  IN FACT, A
CONTRARY VIEW WOULD HAVE BEEN ALMOST ASTONISHING AS AN HISTORICAL
PROPOSITION, FOR NEITHER THE LARGE INTERSTATE OPERATIONS OF ELECTRIC
UTILITIES THAT HAVE DEVELOPED DURING THE LAST THIRTY YEARS, NOR THE
CONCOMITANT DESIRABILITY OF FEDERAL REGULATION, COULD HAVE BEEN
FORESEEN IN 1920.  LONG-RANGE TRANSMISSION WAS NOT THEN ADEQUATELY
DEVELOPED, NOR HAD THE VARIOUS LOCAL UTILITIES BY THEN UNDERGONE THE
INTEGRATION INTO LARGE CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS WHICH LATER CAME ABOUT. 
(FN7)  SO WE MAY ASSUME THAT CONGRESS, AS A POLICY JUDGMENT, ACCEPTED
AND ADAPTED THE SUBSTANTIAL TRADITION OF LOCAL UTILITY REGULATION TO
POWER PRODUCTION LICENSED UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT. 

BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS DONE WITH ANY FIRM INTENT TO
SETTLE WITH THE STATES A POWER ESSENTIALLY NATIONAL.  FOR WHATEVER
VIEWS OF THE DRAFTSMEN OF SEC. 20 AS TO THE EFFICACY OF STATE
REGULATION, THE JURISDICTIONAL LINES BETWEEN LOCAL AND NATIONAL
AUTHORITY WERE NOT FINALLY DETERMINED UNTIL THIS COURT'S OPINION IN
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELECTRIC CO., 273 U.S.
83.  THIS DECISION FOLLOWED THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT BY SOME SEVEN
YEARS.  IN SHORT, THAT CASE ESTABLISHED WHAT HAS UNQUESTIONABLY BECOME
A FIXED PREMISE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BUT WHAT WAS NOT AT ALL CLEAR
IN 1920, THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBADE STATE REGULATION OF SOME
UTILITY RATES.  STATE POWER WAS HELD NOT TO EXTEND TO AN INTERSTATE
SALE "IN WHOLESALE QUANTITIES, NOT TO CONSUMERS, BUT TO DISTRIBUTING
COMPANIES FOR RESALE TO CONSUMERS."  273 U.S., AT 89.  ATTLEBORO
REITERATED AND ACCEPTED THE HOLDING OF PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, 252 U.S. 23, THAT SALES ACROSS THE STATE LINE
DIRECT TO CONSUMERS IS A LOCAL MATTER WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE
AGENCY OF THE IMPORTING STATE.  BUT IT PROHIBITED REGULATION OF
WHOLESALE SALES FOR RESALE BY EITHER INTERESTED COMMISSION. 

RESPONDENTS SEEK TO ESCAPE THAT DOCTRINE, HOWEVER, BY POINTING TO THE
FACT THAT THERE WAS NOT THERE INVOLVED SALES OF ELECTRICITY PRODUCED AT
A PROJECT LICENSED UNDER PART I. THEY ADMIT THAT ABSENT SEC. 20 OF THAT
PART, THE LATER PART II AUTHORITY WOULD APPLY EXCLUSIVELY AND DETERMINE
THE RESULT.  BUT, THEY SAY, SEC. 20 CREATES AN EXCEPTION, WHICH THE
LANGUAGE OF ATTLEBORO DID NOT REACH, FOR HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY
TRANSMITTED ACROSS STATE LINES UNDER THE AEGIS OF COORDINATED STATE
REGULATION.  IN SHORT, IT IS ALLEGED THAT SEC. 20 "CONFERRED
JURISDICTION" ON THE STATES. 

WE DO NOT AGREE.  ATTLEBORO DECLARED STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
TRANSMISSION OF POWER FOR RESALE FORBIDDEN AS A DIRECT BURDEN ON
COMMERCE.  THE STATES MAY ACT AS TO SUCH A SUBJECT ONLY WHEN CONGRESS
HAS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED PERMISSION FOR THE EXERCISE OF THIS STATE
POWER OVER ARTICLES MOVING INTERSTATE WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE IMMUNE. 
IN RE RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545, 560-562.  (FN8) SECTION 20 CANNOT BEAR THIS
INTERPRETATION; IT DID NOT ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF THE ENERGY AS A
SIGNIFICANT FACTOR DETERMINING WHETHER STATE OR FEDERAL AUTHORITY
APPLIED.  IT IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE FEW UNIQUE FEDERAL STATUTES
THIS COURT HAS HERETOFORE CONSIDERED, "SUBJECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE
...  TO PRESENT AND FUTURE STATE PROHIBITIONS," OR REGULATION, CLARK
DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S. 311, 326, IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMERCE POWER.  ITS LANGUAGE INDICATES
NO CONSIDERATION OR DESIRE TO ALTER THE LIMITS OF STATE POWER OTHERWISE
IMPOSED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE; IT MERELY STATES THAT THE FEDERAL POWER
SHALL NOT BE INVOKED UNLESS CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF STATE INABILITY TO
REGULATE OBTAIN.  (FN9)  SECTION 20 QUITE OBVIOUSLY IS NOT BASED ON ANY
RECOGNITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER, BUT RATHER ASSUMES WHAT
ATTLEBORO HELD DID NOT EXIST - STATE AUTHORITY TO REACH INTERSTATE
SALES OF ENERGY FOR RESALE; ITS SOLE CONCERN IS THE APPLICATION OF
FEDERAL REGULATION ON THE POSSIBLE FAILURE OF THE STATES TO EMPOWER
THEIR REGULATORY AGENCIES OR THEIR INABILITY TO AGREE. 

NOR CAN IT SOUNDLY BE SAID THAT CONGRESS IN SEC. 20 OF PART I CHARGED
THE STATES WITH RESPONSIBILITY OF REGULATING RATES OF INTERSTATE SALES
OF ELECTRICITY THROUGH THE USE OF THE FEDERAL POWER OVER GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY.  U.S. CONST., ART. 4, SEC. 3, CL. 2.  AS INDICATED IN OUR
DISCUSSION OF THE COMMERCE POWER, THERE WAS IN 1920 WHEN SEC. 20 WAS
ENACTED NO FULL APPRECIATION OF THE LIMITS OF STATE POWER OVER SALES OF
ELECTRICITY FOR EXPORT OR IMPORT FOR RESALE.  SO THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.
20 REQUIRED REASONABLE RATES TO CONSUMERS OF ELECTRICITY MOVING
INTERSTATE AND THEN ADDED THE PROVISION THAT WHEN NO STATE COMMISSION
WAS PROVIDED TO ENFORCE REASONABLE RATES, OR THE STATES INTERESTED
COULD NOT AGREE, THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION COULD ACT.  (FN10)  WE DO
NOT THINK SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT FOR WATER POWER ELECTRICITY AS PART I,
SEC. 20, PROVIDES CAN BE HELD TO BLOCK THE GENERAL AUTHORITY OF PART
II.  SEE NOTE 13, INFRA. 

THE ACTIONS OF THE CONGRESS FOLLOWING THE ATTLEBORO DECISION DO NOT
REFLECT ANY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 20.  WE NOTE SOME INTEREST
IN THE APPLICATION OF THAT SECTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE OPINION, BUT
NOTHING THAT IS DECISIVE OF RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS.  IN 1929, SENATOR
COUZENS INTRODUCED AN AMENDMENT TO HIS THEN PENDING BILL, S. 6, 71ST
CONG., 1ST SESS., TO ESTABLISH FEDERAL REGULATION OF COMMUNICATIONS. 
THE AMENDMENT, SEC. 47 ET SEQ., WOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED A FEDERAL RATE
AUTHORITY OVER ALL INTERSTATE POWER SALES.  "POWER" WAS DEFINED, SEC.
47(A)(4), TO INCLUDE ELECTRIC ENERGY, "WHETHER OR NOT PRODUCED BY A
LICENSEE UNDER THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT."  THE BILL WAS REFERRED TO
COMMITTEE, BUT CONGRESS TOOK NO FINAL ACTION.  (FN11)  IN THE NEXT
YEAR, THE SAME COMMITTEE HELD HEARINGS ON S. RES. 80, CONCERNING A
PURPORTED BREAKDOWN IN THE INVESTIGATIVE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION AS IT THEN WAS CONSTITUTED.  THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
OF FEBRUARY 28, 1929, REPORTED F.P.C. NINTH ANN. REP. 119, WAS
INTRODUCED.  (FN12)  THIS ARGUED THAT, AS A RESULT OF ATTLEBORO, THE
COMMISSION HAD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER RATES OF INTERSTATE
WHOLESALE-FOR-RESALE SALES OF LICENSED HYDROELECTRIC POWER, UNTIL
DISPLACED BY A SEC. 20 AGREEMENT OF THE INTERESTED STATES WHICH
RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL AS A COMPACT.  (FN13)    THE FIRST
POSITIVE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IN THE FIELD, OF COURSE, WAS THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT OF 1935.  THE SWEEP OF THE STATUTE IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT
WITH ANY ASSERTED STATE POWER AS FIXED BY SEC. 20 OF THE 1920 ACT.  WE
HAVE EXAMINED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY; ITS PURPORT IS QUITE CLEAR. 
PART II WAS INTENDED TO "FILL THE GAP" - THE PHRASE IS REPEATED MANY
TIMES IN THE HEARINGS, CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND CONTEMPORARY
LITERATURE - LEFT BY ATTLEBORO IN UTILITY REGULATION.  CONGRESS
INTERPRETED THAT CASE AS PROHIBITING STATE CONTROL OF WHOLESALE RATES
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE, AND SO ARMED THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION WITH PRECISELY THAT POWER.  (FN14) THERE IS NOTHING TO
INDICATE THAT CONGRESS' CONCEPTION OF THE STATES' DISABILITY IN 1935,
OR OF THE POWER IT GAVE THE COMMISSION BY PART II, DID NOT INCLUDE PART
I ELECTRICITY.  IN FACT, THE UNQUALIFIED STATEMENTS CONCERNING PART II
FAVOR THE OPPOSITE CONSTRUCTION, FOR WE FIND THE ACT EXPLAINED TIME AND
AGAIN AS EMPOWERING THE AGENCY WITH RATE AUTHORITY OVER INTERSTATE
WHOLESALE SALES FOR RESALE; NOT ONCE IS THIS AUTHORITY SPOKEN OF AS ONE
CONDITIONED ON THE ELECTRICITY CONCERNED HAVING BEEN PRODUCED BY STEAM
GENERATORS OR AT NONLICENSED DAMS.  (FN15) 

THIS WOULD LARGELY DETERMINE OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE AMBIGUOUS
REFERENCE TO "MATTERS  ... SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES," SEC.
201(A), IF NOTHING MORE WERE AVAILABLE TO WORK WITH.  HOWEVER, THERE IS
OTHER PROOF THAT CONGRESS DID NOT HAVE IN MIND SEC. 20-TYPE STATE
REGULATION.  THE LIMITING CLAUSE IS SPOKEN OF ONLY AS PROTECTING STATE
REGULATION OF LOCAL AFFAIRS, INCLUDING RATES OF INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE-FOR-CONSUMPTION SALES:  "FACILITIES FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION
AND FOR THE PRODUCTION AND TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY SOLELY FOR ONE'S OWN
USE AND NOT FOR RESALE ARE EXCLUDED."  HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 5423, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
385.  (FN16)  THE PHRASE IS NOT ONCE MENTIONED AS THE DISTINCT
AFFIRMATION OF STATE POWER OVER INTERSTATE SALES FOR RESALE UNDER SEC.
20 THAT RESPONDENTS APPARENTLY WOULD RECOGNIZE IT TO BE. THERE ARE
INDEED FURTHER REASONS FOR REJECTING RESPONDENTS' CONSTRUCTION OF SEC.
201(A).  THE NATURE OF THE GENERATING FACILITIES, IN THE FIRST PLACE,
HAS NO FUNCTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR RATE REGULATION; THE SAME
CONSIDERATIONS THAT LEAD CONGRESS TO ENACT FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER
INTERSTATE ELECTRICITY IN GENERAL WOULD HAVE BEEN SIMILARLY APPLICABLE
TO POWER GENERATED AT LICENSED PROJECTS.  SECONDLY, CONTEMPORARY
LITERATURE WAS FRANKLY DIVIDED OVER WHETHER ANY POWER OVER INTERSTATE
SALES FOR RESALE REMAINED WITH THE STATES AFTER ATTLEBORO.  (FN17)  WE
CANNOT ASSUME THAT CONGRESS ENACTED PART II WITH THE PURPOSE OF
PERMITTING THE STATES TO REGULATE HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY THROUGH SEC.
20.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY SO IN VIEW OF THE DEARTH OF LEGISLATIVE
DISCUSSION OF THE MATTER.  (FN18) 

SO WE CONCLUDE THAT THE LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 201(A) ON FEDERAL
REGULATION CANNOT, AND WERE NOT INTENDED TO, PRESERVE AN EXCLUSIVE
STATE REGULATION OF WHOLESALE HYDROELECTRIC SALES ACROSS STATE
BORDERS.  EVEN IF WE CONCEIVED OF THE MATTER AS ONE PECULIARLY LIMITED
TO THE STATUTORY WORDING OF SEC. 201(A), OUR STATEMENT THAT "EXCEPTIONS
TO THE PRIMARY GRANT OF JURISDICTION IN THE SECTION ARE TO BE STRICTLY
CONSTRUED," INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 331
U.S. 682, 690-691, WOULD BE AS APPLICABLE HERE AS TO SEC. 1(B) OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT.  "PRODUCTION" AND "DISTRIBUTION" ARE ELSEWHERE
SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM COMMISSION JURISDICTION, SEC. 201(B); THE
PHRASE RELIED ON IN SEC. 201(A) WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED AS A DECLARATION
OF "POLICY," AND THE REWORDING WHICH GAVE IT ITS PRESENT MORE SUCCINCT
FORM WAS UNACCOMPANIED BY ANY "MENTION OF THIS CHANGE AS ONE OF
SUBSTANCE."  JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, 319 U.S. 61, 76, REFERRING TO H.R. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 26.  "IT CANNOT NULLIFY A CLEAR AND SPECIFIC GRANT OF
JURISDICTION, EVEN IF THE PARTICULAR GRANT SEEMS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
BROADLY EXPRESSED PURPOSE."  CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, 324 U.S. 515, 527.  TO CONCEIVE OF IT NOW AS A BENCH
MARK OF THE COMMISSION'S POWER, OR AN AFFIRMATION OF STATE AUTHORITY
OVER ANY INTERSTATE SALES FOR RESALE, WOULD BE TO SPECULATE ABOUT A
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH THERE IS NO SUPPORT. 

PART II IS A DIRECT RESULT OF ATTLEBORO.  THEY ARE TO BE READ
TOGETHER.  THE LATTER LEFT NO POWER IN THE STATES TO REGULATE
LICENSEES' SALES FOR RESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHILE THE FORMER
ESTABLISHED FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER SUCH SALES.  DISCUSSION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM AS REFLECTED IN THAT STATUTE AND THE NATURAL GAS
ACT IN RECENT CASES SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION.  ESPECIALLY IN THE
LITIGATION ARISING UNDER THE GAS ACT HAS THIS COURT EXPRESSED THE VIEW
THAT THE LIMITATIONS ESTABLISHED ON COMMISSION JURISDICTION THEREIN
WERE DESIGNED TO COORDINATE PRECISELY WITH THOSE CONSTITUTIONALLY
IMPOSED ON THE STATES.  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS
CO., 320 U.S. 591, 609-610; PANHANDLE PIPE LINE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, 332 U.S. 507, 514-515; INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 331 U.S. 682, 690-691; ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 506.  (FN19)

       II. 

WE TURN NEXT TO A DEFINITIONAL PROBLEM RAISED BY RESPONDENTS,
RELATING TO THE SALES TO MINERAL COUNTY.  IN SHORT, IT IS THIS:  SEC.
201 EXTENDS COMMISSION JURISDICTION TO "SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AT
WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  SUBSECTION (D) OF THAT SECTION
STATES: 

"THE TERM 'SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AT WHOLESALE' WHEN USED IN THIS
PART MEANS A SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO ANY PERSON FOR RESALE." 

AND SEC. 3(4) (FN20) EQUATES "PERSON" WITH "INDIVIDUAL OR A
CORPORATION," WHILE SEC.  3(3) (FN21) EXCLUDES MUNICIPALITIES DEFINED
IN SEC. 3(7) (FN22) FROM THE SCOPE OF THE LATTER TERM.  SO RESPONDENTS
ARGUE THAT THE SALES TO MINERAL COUNTY ARE NEATLY AND DECISIVELY
EXCLUDED FROM PART II RATE REGULATION. 

THE USE OF THESE SECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF AN INDIRECT EXCEPTION TO PART
II HAS NO SUPPORT IN THE STATUTORY SCHEME AS A WHOLE.  SECTIONS 306 AND
313(A), IN FACT, LOOK QUITE THE OTHER WAY.  THEY PROVIDE FOR COMPLAINTS
AND PETITIONS FOR REHEARING BY MUNICIPALITIES.  AND SEC. 3(7)
CONTEMPLATES MUNICIPALITIES AS USERS AND DISTRIBUTORS OF POWER.  TO
ACCEPT RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION AS TO MINERAL COUNTY WOULD THWART THE
PREMISE OF THESE PROVISIONS:  THAT SUCH POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE
STATES CAN BE AGGRIEVED BY THE FAILURE OF A PUBLIC UTILITY SELLING
POWER TO THEM TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF PART II. 

NOR DO WE FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF CONSCIOUS COORDINATION OF SECS. 3(3),
(4) AND 201(D) FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  TRUE, THEY WERE
SIMULTANEOUSLY ENACTED, AND, IN FACT, THE INTERPOLATION OF THE WORD
"PERSON" INTO SEC. 201(D) OCCURRED AFTER THE SECS. 3(3) AND 3(4)
DEFINITIONS WERE IN EXISTENCE IN S. 2796, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AS
PASSED BY THE SENATE AND REPORTED TO THE HOUSE, JUNE 13, 1935.  BUT
THIS ALTERATION CAME AT THE INSISTENCE OF THE HOUSE.  THE SENATE HAD
PROVIDED FOR JURISDICTION OVER SALES OCCURRING BEFORE OR AFTER
INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION, IBID., SEC. 201(F), AND THE HOUSE AMENDMENT,
FROM WHICH SEC. 201(D) IN ITS PRESENT FORM STEMMED, COVERED SALES
DURING THE TRANSMISSION ACROSS STATE LINES FOR THE FIRST TIME.  SO THE
HOUSE REPORT IS, WE THINK, SIGNIFICANT IN ITS REDEFINITION OF THE
ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR RESALE."  H.R. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 8.  WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE CONGRESS ATTACHED NO
SIGNIFICANCE OF SUBSTANCE TO THE ADDITION OF THE WORD "PERSON," AND IN
FACT DID NOT INTEND IT AS A LIMITATION ON COMMISSION JURISDICTION. 
INDEED QUITE THE CONTRARY WAS SOUGHT BY THE HOUSE AMENDMENT OF SEC.
201(D).  (FN23) 

A THIRD FACTOR, IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTORY SCHEME AND LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF SEC.  201(D), IS THE REJECTION OF RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION BY
THE COMMISSION AND COURTS.  THREE CIRCUITS HAVE JUST RECENTLY DONE SO,
(FN24) AND THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION'S LONG ASSERTION THAT IT HAS
AUTHORITY OVER RATES OF SALES TO MUNICIPALITIES HAS PROBABLY RISEN TO
THE DIGNITY OF AN AGENCY "POLICY."  (FN25)  WE HAVE OFTEN STATED OUR
SYMPATHY WITH ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS SUCH AS THIS. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, 310 U.S. 534, 549. 

WHERE THE LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE OF THE QUESTIONED STATUTE IS CLEAR,
COURTS, OF COURSE, FOLLOW THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION IN INTERPRETATION. 
WHERE THE WORDS ARE AMBIGUOUS, THE JUDICIARY MAY PROPERLY USE THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO REACH A CONCLUSION.  AND THAT METHOD OF
DETERMINING CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IS LIKEWISE APPLICABLE WHEN THE
LITERAL WORDS WOULD BRING ABOUT AN END COMPLETELY AT VARIANCE WITH THE
PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE.  TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. ABILENE OIL CO., 204
U.S. 426; FERES V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 135; INTERNATIONAL UNION V.
JUNEAU SPRUCE CORP., 342 U.S. 237, 243; JOHANSEN V. UNITED STATES, 343
U.S. 427, 432.  SO HERE, SINCE IT IS OUR JUDGMENT THAT NEITHER THE
LEGISLATIVE AIM NOR THE REALITIES OF COORDINATED RATE REGULATION COMPEL
IT, WE REJECT RESPONDENTS' PLEA THAT THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION CAN
EXERCISE NO AUTHORITY OVER SALES TO MINERAL COUNTY, AND, FOR SIMILAR
REASONS, THE COMPANY'S CONTENTION IN NO. 205 THAT THE SALES TO THE NAVY
ARE NOT SALES TO A "PERSON." 

                         III. 

THE CLAIM THAT THE SALES HERE OCCURRED OVER "LOCAL DISTRIBUTION"
FACILITIES, SEC. 201(B), AND WERE NOT "FOR RESALE" BECAUSE THE
CONTRACTS DID NOT STATE AS MUCH, ARE INSUBSTANTIAL.  THE SALES WERE
MADE IN CALIFORNIA BUT THE FACILITIES SUPPLIED "LOCAL DISTRIBUTION"
ONLY AFTER THE CURRENT WAS SUBDIVIDED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS.  (FN26)
BUT A FINAL QUESTION - WHETHER THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION MAY
EXERCISE RATE AUTHORITY OVER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF POWER SOLD OR MERELY
THAT WHICH IS RESOLD BY THE NAVY AND THE COUNTY - REQUIRES RATHER MORE
EXTENDED DISCUSSION. 

CERTAINLY THE CONCRETE FACT OF RESALE OF SOME PORTION OF THE
ELECTRICITY TRANSMITTED FROM A STATE TO A POINT OUTSIDE THEREOF INVOKES
FEDERAL JURISDICTION AT THE OUTSET, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE POWER
THUS USED TRAVELED ALONG ITS INTERSTATE ROUTE "COMMINGLED" WITH OTHER
POWER SOLD BY THE SAME SELLER AND EVENTUALLY DIRECTLY CONSUMED BY THE
SAME PURCHASER-DISTRIBUTOR.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES FROM THIS THAT
ALL THE POWER EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES OVER THE SAME
FACILITIES IS SUBJECT TO COMMISSION ORDER, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER
RESOLD OR NOT.  FOR THIS PROPOSITION IT RELIES ON AN ALLEGED SIMILARITY
BETWEEN THE PROBLEM AS THUS STATED AND THAT DECIDED IN PENNSYLVANIA
WATER & POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 343 U.S. 414, 419. 
(FN27)  WE HELD THERE THAT THE FEDERAL RATE AUTHORITY MUST APPLY TO ALL
ELECTRICITY SOLD, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS MADE UP OF POWER
TRANSMITTED ACROSS STATE LINES AS WELL AS THAT PRODUCED LOCALLY.  THE
IMPOSSIBILITY OF SEPARATING INTERSTATE FROM INTRASTATE ELECTRICITY
CONSUMED BY EACH PURCHASER IS PATENT.  IN SUCH A CASE, FEDERAL RATE
JURISDICTION MUST ATTACH TO EACH DISTRIBUTOR'S NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT
WITH THE SELLER IRRESPECTIVE OF OCCASIONAL AND UNPREDICTABLE USE OF NON
JURISDICTIONAL INTRASTATE POWER. 

THERE, HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM WAS WHETHER THE SALES OF ELECTRICITY WERE
IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  HERE, IT IS A DIFFERENT ONE WHETHER THE
ENTIRE SALE IS A "SALE FOR RESALE."  FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, WE NEED
NOT DECIDE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR "COMMINGLING" -
OF POWER RESOLD WITH THAT CONSUMED DIRECTLY BY THE PURCHASER - REQUIRES
ENTIRE FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  FOR, EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO RESPONDENTS'
PROPOSITION THAT IT MAY BE PROPORTIONALLY LIMITED, WE HOLD THAT THE
RECORD BEFORE US IN THIS CASE DOES NOT PRESENT A SET OF FACTS OR
FINDINGS JUSTIFYING THAT RESULT.  BY THE STATUTE, COMMISSION
JURISDICTION EXTENDS TO "SALES FOR RESALE," "BUT NOT TO ANY OTHER
SALE."  SEC. 201(B).  THE PROBLEM, THEN, IN APPLYING RESPONDENTS'
SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION, IS TO DECIDE JUST WHAT POWER TRANSACTION
FALLS WITHIN THIS CATEGORY OF "SALE FOR RESALE" - WHETHER ONE INVOLVING
THE ENTIRE VOLUME OF ELECTRICITY TRANSMITTED TO THE NAVY OR MERELY THAT
WHICH THE BUYER RESELLS TO OTHERS; THE DETERMINANT IS THE DELINEATION
OF "SALE FOR RESALE."  SEE PANHANDLE PIPE LINE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, 332 U.S. 507, 516-517.  ASSUMING RESPONDENTS' THEORY, THIS
WOULD TURN, OF COURSE, ON WHETHER AN ESSENTIALLY SEPARATE TRANSACTION
COVERING THE POWER DIRECTLY CONSUMED BY THE PURCHASER IS IDENTIFIABLE. 
THE PRESENT RECORD WILL NOT PERMIT SUCH A FINDING.  IT MAY BE THAT AS
AN ENGINEERING PROPOSITION, ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THE VOLUME RESOLD
AND THE VOLUME DIRECTLY CONSUMED BY THE TWO PARTIES IS POSSIBLE FOR
EACH BILLING PERIOD.  BUT THERE IS NO RECORD EVIDENCE OF SEPARATE
RATES, SEPARATE NEGOTIATIONS, SEPARATE CONTRACTS OR SEPARATE RATE
REGULATION BY OFFICIAL BODIES, IN SHORT THAT THE "SALES" THEMSELVES
WERE SEPARATE, AND IT IS IN THESE TERMS THAT THE ACT WOULD REQUIRE US
TO FIX THE LIMITS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL GRANT.  (FN28)  THE ATTENTION
OF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT DIRECTED TOWARDS THIS MATTER.  THE QUESTION
WILL NOT BE RIPE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION UNTIL THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION
HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERFECT THE RECORD AND TO CONSIDER THE
PROBLEM.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CO., 50 CAL. P.U.C. 749, AND
CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CO., 89 P.U.R.(N.S.)  359, RESPECTIVELY. 
THERE WAS SOME DOUBT AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE APPARENTLY CONFLICTING
ORDERS, REFLECTING ON THE WISDOM OF OUR EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO
REVIEW.  THE RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE STATE ORDER MERELY PERMITTED,
BUT DID NOT REQUIRE, APPLICATION OF THE HIGHER RATES TO THE NAVY AND
COUNTY SALES.  THE DISTINCTION, WHATEVER ITS ABSTRACT ATTRACTION,
MISSES THE POINT THAT WE ARE HERE CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE
AGENCY HAD JURISDICTION AT THE OUTSET TO CONSIDER THESE RATES AT ALL. 
THAT THE ORDER WOULD HAVE NO CONCRETE EFFECT ON THE PRICES PETITIONERS
MUST PAY IS IRRELEVANT AND UNLIKELY AS WELL. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION MERELY ORDERED THE COMPANY TO CEASE
CHARGING OTHER THAN FILED RATES AND SO, WHILE CONSTITUTING A
DETERMINATIVE ASSERTION OF ITS JURISDICTION, APPARENTLY DOES NOT
FORECLOSE THE SUBMISSION OF A NEW SCHEDULE, WITH USUAL RATE-MAKING
PROCEDURES BEFORE THE FEDERAL BODY.  18 CFR SECS 35.3, 35.5, 35.20. 

FN2  SEC. 205(A):  "ALL RATES AND CHARGES MADE, DEMANDED, OR RECEIVED
BY ANY PUBLIC UTILITY FOR OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSMISSION OR
SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION,
AND ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING OR PERTAINING TO SUCH RATES OR
CHARGES SHALL BE JUST AND REASONABLE  ...  ." 

FN3  SEC. 206(A):  "WHENEVER THE COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING HAD UPON
ITS OWN MOTION OR UPON COMPLAINT, SHALL FIND THAT ANY RATE, CHARGE, OR
CLASSIFICATION, DEMANDED, OBSERVED, CHARGED, OR COLLECTED BY ANY PUBLIC
UTILITY FOR ANY TRANSMISSION OR SALE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION, OR THAT ANY RULE, REGULATION, PRACTICE, OR CONTRACT
AFFECTING SUCH RATE, CHARGE, OR CLASSIFICATION IS UNJUST, UNREASONABLE,
UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY OR PREFERENTIAL, THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE
THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION, RULE, REGULATION,
PRACTICE, OR CONTRACT TO BE THEREAFTER OBSERVED AND IN FORCE, AND SHALL
FIX THE SAME BY ORDER." 

FN4  SEC. 201(A):  "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE BUSINESS OF
TRANSMITTING AND SELLING ELECTRIC ENERGY  ...  IS AFFECTED WITH A
PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THAT FEDERAL REGULATION OF MATTERS RELATING TO ...
THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE
SALE OF SUCH ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NECESSARY IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SUCH FEDERAL REGULATION, HOWEVER, TO EXTEND ONLY
TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES." 

NOT TO "DEPRIVE A STATE OR STATE COMMISSION OF ITS LAWFUL AUTHORITY NOW
EXERCISED OVER THE EXPORTATION OF HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY WHICH IS
TRANSMITTED ACROSS A STATE LINE."  THE PROVISION CERTAINLY DOES NOT GO
BEYOND THAT OF SEC. 201(A), NOTED IN THE OPINION, IN LIMITING FEDERAL
AUTHORITY.  THIS IS TRUE, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL
SIMILARITY OF THE LANGUAGE, BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT APPEARS NOT TO HAVE
BEEN DRAFTED WITH STATE RATE REGULATION IN MIND.  RATHER, 79 CONG. REC.
10527 INDICATES THAT THE PROVISION WAS INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE
VALIDITY OF CERTAIN STATE STATUTES PROHIBITING OR REGULATING THE VOLUME
OF STATE POWER EXPORTED.  COMPARE S. 2796, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AS
INTRODUCED, SEC. 201(B), AND IDEM AS REPORTED IN THE HOUSE, UNION
CALENDAR NO. 451, SEC. 201(B).  IT HAS BEEN SO CONSTRUED.  SAFE HARBOR
WATER POWER CORP., 5 F.P.C. 221, 235. 

FN5  SECTION 20'S REFERENCE TO STATE AGREEMENT HAS NEVER BEEN WHOLLY
CLEAR.  SEE FOOTNOTES 13, 16 AND 19, INFRA.  OUR OPINION, PENNSYLVANIA
WATER & POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 343 U.S. 414, DID NOT
SETTLE THE ISSUE, AND IT HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY DISCUSSED ONLY RARELY. 

FN6  HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WATER POWER, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS.
65. 

FN7  IT WAS, OF COURSE, MORE THAN HISTORICAL ACCIDENT THAT CAUSED THE
SIMULTANEOUS PASSAGE OF THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT AND THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT; IN FACT, THEIR MUTUAL CONSIDERATION BY THE 79TH CONGRESS, 1ST
SESS., SEE 79 CONG. REC. PASSIM, STRIKINGLY INDICATES CONGRESS'
REALIZATION THAT STATE REGULATION HAD FAILED, BOTH BECAUSE OF THE
GIANTISM OF THE HOLDING COMPANY AND BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO REACH
INTERSTATE SALES.  SEE DAVIS, INFLUENCE OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S
INVESTIGATIONS, 14 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 21. 

FN8  SEE LEISY V. HARDIN, 135 U.S. 100; ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 238 U.S. 190; ROSENBERGER V. PACIFIC EXPRESS CO., 241 U.S.
48; CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S. 311;
WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297 U.S. 431; KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334, 350. 

FN9  COMPARE THE WILSON ACT, 26 STAT. 313 (ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES), THE
WEBB-KENYON ACT, 37 STAT. 699, 27 U.S.C. SEC. 122 (SAME); 32 STAT. 193
(OLEOMARGARINE); THE REED AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL APPROPRIATION ACT
OF 1917, 39 STAT. 1069 (ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES); THE HAWES-COOPER ACT, 45
STAT. 1084, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 60; AND THE ASHURST-SUMNERS ACT, 49 STAT.
494, 18 U.S.C. SECS. 1761, 1762 (CONVICT-MADE GOODS). 

FN10  HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WATER POWER, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS.
62-66, 95-97, IS MOST ILLUMINATING IN THIS REGARD.  O.C. MERRILL
PRESENTED THE VIEWS OF THE SECRETARIES OF AGRICULTURE, INTERIOR AND
WAR.  HE DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH THE PROBLEM OF SALES ACROSS STATE
LINES AND SUGGESTED THAT THE PROPOSED SEC. 20 SOLUTION WAS DESIRABLE. 
IT LEFT REGULATION TO THE INTERESTED STATES "IF THEY DO IT; AND THEY
ARE DOING IT NOW."  IBID., AT 97.  "THE INTENTION OF THE DRAFT WAS
THIS: THAT IN SO FAR AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE THE POWER, AND
EXERCISE IT, OVER RATES AND SERVICE, THE FEDERAL COMMISSION SHOULD
LEAVE IT ALONE."  IBID., AT 62.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT SEC. 20
WAS CONCEIVED AS AN ACT OF FEDERAL PERMISSION; INDEED MERRILL
EXPLICITLY STATES HIS IGNORANCE AS TO WHETHER ANY PERMISSION WAS
NEEDED:  "I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE QUESTION HAS EVEN COME BEFORE THE
COURTS AS TO WHETHER SUCH BUSINESS IS OR IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, SO THAT
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WOULD BE VESTED IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IF IT
WISHED TO EXERCISE IT."  MR. DOREMUS:  "IT MIGHT BE A POWER WHICH
CONGRESS COULD EXERCISE, OR, IF IT FAILED TO EXERCISE IT, COULD BE LEFT
IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE."  MR. MERRILL:  "IT IS MY JUDGMENT
THAT SO LONG AS IT IS SATISFACTORILY HANDLED BY THE SEVERAL STATES IT
HAD BETTER BE LEFT WITH THEM."  IBID., AT 97. 

FN11  SEE HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 6,
71ST CONG., 2D SESS.  SECTION 47(H) STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
AMENDMENTS WAS NOT TO "ABRIDGE THE JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY OF ANY
STATE TO REGULATE, TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THIS ACT HAD NOT BEEN
PASSED, THE RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE SALE TO CONSUMERS WITHIN THE
STATE OF ANY POWER TRANSMITTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE," UNLESS A
"SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER" OF THOSE CONSUMERS SOUGHT FEDERAL REGULATION. 

FN12  HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. RES.
80, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS. 265. 

FN13 "IN CASES OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OF THE CHARACTER
ILLUSTRATED IN THE PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. CASE (DIRECT SALES TO
CONSUMERS), SUPRA, I (THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE COMMISSION; THE
COMMISSION APPROVED THE STATEMENT AS ITS OWN DECISION FEBRUARY 28,
1929) AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS NO
JURISDICTION OVER ANY MATTER FOR THE REGULATION OF WHICH THE STATE HAS
ALREADY PROVIDED A COMMISSION WITH THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY.  THIS
APPEARS TO BE THE VERY SITUATION WHICH CONGRESS HAD IN MIND WHEN IT
CONFERRED A CONDITIONAL JURISDICTION UPON THE COMMISSION.  IF SUCH A
STATE COMMISSION DOES NOT EXIST, THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION APPLIES IN FULL.  IF THE STATE HAS A COMMISSION WITH
AUTHORITY OVER A PART ONLY OF THE MATTERS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 20, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION EXTENDS TO THE REMAINDER
OF SUCH MATTERS. 

"IN CASES OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OF THE CHARACTER
ILLUSTRATED IN THE ATTLEBORO CASE, SUPRA, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE
STATES INDIVIDUALLY HAVE NO JURISDICTION AT ALL; THAT HAVING NO
INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTION THEY CAN NOT ACQUIRE IT JOINTLY BY AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN THEMSELVES, EXCEPT BY SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS IN THE
MANNER HEREINAFTER DISCUSSED; AND THAT, IN ABSENCE OF SUCH
AUTHORIZATION, THE ONLY AGENCY WITH AUTHORITY TO REGULATE, IN CASES OF
THIS KIND, THE SPECIFIC MATTERS SET FORTH IN SECTION 20 IS THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION."  F.P.C. NINTH ANN. REP. 123-124. 

THE REPORT WENT ON TO STATE THAT SEC. 20 COULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS
A "PERMISSIVE" STATUTE.  IBID., 127-129.  THE "COMPACT" INTERPRETATION
OF SEC. 20 WAS ADOPTED IN SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORP. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, 124 F.2D 800. 

SEE FOOTNOTE 16, INFRA. 

FN14  THE CONCEPTION OF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION'S NEW FUNCTION WAS
PERHAPS MORE REVOLUTIONARY THAN COULD BE GATHERED BY MERELY COMPARING
THE NEW ACT WITH SEC. 20.  FOR IT APPEARS THAT DESPITE THE LATTER
PROVISION FOR LIMITED RATE REGULATION, IN FACT SUBSTANTIALLY NOTHING IN
THAT DIRECTION HAD BEEN ATTEMPTED, AT LEAST BY 1930.  HEARINGS, SENATE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. RES. 80, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS.
79, 262.  THE COMMISSION HAD ONLY THREE ACCOUNTANTS, ALL OF WHOM WERE
CONCERNED WITH EVALUATION OF PROPOSED LICENSED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS. 
IBID., 38. 

IN FACT, COLONEL TYLER, CHIEF ENGINEER, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
EXPRESSLY ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT, FOR FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO BE
EFFECTIVE, IT WOULD HAVE TO REACH ALL INTERSTATE ELECTRICITY, AND NOT
JUST THAT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT LICENSED DAMS.  IBID., AT 195.  HERE, OF
COURSE, RESPONDENTS THEORIZE THAT A SMALL ADMIXTURE OF HYDROELECTRIC
POWER WILL DEFEAT FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 

FN15  IN FACT, THE HOUSE REPORT ON THE BILL, COMMENTING ON SEC. 305
OF THE ACT, STATED THAT SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO OFFICIALS OF LICENSEES
HAD BEEN DELETED BECAUSE "SUCH LICENSEES WHEN INTERSTATE OPERATING
PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANIES WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE

FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE SCOPE OF PART II, SEE HEARINGS, SENATE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 1725, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 250
251; H.R. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 26-27; HEARINGS, HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 5423, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 436, 521-530, 549, 1639, 1677-1680, 2143, 2169; H.R.  REP.
NO. 1903, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 74; 79 CONG. REC. 8431, 8442, 8444,
10377-10378. 

FN16  "THIS LANGUAGE (THE SEC. 201(A) PROVISO CLAUSE) IS NOT
PERTINENT IN THE INSTANT CONTROVERSY FOR IT IS DESIGNED TO BE
APPLICABLE ONLY TO ELECTRIC ENERGY TRANSMITTED AND SOLD IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE.  THE CONTROL OF RATES REFERRED TO IN THE SECTION IS CONTROL
BY A SINGLE STATE AND THE LANGUAGE HAS NO RELATION TO POSSIBLE JOINT
CONTROL BY TWO OR MORE STATES UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION."  SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORP. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, 179 F.2D 179, 187.  SEE ALSO HARTFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 131 F.2D 953; JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT
CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 129 F.2D 183. 

FN17  SCOTT, CONTROL OF POWER TRANSMISSION, 14 PROC. OF ACAD.  OF
POL.  SCI.  135, FOLLOWED BY NOTE, 32 COL. L. REV. 1171, ADMIT THE
FORCE OF ATTLEBORO, BUT CITE SEC. 20 AS A PERMISSIVE REGULATION
STATUTE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, ARNESON, FEDERAL REGULATION OF ELECTRIC
UTILITIES, 66 U.S.L. REV. 133, AND UPDEGRAFF, EXTENSION OF FEDERAL
REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 13 IOWA L. REV. 369, HOLD THAT THE
STATES' POWER TO REGULATE RATES OF SALES FOR RESALE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WAS COMPLETELY WIPED OUT. 

FN18  ACTUALLY, AN EXCEPTION TO FEDERAL COMMISSION AUTHORITY FOR
POWER GENERATED AT LICENSED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS WOULD HAVE HAD
LITTLE REAL SIGNIFICANCE IN 1935, IN TERMS OF LIMITING RESORT TO THAT
AUTHORITY.  FORTY PERCENT OF THE NATION'S ELECTRIC ENERGY WAS PRODUCED
AT HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS.  F.P.C. ELECTRIC POWER STATISTICS, 1920
1940, PP.  VIII-IX.  BUT ONLY 12.3% OF THE TOTAL PRODUCTION CAME FROM
LICENSED SOURCES, WHICH HAD MERELY 7.8% OF THE TOTAL NATIONAL
CAPACITY.  (LETTER FROM LEON FUQUAY, SECRETARY, FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, TO EDWARD G. HUDON, ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN, UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT, MARCH 16, 1953.)  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CURIOUS FOR
CONGRESS TO HAVE APPROVED A VERY SPECIAL TYPE OF REGULATORY SCHEME FOR
SUCH A MINIMAL FRACTION OF THE COUNTRY'S TOTAL POWER. 

FN19  SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORP., 5 F.P.C. 221, 239-243.  SEE ALSO
18 CFR SECS.  35.3, 35.20. 

IN VIEW OF OUR HOLDING THAT SEC. 20 DOES NOT, OF ITSELF, CONFER
JURISDICTION ON THE STATE COMMISSION OR COMMISSIONS IN THIS CASE, WE
NEED NOT DISCUSS THE MUCH-BRIEFED CONTENTION THAT ITS CONDITIONS HAVE
BEEN MET.  SEE, HOWEVER, SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORP. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, 124 F.2D 800, 179 F.2D 179; PENNSYLVANIA WATER & POWER CO.
V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 343 U.S. 414; AND NOTES 13 AND 16, SUPRA. 

FN20  "'PERSON' MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL OR A CORPORATION."  SEC. 3(4). 

FN21  "'CORPORATION' MEANS ANY CORPORATION, JOINT-STOCK COMPANY,
PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, BUSINESS TRUST, ORGANIZED GROUP OF PERSONS,
WHETHER INCORPORATED OR NOT, OR A RECEIVER OR RECEIVERS, TRUSTEE OR
TRUSTEES OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING.  IT SHALL NOT INCLUDE
'MUNICIPALITIES' AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED."  SEC. 3(3). 

FN22  "'MUNICIPALITY' MEANS A CITY, COUNTY, IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
DRAINAGE DISTRICT, OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR AGENCY OF A STATE
COMPETENT UNDER THE LAWS THEREOF TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF
DEVELOPING, TRANSMITTING, UTILIZING, OR DISTRIBUTING POWER."  SEC.
3(7). 

FN23  THERE IS EVIDENCE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE EXCLUSION OF
PRODUCING MUNICIPALITIES FROM COMMISSION JURISDICTION WAS INTENDED. 
FOR INSTANCE, DEVANE, SOLICITOR OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AT THE
TIME, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE:    "MR.
DEVANE.  THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO A PUBLICLY OWNED POWER PLANT. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"SENATOR HASTINGS.  WHY WAS IT DRAWN THAT WAY? 

"MR. DEVANE.  WE DID NOT FEEL THAT IT WAS WITHIN OUR PROVINCE TO
PREPARE A BILL THAT WOULD UNDERTAKE TO REGULATE MUNICIPAL, STATE, OR
GOVERNMENT UTILITIES."  HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ON S. 1725, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 256. 

AND BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, COMMISSIONER SEAVEY RECORDED A
SIMILAR INTERPRETATION: 

"MR. PETTENGILL.  MR. COMMISSIONER, YOU JUST SAID A MOMENT AGO THAT
AS YOU CONSTRUED THE BILL, A PRIVATE POWER LINE COULD NOT BE REQUIRED
TO CARRY ELECTRIC ENERGY GENERATED BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY OR
A MUNICIPAL PLANT OWNED BY A CITY, OR A STATE; IS THAT CORRECT? 

"COMMISSIONER SEAVEY.  YES; THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE BILL. 

"MR. PETTENGILL.  BECAUSE, AS YOU SAID, THE WORD 'PERSON' DOES NOT
INCLUDE A MUNICIPALITY OR A GOVERNMENTAL BODY? 

"COMMISSIONER SEAVEY.  I THINK THAT MUNICIPALITIES ARE PARTICULARLY
EXCLUDED, AND IT IS MY BELIEF THAT ANY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY, ANY OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, WOULD BE EXCLUDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE BILL. 

"MR. PETTENGILL.  NOW THEN, SUPPOSE THAT A MUNICIPALITY ACQUIRES, BY
PURCHASE, ALL OF THE COMMON STOCK OF A CORPORATION, PRIVATELY
ORGANIZED, SO THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS ACTUALLY THE OWNER OF THE POWER
PLANT, ALTHOUGH IT WAS ORGANIZED PRIVATELY, AS A PRIVATE CORPORATION. 
AFTER THAT WAS DONE, COULD THE PRIVATE POWER PLANT COMPETING IN THE
SAME LOCALITY BE REQUIRED TO CARRY THE ELECTRIC ENERGY GENERATED BY A
PLANT OWNED BY THE MUNICIPALITY, OR STATE, OR THE NATION? 

"COMMISSIONER SEAVEY.  IF IT WAS CONTROLLED BY THE MUNICIPALITY AND
WAS SUBJECT WHOLLY TO MUNICIPAL OPERATION, I WOULD SAY NO, THERE IT
WOULD NOT BE."  HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE ON H.R. 5423, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 397-398. 

SEE SEC. 201(F). 

FN24  CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 199
F.2D 206; WISCONSIN V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 91 U.S. APP. D.C. 307,
201 F.2D 183, AND WISCONSIN-MICHIGAN POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, 197 F.2D 472. 

FN25  KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 1 F.P.C. 536; OTTER TAIL POWER CO.,
2 F.P.C. 134; LOS ANGELES V. NEVADA-CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CORP., 2 F.P.C.
104; CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO., 3 F.P.C. 132; BAUM, THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, 61-62.  SEE THE CRITICISM OF THE SEC. 201(A) PHRASE
AS MEANINGLESSLY AMBIGUOUS, HARTFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., 2 F.P.C. 359,
AND NORTHWESTERN ELEC.  CO., 2 F.P.C. 327. 

THE COMPANY HAS CITED A BRIEF BY THE COMMISSION IN ANOTHER CASE WITH
SOME FORCE, AS INDICATING THAT HERETOFORE IT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE
UNITED STATES IS EXCLUDED FROM THE ACT BY VIRTUE OF NOT BEING A
"PERSON."  RESPONDENT'S BRIEF, U.S. EX REL. CHAPMAN V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION (C.A. 4TH CIR.), 191 F.2D 796.  WE NOTE, THOUGH, THAT THE
CONTENTION THERE WAS MADE IN REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 313(A),
THAT "NO PROCEEDING TO REVIEW ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE
BROUGHT BY ANY PERSON UNLESS SUCH PERSON" HAS APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION
FOR A REHEARING.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, CHOSE TO IGNORE THE POINT, AND
RATHER HELD THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR COULD NOT PETITION FOR
REVIEW IN THAT CASE SINCE HE WAS NOT A "PARTY AGGRIEVED," SEC. 313(B). 
191 F.2D, AT 799-800.  ON CERTIORARI HERE, THE COMMISSION FAILED TO
PRESS THE "PERSON" ARGUMENT AGAIN, RELYING SOLELY ON THE ARGUMENT THAT
PETITIONER, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF FEDERAL INTERESTS, WAS NOT
"AGGRIEVED" BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION OF
LACK OF STANDING.  BR. F.P.C. NOS. 28 AND 29, 1952 TERM, PP. 95-128. 
WE DID NOT CONSIDER THE MATTER IN OUR OPINION.  UNITED STATES V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 345 U.S. 153, 156. 

FN26  SEE EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION OF OHIO, 283 U.S. 465;
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. EAST OHIO GAS CO., 338 U.S. 464, 469. 

FN27  SEE CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
199 F.2D 206, 209. 

FN28  THE NINTH CIRCUIT, IN CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, NO. 495, NOW PENDING BEFORE US ON A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, 199 F.2D 206, WITH THE MORE COMPLETE RECORD BEFORE IT FROM
THE POWER COMMISSION, HELD THAT PENN WATER CONTROLLED.  WE DO NOT
DECIDE THE QUESTION BUT RATHER NOTE THAT THE COMMISSION'S OWN VIEW OF
THE MATTER MAY STILL BE IN THE FORMATIVE STAGE.  SEE COLORADO
INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 185 F.2D 357; CITY OF
HASTINGS V. KANSAS-NEBRASKA NATURAL GAS CO., 12 F.P.C. 3, 98
P.U.R.(N.S.)  1. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE CASES IS WHETHER THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION OR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA HAS
POWER TO REGULATE CERTAIN SALES OF ELECTRICITY.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT HERE SUSTAINED AN ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION REGULATING THE
SALES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SUSTAINED AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMISSION.  CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
199 F.2D 206.  I AGREE WITH THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR THE REASONS IT GAVE
AND CONSEQUENTLY CONCUR HERE IN REVERSAL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA'S CONTRARY HOLDING. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I SHOULD CONCUR IN THIS RESULT MORE READILY IF THE COURT COULD REACH
IT BY ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTE INSTEAD OF BY PSYCHOANALYSIS OF
CONGRESS.  WHEN WE DECIDE FROM LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, INCLUDING
STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES AT HEARINGS, WHAT CONGRESS PROBABLY HAD IN
MIND, WE MUST PUT OURSELVES IN THE PLACE OF A MAJORITY OF CONGRESSMEN
AND ACT ACCORDING TO THE IMPRESSION WE THINK THIS HISTORY SHOULD HAVE
MADE ON THEM.  NEVER HAVING BEEN A CONGRESSMAN, I AM HANDICAPPED IN
THAT WEIRD ENDEAVOR.   THAT PROCESS SEEMS TO ME NOT INTERPRETATION OF A
STATUTE BUT CREATION OF A STATUTE. 

I WILL FOREGO REPEATING WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOUT THIS PRACTICE IN
SCHWEGMANN BROS. V. CALVERT CORP., 341 U.S. 384, 395.  BUT I DO POINT
OUT THAT THIS CASE IS A DRAMATIC DEMONSTRATION OF THE EVIL OF IT.
NEITHER COUNSEL WHO ARGUED THE CASE FOR THE STATE COMMISSION NOR THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAD ACCESS TO THE MATERIAL USED BY THE
COURT TODAY.  COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THAT STATE
STATED AT THE BAR, AND CONFIRMED BY LETTER, THAT HE HAD TRIED WITHOUT
SUCCESS OVER A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS TO OBTAIN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF SEC. 20 OF PART I OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  HE OBTAINED IT ONLY
FOUR DAYS BEFORE ARGUMENT, IN WASHINGTON AT THE LIBRARY OF THIS COURT. 
HE STATED THAT THE CITY AND COUNTY LIBRARY OF SAN FRANCISCO, THE
LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE LIBRARY OF THE LARGEST
LAW OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO WERE UNABLE TO SUPPLY IT.  THE CITY AND
COUNTY LIBRARY TRIED TO OBTAIN THE MATERIAL BY INTERLIBRARY LOAN FROM
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, BUT THE REQUEST WAS REFUSED.  COUNSEL THEN
ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN THE MATERIAL FROM THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL LIBRARY,
BUT IT ADVISED THAT "OUR RULES DO NOT PERMIT THIS KIND OF MATERIAL TO
BE SENT OUT ON LOAN." 

THE PRACTICE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELYING ON INACCESSIBLE LAW
HAS HERETOFORE BEEN CONDEMNED.  SOME OF US REMEMBER VIVIDLY THE
ARGUMENT IN PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, IN WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT WAS OBLIGED TO ADMIT THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS UPON WHICH IT
HAD PROCEEDED BELOW HAD BEEN REPEALED BY ANOTHER EXECUTIVE ORDER
DEPOSITED WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT.  NO REGULARIZED SYSTEM FOR THEIR
PUBLICATION HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.  COPIES COULD BE OBTAINED AT NOMINAL
COST BY WRITING TO THE DEPARTMENT.  HAVING DISCOVERED THE ERROR, THE
GOVERNMENT BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT.  AT THE ARGUMENT,
HOWEVER, THE COURT, LED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, SUBJECTED GOVERNMENT
COUNSEL TO A RAKING FIRE OF CRITICISM BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO MAKE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL FORM.  THE
COURT REFUSED TO PASS ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CASE, AND THE RESULT WAS
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEDERAL REGISTER.* 

*THIS HISTORY IS SET OUT IN MORE DETAIL IN JACKSON, STRUGGLE FOR
JUDICIAL SUPREMACY, PP. 89-91. 

TODAY'S DECISION MARKS A REGRESSION FROM THIS MODERN TENDENCY.  IT
PULLS FEDERAL LAW, NOT ONLY OUT OF THE DARK WHERE IT HAS BEEN HIDDEN,
BUT INTO A FOG IN WHICH LITTLE CAN BE SEEN IF FOUND.  LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY HERE AS USUAL IS MORE VAGUE THAN THE STATUTE WE ARE CALLED UPON
TO INTERPRET. 

IF THIS WERE AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A CIVIL LIABILITY OR TO PUNISH FOR
A CRIME, I SHOULD PROTEST THIS DECISION STRENUOUSLY.  HOWEVER, THE
DECISION SEEMS TO HAVE OPERATION IN THE FUTURE ONLY.  IF CONGRESS DOES
NOT LIKE OUR LEGISLATION, IT CAN REPEAL IT - AS IT HAS DONE A NUMBER OF
TIMES IN THE PAST.  I THEREFORE CONCUR IN THE INTERPRETATION
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT WHO HAVE HAD
LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

THE LIGHT SHED BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ON THE UNDERPINNING OF THE
COURT'S OPINION MAKES ME UNWILLING TO SHARE RESPONSIBILITY FOR A
DECISION RESTING ON SUCH UNDERPINNING.  IT IS ONE THING TO CONSTRUE A
SCHEME, AS THAT SCHEME IS INDICATED BY ITS TERMS AND BY THE GLOSS OF
THOSE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK FOR CONGRESS, EITHER THROUGH REPORTS OR
STATEMENTS ON THE FLOOR.  IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING TO EXTRAPOLATE
MEANING FROM SURMISES AND SPECULATION AND FREE-WHEELING UTTERANCES,
ESPECIALLY TO DO SO IN DISREGARD OF THE TERMS IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS
CHOSEN TO EXPRESS ITS PURPOSE. 

WERE I CONFINED TO THE MERE TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION WE HAVE TO
CONSTRUE, WITH SUCH AUTHORITATIVE ELUCIDATION AS OBVIOUSLY RELEVANT
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS FURNISH, I WOULD BE COMPELLED TO FIND THE
CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUSING, AS THE COURT DOES, THE AMENDED FEDERAL WATER
POWER ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 1063, WITH PART II OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
OF 1935, 49 STAT. 838, 847, TOO TENUOUS.  IN SAYING THIS I AM WHOLLY
MINDFUL OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECISION IN PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO CO., 273 U.S. 83.  PREOCCUPATION WITH OTHER
MATTERS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT PRECLUDES AN INDEPENDENT PURSUIT BY ME
OF ALL THE TRIBUTARIES IN SEARCH OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE THAT THE COURT
HAS FOLLOWED.  I AM THEREFORE CONSTRAINED TO LEAVE THE DECISION OF THIS
CASE TO THOSE WHO HAVE NO DOUBTS ABOUT THE MATTER. 
..END :







DAMERON V. BRODHEAD 345 U.S. 322 


NO. 302.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1953 - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1953 - 125 COLO.
477, 244 P.2D 1082, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A SERVICEMAN DOMICILED IN ONE STATE IS ASSIGNED TO MILITARY
DUTY IN ANOTHER STATE, THE LATTER STATE IS BARRED BY SEC. 514 OF THE
SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, FROM
IMPOSING A TAX ON HIS TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TEMPORARILY LOCATED
WITHIN ITS BORDERS - EVEN WHEN THE STATE OF HIS DOMICILE HAS NOT TAXED
SUCH PROPERTY.  PP. 322-327. 

2.  AS THUS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, THE STATUTE IS WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS.  PP. 324-325. 

DAMERON V. BRODHEAD, MANAGER OF REVENUE & EX-OFFICIO TREASURER OF THE
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO. 

PETITIONER'S SUIT TO RECOVER PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES PAID UNDER
PROTEST WAS SUSTAINED BY A STATE TRIAL COURT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
COLORADO REVERSED.  125 COLO. 477, 244 P.2D 1082.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 891.  REVERSED, P. 327. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FACTS HERE ARE SIMPLE AND UNDISPUTED.  PETITIONER IS A
COMMISSIONED OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.  HE WAS ASSIGNED
TO DUTY AT LOWRY FIELD, NEAR DENVER, COLORADO, IN 1948 AND, THROUGHOUT
THAT YEAR, RESIDED IN A PRIVATELY RENTED APARTMENT IN THAT CITY. 
RESPONDENT, ACTING MANAGER OF REVENUE AND EX-OFFICIO TREASURER AND
ASSESSOR OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, ASSESSED A TAX OF $23.51 ON
HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY, MOSTLY HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN THE APARTMENT, WHICH
HE VALUED AT $460, BY VIRTUE OF 4A COLORADO STATUTES ANNOTATED (1935
ED.), C. 142.  (FN1)  PETITIONER PAID THE TAX UNDER PROTEST, AND SUED
TO RECOVER.  HIS COMPLAINT PLEADED AS A FACT THAT HE, "DURING THE WHOLE
OF THE CALENDAR YEAR 1948, AND FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR THERETO, WAS, AND
AT THE PRESENT TIME IS, A CITIZEN AND A RESIDENT OF THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA, DOMICILED IN THE TOWN OF PORT ALLEN, IN THE PARISH OF WEST
BATON ROUGE, IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, AND REMAINS A DOMICILIARY OF
THAT TOWN, PARISH, AND STATE, AND A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF SAID STATE,
IN WHICH DURING ALL OF THE PERIOD OF TIME PERTINENT HERETO THE
PLAINTIFF WAS AND IS A QUALIFIED VOTER."  HE CLAIMED THAT SEC. 514 OF
THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT, 54 STAT. 1186, AS AMENDED,
56 STAT. 777, 58 STAT. 722, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 501, 574, THEREFORE
FORBADE IMPOSITION OF THE COLORADO TAX.  RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS,
ARGUMENT WAS HAD AND THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER. 
THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, ON APPEAL, REVERSED.  CASS V. DAMERON, 125
COLO. 477, 244 P.2D 1082.  IT HELD THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE WAS
TO PREVENT MULTIPLE TAXATION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL, BUT THAT SINCE
LOUISIANA HAD NOT TAXED PETITIONER'S PERSONAL PROPERTY, COLORADO WAS
FREE TO DO SO.  OUR GRANT OF CERTIORARI RESTED ON 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1257(3).  344 U.S. 891. 

PROVIDED ESSENTIALLY THAT: 

"FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAXATION IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON, OR OF HIS
PROPERTY, INCOME, OR GROSS INCOME, BY ANY STATE, TERRITORY, POSSESSION,
OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING, OR BY THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, SUCH PERSON SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE LOST A RESIDENCE OR
DOMICILE IN ANY STATE, TERRITORY, POSSESSION, OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SOLELY BY
REASON OF BEING ABSENT THEREFROM IN COMPLIANCE WITH MILITARY OR NAVAL
ORDERS, OR TO HAVE ACQUIRED A RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IN, OR TO HAVE
BECOME RESIDENT IN OR A RESIDENT OF, ANY OTHER STATE, TERRITORY,
POSSESSION, OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING, OR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHILE, AND SOLELY BY REASON OF BEING, SO
ABSENT." 

THE 1944 AMENDMENT THERETO, WHICH IS CRUCIAL HERE, FIRST CONCERNED
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.  IT STATED: 

"PERSONAL PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE LOCATED OR PRESENT IN OR
TO HAVE A SITUS FOR TAXATION IN SUCH STATE, TERRITORY, POSSESSION, OR
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, OR DISTRICT." 

IT ALSO INTERPOLATED "PERSONAL" IN THE SECOND LINE OF SEC. 514(1). 
58 STAT. 722. 

RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE STATUTE IN THIS FORM CANNOT AFFECT
COLORADO'S ATTEMPT TO TAX PETITIONER IS TWO-FOLD - EITHER IT DOES NOT
APPLY OR IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION EXEMPTING SERVICEMEN
FROM THE SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS OF SERIATE TAXATION BY THE STATES IN WHICH
THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT BY VIRTUE OF THEIR SERVICE, CANNOT
BE DOUBTED.  GENERALLY SIMILAR RELIEF HAS OFTEN BEEN ACCORDED OTHER
TYPES OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS OR FUNCTIONS.  AND WE HAVE UPHELD THE
VALIDITY OF SUCH ENACTMENTS, EVEN WHEN THEY REACH BEYOND THE ACTIVITIES
OF FEDERAL AGENCIES AND CORPORATIONS TO PRIVATE PARTIES WHO HAVE SEEN
FIT TO CONTRACT TO CARRY ON FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
CARSON V. ROANE-ANDERSON CO., 342 U.S. 232, AND CASES CITED; CF. JAMES
V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 160-161. 

NOR DO WE SEE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE CASES AND THIS.  SURELY,
RESPONDENT MAY NOT RELY ON THE FACT THAT PETITIONER HERE IS NOT A
BUSINESS CONTRACTOR.  HE IS NOT THE LESS ENGAGED IN A FUNCTION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MERELY BECAUSE HIS RELATIONSHIP IS NOT ENTIRELY
ECONOMIC.  WE HAVE, IN FACT, GENERALLY RECOGNIZED THE ESPECIAL BURDENS
OF REQUIRED SERVICE WITH THE ARMED FORCES IN DISCUSSING THE
COMPENSATING BENEFITS CONGRESS PROVIDES.  LE MAISTRE V. LEFFERS, 333
U.S. 1; BOONE V. LIGHTNER, 319 U.S. 561.  CF.  BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
V. SEBER, 318 U.S. 705.  PETITIONER'S DUTIES ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO AN
ACTIVITY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DELEGATED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT,
THAT "TO DECLARE WAR," U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 11, AND "TO
RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES."  IBID., CL. 12.  SINCE THIS IS SO,
CONGRESSIONAL EXERCISE OF A "NECESSARY AND PROPER" SUPPLEMENTARY POWER
SUCH AS THIS STATUTE MUST BE UPHELD.  PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' CORP.,
308 U.S. 21, 32-33; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S. 95, 102
104.  CARSON V. ROANE-ANDERSON CO., SUPRA, AT 234.  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID
IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES TO TAX.  FOR THIS
STATUTE MERELY STATES THAT THE TAXABLE DOMICILE OF SERVICEMEN SHALL NOT
BE CHANGED BY MILITARY ASSIGNMENTS.  THIS WE THINK IS WITHIN THE
FEDERAL POWER. 

WE TURN, THEN, TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE WITHIN THE
FACTUAL CONFINES OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE.  RESPONDENT'S THEORY HERE
ALSO HAS NO MERIT.  IT IS BASED ON THE STATEMENTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE PROVISION WAS "DESIGNED TO PREVENT
MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION."  H.R. REP. NO. 2198, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P.
6.  (FN2)  THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT THAT IT THEREFORE ONLY
APPLIES WHERE MULTIPLE TAXATION IS A REAL POSSIBILITY IS THAT THE PLAIN
WORDS OF THE STATUTE DO NOT SAY SO.  IN FACT, THEY ARE MUCH BROADER:
"PERSONAL PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE LOCATED OR PRESENT IN OR
TO HAVE A SITUS FOR TAXATION" IN THE STATE OF TEMPORARY PRESENCE IN ANY
CASE.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE STATE OF ORIGINAL RESIDENCE MUST
HAVE IMPOSED A PROPERTY TAX.  SINCE THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION DOES
NOT ESTABLISH A CONDITION TO ITS APPLICATION, WE WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED
IN DOING SO.  FOR WE ARE SHOWN NOTHING THAT INDICATES THAT A
STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION OF THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN WOULD VIOLATE OR
AFFECT THE CLEAR PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N, ANTE, P. 295, DECIDED TODAY, AND CASES CITED.  IN
FACT, THOUGH THE EVILS OF POTENTIAL MULTIPLE TAXATION MAY HAVE GIVEN
RISE TO THIS PROVISION, CONGRESS APPEARS TO HAVE CHOSEN THE BROADER
TECHNIQUE OF THE STATUTE CAREFULLY, FREEING SERVICEMEN FROM BOTH INCOME
AND PROPERTY TAXES IMPOSED BY ANY STATE BY VIRTUE OF THEIR PRESENCE
THERE AS A RESULT OF MILITARY ORDERS.  IT SAVED THE SOLE RIGHT OF
TAXATION TO THE STATE OF ORIGINAL RESIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT THAT STATE
EXERCISED THE RIGHT.  (FN3)  CONGRESS, MANIFESTLY, THOUGHT THAT
COMPULSORY PRESENCE IN A STATE SHOULD NOT ALTER THE BENEFITS AND
BURDENS OF OUR SYSTEM OF DUAL FEDERALISM DURING SERVICE WITH THE ARMED
FORCES. 

FOR SIMILAR REASONS, WE REJECT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE WORD "DEEMED" AS
USED IMPLIES A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION SO AS TO PERMIT TAXATION BY THE
STATE OF TEMPORARY PRESENCE IN SOME CASES.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD
NULLIFY THE STATUTE.  FOR IN EVERY CASE, THE ABSENCE OF THE PROPERTY
FROM THE STATE OF THE SERVICEMAN'S TEMPORARY PRESENCE WOULD BE A
FICTION, REBUTTABLE BY FURTHER EVIDENCE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS STATUTE, IN STANDARD FORM, PROVIDES THAT "ALL PERSONAL
PROPERTY WITHIN THIS STATE ON MARCH FIRST AT TWELVE O'CLOCK MERIDIAN IN
THE THEN CURRENT YEAR SHALL BE LISTED AND ASSESSED," SEC. 72, AND THAT
THE TAXES SO ASSESSED "SHALL BE AND REMAIN A PERPETUAL LIEN UPON THE
PROPERTY SO LEVIED UPON," SEC. 197(A). 

FN2  SEE ALSO HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS ON H.R.
7029, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 959, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H.R.
REP. NO. 1514, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS.

FN3  HEARINGS, NOTE 2, SUPRA, P. 28. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE POWER TO TAX IS BASIC TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES.  RAILROAD
CO. V. PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5.   THERE ARE FEW EXPRESS RESTRICTIONS OF
THAT POWER CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE ART. I, SEC. 10;
RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329 U.S. 69; CANTON R. CO. V.
ROGAN, 340 U.S. 511.  AND THE IMPLIED RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT NUMEROUS.  A
PRIVILEGE SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
OR THE RIGHT TO INTERCOURSE AMONG THE STATES, MAY NOT BE TAXED BY A
STATE.  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105.  A STATE MAY NOT TAX
THAT PART OF AN INTERSTATE OPERATION WHICH HAS NO RELATION TO THE
OPPORTUNITIES OR BENEFITS WHICH IT CONFERS.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. PECK,
342 U.S. 382.  NOR MAY IT DISCRIMINATE IN ITS TAX SCHEME AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON IT.  ADAMS MFG. CO. V.
STOREN, 304 U.S. 307; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S.
434; NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416. 

CLOSER IN POINT ARE THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THE STATE TAX IS LEVIED ON
A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY OR ON THE MEANS WITH WHICH THAT
INSTRUMENTALITY PERFORMS ITS FUNCTIONS.  THIS EXCEPTION IS ALSO
REPRESENTED BY A RATHER NARROW GROUP OF CASES.  SEE PITTMAN V. HOME
OWNERS' CORP., 308 U.S. 21; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S.
95; MARICOPA COUNTY V. VALLEY BANK, 318 U.S. 357; UNITED STATES V.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174.  CF. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER,
318 U.S. 705.  SOME OF THOSE IMMUNITIES WERE MADE EXPLICIT BY AN ACT OF
CONGRESS.  SOME WERE IMPLIED.  BUT THE IMPLIED IMMUNITY, WHICH DERIVES
FROM A FORBIDDEN INTERFERENCE WITH A FEDERAL FUNCTION, HAS A LIMITED
SCOPE.  IT DOES NOT, FOR EXAMPLE, EXTEND TO SALARIES OF FEDERAL
FUNCTIONARIES (GRAVES V. NEW YORK, 306 U.S. 466), TO THE PROCEEDS UNDER
A CONTRACTOR'S CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 149 ET SEQ.), OR TO SALES TAXES ON GOODS
AND SUPPLIES FURNISHED CONTRACTORS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1.  CF. BUCKSTAFF CO. V. MCKINLEY,
308 U.S. 358.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO WITHHOLD TAX IMMUNITY IS
CLEAR.  BUT TO DATE THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CREATE A TAX IMMUNITY HAS
BEEN NARROWLY CONFINED.  IT STEMS FROM "THE POWER TO PRESERVE AND
PROTECT FUNCTIONS VALIDLY AUTHORIZED."  SEE CARSON V. ROANE-ANDERSON
CO., 342 U.S. 232, 234.  UP TO THE PRESENT THE COURT HAS NEVER HELD
THAT THE PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE CAN BE MADE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS BY CONGRESS AND IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION.  THE QUESTION WAS
INDEED RESERVED IN GRAVES V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, AT 478-479.  AS MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER STATED IN HIS CONCURRING OPINION, ID., AT 492,
"WHETHER CONGRESS MAY, BY EXPRESS LEGISLATION, RELIEVE ITS
FUNCTIONARIES FROM THEIR CIVIC OBLIGATIONS TO PAY FOR THE BENEFITS OF
THE STATE GOVERNMENTS UNDER WHICH THEY LIVE IS MATTER FOR ANOTHER
DAY." 

THE FEDERAL PROPERTY USED BY THE SOLDIER, HIS ACTIVITIES AS A FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE, EVERY PHASE OF THE FUNCTIONS HE PERFORMS FOR THE ARMY ARE
IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION BECAUSE HIS WORK IS THE WORK OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT.  BUT THE WAGES THAT HE MAKES, AS GRAVES V. NEW YORK, SUPRA,
HELD, CAN BE TAXED ON A NONDISCRIMINATING BASIS BY THE STATES.  SO CAN
HIS REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY.  FOR IN HIS PRIVATE CAPACITY A FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER CITIZEN.  HE RECEIVES
PROTECTION AND BENEFITS FROM THE SOCIETY WHICH THE STATES CREATE AND
MAINTAIN.  THEIR POLICE, THEIR COURTS, THEIR PARKS, THEIR SANITARY
DISTRICTS, THEIR SCHOOLS ARE ALL PART OF THE CIVILIZATION WHICH HE
ENJOYS.  IF HE GETS TAX IMMUNITY, IT MEANS THAT OTHER CITIZENS MUST PAY
HIS SHARE. 

THE COURT DOES NOT PROFESS TO GO SO FAR.  IT MERELY SAYS THAT THIS
CASE TURNS ON CHANGING MILITARY ASSIGNMENTS AND THE BURDEN PLACED ON
SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN AS A RESULT OF THAT FEATURE OF THEIR WORK.  BUT
WE ALSO KNOW THAT SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN RECEIVE SALARIES MUCH LOWER
THAN THOSE EARNED IN CIVILIAN LIFE.  CAN CONGRESS REMOVE THOSE SALARIES
FROM THE REACH OF STATE TAXING OFFICIALS BECAUSE THEY ARE BURDENSOME TO
OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL?  CERTAINLY THE BURDEN, THE HARASSMENT, THE
UNPLEASANTNESS OF THOSE TAXES WOULD BE AS EASY TO ESTABLISH AS THE
BURDEN OF THE PRESENT TAX.  AND THE RELATION OF THE BURDEN TO THE
FEDERAL SERVICE WOULD BE AS CLOSE AND INTIMATE IN ONE CASE AS IN THE
OTHER. 

THE PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL - THE DISPOSITION OF
THEIR SALARY, THE FURNITURE THEY PURCHASE, THE APARTMENTS THEY RENT,
THE PERSONAL CONTRACTS THAT THEY MAKE - BY THE VERY DEFINITION ARE NOT
IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DOMAIN.  WHEN CONGRESS UNDERTAKES TO PROTECT THEM
FROM STATE TAXATION OR REGULATION, IT IS NOT ACTING TO PROTECT EITHER A
FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY OR ANY FUNCTION WHICH A FEDERAL AGENCY
PERFORMS.  CONGRESS, THEREFORE, ACTS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. 
IN SUM, THE POWER TO TAX IS BASIC TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES. 
THE CREATION OF ISLANDS OF TAX IMMUNITY SHOULD THEREFORE BE SPARINGLY
MADE.  THE TAX IMMUNITY HERE RECOGNIZED IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE
CONSTITUTION.  IT CANNOT BE FAIRLY IMPLIED BECAUSE DENVER'S TAX DOES
NOT BURDEN THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY FEDERAL FUNCTION. 
..END :






















FORD MOTOR CO. V. HUFFMAN 345 U.S. 330 


NO. 193.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18-19, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1953 - 195 F.2D
170, REVERSED. 


1.  A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHEREBY AN EMPLOYER, IN
DETERMINING RELATIVE SENIORITY OF EMPLOYMENT AMONG ITS EMPLOYEES, GIVES
THEM CREDIT FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE, AS WELL AS THE CREDIT
FOR POST-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE REQUIRED BY THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, IS VALID - ALTHOUGH IT WORKS TO THE
DISADVANTAGE OF OTHER EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THOSE WHO WERE EMPLOYED
PRIOR TO THEIR MILITARY SERVICE.  PP. 331-336. 

2.  BY ACCEPTING SUCH A PROVISION IN A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENT, A UNION DOES NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY AS A CERTIFIED
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AS AMENDED.  PP. 336-343. 

FORD MOTOR CO. V. HUFFMAN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 194, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, V. HUFFMAN
ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A CLASS SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BROUGHT BY AN EMPLOYEE TO INVALIDATE A SENIORITY
CLAUSE IN A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIS UNION AND HIS
EMPLOYER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  195 F.2D 170.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 814.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 343. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THESE CASES WE SUSTAIN THE VALIDITY OF COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS WHEREBY AN EMPLOYER, IN DETERMINING RELATIVE SENIORITY OF
EMPLOYMENT AMONG ITS EMPLOYEES, GIVES THEM CREDIT FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT
MILITARY SERVICE AS WELL AS THE CREDIT REQUIRED BY STATUTE FOR POST
EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE.  (FN1) 

THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGUN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BY RESPONDENT HUFFMAN, ACTING
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ABOUT 275 FELLOW EMPLOYEES OF
THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER IN CASE NO. 193 (HERE CALLED FORD). 
HIS COMPLAINT IS THAT HIS POSITION, AND THAT OF EACH MEMBER OF HIS
CLASS, HAS BEEN LOWERED ON THE SENIORITY ROSTER AT FORD'S LOUISVILLE
WORKS, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN FORD AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
IN CASE NO. 194 (HERE CALLED INTERNATIONAL).  HE CONTENDS THAT THOSE
PROVISIONS HAVE VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS, AND THOSE OF EACH MEMBER OF HIS
CLASS, UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS
AMENDED.  (FN2)  HE CONTENDS ALSO THAT INTERNATIONAL'S ACCEPTANCE OF
THOSE PROVISIONS EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AS A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED. 
(FN3)  HE ASKS, ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE PROVISIONS BE DECLARED INVALID
INSOFAR AS THEY PREJUDICE THE SENIORITY RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF HIS CLASS,
AND THAT APPROPRIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE GRANTED AGAINST FORD AND
INTERNATIONAL.  AFTER ANSWER, BOTH SIDES ASKED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 
(FN4) 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE ACTION WITHOUT OPINION BUT SAID IN
ITS ORDER THAT IT WAS "OF THE OPINION THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT EXPRESSES AN HONEST DESIRE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
INTERESTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND IS NOT A DEVICE OF HOSTILITY
TO VETERANS.  THE COURT FINDS THAT SAID COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
SETS UP A SENIORITY SYSTEM WHICH THE COURT DEEMS NOT TO BE ARBITRARY,
DISCRIMINATORY OR IN ANY RESPECT UNLAWFUL."  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  195 F.2D 170.  FORD
AND INTERNATIONAL FILED SEPARATE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI SEEKING TO
REVIEW THE SAME DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WE GRANTED BOTH
BECAUSE OF THE WIDESPREAD USE OF CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS COMPARABLE TO
THOSE BEFORE US, AND BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN
RELATION TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  344 U.S. 814. 

THE PLEADINGS STATE THAT HUFFMAN ENTERED THE EMPLOY OF FORD SEPTEMBER
23, 1943, WAS INDUCTED INTO MILITARY SERVICE NOVEMBER 18, 1944, WAS
DISCHARGED JULY 1, 1946, AND, WITHIN 30 DAYS, WAS REEMPLOYED BY FORD
WITH SENIORITY DATING FROM SEPTEMBER 23, 1943, AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE. 
(FN5)  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THE OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS CLASS ARE
VETERANS BUT, LIKE HIM, ALL HAVE SENIORITY COMPUTED FROM THEIR
RESPECTIVE DATES OF EMPLOYMENT BY FORD. 

THE PLEADINGS ALLEGE FURTHER THAT HUFFMAN AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS
CLASS ALL HAVE BEEN LAID OFF OR FURLOUGHED FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE
EMPLOYMENTS AT TIMES AND FOR PERIODS WHEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO
LAID OFF OR FURLOUGHED EXCEPT FOR THE PROVISIONS COMPLAINED OF IN THE
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  THOSE PROVISIONS STATE, IN
SUBSTANCE, THAT AFTER JULY 30, 1946, IN DETERMINING THE ORDER OF
RETENTION OF EMPLOYEES, ALL VETERANS IN THE EMPLOY OF FORD "SHALL
RECEIVE SENIORITY CREDIT FOR THEIR PERIOD OF SERVICE, SUBSEQUENT TO
JUNE 21, 1941 IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR MERCHANT MARINE OF THE
UNITED STATES OR ITS ALLIES, UPON COMPLETION OF THEIR PROBATIONARY
PERIOD" OF SIX MONTHS.  (FN6) 

THE EFFECT OF THESE PROVISIONS IS THAT WHEREAS HUFFMAN'S SENIORITY,
AND THAT OF THE MEMBERS OF HIS CLASS, IS COMPUTED FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE
DATES OF EMPLOYMENT BY FORD AND THEY HAVE BEEN CREDITED WITH THEIR
SUBSEQUENT MILITARY SERVICE, IF ANY, YET IN SOME INSTANCES THEY ARE NOW
SURPASSED IN SENIORITY BY EMPLOYEES WHO ENTERED THE EMPLOY OF FORD
AFTER THEY DID BUT WHO ARE CREDITED WITH CERTAIN MILITARY SERVICE WHICH
THEY RENDERED BEFORE THEIR EMPLOYMENT BY FORD.  (FN7) 

RESPONDENT CONTENDED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT
FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WENT BEYOND
THE CREDIT PRESCRIBED BY THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940.  THAT ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED UNANIMOUSLY.  195 F.2D 170, 173.  IT
HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED HERE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT STATUTE WHICH
PROHIBITS ALLOWING SUCH A CREDIT IF THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES AGREE TO
DO SO.  THE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF RETURNING VETERANS ARE SUBJECT TO
CHANGES IN THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT WHICH HAVE OCCURRED IN
REGULAR COURSE DURING THEIR ABSENCE IN MILITARY SERVICE, WHERE THE
CHANGES ARE NOT HOSTILE DEVICES DISCRIMINATING AGAINST VETERANS. 
AERONAUTICAL LODGE V. CAMBELL, 337 U.S. 521; AND SEE TRAILMOBILE CO. V.
WHIRLS, 331 U.S. 40; FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328
U.S. 275.  SEE ALSO, OAKLEY V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 338 U.S. 278., AS
TO A VETERAN'S SENIORITY STATUS MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER HIS
REEMPLOYMENT. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SECOND OBJECTION RAISED BY RESPONDENT WAS
SUSTAINED BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THIS
OBJECTION WAS THAT THE AUTHORITY OF INTERNATIONAL, AS A CERTIFIED
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, WAS LIMITED BY STATUTE AND WAS EXCEEDED WHEN
INTERNATIONAL AGREED TO THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US. 

THE AUTHORITY OF EVERY BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, IS STATED IN BROAD TERMS: 

"SEC. 7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN OTHER
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION  ...  . 

     *    *         *         *         * 

"SEC. 9.  (A)  REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED OR SELECTED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A
UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES, SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:  ...  ."  61 STAT. 140,
143, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SECS. 157, 159(A). 

IN THE ABSENCE OF LIMITING FACTORS, THE ABOVE PURPOSES, INCLUDING
"MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION" AND "OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT," ARE
BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER TERMS OF SENIORITY.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AS PASSED IN 1935 AND AS AMENDED IN 1947, EXEMPLIFIES THE FAITH OF
CONGRESS IN FREE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES WHEN CONDUCTED BY FREELY AND FAIRLY CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES OF
APPROPRIATE UNITS OF EMPLOYEES.  THAT THE AUTHORITY OF BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES, HOWEVER, IS NOT ABSOLUTE IS RECOGNIZED IN STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 198-199, IN CONNECTION WITH
COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  THEIR STATUTORY
OBLIGATION TO REPRESENT ALL MEMBERS OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT REQUIRES
THEM TO MAKE AN HONEST EFFORT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ALL OF THOSE
MEMBERS, WITHOUT HOSTILITY TO ANY.  ID., AT 198, 202-204; TUNSTALL V.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210, 211; BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. HOWARD, 343 U.S. 768. 

ANY AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE DERIVES ITS PRINCIPAL STRENGTH FROM A
DELEGATION TO THE NEGOTIATORS OF A DISCRETION TO MAKE SUCH CONCESSIONS
AND ACCEPT SUCH ADVANTAGES AS, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL RELEVANT
CONSIDERATIONS, THEY BELIEVE WILL BEST SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE
PARTIES REPRESENTED.  A MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATORS IS TO WEIGH
THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFFERING PROPOSALS.  A
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS
AMENDED, OFTEN IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION BUT IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT IT
BE SUCH.  THE EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED OFTEN ARE MEMBERS OF THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION WHICH REPRESENTS THEM AT THE BARGAINING TABLE, BUT IT IS
NOT ESSENTIAL THAT THEY BE SUCH.  THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE,
WHOEVER IT MAY BE, IS RESPONSIBLE TO, AND OWES COMPLETE LOYALTY TO, THE
INTERESTS OF ALL WHOM IT REPRESENTS.  IN THE INSTANT CONTROVERSY,
INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTED, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE,
ALL EMPLOYEES AT THE LOUISVILLE WORKS, INCLUDING BOTH THE VETERANS
WITH, AND THOSE WITHOUT, PRIOR EMPLOYMENT BY FORD, AS WELL AS THE
EMPLOYEES HAVING NO MILITARY SERVICE.  INEVITABLY DIFFERENCES ARISE IN
THE MANNER AND DEGREE TO WHICH THE TERMS OF ANY NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT
AFFECT INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES AND CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES.  THE MERE
EXISTENCE OF SUCH DIFFERENCES DOES NOT MAKE THEM INVALID.  THE COMPLETE
SATISFACTION OF ALL WHO ARE REPRESENTED IS HARDLY TO BE EXPECTED.  A
WIDE RANGE OF REASONABLENESS MUST BE ALLOWED A STATUTORY BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE IN SERVING THE UNIT IT REPRESENTS, SUBJECT ALWAYS TO
COMPLETE GOOD FAITH AND HONESTY OF PURPOSE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
DISCRETION. 

COMPROMISES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, WITH A VIEW TO LONG-RANGE
ADVANTAGES, ARE NATURAL INCIDENTS OF NEGOTIATION.  DIFFERENCES IN
WAGES, HOURS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT REFLECT COUNTLESS VARIABLES. 
SENIORITY RULES GOVERNING PROMOTIONS, TRANSFERS, LAYOFFS AND SIMILAR
MATTERS MAY, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, REVOLVE AROUND LENGTH OF COMPETENT
SERVICE.  VARIATIONS ACCEPTABLE IN THE DISCRETION OF BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES, HOWEVER, MAY WELL INCLUDE DIFFERENCES BASED UPON SUCH
MATTERS AS THE UNIT WITHIN WHICH SENIORITY IS TO BE COMPUTED, THE
PRIVILEGES TO WHICH IT SHALL RELATE, THE NATURE OF THE WORK, THE TIME
AT WHICH IT IS DONE, THE FITNESS, ABILITY OR AGE OF THE EMPLOYEES,
THEIR FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES, INJURIES RECEIVED IN COURSE OF SERVICE,
AND TIME OR LABOR DEVOTED TO RELATED PUBLIC SERVICE, WHETHER CIVIL OR
MILITARY, VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY.  SEE, E.G., HARTLEY V. BROTHERHOOD
OF CLERKS, 283 MICH. 201, 277 N.W. 885; AND SEE ALSO WILLIAMSON &
HARRIS, TRENDS IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (1945), 100-103. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, GIVES A BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE NOT ONLY WIDE RESPONSIBILITY BUT AUTHORITY TO MEET THAT
RESPONSIBILITY.  WE HAVE HELD THAT A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE IS WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY WHEN, IN THE GENERAL INTEREST OF
THOSE IT REPRESENTS, IT AGREES TO ALLOW UNION CHAIRMEN CERTAIN
ADVANTAGES IN THE RETENTION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, EVEN TO THE PREJUDICE
OF VETERANS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO GREATER SENIORITY.  AERONAUTICAL
LODGE V. CAMPBELL, SUPRA, AT 526-529. 

THE PUBLIC POLICY AND FAIRNESS INHERENT IN CREDITING EMPLOYEES WITH
TIME SPENT IN MILITARY SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY IS
SO CLEAR THAT CONGRESS, IN THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940, REQUIRED SOME CREDIT TO BE GIVEN FOR IT IN COMPUTING SENIORITY
BOTH IN GOVERNMENTAL AND IN PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT.  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA.
CONGRESS THERE PRESCRIBED THAT EMPLOYEES WHO LEFT THEIR PRIVATE
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT TO ENTER MILITARY SERVICE SHOULD RECEIVE SENIORITY
CREDIT FOR SUCH MILITARY SERVICE, PROVIDED THEIR PRIOR CIVILIAN
EMPLOYMENT, HOWEVER BRIEF, WAS BONA FIDE AND NOT ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. 
THERE IS LITTLE THAT JUSTIFIES GIVING SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT TO A
VETERAN WITH BRIEF PRIOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT THAT DOES NOT EQUALLY
JUSTIFY GIVING IT TO A VETERAN WHO WAS INDUCTED INTO MILITARY SERVICE
BEFORE HAVING A CHANCE TO ENTER ANY CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT, OR TO A
VETERAN WHO NEVER WORKED FOR THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYER WHO HIRED HIM
AFTER HIS RETURN FROM MILITARY SERVICE.  THE RESPECTIVE VALUES OF ALL
SUCH VETERANS, AS EMPLOYEES, ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.  FROM THE
POINT OF VIEW OF PUBLIC POLICY AND INDUSTRIAL STABILITY, THERE IS MUCH
TO BE SAID, ESPECIALLY IN TIME OF WAR OR EMERGENCY, FOR ALLOWING CREDIT
FOR ALL MILITARY SERVICE.  ANY OTHER COURSE ADOPTS THE DOUBTFUL POLICY
OF FAVORING THOSE WHO STAY OUT OF MILITARY SERVICE OVER THOSE WHO ENTER
IT. 

THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS TOOK CONCRETE FORM IN THE VETERANS'
PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944 WHICH ADDED THE REQUIREMENT THAT CREDIT FOR
MILITARY SERVICE BE GIVEN BY EVERY CIVILIAN FEDERAL AGENCY, WHETHER THE
MILITARY SERVICE PRECEDED OR FOLLOWED CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT.  (FN8)
APPARENTLY RECOGNIZING THE COUNTLESS VARIATIONS IN CONDITIONS AFFECTING
PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT, CONGRESS, HOWEVER, DID NOT MAKE CREDIT FOR SUCH PRE
EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE COMPULSORY IN PRIVATE CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT. 
A LITTLE LATER, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE RETRAINING AND REEMPLOYMENT
ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ASSEMBLED A
REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND PRINCIPLES TO SERVE AS GUIDES TO
PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN THEIR EMPLOYMENT OF VETERANS AND OTHERS.  (FN9)
AMONG 15 PRINCIPLES DEVELOPED BY THAT COMMITTEE, AND "WHOLEHEARTEDLY"
ENDORSED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, IN 1946, WERE THE FOLLOWING:    "8.
ALL VETERANS HAVING REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES SHOULD
BE ACCORDED THESE STATUTORY RIGHTS AS A MINIMUM. 

     *         *         *         *         *    "13.  NEWLY HIRED
VETERANS WHO HAVE SERVED A PROBATIONARY PERIOD AND QUALIFIED FOR
EMPLOYMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED SENIORITY CREDIT, AT LEAST FOR PURPOSES OF
JOB RETENTION, EQUAL TO TIME SPENT IN THE ARMED SERVICES PLUS TIME
SPENT IN RECUPERATION FROM SERVICE-CONNECTED INJURIES OR DISABILITIES
EITHER THROUGH HOSPITALIZATION OR VOCATIONAL TRAINING."  (FN10) 

THE PROVISIONS BEFORE US REFLECT SUCH A POLICY.  (FN11)  IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO DEFINE HERE THE LIMITS TO WHICH A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE MAY GO IN ACCEPTING PROPOSALS TO PROMOTE THE LONG-RANGE
SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC WELFARE OF THOSE IT REPRESENTS.  NOTHING IN THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, SO LIMITS THE VISION AND
ACTION OF A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE THAT IT MUST DISREGARD PUBLIC
POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY.  NOR DOES ANYTHING IN THAT ACT COMPEL A
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO LIMIT SENIORITY CLAUSES SOLELY TO THE
RELATIVE LENGTHS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES. 
AERONAUTICAL LODGE V. CAMPBELL, SUPRA, AT 526, AND 528-529, N. 5.  FOR
EXAMPLES OF NEGOTIATED PROVISIONS PROTECTING VETERANS FROM LOSS OF
SENIORITY UPON THEIR RETURN TO PRIVATE CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT, RECOGNIZED
BY THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD AS COMING WITHIN THE PROPER SCOPE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, IN 1945, SEE, IN RE AMERICAN CAN CO., 27 WAR
LAB.  REP.  634, 28 WAR LAB.  REP.  764, AND IN RE FIRESTONE TIRE &
RUBBER CO., 24 WAR LAB.  REP.  322, 28 WAR LAB.  REP.  483. SEE ALSO,
BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS
(1941), 369 ET SEQ. 

THE PROVISIONS BEFORE US ARE WITHIN REASONABLE BOUNDS OF RELEVANCY. 
THEY EXTENDED BUT SLIGHTLY, DURING A PERIOD OF WAR AND EMERGENCY, THE
ACCEPTANCE OF CREDITS FOR MILITARY SERVICE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
COMPARABLE CREDIT ALREADY WAS REQUIRED, BY STATUTE, IN FAVOR OF ALL WHO
HAD BEEN REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY FORD BEFORE ENTERING MILITARY SERVICE. 
THESE PROVISIONS CONFORM TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF RESPONSIBLE
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND ROUND OUT A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT WHICH,
UNLESS SO ROUNDED OUT, PRODUCES DISCRIMINATIONS OF ITS OWN.  A FAILURE
TO ADOPT THESE PROVISIONS MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN MORE FRICTION AMONG
EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY INTERNATIONAL THAN DID THEIR ADOPTION. 

THE SEVERAL BRIEFS OF AMICI CURIAE, FILED HERE BY CONSENT OF ALL
PARTIES, DEMONSTRATE THE WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE AND RELEVANCE OF THE
TYPE OF PROVISIONS BEFORE US. 

WE HOLD THAT INTERNATIONAL, AS A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE, HAD AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT THESE PROVISIONS.  ACCORDINGLY,
WE FIND NO GROUND SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE INVALIDITY OF THE
PROVISIONS BEFORE US OR TO SUSTAIN AN INJUNCTION AGAINST EITHER
PETITIONER.  IN ACCORD:  HAYNES V. UNITED CHEMICAL WORKERS, 190 TENN.
165, 228 S.W.2D 101. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WHICH REVERSED THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT THEREFORE IS REVERSED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IS AFFIRMED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 

FN1  WHERE THE CONTEXT PERMITS, "MILITARY SERVICE" IN THIS OPINION
INCLUDES SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR MERCHANT MARINE OF THE
UNITED STATES OR ITS ALLIES. 

FN2  54 STAT. 890, 56 STAT. 724, 58 STAT. 798, 60 STAT. 341, 50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308. 

FN3  49 STAT. 452, 61 STAT. 140, 65 STAT. 601, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SECS. 157-159. 

FN4  IN NO. 194, INTERNATIONAL ALSO QUESTIONS THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  INTERNATIONAL RECOGNIZES THAT ONE ISSUE IN THE CASE IS
WHETHER IT ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WHEN IT AGREED TO THE
ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE IN COMPUTATIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT SENIORITY.  IT THEN ARGUES THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, 61 STAT. 146, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
160(A), VESTS THE INITIAL JURISDICTION OVER SUCH AN ISSUE EXCLUSIVELY
IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  THIS QUESTION WAS NOT ARGUED IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS NOR MENTIONED IN ITS OPINION AND, IN VIEW OF OUR
POSITION ON THE MERITS, IT IS NOT DISCUSSED HERE.  OUR DECISION
INTERPRETS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE TO HAVE SUCH BREADTH THAT IT REMOVES ALL GROUND FOR A
SUBSTANTIAL CHARGE THAT INTERNATIONAL, BY EXCEEDING ITS AUTHORITY,
COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  AS TO A SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE
QUESTION CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, SEE
TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210; STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 204-207. 

FN5  "SEC.  8  ...  . 

"(B)  IN THE CASE OF ANY SUCH PERSON WHO, IN ORDER TO PERFORM SUCH
TRAINING AND SERVICE, HAS LEFT OR LEAVES A POSITION, OTHER THAN A
TEMPORARY POSITION, IN THE EMPLOY OF ANY EMPLOYER AND WHO (1) RECEIVES
SUCH CERTIFICATE (OF SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF HIS PERIOD OF TRAINING
AND SERVICE), (2) IS STILL QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF SUCH
POSITION, AND (3) MAKES APPLICATION FOR REEMPLOYMENT WITHIN NINETY DAYS
AFTER HE IS RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE  ...  . 

     *         *         * *         * 

"(B)  IF SUCH POSITION WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF A PRIVATE EMPLOYER, SUCH
EMPLOYER SHALL RESTORE SUCH PERSON TO SUCH POSITION OR TO A POSITION OF
LIKE SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY UNLESS THE EMPLOYER'S CIRCUMSTANCES
HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE OR UNREASONABLE TO DO SO; ...
."  54 STAT. 890, 58 STAT. 798, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308(B)(B). 

FN6  ARTICLE VIII OF A SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN FORD AND
INTERNATIONAL, DATED JULY 30, 1946, CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING: 

"SECTION 13 -  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(C)  ANY VETERAN OF WORLD WAR II WHO WAS NOT EMPLOYED BY ANY PERSON
OR COMPANY AT THE TIME OF HIS ENTRY INTO THE SERVICE OF THE LAND OR
NAVAL FORCES OR THE MERCHANT MARINE AND WHO IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES AND SERVED WITH THE ALLIES AND WHO HAS BEEN HONORABLY DISCHARGED
FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE AND WHO IS HIRED BY THE COMPANY AFTER HE
IS RELIEVED FROM TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR
AFTER COMPLETION OF SERVICE IN THE MERCHANT MARINE SHALL, UPON HAVING
BEEN EMPLOYED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS AND NOT BEFORE, RECEIVE SENIORITY
CREDIT FOR THE PERIOD OF SUCH SERVICE SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 21, 1941,
PROVIDED: 

"(1)  SUCH VETERAN MUST APPLY FOR EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS
FROM THE TIME HE IS RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING OR SERVICE IN THE LAND
OR NAVAL FORCES OR THE TIME OF HIS COMPLETION OF SUCH SERVICE IN THE
MERCHANT MARINE, AND MUST OBTAIN SUCH EMPLOYMENT WITHIN TWELVE (12)
MONTHS FROM THE TIME HE IS RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE IN
THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR THE TIME OF HIS COMPLETION OF SUCH SERVICE
IN THE MERCHANT MARINE. 

"(2)  SUCH VETERAN SHALL NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED HIS RIGHT IN
ANY PLANT OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COMPANY. 

"(3)  A VETERAN SO EMPLOYED SHALL SUBMIT HIS SERVICE DISCHARGE PAPERS
TO THE COMPANY AT THE END OF AFORESAID PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF
EMPLOYMENT AND THE COMPANY SHALL PLACE THEREON IN PERMANENT FORM A
STATEMENT SHOWING THAT THE VETERAN HAS EXERCISED THIS RIGHT, SUCH
STATEMENT TO BE SIGNED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANY AND THE UNION,
AND A COPY THEREOF PLACED IN THE EMPLOYEE'S RECORD AND A COPY FURNISHED
TO THE UNION. 

"(D)  IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT, REGARDLESS OF ANY OF
THE FOREGOING, ALL VETERANS IN THE (EMPLOY) OF THE COMPANY AT THE TIME
THE CONTRACT IS THUS AMENDED SHALL RECEIVE SENIORITY CREDIT FOR THEIR
PERIOD OF SERVICE, SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 21, 1941 IN THE LAND OR NAVAL
FORCES OR MERCHANT MARINE OF THE UNITED STATES OR ITS ALLIES, UPON
COMPLETION OF THEIR PROBATIONARY PERIOD." 

THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WERE CONTINUED IN EFFECT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL FORM, IN AN AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 21, 1947.  AN AGREEMENT OF
SEPTEMBER 28, 1949, PROVIDED: 

"SECTION 12  ... . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(C)  ANY EMPLOYEE WHO, PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
AGREEMENT, HAS RECEIVED THE SENIORITY CREDIT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE
VIII, SECTION 13(C) OR (D) OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE
UNION DATED AUGUST 21, 1947, OR THE COMPARABLE PROVISION IN THE
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE UNION DATED JULY
30, 1946, SHALL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE SUCH SENIORITY CREDIT." 

FN7  ON HUFFMAN'S RETURN TO FORD IN JULY, 1946, HIS EMPLOYMENT
SENIORITY, INCLUDING HIS MILITARY SERVICE, DATED FROM SEPTEMBER 23,
1943.  IT TOTALED ABOUT 33 MONTHS, INCLUDING ABOUT 14 MONTHS OF PRE
SERVICE COMPANY EMPLOYMENT AND 19 OF POST-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY SERVICE. 
AN EXAMPLE OF A VETERAN WHO, DUE TO THE AGREEMENTS BEFORE US, OUTRANKS
HUFFMAN IN EMPLOYMENT SENIORITY IS ONE WHO ENTERED MILITARY SERVICE
JULY 1, 1943, WITHOUT ANY PRIOR EMPLOYMENT, SERVED HONORABLY UNTIL
DISCHARGED MARCH 1, 1945, AND, THEREAFTER, HAS BEEN EMPLOYED
CONTINUOUSLY BY FORD, INCLUDING SIX MONTHS OF SATISFACTORY PROBATIONARY
EMPLOYMENT.  HIS SENIORITY DATES FROM JULY 1, 1943.  BY JULY 1, 1946,
IT TOTALED 36 MONTHS, INCLUDING 20 MONTHS OF PRE-EMPLOYMENT MILITARY
SERVICE, AND 16 OF POST-SERVICE COMPANY EMPLOYMENT.  HOWEVER, EXCEPT
FOR THE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, HUFFMAN WOULD THEN HAVE
OUTRANKED SUCH A VETERAN BY ABOUT 17 MONTHS, ALTHOUGH HUFFMAN'S
MILITARY SERVICE TOTALED ONE MONTH LESS, HIS EMPLOYMENT BY FORD TWO
MONTHS LESS AND HIS COMBINED MILITARY SERVICE AND COMPANY EMPLOYMENT
THREE MONTHS LESS THAN THAT OF SUCH A VETERAN. 

FN8  "SEC.  12.  IN ANY REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL IN ANY CIVILIAN
SERVICE OF ANY FEDERAL AGENCY, COMPETING EMPLOYEES SHALL BE RELEASED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS WHICH SHALL GIVE
DUE EFFECT TO TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT, MILITARY PREFERENCE, LENGTH OF
SERVICE, AND EFFICIENCY RATINGS:  PROVIDED, THAT THE LENGTH OF TIME
SPENT IN ACTIVE SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF
EACH SUCH EMPLOYEE SHALL BE CREDITED IN COMPUTING LENGTH OF TOTAL
SERVICE: ...  ."  58 STAT. 390, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 861. 

FN9  THIS "COMMITTEE OF NINE" CONSISTED OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE
BUSINESS ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, RAILWAY
LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN LEGION, DISABLED AMERICAN
VETERANS AND VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS. 

FN10  REEMPLOYMENT OF VETERANS UNDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, OCTOBER, 1947,
STATEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT PRINCIPLES DATED OCTOBER 7, 1946, APP. D, PP.
46-48; AND SEE BULLETIN OF RETRAINING AND REEMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCTOBER 10, 1946, P. 5; HARBISON,
SENIORITY PROBLEMS DURING DEMOBILIZATION AND RECONVERSION, INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS,
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY (1944) 12-14. 

FN11  COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROVISIONS - SENIORITY, BULL.  NO. 908
11, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
(1949), QUOTES MANY SENIORITY CLAUSES AS EXAMPLES OF THOSE THEN IN USE
AND INCLUDING MANY FACTORS OTHER THAN LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT.  AMONG
THOSE QUOTED IS THE FOLLOWING: 

"61.  VETERAN NOT PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED GIVEN SENIORITY CREDIT FOR TIME
SPENT IN ARMED FORCES. 

"ANY VETERAN OF WORLD WAR II WHO HAS BEEN DISCHARGED, OTHER THAN
DISHONORABLY, FROM THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHO
IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO HIS ACCEPTANCE IN THE ARMED FORCES WAS NOT
PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED BY (NAME OF COMPANY) AND WHO IS EMPLOYED BY (NAME
OF COMPANY) WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS AFTER HIS DISCHARGE, PROVIDED IT
IS HIS FIRST PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AFTER HIS DISCHARGE, SHALL TAKE HIS
PLACE ON THE SENIORITY LIST AFTER COMPLETING THE SIXTY (60) DAY TRIAL
PERIOD.  HIS SENIORITY SHALL BE COMPUTED FROM THE DAY OF HIS ACCEPTANCE
INTO THE ARMED FORCES.  HOWEVER, NO VETERAN COVERED BY THIS SECTION
SHALL HAVE SENIORITY PRIOR TO DECEMBER 7, 1941."  P. 13. 
..END :





















UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND IN THE COUNTY OF FAIRFAX,
VIRGINIA 345 U.S. 344 


NO. 253.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1953 - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1953 - 196 F.2D 657,
REVERSED. 


UNDER THE LANHAM ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, THE GOVERNMENT FILED A
PETITION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN
EASEMENTS IN LAND AND TITLE TO SEWER MAINS WHICH TOGETHER COMPRISED THE
SEWERAGE SYSTEM OF A VIRGINIA COMMUNITY.  THE 1943 AMENDMENT OF THE ACT
PROVIDED THAT "NONE OF THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED HEREIN SHALL BE USED TO
ACQUIRE PUBLIC WORKS ALREADY OPERATED BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES,
EXCEPT WHERE FUNDS ARE ALLOTTED FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS OR
IMPROVEMENTS TO SUCH PUBLIC WORKS AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OWNERS
THEREOF  ...  ."  HELD: 

1.  THE 1943 AMENDMENT AUTHORIZED THE CONDEMNATION OF SUCH PROPERTY,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STATED.  PP. 345-348. 

2.  UNDER THE 1943 AMENDMENT, HOUSEHOLDERS HAVING EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS
OF USER IN THE SEWER SYSTEM WERE NOT "OWNERS" WHOSE CONSENT TO THE
ACQUISITION WAS REQUIRED.  PP. 349-350. 

UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND IN THE COUNTY OF FAIRFAX,
VIRGINIA, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

A PETITION BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR CONDEMNATION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT,
AS AMENDED, WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  101 F. SUPP. 172. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  196 F.2D 657.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 812.  REVERSED, P. 350. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS NINE-YEAR-OLD PROCEEDING IS FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN
EASEMENTS IN LAND AND TITLE TO SEWER MAINS WHICH TOGETHER COMPRISE THE
SEWERAGE SYSTEM OF BELLE HAVEN, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION IN FAIRFAX
COUNTY, VIRGINIA.  IT WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF TITLE II, SEC.
202 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1941, 55 STAT. 361, (FN1) AND A RIDER ON THE
APPROPRIATION ACT OF JULY 15, 1943, 57 STAT. 565, (FN2) BOTH AMENDMENTS
TO THE LANHAM ACT OF OCTOBER 14, 1940, 54 STAT. 1125, 42 U.S.C. SEC.
1521 ET SEQ.  QUESTIONS IMPORTANT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT
MOVED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI, 344 U.S. 812, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF
THE GOVERNMENT PETITION.  196 F.2D 657, AFF'G 101 F. SUPP. 172. 

DURING WORLD WAR II, DEFENSE HOUSING NEEDS IN THE WASHINGTON AREA LED
THE GOVERNMENT TO CONSTRUCT A LARGE SEWER PROJECT TO SERVE DEFENSE
HOUSING PROPERTIES IN FAIRFAX COUNTY.  IT SOUGHT TO UTILIZE, AS A PART
OF ITS TRUNKLINE SEWER, EXISTING EASEMENTS CONTAINING SEWER PIPES IN
THE SYSTEM ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED BY RESPONDENT BELLE HAVEN REALTY
CORPORATION.  NEGOTIATIONS PRODUCED AN AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE
CORPORATION, STILL HOLDER OF THE FEE, WAS TO ACCEPT NOMINAL
COMPENSATION FOR ITS SEWER PROPERTIES ON THE CONDITION THAT THE
GOVERNMENT TAKE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AND THAT THE FINAL ORDER PROTECT THE
BELLE HAVEN HOUSEHOLDERS AGAINST ANY FUTURE CHARGES FOR ITS USE.  THE
GOVERNMENT THEN FILED A CONDEMNATION PETITION TOGETHER WITH A
DECLARATION OF TAKING AND DEPOSITED ESTIMATED JUST COMPENSATION OF $2. 
POSSESSION WAS TAKEN UNDER COURT ORDER, BELLE HAVEN'S OUTFALLS INTO THE
POTOMAC RIVER BLOCKED OFF, AND ITS SEWAGE DIVERTED INTO THE
GOVERNMENT'S TRUNK-LINE SYSTEM.  IN 1948, A GROUP OF BELLE HAVEN
HOUSEHOLDERS INTERVENED AS DEFENDANTS, ALLEGING THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD
LEASED THE INTEGRATED SYSTEM TO THE FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THAT THE LATTER HAD UNDERTAKEN TO ASSESS A USE CHARGE OF $2 PER
MONTH AGAINST EACH HOUSEHOLDER IN BELLE HAVEN SUBDIVISION.  THE
INTERVENORS CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE THE EQUITABLE OWNERS IN FEE OF THE
BELLE HAVEN SYSTEM SINCE THE DEVELOPING CORPORATION HAD INCLUDED ITS
CONSTRUCTION COST IN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THEIR LOTS, THAT THEY HAD
BEEN GRANTED EASEMENTS OF USER IN THAT SYSTEM AND THAT THE USE CHARGES
ASSESSED EXCEEDED REASONABLE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS.  THE
PRAYER WAS THAT THE COURT, IN LIEU OF DIRECT COMPENSATION FOR THEIR
INTERESTS, PROTECT THEM AGAINST HAVING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
AMORTIZATION OF THE INTEGRATED SYSTEM.  THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE
HOUSEHOLDERS HAD ACQUIRED IMPLIED EASEMENTS IN THE BELLE HAVEN SYSTEM
FOR WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION, AND INTERVENTION
WAS GRANTED.  89 F. SUPP. 571.  BUT THE DISTRICT JUDGE HELD THAT HE
COULD NOT MAKE AN AWARD IN THE FORM OF A LIMITATION ON FUTURE USE
CHARGES AND HE DENIED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE COLLECTION OF
CURRENT BILLS.  89 F. SUPP. 567.  THE INTERVENORS THEN AMENDED THEIR
ANSWER TO ATTACK THE TAKING AS UNAUTHORIZED UNDER THE LANHAM ACT.  THE
BELLE HAVEN REALTY CORPORATION, WHICH HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY ANSWERED THE
GOVERNMENT'S PETITION, DID SO IN 1950, CLAIMING IT WAS THE LEGAL OWNER
OF THE SYSTEM AND ENTITLED TO ITS PRESENT REPRODUCTION COST, LESS
DEPRECIATION, AS JUST COMPENSATION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE
LANHAM ACT, AS AMENDED, REQUIRED THE CONSENT OF THE INTERVENORS AS WELL
AS THE REALTY CORPORATION, THAT THE CORPORATION HAD ONLY CONDITIONALLY
CONSENTED TO THE TAKING AND THAT THE HOUSEHOLDERS HAD NOT CONSENTED AT
ALL.  WHILE THE COURT OF APPEALS APPROVED THE TRIAL COURT'S READING OF
THE STATUTORY CONSENT REQUIREMENT, IT DECLINED TO BASE ITS AFFIRMANCE
ON THAT GROUND BECAUSE, "IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR  ...  THAT THE POWER OF
CONDEMNATION GIVEN BY THE LANHAM ACT EXTENDS ONLY TO LANDS OR INTERESTS
IN LANDS; ...  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
CONDEMNATION OF A PUBLIC WORKS SYSTEM SUCH AS THIS."  196 F.2D 657,
662, RELYING ON PUERTO RICO R. LIGHT & POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 131
F.2D 491. 

THE ORIGINAL LANHAM ACT OF OCTOBER 14, 1940, 54 STAT. 1125, WAS
DESIGNED TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR DEFENSE AREAS FOUND BY THE PRESIDENT TO
BE SUFFERING FROM AN EXISTING OR IMPENDING HOUSING SHORTAGE.  IN SUCH
CASES, THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR WAS EMPOWERED TO ACQUIRE
"IMPROVED OR UNIMPROVED LANDS OR INTERESTS IN LANDS" FOR CONSTRUCTION
SITES BY PURCHASE, DONATION, EXCHANGE, LEASE OR CONDEMNATION.  THE
QUOTED LANGUAGE DESCRIBING THE KIND OF PROPERTY WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR
COULD CONDEMN WAS CARRIED OVER INTO TITLE II OF THE ACT, ADDED IN 1941,
WHICH EXTENDED THE STATUTE TO PUBLIC WORKS SHORTAGES IN DEFENSE AREAS. 
"PUBLIC WORK," AS DEFINED, INCLUDED SEWERS AND SEWAGE FACILITIES.  SEC.
201.  WHILE THE GENERAL LANGUAGE "IMPROVED OR UNIMPROVED LANDS OR
INTERESTS IN LANDS" INCLUDED WITHIN SEC. 202 OF TITLE II OF THE LANHAM
ACT APPEARS TO AUTHORIZE THE TAKING HERE, UNITED STATES V. CARMACK, 329
U.S. 230, 242, 243, N. 13 (1946), IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DEPEND ON THAT
THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED HEREIN SHALL BE USED TO ACQUIRE PUBLIC WORKS
ALREADY OPERATED BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES, EXCEPT WHERE FUNDS ARE
ALLOTTED FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO SUCH PUBLIC WORKS
AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OWNERS THEREOF  ...  ."  57 STAT. 565, 42
U.S.C. SEC. 1534, NOTE.  THE 1943 AMENDMENT WAS IN EFFECT WHEN THE
PRESENT PETITION WAS FILED AND ITS APPLICABILITY HERE IS COMMON GROUND
AMONG THE PARTIES.  IT EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED THE CONDEMNATION OF SUCH
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STATED. 

IN THIS CONNECTION, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT
BARS ACQUISITIONS BY CONDEMNATION.  THIS INTERPRETATION WOULD STRIP IT
OF SIGNIFICANCE SINCE THE OTHER MEANS OF ACQUIRING PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN THE STATUTE NECESSARILY REST ON CONSENSUAL TRANSACTIONS.  ALTHOUGH
CONDEMNATION IS SOMETIMES REGARDED AS A TAKING WITHOUT THE OWNER'S
CONSENT, 1 LEWIS, EMINENT DOMAIN (3D ED.), SEC. 1, IT IS NOT ANOMALOUS
TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH CONSENT WHICH CAN, IN EFFECT, REPRESENT AN ELECTION
TO HAVE VALUE DETERMINED BY A COURT RATHER THAN BY THE PARTIES.  IN
ADDITION, "FRIENDLY" CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS ARE OFTEN USED TO OBTAIN
CLEAR TITLE WHERE PRICE IS ALREADY SETTLED.  CF. DANFORTH V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 271 (1939).  THUS CONSTRUED, ALL OF THE STATUTORY
TERMS ARE GIVEN EFFECT. 

HERE, THE CONSENT OF BELLE HAVEN REALTY CORPORATION WAS IMPLICIT IN
ITS PROMISE TO ACCEPT NOMINAL DAMAGES.  THAT CONSENT CANNOT BE
CHARACTERIZED AS CONDITIONAL.  INDEED, THE CORPORATION'S ANSWER, FILED
SIX YEARS LATER, RECOGNIZED THIS; RATHER THAN RESISTING THE TAKING, IT
MERELY ASSERTED A CLAIM FOR MORE THAN NOMINAL COMPENSATION. 

WHETHER THE INTERVENING HOUSEHOLDERS WERE "OWNERS" WHOSE CONSENT WAS
REQUIRED IS A DIFFERENT MATTER.  THEIR INTERESTS WERE REGARDED BY BOTH
COURTS BELOW AS IMPLIED EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS OF USER IN THE SEWER
SYSTEM.  IT IS TRUE THAT EASEMENT HOLDERS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE "OWNERS"
AS THAT TERM IS USED IN CONDEMNATION STATUTES.  SWANSON V. UNITED
STATES, 156 F.2D 442, 445; UNITED STATES V. WELCH, 217 U.S. 333 (1910);
CF.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, 378 (1945). 
BUT THE RELEVANT QUESTION IN THOSE CASES IS WHETHER THE HOLDERS OF SUCH
INTERESTS ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
COMPENSABILITY OF THESE INTERESTS IS NOT IN ISSUE HERE; IT FOLLOWS THAT
THE CASES ON WHICH INTERVENORS RELY ARE NOT CONTROLLING.  (FN3)  IN
DECIDING WHO ARE "OWNERS" HERE, WE LOOK TO THE SCHEME OF THE ACT
ITSELF.  WE THINK IT UNLIKELY THAT, IN PROVIDING FOR THE CONDEMNATION
OF PUBLIC WORKS, CONGRESS AT THE SAME TIME INTENDED TO MAKE PRELIMINARY
NEGOTIATIONS SO CUMBERSOME AS TO VIRTUALLY NULLIFY THE POWER GRANTED. 
YET THE INTERPRETATION PRESSED BY RESPONDENTS WOULD HAVE THAT EFFECT. 
IT WOULD COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT, BEFORE TAKING PUBLIC WORKS, TO DEAL
WITH THE HOLDER OF EVERY SERVITUDE TO WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE
SUBJECT.  WE HOLD THAT INTERVENORS WERE NOT "OWNERS" UNDER THE 1943
AMENDMENT AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT REQUIRED BEFORE CONDEMNING TO
ENGAGE IN A ROUND ROBIN TO SECURE FROM EACH OF THEM A SELF-SERVING
"BARKIS IS WILLIN'." 

WE DO NOT PASS ON OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENTS, SOME OF WHICH
IF DECIDED ADVERSELY TO THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE CURED BY AMENDMENT, AND
OTHERS WE DEEM NOT RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION BECAUSE OF FACTUAL QUESTIONS
NOT YET RESOLVED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  202.  WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT FINDS THAT IN ANY AREA OR
LOCALITY AN ACUTE SHORTAGE OF PUBLIC WORKS OR EQUIPMENT FOR PUBLIC
WORKS NECESSARY TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN
NATIONAL-DEFENSE ACTIVITIES EXISTS OR IMPENDS WHICH WOULD IMPEDE
NATIONAL-DEFENSE ACTIVITIES, AND THAT SUCH PUBLIC WORKS OR EQUIPMENT
CANNOT OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED WHEN NEEDED, OR COULD NOT BE PROVIDED
WITHOUT THE IMPOSITION OF AN INCREASED EXCESSIVE TAX BURDEN OR AN
UNUSUAL OR EXCESSIVE INCREASE IN THE DEBT LIMIT OF THE TAXING OR
BORROWING AUTHORITY IN WHICH SUCH SHORTAGE EXISTS, THE FEDERAL WORKS
ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, IN
ORDER TO RELIEVE SUCH SHORTAGE: 

"(A)  TO ACQUIRE,  ...  IMPROVED OR UNIMPROVED LANDS OR INTERESTS IN
LANDS BY PURCHASE, DONATION, EXCHANGE, LEASE  ...  OR CONDEMNATION  ...
FOR SUCH PUBLIC WORKS." 

FN2  "  ...  NONE OF THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED HEREIN SHALL BE USED TO
ACQUIRE PUBLIC WORKS ALREADY OPERATED BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES,
EXCEPT WHERE FUNDS ARE ALLOTTED FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS OR
IMPROVEMENTS TO SUCH PUBLIC WORKS AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OWNERS
THEREOF  ...  ." 

FN3  SINCE THE DISTRICT JUDGE DEEMED HIMSELF UNABLE TO ORDER THE
GOVERNMENT TO RESTORE THE BELLE HAVEN SYSTEM TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION,
THE HOUSEHOLDERS WERE REMITTED BY DISMISSAL OF THE CONDEMNATION
PETITION TO A SEPARATE ACTION FOR ANY COMPENSABLE DAMAGE THEY SUFFERED
BECAUSE OF THE TAKING.  UNDER THIS RULING, THE PROPERTY TAKEN WOULD
REMAIN PART OF THE INTEGRATED SYSTEM WHETHER TITLE IS IN THE GOVERNMENT
OR THE REALTY CORPORATION.  IN EACH CASE, THE RIGHTS OF THE
HOUSEHOLDERS, IF ANY, TO AN AWARD REMAIN TO BE DETERMINED.  ONE EFFECT
OF UPHOLDING THE CONDEMNATION IS TO HAVE THAT QUESTION TRIED ON REMAND
IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

RESPONDENT-INTERVENORS, THE BELLE HAVEN PROPERTY OWNERS, HAVE PAID
FOR THE PROPERTY UNDER CONDEMNATION.  THEY ARE HELD TO BE "OWNERS, PRO
TANTO," OF THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM UNDER VIRGINIA LAW, (FN1) AND THEIR
INTEREST IN THE SYSTEM IS CHARACTERIZED AS CONSTITUTING "  ...  THE
ONLY REAL VALUE THAT IT HAD."  (FN2)  YET, THIS COURT HOLDS THAT THEY
ARE NOT "OWNERS" FOR THE PURPOSES OF A FEDERAL LAW, IN WHICH CONGRESS
RELUCTANTLY AUTHORIZED ACQUISITION OF PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES ON THE
CONDITION THAT CONSENT OF THE OWNERS FIRST BE OBTAINED. 

ONE BASIC ERROR UNDERLIES THE DECISION - THE ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO FACILITATE NATIONAL ACQUISITION OF GOING PRIVATE UTILITIES
BY THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE LANHAM ACT.  (FN3) 54 STAT. 1125, 55
STAT. 361, 57 STAT. 565; 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1521 ET SEQ. THIS ERROR IS
SIGNALED IN THE PROPOSITION THAT THE 1941 AMENDMENT TO THE LANHAM ACT,
55 STAT. 361, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1532, WAS BROAD ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE THE
CONDEMNATION OF UTILITIES.  THE PROPOSITION IS IMMEDIATELY GLOSSED OVER
WITH THE ASSERTION THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DEPEND ON IT, SINCE THE
1943 AMENDMENT, 57 STAT. 565, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1534, NOTE, WHICH IS
ADMITTEDLY APPLICABLE, AUTHORIZES THE CONDEMNATION OF SUCH PROPERTY IN
ANY EVENT.  BUT IT MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE IN INTERPRETING THE
CONSENT PROVISION OF THE 1943 AMENDMENT, DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT IS
APPROACHED AS A NARROW RESTRICTION ON AN OTHERWISE BROAD PROGRAM FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, OR AS A CONDITIONAL GRANT OF A
POWER, THERETOFORE WITHHELD BECAUSE OF A HOSTILITY WHICH COULD BE
AVOIDED ONLY BY STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE CONDITION IMPOSED. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE ORIGINAL LANHAM ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1125, 42
U.S.C. SECS.  1521-1524, WAS TO RELIEVE HOUSING SHORTAGES IN DEFENSE
AREAS.  THE 1941 AMENDMENT ADDED TITLE II TO MEET PUBLIC UTILITY
SHORTAGES IN THE DEFENSE HOUSING AREAS.  EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS WERE
AUTHORIZED FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THAT PURPOSE, BUT ONLY AS AN
INTEGRATED PART OF A CAREFUL STATUTORY SCHEME.  SECTION 202(A) OF TITLE
II AUTHORIZED ACQUISITION OF "  ...  IMPROVED OR UNIMPROVED LANDS OR
INTERESTS IN LANDS BY PURCHASE, DONATION, EXCHANGE, LEASE  ...  OR
CONDEMNATION  ...  FOR SUCH PUBLIC WORKS."  AND SUBSECTION (B)
AUTHORIZED THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR  "  ...  TO PLAN, DESIGN,
CONSTRUCT,  ...  OR LEASE PUBLIC WORKS  ...  ON LANDS OR INTERESTS IN
LANDS ACQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A)  ...  ." 
SUBSECTION (C) AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR "TO MAKE LOANS OR GRANTS,
OR BOTH, TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCIES FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND EQUIPMENT
THEREFOR ...  ."    SIMPLY STATED, TITLE II AUTHORIZED THE GOVERNMENT
TO MEET THE PUBLIC UTILITIES SHORTAGE BY GIVING AID TO GOING UTILITIES,
BY LEASING GOING UTILITIES, AND BY CONSTRUCTING NEW UTILITIES ON LAND
OR INTERESTS IN LAND ACQUIRED FOR THAT PURPOSE UNDER THE ACT.  NOWHERE
IS THERE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED POWER TO ACQUIRE GOING UTILITIES. 

THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE LAW UNDERSTOOD THE STATUTORY SCHEME TO BE
AS OUTLINED ABOVE, AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR COMMUNICATIONS TO CONGRESS IN
PRESSING FOR ENACTMENT OF THE AMENDMENT (FN4) AND IN REPORTING ON ITS
OPERATION AFTER ENACTMENT.  (FN5)  INDEED, ANY OPEN REQUEST FOR
AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE GOING UTILITIES UNDOUBTEDLY WOULD HAVE
PRECIPITATED A DEBATE ON THE SENSITIVE ISSUE OF PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATELY
OWNED UTILITIES.  IMMEDIATE POST-ENACTMENT EVENTS SHOW THAT HAD THE
ISSUE BEEN RAISED, THE POWER TO CONDEMN GOING UTILITIES MIGHT HAVE BEEN
REJECTED OUT OF HAND. 

IN 1942, THE FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY ATTEMPTED TO CONDEMN AN ENTIRE
ELECTRIC SYSTEM IN PUERTO RICO UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF TITLE II OF THE
LANHAM ACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HELD THAT THE
LANHAM ACT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE TAKING OF GOING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 
PUERTO RICO RY. LIGHT & POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 131 F.2D 491
(1942).  WHEN CONGRESS LEARNED OF THIS ATTEMPT TO CONDEMN THE PUERTO
RICAN POWER SYSTEM, THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE REACTION.  IN 1943, WHEN A
BILL WAS INTRODUCED TO INCREASE THE APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY UNDER TITLE
II, SENATOR TAFT OFFERED AN AMENDMENT PROVIDING IN PART THAT: 

"NONE OF THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED HEREIN SHALL BE USED TO ACQUIRE PUBLIC
WORKS ALREADY OPERATED BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES."  89 CONG. REC.
7286. 

SENATOR TAFT EXPLAINED THIS AMENDMENT BY REFERENCE TO THE PUERTO
RICAN POWER CASE, CONCLUDING AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  CERTAINLY THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE LANHAM ACT WHICH
AUTHORIZED ANY SUCH PROCEEDING.  IT WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE NEW
FACILITIES, IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR TAKING OVER OLD
FACILITIES.  I THINK IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT NO SUCH POWER SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE ACT."  IBID.

SENATOR MALONEY, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE PENDING BILL AND HAD BEEN
IN CHARGE OF THE LANHAM ACT, CONCURRED IN SENATOR TAFT'S INTERPRETATION
OF THE LANHAM ACT: 

"MR. PRESIDENT, I CAN SEE NO OBJECTION TO THE AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY
THE SENATOR FROM OHIO.  I AGREE WITH HIM THAT LANHAM ACT FUNDS, AT
LEAST IN MY OPINION - AND I WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO HELPED TO WRITE THE
ACT - WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR SUCH A PURPOSE AS THE
ACQUISITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY IN PUERTO RICO.  SO I HAVE NO OBJECTION
TO THE LANGUAGE, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT I SHARE THE FEELING OF THE
SENATOR FROM OHIO."  ID., AT 7287. 

THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT WAS AN OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION AGAINST USING THE
LANHAM ACT TO ACQUIRE GOING UTILITIES.  THE COMMENTS OF THE LEGISLATORS
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS DECLARATORY OF WHAT CONGRESS HAD
UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE LANHAM ACT.  BUT
CONGRESS WAS NOT CONTENT TO LEAVE THE LEGISLATION IN ANY FORM SUBJECT
TO DOUBT, LEST SOME OTHER COURT OF APPEALS OR THIS COURT SHOULD PLACE A
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION ON THE ACT THAN DID THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY THAT THE EXCEPTING CLAUSE WAS
ADDED TO THE AMENDMENT.  IT WAS INTRODUCED AND EXPLAINED BY SENATOR
TAFT.  THE PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY HAD CALLED TO THE SENATOR'S ATTENTION A
CASE WHERE THE NAVY NEEDED TO EXPAND A RAILROAD BY A PROJECT WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE EXPENDITURE OF ABOUT DOUBLE THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE
RAILROAD.  THE AGENCY ASKED THAT IN SUCH A CASE THEY BE AUTHORIZED TO
TAKE OVER THE EXISTING UTILITY.  SENATOR TAFT SAID THAT "EVEN IN SUCH
CASES I DO NOT THINK THE AUTHORITY SHOULD BE GIVEN EXCEPT WITH THE
CONSENT OF THOSE WHO OWN THE EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS."  89 CONG. REC.
7314.  THUS THE 1943 AMENDMENT CAME INTO ITS PRESENT FORM.  (FN6) 

THIS LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND SHOWS THAT THE EXCEPTING CLAUSE IN THE
1943 AMENDMENT CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO ACQUIRE GOING
UTILITIES.  THAT AUTHORITY SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED IN KEEPING WITH
THE SPIRIT OF GUARDED CAUTION UNDER WHICH IT WAS GRANTED.  THEREFORE, I
WOULD CONSTRUE THE CLASS OF "OWNERS," WHOSE CONSENT MUST BE HAD, TO BE
AT LEAST AS BROAD AS THE NORMAL USAGE OF THAT TERM IN THE EMINENT
DOMAIN CONTEXT. 

I CAN AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY OPINION THAT THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT
DOES NOT NECESSARILY BAR ACQUISITION BY USE OF CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS, BUT WHERE CONSENT OF THE OWNER IS INTERPOSED AS A
STATUTORY LIMITATION ON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, IT
MAKES OBVIOUS SENSE TO INTERPRET THE CONSENT REQUIRED AS BEING THE
CONSENT OF THOSE PERSONS HAVING COMPENSABLE INTERESTS AFFECTED BY THE
EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  THE CORRECT RULE OF CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED IN THESE TERMS:  "  ...  WHERE THE LAW SEEKS TO DIVEST ALL
AND EVERY TITLE TO LAND OR ESTATE AND SUBSTITUTE THE PRICE THEREFOR,
...  THE WORD 'OWNER' SHOULD RECEIVE A BROAD AND LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION
SO AS TO EMBRACE EVERY RIGHT IN AND TO THE LAND  ...  ."  GLOVER V.
UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 294, 299-300 (1896).  THE PROPOSITION WAS
RECENTLY RESTATED IN SWANSON V. UNITED STATES, 156 F.2D 442, 445 (C.A.
9TH CIR. 1946):  "THE TERM 'OWNER' IN STATUTES RELATING TO THE EXERCISE
OF EMINENT DOMAIN INCLUDES ANY PERSON HAVING A LEGAL OR EQUITABLE
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY CONDEMNED."  (FN7) 

THE PERSUASION OF COMMON SENSE IS TO INTERPRET THE WORD "OWNERS" AS
THE EQUIVALENT OF PERSONS HAVING A COMPENSABLE INTEREST UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, SIMPLY BECAUSE WHEN CONGRESS SPEAKS OF OWNERS IN THE EMINENT
DOMAIN CONTEXT, ITS MOST OBVIOUS SOURCE OF REFERENCE IS THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT SOME OTHER MEANING MIGHT NOT BE
GIVEN BY EXPRESS DEFINITION, OR BY IMPLICATION, WHERE CLEARLY NECESSARY
TO CARRY OUT SOME OVERRIDING POLICY OF THE STATUTE.  (FN8)  IF THERE
WERE IN THE LANHAM ACT WHAT THE MAJORITY OPINION READS INTO IT - A
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO FACILITATE NATIONAL ACQUISITION OF PRIVATELY
OWNED UTILITIES - THEN THERE MIGHT BE SOME JUSTIFICATION TO INTERPRET
"OWNERS" FROM A NARROWER SOURCE OF REFERENCE, SUCH AS ADMINISTRATIVE
CONVENIENCE. 

THE SEWERAGE SYSTEM UNDER CONDEMNATION WAS BUILT IN 1925 BY THE BELLE
HAVEN REALTY CORP. AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION.  AS LOTS WERE SOLD, A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE COST OF
THE SEWER SYSTEM WAS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE PAID BY THE PURCHASER OF
EACH LOT.  THE CONVEYANCE OF EACH LOT INCLUDED A GRANT OF ALL
"APPURTENANCES TO THE SAME IN ANY WISE BELONGING."  BELLE HAVEN REALTY
CORP. RETAINED NOMINAL TITLE TO THE SYSTEM AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MAINTAINING IT, BUT NO CHARGE WAS MADE FOR ITS USE.  ON THIS STATE OF
FACTS, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD PROPERTY
RIGHTS BY WAY OF EASEMENTS APPURTENANT TO THE BELLE HAVEN SEWER
SYSTEM.  UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, 89
F. SUPP. 571 (1948). 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING ON THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY INTEREST
UNDER VIRGINIA LAW IS NOT QUESTIONED BY THIS COURT.  IT HAS BEEN
DECIDED THAT SUCH A PROPERTY INTEREST WOULD GIVE THE OWNERS THEREOF A
COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN A TAKING BY POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  UNITED
STATES V. WELCH, 217 U.S. 333 (1910).  IT SHOULD FOLLOW, FROM THE
PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION THAT I HAVE URGED ABOVE, THAT THE
CONSENT OF THESE EASEMENT OWNERS WAS REQUIRED. 

PERHAPS THERE MAY BE SOME PRACTICAL LIMITATION ON THE CONSENTS WHICH
CONGRESS REQUIRED.  THUS, WHERE THERE IS A LEGAL ENTITY WHICH MAY SPEAK
WITH PROPER AUTHORITY FOR ALL WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, AS
IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION OR A TRUSTEE SPEAKING FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS
OR BENEFICIARIES, CONSENT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL OWNER MIGHT NOT BE
REQUIRED.  BUT THE CORPORATION CANNOT BE HELD TO REPRESENT THE
INTERESTS OF THE INTERVENORS IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IT HAD A
POTENTIALLY ADVERSE INTEREST.  THE CORPORATION STOOD TO GAIN RELIEF
FROM ITS BURDEN OF MAINTENANCE IF THE SYSTEM WAS TAKEN, WHILE THE
PROPERTY OWNERS STOOD TO LOSE THEIR RIGHT OF FREE USE.  THE DISTRICT
JUDGE NOTED IN HIS OPINION, "IT SEEMS NEVER TO HAVE OCCURRED  ... TO
BELLE HAVEN REALTY CORPORATION THAT THE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERS HAD ANY
INTEREST OR OWNERSHIP IN THE SEWER SYSTEM."  101 F. SUPP. 172, 174.  IT
SEEMS ABSURD TO SAY THAT THE CONSENT PROVISION OF THE STATUTE IS
SATISFIED BY GETTING THE CONSENT OF THE CORPORATION UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE LEGAL INADEQUACY OF THE CORPORATION'S CONSENT IS
NOT CHANGED BECAUSE THE CORPORATION, DESPITE ITS POTENTIALLY ADVERSE
INTEREST, MADE A GENUINE EFFORT TO DO WHAT IT THOUGHT BEST FOR THE
PROPERTY OWNERS.  INTERVENORS' INTERESTS ARE NOT SO INCONSEQUENTIAL IN
THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN THAT THEY CAN BE LEFT TO THE BENEFICENCE OF
SOMEONE HAVING A POTENTIALLY ADVERSE INTEREST.  THAT MUCH IS ADMITTED
BY THE INFERENCE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM JUST COMPENSATION IN
THEIR OWN RIGHT.  WHY ARE THEY ANY LESS ENTITLED TO GIVE OR WITHHOLD
CONSENT IN THEIR OWN RIGHT? 

EVEN IF CONSENT OF THE CORPORATION WOULD SATISFY THE STATUTE, I
CANNOT AGREE THAT ITS CONSENT WAS EVER OBTAINED.  IN 1943, WHEN THE
FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY WAS SEEKING ONLY AN EASEMENT OF FLOWAGE THROUGH
THE LOWER END OF THE BELLE HAVEN TRUNK LINE, THE CORPORATION CONSENTED
TO THE TAKING IF THE AGENCY WOULD TAKE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AND PROVIDE IN
THE DECREE THAT NO SERVICE CHARGES WOULD BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE BELLE
HAVEN PROPERTY OWNERS.  (FN9)  THE ORIGINAL PETITION OF CONDEMNATION,
FILED IN 1944, EVIDENCES NO INTENT TO PROCEED UNDER TERMS OF THIS
CONSENT.  THE PETITION DID NOT PLEAD CONSENT.  IT DID NOT SEEK TO
CONDEMN THE ENTIRE SEWER SYSTEM, NOR DID IT MAKE ANY PROVISION FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.  NOT UNTIL 1948, WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT'S LESSEE, FAIRFAX COUNTY, RAN INTO TROUBLE IN TRYING TO LEVY
A UNIFORM SEWERAGE ASSESSMENT, DID THE GOVERNMENT TRY TO TAKE THE
ENTIRE SYSTEM.  EVEN THEN, ITS AMENDED PETITION DID NOT PLEAD CONSENT
NOR MAKE ANY PROVISION FOR PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.  INDEED,
THE ONLY APPARENT PURPOSE BEHIND ITS AMENDED PETITION WAS TO ACQUIRE
CLEAR TITLE TO THE WHOLE SYSTEM SO THAT ITS LESSEE COULD ASSESS CHARGES
AGAINST THE BELLE HAVEN PROPERTY OWNERS.  (FN10)  I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE
THAT THE ATTEMPT TO FIND A CONSENT IN THE 1943 AGREEMENT CAME AS A
HAPPY AFTERTHOUGHT WITH THE AWAKENING REALIZATION THAT THIS TAKING
COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED EXCEPT UNDER THE 1943 AMENDMENT.  (FN11) 

IN ANY EVENT, IT WAS FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE CORPORATION'S CONSENT "
...  WAS GIVEN UPON A CONDITION WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS UNWILLING TO
ACCEPT."  (FN12)  UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE FOREGOING PATTERN OF
FACTS WHICH AMOUNTS TO AN ABSOLUTE CONSENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT
FINDING OF FACT CANNOT BE DISMISSED WITH THE RHETORICAL RESPONSE THAT
THE CONSENT CANNOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS CONDITIONAL.  I WOULD NOT ALLOW
THE GOVERNMENT TO JUSTIFY THIS TAKING BY RESORT TO AN AGREEMENT WHICH
IT HAS REFUSED TO HONOR. 

I DO NOT THINK A CONSENT CAN BE SALVAGED OUT OF THE CORPORATION'S
ANSWER SEEKING JUST COMPENSATION.  THAT ANSWER CAME IN 1950, ONLY AFTER
THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD A
COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN THE SYSTEM AND A RIGHT TO INTERVENE.  89 F.
SUPP. 567.  THE ANSWER PLEADS A BELIEF THAT THE CONDITIONAL CONSENT HAS
BEEN VIOLATED AND STATES ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE TO SERVE THE INTEREST OF
THE PROPERTY OWNERS.  THUS, THOUGH IT DOES ASK FOR JUST COMPENSATION,
THE ONLY FAIR CONSTRUCTION THAT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ANSWER IN ITS
ENTIRETY IS THAT IT IS AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA, ATTACKING THE RIGHT TO TAKE
ON THE BELIEF THAT THE CONDITIONAL CONSENT HAD BEEN DISHONORED, OR
ALTERNATIVELY SEEKING JUST COMPENSATION FOR ITS INTEREST IN THE SEWER
IF THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO TAKE SHOULD BE UPHELD. 

THE CONDEMNATION OF ONE SMALL SEWERAGE SYSTEM MAY SEEM AN
INSIGNIFICANT THING IN VIEW OF THE VAST SCOPE OF FEDERAL EMINENT DOMAIN
POWERS, AND MUCH OF THE IMPACT OF THE PRESENT DECISION MAY BE BALMED
OVER WITH THE ASSURANCE THAT INTERVENORS CAN CLAIM JUST COMPENSATION
FOR THEIR LOSSES.  BUT THERE IS SOMETHING AT STAKE HERE WHICH
TRANSCENDS THE IMMEDIATE INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES.  THAT IS THE DUTY OF
THE COURTS AND ADMINISTRATORS TO KEEP FAITH WITH CONGRESS IN THE
INTERPRETATION AND EXECUTION OF A STATUTE IN WHICH CONGRESS CAREFULLY
LIMITED THE POWERS OF EMINENT DOMAIN BECAUSE OF SENSITIVE POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WERE FOR CONGRESS ALONE TO EVALUATE.  BECAUSE I
THINK THE INSTANT CONDEMNATION CLEARLY EXCEEDS THE SCOPE OF
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION, I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS
BELOW. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, 101
F. SUPP. 172, 175 (D.C.E.D. VA. 1951); 89 F. SUPP. 567 (1950); 89 F.
SUPP. 571 (1948). 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, 196
F.2D 657, 662 (C.A. 4TH CIR. 1952). 

FN3  AS I READ THE OPINION, THIS MUST BE THE ASSUMPTION WHICH COMPELS
THE MAJORITY TO PLACE A LIMITING CONSTRUCTION ON THE WORD "OWNERS," AS
USED IN THE CONSENT PROVISO OF THE 1943 AMENDMENT, 57 STAT. 565, LEST
THE GOVERNMENT BE FORCED "TO DEAL WITH THE HOLDER OF EVERY SERVITUDE TO
WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE SUBJECT," THEREBY MAKING NATIONAL
ACQUISITION OF PUBLIC WORKS "CUMBERSOME." 

FN4  AT THE HEARINGS THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO THE FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY
TESTIFIED WITH RESPECT TO H.R. 3213 (A PRELIMINARY DRAFT, THE LANGUAGE
OF WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS TITLE II, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES)
AS FOLLOWS:    "AND THEN AUTHORITY IS GIVEN TO ACQUIRE LAND, IMPROVED
OR UNIMPROVED, AND UPON THE LAND SO ACQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT PUBLIC WORKS,
TO MAINTAIN THEM AND OPERATE THEM, ADMINISTER THEM AND TO LEASE THEM,
TO SELL THEM, TO TRANSFER THEM, AND ALSO TO MAKE LOANS AND GRANTS FOR
ALL OF THESE PURPOSES."  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS ON H.R. 3213 AND H.R. 3570, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
59. 

FN5  "AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR UNDER TITLE II.  -
UNDER TITLE II THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED:    "(1)
TO CONSTRUCT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AS FEDERAL PROJECTS. 

"(2)  TO MAKE LOANS OR GRANTS, OR BOTH, FOR THE NON-FEDERAL
CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES. 

"(3)  TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF
COMMUNITY FACILITIES." 

MEMORANDUM OF FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR ATTACHED TO REPORT OF
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, S. REP. NO. 376, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 3. 

FN6  "  ...  NONE OF THE FUNDS AUTHORIZED HEREIN SHALL BE USED TO
ACQUIRE PUBLIC WORKS ALREADY OPERATED BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES,
EXCEPT WHERE FUNDS ARE ALLOTTED FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS OR
IMPROVEMENTS TO SUCH PUBLIC WORKS AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OWNERS
THEREOF  ...  ."  57 STAT. 565. 

FN7  CF. DUBOIS V. HEPBURN, 10 PET. 1, 23 (1836), INTERPRETING A
STATUTE WHICH PERMITTED THE "OWNER" TO REDEEM TAX DELINQUENT LAND:
"ANY RIGHT, WHICH IN LAW OR EQUITY AMOUNTS TO AN OWNERSHIP IN THE LAND;
ANY RIGHT OF ENTRY UPON IT TO ITS POSSESSION, OR ENJOYMENT, OR ANY PART
OF IT  ... MAKES THE PERSON THE OWNER  ...  ." 

FN8  THUS IS GLOVER V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 294 (1896), A MORTGAGE
CREDITOR WAS HELD NOT TO BE AN "OWNER" FOR PURPOSES OF A STATUTE MAKING
A LAND TAX REFUND, SINCE THE OBVIOUS STATUTORY SCHEME WAS TO REIMBURSE
PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN LIABLE TO PAY THE TAX. 

FN9  IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THIS AGREEMENT WAS APPARENTLY
REACHED IN THE "SPRING OF 1943," WHICH WOULD PLACE IT PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE 1943 AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS ON JULY 15, 1943.  THUS, IT
IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE CORPORATION WAS GIVING OR THE
GOVERNMENT SEEKING A CONSENT UNDER THE STATUTE. 

FN10  THIS IS THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  196
F.2D 657, 662-663.  TO SOME EXTENT THE CONCLUSION DEPENDS UPON
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN TRIED.  BUT MOST OF WHAT THERE
PRESENTLY IS IN THE RECORDS SUPPORTS THE INFERENCE THAT THE FEDERAL
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WAS EXERCISED HERE TO HELP A LOCAL COUNTY SOLVE
A PROBLEM OF SEWERAGE ASSESSMENTS.  IF THIS BE TRUE, I THINK THE WHOLE
AFFAIR IS COMPLETELY UNWORTHY OF THE HIGH TRUST WHICH SHOULD ATTEND USE
OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  HOWEVER, THAT RAISES A
QUESTION OF FACT GOING TO WHETHER OR NOT THE TAKING WAS FOR A PUBLIC
PURPOSE.  THAT QUESTION, AS WELL AS THE FACTUAL QUESTIONS OF WHETHER
THE PRESIDENT APPROVED THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY TITLE II,
PUERTO RICO RY. LIGHT & POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 131 F.2D 491, 495
496 (C.A. 1ST CIR. 1942), AND WHETHER FUNDS WERE ALLOTTED "FOR
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS" TO THE BELLE HAVEN SYSTEM, AS
REQUIRED BY THE 1943 AMENDMENT, WILL STILL BE LEFT OPEN ON REMAND. 

FN11  IN PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE GOVERNMENT REFERRED TO
BELLE HAVEN REALTY CORP. AS THE "PURPORTED OWNER" OF THE SYSTEM, 101 F.
SUPP. 172, 175, A POSITION QUITE INCONSISTENT WITH ITS LATER POSITION
THAT THE CORPORATION WAS THE "OWNER" WHOSE CONSENT BRINGS THE TAKING
WITHIN THE 1943 AMENDMENT. 

FN12  196 F.2D 657, 662.  THERE WERE NO FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT.  BUT
AS THE COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT, "THE (DISTRICT) JUDGE FOUND IT
(THE LANGUAGE QUOTED IN TEXT) AS A FACT,  ...  AFTER HEARING THE
PARTIES IN A NUMBER OF PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCES." 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC. 345 U.S. 361 


NO. 440.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1953 - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1953 - 97 N.H. 411,
90 A.2D 499, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 3672 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT
THE TAX LIEN OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL NOT BE VALID AGAINST ANY
"JUDGMENT CREDITOR" UNTIL THE COLLECTOR HAS FILED THE REQUIRED NOTICE,
A NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN WHICH HAD MADE AN ASSESSMENT OF AN AD VALOREM TAX
ON CERTAIN PROPERTY OF A CORPORATION WAS NOT A "JUDGMENT CREDITOR,"
EVEN THOUGH SUCH TAX ASSESSMENTS ARE, UNDER NEW HAMPSHIRE LAW, "IN THE
NATURE OF A JUDGMENT."  PP. 362-365. 

(A)  IN SEC. 3672, CONGRESS USED THE WORDS "JUDGMENT CREDITOR" IN THE
USUAL, CONVENTIONAL SENSE OF A JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF RECORD.  P. 364. 

(B)  THE PHRASE "JUDGMENT CREDITOR" DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE ACTION OF
TAXING AUTHORITIES WHO MAY BE ACTING JUDICIALLY, WHERE THE END RESULT
IS SOMETHING "IN THE NATURE OF A JUDGMENT."  P. 364. 

2.  WHERE THE TAX LIEN OF A TOWN AND THAT OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
BOTH GENERAL, AND THE TAXPAYER IS INSOLVENT, THE UNITED STATES IS
ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466.  PP. 365-366. 

3.  HERE THE TOWN HAD ONLY A GENERAL LIEN, BECAUSE IT HAD NOT
DIVESTED THE TAXPAYER OF EITHER TITLE OR POSSESSION.  PP. 365-366. 

UNITED STATES V. GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT AWARDED PRIORITY TO THE CLAIM OF A TOWN AS
AGAINST A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE ESTATE OF AN INSOLVENT
CORPORATION.  97 N.H. 411, 90 A.2D 499.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 911.  REVERSED, P. 366. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TOWN OF WALPOLE, NEW
HAMPSHIRE, OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE PRIOR RIGHT TO A FUND IN
THE HANDS OF THE STATE COURT RECEIVER OF THE RESPONDENT-TAXPAYER, AN
INSOLVENT CORPORATION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HELD THE
TOWN WAS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY, 97 N.H. 411, 90 A.2D 499, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 344 U.S. 911. 

THE CLAIMS OF BOTH ARISE FROM TAX LIENS.  THE TOWN'S LIEN GREW OUT OF
AN ASSESSMENT OF AN AD VALOREM TAX UPON CERTAIN MACHINERY OF GILBERT
ASSOCIATES, INC., THE RESPONDENT, FOR THE YEARS 1947 AND 1948 IN THE
AMOUNTS OF $612.95 AND $690.85, RESPECTIVELY.  THE CORPORATION WAS
THEREAFTER DECLARED INSOLVENT, AND A TEMPORARY RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED
AUGUST 12, 1949, AND MADE PERMANENT JANUARY 30, 1950.  THE TOWN'S TAXES
WERE ASSESSED APRIL 1, 1947, AND APRIL 1, 1948.  ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1948,
THE TOWN SOLD THE TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY AT A TAX SALE TO PAY THE TAXES
ACCRUED FOR THE YEAR 1947.  ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1949, THE TOWN SOLD THE
SAME PROPERTY AT A TAX SALE FOR TAXES ACCRUED FOR THE YEAR 1948.  THE
RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE NATURE OF THESE TAX-SALE PROCEEDINGS.  WE
ARE INFORMED THAT THE TOWN BID IN THE PROPERTY AT ITS OWN SALES.  AT
LEAST, THE TOWN NEVER TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS LATER
SOLD BY THE RECEIVER, CREATING THE FUND INVOLVED HERE.  THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S LIEN WAS FOR EMPLOYMENT, WITHHOLDING, AND INCOME TAXES
THAT BECAME DUE BETWEEN 1943 AND JUNE 30, 1948, IN THE SUM OF
$3,171.97.  NOTICE OF THIS LIEN WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
NEW HAMPSHIRE ON AUGUST 6, 1948. 

UNDER SEC. 3672 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 56 STAT. 798, 26 U.S.C.
(1946 ED.)  SEC.  3672, THE LIEN OF THE UNITED STATES "SHALL NOT BE
VALID AS AGAINST ANY MORTGAGEE, PLEDGEE, PURCHASER, OR JUDGMENT
CREDITOR UNTIL NOTICE THEREOF HAS BEEN FILED BY THE COLLECTOR -  ...  .
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN IS SITUATED
...  ."  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HELD THAT SINCE NOTICE OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S LIEN WAS NOT FILED UNTIL AUGUST 6, 1948, AND THE
TOWN'S TAXES WERE ASSESSED ON APRIL 1, 1947, AND APRIL 1, 1948,
RESPECTIVELY, AND SUCH TAX ASSESSMENTS ARE "IN THE NATURE OF A
JUDGMENT" UNDER THE LAW OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, THE TOWN WAS A JUDGMENT
CREDITOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3672, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S LIEN WAS
NOT VALID AS AGAINST THE TOWN'S. 

WAS THE TOWN A JUDGMENT CREDITOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3672? 
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE SAID: 

"IT IS SETTLED BY OUR DECISIONS THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF A TAX IS IN
THE NATURE OF A JUDGMENT, ENFORCED BY A WARRANT INSTEAD OF AN
EXECUTION.  BOODY V. WATSON, 64 N.H. 162, 167; JAFFREY V. SMITH, 76
N.H. 168, 171; NOTTINGHAM V. COMPANY, 84 N.H. 419.  SEE ALSO, AUTOMATIC
SPRINKLER CORP. V. MARSTON, 94 N.H. 375."  97 N.H. 411, 414, 90 A.2D
499, 502. 

WE WOULD NOT QUESTION OR PRESUME TO SAY WHAT THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF
A TAX PROCEEDING IS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.  THE STATE IS FREE TO GIVE ITS
OWN INTERPRETATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS OWN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION. 
UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. 353.  SEE ALSO HOWARD V.
COMMISSIONERS OF LOUISVILLE SINKING FUND, 344 U.S. 624. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FREELY CONCEDES, HOWEVER, AS IT
MUST, THAT THE MEANING OF A FEDERAL STATUTE IS FOR THIS COURT TO
DECIDE.  UNITED STATES V. SECURITY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, 340 U.S. 47. 
CONGRESS ENACTED SEC. 3672 TO MEET THE HARSH CONDITION CREATED BY THE
HOLDING IN UNITED STATES V. SNYDER, 149 U.S. 210, WHEN FEDERAL LIENS
WERE FEW, THAT A SECRET FEDERAL TAX LIEN WAS GOOD AGAINST A PURCHASER
FOR VALUE WITHOUT NOTICE. 

A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF CONGRESS IN ITS TAX SCHEME IS UNIFORMITY, AS
FAR AS MAY BE.  THEREFORE, A "JUDGMENT CREDITOR" SHOULD HAVE THE SAME
APPLICATION IN ALL THE STATES.  IN THIS INSTANCE, WE THINK CONGRESS
USED THE WORDS "JUDGMENT CREDITOR" IN SEC. 3672 IN THE USUAL,
CONVENTIONAL SENSE OF A JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF RECORD, SINCE ALL STATES
HAVE SUCH COURTS.  (FN1)  WE DO NOT THINK CONGRESS HAD IN MIND THE
ACTION OF TAXING AUTHORITIES WHO MAY BE ACTING JUDICIALLY AS IN NEW
HAMPSHIRE AND SOME OTHER STATES, (FN2) WHERE THE END RESULT IS
SOMETHING "IN THE NATURE OF A JUDGMENT," WHILE IN OTHER STATES THE
TAXING AUTHORITIES ACT QUASI-JUDICIALLY AND ARE CONSIDERED
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.  (FN3) 

WE CONCLUDE THAT WHATEVER THE TAX PROCEEDINGS OF THE TOWN OF WALPOLE
MAY AMOUNT TO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, THEY WERE
NOT SUCH PROCEEDINGS AS RESULTED IN MAKING THE TOWN A JUDGMENT CREDITOR
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3672. 

WHILE THE TOWN WAS NOT A JUDGMENT CREDITOR, IT WAS THE HOLDER OF A
GENERAL LIEN ON ALL THE TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY.  SO WAS THE UNITED STATES
A GENERAL LIENHOLDER ON ALL THE TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY.  (FN4)  BUT SINCE
THE TAXPAYER WAS INSOLVENT, THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS THE BENEFIT OF
ANOTHER STATUTE TO GIVE IT PRIORITY, SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES,
31 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  191, THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH ARE SET FORTH
IN THE MARGIN.  (FN5) 

AS IS USUAL IN CASES LIKE THIS, THE TOWN ASSERTS THAT ITS LIEN IS A
PERFECTED AND SPECIFIC LIEN WHICH IS IMPLIEDLY EXCEPTED FROM THIS
STATUTE.  THIS COURT HAS NEVER ACTUALLY HELD THAT THERE IS SUCH AN
EXCEPTION.  ONCE AGAIN, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO MEET THIS ISSUE
BECAUSE THE LIEN ASSERTED HERE DOES NOT RAISE THE QUESTION. 

IN CLAIMS OF THIS TYPE, "SPECIFICITY" REQUIRES THAT THE LIEN BE
ATTACHED TO CERTAIN PROPERTY BY REDUCING IT TO POSSESSION, ON THE
THEORY THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS NO CLAIM AGAINST PROPERTY NO LONGER
IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEBTOR.  THELUSSON V. SMITH, 2 WHEAT.  396. 
UNTIL SUCH POSSESSION, IT REMAINS A GENERAL LIEN.  THERE IS NO GROUND
FOR THE CONTENTION HERE THAT THE TOWN HAD PERFECTED ITS LIEN BY
REDUCING THE PROPERTY TO POSSESSION.  THE RECORD REVEALS NO SUCH
ACTION.  THE MERE ATTACHMENT OF THE TOWN'S LIEN BEFORE THE RECORDING OF
THE FEDERAL LIEN DOES NOT, CONTRARY TO THE HOLDING OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, GIVE THE TOWN PRIORITY OVER THE UNITED STATES.  THE
TAXPAYER HAD NOT BEEN DIVESTED BY THE TOWN OF EITHER TITLE OR
POSSESSION.  THE TOWN, THEREFORE, HAD ONLY A GENERAL, UNPERFECTED
LIEN.  UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., SUPRA; ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, 329
U.S. 362, 370.  WHERE THE LIEN OF THE TOWN AND THAT OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ARE BOTH GENERAL, AND THE TAXPAYER IS INSOLVENT, SEC. 3466
CLEARLY AWARDS PRIORITY TO THE UNITED STATES.  UNITED STATES V. TEXAS,
314 U.S. 480, 488. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE CONCURRRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON IN UNITED STATES
V. SECURITY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, SUPRA, AT P. 52. 

FN2  THE DECISIONS HAVE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSMENTS
ARE JUDGMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF PREVENTING COLLATERAL ATTACKS UPON THEM,
ASCERTAINING RIGHTS TO A HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THEM, OR DECIDING
UNDER LOCAL PROCEDURE ON THE APPLICABLE METHOD OF COLLECTING THEM. 
THESE CASES, PRIOR TO THE INSTANT DECISION, HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY
DECLARED THAT THE STATUS OF A TECHNICAL JUDGMENT CREDITOR HAS BEEN
CREATED.  PEOPLE EX REL. HARDING V. HART, 332 ILL. 467, 163 N.E. 769;
NOTTINGHAM V. NEWMARKET MFG. CO., 84 N.H. 419, 151 A. 709; PEOPLE EX
REL. GLENS FALLS INS. CO. V. FERGUSON, 38 N.Y. 89; WILLIAMS V. WEAVER,
75 N.Y. 30; STATE V. GEORGIA CO., 112 N.C. 34, 17 S.E. 10; UNION
TANNING CO. V. COMMONWEALTH, 123 VA. 610, 96 S.E. 780.  BUT SEE HIBBARD
V. CLARK, 56 N.H. 155, HOLDING THAT IT IS NOT A JUDGMENT.  1 COOLEY,
TAXATION (4TH ED., 1924), 91-92, POINTS OUT THAT ASSESSMENTS, THOUGH
THEY MAY BE ENOUGH LIKE JUDGMENTS TO DEFINITELY ESTABLISH A DEMAND FOR
TAXES, ARE NOT TECHNICAL JUDGMENTS. 

FN3  FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF REMSEN V. HAYES, 186 IOWA 892, 171 N.W.
715; ALEXANDER V. COMMONWEALTH, 137 VA. 477, 120 S.E. 296; WEYERHAEUSER
TIMBER CO. V. PIERCE COUNTY, 97 WASH. 534, 167 P. 35; STIMSON TIMBER
CO. V. MASON COUNTY, 112 WASH. 603, 192 P. 994. 

FN4  "SEC.  3670.  PROPERTY SUBJECT TO LIEN. 

"IF ANY PERSON LIABLE TO PAY ANY TAX NEGLECTS OR REFUSES TO PAY THE
SAME AFTER DEMAND, THE AMOUNT (INCLUDING ANY INTEREST, PENALTY,
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT, OR ADDITION TO SUCH TAX, TOGETHER WITH ANY COSTS
THAT MAY ACCRUE IN ADDITION THERETO) SHALL BE A LIEN IN FAVOR OF THE
UNITED STATES UPON ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR
PERSONAL, BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON."  SEC. 3670 I.R.C., 26 U.S.C. (1946
ED.)  SEC.  3670. 

FN5  R.S. SEC. 3466.  "WHENEVER ANY PERSON INDEBTED TO THE UNITED
STATES IS INSOLVENT, OR WHENEVER THE ESTATE OF ANY DECEASED DEBTOR, IN
THE HANDS OF THE EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS, IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY
ALL THE DEBTS DUE FROM THE DECEASED, THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES
SHALL FIRST BE SATISFIED; AND THE PRIORITY HEREBY ESTABLISHED SHALL
EXTEND AS WELL TO CASES IN WHICH A DEBTOR, NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT
PROPERTY TO PAY ALL HIS DEBTS, MAKE A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT THEREOF, OR
IN WHICH THE ESTATE AND EFFECTS OF AN ABSCONDING, CONCEALED, OR ABSENT
DEBTOR ARE ATTACHED BY PROCESS OF LAW, AS TO CASES IN WHICH AN ACT OF
BANKRUPTCY IS COMMITTED." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS, DISSENTING. 

I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT INSOFAR AS IT SUPPOSES
THAT SEC. 3672 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS TO BE READ AS REQUIRING
THAT CERTAIN PROCEDURES - AND THE SAME PROCEDURES - BE COMPLIED WITH IN
EACH STATE BEFORE A CREDITOR BECOMES THE MAGIC "JUDGMENT CREDITOR." 
NOT OVER JUDGMENT CREDITORS.  THIS IS THE RULE OF UNIFORMITY ENACTED BY
CONGRESS.  BUT IT DOES NOT DEMAND THAT THE SAME PROCEDURE BE FOLLOWED
IN EVERY STATE.  NOR DOES IT DEMAND THAT ANY PARTICULAR PROCEDURE BE
FOLLOWED, THAT THE CREDITOR FORMALLY PROSECUTE HIS CLAIM IN THE COURTS
AND OBTAIN JUDGMENT, OR EVEN THAT THE COMMON-LAW REQUIREMENTS BE
SATISFIED. 

OF COURSE, THE STATE COURTS CANNOT BY THE WAND OF A LABEL WAVE AWAY
THE REQUIREMENT, WHICH I AGREE IS A MATTER FOR FEDERAL INTERPRETATION,
THAT A CREDITOR BE A "JUDGMENT CREDITOR."  BUT FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT
INSIST ON ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT THE CREDITOR BE IN THE SAME POSITION
AS A CREDITOR WHO HOLDS A JUDGMENT "IN THE USUAL, CONVENTIONAL SENSE." 
FEDERAL LAW REFERS TO STATE LAW, AS IT DOES IN THE CLOSELY COMPARABLE
BANKRUPTCY PROVISIONS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER ACTION TAKEN BY A TAXING
AUTHORITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME EFFECT AS WOULD
BE GIVEN THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF RECORD, THAT IS, WHETHER THE TOWN
STANDS - ALONG WITH CREDITORS WHO HAVE OBTAINED JUDGMENT FROM A COURT
OF RECORD - ON A HIGHER FOOTING THAN THOSE WHO HAVE YET TO ESTABLISH
THEIR CLAIMS IN COURT.  IF THE ASSESSMENT HERE HAS, AS THE NEW
HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT INFORMS US, THE NORMAL ATTRIBUTES OF A
JUDGMENT, I SEE NO WAY OF ESCAPING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TOWN IS A
JUDGMENT CREDITOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3672.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE DECISIONS, SEE NOTTINGHAM V. NEWMARKET MFG. CO., 84 N.H.
419, 151 A. 709; JAFFREY V. SMITH, 76 N.H. 168, 80 A. 504; CF.
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CORP. V. MARSTON, 94 N.H. 375, 376, 54 A.2D 154,
155, THERE IS NO REASON FOR BELIEVING THAT THE STATE RULING HERE SIMPLY
APPLIES A LABEL AND DOES NOT EXPRESS THE CONTROLLING LAW OF THE STATE
UNRELATED TO THE IMPLICATIONS OF SEC. 3672.  NOTHING MORE OUGHT TO BE
REQUIRED. 

IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S RELUCTANCE NOT ONLY TODAY BUT FOR ALMOST A
CENTURY AND A HALF TO DECIDE THE ISSUES THAT MAY ARISE UNDER SEC. 3466
OF THE REVISED STATUTES, I DO NOT THINK I OUGHT TO EMBARRASS LATER
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT OF THESE ISSUES BY SPEAKING ON THEM AT THIS
TIME.  COMPARE CONARD V. ATLANTIC INS. CO., 1 PET. 386, 441, 444, WITH
UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. 353, 355; SEE 56 YALE L.J.
1258.  BUT CF. ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, 329 U.S. 362, 376 (DISSENTING
OPINION).  IT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY INAPPROPRIATE TO DO SO IN THIS
CASE, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TOLD WHAT KIND OF LIEN HAS ARISEN AND WHAT
EFFECT THE TAX SALES MAY HAVE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK 345 U.S. 369 


NO. 5, ORIGINAL, OCTOBER TERM, 1950.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1953 - DECIDED
APRIL 6, 1953. 


NEW JERSEY BROUGHT AN ORIGINAL SUIT IN THIS COURT AGAINST THE STATE OF
NEW YORK AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO ENJOIN A PROPOSED DIVERSION OF
DELAWARE RIVER WATER BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK FROM TRIBUTARIES WITHIN
THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  PENNSYLVANIA INTERVENED PRO INTERESSE SUO AND
PARTICIPATED ACTIVELY IN THE LITIGATION.  IN 1931, THIS COURT ENTERED A
DECREE, 283 U.S. 805, ENJOINING THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE CITY OF
NEW YORK FROM DIVERTING MORE THAN A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF WATER PER DAY
AND PROVIDING THAT ANY PARTY MIGHT APPLY FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE
DECREE AT ANY TIME.  IN 1952, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WITH THE APPROVAL
AND SUPPORT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, MOVED TO MODIFY THE DECREE SO AS
TO PROVIDE FOR THE DIVERSION OF ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES OF WATER.  NEW
JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA FILED ANSWERS OPPOSING SUCH MODIFICATION. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA MOVED FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE,
ASSERTING ITS INTEREST IN THE USE OF DELAWARE RIVER WATER AND POINTING
TO THE RECENT GRANT OF A HOME RULE CHARTER AS JUSTIFICATION FOR
INTERVENTION AT THIS POINT.  HELD:  THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
IS DENIED.  PP. 370-375. 

(A)  SINCE PENNSYLVANIA IS A PARTY TO THIS SUIT, WHICH INVOLVES A
MATTER OF ITS SOVEREIGN INTEREST, IT MUST BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT ALL OF
ITS CITIZENS AND CREATURES.  KENTUCKY V. INDIANA, 281 U.S. 163.  PP.
372-373. 

(B)  AN INTERVENOR WHOSE STATE IS ALREADY A PARTY TO AN ORIGINAL
ACTION HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING SOME COMPELLING INTEREST IN ITS OWN
RIGHT, APART FROM ITS INTEREST IN A CLASS WITH ALL OTHER CITIZENS AND
CREATURES OF THE STATE, WHICH INTEREST IS NOT PROPERLY REPRESENTED BY
ITS STATE; AND PHILADELPHIA HAS NOT MET THAT BURDEN.  PP. 373-374. 

(C)  THAT PHILADELPHIA NOW HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER AND IS NOW
RESPONSIBLE FOR HER OWN WATER SYSTEM DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT
RESULT, SINCE THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS INVARIABLY SERVED BY THE
COMMONWEALTH'S POSITION.  P. 374. 

(D)  THE PRESENCE IN THIS LITIGATION OF NEW YORK CITY, WHICH WAS
JOINED AS A DEFENDANT TO THE ORIGINAL ACTION, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT
JUSTIFICATION FOR PERMITTING THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA TO INTERVENE. 
PP. 374-375. 

NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK ET AL. 

ON MOTION OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA HAS MOVED THIS COURT FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
IN THIS ORIGINAL ACTION CONCERNING DISTRIBUTION OF DELAWARE RIVER
WATER.  ARGUMENT WAS HEARD ON THE MOTION ON MARCH 9, 1953, WITH ALL
INTERESTED PARTIES APPEARING. 

THE SUIT, ADDRESSED TO THIS COURT'S ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, WAS
BROUGHT BY THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, IN 1929, AGAINST THE STATE OF NEW
YORK AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK, PRAYING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST A
PROPOSED DIVERSION OF DELAWARE RIVER WATER FROM TRIBUTARIES WITHIN THE
STATE OF NEW YORK.  NEW JERSEY JOINED THE CITY OF NEW YORK AS A
DEFENDANT, BECAUSE THE CITY, ACTING UNDER STATE AUTHORITY, WAS PLANNING
THE ACTUAL DIVERSION OF THE WATER FOR ITS USE.  THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA IMMEDIATELY PETITIONED FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE PRO
INTERESSE SUO.  LEAVE TO INTERVENE WAS GRANTED, UPON CONDITION THAT THE
COMMONWEALTH FILE A STATEMENT OF HER INTEREST IN THE CAUSE AND OF THE
RELIEF, IF ANY, WHICH SHE SOUGHT.  280 U.S. 528.  PENNSYLVANIA FILED
HER STATEMENT OF INTEREST AND RELIEF ON JANUARY 10, 1930, AND
THEREAFTER BECAME AN ACTIVE PARTY IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL
MASTER.  IN 1931, THIS COURT CONFIRMED THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT, 283
U.S. 336, AND ENTERED ITS DECREE IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH, 283 U.S.
805. 

THE 1931 DECREE ENJOINED THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE CITY OF NEW
YORK FROM DIVERTING FROM THE DELAWARE RIVER OR ITS TRIBUTARIES MORE
THAN 440 MILLION GALLONS DAILY, SUBJECT TO A PRESCRIBED FORMULA FOR THE
RELEASE OF STORAGE WATER DURING PERIODS OF LOW FLOW.  THE DECREE
FURTHER PROVIDED: 

"6.  ANY OF THE PARTIES HERETO, COMPLAINANT, DEFENDANTS OR
INTERVENER, MAY APPLY AT THE FOOT OF THIS DECREE FOR OTHER OR FURTHER
ACTION OR RELIEF AND THIS COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DECREE,
OR ANY SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE THAT IT MAY DEEM AT ANY TIME TO BE PROPER IN
RELATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER IN CONTROVERSY."  ID., AT P. 807. 

ON APRIL 1, 1952, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WITH THE APPROVAL AND SUPPORT
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, MOVED UNDER PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE 1931 DECREE
FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS PETITION TO MODIFY THE DECREE BY PROVIDING FOR
DIVERSION OF ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES OF WATER AND FOR CHANGES IN THE
PRESCRIBED FORMULA FOR RELEASING WATER DURING LOW FLOW.  THE MOTION WAS
GRANTED.  343 U.S. 974.  NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA FILED ANSWERS
OPPOSING THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, AND THE WHOLE MATTER WAS REFERRED
TO A SPECIAL MASTER.  IBID. 

ON DECEMBER 13, 1952, THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA FILED THIS MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO INTERVENE.  THE PETITION ASSERTS PHILADELPHIA'S UNQUESTIONED
INTEREST IN THE USE OF DELAWARE RIVER WATER AND POINTS TO THE RECENT
GRANT OF HER HOME RULE CHARTER AS JUSTIFICATION FOR INTERVENTION AT
THIS POINT.  ALL OF THE PRESENT PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION HAVE FORMALLY
OPPOSED THE MOTION TO INTERVENE ON GROUNDS (1) THAT THE INTERVENTION
WOULD PERMIT A SUIT AGAINST A STATE BY A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT; (2) THAT THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA HAS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF
PHILADELPHIA AS PARENS PATRIAE; AND (3) THAT INTERVENTION SHOULD BE
DENIED, IN ANY EVENT, AS A MATTER OF SOUND DISCRETION.  PHILADELPHIA
CONTENDS THAT THE MATTER IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF
THIS COURT, WHICH SHOULD BE EXERCISED AS PRAYED TO ASSURE THAT EVERY
WORTH-WHILE INTEREST IS REPRESENTED IN THE ULTIMATE DECREE. 

THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE MATTER MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER
PHILADELPHIA'S INTERVENTION IN THE PENDING LITIGATION WOULD AMOUNT TO A
"  ...  SUIT IN LAW OR EQUITY, COMMENCED OR PROSECUTED AGAINST ONE OF
THE UNITED STATES BY CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE  ...  " IN VIOLATION OF
THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.  FOR THE SAME REASONS, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED
WITH SO MUCH OF THE "PARENS PATRIAE" ARGUMENT AS MAY BE ONLY A
RESTATEMENT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AGAINST A
STATE CAN ONLY BE INVOKED BY ANOTHER STATE ACTING IN ITS SOVEREIGN
CAPACITY ON BEHALF OF ITS CITIZENS.  CF. NEW HAMPSHIRE V. LOUISIANA,
108 U.S. 76 (1883); NORTH DAKOTA V. MINNESOTA, 263 U.S. 365 (1923). 
THE "PARENS PATRIAE" DOCTRINE, HOWEVER, HAS ASPECTS WHICH GO BEYOND
MERE RESTATEMENT OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT; IT IS A RECOGNITION OF THE
PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATE, WHEN A PARTY TO A SUIT INVOLVING A MATTER OF
SOVEREIGN INTEREST, "MUST BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT ALL ITS CITIZENS." 
KENTUCKY V. INDIANA, 281 U.S. 163, 173-174 (1930).  THE PRINCIPLE IS A
NECESSARY RECOGNITION OF SOVEREIGN DIGNITY, AS WELL AS A WORKING RULE
FOR GOOD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.  OTHERWISE, A STATE MIGHT BE
JUDICIALLY IMPEACHED ON MATTERS OF POLICY BY ITS OWN SUBJECTS, AND
THERE WOULD BE NO PRACTICAL LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF CITIZENS, AS
SUCH, WHO WOULD BE ENTITLED TO BE MADE PARTIES. 

THE CASE BEFORE US DEMONSTRATES THE WISDOM OF THE RULE.  THE CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA REPRESENTS ONLY A PART OF THE CITIZENS OF PENNSYLVANIA WHO
RESIDE IN THE WATERSHED AREA OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
AND DEPEND UPON THOSE WATERS.*  IF WE UNDERTOOK TO EVALUATE ALL THE
SEPARATE INTERESTS WITHIN PENNSYLVANIA, WE COULD, IN EFFECT, BE DRAWN
INTO AN INTRAMURAL DISPUTE OVER THE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER WITHIN THE
COMMONWEALTH.  FURTHERMORE, WE ARE TOLD BY NEW JERSEY THAT THERE ARE
CITIES ALONG THE DELAWARE RIVER IN THAT STATE WHICH, LIKE PHILADELPHIA,
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN WATER SYSTEMS, AND WHICH WILL INSIST UPON
A RIGHT TO INTERVENE IF PHILADELPHIA IS ADMITTED.  NOR IS THERE ANY
ASSURANCE THAT THE LIST OF INTERVENORS COULD BE CLOSED WITH POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATES.  LARGE INDUSTRIAL PLANTS WHICH, LIKE
CITIES, ARE CORPORATE CREATURES OF THE STATE MAY REPRESENT INTERESTS
JUST AS SUBSTANTIAL. 

*CENSUS FIGURES FOR 1950 SHOW THAT THERE WERE 4,061,420 PENNSYLVANIA
CITIZENS WITHIN THE WATERSHED, OF WHICH, 2,071,605, OR ABOUT HALF, ARE
IN PHILADELPHIA. 

OUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT BE THUS EXPANDED TO THE
DIMENSIONS OF ORDINARY CLASS ACTIONS.  AN INTERVENOR WHOSE STATE IS
ALREADY A PARTY SHOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF SHOWING SOME COMPELLING
INTEREST IN HIS OWN RIGHT, APART FROM HIS INTEREST IN A CLASS WITH ALL
OTHER CITIZENS AND CREATURES OF THE STATE, WHICH INTEREST IS NOT
PROPERLY REPRESENTED BY THE STATE.  SEE KENTUCKY V. INDIANA, SUPRA.
PHILADELPHIA HAS NOT MET THAT BURDEN AND, THEREFORE, EVEN IF HER
INTERVENTION WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO A SUIT AGAINST A STATE WITHIN THE
PROSCRIPTION OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT (AND WE DO NOT INTEND TO GIVE
ANY BASIS FOR IMPLYING THAT IT DOES), LEAVE TO INTERVENE MUST BE
DENIED. 

PENNSYLVANIA INTERVENED IN 1930, PRO INTERESSE SUO, TO PROTECT THE
RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF PHILADELPHIA AND EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA IN THE
DELAWARE RIVER.  THE COMMONWEALTH OPPOSED NEW JERSEY'S POSITION BASED
ON COMMON-LAW RIPARIAN RIGHTS, SINCE THAT PROPOSITION THREATENED THE
RIGHT OF PHILADELPHIA AND EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TO CONTINUE THEIR USE
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DELAWARE RIVER AND ITS PENNSYLVANIA
TRIBUTARIES.  PENNSYLVANIA'S POSITION WAS BASED UPON THE DOCTRINE OF
FAIR AND EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT, AND NEW YORK'S PROPOSED DIVERSION HAD
TO BE RESISTED TO THE EXTENT IT MIGHT AMOUNT TO A DIVERSION OF MORE
THAN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE SHARE.  THIS COURT RECOGNIZED THE PROPRIETY
OF PENNSYLVANIA'S PECULIAR POSITION, BASED ON THE INTERESTS OF ITS
CITIZENS, AND PERMITTED INTERVENTION OVER VIGOROUS OPPOSITION THAT THE
INTERVENOR MUST BE ALIGNED EITHER WITH PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT. 

PENNSYLVANIA'S POSITION REMAINS VIGOROUS AND UNCHANGED IN THE FACE OF
THE PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL DIVERSION.  SHE IS OPPOSED TO ANY SUCH
ADDITIONAL DIVERSION NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE
APPORTIONMENT.  COUNSEL FOR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA HAVE BEEN UNABLE
TO POINT OUT A SINGLE CONCRETE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT TO WHICH THE
COMMONWEALTH'S POSITION DOES NOT REPRESENT PHILADELPHIA'S INTERESTS. 
WE DO NOT SEE HOW PHILADELPHIA'S HOME RULE CHARTER CHANGES THE
SITUATION.  THOUGH PHILADELPHIA IS NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR HER OWN WATER
SYSTEM UNDER THE CHARTER, THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS INVARIABLY SERVED BY
THE COMMONWEALTH'S POSITION. 

THE PRESENCE OF NEW YORK CITY IN THIS LITIGATION IS URGED AS A REASON
FOR PERMITTING PHILADELPHIA TO INTERVENE.  BUT THE ARGUMENT
MISCONSTRUES NEW YORK CITY'S POSITION IN THE CASE.  NEW YORK CITY WAS
NOT ADMITTED INTO THIS LITIGATION AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION AT HER
REQUEST.  SHE WAS FORCIBLY JOINED AS A DEFENDANT TO THE ORIGINAL ACTION
SINCE SHE WAS THE AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE SOVEREIGN
POLICY WHICH THREATENED INJURY TO THE CITIZENS OF NEW JERSEY.  BECAUSE
OF THIS POSITION AS A DEFENDANT, SUBORDINATE TO THE PARENT STATE AS THE
PRIMARY DEFENDANT, NEW YORK CITY'S POSITION IN THE CASE RAISES NO
PROBLEMS UNDER THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.  WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS AND
SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, 278 U.S. 367 (1929), AND 281 U.S. 179
(1930); CF. GEORGIA V. TENNESSEE COPPER CO., 206 U.S. 230 (1907).  NEW
YORK CITY'S POSITION IS NOT CHANGED BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT SHE IS
PRESENTLY THE MOVING PARTY, SO LONG AS THE MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF
THE 1931 DECREE COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORIZATION OF
PARAGRAPH 6 OF THAT DECREE. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND FILE AN ANSWER IS, THEREFORE,
DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS, DISSENTING. 

WE DESIRE THE RECORD TO SHOW WHY WE WOULD ALLOW PHILADELPHIA TO
INTERVENE IN THIS CASE. 

THE CITY, OF COURSE, IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY, AND IT IS
GENERALLY BAD POLICY TO ENCUMBER ANY CASE WITH UNNECESSARY
INTERVENORS.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT WHATEVER THAT COUNSEL FOR THE
COMMONWEALTH WILL FAITHFULLY AND ABLY REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF ALL OF
ITS INHABITANTS, INCLUDING THOSE OF PHILADELPHIA.  NONETHELESS, WE
WOULD ALLOW THE INTERVENTION BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES PECULIAR TO THIS
CASE. 

WE DO NOT WRITE TODAY UPON A CLEAN SLATE.  NEW YORK CITY, AS WELL AS
NEW YORK STATE, IS A PARTY TO THIS ACTION.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE CITY
WAS MADE A DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL CASE.  BUT THAT CASE WAS LONG AGO
DECIDED.  NEW YORK CITY IS THE MOVING PARTY NOW, IN REOPENING THE
DECREE.  THE INTERESTS OF MUNICIPALITY AND STATE ARE NO MORE SEPARATE
IN THE CASE OF NEW YORK THAN OF PHILADELPHIA.  BOTH CITIES HAVE HOME
RULE POWERS AND VITAL INTERESTS IN THIS LITIGATION.  NEW YORK CITY IS
THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IN THE CURRENT APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION
OF AN EXISTING DECREE AND IT IS IN A POSITION TO PRESENT ITS OWN
CLAIMS.  WE WOULD ALLOW PHILADELPHIA'S MOTION TO PRESENT ANY PROPER
EVIDENCE THAT IT DEEMS PROTECTIVE OF ITS INTEREST.  THIS WOULD NOT BE
MERELY A FAVOR TO THAT CITY.  IT WOULD ALSO PROTECT THE POSITION OF
THIS COURT IF THE MASTER SHOULD REPORT IN FAVOR OF NEW YORK, AND
PHILADELPHIA, WITH THE WISDOM THAT COMES FROM HINDSIGHT, SHOULD ASK TO
OPPOSE CONFIRMATION UPON THE GROUND THAT ITS INTERESTS HAD NOT HAD FULL
CONSIDERATION. 

IT IS OBJECTED THAT, IF PHILADELPHIA IS ADMITTED, OTHER
MUNICIPALITIES MAY APPLY.  THAT MAY BE SO. WE ARE NOT BELIEVERS IN TOWN
MEETING LAWSUITS.  BUT CERTAINLY FEW OTHERS COULD SHOW COMPARABLE HOME
RULE POWER AND MAGNITUDE OF INTEREST, AND WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT THIS
IS NO ORDINARY LAWSUIT.  IT MAY HAVE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES UPON ONE OR THE
OTHER OR BOTH MUNICIPALITIES.  SINCE THE COURT IS HEARING ONE OF THEM,
WE WOULD BEAR WITH SOME INCONVENIENCE RATHER THAN HAVE THE OTHER
AGGRIEVED FROM THE BEGINNING BY BEING SHUT OUT. 
..END :





BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. V. UNITED STATES 345 U.S. 146 


NO. 258.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1953 - 105 F. SUPP.
631, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANT RAILROADS SUED TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM CARLOAD RATES FOR CARRYING
CERTAIN KINDS OF FRESH VEGETABLES - ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE
"CONFISCATORY" AND THEREFORE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE SOLE BASIS FOR THIS CHARGE WAS AN ALLEGATION
THAT, IF PUT INTO EFFECT, THE RATES WOULD PRODUCE LESS MONEY THAN IT
WOULD COST THE RAILROADS TO CARRY THE PARTICULAR VEGETABLES COVERED BY
EACH RATE.  HELD:  THE SUIT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED.  PP. 147-150. 

(A)  NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585, AND
NORFOLK & W.R. CO. V. WEST VIRGINIA, 236 U.S. 605, DISTINGUISHED.  PP.
148-149. 

(B)  SO LONG AS RATES AS A WHOLE AFFORD RAILROADS JUST COMPENSATION
FOR THEIR OVER-ALL SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A BAR TO FIXING NONCOMPENSATORY RATES FOR
CARRYING SOME COMMODITIES WHEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS THEREBY SERVED. 
P. 150. 

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MISSOURI. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT TO SET ASIDE A RATE ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  105 F. SUPP. 631.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 150. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT RAILROADS BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE A RATE ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THE ORDER PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM CARLOAD RATES FOR CARRYING
CERTAIN KINDS OF FRESH VEGETABLES.  THE RATES WERE CHARGED TO BE
"CONFISCATORY" AND THEREFORE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE SOLE BASIS FOR THIS CHARGE WAS AN ALLEGATION
THAT IF PUT IN EFFECT THE RATES WOULD PRODUCE LESS MONEY THAN IT WOULD
COST THE RAILROADS TO CARRY THE PARTICULAR VEGETABLES COVERED BY EACH
RATE.  DENYING THAT A COMMODITY RATE VIOLATES DUE PROCESS MERELY
BECAUSE IT IS NONCOMPENSATORY, THE COMMISSION MOVED TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT PROOF OF EVERYTHING THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED
WOULD NOT JUSTIFY INVALIDATION OF THE ORDER.  ON THIS GROUND, AND
WITHOUT REACHING ANOTHER COMMISSION CONTENTION ON WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURT RELIED, WE HOLD THAT THE CASE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BY THAT
COURT.  (FN1) 

THERE IS AND HAS BEEN NO CLAIM THAT THE CHALLENGED RATES WILL MAKE
ANY ONE OF THE COMPLAINING RAILROADS OPERATE ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS AT A
LOSS, OR EVEN CARRY ALL FRESH VEGETABLES AT A LOSS.  THE CARLOAD RATES
PRESCRIBED ARE BUT MINOR ALTERATIONS IN A VAST, COMPLEX NETWORK OF
RATES THAT APPLY TO FRESH VEGETABLE SHIPMENTS THROUGHOUT THE NATION. 
ONE OF THE TWO RATES APPLIES ONLY TO CARLOAD SHIPMENTS OF CARROTS WITH
TOPS, THE OTHER TO CARLOAD SHIPMENTS OF A LIMITED GROUP OF OTHER FRESH
VEGETABLES SUCH AS STRING BEANS, LETTUCE AND PARSNIPS.  AND BOTH RATES
RELATE ONLY TO SHIPMENTS FROM POINTS IN TEXAS TO POINTS IN SOME BUT NOT
ALL OF THE OTHER STATES. 

SUCH ADJUSTMENTS OF RATES AMONG VEGETABLES AS THE COMMISSION HERE
MADE WOULD APPEAR TO BE BUT NORMAL, RUN-OF-THE-MINE REGULATIONS AND THE
FIXING OF A CHEAPER TRANSPORTATION RATE FOR ONE VEGETABLE THAN FOR
ANOTHER MAY WELL SERVE AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC NEED.  SO LONG AS A RAILROAD
IS NOT CAUSED BY SUCH REGULATIONS TO LOSE MONEY ON ITS OVER-ALL
BUSINESS, IT IS HARD TO THINK THAT IT COULD SUCCESSFULLY CHARGE THAT
ITS PROPERTY WAS BEING TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE "WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION."  (FN2)  AND APPARENTLY THE RAILROADS RELY NOT ON THE
JUST COMPENSATION BUT ON THE DUE PROCESS PROVISION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  THIS APPEARS FROM THEIR COMPLAINT AND THE CASES CITED TO
SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTION.  CHIEF RELIANCE IS PLACED ON NORTHERN PACIFIC
R. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585, AND A COMPANION CASE DECIDED THE
SAME DAY, NORFOLK & W.R. CO. V. WEST VIRGINIA, 236 U.S. 605.  BOTH
CASES INVOLVED STATE STATUTES FIXING RAILROAD RATES, ONE ON COAL AND
ONE ON PASSENGERS.  BOTH WERE FOUND TO BE NONCOMPENSATORY.  BOTH WERE
HELD VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
IN BOTH THE GROUND WAS THAT THE RATES WERE "UNREASONABLE" AND
"ARBITRARY."  THE COURT WAS CAREFUL TO POINT OUT AND EMPHASIZE THAT
THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE RECORDS OF THOSE CASES TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE
"REASONABLE" GROUNDS ON WHICH TO JUSTIFY IMPOSING NONCOMPENSATORY RATES
ON THE RAILROADS.  IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE VEGETABLE
RATES HERE CHALLENGED ARE THE RESULT OF UNREASONABLE OR ARBITRARY
COMMISSION ACTION. 

THE HISTORY OF REGULATION OF FRESH VEGETABLE TRANSPORTATION RATES
FROM THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST SHOWS THE DIFFICULTIES THE COMMISSION HAS
HAD IN THAT FIELD.  MUCH OF THAT HISTORY CAN BE FOUND IN THE COMMISSION
REPORTS CITED BELOW.  (FN3)  NOT ONLY HAS THE COMMISSION HAD TO
CONSIDER CONFLICTING RATE CLAIMS AS BETWEEN SHIPPERS AND CARRIERS; IT
HAS ALSO HAD TO RESOLVE DISPUTES OVER SUCH QUESTIONS AMONG THE CARRIERS
THEMSELVES.  THE PRESENT RATE ORDER IS BUT ONE OF A LONG SERIES OF
COMMISSION ORDERS DESIGNED TO CORRECT DEFECTS AND INJUSTICES THAT
DEVELOP FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE GENERAL FRESH VEGETABLE RATE PATTERN. 
AMONG THE FACTORS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN FIXING THESE RATES
HAVE BEEN THESE: VALUE OF THE VEGETABLE; COMPARISON OF VEGETABLE
VALUES; COMPARISONS WITH RATES ON THE SAME VEGETABLES IN DIFFERENT
THAN VEGETABLES; SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME VEGETABLES THAT ADD TO
OR SUBTRACT FROM EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTATION; PERISHABILITY; CLAIM
HAZARDS OF THE CARRIER AS BETWEEN DIFFERENT VEGETABLES; COMPETING TRUCK
RATES,; AND POSSIBLE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF RATES ON VEGETABLE PRICES AND
SALES. 

THIS MERE SAMPLE OF FACTORS THAT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN RATE CASES
DEMONSTRATES THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR CONSIDERABLE FLEXIBILITY IN
RATE MAKING.  FOR NOT ONLY ARE FAIR DECISIONS AS TO VEGETABLE RATES
VITAL TO THE WELFARE OF FARMERS AND WHOLE SECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY; THE
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF THE NATION ARE INVOLVED.  MOREOVER, COMMISSION
POWER TO ADJUST RATES TO MEET PUBLIC NEEDS IS IMPLICIT IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL PLAN FOR A NATIONALLY INTEGRATED RAILROAD SYSTEM.  UNITED
STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225, 230; THE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE,
261 U.S. 184; RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN V. CHICAGO, B.&Q.R. CO.,
257 U.S. 563, 583-586.  AND SO LONG AS RATES AS A WHOLE AFFORD
RAILROADS JUST COMPENSATION FOR THEIR OVER-ALL SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A BAR TO THE FIXING
OF NONCOMPENSATORY RATES FOR CARRYING SOME COMMODITIES WHEN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IS THEREBY SERVED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE RAILROADS HAD NOT
TENDERED ANY ISSUE OF CONFISCATION OR OFFERED ANY PROOF OF
TRANSPORTATION COSTS UNTIL AFTER THE COMMISSION HAD FINISHED ITS
HEARINGS, MADE FINDINGS AND ENTERED ITS RATE ORDER.  105 F. SUPP. 631. 
FOR THIS REASON THE DISTRICT COURT DECLINED THE RAILROADS' REQUEST TO
HEAR EVIDENCE OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS, A PROCEDURAL COURSE APPROVED IN
BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 349, OR TO HOLD THE
CASE FOR REMAND TO THE COMMISSION FOR IT TO MAKE A PRELIMINARY
APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS IN LINE WITH THE SUGGESTION IN NEW YORK V.
UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 284, 334-336.  RELYING ON THE COURT'S OPINION
IN THE BALTIMORE & OHIO CASE, SUPRA, THE RAILROADS HERE CONTEND THAT
DISMISSAL BECAUSE OF THEIR DELAY IN RAISING THE ISSUE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION DEPRIVED THEM OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF THEIR FIFTH AMENDMENT CONTENTION.  THE COMMISSION'S
ANSWER TO THIS CONTENTION IS A REQUEST THAT WE RE-EXAMINE THE BALTIMORE
& OHIO CASE, ABANDON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED BY THE
MAJORITY THERE AND APPLY THE CONCURRING MINORITY VIEWS TO THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE.  BECAUSE THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUND FOR DECISION WE
ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE CONFISCATION ISSUE HERE WAS RAISED
IN TIME. 

FN2  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES IN PART:  "NO PERSON SHALL  ...  BE
DEPRIVED OF  ...  PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL
PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION." 

FN3  279 I.C.C. 671 AND 284 I.C.C. 206 ARE THE ORIGINAL AND REHEARING
REPORTS ON THE PRESENT RATE ORDER.  OTHER REPORTS ON THE SYSTEM OF
VEGETABLE RATES ARE SOUTHWESTERN VEGETABLE CASE, 200 I.C.C. 355, 209
I.C.C. 606, 214 I.C.C. 63; SOUTHEASTERN VEGETABLE CASE, 200 I.C.C. 273;
TRANSCONTINENTAL RATES AND ESTIMATED WEIGHTS ON VEGETABLES, 270 I.C.C.
665; ESTIMATED WEIGHTS ON LETTUCE FROM THE SOUTHWEST, 276 I.C.C. 647. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 349, ESTABLISHED A
RULE OF PROCEDURE THAT ENTITLES A CARRIER TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF
CONFISCATION IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NOT TENDERED THE ISSUE IN THE HEARINGS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION BUT ONLY ON A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AFTER
THE ORDER WAS ISSUED.  THAT RULE OF PROCEDURE WAS CHALLENGED BY MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN AN OPINION IN WHICH THREE OTHER JUSTICES JOINED. 
ID., P. 381.  THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION IN THE BRIEFS AND ON ORAL
ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE WISDOM AND PROPRIETY OF THAT RULE.  WHATEVER
MAY BE CONCLUDED ON THE MERITS, IT IS A RULE ON WHICH LITIGANTS ARE
ENTITLED TO RELY UNTIL AND UNLESS IT IS OVERRULED.  APPELLANTS PROPERLY
RELIED ON IT HERE.  AFTER THE COMMISSION ENTERED THIS RATE ORDER, THE
APPELLANTS FILED A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, OFFERING TO PROVE THAT
THE COSTS OF OPERATION UNDER THE NEW RATES WOULD EXCEED THE REVENUES. 
THE DISTRICT COURT THEREFORE ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT EVIDENCE BEARING
ON THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION WAS INADMISSIBLE IN THESE REVIEW
PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE IT HAD NOT BEEN TENDERED IN THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  105 F. SUPP. 631. 

THE COURT, WITHOUT DECIDING THAT ISSUE, ASSUMES THAT THE TENDER OF
PROOF ON THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION WAS TIMELY, BUT CONCLUDES THAT EVEN
IF A CONFISCATORY RATE WERE ESTABLISHED, THE CARRIERS WOULD BE ENTITLED
TO NO RELIEF.  THAT RULING IS, IN MY VIEW, QUITE UNJUSTIFIED ON THE
RECORD BEFORE US. 

APPELLANTS OFFER TO PROVE THAT THEIR COSTS OF HANDLING THE TRAFFIC
ARE GREATER THAN THE REVENUES WHICH THE TRAFFIC WILL PRODUCE UNDER THE
NEW RATES.  WE MUST ASSUME UNDER THE COURT'S RULING THAT THAT IS THE
FACT.  WHAT JUSTIFICATION THEN IS THERE FOR THE COMMISSION FORCING THE
CARRIERS TO HAUL THE TRAFFIC AT LESS THAN COST? 

ONE WILL READ THE RECORD IN VAIN FOR ANY CLUE.  THE REPORT OF THE
COMMISSION IS LARGELY A HODGE-PODGE OF STATISTICS DEALING WITH RATES ON
VEGETABLES FROM TEXAS, CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, AND NEW MEXICO TO EASTERN
AND NORTHERN POINTS.  THE COMMISSION WAS APPARENTLY BENT ON LEVELING
DOWN SOME OF THE RATES OUT OF TEXAS TO MAKE THEM MORE NEARLY EQUAL TO
THOSE OUT OF CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, AND NEW MEXICO.  THE REASONS ARE NOT
DISCLOSED. 

THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OR INTIMATION THAT THE VEGETABLE MARKETS WERE
SUFFERING BY REASON OF THE TEXAS RATES. 

TEXAS GROWERS AND SHIPPERS COMPLAINED THAT THE RATE STRUCTURE WAS
UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO THEM AND UNDULY PREFERENTIAL TO GROWERS AND
SHIPPERS IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, AND NEW MEXICO.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
THE FORMER WERE IN COMPETITION WITH THE LATTER IN VARIOUS MARKETS.  BUT
THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THERE WAS "NO PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE" THAT THE
TEXAS RATES HAD AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE TEXAS GROWERS AND SHIPPERS. 
THE COMMISSION IN OTHER WORDS REFUSED TO FIND THAT THE RATES WERE
UNDULY PREJUDICIAL UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  49
U.S.C. SEC. 3. 

THE COMMISSION DID, HOWEVER, FIND THAT THE TEXAS RATES WERE
UNREASONABLE; AND IT PROCEEDED TO PRESCRIBE "REASONABLE" RATES PURSUANT
TO SEC. 15(1) OF THE ACT. 

CAN A CONFISCATORY RATE BE A "REASONABLE" RATE UNDER THE STATUTORY
AND CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM WITHIN WHICH THE COMMISSION OPERATES?  IT IS
INCREDIBLE TO ME THAT CONGRESS USED "REASONABLE" IN SUCH AN ODD AND
UNUSUAL SENSE.  THE HISTORY OF RATE-MAKING, REVIEWED IN NORTHERN
PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585, DENIES IT.  PERHAPS THERE
WILL BE EXCEPTIONS.  PERHAPS DIRE EMERGENCIES WILL ARISE, MAKING IT
NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO COMPEL THE TRANSPORTATION OF
CERTAIN COMMODITIES AT LESS THAN COST.  BUT CERTAINLY SUCH A STEP
SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN WITHOUT APPROPRIATE FINDINGS SHOWING WHY THE
CONFISCATORY RATE IS A "REASONABLE" ONE. 

THIS CONTROVERSY ON THE MERITS MAY BE INSUBSTANTIAL.  THE PROOF OF
CONFISCATION MAY FAIL.  IT MAY BE ESTABLISHED, AS ONE OF THE APPELLEES
CONTENDS, THAT THE CARRIERS SINCE 1940 HAVE VOLUNTARILY PUBLISHED RATES
YIELDING LESS THAN HALF THE REVENUE PER CAR TO BE YIELDED BY THE NEW
RATES.  BUT THE ISSUES TENDERED SHOULD BE TRIED.  IF WE ASSUME THAT THE
PRESCRIBED RATES ARE CONFISCATORY, IT IS, IN MY VIEW, IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY
ON THE PRESENT RECORD THAT THEY ARE "REASONABLE." 
..END :

















UNITED STATES, CHAPMAN V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION 345 U.S. 153 


NO. 28.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1952 - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1953 - 191 F.2D
796, AFFIRMED. 


THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED TO CONGRESS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN FOR FLOOD-CONTROL,
POWER, AND OTHER PURPOSES; BUT IT DID NOT CLEARLY RECOMMEND THAT ALL
PROJECTS BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION CONCURRED IN THIS RECOMMENDATION.  IN THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT
OF 1944, CONGRESS APPROVED THE PLAN AND SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TWO
PROJECTS NOT AT ROANOKE RAPIDS.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSION ORDERED
ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE TO A PRIVATE POWER COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT A
HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT AT ROANOKE RAPIDS, N.C.  HELD: 

1.  PETITIONERS, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND AN ASSOCIATION OF
NONPROFIT RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES, HAD STANDING TO INSTITUTE THIS
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 313(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT TO SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  PP. 154-156. 

2.  CONGRESS HAS NOT WITHDRAWN, AS TO THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION TO ISSUE SUCH A LICENSE. 
PP. 156-172. 

3.  UNDER SEC. 7(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, THE COMMISSION'S
CONCURRENCE IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DID NOT
PRECLUDE THE COMMISSION FROM ISSUING SUCH A LICENSE.  PP. 172-174. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 29, VIRGINIA REA ASSOCIATION ET AL. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ORDERED ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE TO A
PRIVATE POWER COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT A HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT AT
ROANOKE RAPIDS, N.C.  87 P.U.R. (N.S.)  469.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
DENIED A PETITION TO SET ASIDE THIS ORDER.  191 F.2D 796.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 941.  AFFIRMED, P. 174. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THESE TWO CASES, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND AN ASSOCIATION
OF NONPROFIT RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES HAVE CHALLENGED THE AUTHORITY
OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION TO GRANT TO THE RESPONDENT POWER
COMPANY, VEPCO, A LICENSE TO CONSTRUCT A HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING
STATION AT ROANOKE RAPIDS, NORTH CAROLINA.  THEY CLAIM THAT CONGRESS,
BY APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SET OUT IN THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF
1944 FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN, HAS WITHDRAWN ALL
ELEVEN SITES PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLAN, INCLUDING ROANOKE
RAPIDS, FROM THE LICENSING JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION AND HAS
RESERVED THEM FOR PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION.  THE UNDERLYING PREMISE, THAT
THE PLAN APPROVED BY CONGRESS PRESUPPOSED FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT OF ALL
SITES INCLUDED IN THE PLAN, ALSO UNDERLIES PETITIONERS' OTHER MAIN
CONTENTION HERE, THAT THE COMMISSION'S CONCURRENCE IN THE PLAN
CONSTITUTED A DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THESE WATER RESOURCES SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES
ITSELF.  SUCH A DETERMINATION, THEY SAY, REQUIRES THE COMMISSION UNDER
SEC. 7(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, 41 STAT. 1067, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT.
842, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 800(B), TO MAKE INVESTIGATIONS AND SUBMIT ITS
FINDINGS TOGETHER WITH APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS AND IN
ANY EVENT BARS THE COMMISSION FROM APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR PRIVATE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.  PETITIONERS UNSUCCESSFULLY RAISED THESE
CONTENTIONS, ALONG WITH ATTACKS ON THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS NOT
PRESSED HERE, BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, WHICH
DENIED THEIR PETITIONS TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER GRANTING A
LICENSE TO VEPCO.  UNITED STATES V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 191 F.2D
796.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 343 U.S. 941.  THE CASES PRESENT QUESTIONS
OF IMPORTANCE IN THAT THEY INVOLVE A CONFLICT OF VIEW BETWEEN TWO
AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVING DUTIES IN RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES.  DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES MAY AFFECT A
SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF IMPORTANT POTENTIAL SITES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER.  CF. RULES SUP. CT. 38 (5)(B). 

BOTH HERE AND IN THE COURT BELOW, PETITIONERS' STANDING TO RAISE
THESE ISSUES HAS BEEN QUESTIONED.  THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR POINTS
TO HIS STATUTORY DUTY TO ACT AS SOLE MARKETING AGENT OF POWER DEVELOPED
AT PUBLIC HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS AND NOT REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION OF
THE PROJECT; SEC. 5 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944 DIRECTS HIM TO
TRANSMIT AND DISPOSE OF SUCH POWER IN A MANNER CALCULATED TO "ENCOURAGE
THE MOST WIDESPREAD USE THEREOF AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE RATES TO
CONSUMERS CONSISTENT WITH SOUND BUSINESS PRINCIPLES."  58 STAT. 890, 16
U.S.C. SEC. 825S.  THIS PROVISION, IT IS SAID, ANNOUNCES A
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE SECRETARY THAT WOULD BE
DISTURBED BY THE RESPONDENT COMPANY'S PLAN; THUS A SPECIFIC INTEREST OF
THE SECRETARY, IN ADDITION TO HIS MORE GENERAL DUTIES RELATING TO THE
CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION OF THE NATION'S WATER RESOURCES, IS SAID
TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE REA
ASSOCIATION, AN ASSOCIATION OF COOPERATIVES, ASSERTS THAT, AS AN
ORGANIZATION OF CONSUMERS ENTITLED, ALONG WITH "PUBLIC BODIES," TO A
PREFERENCE IN SALES BY THE SECRETARY UNDER SEC. 5, IT HAS A SUBSTANTIAL
INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-COST POWER AT THE ROANOKE RAPIDS
SITE AND CONSEQUENTLY IN THE KIND OF INSTRUMENTALITY, PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE, TO WHICH POWER DEVELOPMENT AT THIS SITE IS COMMITTED. 
RESPONDENT SAYS, HOWEVER, THAT DECISIONS OF POLICY IN THE CONSTRUCTION
OF POWER PROJECTS HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION, OR AT MOST
ALSO TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, UNDER WHOM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PERFORMS ITS STATUTORY FUNCTIONS OF MAKING SURVEYS AND CONSTRUCTING
PUBLIC WORKS, AND THAT THE INTERESTS OF PETITIONERS ARISE ONLY AFTER A
PUBLIC PROJECT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY HAS
DETERMINED THAT THERE IS EXCESS POWER TO BE DISTRIBUTED AND SOLD. 

WE HOLD THAT PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING.  DIFFERENCES OF VIEW,
HOWEVER, PRECLUDE A SINGLE OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO BOTH
PETITIONERS.  IT WOULD NOT FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF THIS COMPLICATED
SPECIALITY OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION, THE SOLUTION OF WHOSE PROBLEMS IS
IN ANY EVENT MORE OR LESS DETERMINED BY THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF
INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS, TO SET OUT THE DIVERGENT GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF
STANDING IN THESE CASES. 

PETITIONERS' MAIN CONTENTION, THAT CONGRESS HAS, BY A SERIES OF
ENACTMENTS TO BE CONSTRUED AS PART OF AN EVOLVING ASSUMPTION BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE AUTHORITY OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS,
RESERVED THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE FOR PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AND SO HAS
PLACED IT BEYOND THE LICENSING POWER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
REQUIRES US TO CONSIDER WITH SOME PARTICULARITY THE STEPS BY WHICH
PLANS FOR THE ROANOKE RAPIDS PROJECT HAVE UNFOLDED.  PETITIONERS'
CONTENTION REDUCES ITSELF TO THE CLAIM THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE AGENCY
TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS DELEGATED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAFEGUARDING THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OF POWER RESOURCES HAS BEEN
REVOKED PRO TANTO BY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AS TO THIS PARTICULAR SITE. 

IN 1927, THE ARMY ENGINEERS WERE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE A SPECIFIC SURVEY
OF THE ROANOKE RIVER BY SEC. 1 OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT, 44 STAT.
1010, 1015, WHICH "ADOPTED AND AUTHORIZED" ENUMERATED "WORKS OF
IMPROVEMENT" INCLUDING "SURVEYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH" H.R. DOC. NO. 308,
69TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1926).  THAT DOCUMENT, A MILESTONE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED FEDERAL PLANNING FOR THE USE OF THE NATION'S
WATER RESOURCES, HAD RECOMMENDED SURVEYS OF A LARGE NUMBER OF STREAMS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE ROANOKE RIVER, "EITHER FOR THE
PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ALONE OR IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, OR TO SECURE
ADEQUATE DATA TO INSURE THAT WATERWAY DEVELOPMENTS BY PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE WOULD FIT INTO A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE FULL UTILIZATION OF
THE WATER RESOURCES OF A STREAM."  H.R. DOC.  NO. 308, 69TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 4.  THE DETAILED SURVEY OF THE ROANOKE RIVER WAS TRANSMITTED TO
CONGRESS IN 1934; IN IT THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS STATED THAT A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR NAVIGATION AND POWER, FLOOD CONTROL OR
IRRIGATION "IS NOT ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIABLE AT THE PRESENT TIME," H.R.
DOC. NO. 65, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2 (1935), AND CONCURRED IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE INVESTIGATING ENGINEER THAT "THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION
FOR ANY FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR EITHER FLOOD CONTROL OR POWER."  ID.,
AT 53; CF. ID., AT 14-15. 

IN 1936, CONGRESS ENACTED THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT.
1570, DEFINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN FLOOD CONTROL AS FOLLOWS:  "IT IS
HEREBY RECOGNIZED THAT DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS UPON THE RIVERS OF THE UNITED
STATES  ...  CONSTITUTE A MENACE TO NATIONAL WELFARE; THAT IT IS THE
SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT FLOOD CONTROL ON NAVIGABLE WATERS OR THEIR
TRIBUTARIES IS A PROPER ACTIVITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  ...  ; THAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD IMPROVE OR PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT
OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OR THEIR TRIBUTARIES, INCLUDING WATERSHEDS THEREOF,
FOR FLOOD-CONTROL PURPOSES IF THE BENEFITS TO WHOMSOEVER THEY MAY
ACCRUE ARE IN EXCESS OF THE ESTIMATED COSTS, AND IF THE LIVES AND
SOCIAL SECURITY OF PEOPLE ARE OTHERWISE ADVERSELY AFFECTED."  49 STAT.
1570, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 701A.  IN THE SAME ACT, THE SECRETARY OF WAR WAS
AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE SURVEYS AT A NUMBER OF LOCALITIES, INCLUDING
"RESERVOIRS IN ROANOKE AND TAR RIVERS, NORTH CAROLINA."  (FN1) SEC. 7,
ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1596.  IN SEC. 6 OF THE ACT, CONGRESS PROVIDED
THAT "THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE ENTERED UPON ANY
PROJECT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF ANY WATERWAY MENTIONED IN THIS ACT UNTIL
THE PROJECT FOR THE PROPOSED WORK SHALL HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY LAW."  49
STAT. 1592. 

FOLLOWING A DESTRUCTIVE FLOOD ON THE ROANOKE RIVER IN 1940, THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL ADOPTED A RESOLUTION REQUESTING REAPPRAISAL
OF THE PREVIOUS REPORTS ON THE ROANOKE RIVER TO DETERMINE "WHETHER ANY
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE INTERESTS OF FLOOD CONTROL AND ALLIED PURPOSES ARE
ADVISABLE AT THIS TIME."  SEE H.R. DOC. NO. 650, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS.
12 (1944).  A SIMILAR RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED LATER BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, SEE IBID., AND AS A RESULT, THE CORPS
OF ENGINEERS SUBMITTED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS IN A REPORT WHICH BECAME
H.R. DOC. NO. 650, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1944).  THIS REPORT
RECOMMENDED THE COMPREHENSIVE ROANOKE BASIN PLAN HERE IN ISSUE.  THE
REPORT PROPOSED A SYSTEM OF ELEVEN DAMS AND RESERVOIRS, EIGHT OF THEM
ON THE ROANOKE RIVER, AND RECOMMENDED AUTHORIZATION OF TWO OF THOSE
PROJECTS, DESIGNATED BUGGS ISLAND AND PHILPOTT, "AS THE INITIAL STEP." 
ID., AT 2. 

PETITIONERS RELY MOST STRONGLY ON TWO FEATURES OF THIS REPORT FOR
THEIR CLAIM THAT CONGRESS HAS, BY APPROVING THE PLAN OUTLINED IN THE
REPORT, WITHDRAWN ALL SITES IN THE PLAN FROM THE LICENSING JURISDICTION
OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  AS THE REPORT MOVED UP THROUGH THE
HIERARCHY OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, COMMENTS UPON THE PLAN WERE MADE
BY THE DIFFERENT RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS.  THE DETAILED REPORT OF THE
INVESTIGATING ENGINEER ESTIMATED COSTS, INCLUDING INTEREST, ON BASES
OBVIOUSLY CONTEMPLATING FEDERAL FINANCING.  THESE FIGURES WERE ACCEPTED
IN THE COMMENTS OF EACH FORWARDING OFFICER.  FURTHER, THE CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS, IN SUBMITTING THE REPORT, STATED, "TO SAFEGUARD THE
INTERESTS OF NAVIGATION AND FLOOD CONTROL, THE DAMS AND POWER
FACILITIES SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED, AND MAINTAINED UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE SUPERVISION OF THE CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS."  IBID.  NEITHER THE REPORTS NOR THE COMMENTS OF
SUBORDINATES HAD CONTAINED ANY SUCH SUGGESTION OR ANY ENGINEERING OR
OTHER REASONS WHY SUCH A RECOMMENDATION MIGHT BE MADE, AND THE CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS GAVE NO REASONS FOR HIS SUGGESTION.  FURTHER, IT IS NOT CLEAR
FROM THE CONTEXT THAT THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO ALL THE PROJECTS AND
NOT SIMPLY TO THE TWO DAMS TO BE AUTHORIZED, THAT IS, THE ONES WITH
FLOOD-CONTROL FEATURES, OR EVEN THAT THE WORDS "UNDER THE DIRECTION
...  AND THE SUPERVISION" PRECLUDED CONSTRUCTION BY A PRIVATE
APPLICANT; INDEED, THE ORDER HERE GRANTING THE LICENSE SPECIFICALLY
REQUIRES THE LICENSEE TO "OPERATE ITS PROJECT IN SUCH A MANNER AS THE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OR HIS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MAY PRESCRIBE."  WE DO NOT THINK THESE
DISCONNECTED STATEMENTS WOULD JUSTIFY US IN SAYING THAT THE REPORT AS
IT WENT TO CONGRESS PLAINLY PROPOSED THAT THE GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCT ALL
THE PROJECTS IN THE PLAN.  THERE ARE CONTRARY INDICATIONS IN THE REPORT
ITSELF; PARTICULARLY PERTINENT IN THE LIGHT OF CONGRESSIONAL PRACTICE
IS THE STRONG EMPHASIS PUT ON THE FLOOD-CONTROL ASPECTS OF THE TWO
PROJECTS RECOMMENDED FOR AUTHORIZATION.  IN ANY EVENT, WE DO NOT HAVE A
RECOMMENDATION FOR PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION THAT IS CLEARLY AN INTEGRAL PART
OF THE PLAN, AND THE DECISIVE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT THIS OR THAT
ISOLATED STATEMENT IN THE REPORT OR THE COMMENTS THEREON IMPLY BUT HOW
CONGRESS MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO HAVE RECEIVED AND READ THE REPORT IN THE
LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE IN RELATION TO SUCH PUBLIC WORKS. 

IT DESERVES MENTION THAT THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE, ALTHOUGH
COMPREHENDED IN THE PLAN AND FOUND TO BE THE MOST DESIRABLE POWER SITE
OF ALL ELEVEN UNITS, WAS TO BE DEVELOPED SIMPLY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
POWER.  THE DISTRICT ENGINEER POINTED OUT THAT THE TWO PROJECTS
RECOMMENDED FOR EARLY AUTHORIZATION WOULD PROVIDE PRACTICALLY ALL THE
FLOOD-CONTROL BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PLAN; INSTALLATIONS AT
THE TWO SITES, BUGGS ISLAND AND PHILPOTT, WOULD "ELIMINATE OVER 90
PERCENT OF THE FLOOD LOSSES TO THE TWO MAIN FLOOD-DAMAGE AREAS IN THE
ROANOKE RIVER BASIN."  ID., AT 88.  AT THOSE TWO SITES WERE TO BE BUILT
MULTIPLE-PURPOSE RESERVOIRS FOR FLOOD CONTROL, WATER POWER, AND LOW
WATER REGULATIONS, WHILE AT THE OTHER NINE SITES, WITH ONE MINOR
EXCEPTION, THERE WERE SIMPLY TO BE POWER PROJECTS. 

AS IS CUSTOMARY, THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WAS ASKED TO COMMENT ON
THE PROPOSAL; BY LETTER TO THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS DATED MAY 3, 1944,
THE COMMISSION SUGGESTED SOME TECHNICAL CHANGES BUT CONCURRED
SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ENGINEERS, "THAT THE
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN, IN GENERAL
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS PREPARED THEREFOR BY THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
CONSISTING OF 11 DAM AND RESERVOIR PROJECTS WITH POWER, IS DESIRABLE
AND THAT THE BUGGS ISLAND AND PHILPOTT PROJECTS WOULD CONSTITUTE A
DESIRABLE INITIAL STEP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN." 
ID., AT 4.    THE REPORT WAS PRESENTED TO CONGRESS WHILE THE BILL THAT
BECAME THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944 WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION; ALTHOUGH
THE HOUSE HAD ALREADY CLOSED ITS HEARINGS, THE SENATE REPORT PROPOSED
AMENDING THE BILL TO INCLUDE PROVISION FOR THE ROANOKE BASIN,
RECOMMENDING "APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUGGS ISLAND AND PHILPOTT RESERVOIRS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS."  S. REP. NO. 1030,
78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 8.    THE PROPOSAL WAS ACCEPTED, AND SEC. 10 OF
THE ACT CONTAINS A CORRESPONDING PROVISION.  IT PROVIDES THAT "THE
FOLLOWING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT  ...  ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AND
AUTHORIZED."  INCLUDING IN AN OMNIBUS LISTING OF SUCH "WORKS OF
IMPROVEMENT" IS THE FOLLOWING:  "THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE
DEVELOPMENT" OF THE ROANOKE BASIN RECOMMENDED IN H.R.  DOC. NO. 650 "IS
APPROVED" AND CONSTRUCTION OF BUGGS ISLAND AND PHILPOTT IS "HEREBY
AUTHORIZED SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS IN THAT REPORT AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF
$36,140,000."  (FN2) 

IT IS THIS STATUTORY LANGUAGE THAT PETITIONERS SAY WITHDREW THE
ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE FROM THE LICENSING JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. 
THEY ASK US TO READ THE WORD "APPROVED" AS A RESERVATION OF THE SITE
FOR PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION AND, BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION, A WITHDRAWAL OF
THE SITE FROM THE COMMISSION'S LICENSING AUTHORITY.  A FLAT "APPROVAL"
OF A PLAN CLEARLY RECOMMENDING PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION AS AN INDISPENSABLE
CONSTITUENT OF THE PLAN MIGHT INDEED HAVE THAT EFFECT, BUT, AS
INDICATED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE PLAN MADE ANY SUCH
RECOMMENDATION. 

A SEPARATE ARGUMENT OF PETITIONERS IS BASED IN PART ON THE LANGUAGE
OF A PRIVISO COMMONLY INSERTED IN AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FLOOD-CONTROL
SURVEYS, (FN3) THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE ENTERED
UPON A PROJECT UNTIL THE PROJECT IS "ADOPTED BY LAW."  FROM THIS
LANGUAGE PETITIONERS INFER THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ENTRY UPON A PROJECT
SO AS TO PRECLUDE PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION OCCURS WHEN CONGRESS ADOPTS A
PROJECT, AND THEY ASK US TO SAY THAT SUCH ADOPTION OCCURRED HERE WHEN
CONGRESS "APPROVED" THE PLAN COMPREHENDING THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE.  WE
DO NOT THINK THE WORD "APPROVAL" CARRIES THE IMPLICATION OF "ADOPTION"
OR "AUTHORIZATION" BY ITS OWN FORCE.  READ TOGETHER WITH OTHER
LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONCERNING WATER RESOURCES AND WITH THE HISTORY OF
FEDERAL ACTIVITY IN THAT REGARD, CONGRESSIONAL "APPROVAL" WITHOUT MORE
(FN4) CANNOT BE TAKEN, WE THINK, TO INDICATE IN THIS CASE MORE THAN A
LEGISLATIVE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECTS, NO MATTER BY WHOM THEY
MAY BE BUILT, ARE DESIRABLE AND CONSISTENT WITH CONGRESSIONAL STANDARDS
FOR THE ORDERED DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION'S WATER RESOURCES.  SUCH A
FINDING HAS MEANING IN CONVEYING THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND
EXPRESSING A CONGRESSIONAL ATTITUDE.  CONCRETELY IT MEANS THAT CONGRESS
HAS ADOPTED A BASIC POLICY FOR THE SYSTEMATIC DEVELOPMENT OF A RIVER
BASIN.  DECISION IS MADE ON SUCH QUESTIONS AS THE LOCATIONS OF
PROJECTS, THE PURPOSES THEY ARE TO SERVE, THEIR APPROXIMATE SIZE AND
THE DESIRABLE ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION; BECAUSE OF THE NECESSARY
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF MANY TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC FEATURES
OF THE SEVERAL DAMS IN A SINGLE RIVER BASIN, EARLY CHOICE AMONG
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES IS IMPERATIVE.  THE POLICY CHOSEN BY CONGRESS
WHEN IT APPROVES A PLAN IS, IN THE FIRST PLACE, DIRECTED TO CONGRESS
ITSELF IN ITS APPROPRIATING FUNCTIONS.  (FN5)  APPROVAL ALSO TELLS THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION - THE EXECUTANT OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY - HOW
TO EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN RELATION TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF SITES IN
THE ROANOKE BASIN.  THE FINDING HAD UTILITY IN THIS CASE IN THE
GUIDANCE IT GAVE THE COMMISSION IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PRIVATE
APPLICANT WOULD ADEQUATELY DEVELOP ALL THE BENEFITS THAT SHOULD BE
DERIVED FROM THE PROPOSED SITE. 

IN SO INTERPRETING THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS HAS USED, WE GAIN SOME LIGHT
FROM THE ACTION CONGRESS HAS TAKEN TO SET PROJECTS IN MOTION FOLLOWING
ENACTMENT OF STATUTES "APPROVING" A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
"AUTHORIZING" CERTAIN PROJECTS SET OUT IN THE PLAN.  FOR THE ROANKOE
RIVER BASIN ITSELF, ALTHOUGH BUGGS ISLAND AND PHILPOTT WERE
SPECIFICALLY "AUTHORIZED" IN THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944, SEPARATE
STEPS WERE TAKEN BY CONGRESS TO COMPLETE THE AUTHORIZATION; "PLANNING
MONEY" WAS APPROPRIATED, A "DEFINITE PROJECT REPORT" WAS RECEIVED FOR
BUGGS ISLAND, AND THEN FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUGGS ISLAND WERE
APPROPRIATED.  EQUALLY ILLUMINATING IS THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH CONGRESS
RECENTLY SET IN MOTION PLANS TO BUILD A PROJECT "APPROVED" EXACTLY AS
WAS THE ROANOKE RAPIDS PROJECT.  AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME AS THE
ENGINEERING REPORTS ON THE ROANOKE RIVER WERE SUBMITTED, A COMPARABLE
REPORT WAS SUBMITTED CONCERNING THE SAVANNAH RIVER, GEORGIA, AND
RECOMMENDING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MUCH LIKE THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
PLAN.  LIKE BUGGS ISLAND AND PHILPOTT IN THE ROANOKE PLAN, CLARK HILL
IN THE SAVANNAH PLAN WAS RECOMMENDED FOR IMMEDIATE AUTHORIZATION, "AS
THE INITIAL STEP."  SEE H.R. DOC. NO. 657, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 6.  AS
THE DEMAND FOR POWER INCREASED, OTHER PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN
WERE TO FOLLOW, THE FIRST TO BE THE HARTWELL SITE.  THE SENATE REPORT
ACCEPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION, S. REP. NO. 1030, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 9
10, JUST AS IT HAD THE ROANOKE BASIN RECOMMENDATION, AND CALLED FOR
"APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE CLARK HILL PROJECT."  ID., AT 10.  SECTION 10 OF THE FLOOD
CONTROL ACT OF 1944 CONTAINS A CORRESPONDING PROVISION.  58 STAT. 894. 
THUS, THE BACKGROUND AS WELL AS THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS
RELATING TO PROJECTS IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER PLAN ARE CLOSELY PARALLEL TO
THOSE RELATING TO THE ROANOKE PROJECTS.  RECENTLY, WHEN FURTHER
CONSTRUCTION ON THE SAVANNAH RIVER WAS PROPOSED AND AUTHORIZATION OF
HARTWELL, THE SITE NEXT IN LINE, WAS RECOMMENDED, NEITHER CONGRESS NOR
THE ENGINEERS TREATED THE EARLIER "APPROVAL" OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AS A FINAL STEP MAKING UNNECESSARY OTHER THAN AUTOMATIC APPROPRIATIONS
FOR HARTWELL.  RATHER, HEARINGS WERE HELD, SEE HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS ON H.R. 5472 (TITLE II), 81ST CONG., 1ST
SESS. 37-85 (MAY 16, 1949), AND A SEPARATE AUTHORIZATION FOR
CONSTRUCTION WAS INCLUDED IN THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1950, 64
STAT. 171.  (FN6) 

RESPONDENTS FURTHER POINT OUT THAT AT THE SAME TIME HEARINGS WERE
HELD ON THE HARTWELL PROJECT, THERE WERE ALSO HEARINGS ON FURTHER
CONSTRUCTION IN THE ROANOKE BASIN, AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROPOSED
THE AUTHORIZATION OF SMITH MOUNTAIN, A PROJECT WITH MINOR FLOOD-CONTROL
BENEFITS BUT NOT NEXT IN LINE UNDER THE PLAN AS APPROVED IN THE FLOOD
CONTROL ACT OF 1944.  THAT PLAN HAD PUT THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE HERE
INVOLVED AND THE GASTON SITE AHEAD OF SMITH MOUNTAIN.  THE REASON GIVEN
BY THE ENGINEERS FOR CHANGING THE ORDER OF CONSTRUCTION WAS THAT
PRIVATE APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION HERE, HAD BEEN MADE OR
CONTEMPLATED FOR THE ROANOKE RAPIDS AND GASTON SITES.  WHILE WE DO NOT
ATTACH WEIGHT TO SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS BY THE ENGINEERS THAT THE FLOOD
CONTROL ACT OF 1944 DID NOT PRECLUDE PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION OF SOME
PROJECTS IN THE PLAN, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT A COMMITTEE OF
CONGRESS RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER RESOURCES LEGISLATION WAS INFORMED THAT
AN APPLICATION WAS PENDING FOR PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION.  WHETHER OR NOT
THE COMMITTEE AGREED THAT THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944 ALLOWED PRIVATE
CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECTS COMPREHENDED IN PLANS THERE APPROVED, IN FACT
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY IT TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM PROCEEDING TO
HEAR THE VEPCO APPLICATION, ALTHOUGH THE COMMITTEE LEARNED THAT THE
APPLICATION WAS PENDING OVER A YEAR AND A HALF BEFORE THE ORDER WAS
HANDED DOWN BY THE COMMISSION. 

WHATEVER LIGHT THESE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN CONGRESS AFFORD, BOTH
AS TO THE ROANOKE BASIN AND AS TO THE COMPARABLE HARTWELL SITE IN THE
SAVANNAH RIVER PLAN, WE FIND NO SOLID GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT
CONGRESS HAS TAKEN OVER THE ENTIRE RIVER BASIN FOR PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT
WITH SUCH DEFINITENESS AND FINALITY SO AS TO WARRANT US IN HOLDING THAT
CONGRESS HAS WITHDRAWN AS TO THIS WHOLE RIVER BASIN ITS GENERAL GRANT
OF CONTINUING AUTHORITY TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION TO ACT AS THE
RESPONSIBLE AGENT IN EXERCISING THE LICENSING POWER OF CONGRESS. 
EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF THE NEED FOR INTEGRATION OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
AFFECTING WATERWAYS, SEE, E.G., REPORT OF SECRETARY OF WAR STIMSON,
H.R. DOC. NO. 929, 62D CONG., 3D SESS. 32-35 (1912), AND OF THE BREADTH
OF AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE COMMISSION BY CONGRESS IN RESPONSE TO THAT
NEED IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSION IN
HYDROELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT.  SEE, E.G., FIRST IOWA COOP.  V. POWER
COMM'N, 328 U.S. 152, 180, 181, AND CASES CITED.  FROM THE TIME THAT
THE IMPORTANCE OF POWER SITES WAS BROUGHT TO PUBLIC AND CONGRESSIONAL
CONSCIOUSNESS DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRESIDENT THEODORE
ROOSEVELT, THE SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN THE DEVISING OF A
GENERAL POWER POLICY INSTEAD OF AD HOC ACTION BY CONGRESS, WITH ALL THE
DIFFICULTIES AND DANGERS OF LOCAL PRESSURES AND LOGROLLING TO WHICH
SUCH ACTION GAVE RISE.  SEE THE VETO MESSAGES OF PRESIDENTS ROOSEVELT
AND TAFT, E.G., 36 CONG. REC. 3071 (MUSCLE SHOALS, ALA., 1903); 42
CONG. REC.  4698 (RAINY RIVER, 1908); H.R. DOC. NO. 1350, 60TH CONG.,
2D SESS. (JAMES RIVER, 1909); H.R. DOC. NO. 899, 62D CONG., 2D SESS.
(WHITE RIVER, 1912); S. DOC. NO. 949, 62D CONG., 2D SESS. (COOSA RIVER,
1912).  IT SOON BECAME CLEAR THAT INDISPENSABLE TO A WISE NATIONAL
POLICY WAS THE CREATION OF A COMMISSION WITH FUNCTIONS AND POWERS
COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE FIELD
OF TRANSPORTATION.  IT TOOK THE USUAL TIME FOR SUCH A COMMISSION TO
COME INTO BEING, AND THE PROCESS WAS STEP-BY-STEP.  ORIGINALLY CONGRESS
ENTRUSTED ITS POLICY TO A COMMISSION COMPOSED OF THREE CABINET
OFFICERS.  41 STAT.  1063.  AN AGENCY SO BURDENED WITH OTHER DUTIES WAS
NATURALLY FOUND INADEQUATE AS THE INSTRUMENT OF THESE IMPORTANT WATER
POWER POLICIES.  AND SO, IN 1930, THE COMMISSION WAS REORGANIZED AS AN
EXPERT BODY OF FIVE FULL-TIME COMMISSIONERS.  46 STAT. 797, 16 U.S.C.
SEC. 792.  THESE ENACTMENTS EXPRESSED GENERAL POLICIES AND GRANTED
BROAD ADMINISTRATIVE AND INVESTIGATIVE POWER, MAKING THE COMMISSION THE
PERMANENT DISINTERESTED EXPERT AGENCY OF CONGRESS TO CARRY OUT THESE
POLICIES.  CF. 41 STAT. 1065, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 839, 16 U.S.C. SEC.
797; 3 REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S WATER RESOURCES POLICY COMM'N 501
(1950). 

A PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMISSION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT OF
DETERMINING WHETHER PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  SEE, E.G., S. REP. NO. 180, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3. 
EXPRESS PROVISION IS MADE TO CHARGE THE COMMISSION WITH THE TASK OF
DECIDING WHETHER CONSTRUCTION OUGHT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE UNITED
STATES ITSELF.  41 STAT. 1067, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 842, 16 U.S.C. SEC.
800(B).  FURTHER, EVEN IF PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED,
APPROVAL OF PRIVATE APPLICATIONS REQUIRES A DETERMINATION THAT THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS "BEST ADAPTED TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" FOR WATER
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT.  41 STAT. 1068, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 842, 16
U.S.C. SEC. 803(A).  THUS, CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN CAN BE READ, AS WE THINK IT SHOULD IN THIS CASE, SIMPLY AS SAYING
THAT A PLAN SUCH AS THAT HERE, RECOMMENDED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FOR THE FULLEST REALIZATION OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS IN THE RIVER
BASIN, SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSION AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO BE USED IN THE APPLICATION OF THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  THAT
"APPROVAL" AS SUCH DOES NOT RESERVE ALL PROJECTS IN THE PLAN FOR PUBLIC
CONSTRUCTION IS PERHAPS FURTHER INDICATED BY THE FACT THAT WHEN
CONGRESS HAS WISHED TO RESERVE PARTICULAR SITES FOR PUBLIC
CONSTRUCTION, IT HAS CHOSEN TO SAY SO.  SEE 41 STAT. 1353, 45 STAT.
1012, 45 STAT. 1062. 

OF COURSE, IT IS NOT FOR US TO INTIMATE A PREFERENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE
OF PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION AT THIS SITE.  NOR ARE WE EVEN ASKED TO REVIEW
THE PROPRIETY OF THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE THAT
PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION IS "IN HARMONY WITH" THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
THE ROANOKE BASIN.  RE VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO., 87 P.U.R. (N.S.) 
469, 483.  WE ARE SIMPLY ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER CONGRESS HAS WITHDRAWN
THE POWER TO DECIDE THIS QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSION.  TO CONCLUDE
THAT CONGRESS HAS DONE SO BY APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT
THAT MAY BE, AND IN THIS CASE WAS, A PLAN FOR LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT,
WOULD BE TO CONTRACT, BY A TENUOUS CHAIN OF INFERENCES, THE BROAD
STANDING POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.  PARTICULARLY RELEVANT IN THIS
REGARD IS THE ESTIMATE THAT PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AT THIS SITE WOULD NOT
IN THE NORMAL COURSE BE UNDERTAKEN FOR MANY YEARS.  SEE EXAMINER'S
DECISION OF MARCH 17, 1950, R., I, 109.  CONGRESS WAS OF COURSE AWARE
THAT, BY GRANTING A LICENSE TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION WOULD NOT COMMIT THE SITE PERMANENTLY TO PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
AND PRECLUDE ALL FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  THE COMMISSION WOULD AS
IT DID HERE, SIMPLY EXPRESS ITS JUDGMENT THAT, AT THE TIME, PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL CONCEPTION OF
THE WAY IN WHICH THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED.  FOR, AT
ANY TIME SHORT OF THE FIFTY YEARS IN WHICH A SITE AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES
AVAILABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT COMPENSATION, THE GOVERNMENT MAY
DETERMINE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST MAKES IT MORE DESIRABLE THAT THE
PROJECT BE OPERATED PUBLICLY AND HAS THE RIGHT THEN, BY APPROPRIATE
STEPS, TO TAKE OVER THE PROJECT.  41 STAT.  1071, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT.
844, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 807.  THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WOULD HAVE TO BE MUCH
MORE CLEARLY MANIFESTED TO JUSTIFY US IN INFERRING THAT CONGRESS
REVOKED THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER A PRIVATE LICENSE
CONSONANT WITH THE GENERAL SCHEME OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS RIVER BASIN
OUGHT NOW TO BE GRANTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.    OUR CONCLUSION IS IN
ACCORD WITH THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE MANIFEST RELUCTANCE OF CONGRESS TO
ENTER UPON POWER PROJECTS HAVING NO FLOOD-CONTROL OR NAVIGATIONAL
BENEFITS.  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AS UNCLEAR A TERM AS "APPROVAL" WAS
TO HAVE SETTLED, FOR THIS ENTIRE RIVER BASIN, A MAJOR CONTROVERSY THAT
HAS ARISEN AGAIN AND AGAIN IN CONNECTION WITH LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING
PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION OF HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS.  THE DECLARATION OF
POLICY IN THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1936, SUPRA, PP. 157-158, PUTS
STRONG EMPHASIS ON THE FLOOD-CONTROL ASPECTS OF PLANS FOR SITES THAT
WOULD ALSO PRODUCE POWER; NO CHANGE IN THIS POLICY CAN BE READ INTO
SEC. 10 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944.  CF., E.G., 90 CONG. REC.
4126; ID., AT 4127.  AND THE SPONSOR IN THE HOUSE OF THE FLOOD CONTROL
ACT OF 1944 STATED IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION:  "  ...  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY
STATED DURING THE DEBATE THAT NO PROJECT, RESERVOIR, OR DAM, OR OTHER
IMPROVEMENT IS EMBRACED IN THIS BILL UNLESS IT IS PRIMARILY FOR FLOOD
CONTROL.  IF POWER CAN BE DEVELOPED AS AN INCIDENT, OR IF RECLAMATION
CAN BE PROVIDED, THEY ARE CARED FOR IN THE BILL."  90 CONG. REC. 4199;
CF. ID., AT 4202.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS HISTORY AND THESE SPECIFIC
DECLARATIONS, IT STRAINS BELIEF THAT "APPROVAL" OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR THE ROANOKE BASIN RESERVES ALL PROJECTS NAMED IN THE PLAN FOR
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION WHEN THE TWO PROJECTS THAT PROVIDED THE CHIEF
FLOOD-CONTROL FEATURES OF THE PLAN WERE THE ONLY ONES SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED. 

SUBORDINATE ARGUMENTS ARE MADE, BEARING PARTLY ON THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO ISSUE ANY LICENSE FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND PARTLY ON
THE COMMISSION'S EXERCISE OF ITS POWER IN GRANTING THIS LICENSE.  THE
ARGUMENTS INVOLVE TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC DETAILS WHICH IT
WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE TO CANVASS HERE.  ONCE RECOGNIZING, AS WE
DO, THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF ITS POWER TO ENTERTAIN THIS
APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE, WE CANNOT SAY, WITHIN THE LIMITED SCOPE OF
REVIEW OPEN TO US, THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS WERE NOT WARRANTED. 
JUDGMENT UPON THESE CONFLICTING ENGINEERING AND ECONOMIC ISSUES IS
PRECISELY THAT WHICH THE COMMISSION EXISTS TO DETERMINE, SO LONG AS IT
CANNOT BE SAID, AS IT CANNOT, THAT THE JUDGMENT WHICH IT EXERCISED HAD
NO BASIS IN EVIDENCE AND SO WAS DEVOID OF REASON. 

AT THE HEART OF THESE ARGUMENTS IS THE FACT THAT THE ROANOKE RAPIDS
SITE IS, UNDER PRESENT ESTIMATES, THE MOST DESIRABLE SITE FOR POWER IN
THE ROANOKE BASIN.  FOR THAT REASON, AS PETITIONERS ARGUE, REMOVAL OF
THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE FROM A GOVERNMENT-OPERATED SYSTEM WOULD RESULT
IN LOSS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF THAT
SITE AND A DECREASE, BUT ONLY BY THE AMOUNT OF THE ROANOKE RAPIDS
PROFITS, IN THE POTENTIAL PROFITS OF THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE.  BUT IT HAS
NEVER BEEN SUGGESTED THAT SUCH IS THE CRITERION UNDER WHICH THE
COMMISSION IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PROJECT OUGHT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY
THE UNITED STATES, LET ALONE THAT SUCH CONSIDERATIONS COULD DEMONSTRATE
THAT CONGRESS WITHDREW THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE FROM THE LICENSING
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  IF IT COULD BE SHOWN THAT THE PLAN
COULD NOT BE EXECUTED SUCCESSFULLY WITHOUT THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE, IT
WOULD BE ARGUABLE THAT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAN PRESUPPOSED
THAT ALL UNITS OF THE PLAN BE CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED.  THE FINDINGS ARE
TO THE CONTRARY.  THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED PRIVATE
PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN CONTAINED IN THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT
OF 1944, RE VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO., SUPRA, AT 483; THAT THERE IS
NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE "INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE WILL NOT
BE FULLY PROTECTED AND PROMOTED" BY THE ISSUANCE OF THIS LICENSE, ID.,
AT 472; AND THAT THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE
WOULD "AT ANY TIME" BE DEVELOPED BY THE UNITED STATES.  ID., AT 483. 
FURTHER, THERE IS EXPRESS RECOGNITION OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SITE
MAY BE BENEFITED BY GOVERNMENT PROJECTS IN OPERATION AND CONSEQUENTLY
OF THE FACT THAT VEPCO MAY BE REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE THE GOVERNMENT FOR
ANY SUCH "HEADWATER BENEFITS" CONFERRED.  (FN7)  ID., AT 477-478. 

FINALLY, WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION
WAS REQUIRED BY SEC. 7(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT TO RECOMMEND PUBLIC
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.  (FN8)  AS THE REPORT OF THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS DOES NOT CLEARLY RECOMMEND THAT ALL PROJECTS BE CONSTRUCTED
BY THE UNITED STATES, THE COMMISSION'S CONCURRENCE IN THAT REPORT
CANNOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7(B). 
APPLICATION FOR A PROJECT "AFFECTING" ANY DEVELOPMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES WHICH, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION, SHOULD BE
UNDERTAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES ITSELF.  PETITIONERS IN EFFECT ASK US
TO TELL THE COMMISSION WHAT IT THOUGHT - TO SAY TO THE COMMISSION THAT
IT WAS ITS JUDGMENT THAT ROANOKE RAPIDS, AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER SEVEN
PROJECTS IN THE ROANOKE PLAN NOT YET UNDER CONSIDERATION, SHOULD BE
BUILT BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION'S
CONCURRENCE IN THE GENERAL PLAN WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE THAN SIMPLE
APPROVAL OF THE LOCATION OF THE DAMS, THE PURPOSES THEY WOULD SERVE,
AND THE ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECTS, EVEN IF THE REPORT
HAD CLEARLY RECOMMENDED PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION.  PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7(B) MUST REMAIN WITH THE
COMMISSION; WE CANNOT INFER A JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION THAT IT NEVER
EXPRESSED AND NOW SPECIFICALLY DISAVOWS. 

FOR THESE REASONS, WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER MUST STAND.  IN THE BITS AND PIECES OF LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY WHICH WE HAVE SET OUT, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INFERRING
THAT CONGRESS WITHDREW THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY REGARDING THE ROANOKE
RIVER BASIN FROM THE GENERAL AUTHORITY GIVEN THE COMMISSION TO GRANT
LICENSES FOR PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION OF HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS WITH
APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WHATEVER THE MERITS OF
THE CONTROVERSY AS TO WHICH AGENCY - THE GOVERNMENT OR A PRIVATE PARTY
SHOULD CONSTRUCT THIS PROJECT, THAT QUESTION IS NOT WITHIN OUR
PROVINCE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 6 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1938 AUTHORIZED THE
SECRETARY OF WAR TO MAKE SURVEYS "FOR FLOOD CONTROL" OF THE SMITH
RIVER, A TRIBUTARY OF THE ROANOKE ON WHICH TWO OF THE ELEVEN PROJECTS
IN THE COMPREHENSIVE ROANOKE BASIN PLAN ARE LOCATED.  52 STAT. 1223. 

FN2  THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROVISIONS, SO FAR AS THEY ARE RELEVANT, IS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 10.  THAT THE FOLLOWING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
NAVIGATION AND THE CONTROL OF DESTRUCTIVE FLOOD WATERS AND OTHER
PURPOSES ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE INTEREST OF THE
NATIONAL SECURITY AND WITH A VIEW TOWARD PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE
RESERVOIR OF USEFUL AND WORTHY PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE POST-WAR
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, TO BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF WAR AND SUPERVISION OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS IN THE RESPECTIVE REPORTS HEREINAFTER
DESIGNATED AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH THEREIN: (PROVISOS
OMITTED). 

     *         *         *   *         *

                              "ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 

"THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROANOKE
RIVER BASIN FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES RECOMMENDED BY THE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS IN HOUSE DOCUMENT NUMBERED 650, SEVENTY-EIGHTH
CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, IS APPROVED AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUGGS
ISLAND RESERVOIR ON THE ROANOKE RIVER IN VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA,
AND THE PHILPOTT RESERVOIR ON THE SMITH RIVER IN VIRGINIA, ARE HEREBY
AUTHORIZED SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS IN THAT REPORT AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF
$36,140,000."  58 STAT. 891-892, 894. 

FN3  SEE, E.G., SEC. 6 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1936, QUOTED P.
158, SUPRA. 

FN4  THERE IS LITTLE FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT THAT THE WORDS "ADOPTED
AND AUTHORIZED" IN SEC. 10, SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA, APPLY TO THE ROANOKE
RAPIDS SITE.  NOT ONLY IS THE SPECIFIC PROVISION AS TO THE ROANOKE
BASIN TO CONTROL OVER THE GENERAL, BUT THAT WHICH IS ADOPTED AND
AUTHORIZED IS NOT "THE FOLLOWING PLANS" BUT "THE FOLLOWING WORKS OF
IMPROVEMENT," WHICH PATENTLY REFERS TO SUCH PROJECTS AS BUGGS ISLAND
AND PHILPOTT, RATHER THAN TO ALL SITES NAMED IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
THIS ANSWERS THAT PART OF PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT WHICH RELIES ON THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 10 SPEAKING OF PROSECUTION OF THE PROJECTS "UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR" WHEN "BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS"
PERMIT.  AS A MATTER OF LANGUAGE, APART FROM ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS,
THE "WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT" TO WHICH SUCH LANGUAGE REFERS IS BETTER READ
AS THE PROJECTS AUTHORIZED RATHER THAN AS ALL PROJECTS NAMED IN PLANS
THAT WERE APPROVED. 

FN5  THE RULES OF BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE IN 1944, AS NOW,
CALLED FOR PREVIOUS CHOICE OF POLICY THROUGH AUTHORIZATION BY LAW
BEFORE ANY ITEM OF APPROPRIATIONS MIGHT BE INCLUDED IN A GENERAL
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.  RULE XVI, SENATE MANUAL, S. DOC. NO. 239, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 20; RULE XXI, RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
H.R. DOC. NO. 812, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 384.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
DISTINCTION IN THE CONTEXT OF AUTHORIZATION OF POWER PROJECTS IS
BROUGHT OUT IN THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY BETWEEN A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND CHAIRMAN WHITTINGTON OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC WORKS: 

"THE CHAIRMAN  ...  .  IS NOT THE WORD 'APPROVED' AN AUTHORIZATION
FOR THE PLAN BUT WITHOUT APPROPRIATION, OR WITHOUT AN AUTHORIZATION FOR
THE APPROPRIATION? 

"WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A PLAN? 

"COLONEL GEE.  WE HAVE NEVER CONSTRUED THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN TO
CARRY WITH IT THE AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT THE ELEMENTS OF THAT
PLAN. 

"THE CHAIRMAN.  NOR DO WE."  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC WORKS ON H.R.  5472 (TITLE II), 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 42. 

FN6  THE GENERAL ENACTING PROVISION, SEC. 204, 64 STAT. 170, IS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS SEC. 10 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944,
SUPRA, NOTE 2.  THE SPECIFIC PROVISION AS TO THE SAVANNAH RIVER IS AS
FOLLOWS:

              "SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN 

"THERE IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED THE SUM OF $50,000,000
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HARTWELL PROJECT IN THE GENERAL PLAN FOR
THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASIN, APPROVED IN
THE ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1944, IN ADDITION TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION IN THE ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1944."  64 STAT. 171. 

FN7  THUS, WHATEVER BENEFITS MAY BE CONFERRED BY SUCH GOVERNMENT
PROJECTS AS BUGGS ISLAND ON THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE WILL NOT BE LOST TO
THE UNITED STATES.  THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 10(F) OF THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT, 41 STAT. 1070, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 843, 16 U.S.C.
SEC. 803(F), TO DETERMINE THE CHARGES TO BE PAID BY THE LICENSEE.  THE
PARTIES ARE IN DISPUTE OVER THE VALUE OF THE BENEFITS, BUT, AS THE
COMMISSION SAID, "THE AMOUNT OF THE PAYMENTS FOR HEADWATER BENEFITS DUE
UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT CANNOT BE ESTIMATED WITH ANY DEGREE OF
ACCURACY UNTIL AFTER THE PROJECT HAS BEEN PLACED IN OPERATION FOR SUCH
TIME AS NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT ACTUAL BENEFITS ARE BEING
CONFERRED."  RE VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO., SUPRA, AT 478.  WE DO
NOT CONSIDER THE CORRECT BASIS FOR ASCERTAINING THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE
UNITED STATES, BECAUSE, AS THE COMMISSION'S STATEMENT INDICATES, THE
QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE US IN THIS CASE. 

FN8  SECTION 7(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT PROVIDES: 

"WHENEVER, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION, THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY
WATER RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE UNITED
STATES ITSELF, THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT APPROVE ANY APPLICATION FOR ANY
PROJECT AFFECTING SUCH DEVELOPMENT, BUT SHALL CAUSE TO BE MADE SUCH
EXAMINATIONS, SURVEYS, REPORTS, PLANS, AND ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS IT MAY FIND NECESSARY, AND SHALL SUBMIT ITS
FINDINGS TO CONGRESS WITH SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT MAY FIND
APPROPRIATE CONCERNING SUCH DEVELOPMENT." 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY THAT THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER
CONGRESS HAS WITHDRAWN THE ROANOKE RAPIDS SITE FROM THE LICENSING
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT THE ANSWER IS IN THE NEGATIVE. 
BUT IN REACHING THIS RESULT WEIGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE 1944 FLOOD CONTROL ACT BOTH BY THE ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS AND THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THE
FACT THAT CONGRESS WAS FULLY ADVISED OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION AND THE
CORPS' AGREEMENT WITH IT AS EARLY AS MAY 1949 AND FAILED TO EXPRESS ANY
DISAGREEMENT DURING THE PERIOD OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS WHEN THE
APPLICATION WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THIS ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
SEEMS TO ME DECISIVE. 

WE ARE CITED TO THREE CASES IN WHICH THE COMMISSION, WITH THE FULL
APPROVAL OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, HAS LICENSED PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS
DESPITE PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ADOPTING AND AUTHORIZING PUBLIC
CONSTRUCTION AS PART OF RIVER BASIN IMPROVEMENT PLANS.  (FN1)  WHILE
THE PLANS INCLUDED IN THOSE PROJECTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AS COMPREHENSIVE
AS THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN PLAN, EACH HAD BEEN APPROVED BY ACTS OF
CONGRESS USING LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THAT IN SEC. 10 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL
ACT OF 1944.  WITH THIS AS BACKGROUND, A COLLOQUY BETWEEN COLONEL GEE
OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE HOUSE FLOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE ON MAY
16, 1949, GAINS SIGNIFICANCE.  COLONEL GEE MENTIONED VEPCO'S THEN
PENDING APPLICATION AND STATED THAT THE CORPS HAD NOT REGARDED THE 1944
APPROVAL AS PRECLUDING SUCH PRIVATE LICENSING.  (FN2)  I WOULD AFFIRM
ON THE BASIS OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION BY TWO AGENCIES
CHARGED BY CONGRESS WITH DIRECT FLOOD CONTROL AND POWER LICENSING
RESPONSIBILITIES.    FN1  LICENSE ISSUED TO COUNTY OF PLACER,
CALIFORNIA, AUGUST 8, 1951.  PROJECT NO. 2021, FOR POWER PLANT AT
DEBRIS STORAGE DAM ON NORTH FORK, AMERICAN RIVER, CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT
TO AUTHORIZATION IN RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF AUGUST 30, 1935 (49 STAT.
1029, 1038), AS RECOMMENDED IN HOUSE RIVERS AND HARBORS COMMITTEE
DOCUMENT NO. 50, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  LICENSE ISSUED TO ST. ANTHONY'S
FALLS WATER POWER CO., AUGUST 31, 1951, PROJECT NO. 2056, TO USE WATER
FROM UNITED STATES NAVIGATION DAM AT ST. ANTHONY'S FALLS, MINNESOTA,
AUTHORIZED IN THE RIVER AND HARBOR ACT OF 1937 (50 STAT. 844, 848), AS
RECOMMENDED IN HOUSE RIVERS AND HARBORS COMMITTEE DOCUMENT NO. 34, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. TWO LICENSES ISSUED IN 1934 AND 1936 TO KANAWHA VALLEY
POWER CO., PROJECT NOS. 1175 AND 1290, FOR THREE POWER PLANTS AT
NAVIGATION DAMS ON KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA, AUTHORIZED IN RIVER
AND HARBOR ACT OF 1930 (46 STAT. 918, 928) AS RECOMMENDED IN H.R. DOC.
NO. 190, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN2  "MR. ANGELL.  IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE PRESENT TIME
PLANNING TO DEVELOP ANY OF THOSE DAMS ON THE LOWER PART OF THE RIVER
WHICH ARE DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO POWER PRODUCTION? 

"COLONEL GEE.  NO, SIR.  THEY HAVE THE SAME STATUS IN THIS BASIN PLAN
AS THE EIGHT REMAINING PROJECTS.  THEY ARE PART OF THE APPROVED PLAN. 
THEIR BEING IN THAT PLAN CERTAINLY IS NO BAR TO A PRIVATE UTILITY
COMPANY COMING IN AND SEEKING TO DEVELOP ONE OF THESE PROJECTS. 

"MR. ANGELL.  AND THAT IS WHAT IS BEING DONE NOW. 

"COLONEL GEE.  THAT IS BEING DONE NOW AT ROANOKE RAPIDS, SIR." 
HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS ON H.R. 5472 (TIT.
II), 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 144. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE
BLACK CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

ROANOKE RAPIDS IS A POWER SITE BELONGING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND NOW SURRENDERED TO PRIVATE POWER INTERESTS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
DEMAND A DISSENT. 

ROANOKE RAPIDS IS A PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 

(1)  THE ROANOKE IS A NAVIGABLE STREAM OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS
COMPLETE CONTROL FOR PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION, FLOOD CONTROL, WATERSHED
DEVELOPMENT, AND THE GENERATION OF ELECTRIC POWER.  UNITED STATES V.
APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377, 426; OKLAHOMA V. ATKINSON CO., 313
U.S. 508, 525. 

(2)  THE WATER POWER INHERENT IN THE FLOW OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM
BELONGS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.   UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER
CO., SUPRA, AT 424. 

(3)  THE DAM SITES ON THIS NAVIGABLE STREAM ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY.  THE
TECHNICAL TITLE TO THE BED OF THE STREAM MAY BE IN PRIVATE HANDS.  BUT
THOSE PRIVATE INTERESTS HAVE NO COMPENSABLE INTEREST AS AGAINST THE
CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST.
P. & P.R. CO., 312 U.S. 592, 596-597; UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK,
324 U.S. 386, 390. 

THIS IS FAMILIAR LAW THAT EMPHASIZES THE PUBLIC NATURE OF THE PROJECT
WHICH THE COURT NOW ALLOWS TO BE USED FOR THE AGGRANDIZEMENT OF PRIVATE
POWER INTERESTS.  THIS PROJECT IS AS MUCH IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS ANY
OF OUR NATIONAL FORESTS OR NATIONAL PARKS.  IT DEALS WITH ASSETS
BELONGING TO ALL THE PEOPLE. 

THESE FACTS MUST BE KEPT IN MIND IN READING SEC. 10 OF THE FLOOD
CONTROL ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 887, 891.  (FN1)  FROM THAT STARTING
POINT I THINK IT ONLY FAIR TO CONCLUDE (1) THAT IF CONGRESS UNDERTOOK
TO REMOVE THIS PROJECT FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, IT WOULD MAKE ITS
PURPOSE PLAIN; AND (2) THAT WHEN CONGRESS APPROVED THE PROJECT IT MEANT
TO RESERVE IT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, NOT TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO PRIVATE
INTERESTS TO EXPLOIT FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT. 

RIVER BASIN "IN THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND WITH A VIEW
TOWARD PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE RESERVOIR OF USEFUL AND WORTHY PUBLIC
WORKS FOR THE POST-WAR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM."  THE WORDS "PUBLIC WORKS"
CERTAINLY CONNOTE PUBLIC NOT PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION. 

AUTHORIZED" ARE "TO BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY
OF WAR AND SUPERVISION OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS."  THAT LANGUAGE ALSO
SUGGESTS PUBLIC PROJECTS, NOT PRIVATE UNDERTAKINGS. 

EXPEDITIOUSLY AND PROSECUTED AS VIGOROUSLY AS MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH
BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS."  PLAINLY CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH THE
"BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS" OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT WITH THE
BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS OF PRIVATE POWER COMPANIES.  SECTION 10, AFTER
APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
RAONOKE RIVER BASIN, AUTHORIZES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUGGS ISLAND
RESERVOIR ON THE ROANOKE RIVER AND THE PHILPOTT RESERVOIR ON THE SMITH
RIVER. 

THIS ACT, PASSED BEFORE THE END OF WORLD WAR II, WAS DESIGNED TO
SERVE A POST-WAR NEED.  IT WAS DRAWN SO AS TO PROVIDE A BACKLOG OF
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS WHICH WOULD TAKE UP THE SLACK OF UNEMPLOYMENT
EXPECTED AT THE WAR'S END.  CONGRESSMAN WHITTINGTON, IN CHARGE OF THE
BILL IN THE HOUSE, MADE THE FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT CONCERNING
THIS OBJECTIVE, 90 CONG. REC. 4122: 

"WE RECALL THE DEPRESSION FOLLOWING WORLD WAR NO. 1.  WE ARE
APPREHENSIVE OF ANOTHER DEBACLE FOLLOWING THE PRESENT WAR.  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO ARM.  IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO DISARM.  POST-WAR
UNEMPLOYMENT WILL BE A MAJOR NATIONAL PROBLEM.  WHILE WE ARE DEFENDING
OUR FREEDOM AND OUR WAY OF LIFE, WE MUST NOT FAIL TO TAKE STOCK OF THE
PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT WHICH WE MUST FACE WHEN THE WAR IS OVER. 

"WE MUST PROFIT BY THE EXPERIENCE OF 1920.  WE MUST PROFIT BY THE
EXPERIENCE OF 1930.  A RESERVOIR OF PROJECTS MUST BE ADOPTED.  BACKLOGS
SHOULD BE PROVIDED AND THEY SHOULD BE REAL BACKLOGS.  MANY WASTEFUL AND
EXTRAVAGANT ACTIVITIES TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT WERE ADOPTED IN 1933. 
HASTE AND SPEED WERE IMPERATIVE.  THERE WAS HUNGER IN THE LAND. 
UNEMPLOYMENT WAS WIDESPREAD.  THERE MUST BE NO REPETITION OF WASTE AND
EXTRAVAGANCE.  THERE ARE FEDERAL ACTIVITIES AND THERE ARE PUBLIC WORKS
THAT WILL PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE." 

THIS STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTS THE MEANING OF "PUBLIC WORKS" AS USED IN
SEC. 10; IT DISCLOSES AN IMPORTANT REASON FOR LODGING THE PROGRAM WITH
PUBLIC OFFICIALS; IT EMPHASIZES THE OCCASION FOR REFERRING TO THE
BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF
LINKING FLOOD CONTROL WITH POST-WAR UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEMS. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT WHEN CONGRESS BY SEC. 10 OF THE ACT "ADOPTED AND
AUTHORIZED" THE "FOLLOWING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT," IT "ADOPTED AND
AUTHORIZED" ONLY THE BUGGS ISLAND AND PHILPOTT RESERVOIRS INVOLVES AN
INVENTED DISTINCTION BETWEEN "WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT" AND "GENERAL PLANS
FOR DEVELOPMENT" - A DISTINCITION WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL BASIS.  THE
"WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT" WHICH ARE "ADOPTED AND AUTHORIZED" BY SEC. 10
ARE 38 IN NUMBER.  SOME OF THESE ARE DESCRIBED IN THE SUB-HEADINGS AS
"PROJECTS" THAT ARE "AUTHORIZED," SOME AS "PLANS OF IMPROVEMENT" THAT
ARE "APPROVED" AND "AUTHORIZED," SOME AS "GENERAL PLANS" FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF RIVER BASINS THAT ARE "APPROVED" TOGETHER
WITH THE "CONSTRUCTION" OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT ARE "AUTHORIZED." 
THIS MAKES PLAIN THAT "WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT" WHICH ARE "ADOPTED AND
AUTHORIZED" BY SEC. 10 INCLUDE A VARIETY OF UNDERTAKINGS, NOT MERELY
WORKS OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH ARE FIRST STEPS IN GENERAL COMPREHENSIVE
PLANS BEING ADOPTED AND AUTHORIZED. 

FROM THIS IT SEEMS ALMOST TOO PLAIN FOR ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS, IN
APPROVING THE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN, WAS
SETTING IT ASIDE FOR FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT, THE SEVERAL PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECTS UNDER THE PLAN TO BE AUTHORIZED AS, IF, AND WHEN CONDITIONS
WARRANTED THEM AND BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS PERMITTED.  (FN2)  IN THIS
SETTING "APPROVAL" BY CONGRESS MEANT A DEDICATION OF THE PROJECTS FOR
PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT.  (FN3) 

IF THAT VIEW IS NOT TAKEN, THEN WHY DID CONGRESS CALL THESE PROJECTS
"PUBLIC WORKS"?  IF THESE PROJECTS WERE DESTINED FOR DEVELOPMENT BY
PRIVATE POWER INTERESTS, WHY DID CONGRESS PLACE THEIR CONSTRUCTION
UNDER THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS?  IF CONGRESS
LEFT THIS PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR EXPLOITATION BY PRIVATE POWER
GROUPS, WHY DID IT GEAR THEM TO THE EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE POST
WAR PERIOD AND THE BUDGET REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? 
APPROVAL OF THE PROJECTS BY CONGRESS UNDER THESE VARIOUS TERMS AND
CONDITIONS CAN ONLY MEAN ONE THING - THAT CONGRESS GAVE ITS SANCTION TO
THEIR DEVELOPMENT AS PUBLIC PROJECTS. 

TO BE SURE, CONGRESS IN THE FEDERAL POWER ACT LEFT PART OF THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN TO BE EXPLOITED BY PRIVATE INTERESTS, IF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION SO ORDERS.  BUT THE ACTION RELATIVE TO THE ROANOKE RIVER
BASIN WAS ACTION BY CONGRESS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION.  ITS ACTION WAS NOT MADE DEPENDENT ON THE APPROVAL OF THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  THE ACT IN NO WAY LINKS THE ROANOKE RIVER
BASIN PROGRAM TO THE COMMISSION.  TO THE CONTRARY, THE CONGRESS
UNDERTOOK TO AUTHORIZE SPECIFIC PROJECTS UNDER THE PLAN, PLAINLY
SUGGESTING THAT THESE WERE PUBLIC PROJECTS WHOSE AUTHORIZATION WAS IN
NO WAY DEPENDENT ON COMMISSION ACTION. 

THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THIS RAID ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS SEEN WHEN
ROANOKE RAPIDS IS VIEWED IN RELATION TO THE OTHER PROJECTS IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.  ROANOKE RAPIDS IS THE FARTHEST DOWNSTREAM OF THE
11 UNITS IN THE PLAN.  UPSTREAM FROM ROANOKE RAPIDS IS BUGGS ISLAND
(NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH FEDERAL FUNDS) WITH AN ULTIMATE INSTALLED
CAPACITY OF 204,000 KW. AND A CONTROLLED RESERVOIR CAPACITY OF OVER
2,500,000 ACRE-FEET.  ROANOKE RAPIDS IS INDEED THE POWERHOUSE OF THE
BUGGS ISLAND RESERVOIR.  THAT RESERVOIR INCREASES THE DEPENDABLE
CAPACITY OF ROANOKE RAPIDS FROM 4 HOURS DURING THE PEAK MONTH OF
DECEMBER TO 288 HOURS IN THE SAME PEAK MONTH.  BUGGS ISLAND CONTRIBUTES
70,000,000 KW.-HR. TO THE ROANOKE RAPIDS PROJECT.  THIS IS ON-PEAK
ENERGY, FIRM ENERGY MADE DEPENDABLE BY THE STORAGE IN THE BUGGS ISLAND
RESERVOIR.  THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT THIS ENERGY WILL HAVE A VALUE IN
EXCESS OF $700,000 A YEAR.  (FN4) 

THAT $700,000 OF VALUE IS CREATED BY THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS COUNTRY. 
THOUGH IT DERIVES FROM THE INVESTMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS, IT WILL NOW BE
APPROPRIATED BY PRIVATE POWER GROUPS FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.  THE MASTER
PLAN NOW BECOMES CLEAR:  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL PUT UP THE
AUXILIARY UNITS - THE UNPROFITABLE ONES; AND THE PRIVATE POWER INTEREST
WILL TAKE THE PLUMS - THE CHOICE ONES. 

THERE IS NOT A WORD IN THE ACT WHICH ALLOWS SUCH AN UNCONSCIONABLE
APPROPRIATION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BY PRIVATE INTERESTS.  TO INFER THAT
CONGRESS SANCTIONED SUCH A SCHEME IS TO ASSUME IT WAS UTTERLY RECKLESS
WITH THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  I WOULD ASSUME THAT CONGRESS WAS A FAITHFUL
TRUSTEE, THAT WHAT IT APPROVED AS "PUBLIC WORKS" PROJECTS IT DEDICATED
TO THE GOOD OF ALL THE PEOPLE. 

FN1  SECTION 10 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1944 READS IN PERTINENT
PART AS FOLLOWS: "THAT THE FOLLOWING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR THE
BENEFIT OF NAVIGATION AND THE CONTROL OF DESTRUCTIVE FLOOD WATERS AND
OTHER PURPOSES ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AND AUTHORIZED IN THE INTEREST OF THE
NATIONAL SECURITY AND WITH A VIEW TOWARD PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE
RESERVOIR OF USEFUL AND WORTHY PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE POST-WAR
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, TO BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF WAR AND SUPERVISION OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS IN THE RESPECTIVE REPORTS HEREINAFTER
DESIGNATED AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH THEREIN:  PROVIDED,
THAT THE NECESSARY PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND PRELIMINARY WORK MAY BE
PROSECUTED ON ANY PROJECT AUTHORIZED IN THIS ACT TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY
THE WAR DEPARTMENT DURING THE WAR, WITH FUNDS FROM APPROPRIATIONS
HERETOFORE OF HEREAFTER MADE FOR FLOOD CONTROL, SO AS TO BE READY FOR
RAPID INAUGURATION OF A POST-WAR PROGRAM OF CONSTRUCTION: PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT WHEN THE EXISTING CRITICAL SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO
MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND MANPOWER NO LONGER EXISTS, AND IN ANY EVENT
NOT LATER THAN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN
THE PRESENT WAR, THE PROJECTS HEREIN SHALL BE INITIATED AS
EXPEDITIOUSLY AND PROSECUTED AS VIGOROUSLY AS MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH
BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT PENSTOCKS AND
SIMILAR FACILITIES ADAPTED TO POSSIBLE FUTURE USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
HYDROELECTRIC POWER SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ANY DAM AUTHORIZED IN THIS
ACT FOR CONSTRUCTION BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT WHEN APPROVED BY THE
SECRETARY OF WAR ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 

     *         *         *         *         *

                            "ROANOKE RIVER BASIN 

"THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROANOKE
RIVER BASIN FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES RECOMMENDED BY THE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS IN HOUSE DOCUMENT NUMBERED 650, SEVENTY-EIGHTH
CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, IS APPROVED AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUGGS
ISLAND RESERVOIR ON THE ROANOKE RIVER IN VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA,
AND THE PHILPOTT RESERVOIR ON THE SMITH RIVER IN VIRGINIA, ARE HEREBY
AUTHORIZED SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS IN THAT REPORT AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF
$36,140,000." 

FN2  CONGRESSMAN CURTIS, ONE OF THE HOUSE CONFEREES, EXPLAINED THE
SAME LANGUAGE IN SEC.  9 OF THE ACT WHEREBY CONGRESS "APPROVED"
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN (90
CONG. REC. 9284):    "IT MEANS THAT CONGRESS HAS APPROVED THE GENERAL
PLANS OF THE ENGINEERS, AND IT MEANS THAT THESE PLANS ARE AUTHORIZED BY
LAW AND ARE, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS.  WITHOUT
SUCH AN AUTHORIZATION, NO APPROPRIATION CAN BE HAD." 

FN3  THE INTERPRETATIONS PLACED ON THE ACT BY THE ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS ARE ENTITLED TO NO WEIGHT.  THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IS NOT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DECIDING
ISSUES OF POLICY.  ITS POWERS ARE LIMITED TO THE MAKING OF
INVESTIGATIONS AND THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
AND REPORTS BASED ON ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE,
SEC. 1(A) OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1944, 58 STAT. 887, ADOPTING AND
AUTHORIZING THE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN PLAN; 33 U.S.C. SEC. 701-1(A). 
CONGRESS ALONE MAKES POLICY DECISIONS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 

FN4  EVEN THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PRIVATE POWER COMPANY
APPLICANT BELIES THE COMMISSION'S FIGURE OF $250,000 (SEE 87 P.U.R.
(N.S.)  469, 477-478) AND PLACES THE VALUE IN EXCESS OF $700,000.  THE
COMMISSION'S FIGURE OF $250,000 IS INDUBITABLY A PLAIN ERROR. 
..END :





















ORVIS V. BROWNELL 345 U.S. 183 


NO. 404.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1953 - 198 F.2D
708, AFFIRMED. 


AFTER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE TRADING WITH
THE ENEMY ACT, BECAME EFFECTIVE AS TO JAPAN, BLOCKING ALL TRANSFERS OF
EVIDENCES OF DEBT OR INTERESTS IN PROPERTY OF JAPANESE CITIZENS,
PETITIONERS COMMENCED A SUIT IN A NEW YORK STATE COURT AGAINST JAPANESE
DEBTORS.  WITHOUT OBTAINING A LICENSE THEREFOR, PETITIONERS ATTACHED A
CREDIT OWED THE JAPANESE DEBTORS BY A THIRD PARTY, AND OBTAINED
JUDGMENT.  THEREAFTER THE CUSTODIAN VESTED THE CREDIT BY A RES VESTING
ORDER AND IT WAS PAID OVER TO THE CUSTODIAN.  HELD:  BY THEIR
UNLICENSED ATTACHMENT, PETITIONERS OBTAINED NO "INTEREST, RIGHT, OR
TITLE" RECOVERABLE AGAINST THE CUSTODIAN IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC.
9(A) OF THE ACT.  PP. 184-189. 

(A)  THE FREEZING ORDER, WHILE PERMITTING AN ATTACHMENT FOR
JURISDICTIONAL AND OTHER STATE LAW PURPOSES, PREVENTED THE SUBSEQUENT
ACQUISITION OF A LIEN WHICH WOULD BIND THE CUSTODIAN UNDER SEC. 9(A). 
PP. 186-189. 

(B)  THE CUSTODIAN MAY PROCEED TO ADMINISTER THE VESTED ASSETS
ACCORDING TO SEC. 34 OF THE ACT AND TO CONSIDER PETITIONERS' CLAIM AND
ITS STATUS THEREUNDER, SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW THEREIN PROVIDED.  PP. 188
189. 

ORVIS ET AL. V. BROWNELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS IN A SUIT AGAINST THE CUSTODIAN UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  198 F.2D
708.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 902.  AT THE TIME OF THE
ARGUMENT, FEBRUARY 4, 1953, BROWNELL, PRESENT ATTORNEY GENERAL, WAS
SUBSTITUTED AS RESPONDENT FOR MCGRANERY, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
AFFIRMED, P. 189. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT, UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, (FN1)
ASKS A DECREE THAT PETITIONERS HAVE AN INTEREST IN VESTED PROPERTY OF
JAPANESE NATIONALS IN THE HANDS OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, THAT
HE HOLDS THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO PETITIONERS' ATTACHMENT LIEN AND MUST
SATISFY THEIR JUDGMENT.  THE CONTROLLING FACTS ARE NOT IN CONTROVERSY. 
THE JAPANESE NATIONALS INVOLVED WERE INDEBTED TO PETITIONERS, WHILE A
THIRD PARTY, ANDERSON, CLAYTON & CO., WAS INDEBTED TO THOSE JAPANESE. 
ON JUNE 14, 1941, EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389 BECAME EFFECTIVE AS TO
JAPAN, AND IT BLOCKED ALL TRANSFERS OF EVIDENCES OF DEBT OR INTERESTS
IN PROPERTY OF JAPANESE CITIZENS.  THEREAFTER, PETITIONERS COMMENCED
SUIT AGAINST THE JAPANESE DEBTORS IN A NEW YORK STATE COURT AND,
WITHOUT OBTAINING A LICENSE THEREFOR, ATTACHED THE ANDERSON, CLAYTON &
CO. CREDIT ON JUNE 25, 1943.  JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED, WHEREUPON
PETITIONERS APPLIED FOR A FEDERAL LICENSE TO PERMIT ANDERSON, CLAYTON &
CO. TO PAY IT.  THE APPLICATION WAS REFUSED. 

MEANWHILE, ON JUNE 27, 1947, THE CUSTODIAN VESTED THE ANDERSON,
CLAYTON & CO. CREDIT BY A RES VESTING ORDER AND IT WAS PAID OVER TO THE
CUSTODIAN.  PETITIONERS FILED NOTICE OF THEIR PRESENT CLAIM UNDER SEC.
9(A) OF THE ACT FOR RETURN OF AN INTEREST IN VESTED PROPERTY, WHICH WAS
TREATED AS ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR A RETROACTIVE LICENSE.  THE CLAIM
WAS DISMISSED INSOFAR AS IT WAS A CLAIM UNDER SEC. 9(A), BASED ON
INTEREST IN PROPERTY, BUT WAS LEFT AND STILL IS PENDING AS A CLAIM FOR
PAYMENT OF A DEBT UNDER SEC. 34 OF THE ACT. 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS DENIED AND WHAT WAS LEFT PENDING IS
IMPORTANT, FOR IF THE ATTACHMENT AND JUDGMENT CREATE AN INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY WHICH CAN BE RETRIEVED FROM THE CUSTODIAN UNDER SEC. 9(A), THE
JUDGMENT WILL BE PAID IN FULL.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT IS ONLY AN
ALLOWABLE DEBT UNDER SEC. 34, UNLESS GRANTED A PRIORITY IT APPARENTLY
WILL BE PAID ONLY IN PART, SINCE IT APPEARS THAT CLAIMS AGAINST THE
JAPANESE NATIONALS CONSIDERABLY EXCEED THE FUNDS IN THE CUSTODIAN'S
HANDS. 

BOTH PARTIES MOVED FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED PETITIONERS' MOTION AND DENIED THAT OF THE RESPONDENT.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  (FN2)  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  (FN3) 

THE PETITIONING JUDGMENT CREDITORS HERE ARE IN THE SAME POSITION AS
WERE THOSE IN THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION OF ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH,
341 U.S. 446, IN THAT THEY HAVE JUDGMENTS AND ATTACHMENT LIENS VALID
UNDER NEW YORK LAW AS AGAINST THEIR ENEMY NATIONAL DEBTORS AND AS
AGAINST THOSE WHOSE CREDITS WERE ATTACHED.  IN THE FIRST ZITTMAN CASE,
WE HELD THAT THE EXECUTIVE FREEZING ORDER DID NOT PREVENT SUCH AN
ATTACHMENT FROM CREATING RIGHTS BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR AND THE
ENEMY DEBTOR WHOM THE CUSTODIAN HAD ELECTED TO SUCCEED.  IN THE SECOND
ZITTMAN CASE, HOWEVER, WE HELD THAT WHERE THE CUSTODIAN ELECTED TO VEST
THE RES FOR ADMINISTRATION PURPOSES HE WAS ENTITLED TO POSSESSION, EVEN
AS AGAINST SUCH AN ATTACHING CREDITOR WHOSE LIEN WOULD HAVE BEEN VALID
UNDER NEW YORK LAW.  WE ARE NOW CALLED UPON TO DECIDE A QUESTION NOT
PRESENTED BY THESE EARLIER CASES:  WHETHER THE FREEZING ORDER PREVENTED
A CREDITOR FROM THEREAFTER ACQUIRING BY ATTACHMENT AN "INTEREST, RIGHT,
OR TITLE" IN PROPERTY SUCH AS WILL SUPPORT A CLAIM AGAINST THE
CUSTODIAN UNDER SEC.  9(A) OF THE ACT.  (FN4)  WE HOLD THAT THE
FREEZING ORDER DID HAVE SUCH AN EFFECT AND THAT, WHILE IT RECOGNIZED
ATTACHMENT LIENS INSOFAR AS THEY DETERMINED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
CREDITOR AND ENEMY DEBTOR, IT DID NOT PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF A PROPERTY
INTEREST IN THE BLOCKED FUNDS WHICH COULD BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE
CUSTODIAN. 

THE ORDER FORBIDS "TRANSFERS OF CREDIT" AND "TRANSFERS OF ANY
EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS OR EVIDENCES OF OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY," AND
GENERAL RULING NO. 12 (FN5) SPECIFIES THAT THIS PROHIBITION EXTENDS TO
THE CREATION OF A LIEN.  ADMITTEDLY, IF THE JAPANESE HAD MADE A
VOLUNTARY UNLICENSED ASSIGNMENT, IT COULD HAVE CREATED NO PROPERTY
INTEREST.  ADMITTEDLY ALSO, IF ANDERSON, CLAYTON & CO., WITH OR WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF ITS JAPANESE CREDITORS BUT WITHOUT FEDERAL LICENSE, HAD
PAID OVER THE FUND TO THESE PETITIONERS, THEY WOULD OBTAIN NO SUCH
INTEREST.  WE CANNOT DOUBT THAT THESE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS
APPLY TO THE PRESENT TRANSACTION AND THAT THE GENERAL ASSENT BY THE
GOVERNMENT TO STATE ATTACHMENT PROCEDURES WHICH WE RECITED IN THE
ZITTMAN OPINION DID NOT EXTEND SO FAR AS TO RECOGNIZE THEM AS EFFECTING
A TRANSFER.  TO SO INTERPRET IT WOULD IGNORE THE EXPRESS CONDITIONS ON
WHICH THE CONSENT WAS EXTENDED.  REALISTICALLY, THESE RESERVATIONS
DEPRIVE THE ASSENT OF MUCH SUBSTANCE; BUT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
APPARENT ON ITS FACE TO THOSE WHO CHOSE TO LITIGATE.  THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SETTLE THEIR ACCOUNTS WITH THE ENEMY DEBTOR WAS ALL THAT THE
PERMISSION TO ATTACH GRANTED. 

PETITIONERS CHALLENGE THE STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR SUCH AN ORDER. 
IT IS ARGUED THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
WAS TO PREVENT TRANSFERS UNDER DURESS OF FUNDS CREDITED TO RESIDENTS OF
OCCUPIED COUNTRIES.  THOUGH THIS WAS ONE OF THE AIMS OF THE ACT, ITS
LANGUAGE EXTENDS THE AUTHORIZATION MUCH FARTHER.  (FN6)  THE VALIDITY
OF THE FREEZING ORDER AS AN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT WAS SUSTAINED IN PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472, AND WE
ADHERE TO THAT HOLDING.  PETITIONERS ALSO CONTEND THAT THE CUSTODIAN
WAS NOT GIVEN POWER, SIMILAR TO THAT OF A BANKRUPTCY COURT, TO "ANNUL"
LIENS AND ATTACHMENTS.  BUT THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER A LIEN,
CONCEDEDLY VALID BECAUSE OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE FREEZING ORDER, MAY BE
"ANNULLED" BY THE CUSTODIAN, BUT RATHER WHETHER THE FREEZING ORDER
PREVENTED THE SUBSEQUENT ACQUISITION, BY ATTACHMENT, OF SUCH A PROPERTY
INTEREST AS THE CUSTODIAN WOULD HAVE TO RECOGNIZE UNDER SEC. 9 OF THE
ACT.  BECAUSE OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON MATTERS
WITHIN ITS COMPETENCE, THE FREEZING ORDER, WHILE PERMITTING AN
ATTACHMENT FOR JURISDICTIONAL AND OTHER STATE LAW PURPOSES, PREVENTED
THE SUBSEQUENT ACQUISITION OF A LIEN WHICH WOULD BIND THE CUSTODIAN
UNDER SEC. 9. 

CLAIMS MAY BE ALLOWED AND PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED.  THE PETITIONERS'
CLAIM IS PENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE.  JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PROVIDED.  IT
WOULD BE PREMATURE TO DECIDE HOW THE CUSTODIAN MUST TREAT THIS CLAIM IN
A GENERAL ACCOUNTING AND SETTLEMENT OF HIS TRUST, SINCE THIS PROCEEDING
SEEKS ONLY TO FORESTALL SUCH SETTLEMENT OF THIS CLAIM. 

THE PARTIES ARE IN DISAGREEMENT AS TO THE COURSE PURSUED BY THE
CUSTODIAN IN ALLOWING PAYMENT OF ATTACHMENT CREDITORS.  IN VIEW OF THE
STATUTORY MANDATE THAT THE ASSETS SHALL BE "EQUITABLY APPLIED BY THE
CUSTODIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION," EACH
CASE, TO SOME EXTENT, MAY REST ON ITS OWN FACTS.  WE DO NOT FIND IT
EITHER NECESSARY OR POSSIBLE TO INQUIRE WHETHER OTHER SIMILAR CLAIMS
HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SEC. 9, AND, IF SO,
WHETHER THEY WERE PROPERLY ALLOWED BY THE CUSTODIAN. 

PETITIONERS BY THEIR UNLICENSED ATTACHMENT COULD OBTAIN NO "INTEREST,
RIGHT, OR TITLE" IN THIS FUND RECOVERABLE AGAINST THE CUSTODIAN.  HE
MAY PROCEED TO ADMINISTER THE VESTED ASSETS ACCORDING TO SEC. 34 OF THE
ACT AND TO CONSIDER PETITIONERS' CLAIM AND ITS STATUS THEREUNDER,
SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW THEREIN PROVIDED.  THE SUIT UNDER SEC. 9(A),
HOWEVER, MUST FAIL.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 9(A):  "ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF
ENEMY CLAIMING ANY INTEREST, RIGHT, OR TITLE IN ANY MONEY OR OTHER
PROPERTY WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED,
DELIVERED, OR PAID TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR SEIZED BY HIM
HEREUNDER AND HELD BY HIM OR BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES  ...
MAY FILE WITH THE SAID CUSTODIAN A NOTICE OF HIS CLAIM UNDER OATH AND
IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAINING SUCH PARTICULARS AS THE SAID CUSTODIAN
SHALL REQUIRE; AND THE PRESIDENT, IF APPLICATION IS MADE THEREFOR BY
THE CLAIMANT, MAY ORDER THE PAYMENT  ...  OR DELIVERY TO SAID CLAIMANT
OF THE MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY SO HELD BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN
...  OR OF THE INTEREST THEREIN TO WHICH THE PRESIDENT SHALL DETERMINE
SAID CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED ...  .  IF THE PRESIDENT SHALL NOT SO ORDER
WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF SUCH APPLICATION OR IF THE
CLAIMANT SHALL HAVE FILED THE NOTICE AS ABOVE REQUIRED AND SHALL HAVE
MADE NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESIDENT, SAID CLAIMANT MAY INSTITUTE A
SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH
CLAIMANT RESIDES  ...  TO ESTABLISH THE INTEREST, RIGHT, TITLE, OR DEBT
SO CLAIMED, AND IF SO ESTABLISHED THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PAYMENT ...
OR DELIVERY TO SAID CLAIMANT OF THE MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY SO HELD BY
THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN  ...  ." 

FN2  198 F.2D 708. 

FN3  344 U.S. 902. 

FN4  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, APRIL 10, 1940, 5 FED. REG. 1400, AS
AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785, JUNE 14, 1941, 6 FED. REG. 2897:
"  ...  ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TRANSACTIONS ARE PROHIBITED, EXCEPT AS
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY BY MEANS OF
...  LICENSES,  ... IF  ...  SUCH TRANSACTIONS INVOLVE PROPERTY IN
WHICH ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY DESIGNATED IN THIS ORDER, OR ANY NATIONAL
THEREOF, HAS AT ANY TIME ON OR SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDER
HAD ANY INTEREST OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, DIRECT OR INDIRECT:  ...  E.
ALL TRANSFERS, WITHDRAWALS OR EXPORTATIONS OF, OR DEALINGS IN, ANY
EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS OR EVIDENCES OF OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY BY ANY
PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES  ...  ." 

FN5  GENERAL RULING NO. 12, APRIL 21, 1942, SEC. 131.12(E)(1), 7 FED.
REG. 2991:  "THE TERM 'TRANSFER' SHALL MEAN ANY ACTUAL OR PURPORTED ACT
OR TRANSACTION,  ...  AND WITHOUT LIMITATION UPON THE FOREGOING SHALL
INCLUDE  ...  THE CREATION OR TRANSFER OF ANY LIEN  ...  ." 

FN6  50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 5(B)(B):  "  ...  THE PRESIDENT MAY  ...
INVESTIGATE, REGULATE, DIRECT AND COMPEL, NULLIFY, VOID, PREVENT OR
PROHIBIT, ANY ACQUISITION HOLDING, WITHHOLDING, USE, TRANSFER,
WITHDRAWAL, TRANSPORTATION, IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF, OR DEALING
IN, OR EXERCISING ANY RIGHT, POWER, OR PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO, OR
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING, ANY PROPERTY IN WHICH ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR A
NATIONAL THEREOF HAS ANY INTEREST  ...  ." 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

PROVIDES THAT PROPERTY VESTED IN THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN "SHALL BE
EQUITABLY APPLIED BY THE CUSTODIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS SECTION TO THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS OWED BY THE PERSON WHO OWNED SUCH
PROPERTY" PRIOR TO THE VESTING IN THE CUSTODIAN.  A PRIORITY OF DEBT
CLAIMS IS PROVIDED BY SEC. 34(G).  (FN1)  BUT, UNLIKE SEC. 60 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (52 STAT.  869), IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO OUTLAW LIENS
ACQUIRED WITHIN CERTAIN PERIODS OR UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.  SECTION
34(I) INDEED RECOGNIZES THAT THERE MAY BE LIENS ASSERTED AGAINST THE
CUSTODIAN; (FN2) AND IT IN NO WAY QUALIFIES THEM BY REASON OF THE TIME
OF THEIR ACQUISITION.  THE HOUSE REPORT (H.R. REP. NO. 2398, 79TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 15) WAS QUITE EXPLICIT AS RESPECTS THE PROTECTION
WHICH SEC. 34(I) WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE SECURED CREDITORS AND CREDITORS
CLAIMING A LIEN: 

"PROTECTION OF A SECURED CREDITOR OR A CREDITOR CLAIMING A LIEN IS
AFFORDED BY THE PROVISO IN SUBSECTION (I).  SUCH A CLAIMANT MAY PROCEED
AS A GENERAL CREDITOR, WITHOUT THEREBY WAIVING HIS SECURITY.  IN
ADDITION OR ALTERNATIVELY, HE MAY FILE A CLAIM OR SUIT AS A TITLE
CLAIMANT FOR RETURN OF HIS SECURITY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY OR FOR
JUST COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THAT INTEREST, IN WHICH EVENT HIS
RECOVERY WOULD BE REDUCED, AS IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER SUCH PLAINTIFF,
TO THE EXTENT OF ANY DEBT CLAIM PAYMENT MADE TO HIM (OR TO ANY OTHER
CLAIMANT, IF HIS CLAIM AS A TITLE CLAIMANT WAS NOT FILED IN TIME TO
HOLD UP DEBT CLAIM PAYMENTS).  IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT IS
PREFERABLE TO PROVISION OF A SEPARATE SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR SECURED
CREDITORS." 

THUS, AS THE CUSTODIAN CONCEDES, A SECURED OR LIEN CREDITOR CAN
PROCEED UNDER SEC.  9(A) FOR RECOVERY OF A PROPERTY INTEREST (SEE
MARKHAM V. CABELL, 326 U.S. 404; CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., 332
U.S. 480), OR UNDER SEC. 34 FOR RECOVERY OF A DEBT, OR BOTH.    WE HAVE
BEEN METICULOUS IN PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF THE CUSTODIAN TO POSSESSION
OF ASSETS WHICH HAVE BEEN VESTED.  PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472; LYON
V. SINGER, 339 U.S. 841; ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 471.  BUT WE HAVE
ALSO BEEN METICULOUS TO RESPECT LIENS AND PREFERENCES OBTAINED IN
JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS SO LONG AS THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THOSE LIENS DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CUSTODIAN'S ADMINISTRATION. 
LYON V. SINGER, SUPRA; ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 446. 

YET WHY THE CONCERN IN PROTECTING THE LIEN OR THE PREFERENCE IF THERE
WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF ASSERTING IT?  CERTAINLY IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO
ESTABLISH THE LIEN TO PROVE THE CLAIM.  CERTAINLY IT WAS NOT NECESSARY
TO ESTABLISH THE LIEN IN ORDER TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR A
LICENSE.  "AS AGAINST THE GERMAN DEBTORS," WE SAID IN ZITTMAN V.
MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 446, 463-464, "THE ATTACHMENTS AND THE JUDGMENTS THEY
SECURE ARE VALID UNDER NEW YORK LAW, AND CANNOT BE CANCELLED OR
ANNULLED UNDER A VESTING ORDER BY WHICH THE CUSTODIAN TAKES OVER ONLY
THE RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST OF THOSE DEBTORS IN THE ACCOUNTS."  IF
WE MEANT WHAT WE SAID, THE CLAIMANTS (IN THE POSITION OF PETITIONERS IN
THE PRESENT CASE) WERE MORE THAN UNSECURED CREDITORS.  THEY HAD LAWFUL
LIENS THAT COULD BE PROVED IN THE FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS.  A LIEN IMPLIES
SOME PRIORITY.  WE RESERVED THE QUESTION AS TO ITS NATURE.  BUT IF WE
MEANT NO MORE THAN WHAT IS NOW GRANTED, THE DISSENTING OPINION IN
ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH, SUPRA, AT 465, SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE THE LAW THEN
RATHER THAN NOW. 

FN1  "DEBT CLAIMS SHALL BE PAID IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF PRIORITY:
(1) WAGE AND SALARY CLAIMS, NOT TO EXCEED $600; (2) CLAIMS ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY UNDER SECTIONS 191 AND 193 OF TITLE 31 OF THE U.S.C.  EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (H) HEREOF; (3) ALL OTHER CLAIMS FOR SERVICES
RENDERED, FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH SERVICES, FOR
RENT, FOR GOODS AND MATERIALS DELIVERED TO THE DEBTOR, AND FOR PAYMENTS
MADE TO THE DEBTOR FOR GOODS OR SERVICES NOT RECEIVED BY THE CLAIMANT;
(4) ALL OTHER DEBT CLAIMS.  NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE TO CLAIMANTS
WITHIN A SUBORDINATE CLASS UNLESS THE MONEY FROM WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SUBSECTION (D) HEREOF, PAYMENT MAY BE MADE PERMITS PAYMENT IN FULL
OF ALL ALLOWED CLAIMS IN EVERY PRIOR CLASS." 

FN2  "  ...  NO PERSON ASSERTING ANY INTEREST, RIGHT, OR TITLE IN ANY
PROPERTY OR INTEREST OR PROCEEDS ACQUIRED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN, SHALL BE BARRED FROM PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO THIS ACT FOR THE
RETURN THEREOF, BY REASON OF ANY PROCEEDING WHICH HE MAY HAVE BROUGHT
PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION; NOR SHALL ANY SECURITY INTEREST ASSERTED BY
THE CREDITOR IN ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR INTEREST OR PROCEEDS BE DEEMED TO
HAVE BEEN WAIVED SOLELY BY REASON OF SUCH PROCEEDING." 
..END :

















LOCAL UNION NO. 10, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS &
STEAMFITTERS V. GRAHAM, TRADING AS GRAHAM BROTHERS 345 U.S. 192 


NO. 86.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1952 - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1953 - AFFIRMED. 


THE VIRGINIA RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED BY THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THAT STATE, PROVIDES IN SUBSTANCE THAT NEITHER MEMBERSHIP NOR
NONMEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR UNION SHALL BE MADE A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT
AND THAT A CONTRACT LIMITING EMPLOYMENT TO UNION MEMBERS IS AGAINST
PUBLIC POLICY.  HELD:

1.  A VIRGINIA STATE COURT INJUNCTION AGAINST PEACEFUL PICKETING
WHICH IS CARRIED ON FOR PURPOSES IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATUTE DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 193
201. 

2.  THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS IN THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE FOR THE
STATE COURT'S FINDING THAT THE PICKETING WAS FOR A PURPOSE IN CONFLICT
WITH THE STATUTE, SINCE THE IMMEDIATE RESULTS OF THE PICKETING
DEMONSTRATED ITS POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS AS A PRACTICAL MEANS OF
PUTTING PRESSURE ON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO ELIMINATE FROM FURTHER
PARTICIPATION ALL NONUNION MEN OR ALL SUBCONTRACTORS EMPLOYING NONUNION
MEN ON THE PROJECT.  PP. 197-201. 

LOCAL UNION NO. 10, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS &
STEAMFITTERS, ET AL. V. GRAHAM ET AL., TRADING AS GRAHAM BROTHERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

A VIRGINIA STATE COURT ISSUED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST
PICKETING BY PETITIONERS WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE FOR A PURPOSE IN
CONFLICT WITH THE VIRGINIA RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEALS REFUSED TO HEAR AN APPEAL, AND IN EFFECT AFFIRMED THE DECREE. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 811.  AFFIRMED, P. 201. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE BASIC QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY ENJOIN
PEACEFUL PICKETING WHEN IT IS CARRIED ON FOR PURPOSES IN CONFLICT WITH
THE VIRGINIA RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE.  (FN1)  A QUESTION ALSO BEFORE US
IS WHETHER THE RECORD IN THIS CASE JUSTIFIES THE FINDING, MADE BELOW,
THAT THE PICKETING WAS FOR SUCH PURPOSES.  WE ANSWER EACH IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. 

A BILL OF COMPLAINT WAS FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 1950, IN THE LAW AND
EQUITY COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, BY RESPONDENTS, DOING A
GENERAL CONTRACTING BUSINESS THERE.  THEY NAMED AS DEFENDANTS LOCAL
UNION NO. 10, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS AND
STEAMFITTERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR, HERE CALLED THE PLUMBERS UNION, THREE OTHER LOCAL UNIONS, THE
BUSINESS AGENTS OF EACH OF THE UNIONS AND THE RICHMOND BUILDING &
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL.  (FN2)  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED IN SUBSTANCE
THAT RESPONDENTS HAD BEGUN WORK UNDER THEIR CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF
RICHMOND TO BUILD THE GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER SCHOOL, THAT EARLY
COMPLETION OF THE SCHOOL WAS URGENT, THAT RESPONDENTS HAD MADE
CONTRACTS WITH ALL NECESSARY SUBCONTRACTORS, THAT SOME OF THE
SUBCONTRACTORS EMPLOYED ONLY UNION LABOR WHILE OTHERS EMPLOYED NONUNION
AS WELL AS UNION LABOR, THAT IN JULY CERTAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS HAD
REQUESTED THAT ALL NONUNION LABOR ON THE PROJECT BE LAID OFF AND HAD
SAID THAT, UNLESS THAT WERE DONE, "EVERY EFFORT WOULD BE MADE TO
PREVENT ANY UNION LABOR EMPLOYED  ...  ON THAT PROJECT FROM CONTINUING
WORK THEREON," THAT ON SEPTEMBER 25 CERTAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS HAD
PICKETED THE PROJECT, CARRYING A SIGN READING "THIS IS NOT A UNION
JOB.  RICHMOND TRADES COUNCIL," THAT, AS A RESULT OF SUCH PICKETING,
UNION MEMBERS ON THE JOB HAD REFUSED TO CONTINUE TO WORK THERE AND
THAT, THEREFORE, THE PROJECT HAD "SLOWED TO A STANDSTILL."  THE
COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE FOREGOING DEMANDS SOUGHT TO INDUCE
RESPONDENTS TO TAKE ACTION WHICH WOULD SUBJECT THEM TO CRIMINAL AND
CIVIL LIABILITIES UNDER THE VIRGINIA RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE AND TO BREAK
RESPONDENTS' CONTRACTS WITH SUCH OF THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS AS DID NOT
EMPLOY ALL UNION LABOR.  FINALLY, IT ALLEGED THAT THE OBJECTIVES OF
DEFENDANTS IN MAKING SUCH DEMANDS AND CONDUCTING SUCH PICKETING WERE TO
PREVENT NONUNION EMPLOYEES FROM WORKING ON THE PROJECT.  ON THE
STRENGTH OF SUCH ALLEGATIONS, THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED RESPONDENTS THE
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION THEY SOUGHT AND THE PICKETING CEASED.  A MOTION TO
DISSOLVE THE INJUNCTION WAS DENIED, AN ANSWER WAS FILED, DEPOSITIONS
WERE TAKEN AND THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS CONTINUED IN EFFECT UNTIL
JULY 17, 1951.  ON THAT DATE, THE TRIAL COURT MADE THE INJUNCTION
PERMANENT.  THE COURT RENDERED NO OPINION BUT INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT IN ITS DECREE: 

"IT APPEARING TO THE COURT THAT THE PICKETING COMPLAINED OF WAS
CONDUCTED AND CARRIED ON BY THE DEFENDANTS, EXCEPT FOR THOSE DEFENDANTS
HEREINAFTER NOTED, AND FOR AIMS, PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES IN CONFLICT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO WORK LAWS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
AND, THEREFORE, ILLEGAL, THAT A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS NECESSARY TO
PREVENT IRREPARABLE HARM AND DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANTS, AND THAT
COMPLAINANTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DAMAGED TO THE EXTENT OF ONE HUNDRED AND
NINETY ($190.00) DOLLARS, THE COURT DOTH SO FIND; ...  ."  (FN3) 

JANUARY 23, 1952, THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA, ALSO
WITHOUT OPINION, REFUSED TO HEAR AN APPEAL BUT SAID IN ITS ORDER "THE
COURT BEING OF OPINION THAT THE SAID DECREES OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE
PLAINLY RIGHT, DOTH REJECT SAID PETITION AND REFUSE SAID APPEAL AND
SUPERSEDEAS, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO AFFIRM THE DECREE OF THE SAID
LAW AND EQUITY COURT."  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN THE
PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF LABOR LAW, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S.
811.  RESPONDENTS FILED NO BRIEF HERE OTHER THAN THAT IN OPPOSITION TO
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND SUBMITTED THEIR CASE WITHOUT ORAL
ARGUMENT. 

A FEW DAYS BEFORE OUR GRANT OF CERTIORARI, THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEALS OF VIRGINIA, IN ANOTHER CASE, REACHED A RESULT WHICH
PETITIONERS CLAIM IS IN CONFLICT WITH ITS JUDGMENT IN THE INSTANT
CASE.  PAINTERS & PAPERHANGERS LOCAL UNION NO. 1018 V. ROUNDTREE CORP.,
194 VA. 148, 72 S.E.2D 402.  WE FIND THAT DECISION HELPFUL AS UPHOLDING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE AND INTERPRETING ITS
MEANING, BUT WE DO NOT FIND IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE RESULT BELOW.  SEE
ALSO, EDWARDS V. VIRGINIA, 191 VA. 272, 60 S.E.2D 916; FINNEY V.
HAWKINS, 189 VA. 878, 54 S.E.2D 872; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V.
AMERICAN SASH CO., 335 U.S. 538; LINCOLN UNION V. NORTHWESTERN CO., 335
U.S. 525. 

IN THE ROUNTREE CASE, 194 VA., AT 154, 72 S.E.2D, AT 405, THE HIGHEST
COURT OF VIRGINIA HOLDS THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT PROHIBIT PEACEFUL
PICKETING "UNLESS  ...  FOR AN UNLAWFUL PURPOSE."  IT ADDS THAT "A
PURPOSE TO COMPEL THE COMPLAINANTS TO DISCHARGE THE NON-UNION PAINTERS
OR TO COMPEL THE PAINTERS TO JOIN THE UNION AS A CONDITION OF THEIR
CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT" WOULD BE AN UNLAWFUL PURPOSE, BUT IT FAILS TO
FIND THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PURPOSE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE
INSTANT CASE, THE SAME COURT STATES THAT THE INJUNCTIVE DECREES OF THE
TRIAL COURT "ARE PLAINLY RIGHT."  IT THEREBY SUSTAINS THE TRIAL COURT'S
FINDING THAT "THE PICKETING COMPLAINED OF WAS  ... CARRIED ON BY THE
DEFENDANTS  ...  FOR AIMS, PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO WORK LAWS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA  ...  ." 
THE ROUNTREE CASE THUS REFLECTS AN INSTANCE OF PICKETING SO CONDUCTED
AS NOT TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE, WHEREAS THE
FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE REFLECT CONDUCT THAT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THAT STATUTE.  HOWEVER INNOCENT THE PICKETING APPEARED
WHILE IN PROGRESS, THE VIRGINIA COURTS FOUND THAT IT WAS COMBINED WITH
CONDUCT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OCCURRING BEFORE AND DURING THE PICKETING
THAT DEMONSTRATED A PURPOSE ON THE PART OF PETITIONERS THAT WAS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE RIGHT TO WORK STATUTE. 

IN A CASE OF THIS KIND, WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN SEARCHING THE RECORD TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE CRUCIAL FINDING BY THE STATE COURTS HAD A
REASONABLE BASIS IN THE EVIDENCE.  (FN4)  THE RECORD CONSISTS OF THE
DEPOSITIONS OF NINE WITNESSES TAKEN SIX TO NINE MONTHS AFTER THE EVENTS
DESCRIBED.  THERE IS SOME CONFLICT IN THE TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT TOOK
PLACE JULY 27, 28, AND SEPTEMBER 25, 26.  THE RECORD CONTAINS, HOWEVER,
AMPLE GROUNDS FOR SUSTAINING THE CRUCIAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT. 
THOSE GROUNDS APPEAR PARTICULARLY IN THE TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT O.J.
GRAHAM AND HIS GENERAL MANAGER, J.Q. ACREE, AS TO WHAT WAS SAID DURING
THEIR CONVERSATION, ON JULY 28, 1950, WITH J.F. JOINVILLE, BUSINESS
AGENT OF THE PLUMBERS UNION AND PRESIDENT OF THE RICHMOND BUILDING &
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, TOGETHER WITH HENRY COCHRAN, BUSINESS
AGENT OF THE ENGINEERS UNION AND SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE SAME
TRADES COUNCIL.  (FN5) 

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PICKETING LASTED FROM 8 A.M., SEPTEMBER 25,
UNTIL STOPPED BY INJUNCTION THE FOLLOWING NOON.  THE PICKETING WAS
PEACEFUL IN APPEARANCE.  THERE USUALLY WAS BUT ONE PICKET AND THERE
NEVER WERE MORE THAN TWO PICKETS ON DUTY AT A TIME.  THERE WAS NO
VIOLENCE AND NO USE OF ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.  EACH PICKET WALKED UP AND
DOWN THE SIDEWALK ADJOINING THE PROJECT CARRYING A SIGN BEARING
SUBSTANTIALLY THE LANGUAGE QUOTED IN THE COMPLAINT.  SEPTEMBER 25, THE
PICKETING WAS DONE CONSECUTIVELY BY THE RESPECTIVE BUSINESS AGENTS OF
THE PAINTERS, PLUMBERS, PLASTERERS AND IRONWORKERS UNIONS.  THE
PREMISES PICKETED WERE FREQUENTED BY FEW EXCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION
WORKERS.  THE PROJECT WAS IN ITS EARLIEST STAGES.  BEFORE THE PICKETING
BEGAN, THERE WERE NOT MORE THAN FOURTEEN MEN AT WORK.  OF THESE, THREE
UNION CARPENTERS WORKED ABOUT ONE HOUR ON SEPTEMBER 25.  THEY LEFT THE
PROJECT WHEN THE PICKETING BEGAN AND RETURNED A FEW DAYS AFTER THE
PICKETING STOPPED.  TWO UNION IRONWORKERS OR RODMEN GAVE NOTICE ON THE
PRECEDING SATURDAY THAT PICKETING WAS TO BEGIN MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25,
AND THAT, THEREFORE, THEY WOULD NOT COME TO WORK.  THEY NEVER RETURNED
AND THE CONTRACTOR WAS DELAYED SEVERAL DAYS WHILE SEEKING TO REPLACE
THEM.  A NONUNION PLUMBER WAS ASSISTED BY A HELPER, WHO, ODDLY ENOUGH,
BELONGED TO A PRINTERS UNION.  THE PLUMBER DID NOT STOP WORK BUT HIS
HELPER LEFT WHEN THE PICKETING BEGAN. 

THE OTHERS PRESENT WERE SIX OR SEVEN LABORERS WHOSE STATUS AS UNION
MEN WAS NOT CLEAR.  THEY DID NOT QUIT BUT THE WORK ON THE PROJECT AS A
WHOLE CAME TO A SUBSTANTIAL STANDSTILL DURING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 25,
BECAUSE THE PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY THEN CALLED FOR WAS THAT OF POURING
CONCRETE WHICH REQUIRED THE SERVICES OF RODMEN AS WELL AS THOSE OF
LABORERS. 

THE EFFECT OF THE PICKETING WAS CONFIRMATORY OF ITS PURPOSE AS FOUND
BY THE TRIAL COURT.  PETITIONERS HERE ENGAGED IN MORE THAN THE MERE
PUBLICATION OF THE FACT THAT THE JOB WAS NOT 100% UNION.  THEIR
PICKETING WAS DONE AT SUCH A PLACE AND IN SUCH A MANNER THAT, COUPLED
WITH ESTABLISHED UNION POLICIES AND TRADITIONS, IT CAUSED THE UNION MEN
TO STOP WORK AND THUS SLOW THE PROJECT TO A GENERAL STANDSTILL.  SUCH
CONDUCT, FURTHERMORE, WAS CONDITIONED UPON THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE
WORK ON THIS JOB, PARTICULARLY THE PLUMBING, WAS BEING DONE BY A
SUBCONTRACTOR WHO EMPLOYED NONUNION LABOR, WHEREAS JOINVILLE HAD
DEMANDED OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR THAT THE JOB BE "ONE HUNDRED PER
CENT UNION." 

THE POLICY OF VIRGINIA WHICH IS EXPRESSED IN ITS RIGHT TO WORK
STATUTE IS SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS BY ITS HIGHEST COURT: 

"IT PROVIDES IN SUBSTANCE THAT NEITHER MEMBERSHIP NOR NON-MEMBERSHIP
IN A LABOR UNION SHALL BE MADE A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT; THAT A
CONTRACT LIMITING EMPLOYMENT TO UNION MEMBERS IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY;
AND THAT A PERSON DENIED EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE HE IS EITHER A MEMBER OF A
UNION OR NOT A MEMBER OF A UNION SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR
DAMAGES."  FINNEY V. HAWKINS, 189 VA. 878, 880, 54 S.E.2D 872, 874. 

BASED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, WE HAVE A CASE IN WHICH
PICKETING WAS UNDERTAKEN AND CARRIED ON WITH AT LEAST ONE OF ITS
SUBSTANTIAL PURPOSES IN CONFLICT WITH THE DECLARED POLICY OF VIRGINIA. 
THE IMMEDIATE RESULTS OF THE PICKETING DEMONSTRATED ITS POTENTIAL
EFFECTIVENESS, UNLESS ENJOINED, AS A PRACTICAL MEANS OF PUTTING
PRESSURE ON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO ELIMINATE FROM FURTHER
PARTICIPATION ALL NONUNION MEN OR ALL SUBCONTRACTORS EMPLOYING NONUNION
MEN ON THE PROJECT. 

ASSUMING THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, PETITIONERS
STILL CONTEND THAT THE INJUNCTION IN THIS CASE WAS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  ON
THE REASONING AND AUTHORITY OF OUR RECENT DECISIONS, WE REAFFIRM OUR
POSITION TO THE CONTRARY.  BUILDING SERVICE UNION V. GAZZAM, 339 U.S.
532; TEAMSTERS UNION V. HANKE, 339 U.S. 470; HUGHES V. SUPERIOR COURT,
339 U.S. 460; GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE CO., 336 U.S. 490; THOMAS V.
COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 537-538, AND 543-544 (CONCURRING OPINION);
BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769, 776-777 (CONCURRING
OPINION); CARPENTERS UNION V. RITTER'S CAFE, 315 U.S. 722; CARLSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 103-104;
SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468, 479-481.  SEE ALSO, ELECTRICAL
WORKERS V. LABOR BOARD, 341 U.S. 694, 705. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA ACCORDINGLY
IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "1.  SECTION 1.  IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE PUBLIC POLICY
OF VIRGINIA THAT THE RIGHT OF PERSONS TO WORK SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR
ABRIDGED ON ACCOUNT OF MEMBERSHIP OR NON-MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR UNION
OR LABOR ORGANIZATION. 

"SECTION 2.  ANY AGREEMENT OR COMBINATION BETWEEN ANY EMPLOYER AND
ANY LABOR UNION OR LABOR ORGANIZATION WHEREBY PERSONS NOT MEMBERS OF
SUCH UNION OR ORGANIZATION SHALL BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO WORK FOR SAID
EMPLOYER, OR WHEREBY SUCH MEMBERSHIP IS MADE A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT
OR CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY SUCH EMPLOYER, OR WHEREBY ANY SUCH
UNION OR ORGANIZATION ACQUIRES AN EMPLOYMENT MONOPOLY IN ANY
ENTERPRISE, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND AN
ILLEGAL COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY. 

"SECTION 3.  NO PERSON SHALL BE REQUIRED BY AN EMPLOYER TO BECOME OR
REMAIN A MEMBER OF ANY LABOR UNION OR LABOR ORGANIZATION AS A CONDITION
OF EMPLOYMENT OR CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY SUCH EMPLOYER. 
"SECTION 4.  NO PERSON SHALL BE REQUIRED BY AN EMPLOYER TO ABSTAIN OR
REFRAIN FROM MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR UNION OR LABOR ORGANIZATION AS A
CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OR CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT. 

"SECTION 5.  NO EMPLOYER SHALL REQUIRE ANY PERSON, AS A CONDITION OF
EMPLOYMENT OR CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT, TO PAY ANY DUES, FEES OR
OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO ANY LABOR UNION OR LABOR ORGANIZATION. 

"SECTION 6.  ANY PERSON WHO MAY BE DENIED EMPLOYMENT OR BE DEPRIVED
OF CONTINUATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS THREE, FOUR
OR FIVE OR OF ONE OR MORE OF SUCH SECTIONS, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
RECOVER FROM SUCH EMPLOYER AND FROM ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION
OR ASSOCIATION ACTING IN CONCERT WITH HIM BY APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE
COURTS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH SUCH DAMAGES AS HE MAY HAVE SUSTAINED BY
REASON OF SUCH DENIAL OR DEPRIVATION OF EMPLOYMENT. 

"SECTION 7.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY LAWFUL
CONTRACT IN FORCE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF BUT THEY SHALL APPLY IN
ALL RESPECTS TO CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO THEREAFTER AND TO ANY RENEWAL OR
EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING CONTRACT."  VA. ACTS, EXTRA SESSION 1947, C.
2, VA. CODE, 1950, SECS. 40-68 TO 40-74, INCLUSIVE. 

SEE ALSO RECOGNITION OF SUCH STATE LEGISLATION IN THE TAFT-HARTLEY
ACT: 

"SEC. 14  ...  . 

"(B) NOTHING IN THIS ACT (NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED)
SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OR APPLICATION OF
AGREEMENTS REQUIRING MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS A CONDITION
OF EMPLOYMENT IN ANY STATE OR TERRITORY IN WHICH SUCH EXECUTION OR
APPLICATION IS PROHIBITED BY STATE OR TERRITORIAL LAW."  61 STAT. 151,
29 U.S.C. (SUPP.  V) SEC. 164(B). 

FN2  THE UNIONS NAMED WERE LOCAL UNION NO. 1018, BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA; LOCAL UNION NO. 64,
CEMENT FINISHERS AND OPERATIVE PLASTERERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
AND LOCAL UNION NO. 147, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
EACH AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. 

FN3  THE DECREE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AGAINST LOCAL UNION NO. 147
AND ITS BUSINESS AGENT, BUT ENJOINED THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS "FROM
INTERFERING WITH, MOLESTING OR OTHERWISE CARRYING ON THEIR PICKETING OR
OTHER ACTIVITIES IN FRONT OF OR AROUND THE SITE OF CONSTRUCTION OF
GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER SCHOOL IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA." 

PETITIONERS NOW OBJECT TO THE BREADTH OF THE TERMS OF THE
INJUNCTION.  THAT OBJECTION WAS NOT PRESENTED IN THEIR PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI AND IS NOT CONSIDERED HERE. 

FN4  "  ...  IT IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE THAT NO CONSTITUTIONAL
FREEDOM, LEAST OF ALL THE GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, BE DEFEATED
BY INSUBSTANTIAL FINDINGS OF FACT SCREENING REALITY.  THAT IS WHY THIS
COURT HAS THE ULTIMATE POWER TO SEARCH THE RECORDS IN THE STATE COURTS
WHERE A CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS EFFECTIVELY MADE  ...  . 

"  ...  WE HAVE NOT ONLY HIS (THE MASTER'S) FINDINGS BUT HIS FINDINGS
AUTHENTICATED BY THE STATE OF ILLINOIS SPEAKING THROUGH HER SUPREME
COURT.  WE CAN REJECT SUCH A DETERMINATION ONLY IF WE CAN SAY THAT IT
IS SO WITHOUT WARRANT AS TO BE A PALPABLE EVASION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE HERE INVOKED."  DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, 312 U.S.
287, 293, 294. 

FN5  FOR EXAMPLE, O.J. GRAHAM TESTIFIED: 

"A.  ...  HE (JOINVILLE) FINALLY GOT INTO THE QUESTION OF THIS
PARTICULAR JOB AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER SCHOOL AND MR. JOINVILLE
SAID HE WANTED US TO MAKE IT ONE HUNDRED PER CENT UNION JOB AND I TOLD
HIM WE COULDN'T DO THAT, THAT WE HAD ALREADY LET SUB-CONTRACTS THAT
WERE UNION AND NON-UNION AND WE WEREN'T MAKING ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE TWO, GENERALLY SPEAKING, UNLESS SOMETHING WAS WRONG OR UNLESS WE
DIDN'T THINK THE SUB-CONTRACTOR COULD PERFORM LIKE WE WANTED HIM TO;
THAT WE LET THE CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST BIDDER, WHETHER HE WAS UNION OR
NON-UNION, AND MR. JOINVILLE THEN SAID ABOUT THIS PLUMBING AND HEATING
CONTRACT HE WANTED ME TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT WITH TALLEY AND I TOLD HIM
WE COULDN'T DO THAT, THAT A CONTRACT WITH A NON-UNION MAN WAS JUST AS
VALID AS ONE WITH A UNION MAN, AND THAT LED ON INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE
GENERAL POLICY OF THE RICHMOND TRADES COUNCIL. 

"THE WAY THAT CAME UP WAS I ASKED MR. JOINVILLE WHY PICK OUT THIS
JOB, THAT A NUMBER OF OTHER CONTRACTORS WERE OPERATING THE SAME AS WE
WERE NOW AND WE HAD BEEN VERY FRIENDLY WITH THE UNIONS, HADN'T HAD ANY
TROUBLE WITH THEM AND SOMETIME PAST WE HAD WORKED PROBABLY NINETY PER
CENT UNION ON SOME JOBS AND OUR RELATIONS UP TO THIS TIME HAD BEEN VERY
GOOD.  'WELL,' HE SAID, 'FROM NOW ON, WE ARE NOT GOING TO PERMIT THE
THINGS WE HAVE BEEN PERMITTING IN THE PAST AND IF A JOB ISN'T ONE
HUNDRED PER CENT UNION, THE UNION LABOR IS NOT GOING TO WORK ON IT; IT
HAS GOT TO BE ONE HUNDRED PER CENT UNION.'  IF IT WASN'T - TALKING
ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR JOB TOGETHER WITH ANY OTHER JOBS IN THE FUTURE,
NOT ONLY OF OURS, BUT OTHER PEOPLE'S AS WELL, THAT THEY WOULD JUST HAVE
TO TAKE WHAT CAME FROM THE UNION AS A RESULT OF NOT BEING ONE HUNDRED
PER CENT UNION, AND WE DID DISCUSS TO SOME DEGREE THE RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW
AND THE EFFECT THAT IT HAD HAD OR SHOULD HAVE ON LABOR AND I TOLD HIM I
DIDN'T SEE HOW WE COULD COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND MAKE ANY JOB ONE
HUNDRED PER CENT UNION.  'WELL,' HE SAID, 'NOBODY ELSE IS PAYING ANY
ATTENTION TO THE RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW; I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY GRAHAM
BROTHERS SHOULD BE SO CONCERNED ABOUT IT.'" 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

IF THIS UNION USED THE COERCIVE POWER OF PICKETING TO FORCE THE
CONTRACTOR TO DISCHARGE THE NONUNION MEN WHO WERE EMPLOYED ON THE JOB,
VIRGINIA COULD ISSUE THE INJUNCTION.  FOR IT IS WITHIN THE POLICE POWER
OF THE STATE TO KEEP OPPORTUNITIES FOR WORK OPEN TO BOTH NONUNION AND
UNION MEN.  SEE GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE CO., 336 U.S. 490; BUILDING
SERVICE UNION V. GAZZAM, 339 U.S. 532.  BUT IF THE UNION DID NO MORE
THAN ADVERTISE TO UNION MEN AND UNION SYMPATHIZERS THAT NONUNION MEN
WERE EMPLOYED ON THE JOB, THE PICKETING WOULD BE PRIVILEGED. 

PICKETING IS A FORM OF FREE SPEECH - THE WORKINGMAN'S METHOD OF
GIVING PUBLICITY TO THE FACTS OF INDUSTRIAL LIFE.  AS SUCH IT IS
ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S.
88.  NO COURT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PREVENT THE DISSEMINATION OF THE
NEWS "THIS IS NOT A UNION JOB," WHETHER IT BE BY RADIO, BY NEWSPAPER,
BY PAMPHLETS, OR BY PICKETING.  A PICKET CARRYING THAT SIGN WOULD BE
PROCLAIMING TO ALL UNION MEN TO STAY AWAY.  YET AS MR. JUSTICE MINTON,
DISSENTING IN TEAMSTERS UNION V. HANKE, 339 U.S. 470, 481, 482, STATED,
PEACEFUL PICKETING WHEN USED "AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PUBLICITY" IS A FORM
OF SPEECH PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  IT IS
ENTITLED TO THAT PROTECTION THOUGH IT INCITES TO ACTION.  FOR IT IS THE
AIM OF MOST IDEAS TO SHAPE CONDUCT.  (FN1) 

THE LINE BETWEEN PERMISSIBLE AND UNLAWFUL PICKETING WILL THEREFORE
OFTEN BE NARROW OR EVEN TENUOUS.  A PURPOSE TO DEPRIVE NONUNION MEN OF
EMPLOYMENT WOULD MAKE THE PICKETING UNLAWFUL; A PURPOSE TO KEEP UNION
MEN AWAY FROM THE JOB WOULD GIVE THE PICKETING CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION.  THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THAT WE HAVE NO FINDINGS OF FACT. 
WE HAVE ONLY THE RECITATION IN THE DECREE THAT THE PICKETING CONFLICTED
WITH THE VIRGINIA STATUTE. 

THERE IS A DISPUTE IN THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE
PICKETING.  THE CONTRACTOR TESTIFIED THAT THE AIM WAS TO COERCE HIM TO
REPLACE NONUNION MEN WITH UNION MEN.  THE UNION OFFICIAL TESTIFIED
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT THAT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE, THAT THE AIM WAS TO INFORM
UNION MEN THAT NONUNION MEN WERE ON THE JOB.  (FN2)  PERHAPS THE TRIAL
JUDGE BELIEVED THE CONTRACTOR.  PERHAPS HE DEEMED IT IRRELEVANT TO
RESOLVE THE CONFLICT.  CERTAINLY I CANNOT RESOLVE IT FROM THIS COLD
RECORD.  I BELIEVE THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR SPECIFIC FINDINGS. 
WE SPOKE IN THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, AT 105, OF THE IMPORTANCE OF A
"NARROWLY DRAWN" PICKETING STATUTE, OF THE DANGER OF ONE THAT CONDEMNED
PICKETING INDISCRIMINATELY.  THE SAME DANGERS ARE INHERENT IN CASES
WHERE THERE ARE NO FINDINGS AND YET WHERE THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSE MUST BE
FOUND BEFORE THE PICKETING CAN BE ENJOINED.  IF VIRGINIA IS TO ENJOIN
THIS FORM OF FREE SPEECH, I WOULD REQUIRE HER TO SHOW PRECISELY THE
REASONS FOR IT. UNLESS WE ARE METICULOUS IN THAT REGARD, GREAT RIGHTS
WILL BE LOST BY THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS, BY THE GENERALITY OF FINDINGS,
OR BY THE VAGUENESS OF DECREES.  THERE IS MORE THAN SUSPICION THAT THAT
HAS HAPPENED HERE.  FOR THE DECREE PERMANENTLY ENJOINS DEFENDANTS FROM
"CARRYING ON THEIR PICKETING OR OTHER ACTIVITIES IN FRONT OF OR AROUND"
THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.  THIS DECREE WAS NOT "TAILORED TO PREVENT A
SPECIFIC VIOLATION" OF STATE LAW.  BUILDING SERVICE UNION V. GAZZAM,
SUPRA, AT 541.  (FN3)  IT IS A BROADSIDE AGAINST ALL PICKETING, THE
KIND OF GENERAL ASSAULT CONDEMNED BY THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA.  IT
ILLUSTRATES THE EVIL CONSEQUENCES THAT FLOW FROM A FAILURE TO BE
UTTERLY PAINSTAKING IN ISOLATING THE PRECISE EVILS IN PICKETING WHICH
THE STATE MAY REGULATE. 

FN1  I HAVE EXPRESSED ELSEWHERE MY VIEWS CONCERNING THE LINE BETWEEN
SANCTITY OF SPEECH AND THE UNLAWFUL USE OF THE COERCIVE POWER OF
UNIONS.  SEE BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769, 775-777;
THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 543-544. 

FN2  MR. JOINVILLE TESTIFIED: 

"Q.  NOW MR. GRAHAM HAS ALLEGED THAT YOU CAME TO TALK WITH HIM AS
BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE FOR LOCAL NO. 10 AND THAT YOU RENEWED YOUR
REQUEST OF JULY 27, 1950, THAT ALL NON-UNION LABOR ON THE JOB PROJECT
BE LAID OFF OR DISCHARGED.  DID YOU MAKE THAT REQUEST? 

"A.  NO. 

"Q.  WERE YOU INTERESTED IN ALL THE NON-UNION LABOR ON THE PROJECT
BEING LAID OFF? 

"A.  I WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN FURTHERING THE INTERESTS OF UNION
LABOR.  AS TO THE STANDING AND WHO WAS ON THE JOB AND WHAT CRAFTS, I
DIDN'T KNOW AND DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL I TALKED TO MR. GRAHAM AND GOT IT
FROM HIM DIRECT. 

"Q.  DID YOU IN YOUR CONVERSATION WITH HIM REQUEST HIM TO LAY OFF OR
FIRE OR DISCHARGE ANYBODY? 

"A.  NO. MR. GRAHAM DEFINITELY TOLD ME HE INTENDED TO GO THROUGH WITH
IT AND I ASKED HIM TO GIVE HIS CONTRACTS TO SOME OF THE BOYS - SOME OF
THE CONTRACTORS WHOM HE HAD LET HIS CONTRACTS TO IN THE PAST.  HE SAID
DEFINITELY HE HAD MADE COMMITMENT TO MR. TALLEY AND HE INTENDED TO HOLD
MR. TALLEY TO HIS COMMITMENT AND SEE THAT MR. TALLEY COMPLETED THAT
JOB, AND KNOWING THE CONTRACTING BUSINESS, I KNOW THAT. 

     *         *    *         *         * 

"Q.  YOU HAVE TESTIFIED THAT YOU WENT TO SEE HIM (MR. GRAHAM) FOR THE
PURPOSE OF GETTING HIM TO USE SOME OF YOUR UNION SUBCONTRACTORS, IS
THAT CORRECT? 

"A.  THAT IS MY JOB, TO PROMOTE SUBCONTRACTORS AND MY MEMBERSHIP
WHEREVER POSSIBLE. 

"Q.  HE REFUSED TO DO JUST THAT, DIDN'T HE? 

"A.  HE SAID HE HAD ALREADY LET THE CONTRACT TO A NON-UNION, - AS I
ASSUME, I HAD NO RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM - TO A CONTRACTOR BY THE NAME OF
TALLEY AND HE HAD NO INTENTION OF VIOLATING THAT CONTRACT WITH TALLEY,
AND I AGREED WITH HIM. 

"Q.  THEN HE DENIED YOUR MEN THE RIGHT TO WORK FOR HIM, DIDN'T HE? 

"A.  HE DEFINITELY DID. 

     *         *         *   *         * 

"Q.  MR. JOINVILLE, DID MR. GRAHAM REFUSE TO EMPLOY ANY OF YOUR LOCAL
UNION MEN? 

"A.  HE DEFINITELY TOOK THE STAND HE WOULDN'T HAVE ANYONE BUT TALLEY
ON THAT JOB. 

"Q.  DID YOU ASK MR. GRAHAM TO CANCEL HIS CONTRACT WITH TALLEY? 

"A.  NO. I HAVE BEEN IN THIS CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS LONG ENOUGH AND
BUSINESS AGENT FOR TWENTY SOME YEARS AND I KNOW WHEN A CONTRACT IS
SIGNED AND DELIVERED NOBODY CANCELS THEM. 

"Q.  THAT WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE LAW, WOULD IT? 

"A.  THAT IS RIGHT." 

FN3  SEE ALSO HUGHES V. SUPERIOR COURT, 339 U.S. 460, WHERE WE UPHELD
THE VALIDITY OF AN INJUNCTION WHICH RESTRAINED THE DEFENDANTS FROM
"PICKETING  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO DO ANY OF
THE FOLLOWING ACTS: 

"(1)  THE SELECTIVE HIRING OF NEGRO CLERKS, SUCH HIRING TO BE BASED
ON THE PROPORTION OF WHITE AND NEGRO CUSTOMERS WHO PATRONIZE
PLAINTIFF'S STORES; ...  ." 

THIS PURPOSE WAS DECLARED UNLAWFUL BY THE CALIFORNIA COURTS AND WE
SUSTAINED THE INJUNCTION DIRECTED AGAINST THAT UNLAWFUL PURPOSE.  CF.
HOTEL EMPLOYEES' LOCAL V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 315 U.S. 437, INVOLVING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER PROHIBITING PICKETING.  IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT THE
PICKETING HAD ERUPTED INTO VIOLENCE.  WE ACCEPTED THE WISCONSIN COURT'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDER WAS DIRECTED ONLY AGAINST SUCH UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT AND DID NOT REACH OUT TO STRIKE DOWN PEACEFUL PICKETING FOR A
LAWFUL PURPOSE. 
..END :























SHAUGHNESSY V. UNITED STATES, MEZEI 345 U.S. 206 


NO. 139.  ARGUED JANUARY 7-8, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1953 - 195 F.2D
964, REVERSED. 


AN ALIEN RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRAVELED ABROAD AND REMAINED IN
HUNGARY FOR 19 MONTHS.  ON HIS RETURN TO THIS COUNTRY, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, ACTING PURSUANT TO 22 U.S.C.  SEC. 223 AND REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER, ORDERED HIM PERMANENTLY EXCLUDED WITHOUT A HEARING.  THE
ORDER WAS BASED ON "INFORMATION OF A CONFIDENTIAL NATURE, THE
DISCLOSURE OF WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST," AND
ON A FINDING THAT THE ALIEN'S ENTRY WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST FOR SECURITY REASONS.  BECAUSE OTHER NATIONS REFUSED TO ACCEPT
HIM, HIS EXCLUSION AT ELLIS ISLAND WAS CONTINUED FOR 21 MONTHS.  A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS THEN DIRECTED HIS
CONDITIONAL PAROLE INTO THE UNITED STATES ON BOND.  HELD:  THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S CONTINUED EXCLUSION OF THE ALIEN WITHOUT A HEARING DOES NOT
AMOUNT TO AN UNLAWFUL DETENTION, AND COURTS MAY NOT TEMPORARILY ADMIT
HIM TO THE UNITED STATES PENDING ARRANGEMENTS FOR HIS DEPARTURE
ABROAD.  PP. 207-216. 

(A)  IN EXCLUSION CASES, THE COURTS CANNOT RETRY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S STATUTORY DETERMINATION THAT AN ALIEN'S ENTRY WOULD BE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  PP. 210-212. 

(B)  NEITHER AN ALIEN'S HARBORAGE ON ELLIS ISLAND NOR HIS PRIOR
RESIDENCE IN THIS COUNTRY TRANSFORMS THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
AGAINST HIM INTO SOMETHING OTHER THAN AN EXCLUSION PROCEEDING; AND HE
MAY BE EXCLUDED IF UNQUALIFIED FOR ADMISSION UNDER EXISTING IMMIGRATION
LAWS.  P. 213. 

(C)  ALTHOUGH A LAWFULLY RESIDENT ALIEN MAY NOT CAPTIOUSLY BE
DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, THE ALIEN IN THIS
CASE IS AN ENTRANT ALIEN OR "ASSIMILATED TO THAT STATUS" FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES.  KWONG HAI CHEW V. COLDING, 344 U.S. 590,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 213-214. 

(D)  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEREFORE MAY EXCLUDE THIS ALIEN WITHOUT A
HEARING, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMERGENCY REGULATIONS PROMULGATED
PURSUANT TO THE PASSPORT ACT, AND NEED NOT DISCLOSE THE EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THAT DETERMINATION RESTS.  PP. 214-215. 

(E)  THE ALIEN'S CONTINUED EXCLUSION ON ELLIS ISLAND DOES NOT DEPRIVE
HIM OF ANY STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  PP. 215-216. 

(F)  THE ALIEN'S RIGHT TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES DEPENDS ON THE
CONGRESSIONAL WILL, AND THE COURTS CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THEIR JUDGMENT FOR
THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE.  P. 216. 

SHAUGHNESSY, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, V.
UNITED STATES EX REL.  MEZEI. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AUTHORIZED
THE TEMPORARY ADMISSION OF AN ALIEN TO THIS COUNTRY ON $5,000 BOND. 
101 F. SUPP. 66.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT ACTION, BUT
DIRECTED RECONSIDERATION OF THE TERMS OF THE PAROLE.  195 F.2D 964. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 809.  REVERSED, P. 216. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CONCERNS AN ALIEN IMMIGRANT PERMANENTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE
UNITED STATES ON SECURITY GROUNDS BUT STRANDED IN HIS TEMPORARY HAVEN
ON ELLIS ISLAND BECAUSE OTHER COUNTRIES WILL NOT TAKE HIM BACK.  THE
ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONTINUED EXCLUSION OF
RESPONDENT WITHOUT A HEARING AMOUNTS TO AN UNLAWFUL DETENTION, SO THAT
COURTS MAY ADMIT HIM TEMPORARILY TO THE UNITED STATES ON BOND UNTIL
ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE FOR HIS DEPARTURE ABROAD.  AFTER A HEARING ON
RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE DISTRICT COURT
SO HELD AND AUTHORIZED HIS TEMPORARY ADMISSION ON $5,000 BOND.  (FN1)
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT ACTION, BUT DIRECTED RECONSIDERATION
OF THE TERMS OF THE PAROLE.  (FN2)  ACCORDINGLY, THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED A MODIFIED ORDER REDUCING BOND TO $3,000 AND PERMITTING
RESPONDENT TO TRAVEL AND RESIDE IN BUFFALO, NEW YORK.  BOND WAS POSTED
AND RESPONDENT RELEASED.  BECAUSE OF RESULTANT SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S.
809. 

RESPONDENT'S PRESENT DILEMMA SPRINGS FROM THESE CIRCUMSTANCES:
THOUGH, AS THE DISTRICT COURT OBSERVED, "THERE IS A CERTAIN VAGUENESS
ABOUT HIS HISTORY," RESPONDENT SEEMINGLY WAS BORN IN GIBRALTAR OF
HUNGARIAN OR RUMANIAN PARENTS AND LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES FROM 1923
TO 1948.  (FN3) IN MAY OF THAT YEAR HE SAILED FOR EUROPE, APPARENTLY TO
VISIT HIS DYING MOTHER IN RUMANIA.  DENIED ENTRY THERE, HE REMAINED IN
HUNGARY FOR SOME 19 MONTHS, DUE TO "DIFFICULTY IN SECURING AN EXIT
PERMIT."  FINALLY, ARMED WITH A QUOTA IMMIGRATION VISA ISSUED BY THE
AMERICAN CONSUL IN BUDAPEST, HE PROCEEDED TO FRANCE AND BOARDED THE ILE
DE FRANCE IN LE HAVRE BOUND FOR NEW YORK.  UPON ARRIVAL ON FEBRUARY 9,
1950, HE WAS TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED FROM THE UNITED STATES BY AN
IMMIGRATION INSPECTOR ACTING PURSUANT TO THE PASSPORT ACT AS AMENDED
AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER.  PENDING DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE HE WAS
RECEIVED AT ELLIS ISLAND.  AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ON MAY 10, 1950, ORDERED THE TEMPORARY EXCLUSION TO BE MADE
PERMANENT WITHOUT A HEARING BEFORE A BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, ON THE
"BASIS OF INFORMATION OF A CONFIDENTIAL NATURE, THE DISCLOSURE OF WHICH
WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  THAT DETERMINATION
RESTED ON A FINDING THAT RESPONDENT'S ENTRY WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST FOR SECURITY REASONS.  BUT THUS FAR ALL ATTEMPTS TO
EFFECT RESPONDENT'S DEPARTURE HAVE FAILED:  TWICE HE SHIPPED OUT TO
RETURN WHENCE HE CAME; FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN REFUSED HIS PERMISSION
TO LAND.  THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATED WITH
HUNGARY FOR HIS READMISSION.  RESPONDENT PERSONALLY APPLIED FOR ENTRY
TO ABOUT A DOZEN LATIN-AMERICAN COUNTRIES BUT ALL TURNED HIM DOWN.  SO
IN JUNE 1951 RESPONDENT ADVISED THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE THAT HE WOULD EXERT NO FURTHER EFFORTS TO DEPART.  IN SHORT,
RESPONDENT SAT ON ELLIS ISLAND BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY SHUT HIM OUT AND
OTHERS WERE UNWILLING TO TAKE HIM IN. 

ASSERTING UNLAWFUL CONFINEMENT ON ELLIS ISLAND, HE SOUGHT RELIEF
THROUGH A SERIES OF HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.  AFTER FOUR UNSUCCESSFUL
EFFORTS ON RESPONDENT'S PART, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ON NOVEMBER 9, 1951, SUSTAINED THE WRIT. 
THE DISTRICT JUDGE, VEXED BY THE PROBLEM OF "AN ALIEN WHO HAS NO PLACE
TO GO," DID NOT QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE EXCLUSION ORDER BUT DEEMED
FURTHER "DETENTION" AFTER 21 MONTHS EXCESSIVE AND JUSTIFIABLE ONLY BY
AFFIRMATIVE PROOF OF RESPONDENT'S DANGER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY.  WHEN
THE GOVERNMENT DECLINED TO DIVULGE SUCH EVIDENCE, EVEN IN CAMERA, THE
DISTRICT COURT DIRECTED RESPONDENT'S CONDITIONAL PAROLE ON BOND.  (FN4)
BY A DIVIDED VOTE, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  POSTULATING THAT
THE POWER TO HOLD COULD NEVER BE BROADER THAN THE POWER TO REMOVE OR
SHUT OUT AND THAT TO "CONTINUE AN ALIEN'S CONFINEMENT BEYOND THAT
MOMENT WHEN DEPORTATION BECOMES PATENTLY IMPOSSIBLE IS TO DEPRIVE HIM
OF HIS LIBERTY," THE COURT FOUND RESPONDENT'S "CONFINEMENT" NO LONGER
JUSTIFIABLE AS A MEANS OF REMOVAL ELSEWHERE, THUS NOT AUTHORIZED BY
STATUTE, AND IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.  (FN5)  JUDGE LEARNED HAND,
DISSENTING, TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW:  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ORDER WAS
ONE OF "EXCLUSION" AND NOT "DEPORTATION"; RESPONDENT'S TRANSFER FROM
SHIP TO SHORE ON ELLIS ISLAND CONFERRED NO ADDITIONAL RIGHTS; IN FACT,
NO ALIEN SO SITUATED "CAN FORCE US TO ADMIT HIM AT ALL."  (FN6) 

COURTS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THE POWER TO EXPEL OR EXCLUDE ALIENS AS A
FUNDAMENTAL SOVEREIGN ATTRIBUTE EXERCISED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S POLITICAL
DEPARTMENTS LARGELY IMMUNE FROM JUDICIAL CONTROL.  THE CHINESE
EXCLUSION CASE, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES,
149 U.S. 698 (1893); KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537 (1950);
HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580 (1952).  IN THE EXERCISE OF
THESE POWERS, CONGRESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO IMPOSE
ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENS ENTERING OR LEAVING THE UNITED STATES
DURING PERIODS OF INTERNATIONAL TENSION AND STRIFE.  THAT
AUTHORIZATION, ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN THE PASSPORT ACT OF 1918,
CONTINUES IN EFFECT DURING THE PRESENT EMERGENCY.  UNDER IT, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, ACTING FOR THE PRESIDENT, MAY SHUT OUT ALIENS WHOSE
"ENTRY WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES." 
(FN7)  AND HE MAY EXCLUDE WITHOUT A HEARING WHEN THE EXCLUSION IS BASED
ON CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THE DISCLOSURE OF WHICH MAY BE PREJUDICIAL
TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  (FN8)  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THIS CASE
PROCEEDED IN ACCORD WITH THESE PROVISIONS; HE MADE THE NECESSARY
DETERMINATIONS AND BARRED THE ALIEN FROM ENTERING THE UNITED STATES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT ALIENS WHO HAVE ONCE PASSED THROUGH OUR GATES, EVEN
ILLEGALLY, MAY BE EXPELLED ONLY AFTER PROCEEDINGS CONFORMING TO
TRADITIONAL STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS ENCOMPASSED IN DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 
THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86, 100-101 (1903); WONG YANG
SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33, 49-50 (1950); KWONG HAI CHEW V. COLDING,
344 U.S. 590, 598 (1953).  BUT AN ALIEN ON THE THRESHOLD OF INITIAL
ENTRY STANDS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING: "WHATEVER THE PROCEDURE AUTHORIZED
BY CONGRESS IS, IT IS DUE PROCESS AS FAR AS AN ALIEN DENIED ENTRY IS
CONCERNED."  KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, SUPRA, AT 544; EKIU V. UNITED
STATES, 142 U.S. 651, 660 (1892).  AND BECAUSE THE ACTION OF THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER SUCH AUTHORITY IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE THE EVIDENCE
UNDERLYING HIS DETERMINATIONS IN AN EXCLUSION CASE; "IT IS NOT WITHIN
THE PROVINCE OF ANY COURT, UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW, TO
REVIEW THE DETERMINATION OF THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT." 
KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, SUPRA, AT 543; EKIU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT
660.  IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, COURTS CANNOT RETRY THE DETERMINATION OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, SUPRA, AT 546; LUDECKE V.
WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160, 171-172 (1948). 

NEITHER RESPONDENT'S HARBORAGE ON ELLIS ISLAND NOR HIS PRIOR
RESIDENCE HERE TRANSFORMS THIS INTO SOMETHING OTHER THAN AN EXCLUSION
PROCEEDING.  CONCEDEDLY, HIS MOVEMENTS ARE RESTRAINED BY AUTHORITY OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND HE MAY BY HABEAS CORPUS TEST THE VALIDITY OF HIS
EXCLUSION.  BUT THAT IS TRUE WHETHER HE ENJOYS TEMPORARY REFUGE ON
LAND, EKIU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, OR REMAINS CONTINUOUSLY ABOARD
SHIP.  UNITED STATES V. JUNG AH LUNG, 124 U.S. 621, 626 (1888); CHIN
YOW V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 8, 12 (1908).  IN SUM, HARBORAGE AT
ELLIS ISLAND IS NOT AN ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.  KAPLAN V. TOD,
267 U.S. 228, 230 (1925); UNITED STATES V. JU TOY, 198 U.S. 253, 263
(1905); EKIU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 661.  FOR PURPOSES OF THE
IMMIGRATION LAWS, MOREOVER, THE LEGAL INCIDENTS OF AN ALIEN'S ENTRY
REMAIN UNALTERED WHETHER HE HAS BEEN HERE ONCE BEFORE OR NOT.  HE IS AN
ENTERING ALIEN JUST THE SAME, AND MAY BE EXCLUDED IF UNQUALIFIED FOR
ADMISSION UNDER EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAWS.  E.G., LEM MOON SING V.
UNITED STATES, 158 U.S. 538, 547-548 (1895); POLYMERIS V. TRUDELL, 284
U.S. 279 (1932). 

TO BE SURE, A LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIEN MAY NOT CAPTIOUSLY BE DEPRIVED OF
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  KWONG HAI CHEW V.
COLDING, 344 U.S. 590, 601 (1953); CF. DELGADILLO V. CARMICHAEL, 332
U.S. 388 (1947).  ONLY THE OTHER DAY WE HELD THAT UNDER SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES TEMPORARY ABSENCE FROM OUR SHORES CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
DEPRIVE A RETURNING LAWFULLY RESIDENT ALIEN OF HIS RIGHT TO BE HEARD. 
KWONG HAI CHEW V. COLDING, SUPRA.  CHEW, AN ALIEN SEAMAN ADMITTED BY AN
ACT OF CONGRESS TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES, SIGNED
ARTICLES OF MARITIME EMPLOYMENT AS CHIEF STEWARD ON A VESSEL OF
AMERICAN REGISTRY WITH HOME PORT IN NEW YORK CITY.  THOUGH CLEARED BY
THE COAST GUARD FOR HIS VOYAGE, ON HIS RETURN FROM FOUR MONTHS AT SEA
HE WAS "EXCLUDED" WITHOUT A HEARING ON SECURITY GROUNDS.  ON THE FACTS
OF THAT CASE, INCLUDING REFERENCE TO SEC. 307(D)(2) OF THE NATIONALITY
ACT OF 1940, WE FELT JUSTIFIED IN "ASSIMILATING" HIS STATUS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES TO THAT OF CONTINUOUSLY PRESENT ALIEN RESIDENTS
ENTITLED TO HEARINGS AT LEAST BEFORE AN EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL.  ID., AT 596, 599-601.  ACCORDINGLY, TO ESCAPE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONFLICT WE HELD THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS AUTHORIZING EXCLUSION
WITHOUT HEARING IN CERTAIN SECURITY CASES INAPPLICABLE TO ALIENS SO
PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  ID., AT 600. 

BUT RESPONDENT'S HISTORY HERE DRASTICALLY DIFFERS FROM THAT DISCLOSED
IN CHEW'S CASE.  UNLIKE CHEW WHO WITH FULL SECURITY CLEARANCE AND
DOCUMENTATION PURSUED HIS VOCATION FOR FOUR MONTHS ABOARD AN AMERICAN
SHIP, RESPONDENT, APPARENTLY WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION OR REENTRY PAPERS,
(FN9) SIMPLY LEFT THE UNITED STATES AND REMAINED BEHIND THE IRON
CURTAIN FOR 19 MONTHS.  MOREOVER, WHILE SEC. 307 OF THE 1940
NATIONALITY ACT REGARDS MARITIME SERVICE SUCH AS CHEW'S TO BE
CONTINUOUS RESIDENCE FOR NATURALIZATION PURPOSES, THAT SECTION DEEMS
PROTRACTED ABSENCE SUCH AS RESPONDENT'S A CLEAR BREAK IN AN ALIEN'S
CONTINUOUS RESIDENCE HERE.  (FN10)  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO
DIFFICULTY IN HOLDING RESPONDENT AN ENTRANT ALIEN OR "ASSIMILATED TO
THAT STATUS" FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES.  ID., AT 599.  THAT BEING SO,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY LAWFULLY EXCLUDE RESPONDENT WITHOUT A HEARING
AS AUTHORIZED BY THE EMERGENCY REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE
PASSPORT ACT.  NOR NEED HE DISCLOSE THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THAT
DETERMINATION RESTS.  KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537 (1950). 

THERE REMAINS THE ISSUE OF RESPONDENT'S CONTINUED EXCLUSION ON ELLIS
ISLAND.  ALIENS SEEKING ENTRY FROM CONTIGUOUS LANDS OBVIOUSLY CAN BE
TURNED BACK AT THE BORDER WITHOUT MORE.  POLYMERIS V. TRUDELL, 284 U.S.
279 (1932).  WHILE THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT KEEP ENTRANTS BY SEA ABOARD THE
VESSEL PENDING DETERMINATION OF THEIR ADMISSIBILITY, RESULTING
HARDSHIPS TO THE ALIEN AND INCONVENIENCE TO THE CARRIER PERSUADED
CONGRESS TO ADOPT A MORE GENEROUS COURSE.  BY STATUTE IT AUTHORIZED, IN
CASES SUCH AS THIS, ALIENS' TEMPORARY REMOVAL FROM SHIP TO SHORE. 
(FN11)  BUT SUCH TEMPORARY HARBORAGE, AN ACT OF LEGISLATIVE GRACE,
BESTOWS NO ADDITIONAL RIGHTS.  CONGRESS METICULOUSLY SPECIFIED THAT
SUCH SHELTER ASHORE "SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A LANDING" NOR RELIEVE THE
VESSEL OF THE DUTY TO TRANSPORT BACK THE ALIEN IF ULTIMATELY EXCLUDED. 
(FN12)  AND THIS COURT HAS LONG CONSIDERED SUCH TEMPORARY ARRANGEMENTS
AS NOT AFFECTING AN ALIEN'S STATUS; HE IS TREATED AS IF STOPPED AT THE
BORDER.  EKIU V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 651, 661-662 (1892); UNITED
STATES V. JU TOY, 198 U.S. 253, 263 (1905); KAPLAN V. TOD, 267 U.S.
228, 230 (1925). 

THUS WE DO NOT THINK THAT RESPONDENT'S CONTINUED EXCLUSION DEPRIVES
HIM OF ANY STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  IT IS TRUE THAT RESIDENT
ALIENS TEMPORARILY DETAINED PENDING EXPEDITIOUS CONSUMMATION OF
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS MAY BE RELEASED ON BOND BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHOSE DISCRETION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  CARLSON V. LANDON, 342
U.S. 524 (1952).  BY THAT PROCEDURE ALIENS UPROOTED FROM OUR MIDST MAY
REJOIN THE COMMUNITY UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT EFFECTS THEIR LEAVE.  (FN13)
AN EXCLUSION PROCEEDING GROUNDED ON DANGER TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY,
HOWEVER, PRESENTS DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS; NEITHER THE RATIONALE NOR
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR SUCH RELEASE EXISTS.  (FN14)  ORDINARILY TO
ADMIT AN ALIEN BARRED FROM ENTRY ON SECURITY GROUNDS NULLIFIES THE VERY
PURPOSE OF THE EXCLUSION PROCEEDING; CONGRESS IN 1950 DECLINED TO
INCLUDE SUCH AUTHORITY IN THE STATUTE.  (FN15)  THAT EXCLUSION BY THE
UNITED STATES PLUS OTHER NATIONS' INHOSPITALITY RESULTS IN PRESENT
HARDSHIP CANNOT BE IGNORED.  BUT, THE TIMES BEING WHAT THEY ARE,
CONGRESS MAY WELL HAVE FELT THAT OTHER COUNTRIES OUGHT NOT SHIFT THE
ONUS TO US; THAT AN ALIEN IN RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS NO MORE OURS THAN
THEIRS.  WHATEVER OUR INDIVIDUAL ESTIMATE OF THAT POLICY AND THE FEARS
ON WHICH IT RESTS, RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES
DEPENDS ON THE CONGRESSIONAL WILL, AND COURTS CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THEIR
JUDGMENT FOR THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE.  HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, 342
U.S. 580, 590-591 (1952).  REVERSED.    FN1  101 F. SUPP. 66 (1951). 
FN2  195 F.2D 964 (C.A.2D CIR. 1952). 

FN3  101 F. SUPP., AT 67. 

FN4  101 F. SUPP., AT 67, 70; R. 26-27. 

FN5  195 F.2D, AT 967, 968. 

FN6  ID., AT 970. 

FN7  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1918, C. 81, 40 STAT. 559, AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 21, 1941, C. 210, SEC. 1, 55 STAT. 252, 22
U.S.C. SEC. 223, PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART: 

"WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR OR DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT ON MAY 27, 1941, OR AS
TO ALIENS WHENEVER THERE EXISTS A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN, OR AMONG, TWO
OR MORE STATES, AND THE PRESIDENT SHALL FIND THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE
UNITED STATES REQUIRE THAT RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS IN ADDITION TO
THOSE PROVIDED OTHERWISE THAN BY THIS ACT BE IMPOSED UPON THE DEPARTURE
OF PERSONS FROM AND THEIR ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES, AND SHALL MAKE
PUBLIC PROCLAMATION THEREOF, IT SHALL, UNTIL OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE
PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS, BE UNLAWFUL: 

"(A)  FOR ANY ALIEN TO DEPART FROM OR ENTER OR ATTEMPT TO DEPART FROM
OR ENTER THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT UNDER SUCH REASONABLE RULES,
REGULATIONS, AND ORDERS, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
AS THE PRESIDENT SHALL PRESCRIBE; ...  ." 

THAT AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO COVER THE DATES RELEVANT IN
THIS CASE.  66 STAT.  54, 96, 137, 330.  PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORITY,
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. 2523, 6 FED.  REG. 5821, AS PROMULGATED
IN 1941 IN PART PROVIDED: 

"NO ALIEN SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES IF IT APPEARS
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE THAT SUCH ENTRY WOULD BE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES AS PROVIDED IN THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS HEREINBEFORE AUTHORIZED TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL."  THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ISSUED APPLICABLE REGULATIONS CODIFIED AS PART 175 OF 8 CFR.  SECTION
175.53 DEFINES ELEVEN CATEGORIES OF ALIENS WHOSE ENTRY IS "DEEMED TO BE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES."  THAT DELEGATION OF
AUTHORITY HAS BEEN UPHELD.  KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537
(1950).  THE REGULATIONS WERE RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED BY PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATION NO. 2850, 14 FED. REG. 5173, PROMULGATED AUGUST 17, 1949. 

FN8  8 CFR SEC. 175.57 PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 175.57:  ENTRY NOT PERMITTED IN SPECIAL CASES.  (A)  ANY ALIEN,
EVEN THOUGH IN POSSESSION OF A PERMIT TO ENTER, OR EXEMPTED UNDER SECS.
175.41 TO 175.62, INCLUSIVE, FROM OBTAINING A PERMIT TO ENTER, MAY BE
EXCLUDED TEMPORARILY IF AT THE TIME HE APPLIES FOR ADMISSION AT A PORT
OF ENTRY IT APPEARS THAT HE IS OR MAY BE EXCLUDABLE UNDER ONE OF THE
CATEGORIES SET FORTH IN SEC. 175.53.  THE OFFICIAL EXCLUDING THE ALIEN
SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE FACTS TO THE HEAD OF HIS DEPARTMENT, WHO
WILL COMMUNICATE SUCH REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  ANY ALIEN SO
TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED BY AN OFFICIAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHALL
NOT BE ADMITTED AND SHALL BE EXCLUDED AND DEPORTED UNLESS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, IS SATISFIED
THAT THE ADMISSION OF THE ALIEN WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  ANY ALIEN SO TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED BY
ANY OTHER OFFICIAL SHALL NOT BE ADMITTED AND SHALL BE EXCLUDED AND
DEPORTED UNLESS THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ADMISSION
OF THE ALIEN WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

"(B)  IN THE CASE OF AN ALIEN TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED BY AN OFFICIAL OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS, OR MAY BE
EXCLUDABLE UNDER ONE OR MORE OF THE CATEGORIES SET FORTH IN SEC.
175.53, NO HEARING BY A BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY SHALL BE HELD UNTIL
AFTER THE CASE IS REPORTED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SUCH A HEARING
IS DIRECTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE.  IN ANY
SPECIAL CASE THE ALIEN MAY BE DENIED A HEARING BEFORE A BOARD OF
SPECIAL INQUIRY AND AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THAT BOARD IF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINES THAT HE IS EXCLUDABLE UNDER ONE OF THE
CATEGORIES SET FORTH IN SEC. 175.53 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF A
CONFIDENTIAL NATURE, THE DISCLOSURE OF WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST." 

FN9  SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 210.  OF COURSE, NEITHER A REENTRY PERMIT,
ISSUABLE UPON PROOF OF PRIOR LAWFUL ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES,
SEC. 210(B), NOR AN IMMIGRATION VISA ENTITLES AN OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE
ALIEN TO ENTRY.  SECS. 210(F), 202(G).  AN IMMIGRANT IS NOT UNAWARE OF
THIS; SEC. 202(G) DIRECTS THOSE FACTS TO BE "PRINTED CONSPICUOUSLY UPON
EVERY IMMIGRATION VISA."  FOR A RECENT STUDY OF ENTRY PROCEDURES WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS, SEE REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION (1953), CC. 10-11. 

FN10  8 U.S.C. SEC. 707; UNITED STATES V. LARSEN, 165 F.2D 433
(C.A.2D CIR. 1947). 

FN11  8 U.S.C. SEC. 151. 

FN12  8 U.S.C. SECS. 151, 154. 

FN13  8 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 156.  WE THERE NOTED THAT "THE PROBLEM
OF HABEAS CORPUS AFTER UNUSUAL DELAY IN DEPORTATION HEARINGS IS NOT
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE."  342 U.S., AT 546. 

FN14  8 U.S.C. SEC. 154 PERMITS TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION
OF EXCLUDED ALIENS WHOSE TESTIMONY IS NEEDED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED
STATES.  MANIFESTLY RESPONDENT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THAT CLASS.  WHILE
THE ESSENCE OF THAT PROVISION IS RETAINED IN SEC. 237(D) OF THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952, 66 STAT. 202, SEC. 212(D)(5)
OF THAT ACT, 66 STAT. 188, VESTS NEW AND BROADER DISCRETION IN THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.  CF. 8 U.S.C.  SECS. 136(P)(Q); 8 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 137-5(A)(B).  THOSE PROVISIONS ARE NOT NOW HERE. 

FN15  SEE S. REP. NO. 1515, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS. 643-644. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

MEZEI CAME TO THIS COUNTRY IN 1923 AND LIVED AS A RESIDENT ALIEN IN
BUFFALO, NEW YORK, FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  HE MADE A TRIP TO EUROPE IN
1948 AND WAS STOPPED AT OUR SHORE ON HIS RETURN IN 1950.  WITHOUT
CHARGE OF OR CONVICTION FOR ANY CRIME, HE WAS FOR TWO YEARS HELD A
PRISONER ON ELLIS ISLAND BY ORDER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  MEZEI
SOUGHT HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  HE WANTED TO GO TO HIS
WIFE AND HOME IN BUFFALO.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDED THE
IMPRISONMENT BY ALLEGING THAT IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO THE NATION'S
SECURITY TO LET MEZEI GO HOME EVEN TEMPORARILY ON BAIL.  ASKED FOR
PROOF OF THIS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ANSWERED THE JUDGE THAT ALL HIS
INFORMATION WAS "OF A CONFIDENTIAL NATURE" SO MUCH SO THAT TELLING ANY
OF IT OR EVEN TELLING THE NAMES OF ANY OF HIS SECRET INFORMERS WOULD
JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OF THE NATION.  FINDING THAT MEZEI'S LIFE AS A
RESIDENT ALIEN IN BUFFALO HAD BEEN "UNEXCEPTIONABLE" AND THAT NO FACTS
HAD BEEN PROVEN TO JUSTIFY HIS CONTINUED IMPRISONMENT, THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED BAIL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS APPROVED.  NOW THIS COURT
ORDERS MEZEI TO LEAVE HIS HOME AND GO BACK TO HIS ISLAND PRISON TO STAY
INDEFINITELY, MAYBE FOR LIFE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON FORCEFULLY POINTS OUT THE DANGER IN THE COURT'S
HOLDING THAT MEZEI'S LIBERTY IS COMPLETELY AT THE MERCY OF THE
UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  I JOIN MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON IN THE BELIEF THAT MEZEI'S CONTINUED IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT A
HEARING VIOLATES DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

NO SOCIETY IS FREE WHERE GOVERNMENT MAKES ONE PERSON'S LIBERTY DEPEND
UPON THE ARBITRARY WILL OF ANOTHER.  DICTATORSHIPS HAVE DONE THIS SINCE
TIME IMMEMORIAL.  THEY DO NOW.  RUSSIAN LAWS OF 1934 AUTHORIZED THE
PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT TO IMPRISON, BANISH AND EXILE RUSSIAN CITIZENS AS
WELL AS "FOREIGN SUBJECTS WHO ARE SOCIALLY DANGEROUS."*  HITLER'S
SECRET POLICE WERE GIVEN LIKE POWERS.  GERMAN COURTS WERE FORBIDDEN TO
MAKE ANY INQUIRY WHATEVER AS TO THE INFORMATION ON WHICH THE POLICE
ACTED.  OUR BILL OF RIGHTS WAS WRITTEN TO PREVENT SUCH OPPRESSIVE
PRACTICES.  UNDER IT THIS NATION HAS FOSTERED AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUAL
FREEDOM.  THE FOUNDERS ABHORRED ARBITRARY ONE-MAN IMPRISONMENTS.  THEIR
BELIEF WAS - OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES ARE - THAT NO PERSON OF ANY
FAITH, RICH OR POOR, HIGH OR LOW, NATIVE OR FOREIGNER, WHITE OR
COLORED, CAN HAVE HIS LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY TAKEN "WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW."  THIS MEANS TO ME THAT NEITHER THE FEDERAL POLICE NOR
FEDERAL PROSECUTORS NOR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIAL, WHATEVER HIS
TITLE, CAN PUT OR KEEP PEOPLE IN PRISON WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY TO
COURTS OF JUSTICE.  IT MEANS THAT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS TOO HIGHLY
PRIZED IN THIS COUNTRY TO ALLOW EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS TO IMPRISON AND
HOLD PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION KEPT SECRET FROM COURTS.  IT
MEANS THAT MEZEI SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY INDEFINITELY
EXCEPT AS THE RESULT OF A FAIR OPEN COURT HEARING IN WHICH EVIDENCE IS
APPRAISED BY THE COURT, NOT BY THE PROSECUTOR. 

*DECREE OF THE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL OF PEOPLE'S
COMMISSARS, U.S.S.R., 5 NOV. 1934; COLLECTION OF LAWS, U.S.S.R., 1935,
NO. 11, ART. 84.  HAZARD, MATERIALS ON SOVIET LAW (1947), 16.  SEE
HAZARD, REFORMING SOVIET CRIMINAL LAW, 29 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY
157, 168-169 (1938-1939).  SEE ALSO BERMAN, PRINCIPLES OF SOVIET
CRIMINAL LAW, 56 YALE L.J. 803 (1946). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS, DISSENTING. 

FORTUNATELY IT STILL IS STARTLING, IN THIS COUNTRY, TO FIND A PERSON
HELD INDEFINITELY IN EXECUTIVE CUSTODY WITHOUT ACCUSATION OF CRIME OR
JUDICIAL TRIAL.  EXECUTIVE IMPRISONMENT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED OPPRESSIVE
AND LAWLESS SINCE JOHN, AT RUNNYMEDE, PLEDGED THAT NO FREE MAN SHOULD
BE IMPRISONED, DISPOSSESSED, OUTLAWED, OR EXILED SAVE BY THE JUDGMENT
OF HIS PEERS OR BY THE LAW OF THE LAND.  THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND
DEVELOPED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS LARGELY TO PRESERVE THESE
IMMUNITIES FROM EXECUTIVE RESTRAINT.  UNDER THE BEST TRADITION OF ANGLO
AMERICAN LAW, COURTS WILL NOT DENY HEARING TO AN UNCONVICTED PRISONER
JUST BECAUSE HE IS AN ALIEN WHOSE KEEP, IN LEGAL THEORY, IS JUST
OUTSIDE OUR GATES.  LORD MANSFIELD, IN THE CELEBRATED CASE HOLDING THAT
SLAVERY WAS UNKNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND, RAN HIS WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN FAVOR OF AN ALIEN, AN AFRICAN NEGRO SLAVE, AND AGAINST
THE MASTER OF A SHIP AT ANCHOR IN THE THAMES.  (FN1)

                          I. 

WHAT IS OUR CASE?  (FN2)  IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, I AGREE, IT IS
THAT OF AN ALIEN WHO ASKS ADMISSION TO THE COUNTRY.  CONCRETELY,
HOWEVER, IT IS THAT OF A LAWFUL AND LAW-ABIDING INHABITANT OF OUR
COUNTRY FOR A QUARTER OF A CENTURY, LONG AGO ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT
RESIDENCE, WHO SEEKS TO RETURN HOME.  AFTER A FOREIGN VISIT TO HIS AGED
AND AILING MOTHER THAT WAS PROLONGED BY DISTURBED CONDITIONS OF EASTERN
EUROPE, HE OBTAINED A VISA FOR ADMISSION ISSUED BY OUR CONSUL AND
RETURNED TO NEW YORK.  THERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSED TO HONOR HIS
DOCUMENTS AND TURNED HIM BACK AS A MENACE TO THIS NATION'S SECURITY. 
THIS MAN, WHO SEEMS TO HAVE LED A LIFE OF UNRELIEVED INSIGNIFICANCE,
MUST HAVE BEEN ASTONISHED TO FIND HIMSELF SUDDENLY PUTTING THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUCH FEAR THAT IT WAS AFRAID TO TELL
HIM WHY IT WAS AFRAID OF HIM.  HE WAS SHIPPED AND RESHIPPED TO FRANCE,
WHICH TWICE REFUSED HIM LANDING.  GREAT BRITAIN DECLINED, AND NO OTHER
EUROPEAN COUNTRY HAS BEEN FOUND WILLING TO OPEN ITS DOORS TO HIM. 
TWELVE COUNTRIES OF THE AMERICAN HEMISPHERE REFUSED HIS APPLICATIONS. 
SINCE WE PROCLAIMED HIM A SAMSON WHO MIGHT PULL DOWN THE PILLARS OF OUR
TEMPLE, WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF PEOPLES LESS PROSPEROUS, LESS
STRONGLY ESTABLISHED AND LESS STABLE FEARED TO TAKE HIM OFF OUR
TIMOROUS HANDS.  WITH SOMETHING OF A RECORD AS AN UNWANTED MAN, NEITHER
HIS EFFORTS NOR THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ANY LONGER
PROMISE TO FIND HIM AN ABIDING PLACE.  FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS HE WAS HELD
IN CUSTODY OF THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES OF THE UNITED STATES AT ELLIS
ISLAND, AND IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS ITS WAY HE SEEMS LIKELY TO BE
DETAINED INDEFINITELY, PERHAPS FOR LIFE, FOR A CAUSE KNOWN ONLY TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

IS RESPONDENT DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY?  THE GOVERNMENT ANSWERS THAT HE
WAS "TRANSFERRED TO ELLIS ISLAND ON AUGUST 1, 1950, FOR SAFEKEEPING,"
AND "IS NOT BEING DETAINED IN THE USUAL SENSE BUT IS IN CUSTODY SOLELY
TO PREVENT HIM FROM GAINING ENTRY TO THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF
LAW.  HE IS FREE TO DEPART FROM THE UNITED STATES TO ANY COUNTRY OF HIS
OWN CHOICE."  GOVERNMENT COUNSEL INGENIOUSLY ARGUED THAT ELLIS ISLAND
IS HIS "REFUGE" WHENCE HE IS FREE TO TAKE LEAVE IN ANY DIRECTION EXCEPT
WEST.  THAT MIGHT MEAN FREEDOM, IF ONLY HE WERE AN AMPHIBIAN] 
REALISTICALLY, THIS MAN IS INCARCERATED BY A COMBINATION OF FORCES
WHICH KEEP HIM AS EFFECTUALLY AS A PRISON, THE DOMINANT AND PROXIMATE
OF THESE FORCES BEING THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AUTHORITY.  IT
OVERWORKS LEGAL FICTION TO SAY THAT ONE IS FREE IN LAW WHEN BY THE
COMMONEST OF COMMON SENSE HE IS BOUND.  DESPITE THE IMPECCABLE LEGAL
LOGIC OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT ON THIS POINT, IT LEADS TO AN
ARTIFICIAL AND UNREAL CONCLUSION.  (FN3)  WE MUST REGARD THIS ALIEN AS
DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY, AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DEPRIVATION IS A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.    THE GOVERNMENT ON THIS POINT ARGUES
THAT "NO ALIEN HAS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ENTRY INTO THE UNITED
STATES"; THAT "THE ALIEN HAS ONLY SUCH RIGHTS AS CONGRESS SEES FIT TO
GRANT IN EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS"; THAT "THE SO-CALLED DETENTION IS STILL
MERELY A CONTINUATION OF THE EXCLUSION WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED
BY CONGRESS"; THAT SINCE "THE RESTRAINT IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO AN ORDER
OF EXCLUSION BUT IS, ITSELF, THE EFFECTUATION OF THE EXCLUSION ORDER,
THERE IS NO LIMIT TO ITS CONTINUANCE" OTHER THAN STATUTORY, WHICH MEANS
NO LIMIT AT ALL.  THE GOVERNMENT ALL BUT ADOPTS THE WORDS OF ONE OF THE
OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT WHO TESTIFIED
BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE AS TO AN ALIEN APPLICANT, THAT "HE HAS
NO RIGHTS."  (FN4)    THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S
COMMAND THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, COME ABOUT TO THIS:  REASONABLE GENERAL
LEGISLATION REASONABLY APPLIED TO THE INDIVIDUAL.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S DETENTION OF RESPONDENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH
THESE TESTS OF SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE. 

                          II.  SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. 

SUBSTANTIVELY, DUE PROCESS OF LAW RENDERS WHAT IS DUE TO A STRONG
STATE AS WELL AS TO A FREE INDIVIDUAL.  IT TOLERATES ALL REASONABLE
MEASURES TO INSURE THE NATIONAL SAFETY, AND IT LEAVES A LARGE, AT TIMES
A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS, LATITUDE FOR EXECUTIVE JUDGMENT AS TO POLICIES
AND MEANS.  (FN5) 

AFTER ALL, THE PILLARS WHICH SUPPORT OUR LIBERTIES ARE THE THREE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE BURDEN COULD NOT BE CARRIED BY OUR OWN
POWER ALONE.  SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS WILL ALWAYS PAY A HIGH DEGREE OF
DEFERENCE TO CONGRESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE JUDGMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY
CONCUR, AS TO WHAT IS REASONABLE POLICY UNDER CONDITIONS OF PARTICULAR
TIMES AND CIRCUMSTANCES.  CLOSE TO THE MAXIMUM OF RESPECT IS DUE FROM
THE JUDICIARY TO THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS IN POLICIES AFFECTING
SECURITY AND ALIEN EXCLUSION.  HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S.
580. 

DUE PROCESS DOES NOT INVEST ANY ALIEN WITH A RIGHT TO ENTER THE
UNITED STATES, NOR CONFER ON THOSE ADMITTED THE RIGHT TO REMAIN AGAINST
THE NATIONAL WILL.  NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES ADMISSION OR
SUFFERANCE OF ALIENS HOSTILE TO OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT. 

NOR DO I DOUBT THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW WILL TOLERATE SOME IMPOUNDING
OF AN ALIEN WHERE IT IS DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE SAFETY OF THE STATE. 
EVEN THE RESIDENT, FRIENDLY ALIEN MAY BE SUBJECT TO EXECUTIVE DETENTION
WITHOUT BAIL, FOR A REASONABLE PERIOD, PENDING CONSUMMATION OF
DEPORTATION ARRANGEMENTS.  CARLSON V. LANDON, 342 U.S. 524.  THE ALIEN
ENEMY MAY BE CONFINED OR HIS PROPERTY SEIZED AND ADMINISTERED BECAUSE
HOSTILITY IS ASSUMED FROM HIS CONTINUED ALLEGIANCE TO A HOSTILE STATE. 
CF. LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160; ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 446,
AND 341 U.S. 471. 

IF DUE PROCESS WILL PERMIT CONFINEMENT OF RESIDENT ALIENS FRIENDLY IN
FACT BECAUSE OF IMPUTED HOSTILITY, I SHOULD SUPPOSE ONE PERSONALLY AT
WAR WITH OUR INSTITUTIONS MIGHT BE CONFINED, EVEN THOUGH HIS STATE IS
NOT AT WAR WITH US.  IN BOTH CASES, THE UNDERLYING CONSIDERATION IS THE
POWER OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT TO DEFEND ITSELF, AND CHANGING
STRATEGY OF ATTACK BY INFILTRATION MAY BE MET WITH CHANGED TACTICS OF
DEFENSE. 

NOR DO I THINK THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS SO PARALYZING THAT IT
FORBIDS ALL DETENTION OF AN ALIEN AS A PREVENTIVE MEASURE AGAINST
THREATENED DANGERS AND MAKES CONFINEMENT LAWFUL ONLY AFTER THE INJURIES
HAVE BEEN SUFFERED.  IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN THE CITIZEN IN DEFAULT
OF BAIL HAS LONG BEEN SUBJECT TO FEDERAL IMPRISONMENT FOR SECURITY OF
THE PEACE AND GOOD BEHAVIOR.  (FN6)  WHILE IT IS USUALLY APPLIED FOR
EXPRESS VERBAL THREATS, NO REASON IS KNOWN TO ME WHY THE POWER IS NOT
THE SAME IN THE CASE OF THREATS INFERRED BY PROPER PROCEDURES FROM
CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE BRITISH, WITH WHOM DUE PROCESS IS A HABIT, IF NOT A
WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL DICTUM, PERMIT A COURT IN A LIMITED CLASS OF
CASES TO PASS A "SENTENCE OF PREVENTIVE DETENTION" IF SATISFIED THAT IT
IS EXPEDIENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC.  (FN7) 

I CONCLUDE THAT DETENTION OF AN ALIEN WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, PROVIDED - AND THIS IS WHERE MY DISSENT BEGINS
- HE IS ACCORDED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

                             III.  PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. 

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, IF NOT ALL THAT ORIGINALLY WAS MEANT BY DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, IS AT LEAST WHAT IT MOST UNCOMPROMISINGLY REQUIRES. 
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS MORE ELEMENTAL AND LESS FLEXIBLE THAN
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.  IT YIELDS LESS TO THE TIMES, VARIES LESS WITH
CONDITIONS, AND DEFERS MUCH LESS TO LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  INSOFAR AS
IT IS TECHNICAL LAW, IT MUST BE A SPECIALIZED RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THE
COMPETENCE OF THE JUDICIARY ON WHICH THEY DO NOT BEND BEFORE POLITICAL
BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS THEY SHOULD ON MATTERS OF POLICY WHICH
COMPRISE SUBSTANTIVE LAW. 

IF IT BE CONCEDED THAT IN SOME WAY THIS ALIEN COULD BE CONFINED, DOES
IT MATTER WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS?  ONLY THE UNTAUGHT LAYMAN OR THE
CHARLATAN LAWYER CAN ANSWER THAT PROCEDURES MATTER NOT.  PROCEDURAL
FAIRNESS AND REGULARITY ARE OF THE INDISPENSABLE ESSENCE OF LIBERTY. 
SEVERE SUBSTANTIVE LAWS CAN BE ENDURED IF THEY ARE FAIRLY AND
IMPARTIALLY APPLIED.  INDEED, IF PUT TO THE CHOICE, ONE MIGHT WELL
PREFER TO LIVE UNDER SOVIET SUBSTANTIVE LAW APPLIED IN GOOD FAITH BY
OUR COMMON-LAW PROCEDURES THAN UNDER OUR SUBSTANTIVE LAW ENFORCED BY
SOVIET PROCEDURAL PRACTICES.  LET IT NOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW IS NOT FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF AN ACCUSED.  IT IS THE BEST
INSURANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF AGAINST THOSE BLUNDERS WHICH LEAVE
LASTING STAINS ON A SYSTEM OF JUSTICE BUT WHICH ARE BOUND TO OCCUR ON
EX PARTE CONSIDERATION.  CF. KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537, WHICH
WAS A NEAR MISS, SAVED BY FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL
HEARINGS FROM PERPETRATING AN INJUSTICE.  SEE KNAUFF, THE ELLEN KNAUFF
STORY (NEW YORK 1952). 

OUR LAW MAY, AND RIGHTLY DOES, PLACE MORE RESTRICTIONS ON THE ALIEN
THAN ON THE CITIZEN.  BUT BASIC FAIRNESS IN HEARING PROCEDURES DOES NOT
VARY WITH THE STATUS OF THE ACCUSED.  IF THE PROCEDURES USED TO JUDGE
THIS ALIEN ARE FAIR AND JUST, NO GOOD REASON CAN BE GIVEN WHY THEY
SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO SIMPLIFY THE CONDEMNATION OF CITIZENS.  IF
THEY WOULD BE UNFAIR TO CITIZENS, WE CANNOT DEFEND THE FAIRNESS OF THEM
WHEN APPLIED TO THE MORE HELPLESS AND HANDICAPPED ALIEN.  THIS IS AT
THE ROOT OF OUR HOLDINGS THAT THE RESIDENT ALIEN MUST BE GIVEN A FAIR
HEARING TO TEST AN OFFICIAL CLAIM THAT HE IS ONE OF A DEPORTABLE
CLASS.  WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33. 

THE MOST SCRUPULOUS OBSERVANCE OF DUE PROCESS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO
KNOW A CHARGE, TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE ACCUSER, TO CROSS-EXAMINE
INFORMERS AND TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN ONE'S BEHALF, IS ESPECIALLY
NECESSARY WHERE THE OCCASION OF DETENTION IS FEAR OF FUTURE MISCONDUCT,
RATHER THAN CRIMES COMMITTED.  BOTH THE OLD PROCEEDING BY WHICH ONE MAY
BE BOUND TO KEEP THE PEACE AND THE NEWER BRITISH "PREVENTIVE DETENTION"
ARE SAFEGUARDED WITH FULL RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL HEARINGS FOR THE ACCUSED. 
ON THE CONTRARY, THE NAZI REGIME IN GERMANY INSTALLED A SYSTEM OF
"PROTECTIVE CUSTODY" BY WHICH THE ARRESTED COULD CLAIM NO JUDICIAL OR
OTHER HEARING PROCESS, (FN8) AND AS A RESULT THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS
WERE POPULATED WITH VICTIMS OF SUMMARY EXECUTIVE DETENTION FOR SECRET
REASONS.  THAT IS WHAT RENDERS COMMUNIST JUSTICE SUCH A TRAVESTY. 
THERE ARE OTHER DIFFERENCES, TO BE SURE, BETWEEN AUTHORITARIAN
PROCEDURE AND COMMON LAW, BUT DIFFERENCES IN THE PROCESS OF
ADMINISTRATION MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REIGN OF TERROR AND
ONE OF LAW.  QUITE UNCONSCIOUSLY, I AM SURE, THE GOVERNMENT'S THEORY OF
CUSTODY FOR "SAFEKEEPING" WITHOUT DISCLOSURE TO THE VICTIM OF CHARGES,
EVIDENCE, INFORMERS OR REASONS, EVEN IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING,
HAS UNMISTAKABLE OVERTONES OF THE "PROTECTIVE CUSTODY" OF THE NAZIS
MORE THAN OF ANY DETAINING PROCEDURE KNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW.  SUCH A
PRACTICE, ONCE ESTABLISHED WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS, WILL DRIFT INTO
OPPRESSION OF THE DISADVANTAGED IN THIS COUNTRY AS SURELY AS IT HAS
ELSEWHERE.  THAT THESE APPREHENSIVE SURMISES ARE NOT "SUCH STUFF AS
DREAMS ARE MADE ON" APPEARS FROM TESTIMONY OF A TOP IMMIGRATION
OFFICIAL CONCERNING AN APPLICANT THAT "HE HAS NO RIGHTS." 

BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHT OF ENTRY, DOES IT FOLLOW THAT HE
HAS NO RIGHTS AT ALL?  DOES THE POWER TO EXCLUDE MEAN THAT EXCLUSION
MAY BE CONTINUED OR EFFECTUATED BY ANY MEANS WHICH HAPPEN TO SEEM
APPROPRIATE TO THE AUTHORITIES?  IT WOULD EFFECTUATE HIS EXCLUSION TO
EJECT HIM BODILY INTO THE SEA OR TO SET HIM ADRIFT IN A ROWBOAT.  WOULD
NOT SUCH MEASURES BE CONDEMNED JUDICIALLY AS A DEPRIVATION OF LIFE
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW?  SUPPOSE THE AUTHORITIES DECIDE TO DISABLE
AN ALIEN FROM ENTRY BY CONFISCATING HIS VALUABLES AND MONEY.  WOULD WE
NOT HOLD THIS A TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW?  HERE WE
HAVE A CASE THAT LIES BETWEEN THE TAKING OF LIFE AND THE TAKING OF
PROPERTY; IT IS THE TAKING OF LIBERTY.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS,
OCCURRING WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS TERRITORIAL WATERS, MAY BE
DONE ONLY BY PROCEEDINGS WHICH MEET THE TEST OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

EXCLUSION OF AN ALIEN WITHOUT JUDICIAL HEARING, OF COURSE, DOES NOT
DENY DUE PROCESS WHEN IT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED MERELY BY TURNING HIM BACK
ON LAND OR RETURNING HIM BY SEA.  BUT WHEN INDEFINITE CONFINEMENT
BECOMES THE MEANS OF ENFORCING EXCLUSION, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT DUE
PROCESS REQUIRES THAT THE ALIEN BE INFORMED OF ITS GROUNDS AND HAVE A
FAIR CHANCE TO OVERCOME THEM.  THIS IS THE MORE DUE HIM WHEN HE IS
ENTRAPPED INTO LEAVING THE OTHER SHORE BY RELIANCE ON A VISA WHICH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSES TO HONOR. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT CONFINEMENT OF RESPONDENT NO LONGER CAN BE
JUSTIFIED AS A STEP IN THE PROCESS OF TURNING HIM BACK TO THE COUNTRY
WHENCE HE CAME.  CONFINEMENT IS NO LONGER ANCILLARY TO EXCLUSION; IT
CAN NOW BE JUSTIFIED ONLY AS THE ALTERNATIVE TO NORMAL EXCLUSION.  IT
IS AN END IN ITSELF. 

THE COMMUNIST CONSPIRATORIAL TECHNIQUE OF INFILTRATION POSES A
PROBLEM WHICH SORELY TEMPTS THE GOVERNMENT TO RESORT TO CONFINEMENT OF
SUSPECTS ON SECRET INFORMATION SECRETLY JUDGED.  I HAVE NOT BEEN ONE TO
DISCOUNT THE COMMUNIST EVIL.  BUT MY APPREHENSIONS ABOUT THE SECURITY
OF OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT ARE ABOUT EQUALLY AROUSED BY THOSE WHO REFUSE
TO RECOGNIZE THE DANGERS OF COMMUNISM AND THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE DANGER
IN ANYTHING ELSE. 

CONGRESS HAS AMPLE POWER TO DETERMINE WHOM WE WILL ADMIT TO OUR
SHORES AND BY WHAT MEANS IT WILL EFFECTUATE ITS EXCLUSION POLICY.  THE
ONLY LIMITATION IS THAT IT MAY NOT DO SO BY AUTHORIZING UNITED STATES
OFFICERS TO TAKE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW THE LIFE, THE LIBERTY OR
THE PROPERTY OF AN ALIEN WHO HAS COME WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION; AND THAT
MEANS HE MUST MEET A FAIR HEARING WITH FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES. 
(FN9) 

IT IS INCONCEIVABLE TO ME THAT THIS MEASURE OF SIMPLE JUSTICE AND
FAIR DEALING WOULD MENACE THE SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY.  NO ONE CAN
MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT WE ARE THAT FAR GONE. 

FN1  SOMMERSETT'S CASE, 20 HOW.  ST. TR. 1; 2 CAMPBELL, LIVES OF THE
CHIEF JUSTICES, 418; FIDDES, LORD MANSFIELD AND THE SOMMERSETT CASE, 50
L.Q. REV. 499. 

FN2  I RECITE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT.  SINCE THE
GOVERNMENT DECLINED TO TRY THE CASE ON THE MERITS, I THINK WE MUST
CONSIDER THE QUESTION ON WELL-PLEADED ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION. 
PETITIONER MIGHT FAIL TO MAKE GOOD ON A HEARING; THE QUESTION IS, MUST
HE FAIL WITHOUT ONE? 

FN3  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, FOR THE COURT, SAID IN CHIN YOW V. UNITED
STATES, 208 U.S. 8, 12-13: 

"IF WE REGARD THE PETITIONER, AS IN JU TOY'S CASE IT WAS SAID THAT HE
SHOULD BE REGARDED, AS IF HE HAD BEEN STOPPED AND KEPT AT THE LIMIT OF
OUR JURISDICTION, 198 U.S. 263, STILL IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT
HE WAS NOT IMPRISONED, THEORETICALLY AS WELL AS PRACTICALLY, WHEN TO
TURN HIM BACK MEANT THAT HE MUST GET INTO A VESSEL AGAINST HIS WISH AND
BE CARRIED TO CHINA.  THE CASE WOULD NOT BE THAT OF A PERSON SIMPLY
PREVENTED FROM GOING IN ONE DIRECTION THAT HE DESIRED AND HAD A RIGHT
TO TAKE, ALL OTHERS BEING LEFT OPEN TO HIM, A CASE IN WHICH THE JUDGES
WERE NOT UNANIMOUS IN BIRD V. JONES, 7 Q.B. 742.  BUT WE NEED NOT
SPECULATE UPON NICETIES.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE PETITIONER GAINS NO
ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF ENTRANCE BY BEING ALLOWED TO PASS THE FRONTIER IN
CUSTODY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF HIS CASE.  BUT ON THE QUESTION WHETHER
HE IS WRONGLY IMPRISONED WE MUST LOOK AT THE ACTUAL FACTS.  DE FACTO HE
IS LOCKED UP UNTIL CARRIED OUT OF THE COUNTRY AGAINST HIS WILL." 

FN4  TESTIMONY OF ALMANZA TRIPP, AN IMMIGRATION SERVICE OFFICIAL,
BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION ON FEBRUARY 15, 1950,
INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING: 

"NOW, WHEN WE HAVE A CASE OF THAT SORT, WHERE CENTRAL REGISTRY
CONTAINS SOMETHING DEROGATORY OF THAT NATURE, I DO NOT BELIEVE WE
SHOULD MAKE A FINDING OF ADMISSIBILITY UNTIL IT HAS BEEN DISPROVED. 
BUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAD IN CENTRAL REGISTRY WOULD NOT BE
SUFFICIENT FOR OUR SERVICE TO EXCLUDE BY THE NORMAL BOARD OF SPECIAL
INQUIRY PROCEEDINGS, BECAUSE THOSE PROCEEDINGS MUST BE CONDUCTED IN A
MANNER IN WHICH THEY COULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ATTACK IN A COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

"YOU MAY SAY THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO THE APPLICANT NOT TO GIVE HIM THAT
PROTECTION, BUT YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT THE APPLICANT IS AN APPLICANT. 
HE HAS NO RIGHTS  ...  ."  (HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE DISPLACED PERSONS ACT, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, 81ST CONG., 1ST AND 2D SESSIONS 665.) 

FN5  CF. KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214. 

FN6  18 U.S.C. SEC. 3043; CF. CRIMINAL CODE OF NEW YORK, 66
MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS, TIT. II, C. II, SEC. 84.    FN7  CRIMINAL
JUSTICE ACT, 1948, SEC. 21(2). 

FN8  HERMANN GORING, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, MADE THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENTS: 

"  ...  THOSE WHO HAD COMMITTED SOME ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE NEW
STATE, OR THOSE WHO MIGHT BE PROVED TO HAVE COMMITTED SUCH AN ACT, WERE
NATURALLY TURNED OVER TO THE COURTS.  THE OTHERS, HOWEVER, OF WHOM ONE
MIGHT EXPECT SUCH ACTS, BUT WHO HAD NOT YET COMMITTED THEM, WERE TAKEN
INTO PROTECTIVE CUSTODY, AND THESE WERE THE PEOPLE WHO WERE TAKEN TO
CONCENTRATION CAMPS  ...  . LIKEWISE, IF FOR POLITICAL REASONS  ...
SOMEONE WAS TAKEN INTO PROTECTIVE CUSTODY, THAT IS, PURELY FOR REASONS
OF STATE, THIS COULD NOT BE REVIEWED OR STOPPED BY ANY COURT."  HE
CLAIMED (THOUGH THE CLAIM SEEMED SPECIOUS) THAT TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AFTER
BEING PUT IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS THEY WERE INFORMED OF THE REASONS AND
AFTER FORTY-EIGHT HOURS WERE ALLOWED AN ATTORNEY.  "BUT THIS BY NO
MEANS RESCINDED MY ORDER THAT A REVIEW WAS NOT PERMITTED BY THE COURTS
OF A POLITICALLY NECESSARY MEASURE OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY.  THESE PEOPLE
WERE SIMPLY TO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING A PROTEST."  9
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL PROCEEDINGS 420-421 (MARCH 18, 1946). 

FN9  THE TRIAL COURT SOUGHT TO RECONCILE DUE PROCESS FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL WITH CLAIMS OF SECURITY BY SUGGESTING THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL DISCLOSE IN CAMERA ENOUGH TO ENABLE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
THE LEGALITY OF THE CONFINEMENT.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSED.  I DO
NOT KNOW JUST HOW AN IN CAMERA PROCEEDING WOULD BE HANDLED IN THIS KIND
OF CASE.  IF RESPONDENT, WITH OR WITHOUT COUNSEL, WERE PRESENT,
DISCLOSURES TO THEM MIGHT WELL RESULT IN DISCLOSURES BY THEM.  IF THEY
ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT, IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW IT WOULD ANSWER
THE PURPOSE OF TESTING THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE BY CROSS-EXAMINATION OR
COUNTER-EVIDENCE, WHICH IS WHAT A HEARING IS FOR.  THE QUESTIONS RAISED
BY THE PROPOSAL NEED NOT BE DISCUSSED SINCE THEY DO NOT CALL FOR
DECISION HERE. 
..END :




HEIKKILA V. BARBER 345 U.S. 229 


NO. 426.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4-5, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1953 -
AFFIRMED. 


AN ALIEN WHOSE DEPORTATION HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
UNDER SEC. 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 MAY NOT OBTAIN A REVIEW
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DECISION UNDER SEC. 10 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT, BY A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF.  PP. 230-237. 

(A)  SECTION 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 IS A STATUTE WHICH
PRECLUDES JUDICIAL REVIEW WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST EXCEPTION TO
SEC. 10 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  PP. 232-235. 

(B)  THE REASONS WHICH PREVENT REVIEW OF A DEPORTATION ORDER UNDER
SEC. 10 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT APPLY A FORTIORI TO SUITS
FOR INJUNCTION BASED ON THE GENERAL EQUITY POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
AND SUITS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT. 
P. 237. 

(C)  HABEAS CORPUS REMAINS THE ONLY PROCEDURE BY WHICH AN ALIEN WHOSE
DEPORTATION HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY CHALLENGE SUCH
ORDER IN THE COURTS.  PP. 234-235. 

HEIKKILA V. BARBER, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT SEEKING A "REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION" AS WELL AS
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF, WAS DISMISSED BY A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 237. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HEIKKILA IS AN ALIEN WHOSE DEPORTATION HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.  HE BEGAN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR
OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE BY A COMPLAINT SEEKING A
"REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION" AS WELL AS INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
RELIEF.  HIS MAIN SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM IS THAT SEC. 22 OF THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT OF 1950, 64 STAT. 1006, UPON WHICH THE ORDER WAS BASED,
AND WHICH MAKES COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERSHIP PER SE GROUND FOR
DEPORTATION, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
CONVENED UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECS. 2282, 2284, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT
WITHOUT OPINION.  TOGETHER WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, THIS
APPEAL PRESENTS TWO IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS:  WHETHER THE
VALIDITY OF DEPORTATION ORDERS MAY BE TESTED BY SOME PROCEDURE OTHER
THAN HABEAS CORPUS AND, IF SO, WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO THE ACTION. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT PRIOR TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT HABEAS
CORPUS WAS THE ONLY REMEDY BY WHICH DEPORTATION ORDERS COULD BE
CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS.  (FN1)  THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY REJECTED
ATTEMPTS TO USE INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS AND OTHER TYPES OF
RELIEF FOR THIS PURPOSE.  (FN2)  ACCORDINGLY, IN ASSERTING THE
AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE TYPE SOUGHT HERE, APPELLANT
RELIES PRIMARILY ON SEC. 10 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, (FN3)
CONCEDING THAT THE QUESTION HAS NOT YET BEEN DECIDED BY THIS COURT. 
THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT BECAUSE SEC. 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT
OF 1917 (FN4) MAKES THE DECISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL "FINAL" THE
UNDERLYING STATUTE PRECLUDES JUDICIAL REVIEW AND COMES WITHIN THE FIRST
EXCEPTION TO SEC. 10. 

APART FROM THE WORDS QUOTED, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT ITSELF
IS SILENT ON WHICH "STATUTES PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW."  BOTH THE
SENATE AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE ACT COMMENTED THAT "VERY
RARELY DO STATUTES WITHHOLD JUDICIAL REVIEW."  (FN5)  AND THE HOUSE
REPORT ADDED THAT "TO PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THIS BILL A
STATUTE, IF NOT SPECIFIC IN WITHHOLDING SUCH REVIEW, MUST UPON ITS FACE
GIVE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO WITHHOLD IT.  THE
MERE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SPECIALLY BY STATUTE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IS
CERTAINLY NO EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO WITHHOLD REVIEW."  (FN6)  THE SPIRIT
OF THESE STATEMENTS TOGETHER WITH THE BROADLY REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF THE
ACT COUNSEL A JUDICIAL ATTITUDE OF HOSPITALITY TOWARDS THE CLAIM THAT
SEC. 10 GREATLY EXPANDED THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  HOWEVER,
SUCH GENERALITIES ARE NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE HERE, ELSE A BALANCE
WOULD HAVE TO BE STRUCK BETWEEN THOSE IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND
MATERIAL IN THE DEBATES WHICH INDICATES INCONSISTENT LEGISLATIVE
UNDERSTANDINGS AS TO HOW EXTENSIVELY SEC. 10 CHANGED THE PRIOR LAW ON
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  (FN7)  NO EASY ANSWER IS FOUND IN OUR DECISIONS ON
THE SUBJECT.  EACH STATUTE IN QUESTION MUST BE EXAMINED INDIVIDUALLY;
ITS PURPOSE AND HISTORY AS WELL AS ITS TEXT ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN
DECIDING WHETHER THE COURTS WERE INTENDED TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR THOSE
AGGRIEVED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  MERE FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE; NEITHER IS THE PRESENCE OF
LANGUAGE WHICH APPEARS TO BAR IT.  (FN8) 

THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DECISIONS ARE "FINAL" DOES NOT SETTLE THE
QUESTION.  THE APPELLANT PROPERLY EMPHASIZES THE AMBIGUITY IN THAT
TERM.  READ ALONE, IT MIGHT REFER TO THE DOCTRINE REQUIRING EXHAUSTION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE JUDICIAL PROCESS CAN BE INVOKED.  BUT
"FINAL," AS USED IN IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION, HAS A HISTORY, BOTH IN THE
STATUTES AND IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  IT BEGINS WITH SEC. 8 OF
THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1891, 26 STAT. 1085, WHICH PROVIDED IN PART THAT
"ALL DECISIONS MADE BY THE INSPECTION OFFICERS OR THEIR ASSISTANTS
TOUCHING THE RIGHT OF ANY ALIEN TO LAND, WHEN ADVERSE TO SUCH RIGHT,
SHALL BE FINAL UNLESS APPEAL BE TAKEN TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
IMMIGRATION, WHOSE ACTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY."  THE APPELLANT IN EKIU V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 651
(1892) ARGUED THAT IF SEC. 8 WAS INTERPRETED AS MAKING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXCLUSION DECISION CONCLUSIVE, SHE WAS DEPRIVED OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE THE COURTS ON HABEAS CORPUS DETERMINE THE
LEGALITY OF HER DETENTION AND, INCIDENTAL THERETO, EXAMINE THE FACTS ON
WHICH IT WAS BASED.  RELYING ON THE PECULIARLY POLITICAL NATURE OF THE
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER ALIENS, THE COURT WAS CLEAR ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENTRUST THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS IN SUCH CASES
TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.  CF. HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580
(1952).  MR. JUSTICE GRAY FOUND THAT SEC. 8 WAS "MANIFESTLY INTENDED TO
PREVENT THE QUESTION OF AN ALIEN IMMIGRANT'S RIGHT TO LAND, WHEN ONCE
DECIDED ADVERSELY BY AN INSPECTOR, ACTING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CONFERRED UPON HIM, FROM BEING IMPEACHED OR REVIEWED, IN THE COURTS OR
OTHERWISE, SAVE ONLY BY APPEAL TO THE INSPECTOR'S OFFICIAL SUPERIORS,
AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT."  142 U.S., AT 663. 
WITH CHANGES UNIMPORTANT HERE, THIS FINALITY PROVISION WAS CARRIED
FORWARD IN LATER IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION.  SEE, E.G., SEC. 25 OF THE
1903 ACT, 32 STAT. 1220, AND SEC. 25 OF THE 1907 ACT, 34 STAT. 906. 
DURING THESE YEARS, THE CASES CONTINUED TO RECOGNIZE THAT CONGRESS HAD
INTENDED TO MAKE THESE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS NONREVIEWABLE TO THE
FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  FONG YUE TING V.
UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698 (1893).  IN LEM MOON SING V. UNITED STATES,
158 U.S. 538 (1895), TREATING A COMPARABLE PROVISION FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN OBSERVED
THAT WHEN CONGRESS MADE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION FINAL, "THE
AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS WAS TAKEN AWAY."  ID., AT 549.  AND BY 1901, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
FULLER WAS ABLE TO DESCRIBE AS "FOR MANY YEARS THE RECOGNIZED AND
DECLARED POLICY OF THE COUNTRY" THE CONGRESSIONAL DECISION TO PLACE
"THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHT OF ADMISSION IN EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS, WITHOUT JUDICIAL INTERVENTION."  FOK YUNG YO V. UNITED
STATES, 185 U.S. 296, 305 (1902).  SEE ALSO THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE
(YAMATAYA V. FISHER), 189 U.S. 86 (1903); PEARSON V. WILLIAMS, 202 U.S.
281 (1906); ZAKONAITE V. WOLF, 226 U.S. 272 (1912). 

READ AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND OF A QUARTER OF A CENTURY OF CONSISTENT
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, SEC. 19 OF THE 1917 IMMIGRATION ACT, 39 STAT.
889, CLEARLY HAD THE EFFECT OF PRECLUDING JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN
DEPORTATION CASES EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT WAS REQUIRED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  (FN9)  AND THE DECISIONS HAVE CONTINUED TO REGARD THIS
POINT AS SETTLED.  KESSLER V. STRECKER, 307 U.S. 22, 34 (1939); BRIDGES
V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135, 149, 166, 167 (1945); ESTEP V. UNITED STATES,
327 U.S. 114, 122, 123, N. 14 (1946); SUNAL V. LARGE, 332 U.S. 174,
177, N. 3 (1947).  CLEARER EVIDENCE THAT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THE
IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 IS A STATUTE PRECLUDING JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD
BE HARD TO IMAGINE.  WHATEVER VIEW BE TAKEN AS TO THE BREADTH OF SEC.
10 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, THE FIRST EXCEPTION TO THAT
RIGHTS WERE NOT ENLARGED BY THAT ACT.  NOW, AS BEFORE, HE MAY ATTACK A
DEPORTATION ORDER ONLY BY HABEAS CORPUS.  (FN10) 

THE THREE COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS TO THE CONTRARY HAVE TAKEN THE
POSITION THAT HABEAS CORPUS ITSELF REPRESENTED JUDICIAL REVIEW, ALBEIT
OF A LIMITED NATURE.  UNITED STATES EX REL. TRINLER V. CARUSI, 166 F.2D
457; KRISTENSEN V. MCGRATH, 86 U.S. APP. D.C. 48, 179 F.2D 796; PRINCE
V. COMMISSIONER, 185 F.2D 578.  UNDER THIS APPROACH, THE FINALITY OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION MUST BE ABSOLUTE BEFORE THE FIRST EXCEPTION TO
SEC. 10 CAN APPLY.  OUR DIFFICULTY WITH THIS POSITION BEGINS WITH THE
NATURE OF THE WRIT AND ENDS WITH THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 10.  REGARDLESS
OF WHETHER OR NOT THE SCOPE OF INQUIRY ON HABEAS CORPUS HAS BEEN
EXPANDED, (FN11) THE FUNCTION OF THE COURTS HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIMITED TO
THE ENFORCEMENT OF DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.  TO REVIEW THOSE
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, WHATEVER THE INTERMEDIATE
FORMULATION OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS, IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM APPLYING A
STATUTORY STANDARD OF REVIEW, E.G., DECIDING "ON THE WHOLE RECORD"
WHETHER THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDINGS OF FACT UNDER SEC. 10(E).  YET, FOR ALL THAT APPEARS, SEC.
10(E) MIGHT BE CALLED INTO PLAY AS WELL AS SEC. 10(B) IF HABEAS CORPUS
WERE REGARDED AS JUDICIAL REVIEW.  (FN12)  IN SHORT, IT IS THE SCOPE OF
INQUIRY ON HABEAS CORPUS THAT DIFFERENTIATES USE OF THE WRIT FROM
JUDICIAL REVIEW AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT.  WE HOLD THAT DEPORTATION ORDERS REMAIN IMMUNE TO DIRECT ATTACK. 

HEIKKILA SUGGESTS THAT PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325
(1939)(DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF), AND MCGRATH V. KRISTENSEN,
340 U.S. 162 (1950)(DECLARATORY RELIEF), WERE DEVIATIONS FROM THIS
RULE.  BUT NEITHER OF THOSE CASES INVOLVED AN OUTSTANDING DEPORTATION
ORDER.  BOTH ELG AND KRISTENSEN LITIGATED ERRONEOUS DETERMINATIONS OF
THEIR STATUS, IN ONE CASE CITIZENSHIP, IN THE OTHER ELIGIBILITY FOR
CITIZENSHIP.  ELG'S RIGHT TO A JUDICIAL HEARING ON HER CLAIM OF
CITIZENSHIP HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED AS EARLY AS 1922 IN NG FUNG HO V.
WHITE, 259 U.S. 276.  AND KRISTENSEN'S INELIGIBILITY FOR NATURALIZATION
WAS SET UP IN CONTESTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFUSAL TO SUSPEND
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 19(C) OF
THE 1917 IMMIGRATION ACT, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(C).  HEIKKILA'S
STATUS AS AN ALIEN IS NOT DISPUTED AND THE RELIEF HE WANTS IS AGAINST
AN OUTSTANDING DEPORTATION ORDER.  HE HAS NOT BROUGHT HIMSELF WITHIN
ELG OR KRISTENSEN. 

APPELLANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT ARGUMENT IS HIS STRONGEST
ONE.  THE REASONS WHICH TAKE HIS CASE OUT OF SEC. 10 APPLY A FORTIORI
TO ARGUMENTS BASED ON THE GENERAL EQUITY POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
AND THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2201.  SEE SKELLY OIL
CO. V. PHILLIPS CO., 339 U.S. 667, 671-672 (1950).  BECAUSE WE DECIDE
THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE AFFIRMED ON THIS PROCEDURAL GROUND, WE DO
NOT REACH THE OTHER QUESTIONS BRIEFED AND ARGUED BY THE PARTIES. 

THE RULE WHICH WE REAFFIRM RECOGNIZES THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO
PRESCRIBE APPLICABLE PROCEDURES FOR THOSE WHO WOULD CONTEST DEPORTATION
ORDERS.  CONGRESS MAY WELL HAVE THOUGHT THAT HABEAS CORPUS, DESPITE ITS
APPARENT INCONVENIENCE TO THE ALIEN, SHOULD BE THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IN
THESE CASES IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE OPPORTUNITIES FOR REPETITIOUS
LITIGATION AND CONSEQUENT DELAYS AS WELL AS TO AVOID POSSIBLE VENUE
DIFFICULTIES CONNECTED WITH ANY OTHER TYPE OF ACTION.  (FN13)  WE ARE
ADVISED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD
PERMIT WHAT HEIKKILA HAS TRIED HERE.  BUT THE CHOICE IS NOT OURS. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING (ON OTHER GROUNDS), IN
BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135, 167 (1945). 

FN2  FAFALIOS V. DOAK, 60 APP. D.C. 215, 50 F.2D 640; POLISZEK V.
DOAK, 61 APP. D.C. 64, 57 F.2D 430; KABADIAN V. DOAK, 62 APP. D.C. 114,
65 F.2D 202; DARABI V. NORTHRUP, 54 F.2D 70.  SEE ALSO IMPIRIALE V.
PERKINS, 62 APP. D.C. 279, 66 F.2D 805; AZZOLLINI V. WATKINS, 172 F.2D
897. 

FN3  "EXCEPT SO FAR AS (1) STATUTES PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW OR (2)
AGENCY ACTION IS BY LAW COMMITTED TO AGENCY DISCRETION: 

"(A)  RIGHT OF REVIEW.  - ANY PERSON SUFFERING LEGAL WRONG BECAUSE OF
ANY AGENCY ACTION, OR ADVERSELY AFFECTED OR AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ACTION
WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANY RELEVANT STATUTE, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW THEREOF. 

"(B)  FORM AND VENUE OF ACTION.  - THE FORM OF PROCEEDING FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW SHALL BE ANY SPECIAL STATUTORY REVIEW PROCEEDING
RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER IN ANY COURT SPECIFIED BY STATUTE OR, IN
THE ABSENCE OR INADEQUACY THEREOF, ANY APPLICABLE FORM OF LEGAL ACTION
(INCLUDING ACTIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS OR WRITS OF PROHIBITORY OR
MANDATORY INJUNCTION OR HABEAS CORPUS) IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION.  AGENCY ACTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN
CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT EXCEPT TO THE
EXTENT THAT PRIOR, ADEQUATE, AND EXCLUSIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCH REVIEW
IS PROVIDED BY LAW. 

"(C)  REVIEWABLE ACTS.  - EVERY AGENCY ACTION MADE REVIEWABLE BY
STATUTE AND EVERY FINAL AGENCY ACTION FOR WHICH THERE IS NO OTHER
ADEQUATE REMEDY IN ANY COURT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  ANY
PRELIMINARY, PROCEDURAL, OR INTERMEDIATE AGENCY ACTION OR RULING NOT
DIRECTLY REVIEWABLE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW UPON THE REVIEW OF THE
FINAL AGENCY ACTION  ...  .           *         *         *         *
 * 

"(E)  SCOPE OF REVIEW.  - SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO DECISION AND WHERE
PRESENTED THE REVIEWING COURT SHALL DECIDE ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS OF
LAW, INTERPRET CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AND DETERMINE
THE MEANING OR APPLICABILITY OF THE TERMS OF ANY AGENCY ACTION.  IT
SHALL (A) COMPEL AGENCY ACTION UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD OR UNREASONABLY
DELAYED; AND (B) HOLD UNLAWFUL AND SET ASIDE AGENCY ACTION, FINDINGS,
AND CONCLUSIONS FOUND TO BE (1) ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, OR OTHERWISE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; (2) CONTRARY TO
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, POWER, PRIVILEGE, OR IMMUNITY; (3) IN EXCESS OF
STATUTORY JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY, OR LIMITATIONS, OR SHORT OF
STATUTORY RIGHT; (4) WITHOUT OBSERVANCE OF PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY LAW;
(5) UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ANY CASE SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 7 AND 8 OR OTHERWISE REVIEWED ON THE RECORD OF
AN AGENCY HEARING PROVIDED BY STATUTE; OR (6) UNWARRANTED BY THE FACTS
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FACTS ARE SUBJECT TO TRIAL DE NOVO BY THE
REVIEWING COURT.  IN MAKING THE FOREGOING DETERMINATIONS THE COURT
SHALL REVIEW THE WHOLE RECORD OR SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS MAY BE CITED
BY ANY PARTY, AND DUE ACCOUNT SHALL BE TAKEN OF THE RULE OF PREJUDICIAL
ERROR."  60 STAT. 243, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1009. 

FN4  "IN EVERY CASE WHERE ANY PERSON IS ORDERED DEPORTED FROM THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR OF ANY LAW OR
TREATY, THE DECISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL BE FINAL."  39 STAT.
889, AS AMENDED, 54 STAT. 1238, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A).  WE DO NOT
CONSIDER THE 1952 ACT, 66 STAT. 163, WHICH TOOK EFFECT AFTER HEIKKILA'S
COMPLAINT WAS FILED. 

FN5  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, S. DOC. NO. 248, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., 212,
275. 

FN6  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, 275. 

FN7  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, 311, 325. 

FN8  LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160 (1948); AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401 (1940); SWITCHMEN'S UNION V.
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297 (1943); STARK V. WICKARD, 321
U.S. 288 (1944). 

FN9  THE SENATE COMMITTEE SAID, "THE LAST (FINALITY) PROVISION, WHILE
NEW IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, IS NOT NEW IN THE LAW, THE COURTS
HAVING REPEATEDLY HELD THAT IN THE CASES OF ALIENS ARRESTED FOR
DEPORTATION, AS WELL AS IN THE CASES OF THOSE EXCLUDED AT OUR PORTS,
THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IS FINAL, AND THE SUPREME
COURT HAVING IN SEVERAL DECISIONS REGARDED THE CASE OF THE ALIEN
ARRESTED FOR DEPORTATION AS PRACTICALLY A DEFERRED EXCLUSION (THE
JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S., 86; PEARSON V. WILLIAMS, 202 U.S.,
281; ETC.)."  S. REP. NO. 352, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. 2, 16. 

FN10  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE SAME RESULT FOLLOWS FROM THE
FIRST PART OF SEC. 10(B), "THE FORM OF PROCEEDING FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
SHALL BE ANY SPECIAL STATUTORY REVIEW PROCEEDING RELEVANT TO THE
SUBJECT MATTER IN ANY COURT SPECIFIED BY STATUTE  ...  ." 

FN11  COMPARE THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86 (1903), WITH
UNITED STATES EX REL. VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103 (1927),
AND BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135 (1945). 

FN12  THE LOWER COURTS HAVE SPLIT ON THIS QUESTION AND WE EXPRESS NO
OPINION ON IT NOW.  YIAKOUMIS V. HALL, 83 F. SUPP. 469; LINDENAU V.
WATKINS, 73 F. SUPP. 216. 

FN13  SEE PAOLO V. GARFINKEL, 200 F.2D 280. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THREE COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE DECIDED THAT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT AN ALIEN AGAINST WHOM A DEPORTATION ORDER IS OUTSTANDING
MAY CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THAT ORDER BY ASKING FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT.  SINCE 1946, SO THEY HELD, HE HAS NOT BEEN RESTRICTED TO
HABEAS CORPUS FOR THE ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHTS, AND THEREFORE HAS NOT
NEEDED TO WAIT TILL HE IS ARRESTED FOR DEPORTATION.  THE CAREFUL
OPINIONS OF JUDGE GOODRICH FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN UNITED STATES EX
REL. TRINLER V. CARUSI, 166 F.2D 457, OF JUDGE BAZELON FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IN KRISTENSEN V. MCGRATH, 86 U.S. APP. D.C. 48, 179
F.2D 796, AND OF JUDGE MCALLISTER FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN PRINCE V.
COMMISSIONER, 185 F.2D 578, MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WHY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A FAR-REACHING
REMEDIAL MEASURE, AFFORDING READY ACCESS TO COURTS FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM
THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, ONCE IT HAS COME TO REST, HAS
DISREGARDED JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS.  THE LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT - THE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
AND ESPECIALLY THE AUTHORITATIVE ELUCIDATION OF THE MEASURE BY CHAIRMAN
MCCARRAN - IMPRESSIVELY SUPPORT THE DIRECTION OF THOUGHT WHICH
UNDERLIES THE DECISIONS OF THE THREE COURTS OF APPEALS.  IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO SAY THAT IN DISAGREEING WITH THESE DECISIONS, THIS COURT
IS AWARE THAT "THE BROADLY REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF THE ACT COUNSEL A
JUDICIAL ATTITUDE OF HOSPITALITY TOWARDS THE CLAIM THAT SEC. 10 GREATLY
EXPANDED THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW."  THE COURT IS INHIBITED
FROM YIELDING TO THIS "ATTITUDE OF HOSPITALITY" BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY IN
WHICH A DEPORTATION ORDER MAY BE CHALLENGED UNDER THE EXISTING
IMMIGRATION ACT IS HABEAS CORPUS, AND BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF INQUIRY ON
HABEAS CORPUS IS WHAT IT IS.  THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THIS LIMITED
SCOPE OF INQUIRY BRINGS THE IMMIGRATION ACT WITHIN THE EXCEPTION TO THE
PROVISION AUTHORIZING AN "ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT" UNDER SEC.
10(B), IN THAT THE IMMIGRATION ACT IS ONE OF THE STATUTES THAT
"PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW."  60 STAT. 243, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1009.  IN
SHORT, THE COURT GIVES THE PHRASE "JUDICIAL REVIEW" IN SEC. 10 A
TECHNICAL CONTENT AND THEREBY DISREGARDS THE VITAL FACT THAT ALTHOUGH
SEC. 19 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917, 39 STAT. 874, 889, AS AMENDED
IN 1940, 54 STAT. 1238, 670, 671, MAKES THE DECISIONS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL "FINAL," THEY ARE NOT FINALLY FINAL.  AS THE HUNDREDS OF CASES
IN THE LOWER COURTS DEMONSTRATE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ACTIONS ARE
VOLUMINOUSLY CHALLENGED AND FREQUENTLY SET ASIDE.  NO DOUBT THE RESPECT
ACCORDED TO HIS FINDINGS IS MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE THAN THAT ACCORDED TO
FINDINGS OF OTHER AGENCIES, OR, TO PUT IT TECHNICALLY, "THE SCOPE OF
INQUIRY" IS MORE LIMITED.  BUT THE DECISIVE FACT IS THAT THE FINDINGS
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE IN THE COURTS AND FROM
TIME TO TIME ARE UPSET, WHATEVER THE FORMULAS MAY BE BY WHICH WHAT HE
HAS FINALLY DONE IS UNDONE. 

IF ANYTHING IS PLAIN IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT IT IS THAT THE CONGRESS WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH
FORMULARIES WHEN IT REFERRED TO STATUTES WHICH "PRECLUDE JUDICIAL
REVIEW."  SENATOR MCCARRAN WAS CLOSELY QUESTIONED ABOUT THIS MATTER AND
HE HAD TO SATISFY SENATORS AS TO THE VERY RESTRICTED MEANING OF THIS
EXCEPTION.  HE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT "REVIEW" IN ANY TECHNICAL SENSE. 
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO COURT AND QUESTION WHAT
AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY HAD DONE.  AND HE REFERRED TO THOSE RARE CASES
WHEN "A STATUTE DENIES RESORT TO THE COURT."  THE BILL, HE SAID, "WOULD
NOT SET ASIDE SUCH STATUTE."  AND THEN HE REPEATED IN A PARAPHRASE WHAT
HE HAD MEANT - A DENIAL OF "RESORT TO THE COURT" - IN LOOSE LAWYERS'
LANGUAGE:  "IF A STATUTE DENIES THE RIGHT OF REVIEW, THE BILL DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE STATUTE."  S. DOC. NO. 248, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS.
319.  HE HAD ALREADY MADE CLEAR WHAT HIS STATEMENT, "THE BILL DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE STATUTE," MEANT BY POINTING OUT THAT THE EXCEPTION
TO READY ACCESS TO THE COURTS WAS LIMITED TO A "LAW ENACTED BY STATUTE
BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, GRANTING A REVIEW OR DENYING A
REVIEW  ...  .  WE WERE NOT SETTING OURSELVES UP TO ABROGATE ACTS OF
CONGRESS."  ID., AT 311. 

TO ALLOW A PROCEEDING FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO TEST THE SAME
ISSUES THAT ARE OPEN ON HABEAS CORPUS IS TO ABROGATE NO ACT OF
CONGRESS.  IT IS, RATHER, TO ADOPT, AS BETWEEN TWO PERMISSIBLE
CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, THE ONE THAT EVINCES
"A JUDICIAL ATTITUDE OF HOSPITALITY."  THE COURT SHRINKS FROM SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION, WITH OBVIOUS RELUCTANCE, BECAUSE IT THINKS IT CANNOT
ADOPT IT WITHOUT SUBJECTING AN ORDER OF DEPORTATION TO NEW AND
UNLIMITED JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.  SURELY THIS IS A NEEDLESS FEAR.  A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION UNDER SEC. 10(B) CAN BE LIMITED - AS IT
SHOULD BE - TO THE SCOPE OF REVIEW APPROPRIATE TO THE EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT IS NOT TO BE
CONSTRUED, AND IT IS EASY NOT TO CONSTRUE IT, SO AS TO MODIFY THE
IMMIGRATION ACT AND TO ALLOW COURTS TO EXAMINE WHAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS DONE BEYOND THOSE SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS TO WHICH HABEAS CORPUS
IS NOW CONFINED.  BUT IT IS EQUALLY EASY, AND THEREFORE I BELIEVE
COMPELLING, TO CONSTRUE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT SO AS TO
LOOSEN UP THE MEANS BY WHICH THE SCRUTINY PROVIDED FOR BY THE
IMMIGRATION ACT MAY BE UNDERTAKEN, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TECHNICAL
CONDITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS, NAMELY THAT A PERSON MUST BE IN PHYSICAL
CUSTODY, CAN BE DISPENSED WITH WHERE A CLAIM, CAPABLE OF BEING
VINDICATED THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS, IS FOUND. 

THE POINT IS LEGALLY NARROW BUT PRACTICALLY IMPORTANT.  IT MEANS THAT
ONE AGAINST WHOM A DEPORTATION ORDER IS OUTSTANDING BUT NOT EXECUTED
MAY AT ONCE MOVE, BY MEANS OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, TO CHALLENGE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS INSOFAR AS THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW PERTAINING TO
DEPORTATION PERMITS CHALLENGE.  OF COURSE CONGRESS MAY NOW EXPLICITLY
AFFORD THIS RELIEF.  IT MAY DO SO WITHOUT OPENING THE SLUICES OF
"REVIEW" IN DEPORTATION CASES.  BUT IT HAS ALREADY ENABLED US TO DO SO
UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  I THINK THE ACT IS
SUFFICIENTLY SUPPLE NOT TO REQUIRE FURTHER LEGISLATION.  THE THREE
OPINIONS IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS, TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN
MADE, ELABORATE THE GROUNDS ON WHICH I WOULD SUSTAIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
..END :
















ALBERTSON V. MILLARD 345 U.S. 242 


NO. 384.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1953 - 106 F.
SUPP. 635, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


FIVE DAYS AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE MICHIGAN COMMUNIST CONTROL ACT OF
APRIL 17, 1952, THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF MICHIGAN AND ITS EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY SUED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
THAT IT VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE ACT CONSTITUTIONAL BUT
TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED ITS ENFORCEMENT PENDING APPEAL TO THIS COURT.  A
SIMILAR SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT BUT IS BEING HELD IN ABEYANCE
PENDING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT.  THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUED OR
APPLIED BY THE MICHIGAN COURTS OR EXECUTIVE AUTHORITIES.  HELD:
JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE THE
RESTRAINING ORDER AND TO HOLD THE PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE A REASONABLE
TIME PENDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BY THE STATE COURTS.  PP. 242
245. 

ALBERTSON ET AL. V. MILLARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MICHIGAN, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MICHIGAN. 

PER CURIAM. 

ON APRIL 17, 1952, THE GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN SIGNED THE MICHIGAN
COMMUNIST CONTROL BILL.  ON APRIL 22, 1952, THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF
MICHIGAN AND WILLIAM ALBERTSON, ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FILED A
COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MICHIGAN.  SECTIONS 2-5, INCLUSIVE, AND SECTION 7 OF THE ACT WERE
ALLEGED TO VIOLATE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THAT EFFECT WAS SOUGHT, ALONG WITH AN
INJUNCTION TO PREVENT STATE OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING THE
ACT.  A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE ACT CONSTITUTIONAL, 106 F.
SUPP. 635, AND AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT. 

COMMUNIST PARTY AND COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZATIONS, AND SECTION 7
PREVENTS THEM FROM APPEARING ON ANY BALLOT IN THE STATE.  "COMMUNIST,"
"COMMUNIST PARTY," AND "COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZATION" ARE GIVEN A
STATUTORY MEANING BY THE MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE.*  MICH. ACTS 1952, NO.
117. 

*"SEC. 2.  A 'COMMUNIST' IS A PERSON WHO: 

"(A)  IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT
THAT HE MAY NOT PAY DUES TO, OR HOLD A CARD IN, SAID PARTY; OR: 

"(B)  KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTES FUNDS OR ANY CHARACTER OF PROPERTY TO THE
COMMUNIST PARTY; OR: 

"(C)  COMMITS OR ADVOCATES THE COMMISSION OF ANY ACT REASONABLY
CALCULATED TO FURTHER THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, OR THE
GOVERNMENT OF ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF EITHER OF THEM, BY FORCE OR
VIOLENCE; OR: 

"(D)  COMMITS OR ADVOCATES THE COMMISSION OF ANY ACT REASONABLY
CALCULATED TO FURTHER THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, OR THE GOVERNMENT OF
ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF EITHER OF THEM, BY UNLAWFUL OR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS, AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF A COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT
OR A GOVERNMENT INTENDED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIRECTED, DOMINATED OR
CONTROLLED BY THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS OR ITS
SATELLITES. 

"SEC. 3.  THE 'COMMUNIST PARTY' IS ANY ORGANIZATION WHICH IS
SUBSTANTIALLY DIRECTED, DOMINATED OR CONTROLLED BY THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS OR ITS SATELLITES, OR WHICH IN ANY MANNER
ADVOCATES, OR ACTS TO FURTHER, THE WORLD COMMUNIST MOVEMENT. 

"SEC. 4.  A 'COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZATION' IS ANY ORGANIZATION, THE
MEMBERS OF WHICH ARE NOT ALL COMMUNISTS, BUT WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY
DIRECTED, DOMINATED OR CONTROLLED BY COMMUNISTS OR BY THE COMMUNIST
PARTY, OR WHICH IN ANY MANNER ADVOCATES, OR ACTS TO FURTHER, THE WORLD
COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
ANNUALLY SHALL PREPARE AND CAUSE TO BE PUBLISHED A LIST OF ALL SUCH
COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZATIONS." 

THESE DEFINITIONS ARE CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANTS AS VOID FOR
VAGUENESS.  THE DEFINITION OF A COMMUNIST AS "  ...  A MEMBER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE MAY NOT PAY DUES TO,
OR HOLD A CARD IN, SAID PARTY  ...  ."  IS SAID TO BE VAGUE SINCE ONCE
DUES AND CARDS ARE ELIMINATED AS CRITERIA THERE ARE NO READILY APPARENT
MEANS OF DETERMINING WHO IS A MEMBER.  AS TO THE DEFINITION OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY AS AN ORGANIZATION "  ...  SUBSTANTIALLY DIRECTED,
DOMINATED OR CONTROLLED BY THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS OR
ITS SATELLITES" IT IS CONTENDED THERE ARE NO STANDARDS AS TO WHAT IS A
"SATELLITE."  IN REGARD TO THE DEFINITION OF BOTH COMMUNIST PARTY AND
COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZATION AS AN ORGANIZATION WHICH "  ...  IN ANY
MANNER ADVOCATES, OR ACTS TO FURTHER, THE WORLD COMMUNIST MOVEMENT"
APPELLANTS POINT TO THE FAILURE TO DEFINE THE "WORLD COMMUNIST
MOVEMENT" AS CREATING VAGUENESS.  THE ANSWERS GIVEN TO THESE AND
POSSIBLY OTHER PROBLEMS OF CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION ARISING
UNDER THE DEFINITIONS IN SECTIONS 2-4 WILL DETERMINE THE ULTIMATE SCOPE
OF THE ACT. 

INTERPRETATION OF STATE LEGISLATION IS PRIMARILY THE FUNCTION OF
STATE AUTHORITIES, JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE.  THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN
TO A STATE STATUTE BY THE STATE COURTS IS BINDING UPON FEDERAL COURTS. 
THERE HAS BEEN NO INTERPRETATION OF THIS STATUTE BY THE STATE COURTS. 
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CONSTRUCTION STEMS FROM THE FACT THIS ACTION IN
FEDERAL COURT WAS COMMENCED ONLY FIVE DAYS AFTER THE STATUTE BECAME
LAW. 

THERE IS PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, A
BILL SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
BOTH ON FEDERAL AND STATE GROUNDS.  THAT ACTION IS BEING HELD IN
ABEYANCE PENDING OUR MANDATE AND DECISION IN THIS CASE. 

WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE THAT THE STATE COURTS CONSTRUE
THIS STATUTE BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT FURTHER CONSIDERS THE ACTION. 
SEE RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549 (1947); AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582 (1946); AND SPECTOR MOTOR
SERVICE V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101 (1944). 

THE JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE THE
RESTRAINING ORDER IT ISSUED AND TO HOLD THE PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE A
REASONABLE TIME PENDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BY THE STATE COURTS
EITHER IN PENDING LITIGATION OR OTHER LITIGATION WHICH MAY BE
INSTITUTED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

THERE DOUBTLESS WILL BE INSTANCES WHERE IT IS UNCERTAIN WHETHER A
PARTICULAR PERSON IS A "COMMUNIST" OR WHETHER A PARTICULAR GROUP IS
INCLUDED IN THE "COMMUNIST PARTY" AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN THE
MICHIGAN ACT.  BUT AS I READ THIS RECORD THERE CANNOT BE THE SLIGHTEST
DOUBT THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF MICHIGAN IS WHAT IT PURPORTS TO BE
AND THAT APPELLANT ALBERTSON, ITS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, IS ONE OF ITS
MEMBERS.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS PLAIN BEYOND ARGUMENT THAT THE
APPELLANTS ARE COVERED BY THE MICHIGAN ACT. 

THE CASE IS THEREFORE RIPE FOR DECISION.  IT IS NOT CLOUDED WITH
ABSTRACT QUESTIONS.  THERE ARE NO AMBIGUITIES INVOLVING THESE
APPELLANTS.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS DO NOT TURN ON ANY NICETIES
IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MICHIGAN LAW.  THE CASE IS THEREFORE
UNLIKE RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, AND ITS FOREBEARS
WHERE THE NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WOULD DEPEND ON THE MANNER
IN WHICH UNCERTAIN AND AMBIGUOUS STATE STATUTES WERE CONSTRUED.  SEE
ESPECIALLY A.F. OF L. V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582, 598.  HERE THERE ARE BUT
TWO QUESTIONS: 

(1)  CAN MICHIGAN REQUIRE THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF MICHIGAN AND ITS
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO REGISTER? 

(2)  CAN MICHIGAN FORBID THE NAME OF ANY COMMUNIST OR OF ANY NOMINEE
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY TO BE PRINTED ON THE BALLOT IN ANY PRIMARY OR
GENERAL ELECTION IN THE STATE? 

IN MY VIEW NO DECISION OF THE MICHIGAN STATE COURTS CAN MAKE THOSE
TWO ISSUES ANY MORE PRECISE OR SPECIFIC THAN THE PRESENT CASE MAKES
THEM. 
..END :




UNITED STATES V. REYNOLDS 345 U.S. 1 


NO. 21.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1952 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 192 F.2D 987,
REVERSED. 


A MILITARY AIRCRAFT ON A FLIGHT TO TEST SECRET ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
CRASHED AND CERTAIN CIVILIAN OBSERVERS ABOARD WERE KILLED.  THEIR
WIDOWS SUED THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT AND MOVED UNDER
RULE 34 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR PRODUCTION OF THE
AIR FORCE'S ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT AND STATEMENTS MADE BY
SURVIVING CREW MEMBERS DURING THE INVESTIGATION.  THE SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE FILED A FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE, STATING THAT THE MATTERS
WERE PRIVILEGED AGAINST DISCLOSURE UNDER AIR FORCE REGULATIONS ISSUED
UNDER R.S. SEC. 161 AND THAT THE AIRCRAFT AND ITS PERSONNEL WERE
"ENGAGED IN A HIGHLY SECRET MISSION."  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL FILED
AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THE MATERIAL COULD NOT BE FURNISHED "WITHOUT
SERIOUSLY HAMPERING NATIONAL SECURITY"; BUT HE OFFERED TO PRODUCE THE
SURVIVING CREW MEMBERS FOR EXAMINATION BY PLAINTIFFS AND TO PERMIT THEM
TO TESTIFY AS TO ALL MATTERS EXCEPT THOSE OF A "CLASSIFIED NATURE." 
HELD:  IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS A VALID CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE UNDER RULE
34; AND A JUDGMENT BASED UNDER RULE 37 ON REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE
DOCUMENTS SUBJECTED THE UNITED STATES TO LIABILITY TO WHICH CONGRESS
DID NOT CONSENT BY THE TORT CLAIMS ACT.  PP. 2-12. 

(A)  AS USED IN RULE 34, WHICH COMPELS PRODUCTION ONLY OF MATTERS
"NOT PRIVILEGED," THE TERM "NOT PRIVILEGED" REFERS TO "PRIVILEGES" AS
THAT TERM IS UNDERSTOOD IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.  P. 6. 

(B)  WHEN THE SECRETARY LODGED HIS FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE, HE
INVOKED A PRIVILEGE AGAINST REVEALING MILITARY SECRETS WHICH IS WELL
ESTABLISHED IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.  PP. 6-7. 

(C)  WHEN A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST REVEALING MILITARY SECRETS IS
INVOKED, THE COURTS MUST DECIDE WHETHER THE OCCASION FOR INVOKING THE
PRIVILEGE IS APPROPRIATE, AND YET DO SO WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING THE
SECURITY WHICH THE PRIVILEGE WAS MEANT TO PROTECT.  PP. 7-8. 

(D)  WHEN THE FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WAS FILED BY THE SECRETARY,
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT MILITARY
SECRETS WERE INVOLVED, THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PRIVILEGE TO
CUT OFF FURTHER DEMAND FOR THE DOCUMENTS ON THE SHOWING OF NECESSITY
FOR ITS COMPULSION THAT HAD BEEN MADE.  P. 10. 

(E)  IN THIS CASE, THE SHOWING OF NECESSITY WAS GREATLY MINIMIZED BY
PLAINTIFFS' REJECTION OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFER TO MAKE THE
SURVIVING CREW MEMBERS AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION.  P. 11. 

(F)  THE DOCTRINE IN THE CRIMINAL FIELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN
INVOKE ITS EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGES ONLY AT THE PRICE OF LETTING THE
DEFENDANT GO FREE HAS NO APPLICATION IN A CIVIL FORUM WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE MOVING PARTY BUT IS A DEFENDANT ONLY ON TERMS TO
WHICH IT HAS CONSENTED.  P. 12. 

UNITED STATES V. REYNOLDS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  10 F.R.D. 468.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  192 F.2D 987.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S.
918.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 12. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE SUITS UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT (FN1) ARISE FROM THE DEATH OF
THREE CIVILIANS IN THE CRASH OF A B-29 AIRCRAFT AT WAYCROSS, GEORGIA,
ON OCTOBER 6, 1948.  BECAUSE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
PRIVILEGE TO RESIST DISCOVERY (FN2) IS INVOLVED, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 918. 

THE AIRCRAFT HAD TAKEN FLIGHT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TESTING SECRET
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, WITH FOUR CIVILIAN OBSERVERS ABOARD.  WHILE
ALOFT, FIRE BROKE OUT IN ONE OF THE BOMBER'S ENGINES.  SIX OF THE NINE
CREW MEMBERS AND THREE OF THE FOUR CIVILIAN OBSERVERS WERE KILLED IN
THE CRASH. 

THE WIDOWS OF THE THREE DECEASED CIVILIAN OBSERVERS BROUGHT
CONSOLIDATED SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  IN THE PRETRIAL STAGES
THE PLAINTIFFS MOVED, UNDER RULE 34 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, (FN3) FOR PRODUCTION OF THE AIR FORCE'S OFFICIAL ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATION REPORT AND THE STATEMENTS OF THE THREE SURVIVING CREW
MEMBERS, TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION.   THE
GOVERNMENT MOVED TO QUASH THE MOTION, CLAIMING THAT THESE MATTERS WERE
PRIVILEGED AGAINST DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO AIR FORCE REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED UNDER R.S. SEC. 161.  (FN4)  THE DISTRICT JUDGE SUSTAINED
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION, HOLDING THAT GOOD CAUSE FOR PRODUCTION HAD BEEN
SHOWN.  (FN5) THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE UNDER R.S. SEC. 161 WAS REJECTED
ON THE PREMISE THAT THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, IN MAKING THE GOVERNMENT
LIABLE "IN THE SAME MANNER" AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, (FN6) HAD WAIVED
ANY PRIVILEGE BASED UPON EXECUTIVE CONTROL OVER GOVERNMENTAL
DOCUMENTS. 

SHORTLY AFTER THIS DECISION, THE DISTRICT COURT RECEIVED A LETTER
FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, STATING THAT "IT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO FURNISH THIS
REPORT  ...  ."  THE COURT ALLOWED A REHEARING ON ITS EARLIER ORDER,
AND AT THE REHEARING THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FILED A FORMAL
"CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE."  THIS DOCUMENT REPEATED THE PRIOR CLAIM BASED
GENERALLY ON R.S. SEC. 161, AND THEN STATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER
OBJECTED TO PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS "FOR THE REASON THAT THE
AIRCRAFT IN QUESTION, TOGETHER WITH THE PERSONNEL ON BOARD, WERE
ENGAGED IN A HIGHLY SECRET MISSION OF THE AIR FORCE."  AN AFFIDAVIT OF
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, WAS ALSO FILED
WITH THE COURT, WHICH ASSERTED THAT THE DEMANDED MATERIAL COULD NOT BE
FURNISHED "WITHOUT SERIOUSLY HAMPERING NATIONAL SECURITY, FLYING SAFETY
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND SECRET MILITARY
EQUIPMENT."  THE SAME AFFIDAVIT OFFERED TO PRODUCE THE THREE SURVIVING
CREW MEMBERS, WITHOUT COST, FOR EXAMINATION BY THE PLAINTIFFS.  THE
WITNESSES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO REFRESH THEIR MEMORIES FROM ANY STATEMENT
MADE BY THEM TO THE AIR FORCE, AND AUTHORIZED TO TESTIFY AS TO ALL
MATTERS EXCEPT THOSE OF A "CLASSIFIED NATURE." 

THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS IN
ORDER THAT THE COURT MIGHT DETERMINE WHETHER THEY CONTAINED PRIVILEGED
MATTER.  THE GOVERNMENT DECLINED, SO THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER, UNDER
RULE 37(B)(2)(I), (FN7) THAT THE FACTS ON THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE WOULD
BE TAKEN AS ESTABLISHED IN PLAINTIFFS' FAVOR.  AFTER A HEARING TO
DETERMINE DAMAGES, FINAL JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, (FN8) BOTH AS TO THE SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE
FOR PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS, AND AS TO THE ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF
THE CASE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE
DOCUMENTS. 

WE HAVE HAD BROAD PROPOSITIONS PRESSED UPON US FOR DECISION.  ON
BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE POWER TO WITHHOLD ANY DOCUMENTS IN THEIR CUSTODY
FROM JUDICIAL VIEW IF THEY DEEM IT TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  (FN9)
RESPONDENTS HAVE ASSERTED THAT THE EXECUTIVE'S POWER TO WITHHOLD
DOCUMENTS WAS WAIVED BY THE TORT CLAIMS ACT.  BOTH POSITIONS HAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL OVERTONES WHICH WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON,
THERE BEING A NARROWER GROUND FOR DECISION.  TOUHY V. RAGEN, 340 U.S.
462 (1951); RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF LOS ANGELES, 331 U.S.
549, 574-585 (1947). 

THE TORT CLAIMS ACT EXPRESSLY MAKES THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE APPLICABLE TO SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  (FN10)  THE
JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE IMPOSED LIABILITY UPON THE GOVERNMENT BY
OPERATION OF RULE 37, FOR REFUSAL TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 34. 
SINCE RULE 34 COMPELS PRODUCTION ONLY OF MATTERS "NOT PRIVILEGED," THE
ESSENTIAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE
UNDER THE RULE.  WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS, AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE
JUDGMENT BELOW SUBJECTED THE UNITED STATES TO LIABILITY ON TERMS TO
WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT CONSENT BY THE TORT CLAIMS ACT. 

WE THINK IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE TERM "NOT PRIVILEGED," AS USED
IN RULE 34, REFERS TO "PRIVILEGES" AS THAT TERM IS UNDERSTOOD IN THE
LAW OF EVIDENCE.  WHEN THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE LODGED HIS FORMAL
"CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE," HE ATTEMPTED THEREIN TO INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE
AGAINST REVEALING MILITARY SECRETS, A PRIVILEGE WHICH IS WELL
ESTABLISHED IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.  (FN11) THE EXISTENCE OF THE
PRIVILEGE IS CONCEDED BY THE COURT BELOW, (FN12) AND, INDEED, BY THE
MOST OUTSPOKEN CRITICS OF GOVERNMENTAL CLAIMS TO PRIVILEGE.  (FN13) 

JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE PRIVILEGE WHICH PROTECTS MILITARY AND
STATE SECRETS HAS BEEN LIMITED IN THIS COUNTRY.  (FN14)  ENGLISH
EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN MORE EXTENSIVE, BUT STILL RELATIVELY SLIGHT
COMPARED WITH OTHER EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGES.  (FN15)  NEVERTHELESS, THE
PRINCIPLES WHICH CONTROL THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIVILEGE EMERGE QUITE
CLEARLY FROM THE AVAILABLE PRECEDENTS.  THE PRIVILEGE BELONGS TO THE
GOVERNMENT AND MUST BE ASSERTED BY IT; IT CAN NEITHER BE CLAIMED (FN16)
NOR WAIVED (FN17) BY A PRIVATE PARTY.  IT IS NOT TO BE LIGHTLY
INVOKED.  (FN18)  THERE MUST BE A FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE, LODGED BY
THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH HAS CONTROL OVER THE MATTER, (FN19)
AFTER ACTUAL PERSONAL CONSIDERATION BY THAT OFFICER.  (FN20)  THE COURT
ITSELF MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE, (FN21) AND YET DO SO WITHOUT FORCING A DISCLOSURE
OF THE VERY THING THE PRIVILEGE IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT.  (FN22)  THE
LATTER REQUIREMENT IS THE ONLY ONE WHICH PRESENTS REAL DIFFICULTY.  AS
TO IT, WE FIND IT HELPFUL TO DRAW UPON JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE IN DEALING
WITH AN ANALOGOUS PRIVILEGE, THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. 

THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION PRESENTED THE COURTS WITH A
SIMILAR SORT OF PROBLEM.  TOO MUCH JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO THE CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE WOULD FORCE DISCLOSURE OF THE THING THE PRIVILEGE WAS MEANT
TO PROTECT, WHILE A COMPLETE ABANDONMENT OF JUDICIAL CONTROL WOULD LEAD
TO INTOLERABLE ABUSES.  INDEED, IN THE EARLIER STAGES OF JUDICIAL
EXPERIENCE WITH THE PROBLEM, BOTH EXTREMES WERE ADVOCATED, SOME SAYING
THAT THE BARE ASSERTION BY THE WITNESS MUST BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVE, AND
OTHERS SAYING THAT THE WITNESS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO REVEAL THE MATTER
BEHIND HIS CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE TO THE JUDGE FOR VERIFICATION.  (FN23)
NEITHER EXTREME PREVAILED, AND A SOUND FORMULA OF COMPROMISE WAS
DEVELOPED.  THIS FORMULA RECEIVED AUTHORITATIVE EXPRESSION IN THIS
COUNTRY AS EARLY AS THE BURR TRIAL.  (FN24)  THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN
PHRASEOLOGY, BUT IN SUBSTANCE IT IS AGREED THAT THE COURT MUST BE
SATISFIED FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND "FROM THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE QUESTION, IN THE SETTING IN WHICH IT IS ASKED, THAT
A RESPONSIVE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OR AN EXPLANATION OF WHY IT CANNOT
BE ANSWERED MIGHT BE DANGEROUS BECAUSE INJURIOUS DISCLOSURE COULD
RESULT."  HOFFMAN V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 479, 486-487 (1951). 
(FN25)  IF THE COURT IS SO SATISFIED, THE CLAIM OF THE PRIVILEGE WILL
BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT REQUIRING FURTHER DISCLOSURE. 

REGARDLESS OF HOW IT IS ARTICULATED, SOME LIKE FORMULA OF COMPROMISE
MUST BE APPLIED HERE.  JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER THE EVIDENCE IN A CASE
CANNOT BE ABDICATED TO THE CAPRICE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.  YET WE WILL
NOT GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT THE COURT MAY AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRE A
COMPLETE DISCLOSURE TO THE JUDGE BEFORE THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WILL BE
ACCEPTED IN ANY CASE.  IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO SATISFY THE COURT, FROM
ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE DANGER
THAT COMPULSION OF THE EVIDENCE WILL EXPOSE MILITARY MATTERS WHICH, IN
THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, SHOULD NOT BE DIVULGED.  WHEN THIS
IS THE CASE, THE OCCASION FOR THE PRIVILEGE IS APPROPRIATE, AND THE
COURT SHOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE THE SECURITY WHICH THE PRIVILEGE IS MEANT
TO PROTECT BY INSISTING UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, EVEN BY
THE JUDGE ALONE, IN CHAMBERS. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE WE CANNOT ESCAPE JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS IS A
TIME OF VIGOROUS PREPARATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.  EXPERIENCE IN THE
PAST WAR HAS MADE IT COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT AIR POWER IS ONE OF THE MOST
POTENT WEAPONS IN OUR SCHEME OF DEFENSE, AND THAT NEWLY DEVELOPING
ELECTRONIC DEVICES HAVE GREATLY ENHANCED THE EFFECTIVE USE OF AIR
POWER.  IT IS EQUALLY APPARENT THAT THESE ELECTRONIC DEVICES MUST BE
KEPT SECRET IF THEIR FULL MILITARY ADVANTAGE IS TO BE EXPLOITED IN THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS.  ON THE RECORD BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IT APPEARED
THAT THIS ACCIDENT OCCURRED TO A MILITARY PLANE WHICH HAD GONE ALOFT TO
TEST SECRET ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT.  CERTAINLY THERE WAS A REASONABLE
DANGER THAT THE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT WOULD CONTAIN REFERENCES
TO THE SECRET ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT WHICH WAS THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE
MISSION. 

OF COURSE, EVEN WITH THIS INFORMATION BEFORE HIM, THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS
IN NO POSITION TO DECIDE THAT THE REPORT WAS PRIVILEGED UNTIL THERE HAD
BEEN A FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.  THUS IT WAS ENTIRELY PROPER TO RULE
INITIALLY THAT PETITIONER HAD SHOWN PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DISCOVERY OF THE
DOCUMENTS.  THEREAFTER, WHEN THE FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WAS FILED BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING A
REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT MILITARY SECRETS WERE INVOLVED, THERE WAS
CERTAINLY A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PRIVILEGE TO CUT OFF FURTHER DEMAND
FOR THE DOCUMENTS ON THE SHOWING OF NECESSITY FOR ITS COMPULSION THAT
HAD THEN BEEN MADE. 

IN EACH CASE, THE SHOWING OF NECESSITY WHICH IS MADE WILL DETERMINE
HOW FAR THE COURT SHOULD PROBE IN SATISFYING ITSELF THAT THE OCCASION
FOR INVOKING THE PRIVILEGE IS APPROPRIATE.  WHERE THERE IS A STRONG
SHOWING OF NECESSITY, THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE SHOULD NOT BE LIGHTLY
ACCEPTED, BUT EVEN THE MOST COMPELLING NECESSITY CANNOT OVERCOME THE
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE IF THE COURT IS ULTIMATELY SATISFIED THAT MILITARY
SECRETS ARE AT STAKE.  (FN26)  A FORTIORI, WHERE NECESSITY IS DUBIOUS,
A FORMAL CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE, MADE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
WILL HAVE TO PREVAIL.  HERE, NECESSITY WAS GREATLY MINIMIZED BY AN
AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE, WHICH MIGHT HAVE GIVEN RESPONDENTS THE EVIDENCE
TO MAKE OUT THEIR CASE WITHOUT FORCING A SHOWDOWN ON THE CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE.  BY THEIR FAILURE TO PURSUE THAT ALTERNATIVE, RESPONDENTS
HAVE POSED THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION FOR DECISION WITH THE FORMAL CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE SET AGAINST A DUBIOUS SHOWING OF NECESSITY. 

THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, IN THIS
CASE, HAD ANY CAUSAL CONNECTION WITH THE ACCIDENT.  THEREFORE, IT
SHOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR RESPONDENTS TO ADDUCE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS AS TO
CAUSATION WITHOUT RESORT TO MATERIAL TOUCHING UPON MILITARY SECRETS. 
RESPONDENTS WERE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DO JUST THAT, WHEN
PETITIONER FORMALLY OFFERED TO MAKE THE SURVIVING CREW MEMBERS
AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION.  WE THINK THAT OFFER SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ACCEPTED. 

RESPONDENTS HAVE CITED US TO THOSE CASES IN THE CRIMINAL FIELD, WHERE
IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN INVOKE ITS EVIDENTIARY
PRIVILEGES ONLY AT THE PRICE OF LETTING THE DEFENDANT GO FREE.   (FN27)
THE RATIONALE OF THE CRIMINAL CASES IS THAT, SINCE THE GOVERNMENT
WHICH PROSECUTES AN ACCUSED ALSO HAS THE DUTY TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS
DONE, IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE TO ALLOW IT TO UNDERTAKE PROSECUTION AND
THEN INVOKE ITS GOVERNMENTAL PRIVILEGES TO DEPRIVE THE ACCUSED OF
ANYTHING WHICH MIGHT BE MATERIAL TO HIS DEFENSE.  SUCH RATIONALE HAS NO
APPLICATION IN A CIVIL FORUM WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE MOVING
PARTY, BUT IS A DEFENDANT ONLY ON TERMS TO WHICH IT HAS CONSENTED. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CASE WILL BE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SECS. 1346, 2674. 

FN2  FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 34. 

FN3  "RULE 34.  DISCOVERY AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR
INSPECTION, COPYING, OR PHOTOGRAPHING.  UPON MOTION OF ANY PARTY
SHOWING GOOD CAUSE THEREFOR AND UPON NOTICE TO ALL OTHER PARTIES, AND
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 30(B), THE COURT IN WHICH AN ACTION
IS PENDING MAY (1) ORDER ANY PARTY TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT THE INSPECTION
AND COPYING OR PHOTOGRAPHING, BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE MOVING PARTY, OF
ANY DESIGNATED DOCUMENTS, PAPERS, BOOKS, ACCOUNTS, LETTERS,
PHOTOGRAPHS, OBJECTS, OR TANGIBLE THINGS, NOT PRIVILEGED, WHICH
CONSTITUTE OR CONTAIN EVIDENCE RELATING TO ANY OF THE MATTERS WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION PERMITTED BY RULE 26(B) AND WHICH ARE IN
HIS POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL; OR (2) ORDER ANY PARTY TO PERMIT
ENTRY UPON DESIGNATED LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION OR
CONTROL FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTING, MEASURING, SURVEYING, OR
PHOTOGRAPHING THE PROPERTY OR ANY DESIGNATED OBJECT OR OPERATION
THEREON WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION PERMITTED BY RULE 26(B). 
THE ORDER SHALL SPECIFY THE TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER OF MAKING THE
INSPECTION AND TAKING THE COPIES AND PHOTOGRAPHS AND MAY PRESCRIBE SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS ARE JUST." 

FN4  5 U.S.C. SEC. 22: 

"THE HEAD OF EACH DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS,
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LAW, FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF HIS DEPARTMENT, THE
CONDUCT OF ITS OFFICERS AND CLERKS, THE DISTRIBUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF
ITS BUSINESS, AND THE CUSTODY, USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE RECORDS,
PAPERS, AND PROPERTY APPERTAINING TO IT." 

AIR FORCE REGULATION NO. 62-7(5)(B) PROVIDES: 

"REPORTS OF BOARDS OF OFFICERS, SPECIAL ACCIDENT REPORTS, OR EXTRACTS
THEREFROM WILL NOT BE FURNISHED OR MADE AVAILABLE TO PERSONS OUTSIDE
THE AUTHORIZED CHAIN OF COMMAND WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE." 

FN5  10 F.R.D. 468. 

FN6  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2674: 

"THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE LIABLE, RESPECTING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
TITLE RELATING TO TORT CLAIMS, IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT SHALL NOT
BE LIABLE FOR INTEREST PRIOR TO JUDGMENT OR FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES." 

FN7  "RULE 37.  REFUSAL TO MAKE DISCOVERY:  CONSEQUENCES. 

     *         *     *         *         * 

"(B)  FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(2)  OTHER CONSEQUENCES.  IF ANY PARTY OR AN OFFICER OR MANAGING
AGENT OF A PARTY REFUSES TO OBEY  ...  AN ORDER MADE UNDER RULE 34 TO
PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENT  ...  , THE COURT MAY MAKE SUCH ORDERS IN REGARD
TO THE REFUSAL AS ARE JUST, AND AMONG OTHERS THE FOLLOWING: 

"(I)  AN ORDER THAT THE MATTERS REGARDING WHICH THE QUESTIONS WERE
ASKED, OR THE CHARACTER OR DESCRIPTION OF THE THING OR LAND, OR THE
CONTENTS OF THE PAPER, OR THE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION OF THE
PARTY, OR ANY OTHER DESIGNATED FACTS SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE ESTABLISHED
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE
PARTY OBTAINING THE ORDER; ...  ." 

FN8  192 F.2D 987. 

FN9  WHILE CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE POWER TO SUPPRESS DOCUMENTS IS BASED
MORE IMMEDIATELY UPON R.S. SEC. 161 (SEE SUPRA, NOTE 4), THE ROOTS GO
MUCH DEEPER.  IT IS SAID THAT R.S. SEC. 161 IS ONLY A LEGISLATIVE
RECOGNITION OF AN INHERENT EXECUTIVE POWER WHICH IS PROTECTED IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF SEPARATION OF POWER. 

FN10  28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  932; UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB
CO., 340 U.S. 543, 553 (1951). 

FN11  TOTTEN V. UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 105, 107 (1875); FIRTH
STERLING STEEL CO. V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., 199 F. 353 (D.C.E.D. PA.
1912); POLLEN V. FORD INSTRUMENT CO., 26 F. SUPP. 583 (D.C.E.D.N.Y.
1939); CRESMER V. UNITED STATES, 9 F.R.D. 203 (D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1949); SEE
BANK LINE V. UNITED STATES, 68 F. SUPP. 587 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1946), 163
F.2D 133 (C.A.2D CIR. 1947).  8 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SEC. 
2212A, P. 161, AND SEC. 2378(G)(5), AT PP. 785 ET SEQ.; 1 GREENLEAF ON
EVIDENCE (16TH ED.)  SECS.  250-251; SANFORD, EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGES
AGAINST THE PRODUCTION OF DATA WITHIN THE CONTROL OF EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS, 3 VANDERBILT L. REV. 73, 74-75 (1949). 

FN12  192 F.2D 987, 996. 

FN13  SEE WIGMORE, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 11. 

FN14  SEE CASES CITED SUPRA, NOTE 11. 

FN15  MOST OF THE ENGLISH PRECEDENTS ARE REVIEWED IN THE RECENT CASE
OF DUNCAN V. CAMMELL, LAIRD & CO., (1942) A.C. 624. 

FN16  FIRTH STERLING STEEL CO. V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., 199 F. 353
(D.C.E.D. PA. 1912). 

FN17  IN RE GROVE, 180 F. 62 (C.A. 3RD CIR. 1910). 

FN18  MARSHALL, C.J., IN THE AARON BURR TRIAL, I ROBERTSON'S REPORTS
186:  "THAT THERE MAY BE MATTER, THE PRODUCTION OF WHICH THE COURT
WOULD NOT REQUIRE, IS CERTAIN  ...  .  WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE, UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, PRESENTS A DELICATE QUESTION, THE DISCUSSION OF
WHICH, IT IS HOPED, WILL NEVER BE RENDERED NECESSARY IN THIS COUNTRY." 

FN19  FIRTH CASE, SUPRA, NOTE 16. 

FN20  "THE ESSENTIAL MATTER IS THAT THE DECISION TO OBJECT SHOULD BE
TAKEN BY THE MINISTER WHO IS THE POLITICAL HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND
THAT HE SHOULD HAVE SEEN AND CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS
AND HIMSELF HAVE FORMED THE VIEW THAT ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
THEY OUGHT NOT TO BE PRODUCED  ...  ."  DUNCAN V. CAMMELL, LAIRD & CO.,
(1942) A.C. 624, 638. 

FN21  ID., AT P. 642: 

"ALTHOUGH AN OBJECTION VALIDLY TAKEN TO PRODUCTION, ON THE GROUND
THAT THIS WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IS CONCLUSIVE, IT
IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE DECISION RULING OUT SUCH DOCUMENTS IS
THE DECISION OF THE JUDGE  ...  .  IT IS THE JUDGE WHO IS IN CONTROL OF
THE TRIAL, NOT THE EXECUTIVE  ...  ." 

FN22  ID., AT PP. 638-642; CF. THE LANGUAGE OF THIS COURT IN HOFFMAN
V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951), SPEAKING OF THE ANALOGOUS
HAZARD OF PROBING TOO FAR IN DEROGATION OF THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION: 

"HOWEVER, IF THE WITNESS, UPON INTERPOSING HIS CLAIM, WERE REQUIRED
TO PROVE THE HAZARD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH A CLAIM IS USUALLY REQUIRED
TO BE ESTABLISHED IN COURT, HE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO SURRENDER THE VERY
PROTECTION WHICH THE PRIVILEGE IS DESIGNED TO GUARANTEE." 

FN23  COMPARE THE EXPRESSIONS OF ROLFE, B. AND WILDE, C.J. IN REGINA
V. GARBETT, 2 CAR.  & K. 474, 492 (1847); SEE 8 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D
ED.)  SEC.  2271. 

FN24  I ROBERTSON'S REPORTS 244: 

"WHEN A QUESTION IS PROPOUNDED, IT BELONGS TO THE COURT TO CONSIDER
AND TO DECIDE, WHETHER ANY DIRECT ANSWER TO IT CAN IMPLICATE THE
WITNESS.  IF THIS BE DECIDED IN THE NEGATIVE, THEN HE MAY ANSWER IT
WITHOUT VIOLATING THE PRIVILEGE WHICH IS SECURED TO HIM BY LAW.  IF A
DIRECT ANSWER TO IT MAY CRIMINATE HIMSELF, THEN HE MUST BE THE SOLE
JUDGE WHAT HIS ANSWER WOULD BE.  THE COURT CANNOT PARTICIPATE WITH HIM
IN THIS JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT DECIDE ON THE EFFECT OF HIS
ANSWER WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IT WOULD BE; AND A DISCLOSURE OF THAT FACT
TO THE JUDGES WOULD STRIP HIM OF THE PRIVILEGE WHICH THE LAW ALLOWS,
AND WHICH HE CLAIMS." 

FN25  BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 134 (1928); MASON V. UNITED
STATES, 244 U.S. 362 (1917). 

FN26  SEE TOTTEN V. UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 105 (1875), WHERE THE VERY
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION, A CONTRACT TO PERFORM ESPIONAGE, WAS A
MATTER OF STATE SECRET.  THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON THE PLEADINGS
WITHOUT EVER REACHING THE QUESTION OF EVIDENCE, SINCE IT WAS SO OBVIOUS
THAT THE ACTION SHOULD NEVER PREVAIL OVER THE PRIVILEGE. 

FN27  UNITED STATES V. ANDOLSCHEK, 142 F.2D 503 (C.A.2D CIR. 1944);
UNITED STATES V. BEEKMAN, 155 F.2D 580 (C.A.2D CIR. 1946). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
DISSENT, SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF
JUDGE MARIS BELOW.  192 F.2D 987. 
..END :








ALSTATE CONSTRUCTION CO. V. DURKIN 345 U.S. 13 


NO. 296.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2-3, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 195 F.2D
577, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER PRODUCES IN PENNSYLVANIA A ROAD-SURFACING MIXTURE MADE FROM
MATERIALS BOUGHT OR QUARRIED IN PENNSYLVANIA.  MOST OF IT IS USED IN
PENNSYLVANIA ON INTERSTATE ROADS AND RAILROADS AND ON THE IMPROVEMENT
OF FACILITIES FOR COMPANIES PRODUCING GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
HELD: PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT WORK ON THE ROADS THEMSELVES
BUT ARE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE ROAD-SURFACING MIXTURE FOR THE
USES SHOWN ARE ENGAGED IN THE "PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" AND
ARE WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  PP. 13-17. 

ALSTATE CONSTRUCTION CO. V. DURKIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED PETITIONER FROM VIOLATING THE OVERTIME
AND RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  95 F.
SUPP. 585.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  195 F.2D 577.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 895.  AFFIRMED, P. 17. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PAY EACH EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF
TIMES HIS REGULAR PAY RATE FOR EVERY HOUR WORKED IN EXCESS OF A FORTY
HOUR WEEK; SEC. 11(C) REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO KEEP APPROPRIATE EMPLOYMENT
RECORDS.  (FN1) EMPLOYEES COVERED ARE DEFINED AS THOSE "ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  WE HAVE HELD
THAT EMPLOYEES REPAIRING INTERSTATE ROADS OR RAILROADS ARE "ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT CLAUSE OF SEC. 7(A).  (FN2)  THE
QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER EMPLOYEES WHO WORK OFF SUCH
ROADS IN THE PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS TO REPAIR THEM ARE ENGAGED "IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7(A). 

THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR SUED IN DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE
PETITIONER ALSTATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FROM VIOLATING THE OVERTIME AND
RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND:
ALSTATE IS A PENNSYLVANIA ROAD CONTRACTOR THAT RECONSTRUCTS AND REPAIRS
ROADS, RAILROADS, PARKWAYS AND LIKE FACILITIES IN THAT STATE.  THE
COMPANY ALSO MANUFACTURES AT THREE PENNSYLVANIA PLANTS A BITUMINOUS
CONCRETE ROAD SURFACING MIXTURE CALLED AMESITE MADE FROM MATERIALS
EITHER BOUGHT OR QUARRIED IN PENNSYLVANIA.  MOST OF IT IS APPLIED TO
PENNSYLVANIA ROADS EITHER BY ALSTATE'S OWN EMPLOYEES OR BY ALSTATE'S
CUSTOMERS.  EIGHTY-FIVE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT OF ALSTATE'S WORK HERE
INVOLVED WAS DONE ON INTERSTATE ROADS, RAILROADS, OR FOR PENNSYLVANIA
COMPANIES PRODUCING GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND 14 1/2% WAS DONE
ON PROJECTS THAT DID NOT RELATE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ALSTATE MADE
NO ATTEMPT TO SEGREGATE PAYMENTS TO ITS EMPLOYEES ON THE BASIS OF
WHETHER THEIR WORK INVOLVED INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT ALL OF ALSTATE'S EMPLOYEES WERE COVERED
BY THE ACT AND GRANTED THE INJUNCTION PRAYED.  95 F. SUPP. 585.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, HOLDING THAT THOSE
EMPLOYEES OF ALSTATE WHO WORKED ON ROADS WERE "IN COMMERCE," AND THAT
ITS "OFF-THE-ROAD" PLANT EMPLOYEES WERE PRODUCING ROAD MATERIALS "FOR
COMMERCE."  195 F.2D 577.  ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPLIED THE ACT TO "OFF-THE-ROAD" EMPLOYEES.  TOBIN
V. JOHNSON, 198 F.2D 130.  AN OPPOSITE RESULT WAS REACHED BY THE TENTH
CIRCUIT IN E.C. SCHROEDER CO. V. CLIFTON, 153 F.2D 385, AND THE SUPREME
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THOMAS V. HEMPT BROS., 371 PA. 383, 89 A.2D
776.  TO SETTLE THIS QUESTION WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS AND THE
HEMPT BROS. CASE.  344 U.S. 895. 

AMESITE IS PRODUCED IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR USE ON PENNSYLVANIA ROADS. 
NONE OF IT IS MANUFACTURED WITH A PURPOSE TO SHIP IT ACROSS STATE
LINES.  FOR THIS REASON, SO ALSTATE CONTENDS, AMESITE IS NOT PRODUCED
"FOR COMMERCE."  OBVIOUSLY, ACCEPTANCE OF THIS CONTENTION WOULD REQUIRE
US TO READ "PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" AS THOUGH WRITTEN
"PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR TRANSPORTATION IN COMMERCE" - THAT IS, ACROSS
STATE LINES.  SUCH LIMITING LANGUAGE DID APPEAR IN THE BILL AS IT
PASSED THE SENATE, (FN3) BUT CONGRESS LEFT IT OUT OF THE ACT AS
PASSED.  OF COURSE PRODUCTION OF "GOODS" FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHIPPING
THEM ACROSS STATE LINES IS PRODUCTION "FOR COMMERCE."  BUT WE COULD NOT
HOLD - CONSISTENTLY WITH OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125,
AND PEDERSEN V. FITZGERALD CONSTRUCTION CO., 318 U.S. 740 - THAT THE
ONLY WAY TO PRODUCE GOODS "FOR COMMERCE" IS TO PRODUCE THEM FOR
TRANSPORTATION ACROSS STATE LINES. 

IN THE OVERSTREET AND PEDERSEN CASES, SUPRA, WE HAD TO DECIDE WHETHER
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN REPAIRING INTERSTATE ROADS AND RAILROADS WERE "IN
COMMERCE."  IN OVERSTREET WE POINTED OUT THAT INTERSTATE ROADS AND
RAILROADS ARE INDISPENSABLE "INSTRUMENTALITIES" IN THE CARRIAGE OF
PERSONS AND GOODS THAT MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE THEN HELD THAT
BECAUSE ROADS AND RAILROADS ARE IN LAW AND IN FACT INTEGRATED AND
INDISPENSABLE PARTS OF OUR SYSTEM OF COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES,
EMPLOYEES REPAIRING THEM ARE "IN COMMERCE."  CONSEQUENTLY HE WHO SERVES
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS AND RAILROADS SERVES COMMERCE.  BY THE SAME TOKEN
HE WHO PRODUCES GOODS FOR THESE INDISPENSABLE AND INSEPARABLE PARTS OF
COMMERCE PRODUCES GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT
ALSTATE'S OFF-THE-ROAD EMPLOYEES WERE COVERED BY THE ACT BECAUSE
ENGAGED IN "PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE." 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT WE SHOULD NOT CONSTRUE THE ACT AS COVERING THE
"OFF-THE-ROAD" EMPLOYEES BECAUSE IT WAS GIVEN A CONTRARY INTERPRETATION
BY ITS ADMINISTRATORS FROM 1938 UNTIL 1945.  DURING THESE FIRST YEARS
AFTER THE ACT'S PASSAGE THE ADMINISTRATOR DID TAKE SUCH A POSITION. 
BUT MORE EXPERIENCE WITH THE ACT TOGETHER WITH JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF
ITS SCOPE (FN4) CONVINCED ITS ADMINISTRATORS THAT THE FIRST
INTERPRETATION WAS UNJUSTIFIABLY NARROW.  HE THEREFORE PUBLICLY
ANNOUNCED THAT OFF-THE-ROAD EMPLOYEES LIKE THESE WERE PROTECTED BY THE
ACT.  THE NEW INTERPRETATION WAS REPORTED TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES
ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS.  INTERESTED EMPLOYERS SEVERELY CRITICIZED THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S CHANGES.  SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS WERE URGED TO NEUTRALIZE
HIS INTERPRETATION.  SUCH NEUTRALIZING AMENDMENTS WERE SUGGESTED TO
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES BY THE NATIONAL SAND AND GRAVEL ASSOCIATION
WHICH HAS FILED A BRIEF BEFORE US AS AMICUS CURIAE.  (FN5) INSTEAD OF
ADOPTING ANY OF THE SUGGESTIONS TO UNDERMINE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
INTERPRETATION, CONGRESS IN A 1949 AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT PROVIDED THAT ALL PAST ORDERS, REGULATIONS AND
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT "EXCEPT TO
THE EXTENT THAT ANY SUCH ORDER, REGULATION, INTERPRETATION,  ...  MAY
BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR MAY FROM TIME TO
TIME BE AMENDED, MODIFIED, OR RESCINDED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR  ...  ." 
(FN6) 

WE DECLINE TO REPUDIATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT
WHICH CONGRESS REFUSED TO REPUDIATE AFTER BEING REPEATEDLY URGED TO DO
SO. 

THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO THE SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTION, BUT WE ARE
SATISFIED WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS' TREATMENT OF THIS CONTENTION. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, AS AMENDED, 63 STAT. 910, 912-913, 29 U.S.C.
SECS. 207(A), 211(C). 

FN2  OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125; PEDERSEN V.
FITZGERALD CONSTRUCTION CO., 318 U.S. 740, REVERSING 288 N.Y. 687, 43
N.E.2D 83, ON THE AUTHORITY OF OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., SUPRA. 

FN3  81 CONG. REC. 7957. 

FN4  FLEMING V. ATLANTIC CO., 40 F. SUPP. 654, AFFIRMED SUB NOM.
ATLANTIC CO. V. WALLING, 131 F.2D 518; LEWIS V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
CO., 154 F.2D 751; SOUTHERN UNITED ICE CO. V. HENDRIX, 153 F.2D 689;
CHAPMAN V. HOME ICE CO., 136 F.2D 353. 

FN5  SEE FOR ILLUSTRATION HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 4 OF HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ON H.R. 40, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1374
1375. 

FN6  63 STAT. 910, 920. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE COURT REASONS THAT IF THE MAN WHO IS BUILDING OR REPAIRING AN
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY IS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE," THE ONE WHO CARRIES CEMENT
AND GRAVEL TO HIM FROM A NEARBY PIT IS "ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  YET IF THAT IS TRUE, HOW ABOUT THE MEN WHO
PRODUCE THE TOOLS FOR THOSE WHO CARRY THE CEMENT AND GRAVEL OR THOSE
WHO FURNISH THE MATERIALS TO MAKE THE TOOLS USED IN PRODUCING THE
CEMENT AND GRAVEL?  EACH WOULD BE ESSENTIAL TO THE HIGHWAY WORKER
"ENGAGED IN COMMERCE."  YET THE CIRCLE GETS AMAZINGLY LARGE ONCE WE SAY
THAT "THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" INCLUDES THE "PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE."  CF. MCLEOD V. THRELKELD, 319
U.S. 491. 

A PERSON WHO IS MAINTAINING OR REPAIRING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES IS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE."  OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP.,
318 U.S. 125.  A PERSON WHO IS CREATING ARTICLES DESTINED FOR THE
CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ALL OTHERS WHO HAVE SUCH A CLOSE
AND IMMEDIATE CONNECTION WITH THE PROCESS AS TO BE AN ESSENTIAL OR
NECESSARY PART OF IT ARE ENGAGED IN "THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE."  SEE KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517.  IF THOSE WHO
SERVE THOSE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" ARE ALSO INCLUDED, A LARGE MEASURE OF
CASES AFFECTING COMMERCE ARE BROUGHT INTO THE ACT.  YET THE HISTORY OF
THE ACT SHOWS THAT NO SUCH EXTENSION OF THE FEDERAL DOMAIN WAS
INTENDED.  SEE KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, PP. 522-523.  IF THOSE
WHOSE ACTIVITIES ARE NECESSARY OR ESSENTIAL TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO ARE
"ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" ARE TO BE BROUGHT UNDER THE ACT, I THINK AN
AMENDMENT OF THE ACT WOULD BE NECESSARY. 
..END :







THOMAS V. HEMPT BROTHERS 345 U.S. 19 


NO. 410.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 371 PA. 383,
89 A.2D 776, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER SUED RESPONDENT FOR OVERTIME PAY, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND
COUNSEL FEES UNDER SECS. 6, 7 AND 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT, ALLEGING THAT HE WAS EMPLOYED IN PRODUCING ROAD-BUILDING MATERIALS
IN PENNSYLVANIA WHICH WERE SOLD FOR USE IN PENNSYLVANIA BY AN
INTERSTATE ROAD, RAILROAD AND AIRPORT AND OTHER CUSTOMERS WHO USED THEM
ON PROJECTS WHICH "AIDED THE FLOW OF COMMERCE."  HELD:  A JUDGMENT FOR
RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION UNDER THE ACT IS REVERSED ON THE AUTHORITY OF ALSTATE
CONSTRUCTION CO. V. DURKIN, ANTE, P. 13.  PP. 19-21. 

THOMAS V. HEMPT BROTHERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUSTAINED A TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT
FOR RESPONDENT.  371 PA. 383, 89 A.2D 776.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 895.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 21. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER THOMAS SUED THE RESPONDENT HEMPT BROTHERS IN A
PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TO RECOVER OVERTIME WAGES,
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND COUNSEL FEES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 6, 7
AND 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.*  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED
THESE FACTS:  HEMPT BROTHERS OPERATE A STONE QUARRY IN PENNSYLVANIA,
USE THE STONE IN MANUFACTURING CEMENT MIXTURES, AND THEN HAUL THESE
MIXTURES IN TRUCKS TO CUSTOMERS.  THEIR CUSTOMERS WERE THE PENNSYLVANIA
TURNPIKE, THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, AN AIRPORT, AN ARMY DEPOT,
AND A NAVY DEPOT, ALL LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THE
CONCRETE WAS PROCESSED FOR USE BY THESE CUSTOMERS ON PENNSYLVANIA
PROJECTS.  THE RAILROAD USED ITS CONCRETE FOR REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF
ITS ROADBEDS OVER WHICH WERE OPERATED INTERSTATE PASSENGER AND FREIGHT
TRAINS.  THE TURNPIKE USED ITS CONCRETE FOR LAYING AND BUILDING "A
HIGHWAY WHICH HANDLES THE FLOW OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES."  THE
AIRPORT USED CONCRETE TO BUILD AND ERECT LANDING FIELDS TO ACCOMMODATE
THE FLOW OF AIRPLANES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  OTHER PURCHASERS USED
THEIR CONCRETE ON "PROJECTS WHICH AIDED THE FLOW OF COMMERCE, AS WILL
BE PROVEN BY PLAINTIFF WHEN HE HAS HIS DAY IN COURT."  THOMAS WAS
EMPLOYED IN PRODUCING AND HANDLING THE QUARRY AND CONCRETE PRODUCTS. 

*52 STAT. 1060, AS AMENDED, 63 STAT. 910, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 206, 207,
216(B). 

ON THESE ALLEGATIONS THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUSTAINED THE
TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR HEMPT BROTHERS ENTERED ON THE GROUND THAT
THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO SHOW A RECOVERABLE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  371 PA. 383, 89 A.2D 776.  AND SEE 62 PA.
D.&C. 618, 626 (1948); AND 74 PA. D.&C. 213, 218 (1950).  IN SUSTAINING
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT THE STATE SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT ITS
HOLDING WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THAT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN TOBIN V.
ALSTATE CONSTRUCTION CO., 195 F.2D 577.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF THIS CONFLICT.  344 U.S. 895. 

WE HAVE TODAY AFFIRMED THE COURT OF APPEALS' JUDGMENT IN THE ALSTATE
CASE, ANTE, P. 13.  THE REASONS WE GAVE FOR AFFIRMING THAT CASE REQUIRE
THAT THIS CASE BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE STATE COURTS ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO SET OUT A GOOD CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THAT COURT
FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT FOR THE
REASONS STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN NO. 296, ALSTATE
CONSTRUCTION CO. V. DURKIN, ANTE, P. 17. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. KAHRIGER 345 U.S. 22 


NO. 167.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16-17, 1952 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 105 F.
SUPP. 322, REVERSED. 


PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951, 26 U.S.C. SECS. 3285-3294, LEVY
AN OCCUPATIONAL TAX OF $50 PER YEAR ON PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS
OF ACCEPTING WAGERS; REQUIRE SUCH PERSONS TO REGISTER WITH THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE; AND PENALIZE FAILURE TO PAY THE TAX AND
TO REGISTER.  HELD: 

1.  THE TAX IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER AND IS
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN INFRINGEMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON
THE POLICE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  PP.
23-31. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT THE TAX HAS A REGULATORY EFFECT UPON WAGERING, AND
BRINGS ABOUT A RESULT THAT IS BEYOND THE DIRECT LEGISLATIVE POWER OF
CONGRESS, DOES NOT RENDER IT INVALID.  PP. 26-31. 

(B)  THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS ARE VALID AS IN AID OF A REVENUE
PURPOSE.  PP. 31-32. 

2.  THE TAX PROVISIONS DO NOT CONTRAVENE THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 31-33. 

(A)  THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION RELATES ONLY TO PAST
ACTS, NOT TO FUTURE ACTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE COMMITTED.  P. 32. 

(B)  UNDER THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS, A PERSON SUBJECT TO THE TAX
IS NOT COMPELLED TO CONFESS TO ACTS ALREADY COMMITTED; HE IS MERELY
INFORMED THAT IN ORDER TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF WAGERING IN THE
FUTURE HE MUST FULFILL CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  PP. 32-33. 

3.  THE STATUTE IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ON THE
GROUND THAT THE CLASSIFICATION IS ARBITRARY BECAUSE SOME WAGERING
TRANSACTIONS ARE EXCLUDED, NOR ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTORY
DEFINITIONS ARE VAGUE.  PP. 33-34. 

UNITED STATES V. KAHRIGER. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

AN INFORMATION CHARGING APPELLEE WITH WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY THE
OCCUPATIONAL TAX IMPOSED BY 26 U.S.C. SEC. 3290 AND TO REGISTER
THEREFOR AS REQUIRED BY 26 U.S.C. SEC. 3291, WAS DISMISSED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
105 F. SUPP. 322.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER
18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731.  REVERSED, P. 34. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE RAISED BY THIS APPEAL IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
OCCUPATIONAL TAX PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951, (FN1) WHICH
LEVY A TAX ON PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ACCEPTING WAGERS, AND
REQUIRE SUCH PERSONS TO REGISTER WITH THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE.  THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TAX IS ASSERTED ON TWO
GROUNDS.  FIRST, IT IS SAID THAT CONGRESS, UNDER THE PRETENSE OF
EXERCISING ITS POWER TO TAX HAS ATTEMPTED TO PENALIZE ILLEGAL
INTRASTATE GAMBLING THROUGH THE REGULATORY FEATURES OF THE ACT (26
U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3291) AND HAS THUS INFRINGED THE POLICE POWER
WHICH IS RESERVED TO THE STATES.  SECONDLY, IT IS URGED THAT THE
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS OF THE TAX VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION AND ARE ARBITRARY AND VAGUE, CONTRARY TO THE GUARANTEES
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH 18 U.S.C. SEC.
3731, FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, WHERE AN INFORMATION WAS FILED AGAINST APPELLEE ALLEGING
THAT HE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF ACCEPTING WAGERS AND THAT HE WILLFULLY
FAILED TO REGISTER FOR AND PAY THE OCCUPATIONAL TAX IN QUESTION. 
APPELLEE MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SECTIONS UPON WHICH
THE INFORMATION WAS BASED WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINED THE MOTION ON THE AUTHORITY OF OUR OPINION IN UNITED STATES
V. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287.  THE COURT REASONED THAT WHILE "THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS LEGISLATION SO FAR AS REVENUE PURPOSES IS
CONCERNED IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITIES," THE TAX WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY THE REGISTRATION
PROVISIONS WAS "PECULIARLY APPLICABLE TO THE APPLICANT FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND VICE CONTROL," AND THEREFORE THE
WHOLE OF THE LEGISLATION WAS AN INFRINGEMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ON THE POLICE POWER RESERVED TO THE STATES BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 
UNITED STATES V. KAHRIGER, 105 F. SUPP. 322, 323. 

THE RESULT BELOW IS AT ODDS WITH THE POSITION OF THE SEVEN OTHER
DISTRICT COURTS WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER, (FN2) AND, IN OUR
OPINION, IS ERRONEOUS. 

IN THE TERM FOLLOWING THE CONSTANTINE OPINION, THIS COURT POINTED OUT
IN SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506, AT 513 (A CASE INVOLVING A
TAX ON A "LIMITED CLASS" OF OBJECTIONABLE FIREARMS ALLEGED TO BE
PROHIBITORY IN EFFECT AND "TO DISCLOSE UNMISTAKABLY THE LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE TO REGULATE RATHER THAN TO TAX"), THAT THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX
IN CONSTANTINE WAS "DESCRIBED OR TREATED AS CRIMINAL BY THE TAXING
STATUTE."  THE TAX IN THE CONSTANTINE CASE WAS A SPECIAL ADDITIONAL
EXCISE TAX OF $1,000, PLACED ONLY ON PERSONS WHO CARRIED ON A LIQUOR
BUSINESS IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.  THE WAGERING TAX WITH WHICH WE ARE
HERE CONCERNED APPLIES TO ALL PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
RECEIVING WAGERS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH ACTIVITY VIOLATES STATE
LAW. 

THE SUBSTANCE OF RESPONDENT'S POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE TENTH
AMENDMENT IS THAT CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO TAX A SPECIFIED BUSINESS WHICH
IS NOT WITHIN ITS POWER TO REGULATE.  THE PRECEDENTS ARE MANY UPHOLDING
TAXES SIMILAR TO THIS WAGERING TAX AS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL
TAXING POWER.  IN THE LICENSE TAX CASES, 5 WALL.  462, THE CONTROVERSY
AROSE OUT OF INDICTMENTS FOR SELLING LOTTERY TICKETS AND RETAILING
LIQUOR IN VARIOUS STATES WITHOUT HAVING FIRST OBTAINED AND PAID FOR A
LICENSE UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE ACT OF CONGRESS.  THE OBJECTING
TAXPAYERS URGED THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX OR
REGULATE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON WITHIN A STATE.  P. 470.  THE COURT
POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS HAD "NO POWER OF REGULATION NOR ANY DIRECT
CONTROL" (5 WALL., AT 470, 471) OVER THE BUSINESS THERE INVOLVED.  THE
COURT SAID THAT, IF THE LICENSES WERE TO BE REGARDED AS BY THEMSELVES
GIVING AUTHORITY TO CARRY ON THE LICENSED BUSINESS, IT MIGHT BE
IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCILE THE GRANTING OF THEM WITH THE CONSTITUTION.  P.
471. 

"BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REGARD THESE LAWS AS GIVING SUCH
AUTHORITY.  SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO TRADE WITHIN STATE LIMITS, THEY
GIVE NONE, AND CAN GIVE NONE.  THEY SIMPLY EXPRESS THE PURPOSE OF THE
GOVERNMENT NOT TO INTERFERE BY PENAL PROCEEDINGS WITH THE TRADE
NOMINALLY LICENSED, IF THE REQUIRED TAXES ARE PAID.  THE POWER TO TAX
IS NOT QUESTIONED, NOR THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR NON-PAYMENT OF
TAXES.  THE GRANTING OF A LICENSE, THEREFORE, MUST BE REGARDED AS
NOTHING MORE THAN A MERE FORM OF IMPOSING A TAX, AND OF IMPLYING
NOTHING EXCEPT THAT THE LICENSEE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO NO PENALTIES UNDER
NATIONAL LAW, IF HE PAYS IT."  ID., AT 471. 

APPELLEE WOULD HAVE US SAY THAT, BECAUSE THERE IS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
(FN3) INDICATING A CONGRESSIONAL MOTIVE TO SUPPRESS WAGERING, THIS TAX
IS NOT A PROPER EXERCISE OF SUCH TAXING POWER.  IN THE LICENSE TAX
CASES, SUPRA, IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE FEDERAL LICENSE "DISCOURAGED"
THE ACTIVITIES.  THE INTENT TO CURTAIL AND HINDER, AS WELL AS TAX, WAS
ALSO MANIFEST IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, AND IN EACH OF THEM THE TAX WAS
UPHELD:  VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8 WALL.  533 (TAX ON PAPER MONEY ISSUED
BY STATE BANKS); MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, 59 (TAX ON
COLORED OLEOMARGARINE); UNITED STATES V. DOREMUS, 249 U.S. 86, AND
NIGRO V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 332 (TAX ON NARCOTICS); SONZINSKY V.
UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506 (TAX ON FIREARMS); UNITED STATES V.
SANCHEZ, 340 U.S. 42 (TAX ON MARIHUANA). 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT A FEDERAL EXCISE TAX DOES NOT CEASE TO BE VALID
MERELY BECAUSE IT DISCOURAGES OR DETERS THE ACTIVITIES TAXED.  NOR IS
THE TAX INVALID BECAUSE THE REVENUE OBTAINED IS NEGLIGIBLE.  APPELLEE,
HOWEVER, ARGUES THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS TO PENALIZE
ONLY ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE STATES THROUGH THE GUISE OF A TAX
MEASURE.  AS WITH THE ABOVE EXCISE TAXES WHICH WE HAVE HELD TO BE
VALID, THE INSTANT TAX HAS A REGULATORY EFFECT.  BUT REGARDLESS OF ITS
REGULATORY EFFECT, THE WAGERING TAX PRODUCES REVENUE.  AS SUCH IT
SURPASSES BOTH THE NARCOTICS AND FIREARMS TAXES WHICH WE HAVE FOUND
VALID.  (FN4) 

IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO TAX IS EXTENSIVE AND
SOMETIMES FALLS WITH CRUSHING EFFECT ON BUSINESSES DEEMED UNESSENTIAL
OR INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE, OR WHERE, AS IN DEALINGS WITH
NARCOTICS, THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX ALSO IS DIFFICULT.  AS IS WELL
KNOWN, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS ON TAXING ARE FEW.  "CONGRESS
CANNOT TAX EXPORTS, AND IT MUST IMPOSE DIRECT TAXES BY THE RULE OF
APPORTIONMENT, AND INDIRECT TAXES BY THE RULE OF UNIFORMITY."  LICENSE
TAX CASES, SUPRA, AT 471.  (FN5)  THE REMEDY FOR EXCESSIVE TAXATION IS
IN THE HANDS OF CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.  VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8
WALL.  533, 548.  SPEAKING OF THE CREATION OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED
STATES, AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR CARRYING OUT FEDERAL FISCAL POLICIES, THIS
COURT SAID IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 423: 

"SHOULD CONGRESS, IN THE EXECUTION OF ITS POWERS, ADOPT MEASURES
WHICH ARE PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION; OR SHOULD CONGRESS, UNDER THE
PRETEXT OF EXECUTING ITS POWERS, PASS LAWS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
OBJECTS NOT ENTRUSTED TO THE GOVERNMENT; IT WOULD BECOME THE PAINFUL
DUTY OF THIS TRIBUNAL, SHOULD A CASE REQUIRING SUCH A DECISION COME
BEFORE IT, TO SAY THAT SUCH AN ACT WAS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND.  BUT
WHERE THE LAW IS NOT PROHIBITED, AND IS REALLY CALCULATED TO EFFECT ANY
OF THE OBJECTS ENTRUSTED TO THE GOVERNMENT, TO UNDERTAKE HERE TO
INQUIRE INTO THE DEGREE OF ITS NECESSITY, WOULD BE TO PASS THE LINE
WHICH CIRCUMSCRIBES THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, AND TO TREAD ON
LEGISLATIVE GROUND.  THIS COURT DISCLAIMS ALL PRETENSIONS TO SUCH A
POWER." 

THE DIFFICULTY OF SAYING WHEN THE POWER TO LAY UNIFORM TAXES IS
CURTAILED, BECAUSE ITS USE BRINGS A RESULT BEYOND THE DIRECT
LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS, HAS GIVEN RISE TO DIVERSE DECISIONS.  IN
THAT AREA OF ABSTRACT IDEAS, A FINAL DEFINITION OF THE LINE BETWEEN
STATE AND FEDERAL POWER HAS BAFFLED JUDGES AND LEGISLATORS. 

WHILE THE COURT HAS NEVER QUESTIONED THE ABOVE-QUOTED STATEMENT OF
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN THE MCCULLOCH CASE, THE APPLICATION OF
THE RULE HAS BROUGHT VARYING HOLDINGS ON CONSTITUTIONALITY.  WHERE
FEDERAL LEGISLATION HAS RESTED ON OTHER CONGRESSIONAL POWERS, SUCH AS
THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE OR THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THIS COURT HAS
GENERALLY SUSTAINED THE STATUTES, DESPITE THEIR EFFECT ON MATTERS
ORDINARILY CONSIDERED STATE CONCERN.  WHEN FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE IS
FOUND, ITS EXERCISE IS A MATTER FOR CONGRESS.  (FN6)  WHERE CONGRESS
HAS EMPLOYED THE TAXING CLAUSE A GREATER VARIATION IN THE DECISIONS HAS
RESULTED.  THE DIVISION IN THIS COURT HAS BEEN MORE ACUTE.  WITHOUT ANY
SPECIFIC DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE POWER TO TAX AND OTHER FEDERAL
POWERS, THE INDIRECT RESULTS FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO TAX HAVE
RAISED MORE DOUBTS.  THIS IS STRIKINGLY ILLUSTRATED BY THE SHIFTING
COURSE OF ADJUDICATION IN TAXATION OF THE HANDLING OF NARCOTICS.  (FN7)
THE TAX GROUND IN THE VEAZIE BANK CASE, SUPRA, RECOGNIZED THAT
STRICTLY STATE GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO PASS LAWS,
WERE BEYOND THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER.  (FN8)  THAT CASE ALLOWED A TAX,
HOWEVER, THAT OBLITERATED FROM CIRCULATION ALL STATE BANK NOTES.  A
REASON WAS THAT "THE JUDICIAL CANNOT PRESCRIBE TO THE LEGISLATIVE
DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT LIMITATIONS UPON THE EXERCISE OF ITS
ACKNOWLEDGED POWERS."  ID., AT 548.  THE TAX CASES CITED ABOVE IN THE
THIRD PRECEDING PARAGRAPH FOLLOWED THAT THEORY.  IT IS HARD TO
UNDERSTAND WHY THE POWER TO TAX SHOULD RAISE MORE DOUBTS BECAUSE OF
INDIRECT EFFECTS THAN OTHER FEDERAL POWERS.  (FN9) 

PENALTY PROVISIONS IN TAX STATUTES ADDED FOR BREACH OF A REGULATION
CONCERNING ACTIVITIES IN THEMSELVES SUBJECT ONLY TO STATE REGULATION
HAVE CAUSED THIS COURT TO DECLARE THE ENACTMENTS INVALID.  (FN10)
UNLESS THERE ARE PROVISIONS EXTRANEOUS TO ANY TAX NEED, COURTS ARE
WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO LIMIT THE EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER.  (FN11)
ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS EXCISE ARE ADAPTED TO THE COLLECTION OF A
VALID TAX. 

NOR DO WE FIND THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE WAGERING TAX
OFFENSIVE.  ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THE FILING OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND
PLACES OF BUSINESS.  THIS IS QUITE GENERAL IN TAX RETURNS.  (FN12)
SUCH DATA ARE DIRECTLY AND INTIMATELY RELATED TO THE COLLECTION OF THE
TAX AND ARE "OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTABLE AS IN AID OF A REVENUE PURPOSE." 
SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506, AT 513.  THE REGISTRATION
PROVISIONS MAKE THE TAX SIMPLER TO COLLECT. 

APPELLEE'S SECOND ASSERTION IS THAT THE WAGERING TAX IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS A DENIAL OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

SINCE APPELLEE FAILED TO REGISTER FOR THE WAGERING TAX, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW HE CAN NOW CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE EVEN ASSUMING THAT
THE DISCLOSURE OF VIOLATIONS OF LAW IS CALLED FOR.  IN UNITED STATES V.
SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF REFUSING TO FILE AN
INCOME TAX RETURN.  IT WAS ASSUMED THAT HIS INCOME "WAS DERIVED FROM
BUSINESS IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT."  ID., AT 263. 
"AS THE DEFENDANT'S INCOME WAS TAXED, THE STATUTE OF COURSE REQUIRED A
RETURN.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SISCHO, 262 U.S. 165.  IN THE DECISION
THAT THIS WAS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WAS PRESSED TOO FAR.  IF THE FORM OF
RETURN PROVIDED CALLED FOR ANSWERS THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PRIVILEGED
FROM MAKING HE COULD HAVE RAISED THE OBJECTION IN THE RETURN, BUT COULD
NOT ON THAT ACCOUNT REFUSE TO MAKE ANY RETURN AT ALL."  274 U.S., AT
263. 

ASSUMING THAT RESPONDENT CAN RAISE THE SELF-INCRIMINATION ISSUE, THAT
PRIVILEGE HAS RELATION ONLY TO PAST ACTS, NOT TO FUTURE ACTS THAT MAY
OR MAY NOT BE COMMITTED.  8 WIGMORE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 2259C.  IF
RESPONDENT WISHES TO TAKE WAGERS SUBJECT TO EXCISE TAXES UNDER SEC.
3285, SUPRA, HE MUST PAY AN OCCUPATIONAL TAX AND REGISTER.  UNDER THE
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS OF THE WAGERING TAX, APPELLEE IS NOT COMPELLED
TO CONFESS TO ACTS ALREADY COMMITTED, HE IS MERELY INFORMED BY THE
STATUTE THAT IN ORDER TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF WAGERING IN THE
FUTURE HE MUST FULFILL CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  (FN13) 

FINALLY, WE CONSIDER RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL WAS CORRECT BECAUSE A CONVICTION UNDER THE SECTIONS IN
QUESTION WOULD VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BECAUSE THE
CLASSIFICATION IS ARBITRARY AND THE STATUTORY DEFINITIONS ARE VAGUE. 
(FN14)  THE APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS ARE 26 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
3285(B), (D) AND (E).  (FN15)  THE ARBITRARINESS IS SAID TO ARISE FROM
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE SOME WAGERING ACTIVITIES ARE EXCLUDED.  THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A TAX STATUTE COVER ALL PHASES OF A
TAXED OR LICENSED BUSINESS.  (FN16)  RESPONDENT PREDICATES VAGUENESS OF
THE STATUTE UPON THE USE, IN DEFINING THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX, OF THE
DESCRIPTION "ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS" OF WAGERING AND "USUALLY" IN SEC.
3285(B)(2).  WE HAVE NO DOUBT THE DEFINITIONS MAKE CLEAR THE ACTIVITIES
COVERED AND EXCLUDED.  REVERSED.    FN1  26 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
3285: 

"(A)  WAGERS. 

"THERE SHALL BE IMPOSED ON WAGERS, AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION (B), AN
EXCISE TAX EQUAL TO 10 PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT THEREOF.        *
*         *         *         * 

"(D)  PERSONS LIABLE FOR TAX. 

"EACH PERSON WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ACCEPTING WAGERS SHALL
BE LIABLE FOR AND SHALL PAY THE TAX UNDER THIS SUBCHAPTER ON ALL WAGERS
PLACED WITH HIM.  EACH PERSON WHO CONDUCTS ANY WAGERING POOL OR LOTTERY
SHALL BE LIABLE FOR AND SHALL PAY THE TAX UNDER THIS SUBCHAPTER ON ALL
WAGERS PLACED IN SUCH POOL OR LOTTERY. 

"(E)  EXCLUSIONS FROM TAX. 

"NO TAX SHALL BE IMPOSED BY THIS SUBCHAPTER (1) ON ANY WAGER PLACED
WITH, OR ON ANY WAGER PLACED IN A WAGERING POOL CONDUCTED BY, A
PARIMUTUEL WAGERING ENTERPRISE LICENSED UNDER STATE LAW, AND (2) ON ANY
WAGER PLACED IN A COIN-OPERATED DEVICE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH AN
OCCUPATIONAL TAX IS IMPOSED BY SECTION 3267." 

26 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3290: 

"A SPECIAL TAX OF $50 PER YEAR SHALL BE PAID BY EACH PERSON WHO IS
LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER SUBCHAPTER A OR WHO IS ENGAGED IN RECEIVING WAGERS
FOR OR ON BEHALF OF ANY PERSON SO LIABLE." 

26 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3291: 

"(A)  EACH PERSON REQUIRED TO PAY A SPECIAL TAX UNDER THIS SUBCHAPTER
SHALL REGISTER WITH THE COLLECTOR OF THE DISTRICT: 

"(1)  HIS NAME AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE: 

"(2)  IF HE IS LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER SUBCHAPTER A, EACH PLACE OF
BUSINESS WHERE THE ACTIVITY WHICH MAKES HIM SO LIABLE IS CARRIED ON,
AND THE NAME AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF EACH PERSON WHO IS ENGAGED IN
RECEIVING WAGERS FOR HIM OR ON HIS BEHALF; AND: 

"(3)  IF HE IS ENGAGED IN RECEIVING WAGERS FOR OR ON BEHALF OF ANY
PERSON LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER SUBCHAPTER A, THE NAME AND PLACE OF
RESIDENCE OF EACH SUCH PERSON." 

26 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3294: 

"(A)  FAILURE TO PAY TAX. 

"ANY PERSON WHO DOES ANY ACT WHICH MAKES HIM LIABLE FOR SPECIAL TAX
UNDER THIS SUBCHAPTER, WITHOUT HAVING PAID SUCH TAX, SHALL, BESIDES
BEING LIABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX, BE FINED NOT LESS THAN $1,000
AND NOT MORE THAN $5,000. 

     *         *         *         *    * 

"(C)  WILLFUL VIOLATIONS. 

"THE PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 2707 WITH RESPECT TO THE TAX
IMPOSED BY SECTION 2700 SHALL APPLY WITH RESPECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY
THIS SUBCHAPTER." 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 106 F. SUPP. 9 (D.C.S.D. CAL.); UNITED
STATES V. NADLER, 105 F. SUPP. 918 (D.C.N.D. CAL.); UNITED STATES V.
FORRESTER, 105 F. SUPP. 136 (D.C.N.D. GA.); UNITED STATES V. ROBINSON,
107 F. SUPP. 38 (D.C.E.D. MICH.); UNITED STATES V. ARNOLD, JORDAN, AND
WINGATE, NO. 478 (D.C.E.D. VA.), SEPTEMBER 18, 1952; UNITED STATES V.
PENN, NO. 2021 (D.C.M.D.N.C.), MAY 1952; COMBS V. SNYDER, 101 F. SUPP.
531 (D.D.C.), AFFIRMED, 342 U.S. 939. 

FN3  THERE ARE SUGGESTIONS IN THE DEBATES THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT TO
HINDER, IF NOT PREVENT, THE TYPE OF GAMBLING TAXED.  SEE 97 CONG. REC.
6892: 

"MR. HOFFMAN OF MICHIGAN.  THEN I WILL RENEW MY OBSERVATION THAT IT
MIGHT IF PROPERLY CONSTRUED BE CONSIDERED AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY ON THE
ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. 

"MR. COOPER.  CERTAINLY, AND WE MIGHT INDULGE THE HOPE THAT THE
IMPOSITION OF THIS TYPE OF TAX WOULD ELIMINATE THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY." 
97 CONG. REC. 12236:  "IF THE LOCAL OFFICIAL DOES NOT WANT TO ENFORCE
THE LAW AND NO ONE CATCHES HIM WINKING AT THE LAW, HE MAY KEEP ON
WINKING AT IT, BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IDENTIFIES A LAW
VIOLATOR, AND THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER GETS HOLD OF IT, AND THE LOCAL CHURCH
ORGANIZATIONS GET HOLD OF IT, AND THE PEOPLE WHO DO WANT THE LAW
ENFORCED GET HOLD OF IT, THEY SAY, 'MR. SHERIFF, WHAT ABOUT IT?  WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A PLACE DOWN HERE LICENSED TO SELL LIQUOR.' 
HE SAYS, 'IS THAT SO?  I WILL PUT HIM OUT OF BUSINESS.'" 

FN4  ONE OF THE INDICIA WHICH APPELLEE OFFERS TO SUPPORT HIS
CONTENTION THAT THE WAGERING TAX IS NOT A PROPER REVENUE MEASURE IS
THAT THE TAX AMOUNT COLLECTED UNDER IT WAS $4,371,869, AS COMPARED WITH
AN EXPECTED AMOUNT OF $400,000,000 A YEAR.  THE FIGURE OF $4,371,869,
HOWEVER, IS RELATIVELY LARGE WHEN IT IS COMPARED WITH THE $3,501
COLLECTED UNDER THE TAX ON ADULTERATED AND PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER
AND FILLED CHEESE, THE $914,910 COLLECTED UNDER THE TAX ON NARCOTICS,
INCLUDING MARIHUANA AND SPECIAL TAXES, AND THE $28,911 COLLECTED UNDER
THE TAX ON FIREARMS, TRANSFER AND OCCUPATIONAL TAXES.  (SUMMARY OF
INTERNAL REVENUE COLLECTIONS, RELEASED BY BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
OCTOBER 3, 1952.) 

FN5  BUT SEE THE ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT IN THE CHILD LABOR TAX CASE,
259 U.S. 20, 30. 

FN6  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 424, UPHELD THE CREATION
OF A BANK UNDER THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE.  VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO,
8 WALL.  533, 548, DEPENDS PARTLY ON THE ALTERNATE GROUND OF THE
FEDERAL POWER TO PROVIDE MONEY FOR CIRCULATION.  IN RE RAPIER, 143 U.S.
110, THE USE OF THE MAILS BY PAPERS THAT ADVERTISED THE LOUISIANA
LOTTERY WAS BARRED.  THE LOTTERY CASE, 188 U.S. 321, APPROVED THE SAME
RESULT THROUGH THE COMMERCE POWER.  THAT POWER WAS ENOUGH TO BAR
TRANSPORTATION OF PICTURES OF PRIZE FIGHTS, WEBER V. FREED, 239 U.S.
325; TO SEIZE CONTRABAND EGGS AFTER SHIPMENT HAD ENDED, HIPOLITE EGG
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 45, 56; AND TO BAR TRANSPORTATION OF
WOMEN FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES, CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470. 
WHILE IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 68, 73, A USE OF A TAX
FOR REGULATION WAS DISAPPROVED, AN ENACTMENT THAT RESULTED IN
REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE MET JUDICIAL FAVOR.  MULFORD V.
SMITH, 307 U.S. 38, 47; WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111.  HILL V.
WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44, 67, AND TRUSLER V. CROOKS, 269 U.S. 475, BASED ON
TAXATION, HELD TAXES THAT REGULATED THE GRAIN MARKETS WERE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH STATE POWER.  IN CHICAGO BOARD
OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, REGULATIONS BASED ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
WERE UPHELD.  THE DEPARTURE FROM THIS LINE OF DECISIONS IN HAMMER V.
DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, WAS REVERSED IN UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312
U.S. 100, 115-124, WHERE WE SAID: 

"WHATEVER THEIR MOTIVE AND PURPOSE, REGULATIONS OF COMMERCE WHICH DO
NOT INFRINGE SOME CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ARE WITHIN THE PLENARY
POWER CONFERRED ON CONGRESS BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE."  ID., AT 115. 
"THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  EXTENDS TO THOSE
ACTIVITIES INTRASTATE WHICH SO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER IT AS TO MAKE REGULATION OF THEM
APPROPRIATE MEANS TO THE ATTAINMENT OF A LEGITIMATE END, THE EXERCISE
OF THE GRANTED POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 
ID., AT 118. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. JIN FUEY MOY, 241 U.S. 394, 402; UNITED STATES
V. DOREMUS, 249 U.S. 86; LINDER V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 5; NIGRO V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 332. 

FN8  CF. NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 572, 582, 587-588. 

FN9  CF. MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT., AT 422. 

FN10  CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20, 34, 38; HILL V. WALLACE, 259
U.S. 44, 63, 70; UNITED STATES V. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287. 

FN11  BUT SEE LINDER V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 5, 18; TRUSLER V.
CROOKS, 269 U.S. 475. 

FN12  26 U.S.C. SEC. 2011 ET SEQ., REQUIRE REGISTRATION BY TOBACCO
MANUFACTURERS, DEALERS AND PEDDLERS OF THE "NAME, OR STYLE, PLACE OF
RESIDENCE, TRADE, OR BUSINESS, AND THE PLACE WHERE SUCH TRADE OR
BUSINESS IS TO BE CARRIED ON."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 2810 REQUIRES THE
POSSESSOR OF DISTILLING APPARATUS TO REGISTER "THE PARTICULAR PLACE
WHERE SUCH STILL OR DISTILLING APPARATUS IS SET UP  ... THE OWNER
THEREOF, HIS PLACE OF RESIDENCE  ...  ."  SEE ALSO 26 U.S.C. SEC.
3270. 

FN13  CF. DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, 590; SHAPIRO V.
UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 1, 35; SEE E. FOUGERA & CO. V. CITY OF NEW
YORK, 224 N.Y. 269, 281, 120 N.E. 642, 644. 

FN14  THESE DEFENSES ARE OPEN UNDER THE DEMURRER TO FACTS ALLEGED IN
THE INDICTMENT AND THE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ALTHOUGH THE OPINION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT RELIED ONLY UPON USURPATION OF STATE POLICE POWER BY
THE FEDERAL ENACTMENT.  UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S.
304, 330.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. BEACON BRASS CO., 344 U.S. 43. 

FN15  26 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3285: 

"(B)  DEFINITIONS. 

"FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER: 

"(1)  THE TERM 'WAGER' MEANS (A) ANY WAGER WITH RESPECT TO A SPORTS
EVENT OR A CONTEST PLACED WITH A PERSON ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
ACCEPTING SUCH WAGERS, (B) ANY WAGER PLACED IN A WAGERING POOL WITH
RESPECT TO A SPORTS EVENT OR A CONTEST, IF SUCH POOL IS CONDUCTED FOR
PROFIT, AND (C) ANY WAGER PLACED IN A LOTTERY CONDUCTED FOR PROFIT. 

"(2)  THE TERM 'LOTTERY' INCLUDES THE NUMBERS-GAME, POLICY, AND
SIMILAR TYPES OF WAGERING.  THE TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE (A) ANY GAME OF A
TYPE IN WHICH USUALLY (I) THE WAGERS ARE PLACED, (II) THE WINNERS ARE
DETERMINED, AND (III) THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZES OR OTHER PROPERTY IS
MADE, IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL PERSONS PLACING WAGERS IN SUCH GAME, AND
(B) ANY DRAWING CONDUCTED BY AN ORGANIZATION EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER
INURES TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY PRIVATE SHAREHOLDER OR INDIVIDUAL." 

FN16  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 584. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT AND OPINION OF THE COURT, BUT WITH SUCH
DOUBT THAT IF THE MINORITY AGREED UPON AN OPINION WHICH DID NOT IMPAIR
LEGITIMATE USE OF THE TAXING POWER I PROBABLY WOULD JOIN IT. BUT WE
DEAL HERE WITH IMPORTANT AND CONTRASTING VALUES IN OUR SCHEME OF
GOVERNMENT, AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT NEITHER BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY THE
OTHER. 

ON THE ONE HAND, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON "SHALL
BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF." 
THIS HAS BEEN BROADLY CONSTRUED TO CONFER IMMUNITY NOT ONLY "IN ANY
CRIMINAL CASE" BUT IN ANY FEDERAL INQUIRY WHERE THE INFORMATION MIGHT
BE USEFUL LATER TO CONVICT OF A FEDERAL CRIME.  EXTENSION OF THE
IMMUNITY DOCTRINES TO THE FEDERAL POWER TO INQUIRE AS TO INCOME DERIVED
FROM VIOLATION OF STATE PENAL LAWS WOULD CREATE A LARGE NUMBER OF
IMMUNITIES FROM REPORTING WHICH WOULD VARY FROM STATE TO STATE. 
MOREOVER, THE IMMUNITY CAN BE CLAIMED WITHOUT BEING ESTABLISHED,
OTHERWISE ONE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVE GUILT TO AVOID ADMITTING IT.
SWEEPING AND UNDISCRIMINATING APPLICATION OF THE IMMUNITY DOCTRINES TO
TAXATION WOULD ALMOST GIVE THE TAXPAYER AN OPTION TO REFUSE TO REPORT,
AS IT NOW GIVES WITNESSES A VIRTUAL OPTION TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY.  THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO IMPAIR THE TAXING POWER
CONFERRED BY THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, AND ESPECIALLY BY THE SIXTEENTH
AMENDMENT, FURTHER THAN IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. 

OF COURSE, ALL TAXATION HAS A TENDENCY, PROPORTIONED TO ITS
BURDENSOMENESS, TO DISCOURAGE THE ACTIVITY TAXED.  ONE CANNOT FORMULATE
A REVENUE-RAISING PLAN THAT WOULD NOT HAVE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
CONSEQUENCES.  CONGRESS MAY AND SHOULD PLACE THE BURDEN OF TAXES WHERE
IT WILL LEAST HANDICAP DESIRABLE ACTIVITIES AND BEAR MOST HEAVILY ON
USELESS OR HARMFUL ONES.  IF CONGRESS MAY TAX ONE CITIZEN TO THE POINT
OF DISCOURAGEMENT FOR MAKING AN HONEST LIVING, IT IS HARD TO SAY THAT
IT MAY NOT DO THE SAME TO ANOTHER JUST BECAUSE HE MAKES A SINISTER
LIVING.  IF THE LAW-ABIDING MUST TELL ALL TO THE TAX COLLECTOR, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO EXCUSE ONE BECAUSE HIS BUSINESS IS LAWBREAKING.  STRANGELY
ENOUGH, FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION HAS BEEN
REFUSED TO BUSINESS AS AGAINST INQUISITION BY THE REGULATORY POWER,
SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 1, IN WHAT SEEMED TO ME A FLAGRANT
VIOLATION OF IT.  SEE DISSENTING OPINION, ID., AT 70. 

BUT HERE IS A PURPORTED TAX LAW WHICH REQUIRES NO REPORTS AND LAYS NO
TAX EXCEPT ON SPECIFIED GAMBLERS WHOSE CALLING IN MOST STATES IS
ILLEGAL.  IT REQUIRES THIS GROUP TO STEP FORWARD AND IDENTIFY
THEMSELVES, NOT BECAUSE THEY, LIKE OTHERS, HAVE INCOME, BUT BECAUSE OF
ITS SOURCE.  THIS IS DIFFICULT TO REGARD AS A RATIONAL OR GOOD-FAITH
REVENUE MEASURE, DESPITE THE DEFERENCE THAT IS DUE CONGRESS.  ON THE
CONTRARY, IT SEEMS TO BE A PLAN TO TAX OUT OF EXISTENCE THE
PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER WHOM IT HAS BEEN FOUND IMPOSSIBLE TO PROSECUTE OUT
OF EXISTENCE.  FEW PURSUITS ARE ENTITLED TO LESS CONSIDERATION AT OUR
HANDS THAN PROFESSIONAL GAMBLING, BUT THE PLAIN UNWELCOME FACT IS THAT
IT CONTINUES TO SURVIVE BECAUSE A LARGE AND INFLUENTIAL PART OF OUR
POPULATION PATRONIZES AND PROTECTS IT. 

THE UNITED STATES HAS A SYSTEM OF TAXATION BY CONFESSION.  THAT A
PEOPLE SO NUMEROUS, SCATTERED AND INDIVIDUALISTIC ANNUALLY ASSESSES
ITSELF WITH A TAX LIABILITY, OFTEN IN HIGHLY BURDENSOME AMOUNTS, IS A
REASSURING SIGN OF THE STABILITY AND VITALITY OF OUR SYSTEM OF SELF
GOVERNMENT.  WHAT SURPRISED ME IN ONCE TRYING TO HELP ADMINISTER THESE
LAWS WAS NOT TO DISCOVER EXAMPLES OF RECALCITRANCE, FRAUD OR SELF
SERVING MISTAKES IN REPORTING, BUT TO DISCOVER THAT SUCH DERELICTIONS
WERE SO FEW.  IT WILL BE A SAD DAY FOR THE REVENUES IF THE GOOD WILL OF
THE PEOPLE TOWARD THEIR TAXING SYSTEM IS FRITTERED AWAY IN EFFORTS TO
ACCOMPLISH BY TAXATION MORAL REFORMS THAT CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
DIRECT LEGISLATION.  BUT THE EVIL THAT CAN COME FROM THIS STATUTE WILL
PROBABLY SOON MAKE ITSELF MANIFEST TO CONGRESS.  THE EVIL OF A JUDICIAL
DECISION IMPAIRING THE LEGITIMATE TAXING POWER BY EXTREME
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS MIGHT NOT BE TRANSIENT.  EVEN THOUGH
THIS STATUTE APPROACHES THE FAIR LIMITS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, I JOIN
THE DECISION OF THE COURT.    MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DECLARES THAT NO PERSON "SHALL BE COMPELLED IN
ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF."  THE COURT
NEVERTHELESS HERE SUSTAINS AN ACT WHICH REQUIRES A MAN TO REGISTER AND
CONFESS THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GAMBLING.  I THINK THIS
CONFESSION CAN PROVIDE A BASIS TO CONVICT HIM OF A FEDERAL CRIME FOR
HAVING GAMBLED BEFORE REGISTRATION WITHOUT PAYING A FEDERAL TAX.  26
U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SECS. 3285, 3290, 3291, 3294.  WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT
HAS THIS EFFECT, I AM SURE THAT IT CREATES A SQUEEZING DEVICE CONTRIVED
TO PUT A MAN IN FEDERAL PRISON IF HE REFUSES TO CONFESS HIMSELF INTO A
STATE PRISON AS A VIOLATOR OF STATE GAMBLING LAWS.*  THE COERCION OF
CONFESSIONS IS A COMMON BUT JUSTLY CRITICIZED PRACTICE OF MANY
COUNTRIES THAT DO NOT HAVE OR LIVE UP TO A BILL OF RIGHTS.  BUT WE HAVE
A BILL OF RIGHTS THAT CONDEMNS COERCED CONFESSIONS, HOWEVER REFINED OR
LEGALISTIC MAY BE THE TECHNIQUE OF EXTORTION.  I WOULD HOLD THAT THIS
ACT VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  SEE MY DISSENT IN FELDMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 322 U.S. 487, 494-503. 

*IN PENNSYLVANIA, WHERE THIS DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED OF HAVING GAMBLED,
SUCH CONDUCT IS A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY "SEPARATE OR SOLITARY"
IMPRISONMENT.  PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., 1945, TIT. 18, SECS. 4601,
4602, 4603. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT'S OPINION MANIFESTS A NATURAL DIFFICULTY IN REACHING ITS
CONCLUSION.  CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE LIKELY TO ARISE WHENEVER
CONGRESS DRAWS ON THE TAXING POWER NOT TO RAISE REVENUE BUT TO REGULATE
CONDUCT.  THIS IS SO, OF COURSE, BECAUSE OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER AS BETWEEN THE CONGRESS AND THE STATE LEGISLATURES IN
THE REGULATION OF CONDUCT. 

TO REVIEW IN DETAIL THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, BEGINNING WITH
VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8 WALL.  533, DEALING WITH THIS AMBIVALENT TYPE
OF REVENUE ENACTMENT, WOULD BE TO REHASH THE FAMILIAR.  TWO
GENERALIZATIONS MAY, HOWEVER, SAFELY BE DRAWN FROM THIS SERIES OF
CASES.  CONGRESS MAY MAKE AN OBLIQUE USE OF THE TAXING POWER IN
RELATION TO ACTIVITIES WITH WHICH CONGRESS MAY DEAL DIRECTLY, AS FOR
INSTANCE, COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.  THUS, IF THE DISSENTING VIEWS
OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, 277, HAD
BEEN THE DECISION OF THE COURT, AS THEY BECAME IN UNITED STATES V.
DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, THE EFFORT TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF CHILD LABOR
THROUGH AN ASSERTION OF THE TAXING POWER IN THE STATUTE CONSIDERED IN
CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20, WOULD BY THE LATTER CASE HAVE BEEN
SUSTAINED.  HOWEVER, WHEN OBLIQUE USE IS MADE OF THE TAXING POWER AS TO
MATTERS WHICH SUBSTANTIVELY ARE NOT WITHIN THE POWERS DELEGATED TO
CONGRESS, THE COURT CANNOT SHUT ITS EYES TO WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE
DESIGNEDLY, AN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL CONDUCT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION LEFT
TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES, MERELY BECAUSE CONGRESS WRAPPED
THE LEGISLATION IN THE VERBAL CELLOPHANE OF A REVENUE MEASURE. 

CONCEDEDLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY SUCH LEGISLATION
ARE DIFFICULT.  ON THE ONE HAND, COURTS SHOULD SCRUPULOUSLY ABSTAIN
FROM HOBBLING CONGRESSIONAL CHOICE OF POLICIES, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE
VAST REACH OF THE TAXING POWER IS CONCERNED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, TO
ALLOW WHAT OTHERWISE IS EXCLUDED FROM CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO BE
BROUGHT WITHIN IT BY CASTING LEGISLATION IN THE FORM OF A REVENUE
MEASURE COULD, AS SO SIGNIFICANTLY EXPOUNDED IN THE CHILD LABOR TAX
CASE, SUPRA, OFFER AN EASY WAY FOR THE LEGISLATIVE IMAGINATION TO
CONTROL "ANY ONE OF THE GREAT NUMBER OF SUBJECTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST,
JURISDICTION OF WHICH THE STATES HAVE NEVER PARTED WITH  ...  ."  CHILD
LABOR TAX CASE, AT 38.  I SAY "SIGNIFICANTLY" BECAUSE MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES AND TWO OF THE JUSTICES WHO HAD JOINED HIS DISSENT IN HAMMER V.
DAGENHART, MCKENNA AND BRANDEIS, JJ., AGREED WITH THE OPINION IN THE
CHILD LABOR TAX CASE.  ISSUES OF SUCH GRAVITY AFFECTING THE BALANCE OF
POWERS WITHIN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF COMPREHENSIVE
STATEMENT BY SMOOTH FORMULAS SUCH AS THAT A TAX IS NONETHELESS A TAX
ALTHOUGH IT DISCOURAGES THE ACTIVITIES TAXED, OR THAT A TAX MAY BE
IMPOSED ALTHOUGH IT MAY EFFECT ULTERIOR ENDS.  NO SUCH PHRASE, HOWEVER
FINE AND WELL-WORN, ENABLES ONE TO DECIDE THE CONCRETE CASE. 

WHAT IS RELEVANT TO JUDGMENT HERE IS THAT, EVEN IF THE HISTORY OF
THIS LEGISLATION AS IT WENT THROUGH CONGRESS DID NOT GIVE ONE THE
LIBRETTO TO THE SONG, THE CONTEXT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH BROUGHT
FORTH THIS ENACTMENT - SENSATIONALLY EXPLOITED DISCLOSURES REGARDING
GAMBLING IN BIG CITIES AND SMALL, THE RELATION OF THIS GAMBLING TO
CORRUPT POLITICS, THE IMPATIENT PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THESE DISCLOSURES,
THE FEELING OF INEPTITUDE OR PARALYSIS ON THE PART OF LOCAL LAW
ENFORCING AGENCIES - EMPHATICALLY SUPPORTS WHAT WAS REVEALED ON THE
FLOOR OF CONGRESS, NAMELY, THAT WHAT WAS FORMALLY A MEANS OF RAISING
REVENUE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS ESSENTIALLY AN EFFORT TO CHECK
IF NOT TO STAMP OUT PROFESSIONAL GAMBLING. 

A NOMINAL TAXING MEASURE MUST BE FOUND AN INADMISSIBLE INTRUSION INTO
A DOMAIN OF LEGISLATION RESERVED FOR THE STATES NOT MERELY WHEN
CONGRESS REQUIRES THAT SUCH A MEASURE IS TO BE ENFORCED THROUGH A
DETAILED SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION BEYOND THE OBVIOUS FISCAL NEEDS, AS
IN THE CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, SUPRA.  THAT IS ONE GROUND FOR HOLDING
THAT CONGRESS WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY DISRESPECTFUL OF WHAT IS RESERVED TO
THE STATES.  ANOTHER BASIS FOR DEEMING SUCH A FORMAL REVENUE MEASURE
INADMISSIBLE IS PRESENTED BY THIS CASE.  IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH ACTIVITY BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE ENFORCING PROVISION OF THIS ENACTMENT IS
DESIGNED FOR THE SYSTEMATIC CONFESSION OF CRIMES WITH A VIEW TO
PROSECUTION FOR SUCH CRIMES UNDER STATE LAW. 

IT IS ONE THING TO HOLD THAT THE EXCEPTION, WHICH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
MAKES TO THE DUTY OF A WITNESS TO GIVE HIS TESTIMONY WHEN RELEVANT TO A
PROCEEDING IN A FEDERAL COURT, DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL DANGER TO
THAT WITNESS OF POSSIBLE PROSECUTION IN A STATE COURT, BROWN V. WALKER,
161 U.S. 591, 606, AND, CONVERSELY, THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
ENABLE STATES TO GIVE IMMUNITY FROM USE IN FEDERAL COURTS OF TESTIMONY
GIVEN IN A STATE COURT.  FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 487.  IT IS
A WHOLLY DIFFERENT THING TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS, WHICH CANNOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY GRAPPLE DIRECTLY WITH GAMBLING IN THE STATES, MAY
COMPEL SELF-INCRIMINATING DISCLOSURES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
GAMBLING LAWS, MERELY BECAUSE IT DOES SO UNDER THE GUISE OF A REVENUE
MEASURE OBVIOUSLY PASSED NOT FOR REVENUE PURPOSES.  THE MOTIVE OF
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION IS NOT FOR OUR SCRUTINY, PROVIDED ONLY THAT
THE ULTERIOR PURPOSE IS NOT EXPRESSED IN WAYS WHICH NEGATIVE WHAT THE
REVENUE WORDS ON THEIR FACE EXPRESS AND WHICH DO NOT SEEK ENFORCEMENT
OF THE FORMAL REVENUE PURPOSE THROUGH MEANS THAT OFFEND THOSE STANDARDS
OF DECENCY IN OUR CIVILIZATION AGAINST WHICH DUE PROCESS IS A BARRIER. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THIS JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WHILE NOT JOINING IN THE ENTIRE OPINION, AGREES
WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN THAT THIS TAX IS AN ATTEMPT BY THE
CONGRESS TO CONTROL CONDUCT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS LEFT TO THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. RUMELY 345 U.S. 41 


NO. 87.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11-12, 1952 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 90 U.S.
APP. D.C. 382, 197 F.2D 166, AFFIRMED. 


RESPONDENT WAS SECRETARY OF AN ORGANIZATION WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
ENGAGED IN THE SALE OF BOOKS OF A POLITICAL NATURE.  HE REFUSED TO
DISCLOSE TO A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO MADE BULK
PURCHASES OF THESE BOOKS FOR FURTHER DISTRIBUTION, AND WAS CONVICTED
UNDER R.S. SEC. 102, AS AMENDED, WHICH PROVIDES PENALTIES FOR REFUSAL
TO GIVE TESTIMONY OR TO PRODUCE RELEVANT PAPERS "UPON ANY MATTER" UNDER
CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY.  UNDER THE RESOLUTION EMPOWERING IT TO FUNCTION,
THE COMMITTEE WAS "AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO CONDUCT A STUDY AND
INVESTIGATION OF (1) ALL LOBBYING ACTIVITIES INTENDED TO INFLUENCE,
ENCOURAGE, PROMOTE, OR RETARD LEGISLATION; AND (2) ALL ACTIVITIES OF
AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTENDED TO INFLUENCE, ENCOURAGE,
PROMOTE, OR RETARD LEGISLATION."  HELD:  THE COMMITTEE WAS WITHOUT
POWER TO EXACT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT FROM RESPONDENT.  PP. 42-48. 

(A)  TO CONSTRUE THE RESOLUTION AS AUTHORIZING THE COMMITTEE TO
INQUIRE INTO ALL EFFORTS OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC
OPINION THROUGH BOOKS AND PERIODICALS, HOWEVER REMOTE THE RADIATIONS OF
INFLUENCE WHICH THEY MAY EXERT UPON THE ULTIMATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS,
WOULD RAISE DOUBTS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN VIEW OF THE PROHIBITION OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  P. 46. 

(B)  THE PHRASE "LOBBYING ACTIVITIES" IN THE RESOLUTION IS TO BE
CONSTRUED AS LOBBYING IN THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED SENSE OF
"REPRESENTATIONS MADE DIRECTLY TO THE CONGRESS, ITS MEMBERS, OR ITS
COMMITTEES"; AND NOT AS EXTENDING TO ATTEMPTS "TO SATURATE THE THINKING
OF THE COMMUNITY."  P. 47. 

(C)  THE SCOPE OF THE RESOLUTION DEFINING RESPONDENT'S DUTY TO ANSWER
MUST BE ASCERTAINED AS OF THE TIME OF HIS REFUSAL AND CANNOT BE
ENLARGED BY SUBSEQUENT ACTION OF CONGRESS.  PP. 47-48. 

UNITED STATES V. RUMELY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED UNDER R.S. SEC. 102, AS AMENDED, 2 U.S.C.
SEC. 192, FOR REFUSAL TO GIVE CERTAIN INFORMATION TO A CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  90 U.S. APP. D.C. 382, 197
F.2D 166.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 812.  AFFIRMED, P.
48. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT RUMELY WAS SECRETARY OF AN ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE
COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
ENGAGED IN THE SALE OF BOOKS OF A PARTICULAR POLITICAL
TENDENTIOUSNESS.  HE REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE
ON LOBBYING ACTIVITIES THE NAMES OF THOSE WHO MADE BULK PURCHASES OF
THESE BOOKS FOR FURTHER DISTRIBUTION, AND WAS CONVICTED UNDER R.S. SEC.
102, AS AMENDED, 52 STAT. 942, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192, WHICH PROVIDES
PENALTIES FOR REFUSAL TO GIVE TESTIMONY OR TO PRODUCE RELEVANT PAPERS
"UPON ANY MATTER" UNDER CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  IT HELD THAT THE COMMITTEE BEFORE
WHICH RUMELY REFUSED TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION HAD NO AUTHORITY TO
COMPEL ITS PRODUCTION.  90 U.S. APP. D.C. 382, 197 F.2D 166.  SINCE THE
COURT OF APPEALS THUS TOOK A VIEW OF THE COMMITTEE'S AUTHORITY CONTRARY
TO THAT ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE IN CITING RUMELY FOR CONTEMPT, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 812.  THIS ISSUE - WHETHER THE COMMITTEE WAS
AUTHORIZED TO EXACT THE INFORMATION WHICH THE WITNESS WITHHELD - MUST
FIRST BE SETTLED BEFORE WE MAY CONSIDER WHETHER CONGRESS HAD THE POWER
TO CONFER UPON THE COMMITTEE THE AUTHORITY WHICH IT CLAIMED. 

ALTHOUGH WE ARE HERE DEALING WITH A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, THE PROBLEM IS MUCH THE SAME AS THAT WHICH CONFRONTS
THE COURT WHEN CALLED UPON TO CONSTRUE A STATUTE THAT CARRIES THE SEEDS
OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY.  THE POTENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
HAVE FAR-REACHING IMPORT.  WE ARE ASKED TO RECOGNIZE THE PENETRATING
AND PERVASIVE SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS.  THE REACH
THAT MAY BE CLAIMED FOR THAT POWER IS INDICATED BY WOODROW WILSON'S
CHARACTERIZATION OF IT: 

"IT IS THE PROPER DUTY OF A REPRESENTATIVE BODY TO LOOK DILIGENTLY
INTO EVERY AFFAIR OF GOVERNMENT AND TO TALK MUCH ABOUT WHAT IT SEES. 
IT IS MEANT TO BE THE EYES AND THE VOICE, AND TO EMBODY THE WISDOM AND
WILL OF ITS CONSTITUENTS.  UNLESS CONGRESS HAVE AND USE EVERY MEANS OF
ACQUAINTING ITSELF WITH THE ACTS AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE COUNTRY MUST BE HELPLESS
TO LEARN HOW IT IS BEING SERVED; AND UNLESS CONGRESS BOTH SCRUTINIZE
THESE THINGS AND SIFT THEM BY EVERY FORM OF DISCUSSION, THE COUNTRY
MUST REMAIN IN EMBARRASSING, CRIPPLING IGNORANCE OF THE VERY AFFAIRS
WHICH IT IS MOST IMPORTANT THAT IT SHOULD UNDERSTAND AND DIRECT.  THE
INFORMING FUNCTION OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE PREFERRED EVEN TO ITS
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION."  WILSON, CONGRESSIONAL GOVERNMENT, 303. 

ALTHOUGH THE INDISPENSABLE "INFORMING FUNCTION OF CONGRESS" IS NOT TO
BE MINIMIZED, DETERMINATION OF THE "RIGHTS" WHICH THIS FUNCTION IMPLIES
ILLUSTRATES THE COMMON JURISTIC SITUATION THUS DEFINED FOR THE COURT BY
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES:  "ALL RIGHTS TEND TO DECLARE THEMSELVES ABSOLUTE TO
THEIR LOGICAL EXTREME.  YET ALL IN FACT ARE LIMITED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD
OF PRINCIPLES OF POLICY WHICH ARE OTHER THAN THOSE ON WHICH THE
PARTICULAR RIGHT IS FOUNDED, AND WHICH BECOME STRONG ENOUGH TO HOLD
THEIR OWN WHEN A CERTAIN POINT IS REACHED."  HUDSON WATER CO. V.
MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349, 355.  PRESIDENT WILSON DID NOT WRITE IN LIGHT
OF THE HISTORY OF EVENTS SINCE HE WROTE; MORE PARTICULARLY HE DID NOT
WRITE OF THE INVESTIGATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  AND SO, WE WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT "BLIND" COURT,
AGAINST WHICH MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT ADMONISHED IN A FAMOUS PASSAGE,
CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20, 37, THAT DOES NOT SEE WHAT "ALL
OTHERS CAN SEE AND UNDERSTAND" NOT TO KNOW THAT THERE IS WIDE CONCERN,
BOTH IN AND OUT OF CONGRESS, OVER SOME ASPECTS OF THE EXERCISE OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL POWER OF INVESTIGATION. 

ACCOMMODATION OF THESE CONTENDING PRINCIPLES - THE ONE UNDERLYING THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE, THE OTHER AT THE BASIS OF THE
LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT - IS NOT CALLED FOR UNTIL
AFTER WE HAVE CONSTRUED THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES GAVE TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON LOBBYING ACTIVITIES. 
THE PERTINENT PORTION OF THE RESOLUTION OF AUGUST 12, 1949, READS: 

"THE COMMITTEE IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO CONDUCT A STUDY AND
INVESTIGATION OF (1) ALL LOBBYING ACTIVITIES INTENDED TO INFLUENCE,
ENCOURAGE, PROMOTE, OR RETARD LEGISLATION; AND (2) ALL ACTIVITIES OF
AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTENDED TO INFLUENCE, ENCOURAGE,
PROMOTE, OR RETARD LEGISLATION."  H. RES. 298, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 

THIS IS THE CONTROLLING CHARTER OF THE COMMITTEE'S POWERS.  ITS RIGHT
TO EXACT TESTIMONY AND TO CALL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE
FOUND IN THIS LANGUAGE.  THE RESOLUTION MUST SPEAK FOR ITSELF, SINCE
CONGRESS PUT NO GLOSS UPON IT AT THE TIME OF ITS PASSAGE.  NOR IS ANY
HELP TO BE HAD FROM THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BUCHANAN
COMMITTEE, AS THE SELECT COMMITTEE WAS KNOWN, WAS TO TRY TO "FIND OUT
HOW WELL THE FEDERAL REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT OF 1946, 60 STAT. 839
WORKED."  96 CONG. REC. 13882.  THAT STATUTE HAD A SECTION OF
DEFINITIONS, BUT CONGRESS DID NOT DEFINE THE TERMS "LOBBYING" OR
"LOBBYING ACTIVITIES" IN THAT ACT, FOR IT DID NOT USE THEM. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE PHRASE "LOBBYING ACTIVITIES" IN THE RESOLUTION MUST BE
GIVEN THE MEANING THAT MAY FAIRLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO IT, HAVING SPECIAL
REGARD FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION WHICH MAKES IT
DECISIVE IN THE CHOICE OF FAIR ALTERNATIVES THAT ONE CONSTRUCTION MAY
RAISE SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS AVOIDED BY ANOTHER.  IN A LONG
SERIES OF DECISIONS WE HAVE ACTED ON THIS PRINCIPLE.  IN THE WORDS OF
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, "IT IS OUR DUTY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF
FEDERAL STATUTES TO REACH A CONCLUSION WHICH WILL AVOID SERIOUS DOUBT
OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY."  RICHMOND CO. V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S.
331, 346.  AGAIN, WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN, WE SAID THROUGH MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE (THEN MR. JUSTICE) STONE, "MUST BE CONSTRUED WITH AN EYE TO
POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS SO AS TO AVOID DOUBTS AS TO ITS
VALIDITY."  LUCAS V. ALEXANDER, 279 U.S. 573, 577.  AS PHRASED BY MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, "IF A SERIOUS DOUBT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS
RAISED, IT IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE THAT THIS COURT WILL FIRST ASCERTAIN
WHETHER A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IS FAIRLY POSSIBLE BY WHICH THE
QUESTION MAY BE AVOIDED."  CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 62, AND
CASES CITED. 

PATENTLY, THE COURT'S DUTY TO AVOID A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, IF
POSSIBLE, APPLIES NOT MERELY TO LEGISLATION TECHNICALLY SPEAKING BUT
ALSO TO CONGRESSIONAL ACTION BY WAY OF RESOLUTION.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298.  INDEED, THIS DUTY OF NOT
NEEDLESSLY PROJECTING DELICATE ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IS
EVEN MORE APPLICABLE TO RESOLUTIONS THAN TO FORMAL LEGISLATION.  IT CAN
HARDLY BE GAINSAID THAT RESOLUTIONS SECURE PASSAGE MORE CASUALLY AND
LESS RESPONSIBLY, IN THE MAIN, THAN DO ENACTMENTS REQUIRING
PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL. 

SURELY IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT GIVING THE SCOPE TO THE RESOLUTION
FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, THAT IS, DERIVING FROM IT THE POWER
TO INQUIRE INTO ALL EFFORTS OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC
OPINION THROUGH BOOKS AND PERIODICALS, HOWEVER REMOTE THE RADIATIONS OF
INFLUENCE WHICH THEY MAY EXERT UPON THE ULTIMATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS,
RAISES DOUBTS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN VIEW OF THE PROHIBITION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  IN LIGHT OF THE OPINION OF PRETTYMAN, J., BELOW AND
OF SOME OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HERE, IT WOULD NOT BE SEEMLY TO MAINTAIN
THAT THESE DOUBTS ARE FANCIFUL OR FACTITIOUS.  INDEED, ADJUDICATION
HERE, IF IT WERE NECESSARY, WOULD AFFECT NOT AN EVANESCENT POLICY OF
CONGRESS, BUT ITS POWER TO INFORM ITSELF, WHICH UNDERLIES ITS POLICY
MAKING FUNCTION.  WHENEVER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS UPON THE INVESTIGATIVE
POWER OF CONGRESS HAVE TO BE DRAWN BY THIS COURT, IT OUGHT ONLY TO BE
DONE AFTER CONGRESS HAS DEMONSTRATED ITS FULL AWARENESS OF WHAT IS AT
STAKE BY UNEQUIVOCALLY AUTHORIZING AN INQUIRY OF DUBIOUS LIMITS. 
EXPERIENCE ADMONISHES US TO TREAD WARILY IN THIS DOMAIN.  THE LOOSE
LANGUAGE OF KILBOURN V. THOMPSON, 103 U.S. 168, THE WEIGHTY CRITICISM
TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED, SEE, E.G., FAIRMAN, MR. JUSTICE MILLER
AND THE SUPREME COURT, 332-334; LANDIS, CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON
THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OF INVESTIGATION, 40 HARV. L. REV. 153, THE
INROADS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE UPON THAT CASE BY LATER CASES, MCGRAIN V.
DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S. 135, 170-171, AND SINCLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 279
U.S. 263, STRONGLY COUNSEL ABSTENTION FROM ADJUDICATION UNLESS NO
CHOICE IS LEFT. 

CHOICE IS LEFT.  AS A MATTER OF ENGLISH, THE PHRASE "LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES" READILY LENDS ITSELF TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON IT
BELOW, NAMELY, "LOBBYING IN ITS COMMONLY ACCEPTED SENSE," THAT IS,
"REPRESENTATIONS MADE DIRECTLY TO THE CONGRESS, ITS MEMBERS, OR ITS
COMMITTEES," 90 U.S. APP. D.C. 382, 391, 197 F.2D 166, 175, AND DOES
NOT REACH WHAT WAS IN CHAIRMAN BUCHANAN'S MIND, ATTEMPTS "TO SATURATE
THE THINKING OF THE COMMUNITY."  96 CONG. REC. 13883.  IF "LOBBYING"
WAS TO COVER ALL ACTIVITIES OF ANYONE INTENDING TO INFLUENCE,
ENCOURAGE, PROMOTE OR RETARD LEGISLATION, WHY DID CONGRESS
DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN "LOBBYING ACTIVITIES" AND OTHER "ACTIVITIES  ...
INTENDED TO INFLUENCE"?  HAD CONGRESS WISHED TO AUTHORIZE SO EXTENSIVE
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE INFLUENCES THAT FORM PUBLIC OPINION, WOULD IT
NOT HAVE USED LANGUAGE AT LEAST AS EXPLICIT AS IT EMPLOYED IN THE VERY
RESOLUTION IN QUESTION IN AUTHORIZING INVESTIGATION OF GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES?  CERTAINLY IT DOES NO VIOLENCE TO THE PHRASE "LOBBYING
ACTIVITIES" TO GIVE IT A MORE RESTRICTED SCOPE.  TO GIVE SUCH MEANING
IS NOT BARRED BY INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.  SO TO INTERPRET IS IN THE
CANDID SERVICE OF AVOIDING A SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBT.  "WORDS HAVE
BEEN STRAINED MORE THAN THEY NEED TO BE STRAINED HERE IN ORDER TO AVOID
THAT DOUBT."  (MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN BLODGETT V. HOLDEN, 275 U.S. 142,
148, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, MR. JUSTICE SANFORD
AND MR. JUSTICE STONE.)  WITH A VIEW TO OBSERVING THIS PRINCIPLE OF
WISDOM AND DUTY, THE COURT VERY RECENTLY STRAINED WORDS MORE THAN THEY
NEED BE STRAINED HERE.  UNITED STATES V. C.I.O., 335 U.S. 106.  THE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH PREVAILED IN THAT CASE SHOULD PREVAIL IN THIS. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID ABOUT THE DEBATE IN CONGRESS AFTER THE
COMMITTEE REPORTED THAT RUMELY HAD REFUSED TO PRODUCE THE INFORMATION
WHICH HE HAD A RIGHT TO REFUSE UNDER THE RESTRICTED MEANING OF THE
PHRASE "LOBBYING ACTIVITIES."  THE VIEW TAKEN AT THAT TIME BY THE
COMMITTEE AND BY THE CONGRESS THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ASK
RUMELY FOR THE INFORMATION HE WITHHELD IS NOT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
DEFINING THE SCOPE OF A CONGRESSIONAL MEASURE.  WHAT WAS SAID IN THE
DEBATE ON AUGUST 30, 1950, AFTER THE CONTROVERSY HAD ARISEN REGARDING
THE SCOPE OF THE RESOLUTION OF AUGUST 12, 1949, HAD THE USUAL INFIRMITY
OF POST LITEM MOTAM, SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS.  (FN1)  IN ANY EVENT,
RUMELY'S DUTY TO ANSWER MUST BE JUDGED AS OF THE TIME OF HIS REFUSAL. 
THE SCOPE OF THE RESOLUTION DEFINING THAT DUTY IS THEREFORE TO BE
ASCERTAINED AS OF THAT TIME AND CANNOT BE ENLARGED BY SUBSEQUENT ACTION
OF CONGRESS. 

GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE MATTERS PROPERLY TO BE DECIDED BY
THIS COURT BUT ONLY WHEN THEY INESCAPABLY COME BEFORE US FOR
ADJUDICATION.  UNTIL THEN IT IS OUR DUTY TO ABSTAIN FROM MARKING THE
BOUNDARIES OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER OR DELIMITING THE PROTECTION
GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  ONLY BY SUCH SELF-RESTRAINT WILL WE
AVOID THE MISCHIEF WHICH HAS FOLLOWED OCCASIONAL DEPARTURES FROM THE
PRINCIPLES WHICH WE PROFESS. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE AMBIGUITY OF THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION - THAT IS, WHETHER
QUESTIONS ASKED TO WHICH ANSWERS WERE REFUSED WERE WITHIN THOSE TERMS -
IS REFLECTED BY THE CLOSE DIVISION BY WHICH THE COMMITTEE'S VIEW OF ITS
OWN AUTHORITY PREVAILED.  THE VOTE WAS 183 TO 175. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
CONCURRING. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED UNDER AN INDICTMENT CHARGING WILLFUL REFUSAL
TO PRODUCE RECORDS AND GIVE TESTIMONY BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES IN VIOLATION OF R.S.  SEC. 102, AS AMENDED, 52 STAT.
942, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192.  (FN1)  THE COMMITTEE, KNOWN AS THE SELECT
COMMITTEE ON LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, WAS CREATED ON AUGUST 12, 1949, BY
HOUSE RESOLUTION 298 (FN2) WHICH PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE COMMITTEE IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO CONDUCT A STUDY AND
INVESTIGATION OF (1) ALL LOBBYING ACTIVITIES INTENDED TO INFLUENCE,
ENCOURAGE, PROMOTE, OR RETARD LEGISLATION; AND (2) ALL ACTIVITIES OF
AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTENDED TO INFLUENCE, ENCOURAGE,
PROMOTE, OR RETARD LEGISLATION."    COUNT ONE OF THE INDICTMENT CHARGED
THAT RESPONDENT WILLFULLY REFUSED TO PRODUCE RECORDS, DULY SUBPOENAED,
OF THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT (CCG), SHOWING THE NAME
AND ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON FROM WHOM A TOTAL OF $1,000 OR MORE HAD BEEN
RECEIVED BY CCG FROM JANUARY 1, 1947, TO MAY 1, 1950, FOR ANY PURPOSE
INCLUDING RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS.  COUNT SIX
CHARGED A SIMILAR OFFENSE AS TO A SUBPOENA CALLING FOR THE NAME AND
ADDRESS OF EACH PERSON FROM WHOM CCG HAD RECEIVED BETWEEN THOSE DATES A
TOTAL OF $500 OR MORE FOR ANY PURPOSE.  COUNT SEVEN CHARGED A WILLFUL
REFUSAL TO GIVE THE NAME OF A WOMAN FROM TOLEDO WHO GAVE RESPONDENT
$2,000 FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE ROAD AHEAD, A BOOK WRITTEN BY JOHN T.
FLYNN. 

THE BACKGROUND OF THE SUBPOENA AND OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED RESPONDENT
IS CONTAINED IN A REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE, H.R. REP. NO. 3024,
81ST CONG., 2D SESS.  IT APPEARS THAT CCG AND RESPONDENT, ITS
EXECUTIVE, REGISTERED UNDER THE REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT (60 STAT.
839, 2 U.S.C. SECS. 261 ET SEQ.) ON OCTOBER 7, 1946.  THE REPORTS UNDER
THIS REGISTRATION (WHICH WAS MADE UNDER PROTEST) SHOWED THAT CCG HAD
SPENT ABOUT $2,000,000 FROM OCTOBER 1946 TO AUGUST 1950.  THE BASIC
FUNCTION OF CCG, ACCORDING TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE, WAS THE
"DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATERIAL TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION
INDIRECTLY."  THE REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF
CONTRIBUTIONS OF $500 OR MORE RECEIVED OR EXPENDED TO INFLUENCE,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE PASSAGE OR DEFEAT OF ANY LEGISLATION BY THE
CONGRESS.  2 U.S.C. SECS. 264, 266.  THE SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTED THAT
AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT CCG ADOPTED A POLICY
OF ACCEPTING PAYMENTS OF OVER $490 ONLY IF THE CONTRIBUTOR SPECIFIED
THAT THE FUNDS BE USED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ONE OR MORE OF ITS BOOKS
OR PAMPHLETS.  IT THEN APPLIED THE TERM "SALE" TO THE "CONTRIBUTION"
AND DID NOT REPORT THEM UNDER THE REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT.  H.R.
REP. NO. 3024, SUPRA, PP. 1, 2. 

THE REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ALSO SHOWS THAT WHILE RESPONDENT
WAS WILLING TO GIVE THE COMMITTEE THE TOTAL INCOME OF CCG, HE REFUSED
TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE PURCHASERS OF BOOKS AND LITERATURE
BECAUSE "UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THAT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF YOUR
COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE."  ID., P. 8.  THE BOOKS INVOLVED WERE THE
ROAD AHEAD BY JOHN T. FLYNN, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES BY
THOMAS J. NORTON, COMPULSORY MEDICAL CARE AND THE WELFARE STATE, BY
MELCHIOR PALYI, AND WHY THE TAFT-HARTLEY LAW BY IRVING B. MCCANN.  MOST
OF THE PURCHASERS (ABOUT 90 PERCENT) HAD THE BOOKS SHIPPED TO
THEMSELVES; THE REST TOLD CCG THE INDIVIDUALS TO SEND THEM TO OR THE
TYPE OF PERSON (E.G., "FARM LEADERS") WHO SHOULD RECEIVE THEM.  ONE
PERSON HAD CCG SEND COMPULSORY MEDICAL CARE BY MELCHIOR PALYI TO 15,550
LIBRARIES.  (FN3) 

THE SELECT COMMITTEE STATED IN ITS REPORT: 

"OUR STUDY OF THIS ORGANIZATION INDICATES VERY CLEARLY THAT ITS MOST
IMPORTANT FUNCTION IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS IN ORDER
TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY.  IT ATTEMPTS TO
INFLUENCE LEGISLATION DIRECTLY BY SENDING COPIES OF BOOKS, PAMPHLETS,
AND OTHER PRINTED MATERIALS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.  IT ATTEMPTS TO
INFLUENCE LEGISLATION INDIRECTLY BY DISTRIBUTING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF COPIES OF THESE PRINTED MATERIALS TO PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES. 

"OF PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE IS THE FACT THAT EDWARD A. RUMELY AND THE
COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, INC., IN RECENT YEARS HAVE
DEVISED A SCHEME FOR RAISING ENORMOUS FUNDS WITHOUT FILING TRUE REPORTS
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT. 
THIS SCHEME HAS THE COLOR OF LEGALITY BUT IN FACT IS A METHOD OF
CIRCUMVENTING THE LAW.  IT UTILIZES THE SYSTEM OUTLINED ABOVE WHEREBY
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT ARE
DESIGNATED AS PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF BOOKS, WHICH ARE TRANSMITTED
TO OTHERS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE PURCHASER, WITH BOTH THE CONTRIBUTOR
OF THE MONEY AND THE RECIPIENTS OF THE BOOKS TOTALLY UNAWARE OF THE
SUBTERFUGE IN MOST CASES."  H.R. REP. NO. 3024, SUPRA, P.2. 

THE SELECT COMMITTEE INSISTED THAT THE INFORMATION DEMANDED OF
RESPONDENT WAS RELEVANT TO ITS INVESTIGATION OF "LOBBYING ACTIVITIES"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RESOLUTION.  IT SAID: 

"BECAUSE OF THE REFUSAL OF THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENT, INC., TO PRODUCE PERTINENT FINANCIAL RECORDS, THIS
COMMITTEE WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMITTEE FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, INC., IS EVADING OR VIOLATING THE LETTER OF
THE SPIRIT OF THE FEDERAL REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT BY THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLASS OF CONTRIBUTIONS CALLED 'RECEIPTS FROM THE
SALE OF BOOKS AND LITERATURE,' OR WHETHER THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH A LAW
WHICH REQUIRES AMENDMENTS TO STRENGTHEN IT. 

"THE POLICY OF THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, INC., OF
REFUSING TO ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS OF MORE THAN $490 UNLESS EARMARKED FOR
BOOKS, ETC., MAY ALSO INVOLVE:  (1) DIVIDING LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS INTO
INSTALLMENTS OF $490 OR LESS, AND CAUSING THE RECORDS OF THE COMMITTEE
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT TO REFLECT RECEIPT OF EACH INSTALLMENT ON
A DIFFERENT DATE, AND/OR CAUSING THE RECORDS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT TO GIVE CREDIT, FOR THE SEVERAL INSTALLMENTS,
TO VARIOUS RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATES OF THE ACTUAL CONTRIBUTOR.  (2)
CAUSING THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT'S RECORDS AS TO
'CONTRIBUTIONS' TO REFLECT LESS THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS
ACTUALLY RECEIVED, BY LABELING SOME PART OF SUCH FUNDS AS PAYMENTS MADE
FOR PRINTED MATTER. 

"BECAUSE OF THE REFUSAL OF THE COMMITTEE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENT, INC., TO PRODUCE PERTINENT FINANCIAL RECORDS, THIS
COMMITTEE WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE FEDERAL REGULATION
OF LOBBYING ACT REQUIRES AMENDMENT TO PREVENT DIVISION OF LARGE
CONTRIBUTIONS INTO INSTALLMENTS, OR TO PREVENT THE CREDITING OF
CONTRIBUTIONS TO OTHERS THAN THE REAL CONTRIBUTOR, OR TO PREVENT THE
USE OF OTHER SUBTERFUGES."  H.R. REP. NO. 3024, SUPRA, PP. 2-3. 

THE SELECT COMMITTEE SUBMITTED ITS REPORT TO THE HOUSE (96 CONG. REC.
13873) AND OFFERED A RESOLUTION THAT THE SPEAKER CERTIFY RESPONDENT'S
REFUSAL TO ANSWER TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  ID., P. 13881.  THE HOUSE ADOPTED THE RESOLUTION, ID., P.
13893, AND ON AUGUST 31, 1950, THE SPEAKER CERTIFIED RESPONDENT'S
REFUSAL TO TESTIFY. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO A FINE OF $1,000 AND TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED BY A
DIVIDED VOTE (90 U.S. APP. D.C. 382, 197 F.2D 166), THE MAJORITY
HOLDING THAT "LOBBYING ACTIVITIES" AS USED IN THE RESOLUTION CREATING
THE SELECT COMMITTEE DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE INQUIRIES MADE OF
RESPONDENT.  IN ITS VIEW THE TERM "LOBBYING ACTIVITIES" MEANT DIRECT
CONTACT WITH CONGRESS, NOT ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION THROUGH
THE SALE OF BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS. 

                      I. 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT RESOLUTION 298 WHICH AUTHORIZED THE SELECT
COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE "LOBBYING ACTIVITIES" DID NOT EXTEND TO THE
INQUIRY ON WHICH THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING IS BASED.  THE DIFFICULTY
WITH THAT POSITION STARTS WITH RESOLUTION 298.  ITS HISTORY MAKES PLAIN
THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO PROBE THE SOURCES OF SUPPORT OF LOBBYISTS
REGISTERED UNDER THE REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT.  CONGRESSMAN SABATH,
ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF THE RESOLUTION, INCLUDED CCG IN A "PARTIAL LIST
OF SOME OF THE LARGE LOBBY ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR REPORTS OF
EXPENDITURES FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1949."  SEE 95 CONG. REC., P.
11386.  THE REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT, UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT AND CCG
WERE REGISTERED, APPLIES TO ALL PERSONS SOLICITING OR RECEIVING MONEY
TO BE USED PRINCIPALLY "TO INFLUENCE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE
PASSAGE OR DEFEAT OF ANY LEGISLATION BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES."  2 U.S.C.  SEC. 266(B).  CONGRESSMAN BUCHANAN, WHO INTRODUCED
THE RESOLUTION AND WHO BECAME CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE, SAID
THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION WAS TO INVESTIGATE THE OPERATIONS OF
THAT ACT.  (FN4)  NOT A WORD IN THE RESOLUTION, NOT A WORD IN THE
DEBATE PRECEDING ITS ADOPTION SUGGESTS THAT THE INQUIRY WAS TO BE
DELIMITED, RESTRICTED, OR CONFINED TO PARTICULAR METHODS OF COLLECTING
MONEY TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. 

THE SELECT COMMITTEE TOOK THE SAME BROAD VIEW OF ITS AUTHORITY. 
(FN5)  IT CONCLUDED THAT "ALL SUBSTANTIAL ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE
LEGISLATION FOR PAY OR FOR ANY CONSIDERATION CONSTITUTE LOBBYING." 
H.R. REP. NO. 3239, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS. P. 1.  IT SAID THAT
"PAMPHLETEERING" WAS A LOBBYING ACTIVITY THAT OVERSHADOWS "THE
TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES OF CONTACT AND PERSUASION."  ID., P. 3.  AND IT
CITED FOR ITS CONCLUSION THE ACTIVITIES OF CCG.  ID.  THIS CONCLUSION
WAS REACHED OVER VEHEMENT OBJECTIONS BY THREE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE WHO INSISTED THAT AN INVESTIGATION OF THAT BREADTH
EXCEEDED THE AUTHORITY OF THE RESOLUTION AND INFRINGED ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS.  ID., PART 2, P.
2. 

THIS WAS THE POSTURE OF THE CASE WHEN THE SELECT COMMITTEE REFERRED
RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY TO THE HOUSE FOR CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS. 
CONGRESSMAN BUCHANAN CALLED THE COLLECTION OF FUNDS THROUGH THE SALE OF
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS AN EVASION OF THE REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACT.  96
CONG. REC. 13882.  HE PRESSED ON THE HOUSE THE IMPORTANCE OF
CONTROLLING THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY IN A REGULATION OF LOBBYING.  AND HE
ASKED THAT THE HOUSE RATIFY THE CONCLUSION OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE THAT
RESPONDENT WAS IN CONTEMPT.  ID., PP. 13886, 13887.  THAT CONSTRUCTION
OF THE RESOLUTION WAS CHALLENGED BY CONGRESSMAN HALLECK, A MEMBER OF
THE SELECT COMMITTEE WHO SIGNED THE MINORITY REPORT.  HE ARGUED THAT
THE CONTEMPT CITATION SOUGHT HAD "NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INFLUENCING OF
LEGISLATION IN THE ORDINARY WAYS OF SEEING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OR
COMMUNICATING WITH THEM.  IT HAS ONLY TO DO WITH THE FORMATION OF
PUBLIC OPINION AMONG THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY."  ID., P. 13888. 
CONGRESSMAN HALLECK'S ARGUMENT WAS TWOFOLD - THAT THE INQUIRY WAS NOT
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE RESOLUTION AND THAT, IF IT WERE, IT WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  ID., PP. 13887-13888.  OTHERS TOOK UP THE DEBATE ON
THOSE ISSUES.  THE VOTE WAS TAKEN; AND THE RESOLUTION PASSED.  ID., P.
13893. 

THUS THE HOUSE HAD SQUARELY BEFORE IT THE MEANING OF ITS EARLIER
RESOLUTION.  A NARROWER CONSTRUCTION THAN THE SELECT COMMITTEE ADOPTED
WAS URGED UPON IT.  CONGRESSMEN PLEADED LONG AND EARNESTLY FOR THE
NARROW CONSTRUCTION AND POINTED OUT THAT, IF THE BROADER INTERPRETATION
WERE TAKEN, THE INQUIRY WOULD BE TRENCHING ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF CITIZENS.  I CANNOT SAY, IN THE FACE OF THAT CLOSE CONSIDERATION OF
THE QUESTION BY THE HOUSE ITSELF, THAT THE SELECT COMMITTEE EXCEEDED
ITS AUTHORITY.  THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MADE KNOWN ITS
CONSTRUCTION OF THE POWERS IT HAD GRANTED.  IF AT THE BEGINNING THERE
WERE ANY DOUBTS AS TO THE MEANING OF RESOLUTION 298, THE HOUSE REMOVED
THEM.  THE COURT IS REPUDIATING WHAT THE HOUSE EMPHATICALLY AFFIRMED,
WHEN IT NOW SAYS THAT THE SELECT COMMITTEE LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO
COMPEL RESPONDENT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED. 

                                II. 

OF NECESSITY I COME THEN TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  RESPONDENT
REPRESENTS A SEGMENT OF THE AMERICAN PRESS.  SOME MAY LIKE WHAT HIS
GROUP PUBLISHES; OTHERS MAY DISAPPROVE.  THESE TRACTS MAY BE THE
ESSENCE OF WISDOM TO SOME; TO OTHERS THEIR POINT OF VIEW AND PHILOSOPHY
MAY BE ANATHEMA.  TO SOME EARS THEIR WORDS MAY BE HARSH AND REPULSIVE;
TO OTHERS THEY MAY CARRY THE HOPE OF THE FUTURE.  WE HAVE HERE A
PUBLISHER WHO THROUGH BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS SEEKS TO REACH THE MINDS AND
HEARTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  HE IS DIFFERENT IN SOME RESPECTS FROM
OTHER PUBLISHERS.  BUT THE DIFFERENCES ARE MINOR.  LIKE THE PUBLISHERS
OF NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, OR BOOKS, THIS PUBLISHER BIDS FOR THE MINDS
OF MEN IN THE MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS.  THE AIM OF THE HISTORIC STRUGGLE
FOR A FREE PRESS WAS "TO ESTABLISH AND PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF THE
ENGLISH PEOPLE TO FULL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE DOINGS OR
MISDOINGS OF THEIR GOVERNMENT."  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297
U.S. 233, 247.  THAT IS THE TRADITION BEHIND THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 
CENSORSHIP OR PREVIOUS RESTRAINT IS BANNED.  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283
U.S. 697.  DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION IS OUTLAWED.  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN
PRESS CO., SUPRA.  THE PRIVILEGE OF PAMPHLETEERING, AS WELL AS THE MORE
ORTHODOX TYPES OF PUBLICATIONS, MAY NEITHER BE LICENSED (LOVELL V.
GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444) NOR TAXED.  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S.
105.  DOOR TO DOOR DISTRIBUTION IS PRIVILEGED.  MARTIN V. STRUTHERS,
319 U.S. 141.  THESE ARE ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE PREFERRED POSITION GRANTED
SPEECH AND THE PRESS BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THE COMMAND THAT
"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...  ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR
OF THE PRESS" HAS BEHIND IT A LONG HISTORY.  IT EXPRESSES THE
CONFIDENCE THAT THE SAFETY OF SOCIETY DEPENDS ON THE TOLERANCE OF
GOVERNMENT FOR HOSTILE AS WELL AS FRIENDLY CRITICISM, THAT IN A
COMMUNITY WHERE MEN'S MINDS ARE FREE, THERE MUST BE ROOM FOR THE
UNORTHODOX AS WELL AS THE ORTHODOX VIEWS. 

IF THE PRESENT INQUIRY WERE SANCTIONED, THE PRESS WOULD BE SUBJECTED
TO HARASSMENT THAT IN PRACTICAL EFFECT MIGHT BE AS SERIOUS AS
CENSORSHIP.  A PUBLISHER, COMPELLED TO REGISTER WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO VEXATIOUS INQUIRIES.  A REQUIREMENT
THAT A PUBLISHER DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF THOSE WHO BUY HIS BOOKS,
PAMPHLETS, OR PAPERS IS INDEED THE BEGINNING OF SURVEILLANCE OF THE
PRESS.  TRUE, NO LEGAL SANCTION IS INVOLVED HERE.  CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED
NO TAX, ESTABLISHED NO BOARD OF CENSORS, INSTITUTED NO LICENSING
SYSTEM.  BUT THE POTENTIAL RESTRAINT IS EQUALLY SEVERE.  THE FINGER OF
GOVERNMENT LEVELED AGAINST THE PRESS IS OMINOUS.  ONCE THE GOVERNMENT
CAN DEMAND OF A PUBLISHER THE NAMES OF THE PURCHASERS OF HIS
PUBLICATIONS, THE FREE PRESS AS WE KNOW IT DISAPPEARS.  THEN THE
SPECTRE OF A GOVERNMENT AGENT WILL LOOK OVER THE SHOULDER OF EVERYONE
WHO READS.  THE PURCHASE OF A BOOK OR PAMPHLET TODAY MAY RESULT IN A
SUBPOENA TOMORROW.  FEAR OF CRITICISM GOES WITH EVERY PERSON INTO THE
BOOKSTALL.  THE SUBTLE, IMPONDERABLE PRESSURES OF THE ORTHODOX LAY
HOLD.  SOME WILL FEAR TO READ WHAT IS UNPOPULAR, WHAT THE POWERS-THAT
BE DISLIKE.  WHEN THE LIGHT OF PUBLICITY MAY REACH ANY STUDENT, ANY
TEACHER, INQUIRY WILL BE DISCOURAGED.  THE BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS THAT ARE
CRITICAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION, THAT PREACH AN UNPOPULAR POLICY IN
DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THAT ARE IN DISREPUTE IN THE ORTHODOX
SCHOOL OF THOUGHT WILL BE SUSPECT AND SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.  THE
PRESS AND ITS READERS WILL PAY A HEAVY PRICE IN HARASSMENT.  BUT THAT
WILL BE MINOR IN COMPARISON WITH THE MENACE OF THE SHADOW WHICH
GOVERNMENT WILL CAST OVER LITERATURE THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE DOMINANT
PARTY LINE.  IF THE LADY FROM TOLEDO CAN BE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE WHAT
SHE READ YESTERDAY AND WHAT SHE WILL READ TOMORROW, FEAR WILL TAKE THE
PLACE OF FREEDOM IN THE LIBRARIES, BOOK STORES, AND HOMES OF THE LAND. 
THROUGH THE HARASSMENT OF HEARINGS, INVESTIGATIONS, REPORTS, AND
SUBPOENAS GOVERNMENT WILL HOLD A CLUB OVER SPEECH AND OVER THE PRESS. 
CONGRESS COULD NOT DO THIS BY LAW.  THE POWER OF INVESTIGATION IS ALSO
LIMITED.  (FN6)  INQUIRY INTO PERSONAL AND PRIVATE AFFAIRS IS
PRECLUDED.  SEE KILBOURN V. THOMPSON, 103 U.S. 168, 190; MCGRAIN V.
DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S. 135, 173-174; SINCLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
263, 292.  AND SO IS ANY MATTER IN RESPECT TO WHICH NO VALID
LEGISLATION COULD BE HAD.  KILBOURN V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, PP. 194-195;
MCGRAIN V. DAUGHERTY, SUPRA, P. 171.  SINCE CONGRESS COULD NOT BY LAW
REQUIRE OF RESPONDENT WHAT THE HOUSE DEMANDED, IT MAY NOT TAKE THE
FIRST STEP IN AN INQUIRY ENDING IN FINE OR IMPRISONMENT. 

FN1  THIS SECTION PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:  "EVERY PERSON WHO
HAVING BEEN SUMMONED AS A WITNESS BY THE AUTHORITY OF EITHER HOUSE OF
CONGRESS TO GIVE TESTIMONY OR TO PRODUCE PAPERS UPON ANY MATTER UNDER
INQUIRY BEFORE EITHER HOUSE,  ...  OR ANY COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE OF
CONGRESS, WILLFULLY MAKES DEFAULT, OR WHO, HAVING APPEARED, REFUSES TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTION PERTINENT TO THE QUESTION UNDER INQUIRY, SHALL BE
DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$1,000 NOR LESS THAN $100 AND IMPRISONMENT IN A COMMON JAIL FOR NOT
LESS THAN ONE MONTH NOR MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS." 

FN2  H. RES. 298, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN3  WHEN THE TAFT-HARTLEY LAW WAS UNDER DISCUSSION, CCG PUBLISHED A
PAMPHLET "LABOR MONOPOLIES OR FREEDOM" OF WHICH 250,000 COPIES WERE
DISTRIBUTED.  "ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS GOT A COPY.  IT WENT TO
PUBLISHERS.  PEOPLE WHO COULD TAKE OPINION THAT WAY, AND MINT IT INTO
SMALL COIN TO DISTRIBUTE TO OTHERS."  H.R. REP. NO. 3024, SUPRA, P.
11.  RESPONDENT TESTIFIED THAT FRANK GANNETT PAID FOR THAT
DISTRIBUTION. 

FN4  "PRESSURE GROUPS INTERPRET THE LOBBYING ACT IN DIFFERENT WAYS. 
SOME FILE EXPENSES.  OTHERS FILE FULL BUDGET, BUT LIST EXPENDITURES
THEY JUDGE ALLOCABLE TO LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES.  STILL OTHERS FILE ONLY
EXPENDITURES DIRECTLY CONCERNED WITH LOBBYING. 

"SOME ORGANIZATIONS ARGUE THEY NEED NOT FILE UNLESS PRINCIPAL PURPOSE
IS INFLUENCING LEGISLATION.  BUT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAYS, 'PRINCIPAL'
INCLUDES ALL WHO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL LEGISLATIVE INTERESTS.  LOBBIES ALSO
DIFFER ON WHO FILED EXPENDITURES - ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS."  95
CONG. REC. 11389. 

FN5  AN ANALYSIS OF THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THE MEANING OF
"LOBBYING" IS CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL INTERIM REPORT OF THE SELECT
COMMITTEE.  H.R. REP. NO. 3138, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 5 ET SEQ. 

FN6  CF. BARSKY V. UNITED STATES, 83 U.S. APP. D.C. 127, 167 F.2D
241, CERTIORARI DENIED, 334 U.S. 843, REHEARING DENIED, 339 U.S. 971,
AND MARSHALL V. UNITED STATES, 85 U.S. APP.  D.C. 184, 176 F.2D 473,
CERTIORARI DENIED, 339 U.S. 933, REHEARING DENIED, 339 U.S. 959. 
..END :




















UNEXCELLED CHEMICAL CORP. V. UNITED STATES 345 U.S. 59 


NO. 293.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 196 F.2D 264,
REVERSED. 


1.  AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT
TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FROM A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR WHO
KNOWINGLY EMPLOYED CHILD LABOR IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT IS SUBJECT TO
THE TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 6 OF THE PORTAL
TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947.  PP. 60-64. 

2.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 6 OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT, THE
CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CASE "ACCRUED" WHEN THE MINORS WERE EMPLOYED,
NOT WHEN IT HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED THAT THE CONTRACTOR
WAS LIABLE TO THE UNITED STATES FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  PP. 65-66. 

3.  THAT THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC
INTEREST MAY BE PREJUDICED DOES NOT JUSTIFY A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE AT WAR WITH ITS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS.  P. 66. 

4.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 6 OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT, AN ACTION
IS COMMENCED ON THE DATE WHEN THE COMPLAINT IN THE LAWSUIT IS FILED,
NOT WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT ARE
INITIATED.  P. 66. 

UNEXCELLED CHEMICAL CORP. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

AN ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST PETITIONER BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
WALSH-HEALEY ACT WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS BARRED BY
LIMITATIONS.  99 F. SUPP. 155.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  196
F.2D 264.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 862.  REVERSED, P.
66. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT.  49 STAT. 2036, AS AMENDED, 41
U.S.C. SEC. 35 ET SEQ. THAT ACT PROVIDES THAT A CONTRACTOR FURNISHING
THE GOVERNMENT MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, ETC., IN AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING
$10,000 MUST MEET SPECIFIED LABOR STANDARDS.  THUS, CHILD LABOR AND
CONVICT LABOR ARE PROHIBITED, SEC. 1(D), UNDER THE SANCTION OF $10 A
DAY FOR EACH DAY ANY MINOR OR CONVICT IS EMPLOYED PLUS ANY UNDERPAYMENT
OF WAGES, PAYABLE AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  SEC. 2.  THESE SUMS OF MONEY
OWING THE UNITED STATES MAY BE WITHHELD FROM AMOUNTS DUE ON THE
CONTRACTS OR MAY BE RECOVERED IN SUITS BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE
UNITED STATES BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  SEC. 2.  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
ADMINISTERS THE ACT (SEE SEC. 4; ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS, 317
U.S. 501, 507), MAKING INVESTIGATIONS AND FINDINGS (SEC. 4) AND ISSUING
COMPLAINTS AND HOLDING HEARINGS.  SEC. 5. 

ON APRIL 17, 1947, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR ISSUED A COMPLAINT CHARGING
PETITIONER WITH HAVING KNOWINGLY EMPLOYED CHILD LABOR DURING THE YEARS
1942-1945 IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  ON FEBRUARY 25, 1949, A HEARING
EXAMINER MADE A DECISION IN WHICH HE FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD
KNOWINGLY EMPLOYED CHILD LABOR IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT AND WAS INDEBTED
TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUM OF $15,600 AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 
UNDER THE RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR THAT DECISION
BECAME FINAL AT THE END OF THE TWENTY-DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH
PETITIONER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PETITION THE CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER
FOR REVIEW. 

NEARLY A YEAR LATER - JANUARY 27, 1950 - THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT. 
THE ANSWER TENDERED AS A DEFENSE THE TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CONTAINED IN SEC. 6 OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 84,
87, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 255.  BOTH PARTIES MOVED FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PETITIONER'S MOTION, HOLDING THAT
THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE WHEN PETITIONER VIOLATED THE STATUTE AND THAT
THE TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN TO RUN FROM THE DATE.  99 F.
SUPP. 155.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 196 F.2D 264, HOLDING THAT
ACTIONS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE THE CHILD LABOR
PROVISIONS OF THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT ARE NOT BARRED BY THE TWO-YEAR
LIMITATION PERIOD OF SEC. 6 OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT DECISION AND
LANCE, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 190 F.2D 204, AND UNITED STATES V.
LOVKNIT MFG. CO., 189 F.2D 454, FROM THE COURTS OF APPEALS OF THE
FOURTH AND FIFTH CIRCUITS RESPECTIVELY. 

LIMITATIONS FOR ANY ACTION COMMENCED ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE ACT
"TO ENFORCE ANY CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, UNPAID
OVERTIME COMPENSATION, OR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED, THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT, OR THE BACON
DAVIS ACT."  SECTION 6 ALSO PROVIDES THAT "EVERY SUCH ACTION SHALL BE
FOREVER BARRED UNLESS COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF
ACTION ACCRUED." 

THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT WAS ENACTED TO REMEDY WHAT WERE DEEMED TO BE
SOME HARSH RESULTS OF OUR DECISION IN ANDERSON V. MT. CLEMENS POTTERY
CO., 328 U.S. 680, WHICH HELD THAT TIME NECESSARILY SPENT BY EMPLOYEES
WALKING TO WORK ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES AND IN PRELIMINARY
ACTIVITIES AFTER ARRIVING AT THEIR PLACES OF WORK WAS WORKING TIME
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  52 STAT. 1060, 63
STAT. 910, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. THE SUITS INSTITUTED BY
EMPLOYEES, THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED, AND THEIR THREATENED IMPACT ON BUSINESS
CAUSED CONGRESS TO ACT.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 71, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.;
S. REP. NO. 48, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE CONSEQUENCES FEARED FROM
ANDERSON V. MT. CLEMENS POTTERY CO., SUPRA, WERE SUMMARIZED IN SEC.
1(A) OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT.  (FN1)  NONE OF THESE REFERRED TO THE
LIQUIDATED DAMAGE PROVISIONS OF THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT.  NONE IN FACT
REFERRED TO ITS CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS.  THAT IS THE START OF THE
ARGUMENT MADE BY RESPONDENT AND ADOPTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS TO THE
EFFECT THAT CONGRESS IN THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT HAD NO INTENTION TO
LEGISLATE WITH RESPECT TO THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE WALSH
HEALEY ACT BUT HAD IN MIND ONLY POSSIBLE SUITS WHICH EMPLOYEES MIGHT
BRING FOR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO LAY OUT THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT.  FOR THE WORDS CONGRESS USED IN SEC. 6 ARE TOO
PRECISE FOR EXTENDED ARGUMENT.  THREE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE COVERED -
CLAIMS FOR "UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES," CLAIMS FOR "UNPAID OVERTIME
COMPENSATION," AND CLAIMS FOR "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" UNDER THREE ACTS,
INCLUDING THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT.  THE ONLY "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES"
COLLECTIBLE UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT ARE COLLECTIBLE BY THE UNITED
STATES.  THAT MARKS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT ACT AND THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  FOR, UNDER THE LATTER, EMPLOYEES MAY BRING SUITS FOR
DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF UNPAID WAGES, PLUS COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES.  29
U.S.C. SEC. 216(B).  THAT IS DOUBTLESS WHY SEC. 1(A) OF THE PORTAL-TO
PORTAL ACT, AFTER SUMMARIZING THE GREAT BURDEN ON EMPLOYERS OF THE
PENDING EMPLOYEE CLAIMS, STATES THAT "ALL OF THE RESULTS WHICH HAVE
ARISEN OR MAY ARISE UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938  ...
MAY (EXCEPT AS TO LIABILITY FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES) ARISE WITH RESPECT
TO THE WALSH-HEALEY" ACT AND THAT "IT IS, THEREFORE, IN THE NATIONAL
PUBLIC INTEREST  ...  THAT THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT
...  ."  THAT STATEMENT DOES NO MORE THAN EMPHASIZE THE DIFFERENCE OF
THE PROBLEM OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE TWO ACTS.  THE FACT REMAINS
THAT THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT TREATS CLAIMS FOR "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES"
UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT PRECISELY THE SAME AS IT DOES CLAIMS FOR
"LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, EVEN THOUGH
THE FORMER ARE ENFORCED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE LATTER BY
THE EMPLOYEES.  PERHAPS THAT DOES NOT MAKE FOR AN HARMONIOUS WHOLE. 
PERHAPS CONGRESS MISCONCEIVED THE PROBLEMS UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT. 
(FN2)  HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, THE PRESENT CAUSE OF ACTION SEEMS TO BE
PRECISELY DESCRIBED BY AND EXPRESSLY INCLUDED IN THE WORDS "LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES UNDER THE  ...  WALSH-HEALEY ACT."  IF THIS CAUSE OF ACTION IS
NOT COVERED BY THAT LANGUAGE, APPARENTLY NONE OTHER IS.  (FN3)  IT IS
NOT FOR US THEN TO TRY TO AVOID THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
MEAN WHAT IT SAID.  ARGUMENTS OF POLICY ARE RELEVANT WHEN FOR EXAMPLE A
STATUTE HAS AN HIATUS THAT MUST BE FILLED OR THERE ARE AMBIGUITIES IN
THE LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE THAT MUST BE RESOLVED.  BUT WHEN CONGRESS,
THOUGH PERHAPS MISTAKENLY OR INADVERTENTLY, HAS USED LANGUAGE WHICH
PLAINLY BRINGS A SUBJECT MATTER INTO A STATUTE, ITS WORD IS FINAL -
SAVE FOR QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER WHICH HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN
INTIMATED HERE. 

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT EVEN IF THIS CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUBJECT TO THE
TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 6 OF THE PORTAL-TO
PORTAL ACT, THE PRESENT SUIT WAS TIMELY.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE
CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES, AND THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN, ONLY
AFTER IT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR THAT
THE CONTRACTOR IS LIABLE TO THE UNITED STATES FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 
IF THAT CONTENTION IS SOUND, THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST STAND, AS THIS
SUIT WAS BEGUN LESS THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. 

WE TAKE THE OPPOSING VIEW.  WE CONCLUDE THAT "THE CAUSE OF ACTION
ACCRUED," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 6 OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT,
WHEN THE MINORS WERE EMPLOYED.  THAT WAS THE VIOLATION OF THE WALSH
HEALEY ACT, GIVING RISE TO THE LIABILITY FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT IS ENTRUSTED IN LARGE MEASURE
TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR.  SEE ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS,
SUPRA.  HE HAS BROAD INVESTIGATORY AND HEARING POWERS.  SECS. 4, 5.  HE
HAS AUTHORITY TO PROSCRIBE THOSE WHO HAVE VIOLATED THE ACT, BARRING
THEM FROM GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS FOR THREE YEARS.  SEC. 3.  MONEYS
WITHHELD AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ARE PLACED IN A SPECIAL FUND AND PAID ON
ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TO THE EMPLOYEES.  SEC. 2.  THESE
POWERS OF THE SECRETARY, IMPORTANT AS THEY ARE IN DETERMINING THE
RELATION BETWEEN THE COURTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT
(ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS, SUPRA), ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE
NARROW QUESTION OF LAW THAT IS PRESENTED.  A CAUSE OF ACTION IS CREATED
WHEN THERE IS A BREACH OF DUTY OWED THE PLAINTIFF.  IT IS THAT BREACH
OF DUTY, NOT ITS DISCOVERY, THAT NORMALLY IS CONTROLLING.  SECTION 2 OF
THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT PROVIDES THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY BRING SUIT
TO RECOVER MONEYS OWED THE UNITED STATES.  (FN4)  THE FACT THAT DUE
DEFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS SHOULD MAKE A COURT HOLD ITS
HAND UNTIL THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
HAVE BEEN COMPLETED (FAR EAST CONFERENCE V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S.
570; THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN R. CO., 328 U.S. 134; GENERAL AMERICAN
TANK CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422; UNITED STATES V.
MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183) IS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND OF NO
RELEVANCY HERE.  THE STATUTORY LIABILITY ACCRUED WHEN THE MINORS WERE
EMPLOYED.  IT WAS FROM THAT DATE THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN
TO RUN. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION, IT IS SAID, WILL PREJUDICE THE POWER OF THE UNITED
STATES TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  BUT IF THERE IS PREJUDICE IT
IS THE RESULT OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT WHICH CONGRESS, HAVING MADE,
CAN REFASHION. 

THERE IS THE FINAL ARGUMENT THAT THE ACTION WAS, IN ANY EVENT,
COMMENCED WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED.  SECTION
7 OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT PROVIDES THAT "AN ACTION IS COMMENCED FOR
THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 6  ...  ON THE DATE WHEN THE COMPLAINT IS
FILED."  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ISSUANCE OF A FORMAL COMPLAINT IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS (THE CUSTOMARY PROCEDURE IN WALSH-HEALEY
CASES) IS THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION IN THE STATUTORY SENSE. 
CONGRESS, HOWEVER, WHEN IT WROTE SEC. 7, WAS ADDRESSING ITSELF TO
LAWSUITS IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE.  COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION BY THE
FILING OF A COMPLAINT HAS TOO FAMILIAR A HISTORY AND THE PURPOSE OF
SECS. 6 AND 7 WAS TOO OBVIOUS FOR US TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
MEAN TO USE THE WORDS IN THEIR ORDINARY SENSE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SECTION 1.  (A)  THE CONGRESS HEREBY FINDS THAT THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED, HAS BEEN INTERPRETED JUDICIALLY IN
DISREGARD OF LONG-ESTABLISHED CUSTOMS, PRACTICES, AND CONTRACTS BETWEEN
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, THEREBY CREATING WHOLLY UNEXPECTED
LIABILITIES, IMMENSE IN AMOUNT AND RETROACTIVE IN OPERATION, UPON
EMPLOYERS WITH THE RESULTS THAT, IF SAID ACT AS SO INTERPRETED OR
CLAIMS ARISING UNDER SUCH INTERPRETATIONS WERE PERMITTED TO STAND, (1)
THE PAYMENT OF SUCH LIABILITIES WOULD BRING ABOUT FINANCIAL RUIN OF
MANY EMPLOYERS AND SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE CAPITAL RESOURCES OF MANY
OTHERS, THEREBY RESULTING IN THE REDUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS,
HALTING OF EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT, CURTAILING EMPLOYMENT, AND THE
EARNING POWER OF EMPLOYEES; (2) THE CREDIT OF MANY EMPLOYERS WOULD BE
SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED; (3) THERE WOULD BE CREATED BOTH AND EXTENDED AND
CONTINUOUS UNCERTAINTY OF THE PART OF INDUSTRY BOTH EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE, AS TO THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF PRODUCTIVE ESTABLISHMENTS
AND A GROSS INEQUALITY OF COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND
BETWEEN INDUSTRIES; (4) EMPLOYEES WOULD RECEIVE WINDFALL PAYMENTS,
INCLUDING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, OF SUMS FOR ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THEM
WITHOUT ANY EXPECTATION OF REWARD BEYOND THAT INCLUDED IN THEIR AGREED
RATES OF PAY; (5) THERE WOULD OCCUR THE PROMOTION OF INCREASING DEMANDS
FOR PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEES FOR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES NO COMPENSATION FOR
WHICH HAD BEEN CONTEMPLATED BY EITHER THE EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYEE AT THE
TIME THEY WERE ENGAGED IN; (6) VOLUNTARY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WOULD BE
INTERFERED WITH AND INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS
AND BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES WOULD BE CREATED; (7) THE COURTS OF
THE COUNTRY WOULD BE BURDENED WITH EXCESSIVE AND NEEDLESS LITIGATION
AND CHAMPERTOUS PRACTICES WOULD BE ENCOURAGED; (8) THE PUBLIC TREASURY
WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF LARGE SUMS OF REVENUES AND PUBLIC FINANCES WOULD
BE SERIOUSLY DERANGED BY CLAIMS AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY FOR REFUNDS
OF TAXES ALREADY PAID; (9) THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GOODS AND
SERVICES HERETOFORE AND HEREAFTER PURCHASED BY ITS VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
AND AGENCIES WOULD BE UNREASONABLY INCREASED AND THE PUBLIC TREASURY
WOULD BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY CONSEQUENT INCREASED COST OF WAR
CONTRACTS; AND (10) SERIOUS AND ADVERSE EFFECTS UPON THE REVENUES OF
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD OCCUR."    FN2  SEE FOR
EXAMPLE H.R. REP. NO. 71, SUPRA, P. 5:  "THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT ALSO
CONCERNS ITSELF IN ITS FIELD WITH MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME
COMPENSATION.  THE BACON-DAVIS ACT HAS PROVISIONS RELATING TO MINIMUM
WAGES AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  THESE TWO ACTS ARE THEREFORE
AFFECTED BY THE MOUNT CLEMENS DECISION.  THE SITUATION DESCRIBED HEREIN
AS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT APPLIES TO THAT EXISTING UNDER THE
WALSH-HEALEY ACT AND THE BACON-DAVIS ACT.  THE SAME NECESSITY EXISTS
THERE FOR REMEDIAL LEGISLATION." 

FN3  WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER EMPLOYEES HAVE STANDING TO
SUE UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT.  NO PROVISION, HOWEVER, IS MADE FOR
THEIR RECOVERY OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  THE FOLLOWING PROVISION RELATES
TO THEIR RIGHTS:  "ALL SUMS WITHHELD OR RECOVERED AS DEDUCTIONS,
REBATES, REFUNDS, OR UNDERPAYMENTS OF WAGES SHALL BE HELD IN A SPECIAL
DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AND SHALL BE PAID, ON ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR,
DIRECTLY TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN PAID LESS THAN MINIMUM RATES OF
PAY AS SET FORTH IN SUCH CONTRACTS AND ON WHOSE ACCOUNT SUCH SUMS WERE
WITHHELD OR RECOVERED:  PROVIDED, THAT NO CLAIMS BY EMPLOYEES FOR SUCH
PAYMENTS SHALL BE ENTERTAINED UNLESS MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE
OF ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CONTRACTOR OF THE WITHHOLDING OR RECOVERY OF
SUCH SUMS BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."  SEC. 2. 

FN4  SECTION 2 PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:  "ANY SUMS OF MONEY DUE TO
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY REASON OF ANY VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE
REPRESENTATIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF SAID CONTRACT SET FORTH IN SECTION
1 HEREOF MAY BE WITHHELD FROM ANY AMOUNTS DUE ON ANY SUCH CONTRACTS OR
MAY BE RECOVERED IN SUITS BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEREOF." 
..END :




FOWLER V. RHODE ISLAND 345 U.S. 67 


NO. 340.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 80 R.I. - ,
91 A.2D 27, REVERSED. 


A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE WHICH IS SO CONSTRUED AND APPLIED AS TO PENALIZE
A MINISTER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES FOR PREACHING AT A PEACEFUL RELIGIOUS
MEETING IN A PUBLIC PARK, ALTHOUGH OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS COULD CONDUCT
RELIGIOUS SERVICES THERE WITH IMPUNITY, VIOLATES THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 67-70. 

FOWLER V. RHODE ISLAND. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND. 

APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  80 R.I. - , 91 A.2D 27.  ON
APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2), REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 70. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CITY OF PAWTUCKET, RHODE ISLAND, HAS AN ORDINANCE WHICH READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 11.  NO PERSON SHALL ADDRESS ANY POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS MEETING
IN ANY PUBLIC PARK; BUT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT
ANY POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS CLUB OR SOCIETY FROM VISITING ANY PUBLIC
PARK IN A BODY, PROVIDED THAT NO PUBLIC ADDRESS SHALL BE MADE UNDER THE
AUSPICES OF SUCH CLUB OR SOCIETY IN SUCH PARK." 

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, A RELIGIOUS SECT, ASSEMBLED IN SLATER PARK OF
PAWTUCKET FOR A MEETING WHICH AT THE TRIAL WAS CONCEDED TO BE RELIGIOUS
IN CHARACTER.  ABOUT 400 PEOPLE ATTENDED, 150 BEING JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES.  APPELLANT IS A MINISTER OF THIS SECT, RESIDING IN
ARLINGTON, MASS.  HE WAS INVITED TO PAWTUCKET AS A VISITING MINISTER TO
GIVE A TALK BEFORE THE PAWTUCKET CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. 
APPELLANT ACCEPTED THE INVITATION, ATTENDED THE MEETING IN THE PARK,
AND ADDRESSED IT OVER TWO LOUD-SPEAKERS.  IT WAS A QUIET, ORDERLY
MEETING WITH NO DISTURBANCES OR BREACHES OF THE PEACE WHATSOEVER. 

APPELLANT'S ADDRESS WAS ENTITLED "THE PATHWAY TO PEACE."  HE
DISCUSSED THE FUTILITY OF EFFORTS BEING MADE TO ESTABLISH PEACE IN THE
WORLD.  AND THEN, ACCORDING TO HIS UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY, HE
"LAUNCHED FORTH INTO THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW WHERE WE WERE ON
THE STRING OF TIME; THAT WE HAD REACHED THE END OF THIS WICKED SYSTEM
OF THINGS."  APPELLANT HAD BEEN TALKING ONLY A FEW MINUTES WHEN HE WAS
ARRESTED BY THE POLICE AND CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE SET
FORTH ABOVE.  HE WAS TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY OVER OBJECTIONS THAT THE
ORDINANCE AS SO CONSTRUED AND APPLIED VIOLATED THE FIRST AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  HE WAS FINED $5.  HIS
CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT.  80 R.I. - ,
91 A.2D 27.  AND SEE FOWLER V. STATE, 79 R.I. 16, 83 A.2D 67, AN
EARLIER OPINION ANSWERING CERTIFIED QUESTIONS AND HOLDING THE ORDINANCE
VALID.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C.  SEC. 1257(2). 

DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43, DECIDED IN 1897, SUSTAINED A
CONVICTION OF A MAN FOR MAKING A SPEECH ON THE BOSTON COMMONS IN
VIOLATION OF AN ORDINANCE THAT FORBADE THE MAKING OF A PUBLIC ADDRESS
THERE WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR.  MUCH OF THE ORAL ARGUMENT AND
MOST OF THE BRIEFS HAVE BEEN DEVOTED ON THE ONE HAND TO A DEFENSE OF
THE DAVIS CASE AND ON THE OTHER HAND TO AN ATTACK ON IT.  ANALYSES OF
SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN AN EFFORT EITHER TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DAVIS CASE IS TODAY GOOD LAW, OR TO SHOW THAT IT
HAS BEEN SO QUALIFIED AS NO LONGER TO HAVE ANY VITALITY.  WE ARE
INVITED BY APPELLANT TO OVERRULE IT; WE ARE ASKED BY RESPONDENT TO
REAFFIRM IT. 

WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY THE DAVIS CASE AND ITS
OFFSPRING.  FOR THERE IS ONE ASPECT OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT UNDERCUTS
ALL OTHERS AND MAKES IT NECESSARY FOR US TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT.  AS
WE HAVE SAID, IT WAS CONCEDED AT THE TRIAL THAT THIS MEETING WAS A
RELIGIOUS ONE.  ON ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COURT THE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL FURTHER CONCEDED THAT THE ORDINANCE, AS CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED, DID NOT PROHIBIT CHURCH SERVICES IN THE PARK.  CATHOLICS COULD
HOLD MASS IN SLATER PARK AND PROTESTANTS COULD CONDUCT THEIR CHURCH
SERVICES THERE WITHOUT VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE.  CHURCH SERVICES
NORMALLY ENTAIL NOT ONLY SINGING, PRAYER, AND OTHER DEVOTIONALS BUT
PREACHING AS WELL.  EVEN SO, THOSE SERVICES WOULD NOT BE BARRED BY THE
ORDINANCE.  THAT BROAD CONCESSION, MADE IN ORAL ARGUMENT, IS FATAL TO
RHODE ISLAND'S CASE.  FOR IT PLAINLY SHOWS THAT A RELIGIOUS SERVICE OF
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN A RELIGIOUS SERVICE OF
OTHER SECTS.  THAT AMOUNTS TO THE STATE PREFERRING SOME RELIGIOUS
GROUPS OVER THIS ONE.  IN NIEMOTKO V. MARYLAND, 340 U.S. 268, 272-273,
WE HAD A CASE ON ALL FOURS WITH THIS ONE.  THERE A PUBLIC PARK, OPEN TO
ALL RELIGIOUS GROUPS, WAS DENIED JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BECAUSE OF THE
DISLIKE WHICH THE LOCAL OFFICIALS HAD OF THESE PEOPLE AND THEIR VIEWS. 
THAT WAS A DISCRIMINATION WHICH WE HELD TO BE BARRED BY THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. 

APPELLANT'S SECT HAS CONVENTIONS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE
PRACTICES OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS.  ITS RELIGIOUS SERVICE IS LESS
RITUALISTIC, MORE UNORTHODOX, LESS FORMAL THAN SOME.  BUT APART FROM
NARROW EXCEPTIONS NOT RELEVANT HERE (REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S.
145; DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333) IT IS NO BUSINESS OF COURTS TO SAY
THAT WHAT IS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OR ACTIVITY FOR ONE GROUP IS NOT
RELIGION UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  NOR IS IT IN THE
COMPETENCE OF COURTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME TO APPROVE,
DISAPPROVE, CLASSIFY, REGULATE, OR IN ANY MANNER CONTROL SERMONS
DELIVERED AT RELIGIOUS MEETINGS.  SERMONS ARE AS MUCH A PART OF A
RELIGIOUS SERVICE AS PRAYERS.  THEY COVER A WIDE RANGE AND HAVE AS
GREAT A DIVERSITY AS THE BIBLE OR OTHER HOLY BOOK FROM WHICH THEY
COMMONLY TAKE THEIR TEXTS.  TO CALL THE WORDS WHICH ONE MINISTER SPEAKS
TO HIS CONGREGATION A SERMON, IMMUNE FROM REGULATION, AND THE WORDS OF
ANOTHER MINISTER AN ADDRESS, SUBJECT TO REGULATION, IS MERELY AN
INDIRECT WAY OF PREFERRING ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER.  THAT WOULD BE
PRECISELY THE EFFECT HERE IF WE AFFIRMED THIS CONVICTION IN THE FACT OF
THE CONCESSION MADE DURING ORAL ARGUMENT.  BAPTIST, METHODIST,
PRESBYTERIAN, OR EPISCOPAL MINISTERS, CATHOLIC PRIESTS, MOSLEM MULLAHS,
BUDDHIST MONKS COULD ALL PREACH TO THEIR CONGREGATIONS IN PAWTUCKET'S
PARKS WITH IMPUNITY.  BUT THE HAND OF THE LAW WOULD BE LAID ON THE
SHOULDER OF A MINISTER OF THIS UNPOPULAR GROUP FOR PERFORMING THE SAME
FUNCTION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF RHODE ISLAND FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, EXCEPT
INSOFAR AS IT MAY DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  FOR HIM IT
IS THE EQUAL-PROTECTION-OF-THE-LAWS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
THAT CONDEMNS THE PAWTUCKET ORDINANCE AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :















NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. ROCKAWAY NEWS SUPPLY CO., INC. 345
U.S. 71 


NO. 318.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 197 F.2D
111, AFFIRMED. 


1.  RESPONDENT DISCHARGED AN EMPLOYEE FOR REFUSING TO CROSS, IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, A LAWFUL PICKET LINE MAINTAINED AT PREMISES
OTHER THAN HIS EMPLOYER'S BY A UNION OF WHICH HE WAS NOT A MEMBER.  HIS
OWN UNION HAD NOT FORBIDDEN HIM TO CROSS THE LINE, AND HIS FELLOW
EMPLOYEES DID CROSS IT.  THEIR UNION HAD A CONTRACT WITH RESPONDENT
WHICH PROVIDED AGAINST STRIKES, LOCKOUTS, OTHER CESSATION OF WORK OR
INTERFERENCE THEREWITH EXCEPT AS AGAINST A PARTY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
A DECISION OF AN ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR WHICH IT PROVIDED.  ON
ARBITRATION, THIS ADJUSTMENT BOARD DECIDED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT.  THE
EMPLOYEE THEN FILED WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A CHARGE
THAT HIS DISCHARGE VIOLATED SEC. 8(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT RESULTED FROM ANTIUNION BIAS OR WAS
INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION.  HELD:  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, RESPONDENT'S DISCHARGE OF THIS EMPLOYEE WAS
NOT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(A) OF THE ACT.  PP. 72-81. 

2.  IN ISSUING A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST RESPONDENT IN THIS
CASE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ERRED IN IGNORING RESPONDENT'S
CONTRACT WITH THE UNION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS UTTERLY NULL AND VOID
UNDER THE BOARD'S RECENT DECISION IN ANOTHER CASE, WHICH WAS DECIDED
AFTER THE DISCHARGE OF THE EMPLOYEE HERE INVOLVED.  PP. 76-78. 

3.  THE NO-STRIKE AND ARBITRATION PROVISIONS OF RESPONDENT'S CONTRACT
WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S UNION ARE NOT UNLAWFUL, NOR, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE SAVINGS AND SEPARABILITY CLAUSES OF THE
CONTRACT, WERE THEY RENDERED ILLEGAL BY APPEARING IN THE SAME CONTRACT
WITH FORBIDDEN PROVISIONS FOR UNION SECURITY NOT EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED
ON A VOTE OF EMPLOYEES UNDER SEC. 9(E) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT.  PP. 78-81. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. ROCKAWAY NEWS SUPPLY CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM LABOR PRACTICES WHICH IT FOUND VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 8(A) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, TO REINSTATE A DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE,
AND TO POST APPROPRIATE NOTICES.  95 N.L.R.B. 336.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS SET ASIDE THE ORDER.  197 F.2D 111.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 863.  AFFIRMED, P. 81. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SET ASIDE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD'S ORDER THAT ROCKAWAY NEWS SUPPLY CO. REINSTATE ONE CHARLES WAUGH
AS A CHAUFFEUR AND ROUTEMAN AND MAKE HIM WHOLE FOR AN UNLAWFUL
DISCHARGE.  THE COURT BELOW WAS DIVIDED, (FN1) AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  (FN2) 

WAUGH HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT ABOUT SEVEN YEARS.  HIS DUTY
WAS TO DRIVE A TRUCK ALONG A REGULAR ROUTE TO PICK UP AND DELIVER
CERTAIN NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS.  ONE OF HIS SCHEDULED STOPS
WAS AT THE ROCKVILLE CENTER PLANT OF THE DAILY REVIEW CORPORATION,
PUBLISHER OF THE NASSAU DAILY REVIEW, CONSIGNMENTS OF WHICH HE WAS TO
PICK UP AND DELIVER TO VARIOUS RETAIL DEALERS.  WAUGH, LIKE ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT, WAS A MEMBER OF THE NEWSPAPER AND
MAIL DELIVERERS' UNION OF NEW YORK AND VICINITY.  FOR SOME YEARS
RESPONDENT HAD RECOGNIZED THIS UNION AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT THE FORMALITY OF AN ELECTION. 
IT HAD AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BARGAINED WITH THIS UNION WHICH CONTAINED
A UNION-SECURITY CLAUSE NOT CONDITIONED UPON A VOTE OF THE EMPLOYEES
UNDER SEC. 9(E) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, AN OMISSION
WHICH RAISED QUESTIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAUSE AND OF THE
CONTRACT AS A WHOLE. 

THE NASSAU COUNTY TYPOGRAHICAL UNION NO. 915, A.F.L., OF WHICH WAUGH
WAS NOT A MEMBER, ESTABLISHED A PICKET LINE ABOUT THE PREMISES OF THE
DAILY REVIEW CORPORATION WHICH, ON MARCH 2, 1950, PREVENTED A PICKUP OF
ITS NEWSPAPER EXCEPT BY PASSING THROUGH THE PICKET LINE.  WAUGH ASSURED
HIMSELF THAT THE LINE WAS ORDERED BY THE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION IN
CONNECTION WITH A LABOR DISPUTE.  HE THEN INFORMED HIS FOREMAN THAT,
BECAUSE HE WAS HIMSELF A UNION MAN, HE WOULD NOT CROSS THE PICKET LINE
OF ANOTHER UNION.  HE WAS ADVISED NOT TO TAKE THAT ATTITUDE AND WAS
TOLD "IT MIGHT MEAN YOUR JOB."  WAUGH INSISTED THAT HE WOULD NOT DO
HARM TO ANOTHER UNION AND ASKED TO HAVE THE PAPERS SOMEHOW DELIVERED TO
HIM OUTSIDE OF THE PICKET LINE.  THIS WAS DONE FOR TWO DAYS, BUT THE
FOLLOWING DAY HE WAS ORDERED TO CROSS THE LINE AND GET THE PAPERS -
"OTHERWISE YOU ARE FIRED; IF YOU REFUSE, YOU ARE FIRED."  WAUGH LEFT
THE PREMISES BUT RETURNED DAILY FOR THREE WEEKS SEEKING REEMPLOYMENT
WHICH WAS REFUSED.  WAUGH HAD BEEN WILLING TO PERFORM ALL DUTIES
PROVIDED HE WAS NOT REQUIRED PERSONALLY TO CROSS THE PICKET LINE. 

THE OTHER DRIVERS WERE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE SAME UNION AS WAUGH, BUT
ONLY HE REFUSED TO CROSS THE LINE.  WAUGH'S UNION HAD A COLLECTIVELY
BARGAINED CONTRACT WITH RESPONDENT WHICH PROVIDED AGAINST STRIKES,
LOCKOUTS, OTHER CESSATION OF WORK OR INTEREFERENCE THEREWITH EXCEPT AS
AGAINST A PARTY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A DECISION, AWARD, OR ORDER OF
THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR WHICH IT PROVIDED.  THE UNION INITIATED AN
ARBITRATION THEREUNDER AND THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, ON MARCH 31, 1950,
MADE AN AWARD IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT.  (FN3)  WAUGH THEN FILED THE
CHARGE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL INITIATED THESE
PROCEEDINGS. 

THE PARTIES HERE SEE THE CASE AS REQUIRING DECISION OF SWEEPING
ABSTRACT PRINCIPLES AS TO THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE REGARDING PICKET LINES.  BUT THIS DECISION DOES NOT, AND
SHOULD NOT BE READ TO, DECLARE ANY SUCH PRINCIPLES.  THE ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY HERE IS WITHIN A VERY NARROW SCOPE, SO NARROW THAT THE
BOARD IN ITS OPINION SAID: 

"ALTHOUGH WAUGH'S REFUSAL TO CROSS THE PICKET LINE WAS A PROTECTED
ACTIVITY, THE RESPONDENT, AS A NORMAL INCIDENT OF ITS RIGHT TO MAINTAIN
ITS OPERATIONS, COULD HAVE REQUIRED WAUGH TO ELECT WHETHER TO PERFORM
ALL HIS DUTIES OR, AS A STRIKER, TO VACATE HIS JOB AND MAKE WAY FOR HIS
REPLACEMENT BY THE RESPONDENT.  INSTEAD THE RESPONDENT DISCHARGED
WAUGH." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID, "WE CANNOT FOLLOW THE BOARD'S REASONING." 
NOR CAN WE.  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DISCHARGE AND REPLACEMENT IN THIS
CONTEXT SEEMS TO US AS UNREALISTIC AND UNFOUNDED IN LAW AS THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOUND IT.  THIS APPLICATION OF THE DISTINCTION IS NOT
SANCTIONED BY LABOR BOARD V. MACKAY CO., 304 U.S. 333, 347.  IT IS NOT
BASED ON ANY DIFFERENCE IN EFFECT UPON THE EMPLOYEE.  AND THERE IS NO
FINDING THAT HE WAS NOT REPLACED EITHER BY A NEW EMPLOYEE OR BY
TRANSFER OF DUTIES TO SOME NONOBJECTING EMPLOYEE, AS WOULD APPEAR
NECESSARY IF THE RESPONDENT WERE TO MAINTAIN THE OPERATION. 
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AND DUTIES IN THE FIELD OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT DO NOT
DEPEND ON VERBAL RITUAL REMINISCENT OF MEDIEVAL REAL PROPERTY LAW. 

IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO FINDING, EVIDENCE OR EVEN CHARGE THAT THE
DISMISSAL OF WAUGH RESULTED FROM ANTIUNION BIAS, OR WAS INTENDED TO OR
DID DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIM TO DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR
ORGANIZATION.  WAUGH'S REFUSAL TO CROSS THE LINE WAS NOT IN OBEDIENCE
TO ANY ACTION BY HIS UNION.  EVEN WAUGH WAS WILLING TO HAVE THE PICKET
LINE BREACHED, SO LONG AS IT WAS DONE BY OTHERS.  NO OTHER MEMBER OF
HIS OWN UNION JOINED HIM.  HE HELD HIS POSITION UNDER HIS UNION'S
COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED CONTRACT, THE ADJUSTMENT PROCESSES OF WHICH WENT
AGAINST HIM.  IT IS IRONICAL THAT RESPONDENT HAS BEEN DENIED THE RESULT
OF THE ARBITRATION BY THE BOARD SOLELY BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT, BY THE
CONTRACT, CONCEDED TOO MUCH TO UNION SECURITY, ALLOWING THE UNION WHAT
THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT DOES NOT PERMIT.  IF RESPONDENT PURSUED ANY WRONG
COURSE IN DEALING WITH WAUGH, IT EVIDENTLY WAS NOT DUE TO HOSTILITY TO
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. 

THE BOARD, APPARENTLY CONCEDING THAT, IF VALID, THE CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE UNION AND RESPONDENT WOULD ESTABLISH THE LATTER'S DEFENSE AGAINST
THE CHARGE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, HELD THE CONTRACT UTTERLY NULL AND
VOID AND DENIED IT ANY EFFECT WHATEVER IN THIS CASE.  ALSO, IN A
PROCEEDING DECIDED JUNE 5, 1951, THE BOARD DECLARED THE CONTRACT TO BE
ILLEGAL IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SET ASIDE.  IN THE PRESENT CASE IT FOLLOWED
THAT DECISION AND SAID, "IT WOULD NOT EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE
ACT TO GIVE EFFECT IN THIS CASE TO A CONTRACT WHICH THE BOARD SET ASIDE
IN ITS ENTIRETY IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING.  ACCORDINGLY, THE NOSTRIKE
CLAUSE OF THAT CONTRACT CAN HAVE NO IMPACT UPON WAUGH'S REFUSAL TO
CROSS THE PICKET LINE." 

THE BOARD'S REFERENCE TO A PRIOR CASE REFERS TO ONE DECIDED ABOUT A
MONTH AND A HALF BEFORE THE PRESENT CASE.  BUT IT WAS NOT PRIOR TO THE
CONDUCT OF WHICH THIS CASE ARISES.  THE BOARD DID NOT CHOOSE TO RELY ON
THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, A DOCTRINE
WHOSE APPLICABILITY HERE IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT.  (FN4)  THE RULING
THAT THE CONTRACT IS WITHOUT EFFECT WAS REEXAMINED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS
AND READOPTED AS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE DECISION IN THIS CASE. 

THERE ARE TWO OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF THE BOARD'S COMPLETE DISREGARD
OF THIS CONTRACT.  THE FIRST IS THAT, EVEN IF INCLUSION OF A FORBIDDEN
PROVISION IS ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE BOARD IN SETTING IT ASIDE AS TO THE
FUTURE, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT CAN BE WHOLLY IGNORED IN JUDGING
EVENTS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE IT WAS SET ASIDE.  IT IS ONE THING FOR THE
BOARD TO SAY THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD NOT GO ON UNDER SUCH A CONTRACT;
IT IS ANOTHER TO SAY THAT NO EFFECT WHATEVER MAY BE GIVEN TO A CONTRACT
NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH BY THE UNION AND THE EMPLOYER WHICH BOTH
BELIEVED TO BE VALID AND OPERATIVE, TO WHICH BOTH WERE CONFORMING THEIR
CONDUCT, AND WHICH NO AUTHORITY HAD YET HELD VOID. 

EVEN WHERE A STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND HENCE DECLARED VOID AS
OF THE BEGINNING, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT ITS EXISTENCE BEFORE IT HAS
BEEN SO DECLARED IS NOT TO BE IGNORED. 

WE THINK THE PRINCIPLE IS APPLICABLE HERE, WHICH MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
HUGHES STATED FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT: 

"THE COURTS BELOW HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE THEORY THAT THE ACT OF
CONGRESS, HAVING BEEN FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WAS NOT A LAW; THAT
IT WAS INOPERATIVE, CONFERRING NO RIGHTS AND IMPOSING NO DUTIES, AND
HENCE AFFORDING NO BASIS FOR THE CHALLENGED DECREE  ...  .  IT IS QUITE
CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH BROAD STATEMENTS AS TO THE EFFECT OF A
DETERMINATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE TAKEN WITH
QUALIFICATIONS.  THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF A STATUTE, PRIOR TO SUCH A
DETERMINATION, IS AN OPERATIVE FACT AND MAY HAVE CONSEQUENCES WHICH
CANNOT JUSTLY BE IGNORED.  THE PAST CANNOT ALWAYS BE ERASED BY A NEW
JUDICIAL DECLARATION.  THE EFFECT OF THE SUBSEQUENT RULING AS TO
VALIDITY MAY HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN VARIOUS ASPECTS, - WITH RESPECT
TO PARTICULAR RELATIONS, INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE, AND PARTICULAR
CONDUCT, PRIVATE AND OFFICIAL.  QUESTIONS OF RIGHTS CLAIMED TO HAVE
BECOME VESTED, OF STATUS, OF PRIOR DETERMINATIONS DEEMED TO HAVE
FINALITY AND ACTED UPON ACCORDINGLY, OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE LIGHT OF
THE NATURE BOTH OF THE STATUTE AND OF ITS PREVIOUS APPLICATION, DEMAND
EXAMINATION  ...  ."  CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER STATE
BANK, 308 U.S. 371, 374. 

THE SECOND HURDLE IN THE WAY OF THE BOARD'S POSITION IS THAT IT
IGNORES SAVINGS AND SEPARABILITY CLAUSES OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF, WHICH
WE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  (FN5)  WE HAVE NEVER KNOWN THAT THEY ARE
PER SE ILLEGAL.  WE DO NOT, OF COURSE, QUESTION THAT THERE MAY BE CASES
WHERE A FORBIDDEN PROVISION IS SO BASIC TO THE WHOLE SCHEME OF A
CONTRACT AND SO INTERWOVEN WITH ALL ITS TERMS THAT IT MUST STAND OR
FALL AS AN ENTIRETY.  BUT THE BOARD HERE SIMPLY HELD THAT THE PROVISION
CONCERNING UNION SECURITY INVALIDATES THE WHOLE CONTRACT, AS THE
EXAMINER SAID, "BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT THE
OPERATION OF THE UNION-SECURITY PROVISION WAS TO BE CONDITIONED UPON
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(E) OF THE ACT."  (FN6) 

THE FEATURES TO WHICH THE BOARD RIGHTLY OBJECTS NOT ONLY MAY BE
SEVERED BUT ARE SEPARATED IN THE CONTRACT.  THE WHOLE CONTRACT SHOWS
RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND NOT DEFIANCE OF IT.  THE PARTIES, WHO COULD NOT
FORESEE HOW SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE WOULD BE INTERPRETED,
PROPOSED TO GO AS FAR TOWARD UNION SECURITY AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO GO,
AND THIS IS THEIR RIGHT; AND THEY PROPOSED TO GO NO FARTHER, AND THAT
IS THEIR WHOLE DUTY.  MOREOVER, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THESE ILLEGAL
PROVISIONS IN ANY WAY AFFECTED WAUGH'S UNEMPLOYMENT, HIS DISCHARGE, OR
ANY CONDUCT OF ANY PARTY THAT IS RELEVANT TO THIS DECISION. 

THE TOTAL OBLITERATION OF THIS CONTRACT IS NOT IN OBEDIENCE TO ANY
COMMAND OF THE STATUTE.  IT IS CONTRARY TO COMMON-LAW CONTRACT
DOCTRINE.  IT RESTS UPON NO DECISION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER CONTROLLING
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.  WE SEE NO SOUND PUBLIC POLICY SERVED BY IT.
REALISTICALLY, IF THE FORMAL CONTRACT BE STRICKEN, THE ENTERPRISE MUST
GO ON - LABOR CONTINUES TO DO ITS WORK AND IS WORTHY OF SOME HIRE.  THE
RELATIONSHIP MUST BE GOVERNED BY SOME CONTRACTUAL TERMS.  THERE IS NO
REASON APPARENT WHY TERMS SHOULD BE IMPLIED BY SOME OUTSIDE AUTHORITY
TO TAKE THE PLACE OF LEGAL TERMS COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED.  THE
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE PARTIES
THEMSELVES MERELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE LEGAL LIMITS OF
THEIR BARGAIN, WHERE THE EXCESS MAY BE SEVERED AND SEPARATELY CONDEMNED
AS IT CAN HERE. 

WE THEREFORE CONSIDER THIS CONTROVERSY TO REQUIRE NO DETERMINATION OF
RIGHTS OR DUTIES RESPECTING PICKET LINES BROADER THAN THIS CONTRACT
ITSELF PRESCRIBES.  IT IS PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT THAT "NO STRIKES,
LOCKOUTS OR OTHER CESSATION OF WORK OR INTERFERENCE THEREWITH SHALL BE
ORDERED OR SANCTIONED BY ANY PARTY HERETO DURING THE TERM HEREOF EXCEPT
AS AGAINST A PARTY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A DECISION, AWARD, OR ORDER
OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD."  IF THIS BE CONSIDERED AMBIGUOUS IN MEANING,
RESPONDENT OFFERED, AS EVIDENCE OF ITS INTENT AND MEANING, TO PROVE
THAT DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS ONE OF THE DEMANDS MADE BY THE UNION WAS A
CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT WITH REFERENCE TO WORK STOPPAGES WHICH WOULD
HAVE SAID "NO MAN SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CROSS A PICKET LINE," THAT THIS
CLAUSE WAS REJECTED BY RESPONDENT AND THE UNION ACQUIESCED IN THE
REJECTION AND CONSENTED TO THE NO-STRIKE CLAUSE AS ABOVE RECITED.  THE
TRIAL EXAMINER SAID:  "ALL RIGHT.  LET THE OFFER OF PROOF APPEAR IN THE
RECORD."  FROM THIS IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER IT WAS ACCEPTED OR
REJECTED.  BUT THE ARBITRATORS' INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT WAS IN
HARMONY WITH THE OFFER.  THEY SAID, "IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE PARTIES DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMIT THE REFUSAL BY THE EMPLOYEE TO
COMPLY WITH SUCH AN ORDER ALTHOUGH OTHER CONTRACTS IN THE INDUSTRY DO
CONTAIN SUCH A PROVISION." 

IN THE SECTION BY WHICH THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT PRESCRIBES
CERTAIN PRACTICES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WHICH SHALL BE DEEMED UNFAIR,
THERE IS A PROVISO THAT NOTHING THEREIN "SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE
UNLAWFUL A REFUSAL BY ANY PERSON TO ENTER UPON THE PREMISES OF ANY
EMPLOYER (OTHER THAN HIS OWN EMPLOYER), IF THE EMPLOYEES OF SUCH
EMPLOYER ARE ENGAGED IN A STRIKE RATIFIED OR APPROVED BY A
REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES WHOM SUCH EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO
RECOGNIZE UNDER THIS ACT  ...  ."  (FN7)  THIS CLEARLY ENABLES
CONTRACTING PARTIES TO EMBODY IN THEIR CONTRACT A PROVISION AGAINST
REQUIRING AN EMPLOYEE TO CROSS A PICKET LINE IF THEY SO AGREE.  AND
NOTHING IN THE ACT PREVENTS THEIR AGREEING UPON CONTRARY PROVISIONS IF
THEY CONSIDER THEM APPROPRIATE TO THE PARTICULAR KIND OF BUSINESS
INVOLVED.  AN EMPLOYEE'S BREACH OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT MAY BE MADE
GROUNDS FOR HIS DISCHARGE WITHOUT VIOLATING SEC. 7 OF THE ACT.  LABOR
BOARD V. SANDS CO., 306 U.S. 332, 334.   IN SOME INSTANCES HE MAY NOT,
EVEN WITH AN EMPLOYER'S ASSENT, SUPPLEMENT THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
WITH INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES OVER OTHERS EMPLOYED UNDER IT.  J.I. CASE
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332. 

WE HOLD THAT THE NO-STRIKE AND ARBITRATION PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT
ARE NOT PROHIBITED, NOR WERE THEY RENDERED ILLEGAL BY APPEARING IN THE
SAME CONTRACT WITH FORBIDDEN PROVISIONS IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE
HAVE RECITED.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT WAS NOT AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE TO DISCHARGE WAUGH, AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  197 F.2D 111. 

FN2  344 U.S. 863. 

FN3  "THE UNDERSIGNED, CONSTITUTING THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT, DESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, HAVING HEARD THE PROOF AND ALLEGATIONS, AWARD AS FOLLOWS:
UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IT IS THE
OBLIGATION OF AN EMPLOYEE TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS OF THE FOREMAN, AND IF
SUCH ORDERS ARE OBJECTIONABLE TO HIM PERSONALLY, TO HAVE THE ISSUES
DISCUSSED AND BROUGHT TO ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE
SET FORTH THEREIN.  HE MAY NOT, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, REFUSE TO OBEY
THE ORDER MERELY BECAUSE IT IS PERSONALLY DISTASTEFUL TO HIM, UNLESS IT
IS THE TYPE OF ORDER WHICH MIGHT SUBJECT HIM TO PHYSICAL DANGER OR BE
CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY. 

"OF COURSE, THE ORDER WHICH THE EMPLOYEE HERE REFUSED TO OBEY CANNOT
BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY (AND CONCEDEDLY IT DOES NOT
PHYSICALLY ENDANGER HIM) PARTICULARLY SINCE THE UNION HAD KNOWINGLY
REFRAINED FROM TAKING ANY POSITION AND THE ACT REQUIRED WAS WILLINGLY
PERFORMED WITHOUT OBJECTION BY SIX OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO WERE MEMBERS OF
THE UNION.  IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES DOES NOT
SPECIFICALLY PERMIT THE REFUSAL BY THE EMPLOYEE TO COMPLY WITH SUCH AN
ORDER ALTHOUGH OTHER CONTRACTS IN THE INDUSTRY DO CONTAIN SUCH A
PROVISION. 

"CONSEQUENTLY IT MUST BE RULED THAT THE ACT OF CHARLES WAUGH IN
REFUSING TO OBEY THE ORDER OF THE FOREMAN ON MARCH 7, 1950, CONSTITUTED
JUST CAUSE FOR DISCHARGE.  SIGNED, I. ROBERT FEINBERG, IMPARTIAL
CHAIRMAN; JOHN SOMYAK, JOHN FYLSTRA." 

THEREUNDER IS STATED "THE MEMBERS OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DESIGNATED
BY THE UNION DISSENT FROM THIS AWARD, DATED, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, MARCH
31, 1950." 

FN4  SEE WALLACE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 323 U.S. 248. 

FN5  "TO THE BEST KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF OF THE PARTIES THIS CONTRACT
NOW CONTAINS NO PROVISION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO FEDERAL OR STATE LAW OR
REGULATION.  SHOULD, HOWEVER, ANY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, AT ANY
TIME DURING ITS LIFE, BE IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LAW OR
REGULATION THEN SUCH PROVISION SHALL CONTINUE IN EFFECT ONLY TO THE
EXTENT PERMITTED.  IN EVENT OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT THUS
BEING HELD INOPERATIVE, THE REMAINING PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT
SHALL, NEVERTHELESS, REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT." 

FN6  29 U.S.C. SEC. 159(E)(1):  "UPON THE FILING WITH THE BOARD, BY
30 PER CENTUM OR MORE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A BARGAINING UNIT COVERED BY
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEIR EMPLOYER AND A LABOR ORGANIZATION MADE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 158(A)(3) OF THIS TITLE, OF A PETITION ALLEGING
THEY DESIRE THAT SUCH AUTHORITY BE RESCINDED, THE BOARD SHALL TAKE A
SECRET BALLOT OF THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH UNIT AND CERTIFY THE RESULTS
THEREOF TO SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION AND TO THE EMPLOYER." 

FN7  61 STAT. 142, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 158(B)(4)(D). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

WORK TOGETHER IN "CONCERTED ACTIVITIES" FOR THEIR MUTUAL AID AND
PROTECTION.  ONE WAY SOME UNION MEN HELP OTHERS IS TO REFRAIN FROM
CROSSING PICKET LINES.  HABITUAL RESPECT FOR UNION PICKET LINES HAS
LINE BEEN THE PRACTICE OF UNION MEN.  THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN A PRIZED
ASSET OF THE UNIONS.  THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT WAS DESIGNED TO REGULATE AND
RESTRICT THE TYPE OF CONCERTED ACTIVITIES IN WHICH EMPLOYEES COULD
ENGAGE.  BUT EVEN THAT ACT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO DEPRIVE UNIONS OF THE
ADVANTAGE OF A POLICY THAT REQUIRED UNION MEN TO RESPECT PICKET LINES. 
IN SEC. 8(B)(4)(D) OF THE ACT, CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY DECLARED THAT NONE
OF ITS UNION-RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE IT
UNLAWFUL FOR A MAN TO REFUSE TO CROSS A PICKET LINE THROWN UP TO
SUPPORT A LAWFUL STRIKE.  CONSEQUENTLY I AGREE WITH THE LABOR BOARD
THAT IT WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR THIS EMPLOYER TO DISCHARGE A
UNION EMPLOYEE WHO REFUSED TO CROSS A PICKET LINE.  IN HOLDING TO THE
CONTRARY I THINK THE COURT TAKES AWAY RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES THAT THE TAFT
HARTLEY ACT LEFT STANDING. 

I SAY THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT'S OPINION IS BASED UPON
ITS INTERPRETATION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  IN THE FIRST
PLACE, I WOULD ACCEPT THE LABOR BOARD'S HOLDING THAT THE CONTRACT DID
NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY LAW.  IT SEEMS TO
ME AN UNWISE PRECEDENT FOR THE COURT TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT ABOUT
THIS CONTRACT FOR THAT OF THE BOARD.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, I CAN FIND
NO LANGUAGE IN THAT CONTRACT WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE DISCHARGE OF THE
EMPLOYEE HERE BECAUSE HE INSISTED UPON RESPECTING A UNION PICKET LINE -
A RIGHT RESERVED TO EACH EMPLOYEE BY REASON OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(D) OF THE
ACT.  BELIEVING THAT THE COURT DEPARTS FROM THE ACT'S POLICY IN HOLDING
AS IT DOES, I WOULD AFFIRM THE BOARD'S ORDER. 
..END :












ORLOFF V. WILLOUGHBY 345 U.S. 83 


NO. 444.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 195 F.2D
209, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, A PHYSICIAN EDUCATED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE AND BEYOND THE
USUAL DRAFT AGE, WAS INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY UNDER THE DOCTORS' DRAFT
LAW, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 454(I), WHICH AUTHORIZES SPECIAL CONSCRIPTION
OF CERTAIN "MEDICAL AND ALLIED SPECIALIST CATEGORIES."  BECAUSE OF HIS
REFUSAL, ON GROUNDS OF POSSIBLE SELF-INCRIMINATION, TO STATE IN
CONNECTION WITH HIS APPLICATION FOR A COMMISSION WHETHER HE WAS OR HAD
BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, HE WAS NOT COMMISSIONED OR GIVEN
THE USUAL DUTIES OF AN ARMY DOCTOR, BUT WAS ASSIGNED DUTIES AS A
MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNICIAN.  HE APPLIED TO A FEDERAL COURT FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND FOR DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY, ON THE GROUND
THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN ASSIGNED THE SPECIALIZED DUTIES OR GIVEN THE
COMMISSIONED RANK TO WHICH HE CLAIMS TO BE ENTITLED BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS INDUCTION.  HELD: 

1.  ALTHOUGH NOT BOUND BY IT, THIS COURT AGREES WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONCESSION THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO OBLIGATE THE ARMY TO
CLASSIFY SPECIALLY INDUCTED PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL FOR DUTY WITHIN THE
CATEGORIES WHICH RENDERED THEM LIABLE FOR INDUCTION.  PP. 87-88. 

2.  IT CANNOT BE FOUND THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION AS
A MATTER OF LAW.  PP. 88-92. 

(A)  NEITHER THE UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT NOR THE
ARMY REORGANIZATION ACT REQUIRES THAT ALL PERSONNEL INDUCTED UNDER THE
DOCTORS' DRAFT ACT AND ASSIGNED TO THE MEDICAL CORPS BE EITHER
COMMISSIONED OR DISCHARGED.  PP. 88-89. 

(B)  THE COMMISSIONING OF OFFICERS IN THE ARMY IS A MATTER OF
DISCRETION WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF,
OVER WHICH THE COURTS HAVE NO CONTROL.  P. 90. 

(C)  THE PRESIDENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO APPOINT TO A POSITION OF HONOR
AND TRUST ANY PERSON WHO REFUSES, ON GROUNDS OF SELF-INCRIMINATION, TO
SAY WHETHER HE IS OR HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  PP. 89
92. 

3.  ONE LAWFULLY INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY MAY NOT, THROUGH HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, OBTAIN A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF HIS ASSIGNMENTS TO
DUTY.  PP. 92-94. 

4.  PETITIONER IS NOT BEING HELD IN THE ARMY UNLAWFULLY, AND THE
COURTS MAY NOT REQUIRE HIS DISCHARGE THEREFROM IN A HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING.  PP. 94-95. 

ORLOFF V. WILLOUGHBY, COMMANDANT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER PRESENTS A NOVEL CASE.  ADMITTING THAT HE WAS LAWFULLY
INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY, HE ASKS THE COURTS, BY HABEAS CORPUS, TO
DISCHARGE HIM BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE SPECIALIZED
DUTIES NOR GIVEN THE COMMISSIONED RANK TO WHICH HE CLAIMS TO BE
ENTITLED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS INDUCTION.  THE PETITIONER HAD
PASSED THE AGES LIABLE TO INDUCTION EXCEPT UNDER THE UNIVERSAL MILITARY
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 454(I)(1)(A), WHICH
AUTHORIZES CONSCRIPTION OF CERTAIN "MEDICAL AND ALLIED SPECIALIST
CATEGORIES."  THE STATUTE SETS UP A PRIORITY SYSTEM FOR CALLING SUCH
SPECIALISTS, THE FIRST LIABLE BEING THOSE WHO RECEIVED PROFESSIONAL
TRAINING AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE DURING WORLD WAR II AND WHO HAVE SERVED
LESS THAN NINETY DAYS SINCE COMPLETION OF SUCH TRAINING.  AS A DOCTOR
WHO HAD RECEIVED TRAINING UNDER THIS PROGRAM, ORLOFF WAS SUBJECT TO
THIS PROVISION AND WAS CALLED UP PURSUANT TO IT. 

HIS PETITION ALLEGED THAT HE WAS ILLEGALLY RESTRAINED OF HIS LIBERTY
BECAUSE HE WAS LIABLE FOR SERVICE ONLY AS A DOCTOR BUT, AFTER
INDUCTION, HAD BEEN GIVEN NEITHER RANK NOR DUTIES APPROPRIATE TO THAT
PROFESSION AND SO WAS ENTITLED TO BE DISCHARGED.  HE ALLEGED THAT UNDER
ARMY REGULATIONS AND PRACTICE ONE CAN SERVE AS A DOCTOR ONLY AS A
COMMISSIONED OFFICER AND THE HE APPLIED FOR BUT HAD NOT RECEIVED SUCH
AN APPOINTMENT.  HE ALSO ALLEGED THAT HE HAD REQUESTED ASSIGNMENT OF
PHYSICIAN'S DUTIES, WITH OR WITHOUT A COMMISSION, BUT THAT THIS ALSO
HAD BEEN DENIED HIM. 

THE RETURN TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ASSERTED THAT ORLOFF WAS
LAWFULLY INDUCTED AND THEREFORE THE COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER.  AN AFFIDAVIT BY COLONEL WILLOUGHBY SET FORTH THAT
THE PETITIONER, AFTER SIXTEEN WEEKS OF ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE TRAINING
FOLLOWING HIS INDUCTION, WAS AWARDED A "POTENTIAL MILITARY OCCUPATION
SPECIALTY" AS A MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNICIAN.  APPOINTMENT AS AN
OFFICER IN THE ARMY MEDICAL CORPS RESERVE, HE SAID, WAS STILL UNDER
CONSIDERATION.   IT ALSO ASSERTED THAT UNDER HIS INDUCTION HE WAS
LIABLE FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER MILITARY JURISDICTION AND WAS
SUBJECT TO MILITARY ORDERS AND SERVICE THE SAME AS ANY OTHER INDUCTED
PERSON. 

ANSWERING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, THE RESPONDENT RAISED AS
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES THAT PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT TO MILITARY COMMAND
AND THAT BOTH THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE PERSON OF THE PETITIONER WERE
UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES, AND THAT PETITIONER HAD
FAILED TO EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.   RESPONDENT FURTHER
STATED THAT HIS APPLICATION FOR A COMMISSION STILL WAS BEING PROCESSED
BY MILITARY AUTHORITIES "BECAUSE OF PARTICULAR STATEMENTS MADE BY
PETITIONER IN HIS APPLICATION CONCERNING PRIOR MEMBERSHIP OR
ASSOCIATION WITH CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNATED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ON OCTOBER 30, 1950 PURSUANT TO EXCECUTIVE
ORDER 9835," THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AND THAT HABEAS
CORPUS DOES NOT LIE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CASE. 

BY WAY OF TRAVERSE, ORLOFF SET FORTH IN DETAIL HIS QUALIFICATIONS AS
A PHYSICIAN AND PSYCHIATRIST AND ALLEGED THAT THE MEDICAL LABORATORY
TECHNICIAN STATUS WAS NOT A DOCTOR'S WORK AND REQUIRED NO MORE THAN A
FOUR-MONTH TRAINING OF A LAYMAN IN THE MEDICAL FIELD SERVICE SCHOOL. 
THIS, HE CLAIMS, IS NOT WITHIN THE MEDICAL SPECIALIST CATEGORY FOR
WHICH HE WAS CONSCRIPTED.  HE ASSERTED THAT HE WAS WILLING TO SERVE AS
A MEDICAL SPECIALIST, THAT IS, AS A MEDICAL DOCTOR, AND HAD OFFERED HIS
SERVICES AS A DOCTOR IN THE GRADE OR RANK OF PRIVATE BUT HAD BEEN
ADVISED THAT HE COULD SERVE AS A DOCTOR ONLY UPON BEING COMMISSIONED. 

UPON SUCH PLEADINGS THE CAUSE PROCEEDED TO HEARING.  PETITIONER'S
COUNSEL TOLD THE TRIAL COURT THAT NO QUESTION WAS INVOLVED AS TO THE
ARMY'S GRANTING OR NOT GRANTING A COMMISSION AND THAT PETITIONER WAS
NOT ASKING ANYBODY TO GIVE ANYBODY ELSE A COMMISSION, BUT HE CLAIMED TO
BE ENTITLED TO DISCHARGE UNTIL THE ARMY WAS PREPARED TO USE HIS
SERVICES AS A DOCTOR.  IT WAS ADMITTED THAT PETITIONER HAD MADE NO
REQUEST OF RESPONDENT FOR A DISCHARGE.  EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN INDICATING
THAT THE SPECIALTY TO WHICH ORLOFF HAD BEEN ASSIGNED WAS NOT THAT USUAL
FOR A PHYSICIAN.  THE TRIAL JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT THE LAW DOES NOT
REQUIRE A PERSON DRAFTED UNDER THE "MEDICAL AND ALLIED SPECIALIST
CATEGORIES" TO BE ASSIGNED DOCTOR'S FUNCTIONS AND THOSE ONLY, AND
INTERPRETED THE LAW THAT A DOCTOR INDUCTED UNDER THE STATUTE WAS IN THE
SAME STATUS, SO FAR AS HIS OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS IS CONCERNED, AS IF HE
HAD BEEN INDUCTED UNDER OTHER CONSCRIPTION STATUTES AND COULD NOT
INSIST ON BEING USED IN THE MEDICAL CATEGORY.  HE THEREFORE DENIED THE
WRIT. 

ON APPEAL, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT, THE CASE WAS ARGUED
AND BRIEFED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON THE BROAD THEORY THAT UNDER THE
STATUTE DOCTORS COULD BE DRAFTED AND USED FOR ANY PURPOSE THE ARMY SAW
FIT, THAT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS FOR SUCH INDUCTEES WAS A MATTER OF MILITARY
DISCRETION.  THE COURT AGREED AND ON THAT GROUND AFFIRMED.  (FN1) 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, (FN2) AND IN THIS COURT THE PARTIES CHANGED
POSITIONS AS NIMBLY AS IF DANCING A QUADRILLE.  THE GOVERNMENT HERE
ADMITS THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DUTIES GENERALLY WITHIN A
DOCTOR'S FIELD AND SAYS THAT HE NOW HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO SUCH.  THE
PETITIONER DENIES THAT HE YET HAS DUTIES THAT FULLY SATISFY THAT
REQUIREMENT.  NOTWITHSTANDING HIS POSITION BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, HE
FURTHER SAYS THAT ANYWAY HE MUST BE COMMISSIONED AND WANTS THIS COURT
TO ORDER HIM COMMISSIONED OR DISCHARGED. 

IN ITS PRESENT POSTURE, QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE, FIRST, WHETHER TO
ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSION THAT ONE INDUCTED AS A MEDICAL
SPECIALIST MUST BE USED AS SUCH; SECOND, WHETHER PETITIONER, AS MATTER
OF LAW, IS ENTITLED TO A COMMISSION; THIRD, WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURTS,
BY HABEAS CORPUS, HAVE POWER TO DISCHARGE A LAWFULLY MUSTERED MEMBER OF
THE ARMED FORCES BECAUSE OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY OR ILLEGAL TREATMENT
IN ASSIGNMENT OF DUTIES. 

1.  THIS COURT, OF COURSE, IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONCESSION THAT THE COURTS BELOW ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW.  THEY
ACCEPTED THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT AS THEN MADE AND, IF THEY WERE RIGHT
IN DOING SO, WE SHOULD AFFIRM.  WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE GOVERNMENT
IS WELL ADVISED IN CONFESSING ERROR AND THAT CANDID REVERSAL OF ITS
POSITION IS COMMENDABLE.  WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ARMY ACCEPTS AND IS
GOVERNING ITSELF BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PRESENT INTERPRETATION OF ITS DUTY
TOWARD THOSE - CONSCRIPTED BECAUSE OF PROFESSIONAL SKILLS.  TO SEPARATE
PARTICULAR PROFESSIONAL GROUPS FROM THE GENERALITY OF THE CITIZENSHIP
AND RENDER THEM LIABLE TO MILITARY SERVICE ONLY BECAUSE OF THEIR EXPERT
CALLINGS AND, AFTER INDUCTION, TO DIVERT THEM FROM THE CLASS OF WORK
FOR WHICH THEY WERE CONSCRIPTED WOULD RAISE QUESTIONS NOT ONLY OF BAD
FAITH BUT OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION.  WE AGREE THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD
BE INTERPRETED TO OBLIGATE THE ARMY TO CLASSIFY SPECIALLY INDUCTED
PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL FOR DUTY WITHIN THE CATERGORIES WHICH RENDERED
THEM LIABLE TO INDUCTION.  IT IS NOT CONCEDED HOWEVER, THAT PARTICULAR
DUTY ORDERS WITHIN THE GENERAL FIELD ARE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW BY
HABEAS CORPUS. 

2. WE CANNOT COMPLY WITH THE APPELLANT'S INSISTENCE THAT WE ORDER HIM
TO BE COMMISSIONED OR DISCHARGED.  WE ASSUME THAT HE IS CORRECT IN
STATING THAT IT HAS BEEN A UNIFORM PRACTICE TO COMMISSION ARMY DOCTORS;
INDEED, UNTIL 1950 CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT THE ARMY MEDICAL CORPS SHOULD
CONSIST OF "  ...  COMMISSIONED OFFICERS BELOW THE GRADE OF BRIGADIER
GENERAL."  10 U.S.C.A. SEC. 91.   BUT IN 1950 CONGRESS REPEALED SEC. 91
AND SUBSTITUTED IN ITS PLACE THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:  "THE MEDICAL
CORPS  ...  SHALL CONSIST OF REGUALR ARMY OFFICERS APPOINTED AND
COMMISSIONED THEREIN AND SUCH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ARMY AS MAY BE
ASSIGNED THERETO BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY  ...  ."  10 U.S.C. SEC.
81-1.  10 U.S.C. SEC. 94 PROVIDES THAT MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE ARMY MAY
BE ASSIGNED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY TO SUCH DUTIES AS THE
INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE DEMAND.  THUS, NEITHER IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT NOR OF THE ARMY
REORGANIZATION ACT REFERRED TO ABOVE IS THERE ANY IMPLICATION THAT ALL
PERSONNEL INDUCTED UNDER THE DOCTOR'S DRAFT ACT AND ASSIGNED TO THE
MEDICAL CORPS BE EITHER COMMISSIONED OR DISCHARGED. 

PETITIONER, BY HIS CONCESSIONS ON THE HEARING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
QUESTION OF A COMMISSION WAS NOT INVOLVED, MAY HAVE AVOIDED A FULL
LITIGATION OF THE FACTS WHICH LIE BACK OF HIS NONCOMMISSIONED STATUS,
BUT ENOUGH APPEARS TO MAKE PLAIN THAT THERE WAS CAUSE FOR REFUSING HIM
A COMMISSION. 

IT APPEARS THAT JUST BEFORE PETITIONER WAS INDUCTED HE APPLIED FOR
AND WAS GRANTED A COMMISSION AS CAPTAIN IN THE MEDICAL CORPS, UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE RESERVE.  WHEN HE REFUSED TO EXECUTE THE LOYALTY
CERTIFICATE PRESCRIBED FOR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, HIS APPOINTMENT WAS
REVOKED AND HE WAS DISCHARGED.  THIS PETITIONER REFUSED INFORMATION AS
TO HIS MEMBERSHIP IN OR ASSOCIATION WITH ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNATED BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS SUBVERSIVE OR WHICH ADVOCATED OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  HE GAVE AS HIS REASON THAT "AS A
MATTER OF CONSCIENCE, I OBJECT TO FILLING OUT THE LOYALTY CERTIFICATE
BECAUSE IT INVOLVES AN INQUISITION INTO MY PERSONAL BELIEFS AND VIEWS. 
MOREOVER, THE INQUIRY INTO ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS EMPLOYS THE
PRINCIPLE OF GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, TO WHICH I AM VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED. 
FURTHER, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS WERE LISTED
BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING WHICH HAS CAUSED THE
SUPREME COURT TO INVALIDATE IT." 

AFTER HE WAS INDUCTED, PETITIONER APPLIED FOR ANOTHER COMMISSION AND
FILED THE REQUIRED LOYALTY CERTIFICATE BUT AGAIN REFUSED TO SUPPLY THE
REQUESTED INFORMATION.  HE STATED, "I HAVE ATTENDED PUBLIC MEETING OF
THE CIVIL RIGHTS CONGRESS AND THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET
FRIENDSHIP.  IN 1943, I CO-AUTHORED A RADIO PLAY FOR THE LATTER
ORGANIZATION.  OVER A PERIOD OF 7 1/2 MONTHS I ATTENDED CLASSES AT THE
JEFFERSON SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES (ENDING IN THE SPRING OF 1950). 
WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS CONTAINED ON THE ANNEXED LIST I
AM COMPELLED TO CLAIM MY FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE.  HOWEVER, I
HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED MYSELF AN ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBER OF ANY OF THE
AFORESAID."  AS TO THE QUESTION "ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A
MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, U.S.A. OR ANY COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION?" 
HE SAID, "FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE IS CLAIMED." 

THE PETITIONER APPEARS TO BE UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION THAT A
COMMISSION IS NOT ONLY A MATTER OF RIGHT, BUT IS TO BE HAD UPON HIS OWN
TERMS. 

THE PRESIDENT COMMISSIONS ALL ARMY OFFICERS.  5 U.S.C. SEC. 11.  WE
HAVE HELD THAT, EXCEPT ONE HOLD HIS APPOINTMENT BY VIRTUE OF A
COMMISSION FROM THE PRESIDENT, HE IS NOT AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY. 
UNITED STATES V. MOUAT, 124 U.S. 303.  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE
PRESIDENT ALONE TO APPOINT ARMY OFFICERS IN GRADES UP TO AND INCLUDING
THAT OF COLONEL, ABOVE WHICH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE IS
REQUIRED.  55 STAT. 728, AS AMENDED, 57 STAT. 380. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE COMMISSIONING OF OFFICERS IN THE ARMY IS A
MATTER OF DISCRETION WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER
IN CHIEF.  WHATEVER CONTROL COURTS HAVE EXERTED OVER TENURE OR
COMPENSATION UNDER AN APPOINTMENT, THEY HAVE NEVER ASSUMED BY ANY
PROCESS TO CONTROL THE APPOINTING POWER EITHER IN CIVILIAN OR MILITARY
POSITIONS. 

PETITIONER, LIKE EVERY CONSCRIPT, WAS INDUCTED AS A PRIVATE.  TO
OBTAIN A CHANGE OF THAT STATUS REQUIRES APPOINTMENT BY OR UNDER
AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPOINTMENT HE SEEKS
IS ONE THAT LONG AND CONSISTENT PRACTICE SEEMS NEVER TO HAVE DENIED TO
ONE SERVING AS AN ARMY DOCTOR; ONE, TOO, THAT CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZING
THE DRAFT OF DOCTORS PROBABLY CONTEMPLATED NORMALLY WOULD BE
FORTHCOMING.  BUT, IF HE IS THE FIRST TO BE DENIED A COMMISSION, IT MAY
ALSO BE THAT HE IS THE FIRST DOCTOR TO HAGGLE ABOUT QUESTIONS
CONCERNING HIS LOYALTY.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO US THAT IT IS THE
PRESIDENT WHO BREAKS FAITH WITH CONGRESS AND THE DOCTORS OF AMERICA. 
WE ARE NOT EASILY CONVINCED THAT THE WHOLE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT IS
OUT OF STEP EXCEPT ORLOFF. 

THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION TO ARMY OFFICERS RECITES THAT "REPOSING
SPECIAL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE PATRIOTISM, VALOR, FIDELITY AND
ABILITIES" OF THE APPOINTEE HE IS NAMED TO THE SPECIFIED RANK DURING
THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.  COULD THIS COURT, WHATEVER POWER IT
MIGHT HAVE IN THE MATTER, RATIONALLY HOLD THAT THE PRESIDENT MUST, OR
EVEN OUGHT TO, ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE TO ONE WHO WILL NOT ANSWER WHETHER
HE IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY? 

IT IS ARGUED THAT ORLOFF IS BEING PUNISHED FOR HAVING CLAIMED A
PRIVILEGE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES.  NO ONE, AT LEAST NO ONE
ON THIS COURT WHICH HAS REPEATEDLY SUSTAINED ASSERTION BY COMMUNISTS OF
THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, QUESTIONS OR DOUBTS ORLOFF'S
RIGHT TO WITHHOLD FACTS ABOUT HIMSELF ON THIS GROUND.  NO ONE BELIEVES
HE CAN BE PUNISHED FOR DOING SO.  BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HE CAN AT
THE SAME TIME TAKE THE POSITION THAT TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT HIMSELF
MIGHT INCRIMINATE HIM AND THAT EVEN SO THE PRESIDENT MUST APPOINT HIM
TO A POST OF HONOR AND TRUST.  WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN ANSWERING THAT
QUESTION "NO."    IT IS NOT OUR VIEW OF ORLOFF'S FITNESS THAT GOVERNS. 
REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE INDIVIDUALLY MAY THINK OF THE USEFULNESS OF
LOYALTY OATHS OR THE VALIDITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LIST OF
SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS, WE CANNOT DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, BEFORE CERTIFYING HIS CONFIDENCE IN AN OFFICER AND
APPOINTING HIM TO A COMMISSIONED RANK, HAS THE RIGHT TO LEARN WHATEVER
FACTS THE PRESIDENT THINKS MAY AFFECT HIS FITNESS.  PERHAPS WE WOULD
NOT ASK SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, OR WE MIGHT ASK OTHERS, BUT IF THERE
HAD NEVER BEEN AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LIST THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE WITHIN
HIS RIGHTS IN ASKING ANY QUESTIONS HE SAW FIT ABOUT THE HABITS,
ASSOCIATIONS AND ATTITUDES OF THE APPLICANT FOR HIS TRUST AND HONOR. 
WHETHER ORLOFF DESERVES APPOINTMENT IS NOT FOR JUDGES TO SAY AND IT
WOULD BE IDLE, OR WORSE, TO REMAND THIS CASE TO THE LOWER COURTS ON ANY
QUESTION CONCERNING HIS CLAIM TO A COMMISSION. 

3.  THIS LEAVES THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ONE LAWFULLY INDUCTED MAY
HAVE HABEAS CORPUS TO OBTAIN A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF HIS ASSIGNMENTS TO
DUTY.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONCEDED THAT IT WAS THE LEGAL DUTY OF THE
ARMY TO ASSIGN ORLOFF TO DUTIES FALLING WITHIN "MEDICAL AND ALLIED
SPECIALIST CATEGORIES."  HOWEVER, WITHIN THE AREA COVERED BY THIS
CONCESSION THERE ARE MANY VARIETIES OF PARTICULAR DUTIES.  THE
CLASSIFICATION TO WHICH PETITIONER BELONGED FOR INDUCTIVE PURPOSES WAS
DEFINED BY STATUTE TO BE "MEDICAL AND ALLED SPECIALIST CATEGORIES." 
THIS CLASS INCLUDES NOT MERELY DOCTORS AND PSYCHIATRISTS BUT OTHER
MEDICAL TECHNICIANS, AND, WHILE THE DUTIES MUST BE WITHIN THIS
CATEGORY, A LARGE AREA OF DISCRETION AS TO PARTICULAR DUTIES MUST BE
LEFT TO COMMANDING OFFICERS.  THE PETITIONER OBTAINED BASIC MEDICAL
EDUCATION AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  IN PRIVATE LIFE HE HAS
PURSUED A SPECIALTY.  BUT THE VERY ESSENCE OF COMPULSORY SERVICE IS THE
SUBORDINATION OF THE DESIRES AND INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE
NEEDS OF THE SERVICE.  A CONSCRIPTED DOCTOR MAY HAVE PURSUED THE
SPECIALTY OF OBSTETRICS, BUT IN THE ARMY, WHICH MIGHT HAVE LIMITED USE
FOR HIS SPECIALTY, COULD HE REFUSE OTHER SERVICE WITHIN THE GENERAL
MEDICAL CATEGORY? 

EACH DOCTOR IN THE ARMY CANNOT BE ENTITLED TO CHOOSE HIS OWN DUTIES,
AND THE GOVERNMENT CONCESSION DOES NOT EXTEND TO AN ADMISSION THAT
DUTIES CANNOT BE PRESCRIBED BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES OR THAT THEY
ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND DETERMINATION BY THE JUDICIARY. 

THE NATURE OF THIS ISSUE IS POINTED UP BY THE CONTROVERSY THAT
SURVIVES THE CHANGES THE PARTIES HAVE MADE IN THEIR POSITIONS IN THIS
COURT.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT ORLOFF IS NOW ASSIGNED TO MEDICAL DUTIES IN
THE TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITHIN THE PSYCHIATRIC FIELD.  HE IS NOT
ALLOWED FUNCTIONS THAT PERTAIN TO COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, BUT, APART
FROM THAT, HE IS RESTRICTED FROM ADMINISTERING CERTAIN DRUGS AND
TREATMENTS SAID TO INDUCE OR FACILITATE A STATE OF HYPNOTISM.  ORLOFF
CLAIMS THIS AS HIS PROFESSIONAL PREROGATIVE, BECAUSE IN PRIVATE
PRACTICE HE WOULD BE FREE TO ADMINISTER SUCH TREATMENTS.  THE
GOVERNMENT SAYS, HOWEVER, THAT BECAUSE OF DOUBTS ABOUT HIS LOYALTY HE
IS NOT ALLOWED TO ADMINISTER SUCH DRUGS SINCE HIS PATIENTS MAY BE
OFFICERS IN POSSESSION OF IMPORTANT MILITARY INFORMATION WHICH HE COULD
DRAW OUT FROM THEM WHILE THEY WERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE DRUGS. 
OF COURSE, IF IT WERE THE FUNCTION OR DUTY OF THE JUDICIARY TO RESOLVE
SUCH A CONTROVERSY, THIS CASE SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
TO TAKE EVIDENCE AS TO ALL ISSUES INVOLVED. 

HOWEVER, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF THIS
COURT BY HABEAS CORPUS TO DETERMINE WHETHER SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENTS TO
DUTY FALL WITHIN THE BASIC CLASSIFICATION OF PETITIONER.  IT IS SURELY
NOT NECESSARY THAT ONE PHYSICIAN BE PERMITTED TO COVER THE WHOLE FIELD
WITHIN THE MEDICAL CLASSIFICATION, NOR WOULD WE EXPECT THAT A PHYSICIAN
IS EXEMPT FROM OCCASIONAL OR INCIDENTAL DUTIES NOT STRICTLY MEDICAL. 
IN THESE THERE MUST BE A WIDE LATITUDE ALLOWED TO THOSE IN COMMAND. 

WE KNOW THAT FROM TOP TO BOTTOM OF THE ARMY THE COMPLAINT IS OFTEN
MADE, AND SOMETIMES WITH JUSTIFICATION, THAT THERE IS DISCRIMINATION,
FAVORITISM OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE HANDLING OF MEN.  BUT JUDGES ARE NOT
GIVEN THE TASK OF RUNNING THE ARMY.  THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SETTING UP
CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH SUCH GRIEVANCES CAN BE CONSIDERED AND FAIRLY
SETTLED RESTS UPON THE CONGRESS AND UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND HIS SUBORDINATES.  THE MILITARY CONSTITUTES A SPECIALIZED
COMMUNITY GOVERNED BY A SEPARATE DISCIPLINE FROM THAT OF THE CIVILIAN. 
ORDERLY GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT THE JUDICIARY BE AS SCRUPULOUS NOT TO
INTERFERE WITH LEGITIMATE ARMY MATTERS AS THE ARMY MUST BE SCRUPULOUS
NOT TO INTERVENE IN JUDICIAL MATTERS.  WHILE THE COURTS HAVE FOUND
OCCASION TO DETERMINE WHETHER ONE HAS BEEN LAWFULLY INDUCTED AND IS
THEREFORE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMY AND SUBJECT TO ITS
ORDERS, WE HAVE FOUND NO CASE WHERE THIS COURT HAS ASSUMED TO REVISE
DUTY ORDERS AS TO ONE LAWFULLY IN THE SERVICE. 

BUT THE PROCEEDING BEING IN HABEAS CORPUS, PETITIONER URGES THAT, IF
WE MAY NOT ORDER HIM COMMISSIONED OR HIS DUTIES REDEFINED, WE MAY HOLD
THAT IN DEFAULT OF GRANTING HIS REQUESTS HE MAY BE DISCHARGED FROM THE
ARMY.  NOTHING APPEARS TO CONVINCE US THAT HE IS HELD IN THE ARMY
UNLAWFULLY, AND, THAT BEING THE CASE, WE CANNOT GO INTO THE
DISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER OF HIS ORDERS.  DISCRIMINATION IS UNAVOIDABLE
IN THE ARMY.  SOME MUST BE ASSIGNED TO DANGEROUS MISSIONS; OTHERS FIND
SOFT SPOTS.  COURTS ARE PRESUMABLY UNDER AS GREAT A DUTY TO ENTERTAIN
THE COMPLAINTS OF ANY OF THE THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS AS WE ARE TO
ENTERTAIN THOSE OF ORLOFF.  THE EFFECT OF ENTERTAINING A PROCEEDING FOR
JUDICIAL DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY IS SHOWN FROM THIS CASE.  ORLOFF WAS
ORDERED SENT TO THE FAR EAST COMMAND, WHERE THE UNITED STATES IS NOW
ENGAGED IN COMBAT.  BY REASON OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, HE HAS REMAINED IN
THE UNITED STATES AND SUCCESSFULLY AVOIDED FOREIGN SERVICE UNTIL HIS
PERIOD OF INDUCTION IS ALMOST PAST.  PRESUMABLY, SOME DOCTOR WILLING TO
TELL WHETHER HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAS BEEN REQUIRED
TO GO TO THE FAR EAST IN HIS PLACE.  IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT
THE EXERCISE OF SUCH JURISDICTION AS IS HERE URGED WOULD BE A
DISRUPTIVE FORCE AS TO AFFAIRS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES. 

WE SEE NOTHING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY RETURNING THIS CASE FOR FURTHER
LITIGATION.  THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  195 F.2D 209. 

FN2  344 U.S. 873. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S DISSENT. 

THE UNITED STATES CONFESSES ERROR IN THIS CASE AND THEN TELLS US THAT
SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED ITS ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT DR. ORLOFF HAS
BEEN ASSIGNED TO SOME DUTIES THAT FALL WITHIN THE RANGE OF MEDICAL
ACTIVITIES.  THIS IS DENIED BY DR. ORLOFF.  APPARENTLY ADMITTING THAT
ORLOFF COULD NOT BE RETAINED IN THE ARMY TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE
PERFORMANCE OF MEDICAL SERVICES, THE COURT NEVERTHELESS REFUSES TO SEND
THE CASE BACK TO HAVE THIS FACTUAL CONTROVERSY DETERMINED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THIS COURT IS USUALLY EXCEEDINGLY RELUCTANT TO RESOLVE
DISPUTED FACTS.  I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY IT FEELS CALLED ON TO AFFIRM
THIS ADMITTEDLY ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT BY DECIDING DISPUTED FACTS ON MERE
UNSWORN STATEMENTS OF PARTIES HERE.  AND THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY I
THINK THE CASE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

I BELIEVE THE UNITED STATES WAS RIGHT WHEN IT STIPULATED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT IT COULD NOT LAWFULLY UTILIZE ORLOFF'S SERVICES AS
A PHYSICIAN WITHOUT GIVING HIM A COMMISSION.  IT IS TRUE THE UNITED
STATES HAS HERE BACKED AWAY FROM THIS STIPULATION.  IT NOW CLAIMS A
RIGHT TO UTILIZE ORLOFF AS A DOCTOR WITHOUT GRANTING HIM A COMMISSION
AND THIS COURT AGREES.  I DO NOT AGREE. 

SINCE 1847, ONE HUNDRED AND SIX YEARS AGO, ARMY DOCTORS HAVE SERVED
ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONED TO DO SO AS OFFICERS.*  THIS LONG
STANDING ARMY PRACTICE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE LAW AS IT EXISTS TODAY. 
10 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 81-1 AND SEC. 91A.  THE CONGRESSIONAL
HEARINGS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE SPECIAL DRAFT ACT UNDER WHICH DR.
ORLOFF WAS INDUCTED INDICATE THAT THE LAW PROBABLY NEVER WOULD HAVE
BEEN PASSED BUT FOR REPEATED ASSURANCES GIVEN THE CONGRESS THAT ALL
DOCTORS DRAFTED AND HELD FOR SERVICE UNDER IT WOULD BE GRANTED
COMMISSIONS.  THIS, BECAUSE THE LAW WAS ADMITTED BY ITS SPONSORS TO BE
"DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION," SINGLING OUT THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND
ITS ALLIES, AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR INDUCTION UP TO 50 YEARS OF AGE,
ALTHOUGH OTHER PEOPLE OF THIS AGE GROUP COULD NOT BE CALLED INTO ARMY
SERVICE.  THIS DISCRIMINATION WAS JUSTIFIED TO CONGRESS ONLY ON THE
GROUND THAT DOCTORS MADE TO SERVE UNDER THAT LAW WOULD BE GIVEN AT
LEAST A FIRST LIEUTENANT'S GRADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CENTURY-OLD
PRACTICE OF THE ARMY.  96 CONG. REC. 13861.  I THINK THE GOVERNMENT
BREAKS FAITH WITH THE CONGRESS AND WITH THE DOCTORS OF AMERICA IN
DRAFTING A DOCTOR WITHOUT GRANTING HIM A COMMISSION. 

*THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT SUCH HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE SINCE THE ACT
OF FEBRUARY 11, 1847, 9 STAT. 123, 124-125. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO THINK OF ANY SOUND REASON WHY THE ARMY CLAIMS
POWER TO USE THIS DOCTOR WHILE DENYING HIM THE PRIVILEGES OF ALL OTHER
ARMY DOCTORS.  HE WILL BE THE ONLY DOCTOR DENIED A COMMISSION OUT OF
3,989 DOCTORS DRAFTED UNDER THE SPECIAL LAW UP TO LAST OCTOBER.  AND IF
THERE WAS ANY GENUINE QUESTION ABOUT HIS LOYALTY TO OUR COUNTRY, IT
SEEMS UNTHINKABLE THAT ANY RESPONSIBLE PERSON IN THE ARMED FORCES WOULD
BE WILLING TO LET HIM HAVE ANY PART IN THE TREATMENT OF SICK AND
WOUNDED SOLDIERS.  IF THEREFORE DR. ORLOFF IS BEING USED AS A DOCTOR,
THE ARMY MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS DEPENDABLE DESPITE HIS FAILURE TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT HIS PAST ASSOCIATIONS.  IF HE IS BEING USED,
THE LAW ENTITLES HIM TO A COMMISSION. 

THIS RECORD INDICATES TO ME, HOWEVER, THAT DR. ORLOFF IS BEING HELD
IN THE ARMY NOT TO USED AS A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, BUT TO BE TREATED AS
A KING OF PARIAH IN ORDER TO PUNISH HIM FOR HAVING CLAIMED A PRIVILEGE
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES.  DOUBTLESS THERE ARE SOME WHO WOULD
MAKE IT A CRIME FOR A PERSON TO CLAIM THIS PRIVILEGE.  IF AN ATTEMPT IS
TO BE MADE TO PUNISH DRAFTEES FOR ASSERTING CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, AS I
CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT WOULD, IT SHOULD BE DONE ONLY BY AN ACT OF
CONGRESS.  SHOULD SUCH BE ATTEMPTED I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS COURT WOULD
PROMPTLY DECLARE AN ACT TO THAT EFFECT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  AND IF SOME
KIND OF PUNISHMENT IS TO BE IMPOSED FOR ASSERTING CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, IT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT A TRIAL ACCORDING TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. 

I THINK IT ONLY FAIR TO STATE THAT I SEE NOTHING IN THIS RECORD FROM
WHICH THE SLIGHTEST INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT DR. ORLOFF HAS TAKEN
THE COURSE HE DID IN ORDER TO AVOID SERVICE IN THE ARMY HERE OR
ABROAD. 

THIS WHOLE EPISODE APPEARS TO ME TO BE ONE OF A TOO-RAPIDLY
INCREASING NUMBER TO WHICH AMERICANS IN A CALMER FUTURE ARE NOT LIKELY
TO POINT WITH MUCH PRIDE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS JOIN, DISSENTING. 

OF COURSE THE COMMISSIONING OF OFFICERS IN THE ARMY LIES ENTIRELY
WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S DISCRETION AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
CONTROL.  ALTHOUGH THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
THAT CONGRESS IS PRECLUDED FROM DRAFTING A SPECIAL GROUP INTO THE ARMY
ON CONDITION THAT THEY WILL BE COMMISSIONED.  RECEIVING A COMMISSION IS
CLEARLY NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT; BUT GRANTING IT MAY BE A CONDITION FOR
RETAINING A PERSON IN THE ARMY.  THE COMMISSIONING OF OFFICERS IN THE
ARMY IS, NO DOUBT, A MATTER OF DISCRETION WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE
PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.  BUT WHETHER WE CAN OR CANNOT HOLD THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWFUL EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION TO BE A GROUND FOR
DISCHARGE OF ONE HE FAILS TO COMMISSION DEPENDS ON THE CONDITIONS UNDER
WHICH CONGRESS AUTHORIZED HIM TO BE DRAFTED. 

AND SO FOR ME THE CENTRAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER ONE WHO IS
DRAFTED UNDER THE DOCTORS DRAFT STATUTE, 64 STAT. 826, 50 U.S.C. APP.
(SUPP. IV) SEC. 454(I)(1), BUT WHO DOES NOT, IN DUE COURSE, OBTAIN A
COMMISSION, OF WHATEVER RANK, MUST, AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION, BE DISCHARGED FROM THE ARMY BECAUSE CONGRESS IMPOSED THE
CONDITION OF SUCH A COMMISSION ON DRAFTING DOCTORS ABOVE THE GENERAL
DRAFT AGE AND THE CONDITION HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED.  THAT VIEW WOULD BE
STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY THE ADMISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE TRIAL
COURT THAT THE "REGULATIONS AND PRACTICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY
PROVIDE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN SERVE AS A DOCTOR OF MEDICINE IN THE
UNITED STATES ARMY ONLY IF HE HOLDS A RANK AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER."*
FURTHER, IF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE AT THE HEARINGS AND ON THE
FLOOR OF THE CONGRESS BY THOSE WHO WERE IN CHARGE OF THE LEGISLATION
HAD BEEN MADE IN A FORMAL COMMITTEE REPORT, THIS COURT COULD HARDLY
HAVE HELD THAT THE RECEIPT OF A COMMISSION WAS NOT A CONDITION ON
KEEPING IN THE ARMY A DOCTOR DRAFTED UNDER THESE SPECIAL PROVISION. 
WHATEVER WE MAY THINK ABOUT THE LOOSE USE OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IT
HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED THAT REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND UTTERANCES OF
THOSE IN CHARGE OF LEGISLATION CONSTITUTE AUTHORITATIVE EXPOSITION OF
THE MEANING OF LEGISLATION.  IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE POWERFUL
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION WOULD HAVE FAILED TO OPPOSE VIGOROUSLY ANY
PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH THE ARMY COULD DRAFT DOCTORS NOT OTHERWISE
DRAFTABLE AS NONCOMMISSIONED PERSONNEL OR THAT THE CONGRESS WOULD HAVE
ADOPTED ANY SUCH PROVISION IN THE FACE OF PROFESSIONAL OPPOSITION. 
*COMPARE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, PAR. 7, R. 2, WITH ANSWER
TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, PAR. VII, R. 8-9; SEE R. 23-24. 

AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS BEARING ON
THE LEGISLATION, BEYOND WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, SEE HEARINGS
BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ON H.R. 9554, 81ST CONG., 2D
SESS. 7164, 7166-7167, 7189, 7223; 96 CONG. REC.  13861, WOULD BE
NECESSARY TO ENABLE ONE TO BE CONFIDENT IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION
THAT DOCTORS WHO WERE DRAFTED WERE TO OBTAIN A COMMISSION.  I DO NOT
MEAN TO SAY THAT MANDAMUS WOULD LIKE TO COMPEL THE GRANT OF A
COMMISSION.  THAT IS NOT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE.  THE OBVIOUS TERTIUM
QUID IS THE RELEASE OF A DOCTOR-DRAFTEE WHO IS FOUND UNFIT FOR A
COMMISSION.  ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HAS BEEN PUT BEFORE US I DO NOT SEE
HOW WE CAN DISPOSE OF THE CASE WITH COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE TO THIS
CRUCIAL ISSUE.  THIS SEEMS TO ME THE MORE INADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE
SHIFTING ARGUMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS IT HAS BEEN DRIVEN FROM
POSITION TO POSITION.  ONLY IN ITS PURPOSE TO KEEP THIS MAN IN THE ARMY
HAS THE GOVERNMENT BEEN UNDEVIATING.  HE COULD NOT BE DRAFTED UNDER THE
GENERAL DRAFT LAW; AND IF A PLEDGE WAS GIVEN TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION,
AS APPARENTLY IT WAS, THAT A SPECIAL CLASS OF DRAFTED DOCTORS WOULD BE
DULY COMMISSIONED, ORLOFF OUGHT NOT TO BE RETAINED IN DISREGARD OF THAT
PLEDGE.  IN THAT CASE, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHAT QUIRKY NOTIONS PETITIONER
MAY HAVE AS TO THE REASONS WHY A COMMISSION HAS BEEN WITHHELD FROM
HIM. 
..END :
























AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD 345 U.S. 100 


NO. 53.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1952 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 193 F.2D
782, AFFIRMED. 


A LABOR ORGANIZATION DOES NOT ENGAGE IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(6) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, WHEN IT INSISTS
THAT NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS PAY PRINTERS FOR REPRODUCING ADVERTISING
MATTER FOR WHICH THE PUBLISHERS ORDINARILY HAVE NO USE.  PP. 101-111. 

(A)  THE LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 8(B)(6) SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE LABOR ORGANIZATION'S INSISTENCE UPON SECURING
PAYMENT OF WAGES TO PRINTERS FOR "SETTING BOGUS" IS NOT AN "UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION.  PP. 105-111. 

(B) THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT'S CONDEMNATION OF
"FEATHERBEDDING" PRACTICES IS LIMITED TO INSTANCES WHERE A LABOR
ORGANIZATION OR ITS AGENTS EXACT PAY FROM AN EMPLOYER FOR SERVICES NOT
PERFORMED OR NOT TO BE PERFORMED.  P. 110. 

(C)  WHERE WORK IS DONE BY AN EMPLOYEE, WITH THE EMPLOYER'S CONSENT,
A LABOR ORGANIZATION'S DEMAND THAT THE EMPLOYEE BE COMPENSATED FOR TIME
SPENT IN DOING THE DISPUTED WORK IS NOT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER
THE STATUTE.  P. 110. 

(D)  SECTION 8(B)(6) LEAVES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THE
DETERMINATION OF WHAT, IF ANY, WORK, INCLUDING BONA FIDE "MADE WORK,"
SHALL BE INCLUDED AS COMPENSABLE SERVICES AND WHAT RATE OF COMPENSATION
SHALL BE PAID FOR IT.  P. 111. 

AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING, PETITIONER'S CHARGES UNDER
SEC. 8(B)(6) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE
LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, WERE DISMISSED BY THE BOARD.  86
N.L.R.B. 951.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  193 F.2D 782.  THIS
COURT GRANTED A LIMITED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 812.  AFFIRMED, P. 111. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER A LABOR ORGANIZATION ENGAGES IN AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(6) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947, (FN1) WHEN IT INSISTS THAT NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS
PAY PRINTERS FOR REPRODUCING ADVERTISING MATTER FOR WHICH THE
PUBLISHERS ORDINARILY HAVE NO USE.  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED,
WE HOLD THAT IT DOES NOT. 

PETITIONER, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, IS A NEW YORK
CORPORATION THE MEMBERSHIP OF WHICH INCLUDES MORE THAN 800 NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHERS.  THEY REPRESENT OVER 90% OF THE CIRCULATION OF THE DAILY
AND SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CARRY OVER 90% OF THE
ADVERTISING PUBLISHED IN SUCH PAPERS. 

IN NOVEMBER, 1947, PETITIONER FILED WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD CHARGES THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, HERE CALLED
ITU, AND ITS OFFICERS WERE ENGAGING IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(1), (2) AND (6) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947,
HERE CALLED THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT.  (FN2)  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE
BOARD ISSUED ITS COMPLAINT, INCLUDING A CHARGE OF ENGAGING IN AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE AS DEFINED IN SEC. 8(B)(6), POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE "ANTI
FEATHERBEDDING" SECTION OF THE ACT.  IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE ACTS
COMPLAINED OF AFFECTED INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE TRIAL EXAMINER RECOMMENDED THAT ITU BE ORDERED TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM SEVERAL OF ITS ACTIVITIES BUT THAT THE "FEATHERBEDDING"
CHARGES UNDER SEC. 8(B)(6) BE DISMISSED.  86 N.L.R.B. 951, 964, 1024
1033.  THE BOARD DISMISSED THOSE CHARGES.  ID., AT 951, 963. 
PETITIONER THEN FILED THE INSTANT PROCEEDING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT SEEKING REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF THE BOARD'S
ORDERS.  THAT COURT UPHELD THE BOARD'S DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES UNDER
SEC. 8(B)(6).  193 F.2D 782, 796, 802.  SEE ALSO, 190 F.2D 45.  A
COMPARABLE VIEW WAS EXPRESSED IN RABOUIN V. LABOR BOARD, 195 F.2D 906,
912-913 (C.A.2D CIR.), BUT A CONTRARY VIEW WAS TAKEN IN GAMBLE
ENTERPRISES V. LABOR BOARD, 196 F.2D 61 (C.A. 6TH CIR.).  BECAUSE OF
THIS CLAIMED CONFLICT UPON AN IMPORTANT ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THE INSTANT CASE, 344 U.S. 812, (FN3) AND IN
LABOR BOARD V. GAMBLE ENTERPRISES, 344 U.S. 814.  OUR DECISION IN THE
GAMBLE CASE FOLLOWS THIS, POST, P. 117.  (FN4) 

PRINTERS IN NEWSPAPER COMPOSING ROOMS HAVE LONG SOUGHT TO RETAIN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SET UP IN TYPE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OF WHATEVER IS
PRINTED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE PUBLISHERS.  IN 1872, WHEN PRINTERS WERE
PAID ON A PIECEWORK BASIS, EACH DIVERSION OF COMPENSATION WAS AT ONCE
REFLECTED BY A LOSS IN THEIR INCOME.  ACCORDINGLY, ITU, WHICH HAD BEEN
FORMED IN 1852 FROM LOCAL TYPOGRAPHICAL SOCIETIES, BEGAN ITS LONG
BATTLE TO RETAIN AS MUCH TYPESETTING WORK FOR PRINTERS AS POSSIBLE. 

WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE LINOTYPE MACHINE IN 1890, THE PROBLEM
TOOK ON A NEW ASPECT.  WHEN A NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT WAS SET UP IN
TYPE, IT WAS IMPRESSED ON A CARDBOARD MATRIX, OR "MAT."  THESE MATS
WERE USED BY THEIR MAKERS AND ALSO WERE REPRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED, AT
LITTLE OR NO COST, TO OTHER PUBLISHERS WHO USED THEM AS MOLDS FOR METAL
CASTINGS FROM WHICH TO PRINT THE SAME ADVERTISEMENT.  THIS PROCEDURE BY
PASSED ALL COMPOSITORS EXCEPT THOSE WHO MADE UP THE ORIGINAL FORM. 
FACING THIS LOSS OF WORK, ITU SECURED THE AGREEMENT OF NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHERS TO PERMIT THEIR RESPECTIVE COMPOSITORS, AT CONVENIENT TIMES,
TO SET UP DUPLICATE FORMS FOR ALL LOCAL ADVERTISEMENTS IN PRECISELY THE
SAME MANNER AS THOUGH THE MAT HAD NOT BEEN USED.  FOR THIS REPRODUCTION
WORK THE PRINTERS RECEIVED THEIR REGULAR PAY.  THE DOING OF THIS "MADE
WORK" CAME TO BE KNOWN IN THE TRADE AS "SETTING BOGUS."  IT WAS A
WASTEFUL PROCEDURE.  NEVERTHELESS, IT HAS BECOME A RECOGNIZED
IDIOSYNCRASY OF THE TRADE AND A CUSTOMARY FEATURE OF THE WAGE STRUCTURE
AND WORK SCHEDULE OF NEWSPAPER PRINTERS. 

BY FITTING THE "BOGUS" WORK INTO SLACK PERIODS, THE PRACTICE
INTERFERES LITTLE WITH "LIVE" WORK.  THE PUBLISHERS WHO SET UP THE
ORIGINAL COMPOSITIONS FIND IT ADVANTAGEOUS BECAUSE IT BURDENS THEIR
COMPETITORS WITH COSTS OF MAT MAKING COMPARABLE TO THEIR OWN. 
APPROXIMATE TIME LIMITS FOR SETTING "BOGUS" USUALLY HAVE BEEN FIXED BY
AGREEMENT AT FROM FOUR DAYS TO THREE WEEKS.  ON RARE OCCASIONS THE
REPRODUCED COMPOSITIONS ARE USED TO PRINT THE ADVERTISEMENTS WHEN
RERUN, BUT, ORDINARILY, THEY ARE PROMPTLY CONSIGNED TO THE "HELL BOX"
AND MELTED DOWN.  LIVE MATTER HAS PRIORITY OVER REPRODUCTION WORK BUT
THE LATTER USUALLY TAKES FROM 2 TO 5% OF THE PRINTERS' TIME.  (FN5)  BY
1947, DETAILED REGULATIONS FOR REPRODUCTION WORK WERE INCLUDED IN THE
"GENERAL LAWS" OF ITU.  THEY THUS BECAME A STANDARD PART OF ALL
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS SIGNED BY ITS LOCAL UNIONS.  THE LOCALS WERE
ALLOWED TO NEGOTIATE AS TO FOREIGN LANGUAGE PUBLICATIONS, TIME LIMITS
FOR SETTING "BOGUS" AND EXEMPTIONS OF MATS RECEIVED FROM COMMERCIAL
COMPOSITORS OR FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISEMENTS. 

BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 8(B)(6), THE LEGALITY AND ENFORCEABILITY
OF PAYMENT FOR SETTING "BOGUS," AGREED TO BY THE PUBLISHER, WAS
RECOGNIZED.  EVEN NOW THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS NOT WHAT POLICY SHOULD BE
ADOPTED BY THE NATION TOWARD THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS AND OTHER FORMS OF
FEATHERBEDDING.  THE ISSUE HERE IS SOLELY ONE OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION:  HAS CONGRESS MADE SETTING "BOGUS" AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE? 

WHILE THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 8(B)(6) IS CLAIMED BY BOTH SIDES TO BE
CLEAR, YET THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE VIEWS OF THE SEVENTH AND SIXTH
CIRCUITS AMPLY JUSTIFIES OUR EXAMINATION OF BOTH THE LANGUAGE AND THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION.  THE SECTION READS: 

"SEC. 8  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR ITS AGENTS: 

     *         *         * *         * 

"(6)  TO CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CAUSE AN EMPLOYER TO PAY OR DELIVER OR
AGREE TO PAY OR DELIVER ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE, IN THE
NATURE OF AN EXACTION, FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT PERFORMED OR NOT TO
BE PERFORMED  ...  ."  61 STAT. 140-142, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
158(B)(6). 

FROM THE ABOVE LANGUAGE AND ITS HISTORY, THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED
THAT THE INSISTENCE BY ITU UPON SECURING PAYMENT OF WAGES TO PRINTERS
FOR SETTING "BOGUS" WAS NOT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  IT FOUND THAT
THE PRACTICE CALLED FOR PAYMENT ONLY FOR WORK WHICH ACTUALLY WAS DONE
BY EMPLOYEES OF THE PUBLISHERS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM PAYMENT "FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT PERFORMED OR NOT
TO BE PERFORMED."  SETTING "BOGUS" WAS HELD TO BE SERVICE PERFORMED AND
IT REMAINED FOR THE PARTIES TO DETERMINE ITS WORTH TO THE EMPLOYER. 
THE BOARD HERE CONTENDS ALSO THAT THE INSISTENCE OF ITU AND ITS AGENTS
HAS NOT BEEN "IN THE NATURE OF AN EXACTION" AND DID NOT "CAUSE OR
ATTEMPT TO CAUSE AN EMPLOYER" TO PAY ANYTHING "IN THE NATURE OF AN
EXACTION."  AGREEMENT WITH THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE COURT BELOW MAKES
IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS OF THE BOARD. 

HOWEVER DESIRABLE THE ELIMINATION OF ALL INDUSTRIAL FEATHERBEDDING
PRACTICES MAY HAVE APPEARED TO CONGRESS, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
TAFT-HARTLEY ACT DEMONSTRATES THAT WHEN THE LEGISLATION WAS PUT IN
FINAL FORM CONGRESS DECIDED TO LIMIT THE PRACTICE BUT LITTLE BY LAW. 

A RESTRAINING INFLUENCE THROUGHOUT THIS CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION
OF FEATHERBEDDING WAS THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LEA
ACT PENALIZING FEATHERBEDDING IN THE BROADCASTING INDUSTRY WAS IN
LITIGATION.  THAT ACT, KNOWN ALSO AS THE PETRILLO ACT, HAD BEEN ADOPTED
APRIL 16, 1946, AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.  ITS
MATERIAL PROVISIONS ARE STATED IN THE MARGIN.  (FN6)  DECEMBER 2, 1946,
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HELD THAT IT VIOLATED THE FIRST, FIFTH AND THIRTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 68 F.
SUPP. 845.  THE CASE WAS PENDING HERE ON APPEAL THROUGHOUT THE DEBATE
ON THE TAFT-HARTLEY BILL.  NOT UNTIL JUNE 23, 1947, ON THE DAY OF THE
PASSAGE OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY BILL OVER THE PRESIDENT'S VETO, WAS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LEA ACT UPHELD.  UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO,
332 U.S. 1.  (FN7) 

THE PURPOSE OF THE SPONSORS OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY BILL TO AVOID THE
CONTROVERSIAL FEATURES OF THE LEA ACT IS MADE CLEAR IN THE WRITTEN
STATEMENT WHICH SENATOR TAFT, COSPONSOR OF THE BILL AND CHAIRMAN OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, CAUSED TO BE INCORPORATED
IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE, JUNE 5, 1947.  REFERRING TO THE
SUBSTITUTION OF SEC. 8(B)(6) IN PLACE OF THE DETAILED FEATHERBEDDING
PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSE BILL, THAT STATEMENT SAID: 

"THE PROVISIONS IN THE LEA ACT FROM WHICH THE HOUSE LANGUAGE WAS
TAKEN ARE NOW AWAITING DETERMINATION BY THE SUPREME COURT, PARTLY
BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM ARISING FROM THE TERM 'IN EXCESS OF THE NUMBER
OF EMPLOYEES REASONABLY REQUIRED.'  THEREFORE, THE CONFEREES WERE OF
THE OPINION THAT GENERAL LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT OF FEATHERBEDDING
WAS NOT WARRANTED AT LEAST UNTIL THE JOINT STUDY COMMITTEE PROPOSED BY
THIS BILL COULD GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER."  93 CONG. REC.
6443.  (FN8) 

ON THE SAME DAY THIS WAS AMPLIFIED IN THE SENATOR'S ORAL STATEMENT ON
THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE: 

"THERE IS ONE FURTHER PROVISION WHICH MAY POSSIBLY BE OF INTEREST,
WHICH WAS NOT IN THE SENATE BILL.  THE HOUSE HAD RATHER ELABORATE
PROVISIONS PROHIBITING SO-CALLED FEATHER-BEDDING PRACTICES AND MAKING
THEM UNLAWFUL LABOR PRACTICES.  THE SENATE CONFEREES, WHILE NOT
APPROVING OF FEATHER-BEDDING PRACTICES, FELT THAT IT WAS IMPRACTICABLE
TO GIVE TO A BOARD OR A COURT THE POWER TO SAY THAT SO MANY MEN ARE ALL
RIGHT, AND SO MANY MEN ARE TOO MANY.  IT WOULD REQUIRE A PRACTICAL
APPLICATION OF THE LAW BY THE COURTS IN HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT
INDUSTRIES, AND A DETERMINATION OF FACTS WHICH IT SEEMED TO ME WOULD BE
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.  SO WE DECLINED TO ADOPT THE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE
NOW IN THE PETRILLO ACT.  AFTER ALL, THAT STATUTE APPLIES TO ONLY ONE
INDUSTRY.  THOSE PROVISIONS ARE NOW THE SUBJECT OF COURT PROCEDURE. 
THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY HAS BEEN QUESTIONED.  WE THOUGHT THAT PROBABLY
WE HAD BETTER WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED, IN ANY EVENT, EVEN THOUGH WE
ARE IN FAVOR OF PROHIBITING ALL FEATHER-BEDDING PRACTICES.  HOWEVER, WE
DID ACCEPT ONE PROVISION WHICH MAKES IT AN UNLAWFUL-LABOR PRACTICE FOR
A UNION TO ACCEPT MONEY FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WORK.  THAT SEEMED TO BE
A FAIRLY CLEAR CASE, EASY TO DETERMINE, AND WE ACCEPTED THAT ADDITIONAL
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ON THE PART OF UNIONS, WHICH WAS NOT IN THE
SENATE BILL."  93 CONG. REC. 6441.  SEE ALSO, HIS SUPPLEMENTARY
ANALYSIS INSERTED IN THE RECORD JUNE 12, 1947.  93 CONG. REC. 6859. 

AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE TAFT-HARTLEY BILL, H.R. 3020, WHEN IT PASSED
THE HOUSE, APRIL 17, 1947, CONTAINED IN SECS. 2(17) AND 12(A)(3)(B) AN
EXPLICIT CONDEMNATION OF FEATHERBEDDING.  ITS DEFINITION OF
FEATHERBEDDING WAS BASED UPON THAT IN THE LEA ACT.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT
CONDEMNED PRACTICES WHICH REQUIRED AN EMPLOYER TO EMPLOY "PERSONS IN
EXCESS OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REASONABLY REQUIRED BY SUCH EMPLOYER
TO PERFORM ACTUAL SERVICES," AS WELL AS PRACTICES WHICH REQUIRED AN
EMPLOYER TO PAY "FOR SERVICES  ...  WHICH ARE NOT TO BE PERFORMED." 
(FN9) THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT SEC. 8(B)(6) FOR THAT DEFINITION
COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 8(B)(6) MEANS WHAT THE COURT BELOW HAS
SAID IT MEANS.  THE ACT NOW LIMITS ITS CONDEMNATION TO INSTANCES WHERE
A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR ITS AGENTS EXACT PAY FROM AN EMPLOYER IN RETURN
FOR SERVICES NOT PERFORMED OR NOT TO BE PERFORMED.  THUS, WHERE WORK IS
DONE BY AN EMPLOYEE, WITH THE EMPLOYER'S CONSENT, A LABOR
ORGANIZATION'S DEMAND THAT THE EMPLOYEE BE COMPENSATED FOR TIME SPENT
IN DOING THE DISPUTED WORK DOES NOT BECOME AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 
THE TRANSACTION SIMPLY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE KIND OF FEATHERBEDDING
DEFINED IN THE STATUTE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY, THE
EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION REFLECTS HIS ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS
EMPLOYER. 

WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A SITUATION COMPARABLE TO THAT MENTIONED BY
SENATOR TAFT AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE TYPE OF FEATHERBEDDING WHICH HE
WOULD CONSIDER AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8(B)(6).  JUNE 5, 1947, IN A COLLOQUY ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE HE
SAID IN REFERENCE TO SEC. 8(B)(6):    "IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS
PERFECTLY CLEAR WHAT IS INTENDED.  IT IS INTENDED TO MAKE IT AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE FOR A MAN TO SAY, 'YOU MUST HAVE 10 MUSICIANS, AND IF
YOU INSIST THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR ONLY 6, YOU MUST PAY FOR THE OTHER 4
ANYWAY.'  THAT IS IN THE NATURE OF AN EXACTION FROM THE EMPLOYER FOR
SERVICES WHICH HE DOES NOT WANT, DOES NOT NEED, AND IS NOT EVEN WILLING
TO ACCEPT."  93 CONG. REC. 6446. 

IN THAT ILLUSTRATION THE SERVICE FOR WHICH PAY WAS TO BE EXACTED WAS
NOT PERFORMED AND WAS NOT TO BE PERFORMED BY ANYONE.  (FN10)  THE LAST
SENTENCE OF THE ABOVE QUOTATION MUST BE READ IN THAT CONTEXT.  THERE
WAS NO ROOM FOR MORE THAN SIX MUSICIANS AND THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION
THAT THE EXCLUDED FOUR DID ANYTHING OR WERE TO DO ANYTHING FOR THEIR
PAY.  SECTION 8(B)(6) LEAVES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THE DETERMINATION
OF WHAT, IF ANY, WORK, INCLUDING BONA FIDE "MADE WORK," SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS COMPENSABLE SERVICES AND WHAT RATE OF COMPENSATION SHALL BE
PAID FOR IT. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINING
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, INSOFAR AS IT WAS BASED UPON SEC. 8(B)(6),
IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  8  ...  . 

     *         *         *      *         * 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR ITS AGENTS: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(6)  TO CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CAUSE AN EMPLOYER TO PAY OR DELIVER OR
AGREE TO PAY OR DELIVER ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE, IN THE
NATURE OF AN EXACTION, FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT PERFORMED OR NOT TO
BE PERFORMED  ...  ."  61 STAT. 140-142, 29 U.S.C.  (SUPP. V) SEC.
158(B)(6). 

FN2  49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., AS AMENDED, 61 STAT.
140-142, 29 U.S.C.  (SUPP. V) SEC. 158(B)(1), (2) AND (6). 

FN3  THE GRANT WAS: 

"LIMITED TO QUESTION NO. 2 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT,
I.E.: 

"WHETHER THE DEMAND AND INSISTENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL
UNION THAT PUBLISHERS PAY EMPLOYEES IN THEIR COMPOSING ROOMS FOR
SETTING 'BOGUS' VIOLATED SECTION 8(B)(6) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT COMPOSING ROOM EMPLOYEES PERFORM
NO SERVICE INCIDENT OR ESSENTIAL TO THE PRODUCTION OF A NEWSPAPER IN
THEIR HANDLING OF SUCH 'BOGUSED' MATERIAL." 

FN4 FOR A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEMS IN THESE CASES, SEE COX,
SOME ASPECTS OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 61 HARV. L.
REV. 274, 288-290; FEATHERBEDDING AND TAFT-HARTLEY, 52 COL. L. REV.
1020-1033. 

FN5  IN METROPOLITAN AREAS, ONLY THE PRINTERS ON THE "AD SIDE" OF A
COMPOSING ROOM, AS CONTRASTED WITH THOSE ON THE "NEWS SIDE," TAKE PART
IN THE REPRODUCTION WORK AND NEVER ON A FULL-TIME BASIS.  SUCH WORK IS
NOT DONE AT OVERTIME RATES BUT WHEN THERE IS AN ACCUMULATION OF IT, THE
NEWSPAPER IS NOT PERMITTED TO REDUCE ITS WORK FORCE OR DECLINE TO HIRE
SUITABLE EXTRA PRINTERS APPLYING FOR EMPLOYMENT.  THE TRIAL EXAMINER,
IN THE INSTANT CASE, FOUND THAT REPRODUCTION WORK AT THE ROCHESTER
DEMOCRAT & CHRONICLE COST OVER $5,000 A YEAR, AT THE CHICAGO HERALD
AMERICAN, ABOUT $50,000, AND AT THE NEW YORK TIMES, ABOUT $150,000. 

FN6  "SEC.  506.  (A)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL, BY THE USE OR EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED THREAT OF THE USE OF FORCE, VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, OR DURESS,
OR BY THE USE OR EXPRESS OR IMPLIED THREAT OF THE USE OF OTHER MEANS,
TO COERCE, COMPEL OR CONSTRAIN OR ATTEMPT TO COERCE, COMPEL, OR
CONSTRAIN A LICENSEE: 

"(1)  TO EMPLOY OR AGREE TO EMPLOY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF
THE BROADCASTING BUSINESS OF SUCH LICENSEE, ANY PERSON OR PERSONS IN
EXCESS OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED BY SUCH LICENSEE TO PERFORM
ACTUAL SERVICES; OR: 

"(2)  TO PAY OR GIVE OR AGREE TO PAY OR GIVE ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING
OF VALUE IN LIEU OF GIVING, OR ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO GIVE,
EMPLOYMENT TO ANY PERSON OR PERSONS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF
THE BROADCASTING BUSINESS OF SUCH LICENSEE, IN EXCESS OF THE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES NEEDED BY SUCH LICENSEE TO PERFORM ACTUAL SERVICES; OR: 

"(3)  TO PAY OR AGREE TO PAY MORE THAN ONCE FOR SERVICES PERFORMED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE BROADCASTING BUSINESS OF SUCH
LICENSEE; OR: 

"(4)  TO PAY OR GIVE OR AGREE TO PAY OR GIVE ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING
OF VALUE FOR SERVICES, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE
BROADCASTING BUSINESS OF SUCH LICENSEE, WHICH ARE NOT TO BE PERFORMED;
...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(C)  THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A) OR (B) OF THIS SECTION SHALL
NOT BE HELD TO MAKE UNLAWFUL THE ENFORCEMENT OR ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT,
BY MEANS LAWFULLY EMPLOYED, OF ANY CONTRACT RIGHT HERETOFORE OR
HEREAFTER EXISTING OR OF ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER
INCURRED OR ASSUMED. 

"(D)  WHOEVER WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF SUBSECTION (A) OR
(B) OF THIS SECTION SHALL, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE PUNISHED BY
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$1,000, OR BOTH  ...  ."  60 STAT. 89, 90, 47 U.S.C. SEC.
506(A)(C)(D). 

FN7  FOR A REPORT OF THE SUBSEQUENT TRIAL AND ACQUITTAL ON THE
MERITS, SEE UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 75 F. SUPP. 176. 

FN8  IN ITS REPORT OF DECEMBER 31, 1948, THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS, ESTABLISHED UNDER SEC. 401 OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY
ACT, LATER REVIEWED THE LITIGATION ARISING UNDER SEC. 8(B)(6),
INCLUDING THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S REPORT IN THE INSTANT CASE, AND
RECOMMENDED "A CONTINUING STUDY OF CASES ARISING UNDER THE PRESENT
FEATHERBEDDING PROVISION, SINCE THERE HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENT
EXPERIENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE INTELLIGENT AMENDMENTS AT THIS TIME."  S.
REP. NO. 986, PT. 3, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 61, AND SEE PP. 58-61. 

SEE ALSO, HARTLEY, OUR NEW NATIONAL LABOR POLICY (1948), P. XIII
(TAFT), 174, 182-183 (HARTLEY). 

FN9  H.R. 3020 AS IT PASSED THE HOUSE PROVIDED THAT: 

"SEC. 2.  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT: 

     *     *         *         *         * 

"(17)  THE TERM 'FEATHERBEDDING PRACTICE' MEANS A PRACTICE WHICH HAS
AS ITS PURPOSE OR EFFECT REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER: 

"(A)  TO EMPLOY OR AGREE TO EMPLOY ANY PERSON OR PERSONS IN EXCESS OF
THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REASONABLY REQUIRED BY SUCH EMPLOYER TO PERFORM
ACTUAL SERVICES; OR: 

"(B)  TO PAY OR GIVE OR AGREE TO PAY OR GIVE ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING
OF VALUE IN LIEU OF EMPLOYING, OR ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO EMPLOY, ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF AN
EMPLOYER, IN EXCESS OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REASONABLY REQUIRED BY
SUCH EMPLOYER TO PERFORM ACTUAL SERVICES; OR: 

"(C)  TO PAY OR AGREE TO PAY MORE THAN ONCE FOR SERVICES PERFORMED;
OR: 

"(D)  TO PAY OR GIVE OR AGREE TO PAY OR GIVE ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING
OF VALUE FOR SERVICES, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS,
WHICH ARE NOT TO BE PERFORMED; OR: 

"(E)  TO PAY OR AGREE TO PAY ANY TAX OR EXACTION FOR THE PRIVILEGE
OF, OR ON ACCOUNT OF, PRODUCING, PREPARING, MANUFACTURING, SELLING,
BUYING, RENTING, OPERATING, USING, OR MAINTAINING ANY ARTICLE, MACHINE,
EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS; OR TO ACCEDE TO OR IMPOSE ANY RESTRICTION UPON
THE PRODUCTION, PREPARATION, MANUFACTURE, SALE, PURCHASE, RENTAL,
OPERATION, USE, OR MAINTENANCE OF THE SAME, IF SUCH RESTRICTION IS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING OR LIMITING THE USE OF SUCH ARTICLE, MACHINE,
EQUIPMENT, OR MATERIALS. 

     * *         *         *         * 

"SEC. 12.  (A)  THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES, WHEN AFFECTING COMMERCE,
SHALL BE UNLAWFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES: 

     *         *         *         *      * 

"(3)  CALLING, AUTHORIZING, ENGAGING IN, OR ASSISTING: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(B)  ANY STRIKE OR OTHER CONCERTED INTERFERENCE WITH AN EMPLOYER'S
OPERATIONS, AN OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO COMPEL AN EMPLOYER TO ACCEDE TO
FEATHERBEDDING PRACTICES; ...  ."  1 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 160, 170-171, 204, 205. 

FN10  SECTION 8(B)(6) DOES NOT RELATE TO UNION REQUESTS FOR, OR
INSISTENCE UPON, SUCH TYPES OF PAYMENTS AS EMPLOYEES' WAGES DURING
LUNCH, REST, WAITING OR VACATION PERIODS; PAYMENTS FOR SERVICE ON
RELIEF SQUADS; OR PAYMENTS FOR REPORTING FOR DUTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
WORK IS TO BE DONE.  SUCH PRACTICES ARE RECOGNIZED TO BE INCIDENTAL TO
THE EMPLOYEE'S GENERAL EMPLOYMENT AND ARE GIVEN CONSIDERATION IN FIXING
THE RATE OF PAY FOR IT.  THEY ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF EXACTIONS OF PAY
FOR SOMETHING NOT PERFORMED OR NOT TO BE PERFORMED.  SEE 93 CONG. REC.
6859. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I FAIL TO SEE HOW THE REPRODUCTION OF ADVERTISING MATTER WHICH IS
NEVER USED BY A NEWSPAPER BUT WHICH INDEED IS SET UP ONLY TO BE THROWN
AWAY IS A SERVICE PERFORMED FOR THE NEWSPAPER.  THE PRACTICE OF
"SETTING BOGUS" IS OLD AND DEEPLY ENGRAINED IN TRADE UNION PRACTICE. 
BUT SO ARE OTHER TYPES OF "FEATHERBEDDING."  CONGRESS, TO BE SURE, DID
NOT OUTLAW ALL "FEATHERBEDDING" BY THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT.  THAT ACT
LEAVES UNAFFECTED THE SITUATION WHERE TWO MEN ARE EMPLOYED TO DO ONE
MAN'S WORK.  IT ALSO, IN MY VIEW, LEAVES UNAFFECTED THE SITUATION
PRESENTED IN LABOR BOARD V. GAMBLE ENTERPRISES, INC., POST, P. 117. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON LABELS THE SERVICES TENDERED IN THAT CASE AS
"USELESS AND UNWANTED WORK."  CERTAINLY IT WAS "UNWANTED" BY THE
EMPLOYER - AS MUCH UNWANTED AS PUTTING ON TWO MEN TO DO ONE MAN'S
WORK.  BUT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THOSE SERVICES WERE
"USELESS."  THEY WERE TO BE PERFORMED IN THE THEATRES, PROVIDING MUSIC
TO THE AUDIENCES.  THE GAMBLE ENTERPRISES CASE IS NOT ONE WHERE THE
EMPLOYER WAS FORCED TO HIRE MUSICIANS WHO WERE NOT USED.  THEY WERE TO
BE USED IN THE THEATRICAL PROGRAM OFFERED THE PUBLIC.  PERHAPS THE
ENTERTAINMENT WOULD BE BETTER WITHOUT THEM.  BUT TO CONCLUDE WITH MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER WOULD BE TO RUSH IN WHERE
CONGRESS DID NOT WANT TO TREAD.  FOR SENATOR TAFT REPORTED FROM
CONFERENCE THAT "THE SENATE CONFEREES, WHILE NOT APPROVING OF FEATHER
BEDDING PRACTICES, FELT THAT IT WAS IMPRACTICABLE TO GIVE TO A BOARD OR
A COURT THE POWER TO SAY THAT SO MANY MEN ARE ALL RIGHT, AND SO MANY
MEN ARE TOO MANY."  93 CONG. REC. 6441. 

BUT THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE IS TO ME QUITE DIFFERENT.  HERE THE
TYPESETTERS, WHILE SETTING THE "BOGUS," ARE MAKING NO CONTRIBUTION
WHATSOEVER TO THE ENTERPRISE.  THEIR "WORK" IS NOT ONLY UNWANTED, IT IS
INDEED WHOLLY USELESS.  IT DOES NOT ADD DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE
PUBLICATION OF THE NEWSPAPER NOR TO ITS CONTENTS.  IT DOES NOT EVEN ADD
AN "UNWANTED" PAGE OR PARAGRAPH.  IN NO SENSE THAT I CAN CONCEIVE IS IT
A "SERVICE" TO THE EMPLOYER.  TO BE SURE, THE EMPLOYER HAS AGREED TO
PAY FOR IT.  BUT THE AGREEMENT WAS UNDER COMPULSION.  THE STATUTE DOES
NOT DRAW THE DISTINCTION MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TENDERS.  NO MATTER HOW
TIME-HONORED THE PRACTICE, IT SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN IF IT IS NOT A
SERVICE PERFORMED FOR AN EMPLOYER. 

THE OUTLAWRY OF THIS PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(B)(6) OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY
ACT MIGHT BE SO DISRUPTIVE OF ESTABLISHED PRACTICES AS TO BE AGAINST
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  BUT THE PLACE TO OBTAIN RELIEF AGAINST THE NEW
OPPRESSION IS IN THE CONGRESS, NOT HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, DISSENTING. 

TODAY'S DECISION TWISTS THE LAW BY THE TAIL.  IF THE EMPLOYEES HAD
RECEIVED PAY FOR STAYING HOME, CONSERVING THEIR ENERGIES AND THE
PUBLISHER'S MATERIEL, THE COURT CONCEDES, AS IT MUST, THAT SEC. 8(B)(6)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WOULD SQUARELY APPLY.  YET IN THE
COURT'S VIEW THESE PRINTERS' PECULIAR "SERVICES" SNATCH THE TRANSACTION
FROM THE REACH OF THE LAW.  THOSE "SERVICES," NO MORE AND NO LESS,
CONSIST OF SETTING "BOGUS" TYPE, THEN PROOFREAD AND RESET FOR
CORRECTIONS, ONLY TO BE IMMEDIATELY DISCARDED AND NEVER USED.  INSTEAD,
THIS TYPE IS CONSIGNED AS WASTE TO A "HELL BOX" WHICH FEEDS THE
"MELTING POT"; THAT, IN TURN, OOZES FRESH LEAD THEN MOLDED INTO "PIGS"
WHICH RETRAVEL THE SAME SISYPHEAN JOURNEY.  THE COURT THUS HOLDS THAT
AN "ANTI-FEATHERBEDDING" STATUTE DESIGNED TO HIT WASTEFUL LABOR
PRACTICES IN FACT SANCTIONS ADDITIONAL WASTE IN FUTILE USE OF LABOR,
LEAD, MACHINES, PROOFREADING, "HELL-BOXING," ETC.  ANOMALOUSLY, THE
MORE WASTEFUL THE PRACTICE THE LESS EFFECTUAL THE STATUTE IS. 

ORGANIZATION OR ITS AGENTS "TO CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CAUSE AN EMPLOYER TO
PAY OR DELIVER OR AGREE TO PAY OR DELIVER ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF
VALUE, IN THE NATURE OF AN EXACTION, FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT
PERFORMED OR NOT TO BE PERFORMED."  (FN1)  BUT "TO CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO
CAUSE" CAN REFER EQUALLY TO THE ORDINARY GIVE-AND-TAKE OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS OR THE UNLEASHING OF THE ULTIMATE WEAPONS
IN A UNION'S ARMORY.  LIKEWISE, "IN THE NATURE OF AN EXACTION" MAY
IMPLY THAT A UNION'S PAY DEMANDS MUST BE TANTAMOUNT TO EXTORTION TO
BRING SEC. 8(B)(6) INTO PLAY; ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PHRASE MAY MERELY
DESCRIBE PAYMENTS "FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT PERFORMED OR NOT TO BE
PERFORMED."  AGAIN, "SERVICES" MAY DESIGNATE EMPLOYEES' CONDUCT RANGING
FROM SHADOWBOXING ON OR OFF THE PLANT TO PRODUCTIVE EFFORT DEEMED
BENEFICIAL TO THE EMPLOYER IN HIS JUDGMENT ALONE. 

THE COURT SOLVES THESE COMPLEX INTERPRETIVE PROBLEMS BY SIMPLY
SCRAPPING THE STATUTE.  A BROADSIDE FINDING THAT "BOGUS" IS "WORK,"
MAKING ANALYSIS OF ALL OTHER STATUTORY CRITERIA SUPERFLUOUS,
AUTOMATICALLY TAKES THE CASE OUT OF SEC. 8(B)(6).  AND THE PRINTERS'
DOING SOLELY THAT WHICH THEN MUST BE UNDONE PASSES FOR "WORK."  AN
IMAGINATIVE LABOR ORGANIZATION NEED NOT STRAIN FAR TO INVENT SUCH
"WORK."  WITH THAT LETHAL DEFINITION TO STIFLE SEC. 8(B)(6), THIS
COURT'S FIRST DECISION ON "FEATHERBEDDING" MAY WELL BE THE LAST. 

CONCEDEDLY, SEC. 8(B)(6) WAS NOT DESIGNED TO BAN EVERY MAKE-WORK
DEVICE INGENUITY COULD SPAWN.  SENATOR TAFT, THE PRIME EXPONENT OF THE
LEGISLATION BE HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING THIS COURT'S DECISION IN UNITED
STATES V. PETRILLO.  (FN2)  MEANWHILE, HOWEVER, SEC. 8(B)(6) AIMED TO
CATCH PRACTICES BY WHICH UNIONS "ACCEPT MONEY FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT
WORK."  (FN3)  HE CONSIDERED IT A "PERFECTLY CLEAR" VIOLATION OF THE
INSIST THAT THERE IS ROOM FOR ONLY 6, YOU MUST PAY FOR THE OTHER 4
ANYWAY.'"  (FN4)  BUT SURELY THIS CANNOT IMPLY THAT SIX MUST PACK THE
PLANT TO OVERFLOW SO THAT "THE OTHER 4" MUST STAY HOME BEFORE SEC.
8(B)(6) MAY APPLY.  THAT QUAINT NOTION BEFOGS THE DRAFTSMEN'S CLEAR
INTENT THAT SEC. 8(B)(6) STRIKE AT UNION PAY DEMANDS "FOR SERVICES
WHICH THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT WANT, DOES NOT NEED, AND IS NOT EVEN
WILLING TO ACCEPT."  (FN5)   ACCORDINGLY, WE WOULD READ THE STATUTE'S
TEST OF "SERVICES" AS MORE THAN A HOLLOW PHRASE.  RECOGNIZING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES IN DECIDING HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE TOO MANY
FOR A PARTICULAR JOB, CONGRESS PERHAPS SPARED THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD FROM THAT.  (FN6)  BUT THE BOARD SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT
NEED EFFICIENCY ENGINEERS TO DETERMINE THAT PRINTERS SETTING "BOGUS"
INDULGE IN FRIVOLOUS MAKE-WORK EXERCISE.  AN INTERPRETATION OF
"SERVICES" IN SEC. 8(B)(6) TO EXCLUDE CONTRIVED AND PATENTLY USELESS
JOB OPERATIONS NOT TO THE EMPLOYER'S BENEFIT COULD EFFECTUATE THE
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  CF. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO. V. MUSCODA
LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, 598-599 (1944); JEWELL RIDGE COAL CORP. V. LOCAL
NO. 6167, 325 U.S. 161, 165-166 (1945); ANDERSON V. MT. CLEMENS POTTERY
CO., 328 U.S. 680, 691-693 (1946).  AND THE LABOR BOARD SHOULD NOT SO
MODESTLY DISCLAIM ITS OFT-RECOGNIZED EXPERTISE WHICH ASSURES FULL
QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THIS TASK. 

IT MAY WELL BE THAT UNION FEATHERBEDDING PRACTICES REFLECT NO MORE
THAN LABOR'S FEARS OF UNSTABLE EMPLOYMENT AND SENSITIVITY TO
DISPLACEMENT BY TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE.  BUT IN A FULL-EMPLOYMENT ECONOMY
CONGRESS MAY HAVE DEEMED THIS FORM OF UNION SECURITY AN UNJUSTIFIABLE
DRAIN ON THE NATIONAL MANPOWER POOL.  IN ANY EVENT, THAT JUDGMENT WAS
FOR THE LEGISLATURE.  UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF SEPARATION OF POWERS THE
COURT OUGHT NOT SO BLITHELY MANGLE THE CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT. 

FN1  29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 158(B)(6). 

FN2  332 U.S. 1 (1947).  SEE 93 CONG. REC. 6441, 6443.  IN THE
PETRILLO CASE WE UPHELD, AGAINST CLAIMS INCLUDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL
VAGUENESS, THE PROVISIONS OF THE LEA ACT, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 506, WHICH
BANNED VARIOUS "FEATHERBEDDING" PRACTICES PLAGUING BROADCAST
LICENSEES. 

FN3  93 CONG. REC. 6441. 

FN4  93 CONG. REC. 6446. 

FN5  IBID. 

FN6  SEE 93 CONG. REC. 6441, 6443. 
..END :




















NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. GAMBLE ENTERPRISES, INC. 345 U.S. 117 



NO. 238.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1952 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 196 F.2D
61, REVERSED. 


A LABOR ORGANIZATION DOES NOT ENGAGE IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(6) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, WHEN IT INSISTS
THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF ONE OF AN INTERSTATE CHAIN OF THEATRES SHALL
EMPLOY A LOCAL ORCHESTRA TO PLAY IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PROGRAMS,
ALTHOUGH THAT MANAGEMENT DOES NOT NEED OR WANT TO EMPLOY THAT
ORCHESTRA.  AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSN. V. LABOR BOARD, ANTE,
P. 100.  PP. 118-124. 

(A)  THIS COURT IN THIS CASE ACCEPTS THE FINDING OF THE BOARD, MADE
UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD, THAT THE UNION WAS SEEKING ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT
FOR ITS MEMBERS AND NOT MERE "STAND-BY" PAY.  P. 123. 

(B)  PAYMENTS FOR "STANDING-BY," OR FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT OF
"STANDING-BY," ARE NOT PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES PERFORMED; BUT WHEN AN
EMPLOYER RECEIVES A BONA FIDE OFFER OF COMPETENT PERFORMANCE OF
RELEVANT SERVICES, IT REMAINS FOR THE EMPLOYER, THROUGH FREE AND FAIR
NEGOTIATION, TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH OFFER SHALL BE ACCEPTED AND WHAT
COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID FOR THE WORK DONE.  PP. 123-124. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. GAMBLE ENTERPRISES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING, RESPONDENT'S CHARGES UNDER
SEC. 8(B)(6) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE
LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, WERE DISMISSED BY THE BOARD.  92
N.L.R.B. 1528.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE THE BOARD'S ORDER OF
DISMISSAL AND REMANDED THE CAUSE.  196 F.2D 61.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 814.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 124. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS A COMPANION TO AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSN. V.
LABOR BOARD, ANTE, P. 100. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER A LABOR ORGANIZATION ENGAGES IN AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(6) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947, (FN1) WHEN IT INSISTS THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF ONE
OF AN INTERSTATE CHAIN OF THEATERS SHALL EMPLOY A LOCAL ORCHESTRA TO
PLAY IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PROGRAMS, ALTHOUGH THAT MANAGEMENT DOES
NOT NEED OR WANT TO EMPLOY THAT ORCHESTRA.  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER
STATED, WE HOLD THAT IT DOES NOT. 

WHILE THE CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFER FROM THOSE IN THE PRECEDING CASE, THE
INTERPRETATION THERE GIVEN TO SEC. 8(B)(6) IS CONTROLLING HERE. 

FOR GENERATIONS PROFESSIONAL MUSICIANS HAVE FACED A SHORTAGE IN THE
LOCAL EMPLOYMENT NEEDED TO YIELD THEM A LIVELIHOOD.  THEY HAVE BEEN
CONFRONTED WITH THE COMPETITION OF MILITARY BANDS, TRAVELING BANDS,
FOREIGN MUSICIANS ON TOUR, LOCAL AMATEUR ORGANIZATIONS AND, MORE
RECENTLY, TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN REPRODUCTION AND BROADCASTING. 
TO HELP THEM CONSERVE LOCAL SOURCES OF EMPLOYMENT, THEY DEVELOPED LOCAL
PROTECTIVE SOCIETIES.  SINCE 1896, THEY ALSO HAVE ORGANIZED AND
MAINTAINED ON A NATIONAL SCALE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS,
AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.  BY 1943, PRACTICALLY
ALL PROFESSIONAL INSTRUMENTAL PERFORMERS AND CONDUCTORS IN THE UNITED
STATES HAD JOINED THE FEDERATION, ESTABLISHING A MEMBERSHIP OF OVER
200,000, WITH 10,000 MORE IN CANADA.  (FN2) 

THE FEDERATION USES ITS NATIONWIDE CONTROL OF PROFESSIONAL TALENT TO
HELP INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AND LOCAL UNIONS.  IT INSISTS THAT TRAVELING
BAND CONTRACTS BE SUBJECT TO ITS RULES, LAWS AND REGULATIONS.  ARTICLE
18, SEC. 4, OF ITS BY-LAWS PROVIDES:  "TRAVELING MEMBERS CANNOT,
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF A LOCAL, PLAY ANY PRESENTATION PERFORMANCES IN
ITS JURISDICTION UNLESS A LOCAL HOUSE ORCHESTRA IS ALSO EMPLOYED." 
(FN3) 

FROM THIS BACKGROUND WE TURN TO THE INSTANT CASE.  FOR MORE THAN 12
YEARS THE PALACE THEATER IN AKRON, OHIO, HAS BEEN ONE OF AN INTERSTATE
CHAIN OF THEATERS MANAGED BY RESPONDENT, GAMBLE ENTERPRISES, INC.,
WHICH IS A WASHINGTON CORPORATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN NEW
YORK.  BEFORE THE DECLINE OF VAUDEVILLE AND UNTIL ABOUT 1940,
RESPONDENT EMPLOYED A LOCAL ORCHESTRA OF NINE UNION MUSICIANS TO PLAY
FOR STAGE ACTS AT THAT THEATER.  WHEN A TRAVELING BAND OCCUPIED THE
STAGE, THE LOCAL ORCHESTRA PLAYED FROM THE PIT FOR THE VAUDEVILLE ACTS
AND, AT TIMES, AUGMENTED THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TRAVELING BAND. 

SINCE 1940, RESPONDENT HAS USED THE PALACE FOR SHOWING MOTION
PICTURES WITH OCCASIONAL APPEARANCES OF TRAVELING BANDS.  BETWEEN 1940
AND 1947, THE LOCAL MUSICIANS, NO LONGER EMPLOYED ON A REGULAR BASIS,
HELD PERIODIC REHEARSALS AT THE THEATER AND WERE AVAILABLE WHEN
REQUIRED.  WHEN A TRAVELING BAND APPEARED THERE, RESPONDENT PAID THE
MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL ORCHESTRA A SUM EQUAL TO THE MINIMUM UNION WAGES
FOR A SIMILAR ENGAGEMENT BUT THEY PLAYED NO MUSIC. 

THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, CONTAINING SEC. 8(B)(6), WAS PASSED, OVER THE
PRESIDENT'S VETO, JUNE 23, 1947, AND TOOK EFFECT AUGUST 22.  BETWEEN
JULY 2 AND NOVEMBER 12, SEVEN PERFORMANCES OF TRAVELING BANDS WERE
PRESENTED ON THE PALACE STAGE.  LOCAL MUSICIANS WERE NEITHER USED NOR
PAID ON THOSE OCCASIONS.  THEY RAISED NO OBJECTIONS AND MADE NO DEMANDS
FOR "STAND-BY" PAYMENTS.  HOWEVER, IN OCTOBER, 1947, THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, LOCAL NO. 24 OF AKRON, OHIO, HERE CALLED THE
UNION, OPENED NEGOTIATIONS WITH RESPONDENT FOR THE LATTER'S EMPLOYMENT
OF A PIT ORCHESTRA OF LOCAL MUSICIANS WHENEVER A TRAVELING BAND
PERFORMED ON THE STAGE.  THE PIT ORCHESTRA WAS TO PLAY OVERTURES,
"INTERMISSIONS" AND "CHASERS" (THE LATTER WHILE PATRONS WERE LEAVING
THE THEATER).  THE UNION REQUIRED ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PROPOSAL AS A
CONDITION OF ITS CONSENT TO LOCAL APPEARANCES OF TRAVELING BANDS. 
RESPONDENT DECLINED THE OFFER AND A TRAVELING BAND SCHEDULED TO APPEAR
NOVEMBER 20 CANCELED ITS ENGAGEMENT ON LEARNING THAT THE UNION HAD
WITHHELD ITS CONSENT. 

MAY 8, 1949, THE UNION MADE A NEW PROPOSAL.  IT SOUGHT A GUARANTY
THAT A LOCAL ORCHESTRA WOULD BE EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT ON SOME NUMBER
OF OCCASIONS HAVING A RELATION TO THE NUMBER OF TRAVELING BAND
APPEARANCES.  (FN4)  THIS AND SIMILAR PROPOSALS WERE DECLINED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE LOCAL ORCHESTRA WAS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR DESIRED. 
ACCORDINGLY, IN JULY, 1949, THE UNION AGAIN DECLINED TO CONSENT TO THE
APPEARANCE OF A TRAVELING BAND DESIRED BY RESPONDENT AND THE BAND DID
NOT APPEAR.  IN DECEMBER AN ARRANGEMENT WAS AGREED UPON LOCALLY FOR THE
EMPLOYMENT OF A LOCAL ORCHESTRA TO PLAY IN CONNECTION WITH A VAUDEVILLE
ENGAGEMENT ON CONDITION THAT THE UNION WOULD CONSENT TO A LATER
TRAVELING BAND APPEARANCE WITHOUT A LOCAL ORCHESTRA.  RESPONDENT'S NEW
YORK OFFICE DISAPPROVED THE PLAN AND THE RECORD BEFORE US DISCLOSES NO
FURTHER AGREEMENT. 

IN 1949, RESPONDENT FILED CHARGES WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD ASSERTING THAT THE UNION WAS ENGAGING IN THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE DEFINED IN SEC. 8(B)(6).  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD
ISSUED A COMPLAINT TO THAT EFFECT.  AFTER A HEARING THE TRIAL EXAMINER
FOUND RESPONDENT TO BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RECOMMENDED
THAT THE BOARD ASSERT JURISDICTION.  92 N.L.R.B. 1528, 1538, 1540.  ON
THE MERITS, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE UNION'S CONDUCT "WAS NOTHING MORE OR
LESS THAN A PROPOSAL FOR A STAND-BY ENGAGEMENT," BUT HE WAS NOT
CONVINCED THAT THE UNION'S DEMANDS WERE AN "ATTEMPT TO CAUSE" ANY
PAYMENT TO BE MADE "IN THE NATURE OF AN EXACTION."  HE, ACCORDINGLY,
RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.  ID., AT 1549, 1550, 1551.  THE
BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO ASSERT JURISDICTION.  WITH ONE DISSENT, IT
ALSO ORDERED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, BUT IT DID SO ON GROUNDS
DIFFERING FROM THOSE URGED BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER.  ID., AT 1528-1529. 
IT SAID: 

"ON THE CONTRARY, THE INSTANT RECORD SHOWS THAT IN SEEKING EMPLOYMENT
OF A LOCAL ORCHESTRA, THE ...  UNION INSISTED THAT SUCH ORCHESTRA BE
PERMITTED TO PLAY AT TIMES WHICH WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE TRAVELING
BANDS' RENDITIONS.  THUS, THE RECORD HEREIN DOES NOT JUSTIFY A FINDING
THAT, DURING THE PERIOD EMBRACED BY THE CHARGES HEREIN, THE  ...  UNION
WAS PURSUING ITS OLD POLICY AND WAS ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE THE CHARGING
PARTY TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO LOCAL MUSICIANS FOR SERVICES WHICH WERE NOT
TO BE PERFORMED. 

     *  *         *         *         * 

"IN OUR OPINION, SECTION 8(B)(6) WAS NOT INTENDED TO REACH CASES
WHERE A LABOR ORGANIZATION SEEKS ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT FOR ITS MEMBERS,
EVEN IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT WANT, DOES NOT NEED, AND
IS NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT SUCH SERVICES.  WHETHER IT IS DESIRABLE THAT
SUCH OBJECTIVE SHOULD BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
IS A MATTER FOR FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH
OBJECTIVE IS NOT PROSCRIBED BY THE LIMITED PROVISIONS OF SECTION
8(B)(6). 

"UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE  ...  UNION HAS
NOT BEEN GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
8(B)(6) OF THE ACT."  ID., AT 1531, 1533-1534. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DID NOT DISTURB THE
BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE UNION SOUGHT ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT FOR ITS
MEMBERS, BUT IT HELD, NEVERTHELESS, THAT THE UNION WAS ENGAGING IN A
LABOR PRACTICE DECLARED UNFAIR BY SEC. 8(B)(6).  IT, THEREFORE, SET
ASIDE THE BOARD'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMANDED THE CAUSE.  196 F.2D
61.  FOR REASONS STATED IN THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER CASE, ANTE, P. 100,
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 814.  WE DENIED THE UNION'S MOTION TO
INTERVENE, 344 U.S. 872, BUT, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, IT FILED
A BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE, SUPPORTING THE BOARD. 

WE ACCEPT THE FINDING OF THE BOARD, MADE UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD, THAT
THE UNION WAS SEEKING ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT FOR ITS MEMBERS AND NOT MERE
"STAND-BY" PAY.  THE BOARD RECOGNIZED THAT, FORMERLY, BEFORE SEC.
8(B)(6) HAD TAKEN EFFECT, THE UNION HAD RECEIVED "STAND-BY" PAYMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH TRAVELING BAND APPEARANCES.  SINCE THEN, THE UNION HAS
REQUESTED NO SUCH PAYMENTS AND HAS RECEIVED NONE.  IT HAS, HOWEVER,
REQUESTED AND CONSISTENTLY NEGOTIATED FOR ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT IN
CONNECTION WITH TRAVELING BAND AND VAUDEVILLE APPEARANCES.  IT HAS
SUGGESTED VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH A LOCAL ORCHESTRA COULD EARN PAY FOR
PERFORMING COMPETENT WORK AND, UPON THOSE TERMS, IT HAS OFFERED TO
CONSENT TO THE APPEARANCE OF TRAVELING BANDS WHICH ARE FEDERATION
CONTROLLED.  RESPONDENT, WITH EQUAL CONSISTENCY, HAS DECLINED THESE
OFFERS AS IT HAD A RIGHT TO DO. 

SINCE WE AND THE BOARD TREAT THE UNION'S PROPOSALS AS IN GOOD FAITH
CONTEMPLATING THE PERFORMANCE OF ACTUAL SERVICES, WE AGREE THAT THE
UNION HAS NOT, ON THIS RECORD, ENGAGED IN A PRACTICE PROSCRIBED BY SEC.
8(B)(6).  IT HAS REMAINED FOR RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE
UNION'S OFFERS ON THEIR MERITS IN THE LIGHT OF ALL MATERIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES.  WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE ALSO WHETHER
SUCH OFFERS WERE "IN THE NATURE OF AN EXACTION."  WE ARE NOT DEALING
HERE WITH OFFERS OF MERE "TOKEN" OR NOMINAL SERVICES.  THE PROPOSALS
BEFORE US WERE APPROPRIATELY TREATED BY THE BOARD AS OFFERS IN GOOD
FAITH OF SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCES BY COMPETENT MUSICIANS.  THERE IS NO
REASON TO THINK THAT SHAM CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SUBSTANCE UNDER SEC.
8(B)(6) ANY MORE THAN UNDER ANY OTHER STATUTE.  PAYMENTS FOR "STANDING
BY," OR FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT OF "STANDING-BY," ARE NOT
PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES PERFORMED,  BUT WHEN AN EMPLOYER RECEIVES A BONA
FIDE OFFER OF COMPETENT PERFORMANCE OF RELEVANT SERVICES, IT REMAINS
FOR THE EMPLOYER, THROUGH FREE AND FAIR NEGOTIATION, TO DETERMINE
WHETHER SUCH OFFER SHALL BE ACCEPTED AND WHAT COMPENSATION SHALL BE
PAID FOR THE WORK DONE.  (FN5) 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ACCORDINGLY, IS REVERSED AND
THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  "SEC.  8  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR ITS AGENTS: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(6)  TO CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CAUSE AN EMPLOYER TO PAY OR DELIVER OR
AGREE TO PAY OR DELIVER ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE, IN THE
NATURE OF AN EXACTION, FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT PERFORMED OR NOT TO
BE PERFORMED  ...  ."  61 STAT. 140-142, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
158(B)(6). 

FN2  COUNTRYMAN, THE ORGANIZED MUSICIANS, 16 U. OF CHI.  L. REV. 56
85, 239-297. 

FN3  ARTICLE 18, SEC. 3, PROVIDES:  "TRAVELING MEMBERS APPEARING IN
ACTS WITH VAUDEVILLE UNIT OR PRESENTATION SHOWS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO
PLAY FOR ANY OTHER ACTS ON THE BILL WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE LOCAL." 

FN4  THE UNION SUGGESTED FOUR PLANS.  EACH CALLED FOR ACTUAL PLAYING
OF MUSIC BY A LOCAL UNION ORCHESTRA IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF
THE THEATER:  (1) TO PLAY OVERTURES, INTERMISSIONS AND CHASERS; (2) TO
PLAY THE MUSIC REQUIRED FOR VAUDEVILLE ACTS NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF A
TRAVELING BAND ENSEMBLE; (3) TO PERFORM ON STAGE WITH VAUDEVILLE ACTS
BOOKED BY RESPONDENT; OR (4) TO PLAY AT HALF OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
RESPONDENT'S STAGE SHOWS EACH YEAR. 

FN5  IN ADDITION TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CITED IN THE AMERICAN
NEWSPAPER CASE, THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION BY SENATOR BALL EMPHASIZES
THE POINT THAT SEC. 8(B)(6) PROSCRIBES ONLY PAYMENTS WHERE NO WORK IS
DONE.  AS A MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
AND AS ONE WHO HAD SERVED AS A SENATE CONFEREE, HE MADE IT ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PASSAGE OF THE BILL, OVER THE
PRESIDENT'S VETO, JUNE 23, 1947: 

"THERE IS NOT A WORD IN THAT (SEC. 8(B)(6)), MR. PRESIDENT, ABOUT
'FEATHERBEDDING.'  IT SAYS THAT IT IS AN UNFAIR PRACTICE FOR A UNION TO
FORCE AN EMPLOYER TO PAY FOR WORK WHICH IS NOT PERFORMED.  IN THE
COLLOQUY ON THIS FLOOR BETWEEN THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA (MR. PEPPER)
AND THE SENATOR FROM OHIO (MR. TAFT), BEFORE THE BILL WAS PASSED, IT
WAS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IT DID NOT APPLY TO REST PERIODS, IT DID
NOT APPLY TO SPEED-UPS OR SAFETY PROVISIONS, OR TO ANYTHING OF THAT
NATURE; IT APPLIED ONLY TO SITUATIONS, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THE
MUSICIANS' FEDERATION FORCES AN EMPLOYER TO HIRE ONE ORCHESTRA AND THEN
TO PAY FOR ANOTHER STAND-BY ORCHESTRA, WHICH DOES NO WORK AT ALL."  93
CONG. REC. 7529. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OR ABUSES THAT RESULT FROM "FEATHERBEDDING"
ADMITTEDLY ARE NOT OUR CONCERN.  BUT I CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE BRING IT WITHIN THE STATUTE WHICH MAKES IT
AN "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE" FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR ITS AGENTS "TO
CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CAUSE AN EMPLOYER TO PAY OR DELIVER OR AGREE TO PAY
OR DELIVER ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE, IN THE NATURE OF AN
EXACTION, FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT PERFORMED OR NOT TO BE PERFORMED
...  ."  61 STAT. 140-142, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 158(B)(6). 
GRANTING THAT CONGRESS FAILED TO REACH ALL "FEATHERBEDDING" PRACTICES,
ITS ENACTMENT SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED TO HAVE NO PRACTICAL EFFECT
BEYOND REQUIRING A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF AN EXACTION.    ACCEPTING THE
RESULT IN NO. 53, AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION V. LABOR
BOARD, ANTE, P. 100, I THINK THAT DIFFERENCES IN THIS CASE REQUIRE A
CONTRARY RESULT. 

IN BOTH CASES, THE PAYMENTS COMPLAINED OF OBVIOUSLY WERE CAUSED BY
THE RESPECTIVE UNIONS.  IN BOTH, THE WORK PERFORMED WAS UNWANTED BY THE
EMPLOYER AND ITS COST BURDENED THE INDUSTRY AND CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO
IT.  BUT HERE RESEMBLANCE CEASES.  THE TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION IS ADHERING
TO AN OLD CUSTOM WHICH MUTUAL CONSENT ESTABLISHED AND FOR YEARS
MAINTAINED AND TO WHICH OTHER TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT HAVE LONG SINCE BEEN
ADJUSTED.  IN THIS CASE THE UNION HAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PRACTICE
SPECIFICALLY CONDEMNED BY THE STATUTE A NEW DEVICE FOR ACHIEVING THE
SAME RESULT.  THE TWO CASES MAY EXEMPLIFY THE SAME ECONOMIC BENEFITS
AND DETRIMENTS FROM MADE WORK, BUT SUPERFLUOUS EFFORT WHICH LONG AND
VOLUNTARY USAGE RECOGNIZED AS A FAIR ADJUSTMENT OF SERVICE CONDITIONS
BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IN THE PRINTING INDUSTRY IS "EXACTED" FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN THE ENTERTAINMENT FIELD IN ORDER TO EVADE THE LAW. 

THAT THE PAYMENTS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE CONSTITUTE A UNION "EXACTION"
WITHIN THE STATUTE WOULD SEEM HARD TO DENY, WHATEVER MAY BE THOUGHT OF
THE PRINTERS' CASE.  AS THE COURT SAYS, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
MUSICIANS HAS ESTABLISHED A "NATIONWIDE CONTROL OF PROFESSIONAL
TALENT."  NO ARTIST OR ORGANIZATION CAN PERFORM WITHOUT ITS APPROVAL. 
THE RESPONDENT IS IN THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS BUT CAN GET NO TALENT
TO EXHIBIT UNLESS IT MAKES THESE PAYMENTS.  THE "SERVICE" TENDERED FOR
THE PAYMENTS IS NOT WANTED OR USEFUL.  WHAT THE COURT SPEAKS OF AS
"FREE AND FAIR NEGOTIATION, TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH OFFER SHALL BE
ACCEPTED" IS ACTUALLY ONLY FREEDOM TO PAY OR GO OUT OF BUSINESS WITH
ALL ITS ATTENDANT LOSSES.  IF THAT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO AN EXACTION,
LANGUAGE HAS LOST ALL INTEGRITY OF MEANING. 

BUT THE COURT HOLDS THAT SO LONG AS SOME EXERTION IS PERFORMED OR
OFFERED BY THE EMPLOYEES, NO MATTER HOW USELESS OR UNWANTED, IT CAN
NEVER BE SAID THAT THERE IS AN EXACTION "FOR SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT
PERFORMED OR NOT TO BE PERFORMED."  THIS LANGUAGE UNDOUBTEDLY PRESENTS
DIFFICULTIES OF INTERPRETATION, BUT I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT IT IS SO
MEANINGLESS AND EMPTY IN PRACTICE AS THE COURT WOULD MAKE IT.  CONGRESS
SURELY DID NOT ENACT A PROHIBITION WHOSE PRACTICAL APPLICATION WOULD BE
RESTRICTED TO THOSE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT IMAGINATION TO INVENT SOME
"WORK." 

BEFORE THIS ACT, THE UNION WAS COMPELLING THE THEATRE TO PAY FOR NO
WORK.  WHEN THIS WAS FORBIDDEN, IT SOUGHT TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME RESULT
BY COMPELLING IT TO PAY FOR USELESS AND UNWANTED WORK.  THIS IS NOT
CONTINUATION OF AN OLD USAGE THAT LONG PRACTICE HAS INCORPORATED INTO
THE INDUSTRY BUT IS A NEW EXPEDIENT DEVISED TO PERPETUATE A UNION
POLICY IN THE FACE OF ITS CONGRESSIONAL CONDEMNATION.  SUCH SUBTERFUGE
SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND I DISSENT ON THE BASIS OF OUR DISSENTING OPINION
IN AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION V. LABOR BOARD, ANTE, P.
100.  WE CANNOT PERCEIVE A TENABLE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS AND THE
PRINTERS'"FEATHERBEDDING" CASE.  TO THE EXTENT OF THAT CONSISTENCY,
TODAY'S MAJORITY AND WE ARE IN ACCORD.  TRUE, THE EMPLOYEES THERE
"WORK" ON THE KEYBOARD OF A LINOTYPE, AND HERE ON THE KEYS OF A MUSICAL
INSTRUMENT.  BUT, REALISTICALLY VIEWED, ONE ENTERPRISE IS AS BOGUS AS
THE OTHER; BOTH ARE BOONDOGGLES WHICH THE EMPLOYER "DOES NOT WANT, DOES
NOT NEED, AND IS NOT EVEN WILLING TO ACCEPT."  THE STATUTE, MOREOVER,
DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MODERN MAKE-WORK GIMMICKS AND
FEATHERBEDDING TECHNIQUES ENCRUSTED IN AN INDUSTRY'S LORE.  CONGRESS
ACCORDED NO PREFERRED POSITION TO SEASONED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, AND
SEC. 8(B)(6) DOES NOT RECOGNIZE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS IN THE LAW.  CUSTOM
AND TRADITION CAN NO MORE DEPRIVE EMPLOYERS THAN EMPLOYEES OF STATUTORY
RIGHTS.  CF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS
SHIPBUILDING CO., 308 U.S. 241, 250-251 (1939); TENNESSEE COAL, IRON &
R. CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, 601-602 (1944); JEWELL RIDGE
COAL CORP. V. LOCAL NO. 6167, 325 U.S. 161, 167 (1945). 
..END :
















RAMSPECK V. FEDERAL TRIAL EXAMINERS CONFERENCE 345 U.S. 128 


NO. 278.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 12, 1953 - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1953 - 91 U.S.
APP. D.C. 164, 202 F.2D 312, REVERSED. 


CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND
GOVERNING THE CLASSIFICATION, PROMOTION, COMPENSATION AND TENURE OF
TRIAL EXAMINERS AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO THEM ARE HERE SUSTAINED
AS CONFORMING TO THE STATUTE AND CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF
CONGRESS.  PP. 129-143. 

1.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT THAT HEARING EXAMINERS SHALL
RECEIVE COMPENSATION PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION "IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE CLASSIFICATION ACT" AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH MORE
THAN ONE SALARY GRADE FOR HEARING EXAMINERS EMPLOYED BY A PARTICULAR
AGENCY; AND SEC. 34.10 OF THE REGULATIONS IS VALID.  PP. 134-137. 

2.  SECTION 34.4 OF THE REGULATIONS, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PROMOTION
OF INDIVIDUAL HEARING EXAMINERS AND GIVES THE AGENCY A CHOICE AS TO HOW
A VACANCY IN A HIGHER GRADE MAY BE FILLED - I.E., BY PROMOTION FROM
WITHIN OR OTHERWISE - DOES NOT VIOLATE SEC. 11 OF THE ACT.  PP. 137
139. 

3.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT THAT HEARING EXAMINERS "SHALL
BE ASSIGNED TO CASES IN ROTATION SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE" DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT ALL HEARING EXAMINERS EMPLOYED BY A PARTICULAR AGENCY BE
ASSIGNED TO CASES IN MECHANICAL ROTATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
DIFFICULTY OR COMPLEXITY OF PARTICULAR CASES OR THE EXPERIENCE OR
COMPETENCE OF PARTICULAR EXAMINERS; AND SEC. 34.12 OF THE REGULATIONS
IS VALID.  PP. 139-140. 

4.  SECTION 34.15 OF THE REGULATIONS, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A REDUCTION
IN FORCE OF EXAMINERS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE REDUCTION IN
FORCE OF OTHER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT THAT EXAMINERS "SHALL BE REMOVABLE  ...
ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE ESTABLISHED AND DETERMINED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION  ...  ."  PP. 140-143. 

RAMSPECK ET AL. V. FEDERAL TRIAL EXAMINERS CONFERENCE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF FOUR CIVIL SERVICE RULES
CONCERNING TRIAL EXAMINERS.  104 F. SUPP. 734.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  91 U.S. APP. D.C. 164, 202 F.2D 312.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 853.  REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, P. 143. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE FEDERAL TRIAL EXAMINERS
CONFERENCE, (FN1) AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL EXAMINERS, AND
BY A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL TRIAL EXAMINERS, AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD.  THE PLAINTIFFS, WHO HAD BEEN APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 11 OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 244, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1010,
SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT CERTAIN RULES RELATING TO THEIR
PROMOTION, COMPENSATION, TENURE, AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF CASES,
PROMULGATED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SEC. 11, WERE
INVALID, AND ASKED THAT THEIR ENFORCEMENT BE ENJOINED.  THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THAT THESE FOUR RULES WERE INVALID, INTERPRETING SEC. 11 AS
REQUIRING:  (1) THAT HEARING EXAMINERS EMPLOYED BY A PARTICULAR FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY MUST BE PLACED IN THE SAME SALARY GRADE; (2) THAT
A HEARING EXAMINER MAY NOT BE PROMOTED FROM ONE SALARY GRADE TO ANOTHER
WITHIN THE SAME AGENCY; (3) THAT HEARING EXAMINERS MUST BE ASSIGNED TO
CASES IN MECHANICAL ROTATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DIFFICULTY OR
IMPORTANCE OF PARTICULAR CASES OR THE COMPETENCE OR EXPERIENCE OF
PARTICULAR EXAMINERS; AND (4) THAT THE EMPLOYMENT OF HEARING EXAMINERS
MAY NOT BE TERMINATED BY REDUCTION IN FORCE PROCEDURES WHERE THERE IS A
LACK OF WORK OR OF FUNDS WITH WHICH TO PAY THEM.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE FOUR
CIVIL SERVICE RULES, 104 F. SUPP. 734.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED
IN A SHORT PER CURIAM OPINION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  91 U.S. APP. D.C.
164, 202 F.2D 312.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 344 U.S. 853. 

PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, HEARING
EXAMINERS' TENURE AND STATUS WERE GOVERNED BY THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF
1923, AS AMENDED.  UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION ACT, AS EMPLOYEES OF AN
AGENCY, THEIR CLASSIFICATION WAS DETERMINED BY THE RATINGS GIVEN THEM
BY THE AGENCY, AND THEIR COMPENSATION AND PROMOTION DEPENDED UPON THEIR
CLASSIFICATION.  THE EXAMINERS WERE IN A DEPENDENT STATUS. 

WITH THE RAPID GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN THE LAST FEW DECADES,
THE ROLE OF THESE QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICERS BECAME INCREASINGLY
SIGNIFICANT AND CONTROVERSIAL.  MANY OF THE REGULATORY POWERS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS ASSIGNED FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES CAN BE EXERCISED
ONLY AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR BY
STATUTE.  THESE AGENCIES HAVE SUCH A VOLUME OF BUSINESS, INCLUDING
CASES IN WHICH A HEARING IS REQUIRED, THAT THE AGENCY HEADS, THE
MEMBERS OF BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS, CAN RARELY PRESIDE OVER HEARINGS IN
WHICH EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED.  THE AGENCIES MET THIS PROBLEM LONG BEFORE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT BY DESIGNATING HEARING OR TRIAL
EXAMINERS TO PRESIDE OVER HEARINGS FOR THE RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE.  SUCH
AN EXAMINER GENERALLY MADE A REPORT TO THE AGENCY SETTING FORTH
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDED ACTION.  THE PARTIES COULD
ADDRESS TO THE AGENCY EXCEPTIONS TO THE FINDINGS, AND, AFTER RECEIVING
BRIEFS AND HEARING ORAL ARGUMENT, THE AGENCY HEADS WOULD MAKE THE FINAL
DECISION. 

MANY COMPLAINTS WERE VOICED AGAINST THE ACTIONS OF THE HEARING
EXAMINERS, IT BEING CHARGED THAT THEY WERE MERE TOOLS OF THE AGENCY
CONCERNED AND SUBSERVIENT TO THE AGENCY HEADS IN MAKING THEIR PROPOSED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.  A STUDY BY PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S
COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT RESULTED IN A REPORT IN 1937
RECOMMENDING SEPARATION OF ADJUDICATORY FUNCTIONS AND PERSONNEL FROM
INVESTIGATIVE AND PROSECUTION PERSONNEL IN THE AGENCIES.  THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE WAS APPOINTED IN 1939
TO STUDY THE DECISIONAL PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, AND THE
FINAL REPORT OF THIS COMMITTEE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1941.  BOTH THE
MAJORITY AND MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT HEARING
EXAMINERS BE MADE PARTIALLY INDEPENDENT OF THE AGENCY BY WHICH THEY
WERE EMPLOYED; THE MAJORITY RECOMMENDED HEARING EXAMINERS BE APPOINTED
FOR A TERM OF SEVEN YEARS, AND THE MINORITY RECOMMENDED A TERM OF
TWELVE YEARS.  ALTHOUGH EXTENSIVE HEARINGS WERE HELD ON BILLS TO CARRY
OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS COMMITTEE, WORLD WAR II DELAYED FINAL
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON THE SUBJECT.  AFTER THE WAR, THE MCCARRAN
SUMNERS BILL, WHICH BECAME THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, WAS
INTRODUCED.  THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PRINT OF JUNE 1945 REVEALS
THAT AT THAT TIME THERE WAS STILL GREAT DIVERSITY OF OPINION AS TO HOW
THE STATUS OF HEARING EXAMINERS SHOULD BE ENHANCED.  SEVERAL PROPOSALS
WERE CONSIDERED, AND IN THE FINAL BILL CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT HEARING
EXAMINERS SHOULD BE GIVEN INDEPENDENCE AND TENURE WITHIN THE EXISTING
CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.  (FN2) 

CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE HEARING EXAMINERS "A SPECIAL CLASS OF SEMI
INDEPENDENT SUBORDINATE HEARING OFFICERS" (FN3) BY VESTING CONTROL OF
THEIR COMPENSATION, PROMOTION AND TENURE IN THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION TO A MUCH GREATER EXTENT THAN IN THE CASE OF OTHER FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES.  SECTION 11 IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SUBJECT TO THE CIVIL-SERVICE AND OTHER LAWS TO THE EXTENT NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS ACT, THERE SHALL BE APPOINTED BY AND FOR EACH
AGENCY AS MANY QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT EXAMINERS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
FOR PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 7 AND 8, WHO SHALL BE ASSIGNED TO
CASES IN ROTATION SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE AND SHALL PERFORM NO DUTIES
INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS EXAMINERS. 
EXAMINERS SHALL BE REMOVABLE BY THE AGENCY IN WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED
ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE ESTABLISHED AND DETERMINED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE COMMISSION) AFTER OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING AND UPON THE RECORD THEREOF.  EXAMINERS SHALL RECEIVE
COMPENSATION PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION INDEPENDENTLY OF AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS OR RATINGS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLASSIFICATION
ACT OF 1923, AS AMENDED, EXCEPT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS (2)
AND (3) OF SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 7 OF SAID ACT, AS AMENDED, AND THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9 OF SAID ACT, AS AMENDED, SHALL NOT BE
APPLICABLE.  AGENCIES OCCASIONALLY OR TEMPORARILY INSUFFICIENTLY
STAFFED MAY UTILIZE EXAMINERS SELECTED BY THE COMMISSION FROM AND WITH
THE CONSENT OF OTHER AGENCIES.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE
COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE INVESTIGATIONS, REQUIRE REPORTS BY
AGENCIES, ISSUE REPORTS, INCLUDING AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CONGRESS,
PROMULGATE RULES, APPOINT SUCH ADVISORY COMMITTEES AS MAY BE DEEMED
NECESSARY, RECOMMEND LEGISLATION, SUBPENA WITNESSES OR RECORDS, AND PAY
WITNESS FEES AS ESTABLISHED FOR THE UNITED STATES COURTS." 

AN EXAMINATION OF SEC. 11 SHOWS THAT CONGRESS RETAINED THE EXAMINERS
AS CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES BUT MADE INAPPLICABLE TO THEM
PARAGRAPHS (2) AND (3) OF SUBSECTION (B) OF SEC. 7 OF THE
CLASSIFICATION ACT AND SEC. 9 OF THAT ACT.  THESE SECTIONS HAD MADE THE
EXAMINERS DEPENDENT UPON THE AGENCIES' RATINGS FOR THEIR
CLASSIFICATION.  FREED FROM THIS DEPENDENCE UPON THE AGENCIES, THE
EXAMINERS WERE SPECIFICALLY DECLARED TO BE OTHERWISE UNDER THE OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1923 AS AMENDED (NOW THE
CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949, 5 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1071 ET SEQ.). 

THE POSITION OF HEARING EXAMINERS IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
POSITION.  IT IS A CREATURE OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT.  THE
RESPONDENTS HAVE NO VESTED RIGHT TO POSITIONS AS EXAMINERS.  THEY HOLD
THEIR POSTS BY SUCH TENURE AS CONGRESS SEES FIT TO GIVE THEM.  THEIR
POSITIONS MAY BE REGULATED COMPLETELY BY CONGRESS, OR CONGRESS MAY
DELEGATE THE EXERCISE OF ITS REGULATORY POWER, UNDER PROPER STANDARDS,
TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, WHICH IT HAS DONE IN THIS CASE. 

THE QUESTION WE HAVE PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
IN THE ADOPTION OF THESE RULES FOLLOWED OR DEPARTED FROM THE DIRECTIONS
GIVEN IT BY SEC. 11 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  DID IT
IMPLEMENT THE STATUTE, OR DID IT ENLARGE IT? 

RESPONDENTS DO NOT CONTEND THAT ALL HEARING EXAMINERS SHOULD BE
CLASSIFIED IN THE SAME GRADE; THEY CONTEND ONLY THAT ALL HEARING
EXAMINERS IN ANY ONE AGENCY SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED IN THE SAME GRADE. 
PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT CASES IN A GIVEN AGENCY ARE OF VARYING LEVELS OF
DIFFICULTY AND IMPORTANCE AND THAT THE EXAMINERS HEARING THEM MUST
POSSESS VARYING DEGREES OF COMPETENCY AND TYPES OF QUALIFICATIONS. 
PETITIONERS POINT TO THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
WHERE THERE ARE SAFETY CASES HEARD BY ONE GROUP OF EXAMINERS AND
ECONOMIC CASES HEARD BY ANOTHER.  THE EXAMINERS ASSIGNED TO THE SAFETY
CASES HAVE PILOTS' CERTIFICATES, WHILE THOSE ASSIGNED TO THE ECONOMIC
CASES HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF QUALIFICATIONS.  AGAIN,
CERTAIN CASES BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION INVOLVE
RELATIVELY SIMPLE APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF MOTOR CARRIER
CERTIFICATES, WHILE OTHERS INVOLVE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT RAILROAD
RATE PROCEEDINGS.  PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT INDICATES THE NEED FOR
SPECIALIZATION AMONG EXAMINERS IN THE SAME AGENCY TO MEET THE DIVERSE
TYPES OF CASES PRESENTED. 

PROCEEDING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT, THE
COMMISSION STILL CLASSIFIED THE EXAMINERS ACCORDING TO THEIR
EXPERIENCE, SKILL, AND ABILITY, (FN4) BUT WITHOUT SEEKING OR RECEIVING
RATING OF THE EXAMINERS BY THE AGENCIES AND WHOLLY INDEPENDENT
THEREOF.  A CLASSIFICATION OF THE EXAMINERS INTO GRADES, WITH SALARIES
APPROPRIATE TO EACH GRADE, WAS SET UP BY THE COMMISSION IN EACH FEDERAL
AGENCY USING EXAMINERS.  THIS CLASSIFICATION RANGED FROM JUST ONE GRADE
IN SEVERAL AGENCIES TO FIVE GRADES IN TWO AGENCIES.  ALLOCATION OF
EXAMINERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE CLASSIFICATIONS IS PROVIDED FOR IN
RULE 34.10 (FN5) WHICH SPECIFICALLY STATES, "ALLOCATIONS SHALL BE MADE
INDEPENDENTLY OF AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATINGS." 

WHEN THE COMMISSION CLASSIFIED THE EXAMINERS ACCORDING TO THE
CLASSIFICATION ACT, IT WAS DOING JUST WHAT CONGRESS DIRECTED IT TO DO.
AS HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SHOWN, SEC. 11 SPECIFICALLY DIRECTS THAT
"EXAMINERS SHALL RECEIVE COMPENSATION  ...  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1923, AS AMENDED," WITH THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN
THE STATUTE AND IN THE RULES THAT THIS IS TO BE DONE INDEPENDENTLY OF
AGENCY INFLUENCE.  THIS CONTRADICTS THE CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS DID
NOT INTEND TO PERMIT CLASSIFICATION OF EXAMINER POSITIONS BY THE
COMMISSION.  THE ACT CLEARLY PROVIDES, AS CONGRESS THOUGHT IT DID,
(FN6) FOR THE ALLOCATION OF POSITIONS WITHIN AN AGENCY TO BE MADE IN
VARIOUS SALARY GRADES, WHICH REFLECT THE COMPETENCE AND EXPERIENCE OF
THE PERSON IN THE GRADE.  CONGRESS MUST HAVE RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF
THE COMMISSION SO TO CLASSIFY WHEN IT AMENDED THE CLASSIFICATION ACT IN
1949.  AT THAT TIME IT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THIRTY-TWO CATEGORIES OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, BUT NOT EXAMINERS, 5 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1082,
ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION THEN WAS CLASSIFYING EXAMINERS UNDER
REGULATIONS SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT ONES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CRITICAL OF THE SPECIFICATIONS USED BY THE
COMMISSION TO CLASSIFY THE EXAMINERS AS BEING "NEBULOUS AND
SUBJECTIVE."  TO CLASSIFY THE POSITIONS INTO THE DIFFERENT GRADES FROM
GS 11 TO GS 15, THE COMMISSION USED SPECIFICATIONS AS TO JOB CONTENT AS
"MODERATELY DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT," "DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT,"
"UNUSUALLY DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT," "EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT AND
IMPORTANT," AND "EXCEPTIONALLY DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT."  THESE
SPECIFICATIONS OF NECESSITY MUST BE SUBJECTIVE.  THEY ARE NOT BASED SO
MUCH ON EVIDENCE AS ON JUDGMENT.  IT IS A DISCRIMINATING JUDGMENT AND
ONE CONGRESS COMMITTED TO THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS.  THE SPECIFICATIONS EVIDENTLY HAD
PRACTICAL CONTENT AND MEANING TO CONGRESS, AS IT REPEATEDLY USED
SIMILAR PHRASES TO DESCRIBE RELATIVE METHODS IN SEC. 602 OF THE
CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949, 5 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1112. 

WE COME NEXT TO RULE 34.4 OF THE COMMISSION RELATING TO PROMOTIONS,
(FN7) WHICH IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  THIS RULE WAS HELD INVALID BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, CONSISTENT WITH ITS VIEW THAT THERE CAN BE NO
CLASSIFICATION OF EXAMINERS AND THEREFORE THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE GRADE. 
SINCE WE DISAGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE
COMMISSION TO CLASSIFY EXAMINERS INTO GRADES WITHIN AN AGENCY AND HOLD
THAT SUCH CLASSIFICATION CAN BE MADE, IT MUST FOLLOW THAT PROMOTIONS
FROM ONE GRADE TO ANOTHER MAY BE MADE. 

BUT RESPONDENTS ALSO CHALLENGE THE METHOD BY WHICH PROMOTIONS ARE
MADE.  THE RULE PROVIDES THAT THE AGENCY SHALL DECIDE IF THERE IS A
VACANCY TO BE FILLED, AND FURTHER THAT THE AGENCY SHALL DECIDE IF THIS
VACANCY IS TO BE FILLED BY PROMOTION FROM AMONG THE PRESENT EXAMINERS. 
THE EXAMINERS INSIST THAT THUS THE AGENCY CAN CONTROL AND COERCE ITS
EXAMINERS, AND HAS AN ABSOLUTE VETO POWER OVER PROMOTIONS.  BUT IT IS
THE COMMISSION WHICH CHOOSES THE EXAMINER WHO SHALL RECEIVE THE
PROMOTION.  RESPONDENTS IMAGINE ALL SORTS OF DEVIOUS SCHEMES BY WHICH
THE AGENCIES SHREWDLY ANALYZE THEIR STAFFS TO PICK OUT WHICH EXAMINERS
WOULD PROBABLY BE CHOSEN BY THE COMMISSION FOR PROMOTION, AND THEN
CREATE VACANCIES FOR THEM AS A REWARD FOR FAVORABLE DECISIONS, OR ELSE
FILL VACANCIES FROM OUTSIDE IN ORDER TO DISCIPLINE RECALCITRANT
EXAMINERS.  RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY ACTUAL EXAMPLES OF THIS, NOR
DO THEY SHOW THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT
CORRECT THE SITUATION.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE COMMISSION MUST
ALWAYS TURN TO THE AGENCY FOR ADVICE ON THE NUMBER OF EXAMINERS NEEDED
AT THE VARIOUS LEVELS.  THE STATUTE DECLARES THAT "THERE SHALL BE
APPOINTED BY AND FOR EACH AGENCY AS MANY QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT
EXAMINERS AS MAY BE NECESSARY."  IT THEN PUTS SUFFICIENT RESPONSIBILITY
IN THE COMMISSION'S HANDS TO ENSURE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENTS FROM THE
EXAMINERS.  IT DOES NOT REDUCE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AGENCY TO SEE
THAT IT HAS A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF COMPETENT EXAMINERS TO HANDLE ITS
BUSINESS PROPERLY. 

WE COME NEXT TO RULE 34.12, ROTATION OF EXAMINERS.  IT PROVIDES: 

"INSOFAR AS PRACTICABLE, EXAMINERS SHALL BE ASSIGNED IN ROTATION TO
CASES OF THE LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY AND IMPORTANCE THAT ARE NORMALLY
ASSIGNED TO POSITIONS OF THE SALARY GRADE THEY HOLD."  5 CFR, 1951
SUPP., SEC. 34.12. 

THIS RULE PURPORTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 11 THAT
EXAMINERS "SHALL BE ASSIGNED TO CASES IN ROTATION SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE."  THE RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THIS MEANS MECHANICAL
ROTATION - THAT A CASE MUST BE ASSIGNED TO AN EXAMINER WHEN HIS NAME
COMES UP ON THE REGISTER, UNLESS HE IS ON LEAVE OR SICK OR DISQUALIFIED
OR HAS NOT COMPLETED ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT, ETC.  THE LOWER COURTS
ACCEPTED THE RESPONDENTS' VIEW AND HELD RULE 34.12 INVALID. 

THE COMMISSION GAVE TO SEC. 11'S REQUIREMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF CASES
IN ROTATION "SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE" CONSIDERATION BEYOND THE MERE
MECHANICS OF BRINGING THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET OPPOSITE THE TOP NAME
ON THE REGISTER OF AVAILABLE EXAMINERS.  IT GAVE CONSIDERATION TO THE
KIND OF CASE INVOLVED AS WELL AS THE KIND OF EXAMINER AVAILABLE.  THE
COMMISSION HAD CLASSIFIED THE EXAMINERS ON THAT BASIS, AND IT
CONSIDERED IT WAS PRACTICABLE TO ASSIGN CASES TO EXAMINERS WHO WERE,
ACCORDING TO THEIR CLASSIFICATION, QUALIFIED TO HANDLE THE CASE AT
HAND, HAVING REGARD TO THE COMPLEXITY AND DIFFICULTY THEREOF, TOGETHER
WITH THE EXPERIENCE AND ABILITY OF THE EXAMINER AVAILABLE.  IF
ASSIGNMENT BY MECHANICAL ROTATION, THE VALUE AND USE OF SUCH
CLASSIFICATION, WHICH CONGRESS HAD AUTHORIZED, WOULD BE LOST.  TO USE
THE CLASSIFICATION, IT WAS NOT PRACTICABLE TO USE MECHANICAL ROTATION. 
CONGRESS DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF EXAMINERS BY THE
COMMISSION, AND THEN PROVIDE FOR THE COMMISSION TO IGNORE SUCH
CLASSIFICATION BY A MECHANICAL ROTATION.  THE ROTATION FOR PRACTICAL
REASONS WAS ADJUSTED TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS.  THIS WAS AN ALLOWABLE
JUDGMENT BY THE COMMISSION AS TO WHAT WAS PRACTICABLE. 

FINALLY, WE COME TO THE CONSIDERATION OF RULE 34.15, (FN8) WHICH
PROVIDES FOR A REDUCTION IN FORCE OF EXAMINERS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
GOVERNING THE REDUCTION IN FORCE OF OTHER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 
RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION, SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS BELOW, IS THAT THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 11 THAT EXAMINERS "SHALL BE REMOVABLE  ...  ONLY FOR
GOOD CAUSE ESTABLISHED AND DETERMINED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
...  AFTER OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING AND UPON THE RECORD THEREOF" GIVES
THEM A LIFETIME POSITION, SUBJECT TO REMOVAL ONLY FOR CAUSE, AND THAT
THE REDUCTION IN FORCE PROCEDURES OF THE COMMISSION HAVE NO APPLICATION
TO THEM. 

IN THIS, WE THINK THE RESPONDENTS ARE MISTAKEN.  CONGRESS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE TENURE FOR THE EXAMINERS IN THE TRADITION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION.  THEY WERE NOT TO BE PAID, PROMOTED, OR DISCHARGED AT THE
WHIM OR CAPRICE OF THE AGENCY OR FOR POLITICAL REASONS.  ONE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL EXAMINERS SUING HERE WAS DISCHARGED BY THE LABOR BOARD FOR
LACK OF FUNDS.  THE COMMISSION HAS TRADITIONALLY PROVIDED FOR A
REDUCTION IN FORCE FOR LACK OF FUNDS, PERSONNEL CEILINGS,
REORGANIZATIONS, DECREASE OF WORK, AND SIMILAR REASONS.  5 CFR, 1951
SUPP., SEC. 20.2(A). 

PART OF RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT SEEMS TO DIRECT ITSELF TO THE POINT
THAT IT IS THE AGENCY WHICH MAKES THE REDUCTION IN FORCE.  RULE 34.15
PROVIDES FOR THE DROPPING OF EXAMINERS WITH THE LOWEST NUMBER OF
"RETENTION CREDITS" AFTER THE AGENCY FINDS THAT IT MUST REDUCE ITS
FORCE.  THESE CREDITS ARE BASED ON LENGTH OF SERVICE AND ARE BEYOND THE
POWER OF THE AGENCY TO AFFECT.  AS WITH PROMOTIONS, THE COMMISSION WILL
ALWAYS NEED TO CONSULT WITH THE AGENCY TO ASCERTAIN THAT THERE IS
OCCASION FOR A REDUCTION.  JUST AS THE STATUTE LEAVES WITH THE AGENCY
THE DUTY TO SEE THAT THERE ARE AN ADEQUATE NUMBER OF THE RIGHT TYPE OF
EXAMINERS, IT LEAVES WITH THE AGENCY THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DECLARE THAT
THERE ARE A LESSER NUMBER OF EXAMINERS NECESSARY AT THIS TIME.  IT MUST
BE ASSUMED THAT THE COMMISSION WILL PREVENT ANY DEVIOUS PRACTICE BY AN
AGENCY WHICH WOULD ABUSE THIS RULE.  THE RULE PROVIDES FOR EXAMINER
APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION, SO THERE IS OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ABUSES TO
THE COMMISSION'S ATTENTION.  ALSO CHALLENGED IS THE STATEMENT IN THE
RETENTION PREFERENCE REGULATIONS FOR REDUCTION IN FORCE (5 CFR, 1951,
SEC. 20.2) ALLOWING REDUCTION IN FORCE "FOR OTHER REASONS."  THIS IS
OBVIOUSLY TO PROVIDE FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR REDUCTION NOT NOW
FORESEEN, AND IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE COMMISSION WILL NOT PERMIT AN
AGENCY TO MISUSE IT. 

WE FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE HEARING EXAMINERS
A CLASS WITH LIFETIME EMPLOYMENT, WHETHER THERE WAS WORK FOR THEM TO DO
OR NOT, AS CONTENDED BY THE RESPONDENTS.  A REDUCTION IN FORCE FOR THE
REASONS HERETOFORE PROVIDED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND REMOVAL
OF AN EXAMINER IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH IS "GOOD CAUSE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 11. 

THE RULES CONFORM TO THE STATUTE AND CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE AND INTENT
(FN9) OF CONGRESS, AND THEY ARE THEREFORE VALID. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SINCE THE QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE US, WE DO NOT RULE ON
THE STANDING OF THE FEDERAL TRIAL EXAMINERS CONFERENCE TO BE A PARTY IN
THIS SUIT. 

FN2  THE SENATE REPORT DESCRIBED THE ALTERNATIVES BEFORE THE CONGRESS
AND THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 11 AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO RENDER EXAMINERS INDEPENDENT AND
SECURE IN THEIR TENURE AND COMPENSATION.  THE SECTION THUS TAKES A
DIFFERENT GROUND THAN THE PRESENT SITUATION, IN WHICH EXAMINERS ARE
MERE EMPLOYEES OF AN AGENCY, AND OTHER PROPOSALS FOR A COMPLETELY
SEPARATE 'EXAMINERS' POOL' FROM WHICH AGENCIES MIGHT DRAW FOR HEARING
OFFICERS.  RECOGNIZING THAT THE ENTIRE TRADITION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION IS DIRECTED TOWARD SECURITY OF TENURE, IT SEEMS WISE TO PUT
THAT TRADITION TO USE IN THE PRESENT CASE.  HOWEVER, ADDITIONAL POWERS
ARE CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION."  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT -
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, S. DOC. NO. 248, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 215. 

FN3  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, P. 192. 

FN4  SECTION 11 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE
JUNE 11, 1947, ONE YEAR AFTER THE ACT'S APPROVAL.  THE COMMISSION
ACCEPTED THE EXAMINER POSITIONS IN THE FIVE DIFFERENT GRADES
ESTABLISHED BY THE AGENCIES.  AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, REGULATIONS
WERE PROMULGATED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1947.  THE COMMISSION APPOINTED A
BOARD OF EXAMINERS FROM OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT TO PASS ON THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF INCUMBENT STATUS EXAMINERS, AND TO CONDUCT A
COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION FOR NONSTATUS INCUMBENTS AND NEW APPLICANTS. 
WHEN THE RESULTS WERE ANNOUNCED IN MARCH 1949, 25.5% OF THE 212 STATUS
INCUMBENTS RATED BY THE BOARD WERE FOUND DISQUALIFIED, BUT APPEALS WERE
TAKEN AND ULTIMATELY ALL WERE FOUND QUALIFIED.  THE ACTION OF THE BOARD
OF EXAMINERS WAS MUCH CRITICIZED.  SEE THOMAS, THE SELECTION OF FEDERAL
HEARING EXAMINERS:  PRESSURE GROUPS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
(1950), 59 YALE L.J. 431, 433; FUCHS, THE HEARING EXAMINER FIASCO UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (1950), 63 HARV. L. REV. 737, 767. 
MEANWHILE, DISPUTE HAD ARISEN AS TO WHAT PART THE AGENCIES HAD IN THE
PROMOTION OF EXAMINERS - THE EXISTING REGULATIONS PERMITTED THE AGENCY
TO SELECT THE EXAMINER TO BE PROMOTED SUBJECT TO THE RETROACTIVE
APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.  ON FEBRUARY 23, 1951, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ISSUED AN OPINION HOLDING THE PROMOTION REGULATION INVALID.  41 OP.
ATTY. GEN., NO. 14.  ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1951, THE COMMISSION PROMULGATED
THE PRESENT REGULATIONS INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT. 

FN5  "SEC.  34.10 COMPENSATION.  (A)  HEARING EXAMINER POSITIONS
SHALL BE ALLOCATED BY THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS
AND PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE
CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949.  ALLOCATIONS SHALL BE MADE INDEPENDENTLY OF
AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATINGS. 

"(B)  HEARING EXAMINERS SHALL RECEIVE WITHIN-GRADE SALARY
ADVANCEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 25 OF THIS CHAPTER:  PROVIDED,
THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF A SATISFACTORY OR BETTER PERFORMANCE RATING
SHALL NOT APPLY."  5 CFR, 1951 SUPP., SEC. 34.10. 

FN6  IN THE MATTER OF EXAMINERS' COMPENSATION THE SECTION ADDS
GREATLY TO THE COMMISSION'S POWERS AND FUNCTION.  IT MUST PRESCRIBE AND
ADJUST EXAMINERS' SALARIES, INDEPENDENTLY OF AGENCY RATINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS.  THE STATED INAPPLICABILITY OF SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF
THE CLASSIFICATION ACT CARRIES INTO EFFECT THAT AUTHORITY.  THE
COMMISSION WOULD EXERCISE ITS POWERS BY CLASSIFYING EXAMINERS'
POSITIONS AND, UPON CUSTOMARY EXAMINATION THROUGH ITS AGENTS, SHIFT
EXAMINERS TO SUPERIOR CLASSIFICATIONS OR HIGHER GRADES AS THEIR
EXPERIENCE AND DUTIES MAY REQUIRE.  THE COMMISSION MIGHT CONSULT THE
AGENCY, AS IT NOW DOES IN SETTING UP POSITIONS OR RECLASSIFYING
POSITIONS, BUT IT WOULD ACT UPON ITS OWN RESPONSIBILITY AND WITH THE
OBJECTS OF THE BILL IN MIND."  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, P. 215 (SENATE
REPORT).  SEE ALSO PP. 280-281 (HOUSE REPORT). 

FN7  "SEC.  34.4 PROMOTION - (A)  FROM A HEARING EXAMINER POSITION. 
WHEN AN AGENCY DECIDES THAT A HEARING EXAMINER POSITION SHOULD BE
FILLED BY THE PROMOTION OF ONE OF ITS HEARING EXAMINERS, THE COMMISSION
WILL SELECT THE EXAMINER WHO IS TO BE PROMOTED.  TO BE ELIGIBLE TO
COMPETE FOR PROMOTION, HEARING EXAMINERS MUST BE SERVING IN THE AGENCY,
IN THE AREA OF COMPETITION DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION, UNDER ABSOLUTE
APPOINTMENTS, IN GRADES LOWER THAN THE POSITION TO BE FILLED.  IN
ADDITION, HEARING EXAMINERS MUST MEET THE CURRENT RECRUITING STANDARDS
(INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF AT LEAST ONE YEAR OF EXPERIENCE OF A
LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE NEXT LOWER GRADE).  AFTER
EXAMINING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL CANDIDATES, THE COMMISSION WILL
SELECT THE BEST QUALIFIED.  THE HEARING EXAMINER SELECTED BY THE
COMMISSION MUST BE PROMOTED NOT LATER THAN THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND
PAY PERIOD FOLLOWING THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IS
REACHED, UNLESS THE COMMISSION DIRECTS THAT THE PROMOTION BE DELAYED
PENDING ADJUDICATION OF APPEALS.  ONCE AN AGENCY ELECTS TO HAVE A
POSITION FILLED BY PROMOTION AND THE COMMISSION UNDERTAKES AN
EXAMINATION TO FILL THE POSITION, THE HEARING EXAMINER SELECTED BY THE
COMMISSION MUST BE PROMOTED. 

"(B)  FROM A POSITION OTHER THAN A HEARING EXAMINER POSITION.  WHEN
AN AGENCY DESIRES TO FILL A VACANCY IN A HEARING EXAMINER POSITION BY
THE PROMOTION OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS SERVING IN A POSITION OTHER THAN A
HEARING EXAMINER POSITION, WITH COMPETITIVE STATUS BUT WITHOUT ABSOLUTE
STATUS AS A HEARING EXAMINER, IT SHALL SUBMIT THE NAME OF THE PERSON TO
THE COMMISSION WITH AN APPLICATION FORM EXECUTED BY HIM.  THE
COMMISSION WILL RATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPLICANT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF THE OPEN COMPETITIVE
EXAMINATION (EXCEPT THE MAXIMUM AGE REQUIREMENT) INCLUDING AN
INVESTIGATION OF CHARACTER AND SUITABILITY.  IF ON THE BASIS OF THE
RATING ASSIGNED, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WITHIN REACH FOR CERTIFICATION
IF HIS NAME WERE ON THE OPEN COMPETITIVE REGISTER WITH THE SAME RATING,
THE COMMISSION WILL APPROVE THE PROMOTION; OTHERWISE IT WILL DISAPPROVE
THE REQUEST."  5 CFR, 1951 SUPP., SEC. 34.4. 

FN8  "SEC.  34.15 REDUCTIONS IN FORCE - (A)  RETENTION CREDITS. 
RETENTION CREDITS FOR PURPOSES OF REDUCTIONS IN THE FORCE OF HEARING
EXAMINERS ARE CREDITS FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE IN DETERMINING RETENTION
ORDER IN EACH RETENTION SUBGROUP.  THEY ARE COMPUTED BY ALLOWING ONE
POINT FOR EACH FULL YEAR OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE. 

"(B)  RETENTION PREFERENCE, CLASSIFICATION.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING RELATIVE RETENTION PREFERENCE IN REDUCTION IN FORCE,
HEARING EXAMINERS SHALL BE CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT
IN COMPETITIVE RETENTION GROUPS AND SUBGROUPS IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED
IN SEC. 20.3 OF THE RETENTION PREFERENCE REGULATIONS FOR USE IN
REDUCTIONS IN FORCE (PART 20 OF THIS CHAPTER): PROVIDED, THAT NO
DISTINCTION WILL BE MADE IN SUBGROUPS ON THE BASIS OF A SATISFACTORY OR
BETTER PERFORMANCE RATING AS OPPOSED TO PERFORMANCE RATINGS OF LESS
THAN SATISFACTORY. 

"(C)  STATUS OF HEARING EXAMINERS WHO ARE REACHED IN REDUCTION IN
FORCE.  WHEN A HEARING EXAMINER HAS BEEN SEPARATED, FURLOUGHED, OR
REDUCED IN RANK OR COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF A REDUCTION IN FORCE, HIS
NAME SHALL BE PLACED AT THE TOP OF THE OPEN COMPETITIVE REGISTER FOR
THE GRADE IN WHICH HE FORMERLY SERVED AND FOR ALL LOWER GRADES.  WHERE
MORE THAN ONE HEARING EXAMINER IS AFFECTED, THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE
SEVERAL HEARING EXAMINERS SHALL BE RATED BY THE COMMISSION AND RELATIVE
STANDING AT THE TOP OF THE REGISTER WILL BE ON THE BASIS OF THESE
RATINGS.    "(D)  APPEALS.  (1)  ANY HEARING EXAMINER WHO FEELS THAT
THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE REGULATIONS
GOVERNING REDUCTIONS IN FORCE MAY APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION (ATTENTION,
CHIEF LAW OFFICER) WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE HE RECEIVED HIS NOTICE
OF THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN. 

"(2)  EACH APPEAL SHALL STATE CLEARLY THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IT IS
BASED, WHETHER ERROR IN THE RECORDS; VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF
SELECTION; RESTRICTION OF THE COMPETITIVE AREA OR LEVEL; DISREGARD OF A
SPECIFIED RIGHT UNDER THE LAW OR REGULATIONS; OR DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO
EXAMINE THE REGULATIONS, RETENTION REGISTER, OR RECORDS. 

"(3)  THE AGENCY IN WHICH THE HEARING EXAMINER IS EMPLOYED SHALL BE
NOTIFIED OF THE APPEAL AND SHALL BE ALLOWED TO FILE AN ANSWER THERETO. 
THE AGENCY'S ANSWER MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION'S CHIEF LAW
OFFICER WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE AGENCY IS NOTIFIED. 

"(4)  UPON RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER WILL REFER THE
CASE TO THE PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION DIVISION FOR INVESTIGATION.  THE
PERSONNEL CLASSIFICATION DIVISION WILL MAKE INVESTIGATION AND SUBMIT
ITS REPORT TO THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER.  IF THE INVESTIGATION DISCLOSES
VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT, THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER SHALL
NOTIFY THE AGENCY AS TO THE CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN.  THE AGENCY
MAY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER WITHIN 10 DAYS OF ITS
RECEIPT TO THE COMMISSION'S BOARD OF APPEALS AND REVIEW.  IF THE BOARD
OF APPEALS AND REVIEW DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF LAW
OFFICER, IT SHALL REFER THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION'S CHIEF HEARING
EXAMINER FOR A HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBPARAGRAPH (5) OF THIS
PARAGRAPH. 

"(5)  APPEALS IN WHICH THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER CANNOT MAKE INITIAL
FINDING IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT SHALL BE REFERRED TO THE COMMISSION'S
CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER FOR A HEARING.  THE HEARING SHALL BE CONDUCTED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. 
THE APPELLANT, THE AGENCY CONCERNED, AND THE COMMISSION'S CHIEF LAW
OFFICER MAY BE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING.  UPON COMPLETION OF THE
HEARING THE PRESIDING HEARING EXAMINER SHALL TRANSMIT THE ENTIRE FILE
WITH HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION TO THE COMMISSION FOR DECISION. 

"(E)  RETENTION PREFERENCE REGULATIONS.  THE RETENTION PREFERENCE
REGULATIONS FOR USE IN REDUCTIONS IN FORCE (PART 20 OF THIS CHAPTER),
EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BY THIS SECTION, SHALL APPLY TO REDUCTIONS IN THE
FORCE OF HEARING EXAMINERS." 

FN9  RESPONDENTS' BRIEF AND THE DISSENTING OPINION FILED HEREIN QUOTE
A SENTENCE FROM A LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1951, FROM SENATOR MCCARRAN,
CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, TO CHAIRMAN RAMSPECK OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AS FOLLOWS:  "IT WAS INTENDED THAT
(EXAMINERS) BE VERY NEARLY THE EQUIVALENT OF JUDGES EVEN THOUGH
OPERATING WITHIN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE."  S.
DOC. NO. 82, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 9.  WE DO NOT FEEL JUSTIFIED IN
REGARDING THIS SENTENCE, TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND WRITTEN OVER FIVE
YEARS AFTER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT WAS ENACTED, AS
ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE INTENT OF CONGRESS AT THE TIME IT PASSED THE ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THESE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE HELD INVALID AND THE JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED FOR SUBSTANTIALLY THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE OPINION OF CHIEF
JUDGE LAWS OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  104 F.
SUPP. 734.  I WISH TO ADD A FEW WORDS MERELY TO EMPHASIZE CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF THAT OPINION. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE TRIAL EXAMINERS
IN THE VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES A NEW STATUS OF FREEDOM FROM
AGENCY CONTROL.  HENCEFORTH THEY WERE TO BE "VERY NEARLY THE EQUIVALENT
OF JUDGES EVEN THOUGH OPERATING WITHIN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF
ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE."  (FN1)  AGENCIES WERE STRIPPED OF POWER TO
REMOVE EXAMINERS WORKING WITH THEM.  HENCEFORTH REMOVAL COULD BE
EFFECTED ONLY AFTER HEARINGS BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.  THAT
SAME COMMISSION WAS EMPOWERED TO PRESCRIBE AN EXAMINER'S COMPENSATION
INDEPENDENTLY OF RECOMMENDATIONS OR RATINGS BY THE AGENCY IN WHICH THE
EXAMINER WORKED.  AND TO DEPRIVE REGULATORY AGENCIES OF ALL POWER TO
PICK PARTICULAR EXAMINERS FOR PARTICULAR CASES, SEC. 11 OF THE ACT
COMMANDED THAT EXAMINERS BE "ASSIGNED TO CASES IN ROTATION SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE  ...  ."  I AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THE REGULATIONS HERE SUSTAINED GO A LONG WAY TOWARD
FRUSTRATING THE PURPOSES OF CONGRESS TO GIVE EXAMINERS INDEPENDENCE. 
(FN2) 

PROVIDES THAT EXAMINERS MAY BE REMOVED "ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE
ESTABLISHED" AFTER HEARINGS.  ONE OF THE REGULATIONS HERE APPROVED
AUTHORIZES THEIR REMOVAL WHEN AN AGENCY FINDS IT NECESSARY TO REDUCE
ITS FORCE.  WE HAVE BEEN POINTED TO NO ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH JUSTIFIES
THIS REGULATION. 

ANOTHER REGULATION HERE APPROVED PERMITS THE ASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO
EXAMINERS BY "CLASSIFICATION" INSTEAD OF BY "ROTATION" AS SEC. 11
REQUIRES.  I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF
1923 OR ANY OTHER ACT OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZES THE DISTINCTIONS HERE MADE
BETWEEN EXAMINERS.  IN FACT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT APPEARS
TO CONTEMPLATE THAT ALL EXAMINERS EMPLOYED BY A PARTICULAR AGENCY STAND
ON EQUAL FOOTING IN REGARD TO SERVICE AND PAY.  A CENTRAL OBJECTIVE WAS
TO PREVENT AGENCY HEADS FROM USING POWERS OVER ASSIGNMENTS TO INFLUENCE
CASES.  UNLIMITED DISCRETION IN ASSIGNMENT WOULD LEAD TO SUBSERVIENT
EXAMINERS, IT WAS THOUGHT.  BUT THE EFFECT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
CLASSIFICATIONS IS TO RESTORE THE UNLIMITED DISCRETION EXISTING BEFORE
PASSAGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. 

THE DISTINCTIONS DEPENDED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DIFFERENT
CLASSIFICATIONS ARE SO NEBULOUS THAT THE HEAD OF AN AGENCY IS LEFT
PRACTICALLY FREE TO SELECT ANY EXAMINER HE CHOOSES FOR ANY CASE HE
CHOOSES.  FOR THE REGULATIONS PERMIT THE HEAD OF AN AGENCY TO ASSIGN A
PARTICULAR CASE ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY BELIEVES
IT TO BE "MODERATELY DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT," "DIFFICULT AND
IMPORTANT," "UNUSUALLY DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT," "EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT
AND IMPORTANT," OR "EXCEPTIONALLY DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT."  AND
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE PERMITTED TO ATTRIBUTE CHOICE OF A
PARTICULAR EXAMINER FOR A PARTICULAR CASE TO CONSIDERATIONS WHETHER
"COMPLEX LEGAL, ECONOMIC, FINANCIAL OR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR MATTERS"
ARE MERELY "MODERATELY COMPLEX," "FAIRLY COMPLEX," "EXTREMELY COMPLEX,"
"EXCEPTIONALLY COMPLEX," OR JUST "COMPLEX."  I THINK ALL THESE
CONCEPTUALISTIC DISTINCTIONS MEAN IS THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND FOR
A NONAGENCY CONTROLLED ROTATION OF CASES IS BURIED UNDER WORDS. 

FN1  S. DOC. NO. 82, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS. 9. 

FN2  SUPPORT OF THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT
CAN BE FOUND IN WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33, AND IN THE
OPINION OF CHIEF JUDGE LAWS, 104 F. SUPP. 734. 
..END :










BROWN V. ALLEN 344 U.S. 443 


NO. 32.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1952 - REARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1952 - DECIDED
FEBRUARY 9, 1953 - 192 F.2D 477, 763, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE, ON DIRECT REVIEW OF HIS CONVICTION, A STATE PRISONER'S
CLAIM OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS BEEN DECIDED ADVERSELY TO HIM
BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND AN APPLICATION TO THIS COURT FOR
CERTIORARI HAS BEEN DENIED, HE HAS SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT OF 28
U.S.C. SEC. 2254 THAT STATE REMEDIES BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE A FEDERAL
COURT MAY GRANT AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  PP. 446-450. 

(A)  IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HE PURSUE IN THE
STATE COURTS A COLLATERAL REMEDY BASED ON THE SAME EVIDENCE AND
ISSUES.  PP. 447-450. 

(B)  SECTION 2254 IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REQUIRING REPETITIOUS
APPLICATIONS TO STATE COURTS FOR RELIEF.  P. 448, N. 3. 

2.  A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT (WITH NO STATEMENT OF
REASONS THEREFOR) TO REVIEW A DECISION OF A STATE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMING A CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SHOULD BE GIVEN NO
WEIGHT BY A FEDERAL COURT IN PASSING UPON THE SAME PETITIONER'S
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  (OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER, STATING THE POSITION OF A MAJORITY OF THE COURT ON THIS
POINT.)  PP. 489-497. 

3.  ON A STATE PRISONER'S APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT MAY TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE PROCEEDINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS IN THE STATE TRIAL AND
APPELLATE COURTS.  PP. 457-458. 

(A)  WHERE THE STATE DECISION WAS BASED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND,
NO FURTHER EXAMINATION IS REQUIRED, UNLESS NO STATE REMEDY FOR THE
DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EVER EXISTED.  P. 458. 

(B)  WHERE THERE IS MATERIAL CONFLICT OF FACT IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF
EVIDENCE AS TO DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THE DISTRICT COURT
MAY PROPERLY DEPEND UPON THE STATE'S RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE.  P. 458. 

(C)  IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, THE STATE ADJUDICATION CARRIES THE
WEIGHT THAT FEDERAL PRACTICE GIVES TO THE CONCLUSION OF A COURT OF LAST
RESORT OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION ON FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES,
ALTHOUGH RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE.  P. 458. 

4.  ALTHOUGH IN EACH OF THESE CASES THE DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY
GAVE CONSIDERATION TO THIS COURT'S PRIOR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI, IT
AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ERROR COULD NOT HAVE
AFFECTED THE RESULT, AND SUCH ERROR MAY BE AND IS DISREGARDED AS
HARMLESS.  FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., 52.  PP. 458-460. 

5.  ON THE APPLICATION OF A STATE PRISONER TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, WHEN THE RECORDS OF THE STATE TRIAL AND
APPELLATE COURTS ARE BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, IT IS WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WHETHER TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND HEAR
ARGUMENT ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES; AND THE ACTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN NOT TAKING EVIDENCE OR HEARING ARGUMENT IN THE CASE
HERE INVOLVED WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF THAT DISCRETION.  PP. 460-465. 

6.  IN 28 U.S.C. SECS. 2243 AND 2244, THE WORD "ENTERTAIN" MEANS A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION, AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE HABEAS
CORPUS APPLICATION WITH SUCH ACCOMPANYING PAPERS AS THE COURT DEEMS
NECESSARY, THAT A HEARING ON THE MERITS, LEGAL OR FACTUAL, IS PROPER. 
PP. 460-461. 

7.  IN NO. 32, PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS NOT DENIED DUE PROCESS OR
EQUAL PROTECTION IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY THE METHOD
OF SELECTING GRAND AND PETIT JURIES FROM LISTS LIMITED BY STATE STATUTE
TO TAXPAYERS, THOUGH THE LISTS HAD A HIGHER PROPORTION OF WHITE THAN
NEGRO CITIZENS.  PP. 466-474. 

8.  IN NO. 32, PETITIONER WAS NOT DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE ADMISSION
IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM OF CONFESSIONS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN COERCED. 
PP. 474-476. 

9.  IN NO. 22, PETITIONER, A NEGRO, DID NOT SHOW BY CLEAR EVIDENCE
THAT, IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS WHICH WAS ACTUALLY MADE IN HIS CASE,
THERE WAS DISCRIMINATION BASED SOLELY ON RACE; AND PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION CANNOT BE SET ASIDE ON THAT GROUND AS VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COMPARATIVELY SMALL
NUMBER OF NAMES OF NEGROES IN THE JURY BOX WAS INSUFFICIENT IN ITSELF
TO ESTABLISH SUCH DISCRIMINATION.  PP. 477-482. 

10.  IN NO. 20, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAD REFUSED REVIEW ON THE
MERITS OF PETITIONERS' CONVICTION AND DEATH SENTENCE (CHALLENGED ON
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS) BECAUSE OF PETITIONERS' FAILURE TO
PERFECT THEIR APPEAL WITHIN THE 60-DAY LIMIT APPLICABLE UNDER STATE
LAW, THE APPEAL NOT HAVING BEEN PERFECTED UNTIL THE 61ST DAY.  HELD:  A
FAILURE TO USE A STATE'S AVAILABLE REMEDY, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME
INTERFERENCE OR INCAPACITY, BARS FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS.  PP. 482-487. 

FOR OPINION OF THE COURT, SEE POST, P. 446. 

FOR NOTATION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT, SEE
POST, P. 487. 

FOR NOTATION OF POSITION OF MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK,
SEE POST, P. 487. 

FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AS TO THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
OF THIS COURT'S DENIAL OF CERTIORARI AND THE BEARING OF PROCEEDINGS IN
STATE COURTS, ON DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, SEE POST, P. 488. 

FOR NOTATION OF POSITION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
ON THE SAME TWO POINTS, SEE POST, P. 513. 

FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT
ANNOUNCED BY THE OPINION OF THE COURT, SEE POST, P. 532. 

FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, SEE POST, P. 548. 

FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY MR.
JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, SEE POST, P. 554. 

BROWN V. ALLEN, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 22, SPELLER V. ALLEN, WARDEN, ARGUED APRIL 29,
1952, REARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1952, AND NO. 20, DANIELS ET AL. V. ALLEN,
WARDEN, ARGUED APRIL 28-29, 1952, REARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1952, ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

NO. 32.  PETITIONER, A STATE PRISONER, APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, AFTER HIS PETITION TO THIS COURT FOR
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S AFFIRMANCE OF HIS
CONVICTION HAD BEEN DENIED.  341 U.S. 943.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE APPLICATION.  98 F. SUPP. 866.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  192 F.2D 477.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S.
903.  THE CASE WAS ARGUED AT THE OCTOBER 1951 TERM, BUT WAS RESTORED TO
THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT.  343 U.S. 973.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, P. 487. 

NO. 22.  PETITIONER, A STATE PRISONER, APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, AFTER HIS PETITION TO THIS COURT FOR
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S AFFIRMANCE OF HIS
CONVICTION HAD BEEN DENIED.  340 U.S. 835.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE APPLICATION.  99 F. SUPP. 92.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  192 F.2D 477.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S.
953.  THE CASE WAS ARGUED AT THE OCTOBER 1951 TERM, BUT WAS RESTORED TO
THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT.  343 U.S. 973.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, P. 487. 

NO. 20.  PETITIONERS, STATE PRISONERS, APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, AFTER THIS COURT HAD DENIED THEIR
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S REFUSAL TO
CONSIDER ON THE MERITS AN APPEAL FROM THEIR CONVICTION.  339 U.S. 954. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE APPLICATION.  99 F. SUPP. 208.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  192 F.2D 763.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 941.  THE CASE WAS ARGUED AT THE OCTOBER 1951
TERM, BUT WAS RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT.  343 U.S. 973. 
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, P. 487. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.  343 U.S. 903; 342 U.S. 953; 342
U.S. 941.  THESE CASES WERE ARGUED LAST YEAR.  AS THE RECORDS RAISED
SERIOUS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS UPON WHICH THE CARRYING OUT OF
DEATH SENTENCES DEPENDED AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE IN THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UPON WHICH THERE
WAS DISAGREEMENT IN THIS COURT, WE DECIDED TO SET THE CASES FOR
REARGUMENT.  WE HAVE NOW HEARD THE CASES AGAIN. 

THE JUDGMENTS OF AFFIRMANCE WERE ENTERED OCTOBER 12, 1951, ON APPEAL
FROM THREE JUDGMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, REFUSING WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS
SOUGHT BY PRISONERS CONVICTED IN THAT STATE.  WE CONCLUDE THAT ALL
REQUIRED PROCEDURE FOR STATE REVIEW OF THE CONVICTIONS HAD BEEN
EXHAUSTED BY PETITIONERS IN EACH CASE BEFORE THEY SOUGHT THE WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IN EACH CASE PETITIONS FOR
CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT FOR DIRECT REVIEW OF THE STATE JUDGMENTS
RENDERED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE IN THE FACE OF THE SAME
FEDERAL ISSUES NOW PRESENTED BY HABEAS CORPUS HAD BEEN DENIED.  (FN1) 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE PRISONER TO ASK THE
STATE FOR COLLATERAL RELIEF, BASED ON THE SAME EVIDENCE AND ISSUES
ALREADY DECIDED BY DIRECT REVIEW WITH ANOTHER PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
DIRECTED TO THIS COURT.  (FN2)  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT AN APPLICANT IS
BARRED UNLESS HE HAS "EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF
THE STATE  ...  BY ANY AVAILABLE PROCEDURE."  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
SHOWS THAT THIS PARAGRAPH, IN HAEC VERBA, WAS PRESENTED TO THE CONGRESS
WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE.  THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254 HAS NO DISCUSSION OF THE CONSIDERATIONS
WHICH MOVED CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT OTHER THAN THAT CONTAINED IN S.
REP. NO. 1559.  BUT SEE A SIMILAR CLAUSE SEC. 2254 IN H.R. 3214, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 3214, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 1559,
80TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 9; REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR
CIRCUIT JUDGES, 1947, PP. 17-20. 

THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 2254 HAS BEEN CONSTRUED BY SEVERAL
COURTS OF APPEALS.  IN EKBERG V. MCGEE, 191 F.2D 625, THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REFUSED TO CONSIDER THAT THE STATUTE MEANT TO DENY A FEDERAL FORUM
WHERE STATE PROCEDURES WERE INEXHAUSTIBLE.  THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN MASTER
V. BALDI, 198 F.2D 113, 116, HELD THAT THE EXHAUSTION OF ONE OF SEVERAL
AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE STATE REMEDIES WITH THIS COURT'S DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI THEREFROM IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY.  IN BACOM V. SULLIVAN,
181 F.2D 177, AND BACOM V. SULLIVAN, 194 F.2D 166, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
RULED THAT WHEN A FEDERAL QUESTION HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO THE STATE
COURTS BY AT LEAST ONE POST-CONVICTION PROCEDURE, CERTIORARI ON THE
SAME QUESTION HAVING BEEN ONCE DENIED BY THIS COURT, THERE APPEARED A
UNIQUE AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE, JUSTIFYING FEDERAL EXAMINATION
UNDER DARR V. BURFORD, 339 U.S. 200.  (FN3) 

WHEN, IN APRIL 1948, JUDGE MARIS PRESENTED THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
DRAFT OF SEC. 2254 TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE, THE LANGUAGE
OF THE REVISION 28 U.S.C., ON WHICH THE HEARINGS WERE BEING HELD, SET
OUT THREE BASES FOR EXERCISE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER APPLICATIONS
FOR HABEAS CORPUS FROM STATE PRISONERS.  UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL
AS IT THEN READ, AN APPLICATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED WHERE IT
APPEARED (1) THAT THE APPLICANT HAD EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN
THE COURTS OF THE STATE, OR (2) WHERE THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY
AVAILABLE IN SUCH COURTS, OR (3) WHERE SUCH COURTS HAD DENIED THE
APPLICANT A FAIR ADJUDICATION OF THE LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, THE CONGRESS ELIMINATED THE
THIRD BASIS OF JURISDICTION.  S. REP. NO. 1559, P. 9, SHOWS THE REASON
FOR THIS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE SECOND PURPOSE IS TO ELIMINATE, AS A GROUND OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BY HABEAS CORPUS JUDGMENTS OF STATE COURTS, THE
PROPOSITION THAT THE STATE COURT HAS DENIED A PRISONER A 'FAIR
ADJUDICATION OF THE LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.'   THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE BELIEVES THAT
THIS WOULD BE AN UNDESIRABLE GROUND FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN
ADDITION TO EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES OR LACK OF ADEQUATE REMEDY IN
THE STATE COURTS BECAUSE IT WOULD PERMIT PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL
COURT ON THIS GROUND BEFORE THE PETITIONER HAD EXHAUSTED HIS STATE
REMEDIES.  THIS GROUND WOULD, OF COURSE, ALWAYS BE OPEN TO A PETITIONER
TO ASSERT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AFTER HE HAD EXHAUSTED HIS STATE
REMEDIES OR IF HE HAD NO ADEQUATE STATE REMEDY. 

"THE THIRD PURPOSE IS TO SUBSTITUTE DETAILED AND SPECIFIC LANGUAGE
FOR THE PHRASE 'NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AVAILABLE.'  THAT PHRASE IS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND PRECISE, AND ITS MEANING SHOULD, THEREFORE,
BE SPELLED OUT IN MORE DETAIL IN THE SECTION AS IS DONE BY THE
AMENDMENT." 

IF THE SUBSTITUTION FOR "ADEQUATE REMEDY AVAILABLE" OF THE PRESENT
DEFINITION WAS INTENDED BY THE CONGRESS TO ELIMINATE THE RIGHT OF A
STATE PRISONER TO APPLY FOR RELIEF BY HABEAS CORPUS TO THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS, WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE REPORT WOULD HAVE SUGGESTED
THAT A REMEDY FOR DENIAL OF A "FAIR ADJUDICATION" WAS IN THE FEDERAL
COURT.  THE SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS DOES
NOT SQUARE WITH THE OTHER STATUTORY HABEAS CORPUS PROVISIONS.  SEE 28
U.S.C. SECS. 2241, 2242, 2251, 2252, 2253, 3D PARAGRAPH.  WE ARE
UNWILLING TO CONCLUDE WITHOUT A DEFINITE CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION THAT
SO RADICAL A CHANGE WAS INTENDED. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THE DISTRICT COURT, IN DETERMINING THE
PROPRIETY OF ITS GRANTING THE WRIT, CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF OUR
REFUSAL OF CERTIORARI ON THE SAME QUESTIONS UPON DIRECT REVIEW OF THE
JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  AS THAT QUESTION,
PRETERMITTED IN OUR RULING IN DARR V. BURFORD, 339 U.S. 200, 214-217, A
CASE WHERE NO CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT HERE FROM STATE DENIAL OF
COLLATERAL RELIEF BY HABEAS CORPUS FROM IMPRISONMENT, HAD GIVEN RISE TO
DEFINITE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, A RULING HERE
WAS NECESSARY.  (FN4)  THERE IS A SIMILAR DIFFERENCE IN THIS COURT. 
(FN5)  AS OTHER ISSUES COMMAND A MAJORITY THAT UPHOLDS THE JUDGMENTS OF
THE COURT ALTHOUGH IT REPRESENTS THE MINORITY VIEW ON THE EFFECT OF OUR
DENIAL OF CERTIORARI.  THE POSITION OF THE MAJORITY UPON THAT POINT IS
EXPRESSED BY THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, POST, P. 488.  A
SUMMARY REVIEW OF HABEAS CORPUS PRACTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IN
RELATION TO STATE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS WILL BE FOUND IN HAWK V. OLSON,
326 U.S. 271, 274, AND DARR V. BURFORD, 339 U.S. 200, 203.  IT IS HOPED
THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED HEREIN WILL RESULT IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND LEAVE THE INDISPENSABLE FUNCTION OF THE
GREAT WRIT UNIMPAIRED IN USEFULNESS. 

                     II.  EFFECT OF FORMER PROCEEDINGS. 

THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN THIS COURT'S FORMER REFUSAL OF CERTIORARI IN
THESE CASES WAS PRESENTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH HEARD THE
APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS UPON FULL RECORDS OF THE STATE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS.  IN NO. 32, BROWN V.
ALLEN, THE DISTRICT COURT, UPON EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICATION, THE
ANSWER, AND THE EXHIBITS, ADOPTED, WITHOUT HEARING ARGUMENT OR
TESTIMONY, THE FINDINGS OF THE SENTENCING JUDGE WITH RESPECT TO BOTH
THE COMPOSITION OF THE GRAND JURY AND THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE
CONFESSION.  THESE WERE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN
THE STATE TRIAL.  THE RECORD WHICH THE DISTRICT JUDGE HAD BEFORE HIM
EMBRACED THE RECORD OF THE CASE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS AND THIS
COURT, INCLUDING ALL THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENTENCING COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURT THEN DISMISSED
THE PETITION.  SUB NOM. BROWN V. CRAWFORD, 98 F. SUPP. 866. 

IN NO. 22, SPELLER V. ALLEN, THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE
DISTRICT COURT RAISED AGAIN THE SAME FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH HAD BEEN
PASSED UPON BY THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND
WHICH HAD BEEN OFFERED TO THIS COURT ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI; TO
WIT, THE JURY COMMISSIONERS HAD "PURSUANT TO A LONG AND CONTINUOUS
PRACTICE, DISCRIMINATED AGAINST NEGROES IN THE SELECTION OF JURIES,
SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF RACE AND/OR COLOR."  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD BEFORE
IT THE RECORD WHICH HAD BEEN FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH
CAROLINA ON APPEAL.  INCLUDED IN THIS RECORD WAS THE SAME TRANSCRIPT OF
PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT WHICH HAD BEEN BEFORE THE STATE SUPREME
COURT.  IN ADDITION, THE DISTRICT COURT TOOK FURTHER EVIDENCE BY WAY OF
TESTIMONY AND STIPULATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT, UPON EXAMINATION OF ALL
THE EVIDENCE AND THE STIPULATIONS, ADOPTED THE FINDINGS OF THE
SENTENCING JUDGE WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE TRIAL JURY.  IT
ADDED THAT PETITIONER "FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CHARGE THAT HE DID
NOT HAVE A TRIAL ACCORDING TO DUE PROCESS,  ...  ."  THE COURT THEN
VACATED THE WRIT; AND HELD THAT WHILE THE PETITION COULD BE DISMISSED
"SOLELY IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY," THERE WAS THE ADDED
ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF FAILURE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CHARGE.  SUB NOM.
SPELLER V. CRAWFORD, 99 F. SUPP.  92, 97. 

IN NO. 20, DANIELS V. ALLEN, PETITIONERS AT THE STATE TRIAL MADE A
TIMELY MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT AND CHALLENGED THE ARRAY,
ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN THE SELECTION OF BOTH GRAND
AND PETIT JURORS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE GUARANTEES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  TIMELY OBJECTION WAS ALSO MADE TO ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF
WHAT WERE ALLEGED TO BE COERCED CONFESSIONS.  PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT
THE ADMISSION OF THESE CONFESSIONS VIOLATED THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THEY ALSO URGE THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA TO EXAMINE THE MERITS OF THE TRIAL
RECORD IN THE STATE COURTS BECAUSE OF THEIR FAILURE TO SERVE A
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ON APPEAL UNTIL ONE DAY BEYOND THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION, IS A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE DISTRICT COURT, PETITIONERS
REPEATED ONCE AGAIN THOSE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH HAD
EARLIER BEEN PRESENTED TO THE SENTENCING COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT OF
NORTH CAROLINA AND WHICH HAD ALSO BEEN REPEATED IN THEIR PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI FILED IN THIS COURT. 

IN EXAMINING THE APPLICATION, THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE STUDIED THE
RECORDS OF THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS OF NORTH CAROLINA, INCLUDING
A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENTENCING COURT.  HE CONCLUDED
THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE JUDGE OF THE SENTENCING COURT ON THE MATTER OF
WHETHER THE JURY HAD BEEN PROPERLY SELECTED WERE SUPPORTED BY ALL THE
EVIDENCE AND THAT IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT THERE WAS A PURPOSEFUL AND
SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION OF NEGROES SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF RACE.  HE ALSO
FOUND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT THE CONFESSIONS
WERE VOLUNTARY AND THAT THE INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE CONFESSIONS WAS
ADEQUATE.  IN ADDITION THE DISTRICT JUDGE HEARD ALL EVIDENCE OFFERED BY
THE PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE.    THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DID ADVERT TO
THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THIS COURT HAD DENIED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
ON THE SAME QUESTIONS, AND HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TO HIS MIND THE
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE DID NOT MAKE IT APPEAR THAT PETITIONERS
WERE DENIED THE SUBSTANCE OF A FAIR TRIAL.  HE ADDED THAT PETITIONERS
"FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CHARGES MADE."  99 F. SUPP. AT 216.  THE
WRIT WAS VACATED AND THE APPLICATION DISMISSED.  ON THE PROCEDURAL
HISTORY, THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN THE REQUEST.  SUB NOM.
DANIELS V. CRAWFORD, 99 F. SUPP. 208.    THE RECORDS OF THE FORMER
PROCEEDINGS THUS DETERMINED THE ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT.  THE FACT THAT FURTHER EVIDENCE WAS HEARD IN TWO OF THE CASES
WAS TO ASSURE THE JUDGE THAT THE PRISONERS WERE NOT HELD IN CUSTODY IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN DISMISSING THESE PETITIONS FOR
HABEAS CORPUS THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT TREAT OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI
AS CONCLUSIVE. 

IN THE BROWN CASE, THE LAST ONE DECIDED, JUDGE GILLIAM BASED HIS
DECISION ON THIS FINDING OF FACT:

"12.  THE FACTS FOUND BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, IN RESPECT TO THE
COMPOSITION OF THE GRAND JURY, ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE BEFORE
HIM, AND THESE FINDINGS AND THE CONCLUSION THEREON ARE ADOPTED AS
FINDINGS IN THIS RESPECT, AND THE FACTS FOUND BY THAT COURT IN RESPECT
TO THE QUESTION OF ADMISSION OF STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT ARE
ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, AND THESE FINDINGS AND THE CONCLUSIONS
THEREON ARE LIKEWISE ADOPTED."  98 F. SUPP. 866, 870. 

THE COURT CITED FROM STONEBREAKER V. SMYTH, 163 F.2D 498, 499, IN
SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT THAT THIS IS THE PROPER RULE: 

"'WHILE ACTION OF THE VIRGINIA COURTS AND THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY
THE SUPREME COURT WERE NOT BINDING ON THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA,
THEY WERE MATTERS ENTITLED TO RESPECTFUL CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT
BELOW; AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME MOST UNUSUAL SITUATION, THEY WERE
SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THAT COURT TO DENY A FURTHER WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.'"  98 F. SUPP. AT 868. 

IN THE SPELLER CASE, THE PITH OF HIS CONCLUSION IS STATED AS
FOLLOWS: 

"'THE COURT NOW CONCLUDES THAT THE WRIT SHOULD BE VACATED AND THE
PETITION DISMISSED UPON THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND THE RECORD IN THE
STATE COURT, FOR THE REASON THAT HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IS NOT
AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING THE IDENTICAL
QUESTION PASSED UPON IN THOSE COURTS.'"  99 F. SUPP. 92, 95. 

TO THIS WAS ADDED THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF AGREEMENT WITH THE
CONCLUSIONS OF THE SENTENCING COURT.  SEE PP. 452-453, SUPRA. 

IN THE DANIELS CASE, DECIDED THE SAME DAY, THE DISTRICT COURT LEFT
OPEN THE QUESTION OF ITS POWER TO REEXAMINE, 99 F. SUPP. AT 213, AND
CONCLUDED ON THE RECORD THAT THE STATE HAD AFFORDED A FAIR TRIAL. 

A. EFFECT OF DENIAL OF CERTIORARI.  - IN CASES SUCH AS THESE, A
MINORITY OF THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO REASON WHY A
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE RECORD OF THE PRIOR
CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT AND SUCH WEIGHT TO OUR DENIAL AS THE DISTRICT
COURT FEELS THE RECORD JUSTIFIES.  THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  192 F.2D 763, 768 ET SEQ.; SPELLER V. ALLEN, 192 F.2D 477. 
THIS IS, WE THINK, THE TEACHING OF EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 118,
AND WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760, 764, 765.  WE HAVE FREQUENTLY SAID
THAT THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI "IMPORTS NO EXPRESSION OF OPINION UPON
THE MERITS OF A CASE."  HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42, 48; HAMILTON-BROWN
SHOE CO. V. WOLF BROS.  & CO., 240 U.S. 251, 258.  CF. EX PARTE
ABERNATHY, 320 U.S. 219.  WHEN ON REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS NO RES JUDICATA
OR PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT FOLLOWS, THE RESULT WOULD BE IN ACCORD WITH THAT
EXPRESSION, THAT STATEMENT IS SATISFIED.  BUT DENIAL OF CERTIORARI
MARKS FINAL ACTION ON STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  IN FIELD OTHER THAN
HABEAS CORPUS WITH ITS UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY FOR REPETITIOUS LITIGATION,
AS DEMONSTRATED IN DORSEY V. GILL, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 9, 148 F.2D 857,
SEE 7 F.R.D. 313, THE DENIAL WOULD MAKE THE ISSUES RES JUDICATA.  THE
MINORITY THINKS THAT WHERE A RECORD DISTINCTLY PRESENTING A SUBSTANTIAL
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION DISENTANGLED FROM PROBLEMS OF PROCEDURE
IS BROUGHT HERE BY CERTIORARI AND DENIED, COURTS DEALING WITH THE
PETITIONER'S FUTURE APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON THE SAME ISSUES
PRESENTED IN EARLIER APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THIS
COURT, SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE THE DENIAL INTO CONSIDERATION IN
DETERMINING THEIR ACTION.  WE INDICATED AS MUCH IN HOUSE V. MAYO,
SUPRA, P. 48, AND EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, P. 117, WHEN WE SPECIFICALLY
APPROVED A DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL TO REEXAMINE ORDINARILY THE
QUESTIONS PASSED UPON BY OUR DENIAL.  PERMITTING A DISTRICT COURT TO
DISMISS AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PRIOR
RECORD SHOULD BE A PROCEDURAL DEVELOPMENT TO REDUCE ABUSE OF THE RIGHT
TO REPEATED HEARINGS SUCH AS WERE PERMITTED DURING THE PERIOD WHEN
THERE WAS NO REVIEW OF THE REFUSAL OF A HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION,
SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224.  SEE 61 HARV. L. REV. 657, 670. 
COMPARE THE PROTECTION GIVEN BY STATUTE AGAINST ABUSE OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2244.  SINCE A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT HAS POWER TO INTERVENE, THERE IS A GUARD AGAINST
INJUSTICE THROUGH ERROR.  DARR V. BURFORD, SUPRA, AT 214.  IT SHOULD BE
NOTED THAT THE MINORITY DOES NOT URGE THAT THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI
HERE IS RES JUDICATA OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED.  IT IS TRUE, AS IS
POINTED OUT IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, THE RECORDS OF
APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW STATE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS,
DIRECTLY OR COLLATERALLY, THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS OR OTHERWISE, ARE NOT
ALWAYS CLEAR AND FULL.  SOME RECORDS, HOWEVER, ARE.  IT SEEMS PROPER
FOR A DISTRICT COURT TO GIVE TO THESE REFUSALS OF CERTIORARI ON
ADEQUATE RECORDS THE CONSIDERATION THE DISTRICT COURT MAY CONCLUDE
THESE REFUSALS MERIT.  THIS WOULD BE A MATTER OF PRACTICE TO KEEP PACE
WITH THE STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT OF 1867 THAT EXPANDED HABEAS CORPUS.  WE
THINK IT INCONSISTENT TO ALLOW A DISTRICT COURT TO DISMISS AN
APPLICATION ON ITS APPRAISAL OF THE STATE TRIAL RECORD, AS WE
UNDERSTAND THOSE DO WHO OPPOSE OUR SUGGESTION (SEE MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER'S OPINION, POST, PP. 500-501 AND 503-506), BUT TO REFUSE TO
PERMIT THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER RELEVANT OUR DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI. 

B. EFFECT OF STATE COURT ADJUDICATIONS.  -  WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT
OF THE POSITION OF THE MINORITY ON THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN OUR DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI, WE TURN TO ANOTHER QUESTION.  THE FACT THAT NO WEIGHT IS TO
BE GIVEN BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI
SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS AN INDICATION THAT SIMILAR TREATMENT IS TO BE
ACCORDED TO THE ORDERS OF THE STATE COURTS.  SO FAR AS WEIGHT TO BE
GIVEN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE IS CONCERNED, A UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT, WITH ITS FAMILIARITY WITH STATE PRACTICE IS IN
FAVORABLE POSITION TO RECOGNIZE ADEQUATE STATE GROUNDS IN DENIALS OF
RELIEF BY STATE COURTS WITHOUT OPINION.  A FORTIORI, WHERE THE STATE
ACTION BASED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, NO FURTHER EXAMINATION IS
REQUIRED, UNLESS NO STATE REMEDY FOR THE DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EVER EXISTED.  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103;
EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114.  FURTHERMORE, WHERE THERE IS MATERIAL
CONFLICT OF FACT IN THE TRANSCRIPTS OF EVIDENCE AS TO DEPRIVATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY PROPERLY DEPEND UPON THE
STATE'S RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE.  MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401,
404.  IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THE STATE ADJUDICATION CARRIES THE WEIGHT
THAT FEDERAL PRACTICE GIVES TO THE CONCLUSION OF A COURT OF LAST RESORT
OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION ON FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.  IT IS NOT
RES JUDICATA.  (FN6) 

FURTHERMORE, IN VIEW OF THE CONSIDERATION THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE
DISTRICT COURT TO OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN THESE CASES, SHOULD WE
RETURN THEM TO THAT COURT FOR REEXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
COURT'S RULING UPON THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO THE DENIAL?  WE THINK
NOT.  FROM THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT
WE CANNOT SEE THAT SUCH CONSIDERATION AS WAS GIVEN BY THAT COURT TO OUR
DENIALS OF CERTIORARI COULD HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT ON ITS CONCLUSIONS AS
TO WHETHER THE RESPECTIVE DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN DENIED FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  (FN7)  IT IS TRUE, UNDER THE COURT'S RULING
TODAY, THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IN EACH OF THE THREE CASES ERRONEOUSLY
GAVE CONSIDERATION TO OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT
ITS RULINGS, SET OUT ABOVE, SHOW THAT WITHOUT THAT CONSIDERATION, IT
FOUND FROM ITS EXAMINATION OF THE STATE RECORDS AND NEW EVIDENCE
PRESENTED THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE RESPECTIVE STATE PROCEEDINGS WAS IN
FULL ACCORD WITH DUE PROCESS.  SUCH CONCLUSIONS MAKE IMMATERIAL THE
FACT THAT THE TRIAL COURT GAVE CONSIDERATION TO OUR DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS RECOGNIZED THE POWER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT TO REEXAMINE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES EVEN
AFTER TRIAL AND REVIEW BY A STATE AND REFUSAL OF CERTIORARI IN THIS
COURT.  DARR V. BURFORD, 339 U.S., AT 214.  THE INTIMATION TO THE
CONTRARY IN THE SPELLER CASE, 99 F. SUPP., AT 95, SEE P. 453, SUPRA,
MUST BE READ AS THE COURT'S OPINION AFTER THE HEARING.  "IN THE REVIEW
OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS THE RULE IS SETTLED THAT IF THE DECISION BELOW
IS CORRECT, IT MUST BE AFFIRMED, ALTHOUGH THE LOWER COURT RELIED UPON A
WRONG GROUND OR GAVE A WRONG REASON."  (FN8)  CERTAINLY THE
CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO OUR FORMER REFUSALS OF
CERTIORARI ON THE ISSUES PRESENTED CANNOT AFFECT ITS DETERMINATIONS
THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN ANY OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 
98 F. SUPP. 868, 870; 99 F. SUPP. 97, 99; 99 F. SUPP. AT 216.  WHERE IT
IS MADE TO APPEAR AFFIRMATIVELY, AS HERE, THAT THE ALLEGED ERROR COULD
NOT AFFECT THE RESULT, SUCH ERRORS MAY BE DISREGARDED EVEN IN THE
REVIEW OF CRIMINAL TRIALS.  (FN9)  WHETHER WE AFFIRM OR REVERSE IN
THESE CASES, THEREFORE, DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE TRIAL COURT'S
CONSIDERATION OF OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BUT UPON THE SOUNDNESS OF ITS
DECISIONS UPON THE ISSUES OF ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FEDERAL PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS OR OF PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE NORTH
CAROLINA PROCEEDINGS.  WE NOW TAKE UP THOSE PROBLEMS. 

                    III.  RIGHT TO PLENARY HEARING. 

PETITIONER ALLEGES A PROCEDURAL ERROR IN NO. 32, BROWN V. ALLEN.  AS
WE STATED IN THE PRECEDING SUBDIVISION, THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS
REFUSED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE RESPECTIVE STATE AND FEDERAL
COURTS.  98 F. SUPP. 866.  IT IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION, HOWEVER, THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT TOOK NO EVIDENCE AND HEARD
NO ARGUMENT ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.   HE CONTENDS HE IS
ENTITLED TO A PLENARY TRIAL OF HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE
DISTRICT COURT.  HE ARGUES THAT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, WITH
JURISDICTION OF THE PARTICULAR HABEAS CORPUS, MUST EXERCISE ITS
JUDICIAL POWER TO HEAR AGAIN THE CONTROVERSY NOTWITHSTANDING PRIOR
DETERMINATIONS OF SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL FEDERAL ISSUES BY THE HIGHEST
STATE COURT, EITHER ON DIRECT REVIEW OF THE CONVICTION OF BY POST
CONVICTION REMEDY, HABEAS CORPUS, CORAM NOBIS, DELAYED APPEAL OR
OTHERWISE.  (FN10) 

JURISDICTION OVER APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS IS
CONTROLLED BY STATUTE.  (FN11)  THE CODE DIRECTS A COURT ENTERTAINING
AN APPLICATION TO AWARD THE WRIT.  (FN12)  BUT AN APPLICATION IS NOT
"ENTERTAINED" BY A MERE FILING.  LIBERAL AS THE COURTS ARE AND SHOULD
BE AS TO PRACTICE IN SETTING OUT CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, THE APPLICANT MUST MEET THE STATUTORY TEST OF ALLEGING FACTS
THAT ENTITLE HIM TO RELIEF.  (FN13) 

THE WORD "ENTERTAIN" PRESENTS DIFFICULTIES.  ITS MEANING MAY VARY
ACCORDING TO ITS SURROUNDINGS.  (FN14)  IN SEC. 2243 AND SEC. 2244 WE
THINK IT MEANS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION, AFTER EXAMINATION
OF THE APPLICATION WITH SUCH ACCOMPANYING PAPERS AS THE COURT DEEMS
NECESSARY, THAT A HEARING ON THE MERITS LEGAL OR FACTUAL IS PROPER. 
SEE WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275, 283, FIRST AND SECOND; SMITH V.
BALDI, POST, P. 561, AT P. 568.  EVEN AFTER DECIDING TO ENTERTAIN THE
APPLICATION, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY DETERMINE LATER FROM THE RETURN OR
OTHERWISE THAT THE HEARING IS UNNECESSARY. 

IT IS CLEAR BY STATUTORY ENACTMENT THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IS
NOT REQUIRED TO ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IF IT
APPEARS THAT "THE LEGALITY OF SUCH DETENTION HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY A
JUDGE OR COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON A PRIOR APPLICATION FOR A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS."  (FN15)  THE REVISER'S NOTES TO THIS SECTION IN
HOUSE REPORT NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SAY THAT NO MATERIAL
CHANGE IN EXISTING PRACTICE IS INTENDED.  NOTHING ELSE INDICATES THAT
THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS TO RESTRICT BY THE ADOPTION OF THE CODE OF
1948 THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, IF IT HAD SUCH DISCRETION
BEFORE, TO ENTERTAIN PETITIONS FROM STATE PRISONERS WHICH RAISED THE
SAME ISSUES RAISED IN THE STATE COURTS.  (FN16) 

FURTHERMORE, IN ENACTING 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254, DEALING WITH PERSONS IN
CUSTODY UNDER STATE JUDGMENTS, CONGRESS MADE NO REFERENCE TO THE POWER
OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OVER FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS FOR CLAIMED
WRONGS PREVIOUSLY PASSED UPON BY STATE COURTS.  (FN17)  SEE DISCUSSION
AT P. 447, SUPRA.  A FEDERAL JUDGE ON A HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION IS
REQUIRED TO "SUMMARILY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE FACTS, AND DISPOSE OF THE
MATTER AS LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRE," 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2243.  THIS HAS LONG
BEEN THE LAW.  R.S. SEC. 761, OLD 28 U.S.C.  SEC. 461.  IT WAS UNDER
THIS GENERAL RULE THAT THIS COURT APPROVED IN SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265
U.S. 224, 231, THE PROCEDURE THAT A FEDERAL JUDGE MIGHT REFUSE A WRIT
WHERE APPLICATION FOR ONE HAD BEEN MADE TO AND REFUSED BY ANOTHER
FEDERAL JUDGE AND THE SECOND JUDGE IS OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE LIGHT
OF THE RECORD A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION HAS BEEN REACHED.  (FN18)  THAT
PRINCIPLE IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO STATE PRISONERS.  DARR B. BURFORD,
SUPRA, 214-215.    APPLICATIONS TO DISTRICT COURTS ON GROUNDS
DETERMINED ADVERSELY TO THE APPLICANT BY STATE COURTS SHOULD FOLLOW THE
SAME PRINCIPLE - A REFUSAL OF THE WRIT WITHOUT MORE, IF THE COURT IS
SATISFIED, BY THE RECORD, THAT THE STATE PROCESS HAS GIVEN FAIR
CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUES AND THE OFFERED EVIDENCE, AND HAS RESULTED
IN A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION.  WHERE THE RECORD OF THE APPLICATION
AFFORDS AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
ALLEGATIONS AND THE EVIDENCE, AND NO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES CALLING FOR
A HEARING ARE PRESENTED, A REPETITION OF THE TRIAL IS NOT REQUIRED. 
SEE P. 457, SUPRA.  HOWEVER, A TRIAL MAY BE HAD IN THE DISCRETION OF
THE FEDERAL COURT OR JUDGE HEARING THE NEW APPLICATION.  A WAY IS LEFT
OPEN TO REDRESS VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE P. 447, SUPRA.
MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86.  ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE THE POWER, IT IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR FEDERAL COURTS TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE MERITS, FACTS OR
LAW A SECOND TIME WHEN SATISFIED THAT FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
HAVE BEEN PROTECTED.  (FN19)  IT IS NECESSARY TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION
TO THE EXTENT OF DETERMINING BY EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD WHETHER OR
NOT A HEARING WOULD SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  CF. 28 U.S.C. SEC.
2244.  SEE N. 15, SUPRA.  AS THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS HAVE THE SAME
RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROTECT PERSONS FROM VIOLATION OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WE CONCLUDE THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT MAY
DECLINE, WITHOUT A REHEARING OF THE FACTS, TO AWARD A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS TO A STATE PRISONER WHERE THE LEGALITY OF SUCH DETENTION HAS
BEEN DETERMINED, ON THE FACTS PRESENTED, BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT
WITH JURISDICTION, WHETHER THROUGH AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
OR DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION REMEDIES.  SEE WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S.
760, 764. 

AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR, THIS CASE INVOLVES NO EXTRAORDINARY
SITUATION.  SINCE THE COMPLETE RECORD WAS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT,
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR REHEARING OR TAKING OF FURTHER EVIDENCE. 
TREATING THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION AS A MOTION TO
DISMISS, THE COURT PROPERLY GRANTED THAT MOTION.  DISCHARGE FROM
CONVICTION THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT AN ACT OF JUDICIAL CLEMENCY BUT
A PROTECTION AGAINST ILLEGAL CUSTODY. 

THE NEED FOR ARGUMENT IS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  ALL ISSUES
WERE ADEQUATELY PRESENTED.  THERE WAS NO ABUSE. 

                 IV. DISPOSITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. 

NEXT WE DIRECT OUR ATTENTION TO THE RECORDS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COURT IN ORDER TO REVIEW THAT COURT'S CONCLUSIONS THAT NORTH
CAROLINA ACCORDED PETITIONERS A FAIR ADJUDICATION OF THEIR FEDERAL
QUESTIONS.  QUESTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION AND ADMISSION OF COERCED
CONFESSIONS LIE IN THE COMPASS OF THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HAVE PETITIONERS RECEIVED
HEARINGS CONSONANT WITH STANDARDS ACCEPTED BY THIS NATION AS ADEQUATE
TO JUSTIFY THEIR CONVICTIONS?  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312;
ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46. 

FIRST.  WE TAKE UP BROWN V. ALLEN, NO. 32, A CASE THAT TURNS MORE
GENERALLY THAN THE OTHERS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. 

PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS INDICTED ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1950, AND TRIED IN
THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS ON A CHARGE OF RAPE, AND, HAVING BEEN FOUND
GUILTY, HE WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1950.  IN THE
SENTENCING COURT PETITIONER MADE A TIMELY MOTION TO QUASH THE BILL OF
INDICTMENT, ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN THE SELECTION OF
GRAND JURORS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE GUARANTEES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AFTER THE VERDICT, BUT BEFORE
SENTENCING, PETITIONER, BY A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, SOUGHT TO
EXPAND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK ON THE SELECTION OF THE GRAND JURY TO
EMBRACE THE PETIT JURY ALSO.  ON APPEAL THE STATE SUPREME COURT
TREATED, AS WE DO, PETITIONER'S MOTIONS AS ADEQUATE TO CHALLENGE THE
SELECTION OF BOTH JURIES.  233 N.C. 202, 205-206, 63 S.E.2D 99, 100
101.  A SECOND FEDERAL QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE SENTENCING COURT WHEN
PETITIONER OPPOSED ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF A CONFESSION WHICH HE
ALLEGED HAD BEEN GIVEN INVOLUNTARILY.  FOLLOWING SENTENCING, PETITIONER
TOOK AN APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND THERE PRESENTED FOR
REVIEW THE ISSUES OF JURY DISCRIMINATION AND ADMISSION OF A COERCED
CONFESSION.  ON THIS APPEAL, THAT COURT HAD BEFORE IT BOTH A BRIEF ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONER AND A TRANSCRIPT OF ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF THE
SENTENCING COURT PROCEEDINGS WHICH PETITIONER DEEMED RELEVANT TO A
REVIEW OF HIS FEDERAL QUESTIONS.  (FN20)  DEALING WITH THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ON THEIR MERITS, THE STATE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  STATE V. BROWN, 233 N.C. 202, 63 S.E.2D 99. 

A. PETITIONER'S CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN THE
SELECTION OF GRAND AND PETIT JURORS IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS ATTACKS THE OPERATION OF A METHOD USED BY NORTH CAROLINA IN
SELECTING JURIES IN FORSYTH COUNTY.  THE STATUTES DETAILING THE METHOD
OF SELECTION ARE CITED BELOW.  (FN21)  IT IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION
THAT NO MORE THAN ONE OR TWO NEGROES AT A TIME HAVE EVER SERVED ON A
FORSYTH COUNTY GRAND JURY AND THAT NO MORE THAN FIVE NEGROES HAVE EVER
PREVIOUSLY SERVED ON A PETIT JURY PANEL IN THE COUNTRY.  THESE
CONTENTIONS ARE THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGATION THAT A SYSTEM OF
DISCRIMINATION IS BEING EMPLOYED AGAINST THE NEGRO RESIDENTS OF THE
COUNTY.  PETITIONER OFFERED NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CHARGE OF
LIMITATION AGAINST THE JURY SERVICE OF NEGROES, EXCEPT THE FACT THAT
FEWER NEGROES THAN WHITES, HAVING REGARD FOR THEIR PROPORTION OF THE
POPULATION, APPEARED ON THE JURY PANELS. 

THE 1940 CENSUS SHOWS THE FOLLOWING FIGURES IN RESPECT TO THE
POPULATION OF FORSYTH COUNTY. 

      POPULATION      PERCENT       21 PLUS      PERCENT 

WHITE                            85,323         67.5 50,499
66.5 

NEGRO                            41,152         32.5          25,057
  33.5 

TOTAL                 126,475        100.0          75,556
100.0 

ACCORDING TO THE UNCHALLENGED TESTIMONY OF THE IBM SUPERVISOR IN THE
OFFICE OF THE TAX SUPERVISOR OF FORSYTH COUNTY, A LIST OF NAMES IS
COMPILED FROM A TABULATION OF ALL THE COUNTY PROPERTY AND POLL
TAXPAYERS WHO MAKE RETURNS AND IS THEREAFTER TENDERED TO THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FOR USE IN JURY SELECTION.  ALL MALES BETWEEN 21 AND 50
YEARS OF AGE ARE REQUIRED TO LIST THEMSELVES FOR POLL TAX AS WELL AS TO
LIST THEIR PROPERTY.  GEN.  STAT. OF NORTH CAROLINA, RECOMPILED 1950,
SECS. 105-307, 105-341.  IN 1948, WINSTON TOWNSHIP, THE MOST HEAVILY
POPULATED IN FORSYTH COUNTY, HAD 7,659 WHITE MALES AND 2,752 COLORED
MALES WHO LISTED POLLS.  IN THE COUNTY OF FORSYTH OUTSIDE WINSTON
TOWNSHIP, 10,319 WHITE MALES MALES AND 587 COLORED MALES LISTED POLLS. 
THIS INDICATES THAT NEGROES NUMBER APPROXIMATELY 16% OF THE LISTED
TAXPAYERS.  NO FIGURES APPEAR IN THE RECORD OF THE PERCENTAGE OF
NEGROES ON THE PROPERTY TAX LISTS. 

IN JUNE 1949, A LIST OF APPROXIMATELY 40,000 NAMES COMPILED FROM ALL
THE TAX LISTS WAS HANDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS BY THE OFFICE OF THE TAX
SUPERVISOR.  THERE IS UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY BY THE IBM SUPERVISOR
THAT THE LIST OF JURORS WAS PREPARED WITHOUT REGARD TO COLOR, AND THAT
IT CONSTITUTED A COMPLETE COMPILATION OF THE NAMES OF ALL RESIDENT,
ADULT, LISTED TAXPAYERS OF FORSYTH COUNTY.  BOTH THE GRAND AND PETIT
JURY PANELS EMPLOYED IN THIS CASE WERE DRAWN FROM THAT POOL.  ALL THE
NAMES ON THAT LIST AND NO OTHERS (THE LIST HAVING BEEN CUT UP INTO
INDIVIDUAL SLIPS OF UNIFORM SIZE BEARING ONLY ONE PERSON'S NAME) WERE
PUT INTO A JURY BOX.  THE SELECTION FROM THE JURY BOX OF NAMES OF
PERSONS SUBJECT TO A SUMMONS TO SERVE AS GRAND JURORS IN A TERM OF
COURT IS MADE BY LOT, AS IS THE SELECTION OF PANELS OF PERSONS SUBJECT
TO SUMMONS FOR DUTY ON PETIT JURIES.  AS THE DRAWINGS WERE MADE BY A
SMALL CHILD AND RECORDED IN PUBLIC THERE IS NO CLAIM OR EVIDENCE OF
CHICANERY IN THE DRAWINGS. 

GRAND JURORS IN FORSYTH COUNTY ARE SELECTED IN JANUARY AND JULY FOR A
SIX MONTHS' TERM.  SEE C. 206, 1937 PUBLIC-LOCAL LAWS, AS AMENDED BY C.
264, 1947 N.C. SESSION LAWS, AS AMENDED BY C. 577, 1949 N.C. SESSION
LAWS.  A PANEL OF 60 NAMES IS DRAWN FROM THE JURY BOX EACH DECEMBER AND
JUNE BY A CHILD IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.  AT THE
JUNE 5, 1950, MEETING OF THE COMMISSIONERS, 60 NAMES WERE DRAWN.  THESE
60 NAMES CONSTITUTED THE PANEL OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUMMONS FOR
SERVICE ON THE GRAND JURY WHICH RETURNED THE INDICTMENT AGAINST
PETITIONER.  AFTER SUCH A DRAWING, A JURY ORDER IS IMMEDIATELY PREPARED
AND GIVEN TO THE SHERIFF, WHO THEN SUMMONS ALL THE PARTIES HE CAN FIND
TO APPEAR FOR DRAWINGS FOR GRAND OR PETIT JURY SERVICE, AS THE CASE MAY
BE.  ALL PERSONS WHOSE NAMES WERE DRAWN WERE SUMMONED IF THEY COULD BE
FOUND.  ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS TO HOW MANY PERSONS WERE
SUMMONED BY THE SHERIFF, THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AT LEAST FOUR
OR FIVE NEGROES WERE SUMMONED.  THE FINAL DRAWING FOR GRAND JURY
SERVICE IS CONDUCTED IN THE COURTROOM IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SUPERIOR
COURT JUDGE.  WHEN THE JULY 1950 GRAND JURY WAS SELECTED FROM THE PANEL
OF 60, THE DRAWING WAS AGAIN MADE BY A CHILD.  THE NAMES OF ALL THE
PERSONS SUMMONED BY THE SHERIFF WERE PUT INTO A SPECIAL SECTION OF THE
JURY BOX AND THE 18-MAN GRAND JURY WAS THEN DRAWN.  THE NAME OF ONE OF
THE FOUR OR FIVE NEGROES SUMMONED WAS DRAWN IN THE GROUP OF 18, AND
THAT NEGRO SERVED ON THE GRAND JURY.  THE REMAINING NAMES ARE USED FOR
THE PETIT JURY PANEL. 

WHEN THEY ARE NEEDED, PETIT JURY PANELS IN FORSYTH COUNTY ARE DRAWN
FROM THE SAME JURY BOX IN GROUPS OF 44 PERSONS.  C. 206, PUBLIC LOCAL
LAWS, SUPRA.  AFTER A DRAWING, THE NAMES ARE GIVEN TO A DEPUTY SHERIFF
WHO THEN SUMMONS THOSE PERSONS ON THE LIST WHOM HE CAN FIND.  ON THE
LISTS SUPPLIED TO THE DEPUTIES THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS AS TO WHETHER
THE PERSONS NAMED ARE NEGRO OR WHITE.  ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE ALL
SUMMONED PERSONS MUST REPORT FOR JURY SERVICE.  AT THE SELECTION OF THE
PETIT JURORS FOR THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE 8 OF THE 37 PERSONS SUMMONED ON
THE PANEL WERE NEGROES, AS WERE 3 OF A SPECIAL VENIRE OF 20. 
CHALLENGES, PEREMPTORY OR FOR CAUSE, ELIMINATED ALL NEGROES.  NO
OBJECTIONS ARE MADE TO THE LEGALITY OF THESE CHALLENGES. 
UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE BY A STATE WITNESS SHOWS THAT IN THE TWO YEARS
1949 AND 1950 THE PERCENTAGES OF NEGROES DRAWN ON GRAND JURY PANELS IN
FORSYTH COUNTY VARIED BETWEEN 7% AND 10% OF ALL PERSONS DRAWN.  IN 1950
THE PERCENTAGE OF NEGROES DRAWN ON PETIT JURY PANELS VARIED BETWEEN 9%
AND 17% OF ALL PERSONS DRAWN. 

PRIOR TO 1947, THE JURY LIST WAS COMPOSED OF THOSE TAXPAYERS WHO HAD
"PAID ALL THE TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST THEM FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR." 
N.C. GEN. STAT., 1943, SEC. 9-1; CF. STATE V. DAVIS, 109 N.C. 780, 14
S.E. 55; STATE V. DIXON, 131 N.C. 808, 44 S.E. 944.  THIS REQUIREMENT
HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED, AS IS SHOWN BY COMPARING THE EARLIER STATUS WITH
THE PRESENT WORDING OF SEC. 9-1 WHICH WAS PUT INTO LAW IN 1947.  NO
CHANGE WAS MADE IN THE DUTY OF ALL MALES BETWEEN 21 AND 50 TO LIST
THEIR POLLS FOR ASSESSMENT NOR OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE COUNTY TO
COLLECT AN ANNUAL POLL TAX.  GEN. STAT. SECS. 105-307, 105-336, 105
339, 105-341; CF. STATE V. BROWN, 233 N.C. 202, 205, 63 S.E.2D 99, 100
101.  THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE JURORS WAS THUS ENLARGED.  THIS ENLARGEMENT
AND THE PRACTICE OF SELECTING JURORS UNDER THE NEW STATUTE WORKED A
RADICAL CHANGE IN THE RACIAL PROPORTIONS OF DRAWINGS OF JURORS IN
FORSYTH COUNTY.  AS IS SHOWN BY THE RECORD IN THIS COURT OF BRUNSON V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 333 U.S. 851, TRIED IN NORTH CAROLINA IN OCTOBER, 1946,
FORSYTH COUNTY WITH ITS LARGE NEGRO POPULATION, AT THAT TIME HAD A JURY
POOL OF 10,622 WHITE AND 255 COLORED CITIZENS.  AT THAT TIME A SHERIFF,
THEN IN OFFICE FOR 10 YEARS, TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD SUMMONED ONLY ABOUT
TWELVE NEGROES FOR JURY SERVICE IN THAT TIME.  IN 1949, THE JURY BOX
WAS PURGED.  ALL THOSE LISTING TAXES AND ELIGIBLE WERE LISTED FOR JURY
SERVICE WITH THE RESULT IN THIS CASE SHOWN ABOVE. 

DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST A RACE BY BARRING OR LIMITING CITIZENS OF
THAT RACE FROM PARTICIPATION IN JURY SERVICE ARE ODIOUS TO OUR THOUGHT
AND OUR CONSTITUTION.  THIS HAS LONG BEEN ACCEPTED AS THE LAW.  BRUNSON
V. NORTH CAROLINA, 333 U.S. 851; CASSELL V. TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282, 286
287; STATE V. PEOPLES, 131 N.C. 784, 42 S.E. 814.  SUCH DISCRIMINATION
IS FORBIDDEN BY STATUTE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 243, AND HAS BEEN TREATED AS A
DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO AN
ACCUSED, OF THE RACE AGAINST WHICH SUCH DISCRIMINATION IS DIRECTED. 
NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370.   THE DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDEN IS
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, HOWEVER, DIRECTED TO ACCOMPLISH THE RESULT OF
ELIMINATING OR LIMITING THE SERVICE OF THE PROSCRIBED RACE BY STATUTE
OR BY PRACTICE.  SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128; PATTON V. MISSISSIPPI,
332 U.S. 463.  IT WAS EXPLAINED IN 1880 BY THIS COURT, WHEN COMPOSED OF
JUSTICES FAMILIAR WITH THE EVILS THE AMENDMENT SOUGHT TO REMEDY, AS
PERMITTING A STATE TO "CONFINE THE SELECTION OF JURORS TO MALES, TO
FREEHOLDERS, TO CITIZENS, TO PERSONS WITHIN CERTAIN AGES OR TO PERSONS
HAVING EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS."  STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA, 100
U.S. 303, 310.  CF. FRANKLIN V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 218 U.S. 161, 167-168;
FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 261, 268-272.  WHILE DISCRIMINATIONS WORKED
BY CONSISTENT EXCLUSION HAVE BEEN RIGOROUSLY DEALT WITH, NEAL V.
DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370; CARTER V. TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442; NORRIS V.
ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354; HILL V.
TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400; PATTON V. MISSISSIPPI, 332 U.S. 463, VARIATIONS IN
PROPORTIONS OF NEGROES AND WHITES ON JURY LISTS FROM RACIAL PROPORTIONS
IN THE POPULATION WHERE THEY ARE EXPLAINED AND NOT LONG CONTINUED. 
AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398, 403.  OF COURSE, TOKEN SUMMONING OF
NEGROES FOR JURY SERVICE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH EQUAL PROTECTION, SMITH
V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128.  NOR CAN A RACE BE PROSCRIBED AN INCOMPETENT
FOR SERVICE, HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S.  400.    RESPONSIBLE AS THIS COURT
IS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO REDRESS THE JURY PACKING WHICH BENTHAM
PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS A SINISTER SPECIES OF ART, BENTHAM, ELEMENTS
OF THE ART OF PACKING AS APPLIED TO SPECIAL JURIES, P. 6, IT SHOULD NOT
CONDEMN GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO SECURE COMPETENT JURIES MERELY BECAUSE OF
VARYING RACIAL PROPORTIONS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA CONCLUDED THAT OBJECTION TO THE
LISTS BASED ON THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE TAX LISTS WAS "FAR
FETCHED" AND THAT IT WAS NOT A RACIAL DISCRIMINATION WHEN A LIST WHICH
INCLUDED ONLY TAXPAYERS WAS USED.  STATE V. BROWN, 233 N.C. 202, 63
S.E.2D 99.  (FN22) WE RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT THESE LISTS HAVE A HIGHER
PROPORTION OF WHITE CITIZENS THAN OF COLORED, DOUBTLESS DUE TO
INEQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES.  WHILE THOSE WHO
CHOSE THE NAMES FOR THE JURY LISTS MIGHT HAVE INCLUDED NAMES OTHER THAN
TAXPAYERS, SUCH ACTION WAS NOT MANDATORY UNDER STATE LAW.  STATE V.
BROWN, 233 N.C. 202, 205, 63 S.E.2D 99, 100.  AS ONLY PROPERTY AND POLL
TAX LISTS WERE USED, SEE P. 467, SUPRA, THIS CASE PRESENTS A JURY
SELECTION AS THOUGH LIMITED BY STATUTE TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND
VOTERS.  WE ASSUME ONLY REASONABLE TAX LEVIES WERE USED.  IT IS TO BE
NOTED ALL MALES BETWEEN 21 AND 50 MUST LIST BOTH PROPERTY, HOWEVER
MODEST IN AMOUNT, AND POLLS, SEE PP.  467-468, SUPRA, SO THAT IN THAT
SENSE THERE IS NO EXCLUSION ON RACIAL GROUNDS.  THE NAME OF EVERY
PROPERTY OWNER AND EVERY VOTER IS IN THE JURY BOX.  WE RECOGNIZE, TOO,
THAT WE ARE NOW REVIEWING A CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO A STATE COURT
CONVICTION, AND WE MAY NOT ACT TO ALTER PRACTICES OF A STATE WHICH ARE
SHORT OF A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS IN THE SELECTION
OF JURIES.  (FN23)  STATES SHOULD DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE QUALITY OF
THEIR JURIES AS BEST FITS THEIR SITUATION SO LONG AS THE
CLASSIFICATIONS HAVE RELATION TO THE EFFICIENCY OF THE JURORS AND ARE
EQUALLY ADMINISTERED. 

OUR DUTY TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL DOES NOT
MEAN WE MUST OR SHOULD IMPOSE ON STATES OUR CONCEPTION OF THE PROPER
SOURCE OF JURY LISTS, SO LONG AS THE SOURCE REASONABLY REFLECTS A CROSS
THAT CIVIC DUTY.  SHORT OF AN ANNUAL CENSUS OR REQUIRED POPULATION
REGISTRATION, THESE TAX LISTS OFFER THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE SOURCE OF
AVAILABLE NAMES.  WE DO NOT THINK A USE, NONDISCRIMINATORY AS TO RACE,
OF THE TAX LISTS VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, NOR CAN WE CONCLUDE
ON THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED THAT THE RESULTS OF THE USE REQUIRE A
CONCLUSION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  ASSUMING THAT BEFORE THE BRUNSON
CASE, 333 U.S. 851, THERE WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXCLUSIONS OF NEGROES
IN THIS NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY, THE PRESENT RECORD DOES NOT SHOW SUCH
EXCLUSIONS IN THIS CASE.  THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY.  THE
DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINED THIS ISSUE AS TO THE GRAND JURY. 
AS BOTH THE GRAND AND PETIT JURIES IN THIS CASE WERE DRAWN FROM THE
SAME FILLING OF THE JURY BOX, THE REASONING OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
APPLICABLE TO THE PETIT JURY HERE INVOLVED. 

B. PETITIONER CONTENDS FURTHER THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS PROCURED IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE PERMITTED THE JURY TO RELY ON A CONFESSION
CLAIMED BY PETITIONER TO BE COERCED IN DETERMINING HIS GUILT.  AT THE
TRIAL PETITIONER REGISTERED TIMELY OBJECTION TO USE BY THE STATE OF HIS
PURPORTED CONFESSIONS.  THE OBJECTION HAVING BEEN MADE, THE TRIAL JUDGE
IMMEDIATELY EXCUSED THE JURY AND ORDERED A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE STATEMENTS WERE VOLUNTARY.  IT WAS IN THIS
PRELIMINARY HEARING, IN WHICH THE PETITIONER AND TWO POLICE OFFICERS
TESTIFIED, THAT THE ADMITTED FACTS WERE FIRST DEVELOPED UPON WHICH
PETITIONER RESTS THIS PHASE OF HIS CASE.  AFTER HEARING THE TESTIMONY,
THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER'S STATEMENTS WERE FREELY AND
VOLUNTARILY GIVEN AND DECLARED THEM TO BE COMPETENT.  UPON RECALL OF
THE JURY, THE STATE INTRODUCED THE STATEMENTS IN EVIDENCE, OBJECTIONS
AGAIN BEING NOTED.  ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONER CHOSE NOT TO TAKE THE STAND
IN THE TRIAL OF HIS CAUSE, HIS COUNSEL, WHILE CROSS-EXAMINING THE
OFFICERS WHO HAD TAKEN THE CHALLENGED STATEMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER,
DEVELOPED AGAIN FOR THE JURY ALL THE FACTS UPON WHICH PETITIONER NOW
RELIES. 

A CONVICTION BY A TRIAL COURT WHICH HAS ADMITTED COERCED CONFESSIONS
DEPRIVES A DEFENDANT OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  BROWN V.
MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278, 280, 286-287.  WHEN THE FACTS ADMITTED BY
THE STATE SHOW COERCION, ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 327 U.S. 274, A
CONVICTION WILL BE SET ASIDE AS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.  CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227.  THIS IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE APART
FROM THE CONFESSIONS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JURY'S
VERDICT.  MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401; SEE LYONS V. OKLAHOMA,
322 U.S. 596, 597. 

THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT MATTER IN THIS CASE WHETHER OR NOT THE JURY
WAS ACQUAINTED WITH ALL THE FACTS LAID BEFORE THE JUDGE UPON WHICH
PETITIONER NOW RELIES OR WHETHER THE JURY HEARD OR DID NOT HEAR THE
PETITIONER TESTIFY.  NEITHER DOES IT MATTER THAT THERE POSSIBLY IS
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD INDEPENDENT OF THE CONFESSIONS WHICH COULD
SUSTAIN THE VERDICT.  THE MERE ADMISSION OF THE CONFESSIONS BY THE
TRIAL JUDGE CONSTITUTED A USE OF THEM BY THE STATE, AND IF THE
CONFESSIONS WERE IMPROPERLY OBTAINED, SUCH A USE CONSTITUTES A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN
DETERMINING WHETHER A CONFESSION HAS BEEN USED BY THE STATE IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF A PETITIONER, A UNITED STATES
COURT APPRAISES THE ALLEGED ABUSES BY THE FACTS AS SHOWN AT THE HEARING
OR ADMITTED ON THE RECORD. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT HE HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE
HIS STATEMENTS EXCLUDED FROM THE RECORD RESTS UPON THESE ADMITTED
FACTS.  HE IS AN ILLITERATE.  HE WAS HELD AFTER ARREST FOR FIVE DAYS
BEFORE BEING CHARGED WITH THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED.  HE WAS
NOT GIVEN A PRELIMINARY HEARING UNTIL 18 DAYS AFTER HIS ARREST.  NO
COUNSEL WAS PROVIDED FOR HIM IN THE PERIOD OF HIS DETENTION.  THE
ALLEGED CONFESSIONS WERE TAKEN PRIOR TO THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.  THERE IS NO RECORD OF PHYSICAL COERCION OR OF
THAT LESS PAINFUL DURESS GENERATED BY PROLONGED QUESTIONING.  THERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER WAS TOLD HE COULD REMAIN SILENT AND THAT ANY
STATEMENT HE MIGHT MAKE COULD BE USED AGAINST HIM.  HE CHOSE TO SPEAK,
AND HE MADE THAT CHOICE WITHOUT A PROMISE OF REWARD OR IMMUNITY HAVING
BEEN EXTENDED.  HE WAS NEVER DENIED THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE
AND WAS NEVER WITHOUT COMPETENT COUNSEL FROM THE INCEPTION OF JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS.  IF THE DELAY IN THE ARRAIGNMENT OF PETITIONER WAS GREATER
THAN THAT WHICH MIGHT BE TOLERATED IN A FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEDING, DUE
PROCESS WAS NOT VIOLATED.  UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS COURT A RULE
HAS BEEN ADOPTED FOR FEDERAL COURTS, THAT DENIES ADMISSION TO
CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BEFORE PROMPT ARRAIGNMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR
VOLUNTARY CHARACTER.  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332; UPSHAW V.
UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 410.  CF. ALLEN V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. APP.
D.C. 197, 202 F.2D 329.  THIS EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN AN ATTEMPT TO
ABOLISH THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COERCION WHICH PROLONGED DETENTION
WITHOUT A HEARING IS SAID TO ENHANCE.  BUT THE FEDERAL RULE DOES NOT
ARISE FROM CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCES.  THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO
CONVERT THIS RULE OF EVIDENCE FOR FEDERAL COURTS INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATION ON THE STATES.  GALLEGOS V. NEBRASKA, 342 U.S. 55, 63-65. 
MERE DETENTION AND POLICE EXAMINATION IN PRIVATE OF ONE IN OFFICIAL
STATE CUSTODY DO NOT RENDER INVOLUNTARY THE STATEMENTS OR CONFESSIONS
MADE BY THE PERSON SO DETAINED.  PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WERE NOT INFRINGED BY THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT TO EXCLUDE HIS
CONFESSIONS AS EVIDENCE. 

SECOND.  WE EXAMINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN NO. 22, SPELLER V.
ALLEN. 

PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS INDICTED AND IN AUGUST, 1949, TRIED IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF BERTIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, UPON A CHARGE OF
RAPE.  HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO DEATH ON THIS CHARGE
THREE TIMES, THE FIRST TWO CONVICTIONS HAVING BEEN SET ASIDE ON APPEAL
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA ON THE GROUND OF DISCRIMINATORY
SELECTION OF JURORS.  STATE V. SPELLER, 229 N.C. 67, 47 S.E.2D 537, 230
N.C. 345, 53 S.E.2D 924.  AT THIS, HIS THIRD TRIAL, AUGUST TERM 1949,
PETITIONER MADE A TIMELY MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ARRAY OF SPECIAL
VENIREMEN CALLED FROM VANCE COUNTY, ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
NEGROES "SOLELY AND WHOLLY ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE AND/OR COLOR" IN
THE SELECTION OF THE VENIREMEN IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE GUARANTEES OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  (TRANSCRIPT OF
RECORD, STATE V. SPELLER, AUGUST TERM 1949, BERTIE N.C.  SUPERIOR COURT
AT 12, ITEM 91, CLERK'S RECORD, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.) 
EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN AT LENGTH ON THIS ISSUE, ALTHOUGH SOME EVIDENCE
DEEMED MATERIAL BY PETITIONER WAS EXCLUDED.  IN PARTICULAR, THE TRIAL
JUDGE, ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD BE IMMATERIAL, INFRA, P. 480,
REFUSED TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AS TO ALL THE SCROLLS
IN THE JURY BOX FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THE EXISTENCE OF DOTS ON THE
SCROLLS BEARING THE NAMES OF NEGROES.  THE JURY BOX WAS PRODUCED IN
COURT, OPENED, AND COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT PERMITTED TO EXAMINE THE
SCROLLS.  THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE FINDINGS RELATING TO THE MANNER OF
SELECTING THE VENIREMEN, DETERMINING THAT NO DISCRIMINATION WAS
PRACTICED, AND ON THESE FINDINGS DENIED THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE
ARRAY.  PETITIONER WAS THEREAFTER CONVICTED FOR THE THIRD TIME, AND
SENTENCED TO DEATH. 

ON APPEAL PETITIONER ASSERTED THAT HIS CONVICTION VIOLATED THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ASSIGNING THE DENIAL OF
HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ARRAY AS ERROR, AND ALSO ASSIGNING AS ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING ON HIS REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO EXAMINE INTO
ALL THE SCROLLS IN THE JURY BOX.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
HAD BEFORE IT ON THAT APPEAL AS PART OF THE RECORD A MIMEOGRAPHED,
NARRATIVE-STYLE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BELOW; PETITIONER
MAKES NO OBJECTION TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON THAT
APPEAL, EXCEPT THAT RELATING TO ALL THE SCROLLS WHICH HAD BEEN EXCLUDED
BY THE TRIAL COURT.  UPHOLDING THE RULINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, 231 N.C. 549,
57 S.E.2D 759. 

PETITIONER FILED THIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA AFTER
WE DENIED CERTIORARI ON DIRECT REVIEW OF THE STATE PROCEEDINGS.  THE
PETITION SUMMARILY RECITED THE PRIOR HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION, AND
RAISED AGAIN THE SAME FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH HAD BEEN PASSED UPON BY
BOTH NORTH CAROLINA COURTS, AND WHICH HAD BEEN OFFERED TO THIS COURT ON
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT
HEARD ALL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE PETITIONER OFFERED.  THIS WAS IN ITS
DISCRETION.  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86; DARR V. BURFORD, 339 U.S.,
AT 214, CASES WHICH ESTABLISH THE POWER OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO
PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF STATE PRISONERS AFTER THE
EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES.  IT BETTER ENABLED THAT COURT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER ANY VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OCCURRED. 

PETITIONER'S CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN THE
SELECTION OF PETIT JURORS IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
ATTACKS THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM USED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA
AUTHORITIES TO SELECT JURIES IN VANCE COUNTY, FROM WHICH COUNTY A
SPECIAL VENIRE WAS OBTAINED TO TRY PETITIONER.  THE CHARGE RESTS ON
PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS (1) THAT NO NEGRO WITHIN RECENT YEARS HAD
SERVED ON A JURY IN VANCE COUNTY BEFORE THIS CASE, (2) THAT NO NEGRO
HAD BEEN SUMMONED TO SERVE ON A JURY BEFORE THIS CASE, AND (3) THAT THE
JURY BOX IN THIS CASE WAS SO HEAVILY LOADED WITH NAMES OF WHITE PERSONS
THAT THE DRAWING COULD NOT FAIRLY REFLECT A CROSS-SECTION OF THOSE
PERSONS IN THE COMMUNITY QUALIFIED FOR JURY SERVICE.  PETITIONER
OFFERED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT EACH OF THESE THREE CONTENTIONS. 

THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THE CORRECTNESS OF CONTENTIONS (1) AND (2). 
THEY ARE INAPPLICABLE TO THIS CASE, HOWEVER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE FILLING OF THIS PARTICULAR JURY BOX.  AS IS POINTED OUT IN BROWN V.
ALLEN, SUPRA, AT PAGE 470, NORTH CAROLINA IN 1947 ENLARGED ITS POOL OF
CITIZENS ELIGIBLE FOR JURY SERVICE.  GENERAL STATUTES, NORTH CAROLINA,
SEC.  9-1.  IN VANCE COUNTY, WHERE THE SPECIAL VENIRE FOR SPELLER'S
TRIAL WAS DRAWN, THE NAMES OF SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF NEGROES APPEARED
THEREAFTER IN THE JURY BOX.  145 NEGROES OUT OF A TOTAL OF 2,126 NAMES
WERE IN THIS JURY BOX.  AS THIS VENIRE WAS THE FIRST DRAWING OF JURORS
FROM THE BOX AFTER ITS PURGE IN JULY 1949, FOLLOWING THE NEW STATUTE
AND BRUNSON V. NORTH CAROLINA, 333 U.S. 851, DECIDED HERE MARCH 15,
1948, THE LONG HISTORY OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ITS NEGRO
CITIZENS BY VANCE COUNTY JURY COMMISSIONERS IS NOT DECISIVE OF
DISCRIMINATION IN THE PRESENT CASE.  FORMER ERRORS CANNOT INVALIDATE
FUTURE TRIALS.  OUR PROBLEM IS WHETHER THIS VENIRE WAS DRAWN FROM A
JURY BOX INVALIDLY FILLED AS TO SPELLER BECAUSE NAMES WERE SELECTED BY
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST NEGROES "SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF RACE AND/OR
COLOR."  IT IS THIS PARTICULAR BOX THAT IS DECISIVE, CF. CASSELL V.
TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282, 290 AND 295.  PAST PRACTICE IS EVIDENCE OF PAST
ATTITUDE OF MIND.  THAT ATTITUDE IS SHOWN TO NO LONGER CONTROL THE
ACTION OF OFFICIALS BY THE PRESENT FACT OF COLORED CITIZENS' NAMES IN
THE JURY BOX.    IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NAMES
OF COLORED PERSONS IN THE JURY BOX WERE MARKED WITH A DOT OR PERIOD ON
THE SCROLL.  THIS COULD BE USED FOR UNLAWFUL DISPOSITION OF SUCH
SCROLLS WHEN DRAWN.  SUCH A SCHEME WOULD BE USELESS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DEFENDANT AND
HIS COUNSEL WERE PRESENT WHEN THE VENIRE WAS DRAWN BY A CHILD, AGED 5. 
ALL OF THE NAMES DRAWN WERE GIVEN TO THE SHERIFF AND SUMMONSES WERE
ISSUED.  AS A MATTER OF FACT THE SPECIAL VENIRE CONTAINED THE NAMES OF
SEVEN NEGROES.  FOUR APPEARED.  NONE SAT AS JURORS.  THEREFORE THE
ASSERTION AS TO THE DOTS, EVEN IF TRUE, MEANS NO MORE THAN THAT SOME
UNKNOWN PERSON DESIRED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FAIR DRAWING OF JURIES IN
VANCE COUNTY.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND AGAINST PETITIONER ON THIS
QUESTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT POINTED OUT ITS IMMATERIALITY.  99 F.
SUPP., AT 97. 

THIS BOX WAS FILLED BY NAMES SELECTED BY THE CLERK OF THE JURY
COMMISSIONERS AND CORRECTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.  THE NAMES PUT IN
WERE SUBSTANTIALLY THOSE SELECTED BY THE CLERK, WHO CHOSE THEM FROM
THOSE ON THE TAX LISTS WHO HAD "THE MOST PROPERTY."  THE CLERK
TESTIFIED NO RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ENTERED INTO HIS SELECTION.  SINCE
THE EFFECT OF THIS POSSIBLE OBJECTION TO THE SELECTION OF JURORS ON AN
ECONOMIC BASIS WAS NOT RAISED OR DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL, ON APPEAL TO
THE STATE SUPREME COURT, ON THE FORMER CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT, OR IN
THE PETITION OR BRIEF ON THE PRESENT CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT, IT IS
NOT OPEN TO CONSIDERATION HERE.  (FN24)  SUCH AN IMPORTANT NATIONAL
ASSET AS STATE AUTONOMY IN LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUST NOT BE ERODED
THROUGH INDEFINITE CHARGES OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS. 

AS WE HAVE STATED ABOVE IN DISCUSSING THE BROWN CASE, PAGE 473, ET
SEQ., SUPRA, OUR CONCLUSION THAT SELECTION OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS MAY BE
MADE FROM SUCH TAX LISTS AS THOSE REQUIRED UNDER NORTH CAROLINA
STATUTES WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THIS POINT
NEEDS NO FURTHER ELABORATION.  THE FACT THAT CAUSES FURTHER
CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE OF THE SELECTION OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS IS
THAT THE TAX LISTS SHOW 8,233 INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS IN VANCE COUNTY OF
WHOM 3,136 OR 38% ARE NEGROES.  IN THE JURY BOX INVOLVED, SELECTED FROM
THAT LIST, THERE WERE 2,126 NAMES.  OF THAT NUMBER 145 WERE NEGROES,
7%.  THIS DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RACES WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THIS
COURT SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT HE
SELECTED NAMES OF CITIZENS OF "GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND QUALIFIED TO
SERVE AS JURORS, AND WHO HAD PAID THEIR TAXES."  (FN25)  IT WOULD NOT
BE ASSUMED THAT IN VANCE COUNTY THERE IS NOT A MUCH LARGER PERCENTAGE
OF NEGROES WITH QUALIFICATIONS OF JURYMEN.  (FN26)  THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSIONERS' CLERK, HOWEVER, IN SELECTING THOSE WITH "THE MOST
PROPERTY," AN ECONOMIC BASIS NOT ATTACKED HERE, MIGHT WELL ACCOUNT FOR
THE FEW NEGROES APPEARING IN THE BOX.  EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED
SOLELY ON RACE IN THE SELECTION ACTUALLY MADE IS LACKING. 

THE TRIAL AND DISTRICT COURTS, AFTER HEARING WITNESSES, FOUND NO
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS.  THE
CONVICTION WAS UPHELD AS NONDISCRIMINATORY BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT,
WHICH HAD ONCE ACTED TO REVERSE A CONVICTION OF THIS DEFENDANT BY A
JURY DEEMED TAINTED WITH RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, STATE V. SPELLER, 229
N.C. 67, 47 S.E.2D 537, AND AGAIN TO REVERSE A CONVICTION WHEN ADEQUATE
TIME FOR INVESTIGATION OF DISCRIMINATION HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN.  STATE V.
SPELLER, 230 N.C. 345, 53 S.E.2D 294.  IT WOULD REQUIRE A CONVICTION,
BY THIS COURT, OF VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION THROUGH RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION TO SET ASIDE THIS TRIAL.  OUR DELICATE AND SERIOUS
RESPONSIBILITY OF COMPELLING STATE CONFORMITY TO THE CONSTITUTION BY
OVERTURNING STATE CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, SHOULD NOT BE EXERCISED WITHOUT
CLEAR EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION. 

DISREGARDING, AS WE THINK WE SHOULD, THE CLERK'S UNCHALLENGED
SELECTIONS BASED ON TAXABLE PROPERTY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION.  NEGROES' NAMES NOW APPEAR IN THE JURY BOX.   IF THE
REQUIREMENT OF COMPARATIVE WEALTH IS ELIMINATED, AND THE STATUTORY
STANDARDS EMPLOYED, THE NUMBER WOULD INCREASE TO THE EQUALITY JUSTIFIED
BY THEIR MORAL AND EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION FOR JURY SERVICE AS
COMPARED WITH THE WHITE RACE.  WE DO NOT THINK THE SMALL NUMBER, BY
COMPARISON, OF NEGRO NAMES IN THIS ONE JURY BOX, IS, IN ITSELF, ENOUGH
TO ESTABLISH RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. 

THIRD.  WE HAVE THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY NO. 20, DANIELS V. ALLEN. 
THE TWO PETITIONERS, NEGROES, WERE INDICTED AND CONVICTED IN THE NORTH
CAROLINA COURTS ON A CHARGE OF MURDER.  THEIR TRIAL IN THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF PITT COUNTY RESULTED IN A VERDICT OF GUILTY, AND EACH
PETITIONER WAS THEREAFTER SENTENCED TO DEATH.  THERE IS NO ISSUE OVER
GUILT UNDER THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED.  IN ADDITION TO THE OBJECTIONS
STATED ABOVE AT P. 453 - DISCRIMINATION IN JURY LISTS, COERCED
CONFESSIONS AND REFUSAL TO HEAR ON THE MERITS - THERE IS ALSO OBJECTION
HERE TO THE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE
CONFESSIONS.  AS THE FAILURE TO SERVE THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE ON
APPEAL SEEMS TO US DECISIVE, WO DO NOT DISCUSS IN DETAIL THE OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES TENDERED AND ONLY POINT OUT THAT THEY WERE
RESOLVED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE SENTENCING STATE COURT AND THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AFTER FULL HEARING OF THE EVIDENCE OFFERED.  IT
IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA REFUSED
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE ALLEGED INVASIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY
THE SENTENCING COURT AND TWO EFFORTS OF PETITIONERS TO SECURE AN ORDER
PERMITTING THEM TO APPLY FOR CORAM NOBIS.  (FN27)  THE WRIT OF CORAM
NOBIS IS AVAILABLE IN NORTH CAROLINA TO TEST CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
EXTRANEOUS OF THE RECORD.  IN RE TAYLOR, 230 N.C. 566, 53 S.E.2D 857. 
IN THE FIRST CORAM NOBIS CASE THE COURT SAID, SPEAKING OF ITS REFUSAL
OF CERTIORARI: 

"COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS WERE ADVISED, HOWEVER, THAT PETITION MIGHT
BE FILED HERE FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PITT
COUNTY, WHERE THE CAUSE WAS TRIED, FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS,
THROUGH WHICH, IF ALLOWED THERE, THEY MIGHT BE HEARD ON THE MAIN
FEATURES ON WHICH THEY ASKED FOR RELIEF, WHICH INCLUDED MATTERS DEHORS
THE RECORD, AND THAT APPEAL WOULD LIE TO THE SUPREME COURT IN THE EVENT
OF ITS UNFAVORABLE ACTION.  S. V. DANIELS, SUPRA; IN RE TAYLOR (230
N.C.), SUPRA; IN RE TAYLOR (229 N.C.), SUPRA. 

"THE DEFENDANTS NOW FILE A PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY TO THE
SUPERIOR COURT FOR SUCH A WRIT.   THEIR PETITION DOES NOT MAKE A PRIMA
FACIE SHOWING OF SUBSTANCE WHICH IS NECESSARY TO BRING THEMSELVES
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE WRIT."  (FN28)  231 N.C. 341, 56 S.E.2D 646,
647. 

AFTER THE REFUSAL OF THE FIRST CORAM NOBIS PETITION, THE SUPREME
COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA DISMISSED PETITIONERS' ATTEMPTED APPEAL ON THE
RECORD PROPER ON THE GROUND THAT NO CASE ON APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED.  231
N.C. 509, 57 S.E.2D 653; RULE 17, 4 N.C. GEN. STAT., APP.; ID., VOL. 1,
SEC. 1-282.  SUCH ACTION ACCORDS WITH WELL-SETTLED PRACTICE IN THAT
STATE.  "RULES REQUIRING SERVICE TO BE MADE OF CASE ON APPEAL WITHIN
THE ALLOTTED TIME ARE MANDATORY."  231 N.C. 17, 24, 56 S.E.2D 2, 7. 
THEY ARE APPLIED ALIKE TO ALL APPELLANTS.  (FN29)  THE FIRST
APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT RAISED FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA ON
BOTH DIRECT AND COLLATERAL ATTACK BY CERTIORARI AND CORAM NOBIS ON THE
JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIAL COURT.   339 U.S. 954. 

THE FAILURE TO PERFECT THE APPEAL CAME IN THIS WAY.  UPON THE COMING
IN OF THE VERDICT ON JUNE 6, 1949, THE PETITIONERS SEVERAL TIMES MOVED
FOR A NEW TRIAL, IN EACH MOTION REITERATING ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE
AFOREMENTIONED FEDERAL QUESTIONS.  THESE MOTIONS WERE DENIED, AND THE
TRIAL COURT PRONOUNCED ITS SENTENCE.  PETITIONERS EXCEPTED TO THE
JUDGMENTS AND NOTED APPEALS THEREFROM TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  IN
RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' NOTICE, THE TRIAL JUDGE GRANTED PETITIONERS 60
DAYS IN WHICH TO MAKE AND SERVE A STATEMENT OF THE CASE ON APPEAL. 
WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO SERVE THIS STATEMENT UNTIL 61 DAYS HAD EXPIRED,
THE TRIAL JUDGE STRUCK THE APPEAL AS OUT OF TIME.  THIS ACTION
PRECLUDED AN APPEAL AS OF RIGHT TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT. 

THIS SITUATION CONFRONTS US.  NORTH CAROLINA FURNISHED A CRIMINAL
COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF THOSE CHARGED WITH CRIME.  PETITIONERS AT ALL
TIMES HAD COUNSEL, CHOSEN BY THEMSELVES AND RECOGNIZED BY NORTH
CAROLINA AS COMPETENT TO CONDUCT THE DEFENSE.  IN THAT COURT ALL
PETITIONERS' OBJECTIONS AND PROPOSALS WHETHER OF JURY DISCRIMINATION,
ADMISSION OF CONFESSIONS, INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHERWISE WERE HEARD AND
DECIDED AGAINST PETITIONERS.  THE STATE FURNISHED AN ADEQUATE AND
EASILY-COMPLIED-WITH METHOD OF APPEAL.  THIS INCLUDED A MEANS TO SERVE
THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE ON APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PROSECUTOR
FROM HIS OFFICE.  STATE V. DANIELS, 231 N.C. 17, 24, 56 S.E.2D 2, 7. 
YET PETITIONERS' APPEAL WAS NOT TAKEN AND THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
ALTHOUGH THE FULL TRIAL RECORD AND STATEMENT ON APPEAL WERE BEFORE IT,
REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON ITS MERITS.  (FN30) 

THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR
STATE PRISONERS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE FEDERAL COURT.  IT IS ONLY
AUTHORIZED WHEN A STATE PRISONER IS IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2241.  THAT FACT IS
NOT TO BE TESTED BY THE USE OF HABEAS CORPUS IN LIEU OF AN APPEAL. 
(FN31)  TO ALLOW HABEAS CORPUS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SUBVERT THE
ENTIRE SYSTEM OF STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND DESTROY STATE ENERGY IN THE
DETECTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIME. 

OF COURSE, FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS IS ALLOWED WHERE TIME HAS EXPIRED
WITHOUT APPEAL WHEN THE PRISONER IS DETAINED WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO
APPEAL BECAUSE OF LACK OF COUNSEL, INCAPACITY, OR SOME INTERFERENCE BY
OFFICIALS.  (FN32)  ALSO, THIS COURT WILL REVIEW STATE HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS EVEN THOUGH NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN, IF THE STATE TREATED
HABEAS CORPUS AS PERMISSIBLE.  (FN33)  FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS IS
AVAILABLE FOLLOWING OUR REFUSAL TO REVIEW SUCH STATE HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS.  (FN34)  FAILURE TO APPEAL IS MUCH LIKE A FAILURE TO RAISE
A KNOWN AND EXISTING QUESTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCEEDING OR ACTION
PRIOR TO CONVICTION OR COMMITMENT.  SUCH FAILURE, OF COURSE, BARS
SUBSEQUENT OBJECTION TO CONVICTION ON THOSE GROUNDS.  (FN35) 

NORTH CAROLINA HAS APPLIED ITS LAW IN REFUSING THIS OUT-OF-TIME
REVIEW.  (FN36)  THIS COURT APPLIES ITS JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE IN THE
SAME MANNER.  PRESTON V. TEXAS, 343 U.S. 917, 933; CF. PAONESSA V. NEW
YORK, 344 U.S. 860, CERTIORARI DENIED BECAUSE "APPLICATION THEREFOR WAS
NOT MADE WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY LAW."  WE CANNOT SAY THAT NORTH
CAROLINA'S ACTION IN REFUSING REVIEW AFTER FAILURE TO PERFECT THE CASE
ON APPEAL VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  A PERIOD OF LIMITATION
ACCORDS WITH OUR CONCEPTION OF PROPER PROCEDURE. 

FINALLY, FEDERAL COURTS MAY NOT GRANT HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE
CONVICTED BY THE STATE EXCEPT PURSUANT TO SEC. 2254.  SEE NOTE 17,
SUPRA.  SEE ALSO NOTE 2, SUPRA.  WE HAVE INTERPRETED SEC. 2254 AS NOT
REQUIRING REPETITIOUS APPLICATIONS TO STATE COURTS FOR COLLATERAL
RELIEF, P. 447, SUPRA, BUT CLEARLY THE STATE'S PROCEDURE FOR RELIEF
MUST BE EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO AVOID THE USE OF FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS AS
A MATTER OF PROCEDURAL ROUTINE TO REVIEW STATE CRIMINAL RULINGS.  A
FAILURE TO USE A STATE'S AVAILABLE REMEDY, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME
INTERFERENCE OR INCAPACITY, SUCH AS IS REFERRED TO JUST ABOVE AT NOTES
32 AND 33, BARS FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS.  THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE
APPLICANT EXHAUST AVAILABLE STATE REMEDIES.  TO SHOW THAT THE TIME HAS
PASSED FOR APPEAL IS NOT ENOUGH TO EMPOWER THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
TO ISSUE THE WRIT.  THE JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

WE HAVE SPOKEN IN THIS OPINION OF THE CHARGE OF PRACTICE IN NORTH
CAROLINA IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS.  OUR CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN REACHED
WITHOUT REGARD TO EARLIER INCIDENTS NOT CONNECTED WITH THESE JURIES OR
TRIALS THAT SUGGEST PAST DISCRIMINATIONS.  SINCE THE STATES ARE THE
REAL GUARDIANS OF PEACE AND ORDER WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES, IT IS HOPED
THAT OUR CONSIDERATION OF THESE RECORDS WILL TEND TO CLARIFY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THE SELECTION OF JURIES. 
OUR CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT JURORS BE SELECTED WITHOUT INCLUSION OR
EXCLUSION BECAUSE OF RACE.  THERE MUST BE NEITHER LIMITATION NOR
REPRESENTATION FOR COLOR.  BY THAT PRACTICE, HARMONY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO MAINTAIN ESSENTIAL DISCIPLINE, WITHOUT THAT OBJECTIONABLE DOMINATION
WHICH IS SO INCONSISTENT WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.  THE
JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BROWN V. NORTH CAROLINA, 341 U.S. 943; SPELLER V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 340 U.S. 835; DANIELS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 339 U.S. 954. 

FN2  WE REACH THIS CONCLUSION AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND
PARAGRAPH OF 28 U.S.C.  SEC. 2254:

"AN APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
ANY AVAILABLE PROCEDURE, THE QUESTION PRESENTED." 

FN3  OUTSIDE THE CASES, IT HAS BEEN STRONGLY URGED THAT THE PURPOSE
OF SUBPARAGRAPH 2 WAS TO ELIMINATE THE RIGHT OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT TO ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION SO LONG AS ANY STATE REMEDY REMAINED
AVAILABLE.  IN AN ARTICLE BY CHIEF JUDGE PARKER, CHAIRMAN OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WHICH DRAFTED THE NEW HABEAS CORPUS ACT,
LIMITING THE ABUSE OF HABEAS CORPUS, 8 F.R.D. 171, 176 (1949), THIS
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 2254 IS PRESENTED:    "THE EFFECT OF THIS LAST
PROVISION IS TO ELIMINATE, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE RIGHT TO
APPLY TO THE LOWER COURTS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN ALL STATES IN WHICH
SUCCESSIVE APPLICATIONS MAY BE MADE FOR HABEAS CORPUS TO THE STATE
COURTS; FOR, IN ALL SUCH STATES, THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE DENIAL OF PRIOR APPLICATIONS, TO APPLY AGAIN TO THE
STATE COURTS FOR HABEAS CORPUS AND TO HAVE ACTION UPON SUCH LATER
APPLICATION REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON
APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI."    WE DO NOT SO CONSTRUE SEC. 2254.  WE DO
NOT BELIEVE CONGRESS INTENDED TO REQUIRE REPETITIOUS APPLICATIONS TO
STATE COURTS.  SEC. 2254 ORIGINALLY READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF A PERSON IN
CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT OR AUTHORITY OF A
STATE OFFICER SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT
HAS EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, OR
THAT THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AVAILABLE IN SUCH COURTS OR THAT SUCH
COURTS HAVE DENIED HIM A FAIR ADJUDICATION OF THE LEGALITY OF HIS
DETENTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  SEC.
2254 OF H.R. 3214, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN4  THE COURTS BELOW HAVE DIVIDED SINCE THE DARR CASE ON THE EFFECT
TO BE ACCORDED A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT. 

NO SUBSTANTIVE EFFECT                   DISCRETIONARY EFFECT 

GOODMAN V. LAINSON, 182 F.2D                         ANDERSON V.
EIDSON, 191 F.2D

814.                                                989. 

MCGARTY V. O'BRIEN, 188 F.2D                         HOLLAND V.
EIDSON, 90 F. SUPP.

151.                   314. 

SOULIA V. O'BRIEN, 188 F.2D 233.                  PENNSYLVANIA EX
REL. GIBBS.  V. 

ODELL V. HUDSPETH, 189 F.2D 300.                      ASHE, 93 F.
SUPP. 542. 

EKBERG V. MCGEE, 191 F.2D 625                        SOULIA V.
O'BRIEN, 94 F. SUPP. 

(ALSO REPORTED AT 194 F.2D                        764. 

178).                       MCGARTY V. O'BRIEN, 96 F. SUPP. 

SAMPSELL V. CALIFORNIA, 191 F.2D                      704. 

721.                                                GOODWIN V.
SMYTH, 181 F.2D 498. 

MELANSON V. O'BRIEN, 191 F.2D            ADKINS V. SMYTH, 188 F.2D
452. 

963.                                     BYARS V. SWENSON, 192 F.2D
739. 

BACOM V. SULLIVAN, 194 F.2D 166.                     FRAZIER V.
ELLIS, 196 F.2D 231. 

ALMEIDA V. BALDI, 195 F.2D 815.                      LYLE V. EIDSON,
197 F.2D 327. 

HAWK V. HANN, 103 F. SUPP. 138.                      SKINNER V.
ROBINSON, 105 F. SUPP. 

EX PARTE WELLS, 99 F. SUPP. 320.                 153. 

FOUQUETTE V. BERNARD, 198 F.2D 

96. 

MASTER V. BALDI, 198 F.2D 113. 

DAVERSE V. HOHN, 198 F.2D 934. 

FN5  THE PARTICIPATION OF A DISTRICT COURT THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS IN DETERMINING WHETHER STATE PRISONERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED A
FAIR TRIAL IS A SENSITIVE AREA IN OUR FEDERATED SYSTEM.  SPELLER V.
CRAWFORD, 99 F. SUPP. 92, 96; SMITH V. BALDI, 192 F.2D 540, 543. 

IN SEPTEMBER 1952, AT ITS FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING, THE CONFERENCE OF
CHIEF JUSTICES ADOPTED A RESOLUTION QUESTIONING THE HABEAS CORPUS
PRINCIPLES "ENUNCIATED IN CERTAIN RECENT FEDERAL DECISIONS."  THE
RESOLUTION EXPRESSED THE CONSENSUS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICES THAT "A FINAL
JUDGMENT OF A STATE'S HIGHEST COURT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW OR
REVERSAL ONLY BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  CONCERN WAS
NOTED THAT THE HEARING OF THE SUCCESSIVE PETITIONS BY FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS WOULD TEND TOWARD A DILUTION OF THE SENSE OF JUDICIAL
RESPONSIBILITY, A DELAY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND AN
IMPAIRMENT OF CONFIDENCE IN STATE JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS.  25 STATE
GOVERNMENT, PP. 249-250. 

FN6  AS THE BURDEN OF OVERTURNING THE CONVICTION RESTS ON THE
APPLICANT, HE SHOULD ALLEGE SPECIFICALLY, IN CASES WHERE MATERIAL, THE
UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENTIARY FACTS APPEARING IN THE RECORD UPON WHICH IS
BASED HIS ALLEGATION OF DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

FN7  THE APPLICABLE RULE 61 OF THE FED. RULES CIV. PROC. IS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"NO ERROR IN EITHER THE ADMISSION OR THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE AND NO
ERROR OR DEFECT IN ANY RULING OR ORDER OR IN ANYTHING DONE OR OMITTED
BY THE COURT OR BY ANY OF THE PARTIES IS GROUND FOR GRANTING A NEW
TRIAL OR FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT OR FOR VACATING, MODIFYING, OR
OTHERWISE DISTURBING A JUDGMENT OR ORDER, UNLESS REFUSAL TO TAKE SUCH
ACTION APPEARS TO THE COURT INCONSISTENT WITH SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.  THE
COURT AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING MUST DISREGARD ANY ERROR OR
DEFECT IN THE PROCEEDING WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS
OF THE PARTIES." 

FN8  HELVERING V. GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238, 245.  SEE RILEY CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 55, 59. 

FN9  RULE 52, FED. RULES CRIM. PROC.; BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 78, 81-84.  SEE KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 750, 763;
BIHN V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 633. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 15, INFRA. 

FN11  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2241(A). 

FN12  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2243: 

"A COURT, JUSTICE OR JUDGE ENTERTAINING AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS SHALL FORTHWITH AWARD THE WRIT OR ISSUE AN ORDER
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE WRIT SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED, UNLESS IT APPEARS FROM THE APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICANT OR
PERSON DETAINED IS NOT ENTITLED THERETO  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"UNLESS THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT AND THE RETURN PRESENT ONLY
ISSUES OF LAW THE PERSON TO WHOM THE WRIT IS DIRECTED SHALL BE REQUIRED
TO PRODUCE AT THE HEARING THE BODY OF THE PERSON DETAINED. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"THE COURT SHALL SUMMARILY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE FACTS, AND DISPOSE
OF THE MATTER AS LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRE." 

FN13  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2242.  DARR V. BURFORD, SUPRA, P. 203.  SEE SEC.
2243, SUPRA. 

FN14  SEE DENHOLM & MCKAY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 132 F.2D 243, 247, AND
CASES CITED. 

FN15  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2244: 

"NO CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ENTERTAIN AN
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO INQUIRE INTO THE DETENTION
OF A PERSON PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR
OF ANY STATE, IF IT APPEARS THAT THE LEGALITY OF SUCH DETENTION HAS
BEEN DETERMINED BY A JUDGE OR COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON A PRIOR
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND THE PETITION PRESENTS NO
NEW GROUND NOT THERETOFORE PRESENTED AND DETERMINED, AND THE JUDGE OR
COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL NOT BE SERVED BY SUCH
INQUIRY."  SEE S. REP. NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS., AMENDMENT NO.
45. 

FN16  SEE H.R. 4232, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 3214, 80TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., H.R. 3214, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS.; REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL
CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES, 1947, PP. 17-20. 

FN17  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254: 

"AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF A PERSON IN
CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT SHALL NOT BE GRANTED
UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, OR THAT THERE IS EITHER AN
ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE STATE CORRECTIVE PROCESS OR THE EXISTENCE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING SUCH PROCESS INEFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF THE PRISONER. 

"AN APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
ANY AVAILABLE PROCEDURE, THE QUESTION PRESENTED." 

FN18  THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE IN PROCEDURE WAS STATED: 

"BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT A REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ON ONE
APPLICATION IS WITHOUT BEARING OR WEIGHT WHEN A LATER APPLICATION IS
BEING CONSIDERED.  IN EARLY TIMES WHEN REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE WAS NOT
OPEN TO APPELLATE REVIEW, COURTS AND JUDGES WERE ACCUSTOMED TO EXERCISE
AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON EACH SUCCESSIVE APPLICATION, REGARDLESS OF
THE NUMBER.  BUT WHEN A RIGHT TO AN APPELLATE REVIEW WAS GIVEN THE
REASON FOR THAT PRACTICE CEASED AND THE PRACTICE CAME TO BE MATERIALLY
CHANGED, - JUST AS WHEN A RIGHT TO A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW IN CRIMINAL
CASES WAS GIVEN THE SCOPE OF INQUIRY DEEMED ADMISSIBLE ON HABEAS CORPUS
CAME TO BE RELATIVELY NARROWED."  ID., AT 230-231. 

FN19  WHEN AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY A STATE PRISONER IS
FILED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AFTER THE EXHAUSTION OF STATE
REMEDIES, INCLUDING A CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT, IT RESTS ON A RECORD
THAT WAS MADE IN THE APPLICANT'S EFFORT TO SECURE RELIEF THROUGH THE
STATE FROM IMPRISONMENT, ALLEGEDLY IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT, A COURT CONVENIENT TO THE
PLACE OF LITIGATION, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2241(B), AFTER DETERMINING GROUNDS
FOR RELIEF ARE STATED IN THE PETITION - "MAY REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE
RECORD AND ACTION ON PRIOR APPLICATIONS."  DARR V. BURFORD, SUPRA, AT
215; SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224, 232; CF. EX PARTE ELMER DAVIS,
318 U.S. 412.  ORIGINAL RECORDS IN STATE COURTS ARE RETURNED BY THIS
COURT.  (E.G., SEE IN DANIELS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 339 U.S. 954, THE
ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, DATED MAY 12, 1950, AS
THE SAME REMAINS UPON THE FILES OF THIS COURT, DIRECTING, ON THE
APPLICATION OF PETITIONER'S COUNSEL, THE RETURN OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD
FROM THE FILES OF THIS COURT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.) 
COPIES OF PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI ARE NORMALLY AVAILABLE TO
PETITIONERS.  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2250.  OTHER SECTIONS STRENGTHEN THE
ABILITY OF THE COURT HEARING THE APPLICATION FULLY TO ADVISE ITSELF
CONCERNING PRIOR HEARINGS OF THE SAME ISSUES FOR THE APPLICANT.  28
U.S.C. SEC. 2245 ALLOWS A CERTIFICATE AS TO CERTAIN FACTS; SEC. 2246
PROVIDES FOR DEPOSITIONS AND AFFIDAVITS.  SECTION 2247 MAKES LIBERAL
PROVISION FOR THE USE OF RECORDS OF FORMER PROCEEDINGS IN EVIDENCE. 
SEE ALSO SECS. 2248-2254, INCLUSIVE.  OF COURSE, THE OTHER USUAL
METHODS OF COMPLETING THE RECORD IN CIVIL CASES, SUCH AS SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM AND DISCOVERY, ARE GENERALLY AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT AND
RESPONDENT.  IF USEFUL RECORDS OF PRIOR LITIGATION ARE DIFFICULT TO
SECURE OR UNOBTAINABLE, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY FIND IT NECESSARY OR
DESIRABLE TO HOLD LIMITED HEARINGS TO SUPPLY THEM WHERE THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS STATE ADEQUATE GROUNDS FOR
RELIEF. 

FN20  RULE 19 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
PERMITS AN APPELLANT TO BRING UP ON APPEAL AS MUCH OF THE RECORD AS IS
NECESSARY "TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXCEPTIONS RELIED ON." 
PETITIONER DOES NOT CONTEND THAT THE RECORD BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF
NORTH CAROLINA WAS INADEQUATE FULLY TO SUPPORT AN ADJUDICATION ON HIS
FEDERAL QUESTIONS. 

FN21  SEE CHAPTER 206, 1937 PUBLIC-LOCAL LAWS (AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER
264, 1947 N.C.  SESSION LAWS, AND AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 577, 1949 N.C.
SESSION LAWS).  AND GEN. STATS.  OF N.C., 1943, C. 9, ARTS. 1-4, AS
AMENDED. 

FN22  IN ADDITION TO NORTH CAROLINA, THE FOLLOWING STATES ARE AMONG
THOSE WHICH ALSO BASE THE COMPOSITION OF JURY LISTS ON TAX LISTS: 

COLO. STAT. ANN., 1952 REPLACEMENT, C. 95, SEC. 10 (MAY USE TAX
LIST): 

GA. CODE ANN., 1951, SEC. 59.106 (JURY COMMISSIONERS "SHALL SELECT
FROM THE BOOKS OF THE TAX RECEIVER"): 

KAN. GEN. STAT., 1949, C. 43 ("SELECT FROM THOSE ASSESSED ON THE
ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE PRECEDING YEAR"): 

KY. REV. STAT., 1948, SEC. 29.070 (LAST RETURNED TAX COMMISSIONER'S
BOOK): 

MD. ANN. CODE, 1939, ART. 51, PARA. 6 (FROM A "COMPLETE LIST OF MALE
TAXABLE INHABITANTS  ... WHOSE NAMES APPEAR ON THE TAX BOOKS"): 

MICH. STAT. ANN., 1938 AND 1951, SECS. 27.246 AND 27.247 (SELECT FROM
"PERSONS ASSESSED ON THE ASSESSMENT ROLL"; PROVIDES FOR ADDITIONAL
NAMES): 

MONT. REV. CODE, 1947, TIT. 93, SEC. 1402 ("SELECT, FROM THE LAST
ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE COUNTY"):

MCKINNEY'S N.Y. LAWS, JUDICIARY LAW, SEC. 502 (1948)(OWN REAL
PROPERTY $150, OR PERSONAL PROPERTY $250, OR MARRIED TO SOMEONE WHO
DOES; JURORS IN COUNTIES OUTSIDE OF CITIES HAVING A POPULATION OF ONE
MILLION OR MORE).  MCKINNEY'S N.Y. LAWS, JUDICIARY LAW, SEC. 596: 

N.D. REV. CODE, 1943, SEC. 27-0906 ("THE NAMES ON THE ASSESSORS'
LISTS  ...  FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR SHALL BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING" AN
APPORTIONMENT OF THE 200 NAMES PER COUNTY TO THE VARIOUS CITIES AND
TOWN WITHIN THE COUNTY): 

OKLA. STAT. ANN., 1951, TIT. 38, SEC. 18 (JURY LISTS SHALL BE
SELECTED FROM THE NAMES ON THE TAX ROLLS OF THE COUNTY): 

ORE. COMP. LAWS ANN., 1940, SEC. 14-201 (MAKE A JURY LIST, "AS FAR AS
IT MAY BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THE SAME FROM THE LATEST TAX ROLL AND/OR
REGISTRATION BOOKS OF THE COUNTY"): 

UTAH CODE ANN., 1943, SEC. 48-0-17 ("SELECT FROM THE NAMES OF THE
LEGAL VOTERS ON THE ASSESSMENT ROLL  ...  "): 

REMINGTON'S WASH REV. STAT., 1932, SEC. 94 (NO PERSON IS COMPETENT TO
SERVE AS A JUROR UNLESS HE BE (1) AN ELECTOR AND TAXPAYER OF THE
STATE): 

WYO. COMP. STAT., 1945, SEC. 12-101(4)(A PERSON IS COMPETENT IF HE BE
(4) ASSESSED ON THE LAST ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE COUNTY). 

SEE ALSO MORSE, A SURVEY OF THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM, PART 2, 10 ORE. 
L. REV. 217, 227 (1931).  THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONAIRES SENT OUT BY
MR. MORSE INDICATED THAT IN TWENTY-TWO STATES THE NAMES FOR THE GRAND
JURY LISTS WERE SELECTED FROM COUNTY TAX ROLLS OR ASSESSMENT ROLLS. 

FN23  RULES DEALING WITH THE SELECTION OF JURIES IN FEDERAL COURTS,
AS ANNOUNCED IN THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 328 U.S. 217, 221, ARE
NOT APPLICABLE IN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS.  FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S.
261, 287.    FN24  EVIDENCE IN STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT
OBJECTIONS ON FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, KNOWN TO STATE DEFENDANTS
AND THEIR COUNSEL, OR EASILY ASCERTAINABLE, CANNOT BE WITHHELD OR
NEGLECTED AT THE STATE TRIAL AND USED LATER TO SUPPORT HABEAS CORPUS. 
STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE UNREASONABLY HAMPERED.  EX PARTE
SPENCER, 228 U.S. 652, 660; IN RE WOOD, 140 U.S. 278, 285; CROWE V.
UNITED STATES, 175 F.2D 799; PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334 U.S. 266, 289, AND
THE DISSENT. 

FN25  WE UNDERSTAND HIS LAST BASIS OF QUALIFICATION WAS NOT
REQUIRED.  SEE BROWN V. ALLEN, SUPRA, PAGE 470, AND GENERAL STATUTES OF
NORTH CAROLINA, SEC. 9-1 AS AMENDED 1947. 

FN26  MORAL CHARACTER AND INTELLIGENCE SUFFICIENT TO SERVE AS JURORS
IS THE STATUTORY TEST.  N.C. GEN. STAT., 1943, SEC. 9-1.  EVEN IN 1930
ONLY 18.5% OVER 10 YEARS OF AGE WERE ILLITERATE.  1930 CENSUS, VOL.
III, PART 2, P. 359.  SEE HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, 404. 

FN27  STATE V. DANIELS, 231 N.C. 17, 56 S.E.2D 2; 231 N.C. 341, 56
S.E.2D 646, 232 N.C.  196, 59 S.E.2D 430. 

FN28  COMPARE TAYLOR V. ALABAMA, 335 U.S. 252. 

FN29  STATE V. WATSON, 208 N.C. 70, 71, 179 S.E. 455, 456, IS A
CAPITAL CASE WHERE THE PRISONER "FAILED TO MAKE OUT AND SERVE STATEMENT
OF CASE ON APPEAL WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD."  HE LOST HIS RIGHT TO
PROSECUTE THE APPEAL, AND IT WAS DISMISSED.  THE COURT POINTED OUT,
HOWEVER, THAT IT WAS CUSTOMARY IN CAPITAL CASES TO EXAMINE THE RECORD
TO SEE THAT NO ERROR APPEARED ON ITS FACE.  IN STATE V. MORROW, 220
N.C. 441, 17 S.E.2D 507, THE IDENTICAL PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED.  IN
STATE V. MOORE, 210 N.C. 686, 188 S.E. 421, AND STATE V. LAMPKIN, 227
N.C. 620, 44 S.E.2D 30, ALSO CAPITAL CASES, WRITS OF CERTIORARI WERE
DENIED WHEN THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE ON APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN FILED
WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD. 

FN30  STATE V. DANIELS, 231 N.C. 17, 20(11), 56 S.E.2D 2, 4; GEN.
STAT. OF N.C., 1943, SEC. 1-587. 

FN31  SUNAL V. LARGE, 332 U.S. 174, 180; EAGLES V. SAMUELS, 329 U.S.
304, 311; IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, 8; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S.
458, 465; GOTO V. LANE, 265 U.S. 393. 

FN32  DOWD V. COOK, 340 U.S. 206; SEE DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN, 329
U.S. 663; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458. 

FN33  HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271, 278; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S.
242, 247. 

FN34  SMITH V. BALDI, DECIDED TODAY, POST, P. 561, AT PP. 569-570. 

FN35  DARR V. BURFORD, SUPRA, AT 203; EX PARTE SPENCER, 228 U.S. 652,
660.  SEE IN RE WOOD, 140 U.S. 278. 

FN36  SEE MCKANE V. DURSTON, 153 U.S. 684, 687, WHERE THIS COURT
SAID:  "AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS NOT A MATTER OF
ABSOLUTE RIGHT, INDEPENDENTLY OF CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS
ALLOWING SUCH APPEAL.  A REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE COURT OF THE FINAL
JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE, HOWEVER GRAVE THE OFFENCE OF WHICH THE
ACCUSED IS CONVICTED, WAS NOT AT COMMON LAW AND IS NOT NOW A NECESSARY
ELEMENT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  IT IS WHOLLY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF
THE STATE TO ALLOW OR NOT TO ALLOW SUCH A REVIEW.  A CITATION OF
AUTHORITIES UPON THE POINT IS UNNECESSARY." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THIS RESULT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN
A SEPARATE OPINION.  (SEE POST, PP. 532, 548.) 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK ADHERE TO THEIR POSITION AS
STATED IN DARR V. BURFORD, 339 U.S. 200, AT 219.  THEY BELIEVE THAT THE
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING UPON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS SUCH THAT,
WHEN THE REASONS FOR A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI ARE NOT STATED, THE DENIAL
SHOULD BE DISREGARDED IN PASSING UPON A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR
RELIEF, EXCEPT TO NOTE THAT THIS SOURCE OF POSSIBLE RELIEF HAS BEEN
EXHAUSTED. 

THEY JOIN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THESE CASES AND THEY CONCUR
IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT MAY CONTAIN, IN PART
II, SUBDIVISION A (PP. 456-457), OR ELSEWHERE, ANY INDICATION THAT,
ALTHOUGH THE REASONS FOR A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BE NOT STATED, THOSE
REASONS NEVERTHELESS MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE RECORD.  THEY ALSO
RECOGNIZE THE PROPRIETY OF THE CONSIDERATIONS TO WHICH MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER INVITES THE ATTENTION OF A FEDERAL COURT WHEN CONFRONTED
WITH A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
STATED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.* 

*FOR NOTATION OF POSITION OF MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK
ON THE SAME POINTS, SEE ANTE, P. 487; FOR NOTATION OF POSITION OF MR.
JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS ON THE SAME POINTS, SEE POST, P.
513.  IN ADDITION TO THE THREE CASES DECIDED IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT, ANTE, P. 443, THIS OPINION APPLIES ALSO TO UNITED STATES EX REL.
SMITH V. BALDI, POST, P. 561. 

THE COURSE OF LITIGATION IN THESE CASES AND THEIR RELEVANT FACTS ARE
SET OUT IN MR. JUSTICE REED'S OPINION.  THIS OPINION IS RESTRICTED TO
THE TWO GENERAL QUESTIONS WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED BEFORE THE COURT CAN
PASS ON THE SPECIFIC SITUATIONS PRESENTED BY THESE CASES.  THE TWO
GENERAL PROBLEMS ARE THESE: 

I. THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI, IN A CASE
REQUIRED TO BE PRESENTED HERE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF DARR V. BURFORD,
339 U.S. 200, WHEN AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THEREAFTER COMES BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT. 

II.  THE BEARING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS SHOULD HAVE
ON THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH AN APPLICATION IN A DISTRICT COURT. 

                                   I. 

DARR V. BURFORD SHEDS NO LIGHT ON THE EFFECT A DISTRICT COURT IS TO
GIVE OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN ONE OF THESE CASES.  THAT DECISION WAS
EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO RULING THAT "ORDINARILY" THE CERTIORARI
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT MUST BE INVOKED IN AN ATTEMPT TO SECURE
REVIEW OF A STATE COURT'S REFUSAL OF RELIEF PRIOR TO AN APPLICATION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS IN A DISTRICT COURT.  DARR V. BURFORD, 339 U.S., AT 201,
214.  THE FACT THAT TWO MEMBERS OF THE NECESSARY MAJORITY IN DARR V.
BURFORD DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO DISAVOW CONCURRENCE IN ANY
"INDICATION" IN THE COURT'S OPINION THAT ANY EFFECT IS TO BE GIVEN TO
THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI EMPHASIZES THAT NO SUCH RULING CAN BE
ATTRIBUTED TO DARR V. BURFORD.  IT WAS THE VIEW OF MR. JUSTICE BURTON
AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK "THAT THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING IS SUCH THAT,
WHEN THE REASONS FOR A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI ARE NOT STATED, THE DENIAL
SHOULD BE DISREGARDED IN PASSING UPON A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR
RELIEF, EXCEPT TO NOTE THAT THIS SOURCE OF POSSIBLE RELIEF HAS BEEN
EXHAUSTED."  DARR V. BURFORD, SUPRA, AT 219.  OF COURSE, WHEN THE
REASONS ARE GIVEN, THE DECISION TO DENY WILL HAVE THE EFFECT INDICATED
BY THE REASONS STATED.  BUT WE KNOW BEST HOW PUZZLING IT OFTEN WOULD BE
TO STATE WHY THE COURT DENIED CERTIORARI EVEN WHEN WE ARE PARTIES TO
THE DENIAL. 

IN THE THREE CASES NOW HERE FROM THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF
APPEALS RELIED HEAVILY ON OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN RULING AGAINST
APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS BY STATE PRISONERS.  (FN1)  ITS
OPINION IN NO. 20 RELIES ON, AND THE PER CURIAM DECISION IN NOS. 22 AND
32 QUOTES, AN EARLIER DECISION BY THAT COURT BASED ON AN EXPRESS
ASSUMPTION THAT IF THIS COURT HAD THOUGHT THAT THE RECORD SHOWED A
DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, CERTIORARI WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED. 
STONEBREAKER V. SMYTH, 163 F.2D 498, 499. 

IF WE WERE TO SANCTION A RULE DIRECTING THE DISTRICT COURT TO GIVE
ANY EFFECT TO A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI, LET ALONE THE EFFECT OF RES
JUDICATA WHICH IS THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE POSITION OF THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT, WE WOULD BE IGNORING ACTUALITIES RECOGNIZED EVER SINCE
CERTIORARI JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED UPON THIS COURT MORE THAN SIXTY
YEARS AGO. 

FROM ITS INCEPTION CERTIORARI JURISDICTION HAS BEEN TREATED FOR WHAT
IT IS IN VIEW OF THE FUNCTION THAT IT WAS DEVISED TO SERVE.  IT WAS
DESIGNED TO PERMIT THIS COURT TO KEEP WITHIN MANAGEABLE PROPORTIONS,
HAVING DUE REGARD TO THE CONDITIONS INDISPENSABLE FOR THE WISE
ADJUDICATION OF THOSE CASES WHICH MUST BE DECIDED HERE, THE BUSINESS
THAT IS ALLOWED TO COME BEFORE US.  BY SUCCESSIVE MEASURES CONGRESS
ENLARGED THE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNTIL, BY THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, SUPPLEMENTED BY THE COURT'S OWN INVENTION OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT IN RELATION TO THE NARROW SCOPE OF RESIDUAL
APPEALS, THE COURT BECAME COMPLETE MASTER OF ITS DOCKET.  THE GOVERNING
CONSIDERATION WAS AUTHORITY IN THE COURT TO DECLINE TO REVIEW DECISIONS
WHICH, RIGHT OR WRONG, DO NOT PRESENT QUESTIONS OF SUFFICIENT GRAVITY. 
WHATEVER THE SOURCE OF THESE QUESTIONS, WHETHER THE COMMON LAW,
STATUTES OR THE CONSTITUTION, OTHER CASES OF OBVIOUS GRAVITY ARE MORE
THAN ENOUGH TO ABSORB THE COURT'S TIME AND THOUGHT.  CF. HAMILTON SHOE
CO. V. WOLF BROTHERS, 240 U.S. 251, 258. 

IT IS WITHIN THE EXPERIENCE OF EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COURT THAT WE DO
NOT HAVE TO, AND FREQUENTLY DO NOT, REACH THE MERITS OF A CASE TO
DECIDE THAT IT IS NOT OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO WARRANT REVIEW HERE. 
THIRTY YEARS AGO THE COURT RATHER SHARPLY REMINDED THE BAR NOT TO DRAW
STRENGTH FOR LOWER COURT OPINIONS FROM THE FACT THAT THEY WERE LEFT
UNREVIEWED HERE.  "THE DENIAL OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IMPORTS NO
EXPRESSION OF OPINION UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, AS THE BAR HAS BEEN
TOLD MANY TIMES."  UNITED STATES V. CARVER, 260 U.S. 482, 490.  WE HAVE
REPEATEDLY INDICATED THAT A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI MEANS ONLY THAT, FOR
ONE REASON OR ANOTHER WHICH IS SELDOM DISCLOSED, AND NOT INFREQUENTLY
FOR CONFLICTING REASONS WHICH MAY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MERITS
AND CERTAINLY MAY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY VIEW OF THE MERITS TAKEN
BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT, THERE WERE NOT FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COURT
WHO THOUGHT THE CASE SHOULD BE HEARD.  ANY DEPARTURE FROM THIS
FUNDAMENTAL RULE IN THE TYPE OF CASE WE ARE CONSIDERING OUGHT TO BE
BASED ON A SHOWING THAT THESE DENIALS OF CERTIORARI, UNLIKE ALL THE
OTHER DENIALS, ARE IN FACT THE ESSENTIAL EQUIVALENTS OF ADJUDICATION ON
THE MERITS.  THE RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY DETAILED IN THE APPENDIX, POST,
P. 514, SHOW THAT THE CONTRARY IS THE FACT.  (FN2)  THERE IS CERTAINLY
NO MORE ASSURANCE THAT THESE PETITIONS HAVE BEEN CANVASSED ON THEIR
MERITS THAN IS TRUE OF CASES WITHIN THE ORDINARY DOMAIN OF CERTIORARI
JURISDICTION. 

INDEED, THERE IS LESS ASSURANCE THAT PETITIONS BY STATE PRISONERS
COULD BE CONSIDERED ON THEIR MERITS THAN IS THE CASE WITH ORDINARY
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  TO TREAT DENIALS OF CERTIORARI IN CASES IN
WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY MADE IN EFFECT AS
ADJUDICATIONS HERE, PRESUPPOSES, AT THE LEAST, THAT SUCH
"DETERMINATIONS" ARE BASED ON RECORDS OF LITIGATION IN WHICH ISSUES ARE
MORE OR LESS CAREFULLY SHAPED BY COMPETENT LAWYERS, AS IS AFTER ALL
TRUE OF THE ORDINARY FLOW OF CERTIORARI CASES.  SUCH AN ASSUMPTION IS
SHOWN TO BE WHOLLY BASELESS BY THE STUDY OF THE 126 CERTIORARI FILES ON
WHICH THIS OPINION IS BASED.  IT IS ALSO AN ASSUMPTION THAT FALSIFIES
THE PICTURE OF THE HABEAS CORPUS PROBLEMS FACING THE DISTRICT JUDGE. 

THESE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI ARE RARELY DRAWN BY LAWYERS; SOME ARE
ALMOST UNINTELLIGIBLE AND CERTAINLY DO NOT PRESENT A CLEAR STATEMENT OF
ISSUES NECESSARY FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING, IN VIEW OF THE PRESSURE OF THE
COURT'S WORK.  (FN3)  THE CERTIFIED RECORDS WE HAVE IN THE RUN OF
CERTIORARI CASES TO ASSIST UNDERSTANDING ARE ALMOST UNKNOWN IN THIS
FIELD.  (FN4)  INDEED, THE NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH MOST OF THE PAPERS
NECESSARY TO PROVE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE STATE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT FILED
IS STRIKING.  WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN AN ADJUDICATION OR SIMPLY A
PERFUNCTORY DENIAL OF A CLAIM BELOW IS RARELY ASCERTAINABLE.  SELDOM DO
WE HAVE ENOUGH ON WHICH TO BASE A SOLID CONCLUSION AS TO THE ADEQUACY
OF THE STATE ADJUDICATION.  EVEN IF WE ARE TOLD SOMETHING ABOUT A TRIAL
OF THE CLAIMS THE APPLICANT ASSERTS, WE ALMOST NEVER HAVE A TRANSCRIPT
OF THESE PROCEEDINGS TO ASSIST US IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE TRIAL WAS
ADEQUATE.  (FN5)  EQUALLY UNSATISFACTORY AS A MEANS FOR EVALUATING THE
STATE PROCEEDINGS IS THE FILING OF OPINIONS; IN LESS THAN ONE-FOURTH OF
THE CASES IS MORE THAN A PERFUNCTORY ORDER OF THE STATE COURTS FILED. 
(FN6)  WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE VERY DIFFERENT RECORDS AND TO ALTER OUR
CONSIDERATION OF THESE CASES RADICALLY IF A DENIAL COULD FAIRLY BE
DEEMED TO BE AN UNDISCLOSED DECISION ON THE MERITS.  IN A FEW CASES THE
ISSUES BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NOT EVEN BEEN RAISED HERE.  (FN7)
IN OTHER CASES, THE EMPHASIS PUT ON THE ISSUES HERE DIFFERED
CONSIDERABLY FROM THAT PUT ON THEM IN THE DISTRICT COURTS.  ALICE COULD
UNDERSTAND, BUT NOT I, HOW UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES A DISTRICT JUDGE
COULD ASSUME IF HE IS SO MINDED, THAT WE "DECIDED" THE QUESTION NOW
PRESENTED TO HIM. 

JUST AS THERE IS NO GROUND FOR HOLDING THAT OUR DENIAL IS IN EFFECT
RES JUDICATA, SO EQUALLY IS THERE NO BASIS FOR LEAVING THE DISTRICT
JUDGE FREE TO DECIDE WHETHER WE PASSED ON THE MERITS.  FOR THERE IS
MORE TO THE STORY.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE ORDINARILY KNOWS PAINFULLY
LITTLE OF THE PAINFULLY LITTLE WE KNEW.  IT IS A RARE CASE INDEED IN
WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HAS ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CERTIORARI
PROCEEDING.  IN OVER 90% OF THE CASES STUDIED, THERE WERE NEITHER
PAPERS FILED NOR ALLEGATIONS MADE INDICATING IN ANY WAY WHAT ISSUE THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI PRESENTED.  (FN8)  IN EVEN FEWER CASES WAS
THERE ANY INDICATION THAT ANY PAPERS FROM THE STATE PROCEEDINGS HAD
BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT.  (FN9)  IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
CAN CALL FOR THE PAPERS THAT WERE HERE.  IT IS SELDOM DONE.  (FN10)
MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE UNLIKELIHOOD THAT SUCH A RECORD COULD REVEAL
ENOUGH FOR A SOUND JUDGMENT, SUCH A REQUIREMENT WOULD BE FUTILE.  BUT
OTHERWISE THE DISTRICT JUDGE CAN KNOW ONLY IN A NEGLIGIBLE NUMBER OF
CASES WHAT LITTLE WE HAD BEFORE US.  TO SAY THAT HE IS AT LIBERTY TO
DECIDE WHETHER WE PASSED ON THE MERITS OF A CASE INVITES WHAT MUST, IN
ALMOST ALL CASES, BE IDLE SPECULATION.  WE WOULD BE INVITING A BUSY
FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE TO REST ON OUR DENIAL AND CLOAK HIS FAILURE TO
EXERCISE A JUDGMENT IN FORMAL COMPLIANCE WITH A STATEMENT THAT HE CAN
GIVE MEANING TO SOMETHING THAT ALMOST ALWAYS MUST TO HIM BE
MEANINGLESS.   IT IS INADMISSIBLE TO ACT AS THOUGH THESE CASES
PROCEEDED THROUGH THE COURTS IN AN ORDERLY FASHION, LEAVING BEHIND NEAT
RECORDS WHICH CAN BE TRACED EFFECTIVELY WITH PROMISE OF ENLIGHTENMENT,
ONCE TRACED.  ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF MANY CASES IN
WHICH A DISTRICT JUDGE, PRESENTED WITH A FULL RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS
HERE, COULD GIVE ANY RELEVANT EFFECT TO THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI, THE
LIKELIHOOD IS NEGLIGIBLE THAT SUCH A CASE WILL ALSO BE ONE OF THE VERY
FEW IN WHICH HE HAS ENOUGH MATERIALS TO KNOW WHAT WAS BEFORE US.  TO
GIVE HIM DISCRETION TO INTERPRET THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI AS A
"DETERMINATION" CAN SO RARELY BE RATIONALLY JUSTIFIED THAT IT IS EITHER
FUTILE OR MISCHIEVOUS TO ALLOW SUCH DENIAL TO WEIGH IN THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DISPOSITION. 

IN DARR V. BURFORD IT WAS DECIDED, AS A MATTER OR PROPER
ADMINISTRATION, THAT DUE REGARD FOR THE RELATIONS BETWEEN STATE AND
FEDERAL AUTHORITY MAKES IT UNDESIRABLE IN THE ORDINARY CASE TO PERMIT
AN APPLICATION TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON A CLAIM WHICH HAS ALREADY
BEEN PRESENTED TO THE STATE COURT BEFORE WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW THE STATE COURT ACTION HERE.  TO HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT A DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI MAY BE DEEMED TO BE APPROVAL OF THE DECISION OF THE STATE
COURT WOULD BE SOMETHING FAR BEYOND FASHIONING A RULE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUDICIAL BUSINESS.  IF DISTRICT JUDGES WERE
AUTHORIZED TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS MERELY BECAUSE THE
ISSUES MAY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN DENYING A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, THE DUTY, WHICH HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO THE FEDERAL COURTS
SINCE THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE SCOPE OF HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION BY THE
ACT OF 1867, TO DEAL JUDICIALLY WITH APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS
CORPUS BY STATE CONVICTS WOULD BE LEFT TO THE UNBOUNDED, BECAUSE
UNDEFINED, DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT JUDGES THROUGHOUT THE LAND. 
JUDGES DEALING WITH THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AS WITH TEMPORARY
INJUNCTIONS, MUST BE LEFT SOME DISCRETION - ROOM FOR ASSESSING FACT AND
BALANCING CONFLICTING CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST - IF LAW IS NOT
TO BE A PROCRUSTES BED.  BUT DISCRETION MUST BE JUDICIAL DISCRETION. 
IT MUST BE SUBJECT TO RATIONAL CRITERIA, BY WHICH PARTICULAR SITUATIONS
MAY BE ADJUDGED.  TO ALLOW APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS TO BE DENIED
MERELY BECAUSE IT IS DEEMED, ON NO REASONABLE OR, AT BEST, ON THE MOST
FRAGILE FOUNDATIONS, THAT THE MATTER HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED HERE,
IS TO AFFORD NO CRITERION, BUT MERELY A SHELTER FOR DISTRICT JUDGES TO
RESPOND ACCORDING TO THE INDIVIDUAL WILL. 

WE MUST NOT INVITE THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL IMPRESSIONISM. 
DISCRETION THERE MAY BE, BUT "METHODIZED BY ANALOGY, DISCIPLINED BY
SYSTEM."  CARDOZO, THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, 139, 141
(1921).  DISCRETION WITHOUT A CRITERION FOR ITS EXERCISE IS
AUTHORIZATION OF ARBITRARINESS.  THE NATION'S SUPREME COURT OUGHT TO BE
ABLE TO DO BETTER THAN TO TELL THE FEDERAL JUDGES OF THE LAND, IN A
FIELD SO VITAL AS THAT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO VINDICATE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, THAT THEY MAY DO AS THEY PLEASE - THAT THEY ARE NOT TO BE
BOUND, NOR TO BE GUIDED, BY CONSIDERATIONS CAPABLE OF RATIONAL
FORMULATION. 

THIS IS NOT TO IMPUGN THE CONSCIENTIOUSNESS OF FEDERAL JUDGES; IF
LEFT AT LARGE IN DISPOSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
THEY WOULD NECESSARILY BE THROWN BACK UPON THEIR INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENTS,
AND THAT WOULD BE THE EXERCISE NOT OF LAW BUT OF ARBITRARINESS. 

THE REASONS WHY OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN THE ORDINARY RUN OF CASES
CAN BE ANY NUMBER OF THINGS OTHER THAN A DECISION ON THE MERITS ARE
ONLY MULTIPLIED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CLASS OF PETITIONS.  AND
SO WE CONCLUDE THAT IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES, AS IN OTHERS, DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS AN "EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON THE
MERITS."  SUNAL V. LARGE, 332 U.S. 174, 181. 

                 II. 

THE ISSUE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI RAISES A
SHARP DIVISION IN THE COURT.  THIS IS NOT SO AS TO THE BEARING OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS UPON THE DISPOSITION OF THE APPLICATION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS.  THIS
OPINION IS DESIGNED TO MAKE EXPLICIT AND DETAILED MATTERS THAT ARE ALSO
THE CONCERN OF MR. JUSTICE REED'S OPINION.  THE UNCOMMON CIRCUMSTANCES
IN WHICH A DISTRICT COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION OUGHT TO BE
DEFINED WITH GREATER PARTICULARITY, AS SHOULD BE THE CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING WHEN A HEARING IS PROPER.  THE VIEWS OF THE COURT ON THESE
QUESTIONS MAY THUS BE DRAWN FROM THE TWO OPINIONS JOINTLY. 

I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO BEGIN BY MAKING EXPLICIT SOME BASIC
CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THE FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION. 
EXPERIENCE MAY BE SUMMONED TO SUPPORT THE BELIEF THAT MOST CLAIMS IN
THESE ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN REVIEW OF STATE CONVICTIONS ARE WITHOUT
MERIT.  PRESUMABLY THEY ARE ADEQUATELY DEALT WITH IN THE STATE COURTS. 
AGAIN, NO ONE CAN FEEL MORE STRONGLY THAN I DO THAT A CASUAL,
UNRESTRICTED OPENING OF THE DOORS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO THESE CLAIMS
NOT ONLY WOULD CAST AN UNDUE BURDEN UPON THOSE COURTS, BUT WOULD ALSO
DISREGARD OUR DUTY TO SUPPORT AND NOT WEAKEN THE STURDY ENFORCEMENT OF
THEIR CRIMINAL LAWS BY THE STATES.  THAT WHOLESALE OPENING OF STATE
PRISON DOORS BY FEDERAL COURTS IS, HOWEVER, NOT AT ALL THE REAL ISSUE
BEFORE US IS BEST INDICATED BY A SURVEY RECENTLY PREPARED IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE CONFERENCE OF
CHIEF JUSTICES: OF ALL FEDERAL QUESTION APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS,
SOME NOT EVEN RELATING TO STATE CONVICTIONS, ONLY 67 OUT OF 3,702
APPLICATIONS WERE GRANTED IN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.  AND "ONLY A SMALL
NUMBER" OF THESE 67 APPLICATIONS RESULTED IN RELEASE FROM PRISON:  "A
MORE DETAILED STUDY OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS  ...  SHOWS THAT OUT OF 29
PETITIONS GRANTED, THERE WERE ONLY 5 PETITIONERS WHO WERE RELEASED FROM
STATE PENITENTIARIES."  (FN11)  THE MERITORIOUS CLAIMS ARE FEW, BUT OUR
PROCEDURES MUST ENSURE THAT THOSE FEW CLAIMS ARE NOT STIFLED BY
UNDISCRIMINATING GENERALITIES.  THE COMPLEXITIES OF OUR FEDERALISM AND
THE WORKINGS OF A SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVING THE INTERPLAY OF TWO
GOVERNMENTS, ONE OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS ENFORCEABLE BY THE
OTHER, ARE NOT TO BE ESCAPED BY SIMPLE, RIGID RULES WHICH, BY AVOIDING
SOME ABUSES, GENERATE OTHERS. 

FOR SURELY IT IS AN ABUSE TO DEAL TOO CASUALLY AND TOO LIGHTLY WITH
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, EVEN THOUGH THEY INVOLVE
LIMITATIONS UPON STATE POWER AND MAY BE INVOKED BY THOSE MORALLY
UNWORTHY.  UNDER THE GUISE OF FASHIONING A PROCEDURAL RULE, WE ARE NOT
JUSTIFIED IN WIPING OUT THE PRACTICAL EFFICACY OF A JURISDICTION
CONFERRED BY CONGRESS ON THE DISTRICT COURTS.  RULES WHICH IN EFFECT
TREAT ALL THESE CASES INDISCRIMINATELY AS FRIVOLOUS DO NOT FALL SHORT
OF ABOLISHING THIS HEAD OF JURISDICTION. 

CONGRESS COULD HAVE LEFT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS GOVERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE STATES
EXCLUSIVELY TO THE STATE COURTS.  THESE TRIBUNALS ARE UNDER THE SAME
DUTY AS THE FEDERAL COURTS TO RESPECT RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.  SEE THE FEDERALIST, NO. 82; CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S.
130; TESTA V. KATT, 330 U.S. 386; NOTE, 60 HARV. L. REV. 966.  INDEED,
THE JURISDICTION GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ISSUE WRITS OF HABEAS
CORPUS BY THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT, SEC. 14, 1 STAT. 81-82, EXTENDED
ONLY TO PRISONERS IN CUSTODY UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT
WAS NOT UNTIL THE ACT OF 1867 THAT THE POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT WAS
EXTENDED TO AN APPLICANT UNDER SENTENCE OF A STATE COURT.  IT IS NOT
FOR US TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS POWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN VESTED IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  AS MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, WITH HIS USUAL ACUTENESS,
COMMENTED NOT LONG AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THAT ACT, "ALTHOUGH IT MAY
APPEAR UNSEEMLY THAT A PRISONER, AFTER CONVICTION IN A STATE COURT,
SHOULD BE SET AT LIBERTY BY A SINGLE JUDGE ON HABEAS CORPUS, THERE
SEEMS TO BE NO ESCAPE FROM THE LAW."  EX PARTE BRIDGES, 2 WOODS (5TH
CIR.) 428, 432.  HIS FEELING HAS BEEN RECENTLY ECHOED IN A PROPOSAL OF
THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES THAT THESE CASES BE
HEARD BY THREE-JUDGE COURTS.  (FN12)  SEE REP. JUD.  CONF.  1943, P.
23.  BUT THE WISDOM OF SUCH A MODIFICATION IN THE LAW IS FOR CONGRESS
TO CONSIDER, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE EFFECT OF THE EXPANDING
CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS UPON ENFORCEMENT BY THE STATES OF THEIR CRIMINAL
LAWS.  IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO GIVE FAIR EFFECT TO THE HABEAS CORPUS
JURISDICTION AS ENACTED BY CONGRESS.  BY GIVING THE FEDERAL COURTS THAT
JURISDICTION, CONGRESS HAS IMBEDDED INTO FEDERAL LEGISLATION THE
HISTORIC FUNCTION OF HABEAS CORPUS ADAPTED TO REACHING AN ENLARGED AREA
OF CLAIMS.  SEE, E.G., MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103; JOHNSON V.
ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458. 

IN EXERCISING THE POWER THUS BESTOWED, THE DISTRICT JUDGE MUST TAKE
DUE ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE CHALLENGED BY THE APPLICATION
FOR A WRIT.  ALL THAT HAS GONE BEFORE IS NOT TO BE IGNORED AS
IRRELEVANT.  BUT THE PRIOR STATE DETERMINATION OF A CLAIM UNDER THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION CANNOT FORECLOSE CONSIDERATION OF SUCH A
CLAIM, ELSE THE STATE COURT WOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY WHICH THE
CONGRESS, BY THE ACT OF 1867, PROVIDED IT SHOULD NOT HAVE.  CF. EX
PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241, 248-250.  A STATE DETERMINATION MAY HELP TO
DEFINE THE CLAIM URGED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT AND MAY BEAR ON
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CLAIM.  THAT MOST CLAIMS ARE FRIVOLOUS HAS AN
IMPORTANT BEARING UPON THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY A DISTRICT
JUDGE.  THE PRIOR STATE DETERMINATION MAY GUIDE HIS DISCRETION IN
DECIDING UPON THE APPROPRIATE COURSE TO BE FOLLOWED IN DISPOSING OF THE
APPLICATION BEFORE HIM.  THE STATE RECORD MAY SERVE TO INDICATE THE
NECESSITY OF FURTHER PLEADINGS OR OF A QUICK HEARING TO CLEAR UP AN
AMBIGUITY, OR THE STATE RECORD MAY SHOW THE CLAIM TO BE FRIVOLOUS OR
NOT WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF A FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE SOLELY DEPENDENT
ON STATE LAW. 

IT MAY BE A MATTER OF PHRASING WHETHER WE SAY THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE
SUMMARILY DENIES AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF ACCEPTING THE RULING OF
THE STATE COURT OR BY MAKING AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, THOUGH HE DOES SO
ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THE STATE RECORD REVEALS.  BUT SINCE PHRASING
MIRRORS THOUGHT, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE PHRASING NOT OBSCURE THE TRUE
ISSUE BEFORE A FEDERAL COURT.  OUR PROBLEM ARISES BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS
TOLD THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACT ON THOSE OCCASIONS, HOWEVER RARE, WHEN
THERE ARE MERITORIOUS CAUSES IN WHICH HABEAS CORPUS IS THE ULTIMATE AND
ONLY RELIEF AND DESIGNED TO BE SUCH.  VAGUE, UNDEFINED DIRECTIONS
PERMITTING THE DISTRICT COURT TO GIVE "CONSIDERATION" TO A PRIOR STATE
DETERMINATION FALL SHORT OF APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE FOR BRINGING TO THE
SURFACE THE MERITORIOUS CASE.  THEY MAY SERVE INDISCRIMINATELY TO
PRECLUDE A HEARING WHERE ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, AND YET THIS
BASIS FOR DENIAL MAY BE SO WOVEN INTO THE TEXTURE OF THE RESULT THAT AN
IMPROPER DEFERENCE TO A STATE COURT TREATMENT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
CANNOT EVEN BE CORRECTED ON REVIEW.  IF WE ARE TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
STATUTE AND AT THE SAME TIME AVOID IMPROPER INTRUSION INTO THE STATE
CRIMINAL PROCESS BY FEDERAL JUDGES - AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THINKING
THERE IS SUCH INTRUSION UNLESS "MEN THINK DRAMATICALLY, NOT
QUANTITATIVELY," HOLMES, COLLECTED LEGAL PAPERS, P. 293 - WE MUST
DIRECT THEM TO PROBE THE FEDERAL QUESTION WHILE DRAWING ON AVAILABLE
RECORDS OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS TO GUIDE THEM IN DOING SO. 

OF COURSE, EXPERIENCE CAUTIONS THAT THE VERY NATURE AND FUNCTION OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PRECLUDES THE FORMULATION OF FOOL-PROOF
STANDARDS WHICH THE 225 DISTRICT JUDGES CAN AUTOMATICALLY APPLY.  HERE
AS ELSEWHERE IN MATTERS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION WE MUST ATTRIBUTE TO
THEM THE GOOD SENSE AND STURDINESS APPROPRIATE FOR MEN WHO WIELD THE
POWER OF A FEDERAL JUDGE.  CERTAINLY WE WILL NOT GET THESE QUALITIES IF
WE FASHION RULES ASSUMING THE CONTRARY.  BUT IT IS IMPORTANT, IN ORDER
TO PRECLUDE INDIVIDUALIZED ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IN DIFFERENT
PARTS OF THE NATION, TO LAY DOWN AS SPECIFICALLY AS THE NATURE OF THE
PROBLEM PERMITS THE STANDARDS OR DIRECTIONS THAT SHOULD GOVERN THE
DISTRICT JUDGES IN THE DISPOSITION OF APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY
PRISONERS UNDER SENTENCE OF STATE COURTS. 

FIRST.  JUST AS IN ALL OTHER LITIGATION, A PRIMA FACIE CASE MUST BE
MADE OUT BY THE PETITIONER.  THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED WHEN
IT FAILS TO STATE A FEDERAL QUESTION, OR FAILS TO SET FORTH FACTS
WHICH, IF ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE, WOULD ENTITLE THE APPLICANT TO
RELIEF. 

CARE WILL NATURALLY BE TAKEN THAT THE FREQUENT LACK OF TECHNICAL
COMPETENCE OF PRISONERS SHOULD NOT STRANGLE CONSIDERATION OF A VALID
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM THAT IS BUNGLINGLY PRESENTED.  DISTRICT JUDGES
HAVE RESORTED TO VARIOUS PROCEDURES TO THAT END.  THUS, A LAWYER MAY BE
APPOINTED, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE INHERENT AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT
COURT (CF., E.G., EX PARTE PETERSON, 253 U.S. 300), EITHER AS AN AMICUS
OR AS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM AND TO REPORT,
OR THE JUDGE MAY DISMISS THE PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  (FN13) 

SECOND.  FAILURE TO EXHAUST AN AVAILABLE STATE REMEDY IS AN OBVIOUS
GROUND FOR DENYING THE APPLICATION.  AN ATTEMPT MUST HAVE BEEN MADE IN
THE STATE COURT TO PRESENT THE CLAIM NOW ASSERTED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 2254 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  SECTION 2254
DOES NOT, HOWEVER, REQUIRE REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO INVOKE THE SAME REMEDY
NOR MORE THAN ONE ATTEMPT WHERE THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES. 
FURTHER, DARR V. BURFORD REQUIRES "ORDINARILY" AN APPLICATION FOR
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT FROM THE STATE'S DENIAL
OF RELIEF.  CF. FRISBIE V. COLLINS, 342 U.S. 519, 520-522.    OF
COURSE, NOTHING WE HAVE SAID SUGGESTS THAT THE FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS
JURISDICTION CAN DISPLACE A STATE'S PROCEDURAL RULE REQUIRING THAT
CERTAIN ERRORS BE RAISED ON APPEAL.  NORMALLY RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION MAY BE WAIVED AT THE TRIAL, ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX REL.
MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, AND MAY LIKEWISE BE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO ASSERT
SUCH ERRORS ON APPEAL.  COMPARE FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 343. 
WHEN A STATE INSISTS THAT A DEFENDANT BE HELD TO HIS CHOICE OF TRIAL
STRATEGY AND NOT BE ALLOWED TO TRY A DIFFERENT TACK ON STATE HABEAS
CORPUS, HE MAY BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS CLAIM AND THUS HAVE NO
RIGHT TO ASSERT ON FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS.  SUCH CONSIDERATIONS OF
ORDERLY APPELLATE PROCEDURE GIVE RISE TO THE CONVENTIONAL STATEMENT
THAT HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT DO SERVICE FOR AN APPEAL.  SEE ADAMS V.
UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, SUPRA, AT 274.  COMPARE SUNAL V. LARGE,
332 U.S. 174, WITH JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 465-469.  HOWEVER,
THIS DOES NOT TOUCH ONE OF THOSE EXTRAORDINARY CASES IN WHICH A
SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM GOES TO THE VERY FOUNDATION OF A PROCEEDING, AS IN
MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86.  CF. EX PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163; EX
PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241. 

THIRD.  IF THE RECORD OF THE STATE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT FILED, THE
JUDGE IS REQUIRED TO DECIDE, WITH DUE REGARD TO EFFICIENCY IN JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION, WHETHER IT IS MORE DESIRABLE TO CALL FOR THE RECORD OR
TO HOLD A HEARING.  ORDINARILY, WHERE THE ISSUES ARE COMPLEX, IT WILL
BE SIMPLER TO CALL FOR THE RECORD, CERTAINLY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  IF
THE ISSUES ARE SIMPLE, OR IF THE RECORD IS CALLED FOR AND IS FOUND
INADEQUATE TO SHOW HOW THE STATE COURT DECIDED THE RELEVANT HISTORICAL
FACTS, THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL USE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES, INCLUDING A
HEARING IF NECESSARY, TO DECIDE THE ISSUES. 

SUCH FLEXIBILITY IN THE INQUIRY INTO THE FACTS IS NECESSARY.  A
PRINTED RECORD REFLECTING ORDERLY PROCEDURE THROUGH THE STATE COURTS
AND SHOWING CLEARLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE STATE COURTS IS RARELY
AVAILABLE IN THESE CASES.  (FN14)  THE EFFORT AND EXPENSE OF CALLING
FOR A RECORD AND OF HAVING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS PREPARED
MIGHT BE MORE BURDENSOME THAN A SHORT HEARING, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE
QUESTIONS OF FACT ARE SIMPLE AND EASILY SETTLED.  IT SEEMS AN
UNNECESSARY DEFERENCE TO STATE PROCEEDINGS TO SAY THAT THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, REGARDLESS OF THE RELATIVE EXPENSE OF ONE PROCEDURE OR THE
OTHER, MUST ALWAYS CALL FOR EVERYTHING IN THE STATE PROCEEDINGS.  TO
SATISFY REQUIREMENTS OF EXHAUSTION HE WILL WANT TO KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW
WHETHER THE CLAIM PRESENTED TO HIM WAS PRESENTED IN THE STATE COURTS. 
BUT IF THE CLAIM IS EITHER FRIVOLOUS OR, AT THE OTHER EXTREME,
SUBSTANTIAL AND IF THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED, TO CALL FOR THE STATE
RECORD WOULD PROBABLY AVAIL LITTLE.  IF THE CLAIM IS FRIVOLOUS, THE
JUDGE SHOULD DENY THE APPLICATION WITHOUT MORE.  IF THE QUESTION IS ONE
ON WHICH HE MUST EXERCISE HIS LEGAL JUDGMENT UNDER THE HABEAS CORPUS
STATUTE, (FN15) IT MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO HAVE INFORMATION, PERHAPS
PRESENTED BY THE PLEADINGS OF THE APPLICANT OR OF THE STATE, AS TO THE
DISPOSITION OF ANY DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT.  IT SEEMS UNDULY RIGID
TO REQUIRE THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO CALL FOR THE STATE RECORD IN EVERY
CASE. 

MOREOVER, THE KINDS OF STATE ADJUDICATIONS DIFFER.  IN SOME CASES THE
STATE COURT HAS HELD A HEARING AND RENDERED A DECISION BASED ON
SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT; THERE MAY HAVE BEEN REVIEW BY A HIGHER STATE
COURT WHICH HAD BEFORE IT THE PLEADINGS, THE TESTIMONY, OPINIONS AND
BRIEFS ON APPEAL.  IT CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE ONLY FOR BURDENSOME AND
USELESS REPETITION OF EFFORT IF THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE TO REHEAR THE
FACTS IN SUCH CASES.  AT THE OTHER POLE IS THE PERFUNCTORY MEMORANDUM
ORDER DENYING A BADLY DRAWN PETITION AND STATING SIMPLY THAT THE
PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE CANNOT GIVE
THE SAME WEIGHT TO THIS SORT OF ADJUDICATION AS HE DOES TO THE FIRST;
HE HAS NO BASIS FOR EXERCISING THE JUDGMENT THE STATUTE REQUIRES HIM TO
EXERCISE. 

THESE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHEN IT IS PROPER TO HOLD A HEARING
SEEM TO ME APPROPRIATE IN RELATING THE HABEAS CORPUS PROVISIONS TO THE
REALITIES OF THESE CASES.  SECTION 2241 EMPOWERS THE DISTRICT COURTS TO
GRANT WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS TO PRISONERS IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  SECTION 2243 COMMANDS THE JUDGE
"ENTERTAINING" AN APPLICATION TO AWARD THE WRIT OR ISSUE AN ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE "UNLESS IT APPEARS FROM THE APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICANT
...  IS NOT ENTITLED THERETO."  IT SEEMS CLEAR ENOUGH THAT THE WORD
"ENTERTAIN" DOES NOT REFER TO HOLDING A HEARING, AND MR. JUSTICE REED'S
SUGGESTION THAT IT REFERS TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT A
HEARING IS "PROPER," (FN16) IS UNSATISFYING.  (FN17)  THE PROVISO THAT
NO WRIT OR ORDER NEED BE ISSUED IF THE APPLICATION SHOWS THAT THE
APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED THERETO CERTAINLY PERMITS "ENTERTAINING" AND
NEVERTHELESS SUMMARILY DISMISSING FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE
TO EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES, OR PROOF FROM THE PAPERS THEMSELVES,
INCLUDING THE RECORD OF THE STATE PROCEEDINGS, IF FILED, THAT THERE IS
NO CLAIM.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE COMMAND THAT THE WRIT OR AN ORDER BE
ISSUED IN SOME CASES HARDLY REQUIRES A HEARING IN EVERY SUCH CASE.  AS
IN ANY LITIGATION, THE PLEADINGS MAY SHOW, EITHER SEPARATELY OR TAKEN
TOGETHER, THAT THERE IS NO CLAIM.  IT CAN HARDLY BE CONTENDED THAT BY
"ENTERTAINING" THE APPLICATION TO THE EXTENT OF ISSUING THE WRIT OR AN
ORDER, THE DISTRICT JUDGE COMMITS HIMSELF TO HOLDING A HEARING, IF THE
RETURN TO THE WRIT OR THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SHOWS UNQUESTIONABLY THAT
THE APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DISCHARGE.  (FN18) 

FOURTH.  WHEN THE RECORD OF THE STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS IS BEFORE THE
COURT, IT MAY APPEAR THAT THE ISSUE TURNS ON BASIC FACTS AND THAT THE
FACTS (IN THE SENSE OF A RECITAL OF EXTERNAL EVENTS AND THE CREDIBILITY
OF THEIR NARRATORS) HAVE BEEN TRIED AND ADJUDICATED AGAINST THE
APPLICANT.  UNLESS A VITAL FLAW BE FOUND IN THE PROCESS OF ASCERTAINING
SUCH FACTS IN THE STATE COURT, THE DISTRICT JUDGE MAY ACCEPT THEIR
DETERMINATION IN THE STATE PROCEEDING AND DENY THE APPLICATION.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, STATE ADJUDICATION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW CANNOT, UNDER THE
HABEAS CORPUS STATUTE, BE ACCEPTED AS BINDING.  IT IS PRECISELY THESE
QUESTIONS THAT THE FEDERAL JUDGE IS COMMANDED TO DECIDE.  (FN19) 

A STATE DETERMINATION OF THE HISTORICAL FACTS, THE EXTERNAL EVENTS
THAT OCCURRED, MAY HAVE BEEN MADE AFTER HEARING WITNESSES PERHAPS NO
LONGER AVAILABLE OR WHOSE RECOLLECTION LATER MAY HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY
THE PASSAGE OF TIME OR BY THE FACT THAT ONE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION HAS
ALREADY BEEN MADE.  TO BE SURE, THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARGUE EQUALLY
AGAINST HEARING THE CLAIMS AT ALL LONG AFTER THE FACTS TOOK PLACE.  BUT
CONGRESS, BY MAKING HABEAS CORPUS AVAILABLE, HAS DETERMINED THAT OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS PREVAIL.  WE ARE LEFT TO DEVISE APPROPRIATE RULES, AND
THE CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE RULES RECOGNIZING THE
SOUNDNESS OF GIVING GREAT WEIGHT TO TESTIMONY EARLIER HEARD, JUST AS IT
DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING FACTS
INCONSISTENT WITH JUDICIAL RECORDS IN ALL PROCEEDINGS OF THIS KIND IS
HEAVY. 

FIFTH.  WHERE THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE HISTORICAL FACTS DOES NOT
DISPOSE OF THE CLAIM BUT CALLS FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF SUCH FACTS, SEE BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S.
665, 670-671, THE DISTRICT JUDGE MUST EXERCISE HIS OWN JUDGMENT ON THIS
BLEND OF FACTS AND THEIR LEGAL VALUES.  THUS, SO-CALLED MIXED QUESTIONS
OR THE APPLICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS AS FOUND
LEAVE THE DUTY OF ADJUDICATION WITH THE FEDERAL JUDGE. 

FOR INSTANCE, THE QUESTION WHETHER ESTABLISHED PRIMARY FACTS
UNDERLYING A CONFESSION PROVE THAT THE CONFESSION WAS COERCED OR
VOLUNTARY CANNOT REST ON THE STATE DECISION.  SEE, E.G., HALEY V. OHIO,
332 U.S. 596, 601 (CONCURRING OPINION) AND STROBLE V. CALIFORNIA, 343
U.S. 181, 190.  AGAIN, POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, REPRESENTS THE
SETTLED RULE THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES A STATE COURT IN CAPITAL CASES
TO ASSIGN COUNSEL TO THE ACCUSED.  CONSEQUENTLY, A FINDING IN A STATE
COURT OF THE HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE ACCUSED HAD NOT HAD COUNSEL COULD
BE CONSIDERED BINDING BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, WHO WOULD ISSUE THE WRIT
REGARDLESS OF WHAT CONCLUSION THE STATE COURT HAD REACHED AS TO THE LAW
ON REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES.  IF THE CONVICTION WAS
NOT FOR A CAPITAL OFFENSE, HOWEVER, POWELL V. ALABAMA MAY NOT APPLY,
AND THE CONSIDERATIONS ADVERTED TO IN THAT OPINION AS TO THE NECESSITY
OF COUNSEL IN A PARTICULAR CASE TO ENSURE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS WOULD BE
CONTROLLING.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE WOULD THEN LOOK TO THE STATE
PROCEEDINGS FOR WHATEVER LIGHT THEY SHED ON THE HISTORICAL FACTS SUCH
AS THE AGE AND INTELLIGENCE OF THE ACCUSED, HIS FAMILIARITY WITH LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS, AND THE KIND OF ISSUES AGAINST WHICH HE HAD TO DEFEND
HIMSELF.  CF. JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458.  BUT IT IS FOR THE
FEDERAL JUDGE TO ASSESS ON THE BASIS OF SUCH HISTORICAL FACTS THE
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS OF A CONVICTION WITHOUT COUNSEL IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE FEDERAL JUDGE, IF HE
COULD, TO SHUT HIS EYES TO THE STATE CONSIDERATION OF SUCH ISSUES, NO
BINDING WEIGHT IS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE STATE DETERMINATION.  THE
CONGRESSIONAL REQUIREMENT IS GREATER.  THE STATE COURT CANNOT HAVE THE
LAST SAY WHEN IT, THOUGH ON FAIR CONSIDERATION AND WHAT PROCEDURALLY
MAY BE DEEMED FAIRNESS, MAY HAVE MISCONCEIVED A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT. 

SIXTH.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAY UNDER SEC. 2244 TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION A PRIOR DENIAL OF RELIEF BY A FEDERAL COURT, AND IN THAT
SENSE SEC. 2244 IS OF COURSE APPLICABLE TO STATE PRISONERS.  SECTION
2244 MERELY GAVE STATUTORY FORM TO THE PRACTICE ESTABLISHED BY SALINGER
V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224.  WHAT WAS THERE DECIDED AND WHAT SEC. 2244 NOW
AUTHORIZES IS THAT A FEDERAL JUDGE, ALTHOUGH HE MAY, NEED NOT INQUIRE
ANEW INTO A PRIOR DENIAL OF A HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION IN A FEDERAL
COURT IF "THE PETITION PRESENTS NO NEW GROUND NOT THERETOFORE PRESENTED
AND DETERMINED, AND THE JUDGE OR COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE WILL NOT BE SERVED BY SUCH INQUIRY." 

THESE STANDARDS, ADDRESSED AS THEY ARE TO THE PRACTICAL SITUATION
FACING THE DISTRICT JUDGE, RECOGNIZE THE DISCRETION OF JUDGES TO GIVE
WEIGHT TO WHATEVER MAY BE RELEVANT IN THE STATE PROCEEDINGS, AND YET
PRESERVE THE FULL IMPLICATION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF CONGRESS THAT THE
DISTRICT JUDGE DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY A STATE
PRISONER EVEN AFTER HIS CLAIMS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BY THE
STATE COURTS.  CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO DISTRIBUTE AMONG THE COURTS OF
THE STATES AND OF THE UNITED STATES JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FEDERAL
CLAIMS.  IT HAS SEEN FIT TO GIVE THIS COURT POWER TO REVIEW ERRORS OF
FEDERAL LAW IN STATE DETERMINATIONS, AND IN ADDITION TO GIVE TO THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS POWER TO INQUIRE INTO FEDERAL CLAIMS, BY WAY OF
HABEAS CORPUS.  SUCH POWER IS IN THE SPIRIT OF OUR INHERITED LAW.  IT
ACCORDS WITH, AND IS THOROUGHLY REGARDFUL OF, "THE LIBERTY OF THE
SUBJECT," FROM WHICH FLOWS THE RIGHT IN ENGLAND TO GO FROM JUDGE TO
JUDGE, ANY ONE OF WHOSE DECISIONS TO DISCHARGE THE PRISONER IS FINAL. 
(FN20) OUR RULE IS NOT SO EXTREME AS IN ENGLAND; SEC. 2244 DOES PLACE
SOME LIMITS ON REPEATING APPLICATIONS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.  BUT IT
WOULD BE IN DISREGARD OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY REQUIRED TO DENY
STATE PRISONERS ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE RELIABLE FIGURES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
COURTS, SUPRA, P. 498, SHOWING THAT DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS FIVE
STATE PRISONERS, ALL TOLD, WERE DISCHARGED BY FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS,
PROVE BEYOND PERADVENTURE THAT IT IS A BASELESS FEAR, A BOGEYMAN, TO
WORRY LEST STATE CONVICTIONS BE UPSET BY ALLOWING DISTRICT COURTS TO
ENTERTAIN APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON BEHALF OF PRISONERS UNDER
STATE SENTENCE.  INSOFAR AS THIS JURISDICTION ENABLES FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS TO ENTERTAIN CLAIMS THAT STATE SUPREME COURTS HAVE DENIED RIGHTS
GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, IT IS NOT A CASE OF A
LOWER COURT SITTING IN JUDGMENT ON A HIGHER COURT.  IT IS MERELY ONE
ASPECT OF RESPECTING THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEREBY
FEDERAL LAW IS HIGHER THAN STATE LAW.  IT IS FOR THE CONGRESS TO
DESIGNATE THE MEMBER IN THE HIERARCHY OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY TO
EXPRESS THE HIGHER LAW.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED DISTRICT
COURTS TO BE THE ORGAN OF THE HIGHER LAW RATHER THAN A COURT OF
APPEALS, OR EXCLUSIVELY THIS COURT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT ALLOWS A
LOWER COURT TO OVERRULE A HIGHER COURT.  IT MERELY EXPRESSES THE CHOICE
OF CONGRESS HOW THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL LAW SHOULD ASSERTED. 

I YIELD TO NO MEMBER OF THIS COURT IN AWARENESS OF THE ENORMITY OF
THE DIFFICULTIES OF DEALING WITH CRIME THAT IS THE CONCOMITANT OF OUR
INDUSTRIALIZED SOCIETY.  AND I AM DEEPLY MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS TASK LARGELY RESTS WITH THE STATES.  I WOULD
NOT FOR A MOMENT HAMPER THEM IN THE EFFECTIVE DISCHARGE OF THIS
RESPONSIBLITY.  EQUALLY AM I AWARE THAT MISUSE OF LEGAL PROCEDURES,
WHEREBY THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS TOO OFTEN RENDERED
LEADEN-FOOTED, IS ONE OF THE DISTURBING FEATURES ABOUT AMERICAN
CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MUST NOT BE LOST SIGHT OF THAT
THERE ARE ALSO ABUSES BY THE LAW-ENFORCING AGENCIES.  IT DOES NOT
LESSEN THE MISCHIEF THAT IT IS DUE MORE OFTEN TO LACK OF PROFESSIONAL
COMPETENCE AND WANT OF AN AUSTERE EMPLOYMENT OF THE AWFUL PROCESSES OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE THAN TO WILFUL MISCONDUCT.  IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS
RELEVANT TO QUOTE THE OBSERVATIONS OF ONE OF THE MOST ESTEEMED OF
ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, WILLIAM D. MITCHELL: 
"DETECTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIME MUST BE EFFECTED BY STRICTLY LAWFUL
METHODS.  NOTHING HAS A GREATER TENDENCY TO BEGET LAWLESSNESS THAN
LAWLESS METHODS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.  THE GREATER THE DIFFICULTIES OF
DETECTING AND PUNISHING CRIME, THE GREATER THE TEMPTATION TO PLACE A
STRAINED CONSTRUCTION ON STATUTES TO SUPPLY WHAT MAY BE THOUGHT TO BE
MORE EFFICIENT MEANS OF ENFORCING LAW.  THE STATUTORY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS MUST BE REGARDED, AND THEIR
VIOLATION, INADVERTENT OR OTHERWISE, IS TO BE AVOIDED."  (DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE RELEASE, FOR APRIL 8, 1929.) 

UNFORTUNATELY, INSTANCES ARE NOT WANTING IN WHICH EVEN THE HIGHEST
STATE COURTS HAVE FAILED TO RECOGNIZE VIOLATIONS OF THESE PRECEPTS THAT
OFFEND THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
PLACES UPON ENFORCEMENT BY THE STATES OF THEIR CRIMINAL LAW.  SEE,
E.G., DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN, 329 U.S. 663, AND MARINO V. RAGEN, 332
U.S. 561.  CAN IT REALLY BE DENIED THAT IN BOTH THESE CASES, WHICH
ANTEDATED DARR V. BURFORD, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS SITTING IN
ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS HAD APPLICATION BEEN MADE FOR IT?  THE TAG THAT AN
INFERIOR COURT SHOULD NOT OVERRIDE A SUPERIOR COURT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
A FIT OBJECTION AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION WITH WHICH THE
CONGRESS INVESTED THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

THE UNIQUENESS OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE PROCEDURAL ARMORY OF OUR LAW
CANNOT BE TOO OFTEN EMPHASIZED.  IT DIFFERS FROM ALL OTHER REMEDIES IN
THAT IT IS AVAILABLE TO BRING INTO QUESTION THE LEGALITY OF A PERSON'S
RESTRAINT AND TO REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH DETENTION.  OF COURSE
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT PRISON DOORS MAY READILY BE OPENED.  IT DOES
MEAN THAT EXPLANATION MAY BE EXACTED WHY THEY SHOULD REMAIN CLOSED.  IT
IS NOT THE BOASTING OF EMPTY RHETORIC THAT HAS TREATED THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AS THE BASIC SAFEGUARD OF FREEDOM IN THE ANGLO-AMERICAN
WORLD.  "THE GREAT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS HAS BEEN FOR CENTURIES
ESTEEMED THE BEST AND ONLY SUFFICIENT DEFENCE OF PERSONAL FREEDOM." 
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE, WRITING FOR THE COURT, IN EX PARTE YERGER, 8
WALL.  85, 95.  ITS HISTORY AND FUNCTION IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AND THE
UNAVAILABILITY OF THE WRIT IN TOTALITARIAN SOCIETIES ARE NATURALLY
ENOUGH REGARDED AS ONE OF THE DECISIVELY DIFFERENTIATING FACTORS
BETWEEN OUR DEMOCRACY AND TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS. 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WRIT FOR THE MORAL HEALTH OF OUR KIND OF
SOCIETY HAS BEEN AMPLY ATTESTED BY ALL THE GREAT COMMENTATORS,
HISTORIANS AND JURISTS, ON OUR INSTITUTIONS.  IT HAS APPROPRIATELY BEEN
CHARACTERIZED BY HALLAM AS "THE PRINCIPAL BULWARK OF ENGLISH LIBERTY." 
BUT THE WRIT HAS POTENTIALITIES FOR EVIL AS WELL AS FOR GOOD.  ABUSE OF
THE WRIT MAY UNDERMINE THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND
THEREFORE WEAKEN THE FORCES OF AUTHORITY THAT ARE ESSENTIAL FOR
CIVILIZATION. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS FOR BRINGING INTO ACTION A LEGAL
REMEDY HAVING SUCH POTENTIALITIES OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE DEFINED WITH A
PARTICULARITY APPROPRIATE TO LEGAL REMEDIES OF MUCH MORE LIMITED
SCOPE.  TO ATTEMPT RIGID RULES WOULD EITHER GIVE SPURIOUSLY CONCRETE
FORM TO WIDE-RANGING PURPOSES OR BETRAY THE PURPOSES BY STRANGULATING
RIGIDITIES.  EQUALLY UNMINDFUL, HOWEVER, OF THE PURPOSES OF THE WRIT -
ITS HISTORY AND ITS FUNCTIONS - WOULD IT BE TO ADVISE THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT AS TO THEIR DUTY IN REGARD TO HABEAS CORPUS IN TERMS SO
AMBIGUOUS AS IN EFFECT TO LEAVE THEIR INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT UNGUIDED. 
THIS WOULD LEAVE THEM FREE TO MISUSE THE WRIT BY BEING EITHER TOO LAX
OR TOO RIGID IN ITS EMPLOYMENT.  THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT FORMULATE
RULES THAT ARE ABSOLUTE OR OF A DEFINITENESS ALMOST MECHANICALLY
APPLICABLE DOES NOT DISCHARGE US FROM THE DUTY OF TRYING TO BE AS
ACCURATE AND SPECIFIC AS THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT PERMITS. 

IT IS INADMISSIBLE TO DENY THE USE OF THE WRIT MERELY BECAUSE A STATE
COURT HAS PASSED ON A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  THE DISCRETION OF
THE LOWER COURTS MUST BE CANALIZED WITHIN BANKS OF STANDARDS GOVERNING
ALL FEDERAL JUDGES ALIKE, SO AS TO MEAN ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING TO
ALL AND TO LEAVE ONLY THE MARGIN OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT INEVITABLY
ENTAILED BY THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS AND THE INDEFINABLE VARIETY OF
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH BRING IT INTO PLAY. 

FN1  IN NO. 20, DANIELS V. ALLEN, AFTER SPEAKING OF THE DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI, THE DISTRICT JUDGE FELT IT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE "THAT ANY
IMPARTIAL PERSON WOULD CONCLUDE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY
OF THIS CASE THAT IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT PETITIONERS WERE DENIED THE
SUBSTANCE OF A FAIR TRIAL."  HE CONCLUDED THE PETITIONERS HAD HAD A
FAIR TRIAL, THAT THE WRIT SHOULD BE VACATED "BECAUSE NOT AVAILABLE TO
PETITIONERS ON THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY, AND IF SO, THE PETITIONERS ARE
NOT ENTITLED TO DISCHARGE" SINCE THEY DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE THEIR
CHARGES.  DANIELS V. CRAWFORD, 99 F. SUPP. 208, 213, 216.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS STATED THAT IT WAS ONLY NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSITION
THAT PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE WRIT IN VIEW OF THE
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE AND AFFIRMED, SAYING THAT PETITIONERS
COULD NOT BY HABEAS CORPUS CIRCUMVENT THE RESULTS OF THEIR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE STATE PROCEDURAL RULES.  THEIR ALLEGATION OF PECULIAR
HARDSHIP IN ONLY ONE DAY'S DEFAULT IN COMPLYING WITH STATE PROCEDURAL
RULES WAS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN THEIR APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI
"AND, PROPER RESPECT FOR THAT COURT REQUIRES THAT WE ASSUME THAT, IF IT
HAD THOUGHT THAT SUCH ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES OF COURT AMOUNTED TO A
DENIAL OF A FAIR HEARING TO MEN CONDEMNED TO DEATH, IT WOULD HAVE
GRANTED CERTIORARI EITHER TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OR THE
TRIAL COURT AND WOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CASE.  THE CASE FALLS SQUARELY,
WE THINK, WITHIN WHAT WAS SAID BY THE SUPREME COURT IN EX PARTE HAWK,
321 U.S. 114, 118,  ...  ."  DANIELS V. ALLEN, 192 F.2D 763, 768, 769. 

IN NO. 22, SPELLER V. ALLEN, THE DISTRICT COURT STATED THAT IT "FELT
STRONGLY DISPOSED TO DENY THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SOLELY
ON THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY" BUT DECIDED TO HEAR EVIDENCE ON THE MERITS. 
AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE, THE COURT DISMISSED, "UPON THE PROCEDURAL
HISTORY AND THE RECORD IN THE STATE COURTS, FOR THE REASON THAT HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDING IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RAISING THE IDENTICAL QUESTION PASSED UPON IN THOSE COURTS."  FURTHER,
EVEN IF ENTITLED TO RAISE THE SAME QUESTION, PETITIONER DID NOT
SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIMS.  SPELLER V. CRAWFORD, 99 F. SUPP. 92, 95, 97. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS CITED EX PARTE HAWK AND QUOTED FROM ITS OPINION IN
STONEBREAKER V. SMYTH, 163 F.2D 498, 499, TO THE SAME EFFECT AS THE
LANGUAGE IN NO. 20, THAT "PROPER RESPECT" COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE GRANTED CERTIORARI HAD IT THOUGHT
PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED.  SPELLER V. ALLEN, 192
F.2D 477, 478. 

IN NO. 32, BROWN V. ALLEN, THE DISTRICT COURT RELIED ON STONEBREAKER
V. SMYTH AND DENIED THE WRIT, NOTING THAT PETITIONER HAD APPARENTLY HAD
A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL IN THE STATE COURTS AND THAT THE SUPREME
COURT HAD REFUSED TO REVIEW THE STATE COURT ACTION.  BROWN V. CRAWFORD,
98 F. SUPP. 866.   THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED THE CASE TOGETHER
WITH NO. 22, AND, AS STATED ABOVE, AFFIRMED. 

FN2  AN ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE THE FACTUAL CONTEXT OF A STATISTICALLY
REPRESENTATIVE GROUP OF HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATIONS IS SUMMARIZED IN THE
APPENDIX, POST, P. 514; THE STUDY THERE REPORTED REFLECTS THE
EXAMINATION OF THE 126 SUPREME COURT FILES IN CASES IN WHICH CERTIORARI
WAS DENIED TO STATE PRISONERS DURING THE OCTOBER 1950 TERM AND HABEAS
CORPUS APPLICATIONS SUBSEQUENTLY MADE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, AND
EXAMINATION OF MATERIALS OBTAINED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRES SENT TO
THE DISTRICT CLERKS CONCERNING THE APPLICATIONS AND THE DISPOSITIONS OF
THOSE 126 CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

FN3  SEE APPENDIX, POST, P. 516.  AS SHOWN THERE, ONLY 13 OF 126
PETITIONS WERE DRAWN BY LAWYERS; OTHERS, OF COURSE, MAY HAVE BEEN DRAWN
BY LAWYERS EITHER IN OR OUT OF PRISON WHO DID NOT CHOOSE TO SIGN THE
PETITION.  BUT OUR EXPERIENCE AFFIRMS THE CONCLUSION SET FORTH IN THE
SURVEY BASED ON ONE TEST OF THE LEGAL ADEQUACY OF THE PETITIONS, THAT
IN A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES, THE PETITIONS MUST BE COMBED THROUGH TO
FIND THE ISSUES, CERTAINLY MUCH MORE SO THAN IS TRUE OF THE ORDINARY
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI. 

FN4  SEE APPENDIX, POST, PP. 516-517 AND TABLE 1, POST, PP. 518-519. 
THE FACT THAT WE RARELY DO HAVE SUFFICIENT PAPERS MAY ACCOUNT FOR OUR
DISPUTES, EVEN IN THE CASES WE GRANT, AS TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED BELOW. 
SEE, E.G., UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, 335 U.S. 437.  AT THE VERY LEAST, WE
WOULD WANT TO HAVE THE PETITIONS AND THE ORDERS BELOW, BUT EVEN AS TO
THIS MINIMUM, AS TABLE 1, PART 2 SHOWS (ITEM "A AND C"), IN ONLY 53 OF
THE 114 CASES IN WHICH THE ISSUES WERE RAISED AFTER TRIAL WAS THIS
MINIMUM AVAILABLE TO US. 

FN5  SEE APPENDIX, TABLE 1, PART 2, POST, P. 519. 

FN6  SEE APPENDIX, TABLE 1, PART 1, POST, P. 518. 

FN7  SEE APPENDIX, POST, PP. 525-526. 

FN8  SEE APPENDIX, TABLE 2, POST, P. 523. 

FN9  SEE APPENDIX, COLUMN 3 OF TABLE 1, POST, P. 518. 

FN10  IN 2 CASES OF THE 126 STUDIED, AN ORDER WAS ENTERED IN THIS
COURT RETURNING ORIGINAL PAPERS TO THE PETITIONER.  ALTOGETHER, AMONG
THE 329 APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW OF STATE DENIALS OF RELIEF TO STATE
PRISONERS IN THE 1950 TERM, 3 SUCH ORDERS WERE ENTERED. 

FN11  HABEAS CORPUS CASES IN THE FEDERAL COURT BROUGHT BY STATE
PRISONERS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS 4 (DEC.
16, 1952).  SEE ALSO APPENDIX, POST, PP. 526-527 AND ESPECIALLY 526, N.
19, DISCUSSING THE RELUCTANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT THE ONE
APPLICATION OUT OF THE 126 THERE SURVEYED WHICH WAS GRANTED. 

FN12  THE PROPOSAL HAS NOW BEEN ABANDONED.  SEE REP. JUD.  CONF.,
1947, P. 17.  A SUGGESTION OF MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY ON THE SUBJECT, EX
PARTE BRIDGES, LOC.  CIT.  SUPRA, IS REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSAL OF THE
CONFERENCE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICES OF THE STATES THAT THE FINAL JUDGMENT
OF A STATE'S HIGHEST COURT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING "BE SUBJECT TO
REVIEW OR REVERSAL ONLY BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  25
STATE GOVERNMENT 249-250 (NOVEMBER 1952). 

FN13  THE APPENDIX SHOWS A WIDE VARIETY OF PROCEDURES USED TO
ACCOMODATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO THE NEEDS OF PETITIONERS ILL
EQUIPPED TO STATE WHATEVER CLAIMS THEY MAY HAVE.  SEE APPENDIX, TABLE
4, POST, P. 528, AND POST, P. 527.  BY ANY STANDARD, THE APPLICATIONS
FOR HABEAS CORPUS ARE VERY OFTEN WOEFULLY INADEQUATE TO APPRISE THE
JUDGE OF THE CLAIM.  SEE APPENDIX, POST, PP. 522-523. 

FN14  SEE APPENDIX, TABLE 1, POST, PP. 518-519. 

FN15  SEE PP. 500-501, SUPRA, AND PP. 507-508, POST. 

FN16  OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE REED, SUPRA, P. 461. 

FN17  MR. JUSTICE REED'S CITATION OF WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S.
275, TO INDICATE WHAT MIGHT BE A "PROPER" CASE IN WHICH TO HOLD A
HEARING IS PUZZLING, FOR THAT CASE REQUIRES, IN HABEAS CORPUS ACTIONS
BY FEDERAL PRISONERS, THAT A HEARING BE HELD IF THE APPLICATION AND THE
ANSWER OR RETURN TO THE WRIT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT. 

FN18  THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2243, "WHEN THE WRIT OR ORDER IS RETURNED
A DAY SHALL BE SET FOR HEARING  ...  ," HARDLY REQUIRES A HEARING IN
EVERY CASE IN WHICH A WRIT IS ISSUED.  JUST AS THE DISTRICT JUDGE MAY
DENY AN APPLICATION WITHOUT A HEARING IF THE RETURN SHOWS THAT
APPLICANT FAILED TO EXHAUST THE STATE REMEDY - AS HE CERTAINLY MAY DO -
SO MAY HE DISPOSE OF THE CASE WITHOUT A HEARING IF THE RETURN
CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS APPLICANT'S FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. 

FN19  SEE PP. 507-508, POST. 

FN20  SEE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME AFFAIRS V. O'BRIEN, 1923 A.C.
603, 610, WHERE THE HOUSE OF LORDS RULED THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT "IN
TERMS THE WORDS OF SEC. 3 OF THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION ACT OF 1876, 39
& 40 VICT.  380 ARE WIDE ENOUGH TO GIVE AN APPEAL IN SUCH A MATTER AS
THE PRESENT," THE HOUSE OF LORDS HAS NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN APPEAL
IN A HABEAS CORPUS CASE THAT WENT IN FAVOR OF "THE LIBERTY OF THE
SUBJECT."  IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT BY THIS DECISION THE HOUSE OF LORDS
APPLIED AND EXTENDED AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS (COX V.
HAKES, 15 A.C. 506 (1890)) IN WHICH SO POWERFUL A GROUP OF JUDGES AS
LORD HALSBURY L.C. AND LORDS WATSON, BRAMWELL, HERSCHELL AND MACNAGHTEN
JOINED.  THE TENOR OF THAT DECISION IS SUFFICIENTLY INDICATED BY THE
QUOTATIONS THAT FOLLOW.  LORD HALSBURY WROTE: 

"IN DAYS OF TECHNICAL PLEADING NO INFORMALITY WAS ALLOWED TO PREVENT
THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF THE RIGHT OF THE SUBJECT TO HIS LIBERTY
BEING HEARD AND DETERMINED.  THE RIGHT TO AN INSTANT DETERMINATION AS
TO THE LAWFULNESS OF AN EXISTING IMPRISONMENT, AND THE TWOFOLD QUALITY
OF SUCH A DETERMINATION THAT, IF FAVOURABLE TO LIBERTY IT WAS WITHOUT
APPEAL, AND IF UNFAVOURABLE IT MIGHT BE RENEWED UNTIL EACH JURISDICTION
HAD IN TURN BEEN EXHAUSTED, HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN POINTED OUT BY
JUDGES AS SECURING IN A MARKED AND EXCEPTIONAL MANNER THE PERSONAL
FREEDOM OF THE SUBJECT.  IT WAS NOT A PROCEEDING IN A SUIT BUT WAS A
SUMMARY APPLICATION BY THE PERSON DETAINED."  15 A.C., AT 514-515. 
AND THIS IS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF LORD HERSCHELL: 

"NO COURT WAS BOUND BY THE VIEW TAKEN BY ANY OTHER, OR FELT ITSELF
OBLIGED TO FOLLOW THE LAW LAID DOWN BY IT.  EACH COURT EXERCISED ITS
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT UPON THE CASE, AND DETERMINED FOR ITSELF WHETHER
THE RETURN TO THE WRIT ESTABLISHED THAT THE DETENTION OF THE APPLICANT
WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.  A PERSON DETAINED IN CUSTODY MIGHT
THUS PROCEED FROM COURT TO COURT UNTIL HE OBTAINED HIS LIBERTY  ...  .
I NEED NOT DWELL UPON THE SECURITY WHICH WAS THUS AFFORDED AGAINST ANY
UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT NO PERSON COULD BE
DETAINED IN CUSTODY IF ANY ONE OF THE TRIBUNALS HAVING POWER TO ISSUE
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS OF OPINION THAT THE CUSTODY WAS
UNLAWFUL."  ID., AT 527-528. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. 

WE AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER THAT OUR PREVIOUS DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI IN A CASE SHOULD BE GIVEN NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE WHEN AN
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THAT CASE COMES BEFORE A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  WE ALSO AGREE IN SUBSTANCE WITH THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED IN PART II OF HIS OPINION CONCERNING THE BEARING OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS UPON THE DISPOSITION OF AN APPLICATION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 

                         APPENDIX TO OPINION OF

                        MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

WITH A VIEW TO FORMULATING WISE PROCEDURES FOR THE EXERCISE OF
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION ON APPLICATIONS BY STATE PRISONERS,
A STUDY WAS MADE OF ALL FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS
CORPUS BY PRISONERS SERVING SENTENCES IN STATE PRISONS WHOSE PRIOR
APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT FROM
STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN DENIED DURING THE OCTOBER 1950 TERM. 
(FN1)  THAT TERM, THE FIRST FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN DARR V. BURFORD,
WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE OF THE GREATER LIKELIHOOD THAT HABEAS CORPUS ACTIONS
INITIATED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOLLOWING A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN
THAT TERM WOULD BE TERMINATED THAN WOULD BE TRUE OF CASES IN WHICH
CERTIORARI IN THE OCTOBER 1950 TERM AND THE NUMBER OF SUBSEQUENT
APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS CAN FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE TYPICAL. 

A LIST OF ALL SUCH PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI WAS COMPARED WITH LISTS
OF ALL HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATIONS IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS FROM
OCTOBER, 1950, UNTIL MAY, 1952.  (FN2)  AS A RESULT, 126 DIFFERENT
PETITIONERS (FN3) WHOSE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI OR OTHER COMPARABLE
RELIEF (FN4) FROM STATE DECISIONS WERE DENIED HERE WERE FOUND TO HAVE
BROUGHT SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS (FN5) IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS. 
THEREUPON, A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS SENT OUT CONCERNING EACH HABEAS CORPUS
APPLICATION, AND THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONNAIRES, TOGETHER WITH A
STUDY OF SUPREME COURT FILES, FORM THE BASIS FOR THE SURVEY. 

THE DATA ARE HERE SET OUT IN CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE AND NOT ARRANGED
WITH RELATION TO THE ISSUES THEY AFFECT.  THE INFORMATION CONCERNING
THE SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS IS SET OUT FIRST, IN PART I, AND IN PART
II THAT CONCERNING THE ACTIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

             I. PAPERS AND DISPOSITION IN SUPREME COURT.  (FN6) 

A. THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  (FN7) 

IN 97 OF THE 126 CASES ONLY THE ORIGINAL OF THE PETITION WAS FILED;
IN THE OTHER 29 CASES, AT LEAST ONE COPY OF THE PETITION WAS FILED, BUT
IN ONLY TWO CASES WERE THERE THE MINIMUM NINE COPIES REQUIRED OF THE
ORDINARY PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  ONE-HALF OF THE PETITIONS CONTAINED
NINE PAGES OR LESS. 

OF THE 126 PETITIONS, 13 WERE SIGNED BY LAWYERS.  IN A CLASSIFICATION
OF THE OTHER PETITIONS ACCORDING TO THE DEGREE OF FAMILIARITY WITH LAW
SHOWN BY THE PETITIONERS, 53 PETITIONS WERE FOUND NOT EVEN TO MEET A
GENEROUS STANDARD REQUIRING ONLY THAT THE PETITIONER INTELLIGIBLY
ALLEGE SOME FACTS AND MAKE SOME MINIMUM ATTEMPT TO CONNECT THOSE FACTS
TO A LEGAL PRINCIPLE, WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINCIPLE WAS VALID OR EVEN
ARGUABLE. 

B. PAPERS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

FOUR OF THE PETITIONERS WHOSE PAPERS ARE STILL ON FILE HERE (FN8)
SUBMITTED OVER 300 PAGES OF PAPERS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  THE OTHER 120 PETITIONERS FILED AN AVERAGE OF UNDER 30
PAGES OF SUPPORTING PAPERS PER CASE. 

FULL RECORDS, THOUGH IN TWO CASES NOT IN DUE FORM, WERE FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN EIGHT CASES, WHILE EXCERPTS FROM THE RECORDS BOTH OF THE
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND OF THE STATE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH PETITIONER
ASSAILED THE VALIDITY OF THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS WERE FILED IN ANOTHER 51
CASES, AS IS SHOWN IN TABLE 1.  NO PAPERS FROM THE RECORD BELOW WERE
FILED IN 24 OF 125 CASES.  AMONG THE EXCERPTS FROM THE RECORDS FILED,
IN 26 CASES A STATE COURT OPINION (FN9) WAS FILED FROM SOME PROCEEDING
IN WHICH THE SAME ISSUES WERE PRESENTED.  THERE WAS NO CITATION TO, OR
FILING OF, AN OPINION OR MEMORANDUM ORDER IN 46 OF THE CASES.  THE
FIRST COLUMN OF TABLE 1 (FN10) SHOWS IN DETAIL WHAT PAPERS FROM THE
RECORD BELOW WERE FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT. 

TABLE 1.  PAPERS FILED IN SUPREME COURT AND COMPARISON WITH PAPERS
FILED IN DISTRICT COURT*

                                         PART 1

                            NUMBER OF CASES    NUMBER OF CASES
DATA ALLEGED TO BE

IN SUPREME COURT   IN DISTRICT COURT*  IN SUPREME COURT* 

I. FILING OF RECORD BELOW. 

TOTAL CASES FOR WHICH DATA AVAILABLE     125  100.0%      123
100.0%      122    100% 

NO PART OF RECORD BELOW FILED             24   19.2        35 28.5
115    94.3 

RECORD BELOW OR EXCERPTS FILED      101   80.8        88     71.5
7     5.7 

FULL RECORD                           8                 6       0 

EXCERPTS FROM BOTH TRIAL AND ATTACK* 46     42                  3 

EXCERPTS FROM TRIAL WHERE NO ATTACK   5   59            3  51
0   3 

EXCERPTS FROM ATTACK ONLY                 36               20      4 

EXCERPTS FROM TRIAL ONLY                   6        17
0 

II.  FILING OF OPINION OR ORDER BELOW. 

TOTAL CASES FOR WHICH DATA AVAILABLE     126         122
122 

OPINION BELOW FILED          26                16                  3 

OPINION BELOW CITED                   3                 4   0 

EXCERPTS FROM OPINION BELOW FILED     1   30  1  21              0
3 

ORDER BELOW, FILED OR QUOTED          50               26
2 

MERE REFERENCE OR LESS TO ORDER BELOW     46               75      3 

NOTHING ALLEGED TO SHOW DISTRICT 

COURT WHAT WAS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
  114 

*SEE FOOTNOTE 10, SUPRA, FOR EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS USED IN THE
TABLE.  THE STATISTICS IN THE SECOND AND THIRD COLUMNS ARE DISCUSSED AT
P. 522 ET SEQ., POST. 

TABLE 1.  PAPERS FILED IN DISTRICT COURT AND COMPARISON WITH PAPERS
FILED IN SUPREME COURT - CONTINUED. 

  PART 2

                                   NUMBER OF CASES IN   NUMBER OF
CASES IN   DATA ALLEGED TO

                       SUPREME COURT         DISTRICT COURT  BE IN
SUPREME COURT

                                    TRIAL*   ATTACK*     TRIAL
ATTACK     TRIAL   ATTACK 

III.  PLEADINGS, ORDERS, AND TRANSCRIPTS. 

TOTAL CASES FOR WHICH DATA AVAILABLE     125    114         123
112        122      111 

A. ORDERS OR OPINIONS*                   52     71          47
37          2        4 

B. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS*            18      4          14
3  1        1 

C. MOTIONS OR PETITIONS*                 12  67           5       34
   0        3 

IV.  PLEADINGS, ORDERS, AND TRANSCRIPTS 

BY CASES. 

TOTAL CASES FOR WHICH DATA AVAILABLE     125    114         123
112        122      111 

A, B AND C ABOVE                           7   3           4        2
    0        0 

A ONLY                             40     14          39       18
2        2 

B ONLY 7      0           7        1          1        1 

C ONLY                                   2     11           0
15          0        1 

A AND B      3      1           3        0          0        0 

A AND C                                    2     53           1    17
    0        2 

B AND C           1      0           0        0          0        0 

TOTAL, SOME OF ABOVE PAPERS FILED         62     82          54
53          3        6

       (49.6%) (72.0%)    (43.9%)  (47.3%)     (2.5%)   (5.4%) 

*SEE FOOTNOTE 10, SUPRA, FOR EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS IN THE TABLE. 

C. ISSUES PRESENTED. 

THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS VARIED FROM SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
CLAIMS TO QUESTIONS PURELY OF STATE LAW.  IN A SORTING OF THE PETITIONS
ACCORDING TO THE CLAIM THAT SEEMED THE PRINCIPAL OR MOST SUBSTANTIAL
ONE, TWO OR THREE CLAIMS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MOST OFTEN ASSERTED AS
THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM:  THE INADEQUACY OF COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATION BY
COUNSEL NOT OF PETITIONER'S CHOOSING WAS CLAIMED AS THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE
IN 14 CASES; IN ANOTHER 14, THE SENTENCES IMPOSED WERE ATTACKED AS
ILLEGAL, EXCESSIVE OR DISCRIMINATORY; IN 10 CASES, A CLAIM WAS MADE
THAT THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KNOWINGLY USED PERJURED EVIDENCE OR
SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE.  IN GENERAL, ERRORS IN THE PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
WERE ASSERTED AS THE MAIN CLAIM IN 8 CASES, ERRORS IN THE INDICTMENT OR
INFORMATION IN 7, ERRORS AFFECTING THE PLEAS IN 14, CONCERNING
REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL IN 31, AFFECTING THE TRIAL INCLUDING
INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, PREJUDICE, AND DELAY IN 41, AND ERRORS
SURROUNDING THE SENTENCE IN 17.  MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS SUCH AN DENIALS
OF A RIGHT TO APPEAL OR TO A POST-TRIAL HEARING AND DEFECTS IN
EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS TOTALED 8. 

PERHAPS OF MOST SIGNIFICANCE TO THE CENTRAL PROBLEM HERE WAS THE
DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE SUPREME COURT AND THOSE MADE
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS.  THIS COMPARISON WILL BE MADE IN PART II,
DEALING WITH THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS.  (FN11) 

D. RESPONSES FILED BY THE STATES, AND FINAL DISPOSITION IN THE
SUPREME COURT. 

TABLE 1, SUPRA, SHOWS WHAT PAPERS WERE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND
NOT NECESSARILY ALL THE PAPERS BEFORE THE COURT.  IN 15 OF THE 126
CASES, THE SUPREME COURT, EITHER BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE
ALLEGATIONS OR THE INADEQUACY OF THE RECORD AS PRESENTED BY THE
PETITIONER, CALLED FOR A RESPONSE BY THE STATE.  FOURTEEN RESPONSES
WERE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE REQUESTS.  IN ADDITION, THE DOCKET
OF THE SUPREME COURT SHOWS THAT RESPONSES WERE FILED BY THE STATE IN
ANOTHER 7 CASES.  IN 10 OF THE 21 RESPONSES IN THESE CASES, ADDITIONAL
PARTS OF THE RECORD NOT ALREADY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS THUS CAME
BEFORE THE COURT, BUT THE ADDITIONS DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE
PICTURE PRESENTED IN TABLE 1.  FOR EXAMPLE, TABLE 1, PART 1, SHOWS THAT
IN 30 CASES, THE PETITIONER FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT THE OPINION
BELOW OR EXCERPTS OR CITED THE OPINION; THE STATES FILED THE OPINION
BELOW WITH THEIR RESPONSES IN AN ADDITIONAL 4 CASES.  LIKE
MODIFICATIONS, IN NO INSTANCE EXCEEDING 5 CASES, WOULD BE MADE IN OTHER
OF THE ITEMS IN TABLE 1 IF IT INCLUDED PAPERS FILED BY THE STATE. 

THE DISPOSITION OF THESE CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT IS MARKED
CONTRAST WITH THE DISPOSITION OF ORDINARY PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI. 
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI BY STATE PRISONERS FROM STATE DENIALS OF
RELIEF AND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS TO THIS COURT ARE ALMOST ALWAYS
FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND CONSTITUTE ABOUT 60% OF ALL PETITIONS IN
FORMA PAUPERIS.  SINCE, AS THIS STUDY INDICATES, THEY ARE ONLY RARELY
FILED BY LAWYERS AND SELDOM ACCOMPANIED BY ADEQUATE RECORDS, THE
DECISION WHETHER TO ENTERTAIN THESE CASES IS NECESSARILY MADE UPON LESS
INFORMATION AND WITH GREATER DISPATCH THAN WITH ORDINARY PETITIONS FOR
CERTIORARI.  A ROUGH INDEX TO THE DISPOSITION OF THESE CASES AS
COMPARED WITH ORDINARY PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI IS AFFORDED BY
PUBLISHED FIGURES SHOWING THE PROPORTION OF PETITIONS GRANTED.  WHILE
15.2% OF THE ORDINARY PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI ARE GRANTED, ONLY 4.2%
OF THE IN FORMA PETITIONS AND NO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE
GRANTED DURING THE 1950 TERM.  (FN12) 

ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE CERTIORARI JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT ORDINARILY IS NOT TO BE EXERCISED MERELY BECAUSE A DECISION BELOW
MAY BE WRONG, AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO INDICATE IN TERMS OF
CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING THE CERTIORARI JURISDICTION THE SORT OF
QUESTION PRESENTED.  (FN13) QUESTIONS PURELY OF STATE LAW SEEMED TO BE
THE CHIEF CLAIM OF 30 PETITIONS.  QUESTIONS PROBABLY NOT OF SUFFICIENT
GENERAL IMPORTANCE TO WARRANT THE EXERCISE OF THE CERTIORARI
JURISDICTION SEEMED THE CHIEF CLAIMS IN ANOTHER 61 CASES, 44 BECAUSE
THE ISSUE WAS ONE PRIMARILY OF FACT AND 17 BECAUSE THE ISSUE RAISED NO
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE NOT ALREADY DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT.  EIGHTEEN
CASES DEFIED CLASSIFICATION ON THIS BASIS.  THE REMAINING 17 CASES
PRESENTED QUESTIONS OF PRINCIPLE, ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY EVEN OF THESE
PROBABLY DID NOT PRESENT QUESTIONS OF THE GRAVITY OR GENERAL IMPORTANCE
USUALLY REQUISITE IN OTHER AREAS FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI. 

        II.  PAPERS AND DISPOSITION IN DISTRICT COURT. 

REQUESTS WERE SENT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
COURTS TO THE CLERKS IN ALL DISTRICTS IN WHICH THERE WERE APPLICATIONS
FOR HABEAS CORPUS SUBSEQUENT TO A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN THE OCTOBER
1950 TERM.  IN ADDITION TO A REQUEST FOR ALL DOCKET ENTRIES AND ORDERS
OR OPINIONS, THE CLERKS WERE REQUESTED TO SEND COPIES OF ALL PERTINENT
PAPERS FILED IN THE ACTION BY THE APPLICANT OR TO ANSWER A
QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING THOSE PAPERS.  IN THE BULK OF THE CASES, THE
ORIGINAL PAPERS OR COPIES OF THEM WERE FORWARDED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE; THESE PAPERS, TOGETHER WITH THE ANSWERED QUESTIONNAIRES IN THE
OTHER CASES, WERE THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS.    A. THE
APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 

THREE APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN AND WERE
UNAVAILABLE; OF THE REMAINING 123, 17 WERE DRAWN BY LAWYERS.  THIRTY
FOUR FAILED TO MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SHOWING SOME DEGREE OF
FAMILIARITY WITH LAW REFERRED TO IN CONNECTION WITH THE PETITIONS FOR
CERTIORARI.  (FN14) OF 122 APPLICATIONS FOR WHICH DATA WERE AVAILABLE,
101 WERE TYPED OR PRINTED.  THE NUMBER OF PAGES RAN SLIGHTLY LESS THAN
IN THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI; (FN15) 67 APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS
CORPUS CONTAINED 9 PAGES OR LESS, WHILE 56 CONTAINED 10 OR MORE. 

B. SUPPORTING PAPERS FILED:  REFERENCE TO CERTIORARI. 

TABLE 2 BELOW SHOWS TO WHAT DEGREE THE APPLICANT INFORMED THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE PREVIOUS CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS, AND DEMONSTRATES
THAT IN ABOUT 10% OF THE CASES THERE WAS NOT EVEN A REFERENCE BY THE
APPLICANT TO THE FACT THAT HE HAD PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI.  FURTHER,
IN THE LARGE MAJORITY OF CASES, THERE WAS SIMPLY AN ALLEGATION THAT A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HAD BEEN FILED AND DENIED.  IN LESS THAN 10% OF
THE CASES DID THE APPLICANT FILE ANY PAPERS WHICH WOULD SERVE TO
INDICATE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WHAT QUESTIONS WERE BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT. 

    TABLE 2.  FILING OF PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN DISTRICT COURT
(FN16) 

TOTAL CASES FOR WHICH DATA AVAILABLE                            123
100.0% 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED: 

CERTIFIED PETITION                   1 

UNCERTIFIED PETITION             10 

EXCERPTS FROM PETITION         1 

TOTAL, PETITION OR EXCERPTS FILED                 12         9.8 

MERE REFERENCE TO DENIAL OF CERTIORARI             98 

NO REFERENCE TO CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS             13 

TOTAL, NO INFORMATION AS TO CONTENTS OF 

PETITION        111        90.2 

C. SUPPORTING PAPERS FILED:  REFERENCE TO STATE PROCEEDINGS. 

SOMEWHAT FEWER PAPERS, ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS, WERE FILED BY
APPLICANTS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS THAN IN THE SUPREME COURT CONCERNING
THE RECORD IN THE STATE COURTS.  THERE SEEMS NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS
DIFFERENCE.  (FN17)  OF CHIEF SIGNIFICANCE, HOWEVER, WAS THE EXTENT TO
WHICH PAPERS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS MAY HAVE LEARNED IN ORAL ARGUMENT OR BY
OTHER MEANS WHETHER THE PAPERS HAD BEEN FILED PREVIOUSLY IN THE SUPREME
COURT, BUT SINCE SUCH INFORMATION WAS THOUGHT IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN, IT
WAS NECESSARY TO LIMIT THE INQUIRY TO ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PAPERS HAD
ALSO BEEN BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.  THE ALMOST NEGLIGIBLE NUMBER OF
CASES IN WHICH THE PAPERS FILED WERE ALLEGED ALSO TO HAVE BEEN BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT IS STRIKING.  EVEN IN CASES CONDUCTED THROUGHOUT BY
APPARENTLY COMPETENT COUNSEL, SUCH ALLEGATIONS WERE OFTEN NOT MADE. 
THE FAILURE TO MAKE THESE ALLEGATIONS MAY REFLECT EITHER A FEAR OF
COUNSEL OR APPLICANTS WITHOUT COUNSEL THAT A DEMONSTRATION OF THE
PRESENTATION MADE TO THE SUPREME COURT WOULD PREJUDICE THEIR CASES OR
PERHAPS A FEELING THAT IT IS UNIMPORTANT TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE THAT THE
PAPERS HAD ALSO BEEN BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.  IN ANY EVENT, IT HAS
NOT BEEN A PRACTICE, APPARENTLY, TO ALLEGE WHAT PAPERS WERE BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT.  COLUMNS 2 AND 3 OF TABLE 1, SUPRA, SET OUT INFORMATION
EXACTLY PARALLEL TO THAT CONTAINED IN COLUMN 1, WHICH SHOWS WHAT PAPERS
FROM THE STATE PROCEEDINGS WERE FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT.  COLUMN 2
SHOWS THE SAME INFORMATION FOR THE DISTRICT COURT, AND COLUMN 3 SHOWS
HOW MANY OF THE PAPERS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND THEN FILED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT. 
COMPARISON OF COLUMNS 1 AND 3 SHOWS TO WHAT EXTENT PAPERS ACTUALLY
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN THERE.  FOR EXAMPLE,
IN 30 CASES THE SUPREME COURT HAD SOME INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
OPINION IN THE STATE PROCEEDINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS TOLD,
HOWEVER, THAT THE OPINION HAD BEEN BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN ONLY 3
OF THOSE 30 CASES.  COLUMN 2 SHOWS THAT ALTOGETHER THERE WERE 21 CASES
IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURTS HAD INFORMATION CONCERNING THE OPINION. 

A SYNOPTIC VIEW OF THE COMPARISONS MADE IN TABLE 1 CAN BE HAD BY
COMPARING THE LINE INDICATING THE NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH THE RECORD
OR EXCERPTS WERE FILED.  THUS, IN OVER 80% OF THE CASES, THE SUPREME
COURT HAD SOME PART OF THE STATE COURT RECORD, WHILE IN JUST OVER 70%
OF THE CASES, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD SOME PART OF THE STATE COURT
RECORD.  IN LESS THAN 6% OF THE CASES WAS THE DISTRICT COURT TOLD BY
ALLEGATION THAT THE PARTS OF THE RECORD BEFORE IT HAD BEEN IN THE
SUPREME COURT. 

D. ISSUES RAISED. 

THE ISSUES RAISED WERE OF COURSE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS THOSE
RAISED IN THE SUPREME COURT, WITH ONLY INSUBSTANTIAL VARIATION FROM THE
FIGURES GIVEN ABOVE (FN18) FOR THE TYPES OF CLAIMS RAISED IN THE
SUPREME COURT.  BUT OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE WAS A COMPARISON OF THE CLAIMS
IN THE SUPREME COURT WITH THOSE MADE BY THE SAME PETITIONERS LATER IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS.  IN THE 125 CASES FOR WHICH DATA WERE AVAILABLE,
THE CHIEF CLAIM MADE IN THE SUPREME COURT WAS ALSO THE CHIEF CLAIM MADE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN 105 CASES.  THAT NUMBER, OF COURSE, IS SUBJECT
TO SOME SUBJECTIVE ERROR BECAUSE OF POSSIBLY DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS
OF WHAT THE CHIEF CLAIM OF AN UNCLEAR AND UNLAWYERLIKE PETITION IS.
PERHAPS MORE SIGNIFICANT ARE SUMMARIES MADE WHICH SHOW THAT THE CLAIM
THAT WAS CONSIDERED THE CHIEF CLAIM IN THE SUPREME COURT REAPPEARED,
BUT NOT NECESSARILY AS THE CHIEF CLAIM, IN 107 OF THE DISTRICT COURT
CASES; CONVERSELY, IN 117 CASES, THE CHIEF CLAIM BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD BEEN RAISED IN THE SUPREME COURT PETITION.  THESE DATA
INDICATE ONLY THAT IT CANNOT ALWAYS BE ASSUMED THAT EVEN ON THE RECORD
AND IN THE SAME COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, THE EMPHASIS ON VARIOUS CLAIMS
RAISED WILL BE THE SAME.  FURTHER, IN SOME CASES, THE CLAIMS RAISED IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AT ALL IN THE SUPREME
COURT. 

E. DISPOSITION OF THE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

IN ONLY 1 CASE OF THE 126 WAS THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD ORIGINALLY DENIED THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT
BECAUSE OF A RELUCTANCE TO REVIEW AN APPLICATION ALREADY PASSED ON BY
THE HIGHEST STATE COURT, BUT AFTER REVERSAL ON APPEAL, (FN19) THE WRIT
WAS GRANTED.  IN 120, THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT HAS BEEN DENIED, AND
5 ARE STILL PENDING, 1 ON REMAND FROM APPEAL.  TABLE 3 SETS OUT THE
EXTENT TO WHICH APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS BEEN SOUGHT OR
TAKEN.  IT SHOWS THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DECISIONS ON APPEAL IN 14 CASES
WITH REVERSALS IN 3.  OF THOSE 3 CASES REVERSED AND REMANDED, ONE IS
PENDING, IN ONE THE WRIT HAS BEEN GRANTED AND IN THE THIRD THE
APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN. 

             TABLE 3.  APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS 

TOTAL CASES FOR WHICH DATA AVAILABLE
   126 

NO ENTRIES AS TO APPEAL ON DISTRICT COURT DOCKET   66 

CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE DENIED, OR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS DENIED                                 29 

APPEAL DISMISSED; MANDAMUS DISMISSED
     5 

APPEAL PENDING                 8 

AFFIRMED ON APPEAL                                       11 

REVERSED AND REMANDED ON APPEAL
     3 

A VARIETY OF PROCEDURES WERE ADOPTED IN THESE CASES BY THE DISTRICT
COURTS IN DEALING WITH THE APPLICATIONS.  CHIEF AMONG THE ORDERS
ENTERED OTHER THAN TO DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS WITHOUT MORE WERE ORDERS
TO SHOW CAUSE OR TO ANSWER, AS TABLE 4 SHOWS.  IN 23 CASES, A LAWYER
WAS APPOINTED EITHER AS AN AMICUS OR AS COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT.  IN
SOME CASES, THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS ISSUED TO BRING THE APPLICANT
BEFORE THE COURT.  TABLE 4 SHOWS WHICH OF THE DEVICES WERE USED AND IN
WHAT COMBINATIONS. 

              TABLE 4.  PROCEDURES USED IN DISPOSING OF
APPLICATIONS 

TOTAL CASES FOR WHICH DATA AVAILABLE
123       100.0% 

APPLICATIONS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT MORE
56      45.6% 

ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE OR ANSWER: 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE                                         37 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; COUNSEL APPOINTED 

FOR APPLICANT                                  4 

ORDER TO ANSWER                                      3 

ORDER TO ANSWER; AMICUS APPOINTED                            3 

WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED: 

WRIT ISSUED                  2 

WRIT ISSUED; COUNSEL APPOINTED FOR APPLICANT                 3 

WRITS AND ORDERS: 

WRIT ISSUED; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE                             1 

WRIT ISSUED; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; COUNSEL 

APPOINTED FOR APPLICANT                                   5 

LAWYERS APPOINTED: 

AS AMICUS, IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER ORDERS 

ALREADY LISTED ABOVE                                       (3) 

AS COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT, IN CONNECTION WITH 

OTHER ORDERS ALREADY LISTED ABOVE                         (12) 

AS AMICUS WITHOUT OTHER ORDER                                2 

AS COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT WITHOUT OTHER 

ORDER                         6 

A HEARING OF SOME KIND WAS GIVEN IN 44 CASES OF THE 122 FOR WHICH
DATA ARE AVAILABLE.  (FN20)  THE OTHER 22 CASES NOT DISPOSED OF WITHOUT
MORE WERE DISPOSED OF BY WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION (ONE CASE) OR
AFTER THE ANSWER, THE REPORT OF THE AMICUS, OR BOTH.  CERTAIN DATA
CONCERNING THE HEARINGS ARE SET OUT IN TABLE 5.  TABLE 5 SHOWS WHAT
PROCEDURES WERE USED AND HOW LONG THE HEARING LASTED.  IT SHOWS THAT
THE APPLICANT WAS PRESENT AT 26 HEARINGS, WITH COUNSEL ALSO IN 17 OF
THOSE CASES.  THE APPLICANT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN 31 CASES, BUT
THE APPLICANT HIMSELF WAS NOT PRESENT IN 14 OF THOSE 31 CASES.  THE
LENGTH OF THE HEARINGS FOR WHICH DATA WERE AVAILABLE WAS AN HOUR OR
LESS IN TWO-THIRDS OF THE CASES. 

         TABLE 5.  PRESENCE AT HEARING AND LENGTH OF HEARING 

I. TOTAL CASES IN WHICH HEARINGS HELD                     44 

DATA UNAVAILABLE                                             1 

APPLICANT AND COUNSEL PRESENT    17 

APPLICANT PRESENT WITHOUT COUNSEL                            9 

APPLICANT ABSENT BUT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL (FN21)
    14 

APPLICANT ABSENT AND NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL           3 

II.  TOTAL CASES FOR WHICH DATA AS TO LENGTH OF HEARING AVAILABLE. 
(FN22)     24 

LENGTH OF HEARING: 

FIFTEEN MINUTES OR LESS                 2 

FIFTEEN TO THIRTY MINUTES                                        8 

THIRTY MINUTES TO ONE HOUR
     6 

TOTAL, ONE HOUR OR LESS                      16 

TWO HOURS                                              1 

TWO AND A HALF HOURS      1 

THREE HOURS                             1 

FOUR HOURS                                                    4 

THREE DAYS            1 

TOTAL, OVER ONE HOUR                                   8 

THE AVERAGE TIME OF DISPOSITION OF APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS WAS 59.4 DAYS, (FN23) AS COMPARED WITH THE
DISPOSITION TIME IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 52.5 DAYS.  IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, HOWEVER, ONLY 56 APPLICATIONS WERE DISMISSED WITHOUT MORE, WHILE
IN THE SUPREME COURT ALL BUT 35, OR 91 PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, WERE
DISPOSED OF WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION SUCH AS THE FILING OF A RESPONSE BY
THE STATE.  FOR WHATEVER SIGNIFICANCE IT MIGHT HAVE, THE IMPORTANT
FIGURE SEEMED TO BE THAT SHOWING THE NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT DISPOSITION TIME WAS GREATER THAN IN THE SUPREME COURT;
OF THE 122 CASES FOR WHICH FIGURES ARE AVAILABLE, 45 TOOK LONGER FROM
THE TIME OF FILING UNTIL DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
THAN THEY HAD IN THE SUPREME COURT.  OF THOSE 45, ONLY 4 HAD BEEN
DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER PLEADINGS OR ACTION OF SOME SORT. 

IN 98 CASES, THE DISTRICT COURTS INDICATED THEIR REASONS FOR DENYING
THE APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  AS WILL BE SEEN FROM TABLE 6, THE
DISTRICT COURTS DECIDED ONLY ABOUT HALF OF THE CASES DIRECTLY ON THE
MERITS, EITHER HOLDING AGAINST THE APPLICANT ON THE FACTS OR ON HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.  IN 45, OR ALMOST HALF, OF THE 98 CASES, THE
APPLICATION WAS DENIED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS BEARING ON THE RELATION
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IN THESE CASES.  TWENTY-NINE OF
THESE 45 DENIALS WERE BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE
STATE REMEDY.  SINCE THIS REASON WAS OFTEN NOT AMPLIFIED, IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE TO CLASSIFY THESE CASES FURTHER.  BUT FROM THOSE CASES IN
WHICH A MORE DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE REASON WAS MADE AND FROM OTHER
INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN SOME CASES, IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THERE
WERE SEVERAL VIEWS BELOW AS TO WHAT THE REQUIREMENT OF "EXHAUSTION"
IMPLIED.  IN SOME CASES, THE APPLICANT HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH FORMAL
REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS THOSE PRESCRIBING THE TIME OF FILING OR THE KIND
OF PAPERS TO BE FILED FOR AN APPEAL TO A HIGHER STATE COURT.  IN
OTHERS, THE APPLICANT HAD FULLY INVOKED ONE REMEDY, BUT OTHER STATE
REMEDIES WERE STILL AVAILABLE, OR THE REMEDY ALREADY INVOKED WAS, UNDER
THE STATE PROCEDURAL RULES, AVAILABLE AGAIN.  IN SOME CASES, OF COURSE,
THE APPLICANT FAILED TO ALLEGE OR SHOW ANY REAL ATTEMPT TO INVOKE A
STATE REMEDY.  THE OTHER 16 OF THE 45 CASES NOT DECIDED DIRECTLY ON THE
MERITS WERE DISPOSED OF AS THE RESULT OF VARYING DEGREES OF RELIANCE ON
THE STATE ADJUDICATION.  AS TABLE 6 SHOWS, IN SOME CASES THE JUDGES
BELOW STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAD HAD HIS DAY IN THE STATE COURTS AND
THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL NOT ORDINARILY REEXAMINE STATE DENIALS OF
RELIEF TO PRISONERS, WHILE IN OTHERS THEY FELT THAT THE CLAIM HAD BEEN
FAIRLY CONSIDERED IN THE STATE COURTS. 

TABLE 6.  GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF APPLICATIONS IN DISTRICT COURTS 

TOTAL CASES IN SURVEY                 126 

PENDING                            5 

WRIT GRANTED                                     1 

TOTAL CASES FOR WHICH DATA AVAILABLE                            120 

I. REASONS STATED FOR DISMISSAL. 

REASONS NOT GOING DIRECTLY TO THE MERITS: 

ISSUE FAIRLY CONSIDERED IN STATE COURT            7 

APPLICANT HAD HIS DAY IN STATE COURT, AND FEDERAL 

COURTS WILL NOT ORDINARILY REEXAMINE            9 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE REMEDY                    29 

TOTAL                                       45 

REASONS GOING DIRECTLY TO THE MERITS: 

WANT OF A FEDERAL QUESTION                           21 

APPLICANT NOT WITHIN INVOKED FEDERAL DOSTRINE (FN24)              8 

CLAIM NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS                                     17 

INSUFFICIENT FACTS ALLEGED IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM                    2 

TOTAL          48 

MISCELLANEOUS: 

APPLICATION WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT                                3 

LACK OF JURISDICTION - WRONG DISTRICT                             1 

SAME ISSUE FORMERLY CONSIDERED IN A FEDERAL COURT                 1 

TOTAL             5 

NO REASON STATED EXCEPT THAT APPLICANT NOT ENTITLED TO 

WRIT, OR LACK OF JURISDICTION TO GRANT                 22 

II.  PROBABLE REASONS WHERE NO REASON STATED. 

ISSUE FAIRLY CONSIDERED IN STATE COURT              1 

WANT OF A FEDERAL QUESTION                      18 

APPLICANT NOT WITHIN INVOKED FEDERAL DOCTRINE                     1 

CLAIM NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS                                  2 

FN1  INCLUDED WERE CASES FILED EARLIER BUT CONTINUED INTO THE OCTOBER
1950 TERM; CASES FILED IN THE OCTOBER 1950 TERM BUT CONTINUED INTO
LATER TERMS WERE EXCLUDED. 

FN2  IN ALL THIS WORK WE HAVE HAD THE READY COOPERATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, MORE PARTICULARLY OF
WILL SHAFROTH, ESQ., ORIN S. THIEL, ESQ., AND JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR.,
ESQ., AND OF THE CLERKS OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.  NOR
SHOULD THE IMPORTANT SHARE THAT DONALD T. TRAUTMAN, ESQ., HAD IN
CARRYING OUT THIS STUDY GO UNMENTIONED. 

FN3  EXCLUDING EIGHT PETITIONERS WHO WERE CODEFENDANTS WITH OTHER
PETITIONERS AND WHO PRESENTED THE SAME ISSUES AS THOSE OTHER
PETITIONERS.  IN ALL, 134 PETITIONERS APPEARED AGAIN IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS, BUT IN ONLY 126 SEPARATE CASES.  THE WORDS "CASE" AND
"PETITIONER" WILL BOTH BE USED IN REFERENCE TO THE 126 CASES; WHEN
"PETITIONER" OR "APPLICANT" IS USED, IT SHOULD BE READ AS ONE OR MORE
PRISONERS PRESENTING THE SAME CLAIM ARISING OUT OF THE SAME TRIAL.  FOR
CLARITY, THE PRISONERS WILL BE REFERRED TO AS "PETITIONERS" FOR
CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT AND "APPLICANTS" FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

FN4  CASES IN WHICH PETITIONERS IN THE SUPREME COURT SOUGHT ORIGINAL
HABEAS CORPUS OR MANDAMUS OR OTHER RELIEF HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS
STUDY, UNLESS FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT RELIEF HAD ALREADY BEEN INVOKED SO
THAT THE HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION COULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS
REVIEWING A STATE COURT DETERMINATION.  PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI OR
APPLICATIONS FOR OTHER RELIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT WERE NOT INCLUDED IF
DISMISSED ON MOTION OF THE PETITIONERS. 

FN5  IN CASES WHERE TWO OR MORE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI WERE MADE BY
A SINGLE PETITIONER DURING THE OCTOBER 1950 TERM, THAT CASE WAS
ANALYZED WHICH PRESENTED THE ISSUE OR THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS LATER
PRESENTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  WHERE SEVERAL APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS
CORPUS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, THAT APPLICATION NEAREST
IN TIME TO THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI WAS USED, UNLESS (A) THE FIRST
APPLICATION WAS REJECTED FOR FORMAL DEFECTS, SUCH AS FAILURE TO ALLEGE
EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES OR FAILURE TO SET OUT CLEARLY THE COURSE
OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THE SECOND APPLICATION CORRECTED THOSE DEFECTS;
OR (B) THE SECOND (OR A LATER) APPLICATION, UNLIKE THE FIRST, PRESENTED
THE ISSUE OR THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WHICH THE SUPREME COURT WAS
ASKED TO REVIEW.   IN A FEW INSTANCES, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE SO TANGLED
THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY THESE CRITERIA; THUS, ALTHOUGH
ORDINARILY A CASE WAS EXCLUDED IF STATE RELIEF WAS SOUGHT AFTER THE
DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BUT BEFORE THE APPLICATION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, OCCASIONALLY SUCH A CASE WAS INCLUDED IF THE
ISSUE OR COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WAS THE SAME IN THE DISTRICT COURT AS IN
THE SUPREME COURT. 

FN6  EVERY FILE IN THE 126 CASES SURVEYED WAS STUDIED; THE DATA IN
THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS ARE THOSE REVEALED BY THE FILES.  IT
OCCASIONALLY OCCURRED THAT PARTICULAR DATA WERE UNAVAILABLE.  FOR THAT
REASON, WHEREVER TABLES ARE PRESENTED, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES FOR
WHICH THE DATA WERE AVAILABLE IS INDICATED AT THE TOP OF THE TABLE. 

FN7  SEE FOOTNOTE 3 ABOVE. 

FN8  IN TWO CASES, AT LEAST SOME OF THE SUPREME COURT PAPERS WERE
RETURNED TO THE PETITIONER. 

FN9  AS THERE IS NO BRIGHT LINE BETWEEN ORDERS AND OPINIONS, ANY
ORDER CONTAINING MORE THAN A PERFUNCTORY STATEMENT IN GENERAL TERMS
THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT WAS DENIED IS CLASSIFIED AS AN OPINION. 

FN10  THE TABLE DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ALL THE PAPERS FILED IN THE
SUPREME COURT, BUT ONLY THOSE FILED BY THE PETITIONER, BECAUSE SUCH
FIGURES GIVE A BETTER INDEX OF THE LACK OF TECHNICAL COMPETENCE OF THE
PETITIONERS AND THEIR INABILITY, OFTEN, BECAUSE OF PRISON CONFINEMENT,
TO PREPARE ALL THE PAPERS.  AT P. 521, POST, THE INSUBSTANTIAL CHARGE
EFFECTED IN THESE FIGURES BY THE RESPONSES FILED BY THE STATE IS
DISCUSSED. 

THE TERMS "TRIAL PROCEEDINGS" OR "TRIAL" ARE USED TO DENOTE BOTH THE
TRIAL IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED AND DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE
CONVICTION.  THE TERMS "ATTACKING PROCEEDINGS" OR "ATTACK" INCLUDE ALL
ACTIONS SUCH AS HABEAS CORPUS, CORAM NOBIS, AND OTHER POST-CONVICTION
REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS TO OBTAIN RELIEF FROM AN INVALID
CONVICTION.  DELAYED MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL HAVE BEEN TREATED FOR
PURPOSES OF THESE TABLES AS ATTACKING PROCEEDINGS. 

"ORDERS OR OPINIONS" IN PART 2 OF THE TABLE INCLUDES, AS TO THE TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS, THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, THE SENTENCE OR OTHER
CONVICTION PAPERS, AS WELL AS, FOR EXAMPLE, AN ORDER OR OPINION ON
DIRECT APPEAL.  AS TO TRIAL AND ATTACKING PROCEEDINGS, EVEN THE
PERFUNCTORY ORDER DISCUSSED IN FOOTNOTE 9 WAS INCLUDED. 

"TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS" OR "TRANSCRIPT" IS USED TO DENOTE A
STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF THE TESTIMONY OR HEARINGS.  ADEQUATE EXCERPTS
FROM SUCH TRANSCRIPTS ARE INCLUDED. 

"MOTIONS OR PETITIONS" IS USED TO DENOTE ANY PLEADINGS BY EITHER
PARTY. 

IN 11 CASES, THERE WERE NO ATTACKING PROCEEDINGS.  HENCE THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF SUPREME COURT CASES IN PART 2 OF TABLE 1 IS 114 RATHER THAN
125. 

FN11  SEE PP. 525-526, POST. 

FN12  SEE REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES 1951
- ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURTS 1951, 78. 

FN13  SEE RULES SUP. CT. 38(5), 38 1/2. 

FN14  SEE P. 516, SUPRA. 

FN15  SEE P. 516, SUPRA. 

FN16  THESE FIGURES REFLECT ONLY THE INFORMATION OR PAPERS FILED BY
THE APPLICANT AND NOT ANY INFORMATION OR PAPERS FILED BY THE STATE OR
GIVEN THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN ORAL ARGUMENT.  HOWEVER, IT CAN FAIRLY BE
ASSERTED THAT AT LEAST IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE ENTIRE FILES OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WERE SENT IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES, THE
PLEADINGS OF THE STATE ONLY OCCASIONALLY REFERRED TO THE DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI AND ALMOST NEVER GAVE ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
PETITION OR THE PAPERS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT. 

FN17  IN A FEW CASES, THE DISTRICT CLERKS MAY NOT HAVE GIVEN THE
REQUESTED INFORMATION IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL.  HOWEVER, IN ALL CASES
WHERE ANY SUCH DEFICIENCY WAS APPARENT, SECOND REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
WERE SENT OUT AND ANSWERS RECEIVED, SO THAT ONLY THOSE CASES WHERE THE
DEFICIENCY WAS NOT APPARENT WOULD BE IN ERROR.  FROM THE EXCELLENCE OF
THE RESPONSE IN MOST CASES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES, IT SEEMS UNLIKELY
THAT WHATEVER ERROR ARISES FROM CASES IN WHICH THE DEFICIENCY OF THE
ANSWERS WAS NOT APPARENT COULD ACCOUNT FOR THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE
FIGURES. 

FN18  SEE P. 520, SUPRA. 

FN19  ANDERSON V. EIDSON, 191 F.2D 989.  A LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, TO MR. WILL
SHAFROTH, CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF PROCEDURAL STUDIES AND STATISTICS,
ADVISES THAT THE APPLICANT WAS REMANDED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF
AND THE CASE WAS DISMISSED BY THE JACKSON COUNTY PROSECUTOR FOR LACK OF
AVAILABLE WITNESSES ON DECEMBER 6, 1951, ABOUT ONE AND ONE-HALF YEARS
AFTER APPLICANT HAD FIRST RAISED THE CLAIM IN THE STATE COURTS.  HE HAD
PRESENTED HIS CLAIM TO TWO STATE COURTS, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT, WHICH REVERSED A REFUSAL BELOW TO GRANT A HEARING AND
REMANDED.  THE DISCHARGE OF THE PRISONER OCCURRED ALMOST 20 YEARS AFTER
HIS ARREST AND CONVICTION ON A PLEA OF GUILTY ON SEVERAL UNRELATED
COUNTS, ONE OF THEM CAPITAL. 

FN20  IN SOME CASES, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE FROM THE DOCKET
ENTRIES WHETHER A HEARING HAD BEEN HELD.  A PROCEDURE WAS CONSIDERED A
HEARING IF AT LEAST ONE PARTY, THE STATE OR THE APPLICANT, HAD APPEARED
IN COURT AND ARGUED POINTS OF LAW OR FACT TO THE COURT, IN ADDITION TO
ALL PROCEDURES RESULTING IN DOCKET ENTRIES STATING THAT A HEARING HAD
BEEN HELD. 

FN21  INCLUDING ONE CASE IN WHICH COUNSEL WAS PRESENT BUT IN WHICH IT
DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER APPLICANT WAS PRESENT. 

FN22  IN TWO OF THE CASES IN WHICH THERE WAS NO INFORMATION AS TO THE
LENGTH OF THE HEARING, THERE IS INFORMATION CONCERNING THE LENGTH OF
THE TRANSCRIPT MADE BY THE COURT STENOGRAPHER.  IN ONE, IT WAS 20
PAGES; IN THE OTHER 46.  IN FIVE CASES FOR WHICH INFORMATION WAS
AVAILABLE AS TO THE LENGTH OF THE HEARING, DATA WERE ALSO GIVEN SHOWING
THE LENGTH OF THE TRANSCRIPT.  ONE OF THE HEARINGS LASTING ONE HOUR HAD
A TRANSCRIPT OF 36 PAGES.  THE HEARING LASTING THREE HOURS HAD A
TRANSCRIPT OF 15 PAGES.  ONE OF THE HEARINGS LASTING FOUR HOURS HAD A
TRANSCRIPT OF 28 PAGES, ANOTHER ONE OF 79 PAGES.  THE HEARING LASTING
THREE DAYS HAD A TRANSCRIPT OF 319 PAGES. 

FN23  THE TIME WAS COMPUTED FROM THE DAY OF FILING OF THE APPLICATION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS UNTIL ITS DISMISSAL.  IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
ANY APPEAL TIME.  IT IS SLIGHTLY INACCURATE BECAUSE MOST CASES ARE
FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, SO THAT A FEW DAYS MAY ELAPSE BETWEEN THE TIME
THE COURT RECEIVES THE APPLICATION AND THE TIME IT GRANTS LEAVE TO FILE
IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  IN ALL CASES WHERE THE DOCKET OR OTHER PAPERS
INDICATED THE DATE SUCH AN APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED, THAT DATE WAS USED
RATHER THAN THE DATE SHOWN BY THE DOCKET AS THE DATE ON WHICH THE
APPLICATION WAS FILED. 

FN24  THAT IS, THE CLAIM IS IN AN AREA IN WHICH FEDERAL PROTECTION IS
AFFORDED, E.G., REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, BUT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT
SHOW THAT HIS CASE COMES WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROTECTION, E.G.,
IGNORANCE AND INABILITY ADEQUATELY TO DEFEND HIMSELF. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 

CONTROVERSY AS TO THE UNDISCRIMINATING USE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS BY FEDERAL JUDGES TO SET ASIDE STATE COURT CONVICTIONS IS
TRACEABLE TO THREE PRINCIPAL CAUSES:  (1) THIS COURT'S USE OF THE
GENERALITY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO SUBJECT STATE COURTS TO
INCREASING FEDERAL CONTROL, EXPECIALLY IN THE CRIMINAL LAW FIELD; (2)
AD HOC DETERMINATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW ISSUES BY PERSONAL NOTIONS
OF JUSTICE INSTEAD OF BY KNOWN RULES OF LAW; AND (3) THE BREAKDOWN OF
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE OF THE WRIT. 

1.  IN 1867, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED FEDERAL COURTS TO ISSUE WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS TO PRISONERS "IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
OR LAWS OR TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES."  (FN1)  AT THAT TIME, THE
WRIT WAS NOT AVAILABLE HERE NOR IN ENGLAND TO CHALLENGE ANY SENTENCE
IMPOSED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.  (FN2)  THE HISTORIC
PURPOSE OF THE WRIT HAS BEEN TO RELIEVE DETENTION BY EXECUTIVE
AUTHORITIES WITHOUT JUDICIAL TRIAL.  (FN3)  IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXPECTED
THAT IF CONGRESS INTENDED A REVERSAL OF THIS TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO.  HOWEVER, THIS ONE SENTENCE IN THE
ACT EVENTUALLY WAS CONSTRUED AS AUTHORITY FOR FEDERAL JUDGES TO
ENTERTAIN COLLATERAL ATTACKS ON STATE COURT CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS.  (FN4)
WHATEVER ITS JUSTIFICATION, IT CREATED POTENTIALITIES FOR CONFLICT
CERTAIN TO LEAD TO THE ANTAGONISMS WE HAVE NOW, UNLESS THE POWER GIVEN
TO FEDERAL JUDGES WERE RESPONSIBLY USED ACCORDING TO LAWYERLY
PROCEDURES AND WITH GENUINE RESPECT FOR STATE COURT FACT FINDING. 
BUT, ONCE ESTABLISHED, THIS JURISDICTION OBVIOUSLY WOULD GROW WITH EACH
EXPANSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  THE
GENERALITIES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE SO INDETERMINATE AS TO
WHAT STATE ACTIONS ARE FORBIDDEN THAT THIS COURT HAS FOUND IT A READY
INSTRUMENT, IN ONE FIELD OR ANOTHER, TO MAGNIFY FEDERAL, AND
INCIDENTALLY ITS OWN, AUTHORITY OVER THE STATES.  THE EXPANSION NOW HAS
REACHED A POINT WHERE ANY STATE COURT CONVICTION, DISAPPROVED BY A
MAJORITY OF THIS COURT, THEREBY BECOMES UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SUBJECT TO
NULLIFICATION BY HABEAS CORPUS.  (FN5) 

THIS MIGHT NOT BE SO DEMORALIZING IF STATE JUDGES COULD ANTICIPATE,
AND SO COMPLY WITH, THIS COURT'S DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OR ASCERTAIN
ANY STANDARDS TO WHICH THIS COURT WILL ADHERE IN PRESCRIBING THEM.  BUT
THEY CANNOT.  OF COURSE, CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY IS INHERENT IN
DECISIONAL LAW WHICH, IN CHANGING TIMES, PURPORTS TO INTERPRET
IMPLICATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS SO CRYPTIC AND VAGRANT.  HOW
MUCH OBSCURITY IS INEVITABLE WILL BE A MATTER OF OPINION.  HOWEVER, IN
CONSIDERING A REMEDY FOR HABEAS CORPUS PROBLEMS, IT IS PRUDENT TO
ASSUME THAT THE SCOPE AND REACH OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WILL
CONTINUE TO BE UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE, THAT WHAT SEEMS ESTABLISHED BY
ONE DECISION IS APT TO BE UNSETTLED BY ANOTHER, AND THAT ITS
INTERPRETATION WILL BE MORE OR LESS SWAYED BY CONTEMPORARY INTELLECTUAL
FASHIONS AND POLITICAL CURRENTS. 

WE MAY LOOK UPON THIS UNSTABLE PROSPECT COMPLACENTLY, BUT STATE
JUDGES CANNOT.  THEY ARE NOT ONLY BEING GRADUALLY SUBORDINATED TO THE
FEDERAL JUDICIARY BUT FEDERAL COURTS HAVE DECLARED THAT STATE JUDICIAL
AND OTHER OFFICERS ARE PERSONALLY LIABLE TO FEDERAL PROSECUTION AND TO
CIVIL SUIT BY CONVICTS IF THEY FAIL TO CARRY OUT THIS COURT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES.  (FN6) 

2.  RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, THE BELIEF IS WIDELY HELD BY THE PRACTICING
PROFESSION THAT THIS COURT NO LONGER RESPECTS IMPERSONAL RULES OF LAW
BUT IS GUIDED IN THESE MATTERS BY PERSONAL IMPRESSIONS WHICH FROM TIME
TO TIME MAY BE SHARED BY A MAJORITY OF JUSTICES.  WHATEVER HAS BEEN
INTENDED, THIS COURT ALSO HAS GENERATED AN IMPRESSION IN MUCH OF THE
JUDICIARY THAT REGARD FOR PRECEDENTS AND AUTHORITIES IS OBSOLETE, THAT
WORDS NO LONGER MEAN WHAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS MEANT TO THE PROFESSION,
THAT THE LAW KNOWS NO FIXED PRINCIPLES. 

A MANIFESTATION OF THIS IS SEEN IN THE DIMINISHING RESPECT SHOWN FOR
STATE COURT ADJUDICATIONS OF FACT.  OF COURSE, THIS COURT NEVER HAS
CONSIDERED ITSELF FORECLOSED BY A STATE COURT'S DECISION AS TO THE
FACTS WHEN THAT DETERMINATION RESULTS IN ALLEGED DENIAL OF A FEDERAL
RIGHT.  BUT CAPTIOUS USE OF THIS POWER WAS RESTRAINED BY OBSERVANCE OF
A RULE, ELEMENTARY IN ALL APPELLATE PROCEDURE, THAT THE FINDINGS OF
FACT ON A TRIAL ARE TO BE ACCEPTED BY AN APPELLATE COURT IN ABSENCE OF
CLEAR SHOWING OF ERROR.  THE TRIAL COURT, SEEING THE DEMEANOR OF
WITNESSES, HEARING THE PARTIES, GIVING TO EACH CASE FAR MORE TIME THAN
AN APPELLATE COURT CAN GIVE, IS IN A BETTER POSITION TO UNRAVEL
DISPUTES OF FACT THAN IS AN APPELLATE COURT ON A PRINTED TRANSCRIPT. 
RECENT DECISIONS AVOW NO CANDID ALTERATION OF THESE RULES, BUT REVISION
OF STATE FACT FINDING HAS GROWN BY EMPHASIS, AND RESPECT FOR IT HAS
WITHERED BY DISREGARD.  (FN7) 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF DUE PROCESS IS AND PROBABLY
MUST REMAIN SO VAGUE AND UNSETTLED AS TO INVITE FARFETCHED OR
BORDERLINE PETITIONS MAKES IT IMPORTANT TO ADHERE TO PROCEDURES WHICH
ENABLE COURTS READILY TO DISTINGUISH A PROBABLE CONSTITUTIONAL
GRIEVANCE FROM A CONVICT'S MERE GAMBLE ON PERSUADING SOME INDULGENT
JUDGE TO LET HIM OUT OF JAIL.  INSTEAD, THIS COURT HAS SANCTIONED
PROGRESSIVE TRIVIALIZATION OF THE WRIT UNTIL FLOODS OF STALE, FRIVOLOUS
AND REPETITIOUS PETITIONS INUNDATE THE DOCKET OF THE LOWER COURTS AND
SWELL OUR OWN.  (FN8)  JUDGED BY OUR OWN DISPOSITION OF HABEAS CORPUS
MATTERS, THEY HAVE, AS A CLASS, BECOME PECULIARLY UNDESERVING.  (FN9)
IT MUST PREJUDICE THE OCCASIONAL MERITORIOUS APPLICATION TO BE BURIED
IN A FLOOD OF WORTHLESS ONES.  HE WHO MUST SEARCH A HAYSTACK FOR A
NEEDLE IS LIKELY TO END UP WITH THE ATTITUDE THAT THE NEEDLE IS NOT
WORTH THE SEARCH.  NOR IS IT ANY ANSWER TO SAY THAT FEW OF THESE
PETITIONS IN ANY COURT REALLY RESULT IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE
PETITIONER.  (FN10)  THAT IS THE CONDEMNATION OF THE PROCEDURE WHICH
HAS ENCOURAGED FRIVOLOUS CASES.  IN THIS MULTIPLICITY OF WORTHLESS
CASES, STATES ARE COMPELLED TO DEFAULT OR TO DEFEND THE INTEGRITY OF
THEIR JUDGES AND THEIR OFFICIAL RECORDS, SOMETIMES CONCERNING TRIALS OR
PLEAS THAT WERE CLOSED MANY YEARS AGO.  (FN11)  STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
RECENTLY HAVE COME HABITUALLY TO IGNORE THESE PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDING
ONLY WHEN SPECIALLY REQUESTED AND SOMETIMES NOT THEN.  SOME STATE
COURTS HAVE WEARIED OF OUR REPEATED DEMANDS UPON THEM AND HAVE DECLINED
TO FURTHER ELUCIDATE GROUNDS FOR THEIR DECISIONS.  (FN12)  THE
ASSEMBLED CHIEF JUSTICES OF THE HIGHEST COURTS OF THE STATES HAVE TAKEN
THE UNUSUAL STEP OF CONDEMNING THE PRESENT PRACTICE BY RESOLUTION. 
(FN13) 

IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE TREND OF OUR DECISIONS IS TO ABANDON
RULES OF PLEADING OR PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD PROTECT THE WRIT AGAINST
ABUSE.  ONCE UPON A TIME THE WRIT COULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR APPEAL
OR OTHER REVIEWING PROCESS BUT CHALLENGED ONLY THE LEGAL COMPETENCE OR
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTING COURT.  (FN14)  WE HAVE SO DEPARTED FROM
THIS PRINCIPLE THAT THE PROFESSION NOW BELIEVES THAT THE ISSUES WE
ACTUALLY CONSIDER ON A FEDERAL PRISONER'S HABEAS CORPUS ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS WOULD BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL.  (FN15) 

CONFLICT WITH STATE COURTS IS THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF GIVING THE
CONVICT A VIRTUAL NEW TRIAL BEFORE A FEDERAL COURT SITTING WITHOUT A
JURY.  WHENEVER DECISIONS OF ONE COURT ARE REVIEWED BY ANOTHER, A
PERCENTAGE OF THEM ARE REVERSED.  THAT REFLECTS A DIFFERENCE IN OUTLOOK
NORMALLY FOUND BETWEEN PERSONNEL COMPRISING DIFFERENT COURTS.  HOWEVER,
REVERSAL BY A HIGHER COURT IS NOT PROOF THAT JUSTICE IS THEREBY BETTER
DONE.  THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT IF THERE WERE A SUPER-SUPREME COURT, A
SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF OUR REVERSALS OF STATE COURTS WOULD ALSO BE
REVERSED.  WE ARE NOT FINAL BECAUSE WE ARE INFALLIBLE, BUT WE ARE
INFALLIBLE ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE FINAL. 

AS TO THE PLEADING REQUIREMENTS IN HABEAS CORPUS, WHAT HAS HAPPENED
MAY BEST BE LEARNED BY COMPARISON OF THE METICULOUSLY PLEADED FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES RELIED UPON BY THIS COURT'S OPINION IN MOORE V. DEMPSEY,
261 U.S. 86 (1923), AND IN MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103 (1935), WITH
CONDONATION OF THEIR ABSENCE IN PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334 U.S. 266
(1948).  IT REALLY HAS BECOME NECESSARY TO PLEAD NOTHING MORE THAN THAT
THE PRISONER IS IN JAIL, WANTS TO GET OUT, AND THINKS IT IS ILLEGAL TO
HOLD HIM.  (FN16)  IF HE FAILS, HE MAY MAKE THE SAME PLEA OVER AND OVER
AGAIN.  (FN17)

SINCE THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS MADE PURSUANT TO IT ARE THE SUPREME
LAW AND SINCE THE SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY OF FEDERAL LAW ARE
ATTAINABLE ONLY BY A CENTRALIZED SOURCE OF AUTHORITY, DENIAL BY A STATE
OF A CLAIMED FEDERAL RIGHT MUST GIVE SOME ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL
JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  BUT FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH STATE ADMINISTRATION OF
ITS CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD NOT BE PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT OCCUR WHERE IT
IS NOT NEEDED.  THEREFORE, WE HAVE RULED THAT A STATE CONVICT MUST
EXHAUST ALL REMEDIES WHICH THE STATE AFFORDS FOR HIS ALLEGED GRIEVANCE
BEFORE HE CAN TAKE IT TO ANY FEDERAL COURT BY HABEAS CORPUS. 

THE STATES ALL ALLOW SOME APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH
PERMITS REVIEW OF ANY QUESTION OF LAW, STATE OR FEDERAL, RAISED UPON
THE RECORD.  NO STATE IS OBLIGED TO FURNISH MULTIPLE REMEDIES FOR THE
SAME GRIEVANCE.  MOST STATES, AND WITH GOOD REASON, WILL NOT SUFFER A
COLLATERAL ATTACK SUCH AS HABEAS CORPUS TO BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
OR DUPLICATION OF THE APPEAL.  A STATE PROPERLY MAY DENY HABEAS CORPUS
TO RAISE EITHER STATE OR FEDERAL ISSUES THAT WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED ON APPEAL.  SUCH RESTRICTION BY THE STATE SHOULD BE
RESPECTED BY FEDERAL COURTS. 

ASSUMING THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION NOT REACHABLE ON APPEAL IS PROPERLY
PRESENTED BY HABEAS CORPUS AND DECIDED ADVERSELY BY THE HIGHEST
COMPETENT COURT OF THE STATE, SHOULD THE PRISONER THEN COME TO THIS
COURT AND ASK US TO REVIEW THE RECORD BY CERTIORARI OR SHOULD HE GO TO
THE DISTRICT COURT AND INSTITUTE A NEW FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING?  DARR V. BURFORD, 339 U.S. 200, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HELD
THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRISONER MUST APPLY TO THIS COURT FOR
CERTIORARI BEFORE HE CAN GO TO ANY OTHER FEDERAL COURT, BECAUSE ONLY BY
SO DOING COULD HE EXHAUST HIS STATE REMEDY.  WHATEVER ONE MAY THINK OF
THAT RESULT, IT DOES NOT SEEM LOGICAL TO SUPPORT IT BY ASSERTING THAT
THIS COURT'S CERTIORARI POWER IS ANY PART OF A STATE'S REMEDY.  AN
AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE IMPOSES A DUTY UPON THE STATE TO TURN
THE CASE OVER TO IT, IN A PROCEEDING WHICH MAKES THE STATE VIRTUALLY A
DEFENDANT.  TO SAY THAT OUR COMMAND TO CERTIFY THE CASE TO US IS A
STATE REMEDY IS TO INDULGE IN FICTION, AND THE DIFFICULTY WITH FICTIONS
IS THAT THOSE THEY ARE MOST APT TO MISLEAD ARE THOSE WHO PROCLAIM
THEM. 

BUT NOW IT IS PROPOSED TO NEUTRALIZE THE ARTIFICIALITY OF THE PROCESS
AND COUNTERBALANCE THE FICTION THAT OUR CERTIORARI IS A STATE REMEDY BY
HOLDING THAT THIS STEP WHICH THE PRISONER MUST TAKE MEANS NOTHING TO
HIM OR THE STATE WHEN IT FAILS, AS IN MOST CASES IT DOES. 

THE COURT IS NOT QUITE OF ONE MIND ON THE SUBJECT.  SOME SAY DENIAL
MEANS NOTHING, OTHERS SAY IT MEANS NOTHING MUCH.  REALISTICALLY, THE
FIRST POSITION IS UNTENABLE AND THE SECOND IS UNINTELLIGIBLE.  HOW CAN
WE SAY THAT THE PRISONER MUST PRESENT HIS CASE TO US AND AT THE SAME
TIME SAY THAT WHAT WE DO WITH IT MEANS NOTHING TO ANYBODY.  WE MIGHT
CONCEIVABLY TAKE EITHER POSITION BUT NOT, RATIONALLY, BOTH, FOR THE TWO
WILL NOT ONLY BURDEN OUR OWN DOCKET AND HARASS THE STATE AUTHORITIES
BUT IT MAKES A PRISONER'S LEGITIMATE QUEST FOR FEDERAL JUSTICE AN
ENDURANCE CONTEST. 

TRUE, NEITHER THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE COURT, NOR ON MANY OCCASIONS THOSE
INSIDE OF IT, KNOW JUST WHAT REASONS LED SIX JUSTICES TO WITHHOLD
CONSENT TO A CERTIORARI.  BUT ALL KNOW THAT A MAJORITY, LARGER THAN CAN
BE MUSTERED FOR A GOOD MANY DECISIONS, HAS FOUND REASON FOR NOT
REVIEWING THE CASE HERE.  BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS ALL THAT A DENIAL MEANS,
DOES IT MEAN THAT IT MEANS NOTHING?  PERHAPS THE PROFESSION COULD
ACCEPT DENIAL AS MEANINGLESS BEFORE THE CUSTOM WAS INTRODUCED OF NOTING
DISSENTS FROM THEM.  LAWYERS AND LOWER JUDGES WILL NOT READILY BELIEVE
THAT JUSTICES OF THIS COURT ARE TAKING THE TROUBLE TO SIGNAL A
MEANINGLESS DIVISION OF OPINION ABOUT A MEANINGLESS ACT.  (FN18)  IT IS
JUST ONE OF THE FACTS OF LIFE THAT TODAY EVERY LOWER COURT DOES ATTACH
IMPORTANCE TO DENIALS AND TO PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF DISSENTS FROM
DENIALS, AS JUDICIAL OPINIONS AND LAWYERS' ARGUMENTS SHOW. 

THE FATAL SENTENCE THAT IN REAL LIFE WRITES FINIS TO MANY CAUSES
CANNOT IN LEGAL THEORY BE A COMPLETE BLANK.  I CAN SEE ORDER IN THE
CONFUSION AS TO ITS MEANING ONLY BY DISTINGUISHING ITS SIGNIFICANCE
UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS, FROM ITS EFFECT UNDER THE DOCTRINE
OF RES JUDICATA.  I AGREE THAT, AS STARE DECISIS, DENIAL OF CERTIORARI
SHOULD BE GIVEN NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATEVER.  IT CREATES NO PRECEDENT AND
APPROVES NO STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE ENTITLED TO WEIGHT IN ANY OTHER
CASE.  BUT, FOR THE CASE IN WHICH CERTIORARI IS DENIED, ITS MINIMUM
MEANING IS THAT THIS COURT ALLOWS THE JUDGMENT BELOW TO STAND WITH
WHATEVER CONSEQUENCES IT MAY HAVE UPON THE LITIGANTS INVOLVED UNDER THE
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AS APPLIED EITHER BY STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS. 
A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL JUDGMENT USUALLY BECOMES RES JUDICATA IN THE SENSE
THAT IT IS BINDING AND CONCLUSIVE EVEN IF NEW FACTS ARE DISCOVERED AND
EVEN IF A NEW THEORY OF LAW WERE THOUGHT UP, EXCEPT FOR SOME PROVISION
FOR GRANTING A NEW TRIAL, WHICH USUALLY IS DISCRETIONARY WITH THE TRIAL
COURT AND LIMITED IN TIME. 

IT IS SOMETIMES SAID THAT RES JUDICATA HAS NO APPLICATION WHATEVER IN
HABEAS CORPUS CASES AND SURELY IT DOES NOT APPLY WITH ALL OF ITS
CONVENTIONAL SEVERITY.  HABEAS CORPUS DIFFERS FROM THE ORDINARY
JUDGMENT IN THAT, ALTHOUGH AN ADJUDICATION HAS BECOME FINAL, THE
APPLICATION IS RENEWABLE, AT LEAST IF NEW EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL IS
DISCOVERED OR IF, PERHAPS AS THE RESULT OF A NEW DECISION, A NEW LAW
BECOMES APPLICABLE TO THE CASE.  THIS IS QUITE PROPER SO LONG AS ITS
ISSUES RELATE TO JURISDICTION.  BUT CALL IT RES JUDICATA OR WHAT ONE
WILL, COURTS OUGHT NOT TO BE OBLIGED TO ALLOW A CONVICT TO LITIGATE
AGAIN AND AGAIN EXACTLY THE SAME QUESTION ON THE SAME EVIDENCE.  NOR IS
THERE ANY GOOD REASON WHY AN IDENTICAL CONTENTION REJECTED BY A HIGHER
COURT SHOULD BE REVIEWED ON THE SAME FACTS IN A LOWER ONE. 

THE CHIEF OBJECTION TO GIVING THIS LIMITED FINALITY TO OUR DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI IS THAT WE PASS UPON THESE WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS SO
CASUALLY OR UPON GROUNDS SO UNRELATED TO THEIR MERITS THAT OUR DECISION
SHOULD NOT HAVE THE WEIGHT OF FINALITY.  NO VERY CLOSE PERSONAL
CONSIDERATION CAN BE GIVEN BY EACH JUSTICE TO SUCH A MULTIPLICITY OF
THESE PETITIONS AS WE HAVE HAD AND, AS A CLASS, THEY ARE SO FRIVOLOUS,
SO MEANINGLESS, AND OFTEN SO UNINTELLIGIBLE THAT THIS WORTHLESSNESS OF
THE CLASS DISCREDITS EACH INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION.  IF THIS DELUGE WERE
REDUCED BY OBSERVANCE OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS TO MANAGEABLE
PROPORTIONS SO THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO EXAMINE THE CASES WITH SOME
CARE AND TO HEAR THOSE THAT SHOW MERIT, I THINK THIS OBJECTION WOULD
LARGELY DISAPPEAR.  THE FACT IS THAT SUPERFICIAL CONSIDERATION OF THESE
CASES IS THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF DEPRECIATION OF THE WRIT.  THE WRIT
HAS NO ENEMIES SO DEADLY AS THOSE WHO SANCTION THE ABUSE OF IT,
WHATEVER THEIR INTENT.    IF A STATE IS REALLY OBTAINING CONVICTION BY
LAWS OR PROCEDURES WHICH VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, IT IS ALWAYS
A SERIOUS WRONG, NOT ONLY TO A PARTICULAR CONVICT, BUT TO FEDERAL LAW. 
IT IS NOT PROBABLE THAT SIX JUSTICES WOULD PASS UP A CASE WHICH
INTELLIGIBLY PRESENTED THIS SITUATION.  BUT AN EXAMINATION OF THESE
PETITIONS WILL SHOW THAT FEW OF THEM, TESTED BY ANY RATIONAL RULES OF
PLEADING, ACTUALLY RAISE ANY QUESTION OF LAW ON WHICH THE STATE COURT
HAS DIFFERED FROM THE UNDERSTANDING PREVAILING IN THIS COURT.  THE
POINT ON WHICH WE ARE URGED TO OVERRULE STATE COURTS ALMOST INVARIABLY
IS IN THEIR APPRAISAL OF FACTS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE JURY, THE TRIAL
JUDGE, AND ONE OR MORE APPELLATE COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD THAT
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE PROVES A CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY; THE PRISONER
WANTS US TO SAY THE EVIDENCE PROVES IT WAS COERCED.  THE COURT BELOW
FOUND THAT THE PRISONER WAIVED COUNSEL AND VOLUNTARILY PLEADED GUILTY;
HE WANTS US TO FIND THAT HE DID NOT.  THE JURY AND THE TRIAL JUDGE
BELOW BELIEVED ONE SET OF WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONY SHOWED HIS GUILT;
HE WANTS US TO BELIEVE THE OTHER AND TO HOLD THAT HE HAS BEEN CONVICTED
BY PERJURY.  THAT IS THE TYPE OF FACTUAL ISSUE UPON WHICH THIS COURT
AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS ARE ASKED TO INTERVENE AND UPSET STATE COURT
CONVICTIONS.  THERE ARE PLENTY OF GOOD REASONS WHY WE SHOULD RARELY DO
THAT, AND EVEN BETTER REASONS WHY THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT
UNDERTAKE TO DO IT AFTER WE HAVE DECLINED TO. 

MY CONCLUSION IS THAT WHETHER OR NOT THIS COURT HAS DENIED CERTIORARI
FROM A STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, NO LOWER
FEDERAL COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN A PETITION EXCEPT ON THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE PETITION RAISES A JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION
INVOLVING FEDERAL LAW ON WHICH THE STATE LAW ALLOWED NO ACCESS TO ITS
COURTS, EITHER BY HABEAS CORPUS OR APPEAL FROM THE CONVICTION, AND THAT
HE THEREFORE HAS NO STATE REMEDY; OR (2) THAT THE PETITION SHOWS THAT
ALTHOUGH THE LAW ALLOWS A REMEDY, HE WAS ACTUALLY IMPROPERLY OBSTRUCTED
FROM MAKING A RECORD UPON WHICH THE QUESTION COULD BE PRESENTED, SO
THAT HIS REMEDY BY WAY OF ULTIMATE APPLICATION TO THIS COURT FOR
CERTIORARI HAS BEEN FRUSTRATED.  THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES SO
EXTRAORDINARY THAT I DO NOT NOW THINK OF THEM WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A
DEPARTURE FROM THIS RULE, BUT THE RUN-OF-THE-MILL CASE CERTAINLY DOES
NOT. 

WHETHER ONE WILL AGREE WITH THIS GENERAL PROPOSITION WILL DEPEND, I
SUPPOSE, ON THE LATITUDE HE THINKS FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD EXERCISE IN
RETRYING DE NOVO STATE COURT CRIMINAL ISSUES.  IF THE FEDERAL COURTS
ARE TO TEST A STATE COURT'S DECISION BY HEARING NEW EVIDENCE IN A NEW
PROCEEDING, THE PRETENSE OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES IS A SHAM, FOR
THE STATE COURTS COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN A REMEDY ON EVIDENCE WHICH THEY
HAD NO CHANCE TO HEAR.  I CANNOT SEE WHY FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD HEAR
EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE STATE COURTS UNLESS THE PRISONER
HAS BEEN PREVENTED FROM MAKING A RECORD OF HIS GRIEVANCE, WITH THE
RESULT THAT THERE IS NO RECORD OF IT TO BRING HERE ON CERTIORARI.  SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SEEM TO CALL FOR AN ORIGINAL REMEDY IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS WHICH WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND MAKE THE
RECORD ON WHICH WE ULTIMATELY MUST PASS IF THERE DEVELOPS A CONFLICT OF
LAW BETWEEN A FEDERAL AND STATE COURT. 

IF THIS COURT WERE WILLING TO ADOPT THIS DOCTRINE OF FEDERAL SELF
RESTRAINT, IT COULD SETTLE SOME PROCEDURES, RULES OF PLEADING AND
PRACTICES WHICH WOULD WEED OUT THE ABUSES AND FRIVOLOUS CAUSES AND
IDENTIFY THE WORTHY ONES.  I KNOW THE DIFFICULTY OF FORMULATING
PRACTICE RULES AND THEIR PITFALLS.  NOR DO I UNDERESTIMATE THE ARGUMENT
THAT THE WRIT OFTEN IS PETITIONED FOR BY PRISONERS WITHOUT COUNSEL AND
THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO THE ARTIFICIALITIES IN PLEADING THAT WE
EXPECT IN LAWYERS.  BUT I KNOW OF NO WAY THAT WE CAN HAVE EQUAL JUSTICE
UNDER LAW EXCEPT WE HAVE SOME LAW.  I SUGGEST SOME GENERAL PRINCIPLES
WHICH, IF ADHERED TO, WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS,
MAKE DECISION UPON THEM POSSIBLE AT AN EARLIER TIME AND ALLEVIATE SOME
OF THE IRRITATION THAT IS DEVELOPING OVER ILL-CONSIDERED FEDERAL USE OF
THE WRIT TO SLAP DOWN STATE COURTS. 

FIRST, HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT (IN ABSENCE OF STATE LAW TO THE
CONTRARY) RAISE ANY QUESTION WHICH WAS, OR COULD HAVE BEEN, DECIDED BY
APPEAL OR OTHER PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF CONVICTION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY, HABEAS CORPUS WILL BE DEEMED TO LIE ONLY FOR
DEFECTS NOT DISCLOSED ON THE RECORD, GOING TO THE POWER, LEGAL
COMPETENCE OR JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTING STATE COURT. 

SECOND, EVERY PETITION TO A FEDERAL COURT IS REQUIRED, AND THOSE TO A
STATE COURT MAY BE REQUIRED, BY STATE LAW TO CONTAIN A PLAIN BUT FULL
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ON WHICH IT IS BASED.  UNLESS IT STATES FACTS
WHICH, IF PROVED, WOULD WARRANT RELIEF, THE APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED
AS OF RIGHT TO A HEARING.  TECHNICAL FORMS OR ARTIFICIALITIES OF
PLEADING WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. 

PRESUMABLY A FEDERAL COURT WILL NOT RELEASE A CONVICT UNTIL HE PROVES
FACTS WHICH SHOW INVALIDITY OF HIS CONVICTION.  IF PROOF IS TO BE
REQUIRED, IT IS NO HARDSHIP TO REQUIRE A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF WHAT IT
WILL BE.  A PETITIONER SHOULD BE GIVEN BENEFIT OF LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION,
OF ALL USUAL PRIVILEGES OF AMENDMENT, AND, IF THE COURT FINDS A
PROBABLY WORTHY CASE, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO AID IN AMENDING THE
PETITION AND PRESENTING THE CASE. 

THIRD, PETITIONS TO FEDERAL COURTS ARE REQUIRED, AND THOSE TO STATE
COURTS MAY BE REQUIRED, TO SET FORTH EVERY PREVIOUS APPLICATION TO ANY
COURT FOR RELIEF ON ANY GROUNDS.  IF THE CURRENT PETITION IS MADE UPON
THE SAME GROUNDS AS AN EARLIER ONE, IT SHOULD STATE FULLY ANY EVIDENCE
NOW AVAILABLE IN ITS SUPPORT THAT WAS NOT OFFERED BEFORE AND EXPLAIN
FAILURE TO PRESENT IT.  ON THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS APPROPRIATE FOR
HABEAS CORPUS, THE PETITIONER MAY NOT BE BARRED FROM PROOF BY NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS NOT ASKING TOO MUCH THAT HIS PETITION
DISCLOSE THAT HE HAS IT AND A BASIS FOR APPRAISING ITS RELEVANCE AND
EFFECT.  HE SHOULD NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM RAISING NEW GROUNDS OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IN A LATER PETITION, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE
UNSETTLED CHARACTER OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES OF DUE PROCESS. 
BUT THE FACTS THAT MAKE THE NEW GROUNDS APPLICABLE SHOULD APPEAR.  IF
FEDERAL RELIEF IS SOUGHT ON THE GROUNDS THAT STATE LAW AFFORDS NO
REMEDY, OR HIS RESORT THERETO HAS BEEN OBSTRUCTED AND HE HAS BEEN
UNABLE TO PRESENT HIS CASE TO A STATE COURT, THE FACTS RELIED ON SHOULD
BE CLEARLY AND FULLY SET FORTH. 

MUCH PROBABLY MAY BE SAID IN CRITICISM OF MY STATEMENT OF THESE
PRINCIPLES BUT NOTHING, I AM CONVINCED, AGAINST THEIR HISTORICAL
AUTHENTICITY AS PART OF THE TRADITIONAL LAW OF HABEAS CORPUS OR AGAINST
THEIR APPLICATION NOW TO STOP ABUSES SO GRAVE THAT THEY FORESHADOW
LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTION OF THE WRIT.  THEY DO NOT FORECLOSE WORTHY
CAUSES BUT EARMARK THEM FOR THE SERIOUS TREATMENT THEY DESERVE.  THEY
WILL NOT EVEN WHOLLY ELIMINATE FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS BUT WILL DISCOURAGE
THEM BY EXPOSING THEIR FRIVOLITY AT AN EARLIER STAGE. 

SOCIETY HAS NO INTEREST IN MAINTAINING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONVICTION
AND EVERY INTEREST IN PRESERVING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO NULLIFY
THEM WHEN THEY OCCUR.  BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATE
COURTS FROM DETERMINING THE FACTS IN CRIMINAL CASES.  IT DOES NOT MAKE
IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THEM TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN A FEDERAL
JUDGE ABOUT THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO EVIDENCE.  MY VOTES IN THE CASES
UNDER REVIEW AND ON OTHER PETITIONS AND REVIEWS WILL BE GUIDED AS
NEARLY AS I CAN BY THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH HEREIN. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE REED IN THESE THREE
CASES. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SECS. 2241(C)(3). 

FN2  EX PARTE FERGUSON, (1917) 1 K.B. 176, 179; EX PARTE LEES, EL.
BL. & EL. 828, 120 ENG. REP. 718; IN RE DUNN, 5 C.B. 215, 136 ENG. REP.
859; HABEAS CORPUS ACT OF 1679, 31 CAR.  II, C. 2; EX PARTE WATKINS, 3
PET. 193, 202. 

FN3  DARNEL'S CASE, 3 HOW.  ST. TR. 1 (1627).  FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE
WRIT HAS NOT BEEN CONSPICUOUSLY SUCCESSFUL IN THE UNITED STATES.  I
HAVE REVIEWED ITS FAILURES, ESPECIALLY IN WARTIMES, IN WARTIME SECURITY
AND LIBERTY UNDER LAW, 1 BUFF.  L.R. 103; UNITED STATES EX REL. KNAUFF
V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537. 

FN4  SEE THE EQUIVOCAL DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION IN FRANK V. MAGNUM,
237 U.S. 309, 326-332, AND THE MORE EXPLICIT ASSUMPTION OF THE DISSENT,
ID., AT 348.  AN EARLIER CASE, EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241, CONTAINED
A DICTUM TO THE EFFECT THAT LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION - THE VALIDITY OF
THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH CONVICTION WAS HAD IN THE STATE COURT - COULD
BE CHALLENGED ON HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  WHILE THIS
REPRESENTS A CERTAIN EXPANSION OF TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF JURISDICTION
IN THE JUDICIAL SENSE, IT BY NO MEANS SUPPORTS THE BROAD REACH GIVEN TO
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS BY RECENT CASES.  SEE ALSO MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261
U.S. 86; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103. 

FN5  AN IDEA OF THE UNCERTAINTY AND DIVERSITY OF VIEWS IN THIS FIELD
MAY BE GLEANED FROM A COMPARISON OF ROCHIN V. CALIFORNIA, 342 U.S. 165,
WITH WOLF V. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25, AND ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S.
46. 

FN6  THIS COURT'S DECISION IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91,
AS THE DISSENTERS ANTICIPATED, HAS LED A FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS TO
HOLD THAT FEDERAL LAW ENFORCED IN FEDERAL COURTS IMPOSES PERSONAL
LIABILITY UPON STATE JUDICIAL OFFICERS, THOUGH THAT COURT ADMITS THAT
"THE RESULT IS OF FATEFUL PORTENT TO THE JUDICIARY OF THE SEVERAL
STATES."  PICKING V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 151 F.2D 240, 250.  CONTRAST
TO THIS THE ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT ENJOYED BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS,
EVEN IN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITIES.  GREGOIRE V. BIDDLE, 177 F.2D 579. 
WHILE THE SCREWS DECISION HELD OUT PROMISE OF PROTECTION FOR STATE
OFFICIALS BY REQUIRING THAT ANY DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT MUST BE
PROVED TO BE WILFUL IN THE SENSE OF KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL, THAT
PROTECTION HAS SINCE BEEN WITHDRAWN.  ANOTHER COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD A
CONVICTION BASED ON A CHARGE THAT WILFULNESS AND INTENT ARE "PRESUMED
AND INFERRED FROM THE RESULT OF THE ACTION."  189 F.2D 711, 714.  THIS
COURT, AGAINST MY WRITTEN DISSENT CALLING ATTENTION TO ITS EFFECT,
REFUSED REVIEW.  KOEHLER V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 852. 

FN7  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. OREGON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, 343
U.S. 326, FOR A RECENT EXAMPLE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PRESUMPTION IN
FAVOR OF A LOWER FEDERAL COURT'S FINDING OF FACT.  COMPARE WATTS V.
INDIANA, 338 U.S. 49; TURNER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 338 U.S. 62; HARRIS V.
SOUTH CAROLINA, 338 U.S. 68; AND MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401,
WITH THE ABOVE FOR ILLUSTRATIONS OF CASES IN WHICH THIS SALUTARY
PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF STATE COURT FINDINGS WAS DISREGARDED IN FACT IF
NOT IN THEORY. 

FN8  THERE WERE FILED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS DURING 1941 ONE
HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS CHALLENGING STATE
CONVICTIONS; IN 1943 THERE WERE TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-NINE; IN 1948 FIVE
HUNDRED FORTY-THREE; IN 1952 FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-ONE.  SPECK, STATISTICS
ON FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS, 10 OHIO ST. L.J. 337, SHOWS THAT DURING THE
PERIOD FROM 1943 THROUGH 1945 THERE WERE A HIGH NUMBER OF PETITIONS
FILED BY THOSE CONVICTS WHO HAD FILED AT LEAST ONE SUCH PETITION IN
FEDERAL COURT BEFORE.  IN FEDERAL COURTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND SOUTH
DAKOTA, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL PETITIONS MADE UP BY REPEATERS WAS
50%.  THE PERCENTAGES FOR THE LARGER STATES ON WHICH STATISTICS WERE
THEN AVAILABLE ARE AS FOLLOWS:  CALIFORNIA, 12%; ILLINOIS, 19%;
MASSACHUSETTS, 20%; MISSOURI, 21%; NEW JERSEY, 17%; NEW YORK, 18%;
PENNSYLVANIA, 22%; TEXAS, 25%.  THESE FIGURES SHOW AN UNNECESSARY
BURDEN ON THE FEDERAL COURTS BY QUANTITATIVE AS WELL AS DRAMATIC
TESTS. 

FN9  SEE SPECK, SUPRA, TABLE 3, P. 349. 

FN10  STATISTICS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
COURTS FOR THE PERIOD 1946-1952 SHOW THAT, IN 1946, 2.8% OF THE
PETITIONERS WERE SUCCESSFUL; IN 1952, 1.8% WERE SUCCESSFUL. 

FN11  PAGES FULL OF NUMBERS FAIL TO INDICATE WHAT THE STATES MUST
CONTEND WITH AS VIVIDLY AS THE HISTORY OF PARTICULAR LITIGATION.  THE
WELLS LITIGATION IN CALIFORNIA IS AN OBJECT LESSON IN CONFLICT.  WELLS
WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH BY THE CALIFORNIA TRIAL COURT, AND THIS JUDGMENT
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AN OPINION WHICH
GAVE EXTENDED CONSIDERATION TO THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS.  PEOPLE V.
WELLS, 33 CAL. 2D 330, 202 P.2D 53.  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI,
WELLS V. CALIFORNIA, 338 U.S. 836.  WELLS, WITHOUT SEEKING HABEAS
CORPUS IN STATE COURT, THEN PETITIONED A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE IN
CALIFORNIA FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  THAT JUDGE TOOK THE UNUSUAL STEP OF
PASSING ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT STATE
REMEDIES HAD NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED AND THE PRISONER HAD TO BE REMITTED TO
THE STATE COURTS.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE HELD ON THE MERITS THAT THE
CALIFORNIA COURTS HAD MISAPPLIED CALIFORNIA LAW.  EX PARTE WELLS, 90 F.
SUPP. 855.  WHEN THE PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AS HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO DO BY
THE DISTRICT JUDGE, THAT COURT ADHERED TO ITS PRIOR VIEW AS TO WHAT THE
LAW OF CALIFORNIA WAS.  IN RE WELLS, 35 CAL. 2D 889, 221 P.2D 947. 
THIS COURT AGAIN DENIED CERTIORARI.  WELLS V. CALIFORNIA, 340 U.S.
937.  THEREAFTER THE SAME FEDERAL JUDGE, ALTHOUGH NOW CONCEDING THAT HE
MUST TAKE CALIFORNIA LAW FROM CALIFORNIA COURTS, VOIDED THE CONVICTION
ON A FEDERAL GROUND NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN HIS EARLIER OPINION.  EX
PARTE WELLS, 99 F. SUPP. 320.  THE OPINIONS OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE SHOW
THAT HE WAS WELL AWARE OF THE DIFFICULTIES PRESENTED BY THE PROCEDURE,
BUT FELT HE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS. 
INDEED, HE HAS CONTRIBUTED THE LESSONS OF HIS OWN EXPERIENCE IN THIS
FIELD IN GOODMAN, USE AND ABUSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, 7 F.R.D.
313.  ANOTHER CARICATURE OF THE GREAT WRIT IN ACTION IS THE ADAMSON
LITIGATION IN CALIFORNIA.  ADAMSON WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH IN THE
CALIFORNIA TRIAL COURT IN 1944.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN 1946.  PEOPLE V. ADAMSON, 27
CAL. 2D 478, 165 P.2D 3.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, HEARD THE CASE
ON THE MERITS, AND AFFIRMED.   ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46.  ON
JANUARY 30, 1948, JUST ONE WEEK BEFORE THE DATE SET FOR HIS EXECUTION,
ADAMSON PETITIONED THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR HABEAS CORPUS,
AND THIS PETITION WAS DENIED.  THIS COURT DENIED APPLICATION FOR A STAY
AND DENIED CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  ADAMSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 333 U.S. 831.  LATER ON THE SAME DAY THAT THIS COURT DENIED
CERTIORARI, A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ISSUED A STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE
SENTENCE.  THEN THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE WRIT AND DENIED A
CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO APPEAL.  IN EX PARTE ADAMSON, 167 F.2D
996, A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DENIED AN
APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.  THIS COURT AGAIN
DENIED CERTIORARI.  EX PARTE ADAMSON, 334 U.S. 834.  EVEN THIS WAS NOT
THE END, HOWEVER, FOR IN 1949 WE FIND ADAMSON APPEALING TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA FROM A DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM
NOBIS.  THAT COURT THEN TOOK OCCASION TO QUESTION THE GOOD FAITH OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.  34 CAL. 2D 320, 338, 210 P.2D 13, 22.  CERTAINLY THE USE
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS AS AIDS IN SUCH DELAYING TACTICS AS ARE EVIDENCED
HERE DOES NOT ELEVATE THE STATURE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  WE
HAVE NO MYTHICAL ABUSE HERE BUT A VERY REAL PROBLEM OF HARASSMENT OF
THE STATE. 

FN12  DIXON V. DUFFY, 344 U.S. 143. 

FN13  CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES - 1952, 25 STATE GOVERNMENT, NO.
11, P. 249 (NOV. 1952): 

"WHEREAS IT APPEARS THAT BY REASON OF CERTAIN PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED
IN CERTAIN RECENT FEDERAL DECISIONS, A PERSON WHOSE CONVICTION IN A
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT HAS THEREAFTER BEEN AFFIRMED BY
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THAT STATE, AND WHOSE PETITION FOR A REVIEW OF THE
STATE COURT'S PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, MAY NEVERTHELESS OBTAIN FROM A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE OR
COURT, UNDER A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, NEW, INDEPENDENT, AND SUCCESSIVE
HEARINGS BASED UPON A PETITION SUPPORTED ONLY BY THE OATH OF THE
PETITIONER AND CONTAINING ONLY SUCH STATEMENT OF FACTS AS WERE, OR
COULD HAVE BEEN, PRESENTED IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE
COURTS: 

"AND WHEREAS THE MULTIPLICITY OF THESE PROCEDURES AVAILABLE IN THE
INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS TO SUCH CONVICTED PERSONS, AND THE CONSEQUENT
INORDINATE DELAYS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AS THE RESULT
OF SAID FEDERAL DECISIONS WILL TEND TOWARD THE DILUTION OF THE JUDICIAL
SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY, MAY CREATE GRAVE AND UNDESIRABLE CONFLICTS
BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS RESPECTING FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS,
AND MUST INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE IMPAIRMENT OF THE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN
OUR JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS: 

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT IT IS THE CONSIDERED VIEW OF THE
CHIEF JUSTICES OF THE STATES OF THE UNION, IN CONFERENCE DULY
ASSEMBLED, THAT ORDERLY FEDERAL PROCEDURE UNDER OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT SHOULD REQUIRE THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT OF A STATE'S HIGHEST
COURT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW OR REVERSAL ONLY BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CONFERENCE OF CHIEF
JUSTICES BE AUTHORIZED, AND HE IS HEREBY DIRECTED, TO APPOINT A SPECIAL
COMMITTEE TO GIVE STUDY TO THE GRAVE QUESTIONS AND POTENTIAL
COMPLICATIONS LIKELY TO ENSUE IF THE POWER TO REVIEW OR VOID STATE
COURT JUDGMENTS CONTINUES TO BE RECOGNIZED AS LYING IN ANY COURTS OF
THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, SAVE AND EXCEPT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES:  AND THAT SAID SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORT ITS FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE." 

FN14  EX PARTE WATKINS, 3 PET. 193, 202. 

FN15  SUCH WAS THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT DURING ARGUMENT OF MARTINEZ V.
NEELLY, AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 344 U.S. 916.  HIS
ADVERSARY AGREED. 

FN16  PRICE V. JOHNSTON, SUPRA. 

FN17  IN PRICE V. JOHNSTON, SUPRA, THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS WERE
REVERSED FOR DISMISSING THE CONVICT'S FOURTH PETITION.  SEE ALSO
STATISTICS AS TO REPEATERS IN NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN18  WHEN PETITIONER IN BROWN V. ALLEN SOUGHT CERTIORARI HERE AFTER
HIS APPEAL TO THE STATE COURT FAILED, TWO JUSTICES DISSENTED FROM THE
DENIAL OF CERTIORARI.  BROWN V. NORTH CAROLINA, 341 U.S. 943. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE FOUR PETITIONERS IN THESE CASES ARE UNDER SENTENCES OF DEATH
IMPOSED BY NORTH CAROLINA STATE COURTS.  ALL ARE NEGROES.  BROWN AND
SPELLER WERE CONVICTED OF RAPING WHITE WOMEN; THE TWO DANIELS, AGED 17
WHEN ARRESTED, WERE CONVICTED OF MURDERING A WHITE MAN.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED AND WE DENIED CERTIORARI IN ALL THE CASES. 
THESE ARE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS WHICH CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONVICTIONS. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD HABEAS CORPUS
JURISDICTION IN ALL THE CASES INCLUDING POWER TO RELEASE EITHER OR ALL
OF THE PRISONERS IF HELD AS A RESULT OF VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  THIS I UNDERSTAND TO BE A REAFFIRMANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE
EMBODIED IN MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86.  I ALSO AGREE THAT IN THE
EXERCISE OF THIS JURISDICTION THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER TO HEAR AND
CONSIDER ALL RELEVANT FACTS BEARING ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTIONS
ASSERTED IN THESE CASES.  I DISAGREE WITH THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT
PETITIONERS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THOSE CONTENTIONS.  THE CHIEF
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS THROUGHOUT HAVE BEEN AND ARE:  (A) EXTORTED
CONFESSIONS WERE USED TO CONVICT; (B) NEGROES WERE DELIBERATELY
EXCLUDED FROM SERVICE AS JURORS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE.  FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS I WOULD REVERSE EACH OF THE JUDGMENTS DENYING HABEAS
CORPUS. 

FIRST.  IN DENYING HABEAS CORPUS IN ALL THE CASES, THE DISTRICT COURT
FELT CONSTRAINED TO GIVE AND DID GIVE WEIGHT TO OUR PRIOR DENIALS OF
CERTIORARI.  SO DID THE COURT OF APPEALS.  I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT
THIS WAS ERROR BUT DISAGREE WITH ITS HOLDING THAT THE ERROR WAS
HARMLESS.  IT IS TRUE THAT AFTER CONSIDERING OUR DENIALS OF CERTIORARI
AS A REASON FOR REFUSING HABEAS CORPUS, THE DISTRICT JUDGE ATTEMPTED TO
PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS JUST AS IF WE HAD NOT DECLINED
TO REVIEW THE CONVICTIONS.  BUT THE RECORD SHOWS THE DIFFICULTY OF HIS
ATTEMPT TO ERASE THIS FACT FROM HIS MIND AND I AM NOT WILLING TO ACT ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT HE SUCCEEDED IN DOING SO.  BOTH THE JURY AND
CONFESSION QUESTIONS RAISED IN THESE DEATH CASES HAVE ENTIRELY TOO MUCH
RECORD SUPPORT TO REFUSE RELIEF ON SUCH A QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTION.  I
WOULD THEREFORE REVERSE AND REMAND ALL THE CASES FOR THE DISTRICT JUDGE
TO CONSIDER AND APPRAISE THE ISSUES FREE FROM HIS ERRONEOUS BELIEF THAT
THIS COURT DECIDED THEM AGAINST PETITIONERS BY DENYING CERTIORARI. 

SECOND.  BROWN V. ALLEN, NO. 32.  BROWN'S DEATH SENTENCE FOR RAPE
RESTS ON AN INDICTMENT RETURNED BY A FORSYTH COUNTY GRAND JURY.  WE
RECENTLY REVERSED FIVE NORTH CAROLINA CONVICTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT
THERE HAD BEEN A SYSTEMATIC RACIAL EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM FORSYTH
COUNTY'S JURIES FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR TO 1947.  BRUNSON V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 333 U.S. 851 (1948).  UPON A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN
BROWN'S HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING THIS COURT HOLDS THAT FORSYTH COUNTY'S
DISCRIMINATORY JURY PRACTICE WAS ABANDONED IN 1949 WHEN THE OLD JURY
BOXES WERE REFILLED.  THE TESTIMONY ON WHICH THE COURT RELIES IS THAT
THE NAMES PUT IN THE 1949 BOX WERE TAKEN INDISCRIMINATELY FROM THE LIST
OF COUNTY TAXPAYERS, 16% OF WHOM WERE NEGROES, 84% WHITES.  OTHER
EVIDENCE RELIED ON WAS THAT SINCE 1949 FOUR TO SEVEN NEGROES HAVE BEEN
INCLUDED IN EACH JURY VENIRE OF 44 TO 60.  THE CONCRETE EFFECT OF THE
NEW BOX IN THIS CASE WAS STATED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT TO
BE THIS: 

"ONE NEGRO WOMAN SERVED ON THE GRAND JURY AND AT LEAST ONE
PROSPECTIVE NEGRO JUROR WAS TENDERED TO THE DEFENDANT FOR THE PETIT
JURY AND WAS EXCUSED OR REJECTED BY HIS COUNSEL."  STATE V. BROWN, 233
N.C. 202, 205, 63 S.E.2D 99, 101. 

THE FOREGOING EVIDENCE DOES SHOW A PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF THE OLD
DISCRIMINATORY JURY PRACTICES - SINCE 1949 A SMALL NUMBER OF NEGROES
HAVE REGULARLY BEEN SUMMONED FOR JURY DUTY.  BUT PROOF OF A LESSER
DEGREE OF DISCRIMINATION NOW THAN BEFORE 1949 IS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW
THAT IMPARTIAL SELECTION OF JURORS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES. 
NEGROES ARE ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF FORSYTH COUNTY'S POPULATION. 
CONSEQUENTLY, THE NUMBER OF NEGROES NOW CALLED FOR JURY DUTY IS STILL
GLARINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THEIR PERCENTAGE OF CITIZENSHIP.  IT IS
NOT POSSIBLE TO ATTRIBUTE EITHER THE PRE-1949 OR THE POST-1949
DISPROPORTIONS ENTIRELY TO ACCIDENT.  AND THE STATE HAS NOT PRODUCED
EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PARTIAL CONTINUATION OF THE LONG-STANDING
FAILURE TO USE NEGRO JURORS IS DUE TO SOME CAUSE OTHER THAN RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION.  CF. PATTON V. MISSISSIPPI, 332 U.S. 463, 466, 468
469.  RECOGNIZING THIS DIFFICULTY THE COURT SANCTIONS THE CONTINUED
DISPROPORTIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE THE RESULT OF SELECTING JURORS
EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE COUNTY TAX LIST.  BUT EVEN THIS QUESTIONABLE
METHOD OF SELECTION FALLS SHORT OF SHOWING A GENUINE ABANDONMENT OF OLD
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES.  CERTAINLY DISCRIMINATORY RESULTS REMAINED. 
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE COURT SHOULD PERMIT THIS TAX LIST TECHNIQUE TO BE
TREATED AS A COMPLETE NEUTRALIZER OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. 

THIRD.  SPELLER V. ALLEN, NO. 22.  THE JURY THAT TRIED SPELLER WAS
DRAWN FROM VANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.  BEFORE THIS TRIAL NO NEGRO
HAD SERVED ON A VANCE COUNTY JURY IN RECENT YEARS.  NO NEGRO HAD EVEN
BEEN SUMMONED.  THAT THIS WAS THE RESULT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DISCRIMINATION IS MADE CLEAR BY THE FACT THAT NEGROES CONSTITUTE 45% OF
THE COUNTY'S POPULATION AND 38% OF ITS TAXPAYERS.  THE COURT HOLDS,
HOWEVER, THAT THIS DISCRIMINATION WAS COMPLETELY CURED BY REFILLING THE
JURY BOX WITH THE NAMES OF 145 NEGROES AND 1,981 WHITES.  SUCH A SMALL
NUMBER OF NEGRO JURORS IS DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.  THE COURT ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN IT BY RELYING
UPON ANOTHER DISCRIMINATION, ONE WHICH CAN HARDLY BE CLASSIFIED AS MOST
APPEALING IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.  WHAT THE COURT APPARENTLY FINDS IS
THAT NEGROES WERE EXCLUDED FROM THIS NEW JURY BOX NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE
NEGROES BUT BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED TO OWN LESS PROPERTY THAN WHITE
PEOPLE.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE COURT FINDS AS A FACT THAT THE
DISCRIMINATION, IF ANY, WAS BASED NOT ON RACE BUT ON WEALTH - THE
JURORS WERE SELECTED FROM TAXPAYERS WITH "THE MOST PROPERTY."  THE
COURT THEN EVEN DECLINES TO PASS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS
PROPERTY DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS WERE
BASED ON RACIAL, NOT ON PROPERTY, DISCRIMINATIONS.  I CANNOT AGREE TO
SUCH A NARROW RESTRICTION OF PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE JURY THAT
BROUGHT IN THE DEATH VERDICT.  JURY DISCRIMINATIONS HERE SEEM PLAIN TO
ME AND I WOULD NOT BY-PASS THEM. 

FOURTH.  DANIELS V. ALLEN, NO. 20.  HERE ALSO EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES AN
UNLAWFUL EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM JURIES BECAUSE OF RACE.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO REVIEW THIS EVIDENCE ON STATE PROCEDURAL
GROUNDS.  ABSENCE OF STATE COURT REVIEW ON THIS GROUND IS NOW HELD TO
CUT OFF REVIEW IN FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.  BUT IN THE TWO
PRECEDING CASES WHERE THE STATE SUPREME COURT DID REVIEW THE EVIDENCE,
THIS COURT HAS ALSO REVIEWED IT.  I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO AGREE WITH THE
SOUNDNESS OF A PHILOSOPHY WHICH PROMPTS THIS COURT TO GRANT A SECOND
REVIEW WHERE THE STATE HAS GRANTED ONE BUT TO DENY ANY REVIEW AT ALL
WHERE THE STATE HAS GRANTED NONE. 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS INDICATE THE OBVIOUSNESS OF DISCRIMINATORY NEGRO
EXCLUSION FROM JURY SERVICE IN PITT COUNTY WHERE THIS CASE WAS TRIED. 

NEGROES CONSTITUTED ABOUT 47% OF THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY AND
ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THE TAXPAYERS.  BUT THE JURY BOX OF 10,000 NAMES
INCLUDED AT MOST 185 NEGORES.  AND UP TO AND INCLUDING THE DANIELS'
TRIAL NO NEGRO HAD EVER SERVED ON A GRAND JURY IN MODERN TIMES. 
PETITIONERS MADE OBJECTION IN AMPLE TIME TO JURIES SO DISCRIMINATORILY
CHOSEN. 

THE COURT'S CONCLUSION NOT TO CONSIDER AND ACT ON THIS MANIFEST
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION RESTS ON THESE FACTS:  AFTER PETITIONERS' DEATH
SENTENCE THEY WERE GRANTED AN APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT.  JUNE 6TH THE TRIAL JUDGE GRANTED 60 DAYS FOR THEIR
LAWYERS TO MAKE UP AND SERVE THEIR "STATEMENT OF CASE ON APPEAL." 
PREPARATION OF THIS STATEMENT (COMPARABLE TO A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS)
CONSUMED VALUABLE TIME BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTY IN GETTING THE
STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT.  ON COMPLETION PETITIONERS' COUNSEL ON FRIDAY,
AUGUST 5TH, CALLED THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SERVE HIM BUT
FOUND HE WAS OUT OF TOWN.  ACCORDING TO THE RECORD HE AND HIS FAMILY
WERE AWAY FOR THE WEEKEND AT A BEACH.  THEY RETURNED HOME SUNDAY, BUT
HE DID NOT GET BACK TO HIS OFFICE UNTIL MONDAY, AUGUST 8TH.  HAD THE
STATEMENT BEEN DELIVERED AT HIS OFFICE BY A SHERIFF ON FRIDAY THE 60TH
DAY, APPARENTLY THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH NORTH CAROLINA
LAW.  INSTEAD IT WAS RECEIPTED FOR AT HIS OFFICE ON THE 61ST DAY, TWO
DAYS BEFORE HIS RETURN FROM THE BEACH.  IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE WAS ONE
DAY LATE.  ALTHOUGH ADMITTEDLY THE COURT HAD DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO
HEAR THE APPEAL, IT DISMISSED THE CASE.   PETITIONERS WERE THEREBY
PREVENTED FROM ARGUING THE POINT OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND
CONSEQUENTLY IT HAS NEVER BEEN PASSED ON BY AN APPELLATE COURT.  THIS
DENIAL OF STATE APPELLATE REVIEW PLUS THE OBVIOUS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
THUS LEFT UNCORRECTED SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO MAKE ONE OF THOSE
"EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS" WHICH THE COURT SAYS AUTHORIZES FEDERAL
COURTS TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF STATE PRISONERS.  CF.
FRISBIE V. COLLINS, 342 U.S. 519, 520-521.    THE COURT THINKS THAT TO
REVIEW THIS QUESTION AND GRANT PETITIONERS THE PROTECTIONS GUARANTEED
BY THE CONSTITUTION WOULD "SUBVERT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF STATE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AND DESTROY STATE ENERGY IN THE DETECTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
CRIME."  I CANNOT AGREE.  STATE SYSTEMS ARE NOT SO FEEBLE.  AND THE
OBJECT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS TO SEARCH RECORDS TO PREVENT ILLEGAL
IMPRISONMENTS.  TO HOLD IT UNAVAILABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE IS
TO DEGRADE IT.  I THINK MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86, FORBIDS THIS. 
IN THAT CASE NEGROES HAD BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO DEATH BY AN
ALL-WHITE JURY SELECTED UNDER A PRACTICE OF SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION OF
NEGROES FROM JURIES.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAD REFUSED TO CONSIDER
THIS DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE OBJECTION TO IT HAD COME TOO
LATE.  THIS COURT HAD DENIED CERTIORARI.  LATER A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT SUMMARILY DISMISSED A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ALLEGING THE
FOREGOING AND OTHER VERY SERIOUS ACTS OF TRIAL UNFAIRNESS, ALL OF WHICH
HAD BEEN URGED UPON THIS COURT IN THE PRIOR CERTIORARI PETITION.  THIS
COURT NEVERTHELESS HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD COMMITTED ERROR IN
REFUSING TO EXAMINE THE FACTS ALLEGED.  I READ MOORE V. DEMPSEY, SUPRA,
AS STANDING FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS NEVER TOO LATE FOR COURTS IN
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS TO LOOK STRAIGHT THROUGH PROCEDURAL SCREENS
IN ORDER TO PREVENT FORFEITURE OF LIFE OR LIBERTY IN FLAGRANT DEFIANCE
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  CF. UNITED STATES V. KENNEDY, 157 F.2D 811, 813. 
PERHAPS THERE IS NO MORE EXALTED JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  I AM WILLING TO
AGREE THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE EXERCISED IN CASES LIKE THESE EXCEPT UNDER
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR IN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS.  BUT I CANNOT
JOIN IN ANY OPINION THAT ATTEMPTS TO CONFINE THE GREAT WRIT WITHIN
RIGID FORMALISTIC BOUNDARIES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS JOIN, DISSENTING. 

                               NOS. 22 AND 32. 

THE COURT IS HOLDING TODAY THAT A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN HABEAS
CORPUS CASES IS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVE SIGNIFICANCE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
SUSTAINED DENIALS OF APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CHIEFLY
BECAUSE IT TREATED OUR DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FROM THE
ORGINAL CONVICTION IN EACH OF THESE CASES AS A REVIEW ON THE MERITS AND
A REJECTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS ASSERTED BY THESE
PETITIONERS.  IN SHORT, WHILE THE ONLY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DENIALS OF
CERTIORARI WAS A REFUSAL TO REVIEW, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THOUGH DISAVOWING THE FULL TECHNICAL IMPORT OF RES
JUDICATA, TREATED SUBSTANTIVELY EMPTY DENIALS AS THOUGH THIS COURT HAD
EXAMINED AND APPROVED THE HOLDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH
CAROLINA THAT THERE WAS NO PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN
THE SELECTION OF JURIES IN THESE CASES. 

THIS COURT COULD HAVE REACHED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS IN
CONTROVERSY HAD IT SEEN FIT TO REVIEW THE CASES.  IT DECLINED TO DO SO,
AND THAT IS ALL THAT THE ORDERS IN 340 U.S. 835 AND 341 U.S. 943
SIGNIFY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE LEFT PRECISELY AS THOUGH
THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI HAD NOT BEEN FILED HERE AND HABEAS CORPUS
HAD BEEN BROUGHT INITIALLY IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AS IN FRISBIE V.
COLLINS, 342 U.S. 519.  IF THAT HAD BEEN THE CASE, COULD IT BE HELD
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS FORECLOSED FROM GOING INTO THE MERITS AND
WAS BARRED FROM DETERMINING WHETHER THESE CASES CAME WITHIN OUR
DECISIONS FINDING SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN FIVE
NORTH CAROLINA TRIALS?  BRUNSON V. NORTH CAROLINA, 333 U.S. 851. 

SUPPOSE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HAD FOUND
AGAINST BROWN AND SPELLER.  WHAT BASIS IS THERE FOR ASSUMING THAT ON
APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, WITH ITS
SPECIALIZED LOCAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SUCH MATTERS, WOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED
IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS?  AND WHAT BASIS IN REASON HAVE WE FOR
ASSUMING, IF THE CASES HAD COME HERE WITH A POWERFUL OPINION FROM JUDGE
PARKER, LET US SAY, FINDING THAT THERE WAS SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION,
THAT THIS COURT WOULD HAVE DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO REVIEW SO WEIGHTY A
CONCLUSION, OR, IF WE HAD TAKEN THE CASE, THAT WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE
FACTS AND THEIR MEANING TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT FOUND?  SUCH ASSUMPTIONS ARE
UNWARRANTED, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE IMPRESSIVE SHOWING BY MR.
JUSTICE BLACK THAT IN FACT THERE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IN
THE MAKE-UP OF THE JURIES IN THESE TWO CASES WHERE LIFE IS AT STAKE. 

I CANNOT PROTEST TOO STRONGLY AGAINST AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY BASED ON THE GROUND THAT THAT COURT WAS
FORECLOSED ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS FROM CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, WHEN WE NOW DECIDE THAT THE COURT WAS WRONG IN
BELIEVING THAT IT WAS SO FORECLOSED.  THE AFFIRMANCE BY THIS COURT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THESE CASES IS
ALL THE MORE VULNERABLE IN THAT THIS COURT, WITHOUT GUIDANCE FROM THE
COURT OF APPEALS, PROCEEDS TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIM.  THIS COURT CONCLUDES THAT THERE WAS NOT A SYSTEMATIC
DISCRIMINATION IN KEEPING NEGROES OFF JURIES.  IF THIS COURT DEEMED IT
NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE MERITS, THE MERITS SHOULD EQUALLY HAVE BEEN
OPEN TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  AS I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, THAT COURT
IS FAR BETTER SITUATED THAN WE ARE TO ASSESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF JURY
SELECTION IN NORTH CAROLINA AND TO DRAW THE APPROPRIATE INFERENCES. 

                               NO. 20. 

IN THIS CASE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ALSO
SUSTAINED THE DISTRICT COURT IN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS BASED ON THE CLAIM BY THE TWO PETITIONERS HERE THAT THEIR
CONVICTIONS FOR MURDER IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT WERE VITIATED BY
DISREGARD OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  BUT
THIS CASE IS UNLIKE THE BROWN AND SPELLER CASES; HERE THE COURT OF
APPEALS DID NOT FIND ITSELF FORECLOSED TO CONSIDER THE MERITS BY
DEEMING ITSELF BOUND BY AN ADJUDICATION OF THE MERITS IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA FOLLOWED BY A DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT.  (FN1)  AND THE COURT HERE DOES NOT SUSTAIN
THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL BY CONTENDING THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA
SUPREME COURT HAD ALREADY ADJUDICATED THE MERITS, NOR DOES THIS COURT
PASS ON THE MERITS. 

THIS COURT SUSTAINS THE LOWER COURTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE RIGHT OF
REVIEW ON THE MERITS WAS FORECLOSED BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS LOST THEIR
RIGHT OF REVIEW THROUGH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
NORTH CAROLINA LAW FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
NORTH CAROLINA.  STATE V. DANIELS, 231 N.C. 17, 341, 56 S.E.2D 2, 646;
ID., 232 N.C.  196, 59 S.E.2D 430. 

WE WERE GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND ON THE ARGUMENT THAT IF PETITIONERS'
LAWYER HAD MAILED HIS "STATEMENT OF CASE ON APPEAL" ON THE 60TH DAY AND
THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE HAD RECEIVED IT ON THE 61ST DAY THE LAW OF
NORTH CAROLINA WOULD CLEARLY HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH, BUT BECAUSE HE
DELIVERED IT BY HAND ON THE 61ST DAY ALL OPPORTUNITIES FOR APPEAL, BOTH
IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS AND IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, ARE CUT OFF
ALTHOUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS HAD DISCRETION TO HEAR THIS APPEAL. 
FOR ME IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT NORTH CAROLINA DOES
NOT HAVE A FIXED PERIOD FOR TAKING AN APPEAL.  THE DECISIVE QUESTION IS
WHETHER A REFUSAL TO EXERCISE A DISCRETION WHICH THE LEGISLATURE OF
NORTH CAROLINA HAS VESTED IN ITS JUDGES IS AN ACT SO ARBITRARY AND SO
CRUEL IN ITS OPERATION, CONSIDERING THAT LIFE IS AT STAKE, THAT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IT CONSTITUTES A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN
ITS RUDIMENTARY PROCEDURAL ASPECT. 

FOR HERE WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A FRIVOLOUS OR EVEN A TENUOUS CLAIM
OF A DENIAL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
IN THE PROCEEDINGS THAT LED TO A DEATH SENTENCE.  IT SUFFICES TO QUOTE
WHAT WAS SAID IN DISSENT BY CIRCUIT JUDGE SOPER, ONE OF THE MOST
EXPERIENCED AND HARDHEADED OF FEDERAL JUDGES: 

"THERE IS NO ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN
THE PENDING APPEAL TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NOT A GROSS VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PRISONERS IN THE TRIAL COURT."  DANIELS V.
ALLEN, 192 F.2D 763, 770, 771. 

AND THIS STATEMENT WAS NOT QUESTIONED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE BASIC REASON FOR CLOSING BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS TO THE
PETITIONERS ON SUCH SERIOUS CLAIMS AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE
JEJUNE ABSTRACTION THAT HABEAS CORPUS CANNOT BE USED FOR AN APPEAL. 
JUDGE SOPER DEALT WITH THE DECEPTIVENESS OF THIS FORMULA BY QUOTING
WHAT JUDGE LEARNED HAND HAD FOUND TO BE THE TRUTH IN REGARD TO THIS
GENERALITY THIRTY YEARS AGO: 

"WE SHALL NOT DISCUSS AT LENGTH THE OCCASIONS WHICH WILL JUSTIFY
RESORT TO THE WRIT, WHERE THE OBJECTION HAS BEEN OPEN ON APPEAL.  AFTER
A SOMEWHAT EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITIES TWENTY-FOUR YEARS AGO, I
CONCLUDED THAT THE LAW WAS IN GREAT CONFUSION; AND THE DECISIONS SINCE
THEN HAVE SCARCELY TENDED TO SHARPEN THE LINES.  WE CAN FIND NO MORE
DEFINITE RULE THAN THAT THE WRIT IS AVAILABLE, NOT ONLY TO DETERMINE
POINTS OF JURISDICTION, STRICTI JURIS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS;
BUT WHENEVER ELSE RESORT TO IT IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT A COMPLETE
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE."  KULICK V. KENNEDY, 157 F.2D 811, 813. 

THE REASONS FOR FINDING THAT WE HAVE HERE SO COMPLETE A MISCARRIAGE
OF JUSTICE ARE SO POWERFULLY STATED BY JUDGE SOPER THAT I CANNOT DO
BETTER THAN TO ADOPT THEM AS MY OWN: 

"THE TRIAL COURT'S STRICT APPLICATION OF THE PROCEDURAL RULES IN A
CAPITAL CASE IN THESE TWO INSTANCES OF RULINGS BY THAT COURT PREVENTING
DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS FROM RAISING THE JURY QUESTION CAN HARDLY BE
APPROVED AS A PROPER EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  THE DEFENDANTS
MERELY ASKED FOR RULINGS WHICH WOULD HAVE ENABLED THEM TO OBTAIN A
REVIEW BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION ON
A GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION; AND THE RELIEF COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED
WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE
STATE.  IT CAN HARDLY BE DOUBTED THAT THE DECISION IN EACH CASE LAY
WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE, BUT ONCE IT WAS TAKEN, THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE DEEMED ITSELF POWERLESS TO INTERFERE.  THUS THERE IS
PRESENTED AN IMPASSE WHICH CAN BE SURMOUNTED ONLY BY A PROCEEDING LIKE
THAT BEFORE THIS COURT.  WE HAVE BEEN TOLD TIME AND AGAIN THAT
LEGALISTIC REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE DISREGARDED IN EXAMINING APPLICATIONS
FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND THE RULES HAVE BEEN RELAXED IN CASES
WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HAS ACTED UNDER DURESS OR PERJURED TESTIMONY HAS
BEEN KNOWINGLY USED BY THE PROSECUTION, OR A PLEA OF GUILTY HAS BEEN
OBTAINED BY TRICK, OR THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN INADEQUATELY REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL.  (FN2) HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271  ...  ; DARR V. BURFORD,
339 U.S. 200, 203  ...  .  IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE ANY MATERIAL
DISTINCTION IN PRACTICAL EFFECT BETWEEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE
PLIGHT OF THE PRISONERS IN THE PENDING CASE WHO HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN THE
TECHNICALITIES OF LOCAL PROCEDURE AND IN CONSEQUENCE HAVE BEEN DENIED
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT."  192 F.2D, AT 773. 

FN1  ALTHOUGH THERE WAS SUCH A DENIAL IN THIS COURT, NO PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT FROM THE LATEST OF THE THREE DECISIONS BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS NOW UNDER REVIEW.  IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE TO SAY
THAT THE CERTIORARI THAT WAS DENIED HERE AFFORDS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF
THE REASON FOR HOLDING THAT NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE ATTACHES TO SUCH A
DENIAL.  IT WOULD BE BEYOND THE WIT OF THE WISEST PANEL OF JUDGES TO
DETERMINE ON WHAT GROUND, FOR WHAT REASON, THE PETITION WAS DENIED. 
THE PAPERS IN THE CASE DO NOT AFFORD A RATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR SAYING
THAT IT WAS THIS GROUND RATHER THAN THAT.  THE CONFLICTING BASES FOR
REJECTION NOT ONLY MAY WELL HAVE INFLUENCED DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE
COURT; IT IS NOT AT ALL UNLIKELY THAT INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE COURT
DID NOT FEEL IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHICH OF TWO GROUNDS WAS
DECISIVE. 

FN2  THIS LANGUAGE IS OF COURSE NOT TO BE READ TO MEAN THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE FREELY WAIVED.  UNDER APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSCIOUS FAILURE TO APPEAL MAY CONSTITUTE SUCH WAIVER;
THE VERY QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A FAILURE TO APPEAL. 
..END :













UNITED STATES, SMITH V. BALDI 344 U.S. 561 


NO. 31.  ARGUED APRIL 29-30, 1952 - REARGUED OCTOBER 13-14, 1952 -
DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1953 - 192 F.2D 540, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT (WITH NO STATEMENT OF REASONS
THEREFOR) TO REVIEW A DECISION OF A STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMING A
CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SHOULD BE GIVEN NO WEIGHT IN
SUBSEQUENT HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN A FEDERAL COURT.  BROWN V.
ALLEN, ANTE, P. 443.   P. 565. 

2.  PETITIONER, SENTENCED TO DEATH BY A STATE COURT FOR MURDER, WAS
NOT DENIED DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY
VIRTUE OF HIS HAVING BEEN ALLOWED TO PLEAD GUILTY WITHOUT THERE FIRST
HAVING BEEN A FORMAL ADJUDICATION OF HIS SANITY, IN VIEW OF THE
PROCEDURE AVAILABLE FOR SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWING THE PLEA OF GUILTY AND
ENTERING A PLEA OF "NOT GUILTY BECAUSE OF INSANITY."   PP. 565-567. 

3.  PETITIONER WAS NOT DENIED DUE PROCESS BY REASON OF HIS HAVING
BEEN SUMMARILY ADVISED BY COURT-DESIGNATED COUNSEL AT HIS ARRAIGNMENT
TO PLEAD "NOT GUILTY," SINCE THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY LATER TO
RECTIFY THE ERROR, IF THERE WAS ERROR, BY A HEARING ON INSANITY.  PP.
567-568. 

4.  IT WAS NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF THE STATE, EVEN UPON
REQUEST, TO APPOINT A PSYCHIATRIST TO MAKE A PRETRIAL EXAMINATION INTO
PETITIONER'S SANITY.  P. 568. 

5.  PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT AN INSANE MAN MAY NOT BE EXECUTED
ASSUMES ERRONEOUSLY THAT HE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE INSANE.  THE LAW OF
PENNSYLVANIA, AS ANNOUNCED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, PROTECTS AGAINST
EXECUTION OF THE INSANE.  PP. 568-569. 

6.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, ON
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, DID NOT ERR IN REFUSING TO
HOLD A PLENARY HEARING FOR THE DETERMINATION OF PETITIONER'S SANITY. 
PP. 569-570. 

7.  AS THE STATE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURT RECORDS WHICH WERE
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT SHOW A JUDICIAL HEARING, WHERE ON THE PLEA OF
GUILTY THE QUESTION OF SANITY AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME WAS CANVASSED, PETITIONER'S SENTENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE
PROCESS.  P. 570. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. SMITH V. BALDI, SUPERINTENDENT, PHILADELPHIA
COUNTY PRISON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER, A STATE PRISONER, APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
HABEAS CORPUS; AND HIS APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED.  96 F. SUPP. 100. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  192 F.2D 540.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 903.  AFFIRMED, P. 570. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO DEATH BY THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED IN JANUARY 1948. 
PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT COUNSEL WHEN HE APPEARED FOR ARRAIGNMENT OF
FEBRUARY 25, 1948.  THE PRESIDING JUDGE ASKED A LAWYER PRESENT IN THE
COURTROOM TO ADVISE PETITIONER HOW TO PLEAD.  THIS LAWYER, WHO KNEW
NOTHING ABOUT PETITIONER, ADVISED HIM TO ENTER A PLEA OF "NOT GUILTY." 
ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1948, AFTER SEVERAL CONTINUANCES, THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, TOGETHER WITH PETITIONER'S STATE-NAMED COUNSEL, WHO HAD BEEN
APPOINTED AFTER ARRAIGNMENT, AND A JUDGE OF THE SENTENCING COURT,
AGREED THAT A PLEA OF "GUILTY" WOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE EARLIER
PLEA OF "NOT GUILTY."  THIS WAS DONE SO THAT THE STATE COULD PRESENT
ITS EVIDENCE THAT THE CRIME WAS FIRST DEGREE MURDER, AND PETITIONER'S
COUNSEL WOULD THEN HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME IN WHICH TO PROCURE OUT-OF
STATE EVIDENCE AT STATE EXPENSE TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT
PETITIONER WAS INSANE.  THE STATE PUT IN ITS EVIDENCE ON SEPTEMBER 21,
1948.  AT HEARINGS HELD ON OCTOBER 28, 1948, AND NOVEMBER 5, 1948,
DEFENSE COUNSEL INTRODUCED EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT PETITIONER WAS
INSANE.  THE SENTENCING COURT WAS NOT SATISFIED BY THE EVIDENCE THAT
PETITIONER HAD BEEN INSANE EITHER AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER OR AT ANY
TIME THEREAFTER, AND ON FEBRUARY 4, 1949, SENTENCED HIM TO DEATH. 

WHILE THE DOCKET ENTRIES AS SHOWN IN THE TRIAL RECORD DIFFER FROM THE
NOTES ON THE INDICTMENT, AS TO WHETHER THE SENTENCING COURT FOUND
PETITIONER GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1948, OR DID
NOT SO FIND UNTIL FEBRUARY 4, 1949, THE DIFFERENCE IS IMMATERIAL. 
ACCORDING TO THE ENTRIES WRITTEN IN LONGHAND ON PETITIONER'S INDICTMENT
(192 F.2D, AT 569), THE ENTRY NOTING THE ADJUDICATION OF GUILTY OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON FEBRUARY 4, 1949, IS NOT IN PROPER
ORDER.  IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INSERTED BETWEEN THE ENTRY STATING THAT
PETITIONER HAD WITHDRAWN HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY AND ENTERED A PLEA OF
GUILTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1948, AND THE ENTRY OF NOVEMBER 5, 1948,
STATING THAT "ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY HAD BEEN HEARD AND HELD UNDER
ADVISEMENT."  IF THE CONTESTED AND OUT-OF-ORDER DATE OF "2/4/49" IS
REMOVED, THE NOTES ON THE INDICTMENT WOULD AGREE WITH THE DOCKET ENTRY
OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1948, AND WOULD READ "AFTER HEARING TESTIMONY BOTH FOR
THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE DEFENDANT  ... THE DEFENDANT IS ADJUDGED
GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE 1ST DEGREE.  (FN1)  SINCE THE ENTRY OF
SEPTEMBER 21, 1948, WAS MADE FOLLOWING A PLEA OF GUILTY AND WITH
OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE AS TO INSANITY, IT WAS NOT IN ANY WAY
BINDING OR EVEN PERSUASIVE.  IT WAS THE SENTENCE ON FEBRUARY 4, 1949,
AFTER THE INSANITY HEARING THAT WAS THE FINAL ADJUDICATION. 

AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THIS JUDGMENT ON A FULL RECORD TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT WHERE IT WAS ASSERTED THAT IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION
BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO HAVE IMPOSED THE DEATH SENTENCE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED.  362 PA. 222,
66 A.2D 764.  NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO SECURE FROM THIS COURT A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THAT AFFIRMANCE.  PETITIONER THEREAFTER FILED A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THE PETITION WAS
DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT AT THE TIME THE PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED.  87 F. SUPP. 339. 
ON APPEAL THE DENIAL WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT.  181 F.2D 847.  NO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THAT
DECISION WAS FILED WITH THIS COURT.  A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS
THEN FILED IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  THIS WAS ENTERTAINED ON THE
MERITS AND DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
OF LAW AND THERE WAS "NOTHING IN THIS RECORD WHICH CONVINCES US THAT
THIS RELATOR WAS INSANE WHEN HE COMMITTED THE MURDER CHARGED OR WHEN HE
PLEADED GUILTY OR AT THE TIME HE WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH."  364 PA. 93,
AT 119, 71 A.2D 107, AT 120.  IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING OUR DENIAL OF A
TIMELY PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 812, PETITIONER FILED A SECOND
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE PETITION, NOTING THAT ALL THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE
PETITION HAD BEEN BEFORE THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  96 F. SUPP. 100,
105.  ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED. 
192 F.2D 540.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 343 U.S. 903.  THE PETITIONS
INVOLVED IN THE STATE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS PRESENTED THE IDENTICAL
DUE PROCESS QUESTIONS WHICH ARE BEFORE US NOW, AND THE COMPLETE RECORD
OF THE STATE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS - APPELLATE AS WELL AS THOSE IN STATE
HABEAS CORPUS - WERE BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS. 

THE FIRST POINT WE CONSIDER IS THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN
OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN A HABEAS CORPUS CASE.  BOTH THE DISTRICT
COURT (96 F. SUPP. 100, 105) AND THE COURT OF APPEALS (192 F.2D 540,
544) CONCLUDED THAT THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES
MEANS NOTHING EXCEPT THAT CERTIORARI WAS DENIED.  AS THE EFFECT OF A
DENIAL OF CERTIORARI WAS THEN IN DOUBT, WE GRANTED THIS PETITION
PRIMARILY TO DETERMINE ITS EFFECT.  AS THIS CONCLUSION IS SPELLED OUT
MORE FULLY IN THE OPINIONS IN BROWN V. ALLEN, 344 U.S. 443, DECIDED
TODAY, THE ANSWER IS SHORT.  OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN HABEAS CORPUS
CASES IS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVE SIGNIFICANCE. 

THE NEXT CONTENTION OF PETITIONER IS THAT HE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS. 
IN SUBSTANCE, THIS ISSUE PRESENTS QUESTIONS AS TO (1) WHETHER THE STATE
SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED HIM TO PLEAD GUILTY WITHOUT HAVING FIRST FORMALLY
ADJUDICATED THE QUESTION OF HIS MENTAL COMPETENCY, AND (2) WHETHER IT
SHOULD HAVE PERMITTED HIM TO PLEAD AT ALL TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE WITHOUT
AFFORDING HIM THE TECHNICAL SERVICES OF A PSYCHIATRIST. 

PETITIONER HAD BEEN COMMITTED TO AN INSTITUTION FOR MENTAL PATIENTS
IN NEW YORK THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME WITH WHICH
HE IS CHARGED.  AT THE NEW YORK INSTITUTION HIS DISEASE WAS DIAGNOSED
AS DEMENTIA PRAECOX.  AFTER FOUR MONTHS HE WAS DISCHARGED AS
RECOVERED.  LATER, HE VOLUNTARILY COMMITTED HIMSELF TO THE PHILADELPHIA
GENERAL HOSPITAL FOR FEAR THAT HE MIGHT HARM SOMEONE.  TEN DAYS LATER
HE WAS RELEASED BECAUSE THERE WAS "NO EVIDENCE OF HIS HAVING ANY
PSYCHOSIS."  THESE FACTS WERE PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL COURT PRIOR TO
SENTENCING ON FEBRUARY 4, 1949. 

IN CONTENDING THAT PENNSYLVANIA DENIED HIM DUE PROCESS BY CONVICTING
HIM OF MURDER ON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY WITHOUT AN ADJUDICATION OR EVIDENCE
AS TO HIS SANITY, PETITIONER POINTS TO LANGUAGE USED BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT INDICATING, IN HIS VIEW, A HOLDING OF SANITY BASED ON THE
PLEA OF GUILTY, INSTEAD OF ON EVIDENCE.  THERE THAT COURT STATED THAT
THE PLEA OF GUILTY WAS AN ADMISSION OF SANITY, AND THAT THE EVIDENCE OF
PETITIONER'S MENTAL CONDITION TAKEN BY THE TRIAL COURT AFTER THE PLEA
OF GUILTY WENT TO THE QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY.   (FN2)  THE
COMPLETE ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS, HOWEVER, IS FOUND IN THE
SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPH WHERE THE COURT SAID: 

"IF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S MENTAL CONDITION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENABLING THE COURT TO ASSESS THE PROPER PUNISHMENT, RAISED A
SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT AS TO SMITH'S SANITY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DUTY OF
HIS COUNSEL TO HAVE MOVED TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA OF GUILTY SO THAT A PLEA
OF 'NOT GUILTY BECAUSE OF INSANITY' COULD BE ENTERED.  IF THE TRIAL
COURT HAD DENIED THIS MOTION THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE TAKEN AN
EXCEPTION AND ON APPEAL THIS COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT
THE COURT IN DENYING THE MOTION HAD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION."  364 PA.
93, AT 113, 71 A.2D 107, AT 117. 

PETITIONER FURTHERMORE MAINTAINS THAT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED VIOLATES
DUE PROCESS BECAUSE HE WAS ADVISED TO PLEAD "NOT GUILTY" AT ARRAIGNMENT
ON THE SNAP ADVICE OF A COURT-DESIGNATED LAWYER WHO HAD NEVER BEFORE
LAID EYES ON PETITIONER.  AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS OFFHAND PLEA OF NOT
GUILTY, PETITIONER CONTENDS HE LOST HIS ONLY CHANGE TO REQUIRE THAT HIS
MENTAL COMPETENCY BE TRIED AT THE OUTSET BY A JURY.  (FN3) 

ASSUMING THAT SUCH A CHANGE WAS IN FACT LOST, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
DUE PROCESS WAS DENIED.  AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME
COURT EMPHASIZED THAT EVEN AFTER CHANGING HIS PLEA TO "GUILTY" ON THE
ADVICE OF COUNSEL FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE, THERE WAS STILL ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THE SECOND PLEA AND SUBSTITUTE A PLEA OF "NOT
GUILTY BECAUSE OF INSANITY" HAD PETITIONER'S COUNSEL ENTERTAINED ANY
DOUBT OF HIS CLIENT'S MENTAL COMPETENCY.  364 PA., AT 113, 71 A.2D, AT
117.  WHEN PENNSYLVANIA FURNISHED PETITIONER COUNSEL FOR HIS
ARRAIGNMENT, WE CANNOT SAY HIS ERROR IN ADVISING A "NOT GUILTY" PLEA
MADE ALL FUTURE PROCEEDINGS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN THERE WAS AMPLE
OPPORTUNITY TO RECTIFY THE ERROR, IF ANY THERE WAS, BY A HEARING ON
INSANITY.  A CLAIM OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS CAN HARDLY BE PREDICATED
UPON THE FAILURE OF A DEFENSE MOVE. 

THIS BRINGS US TO PETITIONER'S SECOND POINT:  THAT THE ASSISTANCE OF
A PSYCHIATRIST WAS NECESSARY TO AFFORD HIM ADEQUATE COUNSEL.  THE
RECORD OF THE TRIAL-COURT PROCEEDINGS REVEALS THAT ON NOVEMBER 5, 1948,
A PSYCHIATRIST, WHO HAD EXAMINED PETITIONER AT THE COURT'S REQUEST,
TESTIFIED AS TO PETITIONER'S SANITY AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL AND AT THE
TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.  IN ADDITION, ON OCTOBER 28, 1948,
TWO OTHER PSYCHIATRISTS WERE CALLED BY THE DEFENSE TO TESTIFY AS TO
PETITIONER'S MENTAL COMPETENCE.  ON THE SAME DAY, PETITIONER'S COUNSEL
ALSO INTRODUCED VARIOUS REPORTS AND LETTERS DEALING WITH HIS CLIENT'S
MENTAL HISTORY.  ON THIS EVIDENCE THE COURT DETERMINED HIS SANITY. 
PETITIONER FURTHER ASSERTS THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TECHNICAL
PRETRIAL ASSISTANCE BY THE STATE.  ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL JUDGE TESTIFIED
THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL MADE NO SUCH REQUEST, PETITIONER HERE STATES THAT
THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO APPOINT A PSYCHIATRIST TO MAKE A PRETRIAL
EXAMINATION.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE STATE HAS THAT DUTY BY
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.  SEE MCGARTY V. O'BRIEN, 188 F.2D 151, 155.  AS
WE HAVE SHOWN, THE ISSUE OF PETITIONER'S SANITY WAS HEARD BY THE TRIAL
COURT.  PSYCHIATRISTS TESTIFIED.  THAT SUFFICES. 

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT AN INSANE MAN MAY NOT BE EXECUTED PROCEEDS
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT HE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE INSANE.  THE LAW OF
PENNSYLVANIA, AS ANNOUNCED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, PROVIDES
FULL PROTECTION AGAINST THE EXECUTION OF THE INSANE. 

"IT IS A PRINCIPLE IMBEDDED IN THE COMMON LAW - AND WE ADMINISTER THE
COMMON LAW IN PENNSYLVANIA - THAT NO INSANE PERSON CAN BE TRIED,
SENTENCED OR EXECUTED. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"A PRISONER CONVICTED OF MURDER AND UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH IS (LIKE
THE RELATOR IN THE INSTANT CASE) STILL IN THE HANDS OF THE LAW AND IN A
PROPER CASE THE JUDICIARY OF THE STATE CAN INTERVENE BY APPROPRIATE
MEANS TO SAVE AN INSANE PRISONER FROM EXECUTION.  THE JUDICIARY HAS
THIS POWER BOTH UNDER THE STATUTES AND UNDER THE COMMON LAW." 
COMMONWEALTH EX REL. SMITH V. ASHE, 364 PA. 93, 116-119, 71 A.2D 107,
118-120.  SEE PHYLE V. DUFFY, 334 U.S. 431; AND SOLESBEE V. BALKCOM,
339 U.S. 9. 

PETITIONER'S FINAL POINT IS THAT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
COMMITTED ERROR IN REFUSING TO HOLD A PLENARY HEARING FOR DETERMINATION
OF HIS SANITY.  THIS IS REFUTED BY BROWN V. ALLEN, 344 U.S. 443, AT 460
465, DECIDED TODAY. 

IN DENYING THE FIRST PETITION, THE DISTRICT COURT RECEIVED EVIDENCE
FROM JUDGES OF THE STATE TRIAL PANEL, DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION COUNSEL
AND OTHERS AS TO WHETHER A FAIR HEARING ON PETITIONER'S SANITY HAD BEEN
ACCORDED HIM BY THE STATE.  IN DENYING THE SECOND PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT NOT "UNLESS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
PREVAIL, SHOULD THE LOWEST FEDERAL COURT REVERSE THE HIGHEST STATE
COURT IN CASES WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN DISPOSED ON
THE MERITS BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT IN AN OPINION SPECIFICALLY
SETTING FORTH ITS REASONS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
OF LAW, AND WHERE THE RECORD BEFORE THE STATE COURT AND THE ALLEGATIONS
IN THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT FAIL TO DISCLOSE
THAT THE STATE IN ITS PROSECUTION DEPARTED FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS.  THAT IS THIS CASE."  UNITED STATES EX REL. SMITH V.
BALDI, 96 F. SUPP.  100, AT 103. 

THIS VIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS ACCORDS WITH OUR HOLDING IN THE BROWN
CASE, SUPRA.  AS THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE STATE COURT RECORDS WHICH WERE
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT SHOW A JUDICIAL HEARING, WHERE ON THE PLEA OF
GUILTY THE QUESTION OF SANITY AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIME WAS CANVASSED, THE SENTENCE DOES NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS. 
AFFIRMED.    FN1  ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA STATED
THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN ADJUDGED GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE
ON THE FORMER DATE, SEPTEMBER 21, 1948.  COMMONWEALTH V. SMITH, 362 PA.
222, AT 223, 66 A.2D 764.  IN ITS OPINION DENYING THE SUBSEQUENT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT HELD THAT
"WHETHER THIS JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1948, OR ON
FEBRUARY 4, 1949, IS UNIMPORTANT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS."  COMMONWEALTH
EX REL. SMITH V. ASHE, 364 PA. 93, AT 112, 71 A.2D 107, AT 116. 

FN2  "WHEN COUNSEL FOR THE RELATOR ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE
INDICTMENT, THAT PLEA ADMITTED THE PRISONER'S SANITY BECAUSE NO INSANE
PERSON CAN BE GUILTY OF MURDER.  THE TESTIMONY RELATING TO SMITH'S
MENTAL CONDITION, TAKEN AFTER THE PLEA HAD BEEN ENTERED, WAS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE COURT WITH DATA WHICH IT COULD USE IN
DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON THE DEFENDANT." 
364 PA. 93, AT 112, 71 A.2D 107, AT 117. 

FN3  PENNSYLVANIA LAW PROVIDES THAT COUNSEL MAY ASK FOR A SPECIAL
TRIAL TO TEST HIS CLIENT'S SANITY AT ARRAIGNMENT: 

"THE SAME LUNACY COMMITMENT PROCEEDING MAY BE HAD, IF ANY PERSON
INDICTED FOR AN OFFENSE SHALL, UPON ARRAIGNMENT, BE FOUND TO BE A
LUNATIC, BY A JURY LAWFULLY IMPANELLED FOR THE PURPOSE, OR IF, UPON THE
TRIAL OF ANY PERSON SO INDICTED, SUCH PERSON SHALL APEAR TO THE JURY
CHARGED WITH SUCH INDICTMENT TO BE A LUNATIC, THE COURT SHALL DIRECT
SUCH FINDINGS TO BE RECORDED, AND MAY PROCEED AS AFORESAID."  19
PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN. SEC. 1352. 

WHETHER SUCH A JURY TRIAL AT THE OUTSET WILL BE GRANTED DEPENDS ON
THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.  HE MAY DEFER THE INQUEST AND ALLOW
THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED BY THE JURY TRYING THE INDICTMENT.  WEBBER
V. COMMONWEALTH, 119 PA. 223, 13 A. 427; COMMONWEALTH V. SCOVERN, 292
PA. 26, 140 A. 611; COMMONWEALTH V. CILIONE, 293 PA. 208, 142 A. 216;
COMMONWEALTH V. IACOBINO, 319 PA. 65, 178 A. 823. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS JOIN DISSENTING.* 

*SEE ALSO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IN BROWN V. ALLEN, ANTE,
P. 488, WHICH ALSO APPLIES TO THIS CASE. 

EVER SINCE OUR ANCESTRAL COMMON LAW EMERGED OUT OF THE DARKNESS OF
ITS EARLY BARBARIC DAYS, IT HAS BEEN A POSTULATE OF WESTERN
CIVILIZATION THAT THE TAKING OF LIFE BY THE HAND OF AN INSANE PERSON IS
NOT MURDER.  BUT THE NATURE AND OPERATION OF THE MIND ARE SO ELUSIVE TO
THE GRASP OF THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BASIS FOR FORMULATING STANDARDS
OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE MEANS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THOSE
STANDARDS ARE SATISFIED IN A PARTICULAR CASE HAVE GREATLY TROUBLED LAW
AND MEDICINE FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY.  SEE GLUECK, MENTAL DISORDER AND
THE CRIMINAL LAW (1925); ABRAHAMSEN, CRIME AND THE HUMAN MIND (1944);
OVERHOLSER, THE PSYCHIATRIST AND THE LAW ( TO BE PUBLISHED IN APRIL
1953 BY HARCOURT BRACE & CO.)(PARTICULARLY CHAPTER II).  TO THIS DAY,
CONFLICT AND CONTROVERSY REGARDING THESE PROBLEMS BEDEVIL THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  SEE, E.G., FISHER V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 463.  THE DEEP CONCERN ENGENDERED IN ENGLAND JUST THE
OTHER DAY BY THE CASE OF JOHN THOMAS STRAFFEN STRIKINGLY DISCLOSED THE
UNSATISFACTORY STATE OF THE LAW.  SEE THE TIMES, JULY 22, 1952, P. 3;
JULY 23, 1952, P. 4; JULY 24, 1952, P. 3; JULY 25, 1952, P. 3; JULY
26,1952, P. 7; AUGUST 30, 1952, PP. 2, 5; SEPTEMBER 1, 1952, P. 5;
SEPTEMBER 4, 1952, P. 5; SEPTEMBER 12, 1952, P. 7; THE ECONOMIST,
AUGUST 30, 1952, P. 494; AND THE LANCET, AUGUST 2, 1952, P. 239. 
(ESPECIALLY COMMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACTION OF THE HOME SECRETARY,
WHICH FOLLOWED DISMISSAL OF STRAFFEN'S APPEAL BY THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEAL IN REGINA V. STRAFFEN, 1952 2 Q.B. 911.) 

THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE ABSTRACT ON THIS CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT
IS CLEAR AND UNASSAILABLE.  "IT IS A PRINCIPLE EMBEDDED IN THE COMMON
LAW - AND WE ADMINISTER THE COMMON LAW IN PENNSYLVANIA - THAT NO INSANE
PERSON CAN BE TRIED, SENTENCED OR EXECUTED."  COMMONWEALTH EX REL.
SMITH V. ASHE, 364 PA. 93, 116, 71 A.2D 107, 118.  IN VIEW OF THE
FALLIBILITIES OF HUMAN JUDGMENT REGARDING THE SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE, IT
IS INEVITABLE THAT ONE MAY BE DOUBTFUL, AND EVEN MORE THAN DOUBTFUL,
WHETHER IN A PARTICULAR CASE A PLEA OF INSANITY WAS PROPERLY REJECTED. 
IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO FIND A WANT OF DUE PROCESS IN A CONVICTION
FOR MURDER SUSTAINED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE MERELY BECAUSE
FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT IS SANE MAY RAISE THE GRAVEST DOUBTS.  BUT
IT IS OUR DUTY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO SCRUTINIZE THE
PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE PLEA OF INSANITY FAILED AND DEFENDANT'S LIFE
BECAME FORFEIT.  A DENIAL OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUSTAIN THE PLEA
OF INSANITY IS A DENIAL OF THE SAFEGUARD OF DUE PROCESS IN ITS
HISTORICAL PROCEDURAL SENSE WHICH IS WITHIN THE INCONTROVERTIBLE SCOPE
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

ONE HAS ONLY TO READ THE OPINIONS BOTH OF THE FOUR JUDGES WHO
CONSTITUTED THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND OF THE THREE
DISSENTERS TO APPRECIATE THE TANGLED SKEIN OF PROCEDURAL COMPLEXITIES
IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE WAS HOPELESSLY CAUGHT.  192 F.2D
540.  AND I CANNOT READ THE OPINION OF CHIEF JUDGE BIGGS, ID., AT 549,
WITHOUT BEING LEFT WITH SUCH AN UNRELIEVABLE FEELING OF DISQUIETUDE AS
AMOUNTS TO A CONVICTION THAT THE ACCUSED IN THIS CASE WAS DEPRIVED OF A
FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH HIS INSANITY.  AND THIS NOT THE LESS SO
BECAUSE THE DEPRIVATION RESULTED FROM THE TANGLED WEB THAT WAS WOVEN
FOR THE DEFENDANT, EVEN IF UNWITTINGLY, BY THE COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

BUT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS ANOTHER REASON, WHICH IN ITSELF IS
FOR ME CONCLUSIVE, WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT
BELOW.  IT IS THAT A NEW DECISIVE FACTOR, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED FOR THE
FIRST TIME HERE, REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION OF THE DISPOSITION BELOW. 
AFTER THE CASE LEFT THE COURT OF APPEALS IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL THAT THE COURT-APPOINTED EXPERT, THE PROFESSIONAL
WITNESS ON THE ISSUE OF INSANITY ON WHOSE TESTIMONY THE PENNSYLVANIA
COURTS RELIED, HAD HIMSELF BEEN COMMITTED, AS OF JANUARY 12, 1952,
BECAUSE OF AN INCURABLE MENTAL DISEASE WHICH HAD DEPRIVED HIM OF "ANY
JUDGMENT OR INSIGHT."  THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THIS
COURT IN AN AFFIDAVIT NOT CHALLENGED BY THE RESPONDENT, WHICH ALSO
AVERRED THAT "THIS INTELLECTUAL DETERIORATION WAS EVIDENCED EVEN ON A
CLINICAL LEVEL IN JANUARY, 1951."  THE EXPERT'S REPORT ON SMITH'S
SANITY WAS MADE TO THE SENTENCING COURT ON NOVEMBER 5, 1948.  HIS
DISABILITY WAS NOT KNOWN EITHER TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN FEBRUARY AND OCTOBER, 1951, WHEN THEY RESPECTIVELY RULED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.  EVEN UNIFORMED JUDGES MAY KNOW THAT THIS KIND
OF MENTAL ILLNESS DOES NOT SET IN OVERNIGHT BUT IS THE CULMINATION OF A
LONG PROCESS.  INDEED, THE MEDICAL HISTORY, SKETCHY AS IT IS, REVEALED
BY THE AFFIDAVIT FILED HERE DEMONSTRATES THE GRADUAL MANNER IN WHICH
THE MENTAL ILLNESS IN QUESTION DEVELOPED.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS
AFFIDAVIT VITIATES THE WORTH OF THE EXPERT TESTIMONY TAKEN BY THE
SENTENCING COURT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A MATTER OF JUDICIAL NOTICE.  BUT
TO ALLOW THE VICTIM OF THIS TESTIMONY, WHICH, IN ANY EVENT, HAS BEEN
BROUGHT INTO DOUBT, TO GO TO HIS DEATH WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
REASSESSMENT, BY EITHER STATE OR FEDERAL COURT, OF THE BASIS FOR THE
REJECTION OF HIS PLEA OF INSANITY WOULD CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS NO LESS GROSS THAN IF THE SENTENCE HAD BEEN IMPOSED WITHOUT ANY
HEARING AT ALL ON THE ISSUE OF SANITY. 

I NEED HARDLY POINT OUT THAT IN A COURT OF EQUITY CAUSES ARE DISPOSED
OF ON THE FACTS AS THEY APPEAR AT THE TIME OF THE DISPOSITION  AND THAT
HABEAS CORPUS IS CERTAINLY TO BE GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF FAIRNESS
ENFORCED IN EQUITY.  THE CAUSE SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR DISPOSITION OF THE NEW MATTER REVEALED IN THE
AFFIDAVIT FILED HERE. 

THE COURT DOES NOT REACH THIS ISSUE.  THEREFORE I DO NOT NOW DECIDE
WHETHER THIS EVIDENCE RAISES A NEW GROUND WHICH MUST FIRST, UNDER
PRINCIPLES OF EXHAUSTION, BE PRESENTED IN THE STATE COURTS OR WHETHER
THE FEDERAL COURT MAY PROPERLY VIEW IT SIMPLY AS NEW EVIDENCE BEARING
ON A CLAIM ALREADY EXHAUSTED - THAT THE DETERMINATION OF SANITY WAS
INADEQUATE. 
..END :























CITY OF CHICAGO V. WILLETT COMPANY 344 U.S. 574 


NO. 23.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1952 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1953 - 409 ILL.
480, 101 N.E.2D 205, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT IS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION WITH ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN
CHICAGO.  IT OWNS A FLEET OF TRUCKS WHICH IT USES TO TRANSPORT GOODS
FOR HIRE WITHIN CHICAGO AS WELL AS BETWEEN CHICAGO AND POINTS IN
NEIGHBORING STATES.  EVERY DAY EACH TRUCK CARRIER SOME GOODS WHICH
NEVER LEAVE THE CITY AND SOME DESTINED FOR NEIGHBORING STATES.  HELD:
AS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO LEVYING
AN ANNUAL LICENSE TAX RANGING, ACCORDING TO CAPACITY, FROM $8.25 TO
$16.50 ON EACH TRUCK OPERATED FOR HIRE "WITHIN THE CITY" IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHEN NOT SHOWN TO BE IN FACT A
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PP. 574-580. 

CITY OF CHICAGO V. WILLETT COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HELD AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
CHICAGO LEVYING AN ANNUAL LICENSE TAX ON TRUCKS OPERATED FOR HIRE
WITHIN THE CITY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT'S TRUCKS. 
409 ILL. 480, 101 N.E.2D 205.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S.
940.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 580. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ONCE MORE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF A TAX WHICH
FALLS IN SOME MEASURE UPON COMMERCE "AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES."  IN THE
SITUATION BEFORE US, IT IS NOT A TAX IMPOSED ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS
SUCH.  IT IS A TAX INTENDED TO FALL ON BUSINESS DONE "WITHIN THE CITY"
THAT LEVIES IT, ALTHOUGH IN PART IT IS IMPOSED ON CARRIERS OF
INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE INSEPARABLY COMMINGLED.  THE TAX IS
ON TRUCKS AND IS LEVIED BY AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, OF
WHICH THE RELEVANT PORTIONS ARE SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  (FN1)  IT IS
GRADUATED ACCORDING TO SIZE, RANGING FROM $8.25 ON A TRUCK OF NO MORE
THAN TWO-TON CAPACITY TO $16.50 ON A TRUCK OF MORE THAN FOUR-TON
CAPACITY.  PENALTIES ARE PROVIDED FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE TAX. 

RESPONDENT IS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND HAS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS
IN CHICAGO.  IT OWNS A FLEET OF TRUCKS WHICH IT EMPLOYS TO TRANSPORT
GOODS WITHIN CHICAGO, BETWEEN CHICAGO AND OTHER POINTS IN ILLINOIS, AND
BETWEEN CHICAGO, AND OTHER POINTS IN ILLINOIS, AND POINTS IN INDIANA
AND WISCONSIN.  IT IS STIPULATED THAT EACH OF RESPONDENT'S VEHICLES
"DURING EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR CARRIES ON IT ALONG WITH PROPERTY
WHICH NEVER LEAVES THE CITY  ...  PROPERTY DESTINED TO SOME POINT
OUTSIDE THE STATE OF ILLINOIS." 

UPON RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO PAY THE TAX THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS WERE
INSTITUTED BY THE CITY OF CHICAGO IN ITS MUNICIPAL COURT.  THE VERDICT
HAVING GONE AGAINST THE CITY, THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, ON APPEAL,
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL, HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS "NOT
SUBJECT TO THE LICENSE TAX" BECAUSE IT "CANNOT SEPARATE ITS LOADS, NOR
CAN IT DISCONTINUE ANY PART OF THE SERVICE."  CITY OF CHICAGO V.
WILLETT CO., 406 ILL. 286, 295, 94 N.E.2D 195, 200. 

BEING LEFT IN DOUBT BY THE ILLINOIS COURT'S OPINION WHETHER IT HAD
HELD THAT THE ORDINANCE COULD NOT, BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, BE
VALIDLY APPLIED TO THE RESPONDENT'S SITUATION OR HAD CONSTRUED THE
ORDINANCE SO AS NOT TO COVER A SITUATION LIKE RESPONDENT'S, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI AND REMANDED FOR CLARIFICATION.  341 U.S. 913.  A
RESTATEMENT OF ITS HOLDING LEFT US IN NO DOUBT THAT THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS DID NOT REST ITS AFFIRMANCE ON A RESTRICTIVE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE ORDINANCE, EXCLUDING RESPONDENT FROM ITS SCOPE, BUT FOUND THAT
AS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT THE ORDINANCE RUNS AFOUL OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  CITY OF CHICAGO V. WILLETT CO., 409 ILL. 480, 101 N.E.2D 205. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THIS JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT RAISES
QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE NATION'S MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CENTERS. 
343 U.S. 940. 

"IT BEING ONCE ADMITTED, AS OF COURSE IT MUST BE, THAT NOT EVERY LAW
THAT AFFECTS COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES IS A REGULATION OF IT IN A
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, NICE DISTINCTIONS ARE TO BE EXPECTED." 
GALVESTON, HARRISBURG & SAN ANTONIO R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217,
225.  THIS CASE DOES NOT RAISE THE DIFFICULTIES SO OFTEN ENCOUNTERED
WHEN DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF STATE ACTION AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE REQUIRES AN ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN A STATE'S UNDOUBTED POWER
OVER ITS OWN INTERNAL COMMERCE AND THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN THE
UNRESTRICTED FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS TAX, AS IT FALLS ON
RESPONDENT, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN
CHICAGO, IS CLEARLY UNASSAILABLE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO. V. MILLER, 202 U.S. 584, WHICH WE REAFFIRMED IN
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292.  HOWEVER, "NICE
DISTINCTIONS" HAVE BEEN ARGUED TO US AND THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. 

IT IS SAID ON THE ONE HAND THAT OSBORNE V. FLORIDA, 164 U.S. 650,
PULLMAN CO. V. ADAMS, 189 U.S. 420, AND PACIFIC TELEPHONE CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 403, DECIDE THIS CASE, AND ON THE OTHER THAT IT IS
CONTROLLED BY CASES SUCH AS ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. NEW YORK, 232 U.S. 14,
BOWMAN V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 256 U.S. 642, SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277
U.S. 163, AND COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE CO., 294 U.S. 384. 
AS WAS TRUE IN PACIFIC TELEPHONE CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, SUPRA, THE
TAXPAYER'S PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN THAT THE TAX IS
NECESSARILY VOID BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER IS NOT FREE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE
LOCAL BUSINESS, WHICH ALONE THE STATUTE PURPORTS TO TAX, WITHOUT
DISCONTINUING ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS AS WELL.  RESPONDENT RELIES
HEAVILY ON SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, SUPRA.  BUT MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, WHO
WROTE FOR THE COURT IN SPROUT, POINTED OUT IN THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE
CASE THAT IN SPROUT THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT AVOID THE TAX BY RESTRICTING
HIMSELF TO INTERSTATE BUSINESS ONLY AND WITHDRAWING FROM LOCAL
BUSINESS, BECAUSE THE TAX, BY ITS TERMS, FELL ON EXCLUSIVELY
INTERSTATE, AS WELL AS INTRASTATE, BUSINESS CONDUCTED FROM THE CITY OF
SOUTH BEND.  297 U.S., AT 416-417.  THAT WAS THE CONTROLLING FACT IN
SPROUT, WHICH WAS ABSENT IN THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE CASE, AND IS ABSENT
IN THIS CASE ALSO, SINCE THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT HAS TOLD US THAT
THE CHICAGO ORDINANCE IS NOT TO BE READ AS IMPOSING A TAX ON TRUCKS
WHICH DO NOT CARRY GOODS WITHIN THE CITY.  CITY OF CHICAGO V. WILLETT
CO., SUPRA, 406 ILL., AT 289-290, 94 N.E.2D, AT 197-198.  THUS, AS
REGARDS THE MAIN POINT PRESSED BY RESPONDENT, THE CHICAGO TAX AVOIDS
THE INFIRMITY LAID BARE BY THE SPROUT CASE, AND MEETS THE FACTS OF
OSBORNE V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, AND PULLMAN CO. V. ADAMS, SUPRA, AS DID THE
PACIFIC TELEPHONE CASE.  AGAIN, AS IN PACIFIC TELEPHONE, THE TAXPAYER
HERE MAKES NO SHOWING THAT THE TAX, THOUGH DIRECTED AT INTRASTATE
BUSINESS ONLY, IN FACT BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS IS FOR THE
TAXPAYER TO SHOW AFFIRMATIVELY AND RESPONDENT HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO DO
SO. 

BUT, IF IT WERE NECESSARY TO DECIDE UPON THE BASIS OF THE "NICE
DISTINCTIONS" URGED UPON US, WE COULD NOT REST WITHOUT MORE ON THE
AUTHORITY OF PACIFIC TELEPHONE.  FOR THE TAX IN THAT CASE WAS MEASURED
BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS INCOME DRAWN SOLELY FROM INTRASTATE
BUSINESS.  ALTHOUGH THE TAXPAYER'S INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES
WERE INSEPARABLE, THE TAX WAS NOT LAID INSEPARABLY ON BOTH.  297 U.S.,
AT 414.  THAT IS NOT TRUE IN THIS CASE.  HERE THE TAX FALLS INSEPARABLY
ON WHAT HAVE BEEN CALLED INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
WHICH ARE AT ONCE ALSO THOSE OF INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  WHATEVER
INTRINSIC SIGNIFICANCE THIS DIFFERENCE MAY HAVE IN OTHER SITUATIONS, IT
BECOMES IRRELEVANT IN A CASE CONTROLLED AS IN THIS ONE, BY THE
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES OF NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. MILLER, SUPRA.
(FN2) 

IN THE MILLER CASE, THE TAXPAYER, A RAILROAD COMPANY, WAS "A NEW YORK
CORPORATION OWNING OR HIRING LINES WITHOUT AS WELL AS WITHIN THE STATE
...  AND SENDING ITS CARS TO POINTS WITHOUT AS WELL AS WITHIN THE
STATE, AND OVER OTHER LINES AS WELL AS ITS OWN."  202 U.S., AT 593. 
THE CARS WERE OFTEN NOT IN THE COMPANY'S POSSESSION FOR SOME TIME.  THE
STATE OF NEW YORK LEVIED A TAX COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE CAPITAL STOCK EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE
RAILROAD'S PROPERTY COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY BE SUBJECTED TO THIS TAX BY
NEW YORK, AS THAT STATE WAS ITS PERMANENT SITUS, "NOTWITHSTANDING ITS
OCCASIONAL EXCURSIONS TO FOREIGN PARTS."  202 U.S., AT 597; SEE
NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA, 322 U.S., AT 299, N. 4.  IN THE
NORTHWEST AIRLINES CASE, THE TAXPAYER, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, USED
ST. PAUL AS THE HOME PORT FOR ALL ITS CORPORATION, USED ST. PAUL AS THE
HOME PORT FOR ALL ITS PLANES.  THE REBUILDING AND OVERHAULING OF PLANES
WAS DONE IN ST. PAUL.  MINNESOTA ASSESSED A TAX AGAINST THE AIRLINE ON
THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE FLEET COMING INTO THE STATE.  WE HELD, ON THE
AUTHORITY OF THE MILLER CASE, THAT "THE BENEFITS GIVEN TO NORTHWEST BY
MINNESOTA AND FOR WHICH MINNESOTA TAXES - ITS CORPORATE FACILITIES AND
THE GOVERNMENTAL RESOURCES WHICH NORTHWEST ENJOYS IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS
BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA - ARE CONCRETELY SYMBOLIZED BY THE FACT THAT
NORTHWEST'S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN ST. PAUL  ...  .  THE
RELATION BETWEEN NORTHWEST AND MINNESOTA - A RELATION EXISTING BETWEEN
NO OTHER STATE AND NORTHWEST - AND THE BENEFITS WHICH THIS RELATION
AFFORDS ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE TAXING POWER WHICH
MINNESOTA HAS ASSERTED."  322 U.S., AT 294.  AND THE TWO CONCURRING
OPINIONS IN THE NORTHWEST AIRLINES CASE HARMONIZE WITH THE RESULT WE
REACH HERE.  INDEED, THE "HOME PORT" THEORY FAVORED BY MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON, 322 U.S., AT 306, FITS A FLEET OF TRUCKS AT LEAST AS WELL AS
IT DOES A FLEET OF AIRLINERS. 

THE CENTRAL AND DECISIVE FACT IN THIS CASE IS THAT RESPONDENT'S
BUSINESS HAS, AS MUCH AS ANY TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS CAN HAVE, A HOME. 
THAT HOME IS CHICAGO.  TO THE EXTENT THAT RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS IS NOT
CONFINED WITHIN THE CITY'S LIMITS, IT REVOLVES AROUND THE CITY.  IT IS
FED BY TERMINALS FOR RAIL AND SEA TRANSPORTATION WHICH THE CITY
PROVIDES.  IT RECEIVES, MUCH MORE CONTINUOUSLY THAN DID THE AIRLINE IN
THE NORTHWEST AIRLINES CASE OR THE RAILROAD IN THE MILLER CASE, THE
CITY'S PROTECTION, AND IT BENEFITS FROM THE CITY'S PUBLIC SERVICES.  IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, A TAX OF REASONABLE PROPORTIONS SUCH AS THE ONE IN
QUESTION, NOT SHOWN IN FACT TO BE A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  EVERY  ...  TRUCK  ...  WHICH SHALL BE OPERATED  ...  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING  ... GOODS  ...  WITHIN THE CITY FOR HIRE OR
REWARD, SHALL BE DEEMED A CART  ...  . 

"ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING A CART SHALL BE
DEEMED A CARTER. 

"AN ANNUAL LICENSE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON EVERY CARTER FOR EACH CART
OPERATED OR CONTROLLED BY HIM, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE: 

     *         * *         *         * 

"AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLES: 

CAPACITY NOT EXCEEDING TWO TONS                           $ 8.25 

CAPACITY EXCEEDING TWO BUT NOT EXCEEDING THREE TONS        11.00 

CAPACITY EXCEEDING THREE BUT NOT EXCEEDING FOUR TONS       13.20 

CAPACITY EXCEEDING FOUR TONS    16.50 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF A
CARTER WITHOUT FIRST HAVING PAID SUCH LICENSE TAX. 

    *         *         *         *         * 

"ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE
FINED  ...  ."  MUNICIPAL CODE OF CHICAGO, C. 163, JOURNAL OF THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
JANUARY 14, 1949, P. 3679. 

FN2  THE MILLER CASE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN ADAMS EXPRESS
CO. V. NEW YORK, SUPRA; BOWMAN V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., SUPRA; COONEY V.
MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE CO., SUPRA; OR SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, SUPRA.
IT WAS INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE FIRST THREE CASES.  IN ADAMS
EXPRESS, CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE IMPOSITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
THE TAX INDICATED AN ATTEMPT TO EXERT CONTROL OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE
FOR REASONS AND PURPOSES NOT SANCTIONED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  IN THE
BOWMAN CASE THE TAXPAYER WAS A FOREIGN CORPORATION.  IN COONEY THIS
FACT IS RECITED BY THE COURT.  IN SPROUT, HOWEVER, THE TAXPAYER WAS A
RESIDENT, AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT SOUTH BEND WAS HIS PLACE OF
BUSINESS.  THE SPROUT CASE RESTS, AS IS TRUE OF ALL DECISIONS IN THIS
FIELD, ON THE PRECISE FACTS SURROUNDING THE CHALLENGED TAX - ITS SCOPE,
ITS RELATION TO THE TAXING SCHEME OF STATE OR CITY, ITS AMOUNT, ITS
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES, AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, CONCURRING IN
THE JUDGMENT. 

I AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT.  IN PACIFIC
TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 403, IT WAS HELD
THAT "NO DECISION OF THIS COURT LENDS SUPPORT TO THE PROPOSITION THAT
AN OCCUPATION TAX UPON LOCAL BUSINESS, OTHERWISE VALID, MUST BE HELD
VOID MERELY BECAUSE THE LOCAL AND INTERSTATE BRANCHES ARE FOR SOME
REASON INSEPARABLE." 

PAGE 415.  CF. SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 171; PULLMAN CO.
V. ADAMS, 189 U.S. 420. 

THE CHICAGO "CARTERS TAX" IS STRICTLY AN OCCUPATIONAL TAX FOR
CARRYING GOODS WITHIN THE CITY.  CITY OF CHICAGO V. WILLET CO., 406
ILL. 286, 290, 94 N.E.2D 195, 198.  I DO NOT THINK THAT NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO. V. MILLER, 202 U.S. 584, IS A PRECEDENT TO UPHOLD SUCH A
TAX AS THIS ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAXPAYER IS A CORPORATION OF THE
TAXING STATE AND DOING BUSINESS IN CHICAGO.  THE TAX IN THE MILLER CASE
WAS MEASURED BY THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN THE STATE.  ALL RAILROAD CARS
OF THE TAXPAYER EXCEPT THOSE OUTSIDE THE STATE "DURING THE WHOLE TAX
YEAR" WERE INCLUDED IN THE MEASURE.  PAGE 595.  THE VALIDITY TO SO TAX
TURNED ON THE RAILROAD'S FAILURE TO SHOW, BY SOME FORM OF
APPORTIONMENT, TAXABILITY IN OTHER STATES.  PAGE 597.  I FIND NOTHING
IN THE CONCLUSION AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN NORTHWEST AIRLINES V.
MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292, THAT WOULD MAKE THE MILLER CASE APPLICABLE TO
THIS SITUATION, EVEN IF THE "CONCLUSION" WERE AN OPINION OF THIS
COURT.  IF I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S PRESENT OPINION CORRECTLY, IT
DECIDES THAT THIS OCCUPATION TAX IS VALID MERELY BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER
IS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION WITH ITS BUSINESS HOME IN CHICAGO, THE
TAXING BODY.  THE FACTS THAT IT IS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND THAT ITS
TRUCKS ARE SOMETIMES OUT OF THE STATE ARE NOT CONTROLLING.  THE
CORPORATION IS TAXABLE BECAUSE IT DOES INTRASTATE BUSINESS ON THE
STREETS OF CHICAGO.    WHETHER THE TAX IS EXPRESSLY DECLARED TO BE FOR
THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS OR FOR OTHER STATE SERVICES OR PROTECTION
RENDERED INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS IMMATERIAL.  THIS IS A CHARGE OBVIOUSLY
FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS OF THE CITY BY THE CARTERS AND THEREFORE
VALID.  SEE UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 211-212;
SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148, 153; AND CASKEY BAKING CO.
V. VIRGINIA, 313 U.S. 117, 119. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

IF A CARRIER HAD TWO TRUCKS, ONE ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE AND THE OTHER ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, I
THINK THIS TAX COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE LEVIED ON THE LATTER. 
LIKE THE TAX IN SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 170, IT IS NOT
DESIGNED "AS A MEASURE OF THE COST OR VALUE OF THE USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS."  AS THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS SAID, IT IS AN
OCCUPATIONAL TAX.  406 ILL. 286, 290, 94 N.E.2D 195, 198.  IT THEREFORE
COULD NOT BE EXACTED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, SUPRA, P. 171; SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE
V. O'CONNOR, 340 U.S. 602. 

THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NO DIFFERENT.  IT IS
A FLAT FEE PER TRUCK.  RESPONDENT DOES NOT SEGREGATE ITS INTRASTATE
FROM ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS; NOR IS IT POSSIBLE FOR IT TO DO SO; NOR
COULD RESPONDENT CONTINUE IN BUSINESS IF THERE WERE A SEGREGATION.  406
ILL. 286, 291-293, 94 N.E.2D 195, 198-199.  ONE TRUCK OFTEN MAKES BOTH
INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE DELIVERIES.  THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS, BY
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS OPERATED BY RESPONDENT, THEREFORE
INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX.  THAT FOR ME IS ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS CASE THEREFORE IS
NOT CONTROLLED BY PACIFIC TELE.  CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 403, 414,
WHERE THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS DID NOT INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX. 

THE BURDEN ON COMMERCE IS AS GREAT WHETHER THE TAX ON THE INTERSTATE
CARRIER IS IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF ITS INCORPORATION OR BY ANOTHER
STATE.  THAT IS IMPLICIT IN SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, SUPRA, A CASE WHICH
IT SEEMS TO ME IS FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME. 
..END :


















BODE V. BARRETT 344 U.S. 583 


NO. 187.  SUBMITTED JANUARY 5, 1953 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1953 - 412
ILL. 204, 106 N.E.2D 521, AND 412 ILL. 321, 106 N.E.2D 510, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANTS, MOST OF WHOM ARE INTERSTATE CARRIERS AND ALL OF WHOM ARE
INTRASTATE CARRIERS IN ILLINOIS, CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN
ILLINOIS LAW WHICH IMPOSES A TAX FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AND
MEASURES THE TAX EXCLUSIVELY BY THE GROSS WEIGHT OF EACH VEHICLE.  NONE
OF THE APPELLANTS SHOWED THAT THE TAX BORE NO REASONABLE RELATION TO
THE USE HE MADE OF THE HIGHWAYS IN HIS INTRASTATE OPERATIONS OR THAT
THE TAX WAS INCREASED BY REASON OF HIS INTERSTATE OPERATIONS.  HELD: 

1.  APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE
TAX DEPRIVES THEM OF RIGHTS WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PROTECTS.  PP.
584-585. 

2.  THE TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, THOUGH PRIVATE CARRIERS ARE TAXED AT THE SAME RATE AS
CARRIERS FOR HIRE.  PP. 585-586. 

3.  SINCE NO SHOWING IS MADE THAT ANY OF THE APPELLANTS IS THE VICTIM
OF AN INVIDIOUS CLASSIFICATION, THE STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 586. 

4.  THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES ILLINOIS RESIDENTS TO PAY THE
TAX, WHEREAS NONRESIDENTS ARE EXEMPT IF THE STATES OF THEIR RESIDENCE
RECIPROCATE AND GRANT LIKE EXEMPTIONS TO ILLINOIS RESIDENTS, DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE COMPACT CLAUSE OF ART I, SEC. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P.
586. 

BODE ET AL. V. BARRETT, SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 274, CO-ORDINATED TRANSPORT, INC. ET AL. V.
BARRETT, SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL., ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1953, ON APPEAL
FROM THE SAME COURT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
STATE TAX ON TRUCKS.  412 ILL. 204, 321, 106 N.E.2D 521, 510.  ON
APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 586. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECS. 9, 11, AND 20 OF
THE ILLINOIS MOTOR VEHICLE LAW, AS AMENDED.  ILL. REV. STAT., 1951, C.
95 1/2.  THE STATUTE IMPOSES A TAX FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS
AND MEASURES THE TAX EXCLUSIVELY BY GROSS WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE. 
APPELLANTS, MOST OF WHOM ARE INTERSTATE CARRIERS, CHALLENGED THE TAX AS
VIOLATING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE (ART. I, SEC. 8) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS SUSTAINED THE STATUTE.  412 ILL. 204, 321, 106 N.E.2D 521,
510.  THE CASES ARE HERE BY APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC.  1257(2). 

THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THE ARGUMENT IS ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE
ARGUMENT STARTS FROM THE PREMISE FOUND IN OUR OPINIONS THAT A STATE MAY
LEVY A TAX ON AN INTERSTATE MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS "MEASURED BY OR HAS
SOME FAIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS FOR WHICH THE CHARGE
IS MADE."  MCCARROLL V. DIXIE LINES, 309 U.S. 176, 181.  IT IS
CONTENDED THAT THE PRESENT TAX IS NOT SO MEASURED BUT HAS THE SAME
INFIRMITIES AS THE TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES WHICH THE COURT INVALIDATED IN
INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183.  AN ELABORATE
ARGUMENT IS ADVANCED TO THE EFFECT THAT A LARGE FRACTION OF THE COSTS
OF INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING HIGHWAYS HAS NO RELATION TO THE WEIGHT OF
THE VEHICLES THAT PASS OVER THEM.  THEREFORE, A TAX SUCH AS THIS ONE,
WHICH IS DETERMINED SOLELY WITH REFERENCE TO WEIGHT, IS A TAX PART OF
WHICH IS EXACTED FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE TENDERED BY APPELLANTS.  FOR
WE DO NOT REACH THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  IT IS TRUE THAT SOME OF THE
APPELLANTS ARE INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT EACH OF
THE INTERSTATE CARRIERS DOES AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS AS WELL.  THE TAX
IS REQUIRED FROM ANY MOTOR VEHICLE THAT MOVES ON THE HIGHWAYS.  IT IS,
INDEED, A TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE HIGHWAYS OF ILLINOIS. 
CLEARLY IT IS WITHIN THE POLICE POWER OF ILLINOIS TO EXACT SUCH A TAX
AT LEAST FROM INTRASTATE OPERATORS.  HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S.
610.  NO SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE BY ANY OF THE APPELLANTS THAT THE TAX
BEARS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE USE HE MAKES OF THE HIGHWAYS IN HIS
INTRASTATE OPERATIONS.  NO EFFORT IS MADE TO SHOW THAT IN THAT WAY OR
IN SOME OTHER MANNER THE TAX IS INCREASED BY REASON OF INTERSTATE
OPERATIONS OF ANY APPELLANT.  IN SHORT APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO CARRY
THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE TAX DEPRIVES THEM OF RIGHTS WHICH THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE PROTECTS.  CF. SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KING, 217 U.S. 524,
534.  THE CASE IS THEREFORE TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE SITUATIONS
WHERE BY NATURE OF THE TAX OR ITS INCIDENCE (SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277
U.S. 163, 170, 171; SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE V. O'CONNOR, 340 U.S. 602,
609) AN ISSUE OF UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
PRESENTED. 

THE OBJECTIONS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT ARE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  THE POWER OF A STATE TO TAX, BASIC TO
ITS SOVEREIGNTY, IS LIMITED ONLY IF IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IT IS THE
EXERTION OF A DIFFERENT AND A FORBIDDEN POWER (MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON,
292 U.S. 40, 44), AS FOR EXAMPLE THE TAXATION OF A PRIVILEGE PROTECTED
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  SEE MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105,
112.  NO SUCH PROBLEM IS EVEN REMOTELY INVOLVED HERE.  COMPLAINT IS
MADE THAT PRIVATE CARRIERS ARE TAXED AT THE SAME RATE AS CARRIERS FOR
HIRE.  YET SO FAR AS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED, THAT
OBJECTION IS FRIVOLOUS, SINCE NEITHER PRIVATE NOR PUBLIC CARRIERS HAVE
THE RIGHT TO USE THE HIGHWAYS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF A FEE (SEE HENDRICK V.
MARYLAND, SUPRA); AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE EXACTION OF THE SAME FEE
FROM EACH IS OUT OF BOUNDS.  APPELLANTS MAKE OTHER ARGUMENTS TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE STATUTE IS SO INCONSISTENT, VAGUE, AND UNCERTAIN IN ITS
CLASSIFICATION AS TO VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BUT EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THE VAGARIES OF THE
LAW REACH THAT DIGNITY, NO SHOWING IS MADE THAT ANY OF THE APPELLANTS
IS THE VICTIM OF AN INVIDIOUS CLASSIFICATION.  CF. STEPHENSON V.
BINFORD, 287 U.S. 251, 277. 

WE NEED NOTICE ONLY ONE OTHER ARGUMENT AND THAT IS THAT THE STATUTE
REQUIRES ILLINOIS RESIDENTS TO PAY THE TAX, WHEREAS NONRESIDENTS ARE
EXEMPTED PROVIDED THE STATES OF THEIR RESIDENCE RECIPROCATE AND GRANT
LIKE EXEMPTIONS TO ILLINOIS RESIDENTS.  THAT OBJECTION, SO FAR AS THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED, WAS ADEQUATELY ANSWERED IN STORAASLI
V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 57, 62.  AND CONTRARY TO APPELLANTS'
SUGGESTIONS, THAT KIND OF RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN STATES HAS
NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO VIOLATE THE COMPACT CLAUSE OF ART. I, SEC. 10 OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO. V. JAMES, 161 U.S. 545,
562; KANE V. NEW JERSEY, 242 U.S. 160, 168.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE PROBLEM OF THIS CASE IS NOT MET BY ASSERTING THAT A TAX RANGING
AS HIGH AS $1,580 PER TRUCK DOES NOT PRESENT AN ISSUE UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAUSE THE CARRIERS DO INTRASTATE AS WELL AS
INTERSTATE BUSINESS AND THE TAX, THEREFORE, DOES NOT AS A MATTER OF LAW
AFFECT COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  (THE COURT APPARENTLY DEEMS THE SIZE
OF THE TAX IMMATERIAL SINCE IT DOES NOT MENTION THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED.) 
IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN A COGNATE SITUATION, THOUGH ONE INVOLVING A
COMPARATIVELY TRIFLING EXACTION, THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BURDENED SOLELY BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER'S INTERSTATE
BUSINESS INCREASES THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS ON WHICH THE TAX IS LEVIED AND
HENCE THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FROM HIM.  ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO EMBRACE THIS
SUGGESTION TO FIND THE COURT'S POSITION IN THIS CASE UNSUPPORTABLE. 
FOR THE COURT DECLARES APPELLANTS' CLAIM UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
BASELESS ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT "STOP TO ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE TENDERED BY
APPELLANTS." 

THE COURT DISPOSES OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE JUDGMENTS BELOW OFFEND
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, BY CONCLUDING THAT IT NEED NOT "REACH THE ISSUE IN
THIS CASE."  ITS REASONING IS AS FOLLOWS:  ALL THE INTERSTATE CARRIERS
HERE ARE ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE AS WELL; WERE THEY NOT ENGAGED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT ALL, THEY COULD BE TAXED ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR
INTRASTATE OPERATIONS; SINCE NONE OF THE APPELLANTS THUS PAYS AN
ADDITIONAL TAX FOR ITS INTERSTATE OPERATIONS, NONE IS IN A POSITION TO
CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  CONSIDERATION OF A
CHALLENGE TO A TAX UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, WHICH THE COURT DOES
UNDERTAKE (REACHING CONCLUSIONS I AGREE WITH), DOES NOT, OF COURSE, BAR
APPELLANTS FROM CHALLENGING THE TAX UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  HENCE
THE COURT'S REFUSAL, ON THE GROUND THAT IT DOES "NOT REACH THE ISSUE,"
"TO ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE" ON WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE CONTENTION RESTS
CAN ONLY MEAN THAT THE COURT FINDS THAT APPELLANTS HAD NO STANDING TO
SUE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, ALBEIT THE FORMAL PHRASE IS WITHHELD. 

FOR THIS TRULY STARTLING CONCLUSION WE ARE VOUCHSAFED NO AUTHORITY
EXCEPT:  "CF.  SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KING, 217 U.S. 524, 534."  ON ITS
FACTS THE KING CASE HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE PROBLEM BEFORE
US.  THE PASSAGE TO WHICH THE CITATION REFERS SIMPLY REPEATS THE SELF
EVIDENT PROPOSITION THAT ONLY ONE WHOSE ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
ARE AFFECTED BY A STATE STATUTE CAN ASSAIL IT. BUT WHETHER APPELLANTS
ARE SO AFFECTED IS THE VERY QUESTION AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE:  IS THE TAX FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
BEING ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, APPELLANTS INVOKE THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AGAINST AN ILLINOIS STATUTE WHICH AFFECTS THEM BECAUSE IT TAXES
THEM.  WHETHER OR NOT THE EFFECT ON THEM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS THE
QUESTION WHICH, IN COMPLIANCE WITH SETTLED PROCEDURAL RULES, THEY HAVE
BROUGHT HERE ON APPEAL. 

IF IT IS INDEED TRUE, AS THE COURT HOLDS, THAT ONE WHO IS ENGAGED
BOTH IN INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE
A TAX SUCH AS THIS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAUSE THE STATE MIGHT,
PERCHANCE, EXTRACT THE SAME DOLLARS AND CENTS FROM HIM EVEN IF HE
ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE ALONE, THEN THIS COURT HAS LONG BEEN
ENTERTAINING, IGNORANTLY AND WASTEFULLY, CASES WHICH IT HAD NO POWER TO
HEAR. 

THE TAXATION AND LICENSING BY THE STATES OF COMMINGLED, THOUGH NOT
NECESSARILY INEXTRICABLY COMMINGLED, INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE
BUSINESS, OR OF THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF SUCH COMMINGLED BUSINESS, HAVE
AGAIN AND AGAIN BEEN CONSIDERED HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH AN
ASSERTION OF THE TAXING POWER BY THE STATES HAD, IN ITS PRACTICAL
INCIDENCE, CAST AN INADMISSIBLE BURDEN UPON THE INTERSTATE ASPECT OF
THE JOINT ENTERPRISE.  CAN IT BE THAT ALL THESE CASES COULD QUICKLY AND
EASILY HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF BY SUGGESTING THAT THE TAXPAYER COULD IN
ANY EVENT HAVE BEEN TAXED ON HIS INTRASTATE OPERATIONS? 

AS FAR BACK AS 1888, IN LELOUP V. PORT OF MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640, THE
COURT STRUCK DOWN BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE A TAX ATTACKED BY A
TAXPAYER DOING BOTH INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  IN A HUNDRED
ODD CASES SINCE, A CLAIM UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN SIMILAR
SITUATIONS WAS CONSIDERED.  (THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT ALWAYS PREVAILED.) 
CAN IT BE THAT ALL OUR PREDECESSORS BOTHERED THEIR HEADS NEEDLESSLY? 
INDEED, EVER SINCE WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1, AND
PULLMAN CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 56, IT HAS BEEN SETTLED THAT A STATE
MAY NOT EXCLUDE A FOREIGN CORPORATION FROM DOING MERELY LOCAL BUSINESS
IF SUCH EXCLUSION WOULD "UNREASONABLY BURDEN" THE NONEXCLUDABLE
INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  (I AM NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH WHAT IS AND WHAT IS
NOT SUCH AN "UNREASONABLE BURDEN.")  UNDER TODAY'S HOLDING, WAS THERE
STANDING IN THESE CASES? 

A WORD ON THE MERITS.  OF COURSE A STATE MAY TAX FOR THE USE OF ITS
ROADS BY CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHETHER THEY CARRY
LOCAL GOODS AS WELL OR DO AN EXCLUSIVE INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  BUT THIS
STATES THE BEGINNING OF A PROBLEM IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; IT DOES NOT
GIVE THE ANSWER.  THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW THE STATES MAKES THE
EXACTION - THAT IS, WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE EXACTION, ITS BASIS AND
ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION.  AS THE COURT DOES NOT REACH THIS QUESTION, IT
WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE FOR ME TO DO SO.
..END :













KWONG HAI CHEW V. COLDING 344 U.S. 590 


NO. 17.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1952 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1953 - 192 F.2D
1009, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER 8 CFR SEC. 175.57(B), A REGULATION PERTAINING TO THE ENTRY
OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NO AUTHORITY
TO DENY TO AN ALIEN WHO IS A LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND WHO IS CONTINUOUSLY RESIDING AND PHYSICALLY PRESENT
THEREIN, AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO AN ORDER FOR HIS
"PERMANENT EXCLUSION" AND CONSEQUENT DEPORTATION, EVEN WHEN THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINES THAT THE ORDER IS BASED ON INFORMATION OF A
CONFIDENTIAL NATURE THE DISCLOSURE OF WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  PP. 591-600. 

(A)  KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537, DISTINGUISHED.  PAGE 596. 

(B)  THE TERM "EXCLUDABLE," IN SEC. 175.57(B), IS INAPPLICABLE TO
ALIENS WHO ARE LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS PHYSICALLY PRESENT WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES.  P. 599. 

(C)  NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS UNDER
WHICH THIS REGULATION WAS ISSUED REQUIRES OR PERMITS A BROADER
INTERPRETATION OF THIS SECTION.  PP. 599-600. 

2.  PETITIONER IS AN ALIEN AND A LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, WHO CURRENTLY MAINTAINS HIS RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES AND USUALLY IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT THERE.  WHILE RETURNING FROM A
VOYAGE TO FOREIGN PORTS AS A SEAMAN ON A VESSEL OF AMERICAN REGISTRY
WITH ITS HOME PORT IN THE UNITED STATES, HE WAS DETAINED ON BOARD BY AN
ORDER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ORDERED "TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED" FROM
THE UNITED STATES UNDER 8 CFR SEC. 175.57, AS AN ALIEN WHOSE ENTRY WAS
DEEMED PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  HE WAS DENIED A HEARING BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER WAS BASED ON
INFORMATION OF A CONFIDENTIAL NATURE THE DISCLOSURE OF WHICH WOULD BE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST; AND HE WAS ORDERED TO BE
PERMANENTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE UNITED STATES.  HELD:  PETITIONER'S
DETENTION, WITHOUT NOTICE OF ANY CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND WITHOUT
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THEM, WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY 8
CFR SEC. 175.57(B).  PP. 600-603. 

KWONG HAI CHEW V. COLDING ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS DISMISSED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT.  97 F. SUPP. 592.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
192 F.2D 1009.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 933.  REVERSED
AND REMANDED, P. 603. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION THAT IS HELPFUL TO THE SOLUTION OF THIS
LITIGATION IS WHETHER, UNDER 8 CFR SEC. 175.57(B), (FN1) THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS AUTHORITY TO DENY TO A LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, WHO IS AN ALIEN CONTINUOUSLY RESIDING AND PHYSICALLY
PRESENT THEREIN, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO AN ORDER
FOR HIS "PERMANENT EXCLUSION" AND CONSEQUENT DEPORTATION, PROVIDED THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINES THAT THE ORDER IS BASED ON INFORMATION OF A
CONFIDENTIAL NATURE, THE DISCLOSURE OF WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  ASSUMING, AS SEEMS TO BE CLEAR, THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY, THE CRITICAL ISSUE THEN PRESENTED
IS WHETHER HE HAS THAT AUTHORITY UNDER THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES:  THE RESIDENT ALIEN IS A SEAMAN, HE CURRENTLY MAINTAINS
HIS RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES AND USUALLY IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT
THERE, HOWEVER, HE IS RETURNING FROM A VOYAGE AS A SEAMAN ON A VESSEL
OF AMERICAN REGISTRY WITH ITS HOME PORT IN THE UNITED STATES, THAT
VOYAGE HAS INCLUDED SCHEDULED CALLS AT FOREIGN PORTS IN THE FAR EAST,
AND HE IS DETAINED ON BOARD BY ORDER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  FOR THE
REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT THESE ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
DO NOT CHANGE THE RESULT AND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE
THE AUTHORITY SUGGESTED. 

PETITIONER, KWONG HAI CHEW, IS A CHINESE SEAMAN LAST ADMITTED TO THE
UNITED STATES IN 1945.  THEREAFTER, HE MARRIED A NATIVE AMERICAN AND
BOUGHT THE HOME IN WHICH THEY RESIDE IN NEW YORK.  HAVING PROVED HIS
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS, PETITIONER SECURED
SUSPENSION OF HIS DEPORTATION.  IN 1949, HE WAS ADMITTED TO PERMANENT
RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF JANUARY 10, 1945.  (FN2)  IN WORLD
WAR II, HE SERVED WITH CREDIT IN THE UNITED STATES MERCHANT MARINE.  HE
NEVER HAS HAD ANY DIFFICULTY WITH GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.  IN APRIL,
1950, HE FILED A PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION WHICH IS STILL PENDING. 
IN NOVEMBER, 1950, HE WAS SCREENED AND PASSED BY THE COAST GUARD FOR
EMPLOYMENT AS A SEAMAN ON A MERCHANT VESSEL.  (FN3)  IN THE SAME MONTH
HE SIGNED ARTICLES OF EMPLOYMENT AS CHIEF STEWARD ON THE S.S. SIR JOHN
FRANKLIN, A VESSEL OF AMERICAN REGISTRY WITH ITS HOME PORT IN NEW YORK
CITY.  THE VOYAGE WAS TO INCLUDE CALLS AT SEVERAL FOREIGN PORTS IN THE
FAR EAST.  HE REMAINED ABOARD THE VESSEL ON THIS VOYAGE BUT, AT SAN
FRANCISCO, IN MARCH, 1951, THE IMMIGRATION INSPECTOR ORDERED HIM
"TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED," UNDER 8 CFR SEC. 175.57, AS AN ALIEN WHOSE
ENTRY WAS DEEMED PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

ON THE VESSEL'S ARRIVAL IN NEW YORK, MARCH 29, PETITIONER'S
"TEMPORARY EXCLUSION" WAS CONTINUED AND HE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO LAND. 
MARCH 30, HE SOUGHT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, CHARGING THAT HIS
DETENTION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.  PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER 8 CFR SEC. 175.57(B), THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DIRECTED THAT PETITIONER BE DENIED A HEARING BEFORE A
BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY AND THAT HIS "TEMPORARY EXCLUSION BE MADE
PERMANENT."  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONTINUES TO DENY PETITIONER ALL
INFORMATION AS TO THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ANY ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIM
AND ALL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE ORDER FOR HIS
"EXCLUSION."  HE IS DETAINED AT ELLIS ISLAND "FOR SAFEKEEPING ON BEHALF
OF THE MASTER OF THE S.S. 'SIR JOHN FRANKLIN.'" 

THE WRIT WAS ISSUED BUT, AFTER A HEARING, IT WAS DISMISSED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  97 F. SUPP. 592.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  192 F.2D 1009.  BOTH COURTS RELIED UPON KNAUFF V.
SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
DOUBTFUL APPLICABILITY OF THAT DECISION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATION'S IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
PROGRAM.  343 U.S. 933.  BAIL WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  98 F.
SUPP. 717.  IT ALSO WAS DENIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO AN APPLICATION TO THIS COURT.  APPLICATIONS FOR BAIL ARE
PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AND
THIS COURT. 

THE ISSUE IS PETITIONER'S DETENTION, WITHOUT NOTICE OF ANY CHARGE
AGAINST HIM AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION THERETO. 
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT SUCH DETENTION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY 8 CFR SEC.
175.57(B).  HE CONTENDS ALSO THAT, IF THAT REGULATION DOES PURPORT TO
AUTHORIZE SUCH DETENTION, THE REGULATION IS INVALID AS AN ATTEMPT TO
DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  AGREEMENT WITH PETITIONER'S FIRST CONTENTION
MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO REACH HIS SECOND. 

THE CASE OF KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, SUPRA, RELIED UPON BELOW, IS NOT
IN POINT.  IT RELATES TO THE RIGHTS OF AN ALIEN ENTRANT AND DOES NOT
DEAL WITH THE QUESTION OF A RESIDENT ALIEN'S RIGHT TO BE HEARD.  FOR
PURPOSES OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, WE ASSIMILATE
PETITIONER'S STATUS TO THAT OF AN ALIEN CONTINUOUSLY RESIDING AND
PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.  (FN4)  TO SIMPLIFY THE ISSUE,
WE CONSIDER FIRST WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A
HEARING HAD HE NOT UNDERTAKEN HIS VOYAGE TO FOREIGN PORTS BUT HAD
REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

1.  IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT IF AN ALIEN IS A LAWFUL PERMANENT
RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND REMAINS PHYSICALLY PRESENT THERE, HE
IS A PERSON WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  HE MAY NOT
BE DEPRIVED OF HIS LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  (FN5)  ALTHOUGH IT LATER MAY BE ESTABLISHED, AS RESPONDENTS
CONTEND, THAT PETITIONER CAN BE EXPELLED AND DEPORTED, YET BEFORE HIS
EXPULSION, HE IS ENTITLED TO NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE AND A
HEARING AT LEAST BEFORE AN EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.  (FN6)
ALTHOUGH CONGRESS MAY PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS FOR HIS EXPULSION AND
DEPORTATION, NOT EVEN CONGRESS MAY EXPEL HIM WITHOUT ALLOWING HIM A
FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.  (FN7)  FOR EXAMPLE, HE IS ENTITLED TO A
FAIR CHANCE TO PROVE MISTAKEN IDENTITY.  AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE
INSTANT CASE, THE ISSUE IS NOT ONE OF EXCLUSION, EXPULSION OR
DEPORTATION.  IT IS ONE OF LEGISLATIVE CONSTRUCTION AND OF PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS.  (FN8) 

THIS BEING RECOGNIZED, WE INTERPRET THIS REGULATION AS MAKING NO
ATTEMPT TO QUESTION A RESIDENT ALIEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS.  SECTION 175.57(B) USES THE TERM "EXCLUDABLE" IN DESIGNATING
THE ALIENS TO WHICH IT APPLIES.  THAT TERM RELATES NATURALLY TO ENTRANT
ALIENS AND TO THOSE ASSIMILATED TO THEIR STATUS.  THE REGULATION
NOWHERE REFERS TO THE EXPULSION OF ALIENS, WHICH IS THE TERM THAT WOULD
APPLY NATURALLY TO ALIENS WHO ARE LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS PHYSICALLY
PRESENT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO LANGUAGE IN
THE REGULATION THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ITS APPLICATION TO PETITIONER
HAD HE REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY AND PHYSICALLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. 
(FN9)  IT THUS SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD NOT HAVE HAD
THE AUTHORITY TO DENY TO PETITIONER A HEARING IN OPPOSITION TO SUCH AN
ORDER AS WAS HERE MADE, PROVIDED PETITIONER HAD REMAINED WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES. 

THE REGULATION BEFORE US WAS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND
CONCURRED IN BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATIONS NO. 2523, 3 CFR, 1943 CUM. SUPP., 270, AND NO. 2850, 3
CFR, 1949 SUPP., 41.  THE LATTER PROCLAMATION ISSUED AUGUST 17, 1949,
ALSO "RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED" THE REGULATION.  THOSE PROCLAMATIONS, IN
TURN, DEPEND UPON SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1918, 40 STAT. 559, AS
AMENDED, JUNE 21, 1941, 55 STAT. 252, 22 U.S.C. SEC. 223.  IT IS NOT
QUESTIONED THAT THE REGULATION, AS ABOVE INTERPRETED, COMES WITHIN
THESE AUTHORIZATIONS, OR THAT SUCH AUTHORIZATIONS HAVE BEEN EXTENDED TO
INCLUDE THE DATES MATERIAL IN THIS CASE.  66 STAT. 163, 333.  WE FIND
NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR THE PROCLAMATIONS WHICH CALLS FOR, PERMITS OR
SUSTAINS A BROADER INTERPRETATION OF 8 CFR SEC. 175.57(B) THAN WE HAVE
GIVEN TO IT.  THE WORDING ALSO NOW REFLECTS CONGRESSIONAL INTENT
BECAUSE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME LANGUAGE WAS INSERTED BY CONGRESS IN THE
SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT OF 1950, 64 STAT. 1008.  SEE NOTE 1,
SUPRA. 

2.  PETITIONER'S FINAL CONTENTION IS THAT IF AN ALIEN IS A LAWFUL
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ALSO IS A SEAMAN WHO HAS
GONE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES ON A VESSEL OF AMERICAN REGISTRY,
WITH ITS HOME PORT IN THE UNITED STATES, AND, UPON COMPLETION OF SUCH
VOYAGE, HAS RETURNED ON SUCH VESSEL TO THE UNITED STATES AND IS STILL
ON BOARD, HE IS STILL, FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF VIEW, A PERSON
ENTITLED TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WE DO
NOT REGARD THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS WHICH PETITIONER INDISPUTABLY
ENJOYED PRIOR TO HIS VOYAGE AS TERMINATED BY THAT VOYAGE.  FROM A
CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF VIEW, HE IS ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS WITHOUT
REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT, FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES, HE IS TO BE TREATED
AS AN ENTRANT ALIEN, AND WE DO NOT NOW REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER HE IS
TO BE SO TREATED. 

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICT IF LIMITED TO "EXCLUDABLE" ALIENS WHO ARE NOT
WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE ASSIMILATION OF
PETITIONER, FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, TO THE STATUS OF A CONTINUOUS
RESIDENT PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES ALSO ACCORDS WITH THE
NATION'S IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION PROGRAM.  FOR EXAMPLE, FOR
PURPOSES OF NATURALIZATION, SUCH AN ASSIMILATION WAS EXPRESSLY
PRESCRIBED IN THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940: 

"SEC. 307.  (A)  NO PERSON  ...  SHALL BE NATURALIZED UNLESS SUCH
PETITIONER, (1) IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF FILING PETITION FOR
NATURALIZATION HAS RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FOR AT
LEAST FIVE YEARS  ...  . 

     *         *       *         *         * 

"(D)  THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REGARDED AS RESIDENCE WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS CHAPTER: 

     *         *         *         *       * 

"(2)  CONTINUOUS SERVICE BY A SEAMAN ON A VESSEL OR VESSELS WHOSE
HOME PORT IS IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHICH ARE OF AMERICAN REGISTRY OR
AMERICAN OWNED, IF RENDERED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPLICANT'S LAWFUL ENTRY
INTO THE UNITED STATES FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE AND IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE DATE OF NATURALIZATION."  54 STAT. 1142-1143, 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 707.  SEE ALSO, SEC. 325, 54 STAT. 1150, AS AMENDED, 64 STAT.
1015, 8 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.  725.  (FN10) 

WHILE IT MAY BE THAT A RESIDENT ALIEN'S ULTIMATE RIGHT TO REMAIN IN
THE UNITED STATES IS SUBJECT TO ALTERATION BY STATUTE OR AUTHORIZED
REGULATION BECAUSE OF A VOYAGE UNDERTAKEN BY HIM TO FOREIGN PORTS, IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT HE IS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  HIS STATUS AS A PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING
AND PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CANNOT BE CAPRICIOUSLY TAKEN FROM
HIM.  WHERE NEITHER CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, THE SECRETARY OF STATE NOR
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS INESCAPABLY SAID SO, WE ARE NOT READY TO
ASSUME THAT ANY OF THEM HAS ATTEMPTED TO DEPRIVE SUCH A PERSON OF A
FAIR HEARING.  (FN11) 

THIS PRESERVATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS DOES NOT LEAVE
AN UNPROTECTED SPOT IN THE NATION'S ARMOR.  BEFORE PETITIONER'S
ADMISSION TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE, HE WAS REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND CONGRESS OF HIS SUITABILITY FOR THAT STATUS. 
(FN12)  BEFORE RECEIVING CLEARANCE FOR HIS FOREIGN CRUISE, HE WAS
SCREENED AND APPROVED BY THE COAST GUARD.  (FN13)  BEFORE ACCEPTANCE OF
HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION, AS WELL AS BEFORE FINAL ACTION
THEREON, ASSURANCE IS NECESSARY THAT HE IS NOT A SECURITY RISK.  SEE 8
U.S.C., C. 11, SUBCHAPTER III - NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION,
SECS. 701-747, AS AMENDED. 

WE DO NOT REACH THE ISSUE AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STATUS OF 8 CFR SEC.  175.57(B) IF IT WERE INTERPRETED AS DENYING TO
PETITIONER ALL OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING.  ALSO, WE DO NOT REACH THE
ISSUE AS TO WHAT WILL BE THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ORDER
THE DEPORTATION OF PETITIONER AFTER GIVING HIM REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE
CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND ALLOWING HIM A HEARING SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DETENTION OF PETITIONER,
WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THEM, IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY 8 CFR SEC.
175.57(B).  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.    FN1  SEC.
175.57 ENTRY NOT PERMITTED IN SPECIAL CASES  ...  . 

"(B)  IN THE CASE OF AN ALIEN TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED BY AN OFFICIAL OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS, OR MAY BE
EXCLUDABLE UNDER ONE OR MORE OF THE CATEGORIES SET FORTH IN SEC.
175.53, NO HEARING BY A BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY SHALL BE HELD UNTIL
AFTER THE CASE IS REPORTED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SUCH A HEARING
IS DIRECTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE.  IN ANY
SPECIAL CASE THE ALIEN MAY BE DENIED A HEARING BEFORE A BOARD OF
SPECIAL INQUIRY AND AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THAT BOARD IF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINES THAT HE IS EXCLUDABLE UNDER ONE OF THE
CATEGORIES SET FORTH IN SEC. 175.53 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF A
CONFIDENTIAL NATURE, THE DISCLOSURE OF WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST." 

THE CATEGORIES SET FORTH IN SEC. 175.53 AS A BASIS FOR EXCLUSION ARE
THOSE DEFINED "TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  THEY
INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, MEMBERSHIP IN "A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION
ASSOCIATED WITH OR CARRYING OUT POLICIES OF ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
OPPOSED TO THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST  ... " OR BEING "ENGAGED IN ORGANIZING,
TEACHING, ADVOCATING, OR DIRECTING ANY REBELLION, INSURRECTION, OR
VIOLENT UPRISING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES."  8 CFR. 

FOR STATUTORY LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THAT IN 8 CFR SEC. 175.57, SEE SEC.
5 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, AS AMENDED BY THE SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT OF 1950, 64 STAT.  1008, 8 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
137-4, REFERRING TO ALIENS WHO ARE "EXCLUDABLE" UNDER SEC. 137.  THE
GOVERNMENT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, RELIES UPON 8 CFR SEC. 175.57, RATHER
THAN UPON 8 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 137-4. 

FN2  "RESOLVED BY THE SENATE (THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCURRING), THAT THE CONGRESS FAVORS THE SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION IN
THE CASE OF EACH ALIEN HEREINAFTER NAMED, IN WHICH CASE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS SUSPENDED DEPORTATION FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS. 

*         *         *         *         * 

"A-6665545, CHEW, KWONG HAI, OR HARRY KWONG (HAI CHEW). 

     *         *        *         *         * 

"AGREED TO JULY 20, 1949."  63 STAT. 1240, 1242. 

FOR THE EFFECT OF THE ABOVE ACTION, SEE SEC. 19(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION
ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, AS AMENDED, 62 STAT. 1206, 8 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 155(C): 

"(C)  IN THE CASE OF ANY ALIEN  ...  WHO IS DEPORTABLE UNDER ANY LAW
OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHO HAS PROVED GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR THE
PRECEDING FIVE YEARS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY  ...  SUSPEND
DEPORTATION OF SUCH ALIEN IF HE IS NOT INELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION OR
IF INELIGIBLE, SUCH INELIGIBILITY IS SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS RACE, IF
HE FINDS (A) THAT SUCH DEPORTATION WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS ECONOMIC
DETRIMENT TO A CITIZEN OR LEGALLY RESIDENT ALIEN WHO IS THE SPOUSE,
PARENT, OR MINOR CHILD OF SUCH DEPORTABLE ALIEN; OR (B) THAT SUCH ALIEN
HAS RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY IN THE UNITED STATES FOR SEVEN YEARS OR MORE
AND IS RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ACT.  IF THE DEPORTATION OF ANY ALIEN IS SUSPENDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS SUBSECTION FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, A COMPLETE AND DETAILED
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THE CASE
SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE CONGRESS WITH THE REASONS FOR SUCH SUSPENSION
...  .  IF DURING THE SESSION OF THE CONGRESS AT WHICH A CASE IS
REPORTED, OR PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE SESSION OF THE CONGRESS NEXT
FOLLOWING THE SESSION AT WHICH A CASE IS REPORTED, THE CONGRESS PASSES
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION STATING IN SUBSTANCE THAT IT FAVORS THE
SUSPENSION OF SUCH DEPORTATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL CANCEL
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS  ...  .  DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS SHALL NOT BE
CANCELED IN THE CASE OF ANY ALIEN WHO WAS NOT LEGALLY ADMITTED FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HIS LAST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED
STATES, UNLESS SUCH ALIEN PAYS  ...  A FEE OF $18  ...  .  (IN THE
INSTANT CASE THIS WAS PAID.)  UPON THE CANCELLATION OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS
IN ANY CASE IN WHICH FEE HAS BEEN PAID THE COMMISSIONER SHALL RECORD
THE ALIEN'S ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE AS OF THE DATE OF HIS
LAST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES  ...  ." 

8 CFR SEC. 175.41(Q) STATES THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECS. 175.41 TO
175.62 "THE TERM 'AN ALIEN WHO IS A LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES' MEANS AN ALIEN WHO HAS BEEN LAWFULLY ADMITTED INTO THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, PUERTO RICO, OR HAWAII
FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE THEREIN AND WHO HAS SINCE SUCH ADMISSION
MAINTAINED HIS DOMICILE IN THE UNITED STATES:  ...  ." 

FN3  FOR THE NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF SUCH CLEARANCE, SEE EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 10173, OF OCTOBER 18, 1950, ESPECIALLY SECS. 6.10-1 TO 6.10
9, NOW PUBLISHED, AS AMENDED, IN 33 CFR, 1951 CUM. POCKET SUPP.  THAT
ORDER WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, AS AMENDED BY
THE MAGNUSON ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1950, 64 STAT. 427-428, 50 U.S.C.  (SUPP.
V) SEC. 191.  IT HAS NOW BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE
DECEMBER 27, 1950, PUBLISHED, AS AMENDED, IN 33 CFR, 1951 CUM. POCKET
SUPP., SECS. 121.01-125.37.  SEE ALSO, PARKER V. LESTER, 98 F. SUPP.
300, 191 F.2D 1020. 

PROVIDED: 

"ISSUANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS ABOARD VESSELS.  NO
PERSON SHALL BE ISSUED A DOCUMENT REQUIRED FOR EMPLOYMENT ON A MERCHANT
VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES NOR SHALL ANY LICENSED OFFICER OR
CERTIFICATED MAN BE EMPLOYED ON A MERCHANT VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES
IF THE COMMANDANT IS SATISFIED THAT THE CHARACTER AND HABITS OF LIFE OF
SUCH PERSON ARE SUCH AS TO AUTHORIZE THE BELIEF THAT THE PRESENCE OF
THE INDIVIDUAL ON BOARD WOULD BE INIMICAL TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED
STATES:  ...  ."  15 FED. REG. 7007. 

LATER REGULATIONS HAVE PUBLISHED DETAILED SECURITY PROVISIONS AS TO
WHO MAY BE EMPLOYED ON MERCHANT VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES OF 100
GROSS TONS AND UPWARD, WHETHER ENGAGED IN FOREIGN OR OTHER TRADE.  33
CFR, 1951 CUM. POCKET SUPP., SECS. 121.13-121.16. 

FN4  IN THIS OPINION "EXCLUSION" MEANS PREVENTING SOMEONE FROM
ENTERING THE UNITED STATES WHO IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES
OR IS TREATED AS BEING SO.  "EXPULSION" MEANS FORCING SOMEONE OUT OF
THE UNITED STATES WHO IS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR IS
TREATED AS BEING SO. "DEPORTATION" MEANS THE MOVING OF SOMEONE AWAY
FROM THE UNITED STATES, AFTER HIS EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION. 

FN5  "  ...  THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS A FUTILE AUTHORITY FOR THE ALIEN
SEEKING ADMISSION FOR THE FIRST TIME TO THESE SHORES.  BUT ONCE AN
ALIEN LAWFULLY ENTERS AND RESIDES IN THIS COUNTRY HE BECOMES INVESTED
WITH THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO ALL PEOPLE WITHIN OUR
BORDERS.  SUCH RIGHTS INCLUDE THOSE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AND THE
FIFTH AMENDMENTS AND BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  NONE OF THESE PROVISIONS ACKNOWLEDGES ANY DISTINCTION
BETWEEN CITIZENS AND RESIDENT ALIENS.  THEY EXTEND THEIR INALIENABLE
PRIVILEGES TO ALL 'PERSONS' AND GUARD AGAINST ANY ENCROACHMENT ON THOSE
RIGHTS BY FEDERAL OR STATE AUTHORITY."  BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135,
161 (CONCURRING OPINION). 

"THE ALIEN, TO WHOM THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY
HOSPITABLE, HAS BEEN ACCORDED A GENEROUS AND ASCENDING SCALE OF RIGHTS
AS HE INCREASES HIS IDENTITY WITH OUR SOCIETY.  MERE LAWFUL PRESENCE IN
THE COUNTRY CREATES AN IMPLIED ASSURANCE OF SAFE CONDUCT AND GIVES HIM
CERTAIN RIGHTS; THEY BECOME MORE EXTENSIVE AND SECURE WHEN HE MAKES
PRELIMINARY DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN, AND THEY
EXPAND TO THOSE OF FULL CITIZENSHIP UPON NATURALIZATION.  DURING HIS
PROBATIONARY RESIDENCE, THIS COURT HAS STEADILY ENLARGED HIS RIGHT
AGAINST EXECUTIVE DEPORTATION EXCEPT UPON FULL AND FAIR HEARING  ...  .
AND, AT LEAST SINCE 1886, WE HAVE EXTENDED TO THE PERSON AND PROPERTY
OF RESIDENT ALIENS IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES - SUCH AS THE
DUE PROCESS OF LAW OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  JONNSON V.
EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763, 770-771. 

THE LATTER CASE ALSO COMMENTS THAT "IN EXTENDING CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTIONS BEYOND THE CITIZENRY, THE COURT HAS BEEN AT PAINS TO POINT
OUT THAT IT WAS THE ALIEN'S PRESENCE WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION THAT GAVE THE JUDICIARY POWER TO ACT."  ID., AT 771.  THAT
CASE RELATED TO NONRESIDENT ENEMY ALIENS WHO HAD NEVER BEEN IN THE
UNITED STATES, RATHER THAN TO A LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT IN THE
POSITION OF PETITIONER.  THERE IS NO LACK OF PHYSICAL PRESENCE FOR
JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

FN6  "  ...  BUT THIS COURT HAS NEVER HELD, NOR MUST WE NOW BE
UNDERSTOOD AS HOLDING, THAT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, WHEN EXECUTING THE
PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE INVOLVING THE LIBERTY OF PERSONS, MAY DISREGARD
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES THAT INHERE IN 'DUE PROCESS OF LAW' AS
UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ONE OF
THESE PRINCIPLES IS THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY
WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY, AT SOME TIME, TO BE HEARD, BEFORE SUCH OFFICERS,
IN RESPECT OF THE MATTERS UPON WHICH THAT LIBERTY DEPENDS - NOT
NECESSARILY AN OPPORTUNITY UPON A REGULAR, SET OCCASION, AND ACCORDING
TO THE FORMS OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, BUT ONE THAT WILL SECURE THE
PROMPT, VIGOROUS ACTION CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS, AND AT THE SAME TIME
BE APPROPRIATE TO THE NATURE OF THE CASE UPON WHICH SUCH OFFICERS ARE
REQUIRED TO ACT.  THEREFORE, IT IS NOT COMPETENT FOR THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY OR ANY EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE YEAR
LIMITED BY THE STATUTE, ARBITRARILY TO CAUSE AN ALIEN, WHO HAS ENTERED
THE COUNTRY, AND HAS BECOME SUBJECT IN ALL RESPECTS TO ITS
JURISDICTION, AND A PART OF ITS POPULATION, ALTHOUGH ALLEGED TO BE
ILLEGALLY HERE, TO BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED WITHOUT GIVING
HIM ALL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD UPON THE QUESTIONS INVOLVING HIS RIGHT
TO BE AND REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.  NO SUCH ARBITRARY POWER CAN
EXIST WHERE THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN DUE PROCESS OF LAW ARE
RECOGNIZED."  THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86, 100-101. 

"  ...  IT WAS UNDER COMPULSION OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THIS COURT
LONG AGO HELD THAT AN ANTECEDENT DEPORTATION STATUTE MUST PROVIDE A
HEARING AT LEAST FOR ALIENS WHO HAD NOT ENTERED CLANDESTINELY AND WHO
HAD BEEN HERE SOME TIME EVEN IF ILLEGALLY."  WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH,
339 U.S. 33, 49-50.  SEE ALSO JOHNSON V. EISENTRAGER, SUPRA, AT 770
771; CARLSON V. LANDON, 342 U.S. 524, 538. 

FN7  SEE FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, RECOGNIZING
THE RIGHT TO EXPEL AND DEPORT RESIDENT ALIENS.  "WHEN THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES A HEARING, IT REQUIRES A FAIR ONE, ONE BEFORE A TRIBUNAL WHICH
MEETS AT LEAST CURRENTLY PREVAILING STANDARDS OF IMPARTIALITY."  WONG
YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, SUPRA, AT 50; KWOCK JAN FAT V. WHITE, 253 U.S.
454, 457-458, 464. 

FN8  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE CASES GENERALLY CITED IN THIS FIELD
IN RELATION TO THE EXCLUSION, EXPULSION OR DEPORTABILITY OF RESIDENT
ALIENS DEAL ONLY WITH THAT ULTIMATE ISSUE, AND NOT WITH THE RIGHT OF
THE RESIDENT ALIEN TO A HEARING SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS.  THE REPORTS SHOW THAT THERE WERE HEARINGS AND THAT IN SOME
CASES THE COURT CONSIDERED WHETHER THE HEARINGS HAD BEEN FAIR.  E.G.,
UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 289 U.S. 422, 424; UNITED STATES V. CORSI, 287
U.S. 129, 131; UNITED STATES EX REL. CLAUSSEN V. DAY, 279 U.S. 398,
400; QUON QUON POY V. JOHNSON, 273 U.S. 352, 358; LEWIS V. FRICK, 233
U.S. 291, 293; LAPINA V. WILLIAMS, 232 U.S. 78, 83; FONG YUE TING V.
UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, 729. 

FN9  THE PRECEDING SUBSECTION, 175.57(A), USES THE ADDITIONAL WORD
"DEPORTED" BUT ONLY TO SUPPLEMENT "EXCLUDED":  "ANY ALIEN SO
TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED BY AN OFFICIAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHALL
NOT BE ADMITTED AND SHALL BE EXCLUDED AND DEPORTED UNLESS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, IS SATISFIED
THAT THE ADMISSION OF THE ALIEN WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES."  8 CFR. 

FN10  THIS PROVISION SURVIVES IN A MODIFIED FORM IN SEC. 330 OF THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952, 66 STAT. 251.  SECTION 330(B)
INCLUDES A SAVINGS CLAUSE AFFECTING THOSE WHO APPLIED FOR
NATURALIZATION BEFORE SEPTEMBER 23, 1950.  SECTION 405(A) ALSO CONTAINS
A GENERAL SAVINGS CLAUSE.  66 STAT. 280. 

FN11  EXISTING STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR "EXCLUSION
WITHOUT HEARING" ARE DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S
COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ENTITLED "WHOM WE SHALL
WELCOME" DATED JANUARY 1, 1953, AT PAGES 228-231.  THE DISCUSSION
TREATS THE PROVISIONS AS APPLICABLE TO ENTRANT AND REENTRANT ALIENS BUT
DOES NOT EVEN SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE APPLICABLE TO ALIENS LAWFULLY
ADMITTED TO PERMANENT RESIDENCE AND PHYSICALLY PRESENT WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES.  THE REPORT DISCUSSES THE HARSHNESS OF THE "REENTRY
DOCTRINE" AND RECOMMENDS ITS MODIFICATION AT PAGES 199-200.  IT DOES
NOT, HOWEVER, EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE REENTRY DOCTRINE ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A HEARING WHICH RESIDENT ALIENS, IN THE
STATUS OF PETITIONER, MAY HAVE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE
INSTANCES OF HARDSHIP WHICH THE REPORT CITES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN
DISCLOSED AT HEARINGS HELD ON THE ISSUE OF THE ALIEN'S RIGHT TO
REENTER. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DISSENTS. 
..END :











LUTWAK V. UNITED STATES 344 U.S. 604 


NO. 66.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8-9, 1952 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1953 - 195 F.2D
748, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED OF A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES BY OBTAINING THE ILLEGAL ENTRY THERETO OF THREE ALIENS AS
SPOUSES OF HONORABLY DISCHARGED VETERANS.  THEY HAD CONSPIRED TO HAVE
THREE SUCH VETERANS JOURNEY TO PARIS, THERE GO THROUGH MARRIAGE
CEREMONIES WITH THREE ALIENS, BRING THEM TO THE UNITED STATES, AND
OBTAIN THEIR ENTRY UNDER THE WAR BRIDES ACT.  THE PARTIES TO THE
MARRIAGES WERE NOT TO LIVE TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE AND WERE TO
TAKE WHATEVER LEGAL STEPS WERE NECESSARY TO SEVER THE LEGAL TIES; BUT
THESE FACTS WERE TO BE CONCEALED FROM THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES. 
HELD: 

1.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE MARRIAGES IS IMMATERIAL.  PP. 610-613. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN
PERMITTING THE "WIVES" TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEIR "HUSBANDS."  PP. 613
615. 

3.  IT WAS NOT ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT TESTIMONY AS TO
VARIOUS ACTS OF DIFFERENT PETITIONERS, DONE AFTER THE CONSPIRACY ENDED,
WITHOUT LIMITING THE EVIDENCE TO THE PARTICULAR DEFENDANT WHO PERFORMED
THE ACT, WHERE THE ACTS WERE RELEVANT TO SHOW THE SPURIOUSNESS OF THE
MARRIAGES AND THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES IN GOING THROUGH THE MARRIAGE
CEREMONIES.  PP. 615-618. 

4. ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE ADMISSION AGAINST ALL OF THE
CONSPIRATORS, THOUGH NOT PRESENT WHEN IT WAS MADE, OF A SINGLE
DECLARATION MADE AFTER THE CONSPIRACY HAD ENDED WAS HARMLESS ERROR
UNDER RULE 52(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  PP. 618
620. 

LUTWAK ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED PETITONERS' CONVICTION OF A CONSPIRACY
TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES.   195 F.2D 748.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 809.  AFFIRMED, P. 620. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS, MARCEL MAX LUTWAK, MUNIO KNOLL, AND REGINA TREITLER,
TOGETHER WITH LEOPOLD KNOLL AND GRACE KLEMTNER, WERE INDICTED ON SIX
COUNTS IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION.  THE
FIRST COUNT CHARGED CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES SET FORTH
IN THE REMAINING FIVE COUNTS AND CONSPIRACY "TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES OF AND CONCERNING ITS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AND RIGHT OF
ADMINISTERING" THE IMMIGRATION LAWS AND THE IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, BY OBTAINING THE ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THIS
COUNTRY OF THREE ALIENS AS SPOUSES OF HONORABLY DISCHARGED VETERANS. 
GRACE KLEMTNER WAS DISMISSED FROM THE INDICTMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL
BECAUSE HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED BEFORE THE GRAND
JURY.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS BECAUSE
VENUE HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.  THE
JURY ACQUITTED LEOPOLD KNOLL AND CONVICTED THE THREE PETITIONERS ON THE
CONSPIRACY COUNT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 195 F.2D 748, AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 344 U.S. 809. 

WE ARE CONCERNED HERE ONLY WITH THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS OF
THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY.  PETITIONER REGINA TREITLER IS THE SISTER OF
MUNIO KNOLL AND LEOPOLD KNOLL, AND THE PETITIONER LUTWAK IS THEIR
NEPHEW.  MUNIO KNOLL HAD BEEN MARRIED IN POLAND IN 1932 TO ONE MARIA
KNOLL.  THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT MUNIO AND MARIA WERE DIVORCED IN
1942, BUT THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THIS DIVORCE ARE NOT
DETERMINABLE FROM THE RECORD.  AT THE TIME OF THE INCEPTION OF THE
CONSPIRACY, IN THE SUMMER OF 1947, MUNIO, MARIA AND LEOPOLD WERE
REFUGEES FROM POLAND, LIVING IN PARIS, FRANCE, WHILE REGINA TREITLER
AND LUTWAK LIVED IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.  PETITIONER TREITLER DESIRED TO
GET HER BROTHERS INTO THE UNITED STATES. 

ALIEN SPOUSES OF HONORABLY DISCHARGED VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II WERE
PERMITTED TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SO-CALLED
WAR BRIDES ACT WHICH PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART: 

"  ...  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OF THE SEVERAL CLAUSES OF SECTION 3 OF THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, EXCLUDING PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DEFECTIVE
ALIENS, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS OF ANY OF THE
IMMIGRATION LAWS OR REGULATIONS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, OR PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER, ALIEN SPOUSES OR ALIEN CHILDREN OF
UNITED STATES CITIZENS SERVING IN, OR HAVING AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE
CERTIFICATE FROM THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE
SECOND WORLD WAR SHALL, IF OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE IMMIGRATION
LAWS AND IF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION IS MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, BE ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES  ... ." 59
STAT. 659, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 232. 

THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THE PETITIONERS
CONSPIRED TO HAVE THREE HONORABLY DISCHARGED VETERANS JOURNEY TO PARIS
AND GO THROUGH MARRIAGE CEREMONIES WITH MUNIO, LEOPOLD AND MARIA.  THE
BROTHERS AND MARIA WOULD THEN ACCOMPANY THEIR NEW SPOUSES TO THE UNITED
STATES AND SECURE ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY BY REPRESENTING THEMSELVES AS
ALIEN SPOUSES OF WORLD WAR II VETERANS.   IT WAS FURTHER A PART OF THE
PLAN THAT THE MARRIAGES WERE TO BE IN FORM ONLY, SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ENABLING MUNIO, LEOPOLD AND MARIA TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES.  THE
PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGES WERE NOT TO LIVE TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE,
AND THEREAFTER WOULD TAKE WHATEVER LEGAL STEPS WERE NECESSARY TO SEVER
THE LEGAL TIES.  IT WAS FINALLY ALLEGED THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSPIRED
TO CONCEAL THESE ACTS IN ORDER TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE OF THE CONSPIRACY
TO THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES. 

THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES CONSISTED IN THAT PART
OF THE PLAN BY WHICH EACH OF THE ALIENS WAS TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT
TO THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES BY REPRESENTING IN HIS APPLICATION FOR
ADMISSION THAT HE WAS MARRIED TO HIS PURPORTED SPOUSE, AND TO CONCEAL
FROM THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES THAT HE HAD GONE THROUGH A MARRIAGE
CEREMONY SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY WITH
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE AND HIS PURPORTED SPOUSE WOULD NOT LIVE
TOGETHER AS MAN AND WIFE, BUT WOULD SEVER THE FORMAL BONDS OF THE
OSTENSIBLE MARRIAGE WHEN THE MARRIAGE HAD SERVED ITS FRAUDULENT
PURPOSE. 

THE STATUTE DEFINING CONSPIRACY READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE EITHER TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN ANY MANNER OR FOR
ANY PURPOSE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PARTIES DO ANY ACT TO EFFECT THE
OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH OF THE PARTIES TO SUCH CONSPIRACY SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS,
OR BOTH."  18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  88, NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
371. 

THE SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE WHICH IT WAS ALLEGED THE PETITIONERS
CONSPIRED TO VIOLATE PROVIDE IN PERTINENT PART: 

"ANY ALIEN WHO HEREAFTER ENTERS THE UNITED STATES AT ANY TIME OR
PLACE OTHER THAN AS DESIGNATED BY IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS OR ELUDES
EXAMINATION OR INSPECTION BY IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS, OR OBTAINS ENTRY TO
THE UNITED STATES BY A WILLFULLY FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION OR
THE WILLFUL CONCEALMENT OF A MATERIAL FACT, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR AND, UPON CONVICTION, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR
NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR BY BOTH
SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT."  45 STAT. 1551, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 180A. 

"WHOEVER KNOWINGLY MAKES UNDER OATH ANY FALSE STATEMENT IN ANY
APPLICATION, AFFIDAVIT, OR OTHER DOCUMENT REQUIRED BY THE IMMIGRATION
LAWS OR REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED THEREUNDER, SHALL, UPON CONVICTION
THEREOF, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE
THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH."  43 STAT. 153, 165, 8 U.S.C. (1946 ED.) 
SEC.  220(C), NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1546. 

FROM THE EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE JURY COULD
REASONABLY HAVE BELIEVED THAT THE FOLLOWING ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS TOOK
PLACE, AND THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSPIRED TO BRING THEM ABOUT.  LUTWAK,
A WORLD WAR II VETERAN, WAS SELECTED TO MARRY MARIA KNOLL, HIS AUNT BY
MARRIAGE.  HE WENT TO PARIS WHERE HE WENT THROUGH A MARRIAGE CEREMONY
WITH MARIA.  THEY TRAVELED TO THE UNITED STATES, ENTERING THE PORT OF
NEW YORK ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1947.  THEY REPRESENTED TO THE IMMIGRATION
AUTHORITIES THAT MARIA WAS THE WIFE OF LUTWAK, AND UPON THAT
REPRESENTATION MARIA WAS ADMITTED.  THEY NEVER LIVED TOGETHER AS MAN
AND WIFE, AND WITHIN A FEW MONTHS MUNIO AND MARIA COMMENCED LIVING
TOGETHER IN THIS COUNTRY AS MAN AND WIFE, HOLDING THEMSELVES OUT AS
SUCH.  LUTWAK, IN THE MEANTIME, REPRESENTED HIMSELF TO FRIENDS AS AN
UNMARRIED MAN.  LUTWAK AND MARIA WERE DIVORCED ON MARCH 31, 1950. 

LUTWAK AND MRS. TREITLER ALSO FOUND TWO WOMEN - BESSIE BENJAMIN
OSBORNE AND GRACE KLEMTNER - WHO WERE HONORABLY DISCHARGED VETERANS OF
WORLD WAR II, AND WHO WERE WILLING TO MARRY MUNIO AND LEOPOLD SO THAT
THE BROTHERS COULD COME TO THE UNITED STATES.  BESSIE OSBORNE WAS
INTRODUCED TO TREITLER BY LUTWAK, AND WENT TO PARIS ACCOMPANIED BY
TREITLER.  THERE SHE WENT THROUGH A PRETENDED MARRIAGE CEREMONY WITH
MUNIO KNOLL, AND ON THEIR ARRIVAL AT NEW YORK CITY, MUNIO WAS ADMITTED
ON NOVEMBER 13, 1947, ON THE REPRESENTATION THAT HE WAS MARRIED TO
BESSIE OSBORNE.  THE MARRIAGE WAS NEVER CONSUMMATED AND WAS NEVER
INTENDED TO BE.  THE PARTIES SEPARATED AFTER ENTERING THE UNITED
STATES, AND THEY NEVER LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE AT ANY TIME. 
BESSIE OSBORNE'S SUIT FOR DIVORCE FROM MUNIO WAS PENDING AT THE TIME OF
THE TRIAL. 

STILL LATER, GRACE KLEMTNER, WHO WAS ALSO A WORLD WAR II VETERAN AND
AN ACQUAINTANCE OF REGINA TREITLER, WENT TO PARIS AND WENT THROUGH A
PRETENDED MARRIAGE CEREMONY WITH LEOPOLD.  THEY THEN TRAVELED TO THE
UNITED STATES, WHERE LEOPOLD WAS ADMITTED ON DECEMBER 5, 1947, UPON THE
REPRESENTATION THAT HE WAS THE HUSBAND OF GRACE KLEMTNER.  THEY
IMMEDIATELY SEPARATED AFTER THEIR ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND THEY
NEVER LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE AT ANY TIME UNTIL ABOUT THE
TIME GRACE KLEMTNER APPEARED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WHICH RETURNED THE
INDICTMENT.  THIS WAS APPROXIMATELY APRIL 1, 1950, MORE THAN TWO YEARS
AFTER THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY IN PARIS.  BESSIE OSBORNE AND GRACE
KLEMTNER RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIAL FEE FOR PARTICIPATING IN THESE MARRIAGE
CEREMONIES. 

THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD OF A CONSPIRACY TO
CONTRACT SPURIOUS, PHONY MARRIAGES FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECEIVING THE
IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES AND THEREBY PERPETRATING A FRAUD UPON THE
UNITED STATES, AND OF A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OTHER OFFENSES AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES. 

PETITIONERS PRESENT THREE PRINCIPAL CONTENTIONS:  (1) THEIR
CONSPIRACY WAS NOT UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THE MARRIAGES INVOLVED WERE VALID
MARRIAGES; (2) THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE OSTENSIBLE WIVES
OF THESE MARRIAGES TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEIR SO-CALLED HUSBANDS; AND (3)
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING TESTIMONY OF VARIOUS ACTS AND
DECLARATIONS OF DIFFERENT PETITIONERS, DONE AND SAID AFTER THE
CONSPIRACY HAD ENDED, WITHOUT LIMITING THE EVIDENCE TO THE PARTICULAR
DEFENDANT WHO PERFORMED THE ACT OR MADE THE STATEMENT. 

                          I. 

AT THE TRIAL, IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT MARIA, MUNIO AND LEOPOLD HAD
GONE THROUGH FORMAL MARRIAGE CEREMONIES WITH LUTWAK, BESS OSBORNE AND
GRACE KLEMTNER, RESPECTIVELY.  PETITIONERS CONTENDED THAT, REGARDLESS
OF THE INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF THE CEREMONIES, THE
FACT THAT THE CEREMONIES WERE PERFORMED WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE
VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGES, AT LEAST UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT PROVED THEIR
INVALIDITY UNDER FRENCH LAW.  THEY RELIED ON THE GENERAL AMERICAN RULE
OF CONFLICT OF LAWS THAT A MARRIAGE VALID WHERE CELEBRATED IS VALID
EVERYWHERE UNLESS IT IS INCESTUOUS, POLYGAMOUS, OR OTHERWISE DECLARED
VOID BY STATUTE.  SEE LOUGHRAN V. LOUGHRAN, 292 U.S. 216, 223;
RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SECS. 121, 132-134.  NEITHER SIDE
PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE OF THE FRENCH LAW, AND THE TRIAL COURT RULED
THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, THE FRENCH LAW WOULD BE PRESUMED
TO BE THE SAME AS AMERICAN LAW.  THE COURT LATER INSTRUCTED THE JURY
THAT "IF THE SUBJECTS AGREE TO A MARRIAGE ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF
REPRESENTING IT AS SUCH TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT THEY WILL PUT AN END TO IT AS SOON AS IT HAS SERVED ITS PURPOSE TO
DECEIVE, THEY HAVE NEVER REALLY AGREED TO BE MARRIED AT ALL."  THE
PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PRESUMING THAT THE
FRENCH LAW RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES IS THE SAME AS
AMERICAN LAW, AND THEY FURTHER CONTEND THAT EVEN UNDER AMERICAN LAW
THESE MARRIAGES ARE VALID. 

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGES IS MATERIAL.  NO
ONE IS BEING PROSECUTED FOR AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE MARITAL RELATION. 
WE CONSIDER THE MARRIAGE CEREMONIES ONLY AS A PART OF THE CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES AND TO COMMIT OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE CEREMONIES WERE ONLY A
STEP IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME AND ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PARTIES TO THE
CONSPIRACY.  BY DIRECTING IN THE WAR BRIDES ACT THAT "ALIEN SPOUSES" OF
CITIZEN WAR VETERANS SHOULD BE ADMITTED INTO THIS COUNTRY, CONGRESS
INTENDED TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR VETERANS WHO HAD MARRIED ALIENS TO
HAVE THEIR FAMILIES JOIN THEM IN THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT THE LONG DELAY
INVOLVED IN QUALIFYING UNDER THE PROPER IMMIGRATION QUOTA.  CONGRESS
DID NOT INTEND TO PROVIDE ALIENS WITH AN EASY MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING
THE QUOTA SYSTEM BY FAKE MARRIAGES IN WHICH NEITHER OF THE PARTIES EVER
INTENDED TO ENTER INTO THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP; THAT PETITIONERS SO
BELIEVED IS EVIDENCED BY THEIR CARE IN CONCEALING FROM THE IMMIGRATION
AUTHORITIES THAT THE OSTENSIBLE HUSBANDS AND WIVES WERE TO SEPARATE
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEIR ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY AND WERE NEVER TO LIVE
TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.  THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF A MARRIAGE,
WHICH CONGRESS MUST HAVE HAD IN MIND WHEN IT MADE PROVISION FOR "ALIEN
SPOUSES" IN THE WAR BRIDES ACT, IS THAT THE TWO PARTIES HAVE UNDERTAKEN
TO ESTABLISH A LIFE TOGETHER AND ASSUME CERTAIN DUTIES AND
OBLIGATIONS.  SUCH WAS NOT THE CASE HERE, OR SO THE JURY MIGHT
REASONABLY HAVE FOUND.  THUS, WHEN ONE OF THE ALIENS STATED THAT HE WAS
MARRIED, AND OMITTED TO EXPLAIN THE TRUE NATURE OF HIS MARITAL
RELATIONSHIP, HIS STATEMENT DID, AND WAS INTENDED TO, CARRY WITH IT
IMPLICATIONS OF A STATE OF FACTS WHICH WERE NOT IN FACT TRUE. 

BECAUSE THE VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGES IS NOT MATERIAL, THE CASES
INVOLVING SO-CALLED LIMITED-PURPOSE MARRIAGES, (FN1) CITED BY
PETITIONERS TO SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE MARRIAGES IN THE
INSTANT CASE ARE VALID, ARE INAPPLICABLE.  ALL OF THOSE CASES ARE SUITS
FOR ANNULMENT IN WHICH THE COURT WAS REQUESTED TO GRANT RELIEF TO ONE
OF THE PARTIES TO A MARRIAGE ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN ADMISSION THAT THE
MARRIAGE HAD BEEN A SHAM.  WHERE THE ANNULMENT WAS DENIED, ONE OR MORE
OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS INFLUENCED THE COURT: (1) A RELUCTANCE TO
PERMIT THE PARTIES TO USE THE ANNULMENT PROCEDURE AS A QUICK AND
PAINLESS SUBSTITUTE FOR DIVORCE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THIS MIGHT
ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO MARRY HASTILY AND INCONSIDERATELY; (2) A BELIEF
THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO USE THE COURTS AS THE MEANS
OF CARRYING OUT THEIR OWN SECRET SCHEMES; AND (3) A DESIRE TO PREVENT
INJURY TO INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES, PARTICULARLY CHILDREN OF THE
MARRIAGE.  THESE FACTORS HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE INSTANT CASE.  SIMILARLY INAPPLICABLE ARE THE CASES WHERE A
MARRIAGE WAS ENTERED INTO IN ORDER TO RENDER THE WIFE INCOMPETENT TO
TESTIFY AGAINST HER HUSBAND IN A PENDING TRIAL, BECAUSE IN NONE OF
THOSE CASES WAS IT PROVED THAT THE PARTIES TO THE MARRIAGE DID NOT
INTEND TO ENTER INTO THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP IN GOOD FAITH.  (FN2)
MUCH MORE CLOSELY RELATED IS THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. RUBENSTEIN,
151 F.2D 915, 918-919, IN WHICH THE COURT HELD THAT WHERE TWO PERSONS
ENTERED INTO A MARRIAGE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE
WOMAN'S ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND WITH NO INTENTION BY EITHER PARTY
TO ENTER INTO THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP AS IT IS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD,
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT CASE THEY WERE NEVER MARRIED AT ALL.  IN THE
INSTANT CASE, AS IN THE RUBENSTEIN CASE, THERE WAS NO GOOD FAITH - NO
INTENTION TO MARRY AND CONSUMMATE THE MARRIAGES EVEN FOR A DAY.  WITH
THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH CEREMONIES UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES,
EITHER IN THE UNITED STATES OR FRANCE, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED. 

           II. 

MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY COMES FROM THE LIPS OF THE SO
CALLED WIVES OF THESE SPURIOUS MARRIAGES.  THE NEXT QUESTION WITH WHICH
WE ARE CONFRONTED IS WHETHER THESE SO-CALLED WIVES ARE COMPETENT TO
TESTIFY AGAINST THEIR PURPORTED HUSBANDS IN THIS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
AND THUS INCRIMINATE THE SO-CALLED HUSBANDS. 

CIVIL MARRIAGE CEREMONIES WERE ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES IN PARIS
AS ABOVE INDICATED.  MUST THESE OSTENSIBLE MARRIAGES BE RECOGNIZED AS
CREATING SPOUSES IN ORDER THAT THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP MAY BE CLAIMED
TO PREVENT THE WIVES FROM TESTIFYING AGAINST THE HUSBANDS?  AT COMMON
LAW THE WIFE COULD TESTIFY NEITHER FOR NOR AGAINST HER HUSBAND IN A
CRIMINAL CASE, BUT SINCE FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371, THE WIFE
MAY TESTIFY IN FAVOR OF THE HUSBAND. 

A REVIEW IN THE FUNK CASE OF THE CASES IN THIS COURT REVEALED THE
INCONSISTENCIES OF THE RULE WHICH MADE A WIFE INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON
BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND, AND THIS COURT RESOLVED THE QUESTION IN FAVOR OF
COMPETENCY.  THE FUNK CASE LEFT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AS TO THE
COMPENTENCY OF WITNESSES TO BE FORMULATED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS OR
CONGRESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASON AND EXPERIENCE.  WOLFLE V. UNITED
STATES, 291 U.S. 7, 12.  THERE FOLLOWED THE PROMULGATION BY THIS COURT
OF RULE 26 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, WHICH READS AS
FOLLOWS:

              "RULE 26.  EVIDENCE. 

"  ...  THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AND THE COMPETENCY AND
PRIVILEGES OF WITNESSES SHALL BE GOVERNED, EXCEPT WHEN AN ACT OF
CONGRESS OR THESE RULES OTHERWISE PROVIDE, BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
COMMON LAW AS THEY MAY BE INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE LIGHT OF REASON AND EXPERIENCE." 

THIS RULE WAS A PARAPHRASE OF MR. JUSTICE STONE'S STATEMENT IN
WOLFLE, AT 12. 

UNDER THIS RULE, THE COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES IS TO BE GOVERNED BY THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW AS THEY MAY BE INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS
IN THE LIGHT OF REASON AND EXPERIENCE.  THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES ARE
NOT NECESSARILY AS THEY HAD EXISTED AT COMMON LAW.  CONGRESS HAS NOT
ACTED, AND HAS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED THIS COURT TO PRESCRIBE RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, BUT THE RULES DO NOT SPECIFICALLY ANSWER THE
PROBLEM HERE.  THEREFORE, IT IS OPEN TO US TO SAY WHETHER WE SHALL GO
FURTHER AND ABROGATE THIS COMMON-LAW RULE DISQUALIFYING ONE SPOUSE FROM
TESTIFYING IN CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THE OTHER SPOUSE. 

WHEN THE GOOD FAITH OF THE MARITAL RELATION IS PERTINENT AND IT IS
MADE TO APPEAR TO THE TRIAL COURT, AS IT WAS HERE, THAT THE
RELATIONSHIP WAS ENTERED INTO WITH NO INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO LIVE
TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE BUT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF USING THE
MARRIAGE CEREMONY IN A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD, THE OSTENSIBLE SPOUSES ARE
COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AGAINST EACH OTHER.  HERE AGAIN, WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THESE SO-CALLED
MARRIAGES.  WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE APPLICATION OF A COMMON-LAW
PRINCIPLE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  IN
INTERPRETING THE COMMON LAW IN THIS INSTANCE, WE ARE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER "IN THE LIGHT OF REASON AND EXPERIENCE" WE SHOULD INTERPRET THE
COMMON LAW SO AS TO MAKE THESE OSTENSIBLE WIVES COMPETENT TO TESTIFY
AGAINST THEIR OSTENSIBLE HUSBANDS.  THE REASON FOR THE RULE AT COMMON
LAW DISQUALIFYING THE WIFE IS TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY AND TRANQUILITY
OF THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP.  IT IS HOLLOW MOCKERY FOR THE PETITIONERS
IN ARGUING FOR THE POLICY OF THE RULE TO INVOKE THE REASON FOR THE RULE
AND TO SAY TO US "THE HUSBAND AND WIFE HAVE GROWN CLOSER TOGETHER AS AN
EMOTIONAL, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL UNIT" AND TO SPEAK OF "THE CLOSE
EMOTIONAL TIES BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE" AND OF "THE SPECIAL PROTECTION
SOCIETY AFFORDS TO THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP."  IN A SHAM, PHONY, EMPTY
CEREMONY SUCH AS THE PARTIES WENT THROUGH IN THIS CASE, THE REASON FOR
THE RULE DISQUALIFYING A SPOUSE FROM GIVING TESTIMONY DISAPPEARS, AND
WITH IT THE RULE. 

"IT HAS BEEN SAID SO OFTEN AS TO HAVE BECOME AXIOMATIC THAT THE
COMMON LAW IS NOT IMMUTABLE BUT FLEXIBLE, AND BY ITS OWN PRINCIPLES
ADAPTS ITSELF TO VARYING CONDITIONS."  FUNK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT
383. 

THE LIGHT OF REASON AND EXPERIENCE DO NOT COMPEL US TO SO INTERPRET
THE COMMON LAW AS TO DISQUALIFY THESE OSTENSIBLE SPOUSES FROM
TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE.  WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE, THE COMMON-LAW RULE PROHIBITING ANTISPOUSAL TESTIMONY HAS
NO APPLICATION.  THESE OSTENSIBLE WIVES WERE COMPETENT TO TESTIFY. 

                    III. 

MOST OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE CONSISTED OF TESTIMONY OF THE ACTS
AND DECLARATIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS.  THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT
BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ACTS AND DECLARATIONS TOOK PLACE AFTER THE
CONSPIRACY ENDED, THEY WERE ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED WITHOUT BEING PROPERLY
LIMITED TO THE DEFENDANT WHO DID THE ACT OR MADE THE STATEMENT
TESTIFIED TO.  WE MUST, THEREFORE, DECIDE WHEN THE CONSPIRACY ENDED. 
THE PETITIONERS CONTEND IT ENDED WHEN THE LAST OF THE PARTIES, LEOPOLD
KNOLL, WAS ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES ON DECEMBER 5, 1947.  THEN AND
THERE, THEY SAY, THE FRAUD IF ANY WAS COMPLETE, AND THE CONSPIRACY TO
VIOLATE THE STATUTES WAS COMPLETE.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT A PART
OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE CONSPIRATORS TO CONCEAL
THEIR FRAUD BY ANY MEANS, AND SO IT WAS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT. 

BUT THERE IS NO STATEMENT IN THE INDICTMENT OF A SINGLE OVERT ACT OF
CONCEALMENT THAT WAS COMMITTED AFTER DECEMBER 5, 1947, AND NO
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF ANY.  SUCH ACTS AS WERE SET FORTH AND PROVED
WERE ACTS THAT REVEALED AND DID NOT CONCEAL THE FRAUD.  THEREFORE,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO ESTABLISH AS A PART OF THE
CONSPIRACY THAT THE CONSPIRATORS AGREED TO CONCEAL THE CONSPIRACY BY
DOING WHAT WAS NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT TO PREVENT ITS DISCLOSURE. 
THERE WAS A STATEMENT OF MUNIO KNOLL IN THE RECORD TO ONE WITNESS
HABERMAN THAT INDICATED MUNIO'S PURPOSE TO COVER UP AND CONCEAL THE
CONSPIRACY.  THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE CONSPIRACY INCLUDED THE
FURTHER AGREEMENT TO CONCEAL.  IT IS IN THE NATURE OF AN AFTERTHOUGHT
BY THE CONSPIRATOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF COVERING UP.  THE TRIAL COURT SO
UNDERSTOOD IT, AND THIS STATEMENT OF MUNIO KNOLL, AS TESTIFIED TO BY
HABERMAN, WAS LIMITED BY THE COURT AS APPLICABLE AGAINST MUNIO KNOLL
ONLY. 

THIS COURT IN KRULEWITCH V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 440, REJECTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT IN EVERY CONSPIRACY THERE IS IMPLICIT AN
AGREEMENT AS A PART THEREOF FOR THE CONSPIRATORS TO COLLABORATE TO
CONCEAL THE CONSPIRACY. 

"THE RULE CONTENDED FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE FAR-REACHING
RESULTS.  FOR UNDER THIS RULE PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENTS COULD GENERALLY BE
MADE IN CONSPIRACY CASES THAT MOST OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS OFFERED IN
EVIDENCE TENDED TO SHIELD CO-CONSPIRATORS.  WE ARE NOT PERSUADED TO
ADOPT THE GOVERNMENT'S IMPLICIT CONSPIRACY THEORY WHICH IN ALL CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY CASES WOULD CREATE AUTOMATICALLY A FURTHER BREACH OF THE
GENERAL RULE AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE."  ID., AT 444. 

WHILE THE CONCEALMENT WAS ALLEGED IN THIS INDICTMENT AS A PART OF THE
CONSPIRACY, IT WAS NOT PROVED.  WE THINK ON THIS RECORD THAT THE
CONSPIRACY ENDED DECEMBER 5, 1947. 

IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT ACTS AND DECLARATIONS MADE AFTER
THE CONSPIRACY ENDED ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE.  IN THIS CASE, THE ESSENTIAL
FACT OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS THE EXISTENCE OF PHONY MARRIAGE CEREMONIES
ENTERED INTO FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DECEIVING THE IMMIGRATION
AUTHORITIES AND PERPETRATING A FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES.  ACTS
WHICH TOOK PLACE AFTER THE CONSPIRACY ENDED WHICH WERE RELEVANT TO SHOW
THE SPURIOUSNESS OF THE MARRIAGES AND THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES IN
GOING THROUGH THE MARRIAGE CEREMONIES WERE COMPETENT - SUCH AS THE FACT
THAT THE PARTIES CONTINUED TO LIVE APART AFTER THEY CAME TO THE UNITED
STATES; THAT MONEY WAS PAID THE SO-CALLED WIVES AS A CONSIDERATION FOR
THEIR PART IN THE SO-CALLED MARRIAGES; AND THAT SUITS WERE STARTED TO
TERMINATE WHATEVER LEGAL RELATIONSHIP THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN UPON THE
RECORD. 

DECLARATIONS STAND ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING.  DECLARATIONS OF ONE
CONSPIRATOR MAY BE USED AGAINST THE OTHER CONSPIRATOR NOT PRESENT ON
THE THEORY THAT THE DECLARANT IS THE AGENT OF THE OTHER, AND THE
ADMISSIONS OF ONE ARE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST BOTH UNDER A STANDARD
EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE APPLICABLE TO THE STATEMENTS OF A PARTY. 
CLUNE V. UNITED STATES, 159 U.S. 590, 593.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
GOODING, 12 WHEAT.  460, 468-470.  BUT SUCH DECLARATION CAN BE USED
AGAINST THE CO-CONSPIRATOR ONLY WHEN MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
CONSPIRACY.  FISWICK V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 211, 217; LOGAN V.
UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263, 308-309.  THERE CAN BE NO FURTHERANCE OF A
CONSPIRACY THAT HAS ENDED.  THEREFORE, THE DECLARATIONS OF A
CONSPIRATOR DO NOT BIND THE CO-CONSPIRATOR IF MADE AFTER THE CONSPIRACY
HAS ENDED.  THAT IS THE TEACHING OF KRULEWITCH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
AND FISWICK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THOSE CASES DEALT ONLY WITH
DECLARATIONS OF ONE CONSPIRATOR AFTER THE CONSPIRACY HAD ENDED.  THEY
HAD NO APPLICATION TO ACTS OF A CONSPIRATOR OR OTHERS WHICH WERE
RELEVANT TO PROVE THE CONSPIRACY.  TRUE, THERE IS DICTUM IN LOGAN V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 309, FREQUENTLY REPEATED, WHICH WOULD LIMIT
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BOTH ACTS AND DECLARATIONS TO THE PERSON
PERFORMING THEM.  THIS STATEMENT OF THE RULE OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT
THE OBJECTION TO THE DECLARATIONS IS THAT THEY ARE HEARSAY.  THIS
REASON IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ACTS WHICH ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE A MEANS
OF EXPRESSION.  THE ACTS, BEING RELEVANT TO PROVE THE CONSPIRACY, WERE
ADMISSIBLE, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED AFTER THE CONSPIRACY
ENDED.  UNITED STATES V. RUBENSTEIN, 151 F.2D 915, 917-918; SEE
FITZPATRICK V. UNITED STATES, 178 U.S. 304, 312-313; FERRIS V. UNITED
STATES, 40 F.2D 837, 839. 

RELEVANT DECLARATIONS OR ADMISSIONS OF A CONSPIRATOR MADE IN THE
ABSENCE OF THE CO-CONSPIRATOR, AND NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
CONSPIRACY, MAY BE ADMISSIBLE IN A TRIAL FOR CONSPIRACY AS AGAINST THE
DECLARANT TO PROVE THE DECLARANT'S PARTICIPATION THEREIN.  THE COURT
MUST BE CAREFUL AT THE TIME OF THE ADMISSION AND BY ITS INSTRUCTIONS TO
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE EVIDENCE IS LIMITED AS AGAINST THE DECLARANT
ONLY.  THEREFORE, WHEN THE TRIAL COURT ADMITS AGAINST ALL OF THE
CONSPIRATORS A RELEVANT DECLARATION OF ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS AFTER
THE CONSPIRACY HAS ENDED, WITHOUT LIMITING IT TO THE DECLARANT, IT
VIOLATES THE RULE LAID DOWN IN KRULEWITCH.  SUCH DECLARATION IS
INADMISSIBLE AS TO ALL BUT THE DECLARANT. 

IN THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE FOR CONSPIRACY, IT IS INEVITABLE THAT
THERE SHALL BE, AS THERE WAS IN THIS CASE, EVIDENCE AS TO DECLARATIONS
THAT IS ADMISSIBLE AS AGAINST ALL OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRATORS; THERE
ARE ALSO OTHER DECLARATIONS ADMISSIBLE ONLY AS TO THE DECLARANT AND
THOSE PRESENT WHO BY THEIR SILENCE OR OTHER CONDUCT ASSENT TO THE TRUTH
OF THE DECLARATION.  THESE DECLARATIONS MUST BE CAREFULLY AND CLEARLY
LIMITED BY THE COURT AT THE TIME OF THEIR ADMISSION AND THE JURY
INSTRUCTED AS TO SUCH DECLARATIONS AND THE LIMITATIONS PUT UPON THEM. 
EVEN THEN, IN MOST INSTANCES OF A CONSPIRACY TRIAL OF SEVERAL PERSONS
TOGETHER, THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE PLACES A HEAVY BURDEN UPON THE
JURORS TO KEEP IN MIND THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN DECLARATIONS AND TO
WHOM THEY HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED AND IN SOME INSTANCES FOR WHAT SPECIFIC
PURPOSE.  WHILE THESE DIFFICULTIES HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN SEVERAL
CASES, E.G., KRULEWITCH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 453 (CONCURRING
OPINION); BLUMENTHAL V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 539, 559-560; NASH V.
UNITED STATES, 54 F.2D 1006, 1006-1007, THE RULE HAS NONETHELESS BEEN
APPLIED.  BLUMENTHAL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; NASH V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. GOTTFRIED, 165 F.2D 360, 367. 

IN OUR SEARCH OF THIS RECORD, WE HAVE FOUND ONLY ONE INSTANCE WHERE A
DECLARATION MADE AFTER THE CONSPIRACY HAD ENDED WAS ADMITTED AGAINST
ALL OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRATORS, EVEN THOUGH NOT PRESENT WHEN THE
DECLARATION WAS MADE.  (FN3)  WAS THE ADMISSION OF THIS ONE ITEM OF
HEARSAY EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO REVERSE THIS CASE?    WE THINK NOT.  IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS RECORD FAIRLY SHRIEKS THE GUILT OF THE
PARTIES, WE CANNOT CONCEIVE HOW THIS ONE ADMISSION COULD HAVE POSSIBLY
INFLUENCED THIS JURY TO REACH AN IMPROPER VERDICT.  A DEFENDANT IS
ENTITLED TO A FAIR TRIAL BUT NOT A PERFECT ONE.  THIS IS A PROPER CASE
FOR THE APPLICATION OF RULE 52(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.  (FN4)  WE HOLD THAT THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS. 

FINDING NO REVERSIBLE ERROR IN THIS RECORD, THE JUDGMENT IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  E.G., SCHIBI V. SCHIBI, 136 CONN. 196, 69 A.2D 831; HANSON V.
HANSON, 287 MASS.  154, 191 N.E. 673.  THESE AND THE OTHER CASES CITED
BY PETITIONERS ARE COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IN A NOTE, 14 A.L.R.2D 624
(1950). 

FN2  E.G., NORMAN V. STATE, 127 TENN. 340, 155 S.W. 135; STATE V.
FREY, 76 MINN. 526, 79 N.W. 518. 

FN3  R. 208-209.  BESSIE OSBORNE TESTIFIED:  "I ASKED WHEN ACTION
WOULD BE TAKEN FOR DIVORCE, AND MUNIO KNOLL ASKED ME IF I WOULD WAIT
TWO YEARS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, AND IT WOULD
TAKE THAT LONG, AND I AGREED TO WAIT."  THIS HEARSAY STATEMENT
ATTRIBUTED TO MUNIO WAS ADMITTED AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS. 

FN4  "(A)  HARMLESS ERROR.  ANY ERROR, DEFECT, IRREGULARITY OR
VARIANCE WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS SHALL BE
DISREGARDED." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER JOIN, DISSENTING. 

WHENEVER A COURT HAS A CASE WHERE BEHAVIOR THAT OBVIOUSLY IS SORDID
CAN BE PROVED TO BE CRIMINAL ONLY WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY, THE EFFORT TO
BRIDGE THE GAP IS APT TO PRODUCE BAD LAW.  WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
EFFECT OF THIS DECISION IN THREE RESPECTS. 

1.  WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT ANY CRIME HAS BEEN PROVED, EVEN ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT ALL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD WAS ADMISSIBLE.  THESE
MARRIAGES WERE FORMALLY CONTRACTED IN FRANCE, AND THERE IS NO
CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE FORBIDDEN OR ILLEGAL THERE FOR ANY REASON. 
IT IS ADMITTED THAT SOME JUDICIAL PROCEDURE IS NECESSARY IF THE PARTIES
WISH TO BE RELIEVED OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS.  WHETHER BY REASON OF THE
RESERVATIONS WITH WHICH THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO THE MARRIAGES THEY
COULD BE ANNULLED MAY BE A NICE QUESTION OF FRENCH LAW, IN VIEW OF THE
FACT THAT NO ONE OF THEM DECEIVED THE OTHER.  WE SHOULD EXPECT IT TO BE
AN EVEN NICER QUESTION WHETHER A THIRD PARTY, SUCH AS THE STATE IN A
CRIMINAL PROCESS, COULD SIMPLY IGNORE THE CEREMONY AND ITS
CONSEQUENCES, AS THE GOVERNMENT DOES HERE. 

WE START WITH MARRIAGES THAT EITHER ARE VALID OR AT LEAST HAVE NOT
BEEN PROVED TO BE INVALID IN THEIR INCEPTION.  THE COURT BRUSHES THIS
QUESTION ASIDE AS IMMATERIAL, BUT WE THINK IT GOES TO THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF AN OFFENSE.  IF THE PARTIES ARE VALIDLY MARRIED, EVEN
THOUGH THE MARRIAGE IS A SORDID ONE, WE SHOULD SUPPOSE THAT WOULD END
THE CASE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE MARRIAGE CEREMONIES WERE FOR SOME
REASON UTTERLY VOID AND HELD FOR NAUGHT, AS IF THEY NEVER HAD HAPPENED,
THE GOVERNMENT COULD WELL CLAIM THAT ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES AS
MARRIED PERSON WAS FRAUD.  BUT BETWEEN THESE TWO EXTREMES IS THE MORE
LIKELY CASE - MARRIAGES THAT ARE NOT VOID BUT PERHAPS VOIDABLE.  IN ONE
OF THESE CASES, THE PARTIES (ON THE TRIAL) EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE TO
STAY MARRIED, AND THEY WERE ACQUITTED; AND NO ONE CONTENDS THAT THEIR
MARRIAGE IS VOID.  CERTAINLY IF THESE MARRIAGES WERE MERELY VOIDABLE
AND HAD NOT BEEN ADJUDGED VOID AT THE TIME OF THE ENTRY INTO THIS
COUNTRY, IT WAS NOT A FRAUD TO REPRESENT THEM AS SUBSISTING.  WE SHOULD
THINK THAT THE PARTIES TO THEM MIGHT HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED WITH AS MUCH
REASON IF THEY HAD REPRESENTED THEMSELVES TO BE SINGLE.   MARRIAGES OF
CONVENIENCE ARE NOT UNCOMMON AND IT CANNOT BE THAT WE WOULD HOLD IT A
FRAUD FOR ONE WHO HAS CONTRACTED A MARRIAGE NOT FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO
REPRESENT HIMSELF AS WEDDED, EVEN IF THERE WERE GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT
OR DIVORCE AND PROCEEDINGS TO THAT END WERE CONTEMPLATED. 

THE EFFECT OF ANY RESERVATIONS OF THE PARTIES IN CONTRACTING THE
MARRIAGES WOULD SEEM TO BE GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF FRANCE.  IT DOES NOT
SEEM JUSTIFIABLE TO ASSUME WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS NOT TRUE - THAT FRENCH
LAW AND OUR LAW ARE THE SAME.  SUCH A VIEW IGNORES SOME OF THE MOST
ELEMENTARY FACTS OF LEGAL HISTORY - THE FRENCH RECEPTION OF ROMAN LAW,
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE REVOLUTION, AND THE NAPOLEONIC CODIFICATIONS. 
IF THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THESE MARRIAGES WERE INEFFECTUAL FROM
THE BEGINNING, IT WOULD SEEM TO REQUIRE PROOF OF PARTICULAR RULES OF
THE FRENCH LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS. 

2.  "THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE HELD THAT ONE SPOUSE CANNOT TESTIFY
AGAINST THE OTHER UNLESS THE DEFENDANT SPOUSE WAIVES THE PRIVILEGE  ...
."  GRIFFIN V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 704, 714, AND CASES CITED.  THE
COURT CONDONES A DEPARTURE FROM THIS RULE HERE BECAUSE, IT SAYS, THE
RELATIONSHIP WAS NOT GENUINE.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHAT EFFECT IT WOULD
HAVE ON THE PRIVILEGE IF INDEPENDENT TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THAT THE
MATRIMONIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS ONLY NOMINAL.  EVEN THEN, WE WOULD THINK
THE FORMAL RELATIONSHIP WOULD BE RESPECTED UNLESS THE TRIAL COURT, ON
THE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE, WANTED TO TRY A COLLATERAL ISSUE.  HOWEVER,
IN THIS CASE, THE TRIAL COURT COULD ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE MARRIAGE WAS
A SHAM FROM THE VERY TESTIMONY WHOSE ADMISSIBILITY IS IN QUESTION.  THE
COURT'S POSITION SEEMS TO BE THAT PRIVILEGE TESTIMONY MAY BE RECEIVED
TO DESTROY ITS OWN PRIVILEGE.  WE THINK THIS IS NOT ALLOWABLE, FOR THE
SAME REASON THAT ONE CANNOT LIFT HIMSELF BY HIS OWN BOOTSTRAPS. 

3.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THE CRIME, IF ANY, WAS COMPLETE WHEN
THE ALIEN PARTIES OBTAINED ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES ON DECEMBER 5. 
WE THINK THIS WAS THE NECESSARY RESULT OF THE HOLDING IN KRULEWITCH V.
UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 440.  THIS REQUIRES REJECTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT EVERY CONSPIRACY INCLUDES AN IMPLIED
SECONDARY CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL THE FACTS.  THIS REVIVAL OF THE LONG
DISCREDITED DOCTRINE OF CONSTRUCTIVE CONSPIRACY WOULD POSTPONE
OPERATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS INDEFINITELY AND MAKE ALL
MANNER OF SUBSEQUENT ACTS AND STATEMENTS BY EACH CONSPIRATOR ADMISSIBLE
IN EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL.  BUT, WHILE THE COURT ACCEPTS THE VIEW OF
KRULEWITCH, WE THINK ITS RULING ON SUBSEQUENT ACTS AND DECLARATIONS
LARGELY NULLIFIES THE EFFECT OF THAT DECISION AND EXEMPLIFIES THE
DANGERS POINTED OUT THEREIN. 

FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, WE NEED NOT MAINTAIN THAT NO ADMISSION OR ACT
OF A CONSPIRATOR OCCURRING AFTER THE CONSPIRACY HAS ACCOMPLISHED ITS
OBJECT IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST A CO-CONSPIRATOR.  AND WE DO NOT QUESTION
THAT AT TIMES SUCH EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE ACTOR OR SPEAKER
ALONE.  BUT ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL LEVERAGES OBTAINED BY THE PROSECUTION
THROUGH PROCEEDING AS FOR CONSPIRACY INSTEAD OF AS FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE IS THAT IT MAY GET INTO EVIDENCE AGAINST ONE DEFENDANT ACTS OR
OMISSIONS WHICH COLOR THE CASE AGAINST ALL. 

THIS CASE IS A VIVID ILLUSTRATION OF THAT PROCESS IN ACTION.  THE
STATEMENT OF FACTS IN THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF IS PUNCTUATED BY EIGHT
SEPARATE FOOTNOTES TO EXPLAIN THAT THE TESTIMONY RECITED IN THE TEXT
WAS LIMITED TO ONE OR ANOTHER DEFENDANT.  WE DOUBT THAT ANY MEMBER OF
THIS COURT, DESPITE OUR EXPERIENCE IN SIFTING TESTIMONY, CAN CARRY IN
MIND WHAT WAS ADMITTED AGAINST WHOM, AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THE JURY
COULD NOT.  WE WILL NOT PROLONG THIS OPINION WITH AN ANALYSIS OF THIS
TESTIMONY.  SOME OF IT WAS VERY DAMAGING.  FOR EXAMPLE, TESTIMONY WAS
ADMITTED, LIMITED TO MUNIO KNOLL, THAT ON ONE OCCASION HE RETURNED TO
HIS APARTMENT AND HAD DIFFICULTY GETTING IN.  WHEN HE GAINED
ADMITTANCE, PETITIONER LUTWAK WAS GOING OUT THROUGH THE WINDOW, LEAVING
KNOLL'S WIFE TO EXPLAIN THE PHENOMENON IF SHE COULD.  THIS TESTIMONY
WAS NOT ADMITTED AGAINST LUTWAK, AND THE JURY WAS ADEQUATELY WARNED NOT
TO USE IT AGAINST HIM.  BUT DOES ANYBODY BELIEVE THAT THE JURY COULD
FORGET THAT PICTURE OF LUTWAK BEING CAUGHT TAKING HASTY LEAVE OF HIS CO
CONSPIRATOR'S WIFE AND MAKING A SOMEWHAT IRREGULAR EXIT?  THE SALUTARY
RULE THAT EVIDENCE OF ACTS WHICH OCCURRED LONG AFTER THE CONSPIRACY
TERMINATED IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY AGAINST PARTICULAR DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE
OBSERVED IN SPIRIT AS WELL AS IN LETTER.  HERE MUCH OF SUCH EVIDENCE
WAS OF SUCH REMOTE PROBATIVE VALUE, AND THE INSTRUCTION LIMITING ITS
USE WAS SO PREDICTABLY INEFFECTUAL, THAT ITS ADMISSION VIOLATED A
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF THOSE DEFENDANTS AGAINST WHOM IT COULD NOT BE
USED. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE ARE IMPELLED TO DISSENT. 
..END :







HOWARD V. COMMISSIONERS OF THE SINKING FUND OF THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE
344 U.S. 624 


NO. 295.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1953 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1953 - 249
S.W.2D 816, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN AREA EMBRACING A NAVAL ORDNANCE PLANT WITHIN THE STATE OF
KENTUCKY HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY CONDEMNATION.  THE
STATE CONSENTED TO THE ACQUISITION AND THE UNITED STATES ACCEPTED
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA.  HELD:  THE FACT THAT THE AREA
WAS WITHIN THE "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" OF THE UNITED STATES DID NOT
BAR ITS ANNEXATION BY THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE.  PP. 624-627. 

2.  A TAX OR LICENSE FEE IMPOSED BY THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITHIN THE CITY, MEASURED BY ONE PERCENT OF INCOME
EARNED WITHIN THE CITY, WAS AN "INCOME TAX" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
BUCK ACT, 4 U.S.C. SECS. 105-110, AND WAS AUTHORIZED BY THAT ACT TO BE
APPLIED TO PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR SERVICES
PERFORMED AT THE ORDNANCE PLANT, EVEN THOUGH SUCH TAX OR FEE WAS NOT AN
"INCOME TAX" UNDER STATE LAW.  PP. 627-629. 

HOWARD ET AL. V. COMMISSIONERS OF THE SINKING FUND OF THE CITY OF
LOUISVILLE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY UPHELD A TAX IMPOSED BY THE CITY OF
LOUISVILLE, AS APPLIED TO EMPLOYEES OF A NAVAL ORDNANCE PLANT.  249
S.W.2D 816.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 629. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TWO QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED BY THIS APPEAL:  (1)  THE VALIDITY OF THE
ANNEXATION BY THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, OF CERTAIN FEDERALLY
OWNED LAND ON WHICH A NAVAL ORDNANCE PLANT IS LOCATED; AND (2) THE
VALIDITY OF THE LOUISVILLE OCCUPATIONAL TAX OR LICENSE FEE ORDINANCE AS
APPLIED TO EMPLOYEES OF THIS ORDNANCE PLANT. 

BY CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS FILED IN 1940, THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED
THE LAND ON WHICH THE ORDNANCE PLANT IS LOCATED, WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE LEGISLATURE OF KENTUCKY GIVEN IN A GENERAL STATUTE.  (FN1)  IN
1941, THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES ACCEPTED
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA, AND THE GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY
ACKNOWLEDGED THIS ACCEPTANCE.  BY ORDINANCES ENACTED IN 1947 AND 1950,
THE CITY ANNEXED CERTAIN TERRITORY, INCLUDING THE ORDNANCE PLANT
TRACT.  THE ANNEXATION WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE UNITED STATES.  AFTER
THE ANNEXATION, THE CITY STARTED TO COLLECT FROM EMPLOYEES OF THE PLANT
A LICENSE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING IN THE CITY, MEASURED BY ONE
PERCENT OF ALL SALARIES, WAGES AND COMMISSIONS EARNED IN THE CITY. 
(FN2) 

THE APPELLANTS, EMPLOYEES OF THE ORDNANCE PLANT, SUED IN THE
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTUCKY ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ORDNANCE PLANT
IS NOT WITHIN THE CITY AND THEREFORE THE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
THE TAX LEVIED ON THEM BY THE CITY, AND FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX.  THE APPELLEES FILED A SPECIAL AND A GENERAL
DEMURRER WHICH WERE OVERRULED BY THE COURT.  THE APPELLEES HAVING
REFUSED TO PLEAD FURTHER, THE COURT GRANTED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE
APPELLANTS ON THE PLEADINGS, HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE NOT
SUBJECT TO THE TAX BECAUSE THE AREA OCCUPIED BY THE UNITED STATES COULD
NOT BE ANNEXED BY THE CITY SINCE IT CEASED TO BE A PART OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY WHEN EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER IT WAS
ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES.  ENFORCEMENT OF THE TAXING ORDINANCE WAS
ENJOINED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY REVERSED, 248 S.W.2D 340,
THE CIRCUIT COURT ACCORDINGLY ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLEES, AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 249 S.W.2D 816.  WE NOTED PROBABLE
JURISDICTION. 

THE APPELLANTS FIRST CONTEND THAT THE CITY COULD NOT ANNEX THIS
FEDERAL AREA BECAUSE IT HAD CEASED TO BE A PART OF KENTUCKY WHEN THE
UNITED STATES ASSUMED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER IT.  WITH THIS WE DO
NOT AGREE.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES, WITH THE CONSENT OF KENTUCKY,
ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE ORDNANCE PLANT IS LOCATED, THE
PROPERTY DID NOT CEASE TO BE A PART OF KENTUCKY.  THE GEOGRAPHICAL
STRUCTURE OF KENTUCKY REMAINED THE SAME.  IN REARRANGING THE STRUCTURAL
DIVISIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, THE AREA
BECAME A PART OF THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE, JUST AS IT REMAINED A PART OF
THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.  A STATE MAY
CONFORM ITS MUNICIPAL STRUCTURES TO ITS OWN PLAN, SO LONG AS THE STATE
DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION WITHIN THE FEDERAL
AREA BY THE UNITED STATES.  KENTUCKY'S CONSENT TO THIS ACQUISITION GAVE
THE UNITED STATES POWER TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WITHIN THE
AREA.  A CHANGE OF MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES DID NOT INTERFERE IN THE LEAST
WITH THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE AREA OR WITH ITS
USE OR DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY.  THE FICTION OF A STATE WITHIN A
STATE CAN HAVE NO VALIDITY TO PREVENT THE STATE FROM EXERCISING ITS
POWER OVER THE FEDERAL AREA WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES, SO LONG AS THERE IS
NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE JURISDICTION ASSERTED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  THE SOVEREIGN RIGHTS IN THIS DUAL RELATIONSHIP ARE NOT
ANTAGONISTIC.  ACCOMMODATION AND COOPERATION ARE THEIR AIM.  IT IS
FRICTION, NOT FICTION, TO WHICH WE MUST GIVE HEED. 

THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN BEFORE OTHER STATE COURTS, AND THE RIGHT TO
ANNEX HAS BEEN UPHELD.  WICHITA FALLS V. BOWEN, 143 TEX. 45, 52, 182
S.W.2D 695, 699; COUNTY OF NORFOLK V. PORTSMOUTH, 186 VA. 1032, 1047,
45 S.E.2D 136, 142-143.  WE AGREE WITH THESE CASES AND HOLD THAT
LOUISVILLE WAS FREE TO ANNEX THE ORDNANCE PLANT AREA. 

EVEN THOUGH THE ORDNANCE PLANT IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY
OF LOUISVILLE PURSUANT TO THE ANNEXATION, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER
THE AREA STILL REMAINS WITH THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BY
STATUTE.  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17; SURPLUS TRADING CO. V.
COOK, 281 U.S. 647, 652.  WITHIN THIS JURISDICTION, THE RIGHT TO TAX
INCOME PAID TO EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO WORKED AT THE ORDNANCE
PLANT WAS GRANTED BY 4 U.S.C. SECS. 105-110, KNOWN AS THE BUCK ACT. 

"SEC. 106.  SAME; INCOME TAX. 

"(A)  NO PERSON SHALL BE RELIEVED FROM LIABILITY FOR ANY INCOME TAX
LEVIED BY ANY STATE, OR BY ANY DULY CONSTITUTED TAXING AUTHORITY
THEREIN, HAVING JURISDICTION TO LEVY SUCH A TAX, BY REASON OF HIS
RESIDING WITHIN A FEDERAL AREA OR RECEIVING INCOME FROM TRANSACTIONS
OCCURRING OR SERVICES PERFORMED IN SUCH AREA; AND SUCH STATE OR TAXING
AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE FULL JURISDICTION AND POWER TO LEVY AND COLLECT
SUCH TAX IN ANY FEDERAL AREA WITHIN SUCH STATE TO THE SAME EXTENT AND
WITH THE SAME EFFECT AS THOUGH SUCH AREA WAS NOT A FEDERAL AREA. 

"(B)  THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A) SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY WITH
RESPECT TO INCOME OR RECEIPTS RECEIVED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1940."  4
U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 106. 


"(C)  THE TERM 'INCOME TAX' MEANS ANY TAX LEVIED ON, WITH RESPECT TO,
OR MEASURED BY, NET INCOME, GROSS INCOME, OR GROSS RECEIPTS."  4 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 110(C). 

THUS THE RIGHT IS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE AS A
TAXING AUTHORITY OF KENTUCKY TO LEVY AND COLLECT A TAX MEASURED BY THE
INCOME OR EARNINGS OF ANY PARTY "RECEIVING INCOME FROM TRANSACTIONS
OCCURRING OR SERVICES PERFORMED IN SUCH AREA  ...  TO THE SAME EXTENT
AND WITH THE SAME EFFECT AS THOUGH SUCH AREA WAS NOT A FEDERAL AREA." 
IN OTHER WORDS, KENTUCKY WAS FREE TO TAX EARNINGS JUST AS IF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WERE NOT THERE. 

BUT THE APPELLANTS NEXT ARGUE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE CITY'S OCCUPATIONAL TAX OR LICENSE FEE WAS AN "INCOME
TAX" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUCK ACT, THOUGH HOLDING THAT THIS TAX
OR FEE WAS NOT AN INCOME TAX UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY. 

WAS THIS TAX AN "INCOME TAX" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUCK ACT?  IN A
PRIOR CASE, KENTUCKY HAD HELD THIS TAX WAS NOT AN "INCOME TAX" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY BUT WAS A TAX UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITHIN THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE.  LOUISVILLE V.
SEBREE, 308 KY. 420, 429-431, 214 S.W.2D 248, 253-254.  BUT THE RIGHT
TO TAX EARNINGS WITHIN THE AREA WAS NOT GIVEN KENTUCKY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE KENTUCKY LAW AS TO WHAT IS AN INCOME TAX.  THE GRANT WAS GIVEN
WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE BUCK ACT, AND THIS WAS FOR ANY TAX
MEASURED BY NET INCOME, GROSS INCOME, OR GROSS RECEIPTS.  IN THE
INSTANT CASE, THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY STATED THAT THE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE TAX WAS AN INCOME TAX WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE FEDERAL LAW.  WE HOLD THAT THE TAX AUTHORIZED BY THIS ORDINANCE WAS
AN INCOME TAX WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUCK ACT.  THE CITY, IT IS
CONCEDED, CAN LEVY SUCH A TAX WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL
AREA.  BY VIRTUE OF THE BUCK ACT, THE TAX CAN BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED
WITHIN THE FEDERAL AREA, JUST AS IF IT WERE NOT A FEDERAL AREA. 

SINCE THE AREA IS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE,
AND THIS TAX IS AN INCOME TAX WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUCK ACT, THE
TAX IS VALID.  THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "3.010.  CONSENT OF STATE TO ACQUISITION OF LANDS.  THE
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY CONSENTS TO THE ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED
STATES OF ALL LANDS AND APPURTENANCES IN THIS STATE HERETOFORE LEGALLY
ACQUIRED, OR THAT MAY BE HEREAFTER LEGALLY ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE, OR BY
CONDEMNATION, FOR THE ERECTION OF FORTS, MAGAZINES, ARSENALS, DOCK
YARDS, POST OFFICES, CUSTOM HOUSES, COURTHOUSES AND OTHER NEEDFUL
BUILDINGS, AND FOR LOCKS, DAMS AND CANALS IN IMPROVING THE NAVIGATION
OF THE RIVERS AND WATERS WITHIN AND ON THE BORDERS OF KENTUCKY."  KY.
REV. STAT., 1948. 

FN2  "ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 1950, EVERY PERSON, ASSOCIATION,
CORPORATION OR OTHER ENTITY ENGAGED IN ANY OCCUPATION, TRADE,
PROFESSION, OR OTHER ACTIVITY IN THE CITY SHALL PAY INTO THE SINKING
FUND OF THE CITY FOR THE PURPOSES SET FORTH UNDER SECTION 91.200 OF THE
KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES AS AMENDED BY AN ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF 1950, AN ANNUAL LICENSE FEE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN SAID
ACTIVITIES, WHICH LICENSE FEE SHALL BE MEASURED BY ONE PER CENTUM OF
(A) ALL SALARIES, WAGES, COMMISSIONS AND OTHER COMPENSATIONS EARNED BY
EVERY PERSON IN THE CITY FOR WORK DONE OR SERVICES PERFORMED OR
RENDERED IN THE CITY; AND (B) THE NET PROFITS OF ALL BUSINESSES,
PROFESSIONS, OR OCCUPATIONS FROM ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN THE CITY." 
ORDINANCE 83, SERIES 1950, CITY OF LOUISVILLE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS TAX IS AN
"INCOME TAX" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BUCK ACT.  IT IS BY ITS TERMS A
"LICENSE FEE" LEVIED ON "THE PRIVILEGE" OF ENGAGING IN CERTAIN
ACTIVITIES.  THE TAX IS NARROWLY CONFINED TO SALARIES, WAGES,
COMMISSIONS AND TO THE NET PROFITS OF BUSINESSES, PROFESSIONS, AND
OCCUPATIONS.  MANY KINDS OF INCOME ARE EXCLUDED, E.G., DIVIDENDS,
INTEREST, CAPITAL GAINS.  THE EXCLUSIONS EMPHASIZE THAT THE TAX IS ON
THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING OR DOING BUSINESS IN LOUISVILLE.  THAT IS THE
KIND OF A TAX THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS HELD IT TO BE.  LOUISVILLE
V. SEBREE, 308 KY. 420, 214 S.W.2D 248.  THE CONGRESS HAS NOT YET
GRANTED LOCAL AUTHORITIES THE RIGHT TO TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING FOR
OR DOING BUSINESS WITH THE UNITED STATES. 
..END :




UNITED STATES V. LANE MOTOR CO. 344 U.S. 630 


NO. 499.  DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1953 - 199 F.2D 495, AFFIRMED. 


A VEHICLE USED SOLELY FOR COMMUTING TO AN ILLEGAL DISTILLERY IS NOT
USED IN VIOLATING THE REVENUE LAWS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3116 OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND IS NOT FORFEITABLE THEREUNDER.   PP. 630
631. 

UNITED STATES V. LANE MOTOR CO. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS PROCEEDING, THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT THE FORFEITURE OF AN
AUTOMOBILE AND OF A TRUCK UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3116 OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
OKLAHOMA.  THAT SECTION ALLOWS THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY
"INTENDED FOR USE IN VIOLATING" THE ALCOHOL TAX LAWS, AS WELL AS
PROPERTY "WHICH HAS BEEN SO USED."  THE RESPONDENT, ALLEGING AN
INTEREST IN THE TWO VEHICLES, CONTESTED THE FORFEITURES. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOUND THE FACTS TO BE THAT THE TRUCK AND
AUTOMOBILE HAD EACH BEEN USED BY THE OPERATOR OF AN ILLEGAL DISTILLERY
TO DRIVE A NUMBER OF MILES FROM HIS HOME AND THEN PARKED AT A POINT ONE
HALF MILE OR MORE FROM THE DISTILLERY, THE OPERATOR WALKING THE REST OF
THE WAY.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT SHOWN,
AS IT HAD ALLEGED, THAT THE VEHICLES HAD BEEN USED FOR TRANSPORTING
MATERIALS OR UTENSILS FOR USE AT THE DISTILLERY, AND RULED THAT THE
FACTS SHOWN DID NOT JUSTIFY A FORFEITURE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 199 F.2D 495. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS PETITIONED FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOWING THAT,
WHILE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN UNITED STATES V.
ONE 1948 PLYMOUTH SEDAN, 198 F.2D 399 (1952), HELD IN ACCORD WITH THE
TENTH CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HAS TAKEN A
CONTRARY VIEW, UNITED STATES V. ONE 1950 FORD HALF-TON PICKUP
AUTOMOBILE TRUCK, 195 F.2D 857 (1952).  CERTIORARI IS GRANTED IN ORDER
TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT. 

WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT A VEHICLE USED SOLELY FOR COMMUTING TO AN
ILLEGAL DISTILLERY IS NOT USED IN VIOLATING THE REVENUE LAWS. 

CERTIORARI GRANTED, AND THE JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 
..END :





NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. DANT, DOING BUSINESS AS DANT &
RUSSELL, LTD. 344 U.S. 375 


NO. 97.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1952 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1953 - 195 F.2D
299, REVERSED. 


PRECLUDE ISSUANCE BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OF AN UNFAIR
LABOR-PRACTICE COMPLAINT UNDER SEC.  10(C) AFTER THE REQUIRED NON
COMMUNIST AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN FILED - EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD NOT BEEN
FILED WHEN THE UNION FILED THE CHARGE WITH THE BOARD UNDER SEC. 10(B). 
PP.  376-385. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. DANT ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS DANT &
RUSSELL, LTD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 9(H) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED
WITH, THE COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(A)(1) AND (3).  195 F.2D 299. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 811.  REVERSED, P. 385. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ISSUED A COMPLAINT ON MARCH 27,
1950, FOLLOWING A CHARGE FILED AUGUST 3, 1949, BY THE INTERNATIONAL
WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 6-7, AGAINST RESPONDENT, DANT & RUSSELL,
LTD.  THE CHARGE WAS FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE OF THE ACT,
SEC. 10(B), AND WAS BASED ON VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 8(A)(1) AND (3).  (FN1)
AFTER THE USUAL PROCEEDINGS, THE BOARD ORDERED RESPONDENT TO TAKE
APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL ACTION TO CORRECT THE CHARGED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES.  THE INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS UNION WAS AND IS AN AFFILIATE
OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS.   THERE WERE ON FILE WITH
THE BOARD AT THE TIME THE CHARGE WAS MADE THE NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVITS
EXECUTED BY THE OFFICERS OF THE LOCAL UNION AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 9(H) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947, SEC. 101.  AFFIDAVITS EXECUTED BY THE OFFICERS OF
THE C.I.O. WERE FILED WITH THE BOARD PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
COMPLAINT BUT SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE CHARGE. 

CHARGE AND THE ISSUANCE OF THE COMPLAINT, THAT: 

"NO INVESTIGATION SHALL BE MADE BY THE BOARD OF ANY QUESTION
AFFECTING COMMERCE CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES, RAISED
BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION, NO
PETITION UNDER SECTION 9(E)(1) SHALL BE ENTERTAINED, AND NO COMPLAINT
SHALL BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CHARGE MADE BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER
SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 10, UNLESS THERE IS ON FILE WITH THE BOARD AN
AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED  ...  BY EACH OFFICER OF SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION AND
THE OFFICERS OF ANY NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION OF
WHICH IT IS AN AFFILIATE  ...  THAT HE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY  ...  ."  (FN2) 

RESPONDENT CHALLENGED THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOARD COULD
NOT ISSUE A VALID COMPLAINT BASED ON A CHARGE BY A UNION IF THE
CHARGING UNION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 9(H) WHEN THE CHARGE WAS
FILED IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME THE COMPLAINT WAS ISSUED,
THE UNION WAS IN FULL COMPLIANCE.  IN RESPONSE TO THIS CHALLENGE, THE
BOARD HELD THAT SEC. 9(H) REQUIRED COMPLIANCE "AT THE TIME OF THE
ISSUANCE OF THE COMPLAINT, RATHER THAN AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE
CHARGE."   ON PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON THE SINGLE GROUND THAT, UNDER SEC.
9(H), "THE BOARD WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO ENTERTAIN THE CHARGE OR TO ISSUE
THE COMPLAINT OR THE ORDER."  (FN3)  THIS FOLLOWED, ACCORDING TO THE
COURT, BECAUSE OUR DECISION IN LABOR BOARD V. HIGHLAND PARK MFG. CO.,
341 U.S. 322, HAD CONSTRUED SEC. 9(H) AS PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF
ANY COMPLAINT BY THE BOARD UNLESS THE CHARGING LABOR ORGANIZATION WAS
IN FULL COMPLIANCE AT THE TIME ITS CHARGE WAS FILED. 

WE DO NOT THINK THE HIGHLAND PARK OPINION SUPPORTS THE COURT OF
APPEALS OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THAT FORMER OPINION, DEALING WITH
A CHARGE THAT THE EMPLOYER VIOLATED SEC.  8(A)(5) BY REFUSING TO
BARGAIN WITH THE BARGAINING AGENT OF THE EMPLOYEES, SEC. 9(A), (FN4)
HELD ONLY THAT THE C.I.O. WAS A "NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 9(H).  FOR THAT REASON THE
C.I.O. WAS REQUIRED TO FILE NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVITS AS A PREREQUISITE
TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF FULL COMPLIANCE STATUS BY ITS AFFILIATES.  THERE,
THE C.I.O.'S COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 9(H) OCCURRED ALMOST A YEAR AFTER THE
COMPLAINT HAD ISSUED.  SINCE COMPLIANCE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF
THE COMPLAINT ALSO OCCURRED IN THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE
COURT BELOW, LANGUAGE IN THEM CONCERNING THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS
WAS NOT DIRECTED AT CHARGES UNDER SEC. 8(A)(3) AND THEREFORE THERE WAS
NO OCCASION FOR THOSE COURTS TO ANALYZE SEC. 9(H) TO DETERMINE ITS
APPLICABILITY TO THE PRESENT SITUATION.  (FN5) 

IN RESPONDENT'S VIEW, AND IN THE VIEW OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS THAT
HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE, SEC. 9(H) PRECLUDES NONCOMPLYING UNIONS
FROM FILING "VALID" CHARGES, AND PROHIBITS THE BOARD FROM TAKING ANY
ACTION ON A CHARGE FILED BY A NONCOMPLYING UNION.  WE DO NOT AGREE. 
SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT "UNLESS" THE PREREQUISITE AFFIDAVITS HAD BEEN
FILED, THE BOARD SHALL NOT (1) MAKE AN "INVESTIGATION" AS AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 9(C) CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES; (2) ENTERTAIN A
"PETITION UNDER SECTION 9(E)(1)," AS IT THEN STOOD; OR (3) ISSUE A
"COMPLAINT  ...  PURSUANT TO A CHARGE MADE BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION
UNDER SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 10."  IT DOES NOT BY ITS TERMS PRECLUDE
EITHER THE FILING OF A CHARGE BY A NONCOMPLYING LABOR ORGANIZATION OR
THE ENTERTAINMENT OF THE CHARGE BY THE BOARD. 

THE "UNLESS" CLAUSE LIMITS THE ISSUANCE OF A "COMPLAINT."  IT HAS NO
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE PHRASE "PURSUANT TO A CHARGE MADE BY A LABOR
ORGANIZATION."  IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO ENACT SUCH A REQUIREMENT
FOR THE FILING OF THE CHARGE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE MATTER TO
HAVE STATED THAT "NO CHARGE SHALL BE ENTERTAINED."  (FN6)  WE THINK THE
PURPOSE OF THE "PURSUANT" PHRASE IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE "UNLESS"
LIMITATION ON THE ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINTS IS RESTRICTED TO CHARGES FILED
BY SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND DOES NOT APPLY TO CHARGES FILED BY
INDIVIDUALS, OR BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST SUCH ORGANIZATIONS.  THE PHRASE SO
CONSTRUED FOLLOWS THE PATTERN OF THE FIRST PHRASE IN SEC. 9(H) WHICH
APPLIES TO PROCEEDINGS BY EMPLOYEES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATION "RAISED BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OF
THIS SECTION."  THAT THERE IS NO SUCH QUALIFYING CLAUSE IN SEC. 9(H)
FOR THE UNION-SHOP ELECTION CLAUSE PROVISION OF SEC. 9(E)(1), AS IT
THEN READ, IS IN ACCORD WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION, FOR ALL PETITIONS FOR
SUCH AN ELECTION WOULD THEN HAVE BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF A UNION. 

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVITS IN SEC. 9(H) MAKE IT
UNLAWFUL FOR THE BOARD TO INVESTIGATE A PETITION BY A LABOR
ORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 9(C) FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATION. 
LIKEWISE THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AFFIDAVITS KEPT THE BOARD FROM
ENTERTAINING A PETITION FOR A UNION-SHOP ELECTION UNDER SEC. 9(E)(1). 
THE CAREFUL SPECIFICATION IN SEC.  9(H) THAT THESE AFFIDAVITS MUST BE
FILED BEFORE INVESTIGATION, ENTERTAINMENT OR COMPLAINT SHOWS THAT SEC.
9(H) WAS NOT DIRECTED AT THE FILING OF A CHARGE.  SUCH PARTICULARITY
DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN CHARGE AND COMPLAINT. 

THIS HAS BEEN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD FROM THE ENACTMENT OF THE
LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT.  SECTION 102.13(B)(2) OF THE BOARD'S
RULES AND REGULATIONS, EFFECTIVE AUGUST 18, 1948, DEFINES COMPLIANCE
WITH SEC. 9(H) OF THE ACT IN TERMS OF REQUIRING THE AFFIDAVITS TO BE
"EXECUTED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE CHARGE (OR PETITION)."  (FN7)
THIS, HOWEVER, IS A DIRECTION AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AND IS NOT AN
INTERPRETATION BY THE BOARD OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 9(H).  ACCORDING
TO SEC. 102.13(B), THE DEFINITION OF COMPLIANCE IS SET DOWN, "FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS IN THIS PART."  THE BOARD HAD MADE IT CLEAR
IN SEC. 101.3 OF THESE RULES THAT THERE IS A 10-DAY PERIOD OF GRACE
GIVEN TO CHARGING UNIONS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE STATUS.  (FN8)  THE
BOARD STATES IT HAS FOLLOWED A PRACTICE OF EXTENDING THIS PERIOD UPON A
PROPER SHOWING THAT THE UNION IS MAKING A DILIGENT EFFORT TO COMPLY. 
(FN9)  AN INTERPRETATION THAT THE ACT PERMITS THE FILING OF A CHARGE
PRIOR TO COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 9(H) IS THE SAME AS THAT MADE BY THE
BOARD IN AN OPINION AS EARLY AS DECEMBER 16, 1948, IN THE MATTER OF
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, 80 N.L.R.B. 1283.  THAT OPINION WAS HANDED
DOWN BY THE BOARD BEFORE OUR RULING IN THE HIGHLAND PARK CASE AND THE
POSITION HAS BEEN MAINTAINED, THOUGH THE BOARD FAILED TO SET OUT FULLY
IN ITS OPINIONS THE REASON FOR ITS CONCLUSION.  (FN10) 

RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 9(H) WEAKENS THE
OVER-ALL PURPOSE OF THE SECTION IN THAT IT ALLOWS THE BOARD TO PROVIDE
NONCOMPLYING LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WITH SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS BY THE
FILING OF THE CHARGE WITHOUT ANY ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE. 

PHRASED DIFFERENTLY, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT MAY
NOT FLOW TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNLESS THE NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVITS
ARE ON FILE.  WE AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT, AND BELIEVE THAT IT IS IN
ACCORD WITH OUR INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 9(H).  SINCE THE REMEDIAL
PROCESSES OF THE ACT TO CURE PRACTICES FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 8(A)(3) CAN
ONLY BE INVOKED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT, WE DO NOT SEE HOW A
NONCOMPLYING LABOR ORGANIZATION CAN BE SAID TO BENEFIT FROM THE FACT
THAT IT NEED NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE AT THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE
CHARGE.  THE FILING OF A CHARGE, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL WITHIN
10 DAYS UNDER THE BOARD'S RULE, UNLESS REASONABLE ASSURANCE IS GIVEN BY
THE FILING UNION THAT IT WILL COMPLY WITH THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT,
(FN11) IS OF NO BENEFIT TO THE CHARGING UNION UNLESS IT IS FOLLOWED BY
THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT.  ABSENT THE ISSUANCE OF A COMPLAINT, THE
FILING OF A CHARGE IS A USELESS ACT. 

ANOTHER FACTOR MILITATING AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT ADOPTED
BELOW ARISES OUT OF THE FLUID AND ELECTIVE NATURE OF THE OFFICIAL
PERSONNEL OF LABOR UNIONS.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, ELECTIONS OF NEW
OFFICERS, CHANGES IN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES, DIFFICULTIES AND DELAYS
IN AUDITING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR IN OBTAINING INFORMATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE NUMEROUS DETAILS WHICH SEC. 9(F) AND (G) REQUIRES, MAKE
COMPLIANCE AT A GIVEN MOMENT, OR CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE, A MATTER OF
HAPPENSTANCE.  UNDER SEC. 9(F) AND (G) THE FILING OF UNION FINANCIAL
AND ORGANIZATIONAL REPORTS IS ALSO A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE
ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINTS UNDER SUBSECTION (B) OF SEC. 10 OF THE ACT.   IT
WOULD SEEM THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 9(H) URGED BY RESPONDENT WOULD
LEAD TO A LIKE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 9(F) AND (G).  (FN12)  SUCH NORMAL
NONCOMPLIANCE AT THE TIME OF FILING A CHARGE SHOULD NOT WORK TO
FRUSTRATE THE ACT'S PURPOSE OF REMEDYING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
COMMITTED AGAINST UNIONS WHICH DO HAVE LEADERSHIP WILLING TO COMPLY. 

FINALLY, RESPONDENT MAKES THE ARGUMENT THAT ITS POSITION IS SUPPORTED
BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 9(H).  (FN13)  BUT IN THE FACE OF
THE SPECIFIC WORDS OF THE STATUTE, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DOES NOT
PERSUADE US.  IT CONTAINS NO DISCUSSION OF THE NECESSITY OF FILING SEC.
9(H) AFFIDAVITS BEFORE FILING THE CHARGE.  THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 9(H) WAS
TO STOP THE USE OF THE LABOR BOARD BY UNION LEADERS UNWILLING TO BE
LIMITED IN GOVERNMENT BY THE PROCESSES OF REASON.  THAT PURPOSE WAS
SOUGHT THROUGH THE ELIMINATION OF SUCH LEADERS RATHER THAN BY MAKING
DIFFICULT THE UNION'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT.  THE LEGISLATIVE
COMMENTS ARE TO BE READ IN THAT LIGHT.  INDEED THOSE COMMENTS ARE SO
LACKING IN DEFINITIVENESS ON THE POINT HERE AT ISSUE THAT BOTH PARTIES
SUGGEST THAT SEC. 9(H) ITSELF BEST SHOWS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE SOUGHT-FOR CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IS FOUND IN THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT; AND AS WE HAVE FOUND IT, THE DECISION BELOW MUST
BE REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 158: 

"(A)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER: 

"(1)  TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 157 OF THIS TITLE: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(3)  BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR
ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION: PROVIDED,  ...  ." 

29 U.S.C. SEC. 160: 

"(B)  WHENEVER IT IS CHARGED THAT ANY PERSON HAS ENGAGED IN OR IS
ENGAGING IN ANY SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THE BOARD  ...  SHALL HAVE
POWER TO ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED UPON SUCH PERSON A COMPLAINT
STATING THE CHARGES IN THAT RESPECT, AND CONTAINING A NOTICE OF HEARING
BEFORE THE BOARD ...  ." 

FN2  SECTION 9(H) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY
THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 61 STAT. 146, 29 U.S.C.
(SUPP. III) SEC. 159(H). 

THE CLAUSE "NO PETITION UNDER SECTION 9(E)(1) SHALL BE ENTERTAINED"
WAS DELETED BY ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1951, 65 STAT. 601. 

FN3  195 F.2D 299, 300.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD AND FIFTH
CIRCUITS HAVE TAKEN SIMILAR POSITIONS WHERE THE AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE COMPLAINTS IN LABOR BOARD V. NINA DYE
WORKS CO., INC. 198 F.2D 362; AND LABOR BOARD V. AMERICAN THREAD CO.,
198 F.2D 137, RESPECTIVELY.  EACH OF THESE CASES AGREED WITH THE
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN THE PRESENT CASE.  SEE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT REVERSING THESE
DECISIONS ENTERED TODAY, POST, P. 924.    FN4  84 N.L.R.B. 744, 745. 

FN5  LABOR BOARD V. POSTEX COTTON MILLS, 181 F.2D 919; LABOR BOARD V.
J.I. CASE CO., 189 F.2D 599; LABOR BOARD V. CLARK SHOE CO., 189 F.2D
731. 

FN6  SEE S. 655, 83D CONG., 1ST SESS., INTRODUCED BY SENATOR TAFT TO
AMEND SEC. 9(H) BY FORBIDDING ENTERTAINMENT BY THE BOARD OF A CHARGE
UNDER SEC. 10(B) UNLESS THE REQUIRED AFFIDAVITS ARE FILED.    FN7  29
CFR SEC. 102.13: 

"(B)  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS IN THIS PART, COMPLIANCE
WITH SECTION 9(H) OF THE ACT MEANS IN THE CASE OF A NATIONAL OR
INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION, THAT IT HAS FILED WITH THE GENERAL
COUNSEL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND IN THE CASE OF A LOCAL LABOR
ORGANIZATION, THAT ANY NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION OF
WHICH IT IS AN AFFILIATE OR CONSTITUENT BODY HAS FILED WITH THE GENERAL
COUNSEL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THAT THE LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS FILED
WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR IN THE REGION IN WHICH THE PROCEEDING IS
PENDING: 

     *         *         *         *      * 

"(2)  AN AFFIDAVIT BY EACH OFFICER REFERRED TO IN SUBPARAGRAPH (1) OF
THIS PARAGRAPH, EXECUTED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE CHARGE (OR
PETITION) OR WITHIN THE PRECEDING 12-MONTH PERIOD, STATING THAT HE IS
NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR AFFILIATED WITH SUCH PARTY, AND
THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN, AND IS NOT A MEMBER OF OR SUPPORTS ANY
ORGANIZATION THAT BELIEVES IN OR TEACHES, THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR BY ANY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL
METHODS." 

FN8  29 CFR SEC. 101.3: 

"(B)  IN ADDITION, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION AND EVERY NATIONAL OR
INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WHICH IT IS AN AFFILIATE OR
CONSTITUENT UNIT MUST HAVE COMPLIED WITH SECTION 9(H) OF THE ACT AS
FOLLOWS:  AT THE TIME OF FILING THE CHARGE (OR PETITION) OR PRIOR
THERETO, OR WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 10 DAYS
THEREAFTER, THE NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION SHALL HAVE
ON FILE WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THE LOCAL
LABOR ORGANIZATION SHALL HAVE ON FILE WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR IN THE
REGION IN WHICH THE PROCEEDING IS PENDING, OR IN WHICH IT CUSTOMARILY
FILES CASES, A DECLARATION BY AN AUTHORIZED AGENT EXECUTED
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY OR WITHIN THE PRECEDING 12-MONTH PERIOD LISTING THE
TITLES OF ALL OFFICES OF THE FILING ORGANIZATION AND STATING THE NAMES
OF THE INCUMBENTS, IF ANY, IN EACH SUCH OFFICE AND THE DATE OF
EXPIRATION OF EACH INCUMBENT'S TERM, AND AN AFFIDAVIT FROM EACH SUCH
OFFICER, EXECUTED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY OR WITHIN THE PRECEDING 12-MONTH
PERIOD, STATING THAT HE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR
AFFILIATED WITH SUCH PARTY AND THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN, AND IS NOT
A MEMBER OF NOR SUPPORTS ANY ORGANIZATION THAT BELIEVES IN OR TEACHES
THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR BY ANY
ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS." 

FN9  RESPONDENT ASSERTS THAT THIS PRACTICE, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE
BOARD IN THIS CASE, CONTRAVENES SEC. 3 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT.  THAT SECTION REQUIRES EVERY AGENCY TO PUBLISH IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER "STATEMENTS OF THE GENERAL COURSE AND METHOD BY WHICH ITS
FUNCTIONS ARE CHANNELED AND DETERMINED, INCLUDING THE NATURE AND
REQUIREMENT OF ALL FORMAL OR INFORMAL PROCEDURES AVAILABLE," AND
PROVIDES THAT "NO PERSON SHALL IN ANY MANNER BE REQUIRED TO RESORT TO
ORGANIZATION OR PROCEDURE NOT SO PUBLISHED."  5 U.S.C.  SEC. 1002(A). 
THE BOARD'S PRACTICE OF EXTENDING THE 10-DAY PERIOD ON A PROPER SHOWING
BY THE LABOR ORGANIZATION CAN HARDLY BE CALLED A PROCEDURE TO WHICH
RESPONDENT WAS REQUIRED TO RESORT. 

FN10  IN THE MATTER OF H&H MANUFACTURING CO., INC., 87 N.L.R.B.
1373.  COMPARE A CONTRARY POSITION TAKEN BY THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN LABOR
BOARD V. NINA DYE WORKS CO., INC., 198 F.2D 362. 

FN11  N.L.R.B. RULES AND REGULATIONS AND STATEMENT OF PROCEDURE, 29
CFR SECS. 101.3 AND 102.13. 

FN12  29 U.S.C. SEC. 159: 

"(F)  ...  NO INVESTIGATION SHALL BE MADE BY THE BOARD OF ANY
QUESTION AFFECTING COMMERCE CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES,
RAISED BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION,
AND NO COMPLAINT SHALL BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CHARGE MADE BY A LABOR
ORGANIZATION UNDER SUBSECTION (B), OF SECTION 160 OF THIS TITLE, UNLESS
SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ANY NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZATION OF WHICH SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION IS AN AFFILIATE OR
CONSTITUENT UNIT (A) SHALL HAVE A PRIOR THERETO FILED WITH THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR COPIES OF ITS CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS AND A REPORT,
IN SUCH FORM AS THE SECRETARY MAY PRESCRIBE, SHOWING:  ...  . 

"(G)  ...  IT SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION OF ALL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO
FILE ANNUALLY WITH THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, IN SUCH FORM AS THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR MAY PRESCRIBE, REPORTS BRINGING UP TO DATE THE
INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE SUPPLIED IN THE INITIAL FILING BY SUBSECTION
(F)(A) OF THIS SECTION, AND TO FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND
FURNISH TO ITS MEMBERS ANNUALLY FINANCIAL REPORTS IN THE FORM AND
MANNER PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (F)(B) OF THIS SECTION.  NO LABOR
ORGANIZATION SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR CERTIFICATION UNDER THIS SECTION AS
THE RESPRESENTATIVE OF ANY EMPLOYEES, AND NO COMPLAINT SHALL ISSUE
UNDER SECTION 160 OF THIS TITLE WITH RESPECT TO A CHARGE FILED BY A
LABOR ORGANIZATION UNLESS IT CAN SHOW THAT IT AND ANY NATIONAL OR
INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WHICH IT IS AN AFFILIATE OR
CONSTITUENT UNIT HAS COMPLIED WITH ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THIS
SUBSECTION." 

FN13  THE HOUSE CONFERENCE REPORT NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
46, SPEAKS OF THE FILING OF THE REQUIRED DATA AS A CONDITION TO THE
LABOR ORGANIZATION'S RECEIVING "BENEFITS UNDER THE ACT."  TO THE SAME
EFFECT SEE THE ANALYSIS OF THE ACT AT 93 CONG. REC. 6534.  SENATOR
TAFT, IN ANALYZING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SENATE BILL AND THE
CONFERENCE REPORT, STATED:  "SUBSECTION 9(H) OF THE CONFERENCE
AGREEMENT EMBODIES THE PINCIPLE  ...  WHICH WOULD HAVE PREVENTED A
LABOR ORGANIZATION FROM BEING ELIGIBLE FOR CERTIFICATION IF ANY OF ITS
...  OFFICERS WERE MEMBERS OR AFFILIATES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY  ...  .
THERE WAS A SIMILAR PROVISION IN THE HOUSE BILL  ...  .  IN
RECONCILING THE TWO PROVISIONS THE CONFEREES TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT
THAT REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS MIGHT BE INDEFINITELY DELAYED IF THE
BOARD WAS REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE THE CHARACTER OF THE OFFICERS OF THE
PARENT BODY OR FEDERATION.  THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT NO
CERTIFICATION SHALL BE MADE OR ANY COMPLAINT ISSUED UNLESS THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION IN QUESTION SUBMITS AFFIDAVITS EXECUTED BY EACH OF ITS
OFFICERS  ...  TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OR AFFILIATES"
OF ORGANIZATIONS ACCEPTING THE DOCTRINE OF VIOLENCE IN GOVERNMENT.  93
CONG. REC. 6444. 

REFERRING TO SUBSECTIONS 9(F) AND (G), CONTAINING PROVISIONS
REGARDING FINANCIAL REPORTS, SIMILAR TO THOSE OF SEC. 9(H), SENATOR
TAFT STATED THAT "THE FILING OF SUCH REPORT IS A CONDITION OF
CERTIFICATION AS BARGAINING AGENT UNDER THE LAW, AND IS ALSO A
CONDITION OF THE RIGHT TO FILE ANY CHARGES UNDER THE  ...  ACT."  93
CONG. REC. 3839.  CONGRESSMAN HARTLEY'S REMARKS WERE THAT THE SECTION
"PROHIBITS LABOR ORGANIZATIONS FROM INVOKING THE PROCESSES OF THE ACT
UNLESS ALL OF THE OFFICERS FILE AFFIDAVITS WITH THE BOARD THAT THEY ARE
NOT MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY  ...  ."  93 CONG. REC. 6383.  IN
THE HOUSE CONF.  REP. NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 51-52, IT WAS
STATED THAT THE BILL WHICH WAS ENACTED MADE SEVERAL CHANGES WITH
RESPECT TO SEC. 9(F) AND (G).  "FIRST, THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION
AND REPORTS IS MADE A CONDITION  ...  TO ELIGIBILITY FOR FILING
PETITIONS FOR REPRESENTATION AND ELIGIBILITY FOR MAKING CHANGES."  TO
THE SAME EFFECT SEE ALSO THE SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN
HARTLEY, IN HIS BOOK, "OUR NEW NATIONAL LABOR POLICY," AT PP. 162-163. 

..END :























DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES 344 U.S. 386 


NO. 368.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1953 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1953 - 198 F.2D
182, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER BROUGHT A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER UNDER A WAR RISK POLICY ISSUED
UNDER THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, FOR THE LOSS OF A
SHIP BY ENEMY ACTION; BUT THE CASE HAD NOT BEEN REACHED FOR TRIAL WHEN
THAT ACT WAS REPEALED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JULY 25, 1947.  HELD:
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION, SINCE EXISTING
RIGHTS AND REMEDIES WERE PRESERVED BY THE GENERAL SAVINGS STATUTE, R.S.
SEC. 13, NOW 1 U.S.C. SEC. 109.  PP. 386-391. 

DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED A FINAL DECREE FOR THE LIBELLANT.  98 F. SUPP. 514.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  198 F.2D 182.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
344 U.S. 883. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, IN WHICH THE
LIBELLANT, PETITIONER HERE, SOUGHT TO RECOVER FOR ITS LOSS OF THE M.V.
DONA AURORA, WHICH WAS SUNK BY ENEMY ACTION ON DECEMBER 25, 1942.  THE
BASIS OF THE LIBEL WAS A WAR RISK POLICY ISSUED BY THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1940, 54
STAT.  689, 690, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1128D.  THE LIBEL WAS FILED
ON DECEMBER 22, 1944.  ON JULY 25, 1947, CONGRESS PASSED A JOINT
RESOLUTION PUTTING AN END TO A LARGE BODY OF WAR POWERS.  AMONG THE
HUNDRED-ODD STATUTORY PROVISIONS THUS REPEALED WAS THE WAR RISK
INSURANCE ACT.  61 STAT. 449, 450.  ON OCTOBER 4, 1948, DETERMINATION
OF DAMAGES IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL WAS REFERRED TO A COMMISSIONER; HIS
REPORT WAS FILED ON MARCH 23, 1950; IT WAS CONFIRMED (SUBJECT TO SOME
EXCEPTIONS) ON JULY 27, 1950, 92 F. SUPP. 243; THE CASE WAS REACHED FOR
TRIAL ON MARCH 6, 1951.  THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME THEN RAISED
THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE ON WHICH THIS CASE TURNS HERE, NAMELY, WHETHER
THE DISTRICT COURT HAD, AS OF JULY 25, 1947, BEEN DEPRIVED OF
JURISDICTION TO RETAIN THIS SUIT BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION, HOLDING THAT
SEC. 13 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED,* SAVED THE LIBELLANT'S
CAUSE OF ACTION FROM BEING EXTINGUISHED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JULY
25, 1947.  THE COURT PROPERLY CALLED ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT SEC.
13, ORIGINALLY SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1871, 16 STAT. 431,
432, WAS REENACTED, AS AMENDED, 58 STAT. 118, AS 1 U.S.C. (SUPP. I)
SEC. 109, 61 STAT. 633, 635, AFTER PASSAGE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION, TO
WIT, ON JULY 30, 1947.  98 F. SUPP. 514.  HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT'S
VIEW PREVAILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THAT COURT HELD THAT "THE
DISTRICT COURT ON JULY 25, 1947 LOST ITS POWER TO DEAL FURTHER WITH THE
LITIGATION."  198 F.2D 182, 186.  THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS RULING, AND WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, LIMITING OUR
GRANT OF CERTIORARI TO THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  344 U.S. 883. 

*THE REPEAL OF ANY STATUTE SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT TO RELEASE OR
EXTINGUISH ANY PENALTY, FORFEITURE, OR LIABILITY INCURRED UNDER SUCH
STATUTE, UNLESS THE REPEALING ACT SHALL SO EXPRESSLY PROVIDE, AND SUCH
STATUTE SHALL BE TREATED AS STILL REMAINING IN FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUSTAINING ANY PROPER ACTION OR PROSECUTION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH
PENALTY, FORFEITURE, OR LIABILITY.  THE EXPIRATION OF A TEMPORARY
STATUTE SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT TO RELEASE OR EXTINGUISH ANY PENALTY,
FORFEITURE, OR LIABILITY INCURRED UNDER SUCH STATUTE, UNLESS THE
TEMPORARY STATUTE SHALL SO EXPRESSLY PROVIDE, AND SUCH STATUTE SHALL BE
TREATED AS STILL REMAINING IN FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUSTAINING ANY
PROPER ACTION OR PROSECUTION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH PENALTY,
FORFEITURE, OR LIABILITY." 

THE PRECISE CONTENTION WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MADE IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS, AND WHICH PREVAILED THERE, GOES A LONG WAY TOWARD DISPOSING OF
ITSELF.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CONTEND THAT ITS LIABILITY TO THE
PETITIONER CAME TO AN END WITH THE JOINT RESOLUTION'S REPEAL OF THE WAR
RISK INSURANCE ACT.  APART FROM R.S. SEC. 13, THE CONSTITUTION
PRECLUDES EXTINCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY.  LYNCH V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 571.  THE GOVERNMENT REALIZED THAT ITS LIABILITY UNDER
THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT SURVIVED THE JOINT RESOLUTION, BUT CLAIMED
THAT THE MODE PROVIDED BY THE ACT FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT DID NOT.  IN THIS
COURT, THE GOVERNMENT RECEDED EVEN FROM THAT POSITION.  IT HERE TOOK
THE ACADEMIC POSITION OF GIVING THE ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON, OF STATING
THE REASONS WHY R.S. SEC. 13, THE GENERAL SAVINGS STATUTE, NOW 1 U.S.C.
(SUPP. I) SEC. 109, SHOULD BE HELD TO GOVERN THIS SITUATION, AND ALSO
THE REASONS WHY IT SHOULD BE HELD INAPPLICABLE.  WE FIND THE LATTER
CONSIDERATIONS MORE SUBTLE THAN PERSUASIVE, AND CONCLUDE THAT THE
ARGUMENTS URGED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTINUING JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT
COURTS TO HEAR CAUSES OF ACTION WHICH AROSE UNDER THE WAR RISK
INSURANCE ACT PRIOR TO ITS REPEAL MUST PREVAIL. 

IN DEALING WITH THE PRESENT PROBLEM IT IS IDLE TO THRESH OVER THE OLD
DISPUTATION AS TO WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS, AND WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS
NOT, BOUND BY A STATUTE UNRESTRICTED IN ITS TERMS.  R.S. SEC. 13, AS
REENACTED, LAYS DOWN A GENERAL RULE REGARDING THE IMPLICATIONS FOR
EXISTING RIGHTS OF THE REPEAL OF THE LAW WHICH CREATED THEM.  IT
EMBODIES A PRINCIPLE OF FAIR DEALING.  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS ENTERED
UPON A CONVENTIONAL COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR, SUCH AS THE INSURANCE
BUSINESS, IT AS MUCH OFFENDS STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS FOR IT TO VIOLATE
THE PRINCIPLE OF R.S. SEC. 13 AS FOR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO DO SO. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE CRUX OF THE CONTENTION WHICH PREVAILED BELOW,
NAMELY, THAT WHILE THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION AS AN INSURER, WHICH
CAME INTO BEING WITH THE SINKING OF THE DONA AURORA ON DECEMBER 25,
1942, SURVIVED THE REPEAL OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT BY THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OF 1947, THE "LIABILITY" COULD BE ENFORCED ONLY IN THE COURT
OF CLAIMS, NOT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THIS CONCLUSION IS NO MORE
SUBSTANTIAL THAN THE TENUOUS BITS OF LEGAL REASONING OF WHICH IT IS
COMPOUNDED. 

BY THE GENERAL SAVINGS STATUTE CONGRESS DID NOT MERELY SAVE FROM
EXTINCTION A LIABILITY INCURRED UNDER THE REPEALED STATUTE; IT SAVED
THE STATUTE ITSELF: 

"AND SUCH STATUTE SHALL BE TREATED AS STILL REMAINING IN FORCE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SUSTAINING ANY PROPER ACTION  ...  FOR THE ENFORCEMENT
OF SUCH  ...  LIABILITY." 

WE SEE NO REASON WHY A CAREFUL PROVISION OF CONGRESS, KEEPING A
REPEALED STATUTE ALIVE FOR A PRECISE PURPOSE, SHOULD NOT BE RESPECTED
WHEN DOING SO WILL ATTAIN EXACTLY THAT PURPOSE. 

THIS CASE DEMONSTRATES THE CONCRETE, DOLLARS-AND-CENTS IMPORTANCE OF
SAVING THE STATUTE AND NOT MERELY THE LIABILITY.  INDEED, IN THIS CASE
THE LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTE IS NOT WHOLLY SAVED UNLESS THAT PORTION
OF THE STATUTE WHICH GIVES THE DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION ALSO
SURVIVES.  AS THE GOVERNMENT FAIRLY POINTS OUT, TO DENY PETITIONER THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ENFORCE ITS RIGHT IN ADMIRALTY AND TO SEND IT TO THE
COURT OF CLAIMS INSTEAD IS TO DIMINISH SUBSTANTIALLY THE RECOVERABLE
AMOUNT, SINCE IN A DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN ADMIRALTY INTEREST ACCRUES
FROM THE TIME OF FILING SUIT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 745, WHILE IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS INTEREST DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.  28
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2516. 

FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LIABILITY BUT TO DENY THE FULL
EXTENT OF ITS ENFORCEABILITY RECALLS WHAT WAS SAID IN THE WESTERN MAID,
257 U.S. 419, 433:  "LEGAL OBLIGATIONS THAT EXIST BUT CANNOT BE
ENFORCED ARE GHOSTS THAT ARE SEEN IN THE LAW BUT THAT ARE ELUSIVE TO
THE GRASP." 

THE GOVERNMENT RIGHTLY POINTS TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REPEAL OF
STATUTES SOLELY JURISDICTIONAL IN THEIR SCOPE AND THE REPEAL OF
STATUTES WHICH CREATE RIGHTS AND ALSO PRESCRIBE HOW THE RIGHTS ARE TO
BE VINDICATED.  IN THE LATTER STATUTES, "SUBSTANTIVE" AND "PROCEDURAL"
ARE NOT DISPARATE CATEGORIES; THEY ARE FUSED COMPONENTS OF THE
EXPRESSION OF A POLICY.  WHEN THE VERY PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IS TO TAKE
AWAY JURISDICTION, OF COURSE IT DOES NOT SURVIVE, EVEN AS TO PENDING
SUITS, UNLESS EXPRESSLY RESERVED.  EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 7 WALL.  506, IS
THE HISTORIC ILLUSTRATION OF SUCH A WITHDRAWAL OF JURISDICTION, OF
WHICH LESS FAMOUS BUT EQUALLY CLEAR EXAMPLES ARE HALLOWELL V. COMMONS,
239 U.S. 506, AND BRUNER V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 112.  IF THE AIM IS
TO DESTROY A TRIBUNAL OR TO TAKE AWAY CASES FROM IT, THERE IS NO BASIS
FOR FINDING SAVING EXCEPTIONS UNLESS THEY ARE MADE EXPLICIT.  BUT WHERE
THE OBJECT OF CONGRESS WAS TO DESTROY RIGHTS IN THE FUTURE WHILE SAVING
THOSE WHICH HAVE ACCRUED, TO STRIKE DOWN ENFORCING PROVISIONS THAT HAVE
SPECIAL RELATION TO THE ACCRUED RIGHT AND AS SUCH ARE PART AND PARCEL
OF IT, IS TO MUTILATE THAT RIGHT AND HENCE TO DEFEAT RATHER THAN
FURTHER THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  THE GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
THERE WERE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS, APART FROM THE MATTER OF INTEREST,
FOR GIVING THE INSURED UNDER THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT ACCESS TO THE
DISTRICT COURTS RATHER THAN RELEGATING HIM TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  IN
REPEALING THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT AMONG NUMEROUS OTHER STATUTES,
CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED NOT WITH JURISDICTION, NOT WITH THE
UNDESIRABILITY OF THE DISTRICT COURTS AND THE SUITABILITY OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS AS A FORUM FOR SUITS UNDER THAT ACT.  IT WAS CONCERNED WITH
TERMINATING WAR POWERS AFTER THE "SHOOTING WAR" HAD TERMINATED. 

WHILE THE GOVERNMENT TOOK A NEUTRAL POSITION IN THIS COURT ON THE
SURVIVAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION UNDER THE WAR RISK
INSURANCE ACT, IT EMPHATICALLY URGED US TO HOLD THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE
REPEAL OF THAT ACT DID NOT EXTINGUISH THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION
TO HEAR THIS CASE, SITTING IN ADMIRALTY PURSUANT TO THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT OF MARCH 9, 1920, 41 STAT. 525, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 741 ET
SEQ. SINCE WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CORRECT IN
HOLDING THAT THIS LIBEL WAS PROPERLY BEFORE IT UNDER THE WAR RISK
INSURANCE ACT, IT WOULD BE SUPERFLUOUS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF
THE OTHER STATUTE.  REVERSED.  MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE
RESULT. 
..END :





FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MOTION PICTURE ADVERTISING SERVICE CO., INC.
344 U.S. 392 


NO. 75.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1952 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1953 - 194 F.2D
633, REVERSED. 


1.  RESPONDENT PRODUCES ADVERTISING MOTION PICTURES AND DISTRIBUTES
THEM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT HAD EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS WITH 40% OF
THE THEATRES WHICH EXHIBIT SUCH FILMS IN THE AREA WHERE IT OPERATES. 
IT AND THREE OTHER COMPANIES HAD EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS WITH 75% OF SUCH
THEATRES IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FOUND,
UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT RESPONDENT'S EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS
UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN COMPETITION AND TEND TO MONOPOLY, AND THAT THEIR
USE WAS AN "UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION" IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  IT ISSUED AN ORDER PROHIBITING
RESPONDENT FROM ENTERING INTO ANY SUCH EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT FOR MORE THAN
A YEAR OR FROM CONTINUING IN EFFECT ANY EXCLUSIVE PROVISION OF AN
EXISTING CONTRACT LONGER THAN A YEAR AFTER SERVICE OF THE ORDER.  HELD:
THE ORDER IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 393-397. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION DID NOT EXCEED THE LIMITS OF ITS ALLOWABLE
JUDGMENT IN RESTRICTING THE EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS TO ONE-YEAR TERMS.  PP.
395-396. 

2.  A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING OF THE
COMMISSION, BASED ON A FORMER PROCEEDING WHICH WAS DIRECTED AT A
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND OTHER DISTRIBUTORS INVOLVING THE USE
OF EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, SINCE THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING CHARGES NO CONSPIRACY AND THE ISSUES LITIGATED AND
DETERMINED ARE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE IN THE EARLIER ONE.  PP. 397-398. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MOTION PICTURE ADVERTISING SERVICE CO.,
INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A PROCEEDING UPON A COMPLAINT CHARGING "UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION" IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT, THE COMMISSION ENTERED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST
RESPONDENT.  47 F.T.C. 378.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  194 F.2D
633.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 811.  REVERSED, P. 398. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT IS A PRODUCER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF ADVERTISING MOTION
PICTURES WHICH DEPICT AND DESCRIBE COMMODITIES OFFERED FOR SALE BY
COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.  RESPONDENT CONTRACTS WITH THEATRE OWNERS
FOR THE DISPLAY OF THESE ADVERTISING FILMS AND SHIPS THE FILMS FROM ITS
PLACE OF BUSINESS IN LOUISIANA TO THEATRES IN TWENTY-SEVEN STATES AND
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THESE CONTRACTS RUN FOR TERMS UP TO FIVE
YEARS, THE MAJORITY BEING FOR ONE OR TWO YEARS.  A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER
OF THEM CONTAIN A PROVISION THAT THE THEATRE OWNER WILL DISPLAY ONLY
ADVERTISING FILMS FURNISHED BY RESPONDENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FILMS
FOR CHARITIES OR FOR GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, OR ANNOUNCEMENTS OF
COMING ATTRACTIONS.  RESPONDENT AND THREE OTHER COMPANIES IN THE SAME
BUSINESS (AGAINST WHICH PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO BROUGHT) TOGETHER HAD
EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ADVERTISING FILMS WITH APPROXIMATELY THREE
FOURTHS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF THEATRES IN THE UNITED STATES WHICH
DISPLAY ADVERTISING FILMS FOR COMPENSATION.  RESPONDENT HAD EXCLUSIVE
CONTRACTS WITH ALMOST 40 PERCENT OF THE THEATRES IN THE AREA WHERE IT
OPERATES. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE PETITIONER, FILED A COMPLAINT
CHARGING RESPONDENT WITH THE USE OF "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION" IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, 38 STAT. 717,
719, 52 STAT. 111, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
RESPONDENT WAS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION WITH OTHER COMPANIES ENGAGED
IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTING ADVERTISING FILMS, THAT ITS EXCLUSIVE
CONTRACTS HAVE LIMITED THE OUTLETS FOR FILMS OF COMPETITORS AND HAVE
FORCED SOME COMPETITORS OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THEIR INABILITY TO
OBTAIN OUTLETS FOR THEIR ADVERTISING FILMS.  IT HELD BY A DIVIDED VOTE
THAT THE EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS ARE UNDULY RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITION WHEN
THEY EXTEND FOR PERIODS IN EXCESS OF ONE YEAR.  IT ACCORDINGLY ENTERED
A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER WHICH PROHIBITS RESPONDENT FROM ENTERING INTO
ANY SUCH CONTRACT THAT GRANTS AN EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE FOR MORE THAN A
YEAR OR FROM CONTINUING IN EFFECT ANY EXCLUSIVE PROVISION OF AN
EXISTING CONTRACT LONGER THAN A YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF SERVICE IN THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  (FN1)  47 F.T.C.  378.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS ARE NOT UNFAIR METHODS
OF COMPETITION AND THAT THEIR PROHIBITION WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  194 F.2D 633. 

THE "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION," WHICH ARE CONDEMNED BY SEC. 5(A)
OF THE ACT, ARE NOT CONFINED TO THOSE THAT WERE ILLEGAL AT COMMON LAW
OR THAT WERE CONDEMNED BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304.  CONGRESS ADVISEDLY LEFT THE CONCEPT
FLEXIBLE TO BE DEFINED WITH PARTICULARITY BY THE MYRIAD OF CASES FROM
THE FIELD OF BUSINESS.  ID., PP. 310-312.  IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT WAS DESIGNED TO SUPPLEMENT AND BOLSTER THE
SHERMAN ACT AND THE CLAYTON ACT (SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BEECH
NUT CO., 257 U.S. 441, 453) - TO STOP IN THEIR INCIPIENCY ACTS AND
PRACTICES WHICH, WHEN FULL BLOWN, WOULD VIOLATE THOSE ACTS (SEE FASHION
GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457, 463, 466), AS WELL AS
TO CONDEMN AS "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION" EXISTING VIOLATIONS OF
THEM.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CEMENT INSTITUTE, 333 U.S. 683,
691. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT RESPONDENT'S EXCLUSIVE
CONTRACTS UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN COMPETITION AND TEND TO MONOPOLY. 
THOSE FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  THIS IS NOT A
SITUATION WHERE BY THE NATURE OF THE MARKET THERE IS ROOM FOR
NEWCOMERS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE EXISTING RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES.  THE
NUMBER OF OUTLETS FOR THE FILMS IS QUITE LIMITED.  AND DUE TO THE
EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS, RESPONDENT AND THE THREE OTHER MAJOR COMPANIES
HAVE FORECLOSED TO COMPETITORS 75 PERCENT OF ALL AVAILABLE OUTLETS FOR
THIS BUSINESS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS, WE THINK, PLAIN
FROM THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT A DEVICE WHICH HAS SEWED UP A
MARKET SO TIGHTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW FALLS WITHIN THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND IS THEREFORE AN "UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 5(A) OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT. 

AN ATTACK IS MADE ON THAT PART OF THE ORDER WHICH RESTRICTS THE
EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS TO ONE-YEAR TERMS.  IT IS ARGUED THAT ONE-YEAR
CONTRACTS WILL NOT BE PRACTICABLE.  IT IS SAID THAT THE EXPENSES OF
SECURING THESE SCREENING CONTRACTS DO NOT WARRANT ONE-YEAR AGREEMENTS,
THAT INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL IN THE BUSINESS WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED
WITHOUT ASSURANCE OF A MARKET FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR, THAT THEATRES
FREQUENTLY DEMAND GUARANTEES FOR MORE THAN A YEAR OR OTHERWISE REFUSE
TO EXHIBIT ADVERTISING FILMS.  THESE AND OTHER BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS
ARE THE BASIS OF THE ARGUMENT THAT EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS OF A DURATION IN
EXCESS OF A YEAR ARE NECESSARY FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS.  THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THIS ARGUMENT AND CONCLUDED
THAT, ALTHOUGH THE EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS WERE BENEFICIAL TO THE
DISTRIBUTOR AND PREFERRED BY THE THEATRE OWNERS, THEIR USE SHOULD BE
RESTRICTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE TERM
OF ONE YEAR HAD BECOME A STANDARD PRACTICE AND THAT THE CONTINUANCE OF
EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS SO LIMITED WOULD NOT BE AN UNDUE RESTRAINT UPON
COMPETITION, IN VIEW OF THE COMPELLING BUSINESS REASONS FOR SOME
EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT.  (FN2)  THE PRECISE IMPACT OF A PARTICULAR
PRACTICE ON THE TRADE IS FOR THE COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS, TO
DETERMINE.  THE POINT WHERE A METHOD OF COMPETITION BECOMES "UNFAIR"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT WILL OFTEN TURN ON THE EXIGENCIES OF A
PARTICULAR SITUATION, TRADE PRACTICES, OR THE PRACTICAL REQUIREMENTS OF
THE BUSINESS IN QUESTION.  CERTAINLY WE CANNOT SAY THAT EXCLUSIVE
CONTRACTS IN THIS FIELD SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED IN THEIR ENTIRETY OR
NOT AT ALL, THAT THE COMMISSION EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF ITS ALLOWABLE
JUDGMENT (SEE SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 327 U.S. 608,
612; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CEMENT INSTITUTE, 333 U.S. 683, 726
727) IN LIMITING THEIR TERM TO ONE YEAR.  (FN3) 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND
THE THEATRES WERE CONTRACTS OF AGENCY AND THEREFORE GOVERNED BY FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. CURTIS PUBLISHING CO., 260 U.S. 568.  THIS WAS ON
THE THEORY THAT RESPONDENT FURNISHES THE FILMS BY BAILMENT TO THE
EXHIBITORS IN EXCHANGE FOR A CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES WHICH THE
EXHIBITORS UNDERTAKE TO PERFORM.  BUT THE CURTIS CASE WOULD BE RELEVANT
HERE ONLY IF SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT (FN4) WERE INVOLVED.  THE VICE
OF THE EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT IN THIS PARTICULAR FIELD IS IN ITS TENDENCY
TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION AND TO DEVELOP A MONOPOLY IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  AND WHEN THE SHERMAN ACT IS INVOLVED THE CRUCIAL FACT IS
THE IMPACT OF THE PARTICULAR PRACTICE ON COMPETITION, NOT THE LABEL
THAT IT CARRIES.   SEE UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265,
280. 

FINALLY, RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN THE
COMMISSION'S COMPLAINT HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED IN A FORMER PROCEEDING
INSTITUTED BY THE COMMISSION WHICH RESULTED IN A CEASE AND DESIST
ORDER.  36 F.T.C. 957.  BUT THAT WAS A PROCEEDING TO PUT AN END TO A
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND OTHER DISTRIBUTORS INVOLVING THE USE
OF THESE EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS.  THE PRESENT PROCEEDING CHARGES NO
CONSPIRACY; IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF RESPONDENT.  THE
PLEA OF RES JUDICATA IS THEREFORE NOT AVAILABLE SINCE THE ISSUES
LITIGATED AND DETERMINED IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE
IN THE EARLIER ONE.  CF. TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 289 U.S. 620,
623.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARABLE FINDINGS AND LIKE ORDERS WERE ENTERED IN EACH OF THE
THREE COMPANION CASES.  IN THE MATTER OF REID H. RAY FILM INDUSTRIES,
47 F.T.C. 326; IN THE MATTER OF ALEXANDER FILM CO., 47 F.T.C. 345; IN
THE MATTER OF UNITED FILM AD SERVICE, INC., 47 F.T.C. 362. 

FN2  THE COMMISSION SAID:  "UNDER THE GENERAL PRACTICE THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT FIRST CONTACTS THE THEATER TO
DETERMINE IF SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR SCREEN ADVERTISING AND MAKES SUCH
ARRANGEMENTS AS CONDITIONS WARRANT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH SPACE.  IN THIS
WAY RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS ABLE TO SHOW PROSPECTIVE ADVERTISERS
WHERE SPACE IS AVAILABLE.  IN CONTACTING THE THEATER IT IS NECESSARY
FOR THE RESPONDENT TO ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF SPACE IT WILL BE ABLE TO
SELL TO ADVERTISERS.  SINCE FILM ADVERTISING SPACE IN THEATERS IS
LIMITED TO FOUR, FIVE, OR SIX ADVERTISEMENTS, IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE
FOR RESPONDENT TO CONTRACT FOR ALL SPACE AVAILABLE IN SUCH THEATERS,
PARTICULARLY IN TERRITORIES CANVASSED BY ITS SALESMEN AT REGULAR AND
FREQUENT INTERVALS. 

"IT IS THEREFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE THAT AN EXCLUSIVE SCREENING AGREEMENT FOR A PERIOD
OF 1 YEAR IS NOT AN UNDUE RESTRAINT UPON COMPETITION."  47 F.T.C., AT
389. 

FN3  A SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT RESPONDENT NEEDS A PERIOD LONGER THAN
ONE YEAR IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTS WITH ADVERTISERS ARE
OFTEN NOT COTERMINOUS WITH THE EXCLUSIVE SCREENING AGREEMENTS, DUE IN
LARGE PART TO THE DELAYS IN OBTAINING ADVERTISING CONTRACTS AFTER THE
EXCLUSIVE SCREENING AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED.  THE COMMISSION
REJECTED THIS CONTENTION, STATING THAT BY CUSTOM AND BY THE TERMS OF
THE EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS THE THEATRE COMPLETES THE SCREENING OF
ADVERTISEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE ADVERTISING CONTRACTS, EVEN THOUGH
THOSE CONTRACTS EXTEND BEYOND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE EXCLUSIVE
SCREENING AGREEMENT.  WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER WHICH THE
COMMISSION ENTERED IN THIS CASE IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT CONSTRUCTION. 
IT DOES NOT PREVENT THE COMPLETION OF ANY PARTICULAR ADVERTISING
CONTRACT AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE SCREENING AGREEMENT. 
THE ORDER MERELY PREVENTS RESPONDENT FROM REQUIRING THE THEATRE OWNER
TO SHOW ONLY ITS FILMS AFTER THAT DATE.  IT DOES NOT PREVENT THE OWNER
TO SHOW ONLY ITS FILMS AFTER THAT DATE.  IT DOES NOT PREVENT THE
THEATRE OWNER FROM MAKING AN OTHERWISE EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER
DISTRIBUTOR AT THAT TIME.  NO THEATRE OWNER IS A PARTY TO THIS
PROCEEDING.  THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER BINDS ONLY RESPONDENT. 

FN4  THIS SECTION MAKES UNLAWFUL A LEASE, SALE, OR CONTRACT FOR SALE
WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENS COMPETITION OR TENDS TO CREATE A MONOPOLY. 
15 U.S.C. SEC. 14. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

MY DOUBTS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ADEQUATELY SHOWN THAT IT HAS BEEN
GUIDED BY RELEVANT CRITERIA IN DEALING WITH ITS FINDINGS UNDER SEC. 5
OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT ARE DISPELLED NEITHER BY THOSE
FINDINGS NOR BY THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  THE COMMISSION HAS NOT
EXPLAINED ITS CONCLUSION WITH THE "SIMPLICITY AND CLEARNESS" NECESSARY
TO TELL US "WHAT A DECISION MEANS BEFORE THE DUTY BECOMES OURS TO SAY
WHETHER IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG."  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST.
P.&P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 510, 511. 

MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT RELATED ITS
ANALYSIS OF THIS INDUSTRY TO THE STANDARDS OF ILLEGALITY IN SEC. 5 WITH
SUFFICIENT CLARITY TO ENABLE THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER.  ALTHOUGH
WE ARE TOLD THAT RESPONDENT AND THREE OTHER COMPANIES HAVE EXCLUSIVE
EXHIBITION CONTRACTS WITH THREE-QUARTERS OF THE THEATERS IN THE COUNTRY
THAT ACCEPT ADVERTISING, THERE ARE NO FINDINGS INDICATING HOW MANY OF
THESE CONTRACTS EXTEND BEYOND THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD WHICH THE COMMISSION
FINDS NOT UNDULY RESTRICTIVE.  WE DO HAVE AN INDICATION FROM THE RECORD
THAT MORE THAN HALF OF RESPONDENT'S EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS RUN FOR ONLY
ONE YEAR; IF THAT IS SO, THAT PART OF RESPONDENT'S HOLD ON THE MARKET
FOUND UNREASONABLE BY THE COMMISSION BOILS DOWN TO EXCLUSION OF OTHER
COMPETITORS FROM SOMETHING LIKE 1,250 THEATERS, OR ABOUT 6%, OF THE
SOME 20,000 THEATERS IN THE COUNTRY.  THE HOLD IS ON ABOUT 10% OF THE
THEATERS THAT ACCEPT ADVERTISING. 

APART FROM UNCRITICAL CITATIONS IN THE BRIEF HERE, (FN1) THE
COMMISSION MERELY STATES A DOGMATIC CONCLUSION THAT THE USE OF THESE
CONTRACTS CONSTITUTES AN "UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT AND RESTRICTION OF
COMPETITION."  IN RE MOTION PICTURE ADVERTISING SERVICE CO., 47 F.T.C.
378, 389.  THE COURT'S OPINION IS MERELY AN ECHO OF THIS CONCLUSION AND
STATES WITHOUT DISCUSSION THAT SUCH EXCLUSION FROM A MARKET WITHOUT
MORE "FALLS WITHIN THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT" BECAUSE, TAKEN
WITH EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS OF OTHER COMPETITORS, 75% OF THE MARKET IS
SHUT OFF.  BUT THERE IS NO RELIANCE HERE ON CONSPIRACY OR CONCERTED
ACTION TO FORECLOSE THE MARKET, A CHARGE THAT WOULD OF COURSE WARRANT
ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW.  INDEED, WE MUST ASSUME THAT RESPONDENT
AND THE OTHER THREE COMPANIES ARE COMPLYING WITH AN EARLIER ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION DIRECTED AT CONCERTED ACTION.  SEE IN RE SCREEN
BROADCAST CORP., 36 F.T.C. 957.  WHILE THE EXISTENCE OF THE OTHER
EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS IS, OF COURSE, NOT IRRELEVANT IN A MARKET ANALYSIS,
SEE STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 293, 309, THIS COURT
HAS NEVER DECIDED THAT THEY MAY, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSPIRACY, BE
AGGREGATED TO SUPPORT A CHARGE OF SHERMAN LAW VIOLATION.  CF. ID., AT
314.  IF OTHER FACTORS PERTINENT TO A SHERMAN LAW VIOLATION WERE
PRESENT HERE, THE COMMISSION COULD NOT LEAVE SUCH FACTORS UNMENTIONED
AND SIMPLY ASK US TO REVIEW A BROAD UNEXPLAINED FINDING THAT THERE IS
SUCH A VIOLATION.  (FN2)  IN ANY EVENT, THE COMMISSION HAS NOT FOUND
ANY SHERMAN LAW VIOLATION. 

BUT WE ARE TOLD, AS IS OF COURSE TRUE, THAT SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT COMPREHENDS MORE THAN VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN
LAW.  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT WAS DESIGNED, DOUBTLESS, TO
ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO NIP IN THE BUD PRACTICES WHICH, WHEN FULL
BLOWN, WOULD VIOLATE THE SHERMAN OR CLAYTON ACT.  BUT HIS RECORD DOES
NOT EXPLAIN TO US HOW THESE PRACTICES, IF FULL BLOWN, WOULD VIOLATE ONE
OF THOSE ACTS.  THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN CONTENT TO REST ON ITS
CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT'S EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN
COMPETITION AND TEND TO MONOPOLY.  IF JUDICIAL REVIEW IS TO HAVE A
BASIS FOR FUNCTIONING, THE COMMISSION MUST DO MORE THAN PRONOUNCE A
CONCLUSION BY WAY OF FIAT AND WITHOUT EXPLICATION.  THIS IS NOT A
TRIBUNAL FOR INVESTIGATING AN INDUSTRY.  ANALYSIS OF PRACTICES IN THE
LIGHT OF DEFINABLE STANDARDS OF ILLEGALITY IS FOR THE COMMISSION.  IT
IS FOR US TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE
PROPER STANDARDS AND THUS EXHIBITED THAT FAMILIARITY WITH COMPETITIVE
PROBLEMS WHICH THE CONGRESS ANTICIPATED THE COMMISSION WOULD ACHIEVE
FROM ITS EXPERIENCE.  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CEMENT INSTITUTE,
333 U.S. 683, 727. 

NO CASE IS CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION WHICH, BECAUSE OF FACTUAL
SIMILARITY, WOULD SERVE AS A SHORTHAND ELUCIDATION OF THE COMMISSION'S
CONCLUSION.  THE STANDARD OIL CASE, SUPRA, RELIED ON IN THE
COMMISSION'S BRIEF, DOES NOT SERVE THIS PURPOSE.  ALTHOUGH THE STANDARD
OIL CASE WAS BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, I SHALL ASSUME
THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT, SO THAT RESPONDENT CANNOT ARGUE THE INAPPLICABILITY OF
THE DECISION MERELY BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 3 MAY BE
INAPPLICABLE.  BUT TAKING THAT CASE SIMPLY AS AN EXPRESSION OF "POLICY"
UNDERLYING SEC. 5, IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE HOLDING IN THIS
CASE.  IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE, WE DEALT WITH THE LARGEST SELLER OF
GASOLINE IN ITS MARKET; STANDARD HAD ENTERED INTO EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY
CONTRACTS WITH 16% OF THE RETAIL OUTLETS IN THE AREA PURCHASING OVER
$57,000,000 WORTH OF GASOLINE.  IT MAY BE THAT CONSIDERATIONS
UNDISCLOSED COULD BE ADVANCED TO INDICATE THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE
MARKET SHUT OFF HERE, CALCULATED BY A JUGGLING OF IMPONDERABLES THAT WE
CERTAINLY WOULD NOT CONFIDENTLY WEIGH WITHOUT EXPERT GUIDANCE, OUGHT
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN THE STANDARD
OIL CASE, OR PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT IN THE LIGHT OF THAT DECISION, SEE
337 U.S., AT 314, THAT THE AGGREGATE VOLUME OF BUSINESS IS OF AS GREAT
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE PUBLIC AS IT WAS THERE.  EVEN SO, THERE ARE
APPARENT DIFFERENCES WHOSE EFFECTS WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE EXPLAINED. 

THE OBVIOUS BARGAINING POWER OF THE SELLER VIS-A-VIS THE RETAILER
DOES NOT, SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED, HAVE A PARALLEL HERE.  NOR ARE WE
APPRISED BY PROOF OR ANALYSIS TO DISREGARD THE FACT THAT HERE THE
ADVERTISING, UNLIKE SALES OF GASOLINE BY THE RETAILER IN THE STANDARD
OIL CASE, IS NOT THE CENTRAL BUSINESS OF THE THEATERS AND APPARENTLY
ACCOUNTS FOR ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE THEATERS' REVENUES.  (FN3)  IN
ANY EVENT, IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE WE RECOGNIZED THE DISCREPANCY IN
BARGAINING POWER AND POINTED OUT THAT THE RETAILERS MIGHT STILL INSIST
ON EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS IF THEY WANTED.  SEE 337 U.S., AT 314.  AND
ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT TOLD IN THIS CASE WHETHER THE PRESSURE FOR
EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS COMES MAINLY FROM THE DISTRIBUTOR OR THE THEATER,
THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT THEATERS OFTEN INSIST ON EXCLUSIVE
PROVISIONS.  SEE FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS NO. 12, IN RE MOTION PICTURE
ADVERTISING SERVICE CO., SUPRA, AT 388. 

FURTHER, THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION INDICATE THAT THERE ARE SOME
FACTUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE "EXCLUSIVE" PROVISIONS HERE, FOR IN THIS
INDUSTRY, AS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FEASIBLE IN GASOLINE RETAILING,
DISTRIBUTORS OF FILMS OFTEN DO HAVE ACCESS TO THE THEATERS HAVING
NOMINALLY EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS WITH COMPETING DISTRIBUTORS.  AT TIMES
THE EXCLUSIVE PROVISION MAY DO LITTLE MORE THAN GIVE THE DISTRIBUTOR A
PRIORITY OVER OTHER DISTRIBUTORS IN THE USE OF SCREEN SPACE.  INDEED,
THE DEGREE OF EXCLUSION OF COMPETITORS IN SOME INSTANCES IS REPRESENTED
SIMPLY BY THE INADEQUACY OF A 15% COMMISSION PAID THE "EXCLUDED"
COMPETITOR WHEN HE IS PERMITTED TO SHOW HIS FILMS IN THEATERS NOMINALLY
EXCLUSIVE.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THE 15% UNPROFITABLE IN LOCAL
ADVERTISING, BUT IT DID NOT FIND HOW MUCH OF THE AFFECTED COMPETITORS'
TOTAL BUSINESS, WHICH MAY ALSO HAVE INCLUDED MANUFACTURER-DEALER OR
COOPERATIVE ADVERTISING AND NATIONAL ADVERTISING, WAS IN EFFECT
EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF THE UNPROFITABILITY OF THE COMMISSION IN LOCAL
ADVERTISING.  IN SHORT, WE ARE NOT TOLD THAT THE EXCLUSIVE FEATURE HERE
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE ECONOMIC EQUIVALENT OF THAT IN THE STANDARD
OIL CASE. 

ALTHOUGH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE DO NOT MEET THE STANDARD OIL
DECISION, EVEN IF THAT CASE IS TAKEN MERELY AS AN EXPRESSION OF
ANTITRUST POLICY ENGRAFTED ON SEC. 5, IT IS URGED THAT THE COMMISSION
SHOULD BE ALLOWED AMPLE DISCRETION IN DEVELOPING THE LAW OF UNFAIR
METHODS OF COMPETITION TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF A PARTICULAR SITUATION
WITHOUT UNDUE HAMPERING BY THE COURT.  BUT IF JUDICIAL REVIEW IS TO
HAVE ANY MEANING, EXTENSION OF PRINCIPLE TO MEET NEW SITUATIONS MUST BE
BASED ON SOME MINIMUM DEMONSTRATION TO THE COURTS THAT THE COMMISSION
HAS RELIED ON RELEVANT CRITERIA TO CONCLUDE THAT THE NEW APPLICATION IS
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IN THIS CASE, APART FROM EQUIVOCAL STATEMENTS
IN THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S REPORT ON THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE INTERESTS
AFFECTED BY EXCLUSION FROM THIS MARKET, WE HAVE NO SPECIFIC INDICATION
OF THE NEED FOR ENFORCEMENT IN THIS AREA, CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
V. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304, 314, EVEN IF THE COMMISSION HAD
AFFORDED REASONS WHY THE LAW OF UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION SHOULD
STRIKE DOWN EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS SUCH AS THOSE HERE INVOLVED.  AT THE
LEAST, WE SHOULD REMAND THIS CASE TO THE COMMISSION FOR ADEQUATE
EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS WHY THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES ITS
INTERVENTION AND THIS ORDER.  (FN4)  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
KLESNER, 280 U. S. 19. 

IT IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE DETERMINATION OF
THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION OF "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION" HAS NOT
BEEN LEFT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AS PART OF ITS FACT-FINDING
AUTHORITY BUT IS A MATTER OF LAW TO BE DEFINED BY THE COURTS.  SEE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. GRATZ, 253 U.S. 421, 427.  THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF SUCH JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE INDICATED BY THE DISSIMILAR TREATMENT OF
COMPARABLE STANDARDS ENTRUSTED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  IN DEALING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT REQUIRING REASONABLENESS IN RATES AND PRACTICES FROM
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WE READ THE
ACT AS MAKING THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS A
DETERMINATION OF FACT BY THAT COMMISSION AND NOT AN ISSUE OF LAW FOR
THE COURTS.  UNLIKE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT DEALT WITH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION NOT ONLY OF A LIMITED
SINGLED OUT FOR PUBLIC CONTROL.   THE RANGE WITHIN WHICH THE BROADLY
STATED CONCEPTS OF REASONABLENESS MOVED WAS CONFINED AS WELL AS DEFINED
BY EXPERIENCE, AND APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPTS WAS NECESSARILY LIMITED
TO EASILY COMPARABLE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT GAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AUTHORITY OVER
ECONOMIC CONTROLS OF A DIFFERENT SORT THAT BEGAN WITH THE SHERMAN LAW -
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE WHOLE DOMAIN OF ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE CONTENT OF THE PROHIBITION OF "UNFAIR METHODS
OF COMPETITION," TO BE APPLIED TO WIDELY DIVERSE BUSINESS PRACTICES,
WAS NOT ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR AD HOC DETERMINATION WITHIN THE
INTERSTICES OF INDIVIDUALIZED RECORDS BUT WAS LEFT FOR ASCERTAINMENT BY
THIS COURT. 

THE VAGUENESS OF THE SHERMAN LAW WAS SAVED BY IMPARTING TO IT THE
GLOSS OF HISTORY.  SEE NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373. 
DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS INHERENT UNCERTAINTY IN THE SHERMAN LAW LED TO
THE PARTICULARIZATIONS EXPRESSED IN THE CLAYTON ACT.  38 STAT.  730. 
THE CREATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 38 STAT. 717, MADE
AVAILABLE A CONTINUOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BY WHICH FRUITION OF
SHERMAN LAW VIOLATIONS COULD BE ABORTED.  BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING TO
SUGGEST THAT ANYTHING IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY THAT MAY, IF UNCHECKED,
OFFEND THE PARTICULARIZATIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT MAY NOW BE REACHED BY
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  THE CURB ON THE COMMISSION'S POWER,
AS EXPRESSED BY THE SERIES OF CASES BEGINNING WITH THE GRATZ CASE,
SUPRA, SO AS TO LEAVE TO THE COURTS RATHER THAN THE COMMISSION THE
FINAL AUTHORITY IN DETERMINING WHAT IS AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION,
WOULD BE RELAXED, AND UNBRIDLED INTERVENTION INTO BUSINESS PRACTICES
ENCOURAGED. 

I AM NOT UNAWARE THAT THE POLICIES DIRECTED AT MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE
COMPETITION, AS EXPRESSED IN THE SHERMAN LAW, THE CLAYTON ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT, ARE DIFFICULT TO FORMULATE AND NOT ALTOGETHER HARMONIOUS. 
THEREFORE, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACTS BY THE AGENCY WHICH IS
CONSTANTLY ENGAGED IN CONSTRUING THEM SHOULD CARRY CONSIDERABLE WEIGHT
WITH COURTS EVEN IN THE SOLUTION OF THE LEGAL PUZZLES THESE STATUTES
RAISE.  BUT HE IS NO FRIEND OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW WHO THINKS THAT THE
COMMISSION SHOULD BE LEFT AT LARGE.  IN ANY EVENT, WHATEVER PROBLEMS
WOULD BE RAISED BY WITHHOLDING JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM DETERMINATIONS OF
THE COMMISSION ARE FOR CONGRESS TO FACE, AT LEAST IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE.  (SEE MY VIEWS EXPRESSED IN STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288,
311.)  UNTIL CONGRESS CHOOSES TO DO SO, WE CANNOT SHIRK OUR DUTY BY
LEAVING DETERMINATIONS OF LAW TO THE DISCRETION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION.  NOT ONLY MUST WE ABSTAIN FROM APPROVING A MERE SAY-SO OF
THE COMMISSION AND THUS FAIL TO DISCHARGE THE TASK IMPLIED BY JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  IT IS ALSO INCUMBENT UPON US TO SEEK TO RATIONALIZE THE FOUR
STATUTES DIRECTED TOWARD A COMMON END AND MAKE OF THEM, TO THE EXTENT
THAT WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN PERMITS, A HARMONIOUS BODY OF LAW.  THIS
OPINION IS AN ATTEMPT, AT LEAST BY WAY OF ADUMBRATION, TO CARRY OUT
THIS AIM. 

I WOULD HAVE THE COURT OF APPEALS REMAND THIS CASE TO THE
COMMISSION. 

FN1  THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT RELIED ON DO NOT DISPOSE OF THIS
CASE.  IN INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392, WE
DEALT WITH THE LARGEST PRODUCER OF SALT FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES, WHO BY
MEANS OF TYING AGREEMENTS RATHER THAN EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS, ATTEMPTED AN
UNDUE EXTENSION OF HIS PATENT MONOPOLY.  APART FROM THESE DIFFERENCES,
IT DESERVES TO BE NOTED THAT SALT SALES IN ONE YEAR AMOUNTED TO
$500,000 BY THE PATENTEE.  TO THE EXTENT THAT DECISION IS PREDICATED ON
A SHERMAN LAW VIOLATION, IT SEEMS INAPPLICABLE HERE.  IN UNITED STATES
V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218, APART FROM OTHER DIFFERENCES,
CONSPIRACY WAS CHARGED TO SHUT OFF A SUBSTANTIAL SHARE OF THE MARKET
PERMANENTLY BY MEANS OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION.  UNITED STATES V. PULLMAN
CO., 50 F. SUPP. 123, IN WHICH MANY OTHER FACTORS WERE PRESENT AND THE
SHARE OF THE MARKET CONSIDERABLE, WAS AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED
COURT.  330 U.S. 806. 

FN2  THE STRONGEST FINDING OF THE COMMISSION, PAR. 11, FINDINGS AS TO
THE FACTS, 47 F.T.C., AT 387, STATES THAT THESE CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN "OF
MATERIAL ASSISTANCE IN PERMITTING THE RESPONDENT TO HOLD FOR ITS OWN
USE THE SCREENS OF THE THEATERS WITH WHICH SUCH CONTRACTS WERE MADE AND
HAS DEPRIVED COMPETITORS OF THE RESPONDENT FROM SHOWING THEIR
ADVERTISING FILMS IN SUCH THEATERS THEREBY LIMITING THE OUTLETS FOR
THEIR FILMS IN A MORE OR LESS LIMITED FIELD AND IN SOME INSTANCES
RESULTED IN SUCH COMPETITORS BEING FORCED TO GO OUT OF THE SCREEN
ADVERTISING BUSINESS BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO OBTAIN OUTLETS FOR THEIR
SCREEN ADVERTISING."  MOST CONTRACTS HAVE THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF
EXCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE NOT PARTIES, AND FAILURE TO OBTAIN BUSINESS IS
OF COURSE A CAUSE OF BUSINESS FAILURE.  IF ALL CONTRACTS ARE NOT TO BE
BAD ON SUCH REASONING, IT SEEMS THERE MUST BE MORE, PARTICULARLY IN
VIEW OF INDICATIONS HERE NOT ADVERTED TO BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS
FORMAL FINDINGS THAT WHAT LITTLE BUSINESS FAILURE THERE HAS BEEN AMONG
COMPETITORS MAY TO SOME EXTENT HAVE RESULTED FROM THE INFERIOR QUALITY
OF THOSE COMPETITORS' FILMS.  SEE TRIAL EXAMINER'S REPORT UPON THE
EVIDENCE, R. 44.  IN ANY EVENT, SUCH A FINDING DOES NOT ESTABLISH A
SHERMAN LAW VIOLATION.  IN SHERMAN LAW PROCEEDINGS, WE WOULD HAVE
ISSUES SHARPLY DEFINED IN SHERMAN LAW TERMS AND FINDINGS FROM RELEVANT
EVIDENCE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO THOSE TERMS MADE BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE.  FINDINGS ADVERSE TO A CLAIM OF VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW
WOULD HAVE THE WEIGHT GIVEN BY RULE 52(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. OREGON MED.  SOC., 343 U.S. 326, 332. 

FN3  IT MAY WELL BE THAT THIS FACTOR WILL TURN OUT TO BE OF LITTLE
SIGNIFICANCE.  IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONTEXT, WE RECOGNIZED THAT
SUCH A FACTOR NEED NOT BE DECISIVE IN AN ATTEMPT TO ASSESS THE
COMPETITIVE EFFECTS, AS AMONG PURCHASERS, OF DISCRIMINATORY PRICING. 
SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 49-50. 
SINCE HERE, HOWEVER, THE FACTOR PROBABLY BEARS MORE ON THE RELATIVE
BARGAINING POWER OF THEATERS AND DISTRIBUTORS THAN ON COMPETITIVE
EFFECTS AMONG THE THEATERS, DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS MAY OPERATE. 
FN4  SINCE I TAKE THIS VIEW OF THE CASE, I NEED NOT ATTEMPT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED
IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT.  WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD IN THE
FORMER PROCEEDINGS, I CANNOT SAY WHETHER THE ISSUES, RAISED AS THEY
APPARENTLY WERE IN THE PLEADINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WERE DECIDED SO
AS TO PRECLUDE A SECOND TRIAL OF THOSE ISSUES.  CIRCUMSTANCES NOW
UNDISCLOSED MAY JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION'S EXERCISE OF ITS FLEXIBLE
POWERS. 
..END :




STONE V. NEW YORK CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD CO. 344 U.S. 407 


NO. 320.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1953 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1953 - 249
S.W.2D 442, REVERSED. 


IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR AN INJURY SUFFERED BY PETITIONER
WHILE WORKING AS A MEMBER OF A SECTION CREW REMOVING OLD OR WORN
CROSSTIES ON RESPONDENT'S RAILROAD LINE, THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND
CAUSATION WERE PECULIARLY FOR THE JURY; AND THE REVERSAL OF A VERDICT
FOR PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT A SUBMISSIBLE CASE HAD NOT BEEN MADE
OUT WAS ERRONEOUS.  PP. 407-410. 

STONE V. NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

IN AN ACTION IN A STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, THE VERDICT WAS FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT
REVERSED.  249 S.W.2D 442.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S.
863.  REVERSED, P. 410. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS A MEMBER OF ONE OF RESPONDENT'S SECTION CREWS AND
WHILE IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT SEVERELY INJURED HIS BACK.  HE
BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR DAMAGES IN THE MISSOURI COURTS UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, 36 STAT. 291, 53 STAT.
1404, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ. THERE WAS A JURY TRIAL AND A VERDICT
FOR PETITIONER.  THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT REVERSED, HOLDING THAT
PLAINTIFF HAD NOT MADE OUT A SUBMISSIBLE CASE EITHER AS TO NEGLIGENCE
OR AS TO CAUSATION.  249 S.W.2D 442.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 
344 U.S. 863. 

AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY PETITIONER WAS REMOVING OLD OR WORN TRACK
TIES.  THE RAILS WOULD BE JACKED UP, THE SPIKES THAT HELD THE RAILS
PULLED, THE PLATES REMOVED, AND THE TIE PULLED.  THE TIES WERE USUALLY
PULLED WITH TONGS BY TWO MEN.  IF THERE WERE ANY OLD SPIKES PROTRUDING
DOWNWARD FROM THE TIE INTO THE GROUND, THREE OR FOUR MEN WOULD USUALLY
BE REQUIRED TO PULL THE TIE. 

THERE WERE THREE OTHER WAYS TO REMOVE A STUBBORN TIE.  ONE WAS TO DIG
A TRENCH BESIDE THE TIE AND THEN ROLL THE TIE INTO THE TRENCH.  ANOTHER
METHOD WAS TO JACK THE RAIL UP HIGH ENOUGH SO THE TIE WOULD COME FREE. 
THE OBJECTION TO THAT METHOD WAS THAT THE BALLAST WOULD RUN UNDER THE
OTHER TIES AND PRODUCE A HUMP IN THE TRACK.  ANOTHER WAY WAS TO FREE
THE RAIL FROM THE TIES A HALF-RAIL LENGTH ON EACH SIDE OF THE TIE TO BE
REMOVED AND THEN TO JACK THE RAIL UP, FREEING THE TIE SUFFICIENTLY SO
THAT IT COULD EASILY BE MOVED.  THIS METHOD HAD DISADVANTAGES ON A
TRACK AS ACTIVE AS THIS ONE IN THAT IT MEANT PUTTING UP A FLAG AND
STOPPING TRAINS. 

THIS DAY STOUGHTON, THE STRAW BOSS, USED ONLY THE FIRST METHOD. 
PETITIONER AND ONE FISH TOGETHER WERE UNABLE TO REMOVE A TIE BECAUSE,
AS IT TURNED OUT, A SPIKE WAS DRIVEN THROUGH IT INTO THE GROUND. 
STOUGHTON TOLD PETITIONER HE WAS NOT PULLING HARD ENOUGH.  STOUGHTON
PUT A BAR UNDER THE FAR END OF THE TIE WHILE PETITIONER AND FISH PULLED
AGAIN.  STILL THE TIE WOULD NOT COME.  STOUGHTON TOLD PETITIONER TO
PULL HARDER.  PETITIONER SAID HE WAS PULLING AS HARD AS HE COULD. 
STOUGHTON THEN SAID, "IF YOU CAN'T PULL ANY HARDER I WILL GET SOMEBODY
THAT WILL."  SO PETITIONER, WITH FISH, GAVE A HARD PULL AND HURT HIS
BACK.  THE TIE WAS FINALLY PULLED BY FOUR MEN - TWO PULLING, ONE PRYING
WITH A CROWBAR, ONE HAMMERING WITH A MAUL; AND IT TURNED OUT THAT THE
TIE HAD A SPIKE DRIVEN THROUGH IT AND EXTENDING INTO THE GROUND. 

WE THINK THE CASE WAS PECULIARLY ONE FOR THE JURY.  THE STANDARD OF
LIABILITY IS NEGLIGENCE.  THE QUESTION IS WHAT A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
PERSON WOULD HAVE DONE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  WILKERSON V. MCCARTHY,
336 U.S. 53, 61.  THE STRAW BOSS HAD ADDITIONAL MEN TO PUT ON THE
TONGS.  HE ALSO HAD THREE ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR REMOVING STUBBORN
TIES.  THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST DIFFICULT TIE ENCOUNTERED BY THE SECTION
CREW IN THIS STRETCH OF TRACK.  THE LIKELIHOOD OF INJURY TO MEN PULLING
OR LIFTING BEYOND THEIR CAPACITY IS OBVIOUS.  WHETHER THE STRAW BOSS IN
LIGHT OF THE RISKS SHOULD HAVE USED ANOTHER OR DIFFERENT METHOD TO
REMOVE THE TIE OR FAILING TO DO SO WAS CULPABLE IS THE ISSUE.  TO US IT
APPEARS TO BE A DEBATABLE ISSUE ON WHICH FAIR-MINDED MEN WOULD DIFFER. 
CF. BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO., 319 U.S. 350, 353; URIE V.
THOMPSON, 337 U.S. 163, 178.  THE EXPERIENCE WITH STUBBORN TIES, THE
ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF REMOVING THEM, THE WARNING BY PETITIONER THAT HE
HAD BEEN PULLING AS HARD AS HE COULD, THE COMMAND OF HIS SUPERIOR TO
PULL HARDER, THE FACT THAT MORE THAN TWO MEN WERE USUALLY USED IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES - ALL THESE FACTS COMPRISE THE SITUATION TO BE APPRAISED
IN DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS NEGLIGENT.  THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
WERE FOR THE TRIER OF FACTS TO APPRAISE.  CF. BLAIR V. B.&O.R. CO., 323
U.S. 600, 604.  THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE, COMMANDED TO DO THE ACT
THAT CAUSED THE INJURY, FIRST PROTESTED DOES NOT PLACE THE RISK OF
INJURY ON HIM.  ID., P. 605.  WE THINK THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ORDER OF STOUGHTON TO PULL HARDER AND
PETITIONER'S BACK INJURY.  THE FACT THAT FAIR-MINDED MEN MIGHT LIKEWISE
REACH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS ON THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE EMPHASIZES THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF ALSO LEAVING IT TO THE JURY.  ELLIS V. UNION PACIFIC
R. CO., 329 U.S. 649, 653; CORAY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 335 U.S. 520,
523; CARTER V. ATLANTA & ST. A.B.R. CO., 338 U.S. 430, 433.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT EMBODIES THE COMMON LAW
CONCEPTION OF NEGLIGENCE, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS.  THEREBY
IT HAS ESTABLISHED NATIONAL STANDARDS AS THE BASIS OF LIABILITY BY
CARRIERS FOR INJURIES OR DEATH TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES IN THE COURSE OF
THEIR OCCUPATION.  IT AUTHORIZED THIS LIABILITY TO BE ENFORCED IN THE
COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES AS WELL AS IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS.  SINCE THIS IS A FEDERAL STATUTE, THE STATE COURTS MUST CONFORM
TO THESE NATIONAL STANDARDS.  THUS, THE SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS UPON
COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS, AS FOR INSTANCE THOSE PERTAINING TO
ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND WAIVERS, MUST BE HEEDED BY THE STATE COURTS NO
MATTER WHAT THE LOCAL LAW OF NEGLIGENCE MAY BE. 

HOWEVER, THE CENTRAL COMPONENTS OF LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE - THAT IT
RESTS UPON FAULT AND THAT APPROPRIATE CAUSALITY MUST BE ESTABLISHED
BETWEEN THE NEGLIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE COMPLAINED-OF INJURY - ARE
THE SAME FOR ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' ACT AS FOR ANY OTHER
NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS.  FOR REASONS THAT I FOR ONE HAVE LONG DEPLORED,
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO MAKE SUCH A CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE THE BASIS OF
COMPENSATION FOR INEVITABLY UNTOWARD INCIDENTS. 

I DEPLORE THIS BASIS OF LIABILITY BECAUSE OF THE INJUSTICES AND
CRUDITIES INHERENT IN APPLYING THE COMMON LAW CONCEPTS OF NEGLIGENCE TO
RAILROADING.  TO FIT THE HAZARDS OF RAILROAD EMPLOYMENT INTO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IS TO EMPLOY A WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE
PROCEDURE - A PROCEDURE ADEQUATE TO THE SIMPLE SITUATIONS FOR WHICH IT
WAS ADAPTED BUT BRUTALLY UNFIT FOR THE SITUATIONS TO WHICH THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT REQUIRES THAT IT BE PUT.  THE RESULT IS A
MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE.  UNDER THE GUISE OF SUITS FOR NEGLIGENCE,
THE DISTORTIONS OF THE ACT'S APPLICATION HAVE TURNED IT MORE AND MORE
INTO A WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, BUT WITH ALL THE HAZARDS AND SOCIAL
UNDESIRABILITIES OF SUITS FOR NEGLIGENCE BECAUSE OF THE HIGH STAKES BY
WAY OF OCCASIONAL HEAVY DAMAGES, REALIZED ALL TOO OFTEN AFTER YEARS OF
UNEDIFYING LITIGATION. 

THE CENTRAL DIFFICULTY IN UTILIZING THE CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE FOR
THESE RAILROAD INJURIES IS THE VAST RANGE OF DISCRETION THAT ISSUES OF
FAULT AND OF CAUSALITY INEVITABLY LEAVE TO JUDGES IN DETERMINING WHAT
CONSCIENTIOUS JUDGES MUST DECIDE, NAMELY, WHETHER THE FACTS WARRANT A
FINDING OF FAULT AND CAUSALITY; IN OTHER WORDS, FIRST, THE TRIAL
JUDGE'S RULING WHETHER THERE WAS ENOUGH TO GO TO THE JURY, AND,
SECONDLY, THE DUTY OF APPELLATE JUDGES IN DECIDING WHETHER THE TRIAL
COURT COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON THOSE TWO
BASIC ISSUES TO HAVE THE CASE GO TO THE JURY AND ENOUGH, THEREFORE, TO
SUSTAIN A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  THAT EQUALLY HONEST AND EQUALLY
EXPERIENCED JUDGES, EQUALLY COMPASSIONATE TOWARD THE INJURED EMPLOYEE
OR HIS BEREAVED FAMILY, MAY DISAGREE ON THESE QUESTIONS, NO FAIR-MINDED
JUDGE, IT WOULD SEEM, CAN DENY.  THESE QUESTIONS OF ASSESSING FACTS ARE
OF A VERY DIFFERENT ORDER OF ISSUES FOR COURTS FROM RULINGS REGARDING
THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR A JURY'S GUIDANCE. 

UNIFORMITY OF DIRECTION IN FITTING THE MYRIAD DIVERSITY OF
CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS IS ESSENTIAL.  IT IS A DUTY
WHICH ULTIMATELY BELONGS TO THIS COURT AND ONE WHICH IT IS FITTED TO
DISCHARGE.  TO ASSESS THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE IS QUITE A
DIFFERENT MATTER.  AND FOR THE DECISIVE REASON THAT RIGHT AND WRONG ARE
NOT OBJECTIVELY ASCERTAINABLE, THAT IN FACT THERE IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG
WHEN TWO EQUALLY COMPETENT AND EQUALLY INDEPENDENT JUDGES, EQUALLY
DEVOID OF ANY BIAS OR POSSESSED OF THE SAME BIAS, COULD BY THE SAME
REASONING PROCESS REACH OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS ON THE FACTS. 

THIS IS SUCH A CASE.  FOR THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER I THINK THAT THE
TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THIS CASE TO GO TO THE JURY. 
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO ALLOW THIS ACTION TO BE BROUGHT IN THE STATE
COURTS AND TO FORBID REMOVAL OF A CASE TO THE FEDERAL COURT EVEN WHEN
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP EXISTS.  (THESE CASES IN THE STATE COURTS RUN
INTO THE THOUSANDS.)  IN THUS ENTRUSTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO THE STATE COURTS IT PRESUPPOSED, AS A
GENERALITY, THE COMPETENCE OF THE JUDICIARIES OF THE STATES, THEIR
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY TO ENFORCE THE ACT AND THEIR SELF-CRITICAL
FAIRNESS TOWARD ITS PURPOSES.  WHEN IT THUS PUT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
LAW IN THE KEEPING OF STATE COURTS, THE CONGRESS KNEW THAT THE
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THERE IS ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM
OF NEGLIGENCE IS ONE OF THE MOST ELUSIVE DETERMINATIONS THAT JUDGES ARE
CALLED UPON TO MAKE.  TO SUGGEST THAT THE CONGRESS KNEW THIS, AND HAS
KNOWN IT RIGHT ALONG, IS NOT TO INDULGE IN A FICTION.  CONGRESS IS
COMPOSED PREDOMINANTLY OF LAWYERS AND THIS ASPECT OF THE LAW OF
NEGLIGENCE IS KNOWN BY THE MEREST TYRO.  CONGRESS COULD HARDLY HAVE
ASSUMED WHEN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OF 1908 WAS ENACTED
THAT THIS COURT MUST REVERSE THE STATE JUDGES MERELY BECAUSE WE AND
THEY DIFFERED, WHERE DIFFERENCE WAS MORE THAN PERMISSIBLE, WAS
INEVITABLE, CONCERNING WHETHER OR NOT A PARTICULAR UNIQUE SET OF FACTS
MADE OUT A CASE OF NEGLIGENCE. 

CONGRESS VERY EARLY GAVE EMPHATIC PROOF THAT THIS WAS NOT THE COURT
TO SIT IN JUDGMENT UPON THE STATE COURTS EVERY TIME A MAJORITY OF THIS
COURT MIGHT VIEW THE EVIDENCE DIFFERENTLY THAN THE STATE COURT.  IN
1916 THE CONGRESS EXPLICITLY WITHDREW FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
CASES FROM THE COURT'S MANDATORY JURISDICTION AND LEFT THEM TO BE
REVIEWED ONLY WHEN A DETERMINATION BY A STATE COURT INVOLVED A FEDERAL
QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE.  39 STAT. 726, 727.   AND SO I DISSENT HERE
BECAUSE, WHILE I AM CLEAR THAT EQUALLY UNDERSTANDING AND FAIR-MINDED
JUDGES COULD HAVE HELD THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WERE FOR THE JURY, I
AM NO LESS CLEAR THAT I CANNOT SAY THAT THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
COULD NOT, AS IT DID, HOLD THAT THE PLAINTIFF "DID NOT MAKE A
SUBMISSIBLE CASE UNDER THE ACT EITHER AS TO NEGLIGENCE OR AS TO
CAUSATION."  249 S.W.2D 442, 449.  THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER
THE JUDGMENT OF THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED.  I
CANNOT SAY IT SHOULD BE ONCE I CONCLUDE THAT THE MISSOURI COURT WAS
ENTITLED TO THE VIEW IT TOOK AND THAT I AM NOT TO SUBSTITUTE MYSELF FOR
THAT COURT IN VIEWING THE FACTS, ALTHOUGH HAD I THE INDEPENDENT PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY OF JUDGMENT I WOULD TAKE THE OTHER VIEW. 
..END :







GORDON V. UNITED STATES 344 U.S. 414 


NO. 182.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17-18, 1952 - DECIDED FEB. 2, 1953 - 196 F.2D
886, REVERSED. 


PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF UNLAWFULLY
POSSESSING AND TRANSPORTING GOODS STOLEN WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, A KEY GOVERNMENT WITNESS ADMITTED THAT (1) PRIOR
TO THE TRIAL, HE HAD GIVEN TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS WRITTEN STATEMENTS
WHICH CONFLICTED WITH HIS TESTIMONY INCRIMINATING PETITIONERS AT THE
TRIAL, AND (2) HE HAD PLEADED GUILTY IN ANOTHER FEDERAL COURT TO
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE SAME STOLEN GOODS AND HAD NOT YET BEEN
SENTENCED.  HELD:

1.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF SUCH
CONFLICTING WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
PP. 417-421. 

2.  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXCLUDING FROM EVIDENCE A TRANSCRIPT OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE OTHER COURT SHOWING THAT, IN ACCEPTING THE
GUILTY PLEA AND DEFERRING SENTENCE OF THIS WITNESS, THE JUDGE HAD
ADVISED HIM "TO TELL THE PROBATION AUTHORITIES THE WHOLE STORY EVEN
THOUGH IT MIGHT INVOLVE OTHERS."  PP. 421-422. 

3.  THE COMBINATION OF THESE TWO ERRORS WAS SUFFICIENTLY PREJUDICIAL
TO REQUIRE REVERSAL OF PETITIONERS' CONVICTION.  PP. 422-423. 

GORDON ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION AND TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS STOLEN WHILE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  196 F.2D 886.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 813.  REVERSED, P. 423. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS GORDON AND MACLEOD WERE CONVICTED ON AN INDICTMENT OF
FOUR COUNTS, TWO CHARGING UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF GOODS STOLEN WHILE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FN1) AND TWO THAT DEFENDANTS CAUSED THIS PROPERTY
TO BE FURTHER TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  (FN2)  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED, (FN3) AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO QUESTIONS
CONCERNING PRODUCTION AND ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TENDING TO
IMPEACH THE TESTIMONY OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS.  (FN4) 

THE GOVERNMENT PROVED THAT FILM BEING SHIPPED FROM ROCHESTER, NEW
YORK, TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, WAS STOLEN FROM A TRUCK IN CHICAGO AND THAT
PART OF IT LATER HAD BEEN RECOVERED IN DETROIT.  TO IMPLICATE THE TWO
PETITIONERS, IT RELIED PRINCIPALLY ON ONE MARSHALL, WHO, IN DETROIT,
HAD PLEADED GUILTY TO UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE FILM.  MARSHALL
TESTIFIED THAT HE AND A CODEFENDANT, SWARTZ, WHO DIED BEFORE TRIAL, ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS HAD DRIVEN FROM DETROIT TO CHICAGO AND BACK.  ON EACH
VISIT THEY HAD STOPPED AT PETITIONER GORDON'S CHICAGO JEWELRY STORE. 
ON ONE TRIP, ACCORDING TO MARSHALL, GORDON ACCOMPANIED THEM TO A GARAGE
IN THAT CITY AND THERE GORDON AND A MAN RESEMBLING MACLEOD HELPED TO
LOAD INTO MARSHALL'S CAR FILM THAT WAS STACKED IN THE GARAGE.  A WEEK
LATER, MARSHALL SAID, HE AND SWARTZ AGAIN CALLED ON GORDON, WHEN THE
LATTER SENT THEM TO SEE "KEN" AT AN ADDRESS WHICH HE WROTE ON A PIECE
OF PAPER.  AT THIS ADDRESS, MACLEOD IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS "KEN," AND
AGAIN THE THREE MEN LOADED FILM FROM THE GARAGE INTO MARSHALL'S CAR. 

PARTIAL CORROBORATION OF MARSHALL WAS SUPPLIED BY A FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AGENT, WHO HAD BEEN WATCHING THE GARAGE.  HE TESTIFIED
THAT ON THE LATTER OCCASION HE SAW MARSHALL AND SWARTZ DRIVE UP TO
MACLEOD'S ADDRESS, WHEREUPON MACLEOD REMOVED AN OLD TRUCK FROM THE
GARAGE.  LATER, SWARTZ AND MARSHALL DROVE AWAY WITH FILM CARTONS
STACKED ON THE BACK SEAT OF MARSHALL'S CAR. 

BOTH PETITIONERS TOOK THE STAND AND DENIED COMPLICITY IN THE THEFT
AND KNOWLEDGE THAT THE FILM WAS STOLEN.  WHILE THEIR PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS
AS RECITED BY THEM WERE NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE RELATED BY
GOVERNMENT WITNESSES, PETITIONERS GAVE A DIFFERENT AND INNOCENT VERSION
OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THEIR ACTS TO THE CRIMINAL TRANSACTIONS.  GORDON
TESTIFIED THAT THE DECEASED SWARTZ WAS A BUSINESS ACQUAINTANCE WHO
ASKED ON THE FIRST VISIT IF GORDON KNEW OF A GARAGE WHERE A TRUCK COULD
BE TEMPORARILY STORED.  GORDON CALLED MACLEOD, WHO WAS HIS PARTNER IN A
ROOMING-HOUSE VENTURE, AND TOLD HIM THAT HE WOULD SEND TWO MEN OVER WHO
WISHED TO USE A GARAGE BACK OF THE ROOMING HOUSE.  MACLEOD TESTIFIED
THAT HE HAD NOT KNOWN EITHER OF THE MEN BEFORE THEY PLACED A TRUCK IN
THE GARAGE AND THAT, AT THEIR REQUEST, HE HAD HELPED LOAD FILM FROM THE
TRUCK INTO MARSHALL'S CAR MERELY AS A FAVOR. 

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, MARSHALL ADMITTED THAT BETWEEN HIS APPREHENSION
AND HIS FINAL STATEMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH IMPLICATED
PETITIONERS, HE HAD MADE THREE OR FOUR STATEMENTS WHICH DID NOT. 
PETITIONERS REQUESTED THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ORDER THE GOVERNMENT TO
PRODUCE THESE EARLIER STATEMENTS.  THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.  MARSHALL
ALSO ADMITTED THAT, ONE WEEK BEFORE HE MADE ANY STATEMENT INCRIMINATING
PETITIONERS, HE HAD PLEADED GUILTY TO UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE FILM
IN A FEDERAL COURT IN DETROIT.  HE WAS STILL UNSENTENCED AND NO DATE
FOR SENTENCING HAD BEEN SET, ALTHOUGH NINE MONTHS HAD ELAPSED SINCE
THIS PLEA WAS RECEIVED.  HE DENIED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ANY PROMISE OF
IMMUNITY OR THREATS WHICH WOULD INFLUENCE HIM TO TESTIFY AS HE DID. 
PETITIONERS THEN SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE DETROIT
PROCEEDING THIS STATEMENT MADE TO MARSHALL BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
JUDGE:  "VERY WELL, THE PLEA OF GUILTY IS ACCEPTED.  NOW, I AM GOING TO
REFER YOUR CASE TO THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT FOR PRESENTENCE REPORT.  I
THINK I SHOULD SAY TO YOU, AS I SAID TO YOUR LAWYER YESTERDAY WHEN HE
AND MR. SMITH CALLED UPON ME IN CHAMBERS YESTERDAY MORNING, THAT IT
SEEMED TO ME THAT IF YOU INTENDED TO PLEAD GUILTY AND EXPECTED A
RECOMMENDATION FOR A LENIENT SENTENCE OR FOR PROBATION FROM THE
PROBATION DEPARTMENT, THAT IT WOULD BE ESSENTIAL THAT YOU SATISFY THE
PROBATION DEPARTMENT THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITIES ALL THE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE MERCHANDISE INVOLVED IN
THIS PROCEEDING  ...  .  I AM NOT HOLDING OUT ANY PROMISES TO YOU, BUT
I THINK YOU WOULD BE WELL ADVISED TO TELL THE PROBATION AUTHORITIES THE
WHOLE STORY EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT INVOLVE OTHERS."  THIS WAS EXCLUDED ON
THE OBJECTION THAT IT WAS IMMATERIAL. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE IN HIS CHARGE AND THE COURT OF APPEALS IN ITS OPINION
(FN5) RECOGNIZED THAT, WHERE, AS HERE, THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE MAY STAND
OR FALL ON THE JURY'S BELIEF OR DISBELIEF OF ONE WITNESS, HIS
CREDIBILITY IS SUBJECT TO CLOSE SCRUTINY.  BUT THE QUESTION FOR THIS
COURT IS WHETHER REJECTION OF PETITIONERS' TWO EFFORTS TO IMPEACH THE
CREDIBILITY OF MARSHALL DID NOT WITHHOLD FROM THE JURY INFORMATION
NECESSARY TO A DISCRIMINATING APPRAISAL OF HIS TRUSTWORTHINESS TO THE
PREJUDICE OF PETITIONERS' SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.  THE TWO ISSUES STAND ON
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT GROUNDS. 

THE REQUEST BY THE ACCUSED TO ORDER PRODUCTION OF MARSHALL'S EARLIER
STATEMENTS WAS CAST IN TERMS OF OBTAINING ACCESS TO DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE RATHER THAN AN OFFER THAT WOULD REQUIRE A RULING ON ITS
ADMISSIBILITY.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT APPARENTLY CONCEDES, AS WE THINK IT
MUST, THAT IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PREJUDICIAL ERROR FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE
TO EXCLUDE THESE STATEMENTS, HAD THE DEFENSE BEEN ABLE TO OFFER THEM,
IT WAS ERROR NOT TO ORDER THEIR PRODUCTION.  THE RELATION OF
ADMISSIBILITY TO PRODUCTION FOR INSPECTION IS BY NO MEANS SETTLED IN
THE VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS, BUT WE CONCLUDE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT
CONCEDE ENOUGH.  DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION AND OFFERS IN EVIDENCE RAISE
RELATED ISSUES BUT INDEPENDENT ONES, AND PRODUCTION MAY SOMETIMES BE
REQUIRED THOUGH INSPECTION MAY SHOW THAT THE DOCUMENT COULD PROPERLY BE
EXCLUDED. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC LEGISLATION, QUESTIONS OF THIS NATURE ARE
GOVERNED "BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW AS THEY MAY BE
INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE LIGHT OF REASON
AND EXPERIENCE."  (FN6)  APPARENTLY, EARLIER COMMON LAW DID NOT PERMIT
THE ACCUSED TO REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS.  (FN7)  SOME STATE
JURISDICTIONS STILL RECOGNIZE NO COMPREHENSIVE RIGHT TO SEE DOCUMENTS
IN THE HANDS OF THE PROSECUTION MERELY BECAUSE THEY MIGHT AID IN THE
PREPARATION OR PRESENTATION OF THE DEFENSE.  (FN8)  WE NEED NOT
CONSIDER SUCH BROAD DOCTRINES IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THIS CASE, WHICH
DEALS WITH A LIMITED AND DEFINITE CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS TO WHICH THE
HOLDINGS OF THIS OPINION ARE LIKEWISE CONFINED. 

BY PROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL LAID A FOUNDATION FOR
HIS DEMAND BY SHOWING THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE IN EXISTENCE, WERE IN
POSSESSION OF THE GOVERNMENT, WERE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESS
UNDER EXAMINATION, WERE CONTRADICTORY OF HIS PRESENT TESTIMONY, AND
THAT THE CONTRADICTION WAS AS TO RELEVANT, IMPORTANT AND MATERIAL
MATTERS WHICH DIRECTLY BORE ON THE MAIN ISSUE BEING TRIED:  THE
PARTICIPATION OF THE ACCUSED IN THE CRIME.  THE DEMAND WAS FOR
PRODUCTION OF THESE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS AND DID NOT PROPOSE ANY BROAD OR
BLIND FISHING EXPEDITION AMONG DOCUMENTS POSSESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON
THE CHANCE THAT SOMETHING IMPEACHING MIGHT TURN UP.  (FN9)  NOR WAS
THIS A DEMAND FOR STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM PERSONS OR INFORMANTS NOT
OFFERED AS WITNESSES.  (FN10)  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ASSERT ANY
PRIVILEGE FOR THE DOCUMENTS ON GROUNDS OF NATIONAL SECURITY,
CONFIDENTIAL CHARACTER, PUBLIC INTEREST, OR OTHERWISE. 

DESPITE SOME CONTRARY HOLDINGS ON WHICH THE COURTS BELOW MAY HAVE
RELIED, WE THINK THEIR REASONING IS OUTWEIGHED BY THAT OF HIGHLY
RESPECTABLE AUTHORITY IN STATE AND LOWER FEDERAL COURTS IN SUPPORT OF
THE VIEW THAT AN ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH
DOCUMENTS.  (FN11)  INDEED, WE WOULD FIND IT HARD TO WITHSTAND THE
FORCE OF JUDGE COOLEY'S OBSERVATION IN A SIMILAR SITUATION THAT "THE
STATE HAS NO INTEREST IN INTERPOSING ANY OBSTACLE TO THE DISCLOSURE OF
THE FACTS, UNLESS IT IS INTERESTED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED PARTIES ON THE
TESTIMONY OF UNTRUSTWORTHY PERSONS."  (FN12)  IN THE LIGHT OF OUR
REASON AND EXPERIENCE, THE BETTER RULE IS THAT UPON THE FOUNDATION THAT
WAS LAID THE COURT SHOULD HAVE OVERRULED THE OBJECTIONS WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT ADVANCED AND ORDERED PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS. 

THE TRIAL COURT, OF COURSE, HAD NO OCCASION TO RULE AS TO THEIR
ADMISSIBILITY, AND WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION
ONLY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE, IN THE
EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION, MIGHT HAVE EXCLUDED THESE PRIOR
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS AND, SINCE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE AMOUNTED TO
REVERSIBLE ERROR, IT WAS NOT SUCH TO DECLINE THEIR PRODUCTION.  WE
THINK THIS MISCONCEIVES THE ISSUE.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE TO EXCLUDE
THESE STATEMENTS ONCE THEY HAD BEEN PRODUCED AND INSPECTED.  (FN13)
FOR PRODUCTION PURPOSES, IT NEED ONLY APPEAR THAT THE EVIDENCE IS
RELEVANT, COMPETENT, AND OUTSIDE OF ANY EXCLUSIONARY RULE; FOR RARELY
CAN THE TRIAL JUDGE UNDERSTANDINGLY EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE
A DOCUMENT WHICH HE HAS NOT SEEN, AND NO APPELLATE COURT COULD
RATIONALLY SAY WHETHER THE EXCLUDING OF EVIDENCE UNKNOWN TO THE RECORD
WAS ERROR, OR, IF SO, WAS HARMLESS.  THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED ON AN
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO PRODUCE IS ONE OF ADMISSIBILITY UNDER
TRADITIONAL CANONS OF EVIDENCE, AND NOT WHETHER EXCLUSION MIGHT BE
OVERLOOKED AS HARMLESS ERROR. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT MARSHALL'S
ADMISSION, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, OF THE IMPLICIT CONTRADICTION BETWEEN
THE DOCUMENTS AND HIS TESTIMONY REMOVED THE NEED FOR RESORT TO THE
STATEMENTS AND THE ADMISSION WAS ALL THE ACCUSED WERE ENTITLED TO
DEMAND.  WE CANNOT AGREE.  WE THINK THAT AN ADMISSION THAT A
CONTRADICTION IS CONTAINED IN A WRITING SHOULD NOT BAR ADMISSION OF THE
DOCUMENT ITSELF IN EVIDENCE, PROVIDING IT MEETS ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS
OF ADMISSIBILITY AND NO VALID CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE IS RAISED AGAINST IT.
(FN14)  THE ELEMENTARY WISDOM OF THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE RESTS ON THE
FACT THAT THE DOCUMENT IS A MORE RELIABLE, COMPLETE AND ACCURATE SOURCE
OF INFORMATION AS TO ITS CONTENTS AND MEANING THAN ANYONE'S DESCRIPTION
AND THIS IS NO LESS TRUE AS TO THE EXTENT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A
CONTRADICTION.  WE HOLD THAT THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO THE APPLICATION
OF THAT RULE, NOT MERELY BECAUSE IT WILL EMPHASIZE THE CONTRADICTION TO
THE JURY, BUT BECAUSE IT WILL BEST INFORM THEM AS TO THE DOCUMENT'S
IMPEACHING WEIGHT AND SIGNIFICANCE.  (FN15) TRADITIONAL RULES OF
ADMISSIBILITY PREVENT OPENING THE DOOR TO DOCUMENTS WHICH MERELY DIFFER
ON IMMATERIAL MATTERS.  THE ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS TO THIS WITNESS'
TESTIMONY RELATE NOT TO COLLATERAL MATTERS BUT TO THE VERY
INCRIMINATION OF PETITIONERS.  EXCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF THIS WITNESS BE
BELIEVED, THIS CONVICTION PROBABLY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN HAD.  YET, HIS
FIRST STATEMENT WAS THAT HE GOT THE FILM FROM SWARTZ; HIS FIRST FOUR
STATEMENTS DID NOT IMPLICATE THESE PETITIONERS AND HIS FIFTH DID SO
ONLY AFTER THE JUDICIAL ADMONITION WE WILL LATER CONSIDER.  THE WEIGHT
TO BE GIVEN MARSHALL'S IMPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS WAS DECISIVE. 
SINCE, SO FAR AS WE ARE NOW INFORMED BY THE RECORD, WE THINK THE
STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION BASED ON A PREMISE THAT THE COURT WAS FREE TO EXCLUDE THEM. 
IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR THEIR PRODUCTION. 

THE SECOND EFFORT TO IMPEACH MARSHALL WAS TO OFFER PARTS ALREADY
QUOTED FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN DETROIT.  ALTHOUGH
MARSHALL ADMITTED PLEADING GUILTY TO THE OFFENSE AND THAT NINE MONTHS
LATER HE WAS STILL UNSENTENCED, HE DENIED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED EITHER
PROMISES OR THREATS.  THE TRANSCRIPT WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE JURY THAT A
FEDERAL JUDGE, WHO STILL RETAINED POWER TO FIX HIS SENTENCE, IN
DISCUSSING MARSHALL'S EXPECTATION OF A "RECOMMENDATION FOR A LENIENT
SENTENCE OR FOR PROBATION" HAD URGED HIM TO TELL ALL HE KNEW, "EVEN
THOUGH IT MIGHT INVOLVE OTHERS."  INVOLVEMENT OF OTHERS, WHOM MARSHALL
HAD NOT THERETOFORE MENTIONED, SOON FOLLOWED.  WE THINK THE JURY SHOULD
HAVE HEARD THIS WARNING OF THE JUDGE, WHICH WAS AN ADDITION TO THE
MATTER BROUGHT OUT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.  THE QUESTION FOR THEM IS NOT
WHAT THE JUDGE INTENDED BY THE ADMONITION, NOR HOW WE, OR EVEN THEY
CONSTRUE ITS MEANING.  WE IMPLY NO CRITICISM OF IT, AND HE EXPRESSLY
STATED THAT HE WAS HOLDING OUT NO PROMISE.  BUT THE QUESTION FOR THE
JURY IS WHAT EFFECT THEY THINK THESE WORDS HAD ON THE MIND AND CONDUCT
OF A PRISONER WHOSE PLEA OF GUILTY PUT HIM IN LARGE MEASURE IN THE
HANDS OF THE SPEAKER.  THEY MIGHT HAVE REGARDED IT AS AN INCENTIVE TO
INVOLVE OTHERS, AND TO SUPPLY A MOTIVE FOR MARSHALL'S TESTIMONY OTHER
THAN A DUTY TO RECOUNT THE FACTS AS BEST HE COULD REMEMBER THEM. 
RELUCTANT AS WE ARE TO DIFFER WITH AN EXPERIENCED TRIAL JUDGE ON THE
SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS WITNESS CONSTRAINS
US TO HOLD THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDED.    WE BELIEVE,
MOREOVER, THAT THE COMBINATION OF THESE TWO ERRORS WAS SUFFICIENTLY
PREJUDICIAL TO REQUIRE REVERSAL.  THE GOVERNMENT, IN ITS BRIEF, ARGUES
STRONGLY FOR THE WIDEST SORT OF DISCRETION IN THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THESE
MATTERS AND URGES THAT EVEN IF WE FIND ERROR OR IRREGULARITY WE
DISREGARD IT AS HARMLESS (FN16) AND AFFIRM THE CONVICTION.  WE ARE WELL
AWARE OF THE NECESSITY THAT APPELLATE COURTS GIVE THE TRIAL JUDGE WIDE
LATITUDE IN CONTROL OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, ESPECIALLY IN DEALING WITH
COLLATERAL EVIDENCE AS TO CHARACTER.  MICHELSON V. UNITED STATES, 335
U.S. 469.  BUT THIS PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE EXPANDED TO JUSTIFY A
CURTAILMENT WHICH KEEPS FROM THE JURY RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT FACTS
BEARING ON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF CRUCIAL TESTIMONY.  REVERSALS SHOULD
NOT BE BASED ON TRIVIAL, THEORETICAL AND HARMLESS RULINGS.  BUT WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THESE ERRORS WERE UNLIKELY TO HAVE INFLUENCED THE
JURY'S VERDICT.  WE BELIEVE THEY PREJUDICED SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS AND THE
JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 659. 

FN2  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 2314. 

FN3  196 F.2D 886. 

FN4  344 U.S. 813. 

FN5  196 F.2D 886, 888. 

FN6  FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371; FED. RULES CRIM. PROC.,
26. 

FN7  6 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, SEC. 1859G. 

FN8  2 WHARTON'S CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (11TH ED.)  SEC.  785. 

FN9  AS TO THE PRETRIAL DISCOVERY STAGE, COMPARE FED. RULES CIV.
PROC., 34, WITH THE NARROWER PROVISIONS OF FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., 16. 

FN10  IN GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 129, THE NOTES SOUGHT TO
BE INSPECTED HAD NEITHER BEEN USED IN COURT, NOR WAS THERE ANY PROOF
THAT THEY WOULD SHOW PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. 

FN11  ASGILL V. UNITED STATES, 60 F.2D 776; UNITED STATES V.
KRULEWITCH, 145 F.2D 76, 79; PEOPLE V. DAVIS, 52 MICH. 569, 18 N.W.
362; STATE V. BACHMAN, 41 NEV. 197, 168 P. 733; PEOPLE V. SCHAINUCK,
286 N.Y. 161, 164, 36 N.E.2D 94, 95-96; PEOPLE V. WALSH, 262 N.Y. 140,
186 N.E. 422. 

FN12  PEOPLE V. DAVIS, 52 MICH. 569, 573, 18 N.W. 362, 363. 

FN13  WE NOTE IN PASSING THAT THE RULES RELATING TO IMPEACHMENT BY
PRIOR SELF-CONTRADICTION, WHICH PROVIDE THAT SUCH CONTRADICTION MAY BE
SHOWN ONLY ON A MATTER MATERIAL TO THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF THE TRIAL,
CONTAIN WITHIN THEMSELVES A GUARANTEE AGAINST MULTIPLICATION AND
CONFUSION OF ISSUES.  THEREFORE THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE IN
EXCLUDING OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THIS TYPE IS NOT AS WIDE AS
IT IS IN THE VAGUE AND AMORPHOUS AREA OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHARACTER
WITNESSES.   SEE MICHELSON V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 469. 

FN14  3 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, SEC. 1037; 3 WHARTON'S CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
(11TH ED.)  SEC.  1309. 

FN15  THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE IS USUALLY RELIED UPON BY ONE OPPOSING
ADMISSION, ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE PROPONENT
DOES NOT MEET ITS STANDARDS.  ITS MERIT AS AN ASSURANCE OF THE MOST
ACCURATE RECORD POSSIBLE COMMENDS ITS EXTENSION TO THIS UNIQUE
SITUATION WHERE IT IS THE PROPONENT WHO SEEKS TO RELY ON IT. 

FN16  FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., 52 ADMONISHES US THAT "ANY ERROR,
DEFECT, IRREGULARITY OR VARIANCE WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHTS SHALL BE DISREGARDED." 
..END :




















BROCK V. NORTH CAROLINA 344 U.S. 424 


NO. 34.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1952 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1953 - 234 N.C.
390, 67 S.E.2D 282, AFFIRMED. 


AT A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF PETITIONER IN A NORTH CAROLINA STATE
COURT, THE JUDGE DECLARED A MISTRIAL ON THE MOTION OF THE PROSECUTION
AFTER TWO OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES REFUSED TO GIVE ANY TESTIMONY BEFORE
THE JURY.  PETITIONER WAS LATER CONVICTED OF THE SAME OFFENSE IN
ANOTHER TRIAL AND HIS PLEA OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY OVERRULED.  HELD:  TO TRY
PETITIONER A SECOND TIME FOR THE SAME OFFENSE AFTER A FIRST TRIAL HAD
BEEN INTERRUPTED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE DID NOT VIOLATE THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 424-428. 

BROCK V. NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A NORTH
CAROLINA STATE COURT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  234 N.C. 390,
67 S.E.2D 282.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 914. 
AFFIRMED, P. 428. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER AND TWO OTHERS, JIM COOK AND ELMER MATTHEWS, EMPLOYEES
ON STRIKE FROM A MILL AT TARBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, WERE ARRESTED FOR
FIRING FIVE SHOTS FROM A PASSING AUTO INTO THE HOUSE OF A WATCHMAN AT
THE MILL, J.D. WYATT.  WYATT'S HOUSE WAS OCCUPIED AT THE TIME OF THE
SHOOTING BY HIMSELF, HIS WIFE, HIS DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW, AND THE
LATTER COUPLE'S BABY.  AFTER THE SHOOTING, THE PETITIONER AND COOK AND
MATTHEWS WERE TAKEN TO THE JAIL.  IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SHERIFF, A
POLICE OFFICER, AND THE PETITIONER, COOK STATED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD
HELPED PLAN THE ASSUALT AND HAD FIRED THE SHOTS. 

COOK AND MATTHEWS WERE TRIED FIRST AND WERE FOUND GUILTY OF ASSAULT
WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.  BEFORE JUDGMENTS WERE ENTERED ON THEIR
CONVICTIONS, THE PETITIONER WAS PLACED ON TRIAL.  THE STATE PUT THREE
WITNESSES ON THE STAND - THE SHERIFF, THE POLICE OFFICER, AND WYATT'S
SON-IN-LAW.  THE STATE THEN PUT COOK AND MATTHEWS ON THE STAND,
INTENDING TO USE THEIR TESTIMONY TO CORROBORATE THAT OF THE OTHER THREE
WITNESSES.  COOK AND MATTHEWS REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THE
STATE ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ANSWERS MIGHT TEND TO INCRIMINATE THEM,
AND THEIR COUNSEL INFORMED THE COURT THAT IN THE EVENT OF AN ADVERSE
JUDGMENT ON THEIR CONVICTIONS, THEY WOULD APPEAL THEREFROM TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.  THE TRIAL COURT UPHELD THEIR REFUSAL
TO ANSWER.  THE STATE REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THAT THE TESTIMONY OF
COOK AND MATTHEWS WAS NECESSARY FOR THE STATE TO PRESENT ITS CASE FULLY
BEFORE THE JURY, AND MOVED THAT THE COURT WITHDRAW A JUROR FROM THE
SWORN PANEL AND DECLARE A MISTRIAL.  THE COURT DID SO, STATING:  "BEING
OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT THE STATE HAVE
AVAILABLE FOR IT TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES JIM COOK AND ELMER MATTHEWS
WHEN THE CASE IS TRIED AND THAT THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THOSE
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AFTER THEIR CASES HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF IN THE
SUPREME COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION WITHDRAWS A JUROR  ...  AND ORDERS A
MISTRIAL OF THIS CASE AND THAT THE SAME BE CONTINUED."  THE PETITIONER
OBJECTED. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS OF COOK
AND MATTHEWS.  231 N.C. 617, 58 S.E.2D 625.  THE STATE THEN PROCEEDED
TO IMPANEL A JURY FOR THE SECOND TIME, AND THIS TIME IT TRIED THE
PETITIONER TO CONCLUSION BEFORE THIS PANEL.  HE OBJECTED THAT TO DO SO
WOULD PLACE HIM IN JEOPARDY A SECOND TIME AND THUS DENY HIM DUE PROCESS
OF LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  HIS OBJECTION WAS OVERRULED, AND HE
WAS PLACED ON TRIAL.  COOK TESTIFIED AS A WITNESS FOR THE STATE.  THE
PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED TO TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. 
FROM THIS JUDGMENT, HE APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA,
WHICH AFFIRMED HIS CONVICTION.  STATE V. BROCK, 234 N.C. 390, 67 S.E.2D
282.  HE THEN SOUGHT CERTIORARI HERE, WHICH WE GRANTED.  343 U.S. 914. 

NORTH CAROLINA HAS SAID THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY BECAUSE THE TRIAL
COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AND REQUIRE THE
DEFENDANT TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE ANOTHER JURY IF IT BE IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE TO DO SO.  THIS HAS LONG BEEN THE COMMON-LAW RULE IN NORTH
CAROLINA.  STATE V. BROCK, SUPRA; STATE V. DOVE, 222 N.C. 162, 22
S.E.2D 231; STATE V. GUICE, 201 N.C. 761, 161 S.E. 533; STATE V.
WEAVER, 13 IRED.  L. (35 N.C.)  203. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER SUCH A PROCEDURE WOULD BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY UNDER
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT
RAISED IN THIS CASE, AS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT APPLIES ONLY TO FEDERAL
JURISDICTIONS.  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319; TWINING V. NEW
JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEFENDANT
SHALL BE PRESENTED FOR TRIAL BEFORE A SECOND JURY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE
VIOLATES DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS REQUIRED OF THE STATE UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE QUESTION HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE UNDER
DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, THE DEFENDANT
WAS FIRST TRIED FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND WAS FOUND GUILTY OF
MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.  PURSUANT TO A STATUTE OF CONNECTICUT, THE
STATE APPEALED AND OBTAINED A REVERSAL FOR ERRORS OF LAW AT THE TRIAL. 
THE DEFENDANT WAS RETRIED, CONVICTED OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND
SENTENCED TO DEATH.  AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT RAISED THE QUESTION
WHETHER OR NOT THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE STAND TRIAL A SECOND TIME FOR
THE SAME OFFENSE PLACED HIM TWICE IN JEOPARDY, IN VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS. 

THIS COURT HELD THAT THE STATE HAD NOT DENIED THE DEFENDANT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  IN ORDER TO INDICATE THE NATURE OF DUE PROCESS, THIS
COURT ASKED TWO QUESTIONS: 

"IS THAT KIND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY TO WHICH THE STATUTE HAS SUBJECTED
HIM A HARDSHIP SO ACUTE AND SHOCKING THAT OUR POLITY WILL NOT ENDURE
IT?  DOES IT VIOLATE THOSE 'FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE WHICH LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR CIVIL AND POLITICAL
INSTITUTIONS'?  ...  THE ANSWER SURELY MUST BE 'NO.'"  302 U.S. 319,
328. 

HERE THE ANSWER MUST BE THE SAME. 

THIS COURT HAS LONG FAVORED THE RULE OF DISCRETION IN THE TRIAL JUDGE
TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AND TO REQUIRE ANOTHER PANEL TO TRY THE DEFENDANT
IF THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL BE BEST SERVED.  WADE V. HUNTER, 336 U.S.
684; THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 155 U.S. 271, 273-274.  AS WAS SAID IN
WADE V. HUNTER, SUPRA, P. 690, "A TRIAL CAN BE DISCONTINUED WHEN
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES MANIFEST A NECESSITY FOR SO DOING, AND WHEN
FAILURE TO DISCONTINUE WOULD DEFEAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE."  JUSTICE TO
EITHER OR BOTH PARTIES MAY INDICATE TO THE WISE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE THAT HE DECLARE A MISTRIAL AND REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO STAND
TRIAL BEFORE ANOTHER JURY.  AS IN ALL CASES INVOLVING WHAT IS OR IS NOT
DUE PROCESS, SO IN THIS CASE, NO HARD AND FAST RULE CAN BE LAID DOWN. 
THE PATTERN OF DUE PROCESS IS PICKED OUT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF EACH CASE.  THE PATTERN HERE, LONG IN USE IN NORTH CAROLINA, DOES
NOT DENY THE FUNDAMENTAL ESSENTIALS OF A TRIAL, "THE VERY ESSENCE OF A
SCHEME OF ORDERED JUSTICE," WHICH IS DUE PROCESS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

ONCE IT IS AGREED THAT THE CLAIM HERE MADE - FREEDOM FROM BEING TRIED
A SECOND TIME ON A CRIMINAL CHARGE - MUST BE TESTED BY THE INDEPENDENT
SCOPE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND NOT ON
THE BASIS OF THE INCORPORATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT INTO THE
FOURTEENTH, THE APPLICATION OF THE GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS TO A
SPECIFIC SITUATION MAKES RELEVANT THE SPECIFIC PHRASING OF A COMMON
RESULT.  I, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD A WORD TO THE COURT'S
OPINION, IN WHICH I JOIN. 

THE JUDICIAL HISTORY OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN PROHIBITING ANY PERSON
FROM BEING "SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF
LIFE OR LIMB" SERVES AS A GOOD PRAGMATIC CONFIRMATION OF THE COMPELLING
REASONS WHY THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS WAS FOUND TO LIMIT THE ACTIONS
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT THOSE OF THE STATES.  THE CONFLICTING
VIEWS EXPRESSED IN EX PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163; KEPNER V. UNITED
STATES, 195 U.S. 100; TRONO V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 521; IN RE
BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50; AND WADE V. HUNTER, 336 U.S. 684, INDICATE THE
SUBTLE TECHNICAL CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE PROVISION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY HAS GIVEN RISE.  IMPLICATIONS HAVE
BEEN FOUND IN THAT PROVISION VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE MOOD OF FAIR
DEALING AND JUSTICE WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EXACTS FROM A STATE
IN THE PROSECUTION OF OFFENDERS.  A STATE FALLS SHORT OF ITS OBLIGATION
WHEN IT CALLOUSLY SUBJECTS AN INDIVIDUAL TO SUCCESSIVE RETRIALS ON A
CHARGE ON WHICH HE HAS BEEN ACQUITTED OR PREVENTS A TRIAL FROM
PROCEEDING TO A TERMINATION IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED MERELY IN ORDER TO
ALLOW A PROSECUTOR WHO HAS BEEN INCOMPETENT OR CASUAL OR EVEN
INEFFECTIVE TO SEE IF HE CANNOT DO BETTER A SECOND TIME. 

UNLESS WE CAN SAY THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IN CONCLUDING THAT THE GROUND FOR REQUESTING
A MISTRIAL WAS FAIR AND NOT OPPRESSIVE TO THE ACCUSED, WE WOULD NOT BE
WARRANTED IN FINDING THAT THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, THROUGH ITS
SUPREME COURT, DENIED THE PETITIONER DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE RECORD
DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO JUSTIFY SUCH A FINDING. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, DISSENTING. 

THE PETITIONER AND TWO OTHERS, COOK AND MATTHEWS, WERE INDICTED FOR
SHOOTING INTO THE HOME OF J.D. WYATT WHEN WYATT AND FOUR OTHER PERSONS
WERE PRESENT THEREIN.  AFTER ARREST, COOK AND MATTHEWS CONFESSED,
CHARGING BROCK WITH FIRING THE SHOTS.  BROCK MADE NO CONFESSION. 

COOK AND MATTHEWS WERE TRIED TOGETHER.  WYATT, HATHAWAY AND BARDIN,
THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY, WERE THE WITNESSES PRESENTED BY THE STATE. 
BARDIN, THE SHERIFF, TESTIFIED AS TO THE CONFESSIONS OF COOK AND
MATTHEWS.  COOK AND MATTHEWS DID NOT TESTIFY IN THEIR OWN BEHALF. 
THERE WAS A VERDICT OF GUILTY OF ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. 

JUDGMENT HAD NOT BEEN ENTERED ON THE VERDICT WHEN BROCK WAS PLACED ON
TRIAL. 

THE SAME WITNESSES USED IN THE FOREGOING TRIAL, WYATT, HATHAWAY AND
BARDIN, TESTIFIED FOR THE STATE.  THE LATTER WITNESS AGAIN TESTIFIED
THAT COOK AND MATTHEWS HAD STATED THAT BROCK FIRED INTO THE HOUSE.  THE
PROSECUTOR OFFERED COOK AND MATTHEWS AS WITNESSES.  THEY DECLINED TO
TESTIFY ON THE GROUND OF SELF-INCRIMINATION, AND THE COURT SUSTAINED
THIS CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE. 

AT THIS POINT, THE SOLICITOR MOVED TO WITHDRAW A JUROR AND FOR A
MISTRIAL AND THE CONTINUANCE OF THE CASE PENDING FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST
COOK AND MATTHEWS.  HIS MOTION WAS GRANTED, AND A MISTRIAL AND
CONTINUANCE OF THE CASE ORDERED. 

THEREAFTER, A JUDGMENT OF TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT WAS ENTERED ON THE
VERDICT AGAINST COOK AND MATTHEWS.  THEIR APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF NORTH CAROLINA WAS AFFIRMED.  231 N.C.  617, 58 S.E.2D 625 (1950). 

SUBSEQUENTLY, BROCK WAS BROUGHT TO TRIAL AGAIN.  HE INTERPOSED A PLEA
OF FORMER JEOPARDY WHICH THE COURT DENIED.  PROPER EXCEPTIONS WERE
TAKEN AND THE FEDERAL QUESTION HEREIN PRESENTED AND PRESERVED.   THEN
HE PLEADED NOT GUILTY TO THE INDICTMENT.  THE SAME THREE WITNESSES,
WYATT, HATHAWAY AND BARDIN, THE SHERIFF, TESTIFIED IN BROCK'S SECOND
TRIAL TO FACTS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THEIR EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST
TRIAL.  THE SHERIFF REITERATED HIS TESTIMONY THAT COOK AND MATTHEWS HAD
STATED THAT BROCK FIRED THE RIFLE INTO THE HOUSE.  THEREUPON, THE
SOLICITOR CALLED COOK AND MATTHEWS TO THE STAND, AND THIS TIME THEY
TESTIFIED TO THE PART THAT THEY TOOK IN THE SHOOTING AND THAT BROCK HAD
FIRED INTO THE WYATT HOME.  THE JURY CONVICTED, AND BROCK WAS SENTENCED
FOR A TWO-YEAR IMPRISONMENT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT, HOLDING
THAT BROCK'S PLEA OF FORMER JEOPARDY WAS PROPERLY DENIED.  STATE V.
BROCK, 234 N.C. 390, 67 S.E.2D 282 (1951). 

THE PETITIONER IS HERE URGING THAT HE WAS PLACED IN JEOPARDY A SECOND
TIME, AND THEREBY WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED TO HIM BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 914 (1952). 

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COURT, IT IS URGED THAT A
STATE COULD GRANT A MISTRIAL IN ORDER THAT IT MIGHT PRESENT A STRONGER
CASE AT SOME LATER TRIAL AND, IN SO DOING, AVOID A PLEA OF FORMER
JEOPARDY IN THE SECOND TRIAL. 

THE SOLICITOR HAD CONVICTED TWO DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN THE SAME CRIME,
BY THE TESTIMONY OF WYATT, HATHAWAY AND BARDIN, THE SHERIFF.  COOK AND
MATTHEWS HAD REFUSED TO TESTIFY IN THEIR OWN BEHALF IN THAT TRIAL. 
IMMEDIATELY THE FIRST BROCK TRIAL FOLLOWED.  THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
AGAINST COOK AND MATTHEWS HAD NOT BEEN ENTERED.  NO MOTION FOR A
CONTINUANCE APPEARS IN THE RECORD.  THE STATE WILLINGLY ENTERED UPON
THE TRIAL.  IT HAD ALL THE WITNESSES AND THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAD
CONVICTED COOK AND MATTHEWS OF THE SAME CRIME.  IT PRESENTED THAT
EVIDENCE.  COOK AND MATTHEWS REFUSED TO TESTIFY ON THE GROUND OF SELF
INCRIMINATION, AND THE COURT SUSTAINED THEIR POSITION.  UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SOLICITOR EITHER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT COOK
AND MATTHEWS WOULD NOT TESTIFY.  AFTER ALL THE STATE'S EVIDENCE WAS IN,
AND AFTER COOK AND MATTHEWS REFUSED TO TESTIFY, THE SOLICITOR MOVED FOR
A MISTRIAL.  THE BASIS FOR HIS MOTION WAS THAT THE STATE WOULD, AT A
LATER DATE, BE ABLE TO PRESENT A STRONGER CASE AGAINST BROCK SINCE COOK
AND MATTHEWS MIGHT, AT A LATER DATE, TESTIFY DIFFERENTLY OR TO
ADDITIONAL FACTS THAN AT THE FIRST TRIAL.  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT
THEY HAD NOT TESTIFIED AT ANY TRIAL.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE MOTION
THAT A JUROR BE WITHDRAWN AND A MISTRIAL ORDERED AND THE CASE CONTINUED
PENDING THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE CASE AGAINST MATTHEWS AND COOK.  THE
COURT STATED IT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT "THE ENDS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE
THAT THE STATE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR ITS TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES JIM
COOK AND ELMER MATTHEWS WHEN THE CASE IS TRIED AND THAT THE STATE IS
ENTITLED TO HAVE THOSE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AFTER THEIR CASES HAVE BEEN
DISPOSED OF IN THE SUPREME COURT."  (FN1)    THE SOLE QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE RECORD IN THIS CASE PRESENTS AN OFFENSE TO FUNDAMENTAL
FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS.  UNDER THE RESULTS REACHED BY THE COURT, THE
STATE IS FREE, IF THE PROSECUTOR THINKS A CONVICTION PROBABLY CANNOT BE
WON FROM THE JURY ON THE TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL, TO STOP THE TRIAL AND
INSIST THAT IT BE TRIED AGAIN ON ANOTHER DAY WHEN IT HAS STRONGER MEN
ON THE FIELD.    ORDERLY JUSTICE COULD NOT BE SECURED IF THE RULES
ALLOWED THE DEFENDANT TO ASK FOR A MISTRIAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF
TESTIMONY JUST BECAUSE THE STATE HAD DONE WELL AND THE DEFENSE POORLY. 
THE SAME LIMITATION APPLIES TO THE PROSECUTION IF THE SCALES OF JUSTICE
ARE TO BE KEPT IN EQUAL BALANCE.  (FN2)  THIS COURT RECENTLY HAS SAID
THAT, IN APPLYING THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, JUDGES ARE NOT AT
LARGE TO APPLY THEIR OWN PERSONAL STANDARDS.  ROCHIN V. CALIFORNIA, 342
U.S. 165 (1952).  THUS, THE CONSIDERED VIEWS OF MANY OTHER
JURISDICTIONS MAY BE UTILIZED IN DETERMINING THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF
ORDERLY JUSTICE AND HENCE DUE PROCESS.  WOLF V. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25
(1949). 

I GRANT THAT NORTH CAROLINA CONTENDS THAT ITS PRESENT PROCEDURE DOES
NOT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.  IT WAS NOT ALWAYS SO.  IN STATE V.
GARRIGUES, 2 N.C. (1 HAYWOOD, 2D ED.)  276, 278 (1795), THE SUPREME
COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA ADOPTED THE CONTRARY RULE IN THE FOLLOWING
STRONG LANGUAGE: 

"  ...  IN THE REIGNS OF THE LATTER SOVEREIGNS OF THE STUART FAMILY,
A DIFFERENT RULE PREVAILED, THAT A JURY IN SUCH CASE MIGHT BE
DISCHARGED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING BETTER EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AT A
FUTURE DAY; AND THIS POWER WAS EXERCISED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CROWN
ONLY:  BUT IT IS A DOCTRINE SO ABHORRENT TO EVERY PRINCIPLE OF SAFETY
AND SECURITY, THAT IT OUGHT NOT TO RECEIVE THE LEAST COUNTENANCE IN THE
COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY.  IN THE TIME OF JAMES THE SECOND, AND SINCE THE
REVOLUTION, THIS DOCTRINE CAME UNDER EXAMINATION, AND THE RULE AS LAID
DOWN BY L. COKE WAS REVIVED ...  .  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE JURY WERE
SUFFERED BY THE COURT'S OFFICER TO SEPARATE WITHOUT GIVING A VERDICT;
AS THEY COULD NOT AGREE TO CONVICT, IT IS STRONG EVIDENCE OF THE
PARTY'S INNOCENCE; AND PERHAPS HE COULD NOT BE TRIED AGAIN WITH THE
SAME ADVANTAGE TO HIMSELF AS THEN.  PERHAPS HIS WITNESSES ARE DEAD, OR
GONE AWAY, OR THEIR ATTENDANCE NOT TO BE PROCURED, OR SOME ACCIDENT MAY
PREVENT THEIR ATTENDANCE.  WE WILL NOT AGAIN PUT HIS LIFE IN JEOPARDY,
MORE ESPECIALLY AS IT IS VERY IMPROBABLE WE SHALL BE ABLE TO POSSESS
HIM OF THE SAME ADVANTAGES - SO HE WAS DISCHARGED." 

IN THE CASE OF IN RE SPIER, 12 N.C. 491, 493, 494, 498, 499, 502
(1828), THE COURT POINTED OUT: 

HALL, JUDGE.  - "IN THIS CASE, THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE PRISONER
IS AS LITTLE THE SUBJECT OF ENQUIRY, AS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE CAN BE,
WHEN IT IS BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT ON A COLLATERAL QUESTION OF LAW. 
ALTHOUGH THE PRISONER, IF UNFORTUNATELY GUILTY, MAY ESCAPE PUNISHMENT,
IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DECISION THIS DAY MADE IN HIS FAVOR, YET IT
SHOULD BE REMEMBERED, THAT THE SAME DECISION MAY BE A BULWARK OF SAFETY
TO THOSE, WHO, MORE INNOCENT, MAY BECOME THE SUBJECTS OF PERSECUTION,
AND WHOSE CONVICTION, IF NOT PROCURED ON ONE TRIAL, MIGHT BE SECURED ON
A SECOND OR THIRD, WHETHER THEY WERE GUILTY OR NOT." 

TAYLOR, CHIEF-JUSTICE.  - "IN THE REMARKABLE CASE OF THE KENLOCKS,
REPORTED BY FOSTER  ...  .  A MAJORITY OF THE JUDGES  ...  REJECTED
WITH JUST ANIMADVERSION THE AUTHORITY OF THOSE CASES, WHICH HAD OCCURED
IN THAT PERIOD OF MISRULE AND PERSECUTION, PRECEEDING THE REVOLUTION. 
IN ONE OF THESE, THE COURT DISCHARGED A JURY IN A CAPITAL CASE, AFTER
EVIDENCE GIVEN ON THE PART OF THE CROWN, MERELY FOR WANT OF SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO CONVICT, AND IN ORDER TO BRING THE PRISONER TO A SECOND
TRIAL, WHEN THE CROWN SHOULD BE BETTER PREPARED]  ...  . 

"THESE STAINS UPON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE SHOW TO WHAT
EXTREMES, IN A STATE OF CIVIL DISCORD, THE PASSIONS OF MEN URGE THEM TO
TRAMPLE UPON THE MOST SALUTARY PRINCIPLES OF LAW; AND IN WHAT DEGREE
JUDGES, HOLDING THEIR OFFICE AT THE WILL OF THE SOVEREIGN, WERE EAGER
TO PANDER TO HIS APPETITE FOR BLOOD AND FORFEITURES. 

     *         *       *         *         * 

"  ...  AS THE COMMON LAW OF EVERY STATE ALREADY PROTECTS THE ACCUSED
AGAINST A SECOND TRIAL, NOT ONLY IN CRIMES OF ALL DESCRIPTIONS, BUT IN
QUESTIONS OF CIVIL RIGHT, IT IS TO BE INFERRED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONS
MEANT MUCH MORE, AND THAT THEIR DESIGN WAS TO PROTECT THE ACCUSED
AGAINST A TRIAL, WHERE THE FIRST JURY HAD BEEN DISCHARGED WITHOUT DUE
CAUSE." 

BUT, WE ARE TOLD THAT IN A LATER DAY, THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT
DEPARTED FROM ITS EARLIER RULE.  WE ARE DIRECTED TO STATE V. DOVE, 222
N.C. 162, 22 S.E.2D 231 (1942); STATE V. GUICE, 201 N.C. 761, 161 S.E.
533 (1931); STATE V. BASS, 82 N.C. 570 (1880); STATE V. ANDREWS, 166
N.C. 349, 81 S.E. 416 (1914); AND STATE V. ELLIS, 200 N.C. 77, 156 S.E.
157 (1930). 

IN THE GUICE CASE, THE STATE INTRODUCED ITS EVIDENCE AND RESTED ITS
CASE.  COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT MADE A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS OF
NONSUIT.  THE COURT WITHDREW A JUROR AND ORDERED A MISTRIAL, AND THE
AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO TAKE THIS COURSE WAS THE QUESTION PRESENTED
ON APPEAL.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, IN DISPOSING OF THE
MATTER SAID: 

"IN MISDEMEANORS, AND ALL CASES OF FELONIES NOT CAPITAL, THE COURT
BELOW HAS THE DISCRETION TO ORDER A MISTRIAL AND DISCHARGE A JURY
BEFORE VERDICT IN FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE AND THE COURT NEED NOT FIND
FACTS CONSTITUTING THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH DISCHARGE, AND ORDINARILY THE
ACTION IS NOT REVIEWABLE.  IN CAPITAL FELONIES THE FACTS MUST BE FOUND
AND THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH DISCHARGE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW."  (FN3) 

IN THE BASS CASE, SUPRA, THE COURT HELD THAT THE JUDGE "HAD THE
DISCRETION TO DISSOLVE THE JURY AND HOLD THE DEFENDANTS FOR A NEW JURY,
AND THAT THE SECURITY FOR THE PROPER EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION RESTS
NOT ON THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW AND REVERSE THE JUDGE, BUT ON
HIS RESPONSIBILITY UNDER HIS OATH OF OFFICE."  (FN4) 

WHILE THE TECHNICAL RAMIFICATIONS EVOLVED IN THE MANY JURISDICTIONS
AS PART OF THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF DUE PROCESS, THE BASIC IDEA IS PART OF OUR AMERICAN CONCEPT OF
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.  THIS IS SHOWN BY THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE
PROVISION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, INAPPLICABLE HERE, PROHIBITS DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  THE
CONSTITUTIONS OF ALL BUT FIVE STATES, CONNECTICUT, MARYLAND,
MASSACHUSETTS, NORTH CAROLINA, AND VERMONT, CONTAIN CLAUSES FORBIDDING
DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  (FN5)  AND EACH OF THOSE FIVE STATES HAS THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS PART OF ITS COMMON LAW.  (FN6) 

NO CASE IN ANY OTHER JURISDICTION TO SUPPORT NORTH CAROLINA'S ACTION
IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US, AND MY RESEARCH FAILS TO FIND
A SINGLE PROP SUPPORTING ITS POSITION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, EIGHT STATES
HAVE HAD OCCASION TO RULE ON WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE A SECOND TRIAL
AFTER THE PROSECUTOR AT A PREVIOUS TRIAL WAS UNABLE TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE.  SIX HAVE TAKEN A FIRM POSITION AGAINST ALLOWING A SECOND
TRIAL.  (FN7)  A SEVENTH, IOWA, IS IN ACCORD WITH THE ABOVE VIEW, (FN8)
FOR LANGUAGE TO THE CONTRARY IN TWO OTHER IOWA CASES IS NOT IN POINT
SINCE THE MISTRIALS IN THOSE TWO CASES WERE UPON THE MOTION OF THE
DEFENDANT.  (FN9)  IN ALABAMA, THE EIGHTH STATE, TWO CASES HAVE
PERMITTED A SECOND TRIAL.  (FN10)  BOTH OF THOSE CASES, HOWEVER,
INVOLVED FACTS OF SUCH EXTREME NATURE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOCKING
TO THE CONSCIENCE NOT TO PERMIT A SECOND TRIAL.  IN ONE OF THE CASES,
(FN11) THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT EVEN INDICATED THE RESULT PROBABLY
WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF THE PROSECUTOR MERELY HAD BEEN UNPREPARED AT THE
FIRST TRIAL. 

THE RULE TO BE GLEANED FROM THE CASES IS THAT A SECOND TRIAL WILL BE
ALLOWED ONLY FOR EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, OFTEN CONTRIBUTED TO BY THE
DEFENDANT AND BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PROSECUTOR, WHICH PREVENTED THE
TESTIMONY FROM BEING AVAILABLE AT THE FIRST TRIAL.  ONLY NORTH CAROLINA
HAS CLEAR PRECEDENT ALLOWING A SECOND TRIAL WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SIMPLY
FAILED TO HAVE HIS EVIDENCE READY AT THE FIRST TRIAL.  (FN12) 

IT MAY BE CONSIDERED THAT THIS BEING A NONCAPITAL FELONY THAT THE
CONSIDERED ACTION OF THE JUDICIARY OF A STATE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED WHEN
IT IS SAID IT IS IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE.  IT CERTAINLY IS THE
EASY WAY OUT, BUT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO OTHER STATE IN THE UNION
HAS GONE TO THIS EXTREME OF THE NORTH CAROLINA RULE, I MUST PONDER UPON
IT AND CONCLUDE THAT THE HARD-WON VICTORY ACHIEVED IN THE FIELD OF
"DOUBLE JEOPARDY" OUGHT NOT BE LOST EVEN IN A SMALL PART BY THE
AFFIRMANCE OF THIS CASE.   THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA
RELIES UPON PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), IN SUPPORT OF
HIS POSITION THAT THE SECOND TRIAL OF THIS DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE
DUE PROCESS.  IN PALKO, THERE WAS AN APPEAL BY THE STATE, AS ALLOWED BY
STATUTE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT FOUND THREE ERRORS
PREJUDICIAL TO THE STATE COMMITTED BY THE TRIAL COURT, AND REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL.  (FN13)  THE SECOND TRIAL THEN
FOLLOWED.  IN THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT, NO ERROR OF LAW TAINTED THE
FIRST TRIAL.   IT IS APPARENT THAT IN THE PALKO CASE, THE LEGISLATURE
OF CONNECTICUT HAD PROVIDED FOR A REVIEW OF THE TRIAL BY APPEAL.  WE
OFTEN HAVE SAID THAT THE CONSIDERED ACTION BY A STATE LEGISLATURE OR
THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES PLACES THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
IN A DIFFERENT POSTURE IN RESPECT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  WE AGREE THAT
PALKO DECIDED THAT THIS COURT COULD CONSIDER A PARTICULAR CASE OF
DOUBLE JEOPARDY OF A DEFENDANT AS NOT BEING WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE
LIMITS OF DUE PROCESS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. 

CERTAINLY, PALKO DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  IN THAT
CASE, UNDER A STATE STATUTE, THE STATE WAS ASKING FOR A SECOND TRIAL TO
OBTAIN A TRIAL FREE FROM ERROR BY THE COURT PREJUDICIAL TO THE STATE. 
HERE, THE STATE ASKS FOR ITS SECOND TRIAL IN ORDER TO SUIT THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE SOLICITOR IN AN ENDEAVOR TO STRENGTHEN THE STATE'S
CASE, WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAD DONE NOTHING EITHER TO BRING ABOUT TRIAL
ERRORS OR TO INVEIGLE OR ENTRAP THE SOLICITOR TO PROCEED TO THE FIRST
TRIAL. 

WHILE THIS CASE IS NOT CONTROLLED BY PALKO, I AM COMFORTED BY
LANGUAGE FOUND IN IT WHICH, IN MY VIEW, ENVISIONS THIS CASE AS ONE
WHICH MIGHT WELL BE WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE EMBRACE OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO SAID: 

"WHAT THE ANSWER WOULD HAVE TO BE IF THE STATE WERE PERMITTED AFTER A
TRIAL FREE FROM ERROR TO TRY THE ACCUSED OVER AGAIN OR TO BRING ANOTHER
CASE AGAINST HIM, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER.  WE DEAL WITH THE
STATUTE BEFORE US AND NO OTHER.  THE STATE IS NOT ATTEMPTING TO WEAR
THE ACCUSED OUT BY A MULTITUDE OF CASES WITH ACCUMULATED TRIALS.  IT
ASKS NO MORE THAN THIS, THAT THE CASE AGAINST HIM SHALL GO ON UNTIL
THERE SHALL BE A TRIAL FREE FROM THE CORROSION OF SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL
ERROR."  (FN14) 

I ALSO RECEIVE COMFORT FROM THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER'S CONCURRING OPINION IN THIS CASE.  HE SAYS THAT A STATE
FALLS SHORT OF ITS OBLIGATION "WHEN IT CALLOUSLY SUBJECTS AN INDIVIDUAL
TO SUCCESSIVE RETRIALS ON A CHARGE ON WHICH HE HAS BEEN ACQUITTED OR
PREVENTS A TRIAL FROM PROCEEDING TO A TERMINATION IN FAVOR OF THE
ACCUSED MERELY IN ORDER TO ALLOW A PROSECUTOR WHO HAS BEEN INCOMPETENT
OR CASUAL OR EVEN INEFFECTIVE TO SEE IF HE CANNOT DO BETTER A SECOND
TIME."  IN MY VIEW, THIS CASE IS SNUGLY EMBRACED IN HIS VERY CLEAR
STATEMENT OF THE LAW AS I HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD IT UNTIL TODAY. 

WADE V. HUNTER, 336 U.S. 684 (1949), IS CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE
DISCRETION OF A TRIAL JUDGE "TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AND TO REQUIRE
ANOTHER PANEL TO TRY THE DEFENDANT IF THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL BE BEST
SERVED."  THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 155 U.S. 271, 273-274 (1894), IS
LIKEWISE REFERRED TO IN THE MAJORITY OPINION.  I HAVE NO QUARREL WITH
EITHER OF THESE CASES.  IN THE WADE CASE, WITH WHICH I AGREE, THE COURT
MARTIAL TRIAL WAS HELD IN THE MIDST OF THE CAMPAIGN TO OVERTHROW THE
FORCES OF GERMANY.  THERE WAS A CONTINUANCE IN THE TRIAL TO GET CERTAIN
WITNESSES.  BEFORE THAT DATE WAS REACHED, THERE WERE FURTHER ADVANCES
TOWARD THE ENEMY.  THE ARMY NEEDED THE OFFICERS PARTICIPATING IN THE
TRIAL FOR TACTICAL PURPOSES, AND THE COURT-MARTIAL WAS DISSOLVED.  IN
THE THOMPSON CASE, AFTER THE JURY WAS SWORN AND A WITNESS TESTIFIED, A
MEMBER OF THE JURY WAS FOUND TO BE DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE HE WAS A MEMBER
OF THE GRAND JURY WHICH FILED THE INDICTMENT.  THE JURY WAS DISCHARGED,
AND A PLEA OF JEOPARDY WAS INTERPOSED AT THE SECOND TRIAL.  NOTHING WAS
CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PROSECUTOR OR THE COURT THAT SUCH A
CONDITION OBTAINED OR MIGHT HAVE OBTAINED.  THE PLEA OF FORMER JEOPARDY
WAS OVERRULED WITH CASES CITED.  THE COURT SAID: 

"THOSE CASES CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE LAW OF THIS COURT, THAT COURTS OF
JUSTICE ARE INVESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DISCHARGE A JURY FROM GIVING
ANY VERDICT, WHENEVER IN THEIR OPINION, TAKING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES
INTO CONSIDERATION, THERE IS A MANIFEST NECESSITY FOR THE ACT, OR THE
ENDS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE WOULD OTHERWISE BE DEFEATED, AND TO ORDER A
TRIAL BY ANOTHER JURY; AND THAT THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THEREBY TWICE PUT
IN JEOPARDY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  (FN15)    I SUBMIT THERE WAS NO
MANIFEST NECESSITY TO DISCHARGE THIS JURY AFTER THE STATE HAD PROCEEDED
TO TRIAL AND OFFERED ALL ITS EVIDENCE, AND I SUBMIT THAT THE ORDERING
OF A MISTRIAL HERE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE STATE DOES NOT PROMOTE
THE ENDS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE. 

FN1  R. 16. 

FN2  CF. THE CLASSIC EXPRESSION OF MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO IN THE OPINION
OF THIS COURT IN PALKO, "THE EDIFICE OF JUSTICE STANDS, ITS SYMMETRY,
TO MANY, GREATER THAN BEFORE."  302 U.S. 319, 328 (1937). 

FN3  201 N.C., AT 763, 161 S.E., AT 534 (1931). 

FN4  82 N.C., AT 575 (1880). 

FN5  STATE V. BRUNN, 22 WASH. 2D 120, 154 P.2D 826, 157 A.L.R. 1049
(1945). 

FN6  STATE V. BENHAM, 7 CONN. 414 (1829); GILPIN V. STATE, 142 MD.
464, 121 A. 354 (1923); COMMONWEALTH V. MCCAN, 277 MASS. 199, 178 N.E.
633, 78 A.L.R. 1208 (1931); STATE V. CLEMMONS, 207 N.C. 276, 176 S.E.
760 (1934); AND STATE V. O'BRIEN, 106 VT. 97, 170 A. 98 (1934). 

FN7  ALLEN V. STATE, 52 FLA. 1, 41 SO. 593 (1960)(DURING FIRST TRIAL
DEFENDANT SECURED CONTINUANCE TO SECURE ABSENT WITNESS, PROSECUTOR THEN
MOVED FOR AND SECURED MISTRIAL); STATE EX REL. MEADOR V. WILLIAMS, 117
MO. APP. 564, 92 S.W. 151 (1960)(PROSECUTION WITNESS DID NOT RESPOND TO
SUBPOENA); PEOPLE V. BARRETT, 2 CAINES (N.Y.)  304, 2 AM. DEC. 239
(1805) (STATE COULD NOT USE SECONDARY EVIDENCE AS TO DOCUMENT SINCE
DEFENDANT NOT GIVEN DUE NOTICE TO PRODUCE); STATE V. RICHARDSON, 47
S.C. 166, 25 S.E. 220 (1896)(PROSECUTOR BY MISTAKE TOLD WITNESS TO GO
HOME); PIZANO V. STATE, 20 TEX. APP. 139, 54 AM. REP. 511 (1886)
(PROSECUTOR ANSWERED READY AND STARTED TRIAL AFTER BEING INCORRECTLY
INFORMED BY SHERIFF THAT ALL WITNESSES WERE PRESENT); STATE V. LITTLE,
120 W.VA. 213, 197 S.E. 626 (1938)(AT NOON RECESS PROSECUTOR TOLD
WITNESSES TO BE BACK AT 1:30 P.M.; WHEN THEY HAD NOT RETURNED BY 2 P.M.
HE SECURED MISTRIAL).  ONLY THE LEADING CASE IN EACH JURISDICTION HAS
BEEN CITED.  THERE IS A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN MORE DECISIONS
IN THESE JURISDICTIONS IN ACCORD WITH THE CITED CASES. 

FN8  STATE V. CALLENDINE, 8 IOWA 288 (1859)(WITNESS INCOMPETENT TO
TESTIFY BECAUSE HIS NAME NOT INDORSED ON INDICTMENT, MISTRIAL ON MOTION
OF THE COURT). 

FN9  STATE V. PARKER, 66 IOWA 586, 24 N.W. 225 (1885), AND STATE V.
FALCONER, 70 IOWA 416, 30 N.W. 655 (1886). 

FN10  STATE V. NELSON, 7 ALA. 610 (1845)(JURY IRREGULARLY SWORN TOO
EARLY AND THE PROCEEDINGS THEN REVEALED FURTHER ISSUES PREVIOUS TO THE
TIME THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPANELED AND SWORN); HUGHES V. STATE,
35 ALA. 351 (1860)(BEFORE TRIAL DEFENDANT AGREED TO A MISTRIAL IF A
CERTAIN WITNESS WERE TOO INTOXICATED TO TESTIFY; DEFENDANT THEN
OBJECTED TO A MISTRIAL WHEN THE AGREED CONDITION OCCURRED). 

FN11 "IF THE QUESTION REALLY WAS, THAT THE JURY HAD BEEN DISCHARGED
BECAUSE THE PROSECUTING OFFICER WAS NOT PREPARED TO PROCEED WITH THE
TRIAL, WE SHOULD ENTERTAIN VERY SERIOUS DOUBTS OF THE POWER OF A COURT
TO DISCHARGE A JURY FOR THAT CAUSE ONLY; BUT IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT
MATTER WHEN, FROM THE INTERVENTION OF SOME IRREGULARITY IN THE
PROCEEDINGS, EITHER A JURY HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY IMPANNELED, OR AN
IMPROPER JUROR SWORN."  STATE V. NELSON, SUPRA, AT 614. 

FN12  STATE V. DOVE, 222 N.C. 162, 22 S.E.2D 231 (1942)(COURT ORDERED
MISTRIAL SINCE EVIDENCE DESIRED BY STATE "WAS NOT PRESENTLY
AVAILABLE"); STATE V. GUICE, 201 N.C. 761, 161 S.E. 533
(1931)(DEFENDANT MOVED FOR NONSUIT AFTER STATE HAD OFFERED ALL ITS
TESTIMONY; COURT INSTEAD OF RULING ON THE MOTION FOR NONSUIT DECLARED A
MISTRIAL). 

FN13  STATE V. PALKO, 121 CONN. 669, 186 A. 657 (1936). 

FN14  302 U.S., AT 328 (1937). 

FN15  THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 155 U.S. 271, 274 (1894). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

IN 1795, WHEN THE REASONS FOR THE GUARANTEE AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
WERE STILL FRESH IN MEN'S MINDS, A NORTH CAROLINA COURT STATED THE
BASIS FOR NOT ALLOWING THE PROSECUTION TO HAVE A JURY DISCHARGED SO
THAT IT COULD OBTAIN BETTER EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED. 

"THE RULE AS LAID DOWN IN 3 CO. INST., 110, AND 1 INST., 227, IS
GENERAL AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION THAT A JURY IN A CAPITAL CASE CANNOT BE
DISCHARGED WITHOUT GIVING A VERDICT.  AFTERWARDS, HOWEVER, IN THE
REIGNS OF THE LATTER SOVEREIGNS OF THE STUART FAMILY, A DIFFERENT RULE
PREVAILED, THAT A JURY IN SUCH CASE MIGHT BE DISCHARGED FOR THE PURPOSE
OF HAVING BETTER EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AT A FUTURE DAY; AND THIS POWER
WAS EXERCISED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CROWN ONLY; BUT IT IS A DOCTRINE
SO ABHORRENT TO EVERY PRINCIPLE OF SAFETY AND SECURITY THAT IT OUGHT
NOT TO RECEIVE THE LEAST COUNTENANCE IN THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY.  IN
THE TIME OF JAMES II., AND SINCE THE REVOLUTION, THIS DOCTRINE CAME
UNDER EXAMINATION,* AND THE RULE AS LAID DOWN BY MY LORD COKE WAS
REVIVED WITH THIS ADDITION, THAT A JURY SHOULD NOT BE DISCHARGED IN A
CAPITAL CASE UNLESS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PRISONER; AS IF THE PRISONER
BE A WOMAN AND BE TAKEN IN LABOR; OR IF THE PRISONER AFTER THE JURY ARE
CHARGED WITH HIM BE FOUND TO BE INSANE, AND THE LIKE; OR IF AT THE
PRISONER'S REQUEST A JURY BE WITHDRAWN TO LET HIM IN TO TAKE THE
BENEFIT OF AN EXCEPTION, WHICH OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE LOST  ...  .  IN
THE PRESENT CASE THE JURY WERE SUFFERED BY THE COURT'S OFFICER TO
SEPARATE WITHOUT GIVING A VERDICT.  AS THEY COULD NOT AGREE TO CONVICT,
IT IS STRONG EVIDENCE OF THE PARTY'S INNOCENCE; AND PERHAPS HE COULD
NOT BE TRIED AGAIN WITH THE SAME ADVANTAGE TO HIMSELF AS THEN.  PERHAPS
HIS WITNESSES ARE DEAD, OR GONE AWAY, OR THEIR ATTENDANCE NOT TO BE
PROCURED, OR SOME ACCIDENT MAY PREVENT THEIR ATTENDANCE.  WE WILL NOT
AGAIN PUT HIS LIFE IN JEOPARDY, MORE ESPECIALLY AS IT IS VERY
IMPROBABLE WE SHALL BE ABLE TO POSSESS HIM OF THE SAME ADVANTAGES." 
STATE V. GARRIGUES, 2 N.C. 241, 242. 

*THE STRICT RULE, LAID DOWN BY COKE, WAS DEPARTED FROM DURING THE
REIGN OF THE STUARTS (1603-1714), NOTABLY IN THE CASE OF THE TREASON
TRIALS OF WHITEBREAD AND FENWICK, 7 HOW.  ST. TR. 120 AND 315.  THERE
THE JURY WAS DISCHARGED AT THE CLOSE OF THE CROWN'S EVIDENCE, BECAUSE
OF THE FAILURE TO SATISFY THE TWO-WITNESS RULE.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE
LATER RETRIED AFTER THE PROSECUTION HAD REMEDIED THE DEFECT.  SEE ALSO
2 HALE'S P.C. 294.  THIS PRACTICE WAS CONDEMNED IN 1746 AS AN EXAMPLE
OF THE GREAT ABUSE TO WHICH THE POWER TO DISCHARGE THE JURY IS
SUBJECT.  SEE KINLOCH'S CASE, 2 FOSTER'S REPORTS 16, 22. 

IN 1698 IN THE TIME OF LORD HOLT, THE JUDGES FORMULATED RULES
REGARDING THE MATTER: "(1.)  THAT IN CAPITAL CASES A JUROR CANNOT BE
WITHDRAWN, THO' ALL PARTIES CONSENT TO IT.  (2.)  THAT IN CRIMINAL
CASES, NOT CAPITAL, A JUROR MAY BE WITHDRAWN, IF BOTH PARTIES CONSENT,
BUT NOT OTHERWISE.  (3.)  AND THAT IN ALL CIVIL CAUSES, A JUROR CANNOT
BE WITHDRAWN, BUT BY CONSENT OF ALL PARTIES."  SEE CARTHEW'S REPORTS
465. 

THOSE RULES WERE IN TIME CONSTRUED TO BE RULES OF PRACTICE OR GUIDES
FOR THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, NOT RULES OF LAW, THE BREACH OF WHICH
ENTITLED A DEFENDANT TO PLEAD FORMER JEOPARDY.  SEE QUEEN V.
CHARLESWORTH, 1 B.&S. 460; WINSOR V. QUEEN, 118 ENG. C.L.R. 141; QUEEN
V. LEWIS, 2 CR. APP. R. 180.  THERE IS A REVIEW OF THIS HISTORY IN THE
DISSENTING OPINION OF CRAMPTON, J., IN CONWAY V. REGINA, 7 IRISH L.
REP. 149, 165 ET SEQ. 

THAT POINT OF VIEW SHOULD SHAPE OUR CONCEPTION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  ONCE THE PROSECUTION CAN CALL A HALT IN THE MIDDLE
OF A TRIAL IN ORDER TO AWAIT A MORE FAVORABLE TIME, OR TO FIND NEW
EVIDENCE, OR TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE TESTIMONY OF ITS
WITNESSES, THE PROMISE OF PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY LOSES THE
GREAT FORCE IT WAS THOUGHT TO HAVE WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN. 
AT THAT TIME THE PRACTICES OF THE STUARTS WERE FRESHLY IN MIND.  AND IT
WAS RESOLVED THAT THEY SHOULD NOT REACH THESE SHORES. 
..END :























SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY CO. V. AHERN 344 U.S. 367 


NO. 179.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1952 - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1953 - 303 N.Y.
545, 104 N.E.2D 898, AFFIRMED. 


AN EMPLOYEE OF APPELLANT RAILROAD WAS INJURED WHILE EMPLOYED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HE APPLIED FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE NEW YORK
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW, SEC. 113 OF WHICH PERMITS THE STATE BOARD
TO ASSUME JURISDICTION IN CASES ARISING OUT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ONLY
WHEN THE CLAIMANT, THE EMPLOYER AND THE INSURANCE CARRIER WAIVE THEIR
FEDERAL RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.  APPELLANT DID NOT OBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE BOARD AND MADE PAYMENTS OF DISABILITY
COMPENSATION FOR OVER FOUR YEARS UNDER SUCCESSIVE AWARDS BY THAT
BOARD.  AFTER THE EMPLOYEE'S REMEDIES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT HAD LAPSED AND THE EMPLOYEE HAD DIED, APPELLANT OBJECTED
TO A FINAL AWARD OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION BY THE STATE BOARD ON THE
GROUND THAT THE STATE LAW WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  HELD: 

1.  SINCE THE STATE COURT CONSTRUED THE STATE LAW AS MERELY
PERMISSIVE, ITS GRANT OF JURISDICTION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE
FEDERAL ACT.  PP. 370-372. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, APPELLANT WAS ESTOPPED TO DENY
LIABILITY UNDER THE STATE LAW.  PP. 372-373. 

SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY CO. V. AHERN ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED AN
AWARD OF DISABILITY COMPENSATION TO APPELLANT'S EMPLOYEE UNDER THE NEW
YORK WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW.  277 APP. DIV. 1067, 100 N.Y.S.2D
639.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  303 N.Y. 545, 104 N.E.2D
898.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 373. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DISABILITY AWARDS BY THE NEW YORK WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BOARD TO AN
INTERSTATE RAILROAD EMPLOYEE PRECIPITATE THIS ATTACK ON SEC. 113 OF
THAT STATE'S WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW AS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
CONFLICTING WITH THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  WHILE EMPLOYED
AS A SWITCHMAN BY THE APPELLANT RAILWAY, THOMAS J. AHERN IN JULY 1944
SUFFERED A CORONARY OCCLUSION AS A RESULT OF UNUSUAL PHYSICAL EXERTION
IN ATTEMPTING TO "THROW A STUCK SWITCH" IN THE RAILWAY'S LACKAWANNA,
NEW YORK, YARDS.  (FN1)  ON JANUARY 15, 1945, HE FILED A CLAIM WITH THE
NEW YORK WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BOARD, ASSERTING DISABILITY CAUSED BY
INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  THE
RAILWAY CONTROVERTED THE CLAIM SOLELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT HIS INJURIES
WERE NOT IN FACT ACCIDENTAL, AND THAT HIS DISABILITY WAS NOT CAUSUALLY
RELATED TO THE INJURIES ALLEGED.  (FN2)  A REFEREE, AFTER HEARING
EVIDENCE, RESOLVED THESE ISSUES IN THE CLAIMANT'S FAVOR AND IN
SEPTEMBER 1945 AWARDED HIM COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF $28 PER WEEK
FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT.  THE BOARD DENIED THE RAILWAY'S
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND AFFIRMED THE REFEREE'S DETERMINATION.  IN
1946 AND THE YEAR FOLLOWING, THE BOARD ENTERED TWO FURTHER TEMPORARY
DISABILITY AWARDS.  A SELF-INSURED EMPLOYER, APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE BOARD'S ORDERS AND WITHOUT APPEAL TO THE COURTS OF THE STATE
CONTINUED BIWEEKLY PAYMENTS TO AHERN UNTIL DECEMBER 20, 1948.  ON
JANUARY 3, 1949, AHERN DIED OF HIS HEART CONDITION.  AT A SUBSEQUENT
HEARING HELD SHORTLY THEREAFTER TO DETERMINE A FINAL DISABILITY AWARD,
THE WIDOW, APPELLEE HERE, WAS REQUESTED TO FILE A DEATH CLAIM.  AT THAT
POINT APPELLANT FOR THE FIRST TIME DISPUTED THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDING AND OFFERED TO INTRODUCE
PROOF IN SUPPORT.  (FN3)  THE REFEREE REJECTED APPELLANT'S PROFFER AND
RENDERED A DISABILITY AWARD FOR THE TWO WEEKS PRECEDING AHERN'S DEATH. 
OVER APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS EMPLOYED "IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" SO THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DEPRIVED THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BOARD OF
JURISDICTION, THE BOARD DENIED A PETITION FOR REVIEW.  (FN4)  THE
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE AWARD, AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  (FN5)  THIS DECISION BY THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE INVOKED SEC. 113 OF NEW YORK'S WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW
WHICH IN RELEVANT PART PROVIDES THAT AWARDS "MAY BE MADE BY THE BOARD
IN RESPECT OF INJURIES SUBJECT TO THE ADMIRALTY OR OTHER FEDERAL LAWS
IN CASE THE CLAIMANT, THE EMPLOYER AND THE INSURANCE CARRIER WAIVE
THEIR ADMIRALTY OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES  ...  ." 
(FN6)  APPELLANT'S SERIOUS ATTACKS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE AS HERE APPLIED AND RELATED PROBLEMS IMPORTANT TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT PROMPTED US TO
NOTE PROBABLE JURISDICTION OF THIS CASE. 

COLLISION OF NEW YORK'S STATUTE WITH THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT IS THE CRUX OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTIONS.  ALL AGREE
THAT THE INJURED EMPLOYEE, HAD HE PURSUED HIS FEDERAL REMEDY, WOULD
HAVE MET THE "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" REQUIREMENTS OF THAT ACT.  (FN7)
BUT WE ARE TOLD THAT, UNDER THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION,
SEC.  113 OF THE STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW MAY TRANSLATE THE
MERE PAYMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A SINGLE INTERLOCUTORY COMPENSATION
AWARD INTO AN IRREVOCABLE AGREEMENT BY EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE TO FORSAKE
THEIR FEDERAL RIGHTS AND SUBMIT THEIR CONTROVERSY TO THE STATE BOARD, A
TRIBUNAL NOT ONLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION BUT WHOSE RULES OF LIABILITY
CLASH WITH THE UNIFORM SCHEME INTENDED BY CONGRESS IN THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  THAT BEING SO, APPELLANT URGES, THE NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS' CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 113 UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
AUTHORIZES THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BOARD TO INVADE A FIELD
FORECLOSED BY GOVERNING FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ROVED SO FAR AFIELD. 
RATHER THAN COIN SWEEPING GENERALITIES, THE COURT HELD THAT NEW YORK
PERMITTED THE BOARD TO RENDER COMPENSATORY AWARDS FOR EMPLOYEES ENGAGED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ONLY IF THE PARTIES VOLUNTARILY HAD SO AGREED
AND "IF THERE HAS BEEN NO OVERREACHING OR FRAUD."  (FN8)  ACCORDINGLY,
THE COURT SCRUPULOUSLY TRACED THE SIGNIFICANT FACTUAL ELEMENTS IN THIS
CASE:  APPELLANT FROM THE OUTSET WAS REPRESENTED BY ABLE COUNSEL WELL
VERSED IN THE NATURE OF ITS LIABILITIES TOWARD INJURED EMPLOYEES; IT
UTILIZED THE BOARD'S ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY AT SEVERAL HEARINGS
RESULTING IN AT LEAST FOUR SEPARATE AWARDS; IT MADE PAYMENTS FOR FOUR
AND A HALF YEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD'S DIRECTIONS, CHOOSING
NOT TO CONTEST THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD; IT SOUGHT NO JUDICIAL RELIEF
FROM ANY AWARD SAVE THE LAST, WHEN THE EMPLOYEE'S REMEDY UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT HAD LAPSED.  IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS
THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT MANIFESTLY THE PARTIES HAD AGREED TO INVOKE
SEC. 113, A PURELY "PERMISSIVE STATUTE," (FN9) THEREBY EMPOWERING THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BOARD TO ACT.  AND, IN EFFECT, APPELLANT'S
COURSE OF CONDUCT OVER THE YEARS ESTOPPED IT FROM NOW ASSERTING A FLAW
IN THE BARGAIN: "WE CAN CONCEIVE OF NO SOUND REASON WHY THE EMPLOYER
SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO URGE HIS FEDERAL RIGHTS AT THIS LATE DATE." 
(FN10) 

WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, SUPPLANTING
A PATCHWORK OF STATE LEGISLATION WITH A NATIONWIDE UNIFORM SYSTEM OF
LIBERAL REMEDIAL RULES, DISPLACES ANY STATE LAW TRENCHING ON THE
PROVIDENCE OF THE ACT.  STATE LEGISLATURES, FOR EXAMPLE, MAY NOT
INTRUDE INTO THE FEDERAL ACT'S INTERSTATE COMMERCE PERIMETER TO DESTROY
UNIFORMITY BY ARBITRARILY PRESUMING THE RENUNCIATION OF RIGHTS WHICH
THE ACT CONFERS, OR BY COMPELLING PARTIES TO ELECT BETWEEN THEIR
FEDERAL REMEDIES AND AN ALTERNATIVE STATE COMPENSATION PLAN.  ERIE R.
CO. V. WINFIELD, 244 U.S. 170 (1917).  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS,
HOWEVER, MANIFESTED METICULOUS CARE TO AVOID COLLISION; IT CONSTRUED
SEC. 113 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW AS A MERE LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORIZATION, PERMITTING THE BOARD TO EFFECTUATE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS
FOR COMPROMISING A FEDERAL CONTROVERSY BY RESORT TO AN IMPARTIAL LOCAL
UMPIRE - "THAT IS ALL THAT SECTION 113 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAW PURPORTS TO ACCOMPLISH."  (FN11)  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COERCION
AND PERMISSION IS DECISIVE; NEW YORK'S JURISDICTIONAL GRANT, SO
CONFINED, DOES NOT TRANSGRESS. 

TO BE SURE, PECULIARITIES OF LOCAL LAW MAY NOT GNAW AT RIGHTS ROOTED
IN FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. LEVEE, 263
U.S. 19, 21 (1923); DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22, 24 (1923). 
UNTAINTED BY FRAUD OR OVERREACHING, FULL AND FAIR COMPROMISES OF FELA
CLAIMS DO NOT CLASH WITH THE POLICY OF THE ACT.  CALLEN V. PENNSYLVANIA
R. CO., 332 U.S. 625 (1948).  THE VALIDITY OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT,
HOWEVER, RAISES A FEDERAL QUESTION TO BE RESOLVED BY FEDERAL LAW.  DICE
V. AKRON, C.&Y.R. CO., 342 U.S. 359 (1952); CF.  GARRETT V. MOORE
MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239 (1942).  (FN12) AND, MINDFUL OF THE
BENEVOLENT AIMS OF THE ACT, WE HAVE JEALOUSLY SCRUTINIZED PRIVATE
ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE BARTERING AWAY OF FEDERAL RIGHTS.  IBID.; BOYD V.
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN R. CO., 338 U.S. 263 (1949); DUNCAN V. THOMPSON,
315 U.S. 1 (1942).  (FN13)  HERE, HOWEVER, WHETHER MOTIVATED BY
CHARITY, DISLIKE OF LITIGATION, OR TRIAL STRATEGY, APPELLANT MADE
PAYMENTS UNTIL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARRED THE EMPLOYEE'S FEDERAL
CLAIM.  FULLY ADVISED OF ITS LEGAL RIGHTS IT SUBMITTED THE CONTROVERSY
TO THE BOARD.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS VIEWED THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
AS ESTOPPING APPELLANT FROM THE ASSERTION OF SO LONG DELAYED A CHANGE
OF HEART.  NO TENET OF FEDERAL LAW COMPELS OTHERWISE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE R. 4. 

FN2  R. 33, 37.  IN ITS "NOTICE TO THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER THAT
CLAIM WILL BE CONTROVERTED," APPELLANT ADDITIONALLY RESERVED "THE RIGHT
TO CONTROVERT FOR SUCH OTHER REASONS AS MAY LATER APPEAR."  R. 33.  THE
NEW YORK COURTS ATTACHED NO SIGNIFICANCE TO THAT RESERVATION. 

FN3  R. 88-91. 

FN4  THE BOARD FOUND, IN PART, THAT APPELLANT "BY ITS CONDUCT AND THE
EFFECT THEREOF ON THE RIGHTS OF THE DECEASED CLAIMANT  ...  IS NOW
ESTOPPED FROM PLEADING THE DEFENSE OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
ACT."  R. 5. 

FN5  303 N.Y. 545, 104 N.E.2D 898 (1952), AFFIRMING 277 APP. DIV.
1067, 100 N.Y.S.2D 639 (1950). 

FN6  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE, AND ALSO INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, FOR WHOM A RULE OF LIABILITY OR METHOD OF COMPENSATION HAS
BEEN OR MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, ONLY
TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR MUTUAL CONNECTION WITH INTRASTATE WORK MAY AND
SHALL BE CLEARLY SEPARABLE AND DISTINGUISHABLE FROM INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE, PROVIDED THAT AWARDS ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS CHAPTER MAY BE MADE BY THE BOARD IN RESPECT OF INJURIES SUBJECT TO
THE ADMIRALTY OR OTHER FEDERAL LAWS IN CASE THE CLAIMANT, THE EMPLOYER
AND THE INSURANCE CARRIER WAIVE THEIR ADMIRALTY OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE
RIGHTS AND REMEDIES, AND THE STATE INSURANCE FUND OR OTHER INSURANCE
CARRIER MAY ASSUME LIABILITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH AWARDS UNDER THIS
CHAPTER."  MCKINNEY'S N.Y. LAWS, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW, SEC. 113. 

FN7  "ANY EMPLOYEE OF A CARRIER, ANY PART OF WHOSE DUTIES AS SUCH
EMPLOYEE SHALL BE THE FURTHERANCE OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE; OR
SHALL, IN ANY WAY DIRECTLY OR CLOSELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY, AFFECT SUCH
COMMERCE AS ABOVE SET FORTH SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, BE
CONSIDERED AS BEING EMPLOYED BY SUCH CARRIER IN SUCH COMMERCE AND SHALL
BE CONSIDERED AS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THIS CHAPTER."  45 U.S.C.
SEC. 51. 

FN8  303 N.Y., AT 555, 104 N.E.2D, AT 904. 

FN9  303 N.Y., AT 555, 104 N.E.2D, AT 903. 

FN10  303 N.Y., AT 564, 104 N.E.2D, AT 909. 

FN11  303 N.Y., AT 555, 104 N.E.2D, AT 904. 

FN12  SEE ALSO HEAGNEY V. BROOKLYN EASTERN DISTRICT TERMINAL, 190
F.2D 976, 978 (1951); RICKETTS V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 153 F.2D 757,
759 (1946).  WE NEED NOT NOW DECIDE WHETHER THE SYSTEMATIC SOLICITATION
OF SUCH AGREEMENTS WOULD RUN AFOUL OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  "ANY CONTRACT, RULE, REGULATION, OR DEVICE WHATSOEVER,
THE PURPOSE OR INTENT OF WHICH SHALL BE TO ENABLE ANY COMMON CARRIER TO
EXEMPT ITSELF FROM ANY LIABILITY CREATED BY THIS CHAPTER, SHALL TO THAT
EXTENT BE VOID  ...  ."  45 U.S.C.  SEC. 55. 

FN13  SEE PURVIS V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 198 F.2D 631 (1952). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

THIS JUDGMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PARTIES WERE
MERELY USING THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE NEW YORK WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
BOARD TO COMPROMISE A CLAIM UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT.  NO SUCH CLAIM WAS EVER ASSERTED.  THE CLAIM MADE CHARGED NO
NEGLIGENCE.  AND NO SUCH ISSUE WAS EVER TENDERED.  YET WITHOUT
NEGLIGENCE, THERE IS NO LIABILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT.  MOREOVER,
THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A SITUATION WHERE A CLAIM, CONTESTED UNDER
THE FEDERAL ACT, IS COMPROMISED, THE STANDARDS OF A STATE ACT BEING
USED AS THE BASIS FOR THE SETTLEMENT.  CF. BAY STATE CO. V. PORTER, 153
F.2D 827; HEAGNEY V. BROOKLYN EASTERN D. TERMINAL, 190 F.2D 976.  THIS
CLAIM SEEMS TO BE FOUNDED ON "ACCIDENT" RATHER THAN ON "NEGLIGENCE." 
AND THE CLAIMANT APPARENTLY SOUGHT RELIEF UNDER THE NEW YORK ACT
BECAUSE HE HAD NONE UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT. 

BUT THE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE AFFIRMED AS A SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION
UNDER THE NEW YORK ACT.  THE COURT HELD IN NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V.
WINFIELD, 244 U.S. 147, THAT THE REMEDY FOR PERSONAL INJURIES SUFFERED
BY EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE RAILROAD CARRIERS IS REGULATED BOTH
INCLUSIVELY AND EXCLUSIVELY BY THE FEDERAL ACT, THAT NO ROOM IS LEFT
FOR STATE REGULATION, THAT EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY ON WHICH THE CLAIM IS
BASED IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEGLIGENCE AND THEREFORE MAY NOT BE
COMPENSATED FOR UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT, NEVERTHELESS A STATE MAY NOT
AFFORD A REMEDY.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE FEDERAL ACT SUPPLANTED THE
STATE ACTS AND ESTABLISHED ONE EXCLUSIVE STANDARD OF LIABILITY FOR
INTERSTATE RAILROAD CARRIERS.  AND SEE ERIE R. CO. V. WINFIELD, 244
U.S. 170, 172. 

THEREFORE, BY REASON OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, A STATE HAS NO POWER TO
ADOPT A DIFFERENT STANDARD OF LIABILITY FOR THESE PERSONAL INJURIES. 
IT MAY NEITHER FORCE NOR PERMIT THE CARRIERS OR THE EMPLOYEES TO SETTLE
THESE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS ON A DIFFERENT BASIS THAN THE FEDERAL ACT
SUPPLIES.   SINCE THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY BARRED
FROM VESTING ITS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BOARD AND ITS COURTS WITH
JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIM, I FAIL TO SEE HOW THEY CAN ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION THROUGH CONSENT OF THE PARTIES.  NO WAIVER, CONSENT, OR
ESTOPPEL SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ENLARGE THE STATE DOMAIN AT THE EXPENSE
OF THE OVERRIDING FEDERAL POLICY.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CORRICK, 298
U.S. 435, 440.    MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DISSENTED IN NEW YORK CENTRAL R.
CO. V. WINFIELD, 244 U.S. 147, 154, IN AN OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE
CLARKE CONCURRED.  UNDER HIS VIEW THE FEDERAL ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE A
STATE FROM ADDING TO A CARRIER'S LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE, A LIABILITY
BASED ON ACCIDENT.  HIS VIEW IS THE ONE I WOULD FOLLOW; AND I WOULD
JOIN FOUR IN OVERRULING THE WINFIELD CASES.  BUT THEY ARE STILL THE
LAW; AND THEIR HOLDINGS ARE IN MY VIEW QUITE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE
COURT NOW DOES. 
..END :








CITY OF NEW YORK V. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO. 344 U.S.
293 


NO. 203.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 1952 - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1953 - 197 F.2D
428, REVERSED. 


IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE
COURT ORDERED "CREDITORS" TO FILE THEIR CLAIMS BY A CERTAIN DATE OR BE
DENIED PARTICIPATION EXCEPT FOR CAUSE SHOWN.  CREDITORS OTHER THAN
MORTGAGE TRUSTEES AND THOSE WHO HAD APPEARED IN COURT WERE NOTIFIED BY
PUBLICATION ONLY.  A CITY WHICH RECEIVED NO COPY OF THE ORDER DID NOT
FILE CLAIMS FOR ITS LOCAL-IMPROVEMENT LIENS ON SPECIFIC PARCELS OF THE
RAILROAD'S REAL ESTATE.  HELD:  A FINAL DECREE PROVIDING FOR TRANSFER
OF THE RAILROAD'S PROPERTIES TO A NEWLY ORGANIZED COMPANY COULD NOT
VALIDLY DESTROY OR BAR ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY'S LIENS.  PP. 294-297. 

1.  THE CITY WAS A "CREDITOR" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 77(B) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  PP. 295-296. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PUBLICATION DID NOT CONSTITUTE
THE "REASONABLE NOTICE" TO THE CITY REQUIRED BY SEC. 77(C)(8).  P.
296. 

3.  THE BAR ORDER AGAINST THE CITY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF THE
CITY'S KNOWLEDGE THAT REORGANIZATION OF THE RAILROAD WAS TAKING PLACE
IN THE COURT.  P. 297. 

CITY OF NEW YORK V. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF A CITY'S LIENS FOR LOCAL
IMPROVEMENTS ON SPECIFIC REAL ESTATE OF A RAILROAD WHICH HAD SINCE BEEN
REORGANIZED UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  105 F. SUPP. 413.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  197 F.2D 428.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344
U.S. 809.  REVERSED, P. 297. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE REORGANIZATION OF THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (FN1) DESTROYED AND BARRED ENFORCEMENT OF LIENS WHICH
NEW YORK CITY HAD IMPOSED ON SPECIFIC PARCELS OF THE RAILROAD'S REAL
ESTATE FOR STREET, SEWER AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS.  THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE
MADE AND THE LIENS WERE ALL LAID PRIOR TO 1931.   REORGANIZATION WAS
BEGUN IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN 1935.  SUBSEQUENTLY, ACTING PURSUANT TO
SUBDIVISION (C)(7) OF SEC. 77 THE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER DIRECTING
"CREDITORS" TO FILE THEIR CLAIMS BY A PRESCRIBED DATE, AFTER WHICH
UNFILED CLAIMS WOULD BE DENIED PARTICIPATION EXCEPT FOR "CAUSE SHOWN." 
THE RAILROAD WAS REQUIRED TO MAIL COPIES OF THE ORDER TO MORTGAGE
TRUSTEES OR THEIR COUNSEL AND TO ALL CREDITORS WHO HAD ALREADY APPEARED
IN COURT.  OTHER CREDITORS HAD TO DEPEND FOR THEIR NOTICE ON TWO ONCE-A
WEEK PUBLICATIONS OF THE ORDER IN FIVE DAILY NEWSPAPERS, ONE OF WHICH
WAS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.  (FN2)  NEW YORK THUS RECEIVED NO COPY OF
THE BAR ORDER.  ITS LIEN CLAIMS WERE NEVER FILED. 

THE COURT'S FINAL DECREE PROVIDED FOR TRANSFER OF THE OLD RAILROAD'S
PROPERTIES TO THE NEWLY ORGANIZED COMPANY FREE FROM THE CITY'S LIENS. 
(FN3)  JURISDICTION WAS RESERVED TO CONSIDER AND ACT ON FUTURE
APPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING DISPUTES OVER INTERPRETATION
AND EXECUTION OF THE DECREE.  PURSUANT TO THIS RESERVATION THE RAILROAD
BROUGHT THE PRESENT ACTION ALLEGING THAT THE CITY IN FAILING TO FILE
HAD FORFEITED ITS CLAIMS; THE RAILROAD PRAYED FOR A DECLARATION THAT
THE LIENS WERE FOREVER BARRED, VOID AND UNENFORCIBLE, AND THAT THE REAL
PROPERTY WAS DISCHARGED AND RELEASED THEREFROM.  THE DISTRICT COURT
AGREED WITH THE RAILROAD AND ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIENS.  105 F.
SUPP. 413.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, JUDGE FRANK DISSENTING.  197
F.2D 428.  IN BOTH COURTS THE CITY MADE SEVERAL ARGUMENTS ONLY TWO OF
WHICH WE NEED CONSIDER HERE: (1) SINCE THE LIEN CLAIMS WERE COLLECTIBLE
ONLY OUT OF SPECIFIED PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE, THE CITY WAS NOT A
"CREDITOR" OF THE RAILROAD AND CONSEQUENTLY WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE
ITS CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY COURT; (2) IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL SERVICE OF
NOTICE ON THE CITY, THE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO FORFEIT ITS LIENS
BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO APPEAR AS A CLAIMANT.  TO CONSIDER THESE
QUESTIONS WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 809. 

(1)  WE REJECT THE CITY'S CONTENTION THAT IT WAS NOT A CREDITOR
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  SECTION 77(B)
DEFINES "CREDITORS" AS "  ...  ALL HOLDERS OF CLAIMS OF WHATEVER
CHARACTER AGAINST THE DEBTOR OR ITS PROPERTY  ...  " AND SPECIFICALLY
DEFINES "LIENS" AS "CLAIMS."  (FN4)  WE HAD REASON TO COMMENT RECENTLY
ON THE BROAD COVERAGE OF THIS SECTION IN GARDNER V. NEW JERSEY, 329
U.S. 565, WHERE WE HELD THAT STATE TAX LIENS MADE STATES "CREDITORS"
FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 77.  TRUE, THE STATE'S LIENS THERE WERE GENERAL
CHARGES AGAINST ALL RAILROAD ASSETS WHILE THE LIENS HERE ARE NOT.  NEW
YORK CAN LOOK ONLY TO EACH PARCEL OF PROPERTY ON WHICH ITS LIENS ARE
LAID.  BUT THE REASONS FOR OUR GARDNER HOLDING ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE
HERE.  NEW YORK IS A "CREDITOR" IN THE STATUTORY SENSE AND CONSEQUENTLY
WAS REQUIRED TO FILE ITS CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY UNLESS FREED FROM THAT
DUTY BY LACK OF ADEQUATE NOTICE. 

(2)  SECTION 77(C)(8) OF THE ACT STATES THAT "THE JUDGE SHALL CAUSE
REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE PERIOD IN WHICH CLAIMS MAY BE FILED,  ...  BY
PUBLICATION OR OTHERWISE."  11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(C)(8).  WE HOLD THAT
PUBLICATION OF THE BAR ORDER IN NEWSPAPERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
"REASONABLE NOTICE" TO NEW YORK UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

NOTICE BY PUBLICATION IS A POOR AND SOMETIMES A HOPELESS SUBSTITUTE
FOR ACTUAL SERVICE OF NOTICE.  ITS JUSTIFICATION IS DIFFICULT AT BEST. 
SEE MULLANE V. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO., 339 U.S. 306.  BUT
WHEN THE NAMES, INTERESTS AND ADDRESSES OF PERSONS ARE UNKNOWN, PLAIN
NECESSITY MAY CAUSE A RESORT TO PUBLICATION.  SEE, E.G., STANDARD OIL
CO. V. NEW JERSEY, 341 U.S. 428.  THE CASE HERE IS DIFFERENT.  NO SUCH
EXCUSE EXISTED TO JUSTIFY SUBJECTING NEW YORK'S CLAIMS TO THE HAZARD OF
FORFEITURE ARISING FROM "CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE" BY NEWSPAPER.  IN THE
FIRST PLACE SUBDIVISION (C)(4) OF SEC. 77 IS DESIGNED TO ENABLE THE
COURT TO SERVE PERSONAL NOTICES ON CREDITORS.  IT PROVIDES THAT "THE
JUDGE SHALL REQUIRE  ...  " PROPER PERSONS TO FILE IN THE COURT A LIST
OF ALL KNOWN CREDITORS, THE AMOUNT AND CHARACTER OF THEIR CLAIMS AND
THEIR LAST KNOWN POST-OFFICE ADDRESSES.  THIS WAS NOT DONE HERE.  HAD
THE JUDGE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE'S MANDATE, IT IS LIKELY THAT NOTICE
WOULD HAVE BEEN MAILED TO NEW YORK CITY.  MOREOVER, THE RAILROAD AND
THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES KNEW ABOUT NEW YORK'S ASSERTED LIENS.  AND
THERE WAS AT LEAST AS MUCH REASON TO SERVE A MAIL NOTICE ON NEW YORK
CITY AS ON REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RAILROAD'S MORTGAGEES.  THEIR LIENS
WERE SUBORDINATE TO NEW YORK'S.  THERE WAS EVEN MORE REASON TO MAIL
NOTICE TO THE NON-APPEARING KNOWN CREDITOR NEW YORK CITY THAN TO THE
CREDITORS WHO HAD ACTUALLY FILED APPEARANCES AS CLAIMANTS. 

NOR CAN THE BAR ORDER AGAINST NEW YORK BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF THE
CITY'S KNOWLEDGE THAT REORGANIZATION OF THE RAILROAD WAS TAKING PLACE
IN THE COURT.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT SUCH KNOWLEDGE PUTS A DUTY ON
CREDITORS TO INQUIRE FOR THEMSELVES ABOUT POSSIBLE COURT ORDERS
LIMITING THE TIME FOR FILING CLAIMS.  BUT EVEN CREDITORS WHO HAVE
KNOWLEDGE OF A REORGANIZATION HAVE A RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT THE STATUTORY
"REASONABLE NOTICE" WILL BE GIVEN THEM BEFORE THEIR CLAIMS ARE FOREVER
BARRED.  WHEN THE JUDGE ORDERED NOTICE BY MAIL TO BE GIVEN THE
APPEARING CREDITORS, NEW YORK CITY ACTED REASONABLY IN WAITING TO
RECEIVE THE SAME TREATMENT. 

THE STATUTORY COMMAND FOR NOTICE EMBODIES A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF
JUSTICE - THAT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD MUST PRECEDE
JUDICIAL DENIAL OF A PARTY'S CLAIMED RIGHTS.  NEW YORK CITY HAS NOT
BEEN ACCORDED THAT KIND OF NOTICE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  47 STAT. 1474, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 911, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205. 

FN2  THE OTHER NEWSPAPERS WERE LOCATED IN CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS
AND RHODE ISLAND. 

FN3  THE CITY HAS CONTENDED STRONGLY THAT THE DECREE SHOULD NOT BE SO
CONSTRUED, BUT WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THIS QUESTION. 

FN4  "  ...  THE TERM 'CREDITORS' SHALL INCLUDE, FOR ALL PURPOSES OF
THIS SECTION ALL HOLDERS OF CLAIMS OF WHATEVER CHARACTER AGAINST THE
DEBTOR OR ITS PROPERTY, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CLAIMS WOULD OTHERWISE
CONSTITUTE PROVABLE CLAIMS UNDER THIS TITLE, INCLUDING THE HOLDER OF A
CLAIM UNDER A CONTRACT EXECUTORY IN WHOLE OR IN PART INCLUDING AN
UNEXPIRED LEASE. 

"THE TERM 'CLAIMS' INCLUDES DEBTS, WHETHER LIQUIDATED OR
UNLIQUIDATED, SECURITIES (OTHER THAN STOCK AND OPTION WARRANTS TO
SUBSCRIBE TO STOCK), LIENS, OR OTHER INTERESTS OF WHATEVER CHARACTER." 
11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(B). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DOUBT THAT A CITY
WHOSE ONLY CLAIM IS IN REM AND WHICH HAS NO STANDING TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE GENERAL ESTATE IS A CREDITOR IN THE SENSE OF SEC. 77(B).   BUT
WHETHER NEW YORK IS OR IS NOT SUCH A CREDITOR, THEY AGREE WITH THE
OPINION THAT THE NOTICE IN THIS CASE IS NOT ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR AN
ORDER DESTROYING THE LIENS. 
..END :





















AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. V. UNITED STATES 344 U.S. 298 


NO. 26.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17-18, 1952 - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1953 - 101 F.
SUPP. 710 AND 103 F. SUPP. 694, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, AS AMENDED, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION PROMULGATED RULES GOVERNING THE USE BY AUTHORIZED MOTOR
CARRIERS OF EQUIPMENT NOT OWNED BY THEM BUT LEASED FROM THE OWNERS OR
OBTAINED BY INTERCHANGE WITH OTHER AUTHORIZED MOTOR CARRIERS.  THESE
RULES ABOLISH TRIP-LEASING AND REVENUE-SPLITTING WITH DRIVER-OWNERS;
REQUIRE WRITTEN CONTRACTS, CARRIER INSPECTION, CONTROL AND
RESPONSIBILITY FOR NONOWNED EQUIPMENT; AND, FOR INTERCHANGED EQUIPMENT,
REQUIRE DRIVERS EMPLOYED BY THE CERTIFIED CARRIER OVER WHOSE ROUTE IT
TRAVELS.  HELD: 

1.  THE PROMULGATION OF THESE RULES FOR AUTHORIZED CARRIERS IS WITHIN
THE COMMISSION'S POWER, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO
LEASING PRACTICES IN THE ACT.  PP. 308-313. 

2.  THE RULES DO NOT VIOLATE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  PP.
313-314. 

3.  THE RULES AND THE EXEMPTIONS THEREFROM ARE NOT UNREASONABLE  PP.
314-316. 

4.  THE RULES DO NOT VIOLATE SEC. 208(A) OR SEC. 209(B), PROTECTING
THE CARRIERS' RIGHT TO AUGMENT THEIR EQUIPMENT.  PP. 316-317. 

5.  THEY DO NOT VIOLATE SEC. 203(B)(6), WHICH EXEMPTS FROM THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION VEHICLES USED IN CARRYING ONLY LIVESTOCK,
FISH OR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES - THOUGH THEY MAY INCREASE THE COST OF
OPERATING SUCH VEHICLES.  PP. 317-318. 

6.  NOR WERE THE RULES THE PRODUCT OF PROCEEDINGS FATALLY AT VARIANCE
WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  PP. 318-320. 

(A) SECTION 7(C) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, PROVIDING THAT
THE PROPONENT OF A RULE "SHALL HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF," IS
INAPPLICABLE; SINCE THESE RULES WERE PROMULGATED UNDER SEC. 204(A)(6)
OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, WHICH REQUIRES NO RECORD OR HEARING.  PP. 318
320. 

(B)  SIMILARLY INAPPLICABLE IS SEC. 8(B) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT DECISIONS SHALL INCLUDE A STATEMENT
OF "FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS."  P. 320. 

7.  IN A CARRIER'S SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RULES, THE
DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN REFUSING TO PERMIT INTRODUCTION OF
EVIDENCE OF "CONFISCATION," THOUGH THE RULES MAY AFFECT THE VALUE OF
SOME GOING CONCERNS.  PP. 320-323. 

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 35, EASTERN MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES ET AL., AND NO. 36, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. UNITED STATES ET
AL., ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA. 

TWO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS DECLINED TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF RULES
PROMULGATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION GOVERNING THE USE BY
MOTOR CARRIERS OF EQUIPMENT NOT OWNED BY THEM.  101 F. SUPP. 710; 103
F. SUPP. 694.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 323. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE APPEALS ATTACK NEW INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION RULES
GOVERNING THE USE OF EQUIPMENT BY AUTHORIZED MOTOR CARRIERS WHEN THE
EQUIPMENT IS NOT OWNED BY THE CARRIER BUT IS LEASED FROM THE OWNER OR
OBTAINED BY INTERCHANGE WITH ANOTHER AUTHORIZED CARRIER.  THEY WERE
PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION AND REPORTED EX PARTE NO. MC-43, LEASE AND
INTERCHANGE OF VEHICLES BY MOTOR CARRIERS, 52 M.C.C. 675.  AS WILL BE
SEEN FROM THE PORTIONS WE HAVE QUOTED IN THE APPENDIX, POST, P. 323,
THEY PRINCIPALLY REQUIRE CARRIER INSPECTION; WHEN THE EQUIPMENT IS
LEASED, CONTROL FOR A MINIMUM OF THIRTY DAYS AND A METHOD OF
COMPENSATION OTHER THAN DIVISION OF REVENUES BETWEEN LESSOR AND LESSEE;
AND, IN THE CASE OF USE OF ANOTHER CARRIER'S EQUIPMENT, AUTHORIZATION
TO THE EXCHANGE POINT AND ACTUAL TRANSFER OF CONTROL.  THUS THE
PRACTICE OF USING LEASED EQUIPMENT AND THAT OBTAINED BY INTERCHANGE IS
BROUGHT INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE REGULATION OF CARRIER-OWNED EQUIPMENT
TO AVOID EVILS THAT HAD GROWN UP IN THAT PRACTICE. 

SOME SIX SUITS WERE INSTITUTED TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE RULES IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECS. 2321-2325.  THREE WERE STAYED
BY ORDERS AND ONE WAS NOT MOVED PENDING DISPOSITION OF THE INSTANT
CASES.  (FN1)  THESE CAME HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM TWO SEPARATE
JUDGMENTS DENYING THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PRAYED FOR; ONE IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA, EASTERN MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 103
F. SUPP.  694, AND THE OTHER IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA,
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 101 F. SUPP.
710.  THE ISSUES THERE CONSIDERED AND RESOLVED AGAINST THE APPLICANTS
CONCERNED THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF
1935, INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PART II, 49 STAT. 543, AS AMENDED, 54
STAT. 919, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 301 ET SEQ.; THE IMPACT OF THE RULES ON
AGRICULTURAL TRUCKING AND ON THE GUARANTEED RIGHT OF AUTHORIZED
CARRIERS TO AUGMENT THEIR EQUIPMENT; THE APPLICATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 237, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1001 ET SEQ.;
AND THE RIGHT OF THE PROTESTANTS TO INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS.  SINCE THERE WERE ONLY MINOR DIFFERENCES IN THE
CONTENT OF THE TWO CASES APPEALED, THEY MAY BE TREATED TOGETHER. 

I. INTRODUCTION.  - WE CONSIDER AT THE OUTSET THE EXISTING CONDITIONS
OF THE MOTOR TRUCK INDUSTRY AND ITS REGULATION AS DEVELOPED DURING THE
COMMISSION'S HEARINGS BECAUSE ONLY AGAINST SUCH A BACKGROUND ARE THE
RULES MEANINGFUL.  COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION IN THE FORM OF PERMITS OR
CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IS A PRECONDITION TO
INTERSTATE SERVICE BY VIRTUE OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  SUCH
AUTHORIZATION, EXCEPT UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE, IS GRANTED ONLY
AFTER A SHOWING OF FITNESS AND ABILITY TO PERFORM AND A PUBLIC NEED FOR
THE PROFFERED SERVICE.  AND IT SPECIFICALLY LIMITS THE SCOPE AND
BUSINESS OF THE PERMITTED OPERATIONS IN THE CASE OF A CONTRACT CARRIER,
AND THE ROUTES AND TERMINI WHICH MAY BE SERVED BY A CERTIFICATED COMMON
CARRIER.  (FN2) 

THE ACT WAIVES THESE CONDITIONS OF AGENCY AUTHORIZATION AND SERVICE
LIMITATIONS FOR A SIZABLE PORTION OF THE INDUSTRY, HOWEVER.  MOST
IMPORTANT OF THE EXEMPT OPERATIONS ARE THOSE INVOLVING EQUIPMENT USED
IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.  BY AND LARGE, THE
EQUIPMENT IN THIS CATEGORY IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE SAME PERSON. 
IT FALLS ONLY WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER DRIVERS'
QUALIFICATIONS, HOURS OF SERVICE AND SAFETY.  (FN3)  AND SO THERE IS NO
MANDATE ON THESE EXEMPT OWNER-OPERATORS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND
NONDISCRIMINATORY SERVICE, ADHERE TO PUBLISHED RATES, AND COMPLY WITH
THE STRICT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED ON CARRIERS AUTHORIZED FOR
GENERAL CARRIAGE.  (FN4) 

BECAUSE OF THE LIMITING CHARACTER OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM,
AUTHORIZED CARRIERS HAVE DEVELOPED A WIDE PRACTICE OF USING NONOWNED
EQUIPMENT.  THEY HAVE MOVED IN TWO DIRECTIONS.  THE FIRST IS
INTERCHANGE.  THIS INCLUDES THOSE ARRANGEMENTS WHEREBY TWO OR MORE
CERTIFICATED CARRIERS PROVIDE FOR THROUGH TRAVEL OF A LOAD IN ORDER TO
MERGE THE ADVANTAGES OF CERTIFICATION TO SERVE DIFFERENT AREAS.   IN
THIS FASHION, A WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY LOADED TRAILER MAY BE EXCHANGED AT
THE ESTABLISHED INTERCHANGE POINT, OR EVEN AN ENTIRE TRUCK TRAVEL THE
LINE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, UNDER THE GUISE OF A SHIFT IN CONTROL.  THE
SECOND IS LEASING.  THIS RELATES TO THE USE OF EXEMPT EQUIPMENT IN
AUTHORIZED OPERATIONS.  CARRIERS SUBJECT TO COMMISSION JURISDICTION
HAVE INCREASINGLY TURNED TO OWNER-OPERATOR TRUCKERS TO SATISFY THEIR
NEED FOR EQUIPMENT AS THEIR SERVICE DEMANDS.  BY A VARIETY OF
ARRANGEMENTS, THE AUTHORIZED CARRIERS HIRE THEM TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS
UNDER THE FORMER'S PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE.  SUCH OPERATORS THUS TRAVEL
APPROVED ROUTES WITH NONEXEMPT PROPERTY, AND IN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF
INSTANCES SEVER CONNECTIONS WITH THEIR LESSEE CARRIER AT THE END OF THE
TRIP.  (FN5) 

THE USE OF NONOWNED EQUIPMENT BY AUTHORIZED CARRIERS IS NOT ILLEGAL,
EITHER UNDER THE ACT OR THE RULES UNDER CONSIDERATION.  (FN6)  BUT
EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT A NUMBER OF SATELLITE PRACTICES DIRECTLY
AFFECT THE REGULATORY SCHEME OF THE ACT, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
NECESSARY SERVICE AND THE ECONOMIC STABILITY OF THE INDUSTRY, AND IT IS
ON THESE THAT THE RULES FOCUS.  IT APPEARS, FOR INSTANCE, THAT WHILE
MANY ARRANGEMENTS ARE REDUCED TO WRITING, ORAL LEASES ARE COMMON; SOME
WERE CONCLUDED AFTER THE TRIPS WERE MADE AND IN SEVERAL CASES EXEMPT
OPERATORS SOLICITED BUSINESS THEMSELVES WITH BLANK AUTHORIZED CARRIER
FORMS OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF AGENCY.  IT IS STRONGLY URGED THAT THIS VERY
INFORMALITY OF THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARRIER AND EXEMPT
OPERATOR CREATES CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE
WHICH THE ACT CONTEMPLATES.  PROOF WAS PROFFERED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS
THAT THE INFORMAL AND TENUOUS RELATIONSHIPS IN LEASE AND INTERCHANGE
PERMIT EVASIONS OF THE LIMITATIONS ON CERTIFICATED OR PERMITTED
AUTHORITY.  SINCE THE DRIVER OF THE EXEMPT EQUIPMENT IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE
OF THE CARRIER, SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF GEOGRAPHICAL RESTRICTIONS
ARE CLEARLY DIFFICULT TO IMPOSE, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF THE SINGLE
TRIP LESSOR.  INTERCHANGE MAY, AS WELL, BECOME A DEVICE TO CIRCUMVENT
GEOGRAPHICAL RESTRICTIONS IN THE CERTIFICATE.  THE PRACTICE OF
AUTHORIZED CARRIERS CONDUCTING OPERATIONS BEYOND THE TERRITORY THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO SERVE UNDER COVER OF A LEASE FROM THE LOCAL CARRIER WAS
CLEARLY SHOWN IN THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  IT APPEARED, IN
FACT, THAT SOME OF THESE OPERATIONS ARE ENTIRELY FICTIONAL, BEING
CREATED AD HOC AFTER THE TRIP IS MADE - AND THIS AT TIMES IN THE WAKE
OF A SPECIFIC DENIAL BY THE COMMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO SERVE THE
AREA. 

IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED, AND SHOWN BY EVIDENCE OF SOME INCIDENTS, THAT
THE COMMISSION'S SAFETY REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT OBSERVED BY EXEMPT
LESSORS.  BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE GREAT BULK OF THE ARRANGEMENTS
COVER ONLY ONE TRIP, LEASING CARRIERS HAVE LITTLE OPPORTUNITY OR DESIRE
TO INSPECT THE EQUIPMENT USED, ESPECIALLY IN CASES WHERE THE AGREEMENT
IS MADE WITHOUT THE OPERATOR'S APPEARANCE AT THE CARRIER'S TERMINAL. 
ENFORCEMENT SANCTIONS BY THE CARRIERS FOR VIOLATIONS WOULD BE CLEARLY
AS DIFFICULT TO IMPOSE AS ROUTE STANDARDS.  HENCE, THE CARRIER MAY NOT
EXTEND THE SUPERVISION OF REST PERIODS, DOCTORS' CERTIFICATES, BRAKES,
LIGHTS, TIRES, STEERING EQUIPMENT AND LOADING, NORMALLY ACCORDED HIS
OWN EMPLOYEES AND VEHICLES, TO EQUIPMENT AND DRIVERS SECURED THROUGH
LEASE.  AND THE OWNER-OPERATOR HIMSELF IS CALLED UPON TO PUSH HIMSELF
AND HIS TRUCK BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TIME SPENT OFF THE ROAD
AND INVESTMENT IN REPAIRS ON HIS SLIM PROFIT MARGIN.  (FN7)  FURTHER,
THE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS HAS MADE THE FIXING OF THE LESSEE'S
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACCIDENTS HIGHLY DIFFICULT. 

CONSEQUENCES ON THE ECONOMIC STABILITY OF THE INDUSTRY WERE ALSO
NOTED.  THE CARRIER ENGAGED IN LEASING PRACTICE IS AT THE MERCY OF THE
COST AND SUPPLY OF EXEMPT EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE TO HIM.  HENCE, HE MAY AT
TIMES FIND HIMSELF UNABLE TO UNDERTAKE SHIPPING OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE NO
TRUCKS ARE AVAILABLE WILLING TO MAKE A RELATIVELY UNPROFITABLE TRIP OR
TO ASSUME THE BURDENS OF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SERVICE.  CERTIFICATION IS
GRANTED ON A SHOWING THAT A CONCERN IS FIT AND WILLING TO PROVIDE
NONDISCRIMINATORY SERVICE REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE.  TO
SUSTAIN THIS OBLIGATION, THE AUTHORIZED INTEGRATED CARRIER WHO FINDS
HIS LEASING COMPETITOR ONLY WILLING TO UNDERTAKE THE MORE PROFITABLE
VENTURES MAY BE OBLIGED TO RELY ON MISCELLANEOUS FREIGHT WITHOUT
COMPENSATING ECONOMIC LONG CARLOAD HAULS TO SUSTAIN ESTIMATED PROFIT
MARGINS. 

USE OF EXEMPT EQUIPMENT BY AUTHORIZED CARRIERS ALSO TENDS TO OBSTRUCT
NORMAL RATE REGULATION.  SCHEDULES ARE TRADITIONALLY GROUNDED IN
COSTS.  BUT THE COST PICTURE OF A CARRIER WHO DEPENDS LARGELY ON LEASED
EQUIPMENT IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A CARRIER OWNING HIS OWN
TRUCKS.  NOT ONLY IS THE FORMER ABLE TO UNDERTAKE OPERATIONS WITH
RELATIVELY SLIGHT INVESTMENT.  AS WELL, HIS CURRENT OVERHEAD INVOLVED
IN OPERATING LEASED EQUIPMENT IS SOLELY ADMINISTRATIVE, THE OWNER OF
THE EXEMPT EQUIPMENT BEARING THE EXPENSE OF GAS, OIL, TIRES, WAGES AND
DEPRECIATION OUT OF HIS SHARE OF THE FEE.  AND TO REFER TO THE EXEMPT
OWNER'S OWN EXPENSES AS DETERMINATIVE OF WHAT IS A "REASONABLE" RATE
WOULD BE MANIFESTLY IMPOSSIBLE AS LONG AS THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
LESSOR AND LESSEE ARE TOO TENUOUS, SHORT-TERMED AND INFORMAL AND THE
COMPENSATION OF EACH BASED ON A DIVISION OF REVENUE. 

IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE PRACTICE IN FACT HAS HAD A DEMORALIZING EFFECT
ON THE INDUSTRY.  AUTHORIZED CARRIERS FIND IT ADVANTAGEOUS TO EXPAND
THEIR OPERATIONS BY LEASED EQUIPMENT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT NO
INVESTMENT IS REQUIRED, NOR IS THE RISK OF EMPTY RETURN TRIPS AND OTHER
OVERHEAD INCURRED.  HENCE, CARRIERS OWNING THEIR OWN TRUCKS FACE A
FLUID RATE STRUCTURE IN COMPETITION WITH THOSE SPECIALIZING IN USE OF
EXEMPT EQUIPMENT, ESPECIALLY WHERE SUCH EQUIPMENT IS OFFERED FOR A
TRIP, AS IT OFTEN IS, FOR EXPENSES.  THERE IS THUS A PRESSURE ON THE
CERTIFICATED OPERATOR TO ENTER THE LEASING FIELD AND HENCE EXPAND THE
EFFECT OF THESE CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES ON EFFICIENT, SAFE AND
NONDISCRIMINATORY TRUCK SERVICE WHICH THE ACT IS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE. 

II.  COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS.  - ALL BEFORE US ADMIT THE DIFFICULTIES
WHICH HAVE DEVELOPED.  IN FACT, THE COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED THEM FOR
SOME YEARS.  AS EARLY AS 1940, FOLLOWING COMPLAINTS, THE BUREAU OF
MOTOR CARRIERS HELD HEARINGS ON THE SUBJECT WHICH CULMINATED IN A
STATISTICAL REPORT IN 1943.  THE NECESSITY OF MAXIMUM USE OF
TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES DURING THE WAR POSTPONED ANY ACTION THEREAFTER
UNTIL 1947.  (FN8)  IN THAT YEAR, HOWEVER, THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU
REINSTITUTED DISCUSSION, HAD SUGGESTED REGULATIONS DRAFTED, AND DREW ON
HIS FIELD STAFF FOR REPORTS OF THE USE OF THE EXEMPT VEHICLES BY
AUTHORIZED CARRIERS.  THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED BY THE
COMMISSION ON JANUARY 9, 1948, WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT CARRIER
AGREEMENT REGARDING A PROPER SOLUTION WAS UNLIKELY.  ITS ORDER,
PUBLISHED AT 13 FED. REG. 369, DECLARED ALL AUTHORIZED CARRIERS
RESPONDENTS AND SET FORTH THE PRACTICES TO BE INVESTIGATED, FOUR
POSSIBLE SCHEMES OF REGULATION, AND SUGGESTED RULES.  A QUALIFIED
EXAMINER THEREAFTER HEARD SOME 80 WITNESSES IN WASHINGTON AND ST.
LOUIS, AND ISSUED A REPORT AND PROPOSED RULES.  A FULL REPORT BY THE
COMMISSION'S DIVISION 5 FOLLOWED ON JUNE 26, 1950, CONFIRMING THE
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND AMENDING HIS PROPOSALS, (FN9) AND, FOLLOWING
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE ENTIRE COMMISSION REOPENED
PROCEEDINGS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.  THE COMMISSION'S REPORT, DATED MAY 8,
1951, IN EFFECT ADOPTED THE EXAMINER'S PROPOSED RULES, AFTER AFFIRMING
AND REITERATING THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF LEASING AND INTERCHANGE
PRACTICES ON THE INDUSTRY AND REGULATION UNDER THE ACT. 

III.  THE RULES.  - IN THIS FINAL FORM, THE RULES ESTABLISH AS
CONDITIONS TO THE USE OF NONOWNED EQUIPMENT BY AUTHORIZED CARRIERS THE
REDUCTION OF THE CONTRACTS TO WRITING.  RULE SEC. 207.4(A)(2), 52
M.C.C. 744.  IT IS REQUIRED THAT SUCH CONTRACTS VEST EXCLUSIVE
POSSESSION OF, AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR, THE EQUIPMENT IN THE AUTHORIZED
CARRIER DURING THE RENTAL, RULE SEC. 207.4(A)(4), THE LIFE OF WHICH
MUST EXCEED THIRTY DAYS WHEN THE DRIVER IS THE OWNER OR HIS EMPLOYEE. 
RULE SEC. 207.4(A)(3).  FINALLY, THE CONTRACT MUST FIX THE COMPENSATION
OF THE LESSOR, WHICH MAY NOT BE MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS
REVENUE.  RULE SEC. 207.4(A)(5).  INTERCHANGE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TWO
AUTHORIZED CARRIERS MUST ALSO BE IN WRITING AND THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE
DRIVEN BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CERTIFICATED CARRIER OVER WHOSE AUTHORIZED
ROUTE IT TRAVELS.  RULE SEC. 207.5(A), (C).    THE RULES ALSO REQUIRE
INSPECTION OF NONOWNED EQUIPMENT WHEN THE LESSEE CARRIER TAKES
POSSESSION, RULE SEC. 207.4(C), AS WELL AS THE INDENTIFICATION OF THE
TRUCKS AS WITHIN ITS RESPONSIBILITY, RULE SEC. 207.4(D), AND THE
TESTING OF THE DRIVER'S FAMILIARITY WITH MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
REGULATIONS.  RULE SEC. 207.4(E).  RECORDS OF THE USE OF RENTED AND
INTERCHANGED EQUIPMENT ARE MANDATORY.  RULE SEC. 207.4(F). 

IV.  COMMISSION AUTHORITY.  - APPELLANTS FOCUS THEIR PRINCIPAL ATTACK
ON THE LEASE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A THIRTY-DAY PERIOD OF CARRIER
CONTROL AND A MEASURE OF COMPENSATION OTHER THAN REVENUE SPLITTING. 
ALL AGREE THAT THE RULES THUS ABOLISH TRIP-LEASING.  UNFORTUNATE
CONSEQUENCES ARE PREDICTED FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE THE EXEMPT
OWNER-OPERATOR WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO HIRE HIMSELF OUT AT WILL - IN
SUM, THAT THE INDUSTRY'S ABILITY TO SERVE A FLUCTUATING DEMAND WILL
SUFFER AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS ACCORDINGLY GO UP.  IT IS THE
COMMISSION'S POSITION THAT THE INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC WILL BENEFIT
DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF THE STABILIZATION OF CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION AND
RATE SCHEDULES, AND THAT IN FACT THE CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT IS DEPENDENT ON
REGULATION OF LEASING AND INTERCHANGE.  NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE ARE ILL
EQUIPPED TO WEIGH SUCH PREDICTIONS OF THE ECONOMIC FUTURE.  NOR IS IT
OUR FUNCTION TO ACT AS A SUPER-COMMISSION.  SO WE TURN TO THE LEGAL
CONSIDERATIONS SO STRONGLY URGED ON US. 

HERE, APPELLANTS HAVE FRAMED THEIR POSITION AS A BROADSIDE ATTACK ON
THE COMMISSION'S ASSERTED POWER.  ALL URGE UPON US THE FACT THAT
NOWHERE IN THE ACT IS THERE AN EXPRESS DELEGATION OF POWER TO CONTROL,
REGULATE OR AFFECT LEASING PRACTICES, (FN10) AND IT IS FURTHER INSISTED
THAT IN EACH SEPARATE PROVISION OF THE ACT GRANTING REGULATORY
AUTHORITY THERE IS NO DIRECT IMPLICATION OF SUCH POWER.  OUR FUNCTION,
HOWEVER, DOES NOT STOP WITH A SECTION-BY-SECTION SEARCH FOR THE PHRASE
"REGULATION OF LEASING PRACTICES" AMONG THE LITERAL WORDS OF THE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, WE MIGHT AGREE WITH
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS IF WE THOUGHT IT A REASONABLE CANON OF
INTERPRETATION THAT THE DRAFTSMEN OF ACTS DELEGATING AGENCY POWERS, AS
A PRACTICAL AND REALISTIC MATTER, CAN OR DO INCLUDE SPECIFIC
CONSIDERATION OF EVERY EVIL SOUGHT TO BE CORRECTED.  BUT NO GREAT
ACQUAINTANCE WITH PRACTICAL AFFAIRS IS REQUIRED TO KNOW THAT SUCH
PRESCIENCE, EITHER IN FACT OR IN THE MINDS OF CONGRESS, DOES NOT
EXIST.  NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190, 219
220; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 193-194.  ITS
VERY ABSENCE, MOREOVER, IS PRECISELY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY REGULATORY
AGENCIES SUCH AS THE COMMISSION ARE CREATED, FOR IT IS THE FOND HOPE OF
THEIR AUTHORS THAT THEY BRING TO THEIR WORK THE EXPERT'S FAMILIARITY
WITH INDUSTRY CONDITIONS WHICH MEMBERS OF THE DELEGATING LEGISLATURES
CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO POSSESS.  UNITED STATES V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.,
323 U.S. 612. 

MOREOVER, WE MUST REJECT AT THE OUTSET ANY CONCLUSION THAT THE RULES
AS A WHOLE REPRESENT AN ATTEMPT BY THE COMMISSION TO EXPAND ITS POWER
ARBITRARILY; THERE IS CLEAR AND ADEQUATE EVIDENCE OF EVILS ATTENDANT ON
TRIP-LEASING.  THE PURPOSE OF THE RULES IS TO PROTECT THE INDUSTRY FROM
PRACTICES DETRIMENTAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF SOUND TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES CONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATORY SYSTEM.  SECTIONS 216(B) AND
218(A) OF THE ACT, FOR INSTANCE, REQUIRE THE FILING OF A JUST AND
REASONABLE RATE SCHEDULE BY EACH COMMON CARRIER, AND THE VIOLATION OF
THESE RATES AND THE DEMORALIZATION OF RATE STRUCTURES GENERALLY ARE A
PROBABLE CONCOMITANT OF CURRENT LEASING PRACTICES.   SECTION 204(A)(2)
REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO IMPOSE RULES RELATING TO SAFETY OF OPERATION
FOR VEHICLES AND DRIVERS.  THESE ARE LIKEWISE THREATENED BY THE
UNRESTRICTED USE OF NONOWNED EQUIPMENT BY THE COMMON CARRIERS.  AND THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE IN SEC.  204(A)(1), OF OBSERVANCE OF
AUTHORIZED ROUTES AND TERMINI UNDER SECS. 208(A) AND 209(B), AND THE
PROHIBITIONS OF REBATES, SECS. 216(D), 217(B), 218(A) AND 222(C), ALSO
MAY BE IGNORED THROUGH THE VERY PRACTICES HERE PROSCRIBED. 

SO THE RULES IN QUESTION ARE AIMED AT CONDITIONS WHICH MAY DIRECTLY
FRUSTRATE THE SUCCESS OF THE REGULATION UNDERTAKEN BY CONGRESS. 
INCLUDED IN THE ACT AS A DUTY OF THE COMMISSION IS THAT "TO ADMINISTER,
EXECUTE, AND ENFORCE ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY
ORDERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND TO PRESCRIBE RULES, REGULATIONS,
AND PROCEDURE FOR SUCH ADMINISTRATION."  SEC. 204(A)(6).  AND THIS
NECESSARY RULE-MAKING POWER, COTERMINOUS WITH THE SCOPE OF AGENCY
REGULATION ITSELF, MUST EXTEND TO THE "TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR
PROPERTY BY MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE
AND TO THE PROCUREMENT OF AND THE PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR SUCH
TRANSPORTATION," REGULATION OF WHICH IS VESTED IN THE COMMISSION BY
SEC. 202(A).  SEE ALSO SEC. 203(A)(19). 

WE CANNOT AGREE WITH APPELLANTS' CONTENTION THAT THE RULE-MAKING
AUTHORITY OF SEC.  204(A)(6) MERELY CONCERNS AGENCY PROCEDURES AND IS
SOLELY ADMINISTRATIVE.  IT IGNORES THE DISTINCT REFERENCE IN THE
MAKE RULES APPLICABLE TO TRANSFERS OF CERTIFICATES OR PERMITS IS
RECOGNIZED BY SEC. 212(B).  THAT SECTION PERMITS TRANSFERS "PURSUANT TO
SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE COMMISSION MAY PRESCRIBE."  IT DOES
NOT STRAIN LOGIC OR EXPERIENCE TO LOOK UPON LEASING OF EXEMPT EQUIPMENT
AND INTERCHANGE AS A TRANSFER, TEMPORARY IN NATURE, OF THE CARRIER'S
AUTHORIZED RIGHT TO SERVE HIS SPECIFIED AREA; IN FACT WE THINK THIS
INTERPRETATION IS DRAMATICALLY SUPPORTED HERE BY THE EVIDENCE THAT
OWNER-OPERATORS THEMSELVES TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN SECURING CARGOES,
WHILE THE CARRIERS ACCEPT ONLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF APPROVING
THE USE OF THE NONOWNED EQUIPMENT OVER THEIR AUTHORIZED ROUTES AND
UNDER THEIR NAMES.  IT IS AN UNNATURAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO SIT IDLY BY AND WINK AT PRACTICES THAT
LEAD TO VIOLATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS. 

WE HOLD THEN THAT THE PROMULGATION OF THESE RULES FOR AUTHORIZED
CARRIERS FALLS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S POWER, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO LEASING PRACTICES IN THE ACT.  SEE GENERAL TANK
CAR CORP. V. TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422, 432.  THE GRANT OF GENERAL
RULE-MAKING POWER NECESSARY FOR ENFORCEMENT COMPELS THIS RESULT.  IT IS
FORESHADOWED, OF COURSE, BY UNITED STATES V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 323
U.S. 612.  THAT CASE VALIDATED AN ORDER REQUIRING RAILROADS TO LEASE
CARS TO A COMPETING CARRIER BY SEA, IN SPITE OF THE INABILITY OF THE
COMMISSION TO GROUND ITS ACTION ON SOME SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE ACT. 
323 U.S., AT 616.  THIS COURT POINTED TO THE FACT THAT THE
"UNQUESTIONED POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THROUGH ROUTES WOULD BE WHOLLY FRUITLESS, WITHOUT THE CORRELATIVE POWER
TO ABROGATE THE ASSOCIATION'S RULE WHICH PROHIBITS THE INTERCHANGE." 
323 U.S., AT 619.  THERE IS EVIDENCE HERE THAT CONVINCES US THAT THAT
REGULATION OF LEASING PRACTICES IS LIKEWISE A NECESSARY POWER; IN FACT,
WE THINK ITS EXERCISE MORE CRUCIAL THAN IN UNITED STATES V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. THE ENFORCEMENT OF ONLY ONE PHASE OF THE ACT WAS
THERE ENDANGERED; HERE, PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE REGULATORY SCHEME IS
AFFECTED BY TRIP-LEASING. 

A FAIR ANALOGY APPEARS BETWEEN THE CONDITIONS WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND THOSE SOUGHT TO BE CORRECTED BY THE PRESENT
RULES, CONFIRMING OUR VIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  THEN THE
INDUSTRY WAS UNSTABLE ECONOMICALLY, DOMINATED BY EASE OF COMPETITIVE
ENTRY AND A FLUID RATE PICTURE.  AND AS A RESULT, IT BECAME OVERCROWDED
WITH SMALL ECONOMIC UNITS WHICH PROVED UNABLE TO SATISFY EVEN THE MOST
MINIMAL STANDARDS OF SAFETY OR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.  (FN11)  SO
CONGRESS FELT COMPELLED TO REQUIRE AUTHORIZATION FOR ALL INTERSTATE
OPERATIONS TO PRESERVE THE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FROM OVER
COMPETITION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PROTECTING EXISTING ROUTES THROUGH
THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE.  (FN12)  THE COMMISSION'S RULE-MAKING HERE
CONSIDERED IS BASED ON CONDITIONS THAT SIMILARLY THREATEN, THOUGH
PERHAPS TO A LESSER DEGREE, THE EFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE INDUSTRY
TODAY. 

AND AS EXERCISED, THE POWER UNDER SEC. 204(A)(6) IS GEARED TO AND
BOUNDED BY THE LIMITS OF THE REGULATORY SYSTEM OF THE ACT WHICH IT
SUPPLEMENTS.  IT IS THUS AS CLEARLY DEFINED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES
AS THE SPECIFIED FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION, AND SO RELIANCE ON
SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 529, AND PANAMA
REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, 421, IS MISPLACED.  WE REJECT FOR
SIMILAR REASONS THE CONTENTION THAT FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V.
PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO., 337 U.S. 498, IS CONTROLLING HERE. 
OUR HOLDING THAT THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY DID NOT
EXTEND TO PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS WAS SPECIFICALLY
GROUNDED IN A PROVISION OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT TO THAT EFFECT.  337
U.S., AT 504-505. 

V. THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  - WHAT WE HAVE SAID ABOVE
ANSWERS APPELLANTS' COMPANION CONTENTION THAT THE RULES ARE INVALID
BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY AS SET OUT IN
49 U.S.C., PRECEDING SEC. 1.  REGULATION UNDER THE ACT IS THERE
DECLARED TO BE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE INHERENT
ADVANTAGES OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION, AND OF AN ECONOMICALLY
SOUND, SAFE, AND EFFICIENT INDUSTRY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ROCK ISLAND
MOTOR TRANSIT CO., 340 U.S. 419, AND UNITED STATES V. TEXAS & PACIFIC
MOTOR TRANSPORT CO., 340 U.S. 450.  BUT NO OVERLY-NICE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN LAW AND POLICY IS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE QUESTION
IS HARDLY ONE FOR THE COURTS; IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RULES REPRESENT, AT
BEST, A COMPROMISE BETWEEN STABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY OF INDUSTRY
CONDITIONS, EACH ALLEGED TO BE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, AND WE CAN
ONLY LOOK TO SEE IF THE COMMISSION HAS APPLIED ITS FAMILIARITY WITH
TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS TO THESE CONFLICTING CONSIDERATIONS.  THE MERE
FACT THAT A CONTRARY POSITION WAS TAKEN DURING THE WAR YEARS WHEN
ACTIVE INTERCHANGE AND LEASING WERE REQUIRED, (FN13) THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS NEVER BEFORE RESTRICTED TRIP-LEASING AND HAS IN FACT
APPROVED IT FROM TIME TO TIME, (FN14) DOES NOT CHANGE OUR FUNCTION. 

VI.  REASONABLENESS OF RULES AND EXEMPTIONS THEREFORM.  - THE
RELATIONSHIP OF THESE RULES TO THE REGULATORY SCHEME THEY ARE DESIGNED
TO PROTECT FORMS A BASIS FOR THE ANSWER TO THE VARIOUS ALLEGATIONS THAT
CERTAIN RULES ARE ARBITRARY.  FOR OUR PURPOSES, SUCH AN ARGUMENT MUST
MEAN THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO REASONABLE GROUND FOR THE EXERCISE OF
JUDGMENT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, SUCH IS NOT THE SITUATION; THE EVIDENCE
MARSHALLED BEFORE THE COMMISSION PLAINLY SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS OF ITS REGULATION REQUIRES THE RULES
PRESCRIBED. 

WE ALSO AFFIRM A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AIMS OF THE
FEDERAL REGULATORY SCHEME AND THE EXEMPTIONS IN THE RULES.  THAT AS TO
INTERCHANGE BETWEEN CARRIERS OVER ROUTES WHICH BOTH ARE AUTHORIZED TO
SERVE, RULE SEC. 207.3(A), IS FOUNDED ON THE PROPOSITION THAT
UNAUTHORIZED CERTIFICATE EXTENSIONS ARE HERE IMPOSSIBLE.  THE EXEMPTION
EXTENDED TO TRUCKING EQUIPMENT USED IN RAILWAY EXPRESS OPERATIONS, RULE
SEC. 207.3(B), WHICH ARE LARGELY CONFINED TO MUNICIPALITIES AND
CONTIGUOUS AREAS, AND SHORT TRIPS, DUPLICATES THE SIMILAR EXEMPTION
APPLICABLE TO CONTRACT AND COMMON CARRIERS IN RULE SEC. 207.3(C).  IT
IS ALLEGED THAT THE EXCLUSION OF THE SUBSTITUTED MOTOR-FOR-RAIL
TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT FROM THE RULES' COVERAGE BY RULE SEC. 207.3(B) ALSO
IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE EVILS OF UNAUTHORIZED SERVICE, LAX
OBSERVATION OF SAFETY REGULATIONS, AND DEMORALIZED COMPETITIVE
CONDITIONS ARE NOT PRESENT IN SUCH OPERATIONS.  AS THE COMMISSION
FOUND, THE LEASING PRACTICES IN THE FIELD ARE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH LONG
TERM CONTRACTS WITH CERTAIN ESTABLISHED LESSORS, AND THE EQUIPMENT
INSPECTED AND CONTROLLED BY THE RAILROADS, AND IDENTIFIED WITH ITS
NAME.  IN SUCH A CONTEXT, THE EXEMPTION IS NOT UNREASONABLE; CERTAINLY
IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE COMMISSION EXTEND ITS SUPERVISORY
ACTIVITIES UNDER THE RULES INTO FIELDS WHERE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT
INDICATES NO NEED, MERELY TO SATISFY SOME STANDARD OF PAPER EQUALITY. 
AND THIS IS ESPECIALLY SO IN THE FIELD OF SUBSTITUTED MOTOR-FOR-RAIL
CARRIAGE WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S STRICT REGULATION BY
VIRTUE OF THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH WE APPROVED IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK
ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO., 340 U.S. 419, AND UNITED STATES V. TEXAS &
PACIFIC MOTOR TRANSPORT CO., 340 U.S. 450.  THE EXEMPTION FOR PLANS OF
OPERATIONS MERGED UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE ACT, RULE SEC. 207.3(D), IS SAID
TO HAVE BEEN DIRECTED SOLELY TOWARD ALLIED VAN LINES, WHOSE SEC. 5
PROCEEDING, REPORTED EVANSTON FIREPROOF WAREHOUSE - CONTROL - ALLIED
VAN LINES, 40 M.C.C. 557, INVOLVING A UNIQUE LEASING ARRANGEMENT BY
STOCKHOLDING HAULING AGENTS UNDER THE COMPANY'S NAME, HAS ALREADY BEEN
SCRUTINIZED BY THE COMMISSION.  SINCE ALLIED OPERATES ENTIRELY WITH
EQUIPMENT SUPPLIED UNDER THIS ARRANGEMENT, AND SINCE THE COMMISSION HAS
SPECIFICALLY APPROVED IT, IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE EXEMPTION HAS A
REASONABLE BASIS; THE GUARANTEES OF INSURANCE COVERAGE, FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY, LESSEE ROUTE CONTROL AND EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION IN
ALLIED'S OPERATIONS, 40 M.C.C. 551, 563-566, PROMISE PROTECTION AGAINST
THE EVILS THE RULES SEEK TO CORRECT. 

VII.  PRESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO AUGMENT EQUIPMENT.  - APPELLANTS
FURTHER CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT THE RULES IN EFFECT WILL VIOLATE THE
PROTECTIONS IN SECS. 208(A) AND 209(B) OF THE ACT OF THE CARRIERS'
RIGHT TO AUGMENT THEIR EQUIPMENT.  (FN15)  WE DO NOT AGREE.  THE
PROVISOS IN QUESTION ARE NOT TO BE READ AS BLANKET RESTRICTIONS ON THE
COMMISSION'S REGULATORY POWERS; THEY ARE AIMED AT THE RESTRICTIONS ON
THE INCREASE IN VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THROUGH ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL
VEHICLES.  CLEARLY, A NUMERICAL LIMITATION WOULD BE INVALID, BUT THE
COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO PERMIT CARRIERS TO SECURE AND USE EQUIPMENT
WHICH DOES NOT SATISFY ITS SAFETY, LOADING, AND LICENSING RULES WOULD
NOT.  AS WE POINTED OUT IN CRESCENT EXPRESS LINES, INC. V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 401, 408, IN SUSTAINING CERTIFICATE LIMITED TO SEVEN
PASSENGER VEHICLES, SINCE SEC. 208 "REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO SPECIFY
THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED, THIS COULD NOT BE DONE WITHOUT POWER ALSO
TO SPECIFY THE GENERAL TYPE OF VEHICLE TO BE USED."  WE THINK IT
EQUALLY APPARENT THAT REGULATION OF THE CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE USE OF NONOWNED VEHICLES IS NOT A "LIMITATION ON THE ADDITION OF
MORE VEHICLES OF THE AUTHORIZED TYPE."  320 U.S., AT 409. 

VIII.  PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION.  - AS INDICATED ABOVE,
THE ACT ALSO EXEMPTS FROM COMMISSION JURISDICTION "MOTOR VEHICLES USED
IN CARRYING PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ORDINARY LIVESTOCK, FISH (INCLUDING
SHELL FISH), OR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES (NOT INCLUDING MANUFACTURED
PRODUCTS THEREOF), IF SUCH MOTOR VEHICLES ARE NOT USED IN CARRYING ANY
OTHER PROPERTY, OR PASSENGERS, FOR COMPENSATION," SEC. 203(B)(6),
(FN16) AND APPELLANTS, AND PARTICULARLY THE INTERVENING SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, URGE THAT THE RULES WILL DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS SECTION IN VIOLATION OF CONGRESS' INTENT.  ALL
ADMIT, OF COURSE, THAT THE RULES DO NOT DIRECTLY APPLY TO AGRICULTURAL
EQUIPMENT; IT IS MERELY REQUIRED THAT AUTHORIZED CARRIERS USING SUCH
TRUCKS COMPLY WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS.  BUT IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE
PRECONDITIONS TO SUCH USE IMPOSED ON THOSE WITHIN COMMISSION
JURISDICTION WILL WIPE OUT MUCH OF THE TRAFFIC WHICH THE AGRICULTURAL
CARRIERS HAVE HERETOFORE ENGAGED IN.  IT APPEARS, FOR INSTANCE, THAT A
SUBSTANTIAL LEASING IS BUILT ON AGRICULTURAL HAULERS WHO WOULD
OTHERWISE RETURN EMPTY TO THEIR PLACE OF DEPARTURE, HAVING UNLOADED THE
FARM PRODUCE CARRIED; THE AUTHORIZED CARRIERS HAVE FOUND THEM PREPARED
TO ACCEPT A ONE-TRIP ENGAGEMENT FOR THE RETURN ROUTE.  THE THIRTY-DAY
LEASE PROVISION WILL MAKE SUCH ARRANGEMENTS IMPOSSIBLE. 

WE ARE UNABLE, HOWEVER, TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ECONOMIC DANGER TO THE
AGRICULTURAL TRUCKERS FROM THESE RULES CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF SEC.
203(B)(6).  THE MERE FACT THAT COMMERCIAL CARRIERS OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS WILL HEREAFTER BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THEIR CHARGES ON THE
BASIS OF AN EMPTY RETURN TRIP IS NOT THE SAME AS BRINGING THEM WITHIN
COMMISSION JURISDICTION GENERALLY.  THE EXEMPTION EXTENDS, BY ITS OWN
WORDS, TO CARRIAGE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, AND NOT TO OPERATIONS
WHERE THE EQUIPMENT IS USED TO CARRY OTHER PROPERTY.  NEEDLESS TO SAY,
THE STATUTE IS NOT DESIGNED TO ALLOW FARM TRUCKERS TO COMPETE WITH
AUTHORIZED AND CERTIFICATED MOTOR CARRIERS IN THE CARRIAGE OF NON
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OR MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS FOR OFF-THE-FARM USE,
MERELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXEMPTION WHEN CARRYING ONLY AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS.  WE CAN THEREFORE FIND NOTHING IN IT WHICH IMPLIES PROTECTION
OF AGRICULTURAL TRUCKERS' RIGHT TO HAUL OTHER PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH
FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT THAT RIGHT IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECT PROFIT
MARGINS.  REGULATED TRUCKERS MUST ALSO RECEIVE PROTECTION UPON THEIR
RESTRICTED ROUTES AND LIMITED CARRIAGE.  A BALANCE BETWEEN THESE
COMPETING FACTORS, CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE, (FN17) DOES NOT SEEM TO US UNREASONABLE OR INVALID. 

IX.  AGENCY PROCEDURE.  - WE NEED NOT PAUSE LONG OVER CERTAIN
PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS WHICH APPELLANTS HAVE INTERPOSED.  THEY OBJECT
THAT THE RULES WERE THE PRODUCT OF PROCEEDINGS FATALLY AT VARIANCE WITH
CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  APPELLANTS
IN NO. 35 POINT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 7(C), THAT "THE PROPONENT OF
A RULE OR ORDER SHALL HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF," AND INSIST THAT THE
COMMISSION, OR ITS MOTOR CARRIERS BUREAU WHICH DREW UP SUGGESTED RULES
PUBLISHED AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE HEARING ORDER, 13 FED. REG. 369, DID
NOT SATISFY THIS BURDEN BY PREPONDERATING EVIDENCE.  BUT EVEN ASSUMING
THAT THE COMMISSION WAS A STATUTORY "PROPONENT" OF THE REGULATION AND
THAT IT DID NOT ACTIVELY INTRODUCE THE REQUISITE DEGREE OF PROOF IN
SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION, WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS
INAPPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS.  FOR SEC. 7 OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT IS LIMITED BY ITS OWN TERMS TO "HEARINGS
WHICH SECTION 4 OR 5 REQUIRES TO BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS
7 ONLY WHEN SPECIFIED BY STATUTE: "WHERE RULES ARE REQUIRED BY STATUTE
TO BE MADE ON THE RECORD AFTER OPPORTUNITY FOR AN AGENCY HEARING, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 7 AND 8 SHALL APPLY IN PLACE OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS SUBSECTION."  (FN18)  IN SHORT, SEC. 7 APPLIES ONLY WHEN
HEARINGS WERE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THEY WERE CONDUCTED
TO BE MADE ON THE RECORD AND WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL HEARING.  AS WE
HAVE POINTED OUT, THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY IN THE INSTANT CASE STEMS
FROM SEC. 204(A)(6) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT; NOTHING THERE REQUIRES
RECORD OR HEARING, IN DIRECT CONTRAST WITH THE RATE-MAKING PROCEDURE
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 216(E) AND 218(B).  HENCE, WHATEVER OUR VIEW OF THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE EVIDENCE, WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE RULES MUST
FALL BECAUSE THE COMMISSION FAILED TO ASSUME AND SATISFY A "BURDEN OF
PROOF." 

SIMILAR REASONING SUPPORTS OUR CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 8(B) OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT DECISIONS SHALL
"INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF (1) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS," INVOKED BY
APPELLANTS IN NO. 26, IS LIKEWISE INAPPLICABLE.  FOR IT, IN TURN, IS
LIMITED TO A "HEARING  ... REQUIRED TO BE CONDUCTED IN CONFORMITY WITH

X. RIGHT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF CONFISCATION.  - FINALLY,
APPELLANTS ASSIGN AS ERROR THE REFUSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN NO. 35
TO PERMIT INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL ORAL EVIDENCE THERE.  THEIR OFFER
OF PROOF INDICATED THAT IT WOULD CONCERN THE "VALUE OF PLAINTIFFS'
PROPERTY AND RIGHTS" AND "THE EFFECT OF THE ORDER ON SAID PROPERTY AND
RIGHTS."  THIS COURT HAS INDICATED MANY TIMES, IT IS TRUE, THAT THOSE
CONCERNED WITH AN ORDER AFFECTING THEIR JUST COMPENSATION FOR
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MUST BE HEARD; INDEED, THEIR RIGHT TO INTRODUCE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT THE ORDER IN QUESTION WILL
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CONFISCATE THEIR PROPERTY MAY BE ENFORCED EVEN IN
THE DISTRICT COURT, IF THE COMMISSION BARS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.
MANUFACTURERS R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 457, 488-490; ST.
JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 53-54; BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 349, 362-369; NEW YORK V.
UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 284, 334-335. 

BUT THE RIGHT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN AVENUE TOWARD DELAY.  THE
CLAIM OF CONFISCATION MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL, THE IMPORT OF THE PROFFERED
EVIDENCE CLEAR, AND THE INABILITY TO TEST THE QUESTION BEFORE THE
COMMISSION PATENT, IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY AN ORAL HEARING ON THE QUESTION
IN THE COURTS.  IN THE CASE AT BAR, APPELLANTS SEEK IN SUBSTANCE TO
SHOW THAT THE OUTLAWING OF TRIP-LEASING WILL AFFECT THEIR BUSINESS;
PERHAPS THEY MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT SOME CONCERNS WOULD FAIL
IF THEY WERE UNABLE IN THE FUTURE TO RESORT TO NONOWNED EQUIPMENT FOR
SHORT PERIODS.  IN THIS CONTEXT, HOWEVER, WE DO NOT THINK THAT A RIGHT
TO TRIAL DE NOVO IS AUTOMATICALLY ESTABLISHED MERELY BECAUSE THE
COMMISSION DENIED A PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH INVOKED CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE WAS IN TRUTH A MULTITUDE OF
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TRIP-LEASING TO
SOME CONCERNS.  MOREOVER, WE ARE CLEAR THAT APPELLANTS HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE THIS VERY EVIDENCE IN THE AGENCY PROCEEDINGS,
FOR IT REQUIRED NO GREAT PRESCIENCE, IN VIEW OF THE NOTICE OF THE
HEARINGS PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION, TO KNOW THAT THEY WOULD CONCERN
THE IMPORTANCE AND DESIRABILITY OF THE VERY PRACTICES APPELLANTS SEEK
TO PROTECT. 

"CONFISCATORY" IS NOT A MAGIC WORD.  WHETHER IT SHOULD OPEN THE DOOR
TO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE ORDER ATTACKED.  WE
THINK A CLAIM OF RATE CONFISCATION, WHICH WAS THE CONCERN OF THE CASES
JUST CITED, STANDS ON A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FOOTING FROM THAT MADE
IN THE INSTANT CASE.  (FN19)  RATE-MAKING REPRESENTS AN ORDER AFFECTING
THE VOLUME OF INCOME; IT IS SAID TO CONFISCATE PROPERTY WHEN IT
PROHIBITS A REASONABLE RETURN ON INVESTMENT BEYOND OPERATING AND
INITIAL COSTS.  BUT THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ABOLISHMENT OF
TRIP-LEASING IS NOT NEARLY SO DIRECT.  THE COMMISSION HAS MERELY
DETERMINED BY WHAT METHOD THE CARRIER'S INCOME IS TO BE PRODUCED, AND
NOT HOW MUCH IT MAY CHARGE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT WE HAVE ADMONISHED THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS TO
PERMIT INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE ON THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF A RATE ORDER
WHERE THE CLAIM THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROFFERED DURING THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS WAS GENUINE.  BUT THAT WAS BECAUSE THE
"CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF COMPENSATION," ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 54, WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION.  HERE,
APPELLANTS CAN MAKE NO COMPARABLE CLAIM.  THEY ATTACK AN ORDER WHICH IS
VALID EVEN IF ITS EFFECT IS TO DRIVE SOME OPERATORS OUT OF BUSINESS. 
AS WE HAVE INDICATED, THE RULE-MAKING POWER IS ROOTED IN AND
SUPPLEMENTS CONGRESS' REGULATORY SCHEME, WHICH IN TURN DERIVES FROM THE
COMMERCE POWER.  THE FACT THAT THE VALUE OF SOME GOING CONCERNS MAY BE
AFFECTED, THEREFORE, DOES NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, IF THE RULES AND THE ACT BE RELATED, AS WE HAVE SAID THEY
ARE, TO EVILS IN COMMERCE WHICH THE FEDERAL POWER MAY REACH.  (FN20)
THIS BEING THE CASE, APPELLANTS HAD NO CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM IN SUPPORT
OF WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE DE NOVO, AND THE COURT
DID NOT ERR IN SUSTAINING THE OBJECTION THERETO.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  OKLAHOMA-LOUISIANA MOTOR FREIGHT CORP. V. UNITED STATES
(D.C.W.D. OKLA.); MOVERS' CONFERENCE OF AMERICA V. UNITED STATES
(D.C.E.D. MICH.); GREYVAN LINES, INC. V. UNITED STATES (D.C.N.D. ILL.),
AND APGER V. UNITED STATES (D.C.N.D. OHIO), RESPECTIVELY. 

FN2  INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SECS. 206-209, 49 STAT. 551-553. 

FN3  THE COMMISSION'S SAFETY REGULATIONS ARE PUBLISHED AT 49 CFR,
PARTS 190-196.  SECTION 203(B) ALSO EXEMPTS (1) SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION,
(2) TAXICABS, (3) HOTEL SERVICE, (4) NATIONAL PARK TRANSPORTATION, (4A)
FARMERS, (5) COOPERATIVES, (7) NEWSPAPERS, (7A) AIRLINES, (8) LOCAL
SERVICE, AND (9) "CASUAL" TRANSPORTATION. 

FN4  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SECS. 209(B), 216(E), 217(B), 49
STAT. 553, 558, 561, AND 49 CFR, PART 174. 

FN5  IT APPARENTLY IS DIFFICULT TO GENERALIZE ABOUT THE ECONOMIC
SIGNIFICANCE OF LEASING AND INTERCHANGE.  A SURVEY MADE BY THE BUREAU
IN 1947 DISCLOSED ONLY THAT ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE CARRIERS DID NOT
LEASE.  THE DESIRABILITY TO EACH CARRIER WOULD BE AFFECTED BY MANY
VARIABLES, OF COURSE, INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS HE OWNED, THE
VOLUME AND STABILITY OF LOCAL DEMAND AND THE EXTENT OF HIS CARRYING
AUTHORITY. 

FN6  IT APPEARS, HOWEVER, THAT A NUMBER OF STATES CONTROL THE
PRACTICE ALREADY.  WASHINGTON, WHICH HAS FILED AN INTERVENOR BRIEF HERE
URGING AFFIRMANCE, IS NOTABLE IN LIMITING TRIP LEASES, AND IN REQUIRING
THAT THE DRIVER BE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CARRIER AND THAT THE LATTER
CONTROL THE VEHICLE.  THE RELEVANT PROVISION IS CITED TO US AS "LEASING
RULE 40" BY THE BRIEF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THAT STATE. 

FN7  THE CONCLUSION THAT HIGHWAY SAFETY MAY BE IMPAIRED RESTS
ADMITTEDLY ON INFORMED SPECULATION RATHER THAN STATISTICAL CERTAINTY. 
A ROAD CHECK EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE BUREAU DID NOT INDICATE ANY
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF SAFETY VIOLATIONS BETWEEN
LEASED AND OWNED VEHICLES. 

FN8  SEE GENERAL ORDER O.D.T. 3, REVISED, SECS. 501.5(D), 501.9,
501.10, 501.13, JULY 14, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 5445 ET SEQ., REQUIRING FULL
LEASING, INTERCHANGE AND DIVISION OF REVENUES; I.C.C. EMERGENCY ORDER
NO. M-1, JUNE 11, 1942, SECS. 215.101, 215.105, 7 FED.  REG. 4429; AND
I.C.C. EMERGENCY ORDER M-6, NOVEMBER 1, 1945, SEC. 176.10(A), 10 FED.
REG. 13595. 

FN9  EX PARTE NO. MC-43, LEASE AND INTERCHANGE OF VEHICLES BY MOTOR
CARRIERS, 51 M.C.C. 461. 

THE CHANGE WENT TO THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM.  THE EXAMINER HAD
SUGGESTED A REQUIREMENT THAT THE RENTAL BE OF AT LEAST 30 DAYS'
DURATION AND THAT COMPENSATION BE ON A BASIS OTHER THAN A DIVISION OF
REVENUES.  DIVISION 5 REJECTED BOTH PROVISIONS, RECOGNIZING THAT THEY
WOULD IN EFFECT ABOLISH TRIP-LEASING. 

FN10  THE ACT AS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED INCLUDED, AS A DEFINITION OF
CARRIERS, ALL ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION "WHETHER DIRECTLY OR BY A
LEASE."  SEC. 203(A)(14), (15), 49 STAT.  544, 545.  THE "ADDED
LANGUAGE WAS INTENDED TO CHECK EVASION OF THE ACT BY BRINGING WITHIN
ITS TERMS SUCH TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS AS ARE PERFORMED THROUGH THE
LEASING OF MOTOR VEHICLES OR OTHER SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS WHICH MAY
CONSTITUTE EITHER COMMON OR CONTRACT CARRIAGE, ACCORDING TO THE
PARTICULAR NATURE OF THE ARRANGEMENTS.  THE LANGUAGE INSERTED WILL
ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO STRIKE THROUGH SUCH EVASIONS WHERE THE FACTS
WARRANT IT."  79 CONG. REC. 5651.  THE TERMINOLOGY WAS STRICKEN BY THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 898, 920, WHICH, HOWEVER,
INTRODUCED NO QUALIFICATION AND WHICH, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, WAS MERELY
"FOR PURPOSES OF CLARITY."  THOMSON V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 19, 23. 
SEE 86 CONG. REC. 11546. 

FN11  REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES, S. DOC. NO. 152, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS.  14-15, 22-35, 226; 79 CONG. REC. 12196, 12209;
HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ON S. 1629, S. 1632,
AND S. 1635, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PART I, 78-80, 404-405, 410-411. 
FN12  79TH CONG. REC. 12207-12211; 12222-12225. 

FN13  SEE FOOTNOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN14  DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO. COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 17 M.C.C.
735; GREYVAN LINES, INC., COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 32 M.C.C. 719. 
SEE, HOWEVER, I.C.C. ADMINISTRATIVE RULING NO. 4, AUGUST 19, 1936,
WHICH REPRESENTS AN EARLY EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION TO BRING
LEASED EQUIPMENT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CARRIERS FOR PURPOSES OF THE
ACT.  THIS WAS APPARENTLY ABANDONED AFTER THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN
UNITED STATES V. ROSENBLUM TRUCK LINES, INC., 315 U.S. 50, AND THOMSON
V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 19. 

FN15  "SEC.  208.  (A)  ANY CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 206 OR
207 SHALL SPECIFY THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED  ...  :  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT NO TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR LIMITATIONS SHALL RESTRICT THE
RIGHT OF THE CARRIER TO ADD TO HIS OR ITS EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES OVER
THE ROUTES, BETWEEN THE TERMINI, OR WITHIN THE TERRITORY SPECIFIED IN
THE CERTIFICATE, AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND THE DEMANDS OF
THE PUBLIC SHALL REQUIRE." 

SEC. 209.  "(B) ...  THE COMMISSION SHALL SPECIFY IN THE PERMIT THE
BUSINESS OF THE CONTRACT CARRIER COVERED THEREBY AND THE SCOPE THEREOF
...  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR LIMITATIONS SHALL
RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE CARRIER TO SUBSTITUTE OR ADD CONTRACTS WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE PERMIT, OR TO ADD TO HIS OR ITS EQUIPMENT AND
FACILITIES, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PERMIT, AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
BUSINESS AND THE DEMANDS OF THE PUBLIC MAY REQUIRE." 

FN16  LIKEWISE EXEMPTED ARE "MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLLED AND OPERATED
BY ANY FARMER WHEN USED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS THEREOF, OR IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUPPLIES
TO HIS FARM."  SEC. 203(B)(4A). 

FN17  THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, 49 U.S.C., PRECEDING SEC.
1, SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO "FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES
OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO
ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF
EACH." 

FN18  SECTION 4 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT SETS OUT ONLY THE
FOLLOWING APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS: 

"(A)  NOTICE.  - GENERAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING SHALL BE
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER (UNLESS ALL PERSONS SUBJECT THERETO
ARE NAMED AND EITHER PERSONALLY SERVED OR OTHERWISE HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE
THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW) AND SHALL INCLUDE (1) A STATEMENT OF
THE TIME, PLACE, AND NATURE OF PUBLIC RULE MAKING PROCEEDINGS; (2)
REFERENCE TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH THE RULE IS PROPOSED; AND (3)
EITHER THE TERMS OR SUBSTANCE OF THE PROPOSED RULE OR A DESCRIPTION OF
THE SUBJECTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED  ...  . 

"(B)  PROCEDURES.  - AFTER NOTICE REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION, THE
AGENCY SHALL AFFORD INTERESTED PERSONS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE RULE MAKING THROUGH SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN DATA, VIEWS, OR ARGUMENTS
WITH OR WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE SAME ORALLY IN ANY MANNER;
AND, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT MATTER PRESENTED, THE AGENCY
SHALL INCORPORATE IN ANY RULES ADOPTED A CONCISE GENERAL STATEMENT OF
THEIR BASIS AND PURPOSE."  60 STAT. 237, 239, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1003. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE AND
PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS WERE SATISFIED.  SEE P. 307, SUPRA. 

FN19  WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT ITSELF
DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN THE SCOPE OF A HEARING REQUIRED IN RATE
PROCEEDINGS AND THOSE HELD IN RELATION TO GENERAL RULE-MAKING UNDER
SEC. 204(A)(6). 

FN20  COMPARE THE PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO RATE-MAKING WITH WHAT WE
HAVE SAID ABOUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN THE RELATED FIELD OF WAGE AND
HOUR LAWS UNDER THE COMMERCE POWER, UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S.
100, 125.  THIS COURT HAS POINTED OUT MANY TIMES THAT THE EXERCISE OF
THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ITS MAINTENANCE OF THE
ECONOMIC STATUS QUO; THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS NO PROTECTION AGAINST A
CONGRESSIONAL SCHEME OF BUSINESS REGULATION OTHERWISE VALID, MERELY
BECAUSE IT DISTURBS THE PROFITABILITY OR METHODS OF THE INTERSTATE
CONCERNS AFFECTED.  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN S. CORP., 301 U.S.
1, 43-45; CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 13-15; UNITED STATES V. ROCK
ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, INC., 307 U.S. 533, 572-573; NORTH AMERICAN CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N, 327 U.S. 686, 707-710; AMERICAN POWER &
LIGHT CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N, 329 U.S. 90, 106-108. 

                     APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RULES PRESCRIBED GOVERNING THE PRACTICES OF AUTHORIZED CARRIERS OF
PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN (1)
AUGMENTING EQUIPMENT, (2) INTERCHANGING OF EQUIPMENT, AND (3) RENTING
VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT TO PRIVATE CARRIERS OR SHIPPERS. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

SEC. 207.3 EXEMPTIONS.  - OTHER THAN SEC. 207.4(C) AND (D), RELATIVE
TO INSPECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT, THESE RULES SHALL NOT
APPLY: 

(A)  TO EQUIPMENT LEASED BY ONE AUTHORIZED CARRIER OPERATING OVER
REGULAR ROUTES TO ANOTHER AUTHORIZED CARRIER OPERATING OVER REGULAR
ROUTES AND OPERATED BETWEEN POINTS AND OVER ROUTES WHICH BOTH LESSOR
AND LESSEE ARE AUTHORIZED TO SERVE, AND TO EQUIPMENT LEASED BY ONE
AUTHORIZED CARRIER OPERATING OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES TO ANOTHER SUCH
CARRIER AND OPERATED BETWEEN POINTS AND WITHIN TERRITORY WHICH BOTH THE
LESSOR AND LESSEE ARE AUTHORIZED TO SERVE: 

(B)  TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED WHOLLY OR IN PART IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF
RAILWAY EXPRESS TRAFFIC, OR IN SUBSTITUTED MOTOR-FOR-RAIL
TRANSPORTATION OF RAILROAD FREIGHT MOVING BETWEEN POINTS THAT ARE
RAILROAD STATIONS ON RAILROAD BILLING: 

(C)  TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED IN TRANSPORTATION PERFORMED SOLELY AND
EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN ANY MUNICIPALITY, CONTIGUOUS MUNICIPALITIES, OR
COMMERCIAL ZONE, AS DEFINED BY THE COMMISSION: 

(D)  TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY AN AUTHORIZED CARRIER IN TRANSPORTATION
PERFORMED PURSUANT TO ANY PLAN OF OPERATION APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION
IN A PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
...  . 

     *        *         *         *         * 

SEC. 207.4 AUGMENTING EQUIPMENT.  - OTHER THAN EQUIPMENT EXCHANGED
BETWEEN MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS IN INTERCHANGE SERVICE AS DEFINED IN SEC.
207.5 OF THESE RULES, AUTHORIZED CARRIERS MAY PERFORM AUTHORIZED
TRANSPORTATION IN OR WITH EQUIPMENT WHICH THEY DO NOT OWN ONLY UNDER
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 

(A)  THE CONTRACT, LEASE, OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT FOR THE USE OF SUCH
EQUIPMENT: 

(1)  SHALL BE MADE BETWEEN THE AUTHORIZED CARRIER AND THE OWNER OF
THE EQUIPMENT: 

(2)  SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE PARTIES THERETO, OR THEIR
REGULAR EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS DULY AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR THEM IN THE
EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS, LEASES, OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS: 

(3)  SHALL SPECIFY THE PERIOD FOR WHICH IT APPLIES, WHICH SHALL BE
NOT LESS THAN 30 DAYS WHEN THE EQUIPMENT IS TO BE OPERATED FOR THE
AUTHORIZED CARRIER BY THE OWNER OR EMPLOYEES OF THE OWNER; ... 

     *         *         *   *         * 

(4)  SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION, CONTROL AND USE OF
THE EQUIPMENT, AND FOR THE COMPLETE ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY IN
RESPECT THERETO, BY THE AUTHORIZED CARRIER,  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *      * 

(5)  SHALL SPECIFY THE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID BY THE LESSEE FOR THE
RENTAL OF THE LEASED EQUIPMENT; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
COMPENSATION SHALL NOT BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF ANY DIVISION OR
PERCENTAGE OF ANY APPLICABLE RATE OR RATES ON ANY COMMODITY OR
COMMODITIES TRANSPORTED IN SAID VEHICLE OR ON A DIVISION OR PERCENTAGE
OF ANY REVENUE EARNED BY SAID VEHICLE DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE
LEASE IS EFFECTIVE; 

(6) SHALL SPECIFY THE TIME AND DATE OR THE CIRCUMSTANCE ON WHICH THE
CONTRACT, LEASE, OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT BEGINS, AND THE TIME OR THE
CIRCUMSTANCE ON WHICH IT ENDS.  THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT, LEASE, OR
OTHER ARRANGEMENT SHALL COINCIDE WITH THE TIME FOR THE GIVING OF
RECEIPTS FOR THE EQUIPMENT, AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS

     *         *   *         *         * 

(C)  INSPECTION OF EQUIPMENT.  - IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
AUTHORIZED CARRIER, BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF EQUIPMENT, TO INSPECT
THE SAME OR TO HAVE THE SAME INSPECTED  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *      * 

(D)  IDENTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT.  - THE AUTHORIZED CARRIER ACQUIRING
THE USE OF EQUIPMENT UNDER THIS RULE SHALL PROPERLY AND CORRECTLY
IDENTIFY SUCH EQUIPMENT AS OPERATED BY IT  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

(E)  DRIVER OF EQUIPMENT.  - BEFORE ANY PERSON OTHER THAN A REGULAR
EMPLOYEE OF THE AUTHORIZED CARRIER IS ASSIGNED TO DRIVE EQUIPMENT
OPERATED UNDER THESE RULES, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE AUTHORIZED
CARRIER TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT SUCH DRIVER IS FAMILIAR WITH, AND THAT HIS
EMPLOYMENT AS A DRIVER WILL NOT RESULT IN, VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION
OF PARTS 192, 193, 195, AND 196 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS
(REV.) PERTAINING TO "DRIVING OF MOTOR VEHICLES," "PARTS AND
ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION," "HOURS OF SERVICE OF
DRIVERS," AND "INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE," AND TO REQUIRE SUCH DRIVER
TO FURNISH A CERTIFICATE OF PHYSICAL EXAMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PART 191 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS (REV.) PERTAINING TO
"QUALIFICATIONS OF DRIVERS," OR, IN LIEU THEREOF, A PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF
THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, WHICH SHALL BE
RETAINED IN THE AUTHORIZED CARRIER'S FILE. 

(F)  RECORD OF USE OF EQUIPMENT.  - THE AUTHORIZED CARRIER UTILIZING
EQUIPMENT OPERATED UNDER THESE RULES SHALL PREPARE AND KEEP A MANIFEST
COVERING EACH TRIP FOR WHICH THE EQUIPMENT IS USED IN ITS SERVICE,
CONTAINING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE OWNER OF SUCH EQUIPMENT, THE
MAKE, MODEL, YEAR, SERIAL NUMBER, AND THE STATE REGISTRATION NUMBER OF
THE EQUIPMENT, AND THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DRIVER OPERATING THE
EQUIPMENT, POINT OF ORIGIN, THE TIME AND DATE OF DEPARTURE, THE POINT
OF FINAL DESTINATION, AND THE AUTHORIZED CARRIER'S SERIAL NUMBER OF ANY
IDENTIFICATION DEVICE AFFIXED TO THE EQUIPMENT  ...  . 

SEC. 207.5 INTERCHANGE OF EQUIPMENT.  - COMMON CARRIERS OF PROPERTY
MAY BY CONTRACT, LEASE, OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT, INTERCHANGE ANY EQUIPMENT
DEFINED IN SEC. 207.2 OF THESE RULES WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER COMMON
CARRIERS OF PROPERTY, OR ONE OF SUCH CARRIERS MAY RECEIVE FROM ANOTHER
SUCH CARRIER, ANY OF SUCH EQUIPMENT, IN CONNECTION WITH ANY THROUGH
MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC, UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 

(A)  AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR INTERCHANGE.  - THE CONTRACT, LEASE, OR
OTHER ARRANGEMENT PROVIDING FOR INTERCHANGE SHALL SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE
THE EQUIPMENT TO BE INTERCHANGED; THE SPECIFIC POINTS OF INTERCHANGE;
THE USE TO BE MADE OF THE EQUIPMENT AND THE CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH USE;
AND SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT, LEASE, OR OTHER
ARRANGEMENT, OR THEIR REGULAR EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS DULY AUTHORIZED TO
ACT FOR THEM, IN THE EXECUTION OF SUCH CONTRACTS, LEASES, OR OTHER
ARRANGEMENTS. 

(B)  AUTHORITY OF CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN INTERCHANGE.  - THE
CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY HELD BY THE CARRIERS
PARTICIPATING IN THE INTERCHANGE ARRANGEMENT MUST AUTHORIZE THE
TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMODITIES PROPOSED TO BE TRANSPORTED IN THE
THROUGH MOVEMENT, AND SERVICE FROM AND TO THE POINT WHERE THE PHYSICAL
INTERCHANGE OCCURS. 

(C)  DRIVER OF INTERCHANGED EQUIPMENT.  - EACH CARRIER MUST ASSIGN
ITS OWN DRIVER TO OPERATE THE EQUIPMENT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE OPERATED
FROM AND TO THE POINT OR POINTS OF INTERCHANGE AND OVER THE ROUTE OR
ROUTES OR WITHIN THE TERRITORY AUTHORIZED IN THE PARTICIPATING
CARRIERS' RESPECTIVE CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. 

(D)  THROUGH BILLS OF LADING.  - THE TRAFFIC TRANSPORTED IN
INTERCHANGE SERVICE MUST MOVE ON THROUGH BILLS OF LADING ISSUED BY THE
ORIGINATING CARRIER, AND THE RATES CHARGED AND REVENUES COLLECTED MUST
BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE SAME MANNER AS IF THERE HAD BEEN NO INTERCHANGE
OF EQUIPMENT.   CHARGES FOR THE USE OF THE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE KEPT
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM DIVISIONS OF THE JOINT RATES OR THE
PROPORTIONS THEREOF ACCRUING TO THE CARRIERS BY THE APPLICATION OF
LOCAL OR PROPORTIONAL RATES. 

(E)  INSPECTION OF EQUIPMENT.  - IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE CARRIER
ACQUIRING THE USE OF EQUIPMENT IN INTERCHANGE TO INSPECT SUCH
EQUIPMENT, OR TO HAVE IT INSPECTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SEC.
207.4(C) OF THESE RULES; AND EQUIPMENT WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SAFETY REGULATIONS SHALL NOT BE OPERATED IN THE
RESPECTIVE SERVICES OF THE INTERCHANGE CARRIERS UNTIL THE DEFECTS HAVE
BEEN CORRECTED. 

(F)  IDENTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT.  - THE AUTHORIZED CARRIERS
OPERATING EQUIPMENT IN INTERCHANGE SERVICE UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL
CARRY WITH EACH VEHICLE SO OPERATED A COPY OF THE CONTRACT, LEASE, OR
OTHER ARRANGEMENT WHILE THE EQUIPMENT IS BEING OPERATED IN THE
INTERCHANGE SERVICE. 

     *         *         *   *         * 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT GRANTS THE
COMMISSION BROAD IMPLIED POWERS TO CARRY OUT THE GENERAL PURPOSES
OUTLINED IN THE LAW.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 323
U.S. 612, 616.  BUT THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT POWER TO INVOKE VAGUE
IMPLICATIONS TO DEFEAT THE ACT'S PURPOSE OR TO OVERRIDE ITS CLEARLY
EXPRESSED PROVISIONS.  THIS, I THINK, IS WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE
IN MOST OF THE COMMISSION RULES WHICH THE COURT UPHOLDS.  IN MY VIEW
THE RULES RUN COUNTER TO THE ACT IN THREE IMPORTANT RESPECTS: 

A. THE CONGRESSIONALLY GRANTED RIGHT OF MOTOR CARRIERS TO CHOOSE FOR
THEMSELVES WHETHER THEY WOULD USE LEASED OR PURCHASED EQUIPMENT IS
PRACTICALLY DESTROYED BY THE IMPOSITION OF BURDENSOME RESTRICTIONS. 
B. THE EXEMPTION FROM REGULATION GRANTED CARRIERS OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS BY SEC.  203(B) OF PART II OF THE ACT IS BURDENED BY
RESTRICTIVE RULES THAT SUBSTANTIALLY TAKE AWAY THE ADVANTAGES CONGRESS
INTENDED TO CONFER BY THE EXEMPTION. 

C. RAILROADS THAT OPERATE MOTOR VEHICLES AS A PART OF THE BUSINESS OF
COMMON CARRIAGE ARE GRANTED SPECIAL ADVANTAGES IN VIOLATION OF THE
EXPRESS POLICY OF THE ACT WHICH REQUIRES EACH METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION
TO BE LEFT WITH ITS INHERENT ADVANTAGES.    A. MOTOR VEHICLE COMMON
CARRIAGE HAD REACHED AN ADVANCED STAGE WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT IN 1935.  (FN1)  EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS WAS
ALONG LINES THAT THE CARRIERS FOUND TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS.  SOME CARRIERS
OWNED THEIR VEHICLES, WHILE OTHERS LEASED THEM.  THE ACT DID NOT TRY TO
DISRUPT THIS SYSTEM, BUT LEFT MOTOR CARRIERS FREE TO CONTINUE TO OWN OR
LEASE EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR BEST FINANCIAL JUDGMENT.  AND
CONGRESS WAS CONTENT TO REGULATE THE COMMON OR CONTRACT CARRIERS
THEMSELVES; IT MADE NO EFFORT WHATEVER TO REGULATE THOSE WHO OWNED THE
VEHICLES THAT WERE LEASED TO THE REGULATED CARRIERS.  CONGRESS WAS THUS
TALKING ABOUT THE ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT BY LEASE AS WELL AS BY
PURCHASE WHEN IT PROVIDED THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE WITHOUT POWER
TO RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF CARRIERS TO ADD TO THEIR EQUIPMENT OR
FACILITIES AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR BUSINESS AND THE DEMANDS OF THE
PUBLIC REQUIRED.  (FN2)  WHILE THIS PROVISION IS PATENTLY NOT DESIGNED
TO FORBID THE COMMISSION FROM LIMITING THE TYPE OF VEHICLES IN THE
INTEREST OF SAFETY, (FN3) THE PROVISION JUST AS PATENTLY DOES DEPRIVE
THE COMMISSION OF POWER TO FORBID THE LEASE AND PURCHASE OF VEHICLES
WHICH MEET THE TEST OF SAFETY. 

THE NEW RULES ADOPTED BY THE FULL COMMISSION PUT BURDENSOME
RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWER TO LEASE APPROPRIATE VEHICLES, RESTRICTIONS
WHICH, IN MY VIEW, GO BEYOND THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION.  THESE
BURDENSOME RESTRICTIONS HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY REJECTED BY THE
COMMISSION'S DIVISION V, COMPOSED OF COMMISSIONERS PARTICULARLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLE AFFAIRS AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM SUPERVISION OF RAILROAD AFFAIRS.  THIS RECORD MAKES PLAIN THAT
ENFORCEMENT OF THESE BURDENSOME RULES WILL PRODUCE VIOLENT
REPERCUSSIONS IN THE MOTOR CARRIER INDUSTRY; MANY MOTOR CARRIERS WILL
SUFFER RUINOUS LOSSES.  THE BUSINESS OF LEASING VEHICLES FOR USE BY
COMMON CARRIERS WILL BE CURTAILED OR PERHAPS EVEN DESTROYED.  THE
TENDENCY OF THE RULES IS THUS TO ELIMINATE MANY SMALL BUSINESS
VENTURES.  IT MAY BE, AS THE COMMISSION SEEMS TO THINK, THAT THE
NATION'S MOTOR CARRIER BUSINESS CAN BE MORE EFFICIENTLY ACCOMPLISHED BY
A FEW BIG COMPANIES THAT OWN ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT, THAN BY A LARGE
NUMBER OF SMALL COMPANIES THAT OBTAIN ALL OR PART OF THEIR EQUIPMENT BY
LEASE.  BUT IF THAT GOVERNMENTAL ALTERATION IN OUR BUSINESS STRUCTURE
IS TO BE ORDAINED, CONGRESS, NOT THE COMMISSION, SHOULD DO THE
ORDAINING. 

B. THE FARMERS OF THE NATION HAVE FOR A LONG TIME BEEN LARGELY
DEPENDENT UPON REASONABLY PRICED MOTOR TRANSPORTATION TO GET THEIR
PRODUCE TO MARKET.  (FN4)  WHEN THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS MUCH APPREHENSION EXPRESSED LEST REGULATION
DEPRIVE FARMERS OF THIS ADVANTAGE.  (FN5)  TO MEET THIS FEELING, THE
BILL WAS AMENDED SEVERAL TIMES AND FINALLY WAS PASSED WITH THE
AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION SET FORTH IN SEC. 203(B).  EXCEPT AS TO CERTAIN
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS SEC. 203(B) EXEMPTS FROM REGULATION MOTOR VEHICLES
OF FARMERS AND FARM COOPERATIVES USED FOR FARM PURPOSES; THE SAME
EXEMPTION IS ALSO GRANTED TO ALL MOTOR VEHICLES WHILE BEING USED TO
CARRY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE
COMMISSION'S NEW RULES WILL DRIVE MANY OF THESE CARRIERS OF FARM
PRODUCTS OUT OF BUSINESS AND THAT MANY OTHERS WILL BE COMPELLED TO
INCREASE THEIR RATES.  SECTION 207.4 OF THE NEW RULES IS RATHER
OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED TO MAKE THIS EXEMPTION MUCH LESS VALUABLE.  IT
FORBIDS AUTHORIZED CARRIERS TO LEASE MOTOR TRUCKS EXCEPT FOR TERMS OF
AT LEAST 30 DAYS, IF THE TRUCKS ARE TO BE OPERATED BY OWNERS OR
EMPLOYEES OF OWNERS.  THE COMMISSION REPORTED THAT THIS RULE WOULD
COMPLETELY PROHIBIT TRIP-LEASING.  (FN6)  A VERY LARGE PART OF ALL TRIP
LEASING TAKES PLACE BETWEEN REGULATED CARRIERS AND TRUCKERS WHO ARE
EXEMPT BECAUSE THEY CARRY FARM PRODUCTS.  AN ILLUSTRATION CAN BE FOUND
IN THE CARRIAGE OF FLORIDA CITRUS FRUITS.  ON DELIVERING FRUIT IN
NORTHERN STATES THE PRACTICE OF THESE EXEMPT TRUCKERS HAS BEEN TO LEASE
THEIR MOTOR VEHICLES TO REGULATED CARRIERS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
GOODS TO FLORIDA.  UNLESS VEHICLES THAT BRING CITRUS FRUITS NORTH CAN
MAKE SUCH ARRANGEMENTS THEY MUST GO BACK TO FLORIDA EMPTY.  "EMPTY OR
PARTIALLY LOADED TRUCKS ON RETURN TRIPS MAY WELL DRIVE THE ENTERPRISE
TO THE WALL."  UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475,
488.  THE COMMISSION'S RULES MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THESE EXEMPT
CARRIERS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS TO GET THE ADVANTAGE OF A LEASE FOR A
RETURN HAUL.  THE RESULT IS DESTRUCTION FOR A LARGE PART OF THAT
BUSINESS. 

THE REASON THE COMMISSION HAS ADOPTED A RULE SO DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION CONGRESS GRANTED IS APPARENT FROM A COLLOQUY
WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE ATTORNEY FOR THE
COMMISSION WAS ASKED IF IT WAS WASTEFUL FOR A TRUCK TO GO BACK TO
FLORIDA EMPTY.  WITH COMMENDABLE CANDOR HE SAID:  "IT DOES SEEM
UNECONOMICAL IN REQUIRING IT TO GO BACK EMPTY, BUT THEY CAN - THE
DIFFICULTY COMES, I THINK, IN LETTING IT COME UP IN THE FIRST PLACE." 
IN OTHER WORDS THE "DIFFICULTY COMES" BECAUSE CONGRESS AGREED TO EXEMPT
THESE FARM PRODUCTS.  THIS CONGRESSIONALLY CREATED "DIFFICULTY" IS
BEING CLEARED UP BY THE COMMISSION.  ITS NEW RULES AGAINST TRIP-LEASING
WILL FORCE THESE AGRICULTURAL CARRIERS TO RAISE THEIR RATES HIGH ENOUGH
TO FRUSTRATE PURPOSES UNDERLYING THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION.  (FN7) 

C. THE COMMISSION HAS EXEMPTED RAILROADS AND EXPRESS COMPANIES THAT
CARRY GOODS FOR HIRE IN MOTOR VEHICLES FROM ALL OF THE REGULATIONS
EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 207.4(C) AND (D), WHICH LATTER TWO
PROVISIONS RELATE TO INSPECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT.  IT IS
RATHER INTERESTING THAT WHILE THE FULL COMMISSION GRANTED THE RAILROADS
THIS AMAZING EXEMPTION, DIVISION V, THE MOTOR CARRIER DIVISION OF THE
COMMISSION, REFUSED TO ALLOW IT.  THE COMMISSION AT THE SAME TIME
REFUSED TO EXEMPT FROM ITS NEW RULES MOTOR CARRIERS WHOSE OPERATIONS
WERE SHOWN TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THOSE PERFORMED BY
RAILROAD AND EXPRESS CARRIERS WHICH THE COMMISSION LEFT FREE FROM THE
BURDENS OF THE RULES.  SINCE THE RAILROADS AND THE INDEPENDENT MOTOR
CARRIERS ARE IN COMPETITION, IT IS NOT STRANGE TO FIND THE RAILROADS
ARGUING HERE THAT WHILE THE RAILROADS' EXEMPTION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED,
THE NEW RULES SHOULD BE APPLIED IN ALL THEIR VIGOR TO THE INDEPENDENT
MOTOR CARRIERS.  I KNOW OF NO POWER WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS TO ALLOW
RAILROADS WHICH ENGAGE IN THE MOTOR CARRIER BUSINESS EXEMPTIONS AND
PREFERENCES WHICH ARE DENIED COMPLETELY MOTOR CARRIERS NOT OWNED BY
RAILROADS. 

THE COMMISSION'S RULES AS A WHOLE FASHION BROAD NEW NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICIES DIFFERENT FROM AND IN CONFLICT WITH THOSE
CONGRESS ADOPTED AFTER MATURE CONSIDERATION.  I WOULD REVERSE THE
JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS AND DIRECT THAT THE RULES BE SET ASIDE
AS BEYOND THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY. 

FN1  49 STAT. 543, AS AMENDED, 54 STAT. 919, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 301. 

FN2  THIS DENIAL OF POWER TO THE COMMISSION APPEARS IN SECS. 208(A)
AND 209(B) OF PART II OF THE ACT.  49 U.S.C. SECS. 308(A) AND 309(B). 

FN3  CRESCENT EXPRESS LINES V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 401, 408-409. 

FN4  FOR EXAMPLE, IN 1950:

           PERCENTAGES OF SELECTED FARM PRODUCTS TRANSPORTED

           TO PRINCIPAL MARKETS IN TRUCKS.             PERCENT

                                   PERCENT 

HOGS                              79    GRAPEFRUIT            43 

CATTLE                            76    ORANGES                   33 

CALVES                            78    APPLES                    64 

SHEEP AND LAMBS          44    TOMATOES                  60 

SHELL EGGS                    93    POTATOES                  37 

DRESSED POULTRY                   76    LETTUCE                   41 

LIVE POULTRY                      99    MILK         79 

TRANSPORTATION OF SELECTED AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES TO LEADING
MARKETS BY RAIL AND MOTORTRUCK, 1939-50, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS (JUNE 1951), TABLE 1, P.
10. 

FN5  FOR ILLUSTRATION, CONGRESSMAN WALTER PIERCE OF OREGON SAID, "MR.
CHAIRMAN, I HAVE WATCHED THE DEBATE VERY CLOSELY.  I WONDER WHY THIS
BILL?  I AM A FARMER, LIVING 300 MILES FROM TIDEWATER.  I RAISE WHEAT
AND STOCK.  THE ONLY RELIEF I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY 40 YEARS ON THAT
FARM FROM THE TERRIFIC CONFISCATORY RAILROAD FREIGHT RATES WAS WHEN THE
TRUCKS CAME. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"THE CAMEL IS CERTAINLY GETTING HIS NOSE INTO THE TENT, AND THIS
MEANS THE DEATH OF THE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION WHICH THE FARMER HAS HAD
AND WHICH HAS BEEN THE ONLY RELIEF THAT HAS COME TO HIM FROM THE
PREVIOUS EXCESSIVE RAILROAD RATES."  79 CONG. REC. 12216, 12217; SEE
ALSO 12197-12198. 

FN6  TRIP LEASES CAN BE MADE BY MOTOR CARRIERS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED
FROM THE RULES BY THE COMMISSION - RAILROAD MOTOR CARRIERS, EXPRESS
COMPANY MOTOR CARRIERS, AND THE ALLIED VAN LINES. 

FN7  THIS STATUTORY AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION REFLECTS A CONGRESSIONAL
BELIEF THAT "  ...  IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE CONGRESS TO DECIDE WHAT
SHOULD BE EXEMPTED RATHER THAN TO LEAVE IT IN THE HANDS OF THE
COMMISSION THAT MIGHT NULLIFY THE ENTIRE INTENTIONS OF CONGRESS  ...
."  79 CONG. REC. 12225. 
..END :







PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. V. O'ROURKE 344 U.S. 334 


NO. 60.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1952 - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1953 - 194 F.2D
612, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT WAS EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER RAILROAD AS A "FREIGHT BRAKEMAN"
IN ITS YARDS.  HIS DUTIES INCLUDED WORK ABOARD PETITIONER'S CAR FLOATS
MOORED IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.  HE WAS INJURED ON A CAR FLOAT WHILE
RELEASING ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE HAND-BRAKES ON A FREIGHT CAR WHICH WAS
BEING UNLOADED FROM THE CAR FLOAT BY A SWITCH ENGINE.  HELD:
RESPONDENT'S REMEDY WAS UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT EXCLUSIVELY, AND NOT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  PP. 334-342. 

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. V. O'ROURKE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT'S SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WAS
DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE LONGSHOREMEN'S
AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT APPLIED EXCLUSIVELY.  99 F. SUPP.
506.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  194 F.2D 612.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 811.  REVERSED, P. 342. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI REQUIRES US TO DETERMINE WHICH FEDERAL INDUSTRIAL
ACCIDENT STATUTE - THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY ACT OR THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT - APPLIES TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  THE PETITIONING RAILROAD HAD EMPLOYED
O'ROURKE IN ITS HARISMUS COVE YARD AT JERSEY CITY SINCE 1942 AS A
"FREIGHT BRAKEMAN."  HE WORKED AS PART OF A FIVE-MAN CREW MAKING UP
TRAINS.  THEIR DUTIES INCLUDED WORK ON THE PETITIONER'S CAR FLOATS THAT
MOVED FREIGHT AND PASSENGER CARS FROM AND TO THE YARD BY WATER.  THE
ACCIDENT OCCURRED DURING THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 28, 1948.  HAVING ALREADY
REMOVED CARS FROM THREE FLOATS, THE CREW BEGAN TO UNLOAD ONE CARRYING
BOX CARS.  O'ROURKE WAS REQUIRED TO CLIMB UP ON EACH AND RELEASE THE
HAND-BRAKES, SO THAT THE CARS COULD BE PULLED OFF THE FLOAT BY THE
ENGINE.  DURING THE PROCESS, HE FELL FROM ONE AND SUSTAINED THE INJURY
WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THIS SUIT.  IT WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ., (FN1)
ALLEGING A FAULTY BRAKE MECHANISM MAINTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACTS, 27 STAT. 531, 45 U.S.C.  SEC. 1 ET SEQ., AS THE
CAUSATIVE FACTOR.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE RAILROAD'S MOTION TO
DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT, 44 STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET SEQ., APPLIED
EXCLUSIVELY, (FN2) 99 F. SUPP. 506, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED
ON THE GROUND THAT THE LIABILITY ACT COVERED "RAILROAD EMPLOYEES
INJURED WHILE ENGAGED IN RAILROAD WORK ON NAVIGABLE WATERS."  IT
DECIDED RESPONDENT WAS "NOT EMPLOYED IN MARITIME EMPLOYMENT  ... WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE COMPENSATION ACT."  194 F.2D 612, 615.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 344 U.S. 811, BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH AN
EARLIER DECISION OF THIS COURT, NOGUEIRA V. N.Y., N.H.&H.R. CO., 281
U.S. 128. 

THE NEED FOR A FEDERAL STATUTE OF THE HARBOR WORKERS' ACT TYPE AND
SCOPE BECAME OBVIOUS AFTER SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S.
205, DECIDED IN 1917, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NEITHER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT NOR THE STATE COMPENSATION STATUTE APPLIED TO
A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN LOADING A VESSEL OF THE COMPANY WHICH
HAD NO RELATION TO ITS RAILROADING OPERATIONS.  SPECIFICALLY, THE STATE
ACT WAS HELD INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE MATTER FELL EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN
THE FEDERAL ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION: 

"THE WORK OF A STEVEDORE IN WHICH THE DECEASED WAS ENGAGING IS
MARTIME IN ITS NATURE; HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS A MARITIME CONTRACT; THE
INJURIES WHICH HE RECEIVED WERE LIKEWISE MARITIME; AND THE RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WERE MATTERS CLEARLY
WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION."  244 U.S., AT 217. 

THE RESULTING FEDERAL STATUTE TOOK THE FORM OF A COMPENSATION ACT TO
ASSURE INJURED EMPLOYEES WHO WERE NOT SEAMEN A PROMPT AND CERTAIN
RECOVERY, RATHER THAN AN EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY STATUTE, SUCH AS WAS
EXTENDED IN 1920 TO SEAMEN BY THE JONES ACT, 38 STAT. 1185, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 688.  A SUMMARY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ATTEMPTS TO BRING ADMIRALTY
LAW INTO HARMONY WITH MODERN CONCEPTS OF THE DUTY OF AN EMPLOYER
ALTHOUGH WITHOUT FAULT TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS,
APPEARS IN THE NOGUEIRA CASE, 281 U.S., AT 135-136.  THESE EFFORTS
FAILED TO MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST OF UNIFORMITY HELD ESSENTIAL IN
ADMIRALTY LAW IN ORDER TO OBVIATE CONFLICTING REQUIREMENTS IN MARITIME
COMMERCE.  WASHINGTON V. DAWSON & CO., 264 U.S. 219.  THEY FAILED
BECAUSE CONGRESS ATTEMPTED TO PLACE LEGISLATION ON MARITIME ACCIDENTS
UNDER STATE COMPENSATION LAWS.  AFTER THIS COURT'S SUGGESTION IN THE
WASHINGTON CASE, 264 U.S., AT 227, CONGRESS ADOPTED THE VALID,
EXCLUSIVE AND UNIFORM COMPENSATION ACT NOW IN EFFECT FOR LONGSHOREMEN
AND HARBOR WORKERS.  CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22.  SEAMEN PREFERRED
TO TAKE THE RISKS OF THE JONES ACT.  NOGUEIRA V. N.Y., N.H.&H.R. CO.,
SUPRA, AT 136.  THIS ACT AND THE JONES ACT PROVIDED MEANS FOR
INDEMNIFICATION FOR INJURIES FOR ALL MARITIME EMPLOYEES WHO WERE BEYOND
THE CONSTITUTIONAL REACH OF STATE LEGISLATION.  A QUARTER OF A CENTURY
OF EXPERIENCE HAS NOT CAUSED CONGRESS TO CHANGE THE PLAN.  THE "JENSEN
LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION" HAS BEEN
ACCEPTED.  DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S. 249, 256.  NEW JERSEY
COULD NOT HAVE ENACTED STATUTES GRANTING COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENT'S
INJURY ON NAVIGABLE WATER.  THEREFORE RESPONDENT COMES WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF THAT PORTION OF SEC. 903(A) THAT INCLUDES THOSE OUTSIDE THE
REACH OF STATE COMPENSATION LAWS. 

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51, NOTE 1,
SUPRA, GIVES A RIGHT OF RECOVERY DUE TO DEFECTS BECAUSE OF CARRIER
NEGLIGENCE IN, AMONG OTHER EQUIPMENT, "BOATS."  WE NEED NOT, HOWEVER,
IN THIS CASE, DETERMINE WHETHER THE CAR FLOAT IS A "BOAT" THAT SHOULD
BE REGARDED AS IN SUBSTANCE A PART OF A RAILROAD'S EXTENSION.  SEE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, SUPRA, AT 213.  IT IS CLEAR THAT
WHETHER OR NOT THE BOAT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE RAILROAD UNDER THE
LIABILITY ACT IS IMMATERIAL.  THE LATER HARBOR WORKERS' ACT BY SECS.
903(A) AND 905 COVERED SUCH INJURIES ON NAVIGABLE WATER AND MADE ITS
COVERAGE EXCLUSIVE.  NOGUEIRA V. N.Y., N.H.&H.R. CO., SUPRA, AT 130
131. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE HARBOR WORKERS' ACT APPLIES TO THE EXCLUSION OF
THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF 33 U.S.C.
SEC. 905, DEPENDS ON SEC. 903 WHICH DEFINES ITS "COVERAGE":

"(A)  COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAYABLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER IN RESPECT OF
DISABILITY OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE, BUT ONLY IF THE DISABILITY OR DEATH
RESULTS FROM AN INJURY OCCURRING UPON THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES (INCLUDING ANY DRY DOCK) AND IF RECOVERY FOR THE
DISABILITY OR DEATH THROUGH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT
VALIDLY BE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW  ...  ."  (FN3) 

"EMPLOYER," WHO IN TURN IS DEFINED BY SEC. 902(4): 

"THE TERM 'EMPLOYER' MEANS AN EMPLOYER ANY OF WHOSE EMPLOYEES ARE
EMPLOYED IN MARITIME EMPLOYMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, UPON THE
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (INCLUDING ANY DRY DOCK)." 

THE COURT CONSIDERED THESE PROVISIONS IN A SIMILAR SETTING IN THE
NOGUEIRA CASE, SUPRA.  THAT CASE INVOLVED A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE INJURED
WHILE LOADING FREIGHT INTO CARS LOCATED ON A MOORED CAR FLOAT.  THE
HARBOR WORKERS' ACT WAS HELD TO APPLY.  AS WAS POINTED OUT: 

"THE DEFINITION (SEC. 903(A)) IS MANIFESTLY BROAD ENOUGH TO EMBRACE A
RAILROAD COMPANY, PROVIDED IT HAS EMPLOYEES WHO 'ARE EMPLOYED IN
MARITIME EMPLOYMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, UPON THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF
THE UNITED STATES.'  ...  FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MARITIME EMPLOYMENT,
IT OBVIOUSLY MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE FREIGHT IS PLACED IN THE
HOLD OR ON THE DECK OF A VESSEL, OR WHETHER THE VESSEL IS A CAR FLOAT
OR A STEAMSHIP.  A CAR FLOAT IN NAVIGABLE WATERS IS SUBJECT TO THE
MARITIME LAW LIKE ANY OTHER VESSEL."  281 U.S., AT 132 AND 134. 

BUT RESPONDENT CONTENDS, IN SUPPORT OF THE RESULT BELOW, THAT THE
CASES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND THAT THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT DETERMINE HIS
CLAIM.  HE EMPHASIZES THAT NOGUEIRA WAS ENGAGED IN LOADING THE CARS. 
THIS IS PICTURED AS AN OPERATION FAR MORE SIMILAR TO THE POPULAR
CONCEPTION OF A LONGSHOREMAN'S JOB THAN HIS OWN, WHICH HE INSISTS WAS
"RAILROADING."  (FN4) 

WE ARE CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THE EMPHASIS ON THE NATURE OF
RESPONDENT'S DUTIES HERE MISSES THE MARK.  THE STATUTE APPLIES, BY ITS
OWN TERMS, TO ACCIDENTS ON NAVIGABLE WATERS WHEN THE EMPLOYER HAS ANY
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN MARITIME SERVICE.  THE PORTIONS OF THE NOGUEIRA
OPINION QUOTED BRING THIS RAILROAD COMPANY WITHIN THIS CATEGORY, SINCE
ITS CAR FLOAT OPERATIONS ARE THERE HELD TO BE MARITIME, AS THEY
OBVIOUSLY ARE.  WHETHER THE INJURY OCCURRED TO AN EMPLOYEE LOADING
FREIGHT INTO CARS ON THE FLOAT, AS IN THE NOGUEIRA CASE, OR TO ONE LIKE
RESPONDENT MOVING LOADED CARS FROM A FLOAT COULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE. 
BOTH EMPLOYMENTS ARE MARITIME.  SEE NOGUEIRA V. N.Y., N.H.&H.R. CO.,
SUPRA, AT 134.  BESIDES SEC. 902(4) IS DIRECTED AT THE EMPLOYER WHEN IT
SPEAKS OF MARITIME EMPLOYMENT, NOT AT THE WORK THE EMPLOYEE IS DOING. 
THE EXCLUSIVE COVERAGE OF SECS. 903, 905 EXTENDS TO AN EMPLOYEE OF AN
EMPLOYER, MADE LIABLE BY SEC. 904, WHEN HE IS INJURED, IN THE COURSE OF
HIS EMPLOYMENT, ON NAVIGABLE WATER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, WE THINK, IS
IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES, AS TO THE EMPLOYEE, BOTH
INJURY ON NAVIGABLE WATER AND MARITIME EMPLOYMENT AS A GROUND FOR
COVERAGE BY THE COMPENSATION ACT.  AN INJURED WORKER'S PARTICULAR
ACTIVITY AT THE TIME OF INJURY DETERMINES OF COURSE WHETHER HE WAS
INJURED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITHIN SEC. 902(2), AND WHETHER
HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE CREW OF THE VESSEL WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS OF
SECS. 902(3) AND 903(A)(1).  THIS EXPLAINS THE EMPHASIS ON THE FACTOR
OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S JOB IN PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, INC., 314 U.S.
244, 245-246, AND SOUTH CHICAGO CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251.  (FN5) 

THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT THIS COURT'S NOGUEIRA OPINION LEFT
OPEN, AS DID THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S OPINION IN NOGUEIRA, "THAT THE MERE
LOCUS OF THE ACCIDENT NECESSARILY DETERMINES THE RIGHT."  32 F.2D 179,
AT 182.  WE READ THE NOGUEIRA CASE DIFFERENTLY.  THERE IT WAS SAID: 

"THERE WAS NO EXCLUSION OF STEVEDORES OR OF THOSE SUSTAINING INJURIES
UPON NAVIGABLE WATERS IN LOADING OR UNLOADING A VESSEL UNLESS IT WAS
UNDER EIGHTEEN TONS NET.  THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT IN SUCH CASES WAS
EXPLICITLY MADE TO DEPEND UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INJURY OCCURRED
UPON NAVIGABLE WATERS AND RECOVERY THEREFOR COULD NOT VALIDLY BE
PROVIDED BY A STATE COMPENSATION STATUTE."  281 U.S., AT 136. 

ANALOGOUS CASES LEND WEIGHT TO OUR CONCLUSION.  BUREN V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO., 50 F.2D 407, IS INDISTINGUISHABLE ON ITS FACTS.  (FN6)
THE RESULT IN PARKER, AS WELL, IS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH ANY "DUTIES
TEST."  ARMISTEAD, THE EMPLOYEE THERE, WAS A JANITOR WITH THE MOTOR
BOAT COMPANY.  HE HAD BEEN ORDERED TO RIDE IN ONE OF THE BOATS DURING A
TEST TRIP IN ORDER TO KEEP A LOOKOUT FOR HIDDEN OBJECTS.  314 U.S., AT
246.  COMPENSATION UNDER THE HARBOR WORKERS' ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
PAID IN CONNECTION WITH HIS DEATH IF WE WERE TO TEST ITS APPLICABILITY
BY THE NATURE OF HIS REGULAR WORK.  A NUMBER OF LOWER COURT CASES ARE
IN SIMILAR VEIN.  THOSE WE COLLECT IN THE MARGIN DEAL WITH VARIOUS
TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION AND SERVICE WORKERS, OBVIOUSLY NOT THEMSELVES
ENGAGED IN TRADITIONAL "MARITIME EMPLOYMENT," IF ONE WERE TO LOOK
SOLELY TO THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF JOB THEY WERE ENGAGED FOR.  (FN7)
EACH WAS HELD TO FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE.  SECTION 902(4)
REQUIRES THE EMPLOYER TO PAY COMPENSATION IF HE HAS "ANY" EMPLOYEES SO
ENGAGED.  (FN8)  IF, THEN, THE ACCIDENT OCCURS ON NAVIGABLE WATERS, THE
ACT MUST APPLY IF THE INJURED LONGSHOREMAN WAS THERE IN FURTHERANCE OF
HIS EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER HE HIMSELF CAN BE
LABELED "MARITIME."  SUCH ARE THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THIS CASE.  THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT APPLIES. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  45 U.S.C. SEC. 51: 

"EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD WHILE ENGAGING IN COMMERCE BETWEEN
ANY OF THE SEVERAL STATES OR TERRITORIES, OR BETWEEN ANY OF THE STATES
AND TERRITORIES, OR BETWEEN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ANY OF THE
STATES OR TERRITORIES, OR BETWEEN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR ANY OF
THE STATES OR TERRITORIES AND ANY FOREIGN NATION OR NATIONS, SHALL BE
LIABLE IN DAMAGES TO ANY PERSON SUFFERING INJURY WHILE HE IS EMPLOYED
BY SUCH CARRIER IN SUCH COMMERCE, OR, IN CASE OF THE DEATH OF SUCH
EMPLOYEE, TO HIS OR HER PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
SURVIVING WIDOW OR HUSBAND AND CHILDREN OF SUCH EMPLOYEE; AND, IF NONE,
THEN OF SUCH EMPLOYEE'S PARENTS; AND, IF NONE, THEN OF THE NEXT OF KIN
DEPENDENT UPON SUCH EMPLOYEE, FOR SUCH INJURY OR DEATH RESULTING IN
WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR
EMPLOYEES OF SUCH CARRIER, OR BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT OR INSUFFICIENCY,
DUE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS CARS, ENGINES, APPLIANCES, MACHINERY,
TRACK, ROADBED, WORKS, BOATS, WHARVES, OR OTHER EQUIPMENT. 

"ANY EMPLOYEE OF A CARRIER, ANY PART OF WHOSE DUTIES AS SUCH EMPLOYEE
SHALL BE THE FURTHERANCE OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE; OR SHALL,
IN ANY WAY DIRECTLY OR CLOSELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY, AFFECT SUCH COMMERCE
AS ABOVE SET FORTH SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, BE
CONSIDERED AS BEING EMPLOYED BY SUCH CARRIER IN SUCH COMMERCE AND SHALL
BE CONSIDERED AS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THIS CHAPTER."    FN2  33
U.S.C. SEC. 905: 

"THE LIABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 904 OF THIS TITLE
SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND IN PLACE OF ALL OTHER LIABILITY OF SUCH EMPLOYER
TO THE EMPLOYEE, HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, HUSBAND OR WIFE, PARENTS,
DEPENDENTS, NEXT OF KIN, AND ANYONE OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FROM SUCH EMPLOYER AT LAW OR IN ADMIRALTY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH
INJURY OR DEATH,  ...  ." 

FN3  THE PORTION OF THE SECTION WHICH WE HAVE OMITTED CONTAINS
CERTAIN OTHER CONDITIONS TO APPLICABILITY.  NONE APPLY HERE. 
RESPONDENT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE CREW AND THE VESSEL WAS OF MORE THAN
EIGHTEEN TONS.    FN4  THE NOGUEIRA CASE WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION.  ON
THE SAME DAY, BAIZLEY IRON WORKS V. SPAN, 281 U.S. 222, WAS DECIDED
WITH THREE DISSENTS.  AN AWARD OF STATE COMPENSATION TO SPAN WAS
REVERSED BECAUSE AS A PAINTER EMPLOYED IN THE REPAIR OF A COMPLETED
SHIP LYING IN NAVIGABLE WATERS, A STATE COMPENSATION STATUTE COULD NOT
COVER HIM. 

FN5  NORTON V. WARNER CO., 321 U.S. 565; MERRITT-CHAPMAN & SCOTT
CORP. V. WILLARD, 189 F.2D 791, AND LONG ISLAND R. CO. V. LOWE, 145
F.2D 516, FALL WITHIN A SIMILAR CATEGORY. 

FN6  SEE GUSSIE V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 1 N.J. SUPER.  293, 64 A.2D
244; RICHARDSON V. CENTRAL R. CO. OF N.J., 233 APP. DIV. 603, 253
N.Y.S. 789; BYRD V. N.Y. CENTRAL SYSTEM, 6 N.J. SUPER.  568, 70 A.2D
97.  ZIENTEK V. READING CO., 93 F. SUPP. 875, IS CONTRARY BUT AS TO
THIS SEE OUR OPINION IN DESPER V. STARVED ROCK FERRY CO., 342 U.S. 187,
190; JOB V. ERIE R. CO., 79 F. SUPP. 698, AND RIST V. PITTSBURGH &
CONNEAUT DOCK CO., 104 F. SUPP. 29. 

FN7  BAIZLEY IRON WORKS V. SPAN, 281 U.S. 222 (A PAINTER); DE
BARDELEBEN COAL CORP. V. HENDERSON, 142 F.2D 481 (MEMBER OF SHORE
GANG); TRAVELERS INS. CO. V. MCMANIGAL, 139 F.2D 949 (CARPENTER);
TRAVELERS INS. CO. V. BRANHAM, 136 F.2D 873 (FOREMAN OF A CONCRETE
POURING GANG); STANDARD DREDGING CORP. V. HENDERSON, 57 F. SUPP. 770
(MEMBER OF SHORE GANG); FORD V. PARKER, 52 F. SUPP. 98 (WATCHMAN). 
THIS LIST IS ILLUSTRATIVE BUT BY NO MEANS EXHAUSTIVE. 

FN8  DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S. 249, IS AN ILLUSTRATION
OF THE DIFFICULTY ENCOUNTERED IN APPLYING THIS STANDARD, HAPPILY NOT
PRESENT IN THE CASE AT BAR.  THE DAVIS CASE AVOIDED UNCERTAINTY IN
AREAS WHERE STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES MIGHT OVERLAP.  IN THE PRESENT
CASE WE HAVE TWO FEDERAL STATUTES AND A LINE MARKING THEIR COVERAGE CAN
BE DRAWN. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK,
AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THERE IS BUT ONE QUESTION HERE, AND THAT IS WHETHER THIS RESPONDENT
WAS ENGAGED IN "MARITIME EMPLOYMENT" AT THE TIME OF HIS INJURY.  IF HE
WAS, THEN THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT
APPLIES AND NOT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  THAT WAS DECIDED
IN NOGUEIRA V. NEW YORK, N.H.&H.R. CO., 281 U.S. 128.  IN THAT CASE, AN
EMPLOYEE OF A RAILROAD COMPANY WAS TRUCKING INTERSTATE FREIGHT FROM THE
DOCK ONTO A CAR FLOAT FOR LOADING IN A CAR STANDING ON THE CAR FLOAT. 
HE WAS LIKENED TO A STEVEDORE.  HERE THIS RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WAS A
BRAKEMAN ENGAGED IN REMOVING FREIGHT CARS FROM A CAR FLOAT BY THE USE
OF AN ORDINARY SWITCH ENGINE.  THE CARS WERE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
PREPARATORY TO THE REMOVAL OF THE CARS FROM THE CAR FLOAT, IT WAS THIS
RAILROAD EMPLOYEE'S DUTY TO LET OFF THE BRAKES.  HE ALLEGED THAT WHILE
THUS ENGAGED, THE RAILROAD'S USE OF A DEFECTIVE BRAKE IN VIOLATION OF
THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT CAUSED HIM TO BE THROWN FROM THE FREIGHT CAR
TO THE DECK OF THE CAR FLOAT AND INJURED.  THE CAR FLOAT WAS UPON
NAVIGABLE WATERS. 

WAS IT MARITIME EMPLOYMENT TO GET THESE CARS OFF THE CAR FLOAT OR WAS
IT RAILROAD EMPLOYMENT?  IF THIS RAILROAD EMPLOYEE HAD BEEN DOING HIS
BRAKING JOB ON LAND, NO ONE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT HE WAS ENGAGED IN
ANYTHING BUT RAILROAD EMPLOYMENT.  DOES IT BECOME MARITIME EMPLOYMENT
BECAUSE IT HAPPENED OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS?  WE THINK NOT.  THE PLACE IS
THE ONLY THING THAT DIFFERENTIATES THE SITUATIONS.  PLACE IS ADMITTEDLY
NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE WHAT IS BRAKING ON LAND OTHER THAN BRAKING WHEN DONE
OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS.  NOT ONLY MUST WE LOOK TO THE PLACE WHERE THE
ACCIDENT HAPPENED, BUT OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE IS THE NATURE OF THE
EMPLOYMENT.  THE NATURE OF THE EMPLOYMENT IS CERTAINLY NOT MARITIME. 
IT WAS AN ORDINARY RAILROAD CHORE, DONE BY AN ORDINARY RAILROAD
BRAKEMAN.  IF THIS WERE NOT SO, THE TRAIN CREWS ON TRAINS BEING FERRIED
ACROSS NAVIGABLE STREAMS IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE EMPLOYED IN
MARITIME SERVICE.  WITH THE IMAGINATION OF THE COURT'S OPINION, A TRAIN
CREW, WHILE CROSSING A BRIDGE WITH ITS SUPPORTS IN A NAVIGABLE STREAM,
WOULD BE EMPLOYED IN MARITIME SERVICE. 

WE WOULD TREAT THIS RAILROAD EMPLOYEE AS BEING IN LAW WHAT HE WAS IN
REAL LIFE, A RAILROAD BRAKEMAN, ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AND AFFIRM THIS
JUDGMENT. 
..END :

















NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY OF MIAMI,
INC. 344 U.S. 344 


NO. 217.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 1952 - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1953 - 196 F.2D
424, REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED REINSTATEMENT OF DISCRIMINATORILY
DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT, WITH BACK PAY TO BE COMPUTED ON THE
BASIS OF EACH SEPARATE CALENDAR QUARTER OR PORTION THEREOF DURING THE
PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF DISCHARGE TO THE DATE OF A PROPER OFFER OF
REINSTATEMENT.  HELD:  THE BOARD WAS ENTITLED TO A DECREE ENFORCING THE
ORDER.  PP. 345-352. 

(A)  IN DEVISING A REMEDY FOR DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE, THE BOARD IS
NOT CONFINED TO THE RECORD OF A PARTICULAR PROCEEDING.  PP. 348-349. 

(B)  THERE ARE IN THIS CASE NO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES PERMITTING
RESPONDENT TO RAISE HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME AN OBJECTION BASED ON THE
SEASONAL NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN URGED BEFORE THE
BOARD OR THE COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 350. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT WAS REENACTED WHILE THE
BOARD ADHERED TO AN EARLIER FORMULA FOR COMPUTING BACK PAY DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE BOARD FROM DEPARTING FROM THAT EARLIER FORMULA.   PP. 350
352. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY OF MIAMI,
INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

ON THE PETITION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT
OF AN ORDER, 92 N.L.R.B. 1622, THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED ENFORCEMENT
OF THAT PART OF THE ORDER PRESCRIBING A METHOD FOR COMPUTING BACK PAY. 
196 F.2D 424.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 811.  REVERSED,
P. 352. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ACTING UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947
(THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT), 61 STAT. 136, 147, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC.
160(C), THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED THE REINSTATEMENT OF
ELEVEN DISCRIMINATORILY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES OF THE SEVEN-UP BOTTLING
COMPANY, WITH BACK PAY "TO BE COMPUTED UPON A QUARTERLY BASIS IN THE
MANNER ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD IN F.W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY."  92
N.L.R.B. 1622, 1640.  IN THE WOOLWORTH CASE, 90 N.L.R.B. 289, THE BOARD
SAID: 

"THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISCOURAGING OBSTACLES TO INDUSTRIAL PEACE
REQUIRES THAT WE SEEK TO BRING ABOUT, IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASES,
"A RESTORATION OF THE SITUATION, AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE, TO THAT WHICH
WOULD HAVE OBTAINED BUT FOR THE ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION.'  IN ORDER THAT
THIS END MAY BE EFFECTIVELY ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF
REINSTATEMENT COUPLED WITH BACK PAY, WE SHALL ORDER, IN THE CASE BEFORE
US AND IN FUTURE CASES, THAT THE LOSS OF PAY BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS
OF EACH SEPARATE CALENDAR QUARTER OR PORTION THEREOF DURING THE PERIOD
FROM THE RESPONDENT'S DISCRIMINATORY ACTION TO THE DATE OF A PROPER
OFFER OF REINSTATEMENT.  THE QUARTERLY PERIODS, HEREINAFTER CALLED
'QUARTERS,' SHALL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, APRIL, JULY, AND
OCTOBER.  LOSS OF PAY SHALL BE DETERMINED BY DEDUCTING FROM A SUM EQUAL
TO THAT WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE EARNED FOR EACH SUCH
QUARTER OR PORTION THEREOF, HIS NET EARNINGS, IF ANY, IN OTHER
EMPLOYMENT DURING THAT PERIOD.  EARNINGS IN ONE PARTICULAR QUARTER
SHALL HAVE NO EFFECT UPON THE BACK-PAY LIABILITY FOR ANY OTHER
QUARTER."  90 N.L.R.B., AT 292-293. 

IN THE PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE BOARD SOUGHT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER
AGAINST THE SEVEN-UP BOTTLING COMPANY, THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED
THE CLAIM OF THE COMPANY THAT THE WOOLWORTH FORMULA COULD NOT BE
APPLIED AGAINST IT:  "THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO BE MADE WHOLE, BUT NO
MORE.  THE EMPLOYEES HERE INVOLVED WERE NOT COMPENSATED ON A QUARTERLY
BASIS.  WE SEE NO SUFFICIENT REASON TO SO COMPUTE THEIR BACK PAY DURING
SUSPENSION  ...  .  THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE CONDITIONS
APPREHENDED BY THE BOARD IN THE WOOLWORTH CASE, EXIST HERE."  196 F.2D
424, 427-428.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT MODIFIED THE BOARD'S ORDER SO
THAT BACK PAY WOULD BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE PERIOD DURING
WHICH AN EMPLOYEE WAS DENIED REEMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT
RATHER THAN ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.  SINCE THE GENERAL METHOD OF
COMPUTING BACK PAY IS OBVIOUSLY A MATTER OF IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  344 U.S. 811. 

AWARD, DERIVES UNCHANGED, SO FAR AS IS NOW RELEVANT, FROM THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS (WAGNER) ACT.  49 STAT. 449, 454.  IT CHARGES THE BOARD
WITH THE TASK OF DEVISING REMEDIES TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE
ACT.  OF COURSE THE REMEDIES MUST BE FUNCTIONS OF THE PURPOSES TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED, AND IN MAKING BACK PAY AWARDS, THE BOARD OPERATES UNDER A
FURTHER LIMITATION.  IT MUST HAVE REGARD FOR CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING
THE MITIGATION OF DAMAGES; IT MUST, THAT IS, HEED "THE IMPORTANCE OF
TAKING FAIR ACCOUNT, IN A CIVILIZED LEGAL SYSTEM, OF EVERY SOCIALLY
DESIRABLE FACTOR IN THE FINAL JUDGMENT."  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 198.  SUBJECT TO THESE LIMITATIONS, HOWEVER, THE
POWER, WHICH IS A BROAD DISCRETIONARY ONE, IS FOR THE BOARD TO WIELD,
NOT FOR THE COURTS.  IN FASHIONING REMEDIES TO UNDO THE EFFECTS OF
VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT, THE BOARD MUST DRAW ON ENLIGHTENMENT GAINED FROM
EXPERIENCE.  WHEN THE BOARD, "IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS INFORMED
DISCRETION," MAKES AN ORDER OF RESTORATION BY WAY OF BACK PAY, THE
ORDER "SHOULD STAND UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE ORDER IS A PATENT
ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE ENDS OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH CAN FAIRLY BE SAID TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT."  VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 319 U.S. 533, 540.  THE WOOLWORTH FORMULA, AS A GENERAL
METHOD OF COMPUTATION, IS, UNDER THIS TEST, PROOF AGAINST JUDICIAL
CHALLENGE. 

THE BOARD'S VERY FIRST PUBLISHED ORDER AWARDED AS BACK PAY WAGES
WHICH WOULD NORMALLY HAVE BEEN EARNED "DURING THE PERIOD FROM THE DATE
OF  ...  DISCHARGE TO THE DATE OF AN OFFER OF REINSTATEMENT ...  LESS
THE AMOUNT  ...  EARNED SUBSEQUENT TO DISCHARGE  ...  ."  PENNSYLVANIA
GREYHOUND LINES, INC., 1 N.L.R.B. 1, 51 (1935), ENFORCED SUB NOM.
LABOR BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, INC., 303 U.S. 261.  FOR
FIFTEEN YEARS THE BOARD FOLLOWED THE PRACTICE IT HAD LAID DOWN IN THAT
CASE AND CALCULATED BACK PAY ON THE BASIS OF REINSTATEMENT.  IN 1950,
IN F.W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY, SUPRA, THE BOARD SAID: "THE CUMULATIVE
EXPERIENCE OF MANY YEARS DISCLOSES THAT THIS FORM OF REMEDIAL PROVISION
FALLS SHORT OF EFFECTUATING THE BASIC PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE
ACT."  90 N.L.R.B., AT 291.  THE BOARD CONSIDERED THAT ITS PENNSYLVANIA
GREYHOUND FORMULA FOR COMPUTING BACK PAY ADVERSELY AFFECTED "THE
COMPANION REMEDY OF REINSTATEMENT."  WHEN AN EMPLOYEE, SOMETIME AFTER
DISCHARGE, OBTAINED A BETTER PAYING JOB THAN THE ONE HE WAS DISCHARGED
FROM, IT BECAME PROFITABLE FOR THE EMPLOYER TO DELAY AN OFFER OF
REINSTATEMENT AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, SINCE EVERY DAY THE EMPLOYEE PUT IN
ON THE BETTER PAYING JOB REDUCED BACK PAY LIABILITY.  AGAIN, THE OLD
FORMULA, IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES, PUT ADDED PRESSURE ON THE EMPLOYEE
TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO REINSTATEMENT, SINCE BY DOING SO HE COULD
TERMINATE THE RUNNING OF BACK PAY AND PREVENT THE CONTINUING REDUCTION
OF THE SUM COMING TO HIM.  TO AVOID THESE CONSEQUENCES THE BOARD LAID
DOWN ITS NEW METHOD OF COMPUTATION.  90 N.L.R.B., AT 292-293. 

IT IS NOT FOR US TO WEIGH THESE OR COUNTERVAILING CONSIDERATIONS. 
NOR SHOULD WE REQUIRE THE BOARD TO MAKE A QUANTITATIVE APPRAISAL OF THE
RELEVANT FACTORS, ASSUMING THE UNLIKELY, THAT SUCH AN APPRAISAL IS
FEASIBLE.  AS IS TRUE OF MANY COMPARABLE JUDGMENTS BY THOSE WHO ARE
STEEPED IN THE ACTUAL WORKINGS OF THESE SPECIALIZED MATTERS, THE
BOARD'S CONCLUSIONS MAY "EXPRESS AN INTUITION OF EXPERIENCE WHICH
OUTRUNS ANALYSIS AND SUMS UP MANY UNNAMED AND TANGLED IMPRESSIONS  ...
"; AND THEY ARE NONE THE WORSE FOR IT. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY R.
CO. V. BABCOCK, 204 U.S. 585, 598.  IT IS AS TRUE OF THE LABOR BOARD AS
IT WAS OF THE AGENCY IN THE BABCOCK CASE THAT "THE BOARD WAS CREATED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF USING ITS JUDGMENT AND ITS KNOWLEDGE."  IBID. 

IT WILL NOT BE DENIED THAT THE BOARD MAY BE MINDFUL OF THE PRACTICAL
INTERPLAY OF TWO REMEDIES, BACK PAY AND REINSTATEMENT, BOTH WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY.  SURELY IT MAY SO FASHION ONE REMEDY THAT IT
COMPLEMENTS, RATHER THAN CONFLICTS WITH, ANOTHER.  IT IS THE BUSINESS
OF THE BOARD TO GIVE COORDINATED EFFECT TO THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  WE
PREFER TO DEAL WITH THESE REALITIES AND TO AVOID ENTERING INTO THE BOG
OF LOGOMACHY, AS WE ARE INVITED TO, BY DEBATE ABOUT WHAT IS "REMEDIAL"
AND WHAT IS "PUNITIVE."  IT SEEMS MORE PROFITABLE TO STICK CLOSELY TO
THE DIRECTION OF THE ACT BY CONSIDERING WHAT ORDER DOES, AS THIS DOES,
AND WHAT ORDER DOES NOT, BEAR APPROPRIATE RELATION TO THE POLICIES OF
THE ACT.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. GULLETT GIN CO., 340 U.S. 361.  OF COURSE,
REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7, DEALT WITH A DIFFERENT
SITUATION, AND ITS HOLDING REMAINS UNDISTURBED. 

IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT NO EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD SUPPORTS THIS
BACK PAY ORDER; THAT THE BOARD'S FORMULA AND THE REASONS IT ASSIGNED
FOR ADOPTING IT DO NOT REST ON DATA WHICH THE BOARD HAS DERIVED IN THE
COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US.  BUT IN DEVISING A REMEDY THE
BOARD IS NOT CONFINED TO THE RECORD OF A PARTICULAR PROCEEDING. 
"CUMULATIVE EXPERIENCE" BEGETS UNDERSTANDING AND INSIGHT BY WHICH
JUDGMENTS NOT OBJECTIVELY DEMONSTRABLE ARE VALIDATED OR QUALIFIED OR
INVALIDATED.  THE CONSTANT PROCESS OF TRIAL AND ERROR, ON A WIDER AND
FULLER SCALE THAN A SINGLE ADVERSARY LITIGATION PERMITS, DIFFERENTIATES
PERHAPS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FROM THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS.  "THE RELATION OF REMEDY TO POLICY IS PECULIARLY A MATTER FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCE  ...  ."  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD,
SUPRA, 313 U.S., AT 194.  THAT COMPETENCE COULD NOT BE EXERCISED IF IN
FASHIONING REMEDIES THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WERE RESTRICTED TO
CONSIDERING ONLY WHAT WAS BEFORE IT IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING. 

THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE BOARD MAY APPLY A REMEDY IT HAS WORKED
OUT ON THE BASIS OF ITS EXPERIENCE, WITHOUT REGARD TO CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH MAY MAKE ITS APPLICATION TO A PARTICULAR SITUATION OPPRESSIVE AND
THEREFORE NOT CALCULATED TO EFFECTUATE A POLICY OF THE ACT.  THE
COMPANY IN THIS CASE MAINTAINS THAT IT OPERATES A SEASONAL BUSINESS,
THAT ITS EMPLOYEES MAY EARN THREE TIMES AS MUCH IN THE FIRST AND FOURTH
QUARTERS OF A YEAR AS IN THE SECOND AND THIRD, AND THAT A QUARTERLY
CALCULATION OF BACK PAY WOULD IN THIS CONTEXT BE OBVIOUSLY UNJUST.  THE
BOARD SUGGESTS THAT IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH SUCH SPECIAL
FACTS IN THIS CASE IF THE BOARD AND THE COMPANY CANNOT AGREE ON THE
FAIR APPLICATION OF THE WOOLWORTH FORMULA AFTER THE ORDER IS
SUSTAINED.  BUT IN CASE OF SUCH DISAGREEMENT, THE COMPANY CAN BE HEARD
AS OF RIGHT ON THE ISSUE IT NOW RAISES ONLY IN THE COURSE OF CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AND AT THE RISK INVOLVED IN THEM.  WE DO NOT THINK CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF SUCH AN ISSUE. 
PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 313 U.S., AT 200.  INDEED,
THE BOARD'S PRE-WOOLWORTH FORMULA WAS ADAPTED TO VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES
AS A RESULT OF PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE THE BOARD PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF ORDERS.  SEE, E.G., CROSSETT LUMBER COMPANY, 8 N.L.R.B. 440, 496
498; GULLETT GIN COMPANY, INC., 83 N.L.R.B. 1, 2, N. 4, ENFORCED SUB
NOM. LABOR BOARD V. GULLETT GIN CO., SUPRA.  WE ASSUME THAT THE
WOOLWORTH FORMULA WILL BE APPLIED IN LIKE MANNER. 

IN ANY EVENT, THIS ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM IS NOT NOW PROPERLY HERE. 
THE COMPANY NEVER MADE BEFORE THE BOARD THE OBJECTION IT NOW BASES ON
THE SEASONAL NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS.  SECTION 10(E) OF THE ACT, 61
STAT. 136, 147, 148, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 160(E), PROVIDES: "NO
OBJECTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN URGED BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER, AGENT,
OR AGENCY, SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT, UNLESS THE FAILURE OR
NEGLECT TO URGE SUCH OBJECTION SHALL BE EXCUSED BECAUSE OF
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES."  IN ITS EXCEPTION XXII TO THE
INTERMEDIATE REPORT OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER, THE COMPANY OBJECTED THAT
THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE REMEDY WERE CONTRARY TO, AND UNSUPPORTED
BY, THE EVIDENCE AND CONTRARY TO LAW.  THIS IS NOT ADEQUATE NOTICE THAT
THE COMPANY INTENDS TO PRESS THE SPECIFIC ISSUE IT NOW RAISES. 
MARSHALL FIELD & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 318 U.S. 253.  THE COMPANY DID NOT
URGE THIS ISSUE EITHER BEFORE THE BOARD OR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  NO
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENT SUCH AS WOULD JUSTIFY
PERMITTING THE ISSUE TO BE RAISED HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME. 

THE COMPANY CONTENDS, FINALLY, THAT THOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WITHIN
THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO DEVISE THE WOOLWORTH FORMULA UNDER THE
LANGUAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE FACT THAT THAT
LANGUAGE WAS REENACTED WHILE THE BOARD ADHERED TO ITS PRE-WOOLWORTH
FORMULA HAS DEPRIVED THE BOARD OF POWER TO DEPART FROM THE LATTER.  WE
ARE TOLD THAT CONGRESS STUDIED WITH UNUSUAL CARE THE CASE LAW WHICH HAD
DEVELOPED UNDER THE STATUTE CONGRESS WAS REVISING AND REENACTING BY THE
LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, AND THAT IT ADOPTED NEW LANGUAGE
WHENEVER IT DESIRED RESULTS OTHER THAN THE ONES REACHED BY THE CASES. 
WE ARE CITED TO LABOR BOARD V. GULLETT GIN CO., SUPRA, AND ASKED TO
CONCLUDE AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT WHENEVER CONGRESS REENACTED
WITHOUT CHANGE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IT
THEREBY FROZE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS RENDERED UNDER THOSE
PROVISIONS.  GULLETT GIN CARRIES NO SUCH GENERALIZATION.  HAVING HELD
THAT THE BOARD'S PRACTICE OF FAILING TO DEDUCT UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION PAYMENTS IN THE CALCULATION OF BACK PAY AWARDS DID NOT GO
BEYOND ITS POWERS, WE SAID IN THAT CASE THAT OUR HOLDING WAS SUPPORTED
BY THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAD REENACTED THE RELEVANT PART OF SEC. 10(C)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WITH WHAT WE TOOK TO BE NOTICE OF
THIS PRACTICE.  WE THOUGHT CONGRESS COULD BE SAID TO HAVE AGREED THAT
THE BOARD WAS ACTING WITHIN THE AUTHORITY CONGRESS MEANT IT TO HAVE. 

ASSUMING CONGRESS WAS AWARE OF THE BOARD'S PRE-WOOLWORTH PRACTICE OF
CALCULATING BACK PAY ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE PERIOD FROM DISCHARGE
TO OFFER OF REINSTATEMENT, WE COULD SAY HERE, AS WE DID IN GULLETT GIN,
THAT CONGRESS BY ITS REENACTMENT INDICATED ITS AGREEMENT THAT THE
BOARD'S PRACTICE WAS AUTHORIZED.  THAT LEADS US NOWHERE ON THE PRESENT
ISSUE, THOUGH IT IS ONLY THIS FAR THAT WHAT WE SAID IN GULLETT GIN CAN
LEAD US.  IN THAT CASE AS HERE, AGAIN ASSUMING NOTICE, IF CONGRESS WAS
SATISFIED THAT THE BOARD WAS ACTING WITHIN ITS POWERS, THE THING FOR IT
TO DO WAS WHAT IT DID - REENACT WITHOUT CHANGE.  IN THAT CASE AS HERE -
THOUGH, OF COURSE, WE HAD NO OCCASION TO SAY SO IN THAT CASE - IF
CONGRESS HAD BEEN MORE THAN SATISFIED WITH THE BOARD'S PRACTICE, IF IT
HAD WANTED TO BE CERTAIN THAT THE BOARD WOULD NOT IN FUTURE PROFIT BY
ITS EXPERIENCE, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO DO MORE THAN IT DID; IT WOULD HAVE
HAD TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE SO AS TO TAKE FROM THE BOARD
THE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO MOULD REMEDIES SUITED TO PRACTICAL NEEDS
WHICH WE HAD DECLARED THE BOARD TO HAVE AND WHICH THE BOARD WAS
ASSERTING AND EXERCISING.  WE CANNOT INFER AN INTENT TO WITHDRAW THE
GRANT OF SUCH POWER FROM WHAT IS AT MOST A SILENT APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC
EXERCISES OF IT. 

WE HOLD THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER IS TO BE ENFORCED.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE THAT THE BOARD HAS THE POWER TO USE THE WOOLWORTH FORMULA IN
COMPUTING BACK PAY AWARDS.  BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT ITS APPLICATION IN
EVERY CASE, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS IN ACCORD WITH THE
POLICY OF THE ACT.  IN THE USUAL CASE COMPUTATION OF BACK PAY AWARDS ON
A QUARTERLY BASIS WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE EMPLOYEE WHOLE;
AND IT MAY EVEN BE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE REMEDY OF
REINSTATEMENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND THE USE OF THE FORMULA MAY IN SOME
CASES PRODUCE AN INEQUITABLE RESULT. 

WHERE, AS HERE, AN EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS FLUCTUATES, THE EMPLOYEE'S
INCOME WILL NOT BE CONSTANT.  HE WILL EARN MORE IN ONE MONTH THAN THE
NEXT, MORE IN ONE QUARTER THAN THE NEXT.  SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN THE
BUSINESS MAY RESULT IN A HIGH TOTAL INCOME FOR ONE QUARTER AND A LOW
TOTAL FOR THE NEXT.  A DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE, WHO SECURES OTHER
EMPLOYMENT AT A NORMAL AND CONSTANT RATE OF INCOME, MAY ACHIEVE A
YEARLY RATE OF PAY SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THAT OF HIS REGULAR JOB. 
THAT APPARENTLY IS THIS CASE.  IF, THEREFORE, BACK PAY IS COMPUTED IN
THIS CASE ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, THE EMPLOYEE WILL PROBABLY RECEIVE AN
AWARD IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF INCOME HE WOULD HAVE EARNED HAD HE NOT
BEEN DISCHARGED.  FOR THE QUARTER DURING WHICH HE WOULD HAVE EARNED A
LARGE AMOUNT, HE WOULD BE AWARDED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AMOUNT
AND THE LOWER AMOUNT HE EARNED AT THE OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT.  FOR A
QUARTER DURING WHICH HIS INCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN LOW HE WOULD RECEIVE NO
BACK PAY, PROVIDED HIS OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT YIELDED HIM MORE THAN HIS OLD
JOB.  THE NET RESULT WILL PROBABLY BE THAT THIS EMPLOYEE WILL RECEIVE A
TOTAL AMOUNT OF EARNED INCOME, PLUS BACK PAY, WHICH EXCEEDS WHAT HE
WOULD HAVE EARNED AT HIS REGULAR JOB.  SUCH A RESULT IS BOTH
INEQUITABLE AND UNWARRANTED.  THE BOARD SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO USE
THIS FORMULA FOR BACK PAY WHEN IN A GIVEN CASE IT GLARINGLY WORKS AN
INJUSTICE.  THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO MOST GENERAL RULES; AND THE BOARD
SHOULD BE THE GUARDIAN OF THE EXCEPTIONS, AS WELL AS THE FORMULA
ITSELF. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, DISSENTING. 

IT SEEMS TO US THAT WE ENTER A "BOG OF LOGOMACHY" WHEN WE START TO
RETRACT WHAT WE PLAINLY SAID TWELVE YEARS AGO IN REPUBLIC STEEL CORP.
V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7, AND REAFFIRMED AS LATE AS 1951 IN LABOR
BOARD V. GULLETT GIN CO., 340 U.S. 361.  THE STATUTE WAS THE SAME THEN
AS NOW. 

IN THE REPUBLIC STEEL CASE, THE BOARD HAD ORDERED THE COMPANY TO
DEDUCT FROM THE BACK PAY DUE WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES THE
AMOUNTS THEY HAD RECEIVED ON "WORK RELIEF" PROJECTS AND TO PAY THE
AMOUNTS SO DEDUCTED TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  ON REVIEW ONLY OF
THE QUESTION OF THE PAYMENT OF THESE AMOUNTS TO THE GOVERNMENT, THIS
COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENT TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE SUMS THE EMPLOYEES HAD EARNED ON WORK RELIEF.  SUCH
PAYMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MAKING THE EMPLOYEES
WHOLE AND ONLY PUNISHED THE EMPLOYER. 

IN CONSTRUING THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN THIS CASE,
THE COURT SAID: 

"THE BOARD CAN DIRECT THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH THOSE WHO APPEAR
TO BE THE CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES AND IT CAN REQUIRE
THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES AS HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT BE
REINSTATED WITH BACK PAY.  ALL THESE MEASURES RELATE TO THE PROTECTION
OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THE REDRESS OF THEIR GRIEVANCES, NOT TO THE
REDRESS OF ANY SUPPOSED PUBLIC INJURY AFTER THE EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN
MADE SECURE IN THEIR RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND HAVE BEEN MADE
WHOLE. 

"AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE CLAIM OF AUTHORITY TO GO FURTHER AND TO
DEMAND PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENTS, THE BOARD RELIES ON THE LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 10(C) WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF UPON EVIDENCE THE BOARD FINDS THAT
THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE COMPLAINT IS LODGED HAS ENGAGED IN AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THE BOARD SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER - 'REQUIRING SUCH
PERSON TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND TO TAKE
SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT.' 

"THIS LANGUAGE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND
REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
TO VEST IN THE BOARD A VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED DISCRETION TO DEVISE
PUNITIVE MEASURES, AND THUS TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES OR FINES WHICH THE
BOARD MAY THINK WOULD EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  WE HAVE SAID
THAT 'THIS AUTHORITY TO ORDER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS
TO CONFER A PUNITIVE JURISDICTION ENABLING THE BOARD TO INFLICT UPON
THE EMPLOYER ANY PENALTY IT MAY CHOOSE BECAUSE HE IS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT MIGHT BE EFFECTUATED BY SUCH AN ORDER.'  WE HAVE
SAID THAT THE POWER TO COMMAND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REMEDIAL, NOT
PUNITIVE.  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
305 U.S. 197, 235, 236.  SEE, ALSO, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 267, 268.  WE ADHERE TO
THAT CONSTRUCTION."  311 U.S. 7, 11-12. 

AS WE UNDERSTAND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT UP TO NOW, THEY HAVE ALL
HELD THAT THE POWER OF THE BOARD TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT
IS REMEDIAL AND IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE EMPLOYEE WHOLE AND NOT
OF PUNISHING THE EMPLOYER.  IT IS CONCEDED AND CANNOT BE DENIED THAT
THE RULE HERETOFORE APPLIED BY THE BOARD IN CALCULATING BACK PAY DOES
NOT FAIL TO MAKE THE EMPLOYEE WHOLE. 

THE RULE UNDOUBTEDLY DERIVES FROM THE COMMON-LAW RULE OF DAMAGES FOR
THE BREACH BY THE EMPLOYER OF A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.  THE MEASURE OF
DAMAGES IS WHAT AN EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE EARNED IF HE HAD NOT BEEN
WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED, LESS WHAT HE DID EARN DURING THE PERIOD OF THE
BREACH.  AMERICAN TRADING CO. V. STEELE, 274 F. 774, 782; 5 WILLISTON,
CONTRACTS (REV. ED. 1937), SEC. 1358; MCCORMICK ON DAMAGES (1935) SECS.
158, 160. 

BY THE QUARTERLY CALCULATION APPROVED BY THE COURT IN THE INSTANT
CASE, NOT ONLY MAY A WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE OFTEN RECEIVE AS
BACK PAY A GREATER AMOUNT THAN HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD HE WORKED AT
HIS REGULAR JOB, BUT THE EMPLOYER MUST PAY MORE THAN HE WOULD HAVE HAD
TO PAY IF HE HAD HAD THE EMPLOYEE'S SERVICES DURING THE PERIOD.  THUS,
BOTH OF THE AVOWED PURPOSES OF THE RULE WHICH THIS COURT HAS HELD MUST
GUIDE THE BOARD IN ALLOWING BACK PAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, NAMELY, THE
EMPLOYEE IS MADE MORE THAN WHOLE, AND THE EMPLOYER HAS ACCORDINGLY BEEN
PENALIZED. 

THE EMPLOYEES HERE WERE NOT EMPLOYED OR PAID ON A QUARTERLY BASIS. 
THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THEY BE REIMBURSED ON A QUARTERLY
BASIS.  THE STATUTE AS INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT REQUIRES THE EMPLOYEES
TO BE MADE WHOLE.  THIS RULE, AS HERETOFORE APPLIED, WILL ALWAYS DO
THAT.  THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO NO MORE, THE EMPLOYER TO NO LESS. 

THIS COURT HAVING LAID DOWN THIS RULE, THE BOARD HAVING CONSISTENTLY
APPLIED IT FOR OVER TWELVE YEARS, AND CONGRESS HAVING CONSIDERED AND
COMPLETELY OVERHAULED THE ACT IN 1947 WITHOUT CHANGING THIS PROVISION
OF THE STATUTE WITH ITS LONG INTERPRETATION, WE THINK IT HAS BECOME
PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD CHANGE IF IT
IS TO BE CHANGED.  HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 306 U.S.
110, 114; TAFT V. COMMISSIONER, 304 U.S. 351, 357; HARTLEY V.
COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S. 216, 220; STAIRS V. PEASLEE, 18 HOW.  521, 526. 

..END :

















EDELMAN V. CALIFORNIA 344 U.S. 357 


NO. 85.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1952 - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1953 -
CERTIORARI DISMISSED. 


CERTIORARI TO REVIEW PETITIONER'S STATE-COURT CONVICTION UNDER A
CALIFORNIA VAGRANCY STATUTE WAS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED AND THE WRIT IS
DISMISSED.  PP. 358-362. 

1.  THE CLAIM THAT HIS CONVICTION VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE THE STATUTE WAS VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN,
IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT WHEN THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED
BELOW BY DEFAULT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.  PP. 358-359. 

2.  THE CLAIM THAT HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE INFRINGED BY DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT
OF THE VAGRANCY STATUTE WAS DISPOSED OF ON STATE PROCEDURAL GROUNDS AND
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED HERE.  P. 359. 

3.  DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO RECALL THE REMITTITUR AND VACATE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND; AND
THE CLAIM THAT THIS DENIAL DEPRIVED HIM OF A HEARING IN THE APPELLATE
COURT CONTRARY TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED HERE.  PP. 359-362. 

EDELMAN V. CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT UNDER A VAGRANCY STATUTE
AND HIS CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY A STATE APPELLATE COURT.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 955.  WRIT DISMISSED, P. 362. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER STANDS CONVICTED UNDER SEC. 647(5) OF THE PENAL CODE OF
CALIFORNIA, WHICH PROVIDES IN RELEVANT PART THAT "EVERY  ...  DISSOLUTE
PERSON  ...  IS A VAGRANT, AND IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT EXCEEDING
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500), OR BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL NOT
EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT."  THE
CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IN AN ORDER WHICH RECITED THAT THE APPEAL HAD
BEEN SUBMITTED WITHOUT ARGUMENT.  A MOTION TO RECALL THE REMITTITUR AND
VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT WAS DENIED WITHOUT OPINION
AFTER A FULL HEARING BEFORE THREE JUDGES.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED AS TO THE VALIDITY
OF THE VAGRANCY STATUTE AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PETITIONER.  343
U.S. 955.  HOWEVER, ON ORAL ARGUMENT, DOUBTS AROSE AS TO WHETHER THE
FEDERAL QUESTIONS WERE PROPERLY PRESENTED BY THE RECORD.  ACCORDINGLY,
IT IS NECESSARY AT THE OUTSET TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE HAVE JURISDICTION
IN THIS CASE. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS, FIRST, THAT HIS CONVICTION VIOLATES THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE VAGRANCY STATUTE
IS VAGUE, INDEFINITE AND UNCERTAIN.  THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THIS
DEFENSE WAS NOT RAISED ON TRIAL BUT WAS PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME AS
THE FIFTH OF PETITIONER'S GROUNDS OF APPEAL, STATED AS FOLLOWS:  "5. 
VAGRANCY STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE VAGUE AND INDEFINITE." 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED WHEN THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARE
NOT SEASONABLY RAISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE
LAW.  HULBERT V. CITY OF CHICAGO, 202 U.S. 275 (1906); MUTUAL LIFE INS.
CO. V. MCGREW, 188 U.S. 291, 308 (1903).  NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SUCH LOCAL
LAW CAN THUS BE AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND FOR A DECISION BELOW.  ASIDE
FROM STATE LAW REGARDING THE SCOPE OF REVIEW IN CASES SUCH AS THIS ONE,
WE NOTE THAT CALIFORNIA PERMITS AFFIRMANCE IN CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE
APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR.  (FN1)  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE VAGRANCY STATUTE IS INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS NOT
PROPERLY BEFORE US. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE INFRINGED BY DISCRIMINATORY LAW
ENFORCEMENT MERITS ONLY BRIEF COMMENT.  THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON TRIAL
SHOWED AT MOST THAT THE VAGRANCY STATUTE IS NOT USED BY THE LOS ANGELES
AUTHORITIES IN ALL OF THE CASES IN WHICH IT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE. 
DOUBTLESS RECOGNIZING THE NECESSITY OF SHOWING SYSTEMATIC OR
INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION, PETITIONER MADE AN OFFER OF PROOF PHRASED
AS FOLLOWS, "I WANT TO SHOW BY THE POLICE RECORDS THAT THERE ARE
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS IN THIS CITY THAT ARE WALKING
AROUND THAT HAVE COMMITTED MANY MORE OFFENSES THAN THIS DEFENDANT THAT
HAVE NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH VAGRANCY."  THIS OFFER WAS MADE IN
CONNECTION WITH A SUBPOENA ADDRESSED TO THE LOCAL POLICE RECORDS
THE GROUND THAT THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW.  SINCE CALIFORNIA LAW DETERMINED THIS
ACTION, THERE IS NO FEDERAL QUESTION PRESERVED FOR REVIEW IN THIS
ASPECT OF THE CASE.  HEDGEBETH V. NORTH CAROLINA, 335 U.S. 806 (1948). 

PETITIONER URGES, FINALLY, THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A HEARING IN THE APPELLATE COURT.  A CAREFUL STUDY
OF THE RECORD DISCLOSES THESE FACTS: ON DECEMBER 13, 1949, ONE DAY
AFTER SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED, THE ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTED PETITIONER
DURING THE NINE-DAY TRIAL IN LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL COURT FILED WRITTEN
NOTICE OF APPEAL IN THAT COURT.  AN APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF
ATTORNEYS WAS THERE FILED AND GRANTED ON FEBRUARY 7, 1950.  THE
SUBSTITUTED ATTORNEY THEREAFTER APPEARED IN THE TRIAL COURT AT HEARINGS
ON THE SETTLEMENT OF THE STATEMENT ON APPEAL.  PREPARATION OF THAT
STATEMENT WAS A LENGTHY PROCESS, NOT CONCLUDED UNTIL JUNE 18, 1951,
WHEN IT WAS ALLOWED AND SETTLED IN FINAL FORM BY THE TRIAL JUDGE. 
(FN2) 

AFTER THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, PETITIONER
FILED A MOTION TO "RECALL THE REMITTITUR AND TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT" OF
THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT ITS JUDGMENT "WAS
OCCASIONED BY THE INADVERTENCE, AND MISTAKE OF FACT OF THE DEFENDANT
AND OF THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT, AND ON THE INCOMPLETE
PRESENTATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND LAW BY THE DEFENDANT ...  ."  IN A
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT, PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL ATTORNEY STATED THAT HE
RECEIVED NOTICE THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN SET FOR ARGUMENT; THAT HE THEN
WENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT CLERK AND ADVISED THE
PERSON ATTENDING THE DESK THAT THE SUBSTITUTED ATTORNEY WAS THE PROPER
PERSON TO NOTIFY, AND WAS ASSURED THAT PETITIONER'S THEN COUNSEL WOULD
BE NOTIFIED OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING.  SUBSTITUTED COUNSEL FILED AN
AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED SUCH NOTICE.  (FN3) 

THE MOTION TO RECALL THE REMITTITUR AND VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE
APPELLATE DEPARTMENT ASSERTED NO DEPRIVATION OF ANY FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  FURTHER, THE MOTION SOUGHT WHAT, UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW, IS AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY, NOT AVAILABLE WHERE THE
COURT HAD "JURISDICTION TO RENDER THE JUDGMENT COMPLAINED OF AND IT
DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR THAT IT WAS THE RESULT OF FRAUD,
IMPOSITION OR MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS."  PEOPLE V. STONE, 93 CAL. APP.
2D 858, 861, 210 P.2D 78, 80 (1949) AND CASES THERE CITED; 23 CALIF. L.
REV.  354.  (FN4)  RESPONDENT HAS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT STATE HABEAS
CORPUS WAS AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER TO TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HIS
RESTRAINT.   THIS IS BORNE OUT BY IN RE BELL, 19 CAL. 2D 488, 122 P.2D
22 (1942), IN WHICH THE STATE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT CALIFORNIA
HABEAS CORPUS MAY BE USED TO TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE
UNDER WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CONVICTED.  THE WRIT IS, IN FACT,
THERE STATED TO BE THE ONLY REMEDY AVAILABLE FOR THIS PURPOSE WHERE THE
APPLICANT HAS EXHAUSTED HIS REMEDY BY APPEAL.  UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW,
HABEAS CORPUS CAN ALSO BE USED TO RAISE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS
TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, SUCH AS DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  IN
RE BELL, SUPRA, 19 CAL. 2D, AT 501, 122 P.2D, AT 30.  THE DENIAL OF
PETITIONER'S MOTION, THEREFORE, RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, HIS
CHOICE OF THE WRONG REMEDY UNDER LOCAL LAW.  WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328
U.S. 211, 214 (1946).  THIS IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH THERE IS SERIOUS
DOUBT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE GROUND ON WHICH THE DECISION BELOW
RESTED.  CF. STATE COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511 (1939);
MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551 (1940); HERB V. PITCAIRN,
324 U.S. 117 (1945).  WE ARE THUS WITHOUT POWER TO DECIDE PETITIONER'S
CLAIMS ON THE MERITS, WHATEVER MAY BE THEIR APPEAL.  THE WRIT WAS
IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED AND MUST BE DISMISSED.  STEMBRIDGE V. GEORGIA,
343 U.S. 541 (1952).  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEE PEOPLE V. GARZA, 86 CAL. APP. 97, 260 P. 390 (1927); RULE 8,
RULES ON APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL COURTS AND INFERIOR COURTS IN CRIMINAL
CASES, AS AMENDED TO JANUARY 6, 1947; DEERING'S CAL. PENAL CODE, 1949,
SEC. 1253; PEOPLE V. SUKOVITZEN, 67 CAL. APP. 2D 901, 155 P.2D 406
(1945). 

FN2  APPARENTLY THE STATEMENT WAS AGREED UPON SOME TIME BEFORE JUNE
18, JUDGING FROM THE DOCKET ENTRY OF NOVEMBER 6, 1950, "DEFENDANT'S
COUNSEL TO ENGROSS STATEMENT ON APPEAL," AND AN AFFIDAVIT DATED MARCH
7, 1951, SHOWING SERVICE OF THE ENGROSSED STATEMENT ON SUBSTITUTED
COUNSEL. 

FN3  RULE 3(B) OF REVISED APPELLATE DEPARTMENT RULES PROVIDES, IN
PART, THAT "FAILURE OF THE CLERK TO MAIL ANY SUCH NOTICE OF HEARING
SHALL NOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT." 

FN4  SEE PEOPLE V. MCDERMOTT, 97 CAL. 247, 32 P. 7 (1893), IN WHICH A
MOTION TO RECALL THE REMITTITUR OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS DENIED,
CLEARLY ON STATE GROUNDS, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE
INSTANT CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS EXCEPT THAT HE THINKS IT IS NOT MATERIAL
WHETHER CALIFORNIA WILL GRANT HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE.  TRUE, THE
PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL APPEAL TO THE CALIFORNIA COURT SOUGHT TO RAISE A
FEDERAL QUESTION.  THAT WAS NOT PASSED UPON BECAUSE THE APPEAL WAS
DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT.   WHETHER THE DEFAULT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
EXCUSABLE BY ANY COURT IS LEFT HIGHLY IN DOUBT BY THE RECORD.  AT ALL
EVENTS, IN ASKING RELIEF FROM IT THERE WAS NO CLAIM THAT TO TAKE A
DEFAULT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS FORBIDDEN TO A STATE COURT BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND SUCH A CLAIM WOULD BE FRIVOLOUS
IF MADE.  HENCE, THE PETITIONER IS OUT OF COURT FOR REASONS OF STATE
LAW AND PRACTICE, AND THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF "VAGRANCY" IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF
LOS ANGELES.  HE WAS GIVEN A 90-DAY JAIL SENTENCE.  THE CONVICTION FOR
VAGRANCY WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON WHAT HE HAD SAID IN PUBLIC SPEECHES
MADE IN A LOS ANGELES PARK.  HE APPEALED TO THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF
THE SUPERIOR COURT WHICH WAS THE HIGHEST COURT IN CALIFORNIA IN WHICH
HE COULD OBTAIN REVIEW.  ONE OF A NUMBER OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL WAS THAT
THE VAGRANCY STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE.  THE RULES OF THE CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT SPECIFICALLY
REQUIRE THAT AN APPELLANT OR HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD SHALL BE MAILED
NOTICE OF THE DATE ON WHICH HIS APPEAL WILL BE HEARD.  CALIFORNIA
ADMITS THAT NO SUCH NOTICE WAS GIVEN PETITIONER OR HIS COUNSEL OF
RECORD ON APPEAL AND THAT NEITHER KNEW THE CASE WAS SET FOR HEARING. 
AS A RESULT NEITHER WAS PRESENT WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED IN THE
APPELLATE COURT.  CONSEQUENTLY THAT COURT AFFIRMED THE JAIL SENTENCE BY
DEFAULT WITHOUT ARGUMENT OR CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OF THE
CONVICTION OR THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VAGRANCY STATUTE. 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER DISCOVERY OF THIS DEFAULT AFFIRMANCE PETITIONER MOVED
TO VACATE THE ACTION.  WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE FOREGOING FACTS,
THE APPELLATE COURT DENIED THE MOTION.  PETITIONER HAS THUS HAD HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTIONS REJECTED AND HIS CONVICTION AFFIRMED WITHOUT
NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THROUGH HIMSELF OR COUNSEL.  IN
CALIFORNIA, THE RIGHT OF APPEAL "IS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO
THE PRISONER, AND IS AS SACRED AS THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.  IT IS
ONE OF THE MEANS THE LAW HAS PROVIDED TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF HIS
GUILT OR INNOCENCE."  EX PARTE HOGE, 48 CAL. 3, 6; IN RE ALBORI, 95
CAL. APP. 42, 50-51, 272 P. 321, 324-325.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I
AGREE WITH PETITIONER THAT REFUSAL TO GIVE HIM OR HIS COUNSEL AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN THE APPELLATE COURT DENIED HIM THE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE IN RE
OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257, 273; COLE V. ARKANSAS, 333 U.S. 196, 201; POWELL
V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 68.  (FN1)  SUCH A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE STATE ON ANY "ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND." 
FOR THIS REASON I WOULD NOT DISMISS THE CERTIORARI BUT WOULD REVERSE OR
VACATE THE APPELLATE COURT'S JUDGMENT. 

THE COURT RESTS ITS DISMISSAL ON A BELIEF THAT THE PETITIONER CAN
STILL TEST THE VALIDITY OF HIS CONVICTION IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING
IN THE CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS.  AND THE COURT'S BELIEF AS TO
AVAILABILITY OF A STATE REMEDY IS BUTTRESSED BY A PRESUMPTION THAT A
STATE WILL NOT DENY A REMEDY FOR DEPRIVATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
SUCH AS HERE ALLEGED.  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, WARDEN, 294 U.S. 103, 113. 
MOREOVER, SHOULD CALIFORNIA REFUSE TO GRANT PETITIONER A REMEDY TO TEST
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE VAGRANCY ACT, HE COULD THEN SEEK RELIEF IN
A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.  SEE MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86. 
BUT MY DOUBT ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADEQUATE STATE REMEDY LEADS
ME TO CONCLUDE THAT THE WISER COURSE HERE WOULD BE TO VACATE THE
APPELLATE COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE BASES OF ITS
ACTION.  SEE STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511; CF. HERB
V. PITCAIRN, 324 U.S. 117.  FOR EVEN SUPERFICIAL EXAMINATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA VAGRANCY STATUTE AND PETITIONER'S TRIAL UNDER IT WILL REVEAL
THE GRAVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH PETITIONER URGES AND
WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT LEFT UNCONSIDERED AND UNDECIDED. 

SUBSECTION 5 OF SEC. 647 OF THE PENAL CODE OF CALIFORNIA PROVIDES
THAT "EVERY IDLE, OR LEWD, OR DISSOLUTE PERSON, OR ASSOCIATE OF KNOWN
THIEVES  ...  " IS A VAGRANT, PUNISHABLE BY FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500
OR BY IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BOTH.  (FN2)
PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH AND CONVICTED ONLY OF BEING A "DISSOLUTE"
PERSON.  THE AMBIGUITY AND CONSEQUENT BROAD REACH OF THIS CRIME OF
"DISSOLUTENESS" IS PATENT.  THE TRIAL COURT'S EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE
AMBIGUITY GREATLY INCREASED IT.  THE JUDGE TOLD THE JURY THAT
PETITIONER WAS NOT ACCUSED OF "ANY VIOLATION OF ANY PARTICULAR ACT" BUT
WITH BEING A PERSON OF "A CERTAIN STATUS" OR "IN A CERTAIN CONDITION." 
HIS "CHARACTER" ALONE WAS INVOLVED, SINCE "VAGRANCY IS A STATUS OR A
CONDITION AND IT IS NOT AN ACT."  PETITIONER WAS THEREFORE TO BE TRIED
FOR A SUBJECTIVE "STATUS," NOT THE EASIEST THING IN THE WORLD TO PROVE
OR DISPROVE.  AND PETITIONER'S DIFFICULTY WAS NOT MADE EASIER BY THESE
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS TO THE JURY:    "VAGRANCY IS A CONTINUING
OFFENSE.  IT DIFFERS FROM MOST OTHER OFFENSES IN THE FACT THAT IT IS
CHRONIC RATHER THAN ACUTE; THAT IT CONTINUES AFTER IT IS COMPLETE AND
SUBJECTS THE OFFENDER TO ARREST AT ANY TIME BEFORE HE REFORMS.  ONE IS
GUILTY OF BEING A VAGRANT AT ANY TIME AND PLACE WHERE HE IS FOUND, SO
LONG AS THE CHARACTER REMAINS UNCHANGED, ALTHOUGH THEN AND THERE
INNOCENT OF ANY ACT DEMONSTRATING HIS CHARACTER  ...  .  HIS CHARACTER,
AS I SAID BEFORE, IS THE ULTIMATE QUESTION FOR YOU TO DECIDE." 

THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF DISSOLUTE GIVEN TO THE JURY BY THE COURT
DESCRIBED A CRIME OF SUCH NEBULOUS AMPLITUDE THAT NO PERSON COULD KNOW
HOW TO DEFEND HIMSELF.  THE COURT SAID: 

"NOW, DISSOLUTE IS DEFINED AS 'LOOSED FROM RESTRAINT, UNASHAMED,
LAWLESS, LOOSE IN MORALS AND CONDUCT, RECKLESSLY ABANDONED TO SENSUAL
PLEASURES, PROFLIGATE, WANTON, LEWD, DEBAUCHED.'  NOW, THE WORD
"DISSOLUTE', AS YOU SEE FROM THIS DEFINITION, COVERS MANY ACTS NOT
NECESSARILY CONFINED TO IMMORALITY.  OTHER LAXNESS AND LOOSENESS AND
LAWLESSNESS MAY AMOUNT TO DISSOLUTENESS." 

DURING A NINE-DAY TRIAL THE JURY HEARD A NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHO
PATENTLY DID NOT LIKE WHAT PETITIONER SAID IN THE MANY SPEECHES HE HAD
BEEN MAKING IN THE PARK.  THERE SEEMS TO BE NO DOUBT THAT HIS SPEECHES
CHIEFLY INVOLVED POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS AND INCLUDED ATTACKS
ON THE LOCAL POLICE FORCE.  ONE WITNESS WHO TESTIFIED THAT PETITIONER
HAD PUBLICLY ACCUSED HIM OF BEING A THIEF ALSO SWORE THAT HE HAD HEARD
PETITIONER ADVOCATE "FORCE AND VIOLENCE, STATING THAT A CHANGE COULD
NOT BE BROUGHT ABOUT EXCEPT BY BULLETS."  OTHER HOSTILE WITNESSES
TESTIFIED TO HIS USE OF INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE.  A POLICEMAN SWORE THAT
PETITIONER HAD PROPHESIED THAT HE "WOULD NOT BE GIVEN A FAIR TRIAL" - A
PROPHECY WHICH I FEAR THIS RECORD VIEWED AS A WHOLE DOES NOT ENTIRELY
REFUTE.  THERE WAS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER HAD SOLICITED FUNDS TO
AID HIM IN CARRYING ON HIS PUBLICITY WORK, AND TO HELP PAY FOR HIS
DEFENSE IN NUMEROUS CASES THAT WERE INSTITUTED AGAINST HIM IN THE
MUNICIPAL COURT.  IN ONE OF THESE CASES HE HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH
DEFACING A PARK BENCH OF THICK CONCRETE BY STANDING ON IT TO MAKE A
SPEECH. 

IT WOULD SEEM A MATTER OF SUPEREROGATION TO ARGUE THAT THE PROVISION
OF THIS VAGRANCY STATUTE ON ITS FACE AND AS ENFORCED AGAINST PETITIONER
IS TOO VAGUE TO MEET THE SAFEGUARDING STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
IN THIS COUNTRY.  THIS WOULD BE TRUE EVEN WERE THERE NO FREE SPEECH
QUESTION INVOLVED.  AND IN THAT FIELD WE HAVE SAID: 

"IT IS SETTLED THAT A STATUTE SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE, IN FORM AND AS
INTERPRETED, AS TO PERMIT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS LANGUAGE THE
PUNISHMENT OF INCIDENTS FAIRLY WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE GUARANTEE
OF FREE SPEECH IS VOID, ON ITS FACE, AS CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT."  WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507, 509. 

THE FREE SPEECH QUESTION WAS SO OBVIOUSLY INVOLVED IN THIS VAGRANCY
PROSECUTION THAT THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY AT LENGTH ABOUT FREE
SPEECH.  HE EVEN SUBMITTED TO THEM THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER'S
SPEECH CONSTITUTED "A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER  ...  ." 

I ADHERE TO THE VIEW THAT COURTS SHOULD BE ASTUTE TO EXAMINE AND
STRIKE DOWN DRAGNET LEGISLATION USED TO ABRIDGE PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF
"VIEWS ON POLITICAL, SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS."  SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 163. 

FN1  IN COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255, 258, WE HELD THAT KANSAS
DENIED COCHRAN EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN REFUSING HIM PRIVILEGES
OF APPEAL IT AFFORDED TO OTHERS.  TO THE SAME EFFECT, DOUD V. UNITED
STATES, 340 U.S. 206. 

FN2  A MERE READING OF THE CALIFORNIA VAGRANCY STATUTE IS SUFFICIENT
TO SHOW ITS SIMILARITY TO A NEW JERSEY LAW HELD INVALID FOR VAGUENESS
AND AMBIGUITY IN LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451. 
..END :



















FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO. 344 U.S.
206 


NO. 11.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15-16, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1952 - WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW 191 F.2D 786 DISMISSED. 


THE COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED A JUDGMENT REVERSING THE FIRST OF THREE
PARTS OF A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION AGAINST RESPONDENT.  AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD ALLOWED
FOR A PETITION FOR REHEARING, THE COMMISSION FILED A MEMORANDUM CALLING
ATTENTION TO THE COURT'S FAILURE TO DECREE ENFORCEMENT OF PARTS I AND
II; BUT IT REQUESTED NO ALTERATION OF THE JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO PART
III.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED A "FINAL DECREE"
REVERSING PART III OF THE ORDER AND DECREEING ENFORCEMENT OF PARTS I
AND II.  MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF THE FIRST JUDGMENT, THE
COMMISSION PETITIONED THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT
REVERSING PART III OF ITS ORDER.  HELD:  THE 90-DAY PERIOD ALLOWED BY
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101(C) FOR FILING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BEGAN TO
RUN ON THE DATE OF THE FIRST JUDGMENT, AND THE PETITION WAS NOT
TIMELY.  PP. 207-213. 

(A)  ONLY WHEN THE LOWER COURT CHANGES MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE, OR
RESOLVES A GENUINE AMBIGUITY, IN A JUDGMENT PREVIOUSLY RENDERED SHOULD
THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH AN APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN OR A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI FILED BEGIN TO RUN ANEW.  PP. 211-212. 

(B)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF
APPEALS LABELED ITS SECOND ORDER A "FINAL DECREE," WHEREAS THE WORD
"FINAL" WAS MISSING FROM ITS FIRST JUDGMENT.  PP. 212-213. 

(C)  STATUTES WHICH LIMIT THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO
CASES IN WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT WITHIN A PRESCRIBED PERIOD ARE NOT TO
BE APPLIED SO AS TO PERMIT A TOLLING OF THE TIME LIMITATIONS BECAUSE
SOME EVENT OCCURRED IN THE LOWER COURT AFTER JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED
WHICH IS OF NO IMPORT ON THE MATTERS TO BE DEALT WITH ON REVIEW.  P.
213. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED A JUDGMENT REVERSING ONE OF THREE PARTS
OF A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.  191 F.2D
786.  LATER IT ENTERED ANOTHER JUDGMENT REVERSING THAT PART AND
DECREEING ENFORCEMENT OF THE OTHER TWO PARTS OF THE ORDER.  ON PETITION
OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT REVERSING PART OF ITS ORDER, AND REQUESTED COUNSEL
TO DISCUSS THE "TIMELINESS OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT."  342 U.S.
940.  WRIT DISMISSED, P. 213. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE INITIAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS ONE OF JURISDICTION - WHETHER
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED BY
LAW.  (FN1)  WE HOLD THAT IT WAS NOT. 

THE CAUSE GROWS OUT OF A PROCEEDING INITIATED BY PETITIONER, THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, IN 1943.  AT THAT TIME, THE COMMISSION ISSUED
A THREE-COUNT COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT.  COUNT I CHARGED A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT; (FN2) COUNT II
CHARGED A VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT; (FN3) COUNT III DEALT
WITH AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT AS AMENDED BY
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  (FN4)  A PROTRACTED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
FOLLOWED.  THE COMMISSION FINALLY DETERMINED AGAINST RESPONDENT ON ALL
THREE COUNTS, AND IT ISSUED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER, IN THREE PARTS,
COVERING EACH OF THE THREE VIOLATIONS. 

RESPONDENT PETITIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT TO
REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THIS ORDER.  THE COMMISSION SOUGHT ENFORCEMENT OF
ALL PARTS OF ITS ORDER IN A CROSS-PETITION. 

RESPONDENT ABANDONED COMPLETELY ITS ATTACK ON PARTS I AND II OF THE
ORDER.  IN BRIEFS AND IN ORAL ARGUMENT, RESPONDENT MADE IT CLEAR THAT
THE LEGALITY OF PART III WAS THE ONLY CONTESTED ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
OF APPEALS.  NEITHER PARTY BRIEFED OR ARGUED ANY QUESTION ARISING OUT
OF PARTS I AND II. 

ON JULY 5, 1951, THE COURT OF APPEALS ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION.  THE
OPINION STATED THAT SINCE RESPONDENT DID NOT "CHALLENGE PARTS I AND II
OF THE ORDER BASED ON THE FIRST TWO COUNTS OF THE COMPLAINT WE SHALL
MAKE NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO THEM."  THE COURT THEN WENT ON TO HOLD
THAT PART III OF PETITIONER'S ORDER COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE REVERSED.  191 F.2D 786.  ON THE
SAME DAY, THE COURT ENTERED ITS JUDGMENT, THE PERTINENT PORTION READING
AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED BY THIS COURT THAT PART III OF THE
DECISION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENTERED IN THIS CAUSE ON
JANUARY 14, 1948, BE, AND THE SAME IS HEREBY, REVERSED, AND COUNT III
OF THE COMPLAINT UPON WHICH IT IS BASED BE, AND THE SAME IS HEREBY
DISMISSED." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRES PETITIONS FOR REHEARING TO BE FILED
"WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF JUDGMENT."  THE COMMISSION FILED NO SUCH
PETITION.  ON AUGUST 21, 1951, LONG AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THIS 15-DAY
PERIOD, AND AFTER A CERTIFIED COPY OF SAID JUDGMENT, IN LIEU OF
MANDATE, WAS ISSUED, THE COMMISSION FILED A MEMORANDUM WITH THE COURT
WHICH READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"ON JULY 5, 1951 THE COURT ENTERED ITS OPINION AND JUDGMENT REVERSING
PART III OF THE DECISION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DATED JANUARY
14, 1948 AND DISMISSING COUNT III OF THE COMPLAINT UPON WHICH IT IS
BASED.  NO DISPOSITION HAS BEEN MADE OF THE CROSS-PETITION FILED BY THE
COMMISSION FOR AFFIRMANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ENTIRE DECISION.  THE
COMMISSION TAKES THE POSITION THAT ITS CROSS-PETITION SHOULD BE IN PART
SUSTAINED, I.E., TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT SHOULD MAKE AND ENTER
HEREIN A DECREE AFFIRMING PARTS I AND II OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER TO
CEASE AND DESIST AND COMMANDING MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR COMPANY
TO OBEY THE SAME AND COMPLY THEREWITH  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"11.  IN ITS BRIEFS FILED HEREIN THE PETITIONER ABANDONED ITS ATTACK
UPON PARTS I AND II OF THE ORDER AND CHALLENGED ONLY THE VALIDITY OF
PART III OF THE ORDER (SEE PAGE 1 OF PETITIONER'S BRIEF DATED MARCH 15,
1951).  THUS, PETITIONER CONCEDES THE VALIDITY OF PARTS I AND II OF THE
ORDER AND DOES NOT CONTEST THE PRAYER OF THE COMMISSION'S CROSS
PETITION AND BRIEF WITH RESPECT TO THE AFFIRMANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF
PARTS I AND II OF THE ORDER." 

CLEARLY, BY THIS MEMORANDUM THE COMMISSION SOUGHT NO ALTERATION OF
THE JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO PART III; IN FACT, IT ACKNOWLEDGED THE ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT REVERSING PART III ON JULY 5, 1951.  IT DID NOT EVEN CLAIM
IT TO BE A PETITION FOR REHEARING.  IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PARTS I AND
II OF THE ORDER WERE UNCONTESTED, AND "IN CONCLUSION  ...  SUBMITTED
THAT THE COURT SHOULD MAKE AND ENTER  ...  A DECREE AFFIRMING AND
ENFORCING PARTS I AND II OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER TO CEASE AND
DESIST." 

ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1951, THE COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED WHAT IT CALLED ITS
"FINAL DECREE."  AGAIN THE COURT "ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED" THAT
PART III OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER "IS HEREBY REVERSED AND COUNT III OF
THE COMPLAINT UPON WHICH IT IS BASED BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY
DISMISSED."  THE COURT THEN WENT ON TO AFFIRM PARTS I AND II, AND IT
ENTERED A JUDGMENT PROVIDING FOR THEIR ENFORCEMENT, AFTER RECITING
AGAIN THAT THERE WAS NO CONTEST OVER THIS PHASE OF THE ORDER. 

ON DECEMBER 14, 1951, THE COMMISSION FILED ITS PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  OBVIOUSLY, THE PETITION WAS OUT OF TIME UNLESS THE NINETY
DAY FILING PERIOD BEGAN TO RUN ANEW FROM THE SECOND JUDGMENT ENTERED ON
SEPTEMBER 18, 1951.  IN OUR ORDER GRANTING CERTIORARI, 342 U.S. 940, WE
ASKED COUNSEL TO DISCUSS THE "TIMELINESS OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE
WRIT." 

PETITIONER REFERS US TO CASES WHICH HAVE HELD THAT WHEN A COURT
CONSIDERS ON ITS MERITS AN UNTIMELY PETITION FOR A REHEARING, OR AN
UNTIMELY MOTION TO AMEND MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE IN A JUDGMENT, THE TIME
FOR APPEAL MAY BEGIN TO RUN ANEW FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE COURT
DISPOSED OF THE UNTIMELY APPLICATION.  (FN5) 

PETITIONER APPARENTLY WOULD EQUATE ITS MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 21, 1951,
WITH AN UNTIMELY PETITION FOR A REHEARING AFFECTING PART III.  BUT
CERTAINLY ITS LANGUAGE AND EVERY INFERENCE THEREIN IS TO THE CONTRARY. 
WHEN PETITIONER FILED ITS MEMORANDUM, THE TIME FOR SEEKING A REHEARING
HAD LONG SINCE EXPIRED. 

MOREOVER, THE MEMORANDUM WAS LABELED NEITHER AS A PETITION FOR A
REHEARING NOR AS A MOTION TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS JUDGMENT, AND IN NO
MANNER DID IT PURPORT TO SEEK SUCH RELIEF.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
COMMISSION INDICATED THAT IT WAS QUITE CONTENT TO LET THE COURT OF
APPEALS' DECISION OF JULY 5 STAND UNDISTURBED.  SINCE WE CANNOT TREAT
THE MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 21 AS PETITIONER WOULD HAVE US TREAT IT, WE
CANNOT HOLD THAT THE TIME FOR FILING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS
ENLARGED SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS PAPER MAY HAVE PROMPTED THE COURT BELOW TO
TAKE SOME FURTHER ACTION WHICH HAD NO EFFECT ON THE MERITS OF THE
DECISION THAT WE ARE NOW ASKED TO REVIEW IN THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI. 

PETITIONER TELLS US THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE DEEMED TO BE IN TIME
BECAUSE "WHEN A COURT ACTUALLY CHANGES ITS JUDGMENT, THE TIME TO APPEAL
OR PETITION BEGINS TO RUN ANEW IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER A PETITION FOR
REHEARING HAS BEEN FILED."  (FN6)  WE THINK PETITIONER'S INTERPRETATION
OF OUR DECISIONS IS TOO LIBERAL. 

WHILE IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD THE POWER TO
SUPERSEDE THE JUDGMENT OF JULY 5 WITH A NEW ONE, (FN7) IT IS ALSO TRUE,
AS THAT COURT ITSELF HAS RECOGNIZED, THAT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A
LOSING PARTY MUST SEEK REVIEW CANNOT BE ENLARGED JUST BECAUSE THE LOWER
COURT IN ITS DISCRETION THINKS IT SHOULD BE ENLARGED.  (FN8)  THUS, THE
MERE FACT THAT A JUDGMENT PREVIOUSLY ENTERED HAS BEEN REENTERED OR
REVISED IN AN IMMATERIAL WAY DOES NOT TOLL THE TIME WITHIN WHICH REVIEW
MUST BE SOUGHT.  (FN9)  ONLY WHEN THE LOWER COURT CHANGES MATTERS OF
SUBSTANCE, (FN10) OR RESOLVES A GENUINE AMBIGUITY, (FN11) IN A JUDGMENT
PREVIOUSLY RENDERED SHOULD THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH AN APPEAL MUST BE
TAKEN OR A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BEGIN TO RUN ANEW.  THE TEST
IS A PRACTICAL ONE.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE LOWER COURT, IN ITS
SECOND ORDER, HAS DISTURBED OR REVISED LEGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
WHICH, BY ITS PRIOR JUDGMENT, HAD BEEN PLAINLY AND PROPERLY SETTLED
WITH FINALITY.  (FN12) 

THE JUDGMENT OF SEPTEMBER 18, WHICH PETITIONER NOW SEEKS TO HAVE US
REVIEW, DOES NOT MEET THIS TEST.  IT REITERATED, WITHOUT CHANGE,
EVERYTHING WHICH HAD BEEN DECIDED ON JULY 5.  SINCE THE ONE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATED ONLY TO THE MATTERS WHICH HAD BEEN
ADJUDICATED ON JULY 5, WE CANNOT ASCRIBE ANY SIGNIFICANCE, AS FAR AS
TIMELINESS IS CONCERNED, TO THE LATER JUDGMENT.  (FN13) 

PETITIONER PUTS GREAT EMPHASIS ON THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT OF
SEPTEMBER 18 WAS LABELED A "FINAL DECREE" BY THE COURT OF APPEALS,
WHEREAS THE WORD "FINAL" WAS MISSING FROM THE JUDGMENT ENTERED ON JULY
5.  BUT WE THINK THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TIME FOR PETITIONING FOR
CERTIORARI WAS TO BE ENLARGED CANNOT TURN ON THE ADJECTIVE WHICH THE
COURT BELOW CHOSE TO USE IN THE CAPTION OF ITS SECOND JUDGMENT. 
INDEED, THE JUDGMENT OF JULY 5 WAS FOR ALL PURPOSES FINAL.  IT PUT TO
REST THE QUESTION WHICH THE PARTIES HAD LITIGATED IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  IT WAS NEITHER "TENTATIVE, INFORMAL NOR INCOMPLETE."  (FN14)
CONSEQUENTLY, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE COMMISSION'S VIEW THAT A DECISION
AGAINST IT ON THE TIME QUESTION WILL CONSTITUTE AN INVITATION TO OTHER
LITIGANTS TO SEEK PIECEMEAL REVIEW IN THIS COURT IN THE FUTURE. 

THUS, WHILE WE DO NOT MEAN TO ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS FOR PIECEMEAL
REVIEW BY TODAY'S DECISION, WE DO MEAN TO ENCOURAGE APPLICANTS TO THIS
COURT TO TAKE HEED OF ANOTHER PRINCIPLE - THE PRINCIPLE THAT LITIGATION
MUST AT SOME DEFINITE POINT BE BROUGHT TO AN END.  (FN15)  IT IS A
PRINCIPLE REFLECTED IN THE STATUTES WHICH LIMIT OUR APPELLATE
JURISDICTION TO THOSE CASES WHERE REVIEW IS SOUGHT WITHIN A PRESCRIBED
PERIOD.  THOSE STATUTES ARE NOT TO BE APPLIED SO AS TO PERMIT A TOLLING
OF THEIR TIME LIMITATIONS BECAUSE SOME EVENT OCCURRED IN THE LOWER
COURT AFTER JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED WHICH IS OF NO IMPORT TO THE MATTERS
TO BE DEALT WITH ON REVIEW. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS DISMISSED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101(C). 

FN2  38 STAT. 719, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45. 

FN3  38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 14. 

FN4  38 STAT. 730, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(A). 

FN5  PFISTER V. FINANCE CORP., 317 U.S. 144, 149 (1942); BOWMAN V.
LOPERENA, 311 U.S. 262, 266 (1940); WAYNE UNITED GAS CO. V. OWENS
ILLINOIS CO., 300 U.S. 131, 137-138 (1937). 

FN6  BRIEF FOR PETITIONER, P. 43. 

FN7  28 U.S.C. SEC. 452; SEE ZIMMERN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 167
(1936). 

FN8  SEE FINE V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, 181 F.2D 300, 304 (1950). 

FN9  DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK, 317 U.S. 264 (1942); TOLEDO SCALE
CO. V. COMPUTING SCALE CO., 261 U.S. 399 (1923); CREDIT CO., LTD. V.
ARKANSAS CENTRAL R. CO., 128 U.S. 258 (1888). 

FN10  SEE ZIMMERN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 167, 169 (1936); COMPARE
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK, SUPRA. 

FN11  COMPARE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. IDAHO POWER CO., 344 U.S.
17 (1952). 

FN12  COMPARE RUBBER CO. V. GOODYEAR, 6 WALL.  153 (1868)(APPEAL
ALLOWED FROM A SECOND DECREE, RESTATING MOST PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST
BECAUSE THE FIRST DECREE, AT THE TIME OF ENTRY, WAS ONLY REGARDED BY
THE PARTIES AND THE COURT AS TENTATIVE); MEMPHIS V. BROWN, 94 U.S. 715
(1877)(APPEAL ALLOWED FROM SECOND JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
SECOND MADE MATERIAL CHANGES IN THE FIRST).  SEE UNITED STATES V. HARK,
320 U.S. 531, 533-534 (1944); HILL V. HAWES, 320 U.S. 520, 523 (1944). 

FN13  THE SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT THE SEPTEMBER 18 JUDGMENT INJECTED
A NEW CONTROVERSY INTO THE LITIGATION - THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
COURT OF APPEALS HAD THE POWER TO AFFIRM AND ENFORCE THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER AFTER IT HAD CROSS-PETITIONED FOR SUCH RELIEF.  CF.  FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. RUBEROID CO., 343 U.S. 470 (1952).  BUT IF THE
RESPONDENT HAD SOUGHT TO CONTEST THAT ISSUE, IT COULD HAVE DONE SO FROM
THE START, BY RAISING OBJECTIONS TO ENFORCEMENT OF ALL PARTS OF THE
COMMISSION'S CROSS-PETITION.  INSTEAD, RESPONDENT REFUSED TO CONTEST
THESE PARTS OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  HAVING DONE SO, IT REMOVED THE
QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE RUBEROID CASE FROM THIS CASE. 

FN14  SEE DICKINSON V. PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORP., 338 U.S. 507, 514
(1950). 

FN15  SEE MATTON STEAMBOAT CO. V. MURPHY, 319 U.S. 412, 415 (1943). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE END RESULT OF WHAT THE COURT DOES TODAY IS TO LEAVE STANDING A
COURT OF APPEALS DECREE WHICH I THINK IS SO CLEARLY WRONG THAT IT COULD
WELL BE REVERSED WITHOUT ARGUMENT.  THE DECREE SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DIRECTING MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL TO STOP
VIOLATING SEC. 2(A) OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT BY SELLING OIL BURNER
CONTROLS TO SOME CUSTOMERS CHEAPER THAN TO OTHERS.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS NOT ONLY SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AS PERMITTED UNDER
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT WENT MUCH FURTHER AND ORDERED THE COMMISSION TO
DISMISS COUNT III OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL.  IN
DOING SO THE COURT OF APPEALS INVADED AN AREA WHICH CONGRESS HAS MADE
THE EXCLUSIVE CONCERN OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.  SEE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 55; FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION V. IDAHO POWER CO., 344 U.S. 17, 20; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 145-146. 
MOREOVER, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL
TO SUBSTANTIATE THE COMMISSION FINDING THAT A QUANTITY DISCOUNT PRICING
SYSTEM OF MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL RESULTED IN PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS THAT
VIOLATED SEC. 2(A) OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  BUT THERE WAS EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT SOME CUSTOMERS OF MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL WERE
GIVEN SUBSTANTIALLY BIGGER DISCOUNTS ON PURCHASES THAN THOSE GIVEN
THEIR COMPETITORS.  AND THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THESE VARIATIONS WERE
NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY DIFFERENCES IN COSTS OF MANUFACTURE, SALE OR
DELIVERY.  WE HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT SUCH A SHOWING AMPLY SUPPORTS A
COMMISSION CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MORTON
SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 47.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HERE FAILED TO FOLLOW
OUR HOLDING IN THE MORTON SALT CASE.  FOR THIS REASON ALSO IT SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

I THINK THE FOLLOWING FACTS SHOW THAT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
HERE WAS FILED IN TIME.  THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS PETITIONED BY
MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE A TRADE COMMISSION ORDER
IN ITS ENTIRETY.  LATER MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL APPARENTLY CONCEDED
VALIDITY OF PART OF THE ORDER AND THE COURT'S FIRST DECREE OF JULY 5,
1951, FAILED TO PASS ON ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 
(FN1)  THE COMMISSION HAD NINETY DAYS TO ASK THAT WE REVIEW THAT
PARTIAL ORDER IF IT WAS A "FINAL" ONE.  WITHIN THAT NINETY DAYS, ON
AUGUST 21, 1951, THE COMMISSION ASKED THE COURT OF APPEALS TO PASS ON
THE REMAINDER OF THE ORDER.  IN RESPONSE A NEW AND EXPANDED DECREE OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS CAME DOWN SEPTEMBER 18, 1951, MARKED "FINAL
DECREE."  DECEMBER 14, 1951, WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF THIS
"FINAL DECREE," THE COMMISSION FILED HERE ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
WHICH THE COURT NOW DISMISSES. 

I THINK THAT NO STATUTE, PRECEDENT OR REASON RELIED ON BY THE COURT
REQUIRES DISMISSAL OF THIS CAUSE.  OF COURSE APPEALABILITY OF A
JUDGMENT DEPENDS ON ITS BEING "FINAL" IN THE LEGALISTIC SENSE.  BUT
THERE IS NO MORE AMBIGUOUS WORD IN ALL THE LEGAL LEXICON.  (FN2)  THE
COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT ITS SECOND NOT ITS FIRST DECREE WAS "FINAL." 
COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION EVIDENTLY BELIEVED THE SECOND JUDGMENT WAS
THE "FINAL" ONE.  I AM CONFIDENT MANY LAWYERS WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE
SAME UNDER THIS COURT'S FORMER CASES.  SO I WOULD HAVE VIEWED THE
SECOND JUDGMENT BEFORE TODAY'S HOLDING.  FORMER CASES WOULD HAVE
POINTED STRONGLY TO REJECTION OF APPEAL FROM THE INCOMPLETE FIRST
DECREE AS AN ATTEMPTED "PIECEMEAL" REVIEW.  (FN3) 

THE MAJORITY ADVANCES LOGICAL AND RATIONAL GROUNDS FOR ITS CONCLUSION
THAT THE FIRST JUDGMENT RATHER THAN THE SECOND ONE WAS "FINAL."  THAT
THE SECOND JUDGMENT WAS "FINAL," LEGALISTICALLY SPEAKING, IS EQUALLY
SUPPORTABLE BY LOGIC, REASON AND PRECEDENT, IF NOT MORE SO.  (FN4)  BUT
IN ARGUING OVER "FINALITY" WE SHOULD NOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT CONGRESS
HAS DECLARED THAT THIS TYPE OF PROCEEDING SHOULD BE REVIEWABLE BOTH IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HERE.  WE FRUSTRATE THAT DECLARATION WHEN
REVIEW IS DENIED A LITIGANT BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO GUESS RIGHT WHEN
CONFRONTED IN AUGUST 1951 WITH A PUZZLE, THE ANSWER TO WHICH NO ONE
COULD KNOW UNTIL TODAY. 

IN PRIOR CASES CITED IN THE COURT'S OPINION THIS COURT HAS FOUND WAYS
TO GRANT REVIEW TO LITIGANTS BEDEVILED AND CONFUSED BY THE JUDICIALLY
CREATED FOG OF "FINALITY."  (FN5)  IN THOSE PRIOR CASES THE COURT
RECOGNIZED THE VAGUENESS OF THE FINALITY RULE AND REFUSED TO THROW OUT
OF COURT LITIGANTS WHO HAD ACTED BONA FIDE.  IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE
COURT TODAY FAILS TO UTILIZE THIS SAME KIND OF JUDICIAL INGENUITY TO
AFFORD THIS LITIGANT THE REVIEW CONGRESS SAW FIT TO PROVIDE IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST. 

THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL BEGAN BEFORE THE
COMMISSION NINE YEARS AGO.  SIXTEEN HUNDRED PAGES OF EVIDENCE WERE PUT
ON THE RECORD.  IT ALL GOES TO NOUGHT APPARENTLY BECAUSE COMMISSION
COUNSEL LACKED SUFFICIENT CLAIRVOYANCE TO ANTICIPATE THAT THIS COURT
WOULD HOLD THAT THE JULY JUDGMENT RATHER THAN THE ONE IN SEPTEMBER WAS
FINAL.  RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SHOULD BE USED TO PROMOTE THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE, NOT TO DEFEAT THEM.  (FN6) 

FN1  SEE, E.G., "THOUGH THE MERITS OF THE CAUSE MAY HAVE BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY DECIDED, WHILE ANY THING, THOUGH MERELY FORMAL, REMAINS
TO BE DONE, THIS COURT CANNOT PASS UPON THE SUBJECT.  IF FROM ANY
INTERMEDIATE STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS AN APPEAL MIGHT BE TAKEN TO THE
SUPREME COURT, THE APPEAL MIGHT BE REPEATED TO THE GREAT OPPRESSION OF
THE PARTIES."  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN
LIFE & FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK V. ADAMS, 9 PET. 573, 602 (1835).  "WE
THINK THAT THE DECREE IS NOT A FINAL DECREE, AND THAT THIS COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL.  THE DECREE IS NOT FINAL, BECAUSE IT DOES
NOT DISPOSE OF THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES."  KEYSTONE
IRON CO. V. MARTIN, 132 U.S. 91, 93 (1889).  "IT IS THE SETTLED
PRACTICE OF THIS COURT, AND THE SAME IN THE KING'S BENCH IN ENGLAND,
THAT THE WRIT WILL NOT LIE UNTIL THE WHOLE OF THE MATTERS IN
CONTROVERSY IN THE SUIT BELOW ARE DISPOSED OF  ...  .  THE CAUSE IS NOT
TO BE SENT UP IN FRAGMENTS."  HOLCOMBE V. MCKUSICK, 20 HOW.  552, 554
(1858). 

FN2  "PROBABLY NO QUESTION OF EQUITY PRACTICE HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF
MORE FREQUENT DISCUSSION IN THIS COURT THAN THE FINALITY OF DECREES
...  .  THE CASES, IT MUST BE CONCEDED, ARE NOT ALTOGETHER
HARMONIOUS."  MCGOURKEY V. TOLEDO & OHIO R. CO., 146 U.S. 536, 544
545.  CF. DICKINSON V. PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORP., 338 U.S. 507, 511. 

FN3  A MULTITUDE OF CASES WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED SUCH A BELIEF ON THE
PART OF COMMISSION COUNSEL.  SEE, E.G., NOTE 1 AND THE FOLLOWING:  "BUT
PIECEMEAL APPEALS HAVE NEVER BEEN ENCOURAGED."  MORGANTOWN V. ROYAL
INS. CO., 337 U.S. 254, 258.  "CONGRESS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING HAS, BY
FORBIDDING PIECEMEAL DISPOSITION ON APPEAL OF WHAT FOR PRACTICAL
PURPOSES IS A SINGLE CONTROVERSY, SET ITSELF AGAINST ENFEEBLING
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION."  COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 323,
325.  "THE FOUNDATION OF THIS POLICY IS NOT IN MERELY TECHNICAL
CONCEPTIONS OF 'FINALITY.'  IT IS ONE AGAINST PIECEMEAL LITIGATION. 
'THE CASE IS NOT TO BE SENT UP IN FRAGMENTS  ...  .'  LUXTON V. NORTH
RIVER BRIDGE CO., 147 U.S. 337, 341."  CATLIN V. UNITED STATES, 324
U.S. 229, 233-234. 

FN4  "UPON THESE FACTS WE CANNOT DOUBT THAT THE ENTRY OF THE 28TH OF
NOVEMBER WAS INTENDED AS AN ORDER SETTLING THE TERMS OF THE DECREE TO
BE ENTERED THEREAFTER; AND THAT THE ENTRY MADE ON THE 5TH OF DECEMBER
WAS REGARDED BOTH BY THE COURT AND THE COUNSEL AS THE FINAL DECREE IN
THE CAUSE. 

"WE DO NOT QUESTION THAT THE FIRST ENTRY HAD ALL THE ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS OF A FINAL DECREE, AND IF IT HAD BEEN FOLLOWED BY NO OTHER
ACTION OF THE COURT, MIGHT VERY PROPERLY HAVE BEEN TREATED AS SUCH. 
BUT WE MUST BE GOVERNED BY THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT,
APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  WE MUST HOLD, THEREFORE, THE
DECREE OF THE 5TH OF DECEMBER TO BE THE FINAL DECREE."  RUBBER COMPANY
V. GOODYEAR, 6 WALL.  153, 155-156 (1868).  SEE ALSO FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION V. IDAHO POWER CO., 344 U.S. 17, 20-21; HILL V. HAWES, 320
U.S. 520; UNITED STATES V. HARK, 320 U.S. 531; ZIMMERN V. UNITED
STATES, 298 U.S. 167; MEMPHIS V. BROWN, 94 U.S. 715. 

FN5  SEE CASES CITED IN NOTE 4. 

FN6  HORMEL V. HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552, 557.  SEE ALSO MATY V.
GRASSELLI CHEMICAL CO., 303 U.S. 197, 200-201.  CF. HAZEL-ATLAS CO. V.
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., 322 U.S. 238. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

WHILE I DO NOT BELIEVE THE MERITS OF THE CASE ARE AS CLEAR AS MR.
JUSTICE BLACK INDICATES, I JOIN IN THE PARTS OF HIS OPINION WHICH DEAL
WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS TIMELY UNDER
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101(C). 
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. UNIVERSAL C.I.T. CREDIT CORPORATION 344 U.S. 218 


NO. 47.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18-19, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1952 - 102
F. SUPP. 179, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN AN INFORMATION UNDER SECS. 15 AND 16(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, APPELLEES WERE CHARGED ON 32 COUNTS WITH VIOLATING THE
MINIMUM WAGE, OVERTIME AND RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED ALL BUT THREE COUNTS, ONE FOR EACH SECTION
VIOLATED.  HELD:  THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO AMENDMENT OF THE INFORMATION.  PP. 218-226. 

2.  SECTION 15 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT PENALIZES A COURSE OF
CONDUCT AND IS NOT TO BE READ AS ENABLING THE PROSECUTOR TO TREAT AS A
SEPARATE OFFENSE EACH BREACH OF THE STATUTORY DUTY OWED TO A SINGLE
EMPLOYEE DURING ANY WORKWEEK.  PP. 221-226. 

UNITED STATES V. UNIVERSAL C.I.T. CREDIT CORPORATION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF MISSOURI. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED ALL BUT THREE COUNTS OF A 32-COUNT
INFORMATION UNDER SECS. 15 AND 16(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 
102 F. SUPP. 179.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731,
AFFIRMED, P. 226. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ARISES ON AN INFORMATION UNDER SECS. 15 AND 16(A) OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060, 1068-1069, AS AMENDED, 63
STAT. 910, 919, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 215, 216(A), CHARGING THE DEFENDANT
CORPORATION, ITS DIVISION OPERATIONS MANAGER AND TWO SUCCESSIVE BRANCH
MANAGERS WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE MINIMUM WAGE, OVERTIME, AND RECORD
KEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  (FN1) THIRTY-TWO COUNTS WERE LAID:  SIX
FOR FAILURE UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE ACT TO PAY MINIMUM WAGES, TWENTY FOR
VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7, AND SIX FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORD-KEEPING UNDER SEC. 11.  COUNTS
1-6 CHARGE MINIMUM WAGE VIOLATIONS IN SIX SEPARATE WEEKS, ONE PER WEEK,
BUT ONLY AS TO ONE EMPLOYEE IN ANY ONE WEEK AND ONLY AS TO THREE
EMPLOYEES IN ALL.  COUNTS 7-26 CHARGE OVERTIME VIOLATIONS IN TWENTY
SEPARATE WEEKS, ONE PER WEEK.  A TOTAL OF ELEVEN EMPLOYEES ARE
INVOLVED, TWO VIOLATIONS HAVING BEEN CHARGED AS TO EACH OF NINE
EMPLOYEES.  COUNTS 27-32 CHARGE RECORD-KEEPING VIOLATIONS AS TO FOUR
EMPLOYEES, TWO VIOLATIONS AS TO EACH OF TWO EMPLOYEES BEING CHARGED. 
TIME, TO A MAXIMUM FINE OF $10,000 FOR VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF
SEC. 15, AND WOULD, THE DISTRICT COURT ASSUMED, AUTHORIZE A FINE OF
$320,000 UPON CONVICTION UNDER THIS INFORMATION.  (FN2) 

REJECTING A READING OF SEC. 15 WHEREBY A PROSECUTOR COULD TREAT AS A
SEPARATE OFFENSE EACH BREACH OF THE STATUTORY DUTY OWED TO A SINGLE
EMPLOYEE DURING ANY SINGLE WORKWEEK, (FN3) THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ALL BUT THREE COUNTS OF THE INFORMATION. 
THE COURT HELD THAT IT IS A COURSE OF CONDUCT RATHER THAN THE SEPARATE
ITEMS IN SUCH COURSE THAT CONSTITUTES THE PUNISHABLE OFFENSE AND
ORDERED CONSOLIDATION OF THE SEPARATE ACTS SET FORTH IN THE INFORMATION
INTO THREE COUNTS, CHARGING ONE VIOLATION EACH OF SECS. 6, 7 AND 11. 
(FN4)  TO REVIEW THIS DECISION, THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THE CASE HERE
UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 34 STAT. 1246, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731. 

THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS NOT EASY OF SOLUTION.  WHAT CONGRESS HAS MADE
THE ALLOWABLE UNIT OF PROSECUTION - THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE US - CANNOT
BE ANSWERED MERELY BY A LITERAL READING OF THE PENALIZING SECTIONS. 
GENERALITIES ABOUT STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION HELP US LITTLE.  THEY ARE NOT
RULES OF LAW BUT MERELY AXIOMS OF EXPERIENCE.  BOSTON SAND CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 41, 48.  THEY DO NOT SOLVE THE SPECIAL
DIFFICULTIES IN CONSTRUING A PARTICULAR STATUTE.  THE VARIABLES RENDER
EVERY PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION UNIQUE.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
JIN FUEY MOY, 241 U.S. 394, 402.  FOR THAT REASON WE MAY UTILIZE, IN
CONSTRUING A STATUTE NOT UNAMBIGUOUS, ALL THE LIGHT RELEVANTLY SHED
UPON THE WORDS AND THE CLAUSE AND THE STATUTE THAT EXPRESS THE PURPOSE
OF CONGRESS.  VERY EARLY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL TOLD US, "WHERE THE
MIND LABOURS TO DISCOVER THE DESIGN OF THE LEGISLATURE, IT SEIZES EVERY
THING FROM WHICH AID CAN BE DERIVED  ...  ."  UNITED STATES V. FISHER,
2 CRANCH 358, 386.  PARTICULARLY IS THIS SO WHEN WE CONSTRUE STATUTES
DEFINING CONDUCT WHICH ENTAIL STIGMA AND PENALTIES AND PRISON.  NOT
THAT PENAL STATUTES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE BASIC CONSIDERATION THAT
LEGISLATION LIKE ALL OTHER WRITING SHOULD BE GIVEN, INSOFAR AS THE
LANGUAGE PERMITS, A COMMONSENSICAL MEANING.  BUT WHEN CHOICE HAS TO BE
MADE BETWEEN TWO READINGS OF WHAT CONDUCT CONGRESS HAS MADE A CRIME, IT
IS APPROPRIATE, BEFORE WE CHOOSE THE HARSHER ALTERNATIVE, TO REQUIRE
THAT CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE SPOKEN IN LANGUAGE THAT IS CLEAR AND
DEFINITE.  WE SHOULD NOT DERIVE CRIMINAL OUTLAWRY FROM SOME AMBIGUOUS
IMPLICATION. 

THE PENAL PROVISION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS ONLY PART OF A
SCHEME AVAILABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND TO THE EMPLOYEE FOR ENFORCING
THE ACT.  THE PREVENTIVE REMEDY OF AN INJUNCTION AND INDIVIDUAL OR
CLASS ACTIONS FOR RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES IN SEC. 16(B) ARE NOT ONLY
ALSO AVAILABLE.  THEY ARE THE REMEDIES MORE FREQUENTLY INVOKED AND MORE
EFFECTIVE IN ACHIEVING THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  OF COURSE THE VARIOUS
REMEDIES MUST BE READ IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER.  BUT WE ARE ASKED HERE
IN ADDITION TO INFER THAT AN EMPLOYER'S FAILURE TO PERFORM HIS
OBLIGATIONS AS TO EACH EMPLOYEE CREATES A SEPARATE CRIMINAL OFFENSE
BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS FOR CIVIL LIABILITY IN SEC. 16(B) EXPRESSLY
RECOGNIZE A RIGHT IN THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE TO MAINTAIN A SEPARATE
ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER FOR RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES.  THE ARGUMENT
CUTS BOTH WAYS.  IF CONGRESS HAD WANTED TO ATTACH CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES
TO EACH SEPARATE CIVIL LIABILITY IT COULD EASILY HAVE SAID SO, JUST AS
IT HAD NO DIFFICULTY IN STATING EXPLICITLY THAT THE UNIT FOR CIVIL
LIABILITY WAS WHAT WAS OWING TO EACH EMPLOYEE.  INSTEAD OF BALANCING
THE VARIOUS GENERALIZED AXIOMS OF EXPERIENCE IN CONSTRUING LEGISLATION,
REGARD FOR THE SPECIFIC HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THAT
CULMINATED IN THE ACT NOW BEFORE US AFFORDS MORE SOLID GROUND FOR
GIVING IT APPROPRIATE MEANING. 

WHEN ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS, THE BILL OUT OF WHICH THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT EVOLVED HAD TWO SEPARATE PENALTY PROVISIONS,
ONE FOR UNDERPAYMENTS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6 OR SEC. 7 AND ONE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11.  (FN5)
EACH PROVISION SET THE MAXIMUM FINE AT $500 AND EXPLICITLY DEFINED
WHAT CONSTITUTED A SEPARATE OFFENSE.  AS TO SECS. 6 AND 7 THE EMPLOYEE
WAS THE UNIT OF CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND AS TO SEC. 11 EACH WEEK OF
VIOLATION WAS A SEPARATE OFFENSE.  (FN6)  AFTER THE MEASURE WOUND ITS
WAY THROUGH A LONG LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THERE RESULTED CONSOLIDATION OF
THE TWO PENALTY PROVISIONS, ELIMINATION OF THE SEPARATE OFFENSE
CLAUSES, AND SUBSTITUTION OF $10,000 FOR $500 AS THE MAXIMUM FINE. 
THESE RATHER STRIKING CHANGES WOULD IN THEMSELVES AFFORD JUSTIFIABLE
GROUND FOR GIVING THE LESS HARSH AND THEREFORE MORE REASONABLE
CONSTRUCTION TO THE OFFENSE-CREATING PORTIONS OF THE LEGISLATION.  IN
ADDITION, WE HAVE ILLUMINATING STATEMENTS IN BOTH HOUSES CONCERNING THE
SEPARATION OF OFFENSES.  ALTHOUGH THE SEPARATE OFFENSE CLAUSE FOR
RECORD-KEEPING VIOLATIONS WAS DELETED EARLY IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS,
THE OTHER SEPARATE OFFENSE CLAUSE WAS ATTACKED IN DEBATE PRECISELY
BECAUSE IT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE SORT OF MULTIPLICATION OF OFFENSES BY
THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT THE INFORMATION BEFORE US REPRESENTS. 
(FN7)  INDEED, MULTIPLICATION IN THIS INFORMATION GOES BEYOND WHAT EVEN
THE ORIGINAL BILLS WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED.  UNDERPAYMENTS OF THE SAME
EMPLOYEES ARE SPLIT INTO SEPARATE COUNTS OF THE INFORMATION, AND RECORD
KEEPING VIOLATIONS DURING THE SAME WEEK ARE SPLIT TO SERVE AS THE BASIS
OF SEPARATE COUNTS. 

IT WOULD BE SELF-DECEPTIVE TO CLAIM THAT ONLY ONE ANSWER IS POSSIBLE
TO OUR PROBLEM.  BUT THE HISTORY OF THIS LEGISLATION AND THE
INEXPLICITNESS OF ITS LANGUAGE WEIGH AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE THAT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DECISIVELY CLEAR ON
ITS FACE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.  BECAUSE OF THE HISTORY AND LANGUAGE OF
THIS LEGISLATION, THE CASE IS NOT ATTRACTED BY THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY
OF TWO CASES PRESSED UPON US.  IN RE SNOW, 120 U.S. 274, AND
BLOCKBURGER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 299. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE WAS THEREFORE CORRECT IN REJECTING THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  THE OFFENSE MADE PUNISHABLE
UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS A COURSE OF CONDUCT.  SUCH A
READING OF THE STATUTE COMPENDIOUSLY TREATS AS ONE OFFENSE ALL
VIOLATIONS THAT ARISE FROM THAT SINGLENESS OF THOUGHT, PURPOSE OR
ACTION, WHICH MAY BE DEEMED A SINGLE "IMPULSE," A CONCEPTION RECOGNIZED
BY THIS COURT IN THE BLOCKBURGER CASE, SUPRA, AT 302, QUOTING WHARTON'S
CRIMINAL LAW (11TH ED.)  SEC.  34.  MERELY TO ILLUSTRATE, WITHOUT
ATTEMPTING TO RULE ON SPECIFIC SITUATIONS:  A WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIABLE
MANAGERIAL DECISION THAT A CERTAIN ACTIVITY WAS NOT WORK AND THEREFORE
DID NOT REQUIRE COMPENSATION UNDER F.L.S.A. STANDARDS CANNOT BE TURNED
INTO A MULTIPLICITY OF OFFENSES BY CONSIDERING EACH UNDERPAYMENT IN A
SINGLE WEEK OR TO A SINGLE EMPLOYEE AS A SEPARATE OFFENSE. 

HOWEVER, A WHOLLY DISTINCT MANAGERIAL DECISION THAT PIECE WORKERS
SHOULD BE PAID LESS THAN THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IN TERMS OF HOURLY
RATES, SEE UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360, INVOLVES A
DIFFERENT COURSE OF CONDUCT, AND SO WOULD CONSTITUTE A DIFFERENT
OFFENSE.  THUS, UNDERPAYMENTS BASED ON VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTE AS TO
THESE PIECE WORKERS COULD NOT BE COMPOUNDED INTO A SINGLE OFFENSE WITH
UNRELATED UNDERPAYMENTS WHICH RESULTED FROM THE DECISION THAT A CERTAIN
ACTIVITY WAS NOT WORK, MERELY BECAUSE THE TWO KINDS OF UNDERPAYMENTS
OCCURRED IN THE SAME WORKWEEK OR INVOLVED THE SAME EMPLOYEE.  WHETHER
AN AGGREGATE OF ACTS CONSTITUTE A SINGLE COURSE OF CONDUCT AND
THEREFORE A SINGLE OFFENSE, OR MORE THAN ONE, MAY NOT BE CAPABLE OF
ASCERTAINMENT MERELY FROM THE BARE ALLEGATIONS OF AN INFORMATION AND
MAY HAVE TO AWAIT THE TRIAL ON THE FACTS. 

THIS INFORMATION IS BASED ON WHAT WE FIND TO BE AN IMPROPER THEORY. 
BUT A DRAFTSMAN OF AN INDICTMENT MAY CHARGE CRIME IN A VARIETY OF FORMS
TO AVOID FATAL VARIANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.  HE MAY CAST THE INDICTMENT IN
SEVERAL COUNTS WHETHER THE BODY OF FACTS UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS
BASED GIVES RISE TO ONLY ONE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OR TO MORE THAN ONE.  TO
BE SURE, THE DEFENDANT MAY CALL UPON THE PROSECUTOR TO ELECT OR, BY
ASKING FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS, TO RENDER THE VARIOUS COUNTS MORE
SPECIFIC.  IN ANY EVENT, BY AN INDICTMENT OF MULTIPLE COUNTS THE
PROSECUTOR GIVES THE NECESSARY NOTICE AND DOES NOT DO THE LESS SO
BECAUSE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE THE DEFENDANT MAY
INSIST THAT ALL THE COUNTS ARE MERELY VARIANTS OF A SINGLE OFFENSE. 

BY AFFIRMING THIS ORDER WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AMENDMENT OF THE
INFORMATION, WE DO NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF OFFENSES MAY BE MADE AFTER TRIAL HAS BEGUN.  BUT THE
GOVERNMENT IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM NOW AMENDING THE INFORMATION EITHER TO
MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF THE EVIDENCE OR TO CHARGE AS SEPARATE OFFENSES
SEPARATE COURSES OF CONDUCT AS TO EACH SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION.  ALL WE
NOW DECIDE IS THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE CORRECTLY HELD THAT A SINGLE
COURSE OF CONDUCT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE UNDER SEC.
15 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AMENDMENT OF THE INFORMATION BEFORE TRIAL IF THE
EVIDENCE TO BE OFFERED WARRANTS IT, THE ORDER BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT ARE SECS. 15 AND 16.  SECTION 16 PROVIDES A MAXIMUM FINE OF $10,000
FOR "ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
15  ...  ."  SECTION 15 MAKES IT "UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON  ...  (2) TO
VIOLATE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR SECTION 7  ...  (5) TO
VIOLATE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(C) ...  ."  SECTION 6
PROVIDES, "EVERY EMPLOYER SHALL PAY TO EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE  ...
NOT LESS THAN 75 CENTS AN HOUR; ...  ."  SECTION 7 PROVIDES "  ...  NO
EMPLOYER SHALL EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN
FORTY HOURS, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVED COMPENSATION FOR HIS
EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED AT A RATE NOT LESS
THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED." 
RECORDS OF THE PERSONS EMPLOYED BY HIM AND OF THE WAGES, HOURS, AND
OTHER CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES OF EMPLOYMENT MAINTAINED BY HIM, AND
SHALL PRESERVE SUCH RECORDS FOR SUCH PERIODS OF TIME, AND SHALL MAKE
SUCH REPORTS THEREFROM TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AS HE SHALL PRESCRIBE BY
REGULATION OR ORDER  ...  ." 

FN2  102 F. SUPP. 179, 186, MODIFIED BY ORDER DATED MARCH 10, 1952,
R. 20. 

FN3  THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE ACT BE CONSTRUED "TO PUNISH EACH
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EACH DUTY IMPOSED BY THE ACT AS TO EACH EMPLOYEE
IN EACH WORKWEEK AND AS TO EACH RECORD REQUIRED TO BE KEPT."  BRIEF FOR
UNITED STATES, P. 10.  HOWEVER, IN NONE OF THE FIRST 26 COUNTS,
CHARGING MINIMUM WAGE OR OVERTIME UNDERPAYMENTS, WERE SIMILAR
VIOLATIONS CHARGED AS TO TWO EMPLOYEES IN THE SAME WEEK, SO THAT IT
WOULD BE SUFFICIENT IN THIS CASE TO URGE THAT THE VIOLATIONS MAY BE
SPLIT ACCORDING TO THE WORKWEEK, RATHER THAN ALSO ACCORDING TO THE
EMPLOYEE.  AS TO THE LAST SIX COUNTS, CHARGING RECORD-KEEPING
VIOLATIONS, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO URGE LESS
THAN THAT EACH RECORD REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IS A SEPARATE OFFENSE.  WITH
ONE MINOR EXCEPTION, VIOLATIONS WERE ALLEGED AS TO AT LEAST TWO
EMPLOYEES IN EVERY WORKWEEK FOR WHICH RECORD-KEEPING VIOLATIONS WERE
CHARGED.  THE WORKWEEK WAS NOT THE UNIT OF PROSECUTION, SINCE THE
PERIODS OF TIME IN THESE SIX COUNTS RANGE FROM ABOUT SEVEN WEEKS TO
OVER SIX MONTHS.  BUT THE EMPLOYEE WAS ALSO NOT THE UNIT, SINCE
ALTHOUGH VIOLATIONS AS TO EACH EMPLOYEE WERE MADE INTO SEPARATE
CHARGES, TWO EMPLOYEES ARE THE SUBJECT OF TWO CHARGES APIECE. 
WHATEVER DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN
THIS PARTICULAR INFORMATION AND THE CLAIM MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE
IMMATERIAL, IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 

FN4  APPELLEE DOES NOT URGE IN THIS CASE THAT SEC. 15 PRESCRIBES ONLY
ONE OFFENSE EVEN IF THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF VIOLATIONS.  SUCH AN
ARGUMENT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MADE AND WAS REJECTED, AS TO DISTINCT
REQUIREMENTS UNDER TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE ACT THERE INVOLVED, IN
BLOCKBURGER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 299, 305, WHERE THE PENAL
PROVISION APPLIED TO "ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH
ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT." 

FN5  SEE SECS. 27(A) AND 27(B) IN S. 2475 AND H.R. 7200, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 

FN6  IN SEC. 27(A), THE CLAUSE READ:  "WHERE THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN
EMPLOYEE IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR OF A LABOR
STANDARD ORDER IS UNLAWFUL, EACH EMPLOYEE SO EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF
SUCH PROVISION SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE OFFENSE."  IN SEC.  27(B),
THE CLAUSE WAS: "  ...  AND EACH WEEK OF SUCH FAILURE TO KEEP THE
RECORDS REQUIRED UNDER THIS ACT OR TO FURNISH SAME TO THE BOARD OR ANY
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOARD SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE
OFFENSE." 

FN7  SEE 81 CONG. REC. 7792; 81 CONG. REC. 9507; 82 CONG. REC. 1828. 
FORCE IS ADDED TO THESE STATEMENTS BY THE FACT THAT ONE WAS MADE BY A
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE WHO PROPOSED THE AMENDMENT WHICH WAS ADOPTED, BY
VOTE ON DIVISION, SPECIFICALLY TO DELETE THE SEPARATE OFFENSE CLAUSE OF
SEC. 27(A)(THEN SEC. 22(A)).  82 CONG. REC. 1828-1839.  THE BILL THUS
CAME TO THE CONFERENCE FROM THE HOUSE WITH BOTH SEPARATE OFFENSE
CLAUSES DELETED, BUT FROM THE SENATE WITH ONLY THE CLAUSE OF SEC. 27(B)
DELETED.  BOTH VERSIONS STILL PROVIDED A MAXIMUM FINE OF $500.  THE
CONFERENCE ACCEPTED THE HOUSE VERSION, WITH NEITHER SEPARATE OFFENSE
CLAUSE, BUT RAISED THE MAXIMUM FINE TO $10,000.  SEE S. 2475, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., SECS. 23(A), 23(B), AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE, JULY
8, 1937; 81 CONG. REC. 7957; H.R. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.
5; 83 CONG. REC. 7450; CONFERENCE REPORT, SEC. 16(A), 83 CONG. REC.
9249. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE QUESTION WHETHER AN EMPLOYER HAS VIOLATED THE CRIMINAL
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO WHAT HE HAS DONE TO
A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE.  THE ACT DOES NOT SPEAK OF "COURSE OF CONDUCT." 
THAT IS THE COURT'S TERMINOLOGY, NOT THE ACT'S.  THE ACT REQUIRES THE
EMPLOYER TO PAY "EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES" NOT LESS THAN 75 CENTS AN HOUR,
PROHIBITS HIM FROM EMPLOYING "ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES" FOR MORE THAN 40
HOURS A WEEK UNLESS OVERTIME IS PAID, AND REQUIRES HIM TO KEEP RECORDS
OF "THE PERSONS EMPLOYED BY HIM" AND THE WAGES, HOURS, ETC. 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 206, 207, 211(C), AS AMENDED.  AND THE ACT MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR
AN EMPLOYER TO VIOLATE "ANY OF THE PROVISIONS" OF THOSE SECTIONS.  29
U.S.C. SECS. 215, 216(A). 

IT THEREFORE SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT IF AN EMPLOYER PAYS ONE EMPLOYEE
LESS THAN 75 CENTS AN HOUR OR FAILS TO PAY OVERTIME TO ONE EMPLOYEE, OR
FAILS TO KEEP THE REQUIRED RECORDS FOR ONE EMPLOYEE, A CRIME HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED, IF SCIENTER IS SHOWN.  AND IT SEEMS EQUALLY CLEAR TO ME
THAT IF AN EMPLOYER WILFULLY FAILS TO PAY ONE EMPLOYEE THE MINIMUM
WAGE, AND WILFULLY FAILS TO PAY HIM THE REQUIRED OVERTIME, AND WILFULLY
FAILS TO KEEP THE REQUIRED RECORDS FOR HIM, THREE CRIMES HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED.  THE CRIME IS DEFINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEE.  THE CRIME MAY BE A SINGLE, ISOLATED ACT.  IT MAY OR MAY NOT
BE RECURRING OR CONTINUOUS.  THE VIOLATION MAY AFFECT ONE EMPLOYEE ONE
WEEK OR ONE MONTH AND ANOTHER EMPLOYEE ANOTHER WEEK OR ANOTHER MONTH;
AND IT MAY AFFECT ONE EMPLOYEE IN ONE WAY, ANOTHER EMPLOYEE IN A
DIFFERENT WAY.  THE VIOLATIONS MAY BE CONTINUOUS, AND FOLLOW A SET
PATTERN; OR THEY MAY BE SPORADIC AND ERRATIC.  THE ACT DOES NOT
DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THEM.  NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT "COURSE OF
CONDUCT."  PERHAPS A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS WOULD BE RECEPTIVE TO THE
SUGGESTION NOW MADE.  BUT IT SHOULD BE RECEIVED THERE, NOT HERE.  OF
COURSE, HORRENDOUS POSSIBILITIES CAN BE ENVISAGED UNDER ALMOST EVERY
LAW.  BUT THE PROSECUTORS WHO ENFORCE THIS ACT, THE GRAND JURIES WHO
HEAR THE EVIDENCE ON VIOLATIONS, AND THE DISTRICT COURTS WHO APPLY THE
SANCTIONS HAVE TO DATE NOT MADE THESE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS OPPRESSIVE
AND BEYOND REASON.  YET UNTIL THIS CASE NO COURT, SO FAR AS I CAN
LEARN, HAS EVER HAD THE INVENTIVE GENIUS TO SUGGEST THAT "COURSE OF
CONDUCT" RATHER THAN THE "EMPLOYEE" IS THE UNIT OF THE CRIME. 
..END :






















F.W. WOOLWORTH CO. V. CONTEMPORARY ARTS, INC. 344 U.S. 228 


NO. 42.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1952 - 193 F.2D
162, AFFIRMED. 


RESPONDENT SUED PETITIONER UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT TO RECOVER FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT ON A STATUETTE, INFRINGING COPIES OF WHICH
HAD BEEN SOLD BY PETITIONER IN ITS STORES.  PETITIONER PROVED THAT ITS
GROSS PROFIT FROM THE INFRINGEMENT WAS $899.16.  THE EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE
SUFFERED BY RESPONDENT, THOUGH INDICATING REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INJURY,
WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE ACTUALLY SUSTAINED. 
THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED RECOVERY OF $5,000 "STATUTORY DAMAGES."  HELD:
THE AWARD OF DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 WAS AUTHORIZED BY 17
U.S.C. SEC. 101(B).  PP. 229-234. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT PETITIONER PROVED THAT ITS GROSS PROFIT FROM THE
INFRINGEMENT WAS $899.16 DOES NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THAT AMOUNT.  PP.
231-233. 

(B)  SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP., 309 U.S. 390, AND
JEWELL-LASALLE REALTY CO. V. BUCK, 283 U.S. 202, DISTINGUISHED.  P.
234. 

(C)  THE STATUTE EMPOWERS THE TRIAL COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND
JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER ON ALL THE FACTS A RECOVERY
UPON PROVEN PROFITS AND DAMAGES OR ONE ESTIMATED WITHIN THE STATUTORY
LIMITS IS MORE JUST; AND THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF THAT DISCRETION IN THIS
CASE.  P. 234. 

F.W. WOOLWORTH CO. V. CONTEMPORARY ARTS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT TO RECOVER FOR INFRINGEMENT OF
COPYRIGHT, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF,
RESPONDENT HERE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  193 F.2D 162.  THIS
COURT GRANTED A LIMITED WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 963.  AFFIRMED,
P. 234. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS ACTION UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT TO RECOVER FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT ON A WORK OF ART ENTITLED "COCKER SPANIEL IN
SHOW POSITION."  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE COPYRIGHT, OF WHICH
RESPONDENT WAS ASSIGNEE, VALID AND INFRINGED AND AWARDED STATUTORY
DAMAGES OF $5,000, WITH A $2,000 ATTORNEY'S FEE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  (FN1)  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, (FN2) LIMITING THE ISSUES TO
THE MEASURE OF THE RECOVERY, AS TO WHICH CONFLICT APPEARS AMONG LOWER
COURTS.  (FN3) 

RESPONDENT MADE SMALL SCULPTURES AND FIGURINES, AMONG WHICH WERE
STATUES OF THE COCKER SPANIEL, AND MARKETED THEM CHIEFLY THROUGH GIFT
AND ART SHOPS.  PETITIONER, FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE, BOUGHT 127 DOZEN
COCKER SPANIEL STATUETTES AND DISTRIBUTED THEM THROUGH THIRTY-FOUR
WOOLWORTH STORES.  UNBEKNOWN TO WOOLWORTH, THESE DOGS HAD BEEN COPIED
FROM RESPONDENT'S AND BY MARKETING THEM IT BECAME AN INFRINGER. 

BY THE ACT AN INFRINGER BECOMES LIABLE: 

"TO PAY TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR SUCH DAMAGES AS THE COPYRIGHT
PROPRIETOR MAY HAVE SUFFERED DUE TO THE INFRINGEMENT, AS WELL AS ALL
THE PROFITS WHICH THE INFRINGER SHALL HAVE MADE FROM SUCH INFRINGEMENT,
AND IN PROVING PROFITS THE PLAINTIFF SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVE SALES
ONLY, AND THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF
COST WHICH HE CLAIMS, OR IN LIEU OF ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PROFITS, SUCH
DAMAGES AS TO THE COURT SHALL APPEAR TO BE JUST, AND IN ASSESSING SUCH
DAMAGES THE COURT MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, ALLOW THE AMOUNTS AS
HEREINAFTER STATED  ...  AND SUCH DAMAGES SHALL IN NO OTHER CASE EXCEED
THE SUM OF $5,000 NOR BE LESS THAN THE SUM OF $250, AND SHALL NOT BE
REGARDED AS A PENALTY  ...  ."  17 U.S.C. SEC. 101(B). 

PROFITS MADE BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE INFRINGEMENT WERE
SUFFICIENTLY PROVED TO ENABLE ASSESSMENT OF THAT ELEMENT OF LIABILITY. 
PETITIONER ITSELF SHOWED, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT THE 127 DOZEN
DOGS WERE BOUGHT AT 60 CENTS APIECE AND SOLD FOR $1.19 EACH, YIELDING A
GROSS PROFIT OF $899.16.  THE INFRINGER DID NOT ASSUME THE BURDEN,
WHICH THE STATUTE CASTS UPON IT, OF PROVING ANY OTHER COSTS THAT MIGHT
BE DEDUCTIBLE, SO THE GROSS FIGURE IS LEFT TO STAND AS THE PROFIT
FACTOR OF THE INFRINGER'S TOTAL LIABILITY. 

AS TO THE OTHER INGREDIENT IN COMPUTING LIABILITY, DAMAGES SUFFERED
BY THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR, THE RECORD IS INADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH AN
ACTUALLY SUSTAINED AMOUNT.  ENOUGH APPEARS TO INDICATE THAT REAL AND
SUBSTANTIAL INJURY WAS INFLICTED.  RESPONDENT HAD GROSS ANNUAL INCOME
OF ABOUT $35,000 AND ENGAGED ONLY EIGHT EMPLOYEES, INDICATING ITS SMALL
PRODUCTION.  ITS STATUETTES WERE OF THREE MEDIA AND PRICES:  RED
PLASTER RETAILED AT $4, RED PORCELAIN AT $9, WHILE A BLACK AND WHITE
PORCELAIN BROUGHT $15.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE CHEAPER INFRINGING
STATUETTE WAS INFERIOR IN QUALITY.  RESPONDENT PROVED LOSS OF SOME
CUSTOMERS AND OFFERED, BUT WAS NOT ALLOWED, TO SHOW COMPLAINTS FROM
SALES OUTLETS ABOUT THE WOOLWORTH COMPETITION, DECLINE IN RESPONDENT'S
SALES, AND EVENTUAL ABANDONMENT OF THE LINE WITH AN UNSALABLE STOCK ON
HAND.  THE TRIAL JUDGE EXCLUDED OR STRUCK MOST OF THIS TESTIMONY ON THE
GROUND THAT AUTHORITY TO ALLOW STATUTORY DAMAGES RENDERED PROOF OF
ACTUAL DAMAGE UNNECESSARY.  I MIGHT HAVE BEEN BETTER PRACTICE TO HAVE
RECEIVED THE EVIDENCE, EVEN IF IT FELL SHORT OF ESTABLISHING THE
MEASURE OF LIABILITY; FOR WHEN RECOVERY MAY BE AWARDED WITHOUT ANY
PROOF OF INJURY, IT CANNOT HURT AND MAY AID THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
TO HEAR ANY EVIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT THAT HAS PROBATIVE VALUE.  HOWEVER,
PETITIONER CANNOT COMPLAIN OF THIS EXCLUSION, WHICH WAS IN RESPONSE TO
ITS OBJECTIONS.  AT LENGTH, THE COURT SAID:  "IF YOU ESTABLISH THIS WAS
AN INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, IT IS INESCAPABLY CLEAR THERE IS ENOUGH
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE UPON WHICH TO PREDICATE DAMAGE UP TO $5000.  I
DON'T THINK MR. BARNES (COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT) DISAGREES WITH THAT, DO
YOU?"  MR. BARNES:  "NO, YOUR HONOR." 

THE COURT, HAVING FOUND INFRINGEMENT, ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED RECOVERY OF
"STATUTORY DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.)  AS
PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES," WITH AN
INJUNCTION AND ATTORNEY'S FEE. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION HERE IS THAT THE STATUTE WAS MISAPPLIED
BECAUSE ITS OWN GROSS PROFIT OF $899.16 SUPPLIED AN ACTUAL FIGURE WHICH
BECAME THE EXCLUSIVE MEASURE OF ITS LIABILITY.  IT ARGUES THAT AN
INFRINGING DEFENDANT, BY COMING FORWARD WITH AN UNDISPUTED ADMISSION OF
ITS OWN PROFIT FROM THE INFRINGEMENT, CAN TIE THE HANDS OF THE COURT
AND LIMIT RECOVERY TO THAT AMOUNT.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

IN DOUGLAS V. CUNNINGHAM, 294 U.S. 207, 209, WE SAID: 

"THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE SECTION WAS ADOPTED TO AVOID THE STRICTNESS OF
CONSTRUCTION INCIDENT TO A LAW IMPOSING PENALTIES, AND TO GIVE THE
OWNER OF A COPYRIGHT SOME RECOMPENSE FOR INJURY DONE HIM, IN A CASE
WHERE THE RULES OF LAW RENDER DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE PROOF OF DAMAGES
OR DISCOVERY OF PROFITS." 

TO FULFILL THAT PURPOSE, THE STATUTE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO VEST IN
THE TRIAL COURT BROAD DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS MORE JUST
TO ALLOW A RECOVERY BASED ON CALCULATION OF ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PROFITS,
AS FOUND FROM EVIDENCE, OR ONE BASED ON A NECESSARILY SOMEWHAT
ARBITRARY ESTIMATE WITHIN THE LIMITS PERMITTED BY THE ACT. 

"IN OTHER WORDS, THE COURT'S CONCEPTION OF WHAT IS JUST IN THE
PARTICULAR CASE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHT, THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INFRINGEMENT AND THE LIKE, IS MADE THE MEASURE OF
THE DAMAGES TO BE PAID, BUT WITH THE EXPRESS QUALIFICATION THAT IN
EVERY CASE THE ASSESSMENT MUST BE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITATIONS,
THAT IS TO SAY, NEITHER MORE THAN THE MAXIMUM NOR LESS THAN THE
MINIMUM.  WITHIN THESE LIMITATIONS THE COURT'S DISCRETION AND SENSE OF
JUSTICE ARE CONTROLLING, BUT IT HAS NO DISCRETION WHEN PROCEEDING UNDER
THIS PROVISION TO GO OUTSIDE OF THEM."  L.A. WESTERMANN CO. V. DISPATCH
PRINTING CO., 249 U.S. 100, 106-107. 

FEW BODIES OF LAW WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT TO REDUCE TO A SHORT AND
SIMPLE FORMULA THAN THAT WHICH DETERMINES THE MEASURE OF DAMAGE
RECOVERABLE FOR ACTIONABLE WRONGS.  THE NECESSARY FLEXIBILITY TO DO
JUSTICE IN THE VARIETY OF SITUATIONS WHICH COPYRIGHT CASES PRESENT CAN
BE ACHIEVED ONLY BY EXERCISE OF THE WIDE JUDICIAL DISCRETION WITHIN
LIMITED AMOUNTS CONFERRED BY THIS STATUTE.  IT IS PLAIN THAT THE
COURT'S CHOICE BETWEEN A COMPUTED MEASURE OF DAMAGE AND THAT IMPUTED BY
STATUTE CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY THE INFRINGER'S ADMISSION OF HIS
PROFITS WHICH MIGHT BE GREATLY EXCEEDED BY THE DAMAGE INFLICTED. 
INDEED SALES AT A SMALL MARGIN MIGHT CAUSE MORE DAMAGE TO THE COPYRIGHT
PROPRIETOR THAN SALES OF THE INFRINGING ARTICLE AT A HIGHER PRICE. 

WHETHER DISCRETIONARY RESORT TO ESTIMATION OF STATUTORY DAMAGES IS
JUST SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT BOTH COMPONENTS AND
THE DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF PROOF OF EITHER.  IN THIS CASE THE
PROFITS REALIZED WERE ESTABLISHED BY UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE, BUT THE
COURT WAS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF ITS DISCRETION IN CONCLUDING THAT THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SUFFERED WAS NOT COMPUTABLE FROM THE TESTIMONY.  LACK
OF ADEQUATE PROOF ON EITHER ELEMENT WOULD WARRANT RESORT TO THE STATUTE
IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, SUBJECT ALWAYS TO THE STATUTORY
LIMITATIONS. 

THE CASE BEFORE US ILLUSTRATES WHAT CAPRICIOUS RESULTS WOULD FOLLOW
FROM THE PRACTICE FOR WHICH PETITIONER CONTENDS.  IT HAS ADMITTED GROSS
PROFITS, WHICH MAKE NO DEDUCTION FOR SALES COSTS, OVERHEADS OR TAXES
AND, HENCE, MAY APPEAR SUBSTANTIAL ON THIS PARTICULAR RECORD.  BUT
GROSS PROFITS IS NOT WHAT A COPYRIGHT OWNER IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER, BUT
ONLY SUCH PROFITS AS REMAIN AFTER THE DEFENDANT REDUCES THEM, AS IT
MAY, BY PROOF OF ALLOWABLE ELEMENTS OF COST.  IF WE SUSTAIN
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT PROFITS MAY BE THE SOLE MEASURE OF
LIABILITY AS MATTER OF LAW, SUCH PROFITS COULD BE DIMINISHED EVEN TO
THE VANISHING POINT. 

NET PROFITS REALIZED BY A FAR-FLUNG DISTRIBUTING ENTERPRISE LIKE
WOOLWORTH'S UPON SALES OF A GIVEN ITEM IN A FEW OF ITS MANY STORES CAN
BE CALCULATED ONLY BY A PROCESS OF ALLOCATING OVERHEADS, SALES
EXPENSES, TAXES, AND A HOST OF ITEMS.  A PLAINTIFF IN THE POSITION OF
THE PRESENT ONE COULD HARDLY VERIFY OR CONTEST SUCH APPORTIONMENTS
UNLESS IT SHOULD AUDIT THE WHOLE WOOLWORTH BUSINESS. 

MOREOVER, A RULE OF LIABILITY WHICH MERELY TAKES AWAY THE PROFITS
FROM AN INFRINGEMENT WOULD OFFER LITTLE DISCOURAGEMENT TO INFRINGERS. 
IT WOULD FALL SHORT OF AN EFFECTIVE SANCTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE
COPYRIGHT POLICY.  THE STATUTORY RULE, FORMULATED AFTER LONG
EXPERIENCE, NOT MERELY COMPELS RESTITUTION OF PROFIT AND REPARATION FOR
INJURY BUT ALSO IS DESIGNED TO DISCOURAGE WRONGFUL CONDUCT.  THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT IS WIDE ENOUGH TO PERMIT A RESORT TO STATUTORY
DAMAGES FOR SUCH PURPOSES.  EVEN FOR UNINJURIOUS AND UNPROFITABLE
INVASIONS OF COPYRIGHT THE COURT MAY, IF IT DEEMS IT JUST, IMPOSE A
LIABILITY WITHIN STATUTORY LIMITS TO SANCTION AND VINDICATE THE
STATUTORY POLICY. 

PETITIONER CITES SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP., 309 U.S.
390, 399, WHERE THIS COURT SAID THAT THE "IN LIEU" CLAUSE "IS NOT
APPLICABLE HERE, AS THE PROFITS HAVE BEEN PROVED AND THE ONLY QUESTION
IS AS TO THEIR APPORTIONMENT," A STATEMENT ON WHICH PETITIONER LEANS
ALMOST ITS WHOLE WEIGHT.  THERE NET PROFITS FROM EXHIBITION OF AN
INFRINGING PICTURE WERE FOUND TO BE $587,604.37.  THE COPYRIGHT OWNER
COULD SHOW NO SUCH VALUE TO HIMSELF OF HIS COPYRIGHT; INDEED, HE HAD
NEGOTIATED ITS SALE AT $30,000.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CUT THE AWARD OF
THESE ACTUAL PROFITS TO ONE-FIFTH THEREOF, UPON THE GROUND THAT SUCCESS
OF THE PICTURE HAD BEEN LARGELY DUE TO FACTORS NOT CONTRIBUTED BY THE
INFRINGEMENT.  THE PROPRIETY OF THIS REDUCTION WAS THE SOLE ISSUE
BEFORE THIS COURT.  PETITIONER COPYRIGHT OWNER ASSERTED THAT IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES THE "IN LIEU" CLAUSE "IS NOT INVOLVED HERE."  THIS COURT
AGREED THAT UNDER THOSE FACTS RESORT TO THE STATUTE WAS NOT
APPROPRIATE.  THAT CASE DID NOT PRESENT THE QUESTION NOW HERE.  NOR
DOES ANYTHING IN JEWELL-LASALLE REALTY CO. V. BUCK, 283 U.S. 202, IN
THE LIGHT OF ITS FACTS, SUPPORT PETITIONER.  IT HOLDS USE OF THE "IN
LIEU" CLAUSE PERMISSIBLE, "THERE BEING NO PROOF OF ACTUAL DAMAGES," BUT
IT DOES NOT HOLD THAT PARTIAL OR UNACCEPTABLE PROOF ON THAT SUBJECT
WILL PRECLUDE RESORT TO THE "IN LIEU" CLAUSE. 

WE THINK THAT THE STATUTE EMPOWERS THE TRIAL COURT IN ITS SOUND
EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER ON ALL THE FACTS A
RECOVERY UPON PROVEN PROFITS AND DAMAGES OR ONE ESTIMATED WITHIN THE
STATUTORY LIMITS IS MORE JUST.  WE FIND NO ABUSE OF THAT DISCRETION. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  193 F.2D 162. 

FN2  343 U.S. 963. 

FN3  F.W. WOOLWORTH CO. V. CONTEMPORARY ARTS, 193 F.2D 162, 167-169;
SAMMONS V. COLONIAL PRESS, 126 F.2D 341, 350; DAVILLA V. BRUNSWICK
BALKE COLLENDER CO., 94 F.2D 567; MALSED V. MARSHALL FIELD & CO., 96 F.
SUPP. 372, 376-377. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE EARTHENWARE DOGS FOUND TO INFRINGE RESPONDENT'S COPYRIGHT WERE
BOUGHT BY F.W. WOOLWORTH COMPANY IN GOOD FAITH AT A TOTAL COST OF
$914.40.  WOOLWORTH'S TOTAL PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF THE DOGS WAS
$899.16.  THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT WOOLWORTH MUST PAY THE DOGS'
COPYRIGHT OWNER $5,000.  THIS AWARD IS SAID TO BE ALLOWED BY SEC.
101(B) OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 17 U.S.C. SEC. 101.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT
POINTED OUT IN SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP., 309 U.S. 390,
400-401, THAT SEC. 101, LIKE AN ANALOGOUS PATENT LAW SECTION, WAS NOT
INTENDED TO AWARD A COPYRIGHT OWNER BOTH DAMAGES AND PROFITS, BUT ONLY
"ONE OR THE OTHER, WHICHEVER WAS THE GREATER."  UNDER THIS RULE,
PROFITS ONLY SHOULD BE AWARDED TO RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE. 

RELIANCE FOR AWARDING $5,000 AGAINST WOOLWORTH IS NATURALLY PLACED ON
THAT PROVISION OF SEC. 101(B) WHICH PROVIDES FOR DAMAGES NOT IN EXCESS
OF $5,000 "IN LIEU OF ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PROFITS."  BUT THIS COURT HAS
SAID THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION WAS TO RECOMPENSE FOR INJURY DONE
"WHERE THE RULES OF LAW RENDER DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE PROOF OF DAMAGES
OR DISCOVERY OF PROFITS."  DOUGLAS V. CUNNINGHAM, 294 U.S. 207, 209. 
HERE PROOF OF PROFITS WAS NEITHER DIFFICULT NOR IMPOSSIBLE.  AND IN THE
CAREFULLY CONSIDERED CASE OF SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP.,
SUPRA, AT 399, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES SPEAKING FOR THE COURT
DECLARED, "  ...  THE 'IN LIEU' CLAUSE IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE, AS THE
PROFITS HAVE BEEN PROVED  ...  ."  SEE ALSO TO THE SAME EFFECT DAVILLA
V. BRUNSWICK-BALKE COLLENDER CO., 94 F.2D 567; SAMMONS V. COLONIAL
PRESS, 126 F.2D 341.  WE WOULD ADHERE TO THIS VIEW AND LIMIT THIS
RECOVERY TO PROFITS MADE BY WOOLWORTH.  THIS COURT SHOULD HEED THE
ADMONITION GIVEN IN THE SHELDON CASE TO REMEMBER THAT THE OBJECT OF
SEC. 101(B) IS NOT TO INFLICT PUNISHMENT BUT TO AWARD AN INJURED
COPYRIGHT OWNER THAT WHICH IN FAIRNESS IS HIS "AND NOTHING BEYOND
THIS."  SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP., SUPRA, AT 399.    THE
FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES BEAR ON THE QUESTION OF UNFAIRNESS OF THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AWARDED.  PETITIONER CONTENDED IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE DID NOT GIVE IT A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
TRIAL.  "IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION," THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID,
"THE APPELLANT POINTS TO SEVERAL INSTANCES IN THE RECORD OF IRRELEVANT
AND PREJUDICIAL COMMENTS AND REMARKS" MADE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE. 
CONSIDERING THE JUDGE'S REMARKS AS "BOTH UNSEEMLY AND UNCALLED FOR,"
THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID: 

"BUT AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD AS A WHOLE WE HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT THE PARTICULAR REMARKS OF THE JUDGE WHICH WOULD BETTER
HAVE BEEN LEFT UNSAID, AND ARE BETTER NOT QUOTED, DO NOT RISE TO THE
SERIOUSNESS OF REVERSIBLE ERROR.  HAVING REGARD FOR THE CONVINCING
NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S PROOF, AND THE UNCONVINCING NATURE OF THAT OF
THE DEFENDANT, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THE DECISION REACHED BY THE COURT
BELOW CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO BIAS AND PREJUDICE.  THAT IS TO SAY, WE FEEL
THAT THE DEFENDANT REALLY HAD A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL."  193 F.2D
162, 169. 

WE ACCPET THE COURT OF APPEALS' APPRAISAL OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
JUDGE'S REMARKS ON THE FACTUAL ISSUE OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.  BUT
HERE THE TRIAL JUDGE GAVE JUDGMENT FOR STATUTORY DAMAGES IN AN AMOUNT
THAT SMACKS OF PUNITIVE QUALITIES.  AND THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE
AMOUNT OF SUCH DAMAGES IS COMMITTED TO THE UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION OF A
TRIAL JUDGE.  DOUGLAS V. CUNNINGHAM, 294 U.S. 207, 210.  IN VIEW OF THE
REMARKS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE DIRECTED AGAINST THE WOOLWORTH COMPANY, WE
THINK IT HAD A JUST RIGHT TO COMPLAIN THAT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
IMPOSED OUGHT NOT TO STAND. 

WE WOULD REVERSE AND REMAND THIS CASE FOR A NEW TRIAL BY ANOTHER
JUDGE. 
..END :

















PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH V. WYCOFF COMPANY, INC. 344 U.S. 237 


NO. 44.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1952 - 195 F.2D
252, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT COMMENCED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT A SUIT IN EQUITY
SEEKING TWO KINDS OF SPECIFIC RELIEF:  (1) A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT
ITS CARRIAGE OF MOTION PICTURE FILM AND NEWSREELS BETWEEN POINTS IN
UTAH CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND (2) AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
STATE COMMISSION INTERFERING WITH SUCH TRANSPORTATION OVER ROUTES
AUTHORIZED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  RESPONDENT OFFERED
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PAST, PENDING OR THREATENED ACTION BY THE STATE
COMMISSION TOUCHING ITS BUSINESS IN ANY RESPECT.  THE DISTRICT COURT,
IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AFTER TRIAL, MADE A GENERAL FINDING THAT NO
SUCH INTERFERENCE HAD BEEN MADE OR THREATENED; AND THIS FINDING WAS NOT
REVERSED OR MENTIONED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  HELD:  THE SUIT CANNOT
BE ENTERTAINED AS ONE FOR INJUNCTION AND SHOULD NOT BE CONTINUED AS ONE
FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  PP. 239-249. 

1.  THERE CAN BE NO INJUNCTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS IN THIS
CASE.  IT IS WANTING IN EQUITY BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANY
THREATENED OR PROBABLE ACT OF THE DEFENDANTS WHICH MIGHT CAUSE THE
IRREPARABLE INJURY ESSENTIAL TO EQUITABLE RELIEF BY INJUNCTION.  PP.
240-241. 

2.  DECLARATORY RELIEF IS NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE.  PP.  241-249. 

(A)  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2201, IS AN
ENABLING ACT WHICH CONFERS A DISCRETION ON THE COURTS RATHER THAN AN
ABSOLUTE RIGHT UPON THE LITIGANT.  P. 241. 

(B)  THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE ACT IS AVAILABLE ONLY IN CASES OF
ACTUAL CONTROVERSY WHICH ADMIT OF AN IMMEDIATE AND DEFINITE
DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  PP. 242-243. 

(C)  THE PROPRIETY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF IN A PARTICULAR CASE DEPENDS
UPON A CIRCUMSPECT SENSE OF ITS FITNESS INFORMED BY THE TEACHINGS AND
EXPERIENCE CONCERNING THE FUNCTIONS AND EXTENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL
POWER.  PP. 243-244. 

(D)  DISCRETIONARY USE OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT DOES NOT
PERMIT THE GRANT OF DECLARATORY RELIEF TO RESPONDENT MERELY TO HOLD IT
IN READINESS FOR USE SHOULD THE STATE COMMISSION AT ANY FUTURE TIME
ATTEMPT TO APPLY TO RESPONDENT ANY PART OF A COMPLICATED REGULATORY
STATUTE.  P. 245. 

(E)  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE WILL NOT BE USED TO PRE-EMPT
AND PREJUDGE ISSUES THAT ARE COMMITTED FOR INITIAL DECISION TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY OR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL ANY MORE THAN IT WILL BE USED
AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR STATUTORY METHODS OF REVIEW.  PP. 246-247. 

(F)  AS HERE INVOKED, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING IS
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE, IN ADDITION TO FORECLOSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE
BODY, IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH A PROPER FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIP.  P.
247. 

(G)  WHERE THE COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SEEKS
IN ESSENCE TO ASSERT A DEFENSE TO AN IMPENDING OR THREATENED STATE
COURT ACTION, IT IS THE CHARACTER OF THE THREATENED ACTION, AND NOT OF
THE DEFENSE, WHICH DETERMINES WHETHER THERE IS FEDERAL-QUESTION
JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 248. 

(H)  FEDERAL COURTS WILL NOT SEIZE LITIGATIONS FROM STATE COURTS
MERELY BECAUSE ONE, NORMALLY A DEFENDANT, GOES TO FEDERAL COURT TO
BEGIN HIS FEDERAL-LAW DEFENSE BEFORE THE STATE COURT BEGINS THE CASE
UNDER STATE LAW.  P. 248. 

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH ET AL. V. WYCOFF COMPANY, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT'S SUIT IN EQUITY FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION
AGAINST PETITIONERS WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  195 F.2D 252.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343
U.S. 975.  REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS THAT THE ACTION BE DISMISSED, P.
249. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AS THIS SUIT IN EQUITY WAS COMMENCED IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IT SOUGHT TWO KINDS OF SPECIFIC RELIEF:  (1) A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
THAT COMPLAINANT'S CARRIAGE OF MOTION PICTURE FILM AND NEWSREELS
BETWEEN POINTS IN UTAH CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE COMMERCE; (2) THAT THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH AND ITS MEMBERS BE FOREVER ENJOINED
FROM INTERFERING WITH SUCH TRANSPORTATION OVER ROUTES AUTHORIZED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COURSE OF IMPORTING, PROCESSING AND
TRANSPORTING PICTURE FILM AND NEWSREELS TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT
CARRIAGE BETWEEN POINTS IN UTAH WAS SO INTEGRATED WITH THEIR INTERSTATE
MOVEMENT THAT THE WHOLE CONSTITUTED INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT AVERRED
THAT THE COMMISSION AND ITS MEMBERS "THREATEN TO AND ARE ATTEMPTING TO
STOP AND PREVENT PLAINTIFF FROM TRANSPORTING MOTION PICTURE FILM AND
NEWSREELS BETWEEN POINTS AND PLACES WITHIN THE STATE OF UTAH, AND THEY
ARE THEREBY INTERFERING WITH THE CONDUCT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY THE
PLAINTIFF AND IMPOSING AN UNDUE BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE," AND
THAT UNLESS THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENJOINED THEY WILL "BLOCK, HARASS AND
PREVENT PLAINTIFF IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF SAID MOTION PICTURE FILM AND
NEWSREELS IN UTAH." 

THE COMMISSION AND ITS MEMBERS ANSWERED THAT RESPONDENT'S
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN POINTS IN UTAH WAS NOTHING MORE THAN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE.  THEY SPECIFICALLY DENIED ATTEMPTING, THREATENING, OR
INTENDING TO INTERFERE WITH OR BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER TRIAL, SUSTAINED THE CONTENTION OF THE
COMMISSION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
CONSIDERED ONLY "WHETHER THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATIONS ARE NONETHELESS
INTEGRAL PARTS OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATIONS."  (FN1)  IT HELD THE
EVIDENCE TO WARRANT AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AND ORDERED FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT
VIEW.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, (FN2) REQUESTING COUNSEL TO DISCUSS
WHETHER A SINGLE JUDGE COULD HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CASE IN VIEW OF 28
U.S.C. SEC. 2281.  THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE OR THE ORDER OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY
THEREUNDER "SHALL NOT BE GRANTED" UPON THE GROUND OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY UNLESS THE APPLICATION IS HEARD AND DETERMINED BY A
DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES AS PROVIDED IN 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2284. 

THE RESPONDENT, WHICH WAS PLAINTIFF, CONTENDS THAT A THREE-JUDGE
COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED, BECAUSE THE SUIT DOES NOT QUESTION
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY UTAH STATUTE NOR THE VALIDITY OF ANY ORDER OF
THE STATE COMMISSION.  IT SAYS ALSO THAT NO INJUNCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED
OR EVEN URGED "OUTSIDE OF THE NAKED RECITATION IN THE PRAYER OF THE
COMPLAINT."  IT OFFERED NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER OF ANY PAST, PENDING OR
THREATENED ACTION BY THE UTAH COMMISSION TOUCHING ITS BUSINESS IN ANY
RESPECT.  THE PLEADINGS MADE THAT A CLEAR-CUT ISSUE, WHICH SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED THEREAFTER.  THE ONLY ISSUES DEFINED ON
PRETRIAL HEARING WERE WHETHER AS MATTER OF FACT AND OF LAW THE WITHIN
STATE TRANSPORTATION CONSTITUTED INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE TRIAL COURT,
HOWEVER, MADE A GENERAL FINDING THAT NO SUCH INTERFERENCE HAD BEEN MADE
OR THREATENED, WHICH WAS NOT REVERSED OR MENTIONED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS. 

FOR MORE REASONS THAN ONE IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS PROCEEDING CANNOT
RESULT IN AN INJUNCTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  IN ADDITION TO
DEFECTS THAT WILL APPEAR IN OUR DISCUSSION OF DECLARATORY RELIEF, IT IS
WANTING IN EQUITY BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANY THREATENED OR
PROBABLE ACT OF THE DEFENDANTS WHICH MIGHT CAUSE THE IRREPARABLE INJURY
ESSENTIAL TO EQUITABLE RELIEF BY INJUNCTION. 

THE RESPONDENT APPEARS TO HAVE ABANDONED THE SUIT AS ONE FOR
INJUNCTION BUT SEEKS TO SUPPORT IT AS ONE FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
HOPING THEREBY TO AVOID BOTH THE THREE-JUDGE COURT REQUIREMENT AND THE
NECESSITY FOR PROOF OF THREATENED INJURY.  WHETHER DECLARATORY RELIEF
IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE APPARENTLY WAS NOT
CONSIDERED BY EITHER OF THE COURTS BELOW.  BUT THAT INQUIRY IS ONE
WHICH EVERY GRANT OF THIS REMEDY MUST SURVIVE. 

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT OF 1934, NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2201, STYLED
"CREATION OF REMEDY," PROVIDES THAT IN A CASE OF ACTUAL CONTROVERSY A
COMPETENT COURT MAY "DECLARE THE RIGHTS AND OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS" OF A
PARTY "WHETHER OR NOT FURTHER RELIEF IS OR COULD BE SOUGHT."  THIS IS
AN ENABLING ACT, WHICH CONFERS A DISCRETION ON THE COURTS RATHER THAN
ABSOLUTE RIGHT UPON THE LITIGANT. 

PREVIOUS TO ITS ENACTMENT THERE WERE RESPONSIBLE EXPRESSIONS OF DOUBT
THAT CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER WOULD PERMIT
ANY FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE.  CF. LIBERTY WAREHOUSE CO.
V. GRANNIS, 273 U.S. 70; WILLING V. CHICAGO AUDITORIUM ASSN., 277 U.S.
274; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423; PIEDMONT & N.R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 280 U.S. 469.  FINALLY, AS A PRACTICE EXTENDED IN THE STATES,
WE REVIEWED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RENDERED BY A STATE COURT AND HELD
THAT A CONTROVERSY WHICH WOULD BE JUSTICIABLE IN THIS COURT IF
PRESENTED IN A SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IS NOT THE LESS SO BECAUSE THE
RELIEF WAS DECLARATORY.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288
U.S. 249.  ENCOURAGED BY THIS AND GUIDED BY THE EXPERIENCE OF THE
THIRTY-FOUR STATES THAT HAD ENACTED SUCH LAWS, THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED AN ADAPTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE TO FEDERAL
PRACTICE.  ITS ENABLING CLAUSE WAS NARROWER THAN THAT OF THE UNIFORM
ACT ADOPTED IN 1921 BY THE COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS, WHICH
GAVE COMPREHENSIVE POWER TO DECLARE RIGHTS, STATUS AND OTHER LEGAL
RELATIONS.  THE FEDERAL ACT OMITS STATUS AND LIMITS THE DECLARATION TO
CASES OF ACTUAL CONTROVERSY.  (FN3) 

THIS ACT WAS ADJUDGED CONSTITUTIONAL ONLY BY INTERPRETING IT TO
CONFINE THE DECLARATORY REMEDY WITHIN CONVENTIONAL "CASE OR
CONTROVERSY" LIMITS.  IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297
U.S. 288, 325, THE COURT SAID, "THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1934, PROVIDING FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS, DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL
REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER" WHICH STILL WAS TO BE
TESTED BY SUCH ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES AS THAT "THE JUDICIAL POWER DOES
NOT EXTEND TO THE DETERMINATION OF ABSTRACT QUESTIONS" AND THAT "CLAIMS
BASED MERELY UPON 'ASSUMED POTENTIAL INVASIONS' OF RIGHTS ARE NOT
ENOUGH TO WARRANT JUDICIAL INTERVENTION." 

IN AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE HUGHES USED THE WHOLE CATALOGUE OF FAMILIAR PHRASES TO DEFINE
AND DELIMIT THE MEASURE OF THIS NEW REMEDY.  IF ITS METES AND BOUNDS
ARE NOT CLEARLY MARKED, IT IS BECAUSE HIS AVAILABLE VERBAL MARKERS ARE
THEMSELVES ELASTIC, INCONSTANT AND IMPRECISE.  IT APPLIES, HE POINTS
OUT, ONLY TO "CASES AND CONTROVERSIES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE" OF A
NATURE "CONSONANT WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION" AND
"APPROPRIATE FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION."  EACH MUST PRESENT A
"JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY" AS DISTINGUISHED FROM "A DIFFERENCE OR
DISPUTE OF A HYPOTHETICAL OR ABSTRACT CHARACTER  ...  .  THE
CONTROVERSY MUST BE DEFINITE AND CONCRETE, TOUCHING THE LEGAL RELATIONS
OF PARTIES HAVING ADVERSE LEGAL INTERESTS  ...  .  IT MUST BE A REAL
AND SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY ADMITTING OF SPECIFIC RELIEF THROUGH A
DECREE OF A CONCLUSIVE CHARACTER, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN OPINION
ADVISING WHAT THE LAW WOULD BE UPON A HYPOTHETICAL STATE OF FACTS." 
THE RELIEF IS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR A "CONCRETE CASE ADMITTING OF AN
IMMEDIATE AND DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES."  ID., AT 240, 241. 

OTHER SOURCES HAVE STATED RELEVANT LIMITATIONS.  THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDED THE 1,200 AMERICAN DECISIONS THERETOFORE
RENDERED ON THE SUBJECT AS ESTABLISHING THAT "THE ISSUE MUST BE REAL,
THE QUESTION PRACTICAL AND NOT ACADEMIC, AND THE DECISION MUST FINALLY
SETTLE AND DETERMINE THE CONTROVERSY."  (FN4)  INDEED THE UNIFORM ACT,
UNLIKE THE FEDERAL ACT, EXPRESSLY DECLARES THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT
TO REFUSE A DECREE THAT WOULD NOT "TERMINATE THE UNCERTAINTY OR
CONTROVERSY GIVING RISE TO THE PROCEEDING."  IN RECOMMENDING RULE 57 OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES
FOR THE DECLARATORY DECREE, THE COMMITTEE NOTED "A DECLARATION MAY NOT
BE RENDERED IF A SPECIAL STATUTORY PROCEEDING HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE
ADJUDICATION OF SOME SPECIAL TYPE OF CASE  ...  ."  (FN5) 

BUT WHEN ALL OF THE AXIOMS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED AND ALL WORDS OF
DEFINITION HAVE BEEN SPENT, THE PROPRIETY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF IN A
PARTICULAR CASE WILL DEPEND UPON A CIRCUMSPECT SENSE OF ITS FITNESS
INFORMED BY THE TEACHINGS AND EXPERIENCE CONCERNING THE FUNCTIONS AND
EXTENT OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER.  WHILE THE COURTS SHOULD NOT BE
RELUCTANT OR NIGGARDLY IN GRANTING THIS RELIEF IN THE CASES FOR WHICH
IT WAS DESIGNED, THEY MUST BE ALERT TO AVOID IMPOSITION UPON THEIR
JURISDICTION THROUGH OBTAINING FUTILE OR PREMATURE INTERVENTIONS,
ESPECIALLY IN THE FIELD OF PUBLIC LAW.  A MAXIMUM OF CAUTION IS
NECESSARY IN THE TYPE OF LITIGATION THAT WE HAVE HERE, WHERE A RULING
IS SOUGHT THAT WOULD REACH FAR BEYOND THE PARTICULAR CASE.  SUCH
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION OR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MUST BE "RIPE FOR
DETERMINATION" AS CONTROVERSIES OVER LEGAL RIGHTS.  THE DISAGREEMENT
MUST NOT BE NEBULOUS OR CONTINGENT BUT MUST HAVE TAKEN ON FIXED AND
FINAL SHAPE SO THAT A COURT CAN SEE WHAT LEGAL ISSUES IT IS DECIDING,
WHAT EFFECT ITS DECISION WILL HAVE ON THE ADVERSARIES, AND SOME USEFUL
PURPOSE TO BE ACHIEVED IN DECIDING THEM. 

THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS CASE DOES NOT REQUEST AN ADJUDICATION THAT IT
HAS A RIGHT TO DO, OR TO HAVE, ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR.  IT DOES NOT ASK
A JUDGMENT THAT THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT POWER TO ENTER ANY SPECIFIC
ORDER OR TAKE ANY CONCRETE REGULATORY STEP.  IT SEEKS SIMPLY TO
ESTABLISH THAT, AS PRESENTLY CONDUCTED, RESPONDENT'S CARRIAGE OF GOODS
BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN AS WELL AS WITHOUT UTAH IS ALL INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  ONE NATURALLY ASKS, "SO WHAT?"  TO THAT ULTIMATE QUESTION NO
ANSWER IS SOUGHT. 

A MULTITUDE OF RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES MAY BE PREDICATED UPON THE
PREMISE THAT A BUSINESS CONSISTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WHAT ARE THE
SPECIFIC ONES IN CONTROVERSY?  THE RECORD IS SILENT AND COUNSEL LITTLE
MORE ARTICULATE.  WE MAY SURMISE THAT THE PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS ULTIMATELY THE SAME AS RESPONDENT'S EXPLANATION
OF THE PURPOSES OF THE INJUNCTION IT ORIGINALLY ASKED, WHICH IS "TO
GUARD AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY THAT SAID COMMISSION WOULD ATTEMPT TO
PREVENT RESPONDENT FROM OPERATING UNDER ITS CERTIFICATE FROM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION." 

IN THIS CONNECTION, WYCOFF CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, - UTAH -
, 227 P.2D 323 (1951), IS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.  FROM THIS IT
APPEARS THAT RESPONDENT AND ITS PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST LONG MADE IT A
PRACTICE TO OBTAIN FROM THE UTAH COMMISSION CERTIFICATES TO AUTHORIZE
THIS CARRIAGE OF FILM COMMODITIES BETWEEN POINTS IN UTAH.  BUT THE
SUPREME COURT OF UTAH, IN THE CITED CASE, SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION IN
DENYING SUCH AN APPLICATION UPON A FINDING THAT THE FIELD ALREADY WAS
ADEQUATELY SERVED.  WE ARE ALSO TOLD THAT THE COMMISSION FILED A
PETITION IN A UTAH STATE COURT TO ENJOIN RESPONDENT FROM OPERATING
BETWEEN A FEW SPECIFIED LOCATIONS WITHIN THE STATE, BUT THAT PROCESS
WAS NEVER SERVED AND NOTHING IN THE RECORD TELLS US WHAT HAS HAPPENED
TO THIS ACTION.  WE MAY CONJECTURE THAT RESPONDENT FEARS SOME FORM OF
ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL ACTION TO PROHIBIT ITS SERVICE ON ROUTES
WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE WITHOUT THE COMMISSION'S LEAVE.  WHAT
RESPONDENT ASKS IS THAT IT WIN ANY SUCH CASE BEFORE IT IS COMMENCED. 
EVEN IF RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED SOLELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WE CANNOT
SAY THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHATEVER THAT THE STATE MAY REQUIRE. 
EICHHOLZ V. COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 268, 273. 

A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MAY BE THE BASIS OF FURTHER RELIEF NECESSARY
OR PROPER AGAINST THE ADVERSE PARTY (28 U.S.C. SEC. 2202).  THE
CARRIER'S IDEA SEEMS TO BE THAT IT CAN NOW ESTABLISH THE MAJOR PREMISE
OF AN EXEMPTION, NOT AS AN INCIDENT OF ANY PRESENT DECLARATION OF ANY
SPECIFIC RIGHT OR IMMUNITY, BUT TO HOLD IN READINESS FOR USE SHOULD THE
COMMISSION AT ANY FUTURE TIME ATTEMPT TO APPLY ANY PART OF A
COMPLICATED REGULATORY STATUTE TO IT.  IF THERE IS ANY MORE DEFINITE OR
CONTEMPORANEOUS PURPOSE TO THIS CASE, NEITHER THIS RECORD NOR THE
BRIEFS MAKE IT CLEAR TO US.  WE THINK THIS FOR SEVERAL REASONS EXCEEDS
ANY PERMISSIBLE DISCRETIONARY USE OF THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACT.    IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIS DISPUTE HAS NOT MATURED TO A POINT
WHERE WE CAN SEE WHAT, IF ANY, CONCRETE CONTROVERSY WILL DEVELOP.  IT
IS MUCH LIKE ASKING A DECLARATION THAT THE STATE HAS NO POWER TO ENACT
LEGISLATION THAT MAY BE UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT HAS NOT YET SHAPED UP
INTO AN ENACTMENT.  IF THERE IS ANY RISK OF SUFFERING PENALTY,
LIABILITY OR PROSECUTION, WHICH A DECLARATION WOULD AVOID, IT IS NOT
POINTED OUT TO US.  IF AND WHEN THE STATE COMMISSION TAKES SOME ACTION
THAT RAISES AN ISSUE OF ITS POWER, SOME FURTHER DECLARATION WOULD BE
NECESSARY TO ANY COMPLETE RELIEF.  THE PROPOSED DECREE CANNOT END THE
CONTROVERSY. 

NOR IS IT APPARENT THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WOULD SERVE A USEFUL
PURPOSE IF AT SOME FUTURE DATE THE STATE UNDERTAKES REGULATION OF
RESPONDENT.  AFTER A SIFTING OF EVIDENCE AND A FINDING OF FACTS AS THEY
ARE TODAY, THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT CHANGES OF SIGNIFICANCE MAY NOT
TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE STATE DECIDES TO MOVE.  OF COURSE, THE REMEDY IS
NOT TO BE WITHHELD BECAUSE IT NECESSITATES WEIGHING CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE OR DECIDING ISSUES OF FACT AS WELL AS LAW.  THAT IS THE
PROVINCE OF COURTS.  AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HAWORTH, SUPRA, AT
242, AND SEE PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325; CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S.
1.  BUT WHEN THE REQUEST IS NOT FOR ULTIMATE DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS
BUT FOR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS INTENDED TO FORTIFY THE
LITIGANT AGAINST FUTURE REGULATION, IT WOULD BE A RARE CASE IN WHICH
THE RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED.  CF. COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS,
INC., 323 U.S. 316. 

EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO INCIPIENT FEDERAL-STATE CONFLICT, THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE WILL NOT BE USED TO PRE-EMPT AND
PREJUDGE ISSUES THAT ARE COMMITTED FOR INITIAL DECISION TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY OR SPECIAL TRIBUNAL ANY MORE THAN IT WILL BE USED
AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR STATUTORY METHODS OF REVIEW.  IT WOULD NOT BE
TOLERABLE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ESTABLISH THAT AN
ENTERPRISE IS NOT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER TO FORESTALL
PROCEEDINGS BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION OR MANY AGENCIES THAT ARE AUTHORIZED TO TRY AND
DECIDE SUCH AN ISSUE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  CF. MYERS V. BETHLEHEM
SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, ECCLES V. PEOPLES BANK, 333 U.S. 426. 
SEE COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549.  RESPONSIBILITY FOR EFFECTIVE
FUNCTIONING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS CANNOT BE THUS TRANSFERRED
FROM THE BODIES IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS PLACED IT TO THE COURTS. 

BUT, AS THE DECLARATORY PROCEEDING IS HERE INVOKED, IT IS EVEN LESS
APPROPRIATE BECAUSE, IN ADDITION TO FORECLOSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY,
IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH A PROPER FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIP.  THE
CARRIER, BEING IN SOME DISAGREEMENT WITH THE STATE COMMISSION, RUSHED
INTO FEDERAL COURT TO GET A DECLARATION WHICH EITHER IS INTENDED IN
WAYS NOT DISCLOSED TO TIE THE COMMISSION'S HANDS BEFORE IT CAN ACT OR
IT HAS NO PURPOSE AT ALL. 

DECLARATORY PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST STATE OFFICIALS
MUST BE DECIDED WITH REGARD FOR THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM.  STATE ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES HAVE THE INITIAL RIGHT TO REDUCE
THE GENERAL POLICIES OF STATE REGULATORY STATUTES INTO CONCRETE ORDERS
AND THE PRIMARY RIGHT TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT.  IT
IS THE STATE COURTS WHICH HAVE THE FIRST AND THE LAST WORD AS TO THE
MEANING OF STATE STATUTES AND WHETHER A PARTICULAR ORDER IS WITHIN THE
LEGISLATIVE TERMS OF REFERENCE SO AS TO MAKE IT THE ACTION OF THE
STATE.  WE HAVE DISAPPROVED ANTICIPATORY DECLARATIONS AS TO STATE
REGULATORY STATUTES, EVEN WHERE THE CASE ORIGINATED IN AND WAS
ENTERTAINED BY COURTS OF THE STATE AFFECTED.  ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION
OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450.  ANTICIPATORY JUDGMENT BY A FEDERAL
COURT TO FRUSTRATE ACTION BY A STATE AGENCY IS EVEN LESS TOLERABLE TO
OUR FEDERALISM.  IS THE DECLARATION CONTEMPLATED HERE TO BE RES
JUDICATA, SO THAT THE COMMISSION CANNOT HEAR EVIDENCE AND DECIDE ANY
MATTER FOR ITSELF?  IF SO, THE FEDERAL COURT HAS VIRTUALLY LIFTED THE
CASE OUT OF THE STATE COMMISSION BEFORE IT COULD BE HEARD.  IF NOT, THE
FEDERAL JUDGMENT SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE AS A FINAL DETERMINATION OF
RIGHTS. 

THE PROCEDURES OF REVIEW USUALLY AFFORD AMPLE PROTECTION TO A CARRIER
WHOSE FEDERAL RIGHTS ARE ACTUALLY INVADED, AND THERE ARE REMEDIES FOR
THREATENED IRREPARABLE INJURIES.  STATE COURTS ARE BOUND EQUALLY WITH
THE FEDERAL COURTS BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND LAWS.  ULTIMATE
RECOURSE MAY BE HAD TO THIS COURT BY CERTIORARI IF A STATE COURT HAS
ALLEGEDLY DENIED A FEDERAL RIGHT. 

IN THIS CASE, AS IN MANY ACTIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, THE
REALISTIC POSITION OF THE PARTIES IS REVERSED.  (FN6)  THE PLAINTIFF IS
SEEKING TO ESTABLISH A DEFENSE AGAINST A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH THE
DECLARATORY DEFENDANT MAY ASSERT IN THE UTAH COURTS.  RESPONDENT HERE
HAS SOUGHT TO WARD OFF POSSIBLE ACTION OF THE PETITIONERS BY SEEKING A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT HE WILL HAVE A GOOD DEFENSE
WHEN AND IF THAT CAUSE OF ACTION IS ASSERTED.  WHERE THE COMPLAINT IN
AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SEEKS IN ESSENCE TO ASSERT A DEFENSE
TO AN IMPENDING OR THREATENED STATE COURT ACTION, IT IS THE CHARACTER
OF THE THREATENED ACTION, AND NOT OF THE DEFENSE, WHICH WILL DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE IS FEDERAL-QUESTION JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 
IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION, WHICH THE DECLARATORY DEFENDANT THREATENS TO
ASSERT, DOES NOT ITSELF INVOLVE A CLAIM UNDER FEDERAL LAW, IT IS
DOUBTFUL IF A FEDERAL COURT MAY ENTERTAIN AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ESTABLISHING A DEFENSE TO THAT CLAIM.  THIS IS DUBIOUS EVEN
THOUGH THE DECLARATORY COMPLAINT SETS FORTH A CLAIM OF FEDERAL RIGHT,
IF THAT RIGHT IS IN REALITY IN THE NATURE OF A DEFENSE TO A THREATENED
CAUSE OF ACTION.  FEDERAL COURTS WILL NOT SEIZE LITIGATIONS FROM STATE
COURTS MERELY BECAUSE ONE, NORMALLY A DEFENDANT, GOES TO FEDERAL COURT
TO BRING HIS FEDERAL-LAW DEFENSE BEFORE THE STATE COURT BEGINS THE CASE
UNDER STATE LAW.  TENNESSEE V. UNION & PLANTERS' BANK, 152 U.S. 454;
THE FAIR V. KOHLER DIE & SPECIALTY CO., 228 U.S. 22; TAYLOR V.
ANDERSON, 234 U.S. 74. 

SINCE THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN ANY EVENT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY
TO DETERMINE WHETHER, ON THIS RECORD, THE ALLEGED CONTROVERSY OVER AN
ACTION THAT MAY BE BEGUN IN STATE COURT WOULD BE MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE
HEAD OF FEDERAL-QUESTION JURISDICTION.  BUT WE ADVERT TO DOUBTS UPON
THAT SUBJECT TO INDICATE THE INJURY THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY IF THE CASE
CLEARLY RESTED MERELY ON THREATENED SUIT IN STATE COURT, AS, FOR ALL WE
CAN LEARN, IT MAY. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THIS SUIT CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AS ONE FOR
INJUNCTION AND SHOULD NOT BE CONTINUED AS ONE FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED AND MODIFIED TO DIRECT
THAT THE ACTION BE DISMISSED.  REVERSED AND SO ORDERED. 

FN1  195 F.2D 252. 

FN2  343 U.S. 975. 

FN3  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2201. 

FN4  S. REP. NO. 1005, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS., P. 6, MAY 10, 1934;
BORCHARD, DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS (2D ED. 1941), 1043, 1048. 

FN5  BORCHARD, OP. CIT., 1042. 

FN6  SEE, DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW - DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS, 62 HARV.
L. REV. 787, 802. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING. 

THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH UNCERTAIN AND UNSATISFACTORY, CONVINCES ME THAT
A SUIT WAS FILED IN THE STATE COURT BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
UTAH.  THIS STATE SUIT EVIDENTLY SOUGHT TO PREVENT RESPONDENT FROM
TRANSPORTING MOTION PICTURE FILM AND NEWSREELS BETWEEN POINTS AND
PLACES WITHIN THE STATE OF UTAH.  THIS IS THE PORTION OF TRANSPORTATION
BETWEEN OUT-OF-STATE POINTS AND MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITORS WITHIN UTAH
THAT RAISES THE QUESTION AS TO THE AUTHORITY OF RESPONDENT TO OPERATE
UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CERTIFICATE.  THE FILMS ARE
UNLOADED AT SALT LAKE CITY, WHERE THEY ARE PREPARED FOR EXHIBITION, AND
STORED BY THE OWNERS UNTIL ORDERED OUT TO THE EXHIBITION POINTS.  THEY
ARE THEN AGAIN LOADED ON RESPONDENT'S TRUCKS AND DELIVERED TO THE
EXHIBITORS.  IF THIS FINAL PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONTINUES THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, RESPONDENT WOULD BE FREE TO OPERATE WITHOUT
FURTHER AUTHORITY FROM THE UTAH COMMISSION.  IF IT IS INTRASTATE
COMMERCE, RESPONDENT WOULD NEED FURTHER AUTHORITY FROM UTAH.  IT WAS
APPARENTLY TO DETERMINE THIS QUESTION THAT THE UTAH COMMISSION FILED
ITS SUIT IN THE STATE COURT.  NO PROCESS WAS SERVED.  THEREAFTER
RESPONDENT INSTITUTED THIS PROCEEDING FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

THE AUTHORITY FOR THIS LITIGATION IS THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT OF
1934, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2201.  THIS PROVIDES FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING "THE
RIGHTS AND OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS OF ANY INTERESTED PARTY" IN CASES "OF
ACTUAL CONTROVERSY." 

THE ACT WAS INTENDED BY CONGRESS AS A MEANS FOR PARTIES IN SUCH
CONTROVERSIES AS THAT BETWEEN THIS INTERSTATE CARRIER AND THE UTAH
COMMISSION TO SETTLE THEIR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND POWERS WITHOUT
THE NECESSITY AND RISK OF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ONE BY THE OTHER. 
THE CONTROVERSY HERE IS CLEAR AND DEFINITE.  A DECISION WOULD SETTLE
THE ISSUE THAT CREATES THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE PARTIES' RIGHTS.  SEE
AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227.  THE ACT INTENDED
OPERATIONS TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE LIGHT OF KNOWLEDGE RATHER THAN THE
DARKNESS OF IGNORANCE.  S. REP. NO. 1005, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS. 

HOWEVER, IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT
INTRODUCED A NEW METHOD FOR DETERMINING RIGHTS INTO THE BODY OF
EXISTING LAW.  THEREFORE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT WAS DELIBERATELY CAST
IN TERMS OF PERMISSIVE, RATHER THAN MANDATORY, AUTHORITY TO THE COURTS
TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF PETITIONS SEEKING THIS NEW RELIEF.  (FN1)  THIS
ENABLES FEDERAL COURTS TO APPRAISE THE THREATENED INJURIES TO
COMPLAINANT, THE NECESSITY AND DANGER OF HIS ACTING AT HIS PERIL THOUGH
INCURRING HEAVY DAMAGES, THE ADEQUACY OF STATE OR OTHER REMEDIES,
PARTICULARLY IN CONTROVERSIES WITH ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.  BUT EVEN IN
RESPECT TO CONTROVERSIES WITH ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES, THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACT EXISTS AS AN INSTRUMENT TO PROTECT THE CITIZEN AGAINST THE
DANGERS AND DAMAGES THAT MAY RESULT FROM HIS ERRONEOUS BELIEF AS TO HIS
RIGHTS UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.  GREAT LAKES CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319
U.S. 293, 300.  CF. SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101, 105;
SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE V. O'CONNOR, 340 U.S. 602, 605.  IT IS A MATTER
OF DISCRETION WITH FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE USE OF THIS NEW METHOD OF SETTLEMENT WAS ILLUSTRATED A FEW YEARS
AGO IN AN IMPORTANT CASE DEALING WITH THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  (FN2)  THAT CASE INVOLVED A DISAGREEMENT
BETWEEN TWO DIVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD AS TO
WHICH DIVISION HAD JURISDICTION OF DISPUTES INVOLVING YARDMASTERS.  WE
HELD THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF SUCH A JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE CONCERNING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WAS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
WHERE THE CONTROVERSY RESULTED IN A COMPLETE STALEMATE.  HERE, THE
RECORD DOES NOT SHOW ANY UNUSUAL DANGER OF LOSS OR DAMAGE TO
RESPONDENT, A SUIT HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED AND THE RECORD SHOWS NO
REASON WHY ITS RESULT WOULD NOT SETTLE THIS CONTROVERSY.  BECAUSE OF
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I CONCUR WITH THE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  H.R. REP. NO. 1264, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2; BORCHARD,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS (2D ED. 1941), 312; BRILLHART V. EXCESS INSURANCE
CO., 316 U.S. 491, 494. 

FN2  ORDER OF CONDUCTORS V. SWAN, 329 U.S. 520. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

RESPONDENTS HOLD A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
MOTION PICTURE FILMS AND NEWSREELS FROM SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, TO POINTS
IN UTAH, IDAHO, AND MONTANA.  THEIR TRANSPORTATION TO UTAH POINTS IS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACCORDING TO THE COURT OF APPEALS; AND WITH THAT
CONCLUSION I AGREE SINCE THE MOVEMENT IN UTAH IS PART OF A CONTINUING
INTERSTATE STREAM.  THE THREAT OF INTERFERENCE WITH THAT INTERSTATE
ACTIVITY BY THE UTAH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IS CLEAR AND IMMEDIATE. 
FIRST.  THE UTAH COMMISSION BROUGHT SUIT TO ENJOIN THOSE INTERSTATE
ACTIVITIES AND THAT SUIT IS NOW PENDING IN THE UTAH COURT.  SECOND. 
THE COMMISSION'S ANSWER IN THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THAT IT WAS
INTERFERING WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NOT BECAUSE IT DID NOT INTEND TO
PREVENT RESPONDENT FROM OPERATING, BUT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
OPERATIONS WERE DEEMED TO BE INTRASTATE COMMERCE AND THEREFORE SUBJECT
TO ITS REGULATION.  SIMILARLY, THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THERE
WAS NO INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS BASED ON AN ACCEPTANCE
OF THE COMMISSION'S CONTENTIONS AS TO THE NATURE OF RESPONDENT'S
BUSINESS.  THIRD.  IN THEIR BRIEF HERE PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THE UTAH
COMMISSION "WILL PREVENT THE RESPONDENT FROM CONDUCTING" THIS BUSINESS
"UNLESS AND UNTIL HE IS AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY APPROPRIATE
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER" OF THE UTAH COMMISSION, SINCE IN THE COMMISSION'S
VIEW THE TRANSPORTATION IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE. 

THAT FOR ME IS THREAT ENOUGH.  MOREOVER, UTAH IS NOT ATTEMPTING TO
REGULATE A PHASE OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS THAT IS WITHIN THE REACH OF A
STATE'S POLICE POWER.  SHE IS ENDEAVORING TO MAKE RESPONDENT OBTAIN A
PERMIT TO DO AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS FOR WHICH THE RESPONDENT ALREADY
HOLDS A FEDERAL PERMIT, UNDER THREAT THAT UNLESS HE OBTAINS A UTAH
PERMIT, UTAH WILL STOP HIM FROM CONDUCTING THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS. 
THAT IS AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE IN A FIELD PRE-EMPTED BY THE CONGRESS
UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT (49 U.S.C. SECS. 301 ET SEQ.).  THAT KIND
OF REGULATION IS PRECLUDED BY OUR DECISION IN BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267
U.S. 307.    THUS THE CONTROVERSY IS DEFINITE AND CONCRETE AND INVOLVES
LEGAL INTERESTS OF ADVERSE PARTIES.  THE TEST LAID DOWN FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS BY AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, IS THUS
SATISFIED.  I HAVE SAID ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE JUDGES WHO HEARD THIS
CASE BELOW KNEW THAT THEY WERE DEALING WITH A LIVE, ACTIVE CONTEST THAT
THREATENED SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES TO RESPONDENT, NOT WITH A HYPOTHETICAL
QUESTION THAT MIGHT HAVE PRACTICAL REPERCUSSIONS ONLY IN THE REMOTE
FUTURE. 

THE FACT THAT THE UTAH COURT CAN ADJUDICATE THE CONTROVERSY IN THE
PENDING STATE CASE IS NO REASON WHY THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD STAY ITS
HAND.  THERE IS NO FEDERAL POLICY INDICATING THAT THIS IS A FIELD IN
WHICH FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO INTERVENE.  THAT WAS THE
CASE IN GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, WHERE
WE HELD THAT DECLARATORY RELIEF THAT A STATE TAX WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
SHOULD BE DENIED BY THE FEDERAL COURT.  THE BASIS OF OUR RULING WAS
THAT SINCE CONGRESS HAD PROHIBITED THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM ENJOINING
STATE TAXES WHERE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS
(CF. HILLSBOROUGH V. CROMWELL, 326 U.S. 620, 623), DECLARATORY RELIEF
SHOULD ALSO BE WITHHELD.  CONGRESS HERE HAS GIVEN NO INDICATION THAT
THE INTEGRITY OF PERMITS GRANTED INTERSTATE CARRIERS BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION SHOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE STATE RATHER THAN IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  ALL THE PRESUMPTIONS ARE CONTRARY.  THE BASIS OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT CREATED BY CONGRESS IS CLEAR.  THE
CASE "ARISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION" AND "LAWS" OF THE UNITED STATES. 
28 U.S.C. SEC. 1331.  IT IS PROPER THAT THE FEDERAL COURT, ABSENT SUCH
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE HUFFMAN CASE PRESENTED, EXERCISE THAT
JURISDICTION AND PROTECT THE FEDERAL RIGHT. 

THE FAILURE TO DO IT HERE RELEGATES THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO A LOW
ESTATE. 
..END :







KING V. UNITED STATES 344 U.S. 254 


NO. 9.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1952 - 101 F.
SUPP. 941, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN PRESCRIBING INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES FOR RAILROADS UNDER SEC.
13(4) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION MAY GIVE WEIGHT TO DEFICITS IN PASSENGER REVENUE.  PP. 260
267. 

(A)  UNDER SEC. 15A(2) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF 1940, THE COMMISSION MAY GIVE WEIGHT
TO PASSENGER REVENUE DEFICITS IN PRESCRIBING INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES
TO MEET OVER-ALL REVENUE NEEDS.  PP. 263-264. 

(B)  THE SAME NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY APPLIES TO SEC. 13(4) AS
TO SEC. 15A(2).  WHICHEVER SECTION IS USED, THE SAME ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLIE THE RELATION BETWEEN FREIGHT RATES AND
PASSENGER DEFICITS, WHETHER INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE.  P. 266. 

2.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THIS
PROCEEDING ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER PRESCRIBING
INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES, FOR FLORIDA RAILROADS, WHICH WILL REFLECT THE
SAME INCREASES AS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION FOR COMPARABLE
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC.  PP. 267-276. 

(A)  NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 507, DISTINGUISHED. 
PP. 270-274. 

(B)  TO PERMIT MATERIAL AND REPORTS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
IN PRESCRIBING A NATIONWIDE INCREASE IN INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES AND IN
FURTHER INCREASING INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES FOR THE SOUTHERN TERRITORY
(INCLUDING FLORIDA) TO BE APPLIED UNDER SEC. 15A BUT NOT UNDER SEC.
13(4) WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE COMPLEMENTARY NATURE OF THOSE SECTIONS. 
PP. 272-273. 

(C)  THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER INTRASTATE RATES IS NOT
LIMITED TO CASES WHERE THOSE RATES ARE CONFISCATORY.  IT IS SUFFICIENT
THAT THE EXISTING INTRASTATE RATES CAUSE "UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE."  P. 274. 

(D)  WHERE THE COMMISSION SEEKS TO DEAL GENERALLY WITH RATES AND
REVENUES IN A LARGE AREA ON EVIDENCE TYPICAL OF THE AREA AS A WHOLE, IT
MAY PROCEED BY WAY OF A GENERAL ORDER SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
APPLICABLE TO THE WHOLE TERRITORY, BUT IT IS WELL TO LEAVE THE WAY OPEN
FOR MODIFICATIONS OF THAT GENERAL ORDER IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS WHERE
THE GENERAL ORDER IS NOT JUSTLY APPLICABLE.  PP. 275-276. 

KING ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA RAILROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION PRESCRIBING INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES FOR FLORIDA
RAILROADS.  101 F. SUPP. 941.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SECS. 1253, 2101(B), AFFIRMED, P. 276. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS HERE ARE:  (1) WHETHER THE INTRASTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, IN PRESCRIBING INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES FOR RAILROADS UNDER
SEC. 13(4) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, (FN1) MAY GIVE WEIGHT TO
DEFICITS IN PASSENGER REVENUE; AND (2) WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING ARE SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THE RATES IT HAS PRESCRIBED.  OUR ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION IS IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

THIS IS AN ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, UNDER 28
U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1336, BY APPELLANTS "AS AND CONSTITUTING THE
FLORIDA RAILROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION."  THEY ASK THE COURT
TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE AND ANNUL AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION REQUIRING FLORIDA RAILROADS TO ESTABLISH INTRASTATE FREIGHT
RATES WHICH WILL REFLECT THE SAME INCREASES AS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY
IT FOR COMPARABLE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC. 

THE UNDERLYING PROCEEDINGS ORIGINATED IN 1940.  THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION THEN UNDERTOOK A NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATION OF
INTERSTATE RAILROAD FREIGHT RATES, UNDER SECS. 13(2) AND 15A(2) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
POLICY STATED IN SEC. 1 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  (FN2)  THE
INVESTIGATION DEALT WITH PAST AND FUTURE FREIGHT AND PASSENGER
OPERATIONS, INTRASTATE AS WELL AS INTERSTATE.  A COMMITTEE OF
COOPERATING STATE COMMISSIONERS SAT WITH THE COMMISSION AND TOOK PART
IN ITS DELIBERATIONS.  MOUNTING RAILROAD OPERATING COSTS AND DECLINING
PASSENGER REVENUE LED THE COMMISSION, IN 1946, TO AUTHORIZE A
NATIONWIDE INCREASE OF 20% IN BASIC INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES.  EX PARTE
NO. 162, INCREASED RAILWAY RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES, 1946, 264 I.C.C.
695, 266 I.C.C. 537.  (FN3) 

IN 1947, THE COMMISSION FOUND SUCH FURTHER INCREASES IN OPERATING
COSTS AND DECREASES IN PASSENGER REVENUE THAT IT AUTHORIZED AN
ADDITIONAL NATIONWIDE INTERIM INCREASE OF 10% IN INTERSTATE FREIGHT
RATES.  SOON IT RAISED THIS TO 20%.  IN A THIRD REPORT IT VARIED THE
PERCENTAGE IN DIFFERENT AREAS, WITH THE RESULT THAT IN THE SOUTHERN
TERRITORY, INCLUDING FLORIDA, THE INCREASE WAS 25%.  THE 1948 FINAL
REPORT CONFIRMED THIS 25% INCREASE.  EX PARTE NO. 166, INCREASED
FREIGHT RATES, 1947, 269 I.C.C. 33, 270 I.C.C. 81, 93, AND 403.  THE
COMMISSION'S ESTIMATES OF REVENUE CONTEMPLATED THE APPLICATION OF THE
INCREASED RATES TO INTRASTATE, AS WELL AS TO INTERSTATE,
TRANSPORTATION.  (FN4) THE REPORT CONCLUDES WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE
"COMMITTEE OF COOPERATING STATE COMMISSIONERS  ... AUTHORIZE US TO
STATE THAT THEY CONCUR IN THE FOREGOING REPORT."  270 I.C.C. 403, 463. 

UPON PUBLICATION OF THESE REPORTS, THE RAILROADS ASKED THEIR
RESPECTIVE STATE AUTHORITIES TO AUTHORIZE COMPARABLE INCREASES IN
INTRASTATE RATES.  THE FLORIDA COMMISSION APPROVED MOST OF THE
INCREASES BUT DECLINED TO APPROVE THE FINAL INCREASE FROM 20% TO 25%.
(FN5) 

ON PETITION OF THE FLORIDA RAILROADS, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION UNDERTOOK ITS OWN INVESTIGATION OF FLORIDA INTRASTATE
RAILROAD RATES UNDER SEC. 13(3) AND (4) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
41 STAT. 484, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 13(3) AND (4).  A FULL HEARING WAS HAD
BEFORE A COMMISSIONER AND AN EXAMINER, FOLLOWED BY A HEARING UPON
EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXAMINER'S REPORT.  (FN6) THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
THAT INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES BE ESTABLISHED "BETWEEN POINTS IN FLORIDA
WHICH WILL REFLECT THE SAME INCREASES AS ARE, AND FOR THE FUTURE MAY
BE, MAINTAINED AND RESPONDENTS (RAILROADS) ON LIKE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC
TO AND FROM FLORIDA, AND WITHIN FLORIDA UNDER OUR AUTHORIZATIONS IN EX
PARTE NO. 162 AND EX PARTE NO. 166  ...  ."  FINDING NO. 8, 278 I.C.C.
41, 73. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THEN GAVE THE FLORIDA COMMISSION A
FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO PERMIT THE INCREASED RATES TO BE APPLIED TO
INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION.  UPON THE LATTER'S FAILURE TO ACT, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERED THE RAILROADS "THEREAFTER TO
MAINTAIN AND APPLY FOR THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT FROM
AND TO POINTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES WHICH
SHALL BE NO LOWER THAN THE APPROVED RATES AND CHARGES, OR ON THE
APPROVED RATE BASES, AS PROVIDED IN SAID REPORT."  (FN7) 

BEFORE THAT ORDER TOOK EFFECT, THIS ACTION WAS FILED.  A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT WAS CONVENED.  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 2325.  TWO SHORT
LINE RAILROADS AND NUMEROUS SHIPPERS INTERVENED AS PLAINTIFFS.  THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND ALL CLASS I RAILROADS OPERATING IN
FLORIDA INTERVENED AS DEFENDANTS.  THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE COMMISSION, UNDER SEC. 13(4), WAS INTRODUCED.  THE COURT
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  101 F. SUPP.
941.  THAT JUDGMENT IS HERE ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SECS. 1253,
2101(B). 

I. THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN PRESCRIBING INTRASTATE
FREIGHT RATES FOR RAILROADS UNDER SEC. 13(4) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT MAY GIVE WEIGHT TO DEFICITS IN PASSENGER REVENUE. 

IN EX PARTE NO. 168, INCREASED FREIGHT RATES, 1948, 272 I.C.C. 695,
276 I.C.C. 9, THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE CHANGING ATTITUDES IT HAS
ADOPTED CONCERNING THE ROLE OF PASSENGER DEFICITS AND FREIGHT RATES. 
IN SUCH CASES AS THE FIVE PER CENT CASE, 31 I.C.C. 351, THE COMMISSION
IN 1941 CONCLUDED THAT EACH CLASS OF SERVICE SHOULD COMPLETELY AND
INDEPENDENTLY PROVIDE ITS OWN PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF EXPENSES AND
PROFITS.  (FN8)  IN 1949 THE COMMISSION SAYS: 

"HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF CHANGED THEORIES ADOPTED BY CONGRESS IN THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, AND BECAUSE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THE
INCREASING DEGREE OF UNPROFITABLENESS OF THE PASSENGER TRAFFIC MENACED
THE CONTINUITY OF AN ADEQUATE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION, WE
WERE FORCED TO A MORE COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF THIS QUESTION.  WE OBSERVE,
ALSO, THAT AT THE TIME OF THOSE DECISIONS THE RAILROADS ENJOYED A
PRACTICAL MONOPOLY IN SUPPLYING TRANSPORTATION, BUT THAT SITUATION NO
LONGER EXISTS."  276 I.C.C. AT 34. 

CITING WITH APPROVAL ITS SIMILAR VIEWS IN EX PARTE NO. 103, FIFTEEN
PER CENT CASE, 1931, 178 I.C.C. 539, AND EX PARTE NO. 123, FIFTEEN PER
CENT CASE, 1937-1938, 226 I.C.C. 41, THE COMMISSION SUMMARIZES ITS
PRESENT POSITION AS FOLLOWS: 

"THESE CASES ARE TYPICAL OF OUR MORE RECENT HOLDINGS UPON THIS
QUESTION.  WHILE WE REGARD IT AS 'TRITE TO SAY THAT EACH PARTICULAR
SERVICE, COACH, SLEEPER, PARLOR CAR, AND HEAD END, SHOULD AS NEARLY AS
MAY BE PAY ITS OWN WAY AND RETURN A PROFIT' (EASTERN PASSENGER FARES IN
COACHES, 227 I.C.C. 17, 25), AND WE HAVE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION THAT
THERE MAY BE TRAFFIC THAT SHOULD NOT BE BURDENED WITH A SHORTAGE OF
PASSENGER SERVICE RETURN (LIVESTOCK, WESTERN DISTRICT RATES, 190 I.C.C.
611, 629), YET, IF PASSENGER SERVICE INEVITABLY AND INESCAPABLY CANNOT
BEAR ITS DIRECT COSTS AND ITS SHARE OF JOINT OR INDIRECT COSTS, WE HAVE
FELT COMPELLED IN A GENERAL RATE CASE TO TAKE THE PASSENGER DEFICIT
INTO ACCOUNT IN ADJUSTMENT OF FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES.  BOTH THE
FREIGHT AND PASSENGER SERVICES ARE ESSENTIAL, AND REVENUE LOSSES OR
DEFICITS ON THE ONE NECESSARILY MUST BE COMPENSATED BY EARNINGS ON THE
OTHER IF THE CARRIERS ARE TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS.  BOTH MAY BE
SUBJECTED TO REASONABLE RATES AND CHARGES TO PRODUCE THE FAIR AGGREGATE
RETURN, EVEN THOUGH THEREBY A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN MAY BE EXACTED FROM
THE ONE THAN FROM THE OTHER.  (PROPERTY OWNERS' COMMITTEE V. CHESAPEAKE
& O. RY. CO., 237 I.C.C. 549, 565.)"  ID., AT 35.  SEE ALSO, EX PARTE
87, REVENUES IN WESTERN DISTRICT, 113 I.C.C. 3, 23. 

THIS CHANGE OF POLICY WAS THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF STEADILY
INCREASING PASSENGER OPERATING COSTS, TOGETHER WITH THE GROWTH OF
VIGOROUS COMPETITION FROM AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION
WHICH MADE IT FUTILE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE PASSENGER DEFICITS BY
INCREASING PASSENGER RATES.  THE RAILROADS WERE FORCED TO ABANDON
PASSENGER MILEAGE, REDUCE SERVICE AND IMPROVE THEIR FACILITIES, WHILE
FIXING PASSENGER RATES AT A LEVEL AS ADEQUATE AS COMPETITION
PERMITTED.  (FN9) 

IN RECENT YEARS, A NATIONWIDE PASSENGER DEFICIT HAS BEEN OBVIOUS
EXCEPT DURING THE PEAK OF WARTIME PASSENGER TRAFFIC.  THE RATIO BETWEEN
PASSENGER OPERATING EXPENSE AND REVENUE HAS VARIED IN DIFFERENT AREAS
BUT HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY UNFAVORABLE TO THE RAILROADS.  (FN10) 

TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF 1940 (FN11) REFLECT THIS BROAD CONCEPT OF THE
UNITY OF THE NATION'S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  THEY DIRECT THE
COMMISSION TO CONSIDER, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE NEED, IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND
THE NEED OF REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN SUCH SERVICE.  IT PERMEATES
SUCH GENERAL REVENUE PROCEEDINGS AS EX PARTE NOS. 162 AND 166, SUPRA.
IT LEAVES NO GROUND FOR A CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION MAY NOT GIVE WEIGHT
TO PASSENGER REVENUE DEFICITS IN PRESCRIBING INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES
TO MEET OVER-ALL REVENUE NEEDS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290
U.S. 70. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THAT COMMISSION MAY GIVE WEIGHT TO
DEFICITS IN PASSENGER REVENUE (EITHER INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE) WHEN
PRESCRIBING INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES UNDER SEC. 13(4).  IT IS
CONCEIVABLE THAT SOME CONSIDERATIONS PROPERLY GIVEN WEIGHT BY THE
COMMISSION IN PRESCRIBING INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES IN A GENERAL REVENUE
PROCEEDING MIGHT NOT BE APPLICABLE EQUALLY TO TRANSPORTATION WITHIN A
PARTICULAR STATE. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE CHARACTER
OF OPERATING CONDITIONS IN FLORIDA INTRASTATE PASSENGER TRAFFIC DIFFERS
SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THAT OF INTERSTATE PASSENGER OPERATIONS IN THE
SOUTHERN TERRITORY GENERALLY.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE COMMISSION OBSERVES
THAT: 

"INCREASED PASSENGER DEFICITS, BY REASON OF THE CONTINUING RISE IN
OPERATING EXPENSES AND THE GROWING USE OF OTHER FORMS OF
TRANSPORTATION, IS A CONDITION BEARING ALIKE UPON INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE RATES.  THERE IS HERE NO CLAIM OR SHOWING THAT THE PASSENGER
DEFICITS OF THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT RESULT FROM INTRASTATE AS WELL AS
INTERSTATE OPERATIONS, AND THE PASSENGER DEFICIT OF THE EAST COAST,
WHICH OPERATES ENTIRELY WITHIN FLORIDA, WOULD APPEAR TO INDICATE TO THE
CONTRARY. 

"THE RECORD AFFORDS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT IN
THIS RESPECT (PASSENGER DEFICITS) BETWEEN FLORIDA INTRASTATE TRAFFIC,
ON THE ONE HAND, AND INTERSTATE TRAFFIC TO AND FROM FLORIDA, ON THE
OTHER HAND.  THE QUESTION OF PASSENGER DEFICITS IS A SERIOUS ONE FOR
BOTH CARRIERS AND SHIPPERS, AND WOULD BECOME EVEN MORE SERIOUS FOR
INTERSTATE SHIPPERS IF THIS BURDEN WERE IMPOSED ENTIRELY UPON THEM
RATHER THAN BEING SHARED ON A LIKE BASIS WITH INTRASTATE SHIPPERS ON
THE SAME LINES."  278 I.C.C. AT 67-68.  SEE OPINION BELOW, 101 F. SUPP.
AT 944. 

IT APPEARS FROM THE REPORT IN EX PARTE NO. 168, 276 I.C.C. AT 40,
THAT, IN 1948, THE PASSENGER SERVICE OPERATING RATIO FOR THE SOUTHERN
TERRITORY WAS 127.3% WHILE THE OPERATING RATIOS OF THE THREE PRINCIPAL
FLORIDA RAILROADS IN THAT YEAR WERE 120%, 127% AND 128%.  IN FLORIDA,
MOREOVER, THE DISCONTINUANCE OF RAILROAD PASSENGER SERVICE WOULD NOT
PERMIT THE DISCONTINUANCE OF HIGH-SPEED TRACKS AND EQUIPMENT BECAUSE OF
THE NEED FOR FAST FREIGHT SCHEDULES TO TRANSPORT PERISHABLE FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES FROM FLORIDA.  THE COMMISSION DEALT WITH THE FREIGHT AND
PASSENGER REVENUES AND PROPERTIES OF THE FLORIDA ROADS AS A WHOLE WHEN
DETERMINING THE NEED FOR INCREASES IN INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES. 
NOTHING HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED WHICH WOULD DEMAND DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF
THESE PROPERTIES IN RELATION TO THE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES. 

THE COMMISSION ALSO FINDS THAT "THE FLORIDA INTRASTATE RATES (WITHOUT
THE 5% INCREASE)  ...  ARE ABNORMALLY LOW AND ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING
THEIR FAIR SHARE TO THE REVENUES REQUIRED BY RESPONDENTS (FLORIDA
RAILROADS) TO ENABLE THEM TO RENDER ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND
TO OPERATE PROFITABLY, AND THEREBY ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT  ...  ."  FINDING NO. 5, 278 I.C.C. AT 72. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE
COMMISSION TO TREAT FLORIDA INTRASTATE RATES DIFFERENTLY FROM
INTERSTATE RATES IN SOUTHERN TERRITORY.  INSTEAD, THERE ARE FINDINGS
THAT IT WOULD CAUSE UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IN FLORIDA IF THE INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES ARE NOT INCREASED SO AS TO
REFLECT THE SAME INCREASE AS IS APPLIED BY THE COMMISSION TO LIKE
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC IN THE SOUTHERN TERRITORY.  SEE NOTE 13, INFRA. 

THE SAME NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY APPLIES TO SEC. 13(4) AS TO
SEC. 15A(2).  WHICHEVER SECTION IS USED, THE SAME ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLIE THE RELATION BETWEEN FREIGHT RATES AND
PASSENGER DEFICITS, WHETHER INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE.  THIS WAS WELL
CONSIDERED THROUGHOUT THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN UNITED STATES V.
LOUISIANA, SUPRA.  IT WAS THERE SAID:    "THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY
HELD THAT THIS SECTION (SEC. 13(4)) IS TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF
SEC. 15A(2) AND AS SUPPLEMENTING IT, SO THAT THE FORBIDDEN
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY INTRASTATE RATES INCLUDES
THOSE CASES IN WHICH DISPARITY OF THE LATTER RATES OPERATES TO THWART
THE BROAD PURPOSE OF SEC. 15A TO MAINTAIN AN EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM BY ENABLING THE CARRIERS TO EARN A FAIR RETURN.  SO CONSTRUED,
SEC. 13(4) CONFERS ON THE COMMISSION THE POWER TO RAISE INTRASTATE
RATES SO THAT THE INTRASTATE TRAFFIC MAY PRODUCE ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE
EARNINGS REQUIRED TO MEET MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS AND TO YIELD
A FAIR RETURN ON THE VALUE OF PROPERTY DEVOTED TO THE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE, BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE."  PP. 74-75. 

THIS WAS CONFIRMED IN FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 5-6. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE COMMISSION MAY NOT GIVE
WEIGHT TO PASSENGER DEFICITS IN PRESCRIBING THE INTRASTATE FREIGHT
RATES IN FLORIDA, AS IT DOES IN PRESCRIBING INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN TERRITORY.  (FN12) 

II.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING ARE
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE RATES PRESCRIBED. 

SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS WHICH LEND SUPPORT TO ITS ORDER
ARE PRINTED IN THE MARGIN.  (FN13)  ITS AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE THE
RATES NOW BEFORE US RESTS ON THE PROVISION, IN SEC. 13(4), THAT WHEN IT
FINDS THAT AN INTRASTATE RATE CAUSES "ANY UNDUE, UNREASONABLE, OR
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE  ...  " IT
SHALL PRESCRIBE SUCH RATE AS, IN ITS JUDGMENT, WILL REMOVE THE
DISCRIMINATION.  NOTE 1, SUPRA.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDING NO. 7 MEETS
THIS REQUIREMENT.  THE COMMISSION THERE FINDS THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF
THE EXISTING INTRASTATE RATES WITHIN FLORIDA "ON BASES LOWER THAN THOSE
HEREIN APPROVED CAUSES, AND IN THE FUTURE WILL CAUSE, (1) IN ALL
INSTANCES, UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  ." 
278 I.C.C. AT 73.  IF SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS, THIS
ULTIMATE FINDING THUS SUSTAINS THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION AND THE
VALIDITY OF ITS ORDER.  (FN14)  NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 325
U.S. 507, 514; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1; 282 U.S. 194;
UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70.  THE COURT BELOW ADDS THAT IT
IS "CLEAR FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE THAT IT (THE EXISTING
INTRASTATE RATE) DID RESULT IN UNDUE, UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  ."  101 F. SUPP. 941,
945. 

THE NATURE AND ADEQUACY OF THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT AN
ULTIMATE FINDING OF "UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE"
WERE CONSIDERED IN NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IN THAT
CASE THIS COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS WERE NOT ADEQUATE
TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER TO RAISE STATE-WIDE INTRASTATE
PASSENGER RATES FROM 1.65 CENTS PER MILE TO 2.2 CENTS PER MILE,
ALTHOUGH THE LATTER RATE WAS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION AS A MINIMUM
RATE FOR COMPARABLE INTERSTATE PASSENGER SERVICE ON THE SAME LINES AND
TRAINS.  THE FINDING WHICH WAS PRIMARILY NEEDED, AND WAS THERE FOUND
LACKING, WAS ONE THAT THE INTRASTATE SERVICE AT 1.65 CENTS PER MILE DID
NOT CONTRIBUTE ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE EARNINGS REQUIRED TO MEET
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS AND TO YIELD A FAIR RETURN ON THE VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY DIRECTED TO THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, BOTH INTERSTATE
AND INTRASTATE. 

THIS COURT HELD THAT THE MERE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RATES FOR
COMPARABLE INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE SERVICE WAS NOT ENOUGH PER SE TO
ESTABLISH THE REQUISITE UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.  CONFRONTED WITH
EVIDENCE THAT THE INTERSTATE RATE OF 2.2 CENTS PER MILE WAS ABOVE A
REASONABLE RATE LEVEL FOR COMPARABLE INTRASTATE PASSENGER SERVICE, A
FINDING SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE WAS HELD TO BE NECESSARY TO SHOW THE
CONTRARY.  SUCH A FINDING, LACKING IN THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE, IS
SUPPLIED HERE BY FINDING NO. 3, WHICH STATES THAT THE "INTRASTATE RATES
... HEREIN APPROVED WILL NOT EXCEED A JUST AND REASONABLE LEVEL."  278
I.C.C. AT 72. 

IN THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THE EXISTING
INTRASTATE RATE WAS INADEQUATE.  IN FACT, ITS AMPLE ADEQUACY WAS
INDICATED BY EVIDENCE OF AN EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE VOLUME OF AVAILABLE
TRAFFIC AND PROFITS.  IN CONTRAST, THE COMMISSION, IN THE INSTANT CASE,
HAS FOUND THAT THE EXISTING "FLORIDA INTRASTATE RATES  ...  WHICH ARE
BELOW THE PROPOSED LEVEL HEREIN AUTHORIZED, ARE ABNORMALLY LOW AND ARE
NOT CONTRIBUTING THEIR FAIR SHARE TO THE REVENUES  ...  AND THAT THE
BURDEN THUS CAST UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS UNDUE TO THE EXTENT THAT
THESE INTRASTATE RATES  ...  ARE LESS THAN THEY WOULD BE ON THE BASIS
HEREIN APPROVED."  FINDING NO. 5, ID., AT 72-73, AND SEE 45-59.  THE
REPORT ADDS THAT "THE REVENUE LOSS AS ESTIMATED BY THE RESPONDENTS
(RAILROADS) BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE THE INCREASES HEREIN
SOUGHT IS $915,325 A YEAR."  ID., AT 65. 

WHEREAS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO INDICATE
THAT THE CONDITIONS IN THAT STATE WERE MORE FAVORABLE TO PROFITABLE
INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS THAN IN THE NATION AT LARGE,
HERE THE COMMISSION'S FINDING NO. 2 EXPRESSLY STATES THAT "THE
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS INCIDENT TO THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF
FREIGHT IN FLORIDA ARE NOT MORE FAVORABLE AND SUCH CONDITIONS IN THE
FLORIDA PENINSULA ARE SOMEWHAT LESS FAVORABLE THAN THOSE (1) WITHIN
SOUTHERN TERRITORY AND (2) BETWEEN FLORIDA AND INTERSTATE POINTS." 
ID., AT 72, AND SEE 63-67. 

SUPPORTING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN THE FLORIDA
INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES WILL NOT DRIVE AWAY BUSINESS BUT WILL PROVE
PROFITABLE AND REASONABLE, THE COMMISSION IN ITS FINDING NO. 6 SAYS
THAT "THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTRASTATE RATES  ...  INCREASED
SUFFICIENTLY TO EQUAL THE LEVEL HEREIN APPROVED WILL SUBSTANTIALLY
INCREASE RESPONDENTS' (RAILROADS') REVENUES THEREFROM, AND WILL
CONSTITUTE NOT MORE THAN A FAIR PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS' TOTAL INCOME
...  ."  ID., AT 73. 

THE FOREGOING FINDINGS COVER THE NEEDS EMPHASIZED IN THE NORTH
CAROLINA CASE.  THEY GO FAR BEYOND THE BARE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE
EXISTING INTRASTATE RATE AND THE PROPOSED MINIMUM RATE WHICH IS IN
SUBSTANTIAL UNIFORMITY WITH THE INTERSTATE RATE.  THESE FINDINGS
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED RATE IN FLORIDA WILL BE WITHIN THE ZONE
OF REASONABLENESS AND, IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION, WILL CAUSE THE
INTRASTATE FREIGHT TRAFFIC TO CONTRIBUTE A FAIR SHARE OF THE EARNINGS. 

THE COMMISSION HAS APPLIED TO THE FLORIDA OPERATIONS THE SAME
CONCLUSION IT REACHED AS TO THE NEED FOR INCREASED REVENUE ON A
NATIONAL BASIS AND HAS DISTRIBUTED THE BURDEN WITHIN FLORIDA ALONG THE
SAME LINES IT FOLLOWED WHEN ESTIMATING THE REVENUES AVAILABLE IN THE
SOUTHERN TERRITORY FROM INTRASTATE AS WELL AS INTERSTATE OPERATIONS. 
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO FLORIDA, THE
EVIDENCE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S NATIONWIDE ORDER
BECOMES THE NATURAL BASIS FOR ITS FLORIDA ORDER. 

THE COMMISSION IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS PROVIDED THAT THESE "FINDINGS
ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, OR ANY OTHER INTERESTED PARTY, TO APPLY FOR A MODIFICATION
THEREOF AS TO ANY SPECIFIC INTRASTATE RATES  ...  ON THE GROUND THAT
THEY ARE NOT RELATED TO THE INTERSTATE RATES  ...  ON LIKE TRAFFIC IN
SUCH A WAY AS TO CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT."  ID., AT 74.  CERTAIN OF THE RATES IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER ALREADY
HAVE BEEN MODIFIED OR REMOVED FROM THAT ORDER.  101 F. SUPP. AT 946. 

NO QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED HERE AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE EVIDENCE
UPON WHICH ANY OF THE FINDINGS ARE BASED.  ALTHOUGH NO SUCH POINT IS
URGED, SUPPORTING EVIDENCE APPEARS IN THE RECORD OF THE "FULL HEARING"
UNDER SEC. 13(4), ALL OF WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE IN THE COURT
BELOW.  MUCH OF THE FACTUAL MATERIAL THAT WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN
EX PARTE NO. 162 AND EX PARTE NO. 166, AND THE REPORTS IN THOSE CASES,
WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT BELOW IN THE PRESENT
PROCEEDINGS.  TO PERMIT SUCH MATERIAL AND REPORTS TO BE APPLIED UNDER
SEC. 15A BUT NOT UNDER SEC. 13(4) WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE
COMPLEMENTARY NATURE OF THOSE SECTIONS. 

"THE DECISION IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING, THAT THE INCREASE IN
INTERSTATE RATES WAS REASONABLE, WAS MADE IN THE HOPE THAT THE STATE
COMMISSIONS WOULD BRING INTRASTATE RATES INTO HARMONY.  WHEN THEY
FAILED TO DO SO, THE COMMISSION REAFFIRMED ITS FINDING THAT THE NEW
INTERSTATE RATES WERE REASONABLE AND FOUND THAT THE INTRASTATE RATES
MUST BE RAISED IN ORDER THAT THE INTRASTATE TRAFFIC MAY BEAR ITS FAIR
SHARE OF THE REVENUE BURDEN.  IT IS PLAIN FROM THE NATURE OF THE
INQUIRY THAT THE RATE LEVEL, TO WHICH BOTH CLASSES OF TRAFFIC WERE
RAISED, WAS FOUND REASONABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE TRAFFIC AS A WHOLE. 
WHERE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE TRAFFIC MOVE
ARE FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WITH RESPECT TO ALL FACTORS
BEARING ON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATE, AND THE TWO CLASSES ARE
SHOWN TO BE INTIMATELY BOUND TOGETHER, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO DEAL
WITH THE REASONABLENESS OF THE INTRASTATE RATES MORE SPECIFICALLY, OR
TO SEPARATE INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE COSTS AND REVENUES.  COMPARE
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. V. CALDWELL, 244 U.S. 617; UNITED STATES V.
LOUISIANA, SUPRA (290 U.S. 70); FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, ANTE (292
U.S.), P. 1."  ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
474, 483-484.  SEE ALSO, MONTANA V. UNITED STATES, 106 F. SUPP. 778,
783. 

THE APPELLANTS POINT OUT THAT IN THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE, THIS COURT
MENTIONED THE ABSENCE OF OTHER FINDINGS.  THOSE, HOWEVER, ARE NOT
NEEDED TO SUSTAIN AN ORDER ALREADY SUPPORTED BY SUCH FINDINGS AS HAVE
BEEN MADE IN THIS CASE.  (FN15) 

FOR EXAMPLE, THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE MENTIONS THE ABSENCE IN THAT
CASE OF A FINDING THAT THE EXISTING 1.65 CENT PER MILE INTRASTATE
PASSENGER RATE WAS CONFISCATORY.  SUCH A FINDING, SUPPORTED BY
COMPETENT EVIDENCE, WOULD HAVE PROVIDED A CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND FOR
ENJOINING THE STATE RATE.  SEE NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. CONLEY, 236
U.S. 605; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585.  THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER INTRASTATE RATES,
HOWEVER, IS NOT LIMITED TO CASES WHERE THOSE RATES ARE CONFISCATORY. 
IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE EXISTING INTRASTATE RATES CAUSE "UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE  ...  ."  IN THAT
EVENT, SEC. 13(4) DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE INTRASTATE RATES
THAT WILL REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATION WITHOUT RAISING THE RATE BEYOND THE
ZONE OF REASONABLENESS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA, AT 74
75; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 211; WISCONSIN R.
COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B.&Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 585-586. 

SIMILARLY, THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE MENTIONS, BUT DOES NOT MAKE
INDISPENSABLE, THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN DOLLARS WHICH WERE ABSENT
THERE.  REFERENCE WAS MADE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE TO THE ABSENCE OF
"FINDINGS AS TO WHAT CONTRIBUTION FROM INTRASTATE TRAFFIC WOULD
CONSTITUTE A FAIR PROPORTION OF THE RAILROAD'S TOTAL INCOME" AND ALSO
TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY "FINDING AS TO WHAT AMOUNT OF REVENUE WAS
REQUIRED TO ENABLE THESE RAILROADS TO OPERATE EFFICIENTLY."  325 U.S.
AT 516.  THE COURT EMPHASIZED THE COMMISSION'S RELIANCE ON "THE MERE
EXISTENCE OF A DISPARITY BETWEEN WHAT IT SAID WAS A REASONABLE
INTERSTATE RATE AND THE INTRASTATE RATE FIXED BY NORTH CAROLINA." 
IBID.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE COMMISSION DOES NOT RELY UPON THE MERE
DISPARITY BETWEEN THE INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE RATES.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THE COMMISSION STATES THAT THE FLORIDA INTRASTATE RATES "ARE
ABNORMALLY LOW AND ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING THEIR FAIR SHARE TO THE
REVENUES REQUIRED  ...  TO RENDER ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND TO
OPERATE PROFITABLY, AND THEREBY ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT  ...  ."  FINDING NO. 5, 278 I.C.C. AT 72. 
ALSO, IN FINDING NO. 6, IT SAYS THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROPOSED
INCREASES IN INTRASTATE RATES "WILL SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE RESPONDENTS'
REVENUES THEREFROM, AND WILL CONSTITUTE NOT MORE THAN A FAIR PROPORTION
OF RESPONDENTS' TOTAL INCOME  ...  ."  ID., AT 73.  MORE IS NOT
NEEDED.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY, FOR GENERAL REVENUE PURPOSES, TO
ESTABLISH FOR EACH ITEM IN EACH FREIGHT RATE A FULLY DEVELOPED RATE
CASE. 

"THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARM OF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE PARALYZED, IF
INSTEAD OF ADJUDICATING UPON THE RATES IN A LARGE TERRITORY ON EVIDENCE
DEEMED TYPICAL OF THE WHOLE RATE STRUCTURE, IT WERE OBLIGED TO CONSIDER
THE REASONABLENESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL RATE BEFORE CARRYING INTO EFFECT
THE NECESSARY INCREASED SCHEDULE."  UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290
U.S. 70, 75-76, AND SEE 78-79.  SEE ALSO, ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION
V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 474, 483; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
1, 9; GEORGIA P.S. COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 765, 774;
WISCONSIN R. COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B.&Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 588. 
WHERE THE COMMISSION SEEKS TO DEAL GENERALLY WITH RATES AND REVENUES IN
A LARGE AREA ON EVIDENCE TYPICAL OF THE AREA AS A WHOLE, IT MAY PROCEED
BY WAY OF A GENERAL ORDER SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE APPLICABLE
TO THE WHOLE TERRITORY.  (FN16)  AT THE SAME TIME IT IS WELL FOR IT TO
LEAVE THE WAY OPEN, AS IT DID HERE, FOR MODIFICATIONS OF THAT GENERAL
ORDER IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS WHERE THE GENERAL ORDER IS NOT JUSTLY
APPLICABLE.  NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 518, 535. 

FOR THESE REASONS, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE FINDINGS BEFORE US SUSTAIN
THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED TO
GIVE THE WEIGHT IT DID TO PASSENGER DEFICITS WHEN PRESCRIBING
INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES.  THE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED.    FN1
"(4)  WHENEVER IN ANY SUCH INVESTIGATION (WHERE RATES MADE BY
AUTHORITY OF A STATE ARE IN ISSUE) THE COMMISSION, AFTER FULL HEARING,
FINDS THAT ANY SUCH RATE, FARE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR
PRACTICE CAUSES ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, OR
PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN PERSONS OR LOCALITIES IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE ON
THE ONE HAND AND INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE ON THE OTHER HAND, OR
ANY UNDUE, UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE, WHICH IS HEREBY FORBIDDEN AND DECLARED TO BE
UNLAWFUL, IT SHALL PRESCRIBE THE RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE, OR THE MAXIMUM
OR MINIMUM, OR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM, THEREAFTER TO BE CHARGED, AND THE
CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE THEREAFTER TO BE OBSERVED, IN
SUCH MANNER AS, IN ITS JUDGMENT, WILL REMOVE SUCH ADVANTAGE,
PREFERENCE, PREJUDICE, OR DISCRIMINATION.  SUCH RATES, FARES, CHARGES,
CLASSIFICATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES SHALL BE OBSERVED WHILE IN
EFFECT BY THE CARRIERS PARTIES TO SUCH PROCEEDING AFFECTED THEREBY, THE
LAW OF ANY STATE OR THE DECISION OR ORDER OF ANY STATE AUTHORITY TO THE
CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  41 STAT. 484, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 13(4). 

FN2  SEC. 13(2), 36 STAT. 550, AS AMENDED, 41 STAT. 484, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 13(2); SEC. 15A(2), 54 STAT. 912, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15A(2); SEC. 1 OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, INSERTING A PREAMBLE TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C., NOTE PRECEDING SEC. 1. 

FN3  FOR EARLIER REPORTS SEE EX PARTE NO. 148, INCREASED RAILWAY
RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES, 1942, 248 I.C.C. 545.  THE SEVERAL
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECS. 15A OR 13(4) REFERRED TO IN THIS OPINION DEAL
AT LENGTH WITH MANY COMMODITY AND OTHER RATES OR CHARGES BESIDES THOSE
WHICH ARE CONTROLLED BY THE GENERAL PERCENTAGE INCREASES REFERRED TO IN
THE OPINION.  WHILE SUCH VARIATIONS ARE IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFICANT IN
ADJUSTING EACH ORDER TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS, THEIR CONSIDERATION IS NOT
NECESSARY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES BEFORE US.  THE
PERCENTAGES USED IN THIS OPINION ARE THOSE WHICH WERE ADOPTED BY THE
COURT BELOW FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES.  101 F. SUPP. 941, 943-944. 

FN4 IN EX PARTE NO. 166, 270 I.C.C. 403, 421, THE TABULATIONS OF OVER
ALL PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN FREIGHT RATES INCLUDE INTRASTATE TRAFFIC. 
THE REPORT SAYS:  "THE TABLE WHICH RELATES TO CLASS I RAILROADS, COVERS
ALL TRAFFIC, INTRASTATE AS WELL AS INTERSTATE, AND ASSUMES INCREASES TO
HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON INTRASTATE TRAFFIC SIMILARLY TO THOSE UPON
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC IN THE SAME TERRITORY, FOR THE WHOLE TIME."  IN
REFERRING TO REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS FOR A "CONSTRUCTIVE," NORMAL YEAR,
THE REPORT SAYS:  "THIS ESTIMATE IS UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT TIMELY
SIMILAR ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE MADE UPON INTRASTATE TRAFFIC."  ID., AT
428.  AS TO RATES OF RETURN ON PROPERTY VALUES, IT ADDS:  "THEY
PRESUPPOSE THAT GENERALLY SIMILAR INCREASES WILL BE PERMITTED BY STATE
AUTHORITIES ON INTRASTATE TRAFFIC, OR MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE OTHERWISE." 
ID., AT 437.  SEE ALSO, 269 I.C.C. AT 39, 94-95, AND 270 I.C.C. AT
440. 

FN5  IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS BASED UPON EX PARTE NO. 162, SUPRA, THE
FLORIDA COMMISSION GRANTED THE ORIGINAL 20% GENERAL INCREASE IN
INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES BUT DECLINED TO ALLOW INCREASES IN INTRASTATE
RATES ON LOGS MOVING TO THE MILLS, WET PHOSPHATE MOVING FROM THE WASHER
TO THE DRYING PLANT, WASTE WOOD MOVING TO RETORT OR RECOVERY PLANT AND
SUGAR CANE MOVING TO THE MILLS.  IT ALSO LIMITED RATE INCREASES ON
PULPWOOD TO 9%.  IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS TO CONFORM TO EX PARTE NO.
166, SUPRA, THE FLORIDA COMMISSION GRANTED THE ADDITIONAL 20% GENERAL
INCREASE IN INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES, BUT DECLINED TO APPROVE THE
FURTHER 5% INCREASE.  IT ALSO MADE SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS IN FAVOR OF
CERTAIN COMMODITIES.  AS THE ISSUES WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED ARE
SUFFICIENTLY RAISED BY THE FLORIDA COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING THE
FINAL 5% INCREASE, WE CONFINE OUR DISCUSSION TO THAT ITEM. 

FN6  WHILE THE COMMISSION STATES THAT ITS CONCLUSIONS DIFFER FROM
THOSE IN THE PROPOSED REPORT OF THE EXAMINER, THEY DO NOT SO DIFFER ON
THE ISSUES BEFORE US. 

FN7  FOR OTHER DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION AS TO INTRASTATE RATES
UNDER SEC. 13(3) AND (4), GROWING OUT OF EX PARTE NOS. 162 OR 166,
SUPRA, SEE INCREASES IN ALABAMA FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES, 274 I.C.C.
439; TEXAS INTRASTATE RATES, 273 I.C.C. 749; INCREASES IN TENNESSEE
FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES, 272 I.C.C. 625.  SEE ALSO, INCREASES IN
ARIZONA FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES, 270 I.C.C. 105.  A RECENT DECISION,
GROWING OUT OF EX PARTE NO. 168, INCREASED FREIGHT RATES, 1948, 276
I.C.C. 9, IS MONTANA INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES, 284 I.C.C.
167.  THE INTRASTATE RATES THERE ORDERED INTO EFFECT BY THE COMMISSION
WERE SET ASIDE IN MONTANA V. UNITED STATES, 106 F. SUPP. 778, AND 786;
JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED BY THIS COURT FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE INSTANT CASE, POST, P. 905. 

FN8 THE COMMISSION THERE SAID: 

"WE KNOW OF NO PROVISION OF LAW UNDER WHICH WE SHOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN
INCREASING FREIGHT RATES TO PROVIDE A RETURN UPON PROPERTY USED
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE PASSENGER SERVICE, MUCH LESS TO TAKE CARE OF LOSSES
INCURRED IN SUCH SERVICE.  IN OUR OPINION EACH BRANCH OF THE SERVICE
SHOULD CONTRIBUTE ITS PROPER SHARE OF THE COST OF OPERATION AND OF
RETURN UPON THE PROPERTY DEVOTED TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC."  31 I.C.C.
AT 392. 

FN9  PASSENGER SERVICE INVOLVES NOT ONLY TRANSPORTATION OF PEOPLE BUT
OF MAIL, EXPRESS, BAGGAGE, MILK AND OTHER "HEAD-END" SERVICES REQUIRING
THE SPEED AND SERVICE OF PASSENGER TRAINS.  THESE OPERATIONS HAVE SHOWN
A NATIONAL OPERATING DEFICIT IN EACH YEAR FROM 1936 THROUGH 1948.  276
I.C.C. AT 38. 

FN10  "  ...  BETWEEN THE END OF 1923 AND THE BEGINNING OF THE
PRESENT YEAR (1948), THE MILES OF LINE OPERATED IN PASSENGER SERVICE OF
THE CLASS I ROADS DECREASED FROM 224,762 TO 159,373  ...  OR 29.1
PERCENT IN 26 YEARS  ...  .  IN ADDITION TO TOTAL ABANDONMENTS, MUCH
CURTAILMENT OF SERVICE HAS OCCURRED, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PORTRAY
STATISTICALLY. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"  ...  FROM 1923 THROUGH 1933 BOTH THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS CARRIED
AND THE REVENUES FROM PASSENGER FARES DECLINED UNINTERRUPTEDLY. 
PASSENGERS CARRIED DECLINED FROM SLIGHTLY LESS THAN 1 BILLION IN THE
EARLIER YEAR TO LESS THAN HALF THAT FIGURE, OR 433 MILLIONS, IN ROUND
NUMBERS, IN THE LATER YEAR.  REVENUES FROM PASSENGER FARES FELL FROM
$1,148 MILLIONS TO $329 MILLIONS, A DECLINE BETWEEN THESE 2 YEARS OF
MORE THAN 70 PERCENT.  THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS ACCOMPANIED, EXCEPT FOR 1
YEAR, BY AN UNINTERRUPTED INCREASE IN THE PASSENGER SERVICE OPERATING
RATIO FROM 81.29 PERCENT IN 1923 TO 101.22 PERCENT IN 1930, THE LATTER
BEING THE FIRST YEAR OF THE 11 YEARS 1920-1930 IN WHICH THERE WAS AN
OPERATING DEFICIT IN THIS SERVICE.  SINCE THAT YEAR THERE HAS BEEN AN
ANNUAL OPERATING DEFICIT IN PASSENGER SERVICE, EXCEPT DURING THE WAR
YEARS 1942-45. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"PASSENGER SERVICE OPERATING RATIOS AND NET RAILWAY OPERATING
DEFICITS IN 1948, BY SPECIFIED DISTRICTS AND REGIONS: 

DISTRICT OR REGION                    OPERATING RATIO            NET
RAILWAY OPERATING DEFICIT 

EASTERN DISTRICT                        120.8
$216,450,000 

POCAHONTAS REGION                       177.8
35,725,000 

SOUTHERN REGION                         127.3
72,982,000 

WESTERN DISTRICT              132.2
234,625,000 

TOTAL                                   127.4          559,782,000" 

276 I.C.C. AT 36, 40; SEE ALSO, PP. 14-31 FOR DATA AS TO VALUE,
REVENUE, EXPENSES, OPERATING INCOME, RATE OF RETURN, TRAFFIC,
EFFICIENCY, ETC., AND PP. 32-40 AS TO PASSENGER DEFICITS. 

SEE MOULTON, THE AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM, C. V (1933); 63D,
64TH AND 65TH ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AT
PP. 3, 5 AND 41, RESPECTIVELY. 

FN11  "IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO PRESCRIBE JUST AND REASONABLE
RATES THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION, AMONG OTHER FACTORS,
TO THE EFFECT OF RATES ON THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC BY THE CARRIER OR
CARRIERS FOR WHICH THE RATES ARE PRESCRIBED; TO THE NEED, IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT
THE LOWEST COST CONSISTENT WITH THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICE; AND TO
THE NEED OF REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE CARRIERS, UNDER HONEST,
ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICE."  54
STAT. 912, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15A(2). 

"IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF
THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES
OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO
ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF
EACH; TO PROMOTE SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND
FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS; TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
REASONABLE CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST
DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES, OR UNFAIR OR
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; TO COOPERATE WITH THE SEVERAL STATES
AND THE DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THEREOF; AND TO ENCOURAGE FAIR WAGES
AND EQUITABLE WORKING CONDITIONS; - ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING,
COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER,
HIGHWAY, AND RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE.  ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE
ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW TO CARRY OUT THE ABOVE
DECLARATION OF POLICY."  54 STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C., NOTE PRECEDING SEC.
1. 

FN12  NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585, AND
NORFOLK & W.R. CO. V. CONLEY, 236 U.S. 605, FAVOR, RATHER THAN OPPOSE,
THIS POSITION.  IN THOSE CASES THIS COURT ENJOINED STATE AUTHORITIES
FROM ATTEMPTING TO RESTRICT AN INTRASTATE RAILROAD TO CONFISCATORILY
LOW FREIGHT OR PASSENGER RATES.  SUCH ACTION, HOWEVER, CARRIED NO
IMPLICATION THAT THE UNITED STATES' AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE RELIEF IS
LIMITED TO CASES OF THREATENED CONFISCATION.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, UNDER SECS.
15A(2) AND 13(4), TO OVERRIDE STATE-PRESCRIBED RATES WHICH UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE
RATES ARE ALSO CONFISCATORY. 

FN13  "2.  THAT THE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS INCIDENT TO THE
INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT IN FLORIDA ARE NOT MORE FAVORABLE
AND SUCH CONDITIONS IN THE FLORIDA PENINSULA ARE SOMEWHAT LESS
FAVORABLE THAN THOSE (1) WITHIN SOUTHERN TERRITORY AND (2) BETWEEN
FLORIDA AND INTERSTATE POINTS. 

"3.  THAT THE PRESENT INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES WITHIN
FLORIDA AND BETWEEN POINTS IN FLORIDA AND POINTS IN OTHER STATES ARE
JUST AND REASONABLE  ...  AND THAT INTRASTATE RATES, CHARGES, AND
MINIMUM WEIGHTS HEREIN APPROVED WILL NOT EXCEED A JUST AND REASONABLE
LEVEL. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"5.  THAT THE FLORIDA INTRASTATE RATES, CHARGES, AND MINIMUM WEIGHTS,
WHICH ARE BELOW THE LEVEL HEREIN AUTHORIZED, ARE ABNORMALLY LOW AND ARE
NOT CONTRIBUTING THEIR FAIR SHARE TO THE REVENUES REQUIRED BY
RESPONDENTS TO ENABLE THEM TO RENDER ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND
TO OPERATE PROFITABLY, AND THEREBY ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND AS SET FORTH IN THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY DECLARED BY THE CONGRESS, TO DEVELOP AND PRESERVE
A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE
COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE; AND THAT THE BURDEN THUS CAST UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS UNDUE TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE INTRASTATE RATES AND CHARGES
ARE LESS THAN THEY WOULD BE ON THE BASIS HEREIN APPROVED. 

"6.  THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INTRASTATE RATES AND CHARGES INCREASED
SUFFICIENTLY TO EQUAL THE LEVEL HEREIN APPROVED WILL SUBSTANTIALLY
INCREASE RESPONDENTS' REVENUES THEREFROM, AND WILL CONSTITUTE NOT MORE
THAN A FAIR PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS' TOTAL INCOME  ...  . 

"7.  THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF INTRASTATE RATES AND CHARGES WITHIN
FLORIDA ON BASES LOWER THAN THOSE HEREIN APPROVED CAUSES, AND IN THE
FUTURE WILL CAUSE, (1) IN ALL INSTANCES, UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, (2) IN NEARLY ALL INSTANCES, UNDUE PREFERENCE OF
AND ADVANTAGE TO LOCALITIES IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, AND UNDUE PREJUDICE
TO LOCALITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; ...  . 

"8.  THAT THIS UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AND UNDUE PREJUDICE SHOULD BE
REMOVED BY ESTABLISHING INTRASTATE RATES AND CHARGES BETWEEN POINTS IN
FLORIDA WHICH WILL REFLECT THE SAME INCREASES AS ARE, AND FOR THE
FUTURE MAY BE, MAINTAINED BY RESPONDENTS ON LIKE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC TO
AND FROM FLORIDA, AND WITHIN FLORIDA UNDER OUR AUTHORIZATIONS IN EX
PARTE NO. 162 AND EX PARTE NO. 166, MODIFIED AS HEREIN INDICATED AND AS
PROPOSED BEFORE THE FLORIDA COMMISSION IN PROCEEDINGS REFERRED TO
HEREIN: ...  (5) THAT NO INTRASTATE RATE OR CHARGE SHALL BE INCREASED
SO THAT IT WILL EXCEED THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE CORRESPONDING RATES OR
CHARGES CONTEMPORANEOUSLY MAINTAINED GENERALLY ON INTERSTATE TRAFFIC TO
AND FROM FLORIDA POINTS IN THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 21, 1948, TO, BUT NOT
INCLUDING, JANUARY 11, 1949; ...  . 

"THESE FINDINGS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE AUTHORITIES
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR ANY OTHER INTERESTED PARTY, TO APPLY FOR A
MODIFICATION THEREOF AS TO ANY SPECIFIC INTRASTATE RATES OR CHARGES ON
THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE NOT RELATED TO THE INTERSTATE RATES OR CHARGES
ON LIKE TRAFFIC IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT."  278 I.C.C. AT 72-74.    FN14  AN ALTERNATIVE
PROVISION OF SEC. 13(4) IS THAT WHENEVER IN SUCH AN INVESTIGATION THE
COMMISSION FINDS THAT AN INTRASTATE RATE CAUSES "ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, OR PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN PERSONS OR
LOCALITIES IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE ON THE ONE HAND AND INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE ON THE OTHER HAND  ...  IT SHALL PRESCRIBE THE RATE
...  THEREAFTER TO BE CHARGED ...  IN SUCH MANNER AS, IN ITS JUDGMENT,
WILL REMOVE SUCH ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, PREJUDICE, OR DISCRIMINATION." 
NOTE 1, SUPRA.  ON THIS POINT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING NO. 7 STATES
THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF INTRASTATE RATES IN FLORIDA "ON BASES LOWER
THAN THOSE HEREIN APPROVED CAUSES, AND IN THE FUTURE WILL CAUSE  ...
(2) IN NEARLY ALL INSTANCES, UNDUE PREFERENCE OF AND ADVANTAGE TO
LOCALITIES IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, AND UNDUE PREJUDICE TO LOCALITIES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; ...  ."  278 I.C.C. AT 73.  AS TO THIS ALTERNATIVE
PROVISION, SEE ALSO, WISCONSIN R. COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B.&Q.R. CO.,
257 U.S. 563; HOUSTON, E.&W.T.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342. 
IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE RESTRICTED FINDING AND OF THE DOUBT EXPRESSED BY
THE COURT BELOW AS TO THE ABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO SUSTAIN ITS
ACTION ON THAT GROUND, WE PLACE NO RELIANCE UPON THIS ALTERNATIVE
HERE. 

FN15  SEE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA,
SUPRA; LOUISIANA P.S. COMMISSION V. TEXAS & N.O.R. CO., 284 U.S. 125;
ALABAMA V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 776; GEORGIA P.S. COMMISSION V.
UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 765; NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 591;
WISCONSIN R. COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B.&Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563.. 

FN16  IN ITS REPORT THE COMMISSION SAYS "WHERE, AS IS THE CASE HERE,
THE INTRASTATE AND THE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC, AS A WHOLE, MOVES UNDER
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CONDITIONS, AND THE EXPENSE OF HANDLING THE TWO
CLASSES OF TRAFFIC ARE INEXTRICABLY WOVEN TOGETHER, AN ATTEMPT TO DO
THE IMPOSSIBLE, NAMELY AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW COSTS OF INTRASTATE SERVICE
SEGREGATED FROM INTERSTATE COSTS, TOGETHER WITH SIMILAR SEGREGATED
VALUATION OF CARRIER PROPERTY, WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE."  278
I.C.C. AT 66. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF OPINION THAT THE FACTS FOUND BY THE
COMMISSION WERE NOT ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE ORDER AND WOULD SET ASIDE
THE ORDER ON AUTHORITY OF NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S.
507. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE COURT HAS TAKEN AN UNPRECEDENTED AND, IN MY VIEW, AN UNWARRANTED
STEP IN ENLARGING THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
IT UPHOLDS THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO RAISE INTRASTATE FREIGHT
RATES, NOT BECAUSE THEY FAVOR INTRASTATE OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NOT
BECAUSE THEY FAIL TO YIELD THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE CARRIERS' REVENUE,
BUT BECAUSE THE CARRIERS' INTERSTATE PASSENGER OPERATIONS ARE LOSING
MONEY. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTRASTATE RATES STEMS FROM ITS
AUTHORITY TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE SHREVEPORT
RATE CASE, 234 U.S. 342.  (FN1)  BY SEC. 13(4) OF THE ACT, THE
COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO REGULATE INTRASTATE RATES WHICH ARE FOUND TO
BE DISCRIMINATORY.  THE KEY TO THIS REGULATORY AUTHORITY IS
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH PRESUPPOSES THAT
SOMEHOW OR OTHER THE PARTICULAR INTRASTATE RATES INTERFERE WITH OR
PREJUDICE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS PRINCIPLE IS EXPLICIT IN SEC.
13(4) (FN2) AND IN THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 13(4).  (FN3) 

IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO RATIONAL RELATION BETWEEN INTRASTATE FREIGHT
RATES AND INTERSTATE PASSENGER OPERATIONS.  THE PRESENT LEVEL OF
FREIGHT RATES IN FLORIDA NEITHER HAMPERS NOR OBSTRUCTS THE FREE FLOW OF
INTERSTATE PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION.  THEY DO NOT AFFECT ITS QUANTITY
OF FLOW.  THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO BASIS FOR A FINDING OF DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE COMMISSION, OF COURSE, IS AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE INTRASTATE RATES
SO THAT INTRASTATE OPERATIONS WILL PROVIDE A FAIR SHARE OF THE
CARRIERS' REVENUE.  (FN4)  SEE WISCONSIN COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B.&Q.R.
CO., 257 U.S. 563.  BUT THAT AUTHORITY RESTS ON THE COMMISSION'S POWER
TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION.  IF, FOR EXAMPLE, INTRASTATE FREIGHT
OPERATIONS FAIL TO PRODUCE AN ADEQUATE RETURN AS DETERMINED BY
REFERENCE TO THE COST OF THE INTRASTATE OPERATIONS AND THE INVESTMENT
IN THE INTRASTATE BUSINESS, INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST.  BUT THERE IS NO SUCH FAILURE IN THIS CASE.  INTRASTATE
FREIGHT OPERATIONS IN FLORIDA ARE AMPLY PROFITABLE AND CARRY THEIR FAIR
SHARE OF THE LOAD.  THE COMMISSION NEVERTHELESS HAS SADDLED THE
INTRASTATE FREIGHT BUSINESS WITH THE DEFICITS FROM THE INTERSTATE
PASSENGER BUSINESS.  IF THERE IS ANY DISCRIMINATION HERE, IT IS AGAINST
THE LOCAL FLORIDA SHIPPER. 

THE COMMISSION SURMISES BUT DOES NOT FIND THAT THE INTRASTATE
PASSENGER RATES CONTRIBUTE TO THE PASSENGER DEFICITS OF THE CARRIERS. 
BUT THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT EITHER THE INTRASTATE PASSENGER RATES OR
THE INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES DO IN FACT CONTRIBUTE TO THESE DEFICITS. 
MOREOVER, EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT INTRASTATE PASSENGER RATES DO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE PASSENGER DEFICITS, WE DO NOT KNOW THE AMOUNT.  THE
ABSENCE OF THESE MATERIAL FINDINGS (SEE NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 507) INDICATES TO ME THE SHORT CUT WHICH THE
COMMISSION IS TAKING TO ENLARGE ITS JURISDICTION TO UNPRECEDENTED
LIMITS. 

FN1  AS MR. JUSTICE HUGHES SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN THE SHREVEPORT
CASE SAID (234 U.S., P. 351):  "CONGRESS IS EMPOWERED TO REGULATE, -
THAT IS, TO PROVIDE THE LAW FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
TO ENACT 'ALL APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION' FOR ITS 'PROTECTION AND
ADVANCEMENT' (THE DANIEL BALL, 10 WALL.  557, 564); TO ADOPT MEASURES
'TO PROMOTE ITS GROWTH AND INSURE ITS SAFETY' (COUNTY OF MOBILE V.
KIMBALL, SUPRA); 'TO FOSTER, PROTECT, CONTROL AND RESTRAIN' (SECOND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, SUPRA).  ITS AUTHORITY, EXTENDING TO THESE
INTERSTATE CARRIERS AS INSTRUMENTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NECESSARILY
EMBRACES THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR OPERATIONS IN ALL MATTERS HAVING
SUCH A CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO INTERSTATE TRAFFIC THAT THE
CONTROL IS ESSENTIAL OR APPROPRIATE TO THE SECURITY OF THAT TRAFFIC, TO
THE EFFICIENCY OF THE INTERSTATE SERVICE, AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE CONDUCTED UPON FAIR
TERMS AND WITHOUT MOLESTATION OR HINDRANCE." 

FN2  THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF SEC. 13(4) READ:  "WHENEVER IN ANY SUCH
INVESTIGATION THE COMMISSION, AFTER FULL HEARING, FINDS THAT ANY SUCH
RATE, FARE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE CAUSES ANY
UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, OR PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN
PERSONS OR LOCALITIES IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE ON THE ONE HAND AND
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE ON THE OTHER HAND, OR ANY UNDUE,
UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, WHICH IS HEREBY FORBIDDEN AND DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL, IT
SHALL PRESCRIBE THE RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE, OR THE MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM,
OR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM, THEREAFTER TO BE CHARGED, AND THE
CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE THEREAFTER TO BE OBSERVED, IN
SUCH MANNER AS, IN ITS JUDGMENT, WILL REMOVE SUCH ADVANTAGE,
PREFERENCE, PREJUDICE, OR DISCRIMINATION  ...  ." 

FN3  SEE SHREVEPORT RATE CASE, SUPRA; AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. V. SOUTH
DAKOTA, 244 U.S. 617; WISCONSIN COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B.&Q.R. CO., 257
U.S. 563; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194; GEORGIA COMMISSION V.
UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 765; LOUISIANA COMMISSION V. TEXAS & N.O.R.
CO., 284 U.S. 125; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70; NORTH
CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 507. 

FN4  SECTION 15A(2) OF THE ACT READS IN PERTINENT PART:  "IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO PRESCRIBE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES THE
COMMISSION SHALL INITIATE, MODIFY, ESTABLISH OR ADJUST SUCH RATES SO
THAT CARRIERS AS A WHOLE  ...  WILL, UNDER HONEST, EFFICIENT AND
ECONOMICAL MANAGEMENT AND REASONABLE EXPENDITURES FOR MAINTENANCE OF
WAY, STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT, EARN AN AGGREGATE ANNUAL NET RAILWAY
OPERATING INCOME EQUAL, AS NEARLY AS MAY BE, TO A FAIR RETURN UPON THE
AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE RAILWAY PROPERTY OF SUCH CARRIERS HELD FOR AND
USED IN THE SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION  ...  ." 
..END :








STEELE V. BULOVA WATCH CO., INC. 344 U.S. 280 


NO. 38.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1952 - 194 F.2D
567, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE LANHAM TRADE-MARK ACT OF 1946, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1051 ET SEQ.,
A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO AWARD RELIEF TO AN
AMERICAN CORPORATION AGAINST ACTS OF TRADE-MARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION CONSUMMATED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY BY A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES WHO PURCHASES PARTS HERE AND SOME OF WHOSE
PRODUCTS, SOLD ABROAD, ENTER THIS COUNTRY WHERE THEY MAY REFLECT
ADVERSELY ON THE AMERICAN CORPORATION'S TRADE REPUTATION.  PP. 281
289. 

(A)  IT IS NOT MATERIAL THAT THE INFRINGING TRADE-MARK WAS AFFIXED IN
A FOREIGN COUNTRY, OR THAT THE PURCHASE OF PARTS IN THIS COUNTRY, WHEN
VIEWED IN ISOLATION, DID NOT VIOLATE ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES.  P.
287. 

(B)  AMERICAN BANANA CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S. 347,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 288-289. 

(C)  WHERE THERE CAN BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
ANOTHER NATION, THE DISTRICT COURT, IN EXERCISING ITS EQUITY POWERS,
MAY COMMAND PERSONS PROPERLY BEFORE IT TO CEASE OR PERFORM ACTS OUTSIDE
ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.  P. 289. 

STEELE ET AL. V. BULOVA WATCH CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND MONETARY
RELIEF BROUGHT BY AN AMERICAN CORPORATION AGAINST A CITIZEN AND
RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ACTS OF TRADE-MARK INFRINGEMENT AND
UNFAIR COMPETITION CONSUMMATED IN MEXICO.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  194 F.2D 567.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S.
962.  AFFIRMED, P. 289. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION
TO AWARD RELIEF TO AN AMERICAN CORPORATION AGAINST ACTS OF TRADE-MARK
INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CONSUMMATED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY BY
A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  BULOVA WATCH COMPANY,
INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, SUED STEELE, (FN1) PETITIONER HERE, IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 
THE GIST OF ITS COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT "BULOVA," A TRADE-MARK PROPERLY
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, HAD LONG DESIGNATED THE
WATCHES PRODUCED AND NATIONALLY ADVERTISED AND SOLD BY THE BULOVA WATCH
COMPANY; AND THAT PETITIONER, A UNITED STATES CITIZEN RESIDING IN SAN
ANTONIO, TEXAS, CONDUCTED A WATCH BUSINESS IN MEXICO CITY WHERE,
WITHOUT BULOVA'S AUTHORIZATION AND WITH THE PURPOSE OF DECEIVING THE
BUYING PUBLIC, HE STAMPED THE NAME "BULOVA" ON WATCHES THERE ASSEMBLED
AND SOLD.  BASING ITS PRAYER ON THESE ASSERTED VIOLATIONS OF THE TRADE
MARK LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, (FN2) BULOVA REQUESTED INJUNCTIVE AND
MONETARY RELIEF.  PERSONALLY SERVED WITH PROCESS IN SAN ANTONIO,
PETITIONER ANSWERED BY CHALLENGING THE COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT AND BY INTERPOSING SEVERAL DEFENSES,
INCLUDING HIS DUE REGISTRATION IN MEXICO OF THE MARK "BULOVA" AND THE
PENDENCY OF MEXICAN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS THEREON, TO THE MERITS OF
BULOVA'S CLAIM.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, HAVING INITIALLY RESERVED DISPOSITION
OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE UNTIL A HEARING ON THE MERITS, INTERRUPTED
THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT "WITH
PREJUDICE," ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER THE
CAUSE.  THIS DECISION RESTED ON THE COURT'S FINDINGS THAT PETITIONER
HAD COMMITTED NO ILLEGAL ACTS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  (FN3)  WITH
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED; IT HELD THAT THE
PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE DISCLOSED A CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE REACH OF
THE LANHAM TRADE-MARK ACT OF 1946, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1051 ET SEQ. (FN4)
THE DISSENTING JUDGE THOUGHT THAT "SINCE THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF
SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED SOLELY TO ACTS DONE AND TRADE CARRIED ON UNDER
FULL AUTHORITY OF MEXICAN LAW, AND WERE CONFINED TO AND AFFECTED ONLY
THAT NATION'S INTERNAL COMMERCE, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN SUCH CONDUCT."  (FN5)  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
343 U.S. 962. 

PETITIONER CONCEDES, AS HE MUST, THAT CONGRESS IN PRESCRIBING
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS MAY PROJECT THE IMPACT OF
ITS LAWS BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  CF.
FOLEY BROS., INC. V. FILARDO, 336 U.S. 281, 284-285 (1949); BLACKMER V.
UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 436-437 (1932); BRANCH V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 141 F.2D 31 (1944).  RESOLUTION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE
IN THIS CASE THEREFORE DEPENDS ON CONSTRUCTION OF EXERCISED
CONGRESSIONAL POWER, NOT THE LIMITATIONS UPON THAT POWER ITSELF.  AND
SINCE WE DO NOT PASS ON THE MERITS OF BULOVA'S CLAIM, WE NEED NOT NOW
EXPLORE EVERY FACET OF THIS COMPLEX (FN6) AND CONTROVERSIAL (FN7) ACT. 

THE LANHAM ACT, ON WHICH BULOVA POSITED ITS CLAIMS TO RELIEF, CONFERS
BROAD JURISDICTIONAL POWERS UPON THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
STATUTE'S EXPRESSED INTENT IS "TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE CONTROL
OF CONGRESS BY MAKING ACTIONABLE THE DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING USE OF
MARKS IN SUCH COMMERCE; TO PROTECT REGISTERED MARKS USED IN SUCH
COMMERCE FROM INTERFERENCE BY STATE, OR TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION; TO
PROTECT PERSONS ENGAGED IN SUCH COMMERCE AGAINST UNFAIR COMPETITION; TO
PREVENT FRAUD AND DECEPTION IN SUCH COMMERCE BY THE USE OF
REPRODUCTIONS, COPIES, COUNTERFEITS, OR COLORABLE IMITATIONS OF
REGISTERED MARKS; AND TO PROVIDE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES STIPULATED BY
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS RESPECTING TRADE-MARKS, TRADE NAMES, AND
UNFAIR COMPETITION ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN
NATIONS."  SEC. 45, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1127.  TO THAT END, SEC. 32 (1)
HOLDS LIABLE IN A CIVIL ACTION BY A TRADE-MARK REGISTRANT "ANY PERSON
WHO SHALL, IN COMMERCE," INFRINGE A REGISTERED TRADE-MARK IN A MANNER
THERE DETAILED.  (FN8)  "COMMERCE" IS DEFINED AS "ALL COMMERCE WHICH
MAY LAWFULLY BE REGULATED BY CONGRESS."  SEC. 45, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1127. 
THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE GRANTED JURISDICTION OVER
ALL ACTIONS "ARISING UNDER" THE ACT, SEC. 39, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1121, AND
CAN AWARD RELIEF WHICH MAY INCLUDE INJUNCTIONS, (FN9) "ACCORDING TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY," TO PREVENT THE VIOLATION OF ANY REGISTRANT'S
RIGHTS.  SEC. 34, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1116. 

THE RECORD REVEALS THE FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT FACTS WHICH FOR PURPOSES
OF A DISMISSAL MUST BE TAKEN AS TRUE:  BULOVA WATCH COMPANY, ONE OF THE
LARGEST WATCH MANUFACTURERS IN THE WORLD, ADVERTISED AND DISTRIBUTED
"BULOVA" WATCHES IN THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  SINCE
1929, ITS AURAL AND VISUAL ADVERTISING, IN SPANISH AND ENGLISH, HAS
PENETRATED MEXICO.  PETITIONER, LONG A RESIDENT OF SAN ANTONIO, FIRST
ENTERED THE WATCH BUSINESS THERE IN 1922, AND IN 1926 LEARNED OF THE
TRADE-MARK "BULOVA."  HE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED HIS BUSINESS TO
MEXICO CITY AND, DISCOVERING THAT "BULOVA" HAD NOT BEEN REGISTERED IN
MEXICO, IN 1933 PROCURED THE MEXICAN REGISTRATION OF THAT MARK. 
ASSEMBLING SWISS WATCH MOVEMENTS AND DIALS AND CASES IMPORTED FROM THAT
COUNTRY AND THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER IN MEXICO CITY STAMPED HIS
WATCHES WITH "BULOVA" AND SOLD THEM AS SUCH.  AS A RESULT OF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF SPURIOUS "BULOVAS," BULOVA WATCH COMPANY'S TEXAS SALES
REPRESENTATIVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS FROM RETAIL JEWELERS IN THE
MEXICAN BORDER AREA WHOSE CUSTOMERS BROUGHT IN FOR REPAIR DEFECTIVE
"BULOVAS" WHICH UPON INSPECTION OFTEN TURNED OUT NOT TO BE PRODUCTS OF
THAT COMPANY.  MOREOVER, SUBSEQUENT TO OUR GRANT OF CERTIORARI IN THIS
CASE THE PROLONGED LITIGATION IN THE COURTS OF MEXICO HAS COME TO AN
END.  ON OCTOBER 6, 1952, THE SUPREME COURT OF MEXICO RENDERED A
JUDGMENT UPHOLDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING WHICH HAD NULLIFIED
PETITIONER'S MEXICAN REGISTRATION OF "BULOVA."  (FN10) 

ON THE FACTS IN THE RECORD WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT
PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES, WHEN VIEWED AS A WHOLE, FALL WITHIN THE
JURISDICTIONAL SCOPE OF THE LANHAM ACT.  THIS COURT HAS OFTEN STATED
THAT THE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS WILL NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS A CONTRARY LEGISLATIVE INTENT APPEARS. 
E.G., BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 437 (1932); FOLEY BROS.,
INC. V. FILARDO, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1949).  THE QUESTION THUS IS
"WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE THE LAW APPLICABLE" TO THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE.  IBID.  FOR "THE UNITED STATES IS NOT DEBARRED BY ANY RULE
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FROM GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF ITS OWN CITIZENS
UPON THE HIGH SEAS OR EVEN IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHEN THE RIGHTS OF
OTHER NATIONS OR THEIR NATIONALS ARE NOT INFRINGED.  WITH RESPECT TO
SUCH AN EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW, BUT SOLELY OF THE PURPORT OF THE MUNICIPAL LAW WHICH ESTABLISHES
THE DUTY OF THE CITIZEN IN RELATION TO HIS OWN GOVERNMENT."  SKIRIOTES
V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69, 73 (1941).  (FN11) AS MR. JUSTICE MINTON, THEN
SITTING ON THE COURT OF APPEALS, APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE IN A CASE
INVOLVING UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION:  "CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO
PREVENT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES IN FOREIGN COMMERCE BY CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE ACTS ARE DONE OUTSIDE THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES."  BRANCH V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 141 F.2D 31, 35 (1944).  NOR HAS THIS COURT IN TRACING THE
COMMERCE SCOPE OF STATUTES DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE POLICY BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF OR BY PRIVATE LITIGANTS
PROCEEDING UNDER STATUTORY RIGHT.  THOMSEN V. CAYSER, 243 U.S. 66
(1917); MANDEVILLE ISLAND FARMS V. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO., 334 U.S.
219 (1948); CF. VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377 (1948);
FOLEY BROS., INC. V. FILARDO, SUPRA.  THE PUBLIC POLICY SUBSERVED IS
THE SAME IN EACH CASE.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE BROAD JURISDICTIONAL GRANT
IN THE LANHAM ACT, WE DEEM ITS SCOPE TO ENCOMPASS PETITIONER'S
ACTIVITIES HERE.  HIS OPERATIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS WERE NOT CONFINED
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF A FOREIGN NATION.  HE BOUGHT COMPONENT
PARTS OF HIS WARES IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SPURIOUS "BULOVAS"
FILTERED THROUGH THE MEXICAN BORDER INTO THIS COUNTRY; HIS COMPETING
GOODS COULD WELL REFLECT ADVERSELY ON BULOVA WATCH COMPANY'S TRADE
REPUTATION IN MARKETS CULTIVATED BY ADVERTISING HERE AS WELL AS
ABROAD.  UNDER SIMILAR FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES HAVE AWARDED RELIEF TO REGISTERED TRADE-MARK OWNERS, EVEN PRIOR
TO THE ADVENT OF THE BROADENED COMMERCE PROVISIONS OF THE LANHAM ACT. 
(FN12)  GEORGE W. LUFT CO. V. ZANDE COSMETIC CO., 142 F.2D 536 (1944);
HECKER H-O CO. V. HOLLAND FOOD CORP., 36 F.2D 767 (1929); VACUUM OIL
CO. V. EAGLE OIL CO., 154 F. 867 (1907), AFF'D, 162 F. 671 (1908).  CF.
MORRIS V. ALTSTEDTER, 93 MISC. 329, 156 N.Y.S. 1103, AFF'D, 173 APP.
DIV. 932, 158 N.Y.S. 1123 (1916).  EVEN WHEN MOST JEALOUSLY READ, THAT
ACT'S SWEEPING REACH INTO "ALL COMMERCE WHICH MAY LAWFULLY BE REGULATED
BY CONGRESS" DOES NOT CONSTRICT PRIOR LAW OR DEPRIVE COURTS OF
JURISDICTION PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED.  WE DO NOT DEEM MATERIAL THAT
PETITIONER AFFIXED THE MARK "BULOVA" IN MEXICO CITY RATHER THAN HERE,
(FN13) OR THAT HIS PURCHASES IN THE UNITED STATES WHEN VIEWED IN
ISOLATION DO NOT VIOLATE ANY OF OUR LAWS.  THEY WERE ESSENTIAL STEPS IN
THE COURSE OF BUSINESS CONSUMMATED ABROAD; ACTS IN THEMSELVES LEGAL
LOSE THAT CHARACTER WHEN THEY BECOME PART OF AN UNLAWFUL SCHEME. 
UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL CO., 321 U.S. 707, 720 (1944);
UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241, 254 (1942).  "IN SUCH A
CASE IT IS NOT MATERIAL THAT THE SOURCE OF THE FORBIDDEN EFFECTS UPON
...  COMMERCE ARISES IN ONE PHASE OR ANOTHER OF THAT PROGRAM." 
MANDEVILLE ISLAND FARMS V. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO., 334 U.S. 219,
237 (1948).  CF. UNITED STATES V. FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES, 324 U.S. 293,
297-298 (1945).  IN SUM, WE DO NOT THINK THAT PETITIONER BY SO SIMPLE A
DEVICE CAN EVADE THE THRUST OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IN A
PRIVILEGED SANCTUARY BEYOND OUR BORDERS. 

AMERICAN BANANA CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S. 347 (1909), COMPELS
NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY.  THIS COURT THERE UPHELD A COURT OF APPEALS'
AFFIRMANCE OF THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF A PRIVATE DAMAGE ACTION
PREDICATED ON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  (FN14)  THE
COMPLAINT, IN SUBSTANCE, CHARGED UNITED FRUIT COMPANY WITH
MONOPOLIZATION OF THE BANANA IMPORT TRADE BETWEEN CENTRAL AMERICA AND
THE UNITED STATES, AND WITH THE INSTIGATION OF COSTA RICAN GOVERNMENTAL
AUTHORITIES TO SEIZE PLAINTIFF'S PLANTATION AND PRODUCE IN PANAMA.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REASONED THAT PLAINTIFF HAD SHOWN NO DAMAGE FROM THE
ASSERTED MONOPOLY AND COUND NOT FOUND LIABILITY ON THE SEIZURE, A
SOVEREIGN ACT OF ANOTHER NATION.  (FN15)  THIS COURT AGREED THAT A
VIOLATION OF AMERICAN LAWS COULD NOT BE GROUNDED ON A FOREIGN NATION'S
SOVEREIGN ACTS.  VIEWED IN ITS CONTEXT, THE HOLDING IN THAT CASE WAS
NOT MEANT TO CONFER BLANKET IMMUNITY ON TRADE PRACTICES WHICH RADIATE
UNLAWFUL CONSEQUENCES HERE, MERELY BECAUSE THEY WERE INITIATED OR
CONSUMMATED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
UNLAWFUL EFFECTS IN THIS COUNTRY, ABSENT IN THE POSTURE OF THE BANANA
CASE BEFORE US, ARE OFTEN DECISIVE; THIS COURT HELD AS MUCH IN THOMSEN
V. CAYSER, 243 U.S. 66 (1917), AND UNITED STATES V. SISAL SALES CORP.,
274 U.S. 268 (1927).  (FN16)  AS IN SISAL, THE CRUX OF THE COMPLAINT
HERE IS "NOT MERELY OF SOMETHING DONE BY ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AT THE
INSTIGATION OF PRIVATE PARTIES;" PETITIONER BY HIS "OWN DELIBERATE
ACTS, HERE AND ELSEWHERE,  ...  BROUGHT ABOUT FORBIDDEN RESULTS WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES."  274 U.S., AT 276.  AND, UNLIKE THE BANANA CASE,
WHATEVER RIGHTS MEXICO ONCE CONFERRED ON PETITIONER ITS COURTS NOW HAVE
DECIDED TO TAKE AWAY. 

NOR DO WE DOUBT THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION TO AWARD
APPROPRIATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IF WARRANTED BY THE FACTS AFTER TRIAL. 
15 U.S.C. SECS. 1116, 1121.  MEXICO'S COURTS HAVE NULLIFIED THE MEXICAN
REGISTRATION OF "BULOVA"; THERE IS THUS NO CONFLICT WHICH MIGHT AFFORD
PETITIONER A PRETEXT THAT SUCH RELIEF WOULD IMPUGN FOREIGN LAW.  THE
QUESTION, THEREFORE, WHETHER A VALID FOREIGN REGISTRATION WOULD AFFECT
EITHER THE POWER TO ENJOIN OR THE PROPRIETY OF ITS EXERCISE IS NOT
BEFORE US.  WHERE, AS HERE, THERE CAN BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF ANOTHER NATION, THE DISTRICT COURT IN EXERCISING ITS
EQUITY POWERS MAY COMMAND PERSONS PROPERLY BEFORE IT TO CEASE OR
PERFORM ACTS OUTSIDE ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.  NEW JERSEY V. NEW
YORK, 283 U.S. 473 (1931); MASSIE V. WATTS, 6 CRANCH 148 (1810); THE
SALTON SEA CASES, 172 F. 792 (1909); CF. UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD
CO., 332 U.S. 319, 351-352, 363 (1947).  (FN17)  AFFIRMED.    FN1
JOINED AS PARTIES DEFENDANT WERE S. STEELE Y CIA., S.A., A MEXICAN
CORPORATION TO WHOSE RIGHTS STEELE HAD SUCCEEDED, AND STEELE'S WIFE
SOFIA WHO POSSESSED A COMMUNITY INTEREST UNDER TEXAS LAW. 

FN2  WHILE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PLAINTIFF FULLY RELIED ON HIS
ASSERTED CAUSE OF ACTION "ARISING UNDER" THE LANHAM ACT, DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP AND THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WERE ALSO AVERRED.  AS WE ARE
CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS SUIT, WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THE
SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, OF THOSE AVERMENTS.  CF. PECHEUR LOZENGE CO. V.
NATIONAL CANDY CO., 315 U.S. 666 (1942), DECIDED PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF
THE LANHAM ACT.  SEE ALSO NOTE 6, INFRA. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT'S UNREPORTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, AS AMENDED, APPEAR AT R. 246-248.  CF. R. 232, 237. 

FN4  194 F.2D 567 (C.A. 5TH CIR. 1952). 

FN5  ID., AT 573. 

FN6  FOR ABLE COURT OF APPEALS DISCUSSIONS OF THE IMPACT OF ERIE R.
CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) ON THE LAW PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT TO
THE LANHAM ACT, SEE DAD'S ROOT BEER CO. V. DOC'S BEVERAGES, INC., 193
F.2D 77 (C.A.2D CIR. 1951); S.C. JOHNSON & SON V. JOHNSON, 175 F.2D 176
(C.A.2D CIR. 1949); CAMPBELL SOUP CO. V. ARMOUR & CO., 175 F.2D 795
(C.A. 3D CIR. 1949); STAUFFER V. EXLEY, 184 F.2D 962 (C.A. 9TH CIR.
1950).  SEE ALSO NATIONAL FRUIT PRODUCT CO. V. DWINELL-WRIGHT CO., 47
F. SUPP. 499 (1942).  AND SEE ZLINKOFF, ERIE V. TOMPKINS:  IN RELATION
TO THE LAW OF TRADE-MARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION, 42 COL. L. REV. 955
(1942); BUNN, THE NATIONAL LAW OF UNFAIR COMPETITION, 62 HARV. L. REV.
987 (1949). 

FN7 SEE, E.G., TIMBERG, TRADE-MARKS, MONOPOLY, AND THE RESTRAINTS OF
COMPETITION, 14 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROBS.  323 (1949); CF. BROWN,
ADVERTISING AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST: LEGAL PROTECTION OF TRADE SYMBOLS,
57 YALE L.J. 1165 (1948).  COMPARE, E.G., PATTISHALL, TRADE-MARKS AND
THE MONOPOLY PHOBIA, 50 MICH. L. REV. 967 (1952); ROGERS, THE LANHAM
ACT AND THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF TRADE-MARKS, 14 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROBS. 
173 (1949). 

FN8  "ANY PERSON WHO SHALL, IN COMMERCE, (A) USE, WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF THE REGISTRANT, ANY REPRODUCTION, COUNTERFEIT, COPY, OR COLORABLE
IMITATION OF ANY REGISTERED MARK IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE, OFFERING
FOR SALE, OR ADVERTISING OF ANY GOODS OR SERVICES ON OR IN CONNECTION
WITH WHICH SUCH USE IS LIKELY TO CAUSE CONFUSION OR MISTAKE OR TO
DECEIVE PURCHASERS AS TO THE SOURCE OF ORIGIN OF SUCH GOODS OR
SERVICES; OR (B) REPRODUCE, COUNTERFEIT, COPY, OR COLORABLY IMITATE ANY
SUCH MARK AND APPLY SUCH REPRODUCTION, COUNTERFEIT, COPY, OR COLORABLE
IMITATION TO LABELS, SIGNS, PRINTS, PACKAGES, WRAPPERS, RECEPTACLES, OR
ADVERTISEMENTS INTENDED TO BE USED UPON OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE
IN COMMERCE OF SUCH GOODS OR SERVICES, SHALL BE LIABLE TO A CIVIL
ACTION BY THE REGISTRANT FOR ANY OR ALL OF THE REMEDIES HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER,  ...  ."  15 U.S.C. SEC. 1114(1). 

FN9  SEE ALSO SEC. 35, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1117 (PROFITS, DAMAGES AND
COSTS); SEC. 36, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1118 (DESTRUCTION OF INFRINGING
ARTICLES); SEC. 38, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1120 (DAMAGES FOR FRAUDULENT
REGISTRATION). 

FN10  SIDNEY STEELE V. SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY, DECIDED BY
THE SECOND COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MEXICO.  THAT DECISION IS
REPRINTED, AS TRANSLATED, AS APPENDIX III TO RESPONDENT'S BRIEF. 

FN11  SEE, E.G., 1 OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW (6TH ED.,
LAUTERPACHT, 1947), SEC. 145, P. 297. 

FN12  CF. 15 U.S.C. SECS. 96, 124, REQUIRING THE INFRINGING USE TO BE
"IN COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH A FOREIGN NATION." 
UNITED STATES PRINTING & LITHOGRAPH CO. V. GRIGGS, COOPER & CO., 279
U.S. 156 (1929); PURE OIL CO. V. PURITAN OIL CO., 127 F.2D 6 (1942). 

FN13  SEE VACUUM OIL CO. V. EAGLE OIL CO., 154 F. 867 (1907). 

FN14  166 F. 261 (C.A.2D CIR. 1908), AFFIRMING 160 F. 184. 

FN15  166 F., AT 264, 266. 

FN16  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D
416, 443-444 (1945).  CF. FORD V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 593, 620-621
(1927); LAMAR V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 60, 65-66 (1916); STRASSHEIM
V. DAILY, 221 U.S. 280, 284-285 (1911). 

FN17  CF. COLE V. CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107, 117-119 (1890); PHELPS V.
MCDONALD, 99 U.S. 298, 307-308 (1879); SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION V. MINAS DE ARTEMISA, S.A., 150 F.2D 215 (1945);
RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SECS. 94, 96.  AND SEE BRITISH NYLON
SPINNERS, LTD. V. IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., (1952) 2 ALL ENG.
780, 782 (C.A.). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE LANHAM ACT IS TO PREVENT DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING
USE OF TRADE-MARKS.  SEC. 45, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1127.  TO FURTHER THAT
PURPOSE THE ACT MAKES LIABLE IN AN ACTION BY THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF
THE TRADE-MARK "ANY PERSON WHO SHALL, IN COMMERCE," INFRINGE SUCH TRADE
MARK.  SEC. 32(1), 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1114.  "COMMERCE" IS DEFINED AS BEING
"ALL COMMERCE WHICH MAY LAWFULLY BE REGULATED BY CONGRESS."  SEC. 45,
15 U.S.C. SEC. 1127. 

THE COURT'S OPINION BASES JURISDICTION ON THE LANHAM ACT.  IN THE
INSTANT CASE THE ONLY ALLEGED ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT OCCURRED IN MEXICO. 
THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WERE THE STAMPING OF THE NAME "BULOVA" ON
WATCHES AND THE SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE WATCHES.  THERE WERE PURCHASES
OF ASSEMBLY MATERIAL IN THIS COUNTRY BY PETITIONERS.  PURCHASERS FROM
PETITIONERS IN MEXICO BROUGHT THE ASSEMBLED WATCHES INTO THE UNITED
STATES.  ASSUMING THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO CONTROL ACTS OF OUR
CITIZENS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS ONE OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION:  WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED THE ACT TO APPLY TO
THE CONDUCT HERE EXPOSED. 

"THE CANON OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH TEACHES THAT LEGISLATION OF
CONGRESS, UNLESS A CONTRARY INTENT APPEARS, IS MEANT TO APPLY ONLY
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, BLACKMER V.
UNITED STATES, (284 U.S. 421), 437, IS A VALID APPROACH WHEREBY
UNEXPRESSED CONGRESSIONAL INTENT MAY BE ASCERTAINED."  FOLEY BROS.,
INC. V. FILARDO, 336 U.S. 281, 285.  UTILIZING THIS APPROACH, DOES SUCH
A CONTRARY INTENT APPEAR IN THE LANHAM ACT?  IF IT DOES, IT APPEARS
ONLY IN BROAD AND GENERAL TERMS, I.E., "TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE
CONTROL OF CONGRESS  ...  ."  SEC. 45, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1127.  LANGUAGE
OF SUCH NONEXPLICIT SCOPE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN CONSTRUING THE
SHERMAN ACT IN AMERICAN BANANA CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S. 347,
357.  "WORDS HAVING UNIVERSAL SCOPE, SUCH AS 'EVERY CONTRACT IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE,' 'EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE,' ETC., WILL BE
TAKEN AS A MATTER OF COURSE TO MEAN ONLY EVERY ONE SUBJECT TO SUCH
LEGISLATION, NOT ALL THAT THE LEGISLATOR SUBSEQUENTLY MAY BE ABLE TO
CATCH."  THE AMERICAN BANANA CO. CASE CONFINED THE SHERMAN ACT IN ITS
"OPERATION AND EFFECT TO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OVER WHICH THE LAWMAKER
HAS GENERAL AND LEGITIMATE POWER."  213 U.S., AT 357.  THIS WAS HELD TO
BE TRUE AS TO ACTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES WERE
ALL CORPORATE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO PROCESS OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE GENERALLY PHRASED CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IN THE LANHAM ACT IS TO BE
COMPARED WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WHICH WE
CONSTRUED IN VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377.  THERE WE
HELD THAT BY EXPLICITLY STATING THAT THE ACT COVERED "POSSESSIONS" OF
THE UNITED STATES, CONGRESS HAD INTENDED THAT THE ACT WAS TO BE IN
EFFECT IN ALL "POSSESSIONS" AND WAS NOT TO BE APPLIED MERELY IN THOSE
AREAS UNDER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OR SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

THERE ARE, OF COURSE, CASES IN WHICH A STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC CONTRARY
INTENT WILL NOT BE DEEMED SO NECESSARY.  WHERE THE CASE INVOLVES THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE "ENACTED BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST OBSTRUCTION, OR FRAUD  ...
COMMITTED BY ITS OWN CITIZENS," IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR CONGRESS TO
MAKE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS THAT THE LAW "SHALL INCLUDE THE HIGH SEAS AND
FOREIGN COUNTRIES."  UNITED STATES V. BOWMAN, 260 U.S. 94, 98.  THIS IS
ALSO TRUE WHEN IT IS A QUESTION OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE UNITED
STATES TO REQUIRE THE RESPONSE OF A NONRESIDENT CITIZEN.  BLACKMER V.
UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421.  A SIMILAR SITUATION IS MET WHERE A
STATUTE IS APPLIED TO ACTS COMMITTED BY CITIZENS IN AREAS SUBJECT TO
THE LAWS OF NO SOVEREIGN.  SEE SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69; OLD
DOMINION S.S. CO. V. GILMORE, 207 U.S. 398. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE NONE OF THESE EXCEPTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS COME
INTO PLAY.  PETITIONER'S BUYING OF UNFINISHED WATCHES IN THE UNITED
STATES IS NOT AN ILLEGAL COMMERCIAL ACT.  NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT
PETITIONERS WERE ENGAGING IN ILLEGAL ACTS IN COMMERCE WHEN THE FINISHED
WATCHES BEARING THE MEXICAN TRADE-MARK WERE PURCHASED FROM THEM AND
BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES BY SUCH PURCHASERS, ALL WITHOUT
COLLUSION BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE PURCHASER.  THE STAMPING OF THE
BULOVA TRADE-MARK, DONE IN MEXICO, IS NOT AN ACT "WITHIN THE CONTROL OF
CONGRESS."  IT SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS A BASIS FOR ACTION AGAINST
PETITIONER.  THE LANHAM ACT, LIKE THE SHERMAN ACT, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED
TO APPLY ONLY TO ACTS DONE WITHIN THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED
STATES.  WHILE WE DO NOT CONDONE THE PIRATIC USE OF TRADE-MARKS,
NEITHER DO WE BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE SUCH USE
ACTIONABLE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PLACE IT OCCURRED.  SUCH EXTENSIONS OF
POWER BRING OUR LEGISLATION INTO CONFLICT WITH THE LAWS AND PRACTICES
OF OTHER NATIONS, FULLY CAPABLE OF PUNISHING INFRACTIONS OF THEIR OWN
LAWS, AND SHOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC WORDS TO REACH ACTS DONE WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF OTHER SOVEREIGNTIES. 
..END :













WIEMAN V. UPDEGRAFF 344 U.S. 183 


NO. 14.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 15, 1952 - 205 OKLA.
301, 237 P.2D 131, REVERSED. 


OKLAHOMA STAT. ANN., 1950, TIT. 51, SECS. 37.1-37.8 (1952 SUPP.),
REQUIRES EACH STATE OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE, AS A CONDITION OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT, TO TAKE A "LOYALTY OATH," STATING, INTER ALIA, THAT HE IS
NOT, AND HAS NOT BEEN FOR THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS, A MEMBER OF ANY
ORGANIZATION LISTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AS
"COMMUNIST FRONT" OR "SUBVERSIVE."  AS CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF OKLAHOMA, IT EXCLUDES PERSONS FROM STATE EMPLOYMENT SOLELY ON THE
BASIS OF MEMBERSHIP IN SUCH ORGANIZATIONS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR
KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES AND PURPOSES OF THE ORGANIZATIONS
TO WHICH THEY HAD BELONGED.  HELD:  AS THUS CONSTRUED, THE ACT VIOLATES
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 184-192. 

(A)  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT PERMIT A STATE, IN ATTEMPTING TO
BAR DISLOYAL PERSONS FROM ITS EMPLOYMENT ON THE BASIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL
MEMBERSHIP, TO CLASSIFY INNOCENT WITH KNOWING ASSOCIATION.  ADLER V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 342 U.S. 485; GERENDE V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 341
U.S. 56; AND GARNER V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, 341 U.S. 716,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 188-191. 

(B)  THE PROTECTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE EXTENDS TO A PUBLIC
SERVANT WHOSE EXCLUSION PURSUANT TO A STATUTE IS PATENTLY ARBITRARY OR
DISCRIMINATORY.  ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 342 U.S. 485, AND UNITED
PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 191-192. 

WIEMAN ET AL. V. UPDEGRAFF ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF A TRIAL COURT
SUSTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OKLA. STAT. ANN., 1950, TIT. 51,
SECS. 37.1-37.8 (1952 SUPP.), AND ENJOINING PAYMENT OF SALARIES TO
STATE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD REFUSED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE "LOYALTY OATH"
REQUIRED BY THAT ACT.  205 OKLA. 301, 237 P.2D 131.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, REVERSED, P. 192. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA
UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF A LOYALTY OATH (FN1) PRESCRIBED BY OKLAHOMA
STATUTE FOR ALL STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.  OKLA. STAT. ANN., 1950,
TIT. 51, SECS. 37.1-37.8 (1952 SUPP.).  APPELLANTS, EMPLOYED BY THE
STATE AS MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY AND STAFF OF OKLAHOMA AGRICULTURAL AND
MECHANICAL COLLEGE, FAILED, WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS PERMITTED, TO TAKE
THE OATH REQUIRED BY THE ACT.  APPELLEE UPDEGRAFF, AS A CITIZEN AND
TAXPAYER, THEREUPON BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA
COUNTY TO ENJOIN THE NECESSARY STATE OFFICIALS FROM PAYING FURTHER
COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES WHO HAD NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THE OATH.  THE
APPELLANTS, WHO WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE, ATTACKED THE VALIDITY OF
THE ACT ON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT IT WAS A BILL OF ATTAINDER;
AN EX POST FACTO LAW; IMPAIRED THE OBLIGATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS WITH
THE STATE AND VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THEY ALSO SOUGHT A MANDATORY INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE STATE
OFFICERS TO PAY THEIR SALARIES REGARDLESS OF THEIR FAILURE TO TAKE THE
OATH.  THEIR OBJECTIONS CENTERED LARGELY ON THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES OF
THE OATH: 

"  ...  THAT I AM NOT AFFILIATED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ...  WITH ANY
FOREIGN POLITICAL AGENCY, PARTY, ORGANIZATION OR GOVERNMENT, OR WITH
ANY AGENCY, PARTY, ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, OR GROUP WHATEVER WHICH
HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL OR
OTHER AUTHORIZED AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE A COMMUNIST FRONT OR
SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATION; ... THAT I WILL TAKE UP ARMS IN THE DEFENSE OF
THE UNITED STATES IN TIME OF WAR, OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY, IF NECESSARY;
THAT WITHIN THE FIVE (5) YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE TAKING OF THIS
OATH (OR AFFIRMATION) I HAVE NOT BEEN A MEMBER OF  ...  ANY AGENCY,
PARTY, ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, OR GROUP WHATEVER WHICH HAS BEEN
OFFICIALLY DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OTHER
AUTHORIZED PUBLIC AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE A COMMUNIST FRONT
OR SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATION ...  ." 

THE COURT UPHELD THE ACT AND ENJOINED THE STATE OFFICERS FROM MAKING
FURTHER SALARY PAYMENTS TO APPELLANTS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA
AFFIRMED, SUB NOM. BOARD OF REGENTS V. UPDEGRAFF, 205 OKLA. 301, 237
P.2D 131 (1951).  (FN2)  WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION AND THE RECURRING SERIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH IT PRESENTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY IN HOLDING THE ACT VALID
CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE COMPELLED TO TAKE THE OATH AS
WRITTEN; THAT THE APPELLANTS "AND EACH OF THEM, DID NOT TAKE AND
SUBSCRIBE TO THE OATH AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2 OF THE ACT AND WILFULLY
REFUSED TO TAKE THAT OATH AND BY REASON THEREOF THE BOARD OF REGENTS IS
ENJOINED FROM PAYING THEM, AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT IS TERMINATED."  IN
AFFIRMING, THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA HELD THAT THE PHRASE OF THE
OATH "ANY FOREIGN POLITICAL AGENCY, PARTY, ORGANIZATION OR GOVERNMENT,
OR WITH ANY AGENCY, PARTY, ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, OR GROUP WHATEVER
WHICH HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
GENERAL OR OTHER AUTHORIZED AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE A
COMMUNIST FRONT OR SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATION" ACTUALLY "REFERS TO A LIST
OR LISTS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE
OF THE ACT WHICH HAD BEEN PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES UNDER GOVERNMENTAL DIRECTIVE.  SUCH LIST OR LISTS ARE IN
EFFECT MADE A PART OF THE OATH BY REFERENCE."  ON THIS POINT THE
OPINION CONTINUES:  "THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE ACT THAT AN OATH BE
TAKEN OF NONMEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS NOT ON THE LIST OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT." 

WE READ THIS PART OF THE HIGHEST STATE COURT'S DECISION AS LIMITING
THE ORGANIZATIONS PROSCRIBED BY THE ACT TO THOSE DESIGNATED ON THE LIST
OR LISTS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT.  ALTHOUGH THIS INTERPRETATION DISCARDED
CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE OATH AS SURPLUSAGE, THE COURT DENIED THE
APPELLANTS' PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH INCLUDED A PLEA THAT REFUSAL
OF THE COURT TO PERMIT APPELLANTS TO TAKE THE OATH AS SO INTERPRETED
WAS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, WE ARE TOLD, "WAS TO MAKE LOYALTY A
QUALIFICATION TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE OR BE EMPLOYED BY THE STATE."  205
OKLA., AT 305, 237 P.2D, AT 136.  DURING PERIODS OF INTERNATIONAL
STRESS, THE EXTENT OF LEGISLATION WITH SUCH OBJECTIVES ACCENTUATES OUR
TRADITIONAL CONCERN ABOUT THE RELATION OF GOVERNMENT TO THE INDIVIDUAL
IN A FREE SOCIETY.  THE PERENNIAL PROBLEM OF DEFINING THAT RELATIONSHIP
BECOMES ACUTE WHEN DISLOYALTY IS SCREENED BY IDEOLOGICAL PATTERNS AND
TECHNIQUES OF DISGUISE THAT MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY.  DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENT IS NOT POWERLESS TO MEET THIS THREAT, BUT IT MUST DO SO
WITHOUT INFRINGING THE FREEDOMS THAT ARE THE ULTIMATE VALUES OF ALL
DEMOCRATIC LIVING.  IN THE ADOPTION OF SUCH MEANS AS IT BELIEVES
EFFECTIVE, THE LEGISLATURE IS THEREFORE CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF
BALANCING ITS INTEREST IN NATIONAL SECURITY WITH THE OFTEN CONFLICTING
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 

IN A SERIES OF CASES COMING HERE IN RECENT YEARS, WE HAVE HAD
OCCASION TO CONSIDER LEGISLATION AIMED AT SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC
SERVICE FROM DISLOYALTY.  GARNER V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, 341 U.S. 716
(1951); ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 342 U.S. 485 (1952); GERENDE V.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 341 U.S. 56 (1951).  IT IS IN THE CONTEXT OF
THESE DECISIONS THAT WE DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE OATH BEFORE US. 

GARNER INVOLVED A LOS ANGELES ORDINANCE REQUIRING ALL CITY EMPLOYEES
TO SWEAR THAT THEY DID NOT ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY
UNLAWFUL MEANS OR BELONG TO ORGANIZATIONS WITH SUCH OBJECTIVES.  THE
ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTED AN EARLIER CHARTER AMENDMENT WHICH DISQUALIFIED
FROM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYMENT ALL PERSONS UNABLE TO TAKE SUCH AN OATH
TRUTHFULLY.  ONE OF THE ATTACKS MADE ON THE OATH IN THAT CASE WAS THAT
IT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE ITS NEGATION WAS NOT LIMITED TO
ORGANIZATIONS KNOWN BY THE EMPLOYEE TO BE WITHIN THE PROSCRIBED CLASS. 
THIS ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE WE FELT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING THAT
SCIENTER WAS IMPLICIT IN EACH CLAUSE OF THE OATH. 

ADLER ALSO INDICATED THE IMPORTANCE OF DETERMINING WHETHER A RULE OF
EXCLUSION BASED ON ASSOCIATION APPLIES TO INNOCENT AS WELL AS KNOWING
ACTIVITY.  NEW YORK HAD SOUGHT TO BAR FROM EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS PERSONS WHO ADVOCATE, OR BELONG TO ORGANIZATIONS WHICH
ADVOCATE, THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY UNLAWFUL MEANS.  THE
FEINBERG LAW DIRECTED THE NEW YORK BOARD OF REGENTS TO MAKE A LISTING,
AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, OF ORGANIZATIONS OF THE TYPE DESCRIBED. 
UNDER SEC. 3022 OF THE STATUTE, THE REGENTS PROVIDED BY REGULATION THAT
MEMBERSHIP IN A LISTED ORGANIZATION SHOULD BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
DISQUALIFICATION FOR OFFICE IN THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  IN
UPHOLDING THIS LEGISLATION, WE EXPRESSLY NOTED THAT THE NEW YORK COURTS
HAD CONSTRUED THE STATUTE TO REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF ORGANIZATIONAL
PURPOSE BEFORE THE REGULATION COULD APPLY.  342 U.S., AT 494.  CF.
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 413 (1950). 

THE OATH IN GERENDE WAS REQUIRED OF CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE WHO
SOUGHT PLACES ON A MARYLAND BALLOT.  ON ORAL ARGUMENT IN THAT CASE, THE
MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL ASSURED US THAT HE WOULD ADVISE THE PROPER
STATE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT, AS COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTE, AN
AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THE AFFIANT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN AN ATTEMPT TO
OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR KNOWINGLY A MEMBER OF
AN ORGANIZATION ENGAGED IN SUCH AN ATTEMPT.  BECAUSE WE READ AN EARLIER
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION AS INTERPRETING THE STATUTE SO THAT
SUCH AN AFFIDAVIT WOULD SATISFY ITS REQUIREMENTS, WE AFFIRMED ON THE
BASIS OF THIS ASSURANCE. 

WE ASSUMED IN GARNER, THAT IF OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE OATH AS
CONTAINING AN IMPLICIT SCIENTER REQUIREMENT WAS CORRECT, LOS ANGELES
WOULD GIVE THE PETITIONERS WHO HAD REFUSED TO SIGN THE OATH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE IT AS INTERPRETED AND RESUME THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  BUT
HERE, WITH OUR DECISION IN GARNER BEFORE IT, THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT
REFUSED TO EXTEND TO APPELLANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE OATH.  IN
ADDITION, A PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH URGED THAT FAILURE TO PERMIT
APPELLANTS TO TAKE THE OATH AS INTERPRETED DEPRIVED THEM OF DUE PROCESS
WAS DENIED.  THIS MUST BE VIEWED AS A HOLDING THAT KNOWLEDGE IS NOT A
FACTOR UNDER THE OKLAHOMA STATUTE.  WE ARE THUS BROUGHT TO THE QUESTION
TOUCHED ON IN GARNER, ADLER, AND GERENDE:  WHETHER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE PERMITS A STATE, IN ATTEMPTING TO BAR DISLOYAL INDIVIDUALS FROM
ITS EMPLOY, TO EXCLUDE PERSONS SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL
MEMBERSHIP, REGARDLESS OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATIONS
TO WHICH THEY HAD BELONGED.  FOR, UNDER THE STATUTE BEFORE US, THE FACT
OF MEMBERSHIP ALONE DISQUALIFIES.  IF THE RULE BE EXPRESSED AS A
PRESUMPTION OF DISLOYALTY, IT IS A CONCLUSIVE ONE. 

BUT MEMBERSHIP MAY BE INNOCENT.  A STATE SERVANT MAY HAVE JOINED A
PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION UNAWARE OF ITS ACTIVITIES AND PURPOSES.  IN
RECENT YEARS, MANY COMPLETELY LOYAL PERSONS HAVE SEVERED ORGANIZATIONAL
TIES AFTER LEARNING FOR THE FIRST TIME OF THE CHARACTER OF GROUPS TO
WHICH THEY HAD BELONGED.  "THEY HAD JOINED, BUT DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT
WAS, THEY WERE GOOD, FINE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN, LOYAL AMERICANS, BUT
THEY HAD BEEN TRAPPED INTO IT - BECAUSE ONE OF THE GREAT WEAKNESSES OF
ALL AMERICANS, WHETHER ADULT OR YOUTH, IS TO JOIN SOMETHING."  (FN3)
AT THE TIME OF AFFILIATION, A GROUP ITSELF MAY BE INNOCENT, ONLY LATER
COMING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THOSE WHO WOULD TURN IT TOWARD
ILLEGITIMATE ENDS.  CONVERSELY, AN ORGANIZATION FORMERLY SUBVERSIVE AND
THEREFORE DESIGNATED AS SUCH MAY HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY FREED ITSELF FROM
THE INFLUENCES WHICH ORIGINALLY LED TO ITS LISTING. 

THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES VISITED UPON A PERSON
EXCLUDED FROM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT ON DISLOYALTY GROUNDS.  IN THE VIEW OF
THE COMMUNITY, THE STAIN IS A DEEP ONE; INDEED, IT HAS BECOME A BADGE
OF INFAMY.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS SO IN TIME OF COLD WAR AND HOT EMOTIONS
WHEN "EACH MAN BEGINS TO EYE HIS NEIGHBOR AS A POSSIBLE ENEMY."  (FN4)
YET UNDER THE OKLAHOMA ACT, THE FACT OF ASSOCIATION ALONE DETERMINES
DISLOYALTY AND DISQUALIFICATION; IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER ASSOCIATION
EXISTED INNOCENTLY OR KNOWINGLY.  TO THUS INHIBIT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF
MOVEMENT IS TO STIFLE THE FLOW OF DEMOCRATIC EXPRESSION AND CONTROVERSY
AT ONE OF ITS CHIEF SOURCES.  WE HOLD THAT THE DISTINCTION OBSERVED
BETWEEN THE CASE AT BAR AND GARNER, ADLER AND GERENDE IS DECISIVE. 
INDISCRIMINATE CLASSIFICATION OF INNOCENT WITH KNOWING ACTIVITY MUST
FALL AS AN ASSERTION OF ARBITRARY POWER.  THE OATH OFFENDS DUE
PROCESS. 

BUT APPELLEE INSISTS THAT ADLER AND UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V.
MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75 (1947), ARE CONTRA.  WE ARE REFERRED TO OUR
STATEMENT IN ADLER THAT PERSONS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT IN THE NEW YORK
PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE "NO RIGHT TO WORK FOR THE STATE IN THE SCHOOL
SYSTEM ON THEIR OWN TERMS.  UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL  ...  .
THEY MAY WORK FOR THE SCHOOL SYSTEM UPON THE REASONABLE TERMS LAID DOWN
BY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES OF NEW YORK."  342 U.S., AT 492.  TO DRAW
FROM THIS LANGUAGE THE FACILE GENERALIZATION THAT THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT IS TO OBSCURE THE
ISSUE.  FOR, IN UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, THOUGH WE HELD THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE HATCH ACT COULD PROPERLY BAR ITS EMPLOYEES FROM
CERTAIN TYPES OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY THOUGHT INIMICAL TO THE INTERESTS
OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, WE CAST THIS HOLDING INTO PERSPECTIVE BY
EMPHASIZING THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT "ENACT A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT
NO REPUBLICAN, JEW OR NEGRO SHALL BE APPOINTED TO FEDERAL OFFICE, OR
THAT NO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SHALL ATTEND MASS OR TAKE ANY ACTIVE PART IN
MISSIONARY WORK."  330 U.S., AT 100.  SEE ALSO IN RE SUMMERS, 325 U.S.
561, 571 (1945).  WE NEED NOT PAUSE TO CONSIDER WHETHER AN ABSTRACT
RIGHT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT EXISTS.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION DOES EXTEND TO THE PUBLIC SERVANT WHOSE
EXCLUSION PURSUANT TO A STATUTE IS PATENTLY ARBITRARY OR
DISCRIMINATORY. 

BECAUSE OF THIS DISPOSITION, WE DO NOT PASS ON THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS
RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE ACT, IN PROSCRIBING THOSE "COMMUNIST FRONT OR
SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS" DESIGNATED AS SUCH ON LISTS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, GAVE FAIR NOTICE TO THOSE AFFECTED, IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THOSE LISTINGS HAVE NEVER INCLUDED A DESIGNATION
OF "COMMUNIST FRONTS," AND HAVE IN SOME CASES DESIGNATED ORGANIZATIONS
WITHOUT CLASSIFYING THEM.  NOR NEED WE CONSIDER THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
DIFFERING STANDARDS EMPLOYED IN THE PREPARATION OF THOSE LISTS AND
THEIR LIMITED EVIDENTIARY USE UNDER THE FEDERAL LOYALTY PROGRAM. 
REVERSED.    FN1  "I, - , DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL
SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND
DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL
RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY
DISCHARGE THE DUTIES UPON WHICH I AM ABOUT TO ENTER. 

"AND I DO FURTHER SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I DO NOT ADVOCATE, NOR AM I
A MEMBER OF ANY PARTY OR ORGANIZATION, POLITICAL OR OTHERWISE, THAT NOW
ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS;
THAT I AM NOT AFFILIATED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH THE COMMUNIST
PARTY, THE THIRD COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL, WITH ANY FOREIGN POLITICAL
AGENCY, PARTY, ORGANIZATION OR GOVERNMENT, OR WITH ANY AGENCY, PARTY,
ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, OR GROUP WHATEVER WHICH HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY
DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OTHER AUTHORIZED
AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE A COMMUNIST FRONT OR SUBVERSIVE
ORGANIZATION; NOR DO I ADVOCATE REVOLUTION, TEACH OR JUSTIFY A PROGRAM
OF SABOTAGE, FORCE OR VIOLENCE, SEDITION OR TREASON, AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THIS STATE; NOR DO I ADVOCATE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TEACH OR JUSTIFY BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, THE
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THIS STATE, OR
CHANGE IN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT THEREOF, BY FORCE OR ANY UNLAWFUL
MEANS; THAT I WILL TAKE UP ARMS IN THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES IN
TIME OF WAR, OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY, IF NECESSARY; THAT WITHIN THE FIVE
(5) YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE TAKING OF THIS OATH (OR
AFFIRMATION) I HAVE NOT BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, THE THIRD
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL, OR OF ANY AGENCY, PARTY, ORGANIZATION,
ASSOCIATION, OR GROUP WHATEVER WHICH HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DETERMINED BY
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OTHER AUTHORIZED PUBLIC AGENCY OF
THE UNITED STATES TO BE A COMMUNIST FRONT OR SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATION,
OR OF ANY PARTY OR ORGANIZATION, POLITICAL OR OTHERWISE, THAT ADVOCATED
THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS  ...  . 

"AND I DO FURTHER SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT DURING SUCH TIME AS I AM
(HERE PUT NAME OF OFFICE, OR, IF AN EMPLOYEE,) INSERT 'AN EMPLOYEE OF'
FOLLOWED BY THE COMPLETE DESIGNATION OF THE EMPLOYING OFFICER, OFFICE,
AGENCY, AUTHORITY, COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OR INSTITUTION. 

"I WILL NOT ADVOCATE AND THAT I WILL NOT BECOME A MEMBER OF ANY PARTY
OR ORGANIZATION, POLITICAL OR OTHERWISE, THAT ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA BY
FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS." 

FN2  THE STATE OFFICIALS NAMED AS DEFENDANTS IN UPDEGRAFF'S SUIT TOOK
THE POSITION IN THE STATE COURTS THAT THE STATUTE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FOLLOWING A POLICY OF THE OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL
NOT TO APPEAL FROM ADVERSE DECISIONS OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THESE
DEFENDANTS ARE HERE ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE MADE APPELLEES BY THE
APPELLANT-INTERVENORS.  THEY HAVE CHOSEN IN THEIR BRIEF MERELY TO
RESTATE, WITHOUT ARGUMENT, THEIR POSITION IN THE COURT BELOW. 

FN3  TESTIMONY OF J. EDGAR HOOVER, HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES ON H.R. 1884 AND H.R. 2122, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 46. 

FN4  ADDRESS BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND AT THE 86TH CONVOCATION OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DELIVERED OCTOBER 24, 1952, AT
ALBANY, NEW YORK. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, NOT HAVING HEARD THE ARGUMENT, TOOK NO PART IN
THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN ALL THE COURT SAYS IN CONDEMNATION OF OKLAHOMA'S TEST
OATH.  I AGREE THAT THE STATE ACT PRESCRIBING THAT TEST OATH IS FATALLY
OFFENSIVE TO THE DUE PROCESS GUARANTEE OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. 

HISTORY INDICATES THAT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS INTERMITTENTLY SUBJECTED
TO EXTRAORDINARY PERILS.  EVEN COUNTRIES DEDICATED TO GOVERNMENT BY THE
PEOPLE ARE NOT FREE FROM SUCH CYCLICAL DANGERS.  THE FIRST YEARS OF OUR
REPUBLIC MARKED SUCH A PERIOD.  ENFORCEMENT OF THE ALIEN AND SEDITION
LAWS BY ZEALOUS PATRIOTS WHO FEARED IDEAS MADE IT HIGHLY DANGEROUS FOR
PEOPLE TO THINK, SPEAK, OR WRITE CRITICALLY ABOUT GOVERNMENT, ITS
AGENTS, OR ITS POLICIES, EITHER FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.  OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES SURVIVED THE ORDEAL OF THIS REGRETTABLE PERIOD
BECAUSE THERE WERE INFLUENTIAL MEN AND POWERFUL ORGANIZED GROUPS BOLD
ENOUGH TO CHAMPION THE UNDILUTED RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO PUBLISH AND
ARGUE FOR THEIR BELIEFS HOWEVER UNORTHODOX OR LOATHSOME.  TODAY
HOWEVER, FEW INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS OF POWER AND INFLUENCE ARGUE
THAT UNPOPULAR ADVOCACY HAS THIS SAME WHOLLY UNQUALIFIED IMMUNITY FROM
GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE.  FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS THE PRESENT
PERIOD OF FEAR SEEMS MORE OMINOUSLY DANGEROUS TO SPEECH AND PRESS THAN
WAS THAT OF THE ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS.  SUPPRESSIVE LAWS AND
PRACTICES ARE THE FASHION.  THE OKLAHOMA OATH STATUTE IS BUT ONE
MANIFESTATION OF A NATIONAL NETWORK OF LAWS AIMED AT COERCING AND
CONTROLLING THE MINDS OF MEN.  TEST OATHS ARE NOTORIOUS TOOLS OF
TYRANNY.  WHEN USED TO SHACKLE THE MIND THEY ARE, OR AT LEAST THEY
SHOULD BE, UNSPEAKABLY ODIOUS TO A FREE PEOPLE.  TEST OATHS ARE MADE
STILL MORE DANGEROUS WHEN COMBINED WITH BILLS OF ATTAINDER WHICH LIKE
THIS OKLAHOMA STATUTE IMPOSE PAINS AND PENALTIES FOR PAST LAWFUL
ASSOCIATIONS AND UTTERANCES. 

GOVERNMENTS NEED AND HAVE AMPLE POWER TO PUNISH TREASONABLE ACTS. 
BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THEY MUST HAVE A FURTHER POWER TO PUNISH
THOUGHT AND SPEECH AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ACTS.  OUR OWN FREE SOCIETY
SHOULD NEVER FORGET THAT LAWS WHICH STIGMATIZE AND PENALIZE THOUGHT AND
SPEECH OF THE UNORTHODOX HAVE A WAY OF REACHING, ENSNARING AND
SILENCING MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN AT FIRST INTENDED.  WE MUST HAVE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR ALL OR WE WILL IN THE LONG RUN HAVE IT FOR NONE
BUT THE CRINGING AND THE CRAVEN.  AND I CANNOT TOO OFTEN REPEAT MY
BELIEF THAT THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN MUST BE
WHOLLY FREE OR EVENTUALLY BE WHOLLY LOST. 

IT SEEMS SELF-EVIDENT THAT ALL SPEECH CRITICIZING GOVERNMENT RULERS
AND CHALLENGING CURRENT BELIEFS MAY BE DANGEROUS TO THE STATUS QUO. 
WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS DANGER THE FRAMERS RESTED OUR FIRST
AMENDMENT ON THE PREMISE THAT THE SLIGHTEST SUPPRESSION OF THOUGHT,
SPEECH, PRESS, OR PUBLIC ASSEMBLY IS STILL MORE DANGEROUS.  THIS MEANS
THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE GUARANTEED AN UNDILUTED AND UNEQUIVOCAL RIGHT TO
EXPRESS THEMSELVES ON QUESTIONS OF CURRENT PUBLIC INTEREST.  IT MEANS
THAT AMERICANS DISCUSS SUCH QUESTIONS AS OF RIGHT AND NOT ON SUFFERANCE
OF LEGISLATURES, COURTS OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.  IT MEANS
THAT COURTS ARE WITHOUT POWER TO APPRAISE AND PENALIZE UTTERANCES UPON
THEIR NOTION THAT THESE UTTERANCES ARE DANGEROUS.  IN MY VIEW THIS
UNCOMPROMISING INTERPRETATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE ONE THAT
MUST PREVAIL IF ITS FREEDOMS ARE TO BE SAVED.  TYRANNICAL TOTALITARIAN
GOVERNMENTS CANNOT SAFELY ALLOW THEIR PEOPLE TO SPEAK WITH COMPLETE
FREEDOM.  I BELIEVE WITH THE FRAMERS THAT OUR FREE GOVERNMENT CAN. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, CONCURRING. 

THE TIMES BEING WHAT THEY ARE, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD A WORD BY WAY
OF EMPHASIS TO THE COURT'S OPINION, WHICH I JOIN. 

THE CASE CONCERNS THE POWER OF A STATE TO EXACT FROM TEACHERS IN ONE
OF ITS COLLEGES AN OATH THAT THEY ARE NOT, AND FOR THE FIVE YEARS
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE TAKING OF THE OATH HAVE NOT BEEN, MEMBERS OF
ANY ORGANIZATION LISTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE STATUTE, AS "SUBVERSIVE" OR "COMMUNIST
FRONT."  SINCE THE AFFILIATION WHICH MUST THUS BE FORSWORN MAY WELL
HAVE BEEN FOR REASONS OR FOR PURPOSES AS INNOCENT AS MEMBERSHIP IN A
CLUB OF ONE OF THE ESTABLISHED POLITICAL PARTIES, TO REQUIRE SUCH AN
OATH, ON PAIN OF A TEACHER'S LOSS OF HIS POSITION IN CASE OF REFUSAL TO
TAKE THE OATH, PENALIZES A TEACHER FOR EXERCISING A RIGHT OF
ASSOCIATION PECULIARLY CHARACTERISTIC OF OUR PEOPLE.  SEE ARTHUR M.
SCHLESINGER, SR., BIOGRAPHY OF A NATION OF JOINERS, 50 AM. HIST. REV. 1
(1944), REPRINTED IN SCHLESINGER, PATHS TO THE PRESENT, 23.  SUCH
JOINING IS AN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE INQUIRY. 
BY LIMITING THE POWER OF THE STATES TO INTERFERE WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND FREEDOM OF INQUIRY AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT PROTECTS ALL PERSONS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR CALLING.  BUT, IN
VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE TEACHER'S RELATION TO THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHTS WHICH ARE SAFEGUARDED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, INHIBITION OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, AND OF ACTION
UPON THOUGHT, IN THE CASE OF TEACHERS BRINGS THE SAFEGUARDS OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS VIVIDLY INTO OPERATION.  SUCH UNWARRANTED INHIBITION UPON
THE FREE SPIRIT OF TEACHERS AFFECTS NOT ONLY THOSE WHO, LIKE THE
APPELLANTS, ARE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COURT.  IT HAS AN UNMISTAKABLE
TENDENCY TO CHILL THAT FREE PLAY OF THE SPIRIT WHICH ALL TEACHERS OUGHT
ESPECIALLY TO CULTIVATE AND PRACTICE; IT MAKES FOR CAUTION AND TIMIDITY
IN THEIR ASSOCIATIONS BY POTENTIAL TEACHERS. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT RENDER THE UNITED
STATES OR THE STATES IMPOTENT TO GUARD THEIR GOVERNMENTS AGAINST
DESTRUCTION BY ENEMIES FROM WITHIN.  IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE MEASURES OF
SELF-PROTECTION AGAINST ANTICIPATED OVERT ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  SOLID
THREATS TO OUR KIND OF GOVERNMENT - MANIFESTATIONS OF PURPOSES THAT
REJECT ARGUMENT AND THE FREE BALLOT AS THE MEANS FOR BRINGING ABOUT
CHANGES AND PROMOTING PROGRESS - MAY BE MET BY PREVENTIVE MEASURES
BEFORE SUCH THREATS REACH FRUITION.  HOWEVER, IN CONSIDERING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION LIKE THE STATUTE BEFORE US IT IS
NECESSARY TO KEEP STEADFASTLY IN MIND WHAT IT IS THAT IS TO BE
SECURED.  ONLY THUS WILL IT BE EVIDENT WHY THE COURT HAS FOUND THAT THE
OKLAHOMA LAW VIOLATES THOSE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY "WHICH
LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS" AND AS
SUCH ARE IMBEDDED IN THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHICH NO STATE MAY OFFEND. 
HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316. 

THAT OUR DEMOCRACY ULTIMATELY RESTS ON PUBLIC OPINION IS A PLATITUDE
OF SPEECH BUT NOT A COMMONPLACE IN ACTION.  PUBLIC OPINION IS THE
ULTIMATE RELIANCE OF OUR SOCIETY ONLY IF IT BE DISCIPLINED AND
RESPONSIBLE.  IT CAN BE DISCIPLINED AND RESPONSIBLE ONLY IF HABITS OF
OPEN-MINDEDNESS AND OF CRITICAL INQUIRY ARE ACQUIRED IN THE FORMATIVE
YEARS OF OUR CITIZENS.  THE PROCESS OF EDUCATION HAS NATURALLY ENOUGH
BEEN THE BASIS OF HOPE FOR THE PERDURANCE OF OUR DEMOCRACY ON THE PART
OF ALL OUR GREAT LEADERS, FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON ONWARDS. 

TO REGARD TEACHERS - IN OUR ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, FROM THE
PRIMARY GRADES TO THE UNIVERSITY - AS THE PRIESTS OF OUR DEMOCRACY IS
THEREFORE NOT TO INDULGE IN HYPERBOLE.  IT IS THE SPECIAL TASK OF
TEACHERS TO FOSTER THOSE HABITS OF OPEN-MINDEDNESS AND CRITICAL INQUIRY
WHICH ALONE MAKE FOR RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS, WHO, IN TURN, MAKE POSSIBLE
AN ENLIGHTENED AND EFFECTIVE PUBLIC OPINION.  TEACHERS MUST FULFILL
THEIR FUNCTION BY PRECEPT AND PRACTICE, BY THE VERY ATMOSPHERE WHICH
THEY GENERATE; THEY MUST BE EXEMPLARS OF OPEN-MINDEDNESS AND FREE
INQUIRY.  THEY CANNOT CARRY OUT THEIR NOBLE TASK IF THE CONDITIONS FOR
THE PRACTICE OF A RESPONSIBLE AND CRITICAL MIND ARE DENIED TO THEM. 
THEY MUST HAVE THE FREEDOM OF RESPONSIBLE INQUIRY, BY THOUGHT AND
ACTION, INTO THE MEANING OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IDEAS, INTO THE
CHECKERED HISTORY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DOGMA.  THEY MUST BE FREE TO
SIFT EVANESCENT DOCTRINE, QUALIFIED BY TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCE, FROM THAT
RESTLESS, ENDURING PROCESS OF EXTENDING THE BOUNDS OF UNDERSTANDING AND
WISDOM, TO ASSURE WHICH THE FREEDOMS OF THOUGHT, OF SPEECH, OF INQUIRY,
OF WORSHIP ARE GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AGAINST INFRACTION BY NATIONAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT. 

THE FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN OUR NATIONAL LIFE AND
THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ALONE THEY CAN ADEQUATELY PERFORM THEM ARE
AT THE BASIS OF THESE LIMITATIONS UPON STATE AND NATIONAL POWER.  THESE
FUNCTIONS AND THE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR THEIR EFFECTIVE DISCHARGE
HAVE BEEN WELL DESCRIBED BY A LEADING EDUCATOR: 

"NOW, A UNIVERSITY IS A PLACE THAT IS ESTABLISHED AND WILL FUNCTION
FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY, PROVIDED IT IS A CENTER OF INDEPENDENT
THOUGHT.  IT IS A CENTER OF INDEPENDENT THOUGHT AND CRITICISM THAT IS
CREATED IN THE INTEREST OF THE PROGRESS OF SOCIETY, AND THE ONE REASON
THAT WE KNOW THAT EVERY TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT MUST FAIL IS THAT NO
TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT IS PREPARED TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCES OF
CREATING FREE UNIVERSITIES. 

"IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS PURPOSE TO ATTRACT INTO THE INSTITUTION MEN
OF THE GREATEST CAPACITY, AND TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO EXERCISE THEIR
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. 

"EDUCATION IS A KIND OF CONTINUING DIALOGUE, AND A DIALOGUE ASSUMES,
IN THE NATURE OF THE CASE, DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW. 

"THE CIVILIZATION WHICH I WORK AND WHICH I AM SURE, EVERY AMERICAN IS
WORKING TOWARD, COULD BE CALLED A CIVILIZATION OF THE DIALOGUE, WHERE
INSTEAD OF SHOOTING ONE ANOTHER WHEN YOU DIFFER, YOU REASON THINGS OUT
TOGETHER.    "IN THIS DIALOGUE, THEN, YOU CANNOT ASSUME THAT YOU ARE
GOING TO HAVE EVERYBODY THINKING THE SAME WAY OR FEELING THE SAME WAY. 
IT WOULD BE UNPROGRESSIVE IF THAT HAPPENED.  THE HOPE OF EVENTUAL
DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE GONE.  MORE THAN THAT, OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE VERY
BORING. 

"A UNIVERSITY, THEN, IS A KIND OF CONTINUING SOCRATIC CONVERSATION ON
THE HIGHEST LEVEL FOR THE VERY BEST PEOPLE YOU CAN THINK OF, YOU CAN
BRING TOGETHER, ABOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, AND THE THING THAT
YOU MUST DO TO THE UTTERMOST POSSIBLE LIMITS IS TO GUARANTEE THOSE MEN
THE FREEDOM TO THINK AND TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES. 

"NOW, THE LIMITS ON THIS FREEDOM, THE LIMITS ON THIS FREEDOM, CANNOT
BE MERELY PREJUDICE, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH OUR PREJUDICES MIGHT BE PERFECTLY
SATISFACTORY, THE PREJUDICES OF OUR SUCCESSORS OR OF THOSE WHO ARE IN A
POSITION TO BRING PRESSURE TO BEAR ON THE INSTITUTION, MIGHT BE
SUBVERSIVE IN THE REAL SENSE, SUBVERTING THE AMERICAN DOCTRINE OF FREE
THOUGHT AND FREE SPEECH."  TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. HUTCHINS, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR OF THE FORD FOUNDATION, NOVEMBER 25, 1952, IN HEARINGS BEFORE
THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS AND
COMPARABLE ORGANIZATIONS, PURSUANT TO H. RES. 561, 82D CONG., 2D SESS.
..END :













SCHWARTZ V. TEXAS 344 U.S. 199 


NO. 41.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 15, 1952 - TEX. CR.
R. - 246 S.W.2D 174, AFFIRMED. 


PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER SHALL INTERCEPT ANY
COMMUNICATION AND DIVULGE OR PUBLISH" THE CONTENTS THEREOF TO ANY
PERSON, AND WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUED TO RENDER SUCH INTERCEPTED
COMMUNICATIONS INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL COURTS, DOES NOT
EXCLUDE SUCH INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS FROM EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS.  PP. 199-204. 

SCHWARTZ V. TEXAS 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A TEXAS STATE COURT AS AN ACCOMPLICE TO
THE CRIME OF ROBBERY, UPON EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY WIRE TAPPING.  THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS UPHELD THE CONVICTION.  - TEX. CR.
R. - , 246 S.W.2D 174, REHEARING DENIED, - TEX. CR. R. - , 246 S.W.2D
179.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 975.  AFFIRMED, P. 204. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, SCHWARTZ, A PAWNBROKER, ENTERED INTO A CONSPIRACY
WITH JARRETT AND BENNETT WHEREBY THE LATTER TWO WERE TO ROB PLACES TO
BE DESIGNATED BY SCHWARTZ AND BRING THE LOOT TO HIM TO DISPOSE OF AND
DIVIDE THE PROCEEDS WITH THEM.  PURSUANT TO THE PLAN, JARRETT AND
BENNETT ROBBED A WOMAN IN DALLAS, TEXAS, OF HER VALUABLE JEWELS AND
BROUGHT THE LOOT TO THE PETITIONER.  AFTER THE PETITIONER REPEATEDLY
DELAYED SETTLEMENT WITH THE ROBBERS, THE THIEVES FINALLY FELL OUT,
WHICH PROVED VERY HELPFUL TO THE POLICE.  THE PETITIONER TIPPED OFF THE
POLICE WHERE THEY COULD FIND JARRETT.  AFTER JARRETT HAD BEEN IN JAIL
ABOUT TWO WEEKS, HE CONSENTED TO TELEPHONE THE PETITIONER FROM THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE.  WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF JARRETT, A
PROFESSIONAL OPERATOR SET UP AN INDUCTION COIL CONNECTED TO A RECORDER
AMPLIFIER WHICH ENABLED THE OPERATOR TO OVERHEAR AND SIMULTANEOUSLY TO
RECORD THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN JARRETT AND THE PETITIONER. 
THESE RECORDS WERE USED AS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY THAT TRIED AND
CONVICTED THE PETITIONER AS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE CRIME OF ROBBERY.  THE
RECORDS, ADMITTED ONLY AFTER JARRETT AND THE PETITIONER HAD TESTIFIED,
CORROBORATED JARRETT AND DISCREDITED THE PETITIONER.  THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS UPHELD THE CONVICTION, - TEX. CR. R. - , 246
S.W.2D 174, REHEARING DENIED, - TEX. CR. R. - , 246 S.W.2D 179.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 343 U.S. 975. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT SEC. 605 OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT
(FN1) MAKES INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE THE RECORDS OF INTERCEPTED
TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITHOUT THE PETITIONER'S CONSENT.  THE
PERTINENT PROVISION OF THE STATUTE READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  NO PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER SHALL INTERCEPT
ANY COMMUNICATION AND DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE EXISTENCE, CONTENTS,
SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT, OR MEANING OF SUCH INTERCEPTED
COMMUNICATION TO ANY PERSON  ...  ." 

605. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE ONLY WITH THE APPLICATION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE TO
STATE PROCEEDINGS.  WITHOUT DECIDING, BUT ASSUMING FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THIS CASE, THAT THE TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS WERE INTERCEPTED WITHOUT
BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, THE
QUESTION WE HAVE IS WHETHER THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE BARRED BY THE
FEDERAL STATUTE, SEC. 605, FROM USE AS EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT. 

WE THINK NOT.  ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY WIRE TAPPING, IT HAS BEEN
CONSTRUED TO RENDER INADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTED AND SOUGHT TO BE DIVULGED IN VIOLATION
THEREOF, NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379, AND THIS IS TRUE EVEN
THOUGH THE COMMUNICATIONS WERE INTRASTATE TELEPHONE CALLS.  WEISS V.
UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 321, 329.  ALTHOUGH THE INTERCEPTED CALLS WOULD
BE INADMISSIBLE IN A FEDERAL COURT, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT SUCH
EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE IN A STATE COURT.  INDEED, EVIDENCE OBTAINED
BY A STATE OFFICER BY MEANS WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH
AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS
NONETHELESS ADMISSIBLE IN A STATE COURT, WOLF V. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25,
WHILE SUCH EVIDENCE, IF OBTAINED BY A FEDERAL OFFICER, WOULD BE CLEARLY
INADMISSIBLE IN A FEDERAL COURT.  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S.
383.  THE PROBLEM UNDER SEC. 605 IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS WOULD ITSELF BE A
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESSION BY
CONGRESS, THIS IS SIMPLY AN ADDITIONAL FACTOR FOR A STATE TO CONSIDER
IN FORMULATING A RULE OF EVIDENCE FOR USE IN ITS OWN COURTS. 
ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION IN SEC. 605 CAN BE ACHIEVED
UNDER THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 501. 

THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN MANY TIMES BEFORE THE STATE COURTS, AND THEY
HAVE UNIFORMLY HELD THAT SEC. 605 DOES NOT APPLY TO EXCLUDE SUCH
COMMUNICATIONS FROM EVIDENCE IN STATE COURTS.  LEON V. STATE, 180 MD.
279, 23 A.2D 706; PEOPLE V. STEMMER, 298 N.Y. 728, 83 N.E.2D 141;
HARLEM CHECK CASHING CORP. V. BELL, 296 N.Y. 15, 68 N.E.2D 854; PEOPLE
V. CHANNELL, 107 CAL. APP. 2D 192, 236 P.2D 654.  WHILE THESE CASES ARE
NOT CONTROLLING HERE, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF THE
HIGH STANDING OF THE COURTS FROM WHICH THEY COME. 

TEXAS ITSELF HAS GIVEN CONSIDERATION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY LAW AND HAS
CAREFULLY LEGISLATED CONCERNING IT.  IN 1925 TEXAS ENACTED A STATUTE
PROVIDING THAT EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR
LAWS OF TEXAS OR OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST
THE ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL CASE.  (FN2)  IN 1929 THIS ARTICLE 727A OF
THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WAS AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT
EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF TEXAS OR
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE INADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE, (FN3) THUS ELIMINATING FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE STATUTE
EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

WHERE A STATE HAS CAREFULLY LEGISLATED SO AS NOT TO RENDER
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OBTAINED AND SOUGHT TO BE DIVULGED IN VIOLATION
OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS COURT WILL NOT EXTEND BY
IMPLICATION THE STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES SO AS TO INVALIDATE THE
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE STATE STATUTE.  IF CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO
ACT IN A FIELD, IT SHOULD MANIFEST ITS INTENTION CLEARLY.  IT WILL NOT
BE PRESUMED THAT A FEDERAL STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE STATE UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR
MANIFESTATION OF INTENTION TO DO SO.  THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL SUPREMACY
IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE PRESUMED. 

"THE PRINCIPLE THUS APPLICABLE HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY STATED.  IT IS
THAT THE CONGRESS MAY CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS REGULATION AND OCCUPY A LIMITED
FIELD, AND THAT THE INTENTION TO SUPERSEDE THE EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF
ITS AUTHORITY AS TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS
NOT TO BE IMPLIED UNLESS THE ACT OF CONGRESS FAIRLY INTERPRETED IS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE."  ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO. V.
RAILROAD COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 380, 392-393.  SEE SAVAGE V. JONES, 225
U.S. 501, 533. 

"IT SHOULD NEVER BE HELD THAT CONGRESS INTENDS TO SUPERSEDE OR BY ITS
LEGISLATION SUSPEND THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWERS OF THE STATES,
EVEN WHEN IT MAY DO SO, UNLESS ITS PURPOSE TO EFFECT THAT RESULT IS
CLEARLY MANIFESTED."  REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 148. 

IT IS DUE CONSIDERATION BUT NOT CONTROLLING THAT TEXAS HAS LEGISLATED
IN THIS FIELD.  OUR DECISION WOULD BE THE SAME IF THE TEXAS COURTS HAD
PRONOUNCED THIS RULE OF EVIDENCE. 

WE HOLD THAT SEC. 605 APPLIES ONLY TO THE EXCLUSION IN FEDERAL COURT
PROCEEDINGS OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED AND SOUGHT TO BE DIVULGED IN VIOLATION
THEREOF; IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE SUCH EVIDENCE IN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS. 
SINCE WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO IMPOSE A RULE OF
EVIDENCE ON THE STATE COURTS, WE DO NOT DECIDE WHETHER IT HAS THE POWER
TO DO SO. 

SINCE THE STATUTE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO STATE PROCEEDINGS, WE DO NOT
HAVE TO DECIDE THE QUESTIONS OF WHAT AMOUNTS TO "INTERCEPTION," OR
WHETHER IF THERE WAS INTERCEPTION, THE SENDER HAD AUTHORIZED IT.  THESE
QUESTIONS CAN ARISE ONLY IN A FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDING. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 1064, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN2  TEX. LAWS 1925, C. 49, SEC. 1. 

FN3  VERNON'S TEX. STAT., 1948, CODE CRIM. PROC., ART. 727A. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 

IF THE ONLY QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WERE THE APPLICABILITY TO
PROSECUTIONS IN STATE COURTS, IN SITUATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT, OF SEC.
605 OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 605, AS CONSTRUED
IN THE TWO NARDONE CASES, 302 U.S. 379; 308 U.S. 338, I WOULD JOIN IN
THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  I AGREE WITH THE VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT
EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE MINTON. 

THE MATTER IS COMPLICATED, HOWEVER, BY A TEXAS STATUTE (ART. 727A,
VERNON'S CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1948)) WHICH RENDERS INADMISSIBLE
IN CRIMINAL TRIALS EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION "OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  IF THIS LIMITATION MEANS,
ACCORDING TO TEXAS LAW, THAT THE STATE COURT IS TO CONSTRUE WHAT IS OR
IS NOT A VIOLATION UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, IT DOES NOT
RAISE A FEDERAL QUESTION.  BUT IF THE TEXAS LEGISLATION MEANS THAT THE
TEXAS COURTS ARE BOUND BY WHAT THIS COURT DEEMS A VIOLATION OF THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE PROBLEM IS, OR MIGHT BE, DIFFERENT. 
SEE STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511.  WHILE, ON THE
LATTER ASSUMPTION, THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS
ADMITTED HERE WOULD, IN MY VIEW, RENDER IT INADMISSIBLE IN A FEDERAL
PROSECUTION, SEE MY DISSENT IN ON LEE V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 747,
758, THE DECISION OF THIS COURT WAS TO THE CONTRARY.  THEREFORE THE
TEXAS COURT WAS IN DUTY BOUND TO FOLLOW THAT DECISION AND TO REACH THE
RESULT IT REACHED EVEN IF IT FELT CONSTRAINED, AS APPARENTLY IT DID, TO
BE GOVERNED BY THE VIEWS OF THIS COURT AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A
VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  I CANNOT SAY THAT THE
TEXAS COURT SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED MY MINORITY VIEWS, TO WHICH I ADHERE,
ON THIS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, AND DISREGARDED THE COURT'S
AUTHORITY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

SINCE, IN MY VIEW (AS INDICATED IN MY DISSENT IN ON LEE V. UNITED
STATES, 343 U.S. 747, 762), THIS WIRE TAPPING WAS A SEARCH THAT
VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY IT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN EXCLUDED.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS APPLICABLE
TO THE STATES (SEE WOLF V. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25) PROBABLY NEED NOT BE
REACHED, BECAUSE A TEXAS STATUTE HAS EXCLUDED EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THEREFORE I WOULD REVERSE THE
JUDGMENT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRIOR DECISIONS OF THE COURT POINT TO
AFFIRMANCE.  BUT THOSE DECISIONS REFLECT CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION WHICH I THINK ARE ERRONEOUS.  THEY IMPINGE SEVERELY ON THE
LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND GIVE THE POLICE THE RIGHT TO INTRUDE INTO
THE PRIVACY OF ANY LIFE.  THE PRACTICES THEY SANCTION HAVE TODAY
ACQUIRED A MOMENTUM THAT IS SO OMINOUS I CANNOT REMAIN SILENT AND BOW
TO THE PRECEDENTS THAT SANCTION THEM. 
..END :


















DIXON V. DUFFY 344 U.S. 143 


NO. 4.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1951 - CONTINUED NOVEMBER 5, 1951 - FURTHER
CONTINUED MAY 12, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1952 - JUDGMENT VACATED
AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


IN A STATE COURT, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF A CRIME AND SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT.  HE DID NOT APPEAL, BUT PETITIONED THE STATE SUPREME
COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT OPINION.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A SERIOUS CLAIM THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN
DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AT THE BAR OF
THIS COURT, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARGUED THAT THE STATE SUPREME
COURT'S JUDGMENT RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND.  AFTER TWICE
CONTINUING THE CAUSE ON ITS DOCKET TO ENABLE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO
OBTAIN FROM THE STATE SUPREME COURT A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER ITS
JUDGMENT WAS INTENDED TO REST UPON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, THIS COURT
IS NOW INFORMED THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS THAT IT HAS NO
JURISDICTION TO RENDER SUCH A DETERMINATION.  HELD: 

1.  TO THE END THAT THE DOUBT AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT MAY BE RESOLVED, THAT
JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 
PP. 144-146. 

2.  A NEW JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED, AND PETITIONER MAY ALSO BE
INFORMED BY AN OFFICIAL DETERMINATION FROM THE STATE SUPREME COURT
WHETHER OR NOT THAT JUDGMENT RESTS ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND.  PP.
144-146. 

DIXON V. DUFFY, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS DENIED BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA WITHOUT OPINION.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 938.  JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED, P.
146. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ORIGINATED ON OCTOBER 21, 1950, WHEN PETITIONER, A PRISONER
IN SAN QUENTIN, FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  THAT COURT, SUMMARILY, BUT WITH TWO
DISSENTS, DENIED THE APPLICATION.  TO REVIEW THIS DECISION, PETITIONER
APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI.  THE COURT GRANTED THE PETITION,
341 U.S. 938, AND THEREAFTER APPOINTED COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE
PETITIONER.  342 U.S. 805. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA APPEARED FOR RESPONDENT.  AT THE
BAR OF THIS COURT, HE ARGUED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE NONFEDERAL GROUND.  ADMITTING THAT
HABEAS CORPUS IS ORDINARILY AN AVAILABLE MEANS TO CALIFORNIA PRISONERS
TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH RESULTED IN
THEIR INCARCERATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOLD US THAT THE WRIT WAS
UNAVAILABLE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, TO THIS PARTICULAR PETITIONER
BECAUSE HE COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE PRESENTED HIS FEDERAL CLAIM IN AN
APPEAL FROM HIS ORIGINAL CONVICTION.  COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER VIGOROUSLY
OPPOSED THIS CONTENTION, INSISTING THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS AN AVAILABLE
REMEDY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS PROPERLY
BEFORE THE COURT. 

THIS COURT, OF COURSE, DOES NOT SIT TO DETERMINE MATTERS OF STATE
LAW; NOR IS IT THE APPROPRIATE FORUM TO RESOLVE THE ARGUMENT RAISED BY
THE EARNEST OBJECTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE FOLLOW OUR PRECEDENTS.  (FN1)  WE CONTINUED THE CAUSE
"FOR SUCH PERIOD" AS WOULD "ENABLE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO SECURE A
DETERMINATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AS TO WHETHER THE
JUDGMENT HEREIN WAS INTENDED TO REST ON AN ADEQUATE INDEPENDENT STATE
GROUND OR WHETHER DECISION OF THE FEDERAL CLAIM WAS NECESSARY TO THE
JUDGMENT RENDERED."  342 U.S. 33, 34. 

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER, IN DECEMBER 1951, DULY FILED IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA A "PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF BASIS OF JUDGMENT"
WHICH REQUESTED AN EXPRESSION BY THAT COURT ON THE ISSUE RAISED BY OUR
ORDER.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CLERK OF THIS COURT RECEIVED A LETTER FROM
THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA RELATIVE TO THIS
QUESTION.  BUT WE RECEIVED NO OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

WE COULD NOT REGARD THE LETTER FROM THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA AS A "SUFFICIENT 'DETERMINATION' OF THE QUESTION RAISED IN
OUR ORDER OF NOVEMBER 5, 1951."  THEREFORE, ON MAY 12, 1952, WE
"FURTHER CONTINUED" THE CAUSE ON OUR DOCKET TO ENABLE COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER TO SECURE FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA ITS OFFICIAL
DETERMINATION AS REQUESTED BY OUR EARLIER ORDER.  343 U.S. 393. 

THOUGH SOME MONTHS HAVE NOW ELAPSED, WE STILL HAVE RECEIVED NO ADVICE
FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  WE ARE INFORMED, HOWEVER, THAT
THE CALIFORNIA COURT ADVISED PETITIONER'S COUNSEL INFORMALLY THAT IT
DOUBTED ITS JURISDICTION TO RENDER SUCH A DETERMINATION.  AND, ALTHOUGH
COUNSEL SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED BRIEFS TO THE CONTRARY, THE CALIFORNIA
COURT AGAIN INFORMED COUNSEL, THROUGH ITS CLERK, THAT IT WAS POWERLESS,
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, TO ISSUE ANY FURTHER OFFICIAL EXPRESSION ON
THE CASE.  IT APPEARS, THEN, THAT SO LONG AS THIS CAUSE CONTINUES ON
OUR DOCKET, COUNSEL CANNOT PROCURE THAT WHICH WE ASKED HIM TO PROCURE. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE "BECAUSE OF A SERIOUS CLAIM THAT
PETITIONER HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION."  342 U.S. 33.  THIS COURT, ALONE, IS THE FINAL ARBITER
OF SUCH A CLAIM, AND OUR GRANT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD ENTITLE PETITIONER
TO THE CHANCE TO HAVE THE MATTER RESOLVED BY THIS COURT - PROVIDED THAT
THE STATE JUDGMENT WAS NOT BASED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND.  IF THE
STATE JUDGMENT WAS BASED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, THE COURT, OF
COURSE, WOULD BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE FEDERAL
QUESTION.  DOUBT HAS SINCE ARISEN THAT SUCH JURISDICTION EXISTS.  THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD NOT NOW ACT TO DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF HIS DAY IN
THIS COURT, (FN2) BUT THEY DO REQUIRE THAT WE TAKE SCRUPULOUS CARE, AS
WE HAVE SO OFTEN DONE BEFORE, (FN3) TO DETERMINE OUR JURISDICTION. 
THIS INVOLVES FURTHER DELAY, AND IN THIS CASE FURTHER DELAY IS
REGRETTABLE.  BUT DELAY IS NECESSARY UNLESS WE ARE TO RESOLVE THE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE BY SIMPLY ASSUMING THE NONEXISTENCE OF AN ADEQUATE
STATE GROUND THOUGH IN FACT ONE MAY EXIST. 

TO THE END THAT THE DOUBT IN THIS CASE MAY BE RESOLVED, WE VACATE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AND REMAND THE CAUSE FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  A NEW JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED, AND PETITIONER
ALSO MAY BE INFORMED BY AN OFFICIAL DETERMINATION FROM THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA WHETHER OR NOT THAT JUDGMENT RESTS ON AN ADEQUATE
STATE GROUND.  (FN4)  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS, 334 U.S. 804 (1948); HERB V. PITCAIRN, 324
U.S. 117 (1945). 

FN2  SEE NIELSON V. LAGOW, 12 HOW.  98, 109-110 (1852). 

FN3  SEE, E.G., JENNINGS V. ILLINOIS, 342 U.S. 104 (1951); LOFTUS V.
ILLINOIS, SUPRA; HERB V. PITCAIRN, SUPRA.  MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA
CO., 309 U.S. 551 (1940); HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14 (1937). 

FN4  CF. JENNINGS V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA; MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO.,
SUPRA; HONEYMAN V. HANAN, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

BOTH THE WISDOM AND THE LEGALITY OF THIS POLICY TOWARD THE HIGHEST
COURT OF A STATE APPEAR DUBIOUS TO ME.  WHAT WE ARE DOING, IN ESSENCE,
IS TO VACATE A STATE COURT JUDGMENT, NOT BECAUSE IT IS FOUND TO BE
INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW, BUT BECAUSE THE STATE COURT HAS NOT TOLD
US, WITH AN ACCEPTABLE DEGREE OF FORMALITY, WHAT REASONS LED TO
RENDERING IT. 

THIS COURT HAS BLAZED THE WAY FOR THE PRACTICE OF DISPENSING WITH
OPINIONS IN DENYING PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY ORDERS, SUCH AS
CERTIORARI AND MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 
UNLESS WE MEAN TO IMPOSE ON STATE COURTS A BURDEN WE ARE UNWILLING TO
ASSUME OURSELVES, WE SHOULD NOT VACATE THIS STATE JUDGMENT.  DOUBT OF
OUR JURISDICTION IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR EXERCISING IT; QUITE THE
CONTRARY IS THE RULE. 

THOSE FEW OF THE CASES CITED BY THE COURT IN WHICH THIS PROCEDURE WAS
FOLLOWED ARE NOT PERSUASIVE.   THERE WAS NO EXAMINATION OF THE COURT'S
POWER TO VACATE, AND THE RESULTS DO NOT ENCOURAGE ITS REPETITION.  IN
TWO CASES, THE JUDGMENT VACATED WAS SIMPLY REINSTATED BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AND THE LITIGANTS WERE NEVER HEARD FROM AGAIN.  COMPARE
MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551, WITH NATIONAL TEA CO. V.
STATE, 208 MINN. 607, 294 N.W. 230; STATE TAX COMM'N V. VAN COTT, 306
U.S. 511, WITH VAN COTT V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 98 UTAH 264, 96 P.2D 740. 
IN ANOTHER INSTANCE, HOWEVER, WE PURSUED A LESS DRASTIC COURSE; WE
STAYED OUR OWN HAND WHILE PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE STATE COURT FOR
CLARIFICATION OF ITS GROUNDS OF DECISION.  COMPARE HERB V. PITCAIRN,
324 U.S. 117, WITH ID., 325 U.S. 77. 

IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, HAVING PROMPTLY AND
OFFICIALLY, ALBEIT INFORMALLY, ADVISED US OF ITS GROUND OF DECISION,
FEELS ITSELF WITHOUT POWER TO MAKE A FORMAL ORDER THEREIN.  ONE REASON
IS THAT IT HAS LONG SINCE CLOSED THE CASE WITH A FINAL DETERMINATION,
AND ANOTHER IS THAT WE, BY GRANT OF CERTIORARI, HAVE LIFTED THE CASE,
RECORD AND ALL, OUT OF THAT COURT.  I CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS
UNREASONABLE FOR A STATE COURT TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING FORMAL ORDERS
IN A CASE WHICH IS NO LONGER PENDING BEFORE IT. 

THE PLAIN TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI WAS AN
IRRESPONSIBLE EXERCISE OF OUR OWN POWER WITHOUT REQUIRING OR
CONSIDERING ADEQUATE JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION.  THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT HAS A PERFECT RIGHT TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS TO REVIEW A CONTENTION THAT UNDER STATE PRACTICE COULD HAVE, AND
SHOULD HAVE, BEEN URGED ON APPEAL.  WE ARE WITHOUT POWER TO REQUIRE
STATES TO ALLOW RETRIAL DE NOVO VIA HABEAS CORPUS OF ISSUES TRIED AND
OPEN TO REVIEW ON THE ORIGINAL RECORD.  IT SEEMS TO ME PROBABLE THAT
THIS IS THE GROUND THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS TAKEN, NOT, AS THIS
COURT INTIMATES, FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT AS A GENERAL RULE OF
STATE LAW, AND I THINK A WISE AND PROPER ONE.  IT PROBABLY WILL
REAFFIRM BY REINSTATING THE JUDGMENT WE UPSET TODAY.  I THINK DISMISSAL
OF OUR OWN WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON THE CANDID ADMISSION THAT IT WAS
IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED IS OUR WISE AND LAWFUL COURSE. 
..END :



















UNITED STATES V. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. 344 U.S. 149 


NO. 16.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1952 - 120 CT.
CL. 518, 100 F. SUPP. 970, REVERSED. 


IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE WARTIME DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY BY THE ARMY TO PREVENT ITS IMMINENT CAPTURE AND USE BY AN
ADVANCING ENEMY DID NOT ENTITLE THE OWNER TO COMPENSATION UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 150-156. 

(A)  WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN UNITED STATES V.
PACIFIC R. CO., 120 U.S. 227, WAS DICTUM WHEN ENUNCIATED, THIS COURT
HOLDS THAT IT IS THE LAW TODAY.  PP. 153-154. 

(B)  MITCHELL V. HARMONY, 13 HOW.  115, AND UNITED STATES V. RUSSELL,
13 WALL.  623, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 152-153. 

(C)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT THE ARMY
EXERCISED "DELIBERATION" IN SINGLING OUT THIS PROPERTY, IN
"REQUISITIONING" IT FROM ITS OWNERS, AND IN EXERCISING "CONTROL" OVER
IT BEFORE DESTROYING IT, NOR BY THE FACT THAT THE DESTRUCTION WAS
EFFECTED PRIOR TO WITHDRAWAL.  PP. 154-155. 

UNITED STATES V. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

IN A SUIT TO RECOVER COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FOR
PROPERTY DESTROYED BY THE ARMY IN WARTIME TO PREVENT ITS USE BY THE
ENEMY, THE COURT OF CLAIMS GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.  120 CT.
CL. 518, 100 F. SUPP. 970.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S.
955.  REVERSED, P. 156. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

EACH OF THE RESPONDENT OIL COMPANIES OWNED TERMINAL FACILITIES IN THE
PANDACAN DISTRICT OF MANILA AT THE TIME OF THE JAPANESE ATTACK UPON
PEARL HARBOR.  THESE WERE USED TO RECEIVE, HANDLE AND STORE PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS FROM INCOMING SHIPS AND TO RELEASE THEM FOR FURTHER
DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  WHARVES, RAIL AND
AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT, PUMPS, PIPE LINES, STORAGE TANKS, AND WAREHOUSES
WERE INCLUDED IN THE PROPERTY ON HAND AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR, AS
WELL AS A NORMAL SUPPLY OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. 

NEWS OF THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK REACHED MANILA EARLY IN THE MORNING
OF DECEMBER 8, 1941.  ON THE SAME DAY, ENEMY AIR ATTACKS WERE MOUNTED
AGAINST OUR FORCES IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND THEREAFTER THE ENEMY
LAUNCHED HIS AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT. 

ON DECEMBER 12, 1941, THE UNITED STATES ARMY, THROUGH ITS CHIEF
QUARTERMASTER, STATIONED A CONTROL OFFICER AT THE TERMINALS. 
OPERATIONS CONTINUED AT RESPONDENTS' PLANTS, BUT DISTRIBUTION OF THE
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FOR CIVILIAN USE WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED.  A MAJOR
SHARE OF THE EXISTING SUPPLIES WAS REQUISITIONED BY THE ARMY. 

THE MILITARY SITUATION IN THE PHILIPPINES GREW WORSE.  IN THE FACE OF
THE JAPANESE ADVANCE, THE COMMANDING GENERAL ON DECEMBER 23, 1941,
ORDERED THE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS ON LUZON TO THE BATAAN PENINSULA. 
ON DECEMBER 25, 1941, HE DECLARED MANILA TO BE AN OPEN CITY.  ON THAT
SAME DAY, THE CHIEF ENGINEER ON THE STAFF OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL
ADDRESSED TO EACH OF THE OIL COMPANIES LETTERS STATING THAT THE
PANDACAN OIL DEPOTS "ARE REQUISITIONED BY THE U.S. ARMY."  THE LETTERS
FURTHER STATED:  "ANY ACTION DEEMED NECESSARY FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF
THIS PROPERTY WILL BE HANDLED BY THE U.S. ARMY."  AN ENGINEER IN THE
EMPLOY OF ONE OF THE COMPANIES WAS COMMISSIONED A FIRST LIEUTENANT IN
THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO FACILITATE THIS DESIGN. 

ON DECEMBER 26, HE RECEIVED ORDERS TO PREPARE THE FACILITIES FOR
DEMOLITION.  ON DECEMBER 27, 1941, WHILE ENEMY PLANES WERE BOMBING THE
AREA, THIS OFFICER MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANIES.  THE
ORDERS OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER HAD BEEN TRANSMITTED TO THE COMPANIES. 
LETTERS FROM THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, BY COMMAND OF GENERAL
MACARTHUR, ALSO HAD BEEN SENT TO EACH OF THE OIL COMPANIES, DIRECTING
THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL REMAINING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND THE VITAL PARTS
OF THE PLANTS.  PLANS WERE LAID TO CARRY OUT THESE INSTRUCTIONS, TO
EXPEDITE THE REMOVAL OF PRODUCTS WHICH MIGHT STILL BE OF USE TO THE
TROOPS IN THE FIELD, AND TO LAY A DEMOLITION NETWORK ABOUT THE
TERMINALS.  THE REPRESENTATIVES OF CALTEX WERE GIVEN, AT THEIR
INSISTENCE, A PENCILED RECEIPT FOR ALL THE TERMINAL FACILITIES AND
STOCKS OF CALTEX. 

AT 5:40 P.M., DECEMBER 31, 1941, WHILE JAPANESE TROOPS WERE ENTERING
MANILA, ARMY PERSONNEL COMPLETED A SUCCESSFUL DEMOLITION.  ALL UNUSED
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WERE DESTROYED, AND THE FACILITIES WERE RENDERED
USELESS TO THE ENEMY.  THE ENEMY WAS DEPRIVED OF A VALUABLE LOGISTIC
WEAPON. 

AFTER THE WAR, RESPONDENTS DEMANDED COMPENSATION FOR ALL OF THE
PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN USED OR DESTROYED BY THE ARMY.  THE GOVERNMENT
PAID FOR THE PETROLEUM STOCKS AND TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT WHICH WERE
EITHER USED OR DESTROYED BY THE ARMY, BUT IT REFUSED TO COMPENSATE
RESPONDENTS FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE PANDACAN TERMINAL FACILITIES. 
CLAIMING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (FN1) TO JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THESE TERMINAL FACILITIES, RESPONDENTS SUED IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS.  RECOVERY WAS ALLOWED.  120 CT. CL. 518, 100 F. SUPP.
970.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THIS JUDGMENT.  343 U.S. 955. 

AS REFLECTED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THERE WERE TWO
RATHER DISTINCT PHASES OF ARMY OPERATIONS IN THE PANDACAN DISTRICT IN
DECEMBER 1941.  WHILE THE MILITARY EXERCISED CONSIDERABLE CONTROL OVER
THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF RESPONDENTS' TERMINALS DURING THE PERIOD
BETWEEN DECEMBER 12 AND DECEMBER 26, THERE WAS NOT, ACCORDING TO THE
FINDINGS BELOW, AN ASSUMPTION OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL OR PROPRIETARY
DOMINION OVER THEM DURING THIS PERIOD.  (FN2)  BOUND BY THESE FINDINGS,
RESPONDENTS DO NOT NOW QUESTION THE HOLDING OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT
PRIOR TO DECEMBER 27 THERE WAS NO SEIZURE FOR WHICH JUST COMPENSATION
MUST BE PAID. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED
BETWEEN DECEMBER 27 AND DECEMBER 31 WHICH CONCERNS US.  RESPONDENTS
CONCEDE THAT THE ARMY HAD A RIGHT TO DESTROY THE INSTALLATIONS.  BUT
THEY INSIST THAT THE DESTRUCTION CREATED A RIGHT IN THEMSELVES TO EXACT
FAIR COMPENSATION FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR WHAT WAS DESTROYED. 

THE ARGUMENT DRAWS HEAVILY FROM STATEMENTS BY THIS COURT IN MITCHELL
V. HARMONY, 13 HOW.  115 (1852), AND UNITED STATES V. RUSSELL, 13
WALL.  623 (1871).  WE AGREE THAT THE OPINIONS LEND SOME SUPPORT TO
RESPONDENT'S VIEW.  (FN3)  BUT THE LANGUAGE IN THOSE TWO CASES IS FAR
BROADER THAN THE HOLDINGS.  BOTH CASES INVOLVED EQUIPMENT WHICH HAD
BEEN IMPRESSED BY THE ARMY FOR SUBSEQUENT USE BY THE ARMY.  IN NEITHER
WAS THE ARMY'S PURPOSE LIMITED, AS IT WAS IN THIS CASE, TO THE SOLE
OBJECTIVE OF DESTROYING PROPERTY OF STRATEGIC VALUE TO PREVENT THE
ENEMY FROM USING IT TO WAGE WAR THE MORE SUCCESSFULLY. 

A CLOSE READING OF THE MITCHELL AND RUSSELL CASES SHOWS THAT THEY ARE
NOT PRECEDENT TO ESTABLISH AN COMPENSABLE TAKING IN THIS CASE.  NOR DO
THOSE CASES EXHAUST ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID BY THIS COURT ON THE
SUBJECT.  IN UNITED STATES V. PACIFIC R. CO., 120 U.S. 227 (1887), MR.
JUSTICE FIELD, SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, DISCUSSED THE QUESTION
AT LENGTH.  THAT CASE INVOLVED BRIDGES WHICH HAD BEEN DESTROYED DURING
THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES BY A RETREATING NORTHERN ARMY TO IMPEDE THE
ADVANCE OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMY.  (FN4)  THOUGH THE POINT WAS NOT
DIRECTLY INVOLVED, THE COURT RAISED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS ACT
CONSTITUTED A COMPENSABLE TAKING BY THE UNITED STATES AND ANSWERED IT
IN THE NEGATIVE: 

"THE DESTRUCTION OR INJURY OR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN BATTLE, OR IN THE
BOMBARDMENT OF CITIES AND TOWNS, AND IN MANY OTHER WAYS IN THE WAR, HAD
TO BE BORNE BY THE SUFFERERS ALONE AS ONE OF ITS CONSEQUENCES. 
WHATEVER WOULD EMBARRASS OR IMPEDE THE ADVANCE OF THE ENEMY, AS THE
BREAKING UP OF ROADS, OR THE BURNING OF BRIDGES, OR WOULD CRIPPLE AND
DEFEAT HIM, AS DESTROYING HIS MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE, WERE LAWFULLY
ORDERED BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL.  INDEED, IT WAS HIS IMPERATIVE DUTY
TO DIRECT THEIR DESTRUCTION.  THE NECESSITIES OF THE WAR CALLED FOR AND
JUSTIFIED THIS.  THE SAFETY OF THE STATE IN SUCH CASES OVERRIDES ALL
CONSIDERATIONS OF PRIVATE LOSS."  (FN5) 

IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THIS LANGUAGE ALSO WENT BEYOND THE PRECISE
QUESTIONS AT ISSUE.  BUT THE PRINCIPLES EXPRESSED WERE NEITHER NOVEL
NOR STARTLING, FOR THE COMMON LAW HAD LONG RECOGNIZED THAT IN TIMES OF
IMMINENT PERIL - SUCH AS WHEN FIRE THREATENED A WHOLE COMMUNITY - THE
SOVEREIGN COULD, WITH IMMUNITY, DESTROY THE PROPERTY OF A FEW THAT THE
PROPERTY OF MANY AND THE LIVES OF MANY MORE COULD BE SAVED.  (FN6)  AND
WHAT WAS SAID IN THE PACIFIC RAILROAD CASE WAS LATER MADE THE BASIS FOR
THE HOLDING IN JURAGUA IRON CO. V. UNITED STATES, 212 U.S. 297 (1909),
WHERE RECOVERY WAS DENIED TO THE OWNERS OF A FACTORY WHICH HAD BEEN
DESTROYED BY AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN THE FIELD IN CUBA BECAUSE IT WAS
THOUGHT THAT THE STRUCTURE HOUSED THE GERMS OF A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE. 

THEREFORE, WHETHER OR NOT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY MR. JUSTICE
FIELD WAS DICTUM WHEN HE ENUNCIATED IT, WE HOLD THAT IT IS LAW TODAY. 
IN OUR VIEW, IT MUST GOVERN IN THIS CASE.  RESPONDENTS AND THE MAJORITY
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, ARGUING TO THE CONTRARY, HAVE PLACED GREAT
EMPHASIS ON THE FACT THAT THE ARMY EXERCISED "DELIBERATION" IN SINGLING
OUT THIS PROPERTY, IN "REQUISITIONING" IT FROM ITS OWNERS, AND IN
EXERCISING "CONTROL" OVER IT BEFORE DEVASTATING IT.  WE NEED NOT LABOR
OVER THESE LABELS; IT MAY BE THAT THEY DESCRIBE ADEQUATELY WHAT WAS
DONE, BUT THEY DO NOT SHOW THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WAS DONE. 
THE "REQUISITION" INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WAS NO MORE THAN AN ORDER TO
EVACUATE THE PREMISES WHICH WERE SLATED FOR DEMOLITION.  THE
"DELIBERATION" BEHIND THE ORDER WAS NO MORE THAN A DESIGN TO PREVENT
THE ENEMY FROM REALIZING ANY STRATEGIC VALUE FROM AN AREA WHICH HE WAS
SOON TO CAPTURE. 

HAD THE ARMY HESITATED, HAD THE FACILITIES ONLY BEEN DESTROYED AFTER
RETREAT, RESPONDENTS WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE NO CLAIMS TO COMPENSATION. 
THE ARMY DID NOT HESITATE.  IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT ANY CONCERN OVER THE
LEGAL NICETIES OF THE SITUATION ENTERED INTO THE DECISION TO DESTROY
THE PLANTS PROMPTLY WHILE THERE WAS YET TIME TO DESTROY THEM
THOROUGHLY.  (FN7)  NOR DO WE THINK IT LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT THE
DESTRUCTION WAS AFFECTED PRIOR TO WITHDRAWAL.  THE SHORT OF THE MATTER
IS THAT THIS PROPERTY, DUE TO THE FORTUNES OF WAR, HAD BECOME A
POTENTIAL WEAPON OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE TO THE INVADER.  IT WAS
DESTROYED, NOT APPROPRIATED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE.  IT WAS DESTROYED THAT
THE UNITED STATES MIGHT BETTER AND SOONER DESTROY THE ENEMY. 

THE TERSE LANGUAGE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS NO COMPREHENSIVE PROMISE
THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL MAKE WHOLE ALL WHO SUFFER FROM EVERY RAVAGE
AND BURDEN OF WAR.  THIS COURT HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT IN WARTIME MANY
LOSSES MUST BE ATTRIBUTED SOLELY TO THE FORTUNES OF WAR, AND NOT TO THE
SOVEREIGN.  (FN8)  NO RIGID RULES CAN BE LAID DOWN TO DISTINGUISH
COMPENSABLE LOSSES FROM NONCOMPENSABLE LOSSES.  EACH CASE MUST BE
JUDGED ON ITS OWN FACTS.  BUT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE
PACIFIC RAILROAD CASE SEEM ESPECIALLY APPLICABLE HERE.  VIEWED
REALISTICALLY, THEN, THE DESTRUCTION OF RESPONDENTS' TERMINALS BY A
TRAINED TEAM OF ENGINEERS IN THE FACE OF THEIR IMPENDING SEIZURE BY THE
ENEMY WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGES IN THE
PACIFIC RAILROAD CASE.  ADHERING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THAT CASE, WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COMPENSATION ON THE CLAIMS PRESENTED TO THIS
COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "  ...  NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE,
WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION." 

FN2  AT ONE POINT SHORTLY AFTER THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR, THE ARMY
CONTEMPLATED LEASING RESPONDENTS' FACILITIES.  BUT THIS PLAN WAS NEVER
PUT INTO EFFECT.  RESPONDENTS CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE PLANTS
THEMSELVES UP TO DECEMBER 26, 1941. 

FN3  IN THE RUSSELL CASE, SUPRA, THE COURT SAID, 13 WALL., AT 627
628: 

"EXTRAORDINARY AND UNFORESEEN OCCASIONS ARISE, HOWEVER, BEYOND ALL
DOUBT, IN CASES OF EXTREME NECESSITY IN TIME OF WAR OR OF IMMEDIATE AND
IMPENDING PUBLIC DANGER, IN WHICH PRIVATE PROPERTY MAY BE IMPRESSED
INTO THE PUBLIC SERVICE, OR MAY BE SEIZED AND APPROPRIATED TO THE
PUBLIC USE, OR MAY EVEN BE DESTROYED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER
...  .  EXIGENCIES OF THE KIND DO ARISE IN TIME OF WAR OR IMPENDING
PUBLIC DANGER, BUT IT IS THE EMERGENCY, AS WAS SAID BY A GREAT
MAGISTRATE, THAT GIVES THE RIGHT, AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EMERGENCY
MUST BE SHOWN TO EXIST BEFORE THE TAKING CAN BE JUSTIFIED.  SUCH A
JUSTIFICATION MAY BE SHOWN, AND WHEN SHOWN THE RULE IS WELL SETTLED
THAT THE OFFICER TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR SUCH A PURPOSE, IF THE
EMERGENCY IS FULLY PROVED, IS NOT A TRESPASSER, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT
IS BOUND TO MAKE FULL COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER." 

FN4  THE NARROW ISSUE IN THE CASE WAS WHETHER, AFTER THE ARMY REBUILT
THE BRIDGES IT HAD PREVIOUSLY DESTROYED, THE ARMY COULD CHARGE FOR THE
EXPENSE OF THE REBUILDING.  ON THIS ISSUE THE COURT HELD FOR THE
RAILROAD. 

FN5  120 U.S., AT 234. 

FN6  FOR EARLIER CASES EXPRESSING SUCH PRINCIPLES SEE, E.G., BOWDITCH
V. BOSTON, 101 U.S. 16, 18-19 (1879); RESPUBLICA V. SPARHAWK, 1 DALL. 
357 (1788); PARHAM V. THE JUSTICES, 9 GA. 341, 348-349 (1851).  SEE
ALSO 2 KENT'S COMMENTARIES (14TH ED.)  338. 

FN7  CF. RESPUBLICA V. SPARHAWK, SUPRA, WHERE THE FOLLOWING APPEARS,
1 DALL., AT 363: 

"WE FIND, INDEED, A MEMORABLE INSTANCE OF FOLLY RECORDED IN THE 3
VOL. OF CLARENDON'S HISTORY, WHERE IT IS MENTIONED, THAT THE LORD MAYOR
OF LONDON, IN 1966, WHEN THAT CITY WAS ON FIRE, WOULD NOT GIVE
DIRECTIONS FOR, OR CONSENT TO, THE PULLING DOWN FORTY WOODEN HOUSES, OR
TO THE REMOVING THE FURNITURE, &C. BELONGING TO THE LAWYERS OF THE
TEMPLE, THEN ON THE CIRCUIT, FOR FEAR THAT HE SHOULD BE ANSWERABLE FOR
A TRESPASS; AND IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS CONDUCT HALF THAT GREAT CITY WAS
BURNT." 

FN8  LICHTER V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 742, 787-788 (1948); BOWLES
V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 517-519 (1944); OMNIA COMMERCIAL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 502 (1923). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE MILITARY HAD AUTHORITY TO SELECT THIS
PARTICULAR PROPERTY FOR DESTRUCTION.  BUT WHATEVER THE WEIGHT OF
AUTHORITY MAY BE, I BELIEVE THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES
COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING.  THE PROPERTY WAS DESTROYED, NOT BECAUSE
IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE, BUT BECAUSE ITS DESTRUCTION
WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO HELP WIN THE WAR.  IT WAS AS CLEARLY
APPROPRIATED TO THAT END AS ANIMALS, FOOD, AND SUPPLIES REQUISITIONED
FOR THE DEFENSE EFFORT.  AS THE COURT SAYS, THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS
PROPERTY DEPRIVED THE ENEMY OF A VALUABLE LOGISTIC WEAPON.    IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE THIS:  WHENEVER THE
GOVERNMENT DETERMINES THAT ONE PERSON'S PROPERTY - WHATEVER IT MAY BE -
IS ESSENTIAL TO THE WAR EFFORT AND APPROPRIATES IT FOR THE COMMON GOOD,
THE PUBLIC PURSE, RATHER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL, SHOULD BEAR THE LOSS. 
..END :






















LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING CO. V. WOOD, MEMBERS OF THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION 344 U.S. 157 


NO. 37.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1952 - 219 ARK.
553, 244 S.W.2D 147, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER MANUFACTURES IN TENNESSEE PRODUCTS WHICH IT SENDS IN TRUCKS
TO CUSTOMERS IN NEARBY STATES.  FINDING THAT DRIVER-OWNERS CARRYING
THOSE PRODUCTS IN ARKANSAS, WHO ALLEGEDLY HAD LEASED THEIR VEHICLES TO
PETITIONER, WERE IN REALITY TRANSPORTING PETITIONER'S GOODS AS
"CONTRACT CARRIERS" FOR WHICH A STATE ACT REQUIRED A PERMIT, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT DISMISSED PETITIONER'S BILL PRAYING THAT ENFORCEMENT OF
THE ACT BE ENJOINED.  NEITHER PETITIONER NOR THE DRIVERS HAD OBTAINED
ANY KIND OF AUTHORITY FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  HELD: 

1.  THE FINDING OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT THAT THE DRIVER-OWNERS
WERE IN REALITY TRANSPORTING PETITIONER'S GOODS AS CONTRACT CARRIERS IS
NOT WITHOUT FACTUAL FOUNDATION AND IS ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT.  PP. 159
160. 

2.  THE STATE'S REQUIREMENT OF A PERMIT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT
AN UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION NOR WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR
CARRIER ACT.  PP. 161-163 

3.  BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S. 307, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 161-162. 

4.  IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO CONSIDER APPREHENDED BURDENSOME
CONDITIONS WHICH THE STATE HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO ENFORCE.  PP. 162-163 

5.  THE STATE IS NOT WITHOUT POWER TO REQUIRE INTERSTATE MOTOR
CARRIERS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS USERS OF THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS.  P.
163. 

LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING CO. V. WOOD ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY PETITIONER IN AN ARKANSAS STATE COURT TO
ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS MOTOR CARRIER ACT, THE STATE SUPREME
COURT ORDERED DISMISSAL OF THE BILL.  219 ARK. 553, 244 S.W.2D 147. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 962.  AFFIRMED, P. 163. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY, MANUFACTURES ASPHALT
ROOFING PRODUCTS IN MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, AND SENDS THEM IN TRUCKS TO
CUSTOMERS IN NEARBY STATES.  SOME OF THESE TRUCKS ARE DRIVEN BY THEIR
OWNERS WHO HAVE ALLEGEDLY LEASED THEM TO THE PETITIONER.  FIVE OF THESE
DRIVER-OWNERS WHILE CARRYING FRY'S INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS ON ARKANSAS
HIGHWAYS WERE ARRESTED FOR HAVING FAILED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT AS REQUIRED
OF ALL CONTRACT CARRIERS BY SEC. 11 OF THE ARKANSAS MOTOR ACT.  (FN1)
PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN AN ARKANSAS STATE COURT TO ENJOIN THE
STATE'S PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FROM FURTHER MOLESTATION OR
PROSECUTION OF THE DRIVERS.  THE BILL ASSERTED BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL
GROUNDS FOR DENYING THAT THE STATE LAW COULD BE APPLIED TO REQUIRE A
PERMIT.  THE STATE GROUNDS ALLEGED WERE:  NEITHER PETITIONER FRY
ROOFING COMPANY NOR THE TRUCK DRIVERS COULD BE REQUIRED TO GET A STATE
PERMIT, BECAUSE THE STATE LAW EXEMPTED "PRIVATE" CARRIERS FROM THAT
DUTY, AND PETITIONER WAS SUCH A "PRIVATE CARRIER" - THAT IS, A
COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, CARRYING ITS OWN PRODUCTS EXCLUSIVELY IN ITS OWN
LEASED TRUCKS OPERATED BY ITS OWN BONA FIDE DRIVER-EMPLOYEES.  SINCE,
PETITIONER CLAIMED, THE DRIVERS WERE ITS BONA FIDE EMPLOYEES, IT
NECESSARILY FOLLOWED THAT THEY NEED NOT GET STATE PERMITS AS "CONTRACT
CARRIERS" BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING GOODS
FOR HIRE.  (FN2) THE FEDERAL GROUND ASSERTED BY PETITIONER TO PREVENT
APPLICATION OF THE STATE STATUTE WAS THAT REQUIRING EITHER FRY OR THE
DRIVERS TO GET STATE PERMITS WOULD UNDULY BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND WOULD INVADE A FIELD OF
REGULATION PRE-EMPTED BY THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  (FN3) 

ANSWERING THE BILL, THE STATE COMMISSION ASKED THE COURT TO DISMISS
IT, STRONGLY URGING THAT PETITIONER'S ALLEGED LEASE OF TRUCKS AND
OPERATION OF THEM BY ITS OWN EMPLOYEES WERE MERE PRETENSES, A
SUBTERFUGE TO ENABLE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO EVADE AND ESCAPE THE
REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS MOTOR ACT.  AFTER LENGTHY
HEARINGS THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE ARRESTED DRIVERS WERE IN FACT
BONA FIDE EMPLOYEES OF PETITIONER, THAT THE TRUCK LEASES WERE ALSO BONA
FIDE, AND THAT PETITIONER WAS THEREFORE TRANSPORTING ITS OWN GOODS AS A
PRIVATE CARRIER EXEMPT FROM THE STATE ACT.  FOR THIS REASON THE COURT
HELD THAT THE ACT DID NOT REQUIRE EITHER PETITIONER OR ITS DRIVERS TO
GET A PERMIT.  ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION WAS ENJOINED AS PRAYED. 
REVIEWING THE FACTS FOR ITSELF THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE
ARRESTED TRUCK DRIVERS WERE NOT PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES, THAT THE TRUCK
LEASE ARRANGEMENTS WERE SHAMS, AND THAT PETITIONER WAS THEREFORE A
SHIPPER - NOT A CARRIER OF ANY KIND.  IN THIS SITUATION THE COURT FOUND
THAT THE DRIVER-OWNERS WERE IN REALITY TRANSPORTING PETITIONER'S GOODS
AS "CONTRACT CARRIERS" FOR HIRE, ENGAGED IN THE VERY KIND OF BUSINESS
FOR WHICH SEC. 11 OF THE STATE ACT REQUIRED A REHEARING, THEREBY
REJECTING THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS RAISED.  219 ARK. 553, 244 S.W.2D 147. 
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND FEDERAL MOTOR
CARRIER ACT QUESTIONS.  343 U.S. 962. 

WE ARE URGED TO SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT
BEFORE PASSING UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  PETITIONER
CONTENDS THAT THESE FINDINGS ARE WITHOUT EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT AND THAT
THE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS DO NOT SUPPORT THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION THAT THE
LEASES WERE SHAMS.  WHETHER REJECTION OF THESE FINDINGS WOULD PLACE
PETITIONER'S COMMERCE CLAUSE CONTENTIONS IN A MORE FAVORABLE POSITION,
WE NEED NOT CONSIDER.  FOR THERE IS MUCH RECORD EVIDENCE, BOTH ORAL AND
WRITTEN, SOME OF WHICH TENDS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER'S CONTENTION OF GOOD
FAITH ARRANGEMENTS AND SOME THE CONTRARY.  SOME DETAILS OF PETITIONER'S
CONDUCT RESEMBLE AND SOME DETAILS DIFFER FROM PATTERNS OF CONDUCT FOUND
BY COURTS IN OTHER CASES TO HAVE BEEN CONTRIVED TO AVOID LEGAL
REGULATION.  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. LA TUFF TRANSFER SERVICE, 95
F. SUPP. 375, AND CASES THERE CITED.  THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF ANY KIND THAT WOULD JUSTIFY US IN REJECTING THE
SUPREME COURT'S FINDINGS; THEY ARE NOT WITHOUT FACTUAL FOUNDATION, AND
WE ACCEPT THEM. 

THE FINDING THAT THE ARRESTED DRIVERS OWN AND OPERATE THE TRUCKS FOR
HIRE MAKES THEM CONTRACT CARRIERS AS DEFINED IN THE STATE ACT.  SECTION
11 OF THAT ACT REQUIRES CONTRACT CARRIERS TO GET A PERMIT AND OUTLINES
CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS THE STATE COMMISSION MAY WEIGH IN GRANTING OR
REFUSING THE PERMIT.  AMONG THESE MATTERS IS THE ADEQUACY OF
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ALREADY BEING PERFORMED BY "ANY RAILROAD,
STREET RAILWAY OR MOTOR CARRIER."  REFUSAL OF A STATE CERTIFICATE BASED
ON SUCH GROUNDS WAS HELD TO BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL OBSTRUCTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S. 307.  TO DENY THESE
INTERSTATE CARRIERS AN ARKANSAS PERMIT FOR SUCH REASONS WOULD CONFLICT
WITH THE BUCK HOLDING. 

UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN THE BUCK CASE, ARKANSAS HAS NOT REFUSED TO
GRANT A PERMIT FOR INTERSTATE CARRIAGE OF GOODS ON STATE HIGHWAYS.  IT
HAS ASKED THESE DRIVER-OWNERS TO DO NOTHING EXCEPT APPLY FOR A PERMIT
AS CONTRACT CARRIERS ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY THE STATE ACT.  AND THE
STATE COMMISSIONER HERE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY "DISCRETIONARY RIGHT TO
REFUSE TO GRANT A PERMIT FOR CONTRACT CARRIAGE WHERE THAT CARRIAGE IS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THE STATE ASSERTS NO POWER OR PURPOSE TO
REQUIRE THE DRIVERS TO DO MORE THAN REGISTER WITH THE APPROPRIATE
AGENCY.  (FN4)  SUCH AN IDENTIFICATION IS NECESSARY, THE COMMISSION
URGES, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY PROPERLY APPLY THE STATE'S VALID POLICE,
WELFARE, AND SAFETY REGULATIONS TO MOTOR CARRIERS USING ITS HIGHWAYS. 
NOR IS THERE ANY SHOWING WHATEVER THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ATTEMPTED OR
WILL ATTEMPT TO ATTACH ANY BURDENSOME CONDITIONS TO THE GRANT OF A
PERMIT, OR CONDITIONS THAT WOULD IN ANY MANNER CONFLICT WITH THE
NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT OR ANY INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER.  MOREOVER, THE ARKANSAS ACT IMPOSES UPON
ITS COMMISSION THE DUTY OF RECONCILING STATE REGULATION WITH THAT OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, JUST AS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
REQUIRES FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO COOPERATE WITH THE STATES AND THEIR DULY
AUTHORIZED STATE OFFICIALS.  HERE NEITHER PETITIONER NOR THE DRIVERS
HAVE OBTAINED ANY KIND OF AUTHORITY FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  INDEED, PETITIONER'S WHOLE CASE HAS BEEN BUILT ON THE
PREMISE THAT NEITHER IT NOR THE DRIVERS MUST GET A PERMIT FROM THE
STATE OR THE NATIONAL REGULATORY AGENCY.  IN THIS SITUATION OUR PRIOR
CASES MAKE CLEAR THAT A STATE CAN REGULATE SO LONG AS NO UNDUE BURDEN
IS IMPOSED ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THAT A MERE REQUIREMENT FOR A
PERMIT IS NOT SUCH A BURDEN.  (FN5)  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER
APPREHENDED BURDENSOME CONDITIONS WHEN AND IF THE STATE ATTEMPTS TO
IMPOSE AND ENFORCE THEM.  AT PRESENT WE HOLD ONLY THAT ARKANSAS IS NOT
POWERLESS TO REQUIRE INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES
AS USERS OF THAT STATE'S HIGHWAYS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "NO PERSON SHALL ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF A CONTRACT CARRIER BY
MOTOR VEHICLE OVER ANY PUBLIC HIGHWAY IN THIS STATE UNLESS THERE IS IN
FORCE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH CARRIER A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION,
AUTHORIZING SUCH PERSONS TO ENGAGE IN SUCH BUSINESS  ...  ."  ARK. 
ACTS. 1941, NO. 367, AT 937, 947-948. 

FN2  THE STATE ACT'S DEFINITION OF A CONTRACT CARRIER IS: 

"THE TERM 'CONTRACT CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE' MEANS ANY PERSON, NOT A
COMMON CARRIER INCLUDED UNDER PARAGRAPH 7, SECTION 5(A) OF THIS ACT,
WHO OR WHICH, UNDER INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS, AND WHETHER
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OR BY A LEASE OF EQUIPMENT OR FRANCHISE RIGHTS,
OR ANY OTHER ARRANGEMENT, TRANSPORTS PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY MOTOR
VEHICLE FOR COMPENSATION."  ARK. ACTS 1941, NO. 367, SEC. 5(A)(8). 
COMPARE DEFINITION IN THE UNITED STATES MOTOR CARRIER ACT, PART II OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(15). 

FN3  49 STAT. 543, AS AMENDED, 54 STAT. 919, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 301 ET
SEQ. THE FEDERAL ACT CONTENTION WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO IN THE
ORIGINAL BILL, BUT WAS URGED IN, CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT. 

FN4  "IT APPEARED THAT WHILE THE ACT CALLS THE CERTIFICATE ONE OF
'PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY,' THE COMMISSION HAD RECOGNIZED,
BEFORE THIS SUIT WAS BEGUN, THAT,  ...  IT HAD NO DISCRETION WHERE THE
CARRIER WAS ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND WAS WILLING
TO GRANT TO PLAINTIFFS A CERTIFICATE UPON APPLICATION AND COMPLIANCE
WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW."  CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554, 556. 
IN THE CLARK CASE THIS COURT AFFIRMED AN ORDER DISMISSING THE BILL. 
SEE COLUMBIA TERMINALS CO. V. LAMBERT, 30 F. SUPP. 28, 32, AND 309 U.S.
620. 

FN5  IN COLUMBIA TERMINALS CO. V. LAMBERT, 30 F. SUPP. 28, THE
DISTRICT COURT UPHELD A MISSOURI STATUTE READING:  "IT IS HEREBY
DECLARED UNLAWFUL FOR ANY MOTOR CARRIER  ...  TO USE ANY OF THE PUBLIC
HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY,
OR BOTH, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED FROM THE
COMMISSION A PERMIT SO TO DO  ...  ."  BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S.
307, WAS HELD NOT TO REQUIRE THE STATUTE'S INVALIDATION, SINCE MISSOURI
HAD NOT REFUSED TO GRANT A PERMIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE HAD
POWER TO SAY WHAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD BENEFIT THE STATE AND WHAT
WOULD NOT.  AGREEING WITH THIS CONSTITUTIONAL HOLDING, WE ORDERED THE
COMPLAINT DISMISSED.  309 U.S. 620.  SEE ALSO EICHHOLZ V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, 306 U.S. 268, 273-274; H.P. WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE,
306 U.S. 79, 84, 85; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598, AFFIRMING 336
PA. 17, 7 A.2D 466; MCDONALD V. THOMPSON 305 U.S. 263, AFFIRMING 95
F.2D 937; SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., INC.,
303 U.S. 177.  CF. BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S. 307, AND HOOD & SONS,
INC. V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525, 538. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BURTON
AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

WHETHER THE DRIVER-OWNERS INVOLVED HERE ARE CONTRACT OR PRIVATE
CARRIERS IS IMMATERIAL TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION
PRESENTED.  THAT QUESTION IS WHETHER ARKANSAS CAN REQUIRE A PERSON
ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS BY MOTOR
CARRIED TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY AND CONVENIENCE FROM
ARKANSAS.  THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT ARKANSAS HAS REQUIRED, AS MADE CLEAR
BY THE OPINION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE.  THE
COURT SAID, 

"WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DRIVER-OWNERS INVOLVED IN THIS
LITIGATION WERE CONTRACT CARRIERS" (AS DEFINED IN THE ARKANSAS STATUTE)
AND "  ...  AND THAT THEY WERE THEREFORE REQUIRED TO HAVE A CERTIFICATE
OF NECESSITY AND CONVENIENCE FROM THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION."  219 ARK. 553, 557, 244 S.W.2D 147, 149. 

THE LABEL "CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY AND CONVENIENCE" IS MORE ACCURATE
THAN THE WORD "PERMIT," FOR THE ARKANSAS LAW MAKES THE GRANT OF
PERMISSION DEPENDENT UPON A CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:
(FN1)  "THE RELIABILITY AND FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE APPLICANT" - HIS
"SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD THE PUBLIC" - "THE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE BEING MAINTAINED BY ANY RAILROAD, STREET RAILWAY OR MOTOR
CARRIER" - "THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE BEING PERMANENT AND
CONTINUOUS THROUGHOUT TWELVE MONTHS OF THE YEAR" - "THE EFFECT WHICH
SUCH PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE MAY HAVE UPON EXISTING
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE" - "ANY OTHER MATTERS TENDING TO SHOW THE
NECESSITY OR WANT OF NECESSITY FOR GRANTING SAID APPLICATION."  THE
PERMIT WILL ISSUE IF IT APPEARS THAT "THE APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING,
AND ABLE" PROPERLY TO PERFORM THE SERVICE AND IF THE PROPOSED OPERATION
"WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST" AND THE POLICY OF THE ACT.  (FN2) 

THIS STATUTE IS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NOT A REGULATION
OF THE USE OF ARKANSAS' HIGHWAYS.  IT IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF CONTROL
WHICH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TRIED TO EXERCISE OVER MOTOR CARRIERS AND
WHICH WAS DENIED HER BY BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S. 307.  AS MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN THAT CASE, SAID, THE EFFECT
OF THIS KIND OF STATE REGULATION IS "NOT MERELY TO BURDEN BUT TO
OBSTRUCT" INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ID., AT 316. 

STATE REGULATIONS IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, THE EXACTION OF A FEE
FOR HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE, AND THE LIKE ARE OF A DIFFERENT CHARACTER. 
SEE HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 189, AND CASES
CITED.  SO IS A REQUIREMENT THAT AN INTERSTATE CARRIER GET A PERMIT TO
DO INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  SEE EICHHOLZ V. COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 268. 
THE CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT EXACTED HERE IS ONE AUTHORIZING AN INTERSTATE
CONTRACT CARRIER "TO ENGAGE IN SUCH BUSINESS."  UNTIL TODAY NO STATE
COULD IMPOSE ANY SUCH CONDITION ON ONE ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UNTIL TODAY SUCH A CERTIFICATE WAS THE CONCERN
SOLELY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  CONGRESS GAVE THE
COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO REGULATE INTERSTATE CONTRACT CARRIERS (49
U.S.C. SEC. 304(A)(2)).  CONGRESS MADE IT MANDATORY FOR THEM TO OBTAIN
A PERMIT TO DO BUSINESS (ID., SEC. 309).  IT GAVE THE COMMISSION BROAD
POWERS OF INVESTIGATION OVER THESE CARRIERS (ID., SEC. 304(C)),
PROVIDED FOR INJUNCTIONS AGAINST VIOLATIONS (ID., SEC. 322(B)), AND
IMPOSED CRIMINAL SANCTIONS (ID., SEC. 322(A)).  THERE IS NO PHASE OF
THE OPERATION, WHICH ARKANSAS IN THIS ACTION SEEKS TO REGULATE, THAT
CONGRESS HAS LEFT UNTOUCHED.  IT IS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
THAT MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THIS LEASING OPERATION IS BONA FIDE OR A
SHAM, WHETHER THE CARRIERS ARE PRIVATE INTERSTATE CARRIERS REQUIRING NO
PERMIT OR INTERSTATE CONTRACT CARRIERS REQUIRING ONE.  CONGRESS IN
OTHER WORDS HAS PRE-EMPTED THE FIELD, PRECLUDING BOTH INCONSISTENT AND
OVERLAPPING STATE REGULATIONS.  (FN3)  SEE HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312
U.S. 52; HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538; RICE V. SANTA FE ELEVATOR
CORP., 331 U.S. 218; BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. STATE BOARD, 330 U.S. 767;
LA CROSSE TEL. CORP. V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 336 U.S. 18; PLANKINTON
PACKING CO. V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 338 U.S. 953; AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V.
O'BRIEN, 339 U.S. 454. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT PARTS OF SEC. 11 OF ACT NO. 367, ARK. ACTS 1941,
PP. 947-949, ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A) NO PERSON SHALL ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF A CONTRACT CARRIER BY
MOTOR VEHICLE OVER ANY PUBLIC HIGHWAY IN THIS STATE UNLESS THERE IS IN
FORCE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH CARRIER A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION,
AUTHORIZING SUCH PERSONS TO ENGAGE IN SUCH BUSINESS  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *  * 

"(C)  SUBJECT TO THIS ACT A PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED TO ANY QUALIFIED
APPLICANT THEREFOR AUTHORIZING IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE OPERATIONS
COVERED BY THE APPLICATION, IF IT APPEARS FROM THE APPLICATION OR FROM
ANY HEARING HELD THEREON, THAT THE APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING, AND ABLE
TO PROPERLY PERFORM THE SERVICE OF A CONTRACT CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE
AND TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND THE LAWFUL
REQUIREMENTS, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION, AND THE PROPOSED
OPERATION, TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED BY THE PERMIT, WILL PROMOTE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE POLICY DECLARED IN SECTION TWO (2) OF THIS ACT;
OTHERWISE SUCH APPLICATION SHALL BE DENIED  ...  . 

     *       *         *         *         * 

"(E)  IN GRANTING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS, THE COMMISSION SHALL TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION THE RELIABILITY AND FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE
APPLICANT AND HIS SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD THE PUBLIC; THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BEING MAINTAINED BY ANY RAILROAD, STREET RAILWAY
OR MOTOR CARRIER; THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE BEING
PERMANENT AND CONTINUOUS THROUGHOUT TWELVE MONTHS OF THE YEAR, AND THE
EFFECT WHICH SUCH PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE MAY HAVE UPON
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SERVICE; AND ANY OTHER MATTERS TENDING TO SHOW
THE NECESSITY OR WANT OF NECESSITY FOR GRANTING SAID APPLICATION. 

"(F)  THE COMMISSION SHALL SPECIFY IN THE PERMIT THE BUSINESS OF THE
CONTRACT CARRIER COVERED THEREBY AND THE SCOPE THEREOF AND SHALL ATTACH
TO IT, AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE, AND FROM TIME TO TIME THEREAFTER, SUCH
REASONABLE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CHARACTER OF THE HOLDER AS A CONTRACT CARRIER AS ARE NECESSARY TO CARRY
OUT, WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATIONS OF SUCH CARRIER, THE REQUIREMENTS
ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS ACT; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
NO TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR LIMITATIONS SHALL RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE
CARRIER TO SUBSTITUTE OR ADD CONTRACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PERMIT,
OR TO ADD TO HIS OR ITS EQUIPMENT FACILITIES, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
PERMIT, AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND THE DEMANDS OF THE
PUBLIC MAY REQUIRE." 

FN2  SEC. 11, NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  COLUMBIA TERMINALS CO. V. LAMBERT, 30 F. SUPP. 28, WHOSE RULING
WE SUSTAINED, 309 U.S. 620, IS NOT IN POINT.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAD RULED IN THAT CASE THAT THE PARTICULAR OPERATIONS THERE
INVOLVED WERE NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL ACT.  SEE 30 F. SUPP., AT 30. 

..END :









ALISON V. UNITED STATES 344 U.S. 167 


NO. 79.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1952 - 97 F.
SUPP. 959, REVERSED; 98 F. SUPP. 252, AFFIRMED. 


COMPUTING NET INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, THERE
SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS "LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR."  TREASURY REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT "A LOSS FROM THEFT OR
EMBEZZLEMENT OCCURRING IN ONE YEAR AND DISCOVERED IN ANOTHER IS
ORDINARILY DEDUCTIBLE FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH SUSTAINED."  HELD:

1.  WHETHER AND WHEN A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS RESULTS FROM AN EMBEZZLEMENT
IS A FACTUAL QUESTION, A PRACTICAL ONE TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES.  PP. 169-170. 

2.  UNDER THE SPECIAL FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND BY THE DISTRICT
COURTS IN THE TWO CASES HERE INVOLVED, THE TAXPAYERS WERE ENTITLED,
UNDER THE CODE PROVISIONS AND THE TREASURY REGULATIONS, TO DEDUCTIONS
FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE EMBEZZLEMENT LOSSES WERE DISCOVERED AND THEIR
AMOUNTS ASCERTAINED.  PP. 168-170. 

ALISON V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 80, UNITED STATES V. STEVENSON-CHISLETT, INC.,
ALSO ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE SAME COURT. 

NO. 79.  IN AN ACTION FOR A REFUND OF INCOME TAXES, THE DISTRICT
COURT GAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TAXPAYER.  97 F. SUPP. 959.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS CERTIFIED A QUESTION TO THIS COURT, WHICH ORDERED THE ENTIRE
RECORD SENT UP.  REVERSED, P. 170. 

NO. 80.  IN AN ACTION FOR A REFUND OF INCOME TAXES, THE DISTRICT
COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE TAXPAYER.  98 F. SUPP. 252.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS CERTIFIED A QUESTION TO THIS COURT, WHICH ORDERED THE ENTIRE
RECORD SENT UP.  AFFIRMED, P. 170. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS IN THESE TWO INCOME TAX CASES ARE SO MUCH ALIKE THAT
THEY CAN BE TREATED IN ONE OPINION.  BOTH TAXPAYERS HAD MONEYS
EMBEZZLED BY TRUSTED AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES.  AS USUAL, THE DEFALCATIONS
HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE THEY WERE DISCOVERED.  ON
DISCOVERY, EFFORTS WERE MADE IMMEDIATELY TO IDENTIFY THE TAKERS AND FIX
THE DATES AND AMOUNTS OF THE THEFTS.  IN THE ALISON CASE, NO. 79, THE
BOOKS REVEALED THE THIEF AND THE PRECISE AMOUNTS TAKEN EACH YEAR FROM
1931 TO 1940.  IN NO. 80, STEVENSON-CHISLETT, INC., THE COVER-UP HAD
BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL THAT PAINSTAKING INVESTIGATION FAILED TO REVEAL WHO
TOOK THE FUNDS OR THE TIME WHEN THE UNASCERTAINED PERSON OR PERSONS
TOOK THEM.  EACH TAXPAYER CLAIMED A TAX DEDUCTION FOR THE YEAR THE
LOSSES WERE DISCOVERED AND THEIR AMOUNTS ASCERTAINED.  THE GOVERNMENT
OBJECTED, CLAIMING THAT THE DEDUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN EACH OF
THE PRIOR YEARS DURING WHICH THE MONEYS WERE BEING SURREPTITIOUSLY
TAKEN.  IN THE STEVENSON-CHISLETT CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
THE UNCERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EMBEZZLEMENT ENTITLED THE TAXPAYER
TO TAKE ITS LOSSES THE YEAR THE LOSS WAS DISCOVERED AND THE AMOUNT
ASCERTAINED.  98 F. SUPP. 252.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE DECIDED THE OTHER
WAY IN THE ALISON CASE AND DENIED HER DECLARATIONS.  97 F. SUPP. 959. 
HIS HOLDING, HOWEVER, WAS NOT IN ACCORD WITH HIS OWN VIEWS, BUT WAS
COMPELLED, HE THOUGHT, BY THE THIRD CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN FIRST
NATIONAL BANK OF SHARON, PA. V. HEINER, 66 F.2D 925.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT CERTIFIED TO US THE QUESTION OF
DEDUCTIBILITY IN BOTH CASES.  PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1254(3), WE
ORDERED THE COMPLETE RECORDS SENT UP SO THAT WE MIGHT DECIDE THE ENTIRE
MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY. 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SECS. 23(E) AND (F) AUTHORIZE DEDUCTIONS FOR "
... LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR  ...  ."  THE GOVERNMENT
READS THIS SECTION AS REQUIRING A TAXPAYER TO TAKE A DEDUCTION FOR LOSS
FROM EMBEZZLEMENT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE THEFT OCCURS, EVEN THOUGH
INABILITY TO DISCOVER IN TIME MIGHT COMPLETELY DEPRIVE THE TAXPAYER OF
THE BENEFIT OF THIS STATUTORY DEDUCTION.  ONLY AT THE TIME THE MONEY IS
STOLEN, SO IT IS ARGUED, IS A LOSS "SUSTAINED."  BUT TREASURY PRACTICE
ITSELF BELIES THIS RIGID CONSTRUCTION.  FOR MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS THE
REGULATIONS HAVE PROVIDED THAT "A LOSS FROM THEFT OR EMBEZZLEMENT
OCCURRING IN ONE YEAR AND DISCOVERED IN ANOTHER IS ORDINARILY
DEDUCTIBLE FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH SUSTAINED."  26 CFR SEC. 29.43-2. 
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER ATTACHED AS AN
APPENDIX TO THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF CITES MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH THE
TREASURY HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS FOR EMBEZZLEMENT LOSSES IN YEARS
SUBSEQUENT TO THOSE IN WHICH THE THEFTS OCCURRED.  APPARENTLY THE
DEPARTMENT HAS FELT CONSTRAINED TO DO THIS IN ORDER TO PREVENT
HARDSHIPS AND INJUSTICE.  THESE HAVE BEEN DEPARTURES FROM THE
"ORDINARY" RULE OF ATTRIBUTING EMBEZZLEMENT LOSSES TO THE YEAR OF
THEFT. 

THIS TREASURY PRACTICE EVIDENTLY STEMS AT LEAST IN PART FROM THE
SPECIAL NATURE OF THE CRIME OF EMBEZZLEMENT.  ITS ESSENCE IS SECRECY. 
TAXPAYERS ARE USUALLY WELL AWARE OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF FINANCIAL
LOSSES FOR WHICH TAX DEDUCTIONS ARE ALLOWED.  NOT SO WHEN A TRUSTED
ADVISER OR EMPLOYEE STEALS.  FOR YEARS HIS CRIME MAY BE KNOWN ONLY TO
HIMSELF.  HE MAY TAKE MONEY PLANNING TO RETURN IT AND HE MAY RETURN IT
BEFORE THERE IS DISCOVERY.  FURTHERMORE, THE TERMS EMBEZZLEMENT AND
LOSS ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS.  THE THEFT OCCURS, BUT WHETHER THERE IS A LOSS
MAY REMAIN UNCERTAIN.  ONE WHOSE FUNDS HAVE BEEN EMBEZZLED MAY PURSUE
THE WRONGDOER AND RECOVER HIS PROPERTY WHOLLY OR IN PART.  SEE
COMMISSIONER V. WILCOX, 327 U.S. 404.  EVENTS IN THE ALISON CASE SHOW
THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF THIS RIGHT OF RECOVERY.  A SUBSTANTIAL
PROPORTION OF THE EMBEZZLED FUNDS WAS RECOVERED IN 1941, TEN YEARS
AFTER THE FIRST EMBEZZLEMENT OCCURRED.  THIS RECOVERY ALONE IS AMPLE
REFUTATION OF THE VIEW THAT A LOSS IS INEVITABILY "SUSTAINED" AT THE
VERY TIME AN EMBEZZLEMENT IS COMMITTED. 

WHETHER AND WHEN A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS RESULTS FROM AN EMBEZZLEMENT IS A
FACTUAL QUESTION, A PRACTICAL ONE TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE BOEHM V. COMMISSIONER, 326 U.S. 287. 
AN INFLEXIBLE RULE IS NOT NEEDED; THE STATUTE DOES NOT COMPEL IT.  FOR
YEARS THE TREASURY HAS ADMINISTERED THE TAX LAW UNDER REGULATIONS
SAYING THAT DEDUCTIONS SHALL "ORDINARILY" BE TAKEN IN THE YEAR OF
EMBEZZLEMENT.  ORDINARILY DOES NOT MEAN ALWAYS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE SPECIAL FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND BY THE DISTRICT
COURTS IN BOTH THESE CASES JUSTIFY DEDUCTIONS UNDER I.R.C., SECS. 23(E)
AND (F) AND THE LONG-STANDING TREASURY REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
EMBEZZLEMENT LOSSES.  SEE BOSTON CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. V. COMMISSIONER,
128 F.2D 473; GWINN BROS. & CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 7 T.C. 320. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 79 IS REVERSED AND THE JUDGMENT IN NO.
80 IS AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT. 
..END :
















BAILESS V. PAUKUNE 344 U.S. 171 


NO. 242.  SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 10, 1952 - DECIDED DEC. 8, 1952 - 206 OKLA.
527, 244 P.2D 1137, REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


UNDER THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT OF FEBRUARY 8, 1887, A TRUST PATENT TO
LAND IN OKLAHOMA WAS ISSUED TO AN APACHE INDIAN.  HE DIED, LEAVING A
WILL DEVISING AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE ALLOTMENT TO HIS WIDOW.  NO
FEE PATENT HAD BEEN ISSUED AND THE TRUST PERIOD HAD NOT EXPIRED.  HELD:
IF THE WIDOW IS NOT AN INDIAN, HER INTEREST IS SUBJECT TO STATE
TAXATION.  PP. 171-173. 

BAILESS, COUNTY TREASURER, ET AL. V. PAUKUNE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

RESPONDENT SUED IN AN OKLAHOMA STATE COURT TO ENJOIN STATE TAXATION
OF HER UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN A TRUST PATENT FOR LAND ISSUED TO HER
DECEASED INDIAN HUSBAND.  WITHOUT DETERMINING WHETHER THE WIDOW WAS AN
INDIAN, THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT THE INTEREST WAS NOT TAXABLE, AND THE
SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA AFFIRMED.  206 OKLA. 527, 244 P.2D 1137. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 812.  REVERSED AND REMANDED,
P. 173. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1901 AN APACHE INDIAN, PAUKUNE, WAS ISSUED A TRUST PATENT TO LAND
IN CADDO COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.  THIS ALLOTMENT WAS MADE UNDER THE GENERAL
ALLOTMENT ACT OF FEBRUARY 8, 1887, 24 STAT. 388, 389.  (FN1)  PAUKUNE
DIED TESTATE IN 1919, LEAVING A WIFE JUANA AND A SON JOSE.  BY HIS WILL
HE DEVISED AN UNDIVIDED ONE-THIRD INTEREST IN THE ALLOTMENT TO HIS
WIDOW AND AN UNDIVIDED TWO-THIRDS INTEREST TO HIS SON.  NO FEE PATENT
TO THE LAND HAS ISSUED TO PAUKUNE, TO HIS WIDOW, OR TO THE SON.  THE
TRUST PERIOD OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS HAS FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN EXTENDED. 
IN OTHER WORDS, THE UNITED STATES STILL HOLDS THE LAND IN TRUST FOR
PAUKUNE AND HIS HEIRS. 

IN 1947 JUANA'S UNDIVIDED ONE-THIRD INTEREST WAS ASSESSED FOR AD
VALOREM TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF $21.33 AND WAS ADVERTISED FOR SALE FOR
FAILURE TO PAY.  SHE THEREUPON INSTITUTED THIS SUIT IN THE OKLAHOMA
COURTS TO ENJOIN THE SALE AND ANY FURTHER LEVY OF AD VALOREM TAXES ON
THE THEORY THAT THE LAND WAS EXEMPT FROM STATE TAXATION.  THE
PETITIONERS ANSWERED, ALLEGING THAT JUANA WAS A NON-INDIAN AND
THEREFORE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE TAXES.  THE TRIAL COURT, WITHOUT
DETERMINING WHETHER THE WIDOW WAS AN INDIAN, HELD HER INTEREST
NONTAXABLE BY THE STATE; AND THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA AFFIRMED,
206 OKLA. 527, 244 P.2D 1137, SAYING IT MATTERED NOT UNDER FEDERAL LAW
WHETHER THE WIDOW WAS INDIAN OR NON-INDIAN.  THE CASE IS HERE ON
CERTIORARI.  344 U.S. 812. 

LEVINDALE LEAD CO. V. COLEMAN, 241 U.S. 432, DEALT WITH RESTRICTIONS
ON ALIENATION ATTACHED TO LAND UNDER THE OSAGE INDIAN ALLOTMENT ACT OF
JUNE 28, 1906, 34 STAT. 539.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE POLICY OF THAT
ACT DID NOT EMBRACE PERSONS WHO WERE NOT INDIANS, SINCE THE CONGRESS
SOUGHT TO PROTECT ONLY THOSE TOWARD WHOM IT OWED THE DUTIES OF A
GUARDIAN.  THE SAME ANSWER MUST BE GIVEN HERE.  IF JUANA IS NOT AN
INDIAN, THE UNITED STATES HAS NO INTEREST OF HERS IN THE LAND TO
PROTECT.  (FN2)  TRUE, THE UNITED STATES HOLDS THE LEGAL TITLE TO THE
LAND.  BUT NOTHING IN THE ACT PREVENTS THE DEVOLUTION OF THE EQUITABLE
INTEREST TO THE WIDOW.  IF SHE IS NOT WITHIN THE CLASS WHOM CONGRESS
SOUGHT TO PROTECT, THE TRUST IS A DRY AND PASSIVE ONE; THERE REMAINS
ONLY A MINISTERIAL ACT FOR THE TRUSTEE TO PERFORM, NAMELY THE ISSUANCE
OF A FEE PATENT TO THE CESTUI. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SECTION 5 OF THE ACT PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "THAT UPON
THE APPROVAL OF THE ALLOTMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, HE SHALL CAUSE PATENTS TO ISSUE THEREFOR IN
THE NAME OF THE ALLOTTEES, WHICH PATENTS SHALL BE OF THE LEGAL EFFECT,
AND DECLARE THAT THE UNITED STATES DOES AND WILL HOLD THE LAND THUS
ALLOTTED, FOR THE PERIOD OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, IN TRUST FOR THE SOLE
USE AND BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN TO WHOM SUCH ALLOTMENT SHALL HAVE BEEN
MADE, OR, IN CASE OF HIS DECEASE, OF HIS HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OR TERRITORY WHERE SUCH LAND IS LOCATED, AND THAT AT THE
EXPIRATION OF SAID PERIOD THE UNITED STATES WILL CONVEY THE SAME BY
PATENT TO SAID INDIAN, OR HIS HEIRS AS AFORESAID, IN FEE, DISCHARGED OF
SAID TRUST AND FREE OF ALL CHARGE OR INCUMBRANCE WHATSOEVER:  PROVIDED,
THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAY IN ANY CASE IN HIS
DISCRETION EXTEND THE PERIOD.  AND IF ANY CONVEYANCE SHALL BE MADE OF
THE LANDS SET APART AND ALLOTTED AS HEREIN PROVIDED, OR ANY CONTRACT
MADE TOUCHING THE SAME, BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME ABOVE
MENTIONED, SUCH CONVEYANCE OR CONTRACT SHALL BE ABSOLUTELY NULL AND
VOID:  PROVIDED, THAT THE LAW OF DESCENT AND PARTITION IN FORCE IN THE
STATE OR TERRITORY WHERE SUCH LANDS ARE SITUATE SHALL APPLY THERETO
AFTER PATENTS THEREFOR HAVE BEEN EXECUTED AND DELIVERED, EXCEPT AS
HEREIN OTHERWISE PROVIDED  ...  ." 

FN2  AND SEE MIXON V. LITTLETON, 265 F. 603; UNKLE V. WILLS, 281 F.
29, 35. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. CARDIFF 344 U.S. 174 


NO. 27.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1952 - 194 F.2D
686, AFFIRMED. 


IT IS NOT AN OFFENSE UNDER SECS. 301(F) AND 704 OF THE FEDERAL FOOD,
DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT FOR THE PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION OPERATING A
FACTORY ENGAGED IN PACKING AND PREPARING FOOD FOR INTERSTATE
DISTRIBUTION TO REFUSE TO GRANT PERMISSION FOR INSPECTORS OF THE FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER AND INSPECT THE FACTORY AT REASONABLE
TIMES.  PP. 174-177. 

UNITED STATES V. CARDIFF. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 301(F) OF THE FEDERAL
FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT.  95 F. SUPP. 206.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  194 F.2D 686.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S.
940.  AFFIRMED, P. 177. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SEC. 301(F) OF THE FEDERAL
FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, 52 STAT. 1040, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 331(F). 
THAT SECTION PROHIBITS "THE REFUSAL TO PERMIT ENTRY OR INSPECTION AS
AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 704."  (FN1)  SECTION 704 AUTHORIZES THE FEDERAL
OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES "AFTER FIRST MAKING REQUEST AND OBTAINING
PERMISSION OF THE OWNER, OPERATOR, OR CUSTODIAN" OF THE PLANT OR
FACTORY "TO ENTER" AND "TO INSPECT" THE ESTABLISHMENT, EQUIPMENT,
MATERIALS AND THE LIKE "AT REASONABLE TIMES."  (FN2) 

RESPONDENT IS PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION WHICH PROCESSES APPLES AT
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON, FOR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AUTHORIZED
AGENTS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT FOR PERMISSION TO ENTER AND INSPECT HIS
FACTORY AT REASONABLE HOURS.  HE REFUSED PERMISSION, AND IT WAS THAT
REFUSAL WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION FILED AGAINST HIM AND
UNDER WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED AND FINED.  95 F. SUPP. 206.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT SEC. 301(F), WHEN READ WITH SEC. 704,
PROHIBITS A REFUSAL TO PERMIT ENTRY AND INSPECTION ONLY IF SUCH
PERMISSION HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN GRANTED.  194 F.2D 686.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 940. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE URGES US TO READ SEC. 301(F) AS PROHIBITING
A REFUSAL TO PERMIT ENTRY OR INSPECTION AT ANY REASONABLE TIME.  IT
ARGUES THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION IS NEEDED IF THE ACT IS TO HAVE REAL
SANCTIONS AND IF THE BENIGN PURPOSES OF THE ACT ARE TO BE REALIZED.  IT
POINTS OUT THAT FACTORY INSPECTION HAS BECOME THE PRIMARY INVESTIGATIVE
DEVICE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS LAW, THAT IT IS FROM FACTORY INSPECTIONS
THAT ABOUT 80 PERCENT OF THE VIOLATIONS ARE DISCOVERED, THAT THE SMALL
FORCE OF INSPECTORS MAKES FACTORY INSPECTION, RATHER THAN RANDOM
SAMPLING OF FINISHED GOODS, THE ONLY EFFECTIVE METHOD OF ENFORCING THE
ACT. 

ALL THAT THE DEPARTMENT SAYS MAY BE TRUE.  BUT IT DOES NOT ENABLE US
TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF THE STATUTE.  NOWHERE DOES THE ACT SAY THAT A
FACTORY MANAGER MUST ALLOW ENTRY AND INSPECTION AT A REASONABLE HOUR. 
AND OBTAINING PERMISSION."  IT IS THAT ENTRY AND INSPECTION WHICH SEC.
301(F) BACKS WITH A SANCTION.  IT WOULD SEEM THEREFORE ON THE FACE OF
THE STATUTE THAT THE ACT PROHIBITS THE REFUSAL TO PERMIT INSPECTION
ONLY IF PERMISSION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED.  UNDER THAT VIEW THE
ACT MAKES ILLEGAL THE REVOCATION OF PERMISSION ONCE GIVEN, NOT THE
FAILURE TO GIVE PERMISSION.  BUT THAT VIEW WOULD BREED A HOST OF
PROBLEMS.  WOULD REVOCATION OF PERMISSION ONCE GIVEN CARRY THE CRIMINAL
PENALTY NO MATTER HOW LONG AGO IT WAS GRANTED AND NO MATTER IF IT HAD
NO RELATION TO THE INSPECTION DEMANDED?  OR MUST THE PERMISSION GRANTED
AND REVOKED RELATE TO THE DEMAND FOR INSPECTION ON WHICH THE
PROSECUTION IS BASED?  THOSE UNCERTAINTIES MAKE THAT CONSTRUCTION
PREGNANT WITH DANGER FOR THE REGULATED BUSINESS.  THE ALTERNATIVE
CONSTRUCTION PRESSED ON US IS EQUALLY TREACHEROUS BECAUSE IT GIVES
CONFLICTING COMMANDS.  IT MAKES INSPECTION DEPENDENT ON CONSENT AND
MAKES REFUSAL TO ALLOW INSPECTION A CRIME.  HOWEVER WE READ SEC. 301(F)
WE THINK IT IS NOT FAIR WARNING (CF. UNITED STATES V. WEITZEL, 246 U.S.
533; MCBOYLE V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 25) TO THE FACTORY MANAGER THAT
IF HE FAILS TO GIVE CONSENT, HE IS A CRIMINAL.  THE VICE OF VAGUENESS
IN CRIMINAL STATUTES IS THE TREACHERY THEY CONCEAL EITHER IN
DETERMINING WHAT PERSONS ARE INCLUDED OR WHAT ACTS ARE PROHIBITED. 
WORDS WHICH ARE VAGUE AND FLUID (CF. UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY
CO., 255 U.S. 81) MAY BE AS MUCH OF A TRAP FOR THE INNOCENT AS THE
ANCIENT LAWS OF CALIGULA.  WE CANNOT SANCTION TAKING A MAN BY THE HEELS
FOR REFUSING TO GRANT THE PERMISSION 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.  CF. HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301
U.S. 242.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE VIOLATION IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR BY 21 U.S.C. SEC. 333. 

FN2  SECTION 704 READS AS FOLLOWS:  "FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT OF
THIS ACT, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES DULY DESIGNATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR,
AFTER FIRST MAKING REQUEST AND OBTAINING PERMISSION OF THE OWNER,
OPERATOR, OR CUSTODIAN THEREOF, ARE AUTHORIZED (1) TO ENTER, AT
REASONABLE TIMES, ANY FACTORY, WAREHOUSE, OR ESTABLISHMENT IN WHICH
FOOD, DRUGS, DEVICES, OR COSMETICS ARE MANUFACTURED, PROCESSED, PACKED,
OR HELD, FOR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR ARE HELD AFTER
SUCH INTRODUCTION, OR TO ENTER ANY VEHICLE BEING USED TO TRANSPORT OR
HOLD SUCH FOOD, DRUGS, DEVICES, OR COSMETICS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
AND (2) TO INSPECT, AT REASONABLE TIMES, SUCH FACTORY, WAREHOUSE,
ESTABLISHMENT, OR VEHICLE AND ALL PERTINENT EQUIPMENT, FINISHED AND
UNFINISHED MATERIALS, CONTAINERS, AND LABELING THEREIN." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENTS. 
..END :












MONTGOMERY BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL V. LEDBETTER ERECTION
CO., INC. 344 U.S. 178 


NO. 43.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1952 - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1952 - WRIT OF
CERTIORARI DISMISSED. 


RESPONDENT FILED A BILL IN EQUITY IN AN ALABAMA STATE COURT TO ENJOIN
CERTAIN PICKETING ACTIVITIES, WHOLLY PEACEFUL, CARRIED ON BY PETITIONER
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  THE COURT FORTHWITH ISSUED A TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION.  SUBSEQUENTLY A MOTION BY PETITIONERS TO DISSOLVE THE
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS DENIED BY THE TRIAL COURT, AND ITS ORDER WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE
SUPREME COURT WAS NOT A "FINAL" JUDGMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28
U.S.C. SEC. 1257, AND THEREFORE WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THIS COURT.  PP.
179-181. 

(A) THE FACT THAT AS LONG AS A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS IN FORCE IT
MAY BE AS EFFECTIVE AS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND THAT APPEALS FROM
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS HAVE FOR THAT REASON BEEN AUTHORIZED BY STATE
LEGISLATURES AND IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES BY CONGRESS, DOES NOT GIVE
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS THE ASPECT OF FINALITY REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1257.  PP. 180-181. 

(B)  SINCE THERE WAS NO FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT
REVIEWABLE HERE, THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WAS GRANTED IN THIS CASE
IS DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  P. 181. 

MONTGOMERY BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL ET AL. V. LEDBETTER
ERECTION CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

AN ORDER OF AN ALABAMA STATE COURT DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO
DISSOLVE A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST CERTAIN PICKETING ACTIVITIES OF
PETITIONERS, WAS AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  256 ALA. 678, 57
SO. 2D 112, REHEARING DENIED, 256 ALA. 689, 57 SO. 2D 121.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 962.  WRIT DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED, P. 181. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT FILED A BILL IN EQUITY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA, TO ENJOIN CERTAIN PICKETING ACTIVITIES,
WHOLLY PEACEFUL, CARRIED ON BY THE PETITIONERS, LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. 
UPON THE SWORN BILL AND WITHOUT NOTICE, THE COURT ISSUED FORTHWITH A
"TEMPORARY WRIT OF INJUNCTION."  THE PETITIONERS APPEARED AND FILED AN
ANSWER AND A MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE INJUNCTION ON NUMEROUS GROUNDS. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PETITIONERS WITHDREW THEIR ANSWER AND MOST OF THE
GROUNDS ASSIGNED FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE INJUNCTION AND FILED NEW
GROUNDS THEREFOR.  THE MOTION TO DISSOLVE WAS DENIED, AND FROM THIS
ORDER OF THE COURT THE PETITIONERS APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA, WHICH AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT.  256 ALA. 678, 57
SO. 2D 112, REHEARING DENIED, 256 ALA. 689, 57 SO. 2D 121.  CERTIORARI
WAS SOUGHT HERE AND GRANTED, 343 U.S. 962. 

AT THE VERY THRESHOLD, WE ARE PRESENTED WITH A QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION.  THIS COURT MAY GRANT CERTIORARI FROM A JUDGMENT OR
DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE STATE,
ONLY IF THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE IS FINAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257.  WAS
THIS A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE? 

FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS, THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT JURISDICTION
OF INTERLOCUTORY DECREES, SUCH AS IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  IN GIBBONS
V. OGDEN, 6 WHEAT.  448, THE FIRST CASE PRESENTING THIS ISSUE TO THIS
COURT, AN INJUNCTION HAD BEEN GRANTED BY A CHANCERY COURT OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK.  THE DEFENDANT ANSWERED AND MOVED TO DISSOLVE THE
INJUNCTION.  THE COURT DENIED THE MOTION TO DISSOLVE, AND THE DEFENDANT
APPEALED TO THE COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS AND CORRECTION OF
ERRORS WHICH AFFIRMED.  THE APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE
THERE WAS NO FINAL DECREE IN THE COURT OF LAST RESORT FOR THIS COURT TO
REVIEW. 

THE PROVISION OF SEC. 1257 THAT ONLY "FINAL JUDGMENTS OR DECREES
RENDERED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE
HAD, MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT  ...  " HAS BEEN CARRIED IN
ALMOST IDENTICAL LANGUAGE SINCE THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 85,
SEC. 25. 

"THIS REQUIREMENT IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TECHNICALITIES TO BE EASILY
SCORNED.  IT IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE SMOOTH WORKING OF OUR
FEDERAL SYSTEM."  RADIO STATION WOW V. JOHNSON, 326 U.S. 120, 124. 

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PRELIMINARY OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND A
FINAL OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION WAS ELEMENTARY IN THE LAW OF EQUITY.  THE
CLASSICAL CONCEPT WAS AT ONCE RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED IN GIBBONS V.
OGDEN, SUPRA.  THERE IS NO ROOM HERE FOR INTERPRETATION.  THE RULE
REMAINS UNCHANGED. 

TRUE, AS LONG AS A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS IN FORCE IT MAY BE AS
EFFECTIVE AS A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND FOR THAT REASON APPEALS FROM
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY STATE LEGISLATURES AND
CONGRESS.  BUT SUCH AUTHORIZATION DOES NOT GIVE INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS
THE ASPECT OF FINALITY HERE, EVEN THOUGH WE MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  BALDWIN CO. V. HOWARD CO., 256 U.S. 35, 40. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT IF THIS IS NOT HELD TO BE A FINAL DECREE OR
JUDGMENT AND DECIDED NOW, IT MAY NEVER BE DECIDED, BECAUSE TO AWAIT THE
OUTCOME OF THE FINAL HEARING IS TO MOOT THE QUESTION AND TO FRUSTRATE
THE PICKETING.  HOWEVER APPEALING SUCH ARGUMENT MAY BE, IT DOES NOT
WARRANT US IN ENLARGING OUR JURISDICTION.  ONLY CONGRESS MAY DO THAT. 
FURTHERMORE, THE INTERLOCUTORY DECREE COULD HAVE BEEN READILY CONVERTED
INTO A FINAL DECREE, AND THE APPEAL COULD HAVE PROCEEDED WITHOUT
QUESTION AS TO JURISDICTION JUST AS EFFECTIVELY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY AS
THE APPEAL FROM THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS PURSUED IN THIS CASE. 

SINCE THERE WAS NO FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA FOR
REVIEW, THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI MUST BE DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS THE POWER OF THE STATE COURT TO ISSUE A
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN THIS KIND OF LABOR DISPUTE.  IF PETITIONERS HAD
SOUGHT MANDAMUS OR ANOTHER APPROPRIATE STATE WRIT DIRECTED AGAINST THE
JUDGE WHO ISSUED THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, I SHOULD HAVE NO DOUBT THAT
IT WOULD BE A FINAL JUDGMENT WHICH WE WOULD REVIEW.  SEE BANDINI CO. V.
SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8, 14.  CF. RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT,
331 U.S. 549, 565.  I SEE NO DIFFERENCE OF SUBSTANCE BETWEEN THAT CASE
AND THIS.  THE MISCHIEF OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR CONTROVERSIES
IS WELL KNOWN.  IT IS DONE WHEN THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER IS ISSUED.  THE
DAMAGE IS OFTEN IRREPARABLE.  THE ASSERTION BY THE STATE COURT OF POWER
TO ACT IN AN INTERLOCUTORY WAY IS FINAL.  WHETHER IT HAS THAT POWER MAY
BE DETERMINED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY FUTURE PROCEEDINGS WHICH MAY BE
TAKEN.  UNLESS THE RULE OF FINALITY IS TO BE PURELY MECHANICAL, WHICH
TO DATE IT HAS NOT BEEN (SEE RADIO STATION WOW V. JOHNSON, 326 U.S.
120, 124), WE SHOULD DETERMINE NOW WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT PERMITS A STATE COURT TO INTERFERE WITH A LABOR CONTROVERSY IN A
WAY, WHICH THOUGH INTERIM IN FORM, IRRETRIEVABLY ALTERS THE STATUS OF
THE DISPUTE OR IN FACT SETTLES IT.* 

*THIS "PRACTICAL" RATHER THAN "TECHNICAL" CONSTRUCTION IS AS
NECESSARY HERE AS IT IS IN CASES INVOLVING APPEALS FROM "FINAL
DECISIONS" IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.  SEE COHEN V. BENEFICIAL LOAN CORP.,
337 U.S. 541, 545-546. 
..END :




KEDROFF V. SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN
NORTH AMERICA 344 U.S. 94 


NO. 3.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1952.  - REARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1952.  -
DECIDED NOVEMBER 24, 1952.  - 302 N.Y. 1, 33, 96 N.E.2D 56, 74,
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN A NEW YORK STATE COURT BY A CORPORATION, HOLDER
OF THE LEGAL TITLE, TO DETERMINE WHICH PRELATE WAS ENTITLED TO THE USE
AND OCCUPANCY OF A CATHEDRAL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN NEW YORK
CITY, THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK HELD FOR PLAINTIFF, ON THE
GROUND THAT ARTICLE 5-C OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW OF NEW YORK
HAD THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES IN NORTH AMERICA FROM THE SUPREME
CHURCH AUTHORITY IN MOSCOW TO THE AUTHORITIES SELECTED BY A CONVENTION
OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CHURCHES.  HELD:  AS THUS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED,
THE NEW YORK STATUTE INTERFERES WITH THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION,
CONTRARY TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT, MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 95-121. 

(A)  LEGISLATION WHICH DETERMINES, IN AN HIERARCHICAL CHURCH,
ECCLESIASTICAL ADMINISTRATION OR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CLERGY, OR
TRANSFERS CONTROL OF CHURCHES FROM ONE GROUP TO ANOTHER, INTERFERES
WITH THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION.  PP.
106-116, 119. 

(B)  THAT THE PURPOSE OF SUCH LEGISLATION IS TO PROTECT AMERICAN
CHURCHES FROM INFILTRATION OF ATHEISTIC OR SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCES DOES
NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT, THOUGH LEGISLATIVE POWER TO PUNISH
SUBVERSIVE ACTION CANNOT BE DOUBTED AND NEITHER HIS ROBE NOR HIS PULPIT
WOULD BE A DEFENSE TO A CLERIC ATTEMPTING SUBVERSIVE ACTIONS.  PP. 108
110, 117-121. 

(C)  AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382; AND
LATE CORPORATION OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS V. UNITED STATES, 136 U.S. 1,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 117-121. 

(D)  FREEDOM TO SELECT THE CLERGY, WHERE NO IMPROPER METHODS OF
CHOICE ARE PROVEN, MUST NOW BE SAID TO HAVE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION AGAINST STATE INTERFERENCE, AS A PART OF THE FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION.  PP. 115-116. 

(E)  EVEN IN THOSE CASES WHEN PROPERTY RIGHTS FOLLOW AS INCIDENTS
FROM DECISIONS OF THE CHURCH CUSTOM OR LAW ON ECCLESIASTICAL ISSUES,
THE CHURCH RULE CONTROLS AND MUST BE ACCEPTED BY THE CIVIL COURTS. 
WATSON V. JONES, 13 WALL.  679.  PP. 115-116, 120-121. 

KEDROFF ET AL. V. SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT BY APPELLEE, A NEW YORK
CORPORATION, TO DETERMINE THE RIGHT TO THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF A
CHURCH IN NEW YORK CITY, THE TRIAL COURT GAVE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE
DEFENDANTS, APPELLANTS HERE.  192 MISC. 327, 77 N.Y.S.2D 333.  THE
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  276 APP. DIV.
309, 94 N.Y.S.2D 453.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  302 N.Y. 1, 33,
96 N.E.2D 56, 74.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P.
121. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RIGHT TO THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF A CHURCH IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK IS IN DISPUTE. 

THE RIGHT TO SUCH USE IS CLAIMED BY APPELLEE, A CORPORATION CREATED
IN 1925 BY AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW YORK, LAWS OF NEW YORK
1925, C. 463, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING A CATHEDRAL FOR THE RUSSIAN
ORTHODOX CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA AS A CENTRAL PLACE OF WORSHIP AND
RESIDENCE OF THE RULING ARCHBISHOP "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOCTRINE,
DISCIPLINE AND WORSHIP OF THE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH OF EASTERN
CONFESSION AS TAUGHT BY THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, HOLY TRADITION, SEVEN
OECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND HOLY FATHERS OF THAT CHURCH." 

THE CORPORATE RIGHT IS SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED SO THAT THE HEAD OF THE
AMERICAN CHURCHES, RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED WITH THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH, MAY OCCUPY THE CATHEDRAL.  AT THE PRESENT TIME THAT HEAD IS THE
METROPOLITAN OF ALL AMERICA AND CANADA, THE ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK,
LEONTY, WHO LIKE HIS PREDECESSORS WAS ELECTED TO HIS ECCLESIASTICAL
OFFICE BY A SOBOR OF THE AMERICAN CHURCHES.  (FN1) 

THAT CLAIMED RIGHT OF THE CORPORATION TO USE AND OCCUPANCY FOR THE
ARCHBISHOP CHOSEN BY THE AMERICAN CHURCHES IS OPPOSED BY APPELLANTS WHO
ARE IN POSSESSION.  BENJAMIN FEDCHENKOFF BASES HIS RIGHT ON AN
APPOINTMENT IN 1934 BY THE SUPREME CHURCH AUTHORITY OF THE RUSSIAN
ORTHODOX CHURCH, TO WIT, THE PATRIARCH LOCUM TENENS OF MOSCOW AND ALL
RUSSIA AND ITS HOLY SYNOD, AS ARCHBISHOP OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH
AMERICA AND THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS.  THE OTHER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IS A
PRIEST OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING THE SPIRITUAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE MOSCOW HIERARCHY. 

DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHT TO USE AND OCCUPY SAINT NICHOLAS DEPENDS
UPON WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF BENJAMIN BY THE PATRIARCH OR THE
ELECTION OF THE ARCHBISHOP FOR NORTH AMERICA BY THE CONVENTION OF THE
AMERICAN CHURCHES VALIDLY SELECTS THE RULING HIERARCH FOR THE AMERICAN
CHURCHES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, REVERSING THE LOWER COURT,
DETERMINED THAT THE PRELATE APPOINTED BY THE MOSCOW ECCLESIASTICAL
AUTHORITIES WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CATHEDRAL AND DIRECTED THE ENTRY OF
A JUDGMENT THAT APPELLEE CORPORATION BE REINVESTED WITH THE POSSESSION
AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEMPORALITIES OF ST. NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL.  ST.
NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL V. KEDROFF, 302 N.Y. 1, 33, 96 N.E.2D 56, 74.  THIS
DETERMINATION WAS MADE ON THE AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE 5-C OF THE RELIGIOUS
CORPORATIONS LAW OF NEW YORK, 302 N.Y., AT 24 ET SEQ., 96 N.E.2D, AT 68
ET SEQ., AGAINST APPELLANTS' CONTENTION THAT THIS NEW YORK STATUTE, AS
CONSTRUED, VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS THUS GENERALLY INVOLVED, WE
NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION, AND, AFTER ARGUMENT AND SUBMISSION OF THE
CASE LAST TERM, ORDERED REARGUMENT AND REQUESTED COUNSEL TO INCLUDE A
DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE JUDGMENT MIGHT BE SUSTAINED ON STATE
GROUNDS.  343 U.S. 972.  BOTH PARTIES CONCLUDED THAT IT COULD NOT, AND
THE UNEQUIVOCAL REMITTITUR OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, 302 N.Y.
689, 98 N.E.2D 485, SPECIFICALLY STATING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE AS THE NECESSARY GROUND FOR DECISION, COMPELS THIS VIEW AND
PRECLUDES ANY DOUBT AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF OUR DETERMINATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE ON THE MERITS.  GRAYSON V. HARRIS, 267 U.S. 352;
INDIANA EX REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, 303 U.S. 95.  THE CASE NOW HAS BEEN
REARGUED AND SUBMITTED. 

ARTICLE 5-C WAS ADDED TO THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW OF NEW YORK
IN 1945 AND PROVIDED BOTH FOR THE INCORPORATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES.  CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS WERE ADDED IN 1948. 
THE PURPOSE OF THE ARTICLE WAS TO BRING ALL THE NEW YORK CHURCHES,
FORMERLY SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OF THE MOST SACRED
GOVERNING SYNOD IN MOSCOW OR THE PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW, INTO AN
ADMINISTRATIVELY AUTONOMOUS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT.  THAT DISTRICT WAS
NORTH AMERICAN IN AREA, CREATED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT A
SOBOR HELD AT DETROIT IN 1924.  (FN2)  THIS DECLARED AUTONOMY WAS MADE
EFFECTIVE BY A FURTHER LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL THE CHURCHES
FORMERLY ADMINISTRATIVELY SUBJECT TO THE MOSCOW SYNOD AND PATRIARCHATE
SHOULD FOR THE FUTURE BE GOVERNED BY THE ECCLESIASTICAL BODY AND
HIERARCHY OF THE AMERICAN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT.  (FN3)  THE FOREGOING
ANALYSIS FOLLOWS THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS ARTICLE BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF NEW YORK, AN INTERPRETATION BINDING UPON US.  (FN4) 

ARTICLE 5-C IS CHALLENGED AS INVALID UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  (FN5)
THE APPELLANTS' CONTENTION, OF COURSE, IS BASED ON THE THEORY THAT THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY
THE FOURTEENTH.  (FN6)  SEE STOKES, CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED
STATES (1950), VOL. 1, C. VIII. 

THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IS AN AUTOCEPHALOUS MEMBER OF THE EASTERN
ORTHODOX GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH.  IT SPRANG FROM THE CHURCH OF
CONSTANTINOPLE IN THE TENTH CENTURY.  THE SCHISM OF 1054 A.D. SPLIT THE
UNIVERSAL CHURCH INTO THOSE OF THE EAST AND THE WEST.  GRADUALLY SELF
GOVERNMENT WAS ASSUMED BY THE RUSSIAN CHURCH UNTIL IN THE SIXTEENTH
CENTURY ITS AUTONOMY WAS RECOGNIZED AND A PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW
APPEARED.  FORTESCUE, ORTHODOX EASTERN CHURCH, C.V. FOR THE NEXT ONE
HUNDRED YEARS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH KEPT PACE WITH THE GROWTH
OF POWER OF THE CZARS BUT IT INCREASINGLY BECAME A PART OF THE CIVIL
GOVERNMENT - A STATE CHURCH.  THROUGHOUT THAT PERIOD IT ALSO REMAINED
AN HIERARCHICAL CHURCH WITH A PATRIARCH AT ITS HEAD, GOVERNED BY THE
CONVENTIONS OR SOBORS CALLED BY HIM.  HOWEVER, FROM THE TIME OF PETER
THE GREAT UNTIL 1917 NO SOBOR WAS HELD.  NO PATRIARCH RULED OR WAS
CHOSEN.  DURING THAT TIME THE CHURCH WAS GOVERNED BY A HOLY SYNOD, A
GROUP OF ECCLESIASTICS WITH A CHIEF PROCURATOR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
GOVERNMENT AS A MEMBER. 

LATE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY THE RUSSIAN CHURCH ENTERED THE
MISSIONARY FIELD IN THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS AND ALASKA.  FROM THERE
CHURCHES SPREAD SLOWLY DOWN THE PACIFIC COAST AND LATER, WITH THE
SLAVIC IMMIGRATION, TO OUR EASTERN CITIES, PARTICULARLY TO DETROIT,
CLEVELAND, CHICAGO, PITTSBURGH AND NEW YORK.  THE CHARACTER OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT CHANGED WITH THE YEARS AS IS INDICATED BY THE
CHANGES IN ITS NAME.  SEE NOTE 2.  IN 1904 WHEN A DIOCESE OF NORTH
AMERICA WAS CREATED ITS FIRST ARCHBISHOP, TIKHON, SHORTLY THEREAFTER
ESTABLISHED HIMSELF IN HIS SEAT AT SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL.  HIS
APPOINTMENT CAME FROM THE HOLY SYNOD OF RUSSIA AS DID THOSE OF HIS
SUCCESSORS IN ORDER PLATON AND EVDOKIM.  UNDER THOSE APPOINTMENTS THE
SUCCESSIVE ARCHBISHOPS OCCUPIED THE CATHEDRAL AND RESIDENCE OF SAINT
NICHOLAS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SYNOD. 

IN 1917 ARCHBISHOP EVDOKIM RETURNED TO RUSSIA PERMANENTLY.  EARLY
THAT YEAR AN ALL RUSSIAN SOBOR WAS HELD, THE FIRST SINCE PETER THE
GREAT.  IT OCCURRED DURING THE INTERLUDE OF POLITICAL FREEDOM FOLLOWING
THE FALL OF THE CZAR.  A PATRIARCH WAS ELECTED AND INSTALLED - TIKHON
WHO HAD BEEN THE FIRST AMERICAN ARCHBISHOP.  UNCERTAINTIES AS TO THE
SUCCESSION TO AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AMERICAN ARCHBISHOPRIC MADE
THEIR APPEARANCE FOLLOWING THIS SOBOR AND WERE LARGELY INDUCED BY THE
ALMOST CONTEMPORANEOUS POLITICAL DISTURBANCES WHICH CULMINATED SWIFTLY
IN THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION OF 1917.  THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS
DRAWN INTO THIS MAELSTROM.  AFTER A FEW YEARS THE PATRIARCH WAS
IMPRISONED.  THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS OF HIS COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY
ACTIVITY.  CHURCH POWER WAS TRANSFERRED, PARTLY THROUGH A SOBOR
CONSIDERED BY MANY AS NONCANONICAL, TO A SUPREME CHURCH COUNCIL.  THE
DECLARED REFORMS WERE SAID TO HAVE RESULTED IN A "LIVING CHURCH" OR
SOMETIMES IN A "RENOVATED CHURCH."  CIRCUMSTANCES AND PRESSURES
CHANGED.  PATRIARCH TIKHON WAS RELEASED FROM PRISON AND DIED IN 1925. 
HE NAMED THREE BISHOPS AS LOCUM TENENS FOR THE PATRIARCHAL THRONE.  IT
WAS ONE OF THESE, SERGIUS, WHO IN 1933 APPOINTED THE APPELLANT BENJAMIN
AS ARCHBISHOP.  THE CHURCH WAS REGISTERED AS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
UNDER SOVIET LAW IN 1927.  THEREAFTER THE RUSSIAN CHURCH AND THE
RUSSIAN STATE APPROACHED IF NOT A RECONCILIATION AT LEAST AN ADJUSTMENT
WHICH EVENTUATED BY 1943 IN THE ELECTION OF SERGIUS, ONE OF THE BISHOPS
NAMED AS LOCUM TENENS BY TIKHON, TO THE PATRIARCHATE.  THE LIVING OR
RENOVATED CHURCH, WHETHER DEEMED A REFORMED, A SCHISMATIC OR A NEW
CHURCH, APPARENTLY WITHERED AWAY.  AFTER SERGIUS' DEATH A NEW PATRIARCH
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, ALEXI, WAS CHOSEN PATRIARCH IN 1945 AT
MOSCOW AT A SOBOR RECOGNIZED BY ALL PARTIES TO THIS LITIGATION AS A
TRUE SOBOR HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHURCH CANONS.  (FN7) 

THE RUSSIAN UPHEAVAL CAUSED REPERCUSSIONS IN THE NORTH AMERICAN
DIOCESE.  THAT DIOCESE AT THE TIME OF THE SOVIET REVOLUTION RECOGNIZED
THE SPIRITUAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF MOSCOW.  WHITE RUSSIANS,
BOTH LAY AND CLERICAL, FOUND ASYLUM IN AMERICA FROM THE REVOLUTIONARY
CONFLICTS, STRENGTHENING THE FEELING OF ABHORRENCE OF THE SECULAR
ATTITUDE OF THE NEW RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.  THE CHURCH MEMBERS ALREADY
HERE, IMMIGRANTS AND NATIVE-BORN, WHILE HABITUATED TO LOOK TO MOSCOW
FOR RELIGIOUS DIRECTION, WERE ACCUSTOMED TO OUR THEORY OF SEPARATION
BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.  THE RUSSIAN TURMOIL, THE RESTRAINTS ON
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AND THE EVOLUTION OF A NEW ECCLESIASTICAL
HIERARCHY IN THE FORM OF THE "LIVING CHURCH," DEEMED NONCANONICAL OR
SCHISMATIC BY MOST CHURCHMEN, MADE VERY DIFFICULT RUSSIAN
ADMINISTRATION OF THE AMERICAN DIOCESE.  FURTHERMORE, PATRIARCH TIKHON,
ON NOVEMBER 20, 1920, ISSUED DECISION NO. 362 RELATING TO CHURCH
ADMINISTRATION FOR TROUBLESOME TIMES.  THIS GRANTED A LARGE MEASURE OF
AUTONOMY, WHEN THE RUSSIAN RULING AUTHORITY WAS UNABLE TO FUNCTION,
SUBJECT TO "CONFIRMATION LATER TO THE CENTRAL CHURCH AUTHORITY WHEN IT
IS RE-ESTABLISHED."  NATURALLY THE GROWING NUMBER OF AMERICAN-BORN
MEMBERS OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH DID NOT CLING TO A HIERARCHY IDENTIFIED
WITH THEIR COUNTRY OF REMOTE ORIGIN WITH THE SAME NATIONAL FEELING THAT
MOVED THEIR IMMIGRANT ANCESTORS.  THESE FACTS AND FORCES GENERATED IN
AMERICA A SEPARATIST MOVEMENT. 

THAT MOVEMENT BROUGHT ABOUT THE ARRANGEMENTS AT THE DETROIT SOBOR OF
1924 FOR A TEMPORARY AMERICAN ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHURCH ON ACCOUNT
OF THE DISTURBANCES IN RUSSIA.  (FN8)  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY THE
DECLARATIONS OF AUTONOMY OF THE SUCCESSIVE SOBORS SINCE THAT DATE, A
SPATE OF LITIGATION CONCERNING CONTROL OF THE VARIOUS CHURCHES AND
OCCUPANCY OF ECCLESIASTICAL POSITIONS, (FN9) THE NEW YORK LEGISLATION
(KNOWN AS ARTICLE 5-C, NOTES 2 AND 3, SUPRA), AND THIS CONTROVERSY. 

DELEGATES FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN DIOCESE INTENDED TO BE REPRESENTED
AT AN ADMITTEDLY CANONICAL SOBOR OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH HELD IN
1945 AT MOSCOW.  THEY DID NOT ARRIVE IN TIME ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYS,
RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FIXED.  THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION
APPEARS AS TO THEIR LATER ACTIONS WHILE AT MOSCOW: 

"IT IS STIPULATED THAT BISHOP ALEXI AND FATHER DZVONCHIK,
REPRESENTING THE LOCAL GROUP OF AMERICAN CHURCHES UNDER BISHOP
THEOPHILUS, APPEARED BEFORE THE PATRIARCH AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS SYNOD
IN MOSCOW, PRESENTED A WRITTEN REPORT ON THE CONDITION OF THE AMERICAN
CHURCH, WITH A REQUEST FOR AUTONOMY AND A FEW DAYS LATER RECEIVED FROM
THE PATRIARCH THE UKASE  ...  ." 

THERE CAME TO THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA THIS UKASE OF THE MOSCOW
PATRIARCHY OF FEBRUARY 14 OR 16, 1945, COVERING MOSCOW'S REQUIREMENTS
FOR REUNION OF THE AMERICAN ORTHODOX CHURCH WITH THE RUSSIAN.  IT
REQUIRED FOR REUNION THAT THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA HOLD PROMPTLY
AN "ALL AMERICAN ORTHODOX CHURCH SOBOR"; THAT IT EXPRESS THE DECISION
OF THE DIOCESES TO REUNITE WITH THE RUSSIAN MOTHER CHURCH, DECLARE THE
AGREEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ORTHODOX CHURCH TO ABSTAIN "FROM POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES AGAINST THE U.S.S.R."  AND SO DIRECT ITS PARISHES, AND ELECT
A METROPOLITAN SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION BY THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHY.  THE
DECREE SAID, "IN VIEW OF THE DISTANCE OF THE AMERICAN METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT FROM THE RUSSIAN MOTHER CHURCH  ...  THE METROPOLITAN-EXARCH
...  MAY BE GIVEN SOME EXTENDED POWERS BY THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHY  ...
." 

THE AMERICAN CONGREGATIONS SPEAKING THROUGH THEIR CLEVELAND SOBOR OF
1946 REFUSED THE PROFFERED ARRANGEMENT AND RESOLVED IN PART: 

"THAT ANY ADMINISTRATIVE RECOGNITION OF THE SYNOD OF THE RUSSIAN
ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD IS HEREBY TERMINATED, RETAINING, HOWEVER, OUR
SPIRITUAL AND BROTHERLY RELATIONS WITH ALL PARTS OF THE RUSSIAN
ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD  ...  ."   THIS ENDED THE EFFORTS TO COMPOSE THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MOTHER CHURCH AND ITS AMERICAN OFFSPRING, AND
THIS LITIGATION FOLLOWED.  WE UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE FACTUAL SUMMARY
CORRESPONDS SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR DETERMINATION
FORMULATED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.  FROM THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS,
UNTIL THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, AN HIERARCHICAL CHURCH WITH UNQUESTIONED
PARAMOUNT JURISDICTION IN THE GOVERNING BODY IN RUSSIA OVER THE
AMERICAN METROPOLITANATE.  NOTHING INDICATES THAT EITHER THE SACRED
SYNOD OR THE SUCCEEDING PATRIARCHS RELINQUISHED THAT AUTHORITY OR
RECOGNIZED THE AUTONOMY OF THE AMERICAN CHURCH.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION PROCEEDS, WE UNDERSTAND, UPON THE SAME ASSUMPTION.  302 N.Y.,
AT 5, 23, 24, 96 N.E.2D, AT 57, 68, 69.  THAT COURT DID CONSIDER
"WHETHER THERE EXISTS IN MOSCOW AT THE PRESENT TIME A TRUE CENTRAL
ORGANIZATION OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH CAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING AS
THE HEAD OF A FREE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS BODY."  IT CONCLUDED THAT
THIS ASPECT OF THE CONTROVERSY HAD NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY DEVELOPED TO
JUSTIFY A JUDGMENT UPON THAT GROUND.  302 N.Y., AT 22-24, 96 N.E.2D, AT
67-69. 

THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW.  - THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
DEPENDED FOR ITS JUDGMENT, REFUSING RECOGNITION TO ARCHBISHOP BENJAMIN,
THE APPOINTEE OF THE MOSCOW HIERARCHY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH,
UPON ARTICLE 5-C OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, QUOTED AND ANALYZED
AT NOTES 2 AND 3, SUPRA.  (FN10)  CERTAINLY A LEGISLATURE IS FREE TO
ACT UPON SUCH INFORMATION AS IT MAY HAVE AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR
LEGISLATION.  BUT AN ENACTMENT BY A LEGISLATURE CANNOT VALIDATE ACTION
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS, AND WE THINK THAT THE STATUTE HERE IN
QUESTION PASSES THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT ARTICLE 5
C UNDERTOOK BY ITS TERMS TO TRANSFER THE CONTROL OF THE NEW YORK
CHURCHES OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX RELIGION FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNING
HIERARCHY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, THE PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND
THE HOLY SYNOD, TO THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN
AMERICA, A CHURCH ORGANIZATION LIMITED TO THE DIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA
AND THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS.  THIS TRANSFER TAKES PLACE BY VIRTUE OF THE
STATUTE.  SUCH A LAW VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT PROHIBITS
IN THIS COUNTRY THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  LEGISLATION THAT
REGULATES CHURCH ADMINISTRATION, THE OPERATION OF THE CHURCHES, THE
APPOINTMENT OF CLERGY, BY REQUIRING CONFORMITY TO CHURCH STATUTES
"ADOPTED AT A GENERAL CONVENTION (SOBOR) HELD IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK
ON OR ABOUT OR BETWEEN OCTOBER FIFTH TO EIGHTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED THIRTY
SEVEN, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO," NOTE 3, SUPRA, PROHIBITS THE FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  ALTHOUGH THIS STATUTE REQUIRES THE NEW YORK
CHURCHES TO "IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS CONFORM TO, MAINTAIN AND FOLLOW THE
FAITH, DOCTRINE, RITUAL, COMMUNION, DISCIPLINE, CANON LAW, TRADITIONS
AND USAGES OF THE EASTERN CONFESSION (EASTERN ORTHODOX OR GREEK
CATHOLIC CHURCH)," THEIR CONFORMITY IS BY LEGISLATIVE FIAT AND SUBJECT
TO LEGISLATIVE WILL.  SHOULD THE STATE ASSERT POWER TO CHANGE THE
STATUTE REQUIRING CONFORMITY TO ANCIENT FAITH AND DOCTRINE TO ONE
ESTABLISHING A DIFFERENT DOCTRINE, THE INVALIDITY WOULD BE
UNMISTAKABLE. 

ALTHOUGH SEC. 5 OF THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW (FN11) HAD LONG
CONTROLLED RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT ITS
RULE WAS NOT BASED ON ANY CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OR PROHIBITION. 
(FN12)  SINCE CERTAIN EVENTS OF WHICH THE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE
INDICATED TO IT THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT EXERCISED CONTROL OVER THE
CENTRAL CHURCH AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE AMERICAN CHURCH ACTED TO
PROTECT ITS PULPITS AND FAITH FROM SUCH INFLUENCES, THE COURT OF
APPEALS FELT THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S REASONABLE BELIEF IN SUCH
CONDITIONS JUSTIFIED THE STATE IN ENACTING A LAW TO FREE THE AMERICAN
GROUP FROM INFILTRATION OF SUCH ATHEISTIC OR SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCES. 
(FN13) 

THIS LEGISLATION, ART. 5-C, IN THE VIEW OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, GAVE
THE USE OF THE CHURCHES TO THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA ON THE THEORY
THAT THIS CHURCH WOULD MOST FAITHFULLY CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE
RELIGIOUS TRUST.  (FN14)  THUS DANGERS OF POLITICAL USE OF CHURCH
PULPITS WOULD BE MINIMIZED.  LEGISLATIVE POWER TO PUNISH SUBVERSIVE
ACTION CANNOT BE DOUBTED.  IF SUCH ACTION SHOULD BE ACTUALLY ATTEMPTED
BY A CLERIC, NEITHER HIS ROBE NOR HIS PULPIT WOULD BE A DEFENSE.  BUT
IN THIS CASE NO PROBLEM OF PUNISHMENT FOR THE VIOLATION OF LAW ARISES. 
THERE IS NO CHARGE OF SUBVERSIVE OR HOSTILE ACTION BY ANY
ECCLESIASTIC.  HERE THERE IS A TRANSFER BY STATUTE OF CONTROL OVER
CHURCHES.  THIS VIOLATES OUR RULE OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND
STATE.  THAT CONCLUSION RESULTS FROM THE PURPOSE, MEANING AND EFFECT OF
THE NEW YORK LEGISLATION STATED ABOVE, CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
HISTORY AND DECISIONS CONSIDERED BELOW. 

HIERARCHICAL CHURCHES MAY BE DEFINED AS THOSE ORGANIZED AS A BODY
WITH OTHER CHURCHES HAVING SIMILAR FAITH AND DOCTRINE WITH A COMMON
RULING CONVOCATION OR ECCLESIASTICAL HEAD.  IN WATSON V. JONES, 13
WALL.  679, THEY ARE SPOKEN OF IN LIKE TERMS.  (FN15)  THAT OPINION HAS
BEEN GIVEN CONSIDERATION IN SUBSEQUENT CHURCH LITIGATION - STATE AND
NATIONAL.  (FN16)  THE OPINION ITSELF, HOWEVER, DID NOT TURN ON EITHER
THE ESTABLISHMENT OR THE PROHIBITION OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. 
IT WAS A CHURCH CONTROVERSY IN THE THIRD OR WALNUT STREET PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH OF LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, ARISING OUT OF THE SLAVERY CONFLICT AND
WAS FILLED WITH THE ACRIMONY OF THAT PERIOD.  IT WAS DECIDED HERE AT
THE 1871 TERM.  "THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IS EXERCISED
BY AND THROUGH AN ASCENDING SERIES OF 'JUDICATORIES,' KNOWN AS CHURCH
SESSIONS, PRESBYTERIES, SYNODS, AND A GENERAL ASSEMBLY."  ID., AT 681. 
THE OPINION OF THIS COURT ASSUMED WITHOUT QUESTION THAT THE LOUISVILLE
CHURCH, ITS PROPERTY AND ITS OFFICERS WERE ORIGINALLY AND UP TO THE
BEGINNING OF THE DISAGREEMENTS SUBJECTED TO THE OPERATION OF THE LAWS
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.  ID., AT 683.  THE
ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY WAS IN TRUSTEES; ITS OPERATION
OR USE CONTROLLED BY THE SESSION COMPOSED OF ELDERS.  (FN17)  BOTH WERE
GROUPS ELECTED AT INTERVALS BY THE MEMBERS. 

IN MAY OF 1865 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THE HIGHEST JUDICATORY OF THE
CHURCH, MADE A DECLARATION OF LOYALTY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
DENOUNCING SLAVERY, AND DIRECTED THAT NEW MEMBERS WITH CONTRARY VIEWS
SHOULD NOT BE RECEIVED.  THE LOUISVILLE PRESBYTERY, THE IMMEDIATE
SUPERIOR OF THE WALNUT STREET CHURCH, PROMPTLY ISSUED A DECLARATION AND
TESTIMONY, REFUSING OBEDIENCE AND CALLING FOR RESISTANCE TO THE ALLEGED
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY.  THE LOUISVILLE PRESBYTERY DIVIDED AS DID THE
WALNUT STREET CHURCH AND THE PROSLAVERY GROUP OBTAINED ADMISSION INTO
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF THE CONFERERATE STATES.  IN JUNE 1867 THE
PRESBYTERIAN GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE UNITED STATES DECLARED THE
PRESBYTERY AND SYNOD RECOGNIZED BY THE PROSLAVERY PARTY WERE "IN NO
SENSE A TRUE AND LAWFUL SYNOD AND PRESBYTERY IN CONNECTION WITH AND
UNDER THE CARE AND AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."  THEY WERE
"PERMANENTLY EXCLUDED FROM CONNECTION WITH OR REPRESENTATION IN THE
ASSEMBLY.  BY THE SAME RESOLUTION THE SYNOD AND PRESBYTERY ADHERED TO
BY THOSE WHOM THE PROSLAVERY PARTY OPPOSED WERE DECLARED TO BE THE TRUE
AND LAWFUL PRESBYTERY OF LOUISVILLE, AND SYNOD OF KENTUCKY."  ID., AT
692. 

LITIGATION STARTED IN 1866 WITH A SUIT IN THE STATE COURT BY CERTAIN
OF THE ANTISLAVERY GROUP TO HAVE DECLARED THEIR RIGHT TO ACT AS DULY
ELECTED ADDITIONAL ELDERS "IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY FOR
PURPOSES OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP."  ID., AT 685.  AS THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF KENTUCKY THOUGHT THAT CERTAIN ACTS OF THE LOUISVILLE PRESBYTERY AND
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED STATES, IN PRONOUNCING THE
ADDITIONAL ELDERS DULY ELECTED, WERE VOID AS BEYOND THEIR FUNCTIONS,
ID., AT 693, (FN18) IT REFUSED THE PLEA OF THE ANTISLAVERY GROUP AND
LEFT THE PROSLAVERY ELDERS AND TRUSTEES IN CONTROL OF THE WALNUT STREET
CHURCH. 

THEREUPON A NEW SUIT, WATSON V. JONES, WAS BEGUN BY ALLEGED MEMBERS
OF THE CHURCH TO SECURE THE USE OF THE WALNUT STREET CHURCH FOR THE
ANTISLAVERY GROUP.  THIS SUIT WAS TO DECIDE NOT THE VALIDITY OF AN
ELECTION OF ELDERS FOUGHT OUT IN WATSON V. AVERY, SUPRA BUT WHICH ONE
OF TWO BODIES SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS ENTITLED TO THE USE OF THE WALNUT
STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.  IT WAS DETERMINED THAT PLAINTIFFS HAD A
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE CHURCH PROPERTY AND THEREFORE A STANDING TO
SUE FOR ITS PROPER USE, IF THEY WERE MEMBERS.  ID., AT 697, 714.  A
SCHISM WAS RECOGNIZED.  ID., AT 717.  IT WAS HELD: 

"THE TRUSTEES OBVIOUSLY HOLD POSSESSION FOR THE USE OF THE PERSONS
WHO BY THE CONSTITUTION, USAGES, AND LAWS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN BODY, ARE
ENTITLED TO THAT USE."  ID., AT 720. 

THEY WERE REQUIRED TO RECOGNIZE "THE TRUE USES OF THE TRUST."  ID., AT
722.  THEN TURNING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF AN HIERARCHICAL CHURCH, AS
DEFINED IN N. 15, SUPRA, AND, AS IT FOUND THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH TO
BE, THIS COURT SAID: 

"IN THIS CLASS OF CASES WE THINK THE RULE OF ACTION WHICH SHOULD
GOVERN THE CIVIL COURTS, FOUNDED IN A BROAD AND SOUND VIEW OF THE
RELATIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS, AND SUPPORTED
BY A PREPONDERATING WEIGHT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IS, THAT, WHENEVER THE
QUESTIONS OF DISCIPLINE, OR OF FAITH, OR ECCLESIASTICAL RULE, CUSTOM,
OR LAW HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE HIGHEST OF THESE CHURCH JUDICATORIES TO
WHICH THE MATTER HAS BEEN CARRIED, THE LEGAL TRIBUNALS MUST ACCEPT SUCH
DECISIONS AS FINAL, AND AS BINDING ON THEM, IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE
CASE BEFORE THEM."  ID., AT 727. 

AS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH HAD RECOGNIZED THE ANTISLAVERY
GROUP "AS THE REGULAR AND LAWFUL WALNUT STREET CHURCH AND OFFICERS,"
ID., AT 694, NEWLY ELECTED, AND THE TRIAL COURT HAD FOUND COMPLAINANTS
MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP, AND HAD ENTERED A DECREE ADJUDGING THAT THIS
GROUP'S DULY CHOSEN AND ELECTED PASTOR, RULING ELDERS AND TRUSTEES
"RESPECTIVELY ENTITLED TO EXERCISE WHATEVER AUTHORITY IN THE SAID
CHURCH, OR OVER ITS MEMBERS OR PROPERTY, RIGHTFULLY BELONGED TO PASTOR,
ELDERS, AND TRUSTEES, RESPECTIVELY, IN CHURCHES IN CONNECTION WITH 'THE
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,' OLD SCHOOL, AND
ACCORDING TO THE REGULATIONS AND USAGES OF THAT CHURCH," ID., AT 698,
THIS COURT AFFIRMED THE DECREE. 

IN AFFIRMING, THE COURT RECOGNIZED THE CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS BETWEEN
JURISTS AS TO CIVIL JURISDICTION OVER CHURCH ADJUDICATIONS HAVING AN
EFFECT UPON PROPERTY OR ITS USES, WHEN THE CIVIL COURTS DETERMINE THE
CHURCH JUDICATORY HAS VIOLATED THE CHURCH'S ORGANIC LAW.  (FN19)  ITS
RULING IS SUMMED UP IN THESE WORDS: 

"IN THIS COUNTRY THE FULL AND FREE RIGHT TO ENTERTAIN ANY RELIGIOUS
BELIEF, TO PRACTICE ANY RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE, AND TO TEACH ANY RELIGIOUS
DOCTRINE WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE THE LAWS OF MORALITY AND PROPERTY, AND
WHICH DOES NOT INFRINGE PERSONAL RIGHTS, IS CONCEDED TO ALL.  THE LAW
KNOWS NO HERESY, AND IS COMMITTED TO THE SUPPORT OF NO DOGMA, THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF NO SECT.  THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE VOLUNTARY RELIGIOUS
ASSOCIATIONS TO ASSIST IN THE EXPRESSION AND DISSEMINATION OF ANY
RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, AND TO CREATE TRIBUNALS FOR THE DECISION OF
CONTROVERTED QUESTIONS OF FAITH WITHIN THE ASSOCIATION, AND FOR THE
ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT OF ALL THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, CONGREGATIONS,
AND OFFICERS WITHIN THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION, IS UNQUESTIONED.  ALL WHO
UNITE THEMSELVES TO SUCH A BODY DO SO WITH AN IMPLIED CONSENT TO THIS
GOVERNMENT, AND ARE BOUND TO SUBMIT TO IT.  BUT IT WOULD BE A VAIN
CONSENT AND WOULD LEAD TO THE TOTAL SUBVERSION OF SUCH RELIGIOUS
BODIES, IF ANY ONE AGGRIEVED BY ONE OF THEIR DECISIONS COULD APPEAL TO
THE SECULAR COURTS AND HAVE THEM REVERSED.  IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF
THESE RELIGIOUS UNIONS, AND OF THEIR RIGHT TO ESTABLISH TRIBUNALS FOR
THE DECISION OF QUESTIONS ARISING AMONG THEMSELVES, THAT THOSE
DECISIONS SHOULD BE BINDING IN ALL CASES OF ECCLESIASTICAL COGNIZANCE,
SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH APPEALS AS THE ORGANISM ITSELF PROVIDES FOR." 
ID., AT 728-729. 

THIS IS APPLICABLE TO "QUESTIONS OF DISCIPLINE, OR OF FAITH, OR
ECCLESIASTICAL RULE, CUSTOM, OR LAW," ID., AT 727.  (FN20)  THIS
CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO USE ST. NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL IS
STRICTLY A MATTER OF ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT, THE POWER OF THE
SUPREME CHURCH AUTHORITY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH TO APPOINT THE
RULING HIERARCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA.  NO ONE DISPUTES
THAT SUCH POWER DID LIE IN THAT AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE RUSSIAN
REVOLUTION. 

WATSON V. JONES, ALTHOUGH IT CONTAINS A REFERENCE TO THE RELATIONS OF
CHURCH AND STATE UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS, (FN21) WAS DECIDED WITHOUT
DEPENDING UPON PROHIBITION OF STATE INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION.  IT WAS DECIDED IN 1871, BEFORE JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF
THE COERCIVE POWER OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO PROTECT THE
LIMITATIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AGAINST STATE ACTION.  IT LONG
ANTEDATED THE 1938 DECISIONS OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS AND RUHLIN V.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 64 AND 202, AND, THEREFORE, EVEN
THOUGH FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE CASE DEPENDED SOLELY ON DIVERSITY,
THE HOLDING WAS BASED ON GENERAL LAW RATHER THAN KENTUCKY LAW.  (FN22)
THE OPINION RADIATES, HOWEVER, A SPIRIT OF FREEDOM FOR RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS, AN INDEPENDENCE FROM SECULAR CONTROL OR MANIPULATION -
IN SHORT, POWER TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES, FREE FROM STATE INTERFERENCE,
MATTERS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THOSE OF FAITH AND DOCTRINE. 
FREEDOM TO SELECT THE CLERGY, WHERE NO IMPROPER METHODS OF CHOICE ARE
PROVEN, (FN23) WE THINK, MUST NOW BE SAID TO HAVE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AS A PART OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
AGAINST STATE INTERFERENCE.    LEGISLATIVE POWER.  - THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF NEW YORK RECOGNIZED, GENERALLY, THE SOUNDNESS OF THE
PHILOSOPHY OF ECCLESIASTICAL CONTROL OF CHURCH ADMINISTRATION AND
POLITY BUT CONCLUDED THAT THE EXERCISE OF THAT CONTROL WAS NOT FREE
FROM LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE.  (FN24)  THAT COURT PRESENTED FORCEFULLY
THE ARGUMENT SUPPORTING LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ACT ON ITS OWN KNOWLEDGE
OF "THE SOVIET ATTITUDE TOWARD THINGS RELIGIOUS."  302 N.Y., AT 32-33,
96 N.E.2D, AT 74.  IT WAS SAID: 

"THE LEGISLATURE REALIZED THAT THE NORTH AMERICAN CHURCH, IN ORDER TO
BE FREE OF SOVIET INTERFERENCE IN ITS AFFAIRS, HAD DECLARED ITS
TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE AUTONOMY IN 1924, PURSUANT TO THE UKASE OF
1920, WHILE RETAINING FULL SPIRITUAL COMMUNION WITH THE PATRIARCHATE,
AND THAT THERE WAS A REAL DANGER THAT THOSE PROPERTIES AND
TEMPORALITIES LONG ENJOYED AND USED BY THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
WORSHIPPERS IN THIS STATE WOULD BE TAKEN FROM THEM BY THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PATRIARCHATE."  302 N.Y., AT 33, 96 N.E.2D, AT
74. 

IT WAS THOUGHT THAT AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S.
382, SUPPORTED THE THESIS THAT WHERE THERE IS SOME SPECIFIC EVIL, FOUND
AS A FACT, "SOME INFRINGEMENT UPON TRADITIONAL LIBERTIES WAS
JUSTIFIABLE" TO EFFECT A CURE.  302 N.Y., AT 31, 96 N.E.2D, AT 73.  ON
THAT REASONING IT WAS THOUGHT PERMISSIBLE, IN VIEW "OF THE CHANGED
SITUATION OF THE PATRIARCHATE IN RUSSIA," TO REPLACE IT WITH THE
RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA AS THE RULING AUTHORITY OVER THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHURCH.  THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS LEGISLATIVE
SUBSTITUTION WAS FOUND IN THE THEORY THAT THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
"WAS THE TRUSTEE WHICH 'MAY BE RELIED UPON TO CARRY OUT MORE
EFFECTIVELY AND FAITHFULLY THE PURPOSES OF THIS RELIGIOUS TRUST
(CARRIER V. CARRIER, 226 N.Y. 114).'"  302 N.Y., AT 30, 96 N.E.2D AT
72.  MINDFUL OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN ITS
INTERPRETATION OF THE POWERS OF ITS OWN LEGISLATURE AND WITH RESPECT
FOR ITS STANDING AND ABILITY, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH ITS STATEMENT AS TO
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. 

IN OUR VIEW THE DOUDS CASE MAY NOT BE INTERPRETED TO VALIDATE NEW
YORK'S ARTICLE 5-C.  THAT CASE INVOLVED THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 9(H) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AS AMENDED, 61 STAT. 136, 146, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 159(H).  THAT SECTION FORBADE THE N.L.R.B. FROM ACTING AT
THE SUGGESTION OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNLESS AFFIDAVITS OF ITS
OFFICERS WERE FILED DENYING AFFILIATION WITH SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS
OR BELIEF IN THE OVERTHROW OF THIS GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR OTHER
UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.  WE UPHELD THE ENACTMENT AS A PROPER EXERCISE
OF THE POWER TO PROTECT COMMERCE FROM THE EVIL OF DISRUPTION FROM
STRIKES SO POLITICALLY INSPIRED.  IN SO DOING WE SAID, "LEGITIMATE
ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT FROM THE REMOTE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF
NOXIOUS IDEOLOGIES, BUT FROM PRESENT EXCESSES OF DIRECT, ACTIVE
CONDUCT, ARE NOT PRESUMPTIVELY BAD BECAUSE THEY INTERFERE WITH AND, IN
SOME OF ITS MANIFESTATIONS, RESTRAIN THE EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS."  339 U.S., AT 399.  AND ADDED, "BUT INSOFAR AS THE PROBLEM IS
ONE OF DRAWING INFERENCES CONCERNING THE NEED FOR REGULATION OF
PARTICULAR FORMS OF CONDUCT FROM CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, THIS COURT IS IN
NO POSITION TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT AS TO THE NECESSITY OR
DESIRABILITY OF THE STATUTE FOR THAT OF CONGRESS."  ID., AT 400.  IT IS
AN EXAGGERATION TO SAY THAT THOSE SOUND STATEMENTS POINT TO A
LEGISLATIVE POWER TO TAKE AWAY FROM A CHURCH'S GOVERNING BODY AND ITS
DULY ORDAINED REPRESENTATIVE THE POSSESSION AND USE OF A BUILDING HELD
IN TRUST FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT IS BEING EMPLOYED BECAUSE OF AN
APPREHENSION, EVEN THOUGH REASONABLE, THAT IT MAY BE EMPLOYED FOR
IMPROPER PURPOSES.  IN DOUDS, WE SAW NOTHING THAT WAS AIMED AT THE FREE
EXPRESSION OF VIEWS.  UNIONS COULD HAVE OFFICERS WITH SUCH AFFILIATIONS
AND POLITICAL PURPOSES AS THEY MIGHT CHOOSE BUT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT
COMPELLED TO ALLOW THOSE OFFICERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISRUPT COMMERCE
FOR THEIR OWN POLITICAL ENDS.  WE LOOKED UPON THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT
AS AN ASSURANCE THAT DISRUPTIVE FORCES WOULD NOT UTILIZE A GOVERNMENT
AGENCY TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR PURPOSES.  ID., AT 403. 

IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF ARTICLE 5-C, THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS APPARENTLY ASSUMES ARTICLE 5-C DOES NOTHING MORE THAN PERMIT
THE TRUSTEES OF THE CATHEDRAL TO USE IT FOR SERVICES CONSISTENT WITH
THE DESIRES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA.  ITS REACH
GOES FAR BEYOND THAT POINT.  BY FIAT IT DISPLACES ONE CHURCH
ADMINISTRATOR WITH ANOTHER.  IT PASSES THE CONTROL OF MATTERS STRICTLY
ECCLESIASTICAL FROM ONE CHURCH AUTHORITY TO ANOTHER.  IT THUS INTRUDES
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE SEGMENT OF A CHURCH THE POWER OF THE STATE INTO
THE FORBIDDEN AREA OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  SUCH PROHIBITION DIFFERS FROM THE RESTRICTION OF
A RIGHT TO DEAL WITH GOVERNMENT ALLOWED IN DOUDS, IN THAT THE UNION IN
THE DOUDS CASE HAD NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT.  NEW
YORK'S ARTICLE 5-C DIRECTLY PROHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF AN
ECCLESIASTICAL RIGHT, THE CHURCH'S CHOICE OF ITS HIERARCHY. 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT NEW YORK'S LEGISLATIVE APPLICATION OF A CY-PRES
DOCTRINE TO THIS TRUST AVOIDS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE AGAINST
PROHIBITION OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  LATE CORPORATION OF
LATTER-DAY SAINTS V. UNITED STATES, 136 U.S. 1, RELIED UPON BY THE
APPELLEE, DOES NOT SUPPORT ITS ARGUMENT.  THERE THE CHURCH OF JESUS
CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS HAD BEEN INCORPORATED AS A RELIGIOUS
CORPORATION BY THE STATE OF DESERET, WITH SUBSEQUENT CONFIRMATION BY
THE TERRITORY OF UTAH.  ITS PROPERTY WAS HELD FOR RELIGIOUS AND
CHARITABLE PURPOSES.  THAT CHARTER WAS REVOKED BY CONGRESS AND SOME OF
THE PROPERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS ESCHEATED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
USE OF THE COMMON SCHOOLS OF UTAH.  THIS COURT UPHELD THE REVOCATION OF
THE CHARTER, RELYING ON THE RESERVED POWER OF THE CONGRESS OVER THE
ACTS OF TERRITORIES, 136 U.S., AT 45-46.  THE SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY
WAS BOTTOMED ON THE GENERAL RULE THAT WHERE A CHARITABLE CORPORATION IS
DISSOLVED FOR UNLAWFUL PRACTICES, ID., AT 49-50, THE SOVEREIGN TAKES
AND DISTRIBUTES THE PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE CY-PRES DOCTRINE TO
OBJECTS OF CHARITY AND USEFULNESS, E.G., SCHOOLS.  ID., AT 47, 50-51. 
A FAILURE OF THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE COULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT.  ID.,
AT 59.  NONE OF THESE ELEMENTS EXIST TO SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW
YORK STATUTE PUTTING THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES OF NEW YORK UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA.  SEE NOTES 2 AND
3, SUPRA. 

THE RECORD BEFORE US SHOWS NO SCHISM OVER FAITH OR DOCTRINE BETWEEN
THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH.  IT
SHOWS ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN DIOCESE BY THE
SUPREME CHURCH AUTHORITY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH, INCLUDING THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE RULING HIERARCH IN NORTH AMERICA FROM THE FOUNDATION
OF THE DIOCESE UNTIL THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.  WE FIND NOTHING THAT
INDICATES A RELINQUISHMENT OF THIS POWER BY THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH. 

OURS IS A GOVERNMENT WHICH BY THE "LAW OF ITS BEING" ALLOWS NO
STATUTE, STATE OR NATIONAL, THAT PROHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF
RELIGION.  THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN CIVIL COURTS MUST DRAW LINES
BETWEEN THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHURCH AND STATE FOR THE DISPOSITION OR
USE OF PROPERTY.  (FN25) EVEN IN THOSE CASES WHEN THE PROPERTY RIGHT
FOLLOWS AS AN INCIDENT FROM DECISIONS OF THE CHURCH CUSTOM OR LAW ON
ECCLESIASTICAL ISSUES, THE CHURCH RULE CONTROLS.  (FN26)  THIS UNDER
OUR CONSTITUTION NECESSARILY FOLLOWS IN ORDER THAT THERE MAY BE FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION. 

THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK MUST BE REVERSED, AND
THE CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR SUCH FURTHER ACTION AS IT DEEMS
PROPER AND NOT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  A SOBOR IS A CONVENTION OF BISHOPS, CLERGYMEN AND LAYMEN WITH
SUPERIOR POWERS, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF WHICH THE CHURCH OFFICIALS RULE
THEIR DIOCESES OR DISTRICTS. 

THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF TITLE.  IT IS IN THE APPELLEE CORPORATION. 
THE ISSUE IS THE RIGHT OF USE.  ST. NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL V. KEDROFF, 302
N.Y. 1, 20, 96 N.E.2D 56, 66-67. 

THE DEED TO THE CATHEDRAL CORPORATION REQUIRED THE GRANTEE TO HOLD
THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE ACT OF 1925, SET OUT
AT THE OPENING OF THIS OPINION.  AS SAID BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, 302
N.Y., AT 20, 96 N.E.2D, AT 66: 

"PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DISPUTE THIS TRUST THEORY, BUT ON THE CONTRARY
RELIES UPON IT.  PLAINTIFF HAS ENDEAVORED TO PROVE THAT THE BENEFICIAL
USE OF THE PROPERTY TODAY RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN
AMERICA (RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, SEC. 105) WHICH WAS FORCED TO
DECLARE ITS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTONOMY AT THE DETROIT SOBOR OF 1924 IN
ORDER TO PRESERVE AND ADHERE TO THOSE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES
FUNDAMENTAL TO THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX FAITH, FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF
AN ATHEISTIC AND ANTIRELIGIOUS FOREIGN CIVIL GOVERNMENT." 

SEE ALSO RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW, SEC. 5, 50 MCKINNEY'S N.Y. LAWS
SEC. 5. 

FN2  50 MCKINNEY'S N.Y. LAWS SEC. 105: 

"THE 'RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA', AS THAT TERM IS USED ANYWHERE IN
THIS ARTICLE, REFERS TO THAT GROUP OF CHURCHES, CATHEDRALS, CHAPELS,
CONGREGATIONS, SOCIETIES, PARISHES, COMMITTEES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS OF THE EASTERN CONFESSION (EASTERN ORTHODOX OR GREEK
CATHOLIC CHURCH) WHICH WERE KNOWN AS (A) RUSSIAN AMERICAN MISSION OF
THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH FROM IN OR ABOUT SEVENTEEN HUNDRED NINETY
THREE TO IN OR ABOUT EIGHTEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY; (B) DIOCESE OF ALASKA
AND THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH FROM IN OR
ABOUT EIGHTEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY TO IN OR ABOUT NINETEEN HUNDRED FOUR;
(C) DIOCESE OF NORTH AMERICA AND THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS (OR ALASKA) OF
THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH FROM IN OR ABOUT NINETEEN HUNDRED FOUR TO
IN OR ABOUT NINETEEN HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR; AND (D) RUSSIAN ORTHODOX
GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA SINCE IN OR ABOUT NINETEEN
HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR; AND WERE SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE MOST SACRED GOVERNING SYNOD IN MOSCOW UNTIL IN OR
ABOUT NINETEEN HUNDRED SEVENTEEN, LATER THE PATRIARCHATE OF MOSCOW, BUT
NOW CONSTITUTE AN ADMINISTRATIVELY AUTONOMOUS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
CREATED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED AT A GENERAL CONVENTION (SOBOR)
OF SAID DISTRICT HELD AT DETROIT, MICHIGAN, ON OR ABOUT OR BETWEEN
APRIL SECOND TO FOURTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR. 

"A 'RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH,' AS THAT TERM IS USED ANYWHERE IN THIS
ARTICLE, IS A CHURCH, CATHEDRAL, CHAPEL, CONGREGATION, SOCIETY, PARISH,
COMMITTEE OR OTHER RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION FOUNDED AND ESTABLISHED FOR
THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE INTENT OF ADHERING TO, AND BEING SUBJECT TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OF SAID MISSION, DIOCESE OR AUTONOMOUS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT HEREINABOVE DEFINED AS THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN
AMERICA." 

FN3  ID., SEC. 107: 

"1.  EVERY RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN THIS STATE, WHETHER
INCORPORATED BEFORE OR AFTER THE CREATION OF SAID AUTONOMOUS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, AND WHETHER INCORPORATED OR REINCORPORATED
PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE OR ANY OTHER ARTICLE OF THE RELIGIOUS
CORPORATIONS LAW, OR ANY GENERAL OR PRIVATE LAW, SHALL RECOGNIZE AND BE
AND REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL
CONVENTION (SOBOR), METROPOLITAN ARCHBISHOP OR OTHER PRIMATE OR
HIERARCH, THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS, THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND OTHER
GOVERNING BODIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA,
PURSUANT TO THE STATUTES FOR THE GOVERNMENT THEREOF ADOPTED AT A
GENERAL CONVENTION (SOBOR) HELD IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ON OR ABOUT OR
BETWEEN OCTOBER FIFTH TO EIGHTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN, AND ANY
AMENDMENTS THERETO AND ANY OTHER STATUTES OR RULES HERETOFORE OR
HEREAFTER ADOPTED BY A GENERAL CONVENTION (SOBOR) OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
IN AMERICA AND SHALL IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS CONFORM TO, MAINTAIN AND
FOLLOW THE FAITH, DOCTRINE, RITUAL, COMMUNION, DISCIPLINE, CANON LAW,
TRADITIONS AND USAGES OF THE EASTERN CONFESSION (EASTERN ORTHODOX OR
GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH). 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"3.  THE TRUSTEES OF EVERY RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH SHALL HAVE THE
CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF ALL TEMPORALITIES AND PROPERTY, REAL AND
PERSONAL, BELONGING TO SUCH CHURCH AND OF THE REVENUES THEREFROM AND
SHALL ADMINISTER THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BY-LAWS OF SUCH
CHURCH, THE NORMAL STATUTES FOR PARISHES OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN
AMERICA APPROVED AT A GENERAL CONVENTION (SOBOR) THEREOF HELD AT
CLEVELAND, OHIO, ON OR ABOUT OR BETWEEN NOVEMBER TWENTIETH TO TWENTY
THIRD, NINETEEN HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO AND ALL
OTHER RULES, STATUTES, REGULATIONS AND USAGES OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN
AMERICA." 

FN4  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 317; WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333
U.S. 507, 514. 

THE COURT EXPRESSED ITS CONCLUSION IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, ST. NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL V.
KEDROFF, 276 APP. DIV. 309, 94 N.Y.S.2D 453, WHICH HAD AFFIRMED THE
TRIAL TERM.  192 MISC. 327, 77 N.Y.S.2D 333.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
HELD: 

"THE ONLY CONSTRUCTION WHICH GIVES MEANING TO ALL THE LANGUAGE IN
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES FOUNDED AND ESTABLISHED BEFORE 1924 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ADHERING AND BEING SUBJECT TO THE NORTH AMERICAN MISSION OR
NORTH AMERICAN DIOCESE, AND TO THOSE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES FOUNDED
AND ESTABLISHED AFTER 1924 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADHERING AND BEING
SUBJECT TO THE AUTONOMOUS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT.  THE MAJORITY IN THE
APPELLATE DIVISION FURTHER INTIMATED THAT TO READ THE STATUTE LITERALLY
WOULD RESULT IN AN INTERFERENCE IN ECCLESIASTICAL CONCERNS NOT WITHIN
THE COMPETENCY OF THE LEGISLATURE.  THE LATTER SUGGESTION IS THE ONLY
ONE WHICH REQUIRES DISCUSSION, FOR, AS ALREADY INDICATED, THE INTENT OF
THE LEGISLATURE (AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS COMPETENCY) IS
UNMISTAKABLE."  302 N.Y., AT 29, 96 N.E.2D, AT 71.    FN5  FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION: 

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION,
OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; ...  ." 

FN6  HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245, 262; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT,
310 U.S. 296, 303; EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1, 14-15;
ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203, 210-211;
ZORACH V. CLAUSON, 343 U.S. 306, 310. 

FN7  FORTESCUE, SUPRA (1916); BRIAN-CHANINOV, THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
(1931), C. VIII; ZERNOV, THE RUSSIANS AND THEIR CHURCH (1945); FRENCH,
THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH (1951), C. VII; DANZAS, THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
(1936); ANDERSON, PEOPLE, CHURCH AND STATE IN MODERN RUSSIA (1944), PP.
121-140; BOLSHAKOFF, THE FOREIGN MISSIONS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH (1943), C. IV. 

FN8  THE ATTITUDE OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA WILL BE MADE
SUFFICIENTLY PLAIN BY THESE EXTRACTS FROM THEIR RECORDS OF ACTION TAKEN
AT THE DETROIT SOBOR, 1924: 

"POINT 1.  TEMPORARILY, UNTIL THE CONVOCATION OF THE ALL RUSSIAN
SOBOR FURTHER INDICATED IN POINT 5, TO DECLARE THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX
DIOCESE IN AMERICA A SELF-GOVERNED CHURCH SO THAT IT BE GOVERNED BY ITS
OWN ELECTED ARCHBISHOP BY MEANS OF A SOBOR OF BISHOPS, A COUNCIL
COMPOSED OF THOSE ELECTED FROM THE CLERGY AND LAITY, AND PERIODIC
SOBORS OF THE ENTIRE AMERICAN CHURCH. 

     *         *         *         *   * 

"POINT 5.  TO LEAVE THE FINAL REGULATION OF QUESTIONS ARISING FROM
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE RUSSIAN AND THE AMERICAN CHURCHES TO A FUTURE
SOBOR OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH WHICH WILL BE LEGALLY CONVOKED,
LEGALLY ELECTED, WILL SIT WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE AMERICAN CHURCH UNDER CONDITIONS OF POLITICAL FREEDOM, GUARANTEEING
THE FULLNESS AND AUTHORITY OF ITS DECISIONS FOR THE ENTIRE CHURCH, AND
WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE ENTIRE OECUMENICAL ORTHODOX CHURCH AS A TRUE
SOBOR OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH." 

FN9  NEMOLOVSKY V. RYHLOFF, 187 APP. DIV. 290, 175 N.Y.S. 617;
KEDROVSKY V. ARCHBISHOP AND CONSISTORY, 195 APP. DIV. 127, 186 N.Y.S.
346; KEDROVSKY V. ROJDESVENSKY, 214 APP. DIV. 483, 212 N.Y.S. 273; ID.,
242 N.Y. 547, 152 N.E. 421; KEDROVSKY V. ARCHBISHOP AND CONSISTORY, 218
APP. DIV. 121, 124, 217 N.Y.S. 873, 875; ID., 220 APP. DIV. 750, 222
N.Y.S. 831; ID., 249 N.Y. 75, 516, 162 N.E. 588, 164 N.E. 566;
NIKULNIKOFF V. ARCHBISHOP AND CONSISTORY, 142 MISC. 894, 255 N.Y.S.
653; WAIPA V. KUSHWARA, 259 APP. DIV. 843, 20 N.Y.S.2D 174; ID., 283
N.Y. 780, 28 N.E.2D 417. 

FN10  THE COURT SAID, 302 N.Y. 1, 96 N.E.2D 56: 

"THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE 'RUSSIAN CHURCH IN
AMERICA' WAS THE ONE WHICH, TO USE OUR WORDS IN 249 NEW YORK AT PAGES
77-78, WAS THE TRUSTEE WHICH 'MAY BE RELIED UPON TO CARRY OUT MORE
EFFECTIVELY AND FAITHFULLY THE PURPOSES OF THIS RELIGIOUS TRUST
(CARRIER V. CARRIER, 226 N.Y. 114)' BY REASON OF THE CHANGED SITUATION
OF THE PATRIARCHATE IN RUSSIA."  302 N.Y., AT 30, 96 N.E.2D, AT 72. 

"THE COURTS HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT IT IS THE PROVINCE OF THE
LEGISLATURE TO MAKE THE UNDERLYING FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH GIVE MEANING
AND SUBSTANCE TO ITS ULTIMATE DIRECTIVES.  THE COURTS HAVE
TRADITIONALLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE WISDOM OR TECHNICAL VALIDITY OF
SUCH FINDINGS OF FACT, IF THERE BE SOME REASONABLE BASIS UPON WHICH
THEY MAY REST."  302 N.Y., AT 31, 96 N.E.2D, AT 72-73. 

"THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, LIKE THE CONGRESS, MUST BE
DEEMED TO HAVE INVESTIGATED THE WHOLE PROBLEM CAREFULLY BEFORE IT
ACTED.  THE LEGISLATURE KNEW THAT THE CENTRAL AUTHORITIES OF THE
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN RUSSIA HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED AFTER THE 1917
REVOLUTION, AND THAT THE PATRIARCHATE WAS LATER RESURRECTED BY THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.  THE LEGISLATURE, LIKE CONGRESS, KNEW THE CHARACTER
AND METHOD OF OPERATION OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISM AND THE SOVIET
ATTITUDE TOWARD THINGS RELIGIOUS.  THE LEGISLATURE WAS AWARE OF THE
CONTEMPORARY VIEWS OF QUALIFIED OBSERVERS WHO HAVE VISITED RUSSIA AND
WHO HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE
PATRIARCHATE IN THE SOVIET SYSTEM.  THE LEGISLATURE REALIZED THAT THE
NORTH AMERICAN CHURCH, IN ORDER TO BE FREE OF SOVIET INTERFERENCE IN
ITS AFFAIRS, HAD DECLARED ITS TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE AUTONOMY IN
1924, PURSUANT TO THE UKASE OF 1920, WHILE RETAINING FULL SPIRITUAL
COMMUNION WITH THE PATRIARCHATE, AND THAT THERE WAS A REAL DANGER THAT
THOSE PROPERTIES AND TEMPORALITIES LONG ENJOYED AND USED BY THE RUSSIAN
ORTHODOX CHURCH WORSHIPPERS IN THIS STATE WOULD BE TAKEN FROM THEM BY
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PATRIARCHATE.  ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS,
AND THE FACTS STATED (SUPRA) AND NO DOUBT OTHER FACTS WE KNOW NOT OF,
OUR LEGISLATURE CONCLUDED THAT THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE WAS NO LONGER
CAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING AS A TRUE RELIGIOUS BODY, BUT HAD BECOME A TOOL
OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT ITS FOREIGN
POLICY.  WHETHER WE, AS JUDGES, WOULD HAVE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION
IS IMMATERIAL.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE REACHED IT, AFTER
FULL CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS."  302 N.Y., AT 32-33, 96 N.E.2D,
AT 73-74. 

FN11  "THE TRUSTEES OF EVERY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION SHALL HAVE THE
CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF ALL THE TEMPORALITIES AND PROPERTY, REAL AND
PERSONAL, BELONGING TO THE CORPORATION AND OF THE REVENUES THEREFROM,
AND SHALL ADMINISTER THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DISCIPLINE, RULES
AND USAGES OF THE CORPORATION AND OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNING BODY,
IF ANY, TO WHICH THE CORPORATION IS SUBJECT, ...  ." 

FN12  302 N.Y., AT 30, 96 N.E.2D, AT 72: 

"AS A BROAD GUIDE THIS RULE UNDOUBTEDLY HAS WORKED WELL, BUT IT IS BY
NO MEANS A CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR
MODIFICATION BY THE SAME LEGISLATURE WHICH ANNOUNCED IT, IN CASES WHERE
LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE AND OPPOSED TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  THE LEGISLATURE, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS EXTENSIVE AND
ACKNOWLEDGED POWER TO ACT FOR THE COMMON WELFARE, MAY FIND AS A FACT
THAT A SITUATION HAS ARISEN OF SUCH NOVELTY AND UNIQUENESS THAT
EXISTING LAW IS INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING ITS AVOWED FUNCTION - THE
PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS TEMPORALITIES FOR THE USE OF THEIR ORIGINAL
AND ACCUSTOMED BENEFICIARIES.  IF THE LEGISLATURE FIND AS A FACT THAT,
BECAUSE OF DRASTICALLY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACCUSTOMED
BENEFICIARIES OF RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES ARE THUS THREATENED WITH THEIR
LOSS, AND IF THERE BE A BASIS FOR SUCH FINDING, WE PERCEIVE NO
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO A LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT TO TRACE AND
IDENTIFY, AS OF TODAY, THE AUTHENTIC GROUP ENTITLED TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH PROPERTIES." 

FN13  302 N.Y., AT 13, 96 N.E.2D, AT 62: 

"THE CONTROL OF ALL PHASES OF RUSSIAN LIFE BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT
AS APPARENT IN 1924 AS IT IS A QUARTER OF A CENTURY LATER AND ON THE
SURFACE, AT LEAST, THE CASE APPEARED TO BE A PROPER ONE FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THE RULE THAT IN AN ECCLESIASTICAL DISPUTE INVOLVING A
DENOMINATIONAL CHURCH, THE DECISION OF THE HIGHEST CHURCH JUDICATORIES
WILL BE ACCEPTED AS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE BY THE CIVIL COURTS (TRUSTEES
OF PRESBYTERY OF N.Y. V. WESTMINSTER PRESBYT.  CHURCH, 222 N.Y. 305,
315; WATSON V. JONES, 13 WALL.  (U.S.)  679, 724-727; RELIGIOUS
CORPORATIONS LAW, SECS. 4, 5)." 

"  ...  WE FEEL WE MUST ACCEPT THE HISTORICAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN
THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE VAN VOORHIS, BELOW:  '  ...  IN
RECENT PUBLIC PRONOUNCEMENTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND OUR
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE UNITED NATIONS, HAVE FREQUENTLY RECOGNIZED AND
DENOUNCED THE SUPPRESSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND BASIC LIBERTIES IN
RELIGION AS WELL AS IN OTHER ASPECTS OF LIFE, EXISTING IN SOVIET RUSSIA
AND IN ALL OF ITS SATELLITE STATES  ...  .'"  302 N.Y., AT 23, 96
N.E.2D, AT 68. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN15  "THE THIRD IS WHERE THE RELIGIOUS CONGREGATION OR
ECCLESIASTICAL BODY HOLDING THE PROPERTY IS BUT A SUBORDINATE MEMBER OF
SOME GENERAL CHURCH ORGANIZATION IN WHICH THERE ARE SUPERIOR
ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNALS WITH A GENERAL AND ULTIMATE POWER OF CONTROL
MORE OR LESS COMPLETE, IN SOME SUPREME JUDICATORY OVER THE WHOLE
MEMBERSHIP OF THAT GENERAL ORGANIZATION."  13 WALL.  679, 722-723. 

FN16  ZOLLMANN, AMERICAN CHURCH LAW (1933), C. 9.  E.G., SHEPARD V.
BARKLEY, 247 U.S. 1; BARKLEY V. HAYES, 208 F. 319, 326; MCGINNIS V.
WATSON, 41 PA. 9; MISSOURI EX REL. WATSON V. FARRIS, 45 MO. 183, 197
198; FIRST ENGLISH LUTHERAN CHURCH V. EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN SYNOD, 135
F.2D 701.  CF. GIBSON V. ARMSTRONG, 7 BEN.  MONROE (KY.)  481; GERMAN
REFORMED CHURCH V. COMMONWEALTH EX REL. SEIBERT, 3 PA. 282. 

FN17  "ONE OR TWO PROPOSITIONS WHICH SEEM TO ADMIT OF NO CONTROVERSY
ARE PROPER TO BE NOTICED IN THIS CONNECTION.  1.  BOTH BY THE ACT OF
THE KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE CREATING THE TRUSTEES OF THE CHURCH A BODY
CORPORATE, AND BY THE ACKNOWLEDGED RULES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,
THE TRUSTEES WERE THE MERE NOMINAL TITLE-HOLDERS AND CUSTODIANS OF THE
CHURCH PROPERTY, AND OTHER TRUSTEES WERE, OR COULD BE ELECTED BY THE
CONGREGATION, TO SUPPLY THEIR PLACES ONCE IN EVERY TWO YEARS.  2.  THAT
IN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR ALL RELIGIOUS SERVICES OR ECCLESIASTICAL
PURPOSES, THE TRUSTEES WERE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CHURCH SESSION. 
3.  THAT BY THE CONSTITUTION OF ALL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHES, THE SESSION,
WHICH IS THE GOVERNING BODY IN EACH, IS COMPOSED OF THE RULING ELDERS
AND PASTOR, AND IN ALL BUSINESS OF THE SESSION THE MAJORITY OF ITS
MEMBERS GOVERN, THE NUMBER OF ELDERS FOR EACH CONGREGATION BEING
VARIABLE."  ID., AT 720. 

FN18  WATSON V. AVERY, 2 BUSH (KY.)  332, 347 ET SEQ. 

"BUT WE HOLD THAT THE ASSEMBLY, LIKE OTHER COURTS, IS LIMITED IN ITS
AUTHORITY BY THE LAW UNDER WHICH IT ACTS; AND WHEN RIGHTS OF PROPERTY,
WHICH ARE SECURED TO CONGREGATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS BY THE ORGANIC LAW
OF THE CHURCH, ARE VIOLATED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF THE HIGHER
CHURCH COURTS, THE PARTIES THUS AGGRIEVED ARE ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN THE
CIVIL COURTS, AS IN ORDINARY CASES OF INQUIRY RESULTING FROM THE
VIOLATION OF A CONTRACT, OR THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF A VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATION."  ID., AT 349. 

FN19  COMPARE WATSON V. AVERY, N. 18, SUPRA, AT 349, WITH WATSON V.
JONES, SUPRA, AT 732 ET SEQ. 

FN20  THE DECISION HAS ENCOUNTERED VIVID AND STRONG CRITICISM FOR THE
BREADTH OF ITS STATEMENT THAT WHERE "A SUBJECT-MATTER OF DISPUTE,
STRICTLY AND PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL IN ITS CHARACTER," IS DECIDED, THE
CIVIL COURT MAY NOT EXAMINE THE CONCLUSION TO SEE WHETHER THE DECISION
EXCEEDS THE POWERS OF THE JUDICATORY.  ID., AT 733.  SEE ZOLLMANN,
AMERICAN CHURCH LAW (1933), C. 9, P. 291.  THE CRITICISM DOES NOT GO SO
FAR, HOWEVER, AS TO CONDEMN THE NONREVIEWABILITY OF QUESTIONS OF FAITH,
RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE AND ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT, WATSON V. JONES, AT
729, 732, WHEN WITHIN THE "EXPRESS OR IMPLIED STIPULATIONS" OF THE
AGREEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP.  ZOLLMAN, SUPRA, SECS. 310, 311, 315, 340. 

FN21  ID., AT 727.  SEE PP. 113, 114-115, SUPRA. 

FN22  BARKLEY V. HAYES, 208 F. 319, 334; SHERARD V. WALTON, 206 F.
562, 564; HELM V. ZARECOR, 213 F. 648, 657. 

FN23  GONZALEZ V. ARCHBISHOP, 280 U.S. 1, 16-17: 

"BECAUSE THE APPOINTMENT IS A CANONICAL ACT, IT IS THE FUNCTION OF
THE CHURCH AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINE WHAT THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS
OF A CHAPLAIN ARE AND WHETHER THE CANDIDATE POSSESSES THEM.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF FRAUD, COLLUSION, OR ARBITRARINESS, THE DECISIONS OF THE
PROPER CHURCH TRIBUNALS ON MATTERS PURELY ECCLESIASTICAL, ALTHOUGH
AFFECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ARE ACCEPTED IN LITIGATION BEFORE THE SECULAR
COURTS AS CONCLUSIVE, BECAUSE THE PARTIES IN INTEREST MADE THEM SO BY
CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE.  UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES, EFFECT IS GIVEN IN
THE COURTS TO THE DETERMINATIONS OF THE JUDICATORY BODIES ESTABLISHED
BY CLUBS AND CIVIL ASSOCIATIONS." 

SEE BRUNDAGE V. DEARDORF, 55 F. 839, WHERE TAFT, CIRCUIT JUDGE, IN
OVERRULING A DEMURRER, STATED: "EVEN IF THE SUPREME JUDICATORY HAS THE
RIGHT TO CONSTRUE THE LIMITATIONS OF ITS OWN POWER, AND THE CIVIL
COURTS MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH SUCH A CONSTRUCTION, AND MUST TAKE IT AS
CONCLUSIVE, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SUPREME COURT, IN WATSON V. JONES,
TO HOLD THAT AN OPEN AND AVOWED DEFIANCE OF THE ORIGINAL COMPACT, AND
AN EXPRESS VIOLATION OF IT, WILL BE TAKEN AS A DECISION OF THE SUPREME
JUDICATORY WHICH IS BINDING ON THE CIVIL COURTS."  P. 847. 

LATER THE CASE WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS; LURTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE, WRITING, THOUGHT THAT THE FACTS PROVEN
SHOWED CONCLUSIVELY THAT WATSON V. JONES DID CONTROL.  92 F. 214, 230. 

FN24  ST. NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL V. KEDROFF, 302 N.Y. 1, 30, 96 N.E.2D
56, 72; NOTE 12, SUPRA. 

FN25  PONCE V. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, 210 U.S. 296, 322. 

FN26  WATSON V. JONES, SUPRA; BARKLEY V. HAYES, 208 F. 319, 327,
AFFIRMED ON APPEAL, DUVALL V. SYNOD, 222 F. 669; SHEPARD V. BARKLEY,
247 U.S. 1. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING.* 

*JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, SEE POST, P.
126. 

LET ME PUT TO ONE SIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER IN OUR DAY A LEGISLATURE
COULD, CONSISTENTLY WITH DUE PROCESS, DISPLACE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS AND
DECIDE A PARTICULAR CONTROVERSY AFFECTING PROPERTY SO AS TO DECREE THAT
A NOT B OWNS IT OR IS ENTITLED TO ITS POSSESSION.  OBVIOUSLY A
LEGISLATURE WOULD NOT HAVE THAT POWER MERELY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY
BELONGS TO A CHURCH. 

IN ANY EVENT, THIS PROCEEDING RESTS ON A CLAIM WHICH CANNOT BE
DETERMINED WITHOUT INTERVENTION BY THE STATE IN A RELIGIOUS CONFLICT. 
ST. NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL IS NOT JUST A PIECE OF REAL ESTATE.  IT IS NO
MORE THAT THAN IS ST. PATRICK'S CATHEDRAL OR THE CATHEDRAL OF ST. JOHN
THE DIVINE.  A CATHEDRAL IS THE SEAT AND CENTER OF ECCLESIASTICAL
AUTHORITY.  ST. NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL IS AN ARCHIEPISCOPAL SEE OF ONE OF
THE GREAT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.  WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE IS THE POWER
TO EXERCISE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.  THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THIS
CONTROVERSY.  IT IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY BECOMES
MANIFEST AND IS EXERTED THROUGH AUTHORITY OVER THE CATHEDRAL AS THE
OUTWARD SYMBOL OF A RELIGIOUS FAITH.    THE JUDICIARY HAS HEEDED,
NATURALLY ENOUGH, THE MENACE TO A SOCIETY LIKE OURS OF ATTEMPTING TO
SETTLE SUCH RELIGIOUS STRUGGLES BY STATE ACTION.  AND SO, WHEN COURTS
ARE CALLED UPON TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES WHICH, THOUGH GENERATED BY
CONFLICTS OF FAITH, MAY FAIRLY BE ISOLATED AS CONTROVERSIES OVER
PROPERTY AND THEREFORE WITHIN JUDICIAL COMPETENCE, THE AUTHORITY OF
COURTS IS IN STRICT SUBORDINATION TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAW OF A
PARTICULAR CHURCH PRIOR TO A SCHISM.  WATSON V. JONES, 13 WALL.  679. 
THIS VERY LIMITED RIGHT OF RESORT TO COURTS FOR DETERMINATION OF
CLAIMS, CIVIL IN THEIR NATURE, BETWEEN RIVAL PARTIES AMONG THE
COMMUNICANTS OF A RELIGIOUS FAITH IS MERELY ONE ASPECT OF THE DUTY OF
COURTS TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERS IN AN ASSOCIATION, TEMPORAL OR
RELIGIOUS, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THAT ASSOCIATION.  SEE GONZALEZ V.
ARCHBISHOP, 280 U.S. 1, 16-17. 

LEGISLATURES HAVE NO SUCH OBLIGATION TO ADJUDICATE AND NO SUCH
POWER.  ASSUREDLY THEY HAVE NONE TO SETTLE CONFLICTS OF RELIGIOUS
AUTHORITY AND NONE TO DEFINE RELIGIOUS OBEDIENCE.  THESE ASPECTS OF
SPIRITUAL DIFFERENCES CONSTITUTE THE HEART OF THIS CONTROVERSY.  THE
NEW YORK LEGISLATURE DECREED THAT ONE PARTY TO THE DISPUTE AND NOT THE
OTHER SHOULD CONTROL THE COMMON CENTER OF DEVOTION.  IN DOING SO THE
LEGISLATURE EFFECTIVELY AUTHORIZED ONE PARTY TO GIVE RELIGIOUS
DIRECTION NOT ONLY TO ITS ADHERENTS BUT ALSO TO ITS OPPONENTS.  SEE ST.
NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL V. KEDROFF, 302 N.Y. 1, 24-29, 96 N.E.2D 56, 68-72. 

THE ARGUMENTS BY WHICH NEW YORK SEEKS TO JUSTIFY THIS INROAD INTO THE
REALM OF FAITH ARE ECHOES OF PAST ATTEMPTS AT SECULAR INTERVENTION IN
RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS.  IT IS SAID THAT AN IMPRESSIVE MAJORITY BOTH OF
THE LAITY AND OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE OLD LOCAL CHURCH NOW ADHERE TO
THE PARTY WHOSE CANDIDATE NEW YORK ENTHRONED, AS IT WERE, AS
ARCHBISHOP.  BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS NOT A FUNCTION OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM TO ASSURE RULE TO ANY
RELIGIOUS BODY BY A COUNTING OF HEADS.  OUR CONSTITUTION DOES ASSURE
THAT ANYONE IS FREE TO WORSHIP ACCORDING TO HIS CONSCIENCE.  A
LEGISLATURE IS NOT FREE TO VEST IN A SCHISMATIC HEAD THE MEANS OF
ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIS OLD CHURCH, BY AFFORDING HIM THE
RELIGIOUS POWER WHICH THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF ST. NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL
MAKE POSSIBLE. 

AGAIN, IT IS ARGUED THAT NEW YORK MAY PROTECT ITSELF FROM DANGERS
ATTRIBUTED TO SUBMISSION BY THE MOTHER CHURCH IN MOSCOW TO POLITICAL
AUTHORITY.  TO REJECT THIS CLAIM ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO INDULGE IN THE
TENDENCY OF LAWYERS TO CARRY ARGUMENTS TO THE EXTREME OF EMPTY FORMAL
LOGIC.  SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THERE ARE RELIGIOUS BODIES
WITH TIES TO VARIOUS COUNTRIES OF A WORLD IN TENSION - TENSION DUE IN
PART TO SHIFTING POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND ORIENTATION.  THE
CONSIDERATION WHICH PERMEATES THE COURT'S OPINION BELOW WOULD GIVE EACH
STATE THE RIGHT TO ASSESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FOREIGN POLITICAL
ENTANGLEMENTS OF ITS RELIGIOUS BODIES THAT MAKE FOR DANGER TO THE
STATE, AND THE POWER, RESTING ON PLAUSIBLE LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS, TO
DIVEST SUCH BODIES OF SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY AND OF THE TEMPORAL PROPERTY
WHICH SYMBOLIZES IT. 

MEMORY IS SHORT BUT IT CANNOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT IN THE STATE OF NEW
YORK THERE WAS STRONG FEELING AGAINST THE TSARIST REGIME AT A TIME WHEN
THE RUSSIAN CHURCH WAS GOVERNED BY A PROCURATOR OF THE TSAR.  AND WHEN
MUSSOLINI EXACTED THE LATERAN AGREEMENT, ARGUMENT WAS NOT WANTING BY
THOSE FRIENDLY TO HER CLAIMS THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME WAS SUBJECTING
HERSELF TO POLITICAL AUTHORITY.  (FN1)  THE FEAR, PERHAPS NOT WHOLLY
GROUNDLESS, THAT THE LOYALTY OF ITS CITIZENS MIGHT BE DILUTED BY THEIR
ADHERENCE TO A CHURCH ENTANGLED IN ANTAGONISTIC POLITICAL INTERESTS,
REAPPEARS IN HISTORY AS THE GROUND FOR INTERFERENCE BY CIVIL GOVERNMENT
WITH RELIGIOUS ATTACHMENTS.  (FN2)  SUCH FEAR READILY LEADS TO
PERSECUTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DEEMED DANGEROUS TO RULING POLITICAL
AUTHORITY.  IT WAS ON THIS BASIS, AFTER ALL, THAT BISMARCK SOUGHT TO
DETACH GERMAN CATHOLICS FROM ROME BY A SERIES OF LAWS NOT TOO DIFFERENT
IN PURPORT FROM THAT BEFORE US TODAY.  (FN3)  THE LONG, UNEDIFYING
HISTORY OF THE CONTEST BETWEEN THE SECULAR STATE AND THE CHURCH IS
REPLETE WITH INSTANCES OF ATTEMPTS BY CIVIL GOVERNMENT TO EXERT
PRESSURE UPON RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.  RELIGIOUS LEADERS HAVE OFTEN MADE
GESTURES OF ACCOMMODATION TO SUCH PRESSURES.  HISTORY ALSO INDICATES
THAT THE VITALITY OF GREAT WORLD RELIGIONS SURVIVED SUCH EFFORTS.  IN
ANY EVENT, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF
THIS UNION TO REINFORCE THE LOYALTY OF THEIR CITIZENS BY DECIDING WHO
IS THE TRUE EXPONENT OF THEIR RELIGION. 

FINALLY, WE ARE TOLD THAT THE PRESENT MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE IS NOT THE
TRUE SUPERIOR CHURCH OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNICANTS.  THE VICISSITUDES OF
WAR AND REVOLUTION WHICH HAVE BESET THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE SINCE 1917
ARE SAID TO HAVE RESULTED IN A DISCONTINUITY WHICH DIVESTS THE PRESENT
PATRIARCH OF HIS AUTHORITY OVER THE AMERICAN CHURCH.  BOTH PARTIES TO
THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY AGREE THAT THE PRESENT PATRIARCH IS THE
LEGITIMATELY CHOSEN HOLDER OF HIS OFFICE, AND THE ACCOUNT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE AMERICAN SCHISMATIC GROUP SO
INDICATES.  EVEN WERE THERE DOUBT ABOUT THIS IT IS HARD TO SEE BY WHAT
WARRANT THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE IS FREE TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT
AS TO THE VALIDITY OF PATRIARCH ALEXI'S CLAIM AND TO DISREGARD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE PRESENT PATRIARCH BY HIS COEQUALS IN THE EASTERN
CONFESSION, THE PATRIARCHS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, ALEXANDRIA, ANTIOCH, AND
JERUSALEM, AND BY RELIGIOUS LEADERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, INCLUDING THE
PRESENT ARCHBISHIP OF YORK.  (FN4) 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS UNDERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW YORK
LEGISLATION IN THAT IT ENTERS THE DOMAIN OF RELIGIOUS CONTROL BARRED TO
THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FN1  THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA RECOUNTS THAT UNDER THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE PAPAL SEE AND MUSSOLINI, "THE SUPREMACY OF THE STATE WAS
RECOGNIZED BY COMPELLING BISHOPS AND ARCHBISHOPS TO SWEAR LOYALTY TO
THE GOVERNMENT."  ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA:  "ANTICLERICALISM," 62, 62A
(1948 ED.). 

FN2  SUCH APPREHENSION, AT LEAST IN PART, SEEMS TO HAVE UNDERLAIN TWO
IMPORTANT RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES IN A NATION AS DEVOTED TO FREEDOM AS
GREAT BRITAIN AND AS RECENTLY AS A CENTURY AGO.  BOTH THE DISPUTE
GIVING RISE TO THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND APPEALS AND THE BRIEF BUT
VIGOROUS ANTI-CATHOLIC OUTBURST OF 1850 ARE NOT UNFAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE
TO A CLAIM BY THE STATE OF COMPREHENSIVE LOYALTY, UNDEFLECTED BY THE
COMPETING CLAIMS OF RELIGIOUS FAITH.  SEE LASKI, STUDIES IN THE PROBLEM
OF SOVEREIGNTY, 27-68, 121-210.  SEE ALSO BUCHANAN, THE TEN YEARS'
CONFLICT (EDINBURGH, 1849); FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND V. OVERTOWN, 1904
A.C. 515; THE FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND APPEALS (ORR.  ED., EDINBURGH,
1904). 

FN3  REICHS-GESETZBLATT, 1871, P. 442; REICHS-GESETZBLATT, 1872, P.
253; REICHS-GESETZBLATT, 1874, P. 43; REICHS-GESETZBLATT, 1876, P. 28;
5 GESETZ-SAMMLUNG FUR DIE KONIGLICH PREUSSISCHEN STAATEN 154, 221, 223,
225, 228, 337, 342; 6 ID., AT 30, 38, 40, 75, 170; 7 ID., AT 291. 
THESE LAWS HAVE BEEN THUS SUMMARIZED:  "THE FALK LAWS ARE AN ATTEMPT TO
INSIST ON THE UNIVERSAL PARAMOUNTCY OF GERMAN INFLUENCES.  THE
EXPULSION OF THE JESUITS REMOVED AN ORDER WHICH HE (BISMARCK) BELIEVED
TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE PROMOTION OF POLISH INTERESTS.  THE REFUSAL OF
BISHOPRICS TO ANY SAVE A GERMAN WHO HAS FOLLOWED A COURSE OF STUDY
APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT HAS A CLEAR PURPORT  ...  OF PURGING THE
CATHOLIC EPISCOPATE OF MEN NOT LIKELY TO BE IN SYMPATHY WITH GERMAN
IDEALS  ...  .  THE TWENTY-FOURTH ARTICLE WENT EVEN FURTHER AND GAVE
THE STATE THE RIGHT OF INTERFERENCE WITH ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTIONS WHERE
IT DEEMED THEM IMPROPERLY PERFORMED  ...  .  THE LAW OF THE TWENTIETH
OF MAY, 1874, VIRTUALLY HANDED OVER THE CONTROL OF VACANT BISHOPRICS TO
THE STATE  ...  .  CATHOLIC CHURCHES ON PRUSSIAN SOIL WERE HANDED OVER
TO THE OLD CATHOLICS (THOSE REFUSING TO ADHERE TO THE NEWLY-PROMULGATED
DOGMA OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY) IN SUCH PARISHES AS THOSE IN WHICH THE
MAJORITY CONSISTED OF THEIR SYMPATHISERS, FOR CERTAIN HOURS OF THE DAY
...  ."  LASKI, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 2, AT 256-258.  BISMARCK'S
KULTURKAMPF, OF WHICH THESE LAWS WERE A PART, IS FULLY DISCUSSED IN
GOYAU, BISMARCK ET L'EGLISE.  A FULL TEXT OF THE LAWS MAY BE FOUND IN
THE APPENDIX TO THAT WORK. 

FN4  SEE GARBETT, IN AN AGE OF REVOLUTION, 207-213; NIEMOLLER, WHY I
WENT TO MOSCOW, THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY, MARCH 19, 1952, P. 338. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AGREES WITH THIS OPINION ON THE BASIS OF HIS VIEW
THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MAKES THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLICABLE TO
THE STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WHILE CONCURRING IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
ALSO JOINS THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

NEW YORK COURTS HAVE DECIDED AN ORDINARY EJECTMENT ACTION INVOLVING
POSSESSION OF NEW YORK REAL ESTATE IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF, A
CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW OF NEW YORK
UNDER THE NAME "SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
IN NORTH AMERICA."  ADMITTEDLY, IT HOLDS, AND SINCE 1925 HAS HELD,
LEGAL TITLE TO THE CATHEDRAL PROPERTY.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
DECIDED THAT IT ALSO HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ITS POSSESSION AND
CONTROL. 

THE APPELLANT BENJAMIN'S DEFENSE AGAINST THIS OWNER'S DEMAND FOR
POSSESSION AND THE BASIS OF HIS CLAIMED RIGHT TO ENJOY POSSESSION OF
PROPERTY HE ADMITTEDLY DOES NOT OWN IS SET FORTH IN HIS ANSWER TO THE
EJECTMENT SUIT IN THESE WORDS:  "SAID PREMISES PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE
RULES OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ARE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE ACCREDITED ARCHBISHOP OF THE SAID ARCHDIOCESE, TO BE POSSESSED,
OCCUPIED AND USED BY SAID ARCHBISHOP AS HIS RESIDENCE, AS A PLACE FOR
HOLDING RELIGIOUS SERVICES, AND OTHER PURPOSES RELATED TO HIS OFFICE
AND AS THE SEAT AND HEADQUARTERS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, BY HIM, OF THE
AFFAIRS OF THE ARCHDIOCESE BOTH TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL."  AND, SAYS THE
APPELLANT BENJAMIN, HE IS THAT ARCHBISHOP.  THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE
DENIED, AND THEY DEFINE THE ISSUES AS TENDERED TO THE STATE COURTS. 

I GREATLY OVERSIMPLIFY THE HISTORY OF THIS CONTROVERSY TO INDICATE
ITS NATURE RATHER THAN TO PROVE ITS MERITS.  THIS CATHEDRAL WAS
INCORPORATED AND BUILT IN THE ERA OF THE CZAR, UNDER THE REGIME OF A
STATE-RIDDEN CHURCH IN A CHURCH-RIDDEN STATE.  THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
MAY HAVE FREED THE STATE FROM THE GRIP OF THE CHURCH, BUT IT DID NOT
FREE THE CHURCH FROM THE GRIP OF THE STATE.  IT ONLY BROUGHT TO THE TOP
A NEW MASTER FOR A CAPTIVE AND SUBMISSIVE ECCLESIASTICAL
ESTABLISHMENT.  BY 1945, THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHY HAD BEEN REFORMED AND
MANNED UNDER THE SOVIET REGIME AND IT SOUGHT TO RE-ESTABLISH IN OTHER
COUNTRIES ITS PREREVOLUTIONARY CONTROL OF CHURCH PROPERTY AND ITS SWAY
OVER THE MINDS OF THE RELIGIOUS.  AS THE COURT'S OPINION POINTS OUT, IT
DEMANDED OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT IT
ABSTAIN "FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AGAINST THE U.S.S.R."  THE AMERICAN
CATHEDRAL GROUP, ALONG WITH OTHERS, REFUSED SUBMISSION TO THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MOSCOW PATRIARCH, WHOM IT REGARDED AS AN ARM OF
THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.  THUS, WE HAVE AN OSTENSIBLE RELIGIOUS SCHISM
WITH DECIDED POLITICAL OVERTONES. 

IF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS TO BE INTERPRETED TO LEAVE ANYTHING TO
THE COURTS OF A STATE TO DECIDE WITHOUT OUR INTERFERENCE, I SHOULD
SUPPOSE IT WOULD BE CLAIMS TO OWNERSHIP OR POSSESSION OF REAL ESTATE
WITHIN ITS BORDERS AND THE VEXING TECHNICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE
CREATION, INTERPRETATION, TERMINATION, AND ENFORCEMENT OF USES AND
TRUSTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 
THIS CONTROVERSY, I BELIEVE, IS A MATTER FOR SETTLEMENT BY STATE LAW
AND NOT WITHIN THE PROPER PROVINCE OF THIS COURT. 

I. 

AS I READ THE PREVAILING OPINIONS, THE COURT ASSUMES THAT SOME
TRANSFER OF CONTROL HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY LEGISLATION WHICH RESULTS
IN A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  THIS, OF COURSE, WOULD RAISE A QUESTION OF
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY, NOT OF LIBERTY, WHILE ONLY THE LATTER ISSUE IS
RAISED BY THE PARTIES.  AND IT COULD BE SUSTAINED ONLY BY A FINDING BY
US THAT THE LEGISLATION WORKED A TRANSFER RATHER THAN A CONFIRMATION OF
PROPERTY RIGHTS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SEEMS TO HAVE REGARDED THE
STATUTE MERELY AS A LEGISLATIVE REAFFIRMATION OF PRINCIPLE THE COURT
WOULD FIND TO BE CONTROLLING IN ITS ABSENCE. 

BUT THIS COURT APPARENTLY THINKS THAT BY MERE ENACTMENT OF THE
STATUTE THE LEGISLATURE INVADED A FIELD OF ACTION RESERVED TO THE
JUDICIARY.  HOWEVER DESIRABLE WE MAY THINK A RIGID SEPARATION OF POWERS
TO BE (AND I, FOR ONE, THINK IT IS BASIC IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT), I
DO NOT THINK THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UNDERTAKES TO CONTROL
DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS WITHIN THE STATES.  AT ALL EVENTS, I DO NOT
THINK WE ARE WARRANTED IN HOLDING THAT NEW YORK MAY NOT ENACT THIS
LEGISLATION IN QUESTION, WHICH IS IN FORM AND IN SUBSTANCE AN AMENDMENT
OF ITS RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW. 

NOTHING IN NEW YORK LAW REQUIRED THIS DENOMINATION TO INCORPORATE ITS
CATHEDRAL.  THE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS LAW OF THE STATE EXPRESSLY
RECOGNIZES UNINCORPORATED CHURCHES (SEC. 2) AND UNDERTAKES NO
REGULATION OF THEM OR THEIR AFFAIRS.  BUT THIS DENOMINATION WANTED THE
ADVANTAGES OF A CORPORATE CHARTER FOR ITS CATHEDRAL, TO OBTAIN IMMUNITY
FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY AND OTHER BENEFITS.  THIS STATUTE DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BUT FURTHERS IT.  IF THEY ELECT TO
COME UNDER IT, THE STATUTE MAKES SEPARATE PROVISION FOR EACH OF MANY
DENOMINATIONS WITH CORPORATE CONTROLS APPROPRIATE TO ITS OWN
ECCLESIASTICAL ORDER.  WHEN IT SOUGHT THE PRIVILEGE OF INCORPORATION
UNDER THE NEW YORK LAW APPLICABLE TO ITS DENOMINATION, IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THIS CATHEDRAL AND ALL CONNECTED WITH ITS TEMPORAL AFFAIRS WERE
SUBMITTED TO NEW YORK LAW.    AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS COURT'S DICISION
IN DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT.  518, THE CONSTITUTION OF
NEW YORK SINCE 1846 HAS AUTHORIZED THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE
CORPORATIONS BY GENERAL LAWS AND SPECIAL ACTS, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO A
RESERVATION THAT ALL SUCH ACTS "MAY BE ALTERED FROM TIME TO TIME OR
REPEALED."  NEW YORK CONST., ART. X, SEC. 1.  THAT CONDITION BECOMES A
PART OF EVERY CORPORATE CHARTER SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED BY NEW YORK.  LORD
V. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, 194 N.Y. 212, 87 N.E. 443; PEOPLE
V. GASS, 190 N.Y. 323, 83 N.E. 64; PRATT INSTITUTE V. NEW YORK, 183
N.Y. 151, 75 N.E. 1119. 

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE HERE, AS I SEE IT, IS TO EXERCISE THIS RESERVED
POWER WHICH PERMITS THE STATE TO ALTER CORPORATE CONTROLS IN RESPONSE
TO THE LESSONS OF EXPERIENCE.  OF COURSE, THE POWER IS NOT UNLIMITED
AND COULD BE SO EXERCISED AS TO DEPRIVE ONE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  BUT, I DO NOT THINK WE CAN SAY THAT A LEGISLATIVE
APPLICATION OF A PRINCIPLE SO WELL ESTABLISHED IN OUR COMMON LAW AS THE
CY-PRES DOCTRINE IS BEYOND THE POWERS RESERVED BY THE NEW YORK
CONSTITUTION. 

               II. 

THE COURT HOLDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE STATE CANNOT EXERCISE ITS RESERVED
POWER TO CONTROL THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT INVADING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,
BECAUSE IT IS A CATHEDRAL AND DEVOTED TO RELIGIOUS USES.  I FORBEAR
DISCUSSION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH RESTRAINTS IMPOSED UPON CONGRESS BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE TRANSFERRED AGAINST THE STATE BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT BEYOND SAYING THAT I CONSIDER THAT THE SAME DIFFERENCES WHICH
APPLY TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS (SEE DISSENTING OPINION IN
BEAUHARNAIS V. ILLINOIS, 343 U.S. 250, 287) ARE APPLICABLE TO QUESTIONS
OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO OBSERVE WHAT NEW YORK HAS NOT DONE IN THIS CASE. 
IT HAS NOT HELD THAT BENJAMIN MAY NOT ACT AS ARCHBISHOP OR BE REVERED
AS SUCH BY ALL WHO WILL FOLLOW HIM.  IT HAS NOT HELD THAT HE MAY NOT
HAVE A CATHEDRAL.  INDEED, I THINK NEW YORK WOULD AGREE THAT NO ONE IS
MORE IN NEED OF SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE THAN THE SOVIET FACTION.  IT HAS
ONLY HELD THAT THIS CLERIC MAY NOT HAVE A PARTICULAR CATHEDRAL WHICH,
UNDER NEW YORK LAW, BELONGS TO OTHERS.  IT HAS NOT INTERFERED WITH HIS
OR ANYONE'S EXERCISE OF HIS RELIGION.  NEW YORK HAS NOT OUTLAWED THE
SOVIET-CONTROLLED SECT NOR FORBIDDEN IT TO EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY OR
TEACH ITS DOGMA IN ANY PLACE WHATSOEVER EXCEPT ON THIS PIECE OF
PROPERTY OWNED AND RIGHTFULLY POSSESSED BY THE CATHEDRAL CORPORATION. 

THE FACT THAT PROPERTY IS DEDICATED TO A RELIGIOUS USE CANNOT, IN MY
OPINION, JUSTIFY THE COURT IN SUBLIMATING AN ISSUE OVER PROPERTY RIGHTS
INTO ONE OF DEPRIVATION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WHICH ALONE WOULD BRING IN
THE RELIGIOUS GUARANTIES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  I ASSUME NO ONE WOULD
PRETEND THAT THE STATE CANNOT DECIDE A CLAIM OF TRESPASS, LARCENY,
CONVERSION, BAILMENT OR CONTRACT, WHERE THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IS THAT
OF A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION OR IS PUT TO RELIGIOUS USE, WITHOUT INVADING
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 

OF COURSE, POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WILL HELP EITHER SIDE THAT
OBTAINS IT TO MAINTAIN ITS PRESTIGE AND TO CONTINUE OR EXTEND ITS SWAY
OVER THE MINDS AND SOULS OF THE DEVOUT.  SO WOULD POSSESSION OF A BANK
ACCOUNT, AN INCOME-PRODUCING OFFICE BUILDING, OR ANY OTHER VALUABLE
PROPERTY.  BUT IF BOTH CLAIMANTS ARE RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS OR
PERSONALITIES, CAN NOT THE STATE DECIDE THE ISSUES THAT ARISE OVER
OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION WITHOUT INVADING THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF ONE
OR THE OTHER OF THE PARTIES? 

THUS, IF THE AMERICAN GROUP, WHICH OWNS THE TITLE TO THE CATHEDRAL,
HAD BY FORCE BARRED BENJAMIN FROM ENTERING IT PHYSICALLY, WOULD THE
COURT SAY IT WAS AN INTERFERENCE WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TO ENTERTAIN
AND DECIDE HIS EJECTMENT ACTION?  IF STATE COURTS ARE TO DECIDE SUCH
CONTROVERSIES AT ALL INSTEAD OF LEAVING THEM TO BE SETTLED BY A SHOW OF
FORCE, IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL TO DECIDE FOR ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE
CONTROVERSY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DECIDE FOR THE OTHER?  IN EITHER
CASE, THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER IS IMPAIRED IF THE
TEMPORAL GOODS THEY NEED ARE WITHHELD OR TAKEN FROM THEM. 

AS I HAVE EARLIER POINTED OUT, THE SOVIET ECCLESIAST'S CLAIM, DENIAL
OF WHICH IS SAID TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR, IS NOT THAT THIS NEW YORK
PROPERTY IS IMPRESSED WITH A TRUST BY VIRTUE OF NEW YORK LAW.  THE
CLAIM IS THAT IT IS IMPRESSED WITH A TRUST BY VIRTUE OF THE RULES OF
THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH.  THIS COURT SO HOLDS. 

I SHALL NOT UNDERTAKE TO WALLOW THROUGH THE COMPLEX, OBSCURE AND
FRAGMENTARY DETAILS OF SECULAR AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, THEOLOGY,
AND CANON LAW IN WHICH THIS CASE IS SMOTHERED.  TO ME, WHATEVER THE
CANON LAW IS FOUND TO BE AND WHOEVER IS THE RIGHTFUL HEAD OF THE MOSCOW
PATRIARCHATE, I DO NOT THINK NEW YORK LAW MUST YIELD TO THE AUTHORITY
OF A FOREIGN AND UNFRIENDLY STATE MASQUERADING AS A SPIRITUAL
INSTITUTION.  (SEE "THE SOVIET PROPAGANDA PROGRAM," STAFF STUDY NO. 3,
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSEAS INFORMATION PROGRAMS OF THE UNITED
STATES, 82D CONG., 2D SESS.) 

I HAVE SUPPOSED THAT A STATE OF THIS UNION WAS ENTIRELY FREE TO MAKE
ITS OWN LAW, INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY FOREIGN-MADE LAW, EXCEPT AS THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION MIGHT REQUIRE DEFERENCE TO
THE LAW OF A SISTER STATE OR THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE REQUIRE SUBMISSION TO
FEDERAL LAW.  I DO NOT SEE HOW ONE CAN SPELL OUT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE A DOCTRINE THAT A STATE SUBMIT PROPERTY
RIGHTS TO SETTLEMENT BY CANON LAW.  IF THERE IS ANY RELEVANT INFERENCE
TO BE DRAWN, I SHOULD THINK IT WOULD BE TO THE CONTRARY, THOUGH I SEE
NO OBSTACLE TO THE STATE ALLOWING ECCLESIASTICAL LAW TO GOVERN IN SUCH
A SITUATION IF IT SEES FIT.  I SHOULD INFER THAT FROM THE TREND OF SUCH
DECISIONS AS ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64; KLAXON CO. V.
STENTOR ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 313 U.S. 487; GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313 U.S.
498. 

THE ONLY GROUND PRESSED UPON THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW
VIOLATES THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
I FIND THIS CONTENTION SO INSUBSTANTIAL THAT I WOULD DISMISS THE
APPEAL.  WHETHER NEW YORK HAS ARRIVED AT THE CORRECT SOLUTION OF THIS
QUESTION IS A MATTER ON WHICH ITS OWN JUDGES HAVE DISAGREED.  BUT THEY
HAVE DISAGREED WITHIN THE AREA WHICH IS COMMITTED TO THEM FOR AGREEMENT
OR DISAGREEMENT AND I FIND NOTHING WHICH WARRANTS OUR INVADING THEIR
JURISDICTION. 
..END :














MANDOLI V. ACHESON 344 U.S. 133 


NO. 15.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1952 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 24, 1952 - 90 U.S.
APP. D.C. 1121, 193 F.2D 920, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE EXPATRIATION ACT OF 1907, A UNITED STATES CITIZEN BY
BIRTH WHO BY FOREIGN LAW DERIVES FROM HIS PARENTS CITIZENSHIP OF A
FOREIGN NATION HELD NOT TO HAVE LOST HIS UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP BY
FOREIGN RESIDENCE LONG CONTINUED AFTER ATTAINING HIS MAJORITY.  PP. 135
139. 

(A)  IN SUCH CASE THE NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN, BY CONTINUING TO RESIDE IN
THE FOREIGN COUNTRY AFTER ATTAINING HIS MAJORITY, CANNOT BE DEEMED TO
HAVE ELECTED BETWEEN HIS DUAL CITIZENSHIPS IN FAVOR OF THAT OF THE
FOREIGN COUNTRY; AND, WHEN HE ATTAINED HIS MAJORITY, HE WAS UNDER NO
STATUTORY DUTY TO MAKE AN ELECTION AND TO RETURN TO THIS COUNTRY FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE IF HE ELECTED UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.  PP. 135
139. 

(B)  PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325, IS NOT TO THE CONTRARY.  PP. 138
139. 

(C)  THE DIGNITY OF CITIZENSHIP WHICH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
CONFERS AS A BIRTHRIGHT UPON EVERY PERSON BORN WITHIN ITS PROTECTION IS
NOT TO BE WITHDRAWN OR EXTINGUISHED BY THE COURTS EXCEPT PURSUANT TO A
CLEAR STATUTORY MANDATE.  P. 139. 

2.  ONE OF THE GROUNDS OF DECISION RELIED ON BY THE DISTRICT COURT,
BASED ON THE CITIZEN'S HAVING SERVED IN THE ARMY OF THE FOREIGN COUNTRY
AND TAKEN AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THAT COUNTRY, WAS ABANDONED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVING RULED THAT SUCH SERVICE AND
OATH HAD BEEN TAKEN UNDER LEGAL COMPULSION AMOUNTING TO DURESS.  P.
135. 

MANDOLI V. ACHESON, SECRETARY OF STATE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY PETITIONER TO ESTABLISH HIS CITIZENSHIP, THE
DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  90 U.S. APP. D.C. 1121, 193 F.2D 920.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 976.  REVERSED, P. 139. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS BUT A SINGLE QUESTION, UPON WHICH PETITIONER AND
THE GOVERNMENT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY AGREED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED.  (FN1)  DOES A UNITED STATES CITIZEN BY
BIRTH WHO BY FOREIGN LAW DERIVES FROM HIS PARENTS CITIZENSHIP OF A
FOREIGN NATION LOSE HIS UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP BY FOREIGN RESIDENCE
LONG CONTINUED AFTER ATTAINING HIS MAJORITY? 

PETITIONER MANDOLI WAS BORN IN THIS COUNTRY, OF UNNATURALIZED ITALIAN
PARENTS.  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES MADE HIM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
BY VIRTUE OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND A NATIONAL OF ITALY BY VIRTUE OF
ITALIAN LAW.  WHILE HE WAS A SUCKLING, HIS PARENTS RETURNED TO ITALY
TAKING HIM WITH THEM.  AT ABOUT THE AGE OF FIFTEEN, HE SOUGHT TO COME
TO THE UNITED STATES; BUT PERMISSION WAS REFUSED BY THE AMERICAN CONSUL
AT PALERMO UPON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS TOO YOUNG TO TAKE THE JOURNEY
UNACCOMPANIED. 

IN 1931, MANDOLI SAW BRIEF SERVICE IN THE ITALIAN ARMY.  IN 1937,
BEING 29 OR 30 YEARS OF AGE, HE ATTEMPTED TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES,
BUT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE OF SUCH ARMY SERVICE.  HE RENEWED THE EFFORT
IN 1944, WITH THE SAME RESULT.  IN 1948, HE WAS GRANTED A CERTIFICATE
OF IDENTITY WHICH PERMITTED HIM TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES FOR
PROSECUTION OF AN ACTION TO ESTABLISH HIS CITIZENSHIP. 

JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WENT AGAINST HIM ON THE GROUND THAT
EXPATRIATION HAD RESULTED FROM TWO CAUSES:  FIRST, CONTRARY TO HIS
CONTENTIONS, IT FOUND THAT HIS SERVICE IN THE ITALIAN ARMY WAS
VOLUNTARY AND THAT HE THEN TOOK AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE KING OF
ITALY; SECOND, THAT HE CONTINUED TO RESIDE IN ITALY AFTER ATTAINING HIS
MAJORITY, THEREBY ELECTING BETWEEN HIS DUAL CITIZENSHIPS IN FAVOR OF
THAT OF ITALY.  (FN2) 

THE GOVERNMENT ABANDONED THE FIRST GROUND BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL RULED THAT SUCH SERVICE IN THE ITALIAN ARMY BY ONE SIMILARLY
SITUATED COULD "ONLY BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN TAKEN UNDER LEGAL
COMPULSION AMOUNTING TO DURESS."  HE SAID, "THE CHOICE OF TAKING THE
OATH OR VIOLATING THE LAW WAS, FOR A SOLDIER IN THE ARMY OF FASCIST
ITALY, NO CHOICE AT ALL."  (FN3)  THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER,
RELYING LARGELY ON PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325, AFFIRMED UPON THE
GROUND THAT FAILURE TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES UPON THE ATTAINMENT
OF HIS MAJORITY OPERATED TO EXTINGUISH PETITIONER'S AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP.  (FN4)  WE CONCLUDE THAT MANDOLI HAS NOT LOST HIS
CITIZENSHIP. 

IT WOULD BE AS EASY AS IT WOULD BE UNREWARDING TO POINT OUT CONFLICT
IN PRECEPT AND CONFUSION IN PRACTICE ON THIS SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC,
WHERE IDEAS OF NATIONALITY AND EXPATRIATION WERE IN FERMENT DURING THE
WHOLE NINETEENTH CENTURY.  RECEPTION OF THE COMMON LAW CONFRONTED
AMERICAN COURTS WITH A DOCTRINE THAT A NATIONAL ALLEGIANCE INTO WHICH
ONE WAS BORN COULD BE RENOUNCED ONLY WITH CONSENT OF HIS SOVEREIGN. 
EUROPEAN RULERS, LOSING SUBJECTS (PARTICULARLY SEAMEN) TO THE NEW
WORLD, ADHERED FIERCELY TO THE OLD DOCTRINE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
UNITED STATES, PROSPERING FROM THE MIGRANT'S FREEDOM OF CHOICE, BECAME
CHAMPION OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO EXPATRIATE HIMSELF, FOR WHICH IT
CONTENDED IN DIPLOMACY AND FOUGHT BY LAND AND SEA.  HOWEVER, THIS
PERSONAL FREEDOM OF EXPATRIATION WAS NOT ALWAYS RECOGNIZED BY OUR OWN
COURTS, BECAUSE OF THEIR DEFERENCE TO COMMON-LAW PRECEDENT.  FINALLY,
CONGRESS, BY THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1868, DECLARED THAT "THE RIGHT OF
EXPATRIATION IS A NATURAL AND INHERENT RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE,
INDISPENSABLE TO THE ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE
PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" AND THAT "ANY DECLARATION, INSTRUCTION, OPINION,
ORDER, OR DECISION OF ANY OFFICERS OF THIS GOVERNMENT WHICH DENIES,
RESTRICTS, IMPAIRS, OR QUESTIONS THE RIGHT OF EXPATRIATION, IS HEREBY
DECLARED INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THIS
GOVERNMENT."  (FN5) 

BUT THIS STATUTE LEFT UNANSWERED MANY QUESTIONS AS TO THE OVERT ACTS
THAT WOULD EFFECT A VOLUNTARY EXPATRIATION BY OUR OWN CITIZENS OR WOULD
CAUSE AN INVOLUNTARY FORFEITURE OF CITIZENSHIP.  PRIOR TO 1907, COURTS
AND ADMINISTRATORS WERE LEFT TO DEVISE THEIR OWN ANSWERS. 

PREPARATORY TO LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON THE SUBJECT, CONGRESS SOUGHT AND
RECEIVED A REPORT OF A SPECIAL CITIZENSHIP BOARD.  REVIEWING JUDICIAL
DECISIONS, THIS REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THE COURTS RECOGNIZED WELL
ESTABLISHED DOCTRINES OF ELECTION IN CASES DEALING WITH RIGHTS OF
PERSONS WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP.  THIS BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT CONGRESS
FOLLOW WHAT IT ASSUMED TO BE ESTABLISHED DECISIONAL LAW AND ENACT,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT EXPATRIATION BE ASSUMED AS TO ANY CITIZEN WHO
BECAME DOMICILED IN A FOREIGN STATE, WITH A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF
FOREIGN DOMICILE FROM FIVE YEARS OF RESIDENCE IN A FOREIGN STATE. 
(FN6)  THIS WAS PROPOSED AS TO ALL CITIZENS AND NOT MERELY THOSE
POSSESSING DUAL CITIZENSHIP.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF ACCEPTING
THIS BROAD DOCTRINE OF EXPATRIATION, BY THE EXPATRIATION ACT OF 1907
LIMITED THE PRESUMPTION OF EXPATRIATION FROM FOREIGN RESIDENCE TO THE
CASE OF NATURALIZED BUT NOT OF NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS.  (FN7) 

IF PETITIONER, WHEN HE BECAME OF FULL AGE IN 1928, WERE UNDER A
STATUTORY DUTY TO MAKE AN ELECTION AND TO RETURN TO THIS COUNTRY FOR
PERMANENT RESIDENCE IF HE ELECTED UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP, THAT DUTY
MUST RESULT FROM THE 1907 ACT THEN APPLICABLE.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FOREGOING HISTORY, WE CAN FIND NO SUCH OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THAT ACT;
INDEED, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE THAT DUTY WAS
DELIBERATELY REJECTED.  (FN8) 

THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, (FN9) THOUGH NOT CONTROLLING HERE, SHOWS
THE CONSISTENCY OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY NOT TO SUBJECT A CITIZEN BY
BIRTH TO THE BURDEN AND HAZARD OF ELECTION AT MAJORITY.  THIS
COMPREHENSIVE REVISION AND CODIFICATION OF THE LAWS RELATING TO
CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY WAS PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF CONGRESS BY
THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE AND LABOR.  THE STATE DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED A NEW PROVISION REQUIRING AN AMERICAN-BORN NATIONAL TAKEN
DURING MINORITY TO THE COUNTRY OF HIS OTHER NATIONALITY TO MAKE AN
ELECTION AND TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES, IF HE ELECTED AMERICAN
NATIONALITY, ON REACHING MAJORITY.  THE DEPARTMENTS OF JUSTICE AND
LABOR WERE OPPOSED AND, AS A CONSEQUENCE, IT WAS OMITTED FROM THE
PROPOSED BILL.  THIS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENTS WAS CALLED TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE CONGRESS.  (FN10)  WHILE IN SOME OTHER RESPECTS
CONGRESS ENLARGED THE GROUNDS FOR LOSS OF NATIONALITY, IT REFUSED TO
REQUIRE A CITIZEN BY NATIVITY TO ELECT BETWEEN DUAL CITIZENSHIPS UPON
REACHING A MAJORITY.  (FN11) 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, APPLIED SUCH A RULE BECAUSE IT
UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS COURT, IN PERKINS V. ELG, SUPRA, HAD DECLARED IT
TO BE THE LAW.  MISS ELG WAS AMERICAN-BORN, OF NATURALIZED PARENTS
SWEDISH IN ORIGIN.  THEY TOOK HER TO SWEDEN WHEN SHE WAS BUT FOUR YEARS
OLD, WHERE SHE REMAINED DURING HER NONAGE.  BY VIRTUE OF A SWEDISH
AMERICAN TREATY OF 1869, THIS RESUMPTION OF RESIDENCE IN SWEDEN
REPATRIATED THE PARENTS, WHICH CARRIED WITH IT SWEDISH CITIZENSHIP FOR
THEIR MINOR CHILD.  UNDER THE ACT OF 1907, ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IS
DEEMED EXPATRIATED IF NATURALIZED IN A FOREIGN STATE IN CONFORMITY WITH
ITS LAWS.  UNDOUBTEDLY, MISS ELG HAD BECOME NATURALIZED UNDER THE LAWS
OF SWEDEN.  BUT IT WAS NOT BY ANY ACT OF HER OWN OR WITHIN HER CONTROL,
AND ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS AFTER SHE BECAME TWENTY-ONE, SHE SOUGHT AND
OBTAINED AN AMERICAN PASSPORT AND RETURNED TO THIS COUNTRY WHERE SHE
RESIDED FOR SOMETHING OVER FIVE YEARS.  AMERICAN IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS
THEN DECIDED THAT HER DERIVATIVE NATURALIZATION HAD DEPRIVED HER OF
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND PUT THEIR HARSH AND TECHNICAL DOCTRINE TO TEST
BY INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS TO DEPORT HER.  THAT CASE DID NOT PRESENT
AND THE COURT COULD NOT PROPERLY HAVE DECIDED ANY QUESTION AS TO
CONSEQUENCES OF A FAILURE TO ELECT AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, FOR MISS ELG
PROMPTLY DID SO ELECT AND DECISIVELY EVIDENCED IT BY RESUMING RESIDENCE
HERE.  WHAT IT HELD WAS THAT CITIZENSHIP CONFERRED BY OUR CONSTITUTION
UPON A CHILD BORN UNDER ITS PROTECTION CANNOT BE FORFEITED BECAUSE THE
CITIZEN DURING NONAGE IS A PASSIVE BENEFICIARY OF FOREIGN
NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  IT HELD THAT MISS ELG HAD ACQUIRED A
DERIVATIVE DUAL-CITIZENSHIP BUT HAD NOT SUFFERED A DERIVATIVE
EXPATRIATION.  IN AFFIRMING HER RIGHT TO RETURN TO AND REMAIN IN THIS
COUNTRY, IT DID NOT HOLD THAT IT WAS MANDATORY FOR HER TO DO SO. 

WE FIND NO WARRANT IN THE STATUTES FOR CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER HAS
SUFFERED EXPATRIATION.  AND, SINCE CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED A LAW FOR
THIS SITUATION, WE THINK THE DIGNITY OF CITIZENSHIP WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION CONFERS AS A BIRTHRIGHT UPON EVERY PERSON BORN WITHIN ITS
PROTECTION IS NOT TO BE WITHDRAWN OR EXTINGUISHED BY THE COURTS EXCEPT
PURSUANT TO A CLEAR STATUTORY MANDATE.  (FN12)  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER DECLARING THAT THE
PETITIONER IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  REVERSED AND SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED WITHOUT OPPOSITION, 343 U.S. 976. 

FN2  D.C. OPINION NOT REPORTED. 

FN3  41 OP. ATTY. GEN., OP. NO. 16. 

FN4  90 U.S. APP. D.C. 1121, 193 F.2D 920. 

FN5  15 STAT. 223, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 800. 

FN6  H.R. DOC. NO. 326, 59TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 23; SEE ALSO 74, 79,
160 ET SEQ. 

FN7  34 STAT. 1228. 

FN8  ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, WHEN INVOLVING PROTECTIONS ABROAD,
INVOLVES VERY DIFFERENT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND IS NOT CONTROLLING
HERE.  HOWEVER, WHILE NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT, IT SEEMS TO HAVE SETTLED
TO THE RULE WE APPLY IN THIS CASE.  3 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW, 371; SEE ALSO NIELSEN, SOME VEXATIOUS QUESTIONS
RELATING TO NATIONALITY, 20 COL. L. REV. 840, 854. 

FN9  8 U.S.C., C. 11. 

FN10  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 9980, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
32. 

FN11  SEE ALSO SEC. 350 OF PUB. L. NO. 414, 82D CONG., 2D SESS., 66
STAT. 163, 269. 

FN12  THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE STATUTORY GROUNDS UNDER THE 1940
ACT EXCLUDE OTHER ACTS THAT WILL AMOUNT TO VOLUNTARY EXPATRIATION WAS
RESERVED IN KAWAKITA V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 717, 730-732.  IT IS
NOT PRESENT IN THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED,
AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

AT THE TIMES RELEVANT HERE CONGRESS MADE THE TAKING OF "AN OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN STATE" THE GROUND FOR LOSS OF AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP.  34 STAT. 1228, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 17.  THE FINDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE STATE THAT "ON MAY 24, 1931, THE PLAINTIFF
TOOK AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE KING OF ITALY."  THAT FINDING IS
UNCONTROVERTED HERE AND THE PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE
TAKING OF THE OATH ARE UNEXPLAINED.  ALL WE KNOW IS THAT PLAINTIFF,
WITHOUT PROTEST, WAS INDUCTED INTO THE ITALIAN ARMY AND SERVED THERE
FROM APRIL 14, 1931, TO SEPTEMBER 5, 1931. 

IF WE ARE TO BASE OUR DECISION ON THE RECORD, WE WOULD BE COMPELLED
TO AFFIRM.  FOR IT IS PLAIN THAT PETITIONER DID TAKE AN OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN STATE.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, IGNORES THE RECORD
AND RESTS ON AN OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ANOTHER CASE (CF.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURRING, MCGRATH V. KRISTENSEN, 340 U.S. 162,
176), SAYING THAT ONE WHO TOOK AN OATH IN THE ARMY OF FASCIST ITALY DID
SO UNDER DURESS.  WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR KNOWING THAT EVERY INDUCTED
SOLDIER WHO TOOK AN OATH IN MUSSOLINI'S ARMY DID SO UNDER DURESS.  FOR
ALL WE KNOW, THIS AMERICAN CITIZEN TOOK THE OATH FREELY AND GLADLY.  AT
LEAST, HE TOOK IT.  IF WE ACTED IN THE ROLE OF SECRETARY OF STATE OR
ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE MIGHT EXERCISE OUR DISCRETION IN FAVOR OF THE
CITIZEN AND DECIDE NOT TO MOVE AGAINST HIM ON SUCH A SHOWING.  BUT WE
SIT NOT AS CABINET OFFICERS BUT AS JUDGES TO DECIDE CASES ON THE FACTS
OF THE RECORDS BEFORE US.
..END :













BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA 344 U.S. 141 


NO. 8.  NOVEMBER 24, 1952. 


THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZED RACIAL
SEGREGATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF KANSAS.  IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE
STATE INTERVENED AND DEFENDED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE; BUT
NEITHER THE STATE, NOR ANY OF THE OTHER APPELLEES, HAS ENTERED AN
APPEARANCE OR FILED A BRIEF HERE.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ISSUE, THIS COURT REQUESTS THAT THE STATE PRESENT ITS VIEWS AT THE ORAL
ARGUMENT.  IF THE STATE DOES NOT DESIRE TO APPEAR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE IS REQUESTED TO ADVISE THIS COURT WHETHER THE STATE'S
DEFAULT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A CONCESSION OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE.  PP. 141-142. 

BROWN ET AL. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
KANSAS. 

THE DECISION BELOW IS REPORTED IN 98 F. SUPP. 797. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS ACTION WAS INSTITUTED BY THE APPELLANTS ATTACKING A KANSAS
STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZED SEGREGATION IN THE SCHOOLS OF THAT STATE.  IT
WAS URGED THAT THE STATE OF KANSAS WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ENACT SUCH
LEGISLATION, CLAIMED BY APPELLANTS TO BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE STATE, BY ITS GOVERNOR AND ATTORNEY
GENERAL, INTERVENED AND DEFENDED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE. 
THE COURT UPHELD ITS VALIDITY. 

IN THIS COURT, THE APPELLANTS CONTINUE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK. 
NO APPEARANCE HAS BEEN ENTERED HERE BY THE STATE OF KANSAS, THE BOARD
OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, AND THE OTHER APPELLEES; NOR HAVE THEY
PRESENTED ANY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE STATUTE'S VALIDITY.  THE COURT
HAS BEEN ADVISED BY COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION THAT IT DOES NOT
PROPOSE TO APPEAR IN ORAL ARGUMENT OR PRESENT A BRIEF. 

BECAUSE OF THE NATIONAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED AND BECAUSE
OF ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE STATE OF KANSAS, WE REQUEST THAT THE STATE
PRESENT ITS VIEWS AT ORAL ARGUMENT.  IF THE STATE DOES NOT DESIRE TO
APPEAR, WE REQUEST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ADVISE WHETHER THE STATE'S
DEFAULT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A CONCESSION OF INVALIDITY. 
..END :




JOHNSON V. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO. 344 U.S. 48 


NO. 40.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23-24, 1952.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 17, 1952.  -
194 F.2D 194, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE IN A SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
UNDER THE JONES ACT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH, DEFENDANT MOVED TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT AND FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT IN ITS FAVOR.  THE COURT RESERVED
DECISION ON THE MOTION AND SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY.  A VERDICT
WAS RETURNED FOR PLAINTIFF AND JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED THEREON.  WITHIN
TEN DAYS AFTER RECEPTION OF THE VERDICT, DEFENDANT MOVED TO HAVE IT SET
ASIDE, BUT DID NOT MOVE FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  THE
COURT DENIED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AND DENIED THE
PRE-VERDICT MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL AND FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  ON
APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  HELD:  UNDER RULE 50(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD NOT DIRECT ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT
FOR DEFENDANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  PP. 49-54. 

(A)  IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VERDICT MADE IN THE TRIAL COURT WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER RECEPTION OF THE
VERDICT, RULE 50(B) FORBIDS THE TRIAL JUDGE OR AN APPELLATE COURT TO
ENTER SUCH A JUDGMENT.  P. 50. 

(B)  DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT CANNOT BE TREATED AS
A MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  PP. 50-51. 

(C)  THE TRIAL JUDGE'S EXPRESS RESERVATION OF DECISION ON THE MOTION
FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT DID NOT RELIEVE DEFENDANT FROM THE DUTY UNDER
RULE 50(B) TO MAKE A MOTION AFTER THE VERDICT FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  PP. 51-54. 

(D)  DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED ONLY TO A NEW TRIAL, NOT TO A JUDGMENT IN
ITS FAVOR.  P. 54. 

JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT UNDER THE JONES ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688, FOR WRONGFUL
DEATH, THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  194 F.2D 194.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 975.  JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED, P.
54. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE POWER OF A COURT OF APPEALS
TO RENDER JUDGMENT FOR A DEFENDANT INSTEAD OF MERELY ORDERING A NEW
TRIAL AFTER IT HAS SET ASIDE A JURY VERDICT AND TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT
FOR A PLAINTIFF. 

THE PETITIONER SUED THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD UNDER THE JONES ACT, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 688, FOR WRONGFUL DEATH OF HER HUSBAND.  WHEN THE EVIDENCE
WAS ALL IN, THE RAILROAD MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND ALSO ASKED
FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT IN ITS FAVOR ON THE GROUNDS THAT NO NEGLIGENCE
HAD BEEN PROVEN AND THAT THE DECEASED HAD BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN
DEATH.  THE TRIAL COURT RESERVED DECISION ON THE MOTION, SUBMITTED THE
CASE TO THE JURY, A VERDICT OF $20,000 WAS RETURNED FOR PETITIONER, AND
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON THE VERDICT.  WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER RECEPTION
OF THE VERDICT THE RAILROAD MOVED TO HAVE THE VERDICT SET ASIDE ON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS EXCESSIVE, CONTRARY TO THE LAW, TO THE EVIDENCE, TO
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.  MORE THAN TWO MONTHS LATER THIS MOTION WAS
DENIED; IN THE SAME ORDER DENYING THAT MOTION THE COURT ALSO DENIED THE
PRE-VERDICT MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL AND FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON WHICH
ACTION HAD BEEN RESERVED PRIOR TO VERDICT.  HOLDING THAT THE MOTION FOR
A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  194 F.2D 194.  BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT THIS REVERSAL
REQUIRES THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE RAILROAD
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, THEREBY DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF ANOTHER
TRIAL.  WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD DIRECT SUCH A JUDGMENT
CONSISTENTLY WITH RULE 50(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
(FN1) IS THE SINGLE QUESTION WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW.  343 U.S.
975. 

ON SEVERAL RECENT OCCASIONS WE HAVE CONSIDERED RULE 50(B).  WE HAVE
SAID THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VERDICT MADE IN THE TRIAL COURT WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER RECEPTION OF A
VERDICT THE RULE FORBIDS THE TRIAL JUDGE OR AN APPELLATE COURT TO ENTER
SUCH A JUDGMENT.  CONE V. WEST VIRGINIA PULP & PAPER CO., 330 U.S.
212.  WE REPEATED THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULE IN GLOBE LIQUOR CO. V.
SAN ROMAN, 332 U.S. 571, AND REEMPHASIZED IT IN FOUNTAIN V. FILSON, 336
U.S. 681. 

ALTHOUGH THIS RESPONDENT MADE SEVERAL MOTIONS IT DID NOT AS THE RULE
REQUIRES MOVE WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER VERDICT "TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS (ITS) MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT."   WE ARE
TOLD, HOWEVER, IN RESPONDENT'S BRIEF THAT ITS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE
VERDICT "WAS INTENDED TO BE A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR OR FOR A
NEW TRIAL" AND THAT "OBVIOUSLY RESPONDENT DID NOT MERELY WANT THE
VERDICT TO BE SET ASIDE BUT WANTED THE RELIEF THAT INVARIABLY FOLLOWS
SUCH A SETTING ASIDE ON THE GROUNDS URGED: A JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR OR A
NEW TRIAL."  THE DEFECT IN THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT RESPONDENT'S MOTIONS
CANNOT BE MEASURED BY ITS UNEXPRESSED INTENTION OR WANTS.  NEITHER THE
TRIAL JUDGE NOR THE COURT OF APPEALS APPEARS TO HAVE TREATED THE MOTION
TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS ASKING FOR ANYTHING BUT THAT.  AND SURELY
PETITIONER IS NOT TO HAVE HER OPPORTUNITY TO REMEDY ANY SHORTCOMINGS IN
HER CASE JEOPARDIZED BY A FAILURE TO FATHOM THE UNSPOKEN HOPES OF
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL.  RESPONDENT'S MOTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS NOTHING
BUT WHAT IT ACTUALLY WAS, ONE TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT - NOT ONE TO
ENTER JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT. 

RESPONDENT SEPARATELY ARGUES THAT A TRIAL JUDGE'S EXPRESS RESERVATION
OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT RELIEVES A PARTY FROM ANY
DUTY WHATEVER UNDER 50(B) TO MAKE A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AFTER VERDICT. 
THIS CONTENTION NOT ONLY FLIES IN THE TEETH OF THE RULE'S UNAMBIGUOUS
LANGUAGE BUT IF SUSTAINED WOULD UNDERMINE SAFEGUARDS FOR LITIGANTS SOME
OF WHICH HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN PRIOR CASES.  THE RULE CAREFULLY SETS
OUT THE STEPS AND PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE PARTIES AS A
PREREQUISITE TO ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS NOTWITHSTANDING AN ADVERSE JURY
VERDICT.  MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V.  DUNCAN, 311 U.S. 243, 250.  IT WAS
ADOPTED FOLLOWING CONFUSION IN THIS FIELD BROUGHT ABOUT IN PART BY
THREE CASES DECIDED BY THIS COURT, SLOCUM V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.,
228 U.S. 364; BALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE, INC. V. REDMAN, 295 U.S. 654;
AND AETNA INS.  CO. V. KENNEDY, 301 U.S. 389.  THE SLOCUM CASE WAS
UNDERSTOOD TO HOLD THAT THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT FORBADE UNITED STATES
COURTS TO ENTER JUDGMENTS IN FAVOR OF ONE PARTY AFTER JURY VERDICT IN
FAVOR OF THE OTHER.  THE REDMAN CASE TRIED IN NEW YORK HELD THAT THE
SEVENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT FORBID ENTRY OF JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING A
VERDICT WHERE, PRIOR TO THE VERDICT, THE TRIAL JUDGE, FOLLOWING NEW
YORK PROCEDURE, HAD EXPRESSLY RESERVED HIS DECISION ON A MOTION FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT.  THE NEW YORK DISTRICT COURT WAS AUTHORIZED TO FOLLOW
THIS STATE PRACTICE BECAUSE OF THE CONFORMITY ACT, R.S. (1878) SEC.
914.  THUS THE REDMAN CASE DID NOT PURPORT TO ADOPT NEW YORK PROCEDURE
FOR THE GENERAL GUIDANCE OF FEDERAL COURTS.  LATER THE KENNEDY CASE
CAST DOUBT ON THE REDMAN HOLDING, AT LEAST AS TO ITS SCOPE.  IN THE
KENNEDY CASE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DIRECTED VERDICT HAD NOT BEEN
FOLLOWED BY A TIMELY MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AS
REQUIRED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW.  FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THIS PENNSYLVANIA
PRACTICE WAS A REASON GIVEN BY THIS COURT FOR FINDING LACK OF POWER IN
THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT CONTRARY TO THE VERDICT.  (FN2) 

RULE 50(B) WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A PRECISE PLAN TO END THE
PREVAILING CONFUSION ABOUT DIRECTED VERDICTS AND MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENTS
NOTWITHSTANDING VERDICTS.  STATE PROCEDURE WAS NO LONGER TO CONTROL
FEDERAL COURTS AS IT HAD IN THE REDMAN AND KENNEDY CASES.  FEDERAL
COURTS WERE TO BE GUIDED BY THIS NEW RULE, WHICH PROVIDED ITS OWN
EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURAL PROGRAM.  IT REJECTED THE NEW YORK PROCEDURE
APPLIED IN THE REDMAN CASE, WHICH PERMITTED JUDGMENT TO BE SET ASIDE
EVEN THOUGH NO MOTION TO DO SO HAD BEEN FILED AFTER VERDICT.  INSTEAD
IT APPROACHED MORE CLOSELY THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE, RELIED ON IN THE
KENNEDY CASE, UNDER WHICH JUDGMENTS CONTRARY TO VERDICTS WOULD NOT BE
AWARDED IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC TIMELY MOTIONS FOR THEM.  BUT RULE
50(B) DEPARTED FROM THE NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA PROCEDURES BY MAKING
IT WHOLLY UNNECESSARY FOR A JUDGE TO MAKE AN EXPRESS RESERVATION OF HIS
DECISION ON A MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT.  THE RULE ITSELF MADE THE
RESERVATION AUTOMATIC.  A COURT IS ALWAYS "DEEMED TO HAVE SUBMITTED THE
ACTION TO THE JURY SUBJECT TO A LATER DETERMINATION" OF THE RIGHT TO A
DIRECTED VERDICT IF A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
IS MADE "WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE RECEPTION OF A VERDICT  ...  ."  THIS
REQUIREMENT OF A TIMELY APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT AFTER VERDICT IS NOT
AN IDLE MOTION.  THIS VERDICT SOLVES FACTUAL QUESTIONS AGAINST THE POST
VERDICT MOVANT AND THUS EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LEGAL ISSUES. 
THE MOVANT CAN ALSO ASK FOR A NEW TRIAL EITHER FOR ERRORS OF LAW OR ON
DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS.  THE REQUIREMENT FOR TIMELY MOTION AFTER VERDICT
IS THUS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE RULE, FIRMLY GROUNDED IN PRINCIPLES OF
FAIRNESS.  SEE CONE V. WEST VIRGINIA PULP & PAPER CO., SUPRA, AT 217
218.  POOR SUPPORT FOR ITS ABANDONMENT WOULD BE AFFORDED BY THE MERE
FACT THAT A JUDGE MAKES AN EXPRESS RESERVATION OF A DECISION WHICH THE
RULE RESERVES REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE JUDGE DOES. 

RULE 50(B) AS WRITTEN AND AS CONSTRUED BY US IS NOT DIFFICULT TO
UNDERSTAND OR TO OBSERVE.  REWRITING THE RULE TO FIT COUNSEL'S
UNEXPRESSED WANTS AND INTENTIONS WOULD MAKE IT EASY TO REINTRODUCE THE
SAME TYPE OF CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY THE RULE WAS ADOPTED TO END.  IN
1946 THIS COURT WAS ASKED TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE RULE WHICH WOULD
HAVE GIVEN APPELLATE COURTS POWER TO ENTER JUDGMENTS FOR PARTIES WHO,
LIKE THIS RESPONDENT, HAD MADE NO TIMELY MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  WE DID NOT ADOPT THE AMENDMENT THEN.  5
MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE (2D ED. 1951), PARAS. 50.01(7), 50.01(9),
50.11.  NO SUFFICIENTLY PERSUASIVE REASONS ARE PRESENTED WHY WE SHOULD
DO SO NOW UNDER THE GUISE OF INTERPRETATION. 

RESPONDENT MADE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AND FOR NEW TRIAL
WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED BY RULE 50(B).  IT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH
PERMISSION GIVEN BY 50(B) TO MOVE FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V. AFTER THE
VERDICT.  IN THIS SITUATION RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED ONLY TO A NEW TRIAL,
NOT TO A JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  (FN3)  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "WHENEVER A MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT MADE AT THE CLOSE OF
ALL THE EVIDENCE IS DENIED OR FOR ANY REASON IS NOT GRANTED, THE COURT
IS DEEMED TO HAVE SUBMITTED THE ACTION TO THE JURY SUBJECT TO A LATER
DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE MOTION.  WITHIN 10
DAYS AFTER THE RECEPTION OF A VERDICT, A PARTY WHO HAS MOVED FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT MAY MOVE TO HAVE THE VERDICT AND ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED
THEREON SET ASIDE AND TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS
MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT; OR IF A VERDICT WAS NOT RETURNED SUCH
PARTY, WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE JURY HAS BEEN DISCHARGED, MAY MOVE FOR
JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  A
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE JOINED WITH THIS MOTION, OR A NEW TRIAL
MAY BE PRAYED FOR IN THE ALTERNATIVE  ...  ." 

FN2  THE CONTROLLING PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE THEN WAS PA. LAWS 1905, NO.
198.  LIKE RULE 50(B) IT PROVIDED FOR A TIMELY MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  THE BINDING DUTY TO DO THIS WAS EXPLAINED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AS FOLLOWS, IN A CASE RELIED ON BY
THIS COURT IN THE KENNEDY CASE: 

"TO SECURE THE BENEFIT OF THAT ACT ITS TERMS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH,
THAT IS, THE REFUSAL OF THE REQUEST FOR BINDING INSTRUCTIONS MUST BE
FOLLOWED BY A PROPER MOTION MADE IN DUE TIME:  PYLE V. FINNESSY, 275
PA. 54, 57.  HERE THE RECORD AS DULY CERTIFIED DISCLOSES NO SUCH MOTION
NOR ANY EVIDENCE THAT ONE WAS MADE.  TRUE, THE QUESTION OF THE ABSENCE
OF SUCH MOTION WAS NOT RAISED IN THE LOWER COURT BUT, BEING ONE OF
JURISDICTION, IT CANNOT BE IGNORED.  IT FOLLOWS THAT AS THE RECORD
STANDS THE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED."  WEST V. MANATAWNY MUT. F.&S.
INS. CO., 277 PA. 102, 104, 120 A. 763, 764. 

FN3  THE WRITER OF THIS OPINION AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE ARE NOT
CONVINCED THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ATTEMPTED TO DIRECT A VERDICT FOR
THE RAILROAD.  WHAT THE COURT SAID WAS: "IN OUR OPINION THE MOTION FOR
A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT
IS REVERSED."  BUT HOLDING THAT A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GIVEN CANNOT BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A COURT'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR
DEFENDANT NOTWITHSTANDING A JURY VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.  FOR AFTER
SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE 50(B), A TRIAL JUDGE MAY
"EITHER" ENTER A JUDGMENT CONTRARY TO THE VERDICT "OR" ORDER A NEW
TRIAL.  THE RULE THEREBY REQUIRES THE EXERCISE OF AN INFORMED JUDICIAL
DISCRETION AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A CHOICE BETWEEN THESE TWO
ALTERNATIVES.  CONE V. WEST VIRGINIA PULP & PAPER CO., SUPRA, AT 215. 
AND THIS DISCRETION MUST BE EXERCISED BY THE COURT, NOT BY ITS CLERK. 
THE COURT WAS TOLD DURING ORAL ARGUMENT THAT IT IS THE PRACTICE IN THE
SECOND CIRCUIT FOR THE CLERK TO INCLUDE IN HIS MANDATE A DIRECTION TO
THE DISTRICT COURT TO HAVE A JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF A PARTY
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT WHERE THE COURT REVERSES A DISTRICT COURT'S
REFUSAL TO DIRECT A VERDICT.  A RULE OF PRACTICE OF THIS KIND UNDER
WHICH A COURT CLERK'S MANDATE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY DIRECT ENTRY OF A
JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AFTER COURT REVERSAL OF A PLAINTIFF'S JUDGMENT
COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE THE RESULT OF THE KIND OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION
DIRECTED BY RULE 50(B).   WE ARE NOT WILLING TO ATTRIBUTE SUCH A
PRACTICE TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S RULES OF PRACTICE
DO NOT PRESCRIBE A PRACTICE OF THAT KIND.  SEE F.C.A., RULES, C. 5, PP.
96-103, 16 S. CT.  DIG.  143-169, U.S. DIG., COURT RULES (L. ED.), PP.
573-589.  NOR DO THE RULES OF ANY OTHER CIRCUIT.  SEE F.C.A., RULES,
CC. 4-13, PP. 84-194, 16 S. CT. DIG.  107-523, U.S. DIG., COURT RULES
(L. ED.), PP. 545-827.  NO CASE HAS BEEN FOUND THAT INDICATES SUCH A
PRACTICE BY THE SECOND OR ANY OTHER CIRCUIT.  SINCE ADOPTION OF RULE
50(B) IN 1938, COURTS OF APPEALS WISHING TO ENTER OR DIRECT JUDGMENT
HAVE SAID SO IN CLEAR, SIMPLE AND MANDATORY LANGUAGE.  AS TO THE SECOND
CIRCUIT, SEE E.G., VENIDES V. UNITED GREEK SHIPOWNERS CORP., 168 F.2D
681; BRENNAN V. B.&O.R. CO., 115 F.2D 555; WILLIAMS V. NEW JERSEY-N.Y.
TRANSIT CO., 113 F.2D 649; CONWAY V. O'BRIEN, 111 F.2D 611.  THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT EMPHATICALLY POINTED OUT THAT MERE REVERSAL AND REMAND FOR
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION DID NOT AUTHORIZE A TRIAL COURT
TO ENTER JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT; ENTRY OF SUCH A JUDGMENT
WAS ONLY TO BE GRANTED AS OF DISCRETION AND AFTER A HEARING.  FLENIKEN
V. GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO., 142 F.2D 938; SEE ALSO IN RE MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK, 188 F.2D 424, 425-426.    MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR.
JUSTICE MINTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

IF THE COURT'S OPINION IN THIS CASE MERELY DISPOSED OF A PARTICULAR
LITIGATION BY FINDING ERROR IN A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT
A JUDGMENT BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANT IN A NEGLIGENCE SUIT, AN
EXPRESSION OF DISSENT, LET ALONE A DISSENTING OPINION, WOULD NOT BE
JUSTIFIED.  IF THAT WERE ALL THERE WERE TO IT, NEITHER WOULD THE COURT
HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  THE SAME
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MADE THE CASE ONE OF GENERAL IMPORTANCE FOR REVIEW
HERE MAKE IT APPROPRIATE TO SPELL OUT THE GROUNDS OF DISSENT. 

NOT THE LEAST IMPORTANT BUSINESS OF THIS COURT IS TO GUIDE THE LOWER
COURTS AND THE BAR IN THE EFFECTIVE AND ECONOMICAL CONDUCT OF
LITIGATION.  THAT IS WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  THE IMMEDIATE
ISSUE IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE OF THE IMPORTANT RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  THAT CONSTRUCTION IN TURN DEPENDS UPON OUR BASIC ATTITUDE
TOWARD THOSE RULES - WHETHER WE TAKE THEIR FORCE TO LIE IN THEIR VERY
WORDS, TREATING THEM AS TALISMANIC FORMULAS, OR WHETHER WE BELIEVE THEY
ARE TO BE APPLIED AS RATIONAL INSTRUMENTS FOR DOING JUSTICE BETWEEN MAN
AND MAN IN CASES COMING BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

OUR CONCERN IS WITH RULE 50(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  (FN1)  THE RULES BECAME EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1938. 
TWO YEARS LATER, IN MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. DUNCAN, 311 U.S. 243, THIS
COURT WAS CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE UNDER RULE
50(B).  TO DO SO, THE COURT HAD TO CONSIDER THE EXPERIENCE THAT LED TO
THE PROMULGATION OF THE RULE.  ITS AIM WAS TO SPEED LITIGATION WITHOUT
PREJUDICING THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF LITIGANTS; TO SEE TO IT THAT
FULL AND FAIR CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO THE ISSUES LITIGANTS RAISE BUT
THAT LITIGATION DOES NOT BECOME A SOCIALLY WASTEFUL GAME.  THE
UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE COURT IN THE MONTGOMERY WARD CASE GAVE THIS
GUIDING DIRECTION:  "  ...  THE COURTS SHOULD SO ADMINISTER THE RULE AS
TO ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER ITS TERMS."  311 U.S., AT
253.  THIS ATTITUDE WAS MADE SPECIFIC BY THE STATEMENT THAT IF THE
TRIAL JUDGE RULES, AS HE PROPERLY SHOULD, ON ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS FOR
JUDGMENT N.O.V. AND FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND DENIES THEM BOTH, THE
APPELLATE COURT MAY REVERSE THE FORMER ACTION AND DIRECT THE ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT N.O.V.  311 U.S., AT 254. 

SUBSEQUENT TO MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. DUNCAN, SUPRA, THREE CASES
CAME HERE IN WHICH WE REVERSED BECAUSE COURTS OF APPEALS DISREGARDED
THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN THAT CASE IN ONE SIGNIFICANT RESPECT.  THE
COURTS OF APPEALS DIRECTED THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS N.O.V.  ALTHOUGH NO
MOTIONS FOR SUCH JUDGMENTS HAD BEEN MADE IN THE TRIAL COURTS.  CONE V.
WEST VIRGINIA PULP & PAPER CO., 330 U.S. 212; GLOBE LIQUOR CO. V. SAN
ROMAN, 332 U.S. 571; FOUNTAIN V. FILSON, 336 U.S. 681.  OUR DECISIONS
DO NOT SUGGEST, HOWEVER, THAT THE PARTY IN WHOSE FAVOR A COURT OF
APPEALS DIRECTS A JUDGMENT N.O.V. IS REQUIRED TO USE A RITUALISTIC
FORMULA IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE ONLY RELEVANT INQUIRY IN THIS CASE,
THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE FAIR MEANING OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A
VERDICT WAS RENDERED IN FACT CONSTITUTED DISPOSITION OF A MOTION TO
ENTER JUDGMENT N.O.V.  THIS IS SO UNLESS RULE 50(B) COMMANDS THAT AFTER
THE RECEPTION OF A VERDICT A PARTY MUST NOT ONLY "MOVE TO HAVE THE
VERDICT AND ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON SET ASIDE AND TO HAVE JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT," BUT MUST
DO SO BY A PARTICULAR FORM OF WORDS.  THE RULE DOES NOT REQUIRE THIS. 
NOTHING IN THE RULE, EITHER BY ITS TERMS OR ITS ORIGIN, REQUIRES SOME
ABRACADABRA OF OBEDIENCE TO IT. 

A COMPARISON OF THE FACTS IN THE CONE, GLOBE AND FOUNTAIN CASES WITH
THOSE IN THIS CASE LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THIS CASE HAS NOTHING IN COMMON
WITH CONE, GLOBE AND FOUNTAIN.  A TABULAR ANALYSIS OF THE PROCEDURAL
FACTS IN ALL FOUR CASES IS APPENDED, POST, P. 63.  THERE WERE NO
MOTIONS N.O.V. IN CONE, GLOBE AND FOUNTAIN, AND THE FAILURE TO MAKE
THEM RESULTED IN A PREJUDICE TO THE LOSING PARTIES IN THE COURTS OF
APPEALS IN THOSE THREE CASES WHICH IS WHOLLY WANTING HERE.  (FN2) 

IN EACH OF THE THREE EARLIER CASES THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS EITHER APPLIED TO THE FACTS A LEGAL THEORY OTHER THAN THE ONE
ON WHICH THE PARTIES PROCEEDED IN THE TRIAL COURT, OR FOR THE FIRST
TIME ASSIGNED DECISIVE IMPORTANCE TO THE CHOICE BY THE LOSING PARTY OF
A LEGAL THEORY ON WHICH TO CLAIM OR RESIST RECOVERY.  CONE WAS TRIED ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT PROOF OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION WOULD SUSTAIN THE
CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COURT OF APPEALS DEFINITIVELY DISPOSED OF THE
LITIGATION BY HOLDING THAT ACTUAL POSSESSION MUST BE PROVED.  IN GLOBE
THE PLAINTIFF SECURED A VERDICT ON THE BASIS OF AN EXPRESS WARRANTY IN
A SALE; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT HE HAD FAILED IN THIS AND
DIRECTED THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT FOR THE SELLER, EVEN THOUGH ON A NEW
TRIAL, WHICH ALONE WAS WHAT THE SELLER HAD ASKED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
OPEN FOR THE BUYER, WITH THE AID OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, TO SUCCEED ON
PROOF OF AN IMPLIED WARRANTY.  IN FOUNTAIN THE PLAINTIFF SUED TO HAVE
HIMSELF DECLARED THE BENEFICIARY OF A RESULTING TRUST IN CERTAIN
REALTY.  WHILE THE COURT OF APPEALS AGREED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT
NEW JERSEY LAW PRECLUDED THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH A RESULTING TRUST, IT
DIRECTED THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER A PERSONAL MONEY JUDGMENT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.  IN ALL THREE CASES WE HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT NEVER
HAD OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN OPEN
TO IT HAD THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE LITIGATION WENT OFF IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS BEEN RELIED ON BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT IN AN APPROPRIATE
MOTION. 

IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO SUCH DEVIATION FROM THE TRIAL ISSUES.  THE
CASE WENT TO THE JURY ON THE ISSUES OF DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE IN
DEPARTING FROM AN ALLEGED COMMON CUSTOM, AND OF CAUSATION.  THESE
ISSUES WERE DULY PRESSED BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE AFTER VERDICT.  THE
CASE WENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ON ONE OF
THEM.  IN CONTRAST TO THE SITUATION IN THE OTHER THREE CASES NO
POSSIBLE CLAIM OF SURPRISE CAN HERE FIND NOURISHMENT.  THE CONE, GLOBE
AND FOUNTAIN CASES, BEING DECISIVELY DIFFERENT FROM THIS CASE, CANNOT
GOVERN IT. 

LET ME SET OUT, SIDE BY SIDE, SO MUCH AS IS PERTINENT IN THE MOTION
MADE AFTER THE VERDICT IN THE MONTGOMERY WARD CASE AND THE MOTION MADE
IN THIS CASE. 

   MONTGOMERY WARD                      JOHNSON 

COMES THE DEFENDANT,             ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, 

MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY,       THE NEW YORK, NEW 

AND FILES ITS MOTION             HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD, 

PRAYING THAT THE JURY'S VERDICT  I MOVE TO SET ASIDE 

HEREIN AND THE JUDGMENT          THE VERDICT ON THE GROUND 

RENDERED AND ENTERED 

THEREON BE SET ASIDE AND 

JUDGMENT ENTERED HEREIN 

FOR THE DEFENDANT NOTWITHSTANDING 

THE VERDICT, AND 

ITS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IN 

THE ALTERNATIVE, AND AS 

GROUNDS THEREFOR STATES: 

A. ...  MOTION  ...  TO 

ENTER JUDGMENT  ...  . 

1.  THAT THE VERDICT IS          THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE 

CONTRARY TO THE LAW.             LAW 

2.  THAT THE VERDICT IS          AND CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE 

CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE. 

3.  THAT THE VERDICT IS 

CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND 

EVIDENCE. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

8.  THAT THE DEFENDANT           AND CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT 

HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY A         OF THE EVIDENCE 

PREPONDERANCE OF THE 

EVIDENCE  ...  . 

B. ...  MOTION FOR A 

NEW TRIAL:  (SPECIFICATIONS 

1-8 SAME AS ABOVE.) 

9.  THAT THE DAMAGES             AND EXCESSIVE. 

FOUND BY THE JURY AND THE 

VERDICT BASED THEREON WERE 

EXCESSIVE.  (FN3) 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MOTIONS IS NIL.  ONE WAS WRITTEN AND
FORMALLY LABELLED AND DETAILED.  WHILE THE OTHER WAS ORAL, IT WAS CAST
IN FORM FAMILIAR TO NEW YORK PRACTITIONERS AND ITS MEANING WAS NO LESS
CLEAR.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S ACTION DEMONSTRATES THIS.  BUT UNDER THE
COURT'S HOLDING IT IS NO LONGER SUFFICIENT TO MOVE FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT AND THEN, WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY THE RULE, ASK THE TRIAL
JUDGE EITHER TO GRANT JUDGMENT OR A NEW TRIAL.  THE COURT SO HOLDS EVEN
THOUGH THE TRIAL JUDGE ALREADY HAS EXPRESSLY STATED HE HAS RESERVED FOR
HIS CONSIDERATION AT THAT TIME (AFTER VERDICT) THE VERY ISSUE WHICH A
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V. WOULD REPEAT.  THE OBVIOUS, WHICH IS LEFT
UNSAID IN COLLOQUIES BETWEEN COUNSEL AND THE COURT, MUST NOW BE
SPOKEN.  THE REDUNDANT, OMITTED OUT OF RESPECT FOR A JUDGE'S
INTELLIGENCE AND PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, MUST ALWAYS BE SPELLED OUT. 
THE PARTIES MUST BE SURE TO INDULGE THE ANCIENT WEAKNESS OF THE LAW FOR
STYLIZED REPETITION, AND IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE JUDGE ANSWER THE SAME
QUESTION TWICE BEFORE HIS ANSWER IS TO BE RECOGNIZED.  IN THIS WAY DO
WE CONDUCE "TO THE EFFICIENCY AND THE ECONOMY OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE."  FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROCEEDINGS OF THE
INSTITUTE AT WASHINGTON, D.C. AND OF THE SYMPOSIUM IN NEW YORK CITY, 87
(1938)(CHESNUT, J.). 

IF ON THAT FATEFUL FRIDAY THE 13TH, IN APRIL, 1951, SOMETIME SHORTLY
AFTER 10:30 IN THE MORNING WHEN THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS OPENED, THE
DEFENDANT HAD PREFACED HIS ARGUMENT BY SAYING, "YOUR HONOR, BEFORE
ADDRESSING MYSELF TO MY PENDING MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT, ON WHICH
YOUR HONOR RESERVED DECISION, AND WHICH OF COURSE NOW NECESSARILY IS A
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V., I FIRST WANT TO RENEW THAT MOTION," HE
WOULD HAVE AVOIDED TODAY'S DECISION AGAINST HIM, ALTHOUGH HE WOULD NOT
HAVE ADDED ONE JOT OF INFORMATION TO THAT OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF
OR OF THE JUDGE REGARDING THE ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT FOR DECISION.  TO
REQUIRE THIS IS TO MAKE RULE 50(B) READ: 

"WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE RECEPTION OF A VERDICT, A PARTY WHO HAS
MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT MAY MOVE TO HAVE THE VERDICT AND ANY
JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON SET ASIDE.  SUCH A MOTION WILL BE TREATED AS A
MOTION TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT IF HE REPEATS THE MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT OR
STATES TO THE COURT THAT HE NOW MAKES A 'MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.'" 

THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ARE THE PRODUCT OF THE PROGRESS
OF CENTURIES FROM THE MEDIEVAL COURT-ROOM CONTEST - A THINLY DISGUISED
VERSION OF TRIAL BY COMBAT - TO MODERN LITIGATION.  "PROCEDURE IS THE
MEANS; FULL, EQUAL AND EXACT ENFORCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS THE
END."  POUND, THE ETIQUETTE OF JUSTICE, 3 PROCEEDINGS NEB. ST. BAR
ASSN.  231 (1909).  THIS BASIC CONSIDERATION UNDERLIES THE RULES; WITH
IT IN MIND WE CONSTRUED RULE 50(B) IN THE MONTGOMERY WARD CASE. 

IT HAS BEEN SAID OF THE GREAT BARON PARKE:  "HIS FAULT WAS AN ALMOST
SUPERSTITIOUS REVERENCE FOR THE DARK TECHNICALITIES OF SPECIAL
PLEADING, AND THE REFORMS INTRODUCED BY THE COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACTS
OF 1854 AND 1855 OCCASIONED HIS RESIGNATION."  (SIR JAMES PARKE, 15
D.N.B. 226.) 

BARON PARKE DESPAIRED PREMATURELY.  IF HE HAD WAITED ANOTHER HUNDRED
YEARS THIS COURT TODAY WOULD HAVE VINDICATED HIS BELIEF THAT JUDGES
MUST BE IMPRISONED IN TECHNICALITIES OF THEIR OWN DEVISING, THAT
OBEDIENCE TO LIFELESS FORMALITY IS THE WAY TO JUSTICE. 

FN1  "(B)  RESERVATION OF DECISION ON MOTION.  WHENEVER A MOTION FOR
A DIRECTED VERDICT MADE AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IS DENIED OR
FOR ANY REASON IS NOT GRANTED, THE COURT IS DEEMED TO HAVE SUBMITTED
THE ACTION TO THE JURY SUBJECT TO A LATER DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL
QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE MOTION.  WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE RECEPTION OF
A VERDICT, A PARTY WHO HAS MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT MAY MOVE TO
HAVE THE VERDICT AND ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON SET ASIDE AND TO HAVE
JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT;
OR IF A VERDICT WAS NOT RETURNED SUCH PARTY, WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE
JURY HAS BEEN DISCHARGED, MAY MOVE FOR JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS
MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE JOINED
WITH THIS MOTION, OR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE PRAYED FOR IN THE ALTERNATIVE. 
IF A VERDICT WAS RETURNED THE COURT MAY ALLOW THE JUDGMENT TO STAND OR
MAY REOPEN THE JUDGMENT AND EITHER ORDER A NEW TRIAL OR DIRECT THE
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE REQUESTED VERDICT HAD BEEN DIRECTED.  IF NO
VERDICT WAS RETURNED THE COURT MAY DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF
THE REQUESTED VERDICT HAD BEEN DIRECTED OR MAY ORDER A NEW TRIAL." 

FN2  THE POST-VERDICT MOTIONS IN CONE AND GLOBE (THERE WAS NONE IN
FOUNTAIN) SPECIFICALLY PRAYED FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND THE GROUNDS THEY
RECITED WENT WHOLLY TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT A NEW TRIAL WOULD BE
PROPER.  THE CONE MOTION RELIED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. 
MOREOVER, IT WAS MUCH TOO LATE TO PRAY FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V. UNDER RULE
50(B).  IN GLOBE THE MOTION CLAIMED ERROR IN RULINGS ON EVIDENCE AND IN
TAKING THE CASE FROM THE JURY.  THE MOTION IN OUR CASE, TIMELY UNDER
RULE 50(B), WAS "TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT" ON GROUNDS WHICH SUPPORTED
BOTH JUDGMENT N.O.V. AND THE GRANT OF A NEW TRIAL.  HAVING HEARD
ARGUMENT AND REQUESTED BRIEFS AND THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, THE JUDGE HELD
THAT THE EVIDENCE PERMITTED RECOVERY.  IT COULD NOT DO SO, OF COURSE,
IF IT WERE INSUFFICIENT IN LAW.  NOR SHOULD THE FACT BE FORGOTTEN THAT
THE JUDGE WAS DEALING WITH ARGUMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO HIM
BEFORE ON A MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT, AS TO WHICH HE HAD RESERVED
DECISION.  MOTIONS FOR DIRECTED VERDICT HAD BEEN MADE BY DEFENDANTS IN
CONE AND GLOBE AS WELL, BUT THEY HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY DENIED BEFORE THE
VERDICT.    FN3  THE SPECIFICATIONS WHICH I DO NOT QUOTE DO NOT ADD
MATERIALLY TO THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V. IN THE MONTGOMERY WARD
CASE. 

FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MINTON, SEE POST, P. 65. 

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF FRANKFURTER, J., OMITTED. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH ALL THAT MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER HAS SAID IN UPHOLDING
THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN RETURNING THE CASE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER A VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  I
WOULD ADD ANOTHER REASON WHY I THINK THE ACTION WAS VALID. 

AFTER THE CONE, GLOBE LIQUOR AND FOUNTAIN CASES WERE DECIDED,
CONGRESS IN 1948 REVISED THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND IN 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2106
CLEARLY AUTHORIZED THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS HERE. 

"THE SUPREME COURT OR ANY OTHER COURT OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION MAY
AFFIRM, MODIFY, VACATE, SET ASIDE OR REVERSE ANY JUDGMENT, DECREE, OR
ORDER OF A COURT LAWFULLY BROUGHT BEFORE IT FOR REVIEW, AND MAY REMAND
THE CAUSE AND DIRECT THE ENTRY OF SUCH APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT, DECREE, OR
ORDER, OR REQUIRE SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE HAD AS MAY BE JUST
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES." 

TO ME, THIS STATUTE IS CONTROLLING.  WE FOUND IT CONTROLLING OF THE
ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN A CRIMINAL CASE.  BRYAN V. UNITED
STATES, 338 U.S. 552.  MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WHO NOW SPEAKS FOR THE COURT,
DISSENTED IN THE BRYAN CASE BECAUSE HE THOUGHT CONE CONTROLLING.  BY
ACT OF CONGRESS, THE DISCRETION NOW RESTS WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
GRANT A NEW TRIAL OR TO DIRECT A VERDICT ACCORDING TO LAW ON THE RECORD
ALREADY MADE. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. HENNING 344 U.S. 66 


NO. 10.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 1952.  - REARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1952.  - DECIDED
NOVEMBER 17, 1952.  - 191 F.2D 588, REVERSED. 


AN INSURED UNDER A POLICY OF NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE WHO HAD
DESIGNATED HIS FATHER AS SOLE BENEFICIARY, DIED IN ACTIVE SERVICE IN
JULY 1945.  FIVE MONTHS LATER THE FATHER DIED, AND FOUR YEARS LATER THE
FATHER'S SECOND WIFE (THE INSURED'S STEPMOTHER) DIED.  NEITHER HAD
RECEIVED ANY PART OF THE POLICY'S PROCEEDS.  THE INSURED'S NATURAL
MOTHER SURVIVED.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE STEPMOTHER HAD
STOOD IN LOCO PARENTIS TO THE INSURED FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR PRIOR TO
HIS ENTRY INTO ACTIVE SERVICE, AND ALSO THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 602(H)(3)(C) OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT, BOTH THE
STEPMOTHER AND THE NATURAL MOTHER "LAST BORE" THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP
TO THE INSURED.  HELD: 

1.  INSTALLMENTS OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY WHICH, THOUGH ACCRUED,
HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY A BENEFICIARY PRIOR TO HIS DEATH, CANNOT BE
AWARDED TO THE ESTATE OF SUCH DECEASED BENEFICIARY, SINCE SEC. 602(I)
CONDITIONS PAYMENTS ON THE BENEFICIARY'S BEING ALIVE TO RECEIVE THEM. 
PP. 69-76. 

2.  THE INSURED'S NATURAL MOTHER IS A SURVIVING BENEFICIARY ENTITLED
TO TAKE BY DEVOLUTION UNDER SEC. 602(H)(3)(C) OF THE ACT.  PP. 76-78. 

(A)  THE FINDING THAT THE STEPMOTHER "LAST BORE" THE PARENTAL
RELATIONSHIP TO THE INSURED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 602(H)(3)(C),
DOES NOT PRECLUDE A FINDING THAT THE INSURED'S NATURAL MOTHER ALSO
"LAST BORE" THAT RELATIONSHIP.  PP. 76-77. 

(B)  THIS COURT ACCEPTS WHAT THE COURTS BELOW DEEMED A CONTINUING
PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INSURED AND HIS NATURAL MOTHER.  PP.
77-78. 

(C)  SINCE THE INSURED'S NATURAL MOTHER IS A SURVIVING BENEFICIARY
ENTITLED TO TAKE BY DEVOLUTION UNDER SEC. 602(H)(3)(C), SHE IS THE
"BENEFICIARY TO WHOM PAYMENT IS FIRST MADE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
602(H)(1) AND (2).  PP. 77-78. 

3.  SINCE THERE IS A SURVIVING BENEFICIARY ENTITLED TO TAKE BY
DEVOLUTION UNDER SEC. 602(H)(3)(C), THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT INVOKE THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 602(J) TO WITHHOLD, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NATIONAL
SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE FUND, PAYMENT OF THE INSTALLMENTS ACCRUED FROM
THE DATE OF THE INSURED'S DEATH.  P. 78. 

UNITED STATES V. HENNING ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION FOR A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE PROPER BENEFICIARY
UNDER A POLICY OF NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE, THE DISTRICT COURT
DIVIDED THE PROCEEDS AMONG THREE PARTIES.  93 F. SUPP. 380.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AGREED.  191 F.2D 588.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342
U.S. 917.  REVERSED, P. 78. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CONFLICTING CLAIMS TO THE PROCEEDS OF A POLICY OF NATIONAL SERVICE
LIFE INSURANCE FRAME THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US.  DISPOSITION OF THE
CAUSE DEPENDS ON OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE
INSURANCE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 801 ET SEQ., WHICH IN
PERTINENT PART (FN1) PROVIDES: 

SEC. 602(G).  "THE INSURANCE SHALL BE PAYABLE ONLY TO A WIDOW,
WIDOWER, CHILD  ...  , PARENT, BROTHER OR SISTER OF THE INSURED.  THE
INSURED SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE THE BENEFICIARY OR
BENEFICIARIES OF THE INSURANCE, BUT ONLY WITHIN THE CLASSES HEREIN
PROVIDED  ...  ." 

SEC. 601(F).  "THE TERMS 'PARENT', 'FATHER', AND 'MOTHER' INCLUDE A
FATHER, MOTHER, FATHER THROUGH ADOPTION, MOTHER THROUGH ADOPTION AND
PERSONS WHO HAVE STOOD IN LOCO PARENTIS TO A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY OR
NAVAL FORCES AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ENTRY INTO ACTIVE SERVICE FOR A
PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN ONE YEAR  ...  ." 

SEC. 602(I).  "IF NO BENEFICIARY IS DESIGNATED BY THE INSURED OR IF
THE DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY DOES NOT SURVIVE THE INSURED, THE
BENEFICIARY SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER SPECIFIED
IN SUBSECTION (H)(3) OF THIS SECTION AND THE INSURANCE SHALL BE PAYABLE
IN EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (H)  ...  .
THE RIGHT OF ANY BENEFICIARY TO PAYMENT OF ANY INSTALLMENTS SHALL BE
CONDITIONED UPON HIS OR HER BEING ALIVE TO RECEIVE SUCH PAYMENTS.  NO
PERSON SHALL HAVE A VESTED RIGHT TO ANY INSTALLMENT OR INSTALLMENTS OF
ANY SUCH INSURANCE AND ANY INSTALLMENTS NOT PAID TO A BENEFICIARY
DURING SUCH BENEFICIARY'S LIFETIME SHALL BE PAID TO THE BENEFICIARY OR
BENEFICIARIES WITHIN THE PERMITTED CLASS NEXT ENTITLED TO PRIORITY, AS
PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (H)  ...  ." 

SEC. 602(H)(3).  "ANY INSTALLMENTS CERTAIN OF INSURANCE REMAINING
UNPAID AT THE DEATH OF ANY BENEFICIARY SHALL BE PAID IN EQUAL MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS PAID TO THE
FIRST BENEFICIARY, TO THE PERSON OR PERSONS THEN IN BEING WITHIN THE
CLASSES HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED AND IN THE ORDER NAMED, UNLESS DESIGNATED
BY THE INSURED IN A DIFFERENT ORDER: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(C)  IF NO WIDOW, WIDOWER, OR CHILD, TO THE PARENT OR PARENTS OF THE
INSURED WHO LAST BORE THAT RELATIONSHIP, IF LIVING, IN EQUAL SHARES;
...  ." 

SEC. 602(J).  "NO INSTALLMENTS OF SUCH INSURANCE SHALL BE PAID TO THE
HEIRS OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AS SUCH OF THE INSURED OR OF ANY
BENEFICIARY, AND IN THE EVENT THAT NO PERSON WITHIN THE PERMITTED CLASS
SURVIVES TO RECEIVE THE INSURANCE OR ANY PART THEREOF NO PAYMENT OF THE
UNPAID INSTALLMENTS SHALL BE MADE  ...  ." 

THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED.  EUGENE C. HENNING, A NAVAL
RESERVIST INSURED UNDER A $10,000 TERM POLICY OF NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE
INSURANCE WHICH NAMED HIS FATHER AS SOLE BENEFICIARY, (FN2) DIED ON
JULY 4, 1945, IN HIS COUNTRY'S SERVICE.  OTTO F. HENNING, THE FATHER,
DIED FIVE MONTHS LATER, WITHOUT HAVING RECEIVED ANY PART OF THE
POLICY'S PROCEEDS.  BESSIE, HIS SECOND WIFE AND THE INSURED'S
STEPMOTHER, AND CLARA BELLE, HIS FORMER WIFE AND THE INSURED'S NATURAL
MOTHER, SURVIVED.  BOTH SURVIVORS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED CLAIMS TO THE
PROCEEDS OF THE SERVICEMAN'S POLICY.  ON JUNE 30, 1949, DURING THE
PENDENCY OF AN INTERPLEADER ACTION FOR A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE
PROPER TAKER, BESSIE DIED, LEAVING THE NATURAL MOTHER AS SOLE SURVIVING
CLAIMANT.  THE GOVERNMENT THEREUPON ASSERTED THAT BESSIE HAD LAST BORNE
THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE INSURED; THAT CONSEQUENTLY CLARA BELLE
COULD NOT COME WITHIN THE STATUTORY CLASS OF DEVOLUTIONARY TAKERS; AND
THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF COGNIZABLE CLAIMS TO THE PROCEEDS, THEY ESCHEAT
TO THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE FUND. 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT, HOWEVER, DIVIDED THE PROCEEDS, PAYABLE
IN INSTALLMENTS, AMONG THREE PARTIES.  (FN3)  THE COURT READ THE
STATUTE AS IMPOSING NO BAR TO THE AWARD OF MATURED BUT UNPAID
INSTALLMENTS TO THE ESTATES OF DECEASED BENEFICIARIES.  IT THEREFORE
AWARDED TO THE FATHER'S ESTATE THE INSTALLMENTS WHICH HAD MATURED
DURING HIS LIFETIME BUT REMAINED UNPAID.  AND, FINDING THAT BESSIE, THE
STEPMOTHER, HAD STOOD IN LOCO PARENTIS TO THE INSURED FOR AT LEAST ONE
YEAR PRIOR TO HIS ENTRY INTO ACTIVE SERVICE, IT CONCLUDED THAT BOTH SHE
AND CLARA BELLE, THE NATURAL MOTHER, WERE PARENTS WHO "LAST BORE THAT
RELATIONSHIP" AND THUS QUALIFIED TO TAKE THE REMAINING PROCEEDS BY
DEVOLUTION UNDER SEC. 602(H)(3)(C) OF THE ACT.  THE INSTALLMENTS WHICH
HAD MATURED DURING THE STEPMOTHER'S LIFETIME WERE SHARED EQUALLY
BETWEEN HER ESTATE AND CLARA BELLE; INSTALLMENTS THEREAFTER MATURING
WERE AWARDED TO THE LATTER ALONE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AGREED.  (FN4)  CONCEDING THAT THE LITERAL
WORDING OF THE STATUTE WENT "A LONG WAY" TOWARD SUSTAINING THE
GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSING CONTENTIONS, THE COURT, FEARFUL OF UNFORTUNATE
CONSEQUENCES THAT MIGHT FLOW FROM STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE TEXT OF THE
ACT, NEVERTHELESS RULED THAT ESTATES OF DECEASED BENEFICIARIES MIGHT
TAKE.  AND, NOTING ITS DISAGREEMENT WITH THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S RULING IN
BAUMET V. UNITED STATES, (FN5) IT FURTHER HELD THAT ONE IN LOCO
PARENTIS WHO QUALIFIED AS A BENEFICIARY UNDER SEC. 602(H)(3)(C) OF THE
ACT DID NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUDE FROM PARTICIPATION IN POLICY PROCEEDS A
NATURAL PARENT OF THE SAME SEX WHO ALSO "LAST BORE" THE PARENTAL
RELATIONSHIP TO THE INSURED. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO SETTLE PROBLEMS IMPORTANT IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT AND TO
RESOLVE CONFLICTING STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS BY THE COURTS OF
APPEALS.  342 U.S. 917. 

CONGRESS THROUGH WAR RISK INSURANCE LEGISLATION HAS LONG SOUGHT TO
PROTECT FROM FINANCIAL HARDSHIP THE SURVIVING FAMILIES OF THOSE WHO HAD
SERVED UNDER THE NATION'S FLAG.  COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE PROGRAMS
ENACTED IN 1917, 1940, AND 1951 REFLECT THIS CONSISTENT LEGISLATIVE
CONCERN IN TIMES OF CRISIS.  SINCE PUBLIC FUNDS WERE TO MEET A LARGE
PART OF THE PROGRAMS' COST, (FN6) THE STATUTES CLOSELY CIRCUMSCRIBED
THE CLASS OF PERMISSIBLE TAKERS TO PRECLUDE THOSE NOT THE OBJECT OF
CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN FROM DRAINING THE TREASURY WHEN HAZARDS OF WAR
SERVICE MULTIPLIED POLICY MATURITIES.  THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT OF
1917 ENUMERATED ONLY THE SERVICEMAN'S SPOUSE AND IMMEDIATE BLOOD
RELATIVES AS PERMISSIBLE BENEFICIARIES OF POLICY PROCEEDS; (FN7) A
BENEFICIARY'S INTEREST WAS EXTINGUISHED BY DEATH.  (FN8)  THE NATIONAL
SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF 1940, AGAIN CONSTRICTING THE CLASS OF
PERMISSIBLE TAKERS, (FN9) RESTATES THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OF THE PRIOR
ACT.  IN THE SERVICEMEN'S INDEMNITY ACT OF 1951 THE PREVIOUS
RESTRICTIONS ONCE MORE APPEAR, REITERATED IN A FLAT PROVISO:  "NO
PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE TO THE ESTATE OF ANY DECEASED PERSON."  (FN10)
ACCENTING THESE WARTIME LIMITATIONS IS THE LIBERALIZING LEGISLATION BY
WHICH CONGRESS AFTER CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN WORLD WARS I AND II
PLACED ITS INSURANCE PROGRAMS ON MORE NEARLY A COMMERCIAL BASIS. 
AMENDMENTS TO THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT IN 1919 EXPANDED THE PERMITTED
BENEFICIARY CLASS TO INCLUDE MORE DISTANT RELATIVES OF THE INSURED,
AND, SIGNIFICANTLY, PROVIDED THAT INSTALLMENTS PAYABLE BUT UNPAID UPON
A BENEFICIARY'S DEATH MIGHT GO TO HIS ESTATE.  (FN11) THIS BROADENING
LEGISLATION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED IN THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT
OF 1924.  (FN12)  AND AFTER WORLD WAR II, CONGRESS IN 1946 ONCE MORE
LIBERALIZED THE BENEFITS OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT. 
AS TO POLICIES MATURING AFTER AUGUST 1946 IT REMOVED THE RESTRICTIONS
ON THE INSURED'S CHOICE OF BENEFICIARY, AND IN CERTAIN INSTANCES
PERMITTED THE PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENT PROCEEDS TO DECEASED
BENEFICIARIES' ESTATES.  (FN13)  FROM THIS COURSE OF LEGISLATION AN
UNMISTAKABLE PATTERN OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY EMERGES:  STATUTES ENACTED
IN TIME OF WAR CRISIS NARROW THE RANGE OF BENEFICIARIES; POST-WAR
LEGISLATION BROADENS IT.  (FN14) 

OF THE POLICY PROCEEDS HERE IN CONTROVERSY, MUST TAKE MEANING FROM ITS
HISTORICAL SETTING.  CF. UNITED STATES V. ZAZOVE, 334 U.S. 602 (1948). 
SUBSECTION (I) CONDITIONS THE RIGHT OF A BENEFICIARY TO THE PAYMENT OF
ANY INSTALLMENTS "UPON HIS OR HER BEING ALIVE TO RECEIVE SUCH
PAYMENTS"; IT ADDS THAT "NO PERSON SHALL HAVE A VESTED RIGHT TO ANY
INSTALLMENT  ...  AND ANY INSTALLMENTS NOT PAID TO A BENEFICIARY DURING
SUCH BENEFICIARY'S LIFETIME SHALL BE PAID TO THE BENEFICIARY OR
BENEFICIARIES WITHIN THE PERMITTED CLASS NEXT ENTITLED TO PRIORITY  ...
."  AND SUBSECTION (J), SO AS TO DISCLAIM ANY POSSIBLE ANALOGY TO
PRIOR PEACETIME LEGISLATION WHICH AT ONE TIME HAD BEEN CONSTRUED TO
CONFER SUCH RIGHTS, (FN15) EMPHASIZES THAT "NO INSTALLMENTS OF SUCH
INSURANCE SHALL BE PAID TO THE HEIRS OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AS SUCH
OF THE INSURED OR OF ANY BENEFICIARY."  ON THE CONTRARY, THE SUBSECTION
DIRECTS "IN THE EVENT THAT NO PERSON WITHIN THE PERMITTED CLASS
SURVIVES TO RECEIVE THE INSURANCE OR ANY PART THEREOF NO PAYMENT OF THE
UNPAID INSTALLMENTS SHALL BE MADE." 

IN THE FACE OF THIS CLEAR STATUTORY LANGUAGE WE ARE NEVERTHELESS
URGED TO DISTINGUISH INSTALLMENTS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR PAID FROM ACCRUED
INSTALLMENTS THAT AN INTENDED BENEFICIARY FOR SOME REASON HAS NOT
RECEIVED.  WHEREAS THE FORMER CONCEDEDLY MAY NOT PASS TO THE ESTATE OF
A DECEASED BENEFICIARY, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE LATTER MAY.  FOR TO HOLD
OTHERWISE, THE ARGUMENT RUNS, MIGHT RESULT IN "AMAZING CONSEQUENCES";
THE GOVERNMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, BY SIMPLY WITHHOLDING PAYMENTS UNTIL ONE
BENEFICIARY DIED MIGHT UNJUSTLY ENRICH ANOTHER IN A LOWER PRIORITY, OR,
IF NONE SURVIVED, FAVOR THE PUBLIC PURSE; MOREOVER, A LOW-PRIORITY
BENEFICIARY BY LITIGATING A SPECIOUS CLAIM MIGHT PROFITABLY SUSPEND
PAYMENT UNTIL THE HIGHER-PRIORITY TAKERS DIED. 

WE REJECT THE CONCLUSION AND ITS PREMISES.  THE ASSERTED DISTINCTION
ASSUMES THAT WHEN CONGRESS IN SEC. 602(I) CONDITIONED PAYMENT TO
BENEFICIARIES ON THEIR "BEING ALIVE TO RECEIVE SUCH PAYMENTS" IT MEANT
SOMETHING ELSE; THAT IT EXEMPTED, WITHOUT WORDS OR OTHER INDICATION,
INSTALLMENTS ACCRUED BUT NOT YET PAID.  BUT TO READ SUCH LANGUAGE INTO
SUBSECTION (I) STRIPS IT OF SIGNIFICANCE; IF LIMITED IN APPLICATION TO
UNMATURED INSTALLMENTS THE STRICTURES OF THAT SUBSECTION WOULD BE MERE
SURPLUSAGE, FORBIDDING WHAT THE PRIORITY LADDER OF SEC. 602(H)(3) IN
ANY EVENT COULD NOT LOGICALLY PERMIT.  WE CANNOT SO NULLIFY THE CLEAR
IMPORT OF SUBSECTION (I).  IN DRAFTING THE 1940 STATUTE, CONGRESS MUST
HAVE BEEN FULLY COGNIZANT OF INSURANCE LEGISLATION OF THE PRIOR WAR. 
THE 1917 WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT WAS WELL UNDERSTOOD TO PROHIBIT PAYMENT
OF ACCRUED INSTALLMENTS TO THE ESTATES OF BENEFICIARIES WHO DID NOT
LIVE TO TAKE THEIR INTENDED SHARES; (FN16) THE VERY CONTENTION MADE
HERE TODAY WAS THEN EXAMINED AND REJECTED.  (FN17)  NO PEACETIME
AMENDMENTS, AS THOSE WHICH IN 1919 AND 1924 SPECIFICALLY ALTERED THE
DELIBERATE WARTIME RESULT, CAN AID THE CONTENTION PRESENTED TODAY. 
(FN18) THE CONCLUSION IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT WHEN IN 1940 THE LAW
CONDITIONED PAYMENTS ON THE BENEFICIARY'S BEING ALIVE TO RECEIVE THEM,
CONGRESS SAID WHAT IT MEANT AND MEANT WHAT IT SAID.  WERE MORE NEEDED,
THE CONSISTENT COURSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE UNDER THE ACTS OF 1917
AND 1940 APPLIED THE STATUTES TO BAR PAYMENTS TO DECEASED
BENEFICIARIES' ESTATES; (FN19) THAT FACTOR, TOO, MUST BE ACCORDED
WEIGHT.  UNITED STATES V. ZAZOVE, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. CITIZENS LOAN
& TRUST CO., 316 U.S. 109 (1942); UNITED STATES V. MADIGAN, 300 U.S.
500 (1937).  WE ARE NOT MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT UNANTICIPATED DELAY IN
THE PAYMENT OF POLICY PROCEEDS MAY WITHHOLD FROM A BENEFICIARY THE
FUNDS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED HIM TO GET; SEVEN YEARS AND THREE DEATHS
HAVE NOT YET BROUGHT THIS LITIGATION TO AN END.  BUT WE CANNOT
APPORTION THE BLAME FOR THIS CRUEL DELAY.  AND WE MAY SURELY NOT
SPECULATE THAT THE OFFICIALS ENTRUSTED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ACT WOULD ATTEMPT TO ENRICH OTHER BENEFICIARIES OR THE TREASURY ITSELF
BY A SARDONIC WAITING GAME. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT IN THIS CRISIS LEGISLATION CONGRESS, FULLY AWARE OF
THE SOMETIMES INEVITABLE DELAYS IN PAYMENT, PREFERRED THE OCCASIONALLY
HARSH RESULT TO A COURSE OF ACTION WHICH WOULD PERMIT FUNDS INTENDED
FOR LIVING MEMBERS OF THE NARROW STATUTORY CLASS OF PERMISSIBLE TAKERS
TO SEEP DOWN TO AN ENLARGED CLASS OF SUB-BENEFICIARIES CREATED NOT BY
THE ACT ITSELF BUT BY INTENDED BENEFICIARIES' TESTAMENTARY PLANS. 
COURTS MAY NOT FLOUT SO UNMISTAKABLE A LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, EXPRESSED
IN SO CLEAR A CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND.  UNITED STATES V. CITIZENS LOAN &
TRUST CO., SUPRA; WISSNER V. WISSNER, 338 U.S. 655 (1950).  WE HOLD
THAT THE AWARD OF ACCRUED INSTALLMENTS TO THE ESTATES OF DECEASED
BENEFICIARIES CANNOT STAND.    THERE REMAINS THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
THE NATURAL MOTHER AND THE UNITED STATES.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT
BECAUSE BESSIE, THE STEPMOTHER, HAD STOOD IN LOCO PARENTIS TO THE
INSURED AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, SHE WAS THE MATERNAL PARENT "WHO LAST
BORE THAT RELATIONSHIP" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 602(H)(3)(C);
CONSEQUENTLY CLARA BELLE, THE NATURAL MOTHER, DESPITE A DISTRICT COURT
FINDING THAT SHE, TOO, "LAST BORE THAT RELATIONSHIP," WAS DISPLACED AND
FOREVER LOST ANY RIGHT TO TAKE BY DEVOLUTION UNDER THE ACT.  IN
ESSENCE, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT NO MORE THAN ONE PARENT OF EACH SEX MAY
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY MEET THE TEST IMPOSED BY THE ACT; THE "LAST" PARENT
TAKES ALL, TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS.  AND SINCE THE "LAST" PARENT IS
NOW DEAD, NO ONE MAY TAKE. 

WE CANNOT AGREE.  WHILE THE CONTENTION HAS THE MERIT OF SIMPLICITY,
SIMPLICITY CANNOT SUPPLANT STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.  SECTION
602(H)(3)(C), TOO, HAS A HISTORICAL SETTING.  THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE
INSURANCE ACT AS ENACTED IN 1940 CONFINED THE CLASS OF DEVOLUTIONARY
TAKERS TO THE SPOUSE AND BLOOD RELATIVES OF THE INSURED.  (FN20)  SO
WRITTEN THE LEGISLATION PROVED UNSATISFACTORY IN PRACTICE.  AS
CONSTRUED, THAT PROVISION REQUIRED PAYMENT OF PROCEEDS TO AN INSURED'S
NATURAL PARENTS THOUGH THEY HAD ABANDONED HIM TO BE RAISED AND
SUPPORTED WHOLLY BY FOSTER PARENTS, THE LATTER BEING EXCLUDED FROM
PARTICIPATION BY THE ACT.  (FN21)  UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE VETERANS'
ADMINISTRATOR, CONGRESS IN 1942 AMENDED THE ACT TO FORECLOSE THAT
RESULT.  PERSONS WHO STOOD IN LOCO PARENTIS TO THE INSURED FOR AT LEAST
ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS ENTRY INTO ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE WERE INCLUDED
WITHIN THE ACT'S DEFINITION OF "PARENT."  AND THEY QUALIFIED AS TAKERS
BY DEVOLUTION IF THEY "LAST BORE THAT RELATIONSHIP" TO THE INSURED,
(FN22) AN ESSENTIAL STATUTORY CONDITION TO PRECLUDE THE PARCELING OUT
OF PROCEEDS AMONG A SERIES OF TRANSIENT HOSTS AND TO ASSURE FULL
BENEFITS TO THOSE MOST LIKELY TO MERIT THE INSURED'S FINANCIAL
SUPPORT.  THE THRUST OF THE AMENDMENT THUS WAS DIRECTED AT THE
INCLUSION OF WORTHY FOSTER PARENTS, NOT THE EXCLUSION OF NATURAL
PARENTS HOWEVER DESERVING. 

IT MAY WELL BE THAT ORDINARILY A FOSTER RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT BEGIN
UNTIL NATURAL PARENTAL TIES, REALISTICALLY VIEWED, ARE SEVERED; IF SO,
THE FOSTER PARENT BEARS THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP WHEN THE NATURAL
PARENT HAS CEASED TO BE SUCH IN TRUTH AND FACT.  AND IN THAT CASE, THE
CLEAR INTENT OF THE 1942 AMENDMENTS WOULD DEMAND THE EXCLUSION OF THE
NATURAL PARENT FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDS.   BUT SINCE THAT
DETERMINATION, BASED ON REALITIES, NOT STATUS, NECESSARILY MUST DEPEND
ON THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE, IT IS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE
COMPETENCE OF OTHERS WHO ARE CLOSER TO THE LIVING FACTS.  HERE THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP CONTINUED UNTIL THE
INSURED'S DEATH, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED THAT "THERE IS NO
FINDING OR EVIDENCE OF ANY ESTRANGEMENT, TO SAY NOTHING OF ABANDONMENT,
OR EVEN ANY LACK OF PARENTAL FEELING, BETWEEN THE INSURED AND HIS
MOTHER, CLARA BELLE."  (FN23)  UNABLE TO FREEZE INTO FORMULA THE SUBTLE
FAMILY RELATIONS THAT MAY CONSTITUTE A GENUINE PARENTAL BOND, WE MUST
ACCEPT WHAT THE COURTS BELOW DEEMED A CONTINUING PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN MOTHER AND SON. 

SINCE WE HOLD THAT CLARA BELLE HENNING, THE INSURED'S NATURAL MOTHER,
IS A SURVIVING BENEFICIARY ENTITLED TO TAKE BY DEVOLUTION UNDER SEC.
602(H)(3)(C), THE GOVERNMENT MAY OF COURSE NOT INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 602(J) TO WITHHOLD, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE
INSURANCE FUND, PAYMENT OF THE INSTALLMENTS ACCRUED FROM THE DATE OF
THE INSURED'S DEATH.  IT EQUALLY FOLLOWS THAT THE METHOD OF
DISTRIBUTION OF INSTALLMENTS TO CLARA BELLE, AS "THE BENEFICIARY TO
WHOM PAYMENT IS FIRST MADE," MUST DEPEND ON HER AGE AT THE DATE OF
POLICY MATURITY, SUBJECT TO HER ELECTION OF AN OPTIONAL SETTLEMENT AS
PROVIDED BY SEC. 602(H)(1) AND (2) AND APPLICABLE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT.  (FN24)  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN 1946, THE ACT AMENDED PROSPECTIVELY IN SEVERAL MATERIAL
RESPECTS.  60 STAT. 781 ET SEQ. SINCE THE POLICY BEFORE US MATURED IN
1945, THE 1946 AMENDMENTS DO NOT GOVERN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
PROCEEDS HERE IN ISSUE. 

FN2  THE INSURED AT ONE TIME HAD DESIGNATED HIS WIFE AS BENEFICIARY
AND HIS FATHER AS CONTINGENT BENEFICIARY.  SUBSEQUENTLY HE PROPERLY
CHANGED THIS DESIGNATION AND NAMED HIS FATHER AS SOLE BENEFICIARY.  THE
MARRIAGE WAS DISSOLVED PRIOR TO THE INSURED'S DEATH.  THE EARLIER
DESIGNATION IS THUS NOT MATERIAL HERE. 

FN3  93 F. SUPP. 380 (D. MASS. 1950). 

FN4  191 F.2D 588 (1ST CIR. 1951).  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND
REMANDED FOR PROPER COMPUTATION OF THE INSTALLMENTS WHICH IT FOUND DUE
THE VARIOUS PARTIES.  IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, WE ARE
NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH THAT PART OF ITS HOLDING. 

FN5  191 F.2D 194 (1951), CERT. GRANTED, 343 U.S. 925, DECIDED THIS
DAY, POST, P. 82. 

FN6  E.G., SEC. 403, W.R.I.A. OF 1917, 40 STAT. 410; SEC. 602 ET
SEQ., N.S.L.I. ACT OF 1940, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 802 ET SEQ., SEE UNITED
STATES V. ZAZOVE, 334 U.S. 602, 616 (1948); SERVICEMEN'S INDEMNITY ACT
OF 1951, 38 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 851 ET SEQ.; S. REP. NO. 91, 82D
CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 6, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN7  SEC. 402; 40 STAT. 409. 

FN8  CASSARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 271 F. 486; SALZER V. UNITED
STATES, 300 F. 764. 

FN9  SEC. 602(G); 38 U.S.C. SEC. 802(G). 

FN10  SEC. 3; 38 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 852. 

FN11  SECS. 4, 13, 19; 41 STAT. 371, 375, 376. 

FN12  SECS. 3, 26; 43 STAT. 607, 614; 38 U.S.C. SECS. 424, 451. 

FN13  SECS. 4, 9; 60 STAT. 782, 785; 38 U.S.C. SECS. 802(G), (U). 

FN14  AS TO THE 1946 AMENDMENTS, SEE TESTIMONY OF MR. HAROLD W.
BREINING, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR INSURANCE, VETERANS'
ADMINISTRATION, HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
79TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 5772 AND H.R. 5773 (P. 1): 

"THE FUNDAMENTAL REASONS FOR LIBERALIZATION ARE THAT DURING THE WAR
THE BULK OF LOSSES ALL CAME FROM THE NATIONAL TREASURY.  THROUGH THIS
METHOD THE GOVERNMENT ASSUMED THE LOSSES DUE TO THE EXTRA HAZARDS OF
MILITARY AND NAVAL SERVICES.  SINCE THE GOVERNMENT DURING THE WAR BORE
THE MAJOR PART OF THE LOSSES IT WAS NOT FELT THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD
WANT TO PAY, INDIRECTLY THROUGH THIS CHANNEL, LARGE SUMS OF MONEY TO
PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE BENEFICIARIES ONLY BECAUSE OF SOME SPECULATION, OR
BECAUSE THE INSURED MIGHT WISH TO GIVE IT TO THEM AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
PERSONS WHO WERE LIKELY TO BE DEPENDENT OR TO WHOM THE INSURED MIGHT
OWE SOME SEMBLANCE OF A MORAL OBLIGATION.  THESE RESTRICTIONS
ORIGINALLY WERE PLACED IN THE LAW WITH THE CLEAR INTENT THAT THEY WOULD
BE ELIMINATED WHEN THE PERIOD OF THE EMERGENCY WAS OVER." 

FOR CONGRESSIONAL ATTITUDES IN ENACTING THE W.R.I.A. OF 1917, SEE,
E.G., 55 CONG. REC. 6761, 7690, AND H.R. REP. NO. 130, 65TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PT. 3, P. 5.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1940 ACT CONTAINS
LITTLE EXPRESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  THE ACT WAS PRESENTED WHILE
A CONTROVERSIAL REVENUE MEASURE WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION.  THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS ACCOMPANYING THE REVENUE BILL OF WHICH THE N.S.L.I. ACT BECAME
PART CONTAIN NO REFERENCE TO THE INSURANCE LEGISLATION.  A CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE REPORT DEVOTED LESS THAN A PAGE TO THE INSURANCE ACT.  SEE
H.R. REP. NO. 2894, S. REP. NO. 2114, H.R. REP. NO. 3002, ALL OF THE
76TH CONG., 3D SESS.

FN15  MCCULLOUGH V. SMITH, 293 U.S. 228 (1934); CF. UNITED STATES V.
CITIZENS LOAN & TRUST CO., 316 U.S. 209 (1942), BOTH CASES INVOLVING
THE 1925 AMENDMENTS TO THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT.  43 STAT. 1310, 38
U.S.C. SEC. 514. 

FN16  TREASURY DEPT., BUREAU OF WAR RISK INSURANCE, DIVISION OF
MILITARY AND NAVAL INSURANCE, BULLETIN NO. 1, P. 4 (1917); CASSARELLO
V. UNITED STATES, 271 F. 486 (1919). 

FN17  24 COMP. DEC. 733 (1918).  CF. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 77 U.S. APP. D.C. 243, 134 F.2D 674 (1943);
UNITED STATES V. LEE, 101 F.2D 472 (1939), WHICH INTERPRETED 38 U.S.C.
SEC. 516, PROVIDING FOR REINSTATEMENT OF LAPSED WORLD WAR I POLICIES,
AS FORBIDDING THE PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENTS TO THE ESTATES OF DECEASED
BENEFICIARIES.  THESE HOLDINGS TURNED ON THE SECTION'S ENUMERATION OF A
RESTRICTED CLASS OF PERMISSIBLE TAKERS; ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS
WERE HELD NOT TO FALL WITHIN THAT CLASS.  THE PERTINENT TERMS OF THAT
ENACTMENT ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL WITH PORTIONS OF SECS. 602(G) AND (H) OF
THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT WE MUST CONSTRUE TODAY. 

FN18  SINCE THIS POLICY MATURED IN 1945, WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED
WITH WHATEVER EFFECTS THE 1946 AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE
INSURANCE ACT MIGHT HAVE ON THIS OR SIMILAR CASES. 

FN19  SEE 24 COMP. DEC. 733 (1918); BULLETIN, NOTE 16, SUPRA;
COMMUNICATION TO THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE
SOLICITOR, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, DATED MARCH 12, 1952, REPRINTED AS
APPENDIX B, BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES. 

FN20  SECS. 602(G) AND (H)(3)(C), 54 STAT. 1010.  THE INSURED,
HOWEVER, WAS PERMITTED TO DESIGNATE PERSONS IN LOCO PARENTIS AS
BENEFICIARIES. 

FN21  S. REP. NO. 1430, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2; H.R. REP. NO.
2312, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4.  CF. S. REP. NO. 91, 82D CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 12; H.R. REP. NO. 6, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 14. 

FN22  SECS. 7 TO 9, 56 STAT. 659; 38 U.S.C. SECS. 801(F), (G), AND
(H)(3)(C).  CF. SEC. 3 OF THE SERVICEMEN'S INDEMNITY ACT OF 1951, 38
U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 852. 

FN23  191 F.2D, AT 593. 

FN24  38 U.S.C. SEC. 802(H)(1) AND (2); 38 CFR, 1944 SUPP., SEC.
10.3475 ET SEQ., APPLICABLE TO THIS POLICY WHICH MATURED IN 1945. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, CONCURRING IN
PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. 

I AGREE WITH THE OPINION AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT INSOFAR AS IT
HOLDS THAT NO INSTALLMENTS MAY BE PAID TO THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE ESTATES OF THE RESPECTIVE DECEASED BENEFICIARIES.  HOWEVER, I FEEL
OBLIGED TO CONCLUDE THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, ONLY THE
NATURAL FATHER AND THE FOSTER MOTHER OF THE INSURED LAST BORE TO HIM,
AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, THE RELATIONSHIP OF PARENTS.  THAT LAST
RELATIONSHIP WAS THEN TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERYONE, EVEN TO THE
EXCLUSION OF HIS NATURAL MOTHER.  CONSEQUENTLY, UPON THE DEATH OF THOSE
TWO PERSONS WHO LAST BORE THE RELATIONSHIP OF PARENT TO THE INSURED,
THERE REMAINED NO PERSON ENTITLED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT TO RECEIVE
ANY OF THE PROCEEDS AS A CONTINGENT BENEFICIARY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
PROCEEDS SHOULD BE WITHHELD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE
LIFE INSURANCE FUND. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS, DISSENTING. 

PERHAPS A HALFHEARTED DISSENT, LIKE AN EXTEMPORANEOUS SPEECH, IS ONLY
WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN UPON.  WE DO NO MORE THAN POINT OUT THAT
WE WOULD PREFER A MORE BENIGN CONSTRUCTION OF THESE COMPLEX STATUTES
WHICH WOULD BE EQUALLY REASONABLE. 

THE PROBLEM IS OF THAT RECURRING SORT WELL DESCRIBED BY JUDGE LEARNED
HAND AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE ISSUE INVOLVES THE BAFFLING QUESTION WHICH COMES UP SO OFTEN IN
THE INTERPRETATION OF ALL KINDS OF WRITINGS; HOW FAR IS IT PROPER TO
READ THE WORDS OUT OF THEIR LITERAL MEANING IN ORDER TO REALIZE THEIR
OVERRIDING PURPOSE?  IT IS IDLE TO ADD TO THE ACRES OF PAPER AND
STREAMS OF INK THAT HAVE BEEN DEVOTED TO THE DISCUSSION.  WHEN WE ASK
WHAT CONGRESS 'INTENDED,' USUALLY THERE CAN BE NO ANSWER, IF WHAT WE
MEAN IS WHAT ANY PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS ACTUALLY HAD IN MIND. 
FLINCH AS WE MAY, WHAT WE DO, AND MUST DO, IS TO PROJECT OURSELVES, AS
BEST WE CAN, INTO THE POSITION OF THOSE WHO UTTERED THE WORDS, AND TO
IMPUTE TO THEM HOW THEY WOULD HAVE DEALT WITH THE CONCRETE OCCASION. 
HE WHO SUPPOSES THAT HE CAN BE CERTAIN OF THE RESULT, IS THE LEAST
FITTED FOR THE ATTEMPT."  UNITED STATES V. KLINGER, 199 F.2D 645, 648. 

THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF CONGRESS IN 38 U.S.C. SEC. 802(I) WE WOULD
READ WITH EMPHASIS AS FOLLOWS: "THE RIGHT OF ANY BENEFICIARY TO PAYMENT
OF ANY INSTALLMENTS SHALL BE CONDITIONED UPON HIS OR HER BEING ALIVE TO
RECEIVE SUCH PAYMENTS."  THIS, ON OUR READING, SAYS THAT A
BENEFICIARY'S CLAIM TO AN INSTALLMENT IS MATURED AND HIS RIGHT IS
PERFECTED WHEN THE INSTALLMENT BECOMES DUE AND HE IS ALIVE TO RECEIVE
IT WHETHER OR NOT HE THEN ACTUALLY REDUCES IT TO POSSESSION.  UNDER THE
COURT'S CONSTRUCTION, NO "RIGHT" TO AN INSTALLMENT COMES INTO EXISTENCE
UNTIL THE CLAIMANT HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED PAYMENT.  ON THAT EVENT, WE
WOULD THINK HE WOULD CEASE TO HAVE THE "RIGHT."  IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT
THE COURT WOULD DO ABOUT THE CASE WHERE A CHECK WAS SENT TO PAY THE
CLAIM AND THE CLAIMANT DIED WHILE IT WAS IN THE MAILS OR AFTER HE HAD
RECEIVED THE CHECK BUT BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT. 
BUT TO US THIS LANGUAGE MEANS THAT INSTALLMENTS ACCRUE TO A BENEFICIARY
WHEN THEY FALL DUE DURING HIS LIFETIME AND THEREUPON BECOME HIS OF
RIGHT. 

WE DO NOT READ SEC. 802(J) AS TAKING AWAY WHAT SEC. 802(I) GRANTS. 
IT MAY BE READ WITH THIS EMPHASIS:  "NO INSTALLMENTS OF SUCH INSURANCE
SHALL BE PAID TO THE HEIRS OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AS SUCH OF THE
INSURED OR OF ANY BENEFICIARY  ...  ."  JUST WHAT "AS SUCH" ADDS OR
SUBTRACTS MAY BE DEBATED, BUT TO US THE PHRASE, IF IT IS TO HAVE ANY
SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CONTEXT, MEANS THAT PAYMENTS CANNOT ACCRUE TO AN
ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR, BECAUSE A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AS SUCH
CANNOT BECOME A BENEFICIARY.  BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE CANNOT COLLECT INSTALLMENTS WHICH HAD BECOME THE "RIGHT"
OF DECEDENT DURING HIS LIFETIME. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION WOULD AVOID WHAT THE COURT ADMITS IS A HARSH AND
CAPRICIOUS RESULT.  IT SEEMS STRANGE, IN DEALING WITH A BEREAVED
BENEFICIARY, IF OUR GOVERNMENT MAKES A PROMISE TO THE EAR TO BE BROKEN
TO THE HOPE.  UNDER THE COURT'S VIEW, THOUGH THE BENEFICIARY IS ALIVE
TO RECEIVE THE PAYMENT AND THEREFORE HAS THE STATUTORY "RIGHT" TO IT,
ANY EVENT THAT DELAYS ITS ACTUAL PAYMENT MAY CANCEL HIS "RIGHT."  BY AN
ADVERSE CLAIM, HOWEVER FICTITIOUS, OR A LITIGATION, HOWEVER FRIVOLOUS,
A JUNIOR BENEFICIARY MAY DELAY PAYMENTS AND GAMBLE ON WINNING THEM FOR
HIMSELF THROUGH DEATH OF THE SENIOR BENEFICIARY.  SOME PERIOD OF
WAITING IS INEVITABLE IN THE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS IN ANY EVENT, AND WE
ALL KNOW THE TENDENCY OF CLAIM PAPERS TO SHUFFLE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN
WASHINGTON DESKS WHILE TIME, WHICH MEANS LITTLE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
STAFF, MEANS EVERYTHING TO THE CLAIMANT.  WE WOULD NOT PUT UPON
BENEFICIARIES ALL RISKS CAUSED BY DELAY AND THUS MAKE THEIR STATUTORY
RIGHTS AS CONTINGENT AS LOTTERY TICKETS.  BENEFICIARIES OF THIS CLASS
ARE OFTEN DEPENDENTS, LEFT IN URGENT NEED BY DEATH OF THE INSURED. 
WHEN RED TAPE OR LITIGIOUSNESS DELAYS THE PROMISED INCOME, SHOULD NOT
THE BENEFICIARY WHILE WAITING TO HEAR FROM WASHINGTON HAVE A FIRM RIGHT
TO ACCRUED INSTALLMENTS ON WHICH HE OR HIS ESTATE COULD DEPEND?  THE
REASONING THAT WOULD DENY THE ASSET TO THE ESTATE MAY ALSO DENY THE
NEEDY BENEFICIARY CREDIT. 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE COURT'S ADMITTEDLY HARSH RESULT IS THE
FAIREST PERMISSIBLE INTERPRETATION OF THIS STATUTE.  WE WOULD ALLOW THE
ESTATE OF A BENEFICIARY TO RECOVER PAYMENTS THAT FALL DUE WHILE THE
BENEFICIARY IS ALIVE TO RECEIVE THEM.  ON THIS POINT ALONE DO WE
DISSENT. 
..END :












BAUMET V. UNITED STATES 344 U.S. 82 


NO. 39.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1952.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 17, 1952.  - 191
F.2D 194, REVERSED. 


AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH IN 1942 OF A SERVICEMAN INSURED UNDER THE
NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF 1940, HIS POLICY DESIGNATED AN
UNCLE AS SOLE BENEFICIARY.  THE INSURED'S NATURAL FATHER INSTITUTED AN
ACTION TO CLAIM THE PROCEEDS.  THE UNCLE DIED WHILE THAT ACTION WAS
PENDING.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE UNCLE AND THE UNCLE'S WIFE
HAD STOOD IN LOCO PARENTIS TO THE INSURED FROM 1938 UNTIL THE DEATH OF
THE INSURED; AND THAT, LONG BEFORE THE INSURED'S DEATH, HIS NATURAL
FATHER HAD ABANDONED HIM.  HELD: 

1.  AN AWARD TO THE DECEASED UNCLE'S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE CANNOT
BE SUSTAINED.  UNITED STATES V. HENNING, ANTE, P. 66.  PP. 83-84. 

2.  SINCE THE NATURAL FATHER HAD ABANDONED HIS SON AND THUS CEASED TO
BE A PARENT IN TRUTH AND FACT, HE IS NOT A PARENT "WHO LAST BORE THAT
RELATIONSHIP" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 602(H)(3)(C) AND THEREFORE MAY
NOT CLAIM THE PROCEEDS.  PP. 84-85. 

3.  THE INSURED'S FOSTER MOTHER (THE UNCLE'S WIFE), AS THE SOLE
SURVIVOR OF THOSE WHO "LAST BORE" THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE
INSURED, WAS ENTITLED IN HER OWN RIGHT TO ALL THE ACCRUED POLICY
PROCEEDS.  P. 85. 

BAUMET ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION TO DETERMINE THE BENEFICIARY UNDER A POLICY OF NATIONAL
SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE, THE DISTRICT COURT MADE AN AWARD OF PART OF THE
PROCEEDS TO THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A DECEASED BENEFICIARY.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  191 F.2D 194.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 925.  REVERSED, P. 85. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BASED ON CONFLICTING CLAIMS TO THE PROCEEDS OF A NATIONAL SERVICE
LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO UNITED STATES V.
HENNING, ANTE, P. 66, DECIDED TODAY. 

THE CONTROVERSY IS BOTTOMED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS:  AT THE TIME OF
THE INSURED SERVICEMAN'S DEATH IN 1942, HIS POLICY DESIGNATED JOHN J.
PETERS, HIS UNCLE, AS SOLE BENEFICIARY.  CHALLENGING THE UNCLE'S
STANDING AS A PERMISSIBLE BENEFICIARY UNDER THE STATUTE, WILLIAM
BAUMET, THE INSURED'S NATURAL FATHER, INSTITUTED AN ACTION TO CLAIM THE
PROCEEDS.  (FN1)  BEFORE THAT ACTION CAME TO TRIAL, JOHN J. PETERS
DIED.  (FN2)  AFTER A SUBSEQUENT TRIAL OF THE CAUSE, THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND THAT JOHN J. PETERS AND HIS WIFE JULIE PETERS HAD STOOD IN LOCO
PARENTIS TO THE INSURED FROM 1938 UNTIL HIS DEATH, AND THAT THE NATURAL
FATHER'S CONTEMPORANEOUS CONDUCT HAD AMOUNTED TO AN ABANDONMENT OF HIS
SON.  (FN3)  CONCLUDING THAT JOHN J. PETERS, AS A PERSON IN LOCO
PARENTIS, WAS A VALIDLY DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY UNDER THE ACT, (FN4) IT
DISMISSED BAUMET'S COMPLAINT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT AWARDED THE
INSTALLMENTS WHICH HAD MATURED DURING JOHN J. PETERS' LIFETIME TO JULIE
PETERS AS HIS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, AND THE INSTALLMENTS THEREAFTER
MATURING TO JULIE INDIVIDUALLY AS A PERSON IN LOCO PARENTIS WHO "LAST
BORE" THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE INSURED.  (FN5)  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  (FN6)  IT AGREED THAT "AFTER 1938 HIS FATHER NEVER
SAW HIM, MANIFESTED NO INTEREST IN HIS CAREER AND CONTRIBUTED NOTHING
TOWARD HIS SUPPORT"; IN FACT, THERE WAS "A PERMANENT ESTRANGEMENT
BETWEEN THEM."  (FN7)  AND IT APPROVED THE DISTRICT COURT'S ALLOCATION
OF THE POLICY'S PROCEEDS.  IN SO HOLDING, THE COURT OF APPEALS ASSUMED
THAT ESTATES OF DECEASED BENEFICIARIES WERE PROPER TAKERS, AND THAT THE
FOSTER PARENTS HAD LONG SUPPLANTED THE NATURAL FATHER IN THE PARENTAL
RELATIONSHIP TO THE INSURED.  IN ANY EVENT, THE COURT THOUGHT, "THE
INSURED CAN HAVE BUT ONE MATERNAL PARENT AND ONE PATERNAL PARENT." 
(FN8)  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 343 U.S. 925. 

FOR THE REASONS DETAILED IN UNITED STATES V. HENNING, SUPRA, WE HOLD
THAT ESTATES OF DECEASED BENEFICIARIES MAY NOT TAKE PROCEEDS UNDER THE
ACT.  THE AWARD TO JOHN J. PETERS' PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE MUST
THEREFORE FALL.  IN REGARD TO THE NATURAL FATHER'S CLAIM, THE DISTRICT
COURT'S FINDINGS SHARPLY REVEAL THAT WILLIAM BAUMET LONG BEFORE HIS
SON'S DEATH HAD "ABANDONED HIS SON" AND CEASED TO BE A PARENT IN TRUTH
AND FACT.  HE MAY NOT NOW RETRIEVE THE DISCARDED PATERNAL ROBES TO LAY
CLAIM TO THE POLICY PROCEEDS; TO RULE OTHERWISE WOULD FOIL THE PLAIN
INTENT OF THE 1942 AMENDMENTS.  SINCE THE FOSTER PARENTS, NOT HE, "LAST
BORE" THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP, HE CANNOT QUALIFY AS A TAKER BY
DEVOLUTION UNDER SEC. 602(H)(3)(C) OF THE ACT.  FOR THAT REASON WE HOLD
THAT THE FOSTER MOTHER, JULIE PETERS, AS THE SOLE SURVIVOR OF THOSE WHO
"LAST BORE" THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP, IN HER OWN RIGHT MUST TAKE ALL
ACCRUED POLICY PROCEEDS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE INSURED'S NATURAL MOTHER DIED IN 1936, AND NO CLAIM IS
RAISED ON HER BEHALF.  HOWEVER, THE INFANT HALF-BROTHERS AND HALF
SISTERS OF THE INSURED BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM FILED A CLAIM
ASSERTING THAT THEY FOLLOWED THEIR FATHER WILLIAM BAUMET ON THE
PRIORITY LADDER OF SEC. 602(H)(3); 38 U.S.C. SEC. 802(H)(3).  BUT THEIR
STANDING UNDER SEC. 602(H)(3)(D) IS CONDITIONED ON THE ABSENCE OF
TAKERS QUALIFYING UNDER SEC. 602(H)(3)(C).  SINCE WE FIND SUCH A TAKER,
THEIR CLAIMS NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED HERE. 

FN2  JULIE PETERS, AS JOHN'S EXECUTRIX, MOVED FOR SUBSTITUTION IN HIS
STEAD.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTION, ON THE GROUND THAT JOHN
J. PETERS' RIGHTS WERE EXTINGUISHED BY HIS DEATH.  81 F. SUPP. 1012
(S.D.N.Y. 1948).  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT ACCRUED
INSTALLMENTS PASSED TO A DECEASED BENEFICIARY'S ESTATE.  177 F.2D 806
(2D CIR. 1949), CERT. DENIED, 339 U.S. 923 (1950).  A SUBSEQUENT TRIAL
FOLLOWED. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT'S UNREPORTED FINDINGS AND OPINION ARE
REPRINTED AT PP. 10 TO 24 OF THE APPENDIX TO THE BRIEF FOR THE UNITED
STATES. 

FN4  SECS. 601(F), 602(G); 38 U.S.C. SECS. 801(F), 802(G). 

FN5  SEC. 602(H)(3)(C); 38 U.S.C. SEC. 802(H)(3)(C). 

FN6  BAUMET V. UNITED STATES, 191 F.2D 194 (2D CIR. 1951). 

FN7  ID., AT 195-196. 

FN8  IBID. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON IN UNITED
STATES V. HENNING, ANTE, P. 79, DECIDED THIS DATE, DISSENT FROM THE
COURT'S REFUSAL TO PERMIT THE DECEASED BENEFICIARY'S ESTATE TO SHARE IN
THE PROCEEDS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I THINK WILLIAM BAUMET AND JULIE PETERS SHOULD SHARE THE ACCRUED
POLICY PROCEEDS PARI PASSU.  I BELIEVE THAT THE NATURAL FATHER AS WELL
AS THE FOSTER MOTHER "LAST BORE" THE PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE
INSURED.  NO LAW, NO DICTIONARY, NO FORM OF WORDS CAN CHANGE THAT
BIOLOGICAL FACT.  THE NATURAL FATHER, AS WELL AS THE NATURAL MOTHER,
REMAINS A PARENT NO MATTER HOW ESTRANGED PARENT AND CHILD MAY BECOME. 
A STRANGER MAY BY CONDUCT BECOME A FOSTER PARENT; BUT NO CONDUCT CAN
TRANSMUTE A NATURAL PARENT INTO A STRANGER. 
..END :





SWEENEY V. WOODALL 344 U.S. 86 


NO. 100.  CERTIORARI GRANTED AND JUDGMENT REVERSED, NOV. 17, 1952.  -
194 F.2D 542, REVERSED. 


A FUGITIVE FROM AN ALABAMA PRISON WAS ARRESTED IN OHIO AND HELD THERE
FOR RETURN TO ALABAMA PURSUANT TO PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY THE
GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA.  ALTHOUGH HE HAD MADE NO ATTEMPT TO RAISE SUCH A
QUESTION IN THE COURTS OF ALABAMA, HE CLAIMED IN OHIO THAT HIS
CONFINEMENT IN ALABAMA AMOUNTED, AND WOULD AMOUNT AGAIN, TO CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CONTRARY TO THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS;
AND HE APPLIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO AN OHIO STATE COURT FOR RELEASE ON A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  AFTER EXHAUSTING HIS REMEDIES IN THE OHIO
COURTS, HE APPLIED TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN OHIO FOR HABEAS
CORPUS ON THE SAME GROUNDS.  ALABAMA WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT
PROCEEDING.  HELD:  THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT ENTERTAIN THE
APPLICATION ON ITS MERITS.  PP. 87-90. 

(A)  THE SCHEME OF INTERSTATE RENDITION SET FORTH IN ART. IV, SEC. 2,
CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTES THEREUNDER CONTEMPLATES THE
PROMPT RETURN OF A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE AS SOON AS THE STATE FROM
WHICH HE FLED DEMANDS HIM; THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT CONTEMPLATE AN
APPEARANCE BY THAT STATE IN THE ASYLUM STATE TO DEFEND AGAINST CLAIMED
ABUSES OF THE FORMER STATE'S PRISON SYSTEM.  PP. 89-90. 

(B)  THE PRISONER SHOULD TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HIS TREATMENT
BY ALABAMA IN THE COURTS OF THAT STATE, WHERE ALL PARTIES MAY BE HEARD,
WHERE ALL PERTINENT TESTIMONY WILL BE READILY AVAILABLE AND WHERE
SUITABLE RELIEF, IF ANY IS NECESSARY, MAY BE FASHIONED.  P. 90. 

SWEENEY, SHERIFF, V. WOODALL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  194 F.2D 542.  ON PETITION TO
THIS COURT, CERTIORARI GRANTED AND JUDGMENT REVERSED, P. 90. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE RESPONDENT IS A FUGITIVE FROM A PRISON IN ALABAMA.  THE GOVERNOR
OF THAT STATE INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS FOR HIS RETURN, AND RESPONDENT WAS
ARRESTED IN OHIO.  PETITIONER, THE SHERIFF OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO,
NOW HOLDS RESPONDENT FOR DELIVERY TO THE AUTHORITIES OF ALABAMA. 

IN AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT HIS RENDITION TO ALABAMA, RESPONDENT APPLIED
TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.  HE ALLEGED THAT DURING HIS CONFINEMENT IN ALABAMA HE HAD BEEN
BRUTALLY MISTREATED, THAT HE WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO SUCH MISTREATMENT
AND WORSE IF RETURNED.  INVOKING THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS,
HE ASSERTED THAT HIS PAST CONFINEMENT HAD AMOUNTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT, THAT ANY FUTURE CONFINEMENT ADMINISTERED BY ALABAMA WOULD
SIMILARLY BE IN VIOLATION OF RIGHTS SECURED TO HIM UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  RESPONDENT ASKED THAT PETITIONER'S EFFORTS TO RETURN HIM
TO THE CUSTODY OF ALABAMA BE HALTED AND THAT HE BE IMMEDIATELY
RELEASED. 

REFUSING TO HEAR THIS CLAIM ON ITS MERITS, THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DENIED RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION.  THIS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH DISTRICT.  88 OHIO APP. 202, 89
N.E.2D 493.  AN APPEAL TO THE STATE'S SUPREME COURT WAS DISMISSED.  152
OHIO ST. 368, 89 N.E.2D 494.  THIS COURT DENIED A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 945. 

RESPONDENT THEN APPLIED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, SEEKING HIS RELEASE UPON THE SAME GROUND
THERETOFORE URGED IN THE OHIO COURTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED HIS
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT HEARING EVIDENCE.  BUT THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, WITHOUT OPINION,
REMANDING THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A HEARING ON THE MERITS
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.  194 F.2D 542.  PETITIONER HAS NOW APPLIED
TO THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

RECENTLY, IN DYE V. JOHNSON, 338 U.S. 864 (1949), THIS COURT
CONSIDERED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN A SIMILAR CASE.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT HAD SUSTAINED AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS BY A FUGITIVE PRISONER FROM GEORGIA WHO ALLEGED, AS RESPONDENT
DOES NOW, THAT HIS CONFINEMENT IN THE DEMANDING STATE AMOUNTED TO CRUEL
AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
PRESENTED WITH A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THIS DECISION, WE
REVERSED, SUMMARILY, CITING EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114 (1944). 
SHORTLY AFTER OUR DECISION IN THE DYE CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AFFIRMED A DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL
OF A SIMILAR PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS FROM STILL ANOTHER FUGITIVE,
HOLDING THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE ASYLUM SHOULD NOT ENTERTAIN SUCH
APPLICATIONS.  JOHNSON V. MATTHEWS, 86 U.S. APP. D.C. 376, 182 F.2D 677
(1950).  (FN1) 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IN THE OTHERS, A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE HAS
ASKED THE FEDERAL COURT IN HIS ASYLUM TO PASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF HIS INCARCERATION IN THE DEMANDING STATE, ALTHOUGH
THE DEMANDING STATE IS NOT A PARTY BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT AND
ALTHOUGH HE HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO RAISE SUCH A QUESTION IN THE
DEMANDING STATE.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN THE FUGITIVE'S APPLICATION ON ITS
MERITS. 

RESPONDENT MAKES NO SHOWING THAT RELIEF IS UNAVAILABLE TO HIM IN THE
COURTS OF ALABAMA.  HAD HE NEVER ELUDED THE CUSTODY OF HIS FORMER
JAILERS HE CERTAINLY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO NO PRIVILEGE PERMITTING HIM
TO ATTACK ALABAMA'S PENAL PROCESS BY AN ACTION BROUGHT OUTSIDE THE
TERRITORIAL CONFINES OF ALABAMA IN A FORUM WHERE THERE WOULD BE NO ONE
TO APPEAR AND ANSWER FOR THAT STATE.  INDEED, AS A PRISONER OF ALABAMA,
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254, (FN2) AND UNDER THE
DOCTRINE OF EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO
EXHAUST ALL AVAILABLE REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS BEFORE MAKING ANY
APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN ALABAMA. 

BY RESORT TO A FORM OF "SELF HELP," RESPONDENT HAS CHANGED HIS STATUS
FROM THAT OF A PRISONER OF ALABAMA TO THAT OF A FUGITIVE FROM ALABAMA. 
BUT THIS SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE AUTHORITY OF THE ALABAMA COURTS TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF HIS IMPRISONMENT IN ALABAMA.  THE SCHEME OF
INTERSTATE RENDITION, AS SET FORTH IN BOTH THE CONSTITUTION (FN3) AND
THE STATUTES WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENACTED TO IMPLEMENT THE CONSTITUTION,
(FN4) CONTEMPLATES THE PROMPT RETURN OF A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE AS SOON
AS THE STATE FROM WHICH HE FLED DEMANDS HIM; THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT
CONTEMPLATE AN APPEARANCE BY ALABAMA IN RESPONDENT'S ASYLUM TO DEFEND
AGAINST THE CLAIMED ABUSES OF ITS PRISON SYSTEM.  (FN5) CONSIDERATIONS
FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM REQUIRE THAT THE PRISONER TEST THE
CLAIMED UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF HIS TREATMENT BY ALABAMA IN THE COURTS
OF THAT STATE.  RESPONDENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO INITIATE HIS SUIT IN
THE COURTS OF ALABAMA, WHERE ALL PARTIES MAY BE HEARD, WHERE ALL
PERTINENT TESTIMONY WILL BE READILY AVAILABLE AND WHERE SUITABLE
RELIEF, IF ANY IS NECESSARY, MAY BE FASHIONED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS ON ITS FACE, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
APPLICANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OHIO ON
THE MERITS OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM AGAINST PRISON OFFICIALS OF
ALABAMA. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, AND THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  IN OTHER SIMILAR CASES, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT, IN ROSS V. MIDDLEBROOKS, 188 F.2D 308 (1951), AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, IN DAVIS V. O'CONNELL, 185 F.2D 513
(1950), HAVE REACHED A LIKE RESULT.  IN UNITED STATES EX REL. JACKSON
V. RUTHAZER, 181 F.2D 588 (1950), THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT HELD THAT A FUGITIVE FROM GEORGIA WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A HEARING
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IN HIS ASYLUM ON THE GROUND THAT THE MERITS HAD
BEEN FULLY HEARD IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE ASYLUM AND THE FUGITIVE'S
CLAIM DISPROVED. 

FN2  "AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF A
PERSON IN CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT SHALL NOT
BE GRANTED UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS EXHAUSTED THE
REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, OR THAT THERE IS EITHER
AN ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE STATE CORRECTIVE PROCESS OR THE EXISTENCE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING SUCH PROCESS INEFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF THE PRISONER. 

"AN APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
ANY AVAILABLE PROCEDURE, THE QUESTION PRESENTED." 

FN3  U.S. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 2, CL. 2: 

"A PERSON CHARGED IN ANY STATE WITH TREASON, FELONY, OR OTHER CRIME,
WHO SHALL FLEE FROM JUSTICE, AND BE FOUND IN ANOTHER STATE, SHALL ON
DEMAND OF THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE FROM WHICH HE FLED, BE
DELIVERED UP, TO BE REMOVED TO THE STATE HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE
CRIME." 

FN4  1 STAT. 302, AS AMENDED, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3281. 

FN5  CF. DREW V. THAW, 235 U.S. 432 (1914). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION BECAUSE I AGREE THAT DUE REGARD FOR THE
RELATION OF THE STATES, ONE TO ANOTHER, IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM AND FOR
THAT OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THOSE OF THE STATES REQUIRES
THAT CLAIMS EVEN AS SERIOUS AS THOSE HERE URGED FIRST BE RAISED IN THE
COURTS OF THE DEMANDING STATE.  EVEN SO, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO EMPHASIZE
THAT IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS THAT THE PRISONER WOULD BE WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO RESORT TO THE
COURTS OF ALABAMA FOR PROTECTION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UPON HIS
RETURN TO ALABAMA.  WE CANNOT ASSUME UNLAWFUL ACTION OF THE PRISON
OFFICIALS WHICH WOULD PREVENT THE PETITIONER FROM INVOKING THE AID OF
THE LOCAL COURTS NOR READILY OPEN THE DOOR TO SUCH A CLAIM.  COMPARE
COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255.  OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM PRESUPPOSES
CONFIDENCE THAT A DEMANDING STATE WILL NOT EXPLOIT THE ACTION OF AN
ASYLUM STATE BY INDULGING IN OUTLAWED CONDUCT TO A RETURNED FUGITIVE
FROM JUSTICE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

THE PETITION PRESENTS FACTS WHICH, IF TRUE, MAKE THIS A SHOCKING CASE
IN THE ANNALS OF OUR JURISPRUDENCE. 

RESPONDENT, A NEGRO, WAS CONVICTED OF BURGLARY IN ALABAMA AND
SENTENCED TO HARD LABOR AT A STATE PENITENTIARY.  AFTER SIX YEARS HE
ESCAPED AND WAS APPREHENDED IN OHIO.  THEREAFTER ALABAMA UNDERTOOK TO
EXTRADITE HIM SO THAT HE COULD BE RETURNED TO ALABAMA AND SERVE THE
BALANCE OF HIS SENTENCE.  HE THEREUPON FILED THIS PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS TO BE RELEASED FROM THE CUSTODY OF PETITIONER, THE OHIO SHERIFF
WHO PRESENTLY DETAINS HIM. 

HE OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE ALABAMA JAILERS HAVE A NINE-POUND STRAP
WITH FIVE METAL PRONGS THAT THEY USE TO BEAT PRISONERS, THAT THEY USED
THIS STRAP AGAINST HIM, THAT THE BEATINGS FREQUENTLY CAUSED HIM TO LOSE
CONSCIOUSNESS AND RESULTED IN DEEP WOUNDS AND PERMANENT SCARS. 

HE OFFERED TO PROVE THAT HE WAS STRIPPED TO HIS WAIST AND FORCED TO
WORK IN THE BROILING SUN ALL DAY LONG WITHOUT A REST PERIOD. 

HE OFFERED TO PROVE THAT ON ENTRANCE TO THE PRISON HE WAS FORCED TO
SERVE AS A "GAL-BOY" OR FEMALE FOR THE HOMOSEXUALS AMONG THE
PRISONERS. 

LURID DETAILS ARE OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF THESE MAIN CHARGES.  IF ANY
OF THEM IS TRUE, RESPONDENT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT IN THE PAST AND CAN BE EXPECTED ON HIS RETURN TO HAVE THE
SAME AWFUL TREATMENT VISITED UPON HIM. 

THE COURT ALLOWS HIM TO BE RETURNED TO ALABAMA ON THE THEORY THAT HE
CAN APPLY TO THE ALABAMA COURTS FOR RELIEF FROM THE TORTURE INFLICTED
ON HIM.  THAT ANSWER WOULD SUFFICE IN THE ORDINARY CASE.  FOR A
PRISONER CAUGHT IN THE MESH OF ALABAMA LAW NORMALLY WOULD NEED TO RELY
ON ALABAMA LAW TO EXTRICATE HIM.  BUT IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
PETITION ARE TRUE, THIS NEGRO MUST SUFFER TORTURE AND MUTILATION OR
RISK DEATH ITSELF TO GET RELIEF IN ALABAMA.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THERE
IS NO SHOWING THAT THE DOORS OF THE ALABAMA COURTS ARE CLOSED TO
PETITIONER OR THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO GET RELIEF.  IT IS
SAID THAT WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT UNLAWFUL ACTION OF PRISON OFFICIALS
WOULD PREVENT PETITIONER FROM OBTAINING RELIEF IN THE ALABAMA COURTS. 
BUT WE DEAL HERE NOT WITH AN ACADEMIC PROBLEM BUT WITH ALLEGATIONS
WHICH, IF PROVED, SHOW THAT PETITIONER HAS IN THE PAST BEEN BEATEN BY
GUARDS TO THE POINT OF DEATH AND WILL, IF RETURNED, BE SUBJECTED TO THE
SAME TREATMENT.  PERHAPS THOSE ALLEGATIONS WILL PROVE GROUNDLESS.  BUT
IF THEY ARE SUPPORTED IN EVIDENCE, THEY MAKE THE RETURN OF THIS
PRISONER A RETURN TO CRUEL TORTURE. 

I AM CONFIDENT THAT ENLIGHTENED ALABAMA JUDGES WOULD MAKE SHORT
SHRIFT OF SADISTIC PRISON GUARDS.  BUT I REBEL AT THE THOUGHT THAT ANY
HUMAN BEING, NEGRO OR WHITE, SHOULD BE FORCED TO RUN A GAMUT OF BLOOD
AND TERROR IN ORDER TO GET HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THAT IS TOO
GREAT A PRICE TO PAY FOR THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT BEFORE A STATE
PRISONER CAN GET FEDERAL RELIEF HE MUST EXHAUST HIS STATE REMEDIES. 
THE ENLIGHTENED VIEW IS INDEED THE OTHER WAY.  SEE JOHNSON V. DYE, 175
F.2D 250 (WHICH UNHAPPILY THE COURT REVERSED, 338 U.S. 864); JOHNSON V.
MATTHEWS, 86 U.S. APP. D.C. 376, 383-386, 182 F.2D 677, 684-687;
COMMONWEALTH V. SUPERINTENDENT OF COUNTY PRISON, 152 PA. SUPER.  167,
31 A.2D 576. 

CERTAINLY THERE CAN BE NO SOLID OBJECTION TO THE USE OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF THE TREATMENT OF A PRISONER WHO HAS BEEN
LAWFULLY CONVICTED.  IN COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255, 258, HABEAS
CORPUS WAS USED TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE PRACTICE OF PRISON
OFFICIALS IN DENYING A CONVICT THE OPPORTUNITY OF PRESENTING APPEAL
PAPERS TO A HIGHER COURT.  AND SEE IN RE BONNER, 151 U.S. 242.  SUCH AN
ACT OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A PRISONER WAS A VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE INFLICTION OF
"CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS" AGAINST THE COMMAND OF THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT IS A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT WHETHER THAT CLAUSE BE CONSTRUED AS INCORPORATING THE ENTIRE
BILL OF RIGHTS OR ONLY SOME OF ITS GUARANTIES.  SEE ADAMSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46.  EVEN UNDER THE LATTER AND MORE RESTRICTED
VIEW, THE PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED HERE ARE SO SHOCKING AS TO VIOLATE THE
STANDARDS OF DECENCY IMPLICIT IN OUR SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE.  CF.
FRANCIS V. RESWEBER, 329 U.S. 459. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED IN ITS ACTION IN GIVING
RESPONDENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS CHARGES.  IF THEY ARE
ESTABLISHED, RESPONDENT SHOULD BE DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY AND SAVED THE
ORDEAL OF ENDURING TORTURE AND RISKING DEATH IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.*    *THE REQUIREMENTS OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2241(C)
REGULATING THE USE OF HABEAS CORPUS ARE MET SINCE THE CHARGES, IF
PROVED, WOULD RESULT IN A RETURN OF RESPONDENT TO ALABAMA TO A "CUSTODY
IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION" OF THE UNITED STATES. 
..END :




















ARROWSMITH V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE 344 U.S. 6 


NO. 51.  ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 1952.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1952.  - 193
F.2D 734, AFFIRMED. 


IN 1937 TWO TAXPAYERS DECIDED TO LIQUIDATE AND DIVIDE THE PROCEEDS OF
A CORPORATION IN WHICH EACH OWNED 50% OF THE STOCK.  PARTIAL
DISTRIBUTIONS WERE MADE IN 1937, 1938, AND 1939 AND A FINAL ONE IN
1940; AND THE PROFITS THEREON WERE REPORTED BY THE TAXPAYERS IN THEIR
INCOME TAX RETURNS AS "CAPITAL GAINS."  IN 1944 A JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED
AGAINST THE CORPORATION AND AGAINST ONE OF THE TAXPAYERS INDIVIDUALLY. 
EACH OF THE TWO TAXPAYERS PAID HALF OF HIS JUDGMENT AND DEDUCTED 100%
OF THE AMOUNT SO PAID AS AN ORDINARY BUSINESS LOSS IN HIS INCOME TAX
RETURN FOR 1944.  HELD:  UNDER SECS. 23(G) AND 115(C) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, THESE LOSSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS "CAPITAL
LOSSES," SINCE THEY WERE PAID BECAUSE OF LIABILITY IMPOSED ON THE
TAXPAYERS AS TRANSFEREES OF LIQUIDATION DISTRIBUTION ASSETS.  PP. 7-9. 

(A)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT
EACH TAXABLE YEAR IS A SEPARATE UNIT FOR TAX ACCOUNTING PURPOSES.  PP.
8-9. 

(B)  NOR IS A DIFFERENT RESULT REQUIRED AS TO ONE OF THE TAXPAYERS
BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT WAS AGAINST HIM PERSONALLY AS WELL AS AGAINST THE
CORPORATION.  P. 9. 

ARROWSMITH ET AL., EXECUTORS, ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DETERMINED THAT A JUDGMENT LOSS
PAID BY PETITIONERS AS TRANSFEREES OF LIQUIDATION ASSETS OF A
CORPORATION WERE "CAPITAL LOSSES" UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THE
TAX COURT HELD THAT THEY WERE ORDINARY BUSINESS LOSSES.  15 T.C. 876. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  193 F.2D 734.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 976.  AFFIRMED, P. 9. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN INCOME TAX CONTROVERSY GROWING OUT OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS
AS SHOWN BY FINDINGS OF THE TAX COURT.  IN 1937 TWO TAXPAYERS,
PETITIONERS HERE, DECIDED TO LIQUIDATE AND DIVIDE THE PROCEEDS OF A
CORPORATION IN WHICH THEY HAD EQUAL STOCK OWNERSHIP.*  PARTIAL
DISTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 1937, 1938, AND 1939 WERE FOLLOWED BY A FINAL ONE
IN 1940.  PETITIONERS REPORTED THE PROFITS OBTAINED FROM THIS
TRANSACTION, CLASSIFYING THEM AS CAPITAL GAINS.  THEY THEREBY PAID LESS
INCOME TAX THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED HAD THE INCOME BEEN ATTRIBUTED
TO ORDINARY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS FOR PROFIT.  ABOUT THE PROPRIETY OF
THESE 1937-1940 RETURNS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE.  BUT IN 1944 A JUDGMENT
WAS RENDERED AGAINST THE OLD CORPORATION AND AGAINST FREDERICK R.
BAUER, INDIVIDUALLY.  THE TWO TAXPAYERS WERE REQUIRED TO AND DID PAY
THE JUDGMENT FOR THE CORPORATION, OF WHOSE ASSETS THEY WERE
TRANSFEREES.  SEE PHILLIPS-JONES CORP. V. PARMLEY, 302 U.S. 233, 235
236.  CF. I.R.C.  SEC. 311(A).  CLASSIFYING THE LOSS AS AN ORDINARY
BUSINESS ONE, EACH TOOK A TAX DEDUCTION FOR 100% OF THE AMOUNT PAID. 
TREATMENT OF THE LOSS AS A CAPITAL ONE WOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF
A MUCH SMALLER AMOUNT.  SEE I.R.C., SEC. 117(B), (D)(2) AND (E).  THE
COMMISSIONER VIEWED THE 1944 PAYMENT AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL
LIQUIDATION TRANSACTION REQUIRING CLASSIFICATION AS A CAPITAL LOSS,
JUST AS THE TAXPAYERS HAD TREATED THE ORIGINAL DIVIDENDS AS CAPITAL
GAINS.  DISAGREEING WITH THE COMMISSIONER THE TAX COURT CLASSIFIED THE
1944 PAYMENT AS AN ORDINARY BUSINESS LOSS.  15 T.C. 876.  DISAGREEING
WITH THE TAX COURT THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, TREATING THE LOSS AS
"CAPITAL."  193 F.2D 734.  THIS LATTER HOLDING CONFLICTS WITH THE THIRD
CIRCUIT'S HOLDING IN COMMISSIONER V. SWITLIK, 184 F.2D 299.  BECAUSE OF
THIS CONFLICT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 976. 

*AT DISSOLUTION THE CORPORATE STOCK WAS OWNED BY FREDERICK P. BAUER
AND THE EXECUTOR OF DAVENPORT POGUE'S ESTATE.  THE PARTIES HERE NOW ARE
POGUE'S WIDOW, BAUER'S WIDOW, AND THE EXECUTOR OF BAUER'S ESTATE. 

I.R.C., SEC. 23(G) TREATS LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL
ASSETS AS "CAPITAL LOSSES" AND I.R.C., SEC. 115(C) REQUIRES THAT
LIQUIDATION DISTRIBUTIONS BE TREATED AS EXCHANGES.  THE LOSSES HERE
FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "CAPITAL LOSSES" CONTAINED IN
THESE SECTIONS.  TAXPAYERS WERE REQUIRED TO PAY THE JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF
LIABILITY IMPOSED ON THEM AS TRANSFEREES OF LIQUIDATION DISTRIBUTION
ASSETS.  AND IT IS PLAIN THAT THEIR LIABILITY AS TRANSFEREES WAS NOT
BASED ON ANY ORDINARY BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF THEIRS APART FROM THE
LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS NOT EVEN DENIED THAT HAD THIS JUDGMENT
BEEN PAID AFTER LIQUIDATION, BUT DURING THE YEAR 1940, THE LOSSES WOULD
HAVE BEEN PROPERLY TREATED AS CAPITAL ONES.  FOR PAYMENT DURING 1940
WOULD SIMPLY HAVE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAXPAYERS
RECEIVED DURING THAT YEAR. 

IT IS CONTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PAYMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A
CAPITAL TRANSACTION IN 1940 WAS TRANSFORMED INTO AN ORDINARY BUSINESS
TRANSACTION IN 1944 BECAUSE OF THE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT EACH
TAXABLE YEAR IS A SEPARATE UNIT FOR TAX ACCOUNTING PURPOSES.  UNITED
STATES V. LEWIS, 340 U.S. 590; NORTH AMERICAN OIL V. BURNET, 286 U.S.
417.  BUT THIS PRINCIPLE IS NOT BREACHED BY CONSIDERING ALL THE 1937
1944 LIQUIDATION TRANSACTION EVENTS IN ORDER PROPERLY TO CLASSIFY THE
NATURE OF THE 1944 LOSS FOR TAX PURPOSES.  SUCH AN EXAMINATION IS NOT
AN ATTEMPT TO REOPEN AND READJUST THE 1937 TO 1940 TAX RETURNS, AN
ACTION THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ANNUAL TAX ACCOUNTING
PRINCIPLE. 

THE PETITIONER BAUER'S EXECUTOR PRESENTS AN ARGUMENT FOR REVERSAL
WHICH APPLIES TO BAUER ALONE.  HE WAS LIABLE NOT ONLY BY REASON OF
BEING A TRANSFEREE OF THE CORPORATE ASSETS.  HE WAS ALSO HELD LIABLE
JOINTLY WITH THE ORIGINAL CORPORATION, ON FINDINGS THAT HE HAD SECRETLY
PROFITED BECAUSE OF A BREACH OF HIS FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP TO THE
JUDGMENT CREDITOR.  TROUNSTINE V. BAUER, POGUE & CO., 44 F. SUPP. 767,
773; 144 F.2D 379, 382.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AGAINST BOTH BAUER AND THE
CORPORATION.  FOR THIS REASON IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE NATURE OF
BAUER'S TAX DEDUCTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF HIS
LIABILITY AS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUSTAINED A LOSS IN AN ORDINARY BUSINESS
TRANSACTION FOR PROFIT.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THIS
CONTENTION SHOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED.  WHILE THERE WAS A LIABILITY
AGAINST HIM IN BOTH CAPACITIES, THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM WAS
FOR THE WHOLE AMOUNT.  HIS PAYMENT OF ONLY HALF THE JUDGMENT INDICATES
THAT BOTH HE AND THE OTHER TRANSFEREE WERE PAYING IN THEIR CAPACITIES
AS SUCH.  WE SEE NO REASON FOR GIVING BAUER A PREFERRED TAX POSITION. 
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE JACKSON THAT THESE LOSSES SHOULD BE TREATED
AS ORDINARY, NOT CAPITAL LOSSES.  THERE WERE NO CAPITAL TRANSACTIONS IN
THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LOSSES WERE SUFFERED.  THOSE TRANSACTIONS
OCCURRED AND WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN EARLIER YEARS IN ACCORD WITH THE
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT EACH YEAR IS A SEPARATE UNIT FOR TAX
ACCOUNTING PURPOSES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. LEWIS, 340 U.S. 590.  I HAVE
NOT FELT, AS MY DISSENT IN THE LEWIS CASE INDICATES, THAT THE LAW MADE
THAT AN INEXORABLE PRINCIPLE.  BUT IF IT IS THE LAW, WE SHOULD REQUIRE
OBSERVANCE OF IT - NOT MERELY BY TAXPAYERS BUT BY THE GOVERNMENT AS
WELL.  WE SHOULD FORCE EACH YEAR TO STAND ON ITS OWN FOOTING, WHOEVER
MAY GAIN OR LOSE FROM IT IN A PARTICULAR CASE.  WE IMPEACH THAT
PRINCIPLE WHEN WE TREAT THIS YEAR'S LOSSES AS IF THEY DIMINISHED LAST
YEAR'S GAINS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THIS PROBLEM ARISES ONLY BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED IN A
TAXABLE YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO THE LIQUIDATION. 

HAD THE LIABILITY OF THE TRANSFEROR-CORPORATION BEEN REDUCED TO
JUDGMENT DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH LIQUIDATION OCCURRED, OR
PRIOR THERETO, THIS PROBLEM, UNDER THE TAX LAWS, WOULD NOT ARISE.  THE
AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED AGAINST THE CORPORATION WOULD HAVE
DECREASED THE AMOUNT IT HAD AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION, WHICH WOULD
HAVE REDUCED THE LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS PROPORTIONATELY AND DIMINISHED
THE CAPITAL GAINS TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDERS.  PROBABLY IT
WOULD ALSO HAVE DECREASED THE CORPORATION'S OWN TAXABLE INCOME. 

CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE ALLOWED, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, TAX RETURNS OF
THE PRIOR YEAR TO BE REOPENED OR READJUSTED SO AS TO GIVE THE SAME TAX
RESULTS AS WOULD HAVE OBTAINED HAD THE LIABILITY BECOME KNOWN PRIOR TO
LIQUIDATION.  SUCH A SOLUTION IS FORECLOSED TO US AND THE ALTERNATIVES
LEFT ARE TO REGARD THE JUDGMENT LIABILITY FASTENED BY OPERATION OF LAW
ON THE TRANSFEREE AS AN ORDINARY LOSS FOR THE YEAR OF ADJUDICATION OR
TO REGARD IT AS A CAPITAL LOSS FOR SUCH YEAR. 

THIS COURT SIMPLIFIES THE CHOICE TO ONE OF READING THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE, AND DECLARES THAT THE LOSSES HERE COME "SQUARELY WITHIN" THE
DEFINITION OF CAPITAL LOSSES CONTAINED WITHIN TWO SECTIONS OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  WHAT SEEMS SO CLEAR TO THIS COURT WAS NOT SEEN
AT ALL BY THE TAX COURT, IN THIS CASE OR IN EARLIER CONSIDERATION OF
THE SAME ISSUE; NOR WAS IT GRASPED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT.  COMMISSIONER V. SWITLIK, 184 F.2D 299 (1950). 

I FIND LITTLE AID IN THE CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVES FROM ARGUMENTS BASED
ON EQUITIES.  ONE ENABLES THE TAXPAYERS TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF THE
JUDGMENT AGAINST HIS ORDINARY INCOME WHICH MIGHT BE TAXED AS HIGH AS
87%, WHILE IF THE LIABILITY HAD BEEN ASSESSED AGAINST THE CORPORATION
PRIOR TO LIQUIDATION IT WOULD HAVE REDUCED HIS CAPITAL GAIN WHICH WAS
TAXABLE AT ONLY 25% (NOW 26%).  THE CONSEQUENCE MAY READILY BE
CHARACTERIZED AS A WINDFALL (REGARDING A WINDFALL AS ANYTHING THAT IS
LEFT TO A TAXPAYER AFTER THE COLLECTOR HAS FINISHED WITH HIM). 

ON THE OTHER HAND, ADOPTION OF THE CONTRARY ALTERNATIVE MAY PENALIZE
THE TAXPAYER BECAUSE OF TWO FACTORS:  (1) SINCE CAPITAL LOSSES ARE
DEDUCTIBLE ONLY AGAINST CAPITAL GAINS, PLUS $1,000, A TAXPAYER HAVING
NO NET CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ENSUING FIVE YEARS WOULD HAVE NO
OPPORTUNITY TO DEDUCT ANYTHING BEYOND $5,000; AND (2) HAD THE LIABILITY
BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE CORPORATION, A PORTION OF IT WOULD PROBABLY IN
EFFECT HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT, SINCE THE CORPORATION COULD
HAVE TAKEN IT AS A DEDUCTION, WHILE HERE THE TOTAL LIABILITY COMES OUT
OF THE POCKETS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS. 

SOLICITUDE FOR THE REVENUES IS A PLAUSIBLE BUT TREACHEROUS BASIS UPON
WHICH TO DECIDE A PARTICULAR TAX CASE.  A VICTORY MAY HAVE IMPLICATIONS
WHICH IN FUTURE CASES WILL COST THE TREASURY MORE THAN A DEFEAT.  THIS
MIGHT BE SUCH A CASE, FOR ANYTHING I KNOW.  SUPPOSE THAT SUBSEQUENT TO
LIQUIDATION IT IS FOUND THAT A CORPORATION HAS UNDISCLOSED CLAIMS
INSTEAD OF LIABILITIES AND THAT UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW THEY MAY BE
PROSECUTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.  THE LOGIC OF THE
COURT'S DECISION HERE, IF ADHERED TO, WOULD RESULT IN A LESSER RETURN
TO THE GOVERNMENT THAN IF THE RECOVERIES WERE CONSIDERED ORDINARY
INCOME.  WOULD IT BE SO CLEAR THAT THIS IS A CAPITAL LOSS IF THE SHOE
WERE ON THE OTHER FOOT? 

WHERE THE STATUTE IS SO INDECISIVE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF A PARTICULAR
HOLDING LIES IN ITS RATIONAL AND HARMONIOUS RELATION TO THE GENERAL
SCHEME OF THE TAX LAW, I THINK GREAT DEFERENCE IS DUE THE TWICE
EXPRESSED JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT.  IN SPITE OF THE GELDING OF DOBSON
V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, BY THE RECENT REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, SEC. 36, 62 STAT. 991-992, I STILL THINK
THE TAX COURT IS A MORE COMPETENT AND STEADY INFLUENCE TOWARD A
SYSTEMATIC BODY OF TAX LAW THAN OUR SPORADIC OMNIPOTENCE IN A FIELD
BESET WITH INVISIBLE BOOMERANGS.  I SHOULD REVERSE, IN RELIANCE UPON
THE TAX COURT'S JUDGMENT MORE, PERHAPS, THAN MY OWN. 
..END :























SANFORD V. KEPNER 344 U.S. 13 


NO. 46.  ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 1952.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1952.  - 195
F.2D 387, AFFIRMED. 


IN A PROCEEDING UNDER R.S. SEC. 4915, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 63, BROUGHT BY AN
APPLICANT FOR A PATENT TO REVIEW AN ADVERSE DECISION OF A BOARD OF
INTERFERENCE EXAMINERS, WHEN A DISTRICT COURT HAS FOUND AGAINST
PETITIONER ON THE ISSUE OF PRIORITY OF INVENTION IT NEED NOT GO FURTHER
AND CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF A RIVAL APPLICANT'S CLAIM TO A PATENT ON
THE SAME DEVICE.  PP. 13-16. 

SANFORD V. KEPNER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN A PROCEEDING UNDER R.S. SEC. 4915, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 63, THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND AGAINST PETITIONER ON AN ISSUE OF PRIORITY OF INVENTION AND
DISMISSED THE BILL WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF A RIVAL
APPLICANT'S CLAIM TO A PATENT ON THE SAME DEVICE.  99 F. SUPP. 221. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  195 F.2D 387.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 976.  AFFIRMED, P. 16. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CLAIMING HE WAS THE ORIGINAL AND SOLE INVENTOR OF A MECHANICAL
DEVICE, THE RESPONDENT KEPNER ASKED THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE FOR
A PATENT.  LATER THE PETITIONER SANFORD FILED A SIMILAR APPLICATION
MAKING THE SAME CLAIM.  AS AUTHORIZED BY R.S. SEC. 4904, 35 U.S.C. SEC.
52, THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS DIRECTED A BOARD OF INTERFERENCE
EXAMINERS TO HOLD HEARINGS AND DETERMINE THE DISPUTE OVER PRIORITY OF
INVENTION - WHICH OF THE TWO FIRST USED THE DEVICE.  THE BOARD DECIDED
FOR RESPONDENT KEPNER.  SANFORD'S APPLICATION FOR PATENT WAS
ACCORDINGLY REFUSED.  AS AUTHORIZED BY R.S. SEC. 4915, 35 U.S.C. SEC.
63, SANFORD BROUGHT THIS BILL IN EQUITY PRAYING THAT HE BE ADJUDGED
INVENTOR OF THE DEVICE AND ENTITLED TO A PATENT.  SANFORD ALSO PRAYED
THAT KEPNER'S CLAIMS BE ADJUDGED UNPATENTABLE, CHARGING THAT MANY
PREVIOUS PATENTS HAD BEEN GRANTED ON KEPNER'S DEVICE, SOME OF WHICH HAD
EXPIRED.  AGREEING WITH THE BOARD OF INTERFERENCE EXAMINERS, THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND AGAINST SANFORD ON THE ISSUE OF PRIOR USE.  SINCE
THIS WAS ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY REFUSAL TO ISSUE SANFORD A PATENT, THE
DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO GO FURTHER AND CONSIDER KEPNER'S CLAIM TO A
PATENT.   ACCORDINGLY SANFORD'S BILL WAS DISMISSED.  99 F. SUPP.  221. 
AGREEING WITH THE DISTRICT COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  195
F.2D 387.  THE CIRCUITS HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS CONCERNING THE DUTY OF
DISTRICT COURTS TO CONSIDER AND ADJUDICATE QUESTIONS OF INVENTION AND
PATENTABILITY WHEN PARTIES URGE THEM IN R.S.  SEC. 4915 PROCEEDINGS.*
TO SETTLE THESE DIFFERENCES WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S.  976. 

*IN ACCORD WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS, HESTON V. KUHLKE, 179 F.2D 222;
SMITH V. CARTER CARBURETOR CORP., 130 F.2D 555; CLEVELAND TRUST CO. V.
BERRY, 99 F.2D 517.  CONTRA: MINNEAPOLIS HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO. V.
MILWAUKEE GAS SPECIALTY CO., 174 F.2D 203; KNUTSON V. GALLSWORTHY, 82
U.S. APP. D.C. 304, 164 F.2D 497. 

SO FAR AS RELEVANT TO THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE, R.S. SEC. 4915, AS
NOT CONTAINED IN 35 U.S.C. SEC. 63, READS: 

"  ...  WHENEVER ANY APPLICANT IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF INTERFERENCE EXAMINERS, THE APPLICANT  ...  MAY HAVE
REMEDY BY BILL IN EQUITY  ...  AND THE COURT  ...  MAY ADJUDGE THAT
SUCH APPLICANT IS ENTITLED, ACCORDING TO LAW, TO RECEIVE A PATENT FOR
HIS INVENTION ...  .  AND SUCH ADJUDICATION, IF IT BE IN FAVOR OF THE
RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT, SHALL AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE SUCH
PATENT ON THE APPLICANT FILING IN THE PATENT OFFICE A COPY OF THE
ADJUDICATION AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW." 

THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE QUOTED PART OF R.S. SEC. 4915 IS TO GIVE A
JUDICIAL REMEDY TO AN APPLICANT WHO HAS BEEN FINALLY DENIED A PATENT
BECAUSE OF A PATENT OFFICE DECISION AGAINST HIM AND IN FAVOR OF HIS
ADVERSARY ON THE QUESTION OF PRIORITY.  WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DECIDES
THIS FACTUAL ISSUE OF PRIORITY AGAINST HIM AND THUS AFFIRMS THE REFUSAL
OF THE PATENT BY THE PATENT OFFICE, HE HAS OBTAINED THE FULL REMEDY THE
STATUTE GIVES HIM.  ONLY IF HE WINS ON PRIORITY MAY HE PROCEED.  IN
THAT EVENT, THE STATUTE SAYS, THE COURT MAY PROCEED TO "ADJUDGE THAT
SUCH APPLICANT IS ENTITLED, ACCORDING TO LAW, TO RECEIVE A PATENT FOR
HIS INVENTION  ...  ."  SO ADJUDGING, IT MAY AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF THE
PATENT.  BUT JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION OF ISSUANCE IMPLIES JUDICIAL
SANCTION OF PATENTABILITY AND FOR THIS REASON THIS COURT HAS SAID, "IT
NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT NO ADJUDICATION CAN BE MADE IN FAVOR OF THE
APPLICANT, UNLESS THE ALLEGED INVENTION FOR WHICH A PATENT IS SOUGHT IS
A PATENTABLE INVENTION."  HILL V. WOOSTER, 132 U.S. 693, 698.  THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE HILL CASE IS THAT THE COURT MUST DECIDE WHETHER CLAIMS
SHOW PATENTABLE INVENTIONS BEFORE AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE
A PATENT.  NO PART OF ITS HOLDING OR WORDING NOR OF THAT IN HOOVER CO.
V. COE, 325 U.S. 79, REQUIRES US TO SAY R.S. SEC. 4915 COMPELS A
DISTRICT COURT TO ADJUDICATE PATENTABILITY AT THE INSTANCE OF ONE WHOSE
CLAIM IS FOUND TO BE GROUNDLESS.  SANFORD'S CLAIM WAS FOUND TO BE
GROUNDLESS. 

IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THIS EQUITY PROCEEDING WOULD DEVELOP A FULL
INVESTIGATION OF VALIDITY.  THERE WOULD BE NO ATTACK ON THE PATENT
COMPARABLE TO THAT OF AN INFRINGEMENT ACTION.  HERE THE VERY PERSON WHO
CLAIMED AN INVENTION NOW ASKS TO PROVE THAT KEPNER'S SIMILAR DEVICE WAS
NO INVENTION AT ALL BECAUSE OF PATENTS ISSUED LONG BEFORE EITHER PARTY
MADE CLAIM FOR HIS DISCOVERY.  THERE IS NO REAL ISSUE OF INVENTION
BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERE AND WE SEE NO REASON TO READ INTO THE STATUTE
A DISTRICT COURT'S COMPULSORY DUTY TO ADJUDICATE VALIDITY.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :


















FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. IDAHO POWER CO. 344 U.S. 17 


NO. 12.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20-21, 1952.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1952.  - 89
U.S. APP. D.C. 1, 189 F.2D 665, REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 4(E) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
ISSUED TO A POWER COMPANY A LICENSE TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN
A HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT INCLUDING A DAM, POWER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION
LINES ON PUBLIC LANDS, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE COMPANY PERMIT
THE INTERCONNECTION OF TRANSMISSION FACILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES
WITH THE COMPANY'S TRANSMISSION LINES AND THE TRANSFER OVER THOSE LINES
OF ENERGY GENERATED IN POWER PLANTS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ATTACH
THESE CONDITIONS AND ENTERED A JUDGMENT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER "BE
MODIFIED" AND THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION "FOR THE
ENTRY OF AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT."  ON
MOTION OF THE COMMISSION FOR CLARIFICATION, THE COURT ENTERED A NEW
JUDGMENT, STATING THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION "BE, AND IT IS
HEREBY, MODIFIED BY STRIKING THEREFROM PARAGRAPH (F) THEREOF
(CONTAINING THE CONDITIONS), AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION HEREIN AS THUS MODIFIED BE, AND IT IS HEREBY, AFFIRMED." 
HELD: 

1.  WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS, BY ITS SECOND JUDGMENT, DECIDED THAT
THE LICENSE SHOULD ISSUE WITHOUT THE CONDITIONS, IT USURPED AN
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION.  PP. 19-20. 

(A)  THE POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER SEC. 313(B) "TO AFFIRM,
MODIFY, OR SET ASIDE" AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION "IN WHOLE OR IN PART"
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE IT TO EXERCISE AN ESSENTIALLY ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTION.  P. 21. 

(B)  WHETHER THE OBJECTIVE OF SEC. 10(A) OF THE ACT MAY BE ACHIEVED
IF THE CONTESTED CONDITIONS ARE STRICKEN FROM THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS
AN ADMINISTRATIVE, NOT A JUDICIAL, DECISION.  P. 21. 

2.  WHEN READ IN THE CONTEXT OF SECS. 4 AND 10 OF THE ACT, SEC. 6,
MAKING EACH LICENSE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION,
AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO ATTACH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED HERE; AND
THAT AUTHORITY IS NOT IMPAIRED BY SEC. 210(F) OF PART II OF THE ACT,
PROVIDING THAT NO PROVISION OF PART II SHALL APPLY TO THE UNITED
STATES.  PP. 21-24. 

(A)  PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, CONSERVATION OF WATERPOWER
RESOURCES, DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR WATERWAYS - EACH
MIGHT ON THE FACTS OF A CASE BE SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE THE GRANT OF
PERMISSION TO A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY TO USE THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
PROVIDED IT AGREED TO USE ITS EXCESS CAPACITY TO TRANSMIT GOVERNMENT
POWER.  P. 23. 

(B)  THE POWERS CONFERRED BY PART II OF THE ACT TO REGULATE PUBLIC
UTILITIES ENGAGED IN THE INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION AND SALE OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A REPEAL BY IMPLICATION OF THE POWERS
CONFERRED BY PART I TO REGULATE PUBLIC LANDS OR THE USE OF NAVIGABLE
STREAMS.  PP. 23-24. 

3.  A PETITION TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI, FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS
AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS' SECOND JUDGMENT, THOUGH MORE THAN 90 DAYS
AFTER THE FIRST, WAS TIMELY.  PP. 19-20. 

4.  THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION'S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION WAS UNTIMELY UNDER THE RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
GOVERNING PETITIONS FOR REHEARING, SINCE, ASSUMING THAT THE MOTION WAS
A PETITION FOR REHEARING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RULES, IT WAS
ENTERTAINED AND CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS.  P. 21, N. 1. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. IDAHO POWER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ISSUED TO RESPONDENT POWER COMPANY,
UNDER SEC. 4(E) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, A CONDITIONAL LICENSE TO
CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS MODIFIED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER BY STRIKING OUT THE CONDITIONS,
AND AFFIRMED THE ORDER AS THUS MODIFIED.  89 U.S. APP. D.C. 1, 189 F.2D
665.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 941.  REVERSED, P. 24. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT APPLIED TO PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 4(E) OF THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT, 41 STAT.  1065, 49 STAT. 840, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 797(E), FOR A LICENSE
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (KNOWN AS
THE BLISS DEVELOPMENT) ON THE SNAKE RIVER IN SOUTHERN IDAHO.  THIS
PROJECT INCLUDED A DAM AND POWER PLANT OCCUPYING SOME 500 ACRES OF
LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TWO TRANSMISSION LINES.  THESE LINES FOR
MOST OF THEIR LENGTH CROSSED LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES AND JOINED THE
COMPANY'S INTERCONNECTED PRIMARY TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. 

THE UNITED STATES HAS POWER PROJECTS IN THIS AREA; AND THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION AND THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION WERE CONTEMPLATING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TRANSMISSION LINE WHICH WOULD CONNECT THE SAME
AREAS AS RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED LINES.  THEREFORE THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, ON THE SUGGESTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
AUTHORIZED THE PROJECT ON CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH (F) OF THE
ORDER.  THESE CONDITIONS, IN SUMMARY, WERE THAT THE LICENSEE PERMIT THE
INTERCONNECTION OF TRANSMISSION FACILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES WITH
THE TWO TRANSMISSION LINES, AND THE TRANSFER OVER THOSE LINES OF ENERGY
GENERATED IN POWER PLANTS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES "IN SUCH AMOUNTS
AS WILL NOT UNREASONABLY INTERFERE" WITH THE LICENSEE'S USE OF THE
LINES, THE UNITED STATES TO PAY THE LICENSEE FOR GOVERNMENT POWER SO
TRANSMITTED. 

RESPONDENT PETITIONED FOR REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ATTACH
THE CONDITION.  IT ENTERED A JUDGMENT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER "BE
MODIFIED" AND THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION "FOR THE
ENTRY OF AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT."  THAT
WAS ON MAY 10, 1951.  89 U.S. APP. D.C. 1, 189 F.2D 665.  THE
COMMISSION MOVED FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT.  ON SEPTEMBER 21,
1951, THE COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED A NEW JUDGMENT, STATING THAT THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION "BE, AND IT IS HEREBY, MODIFIED BY STRIKING
THEREFROM PARAGRAPH (F) THEREOF, AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION HEREIN AS THUS MODIFIED BE, AND IT IS HEREBY,
AFFIRMED."  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE
AMENDED ORDER BUT MORE THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE FIRST ORDER.  THE
QUESTION WHICH THEREFORE LIES AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE CASE IS WHETHER
THE PETITION IS TIMELY.  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101(C). 

FIRST.  IF THE COURT DID NO MORE BY THE SECOND JUDGMENT THAN TO
RESTATE WHAT IT HAD DECIDED BY THE FIRST ONE, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V.
PINK, 317 U.S. 264, WOULD APPLY AND THE 90 DAYS WOULD START TO RUN FROM
THE FIRST JUDGMENT.  BUT THE COURT BY THE SECOND JUDGMENT UNDERTOOK TO
MODIFY THE LICENSE.  BY THE FIRST JUDGMENT IT DID NO MORE THAN KEEP THE
COMMISSION WITHIN THE BOUNDS SET BY ITS OPINION.  ON REMAND THE
COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE REISSUED THE ORDER WITHOUT THE CONTESTED
CONDITIONS OR IT MIGHT HAVE WITHHELD ITS CONSENT TO ANY LICENSE.  IT IS
THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT ON WHICH CONGRESS HAS PLACED ITS RELIANCE FOR
CONTROL OF LICENSES.  SEE SECS. 6, 10(A), 10(G).  WHEN THE COURT
DECIDED THAT THE LICENSE SHOULD ISSUE WITHOUT THE CONDITIONS, IT
USURPED AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION.  THERE DOUBTLESS MAY BE SITUATIONS
WHERE THE PROVISION EXCISED FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER IS SEPARABLE
FROM THE REMAINING PARTS OR SO MINOR AS TO MAKE REMAND INAPPROPRIATE. 
BUT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE, VIOLATED HERE, IS THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE
REVIEWING COURT ENDS WHEN AN ERROR OF LAW IS LAID BARE.  AT THAT POINT
THE MATTER ONCE MORE GOES TO THE COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION.  SEE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309
U.S. 134; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37. 

THE COURT, IT IS TRUE, HAS POWER "TO AFFIRM, MODIFY, OR SET ASIDE"
THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION "IN WHOLE OR IN PART."  SEC. 313(B).  BUT
THAT AUTHORITY IS NOT POWER TO EXERCISE AN ESSENTIALLY ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTION.  SEE FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 364, 373-374;
SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 327 U.S. 608.  THE NATURE OF
THE DETERMINATION IS EMPHASIZED BY SEC. 10(A) WHICH SPECIFIES THAT THE
PROJECT ADOPTED "SHALL BE SUCH AS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION
WILL BE BEST ADAPTED TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN  ...  FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
AND UTILIZATION OF WATER-POWER DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER BENEFICIAL
PUBLIC USES."  WHETHER THAT OBJECTIVE MAY BE ACHIEVED IF THE CONTESTED
CONDITIONS ARE STRICKEN FROM THE ORDER IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE, NOT A
JUDICIAL, DECISION.  (FN1) 

SECOND.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER PUBLIC LANDS, CONFERRED BY ART.
IV, SEC. 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS "WITHOUT LIMITATIONS," AS WE STATED
IN UNITED STATES V. SAN FRANCISCO, 310 U.S. 16, 29.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT PRINCIPLE, HELD THAT CONGRESS HAD NOT
GRANTED THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO CONDITION THE USE OF PUBLIC LANDS
BY REQUIRING A PUBLIC UTILITY TO CARRY GOVERNMENT POWER.  IT RELIED ON
SEC. 201(F) OF THE ACT WHICH SAYS THAT "NO PROVISION IN THIS PART SHALL
APPLY TO  ...  THE UNITED STATES  ...  ."  THE PART REFERRED TO IS PART
II OF THE ACT WHICH SET UP A SYSTEM OF CONTROL OVER THE TRANSMISSION OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT GRANTED THE COMMISSION
AUTHORITY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO DIRECT A PUBLIC UTILITY TO ESTABLISH
PHYSICAL CONNECTION OF ITS TRANSMISSION FACILITIES WITH THE FACILITIES
OF OTHER PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSMISSION OR SALE OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY.  SEC. 202(B).  SINCE THAT POWER WAS NOT EXTENDED TO THE UNITED
STATES, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT A LICENSE UNDER PART I OF THE ACT
COULD NOT BE CONDITIONED ON AN INTER-CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL POWER. 

PART I AND PART II PROVIDE DIFFERENT REGULATORY SCHEMES.  PART II IS
AN EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER OVER PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGAGED IN THE
INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION AND SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY.  SEE S. REP. NO.
621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 17.  PART II DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO
REGULATE PUBLIC LANDS OR THE USE OF NAVIGABLE STREAMS.  THAT FUNCTION
IS COVERED BY PART I, WHICH DATES BACK TO THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT
OF 1920, 41 STAT.  1063.  SECTION 4(E) OF PART I GIVES THE COMMISSION
POWER TO ISSUE LICENSES TO PRIVATE OR PUBLIC BODIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
"CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING, AND MAINTAINING DAMS, WATER CONDUITS,
RESERVOIRS, POWER HOUSES, TRANSMISSION LINES, OR OTHER PROJECT WORKS
NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF
NAVIGATION AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, TRANSMISSION, AND UTILIZATION OF
POWER ACROSS, ALONG, FROM, OR IN ANY OF THE STREAMS OR OTHER BODIES OF
WATER OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS JURISDICTION UNDER ITS AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR
UPON ANY PART OF THE PUBLIC LANDS AND RESERVATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
...  ." 

BY SEC. 4(G) THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE THE
ACTUAL OR INTENDED OCCUPANCY OF "PUBLIC LANDS" FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEVELOPING ELECTRIC POWER AND TO ISSUE SUCH ORDER AS IT MAY FIND
"APPROPRIATE, EXPEDIENT, AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO CONSERVE AND
UTILIZE THE  ...  WATER-POWER RESOURCES OF THE REGION."  AS ALREADY
NOTED, SEC.  10(A) PROVIDES THAT NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED UNLESS IN
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION THE PROJECT "WILL BE BEST ADAPTED TO A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ...  FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND UTILIZATION OF WATER
POWER DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER BENEFICIAL PUBLIC USES  ...  ; AND IF
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SECURE SUCH PLAN THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE MODIFICATION OF ANY PROJECT  ...  BEFORE
APPROVAL."  (FN2) 

UNDER THESE SECTIONS THE COMMISSION IS PLAINLY MADE THE GUARDIAN OF
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT EXISTING LINES BE FULLY
UTILIZED BEFORE ADDITIONAL LINES ARE AUTHORIZED WOULD SEEM TO BE
RELEVANT TO A DECISION UNDER SEC. 10(A) THAT THE PROJECT SUBMITTED WAS
CONSONANT WITH THE "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" FOR THE WATERWAY.  AND THE
COMMISSION MIGHT WELL DETERMINE UNDER SEC. 4(G) THAT IF PUBLIC LANDS
ARE TO BE USED FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF POWER, CONSERVATION OF THE
"WATER-POWER RESOURCES OF THE REGION" REQUIRES THAT PUBLIC POWER AS
WELL AS PRIVATE POWER BE TRANSMITTED OVER THEM. 

AND PUBLIC LANDS.  SECTION 6 MAKES EACH LICENSE SUBJECT TO ALL THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ACT AND TO "SUCH FURTHER CONDITIONS, IF
ANY, AS THE COMMISSION SHALL PRESCRIBE IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS ACT  ...
."  SECTION 6, READ IN THE CONTEXT OF SECS. 4 AND 10, WOULD SEEM TO
GIVE AMPLE AUTHORITY TO THE COMMISSION TO ATTACH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED
HERE.  PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, CONSERVATION OF WATER-POWER
RESOURCES, DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR THE WATERWAYS - EACH
OF THESE MIGHT ON THE FACTS OF A CASE BE SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE THE
GRANT OF PERMISSION TO A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY TO USE THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN PROVIDED IT AGREED TO USE ITS EXCESS CAPACITY TO TRANSMIT
GOVERNMENT POWER. 

IT IS DIFFICULT FOR US TO READ SEC. 201(F) AS IN ANY WAY AFFECTING
THAT POWER.  SECTIONS 201(F) AND 202 DEAL WITH INTERCONNECTIONS OF
FACILITIES GENERALLY.  THEY DO NOT EXTEND THE NEW POWERS GRANTED BY
PART II TO GOVERNMENT LINES.  ON THE OTHER HAND THEY DO NOT PURPORT TO
CHANGE OR ALTER ANY POWER GRANTED UNDER PART I. THEY DO NOT DEAL WITH
THE GRANT OF LICENSES.  THEY DO NOT PURPORT TO LAY DOWN CONDITIONS FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR USE OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  WE THEREFORE
CANNOT CONSTRUE THE LIMITATION ON THE NEW POWERS CONFERRED BY PART II
AS A REPEAL BY IMPLICATION OF THE POWERS OVER LICENSEES THAT ARE DEEPLY
ENGRAINED IN PART I OF THE ACT AND PUT THERE BY THE CONGRESS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AN ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT THE COMMISSION'S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION WAS UNTIMELY UNDER THE RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
GOVERNING PETITIONS FOR REHEARING.  ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, THAT THE MOTION
WAS A PETITION FOR REHEARING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THOSE RULES, IT WAS
ENTERTAINED AND CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS (CF. BOWMAN V. LOPERENA, 311
U.S. 262; PFISTER V. FINANCE CORP., 317 U.S. 144, 149) AND THE NEW
JUDGMENT ENTERED WAS ERRONEOUS. 

FN2  SECTIONS 4(E) AND 10(A) APPEARED IN THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT
OF 1920, 41 STAT.  1063, 1065, 1068.  SECTION 4(G) WAS ADDED BY THE
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 838, 841. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






















NATHANSON V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 344 U.S. 25 


NO. 33.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1952.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1952.  - 194
F.2D 248, REVERSED. 


THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED A COMPANY TO PAY CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES BACK PAY.  AFTER AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY HAD
BEEN FILED AGAINST THE COMPANY, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECREED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE BOARD FILED IN THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING A PROOF OF CLAIM FOR THE BACK PAY.  HELD: 

1.  THE BOARD IS A "CREDITOR" AS RESPECTS THE BACK-PAY AWARDS, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  PP. 26-27. 

2.  THE BOARD'S BACK-PAY ORDER IS A PROVABLE CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY - AS
A DEBT FOUNDED UPON AN "IMPLIED" CONTRACT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
63(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 27. 

3.  THE BOARD'S CLAIM IS NOT A DEBT DUE TO THE UNITED STATES WITHIN
THE MEANING OF R.S. SEC. 3466, AND IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER
SEC. 64(A)(5) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THOUGH IT IS ENTITLED TO SUCH
PRIORITY AS WAGE CLAIMS ENJOY UNDER SEC. 64(A)(2).  BRAMWELL V. U.S.
FIDELITY CO., 269 U.S. 483, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 27-29. 

4.  COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE BACK-PAY AWARD WAS PROPERLY
REFERRED TO THE BOARD BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  PP. 29-30. 

(A)  THE FIXING OF THE BACK PAY IS ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFIDED TO
THE BOARD AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER.  PP. 29-30. 

(B)  WISE ADMINISTRATION DEMANDS THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
ACCOMMODATE ITSELF TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND REFER TO THE BOARD
THE LIQUIDATION OF THE CLAIM, GIVING THE BOARD A REASONABLE TIME FOR
ITS ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION.  P. 30. 

NATHANSON, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

A PROOF OF CLAIM FILED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, BASED
ON A BACK-PAY AWARD AGAINST THE BANKRUPT, WAS DISALLOWED BY THE REFEREE
IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE THE DISALLOWANCE.  100 F.
SUPP. 489.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  194 F.2D 248.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 962.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 31. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ISSUED A COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE PRESENT BANKRUPT COMPANY ALLEGING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
AND, AFTER APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS, ORDERED THE BANKRUPT TO PAY CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES BACK PAY WHICH THEY HAD LOST ON ACCOUNT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE OF THE BANKRUPT.  BEFORE THE ORDER WAS ENFORCED BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION HAD BEEN FILED AGAINST THE COMPANY. 
THEREAFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED ITS DECREE, ENFORCING THE
BOARD'S ORDER.  IN DUE COURSE THE BOARD FILED A PROOF OF CLAIM FOR THE
BACK PAY WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE REFEREE.  THE DISTRICT COURT SET
ASIDE THE DISALLOWANCE.  100 F. SUPP. 489.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED (194 F.2D 248) HOLDING THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER IS A PROVABLE
CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY, THAT THE BOARD CAN LIQUIDATE THE CLAIM, AND THAT
IT IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY AS A DEBT OWING TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER
SEC. 64(A)(5) OF THE ACT.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED
BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT ON THE QUESTION OF PRIORITY BETWEEN THAT DECISION
AND LABOR BOARD V. KILLOREN, 122 F.2D 609, DECIDED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

WE THINK THE BOARD IS A CREDITOR AS RESPECTS THE BACK PAY AWARDS,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  (FN1)  THE BOARD IS THE
PUBLIC AGENT CHOSEN BY CONGRESS TO ENFORCE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  AMALGAMATED WORKERS V. EDISON CO., 309 U.S. 261, 269.  A BACK PAY
ORDER IS A REPARATION ORDER DESIGNED TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
THE STATUTE BY MAKING THE EMPLOYEES WHOLE FOR LOSSES SUFFERED ON
ACCOUNT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 197.  CONGRESS HAS MADE THE BOARD THE ONLY PARTY
ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE ACT.  A BACK PAY ORDER IS A COMMAND TO PAY AN
AMOUNT OWED THE BOARD AS AGENT FOR THE INJURED EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD IS
THEREFORE A CLAIMANT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE BACK PAY. 

THE CLAIM IS PROVABLE AS A DEBT FOUNDED UPON AN "IMPLIED" CONTRACT
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 63(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  (FN2)  IT
IS AN INDEBTEDNESS ARISING OUT OF AN OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY STATUTE - AN
INCIDENT FIXED BY LAW TO THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  A
LIABILITY BASED ON QUASI-CONTRACT IS ONE ON AN "IMPLIED" CONTRACT
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 63(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  SEE BROWN
V. O'KEEFE, 300 U.S. 598, 606-607. 

WE DO NOT, HOWEVER, AGREE WITH THE LOWER COURT THAT THIS CLAIM,
ENFORCEABLE BY THE BOARD, IS A DEBT DUE TO THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF R.S. SEC. 3466, AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER
SEC. 64(A)(5) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE
THE BOARD IS AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY DEBT OWED IT IS A DEBT
OWING THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF R.S. SEC. 3466.  THE
PRIORITY GRANTED BY THAT STATUTE WAS DESIGNED "TO SECURE AN ADEQUATE
REVENUE TO SUSTAIN THE PUBLIC BURTHENS AND DISCHARGE THE PUBLIC
DEBTS."  SEE UNITED STATES V. STATE BANK, 6 PET. 29, 35.  THERE IS NO
FUNCTION HERE OF ASSURING THE PUBLIC REVENUE.  THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE
CLAIMS ARE PRIVATE PERSONS AS WAS THE RECEIVER IN AMERICAN SURETY CO.
V. AKRON SAVINGS BANK, 212 U.S. 557. 

IT IS TRUE THAT BRAMWELL V. U.S. FIDELITY CO., 269 U.S. 483, EXTENDED
THE PRIORITY TO A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES FOR INDIAN MONEYS.  BUT
THAT CASE RESTS ON THE STATUS OF THE INDIANS AS WARDS OF THE UNITED
STATES (SEE BOWLING V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 528) AND THE CONTINUING
RESPONSIBILITY WHICH IT HAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR INTERESTS.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432, 444; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V.
SEBER, 318 U.S. 705.  WE CANNOT EXTEND THAT REASONING SO AS TO GIVE
PRIORITY TO A CLAIM WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS COLLECTING FOR THE
BENEFIT OF A PRIVATE PARTY.  SEE AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. AKRON SAVINGS
BANK, SUPRA.  THE BENEFICIARIES HERE ARE NOT WARDS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT; THEY ARE WAGE CLAIMANTS WHO WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY
THEIR EMPLOYER.  THE BOARD HAS ELIMINATED THE DISCRIMINATION BY THE
BACK PAY ORDER; AND ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  THE FULL SANCTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT HAS THEREFORE BEEN PLACED BEHIND THE ORDER.  THE BOARD ARGUES THAT
THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IN ERADICATING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
IS SO GREAT THAT THE BACK PAY ORDER SHOULD BE GIVEN THE ADDITIONAL
SANCTION OF PRIORITY IN PAYMENT.  WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE DONE IS A
LEGISLATIVE DECISION.  THE CONTEST NOW IS NO LONGER BETWEEN EMPLOYEES
AND MANAGEMENT BUT BETWEEN VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS.  THE POLICY OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS FULLY SERVED BY RECOGNIZING THE
CLAIM FOR BACK PAY AS ONE TO BE PAID FROM THE ESTATE.  THE QUESTION
WHETHER IT SHOULD BE PAID IN PREFERENCE TO OTHER CREDITORS IS A
QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED FROM THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  WHEN CONGRESS CAME TO
CLAIMS FOR UNPAID WAGES IT DID NOT GRANT ALL OF THEM PRIORITY.  IT
LIMITED THE PRIORITY TO $600 FOR EACH CLAIMANT AND EVEN THEN ONLY
ALLOWED IT AS RESPECTS WAGES EARNED WITHIN THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE DATE
OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  SEC. 64(A)(2).  WE WOULD
DEPART FROM THAT POLICY IF WE GRANTED THE PRIORITY TO ONE CLASS OF WAGE
CLAIMANTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM OR THE TIME OF ITS
ACCRUAL.  THE THEME OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS "EQUALITY OF DISTRIBUTION"
(SAMPSELL V. IMPERIAL PAPER CORP., 313 U.S. 215, 219); AND IF ONE
CLAIMANT IS TO BE PREFERRED OVER OTHERS, THE PURPOSE SHOULD BE CLEAR
FROM THE STATUTE.  WE CAN FIND IN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT NO WARRANT FOR
GIVING THESE BACK PAY AWARDS ANY DIFFERENT TREATMENT THAN OTHER WAGE
CLAIMS ENJOY. 

THE TRUSTEE CLAIMS THAT THE LIQUIDATION OF THE BACK PAY AWARD SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE BOARD.  SECTION 10(C) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT AUTHORIZES THE BOARD, ONCE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
HAS BEEN FOUND, TO REQUIRE, INTER ALIA, THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED IT TO
"TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES
WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS
ACT."  THE FIXING OF THE BACK PAY IS ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS CONFIDED
SOLELY TO THE BOARD.  AT THE TIME AN ORDER OF THE BOARD IS ENFORCED THE
AMOUNT OF BACK PAY IS OFTEN NOT COMPUTED.  ONCE AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER
ISSUES THE BOARD MUST WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF THE BACK PAY THAT IS DUE
AND THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES THAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED.  THIS MAY BE
DONE BY NEGOTIATION; OR IT MAY HAVE TO BE DONE IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE
THE BOARD.  THE COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT DUE MAY NOT BE A SIMPLE
MATTER.  IT MAY REQUIRE, IN ADDITION TO THE PROJECTION OF EARNINGS
WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE ENJOYED HAD HE NOT BEEN DISCHARGED AND
THE COMPUTATION OF ACTUAL INTERIM EARNINGS, THE DETERMINATION WHETHER
THE EMPLOYEE WILFULLY INCURRED LOSSES, WHETHER THE BACK PAY PERIOD
SHOULD BE TERMINATED BECAUSE OF OFFERS OF REINSTATEMENT OR THE
WITHDRAWAL OF THE EMPLOYEE FROM THE LABOR MARKET, WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE
RECEIVED EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT, AND THE LIKE.  SEE PHELPS DODGE CORP.
V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 190 ET SEQ. CONGRESS MADE THE RELATION OF REMEDY
TO POLICY AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER, SUBJECT TO LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW,
AND CHOSE THE BOARD AS ITS AGENT FOR THE PURPOSE. 

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT NORMALLY SUPERVISES THE LIQUIDATION OF CLAIMS. 
SEE GARDNER V. NEW JERSEY, 329 U.S. 565, 573.  BUT THE RULE IS NOT
INEXORABLE.  A SOUND DISCRETION MAY INDICATE THAT A PARTICULAR
CONTROVERSY SHOULD BE REMITTED TO ANOTHER TRIBUNAL FOR LITIGATION.  SEE
THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA CO., 309 U.S. 478, 483.  AND WHERE THE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED BY CONGRESS TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY,
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT NORMALLY SHOULD STAY ITS HAND PENDING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.  THAT WAS OUR RULING IN SMITH V. HOBOKEN R.
CO., 328 U.S. 123, AND THOMPSON V. TEXAS M.R. CO., 328 U.S. 134, WHERE
WE DIRECTED THE REORGANIZATION COURT TO AWAIT ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE
CONTROVERSIES BEFORE IT.  LIKE CONSIDERATIONS ARE RELEVANT HERE.  IT IS
THE BOARD, NOT THE REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY NOR THE COURT, THAT HAS BEEN
ENTRUSTED BY CONGRESS WITH AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT MEASURES WILL
REMEDY THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  WE THINK WISE ADMINISTRATION
THEREFORE DEMANDS THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ACCOMMODATE ITSELF TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND REFER TO THE BOARD THE LIQUIDATION OF THE
CLAIM, GIVING THE BOARD A REASONABLE TIME FOR ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION. 

IN SUMMARY, WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE CLAIM WAS
PROVABLE BY THE BOARD AND THAT THE COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
AWARD WAS PROPERLY REFERRED TO THE BOARD.  BUT SINCE WE DISAGREE WITH
THE RULING ON THE PRIORITY OF THE CLAIM WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND
REMAND THE CAUSE FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  IT
IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "'CREDITOR' SHALL INCLUDE ANYONE WHO OWNS A DEBT, DEMAND, OR
CLAIM PROVABLE IN BANKRUPTCY, AND MAY INCLUDE HIS DULY AUTHORIZED
AGENT, ATTORNEY, OR PROXY."  11 U.S.C.  SEC. 1(11). 

FN2  "DEBTS OF THE BANKRUPT MAY BE PROVED AND ALLOWED AGAINST HIS
ESTATE WHICH ARE FOUNDED UPON ...  (4) AN OPEN ACCOUNT, OR A CONTRACT
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED."  SEC. 63(A)(4); 11 U.S.C. SEC. 103(A)(4). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK WE SHOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW.  I AGREE THAT THE CLAIM
IS ONE WHICH CAN BE PROVED IN BANKRUPTCY BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE
SAME REASONING WHICH ENABLES THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSERT THE CLAIM WOULD
SEEM TO ENABLE IT TO ASSERT THE PRIORITY. 

THE CLAIMS WHICH THE UNITED STATES ASSERTS HEREIN ARE SOMETHING MORE
THAN MERELY PRIVATE INDEBTEDNESS.  THE DEBTOR'S LIABILITY, ENFORCEABLE
ONLY BY THE GOVERNMENT, IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT SANCTIONS TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THAT IS
ONE, AT LEAST, OF THE REASONS WHY CONGRESS DID NOT SEE FIT TO LEAVE
PROSECUTION OF THESE USUALLY SMALL CLAIMS TO SCATTERED AND OFTEN
IMPECUNIOUS INDIVIDUAL WAGE EARNERS IN A MULTIPLICITY OF ACTIONS. 

I SEE NOTHING IN THE POLICY OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WHICH PRECLUDES
THESE CLAIMS, ALLOWED IN THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT AND IN ITS NAME, FROM
SHARING IN THE GOVERNMENT'S GENERAL PRIORITY.  TITLE 11, SEC. 104(A)
SETS UP FIVE LEVELS OF PRIORITY:  FIRST IS ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES;
SECOND, WAGES NOT TO EXCEED $600 TO EACH CLAIMANT WHICH HAVE BEEN
EARNED WITHIN THREE MONTHS BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS; THIRD, CERTAIN COSTS AND EXPENSES NOT MATERIAL HERE;
FOURTH, TAXES LEGALLY DUE AND OWING BY THE BANKRUPT TO THE UNITED
STATES, OR ANY STATE OR ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF; FIFTH, DEBTS OWING TO
ANY PERSON, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, WHO UNDER ITS LAWS IS ENTITLED
TO PRIORITY. 

IT CAN HARDLY BE QUESTIONED THAT LABOR BOARD AWARDS CONSTITUTE WAGES
OR THEIR EQUIVALENT, BUT BENEFICIARIES OF THESE AWARDS RARELY CAN
COMPLY WITH THE THREE-MONTHS TIME LIMITATION FOR WAGE PRIORITY BECAUSE
OF THE LAG OCCASIONED BY LABOR BOARD PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH THE
UNLAWFULNESS OF THEIR DISCHARGE BY THE EMPLOYER.  IF THEY COULD DO SO,
THEIR CLAIMS WOULD DOUBTLESS TAKE THE SECOND PRIORITY AND BE PAID IN
PREFERENCE TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW DENIES THESE CLAIMS SECOND PRIORITY BUT ADMITS
THEM TO THE FIFTH CLASS.  AHEAD OF THEM, IN THE FOURTH CLASS, ARE ALL
TAXES OWING TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO ANY STATE OR SUBDIVISION, AND
THIS OBVIOUSLY IS THE PRIORITY INTENDED TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL
REVENUES.  ONLY AFTER ALL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS ARE THUS SATISFIED DOES
THE JUDGMENT BELOW ALLOW THESE CLAIMS TO BE PAID.  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
IN THIS FIFTH CATEGORY CERTAINLY CONTEMPLATES A CLASS OF GOVERNMENT
CLAIMS NOT ARISING OUT OF TAXATION.  IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME
INAPPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE RELATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO THE WRONGED
LABORER ESTABLISHED BY THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT AS ANALOGOUS TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S WARDSHIP TOWARD INDIANS, FOUND TO WARRANT INVOCATION OF
ITS PRIORITY IN BRAMWELL V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY CO., 269 U.S. 483. 
THE SLOGAN "EQUALITY OF DISTRIBUTION" CAN HAVE LITTLE MEANING WHEN WE
ARE CONSIDERING A SECTION OF A STATUTE DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH INEQUALITY
BY A SERIES OF PRIORITIES.  TO PROTECT THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE AGAINST
INEQUALITIES CAUSED BY THE UNLAWFUL PREFERENCES ATTEMPTED BY THE
BANKRUPT IS ONE THING; TO INVOKE SUCH A "THEME" TO LEVEL OUT PRIORITIES
CREATED BY STATUTE IS ANOTHER. 

WHILE THE LEGISLATION IS NOT AS COMPLETE OR CLEAR AS ONE WOULD LIKE,
SUPPLYING THE RULE FOR CONFLICTS UNANTICIPATED BY CONGRESS IS A LARGE
PART OF OUR WORK AND I THINK THE COURTS BELOW HAVE ARRIVED AT A
PRACTICAL SOLUTION OF THIS QUESTION THAT ACCOMPLISHES THE PURPOSES BOTH
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 
..END :

















UNITED STATES V. L.A. TUCKER TRUCK LINES, INC. 344 U.S. 33 


NO. 18.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1952.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1952.  - 100
F. SUPP. 432, REVERSED. 


A MOTOR CARRIER APPLIED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY UNDER SEC. 207(A) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  APPELLEE INTERVENED IN OPPOSITION.  THE
HEARINGS WERE CONDUCTED BY AN EXAMINER NOT APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SEC.
11 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT; BUT APPELLEE DID NOT OBJECT AT
ANY STAGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH IT HAD AMPLE
OPPORTUNITY TO TO SO.  THE COMMISSION GRANTED THE CERTIFICATE. 
APPELLEE PETITIONED A DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION AND, FOR THE FIRST TIME, CHALLENGED ITS VALIDITY ON THE GROUND
THAT THE EXAMINER WAS NOT APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 11 OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  IT OFFERED NO EXCUSE FOR ITS FAILURE TO
RAISE THE QUESTION SOONER AND MADE NO CLAIM OF ACTUAL PREJUDICE BY THE
CONDUCT OF THE EXAMINER OR THE MANNER OF HIS APPOINTMENT.  HELD: THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT ENTERTAIN THIS OBJECTION WHEN FIRST MADE AT
THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.   PP. 34-38. 

(A)  THE DEFECT IN THE EXAMINER'S APPOINTMENT WAS AN IRREGULARITY
WHICH WOULD INVALIDATE A RESULTING ORDER IF THE COMMISSION HAD
OVERRULED AN APPROPRIATE OBJECTION MADE DURING THE HEARINGS.  P. 38. 

(B)  BUT IT IS NOT ONE WHICH DEPRIVES THE COMMISSION OF POWER OR
JURISDICTION, SO THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF TIMELY OBJECTION ITS ORDER
SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AS A NULLITY.  P. 38. 

(C)  RISS & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 907, AND WONG YANG SUNG V.
MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 36-38. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. L.A. TUCKER TRUCK LINES, INC. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MISSOURI. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 207(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE HEARINGS ON THE APPLICATION THEREFOR WERE
CONDUCTED BY AN EXAMINER NOT APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 11 OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  100 F. SUPP. 432.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 38. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ONE CUNNINGHAM APPLIED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO AUTHORIZE EXTENSION
OF HIS EXISTING MOTOR CARRIER ROUTE.  (FN1)  A RAILROAD AND ELEVEN
MOTOR CARRIERS, INCLUDING APPELLEE, INTERVENED TO OPPOSE.  THE ISSUES
WERE REFERRED TO AN EXAMINER WHO AFTER HEARING RECOMMENDED THAT, WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE, A CERTIFICATE BE GRANTED.  APPELLEE
EXCEPTED, WHEREUPON DIVISION 5 OF THE COMMISSION, IN SUBSTANCE,
APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION.  APPELLEE REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION BY THE
FULL COMMISSION, WHICH WAS DENIED, AND THEN PETITIONED FOR
"EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF," WHICH ALSO WAS REFUSED.  THE COMMISSION
THEREUPON ISSUED A CERTIFICATE TO CUNNINGHAM.  APPELLEE, UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SHOW NEED FOR THE ADDITIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE THE
CERTIFICATE AND ORDER.  THE COMMISSION AND THE UNITED STATES ANSWERED
AND A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS CONVENED. 

ON THE DAY APPOINTED FOR HEARING, APPELLEE MOVED FOR LEAVE TO AMEND
ITS PETITION TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, A CONTENTION THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION WAS INVALID FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE
EXAMINER HAD NOT BEEN APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 11 OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  (FN2) THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED
AMENDMENT AND, UPON PROOF THAT THE APPOINTMENT HAD NOT BEEN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THAT ACT, INVALIDATED THE ORDER AND CERTIFICATE WITHOUT
GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE TENDERED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. 
(FN3)  THIS APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION RAISES BUT A SINGLE QUESTION - WHETHER SUCH AN OBJECTION,
FIRST MADE AT THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, WAS NOT ERRONEOUSLY
ENTERTAINED.  WE HOLD THAT IT WAS. 

APPELLEE DID NOT OFFER NOR DID THE COURT REQUIRE ANY EXCUSE FOR ITS
FAILURE TO RAISE THE OBJECTION UPON AT LEAST ONE OF ITS MANY
OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.  APPELLEE DOES NOT
CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN MISLED OR IN ANY WAY HAMPERED IN ASCERTAINING THE
FACTS ABOUT THE EXAMINER'S APPOINTMENT.  IT DID NOT BESTIR ITSELF TO
LEARN THE FACTS UNTIL LONG AFTER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS
CLOSED AND MONTHS AFTER THE CASE WAS AT ISSUE IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AT
WHICH TIME THE COMMISSION PROMPTLY SUPPLIED THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE
CONTENTION WAS BASED AND SUSTAINED. 

THE APPARENT REASON FOR COMPLACENCY WAS THAT IT WAS NOT ACTUALLY
PREJUDICED BY THE CONDUCT OR MANNER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE EXAMINER. 
THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT HE EXHIBITED BIAS, FAVORITISM OR
UNFAIRNESS.  NOR IS THERE GROUND FOR ASSUMING IT FROM THE RELATIONSHIPS
IN THE PROCEEDING.  HE DID NOT ACT AND WAS NOT EXPECTED TO ACT BOTH AS
PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE.  THE COMMISSION, WHICH APPOINTED HIM, DID NOT
INSTITUTE OR BECOME A PARTY IN INTEREST TO THE PROCEEDING.  NEITHER IT
NOR ITS EXAMINER HAD ANY FUNCTION EXCEPT TO DECIDE JUSTLY BETWEEN
CONTESTANTS IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING.  THE ISSUE IS CLEARLY AN
AFTERTHOUGHT, BROUGHT FORWARD AT THE LAST POSSIBLE MOMENT TO UNDO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS AND CAN
PREVAIL ONLY FROM TECHNICAL COMPULSION IRRESPECTIVE OF CONSIDERATIONS
OF PRACTICAL JUSTICE. 

IN RISS & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 907, THIS COURT HELD THAT
OFFICERS HEARING APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY UNDER SEC. 207(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT ARE SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  (FN4)  BUT
TIMELINESS OF THE OBJECTION WAS NOT BEFORE US, BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE
EXAMINER'S APPOINTMENT HAD BEEN TWICE CHALLENGED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS, ONCE, AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BEFORE THE EXAMINER AT THE
HEARINGS AND AGAIN BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON A PETITION FOR REHEARING. 
THAT DECISION ESTABLISHED ONLY THAT A LITIGANT IN SUCH A CASE AS THIS
WHO DOES MAKE SUCH DEMAND AT THE TIME OF HEARING IS ENTITLED TO AN
EXAMINER CHOSEN AS THE ACT PRESCRIBES. 

WE HAVE RECOGNIZED IN MORE THAN A FEW DECISIONS, (FN5) AND CONGRESS
HAS RECOGNIZED IN MORE THAN A FEW STATUTES, (FN6) THAT ORDERLY
PROCEDURE AND GOOD ADMINISTRATION REQUIRE THAT OBJECTIONS TO THE
PROCEEDINGS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY BE MADE WHILE IT HAS
OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRECTION IN ORDER TO RAISE ISSUES REVIEWABLE BY THE
COURTS.  IT IS URGED IN THIS CASE THAT THE COMMISSION HAD A
PREDETERMINED POLICY ON THIS SUBJECT WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED IT TO
OVERRULE THE OBJECTION IF MADE.   WHILE THIS MAY WELL BE TRUE, THE
COMMISSION IS OBLIGED TO DEAL WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF LIKE CASES. 
REPETITION OF THE OBJECTION IN THEM MIGHT LEAD TO A CHANGE OF POLICY,
OR, IF IT DID NOT, THE COMMISSION WOULD AT LEAST BE PUT ON NOTICE OF
THE ACCUMULATING RISK OF WHOLESALE REVERSALS BEING INCURRED BY ITS
PERSISTENCE.  (FN7)  SIMPLE FAIRNESS TO THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE
TASKS OF ADMINISTRATION, AND TO LITIGANTS, REQUIRES AS A GENERAL RULE
THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT TOPPLE OVER ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS UNLESS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY NOT ONLY HAS ERRED BUT HAS ERRED AGAINST OBJECTION
MADE AT THE TIME APPROPRIATE UNDER ITS PRACTICE. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS CASE FALLS OUTSIDE OF THIS GENERAL
RULE AND THE RESULT BELOW IS TECHNICALLY COMPELLED BECAUSE, IF THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER WAS IRREGULAR, THE COMMISSION IN
SOME MANNER LOST JURISDICTION AND ITS ORDER IS TOTALLY VOID.  THIS
INFERENCE IS DRAWN FROM OUR DECISION IN WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339
U.S. 33, FOR IT IS CONTENDED WE COULD NOT HAVE SUSTAINED A COLLATERAL
ATTACK BY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THAT CASE UNLESS WE FOUND THE DEFECT
IN THAT EXAMINER'S APPOINTMENT TO BE ONE OF JURISDICTIONAL MAGNITUDE. 
WE NEED NOT INQUIRE WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE RESULT UPON THAT CASE HAD
THE GOVERNMENT DENIED OR THE COURT CONSIDERED WHETHER THE OBJECTION
THERE SUSTAINED WAS TAKEN IN TIME.  THE EFFECT OF THE OMISSION WAS NOT
THERE RAISED IN BRIEFS OR ARGUMENT NOR DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT.  THEREFORE, THE CASE IS NOT A BINDING PRECEDENT ON THIS POINT. 
(FN8)  EVEN AS TO OUR OWN JUDICIAL POWER OR JURISDICTION, THIS COURT
HAS FOLLOWED THE LEAD OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL WHO HELD THAT THIS
COURT IS NOT BOUND BY A PRIOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IN A CASE WHERE
IT WAS NOT QUESTIONED AND IT WAS PASSED SUB SILENTIO.  (FN9) 

THE QUESTION NOT BEING FORECLOSED BY PRECEDENT, WE HOLD THAT THE
DEFECT IN THE EXAMINER'S APPOINTMENT WAS AN IRREGULARITY WHICH WOULD
INVALIDATE A RESULTING ORDER IF THE COMMISSION HAD OVERRULED AN
APPROPRIATE OBJECTION MADE DURING THE HEARINGS.  BUT IT IS NOT ONE
WHICH DEPRIVES THE COMMISSION OF POWER OR JURISDICTION, SO THAT EVEN IN
THE ABSENCE OF TIMELY OBJECTION ITS ORDER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AS A
NULLITY. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  49 U.S.C. SEC. 307. 

FN2  5 U.S.C. SEC. 1010. 

FN3  100 F. SUPP. 432. 

FN4  OUR DECISION IN THE RISS CASE WAS ANNOUNCED AFTER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING HEREIN, BUT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT'S
HEARING.  RISS APPARENTLY PROMPTED APPELLEE TO RAISE THE POINT ABOUT
THE EXAMINER'S QUALIFICATIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN5  SPILLER V. ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO., 253 U.S. 117, 130; UNITED
STATES EX REL.  VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103, 113; UNITED
STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 288 U.S. 490, 494; UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF ALASKA V. ARAGON, 329 U.S. 143, 155. 

FN6  SECTION 9(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77I;
SEC. 25(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 78Y;
SEC. 24 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79X;
SEC. 10 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 210; SEC. 10(E)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(E). 

FN7  THE GOVERNMENT INFORMS US THAT IN ABOUT FIVE THOUSAND CASES
COMMENCED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT,
ORDERS ARE FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD VULNERABLE TO ATTACK IF NO TIMELY
OBJECTION DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IS REQUIRED.  THE POLICY OF
THE COMMISSION IS TO GRANT APPLICATION FOR REHEARING IN CASES WHERE
APPLICANT MADE THE OBJECTION BEFORE THE EXAMINER.  SINCE ITS
ESTABLISHED PRACTICE IS NOT TO CONSIDER ISSUES NOT RAISED BEFORE THE
EXAMINER, IT WILL REFUSE REHEARINGS IN OTHER CASES. 

FN8  WEBSTER V. FALL, 266 U.S. 507. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. MORE, 3 CRANCH 159, 172; SNOW V. UNITED STATES,
118 U.S. 346, 354; CROSS V. BURKE, 146 U.S. 82, 87; LOUISVILLE TRUST
CO. V. KNOTT, 191 U.S. 225, 236; ARANT V. LANE, 245 U.S. 166, 170. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

WERE WE DISPENSING WHAT IS COMPLACENTLY CALLED ORIENTAL JUSTICE,
ACCORDING TO WHICH THE MERITS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASE ALONE, SO ONE IS
TOLD, DETERMINE THE RESULT, I WOULD JOIN MY BRETHREN IN REVERSING THIS
JUDGMENT.   FOR I SEE NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH THE COURT'S VIEW THAT
IN THIS CASE NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT DID NOT PREJUDICE
THE APPELLEE.  NOR DO I DENY THAT SOME RIGHTS PERSONAL TO A PARTY MAY
BE WAIVED, EITHER EXPLICITLY OR BY FAILURE TO ASSERT THEM. 

BUT I FIND NO EXPLICIT WAIVER HERE, NOR IS IT CLEAR TO ME HOW THE
APPELLEE CAN BE CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE OFFICIAL STATUS OF THE
EXAMINER ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE REPORT THE COMMISSION TOOK ACTION
ADVERSE TO IT.  IN ANY EVENT, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT THAT PROCEEDINGS WHICH LEAD TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATION MUST BE CONDUCTED BY AN INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IS
NOT SOMETHING PERSONAL TO A PARTY.  IT IS A REQUIREMENT DESIGNED TO
ASSURE CONFIDENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BY DEFINING AND
LIMITING THE VARIOUS ORGANS THROUGH WHICH THAT PROCESS IS ALLOWED TO
FUNCTION. 

I DO NOT USE THE TERM "JURISDICTION" BECAUSE IT IS A VERBAL COAT OF
TOO MANY COLORS.  BUT WE ARE DEALING WITH LEGISLATION WHICH SOUGHT TO
REMEDY WHAT WERE BELIEVED TO BE EVILS IN THE WAY IN WHICH
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES EXERCISED THEIR AUTHORITY PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF JUNE 11, 1946.  THAT
ACT ACCORDINGLY PROHIBITED THE COMMINGLING OF THE CONFLICTING FUNCTIONS
EXERCISED BY THESE AGENCIES.  I DO SAY, THEREFORE, THAT IT CREATED
UNWAIVABLE LIMITATIONS UPON THE POWER OF THESE AGENCIES, AS MUCH SO AS
DO THE DEFINITIONS IN JUDICIARY ACTS OF THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF
CASES WHICH DIFFERENT COURTS ARE EMPOWERED TO HEAR AND DECIDE.  THE
LIMITATIONS UPON THE POWER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO
ACT, IMPOSED BY THE COMMAND THAT IT MUST DO SO ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, ARE THUS NOT
WITHIN THE DISPENSING POWER OF ANY LITIGANT.  THEY BIND AND CONFINE THE
COMMISSION ITSELF. 

I CANNOT OTHERWISE READ WHAT WE DECIDED IN WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH,
339 U.S. 33, AND RISS & CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 907.  I DO
NOT REST MY CONCLUSION ON ANY ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION SUB SILENTIO
IN THE WONG YANG SUNG CASE.  WHAT I AM RESTING ON IS THE SIGNIFICANCE
WE ATTACHED TO THE REQUIREMENT OF INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINERS AS
INHERENT IN THE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION. 

AFTER WE DECIDED WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, SUPRA, CONGRESS WAS
PROMPTLY ASKED TO RELIEVE THE DEPORTATION PROCESS OF THIS REQUIREMENT
AND IT DID SO.  SEE CHAPTER III OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION ACT,
1951 (ACT OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1950, 64 STAT. 1044, 1047).  AFTER WE MADE
THE SAME RULING AS TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, CONGRESS WAS
PROMPTLY ASKED TO VALIDATE PROCEEDINGS PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED BY THE
COMMISSION IN DISREGARD OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENT HEARING
EXAMINERS.  CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN NOT TO ENACT SUCH REMEDIAL
LEGISLATION.  (FN1)  I DO NOT CONSTRUE THIS WANT OF ACTION AS
CONTROLLING UPON THE ISSUE BEFORE US.  I REFER TO THIS SUBSEQUENT
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MERELY AS AN INDICATION OF THE PATH BY WHICH
UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES FLOWING FROM OUR DECISION IN RISS & CO., INC.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, MAY BE CORRECTED WITHOUT INJUSTICE. 
SITUATIONS LIKE THIS ARISE FROM TIME TO TIME WHEN DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT IN THE OBSERVANCE OF LAW SUGGEST CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION.  SEE,
E.G., UNITED STATES V. HEINSZEN & CO., 206 U.S. 370. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

THIS DECISION GIVES A CAPRICIOUS TWIST TO THE LAW.  ONE WOULD ASSUME
FROM A READING OF THE OPINION IN WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S.
33, THAT THE FAILURE OF A FEDERAL AGENCY TO USE THE TYPE OF EXAMINER
PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT.
237, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1001 ET SEQ., VITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS WHETHER
OBJECTION WAS RAISED OR NOT.  THE CONGRESS DECIDED TO SEPARATE THE
JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF EXAMINERS FROM THE INVESTIGATIVE AND PROSECUTING
FUNCTIONS.  IT REQUIRED THE SEPARATION IN CASES INVOLVING PROPERTY
INTERESTS AS WELL AS THOSE INVOLVING PERSONAL LIBERTY.  IT CONDEMNED AS
UNFAIR A PRACTICE WHICH HAD GROWN UP OF ALLOWING ONE MAN TO BE THE
POLICE OFFICER, THE PROSECUTOR, AND THE JUDGE.    VIOLATION OF THAT
REQUIREMENT LED THE COURT IN WONG YANG SUNG'S CASE TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS TO SAVE AN ALIEN FROM DEPORTATION WHERE THE HEARING
EXAMINER DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT.  THAT WAS A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING,
SUCCESSFULLY MADE EVEN THOUGH NO OBJECTION TO THE EXAMINER WAS RAISED
AT THE HEARING.*    *AND THE ALIEN IN THAT CASE, LIKE THE RESPONDENT
HERE, WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. 

THE OBJECTION RAISED IN THE PRESENT CASE LIKEWISE WAS NOT MADE AT THE
HEARING; BUT IT WAS MADE BEFORE REVIEW OF THE ORDER HAD BEEN
COMPLETED.  IT WOULD SEEM, THEREFORE, THAT REVERSAL OF THIS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WOULD FOLLOW A FORTIORI FROM WONG YANG SUNG'S
CASE. 

NO ONE KNOWS HOW THE COMMINGLING OF POLICE, PROSECUTOR AND JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS IN ONE PERSON MAY AFFECT A PARTICULAR DECISION.  IN SOME
SITUATIONS IT MIGHT MAKE NO DIFFERENCE; IN OTHERS IT MIGHT SUBTLY
CORRUPT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  THE ONLY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION
FOR US IS THAT CONGRESS HAS CONDEMNED THE PRACTICE; AND WE AS
SUPERVISORS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM SHOULD SEE TO IT THAT THE LAW IS
ENFORCED, NOT SELECTIVELY BUT IN ALL CASES COMING BEFORE US. 

OF COURSE, AN AGENCY THAT FLOUTS THE MANDATE FOR FAIR EXAMINERS DOES
NOT LOSE JURISDICTION OF THE CASE.  EVEN HABEAS CORPUS IS NO LONGER
RESTRICTED TO THE TESTING OF "JURISDICTION" IN THE HISTORIC SENSE.  SEE
JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 467; BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19,
24.  BUT THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN THE PRESENT CASE CREATED AN
ERROR THAT PERMEATES THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING.  IT IS ERROR THAT GOES TO
THE VERY VITALS OF THE CASE.  I WOULD THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND
SEND THE CASE BACK FOR A HEARING THAT MEETS THE STATUTORY STANDARDS OF
FAIRNESS.  I WOULD MAKE THE RULE OF WONG YANG SUNG'S CASE GOOD FOR MORE
THAN THE DAY AND THE OCCASION. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. BEACON BRASS CO., INC. 344 U.S. 43 


NO. 30.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1952.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1952.  - 106
F. SUPP. 510, REVERSED. 


A WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAXES BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
TO TREASURY REPRESENTATIVES VIOLATES SEC. 145(B) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 145(B), AND IS NOT PUNISHABLE EXCLUSIVELY
UNDER SEC. 35(A) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC.  1001, WHICH
OUTLAWS THE WILLFUL MAKING OF FALSE STATEMENTS "IN ANY MATTER" WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP.
43-47. 

UNITED STATES V. BEACON BRASS CO., INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN INDICTMENT UNDER SEC. 145(B) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 145(B), ON THE GROUND THAT IF
FAILED TO CHARGE AN OFFENSE THEREUNDER.  106 F. SUPP. 510.   ON DIRECT
APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731, REVERSED, P. 47. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON MARCH 16, 1951, A ONE-COUNT INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AGAINST THE
APPELLEES, BEACON BRASS COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND MAURICE FEINBERG,
ITS PRESIDENT AND TREASURER.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 145(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 40 STAT. 1085, AS AMENDED,
26 U.S.C. SEC. 145(B), THE APPELLEES HAD WILLFULLY ATTEMPTED TO EVADE
TAXES BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO TREASURY REPRESENTATIVES ON OCTOBER
24, 1945, "FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING, RATIFYING, CONFIRMING AND
CONCEALING THE FRAUDULENT AND INCORRECT STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS
MADE IN THE CORPORATE TAX RETURN OF SAID BEACON BRASS CO., INC., FOR
THE FISCAL PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 31, 1944, FILED ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 5,
1945  ...  ."  SECTION 145(B) PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART: 

"ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY ATTEMPTS IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR DEFEAT
ANY TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER OR THE PAYMENT THEREOF, SHALL, IN
ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW, BE GUILTY OF A FELONY  ...
." 

THE SIX-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD, 43 STAT. 341, 342, AS AMENDED, 26
U.S.C. SEC. 3748(A)(2), APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES UNDER THIS STATUTE, HAD
EXPIRED ON A CHARGE FOR FILING A FALSE TAX RETURN IN JANUARY 1945, BUT
IT HAD NOT EXPIRED ON A CHARGE OF MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO TREASURY
EMPLOYEES IN OCTOBER 1945.  THE DISTRICT COURT VIEWED THE INDICTMENT AS
CHARGING THE SEPARATE CRIMES OF FILING A FALSE RETURN AND MAKING
SUBSEQUENT FALSE STATEMENTS TO TREASURY REPRESENTATIVES, AND DISMISSED
THE INDICTMENT AS DUPLICITOUS. 

ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1951, A SECOND INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED AGAINST THE
APPELLEES WHICH REPEATED THE CHARGE THAT IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 145(B)
THEY "DID WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT AND EVADE A LARGE
PART OF THE TAXES DUE AND OWING BY THE SAID CORPORATION  ...  BY MAKING
CERTAIN FALSE AND FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS, AT A
HEARING AND CONFERENCE BEFORE REPRESENTATIVES AND EMPLOYEES OF THE
UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT, ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 24, 1945  ...
."  REFERENCE TO THE ALLEGEDLY FALSE RETURN FILED IN JANUARY 1945 WAS
OMITTED, AND INSTEAD IT WAS CHARGED THAT THE FALSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE
"FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING ADDITIONAL UNREPORTED NET INCOME  ...
." 

(NOW 18 U.S.C. (SUPP.  V) SEC. 1001) MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO "KNOWINGLY
AND WILLFULLY  ...  MAKE  ...  ANY FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR
REPRESENTATIONS ...  IN ANY MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  ."  OBVIOUSLY, AT THE
TIMES OF THE INDICTMENTS HERE, THE THREE-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD, 18
U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3282, FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS STATUTE HAD EXPIRED
AS TO STATEMENTS MADE IN OCTOBER 1945.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED
THAT SINCE SEC. 35(A) DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH FALSE STATEMENTS,
CONGRESS MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE INTENDED THAT THE MAKING OF FALSE
STATEMENTS SHOULD BE PUNISHABLE ONLY UNDER SEC. 35(A).  THEREFORE, THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED TO
CHARGE AN OFFENSE UNDER 26 U.S.C. SEC. 145(B).  106 F. SUPP. 510.  WE
NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES' APPEAL TAKEN UNDER
AUTHORITY OF 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 3731. 

WE HAVE BEFORE US TWO STATUTES, EACH OF WHICH PROSCRIBES CONDUCT NOT
COVERED BY THE OTHER, BUT WHICH OVERLAP IN A NARROW AREA ILLUSTRATED BY
THE INSTANT CASE.  AT LEAST WHERE DIFFERENT PROOF IS REQUIRED FOR EACH
OFFENSE, A SINGLE ACT OR TRANSACTION MAY VIOLATE MORE THAN ONE CRIMINAL
STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V. NOVECK, 273 U.S. 202, 206; GAVIERES V.
UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 338.  UNLIKE SEC. 35(A), SEC. 145(B) REQUIRES
PROOF THAT THE FALSE STATEMENTS WERE MADE IN A WILLFUL EFFORT TO EVADE
TAXES.  THE PURPOSE TO EVADE TAXES IS CRUCIAL UNDER THIS SECTION.  THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 145(B) WHICH OUTLAWS WILLFUL ATTEMPTS TO EVADE TAXES
"IN ANY MANNER" IS CLEARLY BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE FALSE STATEMENTS
MADE TO TREASURY REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING
UNREPORTED INCOME.  CF. SPIES V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 492, 499.  THE
QUESTION RAISED BY THE DECISION BELOW IS WHETHER BY ENACTING A STATUTE
SPECIFICALLY OUTLAWING ALL FALSE STATEMENTS IN MATTERS UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES, CONGRESS INTENDED
THEREBY TO EXCLUDE THE MAKING OF FALSE STATEMENTS FROM THE SCOPE OF
SEC. 145(B). 

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO REQUIRE THE TAX
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES TO DEAL DIFFERENTLY WITH FALSE STATEMENTS THAN
WITH OTHER METHODS OF TAX EVASION.  BY PROVIDING THAT THE SANCTIONS OF
SEC. 145(B) SHOULD BE "IN ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW,"
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT SOME METHODS OF ATTEMPTING TO EVADE TAXES
WOULD VIOLATE OTHER STATUTES AS WELL.  SEE TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 179
F.2D 640, 644.  MOREOVER, SINCE NO DISTINCTION IS MADE IN SEC. 35(A)
BETWEEN WRITTEN AND ORAL STATEMENTS, THE REASONING OF THE COURT BELOW
WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO FALSE TAX RETURNS WHICH ARE, OF COURSE,
FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS.  BUT THE COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE UNIFORMLY
APPLIED SEC. 145(B) TO ATTEMPTS TO EVADE TAXES BY FILING FALSE
RETURNS.  E.G., GAUNT V. UNITED STATES, 184 F.2D 284, 288; TAYLOR V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 643-644.  FURTHER SUPPORT FOR OUR CONCLUSION
CAN BE FOUND IN UNITED STATES V. NOVECK, SUPRA, WHERE THIS COURT
REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 145(B) IMPLIEDLY
REPEALED THE GENERAL PERJURY STATUTE INSOFAR AS THAT STATUTE APPLIED TO
FALSE TAX RETURNS MADE UNDER OATH.  CF. UNITED STATES V. GILLILAND, 312
U.S. 86, 93, 95-96.  FINALLY, THE ENACTMENT OF OTHER STATUTES EXPRESSLY
OUTLAWING FALSE STATEMENTS IN PARTICULAR CONTEXTS, E.G., 18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SECS. 1010, 1014, NEGATES THE ASSUMPTION - WHICH WAS THE
FOUNDATION OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW - THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
THE MAKING OF FALSE STATEMENTS TO BE PUNISHABLE ONLY UNDER SEC. 35(A). 

THE APPELLEES CONTEND THAT THE ACTS CHARGED CONSTITUTE ONLY ONE CRIME
OF TAX EVASION WHICH WAS COMPLETE WHEN THE ALLEGEDLY FALSE TAX RETURN
WAS FILED.  ON THE BASIS OF THIS CONTENTION, APPELLEES SEEK TO SUSTAIN
THE DECISION BELOW ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS HAD RUN, AND THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST INDICTMENT IS
RES JUDICATA AND A BAR TO THE SECOND INDICTMENT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE. 
WE DO NOT CONSIDER THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE OUR JURISDICTION ON THIS
APPEAL IS LIMITED TO REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V) SEC. 3731; UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 206
207. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT REACHED
THE RIGHT RESULT AND WOULD AFFIRM ITS JUDGMENT. 
..END :






















CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD V. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. 344 U.S. 4 


NO. 126.  CERTIFICATE DISMISSED OCTOBER 20, 1952. 


A CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFYING TO THIS COURT, UNDER
28 U.S.C. SEC.  1254(3), QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF A
REGULATION OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD IS DISMISSED ON THE AUTHORITY
OF CASES CITED IN THE OPINION; AND AN APPLICATION OF THE BOARD FOR AN
ORDER REQUIRING THE COURT OF APPEALS TO SEND UP THE ENTIRE RECORD, THUS
BRINGING UP "THE ENTIRE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY" FOR DECISION, IS
DENIED.  PP. 4-5. 

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD ET AL. V. AMERICAN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF A REGULATION OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
UNLESS AND UNTIL PLAINTIFFS WERE AFFORDED "A FULL AND FAIR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING WITH RESPECT THERETO."  SEE 98 F. SUPP. 660.  ON APPEAL TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT,
THREE JUDGES WERE UNABLE TO AGREE ON A DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AND
CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATION.  THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD APPLIED TO THIS COURT UNDER
RULE 37(2) OF THE RULES OF THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE COURT
OF APPEALS TO SEND UP THE ENTIRE RECORD.  CERTIFICATE DISMISSED AND
ORDER DENIED, PP. 4-5. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE CERTIFICATE IS DISMISSED.  LABOR BOARD V. WHITE SWAN CO., 313
U.S. 23 (1941); LOWDEN V. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., 298
U.S. 160 (1936); WHITE V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 367 (1931); UNITED STATES
V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 168 U.S. 505 (1897). 

THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD HAS APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER
REQUIRING THE COURT OF APPEALS TO SEND UP THE ENTIRE RECORD.  TO GRANT
SUCH AN APPLICATION WOULD BRING "THE ENTIRE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY"
BEFORE THE COURT FOR DECISION.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1254(3). 

SINCE THE CERTIFICATE MUST BE DISMISSED, THE COURT SHOULD NOT
EXERCISE ITS DISCRETIONARY POWER TO BRING UP "THE ENTIRE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY" FOR REVIEW.  SEE CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON CO. V. ARCTIC IRON
CO., 248 U.S. 178 (1918).  PERHAPS THE COURT OF APPEALS MAY NOW WISH TO
HEAR THIS CASE EN BANC TO RESOLVE THE DEADLOCK INDICATED IN THE
CERTIFICATE AND GIVE FULL REVIEW TO THE ENTIRE CASE.  THIS COURT DOES
NOT NORMALLY REVIEW ORDERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE; AND THE COURT DOES NOT DESIRE TO TAKE ANY ACTION AT THIS TIME
WHICH MIGHT FORECLOSE THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH REVIEW IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS. 

FOR THESE REASONS THE BOARD'S APPLICATION IS DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :


















BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA 344 U.S. 1 


NO. 8.  OCTOBER 8, 1952. 


IN TWO CASES SET FOR ARGUMENT IN OCTOBER, LAWS OF KANSAS AND SOUTH
CAROLINA PROVIDING FOR RACIAL SEGREGATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE
CHALLENGED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN ANOTHER CASE
RAISING THE SAME QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO LAWS OF VIRGINIA, APPELLANTS
HAD FILED A STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION AND A MOTION REQUESTING THAT ALL
THREE CASES BE ARGUED TOGETHER.  THERE WAS PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT A CASE IN WHICH
SEGREGATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS
CHALLENGED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  HELD: 

1.  THE KANSAS AND SOUTH CAROLINA CASES ARE CONTINUED ON THE DOCKET;
PROBABLE JURISDICTION IS NOTED IN THE VIRGINIA CASE; AND ARGUMENTS IN
ALL THREE WILL BE HEARD IN DECEMBER.  PP. 2-3. 

2.  JUDICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN OF THE PENDENCY OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CASE.  THE COURT WILL ENTERTAIN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN
THAT CASE, WHICH, IF PRESENTED AND GRANTED, WILL AFFORD OPPORTUNITY FOR
ARGUMENT OF THAT CASE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS IN THE OTHER
THREE CASES.  P. 3.

BROWN ET AL. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
KANSAS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 101, BRIGGS ET AL. V. ELLIOTT ET AL., MEMBERS OF
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT #22, ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; AND
NO. 191, DAVIS ET AL. V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY ET
AL., ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN TWO APPEALS NOW PENDING, NO. 8, BROWN ET AL. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF TOPEKA ET AL., AND NO. 101, BRIGGS ET AL. V. ELLIOTT ET AL., THE
APPELLANTS CHALLENGE, RESPECTIVELY, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE
OF KANSAS, AND A STATUTE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, WHICH
PROVIDE FOR SEGREGATION IN THE SCHOOLS OF THESE STATES.  APPELLANTS
ALLEGE THAT SEGREGATION IS, PER SE, A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  ARGUMENT IN THESE CASES HAS HERETOFORE BEEN SET FOR THE
WEEK OF OCTOBER 13, 1952. 

IN NO. 191, DAVIS ET AL. V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD
COUNTY ET AL., THE APPELLANTS HAVE FILED A STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
RAISING THE SAME ISSUE IN RESPECT TO A STATUTE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF
VIRGINIA.  APPELLEES IN THE DAVIS CASE HAVE CALLED ATTENTION TO THE
SIMILARILY BETWEEN IT AND THE BRIGGS AND BROWN CASES; BY MOTION THEY
HAVE ASKED THE COURT TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO HAVE ALL THREE CASES
ARGUED TOGETHER. 

THIS COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A FOURTH CASE, WHICH IS PENDING
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT, BOLLING ET AL. V. SHARPE ET AL., NO. 11,018 ON THAT COURT'S
DOCKET.  IN THAT CASE, THE APPELLANTS CHALLENGE THE APPELLEES' REFUSAL
TO ADMIT CERTAIN NEGRO APPELLANTS TO A SEGREGATED WHITE SCHOOL IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; THEY ALLEGE THAT APPELLEES HAVE TAKEN SUCH ACTION
PURSUANT TO CERTAIN ACTS OF CONGRESS; THEY ALLEGE THAT SUCH ACTION IS A
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE NATURE OF THE ISSUE POSED IN
THOSE APPEALS NOW BEFORE THE COURT INVOLVING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
AND ALSO THE EFFECT OF ANY DECISION WHICH IT MAY RENDER IN THOSE CASES,
ARE SUCH THAT IT WOULD BE WELL TO CONSIDER, SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE POSED IN THE CASE OF BOLLING ET AL. V. SHARPE ET
AL. 

TO THE END THAT ARGUMENTS MAY BE HEARD TOGETHER IN ALL FOUR OF THESE
CASES, THE COURT WILL CONTINUE THE BROWN AND BRIGGS CASES ON ITS
DOCKET.  PROBABLE JURISDICTION IS NOTED IN DAVIS ET AL. V. COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY ET AL. ARGUMENTS WILL BE HEARD IN
THESE THREE CASES AT THE FIRST ARGUMENT SESSION IN DECEMBER. 

THE COURT WILL ENTERTAIN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THE CASE OF
BOLLING ET AL. V. SHARPE ET AL., 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1254(1), 2101(E),
WHICH IF PRESENTED AND GRANTED WILL AFFORD OPPORTUNITY FOR ARGUMENT OF
THE CASE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ARGUMENTS IN THE THREE APPEALS NOW
PENDING.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS FROM POSTPONING ARGUMENT AND DECISION IN
THE THREE CASES PRESENTLY HERE FOR BOLLING ET AL. V. SHARPE ET AL., IN
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT. 
..END :








BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. HOWARD 343 U.S. 768 


NO. 458.  ARGUED APRIL 22, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1952 - 191 F.2D 442,
AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER UNION IS AN EXCLUSIVELY WHITE UNION WHICH ACTS UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR RAILROAD TRAINMEN. 
BY THREAT OF A STRIKE, IT FORCED PETITIONER RAILROAD TO AGREE NOT TO
PERMIT NEGRO "TRAIN PORTERS" TO PERFORM ANY OF THE DUTIES OF BRAKEMEN. 
AS A RESULT, THE RAILROAD TOOK STEPS TO DISCHARGE NEGRO "TRAIN PORTERS"
AND REPLACE THEM WITH WHITE BRAKEMEN.  RESPONDENT, A MEMBER OF THE
GROUP OF NEGRO "TRAIN PORTERS" WHO FOR MANY YEARS HAD SATISFACTORILY
PERFORMED THE DUTIES OF BRAKEMEN AND HAD THEIR OWN SEPARATE UNION AS
THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, BROUGHT A CLASS SUIT IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING THE AGREEMENT VOID AND
ENJOINING THE RAILROAD FROM CARRYING IT OUT.  HELD: 

1.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT PROHIBITS BARGAINING AGENTS WHO ENJOY THE
ADVANTAGES OF ITS PROVISIONS FROM USING THEIR POSITION AND POWER TO
DESTROY NEGRO WORKERS' JOBS IN ORDER TO BESTOW THEM ON WHITE WORKERS. 
STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192.  PP.  769-774. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION AND POWER TO ISSUE THE
INJUNCTION NECESSARY TO PROTECT THESE NEGRO WORKERS FROM THE RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED AGAINST THEM.  PP. 744-775. 

(A)  SINCE THIS DISPUTE INVOLVES THE VALIDITY OF A CONTRACT, NOT ITS
MEANING, IT CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY INTERPRETATION OF A BARGAINING
AGREEMENT SO AS TO GIVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE RAILWAY
ADJUSTMENT BOARD UNDER SLOCUM V. DELAWARE, L.&W.R. CO., 339 U.S. 239. 
P. 774. 

(B)  NOR DOES THIS DISPUTE HINGE ON THE PROPER CRAFT CLASSIFICATION
OF THE "TRAIN PORTERS" SO AS TO CALL FOR SETTLEMENT BY THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD UNDER SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD,
320 U.S. 297.  P. 774. 

(C)  NOR IS THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION IN THIS CASE PROHIBITED BY
THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S.
192; GRAHAM V. BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN, 338 U.S. 232.  P. 774. 

3.  ON REMAND, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD PERMANENTLY ENJOIN THE
PETITIONER UNION AND RAILROAD FROM USE OF THE CONTRACT OR ANY OTHER
SIMILAR DISCRIMINATORY BARGAINING DEVICE TO OUST THE NEGRO "TRAIN
PORTERS" FROM THEIR JOBS.  P. 775. 

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN ET AL. V. HOWARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF A BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN A
RAILROAD AND A TRAINMEN'S UNION ON THE GROUND THAT IT DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST NEGRO "TRAIN PORTERS," THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED MOST OF THE
RELIEF PRAYED FOR, ON THE GROUND THAT THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD AND
THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF
THE DISPUTE UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  72 F. SUPP. 695.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED THIS HOLDING.  191 F.2D 442.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 940.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT, P. 775. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE POWER OF COURTS TO PROTECT
NEGRO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES FROM LOSS OF THEIR JOBS UNDER COMPULSION OF A
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH, TO AVOID A STRIKE, THE RAILROAD MADE WITH
AN EXCLUSIVELY WHITE MAN'S UNION.  RESPONDENT SIMON HOWARD, A FRISCO
(FN1) TRAIN EMPLOYEE FOR NEARLY FORTY YEARS, BROUGHT THIS ACTION ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHER COLORED EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED. 

IN SUMMARY THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED:  NEGRO EMPLOYEES SUCH AS RESPONDENT
CONSTITUTED A GROUP CALLED "TRAIN PORTERS" ALTHOUGH THEY ACTUALLY
PERFORMED ALL THE DUTIES OF WHITE "BRAKEMEN"; THE BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILROAD TRAINMEN, BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF "BRAKEMEN" UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, (FN2) HAD FOR YEARS USED ITS INFLUENCE IN AN ATTEMPT
TO ELIMINATE NEGRO TRAINMEN AND GET THEIR JOBS FOR WHITE MEN WHO,
UNLIKE COLORED "TRAIN PORTERS," WERE OR COULD BE MEMBERS OF THE
BROTHERHOOD; ON MARCH 7, 1946, THE BROTHERHOOD FINALLY FORCED THE
FRISCO TO AGREE TO DISCHARGE THE COLORED "TRAIN PORTERS" AND FILL THEIR
JOBS WITH WHITE MEN WHO, UNDER THE AGREEMENT, WOULD DO LESS WORK BUT
GET MORE PAY.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT THE BROTHERHOOD'S
"DISCRIMINATORY ACTION" VIOLATED THE TRAIN PORTERS' RIGHTS UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION; THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS
VOID BECAUSE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
AND DESIGNED TO DEPRIVE NEGRO TRAINMEN OF THEIR RIGHT TO EARN A
LIVELIHOOD BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE OR COLOR.  THE PRAYERS WERE THAT THE
COURT ADJUDGE AND DECREE THAT THE CONTRACT WAS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE
FOR THE REASONS STATED; THAT THE RAILROAD BE "ENJOINED FROM
DISCONTINUING THE JOBS KNOWN AS TRAIN PORTERS" AND "FROM HIRING WHITE
BRAKEMEN TO REPLACE OR DISPLACE PLAINTIFF AND OTHER TRAIN PORTERS AS
PLANNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID AGREEMENT." 

THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT, AFFIRMED WITH EMPHASIS BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS, SUBSTANTIALLY ESTABLISHED THE TRUTH OF THE
COMPLAINT'S MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS.  THESE FACTS SHOWED THAT THE NEGRO
TRAIN PORTERS HAD FOR A GREAT MANY YEARS SERVED THE RAILROAD WITH
LOYALTY, INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY; THAT "TRAIN PORTERS" DO ALL THE WORK
OF BRAKEMEN; (FN3) THAT THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATOR OF RAILROADS
DURING WORLD WAR I HAD CLASSIFIED THEM AS BRAKEMEN AND HAD REQUIRED
THAT THEY BE PAID JUST LIKE WHITE BRAKEMEN; THAT WHEN THE RAILROADS
WENT BACK TO THEIR OWNERS, THEY REDESIGNATED THESE COLORED BRAKEMEN AS
"TRAIN PORTERS," "LEFT THEIR DUTIES UNTOUCHED," AND FORCED THEM TO
ACCEPT WAGES FAR BELOW THOSE OF WHITE "BRAKEMEN" WHO WERE BROTHERHOOD
MEMBERS; THAT FOR MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY THE BROTHERHOOD AND
OTHER EXCLUSIVELY WHITE RAIL UNIONS HAD CONTINUALLY CARRIED ON A
PROGRAM OF AGGRESSIVE HOSTILITY TO EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES FOR TRAIN,
ENGINE AND YARD SERVICE; THAT THE AGREEMENT OF MARCH 7, 1946, HERE
UNDER ATTACK, PROVIDES THAT TRAIN PORTERS SHALL NO LONGER DO ANY WORK
"GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS BRAKEMAN'S DUTIES"; THAT WHILE THIS AGREEMENT
DID NOT IN EXPRESS WORDS COMPEL DISCHARGE OF "TRAIN PORTERS," THE
ECONOMIC UNSOUNDNESS OF KEEPING THEM AFTER TRANSFER OF THEIR "BRAKEMEN"
FUNCTIONS MADE COMPLETE ABOLITION OF THE "TRAIN PORTER" GROUP
INEVITABLE; THAT TWO DAYS AFTER "THE CARRIERS RELUCTANTLY, AND AS A
RESULT OF THE STRIKE THREATS" SIGNED THE AGREEMENT, THEY NOTIFIED TRAIN
PORTERS THAT "UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WE WILL, EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1946,
DISCONTINUE ALL TRAIN PORTER POSITIONS."  ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENT
HOWARD, AND OTHERS, WERE PERSONALLY NOTIFIED TO TURN IN THEIR SWITCH
KEYS, LANTERNS, MARKERS AND OTHER BRAKEMEN'S EQUIPMENT, AND NOTICES OF
JOB VACANCIES WERE POSTED TO BE BID IN BY WHITE BRAKEMEN ONLY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE COMPLAINT RAISED QUESTIONS WHICH
CONGRESS BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT HAD MADE SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD AND THE NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  72 F. SUPP. 695.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THIS
HOLDING.  (FN4)  IT HELD THAT THE AGREEMENT, AS CONSTRUED AND ACTED
UPON BY THE RAILROAD, WAS AN "ATTEMPTED PREDATORY APPROPRIATION" OF THE
"TRAIN PORTERS'" JOBS, AND WAS TO THIS EXTENT ILLEGAL AND
UNENFORCEABLE.  IT THEREFORE ORDERED THAT THE RAILROAD MUST KEEP THE
"TRAIN PORTERS" AS EMPLOYEES; IT PERMITTED THE RAILROAD AND THE
BROTHERHOOD TO TREAT THE CONTRACT AS VALID ON CONDITION THAT THE
RAILROAD WOULD RECOGNIZE THE COLORED "TRAIN PORTERS" AS MEMBERS OF THE
CRAFT OF "BRAKEMEN" AND THAT THE BROTHERHOOD WOULD FAIRLY REPRESENT
THEM AS SUCH.  191 F.2D 442.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 940. 

WHILE DIFFERENT IN SOME RESPECTS, THE BASIC PATTERN OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION IN THIS CASE IS MUCH THE SAME AS THAT WE HAD TO CONSIDER
IN STEELE V. L.&N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192.  IN THIS CASE, AS WAS CHARGED
IN THE STEELE CASE, A BROTHERHOOD ACTING AS A BARGAINING AGENT UNDER
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT HAS BEEN HOSTILE TO NEGRO EMPLOYEES, HAS
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THEM, AND HAS FORCED THE RAILROAD TO MAKE A
CONTRACT WHICH WOULD HELP BROTHERHOOD MEMBERS TAKE OVER THE JOBS OF THE
COLORED "TRAIN PORTERS." 

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TWO CASES, HOWEVER,
WHICH IT IS CONTENDED REQUIRES US TO DENY THE JUDICIAL REMEDY HERE THAT
WAS ACCORDED IN THE STEELE CASE.  THAT DIFFERENCE IS THIS:  STEELE WAS
ADMITTEDLY A LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN ALTHOUGH NOT A MEMBER OF THE
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN WHICH UNDER THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT WAS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE
CRAFT OF FIREMEN.  WE HELD THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT IMPOSED A DUTY
ON THE CRAFT BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO EXERCISE THE POWER CONFERRED
UPON IT IN BEHALF OF ALL THOSE FOR WHOM IT ACTS, WITHOUT HOSTILE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY OF THEM.  FAILURE TO EXERCISE THIS DUTY WAS
HELD TO GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ACT.  IN THIS CASE,
UNLIKE THE STEELE CASE, THE COLORED EMPLOYEES HAVE FOR MANY YEARS BEEN
TREATED BY THE CARRIERS AND THE BROTHERHOOD AS A SEPARATE CLASS FOR
REPRESENTATION PURPOSES AND HAVE IN FACT BEEN REPRESENTED BY ANOTHER
UNION OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.  SINCE THE BROTHERHOOD HAS DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST "TRAIN PORTERS" INSTEAD OF MINORITY MEMBERS OF ITS OWN "CRAFT,"
IT IS ARGUED THAT THE BROTHERHOOD OWED NO DUTY AT ALL TO REFRAIN FROM
USING ITS STATUTORY BARGAINING POWER SO AS TO ABOLISH THE JOBS OF THE
COLORED PORTERS AND DRIVE THEM FROM THE RAILROADS.  WE THINK THIS
ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND AND THAT THE OPINION IN THE STEELE CASE POINTS TO A
BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY BY THIS BROTHERHOOD. 

AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THESE TRAIN PORTERS ARE THREATENED WITH LOSS OF
THEIR JOBS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WHITE AND FOR NO OTHER REASON.  THE JOB
THEY DID HOLD UNDER ITS OLD NAME WOULD BE ABOLISHED BY THE AGREEMENT;
THEIR COLOR ALONE WOULD DISQUALIFY THEM FROM THE OLD JOB UNDER ITS NEW
NAME.  THE END RESULT OF THESE TRANSACTIONS IS NOT IN DOUBT; FOR
PRECISELY THE SAME REASONS AS IN THE STEELE CASE "DISCRIMINATIONS BASED
ON RACE ALONE ARE OBVIOUSLY IRRELEVANT AND INVIDIOUS.  CONGRESS PLAINLY
DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO AUTHORIZE THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE
SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS."  STEELE V. L.&N.R. CO., SUPRA, AT 203, AND CASES
THERE CITED.  CF. SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1.  THE FEDERAL ACT THUS
PROHIBITS BARGAINING AGENTS IT AUTHORIZES FROM USING THEIR POSITION AND
POWER TO DESTROY COLORED WORKERS' JOBS IN ORDER TO BESTOW THEM ON WHITE
WORKERS.  AND COURTS CAN PROTECT THOSE THREATENED BY SUCH AN UNLAWFUL
USE OF POWER GRANTED BY A FEDERAL ACT. 

HERE, AS IN THE STEELE CASE, COLORED WORKERS MUST LOOK TO A JUDICIAL
REMEDY TO PREVENT THE SACRIFICE OR OBLITERATION OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER
THE ACT.  FOR NO ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY CAN BE AFFORDED BY THE
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT OR MEDIATION BOARD.  THE CLAIMS HERE
CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY INTERPRETATION OF A BARGAINING AGREEMENT SO AS TO
GIVE JURISDICTION TO THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD UNDER OUR HOLDING IN SLOCUM
V. DELAWARE, L.&W.R. CO., 339 U.S. 239.  THIS DISPUTE INVOLVES THE
VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT, NOT ITS MEANING.  NOR DOES THE DISPUTE HINGE
ON THE PROPER CRAFT CLASSIFICATION OF THE PORTERS SO AS TO CALL FOR
SETTLEMENT BY THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD UNDER OUR HOLDING IN
SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297.  FOR THE
CONTENTION HERE WITH WHICH WE AGREE IS THAT THE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
PRACTICED IS UNLAWFUL, WHETHER COLORED EMPLOYEES ARE CLASSIFIED AS
"TRAIN PORTERS," "BRAKEMEN," OR SOMETHING ELSE.  OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION AND POWER TO ISSUE NECESSARY
INJUNCTIVE ORDERS NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT.  (FN5)  WE NEED ADD NOTHING TO WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT
INAPPLICABILITY OF THAT ACT IN THE STEELE CASE AND IN GRAHAM V.
BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN, 338 U.S. 232, 239-240. 

BARGAINING AGENTS WHO ENJOY THE ADVANTAGES OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT'S
PROVISIONS MUST EXECUTE THEIR TRUST WITHOUT LAWLESS INVASIONS OF THE
RIGHTS OF OTHER WORKERS.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO PROTECT THESE WORKERS FROM THE
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED AGAINST THEM.  ON REMAND, THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD PERMANENTLY ENJOIN THE RAILROAD AND THE BROTHERHOOD FROM
USE OF THE CONTRACT OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR DISCRIMINATORY BARGAINING
DEVICE TO OUST THE TRAIN PORTERS FROM THEIR JOBS.  IN FASHIONING ITS
DECREE THE DISTRICT COURT IS LEFT FREE TO CONSIDER WHAT PROVISIONS ARE
NECESSARY TO AFFORD THESE EMPLOYEES FULL PROTECTION FROM FUTURE
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES OF THE BROTHERHOOD.  HOWEVER, IN DRAWING ITS
DECREE, THE DISTRICT COURT MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF
RECLASSIFICATION OF THE CRAFT OF "TRAIN PORTERS" ARE COMMITTED BY THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT TO THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.  SWITCHMEN'S UNION
V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING THAT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IS AFFIRMED, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARY ST.
LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY. 

FN2  44 STAT. 577, AS AMENDED, 48 STAT. 1185, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 151 ET
SEQ. 

FN3  IN ADDITION TO DOING ALL THE WORK DONE BY ORDINARY BRAKEMEN,
TRAIN PORTERS HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO SWEEP THE COACHES AND ASSIST
PASSENGERS TO GET ON AND OFF THE TRAINS.  AS THE COURT OF APPEALS
NOTED, "THESE AISLE-SWEEPING AND PASSENGER-ASSISTING TASKS, HOWEVER,
ARE SIMPLY MINOR AND INCIDENTAL, OCCUPYING ONLY, AS THE RECORD SHOWS,
APPROXIMATELY FIVE PER CENT OF A TRAIN PORTER'S TIME."  191 F.2D 442,
444. 

FN4  ONE PART OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER WAS AFFIRMED.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD PROPERLY ENJOINED THE
RAILROAD FROM ABOLISHING THE POSITION OF "TRAIN PORTERS" UNDER THE
NOTICES GIVEN, ON THE GROUND THAT THESE NOTICES WERE INSUFFICIENT TO
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 2, SEVENTH, AND SEC. 6 OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT.  THE VIEW WE TAKE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER
THIS QUESTION. 

FN5  47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 101 ET SEQ. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED
JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE RIGHT OF THE BROTHERHOOD TO REPRESENT RAILROAD EMPLOYEES EXISTED
BEFORE THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WAS PASSED.  THE ACT SIMPLY PROTECTS THE
EMPLOYEES WHEN THIS RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION IS EXERCISED.  IF A LABOR
ORGANIZATION IS DESIGNATED BY A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A CRAFT OR
CLASS AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR THAT CRAFT OR CLASS AND IS SO
RECOGNIZED BY THE CARRIER, THAT LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS A DUTY TO
REPRESENT IN GOOD FAITH ALL WORKERS OF THE CRAFT.  STEELE V. LOUISVILLE
& N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 202.  IN THE STEELE CASE, THE COMPLAINANT WAS
A LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN; HIS DUTIES WERE WHOLLY THOSE OF A FIREMAN.  THE
BROTHERHOOD IN THAT CASE REPRESENTED THE "FIREMEN'S CRAFT," BUT WOULD
NOT ADMIT STEELE AS A MEMBER BECAUSE HE WAS A NEGRO.  AS THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS CRAFT OF FIREMEN, THE BROTHERHOOD MADE A CONTRACT
WITH THE CARRIER THAT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST HIM BECAUSE OF HIS RACE. 
THIS COURT HELD THE CONTRACT INVALID.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME IF
THE BROTHERHOOD HAD DISCRIMINATED AGAINST HIM ON SOME OTHER GROUND,
UNRELATED TO RACE.  IT WAS THE BROTHERHOOD'S DUTY "TO ACT ON BEHALF OF
ALL THE EMPLOYEES WHICH, BY VIRTUE OF THE STATUTE, IT UNDERTAKES TO
REPRESENT."  STEELE, SUPRA, AT 199.    IN THE INSTANT CASE THE
BROTHERHOOD HAS NEVER PURPORTED TO REPRESENT THE TRAIN PORTERS.  THE
TRAIN PORTERS HAVE NEVER REQUESTED THAT THE BROTHERHOOD REPRESENT
THEM.  CLASSIFICATION OF THE JOB OF "TRAIN PORTER" WAS ESTABLISHED MORE
THAN FORTY YEARS AGO AND HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED.  AT THAT TIME, THE
PRINCIPAL DUTIES OF THE TRAIN PORTERS WERE CLEANING THE CARS, ASSISTING
THE PASSENGERS, AND HELPING TO LOAD AND UNLOAD BAGGAGE; ONLY A SMALL
PART OF THE DUTIES WERE THOSE OF BRAKEMEN, WHO WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.  AS EARLY AS 1921, THE TRAIN PORTERS
ORGANIZED A SEPARATE BARGAINING UNIT THROUGH WHICH THEY HAVE
CONTINUOUSLY BARGAINED WITH THE CARRIER HERE INVOLVED; THEY NOW HAVE AN
EXISTING CONTRACT WITH THIS CARRIER.  ALTHOUGH THE CARRIERS GRADUALLY
IMPOSED UPON THE TRAIN PORTERS MORE OF THE DUTIES OF BRAKEMEN UNTIL
TODAY MOST OF THEIR DUTIES ARE THOSE OF BRAKEMEN, THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN
CLASSIFIED AS BRAKEMEN. 

THE MAJORITY DOES NOT SAY THAT THE TRAIN PORTERS ARE BRAKEMEN AND
THEREFORE THE BROTHERHOOD MUST REPRESENT THEM FAIRLY, AS WAS HELD IN
STEELE.  WHETHER THEY BELONG TO THE BROTHERHOOD IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF
THE LATTER'S DUTIES OF REPRESENTATION, IF IT REPRESENTS THE CRAFT OF
BRAKEMEN AND IF THE TRAIN PORTERS ARE BRAKEMEN.  STEELE WAS NOT A
MEMBER OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN AND COULD
NOT BE BECAUSE OF RACE - THE SAME REASON THAT THE TRAIN PORTERS CANNOT
BELONG TO THE BROTHERHOOD OF TRAINMEN.  BUT STEELE WAS A FIREMAN, WHILE
THE TRAIN PORTERS ARE NOT BRAKEMEN. 

THE BROTHERHOOD STOUTLY OPPOSES THE CONTENTION THAT IT IS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TRAIN PORTERS.   FOR THE COURT SO TO HOLD WOULD
BE TO FLY IN THE FACE OF THE STATUTE (45 U.S.C. SEC. 152, NINTH) AND
THE HOLDING OF THIS COURT IN GENERAL COMMITTEE V. MISSOURI-K.-T.R.
CO., 320 U.S. 323, 334-336.* THE MAJORITY AVOIDS THE DISPUTE IN TERMS
BUT EMBRACES IT IN FACT BY SAYING IT IS PASSING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONTRACT.  IF THIS IS TRUE, IT IS DONE AT THE INSTANCE OF PERSONS FOR
WHOM THE BROTHERHOOD WAS NOT CONTRACTING AND WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO
CONTRACT.  THE TRAIN PORTERS HAD A DULY ELECTED BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE, WHICH FACT OPERATED TO EXCLUDE THE BROTHERHOOD FROM
REPRESENTING THE CRAFT.  STEELE, SUPRA, AT 200; VIRGINIAN R. CO. V.
SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 548. 

*"NOR DOES SEC. 2, SECOND MAKE JUSTICIABLE WHAT OTHERWISE IS NOT.  IT
PROVIDES THAT 'ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN A CARRIER OR CARRIERS AND ITS OR
THEIR EMPLOYEES SHALL BE CONSIDERED, AND, IF POSSIBLE, DECIDED, WITH
ALL EXPEDITION, IN CONFERENCE BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED AND
AUTHORIZED SO TO CONFER, RESPECTIVELY, BY THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS AND
BY THE EMPLOYEES THEREOF INTERESTED IN THE DISPUTE.'  AS WE HAVE
ALREADY POINTED OUT, SEC. 2, NINTH, AFTER PROVIDING FOR A CERTIFICATION
BY THE MEDIATION BOARD OF THE PARTICULAR CRAFT OR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE,
STATES THAT 'THE CARRIER SHALL TREAT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE SO
CERTIFIED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THIS ACT.' 

     *         *         *         *    * 

"IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 2, NINTH THAT IT
WAS DESIGNED NOT ONLY TO HELP FREE THE UNIONS FROM THE INFLUENCE,
COERCION AND CONTROL OF THE CARRIERS BUT ALSO TO RESOLVE A WIDE RANGE
OF JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES BETWEEN UNIONS OR BETWEEN GROUPS OF
EMPLOYEES.  H. REP. NO. 1944, SUPRA, P. 2; S. REP. NO. 1065, 73D CONG.,
2D SESS., P. 3.  HOWEVER WIDE MAY BE THE RANGE OF JURISDICTIONAL
DISPUTES EMBRACED WITHIN SEC. 2, NINTH, CONGRESS DID NOT SELECT THE
COURTS TO RESOLVE THEM." 

THE MAJORITY REACHES OUT TO INVALIDATE THE CONTRACT, NOT BECAUSE THE
TRAIN PORTERS ARE BRAKEMEN ENTITLED TO FAIR REPRESENTATION BY THE
BROTHERHOOD, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE NEGROES WHO WERE DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST BY THE CARRIER AT THE BEHEST OF THE BROTHERHOOD.  I DO NOT
UNDERSTAND THAT PRIVATE PARTIES SUCH AS THE CARRIER AND THE BROTHERHOOD
MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE GROUND OF RACE.  NEITHER A STATE GOVERNMENT
NOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY DO SO, BUT I KNOW OF NO APPLICABLE
FEDERAL LAW WHICH SAYS THAT PRIVATE PARTIES MAY NOT.  THAT IS THE WHOLE
PROBLEM UNDERLYING THE PROPOSED FEDERAL FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
CODE.  OF COURSE, THIS COURT BY SHEER POWER CAN SAY THIS CASE IS
STEELE, OR EVEN LAY DOWN A CODE OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES.  BUT
SHEER POWER IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEGALITY.  I DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE
WITH THE DISCRIMINATION HERE INDULGED IN TO QUESTION THE LEGALITY OF
TODAY'S DECISION. 

I THINK THERE WAS A DISPUTE HERE BETWEEN EMPLOYEES OF THE CARRIER AS
TO WHETHER THE BROTHERHOOD WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TRAIN PORTERS,
AND THAT THIS IS A MATTER TO BE RESOLVED BY THE NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD, NOT THE COURTS.  I WOULD REMAND THIS CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT
TO BE DISMISSED AS NONJUSTICIABLE. 
..END :












ISBRANDTSEN COMPANY, INC. V. JOHNSON 343 U.S. 779 


NO. 493.  ARGUED APRIL 23, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1952 - 190 F.2D 991,
AFFIRMED. 


IN AN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING BY A SEAMAN AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER TO RECOVER
WAGES EARNED ON A MERCHANT VESSEL OF UNITED STATES REGISTRY, THE
EMPLOYER MAY NOT SET OFF AGAINST THE SEAMAN'S WAGES ITS EXPENDITURES
FOR THE MEDICAL CARE AND HOSPITALIZATION OF ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE CREW
NECESSITATED BY INJURIES UNJUSTIFIABLY INFLICTED ON HIM BY THE SEAMAN
DURING THE VOYAGE ON WHICH THE WAGES WERE EARNED.  PP. 780-789. 

(A)  CONGRESS HAS PREEMPTED THE AREA RELATING TO DEDUCTIONS AND SET
OFFS BASED ON DERELICTIONS OF DUTY AS AGAINST A SEAMAN'S CLAIM TO HIS
WAGES AND, IN EFFECT, HAS EXCLUDED ALL OF THEM EXCEPT THOSE WHICH IT
HAS LISTED AFFIRMATIVELY.  PP. 781-789. 

(B)  ASSUMING THAT THIS SEAMAN'S UNJUSTIFIED ATTACK UPON ANOTHER
MEMBER OF THE CREW AMOUNTED TO A BREACH OF GENERAL DISCIPLINE, IT
HARDLY AMOUNTED TO "WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO ANY LAWFUL COMMAND AT SEA"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF R.S. SEC. 4596, FOURTH.  P. 788. 

(C)  ASSUMING THAT IT CAUSED EXPENSE TO HIS EMPLOYER, IT HARDLY
AMOUNTED TO "WILLFULLY DAMAGING THE VESSEL" OR "ANY OF THE STORES OR
CARGO" WITHIN THE MEANING OF R.S. SEC. 4596, SEVENTH.  P. 788. 

ISBRANDTSEN COMPANY, INC. V. JOHNSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING BY A SEAMAN AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER TO
RECOVER WAGES EARNED ON A MERCHANT VESSEL OF UNITED STATES REGISTRY,
THE DISTRICT COURT DISALLOWED HIS EMPLOYER'S COUNTERCLAIM.  91 F. SUPP.
872.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  190 F.2D 991.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 940.  AFFIRMED, P. 789. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US ARISES IN AN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING BY A SEAMAN
AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER TO RECOVER WAGES EARNED ON A MERCHANT VESSEL OF
UNITED STATES REGISTRY.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EMPLOYER MAY SET
OFF AGAINST THE SEAMAN'S WAGES ITS EXPENDITURES FOR THE MEDICAL CARE
AND HOSPITALIZATION OF ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE CREW NECESSITATED BY
INJURIES INFLICTED ON HIM BY THE SEAMAN, WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, DURING
THE VOYAGE ON WHICH THE WAGES WERE EARNED.  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER
STATED WE HOLD THAT IT MAY NOT DO SO. 

IN 1948, RESPONDENT, JOHNSON, WAS EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER, ISBRANDTSEN
COMPANY, INC., AS A MESSMAN ON A FOREIGN VOYAGE OF A VESSEL OF UNITED
STATES REGISTRY, CHARTERED BY PETITIONER.  ON APRIL 21, WHILE THE
VESSEL WAS ON ITS COURSE IN THE PACIFIC, JOHNSON, WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION, STABBED BRANDON, ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE CREW.  HE INJURED
BRANDON SO SEVERELY THAT PETITIONER FOUND IT NECESSARY TO DIVERT ITS
VESSEL FROM ITS COURSE IN ORDER TO HOSPITALIZE BRANDON ON THE ISLAND OF
TONGA.  JOHNSON MAKES NO CLAIM FOR WAGES EARNED AFTER APRIL 21. 
HOWEVER, WHEN DISCHARGED IN PHILADELPHIA, MAY 31, 1948, JOHNSON CLAIMED
$439.27 AS EARNED WAGES DUE HIM ABOVE ALL DEDUCTIONS, WITHOUT MAKING
ALLOWANCES FOR ANY EXPENDITURES MADE BY PETITIONER FOR THE CARE OR
HOSPITALIZATION OF BRANDON.  WHEN PETITIONER REFUSED TO PAY JOHNSON
ANYTHING, HE FILED A LIBEL AND COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT TO RECOVER THE BALANCE DUE ON HIS EARNED WAGES, PLUS INTEREST,
TRANSPORTATION TO SEATTLE (HIS PORT OF SIGNING ON) AND DOUBLE WAGES FOR
EACH DAY OF UNLAWFUL DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM DUE.  (FN1)
PETITIONER SET UP A COUNTERCLAIM OF $2,500, LATER REDUCED TO $1,691.55,
FOR EXPENSES AND LOSSES CAUSED IT BY JOHNSON'S ATTACK ON BRANDON. 
(FN2)  IT CONTENDED ALSO THAT THE NATURE OF THIS DEFENSE DEMONSTRATED
THE EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT STATUTORY CAUSE FOR ITS DELAY IN MAKING
PAYMENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISALLOWED PETITIONER'S COUNTERCLAIM AND ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT'S EARNED WAGES AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE,
PLUS INTEREST AND COSTS.  IT DISALLOWED RESPONDENT'S CLAIM FOR DOUBLE
WAGES.  (FN3)  91 F. SUPP. 872.  PETITIONER APPEALED BUT THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  190 F.2D 991.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE
DECISION BELOW PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF MARITIME LAW NOT
HERETOFORE DETERMINED BY THIS COURT.  342 U.S. 940. 

PETITIONER CITES SEVERAL EARLY LOWER COURT DECISIONS WHICH ALLOWED A
SET-OFF AGAINST A SEAMAN'S SUIT FOR WAGES.  THESE WERE LARGELY RENDERED
BEFORE THE SHIPPING COMMISSIONERS ACT OF 1872 OR RENDERED LATER WITHOUT
DISCUSSION OF THAT OR SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION.  (FN40) WE ARE CONVINCED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE LEGISLATION PASSED BY CONGRESS FOR THE PROTECTION OF
SEAMEN, BEGINNING IN 1872, HAS NOW COVERED THIS FIELD.  PETITIONER'S
SET-OFF IS NOT PRESCRIBED, RECOGNIZED OR PERMITTED BY SUCH
LEGISLATION.  SO FAR AS THAT LEGISLATION GOES, SUCH A SET-OFF IS NOT
AVAILABLE AS A DEFENSE AGAINST A SEAMAN'S CLAIM FOR EARNED WAGES.  R.S.
SEC. 4547, 30 STAT. 756, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 604.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EMPLOYER TO SET OFF SUCH A
COUNTERCLAIM DOES NOT PRECLUDE IT FROM SEEKING TO COLLECT THE CLAIM
OTHERWISE. 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, WE MAY ASSUME THAT PETITIONER OWED
BRANDON THE LEGAL DUTY TO PROVIDE HIM WITH THE MEDICAL CARE AND
HOSPITALIZATION WHICH IT PROVIDED AND ALSO OWED HIM THE DUTY TO DIVERT
ITS VESSEL FROM ITS COURSE TO SECURE HIS HOSPITALIZATION AT TONGA. 
AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724, 730, 732-736.  SEE CORTES V.
BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 375; ALPHA S.S. CORP. V. CAIN,
281 U.S. 642; JAMISON V. ENCARNACION, 281 U.S. 635.  ALSO, WE MAY
ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT RESPONDENT OWED PETITIONER AN OBLIGATION
TO REIMBURSE PETITIONER FOR THE EXPENSE WHICH HE THUS THRUST UPON IT BY
HIS UNJUSTIFIED ATTACK UPON A FELLOW SEAMAN. 

WHENEVER CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION IN AID OF SEAMEN HAS BEEN
CONSIDERED HERE SINCE 1872, THIS COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THAT SUCH
LEGISLATION IS LARGELY REMEDIAL AND CALLS FOR LIBERAL INTERPRETATION IN
FAVOR OF THE SEAMEN.  THE HISTORY AND SCOPE OF THE LEGISLATION IS
REVIEWED IN AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724, 727-735, AND
NOTES.  "OUR HISTORIC NATIONAL POLICY, BOTH LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL,
POINTS THE OTHER WAY FROM BURDENING SEAMEN.  CONGRESS HAS GENERALLY
SOUGHT TO SAFEGUARD SEAMEN'S RIGHTS."  GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO.,
317 U.S. 239, 246.  "THE MARITIME LAW BY INVETERATE TRADITION HAS MADE
THE ORDINARY SEAMAN A MEMBER OF A FAVORED CLASS.  HE IS A 'WARD OF THE
ADMIRALTY,' OFTEN IGNORANT AND HELPLESS, AND SO IN NEED OF PROTECTION
AGAINST HIMSELF AS WELL AS OTHERS  ...  .  DISCRIMINATION MAY THUS BE
RATIONAL IN RESPECT OF REMEDIES FOR WAGES."  WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S.
155, 162; CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 375, 377;
WILDER V. INTER-ISLAND NAVIGATION CO., 211 U.S. 239, 246-248; PATTERSON
V. BARK EUDORA, 190 U.S. 169; BRADY V. DALY, 175 U.S. 148, 155-157. 
"THE ANCIENT CHARACTERIZATION OF SEAMEN AS 'WARDS OF ADMIRALTY' IS EVEN
MORE ACCURATE NOW THAN IT WAS FORMERLY."  ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165
U.S. 275, 287, (FN5) HARDEN V. GORDON, 11 FED. CAS. NO. 6,047, 2 MASON
(CIR. CT. REP.) 541, 556. 

STATUTES WHICH INVADE THE COMMON LAW OR THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW ARE
TO BE READ WITH A PRESUMPTION FAVORING THE RETENTION OF LONG
ESTABLISHED AND FAMILIAR PRINCIPLES, EXCEPT WHEN A STATUTORY PURPOSE TO
THE CONTRARY IS EVIDENT.  NO RULE OF CONSTRUCTION PRECLUDES GIVING A
NATURAL MEANING TO LEGISLATION LIKE THIS THAT OBVIOUSLY IS OF A
REMEDIAL, BENEFICIAL AND AMENDATORY CHARACTER.  IT SHOULD BE
INTERPRETED SO AS TO EFFECT ITS PURPOSE.  MARINE LEGISLATION, AT LEAST
SINCE THE SHIPPING COMMISSIONERS ACT OF JUNE 7, 1872, 17 STAT. 262,
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE EFFECTIVE ITS DESIGN TO CHANGE THE GENERAL
MARITIME LAW SO AS TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF SEAMEN.  "THE RULE THAT
STATUTES IN DEROGATION OF THE COMMON LAW ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED
DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH AN ADHERENCE TO THE LETTER AS WOULD DEFEAT AN
OBVIOUS LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OR LESSEN THE SCOPE PLAINLY INTENDED TO BE
GIVEN TO THE MEASURE."  JAMISON V. ENCARNACION, 281 U.S. 635, 640;
TEXAS & P.R.  CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426, 437, 440. 
THE DIRECTION OF THE CURRENT MARITIME LEGISLATION LONG HAS BEEN EVIDENT
ON ITS FACE. 

"IN THIS COUNTRY THESE NOTIONS WERE REFLECTED EARLY, AND HAVE SINCE
BEEN EXPANDED, IN LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO SECURE THE COMFORT AND HEALTH
OF SEAMEN ABOARD SHIP, HOSPITALIZATION AT HOME AND CARE ABROAD  ...  .
THE LEGISLATION  ...  GIVES NO GROUND FOR MAKING INFERENCES ADVERSE TO
THE SEAMAN OR RESTRICTIVE OF HIS RIGHTS  ...  .  RATHER IT FURNISHES
THE STRONGEST BASIS FOR REGARDING THEM BROADLY, WHEN AN ISSUE
CONCERNING THEIR SCOPE ARISES, AND PARTICULARLY WHEN IT RELATES TO THE
GENERAL CHARACTER OF RELIEF THE LEGISLATION WAS INTENDED TO SECURE." 
AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724, 728-729. 

IN THE SPECIFIC AREA OF A SEAMAN'S RIGHT TO COLLECT HIS EARNED WAGES
PROMPTLY UPON DISCHARGE, SEC. 61 OF THE SHIPPING COMMISSIONERS ACT
PROVIDED THAT "NO WAGES DUE OR ACCRUING TO ANY SEAMAN OR APPRENTICE
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT OR ARRESTMENT FROM ANY COURT; ...  ." 
17 STAT. 276, R.S. SEC. 4536, 38 STAT. 1169, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 601.  THE
FULL FORCE OF THIS BECAME EVIDENT WHEN THIS COURT, IN 1908, INTERPRETED
"ATTACHMENT" AND "ARRESTMENT" TO MEAN THAT THE ACT PROHIBITS THE
SEIZURE OF A SEAMAN'S EARNED WAGES EVEN BY LEVYING EXECUTION AGAINST
THEM TO COLLECT VALID JUDGMENTS.  WILDER V. INTER-ISLAND NAVIGATION
CO., 211 U.S. 239; SEE 1 NORRIS, THE LAW OF SEAMEN (1951), 347-350. 

CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION NOW TOUCHES NEARLY EVERY PHASE OF A
SEAMAN'S LIFE.  IT CONCERNS ITSELF WITH HIS PERSONAL SAFETY, COMFORT
AND HEALTH IN MANY WAYS NOT NECESSARY TO REVIEW HERE.  IT DEALS
SPECIFICALLY WITH HIS SHIPPING ARTICLES AND THE PAYMENT TO HIM OF HIS
WAGES.   IT INSURES GENERALLY A PARTIAL PAYMENT TO HIM OF HIS WAGES AT
EACH PORT WHERE HIS VESSEL LOADS OR DELIVERS CARGO.  IT INSURES THE
PAYMENT TO HIM OF THE BALANCE OF THOSE WAGES UPON COMPLETION OF HIS
VOYAGE OR SHORTLY AFTER HIS DISCHARGE.  (FN6)  IT DEALS EXPLICITLY WITH
THE FINAL PAYMENT OF WAGES.  (FN7)  IT DESCRIBES "FORFEITURES" WHICH
LAWFULLY MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM A SEAMAN'S WAGES "FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
MASTER OR OWNER BY WHOM THE WAGES ARE PAYABLE."  (FN8)  THESE
PROVISIONS FOR THE RETURN OF WAGES TO THE EMPLOYER ARE REMEDIAL, RATHER
THAN PENAL, IN THEIR NATURE.  SEE CRAWFORD, THE CONSTRUCTION OF
STATUTES (1940), 106. 

IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF SUCH LEGISLATION AND THE NEED FOR CLEAR
RULES GOVERNING THE COMPUTATION OF THE BALANCE DUE EACH SEAMAN UPON HIS
DISCHARGE, IT IS REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT ONLY SUCH DEDUCTIONS AND SET
OFFS FOR DERELICTIONS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES SHALL BE ALLOWED
AGAINST HIS WAGES AS ARE RECOGNIZED IN THE STATUTES.  OTHER CLAIMS
AGAINST HIM MAY BE VALID BUT THEIR COLLECTION MUST BE SOUGHT THROUGH
OTHER MEANS.  (FN9)  THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS SOLUTION IS EMPHASIZED
IN THE CASE OF UNLIQUIDATED COUNTERCLAIMS.  PETITIONER'S UNLIQUIDATED
CLAIM WAS FIRST ESTIMATED AT $2,500.  IT NOW HAS BEEN FIXED AT
$1,691.55.  THE FACTORS MAKING UP SUCH A CLAIM ARE LARGELY WITHIN THE
CONTROL AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE EMPLOYER ALONE AND IT EASILY COULD WIPE
OUT EVERY CENT OF A SEAMAN'S EARNED WAGES. 

THERE IS LITTLE SUBSTANCE TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE EXPENSES AT
ISSUE CAN BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE STATUTORILY RECOGNIZED "FORFEITURES." 
ASSUMING THAT JOHNSON'S ATTACK AMOUNTED TO A BREACH OF GENERAL
DISCIPLINE, IT HARDLY AMOUNTED TO "WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO ANY LAWFUL
COMMAND AT SEA  ... ."  R.S. SEC. 4596, FOURTH.  (FN10)  ASSUMING THAT
IT CAUSED EXPENSE TO PETITIONER, IT HARDLY AMOUNTED TO "WILLFULLY
DAMAGING THE VESSEL  ...  OR  ...  ANY OF THE STORES OR CARGO  ...  ." 
R.S. SEC. 4596, SEVENTH.  (FN11) 

FROM THIS, WE CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS HAS PREEMPTED THE AREA RELATING
TO DEDUCTIONS AND SET-OFFS BASED UPON DERELICTIONS OF DUTY AS AGAINST A
SEAMAN'S CLAIM TO HIS WAGES.  CONGRESS HAS GONE SO FAR IN EXPRESSLY
LISTING SUCH DEDUCTIONS AND SET-OFFS THAT IT IS A FAIR INFERENCE THAT
THOSE NOT LISTED MAY NOT BE MADE.  IT THUS REMAINS FOR THE COURTS TO
DETERMINE ONLY WHAT ARE THE DEDUCTIONS OR SET-OFFS FOR DERELICTIONS OF
DUTY THAT ARE LISTED BY CONGRESS, RATHER THAN TO DETERMINE WHICH OF THE
DEDUCTIONS OR SET-OFFS ONCE KNOWN TO THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW CONGRESS
HAS FAILED TO EXCLUDE.  CONGRESS, IN EFFECT, HAS EXCLUDED ALL OF THEM
EXCEPT THOSE WHICH IT HAS LISTED AFFIRMATIVELY.  (FN12) 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  UNDER R.S. SEC. 4529, AS AMENDED, 30 STAT. 756, 38 STAT. 1164,
46 U.S.C.  SEC. 596.  SEE NOTE 7, INFRA. 

FN2  THE LATTER SUM IS THE STIPULATED AMOUNT OF PETITIONER'S
EXPENDITURES FOR HOSPITALIZATION, MEDICAL CARE, REPATRIATION AND
SUBSISTENCE OF BRANDON, PLUS PETITIONER'S EXPENSES FOR THE DIVERSION OF
ITS VESSEL TO TONGA, INCLUDING PILOTAGE, MANIFESTS, HARBOR DUES, FUEL
CONSUMED AND FOOD FOR THE CREW. 

FN3  SEE COLLIE V. FERGUSSON, 281 U.S. 52. 

FN4  FOR THE SHIPPING COMMISSIONERS ACT, SEE 17 STAT. 262 ET SEQ.,
TIT. LIII, R.S.  SECS. 4501-4612, 46 U.S.C., C. 18, SECS. 541-713.  THE
ACT OF JULY 20, 1970, 1 STAT. 131, IN EFFECT PRIOR TO 1872, WAS A
LIMITED FORERUNNER OF THE EXPANSIVE REMEDIAL LEGISLATION THAT
FOLLOWED.  IT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO COVER THE FIELD TO AN EXTENT
COMPARABLE TO THAT DONE BY THE LATER LEGISLATION.  ACCORDINGLY,
DECISIONS RENDERED BEFORE 1872, RECOGNIZING AN EMPLOYER'S RIGHT OF
RECOUPMENT AGAINST SEAMEN'S WAGES UNDER GENERAL MARITIME LAW, ARE NOT
AUTHORITATIVE GUIDES TODAY.  THE EARLY CASES ARE REVIEWED IN 1 NORRIS,
THE LAW OF SEAMEN (1951), 378-391. 

FN5  THAT APPRAISAL WAS REAFFIRMED IN CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR
LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 377.  CURRENT TESTIMONY IS ADDED BY THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT: 

"IN MY DEALINGS WITH SEAMEN, A CLASS WITH WHOM I COME IN FREQUENT
CONTACT, I FIND THAT THEY ARE PERHAPS BETTER EDUCATED AND BETTER
DRESSED THAN THEIR FELLOWS A CENTURY AGO, BUT, IN GENERAL, AS
IMPROVIDENT AND PRONE TO THE EXTREMES OF TRUST AND SUSPICION AS THEIR
FOREBEARS WHO RANGED THE SEAS, BUT WITHAL A LIKEABLE LOT."  1 NORRIS,
THE LAW OF SEAMEN (1951), PREFACE. 

FN6  IN HARBORS OF THE UNITED STATES THIS APPLIES EVEN TO SEAMEN ON
FOREIGN VESSELS.  R.S. SEC. 4530, 30 STAT. 756, 38 STAT. 1165, 41 STAT.
1006, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 597.  EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY STATUTE, NO
SEAMAN MAY BE PAID IN ADVANCE OR MAY GIVE UP TO OTHERS HIS PERSONAL
RIGHT TO HIS WAGES OR HIS REMEDIES FOR THEIR RECOVERY.  23 STAT. 55-56,
30 STAT. 763-764, 33 STAT. 308, 38 STAT. 1168-1169, 41 STAT. 1006, 53
STAT. 794, 64 STAT.  1081, 1239, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 599, AND 46 U.S.C.
(SUPP. IV) SEC. 599(B)(G); R.S. SEC. 4535, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 600.  HIS
WAGES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT OR ARRESTMENT EXCEPT FOR LIMITED
PROVISIONS FOR THE SUPPORT OF A WIFE OR MINOR CHILDREN; ALLOTMENTS TO
RELATIVES ARE RESTRICTED.  R.S. SEC. 4536, 17 STAT. 276, 38 STAT. 1169,
46 U.S.C. SEC. 601.  PAYMENTS IN FOREIGN PORTS ARE SAFEGUARDED THROUGH
UNITED STATES CONSULS.  R.S. SECS. 4580, 4581, 4583, 23 STAT. 54-55, 30
STAT. 759, 38 STAT. 1185, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 682, 683, 685.    FN7  "SEC. 
4529:  THE MASTER OR OWNER OF ANY VESSEL MAKING COASTING VOYAGES SHALL
PAY TO EVERY SEAMAN HIS WAGES WITHIN TWO DAYS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF
THE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH HE WAS SHIPPED, OR AT THE TIME SUCH SEAMAN IS
DISCHARGED, WHICHEVER FIRST HAPPENS; AND IN CASE OF VESSELS MAKING
FOREIGN VOYAGES, OR FROM A PORT ON THE ATLANTIC TO A PORT ON THE
PACIFIC, OR VICE VERSA, WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AFTER THE CARGO HAS
BEEN DISCHARGED, OR WITHIN FOUR DAYS AFTER THE SEAMAN HAS BEEN
DISCHARGED, WHICHEVER FIRST HAPPENS; AND IN ALL CASES THE SEAMAN SHALL
BE ENTITLED TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF HIS DISCHARGE ON ACCOUNT OF WAGES
A SUM EQUAL TO ONE-THIRD PART OF THE BALANCE DUE HIM.  EVERY MASTER OR
OWNER WHO REFUSES OR NEGLECTS TO MAKE PAYMENT IN THE MANNER
HEREINBEFORE MENTIONED WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHALL PAY THE SEAMAN A
SUM EQUAL TO TWO DAYS' PAY FOR EACH AND EVERY DAY DURING WHICH PAYMENT
IS DELAYED BEYOND THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS, WHICH SUM SHALL BE
RECOVERABLE AS WAGES IN ANY CLAIM MADE BEFORE THE COURT; BUT THIS
OF WHICH ARE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROFITS OF THE CRUISE OR
VOYAGE."  R.S. SEC. 4529, AS AMENDED, 38 STAT. 1164-1165, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 596. 

FN8  "SEC.  4596.  WHENEVER ANY SEAMAN WHO HAS BEEN LAWFULLY ENGAGED
OR ANY APPRENTICE TO THE SEA SERVICE COMMITS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
OFFENSES HE SHALL BE PUNISHED AS FOLLOWS: 

"FIRST.  FOR DESERTION, BY FORFEITURE OF ALL OR ANY PART OF THE
CLOTHES OR EFFECTS HE LEAVES ON BOARD AND OF ALL OR ANY PART OF THE
WAGES OR EMOLUMENTS WHICH HE HAS THEN EARNED. 

"SECOND.  FOR NEGLECTING OR REFUSING WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE TO JOIN
HIS VESSEL OR TO PROCEED TO SEA IN HIS VESSEL, OR FOR ABSENCE WITHOUT
LEAVE AT ANY TIME WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS OF THE VESSEL'S SAILING FROM
ANY PORT, EITHER AT THE COMMENCEMENT OR DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE
VOYAGE, OR FOR ABSENCE AT ANY TIME WITHOUT LEAVE AND WITHOUT SUFFICIENT
REASON FROM HIS VESSEL AND FROM HIS DUTY, NOT AMOUNTING TO DESERTION,
BY FORFEITURE FROM HIS WAGES OF NOT MORE THAN TWO DAYS' PAY OR
SUFFICIENT TO DEFRAY ANY EXPENSES WHICH SHALL HAVE BEEN PROPERLY
INCURRED IN HIRING A SUBSTITUTE. 

"THIRD.  FOR QUITTING THE VESSEL WITHOUT LEAVE, AFTER HER ARRIVAL AT
THE PORT OF HER DELIVERY AND BEFORE SHE IS PLACED IN SECURITY, BY
FORFEITURE FROM HIS WAGES OF NOT MORE THAN ONE MONTH'S PAY. 

"FOURTH.  FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO ANY LAWFUL COMMAND AT SEA, BY
BEING, AT THE OPTION OF THE MASTER, PLACED IN IRONS UNTIL SUCH
DISOBEDIENCE SHALL CEASE, AND UPON ARRIVAL IN PORT BY FORFEITURE FROM
HIS WAGES OF NOT MORE THAN FOUR DAYS' PAY, OR, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT, BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE MONTH. 

"FIFTH.  FOR CONTINUED WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE TO LAWFUL COMMAND OR
CONTINUED WILLFUL NEGLECT OF DUTY AT SEA, BY BEING, AT THE OPTION OF
THE MASTER, PLACED IN IRONS, ON BREAD AND WATER, WITH FULL RATIONS
EVERY FIFTH DAY, UNTIL SUCH DISOBEDIENCE SHALL CEASE, AND UPON ARRIVAL
IN PORT BY FORFEITURE, FOR EVERY TWENTY-FOUR HOURS' CONTINUANCE OF SUCH
DISOBEDIENCE OR NEGLECT, OF A SUM OF NOT MORE THAN TWELVE DAYS' PAY, OR
BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE MONTHS, AT THE DISCRETION OF
THE COURT. 

"SIXTH.  FOR ASSAULTING ANY MASTER, MATE, PILOT, ENGINEER, OR STAFF
OFFICER, BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS. 

"SEVENTH.  FOR WILLFULLY DAMAGING THE VESSEL, OR EMBEZZLING OR
WILLFULLY DAMAGING ANY OF THE STORES OR CARGO, BY FORFEITURE OUT OF HIS
WAGES OF A SUM EQUAL IN AMOUNT TO THE LOSS THEREBY SUSTAINED, AND ALSO,
AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN
TWELVE MONTHS. 

"EIGHTH.  FOR ANY ACT OF SMUGGLING FOR WHICH HE IS CONVICTED AND
WHEREBY LOSS OR DAMAGE IS OCCASIONED TO THE MASTER OR OWNER, HE SHALL
BE LIABLE TO PAY SUCH MASTER OR OWNER SUCH A SUM AS IS SUFFICIENT TO
REIMBURSE THE MASTER OR OWNER FOR SUCH LOSS OR DAMAGE, AND THE WHOLE OR
ANY PART OF HIS WAGES MAY BE RETAINED IN SATISFACTION OR ON ACCOUNT OF
SUCH LIABILITY, AND HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF
NOT MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS."  R.S. SEC. 4596, AS AMENDED, 38 STAT.
1166, 53 STAT. 1147, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 701. 

SPECIAL PROVISION IS MADE FOR FORFEITURES INCIDENT TO DESERTION. 
THEY ARE TO BE APPLIED "IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, IN PAYMENT OF THE
EXPENSES OCCASIONED BY SUCH DESERTION, TO THE MASTER OR OWNER OF THE
VESSEL FROM WHICH THE DESERTION HAS TAKEN PLACE  ...  ."  THE BALANCE
IS TO BE PAID BY THE MASTER OR OWNER TO A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL TO BE
DISPOSED OF IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF A DECEASED SEAMAN. 
"IN ALL OTHER CASES OF FORFEITURE OF WAGES, THE FORFEITURE SHALL BE FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE MASTER OR OWNER BY WHOM THE WAGES ARE PAYABLE." 
R.S. SEC. 4604, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 706. 

CERTAIN EXPENSES UNJUSTIFIABLY FORCED UPON HIS EMPLOYER BY A SEAMAN
ARE EXPRESSLY MADE CHARGEABLE AGAINST HIS EARNED WAGES:  UNJUSTIFIED
INSPECTIONS OF SEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL, R.S. SEC. 4562, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 659; UNJUSTIFIED SURVEYS OF PROVISIONS AND WATER, R.S. SEC. 4566,
AS AMENDED, 30 STAT. 758, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 663; PART OF COST OF SECURING
CONVICTION OF SEAMAN FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED ON THE VOYAGE, R.S. SEC.
4605, 46 U.S.C.  SEC. 707. 

FN9  "THE ABOVE SECTIONS (46 U.S.C. SECS. 596, 597, 600, 601, 682,
683 AND 685) LOOK TOWARDS PAYMENT TO THE SEAMAN BY HIS EMPLOYER, AT THE
TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT, OF ALL OF HIS EARNED WAGES, WITHOUT ANY
DEDUCTIONS EXCEPT THOSE WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"WHILE IT IS THE GENERAL RULE THAT A SEAMAN DISCHARGED IN A FOREIGN
PORT IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE HIS WAGES 'WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION WHATEVER'
OF CLAIMS AGAINST HIM WHETHER OF HIS EMPLOYER OR OF THIRD PARTIES,
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS RECOGNIZED BY THE MARITIME LAW AND NOW EMBODIED IN
STATUTES."  SHILMAN V. UNITED STATES, 164 F.2D 649, 650-651; AND SEE
CHAMBERS V. MOORE MCCORMACK LINES, 182 F.2D 747; ELDRIDGE V.
ISBRANDTSEN CO., 89 F. SUPP.  718.  CF. OLDFIELD V. THE ARTHUR P.
FAIRFIELD, 176 F.2D 429. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA.  JOHNSON'S ATTACK ALSO WAS NOT AN ASSAULT ON
"ANY MASTER, MATE, PILOT, ENGINEER, OR STAFF OFFICER" OF THE VESSEL. 
R.S. SEC. 4596, SIXTH, NOTE 8, SUPRA.  SUCH AN ASSAULT MAY LEAD TO
IMPRISONMENT OF THE OFFENDER BUT IT ENTAILS NO "FORFEITURE."  IF NO
"FORFEITURE" MAY BE SET OFF AGAINST A SEAMAN'S WAGES FOR EXPENSES
RESULTING TO HIS EMPLOYER FROM HIS ASSAULT UPON A SUPERIOR OFFICER,
THERE IS LITTLE BASIS TO IMPLY CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF A SET-OFF
AGAINST HIS WAGES TO COVER EXPENSES RESULTING FROM HIS ASSAULT UPON A
FELLOW MEMBER OF THE CREW NOT HIS SUPERIOR. 

FN12 FOR COMPARABLE REASONS, PETITIONER'S COUNTERCLAIM MAY NOT BE SET
OFF AGAINST THE ALLOWANCE MADE TO RESPONDENT FOR TRANSPORTATION TO HIS
PORT OF SIGNING ON.  THAT ALLOWANCE IS PROPORTIONATELY AS IMPORTANT TO
HIM AND TO HIS WELFARE AS IS THE BALANCE DUE HIM FOR EARNED WAGES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 
..END :
















LELAND V. OREGON 343 U.S. 790 


NO. 176.  ARGUED JANUARY 29, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1952 - 190 ORE. 
598, 227 P.2D 785, AFFIRMED. 


IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN AN OREGON STATE COURT ON AN INDICTMENT
FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, APPELLANT PLEADED NOT GUILTY AND GAVE
NOTICE OF HIS INTENTION TO PROVE INSANITY.  OREGON STATUTES REQUIRED
HIM TO PROVE HIS INSANITY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND MADE A "MORBID
PROPENSITY" NO DEFENSE.  APPELLANT WAS FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY AND WAS
SENTENCED TO DEATH.  HELD: THESE STATUTES DID NOT DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF
LIFE AND LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 791-802. 

1.  THE TRIAL JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, AND THE CHARGE AS A
WHOLE, MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE BURDEN WAS UPON THE STATE TO PROVE ALL
THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF GUILT, OF THE LESSER DEGREES OF HOMICIDE AS
WELL AS OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  PP. 793-796. 

2.  THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 160 U.S. 469, THAT
AN ACCUSED IS "ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL OF THE SPECIFIC CRIME CHARGED
IF UPON ALL THE EVIDENCE THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER HE WAS
CAPABLE IN LAW OF COMMITTING THE CRIME," ESTABLISHED NO CONSTITUTIONAL
DOCTRINE BUT ONLY THE RULE TO BE FOLLOWED IN FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 797. 

3.  BETWEEN THE OREGON RULE REQUIRING THE ACCUSED, ON A PLEA OF
INSANITY, TO ESTABLISH THAT DEFENSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND THE
RULE IN EFFECT IN SOME TWENTY STATES, WHICH PLACES THE BURDEN ON THE
ACCUSED TO ESTABLISH HIS INSANITY BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE OR
SOME SIMILAR MEASURE OF PERSUASION, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE OF SUCH
MAGNITUDE AS TO BE SIGNIFICANT IN DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION HERE PRESENTED.  P. 798. 

4.  THAT A PRACTICE IS FOLLOWED BY A LARGE NUMBER OF STATES IS NOT
CONCLUSIVE AS TO WHETHER IT ACCORDS WITH DUE PROCESS, BUT MAY BE
CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER IT "OFFENDS SOME PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE
SO ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AS TO BE
RANKED AS FUNDAMENTAL."  P. 798. 

5.  THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT ONE IN WHICH IT IS SOUGHT TO ENFORCE
AGAINST THE STATE A RIGHT WHICH HAS BEEN HELD TO BE SECURED TO
DEFENDANTS IN FEDERAL COURTS BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  PP. 798-799. 

6.  OREGON'S POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ISSUE
OF SANITY CANNOT BE SAID TO VIOLATE GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONCEPTS OF
BASIC STANDARDS OF JUSTICE.  P. 799. 

7.  TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463, DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION FROM THAT HERE REACHED.  P. 799. 

8.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY IN THIS CASE MAY
HAVE CONFUSED THE JURY AS TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STATE'S BURDEN
OF PROVING PREMEDITATION AND THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED
AND APPELLANT'S BURDEN OF PROVING INSANITY, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  P.
800. 

9.  DUE PROCESS IS NOT VIOLATED BY THE OREGON STATUTE WHICH PROVIDES
THAT A "MORBID PROPENSITY TO COMMIT PROHIBITED ACTS, EXISTING IN THE
MIND OF A PERSON, WHO IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INCAPABLE OF KNOWING
THE WRONGFULNESS OF SUCH ACTS, FORMS NO DEFENSE TO A PROSECUTION
THEREFOR."  PP. 800-801. 

10.  THE "IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE" TEST OF LEGAL SANITY IS NOT "IMPLICIT
IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY"; AND DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE
THE STATE TO ADOPT THAT TEST RATHER THAN THE "RIGHT AND WRONG" TEST. 
PP. 800-801. 

11.  THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO REQUIRE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO
MAKE ONE OF APPELLANT'S CONFESSIONS AVAILABLE TO HIS COUNSEL BEFORE
TRIAL DID NOT DENY DUE PROCESS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  PP.
801-802. 

LELAND V. OREGON. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON. 

APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF MURDER, CHALLENGED AS DENYING HIM DUE
PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT.  190 ORE.  598, 227 P.2D 785.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 802. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  HE PLEADED
NOT GUILTY AND GAVE NOTICE OF HIS INTENTION TO PROVE INSANITY.  UPON
TRIAL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON, HE WAS FOUND
GUILTY BY A JURY.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURY'S DECISION NOT TO
RECOMMEND LIFE IMPRISONMENT, APPELLANT RECEIVED A SENTENCE OF DEATH. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON AFFIRMED.  190 ORE.  598, 227 P.2D 785. 
THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

OREGON STATUTES REQUIRED APPELLANT TO PROVE HIS INSANITY BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT AND MADE A "MORBID PROPENSITY" NO DEFENSE.  (FN1)  THE
PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS IN THIS APPEAL ARE RAISED BY APPELLANT'S
CONTENTIONS THAT THESE STATUTES DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS LIFE AND LIBERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE FACTS OF THE CRIME WERE REVEALED BY APPELLANT'S CONFESSIONS, AS
CORROBORATED BY OTHER EVIDENCE.  HE KILLED A FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL BY
STRIKING HER OVER THE HEAD SEVERAL TIMES WITH A STEEL BAR AND STABBING
HER TWICE WITH A HUNTING KNIFE.  UPON BEING ARRESTED FIVE DAYS LATER
FOR THE THEFT OF AN AUTOMOBILE, HE ASKED TO TALK WITH A HOMICIDE
OFFICER, VOLUNTARILY CONFESSED THE MURDER, AND DIRECTED THE POLICE TO
THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, WHERE HE POINTED OUT THE LOCATION OF THE BODY. 
ON THE SAME DAY, HE SIGNED A FULL CONFESSION AND, AT HIS OWN REQUEST,
MADE ANOTHER IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING.  AFTER HIS INDICTMENT, COUNSEL
WERE APPOINTED TO REPRESENT HIM.  THEY HAVE DONE SO WITH DILIGENCE IN
CARRYING HIS CASE THROUGH THREE COURTS. 

ONE OF THE OREGON STATUTES IN QUESTION PROVIDES: 

"WHEN THE COMMISSION OF THE ACT CHARGED AS A CRIME IS PROVEN, AND THE
DEFENSE SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED IS THE INSANITY OF THE DEFENDANT, THE
SAME MUST BE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT  ...  ."  (FN2)

APPELLANT URGES THAT THIS STATUTE IN EFFECT REQUIRES A DEFENDANT
PLEADING INSANITY TO ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE BY DISPROVING BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME NECESSARY TO A VERDICT OF
GUILTY, AND THAT THE STATUTE IS THEREFORE VIOLATIVE OF THAT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  TO DETERMINE THE MERIT OF
THIS CHALLENGE, THE STATUTE MUST BE VIEWED IN ITS RELATION TO OTHER
RELEVANT OREGON LAW AND IN ITS PLACE IN THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE. 

IN CONFORMITY WITH THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW, (FN3) THE TRIAL JUDGE
INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT, ALTHOUGH APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE, THEY MIGHT DETERMINE THAT HE HAD COMMITTED A LESSER
CRIME INCLUDED IN THAT CHARGED.  THEY WERE FURTHER INSTRUCTED THAT HIS
PLEA OF NOT GUILTY PUT IN ISSUE EVERY MATERIAL AND NECESSARY ELEMENT OF
THE LESSER DEGREES OF HOMICIDE, AS WELL AS OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN
THE INDICTMENT.  THE JURY COULD HAVE RETURNED ANY OF FIVE VERDICTS. 
(FN4)  (1) GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, IF THEY FOUND BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT DID THE KILLING PURPOSELY AND WITH
DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED MALICE; (2) GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE SECOND
DEGREE, IF THEY FOUND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT DID THE
KILLING PURPOSELY AND MALICIOUSLY, BUT WITHOUT DELIBERATION AND
PREMEDITATION; (3) GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER, IF THEY FOUND BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT DID THE KILLING WITHOUT MALICE OR
DELIBERATION, BUT UPON A SUDDEN HEAT OF PASSION CAUSED BY A PROVOCATION
APPARENTLY SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE PASSION IRRESISTIBLE; (4) NOT GUILTY,
IF, AFTER A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, THERE REMAINED
IN THEIR MINDS A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE
NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF EACH DEGREE OF HOMICIDE; AND (5) NOT GUILTY BY
REASON OF INSANITY, IF THEY FOUND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
APPELLANT WAS INSANE AT THE TIME THE OFFENSE CHARGED.  A FINDING OF
INSANITY WOULD HAVE FREED APPELLANT FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY OF THE
POSSIBLE OFFENSES.   THE VERDICT WHICH THE JURY DETERMINED - GUILTY OF
FIRST DEGREE MURDER - REQUIRED THE AGREEMENT OF ALL TWELVE JURORS; A
VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE
CONCURRENCE OF ONLY TEN MEMBERS OF THE PANEL.  (FN5) 

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE JURY MIGHT HAVE FOUND APPELLANT TO HAVE BEEN
MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF THE PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION REQUIRED TO
SUPPORT A FIRST DEGREE MURDER VERDICT OR OF THE INTENT NECESSARY TO
FIND HIM GUILTY OF EITHER FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE MURDER, AND YET NOT
HAVE FOUND HIM TO HAVE BEEN LEGALLY INSANE.  ALTHOUGH A PLEA OF
INSANITY WAS MADE, THE PROSECUTION WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED, INCLUDING, IN THE
CASE OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER, PREMEDITATION, DELIBERATION, MALICE AND
INTENT.  (FN6)  THE TRIAL COURT REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED THIS REQUIREMENT
IN ITS CHARGE TO THE JURY.  (FN7)  MOREOVER, THE JUDGE DIRECTED THE
JURY AS FOLLOWS: 

"I INSTRUCT YOU THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED DURING THIS TRIAL TO PROVE
DEFENDANT'S INSANITY SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND WEIGHED BY YOU, WITH ALL
OTHER EVIDENCE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU FIND DEFENDANT INSANE, IN REGARD TO
THE ABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT TO PREMEDITATE, FORM A PURPOSE, TO
DELIBERATE, ACT WILFULLY, AND ACT MALICIOUSLY; AND IF YOU FIND THE
DEFENDANT LACKING IN SUCH ABILITY, THE DEFENDANT CANNOT HAVE COMMITTED
THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. 

"I INSTRUCT YOU THAT SHOULD YOU FIND THE DEFENDANT'S MENTAL CONDITION
TO BE SO AFFECTED OR DISEASED TO THE END THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD
FORMULATE NO PLAN, DESIGN, OR INTENT TO KILL IN COOL BLOOD, THE
DEFENDANT HAS NOT COMMITTED THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE." 
(FN8) 

THESE AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONS, AND THE CHARGE AS A WHOLE, MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF GUILT, AND OF ALL THE NECESSARY
ELEMENTS OF GUILT, WAS PLACED SQUARELY UPON THE STATE.  AS THE JURY WAS
TOLD, THIS BURDEN DID NOT SHIFT, BUT RESTED UPON THE STATE THROUGHOUT
THE TRIAL, JUST AS, ACCORDING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS, APPELLANT WAS
PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL THE JURY WAS CONVINCED BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS GUILTY.  (FN9)  THE JURORS WERE TO
CONSIDER SEPARATELY THE ISSUE OF LEGAL SANITY PER SE - AN ISSUE SET
APART FROM THE CRIME CHARGED, TO BE INTRODUCED BY A SPECIAL PLEA AND
DECIDED BY A SPECIAL VERDICT.  (FN10)  ON THIS ISSUE APPELLANT HAD THE
BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER THE STATUTE IN QUESTION HERE. 

BY THIS STATUTE, ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN 1864, (FN11) OREGON ADOPTED
THE PREVAILING DOCTRINE OF THE TIME - THAT, SINCE MOST MEN ARE SANE, A
DEFENDANT MUST PROVE HIS INSANITY TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS
ACTS.  THAT WAS THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN 1843 IN THE LEADING ENGLISH
DECISION IN M'NAGHTEN'S CASE: 

"THE JURORS OUGHT TO BE TOLD IN ALL CASES THAT EVERY MAN IS TO BE
PRESUMED TO BE SANE, AND TO POSSESS A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF REASON TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS CRIMES, UNTIL THE CONTRARY BE PROVED TO THEIR
SATISFACTION; AND  ...  TO ESTABLISH A DEFENCE ON THE GROUND OF
INSANITY, IT MUST BE CLEARLY PROVED THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE COMMITTING
OF THE ACT, THE PARTY ACCUSED WAS LABORING UNDER SUCH A DEFECT OF
REASON, FROM DISEASE OF THE MIND, AS NOT TO KNOW THE NATURE AND QUALITY
OF THE ACT HE WAS DOING  ...  ."  (FN12) 

THIS REMAINS THE ENGLISH VIEW TODAY.  (FN13)  IN MOST OF THE
NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICAN CASES, ALSO, THE DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO
"CLEARLY" PROVE INSANITY, (FN14) AND THAT WAS PROBABLY THE RULE
FOLLOWED IN MOST STATES IN 1895, (FN15) WHEN DAVIS V. UNITED STATES WAS
DECIDED.  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE HARLAN,
ANNOUNCED THE RULE FOR FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS TO BE THAT AN ACCUSED IS
"ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL OF THE SPECIFIC CRIME CHARGED IF UPON ALL THE
EVIDENCE THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER HE WAS CAPABLE IN LAW OF
COMMITTING CRIME."  (FN16)  IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION, THE COURT
OBSERVED: 

"THE VIEWS WE HAVE EXPRESSED ARE SUPPORTED BY MANY ADJUDICATIONS THAT
ARE ENTITLED TO HIGH RESPECT.  IF SUCH WERE NOT THE FACT, WE MIGHT HAVE
FELT OBLIGED TO ACCEPT THE GENERAL DOCTRINE ANNOUNCED IN SOME OF THE
ABOVE CASES; FOR IT IS DESIRABLE THAT THERE BE UNIFORMITY OF RULE IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW IN GOVERNMENTS WHOSE
CONSTITUTIONS EQUALLY RECOGNIZE THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES THAT ARE
DEEMED ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIFE AND LIBERTY."  (FN17) 

THE DECISION OBVIOUSLY ESTABLISHES NO CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, BUT
ONLY THE RULE TO BE FOLLOWED IN FEDERAL COURTS.  AS SUCH, THE RULE IS
NOT IN QUESTION HERE. 

TODAY, OREGON IS THE ONLY STATE THAT REQUIRES THE ACCUSED, ON A PLEA
OF INSANITY, TO ESTABLISH THAT DEFENSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  SOME
TWENTY STATES, HOWEVER, PLACE THE BURDEN ON THE ACCUSED TO ESTABLISH
HIS INSANITY BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE OR SOME SIMILAR MEASURE
OF PERSUASION.  (FN18)  WHILE THERE IS AN EVIDENT DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THESE TWO RULES AS TO THE QUANTUM OF PROOF REQUIRED, WE SEE NO
PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE OF SUCH MAGNITUDE AS TO BE SIGNIFICANT IN
DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WE FACE HERE.  OREGON MERELY
REQUIRES A HEAVIER BURDEN OF PROOF.  IN EACH INSTANCE, IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH INSANITY AS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO THE CHARGES PREFERRED, THE
ACCUSED MUST PROVE THAT INSANITY.  THE FACT THAT A PRACTICE IS FOLLOWED
BY A LARGE NUMBER OF STATES IS NOT CONCLUSIVE IN A DECISION AS TO
WHETHER THAT PRACTICE ACCORDS WITH DUE PROCESS, BUT IT IS PLAINLY WORTH
CONSIDERING IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PRACTICE "OFFENDS SOME PRINCIPLE
OF JUSTICE SO ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AS
TO BE RANKED AS FUNDAMENTAL."  SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97,
105 (1934). 

NOR IS THIS A CASE IN WHICH IT IS SOUGHT TO ENFORCE AGAINST THE
STATES A RIGHT WHICH WE HAVE HELD TO BE SECURED TO DEFENDANTS IN
FEDERAL COURTS BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  IN DAVIS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, WE ADOPTED A RULE OF PROCEDURE FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS WHICH IS
CONTRARY TO THAT OF OREGON.  BUT "ITS PROCEDURE DOES NOT RUN FOUL OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE ANOTHER METHOD MAY SEEM TO OUR
THINKING TO BE FAIRER OR WISER OR TO GIVE A SURER PROMISE OF PROTECTION
TO THE PRISONER AT THE BAR."  SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA, AT 105. 
"THE JUDICIAL JUDGMENT IN APPLYING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE MUST MOVE
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ACCEPTED NOTIONS OF JUSTICE AND IS NOT TO BE BASED
UPON THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF A MERELY PERSONAL JUDGMENT  ...  .  AN
IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD AGAINST SUCH MERELY INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT IS AN ALERT
DEFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT UNDER REVIEW."  MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401,
417 (1945).  WE ARE THERFORE RELUCTANT TO INTERFERE WITH OREGON'S
DETERMINATION OF ITS POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE
ISSUE OF SANITY SINCE WE CANNOT SAY THAT POLICY VIOLATES GENERALLY
ACCEPTED CONCEPTS OF BASIC STANDARDS OF JUSTICE. 

NOTHING SAID IN TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463 (1943), SUGGESTS A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  THAT DECISION STRUCK DOWN A SPECIFIC PRESUMPTION
CREATED BY CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT.  THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE FACT
THUS REQUIRED TO BE PRESUMED HAD NO RATIONAL CONNECTION WITH THE FACT
WHICH, WHEN PROVEN, SET THE PRESUMPTION IN OPERATION, AND THAT THE
STATUTE RESULTED IN A PRESUMPTION OF GUILT BASED ONLY UPON PROOF OF A
FACT NEITHER CRIMINAL IN ITSELF NOR AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. 
WE HAVE SEEN THAT, HERE, OREGON REQUIRED THE PROSECUTOR TO PROVE BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT EVERY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED.  ONLY ON THE
ISSUE OF INSANITY AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO THE CHARGE WAS THE BURDEN
PLACED UPON APPELLANT.  IN ALL ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTS, THE ACCUSED IS
OBLIGED TO INTRODUCE PROOF IF HE WOULD OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF
SANITY.  (FN19) 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS MAY HAVE CONFUSED THE JURY AS
TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STATE'S BURDEN OF PROVING PREMEDITATION
AND THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGE AND APPELLANT'S BURDEN OF PROVING
INSANITY.  WE THINK THE CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS AS CLEAR AS INSTRUCTIONS
TO JURIES ORDINARILY ARE OR REASONABLY CAN BE, AND, WITH RESPECT TO THE
STATE'S BURDEN OF PROOF UPON ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME, THE CHARGE
WAS PARTICULARLY EMPHATIC.  JURIES HAVE FOR CENTURIES MADE THE BASIC
DECISIONS BETWEEN GUILT AND INNOCENCE AND BETWEEN CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND LEGAL INSANITY UPON THE BASIS OF FACTS, AS REVEALED
BY ALL THE EVIDENCE, AND THE LAW, AS EXPLAINED BY INSTRUCTIONS
DETAILING THE LEGAL DISTINCTIONS, THE PLACEMENT AND WEIGHT OF THE
BURDEN OF PROOF, THE EFFECT OF PRESUMPTIONS, THE MEANING OF INTENT,
ETC.  WE THINK THAT TO CONDEMN THE OPERATION OF THIS SYSTEM HERE WOULD
BE TO CONDEMN THE SYSTEM GENERALLY.  WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO DO SO. 

MUCH WE HAVE SAID APPLIES ALSO TO APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT DUE
PROCESS IS VIOLATED BY THE OREGON STATUTE PROVIDING THAT A "MORBID
PROPENSITY TO COMMIT PROHIBITED ACTS, EXISTING IN THE MIND OF A PERSON,
WHO IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INCAPABLE OF KNOWING THE WRONGFULNESS OF
SUCH ACTS, FORMS NO DEFENSE TO A PROSECUTION THEREFOR."  (FN20)  THAT
STATUTE AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN A LEGISLATIVE ADOPTION OF THE "RIGHT
AND WRONG" TEST OF LEGAL INSANITY IN PREFERENCE TO THE "IRRESISTIBLE
IMPULSE" TEST.  (FN21)  KNOWLEDGE OF RIGHT AND WRONG IS THE EXCLUSIVE
TEST OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IN A MAJORITY OF AMERICAN
JURISDICTIONS.  (FN22)  THE SCIENCE OF PSYCHIATRY HAS MADE TREMENDOUS
STRIDES SINCE THAT TEST WAS LAID DOWN IN M'NAGHTEN'S CASE, (FN23) BUT
THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE HAS NOT REACHED A POINT WHERE ITS LEARNING
WOULD COMPEL US TO REQUIRE THE STATES TO ELIMINATE THE RIGHT AND WRONG
TEST FROM THEIR CRIMINAL LAW.  (FN24)  MOREOVER, CHOICE OF A TEST OF
LEGAL SANITY INVOLVES NOT ONLY SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE BUT QUESTIONS OF
BASIC POLICY AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THAT KNOWLEDGE SHOULD DETERMINE
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.  (FN25)  THIS WHOLE PROBLEM HAS EVOKED WIDE
DISAGREEMENT AMONG THOSE WHO HAVE STUDIED IT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT
IS CLEAR THAT ADOPTION OF THE IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST IS NOT
"IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY."  (FN26) 

APPELLANT ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO REQUIRE THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO MAKE ONE OF APPELLANT'S CONFESSIONS AVAILABLE TO
HIS COUNSEL BEFORE TRIAL WAS CONTRARY TO DUE PROCESS.  WE THINK THERE
IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.  THIS CONCLUSION IS BUTTRESSED BY THE
ABSENCE OF ANY ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ON THIS GROUND IN APPELLANT'S MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL.  COMPARE AVERY V. ALABAMA, 308 U.S. 444, 452 (1940). 
WHILE IT MAY BE THE BETTER PRACTICE FOR THE PROSECUTION THUS TO EXHIBIT
A CONFESSION, FAILURE TO DO SO IN THIS CASE IN NO WAY DENIED APPELLANT
A FAIR TRIAL.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE CONFESSION WAS PRODUCED IN
COURT FIVE DAYS BEFORE APPELLANT RESTED HIS CASE.  THERE WAS AMPLE TIME
BOTH FOR COUNSEL AND EXPERT WITNESSES TO STUDY THE CONFESSION.  IN
ADDITION THE TRIAL JUDGE OFFERED FURTHER TIME FOR THAT PURPOSE BUT IT
WAS REFUSED.  THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE RECORD THAT APPELLANT WAS
PREJUDICED BY THE INABILITY OF HIS COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE EARLIER ACCESS TO
THE CONFESSION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ORE.  COMP.  LAWS, 1940, SECS. 26-929, 23-122. 

FN2  ID., SEC. 26-929. 

FN3  ID., SECS. 26-947, 26-948. 

FN4  SIX POSSIBLE VERDICTS WERE LISTED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS, GUILTY OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE BEING DIVIDED INTO TWO VERDICTS:  WITH, AND
WITHOUT, RECOMMENDATION OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT AS THE PENALTY.  SINCE THE
JURY IN THIS CASE DID NOT RECOMMEND THAT PUNISHMENT, THE DEATH SENTENCE
WAS AUTOMATICALLY INVOKED UNDER OREGON LAW.  ID., SEC. 23-411. 

FN5  THE AGREEMENT OF TEN JURORS WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR
A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY, A VERDICT OF GUILTY OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER,
OR A VERDICT OF GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER.  R. 333-334. 

FN6  ORE.  COMP.  LAWS, 1940, SECS. 23-401, 23-414, 26-933; CF. STATE
V. BUTCHEK, 121 ORE.  141, 253 P. 367, 254 P. 805 (1927). 

FN7  R. 321, 323, 324, 330, 331, 332. 

FN8  R. 330.  AGAIN: 

"I INSTRUCT YOU THAT TO CONSTITUTE MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, IT IS
NECESSARY THAT THE STATE PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND TO YOUR
MORAL CERTAINTY, THAT THE DEFENDANT'S DESIGN OR PLAN TO TAKE LIFE WAS
FORMED AND MATURED IN COOL BLOOD AND NOT HASTILY UPON THE OCCASION. 

"I INSTRUCT YOU THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT
ACTED PURPOSELY AND WITH PREMEDITATED AND DELIBERATED MALICE, IT IS
YOUR DUTY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION DEFENDANT'S MENTAL CONDITION AND
ALL FACTORS RELATING THERETO, AND THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT FIND HIM
LEGALLY INSANE, IF, IN FACT, HIS MENTALITY WAS IMPAIRED, THAT EVIDENCE
BEARS UPON THESE FACTORS, AND IT IS YOUR DUTY TO CONSIDER THIS EVIDENCE
ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE."  R. 332. 

FN9  R. 321, 324. 

FN10  ORE.  COMP.  LAWS, 1940, SEC. 26-846 (REQUIRING NOTICE OF
PURPOSE TO SHOW INSANITY AS DEFENSE); ID., SEC. 26-955 (PROVIDING FOR
VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY AND CONSEQUENT COMMITMENT
TO ASYLUM BY JUDGE).  AFTER DEFINING LEGAL INSANITY, THE TRIAL COURT
INSTRUCTED THE JURY:

"IN THIS CASE, EVIDENCE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED RELATING TO THE MENTAL
CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF THE DEFENDANT  ...  AT THE TIME THE GIRL IS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN KILLED, AND IF YOU ARE SATISFIED BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT KILLED HER IN THE MANNER ALLEGED IN
THE INDICTMENT, OR WITHIN THE LESSER DEGREES INCLUDED THEREIN, THEN YOU
ARE TO CONSIDER THE MENTAL CAPACITY OF THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME THE
HOMICIDE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED."  R. 327. 

FN11  DEADY'S GEN. LAWS OF ORE., 1845-1864, CODE OF CRIM. PROC., SEC.
204. 

FN12  10 CL. & FIN.  200, 210 (H.L., 1843). 

FN13  STEPHEN, DIGEST OF THE CRIMINAL LAW (9TH ED., STURGE, 1950), 6;
CF. SODEMAN V. THE KING, (1936) W.N. 190 (P.C.); SEE WOOLMINGTON V.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, (1935) A.C. 462, 475. 

FN14  WEIHOFEN, INSANITY AS A DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL LAW (1933), 151
155.  "CLEAR PROOF" WAS SOMETIMES INTERPRETED TO MEAN PROOF BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT, E.G., STATE V. DE RANCE, 34 LA. ANN. 186 (1882), AND
SOMETIMES TO MEAN PROOF BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, E.G., HURST
V. STATE, 40 TEX. CF. R. 383, 50 S.W. 719 (1899). 

FN15  SEE WHARTON, CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (9TH ED. 1884), SECS. 336-340. 

FN16  160 U.S. 469, 484 (1895); SEE HOTEMA V. UNITED STATES, 186 U.S.
413 (1902); MATHESON V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 540 (1913). 

FN17  ID., AT 488. 

FN18  WEIHOFEN LISTS TWELVE STATES AS REQUIRING PROOF BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, FOUR AS REQUIRING PROOF "TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE JURY," TWO WHICH COMBINE THESE FORMULAE, ONE WHERE
BY STATUTE THE DEFENSE MUST BE "CLEARLY PROVED TO THE REASONABLE
SATISFACTION OF THE JURY," ONE WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE JURY
MUST "BELIEVE" THE DEFENDANT INSANE, AND ONE WHERE THE QUANTUM OF PROOF
HAS NOT BEEN STATED BY THE COURT OF LAST RESORT, BUT WHICH APPEARS TO
FOLLOW THE PREPONDERANCE RULE.  WEIHOFEN, INSANITY AS A DEFENSE IN
CRIMINAL LAW (1933), 148-151, 172-200.  TWENTY-TWO STATES, INCLUDING
OREGON, ARE MENTIONED AS HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED HAS THE BURDEN OF
PROVING INSANITY, AT LEAST BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, IN 9
WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED. 1940 AND SUPP. 1951), SEC. 2501. 

FN19  WEIHOFEN, INSANITY AS A DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL LAW (1933), 161; 9
WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED. 1940), SEC. 2501. 

FN20  ORE.  COMP.  LAWS, 1940, SEC. 23-122. 

FN21  STATE V. GARVER, 190 ORE.  291, 225 P.2D 771 (1950); STATE V.
WALLACE, 170 ORE.  60, 131 P.2D 222 (1942); STATE V. HASSING, 60 ORE. 
81, 118 P. 195 (1911). 

FN22  WEIHOFEN, INSANITY AS A DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL LAW (1933), 15, 64
68, 109-147. 

FN23  10 CL. & FIN.  200 (H.L., 1843). 

FN24  COMPARE FISHER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 463, 475-476 (1946). 

FN25  SEE HOLLOWAY V. UNITED STATES, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 3, 148 F.2D
665 (1945); GLUECK, MENTAL DISORDER AND THE CRIMINAL LAW (1925); HALL,
MENTAL DISEASE AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, 45 COL. L. REV. 677 (1945);
KEEDY, INSANITY AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, 30 HARV. L. REV.  535, 724
(1917). 

FN 26  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

HOWEVER MUCH CONDITIONS MAY HAVE IMPROVED SINCE 1905, WHEN WILLIAM H.
(LATER MR. CHIEF JUSTICE) TAFT EXPRESSED HIS DISTURBING CONVICTION
"THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW IN ALL THE STATES IN THE
UNION (THERE MAY BE ONE OR TWO EXCEPTIONS) IS A DISGRACE TO OUR
CIVILIZATION" (TAFT, THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL LAW, 15 YALE L.J.1,
11), NO INFORMED PERSON CAN BE OTHER THAN UNHAPPY ABOUT THE SERIOUS
DEFECTS OF PRESENTDAY AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  IT IS NOT UNTHINKABLE
THAT FAILURE TO BRING THE GUILTY TO BOOK FOR A HEINOUS CRIME WHICH
DEEPLY STIRS POPULAR SENTIMENT MAY LEAD THE LEGISLATURE OF A STATE, IN
ONE OF THOSE EMOTIONAL STORMS WHICH ON OCCASION SWEEP OVER OUR PEOPLE,
TO ENACT THAT THEREAFTER AN INDICTMENT FOR MURDER, FOLLOWING ATTEMPTED
RAPE, SHOULD BE PRESUMPTIVE PROOF OF GUILT AND CAST UPON THE DEFENDANT
THE BURDEN OF PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT DO THE
KILLING.  CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT SUCH A STATUTE WOULD GO BEYOND
THE FREEDOM OF THE STATES, UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, TO FASHION THEIR OWN PENAL CODES AND THEIR OWN
PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCING THEM?  WHY IS THAT SO?  BECAUSE FROM THE TIME
THAT THE LAW WHICH WE HAVE INHERITED HAS EMERGED FROM DARK AND BARBARIC
TIMES, THE CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE WHICH HAS DOMINATED OUR CRIMINAL LAW
HAS REFUSED TO PUT AN ACCUSED AT THE HAZARD OF PUNISHMENT IF HE FAILS
TO REMOVE EVERY REASONABLE DOUBT OF HIS INNOCENCE IN THE MINDS OF
JURORS.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT.  THIS NOTION - BASIC IN OUR LAW AND RIGHTLY ONE OF
THE BOASTS OF A FREE SOCIETY - IS A REQUIREMENT AND A SAFEGUARD OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW IN THE HISTORIC, PROCEDURAL CONTENT OF "DUE PROCESS." 
ACCORDINGLY THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT, I REPEAT, THAT A STATE CANNOT CAST
UPON AN ACCUSED THE DUTY OF ESTABLISHING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
HIS WAS NOT THE ACT WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH OF ANOTHER. 

BUT A MUSCULAR CONTRACTION RESULTING IN A HOMICIDE DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE MURDER.  EVEN THOUGH A PERSON BE THE IMMEDIATE OCCASION OF
ANOTHER'S DEATH, HE IS NOT A DEODAND TO BE FORFEITED LIKE A THING IN
THE MEDIEVAL LAW.  BEHIND A MUSCULAR CONTRACTION RESULTING IN ANOTHER'S
DEATH THERE MUST BE CULPABILITY TO TURN HOMICIDE INTO MURDER. 

THE TESTS BY WHICH SUCH CULPABILITY MAY BE DETERMINED ARE VARYING AND
CONFLICTING.  ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO ECHO THE SCEPTICISM UTTERED BY
BRIAN, C.J., IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, THAT "THE DEVIL HIMSELF KNOWETH
NOT THE MIND OF MEN" TO APPRECIATE HOW VAST A DARKNESS STILL ENVELOPES
MAN'S UNDERSTANDING OF MAN'S MIND.  SANITY AND INSANITY ARE CONCEPTS OF
INCERTITUDE.  THEY ARE GIVEN VARYING AND CONFLICTING CONTENT AT THE
SAME TIME AND FROM TIME TO TIME BY SPECIALISTS IN THE FIELD.  NATURALLY
THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEWS ABSORBED
BY LAW AND THE CONTRADICTORY VIEWS OF STUDENTS OF MENTAL HEALTH AT A
PARTICULAR TIME.  AT THIS STAGE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IT WOULD BE
INDEFENSIBLE TO IMPOSE UPON THE STATES, THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW
WHICH THEY MUST ACCORD BEFORE DEPRIVING A PERSON OF LIFE OR LIBERTY,
ONE TEST RATHER THAN ANOTHER FOR DETERMINING CRIMINAL CULPABILITY, AND
THEREBY TO DISPLACE A STATE'S OWN CHOICE OF SUCH A TEST, NO MATTER HOW
BACKWARD IT MAY BE IN THE LIGHT OF THE BEST SCIENTIFIC CANONS. 
INEVITABLY, THE LEGAL TESTS FOR DETERMINING THE MENTAL STATE ON WHICH
CRIMINAL CULPABILITY IS TO BE BASED ARE IN STRONG CONFLICT IN OUR FORTY
EIGHT STATES.  BUT WHEN A STATE HAS CHOSEN ITS THEORY FOR TESTING
CULPABILITY, IT IS A DEPRIVATION OF LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS TO SEND A
MAN TO HIS DOOM IF HE CANNOT PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE
PHYSICAL EVENTS OF HOMICIDE DID NOT CONSTITUTE MURDER BECAUSE UNDER THE
STATE'S THEORY HE WAS INCAPABLE OF ACTING CULPABLY. 

THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE STATES FROM UTILIZING COMMON SENSE REGARDING
MENTAL IRRESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS RESULTING IN HOMICIDE - FROM TAKING
FOR GRANTED THAT MOST MEN ARE SANE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTS. 
THAT A MAN'S ACT IS NOT HIS, BECAUSE HE IS DEVOID OF THAT MENTAL STATE
WHICH BEGETS CULPABILITY, IS SO EXCEPTIONAL A SITUATION THAT THE LAW
HAS A RIGHT TO DEVISE AN EXCEPTIONAL PROCEDURE REGARDING IT.
ACCORDINGLY, STATES MAY PROVIDE VARIOUS WAYS FOR DEALING WITH THIS
EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION BY REQUIRING, FOR INSTANCE, THAT THE DEFENSE OF
"INSANITY" BE SPECIALLY PLEADED, OR THAT HE ON WHOSE BEHALF THE CLAIM
OF INSANITY IS MADE SHOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF SHOWING ENOUGH TO
OVERCOME THE ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION THAT NORMALLY A MAN KNOWS WHAT
HE IS ABOUT AND IS THEREFORE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HE DOES, OR THAT THE
ISSUE BE SEPARATELY TRIED, OR THAT A STANDING DISINTERESTED EXPERT
AGENCY ADVISE COURT AND JURY, OR THAT THESE AND OTHER DEVICES BE USED
IN COMBINATION.  THE LAWS OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES PRESENT THE
GREATEST DIVERSITY IN RELIEVING THE PROSECUTION FROM PROVING
AFFIRMATIVELY THAT A MAN IS SANE IN THE WAY IT MUST PROVE AFFIRMATIVELY
THAT THE DEFENDANT IS THE MAN WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER OR STRUCK THE
BLOW.  SUCH LEGISLATION MAKES NO INROAD UPON THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT
THE STATE MUST PROVE GUILT, NOT THE DEFENDANT INNOCENCE, AND PROVE IT
TO THE SATISFACTION OF A JURY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 

FOR SOME UNRECORDED REASON, OREGON IS THE ONLY ONE OF THE FORTY-EIGHT
STATES THAT HAS MADE INROADS UPON THAT PRINCIPLE BY REQUIRING THE
ACCUSED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE ABSENCE OF ONE OF THE
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR THE COMMISSION OF MURDER, NAMELY, CULPABILITY
FOR HIS MUSCULAR CONTRACTION.  LIKE EVERY OTHER STATE, OREGON
PRESUPPOSES THAT AN INSANE PERSON CANNOT BE MADE TO PAY WITH HIS LIFE
FOR A HOMICIDE, THOUGH FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD HE MAY OF COURSE BE PUT
BEYOND DOING FURTHER HARM.  UNLIKE EVERY OTHER STATE, HOWEVER, OREGON
SAYS THAT THE ACCUSED PERSON MUST SATISFY A JURY BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT, BEING INCAPABLE OF COMMITTING MURDER, HE HAS NOT COMMITTED
MURDER. 

SUCH HAS BEEN THE LAW OF OREGON SINCE 1864.  THAT YEAR THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEFINED MURDER IN THE CONVENTIONAL WAY, BUT IT ALSO
PROVIDED:  "WHEN THE COMMISSION OF THE ACT CHARGED AS A CRIME IS
PROVEN, AND THE DEFENCE SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED IS THE INSANITY OF THE
DEFENDANT, THE SAME MUST BE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT  ...  ." 
GENERAL LAWS OF OREGON, 1845-1864, P. 441 ET SEQ., SECS. 502, 204.  THE
LATTER SECTION, THROUGH VARIOUS REVISIONS, IS THE LAW OF OREGON TODAY
AND WAS APPLIED IN THE CONVICTION UNDER REVIEW. 

WHATEVER TENTATIVE AND INTERMEDIATE STEPS EXPERIENCE MAKES
PERMISSIBLE FOR AIDING THE STATE IN ESTABLISHING THE ULTIMATE ISSUES IN
A PROSECUTION FOR CRIME, THE STATE CANNOT BE RELIEVED, ON A FINAL SHOW
DOWN, FROM PROVING ITS ACCUSATION.  TO PROVE THE ACCUSATION IT MUST
PROVE EACH OF THE ITEMS WHICH IN COMBINATION CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE. 
AND IT MUST MAKE SUCH PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  THIS DUTY OF
THE STATE OF ESTABLISHING EVERY FACT OF THE EQUATION WHICH ADDS UP TO A
CRIME, AND OF ESTABLISHING IT TO THE SATISFACTION OF A JURY BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT IS THE DECISIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL
CULPABILITY AND CIVIL LIABILITY.  THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS THAT VERY
LIMITED CLASS OF CASES VARIOUSLY CHARACTERIZED AS MALA PROHIBITA OR
PUBLIC TORTS OR ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATORY MEASURES.  SEE UNITED STATES
V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277; MORISSETTE V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S.
246.  MURDER IS NOT A MALUM PROHIBITUM OR A PUBLIC TORT OR THE OBJECT
OF REGULATORY LEGISLATION.  TO SUGGEST THAT THE LEGAL ODDITY BY WHICH
OREGON IMPOSES UPON THE ACCUSED THE BURDEN OF PROVING BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT HE HAD NOT THE MIND CAPABLE OF COMMITTING MURDER IS A MERE
DIFFERENCE IN THE MEASURE OF PROOF, IS TO OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE JURY WERE CHARGED NOT MERELY IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS REQUIREMENT OF OREGON LAW BUT ALSO IN VARIOUS GENERAL TERMS,
AS TO THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, INCLUDING IN THE CASE OF FIRST DEGREE
MURDER, "PREMEDITATION, DELIBERATION, MALICE AND INTENT."  BE IT SO.
THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE OREGON SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED THE
CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE OREGON STATUTE "CASTS UPON THE
DEFENDANT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT."  STATE V. LELAND, 190 ORE.  598, 638, 227 P.2D 785,
802.  TO SUGGEST, AS IS SUGGESTED BY THIS COURT BUT NOT BY THE STATE
COURT, THAT, ALTHOUGH THE JURY WAS COMPELLED TO ACT UPON THIS
REQUIREMENT, THE STATUTE DOES NOT OFFEND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BECAUSE
THE TRIAL JUDGE ALSO INDULGED IN A FARRAGO OF GENERALITIES TO THE JURY
ABOUT "PREMEDITATION, DELIBERATION, MALICE AND INTENT," IS TO EXACT
GIFTS OF SUBTLETY THAT NOT EVEN JUDGES, LET ALONE JURIES, POSSESS.  SEE
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 216, 223-224.  IF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HAS ANY MEANING AT ALL, IT DOES NOT PERMIT LIFE TO
BE PUT TO SUCH HAZARDS. 

TO DENY THIS MODE OF DEALING WITH THE ABUSES OF INSANITY PLEAS AND
WITH UNEDIFYING SPECTACLES OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, IS NOT TO DEPRIVE
OREGON OF THE WIDEST POSSIBLE CHOICE OF REMEDIES FOR CIRCUMVENTING SUCH
ABUSES.  THE MULTIFORM LEGISLATION PREVAILING IN THE DIFFERENT STATES
EVINCES THE GREAT VARIETY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL METHODS OPEN TO THEM FOR
DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY INSANITY DEFENSES IN PROSECUTIONS
FOR MURDER. 

TO REPEAT THE EXTREME RELUCTANCE WITH WHICH I FIND A CONSTITUTIONAL
BARRIER TO ANY LEGISLATION IS NOT TO MOUTH A THREADBARE PHRASE. 
ESPECIALLY IS DEFERENCE DUE TO THE POLICY OF A STATE WHEN IT DEALS WITH
LOCAL CRIME, ITS REPRESSION AND PUNISHMENT.  THERE IS A GULF, HOWEVER
NARROW, BETWEEN DEFERENCE TO LOCAL LEGISLATION AND COMPLETE DISREGARD
OF THE DUTY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH HAS FALLEN TO THIS COURT BY VIRTUE
OF THE LIMITS PLACED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UPON STATE ACTION. 
THIS DUTY IS NOT TO BE ESCAPED, WHATEVER I MAY THINK OF INVESTING
JUDGES WITH THE POWER WHICH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT AMENDMENT
INVOLVES. 
..END :























CASEY V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 808 


NO. 379.  SUBMITTED MARCH 3, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1952 - 191 F.2D 1,
REVERSED. 


IN THIS CASE, IN WHICH CONFLICTING VIEWS AS TO THE FACTS ON THE
CONTROLLING ISSUE AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM WOULD HAVE
TO BE RESOLVED, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL'S CONFESSION OF ERROR, LEAVING
THE WAY OPEN FOR A NEW TRIAL, IS ACCEPTED, AND THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION IS REVERSED AS TO ALL THE PETITIONERS. 

CASEY ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE CONTROLLING CLAIM IN THIS CASE IS THAT THERE WAS AN UNREASONABLE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE, THE ADMISSION OF WHICH VITIATED THE
CONVICTIONS.  BEFORE DETERMINING THESE ISSUES CONFLICTING VIEWS AS TO
THE FACTS IN THIS CASE AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM WOULD
HAVE TO BE RESOLVED.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL CONFESSES ERROR AND ASKS
THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED AS TO ALL THE PETITIONERS,
LEAVING OF COURSE THE WAY OPEN FOR A NEW TRIAL.  TO ACCEPT IN THIS CASE
HIS CONFESSION OF ERROR WOULD NOT INVOLVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY
PERCEDENT. 

ACCORDINGLY WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AS TO ALL THE PETITIONERS. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED
JOIN, DISSENTING. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD TAKE OUR LAW FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE OR FROM ANY OTHER LITIGANT.   THE REASONS WHY THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE CONFESSES ERROR IN A CASE MAY BE WHOLLY HONORABLE.  FOR
EXAMPLE, THOSE IN THE SOLICITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE MAY BE HONESTLY
CONVERTED TO THE POINT OF VIEW WHICH THEIR COLLEAGUES OPPOSED BELOW.  I
ASSUME THAT IS TRUE IN THE PRESENT CASE.  BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT
LITIGANTS USUALLY HAVE SELFISH PURPOSES.  WHAT THE MOTIVATION BEHIND A
PARTICULAR CONFESSION OF ERROR MAY BE WILL SELDOM BE KNOWN.  WE CANNOT
BECOME A PARTY TO IT WITHOUT SERVING THE UNKNOWN CAUSE OF THE
LITIGANT. 

THE PRACTICE IN CASES IN WHICH THE SOLICITOR GENERAL CONFESSES ERROR
WAS SETTLED BY YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 257 (1942).  WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT CONFESSED ERROR ON YOUNG'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THE
CONFESSION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BUT, INSTEAD, THE PETITION WAS GRANTED AND
THE CASE SET DOWN FOR ARGUMENT.  314 U.S. 595 (1941).  IN THE UNANIMOUS
OPINION OF THE COURT, TWO JUSTICES NOT PARTICIPATING, THE FUNCTION OF
THIS COURT UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S CONFESSION OF ERROR WAS DESCRIBED WITH
PARTICULARITY: 

"THE PUBLIC TRUST REPOSED IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT THEY BE QUICK TO CONFESS ERROR WHEN, IN THEIR
OPINION, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MAY RESULT FROM THEIR REMAINING
SILENT.  BUT SUCH A CONFESSION DOES NOT RELIEVE THIS COURT OF THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT REVERSIBLE ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED IS
ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT, BUT OUR JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS COMPEL US TO
EXAMINE INDEPENDENTLY THE ERRORS CONFESSED.  SEE PARLTON V. UNITED
SATES, 75 F.2D 772.  THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT A RESULT BE REACHED WHICH
PROMOTES A WELL-ORDERED SOCIETY IS FOREMOST IN EVERY CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.  THAT INTEREST IS ENTRUSTED TO OUR CONSIDERATION AND
PROTECTION AS WELL AS TO THAT OF THE ENFORCING OFFICERS.  FURTHERMORE,
OUR JUDGMENTS ARE PRECEDENTS, AND THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW CANNOT BE LEFT MERELY TO THE STIPULATION OF PARTIES.  CF.
REX V. WILKES, 4 BURR.  2527, 2551, 98 ENG. REP. 327; STATE V. GREEN,
167 WASH. 266, 9 P.2D 62."  315 U.S., AT 258-259. 

AS A RESULT, THE COURT PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE THE ERRORS URGED BY
PETITIONER AND, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  (FN1) 

THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WERE
EXPRESSLY REAFFIRMED IN GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 338, 344
(1946); CF. MARINO V. RAGEN, 332 U.S. 561, 562 (1947).  (FN2) MOREOVER,
THE PRACTICE OF THIS COURT IN CASES IN WHICH THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
CONFESSES ERROR HAS FOLLOWED THE YOUNG RULE.  UNLIKE TODAY'S PER
CURIAM, OUR RECENT PER CURIAM ORDERS AND OPINIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFUL TO
NOTE THAT OUR REVERSAL OF A COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENT IS BASED UPON
CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD, NOT BLIND ACCEPTANCE OF A CONFESSION OF
ERROR.  (FN3) 

WE SIT IN THIS CASE NOT TO ENFORCE THE REQUESTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE BUT TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF A LOWER COURT.  HERE THE COURT OF
APPEALS RULED THAT PETITIONERS HAD NO STANDING TO COMPLAIN OF THE
SEARCH.  THAT RULING IS QUESTIONABLE IN VIEW OF THE INTERVENING
DECISION OF THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. JEFFERS, 342 U.S. 48.  BUT
THE CONFESSION OF ERROR IS NOT LIMITED TO THAT RULING.  THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE NOW MAINTAINS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS IN ERROR IN RULING
IN THE GOVERNMENT'S FAVOR ON THE ISSUE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 

THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE ONLY QUESTION IS THE REACH OF OUR
DECISION IN CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132.  THAT DECISION
STATES A PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  UNTIL IT IS REVERSED OR
MODIFIED, IT PRESCRIBES A RULE FOR THE COURTS TO APPLY ACCORDING TO
THEIR BEST LIGHTS, NOT ACCORDING TO THE DESIRES OF EITHER THE
PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENSE. 

SINCE THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT REACH THAT ISSUE WHEN THE CASE WAS
BEFORE IT, WE SHOULD AT THE VERY LEAST REMAND THE CASE TO IT FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THAT QUESTION.  IF WE ARE TO DECIDE IT, WE SHOULD DO
SO ONLY AFTER FULL EXPLORATION OF THE FACT AND THE LAW.  WHATEVER
ACTION WE TAKE IS A PRECEDENT. 

I CANNOT STATE TOO STRONGLY MY BELIEF THAT IF THE COURTS ARE TO
RETAIN THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THEY MUST DECIDE CASES TAKEN ON THE MERITS. 
A CONFESSION OF ERROR BY A LITIGANT IS, OR COURSE, AN IMPORTANT FACTOR
TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN STUDYING A RECORD.  (FN4)  IT MAY DISCLOSE AN
INTERVENING DECISION ON A QUESTION OF LAW THAT UNDERMINES THE LOWER
COURT'S CONCLUSION; IT MAY DISCLOSE PERJURY BY AN IMPORTANT WITNESS OR
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE; IT MAY DISCLOSE OTHER FACTORS WHICH WEAKEN
THE CONCLUSION OF THE LOWER COURT.  OR IT MAY DISCLOSE A MANEUVER TO
SAVE ONE CASE AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER.  (FN5)  ONCE WE ACCEPT A
CONFESSION OF ERROR AT FACE VALUE AND MAKE IT THE CONTROLLING AND
DECISIVE FACTOR IN OUR DECISION, WE NO LONGER ADMINISTER A SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE UNDER A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS. 

FN1  DURING THE SAME TERM OF COURT AS YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
THE GOVERNMENT ALSO CONFESSED ERROR IN WEBER V. UNITED STATES.  THE
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 600 (1941), HEARD ARGUMENT, AND
AFFIRMED THE COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENT BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT. 
315 U.S. 787 (1942). 

FN2  IN UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 410 (1948), THE GOVERNMENT
HAD CONFESSED ERROR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THAT COURT, ADHERING TO ITS PRECEDENT IN PARLTON V. UNITED
STATES, 64 APP. D.C. 169, 75 F.2D 772 (1935)(CITED WITH APPROVAL IN
YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 259), CONDUCTED AN INDEPENDENT
EXAMINATION OF THE ERRORS CONFESSED.  83 U.S. APP. D.C. 207, 168 F.2D
167 (1948).  THIS COURT REVERSED IN A 5-4 DECISION WITHOUT SUGGESTING
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S POSITION. 

FN3  CATES V. HADERLEIN, 342 U.S. 804 (1951); CHIARELLA V. UNITED
STATES, 341 U.S. 946 (1951); RYLES V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 949
(1949); BELLASKUS V. CROSSMAN, 335 U.S. 840 (1948); FOGEL V. UNITED
STATES, 335 U.S. 865 (1948); WIXMAN V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 874
(1948); MOGALL V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 424 (1948). 

FN4  SIMILARLY, THE FACT THAT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL DOES NOT OPPOSE
THE GRANTING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS ENTITLED TO RESPECT, SEE,
E.G., WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33, 36 (1950).  BUT IT HAS
NEVER FOLLOWED THAT WE SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY GRANT CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT TO SUCH ACTION.  E.G., COMMUNITY SERVICES,
INC. V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 932 (1952)(CERTIORARI DENIED); DOLLAR
V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 910, (1952)(CERTIORARI DENIED). 

FN5 THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A TREASON CONVICTION,
ONE GROUND OF AFFIRMANCE BEING THAT THE METHODS OF EXPATRIATION LISTED
IN THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1168, WERE EXCLUSIVE. 
KAWAKITA V. UNITED STATES, 190 F.2D 506, 511-514 (1951).  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 342 U.S. 932, AND AFFIRMED THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT
RESOLVING THE QUESTION.  343 U.S. 717.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL URGED IN
SUPPORT OF THE CONVICTION THAT THE EXPATRIATION PROCEDURES OF THE
NATIONALITY ACT WERE EXCLUSIVE. 

IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, A JUDGMENT DENYING A CLAIM OF
CITIZENSHIP WAS AFFIRMED, ONE GROUND OF AFFIRMANCE BEING THAT METHODS
OF EXPATRIATION LISTED IN THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 WERE NOT
EXCLUSIVE.  MANDOLI V. ACHESON, 193 F.2D 920, 922 (1952).  IN HIS
MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO THE MANDOLI PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL, ADHERING TO HIS POSITION IN KAWAKITA, ASSERTED THAT
THIS GROUND OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN THIS CASE IS "CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS." 
..END :
















THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 549 


NO. 513.  ARGUED APRIL 23, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1952 - 101 F. SUPP.
48, REVERSED. 


GRAIN MAY BE SHIPPED OVER THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD TO KANSAS CITY
FROM LENORA VIA ATCHISON, KANSAS, AT 19 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS; AND THE
RATE TO OMAHA IS 25.5 CENTS.  UPON COMPLAINT THAT THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC'S RATES DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OMAHA, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THE INQUIRY AND FINDINGS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 15 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THROUGH ROUTES, BUT FINDING THAT A THROUGH ROUTE FROM
LENORA TO OMAHA VIA CONCORDIA AND THE BURLINGTON RAILROAD WAS ALREADY
IN EXISTENCE, ORDERED THE MISSOURI PACIFIC TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION
OVER THAT ROUTE AT A RATE NOT EXCEEDING THE RATE TO KANSAS CITY.  THERE
WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CARRIERS HAD EVER OFFERED THROUGH SERVICE FROM
LENORA TO OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON.  HELD:  THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
WAS WITHOUT EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT AND WAS INVALID UNDER THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  PP. 550-561. 

1.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT A THROUGH ROUTE FROM LENORA TO
OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE MEANING OF "THROUGH ROUTE" AS USED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
PP. 552-561. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES IS LIMITED BY
SEC. 15(3) AND (4) OF THE ACT, WHENEVER, AS HERE, A CARRIER WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO SHORT HAUL ITSELF.  PP. 552-555. 

(B)  THE TEST OF THE EXISTENCE OF A "THROUGH ROUTE" IS WHETHER THE
PARTICIPATING CARRIERS HOLD THEMSELVES OUT AS OFFERING THROUGH
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  PP. 556-557. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC CONNECTS WITH THE BURLINGTON
AT CONCORDIA DOES NOT AID THE COMMISSION IN PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF A
THROUGH ROUTE, SINCE THE POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES UNDER SEC.
15 PRESUPPOSES SUCH PHYSICAL CONNECTION.  PP. 557-558. 

(D)  THE SHOWING THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC PUBLISHES A LOCAL RATE
FROM LENORA TO CONCORDIA AND THAT THE BURLINGTON PUBLISHES A LOCAL RATE
FROM CONCORDIA TO OMAHA PROVES ONLY THAT EACH CARRIER COMPLIES WITH THE
STATUTORY DUTY TO PUBLISH RATES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BETWEEN
POINTS ON ITS OWN LINES.  P. 558. 

(E)  THE EXISTENCE OF THROUGH ROUTES FROM LENORA TO POINTS ON THE
BURLINGTON LINE SHORT OF OMAHA DOES NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A
THROUGH ROUTE TO OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON.  PP. 558-559. 

2.  TO SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THIS CASE WOULD CIRCUMVENT
ACTS OF CONGRESS SINCE 1906 GRANTING THE COMMISSION ONLY A CAREFULLY
RESTRICTED POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES.  PP. 554-555, 560-561. 

THOMPSON, TRUSTEE, MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. V. UNITED STATES ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MISSOURI. 

IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 278 I.C.C. 519, A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT.  101 F. SUPP. 48.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO
THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253, REVERSED, P. 561. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS CASE CONCERNS THE CONTENT
OF THE TERM "THROUGH ROUTE" AS USED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
(FN1) 

THE QUESTION ARISES OUT OF A CONTROVERSY AS TO THE SHIPMENT OF GRAIN
TO MARKET FROM POINTS IN KANSAS ON THE CENTRAL BRANCH OF THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC RAILROAD.  FROM LENORA, KANSAS, A TYPICAL ORIGIN POINT, GRAIN
MAY BE SHIPPED EASTWARD TO THE KANSAS CITY MARKET OVER MISSOURI PACIFIC
LINES VIA ATCHISON, KANSAS, AT A RATE OF 19 CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS. 
THE MISSOURI PACIFIC ALSO PROVIDES SERVICE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA,
NEBRASKA, VIA ATCHISON, AT THE RATE OF 25.5 CENTS.  MIDWAY BETWEEN
LENORA AND ATCHISON, AT CONCORDIA, KANSAS, THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
CONNECTS WITH A LINE OF THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD
RUNNING IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION TO OMAHA.  CONCORDIA IS LISTED BY
THE CARRIERS AS A POINT FOR INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC AND THERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC AND THE BURLINGTON OFFER THROUGH
TRANSPORTATION VIA CONCORDIA FROM LENORA TO POINTS ON THE BURLINGTON
LINE SHORT OF OMAHA.  BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY SHIPMENT HAS
EVER BEEN MADE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON LINE OR THAT THE
CARRIERS HAVE EVER OFFERED THROUGH SERVICE OVER THAT ROUTE, ALTHOUGH
THE HAUL FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON IS APPROXIMATELY THE
SAME LENGTH AS THE HAUL FROM LENORA TO KANSAS CITY OVER THE LINES OF
THE MISSOURI PACIFIC. 

THE OMAHA GRAIN EXCHANGE COMPLAINED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION THAT THE RATES PUBLISHED BY APPELLANT, TRUSTEE FOR THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC, ON GRAIN SHIPPED FROM LENORA AND OTHER KANSAS ORIGINS
ARE UNREASONABLE AND DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OMAHA IN VIOLATION OF
COMPLAINT IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ROUTE TO OMAHA VIA CONCORDIA AND
THE BURLINGTON LINE "IS A PRACTICABLE THROUGH ROUTE AS PROVIDED IN
MARKET OF OMAHA SHOULD BE NO GREATER THAN THE RATES TO THE MARKET OF
KANSAS CITY." 


"THE COMMISSION MAY, AND IT SHALL WHENEVER DEEMED BY IT TO BE
NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AFTER FULL HEARING UPON
COMPLAINT OR UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE WITHOUT COMPLAINT, ESTABLISH
THROUGH ROUTES, JOINT CLASSIFICATIONS, AND JOINT RATES, FARES, OR
CHARGES, APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THIS PART,  ...  ."  54 STAT. 911, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
15(3). 

THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES IS LIMITED BY A
PROVISION OF SECTION 15(4), QUOTED IN THE MARGIN, (FN3) WHENEVER SUCH
ACTION WOULD REQUIRE A CARRIER TO SHORT HAUL ITSELF.  UNDER THAT
OWN LINE MAKES THE EXISTING THROUGH ROUTE "UNREASONABLY LONG AS
COMPARED WITH ANOTHER PRACTICABLE THROUGH ROUTE WHICH COULD OTHERWISE
BE ESTABLISHED," OR WHERE THE COMMISSION MAKES SPECIAL FINDINGS THAT A
PROPOSED THROUGH ROUTE "IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE, AND
MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE ECONOMIC, TRANSPORTATION."  (FN4)  ESTABLISHMENT
OF A NEW THROUGH ROUTE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA, VIA THE BURLINGTON, WOULD
COMPEL THE MISSOURI PACIFIC TO PERMIT USE OF THE LENORA-CONCORDIA
PORTION OF ITS LINE IN THE NEW THROUGH ROUTE TO OMAHA IN COMPETITION
WITH THE MISSOURI PACIFIC'S OWN ROUTE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA
ATCHISON.  AS A RESULT, ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW THROUGH ROUTE AS
REQUESTED BY THE OMAHA GRAIN EXCHANGE ADMITTEDLY INVOKES THE
RESTRICTION AGAINST SHORT HAULING IN SECTION 15(4). 

THE PARTIES DISPUTE WHETHER, ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THERE IS
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR MAKING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECTION 15(3) AND
(4) FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A THROUGH ROUTE.  WE DO NOT REACH THIS
QUESTION BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE INQUIRY AND FINDINGS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 15, THE COMMISSION FINDING THAT A THROUGH ROUTE
FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA CONCORDIA AND THE BURLINGTON LINE WAS ALREADY
IN EXISTENCE AND, THEREFORE, DID NOT HAVE TO BE "ESTABLISHED."  THE
COMMISSION GRANTED RELIEF TO THE COMPLAINANT OMAHA GRAIN EXCHANGE BY
FINDING THAT THE SUM OF THE LOCAL RATE FROM LENORA TO CONCORDIA
PUBLISHED BY APPELLANT AND THE LOCAL RATE FROM CONCORDIA TO OMAHA
PUBLISHED BY THE BURLINGTON (TOTALING 30 CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS) IS
AN "UNREASONABLE" RATE OVER THE ROUTE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA THE
BURLINGTON.  APPELLANT WAS ORDERED TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION OF GRAIN
FROM LENORA TO OMAHA AT RATES NOT EXCEEDING THE RATES CHARGED BY THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC ON LIKE TRAFFIC TO KANSAS CITY (19 CENTS).  THE
COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATE PUBLISHED BY
APPELLANT FOR THE ROUTE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA ATCHISON, NOR IS THERE
ANY FINDING THAT THE LOCAL RATE FROM LENORA TO CONCORDIA PUBLISHED BY
APPELLANT IS ITSELF EITHER UNREASONABLE OR DISCRIMINATORY.  278 I.C.C.
519, AFFIRMING DIVISION 2,272 I.C.C. 368. 

APPELLANT SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION ERRED IN
FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF A THROUGH ROUTE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA THE
BURLINGTON WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ORDER, IN EFFECT, ESTABLISHES A NEW
THROUGH ROUTE WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 15(3)
AND (4) OF THE ACT.  A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AND DISMISSED APPELLANT'S
COMPLAINT.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT "EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL
INTERCHANGE CONNECTION AT CONCORDIA, PLUS LONG ESTABLISHED JOINT RATES
TO SOME POINTS ON THE BURLINGTON SHORT OF OMAHA, PLUS COMBINATION RATES
TO OMAHA," FURNISHED SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING OF THE EXISTENCE OF A THROUGH ROUTE.  101 F. SUPP. 48.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1253. 

UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, A CARRIER MUST NOT ONLY PROVIDE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT REASONABLE RATES OVER ITS OWN LINES BUT HAS
THE ADDITIONAL DUTY "TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE THROUGH ROUTES WITH OTHER
SUCH CARRIERS, AND JUST AND REASONABLE RATES  ...  APPLICABLE
THERETO."  (FN5) THROUGH ROUTES MAY BE, AND ORDINARILY ARE, ESTABLISHED
BY THE VOLUNTARY ACTION OF CONNECTING CARRIERS.  SINCE 1906, THROUGH
ROUTES MAY ALSO BE ESTABLISHED BY ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  IN THAT YEAR, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO
ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES "PROVIDED NO REASONABLE OR SATISFACTORY
THROUGH ROUTE EXISTS."  (FN6)  IN 1910, CONGRESS FIRST EMPOWERED THE
COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH ALTERNATE THROUGH ROUTES BUT RESTRICTED THIS
POWER BY ADDING THE FORERUNNER OF PRESENT SECTION 15(4) TO PREVENT THE
COMMISSION FROM ESTABLISHING ANY THROUGH ROUTE REQUIRING A CARRIER TO
SHORT HAUL ITSELF UNLESS THE EXISTING ROUTE WAS UNREASONABLY LONG
COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED ROUTE.  (FN7) 

THE COMMISSION'S EFFORT TO LIMIT BY CONSTRUCTION THE IMPACT OF THE
SHORT-HAULING RESTRICTION ON ITS POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES WAS
REJECTED BY THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 278
U.S. 269 (1929).  FOLLOWING THIS DECISION, THE COMMISSION ASKED
CONGRESS TO DELETE COMPLETELY THE SHORT-HAULING RESTRICTION.  (FN8)  IN
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, CONGRESS REFUSED TO ELIMINATE THE
RESTRICTION AGAINST SHORT HAULING, BUT ADOPTED A COMPROMISE UNDER WHICH
THE RESTRICTION AGAINST SHORT HAULING WAS RETAINED SUBJECT TO A NEW
EXCEPTION APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE COMMISSION MAKES THE SPECIAL
FINDINGS LISTED IN THE AMENDED SECTION 15(4).  (FN9) 

CONFRONTED WITH THIS CONSISTENT LEGISLATIVE REFUSAL TO ELIMINATE THE
SHORT-HAULING RESTRICTION ON ITS POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES, THE
COMMISSION JUSTIFIES ITS ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT A "THROUGH ROUTE"
FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON WAS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.  IF
THE COMMISSION HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE TERM "THROUGH ROUTE" IN THIS
CASE, THE COMMISSION'S RESTRICTED POWER TO "ESTABLISH" THROUGH ROUTES
UNDER SECTION 15(3) AND (4) IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE.  THE
STATUTORY TERM "THROUGH ROUTE," USED THROUGHOUT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, (FN10) HAS BEEN DEFINED BY THIS COURT AS FOLLOWS: 

"A 'THROUGH ROUTE' IS AN ARRANGEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BETWEEN
CONNECTING RAILROADS FOR THE CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OF GOODS FROM THE
ORIGINATING POINT ON THE LINE OF ONE CARRIER TO DESTINATION ON THE LINE
OF ANOTHER.  THROUGH CARRIAGE IMPLIES A 'THROUGH RATE.'  THIS 'THROUGH
RATE' IS NOT NECESSARILY A 'JOINT RATE.'  IT MAY BE MERELY AN
AGGREGATION OF SEPARATE RATES FIXED INDEPENDENTLY BY THE SEVERAL
CARRIERS FORMING THE 'THROUGH ROUTE'; AS WHERE THE 'THROUGH RATE' IS
'THE SUM OF THE LOCALS' ON THE SEVERAL CONNECTING LINES OR IS THE SUM
OF LOWER RATES OTHERWISE SEPARATELY ESTABLISHED BY THEM FOR THROUGH
TRANSPORTATION.  THROUGH ROUTES AND THROUGH RATES, 12 I.C.C. 163,
166."  (FN11) 

THE COMMISSION DECISION CITED BY THE COURT WAS SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS
IN THE COMMISSION'S 21ST ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: 

"A THROUGH ROUTE IS A CONTINUOUS LINE OF RAILWAY FORMED BY AN
ARRANGEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BETWEEN CONNECTING CARRIERS  ...  .
EXISTENCE OF A THROUGH ROUTE IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE INCIDENTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SHIPMENT, SUCH AS THE BILLING, THE TRANSFER FROM
ONE CARRIER TO ANOTHER, THE COLLECTION AND DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARGES, OR THE USE OF A PROPORTIONAL RATE TO OR FROM JUNCTION POINTS
OR BASING POINTS.  THESE INCIDENTS NAMED ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS
EXCLUSIVE OF OTHERS WHICH MAY TEND TO ESTABLISH A CARRIER'S COURSE OF
BUSINESS WITH RESPECT TO THROUGH SHIPMENTS."  (FN12) 

IN SHORT, THE TEST OF THE EXISTENCE OF A "THROUGH ROUTE" IS WHETHER
THE PARTICIPATING CARRIERS HOLD THEMSELVES OUT AS OFFERING THROUGH
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  THROUGH CARRIAGE IMPLIES THE EXISTENCE OF A
THROUGH ROUTE WHATEVER THE FORM OF THE RATES CHARGED FOR THE THROUGH
SERVICE. 

IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY THROUGH TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE HAS EVER BEEN OFFERED FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON. 
(FN13)  THE CARRIERS' COURSE OF BUSINESS NEGATIVES THE EXISTENCE OF ANY
SUCH THROUGH ROUTE.  THE FACT THAT APPELLANT'S LINE CONNECTS WITH THE
BURLINGTON AT CONCORDIA DOES NOT AID THE COMMISSION IN PROVING THE
EXISTENCE OF A THROUGH ROUTE, SINCE THE POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH
ROUTES UNDER SECTION 15(3) AND (4) ALSO PRESUPPOSES SUCH PHYSICAL
CONNECTION.  AND THE SHOWING THAT APPELLANT PUBLISHES A LOCAL RATE FROM
LENORA TO CONCORDIA AND THAT THE BURLINGTON PUBLISHES A LOCAL RATE FROM
CONCORDIA TO OMAHA PROVES ONLY THAT EACH CARRIER COMPLIES WITH THE
STATUTORY DUTY TO PUBLISH RATES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BETWEEN
POINTS ON ITS OWN LINES.  (FN14) 

THE ONLY REMAINING EVIDENCE URGED IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING THAT A THROUGH ROUTE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON
ALREADY EXISTS IS THE SHOWING THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC AND THE
BURLINGTON OFFER THROUGH SERVICE FROM LENORA TO POINTS ON THE
BURLINGTON LINE SHORT OF OMAHA.  (FN15)  UNDER SECTION 1(4) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, (FN16) THE MISSOURI PACIFIC IS REQUIRED TO
ESTABLISH REASONABLE THROUGH ROUTES.  IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT SECTION,
THE MISSOURI PACIFIC FURNISHES THROUGH SERVICE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA ON
ITS OWN LINES VIA ATCHISON AND, SINCE ITS OWN LINES DO NOT SERVE POINTS
ON THE BURLINGTON LINE SHORT OF OMAHA, IT OFFERS THROUGH SERVICE TO
SUCH POINTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BURLINGTON.  THROUGH SERVICE TO
POINTS SHORT OF OMAHA CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A
THROUGH ROUTE TO OMAHA UNLESS WE ARE TO HOLD THAT COMPLIANCE WITH
OMAHA VIA ITS OWN LINES, A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY SECTION 15(4).  WE
REJECT THE COMMISSION'S ARGUMENT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THROUGH ROUTES
FROM LENORA TO POINTS ON THE BURLINGTON LINE SHORT OF OMAHA PROVES THE
EXISTENCE OF A THROUGH ROUTE TO OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON AS REQUIRING
AN UNWARRANTED DISTORTION OF THE STATUTORY PATTERN. 

THE UNITED STATES, HAVING JOINED IN DEFENSE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND ON MOTION TO AFFIRM IN THIS COURT, HAS FILED
A MEMORANDUM CONCEDING THAT THE COMMISSION ERRED IN FINDING THAT
THROUGH ROUTES OVER THE BURLINGTON LINE ALREADY EXIST.  THE COMMISSION
CONTINUES TO SUPPORT ITS ORDER, BUT THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF THE
THEORY ADVANCED BY THE COMMISSION IS THAT THROUGH ROUTES EXIST BETWEEN
ALL POINTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY WHEREVER PHYSICAL RAIL CONNECTIONS
ARE AVAILABLE.  IF THERE IS NO THROUGH CARRIAGE OVER ANY COMBINATION OF
CONNECTING CARRIERS, THE COMMISSION UNDER ITS PRESENT THEORY WOULD
NEVER HAVE TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES UNDER SECTION 15(3) AND (4) BUT
COULD DIVERT TRAFFIC TO ANY ROUTE BETWEEN TWO POINTS BY ORDERING
REDUCTION OF THE SUM OF THE LOCAL RATES OVER THAT ROUTE.  ACCEPTANCE OF
THIS ARGUMENT WOULD MEAN THAT CONGRESS' INSISTENCE ON PROTECTING
CARRIERS FROM BEING REQUIRED TO SHORT HAUL THEMSELVES COULD BE EVADED
WHENEVER THE COMMISSION CHOSE TO ALTER THE FORM OF ITS ORDER.  (FN17)
THE COMMISSION, BY USING THE FORM OF ORDER EMPLOYED IN THIS CASE, COULD
ALSO DIVERT TRAFFIC FROM EXISTING THROUGH ROUTES TO THE LINES OF A WEAK
CARRIER SOLELY TO ASSIST THAT CARRIER TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS,
THEREBY EVADING COMPLETELY THE APPLICABLE PROHIBITION OF SECTION 15(4),
BEFORE THE COURT IN UNITED STATES V. GREAT NORTHERN R. CO., 343 U.S.
562 (DECIDED THIS DAY).  IN SHORT, ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMISSION'S
ARGUMENT WOULD MEAN THAT THE ACTS OF CONGRESS SINCE 1906 GRANTING THE
COMMISSION ONLY A CAREFULLY RESTRICTED POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH
ROUTES HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARY SURPLUSAGE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION'S EFFORTS TO SUPPORT ITS FINDING THAT A
THROUGH ROUTE FROM LENORA TO OMAHA VIA THE BURLINGTON LINE ALREADY
EXISTS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MEANING OF THE TERM "THROUGH ROUTE" AS
USED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  (FN18)  SINCE THERE IS ADMITTEDLY
NO EVIDENCE THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC EVER OFFERED THROUGH
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OVER THE ROUTE IN QUESTION, THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER IS WITHOUT EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT UNDER THE ACCEPTED TESTS FOR
DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A THROUGH ROUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT MUST BE
REVERSED. 

FN1  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. 

FN2  SEE 49 U.S.C. SECS. 1(5)(A), 3(1). 

FN3  "IN ESTABLISHING ANY SUCH THROUGH ROUTE THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT
(EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3, AND EXCEPT WHERE ONE OF THE CARRIERS
IS A WATER LINE) REQUIRE ANY CARRIER BY RAILROAD, WITHOUT ITS CONSENT,
TO EMBRACE IN SUCH ROUTE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF
ITS RAILROAD AND OF ANY INTERMEDIATE RAILROAD OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION
AND UNDER A COMMON MANAGEMENT OR CONTROL THEREWITH, WHICH LIES BETWEEN
THE TERMINI OF SUCH PROPOSED THROUGH ROUTE, (A) UNLESS SUCH INCLUSION
OF LINES WOULD MAKE THE THROUGH ROUTE UNREASONABLY LONG AS COMPARED
WITH ANOTHER PRACTICABLE THROUGH ROUTE WHICH COULD OTHERWISE BE
ESTABLISHED, OR (B) UNLESS THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE THROUGH ROUTE
PROPOSED TO BE ESTABLISHED IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE, AND
MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE ECONOMIC, TRANSPORTATION:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT IN PRESCRIBING THROUGH ROUTES THE COMMISSION SHALL, SO FAR AS IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOREGOING
LIMITATIONS IN CLAUSES (A) AND (B), GIVE REASONABLE PREFERENCE TO THE
CARRIER BY RAILROAD WHICH ORIGINATES THE TRAFFIC  ...  ."  54 STAT. 911
912, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(4). 

FN4  THE SHORT-HAULING PROVISIONS ARE DISCUSSED AND APPLIED IN
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 588 (1945). 

FN5  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(4). 

FN6  34 STAT. 584, 590.  IN I.C.C. V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 216
U.S. 538 (1910), THIS COURT HELD THAT THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE
COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES WERE JUDICIALLY
ENFORCEABLE. 

FN7  36 STAT. 539, 552.  SEE S. REP. NO. 355, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS. 9
10 (1910). 

FN8  THE COMMISSION FIRST ASKED CONGRESS TO ADOPT THE NARROW
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHORT-HAULING RESTRICTION REJECTED BY THIS COURT IN
UNITED STATES V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA.  ANN. REP. I.C.C.
(1929) 89; ID. (1930) 97; ID. (1931) 83-84, 121; ID.  (1932) 102.  WHEN
THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR RECOMMENDED THAT THE SHORT
HAULING RESTRICTION BE ELIMINATED, S. DOC. NO. 152, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.
92-94 (1934), THE COMMISSION URGED CONGRESS TO FOLLOW THE COORDINATOR'S
RECOMMENDATION.  ANN. REP. I.C.C. (1937) 106; ID. (1938) 122. 

IN THE 74TH CONGRESS, S. 1636 AND H.R. 5364 WERE INTRODUCED TO ENACT
THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, THE SENATE BILL WAS REPORTED
FAVORABLY, S. REP. NO. 1970, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1936), BUT NO
FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN.  IN THE 75TH CONGRESS, SIMILAR BILLS WERE
INTRODUCED, S. 1261 AND H.R. 4341, THE SENATE BILL WAS REPORTED
FAVORABLY, S. REP. NO. 404, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1937), AND WAS
PASSED BY THE SENATE, 81 CONG. REC. 8603 (1937), BUT NO FURTHER ACTION
WAS TAKEN. 

FN9  IN THE 76TH CONGRESS, BILLS TO DELETE THE SHORT-HAULING
RESTRICTION WERE AGAIN INTRODUCED, S. 1085 AND H.R. 3400.  AT THE SAME
TIME, THE EXTENSIVE REVISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WHICH
BECAME THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 WAS BEING CONSIDERED.  S. 2009. 
A SENATE COMMITTEE INCLUDED IN ITS OVER-ALL REVISION THE "THROUGH
ROUTES PROVISION LONG ADVOCATED BY THE COMMISSION," S. REP. NO. 433,
76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 6, 21-22 (1939), AND THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, SO
AMENDED, WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE.  THE TRANSPORTATION ACT AS PASSED BY
THE HOUSE DID NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY CHANGE IN SECTION 15(4).  THE PRESENT
FORM OF SECTION 15(4) EMERGED AS SECTION 10(B) OF THE TRANSPORTATION
ACT OF 1940.  54 STAT. 898, 911-912.  SEE CONFERENCE REPORTS:  H.R.
REP. NO. 2016, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. 64-65 (1940); H.R. REP. NO. 2832,
76TH CONG., 3D SESS. 70-71 (1940). 

FN10  49 U.S.C. SECS. 1(4), 6(1), 15(3)(4)(8); 49 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV)
SEC. 5B(4). 

FN11 ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 136,
139, NOTE 2 (1917).  SEE ALSO GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
81 F. SUPP. 921, 924 (D. DEL. 1948), AFFIRMED, 336 U.S. 933 (1949). 

FN12  ANN. REP. I.C.C. (1907) 75-76. 

FN13  COMPARE BEAMAN ELEVATOR CO. V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 155 I.C.C.
313 (1929), WHERE THE COMMISSION HELD THAT PROOF OF ONE SHIPMENT ON A
THROUGH BILL OF LADING OVER A CERTAIN ROUTE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW
THE EXISTENCE OF A THROUGH ROUTE BECAUSE THAT ONE SHIPMENT WAS NOT
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CARRIERS' COURSE OF BUSINESS. 

FN14  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(1). 

FN15  THE DISTRICT COURT INDICATED THAT SUCH THROUGH SERVICE WAS
OFFERED ON JOINT RATES, BUT APPELLANT STATES IN THIS COURT THAT SUCH
THROUGH SERVICE WAS OFFERED ON A THROUGH RATE MADE UP OF A COMBINATION
OF THE APPLICABLE LOCAL RATES.  WE NEED NOT PAUSE OVER THIS CONFLICT
SINCE "THROUGH ROUTES" FROM LENORA TO POINTS ON THE BURLINGTON SHORT OF
OMAHA ARE IMPLIED FROM THE FACT OF THROUGH CARRIAGE, AND ARE NOT
DEPENDENT UPON THE FORM OF THE RATES CHARGED.  SEE ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, NOTE 11, SUPRA, AND UNITED STATES
V. GREAT NORTHERN R. CO., 343 U.S. 562 (DECIDED THIS DAY). 

FN16  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(4). 

FN17  FOR EXAMPLE, IN UNITED STATES V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO.,
SUPRA, THE MISSOURI PACIFIC FURNISHED THROUGH TRAFFIC OVER ITS OWN
LINES FROM MEMPHIS WESTWARD TO FT. SMITH, ARKANSAS, AND BEYOND.  THE
FT. SMITH, SUBIACO & R.I.R. CO., DESIROUS OF OBTAINING ADDITIONAL
TRAFFIC, ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A THROUGH ROUTE FROM MEMPHIS
TO FT. SMITH VIA THE CONNECTING LINES OF THE ROCK ISLAND RAILROAD, THE
SUBIACO AND A LINE OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC.  THE COMMISSION ORDERED THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THROUGH ROUTE WITH THROUGH RATES AT THE SAME LEVEL
AS THE RATES THEN CHARGED OVER THE EXISTING THROUGH ROUTE BETWEEN
MEMPHIS AND FT. SMITH.  THIS COURT HELD THE ORDER INVALID AS INFRINGING
UPON THE RIGHTS OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC UNDER THE SHORT-HAULING
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15(4).  IF THE COMMISSION IS CORRECT IN THIS
CASE, IT COULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE FORBIDDEN RESULT MERELY BY
ALTERING THE FORM OF ITS ORDER - I.E., INSTEAD OF ORDERING
ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW THROUGH ROUTE, THE COMMISSION COULD HAVE ASSUMED
THE EXISTENCE OF A THROUGH ROUTE FROM MEMPHIS TO FT. SMITH VIA THE
LINES OF THE ROCK ISLAND, THE SUBIACO AND THE MISSOURI PACIFIC AND
ACCOMPLISHED THE IDENTICAL RESULT BY ORDERING REDUCTION OF THE SUM OF
THE LOCAL RATES OVER EACH PORTION OF THE ROUTE TO THE LEVEL OF THE RATE
OVER THE EXISTING THROUGH ROUTE. 

FN18  VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 658 (1926), IS
INAPPOSITE SINCE THROUGH ROUTES WERE THERE FOUND TO BE IN EXISTENCE BUT
COMMERCIALLY CLOSED SOLELY BECAUSE OF UNREASONABLE AND DISCRIMINATORY
RATES CHARGED BY THE VIRGINIAN OVER ITS PORTION OF THE ROUTE.  IN THIS
CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE LOCAL RATE CHARGED BY THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC FROM LENORA TO CONCORDIA IS EITHER UNREASONABLE OR
DISCRIMINATORY.  SIMILARLY, THE DECISION IN ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768 (1929), IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE. 

THE COMMISSION'S ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANT'S RATES DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
OMAHA IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREBY CAUSE
APPELLANT TO LOSE THE PROTECTION OF SECTION 15(4) IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE RATES CHARGED BY
THE MISSOURI PACIFIC OVER ITS OWN LINES ARE DISCRIMINATORY, MUCH LESS
MAKE ANY FINDING TO THAT EFFECT. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. 343 U.S. 562 


NO. 151.  ARGUED JANUARY 8-9, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1952 - 96 F. SUPP.
298, REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 15(3) AND (6) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT RATES
BY CERTAIN CARRIERS, IN LIEU OF COMBINATION RATES OVER THROUGH ROUTES
WHICH WERE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, AND ORDERED A DIVISION OF REVENUES
BETWEEN THE CARRIERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL REVENUE
FOR A FINANCIALLY WEAK PARTICIPATING CARRIER.  HELD:  THE DISTRICT
COURT ERRED IN ENJOINING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AS PROHIBITED BY SEC.
15(4).  PP. 563-578. 

1.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY THROUGH ROUTE, BUT
DID ESTABLISH JOINT RATES FOR THE ADMITTED PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE
PARTICULAR CARRIER TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS.  PP. 569-570. 

2.  THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 15(4) AGAINST ESTABLISHING THROUGH ROUTES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING A CARRIER TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS IS
NOT LIMITED TO CASES WHERE SHORT HAULING IS A PROBLEM.  PP. 570-572. 

3.  THE FINANCIAL NEEDS PROHIBITION OF SEC. 15(4) DOES NOT LIMIT THE
COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH JOINT RATES GENERALLY, BUT DEALS ONLY
WITH THE POWER TO ESTABLISH A "THROUGH ROUTE AND JOINT RATES APPLICABLE
THERETO," I.E., THOSE JOINT RATES APPLICABLE TO A THROUGH ROUTE
ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION.  SINCE THE COMMISSION DID NOT ESTABLISH
THE THROUGH ROUTES, THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 15(4) IS INAPPLICABLE.  PP.
572-577. 

4.  THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, TO CAUSE A
REDISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE BETWEEN TWO CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN
TRANSPORTATION OF THROUGH TRAFFIC, AND MAY IN THAT CONNECTION CONSIDER
A BRANCH LINE'S VALUE IN PRODUCING PROFITABLE TRAFFIC FOR A RAILROAD. 
P. 577. 

5.  SINCE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THIS CASE (WHICH ALSO DENIED THE
PARTICULAR CARRIER'S APPLICATION TO ABANDON ITS LINE) WAS ATTACKED ALSO
FOR WANT OF ESSENTIAL FINDINGS AND FOR LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
JUSTIFYING CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE LINE, AND SINCE IT IS THE
PRACTICE OF THIS COURT NOT TO REVIEW AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE AFTER FINDING THAT A LOWER COURT HAS APPLIED AN
INCORRECT PRINCIPLE OF LAW, THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 577-578. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MINNESOTA. 

IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 275 I.C.C. 512, A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED THE RELIEF PRAYED.  96 F. SUPP. 298.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS
COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 578. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ESTABLISHING JOINT RATES OVER THROUGH ROUTES.  IN
THIS CASE, UNLIKE THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 549 (DECIDED THIS
DAY), THE THROUGH ROUTES IN QUESTION ALREADY EXIST SINCE THE CARRIERS
CONCERNED HAVE CONTINUOUSLY PROVIDED THROUGH SERVICE OVER THE SAME
THROUGH ROUTES AT A COMBINATION OF SEPARATELY ESTABLISHED RATES.  THE
COMMISSION DID NOT CHANGE ANY ROUTE OR ALTER THE TOTAL AMOUNT CHARGED
FOR ANY SHIPMENT BUT DID ORDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT RATES IN
PLACE OF THE COMBINATION RATES.  THE COMMISSION ALSO ORDERED A DIVISION
OF REVENUES BETWEEN THE CARRIERS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REVENUE
FOR ONE FINANCIALLY WEAK CARRIER.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER
THE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH JOINT RATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASSISTING A CARRIER TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS. 

THE MONTANA WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, INCORPORATED IN 1909, FURNISHES
THE ONLY RAIL SERVICE OVER THE TWENTY MILES BETWEEN VALIER, MONTANA,
AND CONRAD, MONTANA, WHERE CONNECTION IS MADE WITH THE INTERSTATE RAIL
LINES OF THE APPELLEE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY.  APPELLEE AND A LAND
IRRIGATION COMPANY, NOW CALLED THE VALIER COMPANY, FURNISHED THE MONEY
TO BUILD THE RAILROAD.  THE MONTANA WESTERN'S STOCK IS OWNED BY THE
VALIER COMPANY AND ITS BONDS IN THE SUM OF $165,000 ARE HELD BY
APPELLEE. 

OPERATION OF THE MONTANA WESTERN HAS BEEN UNPROFITABLE.  AN AVERAGE
ANNUAL DEFICIT OF OVER $18,000 HAS BEEN EXPERIENCED DURING THE FIFTEEN
YEARS PRECEDING THIS CASE.  THE MONTANA WESTERN'S GENERAL MANAGER
ESTIMATED THAT THE TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE DEFICIENCY UNDER EXISTING RATES
WOULD AMOUNT TO $33,825.  IN ADDITION TO THE ANTICIPATED OPERATING
LOSSES, CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE MONTANA WESTERN WOULD REQUIRE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BRIDGE AND A NEW ROUNDHOUSE AND REPLACEMENT OF A
LARGE NUMBER OF CROSSTIES.  THE MONTANA WESTERN HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO
SATISFY EITHER ITS BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OR THE INTEREST THEREON. 
MOREOVER, APPELLEE HAS ADVANCED MONEY TO PAY OPERATING LOSSES TO THE
EXTENT THAT MONTANA WESTERN'S TOTAL DEBT TO APPELLEE AMOUNTED TO
$737,604 AT THE BEGINNING OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.  APPARENTLY BECAUSE OF
THE MONTANA WESTERN'S VALUE AS A FEEDER LINE PROVIDING PROFITABLE
TRAFFIC, APPELLEE OFFERED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE
REHABILITATION OF THE MONTANA WESTERN AND OFFERED TO EXTEND THE
MATURITY DATE OF THE MORTGAGE BONDS.  HOWEVER, THE MONTANA WESTERN'S
OFFICERS REFUSED TO EXTEND THE BONDS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO
HOPE OF EVER PAYING OFF THE INDEBTEDNESS.  THEREAFTER, APPELLEE
ANNOUNCED THAT:  "IN VIEW OF THE MONTANA WESTERN'S ATTITUDE  ...  GREAT
NORTHERN CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO MAKE FURTHER CASH ADVANCES." 

THE MONTANA WESTERN APPLIED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR
THE PERMISSION TO ABANDON ITS ENTIRE LINE, REQUIRED UNDER 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 1(18)-(22), ON THE GROUND THAT, WITHOUT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM
APPELLEE, CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE LINE WAS NOT ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE.  AFTER HEARINGS IN THE ABANDONMENT PROCEEDING HAD
DEMONSTRATED THE FINANCIAL PLIGHT OF THE MONTANA WESTERN, THE VALIER
COMMUNITY CLUB, REPRESENTING SHIPPERS IN THE VALIER AREA, INSTITUTED
ANOTHER ACTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  (FN1)  THE SHIPPERS' PURPOSE WAS
TO PRESERVE EXISTING THROUGH ROUTES ORIGINATING AT VALIER BY SECURING
FOR THE MONTANA WESTERN THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE NEEDED FOR CONTINUED
OPERATION.  SINCE NINETY PERCENT OF THE MONTANA WESTERN'S REVENUE IS
DERIVED FROM GRAIN TRAFFIC, ADDITIONAL REVENUE NECESSARILY HAD TO BE
OBTAINED THROUGH ADJUSTMENT IN THE GRAIN RATE STRUCTURE. 

GRAIN NOW MOVES ON THROUGH ROUTES FROM VALIER OVER THE MONTANA
WESTERN LINE TO CONRAD WHERE APPELLEE CONTINUES THE THROUGH SHIPMENT TO
MARKET.  UNDER THE EXISTING GRAIN RATE STRUCTURE, A SHIPPER PAYS A
THROUGH RATE OF 71 1/2 CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS ON A SHIPMENT FROM
VALIER TO MINNEAPOLIS.  THIS THROUGH RATE IS ALSO CALLED A COMBINATION
RATE BECAUSE IT IS A COMBINATION OF MONTANA WESTERN'S SEPARATELY
ESTABLISHED PROPORTIONAL RATE OF 9 CENTS FROM VALIER TO CONRAD PLUS
APPELLEE'S PROPORTIONAL RATE OF 62 1/2 CENTS TO MINNEAPOLIS.  (FN2)
COMPLAINANT VALIER COMMUNITY CLUB DID NOT PROPOSE TO ALTER ANY EXISTING
THROUGH ROUTES OR CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF ANY THROUGH RATES.  RATHER,
COMPLAINANT ASKED THE COMMISSION TO INCREASE MONTANA WESTERN'S REVENUE
BY SUBSTITUTING "JOINT RATES" FOR THE PRESENT COMBINATION RATE AND
DETERMINING A DIVISION OF JOINT RATES THAT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF
INCREASING THE MONTANA WESTERN'S PRESENT COMPENSATION OF 9 CENTS FOR
THE VALIER TO CONRAD SEGMENT OF THE THROUGH SHIPMENTS. 

AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE ON THE COMPLAINT, AN EXAMINER RECOMMENDED THAT
THE MONTANA WESTERN'S APPLICATION FOR ABANDONMENT BE DENIED BECAUSE OF
THE PUBLIC NEED FOR RAILROAD SERVICE IN THE VALIER AREA.  HE FURTHER
RECOMMENDED THAT JOINT RATES ON GRAIN BE ESTABLISHED FROM VALIER TO ALL
INTERSTATE POINTS ON APPELLEE'S LINES AT THE LEVEL OF THE PRESENT
COMBINATION RATES.  AFTER COMPARING DIVISION OF REVENUES ON SIMILAR
JOINT RATES ESTABLISHED ON OTHER LINES IN THE AREA, THE EXAMINER
RECOMMENDED THAT THE MONTANA WESTERN RECEIVE A DIVISION OF 10 CENTS, AN
INCREASE OF 1 CENT OVER THE PRESENT PROPORTIONAL RATE.  THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AGREED THAT THE PUBLIC NEED FOR RAIL SERVICE IN THE
VALIER AREA CALLED FOR DENIAL OF THE ABANDONMENT APPLICATION.  THE
COMMISSION ALSO AGREED THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRED ESTABLISHMENT
OF JOINT RATES.  HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION, STATING THAT FINANCIAL NEEDS
WERE A JUSTIFICATION FOR RELATIVELY HIGH DIVISIONS, ORDERED, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAT THE MONTANA WESTERN RECEIVE 16.3 CENTS AS ITS SHARE OF
THE 71 1/2 CENTS THROUGH RATE ON A SHIPMENT FROM VALIER TO
MINNEAPOLIS.  275 I.C.C. 512.  IT IS CONCEDED BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS
COURT THAT ITS ORDER ESTABLISHING JOINT RATES WAS BUT A MEANS TO THE
END OF ASSISTING THE MONTANA WESTERN TO MEET OBVIOUS FINANCIAL NEEDS. 

APPELLEE BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THAT PART OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ESTABLISHING JOINT
RATES AND DIVISIONS OF REVENUES.  A THREE-JUDGE COURT REJECTED THE
COMMISSION'S CONTENTION THAT SECTION 15, PARAGRAPHS (3) AND (6), OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AUTHORIZED THE ORDER; INSTEAD, IT ENJOINED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER AS ONE PROHIBITED BY A PROVISION OF SECTION
15(4).  (FN3)  96 F. SUPP. 298.  THE RELEVANT STATUTES ARE SET FORTH IN
THE MARGIN.  (FN4)  THE CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL BY THE
UNITED STATES, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE VALIER COMMUNITY
CLUB, THE MONTANA WESTERN RAILROAD, AND THE BOARD OF RAILROAD
COMMISSIONERS OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, APPELLANTS.  28 U.S.C. (SUPP.
IV) SEC. 1253. 

FIRST. UNDER SECTION 15(3), THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO "ESTABLISH
THROUGH ROUTES, JOINT CLASSIFICATIONS, AND JOINT RATES, FARES, OR
CHARGES."  THE ONLY PERTINENT LIMITATION TO THEIR ESTABLISHMENT FOUND
IN SECTION 15(3) ITSELF IS THAT THE COMMISSION DEEM SUCH ACTION
"NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST." 

ONCE JOINT RATES ARE LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED, THE COMMISSION IS
AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 15(6) TO PRESCRIBE "JUST, REASONABLE, AND
EQUITABLE DIVISIONS" OF REVENUE BETWEEN THE PARTICIPATING CARRIERS AND
TO DETERMINE SUCH DIVISIONS BY GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO VARIOUS
LISTED FACTORS, INCLUDING "THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE REQUIRED" BY
PARTICIPATING CARRIERS.  IN THE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S.
184, 189-195 (1923), THIS COURT HELD THAT SECTION 15(6) WAS DESIGNED
FOR AFFIRMATIVE USE IN RELIEVING THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF WEAK CARRIERS. 
(FN5) 

15(3).  PRIOR TO THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, SECTION 15(4)
CONTAINED TWO PROVISIONS, ONE BEING THE RESTRICTION ON THE COMMISSION'S
POWER TO ESTABLISH A THROUGH ROUTE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CARRIER TO
SHORT HAUL ITSELF, CONSIDERED IN THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S.
549 (DECIDED THIS DAY), AND THE OTHER GRANTING THE COMMISSION
ADDITIONAL POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES IN EMERGENCIES.  THE 1940
REVISION OF SECTION 15(4) RETAINED THE EMERGENCY THROUGH ROUTE
PROVISION, INCREASED THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH THROUGH
ROUTES WHICH REQUIRE A CARRIER TO SHORT HAUL ITSELF AND ADDED THE
FOLLOWING PROVISION: 

"NO THROUGH ROUTE AND JOINT RATES APPLICABLE THERETO SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING ANY CARRIER
THAT WOULD PARTICIPATE THEREIN TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS." 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THIS CASE DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY THROUGH
ROUTE, BUT DID ESTABLISH JOINT RATES FOR THE ADMITTED PURPOSE OF
ASSISTING THE MONTANA WESTERN RAILWAY TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS.  AS
STATED ABOVE, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT SUCH AN ORDER WAS PROHIBITED
BY THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISION OF SECTION 15(4). 

SECOND.  MUCH OF APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT AGAINST THE HOLDING OF THE
DISTRICT COURT MISSES THE MARK.  APPELLANTS CONSTRUE THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST ESTABLISHING THROUGH ROUTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING A
CARRIER TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS AS LIMITED TO CASES WHERE SHORT
HAULING IS A PROBLEM.  APPELLANTS WOULD HAVE THE COURT READ THE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROHIBITION AS MERELY ANOTHER RESTRICTION ON THE
COMMISSION'S POWER TO REQUIRE A CARRIER TO SHORT HAUL ITSELF IN
ADDITION TO THE RESTRICTION AGAINST SHORT HAULING FOUND IN THE FIRST
PROVISION OF SECTION 15(4).  SINCE EXISTENCE OF A SHORT-HAULING PROBLEM
PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF ALTERNATE RAIL CONNECTIONS, SUCH A PROBLEM
CANNOT ARISE IN THIS CASE WHERE THE MONTANA WESTERN IS THE ONLY CARRIER
SERVING VALIER. 

APPELLANTS WOULD HAVE THE COURT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE PROHIBITION STANDS AS A SEPARATE SENTENCE IN SECTION 15(4). 
CERTAINLY THAT SENTENCE IS GRAMMATICALLY CAPABLE OF INDEPENDENT
SIGNIFICANCE.  AND IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE SENTENCE IS DIRECTED TO A
SPECIFIC PROBLEM THAT AROSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMISSION'S
POWER UNDER SECTION 15(3) AND (4) TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES - A
PROBLEM QUITE SEPARATE FROM THAT PRESENTED BY THE RESTRICTION AGAINST
SHORT HAULING.  THIS DIFFERENT PROBLEM ARISES WHEN A CARRIER ASKS THE
COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A THROUGH ROUTE, NOT PRIMARILY TO SERVE ANY
NEED OF THE SHIPPING PUBLIC FOR ADDITIONAL ROUTES, BUT BECAUSE THE
CARRIER NEEDS ADDITIONAL REVENUE WHICH IT SEEKS TO OBTAIN BY DIVERTING
TO ITS OWN LINE TRAFFIC SERVED BY OTHER ROUTES.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED
IN SUCH A CASE IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH
ROUTES "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" EXTENDS TO ESTABLISHING THROUGH ROUTES,
WITH THE RESULTING REARRANGEMENT IN THE MOVEMENT OF RAIL TRAFFIC, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF A CARRIER.  THIS QUESTION
WAS PRESENTED IN THE THROUGH ROUTE LITIGATION THAT LED TO THE 1940
REVISION OF SECTION 15(4)  (FN6)  AND WAS REPEATEDLY RAISED DURING THE
LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDEMENTS TO SECTION 15(4).  (FN7) 

AS REVISED IN 1940, SECTION 15(4) DEALS AT LENGTH WITH THE SHORT-HAUL
PROBLEM AND, IN ADDITION, CONTAINS THE SEPARATE SENTENCE PROHIBITING
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THROUGH ROUTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING A
CARRIER TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS.  SINCE THIS PROHIBITION STANDS AS
AN INDEPENDENT SENTENCE DEALING WITH AN INDEPENDENT PROBLEM, WE CANNOT
ACCEPT APPELLANTS' SUGGESTION THAT THE SENTENCE CAN BE IGNORED UNLESS A
SHORT-HAULING PROBLEM IS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE CASE. 

THIRD. ALTHOUGH THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ESTABLISHMENT OF THROUGH
ROUTES AND JOINT RATES APPLICABLE THERETO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING
A CARRIER TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS CANNOT BE READ AS LIMITED TO
SHORT-HAULING SITUATIONS, IT BY NO MEANS FOLLOWS THAT THE PROHIBITION
MAY BE READ AS APPLICABLE TO ALL COMMISSION ORDERS ESTABLISHING JOINT
RATES. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT CONTEMPLATES THE EXISTENCE OF THROUGH
ROUTES IN THE ABSENCE OF JOINT RATES.  (FN8)  AND THIS COURT EXPRESSLY
HAS APPROVED THE COMMISSION'S CONSISTENT RECOGNITION OF THE EXISTENCE
OF THROUGH ROUTES WHETHER THE THROUGH RATES APPLICABLE THERETO ARE
JOINT RATES OR COMBINATIONS OF SEPARATELY ESTABLISHED RATES.  (FN9)  AS
A RESULT, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT RATES IS AN ACT SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT UNDER THE STATUTE FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THROUGH ROUTES. 
IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSION ORDERED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT RATES
OVER THROUGH ROUTES, VALIER TO MINNEAPOLIS FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH WERE
ALREADY IN EXISTENCE ON A COMBINATION OF PROPORTIONAL RATES.  UNDER THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, THE SAME CARS WOULD MOVE OVER THE SAME TRACKS TO
THE SAME DESTINATIONS AND AT THE SAME THROUGH RATES AS BEFORE.  IT IS A
MATTER OF LITTLE CONCERN TO SHIPPERS WHETHER COMBINATION RATES OR JOINT
RATES AT THE SAME LEVEL ARE CHARGED, SO LONG AS THE THROUGH ROUTE
CONTINUES TO BE AVAILABLE.  (FN10)  WHATEVER THEORIES MAY BE ADVANCED
AS TO DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A THROUGH ROUTE WHERE NO TRAFFIC
PASSES OVER THE ROUTE, SEE THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 549
(DECIDED THIS DAY), IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THROUGH ROUTES OVER THE
MONTANA WESTERN AND APPELLEE'S LINES LONG HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE. 
THESE THROUGH ROUTES WERE NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS
CASE.    COMMISSION ACTION ESTABLISHING JOINT RATES IN LIEU OF
COMBINATION RATES FOR SERVICE OVER THROUGH ROUTES IS A PROPER FORM OF
REGULATION.  (FN11)  IT IS CRUCIAL TO THIS CASE THAT THE FINANCIAL
NEEDS PROHIBITION OF SECTION 15(4) DOES NOT LIMIT THE COMMISSION'S
POWER TO ESTABLISH JOINT RATES GENERALLY, BUT DEALS ONLY WITH THE POWER
TO ESTABLISH A "THROUGH ROUTE AND JOINT RATES APPLICABLE THERETO,"
I.E., THOSE JOINT RATES APPLICABLE TO A THROUGH ROUTE ESTABLISHED BY
THE COMMISSION.  SINCE THE ORDER IN THIS CASE DID NOT ESTABLISH A
THROUGH ROUTE, SECTION 15(4) DOES NOT AFFECT THE COMMISSION'S POWER IN
THIS CASE.  AND, BECAUSE JOINT RATES PUBLISHED BY TWO OR MORE CARRIERS
ARE BY DEFINITION ALWAYS APPLICABLE TO A THROUGH ROUTE OVER THE LINES
OF THOSE CARRIERS, READING THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROHIBITION AS
AFFECTING THIS ORDER ESTABLISHING ONLY JOINT RATES FOR EXISTING THROUGH
ROUTES WOULD RENDER THE WORDS "APPLICABLE THERETO" SURPLUSAGE,
ATTRIBUTING TO CONGRESS A USELESS AND MISLEADING USE OF WORDS. 

IT IS ONE FORM OF REGULATION TO REDISTRIBUTE REVENUES BETWEEN
CONNECTING CARRIERS BY DETERMINING DIVISIONS OF REVENUES RECEIVED ON
EXISTING THROUGH ROUTES.  THE ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS ARE QUITE
DIFFERENT IF THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHES THROUGH ROUTES WHICH DIVERT
TRAFFIC TO THE LINES OF A FINANCIALLY WEAK CARRIER.  SUCH ACTION NOT
ONLY SERVES TO ASSIST THAT CARRIER FINANCIALLY BUT CAN ALSO, AT THE
SAME TIME, CAUSE IMPORTANT CHANGES IN THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC,
DIVERTING TRAFFIC TO A NEW GEOGRAPHIC AREA AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER
CARRIERS AND OTHER AREAS.  CONGRESS AMENDED SECTION 15(4) TO PROHIBIT
TINKERING WITH THROUGH ROUTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING A CARRIER TO
MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS.  BUT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15(4) - THE
RESTRICTIONS AGAINST SHORT HAULING, THE FINANCIAL-NEEDS PROHIBITION AND
THE EMERGENCY ROUTE PROVISION - ALL DEAL WITH THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO
ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES. 

CONGRESS COULD WELL HAVE PROHIBITED THE COMMISSION FROM CONSIDERING
FINANCIAL NEEDS IN ISSUING ANY ORDER UNDER SECTION 15(3).  THIS WAS
PROPOSED IN ONE BILL AND EXPRESSLY REJECTED BY A CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE.  (FN12)  OR, CONGRESS COULD HAVE PROHIBITED CONSIDERATION OF
FINANCIAL NEEDS IN ORDERING ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT THROUGH ROUTES WHERE
THROUGH ROUTES WERE IN EXISTENCE, AS WAS ALSO PROPOSED.  (FN13)
INSTEAD, CONGRESS ADOPTED A PROVISION PROHIBITING RELIANCE ON FINANCIAL
NEEDS ONLY IN RESPECT TO ORDERS ESTABLISHING THROUGH ROUTES.  IT IS OUR
JUDICIAL FUNCTION TO APPLY STATUTES ON THE BASIS OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS
WRITTEN, NOT WHAT CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE WRITTEN.  WHERE, AS HERE, THE
COMMISSION DID NOT ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES, SECTION 15(4) HAS NO
APPLICATION.  (FN14) 

BEGINNING WITH THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, CONGRESS HAS REGULATED
THE RAILROADS NOT ONLY TO PROHIBIT SUCH ABUSES AS EXCESSIVE AND
DISCRIMINATORY RATES BUT ALSO WITH THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING ADEQUATE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. 

THE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, SUPRA.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THIS
TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE
DIVISIONS OF JOINT RATES WAS DESCRIBED BY THE COURT IN UNITED STATES V.
ABILENE & SOUTHERN R. CO., 265 U.S. 274, 284-285 (1924): 

"IT IS SETTLED THAT IN DETERMINING WHAT THE DIVISIONS SHOULD BE, THE
COMMISSION MAY, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE
FINANCIAL NEEDS OF A WEAKER ROAD; AND THAT IT MAY BE GIVEN A DIVISION
LARGER THAN JUSTICE MERELY AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES WOULD SUGGEST 'IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN IT IN EFFECTIVE OPERATION AS PART OF AN ADEQUATE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM,' PROVIDED THE SHARE LEFT TO ITS CONNECTIONS IS
'ADEQUATE TO AVOID A CONFISCATORY RESULT.'  DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK RY. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456, 477; NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261
U.S. 184, 194, 195." 

THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH JOINT RATES IS SIMILARLY
ESSENTIAL TO THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF ASSURING ADEQUATE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, AS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE NEW ENGLAND
DIVISIONS CASE, SUPRA, AT 194-195.  THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940
REENACTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IMPLEMENTING
THAT POLICY AND ADDED THAT THE ACT WAS TO BE ADMINISTERED SO AS TO
DEVELOP, COORDINATE, AND PRESERVE AN ADEQUATE "NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM."  (FN15)  SINCE THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROHIBITION OF SECTION
15(4), ADDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, RESTRICTED THE
COMMISSION'S POWER OVER JOINT RATES ONLY IN RESPECT TO THOSE JOINT
RATES APPLICABLE TO THROUGH ROUTES ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION, THE
COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH JOINT RATES OVER EXISTING THROUGH
ROUTES REMAINS UNIMPAIRED. 

AS A RESULT, THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, TO
CAUSE A REDISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE BETWEEN TWO CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN
TRANSPORTATION OF THROUGH TRAFFIC.  IT IS IMMATERIAL, FROM THE
VIEWPOINT OF THE PUBLIC, WHETHER THE REVENUE WAS OBTAINED BY CHARGING
JOINT RATES ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT OF THE CARRIERS OR BY A
COMBINATION OF SEPARATELY ESTABLISHED RATES.  AND, FROM THE VIEWPOINT
OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER AN
INDEPENDENTLY OWNED RAIL LINE IS SAVED FROM ABANDONMENT BY SUCH A
REDISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE OR WHETHER PERMISSION TO ABANDON A BRANCH OF
A MAIN LINE CARRIER IS DENIED ON THE BASIS OF A SIMILAR REALLOCATION OF
REVENUE.  JUST AS THE COMMISSION MAY EXAMINE INTO THE VALUE OF A BRANCH
LINE AS "FEEDING" ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TO THE MAIN LINE OF A SINGLE
CARRIER, THE VALUE OF THE MONTANA WESTERN AS PRODUCING TRAFFIC FOR
APPELLEE NEED NOT BE DISREGARDED BY THE COMMISSION.  (FN16)  INDEED,
THE MONTANA WESTERN'S VALUE IN PRODUCING PROFITABLE TRAFFIC FOR
APPELLEE IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT APPELLEE WAS WILLING TO CONTINUE AND
EVEN INCREASE ITS FINANCIAL SUPPORT WHILE THE MONTANA WESTERN ITSELF
CHOSE TO SEEK ABANDONMENT. 

WE HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ENJOINING THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER AS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 15(4).  APART FROM THE QUESTION OF THE
COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH JOINT RATES, THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
ESTABLISHING JOINT RATES AND DIVISIONS IN THIS CASE IS ATTACKED FOR
WANT OF ESSENTIAL FINDINGS AND FOR LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
JUSTIFYING CONTINUED OPERATION OF THIS PARTICULAR CARRIER.  SINCE IT IS
THE PRACTICE OF THIS COURT NOT TO REVIEW AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE AFTER FINDING THAT A LOWER COURT HAS APPLIED AN
INCORRECT PRINCIPLE OF LAW, (FN17) THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  APPELLEE WAS NOT A PARTY BEFORE THE COMMISSION UNTIL THIS
COMPLAINT WAS FILED.  THE RECORD OF PRIOR HEARINGS IN THE ABANDONMENT
PROCEEDING WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE COMPLAINT PROCEEDING AND APPELLEE
WAS AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES WHO HAD
PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED. 

FN2  THE LOCAL RATE FROM CONRAD, MONTANA, TO MINNEAPOLIS IS 65 1/2
CENTS.  WHEN A THROUGH RATE CONSISTS OF A COMBINATION OF RATES FOR
INTERMEDIATE DISTANCES, THE RATE FOR ONE SEGMENT OF THE SHIPMENT IS
REFERRED TO AS A PROPORTIONAL RATE WHERE, AS HERE, THAT RATE IS LOWER
THAN THE LOCAL RATE OVER THAT SEGMENT.  SEE ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768, 771 (1929); BERRY, A STUDY OF PROPORTIONAL
RATES, 10 I.C.C. PRACT.  J. 545 (1943). 

FN3  THE COMMISSION DID NOT DISCUSS SECTION 15(4) IN ITS REPORT.  WE
WERE ADVISED AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT THAT THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY
THAT SECTION WAS FIRST RAISED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON A PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT OPINION.  SINCE APPELLANTS,
INCLUDING THE COMMISSION, HAVE CONSIDERED THE SECTION 15(4) QUESTION AS
HAVING BEEN PROPERLY RAISED BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WE ALSO TREAT THE
QUESTION AS PROPERLY BEFORE US.  COMPARE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
COMMISSION V. ARAGON, 329 U.S. 143, 155 (1946); UNITED STATES V.
HANCOCK TRUCK LINES, 324 U.S. 774 (1945); GENERAL TRANSP.  CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 65 F. SUPP. 981 (D. MASS. 1946), AFF'D, 329 U.S. 668
(1946)(WAIVER ISSUE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL). 

FN4  "(3)  THE COMMISSION MAY, AND IT SHALL WHENEVER DEEMED BY IT TO
BE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AFTER FULL HEARING
UPON COMPLAINT OR UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE WITHOUT COMPLAINT, ESTABLISH
THROUGH ROUTES, JOINT CLASSIFICATIONS, AND JOINT RATES, FARES, OR
CHARGES, APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THIS PART,  ...  ."  54 STAT. 911, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
15(3). 

"(4) IN ESTABLISHING ANY SUCH THROUGH ROUTE THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT
(EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3, AND EXCEPT WHERE ONE OF THE CARRIERS
IS A WATER LINE) REQUIRE ANY CARRIER BY RAILROAD, WITHOUT ITS CONSENT,
TO EMBRACE IN SUCH ROUTE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF
ITS RAILROAD AND OF ANY INTERMEDIATE RAILROAD OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION
AND UNDER A COMMON MANAGEMENT OR CONTROL THEREWITH, WHICH LIES BETWEEN
THE TERMINI OF SUCH PROPOSED THROUGH ROUTE, (A) UNLESS SUCH INCLUSION
OF LINES WOULD MAKE THE THROUGH ROUTE UNREASONABLY LONG AS COMPARED
WITH ANOTHER PRACTICABLE THROUGH ROUTE WHICH COULD OTHERWISE BE
ESTABLISHED, OR (B) UNLESS THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE THROUGH ROUTE
PROPOSED TO BE ESTABLISHED IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE, AND
MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE ECONOMIC, TRANSPORTATION: PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT IN PRESCRIBING THROUGH ROUTES THE COMMISSION SHALL, SO FAR AS IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOREGOING
LIMITATIONS IN CLAUSES (A) AND (B), GIVE REASONABLE PREFERENCE TO THE
CARRIER BY RAILROAD WHICH ORIGINATES THE TRAFFIC.  NO THROUGH ROUTE AND
JOINT RATES APPLICABLE THERETO SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING ANY CARRIER THAT WOULD PARTICIPATE THEREIN
TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS.  IN TIME OF SHORTAGE OF EQUIPMENT,
CONGESTION OF TRAFFIC, OR OTHER EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE COMMISSION,
IT MAY (EITHER UPON COMPLAINT OR UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE WITHOUT
COMPLAINT, AT ONCE, IF IT SO ORDERS, WITHOUT ANSWER OR OTHER FORMAL
PLEADINGS BY THE INTERESTED CARRIER OR CARRIERS, AND WITH OR WITHOUT
NOTICE, HEARING, OR THE MAKING OR FILING OF A REPORT, ACCORDING AS THE
COMMISSION MAY DETERMINE) ESTABLISH TEMPORARILY SUCH THROUGH ROUTES AS
IN ITS OPINION ARE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  54
STAT. 911-912, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(4). 

"(6)  WHENEVER, AFTER FULL HEARING UPON COMPLAINT OR UPON ITS OWN
INITIATIVE, THE COMMISSION IS OF OPINION THAT THE DIVISIONS OF JOINT
RATES, FARES, OR CHARGES, APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY, ARE OR WILL BE UNJUST, UNREASONABLE,
INEQUITABLE, OR UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL AS BETWEEN THE
CARRIERS PARTIES THERETO (WHETHER AGREED UPON BY SUCH CARRIERS, OR ANY
OF THEM, OR OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED), THE COMMISSION SHALL BY ORDER
PRESCRIBE THE JUST, REASONABLE, AND EQUITABLE DIVISIONS THEREOF TO BE
RECEIVED BY THE SEVERAL CARRIERS,  ...  .  IN SO PRESCRIBING AND
DETERMINING THE DIVISIONS OF JOINT RATES, FARES AND CHARGES, THE
COMMISSION SHALL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO THE
EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH THE CARRIERS CONCERNED ARE OPERATED, THE AMOUNT
OF REVENUE REQUIRED TO PAY THEIR RESPECTIVE OPERATING EXPENSES, TAXES,
AND A FAIR RETURN ON THEIR RAILWAY PROPERTY HELD FOR AND USED IN THE
SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THE IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OF SUCH CARRIERS; AND ALSO WHETHER ANY
PARTICULAR PARTICIPATING CARRIER IS AN ORIGINATING, INTERMEDIATE, OR
DELIVERING LINE, AND ANY OTHER FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH WOULD
ORDINARILY, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE MILEAGE HAUL, ENTITLE ONE CARRIER TO
A GREATER OR LESS PROPORTION THAN ANOTHER CARRIER OF THE JOINT RATE,
FARE OR CHARGE."  41 STAT. 486, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(6). 

FN5  THE MONTANA WESTERN AND APPELLEE MAINTAIN JOINT RATES
ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT FOR MANY COMMODITIES, INCLUDING COAL, LUMBER
AND LIVESTOCK.  IF IT HAD HAPPENED THAT A JOINT RATE HAD BEEN AGREED
UPON FOR GRAIN (OR THAT THE BULK OF MONTANA WESTERN'S REVENUES WERE
DERIVED FROM COMMODITIES THAT NOW MOVE ON JOINT RATES), THE COMMISSION
COULD HAVE DIVERTED ADDITIONAL REVENUE TO THE MONTANA WESTERN WITHOUT
RESORT TO THE POWER GRANTED IN SECTION 15(3). 

FN6  IN THE SUBIACO LITIGATION, A SHORT-LINE CARRIER ASKED THE
COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A THROUGH ROUTE THAT INCLUDED ITS LINE.  THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT STATED THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED AS (1) THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE SHORT-HAUL LIMITATION OF SECTION 15(4), AND (2)
WHETHER IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO ESTABLISH A NEW THROUGH ROUTE
SO THAT THE FINANCIALLY WEAK CARRIER WOULD BENEFIT FROM NEW BUSINESS
AND RESULTING INCREASED REVENUES.  THE COMMISSION ORDERED ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE NEW ROUTE OVER THE DISSENT OF ONE COMMISSIONER ON THE SECOND
QUESTION.  FT. SMITH, SUBIACO & R.I.R. CO. V. ALABAMA & VICKSBURG R.
CO., 107 I.C.C. 523 (1926).  REACHING ONLY THE SHORT-HAUL QUESTION,
THIS COURT HELD THE ORDER INVALID IN UNITED STATES V. MISSOURI PACIFIC
R. CO., 278 U.S. 269 (1929).  EFFORTS TO AMEND SECTION 15(4) BEGAN WITH
THE FINAL DECISION IN THE SUBIACO LITIGATION.  SEE THOMPSON V. UNITED
STATES, 343 U.S. 549 (DECIDED THIS DAY). 

FN7  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 5364, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 70
71 (1936); HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON S. 1261, 75TH CONG., 2D AND 3D SESS.
104-106, 159-160 (1937, 1938); HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 1085, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 88-89 (1939); HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 3400, 76TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 232-234 (1939).  SEE ALSO S. 1261, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S.
REP. NO. 404, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3 (1937).    FN8  IT IS THE DUTY OF
EVERY CARRIER TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE THROUGH ROUTES BUT THERE IS NO
CORRESPONDING DUTY TO ESTABLISH JOINT RATES WITH OTHER CARRIERS.  49
U.S.C. SEC. 1(4).  JOINT RATES MAY BE ESTABLISHED EITHER BY AGREEMENT
OF THE CARRIERS, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(4), OR BY COMMISSION ORDER, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 15(3).  SECTION 6(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT REQUIRES THAT
A CARRIER FILE AND POST ALL RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES BETWEEN DIFFERENT
POINTS ON ITS OWN ROUTES AND BETWEEN POINTS ON THE ROUTE OF ANY OTHER
CARRIER "WHEN A THROUGH ROUTE AND JOINT RATE HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED.  IF
NO JOINT RATE OVER THE THROUGH ROUTE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE SEVERAL
CARRIERS IN SUCH THROUGH ROUTE SHALL FILE AND POST THE SEPARATELY
ESTABLISHED RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES APPLIED TO THE THROUGH
TRANSPORTATION."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(1).  SEE BROWN LUMBER CO. V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 199 U.S. 393, 395 (1937). 

FN9  SEE ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S.
136, 139 (1917), QUOTED IN THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 549
(DECIDED THIS DAY).  SEE ALSO VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272
U.S. 658, 666 (1926). 

FN10  SEE LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V. SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO.,
269 U.S. 217, 234 (1925). 

FN11  REGULATION IN "THE FORM OF COMPELLING THE SUBSTITUTION OF A
JOINT RATE FOR A THROUGH RATE MADE BY A COMBINATION OF LOCAL RATES" WAS
APPROVED IN ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, NOTE 9,
SUPRA, AT 142. 

FN12  S. REP. NO. 404, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3 (1937). 

FN13  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON S. 1261, 75TH CONG., 2D AND 3D SESS.
106 (1937, 1938); HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 3400, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
234 (1939). 

FN14  THE COMMISSION HAS RECOGNIZED IN PRIOR CASES THAT IN
ESTABLISHING JOINT RATES OVER EXISTING THROUGH ROUTES, THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 15(4) RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF THROUGH ROUTES ARE NOT
APPLICABLE.  SEE BEAMAN ELEVATOR CO. V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 148
I.C.C. 444, 451 (1928), 155 I.C.C. 313 (1929). 

FN15  54 STAT. 899 (1940). 

FN16  IN PASSING UPON APPLICATIONS TO ABANDON BRANCH LINES UNDER 49
U.S.C. SEC. 1(18)-(20), THE COMMISSION HAS REQUIRED A SHOWING OF THE
"FEEDER VALUE" OF THE BRANCH BY CREDITING TO THAT BRANCH THE GROSS
SYSTEM REVENUES LESS THE ESTIMATED COST OF MOVING THE TRAFFIC OVER THE
REST OF THE SYSTEM.  E.G., CHICAGO, R.I.&P.R. CO. TRUSTEES ABANDONMENT,
254 I.C.C. 187, 190 (1943).  SEE CHERINGTON, THE REGULATION OF RAILROAD
ABANDONMENTS (1948), 159-166. 

FN17  COMPARE UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 340 U.S. 474
(1951), WITH O'LEARY V. BROWN-PACIFIC-MAXON, INC., 340 U.S. 504, 508
(1951). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCUR
IN THE RESULT. 
..END :




YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER 343 U.S. 579 


NO. 744.  ARGUED MAY 12-13, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1952 - 103 F. SUPP.
569, AFFIRMED. 


TO AVERT A NATION-WIDE STRIKE OF STEEL WORKERS IN APRIL 1952, WHICH HE
BELIEVED WOULD JEOPARDIZE NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO SEIZE AND
OPERATE MOST OF THE STEEL MILLS.  THE ORDER WAS NOT BASED UPON ANY
SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY BUT WAS BASED GENERALLY UPON ALL POWERS
VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF
THE ARMED FORCES.  THE SECRETARY ISSUED AN ORDER SEIZING THE STEEL
MILLS AND DIRECTING THEIR PRESIDENTS TO OPERATE THEM AS OPERATING
MANAGERS FOR THE UNITED STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS REGULATIONS AND
DIRECTIONS.  THE PRESIDENT PROMPTLY REPORTED THESE EVENTS TO CONGRESS;
BUT CONGRESS TOOK NO ACTION.  IT HAD PROVIDED OTHER METHODS OF DEALING
WITH SUCH SITUATIONS AND HAD REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE GOVERNMENTAL SEIZURES
OF PROPERTY TO SETTLE LABOR DISPUTES.  THE STEEL COMPANIES SUED THE
SECRETARY IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, PRAYING FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS STAYED.  HELD: 

1.  ALTHOUGH THIS CASE HAS PROCEEDED NO FURTHER THAN THE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION STAGE, IT IS RIPE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ON THE RECORD PRESENTED.  PP. 584-585. 

(A)  UNDER PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, THERE IS DOUBT AS TO THE
RIGHT TO RECOVER IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTIES
UNLAWFULLY TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FOR PUBLIC USE.  P. 585. 

(B)  SEIZURE AND GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION OF THESE GOING BUSINESSES
WERE BOUND TO RESULT IN MANY PRESENT AND FUTURE DAMAGES OF SUCH NATURE
AS TO BE DIFFICULT, IF NOT INCAPABLE, OF MEASUREMENT.  P. 585. 

2.  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND IT CANNOT STAND.  PP. 585-589. 

(A)  THERE IS NO STATUTE WHICH EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY AUTHORIZES THE
PRESIDENT TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THIS PROPERTY AS HE DID HERE.  PP. 585
586. 

(B)  IN ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT IN 1947, CONGRESS
REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE GOVERNMENTAL SEIZURES OF PROPERTY AS A METHOD OF
PREVENTING WORK STOPPAGES AND SETTLING LABOR DISPUTES.  P. 586. 

(C)  AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO ISSUE SUCH AN ORDER IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE CANNOT BE IMPLIED FROM THE AGGREGATE OF HIS
POWERS UNDER ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 587-589. 

(D)  THE ORDER CANNOT PROPERLY BE SUSTAINED AS AN EXERCISE OF THE
PRESIDENT'S MILITARY POWER AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES. 
P. 587. 

(E)  NOR CAN THE ORDER BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF THE SEVERAL PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLE II WHICH GRANT EXECUTIVE POWER TO THE PRESIDENT.  PP. 587
589. 

(F)  THE POWER HERE SOUGHT TO BE EXERCISED IS THE LAWMAKING POWER,
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION VESTS IN THE CONGRESS ALONE, IN BOTH GOOD AND
BAD TIMES.  PP. 587-589. 

(G)  EVEN IF IT BE TRUE THAT OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION
OF PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTERPRISES WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY IN
ORDER TO SETTLE LABOR DISPUTES, CONGRESS HAS NOT THEREBY LOST ITS
EXCLUSIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE LAWS NECESSARY AND
PROPER TO CARRY OUT ALL POWERS VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION "IN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER
THEREOF."  PP. 588-589. 

FOR CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, SEE POST, P. 593. 

FOR CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, SEE POST, P. 629. 

FOR CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, SEE POST, P. 634. 

FOR CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BURTON, SEE POST, P. 655. 

FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE CLARK, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT, SEE POST, P. 660. 

FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, JOINED BY MR.
JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON, SEE POST, P. 667. 

YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. ET AL. V. SAWYER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 745, SAWYER, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, V. YOUNGSTOWN
SHEET & TUBE CO. ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FROM CARRYING OUT THE TERMS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER
NO. 10340, 16 FED. REG. 3503.  103 F. SUPP. 569.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
ISSUED A STAY.  90 U.S. APP. D.C. - , 197 F.2D 582.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 937.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
AFFIRMED, P. 589. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WAS ACTING WITHIN HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER WHEN HE ISSUED AN ORDER DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF AND OPERATE MOST OF THE NATION'S STEEL
MILLS.  THE MILL OWNERS ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER AMOUNTS TO
LAWMAKING, A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS EXPRESSLY
CONFIDED TO THE CONGRESS AND NOT TO THE PRESIDENT.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION IS THAT THE ORDER WAS MADE ON FINDINGS OF THE PRESIDENT THAT
HIS ACTION WAS NECESSARY TO AVERT A NATIONAL CATASTROPHE WHICH WOULD
INEVITABLY RESULT FROM A STOPPAGE OF STEEL PRODUCTION, AND THAT IN
MEETING THIS GRAVE EMERGENCY THE PRESIDENT WAS ACTING WITHIN THE
AGGREGATE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AS THE NATION'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE
AND THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THE ISSUE EMERGES HERE FROM THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF EVENTS: 

IN THE LATTER PART OF 1951, A DISPUTE AROSE BETWEEN THE STEEL
COMPANIES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES OVER TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN NEW COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  LONG-CONTINUED
CONFERENCES FAILED TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE.  ON DECEMBER 18, 1951, THE
EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O., GAVE
NOTICE OF AN INTENTION TO STRIKE WHEN THE EXISTING BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 31.  THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND
CONCILIATION SERVICE THEN INTERVENED IN AN EFFORT TO GET LABOR AND
MANAGEMENT TO AGREE.  THIS FAILING, THE PRESIDENT ON DECEMBER 22, 1951,
REFERRED THE DISPUTE TO THE FEDERAL WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD (FN1) TO
INVESTIGATE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FAIR AND EQUITABLE TERMS OF
SETTLEMENT.  THIS BOARD'S REPORT RESULTED IN NO SETTLEMENT.  ON APRIL
4, 1952, THE UNION GAVE NOTICE OF A NATION-WIDE STRIKE CALLED TO BEGIN
AT 12:01 A.M. APRIL 9.  THE INDISPENSABILITY OF STEEL AS A COMPONENT OF
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL WEAPONS AND OTHER WAR MATERIALS LED THE PRESIDENT TO
BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED WORK STOPPAGE WOULD IMMEDIATELY JEOPARDIZE
OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THAT GOVERNMENTAL SEIZURE OF THE STEEL MILLS
WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF STEEL. 
RECITING THESE CONSIDERATIONS FOR HIS ACTION, THE PRESIDENT, A FEW
HOURS BEFORE THE STRIKE WAS TO BEGIN, ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDER 10340, A
COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED AS AN APPENDIX, POST, P. 589.  THE ORDER
DIRECTED THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF MOST OF THE
STEEL MILLS AND KEEP THEM RUNNING.  THE SECRETARY IMMEDIATELY ISSUED
HIS OWN POSSESSORY ORDERS, CALLING UPON THE PRESIDENTS OF THE VARIOUS
SEIZED COMPANIES TO SERVE AS OPERATING MANAGERS FOR THE UNITED STATES. 
THEY WERE DIRECTED TO CARRY ON THEIR ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIONS OF THE SECRETARY.  THE NEXT MORNING THE
PRESIDENT SENT A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS REPORTING HIS ACTION.  CONG. REC.,
APRIL 9, 1952, P. 3962.  TWELVE DAYS LATER HE SENT A SECOND MESSAGE. 
CONG. REC., APRIL 21, 1952, P. 4192.  CONGRESS HAS TAKEN NO ACTION. 

OBEYING THE SECRETARY'S ORDERS UNDER PROTEST, THE COMPANIES BROUGHT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THEIR COMPLAINTS
CHARGED THAT THE SEIZURE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS OR BY
ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ASKED TO DECLARE
THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE SECRETARY INVALID AND TO ISSUE
PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS RESTRAINING THEIR ENFORCEMENT. 
OPPOSING THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, THE UNITED STATES
ASSERTED THAT A STRIKE DISRUPTING STEEL PRODUCTION FOR EVEN A BRIEF
PERIOD WOULD SO ENDANGER THE WELL-BEING AND SAFETY OF THE NATION THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAD "INHERENT POWER" TO DO WHAT HE HAD DONE - POWER
"SUPPORTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BY HISTORICAL PRECEDENT, AND BY COURT
DECISIONS."  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO CONTENDED THAT IN ANY EVENT NO
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD BE ISSUED BECAUSE THE COMPANIES HAD MADE
NO SHOWING THAT THEIR AVAILABLE LEGAL REMEDIES WERE INADEQUATE OR THAT
THEIR INJURIES FROM SEIZURE WOULD BE IRREPARABLE.  HOLDING AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT ON ALL POINTS, THE DISTRICT COURT ON APRIL 30 ISSUED A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE SECRETARY FROM "CONTINUING THE
SEIZURE AND POSSESSION OF THE PLANTS  ...  AND FROM ACTING UNDER THE
PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10340."  103 F. SUPP. 569. 
ON THE SAME DAY THE COURT OF APPEALS STAYED THE DISTRICT COURT'S
INJUNCTION.  90 U.S. APP. D.C. - , 197 F.2D 582.  DEEMING IT BEST THAT
THE ISSUES RAISED BE PROMPTLY DECIDED BY THIS COURT, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI ON MAY 3 AND SET THE CAUSE FOR ARGUMENT ON MAY 12.  343 U.S.
937. 

TWO CRUCIAL ISSUES HAVE DEVELOPED:  FIRST.  SHOULD FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER
BE MADE IN THIS CASE WHICH HAS PROCEEDED NO FURTHER THAN THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAGE?  SECOND.  IF SO, IS THE SEIZURE ORDER
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE PRESIDENT? 

                                       I. 

IT IS URGED THAT THERE WERE NON-CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT COULD HAVE DENIED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND THUS
HAVE FOLLOWED THE CUSTOMARY JUDICIAL PRACTICE OF DECLINING TO REACH AND
DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS UNTIL COMPELLED TO DO SO.  ON THIS
BASIS IT IS ARGUED THAT EQUITY'S EXTRAORDINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD
HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE (A) SEIZURE OF THE COMPANIES' PROPERTIES DID
NOT INFLICT IRREPARABLE DAMAGES, AND (B) THERE WERE AVAILABLE LEGAL
REMEDIES ADEQUATE TO AFFORD COMPENSATION FOR ANY POSSIBLE DAMAGES WHICH
THEY MIGHT SUFFER.  WHILE SEPARATELY ARGUED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THESE
TWO CONTENTIONS ARE HERE CLOSELY RELATED, IF NOT IDENTICAL.  ARGUMENTS
AS TO BOTH REST IN LARGE PART ON THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM THAT SHOULD THE
SEIZURE ULTIMATELY BE HELD UNLAWFUL, THE COMPANIES COULD RECOVER FULL
COMPENSATION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR THE UNLAWFUL TAKING.  PRIOR
CASES IN THIS COURT HAVE CAST DOUBT ON THE RIGHT TO RECOVER IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTIES UNLAWFULLY TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS FOR PUBLIC USE AS THESE PROPERTIES WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN.  SEE E.G., HOOE V. UNITED STATES, 218 U.S. 322, 335-336; UNITED
STATES V. NORTH AMERICAN CO., 253 U.S. 330, 333.  BUT SEE LARSON V.
DOMESTIC & FOREIGN CORP., 337 U.S. 682, 701-702.  MOREOVER, SEIZURE AND
GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION OF THESE GOING BUSINESSES WERE BOUND TO RESULT
IN MANY PRESENT AND FUTURE DAMAGES OF SUCH NATURE AS TO BE DIFFICULT,
IF NOT INCAPABLE, OF MEASUREMENT.  VIEWING THE CASE THIS WAY, AND IN
THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS PRESENTED, THE DISTRICT COURT SAW NO REASON FOR
DELAYING DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ORDERS.  WE
AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT AND CAN SEE NO REASON WHY THAT QUESTION
WAS NOT RIPE FOR DETERMINATION ON THE RECORD PRESENTED.  WE SHALL
THEREFORE CONSIDER AND DETERMINE THAT QUESTION NOW. 

                 II. 

THE PRESIDENT'S POWER, IF ANY, TO ISSUE THE ORDER MUST STEM EITHER
FROM AN ACT OF CONGRESS OR FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.  THERE IS NO
STATUTE THAT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE POSSESSION OF
PROPERTY AS HE DID HERE.  NOR IS THERE ANY ACT OF CONGRESS TO WHICH OUR
ATTENTION HAS BEEN DIRECTED FROM WHICH SUCH A POWER CAN FAIRLY BE
IMPLIED.  INDEED, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE GOVERNMENT TO RELY ON
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR THIS SEIZURE.  THERE ARE TWO STATUTES WHICH
DO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE BOTH PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  (FN2) HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT
THESE CONDITIONS WERE NOT MET AND THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER WAS NOT
ROOTED IN EITHER OF THE STATUTES.  THE GOVERNMENT REFERS TO THE SEIZURE
PROVISIONS OF ONE OF THESE STATUTES (SEC. 201(B) OF THE DEFENSE
PRODUCTION ACT) AS "MUCH TOO CUMBERSOME, INVOLVED, AND TIME-CONSUMING
FOR THE CRISIS WHICH WAS AT HAND." 

MOREOVER, THE USE OF THE SEIZURE TECHNIQUE TO SOLVE LABOR DISPUTES IN
ORDER TO PREVENT WORK STOPPAGES WAS NOT ONLY UNAUTHORIZED BY ANY
CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT; PRIOR TO THIS CONTROVERSY, CONGRESS HAD
REFUSED TO ADOPT THAT METHOD OF SETTLING LABOR DISPUTES.  WHEN THE TAFT
HARTLEY ACT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN 1947, CONGRESS REJECTED AN
AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED SUCH GOVERNMENTAL SEIZURES IN
CASES OF EMERGENCY.  (FN3)  APPARENTLY IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE
TECHNIQUE OF SEIZURE, LIKE THAT OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION, WOULD
INTERFERE WITH THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  (FN4)
CONSEQUENTLY, THE PLAN CONGRESS ADOPTED IN THAT ACT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR
SEIZURE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  INSTEAD, THE PLAN SOUGHT TO BRING
ABOUT SETTLEMENTS BY USE OF THE CUSTOMARY DEVICES OF MEDIATION,
CONCILIATION, INVESTIGATION BY BOARDS OF INQUIRY, AND PUBLIC REPORTS. 
IN SOME INSTANCES TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS WERE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE
COOLING-OFF PERIODS.  ALL THIS FAILING, UNIONS WERE LEFT FREE TO STRIKE
AFTER A SECRET VOTE BY EMPLOYEES AS TO WHETHER THEY WISHED TO ACCEPT
THEIR EMPLOYERS' FINAL SETTLEMENT OFFER.  (FN5) 

IT IS CLEAR THAT IF THE PRESIDENT HAD AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER HE
DID, IT MUST BE FOUND IN SOME PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  AND IT IS
NOT CLAIMED THAT EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE GRANTS THIS POWER TO
THE PRESIDENT.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT PRESIDENTIAL POWER SHOULD BE
IMPLIED FROM THE AGGREGATE OF HIS POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
PARTICULAR RELIANCE IS PLACED ON PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE II WHICH SAY
THAT "THE EXECUTIVE POWER SHALL BE VESTED IN A PRESIDENT  ...  "; THAT
"HE SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED"; AND THAT HE
"SHALL BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

THE ORDER CANNOT PROPERLY BE SUSTAINED AS AN EXERCISE OF THE
PRESIDENT'S MILITARY POWER AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES. 
THE GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO DO SO BY CITING A NUMBER OF CASES UPHOLDING
BROAD POWERS IN MILITARY COMMANDERS ENGAGED IN DAY-TO-DAY FIGHTING IN A
THEATER OF WAR.  SUCH CASES NEED NOT CONCERN US HERE.  EVEN THOUGH
"THEATER OF WAR" BE AN EXPANDING CONCEPT, WE CANNOT WITH FAITHFULNESS
TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM HOLD THAT THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE
ARMED FORCES HAS THE ULTIMATE POWER AS SUCH TO TAKE POSSESSION OF
PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO KEEP LABOR DISPUTES FROM STOPPING
PRODUCTION.  THIS IS A JOB FOR THE NATION'S LAWMAKERS, NOT FOR ITS
MILITARY AUTHORITIES. 

NOR CAN THE SEIZURE ORDER BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF THE SEVERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAT GRANT EXECUTIVE POWER TO THE PRESIDENT. 
IN THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR CONSTITUTION, THE PRESIDENT'S POWER TO SEE THAT
THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED REFUTES THE IDEA THAT HE IS TO BE A
LAWMAKER.  THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS HIS FUNCTIONS IN THE LAWMAKING
PROCESS TO THE RECOMMENDING OF LAWS HE THINKS WISE AND THE VETOING OF
LAWS HE THINKS BAD.  AND THE CONSTITUTION IS NEITHER SILENT NOR
EQUIVOCAL ABOUT WHO SHALL MAKE LAWS WHICH THE PRESIDENT IS TO EXECUTE. 
THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FIRST ARTICLE SAYS THAT "ALL LEGISLATIVE
POWERS HEREIN GRANTED SHALL BE VESTED IN A CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES  ...  ."  AFTER GRANTING MANY POWERS TO THE CONGRESS, ARTICLE I
GOES ON TO PROVIDE THAT CONGRESS MAY "MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE
NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS,
AND ALL OTHER POWERS VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR IN ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF." 

THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER DOES NOT DIRECT THAT A CONGRESSIONAL POLICY BE
EXECUTED IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS - IT DIRECTS THAT A
PRESIDENTIAL POLICY BE EXECUTED IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE
PRESIDENT.  THE PREAMBLE OF THE ORDER ITSELF, LIKE THAT OF MANY
STATUTES, SETS OUT REASONS WHY THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES CERTAIN POLICIES
SHOULD BE ADOPTED, PROCLAIMS THESE POLICIES AS RULES OF CONDUCT TO BE
FOLLOWED, AND AGAIN, LIKE A STATUTE, AUTHORIZES A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
TO PROMULGATE ADDITIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE
POLICY PROCLAIMED AND NEEDED TO CARRY THAT POLICY INTO EXECUTION.  THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO ADOPT SUCH PUBLIC POLICIES AS THOSE PROCLAIMED BY
THE ORDER IS BEYOND QUESTION.  IT CAN AUTHORIZE THE TAKING OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE.  IT CAN MAKE LAWS REGULATING THE RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, PRESCRIBING RULES DESIGNED TO SETTLE
LABOR DISPUTES, AND FIXING WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN CERTAIN
FIELDS OF OUR ECONOMY.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SUBJECT THIS
LAWMAKING POWER OF CONGRESS TO PRESIDENTIAL OR MILITARY SUPERVISION OR
CONTROL.    IT IS SAID THAT OTHER PRESIDENTS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION OF PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTERPRISES IN
ORDER TO SETTLE LABOR DISPUTES.  BUT EVEN IF THIS BE TRUE, CONGRESS HAS
NOT THEREBY LOST ITS EXCLUSIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS
NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY OUT THE POWERS VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION
"IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER
THEREOF." 

THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION ENTRUSTED THE LAWMAKING POWER TO THE
CONGRESS ALONE IN BOTH GOOD AND BAD TIMES.  IT WOULD DO NO GOOD TO
RECALL THE HISTORICAL EVENTS, THE FEARS OF POWER AND THE HOPES FOR
FREEDOM THAT LAY BEHIND THEIR CHOICE.  SUCH A REVIEW WOULD BUT CONFIRM
OUR HOLDING THAT THIS SEIZURE ORDER CANNOT STAND. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS BOARD WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 10233, 16 FED.
REG. 3503. 

FN2  THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948, 62 STAT. 604, 625-627, 50
U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 468; THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950,
TIT. II, 64 STAT. 798, AS AMENDED, 65 STAT. 132. 

FN3  93 CONG. REC. 3637-3645. 

FN4  93 CONG. REC. 3835-3836. 

FN5  LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 61 STAT. 136, 152-156, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 141, 171-180. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

ALTHOUGH THE CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO THE LEGAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS SEEM TO ME MORE COMPLICATED AND
FLEXIBLE THAN MAY APPEAR FROM WHAT MR. JUSTICE BLACK HAS WRITTEN, I
JOIN HIS OPINION BECAUSE I THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  EVEN THOUGH SUCH
DIFFERENCES IN ATTITUDE TOWARD THIS PRINCIPLE MAY BE MERELY DIFFERENCES
IN EMPHASIS AND NUANCE, THEY CAN HARDLY BE REFLECTED BY A SINGLE
OPINION FOR THE COURT.  INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION OF VIEWS IN REACHING A
COMMON RESULT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT. 

                        APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. 

      EXECUTIVE ORDER 

DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF AND OPERATE
THE PLANTS AND FACILITIES OF CERTAIN STEEL COMPANIES: 

WHEREAS ON DECEMBER 16, 1950, I PROCLAIMED THE EXISTENCE OF A
NATIONAL EMERGENCY WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE MILITARY, NAVAL, AIR, AND
CIVILIAN DEFENSES OF THIS COUNTRY BE STRENGTHENED AS SPEEDILY AS
POSSIBLE TO THE END THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO REPEL ANY AND ALL THREATS
AGAINST OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND TO FULFILL OUR RESPONSIBILITIES IN
THE EFFORTS BEING MADE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERWISE TO
BRING ABOUT A LASTING PEACE; AND: 

WHEREAS AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND FIGHTING MEN OF OTHER NATIONS OF
THE UNITED NATIONS ARE NOW ENGAGED IN DEADLY COMBAT WITH THE FORCES OF
AGGRESSION IN KOREA, AND FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES ARE STATIONED
ELSEWHERE OVERSEAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE DEFENSE OF
THE ATLANTIC COMMUNITY AGAINST AGGRESSION; AND: 

WHEREAS THE WEAPONS AND OTHER MATERIALS NEEDED BY OUR ARMED FORCES
AND BY THOSE JOINED WITH US IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FREE WORLD ARE
PRODUCED TO A GREAT EXTENT IN THIS COUNTRY, AND STEEL IS AN
INDISPENSABLE COMPONENT OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF SUCH WEAPONS AND
MATERIALS; AND: 

WHEREAS STEEL IS LIKEWISE INDISPENSABLE TO THE CARRYING OUT OF
PROGRAMS OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION OF VITAL IMPORTANCE TO OUR
DEFENSE EFFORTS; AND: 

WHEREAS A CONTINUING AND UNINTERRUPTED SUPPLY OF STEEL IS ALSO
INDISPENSABLE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES,
UPON WHICH OUR MILITARY STRENGTH DEPENDS; AND: 

WHEREAS A CONTROVERSY HAS ARISEN BETWEEN CERTAIN COMPANIES IN THE
UNITED STATES PRODUCING AND FABRICATING STEEL AND THE ELEMENTS THEREOF
AND CERTAIN OF THEIR WORKERS REPRESENTED BY THE UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, REGARDING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; AND: 

WHEREAS THE CONTROVERSY HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR THOUGH THE EFFORTS OF THE GOVERNMENT,
INCLUDING THOSE OF THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD, TO WHICH THE
CONTROVERSY WAS REFERRED ON DECEMBER 22, 1951, PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 10233, AND A STRIKE HAS BEEN CALLED FOR 12:01 A.M., APRIL 9,
1952; AND: 

WHEREAS A WORK STOPPAGE WOULD IMMEDIATELY JEOPARDIZE AND IMPERIL OUR
NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE DEFENSE OF THOSE JOINED WITH US IN RESISTING
AGGRESSION, AND WOULD ADD TO THE CONTINUING DANGER OF OUR SOLDIERS,
SAILORS, AND AIRMEN ENGAGED IN COMBAT IN THE FIELD; AND: 

WHEREAS IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF STEEL AND
STEEL PRODUCTS DURING THE EXISTING EMERGENCY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE
UNITED STATES TAKE POSSESSION OF AND OPERATE THE PLANTS, FACILITIES,
AND OTHER PROPERTY OF THE SAID COMPANIES AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED: 

NOW, THEREFORE, BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

1.  THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO
TAKE POSSESSION OF ALL OR SUCH OF THE PLANTS, FACILITIES, AND OTHER
PROPERTY OF THE COMPANIES NAMED IN THE LIST ATTACHED HERETO, OR ANY
PART THEREOF, AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE; AND TO OPERATE OR TO ARRANGE FOR THE OPERATION THEREOF AND TO
DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY FOR, OR INCIDENTAL TO, SUCH OPERATION. 

2.  IN CARRYING OUT THIS ORDER THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE MAY ACT
THROUGH OR WITH THE AID OF SUCH PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INSTRUMENTALITIES OR
PERSONS AS HE MAY DESIGNATE; AND ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES SHALL COOPERATE
WITH THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE IN
CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS ORDER. 

3.  THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE SHALL DETERMINE AND PRESCRIBE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER WHICH THE PLANTS, FACILITIES, AND OTHER
PROPERTIES POSSESSION OF WHICH IS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER SHALL BE
OPERATED.  THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE SHALL RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTS OF
WORKERS TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING AND TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, ADJUSTMENT OF GRIEVANCES, OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR
PROTECTION, PROVIDED THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
OPERATION OF SUCH PLANTS, FACILITIES, AND OTHER PROPERTIES. 

4.  EXCEPT SO FAR AS THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE SHALL OTHERWISE
PROVIDE FROM TIME TO TIME, THE MANAGEMENTS OF THE PLANTS, FACILITIES,
AND OTHER PROPERTIES POSSESSION OF WHICH IS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THIS
ORDER SHALL CONTINUE THEIR FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING THE COLLECTION AND
DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS IN THE USUAL AND ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS IN
THE NAMES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COMPANIES AND BY MEANS OF ANY
INSTRUMENTALITIES USED BY SUCH COMPANIES. 

5.  EXCEPT SO FAR AS THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE MAY OTHERWISE DIRECT,
EXISTING RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SUCH COMPANIES SHALL REMAIN IN FULL
FORCE AND EFFECT, AND THERE MAY BE MADE, IN DUE COURSE, PAYMENT OF
DIVIDENDS ON STOCK, AND OF PRINCIPAL, INTEREST, SINKING FUNDS, AND ALL
OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS UPON BONDS, DEBENTURES, AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS, AND
EXPENDITURES MAY BE MADE FOR OTHER ORDINARY CORPORATE OR BUSINESS
PURPOSES. 

6.  WHENEVER IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FURTHER
POSSESSION AND OPERATION BY HIM OF ANY PLANT, FACILITY, OR OTHER
PROPERTY IS NO LONGER NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT IN THE INTEREST OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE, AND THE SECRETARY HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
EFFECTIVE FUTURE OPERATION IS ASSURED, HE SHALL RETURN THE POSSESSION
AND OPERATION OF SUCH PLANT, FACILITY, OR OTHER PROPERTY TO THE COMPANY
IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL THEREOF AT THE TIME POSSESSION WAS TAKEN
UNDER THIS ORDER. 

7.  THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE IS AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE AND ISSUE
SUCH REGULATIONS AND ORDERS NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH AS HE MAY DEEM
NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS ORDER; AND
HE MAY DELEGATE AND AUTHORIZE SUBDELEGATION OF SUCH OF HIS FUNCTIONS
UNDER THIS ORDER AS HE MAY DEEM DESIRABLE. 

HARRY S. TRUMAN. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, APRIL 8, 1952. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

BEFORE THE CARES OF THE WHITE HOUSE WERE HIS OWN, PRESIDENT HARDING
IS REPORTED TO HAVE SAID THAT GOVERNMENT AFTER ALL IS A VERY SIMPLE
THING.  HE MUST HAVE SAID THAT, IF HE SAID IT, AS A FLEETING INHABITANT
OF FAIRYLAND.  THE OPPOSITE IS THE TRUTH.  A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY
LIKE OURS IS PERHAPS THE MOST DIFFICULT OF MAN'S SOCIAL ARRANGEMENTS TO
MANAGE SUCCESSFULLY.  OUR SCHEME OF SOCIETY IS MORE DEPENDENT THAN ANY
OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT ON KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM AND SELF-DISCIPLINE
FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF ITS AIMS.  FOR OUR DEMOCRACY IMPLIES THE REIGN
OF REASON ON THE MOST EXTENSIVE SCALE.  THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION
WERE NOT IMBUED WITH THE MODERN CYNICISM THAT THE ONLY THING THAT
HISTORY TEACHES IS THAT IT TEACHES NOTHING.  THEY ACTED ON THE
CONVICTION THAT THE EXPERIENCE OF MAN SHEDS A GOOD DEAL OF LIGHT ON HIS
NATURE.  IT SHEDS A GOOD DEAL OF LIGHT NOT MERELY ON THE NEED FOR
EFFECTIVE POWER, IF A SOCIETY IS TO BE AT ONCE COHESIVE AND CIVILIZED,
BUT ALSO ON THE NEED FOR LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF GOVERNORS OVER THE
GOVERNED. 

TO THAT END THEY RESTED THE STRUCTURE OF OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ON
THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.  FOR THEM THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION
OF POWERS WAS NOT MERE THEORY; IT WAS A FELT NECESSITY.  NOT SO LONG
AGO IT WAS FASHIONABLE TO FIND OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
OBSTRUCTIVE TO EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT.  IT WAS EASY TO RIDICULE THAT
SYSTEM AS OUTMODED - TOO EASY.  THE EXPERIENCE THROUGH WHICH THE WORLD
HAS PASSED IN OUR OWN DAY HAS MADE VIVID THE REALIZATION THAT THE
FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION WERE NOT INEXPERIENCED DOCTRINAIRES.  THESE
LONG-HEADED STATESMEN HAD NO ILLUSION THAT OUR PEOPLE ENJOYED
BIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL OR SOCIOLOGICAL IMMUNITES FROM THE HAZARDS
OF CONCENTRATED POWER.  IT IS ABSURD TO SEE A DICTATOR IN A
REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT OF THE STURDY DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS OF THE
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY.  THE ACCRETION OF DANGEROUS POWER DOES NOT COME IN
A DAY.  IT DOES COME, HOWEVER SLOWLY, FROM THE GENERATIVE FORCE OF
UNCHECKED DISREGARD OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT FENCE IN EVEN THE MOST
DISINTERESTED ASSERTION OF AUTHORITY. 

THE FRAMERS, HOWEVER, DID NOT MAKE THE JUDICIARY THE OVERSEER OF OUR
GOVERNMENT.  THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE REVISORY FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED
TO JUDGES IN A FEW OF THE STATES AND REFUSED TO LODGE SUCH POWERS IN
THIS COURT.  JUDICIAL POWER CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY AS TO MATTERS THAT
WERE THE TRADITIONAL CONCERN OF THE COURTS AT WESTMINSTER, AND ONLY IF
THEY ARISE IN WAYS THAT TO THE EXPERT FEEL OF LAWYERS CONSTITUTE
"CASES" OR "CONTROVERSIES."  EVEN AS TO QUESTIONS THAT WERE THE STAPLE
OF JUDICIAL BUSINESS, IT IS NOT FOR THE COURTS TO PASS UPON THEM UNLESS
THEY ARE INDISPENSABLY INVOLVED IN A CONVENTIONAL LITIGATION - AND
THEN, ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE SO INVOLVED.  RIGOROUS ADHERENCE
TO THE NARROW SCOPE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IS ESPECIALLY DEMANDED IN
CONTROVERSIES THAT AROUSE APPEALS TO THE CONSTITUTION.  THE ATTITUDE
WITH WHICH THIS COURT MUST APPROACH ITS DUTY WHEN CONFRONTED WITH SUCH
ISSUES IS PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF THAT NORMALLY MANIFESTED BY THE
GENERAL PUBLIC.  SO-CALLED CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS SEEM TO EXERCISE A
MESMERIC INFLUENCE OVER THE POPULAR MIND.  THIS EAGERNESS TO SETTLE -
PREFERABLY FOREVER - A SPECIFIC PROBLEM ON THE BASIS OF THE BROADEST
POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL PRONOUNCEMENTS MAY NOT UNFAIRLY BE CALLED ONE
OF OUR MINOR NATIONAL TRAITS.  AN ENGLISH OBSERVER OF OUR SCENE HAS
ACUTELY DESCRIBED IT:  "AT THE FIRST SOUND OF A NEW ARGUMENT OVER THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ITS INTERPRETATION THE HEARTS OF
AMERICANS LEAP WITH A FEARFUL JOY.  THE BLOOD STIRS POWERFULLY IN THEIR
VEINS AND A NEW LUSTRE BRIGHTENS THEIR EYES.  LIKE KING HARRY'S MEN
BEFORE HARFLEUR, THEY STAND LIKE GREYHOUNDS IN THE SLIPS, STRAINING
UPON THE START."  THE ECONOMIST, MAY 10, 1952, P. 370. 

THE PATH OF DUTY FOR THIS COURT, IT BEARS REPETITION, LIES IN THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION.  DUE REGARD FOR THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND FOR THE NATURE OF THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS AS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN INTERPRETING THE
CONSTITUTION, HAS NOT ONLY CONFINED THE COURT WITHIN THE NARROW DOMAIN
OF APPROPRIATE ADJUDICATION.  IT HAS ALSO LED TO "A SERIES OF RULES
UNDER WHICH IT HAS AVOIDED PASSING UPON A LARGE PART OF ALL THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESSED UPON IT FOR DECISION."  BRANDEIS, J.,
IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 341, 346.  A
BASIC RULE IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT NOT TO PASS ON A CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE AT ALL, HOWEVER NARROWLY IT MAY BE CONFINED, IF THE CASE MAY, AS
A MATTER OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, BE DECIDED WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING
DELICATE PROBLEMS OF POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  IT OUGHT TO BE, BUT
APPARENTLY IS NOT, A MATTER OF COMMON UNDERSTANDING THAT CLASHES
BETWEEN DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE AVOIDED IF A
LEGAL GROUND OF LESS EXPLOSIVE POTENTIALITIES IS PROPERLY AVAILABLE. 
CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATIONS ARE APT BY EXPOSING DIFFERENCES TO
EXACERBATE THEM. 

SO HERE OUR FIRST INQUIRY MUST BE NOT INTO THE POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT, BUT INTO THE POWERS OF A DISTRICT JUDGE TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  FAMILIAR AS THAT REMEDY
IS, IT REMAINS AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY.  TO START WITH A CONSIDERATION
OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT'S POWERS AND THOSE OF CONGRESS -
A MOST DELICATE MATTER THAT HAS OCCUPIED THE THOUGHTS OF STATESMEN AND
JUDGES SINCE THE NATION WAS FOUNDED AND WILL CONTINUE TO OCCUPY THEIR
THOUGHTS AS LONG AS OUR DEMOCRACY LASTS - IS TO START AT THE WRONG
END.  A PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN INJUNCTION IF MONEY DAMAGES
WOULD FAIRLY COMPENSATE HIM FOR ANY WRONG HE MAY HAVE SUFFERED.  THE
SAME CONSIDERATIONS BY WHICH THE STEELWORKERS, IN THEIR BRIEF AMICUS,
DEMONSTRATE, FROM THE SEIZURE HERE IN CONTROVERSY, CONSEQUENCES THAT
CANNOT BE TRANSLATED INTO DOLLARS AND CENTS, PRECLUDE A HOLDING THAT
ONLY COMPENSABLE DAMAGE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IS INVOLVED.  AGAIN, A COURT
OF EQUITY OUGHT NOT TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION, EVEN THOUGH A PLAINTIFF
OTHERWISE MAKES OUT A CASE FOR IT, IF THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO AN
INJUNCTION IS OVERBORNE BY A COMMANDING PUBLIC INTEREST AGAINST IT.
ONE NEED NOT RESORT TO A LARGE EPIGRAMMATIC GENERALIZATION THAT THE
EVILS OF INDUSTRIAL DISLOCATION ARE TO BE PREFERRED TO ALLOWING
ILLEGALITY TO GO UNCHECKED.  TO DENY INQUIRY INTO THE PRESIDENT'S POWER
IN A CASE LIKE THIS, BECAUSE OF THE DAMAGE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO BE
FEARED FROM UPSETTING ITS EXERCISE BY HIM, WOULD IN EFFECT ALWAYS
PRECLUDE INQUIRY INTO CHALLENGED POWER, WHICH PRESUMABLY ONLY AVOWED
GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST BRINGS INTO ACTION.  AND SO, WITH THE UTMOST
UNWILLINGNESS, WITH EVERY DESIRE TO AVOID JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO THE
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT, I CANNOT
ESCAPE CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGALITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10340. 

THE POLE-STAR FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATIONS IS JOHN MARSHALL'S
GREATEST JUDICIAL UTTERANCE THAT "IT IS A CONSTITUTION WE ARE
EXPOUNDING."  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 407.  THAT REQUIRES
BOTH A SPACIOUS VIEW IN APPLYING AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT "MADE FOR
AN UNDEFINED AND EXPANDING FUTURE," HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S.
516, 530, AND AS NARROW A DELIMITATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT.  NOT THE LEAST CHARACTERISTIC OF GREAT
STATESMANSHIP WHICH THE FRAMERS MANIFESTED WAS THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY
DID NOT ATTEMPT TO BIND THE FUTURE.  IT IS NO LESS INCUMBENT UPON THIS
COURT TO AVOID PUTTING FETTERS UPON THE FUTURE BY NEEDLESS
PRONOUNCEMENTS TODAY. 

MARSHALL'S ADMONITION THAT "IT IS A CONSTITUTION WE ARE EXPOUNDING"
IS ESPECIALLY RELEVANT WHEN THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO GIVE LEGAL
SANCTIONS TO AN UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION - THAT OF
SEPARATION OF POWERS.  "THE GREAT ORDINANCES OF THE CONSTITUTION DO NOT
ESTABLISH AND DIVIDE FIELDS OF BLACK AND WHITE."  HOLMES, J.,
DISSENTING IN SPRINGER V. PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 277 U.S. 189, 209. 

THE ISSUE BEFORE US CAN BE MET, AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE, WITHOUT
ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE THE PRESIDENT'S POWERS COMPREHENSIVELY.  I SHALL
NOT ATTEMPT TO DELINEATE WHAT BELONGS TO HIM BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE
BEYOND THE POWER EVEN OF CONGRESS TO CONTRACT; WHAT AUTHORITY BELONGS
TO HIM UNTIL CONGRESS ACTS; WHAT KIND OF PROBLEMS MAY BE DEALT WITH
EITHER BY THE CONGRESS OR BY THE PRESIDENT OR BY BOTH, CF. LA ABRA
SILVER MNG.  CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 423; WHAT POWER MUST BE
EXERCISED BY THE CONGRESS AND CANNOT BE DELEGATED TO THE PRESIDENT.  IT
IS AS UNPROFITABLE TO LUMP TOGETHER IN AN UNDISCRIMINATING HOTCH-POTCH
PAST PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS CLAIMED TO BE DERIVED FROM OCCUPANCY OF THE
OFFICE, AS IT IS TO CONJURE UP HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CASES.  THE
JUDICIARY MAY, AS THIS CASE PROVES, HAVE TO INTERVENE IN DETERMINING
WHERE AUTHORITY LIES AS BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC FORCES IN OUR SCHEME OF
GOVERNMENT.  BUT IN DOING SO WE SHOULD BE WARY AND HUMBLE.  SUCH IS THE
TEACHING OF THIS COURT'S ROLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY. 

IT IS IN THIS MOOD AND WITH THIS PERSPECTIVE THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE
THE COURT MUST BE APPROACHED.  WE MUST THEREFORE PUT TO ONE SIDE
CONSIDERATION OF WHAT POWERS THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE HAD IF THERE HAD
BEEN NO LEGISLATION WHATEVER BEARING ON THE AUTHORITY ASSERTED BY THE
SEIZURE, OR IF THE SEIZURE HAD BEEN ONLY FOR A SHORT, EXPLICITLY
TEMPORARY PERIOD, TO BE TERMINATED AUTOMATICALLY UNLESS CONGRESSIONAL
APPROVAL WERE GIVEN.  THESE AND OTHER QUESTIONS, LIKE OR UNLIKE, ARE
NOT NOW HERE.  I WOULD EXCEED MY AUTHORITY WERE I TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT
THEM. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT COMES IN THIS SETTING.  CONGRESS HAS
FREQUENTLY - AT LEAST 16 TIMES SINCE 1916 - SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR
EXECUTIVE SEIZURE OF PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, OR
STORAGE FACILITIES.  IN EVERY CASE IT HAS QUALIFIED THIS GRANT OF POWER
WITH LIMITATIONS AND SAFEGUARDS.  THIS BODY OF ENACTMENTS - SUMMARIZED
IN TABULAR FORM IN APPENDIX I, POST, P. 615 - DEMONSTRATES THAT
CONGRESS DEEMED SEIZURE SO DRASTIC A POWER AS TO REQUIRE THAT IT BE
CAREFULLY CIRCUMSCRIBED WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT WAS VESTED WITH THIS
EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITY.  THE POWER TO SEIZE HAS UNIFORMLY BEEN GIVEN
ONLY FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OR FOR A DEFINED EMERGENCY, OR HAS BEEN
REPEALED AFTER A SHORT PERIOD.  IT EXERCISE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS "TIME OF WAR OR WHEN WAR IS IMMINENT,"
THE NEEDS OF "PUBLIC SAFETY" OR OF "NATIONAL SECURITY OR DEFENSE," OR
"URGENT AND IMPENDING NEED."  THE PERIOD OF GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION HAS
BEEN LIMITED, AS, FOR INSTANCE, TO "SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE RESTORATION OF
PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY."  SEIZURE STATUTES USUALLY MAKE EXECUTIVE ACTION
DEPENDENT ON DETAILED CONDITIONS:  FOR EXAMPLE, (A) FAILURE OR REFUSAL
OF THE OWNER OF A PLANT TO MEET GOVERNMENTAL SUPPLY NEEDS OR (B)
FAILURE OF VOLUNTARY NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE OWNER FOR THE USE OF A PLANT
NECESSARY FOR GREAT PUBLIC ENDS.  CONGRESS OFTEN HAS SPECIFIED THE
PARTICULAR EXECUTIVE AGENCY WHICH SHOULD SEIZE OR OPERATE THE PLANTS OR
WHOSE JUDGMENT WOULD APPROPRIATELY TEST THE NEED FOR SEIZURE.  CONGRESS
ALSO HAS NOT LEFT TO IMPLICATION THAT JUST COMPENSATION BE PAID; IT HAS
USUALLY LEGISLATED IN DETAIL REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION
BREEDING GENERAL REQUIREMENT.  (SEE APPENDIX I, POST, P. 615.)(APPENDIX
I AND II OMITTED.) 

CONGRESS IN 1947 WAS AGAIN CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER WHETHER
GOVERNMENTAL SEIZURE SHOULD BE USED TO AVOID SERIOUS INDUSTRIAL
SHUTDOWNS.  CONGRESS DECIDED AGAINST CONFERRING SUCH POWER GENERALLY
AND IN ADVANCE, WITHOUT SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT TO MEET EACH
PARTICULAR NEED.  UNDER THE URGENCY OF TELEPHONE AND COAL STRIKES IN
THE WINTER OF 1946, CONGRESS ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY
"NATIONAL EMERGENCY" STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS.  (FN1)  THE TERMINATION OF
WARTIME SEIZURE POWERS ON DECEMBER 31, 1946, BROUGHT THESE MATTERS TO
THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS WITH VIVID IMPACT.  A PROPOSAL THAT THE
PRESIDENT BE GIVEN POWERS TO SEIZE PLANTS TO AVERT A SHUTDOWN WHERE THE
"HEALTH OR SAFETY" OF THE NATION WAS ENDANGERED, WAS THOROUGHLY
CANVASSED BY CONGRESS AND REJECTED.  NO ROOM FOR DOUBT REMAINS THAT THE
PROPONENTS AS WELL AS THE OPPONENTS OF THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947 CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT AS A RESULT OF
THAT LEGISLATION THE ONLY RECOURSE FOR PREVENTING A SHUTDOWN IN ANY
BASIC INDUSTRY, AFTER FAILURE OF MEDIATION, WAS CONGRESS.  (FN2)
AUTHORIZATION FOR SEIZURE AS AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR POTENTIAL DANGERS
WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY PUT ASIDE.  THE SENATE LABOR COMMITTEE, THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN, EXPLICITLY REPORTED TO THE SENATE THAT A GENERAL GRANT OF
SEIZURE POWERS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN FAVOR OF RELIANCE ON
AD HOC LEGISLATION, AS A PARTICULAR EMERGENCY MIGHT CALL FOR IT. (FN3)
AN AMENDMENT PRESENTED IN THE HOUSE PROVIDING THAT, WHERE NECESSARY "TO
PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SECURITY," THE PRESIDENT
MIGHT SEIZE ANY INDUSTRY IN WHICH THERE IS AN IMPENDING CURTAILMENT OF
PRODUCTION, WAS VOTED DOWN AFTER DEBATE, BY A VOTE OF MORE THAN THREE
TO ONE.  (FN4) 

IN ADOPTING THE PROVISIONS WHICH IT DID, BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT OF 1947 FOR DEALING WITH A "NATIONAL EMERGENCY" ARISING
OUT OF A BREAKDOWN IN PEACEFUL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, CONGRESS WAS VERY
FAMILIAR WITH GOVERNMENTAL SEIZURE AS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE.  ON A
BALANCE OF CONSIDERATIONS, CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO LODGE THIS POWER IN
THE PRESIDENT.  IT CHOSE NOT TO MAKE AVAILABLE IN ADVANCE A REMEDY TO
WHICH BOTH INDUSTRY AND LABOR WERE FIERCELY HOSTILE.  (FN5)  IN
DECIDING THAT AUTHORITY TO SEIZE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT ONLY
AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE PARTICULAR SITUATION SHOULD SHOW SUCH
LEGISLATION TO BE NECESSARY, CONGRESS PRESUMABLY ACTED ON EXPERIENCE
WITH SIMILAR INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS IN THE PAST.  IT EVIDENTLY ASSUMED
THAT INDUSTRIAL SHUTDOWNS IN BASIC INDUSTRIES ARE NOT INSTANCES OF
SPONTANEOUS GENERATION, AND THAT DANGER WARNINGS ARE SUFFICIENTLY PLAIN
BEFORE THE EVENT TO GIVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO START THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS INTO ACTION. 

IN ANY EVENT, NOTHING CAN BE PLAINER THAN THAT CONGRESS MADE A
CONSCIOUS CHOICE OF POLICY IN A FIELD FULL OF PERPLEXITY AND PECULIARLY
WITHIN LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHOICE.  IN FORMULATING
LEGISLATION FOR DEALING WITH INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS, CONGRESS COULD NOT
MORE CLEARLY AND EMPHATICALLY HAVE WITHHELD AUTHORITY THAN IT DID IN
1947.  PERHAPS AS MUCH SO AS IS TRUE OF ANY PIECE OF MODERN
LEGISLATION, CONGRESS ACTED WITH FULL CONSCIOUSNESS OF WHAT IT WAS
DOING AND IN THE LIGHT OF MUCH RECENT HISTORY.  PREVIOUS SEIZURE
LEGISLATION HAD SUBJECTED THE POWERS GRANTED TO THE PRESIDENT TO
RESTRICTIONS OF VARYING DEGREES OF STRINGENCY.  INSTEAD OF GIVING HIM
EVEN LIMITED POWERS, CONGRESS IN 1947 DEEMED IT WISE TO REQUIRE THE
PRESIDENT, UPON FAILURE OF ATTEMPTS TO REACH A VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT, TO
REPORT TO CONGRESS IF HE DEEMED THE POWER OF SEIZURE A NEEDED SHOT FOR
HIS LOCKER.  THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT IGNORE THE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS OF
PRIOR SEIZURE STATUTES.  NO MORE COULD HE ACT IN DISREGARD OF THE
LIMITATION PUT UPON SEIZURE BY THE 1947 ACT. 

IT CANNOT BE CONTENDED THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE HAD POWER TO
ISSUE THIS ORDER HAD CONGRESS EXPLICITLY NEGATED SUCH AUTHORITY IN
FORMAL LEGISLATION.  CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSED ITS WILL TO WITHHOLD THIS
POWER FROM THE PRESIDENT AS THOUGH IT HAD SAID SO IN SO MANY WORDS. 
THE AUTHORITATIVELY EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO DISALLOW SUCH
POWER TO THE PRESIDENT AND TO REQUIRE HIM, WHEN IN HIS MIND THE
OCCASION AROSE FOR SUCH A SEIZURE, TO PUT THE MATTER TO CONGRESS AND
ASK FOR SPECIFIC AUTHORITY FROM IT, COULD NOT BE MORE DECISIVE IF IT
HAD BEEN WRITTEN INTO SECS. 206-210 OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
ACT OF 1947.  ONLY THE OTHER DAY, WE TREATED THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOSS
UPON THOSE SECTIONS AS PART OF THE ACT.  BUS EMPLOYEES V. WISCONSIN
BOARD, 340 U.S. 383, 395-396.  GRAFTING UPON THE WORDS A PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS THUS UNEQUIVOCALLY EXPRESSED IS THE REGULAR LEGISLATIVE MODE
FOR DEFINING THE SCOPE OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  IT WOULD BE NOT MERELY
INFELICITOUS DRAFTSMANSHIP BUT ALMOST OFFENSIVE GAUCHERIE TO WRITE SUCH
A RESTRICTION UPON THE PRESIDENT'S POWER IN TERMS INTO A STATUTE RATHER
THAN TO HAVE IT AUTHORITATIVELY EXPOUNDED, AS IT WAS, BY CONTROLLING
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, CONGRESS SAID TO THE
PRESIDENT, "YOU MAY NOT SEIZE.  PLEASE REPORT TO US AND ASK FOR SEIZURE
POWER IF YOU THINK IT IS NEEDED IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION."  THIS OF
COURSE CALLS FOR A REPORT ON THE UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO REACH A
VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT, AS A BASIS FOR DISCHARGE BY CONGRESS OF ITS
RESPONSIBILITY - WHICH IT HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY RESERVED - TO FASHION
FURTHER REMEDIES THAN IT PROVIDED.  (FN6)  BUT IT IS NOW CLAIMED THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEIZURE POWER BY VIRTUE OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT
OF 1950 AND ITS AMENDMENTS.  (FN7)  AND THE CLAIM IS BASED ON THE
OCCURRENCE OF NEW EVENTS - KOREA AND THE NEED FOR STABILIZATION, ETC. -
ALTHOUGH IT WAS WELL KNOWN THAT SEIZURE POWER WAS WITHHELD BY THE ACT
OF 1947, AND ALTHOUGH THE PRESIDENT, WHOSE SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR OTHER
AUTHORITY WERE IN THE MAIN GRANTED BY CONGRESS, NEVER SUGGESTED THAT IN
VIEW OF THE NEW EVENTS HE NEEDED THE POWER OF SEIZURE WHICH CONGRESS IN
ITS JUDGMENT HAD DECIDED TO WITHHOLD FROM HIM.  THE UTMOST THAT THE
KOREAN CONFLICT MAY IMPLY IS THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN DESIRABLE TO HAVE
GIVEN THE PRESIDENT FURTHER AUTHORITY, A FREER HAND IN THESE MATTERS. 
ABSENCE OF AUTHORITY IN THE PRESIDENT TO DEAL WITH A CRISIS DOES NOT
IMPLY WANT OF POWER IN THE GOVERNMENT.  CONVERSELY THE FACT THAT POWER
EXISTS IN THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT VEST IT IN THE PRESIDENT.  THE NEED
FOR NEW LEGISLATION DOES NOT ENACT IT.  NOR DOES IT REPEAL OR AMEND
EXISTING LAW. 

NO AUTHORITY THAT HAS SINCE BEEN GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT CAN BY ANY
FAIR PROCESS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BE DEEMED TO WITHDRAW THE
RESTRICTION OR CHANGE THE WILL OF CONGRESS AS EXPRESSED BY A BODY OF
ENACTMENTS, CULMINATING IN THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947. 
TITLE V OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT, ENTITLED "SETTLEMENT OF LABOR
DISPUTES," PRONOUNCED THE WILL OF CONGRESS "THAT THERE BE EFFECTIVE
PROCEDURES FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES AFFECTING NATIONAL
DEFENSE," AND THAT "PRIMARY RELIANCE" BE PLACED "UPON THE PARTIES TO
ANY LABOR DISPUTE TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT THROUGH NEGOTIATION AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND THE FULL USE OF MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION
FACILITIES TO EFFECT A SETTLEMENT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST."  (FN8)
LABOR, INDUSTRY, AND PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES AND TO "TAKE
SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE AGREED UPON IN ANY SUCH CONFERENCE AND
APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE," PROVIDED THAT
NO ACTION WAS TAKEN INCONSISTENT WITH THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
ACT OF 1947.  (FN9)  THIS PROVISION (FN10) WAS SAID BY THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY TO CONTEMPLATE A BOARD SIMILAR TO THE
WAR LABOR BOARD OF WORLD WAR II AND "A NATIONAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE SUCH AS WAS HELD DURING WORLD WAR II, WHEN A NO-STRIKE, NO
LOCK-OUT PLEDGE WAS OBTAINED."  (FN11)  SECTION 502 WAS BELIEVED
NECESSARY IN ADDITION TO EXISTING MEANS FOR SETTLING DISPUTES
VOLUNTARILY BECAUSE THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE
COULD NOT ENTER A LABOR DISPUTE UNLESS REQUESTED BY ONE PARTY.  (FN12)
SIMILAR EXPLANATIONS OF TITLE V WERE GIVEN IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT AND
BY SENATOR IVES, A MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE TO WHOM CHAIRMAN
MAYBANK DURING THE DEBATES ON THE SENATE FLOOR REFERRED QUESTIONS
RELATING TO TITLE V. (FN13)  SENATOR IVES SAID:    "IT SHOULD BE
REMEMBERED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF THE PRESENT
EMERGENCY IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT ADJOURN, BUT, AT
MOST, WILL RECESS ONLY FOR VERY LIMITED PERIODS OF TIME.  IF,
THEREFORE, ANY SERIOUS WORK STOPPAGE SHOULD ARISE OR EVEN BE
THREATENED, IN SPITE OF THE TERMS OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT
OF 1947, THE CONGRESS WOULD BE READILY AVAILABLE TO PASS SUCH
LEGISLATION AS MIGHT BE NEEDED TO MEET THE DIFFICULTY."  (FN14) 

THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AFFORDS NO GROUND FOR THE SUGGESTION THAT
THE 1947 DENIAL TO THE PRESIDENT OF SEIZURE POWERS HAS BEEN IMPLIEDLY
REPEALED, AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CONTRADICTS SUCH A SUGGESTION. 
ALTHOUGH THE PROPONENTS OF THAT ACT RECOGNIZED THAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD
HAVE A CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF SEEKING A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT,
THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT CONGRESS ALONE RETAINED THE ULTIMATE COERCIVE
POWER TO MEET THE THREAT OF "ANY SERIOUS WORK STOPPAGE." 

THAT CONCLUSION IS NOT CHANGED BY WHAT OCCURRED AFTER THE PASSAGE OF
THE 1950 ACT.  SEVEN AND A HALF MONTHS LATER, ON APRIL 21, 1951, THE
PRESIDENT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 10233 GAVE THE RECONSTITUTED WAGE
STABILIZATION BOARD AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE LABOR DISPUTES EITHER (1)
SUBMITTED VOLUNTARILY BY THE PARTIES, OR (2) REFERRED TO IT BY THE
PRESIDENT.  (FN15)  THE BOARD CAN ONLY MAKE "RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
PARTIES AS TO FAIR AND EQUITABLE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT," UNLESS THE
PARTIES AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS.  ABOUT A
MONTH THEREAFTER SUBCOMMITTEES OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE LABOR
COMMITTEES BEGAN HEARINGS ON THE NEWLY ASSIGNED DISPUTES FUNCTIONS OF
THE BOARD.  (FN16)  AMENDMENTS TO DENY THE BOARD THESE FUNCTIONS WERE
VOTED DOWN IN THE HOUSE, (FN17) AND CONGRESS EXTENDED THE DEFENSE
PRODUCTION ACT WITHOUT CHANGING TITLE V IN RELEVANT PART.  (FN18) THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AND ITS AMENDMENTS IN
1951 CANNOT POSSIBLY BE VOUCHED FOR MORE THAN CONGRESSIONAL AWARENESS
AND TACIT APPROVAL THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD CHARGED THE WAGE
STABILIZATION BOARD WITH AUTHORITY TO SEEK VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT OF
LABOR DISPUTES.  THE MOST FAVORABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATEMENTS IN
THE COMMITTEE REPORTS CAN MAKE THEM MEAN NO MORE THAN "WE ARE GLAD TO
HAVE ALL THE MACHINERY POSSIBLE FOR THE VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT OF LABOR
DISPUTES."  IN CONSIDERING THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS,
CONGRESS WAS NEVER ASKED TO APPROVE - AND THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST
INDICATION THAT THE RESPONSIBLE COMMITTEES EVER HAD IN MIND - SEIZURE
OF PLANTS TO COERCE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES.  WE ARE NOT EVEN CONFRONTED
BY AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON THE WAGE BOARD,
AS FORMULATED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND THE DENIAL OF PRESIDENTIAL
SEIZURE POWERS UNDER THE 1947 LEGISLATION.  THE BOARD HAS BEEN GIVEN
MERELY MEDIATORY POWERS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF AGENCIES CREATED BY THE
TAFT-HARTLEY ACT AND ELSEWHERE, WITH NO OTHER SANCTIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE
OF ITS RECOMMENDATIONS THAN ARE OFFERED BY ITS OWN MORAL AUTHORITY AND
THE PRESSURE OF PUBLIC OPINION.  THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AND THE
DISPUTES-MEDIATING AGENCIES CREATED SUBSEQUENT TO IT STILL LEAVE FOR
SOLUTION ELSEWHERE THE QUESTION WHAT ACTION CAN BE TAKEN WHEN ATTEMPTS
AT VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT FAIL.  TO DRAW IMPLIED APPROVAL OF SEIZURE
POWER FROM THIS HISTORY IS TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING. 

IT IS ONE THING TO DRAW AN INTENTION OF CONGRESS FROM GENERAL
LANGUAGE AND TO SAY THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE EXPLICITLY WRITTEN WHAT IS
INFERRED, WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT ADDRESSED ITSELF TO A SPECIFIC
SITUATION.  IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE, HOWEVER, WHEN CONGRESS DID
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS ITSELF TO A PROBLEM, AS CONGRESS DID TO THAT OF
SEIZURE, TO FIND SECRETED IN THE INTERSTICES OF LEGISLATION THE VERY
GRANT OF POWER WHICH CONGRESS CONSCIOUSLY WITHHELD.  TO FIND AUTHORITY
SO EXPLICITLY WITHHELD IS NOT MERELY TO DISREGARD IN A PARTICULAR
INSTANCE THE CLEAR WILL OF CONGRESS.  IT IS TO DISRESPECT THE WHOLE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF AUTHORITY
BETWEEN PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY HERE CANVASSED IS RELEVANT TO YET ANOTHER OF
THE ISSUES BEFORE US, NAMELY, THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THAT OVERRIDING
PUBLIC INTEREST PREVENTS THE ISSUANCE OF THE INJUNCTION DESPITE THE
ILLEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE.  I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT CONTENTION. 
"BALANCING THE EQUITIES" WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN INJUNCTION SHOULD
ISSUE, IS LAWYERS' JARGON FOR CHOOSING BETWEEN CONFLICTING PUBLIC
INTERESTS.  WHEN CONGRESS ITSELF HAS STRUCK THE BALANCE, HAS DEFINED
THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THE COMPETING INTERESTS, A COURT OF EQUITY IS
NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THAT PRONOUNCEMENT UNDER THE GUISE OF
EXERCISING EQUITABLE DISCRETION. 

APART FROM HIS VAST SHARE OF REPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF OUR
FOREIGN RELATIONS, THE EMBRACING FUNCTION OF THE PRESIDENT IS THAT "HE
SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED  ...  ."  ART. II,
SEC. 3.  THE NATURE OF THAT AUTHORITY HAS FOR ME BEEN COMPREHENSIVELY
INDICATED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES.  "THE DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT TO SEE
THAT THE LAWS BE EXECUTED IS A DUTY THAT DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE LAWS OR
REQUIRE HIM TO ACHIEVE MORE THAN CONGRESS SEES FIT TO LEAVE WITHIN HIS
POWER."  MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52, 177.  THE POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT ARE NOT AS PARTICULARIZED AS ARE THOSE OF CONGRESS.  BUT
UNENUMERATED POWERS DO NOT MEAN UNDEFINED POWERS.  THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS BUILT INTO OUR CONSTITUTION GIVES ESSENTIAL CONTENT TO UNDEFINED
PROVISIONS IN THE FRAME OF OUR GOVERNMENT. 

TO BE SURE, THE CONTENT OF THE THREE AUTHORITIES OF GOVERNMENT IS NOT
TO BE DERIVED FROM AN ABSTRACT ANALYSIS.  THE AREAS ARE PARTLY
INTERACTING, NOT WHOLLY DISJOINTED.  THE CONSTITUTION IS A FRAMEWORK
FOR GOVERNMENT.  THEREFORE THE WAY THE FRAMEWORK HAS CONSISTENTLY
OPERATED FAIRLY ESTABLISHES THAT IT HAS OPERATED ACCORDING TO ITS TRUE
NATURE.  DEEPLY EMBEDDED TRADITIONAL WAYS OF CONDUCTING GOVERNMENT
CANNOT SUPPLANT THE CONSTITUTION OR LEGISLATION, BUT THEY GIVE MEANING
TO THE WORDS OF A TEXT OR SUPPLY THEM.  IT IS AN INADMISSIBLY NARROW
CONCEPTION OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO CONFINE IT TO THE WORDS OF
THE CONSTITUTION AND TO DISREGARD THE GLOSS WHICH LIFE HAS WRITTEN UPON
THEM.  IN SHORT, A SYSTEMATIC, UNBROKEN, EXECUTIVE PRACTICE, LONG
PURSUED TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONGRESS AND NEVER BEFORE QUESTIONED,
ENGAGED IN BY PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE ALSO SWORN TO UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, MAKING AS IT WERE SUCH EXERCISE OF POWER PART OF THE
STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT, MAY BE TREATED AS A GLOSS ON "EXECUTIVE
POWER" VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT BY SEC. 1 OF ART. II. 

SUCH WAS THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO., 236 U.S. 459. 
THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE AND THIS ONE HELPS
TO DRAW A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN AUTHORITY NOT EXPLICITLY CONFERRED YET
AUTHORIZED TO BE EXERCISED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE DENIAL OF SUCH
AUTHORITY.  IN BOTH INSTANCES IT WAS THE CONCERN OF CONGRESS UNDER
EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE
PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THE PRESIDENT DEALT.  IN THE ONE CASE HE WAS
DEALING WITH THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES;
IN THE OTHER WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND WITH
RAISING AND SUPPORTING ARMIES AND MAINTAINING THE NAVY.  IN THE MIDWEST
OIL CASE, LANDS WHICH CONGRESS HAD OPENED FOR ENTRY WERE, OVER A PERIOD
OF 80 YEARS AND IN 252 INSTANCES, AND BY PRESIDENTS LEARNED AND
UNLEARNED IN THE LAW, TEMPORARILY WITHDRAWN FROM ENTRY SO AS TO ENABLE
CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH SUCH WITHDRAWALS.  NO REMOTELY COMPARABLE
PRACTICE CAN BE VOUCHED FOR EXECUTIVE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY AT A TIME
WHEN THIS COUNTRY WAS NOT AT WAR, IN THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL WAY IN
WHICH IT CAN BE AT WAR.  IT WOULD PURSUE THE IRRELEVANT TO REOPEN THE
CONTROVERSY OVER THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SOME ACTS OF LINCOLN DURING
THE CIVIL WAR.  SEE J.G. RANDALL, CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS UNDER LINCOLN
(REVISED ED. 1951).  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT HE SEIZED RAILROADS IN
TERRITORY WHERE ARMED HOSTILITIES HAD ALREADY INTERRUPTED THE MOVEMENT
OF TROOPS TO THE BELEAGUERED CAPITAL, AND HIS ORDER WAS RATIFIED BY THE
CONGRESS. 

THE ONLY OTHER INSTANCES OF SEIZURES ARE THOSE DURING THE PERIODS OF
THE FIRST AND SECOND WORLD WARS.  (FN19)  IN HIS ELEVEN SEIZURES OF
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES, PRESIDENT WILSON ACTED, OR AT LEAST PURPORTED TO
ACT, (FN20) UNDER AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CONGRESS.  THUS HIS SEIZURES
CANNOT BE ADDUCED AS INTERPRETATIONS BY A PRESIDENT OF HIS OWN POWERS
IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE. 

DOWN TO THE WORLD WAR II PERIOD, THEN, THE RECORD IS BARREN OF
INSTANCES COMPARABLE TO THE ONE BEFORE US.  OF TWELVE SEIZURES BY
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES
ACT IN JUNE, 1943, THREE WERE SANCTIONED BY EXISTING LAW, AND SIX
OTHERS WERE EFFECTED AFTER CONGRESS, ON DECEMBER 8, 1941, HAD DECLARED
THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF WAR.  IN THIS CASE, RELIANCE ON THE POWERS
THAT FLOW FROM DECLARED WAR HAS BEEN COMMENDABLY DISCLAIMED BY THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL.  THUS THE LIST OF EXECUTIVE ASSERTIONS OF THE POWER
OF SEIZURE IN CIRCUMSTANCES COMPARABLE TO THE PRESENT REDUCES TO THREE
IN THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FROM JUNE TO DECEMBER OF 1941.  WE NEED NOT
SPLIT HAIRS IN COMPARING THOSE ACTIONS TO THE ONE BEFORE US, THOUGH
MUCH MIGHT BE SAID BY WAY OF DIFFERENTIATION.  WITHOUT PASSING ON THEIR
VALIDITY, AS WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO DO, IT SUFFICES TO SAY THAT
THESE THREE ISOLATED INSTANCES DO NOT ADD UP, EITHER IN NUMBER, SCOPE,
DURATION OR CONTEMPORANEOUS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, TO THE KIND OF
EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION REVEALED IN THE MIDWEST OIL
CASE.  NOR DO THEY COME TO US SANCTIONED BY LONG-CONTINUED ACQUIESCENCE
OF CONGRESS GIVING DECISIVE WEIGHT TO A CONSTRUCTION BY THE EXECUTIVE
OF ITS POWERS. 

A SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT LIKE OURS NO DOUBT AT TIMES FEELS THE LACK OF
POWER TO ACT WITH COMPLETE, ALL-EMBRACING, SWIFTLY MOVING AUTHORITY. 
NO DOUBT A GOVERNMENT WITH DISTRIBUTED AUTHORITY, SUBJECT TO BE
CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS OF LAW, AT LEAST LONG ENOUGH TO CONSIDER AND
ADJUDICATE THE CHALLENGE, LABORS UNDER RESTRICTIONS FROM WHICH OTHER
GOVERNMENTS ARE FREE.  IT HAS NOT BEEN OUR TRADITION TO ENVY SUCH
GOVERNMENTS.  IN ANY EVENT OUR GOVERNMENT WAS DESIGNED TO HAVE SUCH
RESTRICTIONS.  THE PRICE WAS DEEMED NOT TOO HIGH IN VIEW OF THE
SAFEGUARDS WHICH THESE RESTRICTIONS AFFORD.  I KNOW NO MORE IMPRESSIVE
WORDS ON THIS SUBJECT THAN THOSE OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS: 

"THE DOCTRINE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WAS ADOPTED BY THE
CONVENTION OF 1787, NOT TO PROMOTE EFFICIENCY BUT TO PRECLUDE THE
EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY POWER.  THE PURPOSE WAS, NOT TO AVOID FRICTION,
BUT, BY MEANS OF THE INEVITABLE FRICTION INCIDENT TO THE DISTRIBUTION
OF THE GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AMONG THREE DEPARTMENTS, TO SAVE THE PEOPLE
FROM AUTOCRACY."  MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52, 240, 293. 

IT IS NOT A PLEASANT JUDICIAL DUTY TO FIND THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS
EXCEEDED HIS POWERS AND STILL LESS SO WHEN HIS PURPOSES WERE DICTATED
BY CONCERN FOR THE NATION'S WELL-BEING, IN THE ASSURED CONVICTION THAT
HE ACTED TO AVERT DANGER.  BUT IT WOULD STULTIFY ONE'S FAITH IN OUR
PEOPLE TO ENTERTAIN EVEN A MOMENTARY FEAR THAT THE PATRIOTISM AND THE
WISDOM OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS, AS WELL AS THE LONG VIEW OF
THE IMMEDIATE PARTIES IN INTEREST, WILL NOT FIND READY ACCOMMODATION
FOR DIFFERENCES ON MATTERS WHICH, HOWEVER CLOSE TO THEIR CONCERN AND
HOWEVER INTRINSICALLY IMPORTANT, ARE OVERSHADOWED BY THE AWESOME ISSUES
WHICH CONFRONT THE WORLD.  WHEN AT A MOMENT OF UTMOST ANXIETY PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON TURNED TO THIS COURT FOR ADVICE, AND HE HAD TO BE DENIED IT
AS BEYOND THE COURT'S COMPETENCE TO GIVE, CHIEF JUSTICE JAY, ON BEHALF
OF THE COURT, WROTE THUS TO THE FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY: 

"WE EXCEEDINGLY REGRET EVERY EVENT THAT MAY CAUSE EMBARRASSMENT TO
YOUR ADMINSTRATION, BUT WE DERIVE CONSOLATION FROM THE REFLECTION THAT
YOUR JUDGMENT WILL DISCERN WHAT IS RIGHT, AND THAT YOUR USUAL PRUDENCE,
DECISION, AND FIRMNESS WILL SURMOUNT EVERY OBSTACLE TO THE PRESERVATION
OF THE RIGHTS, PEACE, AND DIGNITY OF THE UNITED STATES."  LETTER OF
AUGUST 8, 1793, 3 JOHNSTON, CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS OF JOHN
JAY (1891), 489. 

IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT CONSCIENCE COMPELS, I TOO DERIVE
CONSOLATION FROM THE REFLECTION THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS
BETWEEN THEM WILL CONTINUE TO SAFEGUARD THE HERITAGE WHICH COMES TO
THEM STRAIGHT FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON. 

FN1  THE POWER TO SEIZE PLANTS UNDER THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT ENDED
WITH THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES, PROCLAIMED ON DEC. 31, 1946, PRIOR
TO THE INCOMING OF THE EIGHTIETH CONGRESS; AND THE POWER TO OPERATE
PREVIOUSLY SEIZED PLANTS ENDED ON JUNE 30, 1947, ONLY A WEEK AFTER THE
ENACTMENT OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OVER THE PRESIDENT'S
VETO.  57 STAT. 163, 165, 50 U.S.C. APP. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  1503.  SEE 2
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947
(PUBLISHED BY NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 1948), 1145, 1519, 1626. 

FN2  SOME OF THE MORE DIRECTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS ARE THE FOLLOWING:
"IN MOST INSTANCES THE FORCE OF PUBLIC OPINION SHOULD MAKE ITSELF
SUFFICIENTLY FELT IN THIS 80-DAY PERIOD TO BRING ABOUT A PEACEFUL
TERMINATION OF THE CONTROVERSY.  SHOULD THIS EXPECTATION FAIL, THE BILL
PROVIDES FOR THE PRESIDENT LAYING THE MATTER BEFORE CONGRESS FOR
WHATEVER LEGISLATION SEEMS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF THE NATION IN THE CRISIS."  SENATE REPORT NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 15. 

"WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE MOST UNWISE FOR THE CONGRESS TO ATTEMPT TO
ADOPT LAWS RELATING TO ANY SINGLE DISPUTE BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES." 
SENATE MINORITY REPORT, ID., PART 2, AT 17. 

IN THE DEBATES SENATOR H. ALEXANDER SMITH, A MEMBER OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, SAID, "IN THE EVENT OF A
DEADLOCK AND A STRIKE IS NOT ENDED, THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO THE
PRESIDENT, WHO CAN USE HIS DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER HE WILL PRESENT THE
MATTER TO THE CONGRESS, WHETHER OR NOT THE SITUATION IS SUCH THAT
EMERGENCY LEGISLATION IS REQUIRED.    "NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE WITH
RESPECT TO THE SMITH-CONNALLY ACT.  THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR TAKING
OVER PROPERTY OR RUNNING PLANTS BY THE GOVERNMENT.  WE SIMPLY PROVIDE A
PROCEDURE WHICH WE HOPE WILL BE EFFECTIVE IN 99 OUT OF 100 CASES WHERE
THE HEALTH OR SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE MAY BE AFFECTED, AND STILL LEAVE A
LOOPHOLE FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION."  93 CONG. REC. 4281. 

THE PRESIDENT IN HIS VETO MESSAGE SAID, "  ...  IT WOULD BE MANDATORY
FOR THE PRESIDENT TO TRANSFER THE WHOLE PROBLEM TO THE CONGRESS, EVEN
IF IT WERE NOT IN SESSION.  THUS, MAJOR ECONOMIC DISPUTES BETWEEN
EMPLOYERS AND THEIR WORKERS OVER CONTRACT TERMS MIGHT ULTIMATELY BE
THROWN INTO THE POLITICAL ARENA FOR DISPOSITION.  ONE COULD SCARCELY
DEVISE A LESS EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR DISCOURAGING CRITICAL STRIKES."  93
CONG. REC. 7487. 

FN3  SENATOR TAFT SAID: 

"IF THERE FINALLY DEVELOPS A COMPLETE NATIONAL EMERGENCY THREATENING
THE SAFETY AND HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, CONGRESS CAN
PASS AN EMERGENCY LAW TO COVER THE PARTICULAR EMERGENCY  ...  . 

"WE HAVE FELT THAT PERHAPS IN THE CASE OF A GENERAL STRIKE, OR IN THE
CASE OF OTHER SERIOUS STRIKES, AFTER THE TERMINATION OF EVERY POSSIBLE
EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE, THE REMEDY MIGHT BE AN EMERGENCY ACT BY
CONGRESS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 

"  ...  BUT WHILE SUCH A BILL FOR SEIZURE OF PLANTS AND UNION FUNDS
MIGHT BE PREPARED, I SHOULD BE UNWILLING TO PLACE SUCH A LAW ON THE
BOOKS UNTIL WE ACTUALLY FACE SUCH AN EMERGENCY, AND CONGRESS APPLIES
THE REMEDY FOR THE PARTICULAR EMERGENCY ONLY.  EIGHTY DAYS WILL PROVIDE
PLENTY OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT SHOULD
BE DONE; AND WE BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANYTHING
IN THIS LAW WHICH PROHIBITS FINALLY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE."  93 CONG.
REC. 3835-3836. 

FN4  93 CONG. REC. 3637-3645. 

FN5  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, THE STATEMENTS OF JAMES B. CAREY, SECRETARY
OF THE C.I.O., IN OPPOSITION TO S. 2054, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., WHICH
EVENTUALLY BECAME THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT.  CENTRAL TO THAT ACT, OF
COURSE, WAS THE TEMPORARY GRANT OF THE SEIZURE POWER TO THE PRESIDENT. 
MR. CAREY THEN SAID: 

"SENATOR BURTON.  IF THIS WOULD CONTINUE FOREVER IT MIGHT MEAN THE
NATIONALIZATION OF INDUSTRY? 

"MR. CAREY.  LET US CONSIDER IT ON A TEMPORARY BASIS.  HOW IS THE LAW
BORNE BY LABOR?  HERE IS THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED STRIKE BREAKING
AGENCY, AND NOTHING MORE. 

     *         *         *         *   * 

"OUR SUGGESTION OF A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
INDUSTRY AND LABOR AND GOVERNMENT, PARTICIPATING IN CALLING A
CONFERENCE, IS A DEMOCRATIC WAY.  THE OTHER ONE IS THE IMPOSITION OF
FORCE, THE OTHER IS THE IMPOSITION OF SEIZURE OF CERTAIN THINGS FOR A
TEMPORARY PERIOD; THE DESTRUCTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND IT
WOULD BREAK DOWN LABOR RELATIONS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN BUILT UP OVER A
LONG PERIOD." 

HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY ON S. 2054, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS 132. 

FN6  CLEARLY THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE OF APRIL 9 AND HIS FURTHER
LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE ON APRIL 21 DO NOT SATISFY THIS
REQUIREMENT.  CONG. REC., APRIL 9, 1952, PP. 3962-3963; ID., APRIL 21,
1952, P. 4192. 

FN7  64 STAT. 798 ET SEQ., 65 STAT. 131 ET SEQ., 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
2061 EQ SEQ. 

FN8  SECS. 501, 502, 64 STAT. 798, 812, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 2121,
2122. 

FN9  SECS. 502, 503, 64 STAT. 798, 812, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 2122,
2123. 

FN10  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 502 IN S. 3936, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, READ AS FOLLOWS:  "THE PRESIDENT IS
AUTHORIZED, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH LABOR AND MANAGEMENT, TO ESTABLISH
SUCH PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES AND TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS HE DEEMS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES AFFECTING NATIONAL
DEFENSE, INCLUDING THE DESIGNATION OF SUCH PERSONS, BOARDS OR
COMMISSIONS AS HE MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS TITLE."  THAT LANGUAGE WAS SUPERSEDED IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT BY
THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS FINALLY ENACTED.  H.R. REP. NO. 3042, 81ST CONG.,
2D SESS. 16, 35.  THE CHANGE MADE BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WAS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF EMPHASIZING THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF THE COOPERATION
SOUGHT FROM THE PUBLIC, LABOR, AND MANAGEMENT; AS SENATOR IVES
EXPLAINED UNDER REPEATED QUESTIONING, "IF ANY GROUP WERE TO HOLD OUT,
THERE WOULD BE NO AGREEMENT ON ACTION TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS TITLE."  96 CONG. REC. 14071.  CHAIRMAN MAYBANK OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY SAID, "THE LABOR DISPUTES TITLE OF
THE SENATE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE HOUSE WITH AMENDMENT WHICH MERELY
INDICATES MORE SPECIFIC AVENUES THROUGH WHICH THE PRESIDENT MAY BRING
LABOR AND MANAGEMENT TOGETHER."  ID., AT 14073. 

FN11  S. REP. NO. 2250, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS. 41; H.R. REP. NO. 3042,
81ST CONG., 2D SESS. 35.  IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO NOTE THAT
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF AN AGENCY SIMILAR TO THE WAR LABOR BOARD
DOES NOT IMPLY A CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF SEIZURE POWER SIMILAR TO THAT
GIVEN THE PRESIDENT SPECIFICALLY BY SEC. 3 OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES
ACT OF 1943.  THE WAR LABOR BOARD, CREATED BY SEC. 7 OF THE 1943 ACT,
HAD ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS.  SEE 57 STAT. 163, 166-167; SEE
REPORT OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, THE DISPUTES
FUNCTIONS OF THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD, 1951, S. REP. NO. 1037, 82D
CONG., 1ST SESS. 6.  THE SEIZURE POWER GIVEN BY CONGRESS IN SEC. 3 OF
THE 1943 ACT WAS GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT, NOT TO THE WAR LABOR BOARD,
AND WAS NEEDED ONLY WHEN THE WAR LABOR BOARD REPORTED IT HAD FAILED;
THE SEIZURE POWER WAS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE WAR LABOR BOARD
MACHINERY FOR SETTLING DISPUTES.  AT MOST THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT
DOES WHAT SEC. 7 OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT DID; THE OMISSION OF ANY
GRANT OR SEIZURE POWER SIMILAR TO SEC. 3 IS TOO OBVIOUS NOT TO HAVE
BEEN CONSCIOUS.  AT ANY RATE, THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD DIFFERS
SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE EARLIER WAR LABOR BOARD.  IN 1951 THE SENATE
COMMITTEE STUDYING THE DISPUTES FUNCTIONS OF THE WAGE STABILIZATION
BOARD POINTED OUT THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THAT BOARD AND
ITS PREDECESSOR AND CONCLUDED THAT "THE NEW WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD
...  DOES NOT RELY ON TITLE V OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT FOR ITS
AUTHORITY."  S. REP. NO. 1037, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS., SUPRA, AT 4-6. 

FN12  S. REP. NO. 2250, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS. 41. 

FN13  SEE 96 CONG. REC. 14071. 

FN14  ID., AT 12275.  JUST BEFORE THE PARAGRAPH QUOTED IN THE TEXT,
SENATOR IVES HAD SAID: 

"IN FACT, THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF
1947, WHICH CAN REQUIRE THAT WORKERS STAY ON THE JOB FOR AT LEAST 80
DAYS WHEN A STRIKE WOULD SERIOUSLY THREATEN THE NATIONAL HEALTH AND
SAFETY IN PEACETIME. 

"BY THE TERMS OF THE PENDING BILL, THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT
OF 1947 WOULD BE CONTROLLING IN MATTERS AFFECTING THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN LABOR AND MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  IT
SEEMS TO ME, HOWEVER, THAT THIS IS AS FAR AS WE SHOULD GO IN
LEGISLATION OF THIS TYPE. 

FN15  16 FED. REG. 3503.  THE DISPUTES FUNCTIONS WERE NOT GIVEN TO
THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD UNDER TITLE V, SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA, BUT
APPARENTLY UNDER THE MORE GENERAL TITLE IV, ENTITLED "PRICE AND WAGE
STABILIZATION." 

FN16  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR, DISPUTES FUNCTIONS OF WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD,
82D CONG., 1ST SESS. (MAY 28-JUNE 15, 1951); HEARINGS BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR AND LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS OF SENATE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, WAGE STABILIZATION AND DISPUTES
PROGRAM, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS. (MAY 17-JUNE 7, 1951).  THE RESULTING
REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE, S. REP. NO. 1037, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS.
9, RECOMMENDED THAT "TITLE V OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT BE RETAINED"
AND THAT "NO STATUTORY LIMITATIONS BE IMPOSED ON THE PRESIDENT'S
AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH DISPUTES THROUGH VOLUNTARY MACHINERY; SUCH
LIMITATIONS, WE BELIEVE, WOULD INFRINGE ON THE PRESIDENT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER."  THE COMMITTEE FOUND, ID., AT 10, THAT THE "WAGE
STABILIZATION BOARD RELIES COMPLETELY ON VOLUNTARY MEANS FOR SETTLING
DISPUTES AND IS, THEREFORE, AN EXTENSION OF FREE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  THE BOARD HAS NO POWERS OF LEGAL COMPULSION."  "EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 10233," THE COMMITTEE FOUND FURTHER, "DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RUN
COUNTER TO THE  ...  TAFT-HARTLEY ACT.  IT IS SIMPLY AN ADDITIONAL
TOOL, NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THESE LAWS."  OF PARTICULAR RELEVANCE TO THE
PRESENT CASE, THE COMMITTEE DECLARED: 

"THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD IN DISPUTES
CERTIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT HAVE NO COMPULSIVE FORCE.  THE PARTIES ARE
FREE TO DISREGARD RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD  ...
. 

"THERE IS, OF COURSE, THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY TO SEIZE PLANTS UNDER
THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT (A POWER NOT HERE USED), BUT THIS IS AN
AUTHORITY WHICH EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD
AND ITS DISPUTES-HANDLING FUNCTIONS.  IN ANY CASE, SEIZURE IS AN
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY, AND THE AUTHORITY TO SEIZE, OPERATES WHETHER OR
NOT THERE IS A DISPUTES-HANDLING MACHINERY."  ID., AT 5. 

FN17  97 CONG. REC. 8390-8415. 

FN18  65 STAT. 131. 

FN19  INSTANCES OF SEIZURE BY THE PRESIDENT ARE SUMMARIZED IN
APPENDIX II, POST, P. 620. 

FN20  ONE OF PRESIDENT WILSON'S SEIZURES HAS GIVEN RISE TO
CONTROVERSY.  IN HIS TESTIMONY IN JUSTIFICATION OF THE MONTGOMERY WARD
SEIZURE DURING WORLD WAR II, ATTORNEY GENERAL BIDDLE ARGUED THAT THE
WORLD WAR I SEIZURE OF SMITH & WESSON COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED UNDER ANY
OF THE WORLD WAR I STATUTES AUTHORIZING SEIZURE.  HE THUS ADDUCED IT IN
SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF SO-CALLED INHERENT PRESIDENTIAL POWER OF
SEIZURE.  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
SEIZURE OF MONTGOMERY WARD, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS.  167-168.  IN SO
DOING, HE FOLLOWED THE ARDOR OF ADVOCATES IN CLAIMING EVERYTHING.  IN
HIS OWN OPINION TO THE PRESIDENT, HE RESTED THE POWER TO SEIZE
MONTGOMERY WARD ON THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES
ACT, SEE 40 OP. ATTY. GEN. 312 (1944), AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION UPHOLDING THE MONTGOMERY WARD SEIZURE CONFINED ITSELF TO THAT
GROUND.  UNITED STATES V. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 150 F.2D 369.  WHAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL BIDDLE SAID ABOUT SMITH & WESSON WAS, OF COURSE, POST
LITEM MOTAM.  WHETHER OR NOT THE WORLD WAR I STATUTES WERE BROAD ENOUGH
TO JUSTIFY THAT SEIZURE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TAKING OFFICERS CONCEIVED
THEMSELVES AS MOVING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF STATUTE LAW.  SEE LETTER FROM
ADMINISTRATIVE DIV., ADVISORY SEC. TO WAR DEP'T. BD. OF APPRAISERS,
NATIONAL ARCHIVES, RECORDS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
OF ORDNANCE, O.O. 004.002/194 SMITH & WESSON, APR. 2, 1919; N. 3,
APPENDIX II, POST, P. 620.  THUS, WHETHER OR NOT THAT SEIZURE WAS
WITHIN THE STATUTE, IT CANNOT PROPERLY BE CITED AS A PRECEDENT FOR THE
ONE BEFORE US.  ON THIS GENERAL SUBJECT, COMPARE ATTORNEY GENERAL
KNOX'S OPINION ADVISING PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT AGAINST THE SO
CALLED "STEWARDSHIP" THEORY OF THE PRESIDENCY.  NATIONAL ARCHIVES,
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOOK 31, OCT. 10, 1902 (R.G. 60);
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 388-389; 3 MORISON, THE LETTERS OF
THEODORE ROOSEVELT, 323-366. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE EMERGENCY WHICH CAUSED THE PRESIDENT
TO SEIZE THESE STEEL PLANTS WAS ONE THAT BORE HEAVILY ON THE COUNTRY. 
BUT THE EMERGENCY DID NOT CREATE POWER; IT MERELY MARKED AN OCCASION
WHEN POWER SHOULD BE EXERCISED.  AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY
THAT MEASURES BE TAKEN TO KEEP STEEL IN PRODUCTION DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THE PRESIDENT, RATHER THAN THE CONGRESS, HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY TO ACT.  THE CONGRESS, AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT, IS TRUSTEE
OF THE NATIONAL WELFARE.  THE PRESIDENT CAN ACT MORE QUICKLY THAN THE
CONGRESS.  THE PRESIDENT WITH THE ARMED SERVICES AT HIS DISPOSAL CAN
MOVE WITH FORCE AS WELL AS WITH SPEED.  ALL EXECUTIVE POWER - FROM THE
REIGN OF ANCIENT KINGS TO THE RULE OF MODERN DICTATORS - HAS THE
OUTWARD APPEARANCE OF EFFICIENCY. 

LEGISLATIVE POWER, BY CONTRAST, IS SLOWER TO EXERCISE.  THERE MUST BE
DELAY WHILE THE PONDEROUS MACHINERY OF COMMITTEES, HEARINGS, AND
DEBATES IS PUT INTO MOTION.  THAT TAKES TIME; AND WHILE THE CONGRESS
SLOWLY MOVES INTO ACTION, THE EMERGENCY MAY TAKE ITS TOLL IN WAGES,
CONSUMER GOODS, WAR PRODUCTION, THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF THE PEOPLE,
AND PERHAPS EVEN LIVES.  LEGISLATIVE ACTION MAY INDEED OFTEN BE
CUMBERSOME, TIME-CONSUMING, AND APPARENTLY INEFFICIENT.  BUT AS MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS STATED IN HIS DISSENT IN MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272
U.S. 52, 293: 

"THE DOCTRINE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WAS ADOPTED BY THE
CONVENTION OF 1787, NOT TO PROMOTE EFFICIENCY BUT TO PRECLUDE THE
EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY POWER.  THE PURPOSE WAS, NOT TO AVOID FRICTION,
BUT, BY MEANS OF THE INEVITABLE FRICTION INCIDENT TO THE DISTRIBUTION
OF THE GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AMONG THREE DEPARTMENTS, TO SAVE THE PEOPLE
FROM AUTOCRACY." 

WE THEREFORE CANNOT DECIDE THIS CASE BY DETERMINING WHICH BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT CAN DEAL MOST EXPEDITIOUSLY WITH THE PRESENT CRISIS.  THE
ANSWER MUST DEPEND ON THE ALLOCATION OF POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
THAT IN TURN REQUIRES AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONDITIONS GIVING RISE TO THE
SEIZURE AND OF THE SEIZURE ITSELF. 

THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LABOR AND INDUSTRY ARE ONE OF THE CRUCIAL
PROBLEMS OF THE ERA.  THEIR SOLUTION WILL DOUBTLESS ENTAIL MANY METHODS
- EDUCATION OF LABOR LEADERS AND BUSINESS EXECUTIVES; THE ENCOURAGEMENT
OF MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE USE OF HIS GREAT
OFFICE IN THE CAUSE OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE; AND THE PASSAGE OF LAWS.  LAWS
ENTAIL SANCTIONS - PENALTIES FOR THEIR VIOLATION.  ONE TYPE OF SANCTION
IS FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  ANOTHER IS SEIZURE OF PROPERTY.  AN INDUSTRY
MAY BECOME SO LAWLESS, SO IRRESPONSIBLE AS TO ENDANGER THE WHOLE
ECONOMY.  SEIZURE OF THE INDUSTRY MAY BE THE ONLY WISE AND PRACTICAL
SOLUTION.    THE METHOD BY WHICH INDUSTRIAL PEACE IS ACHIEVED IS OF
VITAL IMPORTANCE NOT ONLY TO THE PARTIES BUT TO SOCIETY AS WELL.  A
DETERMINATION THAT SANCTIONS SHOULD BE APPLIED, THAT THE HAND OF THE
LAW SHOULD BE PLACED UPON THE PARTIES, AND THAT THE FORCE OF THE COURTS
SHOULD BE DIRECTED AGAINST THEM, IS AN EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. 
IN SOME NATIONS THAT POWER IS ENTRUSTED TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS A
MATTER OF COURSE OR IN CASE OF EMERGENCIES.  WE CHOSE ANOTHER COURSE. 
WE CHOSE TO PLACE THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN
THE CONGRESS.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT AMBIGUOUS OR
QUALIFIED.  IT PLACES NOT SOME LEGISLATIVE POWER IN THE CONGRESS;
ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 SAYS "ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED SHALL
BE VESTED IN A CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF A
SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES." 

THE LEGISLATIVE NATURE OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO
ME TO BE CLEAR.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES TAKES OVER AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT
TO SETTLE A LABOR CONTROVERSY, IT IS CONDEMNING PROPERTY.  THE SEIZURE
OF THE PLANT IS A TAKING IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  UNITED STATES V.
PEWEE COAL CO., 341 U.S. 114.  A PERMANENT TAKING WOULD AMOUNT TO THE
NATIONALIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY.  A TEMPORARY TAKING FALLS SHORT OF
THAT GOAL.  BUT THOUGH THE SEIZURE IS ONLY FOR A WEEK OR A MONTH, THE
CONDEMNATION IS COMPLETE AND THE UNITED STATES MUST PAY COMPENSATION
FOR THE TEMPORARY POSSESSION.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,
323 U.S. 373; UNITED STATES V. PEWEE COAL CO., SUPRA. 

THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CONDEMN PROPERTY IS WELL
ESTABLISHED.  KOHL V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 367.  IT CAN CONDEMN FOR
ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE; AND I HAVE NO DOUBT BUT THAT CONDEMNATION OF A
PLANT, FACTORY, OR INDUSTRY IN ORDER TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL PEACE WOULD
BE CONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT THERE IS A DUTY TO PAY FOR ALL PROPERTY TAKEN
BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE COMMAND OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS THAT NO
"PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION." 
THAT CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT HAS AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE PRESENT
CASE. 

THE PRESIDENT HAS NO POWER TO RAISE REVENUES.  THAT POWER IS IN THE
CONGRESS BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE PRESIDENT
MIGHT SEIZE AND THE CONGRESS BY SUBSEQUENT ACTION MIGHT RATIFY THE
SEIZURE.  (FN1)  BUT UNTIL AND UNLESS CONGRESS ACTED, NO CONDEMNATION
WOULD BE LAWFUL.  THE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAT HAS THE POWER TO PAY
COMPENSATION FOR A SEIZURE IS THE ONLY ONE ABLE TO AUTHORIZE A SEIZURE
OR MAKE LAWFUL ONE THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS EFFECTED.  (FN2)  THAT SEEMS
TO ME TO BE THE NECESSARY RESULT OF THE CONDEMNATION PROVISION IN THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IT SQUARES WITH THE THEORY OF CHECKS AND BALANCES
EXPOUNDED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN WHICH I
JOIN. 

IF WE SANCTIONED THE PRESENT EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE PRESIDENT, WE
WOULD BE EXPANDING ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION AND REWRITING IT TO
SUIT THE POLITICAL CONVENIENCES OF THE PRESENT EMERGENCY.  ARTICLE II
WHICH VESTS THE "EXECUTIVE POWER" IN THE PRESIDENT DEFINES THAT POWER
WITH PARTICULARITY.  ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 MAKES THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY.  BUT OUR HISTORY AND
TRADITION REBEL AT THE THOUGHT THAT THE GRANT OF MILITARY POWER CARRIES
WITH IT AUTHORITY OVER CIVILIAN AFFAIRS.  ARTICLE II, SECTION 3
PROVIDES THAT THE PRESIDENT SHALL "FROM TIME TO TIME GIVE TO THE
CONGRESS INFORMATION OF THE STATE OF THE UNION, AND RECOMMEND TO THEIR
CONSIDERATION SUCH MEASURES AS HE SHALL JUDGE NECESSARY AND
EXPEDIENT."  THE POWER TO RECOMMEND LEGISLATION, GRANTED TO THE
PRESIDENT, SERVES ONLY TO EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS HIS FUNCTION TO
RECOMMEND AND THAT IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE. 
ARTICLE II, SECTION 3 ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE PRESIDENT "SHALL TAKE CARE
THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED."  BUT, AS MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER POINT OUT, THE POWER TO EXECUTE THE LAWS STARTS
AND ENDS WITH THE LAWS CONGRESS HAS ENACTED. 

THE GREAT OFFICE OF PRESIDENT IS NOT A WEAK AND POWERLESS ONE.  THE
PRESIDENT REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE AND IS THEIR SPOKESMAN IN DOMESTIC AND
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  THE OFFICE IS RESPECTED MORE THAN ANY OTHER IN THE
LAND.  IT GIVES A POSITION OF LEADERSHIP THAT IS UNIQUE.  THE POWER TO
FORMULATE POLICIES AND MOULD OPINION INHERES IN THE PRESIDENCY AND
CONDITIONS OUR NATIONAL LIFE.  THE IMPACT OF THE MAN AND THE PHILOSOPHY
HE REPRESENTS MAY AT TIMES BE THWARTED BY THE CONGRESS.  STALEMATES MAY
OCCUR WHEN EMERGENCIES MOUNT AND THE NATION SUFFERS FOR LACK OF
HARMONIOUS, RECIPROCAL ACTION BETWEEN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CAPITOL
HILL.  THAT IS A RISK INHERENT IN OUR SYSTEM OF SEPARATION OF POWERS. 
THE TRAGEDY OF SUCH STALEMATES MIGHT BE AVOIDED BY ALLOWING THE
PRESIDENT THE USE OF SOME LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.  THE FRAMERS WITH
MEMORIES OF THE TYRANNIES PRODUCED BY A BLENDING OF EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATIVE POWER REJECTED THAT POLITICAL ARRANGEMENT.  SOME FUTURE
GENERATION MAY, HOWEVER, DEEM IT SO URGENT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAVE
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY THAT THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE AMENDED.  WE COULD
NOT SANCTION THE SEIZURES AND CONDEMNATIONS OF THE STEEL PLANTS IN THIS
CASE WITHOUT READING ARTICLE II AS GIVING THE PRESIDENT NOT ONLY THE
POWER TO EXECUTE THE LAWS BUT TO MAKE SOME.  SUCH A STEP WOULD MOST
ASSUREDLY ALTER THE PATTERN OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

WE PAY A PRICE FOR OUR SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF POWER AMONG THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.  IT IS A
PRICE THAT TODAY MAY SEEM EXORBITANT TO MANY.  TODAY A KINDLY PRESIDENT
USES THE SEIZURE POWER TO EFFECT A WAGE INCREASE AND TO KEEP THE STEEL
FURNACES IN PRODUCTION.  YET TOMORROW ANOTHER PRESIDENT MIGHT USE THE
SAME POWER TO PREVENT A WAGE INCREASE, TO CURB TRADE-UNIONISTS, TO
REGIMENT LABOR AS OPPRESSIVELY AS INDUSTRY THINKS IT HAS BEEN
REGIMENTED BY THIS SEIZURE. 

FN1  WHAT A PRESIDENT MAY DO AS A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY OR EXTREMITY
MAY NEVER REACH A DEFINITIVE CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION.  FOR EXAMPLE,
PRESIDENT LINCOLN SUSPENDED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, CLAIMING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO.  SEE EX PARTE MERRYMAN, 17 FED. CAS. NO.
9,487.  CONGRESS RATIFIED HIS ACTION BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863.  12
STAT. 755. 

FN2  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN UNITED STATES V.
NORTH AMERICAN CO., 253 U.S. 330, 333, STATED THAT THE BASIS OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY FOR A TAKING OF PROPERTY WAS LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY, "IN ORDER THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE LIABLE IT MUST APPEAR
THAT THE OFFICER WHO HAS PHYSICALLY TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY
WAS DULY AUTHORIZED SO TO DO, EITHER DIRECTLY BY CONGRESS OR BY THE
OFFICIAL UPON WHOM CONGRESS CONFERRED THE POWER." 

THAT THEORY EXPLAINS CASES LIKE UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328 U.S.
256, WHERE THE ACTS OF THE OFFICIALS RESULTING IN A TAKING WERE ACTS
AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESS, THOUGH THE CONGRESS HAD NOT TREATED THE
ACTS AS ONE OF APPROPRIATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. 

WARTIME SEIZURES BY THE MILITARY IN CONNECTION WITH MILITARY
OPERATIONS (CF. UNITED STATES V. RUSSELL, 13 WALL.  623) ARE ALSO IN A
DIFFERENT CATEGORY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT AND OPINION OF THE
COURT. 

THAT COMPREHENSIVE AND UNDEFINED PRESIDENTIAL POWERS HOLD BOTH
PRACTICAL ADVANTAGES AND GRAVE DANGERS FOR THE COUNTRY WILL IMPRESS
ANYONE WHO HAS SERVED AS LEGAL ADVISER TO A PRESIDENT IN TIME OF
TRANSITION AND PUBLIC ANXIETY.  WHILE AN INTERVAL OF DETACHED
REFLECTION MAY TEMPER TEACHINGS OF THAT EXPERIENCE, THEY PROBABLY ARE A
MORE REALISTIC INFLUENCE ON MY VIEWS THAN THE CONVENTIONAL MATERIALS OF
JUDICIAL DECISION WHICH SEEM UNDULY TO ACCENTUATE DOCTRINE AND LEGAL
FICTION.  BUT AS WE APPROACH THE QUESTION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER, WE
HALF OVERCOME MENTAL HAZARDS BY RECOGNIZING THEM.  THE OPINIONS OF
JUDGES, NO LESS THAN EXECUTIVES AND PUBLICISTS, OFTEN SUFFER THE
INFIRMITY OF CONFUSING THE ISSUE OF A POWER'S VALIDITY WITH THE CAUSE
IT IS INVOKED TO PROMOTE, OF CONFOUNDING THE PERMANENT EXECUTIVE OFFICE
WITH ITS TEMPORARY OCCUPANT.  THE TENDENCY IS STRONG TO EMPHASIZE
TRANSIENT RESULTS UPON POLICIES - SUCH AS WAGES OR STABILIZATION - AND
LOSE SIGHT OF ENDURING CONSEQUENCES UPON THE BALANCED POWER STRUCTURE
OF OUR REPUBLIC. 

A JUDGE, LIKE AN EXECUTIVE ADVISER, MAY BE SURPRISED AT THE POVERTY
OF REALLY USEFUL AND UNAMBIGUOUS AUTHORITY APPLICABLE TO CONCRETE
PROBLEMS OF EXECUTIVE POWER AS THEY ACTUALLY PRESENT THEMSELVES.  JUST
WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS DID ENVISION, OR WOULD HAVE ENVISIONED HAD THEY
FORESEEN MODERN CONDITIONS, MUST BE DIVINED FROM MATERIALS ALMOST AS
ENIGMATIC AS THE DREAMS JOSEPH WAS CALLED UPON TO INTERPRET FOR
PHARAOH.  A CENTURY AND A HALF OF PARTISAN DEBATE AND SCHOLARLY
SPECULATION YIELDS NO NET RESULT BUT ONLY SUPPLIES MORE OR LESS APT
QUOTATIONS FROM RESPECTED SOURCES ON EACH SIDE OF ANY QUESTION.  THEY
LARGELY CANCEL EACH OTHER.  (FN1)  AND COURT DECISIONS ARE INDECISIVE
BECAUSE OF THE JUDICIAL PRACTICE OF DEALING WITH THE LARGEST QUESTIONS
IN THE MOST NARROW WAY. 

THE ACTUAL ART OF GOVERNING UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AND
CANNOT CONFORM TO JUDICIAL DEFINITIONS OF THE POWER OF ANY OF ITS
BRANCHES BASED ON ISOLATED CLAUSES OR EVEN SINGLE ARTICLES TORN FROM
CONTEXT.  WHILE THE CONSTITUTION DIFFUSES POWER THE BETTER TO SECURE
LIBERTY, IT ALSO CONTEMPLATES THAT PRACTICE WILL INTEGRATE THE
DISPERSED POWERS INTO A WORKABLE GOVERNMENT.  IT ENJOINS UPON ITS
BRANCHES SEPARATENESS BUT INTERDEPENDENCE, AUTONOMY BUT RECIPROCITY. 
PRESIDENTIAL POWERS ARE NOT FIXED BUT FLUCTUATE, DEPENDING UPON THEIR
DISJUNCTION OR CONJUNCTION WITH THOSE OF CONGRESS.  WE MAY WELL BEGIN
BY A SOMEWHAT OVER-SIMPLIFIED GROUPING OF PRACTICAL SITUATIONS IN WHICH
A PRESIDENT MAY DOUBT, OR OTHERS MAY CHALLENGE, HIS POWERS, AND BY
DISTINGUISHING ROUGHLY THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS FACTOR OF
RELATIVITY. 

1.  WHEN THE PRESIDENT ACTS PURSUANT TO AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS, HIS AUTHORITY IS AT ITS MAXIMUM, FOR IT
INCLUDES ALL THAT HE POSSESSES IN HIS OWN RIGHT PLUS ALL THAT CONGRESS
CAN DELEGATE.  (FN2)  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN THESE ONLY, MAY HE
BE SAID (FOR WHAT IT MAY BE WORTH) TO PERSONIFY THE FEDERAL
SOVEREIGNTY.  IF HIS ACT IS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT USUALLY MEANS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS AN
UNDIVIDED WHOLE LACKS POWER.   A SEIZURE EXECUTED BY THE PRESIDENT
PURSUANT TO AN ACT OF CONGRESS WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE STRONGEST OF
PRESUMPTIONS AND THE WIDEST LATITUDE OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, AND
THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION WOULD REST HEAVILY UPON ANY WHO MIGHT ATTACK
IT. 

2.  WHEN THE PRESIDENT ACTS IN ABSENCE OF EITHER A CONGRESSIONAL
GRANT OR DENIAL OF AUTHORITY, HE CAN ONLY RELY UPON HIS OWN INDEPENDENT
POWERS, BUT THERE IS A ZONE OF TWILIGHT IN WHICH HE AND CONGRESS MAY
HAVE CONCURRENT AUTHORITY, OR IN WHICH ITS DISTRIBUTION IS UNCERTAIN. 
THEREFORE, CONGRESSIONAL INERTIA, INDIFFERENCE OR QUIESCENCE MAY
SOMETIMES, AT LEAST AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, ENABLE, IF NOT INVITE,
MEASURES ON INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL RESPONSIBILITY.  IN THIS AREA, ANY
ACTUAL TEST OF POWER IS LIKELY TO DEPEND ON THE IMPERATIVES OF EVENTS
AND CONTEMPORARY IMPONDERABLES RATHER THAN ON ABSTRACT THEORIES OF
LAW.  (FN3) 

3.  WHEN THE PRESIDENT TAKES MEASURES INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED WILL OF CONGRESS, HIS POWER IS AT ITS LOWEST EBB, FOR THEN
HE CAN RELY ONLY UPON HIS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS MINUS ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF CONGRESS OVER THE MATTER.  COURTS CAN SUSTAIN
EXCLUSIVE PRESIDENTIAL CONTROL IN SUCH A CASE ONLY BY DISABLING THE
CONGRESS FROM ACTING UPON THE SUBJECT.  (FN4) PRESIDENTIAL CLAIM TO A
POWER AT ONCE SO CONCLUSIVE AND PRECLUSIVE MUST BE SCRUTINIZED WITH
CAUTION, FOR WHAT IS AT STAKE IS THE EQUILIBRIUM ESTABLISHED BY OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. 

INTO WHICH OF THESE CLASSIFICATIONS DOES THIS EXECUTIVE SEIZURE OF
THE STEEL INDUSTRY FIT?  IT IS ELIMINATED FROM THE FIRST BY ADMISSION,
FOR IT IS CONCEDED THAT NO CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION EXISTS FOR THIS
SEIZURE.  THAT TAKES AWAY ALSO THE SUPPORT OF THE MANY PRECEDENTS AND
DECLARATIONS WHICH WERE MADE IN RELATION, AND MUST BE CONFINED, TO THIS
CATEGORY.  (FN5) 

CAN IT THEN BE DEFENDED UNDER FLEXIBLE TESTS AVAILABLE TO THE SECOND
CATEGORY?  IT SEEMS CLEARLY ELIMINATED FROM THAT CLASS BECAUSE CONGRESS
HAS NOT LEFT SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AN OPEN FIELD BUT HAS COVERED
IT BY THREE STATUTORY POLICIES INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SEIZURE.  IN
CASES WHERE THE PURPOSE IS TO SUPPLY NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF,
TWO COURSES ARE PROVIDED:  ONE, SEIZURE OF A PLANT WHICH FAILS TO
COMPLY WITH OBLIGATORY ORDERS PLACED BY THE GOVERNMENT; (FN6) ANOTHER,
CONDEMNATION OF FACILITIES, INCLUDING TEMPORARY USE UNDER THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN.  (FN7)  THE THIRD IS APPLICABLE WHERE IT IS THE GENERAL
ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY THAT IS TO BE PROTECTED RATHER THAN EXCLUSIVE
GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS.  (FN8)  NONE OF THESE WERE INVOKED.  IN
CHOOSING A DIFFERENT AND INCONSISTENT WAY OF HIS OWN, THE PRESIDENT
CANNOT CLAIM THAT IT IS NECESSITATED OR INVITED BY FAILURE OF CONGRESS
TO LEGISLATE UPON THE OCCASIONS, GROUNDS AND METHODS FOR SEIZURE OF
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES. 

THIS LEAVES THE CURRENT SEIZURE TO BE JUSTIFIED ONLY BY THE SEVERE
TESTS UNDER THE THIRD GROUPING, WHERE IT CAN BE SUPPORTED ONLY BY ANY
REMAINDER OF EXECUTIVE POWER AFTER SUBTRACTION OF SUCH POWERS AS
CONGRESS MAY HAVE OVER THE SUBJECT.  IN SHORT, WE CAN SUSTAIN THE
PRESIDENT ONLY BY HOLDING THAT SEIZURE OF SUCH STRIKE-BOUND INDUSTRIES
IS WITHIN HIS DOMAIN AND BEYOND CONTROL BY CONGRESS.  THUS, THIS
COURT'S FIRST REVIEW OF SUCH SEIZURES OCCURS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
LEAVE PRESIDENTIAL POWER MOST VULNERABLE TO ATTACK AND IN THE LEAST
FAVORABLE OF POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL POSTURES.    I DID NOT SUPPOSE,
AND I AM NOT PERSUADED, THAT HISTORY LEAVES IT OPEN TO QUESTION, AT
LEAST IN THE COURTS, THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, LIKE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE, POSSESSES ONLY DELEGATED POWERS.  THE PURPOSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT ONLY TO GRANT POWER, BUT TO KEEP IT FROM
GETTING OUT OF HAND.  HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT ENJOY
UNMENTIONED POWERS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE MENTIONED ONES SHOULD BE
NARROWED BY A NIGGARDLY CONSTRUCTION.  SOME CLAUSES COULD BE MADE
ALMOST UNWORKABLE, AS WELL AS IMMUTABLE, BY REFUSAL TO INDULGE SOME
LATITUDE OF INTERPRETATION FOR CHANGING TIMES.  I HAVE HERETOFORE, AND
DO NOW, GIVE TO THE ENUMERATED POWERS THE SCOPE AND ELASTICITY AFFORDED
BY WHAT SEEM TO BE REASONABLE, PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS INSTEAD OF THE
RIGIDITY DICTATED BY A DOCTRINAIRE TEXTUALISM. 

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SEEKS THE POWER OF SEIZURE IN THREE CLAUSES OF
THE EXECUTIVE ARTICLE, THE FIRST READING, "THE EXECUTIVE POWER SHALL BE
VESTED IN A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."  LEST I BE
THOUGHT TO EXAGGERATE, I QUOTE THE INTERPRETATION WHICH HIS BRIEF PUTS
UPON IT:  "IN OUR VIEW, THIS CLAUSE CONSTITUTES A GRANT OF ALL THE
EXECUTIVE POWERS OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS CAPABLE."  IF THAT BE TRUE,
IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY THE FOREFATHERS BOTHERED TO ADD SEVERAL
SPECIFIC ITEMS, INCLUDING SOME TRIFLING ONES.  (FN9) 

THE EXAMPLE OF SUCH UNLIMITED EXECUTIVE POWER THAT MUST HAVE MOST
IMPRESSED THE FOREFATHERS WAS THE PREROGATIVE EXERCISED BY GEORGE III,
AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ITS EVILS IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
LEADS ME TO DOUBT THAT THEY WERE CREATING THEIR NEW EXECUTIVE IN HIS
IMAGE.  CONTINENTAL EUROPEAN EXAMPLES WERE NO MORE APPEALING.  AND IF
WE SEEK INSTRUCTION FROM OUR OWN TIMES, WE CAN MATCH IT ONLY FROM THE
EXECUTIVE POWERS IN THOSE GOVERNMENTS WE DISPARAGINGLY DESCRIBE AS
TOTALITARIAN.  I CANNOT ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT THIS CLAUSE IS A GRANT IN
BULK OF ALL CONCEIVABLE EXECUTIVE POWER BUT REGARD IT AS AN ALLOCATION
TO THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE OF THE GENERIC POWERS THEREAFTER STATED. 

THE CLAUSE ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT NEXT RELIES IS THAT "THE PRESIDENT
SHALL BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY OF THE UNITED STATES
...  ."  THESE CRYPTIC WORDS HAVE GIVEN RISE TO SOME OF THE MOST
PERSISTENT CONTROVERSIES IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.  OF COURSE,
THEY IMPLY SOMETHING MORE THAN AN EMPTY TITLE.  BUT JUST WHAT AUTHORITY
GOES WITH THE NAME HAS PLAGUED PRESIDENTIAL ADVISERS WHO WOULD NOT
WAIVE OR NARROW IT BY NONASSERTION YET CANNOT SAY WHERE IT BEGINS OR
ENDS.  IT UNDOUBTEDLY PUTS THE NATION'S ARMED FORCES UNDER PRESIDENTIAL
COMMAND.  HENCE, THIS LOOSE APPELLATION IS SOMETIMES ADVANCED AS
SUPPORT FOR ANY PRESIDENTIAL ACTION, INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL, INVOLVING
USE OF FORCE, THE IDEA BEING THAT IT VESTS POWER TO DO ANYTHING,
ANYWHERE, THAT CAN BE DONE WITH AN ARMY OR NAVY. 

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE LOGIC OF AN ARGUMENT TENDERED AT OUR BAR - THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAVING, ON HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY, SENT AMERICAN TROOPS
ABROAD DERIVES FROM THAT ACT "AFFIRMATIVE POWER" TO SEIZE THE MEANS OF
PRODUCING A SUPPLY OF STEEL FOR THEM.  TO QUOTE, "PERHAPS THE MOST
FORCEFUL ILLUSTRATION OF THE SCOPE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN THIS
CONNECTION IS THE FACT THAT AMERICAN TROOPS IN KOREA, WHOSE SAFETY AND
EFFECTIVENESS ARE SO DIRECTLY INVOLVED HERE, WERE SENT TO THE FIELD BY
AN EXERCISE OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS."  THUS, IT IS
SAID, HE HAS INVESTED HIMSELF WITH "WAR POWERS." 

I CANNOT FORESEE ALL THAT IT MIGHT ENTAIL IF THE COURT SHOULD INDORSE
THIS ARGUMENT.  NOTHING IN OUR CONSTITUTION IS PLAINER THAN THAT
DECLARATION OF A WAR IS ENTRUSTED ONLY TO CONGRESS.  OF COURSE, A STATE
OF WAR MAY IN FACT EXIST WITHOUT A FORMAL DECLARATION.  BUT NO DOCTRINE
THAT THE COURT COULD PROMULGATE WOULD SEEM TO ME MORE SINISTER AND
ALARMING THAN THAT A PRESIDENT WHOSE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS IS SO
LARGELY UNCONTROLLED, AND OFTEN EVEN IS UNKNOWN, CAN VASTLY ENLARGE HIS
MASTERY OVER THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY BY HIS OWN COMMITMENT
OF THE NATION'S ARMED FORCES TO SOME FOREIGN VENTURE.  (FN10)  I DO
NOT, HOWEVER, FIND IT NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE LEGAL
STATUS OF THE KOREAN ENTERPRISE TO DISCOUNTENANCE ARGUMENT BASED ON
IT. 

ASSUMING THAT WE ARE IN A WAR DE FACTO, WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT A WAR
DE JURE, DOES THAT EMPOWER THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF TO SEIZE INDUSTRIES
HE THINKS NECESSARY TO SUPPLY OUR ARMY?  THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY
PLACES IN CONGRESS POWER "TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES" AND "TO PROVIDE
AND MAINTAIN A NAVY."  THIS CERTAINLY LAYS UPON CONGRESS PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUPPLYING THE ARMED FORCES.  CONGRESS ALONE CONTROLS
THE RAISING OF REVENUES AND THEIR APPROPRIATION AND MAY DETERMINE IN
WHAT MANNER AND BY WHAT MEANS THEY SHALL BE SPENT FOR MILITARY AND
NAVAL PROCUREMENT.  I SUPPOSE NO ONE WOULD DOUBT THAT CONGRESS CAN TAKE
OVER WAR SUPPLY AS A GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF
CONGRESS SEES FIT TO RELY ON FREE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE COLLECTIVELY
BARGAINING WITH FREE LABOR FOR SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF OUR ARMED
FORCES, CAN THE EXECUTIVE, BECAUSE OF LAWFUL DISAGREEMENTS INCIDENTAL
TO THAT PROCESS, SEIZE THE FACILITY FOR OPERATION UPON GOVERNMENT
IMPOSED TERMS? 

THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT
THE TITLE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY WILL CONSTITUTE HIM
ALSO COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE COUNTRY, ITS INDUSTRIES AND ITS
INHABITANTS.  HE HAS NO MONOPOLY OF "WAR POWERS," WHATEVER THEY ARE. 
WHILE CONGRESS CANNOT DEPRIVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMAND OF THE ARMY
AND NAVY, ONLY CONGRESS CAN PROVIDE HIM AN ARMY OR NAVY TO COMMAND.  IT
IS ALSO EMPOWERED TO MAKE RULES FOR THE "GOVERNMENT AND REGULATION OF
LAND AND NAVAL FORCES," BY WHICH IT MAY TO SOME UNKNOWN EXTENT IMPINGE
UPON EVEN COMMAND FUNCTIONS. 

THAT MILITARY POWERS OF THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF WERE NOT TO SUPERSEDE
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS SEEMS OBVIOUS FROM THE
CONSTITUTION AND FROM ELEMENTARY AMERICAN HISTORY.  TIME OUT OF MIND,
AND EVEN NOW IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD, A MILITARY COMMANDER CAN SEIZE
PRIVATE HOUSING TO SHELTER HIS TROOPS.  NO SO, HOWEVER, IN THE UNITED
STATES, FOR THE THIRD AMENDMENT SAYS, "NO SOLDIER SHALL, IN TIME OF
PEACE BE QUARTERED IN ANY HOUSE, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER, NOR
IN TIME OF WAR, BUT IN A MANNER TO BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW."  THUS, EVEN
IN WAR TIME, HIS SEIZURE OF NEEDED MILITARY HOUSING MUST BE AUTHORIZED
BY CONGRESS.  IT ALSO WAS EXPRESSLY LEFT TO CONGRESS TO "PROVIDE FOR
CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE UNION, SUPPRESS
INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS  ...  ."  (FN11)  SUCH A LIMITATION
ON THE COMMAND POWER, WRITTEN AT A TIME WHEN THE MILITIA RATHER THAN A
STANDING ARMY WAS CONTEMPLATED AS THE MILITARY WEAPON OF THE REPUBLIC,
UNDERSCORES THE CONSTITUTION'S POLICY THAT CONGRESS, NOT THE EXECUTIVE,
SHOULD CONTROL UTILIZATION OF THE WAR POWER AS AN INSTRUMENT OF
DOMESTIC POLICY.  CONGRESS, FULFILLING THAT FUNCTION, HAS AUTHORIZED
THE PRESIDENT TO USE THE ARMY TO ENFORCE CERTAIN CIVIL RIGHTS.  (FN12)
ON THE OTHER HAND, CONGRESS HAS FORBIDDEN HIM TO USE THE ARMY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EXECUTING GENERAL LAWS EXCEPT WHEN EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY
THE CONSTITUTION OR BY ACT OF CONGRESS.  (FN13) 

WHILE BROAD CLAIMS UNDER THIS RUBRIC OFTEN HAVE BEEN MADE, ADVICE TO
THE PRESIDENT IN SPECIFIC MATTERS USUALLY HAS CARRIED OVERTONES THAT
POWERS, EVEN UNDER THIS HEAD, ARE MEASURED BY THE COMMAND FUNCTIONS
USUAL TO THE TOPMOST OFFICER OF THE ARMY AND NAVY.  EVEN THEN, HEED HAS
BEEN TAKEN OF ANY EFFORTS OF CONGRESS TO NEGATIVE HIS AUTHORITY. 
(FN14) 

WE SHOULD NOT USE THIS OCCASION TO CIRCUMSCRIBE, MUCH LESS TO
CONTRACT, THE LAWFUL ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.  I
SHOULD INDULGE THE WIDEST LATITUDE OF INTERPRETATION TO SUSTAIN HIS
EXCLUSIVE FUNCTION TO COMMAND THE INSTRUMENTS OF NATIONAL FORCE, AT
LEAST WHEN TURNED AGAINST THE OUTSIDE WORLD FOR THE SECURITY OF OUR
SOCIETY.  BUT, WHEN IT IS TURNED INWARD, NOT BECAUSE OF REBELLION BUT
BECAUSE OF A LAWFUL ECONOMIC STRUGGLE BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND LABOR, IT
SHOULD HAVE NO SUCH INDULGENCE.  HIS COMMAND POWER IS NOT SUCH AN
ABSOLUTE AS MIGHT BE IMPLIED FROM THAT OFFICE IN A MILITARISTIC SYSTEM
BUT IS SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS CONSISTENT WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
WHOSE LAW AND POLICY-MAKING BRANCH IS A REPRESENTATIVE CONGRESS.  THE
PURPOSE OF LODGING DUAL TITLES IN ONE MAN WAS TO INSURE THAT THE
CIVILIAN WOULD CONTROL THE MILITARY, NOT TO ENABLE THE MILITARY TO
SUBORDINATE THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE.  NO PENANCE WOULD EVER EXPIATE THE
SIN AGAINST FREE GOVERNMENT OF HOLDING THAT A PRESIDENT CAN ESCAPE
CONTROL OF EXECUTIVE POWERS BY LAW THROUGH ASSUMING HIS MILITARY ROLE. 
WHAT THE POWER OF COMMAND MAY INCLUDE I DO NOT TRY TO ENVISION, BUT I
THINK IT IS NOT A MILITARY PREROGATIVE, WITHOUT SUPPORT OF LAW, TO
SEIZE PERSONS OR PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPORTANT OR EVEN ESSENTIAL
FOR THE MILITARY AND NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT. 

THE THIRD CLAUSE IN WHICH THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FINDS SEIZURE POWERS
IS THAT "HE SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED  ...
."  (FN15)  THAT AUTHORITY MUST BE MATCHED AGAINST WORDS OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT THAT "NO PERSON SHALL BE  ...  DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW  ...  ."  ONE GIVES A GOVERNMENTAL
AUTHORITY THAT REACHES SO FAR AS THERE IS LAW, THE OTHER GIVES A
PRIVATE RIGHT THAT AUTHORITY SHALL GO NO FARTHER.  THESE SIGNIFY ABOUT
ALL THERE IS OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT OURS IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, NOT OF
MEN, AND THAT WE SUBMIT OURSELVES TO RULERS ONLY IF UNDER RULES. 

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL LASTLY GROUNDS SUPPORT OF THE SEIZURE UPON
NEBULOUS, INHERENT POWERS NEVER EXPRESSLY GRANTED BUT SAID TO HAVE
ACCRUED TO THE OFFICE FROM THE CUSTOMS AND CLAIMS OF PRECEDING
ADMINISTRATIONS.  THE PLEA IS FOR A RESULTING POWER TO DEAL WITH A
CRISIS OR AN EMERGENCY ACCORDING TO THE NECESSITIES OF THE CASE, THE
UNARTICULATED ASSUMPTION BEING THAT NECESSITY KNOWS NO LAW. 

LOOSE AND IRRESPONSIBLE USE OF ADJECTIVES COLORS ALL NONLEGAL AND
MUCH LEGAL DISCUSSION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.  "INHERENT" POWERS,
"IMPLIED" POWERS, "INCIDENTAL" POWERS, "PLENARY" POWERS, "WAR" POWERS
AND "EMERGENCY" POWERS ARE USED, OFTEN INTERCHANGEABLY AND WITHOUT
FIXED OR ASCERTAINABLE MEANINGS. 

THE VAGUENESS AND GENERALITY OF THE CLAUSES THAT SET FORTH
PRESIDENTIAL POWERS AFFORD A PLAUSIBLE BASIS FOR PRESSURES WITHIN AND
WITHOUT AN ADMINISTRATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL ACTION BEYOND THAT SUPPORTED
BY THOSE WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO DEFEND HIS ACTIONS IN COURT. 
THE CLAIM OF INHERENT AND UNRESTRICTED PRESIDENTIAL POWERS HAS LONG
BEEN A PERSUASIVE DIALECTICAL WEAPON IN POLITICAL CONTROVERSY.  WHILE
IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT COUNSEL SHOULD GRASP SUPPORT FROM SUCH
UNADJUDICATED CLAIMS OF POWER, A JUDGE CANNOT ACCEPT SELF-SERVING PRESS
STATEMENTS OF THE ATTORNEY FOR ONE OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES AS
AUTHORITY IN ANSWERING A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, EVEN IF THE ADVOCATE
WAS HIMSELF.  BUT PRUDENCE HAS COUNSELED THAT ACTUAL RELIANCE ON SUCH
NEBULOUS CLAIMS STOP SHORT OF PROVOKING A JUDICIAL TEST.  (FN16) 

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT CONGRESS HAS NEVER
AUTHORIZED THE SEIZURE HERE, SAYS PRACTICE OF PRIOR PRESIDENTS HAS
AUTHORIZED IT.  HE SEEKS COLOR OF LEGALITY FROM CLAIMED EXECUTIVE
PRECEDENTS, CHIEF OF WHICH IS PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S SEIZURE ON JUNE 9,
1941, OF THE CALIFORNIA PLANT OF THE NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION COMPANY. 
ITS SUPERFICIAL SIMILARITIES WITH THE PRESENT CASE, UPON ANALYSIS,
YIELD TO DISTINCTIONS SO DECISIVE THAT IT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS EVEN A
PRECEDENT, MUCH LESS AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PRESENT SEIZURE.  (FN17) 

THE APPEAL, HOWEVER, THAT WE DECLARE THE EXISTENCE OF INHERENT POWERS
EX NECESSITATE TO MEET AN EMERGENCY ASKS US TO DO WHAT MANY THINK WOULD
BE WISE, ALTHOUGH IT IS SOMETHING THE FOREFATHERS OMITTED.  THEY KNEW
WHAT EMERGENCIES WERE, KNEW THE PRESSURES THEY ENGENDER FOR
AUTHORITATIVE ACTION, KNEW, TOO, HOW THEY AFFORD A READY PRETEXT FOR
USURPATION.  WE MAY ALSO SUSPECT THAT THEY SUSPECTED THAT EMERGENCY
POWERS WOULD TEND TO KINDLE EMERGENCIES.  ASIDE FROM SUSPENSION OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN TIME OF REBELLION OR
INVASION, WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY MAY REQUIRE IT, (FN18) THEY MADE NO
EXPRESS PROVISION FOR EXERCISE OF EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF A
CRISIS.  (FN19)  I DO NOT THINK WE RIGHTFULLY MAY SO AMEND THEIR WORK,
AND, IF WE COULD, I AM NOT CONVINCED IT WOULD BE WISE TO DO SO,
ALTHOUGH MANY MODERN NATIONS HAVE FORTHRIGHTLY RECOGNIZED THAT WAR AND
ECONOMIC CRISES MAY UPSET THE NORMAL BALANCE BETWEEN LIBERTY AND
AUTHORITY.  THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH EMERGENCY POWERS MAY NOT BE
IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT HERE THAT WE SHOULD SAY THAT THE EXECUTIVE,
OF HIS OWN VOLITION, CAN INVEST HIMSELF WITH UNDEFINED EMERGENCY
POWERS. 

GERMANY, AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR, FRAMED THE WEIMAR CONSTITUTION,
DESIGNED TO SECURE HER LIBERTIES IN THE WESTERN TRADITION.  HOWEVER,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, WITHOUT CONCURRENCE OF THE REICHSTAG,
WAS EMPOWERED TEMPORARILY TO SUSPEND ANY OR ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND ORDER WERE SERIOUSLY DISTURBED OR ENDANGERED.  THIS
PROVED A TEMPTATION TO EVERY GOVERNMENT, WHATEVER ITS SHADE OF OPINION,
AND IN 13 YEARS SUSPENSION OF RIGHTS WAS INVOKED ON MORE THAN 250
OCCASIONS.  FINALLY, HITLER PERSUADED PRESIDENT VON HINDENBERG TO
SUSPEND ALL SUCH RIGHTS, AND THEY WERE NEVER RESTORED.  (FN20) 

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC PROVIDED FOR A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF EMERGENCY
GOVERNMENT KNOWN AS THE "STATE OF SIEGE."  IT DIFFERED FROM THE GERMAN
EMERGENCY DICTATORSHIP, PARTICULARLY IN THAT EMERGENCY POWERS COULD NOT
BE ASSUMED AT WILL BY THE EXECUTIVE BUT COULD ONLY BE GRANTED AS A
PARLIAMENTARY MEASURE.  AND IT DID NOT, AS IN GERMANY, RESULT IN A
SUSPENSION OR ABROGATION OF LAW BUT WAS A LEGAL INSTITUTION GOVERNED BY
SPECIAL LEGAL RULES AND TERMINABLE BY PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY.  (FN21) 
GREAT BRITAIN ALSO HAS FOUGHT BOTH WORLD WARS UNDER A SORT OF
TEMPORARY DICTATORSHIP CREATED BY LEGISLATION.  (FN22)  AS PARLIAMENT
IS NOT BOUND BY WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, IT ESTABLISHED A
CRISIS GOVERNMENT SIMPLY BY DELEGATION TO ITS MINISTERS OF A LARGER
MEASURE THAN USUAL OF ITS OWN UNLIMITED POWER, WHICH IS EXERCISED UNDER
ITS SUPERVISION BY MINISTERS WHOM IT MAY DISMISS.  THIS HAS BEEN CALLED
THE "HIGH-WATER MARK IN THE VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF LIBERTY," BUT, AS
CHURCHILL PUT IT, "PARLIAMENT STANDS CUSTODIAN OF THESE SURRENDERED
LIBERTIES, AND ITS MOST SACRED DUTY WILL BE TO RESTORE THEM IN THEIR
FULLNESS WHEN VICTORY HAS CROWNED OUR EXERTIONS AND OUR PERSEVERANCE." 
(FN23)  THUS, PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL MADE EMERGENCY POWERS COMPATIBLE
WITH FREEDOM. 

THIS CONTEMPORARY FOREIGN EXPERIENCE MAY BE INCONCLUSIVE AS TO THE
WISDOM OF LODGING EMERGENCY POWERS SOMEWHERE IN A MODERN GOVERNMENT. 
BUT IT SUGGESTS THAT EMERGENCY POWERS ARE CONSISTENT WITH FREE
GOVERNMENT ONLY WHEN THEIR CONTROL IS LODGED ELSEWHERE THAN IN THE
EXECUTIVE WHO EXERCISES THEM.  THAT IS THE SAFEGUARD THAT WOULD BE
NULLIFIED BY OUR ADOPTION OF THE "INHERENT POWERS" FORMULA.  NOTHING IN
MY EXPERIENCE CONVINCES ME THAT SUCH RISKS ARE WARRANTED BY ANY REAL
NECESSITY, ALTHOUGH SUCH POWERS WOULD, OF COURSE, BE AN EXECUTIVE
CONVENIENCE. 

IN THE PRACTICAL WORKING OF OUR GOVERNMENT WE ALREADY HAVE EVOLVED A
TECHNIQUE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION BY WHICH NORMAL
EXECUTIVE POWERS MAY BE CONSIDERABLY EXPANDED TO MEET AN EMERGENCY. 
CONGRESS MAY AND HAS GRANTED EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITIES WHICH LIE
DORMANT IN NORMAL TIMES BUT MAY BE CALLED INTO PLAY BY THE EXECUTIVE IN
WAR OR UPON PROCLAMATION OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  IN 1939, UPON
CONGRESSIONAL REQUEST, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LISTED NINETY-NINE SUCH
SEPARATE STATUTORY GRANTS BY CONGRESS OF EMERGENCY OR WARTIME EXECUTIVE
POWERS.  (FN24)  THEY WERE INVOKED FROM TIME TO TIME AS NEED APPEARED. 
UNDER THIS PROCEDURE WE RETAIN GOVERNMENT BY LAW - SPECIAL, TEMPORARY
LAW, PERHAPS, BUT LAW NONETHELESS.  THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW THE EXTENT AND
LIMITATIONS OF THE POWERS THAT CAN BE ASSERTED, AND PERSONS AFFECTED
MAY BE INFORMED FROM THE STATUTE OF THEIR RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 

IN VIEW OF THE EASE, EXPEDITION AND SAFETY WITH WHICH CONGRESS CAN
GRANT AND HAS GRANTED LARGE EMERGENCY POWERS, CERTAINLY AMPLE TO
EMBRACE THIS CRISIS, I AM QUITE UNIMPRESSED WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT WE
SHOULD AFFIRM POSSESSION OF THEM WITHOUT STATUTE.  SUCH POWER EITHER
HAS NO BEGINNING OR IT HAS NO END.  IF IT EXISTS, IT NEED SUBMIT TO NO
LEGAL RESTRAINT.  I AM NOT ALARMED THAT IT WOULD PLUNGE US STRAIGHTWAY
INTO DICTATORSHIP, BUT IT IS AT LEAST A STEP IN THAT WRONG DIRECTION. 

AS TO WHETHER THERE IS IMPERATIVE NECESSITY FOR SUCH POWERS, IT IS
RELEVANT TO NOTE THE GAP THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT'S PAPER
POWERS AND HIS REAL POWERS.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE
MEASURE OF THE ACTUAL CONTROLS WIELDED BY THE MODERN PRESIDENTIAL
OFFICE.  THAT INSTRUMENT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY
SKETCH OF A GOVERNMENT HOPED FOR, NOT AS A BLUEPRINT OF THE GOVERNMENT
THAT IS.  VAST ACCRETIONS OF FEDERAL POWER, ERODED FROM THAT RESERVED
BY THE STATES, HAVE MAGNIFIED THE SCOPE OF PRESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY. 
SUBTLE SHIFTS TAKE PLACE IN THE CENTERS OF REAL POWER THAT DO NOT SHOW
ON THE FACE OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

EXECUTIVE POWER HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF CONCENTRATION IN A SINGLE HEAD
IN WHOSE CHOICE THE WHOLE NATION HAS A PART, MAKING HIM THE FOCUS OF
PUBLIC HOPES AND EXPECTATIONS.  IN DRAMA, MAGNITUDE AND FINALITY HIS
DECISIONS SO FAR OVERSHADOW ANY OTHERS THAT ALMOST ALONE HE FILLS THE
PUBLIC EYE AND EAR.  NO OTHER PERSONALITY IN PUBLIC LIFE CAN BEGIN TO
COMPETE WITH HIM IN ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC MIND THROUGH MODERN METHODS OF
COMMUNICATIONS.  BY HIS PRESTIGE AS HEAD OF STATE AND HIS INFLUENCE
UPON PUBLIC OPINION HE EXERTS A LEVERAGE UPON THOSE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO
CHECK AND BALANCE HIS POWER WHICH OFTEN CANCELS THEIR EFFECTIVENESS. 

MOREOVER, RISE OF THE PARTY SYSTEM HAS MADE A SIGNIFICANT
EXTRACONSTITUTIONAL SUPPLEMENT TO REAL EXECUTIVE POWER.  NO APPRAISAL
OF HIS NECESSITIES IS REALISTIC WHICH OVERLOOKS THAT HE HEADS A
POLITICAL SYSTEM AS WELL AS A LEGAL SYSTEM.  PARTY LOYALTIES AND
INTERESTS, SOMETIMES MORE BINDING THAN LAW, EXTEND HIS EFFECTIVE
CONTROL INTO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN HIS OWN AND HE OFTEN MAY
WIN, AS A POLITICAL LEADER, WHAT HE CANNOT COMMAND UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.  INDEED, WOODROW WILSON, COMMENTING ON THE PRESIDENT AS
LEADER BOTH OF HIS PARTY AND OF THE NATION, OBSERVED, "IF HE RIGHTLY
INTERPRET THE NATIONAL THOUGHT AND BOLDLY INSIST UPON IT, HE IS
IRRESISTIBLE  ...  .  HIS OFFICE IS ANYTHING HE HAS THE SAGACITY AND
FORCE TO MAKE IT."  (FN25)  I CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO BELIEVE THAT THIS
COUNTRY WILL SUFFER IF THE COURT REFUSES FURTHER TO AGGRANDIZE THE
PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE, ALREADY SO POTENT AND SO RELATIVELY IMMUNE FROM
JUDICIAL REVIEW, (FN26) AT THE EXPENSE OF CONGRESS. 

BUT I HAVE NO ILLUSION THAT ANY DECISION BY THIS COURT CAN KEEP POWER
IN THE HANDS OF CONGRESS IF IT IS NOT WISE AND TIMELY IN MEETING ITS
PROBLEMS.  A CRISIS THAT CHALLENGES THE PRESIDENT EQUALLY, OR PERHAPS
PRIMARILY, CHALLENGES CONGRESS.  IF NOT GOOD LAW, THERE WAS WORLDLY
WISDOM IN THE MAXIM ATTRIBUTED TO NAPOLEON THAT "THE TOOLS BELONG TO
THE MAN WHO CAN USE THEM."  WE MAY SAY THAT POWER TO LEGISLATE FOR
EMERGENCIES BELONGS IN THE HANDS OF CONGRESS, BUT ONLY CONGRESS ITSELF
CAN PREVENT POWER FROM SLIPPING THROUGH ITS FINGERS. 

THE ESSENCE OF OUR FREE GOVERNMENT IS "LEAVE TO LIVE BY NO MAN'S
LEAVE, UNDERNEATH THE LAW" - TO BE GOVERNED BY THOSE IMPERSONAL FORCES
WHICH WE CALL LAW.  OUR GOVERNMENT IS FASHIONED TO FULFILL THIS CONCEPT
SO FAR AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.  THE EXECUTIVE, EXCEPT FOR RECOMMENDATION
AND VETO, HAS NO LEGISLATIVE POWER.  THE EXECUTIVE ACTION WE HAVE HERE
ORIGINATES IN THE INDIVIDUAL WILL OF THE PRESIDENT AND REPRESENTS AN
EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY WITHOUT LAW.  NO ONE, PERHAPS NOT EVEN THE
PRESIDENT, KNOWS THE LIMITS OF THE POWER HE MAY SEEK TO EXERT IN THIS
INSTANCE AND THE PARTIES AFFECTED CANNOT LEARN THE LIMIT OF THEIR
RIGHTS.  WE DO NOT KNOW TODAY WHAT POWERS OVER LABOR OR PROPERTY WOULD
BE CLAIMED TO FLOW FROM GOVERNMENT POSSESSION IF WE SHOULD LEGALIZE IT,
WHAT RIGHTS TO COMPENSATION WOULD BE CLAIMED OR RECOGNIZED, OR ON WHAT
CONTINGENCY IT WOULD END.  WITH ALL ITS DEFECTS, DELAYS AND
INCONVENIENCES, MEN HAVE DISCOVERED NO TECHNIQUE FOR LONG PRESERVING
FREE GOVERNMENT EXCEPT THAT THE EXECUTIVE BE UNDER THE LAW, AND THAT
THE LAW BE MADE BY PARLIAMENTARY DELIBERATIONS. 

SUCH INSTITUTIONS MAY BE DESTINED TO PASS AWAY.  BUT IT IS THE DUTY OF
THE COURT TO BE LAST, NOT FIRST, TO GIVE THEM UP.  (FN27) 

FN1  A HAMILTON MAY BE MATCHED AGAINST A MADISON.  7 THE WORKS OF
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, 76-117; 1 MADISON, LETTERS AND OTHER WRITINGS, 611
654.  PROFESSOR TAFT IS COUNTERBALANCED BY THEODORE ROOSEVELT.  TAFT,
OUR CHIEF MAGISTRATE AND HIS POWERS, 139-140; THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 388-389.  IT EVEN SEEMS THAT PRESIDENT TAFT CANCELS OUT
PROFESSOR TAFT.  COMPARE HIS "TEMPORARY PETROLEUM WITHDRAWAL NO. 5" OF
SEPTEMBER 27, 1909, UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO., 236 U.S. 459,
467, 468, WITH HIS APPRAISAL OF EXECUTIVE POWER IN "OUR CHIEF
MAGISTRATE AND HIS POWERS" 139-140. 

FN2  IT IS IN THIS CLASS OF CASES THAT WE FIND THE BROADEST RECENT
STATEMENTS OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER, INCLUDING THOSE RELIED ON HERE. 
UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, INVOLVED, NOT THE
QUESTION OF THE PRESIDENT'S POWER TO ACT WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY, BUT THE QUESTION OF HIS RIGHT TO ACT UNDER AND IN ACCORD
WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH
THE PRESIDENT HAD PROCEEDED WAS ASSAILED ON THE GROUND THAT IT
DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO THE PRESIDENT.  MUCH OF THE COURT'S
OPINION IS DICTUM, BUT THE RATIO DECIDENDI IS CONTAINED IN THE
FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: 

"WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS TO BE AUTHORIZED BY LEGISLATION TO ACT IN
RESPECT OF A MATTER INTENDED TO AFFECT A SITUATION IN FOREIGN
TERRITORY, THE LEGISLATOR PROPERLY BEARS IN MIND THE IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATION THAT THE FORM OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION - OR, INDEED,
WHETHER HE SHALL ACT AT ALL - MAY WELL DEPEND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, UPON
THE NATURE OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH HE HAS OR MAY
THEREAFTER RECEIVE, OR UPON THE EFFECT WHICH HIS ACTION MAY HAVE UPON
OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.  THIS CONSIDERATION, IN CONNECTION WITH WHAT WE
HAVE ALREADY SAID ON THE SUBJECT, DISCLOSES THE UNWISDOM OF REQUIRING
CONGRESS IN THIS FIELD OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER TO LAY DOWN NARROWLY
DEFINITE STANDARDS BY WHICH THE PRESIDENT IS TO BE GOVERNED.  AS THIS
COURT SAID IN MACKENZIE V. HARE, 239 U.S. 299, 311, 'AS A GOVERNMENT,
THE UNITED STATES IS INVESTED WITH ALL THE ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY. 
AS IT HAS THE CHARACTER OF NATIONALITY IT HAS THE POWERS OF
NATIONALITY, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHICH CONCERN ITS RELATIONS AND
INTERCOURSE WITH OTHER COUNTRIES.  WE SHOULD HESITATE LONG BEFORE
LIMITING OR EMBARRASSING SUCH POWERS.'"  ID., AT 321-322. 

THAT CASE DOES NOT SOLVE THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  IT RECOGNIZED
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AS BEING IN SEPARATE CATEGORIES, AND HELD
THAT THE STRICT LIMITATION UPON CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS OF POWER TO
THE PRESIDENT OVER INTERNAL AFFAIRS DOES NOT APPLY WITH RESPECT TO
DELEGATIONS OF POWER IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.  IT WAS INTIMATED THAT THE
PRESIDENT MIGHT ACT IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY, BUT NOT THAT HE MIGHT ACT CONTRARY TO AN ACT OF CONGRESS. 

OTHER EXAMPLES OF WIDE DEFINITION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS UNDER
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION ARE CHICAGO & SOUTHERN AIR LINES, INC. V.
WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP., 333 U.S. 103, AND HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 81.  BUT SEE, JECKER V. MONTGOMERY, 13 HOW.  498, 515;
UNITED STATES V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 272 F. 311; AFF'D, 272
F.893; REV'D ON CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, 260 U.S. 754; UNITED STATES
HARNESS CO. V. GRAHAM, 288 F. 929. 

FN3  SINCE THE CONSTITUTION IMPLIES THAT THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
MAY BE SUSPENDED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BUT DOES NOT SAY BY WHOM,
PRESIDENT LINCOLN ASSERTED AND MAINTAINED IT AS AN EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
IN THE FACE OF JUDICIAL CHALLENGE AND DOUBT.  EX PARTE MERRYMAN, 17
FED. CAS. 144; EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2, 125; SEE EX PARTE
BOLLMAN, 4 CRANCH 75, 101.  CONGRESS EVENTUALLY RATIFIED HIS ACTION. 
HABEAS CORPUS ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, 12 STAT. 755.  SEE HALL, FREE
SPEECH IN WAR TIME, 21 COL. L. REV. 526.  COMPARE MYERS V. UNITED
STATES, 272 U.S. 52, WITH HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 602; AND HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, WITH THE CASE
AT BAR.  ALSO COMPARE EX PARTE VALLANDIGHAM, 1 WALL.  243, WITH EX
PARTE MILLIGAN, SUPRA. 

FN4  PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S EFFORT TO REMOVE A FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSIONER WAS FOUND TO BE CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF CONGRESS AND
IMPINGING UPON AN AREA OF CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL, AND SO HIS REMOVAL
POWER WAS CUT DOWN ACCORDINGLY.  HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 602.  HOWEVER, HIS EXCLUSIVE POWER OF REMOVAL IN EXECUTIVE
AGENCIES, AFFIRMED IN MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52, CONTINUED TO
BE ASSERTED AND MAINTAINED.  MORGAN V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 115
F.2D 990, CERT. DENIED, 312 U.S. 701; IN RE POWER TO REMOVE MEMBERS OF
THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 39 OP. ATTY. GEN. 145; PRESIDENT
ROOSEVELT'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS OF MARCH 23, 1938, THE PUBLIC PAPERS
AND ADDRESSES OF FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, 1938 (ROSENMAN), 151. 

FN5  THE OFT-CITED LOUISIANA PURCHASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS AS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS, BUT ONLY
WITH STATE AND FEDERAL POWER.  THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE WAS SUBJECT TO
RATHER ACADEMIC CRITICISM, NOT UPON THE GROUND THAT MR. JEFFERSON ACTED
WITHOUT AUTHORITY FROM CONGRESS, BUT THAT NEITHER HAD EXPRESS AUTHORITY
TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES BY PURCHASE OR
ANNEXATION.  MR. JEFFERSON HIMSELF HAD STRONGLY OPPOSED THE DOCTRINE
THAT THE STATES' DELEGATION OF POWERS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD
BE ENLARGED BY RESORT TO IMPLIED POWERS.  AFTERWARDS, IN A LETTER TO
JOHN BRECKENRIDGE, DATED AUGUST 12, 1803, HE DECLARED: 

"THE CONSTITUTION HAS MADE NO PROVISION FOR OUR HOLDING FOREIGN
TERRITORY, STILL LESS FOR INCORPORATING FOREIGN NATIONS INTO OUR
UNION.  THE EXECUTIVE IN SEIZING THE FUGITIVE OCCURRENCE WHICH SO MUCH
ADVANCES THE GOOD OF THEIR COUNTRY, HAVE DONE AN ACT BEYOND THE
CONSTITUTION.  THE LEGISLATURE IN CASTING BEHIND THEM METAPHYSICAL
SUBLETIES, AND RISKING THEMSELVES LIKE FAITHFUL SERVANTS, MUST RATIFY
AND PAY FOR IT, AND THROW THEMSELVES ON THEIR COUNTRY FOR DOING FOR
THEM UNAUTHORIZED, WHAT WE KNOW THEY WOULD HAVE DONE FOR THEMSELVES HAD
THEY BEEN IN A SITUATION TO DO IT."  10 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS
JEFFERSON 407, 411. 

FN6  SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948, SEC. 18, 62 STAT. 625, 50 U.S.C.
APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 468(C). 

FN7  DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950, SEC. 201, 64 STAT. 799, AMENDED,
65 STAT. 132, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2081.  FOR THE LATITUDE OF
THE CONDEMNATION POWER WHICH UNDERLIES THIS ACT, SEE UNITED STATES V.
WESTINGHOUSE CO., 339 U.S. 261, AND CASES THEREIN CITED. 

FN8  LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, SECS. 206-210, 61 STAT.
136, 155, 156, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 141, 176-180.  THE ANALYSIS,
HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THIS ACT ARE FULLY COVERED BY THE OPINION OF
THE COURT, SUPPLEMENTED BY THAT OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND OF MR.
JUSTICE BURTON, IN WHICH I CONCUR. 

FN9  "  ...  HE MAY REQUIRE THE OPINION, IN WRITING, OF THE PRINCIPAL
OFFICER IN EACH OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, UPON ANY SUBJECT RELATING
TO THE DUTIES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES  ...  ."  U.S. CONST., ART.
II, SEC. 2.  HE "  ...  SHALL COMMISSION ALL THE OFFICERS OF THE UNITED
STATES."  U.S. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 3.  MATTERS SUCH AS THOSE WOULD
SEEM TO BE INHERENT IN THE EXECUTIVE IF ANYTHING IS.    FN10  HOW
WIDELY THIS DOCTRINE ESPOUSED BY THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL DEPARTS FROM
THE EARLY VIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER IS SHOWN BY A COMPARISON. 
PRESIDENT JEFFERSON, WITHOUT AUTHORITY FROM CONGRESS, SENT THE AMERICAN
FLEET INTO THE MEDITERRANEAN, WHERE IT ENGAGED IN A NAVAL BATTLE WITH
THE TRIPOLITAN FLEET.  HE SENT A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS ON DECEMBER 8,
1801, IN WHICH HE SAID: 

"TRIPOLI, THE LEAST CONSIDERABLE OF THE BARBARY STATES, HAD COME
FORWARD WITH DEMANDS UNFOUNDED EITHER IN RIGHT OR IN COMPACT, AND HAD
PERMITTED ITSELF TO DENOUNCE WAR ON OUR FAILURE TO COMPLY BEFORE A
GIVEN DAY.  THE STYLE OF THE DEMAND ADMITTED BUT ONE ANSWER.  I SENT A
SMALL SQUADRON OF FRIGATES INTO THE MEDITERRANEAN  ...  WITH ORDERS TO
PROTECT OUR COMMERCE AGAINST THE THREATENED ATTACK  ...  .  OUR
COMMERCE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN WAS BLOCKADED AND THAT OF THE ATLANTIC IN
PERIL ...  .  ONE OF THE TRIPOLITAN CRUISERS HAVING FALLEN IN WITH AND
ENGAGED THE SMALL SCHOONER ENTERPRISE,  ...  WAS CAPTURED, AFTER A
HEAVY SLAUGHTER OF HER MEN  ...  .  UNAUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
WITHOUT THE SANCTION OF CONGRESS, TO GO BEYOND THE LINE OF DEFENSE, THE
VESSEL, BEING DISABLED FROM COMMITTING FURTHER HOSTILITIES, WAS
LIBERATED WITH ITS CREW.  THE LEGISLATURE WILL DOUBTLESS CONSIDER
WHETHER, BY AUTHORIZING MEASURES OF OFFENSE ALSO, THEY WILL PLACE OUR
FORCE ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THAT OF ITS ADVERSARIES.  I COMMUNICATE
ALL MATERIAL INFORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT, THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS
IMPORTANT FUNCTION CONFIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE LEGISLATURE
EXCLUSIVELY THEIR JUDGMENT MAY FORM ITSELF ON A KNOWLEDGE AND
CONSIDERATION OF EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE OF WEIGHT."  I RICHARDSON, MESSAGES
AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS, 314. 

FN11  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 15. 

FN12  14 STAT. 29, 16 STAT. 143, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 55. 

FN13  20 STAT. 152, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 15. 

FN14  IN 1940, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT PROPOSED TO TRANSFER TO GREAT
BRITAIN CERTAIN OVERAGE DESTROYERS AND SMALL PATROL BOATS THEN UNDER
CONSTRUCTION.  HE DID NOT PRESUME TO RELY UPON ANY CLAIM OF
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.  ON THE CONTRARY, HE WAS
ADVISED THAT SUCH DESTROYERS - IF CERTIFIED NOT TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE
DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES - COULD BE "TRANSFERRED, EXCHANGED, SOLD,
OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF," BECAUSE CONGRESS HAD SO AUTHORIZED HIM. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE DESTROYERS WERE EXCHANGED FOR AIR BASES.  IN THE SAME
OPINION, HE WAS ADVISED THAT CONGRESS HAD PROHIBITED THE RELEASE OR
TRANSFER OF THE SO-CALLED "MOSQUITO BOATS" THEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SO
THOSE BOATS WERE NOT TRANSFERRED.  ACQUISITION OF NAVAL AND AIR BASES
IN EXCHANGE FOR OVER-AGE DESTROYERS, 39 OP. ATTY. GEN. 484.  SEE ALSO
TRAINING OF BRITISH FLYING STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, 40 OP. ATTY.
GEN. 58. 

FN15  U.S. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 3. 

FN16  PRESIDENT WILSON, JUST BEFORE OUR ENTRANCE INTO WORLD WAR I,
WENT BEFORE THE CONGRESS AND ASKED ITS APPROVAL OF HIS DECISION TO
AUTHORIZE MERCHANT SHIPS TO CARRY DEFENSIVE WEAPONS.  HE SAID:

"NO DOUBT I ALREADY POSSESS THAT AUTHORITY WITHOUT SPECIAL WARRANT OF
LAW, BY THE PLAIN IMPLICATION OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES AND POWERS;
BUT I PREFER, IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT TO ACT UPON GENERAL
IMPLICATION.  I WISH TO FEEL THAT THE AUTHORITY AND THE POWER OF THE
CONGRESS ARE BEHIND ME IN WHATEVER IT MAY BECOME NECESSARY FOR ME TO
DO.  WE ARE JOINTLY THE SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE AND MUST ACT TOGETHER
AND IN THEIR SPIRIT, SO FAR AS WE CAN DIVINE AND INTERPRET IT."  XVII
RICHARDSON, OP. CIT., 8211. 

WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT WAS ITSELF IN NEED OF SHIPPING WHILST SHIPS
FLYING THE FLAGS OF NATIONS OVERRUN BY HITLER, AS WELL AS BELLIGERENT
MERCHANTMEN, WERE IMMOBILIZED IN AMERICAN HARBORS WHERE THEY HAD TAKEN
REFUGE, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT DID NOT ASSUME THAT IT WAS IN HIS POWER TO
SEIZE SUCH FOREIGN VESSELS TO MAKE UP OUR OWN DEFICIT.  HE INFORMED
CONGRESS:  "I AM SATISFIED, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE HEADS OF THE
INTERESTED DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT, THAT WE SHOULD
HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO TAKE OVER ANY SUCH VESSELS AS OUR NEEDS MAY
REQUIRE  ...  ."  87 CONG. REC. 3072 (77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.); THE
PUBLIC PAPERS AND ADDRESSES OF FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, 1941 (ROSENMAN),
94.  THE NECESSARY STATUTORY AUTHORITY WAS SHORTLY FORTHCOMING.  55
STAT. 242. 

IN HIS FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT POINTED OUT TWO
COURSES TO OBTAIN LEGISLATIVE REMEDIES, ONE BEING TO ENACT MEASURES HE
WAS PREPARED TO RECOMMEND, THE OTHER TO ENACT MEASURES "THE CONGRESS
MAY BUILD OUT OF ITS EXPERIENCE AND WISDOM."  HE CONTINUED, "BUT IN THE
EVENT THAT THE CONGRESS SHALL FAIL TO TAKE ONE OF THESE TWO COURSES,
AND IN THE EVENT THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY IS STILL CRITICAL, I SHALL
NOT EVADE THE CLEAR COURSE OF DUTY THAT WILL THEN CONFRONT ME.  I SHALL
ASK THE CONGRESS FOR THE ONE REMAINING INSTRUMENT TO MEET THE CRISIS -
BROAD EXECUTIVE POWER TO WAGE A WAR AGAINST THE EMERGENCY, AS GREAT AS
THE POWER THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TO ME IF WE WERE IN FACT INVADED BY A
FOREIGN FOE."  THE PUBLIC PAPERS AND ADDRESSES OF FRANKLIN D.
ROOSEVELT, 1933 (ROSENMAN), 15. 

ON MARCH 6, 1933, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT PROCLAIMED THE BANK HOLIDAY. 
THE PROCLAMATION DID NOT INVOKE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE
BUT EXPRESSLY AND SOLELY RELIED UPON THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF OCTOBER 6,
1917, 40 STAT. 411, SEC. 5(B), AS AMENDED.  HE RELIED STEADILY ON
LEGISLATION TO EMPOWER HIM TO DEAL WITH ECONOMIC EMERGENCY.  THE PUBLIC
PAPERS AND ADDRESSES OF FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, 1933 (ROSENMAN), 24. 

IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE HOLDSWORTH'S COMMENT ON THE POWERS OF
LEGISLATION BY PROCLAMATION WHEN IN THE HANDS OF THE TUDORS.  "THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THEY COULD BE LEGALLY USED WAS NEVER FINALLY SETTLED IN
THIS CENTURY, BECAUSE THE TUDORS MADE SO TACTFUL A USE OF THEIR POWERS
THAT NO DEMAND FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED."  4
HOLDSWORTH, HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 104. 

FN17 THE NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION COMPANY WAS UNDER DIRECT AND BINDING
CONTRACTS TO SUPPLY DEFENSE ITEMS TO THE GOVERNMENT.  NO SUCH CONTRACTS
ARE CLAIMED TO EXIST HERE.  SEIZURE OF PLANTS WHICH REFUSED TO COMPLY
WITH GOVERNMENT ORDERS HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS IN
SEC. 9 OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, 892, SO THAT
THE SEIZURE OF THE NORTH AMERICAN PLANT WAS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  THE COMPANY MIGHT HAVE OBJECTED ON TECHNICAL
GROUNDS TO THE SEIZURE, BUT IT WAS TAKEN OVER WITH ACQUIESCENCE,
AMOUNTING TO ALL BUT CONSENT, OF THE OWNERS WHO HAD ADMITTED THAT THE
SITUATION WAS BEYOND THEIR CONTROL.  THE STRIKE INVOLVED IN THE NORTH
AMERICAN CASE WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE UNION'S COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT AND
THE NATIONAL LABOR LEADERS APPROVED THE SEIZURE TO END THE STRIKE.  IT
WAS DESCRIBED AS IN THE NATURE OF AN INSURRECTION, A COMMUNIST-LED
POLITICAL STRIKE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S LEND-LEASE POLICY.  HERE WE
HAVE ONLY A LOYAL, LAWFUL, BUT REGRETTABLE ECONOMIC DISAGREEMENT
BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND LABOR.  THE NORTH AMERICAN PLANT CONTAINED
GOVERNMENT-OWNED MACHINERY, MATERIAL AND GOODS IN THE PROCESS OF
PRODUCTION TO WHICH WORKMEN WERE FORCIBLY DENIED ACCESS BY PICKETING
STRIKERS.  HERE NO GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IS PROTECTED BY THE SEIZURE. 
SEE NEW YORK TIMES OF JUNE 10, 1941, PP. 1, 14 AND 16, FOR
SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE CONDITIONS OF
VIOLENCE AT THE NORTH AMERICAN PLANT. 

THE NORTH AMERICAN SEIZURE WAS REGARDED AS AN EXECUTION OF
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  I DO NOT REGARD IT AS A PRECEDENT FOR THIS, BUT,
EVEN IF I DID, I SHOULD NOT BIND PRESENT JUDICIAL JUDGMENT BY EARLIER
PARTISAN ADVOCACY. 

STATEMENTS FROM A LETTER BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, DATED FEBRUARY 2,
1949, WITH REFERENCE TO PENDING LABOR LEGISLATION, WHILE NOT CITED BY
ANY OF THE PARTIES HERE, ARE SOMETIMES QUOTED AS BEING IN SUPPORT OF
THE "INHERENT" POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT.  THE PROPOSED BILL CONTAINED A
MANDATORY PROVISION THAT DURING CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS THE DISPUTANTS
IN A LABOR DISPUTE SHOULD CONTINUE OPERATIONS UNDER THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT EXISTING PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE
DISPUTE.  IT MADE NO PROVISION AS TO HOW CONTINUANCE SHOULD BE ENFORCED
AND SPECIFIED NO PENALTY FOR DISOBEDIENCE.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ADVISED THAT IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE
ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND
WELFARE.  THIS WAS THE RULE LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN TEXAS & N.O.R.
CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548.  THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OBSERVED: 

"HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT
UNDER TITLE III, I MIGHT POINT OUT THAT THE INHERENT POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT TO DEAL WITH EMERGENCIES THAT AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND
WELFARE OF THE ENTIRE NATION IS EXCEEDINGLY GREAT.  SEE OPINION OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL MURPHY OF OCTOBER 4, 1939 (39 OP. A.G. 344, 347);
UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)." 
SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE ON
S. 249, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 263. 

REGARDLESS OF THE GENERAL REFERENCE TO "INHERENT POWERS," THE
CITATIONS WERE INSTANCES OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.  I DO NOT
SUPPOSE IT IS OPEN TO DOUBT THAT POWER TO SEE THAT THE LAWS ARE
FAITHFULLY EXECUTED WAS AMPLE BASIS FOR THE SPECIFIC ADVICE GIVEN BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THIS LETTER. 

FN18  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 2. 

FN19  I EXCLUDE, AS IN A VERY LIMITED CATEGORY BY ITSELF, THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF MARTIAL LAW.  CF. EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2;
DUNCAN V. KAHANAMOKU, 327 U.S. 304. 

FN20  1 NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION 126-127; ROSSITER,
CONSTITUTIONAL DICTATORSHIP, 33-61; BRECHT, PRELUDE TO SILENCE, 138. 

FN21  ROSSITER, CONSTITUTIONAL DICTATORSHIP, 117-129. 

FN22  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT, 1914, 4 & 5 GEO. V, C. 29, AS
AMENDED, C. 63; EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939, 2 & 3 GEO. VI, C.
62; ROSSITER, CONSTITUTIONAL DICTATORSHIP, 135-184. 

FN23  CHURCHILL, THE UNRELENTING STRUGGLE, 13.  SEE ALSO ID., AT 279
281. 

FN24  39 OP. ATTY. GEN. 348. 

FN25  WILSON, CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, 68-69. 

FN26  ROSSITER, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, 126
132. 

FN27  WE FOLLOW THE JUDICIAL TRADITION INSTITUTED ON A MEMORABLE
SUNDAY IN 1612, WHEN KING JAMES TOOK OFFENSE AT THE INDEPENDENCE OF HIS
JUDGES AND, IN RAGE, DECLARED: "THEN I AM TO BE UNDER THE LAW - WHICH
IT IS TREASON TO AFFIRM."  CHIEF JUSTICE COKE REPLIED TO HIS KING:
"THUS WROTE BRACTON, 'THE KING OUGHT NOT TO BE UNDER ANY MAN, BUT HE IS
UNDER GOD AND THE LAW.'"  12 COKE 65 (AS TO ITS VERITY, 18 ENG. HIST.
REV.  664-675); 1 CAMPBELL, LIVES OF THE CHIEF JUSTICES (1849), 272. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, CONCURRING IN BOTH THE OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT. 

MY POSITION MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

THE VALIDITY OF THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER OF SEIZURE IS AT ISSUE AND RIPE
FOR DECISION.  ITS VALIDITY TURNS UPON ITS RELATION TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE
PRESIDENT. 

THE CONSTITUTION HAS DELEGATED TO CONGRESS POWER TO AUTHORIZE ACTION
TO MEET A NATIONAL EMERGENCY OF THE KIND WE FACE.  (FN1)  AWARE OF THIS
RESPONSIBILITY, CONGRESS HAS RESPONDED TO IT.  IT HAS PROVIDED AT LEAST
TWO PROCEDURES FOR THE USE OF THE PRESIDENT. 

IT HAS OUTLINED ONE IN THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947,
BETTER KNOWN AS THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT.  THE ACCURACY WITH WHICH CONGRESS
THERE DESCRIBES THE PRESENT EMERGENCY DEMONSTRATES ITS APPLICABILITY. 
IT SAYS: 

"WHENEVER IN THE OPINION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A
THREATENED OR ACTUAL STRIKE OR LOCKOUT AFFECTING AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY OR
A SUBSTANTIAL PART THEREOF ENGAGED IN TRADE, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION,
TRANSMISSION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS, OR ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, WILL, IF
PERMITTED TO OCCUR OR TO CONTINUE, IMPERIL THE NATIONAL HEALTH OR
SAFTEY, HE MAY APPOINT A BOARD OF INQUIRY TO INQUIRE INTO THE ISSUES
INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE AND TO MAKE A WRITTEN REPORT TO HIM WITHIN SUCH
TIME AS HE SHALL PRESCRIBE  ...  ."  (FN2) 

IN THAT SITUATION CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED NOT ONLY NEGOTIATION,
CONCILIATION AND IMPARTIAL INQUIRY BUT ALSO A 60-DAY COOLING-OFF PERIOD
UNDER INJUNCTION, FOLLOWED BY 20 DAYS FOR A SECRET BALLOT UPON THE
FINAL OFFER OF SETTLEMENT AND THEN BY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
PRESIDENT TO CONGRESS.  (FN3) 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF THAT
ACT IS ITS OMISSION OF AUTHORITY TO SEIZE AN AFFECTED INDUSTRY.  THE
DEBATE PRECEDING ITS PASSAGE DEMONSTRATED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT
OMISSION.  COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, RATHER THAN GOVERNMENTAL SEIZURE, WAS
TO BE RELIED UPON.  SEIZURE WAS NOT TO BE RESORTED TO WITHOUT SPECIFIC
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.  CONGRESS RESERVED TO ITSELF THE OPPORTUNITY
TO AUTHORIZE SEIZURE TO MEET PARTICULAR EMERGENCIES.  (FN4) 

THE PRESIDENT, HOWEVER, CHOSE NOT TO USE THE TAFT-HARTLEY PROCEDURE. 
HE CHOSE ANOTHER COURSE, ALSO AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.  HE REFERRED THE
CONTROVERSY TO THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD.  (FN5) IF THAT COURSE HAD
LED TO A SETTLEMENT OF THE LABOR DISPUTE, IT WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THE
NEED FOR OTHER ACTION.  IT, HOWEVER, DID NOT DO SO. 

NOW IT IS CONTENDED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PRESIDENT DID NOT FOLLOW THE
PROCEDURE AUTHORIZED BY THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, HIS SUBSTITUTED PROCEDURE
SERVED THE SAME PURPOSE AND MUST BE ACCEPTED AS ITS EQUIVALENT. 
WITHOUT APPRAISING THAT EQUIVALENCE, IT IS ENOUGH TO POINT OUT THAT
NEITHER PROCEDURE CARRIED STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE SEIZURE OF
PRIVATE INDUSTRIES IN THE MANNER NOW AT ISSUE.  (FN6)  THE EXHAUSTION
OF BOTH PROCEDURES FAILS TO CLOUD THE CLARITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
RESERVATION OF SEIZURE FOR ITS OWN CONSIDERATION.    THE FOREGOING
CIRCUMSTANCES DISTINGUISH THIS EMERGENCY FROM ONE IN WHICH CONGRESS
TAKES NO ACTION AND OUTLINES NO GOVERNMENTAL POLICY.  IN THE CASE
BEFORE US, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED A PROCEDURE WHICH THE PRESIDENT DECLINED
TO FOLLOW.  INSTEAD, HE FOLLOWED ANOTHER PROCEDURE WHICH HE HOPED MIGHT
ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE FIRST.  UPON ITS FAILURE, HE ISSUED AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER TO SEIZE THE STEEL PROPERTIES IN THE FACE OF THE
RESERVED RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO ADOPT OR REJECT THAT COURSE AS A MATTER
OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY. 

THIS BRINGS US TO A FURTHER CRUCIAL QUESTION.  DOES THE PRESIDENT, IN
SUCH A SITUATION, HAVE INHERENT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO SEIZE PRIVATE
PROPERTY WHICH MAKES CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IN RELATION THERETO
UNNECESSARY?  WE FIND NO SUCH POWER AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER THE PRESENT
CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE PRESENT SITUATION IS NOT COMPARABLE TO THAT OF AN
IMMINENT INVASION OR THREATENED ATTACK.  WE DO NOT FACE THE ISSUE OF
WHAT MIGHT BE THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MEET SUCH
CATASTROPHIC SITUATIONS.  NOR IS IT CLAIMED THAT THE CURRENT SEIZURE IS
IN THE NATURE OF A MILITARY COMMAND ADDRESSED BY THE PRESIDENT, AS
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, TO A MOBILIZED NATION WAGING, OR IMMINENTLY
THREATENED WITH, TOTAL WAR.  (FN7) 

THE CONTROLLING FACT HERE IS THAT CONGRESS, WITHIN ITS
CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATED POWER, HAS PRESCRIBED FOR THE PRESIDENT
SPECIFIC PROCEDURES, EXCLUSIVE OF SEIZURE, FOR HIS USE IN MEETING THE
PRESENT TYPE OF EMERGENCY.  CONGRESS HAS RESERVED TO ITSELF THE RIGHT
TO DETERMINE WHERE AND WHEN TO AUTHORIZE THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY IN
MEETING SUCH AN EMERGENCY.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PRESIDENT'S
ORDER OF APRIL 8 INVADED THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS.  IT VIOLATED THE
ESSENCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE INJUNCTION AGAINST ITS EFFECTIVENESS SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED. 

FN1    ARTICLE.  I. 

"SECTION.  1.  ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED SHALL BE VESTED
IN A CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 


*         *         *         *         * 

"TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, AND AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES  ...  : 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING
INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS, AND ALL OTHER POWERS VESTED BY
THIS CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR IN ANY
DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF." 

FN2  61 STAT. 155, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 176. 

FN3  61 STAT. 155-156, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 176-180. 

FN4  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE SPONSORING THE BILL SAID IN
THE SENATE: 

"WE DID NOT FEEL THAT WE SHOULD PUT INTO THE LAW, AS A PART OF THE
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING MACHINERY, AN ULTIMATE RESORT TO COMPULSORY
ARBITRATION, OR TO SEIZURE, OR TO ANY OTHER ACTION.  WE FEEL THAT IT
WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  IF
SUCH A REMEDY IS AVAILABLE AS A ROUTINE REMEDY, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE
PRESSURE TO RESORT TO IT BY WHICHEVER PARTY THINKS IT WILL RECEIVE
BETTER TREATMENT THROUGH SUCH A PROCESS THAN IT WOULD RECEIVE IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND IT WILL BACK OUT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 
IT WILL NOT MAKE A BONA-FIDE ATTEMPT TO SETTLE IF IT THINKS IT WILL
RECEIVE A BETTER DEAL UNDER THE FINAL ARBITRATION WHICH MAY BE
PROVIDED. 

"WE HAVE FELT THAT PERHAPS IN THE CASE OF A GENERAL STRIKE, OR IN THE
CASE OF OTHER SERIOUS STRIKES, AFTER THE TERMINATION OF EVERY POSSIBLE
EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE, THE REMEDY MIGHT BE AN EMERGENCY ACT BY
CONGRESS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 

"I HAVE HAD IN MIND DRAFTING SUCH A BILL, GIVING POWER TO SEIZE THE
PLANTS, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES, TO SEIZE THE UNIONS, THEIR
MONEY, AND THEIR TREASURY, AND REQUISITION TRUCKS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT;
IN FACT, TO DO EVERYTHING THAT THE BRITISH DID IN THEIR GENERAL STRIKE
OF 1926.  BUT WHILE SUCH A BILL MIGHT BE PREPARED, I SHOULD BE
UNWILLING TO PLACE SUCH A LAW ON THE BOOKS UNTIL WE ACTUALLY FACE SUCH
AN EMERGENCY, AND CONGRESS APPLIES THE REMEDY FOR THE PARTICULAR
EMERGENCY ONLY.  EIGHTY DAYS WILL PROVIDE PLENTY OF TIME WITHIN WHICH
TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE; AND WE BELIEVE VERY
STRONGLY THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANYTHING IN THIS LAW WHICH PROHIBITS
FINALLY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE."  93 CONG. REC. 3835-3836. 

PART OF THIS QUOTATION WAS RELIED UPON BY THIS COURT IN BUS EMPLOYEES
V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 340 U.S. 383, 396, NOTE 21. 

FN5  UNDER TITLES IV AND V OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950, 64
STAT. 803-812, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 2101-2123; AND SEE EXEC.
ORDER NO. 10233, 16 FED. REG. 3503. 

FN6  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED OTHER TYPES OF SEIZURE UNDER CONDITIONS
NOT PRESENT HERE.  SECTION 201 OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AUTHORIZES
THE PRESIDENT TO ACQUIRE SPECIFIC "REAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING FACILITIES,
TEMPORARY USE THEREOF, OR OTHER INTEREST THEREIN  ...  " BY
CONDEMNATION.  64 STAT. 799, AS AMENDED, 65 STAT. 132, SEE 50 U.S.C.
APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2081.  THERE HAVE BEEN NO DECLARATIONS OF TAKING
OR CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION TO ANY OF THE PROPERTIES
INVOLVED HERE.  SECTION 18 OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948
AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE POSSESSION OF A PLANT OR OTHER
FACILITY FAILING TO FILL CERTAIN DEFENSE ORDERS PLACED WITH IT IN THE
MANNER THERE PRESCRIBED.  62 STAT. 625, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC.
468.  NO ORDERS HAVE BEEN SO PLACED WITH THE STEEL PLANTS SEIZED. 

FN7  THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE TERMINATION OF
THE MAJOR HOSTILITIES IN THE TOTAL WARS IN WHICH THE NATION HAS BEEN
ENGAGED.  MANY WARTIME PROCEDURES HAVE EXPIRED OR BEEN TERMINATED. 

THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, 57 STAT. 163 ET SEQ., 50 U.S.C. APP.
SECS. 1501-1511, EXPIRED JUNE 30, 1947, SIX MONTHS AFTER THE
PRESIDENT'S DECLARATION OF THE END OF HOSTILITIES, 3 CFR, 1946 SUPP.,
P. 77.  THE JAPANESE PEACE TREATY WAS APPROVED BY THE SENATE MARCH 20,
1952, CONG. REC., MAR. 20, 1952, P. 2635, AND PROCLAIMED BY THE
PRESIDENT APRIL 28, 1952, 17 FED. REG. 3813. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

ONE OF THIS COURT'S FIRST PRONOUNCEMENTS UPON THE POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WAS MADE BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN
MARSHALL SOME ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AGO.  IN LITTLE V. BARREME,
(FN1) HE USED THIS CHARACTERISTICALLY CLEAR LANGUAGE IN DISCUSSING THE
POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO INSTRUCT THE SEIZURE OF THE FLYING FISH, A
VESSEL BOUND FROM A FRENCH PORT:  "IT IS BY NO MEANS CLEAR THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHOSE HIGH DUTY IT IS TO 'TAKE CARE THAT
THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED,' AND WHO IS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE
ARMIES AND NAVIES OF THE UNITED STATES, MIGHT NOT, WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL
AUTHORITY FOR THAT PURPOSE, IN THE THEN EXISTING STATE OF THINGS, HAVE
EMPOWERED THE OFFICERS COMMANDING THE ARMED VESSELS OF THE UNITED
STATES, TO SEIZE AND SEND INTO PORT FOR ADJUDICATION, AMERICAN VESSELS
WHICH WERE FORFEITED BY BEING ENGAGED IN THIS ILLICIT COMMERCE.  BUT
WHEN IT IS OBSERVED THAT AN ACT OF CONGRESS GIVES A SPECIAL AUTHORITY
TO SEIZE ON THE HIGH SEAS, AND LIMITS THAT AUTHORITY TO THE SEIZURE OF
VESSELS BOUND OR SAILING TO A FRENCH PORT, THE LEGISLATURE SEEM TO HAVE
PRESCRIBED THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS LAW SHALL BE CARRIED INTO
EXECUTION, WAS TO EXCLUDE A SEIZURE OF ANY VESSEL NOT BOUND TO A FRENCH
PORT."  (FN2) ACCORDINGLY, A UNANIMOUS COURT HELD THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
INSTRUCTIONS HAD BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND THAT THEY COULD NOT
"LEGALIZE AN ACT WHICH WITHOUT THOSE INSTRUCTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN A
PLAIN TRESPASS."  I KNOW OF NO SUBSEQUENT HOLDING OF THIS COURT TO THE
CONTRARY.  (FN3) 

THE LIMITS OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER ARE OBSCURE.  HOWEVER, ARTICLE II,
NO LESS THAN ARTICLE I, IS PART OF "A CONSTITUTION INTENDED TO ENDURE
FOR AGES TO COME, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, TO BE ADAPTED TO THE VARIOUS
CRISES OF HUMAN AFFAIRS."  (FN4)  SOME OF OUR PRESIDENTS, SUCH AS
LINCOLN, "FELT THAT MEASURES OTHERWISE UNCONSTITUTIONAL MIGHT BECOME
LAWFUL BY BECOMING INDISPENSABLE TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION THROUGH THE PRESERVATION OF THE NATION."  (FN5)  OTHERS,
SUCH AS THEODORE ROOSEVELT, THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT TO BE CAPABLE, AS A
"STEWARD" OF THE PEOPLE, OF EXERTING ALL POWER SAVE THAT WHICH IS
SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR THE CONGRESS.  (FN6)  IN
MY VIEW - TAUGHT ME NOT ONLY BY THE DECISION OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL IN LITTLE V. BARREME, BUT ALSO BY A SCORE OF OTHER
PRONOUNCEMENTS OF DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THIS BENCH - THE
CONSTITUTION DOES GRANT TO THE PRESIDENT EXTENSIVE AUTHORITY IN TIMES
OF GRAVE AND IMPERATIVE NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  IN FACT, TO MY THINKING,
SUCH A GRANT MAY WELL BE NECESSARY TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF.  AS LINCOLN APTLY SAID, "IS IT POSSIBLE TO LOSE
THE NATION AND YET PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION?"  (FN7)  IN DESCRIBING
THIS AUTHORITY I CARE NOT WHETHER ONE CALLS IT "RESIDUAL," "INHERENT,"
"MORAL," "IMPLIED," "AGGREGATE," "EMERGENCY," OR OTHERWISE.  I AM OF
THE CONVICTION THAT THOSE WHO HAVE HAD THE GRATIFYING EXPERIENCE OF
BEING THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER HAVE USED ONE OR MORE OF THESE ADJECTIVES
ONLY WITH THE UTMOST OF SINCERITY AND THE HIGHEST OF PURPOSE. 

I CONCLUDE THAT WHERE CONGRESS HAS LAID DOWN SPECIFIC PROCEDURES TO
DEAL WITH THE TYPE OF CRISIS CONFRONTING THE PRESIDENT, HE MUST FOLLOW
THOSE PROCEDURES IN MEETING THE CRISIS; BUT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
ACTION BY CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT'S INDEPENDENT POWER TO ACT DEPENDS
UPON THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION CONFRONTING THE NATION.  I CANNOT
SUSTAIN THE SEIZURE IN QUESTION BECAUSE HERE, AS IN LITTLE V. BARREME,
CONGRESS HAD PRESCRIBED METHODS TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE PRESIDENT IN
MEETING THE EMERGENCY AT HAND. 

THREE STATUTORY PROCEDURES WERE AVAILABLE:  THOSE PROVIDED IN THE
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950, THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, AND
THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948.  IN THIS CASE THE PRESIDENT INVOKED
THE FIRST OF THESE PROCEDURES; HE DID NOT INVOKE THE OTHER TWO. 

THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950 PROVIDES FOR MEDIATION OF LABOR
DISPUTES AFFECTING NATIONAL DEFENSE.  UNDER THIS STATUTORY
AUTHORIZATION, THE PRESIDENT HAS ESTABLISHED THE WAGE STABILIZATION
BOARD.  THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT, HOWEVER, GRANTS THE PRESIDENT NO
POWER TO SEIZE REAL PROPERTY EXCEPT THROUGH ORDINARY CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WERE NOT USED HERE, AND CREATES NO SANCTIONS FOR THE
SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES. 

THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE TAFT
HARTLEY ACT, INCLUDES PROVISIONS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEALING
WITH NATIONWIDE STRIKES.  THEY ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE
PRESIDENT MAY APPOINT A BOARD OF INQUIRY AND THEREAFTER, IN PROPER
CASES, SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR AN 80-DAY PERIOD AGAINST A THREATENED
WORK STOPPAGE.  THE PRESIDENT CAN INVOKE THAT PROCEDURE WHENEVER, IN
HIS OPINION, "A THREATENED OR ACTUAL STRIKE  ...  AFFECTING AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY  ... WILL, IF PERMITTED TO OCCUR OR TO CONTINUE, IMPERIL THE
NATIONAL HEALTH OR SAFETY."  (FN8)  AT THE TIME THAT ACT WAS PASSED,
CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY REJECTED A PROPOSAL TO EMPOWER THE PRESIDENT TO
SEIZE ANY "PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY" IN WHICH A THREATENED WORK
STOPPAGE WOULD, IN HIS JUDGMENT, "IMPERIL THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR
SECURITY."  (FN9)  INSTEAD, THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT DIRECTED THE
PRESIDENT, IN THE EVENT A STRIKE HAD NOT BEEN SETTLED DURING THE 80-DAY
INJUNCTION PERIOD, TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS "A FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE
REPORT  ...  TOGETHER WITH SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS AS HE MAY SEE FIT TO
MAKE FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION."  (FN10)  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT DEMONSTRATES CONGRESS' BELIEF THAT THE
80-DAY PERIOD WOULD AFFORD IT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
SPECIAL LEGISLATION SHOULD BE ENACTED TO MEET THE EMERGENCY AT HAND. 
(FN11) 

THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948 GIVES THE PRESIDENT SPECIFIC
AUTHORITY TO SEIZE PLANTS WHICH FAIL TO PRODUCE GOODS REQUIRED BY THE
ARMED FORCES OR THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE
PURPOSES.  THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHEN A PRODUCER FROM WHOM THE
PRESIDENT HAS ORDERED SUCH GOODS "REFUSES OR FAILS" TO FILL THE ORDER
WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT MAY
TAKE IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF THE PRODUCER'S PLANT.  (FN12)  THIS
LANGUAGE IS SIGNIFICANTLY BROADER THAN THAT USED IN THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE ACT OF 1916 AND THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940,
WHICH PROVIDED FOR SEIZURE WHEN A PRODUCER "REFUSED" TO SUPPLY
ESSENTIAL DEFENSE MATERIALS, BUT NOT WHEN HE "FAILED" TO DO SO.
(FN13) 

THESE THREE STATUTES FURNISH THE GUIDEPOSTS FOR DECISION IN THIS
CASE.  PRIOR TO SEIZING THE STEEL MILLS ON APRIL 8 THE PRESIDENT HAD
EXHAUSTED THE MEDIATION PROCEDURES OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT
THROUGH THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD.  USE OF THOSE PROCEDURES HAD
FAILED TO AVERT THE IMPENDING CRISIS; HOWEVER, IT HAD RESULTED IN A 99
DAY POSTPONEMENT OF THE STRIKE.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THIS
ACCOMPLISHED MORE THAN THE MAXIMUM 80-DAY WAITING PERIOD POSSIBLE UNDER
THE SANCTIONS OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, AND THEREFORE AMOUNTED TO
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT ACT.  EVEN IF ONE WERE TO ACCEPT
THIS SOMEWHAT HYPERBOLIC CONCLUSION, THE HARD FACT REMAINS THAT NEITHER
THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT NOR TAFT-HARTLEY AUTHORIZED THE SEIZURE
CHALLENGED HERE, AND THE GOVERNMENT MADE NO EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948, A STATUTE
WHICH EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES SEIZURES WHEN PRODUCERS FAIL TO SUPPLY
NECESSARY DEFENSE MATERIEL.  (FN14)    FOR THESE REASONS I CONCUR IN
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.  AS MR. JUSTICE STORY ONCE SAID:  "FOR THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, THIS COURT ENTERTAIN THE MOST
ENTIRE RESPECT; AND AMIDST THE MULTIPLICITY OF CARES IN THAT
DEPARTMENT, IT MAY, WITHOUT ANY VIOLATION OF DECORUM, BE PRESUMED, THAT
SOMETIMES THERE MAY BE AN INACCURATE CONSTRUCTION OF A LAW.  IT IS OUR
DUTY TO EXPOUND THE LAWS AS WE FIND THEM IN THE RECORDS OF STATE; AND
WE CANNOT, WHEN CALLED UPON BY THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY, REFUSE OUR
OPINION, HOWEVER IT MAY DIFFER FROM THAT OF VERY GREAT AUTHORITIES." 
(FN15) 

FN1  2 CRANCH 170 (1804).    FN2  ID., AT 177-178. 

FN3  DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH HAVE UPHELD THE EXERCISE OF
PRESIDENTIAL POWER INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:  PRIZE CASES, 2 BLACK 635
(1863)(SUBSEQUENT RATIFICATION OF PRESIDENT'S ACTS BY CONGRESS); IN RE
NEAGLE, 135 U.S. 1 (1890)(PROTECTION OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS FROM PERSONAL
VIOLENCE WHILE PERFORMING OFFICIAL DUTIES); IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564
(1895)(INJUNCTION TO PREVENT FORCIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THE MAILS); UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO., 236 U.S. 459
(1915)(ACQUIESCENCE BY CONGRESS IN MORE THAN 250 INSTANCES OF EXERCISE
OF SAME POWER BY VARIOUS PRESIDENTS OVER PERIOD OF 80 YEARS); MYERS V.
UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)(CONTROL OVER SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS IN
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT) BUT SEE HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 602, 626-628 (1935); HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81
(1943), AND KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)(EXPRESS
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION); CF. UNITED STATES V. RUSSELL, 13 WALL. 
623 (1871)(IMPERATIVE MILITARY NECESSITY IN AREA OF COMBAT DURING WAR);
UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)
(POWER TO NEGOTIATE WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS); UNITED STATES V. UNITED
MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)(SEIZURE UNDER SPECIFIC STATUTORY
AUTHORIZATION). 

FN4  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT. 
316, 415 (1819). 

FN5  LETTER OF APRIL 4, 1864, TO A.G. HODGES, IN 10 COMPLETE WORKS OF
ABRAHAM LINCOLN (NICOLAY AND HAY ED. 1894), 66. 

FN6  ROOSEVELT, AUTOBIOGRAPHY (1914 ED.), 371-372. 

FN7  LETTER OF APRIL 4, 1864, TO A.G. HODGES, IN 10 COMPLETE WORKS OF
ABRAHAM LINCOLN (NICOLAY AND HAY ED. 1894), 66. 

FN8  61 STAT. 155, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 176. 

FN9  93 CONG. REC. 3637-3645; CF. ID., AT 3835-3836. 

FN10  61 STAT. 156, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 180. 

FN11  E.G., S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 15; 93 CONG. REC.
3835-3836; ID., AT 4281. 

FN12  THE PRODUCER MUST HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THE ORDER WAS PLACED
PURSUANT TO THE ACT.  THE ACT PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT AFTER CONSULTATION WITH AND RECEIVING
ADVICE FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESOURCES BOARD DETERMINES THAT IT IS
IN THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN
PROMPT DELIVERY OF ANY ARTICLES OR MATERIALS THE PROCUREMENT OF WHICH
HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE USE OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, OR FOR THE USE OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY
COMMISSION, HE IS AUTHORIZED, THROUGH THE HEAD OF ANY GOVERNMENT
AGENCY, TO PLACE WITH ANY PERSON OPERATING A PLANT, MINE, OR OTHER
FACILITY CAPABLE OF PRODUCING SUCH ARTICLES OR MATERIALS AN ORDER FOR
SUCH QUANTITY OF SUCH ARTICLES OR MATERIALS AS THE PRESIDENT DEEMS
APPROPRIATE.  ANY PERSON WITH WHOM AN ORDER IS PLACED PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE ADVISED THAT SUCH ORDER IS PLACED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION. 

  *         *         *         *         * 

"(C)  IN CASE ANY PERSON WITH WHOM AN ORDER IS PLACED PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A) REFUSES OR FAILS: 

     * *         *         *         * 

"(2)  TO FILL SUCH ORDER WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE
PRESIDENT OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS POSSIBLE AS DETERMINED BY THE
PRESIDENT: 

"(3)  TO PRODUCE THE KIND OR QUALITY OF ARTICLES OR MATERIALS
ORDERED; OR: 

"(4)  TO FURNISH THE QUANTITY, KIND, AND QUALITY OF ARTICLES OR
MATERIALS ORDERED AT SUCH PRICE AS SHALL BE NEGOTIATED BETWEEN SUCH
PERSON AND THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY CONCERNED; OR IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE
TO NEGOTIATE A PRICE, TO FURNISH THE QUANTITY, KIND, AND QUALITY OF
ARTICLES OR MATERIALS ORDERED AT SUCH PRICE AS HE MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE
DETERMINED TO BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UNDER SUBSECTION (D): 

"THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF ANY
PLANT, MINE, OR OTHER FACILITY OF SUCH PERSON AND TO OPERATE IT,
THROUGH ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY, FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH ARTICLES OR
MATERIALS AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT."  62 STAT.  625, 50
U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 468.  THE ACT WAS AMENDED IN 1951 AND
REDESIGNATED THE UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, BUT NO
CHANGE WAS MADE IN THIS SECTION.  65 STAT. 75. 

FN13  39 STAT. 213; 54 STAT. 892. 

FN14  THE GOVERNMENT HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION, IN THE RECORD, THE
BRIEFS, OR THE ORAL ARGUMENT, AS TO WHY IT COULD NOT HAVE MADE BOTH A
LITERAL AND TIMELY COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT. 
APPARENTLY THE GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE PLACED ORDERS WITH THE STEEL
COMPANIES FOR THE VARIOUS TYPES OF STEEL NEEDED FOR DEFENSE PURPOSES,
AND INSTRUCTED THE STEEL COMPANIES TO SHIP THE MATERIEL DIRECTLY TO
PRODUCERS OF PLANES, TANKS, AND MUNITIONS.  THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT GOVERNMENT ORDERS COVER THE ENTIRE CAPACITY OF A PRODUCER'S PLANT
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT HAS POWER TO SEIZE. 

OUR EXPERIENCE DURING WORLD WAR I DEMONSTRATES THE SPEED WITH WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT CAN INVOKE THE REMEDY OF SEIZING PLANTS WHICH FAIL TO
FILL COMPULSORY ORDERS.  THE FEDERAL ENAMELING & STAMPING CO., OF
MCKEES ROCKS, PA., WAS SERVED WITH A COMPULSORY ORDER ON SEPTEMBER 13,
1918, AND SEIZED ON THE SAME DAY.  THE SMITH & WESSON PLANT AT
SPRINGFIELD, MASS., WAS SEIZED ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1918, AFTER THE COMPANY
HAD FAILED TO MAKE DELIVERIES UNDER A COMPULSORY ORDER ISSUED THE
PRECEDING WEEK.  COMMUNICATION FROM ORDNANCE OFFICE TO WAR DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF APPRAISERS, ENTITLED "REPORT ON PLANTS COMMANDEERED BY THE
ORDNANCE OFFICE," DEC. 19, 1918, PP. 3, 4, IN NATIONAL ARCHIVES,
RECORDS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE, O.O.
004.002/260.  APPARENTLY THE MOSLER SAFE CO., OF HAMILTON, OHIO, WAS
SEIZED ON THE SAME DAY ON WHICH A COMPULSORY ORDER WAS ISSUED.  ID., AT
2; LETTER FROM COUNSEL FOR MOSLER SAFE CO. TO MAJOR GENERAL GEORGE W.
GOETHALS, DIRECTOR OF PURCHASE, STORAGE AND TRAFFIC, WAR DEPARTMENT,
DEC. 9, 1918, P. 1, IN NATIONAL ARCHIVES, RECORDS OF THE WAR
DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL STAFF, PST DIVISION 400.1202. 

FN15  THE ORONO, 18 FED. CAS. NO. 10,585 (CIR. CT. D. MASS. 1812). 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIRECTED THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
TO TAKE TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF THE NATION'S STEEL MILLS DURING THE
EXISTING EMERGENCY BECAUSE "A WORK STOPPAGE WOULD IMMEDIATELY
JEOPARDIZE AND IMPERIL OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE DEFENSE OF THOSE
JOINED WITH US IN RESISTING AGGRESSION, AND WOULD ADD TO THE CONTINUING
DANGER OF OUR SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AND AIRMEN ENGAGED IN COMBAT IN THE
FIELD."  THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THE MILLS RETURNED TO THEIR PRIVATE
OWNERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION WAS BEYOND HIS POWERS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 

THIS COURT AFFIRMS.  SOME MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE OF THE VIEW THAT
THE PRESIDENT IS WITHOUT POWER TO ACT IN TIME OF CRISIS IN THE ABSENCE
OF EXPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.  OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT AFFIRM
ON THE BASIS OF THEIR READING OF CERTAIN STATUTES.  BECAUSE WE CANNOT
AGREE THAT AFFIRMANCE IS PROPER ON ANY GROUND, AND BECAUSE OF THE
TRANSCENDING IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED NOT ONLY IN THIS
CRITICAL LITIGATION BUT ALSO TO THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT AND OF
FUTURE PRESIDENTS TO ACT IN TIME OF CRISIS, WE ARE COMPELLED TO
REGISTER THIS DISSENT. 

                                     I. 

IN PASSING UPON THE QUESTION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWERS IN THIS CASE, WE
MUST FIRST CONSIDER THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THOSE POWERS WERE EXERCISED. 

THOSE WHO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS A CASE INVOLVING EXTRAORDINARY POWERS
SHOULD BE MINDFUL THAT THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY TIMES.  A WORLD NOT YET
RECOVERED FROM THE DEVASTATION OF WORLD WAR II HAS BEEN FORCED TO FACE
THE THREAT OF ANOTHER AND MORE TERRIFYING GLOBAL CONFLICT. 

ACCEPTING IN FULL MEASURE ITS RESPONSIBILITY IN THE WORLD COMMUNITY,
THE UNITED STATES WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN SECURING ADOPTION OF THE UNITED
NATIONS CHARTER, APPROVED BY THE SENATE BY A VOTE OF 89 TO 2.  THE
FIRST PURPOSE OF THE UNITED NATIONS IS TO "MAINTAIN INTERNATIONAL PEACE
AND SECURITY, AND TO THAT END:  TO TAKE EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE MEASURES
FOR THE PREVENTION AND REMOVAL OF THREATS TO THE PEACE, AND FOR THE
SUPPRESSION OF ACTS OF AGGRESSION OR OTHER BREACHES OF THE PEACE,  ...
."  (FN1)  IN 1950, WHEN THE UNITED NATIONS CALLED UPON MEMBER NATIONS
"TO RENDER EVERY ASSISTANCE" TO REPEL AGGRESSION IN KOREA, THE UNITED
STATES FURNISHED ITS VIGOROUS SUPPORT.  (FN2)  FOR ALMOST TWO FULL
YEARS, OUR ARMED FORCES HAVE BEEN FIGHTING IN KOREA, SUFFERING
CASUALTIES OF OVER 108,000 MEN.  HOSTILITIES HAVE NOT ABATED.  THE
"DETERMINATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO CONTINUE ITS ACTION IN KOREA TO
MEET THE AGGRESSION" HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED.  (FN3)  CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT
OF THE ACTION IN KOREA HAS BEEN MANIFESTED BY PROVISIONS FOR INCREASED
MILITARY MANPOWER AND EQUIPMENT AND FOR ECONOMIC STABILIZATION, AS
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. 

FURTHER EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE FREE WORLD FROM AGGRESSION ARE FOUND
IN THE CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS OF THE TRUMAN PLAN FOR ASSISTANCE TO
GREECE AND TURKEY (FN4) AND THE MARSHALL PLAN FOR ECONOMIC AID NEEDED
TO BUILD UP THE STRENGTH OF OUR FRIENDS IN WESTERN EUROPE.  (FN5)  IN
1949, THE SENATE APPROVED THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY UNDER WHICH EACH
MEMBER NATION AGREES THAT AN ARMED ATTACK AGAINST ONE IS AN ARMED
ATTACK AGAINST ALL.  (FN6)  CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY IMPLEMENTED THE NORTH
ATLANTIC TREATY BY AUTHORIZING MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO NATIONS DEDICATED
TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUAL SECURITY UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER. 
(FN7)  THE CONCEPT OF MUTUAL SECURITY RECENTLY HAS BEEN EXTENDED BY
TREATY TO FRIENDS IN THE PACIFIC.  (FN8) 

OUR TREATIES REPRESENT NOT MERELY LEGAL OBLIGATIONS BUT SHOW
CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION THAT MUTUAL SECURITY FOR THE FREE WORLD IS
THE BEST SECURITY AGAINST THE THREAT OF AGGRESSION ON A GLOBAL SCALE. 
THE NEED FOR MUTUAL SECURITY IS SHOWN BY THE VERY SIZE OF THE ARMED
FORCES OUTSIDE THE FREE WORLD.  DEFENDANT'S BRIEF INFORMS US THAT THE
SOVIET UNION MAINTAINS THE LARGEST AIR FORCE IN THE WORLD AND MAINTAINS
GROUND FORCES MUCH LARGER THAN THOSE PRESENTLY AVAILABLE TO THE UNITED
STATES AND THE COUNTRIES JOINED WITH US IN MUTUAL SECURITY
ARRANGEMENTS.  CONSTANT INTERNATIONAL TENSIONS ARE CITED TO DEMONSTRATE
HOW PRECARIOUS IS THE PEACE. 

EVEN THIS BRIEF REVIEW OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE WORLD COMMUNITY
DISCLOSES THE ENORMITY OF OUR UNDERTAKING.  SUCCESS OF THESE MEASURES
MAY, AS HAS OFTEN BEEN OBSERVED, DRAMATICALLY INFLUENCE THE LIVES OF
MANY GENERATIONS OF THE WORLD'S PEOPLES YET UNBORN.  ALERT TO OUR
RESPONSIBILITIES, WHICH COINCIDE WITH OUR OWN SELF-PRESERVATION THROUGH
MUTUAL SECURITY, CONGRESS HAS ENACTED A LARGE BODY OF IMPLEMENTING
LEGISLATION.  AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE OVER-ALL
PROGRAM, CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED $130 BILLION FOR OUR OWN DEFENSE AND
FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO OUR ALLIES SINCE THE JUNE, 1950, ATTACK IN
KOREA. 

IN THE MUTUAL SECURITY ACT OF 1951, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED "MILITARY,
ECONOMIC, AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FRIENDLY COUNTRIES TO STRENGTHEN
THE MUTUAL SECURITY AND INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE DEFENSES OF THE FREE
WORLD,  ...  ."  (FN9)  OVER $5 1/2 BILLION WERE APPROPRIATED FOR
MILITARY ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1952, THE BULK OF THAT AMOUNT TO BE
DEVOTED TO PURCHASE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT.  (FN10)  A REQUEST FOR OVER
$7 BILLION FOR THE SAME PURPOSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1953 IS CURRENTLY
PENDING IN CONGRESS.  (FN11)  IN ADDITION TO DIRECT SHIPMENT OF
MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO NATIONS OF THE FREE WORLD, DEFENSE PRODUCTION IN
THOSE COUNTRIES RELIES UPON SHIPMENT OF MACHINE TOOLS AND ALLOCATION OF
STEEL TONNAGE FROM THE UNITED STATES.  (FN12) 

CONGRESS ALSO DIRECTED THE PRESIDENT TO BUILD UP OUR OWN DEFENSES. 
CONGRESS, RECOGNIZING THE "GRIM FACT  ...  THAT THE UNITED STATES IS
NOW ENGAGED IN A STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL" AND THAT "IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT
WE NOW TAKE THOSE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE OUR STRENGTH EQUAL TO THE
PERIL OF THE HOUR," GRANTED AUTHORITY TO DRAFT MEN INTO THE ARMED
FORCES.  (FN13)  AS A RESULT, WE NOW HAVE OVER 3,500,000 MEN IN OUR
ARMED FORCES.  (FN14) 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WHICH HAD AVERAGED LESS
THAN $13 BILLION PER YEAR FOR THE THREE YEARS BEFORE ATTACK IN KOREA,
WERE INCREASED BY CONGRESS TO $48 BILLION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1951 AND TO
$60 BILLION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1952.  (FN15)  A REQUEST FOR $51 BILLION
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1953 IS CURRENTLY PENDING
IN CONGRESS.  (FN16)  THE BULK OF THE INCREASE IS FOR MILITARY
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES - GUNS, TANKS, SHIPS, PLANES AND AMMUNITION -
ALL OF WHICH REQUIRE STEEL.  OTHER DEFENSE PROGRAMS REQUIRING GREAT
QUANTITIES OF STEEL INCLUDE THE LARGE SCALE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES FOR
THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (FN17) AND THE EXPANSION OF THE NATION'S
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AFFIRMATIVELY ENCOURAGED BY CONGRESS.  (FN18) 

CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE IMPACT OF THESE DEFENSE PROGRAMS UPON THE
ECONOMY.  FOLLOWING THE ATTACK IN KOREA, THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR
AUTHORITY TO REQUISITION PROPERTY AND TO ALLOCATE AND FIX PRIORITIES
FOR SCARCE GOODS.  IN THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950, CONGRESS
GRANTED THE POWERS REQUESTED AND, IN ADDITION, GRANTED POWER TO
STABILIZE PRICES AND WAGES AND TO PROVIDE FOR SETTLEMENT OF LABOR
DISPUTES ARISING IN THE DEFENSE PROGRAM.  (FN19)  THE DEFENSE
PRODUCTION ACT WAS EXTENDED IN 1951, A SENATE COMMITTEE NOTING THAT IN
THE DISLOCATION CAUSED BY THE PROGRAMS FOR PURCHASE OF MILITARY
EQUIPMENT "LIES THE SEED OF AN ECONOMIC DISASTER THAT MIGHT WELL
DESTROY THE MILITARY MIGHT WE ARE STRAINING TO BUILD."  (FN20)
SIGNIFICANTLY, THE COMMITTEE EXAMINED THE PROBLEM "IN TERMS OF JUST ONE
COMMODITY, STEEL," AND FOUND "A GRAPHIC PICTURE OF THE OVER-ALL
INFLATIONARY DANGER GROWING OUT OF REDUCED CIVILIAN SUPPLIES AND RISING
INCOMES."  EVEN BEFORE KOREA, STEEL PRODUCTION AT LEVELS ABOVE
THEORETICAL 100% CAPACITY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING CIVILIAN NEEDS
ALONE.  SINCE KOREA, THE TREMENDOUS MILITARY DEMAND FOR STEEL HAS FAR
EXCEEDED THE INCREASES IN PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY.  THIS COMMITTEE
EMPHASIZED THAT THE SHORTAGE OF STEEL, EVEN WITH THE MILLS OPERATING AT
FULL CAPACITY, COUPLED WITH INCREASED CIVILIAN PURCHASING POWER,
PRESENTED GRAVE DANGER OF DISASTROUS INFLATION.  (FN21) 

THE PRESIDENT HAS THE DUTY TO EXECUTE THE FOREGOING LEGISLATIVE
PROGRAMS.  THEIR SUCCESSFUL EXECUTION DEPENDS UPON CONTINUED PRODUCTION
OF STEEL AND STABILIZED PRICES FOR STEEL.  ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE NATION'S STEEL PRODUCERS
AND THEIR EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY THE UNITED STEEL WORKERS, WERE DUE
TO EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31, 1951, AND A STRIKE SHUTTING DOWN THE ENTIRE
BASIC STEEL INDUSTRY WAS THREATENED, THE PRESIDENT ACTED TO AVERT A
COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF STEEL PRODUCTION.  ON DECEMBER 22, 1951, HE
CERTIFIED THE DISPUTE TO THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD, REQUESTING THAT
THE BOARD INVESTIGATE THE DISPUTE AND PROMPTLY REPORT ITS
RECOMMENDATION AS TO FAIR AND EQUITABLE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT.  THE UNION
COMPLIED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST AND DELAYED ITS THREATENED STRIKE
WHILE THE DISPUTE WAS BEFORE THE BOARD.  AFTER A SPECIAL BOARD PANEL
HAD CONDUCTED HEARINGS AND SUBMITTED A REPORT, THE FULL WAGE
STABILIZATION BOARD SUBMITTED ITS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
PRESIDENT ON MARCH 20, 1952. 

THE BOARD'S REPORT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE UNION BUT WAS REJECTED BY
PLAINTIFFS.  THE UNION GAVE NOTICE OF ITS INTENTION TO STRIKE AS OF
12:01 A.M., APRIL 9, 1952, BUT BARGAINING BETWEEN THE PARTIES CONTINUED
WITH HOPE OF SETTLEMENT UNTIL THE EVENING OF APRIL 8, 1952.  AFTER
BARGAINING HAD FAILED TO AVERT THE THREATENED SHUTDOWN OF STEEL
PRODUCTION, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED THE FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE ORDER: 

"WHEREAS ON DECEMBER 16, 1950, I PROCLAIMED THE EXISTENCE OF A
NATIONAL EMERGENCY WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE MILITARY, NAVAL, AIR, AND
CIVILIAN DEFENSES OF THIS COUNTRY BE STRENGTHENED AS SPEEDILY AS
POSSIBLE TO THE END THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO REPEL ANY AND ALL THREATS
AGAINST OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND TO FULFILL OUR RESPONSIBILITIES IN
THE EFFORTS BEING MADE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERWISE TO
BRING ABOUT A LASTING PEACE; AND: 

"WHEREAS AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND FIGHTING MEN OF OTHER NATIONS OF
THE UNITED NATIONS ARE NOW ENGAGED IN DEADLY COMBAT WITH THE FORCES OF
AGGRESSION IN KOREA, AND FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES ARE STATIONED
ELSEWHERE OVERSEAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE DEFENSE OF
THE ATLANTIC COMMUNITY AGAINST AGGRESSION; AND: 

"WHEREAS THE WEAPONS AND OTHER MATERIALS NEEDED BY OUR ARMED FORCES
AND BY THOSE JOINED WITH US IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FREE WORLD ARE
PRODUCED TO A GREAT EXTENT IN THIS COUNTRY, AND STEEL IS AN
INDISPENSABLE COMPONENT OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF SUCH WEAPONS AND
MATERIALS; AND: 

"WHEREAS STEEL IS LIKEWISE INDISPENSABLE TO THE CARRYING OUT OF
PROGRAMS OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION OF VITAL IMPORTANCE TO OUR
DEFENSE EFFORTS; AND: 

"WHEREAS A CONTINUING AND UNINTERRUPTED SUPPLY OF STEEL IS ALSO
INDISPENSABLE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES,
UPON WHICH OUR MILITARY STRENGTH DEPENDS; AND: 

"WHEREAS A CONTROVERSY HAS ARISEN BETWEEN CERTAIN COMPANIES IN THE
UNITED STATES PRODUCING AND FABRICATING STEEL AND THE ELEMENTS THEREOF
AND CERTAIN OF THEIR WORKERS REPRESENTED BY THE UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, REGARDING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; AND: 

"WHEREAS THE CONTROVERSY HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED THROUGH THE PROCESSES
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF THE GOVERNMENT,
INCLUDING THOSE OF THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD, TO WHICH THE
CONTROVERSY WAS REFERRED ON DECEMBER 22, 1951, PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 10233, AND A STRIKE HAS BEEN CALLED FOR 12:01 A.M., APRIL 9,
1952; AND: 

"WHEREAS A WORK STOPPAGE WOULD IMMEDIATELY JEOPARDIZE AND IMPERIL OUR
NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE DEFENSE OF THOSE JOINED WITH US IN RESISTING
AGGRESSION, AND WOULD ADD TO THE CONTINUING DANGER OF OUR SOLDIERS,
SAILORS, AND AIRMEN ENGAGED IN COMBAT IN THE FIELD; AND: 

"WHEREAS IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF STEEL AND
STEEL PRODUCTS DURING THE EXISTING EMERGENCY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE
UNITED STATES TAKE POSSESSION OF AND OPERATE THE PLANTS, FACILITIES,
AND OTHER PROPERTY OF THE SAID COMPANIES AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED: 

"NOW, THEREFORE, BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO
TAKE POSSESSION OF ALL OR SUCH OF THE PLANTS, FACILITIES, AND OTHER
PROPERTY OF THE COMPANIES NAMED IN THE LIST ATTACHED HERETO, OR ANY
PART THEREOF, AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE; AND TO OPERATE OR TO ARRANGE FOR THE OPERATION THEREOF AND TO
DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY FOR, OR INCIDENTAL TO, SUCH OPERATION  ... ." 
(FN22) 

THE NEXT MORNING, APRIL 9, 1952, THE PRESIDENT ADDRESSED THE
FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO CONGRESS: 

"TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: 

"THE CONGRESS IS UNDOUBTEDLY AWARE OF THE RECENT EVENTS WHICH HAVE
TAKEN PLACE IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANAGEMENT-LABOR DISPUTE IN THE
STEEL INDUSTRY.  THESE EVENTS CULMINATED IN THE ACTION WHICH WAS TAKEN
LAST NIGHT TO PROVIDE FOR TEMPORARY OPERATION OF THE STEEL MILLS BY THE
GOVERNMENT. 

"I TOOK THIS ACTION WITH THE UTMOST RELUCTANCE.  THE IDEA OF
GOVERNMENT OPERATION OF THE STEEL MILLS IS THOROUGHLY DISTASTEFUL TO ME
AND I WANT TO SEE IT ENDED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  HOWEVER, IN THE
SITUATION WHICH CONFRONTED ME YESTERDAY, I FELT THAT I COULD MAKE NO
OTHER CHOICE.  THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES APPEARED TO BE EVEN WORSE - SO
MUCH WORSE THAT I COULD NOT ACCEPT THEM. 

"ONE ALTERNATIVE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO PERMIT A SHUT-DOWN IN THE STEEL
INDUSTRY.  THE EFFECTS OF SUCH A SHUT-DOWN WOULD HAVE BEEN SO IMMEDIATE
AND DAMAGING WITH RESPECT TO OUR EFFORTS TO SUPPORT OUR ARMED FORCES
AND TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY THAT IT MADE THIS ALTERNATIVE
UNTHINKABLE. 

"THE ONLY WAY THAT I KNOW OF, OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT OPERATION, BY
WHICH A STEEL SHUT-DOWN COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WAS TO GRANT THE
DEMANDS OF THE STEEL INDUSTRY FOR A LARGE PRICE INCREASE.  I BELIEVED
AND THE OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF OUR STABILIZATION AGENCIES BELIEVED THAT
THIS WOULD HAVE WRECKED OUR STABILIZATION PROGRAM.  I WAS UNWILLING TO
ACCEPT THE INCALCULABLE DAMAGE WHICH MIGHT BE DONE TO OUR COUNTRY BY
FOLLOWING SUCH A COURSE. 

"ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS MY JUDGMENT THAT GOVERNMENT OPERATION OF THE
STEEL MILLS FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD WAS THE LEAST UNDESIRABLE OF THE
COURSES OF ACTION WHICH LAY OPEN.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I BELIEVED IT
TO BE, AND NOW BELIEVE IT TO BE, MY DUTY AND WITHIN MY POWERS AS
PRESIDENT TO FOLLOW THAT COURSE OF ACTION. 

"IT MAY BE THAT THE CONGRESS WILL DEEM SOME OTHER COURSE TO BE
WISER.  IT MAY BE THAT THE CONGRESS WILL FEEL WE SHOULD GIVE IN TO THE
DEMANDS OF THE STEEL INDUSTRY FOR AN EXORBITANT PRICE INCREASE AND TAKE
THE CONSEQUENCES SO FAR AS RESULTING INFLATION IS CONCERNED. 

"IT MAY BE THAT THE CONGRESS WILL FEEL THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TRY TO
FORCE THE STEEL WORKERS TO CONTINUE TO WORK FOR THE STEEL COMPANIES FOR
ANOTHER LONG PERIOD, WITHOUT A CONTRACT, EVEN THOUGH THE STEEL WORKERS
HAVE ALREADY VOLUNTARILY REMAINED AT WORK WITHOUT A CONTRACT FOR 100
DAYS IN AN EFFORT TO REACH AN ORDERLY SETTLEMENT OF THEIR DIFFERENCES
WITH MANAGEMENT. 

"IT MAY EVEN BE THAT THE CONGRESS WILL FEEL THAT WE SHOULD PERMIT A
SHUT-DOWN OF THE STEEL INDUSTRY, ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD IMMEDIATELY
ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF OUR FIGHTING FORCES ABROAD AND WEAKEN THE WHOLE
STRUCTURE OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. 

"I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CONGRESS WILL FAVOR ANY OF THESE COURSES OF
ACTION, BUT THAT IS A MATTER FOR THE CONGRESS TO DETERMINE. 

"IT MAY BE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE CONGRESS WILL WISH TO PASS
LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITH REFERENCE
TO THE OPERATION OF THE STEEL MILLS BY THE GOVERNMENT.  SOUND
LEGISLATION OF THIS CHARACTER MIGHT BE VERY DESIRABLE. 

"ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS THAT ARE KNOWN TO ME AT THIS TIME, I DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT IMMEDIATE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IS ESSENTIAL; BUT I
WOULD, OF COURSE, BE GLAD TO COOPERATE IN DEVELOPING ANY LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSALS WHICH THE CONGRESS MAY WISH TO CONSIDER. 

"IF THE CONGRESS DOES NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO ACT AT THIS TIME, I
SHALL CONTINUE TO DO ALL THAT IS WITHIN MY POWER TO KEEP THE STEEL
INDUSTRY OPERATING AND AT THE SAME TIME MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO BRING
ABOUT A SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE SO THE MILLS CAN BE RETURNED TO THEIR
PRIVATE OWNERS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  (FN23) 

TWELVE DAYS PASSED WITHOUT ACTION BY CONGRESS.  ON APRIL 21, 1952,
THE PRESIDENT SENT A LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE IN WHICH HE
AGAIN DESCRIBED THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR HIS ACTION AND AGAIN STATED
HIS POSITION THAT "THE CONGRESS CAN, IF IT WISHES, REJECT THE COURSE OF
ACTION I HAVE FOLLOWED IN THIS MATTER."  (FN24)  CONGRESS HAS NOT SO
ACTED TO THIS DATE. 

MEANWHILE, PLAINTIFFS INSTITUTED THIS ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
COMPEL DEFENDANT TO RETURN POSSESSION OF THE STEEL MILLS SEIZED UNDER
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10340.  IN THIS LITIGATION FOR RETURN OF PLAINTIFFS'
PROPERTIES, WE ASSUME THAT DEFENDANT CHARLES SAWYER IS NOT IMMUNE FROM
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AND THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO EQUITABLE RELIEF
IF WE FIND THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER UNDER WHICH DEFENDANT ACTS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  WE ALSO ASSUME WITHOUT DECIDING THAT THE COURTS MAY
GO BEHIND A PRESIDENT'S FINDING OF FACT THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS.  BUT
THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST BASIS FOR SUGGESTING THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
FINDING IN THIS CASE CAN BE UNDERMINED.  PLAINTIFFS MOVED FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BEFORE ANSWER OR HEARING.  DEFENDANT OPPOSED THE
MOTION, FILING UNCONTROVERTED AFFIDAVITS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
DESCRIBING THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER. 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LOVETT SWORE THAT "A WORK STOPPAGE IN THE STEEL
INDUSTRY WILL RESULT IMMEDIATELY IN SERIOUS CURTAILMENT OF PRODUCTION
OF ESSENTIAL WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS OF ALL KINDS."  HE ILLUSTRATED BY
SHOWING THAT 84% OF THE NATIONAL PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN ALLOY STEEL IS
CURRENTLY USED FOR PRODUCTION OF MILITARY-END ITEMS AND THAT 35% OF
TOTAL PRODUCTION OF ANOTHER FORM OF STEEL GOES INTO AMMUNITION, 80% OF
SUCH AMMUNITION NOW GOING TO KOREA.  THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE STATED
THAT:  "WE ARE HOLDING THE LINE IN KOREA WITH AMMUNITION AND NOT WITH
THE LIVES OF OUR TROOPS." 

AFFIDAVITS OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, DEFENDANT AS SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, AND THE
ADMINISTRATORS OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ADMINISTRATION, THE NATIONAL
PRODUCTION AUTHORITY, THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND THE
DEFENSE TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION WERE ALSO FILED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THESE AFFIDAVITS DISCLOSE AN ENORMOUS DEMAND FOR STEEL IN SUCH
VITAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS AS THE EXPANSION OF FACILITIES IN ATOMIC ENERGY,
PETROLEUM, POWER, TRANSPORTATION AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION, INCLUDING
STEEL PRODUCTION.  THOSE CHARGED WITH ADMINISTERING ALLOCATIONS AND
PRIORITIES SWORE TO THE VITAL PART STEEL PRODUCTION PLAYS IN OUR
ECONOMY.  THE AFFIDAVITS EMPHASIZE THE CRITICAL NEED FOR STEEL IN OUR
DEFENSE PROGRAM, THE ABSENCE OF APPRECIABLE INVENTORIES OF STEEL, AND
THE DRASTIC RESULTS OF ANY INTERRUPTION IN STEEL PRODUCTION. 

ONE IS NOT HERE CALLED UPON EVEN TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF
EXECUTIVE SEIZURE OF A FARM, A CORNER GROCERY STORE OR EVEN A SINGLE
INDUSTRIAL PLANT.  SUCH CONSIDERATIONS ARISE ONLY WHEN ONE IGNORES THE
CENTRAL FACT OF THIS CASE - THAT THE NATION'S ENTIRE BASIC STEEL
PRODUCTION WOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY IF THERE HAD BEEN NO
GOVERNMENT SEIZURE.  EVEN IGNORING FOR THE MOMENT WHATEVER CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THE PRESIDENT MAY POSSESS AS "THE NATION'S ORGAN FOR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS," (FN25) THE UNCONTROVERTED AFFIDAVITS IN THIS RECORD
AMPLY SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT "A WORK STOPPAGE WOULD IMMEDIATELY
JEOPARDIZE AND IMPERIL OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE." 

PLAINTIFFS DO NOT REMOTELY SUGGEST ANY BASIS FOR REJECTING THE
PRESIDENT'S FINDING THAT ANY STOPPAGE OF STEEL PRODUCTION WOULD
IMMEDIATELY PLACE THE NATION IN PERIL.  MOREOVER, EVEN SELF-GENERATED
DOUBTS THAT ANY STOPPAGE OF STEEL PRODUCTION CONSTITUTES AN EMERGENCY
ARE OF LITTLE COMFORT HERE.  THE UNION AND THE PLAINTIFFS BARGAINED FOR
6 MONTHS WITH OVER 100 ISSUES IN DISPUTE - ISSUES NOT LIMITED TO WAGE
DEMANDS BUT INCLUDING THE UNION SHOP AND OTHER MATTERS OF PRINCIPLE
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  AT THE TIME OF SEIZURE THERE WAS NOT, AND THERE
IS NOT NOW, THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE BELIEF THAT ANY
STRIKE WILL BE OF SHORT DURATION.  THE UNION AND THE STEEL COMPANIES
MAY WELL ENGAGE IN A LENGTHY STRUGGLE.  PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL TELLS US
THAT "SOONER OR LATER" THE MILLS WILL OPERATE AGAIN.  THAT MAY SATISFY
THE STEEL COMPANIES AND, PERHAPS, THE UNION.  BUT OUR SOLDIERS AND OUR
ALLIES WILL HARDLY BE CHEERED WITH THE ASSURANCE THAT THE AMMUNITION
UPON WHICH THEIR LIVES DEPEND WILL BE FORTHCOMING - "SOONER OR LATER,"
OR, IN OTHER WORDS, "TOO LITTLE AND TOO LATE."    ACCORDINGLY, IF THE
PRESIDENT HAS ANY POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO MEET A CRITICAL
SITUATION IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, THERE IS
NO BASIS WHATEVER FOR CRITICIZING THE EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER IN THIS
CASE. 

                       II. 

THE STEEL MILLS WERE SEIZED FOR A PUBLIC USE.  THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN, INVOKED IN THIS CASE, IS AN ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE OF SOVEREIGNTY
AND HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
KOHL V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 367 (1876).  PLAINTIFFS CANNOT COMPLAIN
THAT ANY PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS THE EXERCISE OF THE
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN THIS CASE.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES:
"NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION."  IT IS NO BAR TO THIS SEIZURE FOR, IF THE TAKING IS NOT
OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL, PLAINTIFFS ARE ASSURED OF RECEIVING THE REQUIRED
JUST COMPENSATION.  UNITED STATES V. PEWEE COAL CO., 341 U.S. 114
(1951). 

ADMITTING THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD SEIZE THE MILLS, PLAINTIFFS CLAIM
THAT THE IMPLIED POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY UNDER AN
ACT OF CONGRESS; UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY SAY, CAN THAT POWER BE
EXERCISED BY THE PRESIDENT UNLESS HE CAN POINT TO AN EXPRESS PROVISION
IN ENABLING LEGISLATION.  THIS WAS THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE WHEN HE GRANTED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.  WITHOUT AN ANSWER,
WITHOUT HEARING EVIDENCE, HE DETERMINED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF HIS
"FIXED CONCLUSION  ...  THAT DEFENDANT'S ACTS ARE ILLEGAL" BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT'S ONLY COURSE IN THE FACE OF AN EMERGENCY IS TO PRESENT THE
MATTER TO CONGRESS AND AWAIT THE FINAL PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION WHICH
WILL ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO COPE WITH THREATENED DISASTER. 

UNDER THIS VIEW, THE PRESIDENT IS LEFT POWERLESS AT THE VERY MOMENT
WHEN THE NEED FOR ACTION MAY BE MOST PRESSING AND WHEN NO ONE, OTHER
THAN HE, IS IMMEDIATELY CAPABLE OF ACTION.  UNDER THIS VIEW, HE IS LEFT
POWERLESS BECAUSE A POWER NOT EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO CONGRESS IS
NEVERTHELESS FOUND TO REST EXCLUSIVELY WITH CONGRESS. 

CONSIDERATION OF THIS VIEW OF EXECUTIVE IMPOTENCE CALLS FOR FURTHER
EXAMINATION OF THE NATURE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER OUR
TRIPARTITE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 

THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES: 

ART. I: 

A CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,  ...  ." 

ART. II: 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ...  ." 

AND NAVY OF THE UNITED STATES,  ...  ." 

"HE SHALL HAVE POWER, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE
SENATE, TO MAKE TREATIES, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT
CONCUR; ...  ." 

INFORMATION OF THE STATE OF THE UNION, AND RECOMMEND TO THEIR
CONSIDERATION SUCH MEASURES AS HE SHALL JUDGE NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT;
...  HE SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED,  ...  ." 

ART. III: 

IN ONE SUPREME COURT, AND IN SUCH INFERIOR COURTS AS THE CONGRESS MAY
FROM TIME TO TIME ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH." 

THE WHOLE OF THE "EXECUTIVE POWER" IS VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT. 
BEFORE ENTERING OFFICE, THE PRESIDENT SWEARS THAT HE "WILL FAITHFULLY
EXECUTE THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WILL TO THE
BEST OF HIS ABILITY, PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES."  ART. II, SEC. 1. 

THIS COMPREHENSIVE GRANT OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER TO A SINGLE PERSON
WAS BESTOWED SOON AFTER THE COUNTRY HAD THROWN THE YOKE OF MONARCHY. 
ONLY BY INSTILLING INITIATIVE AND VIGOR IN ALL OF THE THREE DEPARTMENTS
OF GOVERNMENT, DECLARED MADISON, COULD TYRANNY IN ANY FORM BE AVOIDED. 
(FN26) HAMILTON ADDED:  "ENERGY IN THE EXECUTIVE IS A LEADING CHARACTER
IN THE DEFINITION OF GOOD GOVERNMENT.  IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE COMMUNITY AGAINST FOREIGN ATTACKS; IT IS NOT LESS
ESSENTIAL TO THE STEADY ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAWS; TO THE PROTECTION
OF PROPERTY AGAINST THOSE IRREGULAR AND HIGH-HANDED COMBINATIONS WHICH
SOMETIMES INTERRUPT THE ORDINARY COURSE OF JUSTICE; TO THE SECURITY OF
LIBERTY AGAINST THE ENTERPRISES AND ASSAULTS OF AMBITION, OF FACTION,
AND OF ANARCHY."  (FN27)  IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE PRESIDENCY WAS
DELIBERATELY FASHIONED AS AN OFFICE OF POWER AND INDEPENDENCE.  OF
COURSE, THE FRAMERS CREATED NO AUTOCRAT CAPABLE OF ARROGATING ANY POWER
UNTO HIMSELF AT ANY TIME.  BUT NEITHER DID THEY CREATE AN AUTOMATON
IMPOTENT TO EXERCISE THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AT A TIME WHEN THE
SURVIVAL OF THE REPUBLIC ITSELF MAY BE AT STAKE. 

IN PASSING UPON THE GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS
CASE, WE MUST NEVER FORGET, AS CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL ADMONISHED, THAT
THE CONSTITUTION IS "INTENDED TO ENDURE FOR AGES TO COME, AND,
CONSEQUENTLY, TO BE ADAPTED TO THE VARIOUS CRISES OF HUMAN AFFAIRS,"
AND THAT "ITS MEANS ARE ADEQUATE TO ITS ENDS."  (FN28)  CASES DO ARISE
PRESENTING QUESTIONS WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEN BY THE
FRAMERS.  IN SUCH CASES, THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN TREATED AS A LIVING
DOCUMENT ADAPTABLE TO NEW SITUATIONS.  (FN29)  BUT WE ARE NOT CALLED
UPON TODAY TO EXPAND THE CONSTITUTION TO MEET A NEW SITUATION.  FOR, IN
THIS CASE, WE NEED ONLY LOOK TO HISTORY AND TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLES OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE BEEN APPLIED CONSISTENTLY BY
ALL BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY.  IT IS THOSE WHO
ASSERT THE INVALIDITY OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WHO SEEK TO AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION IN THIS CASE. 

                                   III. 

A REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE ACTION DEMONSTRATES THAT OUR PRESIDENTS HAVE ON
MANY OCCASIONS EXHIBITED THE LEADERSHIP CONTEMPLATED BY THE FRAMERS
WHEN THEY MADE THE PRESIDENT COMMANDER IN CHIEF, AND IMPOSED UPON HIM
THE TRUST TO "TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED."  WITH OR
WITHOUT EXPLICIT STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, PRESIDENTS HAVE AT SUCH TIMES
DEALT WITH NATIONAL EMERGENCIES BY ACTING PROMPTLY AND RESOLUTELY TO
ENFORCE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS, AT LEAST TO SAVE THOSE PROGRAMS UNTIL
CONGRESS COULD ACT.  CONGRESS AND THE COURTS HAVE RESPONDED TO SUCH
EXECUTIVE INITIATIVE WITH CONSISTENT APPROVAL. 

OUR FIRST PRESIDENT DISPLAYED AT ONCE THE LEADERSHIP CONTEMPLATED BY
THE FRAMERS.  WHEN THE NATIONAL REVENUE LAWS WERE OPENLY FLOUTED IN
SOME SECTIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA, PRESIDENT WASHINGTON, WITHOUT WAITING
FOR A CALL FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT, SUMMONED THE MILITIA AND TOOK
DECISIVE STEPS TO SECURE THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAWS.  (FN30)
WHEN INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES ENGENDERED BY THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
THREATENED TO INVOLVE THIS COUNTRY IN WAR, AND WHILE CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY REMAINED UNCERTAIN, WASHINGTON ISSUED HIS PROCLAMATION OF
NEUTRALITY.  HAMILTON, WHOSE DEFENSE OF THE PROCLAMATION HAS ENDURED
THE TEST OF TIME, INVOKED THE ARGUMENT THAT THE EXECUTIVE HAS THE DUTY
TO DO THAT WHICH WILL PRESERVE PEACE UNTIL CONGRESS ACTS AND, IN
ADDITION, POINTED TO THE NEED FOR KEEPING THE NATION INFORMED OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF EXISTING LAWS AND TREATIES AS PART OF THE FAITHFUL
EXECUTION OF THE LAWS.  (FN31) 

PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS ISSUED A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF JONATHAN
ROBBINS IN ORDER TO EXECUTE THE EXTRADITION PROVISIONS OF A TREATY. 
THIS ACTION WAS CHALLENGED IN CONGRESS ON THE GROUND THAT NO SPECIFIC
STATUTE PRESCRIBED THE METHOD TO BE USED IN EXECUTING THE TREATY.  JOHN
MARSHALL, THEN A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MADE THE
FOLLOWING ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION: 

"THE TREATY, WHICH IS A LAW, ENJOINS THE PERFORMANCE OF A PARTICULAR
OBJECT.  THE PERSON WHO IS TO PERFORM THIS OBJECT IS MARKED OUT BY THE
CONSTITUTION, SINCE THE PERSON IS NAMED WHO CONDUCTS THE FOREIGN
INTERCOURSE, AND IS TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED. 
THE MEANS BY WHICH IT IS TO BE PERFORMED, THE FORCE OF THE NATION, ARE
IN THE HANDS OF THIS PERSON.  OUGHT NOT THIS PERSON TO PERFORM THE
OBJECT, ALTHOUGH THE PARTICULAR MODE OF USING THE MEANS HAS NOT BEEN
PRESCRIBED?  CONGRESS, UNQUESTIONABLY, MAY PRESCRIBE THE MODE, AND
CONGRESS MAY DEVOLVE ON OTHERS THE WHOLE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT;
BUT, TILL THIS BE DONE, IT SEEMS THE DUTY OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT BY ANY MEANS IT POSSESSES."  (FN32) 

EFFORTS IN CONGRESS TO DISCREDIT THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS ACTION
FAILED.  (FN33)  ALMOST A CENTURY LATER, THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO
GIVE ITS EXPRESS APPROVAL TO "THE MASTERLY AND CONCLUSIVE ARGUMENT OF
JOHN MARSHALL."  (FN34) 

JEFFERSON'S INTIATIVE IN THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE, THE MONROE DOCTRINE,
AND JACKSON'S REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT DEPOSITS FROM THE BANK OF THE
UNITED STATES FURTHER SERVE TO DEMONSTRATE BY DEED WHAT THE FRAMERS
DESCRIBED BY WORD WHEN THEY VESTED THE WHOLE OF THE EXECUTIVE POWER IN
THE PRESIDENT. 

WITHOUT DECLARATION OF WAR, PRESIDENT LINCOLN TOOK ENERGETIC ACTION
WITH THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES.  HE SUMMONED TROOPS
AND PAID THEM OUT OF THE TREASURY WITHOUT APPROPRIATION THEREFOR.  HE
PROCLAIMED A NAVAL BLOCKADE OF THE CONFEDERACY AND SEIZED SHIPS
VIOLATING THAT BLOCKADE.  CONGRESS, FAR FROM DENYING THE VALIDITY OF
THESE ACTS, GAVE THEM EXPRESS APPROVAL.  THE MOST STRIKING ACTION OF
PRESIDENT LINCOLN WAS THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, ISSUED IN AID OF
THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES, BUT WHOLLY
WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  (FN35) 

IN AN ACTION FURNISHING A MOST APT PRECEDENT FOR THIS CASE, PRESIDENT
LINCOLN WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY DIRECTED THE SEIZURE OF RAIL AND
TELEGRAPH LINES LEADING TO WASHINGTON.  (FN36)  MANY MONTHS LATER,
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED AND CONFIRMED THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO SEIZE
RAILROADS AND TELEGRAPH LINES AND PROVIDED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR
INTERFERENCE WITH GOVERNMENT OPERATION.  (FN37) THIS ACT DID NOT CONFER
ON THE PRESIDENT ANY ADDITIONAL POWERS OF SEIZURE.  CONGRESS PLAINLY
REJECTED THE VIEW THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ACTS HAD BEEN WITHOUT LEGAL
SANCTION UNTIL RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURE.  SPONSORS OF THE BILL
DECLARED THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS ONLY TO CONFIRM THE POWER WHICH THE
PRESIDENT ALREADY POSSESSED.  (FN38)  OPPONENTS INSISTED A STATUTE
AUTHORIZING SEIZURE WAS UNNECESSARY AND MIGHT EVEN BE CONSTRUED AS
LIMITING EXISTING PRESIDENTIAL POWERS.  (FN39) 

OTHER SEIZURES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OCCURRED DURING THE WAR BETWEEN
THE STATES, JUST AS THEY HAD OCCURRED DURING PREVIOUS WARS.  (FN40)  IN
UNITED STATES V. RUSSELL, 13 WALL.  623 (1872), THREE RIVER STEAMERS
WERE SEIZED BY ARMY QUARTERMASTERS ON THE GROUND OF "IMPERATIVE
MILITARY NECESSITY."  THIS COURT AFFIRMED AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION,
STATING: 

"EXTRAORDINARY AND UNFORESEEN OCCASIONS ARISE, HOWEVER, BEYOND ALL
DOUBT, IN CASES OF EXTREME NECESSITY IN TIME OF WAR OR OF IMMEDIATE AND
IMPENDING PUBLIC DANGER, IN WHICH PRIVATE PROPERTY MAY BE IMPRESSED
INTO THE PUBLIC SERVICE, OR MAY BE SEIZED AND APPROPRIATED TO THE
PUBLIC USE, OR MAY EVEN BE DESTROYED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER. 

     *      *         *         *         * 

"EXIGENCIES OF THE KIND DO ARISE IN TIME OF WAR OR IMPENDING PUBLIC
DANGER, BUT IT IS THE EMERGENCY, AS WAS SAID BY A GREAT MAGISTRATE,
THAT GIVES THE RIGHT, AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THE EMERGENCY MUST BE SHOWN
TO EXIST BEFORE THE TAKING CAN BE JUSTIFIED.  SUCH A JUSTIFICATION MAY
BE SHOWN, AND WHEN SHOWN THE RULE IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE OFFICER
TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR SUCH A PURPOSE, IF THE EMERGENCY IS FULLY
PROVED, IS NOT A TRESPASSER, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO MAKE
FULL COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER."  (FN41) 

IN RE NEAGLE, 135 U.S. 1 (1890), THIS COURT HELD THAT A FEDERAL
OFFICER HAD ACTED IN LINE OF DUTY WHEN HE WAS GUARDING A JUSTICE OF
THIS COURT RIDING CIRCUIT.  IT WAS CONCEDED THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC
STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO ASSIGN SUCH A GUARD.  IN HOLDING
THAT SUCH A STATUTE WAS NOT NECESSARY, THE COURT BROADLY STATED THE
QUESTION AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE PRESIDENT IS ENABLED TO FULFIL THE DUTY OF HIS GREAT DEPARTMENT,
EXPRESSED IN THE PHRASE THAT 'HE SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE
FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.' 

"IS THIS DUTY LIMITED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF ACTS OF CONGRESS OR OF
TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES ACCORDING TO THEIR EXPRESS TERMS, OR DOES
IT INCLUDE THE RIGHTS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS GROWING OUT OF THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF, OUR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND ALL THE
PROTECTION IMPLIED BY THE NATURE OF THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION?"  (FN42) 

THE LATTER APPROACH WAS EMPHATICALLY ADOPTED BY THE COURT. 

PRESIDENT HAYES AUTHORIZED THE WIDE-SPREAD USE OF FEDERAL TROOPS
DURING THE RAILROAD STRIKE OF 1877.  (FN43)  PRESIDENT CLEVELAND ALSO
USED THE TROOPS IN THE PULLMAN STRIKE OF 1895 AND HIS ACTION IS OF
SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE.  NO STATUTE AUTHORIZED THIS ACTION.  NO CALL FOR
HELP HAD ISSUED FROM THE GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS; INDEED GOVERNOR ALTGELD
DISCLAIMED THE NEED FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FORCES.  BUT THE PRESIDENT'S
CONCERN WAS THAT FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO THE FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THE MAILS BE CONTINUOUSLY AND FAITHFULLY EXECUTED WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION.  (FN44)  TO FURTHER THIS AIM HIS AGENTS SOUGHT AND
OBTAINED THE INJUNCTION UPHELD BY THIS COURT IN IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S.
564 (1895).  THE COURT SCRUTINIZED EACH OF THE STEPS TAKEN BY THE
PRESIDENT TO INSURE EXECUTION OF THE "MASS OF LEGISLATION" DEALING WITH
COMMERCE AND THE MAILS AND GAVE HIS CONDUCT FULL APPROVAL.  CONGRESS
LIKEWISE TOOK NOTE OF THIS USE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO FORESTALL
APPARENT OBSTACLES TO THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAWS.  BY SEPARATE
RESOLUTIONS, BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE COMMENDED THE EXECUTIVE'S
ACTION.  (FN45)    PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT SERIOUSLY CONTEMPLATED
SEIZURE OF PENNSYLVANIA COAL MINES IF A COAL SHORTAGE NECESSITATED SUCH
ACTION.  (FN46)  IN HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT EXPOUNDED
THE "STEWARDSHIP THEORY" OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER, STATING THAT "THE
EXECUTIVE AS SUBJECT ONLY TO THE PEOPLE, AND, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION,
BOUND TO SERVE THE PEOPLE AFFIRMATIVELY IN CASES WHERE THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT EXPLICITLY FORBID HIM TO RENDER THE SERVICE."  (FN47)  BECAUSE
THE CONTEMPLATED SEIZURE OF THE COAL MINES WAS BASED ON THIS THEORY,
THEN EX-PRESIDENT TAFT CRITICIZED PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT IN A PASSAGE IN
HIS BOOK RELIED UPON BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE.  TAFT, OUR
CHIEF MAGISTRATE AND HIS POWERS (1916), 139-147.  IN THE SAME BOOK,
HOWEVER, PRESIDENT TAFT AGREED THAT SUCH POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT AS THE
DUTY TO "TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED" COULD NOT BE
CONFINED TO "EXPRESS CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES."  ID., AT 88.  IN RE
NEAGLE, SUPRA, AND IN RE DEBS, SUPRA, WERE CITED AS CONFORMING WITH
TAFT'S CONCEPT OF THE OFFICE, ID., AT PP. 88-94, AS THEY WERE LATER TO
BE CITED WITH APPROVAL IN HIS OPINION AS CHIEF JUSTICE IN MYERS V.
UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52, 133 (1926).  (FN48) 

IN 1909, PRESIDENT TAFT WAS INFORMED THAT GOVERNMENT-OWNED OIL LANDS
WERE BEING PATENTED BY PRIVATE PARTIES AT SUCH A RATE THAT PUBLIC OIL
LANDS WOULD BE DEPLETED IN A MATTER OF MONTHS.  ALTHOUGH CONGRESS HAD
EXPLICITLY PROVIDED THAT THESE LANDS WERE OPEN TO PURCHASE BY UNITED
STATES CITIZENS, 29 STAT. 526 (1897), THE PRESIDENT NEVERTHELESS
ORDERED THE LANDS WITHDRAWN FROM SALE "IN AID OF PROPOSED
LEGISLATION."  IN UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO., 236 U.S. 459
(1915), THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION WAS SUSTAINED AS CONSISTENT WITH
EXECUTIVE PRACTICE THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY.  AN EXCELLENT BRIEF WAS
FILED IN THE CASE BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, MR. JOHN W. DAVIS, TOGETHER
WITH ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL KNAEBEL, LATER REPORTER FOR THIS
COURT.  IN THIS BRIEF, THE SITUATION CONFRONTING PRESIDENT TAFT WAS
DESCRIBED AS "AN EMERGENCY; THERE WAS NO TIME TO WAIT FOR THE ACTION OF
CONGRESS."  THE BRIEF THEN DISCUSSES THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION IN SUCH A CASE: 

"OURS IS A SELF-SUFFICIENT GOVERNMENT WITHIN ITS SPHERE.  (EX PARTE
SIEBOLD, 100 U.S., 371, 395; IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S., 564, 578.)  'ITS
MEANS ARE ADEQUATE TO ITS ENDS' (MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT., 316,
424), AND IT IS RATIONAL TO ASSUME THAT ITS ACTIVE FORCES WILL BE FOUND
EQUAL IN MOST THINGS TO THE EMERGENCIES THAT CONFRONT IT.  WHILE
PERFECT FLEXIBILITY IS NOT TO BE EXPECTED IN A GOVERNMENT OF DIVIDED
POWERS, AND WHILE DIVISION OF POWER IS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF
THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS THE PLAIN DUTY OF THOSE WHO ARE CALLED UPON TO
DRAW THE DIVIDING LINES TO ASCERTAIN THE ESSENTIAL, RECOGNIZE THE
PRACTICAL, AND AVOID A SLAVISH FORMALISM WHICH CAN ONLY SERVE TO OSSIFY
THE GOVERNMENT AND REDUCE ITS EFFICIENCY WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATING
GOOD.  THE FUNCTION OF MAKING LAWS IS PECULIAR TO CONGRESS, AND THE
EXECUTIVE CAN NOT EXERCISE THAT FUNCTION TO ANY DEGREE.  BUT THIS IS
NOT TO SAY THAT ALL OF THE SUBJECTS CONCERNING WHICH LAWS MIGHT BE MADE
ARE PERFORCE REMOVED FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF EXECUTIVE INFLUENCE.  THE
EXECUTIVE MAY ACT UPON THINGS AND UPON MEN IN MANY RELATIONS WHICH HAVE
NOT, THOUGH THEY MIGHT HAVE, BEEN ACTUALLY REGULATED BY CONGRESS.  IN
OTHER WORDS, JUST AS THERE ARE FIELDS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO CONGRESS
AND FIELDS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE EXECUTIVE, SO THERE ARE FIELDS
WHICH ARE COMMON TO BOTH, IN THE SENSE THAT THE EXECUTIVE MAY MOVE
WITHIN THEM UNTIL THEY SHALL HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION. 
THESE ARE NOT THE FIELDS OF LEGISLATIVE PREROGATIVE, BUT FIELDS WITHIN
WHICH THE LAWMAKING POWER MAY ENTER AND DOMINATE WHENEVER IT CHOOSES. 
THIS SITUATION RESULTS FROM THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS THE ACTIVE
AGENT, NOT OF CONGRESS, BUT OF THE NATION.  AS SUCH HE PERFORMS THE
DUTIES WHICH THE CONSTITUTION LAYS UPON HIM IMMEDIATELY, AND AS SUCH,
ALSO, HE EXECUTES THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY CONGRESS.  HE IS
THE AGENT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, DERIVING ALL HIS POWERS
FROM THEM AND RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY TO THEM.  IN NO SENSE IS HE THE
AGENT OF CONGRESS.  HE OBEYS AND EXECUTES THE LAWS OF CONGRESS, NOT
BECAUSE CONGRESS IS ENTHRONED IN AUTHORITY OVER HIM, BUT BECAUSE THE
CONSTITUTION DIRECTS HIM TO DO SO. 

"THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT IN WAYS SHORT OF MAKING LAWS OR DISOBEYING
THEM, THE EXECUTIVE MAY BE UNDER A GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ACT FOR
THE NATIONAL PROTECTION IN SITUATIONS NOT COVERED BY THE ACTS OF
CONGRESS, AND IN WHICH, EVEN, IT MAY NOT BE SAID THAT HIS ACTION IS THE
DIRECT EXPRESSION OF ANY PARTICULAR ONE OF THE INDEPENDENT POWERS WHICH
ARE GRANTED TO HIM SPECIFICALLY BY THE CONSTITUTION.  INSTANCES WHEREIN
THE PRESIDENT HAS FELT AND FULFILLED SUCH A DUTY HAVE NOT BEEN RARE IN
OUR HISTORY, THOUGH, BEING FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT AND APPROVED BY ALL,
HIS ACTS HAVE SELDOM BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS.  WE ARE ABLE,
HOWEVER, TO PRESENT A NUMBER OF APPOSITE CASES WHICH WERE SUBJECTED TO
JUDICIAL INQUIRY." 

THE BRIEF THEN QUOTES FROM SUCH CASES AS IN RE DEBS, SUPRA, AND IN RE
NEAGLE, SUPRA, AND CONTINUES: 

"AS WE UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEAGLE CASE, AND THE CASES
THEREIN CITED, IT IS CLEARLY THIS:  THE EXECUTIVE IS AUTHORIZED TO
EXERT THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN HE FINDS THIS NECESSARY FOR
THE PROTECTION OF THE AGENCIES, THE INSTRUMENTALITIES, OR THE PROPERTY
OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN AN AUTHORITY TO DISREGARD THE
WISHES OF CONGRESS ON THE SUBJECT, WHEN THAT SUBJECT LIES WITHIN ITS
CONTROL AND WHEN THOSE WISHES HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED, AND IT CERTAINLY
DOES NOT INVOLVE THE SLIGHTEST SEMBLANCE OF A POWER TO LEGISLATE, MUCH
LESS TO 'SUSPEND' LEGISLATION ALREADY PASSED BY CONGRESS.  IT INVOLVES
THE PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIC ACTS, NOT OF A LEGISLATIVE BUT PURELY OF AN
EXECUTIVE CHARACTER - ACTS WHICH ARE NOT IN THEMSELVES LAWS, BUT WHICH
PRESUPPOSE A 'LAW' AUTHORIZING HIM TO PERFORM THEM.  THIS LAW IS NOT
EXPRESSED, EITHER IN THE CONSTITUTION OR IN THE ENACTMENTS OF CONGRESS,
BUT REASON AND NECESSITY COMPEL THAT IT BE IMPLIED FROM THE EXIGENCIES
OF THE SITUATION. 

"IN NONE OF THE CASES WHICH WE HAVE MENTIONED, NOR IN THE CASES CITED
IN THE EXTRACTS TAKEN FROM THE NEAGLE CASE, WAS IT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT
THE ACTION OF THE PRESIDENT WAS DIRECTED, EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, BY
CONGRESS.  THE SITUATIONS DEALT WITH HAD NEVER BEEN COVERED BY ANY ACT
OF CONGRESS, AND THERE WAS NO GROUND WHATEVER FOR A CONTENTION THAT THE
POSSIBILITY OF THEIR OCCURRENCE HAD EVER BEEN SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED
BY THE LEGISLATIVE MIND.  IN NONE OF THOSE CASES DID THE ACTION OF THE
PRESIDENT AMOUNT MERELY TO THE EXECUTION OF SOME SPECIFIC LAW. 

"NEITHER DOES ANY OF THEM STAND APART IN PRINCIPLE FROM THE CASE AT
BAR, AS INVOLVING THE EXERCISE OF SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT IN A DEGREE IN WHICH THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE THEM.  TAKEN
COLLECTIVELY, THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH DESIGNATE THE
PRESIDENT AS THE OFFICIAL WHO MUST REPRESENT US IN FOREIGN RELATIONS,
IN COMMANDING THE ARMY AND NAVY, IN KEEPING CONGRESS INFORMED OF THE
STATE OF THE UNION, IN INSURING THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAWS AND
IN RECOMMENDING NEW ONES, CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SWEEPING
DECLARATION THAT THE EXECUTIVE POWER SHALL BE VESTED IN HIM, COMPLETELY
DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS IS THE WATCHFUL EYE, THE ACTIVE HAND, THE
OVERSEEING DYNAMIC FORCE OF THE UNITED STATES."  (FN49) 

THIS BRIEF IS VALUABLE NOT ALONE BECAUSE OF THE CALIBER OF ITS
AUTHORS BUT BECAUSE IT LAYS BARE IN SUCCINCT REASONING THE BASIS OF THE
EXECUTIVE PRACTICE WHICH THIS COURT APPROVED IN THE MIDWEST OIL CASE. 

DURING WORLD WAR I, PRESIDENT WILSON ESTABLISHED A WAR LABOR BOARD
WITHOUT AWAITING SPECIFIC DIRECTION BY CONGRESS.  (FN50)  WITH WILLIAM
HOWARD TAFT AND FRANK P. WALSH AS CO-CHAIRMEN, THE BOARD HAD AS ITS
PURPOSE THE PREVENTION OF STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS INTERFERING WITH THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS NEEDED TO MEET THE EMERGENCY.  EFFECTIVENESS OF WAR
LABOR BOARD DECISION WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY PRESIDENTIAL ACTION, INCLUDING
SEIZURE OF INDUSTRIAL PLANTS.  (FN51)  SEIZURE OF THE NATION'S
RAILROADS WAS ALSO ORDERED BY PRESIDENT WILSON.  (FN52) 

BEGINNING WITH THE BANK HOLIDAY PROCLAMATION (FN53) AND CONTINUING
THROUGH WORLD WAR II, EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP AND INITIATIVE WERE
CHARACTERISTIC OF PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION.  IN
1939, UPON THE OUTBREAK OF WAR IN EUROPE, THE PRESIDENT PROCLAIMED A
LIMITED NATIONAL EMERGENCY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRENGTHENING OUR
NATIONAL DEFENSE.  (FN54)  IN MAY OF 1941, THE DANGER FROM THE AXIS
BELLIGERENTS HAVING BECOME CLEAR, THE PRESIDENT PROCLAIMED "AN
UNLIMITED NATIONAL EMERGENCY" CALLING FOR MOBILIZATION OF THE NATION'S
DEFENSES TO REPEL AGGRESSION.  (FN55)  THE PRESIDENT TOOK THE
INITIATIVE IN STRENGTHENING OUR DEFENSES BY ACQUIRING RIGHTS FROM THE
BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH AIR BASES IN EXCHANGE FOR OVERAGE
DESTROYERS.  (FN56) 

IN 1941, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT ACTED TO PROTECT ICELAND FROM ATTACK BY
AXIS POWERS, WHEN BRITISH FORCES WERE WITHDRAWN, BY SENDING OUR FORCES
TO OCCUPY ICELAND.  CONGRESS WAS INFORMED OF THIS ACTION ON THE SAME
DAY THAT OUR FORCES REACHED ICELAND.  (FN57)  THE OCCUPATION OF ICELAND
WAS BUT ONE OF "AT LEAST 125 INCIDENTS" IN OUR HISTORY IN WHICH
PRESIDENTS, "WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF
A DECLARATION OF WAR, HAVE ORDERED THE ARMED FORCES TO TAKE ACTION OR
MAINTAIN POSITIONS ABROAD."  (FN58) 

SOME SIX MONTHS BEFORE PEARL HARBOR, A DISPUTE AT A SINGLE AVIATION
PLANT AT INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA, INTERRUPTED A SEGMENT OF THE PRODUCTION
OF MILITARY AIRCRAFT.  IN SPITE OF THE COMPARATIVE INSIGNIFICANCE OF
THIS WORK STOPPAGE TO TOTAL DEFENSE PRODUCTION AS CONTRASTED WITH THE
COMPLETE PARALYSIS NOW THREATENED BY A SHUT-DOWN OF THE ENTIRE BASIC
STEEL INDUSTRY, AND EVEN THOUGH OUR ARMED FORCES WERE NOT THEN ENGAGED
IN COMBAT, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT ORDERED THE SEIZURE OF THE PLANT
"PURSUANT TO THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES, AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY OF THE UNITED STATES."  (FN59)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (JACKSON) VIGOROUSLY PROCLAIMED THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAD THE MORAL DUTY TO KEEP THIS NATION'S DEFENSE EFFORT A "GOING
CONCERN."  HIS RINGING MORAL JUSTIFICATION WAS COUPLED WITH A LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION EQUALLY WELL STATED: 

"THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION RESTS UPON THE AGGREGATE OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL POWERS DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF AND FROM
STATUTES ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS. 

"THE CONSTITUTION LAYS UPON THE PRESIDENT THE DUTY 'TO TAKE CARE THAT
THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.'  AMONG THE LAWS WHICH HE IS REQUIRED
TO FIND MEANS TO EXECUTE ARE THOSE WHICH DIRECT HIM TO EQUIP AN
ENLARGED ARMY, TO PROVIDE FOR A STRENGTHENED NAVY, TO PROTECT
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, TO PROTECT THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN CARRYING OUT
THE BUSINESS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LEND-LEASE ACT.  FOR THE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF SUCH LAWS THE PRESIDENT
HAS BACK OF HIM NOT ONLY EACH GENERAL LAW-ENFORCEMENT POWER CONFERRED
BY THE VARIOUS ACTS OF CONGRESS BUT THE AGGREGATE OF ALL SUCH LAWS PLUS
THAT WIDE DISCRETION AS TO METHOD VESTED IN HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR
THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING THE LAWS. 

"THE CONSTITUTION ALSO PLACES ON THE PRESIDENT THE RESPONSIBILITY AND
VESTS IN HIM THE POWERS OF COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND OF THE
NAVY.  THESE WEAPONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF
THE NATION ARE PLACED IN HIS SOLE COMMAND AND THE IMPLICATION IS CLEAR
THAT HE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO BECOME PARALYZED BY FAILURE TO OBTAIN
SUPPLIES FOR WHICH CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED THE MONEY AND WHICH IT HAS
DIRECTED THE PRESIDENT TO OBTAIN."  (FN60) 

AT THIS TIME, SENATOR CONNALLY PROPOSED AMENDING THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO SEIZE ANY PLANT
WHERE AN INTERRUPTION OF PRODUCTION WOULD UNDULY IMPEDE THE DEFENSE
EFFORT.  (FN61)  PROPONENTS OF THE MEASURE IN NO WAY IMPLIED THAT THE
LEGISLATION WOULD ADD TO THE POWERS ALREADY POSSESSED BY THE PRESIDENT
(FN62) AND THE AMENDMENT WAS OPPOSED AS UNNECESSARY SINCE THE PRESIDENT
ALREADY HAD THE POWER.  (FN63)  THE AMENDMENT RELATING TO PLANT
SEIZURES WAS NOT APPROVED AT THAT SESSION OF CONGRESS.  (FN64) 

MEANWHILE, AND ALSO PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR, THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE
SEIZURE OF A SHIPBUILDING COMPANY AND AN AIRCRAFT PARTS PLANT.  (FN65)
FOLLOWING THE DECLARATION OF WAR, BUT PRIOR TO THE SMITH-CONNALLY ACT
OF 1943, FIVE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS WERE SEIZED TO AVERT
INTERRUPTION OF NEEDED PRODUCTION.  (FN66)  DURING THE SAME PERIOD, THE
PRESIDENT DIRECTED SEIZURE OF THE NATION'S COAL MINES TO REMOVE AN
OBSTRUCTION TO THE EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.  (FN67) 

THE PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT CLOSELY RESEMBLED THE
METHODS EMPLOYED BY PRESIDENT WILSON.  A NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD, LIKE
ITS PREDECESSOR OF WORLD WAR I, WAS CREATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER TO DEAL
EFFECTIVELY AND FAIRLY WITH DISPUTES AFFECTING DEFENSE PRODUCTION. 
(FN68)  SEIZURES WERE CONSIDERED NECESSARY, UPON DISOBEDIENCE OF WAR
LABOR BOARD ORDERS, TO ASSURE THAT THE MOBILIZATION EFFORT REMAINED A
"GOING CONCERN," AND TO ENFORCE THE ECONOMIC STABILIZATION PROGRAM. 

AT THE TIME OF THE SEIZURE OF THE COAL MINES, SENATOR CONNALLY'S BILL
TO PROVIDE A STATUTORY BASIS FOR SEIZURES AND FOR THE WAR LABOR BOARD
WAS AGAIN BEFORE CONGRESS.  AS STATED BY ITS SPONSOR, THE PURPOSE OF
THE BILL WAS NOT TO AUGMENT PRESIDENTIAL POWER, BUT TO "LET THE COUNTRY
KNOW THAT THE CONGRESS IS SQUARELY BEHIND THE PRESIDENT."  (FN69)  AS
IN THE CASE OF THE LEGISLATIVE RECOGNITION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S POWER
TO SEIZE, CONGRESS AGAIN RECOGNIZED THAT THE PRESIDENT ALREADY HAD THE
NECESSARY POWER, FOR THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO "RATIFY" PAST ACTIONS OF
DOUBTFUL VALIDITY.  INDEED, WHEN SENATOR TYDINGS OFFERED AN AMENDMENT
TO THE CONNALLY BILL EXPRESSLY TO CONFIRM AND VALIDATE THE SEIZURE OF
THE COAL MINES, SPONSORS OF THE BILL OPPOSED THE AMENDMENT AS CASTING
DOUBT ON THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE AND THE AMENDMENT WAS DEFEATED. 
(FN70)  WHEN THE CONNALLY BILL, S. 796, CAME BEFORE THE HOUSE, ALL
PARTS AFTER THE ENACTING CLAUSE WERE STRICKEN AND A BILL INTRODUCED BY
REPRESENTATIVE SMITH OF VIRGINIA WAS SUBSTITUTED AND PASSED.  THIS
ACTION IN THE HOUSE IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE SMITH BILL DID NOT
CONTAIN THE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING SEIZURE BY THE PRESIDENT BUT DID
CONTAIN PROVISIONS CONTROLLING AND REGULATING ACTIVITIES IN RESPECT TO
PROPERTIES SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER STATUTE "OR OTHERWISE." 
(FN71)  AFTER A CONFERENCE, THE SEIZURE PROVISIONS OF THE CONNALLY
BILL, ENACTED AS THE SMITH-CONNALLY OR WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT OF 1943,
57 STAT. 163, WERE AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE. 

FOLLOWING PASSAGE OF THE SMITH-CONNALLY ACT, SEIZURES TO ASSURE
CONTINUED PRODUCTION ON THE BASIS OF TERMS RECOMMENDED BY THE WAR LABOR
BOARD WERE BASED UPON THAT ACT AS WELL AS UPON THE PRESIDENT'S POWER
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS GENERALLY.  A QUESTION DID ARISE AS
TO WHETHER THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE RELATING TO "ANY PLANT, MINE, OR
FACILITY EQUIPPED FOR THE MANUFACTURE, PRODUCTION, OR MINING OF ANY
ARTICLES OR MATERIALS" (FN72) AUTHORIZED THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTIES OF
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., A RETAIL DEPARTMENT STORE AND MAIL-ORDER
CONCERN.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (BIDDLE) ISSUED AN OPINION THAT THE
PRESIDENT POSSESSED THE POWER TO SEIZE MONTGOMERY WARD PROPERTIES TO
PREVENT A WORK STOPPAGE WHETHER OR NOT THE TERMS OF THE SMITH-CONNALLY
ACT AUTHORIZED SUCH A SEIZURE.  (FN73)  THIS OPINION WAS IN LINE WITH
THE VIEWS ON PRESIDENTIAL POWERS MAINTAINED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
PREDECESSORS (MURPHY (FN74) AND JACKSON (FN75) ) AND HIS SUCCESSOR
(CLARK (FN76) ).  ACCORDINGLY, THE PRESIDENT ORDERED SEIZURE OF THE
CHICAGO PROPERTIES OF MONTGOMERY WARD IN APRIL, 1944, WHEN THAT COMPANY
REFUSED TO OBEY A WAR LABOR BOARD ORDER CONCERNING THE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN CHICAGO.  (FN77)  IN CONGRESS, A
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY OF MONTGOMERY
WARD & CO., ASSUMING THAT THE TERMS OF THE SMITH-CONNALLY ACT DID NOT
COVER THIS SEIZURE, CONCLUDED THAT THE SEIZURE "WAS NOT ONLY WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER BUT WAS THE PLAIN DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT."  (FN78)
THEREAFTER, AN ELECTION DETERMINED THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR
THE CHICAGO EMPLOYEES AND THE PROPERTIES WERE RETURNED TO MONTGOMERY
WARD & CO. IN DECEMBER, 1944, AFTER CONTINUED DEFIANCE OF A SERIES OF
WAR LABOR BOARD ORDERS, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT ORDERED THE SEIZURE OF
MONTGOMERY WARD PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  (FN79)  THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT UPHELD THIS SEIZURE ON STATUTORY
GROUNDS AND ALSO INDICATED ITS DISAPPROVAL OF A LOWER COURT'S DENIAL OF
SEIZURE POWER APART FROM EXPRESS STATUTE.  (FN80) 

MORE RECENTLY, PRESIDENT TRUMAN ACTED TO REPEL AGGRESSION BY
EMPLOYING OUR ARMED FORCES IN KOREA.  (FN81)  UPON THE INTERVENTION OF
THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS, THE PRESIDENT PROCLAIMED THE EXISTENCE OF AN
UNLIMITED NATIONAL EMERGENCY REQUIRING THE SPEEDY BUILD-UP OF OUR
DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENT.  (FN82) CONGRESS RESPONDED BY PROVIDING FOR
INCREASED MANPOWER AND WEAPONS FOR OUR OWN ARMED FORCES, BY INCREASING
MILITARY AID UNDER THE MUTUAL SECURITY PROGRAM AND BY ENACTING ECONOMIC
STABILIZATION MEASURES, AS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED. 

THIS IS BUT A CURSORY SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP.  BUT IT AMPLY
DEMONSTRATES THAT PRESIDENTS HAVE TAKEN PROMPT ACTION TO ENFORCE THE
LAWS AND PROTECT THE COUNTRY WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS HAPPENED TO
PROVIDE IN ADVANCE FOR THE PARTICULAR METHOD OF EXECUTION.  AT THE
MINIMUM, THE EXECUTIVE ACTIONS REVIEWED HEREIN SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF
THE PRESIDENT IN THIS CASE.  AND MANY OF THE CITED EXAMPLES OF
PRESIDENTIAL PRACTICE GO FAR BEYOND THE EXTENT OF POWER NECESSARY TO
SUSTAIN THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO SEIZE THE STEEL MILLS.  THE FACT THAT
TEMPORARY EXECUTIVE SEIZURES OF INDUSTRIAL PLANTS TO MEET AN EMERGENCY
HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY TESTED IN THIS COURT FURNISHES NOT THE SLIGHTEST
SUGGESTION THAT SUCH ACTIONS HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL.  RATHER, THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS AND THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED AND GIVEN THEIR
SUPPORT TO SUCH EXECUTIVE ACTION INDICATES THAT SUCH A POWER OF SEIZURE
HAS BEEN ACCEPTED THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY. 

HISTORY BEARS OUT THE GENIUS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS, WHO CREATED A
GOVERNMENT SUBJECT TO LAW BUT NOT LEFT SUBJECT TO INERTIA WHEN VIGOR
AND INITIATIVE ARE REQUIRED. 

                                      IV. 

FOCUSING NOW ON THE SITUATION CONFRONTING THE PRESIDENT ON THE NIGHT
OF APRIL 8, 1952, WE CANNOT BUT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
PERFORMING HIS DUTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO "TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS
BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED" - A DUTY DESCRIBED BY PRESIDENT BENJAMIN
HARRISON AS "THE CENTRAL IDEA OF THE OFFICE."  (FN83) 

THE PRESIDENT REPORTED TO CONGRESS THE MORNING AFTER THE SEIZURE THAT
HE ACTED BECAUSE A WORK STOPPAGE IN STEEL PRODUCTION WOULD IMMEDIATELY
IMPERIL THE SAFETY OF THE NATION BY PREVENTING EXECUTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS FOR PROCUREMENT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT.  AND, WHILE
A SHUTDOWN COULD BE AVERTED BY GRANTING THE PRICE CONCESSIONS REQUESTED
BY PLAINTIFFS, GRANTING SUCH CONCESSIONS WOULD DISRUPT THE PRICE
STABILIZATION PROGRAM ALSO ENACTED BY CONGRESS.  RATHER THAN FAIL TO
EXECUTE EITHER LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM, THE PRESIDENT ACTED TO EXECUTE
BOTH. 

MUCH OF THE ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AT STRAW MEN.  WE
DO NOT NOW HAVE BEFORE US THE CASE OF A PRESIDENT ACTING SOLELY ON THE
BASIS OF HIS OWN NOTIONS OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  NOR IS THERE ANY
QUESTION OF UNLIMITED EXECUTIVE POWER IN THIS CASE.  THE PRESIDENT
HIMSELF CLOSED THE DOOR TO ANY SUCH CLAIM WHEN HE SENT HIS MESSAGE TO
CONGRESS STATING HIS PURPOSE TO ABIDE BY ANY ACTION OF CONGRESS,
WHETHER APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING HIS SEIZURE ACTION.  HERE, THE
PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY MADE SURE THAT CONGRESS WAS FULLY INFORMED OF THE
TEMPORARY ACTION HE HAD TAKEN ONLY TO PRESERVE THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS
FROM DESTRUCTION UNTIL CONGRESS COULD ACT. 

THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC STATUTE AUTHORIZING SEIZURE OF THE STEEL
MILLS AS A MODE OF EXECUTING THE LAWS - BOTH THE MILITARY PROCUREMENT
PROGRAM AND THE ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM - HAS NOT UNTIL TODAY BEEN
THOUGHT TO PREVENT THE PRESIDENT FROM EXECUTING THE LAWS.  UNLIKE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION CONFINED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE
UNDER WHICH IT WAS CREATED, OR THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT WHEN
ADMINISTERING A PARTICULAR STATUTE, THE PRESIDENT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL
OFFICER CHARGED WITH TAKING CARE THAT A "MASS OF LEGISLATION" BE
EXECUTED.  FLEXIBILITY AS TO MODE OF EXECUTION TO MEET CRITICAL
SITUATIONS IS A MATTER OF PRACTICAL NECESSITY.  THIS PRACTICAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE "TAKE CARE" CLAUSE, ADVOCATED BY JOHN MARSHALL, WAS
ADOPTED BY THIS COURT IN IN RE NEAGLE, IN RE DEBS AND OTHER CASES CITED
SUPRA.  SEE ALSO EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, 26 (1942).  ALTHOUGH MORE
RESTRICTIVE VIEWS OF EXECUTIVE POWER, ADVOCATED IN DISSENTING OPINIONS
OF JUSTICES HOLMES, MCREYNOLDS AND BRANDEIS, WERE EMPHATICALLY REJECTED
BY THIS COURT IN MYERS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, MEMBERS OF TODAY'S
MAJORITY TREAT THESE DISSENTING VIEWS AS AUTHORITATIVE. 

THERE IS NO STATUTE PROHIBITING SEIZURE AS A METHOD OF ENFORCING
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS.  CONGRESS HAS IN NO WISE INDICATED THAT ITS
LEGISLATION IS NOT TO BE EXECUTED BY THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
(SUBJECT OF COURSE TO THE PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION) IF ITS
LEGISLATION CANNOT OTHERWISE BE EXECUTED.  INDEED, THE UNIVERSAL
MILITARY TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT AUTHORIZES THE SEIZURE OF ANY PLANT
THAT FAILS TO FILL A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT (FN84) OR THE PROPERTIES OF
ANY STEEL PRODUCER THAT FAILS TO ALLOCATE STEEL AS DIRECTED FOR DEFENSE
PRODUCTION.  (FN85)  AND THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AUTHORIZES THE
PRESIDENT TO REQUISITION EQUIPMENT AND CONDEMN REAL PROPERTY NEEDED
WITHOUT DELAY IN THE DEFENSE EFFORT.  (FN86)  WHERE CONGRESS AUTHORIZES
SEIZURE IN INSTANCES NOT NECESSARILY CRUCIAL TO THE DEFENSE PROGRAM, IT
CAN HARDLY BE SAID TO HAVE DISCLOSED AN INTENTION TO PROHIBIT SEIZURES
WHERE ESSENTIAL TO THE EXECUTION OF THAT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM. 

WHATEVER THE EXTENT OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER ON MORE TRANQUIL OCCASIONS,
AND WHATEVER THE RIGHT OF THE PRESIDENT TO EXECUTE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS
AS HE SEES FIT WITHOUT REPORTING THE MODE OF EXECUTION TO CONGRESS, THE
SINGLE PRESIDENTIAL PURPOSE DISCLOSED ON THIS RECORD IS TO FAITHFULLY
EXECUTE THE LAWS BY ACTING IN AN EMERGENCY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO,
THEREBY PREVENTING COLLAPSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS UNTIL CONGRESS
COULD ACT.  THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION SERVED THE SAME PURPOSES AS A
JUDICIAL STAY ENTERED TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT.  IN HIS MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING THE SEIZURE, THE PRESIDENT EXPLAINED THE NECESSITY OF HIS
ACTION IN EXECUTING THE MILITARY PROCUREMENT AND ANTI-INFLATION
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS AND EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO COOPERATE WITH ANY
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS APPROVING, REGULATING OR REJECTING THE SEIZURE OF
THE STEEL MILLS.  CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER OF ANY
PRESIDENTIAL PURPOSE TO DEFY CONGRESS OR ACT IN ANY WAY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE WILL. 

IN UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO., SUPRA, THIS COURT APPROVED
EXECUTIVE ACTION WHERE, AS HERE, THE PRESIDENT ACTED TO PRESERVE AN
IMPORTANT MATTER UNTIL CONGRESS COULD ACT - EVEN THOUGH HIS ACTION IN
THAT CASE WAS CONTRARY TO AN EXPRESS STATUTE.  IN THIS CASE, THERE IS
NO STATUTE PROHIBITING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT IN A MATTER
NOT MERELY IMPORTANT BUT THREATENING THE VERY SAFETY OF THE NATION. 
EXECUTIVE INACTION IN SUCH A SITUATION, COURTING NATIONAL DISASTER, IS
FOREIGN TO THE CONCEPT OF ENERGY AND INITIATIVE IN THE EXECUTIVE AS
CREATED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.  THE CONSTITUTION WAS ITSELF "ADOPTED
IN A PERIOD OF GRAVE EMERGENCY  ...  .  WHILE EMERGENCY DOES NOT CREATE
POWER, EMERGENCY MAY FURNISH THE OCCASION FOR THE EXERCISE OF POWER." 
(FN87)  THE FRAMERS KNEW, AS WE SHOULD KNOW IN THESE TIMES OF PERIL,
THAT THERE IS REAL DANGER IN EXECUTIVE WEAKNESS.  THERE IS NO CAUSE TO
FEAR EXECUTIVE TYRANNY SO LONG AS THE LAWS OF CONGRESS ARE BEING
FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NO BASIS FOR FEAR OF
DICTATORSHIP WHEN THE EXECUTIVE ACTS, AS HE DID IN THIS CASE, ONLY TO
SAVE THE SITUATION UNTIL CONGRESS COULD ACT. 

                                         V. 

PLAINTIFFS PLACE THEIR PRIMARY EMPHASIS ON THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT,
BUT DO NOT CONTEND THAT THAT ACT CONTAINS ANY PROVISION PROHIBITING
SEIZURE. 

UNDER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, AS UNDER THE WAGNER ACT, COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND THE RIGHT TO STRIKE ARE AT THE HEART OF OUR NATIONAL
LABOR POLICY.  TAFT-HARTLEY PRESERVES THE RIGHT TO STRIKE IN ANY
EMERGENCY, HOWEVER SERIOUS, SUBJECT ONLY TO AN 80-DAY DELAY IN CASES OF
STRIKES IMPERILING THE NATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY.  (FN88)  IN SUCH A
CASE, THE PRESIDENT MAY APPOINT A BOARD OF INQUIRY TO REPORT THE FACTS
OF THE LABOR DISPUTE.  UPON RECEIVING THAT REPORT, THE PRESIDENT MAY
DIRECT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PETITION A DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE
STRIKE.  IF THE INJUNCTION IS GRANTED, IT MAY CONTINUE IN EFFECT FOR NO
MORE THAN 80 DAYS, DURING WHICH TIME THE BOARD OF INQUIRY MAKES FURTHER
REPORT AND EFFORTS ARE MADE TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE.  WHEN THE INJUNCTION
IS DISSOLVED, THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT A REPORT TO CONGRESS
TOGETHER WITH HIS RECOMMENDATIONS.  (FN89) 

ENACTED AFTER WORLD WAR II, TAFT-HARTLEY RESTRICTS THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE AGAINST PRIVATE EMPLOYERS ONLY TO A LIMITED EXTENT AND FOR THE
SOLE PURPOSE OF AFFORDING AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO
SETTLE THE DISPUTE.  TAFT-HARTLEY IN NO WAY CURBS STRIKES BEFORE AN
INJUNCTION CAN BE OBTAINED AND AFTER AN 80-DAY INJUNCTION IS
DISSOLVED. 

PLAINTIFFS ADMIT THAT THE EMERGENCY PROCEDURES OF TAFT-HARTLEY ARE
NOT MANDATORY.  NEVERTHELESS, PLAINTIFFS APPARENTLY ARGUE THAT, SINCE
CONGRESS DID PROVIDE THE 80-DAY INJUNCTION METHOD FOR DEALING WITH
EMERGENCY STRIKES, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT CLAIM THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS
UNTIL THE PROCEDURES OF TAFT-HARTLEY HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  THIS
ARGUMENT WAS NOT THE BASIS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION AND,
WHATEVER MERIT THE ARGUMENT MIGHT HAVE HAD FOLLOWING THE ENACTMENT OF
TAFT-HARTLEY, IT LOSES ALL FORCE WHEN VIEWED IN LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY
PATTERN CONFRONTING THE PRESIDENT IN THIS CASE. 

IN TITLE V OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950, (FN90) CONGRESS
STATED: 

"IT IS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR EFFECTIVE
PRICE AND WAGE STABILIZATION PURSUANT TO TITLE IV OF THIS ACT AND TO
MAINTAIN UNINTERRUPTED PRODUCTION, THAT THERE BE EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES
FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES AFFECTING NATIONAL DEFENSE." 
(SEC. 501.) 

TITLE V AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO INITIATE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCES AND TO TAKE ACTION APPROPRIATE TO CARRYING OUT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF SUCH CONFERENCES AND THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE V.
(SEC. 502.)  DUE REGARD IS TO BE GIVEN TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
PRACTICE AND STABILIZATION POLICIES AND NO ACTION TAKEN IS TO BE
INCONSISTENT WITH TAFT-HARTLEY AND OTHER LAWS.  (SEC. 503.)  THE
PURPOSE OF THESE PROVISIONS WAS TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT "TO
ESTABLISH A BOARD, COMMISSION OR OTHER AGENCY, SIMILAR TO THE WAR LABOR
BOARD OF WORLD WAR II, TO CARRY OUT THE TITLE."  (FN91)    THE
PRESIDENT AUTHORIZED THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD (WSB), WHICH
ADMINISTERS THE WAGE STABILIZATION FUNCTIONS OF TITLE IV OF THE DEFENSE
PRODUCTION ACT, ALSO TO DEAL WITH LABOR DISPUTES AFFECTING THE DEFENSE
PROGRAM.  (FN92)  WHEN EXTENSION OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT WAS
BEFORE CONGRESS IN 1951, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD
DESCRIBED IN DETAIL THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TAFT-HARTLEY
PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO LABOR DISPUTES IMPERILING THE NATIONAL HEALTH
AND SAFETY AND THE NEW WSB DISPUTES PROCEDURES ESPECIALLY DEVISED FOR
SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES GROWING OUT OF THE NEEDS OF THE DEFENSE
PROGRAM.  (FN93)  AWARE THAT A TECHNIQUE SEPARATE FROM TAFT-HARTLEY HAD
BEEN DEVISED, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ATTEMPTED TO DIVEST THE WSB OF ITS
DISPUTES POWERS.  THESE ATTEMPTS WERE DEFEATED IN THE HOUSE, WERE NOT
BROUGHT TO A VOTE IN THE SENATE, AND THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT WAS
EXTENDED THROUGH JUNE 30, 1952, WITHOUT CHANGE IN THE DISPUTES POWERS
OF THE WSB.  (FN94)  CERTAINLY THIS LEGISLATIVE CREATION OF A NEW
PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH DEFENSE DISPUTES NEGATIVES ANY NOTION THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THE EARLIER AND DISCRETIONARY TAFT-HARTLEY PROCEDURE
TO BE AN EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE. 

ACCORDINGLY, AS OF DECEMBER 22, 1951, THE PRESIDENT HAD A CHOICE
BETWEEN ALTERNATE PROCEDURES FOR SETTLING THE THREATENED STRIKE IN THE
STEEL MILLS:  ONE ROUTE CREATED TO DEAL WITH PEACETIME DISPUTES; THE
OTHER ROUTE SPECIALLY CREATED TO DEAL WITH DISPUTES GROWING OUT OF THE
DEFENSE AND STABILIZATION PROGRAM.  THERE IS NO QUESTION OF BY-PASSING
A STATUTORY PROCEDURE BECAUSE BOTH OF THE ROUTES AVAILABLE TO THE
PRESIDENT IN DECEMBER WERE BASED UPON STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.  BOTH
ROUTES WERE AVAILABLE IN THE STEEL DISPUTE.  THE UNION, BY REFUSING TO
ABIDE BY THE DEFENSE AND STABILIZATION PROGRAM, COULD HAVE FORCED THE
PRESIDENT TO INVOKE TAFT-HARTLEY AT THAT TIME TO DELAY THE STRIKE A
MAXIMUM OF 80 DAYS.  INSTEAD, THE UNION AGREED TO COOPERATE WITH THE
DEFENSE PROGRAM AND SUBMIT THE DISPUTE TO THE WAGE STABILIZATION
BOARD. 

PLAINTIFFS HAD NO OBJECTION WHATEVER AT THAT TIME TO THE PRESIDENT'S
CHOICE OF THE WSB ROUTE.  AS A RESULT, THE STRIKE WAS POSTPONED, A WSB
PANEL HELD HEARINGS AND REPORTED THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES AND THE
WSB RECOMMENDED THE TERMS OF A SETTLEMENT WHICH IT FOUND WERE FAIR AND
EQUITABLE.  MOREOVER, THE WSB PERFORMED A FUNCTION WHICH THE BOARD OF
INQUIRY CONTEMPLATED BY TAFT-HARTLEY COULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED WHEN
IT CHECKED THE RECOMMENDED WAGE SETTLEMENT AGAINST ITS OWN WAGE
STABILIZATION REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO ITS STABILIZATION
FUNCTIONS UNDER TITLE IV OF THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT.  THEREAFTER,
THE PARTIES BARGAINED ON THE BASIS OF THE WSB RECOMMENDATION. 

WHEN THE PRESIDENT ACTED ON APRIL 8, HE HAD EXHAUSTED THE PROCEDURES
FOR SETTLEMENT AVAILABLE TO HIM.  TAFT-HARTLEY WAS A ROUTE PARALLEL TO,
NOT CONNECTED WITH, THE WSB PROCEDURE.  THE STRIKE HAD BEEN DELAYED 99
DAYS AS CONTRASTED WITH THE MAXIMUM DELAY OF 80 DAYS UNDER TAFT
HARTLEY.  THERE HAD BEEN A HEARING ON THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AND
BARGAINING WHICH PROMISED SETTLEMENT UP TO THE VERY HOUR BEFORE SEIZURE
HAD BROKEN DOWN.  FACED WITH IMMEDIATE NATIONAL PERIL THROUGH STOPPAGE
IN STEEL PRODUCTION ON THE ONE HAND AND FACED WITH DESTRUCTION OF THE
WAGE AND PRICE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS ON THE OTHER, THE PRESIDENT TOOK
TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF THE STEEL MILLS AS THE ONLY COURSE OPEN TO HIM
CONSISTENT WITH HIS DUTY TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY
EXECUTED. 

PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTY WAS TAKEN AND PLACED IN THE POSSESSION OF THE
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO PREVENT ANY INTERRUPTION IN STEEL PRODUCTION. 
IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE STOPPAGE WAS CAUSED BY A UNION
MANAGEMENT DISPUTE OVER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, A UNION
GOVERNMENT DISPUTE OVER WAGE STABILIZATION OR A MANAGEMENT-GOVERNMENT
DISPUTE OVER PRICE STABILIZATION.  THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION HAS THUS FAR
BEEN EFFECTIVE, NOT IN SETTLING THE DISPUTE, BUT IN SAVING THE VARIOUS
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS AT STAKE FROM DESTRUCTION UNTIL CONGRESS COULD ACT
IN THE MATTER. 

                     VI. 

THE DIVERSITY OF VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE SIX OPINIONS OF THE MAJORITY,
THE LACK OF REFERENCE TO AUTHORITATIVE PRECEDENT, THE REPEATED RELIANCE
UPON PRIOR DISSENTING OPINIONS, THE COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS SHOWING THE GRAVITY OF THE EMERGENCY AND THE
TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE TAKING ALL SERVE TO DEMONSTRATE HOW FAR AFIELD
ONE MUST GO TO AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE BROAD EXECUTIVE POWER GRANTED BY ARTICLE II TO AN OFFICER ON DUTY
365 DAYS A YEAR CANNOT, IT IS SAID, BE INVOKED TO AVERT DISASTER. 
INSTEAD, THE PRESIDENT MUST CONFINE HIMSELF TO SENDING A MESSAGE TO
CONGRESS RECOMMENDING ACTION.  UNDER THIS MESSENGER-BOY CONCEPT OF THE
OFFICE, THE PRESIDENT CANNOT EVEN ACT TO PRESERVE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS
FROM DESTRUCTION SO THAT CONGRESS WILL HAVE SOMETHING LEFT TO ACT
UPON.  THERE IS NO JUDICIAL FINDING THAT THE EXECUTIVE ACTION WAS
UNWARRANTED BECAUSE THERE WAS IN FACT NO BASIS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S
FINDING OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY (FN95) FOR, UNDER THIS VIEW,
THE GRAVITY OF THE EMERGENCY AND THE IMMEDIACY OF THE THREATENED
DISASTER ARE CONSIDERED IRRELEVANT AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

SEIZURE OF PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTY IS NOT A PLEASANT UNDERTAKING. 
SIMILARLY UNPLEASANT TO A FREE COUNTRY ARE THE DRAFT WHICH DISRUPTS THE
HOME AND MILITARY PROCUREMENT WHICH CAUSES ECONOMIC DISLOCATION AND
COMPELS ADOPTION OF PRICE CONTROLS, WAGE STABILIZATION AND ALLOCATION
OF MATERIALS.  THE PRESIDENT INFORMED CONGRESS THAT EVEN A TEMPORARY
GOVERNMENT OPERATION OF PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTIES WAS "THOROUGHLY
DISTASTEFUL" TO HIM, BUT WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMEDIATE PARALYSIS
OF THE MOBILIZATION PROGRAM.  PRESIDENTS HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, AND ANY
MAN WORTHY OF THE OFFICE SHOULD BE IN THE FUTURE, FREE TO TAKE AT LEAST
INTERIM ACTION NECESSARY TO EXECUTE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS ESSENTIAL TO
SURVIVAL OF THE NATION.  A STURDY JUDICIARY SHOULD NOT BE SWAYED BY THE
UNPLEASANTNESS OR UNPOPULARITY OF NECESSARY EXECUTIVE ACTION, BUT MUST
INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINE FOR ITSELF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WAS ACTING, AS
REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, TO "TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY
EXECUTED." 

AS THE DISTRICT JUDGE STATED, THIS IS NO TIME FOR "TIMOROUS" JUDICIAL
ACTION.  BUT NEITHER IS THIS A TIME FOR TIMOROUS EXECUTIVE ACTION. 
FACED WITH THE DUTY OF EXECUTING THE DEFENSE PROGRAMS WHICH CONGRESS
HAD ENACTED AND THE DISASTROUS EFFECTS THAT ANY STOPPAGE IN STEEL
PRODUCTION WOULD HAVE ON THOSE PROGRAMS, THE PRESIDENT ACTED TO
PRESERVE THOSE PROGRAMS BY SEIZING THE STEEL MILLS.  THERE IS NO
QUESTION THAT THE POSSESSION WAS OTHER THAN TEMPORARY IN CHARACTER AND
SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION - EITHER APPROVING, DISAPPROVING OR
REGULATING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE MILLS WERE TO BE ADMINISTERED AND
RETURNED TO THE OWNERS.  THE PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY INFORMED CONGRESS OF
HIS ACTION AND CLEARLY STATED HIS INTENTION TO ABIDE BY THE LEGISLATIVE
WILL.  NO BASIS FOR CLAIMS OF ARBITRARY ACTION, UNLIMITED POWERS OR
DICTATORIAL USURPATION OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER APPEARS FROM THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE.  ON THE CONTRARY, JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE
PRECEDENTS THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY DEMONSTRATE THAT IN THIS CASE THE
PRESIDENT ACTED IN FULL CONFORMITY WITH HIS DUTIES UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.  ACCORDINGLY, WE WOULD REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

FN1  59 STAT. 1031, 1037 (1945); 91 CONG. REC. 8190 (1945). 

FN2  U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL, U.N. DOC. S/1501 (1950); STATEMENT BY THE
PRESIDENT, JUNE 26, 1950, UNITED STATES POLICY IN THE KOREAN CRISIS,
DEPT. OF STATE PUB. (1950), 16. 

FN3  U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY, U.N. DOC. A/1771 (1951). 

FN4  61 STAT. 103 (1947). 

FN5  62 STAT. 137 (1948), AS AMENDED, 63 STAT. 50 (1949), 64 STAT.
198 (1950). 

FN6  63 STAT. 2241, 2252 (1949), EXTENDED TO GREECE AND TURKEY, S.
EXEC. E, 82D CONG., 2D SESS. (1952), ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE
GRANTED.  98 CONG. REC. 930. 

FN7  63 STAT. 714 (1949). 

FN8  S. EXECS.  A, B, C AND D, 82D CONG., 2D SESS. (1952), ADVICE AND
CONSENT OF THE SENATE GRANTED.  98 CONG. REC. 2594, 2595, 2605. 

FN9  65 STAT. 373 (1951). 

FN10  65 STAT. 730 (1951); SEE H.R. DOC. NO. 147, 82D CONG., 1ST
SESS. 3 (1951). 

FN11  SEE H.R. DOC. NO. 382, 82D CONG., 2D SESS. (1952). 

FN12  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ON THE
MUTUAL SECURITY ACT OF 1952, 82D CONG., 2D SESS. 565-566 (1952);
HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE MUTUAL
SECURITY ACT OF 1952, 82D CONG., 2D SESS. 370 (1952). 

FN13  65 STAT. 75 (1951); S. REP. NO. 117, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS. 3
(1951). 

FN14 ADDRESS BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LOVETT BEFORE THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS, WASHINGTON, APRIL 18, 1952. 

FN15  FISCAL YEAR 1952, 65 STAT. 423, 760 (1951); F.Y. 1951, 64 STAT.
595, 1044, 1223, 65 STAT. 48 (1950-1951); F.Y. 1950, 63 STAT. 869, 973,
987 (1949); F.Y. 1949, 62 STAT.  647 (1948); F.Y. 1948, 61 STAT. 551
(1947). 

FN16  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1685, 82D CONG., 2D SESS. 2 (1952), ON H.R.
7391. 

FN17  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 384, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS. 5 (1951); 97 CONG.
REC. 13647-13649. 

FN18  DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT, TIT. III.  64 STAT. 798, 800 (1950), 65
STAT. 138 (1951). 

FN19  NOTE 18, SUPRA, TITS.  IV AND V. 

FN20  S. REP. NO. 470, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS. 8 (1951). 

FN21  ID., AT 8-9. 

FN22  EXEC. ORDER 10340, 17 FED. REG. 3139 (1952). 

FN23  CONG. REC., APRIL 9, 1952, PP. 3962-3963. 

FN24  CONG. REC., APRIL 21, 1952, P. 4192. 

FN25  CHICAGO & SOUTHERN AIR LINES V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 333 U.S.
103, 111 (1948), AND CASES CITED. 

FN26  THE FEDERALIST, NO. XLVIII. 

FN27  THE FEDERALIST, NO. LXX. 

FN28  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 415, 424 (1819). 

FN29  UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 315-316 (1941); HOME
BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 442-443 (1934). 

FN30  4 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 1411, 1413 (1794). 

FN31  IV WORKS OF HAMILTON (LODGE ED. 1904) 432-444. 

FN32  10 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 596, 613-614 (1800); ALSO PRINTED IN 5
WHEAT., APP. PP. 3, 27 (1820). 

FN33  10 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 619 (1800). 

FN34  FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, 714 (1893). 

FN35  SEE PRIZE CASES, 2 BLACK 635 (1863); RANDALL, CONSTITUTIONAL
PROBLEMS UNDER LINCOLN (1926); CORWIN, THE PRESIDENT:  OFFICE AND
POWERS (1948 ED.), 277-281. 

FN36  WAR OF THE REBELLION, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE UNION AND
CONFEDERATE ARMIES, SERIES I, VOL. II (1880), PP. 603-604. 

FN37  12 STAT. 334 (1862). 

FN38  SENATOR WADE, CONG. GLOBE, 37TH CONG., 2D SESS. 509 (1862);
REP. BLAIR, ID., AT 548. 

FN39  SENATORS BROWNING, FESSENDEN, COWAN, GRIMES, ID., AT 510, 512,
516, 520. 

FN40  IN 1818, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS RECOMMENDED
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR VESSELS SEIZED BY THE ARMY DURING THE WAR
OF 1812.  AMERICAN STATE PAPERS, CLAIMS (1834), 649.  MITCHELL V.
HARMONY, 13 HOW.  115, 134 (1852), INVOLVING SEIZURE OF A WAGON TRAIN
BY AN ARMY OFFICER DURING THE MEXICAN WAR, NOTED THAT SUCH EXECUTIVE
SEIZURE WAS PROPER IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, BUT AFFIRMED A PERSONAL
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT NO EMERGENCY HAD BEEN
FOUND TO EXIST.  THE JUDGMENT WAS PAID BY THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO
ACT OF CONGRESS.  10 STAT. 727 (1852). 

FN41  13 WALL., AT 627-628.  SUCH A COMPENSABLE TAKING WAS SOON
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE NONCOMPENSABLE TAKING AND DESTRUCTION OF
PROPERTY DURING THE EXTREME EXIGENCIES OF A MILITARY CAMPAIGN.  UNITED
STATES V. PACIFIC R. CO., 120 U.S. 227 (1887). 

FN42  135 U.S., AT 64. 

FN43  RICH, THE PRESIDENTS AND CIVIL DISORDER (1941), 72-86. 

FN44 CLEVELAND, THE GOVERNMENT IN THE CHICAGO STRIKE OF 1894 (1913). 

FN45  26 CONG. REC. 7281-7284, 7544-7546 (1894). 

FN46  THEODORE ROOSEVELT, AUTOBIOGRAPHY (1916 ED.), 479-491. 

FN47  ID., AT 378. 

FN48  HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 602, 626 (1935),
DISAPPROVED EXPRESSIONS IN THE MYERS OPINION ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT
THEY RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT'S POWER TO REMOVE MEMBERS OF QUASI
LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS AS CONTRASTED WITH EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYEES. 

FN49  BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES, NO. 278, OCTOBER TERM, 1914, PP.
11, 75-77, 88-90. 

FN50  NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD.  BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL. 
287 (1921). 

FN51  ID., AT 24-25, 32-34.  SEE ALSO, 2 OFFICIAL U.S. BULL.  (1918),
NO. 412; 8 BAKER, WOODROW WILSON, LIFE & LETTERS (1939), 400-402;
BERMAN, LABOR DISPUTES AND THE PRESIDENT (1924), 125-153; PRINGLE, THE
LIFE AND TIMES OF WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT (1939), 915-925. 

FN52  39 STAT. 619, 645 (1916), PROVIDES THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY TAKE
POSSESSION OF ANY SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION IN TIME OF WAR.  FOLLOWING
SEIZURE OF THE RAILROADS BY PRESIDENT WILSON, CONGRESS ENACTED DETAILED
LEGISLATION REGULATING THE MODE OF FEDERAL CONTROL.  40 STAT. 451
(1918). 

WHEN CONGRESS WAS CONSIDERING THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT
TO SEIZE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS WHENEVER HE DEEMED SUCH ACTION
NECESSARY DURING THE WAR, 40 STAT. 904 (1918), SENATOR (LATER
PRESIDENT) HARDING OPPOSED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR
SUCH STAND-BY POWERS BECAUSE, IN EVENT OF A PRESENT NECESSITY, THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE "OUGHT TO" SEIZE COMMUNICATIONS LINES, "ELSE HE WOULD
BE UNFAITHFUL TO HIS DUTIES AS SUCH CHIEF EXECUTIVE."  56 CONG. REC.
9064 (1918). 

FN53  48 STAT. 1689 (1933). 

FN54  54 STAT. 2643 (1939). 

FN55  55 STAT. 1647 (1941). 

FN56  86 CONG. REC. 11354 (1940)(MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT).  SEE 39
OP. ATTY. GEN.  484 (1940).  ATTORNEY GENERAL JACKSON'S OPINION DID NOT
EXTEND TO THE TRANSFER OF "MOSQUITO BOATS," SOLELY BECAUSE AN EXPRESS
STATUTORY PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER WAS APPLICABLE. 

FN57 87 CONG. REC. 5868 (1941)(MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT).    FN58
POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT TO SEND THE ARMED FORCES OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES, REPORT PREPARED BY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT FOR USE OF JOINT
COMMITTEE OF SENATE COMMITTEES ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND ARMED SERVICES,
82D CONG., 1ST SESS., COMMITTEE PRINT, 2 (1951). 

FN59  EXEC. ORDER 8773, 6 FED. REG. 2777 (1941). 

FN60  SEE 89 CONG. REC. 3992 (1943).  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO NOTED
THAT THE DISPUTE AT NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION WAS COMMUNIST INSPIRED AND
MORE NEARLY RESEMBLED AN INSURRECTION THAN A LABOR STRIKE.  THE
RELATIVE SIZE OF NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION AND THE IMPACT OF AN
INTERRUPTION IN PRODUCTION UPON OUR DEFENSE EFFORT WERE NOT DESCRIBED. 
FN61  87 CONG. REC. 4932 (1941).  SEE ALSO S. 1600 AND S. 2054, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.  (1941). 

FN62  REPS.  MAY, WHITTINGTON; 87 CONG. REC. 5895, 5972 (1941). 

FN63  REPS.  DWORSHAK, FEDDIS, HARTER, DIRKSEN, HOOK; 87 CONG. REC.
5901, 5910, 5974, 5975 (1941). 

FN64  THE PLANT SEIZURE AMENDMENT PASSED THE SENATE, BUT WAS REJECTED
IN THE HOUSE AFTER A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ADOPTED THE AMENDMENT.  87
CONG. REC. 6424 (1941). 

FN65  EXEC. ORDER 8868, 6 FED. REG. 4349 (1941); EXEC. ORDER 8928, 6
FED. REG. 5559 (1941). 

FN66  EXEC. ORDER 9141, 7 FED. REG. 2961 (1942); EXEC. ORDER 9220, 7
FED. REG. 6413 (1942); EXEC. ORDER 9225, 7 FED. REG. 6627 (1942); EXEC.
ORDER 9254, 7 FED. REG. 8333 (1942); EXEC. ORDER 9351, 8 FED. REG. 8097
(1943). 

FN67  EXEC. ORDER 9340, 8 FED. REG. 5695 (1943). 

FN68  EXEC. ORDER 9017, 7 FED. REG. 237 (1942); 1 TERMINATION REPORT
OF THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD 5-11. 

FN69  89 CONG. REC. 3807 (1943).  SIMILAR VIEWS OF THE PRESIDENT'S
EXISTING POWER WERE EXPRESSED BY SENATORS LUCAS, WHEELER, AUSTIN AND
BARKLEY.  ID., AT 3885-3887, 3896, 3992. 

FN70  89 CONG. REC. 3989-3992 (1943). 

FN71  S. 796, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SECS. 12, 13 (1943), AS PASSED
BY THE HOUSE. 

FN72  57 STAT. 163, 164 (1943). 

FN73  40 OP. ATTY. GEN. 312 (1944).  SEE ALSO HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE SEIZURE OF MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 78TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 117-132 (1944). 

FN74  39 OP. ATTY. GEN. 343, 347 (1939). 

FN75  NOTE 60, SUPRA. 

FN76  LETTER INTRODUCED IN HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR
AND PUBLIC WELFARE ON S. 249, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 232 (1949) POINTING
TO THE "EXCEEDINGLY GREAT" POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT TO DEAL WITH
EMERGENCIES EVEN BEFORE THE KOREAN CRISIS. 

FN77  EXEC. ORDER 9438, 9 FED. REG. 4459 (1944). 

FN78  H.R. REP. NO. 1904, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 25 (1944)(THE
COMMITTEE DIVIDED ALONG PARTY LINES). 

FN79  EXEC. ORDER 9508, 9 FED. REG. 15079 (1944). 

FN80  UNITED STATES V. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 150 F.2D 369 (C.A. 7TH
CIR. 1945), REVERSING 58 F. SUPP. 408 (N.D. ILL. 1945).  SEE ALSO KEN
RAD TUBE & LAMP CORP. V. BADEAU, 55 F. SUPP. 193, 197-199 (W.D. KY.
1944), WHERE THE COURT HELD THAT A SEIZURE WAS PROPER WITH OR WITHOUT
EXPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. 

FN81  UNITED STATES POLICY IN THE KOREAN CRISIS (1950), DEPT. OF
STATE PUB. 3922. 

FN82  15 FED. REG. 9029 (1950). 

FN83  HARRISON, THIS COUNTRY OF OURS (1897), 98. 

FN84  62 STAT. 604, 626 (1948), 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC.
468(C). 

FN85  62 STAT. 604, 627 (1948), 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC.
468(H)(1). 

FN86  TIT. II, 64 STAT. 798, 799 (1950), AS AMENDED, 65 STAT. 138
(1951). 

FN87  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 425-426
(1934). 

FN88  SEE BUS EMPLOYEES V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 340 U.S. 383 (1951). 

FN89  SECS. 206-210, LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947.  29
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 176-180. 

FN90  64 STAT. 812, 65 STAT. 132 (1950). 

FN91  H.R. REP. NO. 3042, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS. 35 (1950)(CONFERENCE
REPORT).  SEE ALSO S. REP. NO. 2250, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS. 41 (1950). 

FN92  EXEC. ORDER 10161, 15 FED. REG. 6105 (1950), AS AMENDED, EXEC.
ORDER 10233, 16 FED. REG. 3503 (1951). 

FN93  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY ON
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1951, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS. 305
306, 312-313 (1951). 

FN94  THE LUCAS AMENDMENT TO ABOLISH THE DISPUTES FUNCTION OF THE WSB
WAS DEBATED AT LENGTH IN THE HOUSE, THE SPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT
POINTING OUT THE SIMILARITY OF THE WSB FUNCTIONS TO THOSE OF THE WAR
LABOR BOARD AND NOTING THE SEIZURES THAT OCCURRED WHEN WAR LABOR BOARD
ORDERS WERE NOT OBEYED.  97 CONG. REC. 8390-8415.  THE AMENDMENT WAS
REJECTED BY A VOTE OF 217 TO 113.  ID., AT 8415.  A SIMILAR AMENDMENT
INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE WAS WITHDRAWN.  97 CONG. REC. 7373-7374.  THE
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT WAS EXTENDED WITHOUT AMENDING TIT. V OR
OTHERWISE AFFECTING THE DISPUTES FUNCTIONS OF THE WSB.  65 STAT. 132
(1951). 

FN95  COMPARE STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 399-401 (1932). 
..END :



ROBERTSON V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 711 


NO. 388.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1952 - 190 F.2D 680,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CASH PRIZE RECEIVED BY THE WINNER OF A CONTEST IN MUSICAL
COMPOSITION IS "GROSS INCOME" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 22(A) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AND IT IS NOT A "GIFT" EXCLUDED FROM GROSS
INCOME BY SEC. 22(B)(3).  PP. 713-714. 

2.  IN COMPUTING UNDER SEC. 107(B) THE TAX ON SUCH A CASH PRIZE FOR A
MUSICAL COMPOSITION, THE INCOME SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE 36 MONTHS
ENDING WITH THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED - NOT SOME
EARLIER PERIOD OF 36 MONTHS DURING WHICH THE TAXPAYER WORKED ON THE
COMPOSITION.  PP. 714-716. 

ROBERTSON V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT A CASH PRIZE RECEIVED BY THE WINNER OF A
CONTEST IN MUSICAL COMPOSITION WAS A GIFT EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION BY
SEC. 22(B)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  93 F. SUPP. 660.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  190 F.2D 680.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 896.  AFFIRMED, P. 716. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER IS A MUSICIAN AND COMPOSER WHO BETWEEN THE YEARS 1936 AND
1939 COMPOSED A SYMPHONY.  IN 1945 HENRY H. REICHHOLD, A
PHILANTHROPIST, ESTABLISHED A MUSIC AWARD OFFERING $25,000, $5,000, AND
$2,500 FOR THE THREE BEST SYMPHONIC WORKS WRITTEN BY NATIVE-BORN
COMPOSERS OF THIS HEMISPHERE.  THE TERMS OF THE OFFER PROVIDED THAT
NONE OF THE COMPOSITIONS COULD BE PUBLISHED OR PUBLICLY PERFORMED PRIOR
TO ENTRY IN THE CONTEST AND THAT EACH COMPOSITION RECEIVING AN AWARD
WOULD REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE COMPOSER EXCEPT THAT HE WOULD GRANT
THE DETROIT ORCHESTRA, INC., (1) ALL SYNCHRONIZATION RIGHTS AS APPLIED
TO MOTION PICTURES, (2) ALL MECHANICAL RIGHTS AS APPLIED TO PHONOGRAPH
RECORDINGS, ELECTRICAL TRANSCRIPTIONS AND MUSIC ROLLS, AND (3) THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE FIRST PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPOSITION
IN EACH OF THE COUNTRIES WHOSE CITIZENS WERE ELIGIBLE TO ENTER THE
CONTEST AND TO DESIGNATE THE PUBLISHER OF THE COMPOSITION. 

PETITIONER SUBMITTED HIS SYMPHONY AND ON DECEMBER 14, 1947, WON THE
$25,000 AWARD.  HE INCLUDED THAT AMOUNT IN HIS 1947 INCOME TAX RETURN
AS GROSS INCOME, CLAIMED THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 107(B) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE (FN1) (26 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  107(B), 53 STAT. 878,
AS AMENDED), AND COMPUTED THE TAX AS THOUGH THE $25,000 HAD BEEN
RECEIVED RATABLY DURING THE YEARS 1937, 1938, AND 1939.  THEREAFTER HE
FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND ON THE GROUND THAT THE AWARD CONSTITUTED A
NONTAXABLE GIFT.  (FN2)  THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM BUT
DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPUTED UNDER SEC. 107(B) AS THOUGH THE AWARD HAD BEEN RATABLY
RECEIVED OVER THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD ENDING WITH 1947.  PETITIONER PAID
THE DEFICIENCY, FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM FOR REFUND, AND BROUGHT THIS
SUIT TO OBTAIN IT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE AWARD WAS A GIFT
AND NOT TAXABLE BY REASON OF SEC. 22(B)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  190 F.2D 680.  THE CASE IS HERE
ON CERTIORARI, 342 U.S. 896, BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT
DECISION AND MCDERMOTT V. COMMISSIONER, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 176, 150 F.2D
585, DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  AND
SEE WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 114 CT. CL. 1, 84 F. SUPP. 362. 

             I. 

IN THE LEGAL SENSE PAYMENT OF A PRIZE TO A WINNER OF A CONTEST IS THE
DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.  THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE
CONTESTANTS OF THE OFFER TENDERED BY THE SPONSOR OF THE CONTEST CREATES
AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT.  SEE 6 CORBIN ON CONTRACTS, SEC. 1489;
RESTATEMENT, CONTRACTS, SEC. 521.  THE DISCHARGE OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS -
THE PAYMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED OR CONSIDERATION PAID PURSUANT TO A
CONTRACT - IS IN NO SENSE A GIFT.  THE CASE WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF AN
AWARD WERE MADE IN RECOGNITION OF PAST ACHIEVEMENTS OR PRESENT
ABILITIES, OR IF PAYMENT WERE GIVEN NOT FOR SERVICES (SEE OLD COLONY
TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716, 730), BUT OUT OF AFFECTION,
RESPECT, ADMIRATION, CHARITY OR LIKE IMPULSES.  WHERE THE PAYMENT IS IN
RETURN FOR SERVICES RENDERED, IT IS IRRELEVANT THAT THE DONOR DERIVES
NO ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM IT.

                                  II. 

"ARTISTIC COMPOSITION" OF AN INDIVIDUAL, "THE WORK ON WHICH  ...
COVERED A PERIOD OF THIRTY-SIX CALENDAR MONTHS OR MORE FROM THE
BEGINNING TO THE COMPLETION" OF THE COMPOSITION.  IN CASE THE GROSS
INCOME FROM A PARTICULAR ARTISTIC WORK IN THE TAXABLE YEAR IS NOT LESS
THAN A PARTICULAR PERCENTAGE (NOT MATERIAL HERE), THE TAX ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE INCOME OF THE TAXABLE YEAR MAY BE COMPUTED AS THOUGH IT HAD
"BEEN RECEIVED RATABLY OVER THAT PART OF THE PERIOD PRECEDING THE CLOSE
OF THE TAXABLE YEAR BUT NOT MORE THAN THIRTY-SIX CALENDAR MONTHS."  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF THE PRIZE SHOULD BE TAXED RATABLY
OVER THE 36 MONTHS ENDING WITH THE CLOSE OF 1947 (THE TAXABLE YEAR IN
WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED) OR OVER THE LAST 36 MONTHS OF THE PERIOD (1937
TO 1939) WHEN PETITIONER WROTE THE SYMPHONY. 

THE PHRASE IN QUESTION, AS IT ORIGINATED (H.R. 7378, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., SEC. 128), READ "RATABLY OVER THE PERIOD OF THIRTY-SIX CALENDAR
MONTHS ENDING WITH THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR."  IN THAT FORM THE
PRESENT TAX WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPUTED AS THE COMMISSIONER CONTENDED,
VIZ. THE TAX WOULD BE LAID OVER A PERIOD OF 36 MONTHS EXTENDING BACK
FROM THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THE CHANGE IN WORDING DOES NOT
SEEM TO US TO HAVE MADE A CHANGE IN MEANING.  THE PRESENT WORDS
"RATABLY OVER THAT PART OF THE PERIOD PRECEDING THE CLOSE OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR BUT NOT MORE THAN THIRTY-SIX CALENDAR MONTHS" WOULD ON
THEIR FACE SEEM TO REFER TO A PERIOD ENDING WITH THE CLOSE OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR AND EXTENDING BACK A MAXIMUM OF 36 MONTHS.  THAT WORDING
WAS ADOPTED IN ORDER TO TREAT THE INCOME AS THOUGH IT HAD "BEEN
RECEIVED RATABLY OVER (1) THE PART OF THE PERIOD OF THE WORK WHICH
PRECEDED THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, OR (2) A PERIOD OF 36 CALENDAR
MONTHS, WHICHEVER OF SUCH PERIODS IS THE SHORTER."  SEE S. REP. NO.
1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 109.  THE HOUSE CONFEREES, IN AGREEING
TO THE CHANGE, STATED THAT IT "CLARIFIES THE LANGUAGE OF THE HOUSE
BILL."  H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 2586, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 43.  THAT
HISTORY STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT THE PURPOSE WAS NOT TO CHANGE THE
ALLOWABLE PERIOD OF ALLOCATION FROM ONE ENDING WITH THE CLOSE OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR TO ONE COVERING ANY 36 MONTHS IN THE PAST WHEN THE WORK
WAS DONE, BUT TO PREVENT TAX REDUCTION BY PRORATION OF INCOME OVER A
PERIOD OF WORK GREATER THAN THE DURATION OF THE WORK PRECEDING THE
CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THAT IS THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN BY TREASURY
REGULATIONS 111, SEC. 29.107-2; (FN4) AND WHILE MUCH MORE COULD BE
SAID, IT SEEMS TO US THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION FITS THE STATUTORY SCHEME. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 107(B) PROVIDES:  "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION,
THE TERM 'ARTISTIC WORK OR INVENTION', IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL,
MEANS A LITERARY, MUSICAL, OR ARTISTIC COMPOSITION OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL
OR A PATENT OR COPYRIGHT COVERING AN INVENTION OF OR A LITERARY,
MUSICAL, OR ARTISTIC COMPOSITION OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL, THE WORK ON WHICH
BY SUCH INDIVIDUAL COVERED A PERIOD OF THIRTY-SIX CALENDAR MONTHS OR
MORE FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE COMPLETION OF SUCH COMPOSITION OR
INVENTION.  IF, IN THE TAXABLE YEAR, THE GROSS INCOME OF ANY INDIVIDUAL
FROM A PARTICULAR ARTISTIC WORK OR INVENTION BY HIM IS NOT LESS THAN 80
PER CENTUM OF THE GROSS INCOME IN RESPECT OF SUCH ARTISTIC WORK OR
INVENTION IN THE TAXABLE YEAR PLUS THE GROSS INCOME THEREFROM IN
PREVIOUS TAXABLE YEARS AND THE TWELVE MONTHS IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE
CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, THE TAX ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PART OF SUCH
GROSS INCOME OF THE TAXABLE YEAR WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE AS A GAIN FROM
THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF A CAPITAL ASSET HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS
SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN THE AGGREGATE OF THE TAXES ATTRIBUTABLE TO
SUCH PART HAD IT BEEN RECEIVED RATABLY OVER THAT PART OF THE PERIOD
PRECEDING THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR BUT NOT MORE THAN THIRTY-SIX
CALENDAR MONTHS." 

FN2  SECTION 22(B)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE PROVIDES: 

"THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME AND SHALL
BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER:  ... 

"THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY GIFT, BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR
INHERITANCE  ...  ." 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN4  SECTION 29.107-2 PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE METHOD OF ALLOCATING THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE ARTISTIC WORK OR
INVENTION TO THE TAXABLE YEARS IN WHICH FALLS ANY OF THE CALENDAR
MONTHS (NOT EXCEEDING 36 CALENDAR MONTHS) INCLUDED WITHIN THE PART OF
THE PERIOD OF WORK WHICH PRECEDES THE CLOSE OF THE CURRENT TAXABLE YEAR
MAY BE ILLUSTRATED BY THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES: 

"EXAMPLE (1).  ON OCTOBER 1, 1942, A, AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO MAKES HIS
RETURNS ON A CALENDAR YEAR BASIS AND ON THE BASIS OF CASH RECEIPTS AND
DISBURSEMENTS, RECEIVES $36,000 IN FULL PAYMENT FOR A MUSICAL
COMPOSITION, THE WORK ON WHICH WAS COMMENCED BY A ON JULY 10, 1938, AND
COMPLETED ON JANUARY 29, 1943.  ALTHOUGH THE PERIOD OF WORK COVERS 55
CALENDAR MONTHS, ALLOCATIONS MAY BE MADE TO ONLY THE LAST 36 CALENDAR
MONTHS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PART OF THE PERIOD OF WORK WHICH PRECEDES
THE CLOSE OF 1942 (THE CURRENT TAXABLE YEAR).  THEREFORE, $1,000
($36,000 DIVIDED BY 36) MUST BE ALLOCATED TO EACH OF THE 36 CALENDAR
MONTHS PRECEDING JANUARY 1, 1943.  ACCORDINGLY, $12,000 IS ALLOCATED TO
1940, $12,000 TO 1941, AND $12,000 TO 1942 (THE CURRENT TAXABLE YEAR). 

"EXAMPLE (2).  ASSUME THE SAME FACTS AS IN EXAMPLE (1) EXCEPT THAT
THE PERIOD OF WORK WAS COMMENCED BY A ON JULY 1, 1941, AND COMPLETED ON
SEPTEMBER 1, 1944.  ALTHOUGH THE PERIOD OF WORK COVERS 38 CALENDAR
MONTHS, ALLOCATIONS MAY BE MADE TO ONLY THE 18 CALENDAR MONTHS WHICH
ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PART OF THE PERIOD OF WORK WHICH PRECEDES THE
CLOSE OF 1942 (THE CURRENT TAXABLE YEAR).  THEREFORE, $2,000 ($36,000
DIVIDED BY 18) MUST BE ALLOCATED TO EACH OF 18 CALENDAR MONTHS
PRECEDING JANUARY 1, 1943.  ACCORDINGLY, $12,000 IS ALLOCATED TO 1941,
AND $24,000 TO 1942 (THE CURRENT TAXABLE YEAR)." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, NOT HAVING HEARD THE ARGUMENT OWING TO
ILLNESS, TOOK NO PART IN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 
..END :

















KAWAKITA V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 717 


NO. 570.  ARGUED APRIL 2-3, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1952 - 190 F.2D 506,
AFFIRMED. 


AT PETITIONER'S TRIAL FOR TREASON, IT APPEARED THAT ORIGINALLY HE WAS
A NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND ALSO A NATIONAL OF JAPAN
BY REASON OF JAPANESE PARENTAGE AND LAW.  WHILE A MINOR, HE TOOK THE
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES; WENT TO JAPAN FOR A VISIT ON
AN AMERICAN PASSPORT; AND WAS PREVENTED BY THE OUTBREAK OF WAR FROM
RETURNING TO THIS COUNTRY.  DURING THE WAR, HE REACHED HIS MAJORITY IN
JAPAN; CHANGED HIS REGISTRATION FROM AMERICAN TO JAPANESE; SHOWED
SYMPATHY WITH JAPAN AND HOSTILITY TO THE UNITED STATES; SERVED AS A
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION PRODUCING WAR MATERIALS FOR
JAPAN; AND BRUTALLY ABUSED AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR WHO WERE FORCED TO
WORK THERE.  AFTER JAPAN'S SURRENDER, HE REGISTERED AS AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN; SWORE THAT HE WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND HAD NOT DONE VARIOUS
ACTS AMOUNTING TO EXPATRIATION; AND RETURNED TO THIS COUNTRY ON AN
AMERICAN PASSPORT.  HELD:  HIS CONVICTION FOR TREASON IS AFFIRMED.  PP.
719-745. 

1.  THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE JURY
THAT HE HAD NOT RENOUNCED OR LOST HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AT THE TIME
OF THE OVERT ACTS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  PP. 720-732. 

(A)  IN VIEW OF PETITIONER'S DUAL NATIONALITY, IT CANNOT BE SAID AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT HIS ACTION IN REGISTERING IN THE KOSEKI (A FAMILY
CENSUS REGISTER) AND CHANGING HIS REGISTRATION FROM AMERICAN TO
JAPANESE AMOUNTED TO A RENUNCIATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 401 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT.  PP. 722-725. 

(B)  NOR IS SUCH A HOLDING REQUIRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE FACTS
THAT, DURING THE WAR, HE TRAVELED TO CHINA ON A JAPANESE PASSPORT, USED
HIS KOSEKI ENTRY TO OBTAIN WORK AT A PRISONER-OF-WAR CAMP, BOWED TO THE
EMPEROR, AND ACCEPTED LABOR DRAFT PAPERS FROM THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT. 
P. 725. 

(C)  IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN PETITIONER'S STATEMENTS AT HIS
TRIAL THAT HE FELT NO LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES FROM MARCH 1943 TO
LATE 1945 AND HIS ACTIONS AFTER JAPAN'S DEFEAT (WHEN HE APPLIED FOR
REGISTRATION AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND FOR AN AMERICAN PASSPORT), THE
QUESTION WHETHER HE HAD RENOUNCED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WAS
PECULIARLY FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE.  PP. 725-727. 

(D)  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PETITIONER WAS SERVING IN THE ARMED
FORCES OF JAPAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 401(C) NOR THAT HIS STATUS
AS A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION WAS SO CHANGED BY THE
REGIMENTATION OF THE INDUSTRY BY THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT THAT HE WAS
PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF AN "OFFICE, POST, OR EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE
GOVERNMENT" OF JAPAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 401(D) OF THE
NATIONALITY ACT.  PP. 727-729. 

(E)  SECTION 402 CREATES A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT A NATIONAL IN
PETITIONER'S CATEGORY EXPATRIATES HIMSELF WHEN HE REMAINS FOR SIX
MONTHS OR LONGER IN A FOREIGN STATE OF WHICH HE OR EITHER OF HIS
PARENTS SHALL HAVE BEEN A NATIONAL; BUT THAT PRESUMPTION WAS REBUTTED
BY THE SHOWING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT EXPATRIATED UNDER SEC. 401(C) OR
(D).  P. 730. 

(F)  IF THERE WAS ANY ERROR IN THE JUDGE'S CHARGE TO THE JURY THAT
THE ONLY METHODS OF EXPATRIATION ARE THOSE CONTAINED IN SEC. 401, IT
WAS HARMLESS ERROR, SINCE PETITIONER TENDERED NO QUESTION OF FACT WHICH
WAS INADMISSIBLE UNDER SEC. 401 AND SINCE THE JUDGE CHARGED THAT HE
COULD NOT BE CONVICTED IF HE HONESTLY BELIEVED THAT HE WAS NO LONGER A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 730-732. 

2.  NOTWITHSTANDING HIS DUAL NATIONALITY AND HIS RESIDENCE IN JAPAN,
PETITIONER OWED ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND CAN BE PUNISHED FOR
TREASONABLE ACTS VOLUNTARILY COMMITTED.  PP. 732-736. 

(A)  SINCE THE DEFINITION OF TREASON IN ART. III, SEC. 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION CONTAINS NO TERRITORIAL LIMITATION, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
LIVING BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES CAN BE GUILTY
OF TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 732-733. 

(B)  PETITIONER WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE JURY ONLY FOR PERFORMING
ACTS OF HOSTILITY TOWARD THIS COUNTRY WHICH HE WAS NOT REQUIRED BY
JAPAN TO PERFORM.  PP. 734-735. 

(C)  AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OWES ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES
WHEREVER HE MAY RESIDE.  PP. 735-736. 

3.  EACH OF THE OVERT ACTS OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WAS
PROPERLY PROVEN BY TWO WITNESSES; AND EACH OF THEM SHOWED THAT
PETITIONER GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY.  PP. 736-742. 

(A)  TWO OVERT ACTS (ABUSING AMERICAN PRISONERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
GETTING MORE WORK OUT OF THEM IN PRODUCING WAR MATERIALS FOR THE ENEMY)
QUALIFIED AS OVERT ACTS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF TREASON,
SINCE THEY GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY, THOUGH THEIR CONTRIBUTION
TO THE ENEMY'S WAR EFFORT WAS MINOR.  PP. 737-739. 

(B)  THE OTHER SIX OVERT ACTS (CRUELTY TO AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR)
GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY BY HELPING TO MAKE ALL THE PRISONERS
FEARFUL, DOCILE AND SUBSERVIENT, REDUCING THE NUMBER OF GUARDS NEEDED,
AND REQUIRING LESS WATCHING - ALL OF WHICH ENCOURAGED THE ENEMY AND
ADVANCED HIS INTERESTS.  PP. 739-742. 

(C)  THE OVERT ACTS WERE SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN BY TWO WITNESSES, SINCE
EACH OVERT ACT WAS TESTIFIED TO BY AT LEAST TWO WITNESSES WHO WERE
PRESENT AND SAW OR HEARD THAT TO WHICH THEY TESTIFIED AND ANY
DISAGREEMENT AMONG THEM WAS NOT ON WHAT TOOK PLACE BUT ON COLLATERAL
DETAILS.  P. 742. 

4.  THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT PETITIONER WAS GUILTY
OF VOLUNTARILY "ADHERING TO THE ENEMY."  PP. 742-744. 

5.  THE TREASONABLE ACTIONS OF PETITIONER WERE SO FLAGRANT AND
PERSISTENT THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DEATH SENTENCE IMPOSED BY
THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS SO SEVERE AS TO BE ARBITRARY.  PP. 744-745. 

KAWAKITA V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF TREASON AND
SENTENCED TO DEATH.  SEE 96 F. SUPP. 824.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  190 F.2D 506.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S.
932.  AFFIRMED, P. 745. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A NATIONAL BOTH OF UNITED STATES AND OF JAPAN, WAS
INDICTED FOR TREASON, THE OVERT ACTS RELATING TO HIS TREATMENT OF
AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR.  HE WAS CONVICTED OF TREASON AFTER A JURY
TRIAL  (SEE 96 F. SUPP. 824) AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS
AFFIRMED.  190 F.2D 506.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI.  342 U.S.
932. 

FIRST.  THE IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT LIES AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE CASE
RELATES TO EXPATRIATION.  PETITIONER WAS BORN IN THIS COUNTRY IN 1921
OF JAPANESE PARENTS WHO WERE CITIZENS OF JAPAN.  HE WAS THUS A CITIZEN
OF THE UNITED STATES BY BIRTH (AMENDMENT XIV, SEC. 1) AND, BY REASON OF
JAPANESE LAW, A NATIONAL OF JAPAN.  SEE HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES,
320 U.S. 81, 97. 

IN 1939 SHORTLY BEFORE PETITIONER TURNED 18 YEARS OF AGE HE WENT TO
JAPAN WITH HIS FATHER TO VISIT HIS GRANDFATHER.  HE TRAVELED ON A
UNITED STATES PASSPORT; AND TO OBTAIN IT HE TOOK THE CUSTOMARY OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE.  IN 1940 HE REGISTERED WITH AN AMERICAN CONSUL IN JAPAN AS
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.  PETITIONER REMAINED IN JAPAN, HIS FATHER
RETURNING TO THIS COUNTRY.  IN MARCH, 1941, HE ENTERED MEIJI UNIVERSITY
AND TOOK A COMMERCIAL COURSE AND MILITARY TRAINING.  IN APRIL, 1941, HE
RENEWED HIS UNITED STATES PASSPORT, ONCE MORE TAKING THE OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES.  DURING THIS PERIOD HE WAS REGISTERED
AS AN ALIEN WITH THE JAPANESE POLICE.  WHEN WAR WAS DECLARED,
PETITIONER WAS STILL A STUDENT AT MEIJI UNIVERSITY.  HE BECAME OF AGE
IN 1942 AND COMPLETED HIS SCHOOLING IN 1943, AT WHICH TIME IT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES.  IN 1943 HE
REGISTERED IN THE KOSEKI, A FAMILY CENSUS REGISTER.  (FN1)  PETITIONER
DID NOT JOIN THE JAPANESE ARMY NOR SERVE AS A SOLDIER.  RATHER, HE
OBTAINED EMPLOYMENT AS AN INTERPRETER WITH THE OEYAMA NICKEL INDUSTRY
CO., LTD., WHERE HE WORKED UNTIL JAPAN'S SURRENDER.  HE WAS HIRED TO
INTERPRET COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE JAPANESE AND THE PRISONERS OF WAR
WHO WERE ASSIGNED TO WORK AT THE MINE AND IN THE FACTORY OF THIS
COMPANY.  THE TREASONABLE ACTS FOR WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED INVOLVED HIS
CONDUCT TOWARD AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR. 

IN DECEMBER, 1945, PETITIONER WENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSUL AT
YOKOHAMA AND APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.  HE
STATED UNDER OATH THAT HE WAS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND HAD NOT DONE
VARIOUS ACTS AMOUNTING TO EXPATRIATION.  HE WAS ISSUED A PASSPORT AND
RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1946.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER HE WAS
RECOGNIZED BY A FORMER AMERICAN PRISONER OF WAR, WHEREUPON HE WAS
ARRESTED, AND INDICTED, AND TRIED FOR TREASON. 

PETITIONER DEFENDED AT HIS TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD RENOUNCED
OR ABANDONED HIS UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND WAS EXPATRIATED. 
CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED BY SEC. 401 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54
STAT. 1137, 1168, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 801, THAT A NATIONAL OF THE
UNITED STATES MAY LOSE HIS NATIONALITY IN CERTAIN PRESCRIBED WAYS.  IT
PROVIDES IN RELEVANT PART: 

"A PERSON WHO IS A NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER BY BIRTH OR
NATURALIZATION, SHALL LOSE HIS NATIONALITY BY: 

"(A)  OBTAINING NATURALIZATION IN A FOREIGN STATE  ... ; OR: 

"(B)  TAKING AN OATH OR MAKING AN AFFIRMATION OR OTHER FORMAL
DECLARATION OF ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN STATE; OR: 

"(C)  ENTERING, OR SERVING IN, THE ARMED FORCES OF A FOREIGN STATE
UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, IF HE HAS
OR ACQUIRES THE NATIONALITY OF SUCH FOREIGN STATE; OR: 

"(D)  ACCEPTING, OR PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF, ANY OFFICE, POST, OR
EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION THEREOF FOR WHICH ONLY NATIONALS OF SUCH STATE ARE
ELIGIBLE; ...  ." 

THE COURT CHARGED THAT IF THE JURY FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD LOST HIS
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP PRIOR TO OR DURING THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE
INDICTMENT, THEY MUST ACQUIT HIM EVEN IF HE DID COMMIT THE OVERT ACTS
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, SINCE HIS DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE WOULD HAVE
CEASED WITH THE TERMINATION OF HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  THE COURT
FURTHER CHARGED THAT IF THE JURY SHOULD FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
THAT DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION PETITIONER WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN,
HE OWED THE UNITED STATES THE SAME DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE AS ANY OTHER
CITIZEN.  THE COURT ALSO CHARGED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE JURY FOUND THAT
PETITIONER WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, THEY
MUST ACQUIT HIM IF AT THE TIME OF THE OVERT ACTS PETITIONER HONESTLY
BELIEVED HE WAS NO LONGER A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR THEN HE
COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE OVERT ACTS WITH TREASONABLE INTENT.  THE
SPECIAL VERDICTS OF THE JURY CONTAIN, WITH RESPECT TO EACH OVERT ACT AS
TO WHICH PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY, AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO AN
INTERROGATORY THAT HE WAS AT THAT TIME "AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OWING
ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES, AS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT." 

PETITIONER ASKS US TO HOLD AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT HE HAD EXPATRIATED
HIMSELF BY HIS ACTS AND CONDUCT BEGINNING IN 1943.  HE PLACES SPECIAL
EMPHASIS ON THE ENTRY OF HIS NAME IN THE KOSEKI.  PRIOR TO THAT TIME HE
HAD BEEN REGISTERED BY THE POLICE AS AN ALIEN.  THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT
AFTER THAT TIME HE WAS CONSIDERED BY JAPANESE AUTHORITIES AS A JAPANESE
AND THAT HE TOOK ACTION WHICH MIGHT GIVE RISE TO THE INFERENCE THAT HE
HAD ELECTED THE JAPANESE NATIONALITY:  HE TOOK A COPY OF THE KOSEKI TO
THE POLICE STATION AND HAD HIS NAME REMOVED AS AN ALIEN; HE CHANGED HIS
REGISTRATION AT THE UNIVERSITY FROM AMERICAN TO JAPANESE AND HIS
ADDRESS FROM CALIFORNIA TO JAPAN; HE USED THE KOSEKI ENTRY TO GET A JOB
AT THE OEYAMA CAMP; HE WENT TO CHINA ON A JAPANESE PASSPORT (SEE UNITED
STATES V. HUSBAND, 6 F.2D 957, 958); HE ACCEPTED LABOR DRAFT PAPERS
FROM THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT; HE FACED THE EAST EACH MORNING AND PAID
HIS RESPECTS TO THE EMPEROR. 

THE DIFFICULTY WITH PETITIONER'S POSITION IS THAT THE IMPLICATIONS
FROM THE ACTS, WHICH HE ADMITTEDLY PERFORMED, ARE AMBIGUOUS.  HE HAD A
DUAL NATIONALITY, A STATUS LONG RECOGNIZED IN THE LAW.  (FN2)  PERKINS
V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325, 344-349.  THE CONCEPT OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP
RECOGNIZES THAT A PERSON MAY HAVE AND EXERCISE RIGHTS OF NATIONALITY IN
TWO COUNTRIES AND BE SUBJECT TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOTH.  THE MERE
FACT THAT HE ASSERTS THE RIGHTS OF ONE CITIZENSHIP DOES NOT WITHOUT
MORE MEAN THAT HE RENOUNCES THE OTHER.  IN THIS SETTING PETITIONER'S
REGISTRATION IN THE KOSEKI MIGHT REASONABLY BE TAKEN TO MEAN NO MORE
THAN AN ASSERTION OF SOME OF THE RIGHTS WHICH HIS DUAL CITIZENSHIP
BESTOWED ON HIM.  THE DEPOSITION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF JAPAN STATE
THAT THE ENTRY OF A PERSON'S NAME IN THE KOSEKI IS TAKEN TO MEAN THAT
ONE HAS JAPANESE NATIONALITY.  BUT SINCE PETITIONER ALREADY HAD
JAPANESE NATIONALITY, HE OBVIOUSLY DID NOT ACQUIRE IT BY THE ACT OF
REGISTRATION.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF JAPAN FURTHER DEPOSED THAT ALL
JAPANESE NATIONALS, WHETHER OR NOT BORN ABROAD, ARE DUTY BOUND TO
JAPANESE ALLEGIANCE AND THAT REGISTERING IN THE KOSEKI IS "NOT
NECESSARILY A FORMAL DECLARATION OF ALLEGIANCE BUT MERELY A
REAFFIRMATION OF AN ALLEGIANCE TO JAPAN WHICH ALREADY EXISTS."  FROM
THIS IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE REGISTRATION MAY HAVE BEEN NOTHING MORE
THAN THE DISCLOSURE OF A FACT THERETOFORE NOT MADE PUBLIC. 

CONCEIVABLY IT MIGHT HAVE GREATER CONSEQUENCES.  IN OTHER SETTINGS IT
MIGHT BE THE EQUIVALENT OF "NATURALIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
401(A) OF THE ACT OR THE MAKING OF "AN AFFIRMATION OR OTHER FORMAL
DECLARATION OF ALLEGIANCE" TO JAPAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 401(B). 
CERTAINLY IT WAS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF EXPATRIATION.  BUT WE CANNOT
SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT IT WAS A RENUNCIATION OF PETITIONER'S
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  WHAT FOLLOWED MIGHT REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED TO
MEAN NO MORE THAN RECOGNITION OF THE JAPANESE CITIZENSHIP WHICH
PETITIONER HAD ACQUIRED ON BIRTH - NATIONALITY THAT WAS PUBLICLY
DISCLOSED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN JAPAN BY HIS REGISTRATION IN THE
KOSEKI.  CF. 3 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1942), P. 373. 
THE CHANGING OF HIS REGISTRATION AT THE POLICE STATION AND AT THE
UNIVERSITY, SO AS TO CONFORM THOSE RECORDS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD OF HIS
JAPANESE NATIONALITY, MIGHT REASONABLY MEAN NO MORE THAN ANNOUNCING THE
FACT OF HIS JAPANESE NATIONALITY TO THE INTERESTED AUTHORITIES. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, DUAL CITIZENSHIP PRESUPPOSES RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP
IN EACH COUNTRY.  IT COULD NOT EXIST IF THE ASSERTION OF RIGHTS OR THE
ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES OF ONE WERE DEEMED INCONSISTENT WITH THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE OTHER.  FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN ONE HAS A DUAL
CITIZENSHIP, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH HIS CITIZENSHIP IN
ONE NATION TO USE A PASSPORT PROCLAIMING HIS CITIZENSHIP IN THE OTHER. 
SEE 3 HACKWORTH, SUPRA, P. 353.  HENCE THE USE BY PETITIONER OF A
JAPANESE PASSPORT ON HIS TRIP TO CHINA, HIS USE OF THE KOSEKI ENTRY TO
OBTAIN WORK AT THE OEYAMA CAMP, THE BOWING TO THE EMPEROR, AND HIS
ACCEPTANCE OF LABOR DRAFT PAPERS FROM THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT MIGHT
REASONABLY MEAN NO MORE THAN ACCEPTANCE OF SOME OF THE INCIDENTS OF
JAPANESE CITIZENSHIP MADE POSSIBLE BY HIS DUAL CITIZENSHIP. 

THOSE ACTS, TO BE SURE, WERE COLORED BY VARIOUS OTHER ACTS AND
STATEMENTS OF PETITIONER.  HE TESTIFIED FOR EXAMPLE THAT HE FELT NO
LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES FROM ABOUT MARCH, 1943, TO LATE 1945. 
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT HE BOASTED THAT JAPAN WAS WINNING AND WOULD WIN
THE WAR, THAT HE TAUNTED AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR WITH GENERAL
MACARTHUR'S DEPARTURE FROM THE PHILIPPINES, THAT HE EXPRESSED HIS
HATRED TOWARD THINGS AMERICAN AND TOWARD THE PRISONERS AS AMERICANS. 
THAT WAS IN 1943 AND 1944.  THIS ATTITUDE CONTINUED INTO 1945, ALTHOUGH
IN MAY OR JUNE, 1945, SHORTLY BEFORE JAPAN'S SURRENDER, HE WAS SAYING
HE DID NOT CARE "WHICH WAY THE WAR GOES BECAUSE I AM GOING BACK TO THE
STATES ANYWAY." 

ON DECEMBER 31, 1945, HE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION AS AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN, AND IN THAT CONNECTION HE MADE AN AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH HE STATED
THAT HE HAD BEEN "TEMPORARILY RESIDING" IN JAPAN SINCE AUGUST 10, 1939;
THAT HE CAME TO JAPAN TO STUDY JAPANESE; THAT HE POSSESSED DUAL
NATIONALITY FROM BIRTH BUT THAT HIS NAME WAS NOT ENTERED IN THE CENSUS
REGISTER UNTIL MARCH 8, 1943; AND THAT HE HAD "NEVER BEEN NATURALIZED,
TAKEN AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, OR VOTED AS A FOREIGN CITIZEN OR SUBJECT,
OR IN ANY WAY HELD MYSELF OUT AS SUCH." 

THE UNITED STATES FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER
HAD OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF EXPATRIATION.  HE REPORTED, "IN 1943
HIS POSSESSION OF JAPANESE NATIONALITY WAS MADE A MATTER OF RECORD BY
THE ENTRY OF HIS NAME INTO HIS UNCLE'S FAMILY CENSUS REGISTER.  HE
STATES THAT THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN UNDER SEVERE PRESSURE BY THE JAPANESE
POLICE AND BY HIS UNCLE, ON WHOM HE WAS FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT AFTER HIS
SUPPLY OF FUNDS FROM THE U.S. WAS CUT OFF; THIS OFFICE HAS REASON TO
BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT."  THESE REPRESENTATIONS LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF
AN AMERICAN PASSPORT ON WHICH HE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES IN
1946. 

IF PETITIONER WERE TO BE BELIEVED IN DECEMBER, 1945, HE NEVER ONCE
RENOUNCED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  IF WHAT PETITIONER NOW SAYS WERE
HIS THOUGHTS, ATTITUDES, AND MOTIVES IN 1943 AND 1944 AND IN PART OF
1945, HE DID INTEND TO RENOUNCE HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  IF THE
LATTER VERSION WERE BELIEVED BY THE JURY, THE SIGNING OF THE FAMILY
REGISTER, AND THE CHANGING OF HIS REGISTRATION AT THE POLICE STATION
AND AT THE UNIVERSITY WOULD ASSUME DIFFERENT SIGNIFICANCE; THOSE ACTS
MIGHT THEN READILY SUGGEST THE MAKING OF A DECLARATION OF ALLEGIANCE TO
JAPAN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 401(B).  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND,
PETITIONER WERE TO BE BELIEVED WHEN IN 1945 HE STATED HE HAD NOT DONE
ACTS BY WHICH HE RENOUNCED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, THEN THE KOSEKI
INCIDENT AND THE CHANGES IN HIS POLICE AND UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION
COULD REASONABLY BE TAKEN AS AMOUNTING TO NO MORE THAN A PUBLIC
DECLARATION OF AN ESTABLISHED AND PREEXISTING FACT, VIZ. HIS JAPANESE
NATIONALITY.  WE THINK, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER
PETITIONER HAD RENOUNCED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WAS ON THIS RECORD
PECULIARLY FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE.  THE CHARGE WAS THAT THE JURY
MUST BE SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DURING THE PERIOD
SPECIFIED IN THE INDICTMENT, PETITIONER WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.  WE
CANNOT SAY THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR THAT FINDING. 

PETITIONER CONCEDES HE DID NOT ENTER THE ARMED SERVICES OF JAPAN
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 401(C) OF THE ACT BUT CLAIMS THAT DURING HIS
TOUR OF DUTY AT THE OEYAMA CAMP HE WAS "SERVING IN" THE JAPANESE ARMED
SERVICES WITHIN THE STATUTORY MEANING OF THOSE WORDS.  IN THIS
CONNECTION HE ALSO ARGUES THAT HIS WORK IN THE OEYAMA CAMP WAS THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF AN "OFFICE, POST, OR EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE
GOVERNMENT" OF JAPAN "FOR WHICH ONLY NATIONALS OF SUCH STATE ARE
ELIGIBLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 401(D) OF THE ACT.    THE OEYAMA
NICKEL INDUSTRY CO., LTD., WAS A PRIVATE COMPANY, ORGANIZED FOR
PROFIT.  IT WAS ENGAGED IN PRODUCING METALS USED FOR WAR UNDER
CONTRACTS WITH THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT.  IN 1944 IT WAS DESIGNATED BY
THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT AS A MUNITIONS CORPORATION AND UNDER JAPANESE
LAW CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE OR QUIT THEIR
EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE COMPANY'S MINE
AND FACTORY WERE MANNED IN PART BY PRISONERS OF WAR.  THEY LIVED IN A
CAMP CONTROLLED BY THE JAPANESE ARMY.  THOUGH PETITIONER TOOK ORDERS
FROM THE MILITARY, HE WAS NOT A SOLDIER IN THE ARMED SERVICES; HE WORE
INSIGNIA ON HIS UNIFORM DISTINGUISHING HIM AS NONMILITARY PERSONNEL; HE
HAD NO DUTIES TO PERFORM IN RELATION TO THE PRISONERS, EXCEPT THOSE OF
AN INTERPRETER.  HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS AS AN INTERPRETER FOR THE OEYAMA
NICKEL INDUSTRY CO., LTD., A PRIVATE COMPANY.  THE REGULATION OF THE
COMPANY BY THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT, THE FREEZING OF ITS LABOR FORCE,
THE ASSIGNMENT TO IT OF PRISONERS OF WAR UNDER MILITARY COMMAND WERE
INCIDENTS OF A WAR ECONOMY.  BUT WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT THE OEYAMA
COMPANY WAS NATIONALIZED OR ITS PROPERTIES SEIZED AND OPERATED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT IT WAS A PART OF A REGIMENTED
INDUSTRY; BUT IT WAS AN ORGANIZATION OPERATING FOR PRIVATE PROFIT UNDER
PRIVATE MANAGEMENT.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT PETITIONER'S STATUS AS AN
EMPLOYEE OF A PRIVATE COMPANY WAS CHANGED BY THAT REGIMENTATION OF THE
INDUSTRY. 

IT WOULD REQUIRE A BROAD AND LOOSE CONSTRUCTION OF "OFFICE, POST, OR
EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN STATE" AS THOSE WORDS ARE
USED IN SEC. 401(D) TO HOLD THAT PETITIONER HAD SACRIFICED HIS AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP BY ACCEPTING OR PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF INTERPRETER.  WE
ARE THINKING NOT ONLY OF THIS CASE BUT OF OTHER CASES TO WHICH SEC.
401(D) IS APPLICABLE.  WE ARE RELUCTANT TO RESOLVE THE AMBIGUITY
CONTAINED IN SEC. 401(D) SO AS TO PROVIDE TREACHEROUS GROUND FOR THE
LOSS OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP BY THE NISEI.  AS THE COURT SAID IN
PERKINS V. ELG, SUPRA, P. 337, "RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP ARE NOT TO BE
DESTROYED BY AN AMBIGUITY."  IT WOULD BE HARSH INDEED TO HOLD THAT A
NISEI, MAROONED IN JAPAN WHEN WORLD WAR II BROKE OUT, WOULD BE
EXPATRIATED MERELY BY WORKING FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY WHOSE BUSINESS WAS
SUPERVISED AND WHOSE LABOR SUPPLY WAS CONTROLLED BY THE JAPANESE
GOVERNMENT IN TIME OF WAR.  THAT WOULD GIVE SEC. 401(D) A BROAD,
PERVASIVE SWEEP.  SECTION 401(D) NOT ONLY MAKES ACCEPTANCE OF "ANY
OFFICE, POST, OR EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN STATE"
THE BASIS OF EXPATRIATION; IT ALSO MAKES "PERFORMING THE DUTIES" OF ANY
SUCH OFFICE, POST, OR EMPLOYMENT A GROUND FOR EXPATRIATION.  ONE WHO
WAS DRAFTED FOR SUCH SERVICE WOULD BE INCLUDED, AS WELL AS ONE WHO
VOLUNTEERED.  IN TIME OF WAR THAT WOULD BRING MOST EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE
COMPANIES WITHIN THE DANGER ZONE IN VIEW OF THE HOLD WHICH A WAR
ECONOMY PLACES ON INDUSTRY AND THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL WHICH IT
ASSERTS.  WE THEREFORE INCLINE TO A CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORDS "UNDER
THE GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN STATE" TO MEAN THE RELATIONSHIP THAT PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES HAVE WITH THEIR GOVERNMENT OR WITH THE BUREAUS OR
CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE GOVERNMENT OWNED AND CONTROLLED.  SUPPORT FOR
THAT NARROWER MEANING IS FOUND IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  (FN3) 

KAWAKITA'S CATEGORY WHO REMAINS SIX MONTHS OR LONGER WITHIN A FOREIGN
STATE OF WHICH HE OR EITHER OF HIS PARENTS SHALL HAVE BEEN A NATIONAL
SHALL BE PRESUMED TO HAVE EXPATRIATED HIMSELF UNDER SEC. 401(C) OR
(D).  SECTION 402 DOES NOT ENLARGE SEC. 401(D) OR (D); IT CREATES A
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF EXPATRIATION; AND WHEN IT IS SHOWN THAT THE
CITIZEN DID NO ACT WHICH BROUGHT HIM UNDER SEC. 401(C) OR (D), THE
PRESUMPTION IS OVERCOME.  ON THAT SHOWING THE PERSON NEVER LOSES HIS
AMERICAN NATIONALITY.  SEE DOS REIS V. NICOLLS, 161 F.2D 860, 868.  IN
OTHER WORDS, ONCE IT WAS SHOWN THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT EXPATRIATED
UNDER SEC. 401(C) OR (D), THE FORCE OF SEC. 402 WAS SPENT. 

RESULT SOLELY FROM THE PERFORMANCE BY A NATIONAL OF THE ACTS OR
FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THIS ACT."  THE DISTRICT
COURT THEREFORE CHARGED THE JURY THAT THE ONLY METHODS OF EXPATRIATION
ARE THOSE CONTAINED IN SEC. 401.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT CHARGE WAS
ERROR.  HE ARGUES THAT SEC. 408 IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE LOSS OF
NATIONALITY "UNDER THIS ACT" AND THAT THERE ARE OTHER METHODS OF LOSING
IT.  HE REFERS TO R.S. SEC. 1999, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 800, WHICH SURVIVED THE
NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 AND IS NOT PART OF IT, AND WHICH PROCLAIMS THE
RIGHT OF EXPATRIATION AS "A NATURAL AND INHERENT RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE." 
(FN6)  WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION FOR THE REASON THAT
IT IS NOT SQUARELY PRESENTED.  ON THIS ISSUE OF EXPATRIATION,
PETITIONER TENDERS NO QUESTION OF FACT WHICH WAS INADMISSIBLE UNDER
SEC. 401.  PETITIONER MERELY SAYS THAT "BY HIS CONDUCT" HE HAD
"EXPATRIATED HIMSELF FROM UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP."  BUT HE HAS
FAILED TO SHOW THAT THAT ISSUE IS NARROWER THAN OR DIFFERENT FROM THE
ISSUE PRESENTED ON THIS RECORD UNDER SEC. 401(B) - THE DECLARATION OF
ALLEGIANCE TO JAPAN.  AS WE HAVE INDICATED, THE MAJOR FACTUAL PROBLEM
ON THE ISSUE OF EXPATRIATION REVOLVED AROUND THE ENTRY OF PETITIONER'S
NAME IN THE KOSEKI.  ALL OF THE OTHER CONDUCT REFERRED TO, INCLUDING
THE PAYING OF RESPECTS TO THE EMPEROR AND THE EXPRESSIONS OF HOSTILITY
TO THE UNITED STATES, WERE RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE ON THAT ISSUE.  IF
IT COULD NOT IN THE EYES OF THE JURY MAKE THE SIGNING OF THE KOSEKI AND
THE CHANGES IN THE REGISTRATION THAT FOLLOWED THAT EVENT TANTAMOUNT TO
RENUNCIATION UNDER SEC. 401(B), IT HARDLY COULD DO SO STANDING ALONE. 
HENCE, IF THERE WAS ERROR IN THE CHARGE, IT WAS HARMLESS. 

THAT CONCLUSION IS REINFORCED BY ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE CASE. 
PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT HE BELIEVED WHEN HE SIGNED THE KOSEKI THAT HE
LOST HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  HE TESTIFIED THAT DURING THE PERIOD
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT HE BELIEVED THAT HE WAS NO LONGER AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN.  THE DISTRICT COURT CHARGED THAT IF THE JURY FOUND (1)
DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED ANY OVERT ACT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND (2)
HE WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, YET THEY SHOULD NOT CONVICT IF THEY FURTHER
FOUND THAT AT THE TIME "THE DEFENDANT HONESTLY BELIEVED THAT HE WAS NO
LONGER A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES" SINCE IN THAT EVENT HE COULD NOT
HAVE COMMITTED THE ACT WITH TREASONABLE INTENT.  UNDER THIS CHARGE THE
BELIEF OF PETITIONER THAT HE HAD RENOUNCED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WAS
SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIT IF THE JURY BELIEVED HIM.  HIS BELIEF COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN MADE MORE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF GUILT IF IT HAD BEEN
ADMITTED AS PROOF OF EXPATRIATION SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE OTHER
GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 401 OF THE ACT.  HENCE EVEN IF WE ASSUME,
ARGUENDO, THAT THE COURT WAS WRONG IN CHARGING THAT SEC. 408 MADE THE
GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 401 EXCLUSIVE, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS. 

SECOND.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT A PERSON WHO HAS A DUAL NATIONALITY
CAN BE GUILTY OF TREASON ONLY TO THE COUNTRY WHERE HE RESIDES, NOT TO
THE OTHER COUNTRY WHICH CLAIMS HIM AS A NATIONAL.  MORE SPECIFICALLY,
HE MAINTAINS THAT WHILE PETITIONER RESIDED IN JAPAN HE OWED HIS
PARAMOUNT ALLEGIANCE TO THAT COUNTRY AND WAS INDEED, IN THE EYES OF OUR
LAW, AN ALIEN ENEMY. 

THE ARGUMENT IN ITS BROADEST REACH IS THAT TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES CANNOT BE COMMITTED ABROAD OR IN ENEMY TERRITORY, AT LEAST BY AN
AMERICAN WITH A DUAL NATIONALITY RESIDING IN THE OTHER COUNTRY WHICH
CLAIMS HIM AS A NATIONAL.  THE DEFINITION OF TREASON, HOWEVER,
CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS NO TERRITORIAL LIMITATION. 
"TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, SHALL CONSIST ONLY IN LEVYING WAR
AGAINST THEM, OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND
COMFORT  ... ."  ART. III, SEC. 3.  A SUBSTITUTE PROPOSAL CONTAINING
SOME TERRITORIAL LIMITATIONS WAS REJECTED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION.  SEE 2 FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, PP.
347-348.  THE ACT OF APRIL 30, 1790, 1 STAT. 112, WHICH WAS PASSED BY
THE FIRST CONGRESS DEFINING THE CRIME OF TREASON LIKEWISE CONTAINED NO
TERRITORIAL LIMITATION; AND THAT LEGISLATION IS CONTAINED IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM IN THE PRESENT STATUTE.  18 U.S.C. (SUPP.
IV) SEC. 2381.  (FN7)  WE MUST THEREFORE REJECT THE SUGGESTION THAT AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN LIVING BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED
STATES MAY NOT COMMIT TREASON AGAINST THEM.  SEE CHANDLER V. UNITED
STATES, 171 F.2D 921, 929-930; BURGMAN V. UNITED STATES, 88 U.S. APP.
D.C. 184, 185, 188 F.2D 637, 640. 

ONE WHO HAS A DUAL NATIONALITY WILL BE SUBJECT TO CLAIMS FROM BOTH
NATIONS, CLAIMS WHICH AT TIMES MAY BE COMPETING OR CONFLICTING.  THE
NATURE OF THOSE CLAIMS HAS RECENTLY BEEN STATED AS FOLLOWS: 

"A PERSON WITH DUAL NATIONALITY MAY BE SUBJECTED TO TAXES BY BOTH
STATES OF WHICH HE IS A NATIONAL.  HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION BY
ONE OF THE TWO STATES OF WHICH HE IS A NATIONAL WHILE IN THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE OTHER.  EITHER STATE NOT AT WAR WITH
THE OTHER MAY INSIST ON MILITARY SERVICE WHEN THE PERSON IS PRESENT
WITHIN ITS TERRITORY.  IN TIME OF WAR IF HE SUPPORTS NEITHER
BELLIGERENT, BOTH MAY BE AGGRIEVED.  IF HE SUPPORTS ONE BELLIGERENT,
THE OTHER MAY BE AGGRIEVED.  ONE STATE MAY BE SUSPICIOUS OF HIS LOYALTY
TO IT AND SUBJECT HIM TO THE DISABILITIES OF AN ENEMY ALIEN, INCLUDING
SEQUESTRATION OF HIS PROPERTY, WHILE THE OTHER HOLDS HIS CONDUCT
TREASONABLE."  ORFIELD, THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF DUAL NATIONALITY, 17 GEO.
WASH. L. REV. 427, 429. 

DUAL NATIONALITY, HOWEVER, IS THE UNAVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE
CONFLICTING LAWS OF DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.  SEE 3 HACKWORTH, SUPRA, PP.
352 ET SEQ. ONE WHO BECOMES A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY BY REASON OF
BIRTH RETAINS IT, EVEN THOUGH BY THE LAW OF ANOTHER COUNTRY HE IS ALSO
A CITIZEN OF IT. HE CAN UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BE DEPRIVED OF HIS
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP THROUGH THE OPERATION OF A TREATY OR AN ACT OF
CONGRESS; HE CAN ALSO LOSE IT BY VOLUNTARY ACTION.  SEE PERKINS V. ELG,
SUPRA, P. 329.  BUT AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, UNTIL LOST, CARRIES
OBLIGATIONS OF ALLEGIANCE AS WELL AS PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS.  FOR ONE
WHO HAS A DUAL STATUS THE OBLIGATIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP MAY AT
TIMES BE DIFFICULT TO DISCHARGE.  AN AMERICAN WHO HAS A DUAL
NATIONALITY MAY FIND HIMSELF IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY WHEN IT WAGES WAR ON
US.  THE VERY FACT THAT HE MUST MAKE A LIVELIHOOD THERE MAY INDIRECTLY
HELP THE ENEMY NATION.  IN THESE DAYS OF TOTAL WAR MANPOWER BECOMES
CRITICAL AND EVERYONE WHO CAN BE PLACED IN A PRODUCTIVE POSITION
INCREASES THE STRENGTH OF THE ENEMY TO WAGE WAR.  OF COURSE, A PERSON
CAUGHT IN THAT PREDICAMENT CAN RESOLVE THE CONFLICT OF DUTY BY OPENLY
ELECTING ONE NATIONALITY OR THE OTHER AND BECOMING EITHER AN ALIEN
ENEMY OF THE COUNTRY WHERE HE RESIDES OR A NATIONAL OF IT ALONE.  YET,
SO FAR AS THE EXISTING LAW OF THIS COUNTRY IS CONCERNED, HE NEED NOT
MAKE THAT CHOICE BUT CAN CONTINUE HIS DUAL CITIZENSHIP.  IT HAS BEEN
STATED IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT A
PERSON WITH A DUAL CITIZENSHIP WHO LIVES ABROAD IN THE OTHER COUNTRY
CLAIMING HIM AS A NATIONAL OWES AN ALLEGIANCE TO IT WHICH IS PARAMOUNT
TO THE ALLEGIANCE HE OWES THE UNITED STATES.  (FN8)  THAT IS A FAR CRY
FROM A RULING THAT A CITIZEN IN THAT POSITION OWES NO ALLEGIANCE TO THE
UNITED STATES.  OF COURSE, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO IS ALSO A JAPANESE
NATIONAL LIVING IN JAPAN HAS OBLIGATIONS TO JAPAN NECESSITATED BY HIS
RESIDENCE THERE.  THERE MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE CASES WHERE THE MERE
NONPERFORMANCE OF THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WOULD BE A BREACH OF JAPANESE
LAW.  HE MAY HAVE EMPLOYMENT WHICH REQUIRES HIM TO PERFORM CERTAIN
ACTS.  THE COMPULSION MAY COME FROM THE FACT THAT HE IS DRAFTED FOR THE
JOB OR THAT HIS CONDUCT IS DEMANDED BY THE LAWS OF JAPAN.  HE MAY BE
COERCED BY HIS EMPLOYER OR SUPERVISOR OR BY THE FORCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES
TO DO THINGS WHICH HE HAS NO DESIRE OR HEART TO DO.  THAT WAS ONE OF
PETITIONER'S DEFENSES IN THIS CASE.  SUCH ACTS - IF DONE VOLUNTARILY
AND WILLFULLY - MIGHT BE TREASONABLE.  BUT IF DONE UNDER THE COMPULSION
OF THE JOB OR THE LAW OR SOME OTHER INFLUENCE, THOSE ACTS WOULD NOT
RISE TO THE GRAVITY OF THAT OFFENSE.  THE TRIAL JUDGE RECOGNIZED THE
DISTINCTION IN HIS CHARGE WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO ACQUIT
PETITIONER IF HE DID NOT DO THE ACTS WILLINGLY OR VOLUNTARILY "BUT SO
ACTED ONLY BECAUSE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF HIS EMPLOYMENT REQUIRED
HIM TO DO SO OR BECAUSE OF OTHER COERCION OR COMPULSION."  IN SHORT,
PETITIONER WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE JURY ONLY FOR PERFORMING ACTS OF
HOSTILITY TOWARD THIS COUNTRY WHICH HE WAS NOT REQUIRED BY JAPAN TO
PERFORM. 

IF HE CAN RETAIN THAT FREEDOM AND STILL REMAIN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN,
THERE IS NOT EVEN A MINIMUM OF ALLEGIANCE WHICH HE OWES TO THE UNITED
STATES WHILE HE RESIDES IN THE ENEMY COUNTRY.  THAT CONCLUSION IS
HOSTILE TO THE CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP AS WE KNOW IT, AND IT MUST BE
REJECTED.  ONE WHO WANTS THAT FREEDOM CAN GET IT BY RENOUNCING HIS
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  HE CANNOT TURN IT INTO A FAIR-WEATHER
CITIZENSHIP, RETAINING IT FOR POSSIBLE CONTINGENT BENEFITS BUT
MEANWHILE PLAYING THE PART OF THE TRAITOR.  AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OWES
ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES WHEREVER HE MAY RESIDE. 

CIRCUMSTANCES MAY COMPEL ONE WHO HAS A DUAL NATIONALITY TO DO ACTS
WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  AN AMERICAN WITH A DUAL NATIONALITY WHO IS
CHARGED WITH PLAYING THE ROLE OF THE TRAITOR MAY DEFEND BY SHOWING THAT
FORCE OR COERCION COMPELLED SUCH CONDUCT.  THE JURY REJECTED THAT
VERSION OF THE FACTS WHICH PETITIONER TENDERED.  HE IS THEREFORE FORCED
TO MAINTAIN THAT, BEING A NATIONAL AND A RESIDENT OF JAPAN, HE OWED NO
ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES EVEN THOUGH HE WAS AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN.  THAT PROPOSITION WE REJECT.    THIRD.  ARTICLE III, SEC. 3 OF
THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES, "TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, SHALL
CONSIST ONLY IN LEVYING WAR AGAINST THEM, OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR
ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT.  NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF
TREASON UNLESS ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT,
OR ON CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT." 

SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, THE CRIME THUS CONSISTS OF TWO ELEMENTS -
ADHERING TO THE ENEMY; AND GIVING HIM AID AND COMFORT.  SEE CRAMER V.
UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1, 29.  ONE MAY THINK DISLOYAL THOUGHTS AND
HAVE HIS HEART ON THE SIDE OF THE ENEMY.  YET IF HE COMMITS NO ACT
GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY, HE IS NOT GUILTY OF TREASON.  HE
MAY ON THE OTHER HAND COMMIT ACTS WHICH DO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE
ENEMY AND YET NOT BE GUILTY OF TREASON, AS FOR EXAMPLE WHERE HE ACTS
IMPULSIVELY WITH NO INTENT TO BETRAY.  TWO WITNESSES ARE REQUIRED NOT
TO THE DISLOYAL AND TREACHEROUS INTENTION BUT TO THE SAME OVERT ACT. 
SEE CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 30, 31. 

THE JURY FOUND PETITIONER GUILTY OF EIGHT OVERT ACTS.  (FN9)  ONE
OVERT ACT ALONE, PROPERLY PROVED, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE
CONVICTION, ALL OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF TREASON BEING
ESTABLISHED.  SINCE THE JURY RETURNED SPECIAL VERDICTS AND FINDINGS AS
TO EACH OF THE EIGHT OVERT ACTS, WE COULD NOT UPSET THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION, UNLESS ALL EIGHT WERE INSUFFICIENT.  SEE HAUPT V. UNITED
STATES, 330 U.S. 631, 641.  WE CONCLUDE, HOWEVER, THAT EACH OF THE
EIGHT OVERT ACTS WAS PROPERLY PROVED. 

EACH OF THESE RELATED TO HIS TREATMENT OF AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR
AT THE OEYAMA CAMP.  THESE PRISONERS WERE MOSTLY FROM BATAAN AND WERE
IN WEAKENED CONDITION ON THEIR ARRIVAL.  ALL WERE BELOW NORMAL WEIGHT;
MANY OF THEM WERE SUFFERING FROM DISEASE; MOST OF THEM WERE UNFIT FOR
WORK.  THEY WERE ASSIGNED TO WORK EITHER IN THE FACTORY OR AT THE MINE
OF THE OEYAMA COMPANY.  THEY WERE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE JAPANESE
ARMY.  PETITIONER WAS A CIVILIAN INTERPRETER, AS WE HAVE SAID.  THERE
WAS EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD NO AUTHORITY AND NO DUTIES, AS RESPECTS THE
PRISONERS, EXCEPT AS AN INTERPRETER.  YET THE RECORD SHOWS A LONG,
PERSISTENT, AND CONTINUOUS COURSE OF CONDUCT DIRECTED AGAINST THE
AMERICAN PRISONERS AND GOING BEYOND ANY CONCEIVABLE DUTY OF AN
INTERPRETER. 

AFTER THE AMERICAN PRISONERS ARRIVED, THE JAPANESE AUTHORITIES RAISED
THE QUOTA OF ORE WHICH THEY WERE EXPECTED TO PRODUCE EACH DAY.  THE
QUOTA HAD BEEN BETWEEN 120 AND 165 CARLOADS A DAY; NOW IT WAS INCREASED
TO 200.  A PART OF PETITIONER'S CONDUCT WAS SWEARING AT THE PRISONERS,
BEATING THEM, THREATENING THEM, AND PUNISHING THEM FOR NOT WORKING
FASTER AND HARDER, FOR FAILING TO FILL THEIR QUOTAS, FOR RESTING, AND
FOR SLOWING DOWN. 

THERE WERE TWO OVERT ACTS IN THIS CATEGORY.  OVERT ACT (A) AS ALLEGED
IN THE INDICTMENT AND DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL WAS THAT IN MAY, 1945,
PETITIONER KICKED A PRISONER NAMED TOLAND WHO WAS ILL, BECAUSE HE
SLOWED DOWN IN LIFTING PIECES OF ORE ROCKS FROM THE TRACKS AT THE
FACTORY TO KEEP THE TRACKS CLEAR.  TOLAND HAD SUFFERED A DIZZY SPELL
AND SLOWED DOWN.  PETITIONER TOLD HIM TO GET TO WORK AND THEREUPON
KICKED HIM, CAUSING HIM TO FALL FLAT AND TO CUT HIS FACE AND HAND. 
ANOTHER PRISONER WANTED TO PICK TOLAND UP; BUT PETITIONER WOULD NOT LET
HIM.  OVERT ACT (J) AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND DEVELOPED AT THE
TRIAL WAS THAT IN MAY, 1945, PETITIONER STRUCK A PRISONER NAMED
ARMELLINO, WHO WAS WEAK AND EMACIATED, IN ORDER TO MAKE HIM CARRY MORE
LEAD.  ARMELLINO HAD BEEN CARRYING ONLY ONE BUCKET OF LEAD.  PETITIONER
THEREUPON STRUCK HIM, CAUSING HIM TO FALL.  WHEN HE GOT UP, PETITIONER
FORCED HIM TO CARRY TWO BUCKETS, PUSHING HIM ALONG. 

EACH OF THESE ACTS WAS AIMED AT GETTING MORE WORK OUT OF THE
PRISONERS - WORK THAT PRODUCED MUNITIONS OF WAR FOR THE ENEMY, OR SO
THE JURY MIGHT HAVE CONCLUDED.  THE INCREASED EFFORTS CHARGED IN OVERT
ACTS (A) AND (J) WERE SMALL; THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE WAR EFFORT OF THE
ENEMY CERTAINLY WAS MINOR, NOT CRUCIAL.  HARBORING THE SPY IN HAUPT V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WAS ALSO INSIGNIFICANT IN THE TOTAL WAR EFFORT OF
GERMANY DURING THE RECENT WAR.  YET IT WAS A TREASONABLE ACT.  IT IS
THE NATURE OF THE ACT THAT IS IMPORTANT.  THE ACT MAY BE UNNECESSARY TO
A SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE ENEMY'S PROJECT; IT MAY BE AN ABORTIVE
ATTEMPT; IT MAY IN THE SUM TOTAL OF THE ENEMY'S EFFORT BE A CASUAL AND
UNIMPORTANT STEP.  BUT IF IT GIVES AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY AT THE
IMMEDIATE MOMENT OF ITS PERFORMANCE, IT QUALIFIES AS AN OVERT ACT
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF TREASON.  AS CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL SAID IN EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 4 CRANCH 75, 126, "IF WAR BE
ACTUALLY LEVIED,  ... ALL THOSE WHO PERFORM ANY PART, HOWEVER MINUTE,
OR HOWEVER REMOTE FROM THE SCENE OF ACTION, AND WHO ARE ACTUALLY
LEAGUED IN THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY, ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS TRAITORS." 
THESE TWO OVERT ACTS, IF DESIGNED TO SPEED UP JAPAN'S WAR PRODUCTION,
PLAINLY GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE. 

THE OTHER OVERT ACTS WERE ACTS OF CRUELTY TO AMERICAN PRISONERS OF
WAR. 

OVERT ACT (B) AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL
WAS THAT ONE GRANT, AN AMERICAN PRISONER, HAD BEEN SEEN BY A JAPANESE
SENTRY COMING OUT OF THE RED CROSS STOREROOM WITH A PACKAGE OF
CIGARETTES.  HE WAS THEREUPON THROWN INTO A CESSPOOL BY A JAPANESE
SERGEANT, ORDERED OUT, AND KNOCKED BACK REPEATEDLY.  WHILE GRANT WAS IN
THE CESSPOOL, PETITIONER HIT HIM OVER THE HEAD WITH A WOODEN POLE OR
SWORD, TOLD HIM TO SQUAT DOWN, AND TRIED TO FORCE HIM TO SIT IN THE
WATER.  WHEN GRANT WAS TAKEN FROM THE POOL, HE WAS BLUE, HIS TEETH WERE
CHATTERING, AND HE COULD NOT STRAIGHTEN UP. 

OVERT ACT (C) AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL
WAS THAT IN DECEMBER, 1944, PETITIONER AND JAPANESE GUARDS LINED UP
ABOUT 30 AMERICAN PRISONERS AND, AS PUNISHMENT FOR MAKING ARTICLES OF
CLOTHING OUT OF BLANKETS, STRUCK THEM AND FORCED THEM TO STRIKE EACH
OTHER.  PETITIONER HIT PRISONERS WHO, HE THOUGHT, DID NOT HIT EACH
OTHER HARD ENOUGH. 

OVERT ACT (D) AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL
WAS THAT PETITIONER IMPOSED CRUELTY ON O'CONNOR, AN AMERICAN PRISONER,
WHO WAS SICK AND HAD STOLEN RED CROSS SUPPLIES.  HE WAS KNOCKED INTO
THE CESSPOOL BY JAPANESE SOLDIERS AND THEN REPEATEDLY HIT AND THROWN
BACK INTO THE POOL BY THEM AND BY PETITIONER WITH THE RESULT THAT
O'CONNOR TEMPORARILY LOST HIS REASON. 

OVERT ACT (G) AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL
WAS THAT IN JULY OR AUGUST, 1945, A JAPANESE SERGEANT COMPELLED A WORK
DETAIL OF AMERICAN PRISONERS, WHO HAD RETURNED EARLY, TO RUN AROUND A
QUADRANGLE.  PETITIONER FORCED TWO OF THE AMERICANS, WHO WERE UNABLE TO
RUN FAST BECAUSE OF ILLNESS, TO RUN THE COURSE AN ADDITIONAL FOUR AND
SIX TIMES RESPECTIVELY.  PETITIONER THREW PEBBLES AND SOD AT THEM TO
MAKE THEM RUN FASTER. 

OVERT ACT (I) AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL
WAS THAT IN DECEMBER, 1944, PETITIONER ORDERED ONE CARTER, AN AMERICAN
PRISONER OF WAR, TO CARRY A HEAVY LOG UP AN ICE-COVERED SLOPE AT THE
MINE.  WHEN CARTER SLIPPED, FELL, AND WAS INJURED, PETITIONER ALTHOUGH
HE KNEW CARTER WAS BADLY HURT AND NEEDED ATTENTION DELAYED HIS REMOVAL
BACK TO CAMP FOR APPROXIMATELY FIVE HOURS. 

OVERT ACT (K) AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL
WAS THAT IN THE SPRING OR SUMMER OF 1945 PETITIONER PARTICIPATED IN THE
INHUMAN PUNISHMENT OF ONE SHAFFER, AN AMERICAN PRISONER OF WAR. 
SHAFFER WAS FORCED TO KNEEL ON BAMBOO STICKS ON A PLATFORM WITH A
BAMBOO STICK INSIDE THE JOINTS OF HIS KNEES, AND TO KEEP HIS ARMS ABOVE
HIS HEAD HOLDING A BUCKET OF WATER AND LATER A LOG.  WHEN SHAFFER
BECAME TIRED AND BENT HIS ELBOWS, PETITIONER WOULD STRIKE HIM.  WHEN
SHAFFER LEANED OVER AND SPILLED SOME WATER, PETITIONER WOULD TAKE THE
BUCKET, THROW THE WATER ON SHAFFER, AND HAVE THE BUCKET REFILLED.  THEN
SHAFFER WAS REQUIRED TO HOLD UP A LOG.  IT FELL ON HIM, CAUSING A
GASH.  AFTER THE WOUND WAS TREATED, PETITIONER PLACED BAMBOO STICKS ON
THE GROUND AND ONCE MORE MADE SHAFFER KNEEL ON THEM AND GO THROUGH THE
SAME PERFORMANCE. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, PETITIONER WAS NOT REQUIRED BY HIS EMPLOYMENT TO
INFLICT PUNISHMENT ON THE PRISONERS.  HIS DUTIES REGARDING THE
PRISONERS RELATED SOLELY TO THE ROLE OF INTERPRETER.  HIS ACTS OF
CRUELTY TOWARD THE PRISONERS WERE OVER AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY OF
HIS JOB, OR SO THE JURY MIGHT HAVE FOUND.  WE CANNOT SAY AS A MATTER OF
LAW THAT PETITIONER DID THESE ACTS UNDER COMPULSION.  HE SEEKS,
HOWEVER, TO FIND PROTECTION UNDER JAPANESE MUNICIPAL LAW.  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THAT ARGUMENT HELPS PETITIONER.  THE SOURCE OF THE
LAW OF TREASON IS THE CONSTITUTION.  IF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN IS A
TRAITOR BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION, HE GAINS NO IMMUNITY BECAUSE
THE SAME ACTS MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL UNDER THE LAW OF THE COUNTRY WHERE
THE ACTS WERE PERFORMED.  TREASON IS A SEPARATE OFFENSE; TREASON CAN BE
COMMITTED BY ONE WHO SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVES THE LAWS OF OTHER NATIONS;
AND HIS ACTS MAY BE NONETHELESS TREASONABLE THOUGH THE SAME CONDUCT
AMOUNTS TO A DIFFERENT CRIME.  IT WOULD TAKE A LONG CHAPTER TO RELATE
THE NUMEROUS ACTS THAT SUPPLEMENT THE CRIME OF TREASON AND BUILD
DIFFERENT AND LESSER CRIMES OUT OF THE SAME OR RELATED ACTS.  SEE
CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 45.  BUT NO MATTER THE REACH OF THE
LEGISLATIVE POWER IN DEFINING OTHER CRIMES, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR TREASON REMAIN THE SAME.  THE CRIME OF TREASON CAN BE
TAKEN OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE PROCESSES OF AMENDMENT; BUT THERE
IS NO OTHER WAY TO MODIFY OR ALTER IT. 

THE JURY FOUND THAT EACH OF THE SIX OVERT ACTS OF CRUELTY ACTUALLY
GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY.  WE AGREE.  THESE WERE NOT ACTS
INNOCENT AND COMMONPLACE IN APPEARANCE AND GAINING TREASONABLE
SIGNIFICANCE ONLY BY REFERENCE TO OTHER EVIDENCE, AS IN CRAMER V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA. THEY WERE ACTS WHICH SHOWED MORE THAN SYMPATHY
WITH THE ENEMY, MORE THAN A LACK OF ZEAL IN THE AMERICAN CAUSE, MORE
THAN A BREAKING OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES.  THEY SHOWED
CONDUCT WHICH ACTUALLY PROMOTED THE CAUSE OF THE ENEMY.  THEY WERE ACTS
WHICH TENDED TO STRENGTHEN THE ENEMY AND ADVANCE ITS INTERESTS.  THESE
ACTS IN THEIR SETTING WOULD HELP MAKE ALL THE PRISONERS FEARFUL,
DOCILE, AND SUBSERVIENT.  BECAUSE OF THESE PUNISHMENTS THE PRISONERS
WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO BE TROUBLESOME; THEY WOULD NEED FEWER GUARDS;
THEY WOULD REQUIRE LESS WATCHING.  THESE ACTS WOULD TEND TO GIVE THE
ENEMY THE "HEART AND COURAGE TO GO ON WITH THE WAR."  THAT WAS THE TEST
LAID DOWN BY LORD CHIEF JUSTICE TREBY IN TRIAL OF CAPTAIN VAUGHAN, 13
HOW.  ST. TR. 485, 533.  IT IS A SUFFICIENT MEASURE OF THE OVERT ACT
REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 28,
29, 34.  ALL OF THE OVERT ACTS TENDED TO STRENGTHEN JAPAN'S WAR
EFFORTS; ALL OF THEM ENCOURAGED THE ENEMY AND ADVANCED ITS INTERESTS. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE OVERT ACTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROVED
BY TWO WITNESSES.  EACH WITNESS WHO TESTIFIED TO AN OVERT ACT WAS,
HOWEVER, AN EYE-WITNESS OF THE COMMISSION OF THAT ACT.  THEY WERE
PRESENT AND SAW OR HEARD THAT TO WHICH THEY TESTIFIED.  IN SOME
INSTANCES THERE WAS A VARIANCE AS TO DETAILS.  THUS OVERT ACT (B) WAS
TESTIFIED TO BY THIRTEEN WITNESSES.  THEY DID NOT ALL AGREE AS TO THE
EXACT DATE WHEN THE OVERT ACT OCCURRED, WHETHER IN APRIL, MAY, OR JUNE,
1945.  BUT THEY ALL AGREED THAT IT DID TAKE PLACE, THAT GRANT WAS THE
VICTIM, AND THAT IT HAPPENED BETWEEN 3 AND 6 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON;
AND MOST OF THEM AGREED THAT PETITIONER STRUCK GRANT.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS CONCLUDED, AND WE AGREE, THAT THE DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE
WITNESSES WAS NOT ON WHAT TOOK PLACE BUT ON COLLATERAL DETAILS.  "WHILE
TWO WITNESSES MUST TESTIFY TO THE SAME ACT, IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT
THEIR TESTIMONY BE IDENTICAL."  HAUPT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 640. 
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT AS RESPECTS EACH OF THE EIGHT OVERT ACTS THE
WITNESSES WERE ALL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME INCIDENT AND WERE DESCRIBING
THE SAME CONDUCT ON PETITIONER'S PART. 

FOURTH.  PETITIONER CHALLENGES THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO
SHOW THE SECOND ELEMENT IN THE CRIME OF TREASON - ADHERING TO THE
ENEMY.  THE TWO-WITNESS REQUIREMENT DOES NOT EXTEND TO THIS ELEMENT. 
CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 31.  INTENT TO BETRAY MUST BE
INFERRED FROM CONDUCT.  IT MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE OVERT ACTS
THEMSELVES (CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 31), FROM THE
DEFENDANT'S OWN STATEMENTS OF HIS ATTITUDES TOWARD THE WAR EFFORT
(HAUPT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 642), AND FROM HIS OWN PROFESSIONS
OF LOYALTY TO JAPAN. 

EVIDENCE OF WHAT PETITIONER SAID DURING THIS PERIOD CONCERNING THE
WAR EFFORT AND HIS PROFESSIONS OF LOYALTY, IF BELIEVED BY THE JURY,
LEAVES LITTLE DOUBT OF HIS TRAITOROUS INTENT.  "IT LOOKS LIKE MACARTHUR
TOOK A RUN-OUT POWDER ON YOU BOYS"; "THE JAPANESE WERE A LITTLE
SUPERIOR TO YOUR AMERICAN SOLDIERS"; "YOU AMERICANS DON'T HAVE NO
CHANCE.  WE WILL WIN THE WAR."  "WELL, YOU GUYS NEEDN'T BE INTERESTED
IN WHEN THE WAR WILL BE OVER BECAUSE YOU WON'T GO BACK; YOU WILL STAY
HERE AND WORK.  I WILL GO BACK TO THE STATES BECAUSE I AM AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN"; "WE WILL KILL ALL YOU PRISONERS RIGHT HERE ANYWAY, WHETHER
YOU WIN THE WAR OR LOSE IT.  YOU WILL NEVER GET TO GO BACK TO THE
STATES"; "I WILL BE GLAD WHEN ALL OF THE AMERICANS IS DEAD, AND THEN I
CAN GO HOME AND LIVE HAPPY."  THESE ARE SOME OF THE STATEMENTS
PETITIONER MADE ALIGNING HIMSELF WITH THE JAPANESE CAUSE.  THERE WAS
ALSO EVIDENCE THAT HE SAID THAT THE PRISONERS WOULD NEVER GO BACK TO
THEIR WIVES AND THEIR FAMILIES, THAT JAPAN WOULD WIN THE WAR AND THAT
HE WOULD RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES AS AN IMPORTANT MAN, THAT JAPAN
WOULD WIN IF IT TOOK 100 YEARS, THAT THE JAPANESE WERE SUPERIOR TO THE
AMERICANS AND IF THE AMERICAN ARMY HAD JAPANESE OFFICERS, THEY COULD
WHIP THE WORLD, THAT THERE WERE MORE AMERICAN BOYS WHO WOULD BE
AVAILABLE TO DO THE WORK, IF THE PRESENT PRISONERS WERE TOO WEAK TO
WORK.  AND ON THE DAY THE WORK AT THE CAMP ENDED AFTER JAPAN
SURRENDERED HE COMMENTED, "YOU AMERICAN BASTARDS WILL BE WELL FED" OR
"YOU WILL BE GETTING FAT FROM NOW ON."    THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT IN
MAY OR JUNE, 1945, PETITIONER SAID, "IT DON'T MAKE A DAMN TO ME WHICH
WAY THE WAR GOES BECAUSE I AM GOING BACK TO THE STATES ANYWAY."  AT THE
TRIAL HE SAID HE FELT NO LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PERIOD
FROM MARCH 1943 TO DECEMBER 1945, AND THAT HE INTENDED TO DO EVERYTHING
HE COULD TO HELP JAPAN.  HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE FIRST LOYALTY HE
FELT TO THE UNITED STATES, FOLLOWING THE ENTRY OF HIS NAME IN THE
KOSEKI, WAS WHEN HE APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN IN
DECEMBER, 1945, AND ONCE MORE TOOK THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.  YET WE HAVE
ALREADY SEEN THAT IN CONNECTION WITH THAT APPLICATION HE CONCEDED HIS
DUAL NATIONALITY AND THE CONTINUANCE OF HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP DURING
HIS ENTIRE STAY IN JAPAN. 

IF THE VERSIONS OF PETITIONER'S WORDS AND CONDUCT AT THE OEYAMA CAMP,
TESTIFIED TO BY THE VARIOUS WITNESSES, WERE BELIEVED, THE TRAITOROUS
INTENT WOULD BE SHOWN BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE.  PETITIONER INDEED
CONCEDED AT THE TRIAL THAT HE FELT NO LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES AT
THIS TIME AND HAD THROWN HIS LOT IN WITH JAPAN.  YET AT THE END OF THE
WAR HE HAD TAKEN THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES, CLAIMING
HE HAD BEEN A UNITED STATES CITIZEN ALL ALONG.  THE ISSUE OF INTENT TO
BETRAY, LIKE THE CITIZENSHIP ISSUE, WAS PLAINLY ONE FOR THE JURY TO
DECIDE.  WE WOULD HAVE TO REJECT ALL THE EVIDENCE ADVERSE TO PETITIONER
AND ACCEPT AS THE TRUTH HIS PROTESTATIONS WHEN THE SHADOW OF THE
HANGMAN'S NOOSE WAS ON HIM IN ORDER TO SAVE HIM FROM THE FINDING THAT
HE DID HAVE INTENT TO BETRAY.  THAT FINDING OF THE JURY WAS BASED ON
ITS CONCLUSION THAT WHAT HE DID WAS DONE WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY AND
NOT BECAUSE THE DUTY OF HIS OFFICE OR ANY COERCION COMPELLED HIM TO DO
IT.  THE FINDING THAT HE HAD AN UNCOERCED AND VOLUNTARY PURPOSE WAS
AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  THEREFORE THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE
CRIME OF TREASON WAS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED. 

OTHER ALLEGED ERRORS ARE PRESSED UPON US.  BUT THEY ARE EITHER
INSUBSTANTIAL OR SO ADEQUATELY DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT
WE GIVE THEM NO NOTICE, WITH ONE EXCEPTION AND THAT RELATES TO THE
SEVERITY OF THE SENTENCE.  AT THE TIME OF THESE OFFENSES CONGRESS HAD
PROVIDED THAT ONE WHO IS GUILTY OF TREASON "SHALL SUFFER DEATH; OR, AT
THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, SHALL BE IMPRISONED NOT LESS THAN FIVE
YEARS AND FINED NOT LESS THAN $10,000,  ...  AND EVERY PERSON SO
CONVICTED OF TREASON SHALL, MOREOVER, BE INCAPABLE OF HOLDING ANY
OFFICE UNDER THE UNITED STATES."  (FN10)  THE TRIAL JUDGE IMPOSED THE
DEATH SENTENCE.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THAT SENTENCE WAS SO SEVERE AS TO
BE ARBITRARY.  IT WAS, HOWEVER, WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMITS.  WHETHER A
SENTENCE MAY BE SO SEVERE AND THE OFFENSE SO TRIVIAL THAT AN APPELLATE
COURT SHOULD SET IT ASIDE IS A QUESTION WE NEED NOT REACH.  THE
FLAGRANT AND PERSISTENT ACTS OF PETITIONER GAVE THE TRIAL JUDGE SUCH A
LEEWAY IN REACHING A DECISION ON THE SENTENCE THAT WE WOULD NOT BE
WARRANTED IN INTERFERING.  CF. BLOCKBURGER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S.
299, 305.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE BLAKEMORE, RECOVERY OF JAPANESE NATIONALITY AS CAUSE FOR
EXPATRIATION IN AMERICAN LAW, 43 AM. J. INT'L L. 441, 449. 

FN2  FOR DISCUSSIONS OF THE SUBJECT OF DUAL NATIONALITY, SEE TALBOT
V. JANSEN, 3 DALL.  133, 164-165, 169; INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF THE
SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOUR, 3 PET. 99, 126, 157, 161; SHANKS V. DUPONT, 3
PET. 242, 247, 249; PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325, 329, 339, 344-345;
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 97-98; SAVORGNAN V. UNITED
STATES, 338 U.S. 491, 500; UNITED STATES V. HUSBAND, 6 F.2D 957, 958;
DOS REIS EX REL. CAMARA V. NICOLLS, 161 F.2D 860; ATTORNEY GENERAL V.
RICKETTS, 165 F.2D 193; UYENO V. ACHESON, 96 F. SUPP. 510, 514-515;
TOMASICCHIO V. ACHESON, 98 F. SUPP. 166; KONDO V. ACHESON, 98 F. SUPP.
884, 886-887; HAMAMOTO V. ACHESON, 98 F. SUPP. 904, 905; BOISSONNAS V.
ACHESON, 101 F. SUPP. 138, 147, 151-152; DI GIROLAMO V. ACHESON, 101 F.
SUPP. 380, 382; COUMAS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 31 CAL. 2D 682, 192 P.2D 449;
DOYLE V. RIES, 208 MINN. 321, 293 N.W. 614; LUDLAM V. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y.
356, 376-377; LYNCH V. CLARKE, 1 SANDF.  CH. (N.Y.)  583, 659, 677-679;
STATE EX REL. PHELPS V. JACKSON, 79 VT. 504, 520, 65 A. 657, 661;
BORCHARD, DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF CITIZENS ABROAD, 575-591; FLOURNOY,
DUAL NATIONALITY AND ELECTION, 30 YALE L.J. 545, 693; HACKWORTH, DIGEST
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. III, PP. 352-377; HYDE, INTERNATIONAL LAW
(2D ED.), VOL. 2, PP. 1131-1143; MOORE, INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST, VOL.
III, PP. 518-551; NIELSEN, SOME VEXATIOUS QUESTIONS RELATING TO
NATIONALITY, 20 COL. L. REV. 840; OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW (7TH
ED., LAUTERPACHT), VOL. I, PP.  606-610; ORFIELD, THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF
DUAL NATIONALITY, 17 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 427; VAN DYNE, CITIZENSHIP OF
THE UNITED STATES, 24, 34. 

FN3  THE EXPLANATORY COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT CODE OF THE NATIONALITY
LAWS TRANSMITTED WITH THE MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT ON JUNE 13, 1938,
STATED THE FOLLOWING AS RESPECTS SEC. 401(C) AND (D): 

"WITH REFERENCE TO SUBSECTIONS (C) AND (D) ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT IN AN OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAMS, DATED
AUGUST 20, 1873 (14 OP. ATTY. GEN. 295, 297): 

"'MY OPINION  ...  IS THAT, IN ADDITION TO DOMICILE AND INTENT TO
REMAIN, SUCH EXPRESSIONS OR ACTS AS AMOUNT TO A RENUNCIATION OF UNITED
STATES CITIZENSHIP AND A WILLINGNESS TO SUBMIT TO OR ADOPT THE
OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE PERSON RESIDES, SUCH AS
ACCEPTING PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, ENGAGING IN MILITARY SERVICES, ETC., MAY
BE TREATED BY THIS GOVERNMENT AS EXPATRIATION, WITHOUT ACTUAL
NATURALIZATION.  NATURALIZATION IS WITHOUT DOUBT THE HIGHEST, BUT NOT
THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF EXPATRIATION.'"  CODIFICATION OF THE NATIONALITY
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., HOUSE COMMITTEE
PRINT, P. 67. 

MR. FLOURNOY, SPEAKING FOR THE STATE DEPARTMENT AT THE HEARINGS (SEE
HEARINGS ON H.R. 6127, H.R. 9980, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 131-132),
DESCRIBED THE PROVISION THAT BECAME SEC. 401(D) IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: 

"IT SEEMS TO ME THE OBJECT OF THAT IS FAIRLY CLEAR.  A FOREIGN STATE
HAS SOME POSITION IN ITS GOVERNMENT WHICH CAN BE HELD ONLY BY ITS
CITIZENS AND AN AMERICAN ACCEPTS SUCH A POSITION AND SERVES THE FOREIGN
STATE AND LOSES HIS AMERICAN NATIONALITY.  THAT IS INTENDED
PARTICULARLY FOR CASES OF PERSONS OF DUAL NATIONALITY, AND THERE ARE
NOT A GREAT MANY OF THOSE CASES.  THERE ARE NOT MANY THOUSANDS OF THEM
...  .  THIS IS INTENDED PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE CASES OF DUAL
NATIONALITY.  SAY AN AMERICAN IS BORN HERE AND HE GOES TO AND IS LIVING
IN MEXICO AND HE TAKES A POSITION IN THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, THAT IS
REGARDED AS EQUIVALENT TO A CHOICE OF HIS CITIZENSHIP AND HE LOSES HIS
AMERICAN NATIONALITY." 

FN4  SECTION 402 READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"A NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OR
WHO WAS BORN IN ANY PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
STATES OF A PARENT WHO WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE PRESUMED
TO HAVE EXPATRIATED HIMSELF UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OR (D) OF SECTION 401,
WHEN HE SHALL REMAIN FOR SIX MONTHS OR LONGER WITHIN ANY FOREIGN STATE
OF WHICH HE OR EITHER OF HIS PARENTS SHALL HAVE BEEN A NATIONAL
ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF SUCH FOREIGN STATE, OR WITHIN ANY PLACE UNDER
CONTROL OF SUCH FOREIGN STATE, AND SUCH PRESUMPTION SHALL EXIST UNTIL
OVERCOME WHETHER OR NOT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS RETURNED TO THE UNITED
STATES.  SUCH PRESUMPTION MAY BE OVERCOME ON THE PRESENTATION OF
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO A DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OFFICER OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR TO AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, UNDER SUCH
RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE JOINTLY PRESCRIBE.  HOWEVER, NO SUCH PRESUMPTION SHALL ARISE
WITH RESPECT TO ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES WHILE
SERVING ABROAD AS SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, NOR TO ANY ACCOMPANYING
MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY." 

FN5  SECTION 402 WAS ADOPTED "UPON THE SPECIAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE
WAR DEPARTMENT WITH A VIEW TO CHECKING THE ACTIVITIES OF PERSONS
REGARDED AS PROSPECTIVE 'FIFTH COLUMNISTS.'"  86 CONG. REC. 11948. 

FN6  R.S. SEC. 1999, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 800 PROVIDES: 

"WHEREAS THE RIGHT OF EXPATRIATION IS A NATURAL AND INHERENT RIGHT OF
ALL PEOPLE, INDISPENSABLE TO THE ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF LIFE,
LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS; AND WHEREAS IN THE RECOGNITION
OF THIS PRINCIPLE THIS GOVERNMENT HAS FREELY RECEIVED EMIGRANTS FROM
ALL NATIONS, AND INVESTED THEM WITH THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP; AND
WHEREAS IT IS CLAIMED THAT SUCH AMERICAN CITIZENS, WITH THEIR
DESCENDANTS, ARE SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN STATES, OWING ALLEGIANCE TO THE
GOVERNMENTS THEREOF; AND WHEREAS IT IS NECESSARY TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
PUBLIC PEACE THAT THIS CLAIM OF FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE SHOULD BE PROMPTLY
AND FINALLY DISAVOWED:  THEREFORE ANY DECLARATION, INSTRUCTION,
OPINION, ORDER, OR DECISION OF ANY OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH
DENIES, RESTRICTS, IMPAIRS, OR QUESTIONS THE RIGHT OF EXPATRIATION, IS
DECLARED INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE
REPUBLIC." 

FN7  "WHOEVER, OWING ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES, LEVIES WAR
AGAINST THEM OR ADHERES TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ELSEWHERE, IS GUILTY OF TREASON AND SHALL
SUFFER DEATH, OR SHALL BE IMPRISONED NOT LESS THAN FIVE YEARS AND FINED
NOT LESS THAN $10,000; AND SHALL BE INCAPABLE OF HOLDING ANY OFFICE
UNDER THE UNITED STATES." 

FN8  ABSTRACT OF PASSPORT LAWS AND PRECEDENTS, PASSPORT DIVISION
OFFICE INSTRUCTIONS, CODE NO. 1.6, MAY 19, 1941. 

FN9  THE FORM OF INTERROGATORY WHICH THE JURY ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVELY
TO EACH OF THE EIGHT OVERT ACTS IS PRINTED IN UNITED STATES V.
KAWAKITA, 96 F. SUPP. 824, 851-852. 

FN10  18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  2.  FOR THE PRESENT VERSION SEE
NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, NOT HAVING HEARD THE ARGUMENT, OWING TO
ILLNESS, TOOK NO PART IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THE CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE THRESHOLD QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER PETITIONER RENOUNCED
HIS UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND BECAME EXPATRIATED BY REASON OF ACTS
COMMITTED IN JAPAN DURING THE WAR.  PRIOR TO 1943, PETITIONER WAS
REGARDED BY JAPANESE AUTHORITIES AS AN ENEMY ALIEN.  IN MARCH, 1943,
PETITIONER GAVE OFFICIAL NOTICE OF HIS ALLEGIANCE TO JAPAN BY HAVING
HIS NAME REGISTERED IN THE FAMILY KOSEKI.  THEREAFTER, PETITIONER HAD
HIS NAME REMOVED FROM POLICE RECORDS AS AN ENEMY ALIEN, SECURED
EMPLOYMENT SUBJECT TO MILITARY CONTROL AT A MUNITIONS PLANT, TRAVELED
TO CHINA ON A JAPANESE PASSPORT, AND PRAYED DAILY FOR THE EMPEROR'S
HEALTH AND A JAPANESE VICTORY.  THESE FACTS AND PETITIONER'S HEINOUS
TREATMENT OF AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR, RECITED IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT, CONVINCE US THAT PETITIONER, FOR OVER TWO YEARS, WAS
CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATING HIS ALLEGIANCE TO JAPAN, NOT THE UNITED
STATES.  AS A MATTER OF LAW, HE EXPATRIATED HIMSELF AS WELL AS THAT CAN
BE DONE. 

PETITIONER'S STATEMENTS THAT HE WAS STILL A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES - MADE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A UNITED STATES PASSPORT AFTER JAPAN
HAD LOST THE WAR - CANNOT RESTORE CITIZENSHIP RENOUNCED DURING THE
WAR.  BECAUSE WE CONCLUDE, ON THIS RECORD, THAT PETITIONER'S WHOLE
COURSE OF CONDUCT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH RETENTION OF UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP, WE WOULD REVERSE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION OF TREASON
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 
..END :










ON LEE V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 747 


NO. 543.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 1952 - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1952 - 193 F.2D 306,
AFFIRMED. 


WHILE PETITIONER WAS AT LARGE ON BAIL PENDING HIS TRIAL IN A FEDERAL
COURT ON FEDERAL NARCOTICS CHARGES, AN OLD ACQUAINTANCE AND FORMER
EMPLOYEE, WHO, UNKNOWN TO PETITIONER, WAS A FEDERAL "UNDERCOVER AGENT"
AND HAD A RADIO TRANSMITTER CONCEALED ON HIS PERSON, ENTERED THE
CUSTOMER'S ROOM OF PETITIONER'S LAUNDRY AND ENGAGED PETITIONER IN A
CONVERSATION.  SELF-INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS, MADE BY PETITIONER DURING
THIS CONVERSATION AND A LATER CONVERSATION ON A SIDEWALK WITH THE SAME
"UNDERCOVER AGENT," WERE LISTENED TO ON A RADIO RECEIVER OUTSIDE THE
LAUNDRY BY ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENT, WHO TESTIFIED CONCERNING THEM, OVER
PETITIONER'S OBJECTION, AT THE TRIAL IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED.  HELD: 

1.  THE CONDUCT OF THE FEDERAL AGENTS DID NOT AMOUNT TO SUCH A SEARCH
AND SEIZURE AS IS PROSCRIBED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 750-753. 

(A)  THE UNDERCOVER AGENT COMMITTED NO TRESPASS WHEN HE ENTERED
PETITIONER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT DID NOT
RENDER THE ENTRY A TRESPASS AB INITIO.  PP.  751-753. 

(B)  THE DOCTRINE OF TRESPASS AB INITIO IS APPLICABLE ONLY AS A RULE
OF LIABILITY IN CIVIL ACTIONS, NOT WHERE THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
MAKE USE OF EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS INVOLVED.  P. 752. 

(C)  THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE UNDERCOVER MAN'S ENTRANCE WAS A
TRESPASS BECAUSE CONSENT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD, AND THAT THE OTHER
AGENT WAS A TRESPASSER BECAUSE BY MEANS OF THE RADIO RECEIVER OUTSIDE
THE LAUNDRY HE OVERHEARD WHAT WENT ON INSIDE, MUST BE REJECTED.  PP.
752-753. 

(D)  DECISIONS RELATING TO PROBLEMS RAISED WHERE TANGIBLE PROPERTY IS
UNLAWFULLY SEIZED ARE INAPPOSITE IN THE FIELD OF MECHANICAL OR
ELECTRONIC DEVICES DESIGNED TO OVERHEAR OR INTERCEPT CONVERSATION, AT
LEAST WHERE ACCESS TO THE LISTENING POST WAS NOT OBTAINED BY ILLEGAL
METHODS.  P. 753. 

(E)  EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO OVERTURN ITS RULING THAT WIRETAPPING IS
OUTSIDE THE BAN OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277
U.S. 438, PETITIONER WOULD NOT BE AIDED, SINCE HIS CASE CANNOT BE
TREATED AS ONE INVOLVING WIRETAPPINGG.  PP. 753-754. 

2.  THE FACTS DO NOT SHOW A VIOLATION OF SEC. 605 OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT, SINCE THERE WAS NO INTERFERENCE WITH ANY
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY THAT PETITIONER POSSESSED OR WAS ENTITLED TO
USE, NOR WAS PETITIONER SENDING MESSAGES TO ANYONE OR USING A SYSTEM OF
COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN THE ACT.  P. 754. 

3.  THE EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED AS A MEANS OF
DISCIPLINING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318
U.S. 332, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 754-758. 

ON LEE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF FEDERAL OFFENSES. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  193 F.2D 306.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 941.  AFFIRMED, P. 758. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED ON A TWO-COUNT INDICTMENT, ONE CHARGING THE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE OF SELLING A POUND OF OPIUM IN VIOLATION OF 21
U.S.C. SECS. 173 AND 174, THE OTHER CONSPIRING TO SELL THE OPIUM IN
VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 371.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
CONVICTION BY A DIVIDED COURT.  (FN1)  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  (FN2) 

THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY PETITIONER HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BUT ONLY ONE
IS OF ENOUGH GENERAL INTEREST TO MERIT DISCUSSION.  THAT CONCERNS
ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF TWO CONVERSATIONS PETITIONER HAD, WHILE AT
LARGE ON BAIL PENDING TRIAL, WITH ONE CHIN POY.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE
THESE: 

PETITIONER, ON LEE, HAD A LAUNDRY IN HOBOKEN.  A CUSTOMERS' ROOM
OPENED ON THE STREET, BACK OF IT WAS A ROOM FOR IRONING TABLES, AND IN
THE REAR WERE HIS LIVING QUARTERS.  CHIN POY, AN OLD ACQUAINTANCE AND
FORMER EMPLOYEE, SAUNTERED IN AND, WHILE CUSTOMERS CAME AND WENT,
ENGAGED THE ACCUSED IN CONVERSATION IN THE COURSE OF WHICH PETITIONER
MADE INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS.  HE DID NOT KNOW THAT CHIN POY WAS WHAT
THE GOVERNMENT CALLS "AN UNDERCOVER AGENT" AND WHAT PETITIONER CALLS A
"STOOL PIGEON" FOR THE BUREAU OF NARCOTICS.  NEITHER DID HE KNOW THAT
CHIN POY WAS WIRED FOR SOUND, WITH A SMALL MICROPHONE IN HIS INSIDE
OVERCOAT POCKET AND A SMALL ANTENNA RUNNING ALONG HIS ARM.  UNBEKNOWNST
TO PETITIONER, AN AGENT OF THE NARCOTICS BUREAU NAMED LAWRENCE LEE HAD
STATIONED HIMSELF OUTSIDE WITH A RECEIVING SET PROPERLY TUNED TO PICK
UP ANY SOUNDS THE CHIN POY MICROPHONE TRANSMITTED.  THROUGH THE LARGE
FRONT WINDOW CHIN POY COULD BE SEEN AND THROUGH THE RECEIVING SET HIS
CONVERSATION, IN CHINESE, WITH PETITIONER COULD BE HEARD BY AGENT LEE. 
A FEW DAYS LATER, ON THE SIDEWALKS OF NEW YORK, ANOTHER CONVERSATION
TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE TWO, AND DAMAGING ADMISSIONS WERE AGAIN
"AUDITED" BY AGENT LEE. 

FOR REASONS LEFT TO OUR IMAGINATION, CHIN POY WAS NOT CALLED TO
TESTIFY ABOUT PETITIONER'S INCRIMINATING ADMISSIONS.  AGAINST
OBJECTION, (FN3) HOWEVER, AGENT LEE WAS ALLOWED TO RELATE THE
CONVERSATIONS AS HEARD WITH AID OF HIS RECEIVING SET.  OF THIS
TESTIMONY, IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT IT WAS CERTAINLY PREJUDICIAL IF ITS
ADMISSION WAS IMPROPER. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THIS EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED
BECAUSE THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS OBTAINED VIOLATES BOTH THE SEARCH
AND-SEIZURE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, (FN4) AND SEC. 605 OF
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT (47 U.S.C. SEC. 605); (FN5) AND, IF NOT
REJECTED ON THOSE GROUNDS, WE SHOULD PRONOUNCE IT INADMISSIBLE ANYWAY
UNDER THE JUDICIAL POWER TO REQUIRE FAIR PLAY IN FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT. 

THE CONDUCT OF CHIN POY AND AGENT LEE DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN UNLAWFUL
SEARCH AND SEIZURE SUCH AS IS PROSCRIBED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  IN
GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 129, WE HELD THAT THE ACTION OF
FEDERAL AGENTS IN PLACING A DETECTAPHONE ON THE OUTER WALL OF
DEFENDANT'S HOTEL ROOM, AND THEREBY OVERHEARING CONVERSATIONS HELD
WITHIN THE ROOM, DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THERE THE
AGENTS HAD EARLIER COMMITTED A TRESPASS IN ORDER TO INSTALL A LISTENING
DEVICE WITHIN THE ROOM ITSELF.  SINCE THE DEVICE FAILED TO WORK, THE
COURT EXPRESSLY RESERVED DECISION AS TO THE EFFECT ON THE SEARCH-AND
SEIZURE QUESTION OF A TRESPASS IN THAT SITUATION.  PETITIONER IN THE
INSTANT CASE HAS SEIZED UPON THAT DICTUM, APPARENTLY ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THE PRESENCE OF A RADIO SET WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BRING HIM WITHIN
THE RESERVATION IF HE CAN SHOW A TRESPASS. 

BUT PETITIONER CANNOT RAISE THE UNDECIDED QUESTION, FOR HERE NO
TRESPASS WAS COMMITTED.  CHIN POY ENTERED A PLACE OF BUSINESS WITH THE
CONSENT, IF NOT BY THE IMPLIED INVITATION, OF THE PETITIONER. 
PETITIONER CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT CHIN POY'S SUBSEQUENT "UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT" VITIATED THE CONSENT AND RENDERED HIS ENTRY A TRESPASS AB
INITIO. 

IF WE WERE TO ASSUME THAT CHIN POY'S CONDUCT WAS UNLAWFUL AND
CONSIDER THIS ARGUMENT AS AN ORIGINAL PROPOSITION, IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT
THE NICETIES OF TORT LAW INITIATED ALMOST TWO AND A HALF CENTURIES AGO
BY THE CASE OF THE SIX CARPENTERS, 8 COKE 146(A), CITED BY PETITIONER,
ARE OF MUCH AID IN DETERMINING RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  BUT
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT COMES A QUARTER OF A CENTURY TOO LATE:  THIS
CONTENTION WAS DECIDED ADVERSELY TO HIM IN MCGUIRE V. UNITED STATES,
273 U.S. 95, 98, 100, WHERE MR. JUSTICE STONE, SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS
COURT, SAID OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRESPASS AB INITIO:  "THIS FICTION,
OBVIOUSLY INVOKED IN SUPPORT OF A POLICY OF PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZED
ACTS OF THOSE WHO HAD ENTERED UNDER AUTHORITY OF LAW, HAS ONLY BEEN
APPLIED AS A RULE OF LIABILITY IN CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST THEM.  ITS
EXTENSION IS NOT FAVORED."  HE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT WOULD NOT
RESORT TO "A FICTION WHOSE ORIGIN, HISTORY, AND PURPOSE DO NOT JUSTIFY
ITS APPLICATION WHERE THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE USE OF
EVIDENCE IS INVOLVED."  THIS WAS FOLLOWED IN ZAP V. UNITED STATES, 328
U.S. 624, 629. 

BY THE SAME TOKEN, THE CLAIM THAT CHIN POY'S ENTRANCE WAS A TRESPASS
BECAUSE CONSENT TO HIS ENTRY WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD MUST BE REJECTED. 
WHETHER AN ENTRY SUCH AS THIS, WITHOUT ANY AFFIRMATIVE
MISREPRESENTATION, WOULD BE A TRESPASS UNDER ORTHODOX TORT LAW IS NOT
AT ALL CLEAR.  SEE PROSSER ON TORTS, SEC. 18.  BUT THE RATIONALE OF THE
MCGUIRE CASE REJECTS SUCH FINE-SPUN DOCTRINES FOR EXCLUSION OF
EVIDENCE.  THE FURTHER CONTENTION OF PETITIONER THAT AGENT LEE, OUTSIDE
THE LAUNDRY, WAS A TRESPASSER BECAUSE BY THESE AIDS HE OVERHEARD WHAT
WENT ON INSIDE VERGES ON THE FRIVOLOUS.  ONLY IN THE CASE OF PHYSICAL
ENTRY, EITHER BY FORCE, AS IN MCDONALD V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 451,
BY UNWILLING SUBMISSION TO AUTHORITY, AS IN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES,
333 U.S. 10, OR WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONSENT, AS IN NUESLEIN
V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 73 APP. D.C. 85, 115 F.2D 690, WOULD THE
PROBLEM LEFT UNDECIDED IN THE GOLDMAN CASE BE BEFORE THE COURT. 

PETITIONER RELIES ON CASES RELATING TO THE MORE COMMON AND CLEARLY
DISTINGUISHABLE PROBLEMS RAISED WHERE TANGIBLE PROPERTY IS UNLAWFULLY
SEIZED.  SUCH UNLAWFUL SEIZURE MAY VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, EVEN
THOUGH THE ENTRY ITSELF WAS BY SUBTERFUGE OR FRAUD RATHER THAN FORCE. 
UNITED STATES V. JEFFERS, 342 U.S. 48; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255
U.S. 298 (THE AUTHORITY OF THE LATTER CASE IS SHARPLY LIMITED BY
OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, AT 463).  BUT SUCH DECISIONS
ARE INAPPOSITE IN THE FIELD OF MECHANICAL OR ELECTRONIC DEVICES
DESIGNED TO OVERHEAR OR INTERCEPT CONVERSATION, AT LEAST WHERE ACCESS
TO THE LISTENING POST WAS NOT OBTAINED BY ILLEGAL METHODS. 

PETITIONER URGES THAT IF HIS CLAIM OF UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON AUTHORITY, WE RECONSIDER THE QUESTION OF FOURTH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN THE FIELD OF OVERHEARD OR INTERCEPTED
CONVERSATIONS.  THIS APPARENTLY IS UPON THE THEORY THAT SINCE THERE WAS
A RADIO SET INVOLVED, HE COULD SUCCEED IF HE COULD PERSUADE THE COURT
TO OVERTURN THE LEADING CASE HOLDING WIRETAPPING TO BE OUTSIDE THE BAN
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, AND
THE CASES WHICH HAVE FOLLOWED IT.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THIS, HOWEVER,
FOR SUCCESS IN THIS ATTEMPT, WHICH FAILED IN GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES,
316 U.S. 129, WOULD BE OF NO AID TO PETITIONER UNLESS HE CAN SHOW THAT
HIS SITUATION SHOULD BE TREATED AS WIRETAPPING.  THE PRESENCE OF A
RADIO SET IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUGGEST MORE THAN THE MOST ATTENUATED
ANALOGY TO WIRETAPPING.  PETITIONER WAS TALKING CONFIDENTIALLY AND
INDISCREETLY WITH ONE HE TRUSTED, AND HE WAS OVERHEARD.  THIS WAS DUE
TO AID FROM A TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER, TO BE SURE, BUT WITH THE SAME
EFFECT ON HIS PRIVACY AS IF AGENT LEE HAD BEEN EAVESDROPPING OUTSIDE AN
OPEN WINDOW.  THE USE OF BIFOCALS, FIELD GLASSES OR THE TELESCOPE TO
MAGNIFY THE OBJECT OF A WITNESS' VISION IS NOT A FORBIDDEN SEARCH OR
SEIZURE, EVEN IF THEY FOCUS WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT UPON WHAT
ONE SUPPOSES TO BE PRIVATE INDISCRETIONS.  IT WOULD BE A DUBIOUS
SERVICE TO THE GENUINE LIBERTIES PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO
MAKE THEM BEDFELLOWS WITH SPURIOUS LIBERTIES IMPROVISED BY FARFETCHED
ANALOGIES WHICH WOULD LIKEN EAVESDROPPING ON A CONVERSATION, WITH THE
CONNIVANCE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES, TO AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH OR
SEIZURE.  WE FIND NO VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HERE. 

NOR DO THE FACTS SHOW A VIOLATION OF SEC. 605 OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  PETITIONER HAD NO WIRES AND NO WIRELESS.  THERE
WAS NO INTERFERENCE WITH ANY COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WHICH HE POSSESSED
OR WAS ENTITLED TO USE.  HE WAS NOT SENDING MESSAGES TO ANYBODY OR
USING A SYSTEM OF COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN THE ACT.  GOLDSTEIN V. UNITED
STATES, 316 U.S. 114. 

FINALLY, PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT EVEN THOUGH HE BE OVERRULED IN ALL
ELSE, THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS A MEANS OF DISCIPLINING LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  CF. MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332.  IN
MCNABB, HOWEVER, WE HELD THAT, WHERE DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN UNLAWFULLY
DETAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE REQUIRING PROMPT
ARRAIGNMENT BEFORE A COMMISSIONER, A CONFESSION MADE DURING THE
DETENTION WOULD BE EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL COURTS EVEN THOUGH
NOT INADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND OF ANY OTHERWISE INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER. 
BUT HERE NEITHER AGENT NOR INFORMER VIOLATED ANY FEDERAL LAW; AND
VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, EVEN HAD IT BEEN SHOWN HERE, AS IT WAS NOT,
WOULD NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED INADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL COURTS. 
OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, AT 468. 

IN ORDER THAT CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY RIGHTS MAY NOT BE
UNDERMINED, THIS COURT HAS ON OCCASION EVOLVED OR ADOPTED FROM THE
PRACTICE OF OTHER COURTS EXCLUSIONARY RULES OF EVIDENCE GOING BEYOND
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISION.  MCNABB
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383.  IN SO
DOING, IT HAS, OF COURSE, DEPARTED FROM THE COMMON-LAW RULE UNDER WHICH
OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE WAS NOT RENDERED INADMISSIBLE BY THE FACT
THAT IT HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY OBTAINED.  SUCH DEPARTURES FROM THE PRIMARY
EVIDENTIARY CRITERIA OF RELEVANCY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS MUST BE JUSTIFIED
BY SOME STRONG SOCIAL POLICY.  IN DISCUSSING THE EXTENSION OF SUCH
RULES, AND THE CREATION OF NEW ONES, IT IS WELL TO REMEMBER THE REMARKS
OF MR. JUSTICE STONE IN MCGUIRE V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 95, AT 99:
"A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS MORE THAN A GAME IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY
BE CHECKMATED AND THE GAME LOST MERELY BECAUSE ITS OFFICERS HAVE NOT
PLAYED ACCORDING TO RULE." 

RULES OF EVIDENCE, EXCEPT WHERE PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, ARE FORMULATED
BY THE COURTS TO SOME EXTENT, AS "A QUESTION OF SOUND POLICY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW."  ZUCKER V. WHITRIDGE, 205 N.Y. 50, 65, 98
N.E. 209, 213.  COURTS WHICH DEAL WITH QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCE MORE
FREQUENTLY THAN WE DO HAVE FOUND IT UNWISE TO MULTIPLY OCCASIONS WHEN
THE ATTENTION OF A TRIAL COURT IN A CRIMINAL CASE MUST BE DIVERTED FROM
THE ISSUE OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT TO THE ISSUE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S
MISCONDUCT IN OBTAINING EVIDENCE.  THEY HAVE CONSIDERED THAT "THE
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OBVIOUSLY IS THAT THE COURT, WHEN ENGAGED IN
TRYING A CRIMINAL CAUSE, WILL NOT TAKE NOTICE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH
WITNESSES HAVE POSSESSED THEMSELVES OF PAPERS, OR OTHER ARTICLES OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHICH ARE MATERIAL AND PROPERLY OFFERED IN
EVIDENCE."  PEOPLE V. ADAMS, 176 N.Y. 351, 358, 68 N.E. 636, 638. 
HOWEVER, THERE IS A PROCEDURE IN FEDERAL COURT BY WHICH DEFENDANT MAY
PROTECT HIS RIGHT IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL TO HAVE RETURNED TO HIM EVIDENCE
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OBTAINED.  SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES,
251 U.S. 385.  BUT SINCE WE HOLD HERE THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH A REMEDY COULD NOT BE INVOKED.  EXCLUSION WOULD
HAVE TO BE BASED ON A POLICY WHICH PLACED THE PENALIZING OF CHIN POY'S
BREACH OF CONFIDENCE ABOVE ORDINARY CANONS OF RELEVANCY.  FOR ON LEE'S
STATEMENTS TO CHIN POY WERE ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST PROVABLE
AGAINST HIM AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE.  THE NORMAL MANNER OF
PROOF WOULD BE TO CALL CHIN POY AND HAVE HIM RELATE THE CONVERSATION. 
WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE ON THE REASONS WHY CHIN POY WAS NOT CALLED.  IT
SEEMS A NOT UNLIKELY ASSUMPTION THAT THE VERY DEFECTS OF CHARACTER AND
BLEMISHES OF RECORD WHICH MADE ON LEE TRUST HIM WITH CONFIDENCES WOULD
MAKE A JURY DISTRUST HIS TESTIMONY.  CHIN POY WAS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE
UNDERWORLD TO SERVE AS BAIT, NEAR ENOUGH THE CRIMINAL DESIGN SO THAT
PETITIONER WOULD EMBRACE HIM AS A CONFIDANTE, BUT TOO CLOSE TO IT FOR
THE GOVERNMENT TO VOUCH FOR HIM AS A WITNESS.  INSTEAD THE GOVERNMENT
CALLED AGENT LEE.  WE SHOULD THINK A JURY PROBABLY WOULD FIND THE
TESTIMONY OF AGENT LEE TO HAVE MORE PROBATIVE VALUE THAN THE WORD OF
CHIN POY. 

SOCIETY CAN ILL AFFORD TO THROW AWAY THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE
FALLING OUT, JEALOUSIES, AND QUARRELS OF THOSE WHO LIVE BY OUTWITTING
THE LAW.  CERTAINLY NO ONE WOULD FORECLOSE THE TURNING OF STATE'S
EVIDENCE BY DENIZENS OF THE UNDERWORLD.  NO GOOD REASON OF PUBLIC
POLICY OCCURS TO US WHY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THE
BENEFIT OF ON LEE'S ADMISSIONS BECAUSE HE MADE THEM TO A CONFIDANTE OF
SHADY CHARACTER.    THE TREND OF THE LAW IN RECENT YEARS HAS BEEN TO
TURN AWAY FROM RIGID RULES OF INCOMPETENCE, IN FAVOR OF ADMITTING
TESTIMONY AND ALLOWING THE TRIER OF FACT TO JUDGE THE WEIGHT TO BE
GIVEN IT.  AS THIS COURT HAS POINTED OUT:  "'INDEED, THE THEORY OF THE
COMMON LAW WAS TO ADMIT TO THE WITNESS STAND ONLY THOSE PRESUMABLY
HONEST, APPRECIATING THE SANCTITY OF AN OATH, UNAFFECTED AS A PARTY BY
THE RESULT, AND FREE FROM ANY OF THE TEMPTATIONS OF INTEREST.  THE
COURTS WERE AFRAID TO TRUST THE INTELLIGENCE OF JURORS.  BUT THE LAST
FIFTY YEARS HAVE WROUGHT A GREAT CHANGE IN THESE RESPECTS, AND TO-DAY
THE TENDENCY IS TO ENLARGE THE DOMAIN OF COMPETENCY AND TO SUBMIT TO
THE JURY FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AS TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS
THOSE MATTERS WHICH HERETOFORE WERE RULED SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY HIS
EXCLUSION.  THIS CHANGE HAS BEEN WROUGHT PARTIALLY BY LEGISLATION AND
PARTIALLY BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.'"  FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S.
371, 376. 

THE USE OF INFORMERS, ACCESSORIES, ACCOMPLICES, FALSE FRIENDS, OR ANY
OF THE OTHER BETRAYALS WHICH ARE "DIRTY BUSINESS" MAY RAISE SERIOUS
QUESTIONS OF CREDIBILITY.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY DO, A DEFENDANT IS
ENTITLED TO BROAD LATITUDE TO PROBE CREDIBILITY BY CROSS-EXAMINATION
AND TO HAVE THE ISSUES SUBMITTED TO THE JURY WITH CAREFUL
INSTRUCTIONS.  BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ARGUMENT FOR EXCLUSION
DEPARTS FROM SUCH ORTHODOX EVIDENTIARY CANONS AS RELEVANCY AND
CREDIBILITY, IT RESTS SOLELY ON THE PROPOSITION THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SHALL BE ARBITRARILY PENALIZED FOR THE LOW MORALS OF ITS INFORMERS. 
HOWEVER UNWILLING WE AS INDIVIDUALS MAY BE TO APPROVE CONDUCT SUCH AS
THAT OF CHIN POY, SUCH DISAPPROVAL MUST NOT BE THOUGHT TO JUSTIFY A
SOCIAL POLICY OF THE MAGNITUDE NECESSARY TO ARBITRARILY EXCLUDE
OTHERWISE RELEVANT EVIDENCE.  WE THINK THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS
BETTER SERVED IF STRATAGEMS SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE ARE REGARDED AS
RAISING, NOT QUESTIONS OF LAW, BUT ISSUES OF CREDIBILITY.  WE CANNOT
SAY THAT TESTIMONY SUCH AS THIS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, BE REFUSED ALL
HEARING.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  193 F.2D 306. 

FN2  342 U.S. 941. 

FN3  IT SEEMS PROBABLE THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO PROPERLY OBJECT TO
AGENT LEE'S TESTIMONY.  SHORTLY AFTER AGENT LEE BEGAN TO TESTIFY,
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL ADDRESSED THE COURT:  "  ...  I WOULD LIKE TO
ENTER A GENERAL OBJECTION TO TESTIMONY BY THIS WITNESS OF CONVERSATIONS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN HAD BETWEEN AGENT GIM AND GONG NOT IN THE HEARING
OF THE DEFENDANT ON TRIAL OR IN HIS PRESENCE."  THIS OBJECTION IS NOT
EVEN ADDRESSED TO THE TESTIMONY DESCRIBING THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN ON
LEE AND CHIN POY.  LATER, WHEN AGENT LEE STARTED TO DESCRIBE THE
CONVERSATION BETWEEN ON LEE AND CHIN POY, PETITIONER'S COUNSEL SAID,
"THAT IS OBJECTED TO."  AT BEST THIS IS A GENERAL OBJECTION WHICH IS
INSUFFICIENT TO PRESERVE SUCH A SPECIFIC CLAIM AS VIOLATION OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IN OBTAINING THE EVIDENCE.  WIGMORE ON
EVIDENCE, SEC. 18(C)(1).  SOME JURISDICTIONS RECOGNIZE AN EXCEPTION TO
THE RULE THAT AN OVERRULED GENERAL OBJECTION CANNOT AVAIL PROPONENT ON
APPEAL IN THE CASE WHERE IT APPEARS ON THE FACE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT IT
IS ADMISSIBLE FOR NO PURPOSE WHATEVER, OR WHERE THE NATURE OF THE
PRECISE SPECIFIC OBJECTION WHICH COULD BE MADE IS READILY DISCERNIBLE. 
SPARKS V. TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA, 146 F. 371.  BUT THIS EXCEPTION IS
GENERALLY CONFINED TO THE CASES WHERE SUCH EVIDENCE WAS PLAINLY
IRRELEVANT.  WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE OBJECTION RELIES ON COLLATERAL
MATTER TO SHOW INADMISSIBILITY, AND IN ADDITION THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
TO BE RELIED ON INVOLVES INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE
ORTHODOX RULE OF EVIDENCE REQUIRING SPECIFICATION OF THE OBJECTION IS
BUTTRESSED BY THE UNIFORM POLICY REQUIRING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS TO
BE RAISED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE IN THE LITIGATION. 

TO CALL THE OBJECTION A GENERAL ONE IS TO PUT IT IN THE LIGHT MOST
FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER; LATER COLLOQUY BETWEEN COUNSEL AND COURT
INDICATES THAT THE INTENDED GROUND OF THAT OBJECTION WAS IRRELEVANCE. 
THERE WERE IN ADDITION MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON EACH COUNT,
AND TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN OTHER TESTIMONY, BUT NO REFERENCE TO THE
TESTIMONY HERE IN QUESTION AT THE MOTION STAGE.  THERE WAS NO MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL, BUT THERE WAS A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT - BUT
STILL NO MENTION OF THE SEARCH-AND-SEIZURE ARGUMENT FOR EXCLUSION. 
THERE IS NOT EVEN ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE STATEMENT OF POINTS TO BE
RELIED ON IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, DOES
TREAT IT FULLY, PRESUMABLY UNDER RULE 52(B) OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, ALLOWING THE APPELLATE COURT TO NOTICE "PLAIN ERROR." 
THOUGH WE THINK THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN ITS
DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE POINT, THERE HAVING PASSED ON IT
LEADS US TO TREAT THE MERITS ALSO. 

FN4  "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES,
PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL
NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,
SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE
TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED."  U.S. CONST.,
AMEND. IV. 

FN5  "  ...  NO PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER SHALL
INTERCEPT ANY COMMUNICATION AND DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE EXISTENCE,
CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT, OR MEANING OF SUCH INTERCEPTED
COMMUNICATION TO ANY PERSON  ...  ." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK BELIEVES THAT IN EXERCISING ITS SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY OVER CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS (SEE MCNABB V.
UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 341) THIS COURT SHOULD HOLD THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE REJECTED THE EVIDENCE HERE CHALLENGED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE LAW OF THIS COURT OUGHT NOT TO BE OPEN TO THE JUST CHARGE OF
HAVING BEEN DICTATED BY THE "ODIOUS DOCTRINE," AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS
CALLED IT, THAT THE END JUSTIFIES REPREHENSIBLE MEANS.  TO APPROVE
LEGALLY WHAT WE DISAPPROVE MORALLY, ON THE GROUND OF PRACTICAL
CONVENIENCE, IS TO YIELD TO A SHORT-SIGHTED VIEW OF PRACTICALITY.  IT
DERIVES FROM A PREOCCUPATION WITH WHAT IS EPISODIC AND A DISREGARD OF
LONG-RUN CONSEQUENCES.  THE METHOD BY WHICH THE STATE CHIEFLY EXERTS AN
INFLUENCE UPON THE CONDUCT OF ITS CITIZENS, IT WAS WISELY SAID BY
ARCHBISHOP WILLIAM TEMPLE, IS "THE MORAL QUALITIES WHICH IT EXHIBITS IN
ITS OWN CONDUCT." 

LOOSE TALK ABOUT WAR AGAINST CRIME TOO EASILY INFUSES THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WITH THE PSYCHOLOGY AND MORALS OF WAR.  IT IS
HARDLY CONDUCIVE TO THE SOUNDEST EMPLOYMENT OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. 
NOR ARE THE NEEDS OF AN EFFECTIVE PENAL CODE SEEN IN THE TRUEST
PERSPECTIVE BY TALK ABOUT A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION'S NOT BEING A GAME IN
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT LOSES BECAUSE ITS OFFICERS HAVE NOT PLAYED
ACCORDING TO RULE.  OF COURSE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS MORE THAN A
GAME.  BUT IN ANY EVENT IT SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A DIRTY GAME IN
WHICH "THE DIRTY BUSINESS" OF CRIMINALS IS OUTWITTED BY "THE DIRTY
BUSINESS" OF LAW OFFICERS.  THE CONTRAST BETWEEN MORALITY PROFESSED BY
SOCIETY AND IMMORALITY PRACTICED ON ITS BEHALF MAKES FOR CONTEMPT OF
LAW.  RESPECT FOR LAW CANNOT BE TURNED OFF AND ON AS THOUGH IT WERE A
HOT-WATER FAUCET. 

IT IS A QUARTER CENTURY SINCE THIS COURT, BY THE NARROWEST MARGIN,
REFUSED TO PUT WIRETAPPING BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PALE WHERE A FAIR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SHOULD PROPERLY PLACE IT.  SINCE
THEN, INSTEAD OF GOING FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH IN COMBATTING CRIME,
WE HAVE GONE FROM INEFFICIENCY TO INEFFICIENCY, FROM CORRUPTION TO
CORRUPTION.  THE MORAL INSIGHT OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS UNERRINGLY
FORESAW THIS INEVITABILITY.  "THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE IN FURNISHING THE
GOVERNMENT WITH MEANS OF ESPIONAGE IS NOT LIKELY TO STOP WITH WIRE
TAPPING.  WAYS MAY SOME DAY BE DEVELOPED BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT,
WITHOUT REMOVING PAPERS FROM SECRET DRAWERS, CAN REPRODUCE THEM IN
COURT, AND BY WHICH IT WILL BE ENABLED TO EXPOSE TO A JURY THE MOST
INTIMATE OCCURRENCES OF THE HOME.  ADVANCES IN THE PSYCHIC AND RELATED
SCIENCES MAY BRING MEANS OF EXPLORING UNEXPRESSED BELIEFS, THOUGHTS AND
EMOTIONS."  OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 471, 474.  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE SHOW HOW THE RAPID ADVANCES OF
SCIENCE ARE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THAT POLICE INTRUSION INTO OUR PRIVATE
LIVES AGAINST WHICH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS SET ON
GUARD. 

IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT, ALTHOUGH THIS COURT DEEMED WIRETAPPING NOT
OUTLAWED BY THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS OUTLAWED IT LEGISLATIVELY BY THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 1103, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 605;
NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379; 308 U.S. 338.  WHAT IS PERHAPS
EVEN MORE NOTEWORTHY IS ITS PERVASIVE DISREGARD IN PRACTICE BY THOSE
WHO AS LAW OFFICERS OWE SPECIAL OBEDIENCE TO LAW.  WHAT IS TRUE OF THE
FEDERAL ACT AGAINST WIRETAPPING AND ITS VIOLATIONS IS WIDELY TRUE OF
RELATED STATE LEGISLATION AND ITS DISOBEDIENCE.  SEE WESTIN, THE WIRE
TAPPING PROBLEM, 52 COL. L. REV. 165 (1952).  FEW SOCIOLOGICAL
GENERALIZATIONS ARE MORE VALID THAN THAT LAWLESSNESS BEGETS
LAWLESSNESS. 

THE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT WHO SO VIGOROUSLY URGED THAT WIRETAPPING IS
WITHIN THE CLEAR SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WERE
NO SENTIMENTALISTS ABOUT CRIME OR CRIMINALS.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE WERE
NO SOFTIES.  IN ALL MATTERS OF SOCIAL POLICY WE HAVE TO CHOOSE, AND IT
WAS THE HARDY PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE THAT HIS YEARS IN THE ARMY OF THE
POTOMAC TAUGHT HIM THAT LED MR. JUSTICE HOLMES TO DEEM IT "A LESS EVIL
THAT SOME CRIMINALS SHOULD ESCAPE THAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PLAY
AN IGNOBLE PART."  OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 470. 

SUPPOSE IT BE TRUE THAT THROUGH "DIRTY BUSINESS" IT IS EASIER FOR
PROSECUTORS AND POLICE TO BRING AN OCCASIONAL CRIMINAL TO HEEL.  IT IS
MOST UNCRITICAL TO ASSUME THAT UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO
PRACTICE "DIRTY BUSINESS" CRIME WOULD BECOME RAMPANT OR WOULD GO
UNPUNISHED. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE SOCIAL PHENOMENA OF CRIME ARE IMBEDDED IN THE
TEXTURE OF OUR SOCIETY.  EQUALLY DEEPSEATED ARE THE CAUSES OF ALL THAT
IS SORDID AND INEFFECTIVE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF OUR CRIMINAL LAW. 
THESE ARE OUTCROPPINGS, CERTAINLY IN CONSIDERABLE PART, OF MODERN
INDUSTRIALISM OF THE PREVALENT STANDARDS OF THE COMMUNITY, RELATED TO
THE INADEQUACY IN OUR DAY OF EARLY AMERICAN METHODS AND MACHINERY FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TO THE SMALL PURSUIT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY INTO THE
CAUSES AND TREATMENT OF CRIME. 

OF COURSE WE CANNOT WAIT ON THE SLOW PROGRESS OF THE SOCIOLOGICAL
SCIENCES IN ILLUMINATING SO MUCH THAT IS STILL DARK.  NOR SHOULD WE
RELAX FOR A MOMENT VIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW UNTIL
SOCIETY, BY ITS ADVANCED CIVILIZED NATURE, WILL BEGET AN ATMOSPHERE AND
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH CRIME WILL SHRINK TO RELATIVE INSIGNIFICANCE.  MY
DEEPEST FEELING AGAINST GIVING LEGAL SANCTION TO SUCH "DIRTY BUSINESS"
AS THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DISCLOSES IS THAT IT MAKES FOR LAZY AND NOT
ALERT LAW ENFORCEMENT.  IT PUTS A PREMIUM ON FORCE AND FRAUD, NOT ON
IMAGINATION AND ENTERPRISE AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING.  THE THIRD
DEGREE, SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT, WIRETAPPING AND THE LIKE, WERE NOT
TOLERATED IN WHAT WAS PROBABLY THE MOST SUCCESSFUL ADMINISTRATION IN
OUR TIME OF THE BUSIEST UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.  THIS
EXPERIENCE UNDER HENRY L. STIMSON IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,
COMPARED WITH HAPPENINGS ELSEWHERE, DOUBTLESS PLANTED IN ME A DEEP
CONVICTION THAT THESE SHORT-CUTS IN THE DETECTION AND PROSECUTION OF
CRIME ARE AS SELF-DEFEATING AS THEY ARE IMMORAL. 

SIR JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN BRINGS SIGNIFICANT TESTIMONY ON THIS
POINT: 

"DURING THE DISCUSSIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE ON THE INDIAN CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN 1872 SOME OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE ON THE REASONS
WHICH OCCASIONALLY LEAD NATIVE POLICE OFFICERS TO APPLY TORTURE TO
PRISONERS.  AN EXPERIENCED CIVIL OFFICER OBSERVED, 'THERE IS A GREAT
DEAL OF LAZINESS IN IT.  IT IS FAR PLEASANTER TO SIT COMFORTABLY IN THE
SHADE RUBBING RED PEPPER INTO A POOR DEVIL'S EYES THAN TO GO ABOUT IN
THE SUN HUNTING UP EVIDENCE.'  THIS WAS A NEW VIEW TO ME, BUT I HAVE NO
DOUBT OF ITS TRUTH."  1 STEPHEN, A HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF
ENGLAND (1883), 442, NOTE.  COMPARE SECS. 25 AND 26 OF THE INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT (1872). 

AND FITZJAMES STEPHEN, WHO ACTED ON THIS EXPERIENCE IN DRAWING THE
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, WAS NO SOFTIE, EITHER BEFORE HE BECAME A JUDGE OR
ON THE BENCH. 

ACCORDINGLY I ADHERE TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN GOLDMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 316 U.S. 129, 136, THAT THE OLMSTEAD CASE SHOULD BE OVERRULED
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE DISSENTING OPINIONS IN THAT CASE. 
THESE VIEWS HAVE BEEN STRONGLY UNDERLINED BY THE STEADY INCREASE OF
LAWLESSNESS ON THE PART OF LAW OFFICERS, EVEN AFTER CONGRESS HAS
FORBIDDEN WHAT THE DISSENTERS IN OLMSTEAD FOUND THE CONSTITUTION TO
FORBID. 

EVEN ON THE BASIS OF THE PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, HOWEVER, I
FEEL BOUND TO DISSENT.  THE COURT SEEMS NOT CONTENT WITH CALLING A HALT
AT THE PLACE IT HAD REACHED ON WHAT I DEEM TO BE THE WRONG ROAD.  AS MY
BROTHER BURTON SHOWS, THE COURT NOW PUSHES BEYOND THE LINES OF LEGALITY
HERETOFORE DRAWN.  SUCH ENCOURAGEMENT TO LAZY, IMMORAL CONDUCT BY THE
POLICE DOES NOT BODE WELL FOR EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT.  NOR WILL
CRIME BE CHECKED BY SUCH MEANS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT HELD IN OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, OVER
POWERFUL DISSENTS BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, MR.
JUSTICE BUTLER, AND CHIEF JUSTICE STONE THAT WIRE TAPPING BY FEDERAL
OFFICIALS WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS. 
SINCE THAT TIME THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSTANTLY STIRRED BY THOSE DISSENTS
AND BY AN INCREASING USE OF WIRE TAPPING BY THE POLICE.  FOURTEEN YEARS
LATER IN GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 129, THE ISSUE WAS AGAIN
PRESENTED TO THE COURT.  I JOINED IN AN OPINION OF THE COURT WRITTEN BY
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, WHICH ADHERED TO THE OLMSTEAD CASE, REFUSING TO
OVERRULE IT.  SINCE THAT TIME VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM HAVE
APPEARED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THE CASES COMING BEFORE US.  I NOW MORE
FULLY APPRECIATE THE VICE OF THE PRACTICES SPAWNED BY OLMSTEAD AND
GOLDMAN.  REFLECTION ON THEM HAS BROUGHT NEW INSIGHT TO ME.  I NOW FEEL
THAT I WAS WRONG IN THE GOLDMAN CASE.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN HIS
DISSENT IN OLMSTEAD ESPOUSED THE CAUSE OF PRIVACY - THE RIGHT TO BE LET
ALONE.  WHAT HE WROTE IS AN HISTORIC STATEMENT OF THAT POINT OF VIEW. 
I CANNOT IMPROVE ON IT. 

"WHEN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS WERE ADOPTED, 'THE FORM THAT
EVIL HAD HERETOFORE TAKEN,' HAD BEEN NECESSARILY SIMPLE.  FORCE AND
VIOLENCE WERE THEN THE ONLY MEANS KNOWN TO MAN BY WHICH A GOVERNMENT
COULD DIRECTLY EFFECT SELF-INCRIMINATION.  IT COULD COMPEL THE
INDIVIDUAL TO TESTIFY - A COMPULSION EFFECTED, IF NEED BE, BY TORTURE. 
IT COULD SECURE POSSESSION OF HIS PAPERS AND OTHER ARTICLES INCIDENT TO
HIS PRIVATE LIFE - A SEIZURE EFFECTED, IF NEED BE, BY BREAKING AND
ENTRY.  PROTECTION AGAINST SUCH INVASION OF 'THE SANCTITIES OF A MAN'S
HOME AND THE PRIVACIES OF LIFE' WAS PROVIDED IN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS BY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616,
630.  BUT 'TIME WORKS CHANGES, BRINGS INTO EXISTENCE NEW CONDITIONS AND
PURPOSES.'  SUBTLER AND MORE FAR-REACHING MEANS OF INVADING PRIVACY
HAVE BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT.  DISCOVERY AND INVENTION HAVE
MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, BY MEANS FAR MORE EFFECTIVE THAN
STRETCHING UPON THE RACK, TO OBTAIN DISCLOSURE IN COURT OF WHAT IS
WHISPERED IN THE CLOSET. 

"MOREOVER, 'IN THE APPLICATION OF A CONSTITUTION, OUR CONTEMPLATION
CANNOT BE ONLY OF WHAT HAS BEEN BUT OF WHAT MAY BE.'  THE PROGRESS OF
SCIENCE IN FURNISHING THE GOVERNMENT WITH MEANS OF ESPIONAGE IS NOT
LIKELY TO STOP WITH WIRE-TAPPING.  WAYS MAY SOME DAY BE DEVELOPED BY
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT REMOVING PAPERS FROM SECRET DRAWERS, CAN
REPRODUCE THEM IN COURT, AND BY WHICH IT WILL BE ENABLED TO EXPOSE TO A
JURY THE MOST INTIMATE OCCURRENCES OF THE HOME.  ADVANCES IN THE
PSYCHIC AND RELATED SCIENCES MAY BRING MEANS OF EXPLORING UNEXPRESSED
BELIEFS, THOUGHTS AND EMOTIONS.  'THAT PLACES THE LIBERTY OF EVERY MAN
IN THE HANDS OF EVERY PETTY OFFICER' WAS SAID BY JAMES OTIS OF MUCH
LESSER INTRUSIONS THAN THESE.  TO LORD CAMDEN, A FAR SLIGHTER INTRUSION
SEEMED 'SUBVERSIVE OF ALL THE COMFORTS OF SOCIETY.'  CAN IT BE THAT THE
CONSTITUTION AFFORDS NO PROTECTION AGAINST SUCH INVASIONS OF INDIVIDUAL
SECURITY? 

     *         *         *         *   * 

"THE MAKERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION UNDERTOOK TO SECURE CONDITIONS
FAVORABLE TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.  THEY RECOGNIZED THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF MAN'S SPIRITUAL NATURE, OF HIS FEELINGS AND OF HIS
INTELLECT.  THEY KNEW THAT ONLY A PART OF THE PAIN, PLEASURE AND
SATISFACTIONS OF LIFE ARE TO BE FOUND IN MATERIAL THINGS.  THEY SOUGHT
TO PROTECT AMERICANS IN THEIR BELIEFS, THEIR THOUGHTS, THEIR EMOTIONS
AND THEIR SENSATIONS.  THEY CONFERRED, AS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THE
RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE - THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE OF RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT
MOST VALUED BY CIVILIZED MEN.  TO PROTECT THAT RIGHT, EVERY
UNJUSTIFIABLE INTRUSION BY THE GOVERNMENT UPON THE PRIVACY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL, WHATEVER THE MEANS EMPLOYED, MUST BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  AND THE USE, AS EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING, OF FACTS ASCERTAINED BY SUCH INTRUSION MUST BE DEEMED A
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH. 

     *         *         *         *   * 

"EXPERIENCE SHOULD TEACH US TO BE MOST ON OUR GUARD TO PROTECT
LIBERTY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT'S PURPOSES ARE BENEFICENT.  MEN BORN TO
FREEDOM ARE NATURALLY ALERT TO REPEL INVASION OF THEIR LIBERTY BY EVIL
MINDED RULERS.  THE GREATEST DANGERS TO LIBERTY LURK IN INSIDIOUS
ENCROACHMENT BY MEN OF ZEAL, WELL-MEANING BUT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING." 
277 U.S., SUPRA, AT 473-474, 478-479. 

THAT PHILOSOPHY IS APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO A DETECTAPHONE PLACED
AGAINST THE WALL OR A MECHANICAL DEVICE DESIGNED TO RECORD THE SOUNDS
FROM TELEPHONE WIRES BUT ALSO TO THE 'WALKY-TALKY" RADIO USED IN THE
PRESENT CASE.  THE NATURE OF THE INSTRUMENT THAT SCIENCE OR ENGINEERING
DEVELOPS IS NOT IMPORTANT.  THE CONTROLLING, THE DECISIVE FACTOR IS THE
INVASION OF PRIVACY AGAINST THE COMMAND OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS. 

I WOULD REVERSE THIS JUDGMENT.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO CIVIL LIBERTIES
THAT WE PAY MORE THAN LIP SERVICE TO THE VIEW THAT THIS MANNER OF
OBTAINING EVIDENCE AGAINST PEOPLE IS "DIRTY BUSINESS" (SEE MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES, DISSENTING, OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 470). 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE DISSENTING OPINION BELOW THAT WHAT LEE OVERHEARD BY
MEANS OF A RADIO TRANSMITTER SURREPTITIOUSLY INTRODUCED AND OPERATING,
WITHOUT WARRANT OR CONSENT, WITHIN PETITIONER'S PREMISES, SHOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE.  THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IS NOT LIMITED TO THE
SEIZURE OF TANGIBLE THINGS.  IT EXTENDS TO INTANGIBLES, SUCH AS SPOKEN
WORDS.  IN APPLYING THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF WEEKS V. UNITED STATES,
232 U.S. 383, WE ARE PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH WHERE AND HOW THE
EVIDENCE IS SEIZED RATHER THAN WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS. CF. SILVERTHORNE
LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385; UNITED STATES V. JEFFERS,
342 U.S. 48; NUESLEIN V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 73 APP. D.C. 85, 115
F.2D 690. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IF FEDERAL OFFICERS WITHOUT WARRANT OR PERMISSION
ENTER A HOUSE, UNDER CONDITIONS AMOUNTING TO UNREASONABLE SEARCH, AND
THERE CONCEAL THEMSELVES, THE CONVERSATIONS THEY THEREBY OVERHEAR ARE
INADMISSIBLE IN A FEDERAL CRIMINAL ACTION.  IT IS ARGUED THAT, IN THE
INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL ENTRY BECAUSE PETITIONER CONSENTED
IN CHIN POY'S PRESENCE.  THIS OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT CHIN POY, WITHOUT
WARRANT AND WITHOUT PETITIONER'S CONSENT, TOOK WITH HIM THE CONCEALED
RADIO TRANSMITTER TO WHICH AGENT LEE'S RECEIVING SET WAS TUNED.  FOR
THESE PURPOSES, THAT AMOUNTED TO CHIN POY SURREPTITIOUSLY BRINGING LEE
WITH HIM. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD GENERALLY THAT, IN A FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIAL, A
FEDERAL OFFICER MAY TESTIFY TO WHAT HE SEES OR HEARS TAKE PLACE WITHIN
A HOUSE OR ROOM WHICH HE HAS NO WARRANT OR PERMISSION TO ENTER,
PROVIDED HE SEES OR HEARS IT OUTSIDE OF THOSE PREMISES.  OLMSTEAD V.
UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438.  CF. HESTER V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S.
57.  THIS HOLDS TRUE EVEN WHERE THE OFFICER SUPPLEMENTS HIS HEARING
WITH A HEARING AID, DETECTAPHONE OR OTHER DEVICE OUTSIDE THE PREMISES. 
THIS MERELY ENABLES HIM TO HEAR MORE DISTINCTLY, WHERE HE IS, WHAT
REACHES HIM THERE FROM WHEREVER IT MAY COME.  HE AND HIS HEARING AID
PICK UP THE SOUNDS OUTSIDE OF, RATHER THAN WITHIN THE PROTECTED
PREMISES.  GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 129. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, CHIN POY, WHO WAS LAWFULLY IN PETITIONER'S ROOM,
COULD HAVE TESTIFIED AS TO WHAT HE, HIMSELF, SAW OR HEARD THERE.  YET,
IF HE HAD BEEN THERE UNLAWFULLY OR SURREPTITIOUSLY, WITHOUT WARRANT OR
CONSENT, UNDER CONDITIONS AMOUNTING TO AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH, HE
SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED, IN THIS PROCEEDING, TO TESTIFY EVEN TO THAT. 
CF. GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298; NUESLEIN V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, SUPRA.  SIMILARLY, IF LEE, UNDER LIKE CONDITIONS, WITHOUT
WARRANT AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY, ENTERED THE ROOM WITH CHIN POY AND,
WHILE CONCEALED, OVERHEARD PETITIONER'S CONVERSATION WITH CHIN POY,
LEE'S TESTIMONY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED.  IN SUBSTANCE, THAT IS WHAT TOOK
PLACE HERE.  LEE'S OVERHEARING OF PETITIONER'S STATEMENTS WAS
ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH CHIN POY'S SURREPTITIOUS INTRODUCTION, WITHIN
PETITIONER'S LAUNDRY, OF LEE'S CONCEALED RADIO TRANSMITTER WHICH,
WITHOUT PETITIONER'S KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT, THERE PICKED UP PETITIONER'S
CONVERSATION AND TRANSMITTED IT TO LEE OUTSIDE THE PREMISES.  THE
PRESENCE OF THE TRANSMITTER, FOR THIS PURPOSE, WAS THE PRESENCE OF
LEE'S EAR.  WHILE THIS TEST DRAWS A NARROW LINE BETWEEN WHAT IS
ADMISSIBLE AND WHAT IS NOT, IT IS A CLEARLY ASCERTAINABLE LINE.  IT IS
DETERMINED BY WHERE THE "EFFECTS" ARE SEIZED OR, AS HERE, WHERE THE
WORDS ARE PICKED UP.  IN THIS CASE THE WORDS WERE PICKED UP WITHOUT
WARRANT OR CONSENT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONALLY INVIOLATE "HOUSE" OF A
PERSON ENTITLED TO PROTECTION THERE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES OF HIS PERSON, HOUSE, PAPERS AND EFFECTS.  IT IS INEVITABLE
THAT THE LINE BE NARROW BETWEEN, ON THE ONE HAND, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT OF A PERSON TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
AND, ON THE OTHER, THE NEED FOR THE EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF CRIME. 
DRAWING THE LINE IS A CONTINUING PROCESS.  THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT
THE DIRECTION OF THE LINE THAT EMERGES FROM SUCCESSIVE CASES BE CLEAR. 
..END :





















NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. 343
U.S. 395 


NO. 126.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 26, 1952 - 187 F.2D 307,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MAY NOT, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, COMPEL
CONCESSIONS OR OTHERWISE SIT IN JUDGMENT UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE TERMS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  PP. 401-404. 

2.  IT IS NOT PER SE AN "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE" UNDER SEC. 8(A)(1) OR
(5) OF THE ACT FOR AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN FOR THE INCLUSION IN A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT OF A "MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE"
PROVIDING THAT THE RIGHT TO SELECT, HIRE, PROMOTE, DISCHARGE, DEMOTE OR
DISCIPLINE FOR CAUSE AND TO DETERMINE THE SCHEDULES OF WORK, IS A
PREROGATIVE OF MANAGEMENT ON WHICH THE EMPLOYER'S FINAL DECISION SHALL
NOT BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION.  PP. 404-409. 

(A)  THE ACT DOES NOT EMPOWER THE BOARD TO DISRUPT COMMON COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PRACTICES BY FORBIDDING EMPLOYERS TO BARGAIN FOR FLEXIBLE
TREATMENT OF SUCH MATTERS AND BY REQUIRING THEM TO INCLUDE IN LABOR
AGREEMENTS PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING FIXED STANDARDS FOR WORK SCHEDULES
OR ANY OTHER CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.  P. 408. 

(B)  THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IS TO BE ENFORCED BY
APPLICATION OF THE GOOD-FAITH BARGAINING STANDARDS OF SEC. 8(D) TO THE
FACTS OF EACH CASE RATHER THAN BY PROHIBITING ALL EMPLOYERS IN EVERY
INDUSTRY FROM BARGAINING FOR MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSES ALTOGETHER. 
P. 409. 

3.  CONGRESS HAS CHARGED THE COURTS OF APPEAL, NOT THIS COURT, WITH
THE NORMAL AND PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF REVIEWING THE CONCLUSIONS OF
THE BOARD AND DECIDING WHETHER TO GRANT OR DENY ENFORCEMENT OF THE
BOARD'S ORDERS; AND IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO REVIEW A CONFLICT OF
THE EVIDENCE NOR TO REVERSE A COURT OF APPEALS BECAUSE THIS COURT MIGHT
FIND THE RECORD TILTING ONE WAY RATHER THAN THE OTHER - ESPECIALLY IN
CASES INVOLVING A STATUTORY STANDARD SUCH AS "GOOD FAITH," WHICH CAN
HAVE MEANING ONLY IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR
CASE.  LABOR BOARD V. PITTSBURGH S.S. CO., 340 U.S. 498.  PP. 409-410. 

4.  THAT A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE
EMPLOYER WAS NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED DID NOT RENDER THIS CAUSE MOOT.  P.
399, N. 4. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART ENFORCEMENT
OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 89 N.L.R.B. 185,
REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH A UNION AND, IN
EFFECT, FORBIDDING THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN FOR ANY "MANAGEMENT
FUNCTIONS CLAUSE" COVERING A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.  187 F.2D 307. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 809.  AFFIRMED, P. 410. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ARISES OUT OF A COMPLAINT THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS
REQUIRED UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED.  (FN1) 

THE OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, A.F. OF L., LOCAL NO. 27,
CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AS THE EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENT'S OFFICE EMPLOYEES, REQUESTED A
MEETING WITH RESPONDENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT
GOVERNING EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.  AT THE FIRST MEETINGS, BEGINNING ON
NOVEMBER 30, 1948, THE UNION SUBMITTED A PROPOSED CONTRACT COVERING
WAGES, HOURS, PROMOTIONS, VACATIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS COMMONLY FOUND
IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, INCLUDING A CLAUSE ESTABLISHING A
PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING GRIEVANCES ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACT BY
SUCCESSIVE APPEALS TO MANAGEMENT WITH ULTIMATE RESORT TO AN
ARBITRATOR. 

ON JANUARY 10, 1949, FOLLOWING A RECESS FOR STUDY OF THE UNION'S
CONTRACT PROPOSALS, RESPONDENT OBJECTED TO THE PROVISIONS CALLING FOR
UNLIMITED ARBITRATION.  TO MEET THIS OBJECTION, RESPONDENT PROPOSED A
SO-CALLED MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE LISTING MATTERS SUCH AS
PROMOTIONS, DISCIPLINE AND WORK SCHEDULING AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
MANAGEMENT AND EXCLUDING SUCH MATTERS FROM ARBITRATION.  (FN2)  THE
UNION'S REPRESENTATIVE TOOK THE POSITION "AS SOON AS HE HEARD THE
PROPOSED CLAUSE" THAT THE UNION WOULD NOT AGREE TO SUCH A CLAUSE SO
LONG AS IT COVERED MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
UNDER THE LABOR ACT. 

SEVERAL FURTHER BARGAINING SESSIONS WERE HELD WITHOUT REACHING
AGREEMENT ON THE UNION'S PROPOSAL OR RESPONDENT'S COUNTERPROPOSAL TO
UNLIMITED ARBITRATION.  AS A RESULT, THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE
WAS "BY-PASSED" FOR BARGAINING ON OTHER TERMS OF THE UNION'S CONTRACT
PROPOSAL.  ON JANUARY 17, 1949, RESPONDENT STATED IN WRITING ITS
AGREEMENT WITH SOME OF THE TERMS PROPOSED BY THE UNION AND, WHERE THERE
WAS DISAGREEMENT, RESPONDENT OFFERED COUNTERPROPOSALS, INCLUDING A
CLAUSE ENTITLED "FUNCTIONS AND PREROGATIVES OF MANAGEMENT" ALONG THE
LINES SUGGESTED AT THE MEETING OF JANUARY 10TH.  THE UNION OBJECTED TO
THE PORTION OF THE CLAUSE PROVIDING: 

"THE RIGHT TO SELECT AND HIRE, TO PROMOTE TO A BETTER POSITION, TO
DISCHARGE, DEMOTE OR DISCIPLINE FOR CAUSE, AND TO MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE
AND EFFICIENCY OF EMPLOYEES AND TO DETERMINE THE SCHEDULES OF WORK IS
RECOGNIZED BY BOTH UNION AND COMPANY AS THE PROPER RESPONSIBILITY AND
PREROGATIVE OF MANAGEMENT TO BE HELD AND EXERCISED BY THE COMPANY, AND
WHILE IT IS AGREED THAT AN EMPLOYEE FEELING HIMSELF TO HAVE BEEN
AGGRIEVED BY ANY DECISION OF THE COMPANY IN RESPECT TO SUCH MATTERS, OR
THE UNION IN HIS BEHALF, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE SUCH DECISION
REVIEWED BY TOP MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE GRIEVANCE
MACHINERY HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT THE FINAL
DECISION OF THE COMPANY MADE BY SUCH TOP MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS SHALL NOT
BE FURTHER REVIEWABLE BY ARBITRATION." 

AT THIS STAGE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT BASED ON THE UNION'S CHARGE THAT
RESPONDENT HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN AS REQUIRED BY THE LABOR ACT AND WAS
THEREBY GUILTY OF INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES
GUARANTEED BY SECTION 7 OF THE ACT AND OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNDER
WAS PENDING, NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE UNION AND RESPONDENT CONTINUED
WITH THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE REMAINING AN OBSTACLE TO
AGREEMENT.  DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS, RESPONDENT ESTABLISHED NEW NIGHT
SHIFTS AND INTRODUCED A NEW SYSTEM OF LUNCH HOURS WITHOUT CONSULTING
THE UNION. 

ON MAY 19, 1949, A UNION REPRESENTATIVE OFFERED A SECOND CONTRACT
PROPOSAL WHICH INCLUDED A MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE CONTAINING MUCH
OF THE LANGUAGE FOUND IN RESPONDENT'S SECOND COUNTERPROPOSAL, QUOTED
ABOVE, WITH THE VITAL DIFFERENCE THAT QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE
UNION'S PROPOSED CLAUSE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION AS IN THE CASE
OF OTHER GRIEVANCES.  FINALLY, ON JANUARY 13, 1950, AFTER THE TRIAL
EXAMINER HAD ISSUED HIS REPORT BUT BEFORE DECISION BY THE BOARD, AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION AND RESPONDENT WAS SIGNED.  (FN4)  THE
AGREEMENT CONTAINED A MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE THAT RENDERED
NONARBITRABLE MATTERS OF DISCIPLINE, WORK SCHEDULES AND OTHER MATTERS
COVERED BY THE CLAUSE.  THE SUBJECT OF PROMOTIONS AND DEMOTIONS WAS
DELETED FROM THE CLAUSE AND MADE THE SUBJECT OF A SPECIAL CLAUSE
ESTABLISHING A UNION-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TO PASS UPON PROMOTION
MATTERS. 

WHILE THESE NEGOTIATIONS WERE IN PROGRESS, THE BOARD'S TRIAL EXAMINER
CONDUCTED HEARINGS ON THE UNION'S COMPLAINT.  THE EXAMINER HELD THAT
RESPONDENT HAD A RIGHT TO BARGAIN FOR INCLUSION OF A MANAGEMENT
FUNCTIONS CLAUSE IN A CONTRACT.  HOWEVER, UPON REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE
NEGOTIATIONS, INCLUDING RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL ACTION IN CHANGING
WORKING CONDITIONS DURING THE BARGAINING, THE EXAMINER FOUND THAT FROM
AND AFTER NOVEMBER 30, 1948, RESPONDENT HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN IN A
GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO REACH AGREEMENT.  THE EXAMINER RECOMMENDED THAT
RESPONDENT BE ORDERED IN GENERAL TERMS TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE
UNION. 

THE BOARD AGREED WITH THE TRIAL EXAMINER THAT RESPONDENT HAD NOT
BARGAINED IN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION. 
BUT THE BOARD REJECTED THE EXAMINER'S VIEWS ON AN EMPLOYER'S RIGHT TO
BARGAIN FOR A MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE AND HELD THAT RESPONDENT'S
ACTION IN BARGAINING FOR INCLUSION OF ANY SUCH CLAUSE "CONSTITUTED,
QUITE APART FROM RESPONDENT'S DEMONSTRATED BAD FAITH, PER SE VIOLATIONS
OF SECTION 8(A)(5) AND (1)."  ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD NOT ONLY ORDERED
RESPONDENT IN GENERAL TERMS TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION
(PAR. 2(A)), BUT ALSO INCLUDED IN ITS ORDER A PARAGRAPH DESIGNED TO
PROHIBIT BARGAINING FOR ANY MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE COVERING A
CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.  (PAR. 1(A)).  (FN5)  89 N.L.R.B. 185. 

ON RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW AND THE BOARD'S CROSS-PETITION
FOR ENFORCEMENT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AGREED WITH
THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S VIEW THAT THE ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER
FROM BARGAINING FOR INCLUSION OF ANY MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE IN A
LABOR AGREEMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE
DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT RESPONDENT FAILED TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY IN GOOD FAITH BY REASON OF ITS BARGAINING FOR A MANAGEMENT
FUNCTIONS CLAUSE.  AS A RESULT, ENFORCEMENT OF THE PORTION OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER DIRECTED TO THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE (PAR. 1(A))
WAS DENIED.  OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER (PARS. 1(B) AND 2(A))
WERE ENFORCED BECAUSE RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL ACTION IN CHANGING
WORKING CONDITIONS DURING BARGAINING DOES SUPPORT A FINDING THAT
RESPONDENT HAD NOT BARGAINED COLLECTIVELY IN GOOD FAITH AS REQUIRED BY
THE ACT.  187 F.2D 307.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON PETITION OF THE BOARD
FOR REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF ENFORCEMENT AS TO PARAGRAPH 1(A) OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER.  342 U.S. 809. 

FIRST.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE
INDUSTRIAL PEACE BY ENCOURAGING THE MAKING OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS
GOVERNING RELATIONS BETWEEN UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS.  (FN6)  THE ACT DOES
NOT COMPEL ANY AGREEMENT WHATSOEVER BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS. 
(FN7)  NOR DOES THE ACT REGULATE THE SUBSTANTIVE TERMS GOVERNING WAGES,
HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS WHICH ARE INCORPORATED IN AN AGREEMENT. 
(FN8)  THE THEORY OF THE ACT IS THAT THE MAKING OF VOLUNTARY LABOR
AGREEMENTS IS ENCOURAGED BY PROTECTING EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO ORGANIZE
FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND BY IMPOSING ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT THE
MUTUAL OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY. 

ENFORCEMENT OF THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IS CRUCIAL TO
THE STATUTORY SCHEME.  AND, AS HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED, PERFORMANCE OF
THE DUTY TO BARGAIN REQUIRES MORE THAN A WILLINGNESS TO ENTER UPON A
STERILE DISCUSSION OF UNION-MANAGEMENT DIFFERENCES.  BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE
DUTY OF AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY REQUIRED THE EMPLOYER "TO
NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH HIS EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVES; TO MATCH
THEIR PROPOSALS, IF UNACCEPTABLE, WITH COUNTER-PROPOSALS; AND TO MAKE
EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH AN AGREEMENT."  (FN9)  THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, IMPLICIT IN THE WAGNER ACT AS INTRODUCED IN
CONGRESS, WAS MADE EXPRESS BY THE INSERTION OF THE FIFTH EMPLOYER
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ACCOMPANIED BY AN EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND
MEANING OF THE PHRASE "BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO
REACH AN AGREEMENT."  (FN10)  THIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE WAGNER ACT BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AND THE COURTS OF APPEAL.  (FN11) 

IN 1947, THE FEAR WAS EXPRESSED IN CONGRESS THAT THE BOARD "HAS GONE
VERY FAR, IN THE GUISE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT EMPLOYERS HAD
BARGAINED IN GOOD FAITH, IN SETTING ITSELF UP AS THE JUDGE OF WHAT
CONCESSIONS AN EMPLOYER MUST MAKE AND OF THE PROPOSALS AND COUNTER
PROPOSALS THAT HE MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE."  (FN12)  ACCORDINGLY, THE
HARTLEY BILL, PASSED BY THE HOUSE, ELIMINATED THE GOOD FAITH TEST AND
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY DID NOT
REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF COUNTERPROPOSALS.  (FN13)  AS AMENDED IN THE
SENATE AND PASSED AS THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, THE GOOD FAITH TEST OF
BARGAINING WAS RETAINED AND WRITTEN INTO SECTION 8(D) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THAT SECTION CONTAINS THE EXPRESS PROVISION THAT
THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY DOES NOT COMPEL EITHER PARTY TO
AGREE TO A PROPOSAL OR REQUIRE THE MAKING OF A CONCESSION.  (FN14) 

THUS IT IS NOW APPARENT FROM THE STATUTE ITSELF THAT THE ACT DOES NOT
ENCOURAGE A PARTY TO ENGAGE IN FRUITLESS MARATHON DISCUSSIONS AT THE
EXPENSE OF FRANK STATEMENT AND SUPPORT OF HIS POSITION.  AND IT IS
EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE BOARD MAY NOT, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
COMPEL CONCESSIONS OR OTHERWISE SIT IN JUDGMENT UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE
TERMS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. 

SECOND.  THE BOARD OFFERS IN SUPPORT OF THE PORTION OF ITS ORDER
BEFORE THIS COURT A THEORY QUITE APART FROM THE TEST OF GOOD FAITH
BARGAINING PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 8(D) OF THE ACT, A THEORY THAT
RESPONDENT'S BARGAINING FOR A MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE AS A
COUNTERPROPOSAL TO THE UNION'S DEMAND FOR UNLIMITED ARBITRATION WAS,
"PER SE," A VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 

COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD DO NOT CONTEND THAT A MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
CLAUSE COVERING SOME CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IS AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT
TERM.  (FN15)  AS A MATTER OF FACT, A REVIEW OF TYPICAL CONTRACT
CLAUSES COLLECTED FOR CONVENIENCE IN DRAFTING LABOR AGREEMENTS SHOWS
THAT MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSES SIMILAR IN ESSENTIAL DETAIL TO THE
CLAUSE PROPOSED BY RESPONDENT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN CONTRACTS
NEGOTIATED BY NATIONAL UNIONS WITH MANY EMPLOYERS.  (FN16)  THE
NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD, EMPOWERED DURING THE LAST WAR "TO DECIDE THE
DISPUTE, AND PROVIDE BY ORDER THE WAGES AND HOURS AND ALL OTHER TERMS
AND CONDITIONS (CUSTOMARILY INCLUDED IN COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS)," (FN17) ORDERED MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSES INCLUDED IN A
NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS.  (FN18)  SEVERAL SUCH CLAUSES ORDERED BY THE WAR
LABOR BOARD PROVIDED FOR ARBITRATION IN CASE OF UNION DISSATISFACTION
IN THE EXERCISE OF MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS, WHILE OTHERS, AS IN THE CLAUSE
PROPOSED BY RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE, PROVIDED THAT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
WOULD BE FINAL.  (FN19) WITHOUT INTIMATING ANY OPINION AS TO THE FORM
OF MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE PROPOSED BY RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE OR
THE DESIRABILITY OF INCLUDING ANY SUCH CLAUSE IN A LABOR AGREEMENT, IT
IS MANIFEST THAT BARGAINING FOR MANGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSES IS COMMON
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PRACTICE. 

IF THE BOARD IS CORRECT, AN EMPLOYER VIOLATES THE ACT BY BARGAINING
FOR A MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE TOUCHING ANY CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TRADITIONS OF BARGAINING IN THE PARTICULAR
INDUSTRY OR SUCH OTHER EVIDENCE OF GOOD FAITH AS THE FACT IN THIS CASE
THAT RESPONDENT'S CLAUSE WAS OFFERED AS A COUNTERPROPOSAL TO THE
UNION'S DEMAND FOR UNLIMITED ARBITRATION.  THE BOARD'S ARGUMENT IS A
TECHNICAL ONE FOR IT IS CONCEDED THAT RESPONDENT WOULD NOT BE GUILTY OF
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IF, INSTEAD OF PROPOSING A CLAUSE THAT REMOVED
SOME MATTERS FROM ARBITRATION, IT SIMPLY REFUSED IN GOOD FAITH TO AGREE
TO THE UNION PROPOSAL FOR UNLIMITED ARBITRATION.  THE ARGUMENT STARTS
WITH A FINDING, NOT CHALLENGED BY THE COURT BELOW OR BY RESPONDENT,
(FN20) THAT AT LEAST SOME OF THE MATTERS COVERED BY THE MANAGEMENT
FUNCTIONS CLAUSE PROPOSED BY RESPONDENT ARE "CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT"
WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNDER SECTIONS
8(A)(5), 8(D) AND 9(A) OF THE ACT.  (FN21)  THE BOARD CONSIDERS THAT
EMPLOYER BARGAINING FOR A CLAUSE UNDER WHICH MANAGEMENT RETAINS INITIAL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORK SCHEDULING, A "CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT," FOR
THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT IS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BECAUSE IT IS
"IN DEROGATION OF" EMPLOYEES' STATUTORY RIGHTS TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
AS TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  (FN22)    CONCEDING THAT THERE IS
NOTHING UNLAWFUL IN INCLUDING A MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE IN A LABOR
AGREEMENT, THE BOARD WOULD PERMIT AN EMPLOYER TO "PROPOSE" SUCH A
CLAUSE.  BUT THE BOARD WOULD FORBID BARGAINING FOR ANY SUCH CLAUSE WHEN
THE UNION DECLINES TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL, EVEN WHERE THE CLAUSE IS
OFFERED AS A COUNTERPROPOSAL TO A UNION DEMAND FOR UNLIMITED
ARBITRATION.  IGNORING THE NATURE OF THE UNION'S DEMAND IN THIS CASE,
THE BOARD TAKES THE POSITION THAT EMPLOYERS SUBJECT TO THE ACT MUST
AGREE TO INCLUDE IN ANY LABOR AGREEMENT PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING FIXED
STANDARDS FOR WORK SCHEDULES OR ANY OTHER CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.  AN
EMPLOYER WOULD BE PERMITTED TO BARGAIN AS TO THE CONTENT OF THE
STANDARD SO LONG AS HE AGREES TO FREEZE A STANDARD INTO A CONTRACT. 
BARGAINING FOR MORE FLEXIBLE TREATMENT OF SUCH MATTERS WOULD BE DENIED
EMPLOYERS EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT MAY BE CONTRARY TO COMMON COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PRACTICE IN THE INDUSTRY.  THE BOARD WAS NOT EMPOWERED SO TO
DISRUPT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PRACTICES.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE TERM
"BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY" AS USED IN THE ACT "HAS BEEN CONSIDERED TO
ABSORB AND GIVE STATUTORY APPROVAL TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF BARGAINING AS
WORKED OUT IN THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES."  TELEGRAPHERS
V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342, 346 (1944). 

CONGRESS PROVIDED EXPRESSLY THAT THE BOARD SHOULD NOT PASS UPON THE
DESIRABILITY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE TERMS OF LABOR AGREEMENTS.  WHETHER A
CONTRACT SHOULD CONTAIN A CLAUSE FIXING STANDARDS FOR SUCH MATTERS AS
WORK SCHEDULING OR SHOULD PROVIDE FOR MORE FLEXIBLE TREATMENT OF SUCH
MATTERS IS AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION ACROSS THE BARGAINING TABLE, NOT
BY THE BOARD IF THE LATTER APPROACH IS AGREED UPON, THE EXTENT OF UNION
AND MANAGEMENT PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH MATTERS IS
ITSELF A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO BE SETTLED BY BARGAINING. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT THE BOARD'S HOLDING THAT BARGAINING FOR THE
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE PROPOSED BY RESPONDENT WAS, PER SE, AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  ANY FEARS THE BOARD MAY ENTERTAIN THAT USE OF
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO EVASION OF AN EMPLOYER'S DUTY
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY AS TO "RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" DO NOT JUSTIFY CONDEMNING ALL BARGAINING FOR
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSES COVERING ANY "CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT" AS
PER SE VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  THE DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IS TO
BE ENFORCED BY APPLICATION OF THE GOOD FAITH BARGAINING STANDARDS OF
EMPLOYERS IN EVERY INDUSTRY FROM BARGAINING FOR MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
CLAUSES ALTOGETHER. 

THIRD.  THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY APPLIED THE STATUTORY STANDARD OF
GOOD FAITH BARGAINING TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  IT HELD THAT THE
EVIDENCE, VIEWED AS A WHOLE, DOES NOT SHOW THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO
BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH BY REASON OF ITS BARGAINING FOR A MANAGEMENT
FUNCTIONS CLAUSE AS A COUNTERPROPOSAL TO THE UNION'S DEMAND FOR
UNLIMITED ARBITRATION.  RESPONDENT'S UNILATERAL ACTION IN CHANGING
WORKING CONDITIONS DURING BARGAINING, NOW ADMITTED TO BE A DEPARTURE
FROM GOOD FAITH BARGAINING, IS THE SUBJECT OF AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER
ISSUED BY THE COURT BELOW AND NOT CHALLENGED IN THIS COURT. 

LAST TERM WE MADE IT PLAIN THAT CONGRESS CHARGED THE COURTS OF
APPEALS, NOT THIS COURT, WITH THE NORMAL AND PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
REVIEWING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD.  WE STATED THAT THIS COURT "IS
NOT THE PLACE TO REVIEW A CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE NOR TO REVERSE A COURT
OF APPEALS BECAUSE WERE WE IN ITS PLACE WE WOULD FIND THE RECORD
TILTING ONE WAY RATHER THAN THE OTHER, THOUGH FAIRMINDED JUDGES COULD
FIND IT TILTING EITHER WAY."  LABOR BOARD V. PITTSBURGH S.S. CO., 340
U.S. 498, 503 (1951).  WE REPEAT AND REAFFIRM THIS RULE, NOTING ITS
SPECIAL APPLICABILITY TO CASES WHERE, AS HERE, A STATUTORY STANDARD
SUCH AS "GOOD FAITH" CAN HAVE MEANING ONLY IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE
PARTICULAR FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE. 

ACCEPTING AS WE DO THE FINDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT RESPONDENT
BARGAINED IN GOOD FAITH FOR THE MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE PROPOSED BY
IT, WE HOLD THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT IN THAT RESPECT GUILTY OF REFUSING
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY AS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  ACCORDINGLY, ENFORCEMENT OF PARAGRAPH 1(A) OF THE BOARD'S ORDER
WAS PROPERLY DENIED.  (FN23)  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449 (1935), 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., AS AMENDED, 61
STAT. 136 (1947), 29 U.S.C. (SUPP.IV) SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN2  AS DRAFTED DURING THE BARGAINING SESSION, THE PROPOSED CLAUSE
READ: 

"THE RIGHT TO SELECT, HIRE, TO PROMOTE, DEMOTE, DISCHARGE, DISCIPLINE
FOR CAUSE, TO MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE AND EFFICIENCY OF EMPLOYEES, AND TO
DETERMINE SCHEDULES OF WORK IS THE SOLE PREROGATIVE OF THE COMPANY AND
THE COMPANY'S DECISION WITH RESPECT TO SUCH MATTERS SHALL NEVER BE THE
SUBJECT OF ARBITRATION."  (R. I, P. 97). 

FN3  61 STAT. 136, 140-143 (1947): 

"SEC. 7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING,  ...  . 

"SEC. 8.  (A)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER: 

"(1)  TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7: 

     *         *  *         *         * 

"(5)  TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
HIS EMPLOYEES, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(A). 

     *         *         *      *         * 

"(D)  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IS
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MUTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE EMPLOYER AND THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES TO MEET AT REASONABLE TIMES AND CONFER
IN GOOD FAITH WITH RESPECT TO WAGES, HOURS, AND OTHER TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR THE NEGOTIATION OF AN AGREEMENT, OR ANY
QUESTION ARISING THEREUNDER, AND THE EXECUTION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT
INCORPORATING ANY AGREEMENT REACHED IF REQUESTED BY EITHER PARTY, BUT
SUCH OBLIGATION DOES NOT COMPEL EITHER PARTY TO AGREE TO A PROPOSAL OR
REQUIRE THE MAKING OF A CONCESSION:  ...  ." 

     *    *         *         *         * 

"SEC. 9.(A)  REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED OR SELECTED FOR THE PURPOSES
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A UNIT
APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES, SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES
OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IN RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR
OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:  ...  ." 

FN4  RESPONDENT'S SUGGESTION THAT NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT RENDERED
THE CASE MOOT HAS BEEN PROPERLY REJECTED BELOW.  SEE LABOR BOARD V.
MEXIA TEXTILE MILLS, 339 U.S. 563 (1950); LABOR BOARD V. POOL MFG. CO.,
339 U.S. 577 (1950). 

FN5  THE BOARD ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT: 

"1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM: 

"(A)  REFUSING TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH OFFICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, A.F.L., LOCAL NO. 27, AS THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL OF ITS EMPLOYEES AT ITS GALVESTON, TEXAS, OFFICE,
EXCLUDING GUARDS, SECRETARIES TO DEPARTMENT HEADS AND EXECUTIVES,
AGENTS, BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES, PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES,
DEPARTMENT HEADS, AND ALL OTHER SUPERVISORS AS DEFINED IN THE ACT, BY
INSISTING AS A CONDITION OF AGREEMENT, THAT THE SAID UNION AGREE TO A
PROVISION WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT RESERVES TO ITSELF THE RIGHT TO TAKE
UNILATERAL ACTION WITH RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT, AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT: 

(PARAGRAPH (B) PROSCRIBES OTHER CONDUCT NOT PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
BEFORE THIS COURT.) 

"2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH THE BOARD FINDS WILL
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT: 

"(A)  UPON REQUEST, BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH OFFICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, A.F.L., LOCAL NO. 27, AS THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT DESCRIBED
ABOVE WITH RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND
OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; ...  ." 

FN6  61 STAT. 136 ("FINDINGS AND POLICIES"); CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO.
V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 236 (1938). 

FN7  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 45
(1937). 

FN8  TERMINAL ASSN. V. TRAINMEN, 318 U.S. 1, 6 (1943): 

"THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, LIKE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, DOES
NOT UNDERTAKE GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION OF WAGES, HOURS, OR WORKING
CONDITIONS.  INSTEAD IT SEEKS TO PROVIDE A MEANS BY WHICH AGREEMENT MAY
BE REACHED WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  THE NATIONAL INTEREST EXPRESSED BY
THOSE ACTS IS NOT PRIMARILY IN THE WORKING CONDITIONS AS SUCH.  SO FAR
AS THE ACT ITSELF IS CONCERNED THESE CONDITIONS MAY BE AS BAD AS THE
EMPLOYEES WILL TOLERATE OR BE MADE AS GOOD AS THEY CAN BARGAIN FOR. 
THE ACT DOES NOT FIX AND DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO FIX GENERALLY
APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR WORKING CONDITIONS  ...  ." 

FN9  HOUDE ENGINEERING CORP., 1 N.L.R.B. (OLD) 35 (1934), DECIDED BY
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORGANIZED UNDER 48 STAT. 1183
(1934). 

FN10  BEFORE THE ADDITION OF SECTION 8(5), NOW SECTION 8(A)(5), TO
THE BILL, SENATOR WAGNER DESCRIBED THE BILL AS IMPOSING THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH, CITING THE HOUDE ENGINEERING CASE, NOTE 9,
SUPRA.  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ON
S. 1958, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 43 (1935).  SECTION 8(5) WAS INSERTED AT
THE SUGGESTION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THAT DECIDED HOUDE.  ID.,
AT 79, 136-137.  THE INSERTION OF SECTION 8(5) WAS DESCRIBED BY THE
SENATE COMMITTEE AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE COMMITTEE WISHES TO DISPEL ANY POSSIBLE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT
THIS BILL IS DESIGNED TO COMPEL THE MAKING OF AGREEMENTS OR TO PERMIT
GOVERNMENTAL SUPERVISION OF THEIR TERMS.  IT MUST BE STRESSED THAT THE
DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY DOES NOT CARRY WITH IT THE DUTY TO REACH
AN AGREEMENT, BECAUSE THE ESSENCE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS THAT
EITHER PARTY SHALL BE FREE TO DECIDE WHETHER PROPOSALS MADE TO IT ARE
SATISFACTORY. 

"BUT, AFTER DELIBERATION, THE COMMITTEE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THIS FIFTH
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE SHOULD BE INSERTED IN THE BILL.  IT SEEMS CLEAR
THAT A GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING IS A MERE DELUSION IF IT
IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE CORRELATIVE DUTY ON THE PART OF THE OTHER
PARTY TO RECOGNIZE SUCH REPRESENTATIVES AS THEY HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED
(WHETHER AS INDIVIDUALS OR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS) AND TO NEGOTIATE WITH
THEM IN A BONA FIDE EFFORT TO ARRIVE AT A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT  ...  ."  S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 12 (1935). 

SEE H.J. HEINZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 514 (1941). 

FN11  THE BOARD APPLIED THE GOOD FAITH TEST OF BARGAINING FROM THE
OUTSET.  1 N.L.R.B. ANN. REP. 85-87 (1936).  CASES IN THE COURTS OF
APPEAL APPROVING AND APPLYING THE GOOD FAITH TEST OF BARGAINING ARE
COLLECTED IN 29 U.S.C.A. SEC. 158, NOTE 265. 

FN12  H.R. REP. NO. 245, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 19 (1947). 

FN13  H.R. 3020, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 2(11)(1947). 

FN14  NOTE 3, SUPRA.  THE TERM "CONCESSION" WAS USED IN PLACE OF
"COUNTERPROPOSAL" AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THAT
THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SHOULD CONFORM TO THE
MEANING OF GOOD FAITH BARGAINING AS UNDERSTOOD AT THE PASSAGE OF THE
WAGNER ACT.  S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 24 (1947); HEARINGS
BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ON AMENDMENT TO THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATION ACT, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3174-3175 (1947). 
SEE H.R. REP. NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 34 (1947). 

FN15  THUS WE PUT ASIDE SUCH CASES AS LABOR BOARD V. NATIONAL
MARITIME UNION, 175 F.2D 686 (C.A.2D CIR. 1949)(BARGAINING FOR
DISCRIMINATORY HIRING HALL CLAUSE), WHERE A PARTY BARGAINED FOR A
CLAUSE VIOLATIVE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE ACT. 

FN16  H.R. DOC. NO. 125, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 3-10 (1949)(U.S. DEPT.
OF LABOR BULL.  NO. 908-12); COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS (B.N.A.
1941), 363-368; CLASSIFIED PROVISIONS OF THIRTY-SEVEN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS FOR WAGE EARNERS IN THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
(AMERICAN IRON & STEEL INST.  1948), 68-73; TESTED CLAUSES FOR UNION
CONTRACTS (LABOR RELATIONS INST.  1945), 11-16; WELTY, LABOR CONTRACT
CLAUSES (1945), 76-82; HOEBRECKX, MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING (1947), 177-182; SMITH, LABOR LAW CASES AND MATERIALS
(1950), 1008-1011; INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RESEARCH SERVICE STUDY NO. 1,
MANAGEMENT'S PREROGATIVES (1945), APP.; PACE, MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES
DEFINED IN UNION CONTRACTS (CALIF.  INST.  TECH. 1945); TELLER,
MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS UNDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (1947), 427-437 (23
OUT OF 53 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS EXAMINED BY THE AUTHOR
CONTAINED MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSES). 

WRITERS ADVOCATING INCLUSION OF DETAILED MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSES
IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS URGE THE DESIRABILITY OF DEFINING
THE RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT AND LABOR IN MATTERS SUCH AS
WORK SCHEDULING CONSISTENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE PARTICULAR INDUSTRY. 
SEE COX AND DUNLOP, REGULATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 63 HARV. L. REV. 389 (1950); HILL AND HOOK,
MANAGEMENT AT THE BARGAINING TABLE (1945), 56-138; TELLER, MANAGEMENT
FUNCTIONS UNDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (1947), 114-116.  SEPARATE VIEWS
ON "MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO MANAGE" WERE PRESENTED BY THE LABOR AND
MANAGEMENT MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL LABOR-MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, NOVEMBER 5-30, 1945, U.S. DEPT OF LABOR BULL.  NO. 77
(1946), 56-62.    FN17  57 STAT. 163, 166 (1943). 

FN18  UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP., 18 WAR LAB.  REP.  9 (1944); MEAD CORP.,
8 WAR LAB.  REP.  471 (1943); HOSPITAL SUPPLY CO., 7 WAR LAB.  REP. 
526 (1943).  SEE ALSO MCQUAY-NORRIS MFG. CO., 28 WAR LAB.  REP.  211
(1945); TELLER, MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS UNDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
(1947), 29-49. 

DISPUTES AS TO THE CONTENT OF MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSES HAVE ALSO
BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE PRESENT WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD, BASIC STEEL
INDUSTRY, 18 LAB.  ARB.  REP. 112 (1952)(RECOMMENDATION THAT PROPOSED
CHANGES IN CLAUSE BE REJECTED), AND BY A PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY BOARD,
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., 5 LAB.  ARB.  REP. 71 (1946)(RECOMMENDATION
THAT CLAUSE BE INCORPORATED IN AGREEMENT). 

FN19  COMPARE EAST ALTON MFG. CO., 5 WAR LAB.  REP.  47
(1942)(ARBITRATION PROVISION ORDERED), WITH ATLAS POWDER CO., 5 WAR
LAB.  REP.  371 (1942)(ARBITRATION PROVISION DENIED). 

UNION OBJECTIONS TO A MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS CLAUSE AS COVERING MATTERS
SUBJECT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING DID NOT DETER THE WAR LABOR BOARD FROM
ORDERING SUCH A CLAUSE WHERE DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN A PARTICULAR CASE. 
(CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 25 WAR LAB.  REP. 83, 114-115 (1945). 

FN20  THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF AN EMPLOYER REFUSING TO BARGAIN OVER AN
ISSUE ON THE ERRONEOUS THEORY THAT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUCH AN ISSUE
DID NOT INVOLVE A "CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ACT.  COMPARE INLAND STEEL CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 170 F.2D 247 (C.A. 7TH
CIR. 1948)(PENSIONS); LABOR BOARD V. J.H. ALLISON & CO., 165 F.2D 766
(C.A. 6TH CIR. 1948)(MERIT WAGE INCREASES). 

FN21  NOTE 3, SUPRA.  SEE BUS EMPLOYEES V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 340 U.S.
383, 399 (1951). 

FN22  THE BOARD'S ARGUMENT WOULD SEEM TO PREVENT AN EMPLOYER FROM
BARGAINING FOR A NO-STRIKE" CLAUSE, COMMONLY FOUND IN LABOR AGREEMENTS,
REQUIRING A UNION TO FOREGO FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT THE RIGHT
TO STRIKE EXPRESSLY GRANTED BY SECTION 7 OF THE ACT.  HOWEVER, THE
BOARD HAS PERMITTED AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH FOR SUCH A
CLAUSE.  SHELL OIL CO., 77 N.L.R.B. 1306 (1948).  THIS RESULT IS
EXPLAINED BY REFERRING TO THE "SALUTARY OBJECTIVE" OF SUCH A CLAUSE. 
BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., 89 N.L.R.B. 341, 345 (1950). 

FN23  SEE LABOR BOARD V. CROMPTON MILLS, 337 U.S. 217, 226-227
(1949). 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS JOIN, DISSENTING. 

I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS CASE IS SOLVED BY TELLING THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD THAT SINCE SOME "MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS" CLAUSES ARE
VALID (WHICH THE BOARD FREELY ADMITS), RESPONDENT WAS NOT GUILTY OF AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN THIS CASE.  THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH
EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT INSISTED ON A CLAUSE WHICH WOULD CLASSIFY THE
CONTROL OVER CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AS A MANAGEMENT
PREROGATIVE, AND THAT THE INSISTENCE TOOK THE FORM OF A REFUSAL TO
REACH A SETTLEMENT UNLESS THE UNION ACCEPTED THE CLAUSE.  (FN1)  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AGREED THAT RESPONDENT WAS "STEADFAST" IN THIS
DEMAND.  THEREFORE, THIS CASE IS ONE WHERE THE EMPLOYER CAME INTO THE
BARGAINING ROOM WITH A DEMAND THAT CERTAIN TOPICS UPON WHICH IT HAD A
DUTY TO BARGAIN WERE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA - THAT WAS THE PRICE
THE UNION HAD TO PAY TO GAIN A CONTRACT.  THERE IS ALL THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE HYPOTHETHICAL "MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS" CLAUSES ENVISIONED BY
THE MAJORITY AND THIS "MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS" CLAUSE AS THERE IS BETWEEN
WAIVER AND COERCION.  NO ONE SUGGESTS THAT AN EMPLOYER IS GUILTY OF AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WHEN IT PROPOSES THAT IT BE GIVEN UNILATERAL
CONTROL OVER CERTAIN WORKING CONDITIONS AND THE UNION ACCEPTS THE
PROPOSAL IN RETURN FOR VARIOUS OTHER BENEFITS.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE
EMPLOYER TELLS THE UNION THAT THE ONLY WAY TO OBTAIN A CONTRACT AS TO
WAGES IS TO AGREE NOT TO BARGAIN ABOUT CERTAIN OTHER WORKING
CONDITIONS, THE EMPLOYER HAS REFUSED TO BARGAIN ABOUT THOSE OTHER
WORKING CONDITIONS.  THERE IS MORE THAN A SEMANTIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
PROPOSAL THAT THE UNION WAIVE CERTAIN RIGHTS AND A DEMAND THAT THE
UNION GIVE UP THOSE RIGHTS AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ENJOYING OTHER
RIGHTS.  (FN2) 

I NEED NOT AND DO NOT TAKE ISSUE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS'
CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO ABSENCE OF GOOD FAITH.  WHERE THERE IS A
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN, THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER
THAT REFUSAL WAS IN GOOD FAITH OR BAD FAITH.  (FN3)  THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN ABOUT CERTAIN SUBJECTS IS MADE ABSOLUTE BY THE ACT.  (FN4)  THE
MAJORITY SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT AN EMPLOYER COULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF BAD
FAITH IF IT USED A "MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS" CLAUSE TO CLOSE OFF
BARGAINING ABOUT ALL TOPICS OF DISCUSSION.  WHETHER THE EMPLOYER CLOSES
OFF ALL BARGAINING OR, AS IN THIS CASE, ONLY A CERTAIN AREA OF
BARGAINING, HE HAS REFUSED TO BARGAIN AS TO WHATEVER HE HAS CLOSED OFF,
AND ANY DISCUSSION OF HIS GOOD FAITH IS POINTLESS. 

THAT PORTION OF SEC. 8(D) OF THE ACT WHICH DECLARES THAT AN EMPLOYER
NEED NOT AGREE TO A PROPOSAL OR MAKE CONCESSIONS DOES NOT DISPOSE OF
THIS CASE.  CERTAINLY THE BOARD LACKS POWER TO COMPEL CONCESSIONS AS TO
THE SUBSTANTIVE TERMS OF LABOR AGREEMENTS.  BUT THE BOARD IN THIS CASE
WAS SEEKING TO COMPEL THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN ABOUT SUBJECTS PROPERLY
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.   (FN5)  THAT THE EMPLOYER
HAS SUCH A DUTY TO BARGAIN AND THAT THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO ENFORCE
THE DUTY IS CLEAR. 

AN EMPLOYER MAY NOT STAKE OUT AN AREA WHICH IS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR
BARGAINING AND SAY, "AS TO THIS WE WILL NOT BARGAIN."  TO DO SO IS A
PLAIN REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(A)(5) OF THE ACT. 
IF EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING RIGHTS CAN BE CUT AWAY SO EASILY, THEY ARE
INDEED ILLUSORY.  I WOULD REVERSE. 

FN1 A MEMBER OF RESPONDENT'S NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE STATED THAT THE
COMMITTEE "HAD GIVEN CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO THE CHARACTER OF
PREROGATIVE THAT, IN OUR OPINION, THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN
FOR ITS MANAGEMENT, AS WELL AS CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO THE CHARACTER OF
SAFEGUARD WHICH WOULD MAKE THE RETENTION OF SUCH PREROGATIVES  ...  OF
VALUE AND WORTH TO THE COMPANY, AND INVULNERABLE TO ATTACK  ...  .  WE
ORALLY STATED TO THE UNION THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE POSITION OF
THE COMPANY  ...  ."  (R. II, P. 32). 

A UNION NEGOTIATOR TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU HAVE SAID THAT COMPANY
SAID YOU WOULD HAVE TO AGREE  ...  . 

"A.  IT WAS THE CONDITION OF A CONTRACT. 

"Q.  NOW, HOW OFTEN, IF IT WAS MORE THAN ONCE, DID THE COMPANY STATE
THAT OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT  ...  DID THEY ONLY SAY IT ONCE OR
DID THEY STATE IT MORE THAN ONCE? 

"A.  I CAN'T TESTIFY AS TO THE NUMBER OF TIMES.  I WILL SAY THEY SAID
IT SEVERAL TIMES. 

     *         *        *         *         * 

"A.  TO GET A CONTRACT, AN AGREEMENT MUST BE REACHED AND MUST BE MADE
BY THE UNION TO INCLUDE ARTICLE II-A AS THE COMPANY'S PREROGATIVE
CLAUSE."  (R. III, PP. 60-61.) 

THE SAME COMPANY NEGOTIATOR TOLD THE UNION THAT THE CLAUSE IN
QUESTION WAS THE "MEAT OF THE CONTRACT" AND THAT IF THE UNION ACCEPTED
IT A CONTRACT COULD BE OBTAINED IN "SHORT ORDER."  (R. III, P. 60.) 

FN2  THERE IS SIMILARLY A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A UNION VOLUNTARILY
DISBANDING, AND THE EMPLOYER INSISTING THAT IT DISBAND AS A CONDITION
OF GRANTING A WAGE INCREASE.  CF.  MCQUAY-NORRIS MFG. CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 116 F.2D 748. 

FN3  THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS THAT AN EMPLOYER IN GOOD FAITH CAN
CHALLENGE THE MAJORITY STATUS OF THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE AND
REQUEST PROOF THAT IT DOES IN FACT HAVE SUCH STATUS.  CF. JOY SILK
MILLS, INC. V. LABOR BOARD, 87 U.S. APP. D.C. 360, 369, 185 F.2D 732,
741. 

FN4  J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332; H.J. HEINZ CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 514, 525. 

FN5  NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 360; INLAND
STEEL CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 170 F.2D 247, 252; LABOR BOARD V. BACHELDER,
120 F.2D 574, 577. 
..END :









PENNSYLVANIA WATER AND POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION 343 U.S.
414 


NO. 428.  ARGUED APRIL 3-4, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 26, 1952 - 89 U.S. APP.
D.C. 235, 193 F.2D 230, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PETITIONER POWER COMPANY OWNS A HYDROELECTRIC PLANT ON A NAVIGABLE
STREAM AND HOLDS A LICENSE FROM THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER PART
I OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  IT ALSO SELLS POWER AT WHOLESALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COMMISSION FOUND ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT
THE STATES INVOLVED WERE "UNABLE TO AGREE" ON SERVICES TO BE RENDERED
AND RATES TO BE CHARGED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 20 OF PART I OF THE
ACT.  HELD: 

(A)  THE FACT THAT PETITIONER IS A LICENSEE AND SUBJECT TO REGULATION
AS SUCH UNDER PART I DOES NOT PRECLUDE ITS REGULATION UNDER PART II AS
A PUBLIC UTILITY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PP. 418-419. 

(B)  THE COMMISSION HAVING FOUND ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE
STATES WERE "UNABLE TO AGREE" ON THE SERVICES TO BE RENDERED AND RATES
TO BE CHARGED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 20, PETITIONER IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER PART I. P. 419. 

2.  TWO POWER COMPANIES HAVE HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS ON THE SUSQUEHANNA
RIVER AND A THIRD OPERATES STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANTS IN MARYLAND.  UNDER A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM, A COMPLETE INTEGRATION AND POOLING OF POWER
PRODUCING AND TRANSMITTING FACILITIES HAS BEEN ACHIEVED AND POWER FLOWS
FROM MARYLAND INTO PENNSYLVANIA AND VICE VERSA, DEPENDING UPON THE FLOW
OF WATER IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER.  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOUND
THAT THE COMBINED OPERATIONS OF THE SYSTEM ARE COMPLETELY INTERSTATE IN
CHARACTER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT AT SOME PARTICULAR TIMES
TRANSACTIONS MAY INVOLVE ENERGY NEVER CROSSING A STATE BOUNDARY.  HELD:
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS COMPLETE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE SALES
AT WHOLESALE OF ALL OF THIS COMMINGLED POWER.  PP. 419-420. 

3.  IN PRIVATE LITIGATION, THE ENTIRE CONTRACT WAS HELD UNENFORCEABLE
BECAUSE CERTAIN OF ITS PROVISIONS VIOLATED THE FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS
AND THE CORPORATION LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER FIXING PETITIONER'S RATES, WHICH HAD
THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING A CONTINUATION OF THE INTEGRATION AND POOLING
OF THE POWER PRODUCING AND TRANSMITTING FACILITIES OF THE THREE
COMPANIES.  HELD:  THE ORDER IS VALID.  PP. 421-424. 

(A)  PETITIONER'S DUTY TO CONTINUE ITS COORDINATED OPERATIONS WITH
THE MARYLAND COMPANY SPRINGS FROM THE COMMISSION'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY,
NOT FROM THE LAW OF PRIVATE CONTRACTS.  PP. 421-422. 

(B)  THE ACT GIVES THE COMMISSION AMPLE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THESE
COMPANIES TO CONTINUE THEIR LONG-EXISTING OPERATIONAL "PRACTICE" OF
INTEGRATING THEIR POWER OUTPUT; AND IN SO DOING THE COMMISSION WAS
FURTHERING THE EXPRESSLY DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT.  PP. 422-424. 

4.  PETITIONER HAS PRESENTED NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE END RESULT OF
THE RATE REDUCTION ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION IS UNJUST OR
UNREASONABLE.  P. 424. 

PENNSYLVANIA WATER & POWER CO. ET AL. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 429, PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOUND THE RATES CHARGED BY PETITIONER
FOR THE SALE OF ELECTRIC POWER AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
UNREASONABLE AND ORDERED A REDUCTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
89 U.S. APP. D.C. 235, 193 F.2D 230.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
342 U.S. 931.  AFFIRMED, P. 424. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1944 THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, THE BALTIMORE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND
SEVERAL PRIVATE PURCHASERS OF ELECTRIC POWER DECIDED TO ASK THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION FOR HELP.  THEY REQUESTED THE COMMISSION TO
INVESTIGATE ALLEGEDLY "EXCESSIVE RATES" THE PENNSYLVANIA WATER & POWER
COMPANY (PENN WATER) (FN1) WAS CHARGING CONSOLIDATED GAS ELECTRIC LIGHT
AND POWER COMPANY OF BALTIMORE (CONSOLIDATED).  THE MARYLAND INTERESTS
WANTED THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION TO REDUCE THESE CHARGES SO THAT THE
STATE COMMISSION COULD LOWER CONSOLIDATED'S RATES TO ITS MARYLAND
CUSTOMERS.  THE FEDERAL COMMISSION HELD MANY MONTHS OF EXTENSIVE
HEARINGS AND FOUND THAT PENN WATER HAD CHARGED ITS CUSTOMERS ALMOST
THREE TIMES WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE IN 1946.  IN THAT YEAR IT HAD A NET
OPERATING INCOME OF $3,477,408, AS CONTRASTED WITH $1,300,672 WHICH THE
COMMISSION FOUND WOULD HAVE BEEN A FAIR RETURN (5 1/4%) ON A FAIR RATE
BASE ($24,774,712), ALLOWING PENN WATER "ABOUT 8.64% FOR COMMON STOCK
AND SURPLUS, WHICH IS ADEQUATE."  (FN2)  THE COMMISSION ORDERED PENN
WATER TO FILE A NEW SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES TO BRING ABOUT THE
REDUCTIONS REQUIRED. 

IN SUBSEQUENT ORDERS THE COMMISSION DENIED PENN WATER'S APPLICATIONS
FOR REHEARING, REJECTED AS INSUFFICIENT NEW RATE SCHEDULES FILED BY
PENN WATER, AND ITSELF PRESCRIBED THE RATE SCHEDULES WHICH PENN WATER
HERE SEEKS TO AVOID.  ON REVIEW THE COURT OF APPEALS GAVE FULL
CONSIDERATION TO PENN WATER'S MULTITUDINOUS CHALLENGES AND APPROVED THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  89 U.S. APP. D.C. 235, 193
F.2D 230. 

MOST OF THE NUMEROUS QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND DECIDED BY THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE NOT PRESENTED HERE BY THE
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED.  (FN3)  WE ARE NOT CALLED ON
TO REVIEW THE ADEQUACY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS AS TO A FAIR RATE BASE, A FAIR RATE OF RETURN, OR ANY OTHER
FINDINGS EXCEPT INSOFAR AS OUR DECISION OF SEVERAL RATHER GENERAL
QUESTIONS PRESENTED MIGHT INDIRECTLY UNDERMINE SOME OF THEM.  THE
QUESTIONS WE MUST DECIDE ARE IN GENERAL THESE: 

(1)  DOES THE FACT THAT PENN WATER IS A LICENSEE UNDER PART I OF THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT, (FN4) AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER THAT
PART, PRECLUDE ITS REGULATION UNDER PART II OF THE ACT AS A PUBLIC
UTILITY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE? 

(2)  ASSUMING THAT PENN WATER CAN BE SUBJECTED TO REGULATION UNDER
BOTH PARTS OF THE ACT, WERE THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT ALL OF PENN WATER'S SALES AT WHOLESALE WERE "IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF PART II OF THE ACT? 

(3)  DOES THE COMMISSION'S RATE REDUCTION ACTION COMPEL THE
CONTINUANCE OF OR IS IT IMPROPERLY BASED UPON CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN PENN WATER AND CONSOLIDATED WHICH PENN WATER CANNOT CARRY OUT
WITHOUT VIOLATING THE FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS OR THE LAWS OF
PENNSYLVANIA FORBIDDING SURRENDER BY PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATIONS OF THEIR
CORPORATE INDEPENDENCE? 

                     I. 

ALTHOUGH PENN WATER IS THE TYPE OF "PUBLIC UTILITY" SUBJECT TO
REGULATION UNDER PART II OF THE ACT, IT ARGUES THAT SINCE IT IS SUBJECT
TO REGULATION UNDER PART I AS A LICENSEE, IT CANNOT BE REGULATED UNDER
PART II AS A PUBLIC UTILITY.  WE CANNOT AGREE.  WITH SOME EXPRESS
EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE RELEVANT, THE LANGUAGE OF PART II OF THE ACT MAKES
ALL "PUBLIC UTILITIES" SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION IT PRESCRIBES.  NO
REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED WHICH COULD POSSIBLY JUSTIFY A JUDICIAL
EXCEPTION TO THIS STATUTORY COMMAND.  A MAJOR PURPOSE OF THE WHOLE ACT
IS TO PROTECT POWER CONSUMERS AGAINST EXCESSIVE PRICES.  (FN5)  PART I
LEAVES REGULATION TO THE STATES UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.  BUT, UNDER
SEC. 20 OF PART I THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER IF
A STATE REGULATORY BODY DOES NOT EXIST OR THE "STATES ARE UNABLE TO
AGREE  ...  ON THE SERVICES TO BE RENDERED OR ON THE RATES OR CHARGES
OF PAYMENT THEREFOR  ...  ."  PART II PROCEEDS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES TRANSMITTING AND SELLING POWER AT
WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A MATTER WHICH MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  PART II THEREFORE PROVIDES FOR A MORE
EXPANSIVE FEDERAL REGULATION THAN THAT AUTHORIZED UNDER PART I. IT
WOULD HINDER, NOT HELP, THE POWER ACT'S PROGRAM IF WE SHOULD IMPLIEDLY
EXEMPT PART I LICENSEES FROM THE MORE EXPANSIVE PART II REGULATION.  IT
MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT SOME FUTURE CASES WILL DEVELOP MINOR
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TWO PARTS.  TODAY'S CASE,
HOWEVER, IS NOT SUCH A ONE.  WE HOLD THAT PENN WATER IS SUBJECT TO
REGULATION UNDER PART II OF THE ACT.  IT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO PART I
REGULATION SINCE THE COMMISSION FOUND ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AS THE
COURT BELOW HELD, THAT THE STATES WERE "UNABLE TO AGREE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 20 OF PART I OF THE ACT. 

     II. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT SOME OF PENN WATER'S SALES AT WHOLESALE WERE NOT
"IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AND THEREFORE WERE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
REGULATION UNDER PART II.  THIS CONTENTION REFERS TO SALES MADE BY PENN
WATER IN PENNSYLVANIA TO PENNSYLVANIA CUSTOMERS.  THESE ARE ALLEGED TO
INCLUDE ABOUT 83% OF PENNSYLVANIA GENERATED POWER.  BECAUSE OF THE
FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES WE AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THESE SALES WERE "IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

PENN WATER AND SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORPORATION (SAFE HARBOR) HAVE
HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS ON THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER IN PENNSYLVANIA. 
CONSOLIDATED OPERATES LARGE STEAM-GENERATING PLANTS IN BALTIMORE.  THE
FLOW OF THE SUSQUEHANNA VARIES GREATLY EVEN FROM DAY TO DAY.  DURING
PERIODS OF LOW FLOW, PENN WATER RECEIVES STEAM-GENERATED ENERGY FROM
BALTIMORE IN ORDER TO MEET ITS POWER SUPPLY COMMITMENTS.  CONVERSELY,
DURING PERIODS OF HIGH FLOW, CONSOLIDATED IS ABLE TO RECEIVE THE
CHEAPER HYDROELECTRIC POWER FROM PENN WATER AND SAFE HARBOR.  FOR MANY
YEARS PENN WATER, CONSOLIDATED, AND SAFE HARBOR HAVE BEEN OPERATING
UNDER CONTRACTS FOR THE COORDINATED SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC
POWER IN MARYLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA.  A COMPLETE INTEGRATION AND POOLING
OF THE POWER PRODUCING AND TRANSMITTING FACILITIES OF THE THREE
COMPANIES WAS THUS ACHIEVED.  WITH REFERENCE TO THIS COORDINATED SYSTEM
OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION, THE COMMISSION SAID: 

"THE CENTRAL FACT DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD ABOUT PENN WATER'S SALES IN
PENNSYLVANIA IS THAT THEY ARE NOT SALES OF THE OUTPUT OF PENN WATER'S
OWN PLANT, BUT SALES OF OUTPUT OF THE INTEGRATED AND COORDINATED
INTERSTATE ELECTRIC SYSTEM OF WHICH PENN WATER'S FACILITIES ARE AN
INTEGRAL PART  ...  .

"IN THIS MANNER ENERGY CROSSING THE STATE BOUNDARY, WITH OTHER SYSTEM
ENERGY, IS USED TO FULFILL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.  THERE RESULT TIMES
WHEN SYSTEM ENERGY GENERATED IN PENNSYLVANIA IS USED, MIXED OR UNMIXED,
IN MEETING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS IN MARYLAND.  SIMILARLY, THERE ARE
OCCASIONS WHEN SYSTEM ENERGY FROM MARYLAND IS USED, MIXED OR UNMIXED,
IN MEETING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS IN PENNSYLVANIA.  ENERGY FLOWS IN,
ACROSS, AND OUT OF THE SYSTEM TRANSMISSION NETWORK AS THE NEEDS OF THE
INTERCONNECTED MEMBERS DEVELOP FROM MINUTE TO MINUTE AND DAY TO DAY. 

"IT IS ACCORDINGLY EVIDENT THAT THE OPERATIONS OF THE UNIFIED SYSTEM
ENTERPRISE ARE COMPLETELY INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FACT THAT SYSTEM ENERGY TRANSACTIONS AT SOME PARTICULAR TIMES MAY
INVOLVE ENERGY NEVER CROSSING THE STATE BOUNDARY."  8 F.P.C. 1, 12,
15. 

WE HOLD THAT THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS COMPLETE AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE ALL OF THIS COMMINGLED POWER FLOW.  (FN6)  THE COMMISSION'S
POWER DOES NOT VARY WITH THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER. 

                                      III. 

PENN WATER CONTENDS THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS IMPROPERLY REQUIRE
IT TO CONTINUE PERFORMING AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT AND THAT CONTINUED
PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT IS THE BASIS FOR SOME OF THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS.  THIS CONTRACT ALLEGEDLY REQUIRES PENN WATER TO SUBJECT THE
MANAGEMENT OF ITS BUSINESS AFFAIRS TO THE DOMINATION OF CONSOLIDATED
AND FOR THIS REASON VIOLATES THE FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE
CORPORATION LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA UNDER WHICH PENN WATER IS
INCORPORATED.  IN PRIVATE LITIGATION, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT HAS AGREED WITH PENN WATER THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
THE CONTRACT ARE ILLEGAL FOR THE REASONS STATED.  VIEWING THESE
PROVISIONS AS INSEPARABLE, THAT COURT HELD THE ENTIRE CONTRACT
UNENFORCEABLE.  (FN7) 

WE NEED NOT NOW DECIDE THE QUESTION MUCH ARGUED HERE CONCERNING WHAT,
IF ANY, POWER THE COMMISSION HAS TO RELY ON OR TO COMPEL PARTIES TO
CARRY OUT PRIVATE CONTRACTS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE ILLEGAL; THE
COMMISSION HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO EXERCISE SUCH POWER IN THIS CASE.  IT
IS TRUE THAT PENN WATER MUST CONTINUE TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS IT USED
TO DO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PENN WATER-CONSOLIDATED CONTRACT.  FOR
UNDER THE PRESENT SCHEDULES PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER PENN
WATER MUST CONTINUE TO BUY, SELL, AND TRANSMIT POWER IN THE SAME
COORDINATED MANNER IN WHICH IT AND CONSOLIDATED HAVE BEEN FUNCTIONING
FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS.  BUT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, AS CONSTRUED
BY THE COMMISSION, BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND BY US, NEITHER EXPRESSLY
NOR IMPLIEDLY REQUIRES PENN WATER TO YIELD TO ANY CONTRACTUAL TERMS
SUBJECTING IT TO THE CONTROL OF CONSOLIDATED.  IN THE HIGHLY UNLIKELY
EVENT THAT PENN WATER'S MANAGERIAL FREEDOM IS EVER THREATENED BY SUCH
AN ORDER, IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER ITS VALIDITY.  TO THE
EXTENT THAT PENN WATER IS BEING CONTROLLED, IT IS BY THE COMMISSION,
ACTING UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY, NOT BY CONSOLIDATED, ACTING UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF PRIVATE CONTRACT TERMS "LEGALIZED" BY THE COMMISSION.  THE
DUTY OF PENN WATER TO CONTINUE ITS COORDINATED OPERATIONS WITH
CONSOLIDATED SPRINGS FROM THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY, NOT FROM THE LAW
OF PRIVATE CONTRACTS. 

NOR HAS THE COMMISSION PREMISED ANY OF ITS FINDINGS UPON THE ASSUMED
EXISTENCE AND CONTINUATION OF THIS CONTRACT.  PENN WATER FIRST MADE
THIS CONTENTION TO THE COMMISSION IN SEEKING A REHEARING OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER DIRECTING A REDUCTION IN ITS RATES.  AT THAT TIME
THE COMMISSION FULLY RE-EXAMINED ITS FORMER OPINION, FINDINGS AND
ORDERS, MODIFIED SOME AND REAFFIRMED AND STRENGTHENED OTHERS, AND
EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THE VALIDITY OF ITS ORDER AND WAS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON THE LEGALITY OF THE CONTRACT.  IT SAID:  "IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS
AS TO LEGALITY OF THE FOUNDATION CONTRACTS WHICH ARE IN LITIGATION, AS
RESPONDENTS' APPLICATION FOR REHEARING INDICATES, THE VALIDITY OF OUR
ORDER IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE DECISION OF THOSE QUESTIONS."  8 F.P.C.
170, 175.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT NEITHER THE ORDER
NOR THE FINDINGS WERE PREMISED ON THE CONTINUATION OF THE PENN WATER
CONSOLIDATED CONTRACT. 

THE ACT GIVES THE COMMISSION AMPLE STATUTORY POWER TO ORDER PENN WATER
AND CONSOLIDATED TO CONTINUE THEIR LONG-EXISTING OPERATIONAL "PRACTICE"
OF INTEGRATING THEIR POWER OUTPUT.  SECTION 206 PROVIDES THAT "WHENEVER
THE COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING  ...  SHALL FIND THAT ANY RATE  ...  IS
UNJUST, UNREASONABLE  ...  THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE THE JUST AND
REASONABLE RATE,  ... PRACTICE, OR CONTRACT TO BE THEREAFTER OBSERVED
AND IN FORCE, AND SHALL FIX THE SAME BY ORDER."  IN ORDERING SUCH
"PRACTICE" CONTINUED, THE COMMISSION WAS FURTHERING THE EXPRESSLY
DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT.  MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION FOUND HERE READY
MADE BY PRIOR CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS A REGIONAL COORDINATION OF POWER
FACILITIES OF PRECISELY THE TYPE WHICH THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO
REQUIRE UNDER SEC. 202.  SECTION 202(A) DECLARES: 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING AN ABUNDANT SUPPLY OF ELECTRIC ENERGY
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES WITH THE GREATEST POSSIBLE ECONOMY AND
WITH REGARD TO THE PROPER UTILIZATION AND CONSERVATION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED AND DIRECTED TO DIVIDE THE
COUNTRY INTO REGIONAL DISTRICTS FOR THE VOLUNTARY INTERCONNECTION AND
COORDINATION OF FACILITIES FOR THE GENERATION, TRANSMISSION, AND SALE
OF ELECTRIC ENERGY,  ...  ." 

THE COMMISSION WAS FURTHER DIRECTED IN THAT SECTION TO "PROMOTE AND
ENCOURAGE" SUCH INTERCONNECTION AND COORDINATION.  UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES SEC. 202(B) AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO COMPEL
INTERCONNECTION AND COORDINATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND TO
"PRESCRIBE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ARRANGEMENT TO BE MADE
BETWEEN THE PERSONS AFFECTED BY ANY SUCH ORDER, INCLUDING THE
APPORTIONMENT OF COST BETWEEN THEM AND THE COMPENSATION OR
REIMBURSEMENT REASONABLY DUE TO ANY OF THEM."    IF PENN WATER WISHES
TO DISCONTINUE SOME OR ALL OF THE SERVICES IT HAS RENDERED FOR THE PAST
TWENTY YEARS, THE ACT, AS THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT, OPENS UP A WAY
PROVIDED PENN WATER CAN PROVE THAT ITS WISHES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  SHORTLY AFTER PART II OF THE POWER ACT WAS PASSED IN
1935, PENN WATER, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 205(C), FILED WITH THE COMMISSION
THE CONTRACT HERE ATTACKED AND THEN DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION AS
"PENN WATER'S FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION RATE SCHEDULE NO. 1."  SECTION
205(D) PROVIDES THAT "NO CHANGE SHALL BE MADE BY ANY PUBLIC UTILITY IN
ANY SUCH  ...  SERVICE  ...  OR CONTRACT RELATING THERETO, EXCEPT AFTER
THIRTY DAYS' NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION AND TO THE PUBLIC."  HERE INSTEAD
OF FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE FOR CHANGING EXISTING SERVICES AND PRACTICES
- A PROCEDURE WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED AND WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAS SUPPLEMENTED BY RULES OF ITS OWN - THE COMPANY HAS
RATHER TRIED TO UTILIZE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT SO AS TO NULLIFY
A RATE-REDUCTION ORDER. 

NOTHING WHATEVER HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY PENN WATER TO SHOW THAT THE
END RESULT OF THIS RATE REDUCTION IS UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE.  CF. POWER
COMM'N V. HOPE GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 603.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PENN WATER, AS USED IN THIS OPINION, REFERS TO BOTH PENNSYLVANIA
WATER & POWER COMPANY AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED AFFILIATE, SUSQUEHANNA
TRANSMISSION COMPANY OF MARYLAND. 

FN2  THERE WAS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT FROM 1936 THROUGH
1945 PENN WATER'S DIVIDENDS ON ITS COMMON STOCK HAD NEVER BEEN LESS
THAN 25% OF THE CASH PAID IN ON THE STOCK. 

FN3  342 U.S. 931. 

FN4  41 STAT. 1063, 49 STAT. 838, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 791A ET SEQ. 

FN5  SECTION 20 OF PART I PROVIDES THAT "THE RATES CHARGED AND THE
SERVICE RENDERED  ... SHALL BE REASONABLE, NONDISCRIMINATORY, AND JUST
TO THE CUSTOMER  ...  ."  SECTION 205(A) OF PART II PROVIDES THAT "ALL
RATES AND CHARGES  ...  SHALL BE JUST AND REASONABLE  ...  ." 

FN6  SEE ALSO SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORP. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, 179 F.2D 179, AFFIRMING 5 F.P.C. 221. 

FN7  PENNSYLVANIA W.&P. CO. V. CONSOLIDATED GAS, E.L.&P. CO., 184
F.2D 552.  SEE ALSO CONSOLIDATED GAS, E.L.&P. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA W.&P.
CO., 194 F.2D 89. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, NOT HAVING HEARD THE ARGUMENT, OWING TO
ILLNESS, TOOK NO PART IN THE DISPOSITION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

THERE IS MORE TO THESE CASES THAN MEETS THE EYE.  ON THE SURFACE THEY
SEEM TO BE ONLY AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE EXPLOITATION OF THE PUBLIC BY A
UTILITY THROUGH THE CHARGING OF EXCESSIVE RATES.  BUT FAR GREATER
ISSUES LURK IN THE RECORD.  THERE IS LAWLESS CONDUCT THAT OVERSHADOWS
THE EVILS OF EXTORTIONATE RATES.  IT IS LAWLESS CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES
THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT IMPLICATES NOT ONLY THE UTILITIES BUT THE
REGULATORY AGENCY AS WELL.  THE DESIRE TO REDUCE EXCESSIVE RATES SHOULD
NOT BLIND US TO THE GREATER EVIL.  IT IS FAR BETTER THAT ONE PUBLIC
UTILITY WIN ONE MORE LEGAL SKIRMISH IN ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST REGULATION,
THAN THAT WE ABANDON LEGAL STANDARDS AND LET THE REGULATORY AGENCY RUN
RIOT. 

WE START HERE WITH THE EXPLOITATION OF THE PUBLIC THROUGH AN UNHOLY
ALLIANCE BETWEEN TWO PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES - PENN WATER AND
CONSOLIDATED.  THAT ALLIANCE HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.  SEE 184 F.2D 552; 194 F.2D 89.  THE ALLIANCE
WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT WAS AN ARRANGEMENT
THAT PERMITTED PENN WATER TO BE OPERATED AS THOUGH IT WERE A DEPARTMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED.  ALL COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES WAS
DESTROYED, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT IN 1948 CONSOLIDATED VETOED A
STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT TO BE BUILT BY PENN WATER AT HOLTWOOD,
PENNSYLVANIA.  WHAT PENN WATER MAY DO, THE REVENUES IT RECEIVES, THE
COSTS IT WILL INCUR ARE LARGELY DETERMINED BY CONSOLIDATED UNDER THESE
ILLEGAL CONTRACTS. 

THE COMMISSION IN ITS OPINION ON REHEARING SAID, "IF THERE ARE
QUESTIONS AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THE FOUNDATION CONTRACTS WHICH ARE IN
LITIGATION, AS RESPONDENTS' APPLICATION FOR REHEARING INDICATES, THE
VALIDITY OF OUR ORDER IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE DECISION OF THOSE
QUESTIONS.  IN OUR OPINION AND ORDER WE TOOK CARE TO LEAVE THE
CONTINUATION OF THE OPERATION OF THE INTEGRATED AND INTERCONNECTED
SYSTEM IN FULL EFFECT, MERELY CHANGING THE RATES,  ...  ."  8 F.P.C.
170, 175.  THE COMMISSION HAS ACCORDINGLY APPROVED THE UNHOLY
ALLIANCE.  IT HAS ALLOWED CONSOLIDATED TO CONTINUE TO MANAGE PENN WATER
AS THOUGH THE LATTER WERE ITS ALTER EGO.  IT IS THEREFORE DISINGENUOUS
FOR THE COURT TO SAY THAT HEREAFTER PENN WATER IS SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY
THE COMMISSION, NOT BY CONSOLIDATED, AND THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT
PREMISE ANY OF ITS FINDINGS ON THE ASSUMED EXISTENCE AND CONTINUATION
OF THE ILLEGAL CONTRACTS.*  NO MATTER HOW VEHEMENT OUR DENIAL, THE
TRUTH IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS LACED PENN WATER TO CONSOLIDATED UNDER
A MANAGEMENT CONTRACT THAT LEAVES PENN WATER NO INITIATIVE OF PRIVATE
MANAGEMENT. 

*THE COMMISSION ENTERED ITS FINAL ORDER IN THE CASES PRIOR TO THE
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE SHERMAN ACT LITIGATION.  THE
COMMISSION OPINION ON REHEARING WAS DATED FEBRUARY 26, 1949, WHILE THE
FIRST DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1950. 

OF COURSE THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 202 OF THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT TO PROMOTE AND AT TIMES COMPEL INTERCONNECTION AND
COORDINATION OF THE FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES.  BUT I KNOW
OF NO POWER IN THE COMMISSION THAT AUTHORIZES IT TO PLACE ONE COMPANY
ON THE BACK OF ANOTHER COMPANY, TO MERGE AND CONSOLIDATE COMPANIES AS
IT CHOOSES, OR TO GIVE THE MANAGEMENT OF ONE COMPANY A VETO POWER OVER
THE MANAGEMENT OF A COMPETITOR.  THOSE ARE PRACTICES WHICH THE SHERMAN
ACT CONDEMNS, AND WHICH NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL POWER ACT SANCTIONS. 

THESE CASES SHOULD BE REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION WITH
DIRECTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION BUILD ITS RATE ORDER ON THE POWERS THAT
IT HAS UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, NOT THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE THAT THESE
UTILITIES CREATED AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS SOUGHT TO PERPETUATE. 
..END :






JOHANSEN V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 427 


NO. 401.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 26, 1952 - 191 F.2D 162,
164, AFFIRMED. 


IN THE CASE OF A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WAS A
MEMBER OF THE CREW OF A "PUBLIC VESSEL" (NOT A "MERCHANT VESSEL") OF
THE UNITED STATES AND WHO, THROUGH NEGLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES OR
UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL, SUFFERED INJURY OR DEATH IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY, THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT OF 1916 ARE EXCLUSIVE, AND A SUIT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT IS
PRECLUDED.  PP. 428-441. 

1.  ALTHOUGH CONGRESS DID NOT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE SUCH A CLAIMANT
FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, THAT ACT MUST BE FITTED,
AS FAIRLY AS POSSIBLE, INTO THE ENTIRE STATUTORY SYSTEM OF REMEDIES
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A WORKABLE, CONSISTENT AND EQUITABLE
WHOLE.  PP. 431-434. 

2.  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE 1949 AMENDMENTS TO THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT.  PP. 434-441. 

3.  UNITED STATES V. MARINE, 155 F.2D 456, AND JOHNSON V. UNITED
STATES, 186 F.2D 120, DISAPPROVED.  P. 439. 

4.  TO ALLOW PUBLIC-VESSEL SEAMEN AN ELECTION OF REMEDIES WHICH IS
DENIED TO CIVILIAN SEAMEN EMPLOYED THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1291, WOULD CONTRIBUTE NEITHER TO
UNIFORMITY NOR TO FAIRNESS.  PP. 440-441. 

5.  AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS CREATED A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM TO AWARD
PAYMENTS FOR INJURIES, IT SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO HAVE MADE EXCEPTIONS TO
THAT SYSTEM WITHOUT SPECIFIC LEGISLATION TO THAT EFFECT.  P. 441. 

JOHANSEN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 414, MANDEL, ADMINISTRATOR, V. UNITED STATES, ON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT,
ARGUED MARCH 4-5, 1952. 

IN NO. 401, A LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
PUBLIC VESSELS ACT WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  191 F.2D 162.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342
U.S. 901.  AFFIRMED, P. 441. 

IN NO. 414, THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS PETITIONER'S SUIT FOR DAMAGES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
191 F.2D 164.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 901.  AFFIRMED,
P. 441. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT THE QUESTION WHETHER CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE
PUBLIC VESSELS ACT OF 1925, 43 STAT. 1112, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 781 ET SEQ.,
HAS CONSENTED THAT THE UNITED STATES BE SUED FOR "DAMAGES" BY OR ON
BEHALF OF MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMPONENT OF THE CREW OF
MILITARY TRANSPORT VESSELS.  WE HOLD THAT THE BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO
SUCH SEAMEN UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT OF 1916, 39
STAT. 742, 5 U.S.C. SECS. 751 ET SEQ., ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO
PRECLUDE A SUIT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT. 

PETITIONER JOHANSEN, IN NO. 401, AND PETITIONER MANDEL'S DECEDENT, IN
NO. 414, WERE AT THE TIME OF THEIR INJURIES EMPLOYED AS CIVILIAN
MEMBERS OF THE CREWS OF ARMY TRANSPORT VESSELS, OWNED AND OPERATED BY
THE UNITED STATES.  FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REVIEW IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE
VESSELS WERE AT THAT TIME BEING USED AS "PUBLIC VESSELS," NOT "MERCHANT
VESSELS," (FN1) AND THAT THEREFORE PETITIONERS HAVE NO REMEDY BY WAY OF
A SUIT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT.
525, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 742.  BOTH SEAMEN WERE INJURED IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF THEIR DUTIES; PETITIONERS WERE THEREFORE CONCEDEDLY ELIGIBLE FOR
BENEFITS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT OF 1916.  BOTH
ALLEGE THAT THE INJURIES RESULTED FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENT,
AND PETITIONER JOHANSEN FURTHER RELIES UPON THE ALLEGED UNSEAWORTHINESS
OF HIS VESSEL.  THIS RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONER JOHANSEN IS "DAMAGES,
WAGES, MAINTENANCE AND CURE"; THAT SOUGHT BY PETITIONER MANDEL IS
"DAMAGES" FOR WRONGFUL DEATH. 

PETITIONER JOHANSEN WAS A CARPENTER IN THE CREW OF THE TRANSPORT
KINGSPORT VICTORY.  ON AUGUST 5, 1949, HE SUSTAINED A LACERATED LEG IN
THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES ABOARD THE VESSEL, WHICH WAS LYING AT A PIER
AT THE BETHLEHEM SHIPYARD, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.  HE WAS TREATED AT THE
MARINE HOSPITAL UNTIL OCTOBER 24, 1949, AS A BENEFICIARY OF THE BUREAU
OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION.  HE FILED A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION BENEFITS
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AND COLLECTED A TOTAL OF
$358.20.  ON FEBRUARY 6, 1950, HE FILED THIS LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, RELYING UPON THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  THE LIBEL WAS
DISMISSED, AND, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED,
191 F.2D 162, ON THE GROUND THAT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT
AFFORDED PETITIONER HIS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.  THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT
ITS DECISION CONFLICTED ON THIS POINT WITH A DECISION OF THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT, JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 186 F.2D 120. 

PETITIONER MANDEL'S DECEDENT WAS AN ASSISTANT ENGINEER ON A TUG
OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND ASSIGNED TO THE
MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS DURING WORLD WAR II.  ON OCTOBER
15, 1944, THE TUG WAS DESTROYED BY A MINE, IN ATTEMPTING TO ENTER THE
PORT OF CAGLIARI, SARDINIA.  IN THIS DISASTER, DECEDENT MET HIS DEATH
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ENEMY.  DECEDENT'S WIDOW PROCURED THE
APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR WHO BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR $150,000. 
THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, BASED
PARTLY ON THE CLAIM THAT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT IS THE
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR THE ACCIDENT.  DURING PRETRIAL, WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CALLED FOR,
THE COURT ENTERED AN INTERLOCUTORY DECREE OF DEFAULT AGAINST
RESPONDENT.  ON APPEAL, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1292(3), THE THIRD
CIRCUIT REVERSED.  191 F.2D 164.  IT LIMITED ITS CONSIDERATION TO THE
DEFENSE BASED ON THE COMPENSATION ACT.  RECOGNIZING CONFLICT WITH THE
DECISION OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT IN UNITED STATES V. MARINE, 155 F.2D
456, AS WELL AS JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THAT COURT
NEVERTHELESS AGREED WITH THE SECOND CIRCUIT, AND HELD THAT THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS
ACT.  TO RESOLVE THE APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE DECISIONS, THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 901. 

PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES  ...
FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES ...  ."  WE
HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THIS ACT GRANTS CONSENT TO BE SUED FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES SUFFERED BY AN INDIVIDUAL NOT EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES,
CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF A PUBLIC VESSEL OF
THE UNITED STATES.  AMERICAN STEVEDORES, INC. V. PORELLO, 330 U.S. 446,
CF. CANADIAN AVIATOR, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 215.  IF THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE WAS TO ALLOW DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
SUSTAINED BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY, THE
LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE ACT WOULD ALLOW ACTIONS OF THE NATURE OF THOSE
BEFORE US. 

THIS GENERAL LANGUAGE, HOWEVER, MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CENTRAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT, AS DERIVED FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE ACT AND THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS ENACTMENT.  THE
HISTORY OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET FORTH IN SOME DETAIL IN THE
PORELLO AND CANADIAN AVIATOR CASES CITED ABOVE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE
TO RECALL THAT THIS ACT WAS ONE OF A NUMBER OF STATUTES WHICH ATTEST
"TO THE GROWING FEELING OF CONGRESS THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD PUT
ASIDE ITS SOVEREIGN ARMOR IN CASES WHERE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HAVE
TORTIOUSLY CAUSED PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE."  330 U.S., AT
453.  THESE ENACTMENTS WERE NOT USUALLY DIRECTED TOWARD CASES WHERE THE
UNITED STATES HAD ALREADY PUT ASIDE ITS SOVEREIGN ARMOR, GRANTING
RELIEF IN OTHER FORMS.  WITH SUCH A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, ONE HESITATES
TO REACH A CONCLUSION AS TO THE MEANING OF THE ACT BY ADOPTION OF A
POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION THROUGH A LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE WORDS. 
NOR IS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT HELPFUL.  WE ARE CITED TO NO
EVIDENCE THAT ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS IN 1925 CONTEMPLATED THAT THIS ACT
MIGHT BE THOUGHT TO CONFER ADDITIONAL RIGHTS ON CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO
THE BENEFITS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMEPENSATION ACT OF 1916. 
SURELY THE LACK OF SUCH EVIDENCE IS NOT HELPFUL TO PETITIONERS' CASE;
THE MOST THAT CAN BE SAID OF IT IS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT SPECIFICALLY
EXCLUDE SUCH CLAIMANTS FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO ATTEMPT TO
FIT THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, AS INTELLIGENTLY AND FAIRLY AS POSSIBLE,
"INTO THE ENTIRE STATUTORY SYSTEM OF REMEDIES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT TO
MAKE A WORKABLE, CONSISTENT AND EQUITABLE WHOLE."  FERES V. UNITED
STATES, 340 U.S. 135, 139.  IT IS IMPORTANT, THEN, TO EXAMINE BRIEFLY
THE OTHER STATUTES WHICH ARE A PART OF THE SYSTEM OF REMEDIES AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT AVAILABLE TO SEAMEN FOR PERSONAL INJURIES. 

IN 1916 CONGRESS PASSED BOTH THE SHIPPING ACT, 39 STAT. 728, 46
U.S.C. SECS. 801 ET SEQ., AND THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT. 
THE FORMER SUBJECTED GOVERNMENT VESSELS, EMPLOYED SOLELY AS MERCHANT
VESSELS, TO ALL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND LIABILITIES GOVERNING PRIVATE
MERCHANT VESSELS, IF THEY WERE PURCHASED, CHARTERED, OR LEASED FROM THE
SHIPPING BOARD.  THUS A REMEDY FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES WAS
GIVEN TO MERCHANT SEAMEN ON SHIPS IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAD AN
INTEREST, BUT NOT TO PUBLIC-VESSEL SEAMEN.  CF. THE G.A. FLAGG, 256 F.
852. 

IN THE LATTER ACT CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE
COMPENSATION SYSTEM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO SUSTAIN INJURIES IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTY.  THE PAYMENT OF THIS COMPENSATION, SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IS MANDATORY, FOR SEC. 1 PROVIDES:  "THAT
THE UNITED STATES SHALL PAY COMPENSATION AS HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED FOR
THE DISABILITY OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE RESULTING FROM A PERSONAL INJURY
SUSTAINED WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY  ...  ."  SECTION 7
PROVIDES "THAT AS LONG AS THE EMPLOYEE IS IN RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION
UNDER THIS ACT,  ...  HE SHALL NOT RECEIVE FROM THE UNITED STATES ANY
SALARY, PAY, OR REMUNERATION WHATSOEVER EXCEPT IN RETURN FOR SERVICES
ACTUALLY PERFORMED, AND EXCEPT PENSIONS FOR SERVICE IN THE ARMY OR NAVY
OF THE UNITED STATES."  SECTION 8, HOWEVER, RECOGNIZED THE CONFLICT
BETWEEN THAT PROVISION AND THE EMPLOYEE'S POSSIBLE RIGHT TO PAID SICK
OR ANNUAL LEAVE, AND REQUIRED THE EMPLOYEE TO ELECT BETWEEN
COMPENSATION AND SUCH PAID LEAVE.  THE ACT MADE NO OTHER PROVISION FOR
ELECTION AT THAT TIME.  LATER IT WAS AMENDED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT OF 1944 TO PROVIDE GENERALLY FOR ELECTION BETWEEN
COMPENSATION AND ANY OTHER PAYMENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO WHICH THE
EMPLOYEE MAY BE ENTITLED BY REASON OF HIS INJURY UNDER ANY OTHER ACT OF
CONGRESS BECAUSE OF HIS SERVICE AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
58 STAT. 712.  THE 1944 AMENDMENT THUS CONSOLIDATED THE VARIOUS
ELECTION PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT OF 1920, 5
U.S.C. SEC. 714, AND OTHER SPECIAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT AND PENSION
LEGISLATION.  E.G., 5 U.S.C. SEC. 797; 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1711; 14 U.S.C.
SECS. 311-312, 386; 34 U.S.C. SECS. 855C, 857E; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
1552.  A FURTHER AMENDMENT IN 1949 WILL BE DISCUSSED BELOW.  ASIDE FROM
THESE, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY PROVISION IN THE COMPENSATION ACT FOR
ELECTION BETWEEN COMPENSATION AND OTHER REMEDIES.  IT IS QUITE
UNDERSTANDABLE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT SPECIFICALLY DECLARE THAT THE
COMPENSATION ACT WAS EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHER REMEDIES.  AT THE TIME OF
ITS ENACTMENT, IT WAS THE SOLE STATUTORY AVENUE TO RECOVER FROM THE
GOVERNMENT FOR TORTIOUS INJURIES RECEIVED IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT. 
ACTUALLY IT WAS THE ONLY, AND THEREFORE THE EXCLUSIVE, REMEDY.  SEE
JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 186 F.2D 120, 123. 

IN 1920, THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, 41 STAT. 525, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
742, GAVE A BROAD REMEDY TO SEAMEN ON UNITED STATES MERCHANT VESSELS,
BUT DID NOT EXTEND THESE BENEFITS TO SEAMEN ON PUBLIC VESSELS.  AN
EXTENSION OF THIS NATURE WAS PROPOSED, BUT DEFEATED.  SEE CANADIAN
AVIATOR, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 215, 220-221. 

NEXT IN THE SERIES WAS THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT OF 1925, ON WHICH
PETITIONERS RELY.  SO FAR AS PERTINENT HERE, THAT ACT SIMPLY PROVIDED
THAT A LIBEL MIGHT BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES.  NO PROVISION WAS MADE
FOR ELECTION BETWEEN THIS REMEDY AND ANY REMEDIES THAT MIGHT BE
AVAILABLE UNDER OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT THIS PROBLEM MIGHT ARISE. 

IN 1943 THE CLARIFICATION ACT, 57 STAT. 45, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1291,
EXTENDED THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO SEAMEN ON PRIVATELY OWNED AMERICAN
VESSELS TO SEAMEN EMPLOYED ON UNITED STATES VESSELS "AS EMPLOYEES OF
THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION."  CLAIMS
ARISING UNDER THIS ACT WERE TO BE ENFORCED PURSUANT TO THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT OF 1920, EVEN THOUGH THE VESSEL ON WHICH THE SEAMAN WAS
EMPLOYED MIGHT NOT BE A "MERCHANT VESSEL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  IT WAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
THIS REMEDY UNDER THE CLARIFICATION ACT WAS TO BE EXCLUSIVE OF ANY
REMEDIES THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT, AND OTHER SIMILAR
ACTS.  THE ACT THUS GAVE EFFECT TO A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO TREAT
SEAMEN EMPLOYED THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION AS "MERCHANT
SEAMEN," NOT AS "PUBLIC VESSEL SEAMEN."  SEE COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO.
V. MCALLISTER, 337 U.S. 783, 792, QUOTING FROM H.R. REP. NO. 107, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE ACT DID NOT PURPORT TO CHANGE THE STATUS OF
PUBLIC-VESSEL SEAMEN NOT EMPLOYED THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION. 

THIS WAS THE SITUATION PRIOR TO THE 1949 AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT.  MERCHANT SEAMEN, OTHER THAN THOSE EMPLOYED
BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, ON SHIPS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES
HAD A RIGHT TO LIBEL THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT OF 1920, BUT WHETHER THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS
OF THE COMPENSATION ACT WAS DOUBTFUL.  SEE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S
DECISION A-31684, SEPT. 10, 1930; 34 OP. ATTY. GEN. 363; JOHNSON V.
FLEET CORP., 280 U.S. 320.  SEAMEN EMPLOYED THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION WERE BY THE CLARIFICATION ACT TO BE TREATED AS MERCHANT
SEAMEN, WHETHER THEY WERE SERVING ON MERCHANT VESSELS OR PUBLIC
VESSELS.  AS PUBLIC-VESSEL SEAMEN INJURED OTHER THAN IN THE COURSE OF
DUTY ARE NOT COVERED BY THE COMPENSATION ACT THEY WOULD PRESUMABLY HAVE
HAD THE SAME RIGHT TO RECOVERY AS THE PUBLIC GENERALLY UNDER THE PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT.  PUBLIC-VESSEL SEAMEN INJURED IN THE COURSE OF DUTY WERE
ENTITLED TO ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION
ACT.  THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THIS LAST GROUP OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYED SEAMEN IS ELIGIBLE UNDER BOTH SCHEMES OF RECOVERY.    IT IS
ARGUED BY PETITIONERS THAT THE 1949 AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPENSATION ACT,
63 STAT.  854, SHOW THAT CONGRESS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE REMEDY OF
COMPENSATION HAD NOT BEEN, UNTIL THAT TIME, EXCLUSIVE OF OTHER
REMEDIES, AND THAT THE REMEDY OF COMPENSATION FOR SEAMEN STILL DOES NOT
PRECLUDE RECOVERY UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  THESE AMENDMENTS ADDED
A NEW SUBSECTION (FN2) TO SEC. 7 OF THE COMPENSATION ACT OF 1916 TO
PROVIDE CLEARLY THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
COMPENSATION ACT SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHER LIABILITY OF THE
UNITED STATES ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME INJURY.  THIS AMENDMENT, HOWEVER,
WAS NOT TO ALTER THE RIGHTS OF SEAMEN IN ANY WAY.  (FN3) PETITIONERS
ARGUE THAT CONGRESS IN 1949 WAS SEEKING, FOR THE FIRST TIME, TO
ESTABLISH THE EXCLUSIVE NATURE OF THE REMEDY OF COMPENSATION, AND
DELIBERATELY OMITTED SEAMEN FROM THIS LIMITATION.  THE BACKGROUND OF
THE AMENDMENT SHOWS, HOWEVER, THAT THIS IMPRESSION IS ERRONEOUS.  PRIOR
TO 1949, THERE WAS A DIVERGENCE OF VIEW IN THE COURTS AS TO THE
EXCLUSIVENESS VEL NON OF THE REMEDY OF COMPENSATION.  (FN4)  THIS
UNCERTAINTY EXTENDED TO SUITS BY GOVERNMENT SEAMEN SEEKING DAMAGES
UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  (FN5) THE PURPOSE OF THE 1949 AMENDMENT
IS SIMPLY "TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION BENEFITS
UNDER THE ACT IS EXCLUSIVE AND IN PLACE OF ANY AND ALL OTHER LEGAL
LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES  ...  ."  S.
REP. NO. 836, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 23.  THIS CLARIFYING AMENDMENT,
AS REPORTED OUT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
LACKED THE PROVISO PROTECTING THE RIGHT, IF ANY, OF SEAMEN UNDER OTHER
FEDERAL STATUTES.  HOWEVER, NO SEAMEN'S GROUPS HAVING PARTICIPATED IN
THE HEARINGS ON THE BILL, SENATOR MORSE PROPOSED ON THE FLOOR THE
PROVISO ON WHICH PETITIONERS RELY.  SENATOR MORSE HIMSELF RECOGNIZED
THAT HIS AMENDMENT DID NO MORE THAN PRESERVE TO SEAMEN ANY RIGHTS WHICH
THEY MIGHT HAVE IN ADDITION TO COMPENSATION.  THERE IS LANGUAGE IN HIS
STATEMENT INDICATING THAT HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SEAMEN EMPLOYEES
HAD A CHOICE BETWEEN COMPENSATION AND LITIGATION IN ADMIRALTY.  95
CONG. REC. 13608, 13609.  SENATOR DOUGLAS, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE
BILL, ACCEPTED THESE AMENDMENTS FOR THE REASON THAT THE SEAMEN'S GROUPS
HAD NOT BEEN HEARD BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS.  HE STATED: 

"MR. PRESIDENT, I SHOULD LIKE TO STATE MY GROUND FOR AGREEING TO THE
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY THE SENATOR FROM OREGON (MR. MORSE).  THE PRIMARY
CONSIDERATION FOR ACCEPTING THE SENATOR'S AMENDMENTS PRESERVING THE
MARITIME RIGHTS AND OTHER STATUTORY REMEDIES OF SEAMEN IS THE FACT THAT
NO HEARINGS WERE HELD, NO ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD, AND NO DISCUSSION WAS
HAD ON THIS ASPECT OF THE PENDING BILL ...  .  FOR THE SAME REASON,
NAMELY, THAT WE HAVE HAD NO HEARINGS ON THE MATTER, WE ARE NOT SEEKING
TO LEGISLATE AFFIRMATIVELY AS TO CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DENIALS OF A RIGHT
OF ELECTION OF REMEDIES UNDER EXISTING LAWS, WHICH CLAIMS AND DENIALS
HAVE NOT YET BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, ALTHOUGH VARIOUS
OTHER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE, IN EFFECT, HELD THAT FEDERALLY EMPLOYED
SEAMEN HAVE SUCH AN ELECTION. 

"IN SHORT, UNTIL THE MATTER MAY BE MORE FULLY CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS,
WE SEEK BY THE AMENDMENTS MERELY TO MAKE SURE THAT SEAMEN SHALL LOSE NO
EXISTING RIGHTS."  95 CONG. REC. 13609. 

AS THUS RECOMMENDED, THE BILL PASSED THE SENATE, 95 CONG. REC. 13609,
AND A WEEK LATER THE HOUSE ACCEPTED THE SENATE AMENDMENTS WITHOUT
DEBATE.  95 CONG. REC. 14060.  THIS BACKGROUND MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE
1949 AMENDMENTS, FAR FROM CHANGING THE LAW RESPECTING SEAMEN'S
REMEDIES, DO NOT EVEN REFLECT A BELIEF ON THE PART OF CONGRESS THAT THE
REMEDY OF COMPENSATION IS NOT EXCLUSIVE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THESE
AMENDMENTS TO AFFECT CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER PETITIONERS' SOLE REMEDY
IS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT.  CF. JOHNSON V. UNITED
STATES, 186 F.2D 120, 123.  IF THE REMEDY OF COMPENSATION WAS EXCLUSIVE
PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE 1949 AMENDMENT, IT IS EXCLUSIVE NOW. 

AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE COURTS HAVE DIFFERED UPON THE QUESTION OF
EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE REMEDY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT.  THIS COURT IN DAHN V. DAVIS, 258 U.S. 421,
HELD THAT A RAILWAY MAIL CLERK, INJURED IN A WRECK ON THE RAILROAD,
WHILE IT WAS OPERATED UNDER THE FEDERAL CONTROL ACT OF 1918, 40 STAT.
451, WAS BARRED FROM PROSECUTING A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
DIRECTOR GENERAL BECAUSE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY ELECTED TO ACCEPT PAYMENT
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, 267 F. 105, WAS
AFFIRMED HERE ON THE GROUND THAT, WHERE THE EMPLOYEE HAD TWO REMEDIES,
EACH FOR THE SAME WRONG, AND BOTH AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, HE COULD
NOT PURSUE ONE REMEDY TO A CONCLUSION AND THEN SEEK "A SECOND
SATISFACTION OF THE SAME WRONG."  P. 429.  THE HOLDING WAS THUS BASED
ON THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION OF REMEDIES, BUT IF THE LANGUAGE IS THOUGHT
TO ALLOW THE CHOICE OF AN ACTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR DAMAGES, IT
IS TO BE NOTED THAT GOVERNMENT LIABILITY IN THAT CASE DEPENDED UPON
SEC. 10 OF THE FEDERAL CONTROL ACT, PERMITTING SUITS AGAINST CARRIERS
"AS NOW PROVIDED BY LAW," AND GENERAL ORDER NO. 50 DIRECTING THAT ANY
PROCEEDING WHICH "BUT FOR FEDERAL CONTROL MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
AGAINST THE CARRIER COMPANY, SHALL BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL  ...  AND NOT OTHERWISE."  (FN6)  THERE WAS THEREFORE IN THE
DAHN CASE LEGISLATION DIRECTLY SUBSTITUTING THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
CARRIERS IN ALL LITIGATION.  THUS THE CARRIERS' BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED
DELIBERATELY BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH AS LITTLE CHANGE AS POSSIBLE FROM
THE SITUATION WHEN CARRIERS CONTROLLED.  HERE THE UNITED STATES
OPERATES ITS OWN VESSELS, WITHOUT ANY SUCH CONFORMITY LEGISLATION.  AS
SUCH OPERATOR IT HAS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMPENSATION ACT A METHOD OF
REDRESS FOR EMPLOYEES.  THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE TWO SYSTEMS OF
REDRESS.  (FN7) SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. MARINE, 155 F.2D 456, A CASE
ALLOWING RECOVERY TO A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, AND JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 186 F.2D 120,
WHICH ALLOWED A RECOVERY UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT TO A CIVILIAN
SEAMAN ON A PUBLIC VESSEL.  THE OPINIONS BELOW IN THE CASES WE ARE
CONSIDERING TAKE THE OPPOSITE AND, WE THINK, THE BETTER VIEW. 

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. SECS. 751 ET SEQ.,
WAS ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR INJURIES TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES.  IT COVERS ALL EMPLOYEES.  ENACTED IN
1916, IT GAVE THE FIRST AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOR
COMPENSATION, IN ANY FORM, FROM THE UNITED STATES.  IT WAS A
LEGISLATIVE BREACH IN THE WALL OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY TO DAMAGE CLAIMS
AND IT BROUGHT TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THE BENEFITS OF THE SOCIALLY
DESIRABLE RULE THAT SOCIETY SHOULD SHARE WITH THE INJURED EMPLOYEE THE
COSTS OF ACCIDENTS INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.  ITS BENEFITS
HAVE BEEN EXPANDED OVER THE YEARS.  SEE 5 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 751
ET SEQ.  SUCH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, IN
THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS, WOULD NATURALLY BE REGARDED AS
EXCLUSIVE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SHAW, 309 U.S. 495.  SUCH A POSITION
DOES NOT RUN COUNTER TO THE PROGRESSIVE LIBERALIZATION OF THE RIGHT TO
SUE THE UNITED STATES OR ITS AGENCIES FOR WRONGS.  (FN8)  THIS COURT
ACCEPTED THE PRINCIPLE OF THE EXCLUSIVE CHARACTER OF FEDERAL PLANS FOR
COMPENSATION IN FERES V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 135.  SEEKING SO TO
APPLY THE TORT CLAIMS ACT TO SOLDIERS ON ACTIVE DUTY AS "TO MAKE A
WORKABLE, CONSISTENT AND EQUITABLE WHOLE," P. 139, WE GAVE WEIGHT TO
THE CHARACTER OF THE FEDERAL "SYSTEMS OF SIMPLE, CERTAIN, AND UNIFORM
COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES OR DEATH OF THOSE IN ARMED SERVICES."  P.
144.  MUCH THE SAME REASONING LEADS US TO OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE
COMPENSATION ACT IS EXCLUSIVE. 

HAD CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE A CREW MEMBER ON A PUBLIC VESSEL A
RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BEYOND THE RIGHTS
GRANTED OTHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON THE SAME VESSEL UNDER OTHER PLANS
FOR COMPENSATION, WE THINK THAT THIS ADVANTAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED.  (FN9)  AS THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE JOHANSEN
CASE EXPLAINED, THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF CIVILIAN AND MILITARY
MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A PUBLIC VESSEL ARE MUCH THE SAME.  EACH HAS A
GENERAL COMPENSATION SYSTEM FOR INJURIES.  TO ALLOW PUBLIC-VESSEL
SEAMEN AN ELECTION AND TO DENY IT TO CIVILIAN SEAMEN EMPLOYED THROUGH
THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1291, WOULD
CONTRIBUTE NEITHER TO UNIFORMITY NOR TO FAIRNESS.  SEE MANDEL V. UNITED
STATES, 191 F.2D 164. 

ALL IN ALL WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION
ACT IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CIVILIAN SEAMEN ON PUBLIC VESSELS.  AS
THE GOVERNMENT HAS CREATED A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM TO AWARD PAYMENTS FOR
INJURIES, IT SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO HAVE MADE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT SYSTEM
WITHOUT SPECIFIC LEGISLATION TO THAT EFFECT.  BOTH CASES ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN NO. 401, BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED THROUGHOUT THESE
PROCEEDINGS THAT THE VESSEL IN QUESTION WAS, AS INDICATED BY THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE LIBEL, A "PUBLIC VESSEL," NOT A "MERCHANT VESSEL." 

IN NO. 414, PETITIONER ALLEGED IN HIS LIBEL THAT THE VESSEL IN
QUESTION WAS A "MERCHANT VESSEL."  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS DOUBTFUL
ABOUT THIS POINT, BUT DID NOT DECIDE IT, HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS
ENTITLED TO RECOVER WHETHER THE VESSEL WAS A "PUBLIC VESSEL" OR A
"MERCHANT VESSEL."  IN REVERSING, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT (1) IF
THE VESSEL WAS A "PUBLIC VESSEL," PETITIONER'S REMEDY UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY IN THIS ACTION, BUT (2)
IF THE VESSEL WAS A "MERCHANT VESSEL," THE CASE WOULD PRESENT DIFFERENT
QUESTIONS, WHICH NEED NOT BE DECIDED ON THIS RECORD.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO PERMIT PETITIONER, IF HE SO
DESIRES, TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE VESSEL WAS A "MERCHANT
VESSEL."  THIS COURT AFFIRMS THAT MANDATE.  SINCE PETITIONER DOES NOT
SPECIFY THE SECOND HOLDING AS ERROR, WE REVIEW ONLY THE FIRST, AND
ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REVIEW THAT THE VESSEL WAS A "PUBLIC
VESSEL." 

FN2  63 STAT. 854: 

"SEC. 201.  SECTION 7 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, AS
AMENDED (5 U.S.C., 1946 EDITION, SEC. 757), IS FURTHER AMENDED BY
INSERTING THE DESIGNATION '(A)' IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE FIRST SENTENCE
THEREOF AND BY ADDING TO SUCH SECTION A NEW SUBSECTION READING AS
FOLLOWS: 

"'(B)  THE LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OF ITS
INSTRUMENTALITIES UNDER THIS ACT OR ANY EXTENSION THEREOF WITH RESPECT
TO THE INJURY OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE, AND IN PLACE,
OF ALL OTHER LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES OR SUCH INSTRUMENTALITY TO
THE EMPLOYEE, HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, SPOUSE, DEPENDENTS, NEXT OF
KIN, AND ANYONE OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM THE UNITED
STATES OR SUCH INSTRUMENTALITY, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INJURY OR DEATH, IN
ANY DIRECT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN A CIVIL ACTION OR IN ADMIRALTY, OR
BY PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL, UNDER ANY OTHER
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW OR UNDER ANY FEDERAL TORT LIABILITY STATUTE:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO A MASTER OR
A MEMBER OF THE CREW OF ANY VESSEL.'" 

FN3  SEE THE PROVISO OF THIS SECTION, QUOTED IN NOTE 2 ABOVE.  SEE
ALSO SEC. 305(B) OF THE 1949 ACT:  "NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT SHALL
BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT ANY MARITIME RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF A MASTER OR
MEMBER OF THE CREW OF ANY VESSEL." 

FN4  SEE POSEY V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 93 F.2D 726; PARR V.
UNITED STATES, 172 F.2D 462; THOMASON V. W.P.A., 47 F. SUPP. 51, AFF'D
138 F.2D 342; WHITE V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 58 F. SUPP. 776; SEE
ALSO LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 89 U.S. APP. D.C. 21, 190 F.2D 22. 

FN5  O'NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 11 F.2D 869, AFF'D 11 F.2D 871; LOPEZ
V. UNITED STATES, 59 F. SUPP. 831; UNITED STATES V. LOYOLA, 161 F.2D
126.  SEE BRADEY V. UNITED STATES, 151 F.2D 742, AT 743 (DICTUM). 

FN6  MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. V. AULT, 256 U.S. 554, 562 

FN7  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S. 575,
HAS A BEARING ON THIS ISSUE.  WE THINK NOT.  THERE IS AS ASSUMPTION
THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES COULD HAVE SUED THE GOVERNMENT
FOR HIS INJURY, BUT THE CASE WAS ONE FOR DAMAGES AGAINST PRIVATE
OPERATORS, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 577.  COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO. V.
MCALLISTER, 337 U.S. 783, 789. 

FN8  FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, 60 STAT. 842; SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT,
41 STAT. 525; PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, 43 STAT. 1112.  SEE KEIFER & KEIFER
V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306 U.S. 381. 

FN9  BRADEY V. UNITED STATES, 151 F.2D 742.  SEE DOBSON V. UNITED
STATES, 27 F.2D 807. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

PETITIONER IN NO. 414 SUED THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS
ACT (FN1) TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF WILLIE DILLEHAY, JR., WHO
WAS KILLED WHEN THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC VESSEL ON WHICH HE WORKED
STRUCK A MINE.  PETITIONER IN NO. 401 SUED UNDER THE SAME ACT TO
RECOVER FOR PERSONAL INJURIES HE SUFFERED WHILE WORKING ABOARD ANOTHER
PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE COURT, AS IT MUST, CONCEDES
THAT THESE ACTIONS ARE PROPERLY BROUGHT IF THE "LITERAL LANGUAGE" (FN2)
OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT BE ADHERED TO.  THE COURT NEVERTHELESS
DECIDES THAT PETITIONERS SHOULD BE DENIED THE BENEFITS ACCORDED BY THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT.  THIS HOLDING IS PREMISED ON THE THEORY THAT THE
LANGUAGE CONGRESS USED CONFLICTS HOPELESSLY WITH THE PURPOSE CONGRESS
SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE.  NOT BEING ABLE TO ESTABLISH SUCH A CONFLICT FROM
THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT ITSELF, THE COURT MOVES BACK THROUGH THE PAGES
OF THE U.S.C. UNTIL IT ARRIVES AT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION
ACT.  (FN3)  AGAIN IT CAN FIND NO LANGUAGE BARRING PETITIONERS' RIGHTS
TO SUE UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  HOWEVER TO FIND SUCH A BAR, THE
COURT REASONS THUSLY:  THE COMPENSATION ACT PROVIDES FOR AN ADEQUATE
(PROBABLY SMALLER) RECOVERY IN THESE CASES; IT IS SHOCKING TO JUDICIAL
CONCEPTS OF SYMMETRY TO ALLOW INJURED PERSONS A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO
REMEDIES - BESIDES "THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE TWO SYSTEMS OF REDRESS";
THEREFORE CONGRESS INTENDED THE COMPENSATION ACT OF 1916 TO BE
EXCLUSIVE AND DID NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAID NINE YEARS LATER IN THE PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT. 

THE COURT'S HOLDING IS AS UNIQUE AS THE REASONING BEHIND IT.  TIME
AND TIME AGAIN DURING THE LAST THIRTY YEARS OTHER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE
ALLOWED INJURED EMPLOYEES TO TAKE THEIR PICK - RECEIVE COMPENSATION
BENEFITS, OR SUE FOR DAMAGES UNDEER THE PUBLIC VESSELS OR SOME OTHER
ACT.  (FN4) MOREOVER, THE COURT GIVES THE GOVERNMENT PRECISELY WHAT
CONGRESS, AFTER DEBATE, REFUSED TO GIVE IN 1949.  GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVES THEN ASKED CONGRESS TO MAKE THE COMPENSATION ACT
"EXCLUSIVE, AND IN PLACE OF ALL OTHER LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES." 
THE HOUSE YIELDED TO THIS REQUEST.  THE HOUSE REPORT FAVORING THE
CHANGE STATED THAT WHEN THE COMPENSATION ACT WAS ENACTED IN 1916 A
"PROVISION MAKING THE COMPENSATION REMEDY EXCLUSIVE APPARENTLY WAS THEN
NOT DEEMED BY THE CONGRESS TO BE NECESSARY."  (FN5)  THE REPORT ALSO
STATED THAT SUCH A PROVISION WAS NOW NEEDED BECAUSE OF ACTS SUCH AS THE
PUBLIC VESSELS ACT WHICH "IN GENERAL TERMS" AUTHORIZE THE BRINGING OF
DAMAGE SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  THE SENATE REFUSED TO GRANT THE
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST AND PREVAILED UPON THE HOUSE TO ACCEPT THE PRESENT
PROVISION OF THE ACT WHICH STATES THAT:  "NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT
SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT ANY MARITIME RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF A
MASTER OR MEMBER OF THE CREW OF ANY VESSEL."  (FN6)  THIS SENATE
MODIFICATION OF THE BILL, AS IT HAD PASSED THE HOUSE, WAS OFFERED BY
SENATOR MORSE AND ACCEPTED BY SENATOR DOUGLAS WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE
BILL.  IN OFFERING THIS MODIFICATION, SENATOR MORSE SAID:  "UNDER
EXISTING LAW, GOVERNMENT-EMPLOYED SEAMEN HAVE BEEN ACCORDED THE RIGHT
TO ASSERT THEIR MARITIME RIGHTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT AND PUBLIC VESSELS ACT  ...  .  I FEEL THEY
SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF BENEFITS THEY HAVE ENJOYED FOR MANY YEARS
WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR ARGUMENTS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BY THE
APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF THE CONGRESS  ...  ."  95 CONG. REC. 13608. 
SENATOR DOUGLAS AGREED TO THE MODIFICATION, STATING THAT "THE PRIMARY
CONSIDERATION FOR ACCEPTING THE SENATOR'S AMENDMENTS PRESERVING THE
MARITIME RIGHTS AND OTHER STATUTORY REMEDIES OF SEAMEN IS THE FACT THAT
NO HEARINGS WERE HELD, NO ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD, AND NO DISCUSSION WAS
HAD ON THIS ASPECT OF THE PENDING BILL."  95 CONG. REC. 13609. 

I DO NOT THINK THIS COURT SHOULD DEPRIVE THESE SEAMEN OF RIGHTS WHICH
THE CONGRESS OF 1925 GAVE THEM AND THE CONGRESS OF 1949 REFUSED TO TAKE
AWAY. 

FN1  43 STAT. 1112, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 781 ET SEQ. 

FN2  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT PROVIDES "THAT A LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN
ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES  ...  FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  ." 

FN3  39 STAT. 742, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 751 ET SEQ. 

FN4  SEE E.G., JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 186 F.2D 120.  IN GIBBS V.
UNITED STATES, 94 F. SUPP. 586, 588-589, DISTRICT JUDGE GOODMAN SAID:
"FROM A REVIEW OF COURT DECISIONS, IT CAN BE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT
NO FEDERAL COURT DECISION, OTHER THAN THE CASE OF POSEY V. TENN. VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 5 CIR., 1937, 93 F.2D 726, HAS EVER HELD THAT THE FECA
AFFORDS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  TO THE CONTRARY, IT
HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT THE FECA DOES NOT BAR SUITS BY FEDERAL
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AGAINST THE PANAMA RAILROAD, OR AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THE FEDERAL CONTROL ACT OF 1918, UNDER THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT, UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT AND UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT
CLAIMS ACT."  (FOOTNOTES AND CITATIONS OMITTED.) 

FN5  H.R. REP. NO. 729, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 14. 

FN6  63 STAT. 868, SEC. 305(B).  IN ADDITION SEC. 201(B), WHICH
STATES THAT THE COMPENSATION ACT "SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE, AND IN PLACE, OF
ALL OTHER LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES," CONTAINS THE SPECIAL
EXCEPTION:  "PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO
A MASTER OR A MEMBER OF THE CREW OF ANY VESSEL."  63 STAT. 861, 862. 
..END :



















BESSER MANUFACTURING CO. V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 444 


NO. 230.  ARGUED APRIL 21, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 26, 1952 - 96 F. SUPP.
304, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THIS CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENJOIN
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT
APPELLANTS CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
MACHINERY FOR MAKING CONCRETE BLOCKS, AND THAT THEY MONOPOLIZED AND
ATTEMPTED TO MONOPOLIZE THAT INDUSTRY, ARE OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY
THE EVIDENCE.  PP. 445-447. 

2.  THIS COURT SUSTAINS PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE REQUIRING APPELLANTS
TO ISSUE PATENT LICENSES ON A FAIR ROYALTY BASIS AND TO GRANT TO THE
EXISTING LESSEES OF THEIR MACHINES AN OPTION, ON TERMS "MUTUALLY
SATISFACTORY TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED," (1) TO TERMINATE THEIR LEASE,
(2) TO CONTINUE THEIR LEASE, OR (3) TO PURCHASE LEASED MACHINES.  P.
447. 

3.  PURSUANT TO A PROVISION OF THE DECREE FOR FIXING REASONABLE
ROYALTY RATES UNDER APPELLANTS' PATENT LICENSES, A COMMITTEE CONSISTING
OF TWO PERSONS SELECTED BY APPELLANTS AND TWO BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS
APPOINTED; AND, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE, THE TRIAL JUDGE RESOLVED A DEADLOCK WHICH DEVELOPED.  HELD:
THE PROCEDURE WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE, AND DID NOT DEPRIVE APPELLANTS
OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP. 447-449. 

(A)  IN THE ABSENCE OF GLARING ERROR, THIS COURT DOES NOT PASS UPON
THE QUESTION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL CONSIDERED
IN ARRIVING AT THE ROYALTIES FINALLY ESTABLISHED.  P. 448. 

(B)  IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE TRIAL JUDGE TO HAVE A FULL HEARING
OF THE ROYALTY MATTERS HIMSELF OR TO REFER THEM TO A MASTER FOR SUCH A
HEARING.  PP. 448-449. 

(C)  IN FRAMING RELIEF IN ANTITRUST CASES, A RANGE OF DISCRETION RESTS
WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE, AND THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION SHOWN HERE. 
P. 449. 

4.  THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTION THAT THIS COURT CONSIDER THE ROYALTY
SETTING PROCEDURE OUTLINED BY IT IN THE TRIAL COURT, AND DIRECT THAT IT
BE UTILIZED HEREAFTER IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE, CANNOT BE
ACCEPTED, SINCE THE FRAMING OF THE DECREE IS PROPERLY A FUNCTION OF THE
TRIAL COURT RATHER THAN THE APPELLATE COURT.  PP. 449-450. 

BESSER MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MICHIGAN. 

IN A CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2, THE DISTRICT
COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLANTS AND OTHERS.  96 F. SUPP.
304.  APPELLANTS APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE EXPEDITING
ACT.  AFFIRMED, P. 450. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS CIVIL ACTION UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT CHARGING APPELLANTS AND OTHERS WITH CONSPIRING TO RESTRAIN
AND MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN CONCRETE BLOCK-MAKING MACHINERY
IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT, AND CHARGING APPELLANTS WITH
MONOPOLIZING AND ATTEMPTING TO MONOPOLIZE THE SAME INDUSTRY IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT.  (FN1) 

THE DEFENDANTS BELOW WERE THE STEARNS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, SECOND
LARGEST PRODUCER IN THE COUNTRY OF CONCRETE BLOCK-MAKING MACHINES,
BESSER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, THE COUNTRY'S DOMINANT PRODUCER OF SUCH
MACHINERY AND SUBSTANTIAL STOCKHOLDER IN THE STEARNS COMPANY, JESSE H.
BESSER, LONG-TIME PRESIDENT AND VIRTUALLY SOLE STOCKHOLDER OF THE
BESSER COMPANY, AND TWO INDIVIDUALS, GELBMAN AND ANDRUS, CO-OWNERS OF
CERTAIN IMPORTANT PATENTS IN THE CONCRETE BLOCK-MAKING MACHINE FIELD. 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
FOUND THE GOVERNMENT'S CHARGES CLEARLY PROVEN, AND ENTERED A JUDGMENT
INTENDED TO CORRECT THE SHERMAN ACT VIOLATIONS FOUND TO EXIST.  (FN2) 

ONLY THE BESSER COMPANY AND JESSE H. BESSER HAVE APPEALED, BRINGING
THEIR CASE HERE DIRECTLY.  (FN3) 

APPELLANTS ASSERT THAT THE FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE
ERRONEOUS.  ONLY RECENTLY WE REITERATED THE NARROW SCOPE OF REVIEW HERE
WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES OF FACT IN ANTITRUST CASES.  UNITED STATES V.
OREGON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, 343 U.S. 326.  IN THIS CASE WE THINK IT
ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT APPELLANTS
CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN CONCRETE
BLOCK-MAKING MACHINERY AND THAT THEY MONOPOLIZED AND ATTEMPTED TO
MONOPOLIZE THAT INDUSTRY ARE OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 
NOT THE SLIGHTEST GROUND APPEARS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE'S
FINDINGS WERE "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS."  RULE 52(A), FED. RULES CIV. PROC. 

WE TURN NOW TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT ENTERED BELOW WHICH ARE
ATTACKED BY APPELLANTS.  IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO REVIEW APPELLANTS'
ACTIVITIES IN DETAIL, FOR THEY ARE ADEQUATELY SET OUT IN THE OPINION
BELOW.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT APPELLANTS SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE
COMPETITION THROUGH OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF COMPETITORS AND STRICT PATENT
LICENSING ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE STEARNS COMPANY AND THE PATENT OWNERS,
GELBMAN AND ANDRUS. 

APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT REQUIRING THEM
TO ISSUE PATENT LICENSES ON A FAIR ROYALTY BASIS AND REQUIRING THEM TO
GRANT TO EXISTING LESSEES OF THEIR MACHINES AN OPTION, ON TERMS
"MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED," (1) TO TERMINATE
THEIR LEASE, (2) TO CONTINUE THEIR LEASE, OR (3) TO PURCHASE LEASED
MACHINES, ARE PUNITIVE, CONFISCATORY AND INAPPROPRIATE. 

HOWEVER, COMPULSORY PATENT LICENSING IS A WELL-RECOGNIZED REMEDY
WHERE PATENT ABUSES ARE PROVED IN ANTITRUST ACTIONS AND IT IS REQUIRED
FOR EFFECTIVE RELIEF.  HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S.
386, 413, 417-418; UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319,
338; UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 340 U.S. 76, 94. 

THE COMPULSORY SALE PROVISION OF THE JUDGMENT, STRENUOUSLY ATTACKED,
IS LIKEWISE A RECOGNIZED REMEDY.  INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 332 U.S. 392, 398-399.  THAT REQUIRED BY THE JUDGMENT IN THIS
CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ALTERNATIVES ASSOCIATED
WITH IT. APPELLANTS ARE LEFT FREE TO LEASE RATHER THAN SELL IF THEY CAN
MAKE A LEASE SUFFICIENTLY ATTRACTIVE. 

APPELLANTS FURTHER ARGUE THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE COURT BELOW
FOR FIXING REASONABLE ROYALTY RATES UNDER THEIR PATENT LICENSES
DEPRIVES THEM OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE COURT
DIRECTED BESSER AND THE GOVERNMENT EACH TO SELECT TWO PERSONS TO SERVE
AS ARBITRATORS ON A COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH FAIR ROYALTY RATES AND THE
FORM AND CONTENTS OF ROYALTY CONTRACTS.  IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT IN
THE EVENT OF A STALEMATE THE FOUR REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD CHOOSE A FIFTH
TO VOTE AND BREAK THE DEADLOCK.  IF THEY COULD NOT AGREE ON A FIFTH
REPRESENTATIVE, THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS TO SIT AS THE FIFTH OR APPOINT
ANOTHER PERSON TO SERVE IN HIS PLACE.  AFTER SOME DELAY, AND UNDER
PROTEST, BESSER APPOINTED HIS REPRESENTATIVES, THE GOVERNMENT HAVING
APPOINTED ITS SHORTLY AFTER THE PLAN HAD BEEN PROMULGATED BY THE
COURT.  THE REPRESENTATIVES SELECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT WERE TAKEN FROM
THE INDUSTRY, THE GOVERNMENT NOTING TO THE COURT THAT THEY WERE SERVING
ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND AS AGENTS OF OTHER PROSPECTIVE LICENSEES, AND
NOT AS AGENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 

WHEN AN IMPASSE WAS REACHED WITH REGARD TO ROYALTY RATES ON CERTAIN
BESSER PATENTS, THE JUDGE STEPPED IN AS THE FIFTH ARBITRATOR AND VOTED
FOR THE RATES PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT-APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES. 
APPELLANTS ASSAIL THIS PROCEDURE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE ROYALTIES
SET MUST BE "MADE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE HEARING AND
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT OF APPROPRIATE CRITERIA." 

APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT FAILS ON TWO COUNTS.  FIRST, IT NECESSARILY
ATTACKS THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL CONSIDERED IN
ARRIVING AT THE ROYALTIES FINALLY ESTABLISHED.  WE DO NOT PASS ON
MATTERS OF THAT CHARACTER IN THE ABSENCE OF GLARING ERROR NOT SHOWN
HERE.  SECONDLY, APPELLANTS APPEAR TO HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THE TRUE
NATURE OF WHAT WAS DONE, FOR IT WAS ALWAYS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE
TRIAL JUDGE TO ESTABLISH THE ROYALTY RATES, AND, IN VOTING AS HE DID,
HE DID JUST THAT.  THEY CONTEND THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD EITHER HAVE HELD
A FULL HEARING HIMSELF OR REFERRED THE ROYALTY MATTERS TO A MASTER FOR
SUCH A HEARING.  WE DO NOT, HOWEVER, THINK THAT IN REDUCING THE TERMS
OF A DECREE TO CONCRETE MEASURES SUCH PROCEDURES ARE MANDATORY.  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BELOW IS AN INNOVATION IN CERTAIN
ASPECTS, BUT NOVELTY IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH ERROR. 

IN FRAMING RELIEF IN ANTITRUST CASES, A RANGE OF DISCRETION RESTS
WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE.  UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., SUPRA, AT
338; INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 400-401, 405;
UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 185.  WE CAN SEE
NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION HERE.  COMPULSORY LICENSING AND SALE OF PATENTED
DEVICES ARE RECOGNIZED REMEDIES.  THEY WOULD SEEM PARTICULARLY
APPROPRIATE WHERE, AS HERE, A PENCHANT FOR ABUSES OF PATENT RIGHTS IS
DEMONSTRATED.  WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING ROYALTY
RATES, THE COURT BELOW WAS LIKEWISE ACTING WITHIN THE DISCRETION VESTED
IN IT.  "THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD PROVIDE FOR ITS DETERMINATION OF A
REASONABLE ROYALTY EITHER IN EACH INSTANCE OF FAILURE TO AGREE OR BY AN
APPROVED FORM OR BY ANY OTHER PLAN IN ITS DISCRETION."  UNITED STATES
V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., SUPRA, AT 94.  THE PROCEDURE HERE WAS
ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND FAIR.  A COMPETENT COMMITTEE CONSIDERED
RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE JUDGE, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, RESOLVED THE DEADLOCK INTO WHICH THE NEGOTIATIONS
HAD FALLEN. 

ALTHOUGH NOT CONDEMNING THE ROYALTY-SETTING PROCEDURE USED HERE, THE
GOVERNMENT INDICATES FAINT ENTHUSIASM FOR IT, AND SUGGESTS THAT THIS
COURT CONSIDER THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED BY IT BELOW AND DIRECT THAT IT BE
UTILIZED HEREAFTER IN THE PROCEEDINGS REMAINING IN THIS LITIGATION.  WE
WOULD EXCEED OUR APPELLATE FUNCTIONS WERE WE TO ADOPT THAT SUGGESTION
IN THIS CASE.  "THE FRAMING OF DECREES SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE
DISTRICT RATHER THAN IN APPELLATE COURTS."  INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 400; UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO.,
SUPRA, AT 185. 

WE HAVE EXAMINED APPELLANTS' OTHER CONTENTIONS AND CONCLUDED THAT
THEY ARE WITHOUT MERIT. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 4:  "THE SEVERAL
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO
PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 1-7 OF THIS TITLE; AND IT
SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE UNITED
STATES, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY TO PREVENT AND
RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS  ...  ." 

15 U.S.C. SEC. 1:  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST
OR OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG
THE SEVERAL STATES  ...  IS DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL  ...  ." 

15 U.S.C. SEC. 2:  "EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE, OR ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO
MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
...  SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR  ...  ." 

FN2  96 F. SUPP. 304 

FN3  PURSUANT TO SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF 1903, 32 STAT. 823,
AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. POLLAK 343
U.S. 451 


NO. 224.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 26, 1952 - 89 U.S. APP.
D.C. 94, 191 F.2D 450, REVERSED. 


A STREET RAILWAY COMPANY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHOSE SERVICE
AND EQUIPMENT ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, RECEIVES AND AMPLIFIES RADIO
PROGRAMS THROUGH LOUDSPEAKERS IN ITS STREETCARS AND BUSSES.  THE
PROGRAMS CONSIST GENERALLY OF 90% MUSIC, 5% ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND 5%
COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING.  THE COMMISSION, AFTER AN INVESTIGATION AND
PUBLIC HEARINGS DISCLOSING SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS FOR DOING SO, CONCLUDED
THAT THE RADIO SERVICE IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC CONVENIENCE,
COMFORT AND SAFETY; AND PERMITTED IT TO CONTINUE DESPITE PROTESTS OF
SOME PASSENGERS THAT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE THEREBY VIOLATED. 
HELD:  NEITHER THE OPERATION OF THE RADIO SERVICE NOR THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION PERMITTING ITS OPERATION IS PRECLUDED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 453-466. 

1.  UPON REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION, THE COURTS ARE
EXPRESSLY RESTRICTED BY STATUTE TO THE FACTS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION,
INSOFAR AS THOSE FINDINGS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY
OR CAPRICIOUS.  PP. 458-460. 

2.  APART FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
DISMISSING ITS INVESTIGATION WAS IN ACCORD WITH ITS PRESCRIBED
STATUTORY PROCEDURE AND WITHIN THE DISCRETION PROPERLY VESTED IN THE
COMMISSION BY CONGRESS.  PP. 460-461. 

(A)  IT IS WITHIN THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO
PROHIBIT OR TO PERMIT AND REGULATE THE RECEIPT AND AMPLIFICATION OF
RADIO PROGRAMS UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS THAT THE TOTAL UTILITY SERVICE
SHALL NOT BE UNSAFE, UNCOMFORTABLE OR INCONVENIENT.  P. 461. 

3.  THIS COURT FINDS IT APPROPRIATE TO EXAMINE INTO WHAT RESTRICTION,
IF ANY, THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS PLACE UPON THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, ASSUMING THAT THE ACTION OF
THE STREET RAILWAY COMPANY IN OPERATING THE RADIO SERVICE, TOGETHER
WITH THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN PERMITTING SUCH OPERATION, AMOUNTS
TO SUFFICIENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO MAKE THE FIRST AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS APPLICABLE THERETO.  PP. 461-463. 

(A)  THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS APPLY TO AND RESTRICT ONLY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT PRIVATE PERSONS.  P. 461. 

(B)  IN FINDING A SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE RELATION BETWEEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE RADIO SERVICE TO MAKE IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE
FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS, THIS COURT RELIES PARTICULARLY UPON THE
FACT THAT THE COMMISSION, AN AGENCY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, ORDERED AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE RADIO SERVICE AND, AFTER FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS,
ORDERED ITS INVESTIGATION DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PUBLIC
SAFETY, COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE WERE NOT IMPAIRED THEREBY.  P. 462. 

4.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT FIND, AND THE TESTIMONY DOES NOT COMPEL A
FINDING, THAT THE RADIO PROGRAMS INTERFERED SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE
CONVERSATION OF PASSENGERS OR WITH RIGHTS OF COMMUNICATION
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED IN PUBLIC PLACES; NOR IS THERE ANY
SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM THAT THE PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN USED FOR OBJECTIONABLE
PROPAGANDA.  P. 463. 

5.  THE RADIO PROGRAMS DO NOT INVADE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY OF THE
PASSENGERS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 463-465. 

(A)  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT SECURE TO EACH PASSENGER ON A
PUBLIC VEHICLE REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A RIGHT OF PRIVACY
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THE PRIVACY TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED IN HIS OWN
HOME.  P. 464. 

(B)  IN ITS REGULATION OF STREETCARS AND BUSSES, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS NOT ONLY ENTITLED, BUT IS REQUIRED, TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE INTERESTS OF ALL CONCERNED.  P. 464. 

(C)  WHERE A REGULATORY BODY HAS JURISDICTION, IT WILL BE SUSTAINED
IN ITS PROTECTION OF ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC PLACES WHEN THOSE ACTIVITIES
DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, COMFORT AND
SAFETY.  PP. 464-465. 

(D)  THE SUPERVISION OF SUCH PRACTICES BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEETS
THE REQUIREMENTS BOTH OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS WHEN IT
IS NOT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY EXERCISED.  P. 465. 

(E)  THE PERSONAL LIBERTY WHICH IS PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
DOES NOT PERMIT AN OBJECTOR TO OVERRIDE THE PREFERENCE OF THE MAJORITY
OF THE OTHER PASSENGERS AND THE REGULATORY BODY'S FINDING, UPON HEARING
AND EVIDENCE, THAT THE RADIO SERVICE WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE, COMFORT AND SAFETY.  P. 465. 

(F)  THE QUESTION OF THE DESIRABILITY OF THE RADIO SERVICE IS A
MATTER FOR DECISION BETWEEN THE STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, THE PUBLIC AND
THE COMMISSION.  P. 465. 

6.  SINCE THE RADIO PROGRAMS CONTAINING MUSIC, COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING
AND OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE, IT IS CLEAR
THAT PROGRAMS LIMITED TO A LIKE TYPE OF MUSIC ALONE WOULD NOT BE LESS
SO.  PP. 465-466. 

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. V. POLLAK
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 295, POLLAK ET AL. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME
COURT. 

AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS PARTIALLY REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND DIRECTED THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER BE VACATED.  89 U.S. APP. D.C. 94, 191 F.2D 450. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 848.  REVERSED, P. 466. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PRECLUDES A STREET RAILWAY
COMPANY FROM RECEIVING AND AMPLIFYING RADIO PROGRAMS THROUGH
LOUDSPEAKERS IN ITS PASSENGER VEHICLES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE.  THE SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT OF THE COMPANY ARE SUBJECT TO
REGULATION BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THE COMMISSION, AFTER AN INVESTIGATION AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
DISCLOSING SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS FOR DOING SO, HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE
RADIO SERVICE IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, COMFORT AND
SAFETY AND "TENDS TO IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE PUBLIC
RIDE."  THE COMMISSION, ACCORDINGLY, HAS PERMITTED THE RADIO SERVICE TO
CONTINUE DESPITE VIGOROUS PROTESTS FROM SOME PASSENGERS THAT TO DO SO
VIOLATES THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER
STATED, WE HOLD THAT NEITHER THE OPERATION OF THE SERVICE NOR THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION PERMITTING ITS OPERATION IS PRECLUDED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY, HERE CALLED CAPITAL TRANSIT, IS A
PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATION, OWNING AN EXTENSIVE STREET
RAILWAY AND BUS SYSTEM WHICH IT OPERATES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNDER A FRANCHISE FROM CONGRESS.  (FN1)  WASHINGTON TRANSIT RADIO,
INC., HERE CALLED RADIO, ALSO IS A PRIVATELY OWNED CORPORATION DOING
BUSINESS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  BOTH ARE PETITIONERS IN NO.
224. 

IN MARCH, 1948, CAPITAL TRANSIT EXPERIMENTED WITH "MUSIC AS YOU RIDE"
RADIO PROGRAMS RECEIVED AND AMPLIFIED THROUGH LOUDSPEAKERS IN A
STREETCAR AND IN A BUS.  (FN2)  THOSE VEHICLES WERE OPERATED ON VARIOUS
LINES AT VARIOUS HOURS.  A POLL OF PASSENGERS WHO HEARD THE PROGRAMS
SHOWED THAT 92% FAVORED THEIR CONTINUANCE.  EXPERIENCE IN OTHER CITIES
WAS STUDIED.  (FN3)  CAPITAL TRANSIT GRANTED RADIO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN, REPAIR AND USE RADIO RECEPTION EQUIPMENT IN
CAPITAL TRANSIT'S STREETCARS, BUSSES, TERMINAL FACILITIES, WAITING
ROOMS AND DIVISION HEADQUARTERS.  RADIO, IN RETURN, AGREED TO CONTRACT
WITH A BROADCASTING STATION FOR PROGRAMS TO BE RECEIVED DURING A
MINIMUM OF EIGHT HOURS EVERY DAY, EXCEPT SUNDAYS.  TO THAT END RADIO
SECURED THE SERVICES OF STATION WWDC-FM.  ITS PROGRAMS WERE TO MEET THE
SPECIFICATIONS STATED IN CAPITAL TRANSIT'S CONTRACT.  (FN4) RADIO
AGREED TO PAY CAPITAL TRANSIT, AFTER A 90-DAY TRIAL, $6 PER MONTH PER
RADIO INSTALLATION, PLUS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION DEPENDENT UPON THE
STATION'S RECEIPTS FROM SOURCES SUCH AS COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING ON THE
PROGRAMS.  IN FEBRUARY, 1949, WHEN MORE THAN 20 INSTALLATIONS HAD BEEN
MADE, THE SERVICE WENT INTO REGULAR OPERATION.  AT THE TIME OF THE
COMMISSION'S HEARINGS, OCTOBER 27-NOVEMBER 1, 1949, THERE WERE 212.  ON
THAT BASIS THE MINIMUM ANNUAL PAYMENT TO CAPITAL TRANSIT CAME TO
$15,264.  THE POTENTIAL MINIMUM WOULD BE $108,000, BASED UPON 1,500
INSTALLATIONS.  THE CONTRACT COVERED FIVE YEARS, WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIVE
YEAR RENEWAL IN THE ABSENCE OF NOTICE TO THE CONTRARY FROM EITHER
PARTY. 

THIS PROCEEDING BEGAN IN JULY, 1949, WHEN THE COMMISSION, ON ITS OWN
MOTION, ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION.  37 STAT. 983, D.C. CODE (1940) SECS.
43-408 THROUGH 43-410.  THE COMMISSION STATED THAT CAPITAL TRANSIT HAD
EMBARKED UPON A PROGRAM OF INSTALLING RADIO RECEIVERS IN ITS STREETCARS
AND BUSSES AND THAT A NUMBER OF PROTESTS AGAINST THE PROGRAM HAD BEEN
RECEIVED.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION WAS ORDERING AN INVESTIGATION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF SUCH RECEIVERS WAS
"CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, COMFORT AND SAFETY."  RADIO WAS
PERMITTED TO INTERVENE.  POLLAK AND MARTIN, AS PROTESTING CAPITAL
TRANSIT PASSENGERS, ALSO INTERVENED AND THEY ARE THE RESPONDENTS IN NO.
224. 

THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED "THAT THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF RADIOS IN
STREETCARS AND BUSSES OF THE CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, COMFORT, AND SAFETY" AND
DISMISSED ITS INVESTIGATION.  81 P.U.R. (N.S.)  122, 126.  IT DENIED
RECONSIDERATION.  49 STAT. 882, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 43-704.  POLLAK
AND MARTIN APPEALED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  49 STAT. 882-884, D.C. CODE (1940) SECS. 43-705
THROUGH 43-710.  JOHN O'DEA, AS PEOPLE'S COUNSEL, CAPITAL TRANSIT
COMPANY AND WASHINGTON TRANSIT RADIO, INC., WERE GRANTED LEAVE TO
INTERVENE.  THAT APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BUT POLLAK AND MARTIN TOOK THE
CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  49 STAT. 883, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 43
705.  THAT COURT PARTIALLY REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
AND GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO VACATE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  IT REMANDED
THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS OPINION WHICH
INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: 

"IN OUR OPINION TRANSIT'S BROADCASTS DEPRIVE OBJECTING PASSENGERS OF
LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  SERVICE THAT VIOLATES
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS NOT REASONABLE SERVICE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
COMMISSION ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FINDING THAT TRANSIT'S
BROADCASTS ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, IN FAILING TO
FIND THAT THEY ARE UNREASONABLE, AND IN FAILING TO STOP THEM. 

"THIS DECISION APPLIES TO 'COMMERCIALS' AND TO 'ANNOUNCEMENTS.'  WE
ARE NOT NOW CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER OCCASIONAL BROADCASTS OF
MUSIC ALONE WOULD INFRINGE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS."  89 U.S. APP. D.C.
94, 102, 191 F.2D 450, 458. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, EN BANC, DENIED A REHEARING.  THE COMMISSION,
CAPITAL TRANSIT AND RADIO PETITIONED THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI IN NO.
224.  CONTINGENT UPON THE GRANTING OF CERTIORARI IN THAT CASE, POLLAK
AND MARTIN, BY CROSS-PETITION IN NO. 295, SOUGHT TO PROHIBIT CAPITAL
TRANSIT FROM RECEIVING AND AMPLIFYING IN ITS VEHICLES NOT ONLY
"COMMERCIALS" AND "ANNOUNCEMENTS," BUT ALSO THE BALANCE OF THE RADIO
PROGRAMS.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH CASES BECAUSE OF THE NOVELTY
AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  342
U.S. 848.  WE HAVE TREATED THE PETITIONS AS THOUGH THEY WERE CROSS
PETITIONS IN A SINGLE CASE. 

1.  FURTHER FACTS.  - IN THIS PROCEEDING THE COURTS ARE EXPRESSLY
RESTRICTED TO THE FACTS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION, INSOFAR AS THOSE
FINDINGS DO NOT APPEAR TO BE UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS. 
(FN5) 

AFTER RECITING THAT IT HAD GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE
TESTIMONY BEARING ON PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, COMFORT AND SAFETY, THE
COMMISSION SAID THAT: 

"FROM THE TESTIMONY OF RECORD, THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT
RADIO RECEPTION IN STREETCARS AND BUSSES IS NOT AN OBSTACLE TO SAFETY
OF OPERATION. 

"FURTHER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT PUBLIC COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE IS NOT
IMPAIRED AND THAT, IN FACT, THROUGH THE CREATION OF BETTER WILL AMONG
PASSENGERS, IT TENDS TO IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE PUBLIC
RIDE."  81 P.U.R. (N.S.), AT 126. 

BEARING UPON ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE PUBLIC COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE
RESULTING FROM THE RADIO PROGRAMS, THE COMMISSION CITED THE OPINIONS OF
CAR AND BUS OPERATORS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE "MUSIC ON THE VEHICLES HAD
A TENDENCY TO KEEP THE PASSENGERS IN A BETTER MOOD, AND THAT IT
SIMPLIFIED TRANSIT OPERATIONS."  ID., AT 125.  THE COMMISSION ALSO SAID
THAT ITS ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENTS "REFLECTS THE FACT THAT THE RADIO DOES
NOT IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH EFFICIENT OPERATION AND HAS NOT BEEN THE
CAUSE OF ANY ACCIDENTS, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF  ...  A SAFETY
SUPERVISOR."  IBID. LIKEWISE, THE COMMISSION SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING AS
ONE PREMISE FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS: 

"A PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY EDWARD G. DOODY & COMPANY,
FROM OCTOBER 11, 1949, TO OCTOBER 17, 1949, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE
ATTITUDE OF CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY CUSTOMERS TOWARD TRANSIT RADIO. 
THIS SURVEY EMPLOYED THE RULES OF RANDOM SELECTION AND WAS CONFINED TO
INTERVIEWS ABOARD RADIO-EQUIPPED VEHICLES.  THE PRINCIPAL RESULTS
OBTAINED THROUGH THE SURVEY, AS PRESENTED IN THIS RECORD, WERE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"OF THOSE INTERVIEWED, 93.4 PER CENT WERE NOT OPPOSED; THAT IS, 76.3
WERE IN FAVOR, 13.9 SAID THEY DIDN'T CARE, AND 3.2 SAID THEY DIDN'T
KNOW; 6.6 PER CENT WERE NOT IN FAVOR, BUT WHEN ASKED THE QUESTION
'WELL, EVEN THOUGH YOU DON'T CARE FOR SUCH PROGRAMS PERSONALLY, WOULD
YOU OBJECT IF THE MAJORITY OF PASSENGERS WANTED BUSSES AND STREETCARS
EQUIPPED WITH RADIO RECEIVERS,' 3.6 SAID THEY WOULD NOT OBJECT OR
OPPOSE THE MAJORITY WILL.  THUS, A BALANCE OF 3 PER CENT OF THOSE
INTERVIEWED WERE FIRMLY OPPOSED TO THE USE OF RADIOS IN TRANSIT
VEHICLES."  (FN6)  IBID. 

2.  STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  - APART FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DISMISSING ITS INVESTIGATION WAS IN ACCORD WITH
ITS PRESCRIBED STATUTORY PROCEDURE AND WITHIN THE DISCRETION PROPERLY
VESTED IN THE COMMISSION BY CONGRESS. 

TRANSIT RADIO SERVICE IS A NEW INCOME-PRODUCING INCIDENT OF THE
OPERATION OF RAILWAY PROPERTIES.  THE PROFIT ARISES FROM THE RENTAL OF
FACILITIES FOR COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING PURPOSES.  THIS ASPECT OF THE
ENTERPRISE BEARS SOME RELATION TO THE LONG-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF
RENTING SPACE FOR VISUAL ADVERTISING ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF
STREETCARS AND BUSSES. 

THROUGH THESE PROGRAMS CAPITAL TRANSIT SEEKS TO IMPROVE ITS PUBLIC
RELATIONS.  TO MINIMIZE OBJECTION TO THE ADVERTISING FEATURES OF THE
PROGRAMS, IT REQUIRES THAT AT LEAST 90% OF THE RADIO TIME BE USED FOR
PURPOSES OTHER THAN COMMERCIALS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.  THIS RESULTS IN
PROGRAMS GENERALLY CONSISTING OF 90% MUSIC, 5% NEWS, WEATHER REPORTS
AND MATTERS OF CIVIC INTEREST, AND 5% COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING.  THE
ADVERTISING IS CONFINED TO STATEMENTS OF 15 TO 30 SECONDS EACH.  IT
OCCUPIES A TOTAL OF ABOUT THREE MINUTES IN EACH HOUR 

IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMISSION, THERE CAN
BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT, APART FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS HERE
RAISED, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S DECISION. 
IT IS WITHIN THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO PROHIBIT OR
TO PERMIT AND REGULATE THE RECEIPT AND AMPLIFICATION OF RADIO PROGRAMS
UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS THAT THE TOTAL UTILITY SERVICE SHALL NOT BE
UNSAFE, UNCOMFORTABLE OR INCONVENIENT. 

3.  APPLICABILITY OF THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS.  - IT WAS HELD
BY THE COURT BELOW THAT THE ACTION OF CAPITAL TRANSIT IN INSTALLING AND
OPERATING THE RADIO RECEIVERS, COUPLED WITH THE ACTION OF THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION IN DISMISSING ITS OWN INVESTIGATION OF THE
PRACTICE, SUFFICIENTLY INVOLVED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RADIO PROGRAMS TO MAKE THE FIRST AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES APPLICABLE TO THIS
RADIO SERVICE.  (FN7)  THESE AMENDMENTS CONCEDEDLY APPLY TO AND
RESTRICT ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT PRIVATE PERSONS.  SEE
CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY, 271 U.S. 323, 330; TALTON V. MAYES, 163 U.S. 376,
382, 384; WITHERS V. BUCKLEY, 20 HOW.  84, 89-91; BARRON V. THE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, 7 PET. 243; SEE ALSO, VIRGINIA V. RIVES,
100 U.S. 313, 318. 

WE FIND IN THE REASONING OF THE COURT BELOW A SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE
RELATION BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE RADIO SERVICE TO MAKE
IT NECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER THOSE AMENDMENTS.  IN FINDING THIS
RELATION WE DO NOT RELY ON THE MERE FACT THAT CAPITAL TRANSIT OPERATES
A PUBLIC UTILITY ON THE STREETS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNDER
AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS.  NOR DO WE RELY UPON THE FACT THAT, BY REASON OF
SUCH FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION, CAPITAL TRANSIT NOW ENJOYS A SUBSTANTIAL
MONOPOLY OF STREET RAILWAY AND BUS TRANSPORTATION IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  WE DO, HOWEVER, RECOGNIZE THAT CAPITAL TRANSIT OPERATES ITS
SERVICE UNDER THE REGULATORY SUPERVISION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WHICH IS AN AGENCY AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS.  (FN8) WE RELY PARTICULARLY UPON THE FACT THAT THAT AGENCY,
PURSUANT TO PROTESTS AGAINST THE RADIO PROGRAM, ORDERED AN
INVESTIGATION OF IT AND, AFTER FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDERED ITS
INVESTIGATION DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PUBLIC SAFETY, COMFORT
AND CONVENIENCE WERE NOT IMPAIRED THEREBY.  81 P.U.R. (N.S.), AT 126. 

WE, THEREFORE, FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO EXAMINE INTO WHAT RESTRICTION,
IF ANY, THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS PLACE UPON THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, ASSUMING THAT THE ACTION OF
CAPITAL TRANSIT IN OPERATING THE RADIO SERVICE, TOGETHER WITH THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN PERMITTING SUCH OPERATION, AMOUNTS TO
SUFFICIENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTION TO MAKE THE FIRST AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS APPLICABLE THERETO.    4.  NO VIOLATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  - POLLAK AND MARTIN CONTEND THAT THE RADIO PROGRAMS
INTERFERE WITH THEIR FREEDOM OF CONVERSATION AND THAT OF OTHER
PASSENGERS BY MAKING IT NECESSARY FOR THEM TO COMPETE AGAINST THE
PROGRAMS IN ORDER TO BE HEARD.  THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND,
AND THE TESTIMONY DOES NOT COMPEL A FINDING, THAT THE PROGRAMS
INTERFERED SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE CONVERSATION OF PASSENGERS OR WITH
RIGHTS OF CUMMUNICATION CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED IN PUBLIC PLACES. 
IT IS SUGGESTED ALSO THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES A FREEDOM TO
LISTEN ONLY TO SUCH POINTS OF VIEW AS THE LISTENER WISHES TO HEAR. 
THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM THAT THE PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN USED FOR
OBJECTIONABLE PROPAGANDA.  THERE IS NO ISSUE OF THAT KIND BEFORE US.
(FN9)  THE INCLUSION IN THE PROGRAMS OF A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS EXPLANATORY
AND COMMENDATORY OF CAPITAL TRANSIT'S OWN SERVICES DOES NOT SUSTAIN
SUCH AN OBJECTION. 

5.  NO VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  - THE COURT BELOW HAS
EMPHASIZED THE CLAIM THAT THE RADIO PROGRAMS ARE AN INVASION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PRIVACY OF THE PASSENGERS.  THIS CLAIM IS THAT
NO MATTER HOW MUCH CAPITAL TRANSIT MAY WISH TO USE RADIO IN ITS
VEHICLES AS PART OF ITS SERVICE TO ITS PASSENGERS AND AS A SOURCE OF
INCOME, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS PASSENGERS MAY
DESIRE RADIO IN THOSE VEHICLES, AND HOWEVER POSITIVELY THE COMMISSION,
ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, MAY CONCLUDE THAT SUCH USE OF RADIO DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE CONVENIENCE, COMFORT AND SAFETY OF THE SERVICE BUT
TENDS TO IMPROVE IT, YET IF ONE PASSENGER OBJECTS TO THE PROGRAMS AS AN
INVASION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY, THE USE OF RADIO ON
THE VEHICLES MUST BE DISCONTINUED.  THIS POSITION WRONGLY ASSUMES THAT
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SECURES TO EACH PASSENGER ON A PUBLIC VEHICLE
REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A RIGHT OF PRIVACY SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUAL TO THE PRIVACY TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED IN HIS OWN HOME.  HOWEVER
COMPLETE HIS RIGHT OF PRIVACY MAY BE AT HOME, IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY
LIMITED BY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS WHEN ITS POSSESSOR TRAVELS ON A PUBLIC
THOROUGHFARE OR RIDES IN A PUBLIC CONVEYANCE.  STREETCARS AND BUSSES
ARE SUBJECT TO THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL OF THEIR OWNER AND OPERATOR AND,
BY VIRTUE OF THEIR DEDICATION TO PUBLIC SERVICE, THEY ARE FOR THE
COMMON USE OF ALL OF THEIR PASSENGERS.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ITS
REGULATION OF THEM IS NOT ONLY ENTITLED, BUT IS REQUIRED, TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE INTERESTS OF ALL CONCERNED. 

IN A PUBLIC VEHICLE THERE ARE MUTUAL LIMITATIONS UPON THE CONDUCT OF
EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE VEHICLE OWNER.  THESE CONFLICTING DEMANDS LIMIT
POLICIES ON SUCH MATTERS AS OPERATING SCHEDULES AND THE LOCATION OF CAR
OR BUS STOPS, AS WELL AS POLICIES RELATING TO THE DESIRABILITY OR
NATURE OF RADIO PROGRAMS IN THE VEHICLES.  LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE
MAKING OF ARTIFICIALLY AMPLIFIED RAUCOUS SOUNDS IN PUBLIC PLACES HAS
BEEN UPHELD.  KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77.  (FN10) CONVERSELY, WHERE
A REGULATORY BODY HAS JURISDICTION, IT WILL BE SUSTAINED IN ITS
PROTECTION OF ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC PLACES WHEN THOSE ACTIVITIES DO NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, COMFORT AND SAFETY.  THE
SUPERVISION OF SUCH PRACTICES BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION IN THE
MANNER PRESCRIBED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS
BOTH OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS WHEN IT IS NOT
ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY EXERCISED. 

THE CONTENTION OF POLLAK AND MARTIN WOULD PERMIT AN OBJECTOR, WITH A
STATUS NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF OTHER PASSENGERS, TO OVERRIDE NOT ONLY
THE PREFERENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PASSENGERS BUT ALSO THE
CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, AFTER NOTICE, INVESTIGATION AND PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND UPON A
RECORD REASONABLY JUSTIFYING ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE POLICY OF THE
OWNER AND OPERATOR DID NOT INTERFERE WITH PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, COMFORT
AND SAFETY BUT TENDED, IN GENERAL, TO IMPROVE THE UTILITY SERVICE. 

WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT CONTENTION.  THE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THE
LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AGAINST THE ACTION OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GO THAT FAR.  THE LIBERTY OF EACH
INDIVIDUAL IN A PUBLIC VEHICLE OR PUBLIC PLACE IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE
LIMITATIONS IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. 

THIS COURT EXPRESSES NO OPINION AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF RADIO
PROGRAMS IN PUBLIC VEHICLES.  IN THIS CASE THAT IS A MATTER FOR
DECISION BETWEEN CAPITAL TRANSIT, THE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION.  THE SITUATION IS NOT UNLIKE THAT WHICH ARISES WHEN A
UTILITY MAKES A CHANGE IN ITS RUNNING SCHEDULES OR IN THE LOCATIONS OF
ITS STOPS IN THE INTERESTS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PASSENGERS BUT
AGAINST THE VIGOROUS PROTESTS OF THE FEW WHO ARE INCONVENIENCED BY THE
CHANGE. 

THE COURT BELOW EXPRESSLY REFRAINED FROM PASSING ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RECEIPT AND AMPLIFICATION IN PUBLIC VEHICLES
OF OCCASIONAL BROADCASTS OF MUSIC ALONE.  POLLAK AND MARTIN, IN NO.
295, CONTEND THAT BROADCASTS EVEN SO LIMITED ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF OUR HOLDING THAT THE PROGRAMS BEFORE US, CONTAINING
MUSIC, COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING AND OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE, IT IS CLEAR THAT PROGRAMS LIMITED TO A
LIKE TYPE OF MUSIC ALONE WOULD NOT BE LESS SO. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ACCORDINGLY, IS REVERSED AND
THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY ORIGINATES FROM THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF
MARCH 4, 1925, AUTHORIZING THE MERGER OF STREET RAILWAY CORPORATIONS
OPERATING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  43 STAT. 1265, D.C. CODE (1940)
SEC. 43-503.  THE MERGER WAS APPROVED BY JOINT RESOLUTION, JANUARY 14,
1933.  47 STAT. 752, 819, D.C. CODE (1940) NOTE FOLLOWING SEC. 43-503. 
THAT RESOLUTION REQUIRED THE NEW COMPANY TO BE INCORPORATED UNDER THE
DISTRICT CODE AND ITS CORPORATE ARTICLES TO BE APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT.  47 STAT. 753, 819, D.C. CODE
(1940) NOTE FOLLOWING SEC. 43-503; SEE 31 STAT. 1284 ET SEQ., D.C. CODE
(1940) SEC. 29-201 ET SEQ. 

THE SAME RESOLUTION PROHIBITED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY COMPETITIVE
STREET RAILWAY OR BUS LINE WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE BY THE
COMMISSION TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH LINE IS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC.  47 STAT. 760, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 44
201.  THE ONLY COMPETING LINE IN THE DISTRICT IS A RELATIVELY SMALL
INTERURBAN LINE. 

FN2  TYPICALLY, THE EQUIPMENT INCLUDES A RECEIVING SET AND SIX LOUD
SPEAKERS IN EACH VEHICLE.  THE SET IS TUNED TO A SINGLE BROADCASTING
STATION.  THE LOUDSPEAKERS ARE SO LOCATED THAT THE RADIO PROGRAMS CAN
BE HEARD SUBSTANTIALLY UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT THE VEHICLE.  THE VOLUME OF
SOUND IS ADJUSTED SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE SIGNALS OR
ANNOUNCEMENTS INCIDENT TO VEHICLE OPERATIONS OR GENERALLY WITH
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN PASSENGERS. 

FN3  UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY LISTED APPROXIMATELY THE FOLLOWING
NUMBERS OF VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH TRANSIT RADIO IN THE AREAS NAMED IN
OCTOBER, 1949: ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, 1,000; CINCINNATI, OHIO, 475;
HOUSTON, TEXAS, 270; WASHINGTON, D.C., 220; WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS,
220; TACOMA, WASHINGTON, 135; EVANSVILLE, INDIANA, 110; WILKES-BARRE,
PENNSYLVANIA, 100; SUBURBAN PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, 75; ALLENTOWN,
PENNSYLVANIA, 75; HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, 55; DES MOINES, IOWA, 50;
TOPEKA, KANSAS, 50: SUBURBAN WASHINGTON, D.C., 30.  BALTIMORE,
MARYLAND, WAS LISTED BUT THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES WAS NOT STATED. 

FN4  "(A)  PROGRAM CONTENT SHALL BE OF GOOD QUALITY AND CONSONANT
WITH A HIGH STANDARD OF PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY, IT BEING
UNDERSTOOD THAT ALL PROGRAMS SHALL BE CAREFULLY PLANNED, EDITED AND
PRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED PRACTICES EMPLOYED BY QUALIFIED
BROADCASTING STATIONS. 

"(B)  COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS SHALL NOT EXCEED SIXTY (60) SECONDS IN
DURATION, AND CUMULATIVELY SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX (6) MINUTES IN ANY
SIXTY (60) MINUTE PERIOD. 

"(C)  BROADCAST STATION SHALL AGREE TO CANCEL OR SUITABLY TO MODIFY
ANY COMMERCIAL CONTINUITY UPON NOTICE FROM CAPITAL THAT SAID
CONTINUITY, OR THE SPONSOR THEREOF, IS OBJECTIONABLE.  BROADCAST
STATION SHALL FURTHER AGREE THAT IT SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO CAPITAL WITHIN
TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS AFTER THE ACCEPTANCE OF EACH NEW SPONSOR. 

"(D)  CAPITAL IS TO RECEIVE WITHOUT CHARGE FIFTY PER CENT (50%) OF
THE UNSOLD TIME AVAILABLE FOR COMMERCIAL CONTINUITY AS PROVIDED IN SUB
ANY SIXTY (60) MINUTE PERIOD), FOR INSTITUTIONAL AND PROMOTIONAL
ANNOUNCEMENTS." 

FN5  "PAR.  66.  IN THE DETERMINATION OF ANY APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OR
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION THE REVIEW BY THE COURT SHALL BE LIMITED TO
QUESTIONS OF LAW, INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS; AND THE FINDINGS
OF FACT BY THE COMMISSION SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE UNLESS IT SHALL APPEAR
THAT SUCH FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ARE UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY OR
CAPRICIOUS."  49 STAT. 883, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 43-706. 

ON APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT: 

"THE COMMISSION SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE SAID COURT THE
RECORD, INCLUDING A TRANSCRIPT OF ALL PROCEEDINGS HAD AND TESTIMONY
TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION, DULY CERTIFIED, UPON WHICH THE SAID ORDER
OR DECISION OF THE COMMISSION WAS BASED, TOGETHER WITH A STATEMENT OF
ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS UPON THE SAID RECORD, AND A COPY
OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE ORDERS ENTERED THEREON:
...  ."  49 STAT. 883, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 43-705. 

WE TREAT THE COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATION OF ITS FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS, EXPRESSED IN ITS STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 19, 1949, AS
MEETING THE ABOVE REQUIREMENT.  81 P.U.R. (N.S.)  122, 124-126. 

FN6  A COMPARABLE SURVEY, MADE APRIL 1-7, 1949, UNDER THE SAME
DIRECTION, PRODUCED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RESULT.  THE WEIGHT TO BE
ATTACHED TO THESE SURVEYS WAS A PROPER MATTER FOR DETERMINATION BY THE
COMMISSION. 

THE COMMISSION INVITED VIEWS AS TO THE RADIO SERVICE TO BE GIVEN TO
IT FREELY, EITHER THROUGH SWORN TESTIMONY OR OTHERWISE.  MANY CITIZENS'
ASSOCIATIONS APPEARED OR FILED RESOLUTIONS FAVORING OR OPPOSING THE
RADIO SERVICE.  A LARGE MAJORITY FAVORED THE SERVICE. 

THAT THE COMMISSION GAVE CONSIDERATION TO THE INTENSITY AND NATURE OF
THE INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIONS RAISED APPEARS FROM THE FOLLOWING: 

"IN GENERAL, THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ATTENDED THE
HEARINGS TO RADIOS IN TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES WERE BASED UPON THE
FOLLOWING REASONS, AMONG OTHERS: 

"IT INTERFERED WITH THEIR THINKING, READING, OR CHATTING WITH THEIR
COMPANIONS; IT WOULD LEAD TO THOUGHT CONTROL; THE NOISE WAS UNBEARABLE;
THE COMMERCIALS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND TIME SIGNALS WERE ANNOYING; THE
MUSIC WAS OF THE POOREST CLASS; THE PRACTICE DEPRIVED THEM OF THEIR
RIGHT TO LISTEN OR NOT TO LISTEN; THEY WERE BEING DEPRIVED OF THEIR
PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS; THEIR HEALTH WAS BEING IMPAIRED;
THE SAFETY OF OPERATION WAS THREATENED BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT OF RADIOS
UPON THE OPERATORS OF THE VEHICLES."  81 P.U.R. (N.S.), AT 124. 

FN7                "AMENDMENT (I.) 

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...  ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
...  . 

     *     *         *         *         *

       "AMENDMENT (V.) 

"NO PERSON SHALL  ...  BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY,
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ...  ." 

FN8  "WHEN AUTHORITY DERIVES IN PART FROM GOVERNMENT'S THUMB ON THE
SCALES, THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER BY PRIVATE PERSONS BECOMES CLOSELY
AKIN, IN SOME RESPECTS, TO ITS EXERCISE BY GOVERNMENT ITSELF." 
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 401.  CF. SMITH
V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649; AND SEE OLCOTT V. THE SUPERVISORS, 16
WALL.  678, 695-696. 

FN9 SEE GENERALLY, SHIPLEY, SOME CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF TRANSIT
RADIO, 11 F.C. BAR J. 150. 

THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1064 ET SEQ., AS AMENDED, 47
U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AS IMPOSING UPON EACH LICENSEE THE DUTY OF
FAIR PRESENTATION OF NEWS AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.  F.C.C. REPORT ON
EDITORIALIZING BY LICENSEES, 1 PIKE & FISCHER RADIO REGULATION 91:201
(1949). 

FN10  THE INTEREST OF SOME UNWILLING LISTENERS WAS THERE HELD TO
JUSTIFY SOME LIMITATION ON THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS TO AMPLIFY THEIR
SPEECH.  THE DECISION, HOWEVER, DID NOT INDICATE THAT IT WOULD VIOLATE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PRIVACY OR DUE PROCESS FOR THE CITY TO
AUTHORIZE SOME USE OF SOUND TRUCKS AND AMPLIFIERS IN PUBLIC PLACES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, FOR REASONS STATED BY HIM, TOOK NO PART IN
THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK. 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT THIS RECORD SHOWS NO VIOLATION
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  I ALSO AGREE THAT
CAPITAL TRANSIT'S MUSICAL PROGRAMS HAVE NOT VIOLATED THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  I AM OF THE OPINION, HOWEVER, THAT SUBJECTING CAPITAL
TRANSIT'S PASSENGERS TO THE BROADCASTING OF NEWS, PUBLIC SPEECHES,
VIEWS, OR PROPAGANDA OF ANY KIND AND BY ANY MEANS WOULD VIOLATE THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  TO THE EXTENT, IF ANY, THAT THE COURT HOLDS THE
CONTRARY, I DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

THE JUDICIAL PROCESS DEMANDS THAT A JUDGE MOVE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
OF RELEVANT LEGAL RULES AND THE COVENANTED MODES OF THOUGHT FOR
ASCERTAINING THEM.  HE MUST THINK DISPASSIONATELY AND SUBMERGE PRIVATE
FEELING ON EVERY ASPECT OF A CASE.  THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF SHALLOW
TALK THAT THE JUDICIAL ROBE DOES NOT CHANGE THE MAN WITHIN IT.  IT
DOES.  THE FACT IS THAT ON THE WHOLE JUDGES DO LAY ASIDE PRIVATE VIEWS
IN DISCHARGING THEIR JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS.  THIS IS ACHIEVED THROUGH
TRAINING, PROFESSIONAL HABITS, SELF-DISCIPLINE AND THAT FORTUNATE
ALCHEMY BY WHICH MEN ARE LOYAL TO THE OBLIGATION WITH WHICH THEY ARE
ENTRUSTED.  BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT REASON CANNOT CONTROL THE
SUBCONSCIOUS INFLUENCE OF FEELINGS OF WHICH IT IS UNAWARE.  WHEN THERE
IS GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT SUCH UNCONSCIOUS FEELINGS MAY OPERATE IN
THE ULTIMATE JUDGMENT, OR MAY NOT UNFAIRLY LEAD OTHERS TO BELIEVE THEY
ARE OPERATING, JUDGES RECUSE THEMSELVES.  THEY DO NOT SIT IN JUDGMENT. 
THEY DO THIS FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.  THE GUIDING CONSIDERATION IS
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE SHOULD REASONABLY APPEAR TO BE
DISINTERESTED AS WELL AS BE SO IN FACT.    THIS CASE FOR ME PRESENTS
SUCH A SITUATION.  MY FEELINGS ARE SO STRONGLY ENGAGED AS A VICTIM OF
THE PRACTICE IN CONTROVERSY THAT I HAD BETTER NOT PARTICIPATE IN
JUDICIAL JUDGMENT UPON IT.  I AM EXPLICIT AS TO THE REASON FOR MY NON
PARTICIPATION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE I HAVE FOR SOME TIME BEEN OF THE
VIEW THAT IT IS DESIRABLE TO STATE WHY ONE TAKES HIMSELF OUT OF A
CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

THIS IS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.  THERE ARE NO PRECEDENTS TO
CONSTRUE; NO PRINCIPLES PREVIOUSLY EXPOUNDED TO APPLY.  WE WRITE ON A
CLEAN SLATE. 

THE CASE COMES DOWN TO THE MEANING OF "LIBERTY" AS USED IN THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  LIBERTY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE MUST MEAN MORE THAN
FREEDOM FROM UNLAWFUL GOVERNMENTAL RESTRAINT; IT MUST INCLUDE PRIVACY
AS WELL, IF IT IS TO BE A REPOSITORY OF FREEDOM.  THE RIGHT TO BE LET
ALONE IS INDEED THE BEGINNING OF ALL FREEDOM.  PART OF OUR CLAIM TO
PRIVACY IS IN THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.  IT GIVES THE GUARANTEE THAT A
MAN'S HOME IS HIS CASTLE BEYOND INVASION EITHER BY INQUISITIVE OR BY
OFFICIOUS PEOPLE.  A MAN LOSES THAT PRIVACY OF COURSE WHEN HE GOES UPON
THE STREETS OR ENTERS PUBLIC PLACES.  BUT EVEN IN HIS ACTIVITIES
OUTSIDE THE HOME HE HAS IMMUNITIES FROM CONTROLS BEARING ON PRIVACY. 
HE MAY NOT BE COMPELLED AGAINST HIS WILL TO ATTEND A RELIGIOUS SERVICE;
HE MAY NOT BE FORCED TO MAKE AN AFFIRMATION OR OBSERVE A RITUAL THAT
VIOLATES HIS SCRUPLES; HE MAY NOT BE MADE TO ACCEPT ONE RELIGIOUS,
POLITICAL, OR PHILOSOPHICAL CREED AS AGAINST ANOTHER.  FREEDOM OF
RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIVE
MORE THAN THE PRIVILEGE TO WORSHIP, TO WRITE, TO SPEAK AS ONE CHOOSES;
THEY GIVE FREEDOM NOT TO DO NOR TO ACT AS THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES.  THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IN ITS RESPECT FOR THE CONSCIENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
HONORS THE SANCTITY OF THOUGHT AND BELIEF.  TO THINK AS ONE CHOOSES, TO
BELIEVE WHAT ONE WISHES ARE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE. 

IF WE REMEMBERED THIS LESSON TAUGHT BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, I DO NOT
BELIEVE WE WOULD CONSTRUE "LIBERTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT AS NARROWLY AS THE COURT DOES.  THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES A
FORM OF COERCION TO MAKE PEOPLE LISTEN.  THE LISTENERS ARE OF COURSE IN
A PUBLIC PLACE; THEY ARE ON STREETCARS TRAVELING TO AND FROM HOME.  IN
ONE SENSE IT CAN BE SAID THAT THOSE WHO RIDE THE STREETCARS DO SO
VOLUNTARILY.  YET IN A PRACTICAL SENSE THEY ARE FORCED TO RIDE, SINCE
THIS MODE OF TRANSPORTATION IS TODAY ESSENTIAL FOR MANY THOUSANDS. 
COMPULSION WHICH COMES FROM CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE AS REAL AS COMPULSION
WHICH COMES FROM A COMMAND. 

THE STREETCAR AUDIENCE IS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE.  IT IS THERE AS A
MATTER OF NECESSITY, NOT OF CHOICE.  ONE WHO IS IN A PUBLIC VEHICLE MAY
NOT OF COURSE COMPLAIN OF THE NOISE OF THE CROWD AND THE BABBLE OF
TONGUES.  ONE WHO ENTERS ANY PUBLIC PLACE SACRIFICES SOME OF HIS
PRIVACY.  MY PROTEST IS AGAINST THE INVASION OF HIS PRIVACY OVER AND
BEYOND THE RISKS OF TRAVEL. 

THE GOVERNMENT MAY USE THE RADIO (OR TELEVISION) ON PUBLIC VEHICLES
FOR MANY PURPOSES.  TODAY IT MAY USE IT FOR A CULTURAL END.  TOMORROW
IT MAY USE IT FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.  SO FAR AS THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
IS CONCERNED THE PURPOSE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.  THE MUSIC SELECTED BY
ONE BUREAUCRAT MAY BE AS OFFENSIVE TO SOME AS IT IS SOOTHING TO
OTHERS.  THE NEWS COMMENTATOR CHOSEN TO REPORT ON THE EVENTS OF THE DAY
MAY GIVE OVERTONES TO THE NEWS THAT PLEASE THE BUREAU HEAD BUT WHICH
RILE THE STREETCAR CAPTIVE AUDIENCE.  THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WHICH
ONE RADIO SPEAKER EXUDES MAY BE THOUGHT BY THE OFFICIAL WHO MAKES UP
THE STREETCAR PROGRAMS TO BE BEST FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE.  BUT
THE MAN WHO LISTENS TO IT ON HIS WAY TO WORK IN THE MORNING AND ON HIS
WAY HOME AT NIGHT MAY THINK IT MARKS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLIC. 

ONE WHO TUNES IN ON AN OFFENSIVE PROGRAM AT HOME CAN TURN IT OFF OR
TUNE IN ANOTHER STATION, AS HE WISHES.  ONE WHO HEARS DISQUIETING OR
UNPLEASANT PROGRAMS IN PUBLIC PLACES, SUCH AS RESTAURANTS, CAN GET UP
AND LEAVE.  BUT THE MAN ON THE STREETCAR HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO SIT AND
LISTEN, OR PERHAPS TO SIT AND TO TRY NOT TO LISTEN. 

WHEN WE FORCE PEOPLE TO LISTEN TO ANOTHER'S IDEAS, WE GIVE THE
PROPAGANDIST A POWERFUL WEAPON.  TODAY IT IS A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
WORKING OUT A RADIO PROGRAM UNDER THE AUSPICES OF GOVERNMENT.  TOMORROW
IT MAY BE A DOMINANT POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS GROUP.  TODAY THE PURPOSE
IS BENIGN; THERE IS NO INVIDIOUS CAST TO THE PROGRAMS.  BUT THE VICE IS
INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM.  ONCE PRIVACY IS INVADED, PRIVACY IS GONE. 
ONCE A MAN IS FORCED TO SUBMIT TO ONE TYPE OF RADIO PROGRAM, HE CAN BE
FORCED TO SUBMIT TO ANOTHER.  IT MAY BE BUT A SHORT STEP FROM A
CULTURAL PROGRAM TO A POLITICAL PROGRAM. 

IF LIBERTY IS TO FLOURISH, GOVERNMENT SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO
FORCE PEOPLE TO LISTEN TO ANY RADIO PROGRAM.  THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY
SHOULD INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO PICK AND CHOOSE FROM COMPETING
ENTERTAINMENTS, COMPETING PROPAGANDA, COMPETING POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHIES.  IF PEOPLE ARE LET ALONE IN THOSE CHOICES, THE RIGHT OF
PRIVACY WILL PAY DIVIDENDS IN CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY.  THE STRENGTY OF
OUR SYSTEM IS IN THE DIGNITY, THE RESOURCEFULNESS, AND THE INDEPENDENCE
OF OUR PEOPLE.  OUR CONFIDENCE IS IN THEIR ABILITY AS INDIVIDUALS TO
MAKE THE WISEST CHOICE.  THAT SYSTEM CANNOT FLOURISH IF REGIMENTATION
TAKES HOLD.  THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY, TODAY VIOLATED, IS A POWERFUL
DETERRENT TO ANY ONE WHO WOULD CONTROL MEN'S MINDS. 
..END :























FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. RUBEROID CO. 343 U.S. 470 


NO. 448.  ARGUED MARCH 31 AND APRIL 1, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 26, 1952 - 191
F.2D 294, AFFIRMED. 


A COMPANY WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ROOFING MATERIALS
WAS FOUND BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO HAVE DISCRIMINATED AMONG
CUSTOMERS IN THE PRICES CHARGED FOR ITS PRODUCTS.  THE COMMISSION HELD
THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS VIOLATED SEC. 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS
AMENDED, AND ORDERED THE COMPANY TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SELLING
"PRODUCTS OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY TO ANY PURCHASER AT PRICES LOWER
THAN THOSE GRANTED OTHER PURCHASERS WHO IN FACT COMPETE WITH THE
FAVORED PURCHASER IN THE RESALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH PRODUCTS." 
UPON THE COMPANY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,
BUT REFUSED AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT.  HELD: 

1.  CONGRESS HAS VESTED IN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION THE PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR FASHIONING ORDERS DEALING WITH CLAYTON ACT
VIOLATIONS, AND THE COURTS WILL NOT INTERFERE EXCEPT WHERE THE REMEDY
SELECTED HAS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES FOUND TO
EXIST.  P. 473. 

2.  ALTHOUGH IN THE COMPANY'S PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN COMPETING
PURCHASERS THE COMMISSION FOUND ONLY DIFFERENTIALS OF 5% OR MORE, THE
ORDER WAS NOT TOO BROAD IN PROHIBITING ALL PRICE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN
COMPETING PURCHASERS, IN VIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT EVEN
VERY SMALL DIFFERENCES IN PRICE WERE IMPORTANT FACTORS IN COMPETITION
AMONG THE COMPANY'S CUSTOMERS.  PP. 473-474. 

3.  ALTHOUGH THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS FOUND WERE IN SALES TO
RETAILERS AND APPLICATORS, NOT IN SALES TO WHOLESALERS, THE EXTENSION
OF THE ORDER TO "PURCHASERS WHO IN FACT COMPETE" WAS NOT UNREASONABLE,
IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMPANY'S CLASSIFICATION OF ITS
CUSTOMERS - AS WHOLESALERS, RETAILERS, AND APPLICATORS - DID NOT FOLLOW
REAL FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES.  PP. 474-475. 

4.  THE ORDER DOES NOT ENJOIN LAWFUL ACTS BY REASON OF THE
COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO EXCEPT FROM ITS PROHIBITIONS DIFFERENTIALS
PERMITTED BY THE TERMS OF THE ACT (MAKING ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN
COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE OR DELIVERY, OR MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN
EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR), SINCE THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE
NECESSARILY IMPLICIT IN EVERY ORDER ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE ACT. 
PP. 475-476. 

(A)  HOWEVER, IN CONTESTING ENFORCEMENT OR CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, THE
SELLER MAY PLEAD ONLY THOSE FACTS CONSTITUTING STATUTORY JUSTIFICATION
WHICH IT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT.  PP. 476
477. 

5.  THE COMMISSION IS NOT ENTITLED TO A DECREE DIRECTING ENFORCEMENT
OF AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING
THAT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER HAS OCCURRED OR IS IMMINENT.  PP. 477
480. 

(A)  THE PROVISION OF THE ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO APPLY FOR
ENFORCEMENT "IF SUCH PERSON FAILS OR NEGLECTS TO OBEY SUCH ORDER"
PRESCRIBES A PREREQUISITE TO THE COURT'S GRANTING ENFORCEMENT.  PP. 478
479. 

(B)  DISOBEDIENCE OR THREATENED DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER IS A
CONDITION TO THE GRANTING OF ENFORCEMENT, EVEN WHERE THE ORDER COMES
BEFORE THE COURT UPON PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE AFFECTED PARTY.  PP.
479-480. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. RUBEROID CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 504, RUBEROID CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

UPON A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION, 46 F.T.C. 379, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED AND
GRANTED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  189 F.2D 893.  ON REHEARING, IT
STRUCK FROM ITS DECISION THAT PART GRANTING ENFORCEMENT.  191 F.2D
294.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 917.  AFFIRMED, P. 480. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE GRANTED CROSS-PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE
DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING, BUT REFUSING TO ENFORCE, A
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO THE
RUBEROID CO. 

RUBEROID IS ONE OF THE NATION'S LARGEST MANUFACTURERS OF ASPHALT AND
ASBESTOS ROOFING MATERIALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS.  THE COMMISSION FOUND
THAT RUBEROID, IN A NUMBER OF SPECIFIC INSTANCES, HAD DISCRIMINATED
AMONG CUSTOMERS IN THE PRICES CHARGED THEM FOR ROOFING MATERIALS. 
FURTHER FINDING THAT THE EFFECT OF THOSE DISCRIMINATIONS "MAY BE
SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION IN THE LINE OF COMMERCE IN WHICH
THOSE CUSTOMERS ARE ENGAGED, AND TO INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT
COMPETITION BETWEEN THOSE CUSTOMERS," (FN1) THE COMMISSION HELD THAT
THE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  (FN2)  46 F.T.C. 379.  RUBEROID
WAS ORDERED TO:

"CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCRIMINATING IN PRICE: 

"BY SELLING SUCH PRODUCTS OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY TO ANY PURCHASER
AT PRICES LOWER THAN THOSE GRANTED OTHER PURCHASERS WHO IN FACT COMPETE
WITH THE FAVORED PURCHASER IN THE RESALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH
PRODUCTS."  (FN3) 

UPON RUBEROID'S PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED
AND GRANTED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  189 F.2D 893.  HOWEVER, ON
REHEARING, THE COURT OF APPEALS AMENDED ITS MANDATE TO STRIKE THAT PART
WHICH DIRECTED ENFORCEMENT.  191 F.2D 294.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
REVIEW QUESTIONS, IMPORTANT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT,
AS TO THE SCOPE AND ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ORDERS. 
342 U.S. 917. 

WE FIRST CONSIDER THE CONTENTIONS OF RUBEROID, WHICH ARE MAINLY
ATTACKS UPON THE BREADTH OF THE ORDER.  ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ARE NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT OR EXACT
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR PAST ACTS, BUT TO PREVENT ILLEGAL PRACTICES IN
THE FUTURE.  IN CARRYING OUT THIS FUNCTION THE COMMISSION IS NOT
LIMITED TO PROHIBITING THE ILLEGAL PRACTICE IN THE PRECISE FORM IN
WHICH IT IS FOUND TO HAVE EXISTED IN THE PAST.  IF THE COMMISSION IS TO
ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVES CONGRESS ENVISIONED, IT CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO
CONFINE ITS ROAD BLOCK TO THE NARROW LANE THE TRANSGRESSOR HAS
TRAVELED; IT MUST BE ALLOWED EFFECTIVELY TO CLOSE ALL ROADS TO THE
PROHIBITED GOAL, SO THAT ITS ORDER MAY NOT BE BY-PASSED WITH IMPUNITY. 
(FN4)  MOREOVER, "THE COMMISSION HAS WIDE DISCRETION IN ITS CHOICE OF A
REMEDY DEEMED ADEQUATE TO COPE WITH THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES" DISCLOSED. 
JACOB SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 327 U.S. 608, 611 (1946). 
CONGRESS PLACED THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR FASHIONING SUCH ORDERS
UPON THE COMMISSION, AND CONGRESS EXPECTED THE COMMISSION TO EXERCISE A
SPECIAL COMPETENCE IN FORMULATING REMEDIES TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS IN THE
GENERAL SPHERE OF COMPETITIVE PRACTICES.  (FN5)  THEREFORE WE HAVE SAID
THAT "THE COURTS WILL NOT INTERFERE EXCEPT WHERE THE REMEDY SELECTED
HAS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES FOUND TO EXIST." 
ID., AT 613. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PRINCIPLES, WE EXAMINE THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS
OF RUBEROID TO THE ORDER IN THIS CASE.  FIRST, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE
ORDER WENT TOO FAR IN PROHIBITING ALL PRICE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN
COMPETING PURCHASERS, ALTHOUGH ONLY DIFFERENTIALS OF 5% OR MORE WERE
FOUND.  BUT THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT VERY SMALL DIFFERENCES IN PRICE
WERE MATERIAL FACTORS IN COMPETITION AMONG RUBEROID'S CUSTOMERS, AND
RUBEROID OFFERED NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.  IN THIS STATE OF THE
RECORD THE COMMISSION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO LIMIT ITS PROHIBITION TO THE
SPECIFIC DIFFERENTIAL SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IN PAST VIOLATIONS OF
THE STATUTE.  (FN6)  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION THAT A LESSER
DISCRIMINATION MIGHT NOT AFFECT COMPETITION THERE WAS NO NEED TO AFFORD
AN ESCAPE CLAUSE THROUGH WHICH THE SELLER MIGHT FRUSTRATE THE WHOLE
PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER BY LIMITING FUTURE
DISCRIMINATION TO SOMETHING LESS THAN 5%.  (FN7) 

THE ROOFING MATERIAL CUSTOMERS OF RUBEROID MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS
WHOLESALERS, RETAILERS, AND ROOFING CONTRACTORS OR APPLICATORS.  (FN8)
THE DISCRIMINATIONS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION WERE IN SALES TO RETAILERS
AND APPLICATORS.  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO ESTABLISH DISCRIMINATION AMONG WHOLESALERS,
AS SUCH.  RUBEROID CONTENDS THAT THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIMILARLY
LIMITED TO SALES TO RETAILERS AND APPLICATORS.  BUT THERE WAS AMPLE
EVIDENCE THAT RUBEROID'S CLASSIFICATION OF ITS CUSTOMERS DID NOT FOLLOW
REAL FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES.  THUS SOME PURCHASERS WHICH RUBEROID
DESIGNATED AS "WHOLESALERS" AND TO WHICH RUBEROID ALLOWED EXTRA
DISCOUNTS IN FACT COMPETED WITH OTHER PURCHASERS AS APPLICATORS.  AND
THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT SOME PURCHASERS OPERATED AS BOTH WHOLESALERS
AND APPLICATORS.  SO FINDING, THE COMMISSION DISREGARDED THESE
AMBIGUOUS LABELS, WHICH MIGHT BE USED TO CLOAK DISCRIMINATORY DISCOUNTS
TO FAVORED CUSTOMERS, AND STATED ITS ORDER IN TERMS OF "PURCHASERS WHO
IN FACT COMPETE."  THUS STATED, WE THINK THE ORDER IS UNDERSTANDABLE,
REASONABLY RELATED TO THE FACTS SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE, AND WITHIN THE
BROAD DISCRETION WHICH THE COMMISSION POSSESSES IN DETERMINING
REMEDIES. 

FINALLY, RUBEROID COMPLAINS THAT THE ORDER ENJOINS LAWFUL ACTS BY
FAILING TO EXCEPT FROM ITS PROHIBITIONS DIFFERENTIALS WHICH MERELY MAKE
ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE OR DELIVERY, OR
WHICH ARE MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR.  DIFFERENCES IN PRICE SATISFYING EITHER OF THESE TESTS ARE
PERMITTED BY THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  (FN9) IT IS ARGUED THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS RADICALLY BROADENED ITS PROHIBITORY POWERS THROUGH
FAILURE TO INCLUDE THESE PROVISOS IN THE ORDER.  WE DO NOT THINK SO
BECAUSE WE THINK THE PROVISOS ARE NECESSARILY IMPLICIT IN EVERY ORDER
ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE ACT, JUST AS IF THE ORDER SET THEM
OUT IN EXTENSO.  ALTHOUGH PREVIOUS COMMISSION ORDERS HAVE INCLUDED
THESE PROVISOS, THEY GAINED NO FORCE BY THAT INCLUSION.  THEIR ABSENCE
CANNOT PRECLUDE THE SELLER FROM DIFFERENTIATING IN PRICE IN A NEW
COMPETITIVE SITUATION INVOLVING DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT CAN
JUSTIFY THE DISCRIMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISOS. 
NOR IS THE SELLER REQUIRED TO SEEK MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER EACH TIME,
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A COMPETITOR'S PRICE REDUCTION REQUIRES IT EITHER TO
LOWER ITS PRICE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET THE LOWER COMPETING PRICE OR TO
LOSE A FLEETING SALES OPPORTUNITY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE IMPLIED
INCLUSION OF THE PROVISOS IN THE ORDER DOES NOT SHIFT FROM THE SELLER
THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF JUSTIFICATION.  (FN10)  NEITHER DOES RECOGNITION
OF THE IMPLICIT AVAILABILITY OF THESE DEFENSES ALLOW THE SELLER TO
RELITIGATE ISSUES ALREADY SETTLED BY PRIOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION WHICH RESULTED IN AN ORDER THAT WAS AFFIRMED IN THE COURTS. 
IF QUESTIONS OF JUSTIFICATION, CLAIMED UPON THE BASIS OF FACTS RELATING
TO COSTS OR MEETING COMPETITION, HAVE ONCE BEEN FINALLY DECIDED AGAINST
THE SELLER, IT CANNOT AGAIN INTERPOSE THE SAME DEFENSE UPON
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR FACTS WHEN THE COMMISSION SEEKS TO SHOW THAT ITS
ORDER HAS BEEN VIOLATED.  (FN11)  THE SAME RESULT FOLLOWS WHERE THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE DEFENSE, ALTHOUGH NOT PRODUCED IN THE PREVIOUS
PROCEEDINGS, WAS THEN AVAILABLE TO THE SELLER.  IN SHORT, THE SELLER,
IN CONTESTING ENFORCEMENT OR CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, MAY PLEAD ONLY THOSE
FACTS CONSTITUTING STATUTORY JUSTIFICATION WHICH IT HAS NOT HAD A
PREVIOUS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE COMMISSION'S PETITION CONCERNS THE
LOWER COURT'S HOLDING, WITH ONE DISSENT, THAT THE COMMISSION COULD NOT
"OBTAIN A DECREE DIRECTING ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER THE
CLAYTON ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF SHOWING THAT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER HAS
OCCURRED OR IS IMMINENT."  (FN12)  THE PERTINENT PARTS OF THE ACT
PROVIDE: 

"IF SUCH PERSON (SUBJECT TO THE ORDER) FAILS OR NEGLECTS TO OBEY SUCH
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION  ...  WHILE THE SAME IS IN EFFECT, THE
COMMISSION  ...  MAY APPLY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
UNITED STATES  ...  FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER  ...  .  THE COURT
...  SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE AND ENTER  ...  A DECREE AFFIRMING,
MODIFYING, OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION  ...  . 

"ANY PARTY REQUIRED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE COMMISSION  ...  TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM A VIOLATION CHARGED MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER
IN SAID CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BY FILING IN THE COURT A WRITTEN
PETITION PRAYING THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION  ...  BE SET ASIDE
...  .  THE COURT SHALL HAVE THE SAME JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM, SET
ASIDE, OR MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION  ... AS IN THE CASE OF AN
APPLICATION BY THE COMMISSION  ...  FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER
...  . 

"THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED
STATES TO ENFORCE, SET ASIDE, OR MODIFY ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION  ...
SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE."  (FN13) 

THE COMMISSION ARGUES, FIRST, THAT THE PROVISION AUTHORIZING IT TO
APPLY FOR ENFORCEMENT "IF SUCH PERSON FAILS OR NEGLECTS TO OBEY SUCH
ORDER" IS MERELY "A CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT MAY GO INTO COURT TO SEEK ENFORCEMENT,"
WHICH DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A PREREQUISITE TO THE COURT'S GRANTING OF
ENFORCEMENT.  (FN14)  WE CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS ARGUMENT, WHICH
DISREGARDS THE UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND ITS CONSISTENT
INTERPRETATION OVER THE THIRTY-EIGHT-YEAR PERIOD OF ITS EXISTENCE. 
(FN15)  CONGRESS, IN 1938, AMENDED SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT, SO THAT THE REVIEWING COURT IS NOW PLAINLY
REQUIRED, UPON AFFIRMANCE, TO ENFORCE AN ORDER BASED UPON VIOLATION OF
THAT ACT.  (FN16)  THE COMMISSION HAS REPEATEDLY SOUGHT SIMILAR
AMENDMENT OF THE CLAYTON ACT PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  (FN17)
WE WILL NOT NOW ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULT BY REINTERPRETATION IN THE FACE
OF CONGRESS' FAILURE TO PASS THE BILLS THUS BROUGHT BEFORE IT.  (FN18)
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAYTON ACT BY THE COMMISSION MAY BE
HANDICAPPED BY THE PRESENT PROVISIONS, BUT THAT IS A QUESTION OF POLICY
FOR CONGRESS. 

ALTERNATIVELY, THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT, EVEN THOUGH DISOBEDIENCE
OF THE ORDER IS A CONDITION TO ENFORCEMENT UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE
COMMISSION, THERE IS NO SUCH CONDITION WHERE THE ORDER COMES BEFORE THE
COURT UPON PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE AFFECTED PARTY.  THIS ARGUMENT
BEGINS WITH THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE BETWEEN THE STATUTORY PARAGRAPHS
PROVIDING FOR REVIEW AT THE INSTANCE OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, BUT
CONSIDERATION OF THE SECTION AS A WHOLE CONVINCES US THAT THE MOST THAT
CAN BE SAID FOR THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE SECTION IS AMBIGUOUS.  WE
THINK THE STATUTORY PREREQUISITE TO ENFORCEMENT APPLIES WHEN THE
COMMISSION SEEKS ENFORCEMENT BY CROSS-PETITION AFTER REVIEW HAS BEEN
SET IN MOTION BY THE PARTY SUBJECT TO THE ORDER AS WELL AS WHEN THE
COMMISSION MAKES THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.  (FN19)  THERE IS NO REASON
WHY ONE WHO HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER, BUT WHO SEEKS TO HAVE IT
REVIEWED AND MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE, SHOULD BE PLACED IN A WORSE
POSITION THAN ONE WHO DOES NOT EXERCISE THAT RIGHT.  WE DOUBT THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED ITS REQUIREMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT TO DEPEND ENTIRELY
UPON WHICH PARTY GOES TO COURT FIRST.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  46 F.T.C. 379, 386. 

FN2  38 STAT. 730, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13. 

FN3  46 F.T.C. 379, 387. 

FN4  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 51-52
(1948); CF. INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392, 398
400 (1947). 

FN5  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CEMENT INSTITUTE, 333 U.S. 683, 726-727
(1948); 38 STAT. 722, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 47. 

FN6  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 51-52
(1948); CF. LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426, 436
437 (1941). 

FN7  "TRUE, THE COMMISSION DID NOT MERELY PROHIBIT FUTURE DISCOUNTS,
REBATES, AND ALLOWANCES IN THE EXACT MATHEMATICAL PERCENTAGES
PREVIOUSLY UTILIZED BY RESPONDENT.  HAD THE ORDER DONE NO MORE THAN
THAT, RESPONDENT COULD HAVE CONTINUED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME UNLAWFUL
PRACTICES DESPITE THE ORDER BY SIMPLY ALTERING THE DISCOUNT PERCENTAGES
AND THE QUANTITIES OF SALT TO WHICH THE PERCENTAGES APPLIED."  FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 52-53 (1948).  THE
DISCUSSION FOLLOWING THESE WORDS IN THE MORTON SALT CASE, OF CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF THE ORDER IN QUESTION THERE, MANIFESTLY AFFORDS NO SUPPORT
TO RUBEROID'S CONTENTION HERE.  ID., AT 53-54.    FN8  RUBEROID
SUGGESTS A FOURTH CATEGORY OF PURCHASERS - MANUFACTURERS - AND CONTENDS
THAT THE ORDER IS TOO BROAD IN THAT IT PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION IN
SALES TO THAT GROUP, E.G., IN SALES OF SHINGLES TO COMPETING
MANUFACTURERS OF PREFABRICATED HOUSES.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER
SUCH AN ORDER WOULD BE TOO BROAD BECAUSE WE DO NOT THINK THE ORDER HERE
APPLIES TO SUCH SALES.  BY ITS TERMS, THE ORDER COVERS ONLY SALES TO
THOSE COMPETITIVELY ENGAGED "IN THE RESALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH
PRODUCTS (I.E., 'ASBESTOS OR ASPHALT ROOFING MATERIALS')," AND NOT
SALES TO THOSE WHO USE ROOFING MATERIALS IN THE FABRICATION OF WHOLLY
NEW AND DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. 

FN9  "NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT DIFFERENTIALS WHICH MAKE
ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR
DELIVERY RESULTING FROM THE DIFFERING METHODS OR QUANTITIES IN WHICH
SUCH COMMODITIES ARE TO SUCH PURCHASERS SOLD OR DELIVERED  ...  ."  49
STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(A).  "NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL
PREVENT A SELLER REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING
THAT HIS LOWER PRICE  ...  WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY
LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR  ...  ."  49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
13(B), STANDARD OIL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 340 U.S. 231 (1951). 
RUBEROID DOES NOT COMPLAIN OF THE OMISSION FROM THE ORDER OF THE
STATUTORY PROVISOS RELATING TO THE SELLER'S RIGHT TO SELECT ITS OWN
CUSTOMERS AND TO PRICE CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO CHANGING CONDITIONS
AFFECTING THE MARKET FOR, OR THE MARKETABILITY OF, THE GOODS
CONCERNED.  HENCE WE DO NOT DEAL WITH THOSE DEFENSES HERE. 

FN10  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 44-45
(1948)(COST JUSTIFICATION); FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. A.E. STALEY MFG.
CO., 324 U.S. 746 (1945) (MEETING-COMPETITION JUSTIFICATION). 

FN11  WHERE THE COMMISSION SEEKS BOTH AFFIRMANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF
ITS ORDER IN ONE PROCEEDING, CONTENDING THAT THE SELLER HAS CONTINUED
IN ITS UNLAWFUL PRACTICES SINCE THE ORDER WAS ISSUED, THE COURT, IN
DECIDING WHETHER THE ORDER SHOULD BE AFFIRMED, WILL OF COURSE REVIEW
THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION IN THE ORDINARY MANNER.  BUT
QUESTIONS THUS SETTLED WILL NOT BE OPEN IN DECIDING WHETHER THE ORDER
HAS BEEN VIOLATED AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE ENFORCED. 

FN12  191 F.2D 294, 295. 

FN13  38 STAT. 735, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 21. 

FN14  BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IN NO. 448, P. 16. 

FN15  E.G., FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. WHITNEY & CO., 192 F.2D 746 (C.A.
9TH CIR. 1951); FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. STANDARD BRANDS, INC., 189 F.2D
510 (C.A. 2D CIR. 1951); FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. HERZOG, 150 F.2D 450
(C.A.2D CIR. 1945); FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BALTIMORE PAINT & COLOR
WORKS, 41 F.2D 474 (C.A. 4TH CIR. 1930); FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BALME,
23 F.2D 615 (C.A.2D CIR. 1928); FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. STANDARD
EDUCATION SOCIETY, 14 F.2D 947 (C.A. 7TH CIR. 1926).  THE LAST THREE
CASES CITED AROSE UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, BUT SINCE THE
CLAYTON ACT PROVISIONS INVOLVED HERE ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE
CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT PRIOR TO
1938, 38 STAT. 720, THE DECISIONS MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM. 

FN16  "TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS AFFIRMED,
THE COURT SHALL THEREUPON ISSUE ITS OWN ORDER COMMANDING OBEDIENCE TO
THE TERMS OF SUCH ORDER OF THE COMMISSION."  52 STAT. 113, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 45(C).  UNLESS THE PARTY SUBJECT TO AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT FILES A PETITION FOR
REVIEW WITHIN SIXTY DAYS, THE ORDER BECOMES FINAL AND ITS VIOLATION
PUNISHABLE.  52 STAT. 113-114, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45(G) AND (L). 

FN17  E.G., ANN. REP. F.T.C. (1951) 7-8; ANN. REP. F.T.C. (1948) 12;
ANN. REP. F.T.C. (1947) 13; ANN. REP. F.T.C. (1946) 12. 

FN18  E.G., H.R. 10176, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.; H.R. 3402, 81ST CONG.,
1ST SESS. 

FN19  ACCORD, E.G., FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. FAIRYFOOT PRODUCTS CO.,
94 F.2D 844 (C.A. 7TH CIR. 1938); BUTTERICK CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N, 4 F.2D 910 (C.A.2D CIR. 1925); L.B. SILVER CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N, 292 F. 752 (C.A. 6TH CIR. 1923). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT AND OPINION OF THE COURT,
EXCEPT THAT HE THINKS THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SHOULD EXPRESSLY EXCEPT
FROM ITS PROHIBITIONS DIFFERENTIALS WHICH MERELY MAKE ALLOWANCES FOR
DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR DELIVERY, OR WHICH ARE
MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, NOT HAVING HEARD THE ARGUMENT, OWING TO
ILLNESS, TOOK NO PART IN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS FROM THE DENIAL OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING IN NO. 504. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, IN JULY OF 1943, INSTITUTED BEFORE
ITSELF A PROCEEDING AGAINST PETITIONER ON A CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATING IN
PRICE BETWEEN CUSTOMERS IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (A) OF SEC. 2 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT AS AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, APPROVED JUNE 19,
1936, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(A). 

SEVERAL VIOLATIONS WERE PROVED AND ADMITTED TO HAVE OCCURRED IN
1941.  NO SERIOUS OPPOSITION WAS OFFERED TO AN ORDER TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS, BUT PETITIONER DID OBJECT TO BEING
ORDERED TO CEASE TYPES OF VIOLATIONS IT NEVER HAD BEGUN AND ASKED THAT
ANY ORDER INCLUDE A CLAUSE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT DID NOT FORBID THE
PRICE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN CUSTOMERS WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY ALLOWED BY
STATUTE. 

HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO INCLUDE SUCH A PROVISION AS
"UNNECESSARY TO ASSURE RESPONDENT (PETITIONER HERE) ITS FULL LEGAL
RIGHTS."  IT ALSO REJECTED THE SPECIFIC AND LIMITED ORDER RECOMMENDED
BY ITS EXAMINER AND SUBSTITUTED A SWEEPING GENERAL ORDER TO "CEASE AND
DESIST FROM DISCRIMINATING IN PRICE: BY SELLING SUCH PRODUCTS OF LIKE
GRADE AND QUALITY TO ANY PURCHASER AT PRICES LOWER THAN THOSE GRANTED
OTHER PURCHASERS WHO IN FACT COMPETE WITH THE FAVORED PURCHASER IN THE
RESALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH PRODUCTS."  IT WROTE NO OPINION AND GAVE
ONLY THE MOST CRYPTIC REASONS IN ITS FINDINGS.  (FN1) 

ON PROCEEDINGS FOR REVIEW, PETITIONER ATTACKED THIS ORDER FOR ITS
INDETERMINATENESS AND ITS PROHIBITION OF DIFFERENTIALS ALLOWED BY
STATUTE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, AFFIRMED, SAYING: 

"WE SYMPATHIZE WITH THE PETITIONER'S POSITION AND CAN REALIZE THE
DIFFICULTIES OF CONDUCTING BUSINESS UNDER SUCH GENERAL PROHIBITIONS. 
NEVERTHELESS WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE TROUBLE IS THE ACT
ITSELF, WHICH IS VAGUE AND GENERAL IN ITS WORDING AND WHICH CANNOT BE
TRANSLATED WITH ASSURANCE INTO ANY DETAILED SET OF GUIDING
YARDSTICKS."  (FN2) 

THIS APPRAISAL OF THE RESULT OF ALMOST TEN YEARS OF LITIGATION
EXPOSES A GRAVE DEFICIENCY EITHER IN THE ACT ITSELF OR IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BY WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPLIED.  ADMITTING THAT
THE STATUTE IS "VAGUE AND GENERAL IN ITS WORDING," IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
THAT A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER IMPLEMENTING IT SHOULD BE.  I THINK SUCH
AN OUTCOME OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.  WE WOULD
RECTIFY AND ADVANCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, WHICH HAS BECOME AN
INDISPENSABLE ADJUNCT TO MODERN GOVERNMENT, BY RETURNING THIS CASE TO
THE COMMISSION TO PERFORM ITS MOST USEFUL FUNCTION IN ADMINISTERING AN
ADMITTEDLY COMPLICATED ACT. 

IF THE COURT OF APPEALS WERE CORRECT, IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE
INTERCESSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BETWEEN THE CONGRESS AND THE
COURT DOES NOTHING EITHER TO DEFINE PETITIONER'S DUTIES AND LIABILITIES
OR TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS.  CONGRESS MIGHT AS WELL HAVE DECLARED, IN THESE
COMPREHENSIVE TERMS, A DUTY NOT TO DISCRIMINATE AND PROVIDED FOR
PROSECUTION OF VIOLATIONS IN THE COURTS.  THAT, OF COURSE, WOULD IMPOSE
ON THE COURTS THE TASK OF DETERMINING THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF
THE LAW TO THE FACTS.  BUT THAT IS JUST THE TASK THAT THIS ORDER
IMPOSES UPON THE COURTS IN EVENT OF A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  THE COURTS
HAVE DERIVED NO MORE DETAILED "GUIDING YARDSTICKS" FROM THE COMMISSION
THAN FROM CONGRESS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE ULTIMATE ENFORCEMENT IS
FURTHER CONFUSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, BECAUSE IT WINDS UP
WITH AN ORDER WHICH LITERALLY FORBIDS WHAT THE ACT EXPRESSLY ALLOWS AND
THUS ADDS TO THE DIFFICULTY OF EVENTUAL SANCTIONS SHOULD THEY BECOME
NECESSARY. 

IF THE UNSOUND RESULT HERE WERE AN ISOLATED EXAMPLE OF MALAISE IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEME, ITS TOLERANCE BY THE COURT WOULD BE LESS
TROUBLING, THOUGH NO LESS WRONG.  BUT I THINK ITS DECISION MAY
ENCOURAGE A DETERIORATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF WHICH THIS
CASE IS SYMPTOMATIC AND WHICH INVITES INVASION OF THE INDEPENDENT
AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE FIELD BY EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.  OTHER SYMPTOMS,
BETOKENING THE SAME BASIC CONFUSION, ARE THE NUMEROUS OCCASIONS WHEN
ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS ARE INADEQUATE FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW AND
RECENT INSTANCES IN WHICH PART OF THE GOVERNMENT APPEARS BEFORE US
FIGHTING ANOTHER PART - USUALLY A WHOLLY EXECUTIVE-CONTROLLED AGENCY
ATTACKING ONE OF THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES - THE
DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE (SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. UNITED STATES
ET AL., NO. 710, NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT) AND JUSTICE (UNITED STATES
V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 337 U.S. 426) AGAINST THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGAINST THE MARITIME
COMMISSION (FAR EAST CONFERENCE V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 570), THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AGAINST THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION (UNITED
STATES EX REL. CHAPMAN V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, NO. 658, NOW
PENDING IN THIS COURT, CERTIORARI GRANTED 343 U.S. 941).  ABSTRACT
PROPOSITIONS MAY NOT SOLVE CONCRETE CASES, BUT, WHEN BASIC CONFUSION IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR A PARTICULAR RESULT, RESORT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES WHICH DETERMINE THE POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
IN OUR SYSTEM MAY HELP TO ILLUMINATE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THAT RESULT. 

                         I. 

THE ACT, LIKE MANY REGULATORY MEASURES, SKETCHES A GENERAL OUTLINE
WHICH CONTEMPLATES ITS COMPLETION AND CLARIFICATION BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BEFORE COURT REVIEW OR ENFORCEMENT. 

THIS SECTION OF THE ACT ADMITTEDLY IS COMPLICATED AND VAGUE IN ITSELF
AND EVEN MORE SO IN ITS CONTEXT.  INDEED, THE COURT OF APPEALS SEEMS TO
HAVE THOUGHT IT ALMOST BEYOND UNDERSTANDING.  BY THE ACT, NOTHING IS
COMMANDED TO BE DONE OR OMITTED UNCONDITIONALLY, AND NO CONDUCT OR
OMISSION IS PER SE PUNISHABLE.  THE COMMERCIAL DISCRIMINATIONS WHICH IT
FORBIDS ARE THOSE ONLY WHICH MEET THREE STATUTORY CONDITIONS AND
SURVIVE THE TEST OF FIVE STATUTORY PROVISOS.  TO DETERMINE WHICH OF ITS
OVER-LAPPING AND CONFLICTING POLICIES SHALL GOVERN A PARTICULAR CASE
INVOLVES INQUIRY INTO GRADES AND QUALITIES OF GOODS, DISCRIMINATIONS
AND THEIR ECONOMIC EFFECTS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, COMPETITION BETWEEN
CUSTOMERS, THE ECONOMIC EFFECT OF PRICE DIFFERENTIALS TO LESSEN
COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY, ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN
COST OF MANUFACTURING, SALE OR DELIVERY AND GOOD FAITH IN MEETING OF
THE PRICE, SERVICES OR FACILITIES OF COMPETITORS. 

THIS ACT EXEMPLIFIES THE COMPLEXITY OF THE MODERN LAWMAKING TASK AND
A COMMON TECHNIQUE FOR REGULATORY LEGISLATION.  IT IS TYPICAL OF
INSTANCES WHERE THE CONGRESS CANNOT ITSELF MAKE EVERY CHOICE BETWEEN
POSSIBLE LINES OF POLICY.  IT MUST LEGISLATE IN GENERALITIES AND
DELEGATE THE FINAL DETAILED CHOICES TO SOME AUTHORITY WITH CONSIDERABLE
LATITUDE TO CONFORM ITS ORDERS TO ADMINISTRATIVE AS WELL AS LEGISLATIVE
POLICIES. 

THE LARGE IMPORTANCE THAT POLICY AND EXPERTISE WERE EXPECTED TO PLAY
IN REDUCING THIS ACT TO "GUIDING YARDSTICKS" IS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT
THAT AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE SECTION IS NOT CONFIDED TO A SINGLE BODY
FOR ALL INDUSTRIES BUT IS DISPERSED AMONG FOUR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
WHICH DEAL WITH SPECIAL TYPES OF COMMERCE BESIDES THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION.  (FN3) 

A SELLER MAY VIOLATE THIS SECTION OF THE ACT WITHOUT GUILTY KNOWLEDGE
OR INTENT AND MAY UNWITTINGLY SUBJECT HIMSELF TO A CEASE AND DESIST
ORDER.  BUT NEITHER VIOLATION OF THE ACT NOR OF THE ORDER WILL CALL FOR
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS; NEITHER IS EVEN ENFORCEABLE ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED
STATES BY INJUNCTION UNTIL AFTER AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING HAS
RESULTED IN A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND
AFFIRMED, IF REVIEW BE SOUGHT, BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  ONLY AN
ENFORCEMENT ORDER ISSUED FROM THE COURT CARRIES PUBLIC SANCTIONS, (FN4)
AND ITS VIOLATION IS PUNISHABLE AS A CONTEMPT. 

THUS CONGRESS, IN THIS ACT, HAS REFRAINED FROM IMPOSITION OF AN
UNCONDITIONAL DUTY DIRECTLY ENFORCEABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH CIVIL
OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN COURT, AS IT HAS IN THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST
ACT AND THE WILSON TARIFF ACT OF 1894.  (FN5)  IT HAS CAREFULLY KEPT
SUCH CASES AS THIS OUT OF THE COURTS AND HAS SHIELDED A VIOLATOR FROM
ANY PENALTY UNTIL THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HANDS DOWN A DEFINITIVE
ORDER.  THE DIFFERENCE IS ACCENTED BY ANOTHER SECTION OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT WHICH DOES MAKE PARTICIPATION BY ANY PERSON IN SPECIFIED
TRANSACTIONS WHICH DISCRIMINATE "TO HIS KNOWLEDGE" A CRIMINAL VIOLATION
JUDICIALLY PUNISHABLE.  (FN6) 

IT MAY HELP CLARIFY THE PROPER ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION IN SUCH CASES
TO THINK OF THE LEGISLATION AS UNFINISHED LAW WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE
BODY MUST COMPLETE BEFORE IT IS READY FOR APPLICATION.  (FN7)  IN A
VERY REAL SENSE THE LEGISLATION DOES NOT BRING TO A CLOSE THE MAKING OF
THE LAW.  THE CONGRESS IS NOT ABLE OR WILLING TO FINISH THE TASK OF
PRESCRIBING A POSITIVE AND PRECISE LEGAL RIGHT OR DUTY BY ELIMINATING
ALL FURTHER CHOICE BETWEEN POLICIES, EXPEDIENCES OR CONFLICTING GUIDES,
AND SO LEAVES THE ROUNDING OUT OF ITS COMMAND TO ANOTHER, SMALLER AND
SPECIALIZED AGENCY. 

IT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF SUCH LEGISLATION THAT IT DOES NOT UNDERTAKE
TO DECLARE AN END RESULT IN PARTICULAR CASES BUT RATHER UNDERTAKES TO
CONTROL THE PROCESSES IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S MIND BY WHICH HE SHALL
REACH RESULTS.  BECAUSE CONGRESS CANNOT PREDETERMINE THE WEIGHT AND
EFFECT OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ALL OF THE COMPETING
CONSIDERATIONS OR CONDITIONS WHICH SHOULD INFLUENCE DECISIONS
REGULATING MODERN BUSINESS, IT ATTEMPTS NO MORE THAN TO INDICATE
GENERALLY THE OUTSIDE LIMITS OF THE ULTIMATE RESULT AND TO SET OUT
MATTERS ABOUT WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST THINK WHEN HE IS DETERMINING
WHAT WITHIN THOSE CONFINES THE COMPULSION IN A PARTICULAR CASE IS TO
BE.    SUCH LEGISLATION DOES NOT CONFER ON ANY OF THE PARTIES IN
INTEREST THE RIGHT TO A PARTICULAR RESULT, NOR EVEN TO WHAT WE MIGHT
THINK OUGHT TO BE THE CORRECT ONE, BUT IT GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO A
PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THESE RIGHTS AND DUTIES.  MONTANA-DAKOTA
UTILITIES CO. V. NORTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 341 U.S. 246, 251;
PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194, 195.    SUCH
LEGISLATION REPRESENTS INCHOATE LAW IN THE SENSE THAT IT DOES NOT LAY
DOWN RULES WHICH CALL FOR IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE ON PAIN OF PUNISHMENT BY
JUDICIAL PROCESS.  THE INTERVENTION OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY MUST MATURE
AND PERFECT AN EFFECTIVE RULE OF CONDUCT BEFORE ONE IS SUBJECT TO
COERCION.  THE STATUTE, IN ORDER TO RULE ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE, REQUIRES
AN ADDITIONAL EXERCISE OF DISCRETION AND THAT LAST TOUCH OF SELECTION
WHICH NEITHER THE PRIMARY LEGISLATOR NOR THE REVIEWING COURT CAN
SUPPLY.  THE ONLY REASON FOR THE INTERVENTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY
IS TO EXERCISE A GRANT OF UNEXPENDED LEGISLATIVE POWER TO WEIGH WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE WANTS WEIGHED, TO REDUCE CONFLICTING ABSTRACT POLICIES
TO A CONCRETE NET REMAINDER OF DUTY OR RIGHT.  THEN, AND THEN ONLY, DO
WE HAVE A COMPLETED EXPRESSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE WILL, IN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WHICH WE MAY CALL A SORT OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION,
READY TO BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS. 

                                       II. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRESUPPOSES THAT IT WILL PERFORM THE FUNCTION OF COMPLETING UNFINISHED
LAW. 

THE RISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES PROBABLY HAS BEEN THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT LEGAL TREND OF THE LAST CENTURY AND PERHAPS MORE VALUES
TODAY ARE AFFECTED BY THEIR DECISIONS THAN BY THOSE OF ALL THE COURTS,
REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS APART.  THEY ALSO HAVE BEGUN TO HAVE
IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCES ON PERSONAL RIGHTS.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
SPECTOR, 343 U.S. 169.  THEY HAVE BECOME A VERITABLE FOURTH BRANCH OF
THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH HAS DERANGED OUR THREE-BRANCH LEGAL THEORIES MUCH
AS THE CONCEPT OF A FOURTH DIMENSION UNSETTLES OUR THREE-DIMENSIONAL
THINKING. 

COURTS HAVE DIFFERED IN ASSIGNING A PLACE TO THESE SEEMINGLY
NECESSARY BODIES IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
HAVE BEEN CALLED QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, QUASI-EXECUTIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL,
AS THE OCCASION REQUIRED, IN ORDER TO VALIDATE THEIR FUNCTIONS WITHIN
THE SEPARATION-OF-POWERS SCHEME OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE MERE RETREAT
TO THE QUALIFYING "QUASI" IS IMPLICIT WITH CONFESSION THAT ALL
RECOGNIZED CLASSIFICATIONS HAVE BROKEN DOWN, AND "QUASI" IS A SMOOTH
COVER WHICH WE DRAW OVER OUR CONFUSION AS WE MIGHT USE A COUNTERPANE TO
CONCEAL A DISORDERED BED. 

THE PERFECT EXAMPLE IS THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ITSELF.  BY THE
DOCTRINE THAT IT EXERCISES LEGISLATIVE DISCRETIONS AS TO POLICY IN
COMPLETING AND PERFECTING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, IT HAS ESCAPED
EXECUTIVE DOMINATION ON THE ONE HAND AND BEEN EXEMPTED IN LARGE MEASURE
FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW ON THE OTHER.  IF ALL IT HAS TO DO IS TO ORDER THE
LITERAL STATUTE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED, IT WOULD EXERCISE A FUNCTION
CONFIDED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE PRESIDENT AND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO HIS
CONTROL.  CF. MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52; U.S. CONST., ART.
II, SECS. 1, 3.  THIS COURT SAVED IT FROM EXECUTIVE DOMINATION ONLY BY
RECOURSE TO THE DOCTRINE THAT "IN ADMINISTERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE IN RESPECT OF 'UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION' - THAT IS TO SAY
IN FILLING IN AND ADMINISTERING THE DETAILS EMBODIED BY THAT GENERAL
STANDARD - THE COMMISSION ACTS IN PART QUASI-LEGISLATIVELY AND IN PART
QUASI-JUDICIALLY."  HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 602,
628. 

WHEN CONGRESS ENACTS A STATUTE THAT IS COMPLETE IN POLICY ASPECTS AND
READY TO BE EXECUTED AS LAW, CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THAT ENFORCEMENT
IS ONLY AN EXECUTIVE FUNCTION AND HAS YIELDED THAT DUTY TO WHOLLY
EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, EVEN THOUGH DETERMINATION OF FACT QUESTIONS WAS
NECESSARY.  (FN8) EXAMPLES OF THE CREATION OF SUCH RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS ARE PATENT, REVENUE AND CUSTOMS LAWS.  ONLY WHERE THE LAW
IS NOT YET CLEAR OF POLICY ELEMENTS AND THEREFORE NOT READY FOR MERE
EXECUTIVE ENFORCEMENT IS IT WITHDRAWN FROM THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND
CONFIDED TO INDEPENDENT TRIBUNALS.  IF THE TRIBUNAL TO WHICH SUCH
DISCRETION IS DELEGATED DOES NOTHING BUT PROMULGATE AS ITS OWN DECISION
THE GENERALITIES OF ITS STATUTORY CHARTER, THE RATIONALE FOR PLACING IT
BEYOND EXECUTIVE CONTROL IS GONE. 

          III. 

THE QUASI-LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION OF FILLING IN BLANK SPACES IN
REGULATORY LEGISLATION AND RECONCILING CONFLICTING POLICY STANDARDS
MUST NEITHER BE PASSED ON TO THE COURTS NOR ASSUMED BY THEM. 

THAT THE WORK OF A COMMISSION IN TRANSLATING AN ABSTRACT STATUTE INTO
A CONCRETE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER IN LARGE MEASURE ESCAPES JUDICIAL
REVIEW BECAUSE OF ITS LEGISLATIVE CHARACTER IS AN AXIOM OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, AS THE COURT'S DECISION HEREIN SHOWS.  IN
DELEGATING THE FUNCTION OF FILLING OUT THE LEGISLATIVE WILL IN
PARTICULAR CASES, CONGRESS MUST NOT LEAVE THE STATUTE TOO EMPTY OF
MEANING.  COURTS LOOK TO ITS STANDARDS TO SEE WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S
RESULT IS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TERMS OF REFERENCE, WHETHER THE
SECONDARY LEGISLATION PROPERLY DERIVES FROM THE PRIMARY LEGISLATION. 

THEN, TOO, WE LOOK TO ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS, NOT TO RECONSIDER
THEIR JUSTIFICATION, BUT TO LEARN WHETHER THE PARTIES HAVE HAD THE
PROCESS OF DETERMINATION TO WHICH THE STATUTE HAS ENTITLED THEM AND
WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS THOUGHT ABOUT - OR AT LEAST HAS WRITTEN
ABOUT - ALL FACTORS WHICH CONGRESS DIRECTED IT TO CONSIDER IN
TRANSLATING UNFINISHED LEGISLATION INTO A "DETAILED SET OF GUIDING
YARDSTICKS" THAT BECOMES LAW OF THE CASE FOR PARTIES AND COURTS. 
(FN9) 

HOWEVER, A DETERMINATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY, WITH "QUASI
LEGISLATIVE" DISCRETION IN ITS ARMORY, HAS A MUCH LARGER IMMUNITY FROM
JUDICIAL REVIEW THAN DOES A DETERMINATION BY A PURELY EXECUTIVE
AGENCY.  THE COURT, IN REVIEW OF A CASE UNDER THE TAX LAW OR THE PATENT
LAW, WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED AND POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS ARE SETTLED IN THE ACTS THEMSELVES, FOLLOWS THE SAME
MENTAL OPERATION AS THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER.  ON THE FACTS, THERE RESULTS
AN OBLIGATION TO PAY TAX, OR THERE IS A RIGHT TO A PATENT.  THE COURT
CAN DEDUCE THESE LEGAL RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS FROM THE STATUTE IN THE
SAME MANNER AS THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER.  HENCE, REVIEW OF SUCH EXECUTIVE
DECISIONS PROCEEDS WITH NO MORE DEFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
JUDGMENT THAN TO A DECISION OF A LOWER COURT. 

VERY DIFFERENT, HOWEVER, IS THE REVIEW OF THE "QUASI-LEGISLATIVE"
DECISION.  THERE THE RIGHT OR LIABILITY OF THE PARTIES IS NOT
DETERMINED BY MERE APPLICATION OF STATUTE TO THE FACTS.  THE RIGHT OR
OBLIGATION RESULTS NOT MERELY FROM THE ABSTRACT EXPRESSION OF THE WILL
OF CONGRESS IN THE STATUTE, BUT FROM THE COMMISSION'S COMPLETION AND
CONCRETIZATION OF THAT WILL IN ITS ORDER.  CF. MONTANA-DAKOTA CO. V.
NORTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE CO., SUPRA, 251; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V.
LABOR BOARD, SUPRA. 

ON REVIEW, THE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE CORRECT DETERMINATION
HAS BEEN REACHED.  SO FAR AS THE COURT IS CONCERNED, A WIDE RANGE OF
RESULTS MAY BE EQUALLY CORRECT.  IN REVIEW OF SUCH A DECISION, THE
COURT DOES NOT AT ALL FOLLOW THE SAME MENTAL PROCESSES AS THE
COMMISSION DID IN MAKING IT, FOR THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION EXCLUDES (IN
THEORY, AT LEAST) THE POLICY-MAKING OR LEGISLATIVE ELEMENT, WHICH
RIGHTFULLY INFLUENCES THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT BUT OVER WHICH JUDICIAL
POWER DOES NOT EXTEND.  SINCE IT IS DIFFICULT FOR A COURT TO DETERMINE
FROM THE RECORD WHERE QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POLICY MAKING HAS STOPPED AND
QUASI-JUDICIAL APPLICATION OF POLICY HAS BEGUN, THE ENTIRE PROCESS
ESCAPES VERY PENETRATING SCRUTINY.  CF. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V.
HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591. 

COURTS ARE NO BETTER EQUIPPED TO HANDLE POLICY QUESTIONS AND NO MORE
EMPOWERED TO EXERCISE LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION ON CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
THAN ON REVIEW PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS PLAIN THAT, IF THE SCHEME OF
REGULATING COMPLICATED ENTERPRISES THROUGH UNFINISHED LEGISLATION IS TO
BE JUST AND EFFECTIVE, WE MUST INSIST THAT THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BE
PERFORMED AND EXHAUSTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY BEFORE THE CASE IS
PASSED ON TO THE COURTS. 

             IV. 

THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR A MORE DEFINITIVE AND
CIRCUMSCRIBED ORDER. 

RETURNING TO THIS CASE, I CANNOT FIND THAT TEN YEARS OF LITIGATION
HAVE SERVED ANY USEFUL PURPOSE WHATEVER.  NO DOUBT IT IS
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONVENIENT TO BLANKET AN INDUSTRY UNDER A
COMPREHENSIVE PROHIBITION IN BULK - AN UNDISCRIMINATING PROHIBITION OF
DISCRIMINATION.  BUT THIS NOT ONLY FAILS TO GIVE THE PRECISION AND
CONCRETENESS OF LEGAL DUTIES TO THE ABSTRACT POLICIES OF THE ACT, IT
REALLY PROMULGATES AN INACCURATE PARTIAL PARAPHRASE OF ITS
INDETERMINATE GENERALITIES.  INSTEAD OF COMPLETING THE LEGISLATION BY
AN ORDER WHICH WILL CLARIFY THE PETITIONER'S DUTY, IT CONFOUNDS
CONFUSION BY LITERALLY ORDERING IT TO CEASE WHAT THE STATUTE PERMITS IT
TO DO. 

THIS COURT AND THE COURT BELOW DEFER SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS
INHERENT IN SUCH AN ORDER, ON THE THEORY THAT IF PETITIONER OFFENDS
AGAIN THERE MAY BE AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER, AND IF IT THEN OFFENDS AGAIN
THERE MAY BE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AND THAT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH FOR THE
COURT TO DECIDE WHAT THE ORDER AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THE ACT REALLY
MEANS.  WHILE I THINK THIS LESS THAN JUSTICE, I AM NOT GREATLY
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE COURT'S DECISION DOES TO THIS INDIVIDUAL
PETITIONER, FOR WHOM I FORESEE NO DANGER MORE SERIOUS THAN ENDLESS
LITIGATION.  BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IT DOES TO ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW. 

TO LEAVE DEFINITION OF THE DUTIES CREATED BY AN ORDER TO A CONTEMPT
PROCEEDING IS FOR THE COURTS TO END WHERE THEY SHOULD BEGIN. 
INJUNCTIONS ARE ISSUED TO BE OBEYED, EVEN WHEN JUSTIFICATION TO ISSUE
THEM MAY BE DEBATABLE.  UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S.
258, 289 ET SEQ., 307.  BUT IN THIS CASE ISSUES THAT SEEM FAR FROM
FRIVOLOUS AS TO WHAT IS FORBIDDEN ARE RESERVED FOR DETERMINATION WHEN
PUNISHMENT FOR DISOBEDIENCE IS SOUGHT.  THE COURT HOLDS THAT SOME
MODIFICATIONS ARE "IMPLICIT" IN THIS ORDER.  WHY SHOULD THEY NOT BE
MADE EXPLICIT?  WHY APPROVE AN ORDER WHOSE LITERAL TERMS WE KNOW GO
BEYOND THE AUTHORIZATION, ON THE THEORY THAT ITS EXCESSES MAY BE
RETRACTED IF EVER IT NEEDS ENFORCEMENT?  WHY INVITE JUDICIAL INDULGENCE
TOWARD VIOLATION BY FAILURE TO BE SPECIFIC, POSITIVE AND CONCRETE? 

IT DOES NOT IMPRESS ME AS LAWYERLY PRACTICE TO LEAVE TO A CONTEMPT
PROCEEDING THE CLARIFICATION OF THE RECIPROCAL EFFECTS OF THIS ACT AND
ORDER, AND DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF STATUTORY PROVISOS WHICH ARE
THEN TO BE READ INTO THE ORDER.  THE COURTS CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT
ASSUME THAT FUNCTION.  IT IS, BY OUR OWN DOCTRINE, A LEGISLATIVE OR
"QUASI-LEGISLATIVE" FUNCTION, AND THE COURTS CANNOT TAKE OVER THE
DISCRETIONARY FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION WHICH SHOULD ENTER INTO ITS
DETERMINATIONS.  PLAINLY THIS ORDER IS NOT IN SHAPE TO ENFORCE AND DOES
NOT BECOME SO BY THE COURT'S AFFIRMANCE. 

THIS PROCEEDING SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION WITH DIRECTIONS
TO MAKE ITS ORDER SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE, TO SPECIFY THE TYPES OF
DISCOUNT WHICH ARE FORBIDDEN AND RESERVE TO PETITIONER THE RIGHTS WHICH
THE STATUTE ALLOWS IT, UNLESS THEY ARE DEEMED LOST, FORFEITED OR
IMPAIRED BY THE VIOLATIONS, IN WHICH CASE ANY LIMITATION SHOULD BE SET
FORTH.  THE COMMISSION SHOULD, IN SHORT, IN THE LIGHT OF ITS OWN POLICY
AND THE RECORD, TRANSLATE THIS ACT INTO A "SET OF GUIDING YARDSTICKS,"
ADMITTEDLY NOW LACKING.  IF THAT CANNOT BE DONE, THERE SHOULD BE NO
JUDICIAL APPROVAL FOR AN ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT. 

IF THAT WERE DONE, I SHOULD BE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S
ARGUMENT THAT, ALONG WITH AFFIRMANCE, ENFORCEMENT MAY BE ORDERED.  I
SEE NO REAL SENSE, WHEN THE CASE IS ALREADY BEFORE THE COURT AND IS
APPROVED, IN REQUIRING ONE MORE VIOLATION BEFORE ITS OBEDIENCE WILL BE
MADE MANDATORY ON PAIN OF CONTEMPT.  BUT, AS THIS ORDER STANDS, I AM
NOT SURPRISED THAT ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE LEFT TO SOME LATER GENERATION
OF JUDGES. 

FN1  A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY HAS POINTED OUT THE EARLY FAILURE OF THIS
COMMISSION (AND IT APPLIES AS WELL TO OTHERS) TO CLARIFY AND DEVELOP
THE LAW AND THEREBY AVOID LITIGATION BY CAREFUL PUBLISHED OPINIONS. 
HENDERSON, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 334. 

FN2  RUBEROID CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 189 F.2D 893, 894. 

FN3  15 U.S.C. SEC. 21 VESTS ENFORCEMENT IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION WHERE APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN REGULATED COMMON CARRIERS; IN
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AS TO WIRE AND RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS; CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD AS TO AIR CARRIERS; FEDERAL
RESERVE BOARD AS TO BANKS, ETC., AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AS TO ALL
OTHER TYPES OF COMMERCE. 

FN4  15 U.S.C. SEC. 21. 

FN5  15 U.S.C. SECS. 1-4, 8, 9. 

FN6  15 U.S.C. SEC. 13A. 

FN7  FOR EMPHASIS AND APPRECIATION OF THIS CONCEPT OF AMERICAN
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND OF THE FUNCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AS WE HAVE EVOLVED IT, I AM INDEBTED TO AN UNPUBLISHED TREATISE BY DR.
ROBERT F. WEISSENSTEIN, WHOSE VIENNESE AND EUROPEAN BACKGROUND,
EDUCATION AND PRACTICE GAVE HIM A PERSPECTIVE ATTAINED WITH DIFFICULTY
BY US WHO ARE SO ACCUSTOMED TO OUR OWN PROCESS. 

LORD CHANCELLOR HERSCHELL HAS EMPLOYED A DIFFERENT BUT EFFECTIVE
FIGURE.  "THE TRUTH IS," SAID HE, "THE LEGISLATION IS A SKELETON PIECE
OF LEGISLATION LEFT TO BE FILLED UP IN ALL ITS SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL
PARTICULARS BY THE ACTION OF RULES TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD OF TRADE. 
...  IT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, HAVING EXPRESSED THE
GENERAL OBJECT, AND HAVING PROVIDED THE NECESSARY PENALTY, TO LEAVE THE
SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION, SO TO SPEAK, TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE BOARD OF
TRADE."  INSTITUTE OF PATENT AGENTS V. LOCKWOOD, (1894) A.C. 347, 356
357.    FOR AN EXCELLENT STUDY OF ENGLISH "DELEGATED LEGISLATION TODAY"
SEE WILLIS, PARLIAMENTARY POWERS OF ENGLISH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, C.
II, P. 47.  FOR THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS SYSTEM HAS BEEN USED IN
ENGLAND, SEE LORD MACMILLAN, LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW AND ADMINISTRATION IN
ENGLAND AND WALES, VOL. I, PREFACE.    FN8  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ., EXEMPLIFIES
THE CHOICE WHICH CONGRESS MUST MAKE BETWEEN ITSELF COMPLETING THE
LEGISLATION, AND DELEGATING THE COMPLETION TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY.  H.R. REP. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., SETS FORTH A SUMMARY
OF BOTH THE HOUSE BILL AND THE SENATE BILL.  THE SENATE BILL PROVIDED
FOR THE CREATION OF A LABOR STANDARDS BOARD COMPOSED OF FIVE MEMBERS,
WHICH WAS EMPOWERED TO DECLARE FROM TIME TO TIME, FOR SUCH OCCUPATIONS
AS ARE BROUGHT WITHIN THE BILL, MINIMUM WAGES "WHICH SHALL BE AS NEARLY
ADEQUATE AS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE WITHOUT CURTAILING OPPORTUNITY FOR
EMPLOYMENT, TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING NECESSARY FOR
HEALTH, EFFICIENCY, AND GENERAL WELL-BEING  ...  " BUT NOT IN EXCESS OF
40 CENTS PER HOUR.  ID., AT 15.  SIMILAR PROVISIONS EMPOWERED THE BOARD
TO DETERMINE MAXIMUM HOURS, PROVIDED THAT IN NO CASE SHOULD THE MAXIMUM
BE SET AT LESS THAN 40 HOURS.  ID., AT 16.  LIKEWISE, THE BOARD WAS
EMPOWERED TO REQUIRE THE ELIMINATION OF SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS. 
ID., AT 17. 

THE HOUSE BILL, ON THE OTHER HAND, ITSELF LAID DOWN THE MINIMUM WAGE
AND MAXIMUM HOUR REQUIREMENTS, ID., 22-23, AND GAVE TO THE SECRETARY OF
LABOR DISCRETION ONLY TO DETERMINE WHICH INDUSTRIES WERE WITHIN THE
TERMS OF THE LAW, PLUS THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
LAW.  ID., AT 23.  THE ACT AS ULTIMATELY ADOPTED FOLLOWED THE HOUSE
BILL; ALTHOUGH THERE WAS CREATED THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, THE ADMINISTRATOR
WAS GIVEN DISCRETION ONLY IN MINOR MATTERS RELATING TO THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL STANDARDS.  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 201 ET SEQ. 

THE ADMINISTRATION FAVORED THE PLAN OF DELEGATING LEGISLATIVE
DISCRETION TO AN INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATIVE BODY TO APPLY GENERAL
STANDARDS TO CONCRETE CASES.  SEE TESTIMONY OF SECRETARY OF LABOR
FRANCES PERKINS, JOINT HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR ON S. 2475 AND
H.R. 7200, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 178.  HOWEVER, THE ATTEMPT OF CONGRESS
ITSELF TO COMPLETE THIS COMPLEX LAW FOR ENFORCEMENT BY THE EXECUTIVE,
THROUGH THE COURTS, NOT ONLY FLOODED THE COURTS WITH LITIGATION, BUT
THE COURTS' INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT CONTRARY TO THE POLICY WHICH
CONGRESS THOUGHT IT HAD INDICATED HAD DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES.  61
STAT. 84, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 251 ET SEQ. 

FN9  IF THE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES COULD REALIZE HOW MUCH
TRUSTWORTHINESS JUDGES GIVE TO WORKMANLIKE FINDINGS AND OPINIONS AND
HOW THEIR CAUSES ARE PREJUDICED ON REVIEW BY SLIPSHOD, IMPRECISE
FINDINGS AND FAILURE TO ELUCIDATE BY OPINION THE PROCESS BY WHICH
ULTIMATE DETERMINATIONS HAVE BEEN REACHED, THEIR WORK AND THEIR SCORE
ON REVIEW WOULD DOUBTLESS IMPROVE.  SEE HENDERSON, THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, C. VI, P. 327.  SEE ALSO COMMISSION ON ORGANIZATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, TASK FORCE REPORT ON REGULATORY
COMMISSIONS (APP. N), PP. 129-130. 
..END :















JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. V. WILSON 343 U.S. 495 


NO. 522.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 26, 1952 - 303 N.Y. 242,
101 N.E.2D 665, REVERSED. 


PROVISIONS OF THE NEW YORK EDUCATION LAW WHICH FORBID THE COMMERCIAL
SHOWING OF ANY MOTION PICTURE FILM WITHOUT A LICENSE AND AUTHORIZE
DENIAL OF A LICENSE ON A CENSOR'S CONCLUSION THAT A FILM IS
"SACRILEGIOUS," HELD VOID AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
OF THE PRESS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 497-506. 

1.  EXPRESSION BY MEANS OF MOTION PICTURES IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE
FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS GUARANTY OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS.  PP. 499-502. 

(A)  IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT MOTION PICTURES ARE A SIGNIFICANT
MEDIUM FOR THE COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS.  THEIR IMPORTANCE AS AN ORGAN OF
PUBLIC OPINION IS NOT LESSENED BY THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DESIGNED TO
ENTERTAIN AS WELL AS TO INFORM.  P. 501. 

(B)  THAT THE PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF MOTION
PICTURES IS A LARGE-SCALE BUSINESS CONDUCTED FOR PRIVATE PROFIT DOES
NOT PREVENT MOTION PICTURES FROM BEING A FORM OF EXPRESSION WHOSE
LIBERTY IS SAFEGUARDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  PP. 501-502. 

(C)  EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT MOTION PICTURES POSSESS A GREATER
CAPACITY FOR EVIL, PARTICULARLY AMONG THE YOUTH OF A COMMUNITY, THAN
OTHER MODES OF EXPRESSION, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THEY ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR MAY BE SUBJECTED
TO SUBSTANTIALLY UNBRIDLED CENSORSHIP.  P. 502. 

(D)  TO THE EXTENT THAT LANGUAGE IN THE OPINION IN MUTUAL FILM CORP.
V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 236 U.S. 230, IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE VIEWS
HERE SET FORTH, IT IS NO LONGER ADHERED TO.  P. 502. 

2.  UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, A STATE MAY NOT PLACE
A PRIOR RESTRAINT ON THE SHOWING OF A MOTION PICTURE FILM ON THE BASIS
OF A CENSOR'S CONCLUSION THAT IT IS "SACRILEGIOUS."  PP. 502-506. 

(A)  THOUGH THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE ABSOLUTE FREEDOM TO
EXHIBIT EVERY MOTION PICTURE OF EVERY KIND AT ALL TIMES AND ALL PLACES,
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THIS CASE FOR MAKING AN EXCEPTION TO THE
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED BY THIS
COURT WITH RESPECT TO OTHER FORMS OF EXPRESSION.  PP. 502-503. 

(B)  SUCH A PRIOR RESTRAINT AS THAT INVOLVED HERE IS A FORM OF
INFRINGEMENT UPON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION TO BE ESPECIALLY CONDEMNED. 
NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697.  PP. 503-504. 

(C)  NEW YORK CANNOT VEST IN A CENSOR SUCH UNLIMITED RESTRAINING
CONTROL OVER MOTION PICTURES AS THAT INVOLVED IN THE BROAD REQUIREMENT
THAT THEY NOT BE "SACRILEGIOUS."  PP. 504-505. 

(D)  FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS, A STATE
HAS NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN PROTECTING ANY OR ALL RELIGIONS FROM
VIEWS DISTASTEFUL TO THEM WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY PRIOR
RESTRAINTS UPON THE EXPRESSION OF THOSE VIEWS.  P. 505. 

JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. V. WILSON, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF NEW YORK,
ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

THE NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SUSTAINED REVOCATION OF A LICENSE FOR
THE SHOWING OF A MOTION PICTURE UNDER SEC. 122 OF THE NEW YORK
EDUCATION LAW ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS "SACRILEGIOUS."  278 APP. DIV.
253, 104 N.Y.S.2D 740.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED.  303
N.Y. 242, 101 N.E.2D 665.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1257(2), REVERSED, P. 506. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE HERE IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY, UNDER THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, OF A NEW YORK STATUTE WHICH PERMITS THE BANNING
OF MOTION PICTURE FILMS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE "SACRILEGIOUS." 
THAT STATUTE MAKES IT UNLAWFUL "TO EXHIBIT, OR TO SELL, LEASE OR LEND
FOR EXHIBITION AT ANY PLACE OF AMUSEMENT FOR PAY OR IN CONNECTION WITH
ANY BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ANY MOTION PICTURE FILM OR REEL
(WITH SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS NOT RELEVANT HERE), UNLESS THERE IS AT THE
TIME IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT A VALID LICENSE OR PERMIT THEREFOR OF THE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  ...  ."  (FN1)  THE STATUTE FURTHER PROVIDES: 

"THE DIRECTOR OF THE MOTION PICTURE DIVISION OF THE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OR, WHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE REGENTS, THE OFFICERS OF A LOCAL
OFFICE OR BUREAU SHALL CAUSE TO BE PROMPTLY EXAMINED EVERY MOTION
PICTURE FILM SUBMITTED TO THEM AS HEREIN REQUIRED, AND UNLESS SUCH FILM
OR A PART THEREOF IS OBSCENE, INDECENT, IMMORAL, INHUMAN, SACRILEGIOUS,
OR IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT ITS EXHIBITION WOULD TEND TO CORRUPT
MORALS OR INCITE TO CRIME, SHALL ISSUE A LICENSE THEREFOR.  IF SUCH
DIRECTOR OR, WHEN SO AUTHORIZED, SUCH OFFICER SHALL NOT LICENSE ANY
FILM SUBMITTED, HE SHALL FURNISH TO THE APPLICANT THEREFOR A WRITTEN
REPORT OF THE REASONS FOR HIS REFUSAL AND A DESCRIPTION OF EACH
REJECTED PART OF A FILM NOT REJECTED IN TOTO."  (FN2) 

APPELLANT IS A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTING
MOTION PICTURES.  IT OWNS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO DISTRIBUTE THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES A FILM PRODUCED IN ITALY ENTITLED "THE MIRACLE."  ON
NOVEMBER 30, 1950, AFTER HAVING EXAMINED THE PICTURE, THE MOTION
PICTURE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ACTING UNDER THE
STATUTE QUOTED ABOVE, ISSUED TO APPELLANT A LICENSE AUTHORIZING
EXHIBITION OF "THE MIRACLE," WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLES, AS ONE PART OF A
TRILOGY CALLED "WAYS OF LOVE."  (FN3)  THEREAFTER, FOR A PERIOD OF
APPROXIMATELY EIGHT WEEKS, "WAYS OF LOVE" WAS EXHIBITED PUBLICLY IN A
MOTION PICTURE THEATER IN NEW YORK CITY UNDER AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
APPELLANT AND THE OWNER OF THE THEATER WHEREBY APPELLANT RECEIVED A
STATED PERCENTAGE OF THE ADMISSION PRICE. 

DURING THIS PERIOD, THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, WHICH BY
STATUTE IS MADE THE HEAD OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (FN4) RECEIVED
"HUNDREDS OF LETTERS, TELEGRAMS, POST CARDS, AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS" BOTH PROTESTING AGAINST AND DEFENDING THE PUBLIC
EXHIBITION OF "THE MIRACLE."  (FN5)  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE BOARD OF
REGENTS REQUESTED THREE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TO VIEW THE PICTURE AND TO
MAKE A REPORT TO THE ENTIRE BOARD.  AFTER VIEWING THE FILM, THIS
COMMITTEE REPORTED TO THE BOARD THAT IN ITS OPINION THERE WAS BASIS FOR
THE CLAIM THAT THE PICTURE WAS "SACRILEGIOUS."  THEREAFTER, ON JANUARY
19, 1951, THE REGENTS DIRECTED APPELLANT TO SHOW CAUSE, AT A HEARING TO
BE HELD ON JANUARY 30, WHY ITS LICENSE TO SHOW "THE MIRACLE" SHOULD NOT
BE RESCINDED ON THAT GROUND.  APPELLANT APPEARED AT THIS HEARING, WHICH
WAS CONDUCTED BY THE SAME THREE-MEMBER COMMITTEE OF THE REGENTS WHICH
HAD PREVIOUSLY VIEWED THE PICTURE, AND CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COMMITTEE AND OF THE REGENTS TO PROCEED WITH THE CASE.  WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE COMMITTEE, VARIOUS INTERESTED PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
SUBMITTED TO IT BRIEFS AND EXHIBITS BEARING UPON THE MERITS OF THE
PICTURE AND UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 
ON FEBRUARY 16, 1951, THE REGENTS, AFTER VIEWING "THE MIRACLE,"
DETERMINED THAT IT WAS "SACRILEGIOUS" AND FOR THAT REASON ORDERED THE
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION TO RESCIND APPELLANT'S LICENSE TO EXHIBIT THE
PICTURE.  THE COMMISSIONER DID SO. 

APPELLANT BROUGHT THE PRESENT ACTION IN THE NEW YORK COURTS TO REVIEW
THE DETERMINATION OF THE REGENTS.  (FN6)  AMONG THE CLAIMS ADVANCED BY
APPELLANT WERE (1) THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT UPON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS; (2) THAT
IT IS INVALID UNDER THE SAME AMENDMENT AS A VIOLATION OF THE GUARANTY
OF SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE AND AS A PROHIBITION OF THE FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION; AND, (3) THAT THE TERM "SACRILEGIOUS" IS SO VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE AS TO OFFEND DUE PROCESS.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION REJECTED
ALL OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS AND UPHELD THE REGENTS' DETERMINATION. 
278 APP. DIV. 253, 104 N.Y.S.2D 740.  ON APPEAL THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS, TWO JUDGES DISSENTING, AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE
DIVISION.  303 N.Y. 242, 101 N.E.2D 665.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL. 
28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

AS WE VIEW THE CASE, WE NEED CONSIDER ONLY APPELLANT'S CONTENTION
THAT THE NEW YORK STATUTE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABRIDGMENT OF FREE
SPEECH AND A FREE PRESS.  IN MUTUAL FILM CORP. V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N,
236 U.S. 230 (1915), A DISTRIBUTOR OF MOTION PICTURES SOUGHT TO ENJOIN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN OHIO STATUTE WHICH REQUIRED THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF
A BOARD OF CENSORS BEFORE ANY MOTION PICTURE COULD BE PUBLICLY
EXHIBITED IN THE STATE, AND WHICH DIRECTED THE BOARD TO APPROVE ONLY
SUCH FILMS AS IT ADJUDGED TO BE "OF A MORAL, EDUCATIONAL OR AMUSING AND
HARMLESS CHARACTER."  THE STATUTE WAS ASSAILED IN PART AS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS GUARANTEED BY
THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THIS
CONTENTION, STATING THAT THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS WERE NOT A
RESTRICTION ON STATE ACTION.  215 F.138, 141 (D.C.N.D. OHIO 1914).  ON
APPEAL TO THIS COURT, PLAINTIFF IN ITS BRIEF ABANDONED THIS CLAIM AND
CONTENDED MERELY THAT THE STATUTE IN QUESTION VIOLATED THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND PUBLICATION GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF OHIO.  IN
AFFIRMING THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
THIS COURT STATED: 

"IT CANNOT BE PUT OUT OF VIEW THAT THE EXHIBITION OF MOVING PICTURES
IS A BUSINESS PURE AND SIMPLE, ORIGINATED AND CONDUCTED FOR PROFIT,
LIKE OTHER SPECTACLES, NOT TO BE REGARDED, NOR INTENDED TO BE REGARDED
BY THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, WE THINK, AS PART OF THE PRESS OF THE COUNTRY
OR AS ORGANS OF PUBLIC OPINION."  (FN7) 

IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS BEGINNING WITH GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S.
652 (1925), THIS COURT HELD THAT THE LIBERTY OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS
WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS WITHIN THE LIBERTY SAFEGUARDED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM INVASION BY STATE ACTION.  (FN8)  THAT
PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND REAFFIRMED TO THE PRESENT DAY.  SINCE
THIS SERIES OF DECISIONS CAME AFTER THE MUTUAL DECISION, THE PRESENT
CASE IS THE FIRST TO PRESENT SQUARELY TO US THE QUESTION WHETHER MOTION
PICTURES ARE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROTECTION WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH, SECURES TO ANY FORM OF "SPEECH" OR "THE
PRESS."  (FN9) 

IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT MOTION PICTURES ARE A SIGNIFICANT MEDIUM
FOR THE COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS.  THEY MAY AFFECT PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND
BEHAVIOR IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, RANGING FROM DIRECT ESPOUSAL OF A
POLITICAL OR SOCIAL DOCTRINE TO THE SUBTLE SHAPING OF THOUGHT WHICH
CHARACTERIZES ALL ARTISTIC EXPRESSION.  (FN10)  THE IMPORTANCE OF
MOTION PICTURES AS AN ORGAN OF PUBLIC OPINION IS NOT LESSENED BY THE
FACT THAT THEY ARE DESIGNED TO ENTERTAIN AS WELL AS TO INFORM.  AS WAS
SAID IN WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948): 

"THE LINE BETWEEN THE INFORMING AND THE ENTERTAINING IS TOO ELUSIVE
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THAT BASIC RIGHT (A FREE PRESS).  EVERYONE IS
FAMILIAR WITH INSTANCES OF PROPAGANDA THROUGH FICTION.  WHAT IS ONE
MAN'S AMUSEMENT, TEACHES ANOTHER'S DOCTRINE." 

IT IS URGED THAT MOTION PICTURES DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT'S AEGIS BECAUSE THEIR PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND
EXHIBITION IS A LARGE-SCALE BUSINESS CONDUCTED FOR PRIVATE PROFIT.  WE
CANNOT AGREE.  THAT BOOKS, NEWSPAPERS, AND MAGAZINES ARE PUBLISHED AND
SOLD FOR PROFIT DOES NOT PREVENT THEM FROM BEING A FORM OF EXPRESSION
WHOSE LIBERTY IS SAFEGUARDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  (FN11)  WE FAIL
TO SEE WHY OPERATION FOR PROFIT SHOULD HAVE ANY DIFFERENT EFFECT IN THE
CASE OF MOTION PICTURES. 

IT IS FURTHER URGED THAT MOTION PICTURES POSSESS A GREATER CAPACITY
FOR EVIL, PARTICULARLY AMONG THE YOUTH OF A COMMUNITY, THAN OTHER MODES
OF EXPRESSION.  EVEN IF ONE WERE TO ACCEPT THIS HYPOTHESIS, IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT MOTION PICTURES SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTION.  IF THERE BE CAPACITY FOR EVIL IT MAY BE RELEVANT IN
DETERMINING THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF COMMUNITY CONTROL, BUT IT DOES NOT
AUTHORIZE SUBSTANTIALLY UNBRIDLED CENSORSHIP SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE. 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE CONCLUDE THAT EXPRESSION BY MEANS OF
MOTION PICTURES IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS
GUARANTY OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  TO THE EXTENT THAT
LANGUAGE IN THE OPINION IN MUTUAL FILM CORP. V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N,
SUPRA, IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE VIEWS HERE SET FORTH, WE NO LONGER
ADHERE TO IT.  (FN12) 

TO HOLD THAT LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION BY MEANS OF MOTION PICTURES IS
GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, HOWEVER, IS NOT THE
END OF OUR PROBLEM.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES
ABSOLUTE FREEDOM TO EXHIBIT EVERY MOTION PICTURE OF EVERY KIND AT ALL
TIMES AND ALL PLACES.  THAT MUCH IS EVIDENT FROM THE SERIES OF
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WITH RESPECT TO OTHER MEDIA OF COMMUNICATION OF
IDEAS.  (FN13)  NOR DOES IT FOLLOW THAT MOTION PICTURES ARE NECESSARILY
SUBJECT TO THE PRECISE RULES GOVERNING ANY OTHER PARTICULAR METHOD OF
EXPRESSION.  EACH METHOD TENDS TO PRESENT ITS OWN PECULIAR PROBLEMS. 
BUT THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS, LIKE THE
FIRST AMENDMENT'S COMMAND, DO NOT VARY.  THOSE PRINCIPLES, AS THEY HAVE
FREQUENTLY BEEN ENUNCIATED BY THIS COURT, MAKE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
THE RULE.  THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THIS CASE FOR MAKING AN
EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE. 

THE STATUTE INVOLVED HERE DOES NOT SEEK TO PUNISH, AS A PAST OFFENSE,
SPEECH OR WRITING FALLING WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF SUBSEQUENT
PUNISHMENT.  ON THE CONTRARY, NEW YORK REQUIRES THAT PERMISSION TO
COMMUNICATE IDEAS BE OBTAINED IN ADVANCE FROM STATE OFFICIALS WHO JUDGE
THE CONTENT OF THE WORDS AND PICTURES SOUGHT TO BE COMMUNICATED.  THIS
COURT RECOGNIZED MANY YEARS AGO THAT SUCH A PREVIOUS RESTRAINT IS A
FORM OF INFRINGEMENT UPON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION TO BE ESPECIALLY
CONDEMNED.  NEAR V. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).  THE
COURT THERE RECOUNTED THE HISTORY WHICH INDICATES THAT A MAJOR PURPOSE
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTY OF A FREE PRESS WAS TO PREVENT PRIOR
RESTRAINTS UPON PUBLICATION, ALTHOUGH IT WAS CAREFULLY POINTED OUT THAT
THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IS NOT LIMITED TO THAT PROTECTION.  (FN14)  IT
WAS FURTHER STATED THAT "THE PROTECTION EVEN AS TO PREVIOUS RESTRAINT
IS NOT ABSOLUTELY UNLIMITED.  BUT THE LIMITATION HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED
ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES."  ID., AT 716.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT'S HISTORY AND OF THE NEAR DECISION, THE STATE HAS A HEAVY
BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LIMITATION CHALLENGED HERE PRESENTS SUCH
AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE. 

NEW YORK'S HIGHEST COURT SAYS THERE IS "NOTHING MYSTERIOUS" ABOUT THE
STATUTORY PROVISION APPLIED IN THIS CASE:  "IT IS SIMPLY THIS:  THAT NO
RELIGION, AS THAT WORD IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE ORDINARY, REASONABLE
PERSON, SHALL BE TREATED WITH CONTEMPT, MOCKERY, SCORN AND RIDICULE
...  ."  (FN15) THIS IS FAR FROM THE KIND OF NARROW EXCEPTION TO
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WHICH A STATE MAY CARVE OUT TO SATISFY THE
ADVERSE DEMANDS OF OTHER INTERESTS OF SOCIETY.  (FN16)  IN SEEKING TO
APPLY THE BROAD AND ALL-INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF "SACRILEGIOUS" GIVEN BY
THE NEW YORK COURTS, THE CENSOR IS SET ADRIFT UPON A BOUNDLESS SEA AMID
A MYRIAD OF CONFLICTING CURRENTS OF RELIGIOUS VIEWS, WITH NO CHARTS BUT
THOSE PROVIDED BY THE MOST VOCAL AND POWERFUL ORTHODOXIES.  NEW YORK
CANNOT VEST SUCH UNLIMITED RESTRAINING CONTROL OVER MOTION PICTURES IN
A CENSOR.  CF. KUNZ V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 290 (1951).  (FN17)  UNDER
SUCH A STANDARD THE MOST CAREFUL AND TOLERANT CENSOR WOULD FIND IT
VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID FAVORING ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER, AND
HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN INEVITABLE TENDENCY TO BAN THE EXPRESSION OF
UNPOPULAR SENTIMENTS SACRED TO A RELIGIOUS MINORITY.  APPLICATION OF
THE "SACRILEGIOUS" TEST, IN THESE OR OTHER RESPECTS, MIGHT RAISE
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY OF SEPARATE
CHURCH AND STATE WITH FREEDOM OF WORSHIP FOR ALL.  (FN18) HOWEVER, FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS, IT IS ENOUGH TO
POINT OUT THAT THE STATE HAS NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN PROTECTING ANY
OR ALL RELIGIONS FROM VIEWS DISTASTEFUL TO THEM WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY PRIOR RESTRAINTS UPON THE EXPRESSION OF THOSE VIEWS.  IT IS NOT
THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT IN OUR NATION TO SUPPRESS REAL OR IMAGINED
ATTACKS UPON A PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, WHETHER THEY APPEAR IN
PUBLICATIONS, SPEECHES, OR MOTION PICTURES.  (FN19)    SINCE THE TERM
"SACRILEGIOUS" IS THE SOLE STANDARD UNDER ATTACK HERE, IT IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR US TO DECIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER A STATE MAY CENSOR
MOTION PICTURES UNDER A CLEARLY DRAWN STATUTE DESIGNED AND APPLIED TO
PREVENT THE SHOWING OF OBSCENE FILMS.  THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT
QUESTION FROM THE ONE NOW BEFORE US.  (FN20)  WE HOLD ONLY THAT UNDER
THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS A STATE MAY NOT BAN A FILM ON THE
BASIS OF A CENSOR'S CONCLUSION THAT IT IS "SACRILEGIOUS."  REVERSED. 
FN1  MCKINNEY'S N.Y. LAWS, 1947, EDUCATION LAW, SEC. 129. 

FN2  ID., SEC. 122. 

FN3  THE MOTION PICTURE DIVISION HAD PREVIOUSLY ISSUED A LICENSE FOR
EXHIBITION OF "THE MIRACLE" WITHOUT ENGLISH SUBTITLES, BUT THE FILM WAS
NEVER SHOWN UNDER THAT LICENSE. 

FN4  MCKINNEY'S N.Y. LAWS, 1947, EDUCATION LAW, SEC. 101; SEE ALSO
N.Y. CONST., ART. V, SEC. 4. 

FN5  STIPULATION BETWEEN APPELLANT AND APPELLEE, R. 86. 

FN6  THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 78 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL
PRACTICE ACT, GILBERT-BLISS N.Y. CIV. PRAC., VOL. 6B, 1944, 1949 SUPP.,
SEC. 1283 ET SEQ. SEE ALSO MCKINNEY'S N.Y. LAWS, 1947, EDUCATION LAW,
SEC. 124. 

FN7  236 U.S., AT 244. 

FN8  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925); STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368 (1931); NEAR V. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON,
283 U.S. 697, 707 (1931); GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233,
244 (1936); DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 364 (1937); LOVELL V.
GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 450 (1938); SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147,
160 (1939). 

FN9  SEE LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938). 

FN10  SEE INGLIS, FREEDOM OF THE MOVIES (1947), 20-24; KLAPPER, THE
EFFECT OF MASS MEDIA (1950), PASSIM; NOTE, MOTION PICTURES AND THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, 60 YALE L.J. 696, 704-708 (1951), AND SOURCES CITED
THEREIN. 

FN11  SEE GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); THOMAS
V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 531 (1945). 

FN12  SEE UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., 334 U.S. 131,
166 (1948):  "WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT MOVING PICTURES, LIKE NEWSPAPERS
AND RADIO, ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRESS WHOSE FREEDOM IS GUARANTEED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT."  IT IS NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE THAT TALKING PICTURES
WERE FIRST PRODUCED IN 1926, ELEVEN YEARS AFTER THE MUTUAL DECISION. 
HAMPTON, A HISTORY OF THE MOVIES (1931), 382-383. 

FN13  E.G., FEINER V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 315 (1951); KOVACS V.
COOPER, 336 U.S. 77 (1949); CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568
(1942); COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569 (1941). 

FN14  NEAR V. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, 283 U.S. 697, 713-719 (1931);
SEE ALSO LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 451-452 (1938); GROSJEAN V.
AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 245-250 (1936); PATTERSON V.
COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907). 

FN15  303 N.Y. 242, 258, 101 N.E.2D 665, 672.  AT ANOTHER POINT THE
COURT OF APPEALS GAVE "SACRILEGIOUS" THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION:  "THE
ACT OF VIOLATING OR PROFANING ANYTHING SACRED."  ID., AT 255, 101
N.E.2D AT 670.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO APPROVED THE APPELLATE
DIVISION'S INTERPRETATION:  "AS THE COURT BELOW SAID OF THE STATUTE IN
QUESTION, 'ALL IT PURPORTS TO DO IS TO BAR A VISUAL CARICATURE OF
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS HELD SACRED BY ONE SECT OR ANOTHER  ...  .'"  ID., AT
258, 101 N.E.2D AT 672.  JUDGE FULD, DISSENTING, CONCLUDED FROM ALL THE
STATEMENTS IN THE MAJORITY OPINION THAT "THE BASIC CRITERION APPEARS TO
BE WHETHER THE FILM TREATS A RELIGIOUS THEME IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO
OFFEND THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF ANY GROUP OF PERSONS.  IF THE FILM DOES
HAVE THAT EFFECT, AND IT IS 'OFFERED AS A FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT,' IT
APPARENTLY FALLS WITHIN THE STATUTORY BAN REGARDLESS OF THE SINCERITY
AND GOOD FAITH OF THE PRODUCER OF THE FILM, NO MATTER HOW TEMPERATE THE
TREATMENT OF THE THEME, AND NO MATTER HOW UNLIKELY A PUBLIC DISTURBANCE
OR BREACH OF THE PEACE.  THE DRASTIC NATURE OF SUCH A BAN IS
HIGHLIGHTED BY THE FACT THAT THE FILM IN QUESTION MAKES NO DIRECT
ATTACK ON, OR CRITICISM OF, ANY RELIGIOUS DOGMA OR PRINCIPLE, AND IT IS
NOT CLAIMED TO BE OBSCENE, SCURRILOUS, INTEMPERATE OR ABUSIVE."  ID.,
AT 271-272, 101 N.E.2D AT 680. 

FN16  CF. THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 97 (1940); STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 369-370 (1931). 

FN17  CF. NIEMOTKO V. MARYLAND, 340 U.S. 268 (1951); SAIA V. NEW
YORK, 334 U.S. 558 (1948); LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418 (1943);
LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444 (1938). 

FN18  SEE CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). 

FN19  SEE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, SPEAKING
FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 310
(1940): 

"IN THE REALM OF RELIGIOUS FAITH, AND IN THAT OF POLITICAL BELIEF,
SHARP DIFFERENCES ARISE.  IN BOTH FIELDS THE TENETS OF ONE MAN MAY SEEM
THE RANKEST ERROR TO HIS NEIGHBOR.  TO PERSUADE OTHERS TO HIS OWN POINT
OF VIEW, THE PLEADER, AS WE KNOW, AT TIMES, RESORTS TO EXAGGERATION, TO
VILIFICATION OF MEN WHO HAVE BEEN, OR ARE, PROMINENT IN CHURCH OR
STATE, AND EVEN TO FALSE STATEMENT.  BUT THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION HAVE
ORDAINED IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY, THAT, IN SPITE OF THE PROBABILITY OF
EXCESSES AND ABUSES, THE LIBERTIES ARE, IN THE LONG VIEW, ESSENTIAL TO
ENLIGHTENED OPINION AND RIGHT CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE CITIZENS OF A
DEMOCRACY. 

"THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THESE LIBERTIES IS, THAT UNDER THEIR
SHIELD MANY TYPES OF LIFE, CHARACTER, OPINION AND BELIEF CAN DEVELOP
UNMOLESTED AND UNOBSTRUCTED.  NOWHERE IS THIS SHIELD MORE NECESSARY
THAN IN OUR OWN COUNTRY FOR A PEOPLE COMPOSED OF MANY RACES AND OF MANY
CREEDS." 

FN20  IN THE NEAR CASE, THIS COURT STATED THAT "THE PRIMARY
REQUIREMENTS OF DECENCY MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS." 
283 U.S. 697, 716.  IN CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 571
572 (1942), MR. JUSTICE MURPHY STATED FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT: "THERE ARE
CERTAIN WELL-DEFINED AND NARROWLY LIMITED CLASSES OF SPEECH, THE
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO RAISE ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM.  THESE INCLUDE THE LEWD AND OBSCENE, THE
PROFANE, THE LIBELOUS, AND THE INSULTING OR 'FIGHTING' WORDS - THOSE
WHICH BY THEIR VERY UTTERANCE INFLICT INJURY OR TEND TO INCITE AN
IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE."  BUT SEE KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77,
82 (1949):  "WHEN ORDINANCES UNDERTAKE CENSORSHIP OF SPEECH OR
RELIGIOUS PRACTICES BEFORE PERMITTING THEIR EXERCISE, THE CONSTITUTION
FORBIDS THEIR ENFORCEMENT." 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

ASSUMING THAT A STATE MAY ESTABLISH A SYSTEM FOR THE LICENSING OF
MOTION PICTURES, AN ISSUE NOT FORECLOSED BY THE COURT'S OPINION, OUR
DUTY REQUIRES US TO EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE REFUSAL OF A LICENSE IN
EACH CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
HAVE BEEN HONORED.  THIS FILM DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO BE OF A CHARACTER
THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PERMITS A STATE TO EXCLUDE FROM PUBLIC VIEW. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, CONCURRING
IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT; MR. JUSTICE BURTON, HAVING CONCURRED IN
THE OPINION OF THE COURT, ALSO JOINS THIS OPINION. 

A PRACTISED HAND HAS THUS SUMMARIZED THE STORY OF "THE MIRACLE":
(FN1) 

"A POOR, SIMPLE-MINDED GIRL IS TENDING A HERD OF GOATS ON A
MOUNTAINSIDE ONE DAY, WHEN A BEARDED STRANGER PASSES.  SUDDENLY IT
STRIKES HER FANCY THAT HE IS ST. JOSEPH, HER FAVORITE SAINT, AND THAT
HE HAS COME TO TAKE HER TO HEAVEN, WHERE SHE WILL BE HAPPY AND FREE. 
WHILE SHE PLEADS WITH HIM TO TRANSPORT HER, THE STRANGER GENTLY PLIES
THE GIRL WITH WINE, AND WHEN SHE IS IN A STATE OF TUMULT, HE APPARENTLY
RAVISHES HER.  (THIS INCIDENT IN THE STORY IS ONLY BRIEFLY AND
DISCREETLY IMPLIED.) 

"THE GIRL AWAKENS LATER, FINDS THE STRANGER GONE, AND CLIMBS DOWN
FROM THE MOUNTAIN NOT KNOWING WHETHER HE WAS REAL OR A DREAM.  SHE
MEETS AN OLD PRIEST WHO TELLS HER THAT IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT SHE
DID SEE A SAINT, BUT A YOUNGER PRIEST SCOFFS AT THE NOTION. 
'MATERIALIST]'  THE OLD PRIEST SAYS. 

"THERE FOLLOWS NOW A BRIEF SEQUENCE - INTENDED TO BE SYMBOLIC,
OBVIOUSLY - IN WHICH THE GIRL IS REVERENTLY SITTING WITH OTHER
VILLAGERS IN CHURCH.  MOVED BY A WHIM OF APPETITE, SHE SNITCHES AN
APPLE FROM THE BASKET OF A WOMAN NEXT TO HER.  WHEN SHE LEAVES THE
CHURCH, A CACKLING BEGGAR TRIES TO MAKE HER SHARE THE APPLE WITH HIM,
BUT SHE CHASES HIM AWAY AS BY HABIT AND MUNCHES THE FRUIT CONTENTEDLY. 

"THEN, ONE DAY, WHILE TENDING THE VILLAGE YOUNGSTERS AS THEIR MOTHERS
WORK AT THE VINES, THE GIRL FAINTS AND THE WOMEN DISCOVER THAT SHE IS
GOING TO HAVE A CHILD.  FRIGHTENED AND BEWILDERED, SHE SUDDENLY
MURMURS, 'IT IS THE GRACE OF GOD]'  AND SHE RUNS TO THE CHURCH IN GREAT
EXCITEMENT, LOOKS FOR THE STATUE OF ST. JOSEPH, AND THEN PROSTRATES
HERSELF ON THE FLOOR. 

"THEREAFTER SHE MEEKLY REFUSES TO DO ANY MENIAL WORK AND THE
HOUSEWIVES HUMOR HER GENTLY BUT THE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT SO KIND.  IN A
SCENE OF BRUTAL TORMENT, THEY FIRST FLATTER AND LAUGHINGLY MOCK HER,
THEN THEY CRUELLY SHOVE AND HIT HER AND CLAMP A BASIN AS A HALO ON HER
HEAD.  EVEN ABUSED BY THE BEGGARS, THE POOR GIRL GATHERS TOGETHER HER
PITIFUL RAGS AND SADLY DEPARTS FROM THE VILLAGE TO LIVE ALONE IN A
CAVE. 

"WHEN SHE FEELS HER TIME COMING UPON HER, SHE STARTS BACK TOWARDS THE
VILLAGE.  BUT THEN SHE SEES THE CROWDS IN THE STREETS; DARK MEMORIES
HAUNT HER; SO SHE TURNS TOWARDS A CHURCH ON A HIGH HILL AND
INSTINCTIVELY STRUGGLES TOWARDS IT, CRYING DESPERATELY TO GOD.  A GOAT
IS HER SOLE COMPANION.  SHE DRINKS WATER DRIPPING FROM A ROCK.  AND
WHEN SHE COMES TO THE CHURCH AND FINDS THE DOOR LOCKED, THE GOAT
ATTRACTS HER TO A SMALL SIDE DOOR.  INSIDE THE CHURCH, THE POOR GIRL
BRACES HERSELF FOR HER LABOR PAINS.  THERE IS A DISSOLVE, AND WHEN WE
NEXT SEE HER SAD FACE, IN CLOSE-UP, IT IS FULL OF A TENDER LIGHT. 
THERE IS THE CRY OF AN UNSEEN BABY.  THE GIRL REACHES TOWARDS IT AND
MURMURS, 'MY SON]  MY LOVE]  MY FLESH]'" 

"THE MIRACLE" - A FILM LASTING FORTY MINUTES - WAS PRODUCED IN ITALY
BY ROBERTO ROSSELLINI.  ANNA MAGNANI PLAYED THE LEAD AS THE DEMENTED
GOAT-TENDER.  IT WAS FIRST SHOWN AT THE VENICE FILM FESTIVAL IN AUGUST,
1948, COMBINED WITH ANOTHER MOVING PICTURE, "L'UMANO VOCE," INTO A
DIPTYCH CALLED "AMORE."  ACCORDING TO AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF
THAT FESTIVAL, IF THE MOTION PICTURE HAD BEEN "BLASPHEMOUS" IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN BARRED BY THE FESTIVAL COMMITTEE.  IN A REVIEW OF THE FILM IN
L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, THE ORGAN OF THE VATICAN, ITS FILM CRITIC, PIERO
REGNOLI, WROTE:  "OPINIONS MAY VARY AND QUESTIONS MAY ARISE - EVEN
SERIOUS ONES - OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE (NOT TO BE DIMINISHED BY THE FACT
THAT THE WOMAN PORTRAYED IS MAD BECAUSE THE AUTHOR WHO ATTRIBUTED
MADNESS TO HER IS NOT MAD) ...  ."  (FN2)  WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
THERE WERE "PASSAGES OF UNDOUBTED CINEMATIC DISTINCTION," REGNOLI
CRITICIZED THE FILM AS BEING "ON SUCH A PRETENTIOUSLY CEREBRAL PLANE
THAT IT REMINDS ONE OF THE EARLY D'ANNUNZIO."  THE VATICAN NEWSPAPER'S
CRITIC CONCLUDED:  "WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN ROSSELLINI'S ART AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO HIS NEXT ACHIEVEMENT."  (FN3)  IN OCTOBER, 1948, A
MONTH AFTER THE ROME PREMIER OF "THE MIRACLE," THE VATICAN'S CENSORSHIP
AGENCY, THE CATHOLIC CINEMATOGRAPHIC CENTRE, DECLARED THAT THE PICTURE
"CONSTITUTES IN EFFECT AN ABOMINABLE PROFANATION FROM RELIGIOUS AND
MORAL VIEWPOINTS."  (FN4)  BY THE LATERAN AGREEMENTS AND THE ITALIAN
CONSTITUTION THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO BAR WHATEVER MAY OFFEND
THE CATHOLIC RELIGION.  HOWEVER, THE CATHOLIC CINEMATOGRAPHIC CENTRE
DID NOT INVOKE ANY GOVERNMENTAL SANCTION THEREBY AFFORDED.  THE ITALIAN
GOVERNMENT'S CENSORSHIP AGENCY GAVE "THE MIRACLE" THE REGULAR NULLA
OSTA CLEARANCE.  THE FILM WAS FREELY SHOWN THROUGHOUT ITALY, BUT WAS
NOT A GREAT SUCCESS.  (FN5)  ITALIAN MOVIE CRITICS DIVIDED IN OPINION. 
THE CRITIC FOR I1 POPOLO, SPEAKING FOR THE CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
THE CATHOLIC PARTY, PROFUSELY PRAISED THE PICTURE AS A "BEAUTIFUL
THING, HUMANLY FELT, ALIVE, TRUE AND WITHOUT RELIGIOUS PROFANATION AS
SOMEONE HAS SAID, BECAUSE IN OUR OPINION THE MEANING OF THE CHARACTERS
IS CLEAR AND THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF MISUNDERSTANDING."  (FN6)
REGNOLI AGAIN REVIEWED "THE MIRACLE" FOR L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO.  (FN7)
AFTER CRITICISING THE FILM FOR TECHNICAL FAULTS, HE FOUND "THE MOST
COURAGEOUS AND INTERESTING PASSAGE OF ROSSELLINI'S WORK" IN CONTRASTING
PORTRAYALS IN THE FILM; HE ADDED:  "UNFORTUNATELY, CONCERNING MORALS,
IT IS NECESSARY TO NOTE SOME SLIGHT DEFECTS."  HE OBJECTED TO ITS
"CARNALITY" AND TO THE REPRESENTATION OF ILLEGITIMATE MOTHERHOOD.  BUT
HE DID NOT SUGGEST THAT THE PICTURE WAS "SACRILEGIOUS."  THE TONE OF
REGNOLI'S CRITIQUE WAS ONE OF RESPECT FOR ROSSELLINI, "THE ILLUSTRIOUS
ITALIAN PRODUCER."  (FN8) 

ON MARCH 2, 1949, "THE MIRACLE" WAS LICENSED IN NEW YORK STATE FOR
SHOWING WITHOUT ENGLISH SUBTITLES.  (FN9)  HOWEVER, IT WAS NEVER
EXHIBITED UNTIL AFTER A SECOND LICENSE WAS ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 30, 1950,
FOR THE TRILOGY, "WAYS OF LOVE," COMBINING "THE MIRACLE" WITH TWO
FRENCH FILMS, JEAN RENOIR'S "A DAY IN THE COUNTRY" AND MARCEL PAGNOL'S
"JOFROI."  (FN10)  ALL HAD ENGLISH SUBTITLES.  BOTH LICENSES WERE
ISSUED IN THE USUAL COURSE AFTER VIEWINGS OF THE PICTURE BY THE MOTION
PICTURE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.  THE
DIVISION IS DIRECTED BY STATUTE TO "ISSUE A LICENSE" UNLESS THE FILM OR
A PART THEREOF IS OBSCENE, INDECENT, IMMORAL, INHUMAN, SACRILEGIOUS, OR
IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT ITS EXHIBITION WOULD TEND TO CORRUPT MORALS
OR INCITE TO CRIME."  N.Y. EDUCATION LAW, SEC. 122.  THE TRILOGY OPENED
ON DECEMBER 12, 1950, AT THE PARIS THEATRE ON 58TH STREET IN
MANHATTAN.  IT WAS PROMPTLY ATTACKED AS "A SACRILEGIOUS AND BLASPHEMOUS
MOCKERY OF CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS TRUTH" (FN11) BY THE NATIONAL LEGION OF
DECENCY, A PRIVATE CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION FOR FILM CENSORSHIP, WHOSE
OBJECTIVES HAVE INTERMITTENTLY BEEN APPROVED BY VARIOUS NON-CATHOLIC
CHURCH AND SOCIAL GROUPS SINCE ITS FORMATION IN 1933.  (FN12) HOWEVER,
THE NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEW (A NON-INDUSTRY LAY ORGANIZATION DEVOTED
TO RAISING THE LEVEL OF MOTION PICTURES BY MOBILIZING PUBLIC OPINION,
UNDER THE SLOGAN "SELECTION NOT CENSORSHIP") (FN13) RECOMMENDED THE
PICTURE AS "ESPECIALLY WORTH SEEING."  NEW YORK CRITICS ON THE WHOLE
PRAISED "THE MIRACLE"; THOSE WHO DISPRAISED DID NOT SUGGEST SACRILEGE. 
(FN14)  ON DECEMBER 27 THE CRITICS SELECTED THE "WAYS OF LOVE" AS THE
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM IN 1950.  (FN15)  MEANWHILE, ON DECEMBER 23,
EDWARD T. MCCAFFREY, COMMISSIONER OF LICENSES FOR NEW YORK CITY,
DECLARED THE FILM "OFFICIALLY AND PERSONALLY BLASPHEMOUS" AND ORDERED
IT WITHDRAWN AT THE RISK OF SUSPENSION OF THE LICENSE TO OPERATE THE
PARIS THEATRE.  (FN16)  A WEEK LATER THE PROGRAM WAS RESTORED AT THE
THEATRE UPON THE DECISION BY THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT THAT THE CITY
LICENSE COMMISSIONER HAD EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY IN THAT HE WAS WITHOUT
POWERS OF MOVIE CENSORSHIP.  (FN17) 

UPON THE FAILURE OF THE LICENSE COMMISSIONER'S EFFORT TO CUT OFF
SHOWINGS OF "THE MIRACLE," THE CONTROVERSY TOOK A NEW TURN.  ON SUNDAY,
JANUARY 7, 1951, A STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, FRANCIS CARDINAL
SPELLMAN, CONDEMNING THE PICTURE AND CALLING ON "ALL RIGHT THINKING
CITIZENS" TO UNITE TO TIGHTEN CENSORSHIP LAWS, WAS READ AT ALL MASSES
IN ST. PATRICK'S CATHEDRAL.  (FN18) 

THE VIEWS OF CARDINAL SPELLMAN AROUSED DISSENT AMONG OTHER DEVOUT
CHRISTIANS.  PROTESTANT CLERGYMEN, REPRESENTING VARIOUS DENOMINATIONS,
AFTER SEEING THE PICTURE, FOUND IN IT NOTHING "SACRILEGIOUS OR IMMORAL
TO THE VIEWS HELD BY CHRISTIAN MEN AND WOMEN," AND WITH A FEW
EXCEPTIONS AGREED THAT THE FILM WAS "UNQUESTIONABLY ONE OF UNUSUAL
ARTISTIC MERIT."  (FN19) 

IN THIS ESTIMATE SOME CATHOLIC LAYMEN CONCURRED.  (FN20)  THEIR
OPINION IS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMENT BY OTTO L. SPAETH, DIRECTOR OF
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF ARTS AND PROMINENT IN CATHOLIC LAY
ACTIVITIES: 

"AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE CONTROVERSY, I IMMEDIATELY ARRANGED FOR A
PRIVATE SHOWING OF THE FILM.  I INVITED A GROUP OF CATHOLICS, COMPETENT
AND RESPECTED FOR THEIR WRITINGS ON BOTH RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL
SUBJECTS.  THE ESSENTIAL APPROVAL OF THE FILM WAS UNANIMOUS. 

"THERE WAS INDEED 'BLASPHEMY' IN THE PICTURE - BUT IT WAS THE
BLASPHEMY OF THE VILLAGERS, WHO STOPPED AT NOTHING, NOT EVEN THE MOCK
SINGING OF A HYMN TO THE VIRGIN, IN THEIR BRUTAL BADGERING OF THE
TRAGIC WOMAN.  THE SCATHING INDICTMENT OF THEIR EVIL BEHAVIOR IMPLICIT
IN THE FILM, WAS SEEMINGLY OVERLOOKED BY ITS CRITICS."  (FN21) 

WILLIAM P. CLANCY, A TEACHER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, WROTE
IN THE COMMONWEAL, THE WELL-KNOWN CATHOLIC WEEKLY, THAT "THE FILM IS
NOT OBVIOUSLY BLASPHEMOUS OR OBSCENE, EITHER IN ITS INTENTION OR
EXECUTION."  (FN22)  THE COMMONWEAL ITSELF QUESTIONED THE WISDOM OF
TRANSFORMING CHURCH DOGMA WHICH CATHOLICS MAY OBEY AS "A FREE ACT" INTO
STATE-ENFORCED CENSORSHIP FOR ALL.  (FN23) ALLEN TATE, THE WELL-KNOWN
CATHOLIC POET AND CRITIC, WROTE:  "THE PICTURE SEEMS TO ME TO BE
SUPERIOR IN ACTING AND PHOTOGRAPHY BUT INFERIOR DRAMATICALLY  ...  .
IN THE LONG RUN WHAT CARDINAL SPELLMAN WILL HAVE SUCCEEDED IN DOING IS
INSULTING THE INTELLIGENCE AND FAITH OF AMERICAN CATHOLICS WITH THE
ASSUMPTION THAT A SECOND-RATE MOTION PICTURE COULD IN ANY WAY UNDERMINE
THEIR MORALS OR SHAKE THEIR FAITH."  (FN24) 

AT THE TIME "THE MIRACLE" WAS FILMED, ALL THE PERSONS HAVING
SIGNIFICANT POSITIONS IN THE PRODUCTION - PRODUCER, DIRECTOR, AND CAST
WERE CATHOLICS.  ROBERTO ROSSELLINI, WHO HAD VATICAN APPROVAL IN 1949
FOR FILMING A LIFE OF ST. FRANCIS, USING THE CAST MEMBERS OF THE
FRANCISCAN ORDER, CABLED CARDINAL SPELLMAN PROTESTING AGAINST BOYCOTT
OF "THE MIRACLE": 

"IN THE MIRACLE MEN ARE STILL WITHOUT PITY BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE
NOT COME BACK TO GOD, BUT GOD IS ALREADY PRESENT IN THE FAITH, HOWEVER
CONFUSED, OF THAT POOR, PERSECUTED WOMAN; AND SINCE GOD IS WHEREVER A
HUMAN BEING SUFFERS AND IS MISUNDERSTOOD, THE MIRACLE OCCURS WHEN AT
THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD THE POOR, DEMENTED WOMAN REGAINS SANITY IN HER
MATERNAL LOVE."  (FN25) 

IN VIEW OF THE CONTROVERSY THUS AROUSED BY THE PICTURE, THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS APPOINTED A COMMITTEE OF THREE BOARD MEMBERS TO
REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE MOTION PICTURE DIVISION IN GRANTING THE TWO
LICENSES.  AFTER VIEWING THE PICTURE ON JAN. 15, 1951, THE COMMITTEE
DECLARED IT "SACRILEGIOUS."  THE BOARD FOUR DAYS LATER ISSUED AN ORDER
TO THE LICENSEES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE LICENSES SHOULD NOT BE CANCELLED
IN THAT THE PICTURE WAS "SACRILEGIOUS."  THE BOARD OF REGENTS RESCINDED
THE LICENSES ON FEB. 16, 1951, SAYING THAT THE "MOCKERY OR PROFANING OF
THESE BELIEFS THAT ARE SACRED TO ANY PORTION OF OUR CITIZENSHIP IS
ABHORRENT TO THE LAWS OF THIS GREAT STATE."  ON REVIEW THE APPELLATE
DIVISION UPHELD THE BOARD OF REGENTS, HOLDING THAT THE BANNING OF ANY
MOTION PICTURE "THAT MAY FAIRLY BE DEEMED SACRILEGIOUS TO THE ADHERENTS
OF ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP  ...  IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO PUBLIC PEACE AND
ORDER" AND IS NOT A DENIAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AND THAT THERE WAS
"SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE REGENTS COULD ACT."  278 APP. DIV.
253, 257, 258, 260, 104 N.Y.S.2D 740, 743, 744-745, 747. 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ONE JUDGE CONCURRING IN A
SEPARATE OPINION AND TWO OTHERS DISSENTING, AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE
APPELLATE DIVISION.  303 N.Y. 242, 101 N.E.2D 665.  AFTER CONCLUDING
THAT THE BOARD OF REGENTS ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY AND THAT ITS
DETERMINATION WAS NOT "ONE THAT NO REASONABLE MIND COULD REACH," ID.,
AT 250-255, 256-257, 101 N.E.2D 665, 667-671, THE MAJORITY HELD, FIRST,
THAT "SACRILEGIOUS" WAS AN ADEQUATELY DEFINITE STANDARD, QUOTING A
DEFINITION FROM FUNK & WAGNALLS' DICTIONARY AND REFERRING TO OPINIONS
IN THIS COURT THAT IN PASSING USED THE TERM "PROFANE," WHICH THE NEW
YORK COURT SAID WAS A SYNONYM OF "SACRILEGIOUS"; SECOND, THAT THE
STATE'S ASSURANCE "THAT NO RELIGION  ...  SHALL BE TREATED WITH
CONTEMPT, MOCKERY, SCORN AND RIDICULE  ...  BY THOSE ENGAGED IN SELLING
ENTERTAINMENT BY WAY OF MOTION PICTURES" DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RELIGIOUS
GUARANTEE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT; AND THIRD, THAT MOTION PICTURES ARE
NOT ENTITLED TO THE IMMUNITIES FROM REGULATION ENJOYED BY THE PRESS, IN
VIEW OF THE DECISION IN MUTUAL FILM CORP. V. OHIO INDUSTRIAL COMM'N,
236 U.S. 230.  ID., AT 255-256, 258-260, 260-262, 101 N.E.2D 670-674. 
THE TWO DISSENTING JUDGES, AFTER DEALING WITH A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW NOT
REVIEWABLE HERE, FOUND THAT THE STANDARD "SACRILEGIOUS" IS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, AND, FINALLY, THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH APPLIED EQUALLY TO MOTION PICTURES AND
PREVENTED THIS CENSORSHIP.  303 N.Y. 242, 264, 101 N.E.2D 665, 675. 
BOTH STATE COURTS, AS DID THIS COURT, VIEWED "THE MIRACLE." 

ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES AND IN BRIEFS AMICI INVITE US TO PURSUE TO
THEIR FARTHEST REACH THE PROBLEMS IN WHICH THIS CASE IS INVOLVED. 
POSITIONS ARE ADVANCED SO ABSOLUTE AND ABSTRACT THAT IN ANY EVENT THEY
COULD NOT PROPERLY DETERMINE THIS CONTROVERSY.  SEE ASHWANDER V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 341, 346-348.  WE ARE ASKED
TO DECIDE THIS CASE BY CHOOSING BETWEEN TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
ALTERNATIVES:  THAT MOTION PICTURES MAY BE SUBJECTED TO UNRESTRICTED
CENSORSHIP, OR THAT THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO BE SHOWN UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES.  BUT ONLY THE TYRANNY OF ABSOLUTES WOULD RELY ON SUCH
ALTERNATIVES TO MEET THE PROBLEMS GENERATED BY THE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE
THE DIVERSE INTERESTS AFFECTED BY THE MOTION PICTURES IN COMPACT MODERN
COMMUNITIES.  IT WOULD STARTLE MADISON AND JEFFERSON AND GEORGE MASON,
COULD THEY ADJUST THEMSELVES TO OUR DAY, TO BE TOLD THAT THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH WHICH THEY ESPOUSED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AUTHORIZES A SHOWING
OF "THE MIRACLE" FROM WINDOWS FACING ST. PATRICK'S CATHEDRAL IN THE
FORENOON OF EASTER SUNDAY, (FN26) JUST AS IT WOULD STARTLE THEM TO BE
TOLD THAT ANY PICTURE, WHATEVER ITS THEME AND ITS EXPRESSION, COULD BE
BARRED FROM BEING COMMERCIALLY EXHIBITED.  THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF
FREE SPEECH, EXPRESSED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS TO ENCROACHMENTS BY
CONGRESS, AND INCLUDED AS IT IS IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BINDING ON
THE STATES, MUST BE PLACED IN ITS HISTORICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXTS.  THE
CONSTITUTION, WE CANNOT RECALL TOO OFTEN, IS AN ORGANISM, NOT MERELY A
LITERARY COMPOSITION. 

IF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAD GIVEN "SACRILEGIOUS" THE MEANING
IT HAS HAD IN CATHOLIC THOUGHT SINCE ST. THOMAS AQUINAS FORMULATED ITS
SCOPE, AND HAD SUSTAINED A FINDING BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS THAT "THE
MIRACLE" CAME WITHIN THAT SCOPE, THIS COURT WOULD HAVE TO MEET SOME OF
THE BROADER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE RELATION TO THE MOTION PICTURE
INDUSTRY OF THE GUARANTEES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT SO FAR AS REFLECTED
IN THE FOURTEENTH.  BUT THE NEW YORK COURT DID NOT CONFINE
"SACRILEGIOUS" WITHIN SUCH TECHNICAL, THOMIST LIMITS, NOR WITHIN ANY
SPECIFIC, OR EVEN APPROXIMATELY SPECIFIED, LIMITS.  IT MAY FAIRLY BE
SAID THAT THAT COURT DEEMED "SACRILEGIOUS" A SELF-DEFINING TERM, A WORD
THAT CARRIES A WELL-KNOWN, SETTLED MEANING IN THE COMMON SPEECH OF
MEN. 

SO FAR AS THE COURT OF APPEALS SOUGHT TO SUPPORT ITS NOTION THAT
"SACRILEGIOUS" HAS THE NECESSARY PRECISION OF MEANING WHICH THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE ENJOINS FOR STATUTES REGULATING MEN'S ACTIVITIES, IT
RELIED ON THIS DEFINITION FROM FUNK & WAGNALLS' DICTIONARY:  "THE ACT
OF VIOLATING OR PROFANING ANYTHING SACRED."  BUT THIS MERELY DEFINES BY
TURNING AN ADJECTIVE INTO A NOUN AND BRINGING IN TWO NEW WORDS EQUALLY
UNDEFINED.  IT LEAVES WIDE OPEN THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT PERSONS,
DOCTRINES OR THINGS ARE "SACRED."  IT SHEDS NO LIGHT ON WHAT
REPRESENTATIONS ON THE MOTION PICTURE SCREEN WILL CONSTITUTE
"PROFANING" THOSE THINGS WHICH THE STATE CENSORS FIND TO BE "SACRED." 

TO CRITICIZE OR ASSAIL RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE MAY WOUND TO THE QUICK
THOSE WHO ARE ATTACHED TO THE DOCTRINE AND PROFOUNDLY CHERISH IT.  BUT
TO BAR SUCH PICTORIAL DISCUSSION IS TO SUBJECT NON-CONFORMISTS TO THE
RULE OF SECTS. 

EVEN IN MUTUAL FILM CORP. V. OHIO INDUSTRIAL COMM'N 236 U.S. 230, IT
WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO FIND THAT THE TERMS "EDUCATIONAL, MORAL,
AMUSING OR HARMLESS" DO NOT LEAVE "DECISION TO ARBITRARY JUDGMENT." 
SUCH GENERAL WORDS WERE FOUND TO "GET PRECISION FROM THE SENSE AND
EXPERIENCE OF MEN."  ID., AT 245, 246.  THIS CANNOT BE SAID OF
"SACRILEGIOUS."  IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS
CONFLICTS SHOWS, IT IS THAT THE TERM "SACRILEGIOUS" - IF BY THAT IS
IMPLIED OFFENSE TO THE DEEP CONVICTIONS OF MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT SECTS,
WHICH IS WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SEEMS TO MEAN SO FAR AS IT MEANS
ANYTHING PRECISELY - DOES NOT GAIN "PRECISION FROM THE SENSE AND
EXPERIENCE OF MEN." 

THE VAST APPARATUS OF INDICES AND DIGESTS, WHICH MIRRORS OUR LAW,
AFFORDS NOT CLUE TO A JUDICIAL DEFINITION OF SACRILEGE.  NOT ONE CASE,
BARRING THE PRESENT, HAS BEEN UNCOVERED WHICH CONSIDERS THE MEANING OF
THE TERM IN ANY CONTEXT.  NOR HAS THE PRACTICE UNDER THE NEW YORK LAW
CONTRIBUTED LIGHT.  THE MOTION PICTURE DIVISION OF THE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT WITH EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS ITS ACTION ON
ANY SPECIFIC MOTION PICTURE, WHICH WE ARE ADVISED IS ITSELF NOT MADE
PUBLIC.  OF THE FIFTY-ODD REPORTED APPEALS TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS FROM
DENIALS OF LICENSES BY THE DIVISION, ONLY THREE CONCERN THE CATEGORY
"SACRILEGIOUS."  (FN27)  IN THESE CASES, AS IN OTHERS UNDER THE ACT,
THE BOARD'S REPORTED OPINION CONFINES ITSELF TO A BARE FINDING THAT THE
FILM WAS OR WAS NOT "SACRILEGIOUS," WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A DESCRIPTION OF
THE ALLEGEDLY OFFENSIVE MATTER, OR EVEN OF THE FILM AS A WHOLE TO
ENLIGHTEN THE INQUIRER.  WELL-EQUIPPED LAW LIBRARIES ARE NOT NIGGARDLY
IN THEIR REFLECTION OF "THE SENSE AND EXPERIENCE OF MEN," BUT WE MUST
SEARCH ELSEWHERE FOR ANY WHICH GIVES TO "SACRILEGE" ITS MEANING. 

SACRILEGE, (FN28) AS A RESTRICTED ECCLESIASTICAL CONCEPT, HAS A LONG
HISTORY.  NATURALLY ENOUGH, RELIGIONS HAVE SOUGHT TO PROTECT THEIR
PRIESTS AND ANOINTED SYMBOLS FROM PHYSICAL INJURY.  (FN29) BUT HISTORY
DEMONSTRATES THAT THE TERM IS HOPELESSLY VAGUE WHEN IT GOES BEYOND SUCH
ECCLESIASTICAL DEFINITENESS AND IS USED AT LARGE AS THE BASIS FOR
PUNISHING DEVIATION FROM DOCTRINE. 

ETYMOLOGICALLY "SACRILEGE" IS LIMITED TO CHURCH-ROBBING:  SACER,
SACRED, AND LEGERE, TO STEAL OR PICK OUT.  BUT WE ARE TOLD THAT
"ALREADY IN CICERO'S TIME IT HAD GROWN TO INCLUDE IN POPULAR SPEECH ANY
INSULT OR INJURY TO SACRED THINGS."  (FN30)  "IN PRIMITIVE RELIGIONS
SACRILEGE IS INCLUSIVE OF ALMOST EVERY SERIOUS OFFENCE EVEN IN FIELDS
NOW REGARDED AS MERELY SOCIAL OR POLITICAL  ...  ."  (FN31)  THE
CONCEPT OF "TABU" IN PRIMITIVE SOCIETY IS THUS CLOSE TO THAT OF
"SACRILEGE."  (FN32) AND IN "THE THEODOSIAN CODE THE VARIOUS CRIMES
WHICH ARE ACCOUNTED SACRILEGE INCLUDE - APOSTASY, HERESY, SCHISM,
JUDAISM, PAGANISM, ATTEMPTS AGAINST THE IMMUNITY OF CHURCHES AND CLERGY
OR PRIVILEGES OF CHURCH COURTS, THE DESECRATION OF SACRAMENTS, ETC.,
AND EVEN SUNDAY.  ALONG WITH THESE CRIMES AGAINST RELIGION WENT TREASON
TO THE EMPEROR, OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS, ESPECIALLY COUNTERFEITING,
DEFRAUDATION IN TAXES, SEIZURE OF CONFISCATED PROPERTY, EVIL CONDUCT OF
IMPERIAL OFFICERS, ETC."  (FN33)  DURING THE MIDDLE AGES THE CHURCH
CONSIDERABLY DELIMITED THE APPLICATION OF THE TERM.  ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
CLASSIFIED THE OBJECTS OF "SACRILEGE" AS PERSONS, PLACES, AND THING. 
(FN34)  THE INJURIES WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE "SACRILEGE" RECEIVED
SPECIFIC AND DETAILED ILLUSTRATION.  (FN35)  THIS TEACHING OF AQUINAS
IS, I BELIEVE, STILL SUBSTANTIALLY THE BASIS OF THE OFFICIAL CATHOLIC
DOCTRINE OF SACRILEGE.  THUS, FOR THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE TERM
CAME TO HAVE A FAIRLY DEFINITE MEANING, BUT ONE, IN GENERAL, LIMITED TO
PROTECTING THINGS PHYSICAL AGAINST INJURIOUS ACTS.  (FN36)  APOSTASY,
HERESY, AND BLASPHEMY COEXISTED AS RELIGIOUS CRIMES ALONGSIDE
SACRILEGE; THEY WERE PECULIARLY IN THE REALM OF RELIGIOUS DOGMA AND
DOCTRINE, AS "SACRILEGE" WAS NOT.  IT IS TRUE THAT SPELMAN, WRITING
"THE HISTORY AND FATE OF SACRILEGE" IN 1632, INCLUDED IN "SACRILEGE"
ACTS WHEREBY "THE VERY DEITY IS INVADED, PROFANED, OR ROBBED OF ITS
GLORY  ...  .  IN THIS HIGH SIN ARE BLASPHEMERS, SORCERERS, WITCHES,
AND ENCHANTERS."  (FN37)  BUT HIS MAIN THEME WAS THE "SPOIL OF CHURCH
LANDS DONE BY HENRY VIII" AND THE MISFORTUNES THAT SUBSEQUENTLY BEFELL
THE FAMILIES OF THE RECIPIENTS OF FORMER ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY AS
DIVINE PUNISHMENT.    TO THE EXTENT THAT ENGLISH LAW TOOK JURISDICTION
TO PUNISH "SACRILEGE," THE TERM MEANT THE STEALING FROM A CHURCH, OR
OTHERWISE DOING DAMAGE TO CHURCH PROPERTY.  (FN38)  THIS SPECIAL
PROTECTION AGAINST "SACRILEGE," THAT IS, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WAS GRANTED
ONLY TO THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.  (FN39)  SINCE THE REPEAL LESS THAN A
CENTURY AGO OF THE ENGLISH LAW PUNISHING "SACRILEGE" AGAINST THE
PROPERTY OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, RELIGIOUS PROPERTY HAS RECEIVED
LITTLE SPECIAL PROTECTION.  THE PROPERTY OF ALL SECTS HAS HAD
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME PROTECTION AS IS ACCORDED NON-RELIGIOUS
PROPERTY.  (FN40)  AT NO TIME UP TO THE PRESENT HAS ENGLISH LAW KNOWN
"SACRILEGE" TO BE USED IN ANY WIDER SENSE THAN THE PHYSICAL INJURY TO
CHURCH PROPERTY.  IT IS TRUE THAT, AT TIMES IN THE PAST, ENGLISH LAW
HAS TAKEN JURISDICTION TO PUNISH DEPARTURES FROM ACCEPTED DOGMA OR
RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OR THE EXPRESSION OF PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS,
BUT NEVER HAVE THESE "OFFENSES" BEEN DENOMINATED "SACRILEGE." 
APOSTASY, HERESY, OFFENSES AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH, BLASPHEMY,
PROFANATION OF THE LORD'S DAY, ETC., WERE DISTINCT CRIMINAL OFFENSES,
CHARACTERIZED BY BLACKSTONE AS "OFFENSES AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION." 
(FN41)  THESE INVIDIOUS REFLECTIONS UPON RELIGIOUS SUSCEPTIBILITIES
WERE NOT COVERED UNDER SACRILEGE AS THEY MIGHT BE UNDER THE COURT OF
APPEALS' OPINION.  ANYONE DOUBTING THE DANGEROUS UNCERTAINTY OF THE NEW
YORK DEFINITION, WHICH MAKES "SACRILEGE" OVERLAP THESE OTHER "OFFENSES
AGAINST RELIGION," NEED ONLY READ BLACKSTONE'S ACCOUNT OF THE BROAD AND
VARYING CONTENT GIVEN EACH OF THESE OFFENSES. 

A STUDENT OF ENGLISH LEXICOGRAPHY WOULD DESPAIR OF FINDING THE
MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO "SACRILEGE" BY THE NEW YORK COURT.  (FN42)  MOST
DICTIONARIES DEFINE THE CONCEPT IN THE LIMITED SENSE OF THE PHYSICAL
ABUSE OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS.  THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN FOR "SACRILEGE" BY
TWO DICTIONARIES PUBLISHED IN 1742 AND 1782 ARE TYPICAL.  BAILEY'S
DEFINED IT AS "THE STEALING OF SACRED THINGS, CHURCH ROBBING; AN
ALIENATION TO LAYMEN, AND TO PROFANE AND COMMON PURPOSES, OF WHAT WAS
GIVEN TO RELIGIOUS PERSONS, AND TO PIOUS USES."  (FN43)  BARCLAY'S SAID
IT IS "THE CRIME OF TAKING ANY THING DEDICATED TO DIVINE WORSHIP, OR
PROFANING ANY THING SACRED," WHERE "TO PROFANE" IS DEFINED "TO APPLY
ANY THING SACRED TO COMMON USES.  TO BE IRREVERENT TO SACRED PERSONS OR
THINGS."  (FN44)  THE SAME DICTIONARIES DEFINED "BLASPHEMY," A
PECULIARLY VERBAL OFFENSE, IN MUCH BROADER TERMS THAN "SACRILEGE,"
INDEED IN TERMS WHICH THE NEW YORK COURT FINDS ENCOMPASSED BY
"SACRILEGIOUS."  FOR EXAMPLE, BARCLAY SAID "BLASPHEMY" IS "AN OFFERING
SOME INDIGNITY TO GOD, ANY PERSON OF THE TRINITY, ANY MESSENGERS FROM
GOD, HIS HOLY WRIT, OR THE DOCTRINES OF RELEVATION."  (FN45)  IT IS
HARDLY NECESSARY TO COMMENT THAT THE LIMITS OF THIS DEFINITION REMAIN
TOO UNCERTAIN TO JUSTIFY CONSTRAINING THE CREATIVE EFFORTS OF THE
IMAGINATION BY FEAR OF PAINS AND PENALTIES IMPOSED BY A NECESSARILY
SUBJECTIVE CENSORSHIP.  IT IS TRUE THAT SOME EARLIER DICTIONARIES
ASSIGNED TO "SACRILEGE" THE BROADER MEANING OF "ABUSING SACRAMENTS OR
HOLY MYSTERIES," (FN46) BUT THE BROADER MEANING IS MORE INDEFINITE, NOT
LESS.  NOAH WEBSTER FIRST PUBLISHED HIS AMERICAN DICTIONARY IN 1828. 
BOTH IT AND THE LATER DICTIONARIES PUBLISHED BY THE MERRIAM COMPANY,
WEBSTER'S INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY AND WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY, HAVE GONE THROUGH DOZENS OF EDITIONS AND PRINTINGS,
REVISIONS AND EXPANSIONS.  IN ALL EDITIONS THROUGHOUT 125 YEARS, THESE
AMERICAN DICTIONARIES HAVE DEFINED "SACRILEGE" AND "SACRILEGIOUS" TO
ECHO SUBSTANTIALLY THE NARROW, TECHNICAL DEFINITIONS FROM THE EARLIER
BRITISH DICTIONARIES COLLECTED IN THE APPENDIX, POST, P. 533.  (FN47) 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS' STATEMENT THAT THE DICTIONARY
"FURNISHES A CLEAR DEFINITION," JUSTIFYING THE VAGUE SCOPE IT GAVE TO
"SACRILEGIOUS," SURELY WAS MADE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LEXICOGRAPHIC
HISTORY OF THE TERM.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE DEFINITION FROM FUNK &
WAGNALLS' USED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IS TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM 18TH
CENTURY DICTIONARIES, PARTICULARLY DOCTOR JOHNSON'S.  (FN48)  IN LIGHT
OF THAT HISTORY IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE FUNK & WAGNALLS' DEFINITION USES
"SACRILEGE" IN ITS HISTORICALLY RESTRICTED MEANING, WHICH WAS NOT, AND
COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN, THE BASIS FOR CONDEMNING "THE MIRACLE."  IF THE
NEW YORK COURT READS THE FUNK & WAGNALLS' DEFINITION IN A BROADER
SENSE, IN A SENSE FOR WHICH HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE PROVIDE NO GLOSS, IT
INEVITABLY LEFT THE CENSOR FREE TO JUDGE BY WHATEVER DOGMA HE DEEMS
"SACRED" AND TO BAN WHATEVER MOTION PICTURES HE MAY ASSUME WOULD
"PROFANE" RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE WIDELY ENOUGH HELD TO AROUSE PROTEST. 

EXAMINATION OF SUCCESSIVE EDITIONS OF THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
OVER NEARLY TWO CENTURIES UP TO THE PRESENT DAY GIVE NO MORE HELP THAN
THE DICTIONARIES.  FROM 1768 TO THE ELEVENTH EDITION IN 1911, MERELY A
BRIEF DICTIONARY-TYPE DEFINITION WAS GIVEN FOR "SACRILEGE."  (FN49)
THE ELEVENTH EDITION, WHICH FIRST PUBLISHED A LONGER ARTICLE, WAS
INTRODUCED AS FOLLOWS:  "THE VIOLATION OR PROFANATION OF SACRED THINGS,
A CRIME OF VARYING SCOPE IN DIFFERENT RELIGIONS.  IT IS NATURALLY MUCH
MORE GENERAL AND ACCOUNTED MORE DREADFUL IN THOSE PRIMITIVE RELIGIONS
IN WHICH CULTURAL OBJECTS PLAY SO GREAT A PART, THAN IN MORE HIGHLY
SPIRITUALIZED RELIGIONS WHERE THEY TEND TO DISAPPEAR.  BUT WHEREVER THE
IDEA OF SACRED EXISTS, SACRILEGE IS POSSIBLE."  (FN50)  THE ARTICLE ON
"SACRILEGE" IN THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA IS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT IN THE 1911 EDITION. 

HISTORY TEACHES US THE INDEFINITENESS OF THE CONCEPT "SACRILEGIOUS"
IN ANOTHER RESPECT.  IN THE CASE OF MOST COUNTRIES AND TIMES WHERE THE
CONCEPT OF SACRILEGE HAS BEEN OF IMPORTANCE, THERE HAS EXISTED AN
ESTABLISHED CHURCH OR A STATE RELIGION.  THAT WHICH WAS "SACRED," AND
SO WAS PROTECTED AGAINST "PROFANING," WAS DESIGNATED IN EACH CASE BY
ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY.  WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DEFINITE WHEN A
CONTROLLING CHURCH IMPOSED A DETAILED SCHEME OF OBSERVANCES BECOMES
IMPOSSIBLY CONFUSED AND UNCERTAIN WHEN HUNDREDS OF SECTS, WITH WIDELY
DISPARATE AND OFTEN DIRECTLY CONFLICTING IDEAS OF SACREDNESS, ENJOY,
WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AND IN EQUAL MEASURE, CONSTITUTIONALLY
GUARANTEED RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  IN THE ROME OF THE LATE EMPERORS, THE
ENGLAND OF JAMES I, OR THE GENEVA OF CALVIN, AND TODAY IN ROMAN
CATHOLIC SPAIN, MOHAMMEDAN SAUDI ARABIA, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY WITH A
MONOLITHIC RELIGION, THE CATEGORY OF THINGS SACRED MIGHT HAVE CLEARLY
DEFINABLE LIMITS.  BUT IN AMERICA THE MULTIPLICITY OF THE IDEAS OF
"SACREDNESS" HELD WITH EQUAL BUT CONFLICTING FERVOR BY THE GREAT NUMBER
OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS MAKES THE TERM "SACRILEGIOUS" TOO INDEFINITE TO
SATISFY CONSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS BASED ON REASON AND FAIRNESS. 

IF "SACRILEGIOUS" BANS MORE THAN THE PHYSICAL ABUSE OF SACRED
PERSONS, PLACES, OR THINGS, IF IT PERMITS CENSORSHIP OF RELIGIOUS
OPINIONS, WHICH IS THE EFFECT OF THE HOLDING BELOW, THE TERM WILL
INCLUDE WHAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE "BLASPHEMOUS."  ENGLAND'S EXPERIENCE
WITH THAT TREACHEROUS WORD SHOULD GIVE US PAUSE, APART FROM OUR
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.  THE CRIME OF
BLASPHEMY IN SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ENGLAND WAS THE CRIME OF DISSENTING
FROM WHATEVER WAS THE CURRENT RELIGIOUS DOGMA.  (FN51)  KING JAMES I'S
"BOOK OF SPORTS" WAS FIRST REQUIRED READING IN THE CHURCHES; LATER ALL
COPIES WERE CONSIGNED TO THE FLAMES.  TO ATTACK THE MASS WAS ONCE
BLASPHEMOUS; TO PERFORM IT BECAME SO.  AT DIFFERENT TIMES DURING THAT
CENTURY, WITH THE SHIFTS IN THE ATTITUDE OF GOVERNMENT TOWARDS
PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS VIEWS, PERSONS WHO DOUBTED THE DOCTRINE OF THE
TRINITY (E.G., UNITARIANS, UNIVERSALISTS, ETC.) OR THE DIVINITY OF
CHRIST, OBSERVED THE SABBATH ON SATURDAY, DENIED THE POSSIBILITY OF
WITCHCRAFT, REPUDIATED CHILD BAPTISM OR URGED METHODS OF BAPTISM OTHER
THAN SPRINKLING, WERE CHARGED AS BLASPHEMERS, OR THEIR BOOKS WERE
BURNED OR BANNED AS BLASPHEMOUS.  BLASPHEMY WAS THE CHAMELEON PHRASE
WHICH MEANT THE CRITICISM OF WHATEVER THE RULING AUTHORITY OF THE
MOMENT ESTABLISHED AS ORTHODOX RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.  (FN52)  WHILE IT IS
TRUE THAT BLASPHEMY PROSECUTIONS HAVE CONTINUED IN ENGLAND - ALTHOUGH
IN LESSENING NUMBERS - INTO THE PRESENT CENTURY, (FN53) THE EXISTENCE
THERE OF AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH GIVES MORE DEFINITE CONTOURS TO THE
CRIME IN ENGLAND THAN THE TERM "SACRILEGIOUS" CAN POSSIBLY HAVE IN THIS
COUNTRY.  MOREOVER, THE SCOPE OF THE ENGLISH COMMON-LAW CRIME OF
BLASPHEMY HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLY LIMITED BY THE DECLARATION THAT "IF THE
DECENCIES OF CONTROVERSY ARE OBSERVED, EVEN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF
RELIGION MAY BE ATTACKED," (FN54) A LIMITATION WHICH THE NEW YORK COURT
HAS NOT PUT UPON THE BOARD OF REGENTS' POWER TO DECLARE A MOTION
PICTURE "SACRILEGIOUS." 

IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 310, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS,
SPEAKING FOR THE WHOLE COURT, SAID:  "IN THE REALM OF RELIGIOUS FAITH,
AND IN THAT OF POLITICAL BELIEF, SHARP DIFFERENCES ARISE.  IN BOTH
FIELDS THE TENETS OF ONE MAN MAY SEEM THE RANKEST ERROR TO HIS
NEIGHBOR."  CONDUCT AND BELIEFS DEAR TO ONE MAY SEEM THE RANKEST
"SACRILEGE" TO ANOTHER.  A FEW EXAMPLES SUFFICE TO SHOW THE
DIFFICULTIES FACING A CONSCIENTIOUS CENSOR OR MOTION PICTURE PRODUCER
OR DISTRIBUTOR IN DETERMINING WHAT THE NEW YORK STATUTE CONDEMNS AS
SACRILEGIOUS.  A MOTION PICTURE PORTRAYING CHRIST AS DIVINE - FOR
EXAMPLE, A MOVIE SHOWING MEDIEVAL CHURCH ART - WOULD OFFEND THE
RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF SEVERAL PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS
WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY, AS WELL AS THOSE OF A NON-CHRISTIAN
FAITH.  CONVERSELY, ONE SHOWING CHRIST AS MERELY AN ETHICAL TEACHER
COULD NOT BUT OFFEND MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS OF MANY DENOMINATIONS. 
WHICH IS "SACRILEGIOUS"?  THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, AND THE
VENERATION OF RELICS OR PARTICULAR STONE AND WOOD EMBODIMENTS OF SAINTS
OR DIVINITY, BOTH SACRED TO CATHOLICS, ARE OFFENSIVE TO A GREAT MANY
PROTESTANTS, AND THEREFORE FOR THEM SACRILEGIOUS IN THE VIEW OF THE NEW
YORK COURT.  IS A PICTURE TREATING EITHER SUBJECT, WHETHER
SYMPATHETICALLY, UNSYMPATHETICALLY, OR NEUTRALLY, "SACRILEGIOUS"?  IT
IS NOT A SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO SAY THAT "SACRILEGIOUS" IS DEFINITE,
BECAUSE ALL SUBJECTS THAT IN ANY WAY MIGHT BE INTERPRETED AS OFFENDING
THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF ANY ONE OF THE 300 SECTS OF THE UNITED STATES
(FN55) ARE BANNED IN NEW YORK.  TO ALLOW SUCH VAGUE, UNDEFINABLE POWERS
OF CENSORSHIP TO BE EXERCISED IS BOUND TO HAVE STULTIFYING CONSEQUENCES
ON THE CREATIVE PROCESS OF LITERATURE AND ART - FOR THE FILMS ARE
DERIVED LARGELY FROM LITERATURE.  HISTORY DOES NOT ENCOURAGE RELIANCE
ON THE WISDOM AND MODERATION OF THE CENSOR AS A SAFEGUARD IN THE
EXERCISE OF SUCH DRASTIC POWER OVER THE MINDS OF MEN.  WE NOT ONLY DO
NOT KNOW BUT CANNOT KNOW WHAT IS CONDEMNABLE BY "SACRILEGIOUS."  AND IF
WE CANNOT TELL, HOW ARE THOSE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE STATUTE TO TELL? 

IT IS THIS IMPOSSIBILITY OF KNOWING HOW FAR THE FORM OF WORDS BY
WHICH THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS EXPLAINED "SACRILEGIOUS" CARRIES
THE PROSCRIPTION OF RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS THAT MAKES THE TERM
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE.  (FN56)  TO STOP SHORT OF PROSCRIBING ALL
SUBJECTS THAT MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE INTERPRETED TO BE RELIGIOUS,
INEVITABLY CREATES A SITUATION WHEREBY THE CENSOR BANS ONLY THAT
AGAINST WHICH THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL OUTCRY FROM A RELIGIOUS GROUP. 
AND THAT IS THE FAIR INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN, AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE,
FROM WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING UNDER THE NEW YORK CENSORSHIP. 
CONSEQUENTLY THE FILM INDUSTRY, NORMALLY NOT GUIDED BY CREATIVE
ARTISTS, AND CAUTIOUS IN PUTTING LARGE CAPITAL TO THE HAZARDS OF
COURAGE, WOULD BE GOVERNED BY ITS NOTIONS OF THE FEELINGS LIKELY TO BE
AROUSED BY DIVERSE RELIGIOUS SECTS, CERTAINLY THE POWERFUL ONES.  THE
EFFECT OF SUCH DEMANDS UPON ART AND UPON THOSE WHOSE FUNCTION IS TO
ENHANCE THE CULTURE OF A SOCIETY NEED NOT BE LABORED. 

TO PARAPHRASE DOCTOR JOHNSON, IF NOTHING MAY BE SHOWN BUT WHAT
LICENSORS MAY HAVE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, POWER, THE YEA-OR-NAY-SAYING BY
OFFICIALS, BECOMES THE STANDARD OF THE PERMISSIBLE.  PROHIBITION
THROUGH WORDS THAT FAIL TO CONVEY WHAT IS PERMITTED AND WHAT IS
PROHIBITED FOR WANT OF APPROPRIATE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, OFFENDS DUE
PROCESS IN TWO WAYS.  FIRST, IT DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY APPRISE THOSE
BENT ON OBEDIENCE OF LAW OF WHAT MAY REASONABLY BE FORESEEN TO BE FOUND
ILLICIT BY THE LAW-ENFORCING AUTHORITY, WHETHER COURT OF JURY OR
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  SECONDLY, WHERE LICENSING IS RESTED, IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE, IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, THE AVAILABLE JUDICIAL
REVIEW IS IN EFFECT RENDERED INOPERATIVE.  ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A
PORTMANTEAU WORD AS "SACRILEGIOUS," THE JUDICIARY HAS NO STANDARDS WITH
WHICH TO JUDGE THE VALIDITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WHICH NECESSARILY
INVOLVES, AT LEAST IN LARGE MEASURE, SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATIONS.  THUS,
THE ADMINISTRATIVE FIRST STEP BECOMES THE LAST STEP. 

FROM ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID ONE IS COMPELLED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
TERM "SACRILEGIOUS" HAS COME DOWN THE STREAM OF TIME ENCRUSTED WITH A
SPECIALIZED, STRICTLY CONFINED MEANING, PERTAINING TO THINGS IN SPACE
NOT THINGS IN THE MIND.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT GIVE THE
TERM THIS CALCULABLE CONTENT.  IT APPLIED IT TO THINGS IN THE MIND, AND
THINGS IN THE MIND SO UNDEFINED, SO AT LARGE, AS TO BE MORE PATENTLY IN
DISREGARD OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEFINITENESS, AS THE BASIS OF
PROSCRIPTIONS AND LEGAL SANCTIONS FOR THEIR DISOBEDIENCE, THAN THE
MEASURES THAT WERE CONDEMNED AS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS IN UNITED
STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81; A.B. SMALL CO. V. AMERICAN
SUGAR REFINING CO., 267 U.S. 233; CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,
269 U.S. 385; WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507; KUNZ V. NEW YORK, 340
U.S. 290.  THIS PRINCIPLE IS ESPECIALLY TO BE OBSERVED WHEN WHAT IS SO
VAGUE SEEKS TO FETTER THE MIND AND PUT WITHIN UNASCERTAINABLE BOUNDS
THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. 

FN1  CROWTHER, "THE STRANGE CASE OF 'THE MIRACLE,'" ATLANTIC MONTHLY,
APRIL, 1951, PP. 35, 36-37. 

FN2  L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, AUG. 25, 1948, P. 2, COL. 1, TRANSLATED IN
PART IN THE COMMONWEAL, MAR. 23, 1951, P. 592, COL. 2. 

FN3  IBID. 

FN4  N.Y. TIMES, FEB. 11, 1951, SEC. 2, P. 4, COLS.  4-5. 

FN5  TIME, FEB. 19, 1951, PP. 60-61. 

FN6  I1 POPOLO, NOV. 3, 1948, P. 2, COL. 9, TRANSLATED BY CAMILLE M.
CIANFARRA, N.Y. TIMES, FEB. 11, 1951, SEC. 2, P. 4, COL. 5. 

FN7  L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, NOV. 12, 1948, P. 2, COLS.  3-4. 

FN8  IBID. 

FN9  "THE MIRACLE" WAS PASSED BY CUSTOMS.  TO IMPORT "ANY OBSCENE,
LEWD, LASCIVIOUS, OR FILTHY ...  MOTION-PICTURE FILM" IS A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE, 35 STAT. 1088, 1138, 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1462; AND
IMPORTATION OF ANY OBSCENE "PRINT" OR "PICTURE" IS BARRED.  46 STAT.
590, 688, 19 U.S.C. SEC. 1305.  COMPARE THE PROVISION, "ALL
PHOTOGRAPHIC-FILMS IMPORTED  ...  SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SUCH CENSORSHIP
AS MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY."  38 STAT. 114, 151
(1913), 42 STAT. 858, 920 (1922), REPEALED 46 STAT. 590, 762 (1930). 
SEE INGLIS, FREEDOM OF THE MOVIES, 68. 

FN10  LIFE, JAN. 15, 1951, P. 63; SAT.  REV.  OF LIT., JAN. 27, 1951,
PP. 28-29. 

FN11  N.Y. TIMES, DEC. 31, 1950, P. 23, COL. 4. 

FN12  INGLIS, FREEDOM OF THE MOVIES, 120 ET SEQ. 

FN13  ID., AT 74-82. 

FN14  HOWARD BARNES, N.Y. HERALD TRIBUNE, DEC. 13, 1950, P. 30,
COLS.  1-3:  "IT WOULD BE WISE TO TIME A VISIT TO THE PARIS IN ORDER TO
SKIP ('THE MIRACLE')  ...  .  ALTOGETHER IT LEAVES A VERY BAD TASTE IN
ONE'S MOUTH." 

BOSLEY CROWTHER, N.Y. TIMES, DEC. 13, 1950, P. 50, COLS.  2-3:  "EACH
ONE OF THE (THREE) ITEMS  ... STACKS UP WITH THE MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS OF
THE RESPECTIVE DIRECTORS  ...  .  'THE MIRACLE' IS BY FAR THE MOST
OVERPOWERING AND PROVOCATIVE OF THE LOT."  N.Y. TIMES, DEC. 17, 1950,
SEC. 2, P. 3, COLS.  7-8:  "A PICTURE OF MOUNTING INTENSITY THAT WRINGS
THE LAST PANG OF EMOTION AS IT HITS ITS DRAMATIC PEAK  ...  VASTLY
COMPASSIONATE COMPREHENSION OF THE SUFFERING AND THE TRIUMPH OF
BIRTH." 

WANDA HALE, N.Y. DAILY NEWS, DEC. 13, 1950, P. 82, COLS.  1-3:
"ROSSELLINI'S BEST PIECE OF DIRECTION, SINCE HIS GREATEST, 'OPEN
CITY.'  ...  ARTISTIC AND BEAUTIFULLY DONE BY BOTH THE STAR AND THE
DIRECTOR." 

ARCHER WINSTEN, N.Y. POST, DEC. 13, 1950, P. 80, COLS.  1-3:
"MAGNANI'S PERFORMANCE IS A MAJOR ONE AND PROFOUNDLY IMPRESSIVE.  THIS
REVIEWER'S PERSONAL OPINION MARKED DOWN THE FILM AS DISTURBINGLY
UNPLEASANT AND SLOW." 

SEYMOURE PECK, N.Y. DAILY COMPASS, DEC. 13, 1950, P. 13, COLS.  3-5:
"'THE MIRACLE' IS REALLY ALL MAGNANI.  ...  ONE OF THE MOST EXCITING
SOLO PERFORMANCES THE SCREEN HAS KNOWN." 

ALTON COOK, N.Y. WORLD-TELEGRAM, DEC. 13, 1950, P. 50, COLS.  1-2:
"'THE MIRACLE' IS CHARGED WITH THE SAME OVERWROUGHT HYSTERIA THAT RAN
THROUGH HIS 'STROMBOLI.'  ...  THE PICTURE HAS AN UNPLEASANT
PREOCCUPATION WITH FILTH AND SQUALOR  ...  EXCEEDINGLY TRYING
EXPERIENCE." 

TIME, JAN. 8, 1951, P. 72, COLS.  2-3:  "'THE MIRACLE' IS SECOND-RATE
ROSSELLINI DESPITE A VIRTUOSO PERFORMANCE BY ANNA MAGNANI." 

NEWSWEEK, DEC. 18, 1950, PP. 93-94, COL. 3:  "STRONG MEDICINE FOR
MOST AMERICAN AUDIENCES.  HOWEVER, IT SHOWS WHAT AN ARTIST OF
ROSSELLINIS CHARACTER CAN DO IN THE STILL SCARCELY EXPLORED MEDIUM OF
THE FILM SHORT STORY." 

HOLLIS ALPERT, SAT.  REV.  OF LIT., JAN. 27, 1951, PP. 28-29:
"PICTORIALLY THE PICTURE IS A GEM, WITH ITS SENSITIVE EVOCATION OF A
SMALL ITALIAN TOWN AND THE SURROUNDING COUNTRYSIDE NEAR SALERNO  ...  .
ANNA MAGNANI AGAIN DEMONSTRATES HER MAGNIFICANT QUALITIES OF ACTING. 
THE ROLE IS DIFFICULT  ...  . 

"BUT MY QUARREL WOULD BE WITH MR. ROSSELLINI, WHOSE METHOD OF
IMPROVISATION FROM SCENE TO SCENE  ...  CAN ALSO RESULT IN EXTRANEOUS
DETAIL THAT ADDS LITTLE, OR EVEN HARMS, THE OVER-ALL EFFECT." 

FN15  N.Y. TIMES, DEC. 28, 1950, P. 22, COL. 1. 

FN16  ID., DEC. 24, 1950, P. 1, COLS.  2-3. 

FN17  JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. V. MCCAFFREY, 198 MISC. 884, 101 N.Y.S.2D
892. 

FN18  N.Y. TIMES, JAN. 8, 1951, P. 1, COL. 2.  THE CARDINAL TERMED
"THE MIRACLE" "A VILE AND HARMFUL PICTURE," "A DESPICABLE AFFRONT TO
EVERY CHRISTIAN" ("WE BELIEVE IN MIRACLES.  THIS PICTURE RIDICULES THAT
BELIEF"), AND FINALLY "A VICIOUS INSULT TO ITALIAN WOMANHOOD."  AS A
CONSEQUENCE, HE DECLARED:  "WE, AS THE GUARDIANS OF THE MORAL LAW, MUST
SUMMON YOU AND ALL PEOPLE WITH A SENSE OF DECENCY TO REFRAIN FROM
SEEING IT AND SUPPORTING THE VENAL PURVEYORS OF SUCH PICTURES  ...  ." 
ID., AT P. 14, COLS.  2-3. 

FOR COMPLETENESS' SAKE, LATER INCIDENTS SHOULD BE NOTED.  PICKETERS
FROM THE CATHOLIC WAR VETERANS, THE HOLY NAME SOCIETY, AND OTHER
CATHOLIC ORGANIZATIONS - ABOUT 1,000 PERSONS IN ALL DURING ONE SUNDAY -
PARADED BEFORE THE PARIS THEATRE.  ID., DEC. 29, 1950, P. 36, COL. 3;
JAN. 8, 1951, P. 1, COL. 2; JAN. 9, 1951, P. 34, COL. 7; JAN. 10, 1951,
P. 22, COL. 6; JAN. 15, 1951, P. 23, COL. 3.  A SMALLER NUMBER OF
COUNTERPICKETS APPEARED ON SEVERAL DAYS.  ID., JAN. 10, 1951, P. 22,
COL. 6; JAN. 20, 1951, P. 10, COLS.  4-5.  SEE ALSO ID., JAN. 23, 1951,
P. 21, COL. 8; JAN. 25, 1951, P. 27, COL. 7. 

THE PARIS THEATRE ON TWO DIFFERENT EVENINGS WAS EMPTIED ON THREAT OF
BOMBING.  ID., JAN. 21, 1951, P. 1, COLS.  2-3; JAN. 28, 1951, P. 1,
COLS.  2-3.  COINCIDENTLY WITH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NEW YORK
BOARD OF REGENTS WHICH STARTED THIS CASE ON THE WAY TO THIS COURT, THE
PARIS THEATRE ALSO WAS HAVING DIFFICULTIES WITH THE NEW YORK CITY FIRE
DEPARTMENT.  THE CURIOUS MAY FOLLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE INCIDENTS,
NOT RELEVANT HERE, IN THE N.Y. TIMES, JAN. 21, 1951, P. 53, COLS.  4-5;
JAN. 27, 1951, P. 11, COL. 3; FEB. 6, 1951, P. 29, COL. 8; FEB. 10,
1951, P. 15, COL. 8; FEB. 15, 1951, P. 33, COL. 2. 

FN19  EXCERPTS FROM LETTERS AND STATEMENTS BY A GREAT MANY CLERGYMEN
ARE REPRODUCED IN THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT, PAGES 95-140.  THE
REPRESENTATIVE QUOTATIONS IN THE TEXT ARE FROM LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE
REV. H.C. DEWINDT, MINISTER OF THE WEST PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, NEW
YORK CITY, R. 97, AND THE REV. W.J. BEENERS OF PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY,
R. 98, RESPECTIVELY. 

FN20  CATHOLIC OPINION GENERALLY, AS EXPRESSED IN THE PRESS,
SUPPORTED THE VIEW OF THE LEGION OF DECENCY AND OF CARDINAL SPELLMAN. 
SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE (NEW YORK) CATHOLIC NEWS, DEC. 30, 1950, P. 10;
JAN. 6, 1951, P. 10; JAN. 20, 1951, P. 10; FEB. 3, 1951, P. 10; FEB 10,
1951, P. 12; AND MAY 19, 1951, P. 12; COMMONWEAL, JAN. 12, 1951, P.
351, COL. 1; THE (BROOKLYN) TABLET, JAN. 20, 1951, P. 8, COL. 4; ID.,
JAN. 27, 1951, P. 10, COL. 3; ID., FEB. 3, 1951, P. 8, COLS.  3-4;
MARTIN QUIGLEY, JR., "'THE MIRACLE' - AN OUTRAGE"; THE (SAN FRANCISCO)
MONITOR, JAN. 12, 1951, P. 7, COLS.  3-4 (REPRINTED FROM MOTION PICTURE
HERALD, JAN. 6, 1951); THE (BOSTON) PILOT, JAN. 6, 1951, P. 4.  THERE
DOUBTLESS WERE COMMENTS ON "THE MIRACLE" IN OTHER DIOCESAN PAPERS WHICH
CIRCULATE IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, BUT WHICH ARE NOT ON FILE IN
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS OR THE LIBRARY OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF
AMERICA. 

FN21  SPAETH, "FOGGED SCREEN," MAGAZINE OF ART, FEB., 1951, P. 44;
N.Y. HERALD TRIBUNE, JAN. 30, 1951, P. 18, COL. 4. 

FN22  CLANCY, "THE CATHOLIC AS PHILISTINE," THE COMMONWEAL, MAR. 16,
1951, PP. 567-569. 

FN23  THE COMMONWEAL, MAR. 2, 1951, PP. 507-508.  MUCH THE SAME VIEW
WAS TAKEN BY FRANK GETLEIN WRITING IN THE CATHOLIC MESSENGER, MAR. 22,
1951, P. 4, COLS.  1-8, IN AN ARTICLE BEARING THE HEADLINE:  "FILM
CRITIC GIVES SOME ASPECTS OF 'THE MIRACLE' STORY:  RAISES QUESTIONS
CONCERNING TACTICS OF ORGANIZED CATHOLIC RESISTANCE GROUPS IN NEW
YORK."  SEE ALSO, "MIRACLES DO HAPPEN," THE NEW LEADER, FEB. 5, 1951,
P. 30, COL. 2. 

FN24  N.Y. TIMES, FEB. 1, 1951, P. 24, COL. 7. 

FN25  ID., JAN. 13, 1951, P. 10, COL. 6; TRANSLATION BY CHWOROWSKY,
"THE CARDINAL:  CRITIC AND CENSOR," THE CHURCHMAN, FEB. 1, 1951, P. 7,
COL. 2. 

FN26  THAT SUCH OFFENSIVE EXPLOITATION OF MODERN MEANS OF PUBLICITY
IS NOT A FANCIFUL HYPOTHESIS, SEE N.Y. TIMES, APRIL 14, 1952, P. 1,
COL. 4. 

FN27  IN THE MATTER OF "THE PURITAN," 60 N.Y. ST. DEPT. 163 (1939);
IN THE MATTER OF "POLYGAMY," 60 N.Y. ST. DEPT. 217 (1939); IN THE
MATTER OF "MONJA Y CASADA - VIRGEN Y MARTIR" ("NUN AND MARRIED - VIRGIN
AND MARTYR"), 52 N.Y. ST. DEPT. 488 (1935). 

FN28  SINCE ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION "SACRILEGIOUS" IS DEFINED IN
TERMS OF "SACRILEGE," OUR DISCUSSION WILL BE DIRECTED TO THE LATTER
TERM.  SEE BAILEY, UNIVERSAL ETYMOLOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON,
1730), "SACRILEGIOUS" - "OF, PERTAINING TO, OR GUILTY OF SACRILEGE";
FUNK & WAGNALLS' NEW STANDARD DICTIONARY (1937), "SACRILEGIOUS" -
"HAVING COMMITTED OR BEING READY TO COMMIT SACRILEGE.  OF THE NATURE OF
SACRILEGE; AS, SACRILEGIOUS DEEDS." 

FN29  FOR GENERAL DISCUSSIONS OF "SACRILEGE," SEE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF
RELIGION AND ETHICS (HASTINS ED., 1921), "SACRILEGE" AND "TABU"; REV.
THOMAS SLATER, A MANUAL OF MORAL THEOLOGY (1908), 226-230; THE CATHOLIC
ENCYCLOPEDIA (1912), "SACRILEGE"; AND ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA,
"SACRILEGE." 

FN30  ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (1951), "SACRILEGE." 

FN31  IBID. 

FN32  SEE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS (HASTINGS ED., 1921),
"TABU." 

FN33  ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (1951), "SACRILEGE." 

FN34  ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA, PART II-II, QUESTION 99. 
THE MODERN CODEX JURIS CANONICI DOES NOT GIVE ANY DEFINITION OF
"SACRILEGE," BUT MERELY SAYS IT "SHALL BE PUNISHED BY THE ORDINARY IN
PROPORTION TO THE GRAVITY OF THE FAULT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
PENALTIES ESTABLISHED BY LAW  ...  ."  SEE BOUSCAREN AND ELLIS, CANON
LAW (1946), 857.  2 WOYWOD, A PRACTICAL COMMENTARY ON THE CODE OF CANON
LAW (1929), PAR. 2178, 477-478, THUS DEFINES SACRILEGE:  "SACRILEGE
CONSISTS IN THE UNWORTHY USE OR TREATMENT OF SACRED THINGS AND SACRED
PERSONS.  CERTAIN THINGS ARE OF THEIR NATURE SACRED (E.G., THE
SACRAMENTS); OTHERS BECOME SO BY BLESSING OR CONSECRATION LEGITIMATELY
BESTOWED ON THINGS OR PLACES BY AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.  PERSONS ARE
RENDERED SACRED BY ORDINATION OR CONSECRATION OR BY OTHER FORMS OF
DEDICATION TO THE DIVINE SERVICE BY AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH (E.G., BY
FIRST TONSURE, BY RELIGIOUS PROFESSION)." 

FN35  AFTER HIS METHOD OF RAISING OBJECTIONS AND THEN REFUTING THEM,
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS DEFENDS INCLUDING WITHIN THE PROSCRIPTION OF
"SACRILEGE," ANYONE "WHO DISAGREES) ABOUT THE SOVEREIGN'S DECISION, AND
DOUBTS) WHETHER THE PERSON CHOSEN BY THE SOVEREIGN BE WORTHY OF HONOR"
AND "ANY MAN WHO SHALL ALLOW THE JEWS TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICES."  SUMMA
THEOLOGICA, PART II-II, QUESTION 99, ART. 1. 

FN36  REV. THOMAS SLATER, S.J., A MANUAL OF MORAL THEOLOGY (1908), C.
VI, CLASSIFIES AND ILLUSTRATES THE MODERN THEOLOGICAL VIEW OF
"SACRILEGE": 

SACRILEGE AGAINST SACRED PERSONS:  TO USE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AGAINST A
MEMBER OF THE CLERGY; TO VIOLATE "THE PRIVILEGE OF IMMUNITY OF THE
CLERGY FROM CIVIL JURISDICTION, AS FAR AS THIS IS STILL IN FORCE"; TO
VIOLATE A VOW OF CHASTITY. 

SACRILEGE AGAINST SACRED PLACES:  TO VIOLATE THE IMMUNITY OF CHURCHES
AND OTHER SACRED PLACES "AS FAR AS THIS IS STILL IN FORCE"; TO COMMIT A
CRIME SUCH AS HOMICIDE, SUICIDE, BLOODY ATTACK THERE; TO BREAK BY
SEXUAL ACT A VOW OF CHASTITY THERE; TO BURY AN INFIDEL, HERETIC, OR
EXCOMMUNICATE IN CHURCHES OR CEMETERIES CANONICALLY ESTABLISHED; OR TO
PUT THE SACRED PLACE TO A PROFANE USE, AS A SECULAR COURTROOM, PUBLIC
MARKET, BANQUET HALL, STABLE, ETC. 

SACRILEGE AGAINST SACRED THINGS:  TO TREAT WITH IRREVERENCE,
CONTEMPT, OR OBSCENITY THE SACRAMENTS (PARTICULARLY THE EUCHARIST),
HOLY SCRIPTURES, RELICS, SACRED IMAGES, ETC., TO STEAL SACRED THINGS,
OR PROFANE THINGS FROM SACRED PLACES; TO COMMIT SIMONY; OR TO STEAL,
CONFISCATE, OR DAMAGE WILFULLY ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY.  SEE ALSO, THE
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, "SACRILEGE." 

FN37  SIR HENRY SPELMAN, THE HISTORY AND FATE OF SACRILEGE (2D ED.,
1853), 121-122.  TWO PRIESTS OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH PREPARD A LONG
PREFATORY ESSAY TO BRING SPELMAN'S DATA UP TO THE DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE 1853 EDITION.  THEIR ESSAY SHOWS THEIR UNDERSTANDING ALSO OF
"SACRILEGE" IN THE LIMITED SENSE.  ID., AT 1-120. 

FN38  2 RUSSELL, CRIME (10TH ED., 1950), 975-976; STEPHEN, A DIGEST
OF THE CRIMINAL LAW (9TH ED., 1950), 348-349.  SEE 23 HEN.  VIII, C. 1,
SEC. III; EDW.  VI, C. 12, SEC. X; 1 MARY, C. 3, SECS. IV-VI. 

FN39  7 & 8 GEO. IV, C. 29, SEC. X, WHICH THE MARGINAL NOTE
SUMMARIZED AS "SACRILEGE, WHEN CAPITAL," READ:  "IF ANY PERSON SHALL
BREAK AND ENTER ANY CHURCH OR CHAPEL, AND STEAL THEREIN ANY CHATTEL
...  (HE) SHALL SUFFER DEATH AS A FELON."  THIS STATUTE WAS INTERPRETED
TO APPLY ONLY TO BUILDINGS OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.  REX V. NIXON, 7
CAR.  & P. 442 (1836). 

FN40  7 & 8 GEO. IV, C. 29, SEC. X, WAS REPEALED BY 24 & 25 VICT., C.
95.  THE LARCENY ACT AND THE MALICIOUS INJURIES TO PROPERTY ACT, BOTH
OF 1861, TREATED ESTABLISHED CHURCH PROPERTY SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS
ALL OTHER PROPERTY.  24 & 25 VICT., C. 96, SEC. 50; C. 97, SECS. 1, 11,
39, SUPERSEDED BY LARCENY ACT, 1916, 6 & 7 GEO. V, C. 50, SEC. 24. 
FN41  BLACKSTONE, BK. IV, C. 4, 41-64. 

FN42  COMPARE THE DEFINITIONS OF "SACRILEGE" AND "BLASPHEMY" IN THE
DICTIONARIES, STARTING WITH COCKERAM'S 1651 EDITION, WHICH ARE
COLLECTED IN THE APPENDIX, POST, P. 533. 

FN43  BAILEY, AN UNIVERSAL ETYMOLOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON,
1742), "SACRILEGE." 

FN44  BARCLAY, A COMPLETE AND UNIVERSAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON,
1782), "SACRILEGE." 

FN45  ID., "BLASPHEMY." 

FN46  THOMAS BLOUNT, GLOSSOGRAPHIA (3D ED., LONDON, 1670). 

FN47  WEBSTER'S COMPENDIOUS DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
(1806):  "SACRILEGE" - "THE ROBBERY OF A CHURCH OR CHAPEL." 
"SACRILEGIOUS" - "VIOLATING A THING MADE SACRED." 

WEBSTER'S AMERICAN DICTIONARY (1828):  "SACRILEGE" - "THE CRIME OF
VIOLATING OR PROFANING SACRED THINGS; OR THE ALIENATING TO LAYMEN OR TO
COMMON PURPOSES WHAT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED OR CONSECRATED TO RELIGIOUS
PERSONS OR USES."  "SACRILEGIOUS" - "VIOLATING SACRED THINGS; POLLUTED
WITH THE CRIME OF SACRILEGE." 

WEBSTER'S INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (G.&C. MERRIAM & CO., 1890):
"SACRILEGE" - "THE SIN OR CRIME OF VIOLATING OR PROFANING SACRED
THINGS; THE ALIENATING TO LAYMEN, OR TO COMMON PURPOSES, WHAT HAS BEEN
APPROPRIATED OR CONSECRATED TO RELIGIOUS PERSONS OR USES." 
"SACRILEGIOUS" - "VIOLATING SACRED THINGS; POLLUTED WITH SACRILEGE;
INVOLVING SACRILEGE; PROFANE; IMPIOUS." 

WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (G.&C. MERRIAM CO., 1ST ED.,
1909): "SACRILEGE" - "THE SIN OR CRIME OF VIOLATING OR PROFANING SACRED
THINGS; SPECIF., THE ALIENATING TO LAYMEN, OR TO COMMON PURPOSES, WHAT
HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED OR CONSECRATED TO RELIGIOUS PERSONS OR USES." 
"SACRILEGIOUS" - "VIOLATING SACRED THINGS; POLLUTED WITH, OR INVOLVING,
SACRILEGE; IMPIOUS."  REPEATED IN THE 1913, 1922, 1924, 1928, 1933
PRINTINGS, AMONG OTHERS. 

WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (G.&C. MERRIAM CO., 2D ED.,
1934): "SACRILEGE" - "THE CRIME OF STEALING, MISUSING, VIOLATING, OR
DESECRATING THAT WHICH IS SACRED, OR HOLY, OR DEDICATED TO SACRED
USES.  SPECIF.:  A R.C. CH.  THE SIN OF VIOLATING THE CONDITIONS FOR A
WORTHY RECEPTION OF A SACRAMENT.  B ROBBERY FROM A CHURCH; ALSO, THAT
WHICH IS STOLEN.  C ALIENATION TO LAYMEN, OR TO COMMON PURPOSES, OF
WHAT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED OR CONSECRATED TO RELIGIOUS PERSONS OR
USES."  "SACRILEGIOUS" - "COMMITTING SACRILEGE; CHARACTERIZED BY OR
INVOLVING SACRILEGE; POLLUTED WITH SACRILEGE; AS, SACRILEGIOUS ROBBERS,
DEPREDATIONS, OR ACTS."  REPEATED IN THE 1939, 1942, 1944, 1949
PRINTINGS, AMONG OTHERS. 

FN48  FUNK & WAGNALLS' STANDARD DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,
WHICH WAS FIRST COPYRIGHTED IN 1890, DEFINED SACRILEGE AS FOLLOWS IN
THE 1895 PRINTING"  "1.  THE ACT OF VIOLATING OR PROFANING ANYTHING
SACRED.  2.  ENG. LAW (1) THE LARCENY OF CONSECRATED THINGS FROM A
CHURCH; THE BREAKING INTO A CHURCH WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY, OR
BREAKING OUT AFTER A FELONY.  (2)  FORMERLY, THE SELLING TO A LAYMAN OF
PROPERTY GIVEN TO PIOUS USES."  THIS DEFINITION REMAINED UNCHANGED
THROUGH MANY PRINTINGS OF THAT DICTIONARY.  THE CURRENT PRINTING OF
FUNK & WAGNALLS' NEW STANDARD DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, FIRST
COPYRIGHTED IN 1913, CARRIES EXACTLY THE SAME DEFINITION OF "SACRILEGE"
EXCEPT THAT THE FIRST DEFINITION HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO READ:  "THE ACT
OF VIOLATING OR PROFANING ANYTHING SACRED, INCLUDING SACRAMENTAL
VOWS." 

FUNK & WAGNALLS' STANDARD DICTIONARY (1895) DEFINED "TO PROFANE" AS
"1.  TO TREAT WITH IRREVERENCE OR ABUSE; MAKE COMMON OR UNHOLY;
DESECRATE; POLLUTE.  2.  HENCE, TO PUT TO A WRONG OR DEGRADING USE;
DEBASE."  THE NEW STANDARD DICTIONARY ADDS A THIRD MEANING: "3.  TO
VULGARIZE; GIVE OVER TO THE CROWD." 

FN49  ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 2D ED., 1782:  "SACRILEGE" - "THE
CRIME OF PROFANING SACRED THINGS, OR THOSE DEVOTED TO THE SERVICE OF
GOD." 

3D ED., 1797:  "SACRILEGE" - "THE CRIME OF PROFANING SACRED THINGS,
OR THINGS DEVOTED TO GOD; OR OF ALIENATING TO LAYMEN, FOR COMMON
PURPOSES, WHAT WAS GIVEN TO RELIGIOUS PERSONS AND PIOUS USES." 

8TH ED., 1859:  "SACRILEGE" - SAME AS 3D ED., 1797. 

9TH ED., 1886:  "SACRILEGE" - A RELATIVELY SHORT ARTICLE THE AUTHOR
OF WHICH QUITE APPARENTLY HAD A RESTRICTED DEFINITION FOR "SACRILEGE":
"ROBBERY OF CHURCHES," "BREAKING OR DEFACING OF AN ALTAR, CRUCIFIX, OR
CROSS," ETC. 

FN50  ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (11TH ED., 1911), "SACRILEGE." 

FN51  SCHROEDER, CONSTITUTIONAL FREE SPEECH (1919), 178-373, MAKES A
LENGTHY REVIEW OF "PROSECUTIONS FOR CRIMES AGAINST RELIGION."  THE
EXAMPLES IN THE TEXT ARE FROM SCHROEDER.  SEE ALSO ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE
SOCIAL SCIENCES, "BLASPHEMY"; ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS,
"BLASPHEMY"; NOKES, A HISTORY OF THE CRIME OF BLASPHEMY (1928). 

FN52  1 YORKE, THE LIFE OF LORD CHANCELLOR HARDWICKE (1913), 80,
WRITES THUS OF THE PROSECUTION OF THOMAS WOOLSTON FOR BLASPHEMY:  "THE
OFFENCE, IN THE FIRST PLACE, CONSISTED IN THE PUBLICATION IN 1725 OF A
TRACT ENTITLED A MODERATOR BETWEEN AN INFIDEL AND AN APOSTATE, IN WHICH
THE AUTHOR QUESTIONED THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE RESURRECTION AND
THE VIRGIN BIRTH.  SUCH SPECULATIONS, HOWEVER MUCH THEY MIGHT OFFEND
THE RELIGIOUS FEELING OF THE NATION, WOULD NOT NOW AROUSE APPREHENSIONS
IN THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT, OR INCUR LEGAL PENALTIES; BUT AT THE TIME OF
WHICH WE ARE WRITING, WHEN THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT WAS FAR LESS
STABLE AND SECURE AND RESTED ON FAR NARROWER FOUNDATIONS THAN AT
PRESENT, SUCH AUDACIOUS OPINIONS WERE CONSIDERED, NOT WITHOUT SOME
REASON, AS A MENACE, NOT ONLY TO RELIGION BUT TO THE STATE." 

FN53  SEE, E.G., REX V. BOULTER, 72 J.P. 188 (1908); BOWMAN V.
SECULAR SOCIETY, LTD., (1917) A.C. 406. 

FN54  REG. V. RAMSAY, 15 COX'S C.C. 231, 238 (1883)(LORD COLERIDGE'S
CHARGE TO THE JURY); BOWMAN V. SECULAR SOCIETY, LTD., (1917) A.C. 406. 

FN55  THE LATEST AVAILABLE STATISTICS OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
GIVE RETURNS FROM 256 DENOMINATIONS; 57 OTHER DENOMINATIONS, WHICH DID
NOT REPORT, ARE LISTED.  BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, RELIGIOUS BODIES: 1936,
VOL. I, III, 7. 

FN56  IT IS NOT MERE FANTASY TO SUGGEST THAT THE EFFECT OF A BAN OF
THE "SACRILEGIOUS" MAY BE TO BAN ALL MOTION PICTURES DEALING WITH ANY
SUBJECT THAT MIGHT BE DEEMED RELIGIOUS BY ANY SECT.  THE INDUSTRY'S
SELF-CENSORSHIP HAS ALREADY HAD A DISTORTING INFLUENCE ON THE PORTRAYAL
OF HISTORICAL FIGURES.  "PRESSURE FORCED DELETION OF THE CLERICAL
BACKGROUND OF CARDINAL RICHELIEU FROM THE THREE MUSKETEERS.  THE
(MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION) CODE PROVISION APPEALED TO WAS THE SECTION
PROVIDING THAT MINISTERS SHOULD NOT BE PORTRAYED AS VILLAINS."  NOTE,
"MOTION PICTURES AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT," 60 YALE L.J. 696, 716, N.
42. 

THE PRESS RECENTLY REPORTED THAT PLANS ARE BEING MADE TO FILM A "LIFE
OF MARTIN LUTHER."  N.Y. TIMES, APRIL 27, 1952, SEC. 2, P. 5, COL. 7. 
COULD LUTHER BE SYMPATHETICALLY PORTRAYED AND NOT APPEAR "SACRILEGIOUS"
TO SOME; OR UNSYMPATHETICALLY, AND NOT TO OTHERS? 

         APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.* 

*SEE MATHEWS, A SURVEY OF ENGLISH DICTIONARIES (1933). 

COCKERAM, ENGLISH DICTIONARIE (10TH ED., LONDON, 1651). 

BLASPHEMY:  NO ENTRY. 

SACRILEGE:  "THE ROBBING OF A CHURCH, THE STEALING OF HOLY THINGS,
ABUSING OF SACRAMENTS OR HOLY MYSTERIES." 

SACRILEGIOUS:  "ABOMINABLE, VERY WICKED." 

BLOUNT, GLOSSOGRAPHIA (3D ED., LONDON, 1670). 

BLASPHEMY:  NO ENTRY. 

SACRILEGE:  "THE ROBBING A CHURCH, OR OTHER HOLY CONSECRATED PLACE,
THE STEALING HOLY THINGS, OR ABUSING SACRAMENTS OR HOLY MYSTERIES." 

SACRILEGIOUS:  "THAT ROBS THE CHURCH; WICKED, EXTREMELY BAD." 

BLOUNT, A LAW-DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1670). 

BLASPHEMY:  NO ENTRY. 

SACRILEGE:  NO ENTRY. 

PHILLIPS, THE NEW WORLD OF WORDS (3D ED., LONDON, 1671). 

BLASPHEMY:  "AN UTTERING OF REPROACHFUL WORDS, TENDING EITHER TO THE
DISHONOUR OF GOD, OR TO THE HURT AND DISGRACE OF ANY MANS NAME AND
CREDIT." 

SACRILEGOUS:  "COMMITTING SACRILEDGE, I.E. A ROBBING OF CHURCHES, OR
VIOLATING OF HOLY THINGS." 

COWEL, THE INTERPRETER OF WORDS AND TERMS (MANLEY ED., LONDON,
1701). 

BLASPHEMY:  NO ENTRY. 

SACRILEGE:  "AN ALIENATION TO LAY-MEN, AND TO PROFANE OR COMMON
PURPOSES, OF WHAT WAS GIVEN TO RELIGIOUS PERSONS, AND TO PIOUS USES,
ETC." 

RASTELL, LAW TERMS (LONDON, 1708). 

BLASPHEMY:  NO ENTRY. 

SACRILEGE:  "IS, WHEN ONE STEALS ANY VESSELS, ORNAMENTS, OR GOODS OF
HOLY CHURCH, WHICH IS FELONY, 3 CRO.  153, 154." 

KERSEY, A GENERAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (3D ED., LONDON, 1721). 

BLASPHEMY:  "AN UTTERING OF REPROACHFUL WORDS, THAT TEND TO THE
DISHONOUR OF GOD, &C." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE STEALING OF SACRED THINGS, CHURCH ROBBING." 

COCKER, ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1724). 

BLASPHEMY:  NO ENTRY. 

SACRILEGE:  "ROBBING THE CHURCH, OR WHAT IS DEDICATED THERETO." 

BAILEY, UNIVERSAL ETYMOLOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1730). 

BLASPHEMY:  "AN UTTERING OF REPROACHFUL WORDS TENDING TO THE
DISHONOUR OF GOD, &C.  VILE, BASE LANGUAGE." 

SACRILEGE: "THE STEALING OF SACRED THINGS, CHURCH-ROBBING; THE CRIME
OF PROFANING SACRED THINGS, OR ALIENATING TO LAYMEN, OR COMMON USES,
WHAT WAS GIVEN TO PIOUS USES AND RELIGIOUS PERSONS." 

COLES, AN ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1732). 

BLASPHEMY:  "REPROACH." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE ROBBING OF GOD, THE CHURCH, &C." 

BULLOKAR, THE ENGLISH EXPOSITOR (14TH ED., LONDON, 1731). 

BLASPHEMY:  NO ENTRY. 

SACRILEGE:  "THE ROBBING OF A CHURCH; THE STEALING OF HOLY THINGS, OR
ABUSING OF SACRAMENTS OR HOLY MYSTERIES." 

DEFOE, A COMPLEAT ENGLISH DICTIONARY (WESTMINSTER, 1735). 

BLASPHEMY:  "VILE OR OPPROBRIOUS LANGUAGE, TENDING TO THE DISHONOUR
OF GOD." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE STEALING OF SACRED THINGS, CHURCH ROBBING." 

BAILEY, AN UNIVERSAL ETYMOLOGICAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1742). 

BLASPHEMY:  "CURSING AND SWEARING, VILE REPROACHFUL LANGUAGE, TENDING
TO THE DISHONOUR OF GOD." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE STEALING OF SACRED THINGS, CHURCH ROBBING; AN
ALIENATION TO LAYMEN, AND TO PROFANE AND COMMON PURPOSES, OF WHAT WAS
GIVEN TO RELIGIOUS PERSONS, AND TO PIOUS USES." 

MARTIN, A NEW UNIVERSAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1754). 

BLASPHEMY:  "CURSING, VILE LANGUAGE TENDING TO THE DISHONOUR OF GOD
OR RELIGION." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE STEALING THINGS OUT OF A HOLY PLACE, OR THE
PROFANING THINGS DEVOTED TO GOD." 

JOHNSON, A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (2D ED., LONDON,
1755). 

BLASPHEMY:  "STRICTLY AND PROPERLY, IS AN OFFERING OF SOME INDIGNITY,
OR INJURY, UNTO GOD HIMSELF, EITHER BY WORDS OR WRITING." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE CRIME OF APPROPRIATING TO HIMSELF WHAT IS DEVOTED TO
RELIGION; THE CRIME OF ROBBING HEAVEN; THE CRIME OF VIOLATING OR
PROFANING THINGS SACRED." 

RIDER, A NEW UNIVERSAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1759). 

BLASPHEMY:  "AN OFFERING SOME INDIGNITY TO GOD, ANY PERSON OF THE
TRINITY, ANY MESSENGERS FROM GOD; HIS HOLY WRIT, OR THE DOCTRINES OF
REVELATION, EITHER BY SPEAKING OR WRITING ANY THING ILL OF THEM, OR
ASCRIBING ANY THING ILL TO THEM INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR NATURES AND THE
REVERENCE WE OWE THEM." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE CRIME OF TAKING ANY THING DEDICATED TO DIVINE
WORSHIP.  THE CRIME OF PROFANING ANY THING SACRED." 

PROFANE:  "TO APPLY ANY THING SACRED TO COMMON USE.  TO BE IRREVERENT
TO SACRED PERSONS OR THINGS.   TO PUT TO A WRONG USE." 

GORDON AND MARCHANT, A NEW COMPLETE ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON,
1760). 

BLASPHEMY:  "IS AN OFFERING SOME INDIGNITY TO GOD HIMSELF." 

SACRILEGE:  "IS THE CRIME OF APPROPRIATING TO HIMSELF WHAT IS DEVOTED
TO RELIGION; THE CRIME OF ROBBING HEAVEN." 

BUCHANAN, A NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1769). 

BLASPHEMY:  "LANGUAGE TENDING TO THE DISHONOUR OF GOD." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE STEALING THINGS OUT OF A HOLY PLACE." 

CUNNINGHAM, A NEW AND COMPLETE LAW-DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1771). 

BLASPHEMY:  A LONG DEFINITION READING IN PART:  "IS AN INJURY OFFERED
TO GOD, BY DENYING THAT WHICH IS DUE AND BELONGING TO HIM, OR
ATTRIBUTING TO HIM WHAT IS NOT AGREEABLE TO HIS NATURE." 

SACRILEGE:  "IS CHURCH ROBBERY, OR A TAKING OF THINGS OUT OF A HOLY
PLACE; AS WHERE A PERSON STEALS ANY VESSELS, ORNAMENTS, OR GOODS OF THE
CHURCH.  AND IT IS SAID TO BE A ROBBERY OF GOD, AT LEAST OF WHAT IS
DEDICATED TO HIS SERVICE.  2 CRO.  153, 154. 

"  ...  AN ALIENATION TO LAY-MEN, AND TO PROFANE OR COMMON PURPOSES,
OF WHAT WAS GIVEN TO RELIGIOUS PERSONS, AND TO PIOUS USES." 

KENRICK, A NEW DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (LONDON, 1773). 

BLASPHEMY:  "TREATING THE NAME AND ATTRIBUTES OF THE SUPREME BEING
WITH INSULT AND INDIGNITY." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE CRIME OF APPROPRIATING TO HIMSELF WHAT IS DEVOTED TO
RELIGION; THE CRIME OF ROBBING HEAVEN, SAYS JOHNSON; THE CRIME OF
VIOLATING OR PROFANING THINGS SACRED." 

PROFANE:  "TO VIOLATE; TO POLLUTE.  - TO PUT TO WRONG USE." 

ASH, THE NEW AND COMPLETE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (LONDON,
1775). 

BLASPHEMY:  "THE ACT OF SPEAKING OR WRITING REPROACHFULLY OF THE
DIVINE BEING, THE ACT OF ATTRIBUTING TO THE CREATURE THAT WHICH BELONGS
TO THE CREATOR." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE ACT OF APPROPRIATING TO ONE'S SELF WHAT IS DEVOTED
TO RELIGION, THE CRIME OF VIOLATING SACRED THINGS." 

DYCHE, A NEW GENERAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1777). 

BLASPHEMY:  "THE REPROACHING OR DISHONOURING GOD, RELIGION, AND HOLY
THINGS." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE STEALING OR TAKING AWAY THOSE THINGS THAT WERE
APPROPRIATED TO RELIGIOUS USES OR DESIGNS." 

SACRILEGIOUS:  "OF A PROFANE, THIEVISH NATURE, SORT, OR
DISPOSITION." 

BARCLAY, A COMPLETE AND UNIVERSAL ENGLISH DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1782). 

BLASPHEMY:  "AN OFFERING SOME INDIGNITY TO GOD, ANY PERSON OF THE
TRINITY, ANY MESSENGERS FROM GOD, HIS HOLY WRIT, OR THE DOCTRINES OF
REVELATION."    SACRILEGE:  "THE CRIME OF TAKING ANY THING DEDICATED TO
DIVINE WORSHIP, OR PROFANING ANY THING SACRED." 

PROFANE:  "TO APPLY ANY THING SACRED TO COMMON USE.  TO BE IRREVERENT
TO SACRED PERSONS OR THINGS." 

LEMON, ENGLISH ETYMOLOGY (LONDON, 1783). 

BLASPHEME:  "TO SPEAK EVIL OF ANY ONE; TO INJURE HIS FAME, OR
REPUTATION." 

SACRILEGE:  NO ENTRY. 

ENTICK, NEW SPELLING DICTIONARY (LONDON, 1786).    BLASPHEMY:
"INDIGNITY OFFERED TO GOD." 

BLASPHEMER:  "ONE WHO ABUSES GOD." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE ROBBERY OF A CHURCH OR CHAPEL." 

SACRILEGIOUS:  "VIOLATING A THING MADE SACRED." 

BURN, A NEW LAW DICTIONARY (DUBLIN, 1792). 

BLASPHEMY:  "SEE PROPHANENESS." 

PROFANENESS:  A LONG DEFINITION, NOT REPRODUCED HERE. 

SACRILEGE: "ROBBING OF THE CHURCH, OR STEALING THINGS OUT OF A SACRED
PLACE." 

SHERIDAN, A COMPLETE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (6TH ED.,
PHILA., 1796). 

BLASPHEMY:  "OFFERING OF SOME INDIGNITY TO GOD." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE CRIME OF ROBBING A CHURCH." 

SCOTT, DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (EDINBURGH, 1797). 

BLASPHEMY:  "INDIGNITY OFFERED TO GOD." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE ROBBERY OF A CHURCH, &C." 

RICHARDSON, A NEW DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (LONDON, 1839). 

BLASPHEMY:  "TO ATTACK, ASSAIL, INSULT, (THE NAME, THE ATTRIBUTES,
THE ORDINANCES, THE REVELATIONS, THE WILL OR GOVERNMENT OF GOD.)" 

SACRILEGE:  "TO TAKE AWAY, TO STEAL ANY THING SACRED, OR CONSECRATED,
OR DEDICATED TO HOLY OR RELIGIOUS USES." 

BELL, A DICTIONARY AND DIGEST OF THE LAW OF SCOTLAND (EDINBURGH,
1861). 

BLASPHEMY:  "IS THE DENYING OR VILIFYING OF THE DEITY, BY SPEECH OF
WRITING." 

SACRILEGE:  "IS ANY VIOLATION OF THINGS DEDICATED TO THE OFFICES OF
RELIGION." 

STAUNTON, AN ECCLESIASTICAL DICTIONARY (N.Y., 1861). 

BLASPHEMY:  A LONG ENTRY. 

SACRILEGE:  "THE ACT OF VIOLATING OR SUBJECTING SACRED THINGS TO
PROFANATION; OR THE DESECRATION OF OBJECTS CONSECRATED TO GOD.  THUS,
THE ROBBING OF CHURCHES OR OF GRAVES, THE ABUSE OF SACRED VESSELS AND
ALTARS BY EMPLOYING THEM FOR UNHALLOWED PURPOSES, THE PLUNDERING AND
MISAPPROPRIATION OF ALMS AND DONATIONS, ARE ACTS OF SACRILEGE, WHICH IN
THE ANCIENT CHURCH WERE PUNISHED WITH GREAT SEVERITY." 

BOUVIER, A LAW DICTIONARY (11TH ED., PHILA., 1866). 

BLASPHEMY:  "TO ATTRIBUTE TO GOD THAT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO HIS
NATURE, AND DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM, AND TO DENY WHAT DOES; OR IT IS A
FALSE REFLECTION UTTERED WITH A MALICIOUS DESIGN OF REVILING GOD." 

SACRILEGE:  "THE ACT OF STEALING FROM THE TEMPLES OR CHURCHES
DEDICATED TO THE WORSHIP OF GOD, ARTICLES CONSECRATED TO DIVINE USES." 

SHIPLEY, A GLOSSARY OF ECCLESIASTICAL TERMS (LONDON, 1872). 

BLASPHEMY:  "DENYING THE EXISTENCE OR PROVIDENCE OF GOD; CONTUMELOUS
REPROACHES OF JESUS CHRIST; PROFANE SCOFFING AT THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, OR
EXPOSING ANY PART THEREOF TO CONTEMPT OR RIDICULE." 

SACRILEGE: "THE PROFANATION OR ROBBERY OF PERSONS OR THINGS WHICH
HAVE BEEN SOLEMNLY DEDICATED TO THE SERVICE OF GOD.  V. 24 & 25 VICT. 
C. 96, S. 50." 

BROWN, A LAW DICTIONARY (SPRAGUE ED., ALBANY, 1875). 

BLASPHEMY:  "TO REVILE AT OR TO DENY THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY AS BY
LAW ESTABLISHED, IS A BLASPHEMY, AND AS SUCH IS PUNISHABLE BY THE
COMMON LAW  ...  ." 

SACRILEGE:  "A DESECRATION OF ANY THING THAT IS HOLY.  THE ALIENATION
OF LANDS WHICH WERE GIVEN TO RELIGIOUS PURPOSES TO LAYMEN, OR TO
PROFANE AND COMMON PURPOSES, WAS ALSO TERMED SACRILEGE." 
..END :
















STEMBRIDGE V. GEORGIA 343 U.S. 541 


NO. 474.  ARGUED APRIL 22, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 26, 1952 - CASE
DISMISSED. 


HAVING BEEN CONVICTED IN A GEORGIA STATE COURT OF INVOLUNTARY
MANSLAUGHTER AND HIS CONVICTION HAVING BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF GEORGIA, PETITIONER MOVED IN THE TRIAL COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL
ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  DENIAL OF THIS MOTION BY
THE TRIAL COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ON ADEQUATE STATE
GROUNDS.  PETITIONER THEN MOVED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR A REHEARING
ON THAT DECISION AND, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ATTEMPTED TO CLAIM A
VIOLATION OF HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT OPINION AND THE SUPREME COURT OF
GEORGIA DENIED CERTIORARI WITHOUT OPINION.  THEREAFTER, PETITIONER
OBTAINED FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS AN AMENDMENT OF THE RECORD
PURPORTING TO SHOW THAT, ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING, IT HAD CONSIDERED
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DECIDED IT ADVERSELY TO
PETITIONER.  WITHOUT SEEKING A REVIEW OF THIS AMENDING ORDER IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, PETITIONER APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR
CERTIORARI, WHICH WAS GRANTED.  HELD:  IT NOW APPEARING THAT THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA MIGHT HAVE RESTED ON AN
ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED, AND THE CASE IS DISMISSED.  PP. 542-548. 

1.  SINCE THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, WHICH WAS THE HIGHEST STATE
COURT IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD IN THIS CASE, WAS NOT ASKED TO
PASS UPON AND DID NOT PASS UPON THE AMENDING ORDER OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THIS COURT HAS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER ITS EFFECT.  P. 546. 

2.  SINCE THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA'S EARLIER DENIAL OF CERTIORARI
WITHOUT OPINION MIGHT HAVE RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, THIS
COURT WILL NOT TAKE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THAT JUDGMENT.  PP. 546
547. 

3.  THE AMENDING ORDER OF THE GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT
CHANGE THE POSTURE OF THIS CASE, SINCE IT DOES NOT REMOVE THE STRONG
POSSIBILITY, IN THE LIGHT OF GEORGIA LAW, THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF
GEORGIA MIGHT HAVE RESTED ITS ORDER DENYING CERTIORARI ON A NONFEDERAL
GROUND.  P. 547. 

STEMBRIDGE V. GEORGIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA AND TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF GEORGIA. 

A WRIT OF CERTIORARI HAVING BEEN IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED IN THIS CASE,
342 U.S. 940, THE CASE IS DISMISSED, P. 548. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER FOR THE FATAL
SHOOTING OF AN EIGHTEEN-YEAR-OLD WOMAN IN AN ALTERCATION GROWING OUT OF
A BUSINESS TRANSACTION.  A SECOND WOMAN WAS WOUNDED IN THE AFFRAY.  AT
HIS TRIAL, PETITIONER CLAIMED THAT HE KILLED THE DECEASED IN SELF
DEFENSE.  THE JURY OBVIOUSLY DID NOT BELIEVE HIM OR IT WOULD NOT HAVE
FOUND HIM GUILTY OF VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER.  HE APPEALED TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA WHICH AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION ON JULY 12, 1950. 
STEMBRIDGE V. STATE, 82 GA. APP. 214, 60 S.E.2D 491.  CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA WAS DENIED. 

PETITIONER THEREAFTER FILED IN THE TRIAL COURT WHAT HE CALLED AN
"EXTRAORDINARY MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL."  THIS MOTION ALLEGED THAT AFTER
THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ABOVE MENTIONED, PETITIONER FOR THE FIRST
TIME, TO WIT, SEPTEMBER, 1950, DISCOVERED NEW EVIDENCE WHICH, HAD HE
KNOWN OF AND BEEN ABLE TO USE, WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN HIS ACQUITTAL. 
HE SUPPORTED THE MOTION WITH AFFIDAVITS OF TEN OF THE JURORS IN THE
CASE STATING THAT HAD THIS EVIDENCE BEEN BEFORE THEM, THEY "WOULD HAVE
NEVER AGREED TO ANY VERDICT EXCEPT ONE OF NOT GUILTY  ...  ." 

THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE CONSISTED OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN A
WRITTEN STATEMENT MADE BY MRS. MARY HARRISON, THE OTHER WOMAN WHO WAS
SHOT IN THE AFFRAY, AND HER TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL.  PETITIONER COULD
NOT CONTEND THAT HE WAS UNAWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS STATEMENT
BECAUSE THE POLICE INVESTIGATOR WHO RECORDED IT WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AT
LENGTH ABOUT THE STATEMENT AND ITS CONTENTS BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL AT
THE TRIAL.  PETITIONER CLAIMS ONLY THAT HE DID NOT KNOW OF THE CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE STATEMENT AND MRS. HARRISON'S TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL UNTIL
AFTER THE TRIAL WAS OVER.  THE STATEMENT WAS MADE BY MRS. HARRISON IN
THE HOSPITAL, SHORTLY AFTER SHE WAS SHOT.  IT IS NOT SWORN TO.  AT
LEAST, THERE IS NO JURAT EXHIBITED AS A PART THEREOF.  THIS STATEMENT,
OFTEN REFERRED TO AS A DYING DECLARATION, AND THE COPY THEREOF REMAINED
AT ALL TIMES IN THE HANDS OF THE POLICE.  SINCE MRS. HARRISON DID NOT
DIE, THE STATE COULD NOT USE THE STATEMENT AS A DYING DECLARATION.  GA.
CODE, SEC. 38-307 (1933). 

THE MOTION ALLEGES THAT AT PETITIONER'S TRIAL, MRS. HARRISON
TESTIFIED THAT HE "DID GO INTO THE THIRD ROOM OF THE HOUSE AND THAT HE
DID SHOOT EMMA JOHNEKIN AFTER HE HAD ALREADY WOUNDED HER IN THE FRONT
OF THE HOUSE, AND AFTER SHE HAD SEATED HERSELF ON A TRUNK IN THIS REAR
ROOM."  THE HOUSE WHERE THE SHOOTING OCCURRED CONSISTED OF THREE ROOMS,
IN LINE FROM FRONT TO REAR, AND A KITCHEN.  THE STATEMENT MADE BY MRS.
HARRISON WHILE IN THE HOSPITAL, WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY IN CONFLICT WITH HER
TESTIMONY, WAS "AND EMMA (DECEASED) NEVER GOT OUT OF THE FRONT BED ROOM
UNTIL AFTER THE MEN (STEMBRIDGE AND TERRY) HAD ALREADY GONE." 

THIS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WAS
DENIED BY THE TRIAL COURT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND
THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS IMPEACHING ONLY AND UNDER THE GEORGIA CODE, SEC.
70-204, WAS NOT THE BASIS FOR THE GRANTING OF A NEW TRIAL.  STEMBRIDGE
V. STATE, 84 GA. APP. 413, 415-416, 65 S.E.2D 819, 821.  THIS JUDGMENT
WAS ENTERED JUNE 5, 1951. 

PETITIONER THEN FILED A MOTION FOR REHEARING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND FOR THE FIRST TIME ATTEMPTED TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF HIS FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.   HE CONTENDED
THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS IN THAT THE
STATE HAD USED MRS. HARRISON'S TESTIMONY TO OBTAIN HIS CONVICTION WITH
KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS PERJURED.  THE MOTION FOR REHEARING WAS DENIED
JULY 17, 1951, IN THESE WORDS:  "UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION FOR A
REHEARING FILED IN THIS CASE, IT IS ORDERED THAT IT BE HEREBY DENIED." 
ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1951, THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA DENIED CERTIORARI
WITHOUT OPINION.  ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1951, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AT
PETITIONER'S REQUEST, STAYED THE REMITTITUR FOR NINETY DAYS TO ENABLE
HIM TO APPLY TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI. 

ON OCTOBER 22, 1951, PETITIONER SOUGHT AND OBTAINED FROM THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF GEORGIA AN AMENDMENT OF THE RECORD IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: 

"IN THE CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT OF THE REHEARING WHICH RAISED THE
FEDERAL QUESTION THAT 'THE PLACING IN THIS CASE, BY THE STATE, OF
EVIDENCE KNOWN TO BE PERJURED SEEKS TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR OF
LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 2-103 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA AND IN VIOLATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,' THIS COURT CONSIDERED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THUS RAISED AND DECIDED IT AGAINST THE
CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.  IN SO DOING THIS COURT
CONSIDERED SEC. 110-706 OF THE CODE OF GEORGIA OF 1933 WHICH PROVIDES
AS FOLLOWS:  'ANY JUDGMENT, VERDICT, RULE OR ORDER OF COURT, WHICH MAY
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED OR ENTERED UP, SHALL BE SET ASIDE AND BE OF NO
EFFECT, IF IT SHALL APPEAR THAT THE SAME WAS ENTERED UP IN CONSEQUENCE
OF CORRUPT AND WILFUL PERJURY; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COURT IN
WHICH SUCH VERDICT, JUDGMENT, RULE OR ORDER WAS OBTAINED OR ENTERED UP
TO CAUSE THE SAME TO BE SET ASIDE UPON MOTION AND NOTICE TO THE ADVERSE
PARTY; BUT IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR THE SAID COURT TO DO SO, UNLESS
THE PERSON CHARGED WITH SUCH PERJURY SHALL HAVE BEEN THEREOF DULY
CONVICTED, AND UNLESS IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE SAID COURT THAT THE SAID
VERDICT, JUDGMENT, RULE OR ORDER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND
ENTERED UP WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH PERJURED PERSON, SAVING ALWAYS
TO THIRD PERSONS INNOCENT OF SUCH PERJURY THE RIGHTS WHICH THEY MAY
LAWFULLY HAVE ACQUIRED UNDER SUCH VERDICT, JUDGMENT, RULE, OR ORDER
BEFORE THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY VACATED AND SET ASIDE'; AND
BURKE V. STATE, 205 GA. 656, ET SEQ. WHICH IS A DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF THIS STATE AND IS THEREFORE BINDING ON THIS COURT, AND IN
WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR WAS
DECIDED ADVERSELY TO HIS CONTENTIONS.  THE DECISION OF THIS COURT ON
THE REHEARING IN QUESTION BEING ADVERSE TO THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
NECESSARILY BROUGHT INTO CONSIDERATION THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR AS GUARANTEED TO HIM UNDER THE 14TH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN VIOLATED,
AND SUCH DECISION NECESSARILY DETERMINED THAT SUCH RIGHTS HAD NOT BEEN
SO VIOLATED.  THE DECISION BY THIS COURT DENYING THE REHEARING
NECESSARILY DETERMINED THAT THE ACTION OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AS
SHOWN BY THE RECORD DID NOT DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR OF ANY
RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO HIM UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES; ALSO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT NECESSARILY
APPLIED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES TO SEC. 110-706 OF THE CODE OF GEORGIA OF 1933 AND DECIDED THAT
ITS APPLICATION IN THIS CASE DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN ABRIDGEMENT OF ANY OF
THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR GUARANTEED TO HIM UNDER THE 14TH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; AND ALSO THAT THIS
COURT NECESSARILY CONSIDERED BURKE V. STATE, 205 GA. 656, WHICH IS A
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE BY WHICH THIS COURT IS
BOUND AND WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS
TO HOLD THAT IT DOES NOT ABRIDGE ANY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN
ERROR GUARANTEED TO HIM UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES." 

REVIEW OF THIS AMENDING ORDER, WHICH PURPORTED TO PASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED IN THE MOTION FOR REHEARING, WAS NOT
SOUGHT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA.  INSTEAD, CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT
HERE AND GRANTED.  342 U.S. 940. 

FIRST, SINCE THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, WHICH WAS THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD IN THIS CASE, WAS
NOT ASKED TO PASS UPON AND DID NOT PASS UPON THE PURPORTED AMENDING
ORDER, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER ITS EFFECT. 

SECONDLY, AT THE TIME THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS DENIED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, THERE APPEARED IN THE PETITION THE FOLLOWING
RECITAL: 

"THIS JUDGMENT AND DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE IN
FAILING AND REFUSING TO DECIDE APPLICANT'S CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.
2-3708 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA ALSO VIOLATES ARTICLE 1, SEC. 1,
PAR. 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA (CODE SEC. 2-103) AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (CODE
SEC. 1-815); BOTH OF WHICH SECTIONS PROVIDE THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE
DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; AND ARTICLE 1, SEC.
1, PAR. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (CODE
SEC. 1-815), GUARANTEEING TO ALL PERSONS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW." 

IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA TOOK
NO ACTION UPON THE QUESTION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS RAISED FOR
THE FIRST TIME ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
THIS WAS IN ACCORD WITH ITS RULE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS MUST
FIRST BE RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT.  BECKMANN V. ATLANTIC RFG.  CO.,
181 GA. 456, 182 S.E. 595.  THE ATTEMPT TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE ABOVE QUOTATION FROM
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DID NOT BEGIN TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA FOR DEFINITENESS.  PERSONS V. LEA, 207 GA.
384, 61 S.E.2D 832. 

AT THIS STAGE, THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA COULD HAVE DENIED
CERTIORARI ON ADEQUATE STATE GROUNDS.  WHERE THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE DELIVERS NO OPINION AND IT APPEARS THAT THE JUDGMENT MIGHT HAVE
RESTED UPON A NONFEDERAL GROUND, THIS COURT WILL NOT TAKE JURISDICTION
TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT.  HEDGEBETH V. NORTH CAROLINA, 334 U.S. 806;
WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211; WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760;
MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP., 309 U.S. 2; WOOLSEY V. BEST, 299 U.S. 1;
LYNCH V. NEW YORK EX REL. PIERSON, 293 U.S. 52; CUYAHOGA POWER CO. V.
NORTHERN REALTY CO., 244 U.S. 300, 303-304; ADAMS V. RUSSELL, 229 U.S.
353, 358-362; ALLEN V. ARGUIMBAU, 198 U.S. 149, 154-155; JOHNSON V.
RISK, 137 U.S. 300, 307; KLINGER V. MISSOURI, 13 WALL.  257, 263. 

THE AMENDING ORDER OF THE GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT, IN OUR
VIEW, CHANGE THE POSTURE OF THIS CASE - IT DOES NOT REMOVE THE STRONG
POSSIBILITY, IN LIGHT OF GEORGIA LAW, THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
MIGHT HAVE RESTED ITS ORDER ON A NONFEDERAL GROUND.  WE ARE WITHOUT
JURISDICTION WHEN THE QUESTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN ADEQUATE STATE
GROUND IS DEBATABLE.  BACHTEL V. WILSON, 204 U.S. 36. 

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED, AND THE CASE
IS DISMISSED.  DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING. 

WHILE I THINK THE BETTER COURSE WOULD BE TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF
THE GEORGIA COURTS, I JOIN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON
DISSENT FROM THE DISMISSAL. 
..END :
















PALMER OIL CORP. V. AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. 343 U.S. 390 


NO. 301.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 12, 1952 - 204 OKLA. 543,
231 P.2D 997, APPEALS DISMISSED. 


APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT OKLA. STAT., 1941 (CUM. SUPP. 1949), TIT. 52,
SECS. 286.1-286.17, PROVIDING FOR UNITIZED MANAGEMENT OF COMMON SOURCES
OF SUPPLY OF OIL AND GAS IN OKLAHOMA, AND AN ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA
CORPORATION COMMISSION THEREUNDER, VIOLATED ART. I, SEC. 10 OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HELD: IN THE LIGHT OF CITIES SERVICE GAS
CO. V. PEERLESS OIL & GAS CO., 340 U.S. 179, AND OTHER DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT CITED IN THE OPINION, APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO RAISE ANY
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION, AND THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.  PP. 391
392. 

PALMER OIL CORP. ET AL. V. AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 302, FARWELL ET AL. V. AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. ET
AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

PER CURIAM. 

THESE TWO APPEALS CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OKLA. STAT.,
1941 (CUM. SUPP. 1949), TIT. 52, SECS. 286.1-286.17, PROVIDING FOR
UNITIZED MANAGEMENT OF COMMON SOURCES OF SUPPLY OF OIL AND GAS IN
OKLAHOMA.  THIS STATUTE WAS REPEALED BY THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE ON MAY
26, 1951, OKLA. LAWS 1951, C. 3A, SEC. 16, P. 142, AND WE ORDERED THE
CAUSES CONTINUED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THIS REPEAL ON THE
MATTERS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS.  342 U.S. 35 (1951).  AFTER BEING
ADVISED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA THAT THIS REPEAL HAD NO EFFECT
ON THESE CAUSES, WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION AND HEARD ARGUMENT. 

APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THIS STATUTE AND AN ORDER ISSUED THEREUNDER
BY THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION IMPAIR THEIR CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS
IN VIOLATION OF U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 10, AND AMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF
THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  SPECIFICALLY, APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THE STATUTE IS AN
UNREASONABLE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POLICE POWER AND AN UNREASONABLE
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL POWER TO PRIVATE GROUPS.  IN
ADDITION, APPELLANTS MAINTAIN THAT THE STATUTE IS TOO VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE TO FURNISH THE COMMISSION WITH ANY REASONABLE GUIDE FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF ORDERS APPROVING UNITIZATION PLANS, AND THAT THE EVIDENCE
DOES NOT SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT. 

IN THE LIGHT OF OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS, APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO
RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTIONS AND THE APPEALS ARE THEREFORE
DISMISSED.  CITIES SERVICE GAS CO. V. PEERLESS OIL & GAS CO., 340 U.S.
179 (1950); RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO.,
311 U.S. 570 (1941; RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL
CO., 310 U.S. 573, AS AMENDED, 311 U.S. 614, 615 (1940); PATTERSON V.
STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO., 305 U.S. 376 (1939); HOME BUILDING & LOAN
ASSOCIATION V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 435, 436, 437 (1934); CHAMPLIN
REFINING CO. V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210 (1932). 
DISMISSED. 
..END :
















DIXON V. DUFFY 343 U.S. 393 


NO. 79.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1951 - CONTINUED NOVEMBER 5, 1951 - FURTHER
CONTINUED MAY 12, 1952. 


1.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ADVICE WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
HAS CONDUCTED ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE OR HAS SO ENTERED AS
TO BECOME A PART OF THE RECORD ANY ORDER, OPINION OR CERTIFICATE SINCE
THIS COURT'S EARLIER CONTINUANCE OF THE CAUSE, A LETTER, APPARENTLY NOT
A PART OF THE CASE RECORD, RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT AND
SIGNED BY THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA IS NOT REGARDED
AS A SUFFICIENT "DETERMINATION" OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE JUDGMENT
BELOW WAS INTENDED TO REST ON AN ADEQUATE INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND OR
WHETHER DECISION OF THE FEDERAL CLAIM WAS NECESSARY THERETO.  P. 393. 

2.  THIS CAUSE IS FURTHER CONTINUED FOR SUCH PERIOD AS WILL ENABLE
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO SECURE FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
AN OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION.  P. 394. 

DIXON V. DUFFY, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

ON NOVEMBER 5, 1951, WE ORDERED THIS CAUSE "CONTINUED FOR SUCH PERIOD
AS WILL ENABLE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO SECURE A DETERMINATION FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AS TO WHETHER THE JUDGMENT HEREIN WAS
INTENDED TO REST ON AN ADEQUATE INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND OR WHETHER
DECISION OF THE FEDERAL CLAIM WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED." 
342 U.S. 33, 34 (1951). 

WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN ADVISED WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
HAS CONDUCTED ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE OR HAS SO ENTERED AS
TO BECOME A PART OF THE RECORD, ANY ORDER, OPINION OR CERTIFICATE AFTER
NOVEMBER 5, 1951.  WE DO NOT REGARD A LETTER, NOT APPARENTLY A PART OF
THE CASE RECORD, RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT ON MARCH 31, 1952,
SIGNED BY THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AS A SUFFICIENT
"DETERMINATION" OF THE QUESTION RAISED IN OUR ORDER OF NOVEMBER 5,
1951. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE CAUSE IS ORDERED FURTHER CONTINUED FOR SUCH PERIOD
AS WILL ENABLE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO SECURE FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF CALIFORNIA ITS OFFICIAL DETERMINATION AS REQUESTED IN OUR ORDER OF
NOVEMBER 5, 1951.  CAUSE CONTINUED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, BEING OF THE OPINION THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION
IN THE CASE HAS BEEN FULLY EXPOSED, DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















SWIFT & COMPANY V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 373 


NO. 282.  ARGUED MARCH 5-6, 1952 - DECIDED MAY 5, 1952 - AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANT FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
AGAINST SEVERAL RAILROADS, ALLEGING THAT THE CHARGES ON DIRECT CARLOAD
SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK FROM OUT-OF-STATE POINTS TO ITS PROPOSED NEW
PLANT IN THE CHICAGO PACKINGTOWN AREA, NOT ON THE LINE OF ANY LINE-HAUL
CARRIER, ARE (1) UNREASONABLE, (2) UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO LIVESTOCK AS A
COMMODITY, AND (3) UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO APPELLANT AS AGAINST ITS
COMPETITORS, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
APPELLANT ASKED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REASONABLE JOINT THROUGH RATES
FOR THE CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILROAD AND LINE-HAUL CARRIERS SERVING
CHICAGO, TO INCLUDE DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK TO APPELLANT'S INDUSTRIAL
SIDING AT ITS PROPOSED PLANT, AND NOT TO EXCEED THE LINE-HAUL RATES
THEN IN EFFECT AT THE UNION STOCK YARDS AND OTHER POINTS OF DELIVERY ON
LINE-HAUL RAILROADS IN THE AREA.  THE TARIFF COMPLAINED OF INVOLVES A
FLAT ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR SWITCHING CARLOAD FREIGHT TO AND FROM
INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS AND TEAM TRACKS.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE
SWITCHING CHARGE WAS NOT UNREASONABLE OR OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL AS APPLIED
TO LIVESTOCK AND THAT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE JOINT RATES WAS NOT IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST; AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  HELD:  THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION IS BASED ON FINDINGS ABUNDANTLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON
THE WHOLE RECORD, AND MUST BE SUSTAINED ON JUDICIAL REVIEW.  PP. 375
386. 

1.  WHETHER THE 70-YEAR-OLD SYSTEM FOR THE DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK INTO
CHICAGO AT LINE-HAUL RATES SHOULD BE DISPLACED BY ANOTHER SYSTEM WHICH
WOULD FURTHER COMPLICATE OPERATIONS IN A HIGHLY CONGESTED AREA, AND
WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE THE USE OF PROPERTIES AND SERVICES NOT INCLUDED
WHEN THE PRESENT LINE-HAUL RATES AND TERMINALS WERE FIXED, IS A
QUESTION COMMITTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION. 
PP. 381-382. 

2.  THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE SWITCHING CHARGES WERE
UNREASONABLE WAS UPON APPELLANT; AND THAT BURDEN WAS NOT SUSTAINED ON
THIS RECORD.  PP. 382-383. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE RATE IS SO HIGH THAT APPELLANT FINDS IT
UNECONOMICAL TO USE DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF ESTABLISH
UNREASONABLENESS OF THE RATE.  P. 383. 

4.  THE CONTENTION THAT BECAUSE "DEAD FREIGHT" IS DELIVERED TO
APPELLANT'S INDUSTRIAL SIDING AT THE LINE-HAUL RATE, IT IS A
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LIVESTOCK AS A COMMODITY TO IMPOSE A SWITCHING
CHARGE IN ADDITION TO THE LINE-HAUL RATE FOR DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK TO
THE SAME POINT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, IN VIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS AS TO THE DIFFERENT AND MORE COMPLEX NATURE OF THE SWITCHING
SERVICES REQUIRED BY LIVESTOCK AS COMPARED WITH "DEAD FREIGHT."  UNITED
STATES V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 333 U.S. 169, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 383
385. 

5.  APPELLANT FAILED TO SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING PREJUDICIAL
TREATMENT OF IT AS COMPARED WITH ITS COMPETITORS IN LOCALITIES OTHER
THAN CHICAGO, SINCE IT RECEIVES THE SAME RATES AND SERVICES AS OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED.  P. 385. 

6.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION OF THE LEGALITY OF A
COVENANT WHICH IS SAID TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT IS NOT
SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING IN ANY MANNER NOR TO HAVE BEEN RELIED
UPON BY THE COMMISSION.  PP. 385-386. 

SWIFT & COMPANY V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

ON REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
DISMISSING APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT, 274 I.C.C. 557, A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  APPELLANT APPEALED
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1253 AND 2101(B). 
AFFIRMED, P. 386. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON JULY 28, 1947, THE APPELLANT, SWIFT AND COMPANY, FILED A
COMPLAINT, LATER AMENDED, BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
AGAINST THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE AND OTHER RAILROADS, ALLEGING
THAT THE CHARGES ON DIRECT CARLOAD SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK (FN1) FROM
POINTS OUTSIDE ILLINOIS TO ITS PROPOSED NEW PLANT IN THE CHICAGO
PACKINGTOWN AREA ARE (1) UNREASONABLE, (2) UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO
LIVESTOCK AS A COMMODITY, AND (3) UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO SWIFT AS
AGAINST ITS COMPETITORS, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  (FN2)  SWIFT ASKED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REASONABLE JOINT
THROUGH RATES FOR LINE-HAUL CARRIERS SERVING CHICAGO AND THE CHICAGO
JUNCTION RAILROAD'S LESSEE, THE CHICAGO RIVER AND INDIANA RAILROAD,
HEREAFTER CALLED JUNCTION, (FN3) SUCH JOINT RATES TO INCLUDE DELIVERY
OF LIVESTOCK TO SWIFT'S INDUSTRIAL SIDING AT ITS PROPOSED PLANT AND NOT
TO EXCEED THE LINE-HAUL RATES NOW IN EFFECT AT THE UNION STOCK YARDS
AND OTHER POINTS OF DELIVERY ON LINE-HAUL RAILROADS IN THE AREA. 
SWIFT'S PROPOSED PLANT, NEAR ITS PRESENT PLANT, WILL BE LOCATED ON
JUNCTION'S RAILS AND NOT ON THOSE OF ANY LINE-HAUL CARRIER. 

AFTER SWIFT FILED ITS COMPLAINT, JUNCTION SOUGHT TO FILE A NEW TARIFF
CANCELLING THE PRESENT ONE AS IT APPLIES TO LIVESTOCK.  THE PRESENT
TARIFF PROVIDES A FLAT CHARGE FOR SWITCHING CARLOAD FREIGHT TO AND FROM
INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS AND TEAM TRACKS; UNDER THE NEW TARIFF, JUNCTION
WOULD NOT HAVE OFFERED SWITCHING SERVICES FOR LIVESTOCK UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES.  SWIFT AND OTHER OBJECTED, AND THE FILING WAS SUSPENDED
SO THAT THE COMMISSION COULD HEAR SWIFT'S COMPLAINT AND JUNCTION'S
REQUEST TOGETHER ON A CONSOLIDATED RECORD. 

THE COMMISSION DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND REFUSED TO CANCEL THE
SWITCHING TARIFF AS TO LIVESTOCK.  SWIFT & CO. V. ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R.
CO., 274 I.C.C. 557.  SWIFT THEN SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER OF DISMISSAL BY A STATUTORY THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT
COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, AND THIS APPEAL FOLLOWED
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1253 AND 2101(B).  NO QUESTION IS RAISED AS
TO THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO CANCEL THE SWITCHING TARIFF. 

ALL LIVESTOCK SHIPMENTS BY RAIL TO THE CHICAGO AREA ARE HANDLED
SOLELY BY THE LINE-HAUL CARRIERS; DELIVERY IS DIRECT TO LINE-HAUL
TERMINALS AT THE LINE-HAUL RATE.  SUCH TERMINALS ARE THE STOCK YARDS
AND THOSE UNLOADING PENS LOCATED ON SWITCHES DIRECTLY ADJOINING A LINE
HAUL CARRIER'S RAILS.  SWIFT IS THE ONE LARGE PACKER IN CHICAGO THAT
HAS SUCH A LINE-HAUL TERMINAL AND CAN RECEIVE ALL ITS DIRECT SHIPMENTS
OF LIVESTOCK AT LINE-HAUL RATES.  THIS TERMINAL, THE OMAHA PACKING
PLANT, A SWIFT SUBSIDIARY SITUATED TWO AND ONE-HALF MILES NORTHEAST OF
SWIFT'S PRESENT PLANT AND OUTSIDE THE STOCK YARDS DISTRICT, IS LOCATED
ON THE RAILS OF THE BURLINGTON RAILROAD, A LINE-HAUL CARRIER.  HERE
SWIFT RECEIVES ITS DIRECT LIVESTOCK SHIPMENTS, ABOUT 6,500 CARLOADS
ANNUALLY, WHICH IT TRUCKS TO ITS PLANT IN THE STOCK YARDS AREA.  (FN4)
THE BALANCE OF THE LIVESTOCK DELIVERED IN CHICAGO, WHETHER DIRECT OR
OTHERWISE, IS DELIVERED TO THE STOCK YARDS, WITH SOME MINOR EXCEPTIONS,
BY THE LINE-HAUL CARRIERS OVER CERTAIN JUNCTION RUNNING TRACKS TO THE
STOCK YARDS UNLOADING PENS.  THE CARRIERS HAVE TRACKAGE RIGHTS ON THESE
RUNNING TRACKS FOR WHICH A CHARGE IS PAID TO JUNCTION.  ON DIRECT
SHIPMENTS TO A PACKER DELIVERED TO THE STOCK YARDS, THE YARDS'
FACILITIES, INCLUDING A VAST SYSTEM OF RUNWAYS, OVERPASSES AND TUNNELS,
ARE USED TO DRIVE THE LIVESTOCK FROM THE UNLOADING PENS TO THE PACKER'S
PLANT.  THE CHARGES FOR THESE FACILITIES ARE FIXED BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE.  JUNCTION HAS NEVER SWITCHED OR HANDLED ANY LIVESTOCK
EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY. 

THE DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK IN THE STOCK YARDS AREA IS TO BE CONTRASTED
WITH THAT OF "DEAD FREIGHT."  (FN5)  THE LINE-HAUL CARRIERS MAKE NO
DIRECT DELIVERIES OF DEAD FREIGHT; NONE OF THE APPROXIMATELY 500
INDUSTRIES IN THE AREA HAVE PLANTS LOCATED ON LINE-HAUL RAILS AND THE
LINE-HAUL CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE TRACKAGE RIGHTS OVER THE JUNCTION RAILS
WHICH LEAD TO THE PLANTS.  CONSEQUENTLY, ALL DEAD FREIGHT IS SWITCHED
BY JUNCTION AND DELIVERED TO THE INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS OR TEAM TRACKS
ALONGSIDE OF AND CONNECTING WITH JUNCTION'S RAILS. 

SINCE JUNCTION PROVIDES ONLY TRACKAGE RIGHTS FOR THE LIVESTOCK
SHIPMENTS TO THE STOCK YARDS, THE LINE-HAUL RATES ON LIVESTOCK DO NOT
INCLUDE JUNCTION AS A PARTICIPATING CARRIER.  JUNCTION DOES
PARTICIPATE, HOWEVER, IN JOINT RATES FOR DEAD FREIGHT.  FOR ANY
SWITCHING OPERATION NOT COVERED BY LINE-HAUL RATES IN WHICH JUNCTION
PARTICIPATES, JUNCTION HAS A FLAT SWITCHING CHARGE OF $28.80 PER CAR. 
(FN6)  THIS CHARGE WOULD APPLY TO ANY DIRECT SHIPMENTS AT SWIFT'S
PROPOSED PLANT IN PACKINGTOWN WHICH, AS WE HAVE NOTED, IS NOT LOCATED
ON ANY LINE-HAUL RAILS BUT RATHER ON JUNCTION'S RAILS. 

TRAINS FOR THE STOCK YARDS ARE MADE UP AT THE BREAK-UP YARDS OF THE
LINE-HAUL CARRIERS, LOCATED FROM A FEW TO SEVERAL MILES FROM THE STOCK
YARDS.  A TRAIN COMING IN FROM THE WEST MOVES TO THE ASHLAND YARDS OF
JUNCTION, WHICH ARE DIVIDED INTO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH YARDS.  THE
NORTH YARDS ARE USED FOR THE RECEIPT, SEPARATION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF
CARS OF DEAD FREIGHT AND EMPTIES OUTBOUND FROM THE PACKERS AND OTHER
INDUSTRIES, WHILE THE SOUTH YARDS ARE USED FOR CARS OF DEAD FREIGHT
INBOUND.  THIS DIVISION IS MADE BY THREE PARALLEL RUNNING TRACKS OWNED
BY JUNCTION, NUMBERED 1102, 1103 AND 1104, OVER WHICH THE LINE-HAUL
CARRIERS ARE PERMITTED TO OPERATE IN AND OUT OF THE STOCK YARDS.  SIXTY
THREE PERCENT OF THE TRAINS TO THE STOCK YARDS AREA ARE COMPOSED
EXCLUSIVELY OF LIVESTOCK.  THE BALANCE ARE CONSOLIDATED TRAINS,
CARRYING BOTH LIVESTOCK AND DEAD FREIGHT. 

AN ALL-LIVESTOCK TRAIN MOVES BY LINE-HAUL CARRIER, USING ITS OWN CREW
AND EQUIPMENT, EASTWARD OVER TRACK 1103 TO THE UNLOADING PENS IN THE
STOCK YARDS AND IS THERE SPOTTED FOR UNLOADING.  WHILE THE CARS ARE
BEING UNLOADED, THE ENGINE CUTS OFF, PASSES AROUND TO THE OTHER END OF
THE TRAIN AND COUPLES ON; WHEN THE UNLOADING IS COMPLETED, THE TRAIN
RETURNS WESTWARD OVER TRACK 1102 OR 1104 THROUGH JUNCTION'S ASHLAND
YARDS AND BACK TO ITS BREAK-UP YARDS WITH THE EMPTIES.  THIS ALL
LIVESTOCK TRAIN IS DELIVERED TO THE STOCK YARDS IN ONE MOVEMENT BY LINE
HAUL CARRIERS FOR LINE-HAUL RATES. 

A CONSOLIDATED TRAIN MOVES THROUGH THE ASHLAND YARDS FROM THE BREAK
UP YARDS TO A CERTAIN POINT ON TRACK 1103, JUST AS AN ALL-LIVESTOCK
TRAIN.  IN THIS CONSOLIDATED TRAIN, THE DEAD-FREIGHT CARS ARE HAULED
JUST BEHIND THE ENGINE AND THE LIVESTOCK CARS IN THE REAR.  AT A
CERTAIN POINT ON TRACK 1103 THE DEAD-FREIGHT CARS ARE CUT OUT AND
SWITCHED INTO THE SOUTH YARDS UPON ONE OF THE NINE JUNCTION RECEIVING
TRACKS, FROM WHICH TRACKS JUNCTION LATER MOVES THE DEAD FREIGHT TO THE
INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS AND TEAM TRACKS OF THE PACKERS AND OTHER INDUSTRIES
LOCATED IN THE AREA.  AFTER THE DEAD FREIGHT HAS BEEN SWITCHED TO THE
RECEIVING TRACKS, THE LINE-HAUL ENGINE RETURNS TO TRACK 1103 TO COUPLE
ONTO THE LIVESTOCK CARS AND MOVE THEM TO THE UNLOADING PENS.  WHILE THE
DEAD FREIGHT IS BEING SWITCHED TO THE SOUTH YARDS, TRACK 1103, THE ONLY
MEANS OF INGRESS TO THE STOCK YARDS FROM THE WEST, IS BLOCKED BY THE
LIVESTOCK CARS REMAINING ON THE TRACK.  SOMETIMES AS MANY AS FOUR
TRAINS AT A TIME ARE TIED UP BY REASON OF THE BLOCK ON TRACK 1103. 

AN ALL-LIVESTOCK TRAIN COMING IN FROM THE EAST DOES NOT PASS THROUGH
THE ASHLAND YARDS BUT PROCEEDS DIRECTLY TO THE STOCK YARDS FROM THE
BREAK-UP YARDS.  HOWEVER, ALL DEAD FREIGHT MOVES THROUGH THE ASHLAND
YARDS, AS WOULD ALL LIVESTOCK TO BE DELIVERED TO SWIFT IF ITS COMPLAINT
WERE GRANTED.  THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE LIVESTOCK SHIPMENTS ARE
HANDLED BY THE WESTERN CARRIERS MAKES THIS PORTION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION OPERATION UNIMPORTANT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES. 

IF THIS COMPLAINT WERE GRANTED, LIVESTOCK WOULD MOVE TO SWIFT'S
PROPOSED PLANT IN THE MANNER OF DEAD FREIGHT.  INSTEAD OF ONE MOVEMENT,
AS THE LINE-HAUL MOVEMENT TO THE STOCK YARDS, THERE WOULD BE TWO
MOVEMENTS - ONE TO THE RECEIVING TRACKS IN THE SOUTH ASHLAND YARDS MADE
BY THE LINE-HAUL CARRIERS, AND THE SECOND MOVEMENT BY JUNCTION FROM ITS
SOUTH YARDS TO SWIFT'S PLANT, LOCATED ON JUNCTION'S RAILS.  THE TIE-UP
ON TRACK 1103, DESCRIBED ABOVE, WOULD BE INCREASED ACCORDINGLY AS
TRAINS CONSIGNED TO THE STOCK YARDS WOULD HAVE TO PLACE ANY OF SWIFT'S
LIVESTOCK CARS ON THE JUNCTION RECEIVING TRACKS.  THE CONGESTION AND
COSTS INVOLVED WOULD BE INCREASED BY THE FACT THAT LIVESTOCK CANNOT BE
HANDLED AS EASILY AS DEAD FREIGHT.  LIVESTOCK CARS CANNOT BE "KICKED"
IN SWITCHING OPERATIONS AS CAN DEAD-FREIGHT CARS, WHICH ARE STOPPED BY
COLLISION WITH OTHER CARS.  LIVESTOCK CARS MUST BE PLACED WITH A
MINIMUM OF ROUGH HANDLING.  STILL FURTHER DIFFICULTIES WOULD BE
ENCOUNTERED BECAUSE LIVESTOCK MUST BE UNLOADED, WATERED AND FED EVERY
TWENTY-EIGHT HOURS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW.  45 U.S.C. SEC. 71
ET SEQ. WHEN LIVESTOCK ARRIVES IN CHICAGO, THERE ARE GENERALLY ONLY A
FEW HOURS REMAINING FOR DELIVERY TO UNLOADING PENS IN ORDER TO COMPLY
WITH THIS LAW.  THEREFORE, EXPEDITIOUS HANDLING OF THE LIVESTOCK IS
REQUIRED, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE NO FACILITIES ALONG JUNCTION'S
RAILS FOR SUCH UNLOADING, WATERING AND FEEDING.  SOME 31 HOURS ARE
REQUIRED FOR A CAR OF DEAD FREIGHT TO CLEAR ASHLAND YARDS AND BE
DELIVERED.  IT IS APPARENT THAT LIVESTOCK MUST BE HANDLED IN MUCH LESS
TIME. 

IF THE COMPLAINT WERE GRANTED, SWIFT WOULD NOT PAY FOR THE SECOND OR
SWITCHING MOVEMENT BY JUNCTION.  ALTHOUGH JUNCTION HAS NEVER MOVED
LIVESTOCK IN THE PAST EXCEPT IN AN EMERGENCY, UNDER EXISTING TARIFFS IT
CAN CHARGE SWIFT THE SWITCHING RATE OF $28.80 PER CAR NOW APPLIED TO
OTHER COMMODITIES.  BUT IF SWIFT IS TO OBTAIN WHAT IT SEEKS, THE LINE
HAUL CARRIER MUST ESTABLISH AS THE LINE-HAUL RATE A JOINT RATE WITH
JUNCTION WHICH IS NO HIGHER THAN THE PRESENT LINE-HAUL RATE.  THIS
WOULD MEAN THAT THE LINE-HAUL CARRIER MUST ABSORB THE SWITCHING CHARGE,
OR THAT BOTH THE SWITCHING CHARGE AND THE PRESENT LINE-HAUL RATE MUST
BE DECREASED, WITH THE LINE-HAUL CARRIER AND JUNCTION SHARING IN
ABSORBING THE AMOUNT OF THE DECREASE. 

THE DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK THROUGH THIS BOTTLENECK OF ASHLAND YARDS
MUST BE GEARED TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS AND SPECIAL HANDLING THAT
LIVESTOCK MUST RECEIVE.  THE HUGE QUANTITIES OF DEAD FREIGHT WHICH ARE
HANDLED (FN7) AND THE RESTRICTED FACILITIES OF ASHLAND YARDS HAVE
RESULTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT, OVER A PERIOD OF SEVENTY YEARS, OF A
COMPLICATED, INTRICATE PATTERN OF OPERATION.  FOR THIS REASON, ANY
ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE PATTERN CALLS FOR THE MOST EXPERT CONSIDERATION
AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT - A TASK THAT COURTS ARE ILL-FITTED TO
PERFORM.  IF THE COMMISSION GAVE WEIGHT TO THE RELEVANT FACTORS, ITS
DECISION SHOULD NOT BE OVERTURNED.  WE MOVE THEN TO THE COMMISSION'S
REPORT. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED THE
SWITCHING CHARGE PROVIDED BY THE EXISTING TARIFF WOULD NOT BE
UNREASONABLE OR OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL AS APPLIED TO LIVESTOCK, AND
SECONDLY, THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT RATES FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION
WAS NOT NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IT TOOK ACCOUNT
OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STOCK YARDS AND THE DELIVERY OF
LIVESTOCK THEREIN WHICH TOGETHER WITH THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE
AREA HAVE MADE FURTHER YARD EXPANSION IMPRACTICABLE.  THE COMMISSION
FOUND THAT THE SWITCHING YARDS ARE NOW HIGHLY CONGESTED AND, AS ONE
WITNESS PUT IT, ARE "RUNNING BANK FULL."  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT
LIVESTOCK SHIPMENTS INTO THE AREA HAVE BEEN DECREASING, DEAD-FREIGHT
SHIPMENTS HAVE INCREASED SEVERALFOLD, AND THE CONGESTION WILL CONTINUE
IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.  THE COMMISSION GAVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
TO THE COMPLICATION OF OPERATIONS THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL AND DIFFERENT
SWITCHING MOVEMENTS REQUIRED IN THE HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK AS CONTRASTED
WITH DEAD FREIGHT.  WHETHER THE SYSTEM FOR THE DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK
INTO CHICAGO WHICH HAS EXISTED FOR OVER SEVENTY YEARS AT AN ESTABLISHED
LINE-HAUL RATE, AND WHICH HAS RECOGNIZED DEFINITE TERMINALS CALLING FOR
A MINIMUM OF TRAIN MOVEMENTS IN A HIGHLY CONGESTED AREA, SHOULD BE
DISPLACED BY ANOTHER SYSTEM WHICH WOULD FURTHER COMPLICATE THE
OPERATIONS AND WOULD NECESSITATE THE USE OF PROPERTIES AND SERVICES NOT
INCLUDED WHEN THE PRESENT LINE-HAUL RATES AND TERMINALS WERE FIXED, IS
A QUESTION COMMITTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION. 
WHEN THAT JUDGMENT IS BASED ON FINDINGS ABUNDANTLY SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE ON THE WHOLE RECORD, AS IT IS IN THIS CASE, IT IS THE DUTY OF
THE COURTS TO SUSTAIN IT.  AYRSHIRE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S.
573, 593; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. JERSEY CITY, 322 U.S. 503,
522-523; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 216, 230-231; ADAMS V.
MILLS, 286 U.S. 397, 409-410; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., 222 U.S. 541, 547-548.    THE QUESTION OF THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE SWITCHING CHARGE WAS POSED TO THE COMMISSION IN
THE CASE OF HYGRADE FOOD PRODUCTS CORP. V. ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO., 195
I.C.C. 553.  THERE, HYGRADE SOUGHT TO HAVE THE RAILROADS ABSORB THE
SWITCHING CHARGE OF JUNCTION, BUT THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT IT WAS A
REASONABLE ADDITIONAL CHARGE TO THE LINE-HAUL RATE.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT THAT FINDING WAS NOT DISTURBED.  ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 193.  AT THAT TIME THE CHARGE WAS $12 PER CAR. 
IT IS NOW CONSIDERABLY HIGHER, BUT THE CHARGES FOR OTHER COMMODITIES
AND SERVICES HAVE RISEN ALSO. 

THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE SWITCHING CHARGES WERE UNREASONABLE
WAS UPON SWIFT.  LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 1,
11.  ON THIS RECORD, THAT BURDEN WAS NOT SUSTAINED; THE CHARGES HAVING
EXISTED FOR YEARS AND HAVING BEEN APPROVED AS REASONABLE BY THE
COMMISSION AND TACITLY APPROVED BY THIS COURT, ATCHISON, T.&S.F.R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THEIR REASONABLENESS IS PRESUMED TO CONTINUE
IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY. 

THE FACT THAT THE RATE IS SO HIGH THAT SWIFT FINDS IT UNECONOMICAL TO
USE DOES NOT IN AND OF ITSELF ESTABLISH THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE
RATE.  A REVISION OF THE SWITCHING CHARGE ON THE GROUND OF ITS
UNREASONABLENESS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REASONABLE RATE FOR
SWITCHING WAS NOT ASKED.  ANY RATE IN EXCESS OF THE LINE-HAUL RATE TO
THE STOCK YARDS WAS CONSIDERED BY SWIFT AS UNREASONABLE, AS IT WAS
DEMANDING A JOINT RATE NOT IN EXCESS OF THE LINE-HAUL RATE TO THE STOCK
YARDS.  UNREASONABLENESS IS NOT MADE OUT BY MERE ASSERTION.  FEDERAL
POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 602. 

IT IS NEXT ARGUED THAT BECAUSE DEAD FREIGHT IS DELIVERED TO SWIFT'S
INDUSTRIAL SIDING AT THE LINE-HAUL RATE, IT IS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
LIVESTOCK AS A COMMODITY TO IMPOSE A SWITCHING CHARGE IN ADDITION TO
THE LINE-HAUL RATE FOR DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK TO THE SAME POINT.  THAT
ARGUMENT IS COMPLETELY ANSWERED BY THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AS TO THE
DIFFERENT AND MORE COMPLEX NATURE OF THE SWITCHING SERVICES REQUIRED BY
LIVESTOCK AS COMPARED WITH DEAD FREIGHT.  THE COST OF THE SWITCHING
SERVICE PERFORMED BY JUNCTION IN THE DELIVERY OF DEAD FREIGHT IS
FIGURED IN THE LINE-HAUL RATE.  THE LINE-HAUL RATE FOR LIVESTOCK, THE
REASONABLENESS OF WHICH IS NOT IN AND OF ITSELF ATTACKED HERE, HAS
NEVER CONTEMPLATED SUCH SWITCHING SERVICES BECAUSE JUNCTION HAS NEVER
PERFORMED THEM. 

RELIANCE IS PLACED BY SWIFT UPON THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V.
BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 333 U.S. 169.  THERE, DELIVERY TO INDUSTRIAL
SIDINGS AT LINE-HAUL RATES HAD BEEN THE PRACTICE.  THE CLEVELAND STOCK
YARDS SOUGHT TO TERMINATE SUCH DELIVERY BECAUSE IT OWNED A SEGMENT OF
THE TRACK USED TO SERVE SWIFT AND WANTED TO PREVENT THE USE THEREOF
UNLESS LIVESTOCK BE ROUTED THROUGH ITS YARDS AND THE CHARGE THEREFOR
PAID TO THE STOCK YARDS.  IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE STOCK YARDS WANTED
THE CARRIERS TO PAY THE EQUIVALENT OF SUCH CHARGE FOR THE USE OF THE
STOCK YARDS' TRACK LEADING TO SWIFT'S INDUSTRIAL SIDING.  SUCH A PLAN
WOULD HAVE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST SWIFT BECAUSE ITS COMPETITORS COULD
GET DELIVERY WITHOUT THE USE OF THE STOCK YARDS' TRACK AND HENCE WOULD
BE UNAFFECTED BY THE STOCK YARDS' DEMANDS.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE
STOCK YARDS COULD NOT USE ITS TRACK OWNERSHIP TO WORK A DISCRIMINATION
WHICH CONGRESS HAD SAID SHOULD NOT EXIST. 

"HERE CONGRESS UNDER ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY HAS PROVIDED THAT
NO RAILROAD SHALL ENGAGE IN CERTAIN TYPES OF DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT IN
VIOLATION OF THREE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT HERE.  THE EXCUSE OFFERED BY THE RAILROADS IS
THAT THE OWNER OF TRACK 1619 REQUIRED THEM TO DO THE PROHIBITED
THINGS.  BUT THE COMMAND OF CONGRESS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION CANNOT BE
SUBORDINATED TO THE COMMAND OF A TRACK OWNER THAT A RAILROAD USING THE
TRACK PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION."  ID., AT P. 177 

DELIVERY TO AN INDUSTRIAL SIDING AT LINE-HAUL RATES WAS THERE ALLOWED
BY THE COMMISSION AND SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT FOR THE REASON THAT THE
STOCK YARDS SOUGHT BY ITS DISCRIMINATORY ACT TO UPSET THE USUAL
DELIVERY PROCEDURE, WHILE HERE, IN A VASTLY MORE COMPLICATED
OPERATIONAL SETTING, SWIFT WOULD COMPLICATE IT FURTHER BY OBTAINING FOR
ITSELF A SERVICE AT LINE-HAUL RATES DIFFERENT FROM THE USUAL DELIVERY
PROCEDURE AND NOT CONTEMPLATED OR CONSIDERED WHEN THE PRESENT LINE-HAUL
RATES TO CHICAGO WERE FIXED.  IF SWIFT WERE GRANTED THE RELIEF IT SEEKS
HERE, IT WOULD BE OBTAINING SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER PACKER IN CHICAGO
RECEIVES, AND, INSTEAD OF BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, A DISCRIMINATION
WOULD BE GRANTED IN ITS FAVOR.  SWIFT ALREADY ENJOYS A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE BECAUSE IT CAN OBTAIN DIRECT DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK AT ITS
OMAHA PLANT AT LINE-HAUL RATES.  IT CAN HARDLY BE HEARD TO SAY THAT THE
PRESENT SYSTEM FAVORS ITS COMPETITORS IN THE STOCK YARDS' AREA. 

SWIFT ALSO FAILED IN ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING PREJUDICIAL TREATMENT TO
IT AS OPPOSED TO ITS COMPETITORS IN LOCALITIES OTHER THAN CHICAGO, WHO
DO RECEIVE DELIVERY ON INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS AT LINE-HAUL RATES.  THESE
COMPETITORS' PLANTS ARE LOCATED FOR THE MOST PART ON LINE-HAUL
CARRIERS' RAILS, AND NO COMPLICATED SWITCHING MOVEMENTS ARE INVOLVED. 
SWIFT RECEIVES AT CHICAGO, AS ELSEWHERE, THE SAME RATES AND SERVICES AS
OTHER PACKERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. 

JUNCTION IS A SUBSIDIARY OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. 
THE LATTER HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STOCK YARDS WHICH CONTAINED A
PROVISION THAT NEW YORK CENTRAL WOULD OPERATE JUNCTION FOR "THE
BENEFIT, ADVANTAGE, AND BEHOOF OF THE BUSINESS AND AFFAIRS" OF THE
STOCK YARDS.  WHEN THIS PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN BEFORE THE COMMISSION,
JUNCTION DID NOT INTEND TO DEFEND IT.  ATTORNEYS FOR THE STOCK YARDS
WROTE A LETTER TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF NEW YORK CENTRAL, CALLING
ATTENTION TO THE FAILURE OF JUNCTION TO DEFEND AND TO THE COVENANT IN
THE AGREEMENT.  THEY POINTED OUT THAT JUNCTION POSSESSED THE EVIDENCE
NECESSARY TO MEET THE ISSUE IN SWIFT'S COMPLAINT, THAT SUCH EVIDENCE
SHOULD BE ADDUCED, AND THAT UNDER THE AGREEMENT, JUNCTION WAS OBLIGATED
TO DEFEND IN ORDER TO AVOID IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE STOCK YARDS. 
THEREAFTER, JUNCTION DEFENDED. 

IT IS SWIFT'S CONTENTION THAT THIS COVENANT IS ILLEGAL.  WE DO NOT
FIND IT NECESSARY TO PASS UPON THAT MATTER.  AS FAR AS SWIFT IS
CONCERNED, IT DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY DIRECT SHIPMENTS AT THE STOCK YARDS;
HENCE ANY DECISION AS TO LIVESTOCK SHIPMENTS TO SWIFT WOULD NOT AFFECT
THE STOCK YARDS.  IF OTHER PACKERS WOULD DEMAND INDUSTRIAL SIDING
DELIVERY IN THE EVENT SWIFT'S COMPLAINT WERE ALLOWED, UNQUESTIONABLY
THE EFFECT UPON THE STOCK YARDS WOULD BE VERY MATERIAL. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE COMMISSION DID GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE
PROBABILITY THAT IF SWIFT WERE SUCCESSFUL, OTHER PACKERS MIGHT DEMAND
THE SAME SERVICE.  THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH DEMAND SEEMED TO THE
COMMISSION, AS IT DOES TO US, OBVIOUS.  HOWEVER, IF THIS DEMAND BY
OTHER PACKERS, REASONABLY FORECAST BY THE COMMISSION, RECEIVED
CONSIDERATION IN REACHING THE CONCLUSIONS IN THIS CASE, IT WAS IN THE
LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THE OVERCROWDED CONDITION OF THE
AREA, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE OPERATIONS, AND THE NECESSITY FOR EXTRA
CARE IN THE HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK TO MOVE IT THROUGH THE BOTTLENECK AT
THE ASHLAND YARDS.  THE COMMISSION WAS NOT LED TO SUCH CONCLUSIONS BY
GIVING WEIGHT TO THIS COVENANT.  IT WAS WHOLLY UNNECESSARY THERETO. 
THE COVENANT'S IMPACT MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH SUCH CONSIDERATION, BUT IT
IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING IN ANY MANNER, OR RELIED UPON BY
THE COMMISSION. 

WE HAVE GIVEN CONSIDERATION TO OTHER ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY SWIFT AND
FIND THEM TO BE EQUALLY WITHOUT MERIT; THEY DO NOT REQUIRE DISCUSSION
IN THIS OPINION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TERM "DIRECT SHIPMENTS" IS USED TO DENOTE SHIPMENTS
CONSIGNED DIRECTLY TO THE PACKER FOR SLAUGHTER, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
THOSE SHIPMENTS CONSIGNED TO COMMISSION MEN FOR SALE IN THE PUBLIC
LIVESTOCK MARKET. 

FN2  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. SECTIONS 1(4) AND 1(5) REQUIRE THE
CARRIERS TO ESTABLISH JUST AND REASONABLE RATES; SEC. 3(1) PROHIBITS
THE CARRIERS FROM GIVING ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE TO ANY
PARTICULAR SHIPPER OR TO ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC. 

FN3  A LINE-HAUL CARRIER IS A COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD WHICH
TRANSPORTS LIVESTOCK AND OTHER FREIGHT IN INTERSTATE TRAFFIC, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM A CARRIER SUCH AS JUNCTION, WHICH PERFORMS SERVICES
IN A LOCAL SWITCHING AREA. 

FN4  THE COST OF THIS TRUCKING TO SWIFT IS $50,000; IT IS MUCH LESS
THAN THE COST OF EITHER CONSIGNING THE LIVESTOCK TO THE STOCK YARDS AND
PAYING FOR THEIR YARDAGE FACILITIES OR PAYING THE SWITCHING CHARGES
HERE IN ISSUE AND HAVING THE LIVESTOCK DELIVERED TO THE PROPOSED
PLANT. 

FN5  DEAD FREIGHT IS COMPOSED OF COMMODITIES OTHER THAN LIVESTOCK. 

FN6  THIS WAS THE FIGURE AT THE TIME THIS PROCEEDING WAS HEARD BY THE
COMMISSION'S EXAMINER.  SUBSEQUENT AUTHORIZED INCREASES HAVE BROUGHT
THE CHARGE TO $39.24. 

FN7  DURING THE YEARS 1945, 1946 AND 1947, AN AVERAGE OF OVER 726,000
CARS A YEAR, LOADED AND EMPTY, WERE FUNNELLED THROUGH THE ASHLAND
YARDS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, DISSENTING. 

I AM NOT ABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MAJORITY THAT THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CAN ON THIS RECORD DENY THE APPELLANT'S
PRAYER FOR JOINT THROUGH RATES BETWEEN THE LINE-HAUL DEFENDANTS AND THE
TERMINAL DEFENDANT, THE CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILROAD.  IT IS ADMITTED HERE
THAT EVERY MANNER OF FREIGHT SAVE LIVESTOCK IS DELIVERED TO PRIVATE
INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS IN THE CHICAGO SWITCHING DISTRICT UNDER TARIFFS
EMBRACING JOINT THROUGH RATES.  WHEN THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT IT IS NOT
A "DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LIVESTOCK AS A COMMODITY TO IMPOSE A
SWITCHING CHARGE IN ADDITION TO THE LINE-HAUL RATE FOR DELIVERY OF
LIVESTOCK TO THE SAME POINT," IT VIOLATES THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF
EQUALITY BETWEEN COMMODITIES.  TO ACCORD JOINT THROUGH RATES FOR
SWITCHING TO PRIVATE SIDETRACKS TO ALL COMMODITIES SAVE LIVESTOCK,
CONSTITUTES SUCH A PREFERENCE TO THOSE COMMODITIES OVER LIVESTOCK AS IS
PROSCRIBED BY 49 U.S.C. SEC. 3(1).  SEE NOTE 2 OF THE OPINION OF THE
COURT. 

IT IS THE LAW UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS SET OUT IN SEC.
3(1), THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS BEST SERVED WHEN COMMON CARRIERS
ACCORD EQUALLY REASONABLE TREATMENT TO ALL THEIR PATRONS.  TO BE SURE,
THE LAW MIGHT BE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS BEST SERVED BY AVOIDING
CONGESTION IN ORDER TO PASS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF TRAFFIC THROUGH A
TRANSPORTATION BOTTLENECK.  BUT CONGRESS HAS DECIDED, BOTH FOR THE
COMMISSION AND THIS COURT, THAT THE COMMONWEAL SHALL BE SERVED BY
GUARANTEEING THAT THERE SHALL NOT BE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN COMMODITIES
BY CARRIERS.  THE DIFFICULTIES OF CONGESTION, LIMITATIONS ON
FACILITIES, OR OTHER SHIPPING DISADVANTAGES ARE TO BE BORNE EQUALLY BY
ALL SHIPPERS, OTHERWISE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION COULD
UNREASONABLY PREFER COMMODITIES THROUGH TRANSPORTATION ORDERS, AND IN
EFFECT WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH GOODS SHALL
BE MARKETED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE INADEQUACY OF TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES MAY NOT, IN MY OPINION, BE CURED BY PENALIZING ONE COMMODITY
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHERS. 

WHEN, AS HERE, THE CARRIERS WHILE FIXING JOINT THROUGH RATES FOR
COMMODITIES IN GENERAL FAIL TO FURNISH THEM TO SHIPPERS OF LIVESTOCK,
ON APPLICATION THE COMMISSION SHOULD FIX SUCH RATE.  THAT RATE SHOULD
BE ESTABLISHED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(3), IN THE SAME MANNER AS SIMILAR
RATES FOR OTHER COMMODITIES, OF COURSE WITH PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE
COSTS OF HANDLING THE RESPECTIVE COMMODITIES.  I CONSIDER IT NO ANSWER
ON THIS RECORD TO SAY THAT THE SWITCHING CHARGE MAY BE NO MORE THAN THE
DIFFERENCE IN COST OF HANDLING DEAD FREIGHT AND LIVESTOCK.  THE SHIPPER
IS ENTITLED TO MEET THAT PROBLEM WHEN THE COMMISSION COMES TO DETERMINE
THE SWITCHING FACTOR IN THE JOINT THROUGH RATE.  JOINT THROUGH RATES
SHOULD BE ACCORDED TO LIVESTOCK SHIPMENTS ON SWIFT'S SIDING.  THEN, AND
NOT UNTIL THEN, IF THE RATE IS ATTACKED AS UNREASONABLE, MAY THE COURT
PROPERLY RELY ON THE FACT, IF SUPPORTED BY A FINDING OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, THAT THE "MORE COMPLEX NATURE OF THE SWITCHING
SERVICES REQUIRED BY LIVESTOCK AS COMPARED WITH DEAD FREIGHT" MAKES
JUSTIFIABLE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RATES.  SEE MAJORITY OPINION, P.
383.  THE REASONABLENESS OF ANY COMMISSION INCREASE OF LIVESTOCK RATES
OVER OTHER COMMODITIES SHOULD DEPEND UPON EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS SHOWING
ITS NECESSITY BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA COST OF HANDLING WITHOUT REGARD TO
CONGESTION. 

I WOULD REVERSE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE CONFLICTING VIEWS OF MY BRETHREN IMPLY SERIOUS DIFFERENCES IN
INTERPRETING THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF THE REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  PLAINLY, THEREFORE, THAT REPORT DOES NOT SPEAK
WITH THE NEEDED CLARITY.  THEREIN LIES MY DIFFICULTY WITH THE CASE.  IF
WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE IS AMBIGUOUS, HOW CAN I DECIDE WHETHER IT
WAS AUTHORIZED TO DO WHAT IT DID?  DUBIETY IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
PRECLUDES INTELLIGIBLE JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

AS THE COURT VIEWS THE MATTER, THE COMMISSION HAD BEFORE IT MERELY A
RATE-FIXING CONTROVERSY AND MORE SPECIFICALLY WHETHER RELEVANT
TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS JUSTIFIED IMPOSITION OF A LOCAL SWITCHING
CHARGE OF 4.8 CENTS PER 100 POUNDS* IN COMBINATION WITH THE LINE-HAUL
CHARGE AS A FAIR RATE FOR DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK TO PRIVATE SIDINGS. 
AND THE RECORD, ACCORDING TO THE COURT, AMPLY SUSTAINS THE FINDING OF
THE COMMISSION THAT SUCH A COMBINATION DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN
UNREASONABLE RATE.  MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS INTERPRET
THE ORDER NOT TO BE A RATE-FIXING ORDER AT ALL, BUT, IN EFFECT, A
DETERMINATION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THAT LIVESTOCK,
UNLIKE ALL OTHER COMMODITIES, MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM PRIVATE SIDINGS IN
THE STOCKYARDS AREA, ALTHOUGH THIS IS DONE NOT IN TERMS BUT BY A
DESIGNEDLY PREFERENTIAL RATE.  THE DIFFICULTY IS, OF COURSE,
INTENSIFIED IN THAT THE RATE IS IN FACT PROHIBITIVE.    *THIS RATE, IN
EFFECT WHEN THE HEARING WAS HELD, WAS BASED ON A MINIMUM OF 60,000
POUNDS. 

WHERE, AS HERE, THIS COURT CAN DRAW ONLY CONFLICTING STRANDS OF
REASON FROM THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, WE HAVE NOT BEEN SPOKEN TO WITH SUFFICIENT CLEARNESS.  "WE
MUST KNOW WHAT A DECISION MEANS BEFORE THE DUTY BECOMES OURS TO SAY
WHETHER IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG."  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST.
P.&P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 511.  THEREFORE, I THINK THE DECISION BELOW
SHOULD BE REVERSED WITH DIRECTION TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION. 
..END :






















BEAUHARNAIS V. ILLINOIS 343 U.S. 250 


NO. 118.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 28, 1951 - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1952 - 408 ILL.
512, 97 N.E.2D 343, AFFIRMED. 


OVER HIS CLAIM THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE LIBERTY OF SPEECH AND OF
THE PRESS GUARANTEED AS AGAINST THE STATES BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND WAS VOID FOR VAGUENESS, PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT FOR DISTRIBUTING ON THE STREETS OF CHICAGO
ANTI-NEGRO LEAFLETS IN VIOLATION OF ILL. REV. STAT., 1949, C. 38, SEC.
471, WHICH MAKES IT A CRIME TO EXHIBIT IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE ANY
PUBLICATION WHICH "PORTRAYS DEPRAVITY, CRIMINALITY, UNCHASTITY, OR LACK
OF VIRTUE OF A CLASS OF CITIZENS, OF ANY RACE, COLOR, CREED OR
RELIGION" WHICH "EXPOSES THE CITIZENS OF ANY RACE, COLOR, CREED OR
RELIGION TO CONTEMPT, DERISION, OR OBLOQUY."  HELD: 

1.  AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THIS CASE, THE STATUTE DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE LIBERTY OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS GUARANTEED AS AGAINST
THE STATES BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP.
251-264. 

2.  AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THIS CASE, THE STATUTE IS NOT VOID
FOR VAGUENESS.  WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507; STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; AND
TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 264. 

3.  SINCE PETITIONER DID NOT, BY APPROPRIATE STEPS IN THE TRIAL
COURT, SEEK TO JUSTIFY HIS UTTERANCE AS "FAIR COMMENT" OR AS PRIVILEGED
AS A MEANS FOR REDRESSING GRIEVANCES, THOSE HYPOTHETICAL DEFENSES
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.  PP. 264-265. 

4.  SINCE THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED THIS STATUTE AS A FORM
OF CRIMINAL LIBEL LAW, AND TRUTH OF THE UTTERANCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A
CHARGE OF CRIMINAL LIBEL UNDER ILLINOIS LAW UNLESS THE PUBLICATION IS
ALSO MADE "WITH GOOD MOTIVES AND FOR JUSTIFIABLE ENDS," PETITIONER WAS
NOT DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE TRIAL COURT'S REJECTION OF A PROFFER OF
PROOF WHICH DID NOT SATISFY THIS REQUIREMENT.  PP. 253-254, 265-266. 

5.  SINCE LIBELOUS UTTERANCES ARE NOT WITHIN THE AREA OF
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THIS COURT
TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S REQUEST
THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED THAT, IN ORDER TO CONVICT, THEY MUST FIND
THAT THE PUBLICATION COMPLAINED OF WAS LIKELY TO PRODUCE A "CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER" OF A SUBSTANTIAL EVIL.  PP. 253, 266. 

BEAUHARNAIS V. ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS SUSTAINED PETITIONER'S CONVICTION OF A
VIOLATION OF ILL. REV. STAT., 1949, C. 38 SEC. 471, OVER HIS OBJECTION
THAT THE STATUTE WAS INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  408 ILL.
512, 97 N.E.2D 343.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 809. 
AFFIRMED, P. 267. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED UPON INFORMATION IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT
OF CHICAGO OF VIOLATING SEC. 224A OF THE ILLINOIS CRIMINAL CODE, ILL.
REV. STAT., 1949, C. 38, DIV. 1, SEC. 471.  HE WAS FINED $200.  THE

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION TO
MANUFACTURE, SELL, OR OFFER FOR SALE, ADVERTISE OR PUBLISH, PRESENT OR
EXHIBIT IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE IN THIS STATE ANY LITHOGRAPH, MOVING
PICTURE, PLAY, DRAMA OR SKETCH, WHICH PUBLICATION OR EXHIBITION
PORTRAYS DEPRAVITY, CRIMINALITY, UNCHASTITY, OR LACK OF VIRTUE OF A
CLASS OF CITIZENS, OF ANY RACE, COLOR, CREED OR RELIGION WHICH SAID
PUBLICATION OR EXHIBITION EXPOSES THE CITIZENS OF ANY RACE, COLOR,
CREED OR RELIGION TO CONTEMPT, DERISION, OR OBLOQUY OR WHICH IS
PRODUCTIVE OF BREACH OF THE PEACE OR RIOTS  ...  ." 

BEAUHARNAIS CHALLENGED THE STATUTE AS VIOLATING THE LIBERTY OF SPEECH
AND OF THE PRESS GUARANTEED AS AGAINST THE STATES BY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND AS TOO VAGUE, UNDER THE
RESTRICTIONS IMPLICIT IN THE SAME CLAUSE, TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR
CRIME.  THE ILLINOIS COURTS REJECTED THESE CONTENTIONS AND SUSTAINED
DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION.  408 ILL. 512, 97 N.E.2D 343.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI IN VIEW OF THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS RAISED CONCERNING THE
LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ON THE POWER OF A STATE
TO PUNISH UTTERANCES PROMOTING FRICTION AMONG RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS
GROUPS.  342 U.S. 809. 

THE INFORMATION, CAST GENERALLY IN THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, CHARGED
THAT BEAUHARNAIS "DID UNLAWFULLY  ...  EXHIBIT IN PUBLIC PLACES
LITHOGRAPHS, WHICH PUBLICATIONS PORTRAY DEPRAVITY, CRIMINALITY,
UNCHASTITY OR LACK OF VIRTUE OF CITIZENS OF NEGRO RACE AND COLOR AND
WHICH EXPOSES CITIZENS OF ILLINOIS OF THE NEGRO RACE AND COLOR TO
CONTEMPT, DERISION, OR OBLOQUY  ...  ."  THE LITHOGRAPH COMPLAINED OF
WAS A LEAFLET SETTING FORTH A PETITION CALLING ON THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF CHICAGO "TO HALT THE FURTHER ENCROACHMENT, HARASSMENT AND
INVASION OF WHITE PEOPLE, THEIR PROPERTY, NEIGHBORHOODS AND PERSONS, BY
THE NEGRO  ...  ."  BELOW WAS A CALL FOR "ONE MILLION SELF RESPECTING
WHITE PEOPLE IN CHICAGO TO UNITE  ...  ."  WITH THE STATEMENT ADDED
THAT "IF PERSUASION AND THE NEED TO PREVENT THE WHITE RACE FROM
BECOMING MONGRELIZED BY THE NEGRO WILL NOT UNITE US, THEN THE
AGGRESSIONS  ...  RAPES, ROBBERIES, KNIVES, GUNS AND MARIJUANA OF THE
NEGRO, SURELY WILL."  THIS, WITH MORE LANGUAGE, SIMILAR IF NOT SO
VIOLENT, CONCLUDED WITH AN ATTACHED APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE
WHITE CIRCLE LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC. 

THE TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL WAS SUBSTANTIALLY UNDISPUTED.  FROM IT THE
JURY COULD FIND THAT BEAUHARNAIS WAS PRESIDENT OF THE WHITE CIRCLE
LEAGUE; THAT, AT A MEETING ON JANUARY 6, 1950, HE PASSED OUT BUNDLES OF
THE LITHOGRAPHS IN QUESTION, TOGETHER WITH OTHER LITERATURE, TO
VOLUNTEERS FOR DISTRIBUTION ON DOWNTOWN CHICAGO STREET CORNERS THE
FOLLOWING DAY; THAT HE CAREFULLY ORGANIZED THAT DISTRIBUTION, GIVING
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR IT; AND THAT THE LEAFLETS WERE IN FACT
DISTRIBUTED ON JANUARY 7 IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS PLAN AND INSTRUCTIONS. 
THE COURT, TOGETHER WITH OTHER CHARGES ON BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE LIKE,
TOLD THE JURY "IF YOU FIND  ...  THAT THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH
BEAUHARNAIS, DID  ...  MANUFACTURE, SELL, OR OFFER FOR SALE, ADVERTISE
OR PUBLISH, PRESENT OR EXHIBIT IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE THE LITHOGRAPH  ...
THEY YOU ARE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY  ...  ."  HE REFUSED TO
CHARGE THE JURY, AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, THAT IN ORDER TO
CONVICT THEY MUST FIND "THAT THE ARTICLE COMPLAINED OF WAS LIKELY TO
PRODUCE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF A SERIOUS SUBSTANTIVE EVIL THAT
RISES FAR ABOVE PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE, ANNOYANCE OR UNREST."  UPON THIS
EVIDENCE AND THESE INSTRUCTIONS, THE JURY BROUGHT IN THE CONVICTION
HERE FOR REVIEW. 

THE STATUTE BEFORE US IS NOT A CATCHALL ENACTMENT LEFT AT LARGE BY
THE STATE COURT WHICH APPLIED IT.  CF. THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S.
88; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 307.  IT IS A LAW
SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AT A DEFINED EVIL, ITS LANGUAGE DRAWING FROM
HISTORY AND PRACTICE IN ILLINOIS AND IN MORE THAN A SCORE OF OTHER
JURISDICTIONS A MEANING CONFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE IN
UPHOLDING THIS CONVICTION.  WE DO NOT, THEREFORE, PARSE THE STATUTE AS
GRAMMARIANS OR TREAT IT AS AN ABSTRACT EXERCISE IN LEXICOGRAPHY.  WE
READ IT IN THE ANIMATING CONTEXT OF WELL-DEFINED USAGE, NASH V. UNITED
STATES, 229 U.S. 373, AND STATE COURT CONSTRUCTION WHICH DETERMINES ITS
MEANING FOR US.  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568. 

THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT TELLS US THAT SEC. 224A "IS A FORM OF
CRIMINAL LIBEL LAW."  408 ILL. 512, 517, 97 N.E.2D 343, 346.  THE
DEFENDANT, THE TRIAL COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT CONSISTENTLY TREATED
IT AS SUCH.  THE DEFENDANT OFFERED EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE THE TRUTH
OF PARTS OF THE UTTERANCE, AND THE COURTS BELOW CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED
OF THIS OFFER IN TERMS OF ORDINARY CRIMINAL LIBEL PRECEDENTS.  (FN1)
ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION, ART. II, SEC. 4, "IN ALL TRIALS FOR LIBEL, BOTH
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, THE TRUTH, WHEN PUBLISHED WITH GOOD MOTIVES AND FOR
JUSTIFIABLE ENDS, SHALL BE A SUFFICIENT DEFENSE."  SEE ALSO ILL. REV.
STAT., 1949, C. 38, SEC. 404.  SIMILARLY, THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT
IN DECIDING AS A MATTER OF LAW THE LIBELOUS CHARACTER OF THE UTTERANCE,
LEAVING TO THE JURY ONLY THE QUESTION OF PUBLICATION, FOLLOWS THE
SETTLED RULE IN PROSECUTIONS FOR LIBEL IN ILLINOIS AND OTHER STATES. 
(FN2) MOREOVER, THE SUPREME COURT'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE WORDS
PROHIBITED BY THE STATUTE AS THOSE "LIABLE TO CAUSE VIOLENCE AND
DISORDER" PARAPHRASES THE TRADITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR PUNISHING
LIBELS CRIMINALLY, NAMELY THEIR "TENDENCY TO CAUSE BREACH OF THE
PEACE."  (FN3) 

LIBEL OF AN INDIVIDUAL WAS A COMMON-LAW CRIME, AND THUS CRIMINAL IN
THE COLONIES.  INDEED, AT COMMON LAW, TRUTH OR GOOD MOTIVES WAS NO
DEFENSE.  IN THE FIRST DECADES AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION,
THIS WAS CHANGED BY JUDICIAL DECISION, STATUTE OR CONSTITUTION IN MOST
STATES, BUT NOWHERE WAS THERE ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE CRIME OF LIBEL BE
ABOLISHED.  (FN4)  TODAY, EVERY AMERICAN JURISDICTION - THE FORTY-EIGHT
STATES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ALASKA, HAWAII AND PUERTO RICO -
PUNISH LIBELS DIRECTED AT INDIVIDUALS.  (FN5)  "THERE ARE CERTAIN WELL
DEFINED AND NARROWLY LIMITED CLASSES OF SPEECH, THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO RAISE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
PROBLEM.  THESE INCLUDE THE LEWD AND OBSCENE, THE PROFANE, THE
LIBELOUS, AND THE INSULTING OR 'FIGHTING' WORDS - THOSE WHICH BY THEIR
VERY UTTERANCE INFLICT INJURY OR TEND TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF
THE PEACE.  IT HAS BEEN WELL OBSERVED THAT SUCH UTTERANCES ARE NO
ESSENTIAL PART OF ANY EXPOSITION OF IDEAS, AND ARE OF SUCH SLIGHT
SOCIAL VALUE AS A STEP TO TRUTH THAT ANY BENEFIT THAT MAY BE DERIVED
FROM THEM IS CLEARLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE SOCIAL INTEREST IN ORDER AND
MORALITY.  'RESORT TO EPITHETS OR PERSONAL ABUSE IS NOT IN ANY PROPER
SENSE COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION OR OPINION SAFEGUARDED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, AND ITS PUNISHMENT AS A CRIMINAL ACT WOULD RAISE NO
QUESTION UNDER THAT INSTRUMENT.'  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S.
296, 309-310."  SUCH WERE THE VIEWS OF A UNANIMOUS COURT IN CHAPLINSKY
V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA, AT 571-572.  (FN6) 

NO ONE WILL GAINSAY THAT IT IS LIBELOUS FALSELY TO CHARGE ANOTHER
WITH BEING A RAPIST, ROBBER, CARRIER OF KNIVES AND GUNS, AND USER OF
MARIJUANA.  THE PRECISE QUESTION BEFORE US, THEN, IS WHETHER THE
PROTECTION OF "LIBERTY IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT PREVENTS A STATE FROM PUNISHING SUCH LIBELS - AS CRIMINAL
LIBEL HAS BEEN DEFINED, LIMITED AND CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED TIME
OUT OF MIND - DIRECTED AT DESIGNATED COLLECTIVITIES AND FLAGRANTLY
DISSEMINATED.  THERE IS EVEN AUTHORITY, HOWEVER DUBIOUS, THAT SUCH
UTTERANCES WERE ALSO CRIMES AT COMMON LAW.  (FN7)  IT IS CERTAINLY
CLEAR THAT SOME AMERICAN JURISDICTIONS HAVE SANCTIONED THEIR PUNISHMENT
UNDER ORDINARY CRIMINAL LIBEL STATUTES.  (FN8)  WE CANNOT SAY, HOWEVER,
THAT THE QUESTION IS CONCLUDED BY HISTORY AND PRACTICE.  BUT IF AN
UTTERANCE DIRECTED AT AN INDIVIDUAL MAY BE THE OBJECT OF CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS, WE CANNOT DENY TO A STATE POWER TO PUNISH THE SAME UTTERANCE
DIRECTED AT A DEFINED GROUP, UNLESS WE CAN SAY THAT THIS IS A WILFUL
AND PURPOSELESS RESTRICTION UNRELATED TO THE PEACE AND WELL-BEING OF
THE STATE. 

ILLINOIS DID NOT HAVE TO LOOK BEYOND HER OWN BORDERS OR AWAIT THE
TRAGIC EXPERIENCE OF THE LAST THREE DECADES (FN9) TO CONCLUDE THAT
WILFUL PURVEYORS OF FALSEHOOD CONCERNING RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS
PROMOTE STRIFE AND TEND POWERFULLY TO OBSTRUCT THE MANIFOLD ADJUSTMENTS
REQUIRED FOR FREE, ORDERED LIFE IN A METROPOLITAN, POLYGLOT COMMUNITY. 
FROM THE MURDER OF THE ABOLITIONIST LOVEJOY IN 1837 TO THE CICERO RIOTS
OF 1951, ILLINOIS HAS BEEN THE SCENE OF EXACERBATED TENSION BETWEEN
RACES, OFTEN FLARING INTO VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION.  (FN10)  IN MANY OF
THESE OUTBREAKS, UTTERANCES OF THE CHARACTER HERE IN QUESTION, SO THE
ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE COULD CONCLUDE, PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT PART.  (FN11)
THE LAW WAS PASSED ON JUNE 29, 1917, AT A TIME WHEN THE STATE WAS
STRUGGLING TO ASSIMILATE VAST NUMBERS OF NEW INHABITANTS, AS YET
CONCENTRATED IN DISCRETE RACIAL OR NATIONAL OR RELIGIOUS GROUPS -
FOREIGN-BORN BROUGHT TO IT BY THE CREST OF THE GREAT WAVE OF
IMMIGRATION, AND NEGROES ATTRACTED BY JOBS IN WAR PLANTS AND THE
ALLUREMENTS OF NORTHERN CLAIMS.  (FN12)  NINE YEARS EARLIER, IN THE
VERY CITY WHERE THE LEGISLATURE SAT, WHAT IS SAID TO BE THE FIRST
NORTHERN RACE RIOT HAD COST THE LIVES OF SIX PEOPLE, LEFT HUNDREDS OF
NEGROES HOMELESS AND SHOCKED CITIZENS INTO ACTION FAR BEYOND THE
BORDERS OF THE STATE.  (FN13)  LESS THAN A MONTH BEFORE THE BILL WAS
ENACTED, EAST ST. LOUIS HAD SEEN A DAY'S RIOTING, PRECLUDE ON AN
OUTBREAK, ONLY FOUR DAYS AFTER THE BILL BECAME LAW, SO BLOODY THAT IT
LED TO CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION.  (FN14)  A SERIES OF BOMBINGS HAD
BEGUN WHICH WAS TO CULMINATE TWO YEARS LATER IN THE AWFUL RACE RIOT
WHICH HELD CHICAGO IN ITS GRIP FOR SEVEN DAYS IN THE SUMMER OF 1919. 
(FN15)  NOR HAS TENSION AND VIOLENCE BETWEEN THE GROUPS DEFINED IN THE
STATUTE BEEN LIMITED IN ILLINOIS TO CLASHES BETWEEN WHITES AND
NEGROES. 

IN THE FACE OF THIS HISTORY AND ITS FREQUENT OBLIGATO OF EXTREME
RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDA, WE WOULD DENY EXPERIENCE TO SAY THAT
THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE WAS WITHOUT REASON IN SEEKING WAYS TO CURB
FALSE OR MALICIOUS DEFAMATION OF RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS, MADE IN
PUBLIC PLACES AND BY MEANS CALCULATED TO HAVE A POWERFUL EMOTIONAL
IMPACT ON THOSE TO WHOM IT WAS PRESENTED.  "THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE
EXERCISE OF THESE LIBERTIES (OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS).  THE DANGER
IN THESE TIMES FROM THE COERCIVE ACTIVITIES OF THOSE WHO IN THE
DELUSION OF RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS CONCEIT WOULD INCITE VIOLENCE AND
BREACHES OF THE PEACE IN ORDER TO DEPRIVE OTHERS OF THEIR EQUAL RIGHT
TO THE EXERCISE OF THEIR LIBERTIES, IS EMPHASIZED BY EVENTS FAMILIAR TO
ALL.  THESE AND OTHER TRANSGRESSIONS OF THOSE LIMITS THE STATES
APPROPRIATELY MAY PUNISH."  (FN16)  THIS WAS THE CONCLUSION, AGAIN OF A
UNANIMOUS COURT, IN 1940.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 310. 

IT MAY BE ARGUED, AND WEIGHTILY, THAT THIS LEGISLATION WILL NOT HELP
MATTERS; THAT TENSION AND ON OCCASION VIOLENCE BETWEEN RACIAL AND
RELIGIOUS GROUPS MUST BE TRACED TO CAUSES MORE DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN OUR
SOCIETY THAN THE RANTINGS OF MODERN KNOW-NOTHINGS.  (FN17)  ONLY THOSE
LACKING RESPONSIBLE HUMILITY WILL HAVE A CONFIDENT SOLUTION FOR
PROBLEMS AS INTRACTABLE AS THE FRICTIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIFFERENCES OF
RACE, COLOR OR RELIGION.  THIS BEING SO, IT WOULD BE OUT OF BOUNDS FOR
THE JUDICIARY TO DENY THE LEGISLATURE A CHOICE OF POLICY, PROVIDED IT
IS NOT UNRELATED TO THE PROBLEM AND NOT FORBIDDEN BY SOME EXPLICIT
LIMITATION ON THE STATE'S POWER.  THAT THE LEGISLATIVE REMEDY MIGHT NOT
IN PRACTICE MITIGATE THE EVIL, OR MIGHT ITSELF RAISE NEW PROBLEMS,
WOULD ONLY MANIFEST ONCE MORE THE PARADOX OF REFORM.  IT IS THE PRICE
TO BE PAID FOR THE TRIAL-AND-ERROR INHERENT IN LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO
DEAL WITH OBSTINATE SOCIAL ISSUES.  "THE SCIENCE OF GOVERNMENT IS THE
MOST ABSTRUSE OF ALL SCIENCES; IF, INDEED, THAT CAN BE CALLED A SCIENCE
WHICH HAS BUT FEW FIXED PRINCIPLES, AND PRACTICALLY CONSISTS IN LITTLE
MORE THAN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION, APPLIED TO THE EXIGENCIES
OF THE STATE AS THEY ARISE.  IT IS THE SCIENCE OF EXPERIMENT." 
ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6 WHEAT.  204, 226.  CERTAINLY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE LEGISLATURE TO BE IN THE VANGUARD OF SCIENCE -
ESPECIALLY SCIENCES AS YOUNG AS HUMAN ECOLOGY AND CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY.  SEE TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141, 148.    LONG AGO THIS
COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL MAY DEPEND
FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR ENFORCEMENT ON RIGHTS IN THE GROUP, EVEN
THOUGH NOT FORMALLY CORPORATE, TO WHICH HE BELONGS.  AMERICAN
FOUNDARIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184.  SUCH GROUP-PROTECTION ON
BEHALF OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAY, FOR ALL WE KNOW, BE A NEED NOT CONFINED
TO THE PART THAT A TRADE UNION PLAYS IN EFFECTUATING RIGHTS ABSTRACTLY
RECOGNIZED AS BELONGING TO ITS MEMBERS.  IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR
COMPETENCE TO CONFIRM OR DENY CLAIMS OF SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AS TO THE
DEPENDENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL ON THE POSITION OF HIS RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS
GROUP IN THE COMMUNITY.  IT WOULD, HOWEVER, BE ARRANT DOGMATISM, QUITE
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF OUR AUTHORITY IN PASSING ON THE POWERS OF A STATE,
FOR US TO DENY THAT THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE MAY WARRANTABLY BELIEVE
THAT A MAN'S JOB AND HIS EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND THE DIGNITY
ACCORDED HIM MAY DEPEND AS MUCH ON THE REPUTATION OF THE RACIAL AND
RELIGIOUS GROUP TO WHICH HE WILLY-NILLY BELONGS, AS ON HIS OWN MERITS. 
THIS BEING SO, WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM SAYING THAT SPEECH CONCEDEDLY
PUNISHABLE WHEN IMMEDIATELY DIRECTED AT INDIVIDUALS CANNOT BE OUTLAWED
IF DIRECTED AT GROUPS WITH WHOSE POSITION AND ESTEEM IN SOCIETY THE
AFFILIATED INDIVIDUAL MAY BE INEXTRICABLY INVOLVED. 

WE ARE WARNED THAT THE CHOICE OPEN TO THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE HERE
MAY BE ABUSED, THAT THE LAW MAY BE DISCRIMINATORILY ENFORCED;
PROHIBITING LIBEL OF A CREED OR OF A RACIAL GROUP, WE ARE TOLD, IS BUT
A STEP FROM PROHIBITING LIBEL OF A POLITICAL PARTY.  (FN18)  EVERY
POWER MAY BE ABUSED, BUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE IS A POOR REASON FOR
DENYING ILLINOIS THE POWER TO ADOPT MEASURES AGAINST CRIMINAL LIBELS
SANCTIONED BY CENTURIES OF ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW.  "WHILE THIS COURT SITS"
IT RETAINS AND EXERCISES AUTHORITY TO NULLIFY ACTION WHICH ENCROACHES
ON FREEDOM OF UTTERANCE UNDER THE GUISE OF PUNISHING LIBEL.  OF COURSE
DISCUSSION CANNOT BE DENIED AND THE RIGHT, AS WELL AS THE DUTY, OF
CRITICISM MUST NOT BE STIFLED. 

THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE BEFORE US, AS CONSTRUED BY THE ILLINOIS
COURT, DISPOSES OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE CONDUCT PROHIBITED BY THE
LAW IS SO ILL-DEFINED THAT JUDGES AND JURIES IN APPLYING THE STATUTE
AND MEN IN ACTING CANNOT DRAW FROM IT ADEQUATE STANDARDS TO GUIDE
THEM.  THE CLARIFYING CONSTRUCTION AND FIXED USAGE WHICH GOVERN THE
MEANING OF THE ENACTMENT BEFORE US WERE NOT PRESENT, SO THE COURT
FOUND, IN THE NEW YORK LAW HELD INVALID IN WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333
U.S. 507.  NOR, THUS CONSTRUED AND LIMITED, IS THE ACT SO BROAD THAT
THE GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY ON AN INDICTMENT DRAWN IN THE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREDICATED ON CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
CONDUCT.  ON THIS SCORE, THE CONVICTION HERE REVIEWED DIFFERS FROM
THOSE UPSET IN STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, AND TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1.  EVEN THE
LATTER CASE DID NOT HOLD THAT THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE IS
ESTABLISHED BECAUSE THE SPEECH PROHIBITED BY IT RAISES A RUCKUS. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WHILE IT WAS CLEARLY WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER OF ILLINOIS TO PUNISH THIS UTTERANCE IF THE PROCEEDING WERE
PROPERLY SAFEGUARDED, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE ILLINOIS DENIED THE
DEFENDANT RIGHTS WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE COMMANDS.  SPECIFICALLY,
IT IS ARGUED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PERMITTED TO RAISE AT THE TRIAL
DEFENSES CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED IN A CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTION:
(1) THE DEFENSE OF TRUTH; (2) JUSTIFICATION OF THE UTTERANCE AS "FAIR
COMMENT"; AND (3) ITS PRIVILEGE AS A MEANS FOR REDRESSING GRIEVANCES. 

NEITHER BY PROFFER OF EVIDENCE, REQUESTS FOR INSTRUCTIONS, NOR MOTION
BEFORE OR AFTER VERDICT DID THE DEFENDANT SEEK TO JUSTIFY HIS UTTERANCE
AS "FAIR COMMENT" OR AS PRIVILEGED.  NOR HAS THE DEFENDANT URGED AS A
GROUND FOR REVERSING HIS CONVICTION IN THIS COURT THAT HIS OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE THOSE DEFENSES WAS DENIED BELOW.  AND SO, WHETHER A PROSECUTION
FOR LIBEL OF A RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS GROUP IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID
WHERE THE STATE DID DENY THE DEFENDANT SUCH OPPORTUNITIES IS NOT BEFORE
US.  (FN19)  CERTAINLY THE STATE MAY CAST THE BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING WHAT
IS PATENT DEFAMATION UPON THE DEFAMER.  THE BENEFITS OF HYPOTHETICAL
DEFENSES, NEVER RAISED BELOW OR PRESSED UPON US, ARE NOT TO BE INVOKED
IN THE ABSTRACT. 

AS TO THE DEFENSE OF TRUTH, ILLINOIS IN COMMON WITH MANY STATES
REQUIRES A SHOWING NOT ONLY THAT THE UTTERANCE STATE THE FACTS, BUT
ALSO THAT THE PUBLICATION BE MADE "WITH GOOD MOTIVES AND FOR
JUSTIFIABLE ENDS."  ILL. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 4.  (FN20)  BOTH
ELEMENTS ARE NECESSARY IF THE DEFENSE IS TO PREVAIL.  WHAT HAS BEEN
CALLED "THE COMMON SENSE OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW," AS FORMULATED, WITH
REGARD TO NECESSARY SAFEGUARDS IN CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTIONS, IN THE
NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OF 1821, ART. VII, SEC. 8, HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN
TERMS BY ILLINOIS.  THE TEACHING OF A CENTURY AND HALF OF CRIMINAL
LIBEL PROSECUTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD GO BY THE BOARD IF WE WERE TO
HOLD THAT ILLINOIS WAS NOT WITHIN HER RIGHTS IN MAKING THIS COMBINED
REQUIREMENT.  ASSUMING THAT DEFENDANT'S OFFER OF PROOF DIRECTED TO A
PART OF THE DEFENSE WAS ADEQUATE, (FN21) IT DID NOT SATISFY THE ENTIRE
REQUIREMENT WHICH ILLINOIS COULD EXACT.  (FN22) 

LIBELOUS UTTERANCES NOT BEING WITHIN THE AREA OF CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED SPEECH, IT IS UNNECESSARY, EITHER FOR US OR FOR THE STATE
COURTS, TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES BEHIND THE PHRASE "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER."  CERTAINLY NO ONE WOULD CONTEND THAT OBSCENE SPEECH, FOR
EXAMPLE, MAY BE PUNISHED ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. 
LIBEL, AS WE HAVE SEEN, IS IN THE SAME CLASS. 

WE FIND NO WARRANT IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR DENYING TO ILLINOIS THE
POWER TO PASS THE LAW HERE UNDER ATTACK.  (FN23)  BUT IT BEARS
REPEATING - ALTHOUGH IT SHOULD NOT - THAT OUR FINDING THAT THE LAW IS
NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY OBJECTIONABLE CARRIES NO IMPLICATION OF APPROVAL
OF THE WISDOM OF THE LEGISLATION OR OF ITS EFFICACY.  THESE QUESTIONS
MAY RAISE DOUBTS IN OUR MINDS AS WELL AS IN OTHERS.  IT IS NOT FOR US,
HOWEVER, TO MAKE THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO
ERECT THOSE DOUBTS INTO FUNDAMENTAL LAW.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  408 ILL. 512, 518, 97 N.E.2D 343, 346-347.  ILLINOIS LAW
REQUIRES THAT FOR THE DEFENSE TO PREVAIL, THE TRUTH OF ALL FACTS IN THE
UTTERANCE MUST BE SHOWN TOGETHER WITH GOOD MOTIVE FOR PUBLICATION. 
PEOPLE V. STRAUCH, 247 ILL. 220, 93 N.E. 126; PEOPLE V. FULLER, 238
ILL. 116, 87 N.E. 336; CF. OGREN V. ROCKFORD STAR PRINTING CO., 288
ILL. 405, 123 N.E. 587. 

FN2  SEE, E.G., STATE V. STERMAN, 199 IOWA 569, 202 N.W. 222; STATE
V. HOWARD, 169 N.C. 312, 313, 84 S.E. 807-808; CF. OGREN V. ROCKFORD
STAR PRINTING CO., SUPRA. 

FN3  SEE, E.G., PEOPLE V. SPIELMAN, 318 ILL. 482, 489, 149 N.E. 466,
469; ODGERS, LIBEL AND SLANDER (6TH ED.), 368; 19 A.L.R. 1470.  SOME
STATES HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT INJURY TO REPUTATION, AS IN CIVIL LIBEL, AND
NOT TENDENCY TO BREACH OF THE PEACE, IS THE GRAVAMEN OF THE OFFENSE. 
SEE TANENHAUS, GROUP LIBEL, 35 CORNELL L.Q. 261, 273 AND N. 67. 

FN4  FOR A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT SEE WARREN, HISTORY OF
THE AMERICAN BAR, 236-239.  SEE ALSO CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CHIEF
JUSTICE CUSHING OF MASSACHUSETTS AND JOHN ADAMS, PUBLISHED IN 27 MASS.
L.Q. 11-16 (OCT. 1942).  JEFFERSON EXPLAINED IN A LETTER TO ABIGAIL
ADAMS, DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 1804, THAT TO STRIKE DOWN THE ALIEN AND
SEDITION ACT WOULD NOT "REMOVE ALL RESTRAINT FROM THE OVERWHELMING
TORRENT OF SLANDER WHICH IS CONFOUNDING ALL VICE AND VIRTUE, ALL TRUTH
AND FALSEHOOD IN THE U.S. THE POWER TO DO THAT IS FULLY POSSESSED BY
THE SEVERAL STATE LEGISLATURES."  SEE DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S.
494, 522, N. 4.  SEE MILLER, CRISIS IN FREEDOM, 168-169, 231-232.  SEE
ALSO PROVISIONS AS TO CRIMINAL LIBEL IN EDWARD LIVINGSTON'S FAMOUS
DRAFT SYSTEM OF PENAL LAW FOR LOUISIANA, 2 WORKS OF EDWARD LIVINGSTON
100-108. 

FN5  IN EIGHT STATES THE OFFENSE IS PUNISHED AS AT COMMON LAW,
WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT.  STATE V. ROBERTS, 2 MARV.  (DEL.)  450,
43 A. 252; COLE V. COMMONWEALTH, 222 KY. 350, 300 S.W. 907; ROBINSON V.
STATE, 108 MD. 644, 71 A. 433; COMMONWEALTH V. CANTER, 269 MASS. 359,
168 N.E. 790; STATE V. BURNHAM, 9 N.H. 34; STATE V. SPEAR, 13 R.I. 324;
STATE V. SUTTON, 74 VT. 12, 52 A. 116; STATE V. PAYNE, 87 W. VA. 102,
104 S.E. 288.  TWELVE OTHER JURISDICTIONS MAKE "LIBEL" A CRIME BY
STATUTE, WITHOUT DEFINING THE TERM.  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 14, SEC.
347; ALASKA COMP. LAWS ANN., 1949, SEC. 65-4-28; D.C. CODE, 1940, SEC.
22-2301; FLA. STAT. ANN., 1944, SEC. 836.01; BURNS IND. STAT., 1933,
SEC.  10-3201; MISS.  CODE, 1942, SEC. 2268; NEB. REV. STAT., 1943,
SEC. 28-440; N.J. STAT. ANN., 1939, SEC. 2:146-1; N.C. GEN. STAT.,
1943, SEC. 14-47; PAGE'S OHIO GEN. CODE, 1939, SEC. 13383; WIS. STAT.,
1949, SEC. 348.41; WYO. COMP. STAT., 1945, SEC. 9-1601.  THUS, TWENTY
AMERICAN JURISDICTIONS PUNISH "LIBEL" AS DEFINED BY THE CASE-BY-CASE
COMMON-LAW DEVELOPMENT. 

THE REMAINING JURISDICTIONS HAVE SOUGHT TO CAST THE COMMON-LAW
DEFINITION IN A STATUTORY FORM OR WORDS.  TWO FORMULAS HAVE BEEN
POPULAR.  ELEVEN JURISDICTIONS, ILLINOIS AMONG THEM, HAVE ACCEPTED WITH
MINOR VARIATIONS THE FOLLOWING: 

"A LIBEL IS A MALICIOUS DEFAMATION, EXPRESSED EITHER BY PRINTING, OR
BY SIGNS OR PICTURES, OR THE LIKE, TENDING TO BLACKEN THE MEMORY OF ONE
WHO IS DEAD, OR TO IMPEACH THE HONESTY, INTEGRITY, VIRTUE OR REPUTATION
OR PUBLISH THE NATURAL DEFECTS OF ONE WHO IS ALIVE, AND THEREBY TO
EXPOSE HIM TO PUBLIC HATRED, CONTEMPT, RIDICULE, OR FINANCIAL INJURY." 
SMITH-HURD ILL. ANN. STAT., 1936, C. 38, SEC. 402.  ARIZ. CODE ANN.,
1939, SEC. 43.3501; ARK. STAT., 1947, SEC. 41-2401; DEERING'S CAL.
PENAL CODE, 1949, SEC. 248; COLO. STAT. ANN., 1935, C. 48, SEC. 199;
GA. CODE ANN., 1936, SEC. 26-2101; IDAHO CODE, 1947, SEC. 18-4801;
SMITH-HURD ILL. ANN. STAT., 1936, C. 38, SEC. 402; MONT.  REV. CODES,
1947, SEC. 94-2801; NEV. COMP. LAWS, 1929, SEC. 10110; P.R. CODIGO
PENAL, 1937, SEC. 243; UTAH CODE ANN., 1943, SEC. 103-38-1; CF. VIRGIN
ISLANDS CODE, 1921, TIT. IV, C. 5, SEC. 36. 

THE OTHER VERSION, AGAIN WITH MINOR VARIATIONS, HAS FOUND FAVOR IN
TWELVE JURISDICTIONS. 

"A LIBEL IS A MALICIOUS DEFAMATION OF A PERSON, MADE PUBLIC BY ANY
PRINTING, WRITING, SIGN, PICTURE, REPRESENTATION OR EFFIGY, TENDING TO
PROVOKE HIM TO WRATH OR EXPOSE HIM TO PUBLIC HATRED, CONTEMPT OR
RIDICULE, OR TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THE BENEFITS OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND
SOCIAL INTERCOURSE; OR ANY MALICIOUS DEFAMATION, MADE PUBLIC AS
AFORESAID, DESIGNED TO BLACKEN AND VILIFY THE MEMORY OF ONE WHO IS
DEAD, AND TENDING TO SCANDALIZE OR PROVOKE HIS SURVIVING RELATIVES OR
FRIENDS." 

IOWA CODE ANN., 1949, SEC. 737.1; KAN. GEN. STAT., 1935, SEC. 21
2401; DART'S LA. CRIM. CODE, 1943, ART. 740-47; ME. REV. STAT., 1944,
C. 117, SEC. 30; MINN. STAT., 1949, SEC. 619.51; MO. REV. STAT., 1949,
SEC. 559.410; MCKINNEY'S N.Y. LAWS, PENAL CODE, SEC. 1340; N.D. REV.
CODE, 1943, SEC. 12-2801; OKLA. STAT. ANN., 1936, TIT. 21, SEC. 771;
PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., 1945, TIT. 18, SEC. 4412; WILLIAMS TENN. CODE,
1934, SECS. 11021, 11022; REMINGTON'S WASH. REV. STAT., 1932, SEC.
2424. 

THE REMAINING NINE JURISDICTIONS HAVE DEFINITIONS OF CRIMINAL LIBEL
WHICH FALL INTO NO COMMON PATTERN.  SEE CONN. GEN. STAT., 1949, SEC.
8518; HAWAII REV. LAWS, 1945, SEC. 11450; MICH. COMP. LAWS, 1948, SEC.
750-370; N.M. STAT., 1941, SECS. 41-2701, 41-2708; ORE.  COMP.  LAWS,
1940, SEC. 23-437; S.C. CODE, 1942, SEC. 1395; S.D. CODE, 1939, SEC.
13.3401; VERNON'S TEX. STAT., 1948, ARTS. 1269, 1275; VA. CODE, 1950,
SEC. 18-133. 

OUR EXAMINATION OF THE HOMOGENEITY OF THESE STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF
CRIMINAL LIBEL MIGHT WELL BEGIN AND END WITH THE WORDS "VIRTUE" AND
"RIDICULE."  OF THIRTY-TWO JURISDICTIONS, TWELVE OUTLAW STATEMENTS
IMPEACHING THE "VIRTUE" OF ANOTHER; ELEVEN OF THESE, AND FIFTEEN MORE -
TWENTY-SIX IN ALL - PROHIBIT UTTERANCES TENDING TO BRING ANOTHER INTO
"PUBLIC RIDICULE." 

FOR THE COMMON-LAW DEFINITION, APPLICABLE IN THE TWENTY JURISDICTIONS
FIRST NOTED ABOVE, SEE L. HAND, J., IN GRANT V. READER'S DIGEST ASSN.,
151 F.2D 733, 735, WHERE HE SPEAKS OF DEFINING LIBEL "IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE USUAL RUBRIC, AS CONSISTING OF UTTERANCES WHICH AROUSE
'HATRED, CONTEMPT, SCORN, OBLOQUY OR SHAME,' AND THE LIKE."  CF.
RESTATEMENT, TORTS, SEC. 559, COMMENT (B); ODGERS, LIBEL AND SLANDER
(6TH ED.), 16-17; NEWELL, SLANDER AND LIBEL (4TH ED.), 1-2. 

EVEN A CURSORY EXAMINATION OF THESE ENACTMENTS AND COMMON-LAW
PRONOUNCEMENTS DEMONSTRATES THAT ILLINOIS, IN SEC. 224A, WAS USING A
FORM OF WORDS WHICH INVOKED THE FAMILIAR COMMON LAW OF LIBEL TO DEFINE
THE PROHIBITED UTTERANCES.  THE DEFENDANT AND THE ILLINOIS COURTS, AS
WE HAVE SEEN, UNDERSTOOD THIS AND ACTED UPON IT. 

FN6  IN ALL BUT FIVE STATES, THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREE
SPEECH TO EVERY PERSON IS EXPLICITLY QUALIFIED BY HOLDING HIM
"RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABUSE OF THAT RIGHT."  SEE PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA,
328 U.S. 331, 356, N. 5.  SEE JEFFERSON IN KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798
AND 1799, 4 ELLIOT'S DEBATES 540-541, AND IN AN UNDATED DRAFT PREPARED,
BUT NOT USED, FOR HIS DECEMBER 8, 1801, MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS JEFFERSON PAPERS, VOL. 119, LEAF 20569.  IN CARLSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106, 112, WE NOTED THAT THE STATUTE THERE
INVALIDATED MADE "NO EXCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TRUTHFULNESS AND
RESTRAINT OF THE INFORMATION CONVEYED  ...  ." 

FN7  COMPARE REPORTS OF KING V. OSBORNE IN 2 BARN.  K.B. 138, 166, 94
ENG. REP. 406, 425; 2 SWANS.  503, N. (C), 36 ENG. REP. 705, 717; W.
KEL.  *230, 25 ENG. REP. 584 (1732).  THE PRESENT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
ENGLAND ASSERTED THAT THIS CASE OBVIATED THE NEED OF SPECIAL GROUP
LIBEL LEGISLATION FOR GREAT BRITAIN.  SEE THE (LONDON) TIMES, MARCH 26,
1952, P. 2, COL. 4.  SEE ALSO ODGERS, LIBEL AND SLANDER (6TH ED.), 369;
TANENHAUS, GROUP LIBEL, 35 CORNELL L.Q. 261, 267-269.    FN8  ONE OF
THE LEADING CASES AROSE IN ILLINOIS.  PEOPLE V. SPIELMAN, 318 ILL. 482,
149 N.E. 466 (1925), SUSTAINING A CONVICTION FOR LIBEL ON THE MEMBERS
OF THE AMERICAN LEGION.  THE AUTHORITIES ARE COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IN
TANENHAUS, GROUP LIBEL, 35 CORNELL L.Q. 261, 269-276. 

FN9  SEE, E.G., LOEWENSTEIN, LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OF POLITICAL
EXTREMISM IN EUROPEAN DEMOCRACIES, 38 COL. L. REV. 591 AND 725;
RIESMAN, DEMOCRACY AND DEFAMATION, 42 COL.  L. REV. 727, 1085 AND 1282;
PUBLIC ORDER ACT, 1936, 1 EDW.  VIII AND 1 GEO. VI, C. 6, AND 317 H.C.
DEB.  1349-1473 (5TH SER.  1936); 318 H.C. DEB.  49-193, 581-710, 1659
1785, 2781-2784 (5TH SER.  1936); 103 H.L. DEB.  741-773, 961-972 (5TH
SER.  1936). 

FN10  SEE GENERALLY THE CHICAGO COMMISSION ON RACE RELATIONS, THE
NEGRO IN CHICAGO, 1-78, AND PASSIM (UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1922);
RESEARCH MEMORANDUM NO. 5, FIRST ANNUAL REP. ILL. INTER-RACIAL COMM'N
(1944). 

FN11  THE MAY 28, 1917, RIOT IN EAST ST. LOUIS, ILLINOIS, WAS
PRECEDED BY A VIOLENTLY INFLAMMATORY SPEECH TO UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BY A
PROMINENT LAWYER OF THE TOWN.  REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE THE EAST ST. LOUIS RIOTS, H.R.
DOC. NO. 1231, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS. 11; CHICAGO COMMISSION ON RACE
RELATIONS, THE NEGRO IN CHICAGO, 75.  AND SEE ID., AT 118-122 FOR
LITERATURE CIRCULATED BY REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER GROUPS
DURING THE SERIES OF BOMBINGS LEADING UP TO THE CHICAGO RIOTS OF 1919. 
FOR THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS ON THE ROLE OF PROPAGANDA IN PROMOTING
RACE FRICTIONS, SEE ID., AT 589, 638-639. 

FN12  TABLES IN DRAKE AND CAYTON, BLACK METROPOLIS, 8, SHOW THAT
BETWEEN 1900 AND 1920 THE NUMBER OF FOREIGN-BORN IN CHICAGO INCREASED
BY OVER 1/3 AND THE NEGRO POPULATION TREBLED.  UNITED STATES CENSUS
FIGURES SHOW THE FOLLOWING POPULATION GROWTH FOR THE STATE AS A WHOLE
AND SELECTED COUNTIES:

           ILLINOIS               COOK COUNTY  ST.

           CLAIR COUNTY                        (CHICAGO)

                 (EAST ST. LOUIS)

TOTAL        NEGRO      TOTAL         NEGRO        TOTAL    NEGRO 

1900  4,821,550     85,078    1,838,735      31,838       86,685
3,987 

1910  5,638,591    109,049 2,405,233      46,627      119,870
8,110 

1920  6,485,280    182,274    3,053,017     115,238      136,520
10,136 

1930  7,630,654    328,972    3,982,123     246,992     157,775
15,550 

1940  7,897,241    387,446    4,063,342     249,157      166,899
21,567 

1950  8,712,176    645,989    4,508,792     521,007      205,995
34,566 

FOR AN ACCOUNT OF THESE VAST POPULATION MOVEMENTS ENTAILING GREAT
SOCIAL MALADJUSTMENTS, SEE DRAKE AND CAYTON, BLACK METROPOLIS, 8-18, 31
65; CHICAGO COMMISSION ON RACE RELATIONS, THE NEGRO IN CHICAGO, 79-105;
CARL SANDBURG, THE CHICAGO RACE RIOTS, 9-30. 

FN13  SEE WALLING, RACE WAR IN THE NORTH, 65 THE INDEPENDENT 529
(1908).  THIS ARTICLE APPARENTLY LED TO THE FOUNDING OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE.  OVINGTON, HOW THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE BEGAN, 8
CRISIS 184 (1914).  SEE ALSO CHICAGO COMMISSION ON RACE RELATIONS, THE
NEGRO IN CHICAGO, 67-71. 

FN14  REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS TO
INVESTIGATE THE EAST ST. LOUIS RIOTS, H.R. DOC. NO. 1231, 65TH CONG.,
2D SESS.  SEE ALSO THE MASSACRE OF EAST ST. LOUIS, 14 CRISIS 219
(1917). 

FN15  CHICAGO COMMISSION ON RACE RELATIONS, THE NEGRO IN CHICAGO, 122
133. 

FN16  THE UTTERANCES HERE IN QUESTION "ARE NOT," AS A DETACHED
STUDENT OF THE PROBLEM HAS NOTED, "THE DAILY GRIST OF VITUPERATIVE
POLITICAL DEBATE.  NOR DO THEY REPRESENT THE FROTHY IMAGININGS OF
LUNATICS, OR THE 'IDLE' GOSSIP OF A COUNTRY TOWN.  RATHER, THEY
INDICATE THE SYSTEMATIC AVALANCHE OF FALSEHOODS WHICH ARE CIRCULATED
CONCERNING THE VARIOUS GROUPS, CLASSES AND RACES WHICH MAKE UP THE
COUNTRIES OF THE WESTERN WORLD."  RIESMAN, DEMOCRACY AND DEFAMATION:
CONTROL OF GROUP LIBEL, 42 COL. L. REV., AT 727.  PROFESSOR RIESMAN
CONTINUES:  "SUCH PURPOSEFUL ATTACKS ARE NOTHING NEW, OF COURSE ...  .
WHAT IS NEW, HOWEVER, IS THE EXISTENCE OF A MOBILE PUBLIC OPINION AS
THE CONTROLLING FORCE IN POLITICS, AND THE SYSTEMATIC MANIPULATION OF
THAT OPINION BY THE USE OF CALCULATED FALSEHOOD AND VILIFICATION." 
ID., AT 728. 

FN17 SEE, E.G., L. HAND, J., IN A SYMPOSIUM IN THE SATURDAY REVIEW OF
LITERATURE, MAR. 15, 1947, PP. 23-24; REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
LAW OF DEFAMATION, CMD.  7536, 11 (1948). 

FN18  IT DESERVES EMPHASIS THAT THERE IS NO SUCH ATTEMPT IN THIS
STATUTE.  THE RUBRIC "RACE, COLOR, CREED OR RELIGION" WHICH DESCRIBES
THE TYPE OF GROUP LIBEL OF WHICH IS PUNISHABLE, HAS ATTAINED TOO FIXED
A MEANING TO PERMIT POLITICAL GROUPS TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN IT.  IF A
STATUTE SOUGHT TO OUTLAW LIBELS OF POLITICAL PARTIES, QUITE DIFFERENT
PROBLEMS NOT NOW BEFORE US WOULD BE RAISED.  FOR ONE THING, THE WHOLE
DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT AS INDISPENSABLE TO THE DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL
PROCESS WOULD COME INTO PLAY.  SEE PEOPLE V. FULLER, SUPRA, AT 125, 87
N.E., AT 338-339; COMMONWEALTH V. PRATT, 208 MASS. 553, 559, 95 N.E.
105, 106.  POLITICAL PARTIES, LIKE PUBLIC MEN, ARE, AS IT WERE, PUBLIC
PROPERTY. 

FN19  INDEED, SUCH DEFENSES ARE EVIDENTLY PROTECTED BY ILLINOIS LAW. 
SEE ILL. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 17, GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
TO APPLY FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.  AND SEE PEOPLE V. FULLER, 238 ILL.
116, 125, 87 N.E. 336, 338-339, ON THE DEFENSE OF "FAIR COMMENT" IN
CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTIONS. 

FN20  THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION, ADOPTED IN 1870, IS ILLINOIS' THIRD. 
THE FIRST TWO PRESERVED THE DEFENSE OF TRUTH IN CERTAIN TYPES OF LIBEL
PROSECUTIONS:  "IN PROSECUTIONS FOR THE PUBLICATION OF PAPERS
INVESTIGATING THE OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF OFFICERS, OR OF MEN ACTING IN A
PUBLIC CAPACITY, OR WHERE THE MATTER PUBLISHED IS PROPER FOR PUBLIC
INFORMATION, THE TRUTH THEREOF MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE.  AND IN ALL
INDICTMENTS FOR LIBELS THE JURY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF DETERMINING
BOTH THE LAW AND THE FACT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT AS IN OTHER
CASES."  ILL. CONST., 1818, ART. VIII, SEC. 23; ILL. CONST., 1848, ART.
XIII, SEC. 24.  THE COMBINED REQUIREMENT OF TRUTH AND GOOD MOTIVES AND
JUSTIFIABLE ENDS, AVAILABLE AS A DEFENSE IN ALL LIBEL SUITS, WAS
ADOPTED WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF 1870. 

FN21  DEFENDANT OFFERED TO SHOW (1) THAT CRIMES WERE MORE FREQUENT IN
DISTRICTS HEAVILY POPULATED BY NEGROES THAN IN THOSE WHERE WHITES
PREDOMINATED; (2) THREE SPECIFIC CRIMES ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY NEGROES;
AND (3) THAT PROPERTY VALUES DECLINED WHEN NEGROES MOVED INTO A
NEIGHBORHOOD.  IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER SUCH A SHOWING IS AS EXTENSIVE AS
THE DEFAMATORY ALLEGATIONS IN THE LITHOGRAPH CIRCULATED BY THE
DEFENDANT. 

FN22  THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY PUT A FEW QUESTIONS TO THE DEFENDANT ON
THE WITNESS STAND WHICH TENDED TOWARD ELABORATING HIS MOTIVES IN
CIRCULATING THE LITHOGRAPH COMPLAINED OF.  WHEN OBJECTIONS TO THESE
QUESTIONS WERE SUSTAINED, NO OFFER OF PROOF WAS MADE, IN CONTRAST TO
THE RATHER ELABORATE OFFER WHICH FOLLOWED THE REFUSAL TO PERMIT
QUESTIONING TENDING TO SHOW THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.  INDEED, IN THAT
OFFER ITSELF, DESPITE ITS CONSIDERABLE DETAIL, NO MENTION WAS MADE OF
THE NECESSARY ELEMENT OF GOOD MOTIVE OR JUSTIFIABLE ENDS.  IN ANY
EVENT, THE QUESTION OF EXCLUSION OF THIS TESTIMONY GOING TO MOTIVE WAS
NOT RAISED BY MOTION IN THE TRIAL COURT, ON APPEAL IN ILLINOIS, OR
BEFORE US. 

FN23  THE LAW STRUCK DOWN BY THE NEW JERSEY COURT IN NEW JERSEY V.
KLAPPROTT, 127 N.J.L. 395, 22 A.2D 877, WAS QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THE
ONE BEFORE US AND WAS NOT LIMITED, AS IS THE ILLINOIS STATUTE, BY
CONSTRUCTION OR USAGE.  INDEED, IN THAT CASE THE COURT EMPHASIZED THAT
"IT IS NOT A CASE OF LIBEL," AND CONTRASTED THE HISTORY AT COMMON LAW
OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR WRITTEN AND SPOKEN DEFAMATION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE IS HERE BECAUSE ILLINOIS INFLICTED CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT ON
BEAUHARNAIS FOR CAUSING THE DISTRIBUTION OF LEAFLETS IN THE CITY OF
CHICAGO.  THE CONVICTION RESTS ON THE LEAFLETS CONTENTS, NOT ON THE
TIME, MANNER OR PLACE OF DISTRIBUTION.  BEAUHARNAIS IS HEAD OF AN
ORGANIZATION THAT OPPOSES AMALGAMATION AND FAVORS SEGREGATION OF WHITE
AND COLORED PEOPLE.  AFTER DISCUSSION, AN ASSEMBLY OF HIS GROUP DECIDED
TO PETITION THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF CHICAGO TO PASS LAWS FOR
SEGREGATION.  VOLUNTEER MEMBERS OF THE GROUP AGREED TO STAND ON STREET
CORNERS, SOLICIT SIGNERS TO PETITIONS ADDRESSED TO THE CITY
AUTHORITIES, AND DISTRIBUTE LEAFLETS GIVING INFORMATION ABOUT THE
GROUP, ITS BELIEFS AND ITS PLANS.  IN CARRYING OUT THIS PROGRAM A
SOLICITOR HANDED OUT A LEAFLET WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THIS
PROSECUTION.  SINCE THE COURT OPINION QUOTES ONLY PARTS OF THE LEAFLET,
I AM INCLUDING ALL OF IT AS AN APPENDIX TO THIS DISSENT, POST, P. 276. 

                                             I. 

THAT BEAUHARNAIS AND HIS GROUP WERE MAKING A GENUINE EFFORT TO
PETITION THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IS NOT DISPUTED.  EVEN AS FAR
BACK AS 1689, THE BILL OF RIGHTS EXACTED OF WILLIAM & MARY SAID:  "IT
IS THE RIGHT OF THE SUBJECTS TO PETITION THE KING, AND ALL COMMITMENTS
AND PROSECUTIONS FOR SUCH PETITIONING ARE ILLEGAL."  (FN1)  AND 178
YEARS AGO THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
PROCLAIMED TO THE MONARCH OF THAT DAY THAT HIS AMERICAN SUBJECTS HAD "A
RIGHT PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, CONSIDER THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND PETITION
THE KING; AND THAT ALL PROSECUTIONS, PROHIBITORY PROCLAMATIONS, AND
COMMITMENTS FOR THE SAME, ARE ILLEGAL."  (FN2)  AFTER INDEPENDENCE WAS
WON, AMERICANS STATED AS THE FIRST UNEQUIVOCAL COMMAND OF THEIR BILL OF
RIGHTS: "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...  ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO
ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." 
WITHOUT DISTORTION, THIS FIRST AMENDMENT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE READ SO
AS TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER TO PUNISH BEAUHARNAIS AND OTHERS FOR
PETITIONING CONGRESS AS THEY HAVE HERE SOUGHT TO PETITION THE CHICAGO
AUTHORITIES.  SEE E.G., BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 277.  AND
WE HAVE HELD IN A NUMBER OF PRIOR CASES THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
MAKES THE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT EQUALLY
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.  (FN3) 

IN VIEW OF THESE PRIOR HOLDINGS, HOW DOES THE COURT JUSTIFY ITS
HOLDING TODAY THAT STATES CAN PUNISH PEOPLE FOR EXERCISING THE VITAL
FREEDOMS INTENDED TO BE SAFEGUARDED FROM SUPPRESSION BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT?  THE PRIOR HOLDINGS ARE NOT REFERRED TO; THE COURT SIMPLY
ACTS ON THE BLAND ASSUMPTION THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS WHOLLY
IRRELEVANT.  IT IS NOT EVEN ACCORDED THE RESPECT OF A PASSING MENTION. 
THIS FOLLOWS LOGICALLY, I SUPPOSE, FROM RECENT CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE
WHICH APPEARS TO MEASURE STATE LAWS SOLELY BY THIS COURT'S NOTIONS OF
CIVILIZED "CANONS OF DECENCY," REASONABLENESS, ETC.  SEE, E.G., ROCHIN
V. CALIFORNIA, 342 U.S. 165, 169.  UNDER THIS "REASONABLENESS" TEST,
STATE LAWS ABRIDGING FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS ARE SUSTAINED IF FOUND TO
HAVE A "RATIONAL BASIS."  BUT IN BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319
U.S. 624, 639, WE SAID: 

"IN WEIGHING ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS AN
INSTRUMENT FOR TRANSMITTING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND
THOSE CASES IN WHICH IT IS APPLIED FOR ITS OWN SAKE.  THE TEST OF
LEGISLATION WHICH COLLIDES WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT
ALSO COLLIDES WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST, IS MUCH MORE DEFINITE
THAN THE TEST WHEN ONLY THE FOURTEENTH IS INVOLVED.  MUCH OF THE
VAGUENESS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DISAPPEARS WHEN THE SPECIFIC
PROHIBITIONS OF THE FIRST BECOME ITS STANDARD.  THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO
REGULATE, FOR EXAMPLE, A PUBLIC UTILITY MAY WELL INCLUDE, SO FAR AS THE
DUE PROCESS TEST IS CONCERNED, POWER TO IMPOSE ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS
WHICH A LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE A 'RATIONAL BASIS' FOR ADOPTING.  BUT
FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND OF PRESS, OF ASSEMBLY, AND OF WORSHIP MAY NOT BE
INFRINGED ON SUCH SLENDER GROUNDS." 

TODAY'S CASE DEGRADES FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS TO THE "RATIONAL
BASIS" LEVEL.  IT IS NOW A CERTAINTY THAT THE NEW "DUE PROCESS"
COVERALL OFFERS FAR LESS PROTECTION TO LIBERTY THAN WOULD ADHERENCE TO
OUR FORMER CASES COMPELLING STATES TO ABIDE BY THE UNEQUIVOCAL FIRST
AMENDMENT COMMAND THAT ITS DEFINED FREEDOMS SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED. 

THE COURT'S HOLDING HERE AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE BEHIND IT
LEAVE THE RIGHTS OF ASSEMBLY, PETITION, SPEECH AND PRESS ALMOST
COMPLETELY AT THE MERCY OF STATE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL
AGENCIES.  I SAY "ALMOST" BECAUSE STATE CURTAILMENT OF THESE FREEDOMS
MAY STILL BE INVALIDATED IF A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT CONCLUDE THAT A
PARTICULAR INFRINGEMENT IS "WITHOUT REASON," OR IS "A WILFUL AND
PURPOSELESS RESTRICTION UNRELATED TO THE PEACE AND WELL BEING OF THE
STATE."  BUT LEST THIS ENCOURAGEMENT SHOULD GIVE TOO MUCH HOPE AS TO
HOW AND WHEN THIS COURT MIGHT PROTECT THESE BASIC FREEDOMS FROM STATE
INVASION, WE ARE CAUTIONED THAT STATE LEGISLATURES MUST BE LEFT FREE TO
"EXPERIMENT" AND TO MAKE "LEGISLATIVE" JUDGMENTS.  WE ARE TOLD THAT
MISTAKES MAY BE MADE DURING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OF CURBING PUBLIC
OPINION.  IN SUCH EVENT THE COURT FORTUNATELY DOES NOT LEAVE THOSE
MISTAKENLY CURBED, OR ANY OF US FOR THAT MATTER, UNADVISED. 
CONSOLATION CAN BE SOUGHT AND MUST BE FOUND IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL
REFLECTION THAT STATE LEGISLATIVE ERROR IN STIFLING SPEECH AND PRESS
"IS THE PRICE TO BE PAID FOR THE TRIAL-AND-ERROR INHERENT IN
LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH OBSTINATE SOCIAL ISSUES."  MY OWN
BELIEF IS THAT NO LEGISLATURE IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OR VESTED WITH
THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT PUBLIC ISSUES AMERICANS CAN DISCUSS.  IN A
FREE COUNTRY THAT IS THE INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE, NOT THE STATE'S.  STATE
EXPERIMENTATION IN CURBING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS STARTLING AND
FRIGHTENING DOCTRINE IN A COUNTRY DEDICATED TO SELF-GOVERNMENT BY ITS
PEOPLE.  I REJECT THE HOLDING THAT EITHER STATE OR NATION CAN PUNISH
PEOPLE FOR HAVING THEIR SAY IN MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN. 

                                          II. 

THE ILLINOIS STATUTE UPHELD BY THE COURT MAKES IT A CRIME: 

1.  FOR "ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION." 

2.  TO "MANUFACTURE, SELL, OR OFFER FOR SALE, ADVERTISE OR PUBLISH,
PRESENT OR EXHIBIT IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE." 

3.  ANY "LITHOGRAPH (CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE ANY PRINTED MATTER), MOVING
PICTURE, PLAY, DRAMA OR SKETCH." 

4.  WHICH PORTRAYS "DEPRAVITY, CRIMINALITY, UNCHASTITY, OR LACK OF
VIRTUE." 

5.  OF "A CLASS OF CITIZENS, OF ANY RACE, COLOR, CREED OR RELIGION." 

6.  AND EXPOSES SUCH A CLASS TO "CONTEMPT, DERISION, OR OBLOQUY." 

7.  OR "IS PRODUCTIVE OF BREACH OF THE PEACE OR RIOTS." 

THIS STATUTE IMPOSES STATE CENSORSHIP OVER THE THEATER, MOVING
PICTURES, RADIO, TELEVISION, LEAFLETS, MAGAZINES, BOOKS AND
NEWSPAPERS.  NO DOUBT THE STATUTE IS BROAD ENOUGH TO MAKE CRIMINAL THE
"PUBLICATION, SALE, PRESENTATION OR EXHIBITION" OF MANY OF THE WORLD'S
GREAT CLASSICS, BOTH SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS.    THE COURT CONDONES THIS
EXPANSIVE STATE CENSORSHIP BY PAINSTAKINGLY ANALOGIZING IT TO THE LAW
OF CRIMINAL LIBEL.  AS A RESULT OF THIS REFINED ANALYSIS, THE ILLINOIS
STATUTE EMERGES LABELED A "GROUP LIBEL LAW."  THIS LABEL MAY MAKE THE
COURT'S HOLDING MORE PALATABLE FOR THOSE WHO SUSTAIN IT, BUT THE SUGAR
COATING DOES NOT MAKE THE CENSORSHIP LESS DEADLY.  HOWEVER TAGGED, THE
ILLINOIS LAW IS NOT THAT CRIMINAL LIBEL WHICH HAS BEEN "DEFINED,
LIMITED AND CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED TIME OUT OF MIND."  (FN4)  FOR
AS "CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED" THAT CRIME HAS PROVIDED FOR PUNISHMENT
OF FALSE, MALICIOUS, SCURRILOUS CHARGES AGAINST INDIVIDUALS, NOT
AGAINST HUGE GROUPS.  THIS LIMITED SCOPE OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL LIBEL
IS OF NO SMALL IMPORTANCE.  IT HAS CONFINED STATE PUNISHMENT OF SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION TO THE NARROWEST OF AREAS INVOLVING NOTHING MORE THAN
PURELY PRIVATE FEUDS.  EVERY EXPANSION OF THE LAW OF CRIMINAL LIBEL SO
AS TO PUNISH DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN MEANS A
CORRESPONDING INVASION OF THE AREA DEDICATED TO FREE EXPRESSION BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. 

PRIOR EFFORTS TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF CRIMINAL LIBEL BEYOND ITS
TRADITIONAL BOUNDARIES HAVE NOT USUALLY MET WITH WIDESPREAD POPULAR
ACCLAIM.  "SEDITIOUS LIBEL" WAS SUCH AN EXPANSION AND IT DID HAVE ITS
DAY, PARTICULARLY IN THE ENGLISH COURT OF STAR CHAMBER.  BUT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT REPUDIATED SEDITIOUS LIBEL FOR THIS COUNTRY.  AND ONE NEED
ONLY GLANCE THROUGH THE PARLIAMENTARY DISCUSSION OF FOX'S LIBEL LAW
PASSED IN ENGLAND IN 1792, TO SENSE THE BAD ODOR OF CRIMINAL LIBEL IN
THAT COUNTRY EVEN WHEN CONFINED TO CHARGES AGAINST INDIVIDUALS ONLY. 

THE COURT'S RELIANCE ON CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, IS
ALSO MISPLACED.  NEW HAMPSHIRE HAD A STATE LAW MAKING IT AN OFFENSE TO
DIRECT INSULTING WORDS AT AN INDIVIDUAL ON A PUBLIC STREET.  CHAPLINSKY
HAD VIOLATED THAT LAW BY CALLING A MAN VILE NAMES "FACE-TO-FACE."  WE
POINTED OUT IN THAT CONTEXT THAT THE USE OF SUCH "FIGHTING" WORDS WAS
NOT AN ESSENTIAL PART OF EXPOSITION OF IDEAS.  WHETHER THE WORDS USED
IN THEIR CONTEXT HERE ARE "FIGHTING" WORDS IN THE SAME SENSE IS
DOUBTFUL, BUT WHETHER SO OR NOT THEY ARE NOT ADDRESSED TO OR ABOUT
INDIVIDUALS.  MOREOVER, THE LEAFLET USED HERE WAS ALSO THE MEANS
ADOPTED BY AN ASSEMBLED GROUP TO ENLIST INTEREST IN THEIR EFFORTS TO
HAVE LEGISLATION ENACTED.  AND THE FIGHTING WORDS WERE BUT A PART OF
ARGUMENTS ON QUESTIONS OF WIDE PUBLIC INTEREST AND IMPORTANCE.  FREEDOM
OF PETITION, ASSEMBLY, SPEECH AND PRESS COULD BE GREATLY ABRIDGED BY A
PRACTICE OF METICULOUSLY SCRUTINIZING EVERY EDITORIAL, SPEECH, SERMON
OR OTHER PRINTED MATTER TO EXTRACT TWO OR THREE NAUGHTY WORDS ON WHICH
TO HANG CHARGES OF "GROUP LIBEL."  THE CHAPLINSKY CASE MAKES NO SUCH
BROAD INROADS ON FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS.  NOTHING MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
WROTE FOR THE COURT IN THAT CASE OR IN ANY OTHER CASE JUSTIFIES ANY
SUCH INFERENCE. 

UNLESS I MISREAD HISTORY THE MAJORITY IS GIVING LIBEL A MORE
EXPANSIVE SCOPE AND MORE RESPECTABLE STATUS THAN IT WAS EVER ACCORDED
EVEN IN THE STAR CHAMBER.  FOR HERE IT IS HELD TO BE PUNISHABLE TO GIVE
PUBLICITY TO ANY PICTURE, MOVING PICTURE, PLAY, DRAMA OR SKETCH, OR ANY
PRINTED MATTER WHICH A JUDGE MAY FIND UNDULY OFFENSIVE TO ANY RACE,
COLOR, CREED OR RELIGION.  IN OTHER WORDS, IN ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST
THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS THAT MAY DIFFERENTLY AFFECT HUGE GROUPS, IT IS
NOW VERY DANGEROUS INDEED TO SAY SOMETHING CRITICAL OF ONE OF THE
GROUPS.  AND ANY "PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION" CERTAINLY INCLUDES A
BOOK PUBLISHER, NEWSPAPER, RADIO OR TELEVISION STATION, CANDIDATE OR
EVEN A PREACHER. 

IT IS EASY ENOUGH TO SAY THAT NONE OF THIS LATTER GROUP HAVE BEEN
PROCEEDED AGAINST UNDER THE ILLINOIS ACT.  AND THEY HAVE NOT - YET. 
BUT EMOTIONS BUBBLE AND TEMPERS FLARE IN RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS
CONTROVERSIES, THE KIND HERE INVOLVED.  IT WOULD NOT BE EASY FOR ANY
COURT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, TO NARROW THIS ACT SO AS TO EXCLUDE FROM IT
ANY OF THOSE I HAVE MENTIONED.  FURTHERMORE, PERSONS TRIED UNDER THE
ACT COULD NOT EVEN GET A JURY TRIAL EXCEPT AS TO THE BARE FACT OF
PUBLICATION.  HERE, THE COURT SIMPLY CHARGED THE JURY THAT BEAUHARNAIS
WAS GUILTY IF HE HAD CAUSED DISTRIBUTION OF THE LEAFLET.  SUCH TRIAL BY
JUDGE RATHER THAN BY JURY WAS OUTLAWED IN ENGLAND IN 1792 BY FOX'S
LIBEL LAW. 

THIS ACT SETS UP A SYSTEM OF STATE CENSORSHIP WHICH IS AT WAR WITH
THE KIND OF FREE GOVERNMENT ENVISIONED BY THOSE WHO FORCED ADOPTION OF
OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.  THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE STATE LAW MAY HAVE BEEN TO
DO GOOD.  BUT THE SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT MOST LAWS MAKING OPINIONS
PUNISHABLE AS CRIMES.  HISTORY INDICATES THAT URGES TO DO GOOD HAVE LED
TO THE BURNING OF BOOKS AND EVEN TO THE BURNING OF "WITCHES." 

NO RATIONALIZATION ON A PURELY LEGAL LEVEL CAN CONCEAL THE FACT THAT
STATE LAWS LIKE THIS ONE PRESENT A CONSTANT OVERHANGING THREAT TO
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND RELIGION.  TODAY BEAUHARNAIS IS PUNISHED
FOR PUBLICLY EXPRESSING STRONG VIEWS IN FAVOR OF SEGREGATION. 
IRONICALLY ENOUGH, BEAUHARNAIS, CONVICTED OF CRIME IN CHICAGO, WOULD
PROBABLY BE GIVEN A HERO'S RECEPTION IN MANY OTHER LOCALITIES, IF NOT
IN SOME PARTS OF CHICAGO ITSELF.  MOREOVER, THE SAME KIND OF STATE LAW
THAT MAKES BEAUHARNAIS A CRIMINAL FOR ADVOCATING SEGREGATION IN
ILLINOIS CAN BE UTILIZED TO SEND PEOPLE TO JAIL IN OTHER STATES FOR
ADVOCATING EQUALITY AND NONSEGREGATION.  WHAT BEAUHARNAIS SAID IN HIS
LEAFLET IS MILD COMPARED WITH USUAL ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF RACIAL
CONTROVERSIES. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT FREEDOM OF PETITION AND DISCUSSION ARE IN NO DANGER
"WHILE THIS COURT SITS."  THIS CASE RAISES CONSIDERABLE DOUBT.  SINCE
THOSE WHO PEACEFULLY PETITION FOR CHANGES IN THE LAW ARE NOT TO BE
PROTECTED "WHILE THIS COURT SITS," WHO IS?  I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE
CONSTITUTION LEAVES FREEDOM OF PETITION, ASSEMBLY, SPEECH, PRESS OR
WORSHIP AT THE MERCY OF A CASE-BY-CASE, DAY-BY-DAY MAJORITY OF THIS
COURT.  I HAD FOUNDERS, IT CALCULATES WHAT IT DEEMS TO BE THE DANGER OF
PUBLIC DISCUSSION, HOLDS THE SCALES ARE TIPPED ON THE SIDE OF STATE
SUPPRESSION, AND THAN ON THE GRACE OF THIS COURT ON AN INDIVIDUAL CASE
BASIS.  TO SAY THAT A LEGISLATIVE BODY CAN, WITH THIS COURT'S APPROVAL,
MAKE IT A CRIME TO PETITION FOR AND PUBLICLY DISCUSS PROPOSED
LEGISLATION SEEMS AS FARFETCHED TO ME AS IT WOULD BE TO SAY THAT A
VALID LAW COULD BE ENACTED TO PUNISH A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT FOR
TELLING THE PEOPLE HIS VIEWS.  I THINK THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WITH THE
FOURTEENTH, "ABSOLUTELY" FORBIDS SUCH LAWS WITHOUT ANY "IFS" OR "BUTS"
OR "WHEREASES."  WHATEVER THE DANGER, IF ANY, IN SUCH PUBLIC
DISCUSSIONS, IT IS A DANGER THE FOUNDERS DEEMED OUTWEIGHED BY THE
DANGER INCIDENT TO THE STIFLING OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH.  THE COURT DOES
NOT ACT ON THIS VIEW OF THE FOUNDERS.  IT CALCULATES WHAT IT DEEMS TO
BE THE DANGER OF PUBLIC SUPPRESSION, AND UPHOLDS STATE CENSORSHIP. 
THIS METHOD OF DECISION OFFERS LITTLE PROTECTION TO FIRST AMENDMENT
LIBERTIES "WHILE THIS COURT SITS." 

IF THERE BE MINORITY GROUPS WHO HAIL THIS HOLDING AS THEIR VICTORY,
THEY MIGHT CONSIDER THE POSSIBLE RELEVANCY OF THIS ANCIENT REMARK: 

"ANOTHER SUCH VICTORY AND I AM UNDONE." 

FN1  1 WILLIAM & MARY, SESS. 2, C 2 (1689). 

FN2  EIGHTH RESOLUTION OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS OF 1774. 

FN3  E.G., GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 244, 245,
249; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 450; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S.
147, 160; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 95; MINERSVILLE DISTRICT
V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586, 593; BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S.
624, 639; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 529-530, CONCURRING OPINION,
545; PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, 349. 

FN4  THE COURT'S FINDING OF A CLOSE KINSHIP BETWEEN "CRIMINAL LIBEL"
AND "GROUP LIBEL" BECAUSE BOTH CONTAIN THE WORD "LIBEL" AND HAVE SOME
FACTORS IN COMMON IS REMINISCENT OF WHAT EARL STANHOPE SAID IN 1792 IN
DISCUSSING MR. FOX'S LIBEL BILL.  HE WAS ARGUING THAT A JURY OF LAYMEN
MIGHT MORE LIKELY PROTECT LIBERTY THAN JUDGES, BECAUSE JUDGES WERE
PRONE TO RELY TOO HEAVILY ON WORD BOOKS.  "HE PUT THE CASE, THAT AN
ACTION FOR A LIBEL WAS BROUGHT FOR USING A MODERN WORD, NOT TO BE FOUND
IN ANY GRAMMAR OR GLOSSARY, FOR SAYING THAT A MAN WAS 'A GREAT BORE;' A
JURY WOULD LAUGH AT SUCH A GROUND OF PROSECUTION, BUT THE JUDGES WOULD
TURN TO THEIR GRAMMARS AND GLOSSARIES, AND NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET WITH
IT, WOULD SAY THEY COULD NOT FIND SUCH A PHRASE AS 'A GREAT BORE,' BUT
THEY HAD FOUND A WILD BOAR, WHICH NO DOUBT IT MEANT; AND YET IT COULD
NOT BE, AS A WILD BOAR HAD FOUR LEGS, AND A MAN WAS A TWO LEGGED
ANIMAL; THEN IT MUST MEAN, THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS LIKE A WILD BOAR IN
DISPOSITION, WHICH WAS A WICKED LIBEL, AND THEREFORE LET THE DEFENDANT
BE HANGED."  29 HANSARD, PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND, P. 1412. 

(FOR APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, SEE POST, P. 276.) 

(FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE REED, SEE POST, P. 277.) 

(FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, SEE POST, P. 284.) 

(FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, SEE POST, P. 287.) 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THAT ANY PERSON
BE DEPRIVED BY A STATE OF LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  THIS ILLINOIS CONVICTION SUBJECTS PETITIONER TO A FINE OF $200. 
THE PETITIONER CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF THE SENTENCE ON THE GROUND
THAT HIS CONVICTION UNDER SEC. 224A, DIVISION 1, OF THE ILLINOIS
CRIMINAL CODE (FN1) VIOLATES SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.  THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI PHRASES THE ISSUE THUS:  "IS THE ILLINOIS STATUTE  ...  AS
CONSTRUED  ...  OR APPLIED  ...  INVALID  ...  BECAUSE IT INFRINGES
UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH, PRESS AND OF
ASSEMBLAGE AS GUARANTEED" BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT? 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS UPHELD THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER
UNDER AN INFORMATION WHICH CHARGED: 

"THAT DEFENDANT ON JANUARY 7, 1950, AT THE CITY OF CHICAGO, DID
UNLAWFULLY PUBLISH, PRESENT AND EXHIBIT IN PUBLIC PLACES, LITHOGRAPHS,
WHICH PUBLICATIONS PORTRAY DEPRAVITY, CRIMINALITY, UNCHASTITY OR LACK
OF VIRTUE OF CITIZENS OF NEGRO RACE AND COLOR AND WHICH EXPOSES
CITIZENS OF ILLINOIS OF THE NEGRO RACE AND COLOR TO CONTEMPT, DERISION,
OR OBLOQUY, WHICH MORE FULLY APPEARS IN EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS ATTACHED
HERETO AND MADE A PART THEREOF."  (FN2) 

THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE JURY IN FINDING THAT
BEAUHARNAIS CAUSED THE LITHOGRAPH REFERRED TO IN THE INFORMATION TO BE
PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED IN PUBLIC PLACES.  THE JURY DID SO FIND UNDER
CERTAIN GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE PROPER ATTITUDE OF JURORS BUT
ESSENTIALLY AND SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION: 

"(1) THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT IF YOU FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE
THAT THE DEFENDANT, JOSEPH BEAUHARNAIS, DID ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 7, 1950
MANUFACTURE, SELL, OR OFFER FOR SALE, ADVERTISE OR PUBLISH, PRESENT OR
EXHIBIT IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE THE LITHOGRAPH, WHICH WAS ALLOWED IN
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AS PEOPLES EXHIBIT NUMBER 3, THEN YOU ARE TO FIND
THE DEFENDANT GUILTY AND FINE HIM NOT LESS THAN $50.00 NOR MORE THAN
$200.00." 

THUS, THE JUDGE DID NOT LEAVE TO THE JURY BUT DECIDED HIMSELF,
DOUBTLESS AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT THE PUBLICATION OF THE LITHOGRAPH
VIOLATED THE STATUTE.  NO COMPLAINT WAS MADE OF THIS STATE METHOD OF
TRIAL. 

AT TRIAL, PETITIONER FILED A MOTION TO QUASH THE INFORMATION AND
OBJECTED TO THE ABOVE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION.  HE ALSO MOVED FOR A
PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION OF "NOT GUILTY" AND FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING
THE VERDICT.  ALL THESE CONTENTIONS WERE OVERRULED BY THE TRIAL COURT,
AND, ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW A PRECISELY PLEADED OBJECTION TO
THE CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 224A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
NONETHELESS THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS TREATED PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE WAS TOO VAGUE AND BY VIRTUE OF THAT FACT
WAS SO BROAD THAT IT ABRIDGED FREE SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  (FN3)  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BRINGS THESE
QUESTIONS HERE. 

IN CARRYING OUT ITS OBLIGATION TO CONFORM STATE LEGAL ADMINISTRATION
TO THE "FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE" IMPOSED ON THE
STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, (FN4) THIS COURT HAS STEADILY
AFFIRMED THAT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE AGAINST ABRIDGEMENT OF FREE SPEECH,
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IS INCLUDED IN THE COMMAND OF THE
FOURTEENTH.  (FN5)  SO IMPORTANT TO A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY IS THE
RIGHT OF DISCUSSION THAT ANY CHALLENGE TO LEGISLATIVE ABRIDGEMENT OF
THOSE PRIVILEGES OF A FREE PEOPLE CALLS FOR CAREFUL JUDICIAL
APPRAISAL.  (FN6)  IT IS WHEN SPEECH BECOMES AN INCITEMENT TO CRIME
THAT THE RIGHT FREELY TO EXHORT MAY BE ABRIDGED.  AMERICAN
COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 395; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301
U.S. 242, 255. 

WHEN A STATE CONVICTION IS CHALLENGED HERE ON THE GROUND THAT FREE
SPEECH HAS BEEN ABRIDGED, THIS COURT MUST FIRST DECIDE WHETHER THE
PORTION OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE CHARGE IS BASED IS SO BROAD "AS
TO PERMIT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS LANGUAGE THE PUNISHMENT OF INCIDENTS
FAIRLY WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH."  WINTERS
V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507, 509.  IN THE WINTERS CASE WE SET ASIDE THE
CONVICTION BECAUSE THE INDEFINITE CHARACTER OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE,
AS CONSTRUED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, WAS SO BROAD THAT
PROTECTED SPEECH WAS PROHIBITED.  THIS COURT REVERSED, EVEN THOUGH IT
ASSUMED THAT WINTERS' CONDUCT COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY BE PUNISHED BY A
STATUTE EXPRESSING ITS PROHIBITIONS IN REASONABLY NARROW AND DEFINITE
FORM.  (FN7) 

THIS REQUIREMENT MEANS THAT WHEN THE VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FLOW, AS
HERE, FROM THE INFORMATION AS A WHOLE, EACH AND EVERY PORTION OF THE
STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INFORMATION WAS DRAWN MUST BE CONSTITUTIONAL. 
IN STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, STROMBERG HAD BEEN CONVICTED
IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS FOR VIOLATING A STATUTE OF THAT STATE
FORBIDDING THE DISPLAY OF A RED FLAG.  (FN8) ON APPEAL, THIS COURT DID
NOT CONSIDER WHETHER STROMBERG'S CONDUCT, AS SHOWN BY THE RECORD, WAS
PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  INSTEAD, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
SECOND AND THIRD CLAUSES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE WERE UNQUESTIONABLY
VALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THIS COURT REVERSED THE STATE
COURT BECAUSE ITS CONVICTION OF STROMBERG MIGHT HAVE BEEN BASED UPON
THE FIRST CLAUSE, HOLDING THAT "IF ANY OF THE CLAUSES IN QUESTION IS
INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE CONVICTION CANNOT BE
UPHELD."  (FN9)  THE FIRST CLAUSE, FORBIDDING A DISPLAY OF A RED FLAG
AS A SYMBOL OF OPPOSITION TO ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT, WAS DEEMED INVALID
BECAUSE IT WAS SO BROAD THAT IT PERMITTED "PUNISHMENT OR THE FAIR USE
OF (THE) OPPORTUNITY (FOR FREE POLITICAL DISCUSSION, AND WAS THEREFORE)
REPUGNANT TO THE GUARANTY OF LIBERTY CONTAINED IN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT."  ID. AT 369. 

THE JUDGMENT IN THIS PRESENT CASE FOLLOWED FROM A DETERMINATION OF
JUDGE AND JURY THAT PETITIONER'S PUBLICATION OF THE LITHOGRAPH VIOLATED
THE STATUTE.  FROM THE GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY, NOTHING APPEARS TO
SHOW WHAT PARTICULAR WORDS OF THE STATUTE THE ILLINOIS COURTS
DETERMINED THE LITHOGRAPH OFFENDED.  THIS CONVICTION MUST STAND OR FALL
UPON A DETERMINATION WHETHER ALL DEFINITIONS OF THE ACTS PROSCRIBED BY
THE STATUTE AND CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION MAY BE BANNED UNDER THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, FOR, AS THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION
SHOWS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL UPON WHAT PHRASE OF THE STATUTE
PETITIONER'S CONVICTION WAS BASED.  OUR EXAMINATION CAN BEGIN AND END
WITH THE INQUIRY AS TO WHAT MEANING LIES IN THE ACT'S DECLARATION, AS
CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION, THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO PORTRAY IN A
LITHOGRAPH A "LACK OF VIRTUE OF A CLASS OF CITIZENS  ...  WHICH  ...
EXPOSES (THEM TO) DERISION, OR OBLOQUY." 

THE MAJORITY OPINION ASSERTS THAT ILLINOIS HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENTLY
CLEAR AND NARROW MEANING TO THE WORDS "VIRTUE," "DERISION" AND
"OBLOQUY" BY CHARACTERIZING SEC. 224A AS "A FORM OF CRIMINAL LIBEL
LAW."  BUT THE MERE DESCRIPTION OF THIS STATUTE AS A CRIMINAL LIBEL LAW
DOES NOT CLARIFY THE MEANING OF THESE VAGUE WORDS IN THE STATUTE.  TO
SAY THAT THE MERE PRESENCE OF THE WORD "VIRTUE" IN THE INDIVIDUAL LIBEL
STATUTE (FN10) MAKES ITS MEANING CLEAR IN THE GROUP LIBEL STATUTE IS A
NON SEQUITUR.  NO CASE IS CITED WHICH DEFINES AND LIMITS THE MEANING OF
THESE WORDS.  RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED BY THE COURT UPON ILLINOIS'
UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE WITH CLASHES BETWEEN RACES.  HOW THAT EXPERIENCE
GIVES CONTENT TO THE VAGUE WORDS IS NOT EXPLAINED.  THE OPINION FURTHER
RELIES UPON "THE CLARIFYING CONSTRUCTION AND FIXED USAGE WHICH GOVERN
THE MEANING OF THE ENACTMENT BEFORE US."  NO OPINIONS CONTAINING SUCH
CLARIFICATION ARE CITED.  IN ADDITION TO THE CASE BEFORE US, WE FIND
ONLY TWO REPORTED ADJUDICATIONS ON SEC. 224A IN THE ILLINOIS COURTS. 
(FN11)  WITHOUT CAVILING THAT ONE OF THESE CASES IS SO RECENT THAT IT
FOLLOWS THE INSTANT CASE IN THE REPORTS, CERTAINLY NEITHER OF THEM
CONTAINS ANY WORDS WHICH GIVE THAT "CLARIFYING CONSTRUCTION" CLAIMED
FOR ILLINOIS LAW. 

THE MAJORITY CERTAINY DO NOT SUPPLY THAT CONSTRUCTION BY INTIMATING
THAT THE PUBLICATIONS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 224A ARE ONLY THOSE "LIABLE TO
CAUSE VIOLENCE AND DISORDER."  MOREOVER, THAT PHRASE WAS USED BY THE
ILLINOIS COURT, NOT TO LIMIT THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 224A, BUT TO
DESCRIBE THE LITHOGRAPH PUBLISHED BY BEAUHARNAIS.  SEE 408 ILL., AT
517, 97 N.E.2D, AT 346.  THE QUOTED LANGUAGE DOES NOT LIMIT THE
STATUTORY WORDS "VIRTUE," "DERISION" OR "OBLOQUY."  (FN12) 

THE COURT SPEAKS AT LENGTH OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF A STATE TO
PASS GROUP LIBEL LAWS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC PEACE.  THIS DISSENT
ASSUMES THAT POWER.  WHAT IS UNDER DISCUSSION IS WHETHER THE CONVICTION
OF BEAUHARNAIS ON A GENERAL CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE CAN
STAND WHEN THE STATUTE CONTAINS WITHOUT STATUTORY OR JUDICIAL
DEFINITION WORDS OF SUCH AMBIGUOUS MEANING AND UNCERTAIN CONNOTATION AS
"VIRTUE," "DERISION," OR "OBLOQUY."  THE COURT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO
SPEAK SPECIFICALLY AS TO THAT CONTENTION. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF A DEFINITE RULING ON THAT POINT IS MANIFEST. 
RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, AND POLITICAL BIASES AND PREJUDICES LEAD TO CHARGE
AND COUNTERCHARGE, ACRIMONY AND BITTERNESS.  IF WORDS ARE TO BE
PUNISHED CRIMINALLY, THE CONSTITUTION AT LEAST REQUIRES THAT ONLY WORDS
OR EXPRESSIONS OR STATEMENTS THAT CAN BE REASONABLY WELL DEFINED, OR
THAT HAVE THROUGH LONG USAGE AN ACCEPTED MEANING, SHALL FURNISH A BASIS
FOR CONVICTION.  (FN13) 

THESE WORDS - "VIRTUE," "DERISION," AND "OBLOQUY" - HAVE NEITHER
GENERAL NOR SPECIAL MEANINGS WELL ENOUGH KNOWN TO APPRISE THOSE WITHIN
THEIR REACH AS TO LIMITATIONS ON SPEECH.  COMPARE CONNALLY V. GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391-392.  PHILOSOPHERS AND POETS,
THINKERS OF HIGH AND LOW DEGREE FROM EVERY AGE AND RACE HAVE SOUGHT TO
EXPOUND THE MEANING OF VIRTUE, BUT EACH TEACHES HIS OWN CONCEPTION OF
THE MORAL EXCELLENCE THAT SATISFIES STANDARDS OF GOOD CONDUCT.  ARE THE
TESTS OF THE PURITAN OR THE CAVALIER TO BE APPLIED, THOSE OF THE CITY
OR THE FARM, THE CHRISTIAN OR NON-CHRISTIAN, THE OLD OR THE YOUNG? 
DOES THE BILL OF RIGHTS PERMIT ILLINOIS TO FORBID ANY REFLECTION ON THE
VIRTUE OF RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS CLASSES WHICH A JURY OR A JUDGE MAY THINK
EXPOSES THEM TO DERISION OR OBLOQUY, WORDS THEMSELVES OF QUITE
UNCERTAIN MEANING AS USED IN THE STATUTE?  I THINK NOT.  A GENERAL AND
EQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THIS LAW WOULD RESTRAIN THE MILDEST EXPRESSIONS OF
OPINION IN ALL THOSE AREAS WHERE "VIRTUE" MAY BE THOUGHT TO HAVE A
ROLE.  SINCE THIS JUDGMENT MAY REST UPON THESE VAGUE AND UNDEFINED
WORDS, WHICH PERMIT WITHIN THEIR SCOPE THE PUNISHMENT OF INCIDENTS
SECURED BY THE GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH, THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

FN1  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION TO
MANUFACTURE, SELL, OR OFFER FOR SALE, ADVERTISE OR PUBLISH, PRESENT OR
EXHIBIT IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE IN THIS STATE ANY LITHOGRAPH, MOVING
PICTURE, PLAY, DRAMA OR SKETCH, WHICH PUBLICATION OR EXHIBITION
PORTRAYS DEPRAVITY, CRIMINALITY, UNCHASTITY, OR LACK OF VIRTUE OF A
CLASS OF CITIZENS, OF ANY RACE, COLOR, CREED OR RELIGION WHICH SAID
PUBLICATION OR EXHIBITION EXPOSES THE CITIZENS OF ANY RACE, COLOR,
CREED OR RELIGION TO CONTEMPT, DERISION, OR OBLOQUY OR WHICH IS
PRODUCTIVE OF BREACH OF THE PEACE OR RIOTS.  ANY PERSON, FIRM OR
CORPORATION VIOLATING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, SHALL BE
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED
BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00), NOR MORE THAN TWO
HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00)." 

FN2  PEOPLE V. BEAUHARNAIS, 408 ILL. 512, 514, 97 N.E.2D 343, 344
345.  THE EXHIBIT A REFERRED TO IN THE INFORMATION IS THE LITHOGRAPH
REFERRED TO IN THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY AS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 3. 

FN3  408 ILL. 512, AT 515-516 AND 517, 97 N.E.2D 343, AT 345-346.  IF
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE TREATS THE FEDERAL QUESTION AS PROPERLY
BEFORE IT, AND DECIDES THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION IS REVIEWABLE HERE,
REGARDLESS OF THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS RAISED IN THE INFERIOR COURTS
OF THE STATE.  SEE WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 361, AND CASES
THERE CITED. 

FN4  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT,
302 U.S. 319; ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46, 66. 

FN5  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666, 672; NEAR V. MINNESOTA,
283 U.S. 697, 707; PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, 335. 

FN6 DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 365: 

"THE GREATER THE IMPORTANCE OF SAFEGUARDING THE COMMUNITY FROM
INCITEMENTS TO THE OVERTHROW OF OUR INSTITUTIONS BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE,
THE MORE IMPERATIVE IS THE NEED TO PRESERVE INVIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS AND FREE ASSEMBLY IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FREE POLITICAL DISCUSSION, TO THE
END THAT GOVERNMENT MAY BE RESPONSIVE TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND
THAT CHANGES, IF DESIRED, MAY BE OBTAINED BY PEACEFUL MEANS.  THEREIN
LIES THE SECURITY OF THE REPUBLIC, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT." 

FN7  SEE 333 U.S., AT 520.  CF. THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88;
HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 263-264. 

FN8  283 U.S., AT 361: 

"ANY PERSON WHO DISPLAYS A RED FLAG, BANNER OR BADGE OR ANY FLAG,
BADGE, BANNER, OR DEVICE OF ANY COLOR OR FORM WHATEVER IN ANY PUBLIC
PLACE OR IN ANY MEETING PLACE OR PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, OR FROM OR ON ANY
HOUSE, BUILDING OR WINDOW AS A SIGN, SYMBOL OR EMBLEM OF OPPOSITION TO
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT OR AS AN INVITATION OR STIMULUS TO ANARCHISTIC
ACTION OR AS AN AID TO PROPAGANDA THAT IS OF A SEDITIOUS CHARACTER IS
GUILTY OF A FELONY."  THEN SEC. 403A OF THE CALIF. PENAL CODE. 

FN9  283 U.S. AT 368.  SEE ALSO WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S.
287, 291-292.  CF. THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 529; CRAMER V.
UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1, 36, N. 45. 

FN10  SMITH-HURD ILL. ANN. STAT., 1936, C. 38, SEC. 402, QUOTED IN
MAJORITY OPINION AT N. 5. 

FN11  PEOPLE V. SIMCOX, 379 ILL. 347, 40 N.E.2D 525; PEOPLE V. WHITE
CIRCLE LEAGUE, 408 ILL. 564, 97 N.E.2D 811 (1951).  SEE ALSO FOX FILM
CORP. V. COLLINS, 236 ILL. APP. 281; BEVINS V. PRINDABLE, 39 F. SUPP.
708, AFF'D 314 U.S. 573. 

FN12  INDEED, IF THE ILLINOIS COURTS HAD BEEN INCLINED TO INTERPRET
THEIR STATUTE AS THIS COURT NOW INTERPRETS IT, THEY COULD HAVE DONE SO
ONLY BY READING OUT OF THEIR STATUTE THE DISJUNCTIVE CLAUSE "OR WHICH
IS PRODUCTIVE OF BREACH OF THE PEACE OR RIOTS."  (QUOTED AT P. 251 OF
MAJORITY OPINION.)  IF THE ILLINOIS COURTS WERE INCLINED TO READ THIS
DISJUNCTIVE AS A CONJUNCTIVE, THEY WOULD PRESUMABLY HAVE REVERSED
BEAUHARNAIS' CONVICTION, FOR THE INFORMATION IN THIS CASE DID NOT
CHARGE THAT PUBLICATION OF HIS LITHOGRAPH WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE OF BREACH
OF THE PEACE OR RIOTS. 

FN13  "  ... THE CONSTITUTION NEVER INTENDED TO INVEST JUDGES WITH A
DISCRETION WHICH CANNOT BE TRIED AND MEASURED BY THE PLAIN AND PALPABLE
STANDARD OF LAW  ...  .  ON A SPECIAL VERDICT FOR MURDER, THE LIFE OF
THE PRISONER DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE RELIGIOUS, MORAL, OR
PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS OF THE JUDGES  ...  .  IF HE IS CONDEMNED  ...  HIS
CONDUCT IS BROUGHT TO A PRECISE, CLEAR, INTELLIGIBLE STANDARD, AND
CAUTIOUSLY MEASURED BY IT:  IT IS THE LAW, THEREFORE, AND NOT THE
JUDGE, WHICH CONDEMNS HIM  ...  ." 

ARGUMENT IN THE KING'S BENCH IN THE DEAN OF ST. ASAPH'S CASE (1783
1784).  21 HOWELL'S STATE TRIALS 847, 1006. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

HITLER AND HIS NAZIS SHOWED HOW EVIL A CONSPIRACY COULD BE WHICH WAS
AIMED AT DESTROYING A RACE BY EXPOSING IT TO CONTEMPT, DERISION, AND
OBLOQUY.  I WOULD BE WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT SUCH CONDUCT DIRECTED AT A
RACE OR GROUP IN THIS COUNTRY COULD BE MADE AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE.  FOR
SUCH A PROJECT WOULD BE MORE THAN THE EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH.  LIKE
PICKETING, IT WOULD BE FREE SPEECH PLUS. 

I WOULD ALSO BE WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT EVEN WITHOUT THE ELEMENT OF
CONSPIRACY THERE MIGHT BE TIMES AND OCCASIONS WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE OR
EXECUTIVE BRANCH MIGHT CALL A HALT TO INFLAMMATORY TALK, SUCH AS THE
SHOUTING OF "FIRE" IN A SCHOOL OR A THEATRE. 

MY VIEW IS THAT IF IN ANY CASE OTHER PUBLIC INTERESTS ARE TO OVERRIDE
THE PLAIN COMMAND OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE PERIL OF SPEECH MUST BE
CLEAR AND PRESENT, LEAVING NO ROOM FOR ARGUMENT, RAISING NO DOUBTS AS
TO THE NECESSITY OF CURBING SPEECH IN ORDER TO PREVENT DISASTER. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS COUCHED IN ABSOLUTE TERMS - FREEDOM OF SPEECH
SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED.  SPEECH HAS THEREFORE A PREFERRED POSITION (FN1)
AS CONTRASTED TO SOME OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS.  FOR EXAMPLE, PRIVACY,
EQUALLY SACRED TO SOME, IS PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ONLY
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.  THERE IS ROOM FOR
REGULATION OF THE WAYS AND MEANS OF INVADING PRIVACY.  NO SUCH LEEWAY
IS GRANTED THE INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  UNTIL RECENT YEARS THAT HAD BEEN THE COURSE AND
DIRECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  YET RECENTLY THE COURT IN THIS AND IN
OTHER CASES (FN2) HAS ENGRAFTED THE RIGHT OF REGULATION ONTO THE FIRST
AMENDMENT BY PLACING IN THE HANDS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH THE RIGHT
TO REGULATE "WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS" THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  THIS
TO ME IS AN OMINOUS AND ALARMING TREND.  THE FREE TRADE IN IDEAS WHICH
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION VISUALIZED DISAPPEARS.  IN ITS PLACE
THERE IS SUBSTITUTED A NEW ORTHODOXY - AN ORTHODOXY THAT CHANGES WITH
THE WHIMS OF THE AGE OR THE DAY, AN ORTHODOXY WHICH THE MAJORITY BY
SOLEMN JUDGMENT PROCLAIMS TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE SAFETY, WELFARE,
SECURITY, MORALITY, OR HEALTH OF SOCIETY.  FREE SPEECH IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE DISAPPEARS.  LIMITS ARE DRAWN - LIMITS DICTATED BY
EXPEDIENCY, POLITICAL OPINION, PREJUDICES OR SOME OTHER DESIDERATUM OF
LEGISLATIVE ACTION. 

AN HISTORIC ASPECT OF THE ISSUE OF JUDICIAL SUPREMACY WAS THE EXTENT
TO WHICH LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT WOULD BE SUPREME IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL
LEGISLATION.  THE VAGUE CONTOURS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WERE USED TO
STRIKE DOWN LAWS DEEMED BY THE COURT TO BE UNWISE AND IMPROVIDENT. 
(FN3)  THAT TREND HAS BEEN REVERSED.  IN MATTERS RELATING TO BUSINESS,
FINANCE, INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR CONDITIONS, HEALTH AND THE PUBLIC
WELFARE, GREAT LEEWAY IS NOW GRANTED THE LEGISLATURE, (FN) FOR THERE IS
NO GUARANTEE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE STATUS QUO WILL BE PRESERVED
AGAINST REGULATION BY GOVERNMENT.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH, HOWEVER, RESTS ON
A DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS THAT
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF PRESS, AND THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED.  THAT IS A NEGATION OF POWER ON THE PART OF EACH
AND EVERY DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT.  FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS, FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION ARE PLACED SEPARATE AND APART; THEY ARE ABOVE AND
BEYOND THE POLICE POWER; THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION IN THE
MANNER OF FACTORIES, SLUMS, APARTMENT HOUSES, PRODUCTION OF OIL, AND
THE LIKE.    THE COURT IN THIS AND IN OTHER CASES PLACES SPEECH UNDER
AN EXPANDING LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.  TODAY A WHITE MAN STANDS CONVICTED
FOR PROTESTING IN UNSEEMINGLY LANGUAGE AGAINST OUR DECISIONS
INVALIDATING RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.  TOMORROW A NEGRO WILL BE HALED
BEFORE A COURT FOR DENOUNCING LYNCH LAW IN HEATED TERMS.  FARM LABORERS
IN THE WEST WHO COMPETE WITH FIELD HANDS DRIFTING UP FROM MEXICO;
WHITES WHO FEEL THE PRESSURE OF ORIENTALS; A MINORITY WHICH FINDS
EMPLOYMENT GOING TO MEMBERS OF THE DOMINANT RELIGIOUS GROUP - ALL OF
THESE ARE CAUGHT IN THE MESH OF TODAY'S DECISION.  DEBATE AND ARGUMENT
EVEN IN THE COURTROOM ARE NOT ALWAYS CALM AND DISPASSIONATE.  EMOTIONS
SWAY SPEAKERS AND AUDIENCES ALIKE.  INTEMPERATE SPEECH IS A DISTINCTIVE
CHARACTERISTIC OF MAN.  HOTHEADS BLOW OFF AND RELEASE DESTRUCTIVE
ENERGY IN THE PROCESS.  THEY SHOUT AND RAVE, EXAGGERATING WEAKNESSES,
MAGNIFYING ERROR, VIEWING WITH ALARM.  SO IT HAS BEEN FROM THE
BEGINNING; AND SO IT WILL BE THROUGHOUT TIME.  THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION KNEW HUMAN NATURE AS WELL AS WE DO.  THEY TOO HAVE LIVED
IN DANGEROUS DAYS; THEY TOO KNEW THE SUFFOCATING INFLUENCE OF ORTHODOXY
AND STANDARDIZED THOUGHT.  THEY WEIGHED THE COMPULSIONS FOR RESTRAINED
SPEECH AND THOUGHT AGAINST THE ABUSES OF LIBERTY.  THEY CHOSE LIBERTY. 
THAT SHOULD BE OUR CHOICE TODAY NO MATTER HOW DISTASTEFUL TO US THE
PAMPHLET OF BEAUHARNAIS MAY BE.  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS IN ONLY ONE
DECISION WHICH MAY LATER BE DISTINGUISHED OR CONFINED TO NARROW
LIMITS.  BUT IT REPRESENTS A PHILOSOPHY AT WAR WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT
- A CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION WHICH PUTS FREE SPEECH UNDER THE
LEGISLATIVE THUMB.  IT REFLECTS AN INFLUENCE MOVING EVER DEEPER INTO
OUR SOCIETY.  IT IS NOTICE TO THE LEGISLATURES THAT THEY HAVE THE POWER
TO CONTROL UNPOPULAR BLOCS.  IT IS A WARNING TO EVERY MINORITY THAT
WHEN THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES FREE SPEECH IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT IT
SAYS. 

FN1  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 115; THOMAS V. COLLINS,
323 U.S. 516, 530; SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558, 561. 

FN2  DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494; FEINER V. NEW YORK, 340
U.S. 315.  CF. BREARD V. ALEXANDRIA, 341 U.S. 622; AMERICAN
COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382; OSMAN V. DOUDS, 339 U.S.
846. 

FN3  LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45; COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1;
RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE, 277 U.S. 350. 

FN4  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379; LINCOLN UNION V. NORTHWESTERN CO., 335 U.S. 525;
DAY-BRITE LIGHTING, INC. V. MISSOURI, 342 U.S. 421. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

AN ILLINOIS ACT, CONSTRUED BY ITS SUPREME COURT TO BE A "GROUP LIBEL"
STATUTE, HAS BEEN USED TO PUNISH CRIMINALLY THE AUTHOR AND DISTRIBUTOR
OF AN OBNOXIOUS LEAFLET ATTACKING THE NEGRO RACE.  HE ANSWERS THAT, AS
APPLIED, THE ACT DENIES A LIBERTY SECURED TO HIM BY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WHAT IS THE LIBERTY WHICH THAT
CLAUSE UNDERWRITES? 

THE SPECTRUM OF VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MY SENIORS SHOWS THAT DISAGREEMENT
AS TO THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THIS AMENDMENT UNDERLIES THIS, AS IT HAS
MANY OTHER, DIVISION OF THE COURT.  ALL AGREE THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES CONFINE THE POWER TO THE STATE TO MAKE PRINTED WORDS
CRIMINAL.  WHENCE WE ARE TO DERIVE METES AND BOUNDS OF THE STATE POWER
IS A SUBJECT TO THE CONFUSION OF WHICH, I REGRET TO SAY, I HAVE
CONTRIBUTED - COMFORTED IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, HOWEVER, BY RECALLING
THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS SO ENIGMATIC AND ABSTRUSE THAT JUDGES MORE
EXPERIENCED THAN I HAVE HAD TO REVERSE THEMSELVES AS TO ITS EFFECT ON
STATE POWER. 

THE ASSUMPTION OF OTHER DISSENTS IS THAT THE "LIBERTY" WHICH THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AGAINST DENIAL BY
THE STATES IS THE LITERAL AND IDENTICAL "FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE
PRESS" WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT FORBIDS ONLY CONGRESS TO ABRIDGE.  THE
HISTORY OF CRIMINAL LIBEL IN AMERICA CONVINCES ME THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DID NOT "INCORPORATE" THE FIRST, THAT THE POWERS OF CONGRESS
AND OF THE STATES OVER THIS SUBJECT ARE NOT OF THE SAME DIMENSIONS, AND
THAT BECAUSE CONGRESS PROBABLY COULD NOT ENACT THIS LAW IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT THE STATES MAY NOT. 

                 I. 

AS A LIMITATION UPON POWER TO PUNISH WRITTEN OR SPOKEN WORDS,
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT "LIBERTY" IN ITS CONTEXT OF STATE POWERS AND
FUNCTIONS HAS MEANT AND SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT FROM
"FREEDOM" IN ITS CONTEXT OF FEDERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS.  (FN1) 

THE COURT HAS NEVER SUSTAINED A FEDERAL CRIMINAL LIBEL ACT.  ONE
ACT.  (FN2)  WHILE THERE WERE CONVICTIONS UNDER IT, NO ATTACK ON ITS
VALIDITY REACHED THIS COURT.  I THINK TODAY'S BETTER OPINION REGARDS
THE ENACTMENT AS A BREACH OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND CERTAINLY MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS THOUGHT SO.  (FN3)  BUT EVEN IN
THE ABSENCE OF JUDICIAL CONDEMNATION, THE POLITICAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE
SEDITION ACT WAS SO EMPHATIC AND SUSTAINED THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF
THE PRESS CEASED FOR A CENTURY.  IT WAS RESUMED WITH INDICTMENT OF THE
INDIANAPOLIS NEWS AND THE NEW YORK WORLD FOR DISCLOSURES AND CRITICISMS
OF THE PANAMAL CANAL ACQUISITION.  BOTH WERE INDICTED IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA AND UNDER THE DISTRICT CODE, ON THE GROUND THAT SOME COPIES
CIRCULATED THERE.  THAT PROSECUTION COLLAPSED WHEN JUDGE ANDERSON
REFUSED THE GOVERNMENT'S APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE INDIANA DEFENDANTS
TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR TRIAL  (FN4) 

THE WORLD, CIRCULATED AT WEST POINT, WAS INDICTED IN NEW YORK ON THE
THEORY THAT AN 1825 ACT TO PROTECT FORTIFICATIONS ASSIMILATED THE NEW
YORK STATE LAW PUNISHING CRIMINAL LIBEL.  THAT VENTURE LIKEWISE CAME TO
GRIEF WHEN JUDGE HOUGH REJECTED THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL
STATUTE AND WAS UPHELD BY THIS COURT.  UNITED STATES V. PRESS
PUBLISHING CO., 219 U.S. 1 (1911).  WHILE THERE HAS BEEN A DEMAND FROM
OFFICIAL SOURCES FOR A RESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTION, IT HAS
NOT BEEN ACCEDED TO.  (FN5)  THUS, WHILE THE JEOPARDY OF SUCH FEDERAL
PROSECUTIONS HAS NEVER BEEN REMOVED BY ANY DECISION OF THIS COURT, I
SHOULD THINK THE VALIDITY OF A FEDERAL ENACTMENT SUCH AS THIS WOULD BE
EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL, TO SAY THE LEAST. 

THE EFFECT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO MAKE
SEDITIOUS UTTERANCE CRIMINAL DID RECEIVE CONSIDERATION IN THE AFTERMATH
OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR.  IN SUCH A CASE, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES FORMULATED
FOR THE COURT AS "THE QUESTION IN EVERY CASE" THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER" TEST.  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52.  HE AND MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS ADHERED TO IT AS A "RULE OF REASON," DISSENTING WHEN
THEY THOUGHT THE REST OF THE COURT APOSTATE.  ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES,
250 U.S. 616, 627, 628; SCHAEFER V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 466, 482. 

ONLY AFTER RESEARCH AND DELIBERATION IN THESE CASES HAD SHARPENED
THEIR PERCEPTION DID THESE JUSTICES FACE THE FREE-SPEECH ISSUE AS TO
STATE POWER WHICH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES FIRST ADVERTED TO, BUT LEFT
UNDECIDED, IN PATTERSON V. COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454.  IN 1922 THEY JOINED
THE COURT'S FIRST DECISION ON THE SUBJECT, WHICH DECLARED THAT "  ...
NEITHER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NOR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IMPOSES UPON THE STATES ANY
RESTRICTIONS ABOUT 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH'  ...  ."  PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
CO. V. CHEEK, 259 U.S. 530, 543. 

HOWEVER, THESE TWO JUSTICES, WHO MADE THE ONLY ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
TO LEGAL THOUGHT ON THE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS BOUND UP IN THESE
AMENDMENTS, SOON REVERSED AND TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DID IMPOSE SOME RESTRICTIONS UPON THE STATES.  BUT IT WAS NOT
PREMISED UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT NOR UPON ANY THEORY THAT IT WAS
INCORPORATED IN THE FOURTEENTH.  WHAT THEY WROTE, WITH CARE AND
CIRCUMSPECTION, I ACCEPT AS THE WISE AND HISTORICALLY CORRECT VIEW OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT WAS: 

"THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF FREE SPEECH, IT SEEMS TO ME, MUST BE TAKEN
TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE THAT
HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE WORD 'LIBERTY' AS THERE USED, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS IT
MAY BE ACCEPTED WITH A SOMEWHAT LARGER LATITUDE OF INTERPRETATION THAN
IS ALLOWED TO CONGRESS BY THE SWEEPING LANGUAGE THAT GOVERNS OR OUGHT
TO GOVERN THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S.
652, 672. 

THAT REASONING WAS ECHOED SO RECENTLY AS 1937, WHEN THE COURT
EXPLICITLY REJECTED THE THEORY OF INCORPORATION AND, THROUGH MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO, ANNOUNCED A VIEW, UNANIMOUS EXCEPT FOR MR. JUSTICE
BUTLER, THAT THE FOURTEENTH DID NOT DEFLECT AGAINST THE STATES THE
LITERAL LANGUAGE OF AMENDMENTS DESIGNED TO CIRCUMSCRIBE FEDERAL POWER
BUT QUALIFIED STATE POWER ONLY BY SUCH GENERAL RESTRAINTS AS ARE
ESSENTIAL TO "THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT,
302 U.S. 319, 324-325. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE DO NOT PROSCRIBE STATE CRIMINAL LIBEL ACTS. 
JUSTICES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS IN 1931 JOINED CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, WHO
SPOKE FOR THE COURT, IN STRIKING DOWN A STATE ACT BECAUSE IT AUTHORIZED
RESTRAINT BY INJUNCTION PREVIOUS TO PUBLICATION.  HE SAID:  "FOR
WHATEVER WRONG THE APPELLANT HAS COMMITTED OR MAY COMMIT, BY HIS
PUBLICATIONS, THE STATE APPROPRIATELY AFFORDS BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
REDRESS BY ITS LIBEL LAWS."  THIS WAS AMPLIFIED:  "BUT IT IS RECOGNIZED
THAT PUNISHMENT FOR THE ABUSE OF THE LIBERTY ACCORDED TO THE PRESS IS
ESSENTIAL TO THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC, AND THAT THE COMMON LAW
RULES THAT SUBJECT THE LIBELER TO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PUBLIC
OFFENSE, AS WELL AS FOR THE PRIVATE INJURY, ARE NOT ABOLISHED BY THE
PROTECTION EXTENDED IN OUR CONSTITUTIONS ...  .  THE LAW OF CRIMINAL
LIBEL RESTS UPON THAT SECURE FOUNDATION."  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S.
697, 715. 

SO RECENTLY AS 1942, A UNANIMOUS COURT, SPEAKING OF STATE POWER, SAID
THAT PUNISHMENT OF LIBELOUS WORDS "WHICH BY THEIR VERY UTTERANCE
INFLICT INJURY OR TEND TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE" HAD
NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO RAISE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM.  CHAPLINSKY V.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572. 

MORE THAN FORTY STATE CONSTITUTIONS, WHILE EXTENDING BROAD
PROTECTIONS TO SPEECH AND PRESS, RESERVE A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR
ABUSE AND IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZE VALIDITY OF CRIMINAL LIBEL
LAWS.  (FN6)  WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING THAT THE MEN WHO SPONSORED
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN CONGRESS, AND THOSE WHO RATIFIED IT IN THE
STATE LEGISLATURES, KNEW OF SUCH PROVISIONS THEN IN MANY OF THEIR STATE
CONSTITUTIONS.  CERTAINLY THEY WERE NOT CONSCIOUSLY CANCELING THEM OR
CALLING THEM INTO QUESTION, OR WE WOULD HAVE SOME EVIDENCE OF IT.
CONGRESSES, DURING THE PERIOD WHILE THIS AMENDMENT WAS BEING CONSIDERED
OR WAS BUT FRESHLY ADOPTED, APPROVED CONSTITUTIONS OF "RECONSTRUCTED"
STATES THAT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED STATE LIBEL LAWS, (FN7) AND ALSO
APPROVED SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONS FOR STATES ERECTED OUT OF THE FEDERAL
DOMAIN.  (FN8) 

CERTAINLY THIS TOLERANCE OF STATE LIBEL LAWS BY THE VERY AUTHORS AND
PARTISANS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SHOWS EITHER THAT THEY WERE NOT
INTENDING TO INCORPORATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR THAT THEY BELIEVED IT
WOULD NOT PREVENT FEDERAL LIBEL LAWS.  ADOPTION OF THE INCORPORATION
THEORY TODAY WOULD LEAD TO THE DILEMMA OF EITHER CONFINING THE STATES
AS CLOSELY AS THE CONGRESS OR GIVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE
LATITUDE APPROPRIATE TO STATE GOVERNMENTS.  THE TREATMENT OF LIBEL
POWERS CORROBORATES THE CONCLUSIONS AGAINST THE INCORPORATIONIST THEORY
REACHED BY THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE AND OBJECTIVE STUDIES OF THE ORIGIN
AND ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  (FN9) 

THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF A SINGLE STANDARD FOR RESTRICTING STATE AND
NATION IS INDICATED BY THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THEIR FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES
IN RELATION TO THOSE FREEDOMS.  CRIMINALITY OF DEFAMATION IS PREDICATED
UPON POWER EITHER TO PROTECT THE PRIVATE RIGHT TO ENJOY INTEGRITY OF
REPUTATION OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT TO TRANQUILLITY.  NEITHER OF THESE ARE
OBJECTS OF FEDERAL COGNIZANCE EXCEPT WHEN NECESSARY TO THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SOME DELEGATED POWER, SUCH AS PROTECTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUTS LIBERTY OF PRESS
IN ONE SCALE, IT HAS A VERY LIMITED DUTY TO PERSONAL REPUTATION OR
LOCAL TRANQUILLITY TO WEIGHT AGAINST IT IN THE OTHER.  BUT STATE ACTION
AFFECTING SPEECH OR PRESS CAN AND SHOULD BE WEIGHED AGAINST AND
RECONCILED WITH THESE CONFLICTING SOCIAL INTERESTS. 

FOR THESE REASONS I SHOULD NOT, UNLESS CLEARLY REQUIRED, CONFIRM TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUCH LATITUDE AS I THINK A STATE REASONABLY MAY
REQUIRE FOR ORDERLY GOVERNMENT OF ITS MANIFOLD CONCERNS.  THE CONVERSE
OF THE PROPOSITION IS THAT I WOULD NOT LIMIT THE POWER OF THE STATE
WITH THE SEVERITY APPROPRIATELY PRESCRIBED FOR FEDERAL POWER. 

AS THE PRINCIPLE BY WHICH TO JUDGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS
STATUTE, I ACCEPT THE DISSENT IN GITLOW AND THE DECISION IN PALKO. 

  II. 

WHAT RESTRAINTS UPON STATE POWER TO PUNISH CRIMINAL LIBEL ARE IMPLIED
BY THE "CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY"?  EXPERIENCE BY ANGLO-SAXON PEOPLES
WITH DEFAMATION AND LAWS TO PUNISH IT EXTENDS OVER CENTURIES AND THE
STATUTE AND CASE BOOKS EXHIBIT ITS TEACHINGS.  IF ONE CAN CLAIM TO
ANNOUNCE THE JUDGMENT OF LEGAL HISTORY ON ANY SUBJECT, IT IS THAT
CRIMINAL LIBEL LAWS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY
ONLY WHEN APPLIED WITH SAFEGUARDS EVOLVED TO PREVENT THEIR INVASION OF
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. 

OPPRESSIVE APPLICATION OF THE ENGLISH LIBEL LAWS WAS PARTIALLY
CHECKED WHEN FOX'S LIBEL ACT OF 1792 ALLOWED THE JURY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER AN ACCUSED PUBLICATION WAS LIBELOUS IN CHARACTER AND MORE
COMPLETELY WHEN LORD CAMPBELL'S LIBEL ACT OF 1843 ALLOWED TRUTH TO BE
PROVED AS A DEFENSE.    AMERICAN EXPERIENCE TEACHES SIMILAR LESSONS. 
THE LEADING STATE CASE IS PEOPLE V. CROSWELL, 3 JOHNS.  (N.Y.)  337.
SINCE, AS THE OPINION OF THIS COURT NOW POINTS OUT, THE JEFFERSONIAN'S
OBJECTION TO FEDERAL SEDITION PROSECUTIONS WAS LARGELY FEAR OF FEDERAL
USURPATION OF STATE POWERS OVER THE SUBJECT, IT WAS CONSISTENT FOR THEM
TO PROSECUTE LIBELS UNDER STATE LAW.  CROSWELL, PUBLISHER OF THE APTLY
NAMED WASP, WAS INDICTED FOR LIBELING THOMAS JEFFERSON BY REPRESENTING
HIM AS UNWORTHY OF THE CONFIDENCE, RESPECT, AND ATTACHMENT OF THE
PEOPLE.  THE TRIAL JUDGE PRONOUNCED HIS STATEMENTS AS LIBELOUS AS A
MATTER OF LAW AND ALLOWED THE JURY TO DECIDE NO QUESTION EXCEPT WHETHER
THE ACCUSED HAD PUBLISHED THEM.  THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AND ON HIS
APPEAL, ARGUED BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON, THE APPELLATE COURT DIVIDED
EQUALLY.  JUSTICE KENT, HOWEVER, FILED A CHARACTERISTICALLY LEARNED AND
VIGOROUS OPINION THAT THE TRIAL COURT MUST SUBMIT THE LIBELOUS
CHARACTER OF THE ARTICLE AND LIBELOUS INTENT OF ITS PRINTER TO DECISION
BY THE JURY, WHICH WAS ENTITLED TO DETERMINE BOTH LAW AND FACT.  THE
PUBLIC RESPONSE WAS SUCH THAT AN EARLY SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE
SUBSTANTIALLY ENACTED KENT'S CONTENTIONS.  INASMUCH AS NO JUDGMENT HAD
BEEN ENTERED UPON THE EARLIER EQUAL DIVISION, THE COURT AT ITS AUGUST
1805 TERM, "IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS DECLARATORY STATUTE," UNANIMOUSLY
AWARDED A NEW TRIAL.  (FN10) 

THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION AT THAT TIME CONTAINED NO FREE SPEECH
PROVISION BUT THE CASE LED TO A PROVISION INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION
OF 1821 WHICH BOTH FOLLOWED FOX'S LIBEL ACT AND ANTICIPATED LORD
CAMPBELL'S ACT AND HAS REMAINED IN THE SEVERAL CONSTITUTIONS OF THAT
STATE SINCE: 

"EVERY CITIZEN MAY FREELY SPEAK, WRITE AND PUBLISH HIS SENTIMENTS ON
ALL SUBJECTS, BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABUSE OF THAT RIGHT; AND NO LAW
SHALL BE PASSED TO RESTRAIN OR ABRIDGE THE LIBERTY OF SPEECH OR OF THE
PRESS.  IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS OR INDICTMENTS FOR LIBELS, THE
TRUTH MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE TO THE JURY; AND IF IT SHALL APPEAR TO
THE JURY THAT THE MATTER CHARGED AS LIBELOUS IS TRUE, AND WAS PUBLISHED
WITH GOOD MOTIVES AND FOR JUSTIFIABLE ENDS, THE PARTY SHALL BE
ACQUITTED; AND THE JURY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE LAW AND
THE FACT."  (FN11) 

IT WOULD NOT BE AN EXAGGERATION TO SAY THAT, BASICALLY, THIS
PROVISION OF THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION STATES THE COMMON SENSE OF
AMERICAN CRIMINAL LIBEL LAW.  TWENTY-FOUR STATES OF THE UNION WHOSE
CONSTITUTIONS WERE FRAMED LATER SUBSTANTIALLY ADOPTED IT.  (FN12)
TWELVE STATES PROVIDE THAT PRESS AND SPEECH SHALL BE FREE BUT THERE
SHALL BE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ABUSE.  (FN13)  FIVE OTHERS PROVIDE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME BUT ADD THAT TRUTH MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE IN A
LIBEL PROSECUTION.  (FN14)  ONLY FIVE STATES, WHOSE CONSTITUTIONS WERE
FRAMED EARLIER, WERE CONTENT WITH THE GENERALITY ABOUT THE FREE PRESS
SIMILAR TO THAT OF MASSACHUSETTS.  (FN15)  BUT ALL OF THESE STATES,
APART FROM CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, HAVE BY DECISIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED
THE VALIDITY OF CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTIONS.  (FN16) 

BECAUSE OF THESE SAFEGUARDS, STATE LIBEL LAWS HAVE PRESENTED NO
THREAT TO A FREE PRESS COMPARABLE TO THAT FROM FEDERAL SOURCES AND HAVE
NOT PROVED INCONSISTENT WITH FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES.  ATTACKS ON THE
PRESS BY STATES WHICH WERE FRUSTRATED BY THIS COURT IN NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, SUPRA, AND GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233,
WERE NOT BY LIBEL LAWS.  FOR NEAR A CENTURY AND A HALF THIS COURT'S
DECISIONS LEFT STATE CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTIONS ENTIRELY FREE OF
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  IT IS A MATTER OF NOTORIETY THAT
THE PRESS OFTEN HAS PROVOKED HOSTILITY, THAT EDITORS HAVE BEEN MOBBED
AND HORSEWHIPPED, BUT CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN
FREQUENT AND, AS SAFEGUARDED BY STATE LAW, THEY HAVE BEEN SO INNOCUOUS
THAT CHRONICLES OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM GIVE THEM ONLY PASSING MENTION. 
(FN17) 

THIS COURT, BY CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, HAS IMPOSED
BUT ONE ADDITION TO THE SAFEGUARDS VOLUNTARILY TAKEN UPON THE STATES BY
THEMSELVES.  IT IS THAT WHERE EXPRESSION, ORAL OR PRINTED, IS PUNISHED,
ALTHOUGH IT HAS NOT ACTUALLY CAUSED INJURIES OR DISORDERS BUT IS
THOUGHT TO HAVE A TENDENCY TO DO SO, THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH CONSEQUENCE
MUST NOT BE REMOTE OR SPECULATIVE.  THAT IS THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER" TEST WHICH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
EVENTUALLY WITH SUPPORT OF THE COURT, THOUGHT IMPLIED IN BOTH THE FIRST
(FN18) AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, (FN19) ALTHOUGH THE FORMER WAS
NOT BODILY BOUND UP IN THE LATTER.  ANY SUPERFICIAL INCONSISTENCY
BETWEEN APPLYING THE SAME STANDARD BUT PERMITTING A WIDER RANGE OF
ACTION TO THE STATES IS RESOLVED UPON REFERENCE TO THE LATTER PART OF
THE STATEMENT OF THE FORMULA:  CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF THOSE
SUBSTANTIVE EVILS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT.  THE
EVILS AT WHICH CONGRESS MAY AIM, AND IN SO DOING COME INTO CONFLICT
WITH FREE SPEECH, WILL BE RELATIVELY FEW SINCE IT IS A GOVERNMENT OF
LIMITED POWERS.  BECAUSE THE STATES MAY REACH MORE EVILS, THEY WILL
HAVE WIDER RANGE TO PUNISH SPEECH WHICH PRESENTS CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER OF BRINGING ABOUT THOSE EVILS. 

IN FEW SUBJECTS SO MUCH AS LIBEL DOES LOCAL LAW, IN SPITE OF VARYING
HISTORICAL INFLUENCES, AFFORD A CONSENSUS OF AMERICAN LEGAL OPINION AS
TO WHAT IS REASONABLE AND ESSENTIAL TO THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED
GOVERNMENT.  THE BOUNDARIES ARE ROUGHLY OUTLINED, TO BE SURE, AND
CANNOT BE STATED OR APPLIED WITH MATHEMATICAL PRECISION, BUT THOSE
WIDELY ACCEPTED STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON WHICH IS
SUPERIMPOSED THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST FOR "TENDENCY" CASES
SEEM TO BE OUR BEST GUIDE. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT A STATE HAS POWER TO BRING CLASSES "OF ANY
RACE, COLOR, CREED, OR RELIGION" WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF ITS LIBEL
LAWS, IF INDEED TRADITIONAL FORMS DO NOT ALREADY ACCOMPLISH IT.  (FN20)
BUT I AM EQUALLY CLEAR THAT IN DOING SO IT IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR CONCEPT
OF ORDERED LIBERTY THAT THE STATE ALSO PROTECT THE ACCUSED BY THOSE
SAFEGUARDS THE NECESSITY FOR WHICH IS VERIFIED BY LEGAL HISTORY. 

                       III. 

THE ILLINOIS STATUTE, AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE
DISPENSED WITH ACCEPTED SAFEGUARDS FOR THE ACCUSED.  TRIAL OF THIS CASE
OMINOUSLY PARALLELS THE TRIAL OF PEOPLE V. CROSWELL, SUPRA, IN THAT THE
ILLINOIS COURT HERE INSTRUCTED THE JURY, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT IF IT FOUND
THAT DEFENDANT PUBLISHED THIS LEAFLET HE MUST BE FOUND GUILTY OF
CRIMINAL LIBEL. 

RULINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT PRECLUDED THE EFFORT TO JUSTIFY STATEMENTS
OF FACT BY PROVING THEIR TRUTH.  THE MAJORITY OPINION CONCEDES THE
UNVARYING RECOGNITION BY THE STATES THAT TRUTH PLUS GOOD MOTIVES IS A
DEFENSE IN A PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL LIBEL.  BUT HERE THE TRIAL COURT
REPEATEDLY REFUSED DEFENDANT'S OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER PUBLISHED.  WHERE AN OFFER TO PROVE THE DOMINANT ELEMENT OF A
DEFENSE IS REJECTED AS IMMATERIAL, WE CAN HARDLY REFUSE TO CONSIDER
DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BECAUSE HE DID NOT GO THROUGH THE
USELESS CEREMONY OF OFFERING PROOF OF A SUBSIDIARY ELEMENT OF THE
DEFENSE.  IF THE COURT WOULD NOT LET HIM TRY TO PROVE HE SPOKE TRUTH,
HOW COULD HE SHOW THAT HE SPOKE TRUTH FOR GOOD ENDS?  FURTHERMORE, THE
RECORD INDICATES THAT DEFENDANT WAS ASKED TO STATE WHAT HE HAD MEANT BY
THE USE OF CERTAIN PHRASES, AND THE REASON FOR FORMING THE WHITE CIRCLE
LEAGUE - STATEMENTS WHICH APPARENTLY BORE ON THE ISSUE OF MOTIVE AND
ENDS.  BUT THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A SWEEPING OBJECTION "TO THIS
WHOLE LINE OF EXAMINATION."  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS NOTED THE
OFFER OF PROOF OF TRUTH AND ITS EXCLUSION, AND APPARENTLY WENT ON TO
RULE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE STATEMENT WAS NOT PUBLISHED FOR
JUSTIFIABLE ENDS.  AT ALL EVENTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEFENSE WAS
RULED OUT AS MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO PRESENT
IT FOR DECISION BY EITHER COURT OR JURY UPON THE FACTS, A PRACTICE
WHICH I THINK IS CONTRARY TO THE OVERWHELMING VERDICT OF ANGLO-SAXON
HISTORY AND PRACTICE.  I DO NOT INTIMATE THAT THIS DEFENDANT STOOD EVEN
A REMOTE CHANCE OF JUSTIFYING WHAT IMPRESSES ME, AS IT DID THE TRIAL
COURT, AS RECKLESS AND VICIOUS LIBEL.  BUT THE POINT IS THAT HIS
EVIDENCE, PROFFERED FOR THAT PURPOSE, WAS EXCLUDED INSTEAD OF BEING
RECEIVED AND EVALUATED.  SOCIETY HAS AN INTEREST IN PRESERVING TRUTH AS
A JUSTIFICATION, HOWEVER OBNOXIOUS THE EFFORT MAY BE.  A PUBLICATION
WHICH DIFFUSES ITS ATTACK OVER UNNAMED AND IMPERSONAL MULTITUDES IS
LIKELY TO BE HARDER TO JUSTIFY THAN ONE WHICH CONCENTRATES ITS ATTACK
ON NAMED INDIVIDUALS, BUT THE BURDEN MAY PROPERLY BE CAST ON AN ACCUSED
AND PUNISHMENT FOLLOW FAILURE TO CARRY IT. 

THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF THE RIGHT TO COMMENT UPON MATTERS OF PUBLIC
INTEREST INSOFAR AS THE STATEMENT INCLUDES MATTERS OF OPINION, A POINT,
HOWEVER, WHICH THE DEFENSE MAY HAVE INADEQUATELY RAISED.  WHEN ANY
NATURALLY COHESIVE OR ARTIFICALLY ORGANIZED GROUP POSSESSES A RACIAL OR
AFFAIRS, THAT GROUP BECOMES A LEGITIMATE SUBJECT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. 
OF COURSE, ONE CAN ONLY DEPLORE THE HABITUAL INTEMPERANCE AND BITTER
DISPARAGEMENT WHICH CHARACTERIZES MOST SUCH COMMENT.  WHILE I SUPPORT
THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO PLACE DECENT BOUNDS UPON IT, I AM NOT READY TO
HOLD THAT GROUP PURPOSES, CHARACTERISTICS AND HISTORIES ARE TO BE
IMMUNIZED FROM COMMENT OR MAY BE DISCUSSED ONLY AT THE RISK OF
PROSECUTION FREE OF ALL USUAL SAFEGUARDS. 

ANOTHER DEFENSE ALMOST UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED, WHICH IT SEEMS THE
JURY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER HERE, IS THAT OF PRIVILEGE.  PETITION
FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES IS SPECIFICALLY PRIVILEGED BY MANY STATE
CONSTITUTIONS.  I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD HOLD THIS WHOLE DOCUMENT TO BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PRIVILEGED JUST BECAUSE, IN PART, IT SIMULATES A
PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.  A COURT OR JURY COULD HAVE FOUND
THAT ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS NOT TO PETITION BUT TO APPEAL FOR MEMBERS
AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WHITE CIRCLE LEAGUE.  IF SOME PART OF IT WERE
PRIVILEGED, THAT, SO IT HAS BEEN HELD, DOES NOT EXTEND CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION TO UNPRIVILEGED MATTER.  CF. VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN, 316
U.S. 52.  BUT THE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN
SPECIFICALLY PASSED ON BY THE COURT AND CERTAINLY WAS NOT SUBMITTED FOR
THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION. 

IN THIS CASE, NEITHER THE COURT NOR JURY FOUND OR WERE REQUIRED TO
FIND ANY INJURY TO ANY PERSON, OR GROUP, OR TO THE PUBLIC PEACE, NOR TO
FIND ANY PROBABILITY, LET ALONE ANY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, OF INJURY
TO ANY OF THESE.  EVEN THOUGH NO INDIVIDUALS WERE NAMED OR DESCRIBED AS
TARGETS OF THIS PAMPHLET, IF IT RESULTED IN A RIOT OR CAUSED INJURY TO
ANY INDIVIDUAL NEGRO, SUCH AS BEING REFUSED LIVING QUARTERS IN A
PARTICULAR SECTION, HOUSE OR APARTMENT, OR BEING REFUSED EMPLOYMENT,
CERTAINLY THERE WOULD BE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE TO IMPOSING CIVIL
OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ACTUAL RESULTS.  BUT IN THS CASE NO ACTUAL
VIOLENCE AND NO SPECIFIC INJURY WAS CHARGED OR PROVED. 

THE LEAFLET WAS SIMPLY HELD PUNISHABLE AS CRIMINAL LIBEL PER SE
IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS ACTUAL OR PROBABLY CONSEQUENCES.  NO CHARGE OF
CONSPIRACY COMPLICATES THIS CASE.  THE WORDS THEMSELVES DO NOT ADVOCATE
THE COMMISSION OF ANY CRIME.  THE CONVICTION RESTS ON JUDICIAL
ATTRIBUTION OF A LIKELIHOOD OF EVIL RESULTS.  THE TRIAL COURT, HOWEVER,
REFUSED TO CHARGE THE JURY THAT IT MUST FIND SOME "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER," AND THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS SUSTAINED CONVICTION
BECAUSE, IN ITS OPINION, THE WORDS USED HAD A TENDENCY TO CAUSE A
BREACH OF THE PEACE. 

REFERRING TO THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER DOCTRINE IN DENNIS V.
UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494, 568, I SAID: 

"I WOULD SAVE IT, UNMODIFIED, FOR APPLICATION AS A 'RULE OF REASON'
IN THE KIND OF CASE FOR WHICH IT WAS DEVISED.  WHEN THE ISSUE IS
CRIMINALITY OF A HOT-HEADED SPEECH ON A STREET CORNER, OR CIRCULATION
OF A FEW INCENDIARY PAMPHLETS, OR PARADING BY SOME ZEALOTS BEHIND A RED
FLAG, OR REFUSAL OF A HANDFUL OF SCHOOL CHILDREN TO SALUTE OUR FLAG, IT
IS NOT BEYOND THE CAPACITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS TO GATHER,
COMPREHEND, AND WEIGH THE NECESSARY MATERIALS FOR DECISION WHETHER IT
IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL OR A HARMLESS LETTING
OFF OF STEAM.  IT IS NOT A PROPHECY, FOR THE DANGER IN SUCH CASES HAS
MATURED BY THE TIME OF TRIAL OR IT WAS NEVER PRESENT.  THE TEST APPLIES
AND HAS MEANING WHERE A CONVICTION IS SOUGHT TO BE BASED ON A SPEECH OR
WRITING WHICH DOES NOT DIRECTLY OR EXPLICITLY ADVOCATE A CRIME BUT TO
WHICH SUCH TENDENCY IS SOUGHT TO BE ATTRIBUTED BY CONSTRUCTION OR BY
IMPLICATION FROM EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE FORMULA IN SUCH CASES
FAVORS FREEDOMS THAT ARE VITAL TO OUR SOCIETY, AND, EVEN IF SOMETIMES
APPLIED TOO GENEROUSLY, THE CONSEQUENCES CANNOT BE GRAVE  ...  ." 

NOT THE LEAST OF THE VIRTUES OF THIS FORMULA IN SUCH TENDENCY CASES
IS THAT IT COMPELS THE PROSECUTION TO MAKE UP ITS MIND WHAT PARTICULAR
EVIL IT SOUGHT OR IS SEEKING TO PREVENT.  IT MUST RELATE ITS
INTERFERENCE WITH SPEECH OR PRESS OR SOME IDENTIFIABLE EVIL TO BE
PREVENTED.  WORDS ON THEIR OWN ACCOUNT ARE NOT TO BE PUNISHED IN SUCH
CASES BUT ARE REACHABLE ONLY AS THE ROOT OF PUNISHABLE EVILS. 

PUNISHMENT OF PRINTED WORDS, BASED ON THEIR TENDENCY EITHER TO CAUSE
BREACH OF THE PEACE OR INJURY TO PERSONS OR GROUPS, IN MY OPINION, IS
JUSTIFIABLE ONLY IF THE PROSECUTION SURVIVES THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER" TEST.  IT IS THE MOST JUST AND WORKABLE STANDARD YET EVOLVED
FOR DETERMINING CRIMINALITY OF WORDS WHOSE INJURIOUS OR INCITING
TENDENCIES ARE NOT DEMONSTRATED BY THE EVENT BUT ARE ASCRIBED TO THEM
ON THE BASIS OF PROBABILITIES. 

ITS APPLICATION IS IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT TAKES ACCOUNT OF
THE PARTICULAR FORM, TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER OF COMMUNICATION IN
QUESTION.  "THE MOVING PICTURE SCREEN, THE RADIO, THE NEWSPAPER, THE
HANDBILL, THE SOUND TRUCK AND THE STREET CORNER ORATOR HAVE DIFFERING
NATURES, VALUES, ABUSES AND DANGERS.  EACH, IN MY VIEW, IS A LAW UNTO
ITSELF  ...  ."  KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77, 97.  IT WOULD CONSIDER
WHETHER A LEAFLET IS SO EMOTIONALLY EXCITING TO IMMEDIATE ACTION AS THE
SPOKEN WORD, ESPECIALLY THE INCENDIARY STREET OR PUBLIC SPEECH. 
TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1, 13; KUNZ V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S.
290,295.  IT WILL INQUIRE WHETHER THIS PUBLICATION WAS OBVIOUSLY SO
FOUL AND EXTREME AS TO DEFEAT ITS OWN ENDS, WHETHER IT APPEALS FOR
MONEY - WHICH HAS A COOLING EFFECT ON MANY PERSONS - WOULD NOT NEGATIVE
ITS INFLAMMATORY EFFECT, WHETHER IT WOULD NOT IMPRESS THE PASSER-BY AS
THE WORK OF AN IRRESPONSIBLE WHO NEEDED MENTAL EXAMINATION.    ONE OF
THE MERITS OF THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST IS THAT THE TRIERS OF
FACT WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REALITIES OF RACE RELATIONS AND ANY
SMOULDERING FIRES TO BE FANNED INTO HOLOCAUSTS.  SUCH CONSIDERATION
MIGHT WELL WARRANT A CONVICTION HERE WHEN IT WOULD NOT IN ANOTHER AND
DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. 

GROUP LIBEL STATUTES REPRESENT A COMMENDABLE DESIRE TO REDUCE
SINISTER ABUSES OF OUR FREEDOMS OF EXPRESSION - ABUSES WHICH I HAVE HAD
OCCASION TO LEARN CAN TEAR APART A SOCIETY, BRUTALIZE ITS DOMINANT
ELEMENTS, AND PERSECUTE, EVEN TO EXTERMINATION, ITS MINORITIES.  WHILE
LAWS OR PROSECUTIONS MIGHT NOT ALLEVIATE RACIAL OR SECTARIAN HATREDS
AND MAY EVEN INVEST SCOUNDRELS WITH A SPECIOUS MARTYRDOM, I SHOULD BE
LOATH TO FORECLOSE THE STATES FROM A CONSIDERABLE LATITUDE OF
EXPERIMENTATION IN THIS FIELD.  SUCH EFFORTS, IF PROPERLY APPLIED, DO
NOT JUSTIFY FRENETIC FOREBODINGS OF CRUSHED LIBERTY.  BUT THESE ACTS
PRESENT MOST DIFFICULT POLICY AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS, AS THOUGHTFUL
WRITERS WHO HAVE CANVASSED THE PROBLEM MORE COMPREHENSIVELY THAN IS
APPROPRIATE IN A JUDICIAL OPINION HAVE WELL POINTED OUT.  (FN21) 

NO GROUP INTEREST IN ANY PARTICULAR PROSECUTION SHOULD FORGET THAT
THE SHOE MAY BE ON THE OTHER FOOT IN SOME PROSECUTION TOMORROW.  IN
THESE, AS IN OTHER MATTERS, OUR GUIDING SPIRIT SHOULD BE THAT EACH
FREEDOM IS BALANCED WITH A RESPONSIBILITY, AND EVERY POWER OF THE STATE
MUST BE CHECKED WITH SAFEGUARDS.  SUCH IS THE SPIRIT OF OUR AMERICAN
LAW OF CRIMINAL LIBEL, WHICH CONCEDES THE POWER TO THAT STATE, BUT ONLY
AS A POWER RESTRAINED BY RECOGNITION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.  I CANNOT
ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT AS THE ACT HAS BEEN APPLIED IN THIS CASE IT
LOST SIGHT OF THE RIGHTS. 

FN1  FIRST AMENDMENT:  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...  ABRIDGING
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS  ... ."  FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:
"  ...  NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW  ...  ." 

FN2  1 STAT. 596 (1798) SEC. 2:  "AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, THAT IF
ANY PERSON SHALL WRITE, PRINT, UTTER OR PUBLISH  ...  ANY FALSE,
SCANDALOUS AND MALICIOUS WRITING OR WRITINGS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR EITHER HOUSE OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WITH INTENT TO DEFAME
THE SAID GOVERNMENT, OR EITHER HOUSE OF THE SAID CONGRESS, OR THE SAID
PRESIDENT, OR TO BRING THEM, OR EITHER OF THEM, INTO CONTEMPT OR
DISREPUTE  ...  SUCH PERSON  ...  SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE NOT
EXCEEDING TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING TWO
YEARS."  SECTION 3:  "  ...  IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR THE DEFENDANT  ...
TO GIVE IN EVIDENCE IN HIS DEFENSE, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER CONTAINED
IN THE PUBLICATION CHARGED AS A LIBEL.  AND THE JURY WHO SHALL TRY THE
CAUSE, SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE LAW AND THE FACT, UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE COURT, AS IN OTHER CASES." 

FN3  ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 630. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 173 F.227.  IN DISCHARGING THE
DEFENDANTS, JUDGE ANDERSON SAID: 

"TO MY MIND THAT MAN HAS READ THE HISTORY OF OUR INSTITUTIONS TO
LITTLE PURPOSE WHO DOES NOT LOOK WITH GRAVE APPREHENSION UPON THE
POSSIBILITY OF THE SUCCESS OF A PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS.  IF THE
HISTORY OF LIBERTY MEANS ANYTHING, IF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES ARE
WORTH ANYTHING, THIS PROCEEDING MUST FAIL. 

"IF THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SELECT THE
TRIBUNAL, IF THERE BE MORE THAN ONE TRIBUNAL TO SELECT FROM, IF THE
GOVERNMENT HAS THAT POWER, AND CAN DRAG CITIZENS FROM DISTANT STATES TO
THE CAPITAL OF THE NATION, THERE TO BE TRIED, THEN, AS JUDGE COOLEY
SAYS, THIS IS A STRANGE RESULT OF A REVOLUTION WHERE ONE OF THE
GRIEVANCES COMPLAINED OF WAS THE ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT TO SEND PARTIES
ABROAD FOR TRIAL."  173 F., AT 232. 

FN5  RIESMAN, GROUP LIBEL, 42 COL. L. REV. 727, 748.  SEE ALSO 87
CONG. REC. 5830-5841. 

FN6  THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF SUCH STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,
COUPLED WITH THE YEAR OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION IN WHICH THEY
ARE CONTAINED:  ALABAMA (1901), ART. I, SECS. 4, 12; ARIZONA (1912),
ART. II, SEC. 6; ARKANSAS (1874), ART. II, SEC. 6; CALIFORNIA (1879),
ART. 1, SEC. 9; COLORADO (1876), ART. II, SEC. 10; DELAWARE (1897),
ART. I, SEC. 5; FLORIDA (1887), DECL.  RTS., SEC. 13; GEORGIA (1877),
ART. I, SEC. 1, PAR. 15; IDAHO (1890), ART. I, SEC. 9; ILLINOIS (1870),
ART. II, SEC. 4; INDIANA (1851), ART. I, SEC. 9; IOWA (1857), ART. I,
SEC. 7; KANSAS (1861), BILL RTS., SEC. 11; KENTUCKY (1891), SECS. 8, 9;
LOUISIANA (1921), ART. I, SEC. 3; MAINE (1876), ART. I, SEC. 4;
MARYLAND (1867), DECL.  RTS., ART. 40; MICHIGAN (1909), ART. II, SEC.
4; MINNESOTA (1857), ART. I, SEC. 3; MISSISSIPPI (1890), ART. III, SEC.
13; MISSOURI (1945), ART. I, SEC. 8; MONTANA (1889), ART. III, SEC. 10;
NEBRASKA (1875), ART. I, SEC. 5; NEVADA (1864), ART. I, SEC. 9; NEW
JERSEY (1947), ART. I, SEC. 6; NEW MEXICO (1912), ART. II, SEC. 17; NEW
YORK (1938), ART. I, SEC. 8; NORTH CAROLINA (1876), ART. I, SEC. 20;
NORTH DAKOTA (1889), ART. I, SEC. 9; OHIO (1851), ART. I, SEC. 11;
OKLAHOMA (1907), ART. II, SEC. 22; OREGON (1859), ART. I, SEC. 8;
PENNSYLVANIA (1874), ART. I, SEC. 7; RHODE ISLAND (1843), ART. I, SEC.
20; SOUTH DAKOTA (1889), ART. VI, SEC. 5; TENNESSEE (1870), ART. I,
SEC. 19; TEXAS (1876), ART. I, SEC. 8; UTAH (1895), ART. I, SEC. 15;
VIRGINIA (1902), ART. I, SEC. 12; WASHINGTON (1889), ART. I, SEC. 5;
WEST VIRGINIA (1872), ART. III, SEC. 7; WISCONSIN (1848), ART. I, SEC.
3; WYOMING (1889), ART. I, SEC. 20. 

FN7  CONGRESS REQUIRED THAT RECONSTRUCTED STATES APPROVE STATE
CONSTITUTIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND ALSO THAT
EACH STATE RATIFY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  EXAMPLES OF STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO LIBEL, BUT WHICH
CONSTITUTIONS WERE NEVERTHELESS APPROVED BY CONGRESS, FOLLOW:
ARKANSAS:  CONST. 1868, ART. I, SEC. 2 PROVIDES THAT TRUTH COUPLED WITH
GOOD MOTIVES SHALL BE A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL LIBEL
PROSECUTION; ARKANSAS READMITTED BY 15 STAT. 72 (1868); FLORIDA: CONST.
1868, ART. I, SEC. 10 PROVIDES THAT TRUTH COUPLED WITH GOOD MOTIVES
SHALL BE A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTION; FLORIDA
READMITTED BY 15 STAT. 73 (1868); MISSISSIPPI:  CONST. 1868, ART. I,
SEC. 4 ENACTS FOX'S LIBEL ACT IN SUBSTANCE; MISSISSIPPI READMITTED BY
16 STAT. 67 (1870); SOUTH CAROLINA:  CONST. 1868, ART. I, SEC. 8 ENACTS
FOX'S LIBEL ACT IN SUBSTANCE, AND PROVIDES THAT TRUTH AND GOOD MOTIVES
SHALL BE A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTION; SOUTH
CAROLINA READMITTED BY 15 STAT. 73 (1868); TEXAS:  CONST. 1868, ART. I,
SEC. 6 ENACTS FOX'S LIBEL ACT IN SUBSTANCE; TEXAS READMITTED BY 16
STAT. 80 (1870). 

FN8  IN THE CASE OF STATES ERECTED OUT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, ONE OF
TWO PROCEDURES WAS GENERALLY FOLLOWED.  EITHER CONGRESS WOULD ITSELF
ENACT A STATUTE ADMITTING A PARTICULAR STATE, STATING THEREIN THAT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE IN QUESTION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION; OR ELSE THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT WOULD PROVIDE THAT THE
STATE WOULD BE ADMITTED UPON ITS ADOPTION OF A CONSTITUTION CONSISTENT
WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  IN THE LATTER CASE THE ACTUAL ADMISSION
OCCURRED BY PROCLAMATION TO THE PRESIDENT. 

COLORADO:  ART. II, SEC. 10 ENACTS FOX'S LIBEL ACT IN SUBSTANCE, AND
PROVIDES THAT TRUTH AND GOOD MOTIVES SHALL CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE
DEFENSE IN A LIBEL PROSECUTION; ADMITTED BY 18 STAT. 474 (1875), 19
STAT. 665 (1876); MONTANA:  ART. III, SEC. 10 ENACTS FOX'S LIBEL ACT IN
SUBSTANCE; ADMITTED BY 25 STAT. 676 (1889), 26 STAT. 1551 (1889); NEW
MEXICO: ART. II, SEC. 17 PROVIDES THAT TRUTH AND GOOD MOTIVES SHALL
CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL LIBEL PROSECUTION; ADMITTED
BY 36 STAT. 557 (1910), 37 STAT. 39 (1911); UTAH: ART. I, SEC. 15 LIKE
COLORADO PROVISIONS; ADMITTED BY 28 STAT. 107 (1894), 29 STAT. 876
(1896); WYOMING:  ART. I, SEC. 20 LIKE COLORADO PROVISIONS; ADMITTED BY
26 STAT. 222 (1890). 

FN9  SEE FAIRMAN AND MORRISON, DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
INCORPORATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS?  2 STAN.  L. REV. 5-173. 

FN10  3 JOHNS.  (N.Y.)  337, 413. 

FN11  CONST. 1821, ART. VII, SEC. 8; CONST. 1846, ART. I, SEC. 8;
CONST. 1894, ART. I, SEC. 8; CONST. 1938, ART. I, SEC. 8. 

FN12  ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, IOWA,
KANSAS, MAINE, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW
JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA,
TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, WISCONSIN, AND WYOMING.  FOR CITATIONS TO
ARTICLE AND SECTION, SEE N. 6, SUPRA. 

FN13  ARIZONA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND,
MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NORTH CAROLINA, OREGON, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON. 
THE GEORGIA PROVISION (CONST.  1877, ART. I, SEC. 1, PAR. 15),
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REST, READS:  "  ...  ANY PERSON MAY SPEAK,
WRITE, AND PUBLISH HIS SENTIMENTS, ON ALL SUBJECTS, BEING RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE ABUSE OF THAT LIBERTY."  FOR CITATIONS TO ARTICLE AND SECTION,
SEE N. 6, SUPRA. 

FN14  ALABAMA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, RHODE ISLAND, AND WEST VIRGINIA. 
FOR CITATIONS TO ARTICLE AND SECTION, SEE N. 6, SUPRA. 

FN15 CONNECTICUT, CONST. 1818, ART. I, SEC. 6; NEW HAMPSHIRE, CONST.
1784, PART I, ART. 22; SOUTH CAROLINA, CONST. 1895, ART. I, SEC. 4;
VERMONT, CONST. 1793, C. I, ART. 13.  THE MASSACHUSETTS PROVISION
(CONST.  1780, PART I, ART. XVI) READS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE LIBERTY OF THE
PRESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SECURITY OF FREEDOM IN A STATE IT OUGHT NOT,
THEREFORE, TO BE RESTRICTED IN THIS COMMONWEALTH." 

FN16  STATE V. GARDNER, 112 CONN. 121, 151 A. 349; COMMONWEALTH V.
SZLIAKYS, 254 MASS. 424, 150 N.E. 190; NOYES V. THORPE, 73 N.H. 481, 62
A. 787; STATE V. GURRY, 163 S.C. 1, 161 S.E. 191; STATE V. COLBY, 98
VT. 96, 126 A. 510.  DECISIONAL LAW OF OTHER STATES IS COLLECTED IN
NOTE, 1 BFLO.  L. REV. 258. 

FN17  LEE, A HISTORY OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM (GARDEN CITY, 1923). 

FN18  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52. 

FN19  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 672. 

FN20  IT APPEARS THAT GROUP LIBEL WAS NOT UNKNOWN TO COMMON LAW.  SEE
SCOTT, PUBLISHING FALSE NEWS, 30 CAN.  B. REV. 37, 42-43. 

FN21  TANENHAUS, GROUP LIBEL, 35 CORNELL L.Q. 261; RIESMAN, DEMOCRACY
AND DEFAMATION: CONTROL OF GROUP LIBEL, 42 COL. L. REV. 727; SEE ALSO
NOTE, 1 BFLO.  L. REV. 258. 
..END :














ZORACH V. CLAUSON 343 U.S. 306 


NO. 431.  ARGUED JANUARY 31-FEBRUARY 1, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1952 -
303 N.Y. 161, 100 N.E.2D 463, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SEC. 3210 OF THE NEW YORK EDUCATION LAW AND THE REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER, NEW YORK CITY PERMITS ITS PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO RELEASE
STUDENTS DURING SCHOOL HOURS, ON WRITTEN REQUESTS OF THEIR PARENTS, SO
THAT THEY MAY LEAVE THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS AND GO TO
RELIGIOUS CENTERS FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OR DEVOTIONAL EXERCISES. 
THE SAME SECTION MAKES SCHOOL ATTENDANCE COMPULSORY; STUDENTS NOT
RELEASED STAY IN THE CLASSROOMS; AND THE CHURCHES REPORT TO THE SCHOOLS
THE NAMES OF CHILDREN RELEASED FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHO FAIL TO REPORT
FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.  THE PROGRAM INVOLVES NEITHER RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS NOR THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS. 
HELD: THIS PROGRAM DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, MADE
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  MCCOLLUM V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 308-315. 

(A)  BY THIS SYSTEM, NEW YORK HAS NEITHER PROHIBITED THE "FREE
EXERCISE" OF RELIGION NOR MADE A LAW "RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  PP. 310-315. 

(B)  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD IN THIS CASE TO SUPPORT A
CONCLUSION THAT THE SYSTEM INVOLVES THE USE OF COERCION TO GET PUBLIC
SCHOOL STUDENTS INTO RELIGIOUS CLASSROOMS.  PP. 311-312. 

ZORACH ET AL. V. CLAUSON ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED N.Y. EDUCATION LAW SEC. 3210
AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER PERMITTING ABSENCE OF STUDENTS FROM THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE AND EDUCATION, AGAINST THE
CLAIM THAT THE PROGRAM THEREUNDER VIOLATED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
303 N.Y. 161, 100 N.E.2D 463.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P.
315. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NEW YORK CITY HAS A PROGRAM WHICH PERMITS ITS PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO
RELEASE STUDENTS DURING THE SCHOOL DAY SO THAT THEY MAY LEAVE THE
SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND SCHOOL GROUNDS AND GO TO RELIGIOUS CENTERS FOR
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OR DEVOTIONAL EXERCISES.  A STUDENT IS RELEASED
ON WRITTEN REQUEST OF HIS PARENTS.  THOSE NOT RELEASED STAY IN THE
CLASSROOMS.  THE CHURCHES MAKE WEEKLY REPORTS TO THE SCHOOLS, SENDING A
LIST OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL BUT WHO HAVE
NOT REPORTED FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.  (FN1) 

THIS "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAM INVOLVES NEITHER RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
IN PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASSROOMS NOR THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS.  ALL
COSTS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION BLANKS, ARE PAID BY THE RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS.  THE CASE IS THEREFORE UNLIKE MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203, WHICH INVOLVED A "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAM FROM
ILLINOIS.  IN THAT CASE THE CLASSROOMS WERE TURNED OVER TO RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTORS.  WE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE PROGRAM VIOLATED THE FIRST
AMENDMENT (FN2) WHICH (BY REASON OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) (FN3)
PROHIBITS THE STATES FROM ESTABLISHING RELIGION OR PROHIBITING ITS FREE
EXERCISE. 

APPELLANTS, WHO ARE TAXPAYERS AND RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK CITY AND
WHOSE CHILDREN ATTEND ITS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, (FN4) CHALLENGE THE PRESENT
LAW, CONTENDING IT IS IN ESSENCE NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE INVOLVED IN
THE MCCOLLUM CASE.  THEIR ARGUMENT, STATED ELABORATELY IN VARIOUS WAYS,
REDUCES ITSELF TO THIS:  THE WEIGHT AND INFLUENCE OF THE SCHOOL IS PUT
BEHIND A PROGRAM FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION; PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS
POLICE IT, KEEPING TAB ON STUDENTS WHO ARE RELEASED; THE CLASSROOM
ACTIVITIES COME TO A HALT WHILE THE STUDENTS WHO ARE RELEASED FOR
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION ARE ON LEAVE; THE SCHOOL IS A CRUTCH ON WHICH THE
CHURCHES ARE LEANING FOR SUPPORT IN THEIR RELIGIOUS TRAINING; WITHOUT
THE COOPERATION OF THE SCHOOLS THIS "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAM, LIKE THE
ONE IN THE MCCOLLUM CASE, WOULD BE FUTILE AND INEFFECTIVE.  THE NEW
YORK COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE LAW AGAINST THIS CLAIM OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  303 N.Y. 161, 100 N.E.2D 463.  THE CASE IS HERE
ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

THE BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS ARE REPLETE WITH DATA BEARING ON THE MERITS
OF THIS TYPE OF "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAM.  VIEWS PRO AND CON ARE
EXPRESSED, BASED ON PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE WITH THESE PROGRAMS AND WITH
THEIR IMPLICATIONS.  (FN5)  WE DO NOT STOP TO SUMMARIZE THESE MATERIALS
NOR TO BURDEN THE OPINION WITH AN ANALYSIS OF THEM.  FOR THEY INVOLVE
CONSIDERATIONS NOT GERMANE TO THE NARROW CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
PRESENTED.  THEY LARGELY CONCERN THE WISDOM OF THE SYSTEM, ITS
EFFICIENCY FROM AN EDUCATIONAL POINT OF VIEW, AND THE POLITICAL
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE MOTIVATED ITS ADOPTION OR REJECTION IN SOME
COMMUNITIES.  THOSE MATTERS ARE OF NO CONCERN HERE, SINCE OUR PROBLEM
REDUCES ITSELF TO WHETHER NEW YORK BY THIS SYSTEM HAS EITHER PROHIBITED
THE "FREE EXERCISE" OF RELIGION OR HAS MADE A LAW "RESPECTING AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

IT TAKES OBTUSE REASONING TO INJECT ANY ISSUE OF THE "FREE EXERCISE"
OF RELIGION INTO THE PRESENT CASE.  NO ONE IS FORCED TO GO TO THE
RELIGIOUS CLASSROOM AND NO RELIGIOUS EXERCISE OR INSTRUCTION IS BROUGHT
TO THE CLASSROOMS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  A STUDENT NEED NOT TAKE
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.  HE IS LEFT TO HIS OWN DESIRES AS TO THE MANNER
OR TIME OF HIS RELIGIOUS DEVOTIONS, IF ANY. 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT THE SYSTEM INVOLVES THE USE OF COERCION TO
GET PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS INTO RELIGIOUS CLASSROOMS.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD BEFORE US THAT SUPPORTS THAT CONCLUSION.  (FN6)
THE PRESENT RECORD INDEED TELLS US THAT THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES ARE
NEUTRAL IN THIS REGARD AND DO NO MORE THAN RELEASE STUDENTS WHOSE
PARENTS SO REQUEST.  IF IN FACT COERCION WERE USED, IF IT WERE
ESTABLISHED THAT ANY ONE OR MORE TEACHERS WERE USING THEIR OFFICE TO
PERSUADE OR FORCE STUDENTS TO TAKE THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, A WHOLLY
DIFFERENT CASE WOULD BE PRESENTED.  (FN7) HENCE WE PUT ASIDE THAT CLAIM
OF COERCION BOTH AS RESPECTS THE "FREE EXERCISE" OF RELIGION AND "AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

MOREOVER, APART FROM THAT CLAIM OF COERCION, WE DO NOT SEE HOW NEW
YORK BY THIS TYPE OF "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAM HAS MADE A LAW RESPECTING
AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  THERE IS MUCH TALK OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN
THE HISTORY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND IN THE DECISIONS CLUSTERING
AROUND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  SEE EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330
U.S. 1; MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA.  THERE CANNOT BE THE
SLIGHTEST DOUBT THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT REFLECTS THE PHILOSOPHY THAT
CHURCH AND STATE SHOULD BE SEPARATED.  AND SO FAR AS INTERFERENCE WITH
THE "FREE EXERCISE" OF RELIGION AND AN "ESTABLISHMENT" OF RELIGION ARE
CONCERNED, THE SEPARATION MUST BE COMPLETE AND UNEQUIVOCAL.  THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS COVERAGE PERMITS NO EXCEPTION; THE
PROHIBITION IS ABSOLUTE.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT SAY
THAT IN EVERY AND ALL RESPECTS THERE SHALL BE A SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE.  RATHER, IT STUDIOUSLY DEFINES THE MANNER, THE SPECIFIC
WAYS, IN WHICH THERE SHALL BE NO CONCERT OR UNION OR DEPENDENCY ONE ON
THE OTHER.  THAT IS THE COMMON SENSE OF THE MATTER.  OTHERWISE THE
STATE AND RELIGION WOULD BE ALIENS TO EACH OTHER - HOSTILE, SUSPICIOUS,
AND EVEN UNFRIENDLY.  CHURCHES COULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY EVEN
PROPERTY TAXES.  MUNICIPALITIES WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO RENDER POLICE
OR FIRE PROTECTION TO RELIGIOUS GROUPS.  POLICEMEN WHO HELPED
PARISHIONERS INTO THEIR PLACES OF WORSHIP WOULD VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION.  PRAYERS IN OUR LEGISLATIVE HALLS; THE APPEALS TO THE
ALMIGHTY IN THE MESSAGES OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE; THE PROCLAMATIONS
MAKING THANKSGIVING DAY A HOLIDAY; "SO HELP ME GOD" IN OUR COURTROOM
OATHS - THESE AND ALL OTHER REFERENCES TO THE ALMIGHTY THAT RUN THROUGH
OUR LAWS, OUR PUBLIC RITUALS, OUR CEREMONIES WOULD BE FLOUTING THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  A FASTIDIOUS ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC COULD EVEN OBJECT TO
THE SUPPLICATION WITH WHICH THE COURT OPENS EACH SESSION:  "GOD SAVE
THE UNITED STATES AND THIS HONORABLE COURT." 

WE WOULD HAVE TO PRESS THE CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
TO THESE EXTREMES TO CONDEMN THE PRESENT LAW ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS.  THE NULLIFICATION OF THIS LAW WOULD HAVE WIDE AND PROFOUND
EFFECTS.  A CATHOLIC STUDENT APPLIES TO HIS TEACHER FOR PERMISSION TO
LEAVE THE SCHOOL DURING HOURS ON A HOLY DAY OF OBLIGATION TO ATTEND A
MASS.  A JEWISH STUDENT ASKS HIS TEACHER FOR PERMISSION TO BE EXCUSED
FOR YOM KIPPUR.  A PROTESTANT WANTS THE AFTERNOON OFF FOR A FAMILY
BAPTISMAL CEREMONY.  IN EACH CASE THE TEACHER REQUIRES PARENTAL CONSENT
IN WRITING.  IN EACH CASE THE TEACHER, IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THE
STUDENT IS NOT A TRUANT, GOES FURTHER AND REQUIRES A REPORT FROM THE
PRIEST, THE RABBI, OR THE MINISTER.  THE TEACHER IN OTHER WORDS
COOPERATES IN A RELIGIOUS PROGRAM TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING IT POSSIBLE
FOR HER STUDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.  WHETHER SHE DOES IT
OCCASIONALLY FOR A FEW STUDENTS, REGULARLY FOR ONE, OR PURSUANT TO A
SYSTEMATIZED PROGRAM DESIGNED TO FURTHER THE RELIGIOUS NEEDS OF ALL THE
STUDENTS DOES NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE ACT. 

WE ARE A RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WHOSE INSTITUTIONS PRESUPPOSE A SUPREME
BEING.  WE GUARANTEE THE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP AS ONE CHOOSES.  WE MAKE
ROOM FOR AS WIDE A VARIETY OF BELIEFS AND CREEDS AS THE SPIRITUAL NEEDS
OF MAN DEEM NECESSARY.  WE SPONSOR AN ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF
GOVERNMENT THAT SHOWS NO PARTIALITY TO ANY ONE GROUP AND THAT LETS EACH
FLOURISH ACCORDING TO THE ZEAL OF ITS ADHERENTS AND THE APPEAL OF ITS
DOGMA.  WHEN THE STATE ENCOURAGES RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OR COOPERATES
WITH RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES BY ADJUSTING THE SCHEDULE OF PUBLIC EVENTS
TO SECTARIAN NEEDS, IT FOLLOWS THE BEST OF OUR TRADITIONS.  FOR IT THEN
RESPECTS THE RELIGIOUS NATURE OF OUR PEOPLE AND ACCOMMODATES THE PUBLIC
SERVICE TO THEIR SPIRITUAL NEEDS.  TO HOLD THAT IT MAY NOT WOULD BE TO
FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION A REQUIREMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOW A
CALLOUS INDIFFERENCE TO RELIGIOUS GROUPS.  THAT WOULD BE PREFERRING
THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN NO RELIGION OVER THOSE WHO DO BELIEVE.  GOVERNMENT
MAY NOT FINANCE RELIGIOUS GROUPS NOR UNDERTAKE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
NOR BLEND SECULAR AND SECTARIAN EDUCATION NOR USE SECULAR INSTITUTIONS
TO FORCE ONE OR SOME RELIGION ON ANY PERSON.  BUT WE FIND NO
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT WHICH MAKES IT NECESSARY FOR GOVERNMENT TO
BE HOSTILE TO RELIGION AND TO THROW ITS WEIGHT AGAINST EFFORTS TO WIDEN
THE EFFECTIVE SCOPE OF RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE.  THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE
NEUTRAL WHEN IT COMES TO COMPETITION BETWEEN SECTS.  IT MAY NOT THRUST
ANY SECT ON ANY PERSON.  IT MAY NOT MAKE A RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE
COMPULSORY.  IT MAY NOT COERCE ANYONE TO ATTEND CHURCH, TO OBSERVE A
RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY, OR TO TAKE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.  BUT IT CAN CLOSE
ITS DOORS OR SUSPEND ITS OPERATIONS AS TO THOSE WHO WANT TO REPAIR TO
THEIR RELIGIOUS SANCTUARY FOR WORSHIP OR INSTRUCTION.  NO MORE THAN
THAT IS UNDERTAKEN HERE. 

THIS PROGRAM MAY BE UNWISE AND IMPROVIDENT FROM AN EDUCATIONAL OR A
COMMUNITY VIEWPOINT.  THAT APPEAL IS MADE TO US ON A THEORY, PREVIOUSLY
ADVANCED, THAT EACH CASE MUST BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF "OUR OWN
PREPOSSESSIONS."  SEE MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA, P. 238. 
OUR INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES, HOWEVER, ARE NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARD.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD IS THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE.  THE PROBLEM, LIKE MANY PROBLEMS IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, IS ONE
OF DEGREE.  SEE MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA, P. 231. 

IN THE MCCOLLUM CASE THE CLASSROOMS WERE USED FOR RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION AND THE FORCE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL WAS USED TO PROMOTE THAT
INSTRUCTION.  HERE, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS DO NO MORE THAN
ACCOMMODATE THEIR SCHEDULES TO A PROGRAM OF OUTSIDE RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION.  WE FOLLOW THE MCCOLLUM CASE.  (FN8)  BUT WE CANNOT EXPAND
IT TO COVER THE PRESENT RELEASED TIME PROGRAM UNLESS SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE MEANS THAT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS CAN MAKE NO ADJUSTMENTS
OF THEIR SCHEDULES TO ACCOMMODATE THE RELIGIOUS NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE. 
WE CANNOT READ INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS SUCH A PHILOSOPHY OF HOSTILITY
TO RELIGION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE NEW YORK CITY RELEASED TIME PROGRAM IS EMBODIED IN THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS: 

(A)  N.Y. EDUCATION LAW, SEC. 3210, SUBDIV.  1(B), WHICH PROVIDES
THAT "ABSENCE FOR RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE AND EDUCATION SHALL BE PERMITTED
UNDER RULES THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHALL ESTABLISH." 

(B)  REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, ART. 17, SEC. 154 (1 N.Y. OFFICIAL CODE COMP. 683), WHICH PROVIDE
FOR ABSENCE DURING SCHOOL HOURS FOR RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE AND EDUCATION
OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL GROUNDS (PAR. 1), WHERE CONDUCTED BY OR UNDER THE
CONTROL OF A DULY CONSTITUTED RELIGIOUS BODY (PAR. 2).  STUDENTS MUST
OBTAIN WRITTEN REQUESTS FROM THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS TO BE EXCUSED
FOR SUCH TRAINING (PAR. 1), AND MUST REGISTER FOR THE TRAINING AND HAVE
A COPY OF THEIR REGISTRATION FILED WITH THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITIES
(PAR. 3).  WEEKLY REPORTS OF THEIR ATTENDANCE AT SUCH RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS
MUST BE FILED WITH THEIR PRINCIPAL OR TEACHER (PAR. 4).  ONLY ONE HOUR
A WEEK IS TO BE ALLOWED FOR SUCH TRAINING, AT THE END OF A CLASS
SESSION (PAR. 5), AND WHERE MORE THAN ONE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL IS
CONDUCTED, THE HOUR OF RELEASE SHALL BE THE SAME FOR ALL RELIGIOUS
SCHOOLS (PAR 6). 

(C)  REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
WHICH PROVIDE SIMILAR RULES SUPPLEMENTING THE STATE COMMISSIONER'S
REGULATIONS, WITH THE FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT AMPLIFICATIONS: NO
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY KIND WILL BE MADE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RELATIVE TO
THE PROGRAM (RULE 1).  THE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND PARENTS WILL
ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ATTENDANCE AT THE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND
WILL EXPLAIN ANY FAILURES TO ATTEND ON THE WEEKLY ATTENDANCE REPORTS
(RULE 3).  STUDENTS WHO ARE RELEASED WILL BE DISMISSED FROM SCHOOL IN
THE USUAL WAY (RULE 5).  THERE SHALL BE NO COMMENT BY ANY PRINCIPAL OR
TEACHER ON ATTENDANCE OR NONATTENDANCE OF ANY PUPIL UPON RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION (RULE 6). 

FN2  THE FIRST AMENDMENT READS IN RELEVANT PART, "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE
NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE
EXERCISE THEREOF." 

FN3  SEE STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105. 
FN4  NO PROBLEM OF THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION IS POSED IN THIS CASE
SINCE, UNLIKE THE APPELLANTS IN DOREMUS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 342 U.S.
429, APPELLANTS HERE ARE PARENTS OF CHILDREN CURRENTLY ATTENDING
SCHOOLS SUBJECT TO THE RELEASED TIME PROGRAM. 

FN5  SEE, E.G., BECKES, WEEKDAY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (NATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS, HUMAN RELATIONS PAMPHLET NO. 6);
BUTTS, AMERICAN TRADITION IN RELIGION AND EDUCATION, PP. 188, 199;
MOEHLMAN, THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE, PP. 123, 155
FF.; MOEHLMAN, THE CHURCH AS EDUCATOR, PP. 103 FF.; MORAL AND SPIRITUAL
VALUES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COMMISSION, 1951);
NEWMAN, THE SECTARIAN INVASION OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS; PUBLIC SCHOOL
TIME FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, 12 JEWISH EDUCATION 130 (JANUARY, 1941);
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION ON SCHOOL TIME, 7 FRONTIERS OF DEMOCRACY 72
(1940); RELEASED TIME FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN NEW YORK CITY'S
SCHOOLS (PUBLIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, JUNE 30, 1943); RELEASED TIME
FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN NEW YORK CITY'S SCHOOLS (PUBLIC EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, JUNE 30, 1945); RELEASED TIME FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN
NEW YORK CITY SCHOOLS (PUBLIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, 1949); 2 STOKES,
CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES, PP. 523-548; THE STATUS OF
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS (NATIONAL EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION). 

FN6  NOR IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ENFORCE
ATTENDANCE AT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS BY PUNISHING ABSENTEES FROM THE
RELEASED TIME PROGRAMS FOR TRUANCY. 

FN7  APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROVE
THAT THE SYSTEM IS IN FACT ADMINISTERED IN A COERCIVE MANNER.  THE NEW
YORK COURT OF APPEALS DECLINED TO GRANT A TRIAL ON THIS ISSUE, NOTING,
INTER ALIA, THAT APPELLANTS HAD NOT PROPERLY RAISED THEIR CLAIM IN THE
MANNER REQUIRED BY STATE PRACTICE.  303 N.Y. 161, 174, 100 N.E.2D 463,
469.  THIS INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND FOR DECISION PRECLUDES APPELLANTS
FROM RAISING THE ISSUE OF MALADMINISTRATION IN THIS PROCEEDING.  SEE
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. WOODFORD, 234 U.S. 46, 51; ATLANTIC
COAST LINE R. CO. V. MIMS, 242 U.S. 532, 535; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V.
BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 156, 169. 

THE ONLY ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT THAT BEARS ON THE ISSUE IS THAT
THE OPERATION OF THE PROGRAM "HAS RESULTED AND INEVITABLY RESULTS IN
THE EXERCISE OF PRESSURE AND COERCION UPON PARENTS AND CHILDREN TO
SECURE ATTENDANCE BY THE CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION."  BUT THIS
CHARGE DOES NOT EVEN IMPLICATE THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES.  THE NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS WAS THEREFORE GENEROUS IN LABELING IT A "CONCLUSORY"
ALLEGATION.  303 N.Y., AT 174, 100 N.E.2D, AT 469.  SINCE THE
ALLEGATION DID NOT IMPLICATE THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES IN THE USE OF
COERCION, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS UNDER THE GUISE OF LOCAL PRACTICE DEFEATED A FEDERAL RIGHT IN
THE MANNER CONDEMNED BY BROWN V. WESTERN R. OF ALABAMA, 338 U.S. 294,
AND RELATED CASES. 

FN8  THREE OF US - THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE BURTON - WHO JOIN THIS OPINION AGREED THAT THE "RELEASED TIME"
PROGRAM INVOLVED IN THE MCCOLLUM CASE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IT WAS OUR
VIEW AT THE TIME THAT THE PRESENT TYPE OF "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAM WAS
NOT PREJUEDGED BY THE MCCOLLUM CASE, A CONCLUSION EMPHASIZED BY THE
RESERVATION OF THE QUESTION IN THE SEPARATE OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINED.  SEE 333 U.S., AT 225
WHERE IT WAS SAID, "OF COURSE, 'RELEASED TIME' AS A GENERALIZED
CONCEPTION, UNDEFINED BY DIFFERENTIATING PARTICULARITIES, IS NOT AN
ISSUE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION.  LOCAL PROGRAMS DIFFER FROM EACH
OTHER IN MANY AND CRUCIAL RESPECTS  ...  .  IT IS ONLY WHEN CHALLENGE
IS MADE TO THE SHARE THAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE IN THE EXECUTION OF A
PARTICULAR 'RELEASED TIME' PROGRAM THAT CLOSE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY IS
DEMANDED OF THE EXACT RELATION BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION AND
THE PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN THE SPECIFIC SITUATION BEFORE THE
COURT." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203, HELD
INVALID AS AN "ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" AN ILLINOIS SYSTEM UNDER
WHICH SCHOOL CHILDREN, COMPELLED BY LAW TO GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WERE
FREED FROM SOME HOURS OF REQUIRED SCHOOL WORK ON CONDITION THAT THEY
ATTEND SPECIAL RELIGIOUS CLASSES HELD IN THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS. 
ALTHOUGH THE CLASSES WERE TAUGHT BY SECTARIAN TEACHERS NEITHER EMPLOYED
NOR PAID BY THE STATE, THE STATE DID USE ITS POWER TO FURTHER THE
PROGRAM BY RELEASING SOME OF THE CHILDREN FROM REGULAR CLASS WORK,
INSISTING THAT THOSE RELEASED ATTEND THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES, AND
REQUIRING THAT THOSE WHO REMAINED BEHIND DO SOME KIND OF ACADEMIC WORK
WHILE THE OTHERS RECEIVED THEIR RELIGIOUS TRAINING.  WE SAID THIS ABOUT
THE ILLINOIS SYSTEM: 

"PUPILS COMPELLED BY LAW TO GO TO SCHOOL FOR SECULAR EDUCATION ARE
RELEASED IN PART FROM THEIR LEGAL DUTY UPON THE CONDITION THAT THEY
ATTEND THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES.  THIS IS BEYOND ALL QUESTION A
UTILIZATION OF THE TAX-ESTABLISHED AND TAX-SUPPORTED PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM TO AID RELIGIOUS GROUPS TO SPREAD THEIR FAITH.  AND IT FALLS
SQUARELY UNDER THE BAN OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT  ...  ."  MCCOLLUM V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA, AT PP. 209-210. 

I SEE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INVALID ILLINOIS SYSTEM
AND THAT OF NEW YORK HERE SUSTAINED.  EXCEPT FOR THE USE OF THE SCHOOL
BUILDINGS IN ILLINOIS, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SYSTEMS WHICH
I CONSIDER EVEN WORTHY OF MENTION.  IN THE NEW YORK PROGRAM, AS IN THAT
OF ILLINOIS, THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES RELEASE SOME OF THE CHILDREN ON THE
CONDITION THAT THEY ATTEND THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES, GET REPORTS ON
WHETHER THEY ATTEND, AND HOLD THE OTHER CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING
UNTIL THE RELIGIOUS HOUR IS OVER.  AS WE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE
CATEGORICALLY CLEAR, THE MCCOLLUM DECISION WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME IF
THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES HAD NOT BEEN HELD IN THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS.  WE
SAID: 

"HERE NOT ONLY ARE THE STATE'S TAX-SUPPORTED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS
USED FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES.  THE STATE ALSO
AFFORDS SECTARIAN GROUPS AN INVALUABLE AID IN THAT IT HELPS TO PROVIDE
PUPILS FOR THEIR RELIGIOUS CLASSES THROUGH USE OF THE STATE'S
COMPULSORY PUBLIC SCHOOL MACHINERY.  THIS IS NOT SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE."  MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA, AT P. 212. 

MCCOLLUM THUS HELD THAT ILLINOIS COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
MANIPULATE THE COMPELLED CLASSROOM HOURS OF ITS COMPULSORY SCHOOL
MACHINERY SO AS TO CHANNEL CHILDREN INTO SECTARIAN CLASSES.  YET THAT
IS EXACTLY WHAT THE COURT HOLDS NEW YORK CAN DO. 

I AM AWARE THAT OUR MCCOLLUM DECISION ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO A MOST SEARCHING EXAMINATION THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY.  PROBABLY FEW OPINIONS FROM THIS COURT IN RECENT YEARS HAVE
ATTRACTED MORE ATTENTION OR STIRRED WIDER DEBATE.  OUR INSISTENCE ON "A
WALL BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE WHICH MUST BE KEPT HIGH AND IMPREGNABLE"
HAS SEEMED TO SOME A CORRECT EXPOSITION OF THE PHILOSOPHY AND A TRUE
INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO WHICH WE
SHOULD STRICTLY ADHERE.  (FN1)  WITH EQUAL CONVICTION AND SINCERITY,
OTHERS HAVE THOUGHT THE MCCOLLUM DECISION FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG (FN2) AND
HAVE PLEDGED CONTINUOUS WARFARE AGAINST IT.  (FN3) THE OPINIONS IN THE
COURT BELOW AND THE BRIEFS HERE REFLECT THESE DIVERSE VIEWPOINTS.  IN
DISSENTING TODAY, I MEAN TO DO MORE THAN GIVE ROUTINE APPROVAL TO OUR
MCCOLLUM DECISION.  I MEAN ALSO TO REAFFIRM MY FAITH IN THE FUNDAMENTAL
PHILOSOPHY EXPRESSED IN MCCOLLUM AND EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330
U.S. 1.  THAT REAFFIRMANCE CAN BE BRIEF BECAUSE OF THE EXHAUSTIVE
OPINIONS IN THOSE RECENT CASES. 

DIFFICULTY OF DECISION IN THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS MENTIONED BY
THE COURT, BUT NOT NOW BEFORE US, SHOULD NOT CONFUSE THE ISSUES IN THIS
CASE.  HERE THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER NEW YORK CAN USE ITS
COMPULSORY EDUCATION LAWS TO HELP RELIGIOUS SECTS GET ATTENDANTS
PRESUMABLY TOO UNENTHUSIASTIC TO GO UNLESS MOVED TO DO SO BY THE
PRESSURE OF THIS STATE MACHINERY.  THAT THIS IS THE PLAN, PURPOSE,
DESIGN AND CONSEQUENCE OF THE NEW YORK PROGRAM CANNOT BE DENIED.  THE
STATE THUS MAKES RELIGIOUS SECTS BENEFICIARIES OF ITS POWER TO COMPEL
CHILDREN TO ATTEND SECULAR SCHOOLS.  ANY USE OF SUCH COERCIVE POWER BY
THE STATE TO HELP OR HINDER SOME RELIGIOUS SECTS OR TO PREFER ALL
RELIGIOUS SECTS OVER NONBELIEVERS OR VICE VERSA IS JUST WHAT I THINK
THE FIRST AMENDMENT FORBIDS.  IN CONSIDERING WHETHER A STATE HAS
ENTERED THIS FORBIDDEN FIELD THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER IT HAS ENTERED
TOO FAR BUT WHETHER IT HAS ENTERED AT ALL.  NEW YORK IS MANIPULATING
ITS COMPULSORY EDUCATION LAWS TO HELP RELIGIOUS SECTS GET PUPILS.  THIS
IS NOT SEPARATION BUT COMBINATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

THE COURT'S VALIDATION OF THE NEW YORK SYSTEM RESTS IN PART ON ITS
STATEMENT THAT AMERICANS ARE "A RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WHO INSTITUTIONS
PRESUPPOSE A SUPREME BEING."  THIS WAS AT LEAST AS TRUE WHEN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED; AND IT WAS JUST AS TRUE WHEN EIGHT JUSTICES OF
THIS COURT INVALIDATED THE RELEASED TIME SYSTEM IN MCCOLLUM ON THE
PREMISE THAT A STATE CAN NO MORE "AID ALL RELIGIONS" THAN IT CAN AID
ONE.  (FN4)  IT WAS PRECISELY BECAUSE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY AMERICANS WERE
A RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DIVIDED INTO MANY FIGHTING SECTS THAT WE WERE GIVEN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO KEEP CHURCH AND STATE COMPLETELY
SEPARATE.  COLONIAL HISTORY HAD ALREADY SHOWN THAT, HERE AS ELSEWHERE
ZEALOUS SECTARIANS ENTRUSTED WITH GOVERNMENTAL POWER TO FURTHER THEIR
CAUSES WOULD SOMETIMES TORTURE, MAIM AND KILL THOSE THEY BRANDED
"HERETICS," "ATHEISTS" OR "AGNOSTICS."  (FN5)  THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS
THEREFORE TO INSURE THAT NO ONE POWERFUL SECT OR COMBINATION OF SECTS
COULD USE POLITICAL OR GOVERNMENTAL POWER TO PUNISH DISSENTERS WHOM
THEY COULD NOT CONVERT TO THEIR FAITH.  NOW AS THEN, IT IS ONLY BY
WHOLLY ISOLATING THE STATE FROM THE RELIGIOUS SPHERE AND COMPELLING IT
TO BE COMPLETELY NEUTRAL, THAT THE FREEDOM OF EACH AND EVERY
DENOMINATION AND OF ALL NONBELIEVERS CAN BE MAINTAINED.  IT IS THIS
NEUTRALITY THE COURT ABANDONS TODAY WHEN IT TREATS NEW YORK'S COERCIVE
SYSTEM AS A PROGRAM WHICH MERELY "ENCOURAGES RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OR
COOPERATES WITH RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES."  THE ABANDONMENT IS ALL THE
MORE DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S LEGAL EXALTATION OF
THE ORTHODOX AND ITS DEROGATION OF UNBELIEVERS. 

UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO THEIR
RELIGIOUS SANCTUARIES NOT BECAUSE THEY FEARED THE LAW BUT BECAUSE THEY
LOVED THEIR GOD.  THE CHOICE OF ALL HAS BEEN AS FREE AS THE CHOICE OF
THOSE WHO ANSWERED THE CALL TO WORSHIP MOVED ONLY BY THE MUSIC OF THE
OLD SUNDAY MORNING CHURCH BELLS.  THE SPIRITUAL MIND OF MAN HAS THUS
BEEN FREE TO BELIEVE, DISBELIEVE, OR DOUBT, WITHOUT REPRESSION, GREAT
OR SMALL, BY THE HEAVY HAND OF GOVERNMENT.  STATUTES AUTHORIZING SUCH
REPRESSION HAVE BEEN STRICKEN.  BEFORE TODAY, OUR JUDICIAL OPINIONS
HAVE REFRAINED FROM DRAWING INVIDIOUS DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THOSE WHO
BELIEVE IN NO RELIGION AND THOSE WHO DO BELIEVE.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT
HAS LOST MUCH IF THE RELIGIOUS FOLLOWER AND THE ATHEIST ARE NO LONGER
TO BE JUDICIALLY REGARDED AS ENTITLED TO EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. 

STATE HELP TO RELIGION INJECTS POLITICAL AND PARTY PREJUDICES INTO A
HOLY FIELD.  IT TOO OFTEN SUBSTITUTES FORCE FOR PRAYER, HATE FOR LOVE,
AND PERSECUTION FOR PERSUASION.  GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED,
UNDER COVER OF THE SOFT EUPHEMISM OF "CO-OPERATION," TO STEAL INTO THE
SACRED AREA OF RELIGIOUS CHOICE. 

FN1  SEE, E.G., NEWMAN, THE SECTARIAN INVASION OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS;
MOEHLMAN, THE WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE; THAYER, THE
ATTACK UPON THE AMERICAN SECULAR SCHOOL, PP. 179-199; BUTTS, THE
AMERICAN TRADITION IN RELIGION AND EDUCATION, PP. 201-208.  SEE ALSO
SYMPOSIUM ON RELIGION AND THE STATE, 14 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  1-159. 

FN2  SEE, E.G., O'NEILL, RELIGION AND EDUCATION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, PP. 219-253; PARSONS, THE FIRST FREEDOM, PP. 158-178; VAN
DUSEN, GOD IN EDUCATION.  SEE ALSO SYMPOSIUM ON RELIGION AND THE STATE,
SUPRA. 

FN3  SEE MOEHLMAN, SUPRA, N. 1, AT P. 42.  O'NEILL, SUPRA, N. 2, AT
PP. 254-272. 

FN4  A STATE POLICY OF AIDING "ALL RELIGIONS" NECESSARILY REQUIRES A
GOVERNMENTAL DECISION AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES "A RELIGION."  THUS IS
CREATED A GOVERNMENTAL POWER TO HINDER CERTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BY
DENYING THEIR CHARACTER AS SUCH.  SEE, E.G., THE REGULATIONS OF THE NEW
YORK COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION PROVIDING THAT, "THE COURSES IN
RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE AND EDUCATION MUST BE MAINTAINED AND OPERATED BY
OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF DULY CONSTITUTED RELIGIOUS BODIES."  ART. 17,
SEC. 154, 1 N.Y. OFFICIAL CODE COMP. 683.  THIS PROVIDES PRECISELY THE
KIND OF CENSORSHIP WHICH WE HAVE SAID THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS. 
CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 305. 

FN5  WERTENBAKER, THE PURITAN OLIGARCHY, 213-214. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

BY WAY OF EMPHASIZING MY AGREEMENT WITH MR. JUSTICE JACKSON'S
DISSENT, I ADD A FEW WORDS. 

THE COURT TELLS US THAT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
"THE STATE GOVERNMENT CAN CLOSE ITS DOORS OR SUSPEND ITS OPERATIONS" SO
THAT ITS CITIZENS MAY BE FREE FOR RELIGIOUS DEVOTIONS OR INSTRUCTION. 
IF THAT WERE THE ISSUE, IT WOULD NOT RISE TO THE DIGNITY OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY.  OF COURSE, A STATE MAY PROVIDE THAT THE
CLASSES IN ITS SCHOOLS SHALL BE DISMISSED, FOR ANY REASON, OR NO
REASON, ON FIXED DAYS, OR FOR SPECIAL OCCASIONS.  THE ESSENCE OF THIS
CASE IS THAT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM DID NOT "CLOSE ITS DOORS" AND DID NOT
"SUSPEND ITS OPERATIONS."  THERE IS ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD
BETWEEN LETTING THE CHILDREN OUT OF SCHOOL AND LETTING SOME OF THEM OUT
OF SCHOOL INTO RELIGIOUS CLASSES.  IF EVERY ONE IS FREE TO MAKE WHAT
USE HE WILL OF TIME WHOLLY UNCONNECTED FROM SCHOOLING REQUIRED BY LAW -
THOSE WHO WISH SECTARIAN INSTRUCTION DEVOTING IT TO THAT PURPOSE, THOSE
WHO HAVE ETHICAL INSTRUCTION AT HOME, TO THAT, THOSE WHO STUDY MUSIC,
TO THAT - THEN OF COURSE THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.    THE PITH OF THE CASE IS THAT FORMALIZED RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION IS SUBSTITUTED FOR OTHER SCHOOL ACTIVITY WHICH THOSE WHO DO
NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RELEASED-TIME PROGRAM ARE COMPELLED TO ATTEND. 
THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IS VERY MUCH IN OPERATION DURING THIS KIND OF
RELEASED TIME.  IF ITS DOORS ARE CLOSED, THEY ARE CLOSED UPON THOSE
STUDENTS WHO DO NOT ATTEND THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, IN ORDER TO KEEP
THEM WITHIN THE SCHOOL.  THAT IS THE VERY THING WHICH RAISES THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  IT IS NOT MET BY DISREGARDING IT.  FAILURE TO
DISCUSS THIS ISSUE DOES NOT TAKE IT OUT OF THE CASE. 

AGAIN, THE COURT RELIES UPON THE ABSENCE FROM THE RECORD OF EVIDENCE
OF COERCION IN THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM.  "IF IN FACT COERCION WERE
USED," ACCORDING TO THE COURT, "IF IT WERE ESTABLISHED THAT ANY ONE OR
MORE TEACHERS WERE USING THEIR OFFICE TO PERSUADE OR FORCE STUDENTS TO
TAKE THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, A WHOLLY DIFFERENT CASE WOULD BE
PRESENTED."  THUS, "COERCION" IN THE ABSTRACT IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE
FATAL.  BUT THE COURT DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT AS THE CASE COMES TO US,
THERE COULD BE NO PROOF OF COERCION, FOR THE APPELLANTS WERE NOT
ALLOWED TO MAKE PROOF OF IT. APPELLANTS ALLEGED THAT "THE OPERATION OF
THE RELEASED TIME PROGRAM HAS RESULTED AND INEVITABLY RESULTS IN THE
EXERCISE OF PRESSURE AND COERCION UPON PARENTS AND CHILDREN TO SECURE
ATTENDANCE BY THE CHILDREN FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION."  THIS ALLEGATION
- THAT COERCION WAS IN FACT PRESENT AND IS INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM, NO
MATTER WHAT DISAVOWALS MIGHT BE MADE IN THE OPERATING REGULATIONS - WAS
DENIED BY APPELLEES.  THUS WERE DRAWN ISSUES OF FACT WHICH CANNOT BE
DETERMINED, ON ANY CONCEIVABLE VIEW OF JUDICIAL NOTICE, BY JUDGES OUT
OF THEIR OWN KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE.  APPELLANTS SOUGHT AN OPPORTUNITY
TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THESE ALLEGATIONS AT AN APPROPRIATE
TRIAL.  AND THOUGH THE COURTS BELOW CITED THE CONCURRING OPINION IN
MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203, 226, TO "EMPHASIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS TO WHICH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL TEST OF SEPARATION IS TO BE APPLIED," THEY DENIED THAT
OPPORTUNITY ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH PROOF WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE
OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.  SEE 198 MISC. 631, 641, 99 N.Y.S.2D 339, 348
349; 303 N.Y. 161, 174-175, 100 N.E.2D 463, 469.  (FN1) 

WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES TURN ON FACTS, IT IS A STRANGE PROCEDURE
INDEED NOT TO PERMIT THE FACTS TO BE ESTABLISHED.  WHEN SUCH IS THE
CASE, THERE ARE WEIGHTY CONSIDERATIONS FOR US TO REQUIRE THE STATE
COURT TO MAKE ITS DETERMINATION ONLY AFTER A THOROUGH CANVASS OF ALL
THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOT TO BAR THEM FROM CONSIDERATION.  CF.
CHASTLETON CORP. V. SINCLAIR, 264 U.S. 543; HAMMOND V. SCHAPPI BUS
LINE, 275 U.S. 164.  IF WE ARE TO DECIDE THIS CASE ON THE PRESENT
RECORD, HOWEVER, A STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE USAGE OF COURTS IN RULING ON
THE SUFFICIENCY OF PLEADINGS WOULD REQUIRE US TO TAKE AS ADMITTED THE
FACTS PLEADED IN THE APPELLANTS' COMPLAINT, INCLUDING THE FACT OF
COERCION, ACTUAL AND INHERENT.  SEE JUDGE FULD, DISSENTING BELOW, 303
N.Y., AT 185, 100 N.E.2D, AT 475.  EVEN ON A MORE LATITUDINARIAN VIEW,
I CANNOT SEE HOW A FINDING THAT COERCION WAS ABSENT, DEEMED CRITICAL BY
THIS COURT IN SUSTAINING THE PRACTICE, CAN BE MADE HERE, WHEN
APPELLANTS WERE PREVENTED FROM MAKING A TIMELY SHOWING OF COERCION
BECAUSE THE COURTS BELOW THOUGHT IT IRRELEVANT. 

THE RESULT IN THE MCCOLLUM CASE, 333 U.S. 203, WAS BASED ON
PRINCIPLES THAT RECEIVED UNANIMOUS ACCEPTANCE BY THIS COURT, BARRING
ONLY A SINGLE VOTE.  I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE BLACK THAT THOSE
PRINCIPLES ARE DISREGARDED IN REACHING THE RESULT IN THIS CASE.  (FN2)
HAPPILY THEY ARE NOT DISAVOWED BY THE COURT.  FROM THIS I DRAW THE HOPE
THAT IN FUTURE VARIATIONS OF THE PROBLEM WHICH ARE BOUND TO COME HERE,
THESE PRINCIPLES MAY AGAIN BE HONORED IN THE OBSERVANCE. 

THE DEEPLY DIVISIVE CONTROVERSY AROUSED BY THE ATTEMPTS TO SECURE
PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS FOR SECTARIAN INSTRUCTION WOULD PROMPTLY END IF
THE ADVOCATES OF SUCH INSTRUCTION WERE CONTENT TO HAVE THE SCHOOL
"CLOSE ITS DOORS OR SUSPEND ITS OPERATIONS" - THAT IS, DISMISS CLASSES
IN THEIR ENTIRETY, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION - INSTEAD OF SEEKING TO USE
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS THE INSTRUMENT FOR SECURING ATTENDANCE AT
DENOMINATIONAL CLASSES.  THE UNWILLINGNESS OF THE PROMOTERS OF THIS
MOVEMENT TO DISPENSE WITH SUCH USE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BETRAYS A
SURPRISING WANT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE INHERENT POWER OF THE VARIOUS
FAITHS TO DRAW CHILDREN TO OUTSIDE SECTARIAN CLASSES - AN ATTITUDE THAT
HARDLY REFLECTS THE FAITH OF THE GREATEST RELIGIOUS SPIRITS. 

FN1  ISSUES THAT RAISE FEDERAL CLAIMS CANNOT BE FORECLOSED BY THE
STATE COURT TREATING THE ALLEGATIONS AS "CONCLUSORY IN CHARACTER."  303
N.Y. 161, 174, 100 N.E.2D 463, 469.  THIS IS SO EVEN WHEN A FEDERAL
STATUTE IS INVOLVED.  BROWN V. WESTERN R. OF ALABAMA, 338 U.S. 294.  A
FORTIORI WHEN THE APPEAL IS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

FN2  THE RESERVATION MADE BY FOUR OF THE JUSTICES IN THE MCCOLLUM
CASE DID NOT, OF COURSE, REFER TO THE NEW YORK SITUATION ANY MORE THAN
IT REFERRED TO THAT FORM OF "RELEASED TIME" UNDER WHICH THE WHOLE
STUDENT BODY IS DISMISSED.  THIS WAS THE RESERVATION: 

"WE DO NOT CONSIDER, AS INDEED WE COULD NOT, SCHOOL PROGRAMS NOT
BEFORE US WHICH, THOUGH COLLOQUIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS 'RELEASED TIME,'
PRESENT SITUATIONS DIFFERING IN ASPECTS THAT MAY WELL BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY CRUCIAL.  DIFFERENT FORMS WHICH 'RELEASED TIME' HAS
TAKEN DURING MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS OF GROWTH INCLUDE PROGRAMS WHICH,
LIKE THAT BEFORE US, COULD NOT WITHSTAND THE TEST OF THE CONSTITUTION;
OTHERS MAY BE FOUND UNEXCEPTIONABLE."  333 U.S., AT 231. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THIS RELEASED TIME PROGRAM IS FOUNDED UPON A USE OF THE STATE'S POWER
OF COERCION, WHICH, FOR ME, DETERMINES ITS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. 
STRIPPED TO ITS ESSENTIALS, THE PLAN HAS TWO STAGES:  FIRST, THAT THE
STATE COMPEL EACH STUDENT TO YIELD A LARGE PART OF HIS TIME FOR PUBLIC
SECULAR EDUCATION; AND, SECOND, THAT SOME OF IT BE "RELEASED" TO HIM ON
CONDITION THAT HE DEVOTE IT TO SECTARIAN RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 

NO ONE SUGGESTS THAT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD PERMIT THE STATE DIRECTLY
TO REQUIRE THIS "RELEASED" TIME TO BE SPENT "UNDER THE CONTROL OF A
DULY CONSTITUTED RELIGIOUS BODY."  THIS PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHES THAT
FORBIDDEN RESULT BY INDIRECTION.  IF PUBLIC EDUCATION WERE TAKING SO
MUCH OF THE PUPILS' TIME AS TO INJURE THE PUBLIC OR THE STUDENTS'
WELFARE BY ENCROACHING UPON THEIR RELIGIOUS OPPORTUNITY, SIMPLY
SHORTENING EVERYONE'S SCHOOL DAY WOULD FACILITATE VOLUNTARY AND
OPTIONAL ATTENDANCE AT CHURCH CLASSES.  BUT THAT SUGGESTION IS REJECTED
UPON THE GROUND THAT IF THEY ARE MADE FREE MANY STUDENTS WILL NOT GO TO
THE CHURCH.  HENCE, THEY MUST BE DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM FOR THIS PERIOD,
WITH CHURCH ATTENDANCE PUT TO THEM AS ONE OF THE TWO PERMISSIBLE WAYS
OF USING IT. 

THE GREATER EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS SYSTEM OVER VOLUNTARY ATTENDANCE
AFTER SCHOOL HOURS IS DUE TO THE TRUANT OFFICER WHO, IF THE YOUNGSTER
FAILS TO GO TO THE CHURCH SCHOOL, DOGS HIM BACK TO THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLROOM.  HERE SCHOOLING IS MORE OR LESS SUSPENDED DURING THE
"RELEASED TIME" SO THE NONRELIGIOUS ATTENDANTS WILL NOT FORGE AHEAD OF
THE CHURCHGOING ABSENTEES.  BUT IT SERVES AS A TEMPORARY JAIL FOR A
PUPIL WHO WILL NOT GO TO CHURCH.  IT TAKES MORE SUBTLETY OF MIND THAN I
POSSESS TO DENY THAT THIS IS GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINT IN SUPPORT OF
RELIGION.  IT IS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IN MY VIEW, WHEN EXERTED BY
INDIRECTION AS WHEN EXERCISED FORTHRIGHTLY. 

AS ONE WHOSE CHILDREN, AS A MATTER OF FREE CHOICE, HAVE BEEN SENT TO
PRIVATELY SUPPORTED CHURCH SCHOOLS, I MAY CHALLENGE THE COURT'S
SUGGESTION THAT OPPOSITION TO THIS PLAN CAN ONLY BE ANTIRELIGIOUS,
ATHEISTIC, OR AGNOSTIC.  MY EVANGELISTIC BRETHERN CONFUSE AN OBJECTION
TO COMPULSION WITH AN OBJECTION TO RELIGION.  IT IS POSSIBLE TO HOLD A
FAITH WITH ENOUGH CONFIDENCE TO BELIEVE THAT WHAT SHOULD BE RENDERED TO
GOD DOES NOT NEED TO BE DECIDED AND COLLECTED BY CAESAR. 

THE DAY THAT THIS COUNTRY CEASES TO BE FREE FOR IRRELIGION IT WILL
CEASE TO BE FREE FOR RELIGION - EXCEPT FOR THE SECT THAT CAN WIN
POLITICAL POWER.  THE SAME EPITHETICAL JURISPRUDENCE USED BY THE COURT
TODAY TO BEAT DOWN THOSE WHO OPPOSE PRESSURING CHILDREN INTO SOME
RELIGION CAN DEVISE AS GOOD EPITHETS TOMORROW AGAINST THOSE WHO OBJECT
TO PRESSURING THEM INTO A FAVORED RELIGION.  AND, AFTER ALL, IF WE
CONCEDE TO THE STATE POWER AND WISDOM TO SINGLE OUT "DULY CONSTITUTED
RELIGIOUS" BODIES AS EXCLUSIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR COMPULSORY SECULAR
INSTRUCTION, IT WOULD BE LOGICAL TO ALSO UPHOLD THE POWER AND WISDOM TO
CHOOSE THE TRUE FAITH AMONG THOSE "DULY CONSTITUTED."  WE START DOWN A
ROUGH ROAD WHEN WE BEGIN TO MIX COMPULSORY PUBLIC EDUCATION WITH
COMPULSORY GODLINESS. 

A NUMBER OF JUSTICES JUST SHORT OF A MAJORITY OF THE MAJORITY THAT
PROMULGATES TODAY'S PASSIONATE DIALECTICS JOINED IN ANSWERING THEM IN
ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203.  THE
DISTINCTION ATTEMPTED BETWEEN THAT CASE AND THIS IS TRIVIAL, ALMOST TO
THE POINT OF CYNICISM, MAGNIFYING ITS NONESSENTIAL DETAILS AND
DISPARAGING COMPULSION WHICH WAS THE UNDERLYING REASON FOR INVALIDITY. 
A READING OF THE COURT'S OPINION IN THAT CASE ALONG WITH ITS OPINION IN
THIS CASE WILL SHOW SUCH DIFFERENCE OF OVERTONES AND UNDERTONES AS TO
MAKE CLEAR THAT THE MCCOLLUM CASE HAS PASSED LIKE A STORM IN A TEACUP. 
THE WALL WHICH THE COURT WAS PROFESSING TO ERECT BETWEEN CHURCH AND
STATE HAS BECOME EVEN MORE WARPED AND TWISTED THAN I EXPECTED.  TODAY'S
JUDGMENT WILL BE MORE INTERESTING TO STUDENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY AND OF THE
JUDICIAL PROCESSES THAN TO STUDENTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. OREGON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY 343 U.S. 326 


NO. 19.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 7, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1952 - 95 F.
SUPP. 103, AFFIRMED. 


SEEKING TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE OREGON STATE
MEDICAL SOCIETY, EIGHT COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETIES, A DOCTOR-SPONSORED
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE SALE OF PREPAID MEDICAL CARE, AND EIGHT
DOCTORS WHO WERE OFFICERS IN THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.  THE COMPLAINT
CHARGED THAT THEY CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE THE BUSINESS OF
PROVIDING PREPAID MEDICAL CARE IN OREGON AND CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN
COMPETITION BETWEEN DOCTOR-SPONSORED PREPAID MEDICAL PLANS WITHIN THE
STATE.  AFTER A TRIAL, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD FAILED TO PROVE ITS CHARGES.  HELD:
THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 328-340. 

1.  ON REVIEW, IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO TRY THE CASE
DE NOVO ON THE RECORD.  UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 338 U.S. 338. 
PP. 331-332. 

2.  RULE 52(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT, WHERE AN ACTION IS TRIED BY A COURT WITHOUT A JURY,
"FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND
DUE REGARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES," IS PECULIARLY APPLICABLE IN A
CASE, SUCH AS THIS, WHERE THE COMPLAINING PARTY CREATES A VAST RECORD
OF CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE AS TO LONG-PAST TRANSACTIONS, MOTIVES AND
PURPOSES, THE EFFECT OF WHICH DEPENDS LARGELY ON CREDIBILITY OF
WITNESSES.  P. 332. 

3.  IN AN ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT FOR AN INJUNCTION, THE SOLE
FUNCTION OF WHICH IS TO FORESTALL FUTURE VIOLATIONS, AN EXAMINATION OF
EVIDENCE RELATING TO LONG-PAST TRANSACTIONS IS JUSTIFIED ONLY WHEN IT
ILLUMINATES OR EXPLAINS THE PRESENT AND PREDICTS THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO
COME.  PP. 332-333. 

4.  CONDUCT WHICH HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED SEVEN YEARS PREVIOUSLY, IN
THE ABSENCE OF A THREAT OR LIKELIHOOD OF ITS RESUMPTION, DOES NOT
WARRANT THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION.  PP. 332-334. 

5.  THE GOVERNMENT HAVING FAILED TO PROVE A CONCERTED REFUSAL BY THE
DEFENDANT DOCTORS TO DEAL WITH PRIVATE HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS, IT IS
UNNECESSARY HERE TO DECIDE WHETHER THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST
LAWS.  PP. 334-336. 

(A)  WHERE THE HISTORIC DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND
PATIENT IS INVOLVED, THERE ARE ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE QUITE
DIFFERENT FROM THE USUAL CONSIDERATIONS PREVAILING IN ORDINARY
COMMERCIAL MATTERS.  P. 336. 

6.  THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO FIND THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD
CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN OR MONOPOLIZE THE BUSINESS OF PREPAID MEDICAL
CARE WAS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  PP. 336-337. 

7.  THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE SALE OF MEDICAL SERVICES BY
THE DOCTOR-SPONSORED ORGANIZATIONS, AS CONDUCTED IN OREGON, DID NOT
CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS; AND THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM NOT TO COMPETE DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN. V. UNITED
STATES, 317 U.S. 519, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 337-339. 

8.  A FINDING WHICH, IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORD, DOES NOT LEAVE THE
REVIEWING COURT WITH ANY "DEFINITE AND FIRM CONVICTION THAT A MISTAKE
HAS BEEN COMMITTED," IS NOT "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS."  P. 339. 

UNITED STATES V. OREGON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
OREGON. 

IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER A
TRIAL, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD
FAILED TO PROVE ITS CHARGES.  95 F. SUPP. 103.  THE UNITED STATES
APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT.  AFFIRMED, P.
340. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES (FN1) FROM DISMISSAL BY
THE DISTRICT COURT (FN2) OF ITS COMPLAINT SEEKING AN INJUNCTION TO
PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2.  (FN3) 

APPELLEES ARE THE OREGON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, EIGHT COUNTY MEDICAL
SOCIETIES, OREGON PHYSICIANS' SERVICE (AN OREGON CORPORATION ENGAGED IN
THE SALE OF PREPAID MEDICAL CARE), AND EIGHT DOCTORS WHO ARE OR HAVE
BEEN AT SOME TIME RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS IN THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. 

THIS CONTROVERSY CENTERS ABOUT TWO FORMS OF "CONTRACT PRACTICE" OF
MEDICINE.  IN ONE, PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED FOR PROFIT SELL WHAT
AMOUNTS TO A POLICY OF INSURANCE BY WHICH SMALL PERIODIC PAYMENTS
PURCHASE THE RIGHT TO CERTAIN HOSPITAL FACILITIES AND MEDICAL
ATTENTION.  IN THE OTHER, RAILROAD AND LARGE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS OF
LABOR CONTRACT WITH ONE OR MORE DOCTORS TO TREAT THEIR AILING OR
INJURED EMPLOYEES.  BOTH FORMS OF "CONTRACT PRACTICE," FOR RENDERING
THE PROMISED MEDICAL AND SURGICAL SERVICE, DEPEND UPON DOCTORS OR
PANELS OF DOCTORS WHO COOPERATE ON A FEE BASIS OR WHO ASSOCIATE
THEMSELVES WITH THE PLAN ON A FULL- OR PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT BASIS. 

OBJECTIONS OF THE ORGANIZED MEDICAL PROFESSION TO CONTRACT PRACTICE
ARE BOTH MONETARY AND ETHICAL.  SUCH PRACTICE DIVERTS PATIENTS FROM
INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONERS TO CONTRACT DOCTORS.  IT TENDS TO STANDARDIZE
FEES.  THE ETHICAL OBJECTION HAS BEEN THAT INTERVENTION BY EMPLOYER OR
INSURANCE COMPANY MAKES A TRIPARTITE MATTER OF THE DOCTOR-PATIENT
RELATION.  SINCE THE CONTRACT DOCTOR OWES HIS EMPLOYMENT AND LOOKS FOR
HIS PAY TO THE EMPLOYER OR THE INSURANCE COMPANY RATHER THAN TO THE
PATIENT, HE SERVES TWO MASTERS WITH CONFLICTING INTERESTS.  IN MANY
CASES COMPANIES ASSUMED LIABILITY FOR MEDICAL OR SURGICAL SERVICE ONLY
IF THEY APPROVED THE TREATMENT IN ADVANCE.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF
INSTANCES WHERE PROMPTLY NEEDED TREATMENT WAS DELAYED WHILE OBTAINING
COMPANY APPROVAL, AND WHERE A LAY INSURANCE OFFICIAL DISAPPROVED
TREATMENT ADVISED BY A DOCTOR. 

IN 1936, FIVE PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS WERE SELLING PREPAID MEDICAL
CERTIFICATES IN OREGON, AND DOCTORS OF THAT STATE, ALARMED AT THE
EXTENT TO WHICH PRIVATE PRACTICE WAS BEING INVADED AND SUPERSEDED BY
CONTRACT PRACTICE, COMMENCED A CRUSADE TO STAMP IT OUT.  A TOOTH-AND
CLAW STRUGGLE ENSUED BETWEEN THE ORGANIZED MEDICAL PROFESSION, ON THE
ONE HAND, AND THE ORGANIZATIONS EMPLOYING CONTRACT DOCTORS ON THE
OTHER.  THE CAMPAIGN WAS BITTER ON BOTH SIDES.  STATE AND COUNTY
MEDICAL SOCIETIES ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS AND POLICY STATEMENTS CONDEMNING
CONTRACT PRACTICE AND PHYSICIANS WHO ENGAGED IN IT.  THEY BROUGHT
PRESSURE ON INDIVIDUAL DOCTORS TO DECLINE OR ABANDON IT.  THEY
THREATENED EXPULSION FROM MEDICAL SOCIETIES, AND ONE SOCIETY DID EXPEL
SEVERAL DOCTORS FOR REFUSAL TO TERMINATE CONTRACT PRACTICES. 

HOWEVER, IN 1941, SEVEN YEARS BEFORE THIS ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THERE
WAS AN ABRUPT ABOUT-FACE ON THE PART OF THE ORGANIZED MEDICAL
PROFESSION IN OREGON.  IT WAS APPARENTLY CONVINCED THAT THE PUBLIC
DEMANDED AND WAS ENTITLED TO PURCHASE PROTECTION AGAINST UNEXPECTED
COSTS OF DISEASE AND ACCIDENT, WHICH ARE CATASTROPHIC TO PERSONS
WITHOUT RESERVES.  THE ORGANIZED DOCTORS COMPLETELY REVERSED THEIR
STRATEGY, AND, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DISCOURAGE PREPAID MEDICAL SERVICE,
DECIDED TO RENDER IT ON A NONPROFIT BASIS THEMSELVES. 

IN THAT YEAR, OREGON PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS IN
THIS ACTION, WAS FORMED.  IT IS A NONPROFIT OREGON CORPORATION,
FURNISHING PREPAID MEDICAL, SURGICAL, AND HOSPITAL CARE ON A CONTRACT
BASIS.  AS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT, "IT IS SPONSORED AND APPROVED BY
THE OREGON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY AND IS CONTROLLED AND OPERATED BY
MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY.  IT SPONSORS, APPROVES, AND COOPERATES WITH
COMPONENT COUNTY SOCIETIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE LATTER
WHICH OFFER PREPAID MEDICAL PLANS."  95 F. SUPP., AT 121.  AFTER SEVEN
YEARS OF SUCCESSFUL OPERATION, THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST
THE DOCTORS, THEIR PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR PREPAID MEDICAL
CARE COMPANY, ASSERTING TWO BASIC CHARGES:  FIRST, THAT THEY CONSPIRED
TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING PREPAID MEDICAL
CARE IN THE STATE OF OREGON, AND, SECOND, THAT THEY CONSPIRED TO
RESTRAIN COMPETITION BETWEEN DOCTOR-SPONSORED PREPAID MEDICAL PLANS
WITHIN THE STATE OF OREGON IN THAT OREGON PHYSICIANS' SERVICE WOULD NOT
FURNISH PREPAID MEDICAL CARE IN AN AREA SERVICED BY A LOCAL SOCIETY
PLAN. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE, AFTER A LONG TRIAL, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD PROVED NONE OF ITS CHARGES BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.  THE DIRECT APPEAL PROCEDURE DOES NOT GIVE
US THE BENEFIT OF REVIEW BY A COURT OF APPEALS OF FINDINGS OF FACT. 

THE APPEAL BRINGS TO US NO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF LAW OR UNSETTLED
PROBLEMS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  IT IS MUCH LIKE UNITED STATES V.
YELLOW CAB CO., 338 U.S. 338.  ITS ISSUES ARE SOLELY ONES OF FACT.  THE
RECORD IS LONG, REPLETE WITH CONFLICTS IN TESTIMONY, AND INCLUDES
QUANTITIES OF DOCUMENTARY MATERIAL TAKEN FROM THE APPELLEES' FILES AND
LETTERS WRITTEN BY DOCTORS, EMPLOYERS, AND EMPLOYEES.  THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE APPELLEES EACH PUT MORE THAN TWO SCORE OF WITNESSES ON THE
STAND.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE TRIAL THE JUDGE STATED THAT HIS WORK "DOES
NOT PERMIT THE PREPARATION OF A FORMAL OPINION IN SO COMPLEX A CASE.  I
WILL STATE MY CONCLUSIONS ON THE MAIN ISSUES AND THEN WILL APPEND SOME
NOTES MADE AT VARIOUS STAGES THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL.  THESE MAY BE OF AID
TO COUNSEL IN THE PREPARATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW TO BE SUBMITTED AS A BASIS FOR FINAL JUDGMENT."  95 F. SUPP., AT
104.  THESE NOTES INDICATED HIS DISPOSITION OF THE ISSUES, BUT THE
GOVERNMENT PREDICATES A SUGGESTION OF BIAS ON IRRELEVANT SOLILOQUIES ON
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, SOCIALIZED LAW, AND THE LIKE, WHICH THEY
CONTAINED.  ADMITTING THAT THESE DO NOT ADD STRENGTH OR PERSUASIVENESS
TO HIS OPINION, THEY DO NOT BECLOUD HIS CLEAR DISPOSITION OF THE MAIN
ISSUES OF THE CASE, IN ALL OF WHICH HE RULED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. 
COUNSEL FOR THE DOCTORS SUBMITTED DETAILED FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE
THEREWITH.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT SUBMIT REQUESTS TO FIND, BUT BY
LETTER RAISED OBJECTIONS TO VARIOUS PROPOSALS OF THE APPELLEES. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT APPELLEES DID NOT CONSPIRE TO RESTRAIN OR
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE PREPAID MEDICAL CARE IN OREGON IN THE PERIOD 1936
1941, AND THAT, EVEN IF SUCH CONSPIRACY DURING THAT TIME WAS PROVED, IT
WAS ABANDONED IN 1941 WITH THE FORMATION OF OREGON PHYSICIANS' SERVICE
MARKING THE ENTRY OF APPELLEES INTO THE PREPAID MEDICAL CARE BUSINESS. 
HE RULED THAT WHAT RESTRAINTS WERE PROVED COULD BE JUSTIFIED AS
REASONABLE TO MAINTAIN PROPER STANDARDS OF MEDICAL ETHICS.  HE FOUND
THAT SUPPLYING PREPAID MEDICAL CARE WITHIN THE STATE OF OREGON BY
DOCTOR-SPONSORED ORGANIZATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TRADE OR COMMERCE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT, BUT HE DECLINED TO RULE ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER SUPPLYING PREPAID MEDICAL CARE BY THE PRIVATE
ASSOCIATIONS IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE GOVERNMENT ASKS US TO OVERRULE EACH OF THESE FINDINGS AS CONTRARY
TO THE EVIDENCE, AND TO FIND THAT THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING PREPAID
MEDICAL CARE IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE ARE ASKED TO REVIEW THE FACTS
AND REVERSE AND REMAND THE CASE "FOR ENTRY OF A DECREE GRANTING
APPROPRIATE RELIEF."  WE ARE ASKED IN SUBSTANCE TO TRY THE CASE DE NOVO
ON THE RECORD, MAKE FINDINGS AND DETERMINE THE NATURE AND FORM OF
RELIEF.  WE HAVE HERETOFORE DECLINED TO GIVE SUCH SCOPE TO OUR REVIEW. 
UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., SUPRA.

WHILE CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, IT ALSO HAS
PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ACTION IS TRIED BY A COURT WITHOUT A JURY
"FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND
DUE REGARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES."  RULE 52(A), FED. RULES
CIV. PROC. THERE IS NO CASE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR ADHERENCE TO THIS RULE
THAN ONE IN WHICH THE COMPLAINING PARTY CREATES A VAST RECORD OF
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE AS TO LONG-PAST TRANSACTIONS, MOTIVES, AND
PURPOSES, THE EFFECT OF WHICH DEPENDS LARGELY ON CREDIBILITY OF
WITNESSES. 

THE TRIAL COURT REJECTED A GROUPING BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ITS
EVIDENTIARY FACTS INTO FOUR PERIODS, 1930-1936, THE YEAR 1936, 1936
1941, AND 1941 TO TRIAL.  THAT PROPOSAL PROJECTED THE INQUIRY OVER AN
EIGHTEEN-YEAR PERIOD BEFORE THE ACTION WAS INSTITUTED.  THE COURT
ACCEPTED ONLY THE PERIOD SINCE THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON PHYSICIANS'
SERVICE AS SIGNIFICANT AND REJECTED THE EARLIER YEARS AS "ANCIENT
HISTORY" OF A TIME "WHEN THE DOCTORS WERE TRYING TO FIND THEMSELVES
...  .  IT WAS A PERIOD OF GROPING FOR THE CORRECT POSITION TO TAKE TO
ACCORD WITH CHANGING TIMES."  95 F. SUPP., AT 105.  OF COURSE, PRESENT
EVENTS HAVE ROOTS IN THE PAST, AND IT IS QUITE PROPER TO TRACE
CURRENTLY QUESTIONED CONDUCT BACKWARDS TO ILLUMINATE ITS CONNECTIONS
AND MEANINGS.  BUT WE THINK THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS QUITE RIGHT IN
REJECTING PRE-1941 EVENTS AS ESTABLISHING THE CAUSE OF ACTION THE
GOVERNMENT WAS TRYING TO MAINTAIN, AND ADOPT HIS DIVISION OF THE TIME
INVOLVED INTO TWO PERIODS, 1936-1941, AND 1941 TO TRIAL. 

IT WILL SIMPLIFY CONSIDERATION OF SUCH CASES AS THIS TO KEEP IN SIGHT
THE TARGET AT WHICH RELIEF IS AIMED.  THE SOLE FUNCTION OF AN ACTION
FOR INJUNCTION IS TO FORESTALL FUTURE VIOLATIONS.  IT IS SO UNRELATED
TO PUNISHMENT OR REPARATIONS FOR THOSE PAST THAT ITS PENDENCY OR
DECISION DOES NOT PREVENT CONCURRENT OR LATER REMEDY FOR PAST
VIOLATIONS BY INDICTMENT OR ACTION FOR DAMAGES BY THOSE INJURED.  ALL
IT TAKES TO MAKE THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RELIEF BY INJUNCTION IS A REAL
THREAT OF FUTURE VIOLATION OR A CONTEMPORARY VIOLATION OF A NATURE
LIKELY TO CONTINUE OR RECUR.  THIS ESTABLISHED, IT ADDS NOTHING THAT
THE CALENDAR OF YEARS GONE BY MIGHT HAVE BEEN FILLED WITH
TRANSGRESSIONS.  EVEN WHERE RELIEF IS MANDATORY IN FORM, IT IS TO UNDO
EXISTING CONDITIONS, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY ARE LIKELY TO CONTINUE.  IN
A FORWARD-LOOKING ACTION SUCH AS THIS, AN EXAMINATION OF "A GREAT
AMOUNT OF ARCHEOLOGY" (FN4) IS JUSTIFIED ONLY WHEN IT ILLUMINATES OR
EXPLAINS THE PRESENT AND PREDICTS THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME. 

WHEN DEFENDANTS ARE SHOWN TO HAVE SETTLED INTO A CONTINUING PRACTICE
OR ENTERED INTO A CONSPIRACY VIOLATIVE OF ANTITRUST LAWS, COURTS WILL
NOT ASSUME THAT IT HAS BEEN ABANDONED WITHOUT CLEAR PROOF.  LOCAL 167
V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 298.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURTS TO
BEWARE OF EFFORTS TO DEFEAT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BY PROTESTATIONS OF
REPENTANCE AND REFORM, ESPECIALLY WHEN ABANDONMENT SEEMS TIMED TO
ANTICIPATE SUIT, AND THERE IS PROBABILITY OF RESUMPTION.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417, 445. 

BUT WE FIND NOT THE SLIGHTEST REASON TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS, GOOD
FAITH OR PERMANENCE OF THE CHANGED ATTITUDE AND STRATEGY OF THESE
DEFENDANT-APPELLEES WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 1941.  IT OCCURRED SEVEN YEARS
BEFORE THIS SUIT WAS COMMENCED AND, SO FAR AS WE ARE INFORMED, BEFORE
IT WAS PREDICTABLE.  IT DID NOT CONSIST MERELY OF PRETENSIONS OR
PROMISES BUT WAS AN OVERT AND VISIBLE REVERSAL OF POLICY, CARRIED OUT
BY EXTENSIVE OPERATIONS WHICH HAVE EVERY APPEARANCE OF BEING PERMANENT
BECAUSE WISE AND ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE DOCTORS.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO
THREAT OR PROBABILITY OF RESUMPTION OF THE ABANDONED WARFARE AGAINST
PREPAID MEDICAL SERVICE AND THE CONTRACT PRACTICE IT ENTAILS.  WE AGREE
WITH THE TRIAL COURT THAT CONDUCT DISCONTINUED IN 1941 DOES NOT WARRANT
THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION IN 1949.  INDUSTRIAL ASSN. V. UNITED
STATES, 268 U.S. 64, 84. 

APPELLEES, IN PROVIDING PREPAID MEDICAL CARE, MAY ENGAGE IN
ACTIVITIES WHICH VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  THEY ARE NOW COMPETITORS
IN THE FIELD AND RESTRAINTS, IF ANY ARE TO BE EXPECTED, WILL BE IN
THEIR METHODS OF PROMOTION AND OPERATION OF THEIR OWN PREPAID PLAN. 
OUR DUTY IS TO INQUIRE WHETHER ANY RESTRAINTS HAVE BEEN PROVED OF A
CHARACTER LIKELY TO CONTINUE IF NOT ENJOINED. 

STRIKING THE EVENTS PRIOR TO 1941 OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE,
EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF ILLUSTRATION OR BACKGROUND INFORMATION, LITTLE
OF SUBSTANCE IS LEFT.  THE CASE DERIVED ITS COLORATION AND SUPPORT
ALMOST ENTIRELY FROM THE ABANDONED PRACTICES.  IT WOULD PROLONG THIS
OPINION BEYOND USEFUL LENGTH, TO REVIEW EVIDENTIARY DETAILS PECULIAR TO
THIS CASE.  WE MENTION WHAT APPEAR TO BE SOME HIGHLIGHTS.    ONLY THE
MULTNOMAH COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY RESORTED TO EXPULSIONS OF DOCTORS
BECAUSE OF CONTRACT-PRACTICE ACTIVITIES, AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO
EXPULSIONS FOR SUCH CAUSE SINCE 1941.  THERE WERE HINTS IN THE
TESTIMONY THAT MULTNOMAH WAS REVIVING THE EXPULSION THREAT A SHORT TIME
BEFORE THIS ACTION WAS COMMENCED, BUT NOTHING CAME OF IT, AND WHAT THAT
SOCIETY MIGHT DO WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS OWN MEMBERSHIP DOES NOT
NECESSARILY INDICATE A JOINT VENTURE OR CONSPIRACY WITH OTHER
APPELLEES. 

SOME EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON A REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE HOUSE OF
DELEGATES OF THE STATE SOCIETY AT WHICH IT WAS VOTED THAT THE "PRIVATE
PATIENT STATUS" POLICY THERETOFORE APPLIED TO PRIVATE COMMERCIAL
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION CONTRACTS BE EXTENDED TO THE INDUSTRIAL AND
RAILROAD TYPE OF CONTRACTS.  ANY SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROVISION SEEMS
NEUTRALIZED BY ANOTHER PARAGRAPH IN THE SAME REPORT, WHICH READS:  "A
RECEIPT SHOULD BE FURNISHED EACH PATIENT AT THE TIME OF EACH VISIT, AS
IT IS UNDERSTOOD THE INDUSTRIAL AND RAILROAD PLAN COMPANIES CONCERNED
WILL PROBABLY ESTABLISH A PROGRAM OF REIMBURSEMENT TO THE AFFECTED
EMPLOYEES."  THAT DOES NOT STRIKE US AS A THREAT TO RESTRICT THE
PRACTICE OF INDUSTRIAL AND RAILROAD COMPANIES OF REIMBURSING EMPLOYEES
FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT ANY AMBIGUITY WAS NOT
PROPERLY RESOLVED IN APPELLEES' FAVOR BY THE TRIAL COURT. 

THE RECORD CONTAINS A NUMBER OF LETTERS FROM DOCTORS TO PRIVATE
ASSOCIATIONS REFUSING TO ACCEPT CHECKS DIRECTLY FROM THEM.  SOME BASE
REFUSAL ON A POLICY OF THEIR LOCAL MEDICAL SOCIETY, OTHERS ARE SILENT
AS TO REASONS.  SOME MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE WRITERS' PERSONAL
RESISTANCE TO DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THE PRIVATE HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS,
FOR IT IS CLEAR THAT MANY DOCTORS OBJECTED TO FILLING OUT THE COMPANY
FORMS AND SUPPLYING DETAILS REQUIRED BY THE ASSOCIATIONS, AND PREFERRED
TO CONFINE THEMSELVES TO DIRECT DEALING WITH THE PATIENT AND LEAVING
THE PATIENT TO DEAL WITH THE ASSOCIATIONS.  SOME WRITERS MAY HAVE
MISTAKEN OR MISUNDERSTOOD THE POLICY OF LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS.  OTHERS MAY
HAVE AVOIDED DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL OPPOSITION BY THE HANDY AND
IMPERSONAL EXCUSE OF ASSOCIATION "POLICY."  THE LETTERS HAVE SOME
EVIDENTIARY VALUE, BUT IT IS NOT COMPELLING AND, WEIGHED AGAINST THE
OTHER POST-1941 EVIDENCE, DOES NOT SATISFY US THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S
FINDINGS ARE "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS." 

SINCE NO CONCERTED REFUSAL TO DEAL WITH PRIVATE HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS
HAS BEEN PROVED, WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER IT WOULD VIOLATE THE
ANTITRUST LAWS.  WE MIGHT OBSERVE IN PASSING, HOWEVER, THAT THERE ARE
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHERE THE HISTORIC DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN IS INVOLVED WHICH ARE QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THE
USUAL CONSIDERATIONS PREVAILING IN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL MATTERS.  THIS
COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT FORMS OF COMPETITION USUAL IN THE BUSINESS
WORLD MAY BE DEMORALIZING TO THE ETHICAL STANDARDS OF A PROFESSION. 
SEMLER V. OREGON STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, 294 U.S. 608. 

APPELLEES' EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE CONSPIRACY IS NOT CONCLUSIVE, IS
NECESSARILY LARGELY NEGATIVE, BUT IS TOO PERSUASIVE FOR US TO SAY IT
WAS CLEAR ERROR TO ACCEPT IT.  IN 1948, 1,210 OF THE 1,660 LICENSED
PHYSICIANS IN OREGON WERE MEMBERS OF THE OREGON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY,
AND BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1947, AND JUEN 30, 1948, 1,085 OREGON DOCTORS
BILLED AND RECEIVED PAYMENT DIRECTLY FROM THE INDUSTRIAL HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION, ONLY ONE OF THE SEVERAL PRIVATE PLANS OPERATING IN THE
STATE.  SURELY THERE WAS NO EFFECTIVE BOYCOTT, AND INEFFECTIVENESS, IN
VIEW OF THE POWER OVER ITS MEMBERS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ATTRIBUTES TO
THE SOCIETY, STRONGLY SUGGESTS THE LACK OF AN ATTEMPT TO BOYCOTT THESE
PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS.  A PARADE OF LOCAL MEDICAL SOCIETY MEMBERS FROM
ALL PARTS OF THE STATE, APPARENTLY REPUTABLE, CREDIBLE, AND INFORMED
PROFESSIONAL MEN, TESTIFIED THAT THEIR SOCIETIES NOW HAVE NO POLICY OF
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PRIVATE HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS, AND THAT NO
ATTEMPTS ARE MADE TO PREVENT INDIVIDUAL DOCTORS FROM COOPERATING WITH
THEM.  MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING COUNCILS OF THE STATE AND MULTNOMAH
COUNTY SOCIETIES TESTIFIED THAT SINCE 1940 THERE HAVE BEEN NO
SUGGESTIONS IN THEIR MEETINGS OF ATTEMPTS TO PREVENT INDIVIDUAL DOCTORS
FROM SERVING PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS.  THE MANAGER OF OREGON PHYSICIANS'
SERVICE TESTIFIED THAT AT NONE OF THE MANY MEETINGS AND CONFERENCES OF
LOCAL SOCIETIES ATTENDED BY HIM DID HE HEAR ANY PROPOSAL TO PREVENT
DOCTORS FROM COOPERATION WITH PRIVATE PLANS. 

IF THE TESTIMONY OF THESE MANY RESPONSIBLE WITNESSES IS GIVEN CREDIT,
NO FINDING OF CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN OR MONOPOLIZE THIS BUSINESS COULD
BE SUSTAINED.  CERTAINLY WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL
TO FIND SUCH A CONSPIRACY WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 

THE OTHER CHARGE IS THAT APPELLEES CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION
BETWEEN THE SEVERAL DOCTOR-SPONSORED ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE STATE OF
OREGON.  THE CHARGE HERE, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT FROM PARAGRAPH 33(I) OF
THE COMPLAINT, 95 F. SUPP., AT 124, IS THAT OREGON PHYSICIANS' SERVICE,
THE STATE-WIDE ORGANIZATION, AND THE COUNTY-MEDICAL-SOCIETY-SPONSORED
PLANS AGREED NOT TO COMPETE WITH ONE ANOTHER.  APPARENTLY IF A COUNTY
WAS PROVIDED WITH PREPAID MEDICAL CARE BY A LOCAL SOCIETY, THE STATE
SOCIETY WOULD STAY OUT, OR IF THE COUNTY SOCIETY WANTED TO INAUGURATE A
LOCAL PLAN, THE STATE SOCIETY WOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE AREA. 

THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE SUPPLIERS OF COMMERCIAL COMMODITIES
DIVIDE TERRITORIES AND MAKE RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS TO EXPLOIT ONLY THE
ALLOTTED MARKET, THEREBY DEPRIVING ALLOCATED COMMUNITIES OF
COMPETITION.  THIS PREPAID PLAN DOES NOT SUPPLY TO, AND ITS ALLOCATION
DOES NOT WITHHOLD FROM, ANY COMMUNITY MEDICAL SERVICE OR FACILITIES OF
ANY DESCRIPTION.  NO MATTER WHAT ORGANIZATION ISSUES THE CERTIFICATE,
IT WILL BE PERFORMED, IN THE MAIN, BY THE LOCAL DOCTORS.  THE
CERTIFICATE SERVES ONLY TO PREPAY THEIR FEES.  THE RESULT, IF THE STATE
ASSOCIATION SHOULD ENTER INTO LOCAL COMPETITION WITH THE COUNTY
ASSOCIATION, WOULD BE THAT THE INHABITANTS COULD PREPAY MEDICAL
SERVICES THROUGH EITHER ONE OF TWO MEDICAL SOCIETY CHANNELS.  THERE IS
NOT THE LEAST PROOF THAT DUPLICATING SOURCES OF THE PREPAID
CERTIFICATES WOULD MAKE THEM CHEAPER, MORE AVAILABLE OR WOULD RESULT IN
AN IMPROVED SERVICE OR HAVE ANY BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON ANYBODY.  THROUGH
THESE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THE DOCTORS OF EACH LOCALITY, IN
PRACTICAL EFFECT, OFFER THEIR SERVICES AND HOSPITALIZATION ON A PREPAID
BASIS INSTEAD OF ON THE USUAL CASH FEE OR CREDIT BASIS.  TO HOLD IT
ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY DO NOT OFFER THEIR SERVICES SIMULTANEOUSLY AND IN
THE SAME LOCALITY THROUGH BOTH A STATE AND A COUNTY ORGANIZATION WOULD
BE TO REQUIRE THEM TO COMPETE WITH THEMSELVES IN SALE OF CERTIFICATES. 
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PROVED HERE, WE CANNOT REGARD THE AGREEMENT BY
THESE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS NOT TO COMPETE AS AN UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

WITH REGARD TO THIS CHARGE, THE COURT FOUND, "THE SALE OF MEDICAL
SERVICES, BY DOCTOR SPONSORED ORGANIZATIONS, AS CONDUCTED WITHIN THE
STATE OF OREGON, IS NOT TRADE OR COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAW, NOR IS IT COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF POWER TO CONGRESS 'TO REGULATE COMMERCE
...  AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.'"  95 F. SUPP., AT 118.  IF THAT FINDING
IN BOTH ASPECTS IS NOT TO BE OVERTURNED AS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, IT, OF
COURSE, DISPOSES OF THIS CHARGE, FOR IF THERE WAS NO RESTRAINT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE CONDUCT CHARGED DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

ALMOST EVERYTHING POINTED TO IN THE RECORD BY THE GOVERNMENT AS
EVIDENCE THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE RELATES TO
ACROSS-STATE-LINE ACTIVITIES OF THE PRIVATE ASSOCIATIONS.  IT IS NOT
PROVEN, HOWEVER, TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY ANY ALLOCATION OF
TERRITORIES BY DOCTOR-SPONSORED PLANS.  SO FAR AS ANY EVIDENCE BROUGHT
TO OUR ATTENTION DISCLOSES, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE LATTER ARE WHOLLY
INTRASTATE.  THE GOVERNMENT DID SHOW THAT OREGON PHYSICIANS' SERVICE
MADE A NUMBER OF PAYMENTS TO OUT-OF-STATE DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS,
PRESUMABLY FOR TREATMENT OF POLICYHOLDERS WHO HAPPENED TO REMOVE OR
TEMPORARILY TO BE AWAY FROM OREGON WHEN NEED FOR SERVICE AROSE.  THESE
WERE, HOWEVER, FEW, SPORADIC AND INCIDENTAL.  CF. INDUSTRIAL ASSN. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 84. 

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 519, DOES NOT STAND
FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT FURNISHING OF PREPAID MEDICAL CARE ON A LOCAL
PLANE IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THAT WAS A PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 3 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT OF A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE OR COMMERCE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS NOT NECESSARY TO THE
OPERATION OF THE STATUTE THERE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT CLEARLY PROVED ITS CHARGES. 
CERTAINLY THE COURT'S FINDINGS ARE NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  "A FINDING
IS 'CLEARLY ERRONEOUS' WHEN, ALTHOUGH THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT,
THE REVIEWING COURT ON THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE IS LEFT WITH THE DEFINITE
AND FIRM CONVICTION THAT A MISTAKE HAS BEEN COMMITTED."  UNITED STATES
V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364, 395.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN PLAUSIBLY AND EARNESTLY ARGUED BUT THE RECORD
DOES NOT LEAVE US WITH ANY "DEFINITE AND FIRM CONVICTION THAT A MISTAKE
HAS BEEN COMMITTED." 

AS WAS APTLY STATED BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, ALTHOUGH IN A
CASE OF A RATHER DIFFERENT SUBSTANTIVE NATURE:  "FACE TO FACE WITH
LIVING WITNESSES THE ORIGINAL TRIER OF THE FACTS HOLDS A POSITION OF
ADVANTAGE FROM WHICH APPELLATE JUDGES ARE EXCLUDED.  IN DOUBTFUL CASES
THE EXERCISE OF HIS POWER OF OBSERVATION OFTEN PROVES THE MOST ACCURATE
METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE TRUTH ...  . HOW CAN WE SAY THE JUDGE IS
WRONG?  WE NEVER SAW THE WITNESSES  ...  .  TO THE SOPHISTICATION AND
SAGACITY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE THE LAW CONFIDES THE DUTY OF APPRAISAL." 
BOYD V. BOYD, 252 N.Y. 422, 429, 169 N.E. 632, 634. 

AFFIRMANCE IS, OF COURSE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FUTURE SUIT IF
PRACTICES IN CONDUCT OF THE OREGON PHYSICIANS' SERVICE OR THE COUNTY
SERVICES, WHETHER OR NOT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT ACTION, SHALL THREATEN
OR CONSTITUTE VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
READING CO., 226 U.S. 324, 373.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PURSUANT TO SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF 1903, 32 STAT. 823,
AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29. 

FN2  95 F. SUPP. 103. 

FN3  26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1:  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN
THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR
COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES  ...  IS DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL  ...
." 

15 U.S.C. SEC. 2:  "EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE, OR ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO
MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
...  SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR  ...  ." 

FN4  JUDGE AUGUSTUS HAND, "TRIAL EFFICIENCY," DEALING WITH ANTITRUST
CASES, BUSINESS PRACTICES UNDER FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS, SYMPOSIUM, NEW
YORK STATE BAR ASSN. (C.C.H. 1951) 31-32.  SEE ALSO SEC. VIII,
PROCEDURE IN ANTI-TRUST AND OTHER PROTRACTED CASES, A REPORT ADOPTED
SEPTEMBER 26, 1951, BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













MADSEN V. KINSELLA 343 U.S. 341 


NO. 411.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1952 - 188 F.2D
272, AFFIRMED. 


THE UNITED STATES COURT OF THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR GERMANY HAD
JURISDICTION, IN 1950, TO TRY PETITIONER, A CIVILIAN CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES WHO WAS THE DEPENDENT WIFE OF A MEMBER OF THE UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES, ON A CHARGE OF MURDERING HER HUSBAND, IN OCTOBER
1949, WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AREA OF CONTROL IN GERMANY, IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 211 OF THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE.  PP. 342-362. 

1.  BOTH UNITED STATES COURTS-MARTIAL AND UNITED STATES MILITARY
COMMISSIONS OR TRIBUNALS IN THE NATURE OF SUCH COMMISSIONS HAD
JURISDICTION IN GERMANY IN 1949-1950 TO TRY PERSONS IN THE STATUS OF
PETITIONER ON THE CHARGE AGAINST HER.  PP. 345-355. 

(A)  THE JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES COURTS-MARTIAL OVER THIS CASE
WAS CONCURRENT WITH, NOT EXCLUSIVE OF, THAT OF THE OCCUPATION COURTS. 
PP. 345-355. 

(B)  THE PROVISIONS ADDED IN 1916 BY ARTICLES 2 AND 12 OF THE
ARTICLES OF WAR, EXTENDING THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL OVER
CIVILIAN OFFENDERS AND OVER CERTAIN NONMILITARY OFFENSES, DID NOT
DEPRIVE MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS OF WHATEVER
JURISDICTION THEY THEN HAD OVER SUCH OFFENDERS AND OFFENSES, SINCE THAT
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WAS PRESERVED TO SUCH COMMISSIONS AND TRIBUNALS
BY ARTICLE 15.  PP. 350-355. 

2.  THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR GERMANY
WERE, AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL OF PETITIONER'S CASE, TRIBUNALS IN THE
NATURE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS CONFORMING TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 356-360. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT THE OCCUPATION STATUTE TOOK EFFECT PRIOR TO THE
DATE OF THE CRIME DID NOT VITIATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR
PETITIONER'S TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION.  P. 360. 

3.  PETITIONER AND THE OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST HER CAME WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION ASSIGNED TO THE COURT WHICH TRIED HER.  PP. 360-362. 

(A)  MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 31 EXPRESSLY GAVE TO THE
OCCUPATION COURTS JURISDICTION OVER CIVILIAN MEN AND WOMEN WHO WERE
SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW, AND PETITIONER WAS A "PERSON SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW" WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ARTICLE OF WAR 2(D).  PP. 360
361. 

(B)  THE REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE 7 OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
NO. 31, THAT NO PERSON SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
TRIAL FOR ANY OFFENSE "EXCEPT UPON AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMANDER-IN
CHIEF, EUROPEAN COMMAND," WAS SATISFIED IN THIS CASE.  P. 361. 

(C)  THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE WAS APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER'S OFFENSE
BY VIRTUE OF ITS EXPRESS ADOPTION BY THE UNITED STATES MILITARY
GOVERNMENT.  PP. 361-362. 

(D)  THE UNITED STATES EXPRESSLY REQUIRED THAT ITS CIVILIANS BE TRIED
BY ITS OCCUPATION COURTS RATHER THAN BY THE GERMAN COURTS.  P. 362. 

4.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF THE ALLIED HIGH
COMMISSION FOR GERMANY TO TRY PETITIONER BEING ESTABLISHED, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE DISCHARGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS FOR PETITIONER'S RELEASE FROM CUSTODY IS AFFIRMED.  P.
362. 

MADSEN V. KINSELLA, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING SEEKING PETITIONER'S RELEASE FROM
FEDERAL CUSTODY, THE DISTRICT COURT DISCHARGED THE WRIT AND REMANDED
PETITIONER TO THE CUSTODY OF RESPONDENT.  93 F. SUPP. 319.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  188 F.2D 272.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
342 U.S. 865.  AFFIRMED, P. 362. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER A UNITED STATES COURT OF THE
ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR GERMANY HAD JURISDICTION, IN 1950, TO TRY A
CIVILIAN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO WAS THE DEPENDENT WIFE OF A
MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, ON A CHARGE OF MURDERING HER
HUSBAND IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 211 OF THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE.  THE
HOMICIDE OCCURRED IN OCTOBER, 1949, WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AREA OF
CONTROL IN GERMANY.  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT
SUCH COURT HAD THAT JURISDICTION. 

THE PRESENT PROCEEDING ORIGINATES WITH A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY PETITIONER, YVETTE J. MADSEN, IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA,
SEEKING HER RELEASE FROM THE FEDERAL REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN IN WEST
VIRGINIA WHERE SHE IS SERVING A SENTENCE IMPOSED BY A UNITED STATES
COURT OF THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR GERMANY.  SHE CONTENDS THAT HER
CONFINEMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE THE COURT WHICH CONVICTED AND SENTENCED
HER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DO SO.  THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER A HEARING
BASED ON EXHIBITS AND AGREED FACTS, DISCHARGED THE WRIT AND REMANDED
PETITIONER TO THE CUSTODY OF THE RESPONDENT WARDEN OF THE REFORMATORY. 
93 F. SUPP. 319.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  188 F.2D 272. 
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE AND NOVELTY OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
RAISED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 865. 

1.  PETITIONER'S STATUS IN GERMANY.  - PETITIONER IS A NATIVE-BORN
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WHO LAWFULLY ENTERED THE AMERICAN ZONE OF
OCCUPIED GERMANY IN 1947 WITH HER HUSBAND, LIEUTENANT MADSEN OF THE
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.  IN 1949, SHE RESIDED THERE, WITH HIM, IN A
HOUSE REQUISITIONED FOR MILITARY USE, FURNISHED AND MAINTAINED BY
MILITARY AUTHORITY.  SHE WAS PERMITTED TO USE THE FACILITIES OF THE
UNITED STATES ARMY MAINTAINED THERE FOR PERSONS IN ITS SERVICE AND FOR
THOSE SERVING WITH OR ACCOMPANYING THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.  IN
BRIEF, HER STATUS WAS THAT OF A CIVILIAN DEPENDENT WIFE OF A MEMBER OF
THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES WHICH WERE THEN OCCUPYING THE UNITED
STATES AREA OF CONTROL IN GERMANY. 

OCTOBER 20, 1949, FOLLOWING HER FATAL SHOOTING OF HER HUSBAND AT
THEIR RESIDENCE IN BUCHSCHLEG, KREIS FRANKFURT, GERMANY, SHE WAS
ARRESTED THERE BY THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MILITARY POLICE.  ON THE
FOLLOWING DAY, BEFORE A "UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURT,"
(FN1) SHE WAS CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF HER HUSBAND IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 211 OF THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE.  (FN2)  IN FEBRUARY, 1950, SHE
WAS TRIED BY "THE UNITED STATES COURT OF THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR
GERMANY, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT."  (FN3)  THAT COURT WAS COMPOSED OF
THREE UNITED STATES CIVILIANS, TWO OF WHOM HAD BEEN APPOINTED AS
DISTRICT JUDGES AND ONE AS A MAGISTRATE BY OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED STATES AREA OF CONTROL.  (FN4)  THE
COURT ADJUDGED HER GUILTY AND SENTENCED HER TO 15 YEARS IN THE FEDERAL
REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN AT ALDERSON, WEST VIRGINIA, OR ELSEWHERE AS THE
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY MIGHT DIRECT.  IN MAY, THE "COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR GERMANY,"
COMPOSED OF FIVE UNITED STATES CIVILIANS APPOINTED BY THE MILITARY
GOVERNOR OF THE AREA, (FN5) AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT BUT COMMITTED HER TO
THE CUSTODY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OR HIS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.  THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
PRISONS DESIGNATED THE FEDERAL REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN AT ALDERSON, WEST
VIRGINIA, AS THE PLACE FOR HER CONFINEMENT.  (FN6) 

II.  BOTH UNITED STATES COURTS-MARTIAL, AND UNITED STATES MILITARY
COMMISSIONS OR TRIBUNALS IN THE NATURE OF SUCH COMMISSIONS, HAD
JURISDICTION IN GERMANY IN 1949-1950 TO TRY PERSONS IN THE STATUS OF
PETITIONER ON THE CHARGE AGAINST HER.  - PETITIONER DOES NOT HERE
ATTACK THE MERITS OF HER CONVICTION NOR DOES SHE CLAIM THAT ANY NON
MILITARY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR GERMANY HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY
HER.  (FN7)  IT IS AGREED BY THE PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING THAT A
REGULARLY CONVENED UNITED STATES GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL WOULD HAVE HAD
JURISDICTION TO TRY HER.  THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, CONTENDS, AND
PETITIONER DENIES, THAT THE UNITED STATES COURT OF THE ALLIED HIGH
COMMISSION FOR GERMANY, WHICH TRIED HER, ALSO HAD JURISDICTION TO DO
SO.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT ITS COURTS
MARTIAL'S JURISDICTION WAS CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF ITS OCCUPATION
COURTS, WHEREAS PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT IT WAS EXCLUSIVE OF THAT OF
ITS OCCUPATION COURTS. 

THE KEY TO THE ISSUE IS TO BE FOUND IN THE HISTORY OF UNITED STATES
MILITARY COMMISSIONS (FN8) AND OF UNITED STATES OCCUPATION COURTS IN
THE NATURE OF SUCH COMMISSIONS.  SINCE OUR NATION'S EARLIEST DAYS, SUCH
COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CONSTITUTIONALLY RECOGNIZED AGENCIES FOR MEETING
MANY URGENT GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO WAR.  (FN9)  THEY
HAVE BEEN CALLED OUR COMMON-LAW WAR COURTS.  (FN10)  THEY HAVE TAKEN
MANY FORMS AND BORNE MANY NAMES.  (FN11)  NEITHER THEIR PROCEDURE NOR
THEIR JURISDICTION HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE.  IT HAS BEEN ADAPTED
IN EACH INSTANCE TO THE NEED THAT CALLED IT FORTH.  SEE IN RE
YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, 18-23. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ATTEMPTS BY CONGRESS TO LIMIT THE PRESIDENT'S
POWER, IT APPEARS THAT, AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY OF
THE UNITED STATES, HE MAY, IN TIME OF WAR, ESTABLISH AND PRESCRIBE THE
JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS, AND OF TRIBUNALS IN
THE NATURE OF SUCH COMMISSIONS, IN TERRITORY OCCUPIED BY ARMED FORCES
OF THE UNITED STATES.  HIS AUTHORITY TO DO THIS SOMETIMES SURVIVES
CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES.  (FN12)  THE PRESIDENT HAS THE URGENT AND
INFINITE RESPONSIBILITY NOT ONLY OF COMBATING THE ENEMY BUT OF
GOVERNING ANY TERRITORY OCCUPIED BY THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE OF
ARMS.  (FN13)  THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO REFRAIN FROM LEGISLATING IN
THIS UNCHARTED AREA DOES NOT IMPLY ITS LACK OF POWER TO LEGISLATE. 
THAT EVIDENT RESTRAINT CONTRASTS WITH ITS TRADITIONAL READINESS TO
"MAKE RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND REGULATIONS OF THE LAND AND NAVAL
FORCES; ...  ."  (FN14)  UNDER THAT CLAUSE CONGRESS HAS ENACTED AND
REPEATEDLY REVISED THE ARTICLES OF WAR WHICH HAVE PRESCRIBED, WITH
PARTICULARITY, THE JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE OF THE UNITED STATES
COURTS-MARTIAL. 

ORIGINALLY CONGRESS GAVE TO COURTS-MARTIAL JURISDICTION OVER ONLY
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS RENDERING FUNCTIONAL SERVICE
TO THE ARMED FORCES IN CAMP OR IN THE FIELD.  (FN15) SIMILARLY THE
ARTICLES OF WAR AT FIRST DEALT WITH NONMILITARY CRIMES ONLY BY
SURRENDERING THE ACCUSED TO THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES.  ART. 33, AMERICAN
ARTICLES OF WAR OF 1806, WINTHROP'S MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS (2D ED.
1920 REPRINT) 979.  HOWEVER, IN 1863, THIS LATTER JURISDICTION WAS
ENLARGED TO INCLUDE MANY CRIMES "COMMITTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE IN THE
MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  ."  (FN16) STILL IT DID NOT
COVER CRIMES COMMITTED BY CIVILIANS WHO, LIKE PETITIONER, WERE MERELY
ACCOMPANYING A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

FINALLY, IN 1916, WHEN CONGRESS DID REVISE THE ARTICLES OF WAR SO AS
TO EXTEND THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL TO INCLUDE CIVILIAN
OFFENDERS IN THE STATUS OF PETITIONER, IT EXPRESSLY PRESERVED TO
"MILITARY COMMISSIONS, PROVOST COURTS, OR OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS" ALL
OF THEIR EXISTING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE WHICH
READ IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

                              "II.  COURTS-MARTIAL. 

*         *         *         *         *

               "C.  JURISDICTION. 

     *         *      *         *         * 

"ART. 15.  NOT EXCLUSIVE.  - THE PROVISIONS OF THESE ARTICLES
CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON COURTS-MARTIAL SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS
DEPRIVING MILITARY COMMISSIONS, PROVOST COURTS, OR OTHER MILITARY
TRIBUNALS OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENDERS OR
OFFENSES THAT BY THE LAW OF WAR MAY BE LAWFULLY TRIABLE BY SUCH
MILITARY COMMISSIONS, PROVOST COURTS, OR OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS."  39
STAT. 651, 652, 653.  (FN17) 

ARTICLE 15 THUS FORESTALLED PRECISELY THE CONTENTION NOW BEING MADE
BY PETITIONER.  THAT CONTENTION IS THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS, ADDED IN
1916 BY ARTICLES 2 AND 12 EXTENDING THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL
OVER CIVILIAN OFFENDERS AND OVER CERTAIN NONMILITARY OFFENSES,
AUTOMATICALLY DEPRIVED MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND OTHER MILITARY
TRIBUNALS OF WHATEVER EXISTING JURISDICTION THEY THEN HAD OVER SUCH
OFFENDERS AND OFFENSES.  ARTICLES 2 AND 12, TOGETHER, EXTENDED THE
JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL SO AS TO INCLUDE "ALL PERSONS
ACCOMPANYING OR SERVING WITH THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT
THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  ."  (FN18)  THE
1916 ACT ALSO INCREASED THE NONMILITARY OFFENSES FOR WHICH CIVILIAN
OFFENDERS COULD BE TRIED BY COURTS-MARTIAL.  (FN19)  ARTICLE 15,
HOWEVER, COMPLETELY DISPOSES OF THAT CONTENTION.  IT STATES
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT DEPRIVED SUCH COMMISSIONS OR
TRIBUNALS OF THE EXISTING JURISDICTION WHICH THEY HAD OVER SUCH
OFFENDERS AND OFFENSES AS OF AUGUST 29, 1916.  39 STAT. 653, 670.  SEE
IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, AND EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY STRENGTHENS THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION. 
DURING THE CONSIDERATION BY CONGRESS OF THE PROPOSED ARTICLES OF WAR,
IN 1916, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY CROWDER SPONSORED ARTICLE
15 AND THE AUTHORITATIVE NATURE OF HIS TESTIMONY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY
THIS COURT.  IN RE YAMASHITA, SUPRA, AT 19 NOTE, 67-71.  BEFORE THE
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, HE SAID: 

"ARTICLE 15 IS NEW.  WE HAVE INCLUDED IN ARTICLE 2 AS SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW A NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY
MILITARY COMMISSION.  A MILITARY COMMISSION IS OUR COMMON-LAW WAR
COURT.  IT HAS NO STATUTORY EXISTENCE, THOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED BY
STATUTE LAW.  AS LONG AS THE ARTICLES EMBRACED THEM IN THE DESIGNATION
'PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW,' AND PROVIDED THAT THEY MIGHT BE
TRIED BY COURT-MARTIAL, I WAS AFRAID THAT, HAVING MADE A SPECIAL
PROVISION FOR THEIR TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, IT MIGHT BE HELD THAT THE
PROVISION OPERATED TO EXCLUDE TRIALS BY MILITARY COMMISSION AND OTHER
WAR COURTS; SO THIS NEW ARTICLE WAS INTRODUCED:  ...  ." 

"IT JUST SAVES TO THESE WAR COURTS THE JURISDICTION THEY NOW HAVE AND
MAKES IT A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH COURTS-MARTIAL, SO THAT THE
MILITARY COMMANDER IN THE FIELD IN TIME OF WAR WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO
EMPLOY EITHER FORM OF COURT THAT HAPPENS TO BE CONVENIENT."  S. REP.
NO. 130, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 40.  (FN20) 

THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION THUS PRESERVED IS THAT WHICH "BY STATUTE
OR BY THE LAW OF WAR MAY BE TRIABLE BY SUCH MILITARY COMMISSIONS,
PROVOST COURTS, OR OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS."  39 STAT. 653, 41 STAT.
790, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1486.  THE "LAW OF WAR" IN THAT CONNECTION INCLUDES
AT LEAST THAT PART OF THE LAW OF NATIONS WHICH DEFINES THE POWERS AND
DUTIES OF BILLIGERENT POWERS OCCUPYING ENEMY TERRITORY PENDING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.  (FN21)  THE JURISDICTION EXERCISED
BY OUR MILITARY COMMISSIONS IN THE EXAMPLES PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED
EXTENDED TO NONMILITARY CRIMES, SUCH AS MURDER AND OTHER CRIMES OF
VIOLENCE, WHICH THE UNITED STATES AS THE OCCUPYING POWER FELT IT
NECESSARY TO SUPPRESS.  IN THE CASE OF IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, 20,
FOLLOWING A QUOTATION FROM ARTICLE 15, THIS COURT SAID, "BY THUS
RECOGNIZING MILITARY COMMISSIONS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THEIR TRADITIONAL
JURISDICTION OVER ENEMY COMBATANTS UNIMPAIRED BY THE ARTICLES, CONGRESS
GAVE SANCTION, AS WE HELD IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, TO ANY USE OF THE
MILITARY COMMISSION CONTEMPLATED BY THE COMMON LAW OF WAR."  (FN22)
THE ENLARGED JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS-MARTIAL THEREFORE DID NOT
EXCLUDE THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND OF
TRIBUNALS IN THE NATURE OF SUCH COMMISSIONS. 

III.  THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR
GERMANY WERE, AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL OF PETITIONER'S CASE, TRIBUNALS
IN THE NATURE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS CONFORMING TO THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  - UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT
AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES OCCUPYING A
CERTAIN AREA OF GERMANY CONQUERED BY THE ALLIES, THE SYSTEM OF
OCCUPATION COURTS NOW BEFORE US DEVELOPED GRADUALLY.  THE OCCUPATION
COURTS IN GERMANY ARE DESIGNED ESPECIALLY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN THAT OCCUPIED TERRITORY IN RELATION TO CIVILIANS AND TO
NONMILITARY OFFENSES.  THOSE COURTS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO APPLY THE
GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE LARGELY AS IT WAS THERETOFORE IN FORCE.  (SEE
APPENDIX, INFRA, PP. 362-371, ENTITLED "CHRONOLOGY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF
UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS AND THEIR JURISDICTION OVER
CIVILIANS IN THE UNITED STATES AREA OF CONTROL IN GERMANY 1945-1950.") 
THE PRESIDENT, AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY, IN 1945
ESTABLISHED, THROUGH THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES FORCES
IN THE EUROPEAN THEATER, A UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR
GERMANY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AREA OF CONTROL.  MILITARY GOVERNMENT
COURTS, IN THE NATURE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS, WERE THEN A PART OF THE
MILITARY GOVERNMENT.  BY OCTOBER 20, 1949, WHEN PETITIONER WAS ALLEGED
TO HAVE COMMITTED THE OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST HER, THOSE COURTS WERE
KNOWN AS UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS.  THEY WERE VESTED
WITH JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE IN RELATION TO
CIVILIANS IN PETITIONER'S STATUS IN THE AREA WHERE THE HOMICIDE
OCCURRED. 

SEPTEMBER 21, 1949, THE OCCUPATION STATUTE HAD TAKEN EFFECT.  UNDER
IT THE PRESIDENT VESTED THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY
GOVERNMENT IN A CIVILIAN ACTING AS THE UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER
FOR GERMANY.  HE GAVE THAT COMMISSIONER "AUTHORITY, UNDER THE IMMEDIATE
SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE (SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO
CONSULTATION WITH AND ULTIMATE DIRECTION BY THE PRESIDENT), TO EXERCISE
ALL OF THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES IN GERMANY
(OTHER THAN THE COMMAND OF TROOPS)  .. .  ."  EXECUTIVE ORDER 10062,
JUNE 6, 1949, 14 FED. REG. 2965, APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 367; OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR GERMANY, STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 1,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1949, APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 368.  UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL
PROVISIONS OF ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION, LAW NO. 3, ARTICLE 5, 14 FED.
REG. 7458, APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 369, PREEXISTING LEGISLATION WAS APPLIED
TO THE APPROPRIATE NEW AUTHORITIES.  FINALLY BY ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION,
LAW NO. 1, ARTICLE 1, 15 FED. REG. 2086, APPENDIX, INFRA.  P. 370,
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1950, THE NAME OF THE "UNITED STATES MILITARY
GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR GERMANY" WAS CHANGED TO "UNITED STATES COURTS OF
THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR GERMANY."  THEY DERIVED THEIR AUTHORITY
FROM THE PRESIDENT AS OCCUPATION COURTS, OR TRIBUNALS IN THE NATURE OF
MILITARY COMMISSIONS, IN AREAS STILL OCCUPIED BY UNITED STATES TROOPS. 
ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WAS NO LONGER A "MILITARY GOVERNMENT," IT
WAS A GOVERNMENT PRESCRIBED BY AN OCCUPYING POWER AND IT DEPENDED UPON
THE CONTINUING MILITARY OCCUPANCY OF THE TERRITORY. 

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE OCCUPIED AREA THUS PASSED MERELY FROM THE
CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO THAT OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.  THE MILITARY FUNCTIONS CONTINUED TO
BE IMPORTANT AND WERE ADMINISTERED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMANDER
OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN GERMANY.  HE REMAINED UNDER ORDERS
TO TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES, ON REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES HIGH
COMMISSIONER, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER AND TO TAKE SUCH
OTHER ACTION AS MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE POLICY OF THE UNITED
STATES IN GERMANY.  EXECUTIVE ORDER 10062, SUPRA. 

THE JUDGES WHO SERVED ON THE OCCUPATION COURTS WERE CIVILIANS,
APPOINTED BY THE UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNOR FOR GERMANY, AND
THEREAFTER CONTINUED IN OFFICE OR APPOINTED BY THE UNITED STATES HIGH
COMMISSIONER FOR GERMANY.  THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY CONTINUED TO
STEM FROM THE PRESIDENT.  THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIAL COURT WERE
DESIGNATED BY THE CHIEF PRESIDING DISTRICT JUDGE AS A PANEL TO TRY THE
CASE.  THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS, THE SIZE OF THE AREA, THE NUMBER OF
CIVILIANS AFFECTED, THE DURATION OF THE OCCUPATION AND THE NEED FOR
ESTABLISHING CONFIDENCE IN CIVILIAN PROCEDURE EMPHASIZED THE PROPRIETY
OF TRIBUNALS OF A NONMILITARY CHARACTER.  (FN23)  WITH THIS PURPOSE,
THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR GERMANY, SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THEIR
ESTABLISHMENT, HAVE HAD A LESS MILITARY CHARACTER THAN THAT OF COURTS
MARTIAL.  (FN24)  IN 1948, PROVISION WAS MADE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
CIVILIAN JUDGES WITH SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL EXPERIENCE.  THE RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS WERE SAFEGUARDED BY A CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DEALING
WITH WARRANTS, SUMMONS, PRELIMINARY HEARINGS, TRIALS, EVIDENCE,
WITNESSES, FINDINGS, SENTENCES, CONTEMPT, REVIEW OF CASES AND APPEALS. 
(FN25)  THIS SUBJECTED GERMAN AND UNITED STATES CIVILIANS TO THE SAME
PROCEDURES AND EXHIBITED CONFIDENCE IN THE FAIRNESS OF THOSE
PROCEDURES.  (FN26) 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT, BECAUSE THE OCCUPATION STATUTE TOOK EFFECT
SEPTEMBER 21, 1949, WHEREAS THE CRIME CHARGED OCCURRED OCTOBER 20,
1949, THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR PETITIONER'S TRIAL BY MILITARY
COMMISSION EXPIRED BEFORE THE CRIME TOOK PLACE.  SUCH IS NOT THE CASE. 
THE AUTHORITY FOR SUCH COMMISSIONS DOES NOT NECESSARILY EXPIRE UPON
CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES OR EVEN, FOR ALL PURPOSES, WITH A TREATY OF
PEACE.  IT MAY CONTINUE LONG ENOUGH TO PERMIT THE OCCUPYING POWER TO
DISCHARGE ITS RESPONSIBILITES FULLY.  SANTIAGO V. NOGUERAS, 214 U.S.
260; NEELY V. HENKEL, 180 U.S. 109, 124, BURKE V. MILTENBERGER, 19
WALL.  519; LEITENSDORFER V. WEBB, 20 HOW.  176; CROSS V. HARRISON, 16
HOW.  164.  (FN27) 

IV.  PETITIONER AND THE OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST HER CAME WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION ASSIGNED TO THE COURT WHICH TRIED HER.  - UNDER UNITED
STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 31, AUGUST 18, 1948, ARTICLE
7, 14 FED. REG. 126, APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 365, THE UNITED STATES GAVE
ITS MILITARY GOVERNMENT DISTRICT COURTS "CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER ALL
PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES AREA OF CONTROL EXCEPT PERSONS, OTHER THAN
CIVILIANS, WHO ARE SUBJECT TO MILITARY, NAVAL OR AIR FORCE LAW AND ARE
SERVING WITH ANY FORCES OF THE UNITED NATIONS."  IT THUS EXCEPTED FROM
THE JURISDICTION OF THOSE OCCUPATION COURTS MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN WHO
WERE SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW BUT EXPRESSLY GAVE THOSE COURTS
JURISDICTION OVER CIVILIAN MEN AND WOMEN WHO WERE SUBJECT TO MILITARY
LAW.  ARTICLE OF WAR 2(D) FURTHER DEFINED "ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW" AS INCLUDING "ALL PERSONS ACCOMPANYING OR SERVING WITH
THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF
THE UNITED STATES  ...  ."  (FN28)  THIS INCLUDED PETITIONER. 

ARTICLE 7 OF UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 31
FURTHER PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT "NO PERSON SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW OF
THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL FOR ANY OFFENSE EXCEPT UPON
AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, EUROPEAN COMMAND."  14 FED.
REG. 126, APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 365.  THAT AUTHORIZATION APPEARS IN THE
OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE CASE OF WILMA B. YBARBO.  THE
CORRESPONDENCE INCLUDES A WRITTEN ENDORSEMENT FROM THE PROPER
AUTHORITY, DATED DECEMBER 11, 1948, COVERING NOT ONLY THE YBARBO CASE
BUT ALSO THE CASE "OF ANY DEPENDENT OF A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES
ARMED FORCES  ...  ."  SEE APPENDIX, INFRA.  P. 367. 

THE APPLICABILITY OF THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE TO PETITIONER'S OFFENSE
SPRINGS FROM ITS EXPRESS ADOPTION BY THE UNITED STATES MILITARY
GOVERNMENT.  THE UNITED STATES COMMANDING GENERAL, IN HIS PROCLAMATION
NO. 2, SEPTEMBER 19, 1945, STATED THAT, EXCEPT AS ABROGATED, SUSPENDED
OR MODIFIED BY THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT OR BY THE CONTROL COUNCIL FOR
GERMANY, "THE GERMAN LAW IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE OCCUPATION SHALL
BE APPLICABLE IN EACH AREA OF THE UNITED STATES ZONE OF OCCUPATION  ...
."  12 FED. REG. 6997, APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 363.  (FN29)  SECTION 211
OF THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE ACCORDINGLY WAS APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER ON
OCTOBER 20, 1949.  THE UNITED STATES ALSO EXPRESSLY REQUIRED THAT ITS
CIVILIANS BE TRIED BY ITS OCCUPATION COURTS RATHER THAN BY THE GERMAN
COURTS.  UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT LAW NO. 2, GERMAN COURTS,
ART. VII)(C) AND (D), 12 FED. REG. 2191, 2192, APPENDIX, INFRA, P.
364.  UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 2, ART.
II(2)(III), 12 FED. REG. 2190-2191, APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 363. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF THE ALLIED HIGH
COMMISSION FOR GERMANY TO TRY PETITIONER BEING ESTABLISHED, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE DISCHARGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS FOR PETITIONER'S RELEASE FROM CUSTODY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 31, AUGUST
18, 1948, 14 FED. REG. 124-128.  SEE APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 365. 

FN2  THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS STATES: 

"4.  SECTION 211 OF THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE READS AS FOLLOWS IN
ENGLISH TRANSLATION: 

"'MURDER - MORD: 

"'211.  (AS IN FORCE PRIOR TO 4 SEPTEMBER 1941).  WHOEVER
INTENTIONALLY KILLS A HUMAN BEING IS GUILTY OF MURDER IF THE KILLING
WAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH PREMEDITATION, AND SHALL BE PUNISHED BY DEATH. 

"'211.  (AS AMENDED 4 SEPTEMBER 1941, RGBI I, 549).  THE MURDERER
SHALL BE PUNISHED BY DEATH. 

"'A MURDERER IS HEREBY DEFINED AS ONE WHO KILLS A HUMAN BEING OUT OF
THE MORBID DESIRE TO KILL (MORDLUST): 

"'FOR THE SATISFACTION OF SEXUAL DESIRE: 

"'FOR CUPIDITY (HABGIER) OR ANY OTHER BASE MOTIVES: 

"'IN A TREACHEROUS OR CRUEL MANNER OR BY MEANS CAUSING COMMON DANGER,
OR: 

"'IN ORDER TO MAKE POSSIBLE OR TO CONCEAL ANOTHER OFFENSE. 

"'IF, IN ESPECIALLY EXCEPTIONAL CASES, THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT
SUITABLE (ANGEMESSEN), PUNISHMENT OF CONFINEMENT FOR LIFE IN A
PENITENTIARY SHALL BE IMPOSED.'" 

THE AGREED STATEMENT ALSO CONTAINS A TRANSLATION OF SECS. 44 AND 51
OF THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE PROVIDING FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE DEEMED APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER BY THE TRIAL
COURT. 

FN3  SEE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION, LAW NO. 1, ART. 1, DECEMBER 28,
1949, 15 FED. REG. 2086, APPENDIX, INFRA, PP. 370-371. 

FN4  SEE UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 31, ART. 13,
AUGUST 18, 1948, 14 FED. REG. 127. 

FN5  SEE NOTES 1, 3 AND 4, SUPRA. 

FN6  SEE 38 STAT. 1084-1085, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1452, AND, SINCE MAY 31,
1951, SEE ART. 58 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 64 STAT.
126, 50 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 639. 

FN7  THERE WAS NO NONMILITARY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN GERMANY. 
SHE ENJOYED THE IMMUNITY FROM THE JURISDICTION OF ALL GERMAN COURTS
WHICH HAD BEEN GRANTED TO NATIONALS OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND TO
FAMILIES OF MEMBERS OF THE OCCUPATION FORCES.  UNITED STATES MILITARY
GOVERNMENT LAW NO. 2, ART. VI(1), 12 FED. REG. 219L, 2192, APPENDIX,
INFRA, P. 364; ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION, LAW NO. 2, ART. 1, 14 FED. REG.
7457, APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 369; ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION, LAW NO. 13, ART.
1, 15 FED. REG. 1056-1057, SEE APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 370. 

FN8  "BY A PRACTICE DATING FROM 1847 AND RENEWED AND FIRMLY
ESTABLISHED DURING THE CIVIL WAR, MILITARY COMMISSIONS HAVE BECOME
ADOPTED AS AUTHORIZED TRIBUNALS IN THIS COUNTRY IN TIME OF WAR.  THEY
ARE SIMPLY CRIMINAL WAR COURTS, RESORTED TO FOR THE REASON THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL, CREATURES AS THEY ARE OF STATUTE, IS
RESTRICTED BY LAW, AND CAN NOT BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE CERTAIN CLASSES
OF OFFENSES WHICH IN WAR WOULD GO UNPUNISHED IN THE ABSENCE OF A
PROVISIONAL FORUM FOR THE TRIAL OF THE OFFENDERS  ...  .  THEIR
COMPETENCY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED NOT ONLY IN ACTS OF CONGRESS, BUT IN
EXECUTIVE PROCLAMATIONS, IN RULINGS OF THE COURTS, AND IN THE OPINIONS
OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.  DURING THE CIVIL WAR THEY WERE EMPLOYED IN
SEVERAL THOUSAND CASES; ...  ."  HOWLAND, DIGEST OF OPINIONS OF THE
JUDGE-ADVOCATES GENERAL OF THE ARMY (1912), 1066-1067. 

FN9  IN SPEAKING OF THE AUTHORITY AND OCCASION FOR THE USE OF A
MILITARY COMMISSION, COLONEL WILLIAM WINTHROP, IN HIS AUTHORITATIVE
WORK ON MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS (2D ED. 1920 REPRINT,) SAYS AT 831:
"  ...  IT IS THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EMPOWER
CONGRESS TO 'DECLARE WAR' AND 'RAISE ARMIES,' AND WHICH, IN AUTHORIZING
THE INITIATION OF WAR, AUTHORIZE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL NECESSARY AND
PROPER AGENCIES FOR ITS DUE PROSECUTION, FROM WHICH THIS TRIBUNAL
DERIVES ITS ORIGINAL SANCTION.  ITS AUTHORITY IS THUS THE SAME AS THE
AUTHORITY FOR THE MAKING AND WAGING OF WAR AND FOR THE EXERCISE OF
MILITARY GOVERNMENT AND MARTIAL LAW.  THE COMMISSION IS SIMPLY AN
INSTRUMENTALITY FOR THE MORE EFFICIENT EXECUTION OF THE WAR POWERS
VESTED IN CONGRESS AND THE POWER VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER
IN-CHIEF IN WAR.  IN SOME INSTANCES ...  CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY
RECOGNIZED THE MILITARY COMMISSION AS THE PROPER WAR-COURT, AND IN
TERMS PROVIDED FOR THE TRIAL THEREBY OF CERTAIN OFFENSES.  IN GENERAL,
HOWEVER, IT HAS LEFT IT TO THE PRESIDENT, AND THE MILITARY COMMANDERS
REPRESENTING HIM, TO EMPLOY THE COMMISSION, AS OCCASION MAY REQUIRE,
FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PUNISHMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR
AND OTHER OFFENCES NOT COGNIZABLE BY COURT-MARTIAL. 

"THE OCCASION FOR THE MILITARY COMMISSION ARISES PRINCIPALLY FROM THE
FACT THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT-MARTIAL PROPER, IN OUR LAW, IS
RESTRICTED BY STATUTE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY
FORCE AND TO CERTAIN SPECIFIC OFFENCES DEFINED IN A WRITTEN CODE.  IT
DOES NOT EXTEND TO MANY CRIMINAL ACTS, ESPECIALLY OF CIVILIANS,
PECULIAR TO TIME OF WAR; AND FOR THE TRIAL OF THESE A DIFFERENT
TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED  ...  .  HENCE, IN OUR MILITARY LAW, THE
DISTINCTIVE NAME OF MILITARY COMMISSION HAS BEEN ADOPTED FOR THE
EXCLUSIVELY WAR-COURT, WHICH  ...  IS ESSENTIALLY A DISTINCT TRIBUNAL
FROM THE COURT-MARTIAL OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR." 

FOR TEXT OF GENERAL SCOTT'S GENERAL ORDER NO. 20, AS AMENDED BY
GENERAL ORDER NO. 287, SEPTEMBER 17, 1847, AUTHORIZING THE APPOINTMENT
OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS IN MEXICO, SEE BIRKHIMER, MILITARY GOVERNMENT
AND MARTIAL LAW (2D ED. REV. 1904), APP. I, 581-582.  SEE ALSO, DUNCAN
V. KAHANOMOKU, 327 U.S. 304; IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1; SANTIAGO V.
NOGUERAS, 214 U.S. 260; NEELY V. HENKEL, 180 U.S. 109; MECHANICS' &
TRADERS' BANK V. UNION BANK, 22 WALL.  276, 279 NOTE; THE GRAPESHOT, 9
WALL.  129, 132; CROSS V. HARRISON, 16 HOW.  164, 190; II HALLECK,
INTERNATIONAL LAW (3D ED. 1893), 444-445.  FOR AN EXAMPLE OF THE
EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IN A MURDER CASE BY A PROVISIONAL COURT
ESTABLISHED IN LOUISIANA, IN 1862, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES AND AN OPINION BY THE PROVISIONAL JUDGE, REVIEWING
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HIS COURT, SEE
UNITED STATES V. REITER, 27 FED. CAS. NO. 16, 146.    FN10  WHILE
EXPLAINING A PROPOSED REFERENCE TO MILITARY COMMISSIONS IN ARTICLE OF
WAR 15, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL CROWDER, IN 1916, SAID, "A MILITARY
COMMISSION IS OUR COMMON-LAW WAR COURT.  IT HAS NO STATUTORY EXISTENCE,
THOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED BY STATUTE LAW."  S. REP. NO. 130, 64TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 40. 

FN11  SUCH AS MILITARY COMMISSION, COUNCIL OF WAR, MILITARY TRIBUNAL,
MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURT, PROVISIONAL COURT, PROVOST COURT, COURT OF
CONCILIATION, ARBITRATOR, SUPERIOR COURT, AND APPELLATE COURT.  AND SEE
WINTHROP, OP. CIT. 803-804. 

FN12  IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED, EVEN AFTER PEACE HAS BEEN DECLARED,
PENDING COMPLETE ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.  SEE DUNCAN V.
KAHANAMOKU, 327 U.S. 304; IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, 12-13; SANTIAGO
V. NOGUERAS, 214 U.S. 260; NEELY V. HENKEL 180 U.S. 109; BURKE V.
MILTENBERGER, 19 WALL.  519; LEITENSDORFER V. WEBB, 20 HOW.  176; CROSS
V. HARRISON, 16 HOW.  164. 

FN13  SEE ARTICLE 43 OF THE HAGUE REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND
CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND WITH SPECIAL RELATION TO MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER
THE TERRITORY OF A HOSTILE STATE (1907): 

"THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGITIMATE POWER HAVING IN FACT PASSED INTO THE
HANDS OF THE OCCUPANT, THE LATTER SHALL TAKE ALL THE MEASURES IN HIS
POWER TO RESTORE, AND ENSURE, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, PUBLIC ORDER AND
SAFETY, WHILE RESPECTING, UNLESS ABSOLUTELY PREVENTED, THE LAWS IN
FORCE IN THE COUNTRY."  36 STAT. 2306. 

"MILITARY GOVERNMENT  ...  IS AN EXERCISE OF SOVEREIGNTY, AND AS SUCH
DOMINATES THE COUNTRY WHICH IS ITS THEATRE IN ALL THE BRANCHES OF
ADMINISTRATION.  WHETHER ADMINISTERED BY OFFICERS OF THE ARMY OF THE
BELLIGERENT, OR BY CIVILIANS LEFT IN OFFICE OR APPOINTED BY HIM FOR THE
PURPOSE, IT IS THE GOVERNMENT OF AND FOR ALL THE INHABITANTS, NATIVE OR
FOREIGN, WHOLLY SUPERSEDING THE LOCAL LAW AND CIVIL AUTHORITY EXCEPT IN
SO FAR AS THE SAME MAY BE PERMITTED BY HIM TO SUBSIST  ...  .  THE
LOCAL LAWS AND ORDINANCES MAY BE LEFT IN FORCE, AND IN GENERAL SHOULD
BE, SUBJECT HOWEVER, TO THEIR BEING IN WHOLE OR IN PART SUSPENDED AND
OTHERS SUBSTITUTED IN THEIR STEAD - IN THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNING
AUTHORITY."  WINTHROP, OP. CIT. 800. 

FN14  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 14. 

FN15  ARTICLE XXXII OF THE AMERICAN ARTICLES OF WAR OF 1775 WAS TAKEN
FROM ARTICLE XXIII OF SECTION XIV OF THE BRITISH ARTICLES OF WAR OF
1765.  IT PROVIDED ONLY THAT "ALL SUTTLERS AND RETAILERS TO A CAMP, AND
ALL PERSONS WHATSOEVER, SERVING WITH THE CONTINENTAL ARMY IN THE FIELD,
THOUGH NOT INLISTED SOLDIERS, ARE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLES, RULES,
AND REGULATIONS OF THE CONTINENTAL ARMY."  WINTHROP'S MILITARY LAW AND
PRECEDENTS (2D ED. 1920 REPRINT) 956, AND SEE 941 AND 950.  ARTICLE 60
OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR OF 1806 WAS SIMILAR.  IT SUBSTITUTED "RETAINERS"
FOR "RETAILERS."  ID., AT 981.  ARTICLE 60 WAS SLIGHTLY AMENDED IN
1874.  BY 1916, AS ARTICLE 63, CONGRESS STILL PROVIDED, AS TO
CIVILIANS, MERELY THAT "ALL RETAINERS TO THE CAMP, AND ALL PERSONS
SERVING WITH THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, THOUGH NOT
ENLISTED SOLDIERS, ARE TO BE SUBJECT TO ORDERS, ACCORDING TO THE RULES
AND DISCIPLINE OF WAR."  ID., AT 991, AND SEE 98-99. 

FN16  THE ENROLLMENT ACT OF 1863 CONFERRED UPON COURTS-MARTIAL
JURISDICTION OVER MANY NONMILITARY CRIMES IF COMMITTED BY SOLDIERS IN
TIME OF WAR.  THAT ACT INCIDENTALLY RECOGNIZED A CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION OVER SUCH CRIMES IN MILITARY COMMISSIONS: 

"SEC. 30.  ...  IN TIME OF WAR, INSURRECTION, OR REBELLION, MURDER,
ASSAULT AND BATTERY WITH AN INTENT TO KILL, MANSLAUGHTER  ...  SHALL BE
PUNISHABLE BY THE SENTENCE OF A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL OR MILITARY
COMMISSION, WHEN COMMITTED BY PERSONS WHO ARE IN THE MILITARY SERVICE
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLES OF WAR; AND THE
PUNISHMENTS FOR SUCH OFFENCES SHALL NEVER BE LESS THAN THOSE INFLICTED
BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY MAY HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED."  12 STAT. 736. 

IN THE CODIFICATION PUBLISHED AS THE REVISED STATUTES OF 1874, THE
INCIDENTAL REFERENCE TO MILITARY COMMISSIONS WAS OMITTED.  ARTICLE OF
WAR 58 AT 234.  PETITIONER ATTACHES SUBSTANTIAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE
OMISSION.  IT SEEMS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT EFFECT, IF
ANY, MAY ATTACH TO THAT OMISSION IN ITS RELATION TO THE JURISDICTION OF
MILITARY COMMISSIONS OVER PERSONS IN THE MILITARY SERVICE, IT HAS NO
EFFECT ON THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS OVER CIVILIANS NOT
"IN THE MILITARY SERVICE."  THIS SECTION OF THE ACT OF 1863 WAS ENACTED
SO AS TO PLACE SOLDIERS WHO COMMITTED CERTAIN NONMILITARY CRIMES UNDER
THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COURTS.  SEE CALDWELL V. PARKER, 252 U.S.
376.  THE SECTION DID NOT RELATE TO THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS OR
COMMISSIONS OVER CIVILIANS NOT IN THE MILITARY SERVICE.  CONG. GLOBE,
37TH CONG., 3D SESS. 988, 1256, 1377, 1384 (1863).  FOR DISCUSSION OF
THE PHRASE "IN THE MILITARY SERVICE" AS USED IN ARTICLES 58 AND 60, SEE
GEN. CROWDER'S TESTIMONY.  S. REP. NO. 229, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 104. 

FN17  IN 1920, ARTICLE OF WAR 15 WAS REENACTED WITH THE ADDITION OF
"BY STATUTE OR" BEFORE THE WORDS "BY THE LAW OF WAR."  41 STAT. 790, 10
U.S.C. SEC. 1486.  IT WAS IN THAT FORM IN 1949 AND 1950.  IT WAS AGAIN
REENACTED MAY 5, 1950, AS THE PRESENT ARTICLE 21 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF
MILITARY JUSTICE, EFFECTIVE MAY 31, 1951.  64 STAT. 115, 145, 50 U.S.C.
(SUPP. IV) SEC. 581.  THE HEARINGS, IN 1949, ON THE LATTER LEGISLATION
ARE OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE HERE.  THEY DISCLOSED THAT THE UNITED STATES
MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS IN GERMANY WERE THEN EXERCISING, IN THE
OCCUPIED TERRITORY, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER UNITED STATES CIVILIANS
ACCOMPANYING THE ARMED FORCES.  ATTENTION EVEN WAS CALLED TO THE RECENT
CASE OF WILMA B. YBARBO.  LIKE PETITIONER IN THE INSTANT CASE, SHE WAS
A CIVILIAN DEPENDENT WIFE OF A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
IN GERMANY, CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF HER HUSBAND IN VIOLATION OF THE
GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE.  SHE WAS CONVICTED BY THE UNITED STATES MILITARY
GOVERNMENT COURT FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS, MARCH 14, 1949, UPHELD
HER CONVICTION, ON A LESSER CHARGE, AND SENTENCED HER TO FIVE YEARS'
IMPRISONMENT.  IN ITS OPINION, THE LATTER COURT REVIEWED THE BASIS FOR
ITS JURISDICTION.  UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT V. YBARBO, 1
U.S.M.G. COURT OF APPEALS 207.  SEE ALSO, HEARINGS BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ON H.R. 2498,
UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 876, 975,
1061.  WITH THIS PRACTICE BEFORE THEM, THE COMMITTEES OF BOTH HOUSES OF
CONGRESS RECOMMENDED THE REENACTMENT OF ARTICLE OF WAR 15 AS ARTICLE 21
OF THE NEW CODE.  THEY SAID, "THIS ARTICLE PRESERVES EXISTING ARMY AND
AIR FORCE LAW WHICH GIVES CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO MILITARY TRIBUNALS
OTHER THAN COURTS MARTIAL."  S. REP. NO. 486, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 13;
H.R. REP. NO. 491, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 17. 

FN18  THE 1916 ACT SUBSTITUTED, FOR ARTICLE 63 (SEE NOTE 15, SUPRA),
A NEW ARTICLE 12 WHICH PROVIDED THAT "GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL SHALL HAVE
POWER TO TRY ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW FOR ANY CRIME OR
OFFENSE MADE PUNISHABLE BY THESE ARTICLES, AND ANY OTHER PERSON WHO BY
THE LAW OF WAR IS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS:  ...  ."  39
STAT. 652, 41 STAT. 789, 62 STAT. 629, 10 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1483. 
A NEW ARTICLE 2 THEN DEFINED "ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW" SO AS
TO INCLUDE: 

"(D)  ALL RETAINERS TO THE CAMP AND ALL PERSONS ACCOMPANYING OR
SERVING WITH THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT THE TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IN TIME OF WAR ALL SUCH
RETAINERS AND PERSONS ACCOMPANYING OR SERVING WITH THE ARMIES OF THE
UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THOUGH NOT OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO
THESE ARTICLES; ...  ."  39 STAT. 651, 41 STAT. 787, 10 U.S.C. SEC.
1473(D). 

FN19  IN 1916, NEW ARTICLES 92 AND 93 EXPANDED THE JURISDICTION OF
COURTS-MARTIAL OVER MURDER AND CERTAIN OTHER NONMILITARY CRIMES SO AS
TO COVER THEIR COMMISSION BY ANY "PERSON SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW." 
THAT PHRASE, THROUGH ARTICLE 2, INCLUDED CIVILIANS IN THE STATUS OF
PETITIONER.  SEE NOTE 18, SUPRA.  FOR ARTICLES 92 AND 93, SEE 39 STAT.
664, 41 STAT. 805, 62 STAT. 640, 10 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 1564,
1565.  SEE NOTE 16, SUPRA, FOR THE SUBSTANCE OF ARTICLE 30 OF THE
ARTICLES OF WAR OF 1863 AND OF ARTICLE 58 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR OF
1874. 

FN20  IN EXPLAINING LIKE PROVISIONS TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
MILITARY AFFAIRS IN 1912, GENERAL CROWDER PREVIOUSLY HAD SAID: 

"THE NEXT ARTICLE, NO. 15, IS ENTIRELY NEW, AND THE REASONS FOR ITS
INSERTION IN THE CODE ARE THESE:  IN OUR WAR WITH MEXICO TWO WAR COURTS
WERE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY ORDERS OF GEN. SCOTT, VIZ, THE MILITARY
COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL OF WAR.  BY THE MILITARY COMMISSION GEN.
SCOTT TRIED CASES COGNIZABLE IN TIME OF PEACE BY CIVIL COURTS, AND BY
THE COUNCIL OF WAR HE TRIED OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR.  THE
COUNCIL OF WAR DID NOT SURVIVE THE MEXICAN WAR PERIOD, AND IN OUR
SUBSEQUENT WARS ITS JURISDICTION HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE MILITARY
COMMISSION, WHICH DURING THE CIVIL WAR PERIOD TRIED MORE THAN 2,000
CASES.  WHILE THE MILITARY COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY AUTHORIZED
BY STATUTE, ITS JURISDICTION AS A WAR COURT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS AN INSTITUTION OF THE
GREATEST IMPORTANCE IN A PERIOD OF WAR AND SHOULD BE PRESERVED.  IN THE
NEW CODE THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT AMPLIFIED
BY THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PHRASE 'PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW.' 
THERE WILL BE MORE INSTANCES IN THE FUTURE THAN IN THE PAST WHEN THE
JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL WILL OVERLAP THAT OF THE WAR COURTS, AND
THE QUESTION WOULD ARISE WHETHER CONGRESS HAVING VESTED JURISDICTION BY
STATUTE THE COMMON LAW OF WAR JURISDICTION WAS NOT OUSTED.  I WISH TO
MAKE IT PERFECTLY PLAIN BY THE NEW ARTICLE THAT IN SUCH CASES THE
JURISDICTION OF THE WAR COURT IS CONCURRENT. 

     *         *   *         *         * 

"  ...  I WAS INFLUENCED TO PROPOSE THE ARTICLE (15) LARGELY,
PERHAPS, BY EXPERIENCE DURING OUR SECOND INTERVENTION IN CUBA.  IT WAS
NOT VERY LONG AFTER THAT INTERVENTION HAD BEEN INAUGURATED UNTIL TWO
SOLDIERS WERE CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE OF SOME NATIVES.  THERE WAS NO
CIVIL COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING JURISDICTION.  PLAINLY THE
COURT-MARTIAL COULD NOT TRY THEM, AS THE CONDITION WAS NOT WAR.  THERE
WERE TWO COURSES OPEN:  FIRST, TO SURRENDER THEM FOR TRIAL BEFORE A
CUBAN COURT ...  THE SECOND COURSE WAS TO UTILIZE THE EXTRAORDINARY
AUTHORITY WHICH INHERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNOR AND
WHICH EXTENDED TO THE MAKING OF LAWS, TO PROMULGATE A SPECIAL DECREE
CREATING A PROVISIONAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF THESE MEN.  THIS SECOND
COURSE WAS FOLLOWED, AND THE ACCUSED SOLDIERS WERE TRIED BY A COURT
COMPOSED OF OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, WHICH ADMINISTERED THE PROVISIONS OF
THE SPANISH CRIMINAL CODE.  SHOULD WE BE CONFRONTED AGAIN WITH THE
NECESSITY OF INTERVENTION, THAT SITUATION IS LIKELY TO REPEAT ITSELF." 
S. REP. NO. 229, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 53, 98-99. 

FN21  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN22  IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, 28, THIS COURT SAID: 

BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR, AND ESPECIALLY ARTICLE 15, CONGRESS HAS
EXPLICITLY PROVIDED, SO FAR AS IT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY DO SO, THAT
MILITARY TRIBUNALS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENDERS OR OFFENSES
AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR IN APPROPRIATE CASES.  CONGRESS, IN ADDITION TO
MAKING RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF OUR ARMED FORCES, HAS THUS EXERCISED
ITS AUTHORITY TO DEFINE AND PUNISH OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS
BY SANCTIONING, WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, THE JURISDICTION OF
MILITARY COMMISSIONS TO TRY PERSONS FOR OFFENSES WHICH, ACCORDING TO
THE RULES AND PRECEPTS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS, AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE
LAW OF WAR, ARE COGNIZABLE BY SUCH TRIBUNALS.  AND THE PRESIDENT, AS
COMMANDER IN CHIEF, BY HIS PROCLAMATION IN TIME OF WAR HAS INVOKED THAT
LAW.  BY HIS ORDER CREATING THE PRESENT COMMISSION HE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO
EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON HIM BY CONGRESS, AND ALSO SUCH
AUTHORITY AS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF GIVES THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, TO
DIRECT THE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE FUNCTIONS WHICH MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
PERFORMED BY THE MILITARY ARM OF THE NATION IN TIME OF WAR." 

IN THAT CASE THE MILITARY COMMISSION'S CONVICTION OF SABOTEURS,
INCLUDING ONE CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS UPHELD ON CHARGES OF
VIOLATING THE LAW OF WAR AS DEFINED BY STATUTE.  ID., AT 35-38. 

FN23  THE GOVERNMENT ESTIMATES THAT THE UNITED STATES AREA OF CONTROL
HAS A GERMAN POPULATION OF ABOUT 17,000,000, PLUS UNITED NATIONS
NATIONALS, INCLUDING REFUGEES.  AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1949, IT ESTIMATES
THAT THERE WERE IN GERMANY ABOUT 34,000 DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES, PLUS 4,700 CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WITH 5,000
DEPENDENTS.  OTHER UNITED STATES AGENCIES HAD 4,100 EMPLOYEES IN
GERMANY.  THE OCCUPATION COURTS HAVE BEEN HANDLING AT LEAST 1,000
CRIMINAL CASES A MONTH, INCLUDING FROM 25 TO 30 CASES INVOLVING
AMERICAN CIVILIANS.  SEE ALSO, GENERAL ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS IN CLAY, DECISION IN GERMANY (1950), 246
248. 

FN24  UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 2, IN 1946,
PROVIDED: 

"(E)  ARTICLE V; RIGHTS OF ACCUSED.  (1)  EVERY PERSON ACCUSED BEFORE
A MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURT SHALL BE ENTITLED: 

"(I)  TO HAVE IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL A COPY OF THE CHARGES UPON WHICH HE
IS TO BE TRIED: 

"(II)  TO BE PRESENT AT HIS TRIAL, TO GIVE EVIDENCE AND TO EXAMINE OR
CROSS-EXAMINE ANY WITNESS; BUT THE COURT MAY PROCEED IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE ACCUSED IF THE ACCUSED HAS APPLIED FOR AND BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION
TO BE ABSENT, OR IF THE ACCUSED IS BELIEVED TO BE A FUGITIVE FROM
JUSTICE:    "(III)  TO CONSULT A LAWYER BEFORE TRIAL AND TO CONDUCT HIS
OWN DEFENSE OR TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE TRIAL BY A LAWYER OF HIS OWN
CHOICE, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE COURT TO DEBAR ANY PERSON FROM
APPEARING BEFORE THE COURT: 

"(IV)  IN ANY CASE IN WHICH A SENTENCE OF DEATH MAY BE IMPOSED, TO BE
REPRESENTED BY AN OFFICER OF THE ALLIED FORCES, IF HE IS NOT OTHERWISE
REPRESENTED: 

"(V)  TO BRING WITH HIM TO HIS TRIAL SUCH MATERIAL WITNESSES IN HIS
DEFENSE AS HE MAY WISH, OR TO HAVE THEM SUMMONED BY THE COURT AT HIS
REQUEST, IF PRACTICABLE: 

"(VI)  TO APPLY TO THE COURT FOR AN ADJOURNMENT WHERE NECESSARY TO
ENABLE HIM TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE: 

"(VII)  TO HAVE THE PROCEEDINGS TRANSLATED, WHEN HE IS OTHERWISE
UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH THEY ARE CONDUCTED; ...  ." 
12 FED. REG. 2191. 

FN25  UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCES 32 AND 33, CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR
GERMANY, 14 FED. REG. 128-133. 

FIELD MANUAL 27-5 (1947), AT PAGE 66, PROVIDES: 

"MILITARY GOVERNMENT TRIBUNALS ARE NOT GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF
THE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL NOR BY THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON COURTS
MARTIAL BY ARTICLES OF WAR.  EXPERIENCE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IN
ADMINISTERING JUSTICE IN AN OCCUPIED AREA, IT IS DESIRABLE TO FOLLOW
FORMS OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE WHICH ARE GENERALLY SIMILAR TO THE FORMS OF
PROCEDURE TO WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE ACCUSTOMED." 

CF. THE ORDER OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN OF OCTOBER 20, 1862, ESTABLISHING
A PROVISIONAL COURT IN NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, AS A "COURT OF RECORD
FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA" WITH A CIVILIAN AS: 

"A PROVISIONAL JUDGE, TO HOLD SAID COURT, WITH AUTHORITY TO HEAR,
TRY, AND DETERMINE ALL CAUSES, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, INCLUDING CAUSES IN
LAW, EQUITY, REVENUE, AND ADMIRALTY, AND PARTICULARLY ALL SUCH POWERS
AND JURISDICTION AS BELONG TO THE DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES, CONFORMING HIS PROCEEDINGS, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO THE
COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND PRACTICE WHICH HAS BEEN CUSTOMARY IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN LOUISIANA; HIS JUDGMENTS TO BE FINAL AND
CONCLUSIVE  ...  .  THESE APPOINTMENTS (OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,
MARSHAL AND CLERK OF THE COURT) ARE TO CONTINUE DURING THE PLEASURE OF
THE PRESIDENT, NOT EXTENDING BEYOND THE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF THE CITY
OF NEW ORLEANS, OR THE RESTORATION OF THE CIVIL AUTHORITY IN THAT CITY
AND THE STATE OF LOUISIANA."  MECHANICS' AND TRADERS' BANK V. UNION
BANK, 22 WALL.  276, 279 NOTE; AND SEE UNITED STATES V. REITER, 27 FED.
CAS. NO. 16, 146. 

FN26  THEY DID NOT PROVIDE FOR JURIES.  THE PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT
OF A GRAND JURY REQUIRED IN A FEDERAL CAPITAL CASE BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, UNDER THE TERMS OF
THAT AMENDMENT, HAS NO APPLICATION TO "CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR
NAVAL FORCES  ...  ."  THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY REQUIRED IN FEDERAL
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT IS SIMILARLY LIMITED.  SEE
EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, 40, 43-45; EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2,
123, 138. 

FN27  "  ...  THE STATUS OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT CONTINUES FROM THE
INCEPTION OF THE ACTUAL OCCUPATION TILL THE INVADER IS EXPELLED BY
FORCE OF ARMS, OR HIMSELF ABANDONS HIS CONQUEST, OR TILL, UNDER A
TREATY OF PEACE, THE COUNTRY IS RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL ALLEGIANCE OR
BECOMES INCORPORATED WITH THE DOMAIN OF THE PREVAILING BELLIGERENT." 
WINTHROP, OP. CIT. 801. 

FN28  SEE NOTE 18, SUPRA. 

FN29  CF. DOW V. JOHNSON, 100 U.S. 158, 166; KETCHUM V. BUCKLEY, 99
U.S. 188, AS ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PRACTICE OF RECOGNIZING THE EXISTING
LAW OF THE OCCUPIED AREA; AND WINTHROP, OP. CIT. 800. 

                      APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. 

            CHRONOLOGY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES MILITARY

                GOVERNMENT COURTS AND THEIR JURISDICTION OVER

                CIVILIANS IN THE UNITED STATES AREA OF CONTROL

                          IN GERMANY 1945-1950. 

1.  JUNE 5, 1945.  - ALLIED POWERS ASSUMED "SUPREME AUTHORITY WITH
RESPECT TO GERMANY, INCLUDING ALL THE POWERS POSSESSED BY THE GERMAN
GOVERNMENT, THE HIGH COMMAND AND ANY STATE, MUNICIPAL, OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OR AUTHORITY.  THE ASSUMPTION, FOR THE PURPOSES STATED
ABOVE, OF THE SAID AUTHORITY AND POWERS DOES NOT EFFECT THE ANNEXATION
OF GERMANY."  DECLARATION BY COMMANDING GENERALS REPRESENTING THE
UNITED STATES, THE SOVIET UNION, GREAT BRITAIN AND THE FRENCH
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, THE AXIS IN DEFEAT - A COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS
ON AMERICAN POLICY TOWARD GERMANY AND JAPAN, PUBLISHED BY THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, P. 63. 

2.  JULY 14, 1945.  - COMMANDING GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
IN EUROPE, ESTABLISHED A MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER HIS AUTHORITY IN THE
UNITED STATES ZONE OF OCCUPATION - MILITARY GOVERNMENT - UNITED STATES
AREA OF CONTROL, PROCLAMATION NO. 1, 12 FED. REG. 6997. 

3.  SEPTEMBER 19, 1945.  - COMMANDING GENERAL, UNITED STATES FORCES,
EUROPEAN THEATER, PROCLAIMED: 

"ARTICLE II.  EXCEPT AS HERETOFORE ABROGATED, SUSPENDED OR MODIFIED
BY MILITARY GOVERNMENT OR BY THE CONTROL COUNCIL FOR GERMANY, THE
GERMAN LAW IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE OCCUPATION SHALL BE APPLICABLE
IN EACH AREA OF THE UNITED STATES ZONE OF OCCUPATION, UNTIL REPEALED
BY, OR SUPERSEDED BY A NEW LAW ENACTED BY THE CONTROL COUNCIL FOR
GERMANY, OR BY MILITARY GOVERNMENT OR THE STATES HEREBY CONSTITUTED OR
BY OTHER COMPETENT AUTHORITY."  MILITARY GOVERNMENT - UNITED STATES
AREA OF CONTROL, PROCLAMATION NO. 2, 12 FED. REG. 6997. 

4.  1946.  - MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM COURTS
MARTIAL, WERE GIVEN JURISDICTION OVER ALL PERSONS IN THE OCCUPIED
TERRITORY, INCLUDING CIVILIANS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW AND OVER
OFFENSES UNDER THE LAWS OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORY. 

"  ...  ARTICLE II; JURISDICTION.  (1) MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL PERSONS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORY
EXCEPT PERSONS OTHER THAN CIVILIANS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO MILITARY, NAVAL
OR AIR FORCE LAW AND ARE SERVING UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE SUPREME
COMMANDER, ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, OR ANY OTHER COMMANDER OF ANY
FORCES OF THE UNITED NATIONS. 

"(2)  MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER: 

"(I)  ALL OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAWS AND USAGES OF WAR. 

"(II)  ALL OFFENCES UNDER ANY PROCLAMATION, LAW, ORDINANCE, NOTICE OR
ORDER ISSUED BY OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT OR OF
THE ALLIED FORCES. 

"(III)  ALL OFFENCES UNDER THE LAWS OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORY OR OF
ANY PART THEREOF."  UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 2,
MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS, 12 FED. REG. 2190-2191. 

5.  1946.  - GERMAN COURTS WERE DENIED JURISDICTION IN CERTAIN
CRIMINAL CASES, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING ANY NATIONAL OF THE UNITED
NATIONS OR ANY DEPENDENT ACCOMPANYING ANY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF ANY OF
THE UNITED NATIONS. 

"  ...  ARTICLE VI; LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.  (1) EXCEPT WHEN
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY CONTROL COUNCIL OR MILITARY GOVERNMENT LAW,
ORDINANCE OR REGULATION, OR BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF MILITARY
GOVERNMENT OF THE APPROPRIATE LAND, NO GERMAN COURT SHALL ASSERT OR
EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN THE FOLLOWING CASES OR CLASSES OF CASES: 

"(I)  CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING: 

"(A)  ANY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, OR: 

"(B)  THE ARMED FORCES OF ANY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, OR: 

"(C)  ANY PERSON SERVING WITH ANY SUCH FORCES OR A DEPENDENT
ACCOMPANYING ANY OF THEM, OR: 

"(D)  ANY NATIONAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, OR  ...  ."  UNITED STATES
MILITARY GOVERNMENT, LAW NO. 2, GERMAN COURTS, 12 FED. REG. 2191,
2192. 

6.  AUGUST 18, 1948.  - UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR
GERMANY ESTABLISHED. 

"  ...  ORDINANCE NO. 31; UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR
GERMANY; CREATION OF THE COURTS - (A) ARTICLE 1; JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  A
SYSTEM OF COURTS IS HEREBY ESTABLISHED FOR THE UNITED STATES AREA OF
CONTROL OF GERMANY  ...  . 

     *      *         *         *         * 

"(C)  ARTICLE 3; DISTRICT COURTS.  (1) A DISTRICT COURT IS HEREBY
ESTABLISHED FOR EACH JUDICIAL DISTRICT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AREA OF
CONTROL. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(3)  EACH DISTRICT COURT SHALL CONSIST OF ONE OR MORE DISTRICT
JUDGES AND ONE OR MORE MAGISTRATES WHO SHALL SIT SINGLY EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (5) OF THIS PARAGRAPH. 

     *    *         *         *         * 

"(5)  A DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE DISTRICT JUDGES OR TWO
DISTRICT JUDGES AND A MAGISTRATE MAY HEAR AND DECIDE ANY CIVIL OR
CRIMINAL CASE, AND, IN THE LATTER, MAY IMPOSE ANY LAWFUL SENTENCE
INCLUDING DEATH.  A MAJORITY OF SUCH COURT SHALL DECIDE ANY CASE BEFORE
IT, PROVIDED THAT NO SENTENCE OF DEATH SHALL BE IMPOSED EXCEPT BY THE
UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE COURT. 

     *         * *         *         * 

"(8)  WHERE AN ACCUSED IS CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE UNDER GERMAN LAW,
THE COURT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE SENTENCE OR OTHER PENAL PROVISION OF
SUCH LAW. 

     *        *         *         *         *

    "JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS 

"(G)  ARTICLE 7, JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS IN CRIMINAL CASES. 
(1) DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER ALL PERSONS
IN THE UNITED STATES AREA OF CONTROL EXCEPT PERSONS, OTHER THAN
CIVILIANS, WHO ARE SUBJECT TO MILITARY, NAVAL OR AIR FORCE LAW AND ARE
SERVING WITH ANY FORCES OF THE UNITED NATIONS.  NO PERSON SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL FOR ANY
OFFENSE EXCEPT UPON AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, EUROPEAN
COMMAND.  NO MEMBER OF AN ALLIED MISSION, VISITING GOVERNMENTAL
OFFICIAL, OR PERSON SUBJECT TO THE MILITARY LAW OF ANY COUNTRY OTHER
THAN THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL FOR ANY OFFENSE
EXCEPT UPON AUTHORIZATION OF THE MILITARY GOVERNOR. 

"(2)  DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE
CASES INVOLVING: 

"(I)  OFFENSES UNDER LEGISLATION ISSUED BY OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
THE ALLIED CONTROL COUNCIL: 

"(II)  OFFENSES UNDER UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION: 

"(III)  OFFENSES UNDER GERMAN LAW IN FORCE IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF THE COURT."  14 FED. REG. 124, 125, 126. 

7.  DECEMBER 11, 1948.  - THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE UNITED STATES
EUROPEAN COMMAND ENDORSEMENT ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF ATTORNEY, UNITED
STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR GERMANY: 

"AUTHORIZATION IS HEREBY GIVEN FOR TRIAL OF ANY DEPENDENT OF A MEMBER
OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES OR OF ANY DEPENDENT OF A CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FOR ANY NON-MILITARY OFFENSES
BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURT ESTABLISHED BY
MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 31 UNLESS, IN A PARTICULAR CASE, THIS
HEADQUARTERS HAS DIRECTED TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL."  RESP.  EX. 4,
R.71. 

8. MAY 12, 1949.  - OCCUPATION STATUTE PROMULGATED BY MILITARY
GOVERNORS AND COMMANDERS-IN-CHIEF OF THE WESTERN ZONES OF GERMANY - TO
BECOME EFFECTIVE AT A LATER DATE.  IT DECLARED THAT: 

"1.  DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE OCCUPATION
CONTINUE  ...  THE OCCUPYING POWERS DESIRE AND INTEND THAT THE GERMAN
PEOPLE SHALL ENJOY SELF-GOVERNMENT TO THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE DEGREE
CONSISTENT WITH SUCH OCCUPATION.  THE FEDERAL STATE AND THE
PARTICIPATING LAENDER (STATES) SHALL HAVE, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
LIMITATIONS IN THIS INSTRUMENT, FULL LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND
JUDICIAL POWERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BASIC LAW AND WITH THEIR
RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONS. 

"2.  IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE BASIC PURPOSES OF
THE OCCUPATION, POWERS IN THE FOLLOWING FIELDS ARE SPECIFICALLY
RESERVED  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(E)  PROTECTION, PRESTIGE, AND SECURITY OF ALLIED FORCES,
DEPENDENTS, EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVES, THEIR IMMUNITIES AND
SATISFACTION OF OCCUPATION COSTS AND THEIR OTHER REQUIREMENTS;  ... ." 
14 FED. REG. 7457. 

9.  JUNE 6, 1949.  - EXECUTIVE ORDER 10062 OF THE PRESIDENT
ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR
GERMANY: 

"2.  THE UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR GERMANY, HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS THE HIGH COMMISSIONER, SHALL BE THE SUPREME UNITED
STATES AUTHORITY IN GERMANY.  THE HIGH COMMISSIONER SHALL HAVE THE
AUTHORITY, UNDER THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO CONSULTATION WITH AND ULTIMATE DIRECTION BY THE
PRESIDENT), TO EXERCISE ALL OF THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN GERMANY (OTHER THAN THE COMMAND OF TROOPS), INCLUDING
REPRESENTATION OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR
GERMANY WHEN ESTABLISHED, AND THE EXERCISE OF APPROPRIATE FUNCTIONS OF
A CHIEF OF MISSION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE ACT OF
1946. 

     *         *    *         *         * 

"4.  IN THE EVENT THAT THE HIGH COMMISSIONER SHALL ASSUME HIS DUTIES
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER PRIOR TO THE DATE THAT THE
MILITARY GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ZONE OF GERMANY IS TERMINATED,
HE SHALL DURING SUCH INTERVAL REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, AND SHALL BE THE UNITED STATES
MILITARY GOVERNOR WITH ALL THE POWERS THEREOF INCLUDING THOSE VESTED IN
THE UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNOR UNDER ALL INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS."  14 FED. REG. 2965. 

10.  SEPTEMBER 21, 1949.  - COUNCIL OF ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION
DECLARED OCCUPATION STATUTE TO BE IN FORCE AS PROMULGATED MAY 12,
1949.  14 FED. REG. 7456. 

11.  SEPTEMBER 21, 1949.  - UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR
GERMANY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER 10062, ASSUMED THE
AUTHORITY RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNOR AND THE
OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR GERMANY FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES IN GERMANY:    "2.  THE OFFICE OF THE
U.S. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR GERMANY IS HEREBY ESTABLISHED AS THE AGENCY
THROUGH WHICH THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE U.S. HIGH COMMISSIONER SHALL
BE EXERCISED.  ITS ORGANIZATION SHALL BE AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED
CHARTS (INCLUDING U.S. HIGH COMMISSION COURTS, COURT OF APPEALS,
DISTRICT COURTS), AND ITS FUNCTIONS SHALL BE ASSIGNED AMONG ITS
CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS AS SET FORTH IN SEPARATE ISSUANCES, EFFECTIVE THIS
DATE."  OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR GERMANY,
STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 1, RESP.  EX. 1, R. 67, 68.    12.  SEPTEMBER
21, 1949.  - THE UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR GERMANY ANNOUNCED
THAT THE UNITED STATES COURTS FOR GERMANY, AS ESTABLISHED BY STAFF
ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 1 (AND PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED AS THE "UNITED STATES
MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR GERMANY," PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES
MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 31) "FORM AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL
UNIT RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY TO THE UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER.  THE
INTEGRATED SYSTEM PROVIDES FOR DISTRICT JUDGES AND MAGISTRATES AT THE
DISTRICT COURT LEVEL AND FOR A CHIEF JUDGE AND ASSOCIATE JUDGES OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS."  OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR
GERMANY, STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 5, RESP.  EX. 2, R. 69.  SIMILAR
ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE AS TO THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL AND OF THE
CHIEF ATTORNEY.  STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 6, RESP.  EX. 3, R. 70. 

13.  SEPTEMBER 21, 1949.  - "ALLIED FORCES" DEFINED BY ALLIED HIGH
COMMISSION: 

"IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION TO THE CONTRARY, IN LEGISLATION OF
THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"3. THE EXPRESSION 'ALLIED FORCES' SHALL INCLUDE: 

"(A)  THE OCCUPATION AUTHORITIES. 

"(B)  THE OCCUPATION FORCES AND THEIR MEMBERS. 

"(C)  NON-GERMAN NATIONALS, CIVILIAN OR MILITARY, WHO ARE SERVING
WITH THE OCCUPATION AUTHORITIES. 

"(D)  MEMBERS OF THE FAMILIES AND NON-GERMAN PERSONS IN THE SERVICE
OF THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN SUBPARAGRAPHS (A)(B) AND (C) OF THIS
PARAGRAPH."  ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION, LAW NO. 2, ART. 1, 14 FED. REG.
7457. 

14.  SEPTEMBER 21, 1949.  - TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS PROCLAIMED BY
ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR GERMANY ADAPTING EXISTING LEGISLATION TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE OCCUPATION STATUTE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 21, 1949. 

      "ARTICLE 5 

"REFERENCES IN ANY LEGISLATION ENACTED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF
THE OCCUPATION STATUTE TO THE CONTROL COUNCIL, THE SUPREME COMMANDER
ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, THE COMMANDING GENERAL, THE ARMED FORCES,
MILITARY GOVERNMENT, THE MILITARY GOVERNOR AND TO OTHER AUTHORITIES
SHALL, WHERE THE CONTEXT SO REQUIRES OR ADMITS, BE DEEMED TO REFER TO
THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES EXERCISING THE PARTICULAR FUNCTIONS
MENTIONED IN SUCH LEGISLATION."  ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION, LAW NO. 3, 14
FED. REG. 7458. 

15.  NOVEMBER 25, 1949.  - JUDICIAL POWERS WERE RESERVED, FROM THE
GERMAN COURTS, AS TO MEMBERS OF FAMILIES OF MEMBERS OF THE OCCUPATION
FORCES, THUS BRINGING THEM UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE OCCUPATION
COURTS. 

"THE COUNCIL OF THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

                       "ARTICLE 1 

"EXCEPT WHEN EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED, EITHER GENERALLY OR IN SPECIFIC
CASES, BY THE HIGH COMMISSIONER OF THE ZONE IN WHICH THE COURT IS
LOCATED, GERMAN COURTS SHALL NOT EXERCISE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: 

"(A)(I) OVER THE ALLIED FORCES; ...  ."  ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION, LAW
NO. 13, 15 FED. REG. 1056. 

16.  DECEMBER 28, 1949 (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1950).  - OCCUPATION
COURTS WERE CHANGED. 

"THE UNITED STATES HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR GERMANY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

                                   "ARTICLE 1 

"ARTICLE 1 OF UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 31,
'UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR GERMANY', IS HEREBY
AMENDED BY CHANGING THE LAST SENTENCE OF SAID ARTICLE TO READ AS
FOLLOWS: 

"'THE COURTS SO CREATED SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF
THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR GERMANY.'" 

                                   "ARTICLE 2 

"ARTICLE 4 OF UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 31,
'UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR GERMANY', IS HEREBY
AMENDED BY CHANGING THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SECTION 2 OF SAID ARTICLE TO
READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"'THE COURT OF APPEALS SHALL CONSIST OF A CHIEF JUSTICE AND EIGHT
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES.'" 

                          "ARTICLE 3 

"WHEREVER THE TERM 'UNITED STATES MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURTS FOR
GERMANY' OR THE TERMS 'CHIEF JUDGE' OR 'ASSOCIATE JUDGE' OR 'ASSOCIATE
JUDGES' OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE USED IN ANY LEGISLATION AND
REGULATIONS NOW IN FORCE, SUCH TERMS SHALL BE DEEMED TO REFER TO THE
UNITED STATES COURTS OF THE ALLIED HIGH COMMISSION FOR GERMANY AND THE
CHIEF JUSTICE AND AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OR ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF SUCH COURTS, RESPECTIVELY."  ALLIED HIGH
COMMISSION, LAW NO. 1, 15 FED. REG. 2086. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

PETITIONER, A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, IS NOW SERVING A FIFTEEN-YEAR
SENTENCE FOR MURDERING HER HUSBAND.  AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED CRIME,
SHE WAS LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES AREA OF CONTROL IN GERMANY WITH HER
HUSBAND WHO WAS AN AIR FORCE LIEUTENANT ON ACTIVE DUTY IN GERMANY.  IT
APPEARS THAT THE COURT THAT TRIED HER AND THE LAW SHE WAS JUDGED BY
WERE NOT ESTABLISHED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESS.  EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
ACTING UNDER PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY CREATED THE SYSTEM OF COURTS THAT
TRIED HER, PROMULGATED THE EDICTS SHE WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING, AND
APPOINTED THE JUDGES WHO TOOK AWAY HER LIBERTY. 

THE VERY FIRST ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION BEGINS BY SAYING THAT "ALL
LEGISLATIVE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED SHALL BE VESTED IN A CONGRESS" AND NO
PART OF THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS A PROVISION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING
THE PRESIDENT TO CREATE COURTS TO TRY AMERICAN CITIZENS.  WHATEVER MAY
BE THE SCOPE OF THE PRESIDENT'S POWER AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE
FIGHTING ARMED FORCES, I THINK THAT IF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN PRESENT-DAY
GERMANY ARE TO BE TRIED BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, THEY SHOULD BE
TRIED UNDER LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS AND IN COURTS CREATED BY CONGRESS
UNDER ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. 343 U.S. 236 


NO. 450.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 21, 1952 - 191 F.2D 370,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  A "BOTH-TO-BLAME" CLAUSE OF AN OCEAN BILL OF LADING, WHICH, IN THE
CASE OF A COLLISION DUE TO THE NEGLIGENT NAVIGATION OF BOTH SHIPS,
REQUIRES THE CARGO OWNER TO INDEMNIFY THE CARRIER FOR SUCH AMOUNT AS
THE CARRIER MAY LOSE BY REASON OF A RECOVERY BY THE CARGO OWNER FROM
THE NONCARRIER FOR CARGO DAMAGES WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE AGGREGATE
DAMAGES TO BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO SHIPS, HELD INVALID.  PP. 237
242. 

(A)  IT IS A GENERAL RULE OF LAW THAT COMMON CARRIERS CANNOT
STIPULATE FOR IMMUNITY FROM THEIR OWN OR THEIR AGENTS' NEGLIGENCE.  P.
239. 

(B)  THE LANGUAGE OF THE HARTER ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 192,
SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED BY THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 1304(2), DID NOT CARVE OUT A SPECIAL STATUTORY EXCEPTION TO THE
GENERAL RULE SO AS TO PERMIT A CARRIER TO DEPRIVE ITS CARGO OWNERS OF A
PART OF THE FRUITS OF ANY JUDGMENT THEY OBTAIN IN A DIRECT ACTION
AGAINST A NONCARRYING VESSEL THAT CONTRIBUTES TO A COLLISION..  PP. 239
241. 

2.  NEITHER THE HARTER ACT NOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT
ALTERED THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE THAT THE FULL BURDEN OF THE LOSSES
SUSTAINED BY BOTH SHIPS IN A BOTH-TO-BLAME COLLISION IS TO BE SHARED
EQUALLY.  PP. 241-242. 

3.  IF THE RULE THAT, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY, OCEAN COMMON
CARRIERS CANNOT STIPULATE AGAINST THEIR OWN NEGLIGENCE (OR THAT OF
THEIR AGENTS OR SERVANTS) IS TO BE CHANGED, THE CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE
BY CONGRESS, NOT BY THE SHIPOWNERS.  P. 242. 

4.  THE JASON, 225 U.S. 32, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 242, N. 10. 

UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE LIABILITY
ARISING OUT OF A COLLISION IN WHICH BOTH VESSELS WERE AT FAULT, THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD VALID A "BOTH-TO-BLAME" CLAUSE OF AN OCEAN BILL OF
LADING.  90 F. SUPP. 836.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  191 F.2D
370.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 913.  AFFIRMED, P. 242. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS ARE CARGO OWNERS (FN1) WHO SHIPPED GOODS ON THE STEAMSHIP
NATHANIEL BACON OWNED BY PETITIONER, THE UNITED STATES, AND OPERATED AS
A COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS FOR HIRE.  IT COLLIDED WITH THE ESSO BELGIUM
AND RESPONDENTS' CARGO WAS DAMAGED.  THE SHIPS WERE ALSO DAMAGED.  THIS
LITIGATION WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE LIABILITY FOR
THE DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE CARGO OWNERS AND FOR THE PHYSICAL DAMAGE
CAUSED THE SHIPS.  IT WAS AGREED IN THE DISTRICT COURT THAT: 

(A)  THE COLLISION WAS DUE TO NEGLIGENT NAVIGATION BY EMPLOYEES OF
BOTH SHIPS.  THE CARGO OWNERS WERE IN NO WAY AT FAULT. 

(B)  THE BELGIUM, AS ONE OF TWO JOINT TORTFEASORS, MUST PAY "100%" OF
DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE BACON'S CARGO OWNERS. 

(C)  BECAUSE OF SEC. 3 OF THE HARTER ACT (FN2) AND SEC. 4(2) OF THE
CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, (FN3) THE CARGO OWNERS ARE BARRED FROM
DIRECTLY SUING THE BACON FOR CARGO DAMAGES. 

(D)  SINCE THE TWO SHIPS WERE MUTUALLY AT FAULT, THE AGGREGATE OF ALL
DAMAGES TO BOTH SHOULD BE SHARED BY BOTH.  (FN4) 

(E)  IN COMPUTING THE AGGREGATE DAMAGES CAUSED BOTH SHIPS, ACCOUNT
SHOULD BE TAKEN OF THE CARGO DAMAGES RECOVERED FROM THE BELGIUM BY THE
CARGO OWNERS. 

(F)  THE BILL OF LADING ISSUED BY THE BACON TO THE CARGO OWNERS
CONTAINED A "BOTH-TO-BLAME" CLAUSE.  (FN5)  THIS CLAUSE, IF VALID,
REQUIRES THE CARGO OWNERS TO INDEMNIFY THE CARRIER BACON FOR ANY
AMOUNTS THE BACON LOSES BECAUSE DAMAGES RECOVERED BY THE CARGO OWNERS
FROM THE BELGIUM ARE INCLUDED IN THE AGGREGATE DAMAGES DIVIDED BETWEEN
THE TWO SHIPS. 

THE ONLY QUESTION PRESENTED TO US IS WHETHER THE "BOTH-TO-BLAME"
CLAUSE IS VALID.  RESPONDENT CARGO OWNERS CONTEND THAT IT IS VOID AND
UNENFORCEABLE AS A VIOLATION OF THE LONG-STANDING RULE OF LAW WHICH
FORBIDS COMMON CARRIERS FROM STIPULATING AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THEIR OWN OR THEIR EMPLOYEES' NEGLIGENCE.  PETITIONER, THE UNITED
STATES, CONTENDS THAT SEC. 3 OF THE HARTER ACT, AS SUBSTANTIALLY
REENACTED IN SEC. 4(2) OF THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, PROVIDES
SPECIAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION PERMITTING OCEAN CARRIERS TO DEVIATE
FROM THE GENERAL RULE AND TO STIPULATE AGAINST THEIR NEGLIGENCE AS THEY
DID HERE.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE CLAUSE VALID.  90 F. SUPP. 836. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  191 F.2D 370.  DEEMING THE QUESTION
DECIDED OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO JUSTIFY OUR REVIEW, THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 913. 

THERE IS A GENERAL RULE OF LAW THAT COMMON CARRIERS CANNOT STIPULATE
FOR IMMUNITY FROM THEIR OWN OR THEIR AGENTS' NEGLIGENCE.  WHILE THIS
GENERAL RULE WAS FASHIONED BY THE COURTS, IT HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY
ACCEPTED AS A GUIDE TO COMMON-CARRIER RELATIONSHIPS FOR MORE THAN A
CENTURY (FN6) AND HAS ACQUIRED THE FORCE AND PRECISION OF A LEGISLATIVE
ENACTMENT.  CONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE RULE TO THE HARTER ACT,
THIS COURT SAID IN 1901 THAT "IN VIEW OF THE WELL-SETTLED NATURE OF THE
GENERAL RULE AT THE TIME THE STATUTE WAS ADOPTED, IT MUST RESULT THAT
LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL WAS BY CLEAR IMPLICATION GIVEN TO THE GENERAL RULE
AS THEN EXISTING IN ALL CASES WHERE IT WAS NOT CHANGED."   THE
KENSINGTON, 183 U.S. 263, 268-269.  OUR QUESTION THEREFORE IS WHETHER
THE LANGUAGE OF THE HARTER ACT, SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED IN THE CARRIAGE
OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, HAS CARVED OUT A SPECIAL STATUTORY EXCEPTION TO
THE GENERAL RULE SO AS TO PERMIT A CARRIER TO DEPRIVE ITS CARGO OWNERS
OF A PART OF THE FRUITS OF ANY JUDGMENT THEY OBTAIN IN A DIRECT ACTION
AGAINST A NONCARRYING VESSEL THAT CONTRIBUTES TO A COLLISION. 

PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE HARTER ACT IN 1893, CARGO DAMAGES
INCURRED IN A BOTH-TO-BLAME COLLISION COULD BE RECOVERED IN FULL FROM
EITHER SHIP.  THE ATLAS, 93 U.S. 302.  THE HARTER ACT, UNDER SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES, TOOK AWAY THE RIGHT OF THE CARGO OWNER TO SUE HIS OWN
CARRIER FOR CARGO DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENT NAVIGATION OF THE
CARRIER'S SERVANTS OR AGENTS.  IT DID NOT DEPRIVE THE CARGO OWNER OF
HIS TORT ACTION AGAINST THE NONCARRYING SHIP.  THE CHATTAHOOCHEE, 173
U.S. 540, 549-550.  NOR DID THE HARTER ACT GO SO FAR AS TO INSULATE THE
CARRIER FROM RESPONSIBILITY TO ANOTHER VESSEL FOR PHYSICAL DAMAGES
CAUSED TO THE SHIP BY NEGLIGENT NAVIGATION OF THE CARRIER'S SERVANTS OR
AGENTS.  IN THE DELAWARE, 161 U.S. 459, 471, 474, THIS COURT DECLINED
TO GIVE THE HARTER ACT SUCH A BROAD INTERPRETATION EVEN THOUGH THE
LANGUAGE ITSELF, IF "BROADLY CONSTRUED" AND CONSIDERED ALONE, WOULD
HAVE JUSTIFIED SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.  IN ADDITION, THE HARTER ACT
DOES NOT EXONERATE THE CARRIER FROM ITS OBLIGATION TO SHARE WITH THE
NONCARRIER ONE-HALF THE DAMAGES PAID BY THE NONCARRIER TO THE CARGO
OWNERS.  THE CHATTAHOOCHEE, SUPRA, AT PP. 551-552; SEE ALSO AKTSLSK. 
CUZCO V. THE SUCARSECO, 294 U.S. 394, 401-402. 

APPARENTLY IT WAS NOT UNTIL ABOUT FORTY YEARS AFTER THE PASSAGE OF
THE HARTER ACT THAT SHIPOWNERS FIRST ATTEMPTED BY STIPULATION TO
DEPRIVE CARGO OWNERS OF A PART OF THEIR RECOVERY AGAINST NONCARRYING
SHIPS.  SEE THE W.W. BRUCE, 14 F. SUPP. 894, REV'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 94
F.2D 834.  THE PRESENT EFFORT OF SHIPOWNERS APPEARS TO DATE FROM 1937
WHEN THE NORTH ATLANTIC FREIGHT CONFERENCE ADOPTED THE "BOTH-TO-BLAME"
CLAUSE.  (FN7)  SO FAR AS APPEARS, THIS IS THE FIRST TEST OF THE
LEGALITY OF THE CLAUSE THAT HAS APPEARED IN THE COURTS.  WHEN CONGRESS
PASSED THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT IN 1936, IT INDICATED NO
PURPOSE TO BRING ABOUT A CHANGE IN THE LONG-EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS AND
OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN CARRIERS AND SHIPPERS WHICH WOULD BE RELEVANT TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE "BOTH-TO-BLAME" CLAUSE.  AT THAT TIME ALL
INTERESTED GROUPS SUCH AS CARGO OWNERS, SHIPOWNERS, AND THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF INTERESTED INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE BEFORE THE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.  (FN8)  ALTHOUGH PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS
BOTH APPEAR TO FIND COMFORT IN THE LANGUAGE AND THE HEARINGS OF THE
1936 ACT, NOTHING IN EITHER PERSUADES US THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
ALTER THE HARTER ACT IN ANY RESPECT MATERIAL TO THIS CONTROVERSY. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE CLAUSE DOES NOTHING MORE THAN REMOVE AN
"ANOMALY" WHICH ARISES FROM THIS COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE HARTER
ACT.  IT IS SAID TO BE "ANOMALOUS" TO HOLD A CARRIER NOT LIABLE AT ALL
IF IT ALONE IS GUILTY OF NEGLIGENT NAVIGATION BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO
HOLD IT INDIRECTLY LIABLE FOR ONE-HALF THE CARGO DAMAGES IF ANOTHER
SHIP IS JOINTLY NEGLIGENT WITH IT. ASSUMING FOR THE MOMENT THAT ALL
RULES OF LAW MUST BY SYMMETRICAL, WE THINK IT WOULD BE "ANOMALOUS" TO
HOLD THAT A CARGO OWNER, WHO HAS AN UNQUESTIONED RIGHT UNDER THE LAW TO
RECOVER FULL DAMAGES FROM A NONCARRYING VESSEL, CAN BE COMPELLED TO
GIVE UP A PORTION OF THAT RECOVERY TO HIS CARRIER BECAUSE OF A
STIPULATION EXACTED IN A BILL OF LADING.  MOREOVER, THERE IS NO
INDICATION THAT EITHER THE HARTER ACT OR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA
ACT WAS DESIGNED TO ALTER THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE THAT THE FULL
BURDEN OF THE LOSSES SUSTAINED BY BOTH SHIPS IN A BOTH-TO-BLAME
COLLISION IS TO BE SHARED EQUALLY.  YET THE VERY PURPOSE OF EXACTING
THIS BILL OF LADING STIPULATION IS TO ENABLE ONE SHIP TO ESCAPE ITS
EQUAL SHARE OF SUCH LOSSES BY SHIFTING A PART OF ITS BURDEN TO ITS
CARGO OWNERS. 

HERE, ONCE MORE, "WE THINK THAT LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION
CAN BEST BRING ABOUT A FAIR ACCOMMODATION OF THE DIVERSE BUT RELATED
INTERESTS" (FN9) OF THE VARIED GROUPS WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY
PERMITTING CARRIERS TO DEVIATE FROM THE CONTROLLING RULE THAT WITHOUT
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY THEY CANNOT STIPULATE AGAINST THEIR OWN
NEGLIGENCE OR THAT OF THEIR AGENTS OR SERVANTS.  IF THAT RULE IS TO BE
CHANGED, THE CONGRESS, NOT THE SHIPOWNERS, SHOULD CHANGE IT.  (FN10)
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CERTAIN INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE PARTIES TO THIS SUIT AS
SUBROGEES OF THEIR INSURED CARGO OWNERS.  SOME CARGO OWNERS WERE NOT
INSURED. 

FN2  27 STAT. 445, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 192.  THIS SECTION PROVIDES THAT IF
DUE DILIGENCE IS EXERCISED BY THE SHIPOWNER IN MAKING THE SHIP
SEAWORTHY AND PROPERLY MANNED, EQUIPPED, AND SUPPLIED, THEN "NEITHER
THE VESSEL, HER OWNER OR OWNERS, AGENT, OR CHARTERERS, SHALL BECOME OR
BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSS RESULTING FROM FAULTS OR ERRORS
IN NAVIGATION OR IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SAID VESSEL  ...  ." 

FN3  49 STAT. 1210, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1304(2).  THIS SECTION PROVIDES
THAT "NEITHER THE CARRIER NOR THE SHIP SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE ARISING OR RESULTING FROM - (A) ACT, NEGLECT, OR DEFAULT OF THE
MASTER, MARINER, PILOT, OR THE SERVANTS OF THE CARRIER IN THE
NAVIGATION OR IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SHIP; ...  ." 

FN4  THE SHIPOWNERS HAVE STIPULATED THAT IN THIS CASE THE ESSO
BELGIUM IS TO BEAR TWO-THIRDS AND THE NATHANIEL BACON ONE-THIRD OF THE
TOTAL DAMAGES, ALTHOUGH THE NORMAL ADMIRALTY RULE REQUIRES AN EQUAL
DIVISION OF DAMAGES.  HALCYON LINES V. HAENN SHIP CORP., 342 U.S. 282,
284. 

FN5  THE CLAUSE READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF THE SHIP COMES INTO COLLISION WITH ANOTHER SHIP AS A RESULT OF
THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OTHER SHIP AND ANY ACT, NEGLECT OR DEFAULT OF THE
MASTER, MARINER, PILOT OR THE SERVANTS OF THE CARRIER IN THE NAVIGATION
OR IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SHIP, THE OWNERS OF THE GOODS CARRIED
HEREUNDER WILL INDEMNIFY THE CARRIER AGAINST ALL LOSS OR LIABILITY TO
THE OTHER OR NON-CARRYING SHIP OR HER OWNERS IN SO FAR AS SUCH LOSS OR
LIABILITY REPRESENTS LOSS OF, OR DAMAGE TO, OR ANY CLAIM WHATSOEVER OF
THE OWNERS OF SAID GOODS, PAID OR PAYABLE BY THE OTHER OR NON-CARRYING
SHIP OR HER OWNERS TO THE OWNERS OF SAID GOODS AND SET-OFF, RECOUPED OR
RECOVERED BY THE OTHER OR NON-CARRYING SHIP OR HER OWNERS AS PART OF
THEIR CLAIM AGAINST THE CARRYING SHIP OR CARRIER." 

FN6  SEE.  E.G., LIVERPOOL STEAM CO. V. PHENIX INS. CO., 129 U.S.
397, 438-444 (1889); KNOTT V. BOTANY MILLS, 179 U.S. 69, 71 (1900);
RAILROAD CO. V. LOCKWOOD, 17 WALL.  357 (1873); BOSTON & MAINE R. CO.
V. PIPER, 246 U.S. 439, 445 (1918); SAN GIORGIO I V. RHEINSTROM CO.,
294 U.S. 494, 496 (1935).  AND SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 9 AM. JUR.  874
877. 

FN7  ROBINSON, ADMIRALTY, 872, 873; KNAUTH, OCEAN BILLS OF LADING (3D
ED. 1947), 95, 136, 175. 

FN8  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE ON S. 1152, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN9  HALCYON LINES V. HAENN SHIP CORP., 342 U.S. 282, 286. 

FN10  WE HAVE NOT OVERLOOKED THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS BILL OF LADING
STIPULATION SHOULD BE UPHELD BECAUSE OF THIS COURT'S HOLDING AND
OPINION IN THE JASON, 225 U.S. 32.  THE JASON CASE UPHELD A STIPULATION
THAT BOTH SHIPOWNER AND CARGO OWNER SHOULD CONTRIBUTE IN GENERAL
AVERAGE ON ACCOUNT OF SACRIFICES AND EXPENSES NECESSARILY INCURRED BY
THE MASTER OF THE SHIP IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE CARGO AS A WHOLE. 
MOREOVER, THIS GENERAL AVERAGE CLAUSE "WAS SUSTAINED BECAUSE IT
ADMITTED THE SHIPOWNER TO SHARE IN GENERAL AVERAGE ONLY IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE BY THE HARTER ACT HE WAS RELIEVED FROM
RESPONSIBILITY."  AKTSLSK.  CUZCO V. THE SUCARSECO, 294 U.S. 394, 403. 
HERE THE SHIPOWNER ATTEMPTED TO RELIEVE ITSELF FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR
NEGLIGENCE OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH DAMAGES INFLICTED ON
ANOTHER SHIP - "CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE BY THE HARTER ACT HE WAS NOT
RELIEVED FROM RESPONSIBILITY." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

ONLY A FEW WEEKS AGO THIS COURT REVERSED A UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT WHICH HAD HELD OPPOSED TO
PUBLIC POLICY, AGREEMENTS WHEREBY RETAILERS OF EYEGLASSES TURNED OVER A
PORTION OF THE PURCHASE PRICE TO THE OCULIST WHO REFERRED THE CUSTOMER
TO THEM.  IN SO DOING, "WE VOICED NO APPROVAL OF THE BUSINESS ETHICS OR
PUBLIC POLICY INVOLVED" IN THE AGREEMENTS.  LILLY V. COMMISSIONER, 343
U.S. 90, 97.  THIS REFUSAL TO MAKE OUR PRIVATE VIEWS OF RIGHT INTO THE
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF MEN OF AFFAIRS HAS INCREASINGLY
CHARACTERIZED OUR DECISIONS IN THE VAGUE AND SHIFTING AREA OF
AGREEMENTS CHALLENGED AS UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE OFFENSIVE TO WHAT MUST
BE DEEMED TO BE LEGALLY CONTROLLING POLICY.  "IN THE ABSENCE OF A PLAIN
INDICATION OF THAT DOMINANT PUBLIC POLICY THROUGH LONG GOVERNMENTAL
PRACTICE OR STATUTORY ENACTMENTS, OR OF VIOLATIONS OF OBVIOUS ETHICAL
OR MORAL STANDARDS, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT ASSUME TO DECLARE CONTRACTS
OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY."  MUSCHANY V. UNITED
STATES, 324 U.S. 49, 66-67.  NO MORE UNRESTRAINED JUSTIFICATION
WARRANTS COURTS TO STRIKE DOWN PRIVATE BUSINESS AGREEMENTS.  JUDGED BY
SUCH A STANDARD, THE AGREEMENTS BEFORE US SHOULD BE ENFORCED. 

BEFORE 1893, WHEN THE HARTER ACT (FN1) WAS PASSED, THE OBLIGATIONS OF
SEAGOING CARRIERS WITH RESPECT TO PASSENGERS AND CARGO WERE DEFINED BY
THIS COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION
FROM CASE TO CASE.  TOWARD CARGO THE OCEAN CARRIER STOOD IN THE
RELATION OF AN INSURER, LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE SAVE THAT CAUSED BY ACT
OF GOD; AND TO PASSENGERS IT OWED THE DUTY OF HIGHEST CARE.  ONLY BY
HOLDING CARRIERS TO THIS MARK WAS IT THOUGHT THAT SAFETY IN OPERATION
COULD BE ACHIEVED AND UNDUE IMPOSITION BY CARRIERS ELIMINATED.   THE
CARRIERS SOUGHT TO AVOID THESE OBLIGATIONS BY SPECIAL CONTRACTS OR
STIPULATIONS IN BILLS OF LADING, RELIEVING THEM OF LIABILITIES WHICH
THEY WOULD INCUR UNDER THE RULES LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS IN THE ABSENCE
OF SUCH AGREEMENTS.  ALTHOUGH THE COURTS UPHELD SOME SUCH EFFORTS, THEY
RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ENFORCE CONTRACTUAL EXEMPTIONS FROM
LIABILITY WHICH TRENCHED UPON JUDICIAL NOTIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY.  (FN2)
THE MOST IMPORTANT LIMIT THUS SET TO THE POWER OF THE CARRIER TO
CONTRACT OUT OF HIS COMMON-LAW LIABILITY WAS THE RULE THAT COURTS WOULD
STRIKE DOWN ANY STIPULATION WHICH RELIEVED THE CARRIER FOR HIRE FROM
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE.  APPLIED FIRST BY
THIS COURT TO THE RAILROADS, RAILROAD CO. V. LOCKWOOD, 17 WALL.  357,
THE DOCTRINE WAS EXTENDED TO CARRIERS BY SEA A FEW YEARS LATER IN
LIVERPOOL & GREAT WESTERN STEAM CO. V. PHENIX INS. CO., 129 U.S. 397. 
UNDERLYING THE DECISION WAS THE PREMISE THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT, IF
ENFORCED, WOULD TEND TO RELAX THE VIGILANCE AND CARE IN SEAMANSHIP
WHICH THE THREAT OF LIABILITY ENCOURAGED.  SEE RAILROAD CO. V.
LOCKWOOD, SUPRA, AT 371, 377-378. 

THE PROCESS BY WHICH THIS BODY OF RULES AND EXCEPTIONS WAS DEVELOPED
IS TYPICAL OF THE GROWTH OF JUDGE-MADE LAW IN OUR SYSTEM.  WITHOUT
LEGISLATIVE GUIDANCE, JUDGES IN DECIDING CASES ARE NECESSARILY THROWN
UPON THEIR OWN RESOURCES IN ASCERTAINING THE PUBLIC POLICY APPLICABLE
TO PARTICULAR SITUATIONS. 

THE JUDGE'S FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY BECOME OTHERWISE ONCE THE
LEGISLATURE HAS FORMULATED PUBLIC POLICY.  COURTS ARE THEN NO LONGER AT
LARGE.  THEY MUST CARRY OUT THE DEFINED POLICY AND DISREGARD THEIR OWN
DETERMINATION OF WHAT THE PUBLIC GOOD DEMANDS.  SEE TWIN CITY CO. V.
HARDING GLASS CO., 283 U.S. 353, 357.  BY THE HARTER ACT, CONGRESS
SUPPLANTED THE JUDICIAL VIEW OF PUBLIC POLICY WITH ITS OWN IDEAS.  THE
LEGISLATION, AS IS SO OFTEN THE CASE, REPRESENTS A COMPROMISE AMONG
COMPETING INTERESTS.  THE CARRIERS WERE RELIEVED OF THEIR JUDICIALLY
IMPOSED INSURERS' LIABILITY.  IN RETURN THEY WERE REQUIRED TO FOREGO
THE POSSIBILITY OF AVOIDING BY CONTRACT CERTAIN SPECIFIED OBLIGATIONS. 
FINALLY, IF THOSE OBLIGATIONS WERE IN FACT PERFORMED, (FN3) RECOVERY
AGAINST THE CARRIER FOR DAMAGES TO CARGO DUE TO FAULTY NAVIGATION WAS
ALTOGETHER DISALLOWED.  THIS PROVISION, EMBODIED IN SEC. 3 OF THE
HARTER ACT, (FN4) NECESSARILY EXPRESSED A REJECTION OF THE JUDICIALLY
CONCEIVED PREMISE AS TO PUBLIC POLICY WHICH WAS THE FOUNDATION OF THE
DECISIONS WHICH ANTEDATED LEGISLATION, NAMELY, THAT LIABILITY FOR
NEGLIGENT NAVIGATION WAS A NECESSARY SPUR TO THE CARRIER'S EXERCISE OF
CARE.  SINCE THAT PREMISE HAS BEEN DISCARDED BY CONGRESS, NO
JUSTIFICATION REMAINS FOR US TO REVIVE IT AS A BASIS FOR STRIKING DOWN
THE AGREEMENT HERE IN QUESTION.  "THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE POWER TO
DECIDE WHAT THE POLICY OF LAW SHALL BE, AND IF IT HAS INTIMATED ITS
WILL, HOWEVER INDIRECTLY, THAT WILL SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND OBEYED. 
THE MAJOR PREMISE OF THE CONCLUSION EXPRESSED IN A STATUTE, THE CHANGE
OF POLICY THAT INDUCES THE ENACTMENT, MAY NOT BE SET OUT IN TERMS, BUT
IT IS NOT AN ADEQUATE DISCHARGE OF DUTY FOR COURTS TO SAY:  WE SEE WHAT
YOU ARE DRIVING AT, BUT YOU HAVE NOT SAID IT, AND THEREFORE WE SHALL GO
ON AS BEFORE."  JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 163 F. 30, 32 (PER HOLMES,
J.); SEE LANDIS, STATUTES AND THE SOURCES OF LAW, IN HARVARD LEGAL
ESSAYS, 213. 

TO BE SURE, THE HARTER ACT DID NOT IN TERMS PRESCRIBE THAT THE CARRIER
SHOULD HAVE RECOVERY OVER AGAINST CARGO FOR THE AMOUNT OF ITS LIABILITY
TO A NON-CARRYING SHIP, ATTRIBUTABLE TO PAYMENTS MADE BY THE NON
CARRIER FOR DAMAGE TO CARGO IN A COLLISION FOR WHICH BOTH VESSELS WERE
TO BLAME.  HENCE WE HELD IN THE CHATTAHOOCHEE, 173 U.S. 540, THAT NO
SUCH RECOVERY WAS AVAILABLE TO A CARRIER BY MERE FORCE OF THE ACT. 
SIMILARLY, AND IN THE SAME PERIOD SHORTLY AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE
HARTER ACT, WE HELD THAT, SINCE THE ACT DID NOT SPECIFY THAT THE
CARRIER SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN A GENERAL AVERAGE (FN5) WHEN THE PERIL TO
WHICH IT RELATED WAS THE RESULT OF THE CARRIER'S FAULTY NAVIGATION, NO
SUCH PARTICIPATION COULD BE HAD IF THE CARRIER HAD NOT STIPULATED FOR
IT.  THE IRRAWADDY, 171 U.S. 187.  BUT WHEN A CARRIER DID CONTRACT FOR
SUCH PARTICIPATION, THE FORCE OF THE HARTER ACT REQUIRED THIS COURT TO
SUSTAIN THE STIPULATION.  THE JASON, 225 U.S. 32. 

"INSTEAD OF MERELY SANCTIONING COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS LIMITING THE
SHIPOWNER'S LIABILITY, CONGRESS WENT FURTHER AND RENDERED SUCH
AGREEMENTS UNNECESSARY BY REPEALING THE LIABILITY ITSELF, DECLARING
THAT IF THE SHIPOWNER SHOULD EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE THE VESSEL
IN ALL RESPECTS SEAWORTHY, AND PROPERLY MANNED, EQUIPPED AND SUPPLIED,
NEITHER THE VESSEL, HER OWNER OR OWNERS, ETC., SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR DAMAGE OR LOSS RESULTING FROM FAULTS OR ERRORS IN NAVIGATION OR IN
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL, ETC., ETC.  THE ANTITHESIS IS WORTH
NOTING.  CONGRESS SAYS TO THE SHIPOWNER - 'IN CERTAIN RESPECTS YOU
SHALL NOT BE RELIEVED FROM THE RESPONSIBILITIES INCIDENT TO YOUR PUBLIC
OCCUPATION AS A COMMON CARRIER, ALTHOUGH THE CARGO OWNERS AGREE THAT
YOU SHALL BE RELIEVED; IN CERTAIN OTHER RESPECTS (PROVIDING YOU FULFILL
CONDITIONS SPECIFIED) YOU SHALL BE RELIEVED FROM RESPONSIBILITY, EVEN
WITHOUT A STIPULATION FROM THE OWNERS OF CARGO.'"  THE JASON, SUPRA, AT
50-51. 

"IN OUR OPINION, SO FAR AS THE HARTER ACT HAS RELIEVED THE SHIPOWNER
FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF HIS MASTER AND CREW, IT IS NO
LONGER AGAINST THE POLICY OF THE LAW FOR HIM TO CONTRACT WITH THE CARGO
OWNERS FOR A PARTICIPATION IN GENERAL AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION GROWING OUT
OF SUCH NEGLIGENCE; ...  ."  ID., AT 55. 

THE PRESENT CASE BEARS EXACTLY THE SAME RELATION TO THE CHATTAHOOCHEE
THAT THE JASON BORE TO THE IRRAWADDY.  TO REVIVE NOTIONS OF PUBLIC
POLICY WHICH CONGRESS REJECTED IN 1893, DISREGARDS THE APPROPRIATE
CONSIDERATIONS THAT GOVERNED APPLICATION OF THE HARTER ACT IN THE
EARLIER DECISIONS.  (FN6)  TO DERIVE FROM A STATUTE, WHICH RELIEVES A
SHIP ENTIRELY OF LIABILITY TO CARGO WHEN THE SHIP IS WHOLLY TO BLAME
FOR THE LOSS, AS IMPLIED RESTRICTION AGAINST A VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT
FOR RELIEF FROM LIABILITY WHEN THE SHIP IS ONLY HALF TO BLAME, IS
SURELY AN ODD USE TO WHICH TO PUT SUCH A STATUTE.  WHEN THIS COURT DOES
FASHION A RULE OF PUBLIC POLICY IT OUGHT TO BE LESS PERVERSE AND
ILLOGICAL THAN THAT IN ITS OPERATION.   IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT
THE REAL MEANING OF THE HARTER ACT IS THAT CARRIERS ARE REMITTED TO
CONGRESS FOR WHATEVER IMMUNITIES THEY WERE TO BE GRANTED.  THAT IS A
MOST DOCTRINAIRE VIEW TO TAKE OF THE LEGISLATION, AND THE JASON, SUPRA,
DISPOSES OF THE NOTION.  (FN7)  WHAT CONGRESS DID WAS TO LEGISLATE
GENERALLY ABOUT THE RELATIONS BETWEEN CARRIER AND CARGO IN SEAGOING
COMMERCE.  GENERALLY, BUT NOT COMPREHENSIVELY AS THOUGH IT FORMULATED A
MARITIME CODE EXCLUDING ALL CONSENSUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITHIN THE
INDUSTRY.  THAT LEGISLATION "INDICATES OR REQUIRES AS ITS JUSTIFICATION
A CHANGE IN THE POLICY OF THE LAW, ALTHOUGH IT EXPRESSES THAT CHANGE
ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC CASES MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR TO THE MIND."  JOHNSON
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 32.  WE SHOULD HEED THE ADMONITION OF MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES "THAT COURTS IN DEALING WITH STATUTES SOMETIMES HAVE
BEEN TOO SLOW TO RECOGNIZE THAT STATUTES EVEN WHEN IN TERMS COVERING
ONLY PARTICULAR CASES MAY IMPLY A POLICY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE
COMMON LAW, AND THEREFORE MAY EXCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE COMMON LAW FOR
THE PURPOSE OF LIMITING THEIR SCOPE."  PANAMA R. CO. V. ROCK, 266 U.S.
209, 215-216 (HOLMES, J., WITH TAFT, C.J., MCKENNA AND BRANDEIS, JJ.,
DISSENTING).  THIS IS SUCH A STATUTE.  I WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THE
CONGRESSIONAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY - WHEN IT EXEMPTED
CARRIERS FROM LIABILITY FOR FAULTY NAVIGATION - PRECLUDES OUR STRIKING
DOWN THE CLAUSE HERE IN ISSUE. 

FN1  ACT OF FEB. 13, 1893, 27 STAT. 445.  THE ACT HAS NOW BEEN
SUPERSEDED BY THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1207,
46 U.S.C. SEC. 1300 ET SEQ., BUT ANY CHANGES ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE
ISSUES HERE INVOLVED. 

FN2  THE COURTS BASED THIS RESERVATION UPON THE OBSERVATION THAT SUCH
CONTRACTS WERE NOT IN FACT CONSENSUAL AGREEMENTS.  THE SHIPPER HAD
LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT THE CARRIERS' TERMS.  SEE, E.G., RAILROAD
CO. V. LOCKWOOD, 17 WALL.  357, 379; LIVERPOOL & GREAT WESTERN STEAM
CO. V. PHENIX INS. CO., 129 U.S. 397, 441.  THIS CIRCUMSTANCE DID NOT
NECESSARILY VOID THE AGREEMENT, SINCE MANY STIPULATIONS WERE UPHELD. 
BUT IT PROVIDED JUSTIFICATION FOR REFUSING TO ENFORCE THOSE WHICH
OFFENDED JUDICIALLY PRONOUNCED PUBLIC POLICY. 

FN3  THIS PROVISO WAS ELIMINATED BY THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT
OF 1936, 49 STAT.  1207, 1210, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1304. 

FN4  27 STAT. 445. 

FN5  THE GENERAL AVERAGE IS A DOCTRINE OF MARITIME LAW WHICH PROVIDES
THAT WHERE A PORTION OF SHIP OR CARGO IS SACRIFICED TO SAVE THE RESIDUE
FROM PERIL OF SHIPWRECK, EACH OWNER OF PROPERTY SAVED CONTRIBUTES IN
PROPORTION TO THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY TO MAKE UP THE LOSS OF THOSE
WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR THE COMMON BENEFIT.  IT WAS
CHARACTERISTIC OF DEAN JAMES BARR AMES'S POWER OF FERTILE
GENERALIZATION TO FIND IN THE MARITIME DOCTRINE OF GENERAL AVERAGE
MANIFESTATION OF MORE COMPREHENSIVE QUASI-CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLE AGAINST
UNJUST ENRICHMENT. 

FN6  RELIANCE BY THE COURT ON THE KENSINGTON, 183 U.S. 263, IS SURELY
MISPLACED, AND THE QUOTATION FROM IT MUST BE PUT IN ITS SETTING.  THAT
WAS A CASE IN WHICH RECOVERY WAS SOUGHT FOR DAMAGE TO A PASSENGER'S
BAGGAGE, ALTHOUGH THE TICKET CONTAINED A STIPULATION AGAINST THE
CARRIER'S LIABILITY.  THE COURT NOTED THAT THE HARTER ACT IMMUNITY FROM
LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE APPLIED ONLY TO VESSELS "WHEN ENGAGED IN THE
CLASSES OF CARRIAGE COMING WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE."  ID., AT
268.  WITHOUT DECIDING WHETHER PASSENGERS' BAGGAGE WAS SUCH A CLASS OF
CARRIAGE, THE COURT STRUCK DOWN THE STIPULATION ON THE GROUND THAT, IF
THE HARTER ACT APPLIED, THE AGREEMENT WAS VOID AS VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT
IN THAT IT SOUGHT IMMUNITY FOR NEGLIGENT STOWAGE, SPECIFICALLY
FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT; IF THE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS' BAGGAGE WAS NOT
AMONG THE CLASSES EXEMPTED FROM LIABILITY BY THE ACT, THEN OF COURSE,
THE CASES VOIDING SUCH STIPULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO BAGGAGE RETAINED
THEIR FORCE.  CERTAINLY A DECISION AFFIRMING THE CONTINUED
APPLICABILITY OF THESE CASES AS TO BAGGAGE, GOODS FOR WHICH CONGRESS
HAS NOT WITHDRAWN CARRIER LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND IN ANY EVENT
NOT FOR NEGLIGENT STOWAGE, IS TOTALLY INAPPOSITE TO CARGO, WHERE
CONGRESS HAS GRANTED THE CARRIER IMMUNITY FROM SUCH LIABILITY. 

FN7  BUT EVEN IF IT DID NOT, THE ARGUMENT APPEARS TO BE DRAWN FROM
THE BLUE.  IT WOULD HAVE BASIS IN REALITY IF CONGRESS HAD, BY THE
HARTER ACT, CARVED AN EXCEPTION FROM A PRE-EXISTING RULE OUTLAWING ALL
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SHIPPER AND CARRIER REGARDING LIABILITY.  THE
GENERAL PROHIBITION WOULD CONTINUE IN FORCE BECAUSE THE HARTER ACT
WOULD HAVE BEEN A DEFINED, LIMITED QUALIFICATION.  BUT THERE WAS NO
SUCH RULE, EITHER JUDGE-MADE OR STATUTORY.  CONGRESS HAD TAKEN NO
ACTION.  AND THIS COURT DID NOT OUTLAW SUCH AGREEMENTS GENERALLY.  IT
STRUCK DOWN SPECIFIC AGREEMENTS FOR SPECIFIC REASONS GROUNDED IN ITS
VIEW OF PUBLIC POLICY.  THAT PREMISE OF POLICY WAS DENIED VALIDITY BY
THE HARTER ACT.  IT SMACKS OF THE FANCIFUL TO SUGGEST THAT WHAT
CONGRESS REALLY DID WAS TO RAISE A PROVISO TO AN EXISTING ABSOLUTE RULE
BASED ON THAT PREMISE. 
..END :








KAUFMAN V. SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE POUR PARTICIPATIONS INDUSTRIELLES ET
COMMERCIALES, S.A.  343 U.S. 156 


NO. 172.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 7, 1952 - 88 U.S. APP.
D.C. 296, 188 F.2D 1017, REVERSED. 


1.  WHEN THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, UNDER SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941,
SEIZES AMERICAN ASSETS OF A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF A
NEUTRAL COUNTRY BUT DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED BY ENEMY ALIENS, THE
RIGHTS OF INNOCENT NONENEMY STOCKHOLDERS TO AN INTEREST IN THE ASSETS
PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR STOCKHOLDINGS MUST BE FULLY PROTECTED.  PP. 158
160. 

2.  UNDER RULE 24(A)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
INNOCENT NONENEMY STOCKHOLDERS ARE ENTITLED TO INTERVENE IN A SUIT
BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT BY A
CORPORATION, ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF A NEUTRAL COUNTRY BUT
DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED BY ENEMY ALIENS, TO RECOVER AMERICAN ASSETS
SEIZED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN UNDER SEC. 5(B), AS AMENDED BY
THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, WHEN THERE IS A SHOWING THAT THE
RIGHTS OF SUCH INNOCENT NONENEMY STOCKHOLDERS WILL NOT BE ADEQUATELY
PROTECTED BY THE CORPORATION IN SUCH SUIT AND THEY MAY BE BOUND BY THE
JUDGMENT IN SUCH SUIT.  PP. 160-162. 

KAUFMAN ET AL. V. SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE POUR PARTICIPATIONS
INDUSTRIELLES ET COMMERCIALES, S.A., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED PETITIONERS' MOTION TO INTERVENE IN A SUIT
BROUGHT BY A CORPORATION UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT TO RECOVER ASSETS SEIZED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN UNDER SEC.
5(B), AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941.  90 F. SUPP.
1011.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  88 U.S. APP. D.C. 296, 188 F.2D
1017.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 847.  REVERSED, P.
162. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ACTING UNDER SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, (FN1) THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN VESTED IN HIMSELF THE AMERICAN ASSETS OF
INTERHANDEL, A SWISS CORPORATION.  (FN2)  INTERHANDEL SUED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER THE ASSETS.  THE CUSTODIAN (FN3) ANSWERED
ALLEGING THAT THE SWISS CORPORATION WAS DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED BY
OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND STOCKHOLDERS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY
WITH GERMAN NATIONALS AND WITH THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT TO OPERATE THE
COMPANY'S BUSINESS IN THEIR INTERESTS WHILE WE WERE AT WAR WITH
GERMANY.  PETITIONERS, UNITED STATES CITIZENS WHO OWN STOCK IN
INTERHANDEL, FILED A MOTION TO INTERVENE.  THEY ADMITTED THE
CUSTODIAN'S CHARGE THAT INTERHANDEL WAS DOMINATED BY OFFICERS AND
STOCKHOLDERS WHO HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN SUCH A CONSPIRACY.  THEY ALSO
ADMITTED THE RIGHT OF THE CUSTODIAN TO RETAIN AN INTEREST IN THE SEIZED
ASSETS PROPORTIONAL TO THE STOCK OWNERSHIP OF ENEMY STOCKHOLDERS.  BUT
PETITIONERS CONTENDED THAT THEY AND OTHER NONENEMY STOCKHOLDERS HAD
CLAIMS IN THE CORPORATE ASSETS WHICH IT WAS THE CORPORATION'S DUTY TO
PROTECT.  ALLEGING THAT THE DOMINANT ENEMY GROUP WHICH HAD CHARGE OF
THE SUIT WOULD NOT PRESS THE CORPORATE CLAIM IN A MANNER THAT WOULD
ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE CLAIMS OF INNOCENT SHAREHOLDERS, PETITIONERS
ASSERTED A RIGHT TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, 90
F. SUPP. 1011, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 88 U.S. APP. D.C.
296, 188 F.2D 1017.  UNDERLYING THE CLAIMED RIGHT OF PETITIONERS TO
INTERVENE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, NAMELY:  WHAT PART OF
THE ASSETS OF A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF A NEUTRAL
COUNTRY MAY THE CUSTODIAN RETAIN WHERE PART OF THE CORPORATE STOCK IS
OWNED BY ENEMIES, PART BY AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND PART BY NONENEMY
ALIENS?  THIS QUESTION WAS RESERVED IN CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP.,
332 U.S. 480, 489-490.  TO CONSIDER IT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS
CASE.  342 U.S. 847. 

FIRST.  INTERHANDEL IS A NEUTRAL CORPORATION ORGANIZED IN
SWITZERLAND.  PRIOR TO 1941, EVEN OWNERSHIP OF ITS STOCK AND DOMINATION
BY ENEMY NATIONALS WOULD NOT HAVE JUSTIFIED SEIZURE OF ITS ASSETS.  IN
ORDER TO REACH THE ENEMY INTERESTS IN SUCH NEUTRAL CORPORATIONS,
CONGRESS AMENDED THE CONTROLLING ACT IN 1941.  THE BACKGROUND, SCOPE
AND CONSEQUENCES OF THAT AMENDMENT WERE DISCUSSED IN CLARK V. UEBERSEE
FINANZ-KORP., SUPRA.  WE THERE HELD THAT THE 1941 AMENDMENT AUTHORIZED
THE CUSTODIAN TO SEIZE AND VEST IN HIMSELF ALL PROPERTY OF ANY FOREIGN
COUNTRY OR NATIONAL, EVEN THAT OF FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL NATIONS.  AT THE
SAME TIME WE REFUSED TO HOLD THAT THE 1941 AMENDMENT DEPRIVED FRIENDLY
OR NEUTRAL NATIONS OR NATIONALS OF A RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR ASSETS
RETURNED IF THEY COULD PROVE THAT THEY WERE FREE OF ANY OPEN OR
CONCEALED ENEMY TAINT.  THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT, WE FOUND, WAS
"NOT TO APPROPRIATE FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL ASSETS BUT TO REACH ENEMY
INTERESTS WHICH MASQUERADED UNDER THOSE INNOCENT FRONTS."  CLARK V.
UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., SUPRA, AT 485. 

THUS, UNDER THE 1941 AMENDMENT THE NONENEMY CHARACTER OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION BECAUSE IT WAS ORGANIZED IN A FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL NATION NO
LONGER CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINES THAT ALL INTERESTS IN THE CORPORATION
MUST BE TREATED AS FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL.  THE CORPORATE VEIL CAN NOW BE
PIERCED.  ENEMY TAINT CAN BE FOUND IF THERE ARE ENEMY OFFICERS OR
STOCKHOLDERS; EVEN THE PRESENCE OF SOME NONENEMY STOCKHOLDERS DOES NOT
PREVENT SEIZURE OF ALL THE CORPORATE ASSETS.  BUT SUCH A GOVERNMENTAL
SEIZURE REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THE PLIGHT OF INNOCENT STOCKHOLDERS. 
FOR AS STATED IN THE UEBERSEE CASE, THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE
APPROPRIATION OF FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL ASSETS.  WHILE CONGRESS HAS
CLEARLY PROVIDED FOR FORFEITURE OF ENEMY ASSETS, IT HAS USED NO
LANGUAGE REQUIRING US TO HOLD THAT INNOCENT INTERESTS MUST BE
CONFISCATED BECAUSE OF THE GUILT OF OTHER STOCKHOLDERS.  NOR DOES ANY
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY POINTED OUT PERSUADE US THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
INFLICT SUCH HARSH CONSEQUENCES UPON THE INNOCENT.  WE DECLINE TO READ
SUCH A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE INTO THE ACT. 

OUR HOLDING IS THAT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SEIZES ASSETS OF A
CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF A NEUTRAL COUNTRY, THE RIGHTS
OF INNOCENT STOCKHOLDERS TO AN INTEREST IN THE ASSETS PROPORTIONATE TO
THEIR STOCK HOLDINGS MUST BE FULLY PROTECTED.  THIS HOLDING IS NOT
BASED ON ANY TECHNICAL CONCEPT OF DERIVATIVE RIGHTS APPROPRIATE TO THE
LAW OF CORPORATIONS.  IT IS BASED ON THE ACT WHICH ENABLES ONE NOT AN
ENEMY AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2 TO RECOVER ANY INTEREST, RIGHT OR TITLE
WHICH HE HAS IN THE PROPERTY VESTED.  THE INNOCENT STOCKHOLDER MAY NOT
HAVE TITLE TO CORPORATE ASSETS, BUT HE DOES HAVE AN INTEREST WHICH
CONGRESS HAS INDICATED SHOULD NOT BE CONFISCATED MERELY BECAUSE SOME
OTHERS WHO HAVE LIKE INTERESTS ARE ENEMIES. 

SECOND.  SECTION 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AUTHORIZED
INTERHANDEL TO MAINTAIN THIS ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF ALL ITS ASSETS
BECAUSE IT HAS ALLEGED THAT IT IS NOT ENEMY DOMINATED.  ALLEGING THAT
THEY AND OTHERS ARE NONENEMY STOCKHOLDERS, PETITIONERS CHARGE THAT IT
IS INTERHANDEL'S CORPORATE DUTY TO ASSERT A CLAIM FOR THE RETURN OF
THEIR PROPORTIONATE INTERESTS IN THE ASSETS EVEN THOUGH OTHER
STOCKHOLDERS WHO DOMINATE THE CORPORATION ARE FOUND TO BE ENEMIES. 
PETITIONERS FURTHER ALLEGE THAT THE CORPORATE MANAGEMENT REFUSES TO
ASSERT SUCH A CLAIM, BUT CONTINUES TO CLAIM ONLY A RETURN OF ALL ASSETS
ON THE THEORY THAT WHATEVER RETURN IS OBTAINED MUST BE DIVIDED AMONG
ENEMY AND NONENEMY SHAREHOLDERS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR STOCK HOLDINGS. 
THIS POSITION IS TAKEN, PETITIONERS CHARGE, BECAUSE THE SUIT IS BEING
CONTROLLED BY THE VERY STOCKHOLDERS ON WHOSE ACCOUNT THE CUSTODIAN
SEIZED THE PROPERTY AND WHOSE INTERESTS WILL BE WORTHLESS IF THEY ARE
FOUND TO BE ENEMIES.  PETITIONERS ALLEGE THAT THIS ENEMY CORPORATE
MANAGEMENT, FEARING CONFISCATION OF ITS ENEMY-TAINTED INTERESTS, IS
ABOUT TO SETTLE THE CORPORATE CLAIM WITH THE CUSTODIAN FOR AN AMOUNT
LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE NONENEMY PART OF THE ASSETS.  SHOULD THIS BE
DONE, IT IS SAID THE ENEMY MANAGEMENT CONTEMPLATES DIVIDING THE
PROCEEDS PROPORTIONATELY AMONG ENEMY AND NONENEMY STOCKHOLDERS, THUS
VIOLATING THE ACT IN TWO WAYS:  (1) BY DEPRIVING NONENEMY STOCKHOLDERS
OF PART OF THEIR PROPERTY, AND (2) BY RETURNING ASSETS TO FOREIGN ENEMY
STOCKHOLDERS. 

A MERE NARRATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS SHOWS THAT PETITIONERS' FEARS ARE
BY NO MEANS FANCIFUL.  INDEED, THE GOVERNMENT AGREES WITH THE DOMINANT
CORPORATE MANAGEMENT THAT THE INTERESTS OF ENEMY AND NONENEMY
STOCKHOLDERS SHOULD BE TREATED ALIKE.  THE UNITED STATES WISHES TO SELL
THE ENTIRE ASSETS OF INTERHANDEL.  AND IT IS ARGUED THAT IF NONENEMY
STOCKHOLDERS ARE TO BE GIVEN A CHANCE IN COURT (WHICH RIGHT IS
CHALLENGED), THEY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO INDIVIDUAL SUITS FOR MONEY
JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE CUSTODIAN.  PETITIONERS CLAIM A PROPORTIONAL
RIGHT OR INTEREST IN THE SPECIFIC ASSETS OF INTERHANDEL AND THAT THEY
MAY NOT BE DRIVEN TO ACCEPT THEIR SHARE OF WHATEVER PRICE THE
GOVERNMENT MAY HAPPEN TO GET FROM A SALE OF THESE VALUABLE ASSETS.  IN
ORDER TO PLAY SAFE, PETITIONERS HAVE FILED A SEPARATE SUIT IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT.  BUT WE THINK THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN DISPUTES LIKE
THIS CAN BE MORE APPROPRIATELY RESOLVED IN THE CORPORATE ACTIONS
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 9(A) THAN BY RESORT TO A MULTIPLICITY OF SEPARATE
ACTIONS.  IN SUCH SUITS THE NONENEMY STOCKHOLDER IN HIS OWN RIGHT MAY
ASSERT HIS NONENEMY CHARACTER IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIS OWN INTEREST FROM
THE ENEMY TAINT CAUSED BY OTHER STOCKHOLDERS.  COURTS TRYING SUCH
CORPORATE ACTIONS HAVE ADEQUATE EQUITABLE POWER AND PROCEDURAL
FLEXIBILITY TO PROTECT ALL INTERESTS, EVEN WHEN THE CORPORATE RECOVERY
IS NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL STOCKHOLDERS BUT ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE
NONENEMIES. 

IN VIEW OF OUR HOLDING THAT CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THAT NONENEMY
STOCKHOLDERS OF NONENEMY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS HAVE A SEVERABLE INTEREST
IN CORPORATE ASSETS SEIZED BY THE CUSTODIAN, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THESE PETITIONERS ENTITLE THEM TO INTERVENE.  THESE
ALLEGATIONS, IF TRUE, SHOW THAT PETITIONERS' INTERESTS MAY BE
INADEQUATELY REPRESENTED AND THAT THEY MAY BE BOUND BY A JUDGMENT IN
THIS CORPORATE ACTION.  THIS BRINGS THE CLAIM OF INTERVENTION SQUARELY
WITHIN RULE 24(A)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  (FN4)
REVERSED. 

FN1  40 STAT. 411, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1, AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR
POWERS ACT, 1941, 55 STAT. 839, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 5(B). 

FN2  ALTHOUGH THE CORPORATION IS COMMONLY CALLED "INTERHANDEL," ITS
FULL LEGAL NAME IS SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE POUR PARTICIPATIONS
INDUSTRIELLES ET COMMERCIALES S.A., ETC.  THE AMERICAN ASSETS CONSISTED
OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND OVER 90% OF THE CAPITAL STOCK IN THE GENERAL
ANILINE & FILM CORPORATION OF DELAWARE, ALL OF THE ASSETS APPARENTLY
BEING VALUED AT MORE THAN $100,000,000. 

FN3  IN 1946, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUCCEEDED TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES
OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  EXEC. ORDER NO. 9788, 11 FED. REG.
11981. 

FN4  "UPON TIMELY APPLICATION ANYONE SHALL BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE
IN AN ACTION:  ...  (2) WHEN THE REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT'S
INTEREST BY EXISTING PARTIES IS OR MAY BE INADEQUATE AND THE APPLICANT
IS OR MAY BE BOUND BY A JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION; ...  ."  SEE SUTPHEN
ESTATES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 19. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON
JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT "WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SEIZES ASSETS OF A
CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF A NEUTRAL COUNTRY, THE RIGHTS
OF INNOCENT STOCKHOLDERS TO AN INTEREST IN THE ASSETS PROPORTIONATE TO
THEIR STOCK HOLDINGS MUST BE FULLY PROTECTED."  SUCH A HOLDING OPENS
WIDE ONE DOOR OF ESCAPE FROM WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
ITS CITIZENS AGAINST FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, ORGANIZED AND CONTROLLED BY
ENEMIES IN NEUTRAL TERRITORY.  AS THE OPINION DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER
THE ALLEGED NONENEMY STOCKHOLDER MUST BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIS
CHARACTER, WE ASSUME THAT THIS BURDEN RESTS ON THE CLAIMANT STOCKHOLDER
IN AN ENEMY-TAINTED CORPORATION.  EVEN SO, THE DIFFICULTY OF REBUTTING
AN INDIVIDUAL'S SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE AS TO HIS NEUTRALITY IS OBVIOUS. 
THE WAR AND PREWAR ACTIVITIES AND CONNECTIONS OF THE MANY AMERICAN AND
NEUTRAL RESIDENTS, STOCKHOLDERS OF NEUTRAL CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN
WORLD-WIDE DEALINGS, ARE KNOWN LARGELY ONLY TO THE INTERESTED
INDIVIDUAL.  THE DEFINITION OF "ENEMY" IN THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT LEAVES INNUMERABLE PATHS FOR STOCKHOLDERS SHELTERED BY THE COURT'S
DECISION TO ESCAPE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTS OF THE CORPORATE AGENCY
THAT THEIR INVESTMENTS HAVE MADE POWERFUL AND EFFICIENT TO UNDERMINE
OUR SECURITY.  (FN1) 

THUS A NATIONAL OF AN ENEMY NATION, UNDER GUESSEFELDT V. MCGRATH, 342
U.S. 308, MAY NOW RECOVER, ON HIS SHOWING OF HIS OWN NONENEMY
CHARACTER, ALL HIS INTEREST IN THE ASSETS OF VESTED ENEMY-DOMINATED
NEUTRAL CORPORATIONS.  EVERY DOLLAR THAT MAY BE DRAWN BY NONENEMIES
FROM THE ASSETS OF AN ENEMY-DOMINATED CORPORATION REDUCES THE SUMS
AVAILABLE FOR NATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL INDEMNIFICATION FOR WAR DAMAGE. 
(FN2)  AS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT IS NOT ONLY
THE STERILIZATION OF FUNDS AGAINST ENEMY USE DURING WAR BUT ALSO THE
CREATION OF A REPARATION POOL OF ENEMY AND ENEMY-TAINTED ASSETS FOR
INDEMNIFICATION OF WAR INJURIES, SUCH DIMINUTIONS IMPERIL THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT.  CF. PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472, 484. 

                        II. 

THE COURT'S HOLDING PERMITS FOREIGN SYMPATHIZERS, RESIDENTS OF THE
UNITED STATES OR NEUTRAL TERRITORY, NOT COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF
ENEMIES, TO AVOID SACRIFICE IN WAR OF THEIR FINANCIAL INTERESTS THROUGH
THE TRITE SCHEME OF INVESTMENT IN NEUTRAL CORPORATIONS, CONTROLLED AND
USED BY OUR ENEMIES FOR OUR DEFEAT.  IF THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHTS OF A
NONENEMY STOCKHOLDER WERE AT ISSUE IN UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORPORATION V.
MCGRATH, 343 U.S. 205, DECIDED TODAY, THAT NONENEMY STOCKHOLDER, UNDER
THE COURT'S OPINION IN THIS CASE, WOULD RECOVER HIS PROPORTION OF THE
CORPORATION ASSETS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT UEBERSEE: 

"OWNED ALL THE STOCK OF A SUBSIDIARY HUNGARIAN CORPORATION ENGAGED IN
THE MINING OF BAUXITE IN HUNGARY, AND IN 1939 AND 1940 GUARANTEED A
LOAN BY A SWISS BANK TO THIS CORPORATION FOR ITS OPERATIONS.  THE LOAN
WAS REPAID IN NOVEMBER 1942.  THE UNITED STATES WAS AT WAR WITH HUNGARY
FROM DECEMBER 13, 1941.  DURING OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER 1941,
THE HUNGARIAN CORPORATION SHIPPED BAUXITE TO GERMANY AND HAD A CONTRACT
TO DO SO UNTIL THE END OF 1942."  343 U.S. 205, 209-210.    AT ONE TIME
THIS NATION ALLOWED SUCH EASY ESCAPE FROM THE PENALTIES OF WAR, RELYING
UPON THE OWNERSHIP OF CORPORATE STOCK FOR PROTECTION.  (FN3)  BEHN,
MEYER & CO. V. MILLER, 266 U.S. 457, DEMONSTRATED THE FUTILITY OF SUCH
A METHOD OF PROTECTION.  IT WAS TO PLUG THIS LOOPHOLE THAT THE CONGRESS
ENACTED IN 1941 THE EXISTING SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT, AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO VEST "ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST OF ANY
FOREIGN COUNTRY OR NATIONAL THEREOF."  (FN4)  IT SURELY WAS NOT THE
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO LEAVE THE DOOR HALFWAY OPEN. 

                                 III. 

THE COURT'S HOLDING DISREGARDS THE NORMAL INCIDENTS OF CORPORATE
RESPONSIBILITY AND FRUSTRATES THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO REPAIR THE GAP
IN OUR DEFENSE POLICY TOWARD ALIEN PROPERTY POINTED OUT BY OUR BEHN
MEYER DECISION.  THE UEBERSEE CASE DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE HERE
PRESENTED.  IT LEFT OPEN THE EFFECT OF ENEMY OWNERSHIP OF MINOR
INTEREST IN A FOREIGN CORPORATION BUT IT WOULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN THOUGHT
UNTIL TODAY THAT UEBERSEE LEFT OPEN THE FATE OF THE PROPERTY OF AN
ENEMY-DOMINATED CORPORATION, WHICH CORPORATION WAS PART OF A SCHEME, AS
SHOWN IN N. 2, "TO AVOID SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION IN THE EVENT OF
WAR."  (FN5)  CONGRESS HAD INDICATED ITS ATTITUDE QUITE CLEARLY.  (FN6)
TODAY'S RULING CUTS DEEPLY INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO HOLD THE
PROPERTY OF ENEMY-TAINTED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS FOR SATISFACTION OF WAR
CLAIMS. 

THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY A DISREGARD OF THE
ORDINARY INCIDENTS OF THE RELATION OF A STOCKHOLDER TO A CORPORATION. 
A STOCKHOLDER HAS NO PRESENT INTEREST IN THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY OF AN
UNLIQUIDATED CORPORATION.  THE CORPORATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS
OF THE CORPORATION.  (FN7)  THE STOCKHOLDER NORMALLY IS NOT.  BY HIS
CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL AND HIS PARTICIPATION IN PROFITS, HE PUTS HIS
INVESTMENT AT RISK, ACCORDING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE CORPORATION.  HE
MAY HAVE CLAIMS AGAINST MANAGEMENT BUT THOSE CLIAMS HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH CORPORATE ASSETS SUBJECT TO THE DEMANDS OF CREDITORS OR
GOVERNMENTS.  THOSE CORPORATE ASSETS GROW OR DIMINISH BECAUSE OF
CORPORATE, NOT SHAREHOLDER, CONDUCT.  (FN8)  SURELY, IF A CORPORATION
VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT, ITS ASSETS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE TRIPLE
DAMAGE CLAIMS OF WRONGED COMPETITORS, EVEN TO ITS LAST CENT AND TO THE
DETRIMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS WHO MAY HAVE PROTESTED VEHEMENTLY BUT
INEFFECTIVELY AGAINST THE ILLEGAL COURSE OF CONDUCT.  SURELY A
CORPORATE DEED OF THE CORPORATION'S "INTEREST, RIGHT, OR TITLE" TO A
PIECE OF PROPERTY WOULD NOT LEAVE IN A STOCKHOLDER ANY INTEREST ADVERSE
TO THE GRANTEE. 

THE COURT FINDS JUSTIFICATION FOR ALLOWING A STOCKHOLDER TO SUE IN
THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 9; THE COURT SAYS THE HOLDING "IS BASED ON THE ACT
WHICH ENABLES ONE NOT AN ENEMY AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2 TO RECOVER ANY
INTEREST, RIGHT OR TITLE WHICH HE WAS IN THE PROPERTY VESTED."  NO
AUTHORITY IS CITED FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A STOCKHOLDER HAS AN
"INTEREST," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, IN THE PHYSICAL ASSETS OF
THE CORPORATION, SEPARATE FROM THE INTEREST OF THE CORPORATION. 
CORPORATIONS MAY RECOVER ON SHOWING THEIR NONENEMY CHARACTER, JUST AS
INDIVIDUALS MAY, BUT THE CORPORATE ENTITY SHOULD NOT BE DISREGARDED
WITHOUT SOME EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION.  THE LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 9, "INTEREST  ... IN THE PROPERTY  ...  SEIZED," COULD NOT
NORMALLY BE TAKEN TO MEAN A STOCKHOLDER'S INTEREST IN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND PROFITS OF THE CORPORATION; (FN9) IN OUR OPINION IT
MEANS AN INTEREST IN THE ASSETS ACTUALLY SEIZED.  THERE IS NO
INDICATION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE MERE VESTING OF THE
CORPORATE ASSETS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD CONFER UPON EACH
STOCKHOLDER AN ENFORCEABLE INTEREST IN THOSE ASSETS. 

WHERE THE CORPORATION SUBJECTS ITS ASSETS TO FORFEITURE BY AIDING OUR
ENEMIES, THE CORPORATION SHOULD PAY THE PENALTY.  THE FRIENDLY
STOCKHOLDER SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED BY STRAINED STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION TO WITHDRAW HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUNDS THAT WERE USED
TO OUR INJURY AND SO REDUCE THE ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR WAR CLAIMANTS.  WE
SEE NO REAL DIFFERENCE, AS TO LIABILITY TO HAVE ASSETS VESTED UNDER THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, BETWEEN A CORPORATION ENEMY-DOMINATED AS
THIS IS ALLEGED TO BE AND AN ENEMY-DOMICILED CORPORATION PRODUCING
MUNITIONS OF WAR FOR USE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE COURT'S
OPINION REFERS ONLY TO ENEMY-DOMINATED NEUTRAL CORPORATIONS BUT THE
THEORY OF RECOVERY FOR FRIENDLY STOCKHOLDERS APPEARS TO BE EQUALLY
APPLICABLE TO FRIENDLY STOCKHOLDERS OF ENEMY CORPORATIONS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 2: 

"THE WORD 'ENEMY,' AS USED HEREIN, SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF SUCH TRADING AND OF THIS ACT: 

"(A)  ANY INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, OR OTHER BODY OF INDIVIDUALS, OF
ANY NATIONALITY, RESIDENT WITHIN THE TERRITORY (INCLUDING THAT OCCUPIED
BY THE MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES) OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS AT WAR, OR RESIDENT OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY, AND ANY CORPORATION INCORPORATED WITHIN
SUCH TERRITORY OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR OR
INCORPORATED WITHIN ANY COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES AND DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY." 

FN2  IT IS ALLEGED BY THE UNITED STATES THAT THE CONSPIRACY OF WHICH
THE RESPONDENT SOCIETE WAS A PART HAD FOR ITS OBJECTIVE "TO CONCEAL,
CAMOUFLAGE AND CLOAK THE OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, AND DOMINATION BY I.G.
FARBEN OF PROPERTIES AND INTERESTS IN MANY COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD,
INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, OTHER THAN GERMANY.  AMONG THE VARIOUS
PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE SAID CONSPIRACY WERE TO ASSIST I.G.
FARBEN: 

     *         *         *     *         * 

"(E)  TO CONCEAL, CAMOUFLAGE AND CLOAK THE OWNERSHIP, CONTROL AND
DOMINATION BY I.G.  FARBEN OF PROPERTIES AND INTERESTS LOCATED IN
COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, OTHER THAN GERMANY, IN ORDER TO
AVOID SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION IN THE EVENT OF WAR BETWEEN SUCH
COUNTRIES AND GERMANY." 

THE SOCIETE ALLEGES THAT IT "IS THE OWNER OF 2,050,000 SHARES OF THE
COMMON B STOCK, AND 455,448 SHARES OF THE COMMON A STOCK, OF GENERAL
ANILINE & FILM CORPORATION, OF A VALUE IN EXCESS OF ONE HUNDRED MILLION
DOLLARS ($100,000,000)," NOW AT STAKE. 

FN3  HAMBURG-AMERICAN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 138, 140. 

FN4  CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORPORATION, 332 U.S. 480, 483.  SEE
NOTE 3, P. 485, DESCRIBING THE MAZE OF CORPORATE SCHEMES FOR ENEMY
CONTROL OF WAR ECONOMY. 

FN5  332 U.S. AT 489-490: 

"IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS APPROACH MAY PRODUCE RESULTS
WHICH ARE BOTH ABSURD AND UNCERTAIN.  IT IS SAID THAT THE ENTIRE
PROPERTY OF A CORPORATION WOULD BE JEOPARDIZED MERELY BECAUSE A
NEGLIGIBLE STOCK INTEREST, PERHAPS A SINGLE SHARE, WAS DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF AN ENEMY.  IT IS
ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SECURITIES OR INTERESTS OTHER THAN STOCK MIGHT BE
HELD BY AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF AN ENEMY AND USED EFFECTIVELY IN ECONOMIC
WARFARE AGAINST THIS COUNTRY.  BUT WHAT THESE INTERESTS ARE, THE EXTENT
OF HOLDINGS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE AN ENEMY TAINT, WHAT PART OF A
FRIENDLY ALIEN CORPORATION'S PROPERTY MAY BE RETAINED WHERE ONLY A
FRACTIONAL ENEMY OWNERSHIP APPEARS, ARE LEFT UNDECIDED.  SINCE WE
ASSUME FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT THAT RESPONDENT IS FREE OF
ENEMY TAINT AND THEREFORE IS NOT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ENEMY OR ALLY
OF AN ENEMY, THOSE PROBLEMS ARE NOT NOW BEFORE US.  WE RECOGNIZE THEIR
IMPORTANCE; BUT THEY MUST AWAIT LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL
CLARIFICATION." 

FN6  50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 32: 

"THE PRESIDENT, OR SUCH OFFICER OR AGENCY AS HE MAY DESIGNATE, MAY
RETURN ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST VESTED IN OR TRANSFERRED TO THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN  ...  WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT OR SUCH OFFICER OR
AGENCY SHALL DETERMINE: 

     *       *         *         *         * 

"(2)  THAT SUCH OWNER, AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OR SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST, IF ANY, ARE NOT: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(E)  A FOREIGN CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION WHICH AT ANY TIME AFTER
DECEMBER 7, 1941, WAS CONTROLLED OR 50 PER CENTUM OR MORE OF THE STOCK
OF WHICH WAS OWNED BY ANY PERSON OR PERSONS INELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A
RETURN UNDER SUBDIVISIONS (A), (B), (C), OR (D) HEREOF:  ...  ." 

(A), (B), (C) AND (D) REFER SUBSTANTIALLY TO NATIONAL, CORPORATE OR
INDIVIDUAL ENEMIES. 

FN7  COOK, CORPORATIONS (8TH ED.), VOL. I, SEC. 11; VOL. III, SECS.
663, 664. 

FN8  CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302 U.S. 500, 503: 

"A STOCKHOLDER IS SO FAR AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CORPORATION OF WHICH
HE IS A MEMBER, THAT HE MAY BE BOUND AND HIS RIGHTS FORECLOSED BY
AUTHORIZED CORPORATE ACTION TAKEN WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR
PARTICIPATION  ...  ." 

SEE PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201, 207. 

ANDERSON V. ABBOTT, 321 U.S. 349, 361: 

"SOME SHAREHOLDERS OF BANCO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO RESCIND THEIR
PURCHASES OF ITS SHARES ON THE GROUND OF MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE
SALE.  BUT WHETHER OR NOT SUCH RELIEF MIGHT BE GRANTED IN SOME
INSTANCES, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT BANCO'S STOCKHOLDERS ARE BOUND BY THE
DECISIONS OF THE DIRECTORS WHICH DETERMINED, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
CORPORATE CHARTER, THE KIND AND QUALITY OF THE CORPORATE UNDERTAKING." 

FN9  IN THE ANALOGOUS LAW OF PRIZE, IT IS SETTLED THAT THE NONENEMY
STOCKHOLDERS OF AN ENEMY CORPORATION HAVE NO RIGHT TO RECOVER ANY
PORTION OF SEIZED PROPERTY WHICH WAS OWNED BY THE CORPORATION.  THE
POLZEATH, (1916) P. 241, 256 (C.A.), AFFIRMING (1916) P. 117: "  ...
THE BRITISH SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO INTERVENE.  IT IS
SUGGESTED THAT THE SHIP SHOULD BE APPRAISED, AND THAT PAYMENT SHOULD BE
MADE TO THE BRITISH SHAREHOLDERS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR HOLDINGS.  THE
COURT HAS NO SUCH POWER; IT CANNOT ADMINISTER THE AFFAIRS OF THE
COMPANY.  IF ANY HARDSHIP IS CAUSED TO INNOCENT SHAREHOLDERS BY THE
DECLARATION OF FORFEITURE THEIR POSITION IS THAT THEY CAN ONLY APPEAL
TO THE MERCIFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE CROWN." 

STEAMSHIP "MARIE GLAESER," 1 LLOYD'S PRIZE CASES 56, 111 (1914): 

"NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE SHAREHOLDERS IN THE VESSEL, IT IS QUITE
CLEAR THAT IF THEY ARE ENEMY SHAREHOLDERS THEIR PROPERTY MUST GO WITH
THE CAPTURE OF THE VESSEL IN WHICH THEY HAVE PUT THEIR MONEY - A VESSEL
SAILING UNDER THE FLAG OF THE ENEMY.  NOT ONLY IS THAT SO WITH REGARD
TO SHAREHOLDERS WHO MIGHT BE CITIZENS OF THE GERMAN EMPIRE, BUT IT IS
EQUALLY SO IF SOME OF THOSE SHAREHOLDERS HAPPEN TO BE, AS THEY MAY BE -
I DO NOT KNOW - PERSONS WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.  IF A
SHAREHOLDER INVESTS HIS MONEY BY TAKING SHARES IN A VESSEL WHICH IS
LIABLE TO CAPTURE, HE TAKES THAT RISK. 

"IF IN THE CASE OF A BRITISH SHAREHOLDER HE LIKES TO PRESENT HIS CASE
TO THE CROWN AS ONE WHICH OUGHT TO BE LENIENTLY DEALT WITH, THAT IS
ANOTHER MATTER.  I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.  I AM HERE ONLY TO
ADMINISTER THE LAW, AND I MUST HOLD THAT NO SHAREHOLDERS HAVE ANY RIGHT
WHATSOEVER TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE RESULTS OF THE CAPTURE OF THIS
VESSEL." 

STANDARD OIL TANKERS CASE, ARBITRATION AWARD, AUG. 5, 1926, II
FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES (1926), P. 166.  CF. THE PEDRO,
175 U.S. 354, 367-368. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. SPECTOR 343 U.S. 169 


NO. 443.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 7, 1952 - 99 F. SUPP.
778, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 20(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 156(C), WHICH MAKES IT A FELONY FOR AN ALIEN AGAINST WHOM A
SPECIFIED ORDER OF DEPORTATION IS OUTSTANDING TO "WILLFULLY FAIL OR
REFUSE TO MAKE TIMELY APPLICATION IN GOOD FAITH FOR TRAVEL OR OTHER
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO HIS DEPARTURE" IS NOT, ON ITS FACE, VOID FOR
VAGUENESS.  PP. 170-172. 

2.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
AFFORDS A DEFENDANT NO OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE COURT WHICH TRIES HIM
PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF DEPORTATION IS RESERVED, BECAUSE
IT IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS CASE.  PP. 172-173. 

UNITED STATES V. SPECTOR. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED TWO COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT AGAINST
RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 20(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF
1917, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 156(C), ON WHICH THEY WERE BASED, WAS
VOID FOR VAGUENESS.  99 F. SUPP. 778.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 18
U.S.C. SEC. 3731, REVERSED, P. 173. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

57 STAT. 553, 64 STAT. 1010, 8 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 156, CONTAINS
PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO EXPEDITE THE DEPORTATION OF ALIENS.  SECTION
20(A) PROVIDES THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL DIRECT THE DEPORTATION
"TO THE COUNTRY SPECIFIED BY THE ALIEN, IF IT IS WILLING TO ACCEPT HIM
INTO ITS TERRITORY."  OTHERWISE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL DIRECT THE
DEPORTATION TO ANY ONE OF A SERIES OF SPECIFIED COUNTRIES OR IF
DEPORTATION TO ANY OF THEM IS IMPRACTICABLE, INADVISABLE, OR
IMPOSSIBLE, THEN TO ANY COUNTRY WHICH IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE ALIEN. 
ALIENS AGAINST WHOM DEPORTATION ORDERS HAVE BEEN OUTSTANDING FOR MORE
THAN SIX MONTHS AND FIXES PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE REGULATIONS
WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PRESCRIBED.  SECTION 20(C) PROVIDES THAT
ANY ALIEN AGAINST WHOM A SPECIFIED ORDER OF DEPORTATION IS OUTSTANDING
"WHO SHALL WILLFULLY FAIL OR REFUSE TO DEPART FROM THE UNITED STATES
WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER OF
DEPORTATION, OR FROM THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT OF 1950, WHICHEVER IS THE LATER, OR SHALL
WILLFULLY FAIL OR REFUSE TO MAKE TIMELY APPLICATION IN GOOD FAITH FOR
TRAVEL OR OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO HIS DEPARTURE,  ...  SHALL UPON
CONVICTION BE GUILTY OF A FELONY, AND SHALL BE IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN
TEN YEARS  ...  ." 

THE LATTER PROVISION OF SEC. 20(C) IS INVOLVED HERE.  APPELLEE IS AN
ALIEN WHO CAME TO THIS COUNTRY FROM RUSSIA IN 1913.  AN ORDER OF
DEPORTATION WAS ENTERED AGAINST HIM IN 1930 BY REASON OF HIS ADVOCACY
OF THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  AN
INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED AGAINST HIM, TWO COUNTS OF WHICH CHARGED HIM
WITH WILLFULLY FAILING AND REFUSING TO MAKE TIMELY APPLICATION IN GOOD
FAITH FOR TRAVEL OR OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO HIS DEPARTURE FROM THE
UNITED STATES.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED A MOTION TO DISMISS THESE
TWO COUNTS.  IT HELD THAT THE STATUTE IN QUESTION WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND INDEFINITE, BECAUSE IT DID NOT SPECIFY THE
NATURE OF THE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR DEPARTURE NOR INDICATE TO
WHICH COUNTRY OR TO HOW MANY COUNTRIES THE ALIEN SHOULD MAKE
APPLICATION.  99 F. SUPP. 778.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. IV) SEC. 3731. 

WHILE A STATUTE, PLAIN AN UNAMBIGUOUS ON ITS FACE, MAY BE GIVEN AN
APPLICATION THAT VIOLATES DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH
THAT PROBLEM IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE
STATUTE ON ITS FACE MEETS THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST OF CERTAINTY AND
DEFINITENESS.  WE THINK IT DOES WHEN VIEWED IN ITS STATUTORY SETTING. 

THE STATUTORY SCHEME SEEMS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS.  THE CHOICE OF A
COUNTRY WILLING TO RECEIVE THE ALIEN IS LEFT FIRST TO THE ALIEN HIMSELF
AND THEN TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  ONCE THE COUNTRY WILLING TO RECEIVE
THE ALIEN IS IDENTIFIED, THE MECHANISM FOR EFFECTING HIS DEPARTURE
REMAINS.  THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SEC. 20(C) MAKES CLEAR WHAT
A "TIMELY" APPLICATION IS.  THE STATUTORY WORDS "TRAVEL OR OTHER
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO HIS DEPARTURE" WILL, OF COURSE, HAVE DIFFERENT
MEANINGS IN REFERENCE TO VARIOUS COUNTRIES.  THE FORMS TO BE FILLED
OUT, THE DEPOSITS TO BE MADE, THE NUMBER OF PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE
FURNISHED, AND THE INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED WILL VARY FROM COUNTRY TO
COUNTRY.  BUT WHEN THE COUNTRY TO WHICH THE ALIEN IS TO BE DEPORTED IS
KNOWN, ANY MYSTERY CONCERNING THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO HIS DEPARTURE
VANISHES.  THE WORDS "NECESSARY TO HIS DEPARTURE" WHEN APPLIED TO
DEPORTATIONS WOULD NORMALLY REFER TO A LAWFUL DEPARTURE FROM THIS
COUNTRY AND A LAWFUL ENTRANCE INTO ANOTHER.  THE ALIEN SATISFIES THE
STATUTE BY MAKING TIMELY APPLICATION FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS AS THE COUNTRY
IN QUESTION REQUIRES FOR HIS ADMISSION. 

THE STATUTE MIGHT WELL BE A TRAP IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT REQUIRED THE
ALIEN TO KNOW THE VISA REQUIREMENTS OF ONE OR MORE COUNTRIES.  BUT THE
EMPHASIS OF THE PRESENT STATUTE IS ON A "TIMELY APPLICATION IN GOOD
FAITH" FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS AS THE COUNTRY IN QUESTION MAY REQUIRE. 
THOUGH THE VISA REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRANCE INTO A PARTICULAR COUNTRY ARE
IN CONSTANT CHANGE, THE COMMAND OF THE STATUTE REMAINS SIMPLE AND
INTELLIGIBLE.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE WARNING CONTAINED IN THE STATUTE IS
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO FREE IT OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY OF
VAGUENESS.  CF. UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1; JORDAN V.
DEGEORGE, 341 U.S. 223. 

ANOTHER QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS PRESSED UPON US.  IT IS
THAT THE STATUTE MUST BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT AFFORDS A
DEFENDANT NO OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE COURT WHICH TRIES HIM PASS ON THE
VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF DEPORTATION.  THAT QUESTION WAS NEITHER RAISED
BY THE APPELLEE NOR BRIEFED NOR ARGUED HERE.  IF IT HAD BEEN, WE MIGHT
CONSIDER IT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304,
330.  BUT WHEN A SINGLE, NAKED QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS
PRESENTED, WE DO NOT SEARCH FOR NEW AND DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS.  RATHER WE REFRAIN FROM PASSING ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
A PHASE OF A STATUTE UNTIL A STAGE HAS BEEN REACHED WHERE THE DECISION
OF THE PRECISE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS NECESSARY.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
PETRILLO, SUPRA. 

IT WILL BE TIME TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF
DEPORTATION MAY BE TRIED IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL EITHER BY THE COURT OR BY
THE JURY (CF. YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414; COX V. UNITED
STATES, 332 U.S. 442) WHEN AND IF THE APPELLEE SEEKS TO HAVE IT TRIED. 
THAT QUESTION IS NOT FORECLOSED BY THIS OPINION.  WE RESERVE DECISION
ON IT.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE ONLY THING CERTAIN ABOUT SEC. 20(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF
1917, AS AMENDED, IS THAT VIOLATION OF ITS TERMS IS A FELONY PUNISHABLE
BY TEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.  AN ALIEN ORDERED DEPORTED BY THE BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION IS SUBJECT TO THIS TEN-YEAR PENALTY IF HE "WILLFULLY FAIL
OR REFUSE TO MAKE TIMELY APPLICATION IN GOOD FAITH FOR TRAVEL OR OTHER
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO HIS DEPARTURE."  TO AVOID PUNISHMENT AN ALIEN
MUST GUESS WITH UNERRING ACCURACY WHAT ANSWERS A JUDGE OR JURY (FN1)
MIGHT SOMEDAY GIVE TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:  (1) WHEN IS AN
APPLICATION "TIMELY"?  (2) WHAT CONSTITUTES A "GOOD FAITH"
APPLICATION?  (3) WHAT KIND OF "DOCUMENTS" ARE "NECESSARY TO HIS
DEPARTURE"?  (4) TO WHOM MUST HE APPLY FOR THESE DOCUMENTS? 

ALIENS LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT NECESSARILY SOPHISTICATED WORLD
TRAVELERS FAMILIAR WITH THE PRESENT-DAY RED TAPE THAT MUST BE UNWOUND
TO GET FROM ONE COUNTRY TO ANOTHER.  CONGRESS SHOULD AT LEAST INDICATE
WHEN, TO WHOM, AND FOR WHAT THE ALIEN SHOULD APPLY.  IF, FOR EXAMPLE,
THE STATUTE MERELY REQUIRED AN ALIEN TO REPORT AT A CERTAIN TIME AND
PLACE TO SIGN "DOCUMENTS" COLLECTED BY THE AMERICAN DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, THE AFFIRMATIVE CONDUCT DEMANDED WOULD AT LEAST BE CLEAR AND
SPECIFIC.   BUT THE PRESENT STATUTE, IN MY JUDGMENT, ENTANGLES ALIENS
IN A SNARE OF VAGUENESS FROM WHICH FEW CAN ESCAPE.  I THINK THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES MORE THAN A "BAD" GUESS TO MAKE A CRIMINAL. 
(FN2) 

FN1  "IN EARLIER TIMES, SOME RULERS PLACED THEIR CRIMINAL LAWS WHERE
THE COMMON MAN COULD NOT SEE THEM, IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE ENTRAPPED
INTO THEIR VIOLATION.  OTHERS IMPOSED STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IMPOSSIBLE
OF ACHIEVEMENT TO THE END THAT THOSE OBNOXIOUS TO THE RULING POWERS
MIGHT BE CONVICTED UNDER THE FORMS OF LAW.  NO ONE OF THEM EVER
PROVIDED A MORE CERTAIN ENTRAPMENT, THAN A STATUTE WHICH PRESCRIBES A
PENITENTIARY PUNISHMENT FOR NOTHING MORE THAN A LAYMAN'S FAILURE TO
PROPHESY WHAT A JUDGE OR JURY WILL DO  ...  ."  WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226, 278 (DISSENTING OPINION).   CF. UNITED STATES
V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81, 89. 

FN2  MY BELIEF THAT THE STATUTE IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS MAKES IT
UNNECESSARY FOR ME TO REACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION DISCUSSED BY
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT YET SEEN A SATISFACTORY REASON
FOR REJECTING HIS VIEW.  SEE MY OPINION IN MAGGIO V. ZEITZ, 333 U.S.
56, 78-81. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

I THINK THIS ACT TO PUNISH AN ALIEN'S UNLAWFUL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR REASONS APPARENT ON ITS FACE.  (FN1)  IT
DIFFERS IN SUBTLETY BUT NOT IN SUBSTANCE FROM ONE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL
MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY AGO IN A DECISION REPEATEDLY AND RECENTLY
CITED WITH APPROVAL.  WONG WING V. UNITED STATES, 163 U.S. 228.  (FN2)
THE ACT THERE STRICKEN DOWN WAS SIMPLE AND DIRECT.  IT PROVIDED THAT
ANY CHINESE PERSON OR PERSON OF CHINESE DESCENT ADJUDGED BY ANY
JUSTICE, JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER OF THE UNITED STATES NOT LAWFULLY
ENTITLED TO BE OR TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES SHOULD FIRST BE
IMPRISONED AT HARD LABOR AND THEREAFTER REMOVED FROM THE UNITED
STATES.  THE COURT CONCEDED THAT IT WOULD BE COMPETENT FOR CONGRESS TO
DECLARE THAT AN ALIEN REMAINING UNLAWFULLY IN THE UNITED STATES COULD
BE CRIMINALLY PUNISHED "IF SUCH OFFENCE WERE TO BE ESTABLISHED BY A
JUDICIAL TRIAL."  163 U.S. AT 235.  HOWEVER, IT SAID: 

"BUT WHEN CONGRESS SEES FIT TO FURTHER PROMOTE SUCH A POLICY BY
SUBJECTING THE PERSONS OF SUCH ALIENS TO INFAMOUS PUNISHMENT AT HARD
LABOR, OR BY CONFISCATING THEIR PROPERTY, WE THINK SUCH LEGISLATION, TO
BE VALID, MUST PROVIDE FOR A JUDICIAL TRIAL TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF
THE ACCUSED. 

"NO LIMITS CAN BE PUT BY THE COURTS UPON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
PROTECT, BY SUMMARY METHODS, THE COUNTRY FROM THE ADVENT OF ALIENS
WHOSE RACE OR HABITS RENDER THEM UNDESIRABLE AS CITIZENS, OR TO EXPEL
SUCH IF THEY HAVE ALREADY FOUND THEIR WAY INTO OUR LAND AND UNLAWFULLY
REMAIN THEREIN.  BUT TO DECLARE UNLAWFUL RESIDENCE WITHIN THE COUNTRY
TO BE AN INFAMOUS CRIME, PUNISHABLE BY DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY, WOULD BE TO PASS OUT OF THE SPHERE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
LEGISLATION, UNLESS PROVISION WERE MADE THAT THE FACT OF GUILT SHOULD
FIRST BE ESTABLISHED BY A JUDICIAL TRIAL.  IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH
THE THEORY OF OUR GOVERNMENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD, AFTER HAVING
DEFINED AN OFFENCE AS AN INFAMOUS CRIME, FIND THE FACT OF GUILT AND
ADJUDGE THE PUNISHMENT BY ONE OF ITS OWN AGENTS."  163 U.S. AT 237. 
(FN3) 

THUS THE COURT HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITED FOR CRIMINAL
PURPOSES A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION WITHOUT A JURY THAT THE ALIEN WAS
ILLEGALLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.  IT HELD THAT THE FACTS WHICH
MADE HIS PRESENCE ILLEGAL MUST BE ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTION OF A
JURY, ALTHOUGH THE ACTUAL CASE BEFORE IT SEEMS TO HAVE PRESENTED ONLY
THE NARROWEST AND SIMPLEST ISSUES, NAMELY, WHETHER THE ALIEN WAS A
CHINAMAN AND WHETHER HE WAS HERE.  IF SO, HIS ENTRY AND HIS PRESENCE AT
ANY TIME WERE ILLEGAL.  IN CONTRAST, THIS ACT INCRIMINATES THOSE WHOSE
PRESENCE HERE IS ENTIRELY LEGAL BUT FOR GUILT OF SOME FORBIDDEN CONDUCT
SINCE ENTRY.  CERTAINLY ILLEGAL PRESENCE UNDER PRESENT LAWS INVOLVES A
MORE TRIALWORTHY ISSUE THAN IN WONG WING'S CASE. 

THIS ACT CREATES A CRIME ALSO BASED ON UNLAWFUL RESIDENCE IN THE
UNITED STATES.  THE CRIME CONSISTS OF TWO ELEMENTS:  ONE, AN
OUTSTANDING ORDER FOR DEPORTATION OF AN ALIEN; THE OTHER, THE ALIEN'S
WILLFUL FAILURE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY OR TAKE SPECIFIED STEPS TOWARD
DEPARTURE.  THE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT THE COURT WHICH TRIES HIM FOR THIS
CRIME TO PASS ON THE ILLEGALITY OF HIS PRESENCE.  PRODUCTION OF AN
OUTSTANDING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER FOR HIS DEPORTATION BECOMES CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE OF HIS UNLAWFUL PRESENCE AND A CONSEQUENT DUTY TO TAKE HIMSELF
OUT OF THE COUNTRY, AND NO INQUIRY INTO THE CORRECTNESS OR VALIDITY OF
THE ORDER IS PERMITTED. 

THE SUBTLETY OF THE PRESENT ACT CONSISTS OF SEVERING THE ISSUE OF
UNLAWFUL PRESENCE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION WHICH THEN BECOMES
CONCLUSIVE UPON THE CRIMINAL TRIAL COURT.  WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT,
WHILE THE ALIEN IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AGAINST DEPORTATION
BY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, HE STANDS ON AN EQUAL CONSTITUTIONAL FOOTING
WITH THE CITIZEN WHEN HE IS CHARGED WITH CRIME.  (FN4)  IF CONGRESS CAN
SUBDIVIDE A CHARGE AGAINST AN ALIEN AND AVOID JURY TRIAL BY SUBMITTING
THE VITAL AND CONTROVERSIAL PART OF IT TO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, IT
CAN DO SO IN THE PROSECUTION OF A CITIZEN.  AND IF VITAL ELEMENTS OF A
CRIME CAN BE ESTABLISHED IN THE MANNER HERE ATTEMPTED, THE WAY WOULD BE
OPEN TO EFFECTIVE SUBVERSION OF WHAT WE HAVE THOUGHT TO BE ONE OF THE
MOST EFFECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS OF ALL MEN'S FREEDOM. 

ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS OF LIABILITY TO DEPORTATION HAVE BEEN
SUSTAINED AS CONSTITUTIONAL ONLY BY CONSIDERING THEM TO BE EXCLUSIVELY
CIVIL IN NATURE, WITH NO CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES OR CONNOTATIONS.  THAT
DOCTRINE, EARLY ADOPTED AGAINST SHARP DISSENT HAS BEEN ADHERED TO WITH
INCREASING LOGICAL DIFFICULTY AS NEW CAUSES FOR DEPORTATION, BASED NOT
ON ILLEGAL ENTRY BUT ON CONDUCT AFTER ADMITTANCE, HAVE BEEN ADDED, AND
THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INSTITUTED HAS
BEEN EXTENDED.  (FN5)  BY THIS ACT A DEPORTATION ORDER IS MADE TO CARRY
POTENTIAL CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES.    IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
THAT ONE IS LIABLE TO DEPORTATION AND THE RESULTING ORDERS ARE NOT
EXHAUSTED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED AS WARRANT FOR THE ADJUDICATIONS OF HIS
UNLAWFUL PRESENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, QUITE
DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES COME INTO PLAY. 

THE ADJUDICATION THAT AN ALIEN HAS BEEN GUILTY OF CONDUCT SUBJECTING
HIM TO DEPORTATION IS NOT MADE BY PROCEDURES CONSTITUTIONAL FOR
JUDGMENT OF CRIME.  IT IS NOT MADE EITHER BY A JURY TRIAL OR A COURT
DECISION.  ALL THAT IS REQUIRED BY STATUTE IS A HEARING BEFORE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND THAT MAY BE BEFORE ONE WHO ACTS BOTH AS THE
ALIEN'S JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR.  (FN6)  THE FINDING THAT THE ALIEN IS
GUILTY OF CONDUCT SUBJECTING HIM TO DEPORTATION DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BUT MAY BE MADE ON MERE PREPONDERANCE OF
EVIDENCE.  IF THE DETERMINATION OF DEPORTABILITY IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW
UNDER SEC. 10 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 243, 5
U.S.C. SEC. 1009, A QUESTION EXPRESSLY RESERVED IN MCGRATH V.
KRISTENSEN, 340 U.S. 162, 169, AND NOT DECIDED HERE, ANY EVIDENTIARY
ATTACK RAISES ONLY THE QUESTION WHETHER ON THE RECORD AS A WHOLE THERE
IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER.  UNIVERSAL CAMERA
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 340 U.S. 474.  NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES
IN SOME CASES AND THE OFFENSE WHICH RENDERS THE ALIEN DEPORTABLE MAY
HAVE OCCURRED, BUT CEASED, MANY YEARS AGO, (FN7) WHILE UNDER STATUTES
APPLICABLE TO CRIMES, THE SAME ACT, IF A CRIME, LONG WOULD HAVE CEASED
TO BE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION. 

HAVING THUS DISPENSED WITH IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS IN
OBTAINING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION THAT THE ALIEN IS GUILTY OF
CONDUCT MAKING HIM DEPORTABLE ON THE GROUND IT IS ONLY A CIVIL
PROCEEDING, THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO TURN AROUND AND USE THE RESULT AS A
CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION OF THAT FACT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  WE
THINK IT CANNOT MAKE THAT USE OF SUCH AN ORDER. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE DEPORTATION PROCEEDING IS AN EXERCISE
OF ADJUDICATIVE, NOT RULE-MAKING, POWER.  THE ISSUE ON WHICH EVIDENCE
IS HEARD IS WHETHER THE ALIEN HAS COMMITTED ACTS WHICH ARE GROUNDS FOR
DEPORTATION.  THE DECISION IS WHETHER HE IS GUILTY OF SUCH PAST
CONDUCT, AND, IF SO, THE LEGAL RESULT IS LIABILITY TO DEPORTATION. 
THIS IS NOT THE TYPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTS IN A
RULE OR ORDER PRESCRIBING RATES OR OTHERWISE GUIDING FUTURE CONDUCT. 

EXPERIENCE IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT WITH THE IMMIGRATION LAWS MADE
ME AWARE OF A SERIOUS WEAKNESS IN THE DEPORTATION PROGRAM WHICH
CONGRESS BY THIS ACT WAS TRYING TO OVERCOME.  A DEPORTATION POLICY CAN
BE SUCCESSFUL ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT SOME OTHER STATE IS WILLING TO
RECEIVE THOSE WE EXPEL.  BUT, EXCEPT SELECTED INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN DO US
MORE HARM ABROAD THAN HERE, WHAT COMMUNIST POWER WILL COOPERATE WITH
OUR DEPORTATION POLICY BY RECEIVING OUR EXPELLED COMMUNIST ALIENS?  AND
WHAT NON-COMMUNIST POWER FEELS SUCH CONFIDENCE IN ITS OWN DOMESTIC
SECURITY THAT IT CAN RISK TAKING IN PERSONS THIS STABLE AND POWERFUL
REPUBLIC FINDS DANGEROUS TO ITS SECURITY?  WORLD CONDITIONS SEEM TO
FRUSTRATE THE POLICY OF DEPORTATION OF SUBVERSIVES.  ONCE THEY GAIN
ADMISSION HERE, THEY ARE OUR PROBLEM AND ONE THAT CANNOT BE SHIPPED OFF
TO SOME OTHER PART OF THE WORLD. 

WHILE WE WOULD NOT JOIN IN A STRAINED CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION TO CREATE CAPTIOUS OR TRIVIAL OBSTACLES OR DELAYS TO
SOLUTION OF THIS PROBLEM, WE CANNOT SANCTION SENDING ALIENS TO PRISON
EXCEPT UPON COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES.  WE CAN AFFORD
NO LIBERTIES WITH LIBERTY ITSELF. 

THE COURT INTIMATES THAT IT MIGHT BE COMPELLED TO AGREE WITH THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO THE STATUTE WERE THE REASONING ADVANCED BY
COUNSEL.  I ABSTAIN FROM COMMENT ON THIS NEW SQUEAMISHNESS WHEREBY THE
COURT IMPRISONS ITSELF WITHIN COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT.  CF. TERMINIELLO V.
CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1.  IT IS OUR DUTY BEFORE REVERSING A JUDGMENT TO
EXAMINE ANY GROUND UPON WHICH IT CAN BE SUSTAINED, EVEN A GROUND WHICH
THE COURT BELOW MAY HAVE OVERLOOKED OR EXPRESSLY REJECTED.  SEE LANGNES
V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, AND WATTS, WATTS & CO. V. UNIONE AUSTRIACA, 248
U.S. 9, 21.  BUT THIS COURT IS REVERSING THE LOWER COURT WHICH HELD
THIS STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS SENDING THE ACT FORTH LIMPING WITH
A POTENTIAL INFIRMITY, BECAUSE THE COURT HAS BECOME TOO SHY TO TAKE UP
A POINT NOT SPONSORED BY COUNSEL, THOUGH, IF WELL TAKEN, IT WOULD
SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT HERE BEING OVERTURNED.  THE LEAST THAT COULD BE
DONE WOULD BE TO ORDER THE CASE REARGUED. 

FN1  "THE PERTINENT PORTION OF SEC. 20(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF
1917 (AS REWRITTEN IN SEC. 23 OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, 64
STAT. 1010, 8 U.S. C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 156(C) READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY ALIEN AGAINST WHOM AN ORDER OF DEPORTATION IS OUTSTANDING UNDER
VARIOUS NAMED STATUTES  ... WHO SHALL WILLFULLY FAIL OR REFUSE TO
DEPART FROM THE UNITED STATES WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE
DATE OF SUCH ORDER OF DEPORTATION, OR FROM SEPTEMBER 23, 1950,
WHICHEVER IS THE LATER, OR SHALL WILLFULLY FAIL OR REFUSE TO MAKE
TIMELY APPLICATION IN GOOD FAITH FOR TRAVEL OR OTHER DOCUMENTS
NECESSARY TO HIS DEPARTURE  ...  SHALL UPON CONVICTION BE GUILTY OF A
FELONY, AND SHALL BE IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS  ...  ." 

FN2  HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 586; LI SING V. UNITED
STATES, 180 U.S. 486, 495; DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244, 283;
RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 481, 489. 

FN3  IN LI SING V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 494-495, THE COURT QUOTED
FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, 730, AS FOLLOWS: 

"AN ORDER OF DEPORTATION IS NOT A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME.  IT IS NOT A
BANISHMENT, IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THAT WORD IS OFTEN APPLIED TO THE
EXPULSION OF A CITIZEN FROM HIS COUNTRY BY WAY OF PUNISHMENT.  IT IS
BUT A METHOD OF ENFORCING THE RETURN TO HIS OWN COUNTRY OF AN ALIEN WHO
HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE NATION, ACTING WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY,
AND THROUGH THE PROPER DEPARTMENTS, HAS DETERMINED THAT HIS CONTINUING
TO RESIDE HERE SHALL DEPEND.  HE HAS NOT, THEREFORE, BEEN DEPRIVED OF
LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; AND THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, SECURING THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY,
AND PROHIBITING UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, AND CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS, HAVE NO APPLICATION. 

THE LI SING COURT THEN WENT ON, HOWEVER, TO SAY THAT: 

"IT MAY BE PROPER HERE TO MENTION THAT THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT,
WHILE THE UNITED STATES CAN FORBID ALIENS FROM COMING WITHIN THEIR
BORDERS, AND EXPEL THEM FROM THE COUNTRY, AND CAN DEVOLVE THE POWER AND
DUTY OF IDENTIFYING AND ARRESTING SUCH PERSONS UPON EXECUTIVE OR
SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS, YET, WHEN CONGRESS SEES FIT TO FURTHER PROMOTE
SUCH A POLICY BY SUBJECTING THE PERSONS OF SUCH ALIENS TO INFAMOUS
PUNISHMENT AT HARD LABOR, OR BY CONFISCATING THEIR PROPERTY, SUCH
LEGISLATION, TO BE VALID, MUST PROVIDE FOR A JUDICIAL TRIAL TO
ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED.  WONG WING V. UNITED STATES, 163
U.S. 228." 

THAT COURT THEREBY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS A GREAT DISTINCTION
BETWEEN DEPORTATION ITSELF AND A DEPORTATION ORDER THAT MAY BE MADE THE
BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.  IT IS THAT DISTINCTION WHICH
WE PRESS FOR HERE.  SEE FRAENKEL, CAN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS EVADE
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT?  1 SYRACUSE L. REV. 173. 

FN4  HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, SUPRA, AT 586. 

FN5  HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, SUPRA, AT 587. 

FN6  WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33, HOLDING THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 237, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1001 ET SEQ.,
REQUIRED SEPARATION OF JUDGING AND PROSECUTING FUNCTIONS, WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS WHICH SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS FROM 5 U.S.C. SECS. 1004, 1006, AND 1007.  64
STAT. 1048, 8 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 155A. 

FN7  HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, SUPRA.
..END :












STROBLE V. CALIFORNIA 343 U.S. 181 


NO. 373.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 7, 1952 - 36 CAL. 2D 615,
226 P.2D 330, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER'S CONVICTION OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  PETITIONER HERE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY
OF HIS CONVICTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ON THE GROUNDS (1)
THAT IT WAS BASED IN PART ON A COERCED CONFESSION; (2) THAT A FAIR
TRIAL WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE OF INFLAMMATORY NEWSPAPER REPORTS INSPIRED
BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; AND (3) THAT HE WAS IN EFFECT DEPRIVED OF
COUNSEL IN THE COURSE OF HIS SANITY HEARING.  HE URGED THAT EACH OF
THESE GROUNDS INDEPENDENTLY WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS; AND THAT THE
COMBINATION OF THEM WITH OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES DENIED DUE PROCESS.  HELD:
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 183-198. 

1.  IF THE CONFESSION WHICH PETITIONER MADE IN THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHORTLY AFTER HIS ARREST WAS IN FACT INVOLUNTARY, THE
CONVICTION CANNOT STAND, EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE APART FROM THAT
CONFESSION MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JURY'S VERDICT. 
P. 190. 

2.  WHEN THE QUESTION ON REVIEW OF A STATE COURT CONVICTION IS
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY THE INTRODUCTION OF AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION,
THIS COURT MUST MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION ON THE UNDISPUTED
FACTS.  P. 190. 

3.  IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THIS COURT
CANNOT SAY THAT PETITIONER'S CONFESSION IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE WAS THE RESULT OF COERCION, EITHER PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL. 
PP. 184-189, 190-191. 

4.  PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF HIS ARREST
AND CONFESSION WERE SO INFLAMMATORY AS TO MAKE A FAIR TRIAL IN THE LOS
ANGELES AREA IMPOSSIBLE - EVEN THOUGH A PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS INTERVENED
BETWEEN THE DAY OF HIS ARREST AND CONFESSION AND THE BEGINNING OF HIS
TRIAL - IS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE.  PP. 191-195. 

5.  PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAIVED TRIAL BY JURY ON THE ISSUE OF
INSANITY IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED, SINCE IT APPEARS THAT HE HAD THE FULL
ASSISTANCE OF COMPETENT COUNSEL ON THAT QUESTION.  PP. 195-196. 

6.  THE COMBINATION OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS WITH THE ALLEGED UNWARRANTED
DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT AND THE REFUSAL TO PERMIT COUNSEL TO CONSULT
PETITIONER DURING THE MAKING OF THE CONFESSION, DO NOT AMOUNT TO SUCH
UNFAIRNESS AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS.  PP. 196-198. 

7.  UPON REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF A STATE COURT CONVICTION CHALLENGED
AS WANTING IN DUE PROCESS, ILLEGAL ACTS OF STATE OFFICIALS PRIOR TO
TRIAL ARE RELEVANT ONLY AS THEY BEAR UPON THE DEFENDANT'S CONTENTION
THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL, EITHER THROUGH THE USE OF A
COERCED CONFESSION OR OTHERWISE.  P. 197. 

8.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THIS COURT CANNOT HOLD THAT THE
ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN NOT TAKING
PETITIONER PROMPTLY BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE COERCED THE
CONFESSION WHICH HE MADE IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR IN ANY
OTHER WAY DEPRIVED HIM OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL.  P. 197. 

9.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO SHOWING OF PREJUDICE
RESULTING FROM THE REFUSAL OF THE PROSECUTORS TO ADMIT COUNSEL DURING
THEIR INTERROGATION OF PETITIONER.  PP. 197-198. 

10.  THE BURDEN OF SHOWING ESSENTIAL UNFAIRNESS IN A STATE COURT
TRIAL IS UPON HIM WHO CLAIMS SUCH INJUSTICE AND SEEKS TO HAVE THE
RESULT SET ASIDE, AND MUST BE SUSTAINED NOT AS A MATTER OF SPECULATION
BUT AS A DEMONSTRABLE REALITY.  P. 198. 

STROBLE V. CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

PETITIONER'S CONVICTION OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER, CHALLENGED AS
VIOLATING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  36 CAL. 2D 615, 226 P.2D
330.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 811.  AFFIRMED, P. 198. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER AND SENTENCED TO
DEATH.  HE ASKS THIS COURT TO REVERSE HIS CONVICTION AS WANTING IN THAT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED AGAINST STATE ENCROACHMENT BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PETITIONER CLAIMS (1) THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS
BASED IN PART ON A COERCED CONFESSION; (2) THAT A FAIR TRIAL WAS
IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE OF INFLAMMATORY NEWSPAPER REPORTS INSPIRED BY THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY; (3) THAT HE WAS IN EFFECT DEPRIVED OF COUNSEL IN THE
COURSE OF HIS SANITY HEARING; (4) THAT THERE WAS AN UNWARRANTED DELAY
IN HIS ARRAIGNMENT; AND (5) THAT THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS UNJUSTIFIABLY
REFUSED TO PERMIT AN ATTORNEY TO CONSULT PETITIONER SHORTLY AFTER
PETITIONER'S ARREST.  PETITIONER URGES THAT EACH OF THE FIRST THREE
CIRCUMSTANCES IS INDEPENDENTLY A DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS; AND THAT,
IN ANY EVENT, THE COMBINATION OF ALL FIVE CIRCUMSTANCES OPERATED TO
DEPRIVE HIM OF A FAIR TRIAL. 

THE MURDER OF WHICH PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED OCCURRED ON MONDAY,
NOVEMBER 14, 1949; THE VICTIM WAS A GIRL, AGED 6.  PETITIONER WAS
ARRESTED AROUND NOON ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1949.  HE WAS ARRAIGNED
IN THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL COURT AT 10 O'CLOCK THE FOLLOWING MORNING,
AND THE CITY PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT HIM.  A
PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, AND PETITIONER WAS
BOUND OVER FOR TRIAL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.  ON
NOVEMBER 25, PETITIONER WAS ARRAIGNED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT AND THE
COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER WAS APPOINTED AS HIS COUNSEL.  FROM THAT POINT
UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF HIS TRIAL, PETITIONER WAS VIGOROUSLY DEFENDED
BY TWO DEPUTIES OF THE COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.  ON DECEMBER 2,
1949, PETITIONER PLEADED BOTH "NOT GUILTY" AND "NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF
INSANITY."  THE CASE CAME ON FOR TRIAL ON JANUARY 3, 1950.  THE ISSUE
OF GUILT WAS TRIED TO A JURY, WHICH, ON JANUARY 19, RETURNED A VERDICT
OF GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER, WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION; UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW, THIS AUTOMATICALLY FIXED THE PENALTY AT DEATH.  ON
JANUARY 20, 1950, PETITIONER WAIVED JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF
INSANITY, AND THE COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONER WAS SANE AT THE TIME OF
COMMITTING THE OFFENSE.  ON JANUARY 27, 1950, ON PETITIONER'S MOTION, A
PRIVATE ATTORNEY WAS SUBSTITUTED AS PETITIONER'S COUNSEL.  ON FEBRUARY
6, 1950, THE TRIAL COURT, AFTER A HEARING, DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL, MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT, AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE
THE WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF INSANITY. 

ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED THE
CONVICTION.  36 CAL.  2D 615, 226 P.2D 330.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  342 U.S. 811. 

THE FACTS LEADING TO PETITIONER'S ARREST MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS
FOLLOWS: 

IN THE EARLY MORNING OF NOVEMBER 15, 1949, THE VICTIM'S BODY WAS
FOUND BEHIND THE INCINERATOR IN THE BACK YARD OF THE HOME OF
PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW.  IT WAS WRAPPED IN A BLANKET AND
COVERED WITH BOXES.  A NECKTIE WAS WOUND TWICE AROUND THE CHILD'S
NECK.  AN AXE, KNIFE, AND HAMMER WERE FOUND IN THE VICINITY OF THE
BODY.  AN AUTOPSY REVEALED THAT THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF DEATH WAS
ASPHYXIA DUE TO STRANGULATION.  IT ALSO REVEALED NUMEROUS LACERATIONS
ON THE TOP AND SIDES OF THE HEAD, SIX SKULL FRACTURES, A DEEP
LACERATION IN THE BACK OF THE NECK, ABRASIONS AND DISCOLORATIONS ON THE
CHILD'S BACK, IRRITATION OF THE EXTERNAL GENITALIA, AND THREE PUNCTURE
WOUNDS IN THE CHEST. 

SUSPICION IMMEDIATELY FOCUSED ON PETITIONER, WHO HAD BEEN VISITING
HIS DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE, WHEN HE HAD
DISAPPEARED.  SOME SIX MONTHS BEFORE, PETITIONER HAD JUMPED BAIL ON A
CHARGE OF MOLESTING A SMALL GIRL AND HAD NEVER SINCE BEEN APPREHENDED. 
AT APPROXIMATELY 11:50 A.M. ON NOVEMBER 17, AS PETITIONER ENTERED THE
BAR OF A RESTAURANT IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES, A CIVILIAN RECOGNIZED HIM
AS THE MAN WHOM THE POLICE WERE SEEKING IN CONNECTION WITH THE MURDER. 
THE CIVILIAN SUMMONED A POLICE OFFICER, CARLSON, WHO THEREUPON ARRESTED
PETITIONER. 

FROM THIS POINT ON THERE ARE SOME CONFLICTS IN THE TESTIMONY, AS
NOTED BELOW.  CARLSON, ACCOMPANIED BY THE CIVILIAN, TOOK PETITIONER TO
THE PARK FOREMAN'S OFFICE IN NEARBY PERSHING SQUARE, WHERE CARLSON
CALLED HEADQUARTERS TO REPORT HIS ARREST OF PETITIONER AND TO REQUEST
THAT A POLICE CAR BE SENT.  THEN CARLSON, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
CIVILIAN AND THE PARK FOREMAN, PROCEEDED TO SEARCH PETITIONER.  CARLSON
HAD PETITIONER STAND FACING THE WALL WITH HIS HANDS RAISED AGAINST IT
AND HIS FEET AWAY FROM IT.  WHILE BEING SEARCHED IN THIS POSITION,
PETITIONER PULLED HIS FEET CLOSER TO THE WALL AND THEN CARLSON, WITH
THE SIDE OF HIS SHOE, KICKED PETITIONER'S SHOES AT THE TOES IN ORDER TO
PUSH PETITIONER'S FEET BACK INTO POSITION.  THE CIVILIAN TESTIFIED THAT
"POSSIBLY" CARLSON'S FOOT SLIPPED AND HIT PETITIONER'S SHIN "ONCE OR
TWICE."  CARLSON TESTIFIED THAT AT NO TIME DID HE "STRIKE" PETITIONER
OR "INFLICT ANY KIND OF PHYSICAL INJURY ON HIM."  (FN1)  NO MARKS WERE
FOUND ON PETITIONER WHEN HE WAS EXAMINED BY A PHYSICIAN A FEW HOURS
LATER.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT AFTER SEARCHING PETITIONER, CARLSON TOOK
OUT HIS BLACKJACK, HELD IT UNDER PETITIONER'S NOSE, AND SAID EITHER,
"DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS FOR?"  OR "HAVE YOU SEEN THIS?"  PETITIONER
MAKES NO CLAIM THAT CARLSON USED THE BLACKJACK ON HIM.  WHILE WAITING
FOR THE POLICE CAR TO ARRIVE THE CIVILIAN ASKED PETITIONER WHETHER HE
WAS GUILTY OF THE MURDER, AND PETITIONER "MUMBLED SOMETHING UNDER HIS
BREATH THAT SOUNDED LIKE 'I GUESS I AM.'"  THEREUPON, ACCORDING TO THE
CIVILIAN, THE PARK FOREMAN SLAPPED PETITIONER WITH HIS OPEN HAND AND
KNOCKED OFF PETITIONER'S GLASSES. 

WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY THE POLICE CAR ARRIVED AND PETITIONER WAS DRIVEN
TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THE HALL OF JUSTICE BUILDING. 
WHILE EN ROUTE ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CAR BEGAN A
CONVERSATION WITH PETITIONER BY ASKING HIM WHERE HE HAD BEEN. 
PETITIONER REPLIED, "WELL, AFTER THAT TERRIBLE THING HAPPENED, I WENT
DOWN TO THE BEACH, DOWN TO OCEAN PARK.  I WAS GOING TO DO AWAY WITH
MYSELF."  THE OFFICER SAID, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT TERRIBLE THING?" 
TO WHICH PETITIONER REPLIED, "WHEN THE LITTLE GIRL GOT KILLED."  THE
OFFICER THEN INTERPOSED, "DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU KILLED THE LITTLE
GIRL?"  AND PETITIONER ANSWERED, "YES.  I WAS GOING DOWN TO THE BEACH. 
I WAS GOING TO JUMP IN THE OCEAN AND COMMIT SUICIDE BUT I DECIDED THAT
I WOULD HAVE TO PAY ON THE OTHER SIDE SO I MIGHT AS WELL COME BACK AND
PAY ON THIS SIDE."  THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT PROMISE
PETITIONER ANY REWARD OR EXTEND TO HIM ANY HOPE OF IMMUNITY, AND THAT
HE DID NOT USE FORCE OR THREATS OF ANY KIND.  THE OFFICER'S ENTIRE
TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS CONVERSATION IS UNCONTRADICTED, AND, INSOFAR
AS IT CONTAINS A CONFESSION BY PETITIONER, NO OBJECTION WAS MADE AT THE
TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH CONFESSION WAS INVOLUNTARY. 

PETITIONER DID OBJECT AT THE TRIAL, HOWEVER, TO THE INTRODUCTION IN
EVIDENCE OF A CONFESSION WHICH HE MADE AFTER HIS ARRIVAL IN THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.  PETITIONER WAS BROUGHT TO THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT APPROXIMATELY 1 P.M., AND AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY BEGAN QUESTIONING PETITIONER IN THE PRESENCE OF SOME NINETEEN
PERSONS, ATTACHES OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING WAS RECORDED ON A RECORDING MACHINE WHICH HAD
BEEN SET IN OPERATION BEFORE PETITIONER'S ARRIVAL.  PETITIONER STATED
THAT ON THE AFTERNOON OF NOVEMBER 14, HIS VICTIM CAME TO THE HOME OF
PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER, WHERE PETITIONER WAS VISITING; HE TOOK HIS
VICTIM INTO THE BEDROOM AND MADE ADVANCES UPON HER; WHEN SHE BEGAN TO
SCREAM, HE BECAME FRIGHTENED, GOT HOLD OF HER THROAT, SQUEEZED IT UNTIL
SHE BECAME QUIET; SHE STARTED TO SQUIRM AGAIN, SO HE TOOK A NECKTIE
FROM THE DRESSER AND TIED IT AROUND HER NECK; WHEN SHE CONTINUED TO
MOVE, HE TOOK HER OFF THE BED, WRAPPED HER IN A BLANKET, AND HIT HER ON
THE TEMPLE WITH A HAMMER WHICH HE HAD OBTAINED FROM THE KITCHEN DRAWER;
HE THEN DRAGGED HER ACROSS THE BACK YARD TO THE INCINERATOR, RETURNED
TO THE KITCHEN TO GET AN ICE PICK, AND PUSHED THE PICK INTO HER THREE
TIMES IN AN EFFORT TO REACH HER HEART; NEXT HE GOT AN AXE FROM THE
GARAGE AND HIT HER ON THE HEAD AND BACKBONE; FINALLY HE GOT A KNIFE
FROM THE KITCHEN AND STABBED HER IN THE BACK OF THE NECK, COVERED HER
BODY WITH BOXES, AND LEFT FOR OCEAN PARK, A BEACH RESORT WITHIN THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, WHERE HE REMAINED FOR THE THREE NIGHTS BEFORE HIS
APPREHENSION. 

TOWARDS THE END OF THE RECORDING PETITIONER STATED THAT THE OFFICERS
HAD NOT THREATENED OR ABUSED HIM IN ANY WAY, EITHER IN THE PARK
FOREMAN'S OFFICE OR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.  THE RECORDING
DISCLOSED NO MISTREATMENT AT THE TIME OF THE MAKING OF THE CONFESSION. 

THE QUESTIONING OF PETITIONER IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
LASTED APPROXIMATELY TWO HOURS.  ABOUT 45 MINUTES AFTER PETITIONER HAD
BEGUN HIS CONFESSION, AN ATTORNEY, MR. GRAY, CALLED AT THE WAITING ROOM
OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND ASKED FOR THE ASSISTANTS HANDLING
THE CASE.  UPON BEING ADVISED THAT THEY WERE BUSY HE THEN ASKED FOR THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY.  UPON BEING TOLD THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WAS ALSO
IN CONFERENCE AND COULD NOT BE DISTURBED, MR. GRAY ASKED TO SEE
PETITIONER.  IT IS UNCONTRADICTED THAT AT THAT POINT MR. GRAY STATED TO
A POLICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE WAITING ROOM THAT
HE "JUST WANTED TO HEAR FROM (PETITIONER'S) LIPS WHETHER OR NOT"
PETITIONER HAD COMMITTED THE MURDER, "SO THAT (HE) COULD REPORT BACK"
TO PETITIONER'S SON-IN-LAW.  (FN2)  MR. GRAY WAS DENIED ADMISSION TO
THE ROOM IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS BEING QUESTIONED, BUT TALKED TO AN
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AFTER THE CONFESSION HAD BEEN COMPLETED. 
MR. GRAY WAS PERMITTED TO SEE PETITIONER THAT EVENING.  MR. GRAY DID
NOT REPRESENT PETITIONER DURING THE TRIAL, BUT ON THE MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL WAS SUBSTITUTED, AT PETITIONER'S REQUEST, FOR THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER. 

SHORTLY AFTER 3 P.M., PETITIONER WAS TAKEN FROM THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO DR. MARCUS CRAHAN, A PHYSICIAN IN CHARGE OF THE
HOSPITAL OF THE COUNTY JAIL, FOR A PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION. 
DR. CRAHAN, WHEN CALLED BY PETITIONER AS A WITNESS AT THE TRIAL,
TESTIFIED THAT HE EXAMINED PETITIONER CAREFULLY, INCLUDING HIS FEET AND
SHINS, BUT FOUND NO BRUISES OR ABRASIONS OF ANY KIND.  ACCORDING TO DR.
CRAHAN, DURING THE EXAMINATION PETITIONER STATED THAT SINCE HIS ARREST
THE POLICE OFFICERS HAD BEEN VERY KIND TO HIM AND THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN
"MISTREATED" AND HAD BEEN GIVEN "EVERY CONSIDERATION."  PETITIONER
RELATED TO DR. CRAHAN THE DETAILS OF THE KILLING. 

PETITIONER WAS LODGED IN THE COUNTY JAIL FOR THE NIGHT AND WAS
ARRAIGNED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT AT 10 O'CLOCK THE FOLLOWING MORNING,
NOVEMBER 18. 

THEREAFTER, IN THE SIX WEEKS' PERIOD BETWEEN THE DATE OF HIS
ARRAIGNMENT AND THE BEGINNING OF HIS TRIAL, PETITIONER WAS EXAMINED BY
FOUR PSYCHIATRISTS (FN3) AND ONE CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST.  TO EACH OF
THESE PERSONS HE STATED THAT HE HAD KILLED HIS VICTIM AND RECOUNTED, IN
GREATER OR LESSER DETAIL, JUST HOW HE HAD GONE ABOUT THE KILLING. 
THESE EXPERTS, WHEN TESTIFYING AT THE TRIAL (TWO HAVING BEEN CALLED BY
THE PROSECUTION AND THREE BY THE PETITIONER), RELATED TO THE JURY WHAT
PETITIONER HAD TOLD THEM.  PETITIONER DID NOT OBJECT AT THE TIME, AND
MAKES NO OBJECTION NOW, TO THE ADMISSION OF THESE CONFESSIONS ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY WERE INVOLUNTARY. 

THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT IT COULD NOT CONSIDER A
CONFESSION UNLESS IT WAS VOLUNTARY; THAT THE JURY WAS THE SOLE JUDGE OF
VOLUNTARINESS; AND THAT A CONFESSION WAS NOT VOLUNTARY WHEN OBTAINED BY
ANY KIND OF VIOLENCE, ABUSE, OR THREAT, OR BY "ANY COAXING, CAJOLING,
OR MENACING INFLUENCE WHICH INDUCES IN THE MIND OF THE DEFENDANT THE
BELIEF OR HOPE THAT HE WILL GAIN SOME ADVANTAGE BY MAKING A
CONFESSION."  THE COURT FURTHER CHARGED THAT THE FACT THAT A CONFESSION
IS MADE WHILE AN ACCUSED IS UNDER ARREST AND BEING DETAINED, OR WHEN HE
IS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR WITHOUT HIS HAVING BEEN TOLD THAT ANY
STATEMENT HE MAKES MAY BE USED AGAINST HIM, DOES NOT IN ITSELF MAKE THE
CONFESSION INVOLUNTARY, BUT IS ONE CIRCUMSTANCE TO BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE CONFESSION.  THE COURT ADMONISHED
THE JURY TO VIEW WITH CAUTION THE TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESS WHICH
PURPORTS TO RELATE AN ORAL CONFESSION BY A DEFENDANT. 

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT STATED: "WE MAY ASSUME THAT, AS A MATTER
OF LAW UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN," PETITIONER'S CONFESSION IN THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS INVOLUNTARY.  (FN4)  THE COURT FELT,
HOWEVER, THAT THE USE OF THAT CONFESSION "COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE
FAIRNESS OF (PETITIONER'S) TRIAL," BECAUSE PETITIONER "THEREAFTER MADE
AT LEAST FIVE CONFESSIONS, OF MATERIALLY SIMILAR SUBSTANCE AND
UNQUESTIONED ADMISSIBILITY, WHICH WERE PUT IN EVIDENCE," AND BECAUSE
"IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL WOULD HAVE DIFFERED"
IF THAT CONFESSION HAD BEEN EXCLUDED.  (FN5)  THEREFORE THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT USE OF THE CONFESSION HAD NOT DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF DUE
PROCESS.    WE TAKE A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT VIEW.  IF THE CONFESSION WHICH
PETITIONER MADE IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS IN FACT
INVOLUNTARY, THE CONVICTION CANNOT STAND, EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE
APART FROM THAT CONFESSION MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE
JURY'S VERDICT.  MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 402, 404 (1945);
LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596, 597, N. 1 (1944).  THAT CONFESSION WAS
A PROMINENT FEATURE OF THE TRIAL.  FIRST A STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF
THE CONFESSION WAS READ, AND THEN A WIRE RECORDING OF IT WAS PLAYED TO
THE JURY.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE JURY'S
VERDICT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BASED, AT LEAST IN PART, ON THE CONFESSION
MADE IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.  SINCE WE TAKE THIS VIEW, WE
CANNOT MERELY "ASSUME," AS DID THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THAT THAT
CONFESSION WAS INVOLUNTARY, BUT MUST GO ON TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF
VOLUNTARINESS. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT SO MUCH AS SUGGEST THAT THE ACTION OF ANY OFFICER
DURING THE TAKING OF THE CONFESSION WAS ACCOMPANIED BY FORCE OR
THREATS.  HIS SOLE CONTENTION IS THAT THE INCIDENTS IN THE PARK
FOREMAN'S OFFICE, COUPLED WITH THE PRESENCE OF NINETEEN OFFICERS IN THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, RENDER THE CONFESSION WHICH HE MADE IN THE
LATTER OFFICE INVOLUNTARY. 

THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY STATED THAT, WHEN FACED WITH THE QUESTION
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY THE INTRODUCTION OF AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION,
IT MUST MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION ON THE UNDISPUTED FACTS. 
MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, AT 404, AND CASES CITED; ID., AT 438
(DISSENTING OPINION).  WE ADHERE TO THAT RULE.  IN THE PRESENT CASE,
HOWEVER, WE NEED NOT CONFINE OURSELVES TO THE UNDISPUTED FACTS; FOR,
EVEN IF WE GIVE PETITIONER THE BENEFIT OF EVERY DOUBT AS TO THE ALLEGED
COERCION, WE DO NOT THINK IT CAN FAIRLY BE SAID THAT HIS CONFESSION IN
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS COERCION'S PRODUCT.  WHATEVER
OCCURRED IN THE PARK FOREMAN'S OFFICE OCCURRED AT LEAST AN HOUR BEFORE
HE BEGAN HIS CONFESSION IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND WAS NOT
ACCOMPANIED BY ANY DEMAND THAT PETITIONER IMPLICATE HIMSELF.  LIKEWISE
HIS STATEMENT TO THE OFFICER WHILE ON THE WAY TO THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS ADMITTEDLY VOLUNTARY.  IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE, PETITIONER ANSWERED QUESTIONS READILY; THERE WAS NONE OF THE
"PRESSURE OF UNRELENTING INTERROGATION" WHICH THIS COURT CONDEMNED IN
WATTS V. INDIANA, 338 U.S. 49, 54 (1949).  INDEED, THE RECORD SHOWS
THAT FROM THE TIME OF HIS ARREST UNTIL THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL,
PETITIONER WAS ANXIOUS TO CONFESS TO ANYBODY WHO WOULD LISTEN - AND AS
MUCH SO AFTER HE HAD CONSULTED WITH COUNSEL AS BEFORE.  HIS WILLINGNESS
TO CONFESS TO THE DOCTORS WHO EXAMINED HIM, AFTER HE HAD BEEN ARRAIGNED
AND COUNSEL HAD BEEN APPOINTED, AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES FREE OF COERCION,
SUGGESTS STRONGLY THAT PETITIONER HAD CONCLUDED, QUITE INDEPENDENTLY OF
ANY DURESS BY THE POLICE, "THAT IT WAS WISE TO MAKE A CLEAN BREAST OF
HIS GUILT."  SEE LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, AT 604.  IN THE LIGHT OF ALL
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT PETITIONER'S CONFESSION
IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS THE RESULT OF COERCION, EITHER
PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL. 

WE TURN NOW TO PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF
HIS ARREST AND CONFESSION WERE SO INFLAMMATORY AS TO MAKE A FAIR TRIAL
IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA IMPOSSIBLE - EVEN THOUGH A PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS
INTERVENED BETWEEN THE DAY OF HIS ARREST AND CONFESSION AND THE
BEGINNING OF HIS TRIAL.  HERE WE ARE NOT FACED WITH ANY QUESTION AS TO
THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF NEWSPAPER COMMENT REGARDING PENDING
LITIGATION, SEE BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252 (1941); PENNEKAMP
V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331 (1946); CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367 (1947);
BUT WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS AROUSED SUCH PREJUDICE
IN THE COMMUNITY THAT PETITIONER'S TRIAL WAS "FATALLY INFECTED" WITH AN
ABSENCE OF "THAT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS ESSENTIAL TO THE VERY CONCEPT OF
JUSTICE."  LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941). 

THE SEARCH FOR AND APPREHENSION OF PETITIONER WAS ATTENDED BY MUCH
NEWSPAPER PUBLICITY.  BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE MURDER AND THE TIME OF
PETITIONER'S ARREST, NEWSPAPERS OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE LOS
ANGELES AREA FEATURED IN BANNER HEADLINES THE "MANHUNT" WHICH THE
POLICE WERE CONDUCTING FOR PETITIONER.  ON THE DAY OF PETITIONER'S
ARREST THESE NEWSPAPERS PRINTED EXTENSIVE EXCERPTS FROM HIS CONFESSION
IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE DETAILS OF THE CONFESSION HAVING
BEEN RELEASED TO THE PRESS BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AT PERIODIC
INTERVALS WHILE PETITIONER WAS GIVING THE CONFESSION.   ON THE
FOLLOWING MONDAY, FOUR DAYS LATER, LOS ANGELES NEWSPAPERS REPRINTED THE
FULL TEXT OF THAT CONFESSION AS IT WAS READ INTO THE RECORD AT THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING.  MOST OF THESE EVENTS WERE GIVEN TOP BILLING ON
THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PAPERS, AND WERE ACCOMPANIED BY LARGE HEADLINES. 
PETITIONER WAS VARIOUSLY DESCRIBED, BOTH IN HEADLINES AND IN THE TEXT
OF NEWS STORIES, AS A "WEREWOLF," A "FIEND," A "SEX-MAD KILLER," AND
THE LIKE.  THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ANNOUNCED TO THE PRESS HIS BELIEF THAT
PETITIONER WAS GUILTY AND SANE. 

THE SPATE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICITY ACCOMPANYING PETITIONER'S ARREST AND
CONFESSION SOON ABATED, HOWEVER.  DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 1949,
PETITIONER MADE THE HEADLINES OF LOS ANGELES NEWSPAPERS ONLY
INFREQUENTLY, SUCH AS WHEN HE ENTERED A PLEA OF "NOT GUILTY" ON
DECEMBER 2.  PETITIONER POINTS TO CERTAIN OTHER EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED
DURING THAT MONTH.  THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE CALLED A SPECIAL SESSION
OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE PROBLEM OF "SEX
CRIMES"; THE GOVERNOR CALLED A ONE-DAY CONFERENCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS TO CONSIDER THE SAME SUBJECT; A COMMITTEE OF THE STATE
LEGISLATURE INVESTIGATING SEX CRIMES HELD HEARINGS IN LOS ANGELES, AT
WHICH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY STATED THAT HE DID NOT SEE WHY SEX
OFFENDERS "SHOULDN'T BE DISPOSED OF THE SAME WAY" AS MAD DOGS; AND
VARIOUS CITIZENS' GROUPS MADE PROPOSALS FOR STUDYING AND DEALING WITH
SEX CRIMES.  LOS ANGELES NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS OF EACH OF THESE
EVENTS, AND THE ACCOUNTS AT TIMES MADE REFERENCE TO THE MURDER WITH
WHICH PETITIONER WAS CHARGED. 

PETITIONER'S TRIAL ITSELF WAS REPORTED BY LOS ANGELES NEWSPAPERS,
USUALLY ON INSIDE PAGES.  PETITIONER MAKES NO OBJECTION TO THIS PHASE
OF THE NEWSPAPER COVERAGE EXCEPT FOR THE NEWSPAPERS' OCCASIONAL
REFERENCE TO PETITIONER AS A "WEREWOLF." 

WHILE WE MAY DEPRECATE THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN
RELEASING TO THE PRESS, ON THE DAY OF PETITIONER'S ARREST, CERTAIN
DETAILS OF THE CONFESSION WHICH PETITIONER MADE, WE FIND THAT THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CONFESSION WAS READ INTO THE RECORD AT THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT ON NOVEMBER 21, FOUR DAYS
LATER.  THUS IN ANY EVENT THE CONFESSION WOULD HAVE BECOME AVAILABLE TO
THE PRESS AT THAT TIME, FOR "WHAT TRANSPIRES IN THE COURT ROOM IS
PUBLIC PROPERTY."  CRAIG V. HARNEY, SUPRA, AT 374.  PETITIONER HAS NOT
SHOWN HOW THE PUBLICATION OF A PORTION OF THAT CONFESSION FOUR DAYS
EARLIER PREJUDICED THE JURY IN ARRIVING AT THEIR VERDICT TWO MONTHS
THEREAFTER. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT THAT PETITIONER HAS FAILED
TO SHOW THAT THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS AROUSED AGAINST HIM SUCH PREJUDICE
IN THE COMMUNITY AS TO "NECESSARILY PREVENT A FAIR TRIAL," LISENBA V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, AT 236.  AT THE OUTSET, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT AT
NO POINT DID PETITIONER MOVE FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE, ALTHOUGH THE
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE EXPLICITLY PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER "A FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL TRIAL CANNOT BE HAD IN THE COUNTY" IN WHICH A CRIMINAL ACTION
IS PENDING, THE ACTION MAY, UPON MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT, BE REMOVED TO
"THE PROPER COURT OF SOME CONVENIENT COUNTY FREE FROM A LIKE
OBJECTION."  (FN6)  OF COURSE PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH A
MOTION IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE HERE, SINCE THE STATE COURT DID
NOT DECIDE AGAINST PETITIONER ON THIS GROUND BUT RATHER REJECTED ON THE
MERITS HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.  (FN7)  BUT, IN AN EFFORT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS PUBLIC HYSTERIA OR WIDESPREAD COMMUNITY
PREJUDICE AGAINST PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL, WE THINK IT
SIGNIFICANT THAT TWO DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS WHO WERE VIGOROUS IN
PETITIONER'S DEFENSE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL, SAW NO OCCASION TO SEEK A
TRANSFER OF THE ACTION TO ANOTHER COUNTY ON THE GROUND THAT PREJUDICIAL
NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS HAD MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PETITIONER TO OBTAIN A
FAIR TRIAL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY. 

THE MATTER OF PREJUDICIAL NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO THE
TRIAL COURT'S ATTENTION AFTER PETITIONER'S CONVICTION, AS ONE OF THE
GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  AT THAT TIME
PETITIONER'S PRESENT ATTORNEY URGED THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN "DEPRIVED
OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE BY THE PREMATURE RELEASE BY THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF THE DETAILS OF THE CONFESSION," AND
OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF THAT ALLEGATION CERTAIN LOS ANGELES NEWSPAPERS
PUBLISHED AT THE TIME OF PETITIONER'S ARREST.  THE TRIAL COURT REPLIED
AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE JURORS WERE ALL THOROUGHLY EXAMINED AND ALL DEFINITELY STATED
THAT THEY WOULD GIVE TO THE DEFENDANT THE BENEFIT OF THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE  ...  .  THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THOSE JURORS EVER SAW THOSE
PAPERS OR EVER READ THOSE PAPERS.  THEY WERE FULLY EXAMINED SO FAR AS
DEFENSE COUNSEL DESIRED AS TO ANY KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION THEY MIGHT
HAVE OF THE CASE."  (FN8) 

PETITIONER DOES NOT CHALLENGE THIS STATEMENT OF THE COURT.  INDEED,
AT NO STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS HAS PETITIONER OFFERED SO MUCH AS AN
AFFIDAVIT TO PROVE THAT ANY JUROR WAS IN FACT PREJUDICED BY THE
NEWSPAPER STORIES.  HE ASKS THIS COURT SIMPLY TO READ THOSE STORIES AND
THEN TO DECLARE, OVER THE CONTRARY FINDING OF TWO STATE COURTS, THAT
THEY NECESSARILY DEPRIVED HIM OF DUE PROCESS.  THAT WE CANNOT DO, AT
LEAST WHERE, AS HERE, THE INFLAMMATORY NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS APPEARED
APPROXIMATELY SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF PETITIONER'S TRIAL, AND
THERE IS NO AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING THAT ANY COMMUNITY PREJUDICE EVER
EXISTED OR IN ANY WAY AFFECTED THE DELIBERATION OF THE JURY.  IT IS
ALSO SIGNIFICANT THAT IN THIS CASE THE CONFESSION WHICH WAS ONE OF THE
MOST PROMINENT FEATURES OF THE NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS WAS MADE VOLUNTARILY
AND WAS INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL ITSELF. 

WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED
OF EFFECTIVE COUNSEL AT A CRITICAL POINT IN THE CASE, NAMELY, WHEN HE
WAIVED TRIAL BY JURY ON THE ISSUE OF INSANITY.  THE ATTORNEY WHO
CONSULTED WITH PETITIONER AS TO WHETHER HE SHOULD MAKE SUCH A WAIVER
WAS THE PUBLIC DEFENDER HIMSELF, ALTHOUGH PRIOR TO THAT TIME TWO DEPUTY
PUBLIC DEFENDERS HAD HANDLED THE CASE IN COURT.  THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
TOOK THIS ACTION BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF GUILT, HAD REQUESTED THAT HE PERSONALLY ATTEND
THE TRIAL ON THE INSANITY ISSUE.  (FN9)  WE FAIL TO SEE HOW THIS ACTION
HARMED PETITIONER.  AS THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT FOUND, THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER "WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE, HAVING READ THE DAILY TRANSCRIPT
AND CONSULTED WITH AND ADVISED (HIS TWO DEPUTIES) AND INTERVIEWED
WITNESSES DURING THE TRIAL"; (FN10) MOREOVER, BEFORE CONSULTING WITH
PETITIONER ON THE WAIVER QUESTION, HE DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH HIS TWO
DEPUTIES.  THEREAFTER, PETITIONER TWICE STATED IN OPEN COURT, IN REPLY
TO INQUIRIES BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, THAT HE WISHED TO WAIVE A JURY TRIAL
ON THE ISSUE OF INSANITY.  FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS NO REAL QUESTION AS
TO PETITIONER'S SANITY.  HE INTRODUCED NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE
SANITY HEARING; INSTEAD THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT THE SOLE EVIDENCE
WOULD BE THAT ADDUCED AT THE TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF GUILT, PLUS THE
COMPLETE REPORTS OF THE PSYCHIATRISTS WHO HAD TESTIFIED AT THAT TRIAL. 
(FN11)  EVERY PSYCHIATRIST WHO HAD TESTIFIED, WHETHER ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER OR ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION, HAD REACHED THE CONCLUSION
THAT PETITIONER WAS SANE.  ON THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHEN
PETITIONER'S PRESENT ATTORNEY SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE WAIVER OF JURY
TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF INSANITY, HE OFFERED NO NEW EVIDENCE RELATING TO
PETITIONER'S MENTAL STATE AND DID NOT INDICATE THAT ANY SUCH EVIDENCE
WAS AVAILABLE.  WE CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER RECEIVED THE FULL
ASSISTANCE OF COMPETENT COUNSEL IN DECIDING THAT HE WANTED THE INSANITY
ISSUE TRIED TO THE COURT.  ON THAT QUESTION, AS ON ALL OTHERS, HE HAS
BEEN AFFORDED "THE ASSISTANCE OF ZEALOUS AND EARNEST COUNSEL FROM
ARRAIGNMENT TO FINAL ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT."  AVERY V. ALABAMA, 308
U.S. 444, 450 (1940).  (FN12) 

NOR CAN WE AGREE WITH PETITIONER THAT A COMBINATION OF THESE GROUNDS
WITH OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY, UNWARRANTED DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT AND
REFUSAL TO PERMIT COUNSEL TO CONSULT PETITIONER DURING THE MAKING OF
THE CONFESSION, AMOUNTS TO SUCH UNFAIRNESS AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS.  THE
ARRAIGNMENT WAS HAD WITHIN LESS THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AFTER THE
ARREST.  THE OFFICIALS QUESTIONED PETITIONER ONLY DURING THE TWO-HOUR
PERIOD IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DESCRIBED ABOVE.  THE
REMAINDER OF THAT AFTERNOON WAS DEVOTED TO A PHYSICAL AND MENTAL
EXAMINATION, TO WHICH PETITIONER MAKES NO OBJECTION.  COUNSEL CALLED ON
PETITIONER AT THE COUNTY JAIL AT 9:30 P.M. THE EVENING OF THE ARREST;
PRESUMABLY PETITIONER REMAINED ALONE FROM THEN UNTIL THE TIME OF HIS
ARRAIGNMENT THE FOLLOWING MORNING.  ALTHOUGH THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT FOUND THAT THE FAILURE PROMPTLY TO ARRAIGN PETITIONER BEFORE A
COMMITTING MAGISTRATE WAS A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, (FN13) THAT IS NOT
DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US.  WHEN THIS COURT IS ASKED TO
REVERSE A STATE COURT CONVICTION AS WANTING IN DUE PROCESS, ILLEGAL
ACTS OF STATE OFFICIALS PRIOR TO TRIAL ARE RELEVANT ONLY AS THEY BEAR
ON PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT HE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL,
EITHER THROUGH THE USE OF A COERCED CONFESSION OR OTHERWISE.  LISENBA
V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, AT 234, 235, 240; LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, AT
597, N. 2; GALLEGOS V. NEBRASKA, 342 U.S. 55, 59, 65 (1951).  UPON THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE, WE CANNOT HOLD THAT THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN NOT TAKING PETITIONER PROMPTLY BEFORE A
COMMITTING MAGISTRATE, COERCED THE CONFESSION WHICH HE MADE IN THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR IN ANY OTHER WAY DEPRIVED HIM OF A FAIR
AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL. 

AS TO THE REFUSAL OF THE PROSECUTORS TO ADMIT COUNSEL DURING THEIR
INTERROGATION OF PETITIONER, COUNSEL STATED THAT HE HAD COME TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AT THE REQUEST OF PETITIONER'S SON-IN-LAW
MERELY TO INQUIRE OF PETITIONER AS TO HIS GUILT.  AT NO POINT DID
PETITIONER HIMSELF ASK FOR COUNSEL.  IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S REFUSAL TO INTERRUPT THE EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER,
WHICH HAD BEEN PROCEEDING FOR ALMOST AN HOUR, SO THAT COUNSEL COULD
MAKE INQUIRY FOR PETITIONER'S SON-IN-LAW, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A
DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS, EITHER INDEPENDENTLY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE.  WHILE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS SHOULD
ALWAYS HONOR A REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH A CLIENT, UPON
THE RECORD BEFORE US THERE IS NO SHOWING OF PREJUDICE.  AS WAS SAID IN
ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX REL.  MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 281 (1942): 

"IF THE RESULT OF THE ADJUDICATORY PROCESS IS NOT TO BE SET AT
NAUGHT, IT IS NOT ASKING TOO MUCH THAT THE BURDEN OF SHOWING ESSENTIAL
UNFAIRNESS BE SUSTAINED BY HIM WHO CLAIMS SUCH INJUSTICE AND SEEKS TO
HAVE THE RESULT SET ASIDE, AND THAT IT BE SUSTAINED NOT AS A MATTER OF
SPECULATION BUT AS A DEMONSTRABLE REALITY." 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PETITIONER HIMSELF DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE TRIAL. 

FN2  R. 287-288 (TESTIMONY OF JOHN D. GRAY); SEE ALSO R. 210
(TESTIMONY OF INSPECTOR J.A. DONAHOE). 

FN3  THREE OF THESE PSYCHIATRISTS HAD BEEN APPOINTED BY THE TRIAL
COURT PURSUANT TO CAL. PENAL CODE, 1951, SEC. 1027. 

FN4  36 CAL. 2D AT 623, 226 P.2D AT 335. 

FN5  36 CAL. 2D AT 623, 226 P.2D AT 336. 

FN6  CAL. PENAL CODE, 1951, SECS. 1033, 1035. 

FN7  SEE GRAYSON V. HARRIS, 267 U.S. 352, 358 (1925); INTERNATIONAL
STEEL & IRON CO. V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 297 U.S. 657, 665-666 (1936);
INDIANA EX REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, 303 U.S. 95, 98 (1938); TAKAHASHI V.
FISH & GAME COMM'N, 334 U.S. 410, 414, N. 4 (1948). 

FN8  R. 361-362. 

FN9  THE TRIAL COURT MADE THIS REQUEST AS A RESULT OF CERTAIN CONDUCT
ON THE PART OF ONE OF THE DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS, SET FORTH IN THE
OPINION BELOW AT 36 CAL. 2D 628, 226 P.2D 338-339. 

FN10  36 CAL. 2D AT 628, 226 P.2D AT 338. 

FN11  AT NO POINT HAS PETITIONER CHALLENGED THAT STIPULATION. 
INDEED, THE STIPULATION HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO BY ONE OF THE DEPUTY
PUBLIC DEFENDERS, IN WHOM PETITIONER STATES HE HAD COMPLETE CONFIDENCE,
PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COURT ASKED THE PUBLIC DEFENDER TO BE PERSONALLY
PRESENT AT THE INSANITY TRIAL. 

FN12  IN PEOPLE V. ADAMSON, 34 CAL. 2D 320, 333, 210 P.2D 13, 19
(1949), THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT THIS SAME
PUBLIC DEFENDER AND HIS OFFICE: "THIS COURT CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE,
TOO, THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND IN CALIFORNIA ANY LAWYERS MORE
EXPERIENCED OR BETTER QUALIFIED IN DEFENDING CRIMINAL CASES THAN THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND HIS STAFF." 

FN13  CAL. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

ONE OF THE PETITIONER'S GROUNDS FOR ATTACKING HIS CONVICTION IS THAT
THE TRIAL LACKED FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS BECAUSE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
HIMSELF INITIATED THE INTRUSION OF THE PRESS INTO THE PROCESS OF THE
TRIAL.  SUCH MISCONDUCT, THE PETITIONER CONTENDS, SUBVERTED THE
ADJUDICATORY PROCESS BY WHICH GUILT IS DETERMINED IN ANGLO-SAXON
COUNTRIES, SO AS TO OFFEND WHAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS.  THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AFTER VERDICT, AND
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA MIGHT HAVE DISPOSED OF THE CLAIM BY
RULING THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN MADE AT THE STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING
REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.  THAT COURT, HOWEVER, CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.  IT
PERMITTED THE PETITIONER TO INVOKE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND THEREBY
TENDERED A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, AS THIS COURT RECOGNIZES, FOR
OUR DISPOSITION. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THUS FORMULATED THE ISSUE AND
INDICATED ITS CONCEPTION OF THE ALLOWABLE STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE: 

"DEFENDANT CLAIMS THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE THE
TRIAL COURT DID NOT PROTECT HIM FROM, AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOSTERED, 'PUBLIC PRESSURE.'  THE KILLING AND THE SUBSEQUENT SEARCH FOR
DEFENDANT RECEIVED MUCH PUBLICITY.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEFENDANT'S
ARREST HE WAS TAKEN TO THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
INTERROGATED, AND CONFESSED.  THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, EVEN BEFORE
DEFENDANT COMPLETED HIS STATEMENT, RELEASED TO THE PRESS DETAILS OF THE
STATEMENT (INCLUDING DEFENDANT'S ADMISSIONS OF SEX PLAY WITH HIS VICTIM
AND OTHER CHILDREN ON OCCASIONS PRIOR TO THE KILLING) AND ALSO
ANNOUNCED HIS BELIEF THAT DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY AND SANE.  AT THE TIME
OF DEFENDANT'S ARREST AND AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL (WHICH BEGAN SOME
SEVEN WEEKS LATER) THERE WAS NOTORIOUS WIDESPREAD PUBLIC EXCITEMENT,
SENSATIONALLY EXPLOITED BY NEWSPAPER, RADIO AND TELEVISION, CONCERNING
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND DEFENDANT'S CRIME IN PARTICULAR.  IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, DEFENDANT URGES, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO OBTAIN AN
UNBIASED JURY, AND DUE PROCESS REQUIRES A NEW TRIAL EVEN THOUGH THERE
IS NO SHOWING THAT ANY JUROR WAS ACTUALLY INFLUENCED BY THE SENSATIONAL
PUBLICITY AND THE POPULAR HYSTERIA. 

"IN CONNECTION WITH HIS CLAIM OF 'PUBLIC PRESSURE' DEFENDANT ALSO
CALLS ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY ONE OF HIS COUNSEL
(VETERAN DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER JOHN J. HILL; DEFENDANT WAS NOT THEN
REPRESENTED BY HIS PRESENT PRIVATE COUNSEL) MADE DURING HIS CLOSING
ARGUMENT:  'I WISH TO MAKE THIS COMMENTARY WITH REFERENCE TO JUST WHAT
HAS OCCURRED BEFORE THE COURT TOOK THE BENCH.  I REFER TO THE
TELEVISING AND THE PICTURES TAKEN OF THE JURY ENTERING THE BOX, AND
WITH COUNSEL  ...  .  I DON'T LIKE THIS ADDED PUBLICITY IN THE CASE;
AND YET WE CONFORM, WE COOPERATE WITH THE MEN, OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS
IN THE VOCATION, AND THEREFORE WE ACCEPT IT AS PART OF WHAT WE HAVE TO
EXPECT IN A CASE THAT HAS ATTRACTED SO MUCH ATTENTION, THAT HAS BEEN SO
WIDELY PUBLICIZED, AND CONCERNING WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN UTTERANCES OVER
THE RADIO, IN THE PUBLIC PRESS, WHICH HAVE UNDULY ACCENTUATED THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS CASE  ...  WE SHALL NOT BE INFLUENCED IN THE
SLIGHTEST DEGREE IN THAT CALM DELIBERATION, DISPASSIONATE DISCUSSION,
AND ARRIVING AT A VERDICT UNDER THE INSTITUTIONS UNDER WHICH WE LIVE,
AND CONCERNING WHICH WE ARE PROUD:  THE AMERICAN WAY OF THE CONDUCT OF
A TRIAL.' 

"IT SEEMS THAT THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF THE 'AMERICAN WAY OF THE
CONDUCT OF A TRIAL,' PARTICULARLY A TRIAL FOR A SORDID CRIMINAL OFFENSE
SUCH AS THAT OF DEFENDANT, INCLUDES BOTH THE ASPECTS MENTIONED SO
UNDERSTANDINGLY BY MR. HILL:  ON THE ONE HAND OVER-STIMULATION, BY MASS
MEDIA OF COMMUNICATION, OF THE USUAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT WHICH IS
GRUESOME; ON THE OTHER HAND A TRIAL BY A JUDGE AND JURY IMMUNE FROM THE
PUBLIC PASSION."  PEOPLE V. STROBLE, 36 CAL. 2D 615, 620-621, 226 P.2D
330, 333-334. 

THUS, ON THE CALIFORNIA COURT'S OWN READING OF THE RECORD,
CIRCUMSTANCES TENDING TO ESTABLISH GUILT AND ADDUCED OUTSIDE THE
COURTROOM BEFORE THE TRIAL HAD EVEN BEGUN WERE AVIDLY EXPLOITED BY
PRESS AND OTHER MEDIA, ACTIVELY PROMOTED BY THE PROSECUTOR.  THE STATE
COURT SANCTIONED THIS AS NOT ONLY PERMISSIBLE BUT AS AN INEVITABLE
INGREDIENT OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  THAT SANCTION CONTRADICTS ALL
OUR PROFESSIONS AS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GUILT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT
TAKES PLACE IN THE COURTROOM, SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL RESTRICTIONS IN
PRODUCING PROOF AND IN THE GENERAL CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  JURORS
ARE OF COURSE HUMAN BEINGS AND EVEN WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS IN THE
WORLD THEY ARE, IN THE WELL-KNOWN PHRASE OF HOLMES AND HUGHES, JJ.,
"EXTREMELY LIKELY TO BE IMPREGNATED BY THE ENVIRONING ATMOSPHERE." 
FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 345, 349.  PRECISELY BECAUSE THE FEELING
OF THE OUTSIDE WORLD CANNOT, WITH THE UTMOST CARE, BE KEPT WHOLLY
OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM EVERY ENDEAVOR MUST BE TAKEN IN A CIVILIZED TRIAL
TO KEEP IT OUTSIDE.  TO HAVE THE PROSECUTOR HIMSELF FEED THE PRESS WITH
EVIDENCE THAT NO SELF-RESTRAINED PRESS OUGHT TO PUBLISH IN ANTICIPATION
OF A TRIAL IS TO MAKE THE STATE ITSELF THROUGH THE PROSECUTOR, WHO
WIELDS ITS POWER, A CONSCIOUS PARTICIPANT IN TRIAL BY NEWSPAPER,
INSTEAD OF BY THOSE METHODS WHICH CENTURIES OF EXPERIENCE HAVE SHOWN TO
BE INDISPENSABLE TO THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  SCIENCE WITH
ALL ITS ADVANCES HAS NOT GIVEN US INSTRUMENTS FOR DETERMINING WHEN THE
IMPACT OF SUCH NEWSPAPER EXPLOITATION HAS SPENT ITSELF OR WHETHER THE
POWERFUL IMPRESSION BOUND TO BE MADE BY SUCH INFLAMING ARTICLES AS HERE
PRECEDED THE TRIAL CAN BE DISSIPATED IN THE MIND OF THE AVERAGE JUROR
BY THE TAME AND OFTEN PEDESTRIAN PROCEEDINGS IN COURT.  MOREOVER, THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOUND THAT AT THE TIME OF THE PETITIONER'S
TRIAL "THERE WAS NOTORIOUS WIDESPREAD PUBLIC EXCITEMENT, SENSATIONALLY
EXPLOITED BY NEWSPAPER, RADIO AND TELEVISION, CONCERNING CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN AND DEFENDANT'S CRIME IN PARTICULAR." 

AND SO I CANNOT AGREE TO UPHOLD A CONVICTION WHICH AFFIRMATIVELY
TREATS NEWSPAPER PARTICIPATION INSTIGATED BY THE PROSECUTOR AS PART OF
"THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF THE 'AMERICAN WAY OF THE CONDUCT OF A
TRIAL.'"  SUCH PASSION AS THE NEWSPAPERS STIRRED IN THIS CASE CAN BE
EXPLAINED (APART FROM MERE COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF REVOLTING CRIME)
ONLY AS WANT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE ORDERLY COURSE OF JUSTICE.  TO ALLOW
SUCH USE OF THE PRESS BY THE PROSECUTION AS THE CALIFORNIA COURT HERE
LEFT UNDISCIPLINED, IMPLIES EITHER THAT THE ASCERTAINMENT OF GUILT
CANNOT BE LEFT TO THE ESTABLISHED PROCESSES OF LAW OR IMPATIENCE WITH
THOSE CALMER ASPECTS OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WHICH MAY NOT SATISFY THE
NATURAL, PRIMITIVE, POPULAR REVULSION AGAINST HORRIBLE CRIME BUT DO
VINDICATE THE SOBER SECOND THOUGHTS OF A COMMUNITY.  IF GUILT HERE IS
CLEAR, THE DIGNITY OF THE LAW WOULD BE BEST ENHANCED BY ESTABLISHING
THAT GUILT WHOLLY THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF LAW UNAIDED BY THE INFUSION
OF EXTRANEOUS PASSION.  THE MORAL HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY IS
STRENGTHENED BY ACCORDING EVEN THE MOST MISERABLE AND PATHETIC CRIMINAL
THOSE RIGHTS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS DESIGNED FOR ALL. 

AS TO ONE OTHER BRANCH OF THE COURT'S OPINION I MUST ENTER A CAVEAT. 
THIS CONCERNS THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PETITIONER'S FIRST CONFESSION,
THE ONE MADE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
DISPOSED OF THE CLAIM THAT THIS WAS A COERCED CONFESSION BY ASSUMING
THAT IT WAS, BUT FINDING THAT THE FACT WAS IMMATERIAL BECAUSE OF LATER,
SO-CALLED VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS.  I AGREE WITH MY BRETHREN THAT THIS
VIEW DISREGARDS OUR DECISION IN MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401. 
BUT I CANNOT AGREE THAT, DESPITE THE REFUSAL OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT TO DETERMINE AFFIRMATIVELY THE LEGAL CHARACTER OF THIS FIRST
CONFESSION, THIS COURT MAY DO SO HERE ON ITS OWN INDEPENDENT
INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS.  THAT CONCLUSION DOES NOT AT ALL FOLLOW
FROM THE FACT THAT WE MAKE SUCH A DETERMINATION, AT LEAST UPON THE
UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, WHEN THE STATE COURT FINDS THE CONFESSION TO BE
FREE OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT.  THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT A
CONFESSION IS COERCED INVOLVES A COMPLEX JUDGMENT UPON FACTS INEVITABLY
ENTANGLED WITH ASSUMPTIONS AND STANDARDS WHICH ARE PART AND PARCEL OF
THE ULTIMATE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.  SEE BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED
STATES, 322 U.S. 665, 670-671.  THE FINDING OF "FACT" THAT A CONFESSION
IS VOLUNTARY MAY INVOLVE THE APPLICATION OF IMPROPER STANDARDS TO THE
EVIDENCE, AND THUS THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE
ACCUSED.   BUT A WHOLLY DIFFERENT SITUATION IS PRESENTED WHEN A STATE
COURT CONCLUDES THAT COERCION ENTERED INTO THE INEVITABLY COMPLICATED
FACTORS INCLUDED IN THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CONSTITUTES A
CONFESSION. 

MOREOVER, ITEMS OF EVIDENCE MAY BE UNDISPUTED, BUT NOT THEIR
MEANING.  "FACTS," EXCEPT THE MOST RUDIMENTARY, ARE NOT LIKE MEMBERS OF
A LODGE WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY BADGES.  WHEN A STATE COURT HAS
DENIED AN ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THE STATE COURT CANNOT
FORECLOSE THIS COURT FROM CONSIDERING THE FEDERAL CLAIM MERELY BY
LABELLING ABSENCE OF COERCION A "FACT."  BUT IF A STATE COURT, READING
THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF ITS INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL POLICE AND
PROSECUTORIAL METHODS, SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT A CONFESSION WAS COERCED, I
CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT WOULD SET ASIDE THAT APPRAISAL AND
DECIDE INDEPENDENTLY THAT THE CONFESSION WAS WHOLLY FREE AND SELF
WILLED.  IT IS NOT FORTUITOUS THAT ALL THE CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT
HAS INDICATED THAT IT WAS NOT FORECLOSED BY THE DETERMINATION OF THE
STATE COURT HAVE BEEN CASES IN WHICH THE STATE REJECTED THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM BY FINDING THE CONFESSION VOLUNTARY. 

SINCE, AS I BELIEVE, AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT THAT THE CONFESSION WAS COERCED WOULD NOT AND SHOULD NOT
BE REEXAMINED HERE, I WOULD, ON THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE, REMAND FOR
THAT COURT TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT, IN ITS JUDGMENT AND NOT AS AN
ASSUMPTION, THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS INVOLUNTARY.    MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

MY VIEWS ON THE ILLEGALITY OF CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BETWEEN THE TIME
OF ARREST AND ARRAIGNMENT ARE CONTAINED IN WATTS V. INDIANA, 338 U.S.
49, 56-57; TURNER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 338 U.S. 62, 66-67; HARRIS V. SOUTH
CAROLINA, 338 U.S. 68, 71-73.  THE PRACTICE OF OBTAINING CONFESSIONS
PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT BREEDS THE THIRD-DEGREE AND THE INQUISITION.  AS
LONG AS IT REMAINS LAWFUL FOR THE POLICE TO HOLD PERSONS INCOMMUNICADO,
COERCED CONFESSIONS WILL INFECT CRIMINAL TRIALS IN VIOLATION OF THE
COMMANDS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.    THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ILLUSTRATE
THE EVILS OF THIS POLICE PRACTICE.  WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS BEING HELD
BY THE POLICE PRIOR TO HIS ARRAIGNMENT, A LAWYER TRIED TO SEE HIM.  THE
POLICE REFUSED THE LAWYER'S REPEATED REQUESTS.  IT WAS ONLY AFTER A
CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED THAT THE LAWYER WAS ALLOWED TO TALK WITH THE
PRISONER.  THIS WAS LAWLESS CONDUCT, CONDEMNED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA.  IT WAS NOT ONLY LAWLESS CONDUCT; IT WAS CONDUCT THAT
PRODUCED A CONFESSION. 

THIS CONFESSION AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENTLY OBTAINED CONFESSIONS WERE
USED AT THE TRIAL.  THE FACT THAT THE LATER CONFESSIONS MAY HAVE BEEN
LAWFULLY OBTAINED OR USED IS IMMATERIAL.  FOR ONCE AN ILLEGAL
CONFESSION INFECTS THE TRIAL, THE VERDICT OF GUILTY MUST BE SET ASIDE
NO MATTER HOW FREE OF TAINT THE OTHER EVIDENCE MAY BE.  MALINSKY V. NEW
YORK, 324 U.S. 401. 

MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THE ACCUSED STARTED TALKING SHORTLY AFTER HE
WAS ARRESTED AND PRIOR TO THE TIME HE WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY DOES NOT SAVE THE CASE.  THAT TALK WAS ACCOMPANIED OR PRECEDED
BY BLOWS AND KICKS OF THE POLICE; AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
ASSUMED THAT IT WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE FIRST CONFESSION OBTAINED
THROUGH "PHYSICAL ABUSE OR PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE OR A COMBINATION OF
THE TWO." 
..END :


















UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORPORATION, A.G., V. MCGRATH 343 U.S. 205 


NO. 178.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 7, 1952 - 88 U.S. APP.
D.C. 182, 191 F.2D 327, AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  PETITIONER, A SWISS CORPORATION, SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE RETURN OF CERTAIN OF ITS PROPERTY VESTED IN 1942 BY THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917, AS
AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941.  PETITIONER WAS LARGELY
OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY A NATIONAL OF GERMANY, THROUGH A SON WITH WHOM
HE HAD A USUFRUCT AGREEMENT.  PETITIONER HAD BEEN ACQUIRED WITH
USUFRUCT PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING THE FATHER TO CONTROL AND
USE HIS PROPERTY AS HE SAW FIT.  THE FATHER HAD AND USED THE SUBSTANCE,
WHILE THE SON HAD THE BARE LEGAL TITLE EXCEPT FOR A 20% INTEREST IN THE
INCOME OF THE USUFRUCT PROPERTY.  SUCH RIGHT AS THE SON HAD HE
EXERCISED OR FAILED TO EXERCISE IN COMPLETE SUBORDINATION TO THE WILL
OF THE FATHER.  HELD: BECAUSE OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT CONTROL AND
DOMINATION BY AN ENEMY NATIONAL, PETITIONER WAS AFFECTED WITH AN "ENEMY
TAINT" AND CANNOT RECOVER UNDER SEC. 9(A).  PP. 206-212. 

(A)  UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE ACT, ONE NOT AN "ENEMY," AS DEFINED IN
SEC. 2, CAN RECOVER ANY INTEREST, RIGHT, OR TITLE WHICH HE HAS IN
PROPERTY SO VESTED; BUT CORPORATIONS AFFECTED WITH AN "ENEMY TAINT" ARE
INCLUDED IN THE WORD "ENEMY."  CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., 332 U.S.
480.  PP. 211-212. 

(B) ACTUAL USE BY AN ENEMY-TAINTED CORPORATION OF ITS POWER IN
ECONOMIC WARFARE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IS NOT THE CRUCIAL FACT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER VESTED PROPERTY MAY BE RETAINED BY THE CUSTODIAN
UNDER THE ACT.  IT IS THE EXISTENCE OF THAT POWER THAT IS CONTROLLING
AGAINST WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY MOVE.  P. 212. 

2.  AT THE END OF THE LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT, PETITIONER
SOUGHT TO HAVE THE CASE REOPENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSERTING AND
ESTABLISHING THE NONENEMY STATUS OF THE SON OF THE ENEMY NATIONAL. 
BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO DILIGENTLY AND TIMELY ASSERT THE INTEREST OF THE
SON, THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO REOPEN THE CASE FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION OF SUCH SEPARATE INTEREST.  HELD:  IN VIEW OF THE HOLDING
IN KAUFMAN V. SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE, DECIDED TODAY, ANTE, P. 156, THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR CONSIDERATION, IN THE LIGHT
OF THAT HOLDING AND THIS OPINION, OF ANY APPLICATION THAT MAY BE MADE
ON BEHALF OF THE SON WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF REMAND.  HORMEL V.
HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552, APPLIED.  PP. 212-213. 

UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORPORATION, A.G., V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY PETITIONER TO RECOVER PROPERTY VESTED BY THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS
AMENDED, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE CUSTODIAN.  82 F.
SUPP. 602.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  88 U.S. APP. D.C.  182, 191
F.2D 327.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 847.  AFFIRMED IN
PART AND VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART, P. 213. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FOR THE RETURN OF CERTAIN OF ITS PROPERTY VESTED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN IN 1942 UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917, 40
STAT. 411, AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 1941, 55 STAT. 839. 
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND FOR THE CUSTODIAN, 82 F. SUPP. 602, AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 88 U.S. APP. D.C. 182, 191 F.2D 327.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 342 U.S. 847. 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS WERE FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND CONFIRMED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS UPON AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.  IN
1931, WILHELM VON OPEL, A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT NATIONAL OF GERMANY,
OWNED CERTAIN SHARES OF STOCK IN THE ADAM OPEL WORKS, A GERMAN
CORPORATION LARGELY OWNED BY GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.  WILHELM HAD
AN AGREEMENT WITH GENERAL MOTORS TO SELL HIS SHARES AT A PRICE.  IN
1931, HE BECAME ALARMED AT BUSINESS CONDITIONS IN GERMANY AND DESIRED
TO GET HIS STOCK OUT OF THE COUNTRY TO SAVE HIS INVESTMENT FOR HIMSELF
AND HIS FAMILY FROM THE ECONOMIC AND GOVERNMENTAL INFLUENCES THERE
PREVAILING.  IN THAT YEAR, HE AND HIS WIFE ENTERED INTO WHAT WAS KNOWN
UNDER GERMAN LAW AS A USUFRUCT AGREEMENT WITH THEIR ONLY SON, FRITZ,
WHO HAD NOT LIVED IN GERMANY SINCE 1929 AND FOR THAT REASON WAS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE GERMAN RESTRICTIONS UPON THE HANDLING OF THIS PROPERTY. 
BY THIS AGREEMENT, WILHELM'S TITLE TO THE SHARES IN THE ADAM OPEL WORKS
WAS TRANSFERRED TO FRITZ.  THE INSTRUMENT PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE USUFRUCT IN THE SHARES IS NOT ASSIGNED TO FRITZ VON OPEL.  IT
REMAINS WITH WILHELM VON OPEL AND HIS WIFE  ...  UNTIL THE DEATH OF THE
SURVIVOR OF THEM.  HOWEVER, 20% OF ALL DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST RECEIVED
WILL ACCRUE TO FRITZ VON OPEL." 

THE INSTRUMENT PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IF FRITZ DIED BEFORE HIS PARENTS
AND WITHOUT ISSUE, THE TRANSFER WAS TO BE VOID AND WAS TO REVERT TO HIS
PARENTS, THE TRANSFERORS.  IF THE PARENTS DIED BEFORE FRITZ, HE WAS TO
HAVE THE PROPERTY AS AN ADVANCEMENT, TO BE DEDUCTED FROM HIS SHARE IN
HIS PARENTS' ESTATE.  THE USUFRUCT INCOME NOT DRAWN BY THE PARENTS WAS
ALSO TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY FRITZ AS AN ADVANCEMENT. 

AFTER MUCH EXPERT TESTIMONY, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE LAW OF
GERMANY PERTAINING TO SUCH USUFRUCT AGREEMENT TO BE AS FOLLOWS: 

"52.  A RIGHT OF USUFRUCT, ONCE ESTABLISHED, IS UNDER GERMAN LAW AN
IN REM RIGHT IN PROPERTY.  A PERSON HAVING A USUFRUCT IN PROPERTY HAS A
RIGHT: 

"(A) TO THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY OR, IN THE CASE OF MONEY OR
SECURITIES, TO THE INCOME FROM THE SECURITIES: 

"(B) TO CO-POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TOGETHER WITH THE PERSON
HOLDING LEGAL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY: 

"(C) TO A VOICE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY INSOFAR AS THE
MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION OF THE USUFRUCTUARY'S RIGHTS UNDER
SUBSECTION (A) ABOVE ARE CONCERNED: 

"(D) TO PREVENT THE SALE OR DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY AS A RESULT
OF HIS RIGHT TO CO-POSSESSION:

"(E) THE GERMAN CIVIL CODE DOES NOT MENTION WHETHER THE USUFRUCTUARY,
FOR THE PROTECTION OF HIS INCOME, HAS ANY VOTING RIGHTS.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF A DECIDED CASE THE LEGAL COMMENTARIES SPECULATE IN THREE
DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.  ONE POSITION IS THAT THE TITLE OWNER HAS ALL
VOTING RIGHTS AND THE USUFRUCTUARY NO VOTING RIGHTS WHATSOEVER.  THE
SECOND POSITION IS THAT THE TITLE OWNER HAS A VOTING RIGHT FOR ALL
MEASURES WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INCOME WHILE THE USUFRUCTUARY
CAN VOTE IN REGARD TO INCOME.  THE THIRD POSITION IS THAT THE
USUFRUCTUARY HAS ALL THE VOTING RIGHTS."  R. 60-61; 82 F. SUPP. 602,
605. 

UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WILHELM AND HIS WIFE HAD A USUFRUCT IN THE ADAM
OPEL STOCK TRANSFERRED TO FRITZ.  THE LATTER, ON OCTOBER 17, 1931, SOLD
THE USUFRUCT PROPERTY TO GENERAL MOTORS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CONTRACT WHICH WILHELM HAD WITH THAT COMPANY.  IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
SEVERAL INTERESTS INVOLVED, THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE WERE TRANSFERRED
TO PETITIONER, A SWISS CORPORATION ACQUIRED BY FRITZ FOR THIS PURPOSE. 
EVENTUALLY THESE FUNDS WERE USED TO PURCHASE STOCKS, LATER TRANSFERRED
TO PETITIONER, IN CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER THE VARIOUS STATES OF
THE UNITED STATES, FROM WHICH DERIVED THE STOCKS VESTED BY THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  FRITZ OWNED 97% OF THE STOCK OF PETITIONER.  UNDER
THE GERMAN LAW, AS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT, A USUFRUCTUARY MAY
FOLLOW THE ASCERTAINABLE PROCEEDS OF THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO
THE USUFRUCT.  THEREFORE, THE STOCKS PURCHASED BY PETITIONER WITH THE
PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE USUFRUCT PROPERTY WERE SUBJECT TO AND WERE
TREATED AS SUBJECT TO THE USUFRUCT AGREEMENT. 

ON JUNE 7, 1935, FRITZ PLACED ALL BUT THREE SHARES OF THE CAPITAL
STOCK OF PETITIONER IN A SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX IN ZURICH, SWITZERLAND, AND
GAVE THE KEY THERETO TO HANS FRANKENBERG, WHO RECEIVED IT AS AGENT OF
WILHELM VON OPEL.  FRANKENBURG HAD BECOME THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF
PETITIONER AT WILHELM'S REQUEST IN 1932, AND EXERCISED CONTROL OVER
PETITIONER'S INVESTMENTS UNTIL THE VESTING OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN
INVOLVED.  BY THE DELIVERY TO WILHELM'S AGENT OF THE KEY TO THE BOX
CONTAINING PETITIONER'S STOCK, THERE WAS THUS TRANSFERRED TO WILHELM
POSSESSION OF THE RES, SUBJECT TO THE USUFRUCT; AND THE USUFRUCT
AGREEMENT WAS THEREBY CONSUMMATED.  FRITZ ALSO ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONER CONCERNING ITS INVESTMENT, BUT UNDER THE GUIDANCE
OF WILHELM OR HIS AGENT, FRANKENBERG. 

NEITHER WILHELM NOR HIS WIFE EVER DREW ANY INCOME FROM THE USUFRUCT. 
AN OIL LEASE OWNED BY ONE OF THE AMERICAN CORPORATIONS WHOSE STOCK WAS
PURCHASED WITH PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE ADAM OPEL SHARES TO
GENERAL MOTORS, WAS SOLD, AND THE PROCEEDS OF THAT SALE USED TO PAY A
FINE OF WILHELM IN GERMANY.  EXPENSES OF A TRIP BY WILHELM TO SOUTH
AMERICA AND ONE TO HUNGARY WERE PAID BY PETITIONER AND CHARGED AGAINST
THE INCOME ACCOUNT OF FRITZ. 

PETITIONER OWNED ALL THE STOCK OF A SUBSIDIARY HUNGARIAN CORPORATION
ENGAGED IN THE MINING OF BAUXITE IN HUNGARY, AND IN 1939 AND 1940
GUARANTEED A LOAN BY A SWISS BANK TO THIS CORPORATION FOR ITS
OPERATIONS.  THE LOAN WAS REPAID IN NOVEMBER 1942.  THE UNITED STATES
WAS AT WAR WITH HUNGARY FROM DECEMBER 13, 1941.  DURING OCTOBER,
NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER 1941, THE HUNGARIAN CORPORATION SHIPPED BAUXITE
TO GERMANY AND HAD A CONTRACT TO DO SO UNTIL THE END OF 1942. 

IN 1942, THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN VESTED THE STOCKS HELD BY
PETITIONER IN SEVERAL AMERICAN CORPORATIONS AND ALL THE RIGHT, TITLE,
AND INTEREST OF PETITIONER IN AND TO A CERTAIN CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER
AMERICAN CORPORATION.  ALL OF THE STOCKS HAD BEEN ACQUIRED FROM THE
PROCEEDS OF THE ORIGINAL USUFRUCT PROPERTY. 

FROM OCTOBER 5, 1931, THE DATE OF THE USUFRUCT AGREEMENT, THE
USUFRUCT PROPERTY WAS CONTROLLED, USED, AND IN ALL WAYS HANDLED AND
DIRECTED BY WILHELM AND HIS MANAGING AGENTS.  THE INTEREST OF FRITZ IN
PETITIONER WAS WHOLLY SUBORDINATED TO THAT OF WILHELM.  FRITZ HAD THE
BARE LEGAL TITLE AND THE RIGHT TO 20% OF THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY. 
WILHLEM IS NOW DEAD.  HIS WIFE, A DAUGHTER, AND THE SON, FRITZ, STILL
SURVIVE. 

PETITIONER WAS IN THIS COURT ON THE PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE IN CLARK
V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., A.G., 332 U.S. 480.  THERE, IT WAS ALLEGED IN
THE COMPLAINT THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF AN ENEMY, AND
THAT AT NO TIME SPECIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT HAD THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION
BEEN OWNED OR CONTROLLED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
BY AN ENEMY, AN ALLY OF AN ENEMY, OR A NATIONAL OF A DESIGNATED ENEMY
COUNTRY; THAT NONE OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN OWING OR BELONGING TO OR
HELD ON ACCOUNT OF OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY SUCH PERSON OR INTEREST. 
THIS COURT CONSTRUED THESE ALLEGATIONS "TO MEAN THAT THE PROPERTY IS
FREE OF ALL ENEMY TAINT AND PARTICULARLY THAT THE CORPORATIONS WHOSE
SHARES HAVE BEEN SEIZED, THE CORPORATIONS WHICH HAVE A CONTRACT IN
WHICH RESPONDENT HAS AN INTEREST, AND RESPONDENT ITSELF, ARE COMPANIES
IN WHICH NO ENEMY, ALLY OF AN ENEMY, NOR ANY NATIONAL OF EITHER HAS ANY
INTEREST OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, AND THAT RESPONDENT HAS NOT DONE
BUSINESS IN THE TERRITORY OF THE ENEMY OR ANY ALLY OF AN ENEMY."  P.
482.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING SUCH FACTS WAS HELD TO BE SUFFICIENT AS
AGAINST A MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THE CASE WAS SENT BACK FOR TRIAL. 
UPON THE TRIAL, THE FACTS WERE FOUND AS ABOVE STATED. 

HOWEVER, FROM THE FACTS FOUND, IT IS CLEAR THAT PETITIONER FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES WAS, TO THE EXTENT OF 97%, LARGELY OWNED, MANAGED,
USED, AND CONTROLLED BY WILHELM VON OPEL, A NATIONAL OF GERMANY.  THE
FINDINGS DEMONSTRATE THAT PETITIONER WAS A CORPORATE HOLDING COMPANY
ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING WILHELM TO CONTROL AND USE HIS
PROPERTY AS HE SAW FIT.  HIS INTEREST WAS PARAMOUNT AND CONTROLLING. 
THE INTEREST OF FRITZ WAS WHOLLY AND IN REALITY SUBORDINATED TO
WILHELM'S, EXCEPT AS TO THE RIGHT OF FRITZ TO RECEIVE 20% OF THE INCOME
FROM THE USUFRUCT PROPERTY.  PETITIONER WAS NEUTRAL IN NAME ONLY.  ITS
ENEMY TAINT WAS ALL BUT COMPLETE BECAUSE OF THE PREDOMINANT INFLUENCE
AND CONTROL OF WILHELM.  WILHELM HAD AND USED THE SUBSTANCE, WHILE
FRITZ HAD THE BARE LEGAL TITLE; AND SUCH RIGHT AS THIS GAVE FRITZ, HE
EXERCISED OR FAILED TO EXERCISE IN COMPLETE SUBORDINATION TO THE WILL
OF HIS FATHER.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS WHEN IT SAID: 

"THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE A DILUTED 'TAINT'; IT INVOLVES THE
OWNERSHIP BY ENEMY NATIONALS OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF AMERICAN
BUSINESS."  88 U.S. APP. D.C. AT 183, 191 F.2D AT 328. 

BEFORE 1941 THE PROPERTY HERE INVOLVED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VESTED,
BECAUSE THIS PETITIONER WAS A CORPORATION OF A NEUTRAL COUNTRY,
SWITZERLAND, UNLESS SUCH CORPORATION WAS SHOWN TO BE DOING BUSINESS IN
AN ENEMY COUNTRY OR IN THE COUNTRY OF AN ALLY OF AN ENEMY.  BEHN, MEYER
& CO. V. MILLER, 266 U.S. 457; CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., A.G.,
SUPRA.  BUT ON DECEMBER 18, 1941, CONGRESS AMENDED THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT BY THE PASSAGE OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 1941, 55 STAT.
839, AND GAVE RESPONDENT POWER TO VEST ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST OF ANY
FOREIGN COUNTRY OR NATIONAL THEREOF IN SAID PROPERTY.  HOWEVER, UNDER
SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, ONE NOT AN ENEMY, AS
DEFINED IN SEC. 2 OF SAID ACT, CAN RECOVER ANY INTEREST, RIGHT, OR
TITLE WHICH HE HAS IN THE PROPERTY SO VESTED.  AS CONSTRUED BY THIS
COURT IN CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., A.G., SUPRA, SEC. 2 INCLUDED
IN THE WORD "ENEMY" ALL CORPORATIONS AFFECTED WITH AN "ENEMY TAINT." 
SINCE WE FIND PETITIONER TO BE SO AFFECTED BECAUSE OF THE DIRECT AND
INDIRECT CONTROL AND DOMINATION BY AN ENEMY NATIONAL, WILHELM VON OPEL,
PETITIONER CANNOT RECOVER UNDER SEC. 9(A). 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT VESTED PROPERTY MUST BE RETURNED UNLESS THERE IS
PROOF OF ACTUAL USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR ECONOMIC WARFARE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES.  THE CRUCIAL FACT IS NOT THE ACTUAL USE BY AN ENEMY
TAINTED CORPORATION OF ITS POWER IN ECONOMIC WARFARE AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  IT IS THE EXISTENCE OF THAT POWER THAT IS CONTROLLING AND
AGAINST WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAY MOVE.  THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE ENEMY TO DO ITS WORST BEFORE
IT ACTS.  CF. MILLER V. UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  268 AT 306. 

AS THE DISTRICT COURT SAID, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT "TO FIND A STRONGER
CASE OF ENEMY TAINT IN VESTED PROPERTY SHORT OF FULL OWNERSHIP BY AN
ENEMY THAN EXISTS IN THIS CASE.  THE NEUTRAL ASPECT OF OWNERSHIP IN THE
PROPERTY IS INSIGNIFICANT  ...  ."  82 F. SUPP.  AT 606. 

IN VIEW OF THE DECISION TODAY IN KAUFMAN V. SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE,
ANTE, P. 156, CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO AN EFFORT OF PETITIONER TO
OPEN THE CASE FOR THE ASSERTION OF THE RIGHTS OF FRITZ VON OPEL. 

PETITIONER ATTEMPTED AT THE END OF THE LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT TO HAVE THE CASE REOPENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSERTING AND
ESTABLISHING THE NONENEMY STATUS OF FRITZ VON OPEL.  BECAUSE OF THE
FAILURE TO DILIGENTLY AND TIMELY ASSERT THE INTEREST OF FRITZ, THE
DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO REOPEN THE CASE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF
SUCH SEPARATE INTEREST. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED AS TO PETITIONER,
BUT IN VIEW OF THE NOVEL HOLDING IN KAUFMAN, THE COURT IS OF THE
OPINION THAT ITS DECISION IN HORMEL V. HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552, IS
APPLICABLE.  WE ACCORDINGLY VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW AND
REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR CONSIDERATION, IN THE LIGHT
OF KAUFMAN AND THIS OPINION, OF ANY APPLICATION THAT MAY BE MADE ON
BEHALF OF FRITZ VON OPEL WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF REMAND, AND IN
ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED.    MR.
JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS
CASE. 
..END :

















RAY V. BLAIR 343 U.S. 154 


NO. 649.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 3, 1952 - 257 ALA. - ,
57 SO. 2D 395, REVERSED. 


ARTICLE II, SEC. 1, AND THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION DO
NOT COMPEL ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER ENTERED BY AN ALABAMA STATE COURT IN
THIS MANDAMUS PROCEEDING DIRECTING PETITIONER, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE
DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF ALABAMA, TO CERTIFY TO THE SECRETARY
OF STATE OF ALABAMA THE NAME OF RESPONDENT AS A CANDIDATE FOR
NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR IN THE
PRIMARY ELECTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO BE HELD ON MAY 6, 1952. 
PP. 154-155. 

RAY, CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF ALABAMA, V.
BLAIR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS PROCEEDING, AN ALABAMA CIRCUIT COURT ENTERED AN ORDER
DIRECTING PETITIONER TO CERTIFY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF ALABAMA
THE NAME OF RESPONDENT AS A CANDIDATE FOR NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL
AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY TO BE HELD ON MAY 6, 1952.  THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED ON
THE SINGLE GROUND THAT THE ORDER WAS COMPELLED BY ARTICLE II, SECTION 1
AND THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

PETITIONER APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR A STAY OF THE JUDGMENTS AND
MANDATES OF THE ALABAMA COURTS AND FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT.  ON
MARCH 24, 1952, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI AND ORDERED THE JUDGMENTS AND
MANDATES OF THE COURTS BELOW STAYED PENDING FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE BY THIS COURT.  THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED FOR
ARGUMENT ON THE STAY AS WELL AS THE MERITS ON MARCH 31, 1952.  343 U.S.
901. 

THE QUESTION RAISED IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY BRIEFED AND
ARGUED.  THE COURT HAS FULLY CONSIDERED THE QUESTION AND HAS REACHED
ITS CONCLUSION.  IT NOW ANNOUNCES ITS DECISION AND ENTERS ITS JUDGMENT
IN ADVANCE OF THE PREPARATION OF A FULL OPINION WHICH, WHEN PREPARED,
WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK.  (SEE POST, P. 214.) 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT ARTICLE II, SECTION 1 AND THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT
OF THE CONSTITUTION DO NOT COMPEL ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT
ENTERED BELOW. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED.  THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT IS
DIRECTED TO ISSUE FORTHWITH.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















RAY V. BLAIR 343 U.S. 214 


NO. 649.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1952 - DECIDED APRIL 3.  1952 - OPINIONS
FILED APRIL 15, 1952 - 257 ALA, - , 57 SO. 2D 395, REVERSED. 


WHERE A STATE AUTHORIZES A POLITICAL PARTY TO CHOOSE ITS NOMINEES FOR
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS IN A STATE-CONTROLLED PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION AND
TO FIX THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE CANDIDATES, IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FOR THE PARTY TO REQUIRE THE CANDIDATES FOR
THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR TO TAKE A PLEDGE TO SUPPORT THE
NOMINEES OF THE PARTY'S NATIONAL CONVENTION FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT OR FOR THE PARTY'S OFFICERS TO REFUSE TO CERTIFY AS A
CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR A PERSON OTHERWISE QUALIFIED WHO
REFUSES TO TAKE SUCH A PLEDGE.  PP. 215-231. 

1.  PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS EXERCISE A FEDERAL FUNCTION IN BALLOTING
FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT, BUT THEY ARE NOT FEDERAL OFFICERS. 
THEY ACT BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE WHICH IN TURN RECEIVES ITS AUTHORITY
FROM THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 224-225. 

2.  EXCLUSION OF A CANDIDATE IN A PARTY PRIMARY BY A STATE OR
POLITICAL PARTY BECAUSE SUCH CANDIDATE WILL NOT PLEDGE TO SUPPORT THE
PARTY'S NOMINEES IS A METHOD OF SECURING PARTY CANDIDATES IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION WHO ARE PLEDGED TO THE PHILOSOPHY AND LEADERSHIP OF
THAT PARTY; AND IT IS AN EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S RIGHT UNDER ART. II,
SEC. 1, TO APPOINT ELECTORS IN SUCH MANNER AS IT MAY CHOOSE.  UNITED
STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, AND SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 225-227. 

3.  THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT BAR A POLITICAL PARTY FROM
REQUIRING OF A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR IN ITS PRIMARY A
PLEDGE TO SUPPORT THE NOMINEES OF ITS NATIONAL CONVENTION.  PP. 228
231. 

4.  THE REQUIREMENT OF SUCH A PLEDGE DOES NOT DENY EQUAL PROTECTION
OR DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  NIXON V. HERNDON, 273
U.S. 536, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 226, N. 14. 

RAY, CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF ALABAMA, V.
BLAIR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT UPHELD, ON FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS,
A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS REQUIRING PETITIONER, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, TO CERTIFY
RESPONDENT AS A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR IN A DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARY WHICH WAS TO BE HELD ON MAY 6, 1952.  257 ALA. - , 57 SO. 2D
395.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  343 U.S. 901.  IN A PER CURIAM
DECISION ANNOUNCED ON APRIL 3, 1952, IN ADVANCE OF THE PREPARATION OF
THIS OPINION, THIS COURT REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT.  343 U.S. 154.  THIS
OPINION STATES THE REASONS FOR THAT DECISION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA UPHELD A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
REQUIRING THE PETITIONER, THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT STATE'S EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, TO CERTIFY RESPONDENT EDMUND BLAIR,
A MEMBER OF THAT PARTY, TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF ALABAMA AS A
CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY TO BE HELD
MAY 6, 1952.  RESPONDENT BLAIR WAS ADMITTEDLY QUALIFIED AS A CANDIDATE
EXCEPT THAT HE REFUSED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING QUOTED WORDS IN THE
PLEDGE REQUIRED OF PARTY CANDIDATES - A PLEDGE TO AID AND SUPPORT "THE
NOMINEES OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE CHAIRMAN'S
REFUSAL OF CERTIFICATION WAS BASED ON THAT OMISSION. 

THE MANDAMUS WAS APPROVED ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE ABOVE
REQUIREMENT RESTRICTED THE FREEDOM OF A FEDERAL ELECTOR TO VOTE IN HIS
ELECTORAL COLLEGE FOR HIS CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT.  257 ALA. - , 57 SO. 2D
395.  THE PLEDGE WAS HELD VOID AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE TWELFTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  (FN1)  BECAUSE THE
MANDAMUS WAS BASED ON THIS FEDERAL RIGHT SPECIALLY CLAIMED BY
RESPONDENT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  28 U.S.C.  SEC. 1257(3); 343 U.S.
901. 

ON ACCOUNT OF THE LIMITED TIME BEFORE THE PRIMARY ELECTION DATE, THIS
COURT ORDERED PROMPT ARGUMENT ON MARCH 31, 1952, AFTER GRANTING
CERTIORARI AND HANDED DOWN A PER CURIAM DECISION ON APRIL 3, 343 U.S.
154, STATING SUMMARILY OUR CONCLUSION ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE THAT DETERMINED THE ALABAMA JUDGMENT.  THIS OPINION IS TO
SUPPLEMENT THAT STATEMENT.  OUR MANDATE ISSUED FORTHWITH. 

THE CONTROVERSY AROSE UNDER THE ALABAMA LAWS PERMITTING PARTY
PRIMARIES.  TITLE 17 OF THE CODE OF ALABAMA, 1940, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES
FOR REGULAR OPTIONAL PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN THAT STATE ON THE FIRST
TUESDAY IN MAY OF EVEN YEARS BY ANY POLITICAL PARTY, AS DEFINED IN THE
CHAPTER, AT STATE COST.   SECS.  336, 337, 340, 343.  THEY ARE SUBJECT
TO THE SAME PENALTIES AND PUNISHMENT PROVISIONS AS REGULAR STATE
ELECTIONS.  SEC. 339.  PARTIES MAY SELECT THEIR OWN COMMITTEE IN SUCH
MANNER AS THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF THE PARTY MAY DESIRE.  SEC. 341. 
SHALL CERTIFY THE CANDIDATES OTHER THAN THOSE WHO ARE CANDIDATES FOR
COUNTY OFFICES TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF ALABAMA.  THAT OFFICIAL,
WITHIN NOT LESS THAN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF HOLDING THE PRIMARY
ELECTIONS, SHALL CERTIFY THESE NAMES TO THE PROBATE JUDGE OF ANY COUNTY
HOLDING AN ELECTION. 

EVERY STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IS GIVEN THE POWER TO FIX POLITICAL
OR OTHER QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS OWN MEMBERS.  IT MAY DETERMINE WHO SHALL
BE ENTITLED AND QUALIFIED TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION OR TO BE A
CANDIDATE THEREIN.  THE QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS AND CANDIDATES MAY
VARY.  (FN2) 

WITH THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNING
BODY OF THE PARTY.  THERE IS A PROVISION, SEC. 350, WHICH READS AS
FOLLOWS:  "AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BALLOT AND AFTER THE NAME OF THE LAST
CANDIDATE SHALL BE PRINTED THE FOLLOWING, VIZ:  'BY CASTING THIS BALLOT
I DO PLEDGE MYSELF TO ABIDE BY THE RESULT OF THIS PRIMARY ELECTION AND
TO AID AND SUPPORT ALL THE NOMINEES THEREOF IN THE ENSUING GENERAL
ELECTION.'" 

ON CONSIDERATION OF THESE SECTIONS IN OTHER CASES THE SUPREME COURT
OF ALABAMA HAS REACHED CONCLUSIONS GENERALLY CONFORMABLE TO THE CURRENT
OF AUTHORITY.  SECTION 347 HAS BEEN SAID BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA IN RAY V. GARNER, 257 ALA. - , 57 SO. 2D 824, 826, DECIDED
MARCH 27, 1952, TO GIVE FULL POWER TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO
DETERMINE "WHO SHALL BE ENTITLED AND QUALIFIED TO VOTE IN PRIMARY
ELECTIONS OR BE CANDIDATES OR OTHERWISE PARTICIPATE THEREIN  ...  JUST
SO SUCH COMMITTEE ACTION DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF SOME STATUTORY OR
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION." 

THE GARNER CASE INVOLVED A PLEDGE ADOPTED BY THE STATE DEMOCRATIC
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRINTING ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT, READING AS
FOLLOWS: 

"BY CASTING THIS BALLOT I DO PLEDGE MYSELF TO ABIDE BY THE RESULT OF
THIS PRIMARY ELECTION AND TO AID AND SUPPORT ALL THE NOMINEES THEREOF
IN THE ENSUING GENERAL ELECTIONS.  I DO FURTHER PLEDGE MYSELF TO AID
AND SUPPORT THE NOMINEES OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  257
ALA., AT - , 57 SO. 2D, AT 825. 

THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME PLEDGE THAT CREATED THE CONTROVERSY IN
THIS PRESENT CASE.  THE COURT ALSO CALLED ATTENTION APPROVINGLY TO LETT
V. DENNIS, 221 ALA. 432, 433, 129 SO. 33, 34, A CASE THAT REQUIRED A
CANDIDATE IN THE PRIMARY TO FOLLOW A PARTY REQUIREMENT AND MAKE A
PUBLIC OATH AS TO HIS VOTE IN THE PAST GENERAL ELECTION, WHERE IT WAS
DECLARED "A TEST BY A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF PARTY AFFILIATION AND
PARTY FEALTY IS REASONABLE AND PROPER TO BE PRESCRIBED FOR THOSE
PARTICIPATING IN ITS PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR
OFFICE."  (FN3)  AS TO THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE TESTS FOR PARTICIPATION
IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS, IT WAS ADDED IN THE GARNER CASE THAT "IN ALABAMA
THIS PREROGATIVE IS VESTED IN THE STATE PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
ACTING THROUGH ITS DULY ELECTED OR CHOSEN MEMBERS.  SMITH V. MCQUEEN,
232 ALA. 90, 166 SO. 788."  (FN4)  257 ALA., AT - , 57 SO. 2D, AT 826. 
THE MCQUEEN CASE INVOLVED THE SELECTION OF DELEGATES TO A NATIONAL
POLITICAL CONVENTION.  IT WAS ALSO SAID IN RAY V. GARNER CONCERNING THE
VOTER'S PLEDGE THAT: 

"PRIMARILY, THE PLEDGE MUST BE GERMANE TO PARTY MEMBERSHIP AND PARTY
ELECTIONS AND, WHILE THE LAST CLAUSE OF THE PLEDGE PERTAINS TO THE
NATIONAL PARTY, THE PARTY IN ALABAMA WILL BE A PART OF IT BY SENDING
DELEGATES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NATIONAL CONVENTION, THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE HAVING ORDERED THEIR ELECTION AND THE PARTY THEREBY HAVING
SIGNIFIED ITS INTENTION TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL PARTY. 
THEREFORE, IT WAS WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF THE COMMITTEE TO ADOPT THE
RESOLUTION SO BINDING THE VOTERS IN THE PRIMARY."  (FN5)  257 ALA., AT
, 57 SO. 2D, AT 826. 

AS IS WELL KNOWN, POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE MODERN SENSE WERE NOT BORN
WITH THE REPUBLIC.  THEY WERE CREATED BY NECESSITY, BY THE NEED TO
ORGANIZE THE RAPIDLY INCREASING POPULATION, SCATTERED OVER OUR LAND, SO
AS TO COORDINATE EFFORTS TO SECURE NEEDED LEGISLATION AND OPPOSE THAT
DEEMED UNDESIRABLE.  COMPARE BRYCE, MODERN DEMOCRACIES, P. 546.  THE
PARTY CONVENTIONS OF LOCALLY CHOSEN DELEGATES, FROM THE COUNTRY TO THE
NATIONAL LEVEL, SUCCEEDED THE CAUCUSES OF SELF-APPOINTED LEGISLATORS OR
OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS.  DISSATISFACTION WITH THE MANIPULATION OF
CONVENTIONS CAUSED THAT SYSTEM TO BE LARGELY SUPERSEDED BY THE DIRECT
PRIMARY.  THIS WAS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE SOUTH BECAUSE, WITH THE
PREDOMINANCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THAT SECTION, THE NOMINATION
WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ELECTION.  THERE PRIMARIES ARE GENERALLY,
AS IN ALABAMA, OPTIONAL.  (FN6) VARIOUS TESTS OF PARTY ALLEGIANCE FOR
CANDIDATES IN DIRECT PRIMARIES ARE FOUND IN A NUMBER OF STATES.  (FN7)
THE REQUIREMENT OF A PLEDGE FROM THE CANDIDATE PARTICIPATING IN
PRIMARIES TO SUPPORT THE NOMINEE IS NOT UNUSUAL.  (FN8)  SUCH A
PROVISION PROTECTS A PARTY FROM INTRUSION BY THOSE WITH ADVERSE
POLITICAL PRINCIPLES.  (FN9)  IT WAS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SEC. 347 OF
THE ALABAMA CODE, NOTE 2, SUPRA, THAT THE STATE DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF ALABAMA ADOPTED A RESOLUTION ON JANUARY 26, 1952,
REQUIRING CANDIDATES IN ITS PRIMARY TO PLEDGE SUPPORT TO THE NOMINEES
OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR PRESIDENT AND
VICE-PRESIDENT.  IT IS THIS PROVISION IN THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
THE PARTY UNDER SEC. 347 WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE. 

THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA CONCLUDED THAT THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REQUIREMENT VIOLATED THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT, NOTE 1,
SUPRA.  IT SAID: 

"WE APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENT THAT FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, THE ELECTORS
SELECTED TO VOTE IN THE COLLEGE HAVE VOTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
WISHES OF THE PARTY TO WHICH THEY BELONG.  BUT IN DOING SO, THE
EFFECTIVE COMPULSION HAS BEEN PARTY LOYALTY.  THAT THEORY HAS GENERALLY
BEEN TAKEN FOR GRANTED, SO THAT THE VOTING FOR A PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN USUALLY FORMAL MERELY.  BUT THE TWENFTH AMENDMENT
DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.  THE NOMINEES OF THE PARTY FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT MAY HAVE BECOME DISQUALIFIED, OR PECULIARLY OFFENSIVE NOT
ONLY TO THE ELECTORS BUT THEIR CONSTITUENTS ALSO.  THEY SHOULD BE FREE
TO VOTE FOR ANOTHER, AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT."  (FN10)
257 ALA., AT - , 57 SO. 2D, AT 398. 

IN URGING A CONTRARY VIEW THE DISSENTING ALABAMA JUSTICES, IN
SUPPORTING THE RIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE TO REQUIRE THIS CANDIDATE TO
PLEDGE SUPPORT TO THE PARTY NOMINEES, SAID: 

"ANY OTHER VIEW, IT SEEMS, WOULD DESTROY EFFECTIVE PARTY GOVERNMENT
AND WOULD PRIVILEGE ANY CANDIDATE, REGARDLESS OF HIS POLITICAL
PERSUASION, TO ENTER A PRIMARY ELECTION AS A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTOR AND
FIX HIS OWN QUALIFICATIONS FOR SUCH CANDIDACY.  THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE
TRADITIONAL AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM."  257 ALA., AT - , 57 SO. 2D, AT
403. 

THE APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON THEIR FACE FURNISH NO
DEFINITE ANSWER TO THE QUERY WHETHER A STATE MAY PERMIT A PARTY TO
REQUIRE PARTY REGULARITY FROM ITS PRIMARY CANDIDATES FOR NATIONAL
ELECTORS.  (FN11)  THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS EXERCISE A FEDERAL
FUNCTION IN BALLOTING FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT BUT THEY ARE NOT
FEDERAL OFFICERS OR AGENTS ANY MORE THAN THE STATE ELECTOR WHO VOTES
FOR CONGRESSMEN.  THEY ACT BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE THAT IN TURN
RECEIVES ITS AUTHORITY FROM THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  (FN12)  NEITHER
THE LANGUAGE OF ART. II, SEC. 1, NOR THAT OF THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT
FORBIDS A PARTY TO REQUIRE FROM CANDIDATES IN ITS PRIMARY A PLEDGE OF
POLITICAL CONFORMITY WITH THE AIMS OF THE PARTY.  UNLESS SUCH A
REQUIREMENT IS IMPLICIT, CERTAINLY NEITHER PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A STATE POLITICAL PARTY, AFFILIATED WITH A
NATIONAL PARTY THROUGH ACCEPTANCE OF THE NATIONAL CALL TO SEND STATE
DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION, TO ACCEPT PERSONS AS CANDIDATES
WHO REFUSE TO AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE PARTY'S REQUIREMENT.  (FN13) 

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PARTY'S POWER TO EXCLUDE AS CANDIDATES IN
THE PRIMARY THOSE UNWILLING TO AGREE TO AID AND SUPPORT THE NATIONAL
NOMINEES RUNS AS FOLLOWS:  THE CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD FOR THE SELECTION
OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT IS FOR STATES TO APPOINT ELECTORS
WHO SHALL IN TURN VOTE FOR OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVES.  THE INTENTION OF THE
FOUNDERS WAS THAT THOSE ELECTORS SHOULD EXERCISE THEIR JUDGMENT IN
VOTING FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT.  THEREFORE THIS REQUIREMENT OF
A PLEDGE IS A RESTRICTION IN SUBSTANCE, IF NOT IN FORM, THAT INTERFERES
WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO SELECT THE PROPER
PERSONS TO HEAD THE NATION, ACCORDING TO THE BEST JUDGMENT OF THE
ELECTOR.  THIS INTERFERENCE WITH THE ELECTOR'S FREEDOM OF BALLOTING FOR
PRESIDENT RELATES DIRECTLY TO THE GENERAL ELECTION AND IS NOT CONFINED
TO THE PRIMARY, IT IS CONTENDED, BECAUSE UNDER UNITED STATES V.
CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, AND SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649, THE
ALABAMA PRIMARY IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE GENERAL ELECTION.  SEE
SCHNELL V. DAVIS, 336 U.S. 933.  ALTHOUGH ALABAMA, IT IS POINTED OUT,
REQUIRES ELECTORS TO BE CHOSEN AT THE GENERAL ELECTION BY POPULAR VOTE,
ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 17, SEC. 222, THE REAL ELECTION TAKES PLACE IN
THE PRIMARY.  LIMITATION AS TO ENTERING A PRIMARY CONTROLS THE RESULTS
OF THE GENERAL ELECTION.  (FN14) 

FIRST WE CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE CLASSIC AND ALLWRIGHT CASES ON THE
PRESENT ISSUES.  IN THE FORMER CASE, WE DEALT WITH THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO PUNISH FRAUDS IN THE PRIMARIES "WHERE THE STATE LAW HAS
MADE THE PRIMARY AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROCEDURE OF CHOICE."  WE HELD
THAT CONGRESS HAD SUCH POWER BECAUSE THE PRIMARY WAS A NECESSARY STEP
IN THE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION AS FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES. 
THEREFORE THE SANCTIONS OF SECS. 19 AND 20 OF THE OLD CRIMINAL CODE,
SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED AS 18 U.S.C. SECS. 241 AND 242, WHICH FORBADE
INJURY TO CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHTS, APPLIED TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE
IN THE PRIMARY.  313 U.S., AT 317-321.  IN THE LATTER, THE PROBLEM WAS
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE EXCLUSION OF CITIZENS BY A PARTY AS
ELECTORS IN A PARTY PRIMARY BECAUSE OF RACE.  WE HELD, ON CONSIDERATION
OF STATE PARTICIPATION IN THE REGULATION OF THE PRIMARY, THAT THE PARTY
EXCLUSION WAS STATE ACTION AND SUCH STATE ACTION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BECAUSE THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION WERE A SINGLE INSTRUMENTALITY
FOR CHOICE OF OFFICERS.  THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION OF
ABRIDGMENT BY A STATE OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON ACCOUNT OF RACE MADE THE
EXCLUSION UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  CONSEQUENTLY, UNDER 8 U.S.C. SECS.  31 AND
43 AN INJURED PARTY MIGHT SUE ONE INJURING HIM.  321 U.S. 649, 660
664.    IN ALABAMA, TOO, THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS ARE A PART
OF THE STATE-CONTROLLED ELECTIVE PROCESS.  THE ISSUE HERE, HOWEVER, IS
QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PUNISH CRIMINAL CONDUCT
IN A PRIMARY OR TO ALLOW DAMAGES FOR WRONGS TO RIGHTS SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  A STATE'S OR A POLITICAL PARTY'S EXCLUSION OF CANDIDATES
FROM A PARTY PRIMARY BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT PLEDGE TO SUPPORT THE
PARTY'S NOMINEES IS A METHOD OF SECURING PARTY CANDIDATES IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION, PLEDGED TO THE PHILOSOPHY AND LEADERSHIP OF THAT
PARTY.  IT IS AN EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S RIGHT TO APPOINT ELECTORS IN
SUCH MANNER, SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, AS IT MAY
CHOOSE.  U.S. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 1.  THE FACT THAT THE PRIMARY IS A
PART OF THE ELECTION MACHINERY IS IMMATERIAL UNLESS THE REQUIREMENT OF
PLEDGE VIOLATES SOME CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISION.  IT WAS THE
VIOLATION OF A SECURED RIGHT THAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE CLASSIC AND
ALLWRIGHT DECISIONS.  HERE THEY DO NOT APPLY UNLESS THERE WAS A
VIOLATION OF THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT BY THE REQUIREMENT TO SUPPORT THE
NOMINEES OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTION. 

SECONDLY, WE CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT THAT THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT DEMANDS
ABSOLUTE FREEDOM FOR THE ELECTOR TO VOTE HIS OWN CHOICE, UNINHIBITED BY
A PLEDGE.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS THE ELECTORS SHALL VOTE
BY BALLOT.  BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROHIBIT AN
ELECTOR'S ANNOUNCING HIS CHOICE BEFOREHAND, PLEDING HIMSELF.  THE
SUGGESTION THAT IN THE EARLY ELECTIONS CANDIDATES FOR ELECTORS -
CONTEMPORARIES OF THE FOUNDERS - WOULD HAVE HESITATED, BECAUSE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, TO PLEDGE THEMSELVES TO SUPPORT PARTY
NOMINEES IN THE EVENT OF THEIR SELECTION AS ELECTORS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
ACCEPT.  HISTORY TEACHES THAT THE ELECTORS WERE EXPECTED TO SUPPORT THE
PARTY NOMINEES.  (FN15)  EXPERTS IN THE HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZE
THE LONGSTANDING PRACTICE.  (FN16)  INDEED, MORE THAN TWENTY STATES DO
NOT PRINT THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES FOR ELECTORS ON THE GENERAL
ELECTION BALLOT.  INSTEAD, IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, THEY ALLOW A VOTE
FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTIONS TO BE
COUNTED AS A VOTE FOR HIS PARTY'S NOMINEES FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. 
(FN17)  THIS LONG-CONTINUED PRACTICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROPRIETY OF AN IMPLIED OR ORAL PLEDGE OF HIS BALLOT BY
A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTOR AS TO HIS VOTE IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WEIGHS
HEAVILY IN CONSIDERING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A PLEDGE, SUCH AS THE
ONE HERE REQUIRED, IN THE PRIMARY. 

HOWEVER, EVEN IF SUCH PROMISES OF CANDIDATES FOR THE ELECTORAL
COLLEGE ARE LEGALLY UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE VIOLATIVE OF AN ASSUMED
CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF THE ELECTOR UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, ART. II,
SEC. 1, TO VOTE AS HE MAY CHOOSE IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, IT WOULD NOT
FOLLOW THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF A PLEDGE IN THE PRIMARY IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  A CANDIDACY IN THE PRIMARY IS A VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE
APPLICANT.  HE IS NOT BARRED, DISCRIMINATORILY, FROM PARTICIPATING BUT
MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF THE PARTY.  SURELY ONE MAY VOLUNTARILY
ASSUME OBLIGATIONS TO VOTE FOR A CERTAIN CANDIDATE.  THE STATE OFFERS
HIM OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTOR ON HIS OWN TERMS,
ALTHOUGH HE MUST FILE HIS DECLARATION BEFORE THE PRIMARY.  ALA. CODE,
TIT. 17, SEC. 145.  EVEN THOUGH THE VICTORY OF AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE
FOR ELECTOR IN ALABAMA CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED, THE STATE DOES OFFER THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER STRONG POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS
WHERE THE NEED IS FELT FOR THEM BY A SIZABLE BLOCK OF VOTERS.  SUCH
PARTIES MAY LEAVE THEIR ELECTORS TO THEIR OWN CHOICE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT BAR A POLITICAL PARTY
FROM REQUIRING THE PLEDGE TO SUPPORT THE NOMINEES OF THE NATIONAL
CONVENTION.  WHERE A STATE AUTHORIZES A PARTY TO CHOOSE ITS NOMINEES
FOR ELECTOR IN A PARTY PRIMARY AND TO FIX THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE
CANDIDATES, WE SEE NO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO THE
REQUIREMENT OF THIS PLEDGE. 

FN1  U.S. CONST., AMEND. XII: 

"THE ELECTORS SHALL MEET IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES, AND VOTE BY
BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT, ONE OF WHOM, AT LEAST, SHALL
NOT BE AN INHABITANT OF THE SAME STATE WITH THEMSELVES; THEY SHALL NAME
IN THEIR BALLOTS THE PERSON VOTED FOR AS PRESIDENT, AND IN DISTINCT
BALLOTS THE PERSON VOTED FOR AS VICE-PRESIDENT, AND THEY SHALL MAKE
DISTINCT LISTS OF ALL PERSONS VOTED FOR AS PRESIDENT, AND OF ALL
PERSONS VOTED FOR AS VICE-PRESIDENT, AND OF THE NUMBER OF VOTES FOR
EACH, WHICH LISTS THEY SHALL SIGN AND CERTIFY, AND TRANSMIT SEALED TO
THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DIRECTED TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE; - THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE SHALL, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OPEN ALL THE
CERTIFICATES AND THE VOTES SHALL THEN BE COUNTED; - THE PERSON HAVING
THE GREATEST NUMBER OF VOTES FOR PRESIDENT, SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT, IF
SUCH NUMBER BE A MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE NUMBER OF ELECTORS APPOINTED;
AND IF NO PERSON HAVE SUCH MAJORITY, THEN FROM THE PERSONS HAVING THE
HIGHEST NUMBERS NOT EXCEEDING THREE ON THE LIST OF THOSE VOTED FOR AS
PRESIDENT, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CHOOSE IMMEDIATELY, BY
BALLOT, THE PRESIDENT  ...  ." 

FN2  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 17, SEC. 347: 

"ALL PERSONS WHO ARE QUALIFIED ELECTORS UNDER THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE
STATE OF ALABAMA, AND WHO ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF A POLITICAL PARTY
ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PRIMARY ELECTION, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
VOTE THEREIN AND SHALL RECEIVE THE OFFICIAL PRIMARY BALLOT OF THE
POLITICAL PARTY, AND NO OTHER; BUT EVERY STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF A
PARTY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT, POWER AND AUTHORITY TO FIX AND PRESCRIBE
THE POLITICAL OR OTHER QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS OWN MEMBERS, AND SHALL, IN
ITS OWN WAY, DECLARE AND DETERMINE WHO SHALL BE ENTITLED AND QUALIFIED
TO VOTE IN SUCH PRIMARY ELECTION, OR TO BE CANDIDATES THEREIN, OR TO
OTHERWISE PARTICIPATE IN SUCH POLITICAL PARTIES AND PRIMARIES; AND THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS ENTITLED TO VOTE IN SUCH PRIMARY ELECTION
SHALL NOT NECESSARILY BE THE SAME AS THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTORS
ENTITLED TO BECOME CANDIDATES THEREIN; ...  ." 

FN3  SEE MERRIAM AND OVERACKER, PRIMARY ELECTIONS (1928), PP. 69-73,
124, 125.  CF.  STATE EX REL. CURYEA V. WELLS, 92 NEB. 337, 138 N.W.
165; FRANCIS V. STURGILL, 163 KY.  650, 174 S.W. 753. 

FN4  THIS WAS NOT A UNIQUE DELEGATION.  IN 1928 MERRIAM AND OVERACKER
CITED TEN OTHER STATES WHICH DELEGATE TO THE PARTY AUTHORITIES THE
RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE SUCH QUALIFICATIONS, WITH OR WITHOUT A STATUTORY
STATEMENT OF MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS; THESE TEN WERE DELAWARE, IDAHO,
AND THE REMAINDER OF THE "SOLID SOUTH," EXCEPT NORTH CAROLINA.  SEE
MERRIAM AND OVERACKER, SUPRA, NOTE 3, AT PP. 72-73.  IN 1948 PENNIMAN
REPORTS THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THESE DELEGATIONS IN ALL THESE
STATES EXCEPT IDAHO, WHICH NOW APPARENTLY REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE
CANDIDATE "REPRESENT THE PRINCIPLES" OF THE PARTY AND BE DULY
REGISTERED IN THE APPROPRIATE PRECINCT.  6 IDAHO CODE (BOBBS-MERRILL,
1948) SECS. 34-605, 34-606, 34-614.  SEE PENNIMAN, SAIT'S AMERICAN
PARTIES AND ELECTIONS (4TH ED., 1948), P. 431.  HOWEVER, THE SITUATION
HAS CHANGED IN SEVERAL OF THOSE STATES:  THE SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE
APPARENTLY NO LONGER REGULATES THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARIES AT ALL, SEE
S.C. ACTS 1944, NO. 810, P. 2323; AND TEXAS AND FLORIDA HAVE REPEALED
THEIR ELECTION CODES AND ENACTED NEW ONES WHICH APPEAR TO LACK ANY
COMPARABLE PROVISION, SEE THE NEW ELECTION CODE, VERNON'S ANNOTATED
TEXAS STATUTES SERVICE (1951), EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1952; FLA. LAWS
1951, C. 26870.  IN BOTH TEXAS AND FLORIDA, THE PRIMARY IS OPEN TO
PARTY "MEMBERS"; THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PARTY ITSELF MAY PRESCRIBE
MEMBERSHIP QUALIFICATIONS IS NOT EXPLICITLY SET FORTH.  BUT CF. SECS.
103.111(3) AND 103.121, FLA. LAWS 1951, C. 26870. 

FOR PROVISIONS IN THE REMAINING STATES BEARING ON THIS DELEGATION,
SEE 2 ARK. STAT. ANN. (BOBBS-MERRILL, 1948) SEC. 3-205; 12 GA. CODE
ANN. (HARRISON, 1936) SEC. 34-3218.2; VA.  CODE, 1950 (MICHIE, 1949)
SECS. 24-367, 24-369; 3 MISS.  CODE ANN., 1942 (HARRISON, 1943), SEC.
3129; DEL. LAWS 1944-1945, C. 150, AMENDING DEL. REV. CODE, 1935, C.
58, 1782, SEC.  14; LA. REV. STAT., 1950, TIT. 18, SECS. 306, 309; LA.
CONST. ANN. (BOBBS-MERRILL, 1932), ART. 8, SEC. 4. 

FN5  SUCH A HOLDING INTEGRATES THE STATE AND NATIONAL PARTY.  SEE
CANNON'S DEMOCRATIC MANUAL (1948): 

"THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITEEE IS THE PERMANENT AGENCY AUTHORIZED
TO ACT IN BEHALF OF THE PARTY DURING INTERVALS BETWEEN CONVENTIONS.  IT
IS THE CREATURE OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTION AND THEREFORE SUBORDINATE TO
ITS CONTROL AND DIRECTION.  BETWEEN CONVENTIONS THE COMMITTEE EXERCISES
SUCH POWERS AND AUTHORITY AS HAVE BEEN DELEGATED SPECIFICALLY TO IT AND
IS SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE CONVENTION
WHICH CREATED IT."  P. 4. 

"DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE: 

"THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE ARE DERIVED FROM THE
CONVENTION CREATING IT, AND WHILE SUBJECT TO VARIATION AS THE
CONVENTION MAY PROVIDE, ORDINARILY INCLUDE: 

     *         * *         *         * 

"8.  PROVISION FOR THE NATIONAL CONVENTION, INVOLVING: 

     *         *         *         *       * 

"B.  AUTHORIZATION OF CALL AND DETERMINATION WITHIN AUTHORITY GRANTED
BY LAST NATIONAL CONVENTION OF REPRESENTATION FROM STATES, TERRITORIES
AND DISTRICTS; ...  ."  PP. 7-8. 

FN6  SEE PENNIMAN, SUPRA, N. 4, CC. XIII, XVIII, ESPECIALLY AT PP.
300, 416; MERRIAM AND OVERACKER, SUPRA, N. 3, AT PP. 92-93. 

FN7  PENNIMAN, SUPRA, PP. 425-426; MERRIAM AND OVERACKER, SUPRA, PP.
129-133. 

FN8  E.G., SEC. 4, C. 109, N.D. LAWS 1907, PP. 151, 153, DISCUSSED IN
STATE EX REL.  MCCUE V. BLAISDELL, 18 N.D. 55, 118 N.W. 141.  SEE 7
FLA. STAT. ANN. (HARRISON, 1943) SEC. 99.021 (PKT.  PT.); FLA. LAWS
1951, C. 26870, SEC. 99.021, AMENDING 7 FLA. STAT. ANN.  (HARRISON
1943) SEC. 102.29, DISCUSSED IN MAIRS V. PETERS, 52 SO. 2D 793.  CF. 3
MISS.  CODE ANN., 1942 (HARRISON, 1943), SEC. 3129; RUHR V. COWAN, 146
MISS.  870, 112 SO. 386.  CF. VA. CODE, 1950 (MICHIE, 1949), SECS. 24
367, 24-369.  SEE WESTERMAN V. MIMS, 111 TEX. 29, 227 S.W. 178,
DISCUSSING ART. 3096 OF TEX. REV. STAT. OF 1911; CF.  LOVE V. WILCOX,
119 TEX. 256, 28 S.W.2D 515. 

FOR AN EXAMPLE OF A PLEDGE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TOWARD PRIMARY
CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR, SEE THE RESOLUTIONS
OF THE STATE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE OF TEXAS DISCUSSED IN CARTER V.
TOMLINSON, 149 TEX. 7, 227 S.W.2D 795; SEE ALSO LOVE V. TAYLOR, 8
S.W.2D 795 (TEX. CIV. APP.); MCDONALD V. CALHOUN, 149 TEX. 232, 231
S.W.2D 656; CF.  SEAY V. LATHAM, 143 TEX. 1, 182 S.W.2D 251.  SEE ALSO
THE PLEDGE REQUIRED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ARKANSAS, DISCUSSED IN
FISHER V. TAYLOR, 210 ARK. 380, 196, S.W.2D 217. 

SIMILAR PLEDGES, OF COURSE, ARE FREQUENTLY ENACTED OF VOTERS IN THE
PRIMARIES.  SEE.  E.G., STATE EX REL. ADAIR V. DREXEL, 74 NEB. 776, 105
N.W. 174; MORROW V. WIPF, 22 S.D.  146, 115 N.W. 1121; LADD V. HOLMES,
40 ORE.  167, 66 P. 714.  SEE PENNIMAN, SUPRA, NOTE 4, AT P. 431;
MERRIAM AND OVERACKER, SUPRA, NOTE 4, AT PP. 124-129. 

FN9  SEE SEAY V. LATHAM, 143 TEX. 1, 182 S.W.2D 251.  THIS WAS A
TEXAS CASE THAT ALLOWED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TEXAS TO WITHDRAW ITS
NOMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED THEIR
DETERMINATION TO VOTE AGAINST THE NOMINEES OF THE PARTY AS MADE BY THE
NATIONAL CONVENTION.  THE NAMES OF OTHERS WERE SUBSTITUTED.  THE COURT
SAID: 

"A POLITICAL PARTY IS A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION, INSTITUTED FOR
POLITICAL PURPOSES.  IT IS ORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EFFECTUATING
THE WILL OF THOSE WHO CONSTITUTE ITS MEMBERS, AND IT HAS THE INHERENT
POWER OF DETERMINING ITS OWN POLICIES."  143 TEX., AT P. 5, 182 S.W.2D,
AT 253.  SEE CARTER V. TOMLINSON, 149 TEX. 7, 13, 227 S.W.2D 795, 798;
29 TEX.  L. REV. 378. 

FN10  THE COURT FOUND SUPPORT FOR ITS CONCLUSION IN THE REASONING OF
AN OPINION OF THE JUSTICES IN ANSWER TO QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY THE
GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA IN 1948.  250 ALA.  339, 34 SO. 2D 598.  ONE
QUESTION WAS "WOULD AN ELECTOR CHOSEN AT THE GENERAL ELECTION IN
NOVEMBER 1948 HAVE A DISCRETION AS TO THE PERSONS FOR WHOM HE COULD
CAST HIS BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT?"  ALABAMA HAD AMENDED
SEC. 226 OF TITLE 17 OF ITS CODE, RELATING TO THE MEETING AND BALLOTING
OF ITS ELECTORAL COLLEGE, BY ADDING "AND SHALL CAST THEIR BALLOTS FOR
THE NOMINEE OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE PARTY BY WHICH THEY WERE
ELECTED."  THAT OPINION SAID: 

"THE LANGUAGE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT WAS
THE INTENTION OF THE FRAMERS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THAT THE
ELECTORS CHOSEN FOR THE SEVERAL STATES WOULD EXERCISE THEIR JUDGMENT
AND DISCRETION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTY IN THE ELECTION OF THE
PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT AND IN DETERMINING THE INDIVIDUALS FOR
WHOM THEY WOULD CAST THE ELECTORAL VOTES OF THE STATES.  HISTORY
SUPPORTS THIS INTERPRETATION WITHOUT CONTROVERSY."  250 ALA., AT 400,
34 SO. 2D AT 600.  SEE MCPHERSON V. BLACKER, 146 U.S. 1, 36.  SEE ALSO
WILLBERN, DISCRETION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS, 1 ALA. L. REV. 40. 

ON THIS REVIEW THE RIGHT TO A PLACE ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT ONLY IS IN
CONTEST. 

FN11  AS BOTH CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS LONG ANTEDATED THE PARTY
PAIMARY SYSTEM, IT IS NOT TO BE EXPECTED THAT THEY OR THEIR LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY WOULD ILLUMINE THIS ISSUE.  THEY DO NOT.  DISCUSSION IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AS TO THE MANNER OF ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
RESULTED IN THE ARRANGEMENT BY WHICH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS WERE CHOSEN
BY THE STATE AS ITS LEGISLATURE MIGHT DIRECT.   MCPHERSON V. BLACKER,
146 U.S. 1, 28.    THE TWELFTH AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT AS THE
RESULT OF THE DIFFICULTIES CAUSED BY THE PROCEDURE SET UP UNDER ART.
II, SEC. 1.  UNDER THAT PROCEDURE, THE ELECTORS OF EACH STATE DID NOT
VOTE SEPARATELY FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT; EACH ELECTOR VOTED
FOR TWO PERSONS, WITHOUT DESIGNATING WHICH OFFICE HE WANTED EACH PERSON
TO FILL.  IF ALL THE ELECTORS OF THE PREDOMINANT PARTY VOTED FOR THE
SAME TWO MEN, THE ELECTION WOULD RESULT IN A TIE, AND BE THROWN INTO
THE HOUSE, WHICH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE SYMPATHETIC TO THAT PARTY. 
DURING THE JOHN ADAMS ADMINISTRATION, WE HAD A PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT OF DIFFERENT PARTIES, A SITUATION WHICH COULD NOT COMMEND
ITSELF EITHER TO THE NATION OR TO MOST POLITICAL THEORISTS. 

THE SITUATION WAS MANIFESTLY INTOLERABLE.  ACCORDINGLY THE TWELFTH
AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED, PERMITTING THE ELECTORS TO VOTE SEPARATELY FOR
PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.  UNDER THIS PROCEDURE,
THE PARTY ELECTORS COULD VOTE THE REGULAR PARTY TICKET WITHOUT THROWING
THE ELECTION INTO THE HOUSE.  ELECTORS COULD BE CHOSEN TO VOTE FOR THE
PARTY CANDIDATES FOR BOTH OFFICES, AND THE ELECTORS COULD CARRY OUT THE
DESIRES OF THE PEOPLE, WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE OBSTACLES WHICH
CONFOUNDED THE ELECTIONS OF 1796 AND 1800.  SEE 11 ANNALS OF CONGRESS
1289-1290, 7TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1802). 

FN12  U.S. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 1: 

"  ...  EACH STATE SHALL APPOINT, IN SUCH MANNER AS THE LEGISLATURE
THEREOF MAY DIRECT, A NUMBER OF ELECTORS, EQUAL TO THE WHOLE NUMBER OF
SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES TO WHICH THE STATE MAY BE ENTITLED IN THE
CONGRESS:  BUT NO SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE, OR PERSON HOLDING AN
OFFICE OF TRUST OR PROFIT UNDER THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE APPOINTED
AN ELECTOR  ...  ." 

TWELFTH AMENDMENT, NOTE 1, SUPRA; IN RE GREEN, 134 U.S. 377, 379;
BURROUGHS V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 534. 

FN13  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HAS JUST SAID THAT THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY OF THAT STATE WAS THUS AFFILIATED WITH THE NATIONAL
ORGANIZATION.  SEE THE EXCERPT FROM RAY V. GARNER, IN THE TEXT AT NOTE
5, SUPRA. 

FN14  THERE IS ALSO A SUGGESTION THAT, SINCE THE ALABAMA PRIMARY IS
AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
WHICH AMONG OTHER PROHIBITIONS FORBIDS A STATE TO EXCLUDE VOTERS ON
ACCOUNT OF THEIR COLOR, ALSO FORBIDS A STATE TO EXCLUDE CANDIDATES
BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO PLEDGE THEIR VOTES.  THE ANSWER TO THIS
SUGGESTION IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS PLEDGE, UNLIKE THE
REQUIREMENT OF COLOR, IS REASONABLY RELATED TO A LIGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE
OBJECTIVE - NAMELY, TO PROTECT THE PARTY SYSTEM BY PROTECTING THE PARTY
FROM A FRAUDULENT INVASION BY CANDIDATES WHO WILL NOT SUPPORT THE
PARTY.  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA.  IN FACILITATING THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, A STATE MIGHT REASONABLY CLASSIFY VOTERS OR
CANDIDATES ACCORDING TO PARTY AFFILIATIONS, BUT A REQUIREMENT OF COLOR,
AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT BEFORE, IS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO ANY
LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE.  NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536. 
THIS REQUIREMENT OF A PLEDGE DOES NOT DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE
PROCESS. 

FURTHERMORE, THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT DIRECTLY FORBIDS ABRIDGMENT ON
ACCOUNT OF COLOR OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE. 

FN15  11 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 1289-1290, 7TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1802): 

"UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ELECTORS ARE TO VOTE FOR TWO PERSONS, ONE OF
WHOM DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE STATE OF THE ELECTORS; BUT IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE A DESIGNATION OF THE PERSONS VOTED FOR.  WISE AND VIRTUOUS AS
WERE THE MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION, EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT THE MODE
THEREIN ADOPTED CANNOT BE CARRIED INTO OPERATION; FOR THE PEOPLE DO NOT
ELECT A PERSON FOR AN ELECTOR WHO, THEY KNOW, DOES NOT INTEND TO VOTE
FOR A PARTICULAR PERSON AS PRESIDENT.  THEREFORE, PRACTICALLY, THE VERY
THING IS ADOPTED, INTENDED BY THIS AMENDMENT." 

S. REP. NO. 22, 19TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1826), P. 4: 

"IN THE FIRST ELECTION HELD UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE PEOPLE LOOKED
BEYOND THESE AGENTS (ELECTORS), FIXED UPON THEIR OWN CANDIDATES FOR
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, AND TOOK PLEDGES FROM THE ELECTORAL
CANDIDATES TO OBEY THEIR WILL.  IN EVERY SUBSEQUENT ELECTION, THE SAME
THING HAS BEEN DONE.  ELECTORS, THEREFORE, HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE DESIGN
OF THEIR INSTITUTION.  THEY ARE NOT THE INDEPENDENT BODY AND SUPERIOR
CHARACTERS WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE.  THEY ARE NOT LEFT TO THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR OWN JUDGMENT; ON THE CONTRARY, THEY GIVE THEIR VOTE,
OR BIND THEMSELVES TO GIVE IT, ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THEIR
CONSTITUENTS.  THEY HAVE DEGENERATED INTO MERE AGENTS, IN A CASE WHICH
REQUIRES NO AGENCY, AND WHERE THE AGENT MUST BE USELESS, IF HE IS
FAITHFUL, AND DANGEROUS, IF HE IS NOT."  SEE 2 STORY OF THE
CONSTITUTION (5TH ED., 1891) SEC. 1463. 

FN16  MCPHERSON V. BLACKER, 146 U.S. 1, 36: 

"DOUBTLESS IT WAS SUPPOSED THAT THE ELECTORS WOULD EXERCISE A
REASONABLE INDEPENDENCE AND FAIR JUDGMENT IN THE SELECTION OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE, BUT EXPERIENCE SOON DEMONSTRATED THAT, WHETHER CHOSEN BY THE
LEGISLATURES OR BY POPULAR SUFFRAGE ON GENERAL TICKET OR IN DISTRICTS,
THEY WERE SO CHOSEN SIMPLY TO REGISTER THE WILL OF THE APPOINTING POWER
IN RESPECT OF A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE." 

III  CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT (APPLETON, 1914), PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS, BY ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, P. 8: 

"IN THE THREE ELECTIONS OF 1788-89, 1792 AND 1796 THERE WAS A LIBERAL
SCATTERING OF VOTES, 13 PERSONS RECEIVING VOTES IN 1796; BUT IN 1800
THERE WERE ONLY FIVE NAMES VOTED ON.  AS EARLY AS 1792 AN UNDERSTANDING
WAS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE ELECTORS IN SOME OF THE DIFFERENT STATES
THAT THEY SHOULD COMBINE ON THE SAME MAN; AND FROM 1796 ON THERE WERE
ALWAYS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TWO ELECTIONS OF 1820 AND 1824,
REGULAR PARTY CANDIDATES.  IN PRACTICE MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
ELECTORAL COLLEGES BELONGED TO A PARTY, AND EXPECTED TO SUPPORT IT; AND
AFTER 1824 IT BECAME A FIXED PRINCIPLE THAT THE ELECTORS OFFERED
THEMSELVES FOR THE CHOICE OF THE VOTERS OF LEGISLATURES UPON A PLEDGE
TO VOTE FOR A PREDESIGNATED CANDIDATE." 

FN17  E.G., MASSACHUSETTS: 

ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS, C. 54: 

"SEC. 43.  PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS, ARRANGEMENT OF NAMES OF CANDIDATES,
ETC. - THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS SHALL NOT
BE PRINTED ON THE BALLOT, BUT IN LIEU THEREOF THE SURNAMES OF THE
CANDIDATES OF EACH PARTY FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT SHALL BE
PRINTED THEREON IN ONE LINE UNDER THE DESIGNATION 'ELECTORS OF
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT' AND ARRANGED IN THE ALPHABETICAL ORDER OF
THE SURNAMES OF THE CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT, WITH THE POLITICAL
DESIGNATION OF THE PARTY PLACED AT THE RIGHT OF AND IN THE SAME LINE
WITH THE SURNAMES.  A SUFFICIENT SQUARE IN WHICH EACH VOTER MAY
DESIGNATE BY A CROSS (X) HIS CHOICE FOR ELECTORS SHALL BE LEFT AT THE
RIGHT OF EACH POLITICAL DESIGNATION." 

SEE S. DOC. NO. 243, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1944), CONTAINING A
SUMMARY OF THE STATE LAWS RELATING TO NOMINATIONS AND ELECTION OF
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS. 

SEE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, PROPOSED
REFORM OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, 1950; EDWARD STANWOOD, A HISTORY OF
THE PRESIDENCY FROM 1788 TO 1897 (1912), PP.  47, 48, 50, 51.  THE
AUTHOR SHOWS THE PRACTICE OF AN ELECTOR'S ANNOUNCING HIS PREFERENCE AND
GIVES AN ALLEGED INSTANCE OF VIOLATION. 

SEE THE COMMENTS ON INSTRUCTION OF ELECTORS IN STATE LAW ON THE
NOMINATION, ELECTION, AND INSTRUCTION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS, BY RUTH
C. SILVA, 42 AM. POL.  SCI, REV. 523. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, NOT HAVING HEARD THE ARGUMENT, OWING TO
ILLNESS, TOOK NO PART IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS TWELFTH AMENDMENT ALLOW EACH STATE, IN ITS
OWN WAY, TO NAME ELECTORS WITH SUCH PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS, APART FROM
STATED DISQUALIFICATIONS, AS THE STATE PRESCRIBES.  THEIR NUMBER, THE
TIME THAT THEY SHALL BE NAMED, THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATE MUST
CERTIFY THEIR ASCERTAINMENT AND THE DETERMINATION OF ANY CONTEST ARE
PRESCRIBED BY FEDERAL LAW.  U.S. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 1, 3 U.S.C.
SECS. 1-7.  WHEN CHOSEN, THEY PERFORM A FEDERAL FUNCTION OF BALLOTING
FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL LAW PRESCRIBING THE TIME OF
MEETING, THE MANNER OF CERTIFYING "ALL THE VOTES GIVEN BY THEM," AND IN
DETAIL HOW SUCH CERTIFICATES SHALL BE TRANSMITTED AND COUNTED.  U.S.
CONST., AMEND. XII, 3 U.S.C. SECS. 9-20.  BUT FEDERAL STATUTE
UNDERTAKES NO CONTROL OF THEIR VOTES BEYOND PROVIDING "THE ELECTORS
SHALL VOTE FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT RESPECTIVELY, IN THE MANNER
DIRECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION," 3 U.S.C. SEC. 8, AND THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES ONLY THAT THEY "VOTE BY BALLOT FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT, ONE OF WHOM, AT LEAST, SHALL NOT BE AN INHABITANT OF THE
SAME STATE WITH THEMSELVES."  U.S. CONST., AMEND. XII.  NO ONE FAITHFUL
TO OUR HISTORY CAN DENY THAT THE PLAN ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED, WHAT IS
IMPLICIT IN ITS TEXT, THAT ELECTORS WOULD BE FREE AGENTS, TO EXERCISE
AN INDEPENDENT AND NONPARTISAN JUDGMENT AS TO THE MEN BEST QUALIFIED
FOR THE NATION'S HIGHEST OFFICES.*  CERTAINLY UNDER THAT PLAN NO STATE
LAW COULD CONTROL THE ELECTOR IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS FEDERAL DUTY, ANY
MORE THAN IT COULD A UNITED STATES SENATOR WHO ALSO IS CHOSEN BY, AND
REPRESENTS, THE STATE. 

*SEE THE FEDERALIST, NO. 68 (EARLE ED., 1937), PP. 441-442: 

"IT WAS DESIRABLE THAT THE SENSE OF THE PEOPLE SHOULD OPERATE IN THE
CHOICE OF THE PERSON TO WHOM SO IMPORTANT A TRUST WAS TO BE CONFIDED. 
THIS END WILL BE ANSWERED BY COMMITTING THE RIGHT OF MAKING IT, NOT TO
ANY PREESTABLISHED BODY, BUT TO MEN CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE
SPECIAL PURPOSE, AND AT THE PARTICULAR CONJUNCTURE. 

"IT WAS EQUALLY DESIRABLE, THAT THE IMMEDIATE ELECTION SHOULD BE MADE
BY MEN MOST CAPABLE OF ANALYZING THE QUALITIES ADAPTED TO THE STATION,
AND ACTION UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES FAVORABLE TO DELIBERATION, AND TO A
JUDICIOUS COMBINATION OF ALL THE REASONS AND INDUCEMENTS WHICH WERE
PROPER TO GOVERN THEIR CHOICE.  A SMALL NUMBER OF PERSONS, SELECTED BY
THEIR FELLOW-CITIZENS FROM THE GENERAL MASS, WILL BE MOST LIKELY TO
POSSESS THE INFORMATION AND DISCERNMENT REQUISITE TO SUCH COMPLICATED
INVESTIGATIONS." 

THIS ARRANGEMENT MISCARRIED.  ELECTORS, ALTHOUGH OFTEN PERSONALLY
EMINENT, INDEPENDENT, AND RESPECTABLE, OFFICIALLY BECAME VOLUNTARY
PARTY LACKEYS AND INTELLECTUAL NONENTITIES TO WHOSE MEMORY WE MIGHT
JUSTLY PARAPHRASE A TUNEFUL SATIRE: 

THEY ALWAYS VOTED AT THEIR PARTY'S CALL. 

AND NEVER THOUGHT OF THINKING FOR THEMSELVES AT ALL. 

AS AN INSTITUTION THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SUFFERED ATROPHY ALMOST
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RIGOR MORTIS. 

HOWEVER, IN 1948, ALABAMA'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY ELECTORS REFUSED TO VOTE
FOR THE NOMINEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION.  TO PUT AN END
TO SUCH PARTY UNRELIABILITY THE PARTY ORGANIZATION, EXERCISING STATE
DELEGATED AUTHORITY, CLOSED THE OFFICIAL PRIMARY TO ANY CANDIDATE FOR
ELECTOR UNLESS HE WOULD PLEDGE HIMSELF, UNDER OATH, TO SUPPORT ANY
CANDIDATE NAMED BY THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION.  IT IS CONCEDED
THAT UNDER LONG-PREVAILING CONDITIONS THIS EFFECTIVELY FORECLOSES ANY
CHANCE OF THE STATE BEING REPRESENTED BY AN UNPLEDGED ELECTOR.  IN
EFFECT, BEFORE ONE CAN BECOME AN ELECTOR FOR ALABAMA, ITS LAW REQUIRES
THAT HE MUST PAWN HIS BALLOT TO A CANDIDATE NOT YET NAMED, BY A
CONVENTION NOT YET HELD, OF DELEGATES NOT YET CHOSEN.  EVEN IF THE
NOMINEE REPUDIATES THE PLATFORM ADOPTED BY THE SAME CONVENTION, AS
DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES HAVE TWICE DONE IN MY LIFETIME (1904, 1928), THE
ELECTOR IS BOUND TO VOTE FOR HIM.  IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE STATE HAS
SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE CONTROL OF THE ELECTORS' BALLOTS.  BUT THE BALLOTING
CANNOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECTED TO ANY SUCH CONTROL BECAUSE IT WAS
INTENDED TO BE FREE, AN ACT PERFORMED AFTER ALL FUNCTIONS OF THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS LEFT TO THE STATES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.  THE ALABAMA
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SUCH A REQUIREMENT VIOLATES THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, AND I AGREE. 

IT MAY BE ADMITTED THAT THIS LAW DOES NO MORE THAN TO MAKE A LEGAL
OBLIGATION OF WHAT HAS BEEN A VOLUNTARY GENERAL PRACTICE.  IF CUSTOM
WERE SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY FOR AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BY COURT
DECREE, THE DECISION IN THIS MATTER WOULD BE WARRANTED.  USAGE MAY
SOMETIMES IMPART CHANGED CONTENT TO CONSTITUTIONAL GENERALITIES, SUCH
AS "DUE PROCESS OF LAW," "EQUAL PROTECTION," OR "COMMERCE AMONG THE
STATES."  BUT I DO NOT THINK POWERS OR DISCRETIONS GRANTED TO FEDERAL
OFFICIALS BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION CAN BE FORFEITED BY THE COURT FOR
DISUSE.  A POLITICAL PRACTICE WHICH HAS ITS ORIGIN IN CUSTOM MUST RELY
UPON CUSTOM FOR ITS SANCTIONS. 

THE DEMISE OF THE WHOLE ELECTORAL SYSTEM WOULD NOT IMPRESS ME AS A
DISASTER.  AT ITS BEST IT IS A MYSTIFYING AND DISTORTING FACTOR IN
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS WHICH MAY RESOLVE A POPULAR DEFEAT INTO AN
ELECTORAL VICTORY.  AT ITS WORST IT IS OPEN TO LOCAL CORRUPTION AND
MANIPULATION, ONCE SO FLAGRANT AS TO THREATEN THE STABILITY OF THE
COUNTRY.  TO ABOLISH IT AND SUBSTITUTE DIRECT ELECTION OF THE
PRESIDENT, SO THAT EVERY VOTE WHEREVER CAST WOULD HAVE EQUAL WEIGHT IN
CALCULATING THE RESULT, WOULD SEEM TO ME A GAIN FOR SIMPLICITY AND
INTEGRITY OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL PROCESSES. 

BUT THE COURT'S DECISION DOES NOT EVEN MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.  WHAT
IT IS DOING IS TO ENTRENCH THE WORST FEATURES OF THE SYSTEM IN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND TO ELEVATE THE PERVERSION OF THE FOREFATHERS'
PLAN INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE.  THIS JUDICIAL OVERTURN OF THE
THEORY THAT HAS COME DOWN TO US CANNOT PLEAD THE EXCUSE THAT IT IS A
PRACTICAL REMEDY FOR THE EVILS OR WEAKNESSES OF THE SYSTEM.    THE
COURT IS SANCTIONING A NEW INSTRUMENT OF POWER IN THE HANDS OF ANY
FACTION THAT CAN GET CONTROL OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION TO
MAKE IT SURE OF ALABAMA'S ELECTORAL VOTE.  WHEN THE PARTY IS IN POWER
THIS WILL LIKELY BE THE ADMINISTRATION FACTION AND WHEN NOT IN POWER NO
ONE KNOWS WHAT GROUP IT WILL BE.  THIS DEVICE OF PREPLEDGED AND OATH
BOUND ELECTORS IMPOSES UPON THE PARTY WITHIN THE STATE AN OATH-BOUND
REGULARITY AND LOYALTY TO THE CONTROLLING ELEMENT OF THE NATIONAL
PARTY.  IT CENTRALIZES PARTY CONTROL AND, INSTEAD OF SECURING FOR THE
LOCALITY A SHARE IN THE CENTRAL MANAGEMENT, IT SECURES THE CENTRAL
MANAGEMENT IN DOMINANCE OF THE LOCAL VOTE IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.  IF
WE DESIRE FREE ELECTIONS, WE SHOULD NOT ADD TO THE LEVERAGE OVER LOCAL
PARTY REPRESENTATIVES ALWAYS POSSESSED BY THOSE WHO ENJOY THE PRESTIGE
AND DISPENSE THE PATRONAGE OF A NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION. 

THE VIEW OF MANY THAT IT IS THE PROGRESSIVE OR LIBERAL ELEMENT OF THE
PARTY THAT WILL PRESENTLY ADVANTAGE FROM THIS DEVICE DOES NOT PROVE
THAT THE DEVICE ITSELF HAS ANY PROPER PLACE IN A TRULY LIBERAL OR
PROGRESSIVE SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT.  WHO WILL COME TO POSSESS THIS WEAPON
AND TO WHOSE ADVANTAGE IT WILL PROVE IN THE LONG RUN I AM NOT
FORESIGHTED ENOUGH TO PREDICT.  BUT PARTY CONTROL ENTRENCHED BY
DISFRANCHISEMENT AND EXCLUSION OF NONCONFORMING PARTY MEMBERS IS A
MEANS WHICH TO MY MIND CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ANY END.  IN THE INTEREST
OF FREE GOVERNMENT, WE SHOULD FOSTER THE POWER AND THE WILL TO BE
INDEPENDENT EVEN ON THE PART OF THOSE WE MAY THINK TO BE INDEPENDENTLY
WRONG. 

CANDIDATES FOR ELECTOR, LIKE THOSE FOR SENATOR, OF COURSE, MAY
ANNOUNCE TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS THEIR POLICIES AND PREFERENCES, AND
ASSUME A MORAL DUTY TO CARRY THEM OUT IF THEY ARE CHOSEN.  COMPETITION
IN THE PRIMARY BETWEEN THOSE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS WOULD FORWARD THE
REPRESENTATIVE PRINCIPLE.  BUT THIS PLAN EFFECTS A COMPLETE SUPPRESSION
OF COMPETITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT VIEWS WITHIN THE PARTY.  ALL WHO ARE
NOT READY TO FOLLOW BLINDLY ANYONE CHOSEN BY THE NATIONAL CONVENTION
ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE PRIMARY, AND THAT, IN PRACTICE, MEANS ALSO FROM
THE ELECTION. 

IT IS NOT FOR ME, AS A JUDGE, TO PASS UPON THE WISDOM OR
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE POLITICAL REVOLT THIS MEASURE WAS DESIGNED TO
SUPPRESS.  FOR ME IT IS ENOUGH THAT, BE IT EVER SO BENEVOLENT AND
VIRTUOUS, THE END CANNOT JUSTIFY THESE MEANS. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. HOOD 343 U.S. 148 


NO. 426.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1952.  - REVERSED. 


APPELLEES WERE INDICTED FOR VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. SEC. 215, WHICH MAKES
IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANYONE TO SOLICIT OR RECEIVE CONTRIBUTIONS IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROMISE OF SUPPORT OR USE OF INFLUENCE IN
OBTAINING FOR ANY PERSON "ANY APPOINTIVE OFFICE OR PLACE UNDER THE
UNITED STATES."  THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED CERTAIN COUNTS OF THE
INDICTMENT WHICH ALLEGED THE SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS IN RETURN
FOR PROMISES TO USE INFLUENCE TO OBTAIN OFFICES WHICH WERE NOT IN
EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE SOLICITATION OR THE RETURN OF THE
INDICTMENT BUT WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO CREATE UNDER
THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950.  HELD:  THESE COUNTS SHOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.  PP. 149-152. 

(A)  SECTION 215 IS BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER THE SALE OF INFLUENCE IN
CONNECTION WITH AN OFFICE WHICH HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND WHICH,
AT THE TIME OF THE SALE, MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE
ESTABLISHED.  PP. 150-151. 

(B)  THE DOCTRINE THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY MUST BE CONSTRUED BY SOME ARTIFICIAL AND
CONVENTIONAL RULE; NOR SHOULD THERE BE READ OUT OF SUCH STATUTES WHAT
AS A MATTER OF ORDINARY ENGLISH SPEECH IS IN THEM.  P. 151. 

(C)  THE CONSTRUCTION HERE GIVEN 18 U.S.C. SEC. 215 DOES NOT OFFEND
THE REQUIREMENT OF DEFINITENESS.  PP. 151-152. 

UNITED STATES V. HOOD ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

IN A PROSECUTION OF THE APPELLEES FOR VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 215
AND CONSPIRACY, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED SOME COUNTS OF THE
INDICTMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P.
152. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, ANNOUNCED BY THE
CHIEF JUSTICE. 

THE DEFENDANTS WERE CHARGED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WITH A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE 18 U.S.C. (SUPP.
IV) SEC. 215 AND NUMEROUS SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS OF THE SAME SECTION. 
THE LAW PROVIDES: 

"WHOEVER SOLICITS OR RECEIVES, EITHER AS A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION, OR
FOR PERSONAL EMOLUMENT, ANY MONEY OR THING OF VALUE, IN CONSIDERATION
OF THE PROMISE OF SUPPORT OR USE OF INFLUENCE IN OBTAINING FOR ANY
PERSON ANY APPOINTIVE OFFICE OR PLACE UNDER THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE
FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR
BOTH."  (FN1) 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED A CONSPIRACY TO SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
MISSISSIPPI DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE AND TO THE DEFENDANTS PERSONALLY IN
RETURN FOR PROMISES TO USE INFLUENCE TO OBTAIN FOR THE CONTRIBUTORS
APPOINTMENTS IN THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT AND IN THE OFFICE OF PRICE
STABILIZATION.  OTHER COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT CHARGED SUBSTANTIVE
VIOLATIONS.  MATERIAL HERE ARE COUNTS 31, 32, AND 33 CHARGING THE
SOLICITATION BY TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS OF THREE $300 POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM NAMED INDIVIDUALS IN RETURN FOR THE PROMISE OF
SUPPORT AND INFLUENCE ON BEHALF OF THE CONTRIBUTORS TO SECURE FOR THEM
APPOINTMENTS AS CHAIRMEN OF THE COUNTY RATION BOARDS OF PIKE, AMITE AND
LAWRENCE COUNTIES, RESPECTIVELY.  IT IS STIPULATED THAT NO SUCH OFFICES
WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE SOLICITATION OR AT ANY TIME
THEREAFTER UP TO THE RETURN OF THE INDICTMENT.  AUTHORITY TO CREATE
SUCH OFFICES, HOWEVER, HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE PRESIDENT, WELL BEFORE
THE VIOLATIONS CHARGED, BY THE DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950, 64 STAT.
798, 807, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2103. 

DEFENDANTS SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO DISMISS THESE PORTIONS OF THE
INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE DID NOT MAKE CRIMINAL THE
SALE OF NON-EXISTENT OFFICES OR OF INFLUENCE IN CONNECTION WITH
APPOINTMENTS TO THEM.  THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO ORDERED STRICKEN THE
REFERENCES IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT TO THE OFFICES OF CHAIRMEN OF COUNTY
RATION BOARDS.  THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS APPEALED BY THE GOVERNMENT
UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 3731.  OUR
JURISDICTION IN SUCH CASES IS LIMITED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE INVOLVED. 

WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WRONG.  THE STATUTE IS PLAINLY BROAD
ENOUGH ON ITS FACE TO COVER THE SALE OF INFLUENCE IN CONNECTION WITH AN
OFFICE WHICH HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND WHICH, AT THE TIME OF THE
SALE, MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE ESTABLISHED.  THAT WAS THE
SITUATION HERE AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO GO FURTHER TO SAY WHETHER THE
WORDS WILL COVER THE SALE OF AN OFFICE WHICH IS PURELY THE CREATURE OF
THE SELLER'S FANCY. 

THE EVIL AT WHICH THE STATUTE IS DIRECTED IS THE OPERATION OF
PURCHASED, AND THUS IMPROPER, INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THE OCCUPANTS OF
FEDERAL OFFICE.  BUT IN ATTACKING THAT EVIL, CONGRESS OUTLAWED NOT THE
USE OF SUCH INFLUENCE, BUT THE SOLICITATION OF ITS PURCHASE, THE
PEDDLING OF THE FORBIDDEN WARES.  AS IS NOT UNCOMMON IN CRIMINAL
LEGISLATION, CONGRESS, IN ORDER TO STRIKE AT THE ROOT, MADE THE SCOPE
OF THE STATUTE WIDER THAN THE IMMEDIATE EVIL.  EVEN JUDGES NEED NOT BE
BLIND TO THE FACT OF POLITICAL LIFE THAT IT HELPS IN INFLUENCING
POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS TO BE FOREHANDED WITH A RECOMMENDATION BEFORE AN
OFFICE IS FORMALLY CREATED.  CERTAINLY IT WAS NOT UNREAL FOR CONGRESS
TO BELIEVE THAT THE SALE OF INFLUENCE IN ANTICIPATION OF JOBS WAS
EQUALLY DAMAGING TO THE PROPER OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE AND TO
TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT IT.  IT DID SO IN THIS ACT.  NOTHING HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED, EITHER BY THE SPARSE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR BY PRIOR
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, (FN2) TO RESTRAIN US FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE
OBVIOUS, ORDINARY READING OF THE STATUTE.  IT IS PRESSED UPON US THAT
CRIMINAL STATUTES ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN
THAT SUCH LEGISLATION "MUST BE CONSTRUED BY SOME ARTIFICIAL AND
CONVENTIONAL RULE."  UNITED STATES V. UNION SUPPLY CO., 215 U.S. 50,
55.  WE SHOULD NOT READ SUCH LAWS SO AS TO PUT IN WHAT IS NOT READILY
FOUND THERE.  BUT EQUALLY WE SHOULD NOT READ OUT WHAT AS A MATTER OF
ORDINARY ENGLISH SPEECH IS IN. 

THIS ACT PENALIZED CORRUPTION.  IT IS NO LESS CORRUPT TO SELL AN
OFFICE ONE MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO DELIVER THAN TO SELL ONE HE CAN. 
DEALING IN FUTURES ALSO DISCREDITS THE PROCESSES OF GOVERNMENT.  THERE
IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS STATUTE PUNISHES DELIVERY OF THE FRUIT OF
THE FORBIDDEN TRANSACTION - IT FORBIDS THE SALE.  THE SALE IS WHAT IS
HERE ALLEGED.  WHETHER THE CORRUPT TRANSACTION WOULD OR COULD EVER BE
PERFORMED IS IMMATERIAL.  WE FIND NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING A BREACH OF
WARRANTY TO BE A DEFENSE TO CORRUPTION. 

OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT OFFEND THE REQUIREMENT OF
DEFINITENESS.  THE PICTURE OF THE UNSUSPECTING INFLUENCE MERCHANT,
STEERING A CAREFUL COURSE BETWEEN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE ON THE ONE
HAND AND OBTAINING MONEY BY FALSE PRETENSES ON THE OTHER BY CONFINING
HIMSELF TO THE SALE OF NON-EXISTENT BUT PLAUSIBLE OFFICES, ENTRAPPED BY
THE DUBIETIES OF THIS STATUTE, IS NOT ONE TO COMMEND ITSELF TO REASON. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE STATUTE WAS REVISED AND AMENDED IN 1951 IN RESPECTS NOT
MATERIAL HERE.  65 STAT. 320. 

FN2  ONLY ONE REPORTED CASE HAS CONSTRUED THE STATUTE.  HOEPPEL V.
UNITED STATES, 66 APP.  D.C. 71, 85 F.2D 237.  IT DEALT WITH A QUESTION
UNRELATED TO THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

18 U.S.C. SEC. 215 MAKES IT A CRIME TO SOLICIT OR RECEIVE POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE BASIS OF A PROMISE TO HELP "ANY PERSON" OBTAIN
"ANY APPOINTIVE OFFICE OR PLACE UNDER THE UNITED STATES  ... ."  THE
GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THIS STATUTE MAKES IT CRIMINAL TO PROMISE TO
HELP SOMEONE GET AN "OFFICE OR PLACE" EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH
OFFICE OR PLACE IN EXISTENCE.  APPARENTLY SENSING THAT SUCH AN
EXTRAORDINARY EXPANSION OF THIS CRIMINAL STATUTE MIGHT NOT BE ACCEPTED,
THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES FOR A LESSER EXPANSION SUFFICIENT TO INCLUDE AN
"OFFICE OR PLACE" IF THERE IS A "SUBSTANTIAL POSSIBILITY" THAT IT MAY
BE "SET UP IN THE NEAR FUTURE."  THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION IS APPARENTLY
THE SAME ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SLIGHT VERBAL VARIATIONS.  IT READS THE
STATUTE AS PUNISHING PROMISES MADE TO USE "INFLUENCE IN CONNECTION WITH
AN OFFICE WHICH HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND WHICH, AT THE TIME OF
THE SALE, MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE ESTABLISHED."  THE WORDS
USED IN THIS STATUTE CONVEY NO SUCH MEANING TO ME.  I THINK THAT ANY
PERSON READING THE WORDS "OFFICE OR PLACE" WOULD IMMEDIATELY THINK OF
THEM AS APPLYING TO AN ACTUAL, EXISTING "OFFICE OR PLACE."  THIS SURELY
WOULD BE A FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANGUAGE USED, AND I THINK IT IS
THE CONSTRUCTION THAT SHOULD BE COMPELLED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
CRIMINAL STATUTE.  IT REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE STRAINING TO SAY THAT
CONGRESS "PLAINLY AND UNMISTAKABLY," UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL, 243
U.S. 476, 485, MADE IT A CRIME TO USE INFLUENCE IN CONNECTION WITH AN
"OFFICE OR PLACE" THAT DID NOT EXIST.  SEE UNITED STATES V. HALSETH,
342 U.S. 277.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE "REASONABLY TO BE EXPECTED"
OFFICE OR PLACE HERE TALKED ABOUT WAS NOT ONLY NONEXISTENT AT THE TIME
THE ALLEGED PROMISE WAS MADE - IT HAS NOT BEEN "SET UP" YET.  WE SHOULD
NOT STRETCH THIS STATUTE TO COVER CONDUCT WHICH IS NOT PROHIBITED ON
THE THEORY THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE DONE SO HAD IT THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
UNITED STATES V. WEITZEL, 246 U.S. 533, 543; MCBOYLE V. UNITED STATES,
283 U.S. 25, 27; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 306. 
..END :











BRUNER V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 112 


NO. 391.  ARGUED JANUARY 30, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 24, 1952.  - 189
F.2D 255, AFFIRMED. 


THE ACT OF OCTOBER 31, 1951, 65 STAT. 727, AMENDING 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1346 SO AS TO WITHDRAW THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OVER
ACTIONS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR OFFICIAL
SERVICES OF "EMPLOYEES," APPLIES TO ACTIONS PENDING ON THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE AMENDMENT.  PP. 113-117. 

(A)  WHEN A LAW CONFERRING JURISDICTION IS REPEALED WITHOUT ANY
RESERVATION OF JURISDICTION OVER PENDING CASES, ALL PENDING CASES FALL
WITH THE LAW.  INSURANCE CO. V. RITCHIE, 5 WALL.  541.  PP. 115-117. 

(B)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION OF 1 U.S.C.
SEC. 109 THAT "REPEAL OF ANY STATUTE SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT TO
RELEASE OR EXTINGUISH ANY PENALTY, FORFEITURE, OR LIABILITY INCURRED
UNDER SUCH STATUTE."  P. 117. 

BRUNER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER COMPENSATION
FOR OFFICIAL SERVICES WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  189 F.2D 255.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
342 U.S. 858.  AFFIRMED, P. 117. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1941, PETITIONER WAS APPOINTED A CIVILIAN FIRE CHIEF AT CAMP
WHEELER, GEORGIA, BY A LOCAL ARMY COMMANDER ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY
DELEGATED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR.  IN 1948, PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS
ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER OVERTIME COMPENSATION ALLEGEDLY
DUE FOR HIS SERVICES AS FIRE CHIEF.  JURISDICTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WAS BASED ON THE TUCKER ACT WHICH GRANTED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION, CONCURRENT WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS,
OVER CERTAIN CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  (FN1) 

AT THE TIME THIS ACTION WAS COMMENCED, CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED THAT
NOTHING IN THE TUCKER ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS GIVING THE DISTRICT
COURT: 

"JURISDICTION OF CASES BROUGHT TO RECOVER FEES, SALARY, OR
COMPENSATION FOR OFFICIAL SERVICES OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES OR
BROUGHT FOR SUCH PURPOSE BY PERSONS CLAIMING AS SUCH OFFICERS OR AS
ASSIGNEES OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES THEREOF; BUT NO SUIT PENDING ON THE
27TH DAY OF JUNE 1898 SHALL ABATE OR BE AFFECTED BY THIS PROVISION." 
(FN2) 

THE DISTRICT COURT, HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS AN "OFFICER OF THE
UNITED STATES," ENTERED JUDGMENT DISMISSING PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED.  189 F.2D 255. 

IN BEAL V. UNITED STATES, 182 F.2D 565 (1950), THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SUSTAINED JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OVER
A SUIT BROUGHT BY ANOTHER CIVILIAN FIRE FIGHTER APPOINTED BY THE WAR
DEPARTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS ONLY AN "EMPLOYEE" AND NOT AN
"OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES."  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THE CASE AT
BAR TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT OF DECISIONS.  342 U.S. 858. 

AFTER CERTIORARI HAD BEEN GRANTED IN THIS CASE, THE ACT OF OCTOBER
31, 1951, PUB. L. NO. 248, BECAME EFFECTIVE.  SECTION 50(B) OF THAT ACT
AMENDED THE APPLICABLE CLAUSE OF THE JUDICIAL CODE "BY INSERTING,
IMMEDIATELY AFTER 'OFFICERS' IN SUCH CLAUSE, THE WORDS 'OR EMPLOYEES'
...  ."  (FN3)  AS A RESULT OF THIS AMENDMENT WE ARE CONFRONTED AT THE
THRESHOLD OF THIS CASE WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT OF OCTOBER 31,
1951, WITHDRAWING THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OVER ACTIONS
FOR COMPENSATION BROUGHT BY "EMPLOYEES," APPLIES TO AN ACTION PENDING
ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO WITHHOLD
JURISDICTION FROM THE DISTRICT COURT "IN THE EXACT DEGREES AND
CHARACTER WHICH TO CONGRESS MAY SEEM PROPER FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD" (FN4)
IS NOT CHALLENGED. 

THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THIS CASE HAS ARISEN BEFORE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TUCKER ACT.  IN 1887, JURISDICTION CONCURRENT
WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS GIVEN THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS IN
ALL CASES INVOLVING CLAIMS BELOW STATED DOLLAR AMOUNTS.  IN 1898,
DIFFICULTIES IN DEFENDING CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION BROUGHT IN DIFFERENT
COURTS PROMPTED CONGRESS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT
COURTS JURISDICTION OVER CASES "BROUGHT TO RECOVER FEES, SALARY, OR
COMPENSATION FOR OFFICIAL SERVICES OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
...  ," (FN5) THEREBY CENTRALIZING ALL SUCH CASES IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  CONGRESS MADE NO PROVISION FOR CASES PENDING AT THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ACT WITHDRAWING JURISDICTION AND, FOR THIS REASON, COURTS
OF APPEALS ORDERED PENDING CASES TERMINATED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 
UNITED STATES V. MCCRORY, 91 F. 295 (C.A. 5TH CIR. 1899); UNITED STATES
V. KELLY, 97 F. 460 (C.A. 9TH CIR. 1899).  THEREAFTER, CONGRESS
RESTORED THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS TO
CONSIDER CASES PENDING ON THE DATE THAT JURISDICTION HAD BEEN
WITHDRAWN.  (FN6) 

THE ACT OF OCTOBER 31, 1951, WITHDRAWING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT OVER SUITS BY "EMPLOYEES," DID NOT RESERVE JURISDICTION
OVER PENDING CASES, (FN7) EVEN THOUGH RESERVATION OF JURISDICTION OVER
PENDING CASES HAD BEEN HELD REQUIRED AND LATER HAD BEEN MADE BY
CONGRESS IN RESPECT TO THE 1898 PROVISIONS WITHDRAWING JURISDICTION
OVER SUITS BY "OFFICERS."  ABSENT SUCH A RESERVATION, ONLY THE COURT OF
CLAIMS HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION
BROUGHT BY EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES EVEN THOUGH THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER SUCH CLAIMS WHEN PETITIONER'S ACTION WAS
BROUGHT.  INSURANCE CO. V. RITCHIE, 5 WALL.  541 (1867). 

IN RITCHIE, A CASE ARISING UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS,
JURISDICTION WAS BASED UPON AN ACT OF 1833 GRANTING THE CIRCUIT COURTS
JURISDICTION OVER ALL CASES ARISING UNDER THE REVENUE LAWS.  AFTER
DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT AND WHILE AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS
PENDING, AN ACT OF 1866 WITHDREW THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS
OVER CASES ARISING UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS, WITHOUT ANY
RESERVATION SAVING CASES SUCH AS RITCHIE'S.  THIS COURT HELD: 

"IT IS CLEAR, THAT WHEN THE JURISDICTION OF A CAUSE DEPENDS UPON A
STATUTE THE REPEAL OF THE STATUTE TAKES AWAY THE JURISDICTION.  AND IT
IS EQUALLY CLEAR, THAT WHERE A JURISDICTION, CONFERRED BY STATUTE, IS
PROHIBITED BY A SUBSEQUENT STATUTE, THE PROHIBITION IS, SO FAR, A
REPEAL OF THE STATUTE CONFERRING THE JURISDICTION. 

"IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THIS EFFECT OF THE ACT OF 1866 WAS NOT
COMTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS.  THE JURISDICTION GIVEN BY THE ACT OF 1833 IN
CASES ARISING UNDER THE CUSTOMS REVENUE LAWS IS NOT TAKEN AWAY OR
AFFECTED BY IT.  IN THESE CASES SUITS MAY STILL BE MAINTAINED AGAINST
COLLECTORS BY CITIZENS OF THE SAME STATE.  IT IS CERTAINLY DIFFICULT TO
PERCEIVE A REASON FOR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN SUCH SUITS AND SUITS UNDER
THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS; BUT WHEN TERMS ARE UNAMBIGUOUS WE MAY NOT
SPECULATE ON PROBABILITIES OF INTENTION."  5 WALL.  AT 544-545. 

IN ANOTHER CASE ARISING UNDER THE SAME JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES, THE
COURT, IN FOLLOWING RITCHIE, STATED THE APPLICABLE RULE AS FOLLOWS: 

"JURISDICTION IN SUCH CASES WAS CONFERRED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, AND
WHEN THAT ACT OF CONGRESS WAS REPEALED THE POWER TO EXERCISE SUCH
JURISDICTION WAS WITHDRAWN, AND INASMUCH AS THE REPEALING ACT CONTAINED
NO SAVING CLAUSE, ALL PENDING ACTIONS FELL, AS THE JURISDICTION
DEPENDED ENTIRELY UPON THE ACT OF CONGRESS.'  THE ASSESSORS V.
OSBORNES, 9 WALL.  567, 575 (1870). 

THIS RULE - THAT, WHEN A LAW CONFERRING JURISDICTION IS REPEALED
WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION AS TO PENDING CASES, ALL CASES FALL WITH THE
LAW - HAS BEEN ADHERED TO CONSISTENTLY BY THIS COURT.  (FN8) 

THIS CASE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE SO-CALLED GENERAL SAVINGS STATUTE
WHICH PROVIDES THAT "REPEAL OF ANY STATUTE SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT TO
RELEASE OR EXTINGUISH ANY PENALTY, FORFEITURE, OR LIABILITY INCURRED
UNDER SUCH STATUTE."  (FN9)  CONGRESS HAS NOT ALTERED THE NATURE OR
VALIDITY OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS OR THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY BUT HAS
SIMPLY REDUCED THE NUMBER OF TRIBUNALS AUTHORIZED TO HEAR AND DETERMINE
SUCH RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES.  HALLOWELL V. COMMONS, 239 U.S. 506, 508
(1916).  COMPARE LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571 (1934). 

UNDER THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 31, 1951,
THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT EXTEND TO ACTIONS FOR
COMPENSATION BROUGHT BY EITHER "OFFICERS" OR "EMPLOYEES" OF THE UNITED
STATES.  SINCE WE FIND THAT ACT APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER'S ACTION, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION IS CORRECT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  24 STAT. 505 (1887), NOW 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1346. 

FN2  30 STAT. 494, 495 (1898), AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20).  AS
INCORPORATED INTO THE 1948 REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, THE PROVISION
READ: 

"THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER THIS SECTION
OF: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(2) ANY CIVIL ACTION TO RECOVER FEES, SALARY, OR COMPENSATION FOR
OFFICIAL SERVICES OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES."  28 U.S.C. (SUPP.
IV) SEC. 1346(D). 

FN3  65 STAT. 710, 727 (1951). 

FN4  LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182, 187 (1943); CARY V. CURTIS,
3 HOW.  236, 245 (1845). 

FN5  30 STAT. 494, 495 (1898).  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 325, 55TH CONG., 2D
SESS. (1898). 

FN6  31 STAT. 33 (1900). 

FN7  NO MENTION OF PENDING CASES IS FOUND IN THE ACT.  IN SEC. 56(1)
OF THE SAME ACT, CONGRESS EXPRESSLY SAVED "ANY RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES"
EXISTING AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT UNDER STATUTES REPEALED BY
SEC. 56.  65 STAT. 710, 730 (1951). 

FN8  EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 7 WALL.  506, 514 (1869); RAILROAD CO. V.
GRANT, 98 U.S. 398, 401 (1879); SHERMAN V. GRINNELL, 123 U.S. 679, 680
(1887); GURNEE V. PATRICK COUNTY, 137 U.S. 141, 144 (1890); GWIN V.
UNITED STATES, 184 U.S. 669, 675 (1902).  SEE KLINE V. BURKE CONSTR. 
CO., 260 U.S. 226, 234 (1922). 

THIS JURISDICTIONAL RULE DOES NOT AFFECT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT A
STATUTE IS NOT TO BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT UNLESS SUCH CONSTRUCTION
IS REQUIRED BY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION.  COMPARE
UNITED STATES V. ST. LOUIS, S.F.&T.R. CO., 270 U.S. 1, 3 (1926), WITH
SMALLWOOD V. GALLARDO, 275 U.S. 56, 61 (1927). 

FN9  1 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 109. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT. 
..END :






















LYKES V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 118 


NO. 173.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 29-30, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 24, 1952.  - 188
F.2D 964, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SEC. 23(A)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AN INDIVIDUAL
TAXPAYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCT FROM HIS GROSS INCOME, FOR FEDERAL
INCOME TAX PURPOSES, AN ATTORNEY'S FEE PAID FOR CONTESTING THE AMOUNT
OF HIS FEDERAL GIFT TAX IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  PP. 119
127. 

(A)  THE ATTORNEY'S FEE WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(A)(2) AS AN
EXPENSE "FOR THE PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF INCOME."  PP. 121-124. 

(B)  THERE IS NO ADEQUATE BASIS IN THE RECORD IN THIS CASE FOR
HOLDING THE ATTORNEY'S FEE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(A)(2) AS AN
INCIDENT OF PETITIONER'S "MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION, OR MAINTENANCE OF
PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME."  PP. 124-125. 

(C)  EXPENSES FOR LEGAL SERVICES DO NOT BECOME DEDUCTIBLE MERELY
BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID FOR SERVICES WHICH RELIEVE A TAXPAYER OF
LIABILITY; NOR BECAUSE THE SIZE OF THE CLAIM TO WHICH THE SERVICES
RELATE IS LARGE IN PROPORTION TO THE INCOME-PRODUCING RESOURCES OF THE
TAXPAYER; NOR BECAUSE THE CLAIM, IF ALLOWED, WILL CONSUME INCOME
PRODUCING PROPERTY OF THE TAXPAYER.  PP. 125-126. 

(D)  THE RESULT HERE REACHED IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH 1944 TREASURY
REGULATIONS; AND IT IS IN ACCORD WITH SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS SINCE 1946, CONTAINING AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. 23(A)(2) WHICH IS ENTITLED TO SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT, ESPECIALLY SINCE
CONGRESS HAS MADE MANY AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE WITHOUT
REVISING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION.  PP. 126-127. 

LYKES V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT FOR A REFUND OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX, THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER.  84 F. SUPP. 537.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  188 F.2D 964.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342
U.S. 810.  AFFIRMED, P. 127. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER, FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, AN
INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT, FROM HIS GROSS INCOME, AN
ATTORNEY'S FEE PAID FOR CONTESTING THE AMOUNT OF HIS FEDERAL GIFT TAX. 
FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED WE HOLD THAT HE WAS NOT. 

IN 1940, JOSEPH T. LYKES, PETITIONER HEREIN, GAVE TO HIS WIFE AND TO
EACH OF HIS THREE CHILDREN, RESPECTIVELY, 250 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK IN
LYKES BROTHERS, INC., A CLOSELY HELD FAMILY CORPORATION.   IN HIS
FEDERAL GIFT TAX RETURN HE VALUED THE SHARES AT $120 EACH AND, ON THAT
BASIS, PAID A TAX OF $13,032.75.  IN 1944, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE REVALUED THE SHARES AT $915.50 EACH AND NOTIFIED PETITIONER OF
A GIFT TAX DEFICIENCY OF $145,276.50.  THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY, PETITIONER
SOUGHT A REDETERMINATION OF THE DEFICIENCY, FORESTALLED AN ASSESSMENT,
AND, IN 1946, PAID $15,612.75 IN SETTLEMENT OF THE DEFICIENCY PURSUANT
TO A FINDING OF THE TAX COURT BASED ON STIPULATED FACTS.  IN 1944,
PETITIONER HAD PAID HIS ATTORNEY $7,263.83 FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN THE
GIFT TAX CONTROVERSY BUT, IN HIS FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN, HAD NOT
DEDUCTED THAT EXPENDITURE FROM HIS TAXABLE INCOME.  IN 1946, HE CLAIMED
A TAX REFUND ON THE GROUND THAT THE ATTORNEY'S FEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DEDUCTED UNDER SEC. 23(A)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  (FN1)  HIS
CLAIM WAS DENIED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND PETITIONER SUED FOR A REFUND. 
ON STIPULATED AND UNCONTROVERTED FACTS THE DISTRICT COURT HELD, AS A
MATTER OF LAW, THAT THE PAYMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AND ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER.  84 F. SUPP. 537.  (FN2)  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  188 F.2D 964.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT STATUTORY ISSUE
INVOLVED AND PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THIS CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM
COBB V. COMMISSIONER, 173 F.2D 711, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S.
810. 

I. DEDUCTIONS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL'S TAXABLE INCOME ARE LIMITED TO
THOSE ALLOWED BY SEC.  23.  (FN3)  THEIR EXTENT DEPENDS UPON THE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY EXPRESSED IN THE FAIR AND NATURAL MEANING OF THAT

ANY CASE BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF - (1) PERSONAL, LIVING, OR FAMILY
EXPENSES  ...  ."  53 STAT. 16, 56 STAT. 826, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 24(1). 
INSOFAR AS GIFTS TO MEMBERS OF A DONOR'S FAMILY ARE IN THE NATURE OF
PERSONAL OR FAMILY EXPENSES, THE DONOR'S EXPENDITURES FOR ACCOUNTING,
LEGAL OR OTHER SERVICES INCURRED IN MAKING THOSE GIFTS ARE OF A LIKE
NATURE.  THE NONDEDUCTIBILITY OF SUCH EXPENDITURES, THEREFORE, IS
INDICATED BOTH BY THE ABSENCE OF ANY AFFIRMATIVE ALLOWANCE OF THEIR
DEDUCTIBILITY UNDER SEC. 23 AND BY THE EXPRESS DENIAL OF THE
DEDUCTIBILITY OF ALL PERSONAL OR FAMILY EXPENSES UNDER SEC. 24. 

IF THE EXPENDITURE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD BEEN MADE BEFORE 1942, IT
IS CLEAR THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEDUCTIBLE.  AT THAT TIME SEC. 23
PERMITTED AN INDIVIDUAL TO DEDUCT "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID
OR INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR
BUSINESS ...  ."  53 STAT. 12, 26 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  23(A)(1).
IT MADE NO MENTION OF NONTRADE OR NONBUSINESS EXPENSES.  ACCORDINGLY,
IN HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 212, WHEN THIS COURT HELD THAT
EXPENSES INCURRED BY AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER IN LOOKING AFTER HIS OWN
INCOME-PRODUCING SECURITIES WERE NOT EXPENSES "INCURRED  ...  IN
CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS," IT ALSO HELD THAT THEY WERE NOT
DEDUCTIBLE.  (FN5) 

TO CHANGE THAT RESULT, CONGRESS, IN 1942, ADDED THE PRESENT SEC.
23(A)(2).  (FN6)  THAT PROVISION, AS DEMONSTRATED IN ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, PERMITS THE DEDUCTION OF SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE NONTRADE
AND NONBUSINESS EXPENSES OF AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER.  IT SPECIFIES THOSE
PAID OR INCURRED (1) "FOR THE PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF INCOME" OR
(2) "FOR THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION, OR MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY HELD
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME."  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS.  (FN7)  CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE GONE FURTHER.  HOWEVER, NEITHER THE
DECISION THAT OCCASIONED THE AMENDMENT, THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON IT,
NOR THE LANGUAGE ADOPTED IN IT INDICATE THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT TO MAKE
SUCH A CHANGE OF POLICY AS WOULD AUTHORIZE WIDESPREAD DEDUCTIBILITY OF
PERSONAL, LIVING OR FAMILY EXPENDITURES IN THE FACE OF SEC. 24(1). 
BINGHAM'S TRUST V. COMMISSIONER, 325 U.S. 365, 374; MCDONALD V.
COMMISSIONER, 323 U.S. 57, 61-63. 

INASMUCH AS THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY CHARACTER OF THE LEGAL
EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT QUESTIONED, THEIR
DEDUCTIBILITY TURNS WHOLLY UPON THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES TO WHICH
THEY RELATE.  (FN8)  THE FIRST ISSUE, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER
PETITIONER'S GIFTS, AND THE LEGAL EXPENSES RELATED TO THEM, WERE MADE
FOR THE "PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF INCOME" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
23(A)(2).  GENERALLY A GIFT IS THE ANTITHESIS OF SUCH PRODUCTION OR
COLLECTION BECAUSE IT REDUCES THE DONOR'S RESOURCES WHETHER INCOME
PRODUCING OR NOT.  HOWEVER, PETITIONER SUGGESTS THAT ALTHOUGH HE STATED
IN HIS GIFT TAX RETURN THAT THE PURPOSE OF HIS GIFTS WAS TO EXPRESS HIS
LOVE FOR THE DONEES, YET THE GIFTS WERE PART OF A GENERAL PLAN TO
PRODUCE INCOME FOR HIMSELF.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS, HE POINTS OUT THAT THE
GIFTS CONSISTED OF 1,000 SHARES OF STOCK IN A CLOSELY HELD FAMILY
CORPORATION OF WHICH HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND IN WHICH HE RETAINED
PERSONAL OWNERSHIP OF ABOUT 2,000 LIKE SHARES, AND THAT ONE OF THE
DONEES, HIS SON, IS NOW ACTIVELY IDENTIFIED WITH THE CORPORATION AND IS
ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS.  (FN9)  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT FIND THAT
THESE FACTS, OR ANYTHING ELSE IN THE RECORD, PROVIDED AN ADEQUATE BASIS
FOR RECLASSIFYING PETITIONER'S STOCK TRANSFERS AND HIS PAYMENT OF A
RELATED LEGAL FEE AS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME, RATHER
THAN AS GIFTS ACCOMPANIED BY AN ORDINARY AND NECESSARY ATTORNEY'S FEE
FOR CONTESTING THE AMOUNT OF A FEDERAL GIFT TAX TREATING THE STOCK
TRANSFERS AS GIFTS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, ON REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE
RECORD, EXPRESSLY HELD THAT THE TRANSFERS WERE GIFTS AND THAT THE
ATTORNEY'S FEE WAS NOT PROXIMATELY RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME.  THAT COURT THEN APPLIED TO THE ATTORNEY'S FEE THE
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 23(A)(2) APPROVED IN COBB V. COMMISSIONER,
SUPRA.  WE AGREE TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH
DISALLOWS THE FEE AS A DEDUCTION FROM TAXABLE INCOME.  (FN10) 

SIMILARLY, THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL BASIS HERE FOR TREATING
THE STOCK TRANSFERS AND THE RELATED ATTORNEY'S FEE AS MERE INCIDENTS OF
PETITIONER'S "MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION, OR MAINTENANCE OR PROPERTY HELD
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME."  EVEN ASSUMING THAT PETITIONER'S 3,000
SHARES IN LYKES BROTHERS, INC., DID CONSTITUTE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY HELD
BY HIM FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME, THERE IS NO FINDING, AND NO
ADEQUATE BASIS FOR A FINDING, THAT HIS DONATION OF ONE-THIRD OF THAT
STOCK ACTUALLY WAS NOT THE GIFT HE REPRESENTED IT TO BE.  PETITIONER
DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE GIFT ITSELF IS DEDUCTIBLE AND, IF IT, AS THE
PRINCIPAL ITEM IN THE TRANSACTION, IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE, WE FIND NO
ADEQUATE BASIS IN THIS RECORD FOR HOLDING THE RELATED ATTORNEY'S FEE
DEDUCTIBLE. 

II.  LEGAL EXPENSES DO NOT BECOME DEDUCTIBLE MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE
PAID FOR SERVICES WHICH RELIEVE A TAXPAYER OF LIABILITY.  THAT ARGUMENT
WOULD CARRY US TOO FAR.  IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING
ALMOST ANY CLAIM WOULD BE DEDUCTIBLE BY A TAXPAYER ON THE GROUND THAT
SUCH DEFENSE WAS MADE TO HELP HIM KEEP CLEAR OF LIENS WHATEVER INCOME
PRODUCING PROPERTY HE MIGHT HAVE.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT SUGGESTS THAT THE
EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION BASED UPON PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY A
TAXPAYER'S NEGLIGENCE WHILE DRIVING AN AUTOMOBILE FOR PLEASURE WOULD BE
DEDUCTIBLE.  SECTION 23(A)(2) NEVER HAS BEEN SO INTERPRETED BY US.  IT
HAS BEEN APPLIED TO EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF THE REMOTE CONTRIBUTIONS
THEY MIGHT MAKE TO THE CONSERVATION OF A TAXPAYER'S INCOME-PRODUCING
ASSETS BY REDUCING HIS GENERAL LIABILITIES.  SEE MCDONALD V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, AT 62-63. 

WHILE THE THREATENED DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF NEARLY $150,000 ADDED
URGENCY TO PETITIONER'S RESISTANCE OF IT, NEITHER ITS SIZE NOR ITS
URGENCY DETERMINED ITS CHARACTER.  IT RELATED TO THE TAX PAYABLE ON
PETITIONER'S GIFTS, AS GIFTS, AND IT WAS FINALLY SETTLED ON AN AGREED
REVALUATION OF THE SECURITIES CONSTITUTING THOSE GIFTS.  THE EXPENSE OF
CONTESTING THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIENCY WAS THUS AT ALL TIMES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE GIFTS, AS SUCH, AND ACCORDINGLY WAS NOT
DEDUCTIBLE. 

IF, AS SUGGESTED, THE RELATIVE SIZE OF EACH CLAIM, IN PROPORTION TO
THE INCOME-PRODUCING RESOURCES OF A DEFENDANT, WERE TO BE A TOUCHSTONE
OF THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE EXPENSE OF RESISTING THE CLAIM, SUBSTANTIAL
UNCERTAINTY AND INEQUITY WOULD INHERE IN THE RULE.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE
EXPENSE OF DEFENDING A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT FOR NEGLIGENCE, OR A SUIT
FOR ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS, CLAIMING $1,000 DAMAGES, PROBABLY WOULD
NOT BE A DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSE FOR ANY DEFENDANT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF
THE SAME PLAINTIFF ON THE SAME FACTS ASKED FOR $5,000, $10,000 OR
$100,000 DAMAGES, AND THE DEFENDANT HELD SOME INCOME-PRODUCING
PROPERTY, THAT DEFENDANT MIGHT BE PERMITTED TO DEDUCT FROM HIS TAXABLE
INCOME THE SAME EXPENSE FOR PRECISELY THE SAME SERVICES AS THOSE UPON
WHICH HIS LESS WELL-TO-DO NEIGHBOR WOULD HAVE TO PAY A TAX IN THE OTHER
CASE.  IT IS NOT A GROUND FOR DEFENSE THAT THE CLAIM, IF JUSTIFIED,
WILL CONSUME INCOME-PRODUCING PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT.  WE FIND NO
SUCH DISTINCTION MADE OR IMPLIED IN THE REVENUE ACT. 

III.  WHILE THE TREASURY REGULATIONS, IN 1944, DID NOT REFER TO THE
ISSUE NOW BEFORE US, THEY WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE POSITION WE HAVE
TAKEN.  (FN11)  FURTHERMORE, SINCE 1946, T.D.  5513, 26 CFR SEC.
29.23(A)-15(K), HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED
BY AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE DETERMINATION OF GIFT TAX LIABILITY ARE NOT
DEDUCTIBLE.  THAT INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 23(A)(2) APPEARS IN THE
FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: 

"EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED BY AN INDIVIDUAL IN DETERMINING OR
CONTESTING ANY LIABILITY ASSERTED AGAINST HIM DO NOT BECOME DEDUCTIBLE
...  BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT PROPERTY HELD BY HIM FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF INCOME MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE USED OR SOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SATISFYING SUCH LIABILITY.  THUS, EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED BY AN
INDIVIDUAL IN THE DETERMINATION OF GIFT TAX LIABILITY, EXCEPT TO THE
EXTENT THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE ALLOCABLE TO INTEREST ON A REFUND OF GIFT
TAXES, ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE, EVEN THOUGH PROPERTY HELD BY HIM FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF INCOME MUST BE SOLD TO SATISFY AN ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH TAX
LIABILITY OR EVEN THOUGH, IN THE EVENT OF A CLAIM FOR REFUND, THE
AMOUNT RECEIVED WILL BE HELD BY HIM FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME." 

SUCH A REGULATION IS ENTITLED TO SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT.  SEE
COMMISSIONER V. SOUTH TEXAS CO., 333 U.S. 496, 501; MORRISSEY V.
COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344, 355; FAWCUS MACHINE CO. V. UNITED STATES,
282 U.S. 375, 378.  SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THAT TREASURY DECISION,
CONGRESS HAS MADE MANY AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE WITHOUT
REVISING THIS ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 23(A)(2).  SEE
REVENUE ACT OF 1948, C. 168, 62 STAT. 110; REVENUE ACT OF 1950, C. 994,
64 STAT. 906; REVENUE ACT OF 1951, C. 521, 65 STAT. 452; HIGGINS V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, AT 216; MORRISSEY V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, AT 355. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

"(A)  EXPENSES. 

     *         *         *         *    * 

"(2)  NON-TRADE OR NON-BUSINESS EXPENSES.  IN THE CASE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL, ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF INCOME, OR
FOR THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION, OR MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY HELD FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME."  53 STAT. 12, 56 STAT. 819, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
23(A)(2). 

FN2  "TO CONSTRUE THE LAW AS GIVING TO THE COMMISSIONER THE POWER TO
ASSESS A TAXPAYER WITH A DEFICIENCY TAX GREATLY IN EXCESS OF WHAT HE
OWES AND TO HOLD THAT SUCH LAW DENIES TO THE TAXPAYER THE RIGHT TO
CONTEST SUCH ASSESSMENT, EXCEPT AT HIS OWN PERSONAL EXPENSE, JUST ISN'T
JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.  THE STATUTE IN QUESTION GIVES THE COMMISSIONER
NO SUCH POWER  ...  ."  84 F. SUPP. 537, 539. 

FN3  THE TAX IS "LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND PAID FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR
UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL  ...  ."  53 STAT. 5, 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 11.  "'NET INCOME' MEANS THE GROSS INCOME COMPUTED UNDER SECTION
22, LESS THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SECTION 23."  53 STAT. 9, 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 21. 

FN4  THERE HAVE BEEN EXPRESSIONS BY THIS COURT PLACING A RESTRICTIVE
INTERPRETATION UPON ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS BY VIRTUE OF "THE NOW FAMILIAR
RULE THAT AN INCOME TAX DEDUCTION IS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE GRACE AND
THAT THE BURDEN OF CLEARLY SHOWING THE RIGHT TO THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION
IS ON THE TAXPAYER."  INTERSTATE TRANSIT LINES V. COMMISSIONER, 319
U.S. 590, 593; DEPUTY V. DU PONT, 308 U.S. 488, 493; NEW COLONIAL ICE
CO. V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 435, 440.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS NOT
NECESSARY HERE AND IS NOT RELIED UPON IN THIS CASE.  SEE GRISWOLD, AN
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DOCTRINE THAT DEDUCTIONS SHOULD BE NARROWLY
CONSTRUED AS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE GRACE, 56 HARV. L. REV. 1142. 
FN5  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. PYNE, 313 U.S. 127 (ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
OTHER EXPENSES OF EXECUTORS IN CARING FOR SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS
NOT DEDUCTIBLE); CITY BANK CO. V. HELVERING, 313 U.S. 121 (SIMILAR
EXPENSES OF TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEE NOT DEDUCTIBLE); VAN WART V.
COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S. 112 (ATTORNEY'S FEE FOR LITIGATION TO RECOVER
INCOME FOR A WARD NOT DEDUCTIBLE). 

FN6  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN7  "  ...  DUE PARTLY TO THE INADEQUACY OF THE STATUTE AND PARTLY
TO COURT DECISIONS, NONTRADE OR NONBUSINESS EXPENSES ARE NOT
DEDUCTIBLE, ALTHOUGH NONTRADE OR NONBUSINESS INCOME IS FULLY SUBJECT TO
TAX.  THE BILL CORRECTS THIS INEQUITY BY ALLOWING ALL OF THE ORDINARY
AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED FOR THE PRODUCTION OR
COLLECTION OF INCOME OR FOR THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION OR MAINTENANCE
OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME.  THUS, WHETHER OR NOT
THE EXPENSE IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TAXPAYER'S TRADE OR BUSINESS, IF
IT IS EXPENDED IN THE PURSUIT OF INCOME OR IN CONNECTION WITH PROPERTY
HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME, IT IS ALLOWABLE. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

" ...  THE EXPENSES, HOWEVER, OF CARRYING ON A TRANSACTION WHICH DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE A TRADE OR BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER AND IS NOT CARRIED
ON FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME OR FOR THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION, OR
MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY, BUT WHICH IS CARRIED ON PRIMARILY AS A SPORT,
HOBBY, OR RECREATION ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS NONTRADE OR NONBUSINESS
EXPENSES. 

"EXPENSES, TO BE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 23(A)(2), MUST BE ORDINARY
AND NECESSARY, WHICH RULE PRESUPPOSES THAT THEY MUST BE REASONABLE IN
AMOUNT AND MUST BEAR A REASONABLE AND PROXIMATE RELATION TO THE
PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF INCOME, OR TO THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION,
OR MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

"A DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT, EXCEPT FOR THE
REQUIREMENT OF BEING INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH A TRADE OR BUSINESS,
TO ALL THE RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE
DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 23(A)(1)(A) OF AN EXPENSE PAID OR INCURRED IN
CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS."  ID., AT 46, 75.  TO THE SAME
EFFECT, SEE S. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., AT 87-88. 

FN8  FOR CASES RESULTING IN THE NONDEDUCTIBILITY OF LEGAL EXPENSES,
SEE E.G., CROKER V. BURNET, 61 APP. D.C. 342, 62 F.2D 991 (C.A.D.C.
CIR., EN BANC)(DEFENDING SUIT TO HAVE TAXPAYER'S HUSBAND DECLARED
INCOMPETENT AND TO SET ASIDE HIS TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO TAXPAYER);
DICKEY V. COMMISSIONER, 14 B.T.A. 1295 (DEFENSE AGAINST SUIT FOR
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION); JOYCE V. COMMISSIONER, 3 B.T.A. 393 (DEFENSE OF
VALIDITY OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT); ORANSKY V. COMMISSIONER, 1 B.T.A.
1239 (DEFENSE AND SETTLEMENT OF ACTION FOR DEATH DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF
TAXPAYER'S MINOR SON USING TAXPAYER'S AUTOMOBILE).  SEE KORNHAUSER V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 145, FOR AN EXAMPLE OF LEGAL EXPENSES HELD
DEDUCTIBLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURES RATHER THAN PERSONAL ONES. 

FN9  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE CORPORATION WAS ORGANIZED IN 1910 BY
PETITIONER'S ELDER BROTHERS AND WAS ORIGINALLY ENGAGED IN THE CATTLE,
RANCHING AND MEAT PACKING BUSINESS.  LATER IT ENGAGED IN EXTENSIVE
STEAMSHIP AND STEVEDORING OPERATIONS THROUGH A SUBSIDIARY.  WHILE IT
WAS A LARGE ENTERPRISE WITH NUMEROUS STOCKHOLDERS BESIDES PETITIONER,
HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN, THE STOCK NEVER HAD BEEN ON THE OPEN MARKET.  IT
WAS HELD BY SONS, NEPHEWS AND SONS-IN-LAW OF THE LYKES BROTHERS.  IT
WAS THE PRACTICE OF THE BROTHERS TO FOSTER IN THIS WAY A CONTINUITY OF
FAMILY OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT.  AT THE TIME OF PETITIONER'S GIFT OF
1,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, THERE WERE OUTSTANDING ABOUT 25,000
SHARES OF THAT CLASS OF STOCK. 

FN10  THE ISSUE HERE IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT IN BINGHAM'S TRUST
V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  IN THAT CASE THE LEGAL EXPENSES WERE INCURRED
PARTLY IN CONTESTING AN INCOME TAX DEFICIENCY ASSESSED AGAINST THE
TAXPAYING TRUST AND PARTLY IN WINDING UP THE TRUST AFTER ITS
EXPIRATION.  ALL OF THOSE EXPENSES WERE INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE
MANAGEMENT OR CONSERVATION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME AND, AS SUCH, DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(A)(2). 

FN11 TREAS. REG. 111, SEC. 29.23(A)-15(B). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS, DISSENTING. 

LYKES MADE A GIFT OF CORPORATE STOCK TO HIS CHILDREN.  IT WAS A
LEGITIMATE TRANSACTION, DULY REPORTED FOR GIFT-TAX PURPOSES AND A TAX
OF OVER $13,000 PAID THEREON.  BY OVERVALUING THE STOCK WHICH HAD BEEN
GIVEN, THE COMMISSIONER ASSERTED A GIFT-TAX DEFICIENCY OF $145,276.50
OF WHICH ABOUT $130,000 WAS FOUND BY THE TAX COURT TO BE UNJUSTIFIED. 
BUT, TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S UNJUSTIFIED CLAIM,
LYKES SPENT $7,263.83 FOR LEGAL SERVICES. 

I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS PAYMENT WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS
BEING AN EXPENSE INCURRED "FOR THE MANGEMENT, CONSERVATION, OR
MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME."  HAD THE
TAXPAYER YIELDED TO THE GOVERNMENT'S UNJUSTIFIED DEMAND, IT WOULD HAVE
DEPLETED HIS CAPITAL BY ABOUT $130,000 AND THENCEFORWARD HE COULD NOT
HAVE ENJOYED INCOME FROM IT.  OF COURSE, IT IS NOT THE AMOUNT BUT THE
PRINCIPLE THAT IS SIGNIFICANT.  INDEED, THE BURDEN OF LEGAL EXPENSE IS
LIKELY TO BE IN INVERSE PROPORTION TO THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIENCY
ASSERTED.  HERE THE EXPENSE WAS ONLY ABOUT 5% OF THE SAVING.  IN SMALL
CASES OF SMALL TAXPAYERS THE PERCENTAGE WILL BE FAR GREATER AND IN MANY
MAY EXCEED 100%.  CERTAINLY CONTEST AGAINST UNWARRANTED EXACTION,
REGARDLESS OF ITS AMOUNT OR OUTCOME, IS FOR THE CONSERVATION OF
PROPERTY AND ITS REASONABLE COST IS DEDUCTIBLE. 

A MAJORITY OF MY BRETHREN SEEM TO THINK THEY CAN ESCAPE THIS
CONCLUSION BY GOING FURTHER BACK IN THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION.  THEY SAY
THE CAUSE OF THIS LEGAL EXPENSE WAS THE GIFT.  OF COURSE ONE CAN
REASON, AS MY BRETHREN DO, THAT IF THERE HAD BEEN NO GIFTS THERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN NO TAX, IF THERE HAD BEEN NO TAX THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO
DEFICIENCY, IF THERE WERE NO DEFICIENCY THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO
CONTEST, IF THERE WERE NO CONTEST THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO EXPENSE. 
AND SO THE GIFTS CAUSED THE EXPENSE.  THE FALLACY OF SUCH LOGIC IS THAT
IT WOULD BE JUST AS POSSIBLE TO EMPLOY IT TO PROVE THAT THE LAWYER'S
FEES WERE CAUSED BY HAVING CHILDREN.  IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CHILDREN
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO GIFT, AND IF NO GIFT NO TAX, AND IF NO TAX NO
DEFICIENCY, AND IF NO DEFICIENCY NO CONTEST, AND IF NO CONTEST NO
EXPENSE.  HENCE, THE LAWYER'S FEE WAS NOT DUE TO THE CONTEST AT ALL BUT
WAS A PART OF THE COST OF HAVING BABIES.  IF THIS REASONING WERE
PRESENTED BY A TAXPAYER TO AVOID A TAX, WHAT WOULD WE SAY OF IT?  SO
TREACHEROUS IS THIS KIND OF REASONING THAT IN MOST FIELDS THE LAW RESTS
ITS CONCLUSION ONLY ON PROXIMATE CAUSE AND DECLINES TO FOLLOW THE
WINDING TRAIL TO REMOTE AND MULTIPLE CAUSATIONS. 

AS FOR THE TREASURY REGULATION, I WOULD NOT GIVE IT ONE BIT OF
WEIGHT.  THE TREASURY MAY FEEL THAT IT IS GOOD PUBLIC POLICY TO
DISCOURAGE TAXPAYERS FROM CONTESTING ITS UNJUSTIFIED DEMANDS FOR TAXES
AND THUS JUSTIFY PENALIZING RESISTANCE.  IT IS HARD TO IMAGE ANY
INSTANCE IN WHICH THE TREASURY COULD HAVE A STRONGER SELF-INTEREST IN
ITS REGULATION.  I CANNOT PUT MY FINGER ON A CASE WHERE WE HAVE SAID
THAT THIS REASON WOULD AVOID TREASURY REGULATIONS.  BUT WE HAVE
DISREGARDED THEM WHEN THEY WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE, AND
THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE HERE.  I THINK CONGRESS ALLOWS A TAXPAYER TO
PROTECT HIS ESTATE, EVEN AGAINST THE TREASURY.  IT SEEMS TO ME A TACIT
SLANDER OF THE NATION'S CREDIT THAT NEED FOR MONEY SHOULD DRIVE US TO
SUCH CASUISTRY AS THIS. 
..END :























RUTKIN V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S. 130 


NO. 195.  ARGUED DECEMBER 3, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 24, 1952.  - 189
F.2D 431, AFFIRMED. 


1.  MONEY OBTAINED BY EXTORTION IS INCOME TAXABLE TO THE EXTORTIONER
UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  PP. 131-139. 

(A)  AN UNLAWFUL GAIN, AS WELL AS A LAWFUL ONE, CONSTITUTES TAXABLE
INCOME WHEN ITS RECIPIENT HAS SUCH CONTROL OVER IT THAT, AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, HE DERIVES READILY REALIZABLE ECONOMIC VALUE FROM IT.  P. 137. 

2.  UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN THE JURY IN THE PROSECUTION OF
PETITIONER FOR WILLFULLY ATTEMPTING TO EVADE AND DEFEAT FEDERAL TAXES,
THE VERDICT OF THE JURY MUST BE TAKEN AS REFLECTING ITS CONCLUSION THAT
THE MONEY IN QUESTION WAS OBTAINED BY PETITIONER BY EXTORTION; AND
THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT RESULT.  PP. 132-137. 

3.  THE FACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
PETITIONER'S OMISSION OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION FROM HIS TAX RETURN
CONSTITUTED A WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE AND DEFEAT THE FEDERAL TAX IS
NOT OPEN TO REVIEW HERE, SINCE THAT ISSUE IS SETTLED BY THE VERDICT OF
THE JURY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  SPIES V. UNITED STATES,
317 U.S. 492, APPLIED.  P. 135. 

4.  THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER V. WILCOX, 327 U.S. 404, IS LIMITED TO
ITS FACTS.  P. 138. 

5.  CONGRESS HAS POWER UNDER THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO TAX AS INCOME
MONIES RECEIVED BY EXTORTION.  PP. 138-139. 

RUTKIN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER 26
U.S.C. SEC. 145(B) FOR WILLFULLY ATTEMPTING TO EVADE OR DEFEAT FEDERAL
TAXES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  189 F.2D 431.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 808.  AFFIRMED, P. 139. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER MONEY OBTAINED BY EXTORTION
IS INCOME TAXABLE TO THE EXTORTIONER UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  (FN1)  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED WE HOLD THAT IT
IS. 

THE PETITIONER, RUTKIN, WAS INDICTED UNDER 26 U.S.C. SEC. 145(B)
(FN2) FOR WILLFULLY ATTEMPTING TO EVADE AND DEFEAT A LARGE PART OF HIS
INCOME AND VICTORY TAXES FOR 1943.  HE WAS CHARGED WITH FILING A FALSE
AND FRAUDULENT RETURN STATING HIS NET INCOME TO BE $18,966.64, WHEREAS
HE KNEW THAT IT WAS $268,622.04.  THAT DIFFERENCE, WHICH WOULD INCREASE
HIS TAX LIABILITY FROM $6,843.93 TO $222,408.32, WAS DUE LARGELY TO HIS
OMISSION FROM HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF $250,000 RECEIVED BY HIM IN CASH
FROM JOSEPH REINFELD.  THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS THAT THIS SUM WAS
OBTAINED BY PETITIONER BY EXTORTION AND AS SUCH WAS TAXABLE INCOME. 
PETITIONER CONTESTS BOTH THE FACT THAT THE MONEY WAS OBTAINED BY
EXTORTION AND THE CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT IT WAS TAXABLE INCOME IF SO
OBTAINED.  HE CONTENDS ALSO THAT HE DID NOT WILLFULLY ATTEMPT TO EVADE
OR DEFEAT THE TAX.  PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, FINED $10,000 AND
SENTENCED TO FOUR YEARS IN PRISON.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING.  189 F.2D 431.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 342 U.S. 808,
SO AS TO PASS UPON THE ALLEGED CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT DECISION AND THE
DECISION IN COMMISSIONER V. WILCOX, 327 U.S. 404. 

THE FACTS ARE UNUSUAL BUT THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT, UNDER THE
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN THE JURY, WE MUST REGARD ITS VERDICT AS REFLECTING
ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE $250,000 WAS OBTAINED BY PETITIONER BY
EXTORTION.  (FN3)  THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT
RESULT.  REINFELD'S FIRST ASSOCIATION WITH PETITIONER WAS IN 1929 WITH
SEVERAL OTHERS IN A BOOTLEGGING OPERATION KNOWN AS THE "HIGH SEAS
VENTURE."  IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE USE OF A SHIP IN THE SALE OF
WHISKEY AT SEA MORE THAN 12 MILES FROM SHORE.  REINFELD TESTIFIED THAT
PETITIONER CONTRIBUTED NO MONEY TO THE ENTERPRISE BUT WAS TAKEN IN
BECAUSE REINFELD'S ASSOCIATES WERE AFRAID THAT OTHERWISE THEY WOULD GET
"INTERFERENCE AND TROUBLE" FROM PETITIONER.  HIS INTEREST WAS
RECOGNIZED TO BE 6% BUT, WHEN THE VENTURE WAS LIQUIDATED IN 1933, HE
ALREADY WAS OVERDRAWN AND NO DISTRIBUTION WAS MADE TO HIM.  WITHOUT
INCLUDING PETITIONER, THE OTHERS THEN ORGANIZED BROWNE VINTNERS CO.,
INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, TO ENGAGE IN THE LIQUOR BUSINESS.  IN
1936 PETITIONER, WITHOUT MAKING AN INVESTMENT, CLAIMED A 6% INTEREST IN
BROWNE VINTNERS.  DESPITE REINFELD'S DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM,
REINFELD PAID HIM $60,000 AND TOOK FROM HIM AN ASSIGNMENT OF "ANY AND
ALL OF SUCH SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK IN THE SAID BROWNE VINTNERS CO.
INC., THAT I AM ENTITLED TO."  IN 1940 ALL THE BROWNE VINTNERS STOCK
WAS SOLD FOR $7,500,000 TO A PURCHASER WHO ALSO ASSUMED $8,000,000 OF
THE COMPANY'S DEBTS.  THE SHARES OF STOCK WHEN SOLD STOOD IN THE NAMES
OF, AND WERE TRANSFERRED BY, "NOMINEES" SO AS TO CONCEAL THE IDENTITY
OF REINFELD AND THE OTHER BENEFICIAL OWNERS.  A CAPITAL GAINS TAX UPON
THE PROFITS FROM THESE SALES WAS PAID BY THE RESPECTIVE NOMINEES. 
(FN4)  PETITIONER WAS NEITHER A STOCKHOLDER OF RECORD NOR A BENEFICIAL
OWNER OF ANY OF THE STOCK OF THE COMPANY AT ANY TIME. 

IN 1941, IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S REQUEST, REINFELD GAVE HIM ABOUT
$10,000 TO HELP BUY A TAVERN.  WHEN PETITIONER USED THE MONEY FOR OTHER
PURPOSES REINFELD REFUSED TO FINANCE HIM FURTHER AND HIS "TROUBLE" WITH
PETITIONER BEGAN.  IN 1942 PETITIONER AGAIN CLAIMED THAT HE HAD HAD AN
INTEREST IN BROWNE VINTNERS COMPANY AND THAT REINFELD MUST GIVE HIM
$100,000 TO HELP HIM PAY HIS DEBTS.  UPON REINFELD'S REFUSAL,
PETITIONER THREATENED TO KILL HIM.  FROM THAT TIME ON, THE RECORD
PRESENTS A LURID STORY OF PETITIONER'S UNSATISFIED DEMANDS UPON
REINFELD FOR VARIOUS SUMS UP TO $500,000, PETITIONER'S THREATENING USE
OF A GUN AND HIS REPEATED STATEMENTS THAT HE WOULD KILL REINFELD AND
REINFELD'S FAMILY UNLESS HIS DEMANDS WERE MET.  FINALLY, ON MAY 11,
1943, IN NEW JERSEY, REINFELD PAID PETITIONER $250,000 IN CASH.  (FN5) 

THROUGHOUT THIS MELODRAMA PETITIONER ASSERTED THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO
THE PAYMENTS HE DEMANDED FROM REINFELD BECAUSE OF PETITIONER'S ALLEGED
FORMER INTEREST IN BROWNE VINTNERS COMPANY.  THAT INTEREST NEVER WAS
IDENTIFIED BY PETITIONER.  REINFELD AND OTHERS TESTIFIED POSITIVELY
THAT PETITIONER NEVER HAD ANY SUCH INTEREST.  NEVERTHELESS, ON MAY 11,
REINFELD HANDED TO PETITIONER $250,000 IN CASH AT THE SAME TIME THAT
REINFELD PAID $358,000 TO ZWILLMAN AND STACHER REPRESENTING THEIR
CONCEDED INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDS OF BROWNE VINTNERS STOCK. 
PETITIONER, WITH ZWILLMAN AND STACHER, THEREUPON SIGNED A "GENERAL
RELEASE."  IT DID NOT STATE THE AMOUNTS PAID BUT IT DID PURPORT TO
RELEASE REINFELD, BROWNE VINTNERS COMPANY AND OTHERS FROM ALL CLAIMS
THE SIGNERS HAD AGAINST THEM. 

UNDER THE JURY'S VERDICT, WE ACCEPT THE FACT TO BE THAT PETITIONER
HAD NO BASIS FOR HIS CLAIM TO THIS $250,000 AND THAT HE OBTAINED IT BY
EXTORTION.  ACCORDINGLY, IF PROCEEDS OF EXTORTION CONSTITUTE INCOME
TAXABLE TO THE EXTORTIONER, HIS OMISSION OF IT FROM HIS TAX RETURN WAS
UNLAWFUL.  THE FURTHER FACTUAL ISSUE WHETHER, UNDER ALL THE SURROUNDING
CIRCUMSTANCES, PETITIONER'S OMISSION OF THE $250,000 FROM HIS TAX
RETURN AMOUNTED TO A WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE AND DEFEAT THE TAX IS NOT
OPEN TO REVIEW HERE.  THAT ISSUE IS SETTLED BY THE VERDICT OF THE JURY
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  (FN6)  IT REMAINS FOR US TO
DETERMINE THE LEGAL ISSUE OF WHETHER MONEY OBTAINED BY EXTORTION IS
TAXABLE TO THE EXTORTIONER UNDER SEC. 22(A). 

UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, EXTORTION HERE MEANT THAT THE
$250,000 WAS PAID TO PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO HIS FALSE CLAIM THERETO,
HIS HARASSING DEMANDS THEREFOR AND HIS REPEATED THREATS TO KILL
REINFELD AND REINFELD'S FAMILY UNLESS THE PAYMENT WERE MADE.  (FN7)
PETITIONER WAS UNABLE TO INDUCE REINFELD TO BELIEVE PETITIONER'S FALSE
AND FRAUDULENT CLAIMS TO THE MONEY TO BE TRUE.  HE INDUCED REINFELD TO
CONSENT TO PAY THE MONEY BY CREATING A FEAR IN REINFELD THAT HARM
OTHERWISE WOULD COME TO HIM AND TO HIS FAMILY.  REINFELD THEREUPON
DELIVERED HIS OWN MONEY TO PETITIONER.  PETITIONER'S CONTROL OVER THE
CASH SO RECEIVED WAS SUCH THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF REINFELD'S UNLIKELY
REPUDIATION OF THE TRANSACTION AND DEMAND FOR THE MONEY'S RETURN,
PETITIONER COULD ENJOY ITS USE AS FULLY AS THOUGH HIS TITLE TO IT WERE
UNASSAILABLE. 

AN UNLAWFUL GAIN, AS WELL AS A LAWFUL ONE, CONSTITUTES TAXABLE INCOME
WHEN ITS RECIPIENT HAS SUCH CONTROL OVER IT THAT, AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, HE DERIVES READILY REALIZABLE ECONOMIC VALUE FROM IT. BURNET V.
WELLS, 289 U.S. 670, 678; CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376, 378.  THAT
OCCURS WHEN CASH, AS HERE, IS DELIVERED BY ITS OWNER TO THE TAXPAYER IN
A MANNER WHICH ALLOWS THE RECIPIENT FREEDOM TO DISPOSE OF IT AT WILL,
EVEN THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY FRAUD AND HIS FREEDOM TO USE
IT MAY BE ASSAILABLE BY SOMEONE WITH A BETTER TITLE TO IT. 

SUCH GAINS ARE TAXABLE IN THE YEARLY PERIOD DURING WHICH THEY ARE
REALIZED.  THIS STATUTORY POLICY IS INVOKED IN THE INTEREST OF ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION.  "COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE CANNOT BE DELAYED, NOR
SHOULD THE TREASURY BE COMPELLED TO DECIDE WHEN A POSSESSOR'S CLAIMS
ARE WITHOUT LEGAL WARRANT."   NATIONAL CITY BANK V. HELVERING, 98 F.2D
93, 96.  THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REASON WHY ASSAILABLE UNLAWFUL GAINS
SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN THIS RESPECT FROM ASSAILABLE LAWFUL
GAINS.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NO REASON FOR TREATING THEM MORE LENIENTLY. 
UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259, 263. 

THERE HAS BEEN A WIDESPREAD AND SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL
RECOGNITION OF THE TAXABILITY OF UNLAWFUL GAINS OF MANY KINDS UNDER
SEC. 22(A).  (FN8)  THE APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION TO UNLAWFUL GAINS
IS OBVIOUS FROM ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  SECTION IIB OF THE INCOME TAX
ACT OF 1913 PROVIDED THAT "THE NET INCOME OF A TAXABLE PERSON SHALL
INCLUDE GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME  ... FROM  ...  THE TRANSACTION OF
ANY LAWFUL BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER  ...  ."  38 STAT. 167.  IN
1916 THIS WAS AMENDED BY OMITTING THE ONE WORD "LAWFUL" WITH THE
OBVIOUS INTENT THEREAFTER TO TAX UNLAWFUL AS WELL AS LAWFUL GAINS,
PROFITS OR INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.  (FN9) 

THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT NOW THAT WHERE UNLAWFUL GAINS ARE SECURED BY
THE FRAUD OF THE TAXPAYER THEY ARE TAXABLE.  (FN10)  IN THE INSTANT
CASE IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE $250,000 WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXABLE TO
PETITIONER IF HE HAD OBTAINED IT BY FRAUDULENTLY INDUCING REINFELD TO
BELIEVE PETITIONER'S FALSE CLAIMS TO BE TRUE.  THAT BEING SO, IT WOULD
BE AN EXTRAORDINARY RESULT TO HOLD HERE THAT PETITIONER IS TO BE TAX
FREE BECAUSE HIS FRAUD WAS SO TRANSPARENT THAT IT DID NOT MISLEAD HIS
VICTIM AND HIS VICTIM PAID HIM THE MONEY BECAUSE OF FEAR INSTEAD OF
FRAUD. 

WE DO NOT REACH IN THIS CASE THE FACTUAL SITUATION INVOLVED IN
COMMISSIONER V. WILCOX, 327 U.S. 404.  WE LIMIT THAT CASE TO ITS
FACTS.  THERE EMBEZZLED FUNDS WERE HELD NOT TO CONSTITUTE TAXABLE
INCOME TO THE EMBEZZLER UNDER SEC. 22(A).  THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER
MONEY EXTORTED FROM A VICTIM WITH HIS CONSENT INDUCED SOLELY BY
HARASSING DEMANDS AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE IS INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION
OF GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 22(A).  WE THINK THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
TAX THESE RECEIPTS AS INCOME UNDER THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT IS
UNQUESTIONABLE.  THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF SEC. 22(A) SUPPORTS THE
DECLARATIONS OF THIS COURT THAT CONGRESS IN ENACTING THAT SECTION
EXERCISED ITS FULL POWER TO TAX INCOME.  (FN11)  WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE
THAT SEC. 22(A) REACHES THESE RECEIPTS. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER BUT FIND THEM
WITHOUT MERIT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A REVERSAL OR REMAND OF THE CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  22.  GROSS INCOME. 

"(A)  GENERAL DEFINITION.  'GROSS INCOME' INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICE  ...  OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY
SOURCE WHATEVER  ... ."  53 STAT. 9, 53 STAT. 574, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
22(A). 

FN2  "SEC.  145.  PENALTIES. 

     *         *      *         *         * 

"(B)  ...  ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT OR EVADE TAX.  ...  ANY PERSON WHO
WILLFULLY ATTEMPTS IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR DEFEAT ANY TAX IMPOSED BY
THIS CHAPTER OF THE PAYMENT THEREOF, SHALL, IN ADDITION TO OTHER
PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW, BE GUILTY OF A FELONY AND, UPON CONVICTION
THEREOF, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE
THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH, TOGETHER WITH THE COSTS OF PROSECUTION."  53
STAT. 62-63, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 145(B). 

FN3  THE INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING: 

"THAT SOMEBODY LIED AND COMMITTED PERJURY IS PERFECTLY PATENT BECAUSE
CONTRADICTORY STORIES HAVE BEEN TOLD, AND YOU MUST SAY WHERE THE TRUTH
LIES; AND THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING THAT TRUTH IS SOLELY AND
PECULIARLY YOURS  ... . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"BUT THEN WE COME TO THE ADMITTED PAYMENT OF $250,000.  RUTKIN SAYS
THAT THAT $250,000 WAS A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF HIS CLAIM IN BROWNE
VINTNERS, AND IF THAT IS SO - AND THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT
THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX WAS NOT PAID - HE WOULD NOT BE OBLIGED TO REPORT
THAT INCOME.  BUT REINFELD SAYS NO, 'THAT WAS THE RESULT OF EXTORTION. 
HE GOT THAT MONEY OUT OF ME BY THREATENING ME AND MY FAMILY,' AND HE
TOLD THE INSTANCES WHERE THOSE THREATS WERE MADE.  THERE IS ONE PIECE
OF CORROBORATION OF THAT, AND THAT IS FROM ONE OF THE SIX OR SEVEN
PEOPLE WHO WERE PRESENT IN HOLTZ'S CELLAR  ...  . 

"IF THAT MONEY WAS EXTORTED AND WAS PAID AS A RESULT OF THREATS, THEN
IT WAS TAXABLE INCOME AND RUTKIN WAS UNDER THE DUTY OF REPORTING THAT
TAX  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"  ...  THERE IS NO CONTENTION HERE THAT THE DEFENDANTS DIDN'T KNOW
HE GOT THE $250,000; THE WHOLE POINT IS WHETHER HE GOT IT BY EXTORTION
OR WHETHER HE GOT IT PROPERLY.  IF HE GOT IT PROPERLY THE TAX WAS
ALREADY PAID." 

FN4  THE UNITED STATES CONCEDES THAT ALTHOUGH, ON A STRICT
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, IT MAY BE THAT THE PROCEEDS
OF THE SALES SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY THE BENEFICIAL RATHER THAN BY
THE RECORD OWNERS, THEIR FAILURE TO SO REPORT THE PROCEEDS DOES NOT
PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY BASIS FOR A CHARGE AGAINST THEM OF A WILLFUL
ATTEMPT TO EVADE AND DEFEAT THE TAX VIOLATION OF SEC. 145(B).    FN5
REINFELD TESTIFIED: 

"Q.  AND DID YOU THINK THAT THEIR (YOUR FAMILY'S) LIVES WERE IN
DANGER?  A. I THOUGHT SO, YES. 

"Q.  DID YOU DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT THEIR LIVES?  A. I PAID OFF. 

"Q.  YOU THOUGHT THAT WOULD PROTECT THEM FROM A GUNNING MAN?  A. I
HOPED SO." 

FN6  THAT ISSUE WAS PRESENTED TO THE JURY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
VIEWS OF THIS COURT EXPRESSED IN SPIES V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 492,
499.  THE CHARGE INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING: 

"IF THAT MONEY WAS EXTORTED AND WAS PAID AS A RESULT OF THREATS, THEN
IT WAS TAXABLE INCOME AND RUTKIN WAS UNDER THE DUTY OF REPORTING THAT
TAX.  BUT AS I INDICATED TO YOU BEFORE, THE MERE FAILURE TO REPORT IT
DOESN'T SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW WITH REGARD TO THE
VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING ELSE WHICH WILL
INDICATE THE WILLFUL INTENT TO DEFEAT AND EVADE THE TAX.  YOU MAY
CONSIDER OTHER ELEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THE EVIDENCE, THE FACT THAT THIS
MONEY WAS PAID OVER IN CASH; THAT NO RECORD OF ANY KIND WAS MADE OF THE
RECEIPT OF THAT MONEY; THAT THE MONEY WAS SPLIT AND $100,000 OF IT SENT
TO THE SISTER-IN-LAW OF THE DEFENDANT TO BE PLACED IN HER VAULT OR
'WAULT' AS IT HAS BEEN CALLED HERE, AND THAT THE OTHER $150,000 WAS
PLACED IN THE DEFENDANT'S OWN VAULT.  YOU MAY CONSIDER THESE AS FACTORS
SURROUNDING THE WHOLE TRANSACTION. 

"RUTKIN SAYS THAT HE KEPT NO BOOKS; KEPT NO BOOKS AT THAT TIME NOR AT
ANY OTHER TIME; KEPT NO BOOKS WHEN HE RECEIVED HIS PROFIT, SIXTY,
SEVENTY, EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR, I THINK IT WAS, FROM THE
BOOTLEGGING, AND ADMITS THAT HE PAID NO TAX; KEPT NO BOOKS WHEN HE GOT
THIS $250,000.  THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT YOU MAY CONSIDER AS
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE WHOLE PROCEDURE.  THE PAYMENT OF $250,000
WAS MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHER PEOPLE, THESE PEOPLE BEING ZWILLMAN,
AS I RECALL IT, AND STACHER WHO WERE THERE WITH RUTKIN AND THE
LAWYERS.  WELL, NEITHER THE LAWYERS NOR ANY OF THESE PEOPLE, IT SEEMS
TO ME, WOULD BE INCLINED TO GO OUT AND PUBLISH IT." 

THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT PETITIONER RELIED, AT ANY TIME, UPON ANY
DEFENSE FOR HIS OMISSION OF THE $250,000 FROM HIS TAX RETURN OTHER THAN
HIS FALSE CLAIM THAT IT REPRESENTED HIS BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN BROWNE
VINTNERS STOCK AND THAT THE STOCKHOLDING NOMINEES HAD PAID A CAPITAL
GAINS TAX ON THAT INTEREST WHEN IT WAS SOLD IN 1940.  WHEN THIS CLAIM
WAS PROVED TO HAVE BEEN FALSE, AND NECESSARILY KNOWN BY PETITIONER TO
HAVE BEEN FALSE, THAT PROOF NOT ONLY DESTROYED PETITIONER'S CLAIM TO
THE MONEY ITSELF, BUT IT ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE WILLFULNESS OF HIS
ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT PAYING ANY TAX ON THE $250,000. 

FN7  IN THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE, IN EFFECT IN 1943, EXTORTION WAS
DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY PERSON WHO, WITH INTENT TO EXTORT FROM ANY PERSON ANY MONEY OR
OTHER THING OF VALUE  ... SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THREATEN TO KILL
OR TO DO ANY BODILY INJURY TO ANY MAN, WOMAN OR CHILD UNLESS A SUM OF
MONEY BE PAID, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A HIGH MISDEMEANOR AND PUNISHED BY
IMPRISONMENT AT HARD LABOR FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING THIRTY YEARS, OR BY
A FINE NOT EXCEEDING FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR BOTH."  N.J.S.A. 2:127
4. 

SEE ALSO, THE FEDERAL STATUTE, NOW IN EFFECT, RELATING TO EXTORTION
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE:  "THE TERM 'EXTORTION' MEANS THE
OBTAINING OF PROPERTY FROM ANOTHER, WITH HIS CONSENT, INDUCED BY
WRONGFUL USE OF ACTUAL OR THREATENED FORCE, VIOLENCE, OR FEAR, OR UNDER
COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT."  60 STAT. 420, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 42E-1(C). 

FN8  JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189 (MONEY PAID TO A
POLITICAL LEADER AS PROTECTION AGAINST POLICE INTERFERENCE WITH
GAMBLING); UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259 (ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN
LIQUOR); HUMPHREYS V. COMMISSIONER, 125 F.2D 340 (PROTECTION PAYMENTS
TO RACKETEER AND RANSOM PAID TO KIDNAPPER); CHADICK V. UNITED STATES,
77 F.2D 961 (GRAFT); UNITED STATES V. COMMERFORD, 64 F.2D 28 (BRIBES);
PATTERSON V. ANDERSON, 20 F. SUPP. 799 (UNLAWFUL INSURANCE POLICIES);
PETIT V. COMMISSIONER, 10 T.C. 1253 (BLACK MARKET GAINS); DROGE V.
COMMISSIONER, 35 B.T.A. 829 (LOTTERIES); RICKARD V. COMMISSIONER, 15
B.T.A. 316 (ILLEGAL PRIZE FIGHT PICTURES); MCKENNA V. COMMISSIONER, 1
B.T.A. 326 (RACE TRACK BOOKMAKING). 

FN9  FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION SEE DISSENT IN COMMISSIONER V. WILCOX,
327 U.S. 404, 410-411. 

FN10  FOR EXAMPLE, SEE AKERS V. SCOFIELD, 167 F.2D 718.  THERE THE
TAXPAYER SWINDLED A WEALTHY WIDOW OUT OF SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS WITH WHICH
HE WAS TO CONDUCT FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED TREASURE HUNTS.   HE WAS
REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES ON THOSE FUNDS. 

FN11  HELVERING V. BRUUN, 309 U.S. 461, 468; HELVERING V. CLIFFORD,
309 U.S. 331, 334; HELVERING V. MIDLAND INS. CO., 300 U.S. 216, 223;
UNITED STATES V. SAFETY CAR HEATING CO., 297 U.S. 88, 93; DOUGLAS V.
WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1, 9; HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS ENSKILDA BANK, 293
U.S. 84, 89; BOWERS V. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174; IRWIN V.
GAVIT, 268 U.S. 161, 166; EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 203.  THE
SCOPE OF SEC. 22(A) IN SOME INSTANCES IS LIMITED BY SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS, E.G., SEC. 22(B)(9) (INCOME FROM DISCHARGE OF
INDEBTEDNESS), SEC. 22(B)(13) (COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF ARMED
FORCES), BUT NO SUCH PROVISIONS APPLY HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER, AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

IN COMMISSIONER V. WILCOX, 327 U.S. 404, DECIDED FEBRUARY, 1946, WE
HELD THAT EMBEZZLED MONEY DID NOT CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME TO THE
EMBEZZLER UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  WE THERE
POINTED OUT THAT THE EMBEZZLER HAD NO BONA FIDE LEGAL OR EQUITABLE
CLAIM TO THE MONEY, WAS UNDER A DEFINITE LEGAL OBLIGATION TO RETURN IT
TO ITS RIGHTFUL OWNER, AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD NO MORE RECEIVED THE KIND
OF "GAIN" OR "INCOME" WHICH CONGRESS HAS TAXED THAN IF HE HAD MERELY
BORROWED MONEY.  ONE WHO EXTORTS MONEY NOT OWED HIM STANDS IN THIS
PRECISE SITUATION.  HE HAS NEITHER LEGAL NOR EQUITABLE CLAIM TO THE
EXTORTED MONEY AND IS UNDER A CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO RETURN IT TO THE
OWNER.  SEE, E.G., BANK OF THE UNITED STATES V. BANK OF WASHINGTON, 6
PET. 8, 19; MILLER V. EISELE, 111 N.J.L. 268, 168 A. 426; N.J. STAT.
ANN. 2:73-1.  A COMPARISON OF MR. JUSTICE BURTON'S OPINION IN THIS CASE
WITH HIS DISSENT IN THE WILCOX CASE REVEALS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE COURT
TODAY ADOPTS THE REASONING OF HIS PRIOR DISSENT, THEREBY REJECTING THE
WILCOX INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 22(A).  A TAX INTERPRETATION WHICH
CONGRESS HAS LEFT IN EFFECT FOR SIX YEARS IS THUS ALTERED LARGELY AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF A CHANGE IN THE COURT'S PERSONNEL.  I THINK THAT OUR
FORMER INTERPRETATION WAS RIGHT AND DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT
IS SUFFERING BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO COLLECT INCOME TAXES FROM
EMBEZZLERS AND EXTORTIONERS.  INDEED FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS STRENGTHEN
MY SUPPORT OF OUR WILCOX HOLDING. 

I FULLY AGREE THAT EARNINGS FROM BUSINESSES SUCH AS GAMBLING AND
BOOTLEGGING ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX LAW EVEN THOUGH THESE
EARNINGS ARE DERIVED FROM ILLEGAL TRANSACTIONS.  UNITED STATES V.
SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259.  THE MAJORITY SEEMS TO THINK THAT THE WILCOX
CASE HOLDS OTHERWISE BECAUSE SOME STATES HAVE LAWS WHICH UNDER SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT SOME PARTICULAR GROUPS TO ASSERT A LEGAL CLAIM FOR
RECOVERY OF GAMBLING LOSSES OR MONEY PAID FOR BOOTLEG LIQUOR.  BUT
THESE STATE LAWS VARY FAR TOO MUCH IN THEIR SCOPE AND OPERATION TO
JUSTIFY SAYING THAT THESE BUSINESSMEN NEVER HAVE A BONA FIDE LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE CLAIM TO MONIES PAID THEM.  AND "  ...  WE MUST GENERALLY
ASSUME, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PLAIN INDICATION TO THE CONTRARY, THAT
CONGRESS WHEN IT ENACTS A STATUTE IS NOT MAKING THE APPLICATION OF THE
FEDERAL ACT DEPENDENT ON STATE LAW."  JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S.
101, 104.  MOREOVER, EVEN IF WE WERE TO TAKE THESE STATE RECOUPMENT
LAWS INTO CONSIDERATION, THE SUMS RECOVERED UNDER THEM WOULD DO NO MORE
THAN DECREASE THE YEARLY NET EARNINGS OF SUCH QUESTIONABLE BUSINESSES. 
TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES BOOTLEGGERS AND GAMBLERS ARE ENGAGED IN
GOING BUSINESSES AND MAKE REGULAR BUSINESS PROFITS WHICH SHOULD BE
TAXED IN THE SAME MANNER AS PROFITS MADE THROUGH MORE LEGITIMATE
ENDEAVOR.  HOWEVER, IN MY JUDGMENT IT STRETCHES PREVIOUS TAX
INTERPRETATIONS TOO FAR TO CLASSIFY THE SPORADIC LOOT OF AN EMBEZZLER,
AN EXTORTIONER OR A ROBBER AS TAXABLE EARNINGS DERIVED FROM A BUSINESS,
TRADE OR A PROFESSION.  I JUST DO NOT THINK CONGRESS INTENDED TO TREAT
THE PLUNDER OF SUCH CRIMINALS AS THEIRS. 

IT SEEMS ILLUSORY TO BELIEVE, AS THE MAJORITY APPARENTLY DOES, THAT
THE BURDEN ON HONEST AMERICAN TAXPAYERS WILL BE LIGHTENED BY A
GOVERNMENTAL POLICY OF PURSUING EXTORTIONERS IN FUTILE EFFORTS TO
COLLECT INCOME TAXES.  I VENTURE THE GUESS THAT THIS ONE TRIAL HAS COST
UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS MORE MONEY THAN THE GOVERNMENT WILL COLLECT IN
TAXES FROM EXTORTIONERS IN THE NEXT TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  IF THIS STATUTE
IS TO BE INTERPRETED ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS FINANCIALLY BEST FOR
HONEST TAXPAYERS, IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO SAVE MONEY
BY ELIMINATING FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS OF STATE CRIMES UNDER THE GUISE OF
PUNISHING TAX EVADERS. 

SINCE IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN NEVER COLLECT
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF MONEY FROM EXTORTIONERS, THERE MUST BE ANOTHER
REASON FOR APPLYING THE TAX LAW TO MONEY THEY EXTRACT FROM OTHERS.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF IS SUGGESTIVE OF THE ONLY OTHER REASON THAT OCCURS
TO ME - TO GIVE WASHINGTON MORE AND MORE POWER TO PUNISH PURELY LOCAL
CRIMES SUCH AS EMBEZZLEMENT AND EXTORTION.  TODAY'S DECISION
ILLUSTRATES AN EXPANSION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION INTO FIELDS
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT HERETOFORE WHOLLY LEFT TO STATES AND LOCAL
COMMUNITIES.  I DOUBT IF THIS EXPANSION IS WISE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
THE UNITED STATES OR THE STATES. 

INSOFAR AS THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED, MANY THINK THAT TAKING
OVER ENFORCEMENT OF LOCAL CRIMINAL LAWS LOWERS THE PRESTIGE OF THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.  IT CERTAINLY TENDS TO MAKE THE FEDERAL
SYSTEM TOP-HEAVY.  OF SUPREME IMPORTANCE IS THE FACT THAT THE UNITED
STATES CANNOT PERFORM THE MONUMENTAL TASKS WHICH LIE BEYOND STATE POWER
IF THE TIME, ENERGY AND FUNDS OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS ARE EXPENDED IN
THE FIELD OF STATE CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  (FN1) 

FEDERAL ENCROACHMENT UPON LOCAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CAN ALSO BE
VERY INJURIOUS TO THE STATES.  EXTORTION, ROBBERY, EMBEZZLEMENT AND
OFFENSES OF THAT NATURE ARE TRADITIONALLY MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN. 
(FN2)  THE PRECISE ELEMENTS OF THESE OFFENSES AS WELL AS THE PROBLEMS
UNDERLYING THEM VARY FROM STATE TO STATE.  FEDERAL ASSUMPTION OF THE
JOB OF ENFORCING THESE LAWS MUST OF NECESSITY TEND TO FREE THE STATES
FROM A SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN LOCAL CONDITIONS.  (FN3)
EVEN WHEN STATES ATTEMPT TO PLAY THEIR TRADITIONAL ROLE IN THE FIELD OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE OVERRIDING FEDERAL AUTHORITY FORCES THEM TO
SURRENDER CONTROL OVER THE MANNER AND POLICY OF CONSTRUING AND APPLYING
THEIR OWN LAWS.  STATE COURTS NOT ONLY LOSE CONTROL OVER THE
INTERPRETATION OF THEIR OWN LAWS, (FN4) BUT ALSO ARE DEPRIVED OF THE
CHANCE TO USE THE DISCRETION VESTED IN THEM BY STATE LEGISLATURES TO
IMPOSE SENTENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL IDEAS.  MOREOVER, STATE
PROSECUTORS ARE DEPRIVED OF THE ALL-IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF DECIDING WHAT
LOCAL OFFENDERS SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.  FINAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE THESE
IMPORTANT DECISIONS BECOMES LOCATED IN THE DISTANT CITY OF WASHINGTON,
D.C. HERE, AS ELSEWHERE, TOO MANY COOKS MAY SPOIL THE BROTH. 

MOREOVER, I DOUBT IF THIS EXPANSION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CAN BE CARRIED ON IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH OUR TRADITIONAL IDEAS OF
WHAT CONSTITUTES A FAIR TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.  THERE IS THE QUESTION
OF THE WISDOM AND FAIRNESS OF SUBJECTING A PERSON TO DOUBLE AND EVEN
TRIPLE PROSECUTIONS FOR THE SAME CONDUCT, SINCE THE NATION, STATE AND
MUNICIPALITY MIGHT MAKE THIS ONE MISTAKE OR WRONG PUNISHABLE AS A
CRIME.  "THAT CONSIDERATION GIVES ADDITIONAL WEIGHT TO THE VIEW THAT
WHERE CONGRESS IS CREATING OFFENSES WHICH DUPLICATE OR BUILD UPON STATE
LAW, COURTS SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO EXPAND THE DEFINED OFFENSES BEYOND
THE CLEAR REQUIREMENTS OF THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE."   JEROME V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 105.  OF COURSE, LOOKED AT TECHNICALLY, MULTIPLE
PROSECUTIONS FOR THE SAME CONDUCT COULD BE AVOIDED BY NATIONAL
PROSECUTION OF ONE PART OF THE CONDUCT, STATE PROSECUTION OF ANOTHER
PART, AND MUNICIPAL PROSECUTION OF A THIRD PART.  THIS WOULD STILL
LEAVE A DEFENDANT FACED WITH THE BURDEN OF DEFENDING THREE SEPARATE
PROSECUTIONS. 

EXPANSION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ENTAILS MANY OTHER UNFAIR
AND COMPLICATING FACTORS.  CRIMINAL RULES OF SUBSTANCE AND OF PROCEDURE
VARY WIDELY AMONG THE JURISDICTIONS.  (FN5)  PUNISHMENT IS FREQUENTLY
DIFFERENT.  IN FACT, THE SAME KIND OF CONDUCT MAY BE IGNORED AS NOT
WORTH CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT BY ONE JURISDICTION WHILE CONSIDERED A
SERIOUS CRIMINAL OFFENSE BY ANOTHER.  FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE FEDERAL
WHITE SALVE LAW MEN CAN BE IMPRISONED FIVE YEARS FOR CONDUCT WHICH MANY
STATES WOULD NOT HOLD CRIMINAL AT ALL.  SCHWARTZ, FEDERAL CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION AND PROSECUTORS' DISCRETION, 13 LAW AND CONTEMPORARY
PROBLEMS 64, 72.  WHEN FACED WITH SPECIFIC FEDERAL LEGISLATION, SUCH
DIFFERENCES IN TREATMENT MAY BE INEVITABLE, BUT I DO NOT THINK THE TAX
LAWS SHOULD BE JUDICIALLY EXTENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING FROM LOCAL
OFFICIALS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROSECUTING LOCAL OFFENSES. 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TAKES OVER A CASE LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US, THE
RESULTING CONFUSION OF ISSUES IS MANIFESTLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE
DEFENDANT.  HERE FOR INSTANCE IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID THAT RUTKIN WAS
TRIED FOR TAX EVASION.  MOST OF THE 900 PRINTED PAGES OF ORAL TESTIMONY
IN THE TWO WEEKS' TRIAL ARE DEVOTED TO PROOF OF THINGS OTHER THAN AN
ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE TAX.  FOUR PAGES DEAL WITH RUTKIN'S ALLEGEDLY
FALSE 1943 TAX RETURN; THREE PAGES DEAL WITH THE AMOUNT OF TAX RUTKIN
WOULD HAVE OWED IF HE HAD RECEIVED $250,000 MORE INCOME THAN HE
ACTUALLY REPORTED; SIX PAGES CONTAIN TESTIMONY OF RUTKIN TENDING TO
SHOW WILLFUL EVASION OF THE TAX LAWS SO AS TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN
SPIES V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 492.  A MERE REFERENCE TO THE CONTENTS
OF THE REMAINING 887 PAGES SHOWS WHAT A GREAT THREAT THERE WAS THAT
RUTKIN WOULD BE CONVICTED BECAUSE HE WAS A "BAD MAN" ("SCOUNDREL" TO
USE THE TRIAL COURT'S TITLE) REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE WAS GUILTY OR
INNOCENT OF THE TAX EVASION CHARGED. 

MOST OF THE EVIDENCE DEALT WITH THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF RUTKIN'S
PAST LIFE AND ASSOCIATIONS: BACK IN PROHIBITION DAYS RUTKIN HAD JOINED
ONE REINFELD AND OTHERS IN A BOOTLEGGING SCHEME CALLED THE "HIGH SEAS
VENTURE."  THE ORGANIZATION MADE MILLIONS.  ABOUT 1940, SOME TIME AFTER
PROHIBITION ENDED, REINFELD, APPARENTLY ACTING FOR THE GROUP, SOLD THE
BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT FOR ABOUT $7,500,000 NET.  REINFELD'S ACCOUNTING
METHODS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PROCEEDS WERE NOT SATISFACTORY TO HIS
ASSOCIATES.  THEY CLAIMED THAT REINFELD HELD BACK MORE THAN HIS SHARE
OF THE MILLIONS.  REINFELD CLAIMED THAT SOME OF HIS FORMER ASSOCIATES,
INCLUDING RUTKIN, WERE "OVERDRAWN" AND ENTITLED TO NOTHING OUT OF THE
$7,500,000.  THIS QUARREL WENT ON FOR SEVERAL YEARS DURING WHICH TIME
REINFELD WAS REQUIRED TO PAY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO FORMER
PARTNERS AS A RESULT OF THEIR CLAIMS THAT HE HAD SWINDLED THEM.  RUTKIN
WAS ONE OF THEM.  RUTKIN'S $250,000 WAS PAID TO HIM BY LAWYERS WHOSE
REPUTATIONS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ABOVE REPROACH.  IT WAS PAID OPENLY.  AND
IT WAS SOME EIGHT YEARS LATER WHEN RUTKIN SUED REINFELD FOR MORE
MILLIONS THAT REINFELD, APPARENTLY FOR THE FIRST TIME, CHARGED THAT
RUTKIN HAD EXTORTED THE $250,000 UNDER THREATS OF DEATH.  YET HE HAS
BEEN CONVICTED HERE OF FEDERAL TAX EVASION ON THE THEORY THAT HE WAS
GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF "EXTORTION."  (FN6) 

FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS DEVOTED
TO SHOWING THE LAWLESS LIFE RUTKIN, REINFELD AND THEIR ASSOCIATES LED
FROM THE 1920'S TO 1950, RANGING FROM BOOTLEGGING TO BRIBERY TO
GAMBLING.  THE CHARGE OF THE COURT LARGELY EMPHASIZED AND REEMPHASIZED
THE INIQUITY OF THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT SHOWN BY THE TESTIMONY.  EARLY IN
HIS CHARGE THE TRIAL COURT TOLD THE JURY: 

"YOU ARE NOT DECIDING WHICH IS THE BIGGER SCOUNDREL, REINFELD OR
RUTKIN; THEY HAVE BOTH BLANDLY ADMITTED ON THE STAND THAT THEY
PROSTITUTED JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY; THAT THEY PAID PUBLIC SERVANTS TO
CLOSE THEIR EYES TO LAW VIOLATION, AND THAT IS A CANKER WHICH EATS AWAY
AT THE BODY PUBLIC.  BUT YOU ARE NOT PASSING UPON RESPECTIVE DEGREES OF
SCOUNDRELISM BETWEEN ANY TWO PEOPLE.  THE BLAND WAY IN WHICH WE WERE
TOLD THAT THE REINFELDS AND THE RUTKINS AND THE ZWILLMANS AND ALL OF
THE OTHERS PROSTITUTED JUSTICE SHOULD GIVE US CAUSE FOR PAUSE, BUT WE
ARE NOT PASSING ON THAT QUESTION NOW." 

IN CONCLUDING HIS CHARGE THE TRIAL COURT TOLD THE JURY: 

"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T ASK YOU TO SACRIFICE
ANYBODY TO PROVE ITS MIGHT.  IT ASKS YOU TO DO JUSTICE.  THAT'S ALL
THAT RUTKIN HAS A RIGHT TO ASK YOU TO DO, AND THAT'S WHAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ASKS YOU TO DO.  IT ASKS YOU TO
REMEMBER ITS RIGHTS TOO, REMEMBERING THAT UNPUNISHED CRIME, UNDETECTED
CRIME, ARE THREATS TO THE MAJESTY AND DIGNITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT; AND
THAT UNPUNSIHED CRIME UNDERMINES OUR GOVERNMENT.  WE ALL OF US MUST DO
THAT WHICH IS OUR DUTY AND DO IT WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOR." 

MY STUDY OF THIS RECORD LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE FANTASTIC STORY
OF SUPPOSED EXTORTION TOLD HERE WOULD PROBABLY NEVER HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED
BY A JURY IF PRESENTED IN A TRIAL UNCOLORED BY THE MANIFOLD OTHER
INFLAMMATORY MATTERS WHICH TOOK UP 887 OF THE 900 PAGES IN THIS "TAX
EVASION" CASE. 

IF WE ARE GOING TO DEPART FOM THE WILCOX HOLDING, I THINK THIS IS A
POOR CASE IN WHICH TO DO SO. I WOULD REVERSE THIS JUDGMENT. 

FN1  IN OPPOSING CERTAIN ANTI-THEFT LEGISLATION, ATTORNEY GENERAL
MITCHELL WROTE SENATOR NORRIS THAT, "  ...  THE MACHINERY NOW PROVIDED
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIME
IS OVERTAXED. 

"EARNEST EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE TO DEVISE METHODS FOR THE RELIEF OF
THOSE FEDERAL COURTS WHICH ARE CONGESTED AND TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY
OF OUR PRISONS TO SATISFY PRESENT REQUIREMENTS.  UNTIL WE HAVE DEALT
ADEQUATELY WITH THE TROUBLES WHICH NOW CONFRONT US WE OUGHT NOT TO BE
ADDING TO THE BURDEN OF THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT MACHINERY BY ENACTING
LEGISLATION OF THIS KIND."  72 CONG. REC. 6214.  ALONG THIS LINE, IT
HAS BEEN SAID THAT, "IT WILL BE A LONG TIME BEFORE THE FEW HUNDRED
AGENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CAN EXPAND ENOUGH TO DO THE WORK
NOW GIVEN TO 130,000 PEACE OFFICERS IN THE UNITED STATES  ...  ." 
BROAD PROGRAM NEEDED FOR CRIME CONTROL, 20 J. AM. JUD.  SOC.  196,
200. 

FN2  IN 1950 AND 1951, THE SENATE CRIME COMMITTEE CONDUCTED
INVESTIGATIONS OF ORGANIZED CRIME.  IN ITS THIRD INTERIM REPORT THE
COMMITTEE STATED, "ANY PROGRAM FOR CONTROLLING ORGANIZED CRIME MUST
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM. 
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW IS PRIMARILY A STATE AND LOCAL
RESPONSIBILITY."  S. REP. NO. 307, 82D CONG., 1ST SESS. 5. 

FN3  COMMENTING ON THIS FACT, ATTORNEY GENERAL MITCHELL SAID,
"EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT WHEN CONGRESS ENACTS CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF
THIS TYPE THE TENDENCY IS FOR THE STATE AUTHORITIES TO CEASE THEIR
EFFORTS TOWARD PUNISHING THE OFFENDERS AND TO LEAVE IT TO THE FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES AND THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THAT HAS BEEN THE EXPERIENCE UNDER
THE DYER ACT."  72 CONG. REC.  6214.  SEE ALSO BOUDIN, THE PLACE OF THE
ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL SYSTEM, 28 CORNELL
L.Q. 261, 270 ET SEQ. 

UNITED STATES V. LANZA, 260 U.S. 377, HELD THAT A DEFENDANT COULD BE
SUBJECTED TO FEDERAL PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL PROHIBITION
LAWS DESPITE THE FACT THAT HE HAD ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED UNDER NEW YORK
LAW FOR THE SAME CONDUCT.  NEEW YORK'S REPEAL OF HER PROHIBITION LAWS
SIX MONTHS LATER HIGHLIGHTS THE LOSS OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ENFORCING THE CRIMINAL LAW AFTER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ENTERED THE
FIELD.  N.Y. LAWS 1923, C. 871. 

FN4  SEE N. 5, INFRA. 

FN5  ENFORCEMENT OF ALL OR SOME OF THESE RULES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
INJECTS AN ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY INTO CRIMINAL TRIALS.  QUESTIONS
ARISE AS TO HOW MUCH LAW OF WHAT STATE APPLIES.  THEN THE FEDERAL COURT
MUST ATTEMPT TO DECIDE WHAT THE STATE LAW ACTUALLY IS AND HOW IT
APPLIES TO THE PARTICULAR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO BE CRIMINAL.  MOREOVER, AN
OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN AN AUTHORITATIVE DECISION ON A MATTER OF STATE
LAW FROM THE HIGHEST STATE COURT IS DENIED.  THUS ALL THE UNCERTAIN
PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, ARE THRUST
UPON THOSE ACCUSED OF CRIME IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  "AND A STATUTE
WHICH EITHER FORBIDS OR REQUIRES THE DOING OF AN ACT IN TERMS SO VAGUE
THAT MEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AT ITS MEANING
AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION, VIOLATES THE FIRST ESSENTIAL OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW."  CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONST. CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391. 

FN6  THE MAJORITY LEAVE ME IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE "EXTORTION" WAS
A STATE OR FEDERAL CRIME.  SEE N. 5, SUPRA.
..END :

















FRISBIE V. COLLINS 342 U.S. 519 


NO. 331.  ARGUED JANUARY 28, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1952.  - 189
F.2D 464, REVERSED. 


1.  THAT A PERSON WAS FORCIBLY ABDUCTED AND TAKEN FROM ONE STATE TO
ANOTHER TO BE TRIED FOR A CRIME DOES NOT INVALIDATE HIS CONVICTION IN A
COURT OF THE LATTER STATE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  KER V. ILLINOIS, 119 U.S. 436.  P. 522. 

2.  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT,
EVEN IF THE ABDUCTION WAS A VIOLATION OF THAT ACT.  PP. 522-523. 

3.  THERE BEING SOUND ARGUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE THAT THERE WERE "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES"
WHICH REQUIRED PROMPT FEDERAL INTERVENTION, THAT CONCLUSION IS ACCEPTED
BY THIS COURT WITHOUT DECIDING WHETHER STATE REMEDIES HAD BEEN
EXHAUSTED BEFORE RELIEF FROM STATE IMPRISONMENT WAS SOUGHT IN A FEDERAL
COURT.  PP. 520-522. 

FRISBIE, WARDEN V. COLLINS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  189 F.2D 464.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 865.  REVERSED, P. 523. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ACTING AS HIS OWN LAWYER, (FN1) THE RESPONDENT SHIRLEY COLLINS
BROUGHT THIS HABEAS CORPUS CASE IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SEEKING RELEASE FROM A MICHIGAN STATE PRISON WHERE HE IS SERVING A LIFE
SENTENCE FOR MURDER.  HIS PETITION ALLEGES THAT WHILE HE WAS LIVING IN
CHICAGO, MICHIGAN OFFICERS FORCIBLY SEIZED, HANDCUFFED, BLACKJACKED AND
TOOK HIM TO MICHIGAN.  HE CLAIMS THAT TRIAL AND CONVICTION UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES IS IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT, (FN2) AND THAT
THEREFORE HIS CONVICTION IS A NULLITY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE WRIT WITHOUT A HEARING ON THE GROUND
THAT THE STATE COURT HAD POWER TO TRY RESPONDENT "REGARDLESS OF HOW
PRESENCE WAS PROCURED."  THE COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING,
REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR HEARING.  189 F.2D 464.  IT HELD
THAT THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT HAD CHANGED THE RULE DECLARED IN PRIOR
HOLDINGS OF THIS COURT, THAT A STATE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY TRY AND
CONVICT A DEFENDANT AFTER ACQUIRING JURISDICTION BY FORCE.  (FN3)  TO
REVIEW THIS IMPORTANT QUESTION WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 865. 

WE MUST FIRST DISPOSE OF THE STATE'S CONTENTION THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD HAVE DENIED RELIEF ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD AN
AVAILABLE STATE REMEDY.  THIS ARGUMENT OF THE STATE IS A LITTLE CLOUDY,
APPARENTLY BECAUSE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DOUBT THAT ANY STATE
PROCEDURE USED COULD POSSIBLY LEAD TO THE GRANTING OF RELIEF.  THERE IS
NO DOUBT THAT AS A GENERAL RULE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD DENY THE WRIT TO
STATE PRISONERS IF THERE IS "AVAILABLE STATE CORRECTIVE PROCESS."  62
STAT. 967, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254.  (FN4)  AS EXPLAINED IN DARR V.
BURFORD, 339 U.S. 200, 210, THIS GENERAL RULE IS NOT RIGID AND
INFLEXIBLE; DISTRICT COURTS MAY DEVIATE FROM IT AND GRANT RELIEF IN
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  WHETHER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST CALLS FOR A
FACTUAL APPRAISAL BY THE COURT IN EACH SPECIAL SITUATION. 
DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE, LIKE OTHERS, IS LARGELY LEFT TO THE TRIAL
COURTS SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE REVIEW BY THE COURTS OF APPEALS. 

THE TRIAL COURT, POINTING OUT THAT THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT HAD
PREVIOUSLY DENIED RELIEF, APPARENTLY ASSUMED THAT NO FURTHER STATE
CORRECTIVE PROCESS WAS AVAILABLE (FN5) AND DECIDED AGAINST RESPONDENT
ON THE MERITS.  FAILURE TO DISCUSS THE AVAILABILITY OF STATE RELIEF MAY
HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE STATE DID NOT RAISE THE QUESTION;
INDEED THE RECORD SHOWS NO APPEARANCE OF THE STATE.  (FN6)  THE COURT
OF APPEALS DID EXPRESSLY CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE
REMEDIES.  IT FOUND THE EXISTENCE OF "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" WHICH
REQUIRED PROMPT FEDERAL INTERVENTION "IN THIS CASE."  IT WOULD SERVE
NOT USEFUL PURPOSE TO REVIEW THOSE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN DETAIL. 
THEY ARE PECULIAR TO THIS CASE, MAY NEVER COME UP AGAIN, AND A
DISCUSSION OF THEM COULD NOT GIVE PRECISION TO THE "SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES" RULE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE SOUND
ARGUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE COURT OF APPEALS' CONCLUSION THAT PROMPT
DECISION OF THE ISSUES RAISED WAS DESIRABLE.  WE ACCEPT ITS FINDINGS IN
THIS RESPECT. 

THIS COURT HAS NEVER DEPARTED FROM THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN KER V.
ILLINOIS, 119 U.S. 436, 444, THAT THE POWER OF A COURT TO TRY A PERSON
FOR CRIME IS NOT IMPAIRED BY THE FACT THAT HE HAD BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN
THE COURT'S JURISDICTION BY REASON OF A "FORCIBLE ABDUCTION."  (FN7)
NO PERSUASIVE REASONS ARE NOW PRESENTED TO JUSTIFY OVERRULING THIS LINE
OF CASES.  THEY REST ON THE SOUND BASIS THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS
SATISFIED WHEN ONE PRESENT IN COURT IS CONVICTED OF CRIME AFTER HAVING
BEEN FAIRLY APPRIZED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND AFTER A FAIR TRIAL
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT REQUIRES A COURT TO PERMIT A GUILTY
PERSON RIGHTFULLY CONVICTED TO ESCAPE JUSTICE BECAUSE HE WAS BROUGHT TO
TRIAL AGAINST HIS WILL. 

DESPITE OUR PRIOR DECISIONS, THE COURT OF APPEALS, RELYING ON THE
FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT, HELD THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO THE WRIT IF
HE COULD PROVE THE FACTS HE ALLEGED.  THE COURT THOUGHT THAT TO HOLD
OTHERWISE AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE KIDNAPING ACT "WOULD IN PRACTICAL
EFFECT LEND ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMINAL ACTS BY THOSE
SWORN TO ENFORCE THE LAW."  IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE LAW OF OUR PRIOR
CASES HAS BEEN CHANGED BY THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT, WE ASSUME, WITHOUT
INTIMATING THAT IT IS SO, THAT THE MICHIGAN OFFICERS WOULD HAVE
VIOLATED IT IF THE FACTS ARE AS ALLEGED.  THIS ACT PRESCRIBES IN SOME
DETAIL THE SEVERE SANCTIONS CONGRESS WANTED IT TO HAVE.  PERSONS WHO
HAVE VIOLATED IT CAN BE IMPRISONED FOR A TERM OF YEARS OR FOR LIFE;
UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES VIOLATORS CAN BE GIVEN THE DEATH SENTENCE.  WE
THINK THE ACT CANNOT FAIRLY BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO ADD TO THE LIST OF
SANCTIONS DETAILED A SANCTION BARRING A STATE FROM PROSECUTING PERSONS
WRONGFULLY BROUGHT TO IT BY ITS OFFICERS.  IT MAY BE THAT CONGRESS
COULD ADD SUCH A SANCTION.  (FN8)  WE CANNOT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  WE APPOINTED COUNSEL TO REPRESENT RESPONDENT IN THIS COURT.  342
U.S. 892. 

FN2  47 STAT. 326, AS AMENDED, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1201. 

FN3  KER V. ILLINOIS, 119 U.S. 436; MAHON V. JUSTICE, 127 U.S. 700. 
SEE ALSO LASCELLES V. GEORGIA, 148 U.S. 537; IN RE JOHNSON, 167 U.S.
120. 

FN4  "AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF A
PERSON IN CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT SHALL NOT
BE GRANTED UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS EXHAUSTED THE
REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, OR THAT THERE IS EITHER
AN ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE STATE CORRECTIVE PROCESS OR THE EXISTENCE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING SUCH PROCESS INEFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF THE PRISONER. 

"AN APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
ANY AVAILABLE PROCEDURE, THE QUESTION PRESENTED." 

FN5  THE COURT SAID, "PETITIONER ORIGINALLY FILED A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
WHICH WAS DENIED ON JUNE 22, 1949.  HE THEN FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT
IN THIS DISTRICT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THE STATE COURT
ACTION WAS DEFECTIVE AND THAT A FAULTY WARRANT WAS ISSUED FOR HIS
ARREST, CLAIMING FURTHER THAT HE WAS KIDNAPPED BY MICHIGAN POLICE
AUTHORITIES IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AND BROUGHT TO MICHIGAN FOR TRIAL. 
THIS PETITION WAS ALSO DENIED." 

FN6  SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, THE STATE'S FIRST OBJECTION TO
FEDERAL COURT CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE WAS MADE AFTER THE COURT OF
APPEALS DECIDED IN RESPONDENT'S FAVOR.  A MOTION FOR REHEARING THEN
FILED ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT HAD MADE SEVERAL FUTILE EFFORTS TO HAVE
HIS CONVICTION REVIEWED.  THE MOTION ALSO DENIED THAT THE PARTICULAR
GROUND HERE RELIED ON HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN RAISED. 

FN7  SEE CASES CITED, SUPRA, N. 2. 

FN8  CF. MAHON V. JUSTICE, SUPRA, N. 3, 705. 
..END :





CARLSON V. LANDON 342 U.S. 524 


NO. 35.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 26, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1952.  - 187
F.2D 991, AFFIRMED.  - 187 F.2D 802, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE
REMANDED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 20(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 23 OF
THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY, IN HIS DISCRETION,
HOLD IN CUSTODY WITHOUT BAIL, PENDING DETERMINATION AS TO THEIR
DEPORTABILITY, ALIENS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE
UNITED STATES, WHEN THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR
RELEASE ON BAIL WOULD ENDANGER THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE UNITED
STATES.  PP. 526-547. 

2.  THE LACK OF A CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERING
SUCH ACTION DOES NOT RENDER CONGRESS IMPOTENT TO REQUIRE THE EXPULSION
OF RESIDENT ALIEN COMMUNISTS.  PP.  533-537. 

(A)  SO LONG AS ALIENS FAIL TO OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN CITIZENSHIP BY
NATURALIZATION, THEY REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE PLENARY POWER OF CONGRESS TO
EXPEL THEM UNDER THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT NONCITIZENS
SHALL BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN WITHIN OUT BORDERS.  P. 534. 

(B)  THE DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES OF COMMUNISM TEACH THE USE OF FORCE
TO ACHIEVE POLITICAL CONTROL CLEARLY ENOUGH TO GIVE CONSTITUTIONAL
BASIS, ACCORDING TO ANY THEORY OF REASONABLENESS OR ARBITRARINESS, FOR
CONGRESS TO EXPEL KNOWN ALIEN COMMUNISTS.  PP. 534-536. 

3.  UNDER ORDERS FROM THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, CERTAIN
ALIENS WERE ARRESTED UNDER WARRANTS ISSUED AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT, CHARGING THEM WITH BEING MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY AND DIRECTING THAT THEY BE HELD IN CUSTODY PENDING
DETERMINATION OF DEPORTABILITY.  THEY PETITIONED FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 
RESPONDENT FILED RETURNS ALLEGING THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO
BELIEVE THAT THEIR RELEASE WOULD ENDANGER THE WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE
UNITED STATES.  LATER HE FILED AFFIDAVITS THAT THE SERVICE HAD EVIDENCE
INDICATING THAT EACH PETITIONER WAS AT THE TIME OF ARREST A MEMBER OF
THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND HAD SINCE 1930 PARTICIPATED, OR WAS THEN
ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING, IN THE PARTY'S INDOCTRINATION OF OTHERS TO THE
PREJUDICE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  HELD: 

(A)  THE REFUSAL OF BAIL IN THESE CASES WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR
CAPRICIOUS OR AN ABUSE OF POWER AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 537-542. 

(1) THE DISCRETION AS TO BAIL VESTED IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY THE
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT WAS BROAD ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY PETITIONERS'
DETENTION WITHOUT BAIL AS A MENACE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  PP. 537
541. 

(2)  THERE IS NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN
THE DETENTION OF ALIEN COMMUNISTS WITHOUT BAIL, PENDING DETERMINATION
OF DEPORTABILITY, WHERE THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR
RELEASE ON BAIL WOULD ENDANGER THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE UNITED
STATES.  PP. 541-542. 

(B)  THE DELEGATION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF DISCRETIONARY
AUTHORITY TO DETAIN SUCH ALIENS WITHOUT BAIL PENDING DEPORTATION
HEARINGS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER OR VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE
THE STATUTE CONTAINS DEFINITE LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS FOR DEPORTATION AND
SUCH AUTHORITY IS TO BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE
SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT TO GUARD AGAINST COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES
PENDING DEPORTATION HEARINGS.  PP. 542-544. 

(C)  THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT BAIL BE ALLOWED IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES.  PP. 544-546. 

4.  PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT, AN ALIEN
COMMUNIST WAS ARRESTED UNDER A WARRANT CHARGING THAT HE WAS SUBJECT TO
DEPORTATION AS AN ALIEN MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING THE
VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT; BUT HE WAS RELEASED ON BAIL. 
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, HE WAS AGAIN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
UNDER THE SAME WARRANT AND HELD WITHOUT BAIL UNDER AN ORDER FROM THE
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, BASED ON SECS. 22 AND 23 OF THE
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT.  HELD:  HE MUST BE RELEASED UNLESS, WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, HE IS REARRESTED UNDER
A NEW WARRANT.  PP. 531, 546-547. 

CARLSON ET AL. V. LANDON, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 136, BUTTERFIELD, DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, V. ZYDOK, ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

NO. 35.  IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, A DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
RESPONDENT HAD NOT ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN ORDERING PETITIONERS HELD
WITHOUT BAIL PENDING DEPORTATION HEARINGS.  94 F. SUPP. 18.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  186 F.2D 183.  ON REHEARING AND AFTER
INTRODUCTION OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT AGAIN SUSTAINED
PETITIONERS' DETENTION WITHOUT BAIL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
187 F.2D 991.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 807.  AFFIRMED,
P. 547. 

NO. 136.  IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED
DETENTION OF RESPONDENT WITHOUT BAIL PENDING DETERMINATION OF
DEPORTABILITY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  187 F.2D 802.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 810.  JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE
REMENDED, P. 547. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT A NARROW QUESTION WITH SEVERAL RELATED ISSUES. 
MAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS THE EXECUTIVE HEAD OF THE IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, (FN1) AFTER TAKING INTO CUSTODY ACTIVE ALIEN
COMMUNISTS ON WARRANTS, (FN2) CHARGING EITHER MEMBERSHIP IN A GROUP
THAT ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE OF THIS GOVERNMENT (FN3) OR
INCLUSION IN ANY PROHIBITED CLASSES OF ALIENS, (FN4) CONTINUE THEM IN
CUSTODY WITHOUT BAIL, AT HIS DISCRETION PENDING DETERMINATION AS TO
THEIR DEPORTABILITY, UNDER SEC. 23 OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT?  (FN5)
DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 
342 U.S. 807, 810. 

I. FACTS.  - THE FOUR PETITIONERS IN CASE NO. 35 WERE ARRESTED UNDER
WARRANTS, ISSUED AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF
1950, CHARGING EACH WITH BEING AN ALIEN WHO WAS A MEMBER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  (FN6)  THE WARRANTS DIRECTED
THAT THEY BE HELD IN CUSTODY, (FN7) PENDING DETERMINATION OF
DEPORTABILITY.  (FN8)  PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS WERE PROMPTLY FILED
ALLEGING THAT THE DETENTION WITHOUT BOND WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT (FN9) AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT SEC. 20 OF THE
IMMIGRATION ACT, AS AMENDED, WAS ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  SEE NOTE 5,
SUPRA.  THE ALLEGATION APPEARS BELOW.  (FN10) 

RESPONDENT FILED RETURNS DEFENDING HIS ORDERS OF DETENTION ON THE
GROUND THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT PETITIONERS'
RELEASE WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WOULD ENDANGER
THE WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THESE RETURNS WERE
COUNTERED BY PETITIONERS WITH ALLEGATIONS OF THEIR MANY YEARS'
RESIDENCE SPENT IN THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT GIVING BASIS FOR FEAR OF ACTION
BY THEM INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THEIR
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, THEIR INTEGRATION INTO COMMUNITY LIFE THROUGH
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY CONNECTIONS, AND THEIR METICULOUS ADHERENCE TO THE
TERMS OF PREVIOUS BAIL, ALLOWED UNDER A FORMER WARRANT CHARGING
DEPORTABILITY.  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA.  ON CONSIDERATION OF THESE UNDENIED
ALLEGATIONS, THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINED THAT THE DIRECTOR HAD NOT BEEN
SHOWN TO HAVE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION.  (FN11)  THIS ORDER WAS REVERSED
ON THE GROUND THAT THE DIRECTOR "MUST STATE SOME FACT UPON WHICH A
REASONABLE PERSON COULD LOGICALLY CONCLUDE THAT THE DENIAL OF BAIL IS
REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY OR TO SECURE THE ALLEGED ALIEN'S
PRESENCE FOR DEPORTATION SHOULD AN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT BE THE RESULT
OF THE HEARING."  (FN12) 

ON REHEARING, THE DIRECTOR MADE ALLEGATION, SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS,
THAT THE SERVICE'S DOSSIER OF EACH PETITIONER CONTAINED EVIDENCE
INDICATING TO HIM THAT EACH WAS AT THE TIME OF ARREST A MEMBER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND HAD SINCE 1930 PARTICIPATED OR
WAS THEN ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN THE PARTY'S INDOCTRINATION OF OTHERS
TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF THESE
ALLEGATIONS BY ANY OF THE PETITIONERS, EXCEPT HYUN, OR ANY ASSERTION
THAT ANY OF THEM HAD COMPLETELY SEVERED ALL COMMUNIST AFFILIATIONS OR
CONNECTIONS.  (FN13)  AS TO HYUN THE DENIAL WAS FORMAL AND DID NOT
INCLUDE ANY AFFIDAVIT DENYING THE FACTS STATED IN THE DIRECTOR'S
AFFIDAVIT.  AS THE ALLEGATIONS ARE SET OUT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN
THE CAREFULLY DETAILED OPINION OF CIRCUIT JUDGE STEPHENS, WE REFRAIN
FROM ANY FURTHER RESTATEMENT HERE.  (FN14) THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DISCRETION EXERCISED IN DENYING BAIL. 

RESPONDENT ZYDOK, IN CASE NO. 136, WAS ARRESTED IN AUGUST 1949 UNDER
A RECENT WARRANT CHARGING THAT HE WAS SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION AS AN
ALIEN WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING THE VIOLENT
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT.  ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, AS AMENDED, 8
U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  137.  AT THAT TIME HE WAS RELEASED ON $2,000
BAIL.  LATER A DEPORTATION HEARING WAS HELD BY THE IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE BUT THIS COURT'S DECISION IN WONG YANG SUNG V.
MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33, NECESSITATED A SECOND DEPORTATION HEARING. 

AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE, SEPTEMBER 23, 1950, OF THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT OF 1950, RESPONDENT WAS AGAIN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY
PETITIONER ON THE 1949 WARRANT, PURSUANT TO RADIOGRAM DIRECTION FROM
THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION REFERRING TO
SEC. 20 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 23 OF THE
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT.  THE RESPONDENT WAS HELD WITHOUT BAIL BY
PETITIONER UNDER AN ORDER FROM THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION. 
THE REARREST WAS BASED ON SEC. 22 OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950
WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR
AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  8 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 137. 

THEREUPON RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN,
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF HIS DETENTION WITHOUT BAIL.  THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONER WAS AN ALIEN AND HAD BEEN AND WAS ON ARREST
A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  THE COURT DETERMINED THAT THERE HAD
BEEN NO ABUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN REFUSING BAIL AND DENIED
THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  (FN15) 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE DISTRICT
COURT, HOLDING THAT IN DETERMINING DENIAL OF BAIL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
COULD NOT REST ON MEMBERSHIP ALONE IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY BUT WAS UNDER
THE DUTY TO CONSIDER ALSO THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE ALIEN WOULD APPEAR
WHEN ORDERED TO DO SO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS DEVELOPED IN THE
HABEAS CORPUS HEARING.  THE COURT THOUGHT THE FAILURE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO ALLOW BAIL WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

THAT COURT AGREED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CORRECT IN FINDING THAT
ZYDOK WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND HAD BEEN IN 1949 THE
FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF ITS HAMTRAMCK DIVISION.  THE RESPONDENT'S
TESTIMONY JUSTIFIES THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING SET OUT IN THE
MARGIN.  (FN16)  THE RECORD SHOWS OTHER INFORMATION IN THE FILES OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCH AS ATTENDANCE AT CLOSED MEETINGS OF THE PARTY
AND THE MICHIGAN STATE CONVENTION.  THE OPINION SUCCINCTLY SETS OUT THE
FACTS CONCERNING RESPONDENT'S INTEGRATION INTO AMERICAN LIFE.  WE ADOPT
THAT STATEMENT.  (FN17)  IT WAS SAID: 

"DISCRETION DOES NOT MEAN DECISION UPON ONE PARTICULAR FACT OR SET OF
FACTS.  IT MEANS RATHER A JUST AND PROPER DECISION IN VIEW OF ALL THE
ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE STYRIA V. MORGAN, 186 U.S. 1, 9, 22 S.
CT. 731, 46 L. ED. 1027.  THERE ARE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INVOLVE
DECISION."  187 F.2D 802, 803. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED: 

"WE THINK THAT A FAIR CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTORS ABOVE SET OUT IN
THEIR AGGREGATE REQUIRE THAT APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BAIL IN
SOME REASONABLE AMOUNT.  THIS VIEW IS MORE NEARLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE SPIRIT OF OUR INSTITUTIONS AS IT RELATES EVEN TO THOSE WHO SEEK
PROTECTION FROM THE LAWS WHICH THEY INCONGRUOUSLY SEEK TO DESTROY.  SEE
CARLSON V. LANDON, DIST. DIRECTOR, 9 CIR., 186 F.2D 183; UNITED STATES
EX REL. POTASH V. DIST. DIRECTOR, 2 CIR., 169 F.2D 747, 752."  ID., AT
804. 

II.  THE ISSUES.  - PETITIONERS IN NO. 35, THE CARLSON CASE, AND
RESPONDENT IN NO. 136, THE ZYDOK CASE, SEEK RESPECTIVELY REVERSAL OR
AFFIRMANCE PRINCIPALLY ON THE SAME GROUNDS.  IT IS URGED THAT THE
DENIAL OF BAIL TO EACH WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, A VIOLATION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT; THAT WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY A FEAR OF
UNAVAILABILITY FOR THE HEARINGS OR FOR THE CARRYING OUT OF A POSSIBLE
JUDGMENT OF DEPORTATION, DENIAL OF BAIL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THESE CASES IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND VIOLATES A CLAIMED RIGHT TO
REASONABLE BAIL SECURED BY THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. 
ZYDOK URGES, ALSO, THAT THERE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REARRESTING
HIM, WHEN THERE WAS NO CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, AFTER HIS PREVIOUS
RELEASE UNDER BOND ON THE SAME WARRANT.  THERE ARE OTHER MINOR
CONTENTIONS AS TO IRREGULARITIES IN THE PROCEEDINGS THAT APPEAR TO US
IMMATERIAL TO OUR CONSIDERATION OF THESE CASES. 

THE BASIS FOR THE DEPORTATION OF PRESENTLY UNDESIRABLE ALIENS
RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT QUESTIONED AND REQUIRES NO
REEXAMINATION.  WHEN LEGALLY ADMITTED, THEY HAVE COME AT THE NATION'S
INVITATION, AS VISITORS OR PERMANENT RESIDENTS, TO SHARE WITH US THE
OPPORTUNITIES AND SATISFACTIONS OF OUR LAND.  AS SUCH VISITORS AND
FOREIGN NATIONALS THEY ARE ENTITLED IN THEIR PERSONS AND EFFECTS TO THE
PROTECTION OF OUR LAWS.  SO LONG, HOWEVER, AS ALIENS FAIL TO OBTAIN AND
MAINTAIN CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION, THEY REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE
PLENARY POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXPEL THEM UNDER THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO
DETERMINE WHAT NONCITIZENS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN WITHIN OUR
BORDERS.  (FN18) 

CHANGES IN WORLD POLITICS AND IN OUR INTERNAL ECONOMY BRING
LEGISLATIVE ADJUSTMENTS AFFECTING THE RIGHTS OF VARIOUS CLASSES OF
ALIENS TO ADMISSION AND DEPORTATION.  (FN19)  THE PASSAGE OF THE
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 MARKED SUCH A CHANGE OF ATTITUDE TOWARD
ALIEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THERETOFORE
THERE WAS A PROVISION FOR THE DEPORTATION OF ALIEN ANARCHISTS AND OTHER
ALIENS, WHO ARE OR WERE MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS DEVOTED TO THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
BUT THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT MADE COMMUNIST MEMBERSHIP ALONE OF ALIENS
A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR DEPORTATION.  (FN20)  THE REASONS FOR THE
EXERCISE OF POWER ARE SUMMARIZED IN TITLE I OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY
ACT.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE TO PRINT SEC. 2(15).  (FN21)  WE HAVE NO
DOUBT THAT THE DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES OF COMMUNISM CLEARLY ENOUGH
TEACH THE USE OF FORCE TO ACHIEVE POLITICAL CONTROL TO GIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS, ACCORDING TO ANY THEORY OF REASONABLENESS OR
ARBITRARINESS, FOR CONGRESS TO EXPEL KNOWN ALIEN COMMUNISTS UNDER ITS
POWER TO REGULATE THE EXCLUSION, ADMISSION AND EXPULSION OF ALIENS. 
(FN22)  CONGRESS HAD BEFORE IT EVIDENCE OF RESIDENT ALIENS' LEADERSHIP
IN COMMUNIST DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES SUFFICIENT TO FURNISH REASONABLE
GROUND FOR ACTION AGAINST ALIEN RESIDENT COMMUNISTS.  THE BAR AGAINST
THE ADMISSION OF COMMUNISTS CANNOT BE DIFFERENTIATED AS A MATTER OF
POWER FROM THAT AGAINST ANARCHISTS UPHELD UNANIMOUSLY HALF A CENTURY
AGO IN THE EXCLUSION OF TURNER.  (FN23)  SINCE "IT IS THOROUGHLY
ESTABLISHED THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER TO ORDER THE DEPORTATION OF ALIENS
WHOSE PRESENCE IN THE COUNTRY IS DEEMS HURTFUL," (FN24) THE FACT THAT
PETITIONERS, AND RESPONDENT ZYDOK, WERE MADE DEPORTABLE AFTER ENTRY IS
IMMATERIAL.  THEY ARE DEPORTED FOR WHAT THEY ARE NOW, NOT FOR WHAT THEY
WERE.  (FN25)  OTHERWISE, WHEN AN ALIEN ONCE LEGALLY BECAME A DENIZEN
OF THIS COUNTRY HE COULD NOT BE DEPORTED FOR ANY REASON OF WHICH HE HAD
NOT BEEN FOREWARNED AT THE TIME OF ENTRY.  MANKIND IS NOT VOUCHSAFED
SUFFICIENT FORESIGHT TO JUSTIFY REQUIRING A COUNTRY TO PERMIT ITS
CONTINUOUS OCCUPATION IN PEACE OR WAR BY LEGALLY ADMITTED ALIENS, EVEN
THOUGH THEY NEVER VIOLATE THE LAWS IN EFFECT AT THEIR ENTRY.  THE
PROTECTION OF CITIZENSHIP IS OPEN TO THOSE WHO QUALIFY FOR ITS
PRIVILEGES.  THE LACK OF A CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY
EMPOWERING SUCH ACTION HAS NEVER BEEN HELD TO RENDER CONGRESS IMPOTENT
TO DEAL AS A SOVEREIGN WITH RESIDENT ALIENS.  (FN26) 

III.  CONSTITUTIONALITY.  - A. ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.  - THE POWER TO EXPEL ALIENS, BEING ESSENTIALLY A POWER OF
THE POLITICAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE,
MAY BE EXERCISED ENTIRELY THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, "WITH SUCH
OPPORTUNITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THEIR ACTION AS CONGRESS MAY SEE FIT
TO AUTHORIZE OR PERMIT."  THIS POWER IS, OF COURSE, SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION UNDER THE "PARAMOUNT LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION."  (FN27) 

DEPORTATION IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AND HAS NEVER BEEN HELD TO
BE PUNISHMENT. NO JURY SITS.  NO JUDICIAL REVIEW IS GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  (FN28)  SINCE DEPORTATION IS A PARTICULARLY DRASTIC
REMEDY WHERE ALIENS HAVE BECOME ABSORBED INTO OUR COMMUNITY LIFE,
(FN29) CONGRESS HAS BEEN CAREFUL TO PROVIDE FOR FULL HEARING BY THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE BEFORE DEPORTATION.  SUCH
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION REQUIRES THAT THOSE CHARGED WITH THAT
RESPONSIBILITY EXERCISE IT IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS. 
(FN30)  DETENTION IS NECESSARILY A PART OF THIS DEPORTATION PROCEDURE. 
OTHERWISE ALIENS ARRESTED FOR DEPORTATION WOULD HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO
HURT THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PENDENCY OF DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS. 
OF COURSE PURPOSE TO INJURE COULD NOT BE IMPUTED GENERALLY TO ALL
ALIENS SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION, SO DISCRETION WAS PLACED BY THE 1950 ACT
IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DETAIN ALIENS WITHOUT BAIL, AS SET OUT IN
NOTE 5, SUPRA.  (FN31)

THE CHANGE IN LANGUAGE SEEMS TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN H.R. 10, 81ST
CONG., 1ST SESS., INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SAM HOBBS OF ALABAMA ON
JANUARY 3, 1949.  IT WAS INTENDED TO CLAIRFY THE PROCEDURE IN DEALING
WITH DEPORTEES AND TO "EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN HIS
DISCRETION, TO HOLD ARRESTED ALIENS IN CUSTODY."  (FN32)  THE NEED FOR
CLARIFICATION AROSE FROM VARYING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE AUTHORITY TO
GRANT BAIL UNDER THE FORMER BAIL PROVISION.  NOTE 31, SUPRA.  IN
PRENTIS V. MANOOGIAN, 16 F.2D 422, 424, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT HAD HELD THAT BY THE EARLIER PROVISION "CONGRESS INTENDED
TO GRANT TO THE ALIEN A RIGHT, AND THAT ITS FAILURE TO FOLLOW WITH SOME
SUCH PHRASE AS 'AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSIONER' VESTS THE
DISCRETION TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED IN THE ALIEN,
AND NOT THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW BAIL IN THE COMMISSIONER OR DIRECTOR." 
ON THE OTHER HAND IN UNITED STATES EX REL.  ZAPP V. DISTRICT DIRECTOR,
120 F.2D 762, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CONSTRUED THE
PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY.  IT SAID: 

"THE NATURAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE USED, THAT THE ALIEN 'MAY
BE RELEASED UNDER A BOND,' WOULD INDICATE THAT THE RELEASE IS
DISCRETIONARY WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND THAT APPEARS TO BE BORNE
OUT BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, AS WELL AS OTHER SECTIONS OF
THE IMMIGRATION LAWS, WHERE THE CHOICE OF WORDS APPEARS TO HAVE
SIGNIFICANCE."  P. 765. 

IN THE LATER CASE OF UNITED STATES EX REL. POTASH V. DISTRICT
DIRECTOR, 169 F.2D 747, THE SAME COURT APPLIED ITS ZAPP OPINION TO
EXPLAIN THAT THE SERVICE'S DISCRETION AS TO BAIL WAS NOT UNTRAMMELED
BUT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  (FN33)  IT WAS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE
CASES THAT CONGRESS INSERTED IN THE BAIL PROVISIONS THE PHRASE "IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL," THE LACK OF WHICH VERY PHRASE THE
MANOOGIAN CASE HELD MADE BAIL A RIGHT OF THE DETAINED ALIEN.  THE
PRESENT STATUTE DOES NOT GRANT BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT URGE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DISCRETION
IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY JUDICIAL REVIEW, BUT MERELY THAT HIS DISCRETION
CAN BE OVERTURNED ONLY ON A SHOWING OF CLEAR ABUSE.  (FN34) WE PROCEED
ON THE BASIS SUGGESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS FIRST TO BE OBSERVED
THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE REPORTS IS EMPHATIC IN EXPLAINING CONGRESS'
INTENTION TO MAKE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT AND UNASSAILABLE EXCEPT FOR ABUSE.  WE THINK THE
DISCRETION REPOSED IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS AT LEAST AS GREAT AS THAT
FOUND BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN THE POTASH CASE, SUPRA, TO BE IN HIM
UNDER THE FORMER BAIL PROVISION.  IT CAN ONLY BE OVERRIDDEN WHERE IT IS
CLEARLY SHOWN THAT IT "WAS WITHOUT A REASONABLE FOUNDATION." 

THE FOUR PETITIONERS IN THE CARLSON CASE WERE ACTIVE IN COMMUNIST
WORK.  IN THE ZYDOK CASE THE ONLY EVIDENCE IS MEMBERSHIP IN THE PARTY,
ATTENDANCE AT CLOSED SESSIONS AND THE HOLDING OF THE OFFICE OF
FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF ITS HAMTRAMCK DIVISION.  THIS EVIDENCE GOES
BEYOND UNEXPLAINED MEMBERSHIP AND SHOWS A DEGREE, MINOR PERHAPS IN
ZYDOK'S CASE, OF PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES.  AS THE PURPOSE
OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT TO DEPORT ALL ALIEN COMMUNISTS AS A MENACE
TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS ESTABLISHED BY THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT ITSELF, TITLE I, SEC. 2, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DISCRETION
AS TO BAIL IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS CERTAINLY BROAD ENOUGH TO
JUSTIFY HIS DETENTION OF ALL THESE PARTIES WITHOUT BAIL AS A MENACE TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  AS ALL ALIEN COMMUNISTS ARE DEPORTABLE, LIKE
ANARCHISTS, BECAUSE OF CONGRESS' UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD
THE USE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY AS
OURS TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR POLITICAL AIMS, EVIDENCE OF MEMBERSHIP PLUS
PERSONAL ACTIVITY IN SUPPORTING AND EXTENDING THE PARTY'S PHILOSOPHY
CONCERNING VIOLENCE GIVES ADEQUATE GROUND FOR DETENTION.  IT CANNOT BE
EXPECTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO SHOW
SPECIFIC ACTS OF SABOTAGE OR INCITEMENT TO SUBVERSIVE ACTION.  SUCH AN
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IS WELL WITHIN THAT HERETOFORE APPROVED IN
KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537, 541.  (FN35)  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
OR CONTENTION THAT ALL PERSONS ARRESTED AS DEPORTABLE UNDER SEC. 22 OF
THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT, NOTE 4, SUPRA, FOR COMMUNIST MEMBERSHIP ARE
DENIED BAIL.  IN FACT, A REPORT FILED WITH THIS COURT BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE IN THIS CASE AT OUR REQUEST SHOWS ALLOWANCE OF BAIL IN THE
LARGE MAJORITY OF CASES.  THE REFUSAL OF BAIL IN THESE CASES IS NOT
ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS OR AN ABUSE OF POWER.  THERE IS NO DENIAL OF
THE DUE PROCESS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE
IS REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF HURT FROM ALIENS CHARGED WITH A
PHILOSOPHY OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THIS GOVERNMENT. 

B. DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  - THIS LEAVES FOR CONSIDERATION
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.  WE CONSIDER
FIRST THE OBJECTION TO THE ALLEGED UNBRIDLED DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER IN THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS LEFT WITHOUT STANDARDS TO
DETERMINE WHEN TO ADMIT TO BAIL AND WHEN TO DETAIN.  IT IS FAMILIAR LAW
THAT IN SUCH AN EXAMINATION THE ENTIRE ACT IS TO BE LOOKED AT AND THE
MEANING OF THE WORDS DETERMINED BY THEIR SURROUNDINGS AND CONNECTIONS. 
CONGRESS CAN ONLY LEGISLATE SO FAR AS IS REASONABLE AND PRACTICABLE,
AND MUST LEAVE TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS THE AUTHORITY TO ACCOMPLISH ITS
PURPOSE.  (FN36)  CONGRESS NEED NOT MAKE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EACH
SUBSIDIARY EXECUTIVE ACTION IN CARRYING OUT A POLICY.  (FN37)  THE BAIL
PROVISION APPLIES TO MANY CLASSES OF DEPORTABLE ALIENS OTHER THAN THOSE
NAMED IN THE CLASSES LISTED IN SEC. 22 OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT. 
SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA.  (FN38)  A WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETION IN THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AS TO BAIL IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE VARYING SITUATIONS ARISING
FROM THE MANY ALIENS IN THIS COUNTRY.  (FN39) 

THE POLICY AND STANDARDS AS TO WHAT ALIENS ARE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION
ARE, IN GENERAL, CLEAR AND DEFINITE.  8 U.S.C. SECS. 137 AND 155. 
SPECIFICALLY WHEN DEALING WITH ALIEN COMMUNISTS, AS IN THESE CASES, THE
LEGISLATIVE STANDARD FOR DEPORTATION IS DEFINITE.  SEE NOTES 3 AND 4,
SUPRA.  IN CARRYING OUT THAT POLICY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT LEFT
WITH UNTRAMMELED DISCRETION AS TO BAIL.  COURTS REVIEW HIS
DETERMINATION.  HEARINGS ARE HAD, AND HE MUST JUSTIFY HIS REFUSAL OF
BAIL BY REFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME TO ERADICATE THE EVILS OF
COMMUNIST ACTIVITY.  THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT OF EVILS CALLING FOR THE
1950 AMENDMENTS TO DEPORTATION LEGISLATION IS SET OUT IN THE
INTRODUCTORY SECTIONS OF THE SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT.  (FN40)
SO FAR AS PERTINENT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE NEW LEGISLATION WAS
DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE THE SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES OF RESIDENT ALIENS WHO
SEEK TO INCULCATE THE DOCTRINE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE INTO THE POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  TO THIS END PROVISION WAS MADE FOR
THE DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN NONCITIZENS, INCLUDING MEMBERS
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  WHEN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AN ALIEN COMMUNIST MAY SO CONDUCT HIMSELF PENDING DEPORTATION HEARINGS
AS TO AID IN CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE WORLD COMMUNIST
MOVEMENT, THAT ALIEN MAY BE DETAINED.  COMPARE YAKUS V. UNITED STATES,
321 U.S. 414, AND BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 515.  THIS IS A
PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE
JUDGMENT IS LIMITED BY ADEQUATE STANDARDS.  THE AUTHORITY TO DETAIN
WITHOUT BAIL IS TO BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT TO GUARD AGAINST COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES PENDING
DEPORTATION HEARINGS.  CF. MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32, 40.  WE DO NOT
SEE THAT SUCH DISCRETION VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

C. VIOLATION OF EIGHT AMENDMENT.  - THE CONTENTION IS ALSO ADVANCED
THAT THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, NOTE 9, SUPRA, COMPELS
THE ALLOWANCE OF BAIL IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT.  WE HAVE IN THE PRECEDING
ABUSE OF POWER, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, AND WHY THE DELEGATION OF
DISCRETION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  HERE WE
MEET THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES BY THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT, NOTE 9, SUPRA, THE SAME REASONABLE BAIL FOR ALIEN COMMUNISTS
UNDER DEPORTATION CHARGES AS IT ACCORDS CITIZENS CHARGED WITH BAILABLE
CRIMINAL OFFENSES.  OBVIOUSLY THE CASES CITED BY THE APPLICANTS FOR
HABEAS CORPUS FAIL FLATLY TO SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT.  (FN41)  WE HAVE
FOUND NONE THAT DO. 

THE BAIL CLAUSE WAS LIFTED WITH SLIGHT CHANGES FROM THE ENGLISH BILL
OF RIGHTS ACT.  (FN42)  IN ENGLAND THAT CLAUSE HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT
TO ACCORD A RIGHT TO BAIL IN ALL CASES, (FN43) BUT MERELY TO PROVIDE
THAT BAIL SHALL NOT BE EXCESSIVE IN THOSE CASES WHERE IT IS PROPER TO
GRANT BAIL.  WHEN THIS CLAUSE WAS CARRIED OVER INTO OUR BILL OF RIGHTS,
NOTHING WAS SAID THAT INDICATED ANY DIFFERENT CONCEPT.  (FN44)  THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT HAS NOT PREVENTED CONGRESS FROM DEFINING THE CLASSES
OF CASES IN WHICH BAIL SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THIS COUNTRY.  THUS IN
CRIMINAL CASES BAIL IS NOT COMPULSORY WHERE THE PUNISHMENT MAY BE
DEATH.  (FN45)  INDEED, THE VERY LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT FAILS TO SAY
ALL ARRESTS MUST BE BAILABLE.  WE THINK, CLEARLY, HERE THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT BAIL BE ALLOWED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THESE CASES. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PROBLEM OF HABEAS CORPUS AFTER UNUSUAL
DELAY IN DEPORTATION HEARINGS IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  CF. UNITED
STATES EX REL. POTASH V. DISTRICT DIRECTOR, 169 F.2D 747, 751. 

IV.  REARREST.  - FINALLY, RESPONDENT ZYDOK ARGUES THAT HIS REARREST
ON THE OUTSTANDING WARRANT, AFTER HE HAD ONCE BEEN RELEASED ON BAIL,
WAS IMPROPER.  THE INQUIRY ON HABEAS CORPUS IS LIMITED TO THE PROPRIETY
OF ZYDOK'S PRESENT DETENTION.  MCNALLY V. HILL, 293 U.S. 131, 136. 
WHILE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS MADE A SATISFACTORY SHOWING THAT HE HAS
GOOD CAUSE FOR DETAINING ZYDOK WITHOUT BAIL, NO ORDER BASED ON A NEW
WARRANT HAS BEEN ENTERED.  (FN46)  ZYDOK DID NOT ALLOW THE PROCEEDINGS
TO RUN ALONG BUT OBJECTED PROMPTLY BY HABEAS CORPUS TO DETENTION UNDER
THE WARRANT.  IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THE RULE IN CRIMINAL CASES IS THAT
A WARRANT ONCE EXECUTED IS EXHAUSTED.  (FN47)  THIS GUARDS AGAINST
PRECIPITATE REARREST.  WHERE, HOWEVER, THE REARREST COMES AFTER THE
DISCOVERY OF ERROR IN RELEASE, A NEW WARRANT IS NOT NECESSARILY
REQUIRED.  (FN48)  STATE CASES HAVE HELD THAT AN ESCAPED PERSON OR ONE
WHO SECURED HIS RELEASE BY TRICK MAY BE REARRESTED WITHOUT A NEW
WARRANT.  (FN49) ALTHOUGH A WARRANT FOR REARREST IS REQUIRED BY
STATUTE, WHEN A CONVICTED PERSON IS PAROLED HIS STATUS ON VIOLATION OF
THE PAROLE IS THE SAME AS THAT OF AN ESCAPED PRISONER.  (FN50)  WHEN A
PRISONER IS OUT ON BOND HE IS STILL UNDER COURT CONTROL, THOUGH THE
BOUNDS OF HIS CONFINEMENT ARE ENLARGED.  HIS BONDSMEN ARE HIS JAILERS. 
(FN51)  WHILE THE BAILSMEN MAY ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, THE COURT
PROCEEDS UNDER BENCH WARRANT TO RETAKE A PRISONER.  CF. 18 U.S.C. SEC.
3143. 

ALTHOUGH IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING FOR DEPORTATION THE SAME BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT ISSUES AND EXECUTES THE WARRANT, WE THINK THE BETTER
PRACTICE IS TO REQUIRE IN THOSE CASES ALSO A NEW WARRANT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE ZYDOK CASE WILL BE
VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION, WITH DIRECTIONS TO ORDER
THE RELEASE OF THE RESPONDENT ZYDOK UNLESS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME IN
THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT HE IS REARRESTED UNDER A NEW WARRANT. 
(FN52)  NO. 35 IS AFFIRMED; NO. 136 IS VACATED. 

FN1  REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. V, 54 STAT. 1238. 

FN2  SEC. 19 OF AN ACT TO REGULATE THE IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS TO, AND
THE RESIDENCE OF ALIENS IN, THE UNITED STATES, 39 STAT. 889, FEBRUARY
5, 1917, AS AMENDED 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155: 

"  ... ANY ALIEN WHO SHALL HAVE ENTERED OR WHO SHALL BE FOUND IN THE
UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER, OR IN VIOLATION OF ANY
OTHER LAW OF THE UNITED STATES; ...  SHALL, UPON THE WARRANT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED  ...  ." 

FN3  ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, 40 STAT. 1012, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C.
(1946 ED.)  SEC.  137, SEE NOTE 15, INFRA: 

"(C)  ALIENS WHO BELIEVE IN, ADVISE, ADVOCATE, OR TEACH, OR WHO ARE
MEMBERS OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY,
OR GROUP, THAT BELIEVES IN, ADVISES, ADVOCATES, OR TEACHES: (1) THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OR OF ALL FORMS OF LAW  ...  ." 

FN4 INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, SEPTEMBER 23, 1950, SEC. 22,
SUBSECTION 4(A), AMENDING THE ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, SEE 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 137: 

"ANY ALIEN WHO WAS AT THE TIME OF ENTERING THE UNITED STATES, OR HAS
BEEN AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, A MEMBER OF ANY ONE OF THE CLASSES OF
ALIENS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 1(1) OR SECTION 1(3) OF THIS ACT OR  ...
A MEMBER OF ANY ONE OF THE CLASSES OF ALIENS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 1(2)
OF THIS ACT, SHALL, UPON THE WARRANT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BE TAKEN
INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THE IMMIGRATION ACT
OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
APPLICABLE TO THE CLASSES OF ALIENS MENTIONED IN THIS ACT, IRRESPECTIVE
OF THE TIME OF THEIR ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES."    ID., SEC.22: 

"THAT ANY ALIEN WHO IS A MEMBER OF ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CLASSES
SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED STATES: 

"(1)  ALIENS WHO SEEK TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES WHETHER SOLELY,
PRINCIPALLY, OR INCIDENTALLY, TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES WHICH WOULD BE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OR WOULD ENDANGER THE WELFARE OR
SAFETY OR THE UNITED STATES. 

"(2)  ALIENS WHO, AT ANY TIME, SHALL BE OR SHALL HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CLASSES: 

"(A)  ALIENS WHO ARE ANARCHISTS. 

"(B)  ALIENS WHO ADVOCATE OR TEACH, OR WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR
AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES OR TEACHES, OPPOSITION
TO ALL ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT. 

"(C)  ALIENS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR AFFILIATED WITH (I) THE COMMUNIST
PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES, (II) ANY OTHER TOTALITARIAN PARTY OF THE
UNITED STATES, (III) THE COMMUNIST POLITICAL ASSOCIATION, (IV) THE
COMMUNIST OR OTHER TOTALITARIAN PARTY OF ANY STATE OF THE UNITED
STATES, OF ANY FOREIGN STATE, OR OF ANY POLITICAL OR GEOGRAPHICAL
SUBDIVISION OF ANY FOREIGN STATE; (V) ANY SECTION, SUBSIDIARY, BRANCH,
AFFILIATE, OR SUBDIVISION OF ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION OR PARTY; OR (VI) THE
DIRECT PREDECESSORS OR SUCCESSORS OF ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION OR PARTY,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT NAME SUCH GROUP OR ORGANIZATION MAY HAVE USED, MAY
NOW BEAR, OR MAY HEREAFTER ADOPT. 

     *         *         *         *       * 

"(F)  ALIENS WHO ADVOCATE OR TEACH OR WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR
AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES OR TEACHES (I) THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ALL FORMS OF LAW; ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(3)  ALIENS WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
SUCH ALIENS WOULD, AFTER ENTRY, BE LIKELY TO (A) ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES
WHICH WOULD BE PROHIBITED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO
ESPIONAGE, SABOTAGE, PUBLIC DISORDER, OR IN OTHER ACTIVITY SUBVERSIVE
TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY; (B) ENGAGE IN ANY ACTIVITY A PURPOSE OF WHICH
IS THE OPPOSITION TO, OR THE CONTROL OR OVERTHROW OF, THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE, VIOLENCE, OR OTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS;
OR (C) ORGANIZE, JOIN, AFFILIATE WITH, OR PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTIVITIES
OR ANY ORGANIZATION WHICH IS REGISTERED OR REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED
UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT OF 1950." 

FN5  INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, SEC. 23: 

"  ...  PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE DEPORTABILITY OF ANY ALIEN
TAKEN INTO CUSTODY UNDER WARRANT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCH ALIEN
MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1) BE CONTINUED IN
CUSTODY; OR (2) BE RELEASED UNDER BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT LESS THAN
$500, WITH SECURITY APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; OR (3) BE
RELEASED ON CONDITIONAL PAROLE  ...  ." 

FN6  SEE SEC. 22(1), INTERNAL SECURITY ACT, NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN8  BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT THE FOUR
PETITIONERS HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND ADMITTED TO BAIL ON WARRANTS CHARGING
MEMBERSHIP IN GROUPS ADVOCATING THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  IN OUR VIEW OF THE ISSUES NOW HERE, THESE FORMER
HAPPENINGS ARE IMMATERIAL TO OUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS WRIT OF
CERTIORARI. 

FN9  "EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES
IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED." 

FN10  "THAT SECTION 20 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, AS
AMENDED BY SECTION 23 OF PUBLIC LAW 831, 81ST CONGRESS (COMMONLY KNOWN
AS SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT OF 1950) AND SECTION 1 OF THE ACT
OF OCTOBER 16, 1918 (8 U.S.C. 137), AS AMENDED, ARE, AND EACH OF THEM
IS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID IN THAT THEY DEPRIVE PERSONS, INCLUDING
PETITIONER, OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THAT THEY ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF PERSONS, INCLUDING
PETITIONER, OF SPEECH, THE PRESS AND ASSEMBLY AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION
THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IN THAT THEY
PURPORT TO AUTHORIZE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF PERSONS, INCLUDING
PETITIONER, WITHOUT BOND PRIOR TO FINAL DETERMINATION OF
DEPORTABILITY." 

FN11  CARLSON V. LANDON, 186 F.2D 183, 186; STEVENSON V. LANDON, 186
F.2D 190. 

FN12  ID., AT 189. 

FN13  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2248: 

"THE ALLEGATIONS OF A RETURN TO THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR OF AN
ANSWER TO AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, IF NOT
TRAVERSED, SHALL BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
JUDGE FINDS FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE NOT TRUE." 

FN14  CARLSON V. LANDON, 187 F.2D 991. 

FN15  QUITE PROPERLY, WE THINK, NO QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT AMENDMENTS RELATING TO
MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND ALLOWANCE OF BAIL, NOTES 4 AND 5,
SUPRA, TO DETENTION UNDER A WARRANT BASED ON 8 U.S.C.  (1946 ED.) 
SEC.  137(C), NOTE 3, SUPRA.  CF. INTERNAL SECURITY ACT, 64 STAT. 987,
TITLE I, SEC. 2. 

FN16  "THAT THE PETITIONER, WHILE UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE
CHIEF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, WAS A CONSISTENTLY EVASIVE
WITNESS AND HIS EVASIVE DEMEANOR IN TESTIFYING IN RELATION TO HIS
COMMUNISTIC ACTIVITIES CONVINCES THIS COURT THAT HE IS KNOWINGLY AND
WILFULLY PARTICIPATING IN THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT." 

FN17  187 F.2D AT 803: 

"APPELLANT WAS SEVENTEEN YEARS OF AGE WHEN HE ARRIVED IN THIS COUNTRY
FROM POLAND IN 1913.  SINCE THEN HE HAS LIVED CONTINUOUSLY IN THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN.  H HAS BEEN A WAITER IN AN ENGLISH SPEAKING RESTAURANT IN
HAMTRAMCK, MICH., FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS AND FOR A GREAT PART OF THAT TIME
HE WAS HEAD WAITER.  HE OWNS HIS OWN HOME IN DETROIT AND HAS A FAMILY
CONSISTING OF HIS WIFE, TWO SONS, A DAUGHTER, AND FIVE GRANDCHILDREN. 
BOTH SONS SERVED IN THE ARMED SERVICES OF THE UNITED STATES IN WORLD
WAR II.  HIS CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WERE BORN IN THIS COUNTRY AND
HIS DAUGHTER MARRIED HERE.  DURING WORLD WAR II WHILE APPELLANT WAS
HEAD WAITER IN THE RESTAURANT HE SOLD ABOUT $50,000.00 WORTH OF U.S.
WAR BONDS AND DURING THAT PERIOD HE DONATED BLOOD ON SEVEN OCCASIONS TO
THE RED CROSS FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 

"BEFORE HIS SECOND ARREST AND WHILE HE WAS AT LARGE ON BAIL HE
REPORTED REGULARLY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE.  THE RECORD FAILS TO DISCLOSE THAT HE HAS VIOLATED ANY LAW OR
THAT HE IS ENGAGED OR IS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN, ANY SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES." 

FN18  NISHIMURA EKIU V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 651, 659; FONG YUE
TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, 707; BUGAJEWITZ V. ADAMS, 228 U.S.
585; NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 280; UNITED STATES V. CURTISS
WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., 229 U.S. 304, 318; EICHENLAUB V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338
U.S. 521, 528; III HACKWORTH'S DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 725 (1942). 

FN19  FOR EXAMPLE COMPARE ACT OF DECEMBER 17, 1943, 57 STAT. 600,
WITH ACT OF MAY 6, 1882, 22 STAT. 58. 

FN20  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA.  THE EXTENSION OF THE PROSCRIPTION OF
RESIDENCE TO ALIENS BELIEVING IN THE OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT BY FORCE
OR VIOLENCE HAS BEEN PROGRESSIVE, AS CAN BE READILY OBSERVED BY
FOLLOWING THE SUCCESSIVE ENACTMENTS OF LAWS TO REGULATE THE RESIDENCE
OF ALIENS SINCE THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, 39 STAT. 874.  SEE 8
U.S.C. SECS. 137 AND 155. 

FN21  "(15)  THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS AN
ORGANIZATION NUMBERING THOUSANDS OF ADHERENTS, RIGIDLY AND RUTHLESSLY
DISCIPLINED.  AWAITING AND SEEKING TO ADVANCE A MOMENT WHEN THE UNITED
STATES MAY BE SO FAR EXTENDED BY FOREIGN ENGAGEMENTS, SO FAR DIVIDED IN
COUNSEL, OR SO FAR IN INDUSTRIAL OR FINANCIAL STRAITS, THAT OVERTHROW
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE MAY SEEM
POSSIBLE OF ACHIEVEMENT, IT SEEKS CONVERTS FAR AND WIDE BY AN EXTENSIVE
SYSTEM OF SCHOOLING AND INDOCTRINATION.  SUCH PREPARATIONS BY COMMUNIST
ORGANIZATIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE AIDED IN SUPPLANTING EXISTING
GOVERNMENTS.  THE COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES, PURSUING
ITS STATED OBJECTIVES, THE RECENT SUCCESSES OF COMMUNIST METHODS IN
OTHER COUNTRIES, AND THE NATURE AND CONTROL OF THE WORLD COMMUNIST
MOVEMENT ITSELF, PRESENT A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE SECURITY OF
THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE EXISTENCE OF FREE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS,
AND MAKE IT NECESSARY THAT CONGRESS, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON
DEFENSE, TO PRESERVE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES AS AN
INDEPENDENT NATION, AND TO GUARANTEE TO EACH STATE A REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT, ENACT APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE OF
SUCH WORLD-WIDE CONSPIRACY AND DESIGNED TO PREVENT IT FROM
ACCOMPLISHING ITS PURPOSE IN THE UNITED STATES." 

FN22  I TROTSKY, HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, 106, 120, 141,
144, 151; LENIN, COLLECTED WORKS (1930), VOL. XVIII, PP. 279-280;
LENIN, THE STATE AND REVOLUTION, AUGUST, 1917, FOREIGN LANGUAGES
PUBLISHING HOUSE, MOSCOW (1949), 28, 30, 33.  TRANSLATIONS FURNISHED
INDICATE THE SAME ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF STALIN.  COLLECTED WORKS,
VOL. I, PP. 131-137, 185-205, 241-246; VOL. III, PP. 367-370.  AND SEE
LEITES, THE OPERATIONAL CODE OF THE POLITBURO (1950), C. XIII,
"VIOLENCE."  SEE ALSO IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SYSTEMS OF THE
UNITED STATES, S. REP. NO. 1515, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS., SENATE COMMITTEE
ON THE JUDICIARY, PART 3, SUBVERSIVES, C. I, B, ALIEN CONTROL; C. II,
C. DEPORTATION OF SUBVERSIVE ALIENS. 

FN23  TURNER V. WILLIAMS, 194 U.S. 279; SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 118, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURRING AT 165. 

FN24  BUGAJEWITZ V. ADAMS, 228 U.S. 585, 591; NG FUNG HO V. WHITE,
259 U.S. 276, 280. 

FN25  MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32, 39: 

"CONGRESS WAS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS UNQUESTIONED RIGHT, ONLY
SEEKING TO RID THE COUNTRY OF PERSONS WHO HAD SHOWN BY THEIR CAREER
THAT THEIR CONTINUED PRESENCE HERE WOULD NOT MAKE FOR THE SAFETY OR
WELFARE OF SOCIETY."  SEE ALSO EICHENLAUB V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 521,
530.  COMPARE HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, DECIDED TODAY. 

FN26  UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., 299 U.S. 304,
318. 

FN27  FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, 713-715, 728;
NISHIMURA EKIU V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 651, 659; THE JAPANESE
IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86, 97; ZAKONAITE V. WOLF, 226 U.S. 272; WONG
WING V. UNITED STATES, 163 U.S. 228, 231. 

A CLAIM OF CITIZENSHIP HAS PROTECTION.  NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S.
276. 

FN28  TURNER V. WILLIAMS, 194 U.S. 279, 290-291; ZAKONAITE V. WOLF,
226 U.S. 272, 275; BUGAJEWITZ V. ADAMS, 228 U.S. 585, 591; MAHLER V.
EBY, 264 U.S. 32. 

FN29  FONG HAW TAN V. PHELAN, 333 U.S. 6, 10; JORDAN V. DE GEORGE,
341 U.S. 223, 231. 

FN30  THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86; VAJTAUER V.
COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103. 

FN31  THE FORMER PROVISION READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  PENDING THE FINAL DISPOSAL OF THE CASE OF ANY ALIEN SO TAKEN
INTO CUSTODY, HE MAY BE RELEASED UNDER A BOND IN THE PENALTY OF NOT
LESS THAN $500 WITH SECURITY APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CONDITIONED THAT SUCH ALIEN SHALL BE PRODUCED WHEN REQUIRED FOR A
HEARING OR HEARINGS IN REGARD TO THE CHARGE UPON WHICH HE HAS BEEN
TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, AND FOR DEPORTATION IF HE SHALL BE FOUND TO BE
UNLAWFULLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES."  8 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  156. 

ON DECEMBER 7, 1951, AT THE REQUEST OF THIS COURT, THE GOVERNMENT
FURNISHED US A LIST OF THE BAIL OR DETENTION STATUS, AS OF THE PERIOD
JUST PRIOR TO DECEMBER 7, OF DEPORTATION CASES, INVOLVING SUBVERSIVE
CHARGES, PENDING ON THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY
ACT, SEPTEMBER 23, 1950.  THE LIST INDICATES THAT THE MODEST BONDS OR
PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCES OF THE FAR LARGER PART OF THE ALIENS REMAINED
UNCHANGED AFTER THE BOND AMENDMENT TO THE IMMIGRATION ACT.  OF THOSE
DETAINED WITHOUT BOND OR ORDER OF THE SERVICE, THE COURTS HAVE RELEASED
ALL BUT A FEW.  IT IS QUITE CLEAR FROM THE LIST THAT DETENTION WITHOUT
BOND HAS BEEN THE EXCEPTION. 

FN32  H.R. REP. NO. 1192, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 6; S. REP. NO.
2239, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 5. 

FN33  169 F.2D AT 751: 

"THE DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHICH WE HELD TO EXIST IN THE
ZAPP CASE IS INTERPRETED AS ONE WHICH IS TO BE REASONABLY EXERCISED
UPON A CONSIDERATION OF SUCH FACTORS, AMONG OTHERS, AS THE PROBABILITY
OF THE ALIEN BEING FOUND DEPORTABLE, THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE
AGAINST HIM, IF PROVED, THE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY OF HIS PRESENCE
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND THE ALIEN'S AVAILABILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS IF ENLARGED ON BAIL.  HOWEVER, IN ANY CONSIDERATION OF HIS
DENIAL OF BAIL IT SHOULD ALWAYS BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE COURT'S
OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE ALIEN SHOULD BE ADMITTED TO BAIL CAN ONLY
OVERRIDE THAT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHERE THE ALIEN MAKES A CLEAR AND
CONVINCING SHOWING THAT THE DECISION AGAINST HIM WAS WITHOUT A
REASONABLE FOUNDATION."  SEE U.S. EX REL. DOYLE V. DISTRICT DIRECTOR,
169 F.2D 753; U.S. EX REL.  PIRINSKY V. SHAUGHNESSY, 177 F.2D 708; U.S.
EX REL. DE GERONIMI V. SHAUGHNESSY, 187 F.2D 896.  (THIS IS THE ONLY
CASE FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SINCE THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT.  IT LEAVES OPEN THE QUESTION OF THE REVIEWABILITY OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ACTION UNDER THAT ACT.) 

FN34  THE PROPOSED BILLS AT ONE TIME CONTAINED A PROVISION:    "(F)
NO ALIEN DETAINED UNDER ANY PROVISION OF LAW RELATING TO THE EXCLUSION
OR EXPULSION OF ALIENS SHALL, PRIOR TO AN UNREVIEWABLE ORDER
DISCHARGING HIM FROM CUSTODY, BE RELEASED BY ANY COURT, ON BOND OR
OTHERWISE, EXCEPT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF A FEDERAL COURT COMPOSED OF
THREE JUDGES."  S. REP. NO. 2239, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 3.  THIS WAS
INTORDUCED TO ALLOW FOR POSSIBLE RELEASE FROM CUSTODY PENDING
DEPORTATION HEARINGS.  ID., AT P. 9.  THE CLAUSE DID NOT SURVIVE. 

FN35  EVEN THOUGH WE ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTOR OF
PROBABLE AVAILABILITY FOR TRIAL, WHICH WE DO NOT THINK IS OF GREAT
SIGNIFICANCE IN CASES INVOLVING SECURITY FROM COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES OF
ALIEN COMMUNISTS, THE PAST RECORD OF THESE ALIENS IS FAR FROM DECISIVE
AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ACTION.  THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT MADE
MEMBERSHIP SUFFICIENT FOR DEPORTATION AND SET UP A PROCEDURE THAT COULD
BE CARRIED OUT.  SEC. 22(2)(C), NOTE 4, SUPRA, AND SEC. 23. 
DEPORTATION BECAME MORE LIKELY FOR ALIEN COMMUNISTS BY THESE
AMENDMENTS. 

FN36  BUTTFIELD V. STRANAHAN, 192 U.S. 470; UNION BRIDGE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 204 U.S. 364, 386; UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S.
506; PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, 421: 

"THE CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS DENYING TO THE CONGRESS
THE NECESSARY RESOURCES OF FLEXIBILITY AND PRACTICALITY, WHICH WILL
ENABLE IT TO PERFORM ITS FUNCTION IN LAYING DOWN POLICIES AND
ESTABLISHING STANDARDS, WHILE LEAVING TO SELECTED INSTRUMENTALITIES THE
MAKING OF SUBORDINATE RULES WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS AND THE
DETERMINATION OF FACTS TO WHICH THE POLICY AS DECLARED BY THE
LEGISLATURE IS TO APPLY." 

FN37  WAYMAN V. SOUTHARD, 10 WHEAT.  1, 43-48; ST. LOUIS, I.M.&S.R.
CO. V. TAYLOR 210 U.S. 281, 286; INTERMOUNTAIN RATE CASES, 234 U.S.
476, 486-489; FAHEY V. MALLONEE, 332 U.S. 245, 249.  SEE YAKUS V.
UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 424-425: 

"THE ESSENTIALS OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION ARE THE DETERMINATION OF
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND ITS FORMULATION AND PROMULGATION AS A
DEFINED AND BINDING RULE OF CONDUCT  ...  .  THESE ESSENTIALS ARE
PRESERVED WHEN CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED THE BASIC CONDITIONS OF FACT UPON
WHOSE EXISTENCE OR OCCURRENCE, ASCERTAINED FROM RELEVANT DATA BY A
DESIGNATED ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, IT DIRECTS THAT ITS STATUTORY COMMAND
SHALL BE EFFECTIVE.  IT IS NO OBJECTION THAT THE DETERMINATION OF FACTS
AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY
STANDARDS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY CALL FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT,
AND FOR THE FORMULATION OF SUBSIDIARY ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED STATUTORY FRAMEWORK." 

FN38  ANY ALIEN BECOMING A PUBLIC CHARGE WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF ENTRY
MAY BE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION.   LIKEWISE ANY ALIEN SENTENCED MORE THAN
ONCE FOR ANY CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, AND CERTAIN ILLEGAL
ENTRANTS.  SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155. 

FN39  APPROXIMATELY 85,000,000 PEOPLE, CITIZENS AND ALIENS, ARE SAID
TO HAVE CROSSED OUR BORDERS IN THE 1949 FISCAL YEAR.  SOME MANY TIMES. 
FIVE MILLION ALIENS ARE REPORTED TO HAVE REGISTERED UNDER THE ALIEN
REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940.  S. REP. NO. 1515, PP. 630-631, SUPRA, N.
22. 

FN40  SEE FOR EXAMPLE SEC. 2(15), QUOTED ABOVE AT NOTE 21. 

FN41  ATTENTION IS CALLED TO UNITED STATES EX REL. POTASH V. DISTRICT
DIRECTOR, 169 F.2D 747, 752:

"IF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE
ANY BEARING UPON THE RIGHT TO BAIL IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, AND THIS
HAS BEEN DENIED, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THAT
AMENDMENT AND ANY REQUIREMENT OF THE DUE PROCESS PROVISIONS OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT WILL BE FULLY SATISFIED IF THE STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS
AND REASONABLENESS WE HAVE SET FORTH REGARDING THE EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE OBSERVED." 

UNITED STATES EX REL. KLIG V. SHAUGHNESSY, 94 F. SUPP. 157, 160: 

"IT IS NOT UNAPPROPRIATE TO REFER HERE TO THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ONE OF THAT SERIES OF AMENDMENTS
COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS THE BILL OF RIGHTS, WHICH PROHIBITS THE
IMPOSITION OF EXCESSIVE BAIL.  CERTAINLY, THE PRINCIPLE INHERENT IN
THAT AMENDMENT APPLIES TO DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH
PROCEEDINGS TECHNICALLY FALL WITHIN ITS SCOPE.  THAT PRINCIPLE CANNOT
BE RECONCILED WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S DENIAL OF BAIL TO THESE RELATORS
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE SET FORTH." 

FN42  1 WM. & MARY, SESS. 2, C. II, SEC. I(10). 

FN43  PETERSDORFF, ON BAIL, 483 ET SEQ. 

FN44 I ANNALS OF CONGRESS 753. 

FN45  1 STAT. 91, SEC. 33; FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
46(A). 

SIMILARLY, ON APPEAL FROM A CONVICTION BY THE TRIAL COURT, A
DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO BAIL IF HE DOES NOT PRESENT A SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTION.  FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., 46(A)(2); BRIDGES V. UNITED STATES,
184 F.2D 881, 884; WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES, 184 F.2D 280, 281;
BAKER V. UNITED STATES, 139 F.2D 721. 

IN ENGLAND, THERE WAS A SERIES OF CRIMES AND SITUATIONS WHERE THE
ARRESTED PERSON COULD "HAVE NO OTHER SURETIES BUT THE FOUR WALLS OF THE
PRISON."  BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, BOOK IV, 298. 

FN46  SEE UNITED STATES EX REL. BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S. 149, 158,
AND CASES THERE CITED; MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32, 45.  THESE CASES HAD
VALID ORDERS ENTERED SUBSEQUENT TO AN INVALID ARREST. 

FN47  SEE UNITED STATES EX REL. HEIKKINEN V. GORDON, 190 F.2D 16, 19;
DOYLE V. RUSSELL, 30 BARB.  (N.Y.)  300. 

FN48  PEOPLE EX REL. WOLFE V. JOHNSON, 230 N.Y. 256, 130 N.E. 286. 

FN49  VOLL V. STEELE, 141 OHIO ST. 293, 47 N.E.2D 991.  CF. PORTER V.
GARMONY, 148 GA. 261, 96 S.E. 426.  BAIL ONCE ALLOWED BY A MAGISTRATE,
PENDING TRIAL, MAY NOT IN SOME INSTANCES BE REFUSED BY A HIGHER COURT. 
IN RE MARSHALL, 38 ARIZ. 424, 300 P. 1011. 

FN50  ANDERSON V. CORALL, 263 U.S. 193, 196. 

FN51  TAYLOR V. TAINTOR, 16 WALL.  366, 371. 

FN52  SEE DOWD V. COOK, 340 U.S. 206; MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32,
45. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

TODAY THE COURT HOLDS THAT LAW-ABIDING PERSONS, NEITHER CHARGED WITH
NOR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME, CAN BE HELD IN JAIL INDEFINITELY, WITHOUT
BAIL, IF A SUBORDINATE WASHINGTON BUREAU AGENT BELIEVES THEY ARE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, AND THEREFORE DANGEROUS TO THE NATION
BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THEIR "INDOCTRINATION OF OTHERS." 
UNDERLYING THIS HARSH HOLDING ARE PAST DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
DECLARING THAT CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY DIRECT THE SUMMARY
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS FOR ANY REASON IT SEES FIT.  I AGREE WITH MR.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS FOR THE REASONS HE GIVES IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN
HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 598, THAT THESE PRIOR
DECLARATIONS SHOULD NOW BE RECONSIDERED AND REJECTED.  THIS WOULD
DISPOSE OF THESE CASES.  BUT THE COURT TODAY NOT ONLY ADHERE TO BUT
GREATLY EXPANDS THE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE OF THE FORMER CASES.  THE
COURT ALSO RELIES ON THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, 64 STAT.  987,
FOR ITS HOLDING.  MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER PRESENTS STRONG ARGUMENTS FOR
CONSTRUING THE ACT SO AS TO REACH AN OPPOSITE RESULT.  BUT EVEN IF
AUTHORIZED BY THAT ACT, AS THE MAJORITY HOLDS, THE DENIAL OF A RIGHT TO
BAIL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES STRIKES ME AS A SHOCKING
DISREGARD OF THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS:  EIGHTH
AMENDMENT'S BAN AGAINST EXCESSIVE BAIL; (FN1) FIRST AMENDMENT'S BAN
AGAINST ABRIDGMENT OF THOUGHT, SPEECH AND PRESS; (FN2) FIFTH
AMENDMENT'S BAN AGAINST DEPRIVING A PERSON OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  (FN3)  BEFORE A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF MY SEVERAL
GROUNDS OF DISSENT IT IS NECESSARY TO STATE THE FACTS AND THE PRECISE
ISSUES THE RECORDS PRESENT. 

RESPONDENT ZYDOK, PETITIONERS CARLSON AND OTHERS WERE ALL ARESTED
("DETAINED") IN CONNECTION WITH PROCEEDINGS WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO THEIR
DEPORTATION.  A SUBORDINATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, NOT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DIRECTED THAT THEY BE HELD IN PRISON WITHOUT BAIL. 
OF NECESSITY, CONSIDERATION OF THESE DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS BY BUREAUS
AND COURTS MAY LAST FOR YEARS.  CARLSON'S HAS ALREADY DRAGGED ON FOR
OVER FOUR YEARS.  MOREOVER, EVEN DEPORTATION ORDERS AT THE END OF SUCH
PROCEEDINGS MIGHT NOT END THEIR INDETERMINATE JAIL SENTENCES SINCE THE
FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO WHICH THEY ARE ORDERED MIGHT REFUSE TO ADMIT
THEM.  SUCH REFUSALS HAVE PREVENTED DEPORTATION IN THOUSANDS OF CASES. 
(FN4)  THUS DENIAL OF BAIL MAY WELL BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A LIFE
SENTENCE, AT LEAST FOR ZYDOK, 56 YEARS OLD, AND CARLISLE WHOSE HEALTH
IS BAD.  SUCH HAS BECOME THE FATE OF ORDINARY FAMILY PEOPLE SELECTED
AND CLASSIFIED, ON SECRET INFORMATION, AS "DANGEROUS" BY WASHINGTON
BUREAU AGENTS. 

ZYDOK'S CASE ILLUSTRATES WHAT IS HAPPENING.  HE HAS LIVED IN THIS
COUNTRY 39 YEARS, OWNS HIS HOME, HAS VIOLATED NO LAW, IS "NOT LIKELY TO
ENGAGE IN ANY SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES," HAS A WIFE, TWO SONS, A DAUGHTER
AND FIVE GRANDCHILDREN, ALL BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.  BOTH SONS
SERVED IN THE ARMED SERVICES IN WORLD WAR II.  ZYDOK HIMSELF, THEN A
WAITER, SOLD ABOUT $50,000 WORTH OF U.S. WAR BONDS AND "DONATED BLOOD
ON SEVEN OCCASIONS TO THE RED CROSS FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY."  THIS
JAILING OF ZYDOK, DESPITE A PATRIOTIC RECORD OF WHICH MANY CITIZENS
COULD WELL BE PROUD, IS TYPICAL OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WHEN PUBLIC
FEELING RUN HIGH AGAINST AN UNPOPULAR MINORITY. 

WHILE THE COURT GIVES ZYDOK A MOMENTARY TECHNICAL RESPITE, ITS
HOLDING MEANS THAT HE TOO, PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PRESENT
PROGRAM, CAN AND WILL BE HELD IN JAIL WITHOUT BOND AS A "DANGEROUS"
CHARACTER.  THE OTHERS, WITH EQUALLY ENVIABLE RECORDS AS LAW-ABIDING
PERSONS, ARE NOT EVEN GIVEN A TECHNICAL RESPITE.  MRS. STEVENSON IS THE
WIFE OF A CITIZEN AND IS THE MOTHER OF A YOUNG MAN WHO IS ALSO A
CITIZEN.  HER SON HAS LONG BEEN SUBJECT TO ATTACKS OF UNDULANT FEVER. 
HE AND HIS 70-YEAR-OLD GRANDMOTHER NEED MRS. STEVENSON'S HELP AS DOES
HER HUSBAND WHO DOES HER HOUSEWORK WHILE SHE IS "DETAINED" AS
"DANGEROUS" TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE TRIED TO
PERSUADE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE IMMIGRATION BUREAU AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO AGREE FOR HIM TO ENTER AN ORDER FIXING BAIL FOR HER AND FOR
MR. CARLISLE.  HIS REQUEST WAS REFUSED. 

THE RECORD DOES NOT LEAVE US IN DOUBT AS TO WHY BAIL WAS DENIED MRS.
STEVENSON, MR. CARLISLE, OR ANY OF THESE ALLEGEDLY "DANGEROUS" ALIENS. 
DENIAL WAS NOT ON THE GROUND THAT IF RELEASED THEY MIGHT TRY TO EVADE
OBEDIENCE TO POSSIBLE DEPORTATION ORDERS.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN NO. 35
CONCEDED THAT "THERE IS NOTHING HERE TO INDICATE THE GOVERNMENT IS
FEARFUL THAT THEY ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE JURISDICTION"; HE SAID, I AM
NOT GOING TO RELEASE MEN AND WOMEN THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
SAYS ARE SECURITY RISKS"; HE ALSO SAID, "I AM NOT GOING TO TURN THESE
PEOPLE LOOSE IF THEY ARE COMMUNISTS, ANY MORE THAN I WOULD TURN LOOSE A
DEADLY GERM IN THIS COMMUNITY.  IF THAT IS MY DUTY LET THE CIRCUIT
COURT SAY SO AND ASSUME THAT BURDEN."  (FN5)  THESE REMARKS TO COUNSEL
SHOW THAT HE KEPT THESE PEOPLE IN JAIL ONLY BECAUSE HE THOUGHT
COMMUNISTS, AS SUCH, WERE TOO DANGEROUS TO THE NATION TO BE ALLOWED TO
ASSOCIATE WITH OTHER PEOPLE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS' DENIAL OF BAIL WAS
ALSO BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT COMMUNISTS WERE TOO DANGEROUS TO THE
NATION TO BE LEFT OUT OF JAIL, NOT ON THE PREMISE THAT DEPORTATION
WOULD BE DELAYED OR FRUSTRATED BY GRANTING BAIL.  187 F.2D 991.  AND
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS ADMITTED HERE THAT "THE ONLY EVIDENCE
ADVANCED TO SUPPORT THEIR DETENTION WITHOUT BAIL WAS THAT THEY HAD BEEN
ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT."  THE MAJORITY HERE ALSO APPEARS TO
REST ON THE SAME BASIS.  IT MUST, UNLESS IT IS NOW DRAWING INFERENCES
THAT SOME MIGHT FLEE AND BE UNAVAILABLE FOR DEPORTATION.  AS THE
GOVERNMENT ADMITS, THERE IS NOT A VESTIGE OF SUPPORT FOR SUCH AN
INFERENCE.  (FN6)  BESIDES, AN ALIEN "WHO SHALL WILLFULLY FAIL OR
REFUSE TO PRESENT HIMSELF FOR DEPORTATION  ...  SHALL UPON CONVICTION
BE GUILTY OF A FELONY, AND SHALL BE IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS
...  ."  64 STAT. 987, 1012. 

THUS IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT THESE ALIENS ARE HELD IN JAIL WITHOUT
BAIL FOR NO REASON EXCEPT THAT "THEY HAD BEEN ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNIST
MOVEMENT."  FROM THIS IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THEIR ASSOCIATION WITH
OTHERS WOULD SO IMPERIL THE NATION'S SAFETY THAT THEY MUST BE ISOLATED
FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES.  ON THIS PREMISE THEY WOULD BE
JUST AS DANGEROUS WHETHER ALIENS OR CITIZENS, DEPORTABLE OR NOT.  SINCE
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO KEEP THEM IN JAIL TO ASSURE THEIR COMPLIANCE
WITH A DEPORTATION ORDER, THEIR IMPRISONMENT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE
INTENDED AS AN AID TO DEPORTATION.  THEY ARE KEPT IN JAIL SOLELY
BECAUSE A BUREAU AGENT THINKS THAT IS WHERE COMMUNISTS SHOULD BE.  A
POWER TO PUT IN JAIL BECAUSE DANGEROUS CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM A POWER
TO DEPORT.  CONSEQUENTLY PRIOR CASES HOLDING THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER TO
DEPORT ALIENS PROVIDE NO SUPPORT AT ALL FOR TODAY'S HOLDING THAT
CONGRESS HAS POWER TO AUTHORIZE BUREAU AGENTS TO PUT "DANGEROUS" PEOPLE
IN JAIL WITHOUT PRIVILEGE OF BAIL. 

THE STARK FACT IS THAT IF CONGRESS CAN AUTHORIZE IMPRISONMENT OF
"ALIEN COMMUNISTS" BECAUSE DANGEROUS, IT CAN AUTHORIZE IMPRISONMENT OF
CITIZEN "COMMUNISTS" ON THE SAME GROUND.  AND WHILE THIS PARTICULAR
BUREAU CAMPAIGN TO FILL THE JAILS IS SAID TO BE AIMED AT "DANGEROUS"
ALIEN COMMUNISTS ONLY, PEACEFUL CITIZENS MAY BE ENSNARED IN THE
PROCESS.  FOR THE BUREAU AGENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT A PERSON
HE THROWS IN JAIL IS AN ALIEN, OR A COMMUNIST, OR "DANGEROUS."  THE
AGENT NEED ONLY DECLARE HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH IS THE
CASE.  THE AGENT MAY BE AND HERE APPARENTLY WAS ACTING ON THE RANKEST
HEARSAY EVIDENCE.  THE SECRET SOURCES OF HIS "INFORMATION" MAY HAVE
BEEN SPIES AND INFORMERS, A CLASS NOT USUALLY RATED AS THE MOST
RELIABLE BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH THEM.  (FN7)  IN THIS
RECORD THE NEAREST APPROACH TO ANY IDENTIFIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION
IS THAT SOME OF THE JAILED PERSONS HAD ADMITTED PAST MEMBERSHIP IN
ORGANIZATIONS LISTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS "COMMUNIST," OR
"COMMUNIST FRONT."  THESE LISTINGS ARE MADE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EX
PARTE ON SECRET DOSSIERS CONTAINING STATEMENTS FROM SOURCES THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSES TO REVEAL.  A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT HAS HELD
THAT SUCH LISTINGS ARE ILLEGAL.  ANTI-FASCIST COMMITTEE V. MCGRATH, 341
U.S. 123.  THIS ALONE SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS IN NO.
35.  MY OWN JUDGMENT IS THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT AUTHORIZED THE BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION TO HOLD PEOPLE IN JAIL WITHOUT BOND SOLELY BECAUSE IT
BELIEVES THEM "DANGEROUS."  NOR DO I THINK THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER TO
GRANT ANY SUCH AUTHORITY EVEN IF IT HAD ATTEMPTED TO DO SO.    FIRST.
THAT "PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE DEPORTABILITY OF ANY ALIEN
TAKEN INTO CUSTODY UNDER WARRANT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCH ALIEN
MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1) BE CONTINUED IN
CUSTODY; OR (2) BE RELEASED UNDER BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT LESS THAN
$500, WITH SECURITY APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; OR (3) BE
RELEASED ON CONDITIONAL PAROLE."  I READ THIS LANGUAGE AS ATTEMPTING TO
AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO HOLD ALIENS WITHOUT BAIL WITHIN HIS
DISCRETION.  I THINK THAT MEANS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DISCRETION, NOT
THAT OF A SUBORDINATE IN THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION.  THIS RECORD DOES
NOT SHOW THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE JAILED BY VIRTUE OF AN EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  DECISION TO PUT DEPORTABLE ALIENS
IN JAIL WITHOUT BOND (WITH VERY MINOR EXCEPTIONS) WAS MADE BY
SUBORDINATES IN THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION.  I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER THAT THIS DECISION TO JAIL ALIENS EN MASSE WAS NOT BASED ON
THE KIND OF "DISCRETION" THE ACT INTENDED.  BUT I FURTHER THINK SEC. 23
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS PERMITTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DELEGATE
THIS TREMENDOUS POWER TO OTHERS. 

THE GOVERNMENT FINDS A POWER TO SO DELEGATE IN PROVISIONS OF THE
ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 458(A) AND IN THE
PRESIDENT'S REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1950, 5 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV)
FOLLOWING SEC. 133Z-15.  THESE PROVISIONS ARE IN SUCH BROAD GENERAL
TERMS THAT THEY COULD BE READ AS ALLOWING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
DELEGATE ALL HIS DISCRETIONARY DUTIES.  BUT THE GRAVITY OF A
DISCRETIONARY POWER TO SEIZE PEOPLE AND KEEP THEM IN JAIL WITHOUT A
RIGHT OF BAIL WARNS AGAINST IMPLYING SUCH AN UNLIMITED POWER TO
DELEGATE IT.  IT IS BAD ENOUGH TO READ AN ACT AS VESTING EVEN THE
NATION'S CHIEF PROSECUTOR WITH POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT INDIVIDUALS HE
PROSECUTES SHOULD BE HELD IN JAIL WITHOUT BAIL.  DELEGATING AND
REDELEGATING THIS DANGEROUS POWER TO SUBORDINATES ENTRUSTED WITH DUTIES
LIKE THOSE OF DEPUTY SHERIFFS AND POLICEMEN RAISES SERIOUS PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS QUESTIONS.  I AM NOT WILLING TO IMPLY THAT CONGRESS HAS
GRANTED POWER TO MAKE SUCH DELEGATIONS WHICH SO OMINOUSLY THREATEN THE
LIBERTY OF INDIVIDUALS.  CONSEQUENTLY, ASSUMING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
SEC. 23, I WOULD HOLD THAT IT VESTS POWER IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALONE
TO DECIDE WHETHER A PERSON SHOULD BE DENIED BAIL. 

SECOND.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT COMMANDS THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE
DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  I THINK THIS PROVISION
HAS BEEN VIOLATED HERE. 

SURELY IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOR
PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS OF THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBORDINATES TO MAKE
FINAL DETERMINATIONS AS TO WHETHER PERSONS THEY ACCUSE OF SOMETHING
SHALL REMAIN IN JAIL INDEFINITELY AWAITING A DECISION AS TO THE
TRUTHFULNESS OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THEM.  IN EFFECT THAT WAS DONE
HERE.  I HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE'S STATEMENT IN NO. 35
THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO RELEASE PEOPLE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEEMED TO
BE BAD SECURITY RISKS.  MOREOVER, THE IMMIGRATION OFFICIAL'S MERE
BELIEF BASED ON STATEMENTS COMING FROM UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS WAS
ACCEPTED BY BOTH TRIAL JUDGES AS CASTING ON EACH ALLEGED "ALIEN
COMMUNIST" THE BURDEN OF PROVING HE WAS NOT A COMMUNIST BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE.  AND THEIR REFUSAL TO INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES BY
DENYING THE IMMIGRATION OFFICER'S SUSPICIONS WAS ACCEPTED AS SUFFICIENT
PROOF TO KEEP THEM BEHIND THE JAIL DOORS.  I THINK THAT CONDEMNING
PEOPLE TO JAIL IS A JOB FOR THE JUDICIARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL
"DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  (FN8)  TO FARM OUT THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
POLICE AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS IS A JUDICIAL ABDICATION IN WHICH I
WILL HAVE NO PART. 

THIRD.  AS PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT, THE BASIS OF HOLDING THESE PEOPLE
IN JAIL IS A FEAR THAT THEY MAY INDOCTRINATE PEOPLE WITH COMMUNIST
BELIEFS.  TO PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR FEAR OF THEIR TALK SEEMS TO ME TO
BE AN ABRIDGMENT OF SPEECH IN FLAT VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  I
HAVE TO ADMIT, HOWEVER, THAT THIS IS A LOGICAL APPLICATION OF RECENT
CASES WATERING DOWN CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY OF SPEECH.  (FN9)  I ALSO
REALIZE THAT MANY BELIEVE THAT COMMUNISTS AND "FELLOW TRAVELERS" SHOULD
NOT BE ACCORDED ANY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTIONS.  MY BELIEF IS
THAT WE MUST HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND RELIGION FOR ALL OR WE
MAY EVENTUALLY HAVE IT FOR NONE.  I FURTHER BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT GRANTS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BELIEVE IN ANY GOVERNMENTAL
SYSTEM, DISCUSS ALL GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, AND ARGUE FOR DESIRED CHANGES
IN THE EXISTING ORDER.  THIS FREEDOM IS TOO DANGEROUS FOR BAD,
TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS TO PERMIT.  BUT THOSE WHO WROTE AND ADOPTED OUR
FIRST AMENDMENT WEIGHED THOSE DANGERS AGAINST THE DANGERS OF CENSORSHIP
AND DELIBERATELY CHOSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S UNEQUIVOCAL COMMAND THAT
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, PETITION, SPEECH AND PRESS SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED. 
I HAPPED TO BELIEVE THIS WAS A WISE CHOICE AND THAT OUR FREE WAY OF
LIFE ENLISTS SUCH RESPECT AND LOVE THAT OUR NATION CANNOT BE IMPERILED
BY MERE TALK.  THIS BELIEF OF MINE MAY AND I SUPPOSE DOES INFLUENCE ME
TO PROTEST WHENEVER I THINK I SEE EVEN SLIGHT ENCROACHMENTS ON FIRST
AMENDMENT LIBERTIES.  BUT THE ENCROACHMENT HERE IS NOT SMALL.  TRUE IT
IS MAINLY THOSE ALLEGED TO BE PRESENT OR PAST "COMMUNISTS" WHO ARE NOW
BEING JAILED FOR THEIR BELIEFS AND EXPRESSIONS.  BUT WE CANNOT BE SURE
MORE VICTIMS WILL NOT BE OFFERED UP LATER IF THE FIRST AMENDMENT MEANS
NO MORE THAN ITS ENEMIES OR EVEN SOME OF ITS FRIENDS BELIEVE IT DOES. 

FOURTH.  I THINK SEC. 23 AS CONSTRUED AND AS HERE APPLIED VIOLATES
THE COMMAND OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT THAT "EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE
REQUIRED  ...  ."  UNDER ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTIONS, WHICH THE
COURT APPARENTLY ADOPTS, THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S BAN ON EXCESSIVE BAIL
MEANS JUST ABOUT NOTHING.  THAT CONTENTION IS THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER,
DESPITE THE AMENDMENT, TO DETERMINE "WHETHER OR NOT BAIL MAY BE
GRANTED, OR MUST BE GRANTED, AND THE CONSTITUTION THEN FORBIDS THE
EXACTION OF EXCESSIVE BAIL  ...  ."  UNDER THIS CONTENTION, THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT IS A LIMITATION UPON JUDGES ONLY, FOR WHILE A JUDGE CANNOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY FIX EXCESSIVE BAIL, CONGRESS CAN DIRECT THAT PEOPLE BE
HELD IN JAIL WITHOUT ANY RIGHT TO BAIL AT ALL.  STATED STILL ANOTHER
WAY, THE AMENDMENT DOES NO MORE THAN PROTECT A RIGHT TO BAIL WHICH
CONGRESS CAN GRANT AND WHICH CONGRESS CAN TAKE AWAY.  THE AMENDMENT IS
THUS REDUCED BELOW THE LEVEL OF A PIOUS ADMONITION.  MAYBE THE LITERAL
LANGUAGE OF THE FRAMERS LENDS ITSELF TO THIS WEIRD, DEVITALIZING
INTERPRETATION WHEN SCRUTINIZED WITH A HOSTILE EYE.  BUT AT LEAST UNTIL
RECENTLY, IT HAS BEEN THE JUDICIAL PRACTICE TO GIVE A BROAD, LIBERAL
INTERPRETATION TO THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OBVIOUSLY
DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL FROM GOVERNMENTAL OPPRESSION.  I
WOULD FOLLOW THAT PRACTICE HERE.  THE COURT REFUSES TO DO SO BECAUSE
(1) THE ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS "HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO ACCORD A
RIGHT TO BAIL IN ALL CASES  ...  " AND (2) "IN CRIMINAL CASES BAIL IS
NOT COMPULSORY WHERE THE PUNISHMENT MAY BE DEATH."  AS TO (1):  THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT IS IN THE AMERICAN BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1789, NOT THE
ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1689.  AND IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT OUR BILL OF
RIGHTS WAS WRITTEN AND ADOPTED TO GUARANTEE AMERICANS GREATER FREEDOM
THAN HAD BEEN ENJOYED BY THEIR ANCESTORS WHO HAD BEEN DRIVEN FROM
EUROPE BY PERSECUTION.  SEE BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 264
265.  AS TO (2):  IT IS TRUE BAIL HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN DENIED IN THIS
COUNTRY "WHEN PUNISHMENT MAY BE DEATH."  I FAIL TO SEE WHERE THE
COURT'S ANALOGY BETWEEN DEPORTATION AND THE DEATH PENALTY ADVANCES ITS
ARGUMENT UNLESS IT IS ALSO ANALOGIZING THE OFFENSE OF INDOCTRINATING
TALK TO THE CRIME OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER. 

ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL CONTENTION IS THIS:  "THE BAIL PROVISIONS OF THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND OF THE STATUTES RELATING THERETO HAVE ALWAYS BEEN
CONSIDERED AS APPLICABLE ONLY TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  SINCE
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT CRIMINAL IN CHARACTER, THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT HAS NO APPLICATION."  I REJECT THE CONTENTION THAT THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL CAN BE DENIED A MAN IN JAIL BY THE SIMPLE
DEVICE OF PROVIDING A "NOT CRIMINAL" LABEL FOR THE TECHNIQUES USED TO
INCARCERATE.  IMPRISONMENT AWAITING DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THAT
IMPRISONMENT IS JUSTIFIABLE HAS PRECISELY THE SAME EVIL CONSEQUENCES TO
AN INDIVIDUAL WHATEVER LEGALISTIC LABEL IS USED TO DESCRIBE HIS
PLIGHT.  PRIOR TO THIS AMENDMENT'S ADOPTION, HISTORY HAD BEEN FILLED
WITH INSTANCES WHERE INDIVIDUALS HAD BEEN IMPRISONED AND HELD FOR WANT
OF BAIL ON CHARGES THAT COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED.  OFFICIAL MALICE
HAD TOO FREQUENTLY BEEN THE CAUSE OF IMPRISONMENT.  THE PLAN PURPOSE OF
OUR BAIL AMENDMENT WAS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY AGENCY OF
GOVERNMENT, EVEN THE CONGRESS, TO AUTHORIZE KEEPING PEOPLE IMPRISONED A
MOMENT LONGER THAN WAS NECESSARY TO ASSURE THEIR ATTENDANCE TO ANSWER
WHATEVER LEGAL BURDEN OR OBLIGATION MIGHT THEREAFTER BE VALIDLY IMPOSED
UPON THEM.  IN EARLIER DAYS OF THIS COUNTRY THERE WERE FOND HOPES THAT
THE BAIL PROVISION WAS UNNECESSARY, THAT NO BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT
WOULD EVER WANT TO DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF BAIL.  ON THIS SUBJECT MR.
JUSTICE STORY SAID, "THE PROVISION WOULD SEEM TO BE WHOLLY UNNECESSARY
IN A FREE GOVERNMENT, SINCE IT IS SCARCELY POSSIBLE THAT ANY DEPARTMENT
OF SUCH A GOVERNMENT SHOULD AUTHORIZE OR JUSTIFY SUCH ATROCIOUS
CONDUCT."  STORY ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 5TH ED., VOL. 2, P. 650. 
PERHAPS THE WORD "ATROCIOUS" IS TOO STRONG.  I CAN ONLY SAY THAT I
REGRET, DEEPLY REGRET, THAT THE COURT NOW ADDS THE RIGHT TO BAIL TO THE
LIST OF OTHER BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEES THAT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN
WEAKENED TO EXPAND GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AT THE EXPENSE OF INDIVIDUAL
FREEDOM. 

I AM FOR REVERSING IN NO. 35 AND AFFIRMING IN NO. 136. 

FN1  "EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES
IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED."  U.S. CONST.,
AMEND. VIII. 

FN2  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...  ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; ...  ."  U.S. CONST., AMEND. I. 

FN3  "NO PERSON  ...  SHALL BE  ...  DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ...  ."  U.S. CONST., AMEND. V. 

FN4  96 CONG. REC. 10449; H.R. REP. NO. 1192, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS.,
PP. 7,9, 10. 

FN5  AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN NO. 35 SAID "WHEN THERE IS A CLAIM,
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT  ...  THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE
SECURITY RISKS AND THAT THEIR RELEASE IS DANGEROUS TO THE SECURITY OF
THE UNITED STATES, UNTIL THAT IS EITHER DISPROVED OR PROVED I AM NOT
GOING TO RELEASE THEM.  MY FIRST NOTE IN THAT RESPECT IS FOR THE
SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY.  WE HAVE HAD 42,000 CASUALTIES ALREADY." 

FN6  IN THIS STATE OF THE RECORD AND PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL'S CONTRARY ADMISSION, I AM AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND
NOTE 35 IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  IT IS THERE INTIMATED THAT THESE
ALIENS MIGHT FLEE AND BE UNAVAILABLE FOR DEPORTATION.  I CANNOT BELIEVE
THAT THE COURT IS RESTING, OR WOULD REST, ITS APPROVAL OF DENIAL OF
BAIL ON A GROUND WHICH EVEN THE SOLICITOR GENERAL HAD NOT DEEMED
SUPPORTABLE BY THE RECORD. 

FN7  "ANONYMOUS INFORMATIONS OUGHT NOT TO BE RECEIVED IN ANY SORT OF
PROSECUTION.  IT IS INTRODUCING A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, AND IS
QUITE FOREIGN TO THE SPIRIT OF OUR AGE."  WRITTEN NEAR 100 .A.D BY
EMPEROR TRAJAN TO PLINY THE YOUNGER IN RESPONSE TO PLINY'S INTERESTING
REPORT OF HIS PROSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS.  9 HARVARD CLASSICS, 428. 
PLINY WAS "IN GREAT DOUBT" EVEN THEN AS TO "WHETHER THE VERY PROFESSION
OF CHRISTIANITY, UNATTENDED WITH ANY CRIMINAL ACT, OR ONLY THE CRIMES
THEMSELVES INHERENT IN THE PROFESSION ARE PUNISHABLE  ...  ."  SUPRA,
426.  "IF THEY (INFORMERS AGAINST CHRISTIANS) SUCCEEDED IN THEIR
PROSECUTION, THEY WERE EXPOSED TO THE RESENTMENT OF A CONSIDERABLE AND
ACTIVE PARTY, TO THE CENSURE OF THE MORE LIBERAL PORTION OF MANKIND,
AND TO THE IGNOMINY WHICH IN EVERY AGE AND COUNTRY, HAS ATTENDED THE
CHARACTER OF AN INFORMER.  IF, ON THE CONTRARY, THEY FAILED IN THEIR
PROOFS, THEY INCURRED THE SEVERE, AND PERHAPS CAPITAL, PENALTY WHICH,
ACCORDING TO A LAW PUBLISHED BY THE EMPEROR HADRIAN, WAS INFLICTED ON
THOSE WHO FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO THEIR FELLOW-CITIZENS THE CRIME OF
CHRISTIANITY."  2 GIBBON, THE HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE
ROMAN EMPIRE (OXFORD UNIV.  PRESS), 107, 108. 

FN8  SEE MOZOROSKY V. HURLBURT, 106 ORE.  274, 198 P. 556, 15 A.L.R.
1076 AND NOTE PP. 1079-1083. 

FN9  SEE, E.G., AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382;
DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494, FEINER V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S.
315. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AFTER THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT, HAD MADE A
GENERAL RULING THAT THEREAFTER HE WOULD NOT ALLOW BAIL TO ANY ALIEN
AGAINST WHOM DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS WERE STARTED AND WHO WAS THEM A
MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY - AN UNDISCRIMINATING, UNINDIVIDUALIZED
CLASS DETERMINATION - IT WOULD DISREGARD THE CLEAR DIRECTION OF
CONGRESS FOR THIS COURT NOT TO HOLD THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD
EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF HIS DISCRETION.  IT WOULD WILFULLY DISREGARD THE
ADJUDICATIONS ON BAIL IN DEPORTATION CASES WHICH PRECEDED THE ACT AND
THE UNAMBIGUOUS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LAW BASED UPON THIS JUDICIAL
HISTORY.  CONGRESS UNEQUIVOCALLY CHOSE NOT TO GIVE NONREVIEWABLE
DISCRETIONARY POWER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DENY BAIL.  IN SUBSTANCE
THOUGH NOT FORMALLY HE HAS MADE SUCH A GENERAL RULING.  THE RECORDS
BEFORE US DISCLOSE THAT SINCE THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS IN FACT FOLLOWED THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF DENYING BAIL TO
ALL ACTIVE COMMUNISTS.  SUCH BLANKET EXERCISE OF THE POWER GRANTED HIM
BY THE ACT CALLS FOR REVIEW AND CANNOT STAND.    THE CONTROLLING
QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE ARE:  WHAT STANDARDS OF DISCRETION DOES THE
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950 (FN1) IMPOSE UPON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN
GRANTING OR DENYING BAIL TO PERSONS ARRESTED FOR DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS; AND HAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HERE OBSERVED THOSE
STANDARDS?  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT CONGRESS MADE REVIEWABLE THE
DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE BAIL QUESTION.  THIS
SUBJECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ACTION TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY IS NOT
TO BE FORMALLY OR LIGHTLY EXERCISED.  THE BILL WHICH ULTIMATELY BECAME
SEC. 23 OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT WAS INITIALLY PASSED BY THE HOUSE
WITH A PROVISION MAKING ABSOLUTE AND UNREVIEWABLE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S ACTION.  (FN2)  THE BILL AS ENACTED, HOWEVER, OMITTED THE
FINALITY CLAUSE; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY WAS THUS DEFINED:
"PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE DEPORTABILITY OF ANY ALIEN  ...  HE
MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1) BE CONTINUED IN
CUSTODY; OR (2) BE RELEASED UNDER BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT LESS THAN
$500, WITH SECURITY APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; OR (3) BE
RELEASED ON CONDITIONAL PAROLE."  (FN3)  BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT
CONGRESS HAD BEFORE IT CONFLICTING VIEWS OF COURTS OF APPEALS:
ACCORDING TO PRENTIS V. MANOOGIAN, 16 F.2D 422 (C.A. 6TH CIR.), BAIL
WAS A MATTER OF THE ALIEN'S RIGHT; THE SECOND CIRCUIT RULED THAT IT WAS
A MATTER WITHIN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DISCRETION SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  UNITED STATES EX REL. POTASH V. DISTRICT DIRECTOR, 169 F.2D
747 (C.A.2D CIR.).  (FN4)  CONGRESS CHOSE THE LATTER VIEW.  IT DESERVES
EMPHASIS THAT IT WAS DISCRETION THAT WAS GIVEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
NOT POWER TO DECIDE ARBITRARILY.  (FN5) 

IN GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DISCRETION SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW, CONGRESS LEGISLATED AGAINST A HISTORICAL BACKGROUND WHICH GIVES
MEANING TO BAIL PROVISIONS.  ONLY THE OTHER DAY THIS COURT RESTATED THE
CONCEPT OF BAIL TRADITIONAL IN AMERICAN THOUGHT AND REFLECTED IN THE
CONSTITUTION: 

"THIS TRADITIONAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM BEFORE CONVICTION (OR BEFORE ORDER
FOR DEPORTATION) PERMITS THE UNHAMPERED PREPARATION OF A DEFENSE, AND
SERVES TO PREVENT THE INFLICTION OF PUNISHMENT PRIOR TO CONVICTION  ...
.  SINCE THE FUNCTION OF BAIL IS LIMITED, THE FIXING OF BAIL FOR ANY
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT MUST BE BASED UPON STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE
PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE PRESENCE OF THAT DEFENDANT  ...  .  TO INFER
FROM THE FACT OF INDICTMENT (OR WARRANT FOR DEPORTATION) ALONE A NEED
FOR BAIL IN AN UNUSUALLY HIGH AMOUNT IS AN ARBITRARY ACT."  STACK V.
BOYLE, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 5, 6. 

"THE PRACTICE OF ADMISSION TO BAIL, AS IT HAS EVOLVED IN ANGLO
AMERICAN LAW, IS NOT A DEVICE FOR KEEPING PERSONS IN JAIL UPON MERE
ACCUSATION UNTIL IT IS FOUND CONVENIENT TO GIVE THEM A TRIAL.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THE SPIRIT OF THE PROCEDURE IS TO ENABLE THEM TO STAY OUT OF
JAIL UNTIL A TRIAL HAS FOUND THEM GUILTY  ...  .  EACH DEFENDANT STANDS
BEFORE THE BAR OF JUSTICE AS AN INDIVIDUAL  ...  . EACH ACCUSED IS
ENTITLED TO ANY BENEFITS DUE TO HIS GOOD RECORD, AND MISDEEDS OR A BAD
RECORD SHOULD PREJUDICE ONLY THOSE WHO ARE GUILTY OF THEM."  ID., AT 7,
8, 9 (CONCURRING OPINION). 

THIS HISTORICAL MEANING OF "BAIL," FAMILIAR EVEN TO LAYMEN, MUST
INFUSE OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS OF A CONGRESS OF WHOM, IN FACT,
A MAJORITY WERE LAWYERS.  WHEN CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR BAIL, WITHIN THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DISCRETION, FOR PERSONS ARRESTED FOR DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXTENDING TO RESIDENT ALIENS STILL LAWFULLY IN OUR
MIDST THE SAME PRIVILEGES THAT ARE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF COURSE TO
DANGEROUS CRIMINALS.  THE FACTORS RELEVANT TO THE EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION ARE FACTORS THAT PERTAIN TO EACH INDIVIDUAL AS AN
INDIVIDUAL.  "DISCRETION IS ONLY TO BE RESPECTED WHEN IT IS CONSCIOUS
OF THE TRADITIONS WHICH SURROUND IT AND OF THE LIMITS WHICH AN INFORMED
CONSCIENCE SETS TO ITS EXERCISE."  (FN6) 

IF THESE ALIENS, INSTEAD OF AWAITING DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, WERE
HELD FOR TRIAL UNDER A SMITH ACT INDICTMENT, THEY COULD NOT BE DENIED
BAIL MERELY BECAUSE OF THE INDICTMENT.  STACK V. BOYLE, SUPRA.
MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY - THE CHARGE WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION
FOR THE DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS - IS SURELY NOT AS GREAT A DANGER AS A
LEADING SHARE IN A CONSPIRACY TO ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE, WHICH WAS THE ESSENCE OF THE INDICTMENT IN DENNIS
V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494.  AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR "THE
UNHAMPERED PREPARATION OF A DEFENSE" IS QUITE AS IMPORTANT TO THE ALIEN
ARRESTED FOR DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS AS IT IS TO THE SMITH ACT
DEFENDANT.  WE WOULD HESITATE TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS, IN THE ABSENCE OF
SOME MORE EXPLICIT COMMAND, AN INTENT TO MAKE BAIL MORE READILY
AVAILABLE TO THOSE HELD ON A SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGE THAN TO THOSE
AWAITING PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF DEPORTABILITY. 
CONGRESS MADE NO SUCH DISTINCTION.  INSTEAD, IT CAST THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S AUTHORITY IN TERMS DESCRIPTIVE OF THE CUSTOMARY POWER OF
COMMISSIONERS OR DISTRICT JUDGES IN ADMITTING TO BAIL. 

THE FACTORS STATED BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN THE POTASH CASE, SUPRA,
AT 751, WHICH GUIDED THE ENACTMENT, ARE PRESUMABLY THE STANDARDS WHICH
CONGRESS EXPECTED TO BE OBSERVED:  "THE DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL  ...  IS TO BE REASONABLY EXERCISED UPON A CONSIDERATION OF
SUCH FACTORS, AMONG OTHERS, AS THE PROBABILITY OF THE ALIEN BEING FOUND
DEPORTABLE, THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM, IF PROVED, THE
DANGER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY OF HIS PRESENCE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND
THE ALIEN'S AVAILABILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IF ENLARGED ON
BAIL." 

CONGRESS THUS MADE PROVISION FOR A FAIR ASSURANCE OF EACH ALIEN'S
AVAILABILITY IN THE EVENT HE IS EVENTUALLY ORDERED DEPORTED.  THERE IS,
HOWEVER, NOT THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION IN THE GOVERNMENT'S RETURNS OR IN
THE RECORDS BEFORE US THAT EACH PETITIONER'S TIES TO FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY AND EACH ONE'S BEHAVIOR UNDER AN EARLIER WARRANT AGAINST HIM
DO NOT ASSURE HIS PRESENCE THROUGHOUT THE DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS AND
THEREAFTER.  THE RECORDS AFFIRMATIVELY INDICATE THE CONTRARY. 
MOREOVER, IN DEPORTATION CASES - AS COMPARED, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH
PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE SMITH ACT - THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE
INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED MAY DEPART FROM THE COUNTRY IS MINIMIZED IN
SIGNIFICANCE, FIRST, BECAUSE COMPULSORY DEPARTURE FROM THE UNITED
STATES IS JUST WHAT THEY ARE CONTESTING, AND SECONDLY, IF THEY DO
DEPART, THE PURPOSE OF THE DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS IS REALIZED. 

IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO CONGRESS TO DENY THAT IT FOLLOWED THE
TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF BAIL BY MAKING "THE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
OF HIS PRESENCE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY" A CRITERION FOR BAILABILITY.  NO
LESS MUST IT BE PRESUMED THAT CONGRESS REQUIRED THAT EACH CRITERION
SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THE TRADITIONAL MANNER, THAT IS, BY INDIVIDUALIZED
APPLICATION TO EACH ALIEN.  IN EACH CASE, THE ALIEN'S ANTICIPATED
PERSONAL CONDUCT - AND THAT ALONE - MUST BE CONSIDERED.  ALSO, HOW
EXPEDITIOUSLY EACH DEPORTATION PROCEEDING CAN BE CONCLUDED, AND
THEREFORE HOW LONG THE BAIL IN EACH CASE NEED BE IN EFFECT, ARE
RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS. 

BUT IT IS ARGUED THAT, SINCE AN INTRODUCTORY SECTION OF THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT MAKES A "LEGISLATIVE FINDING" OF THE THREAT REPRESENTED BY
THE PARTY, (FN7) CONGRESS INTENDED MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY
ALONE TO SERVE AS A REASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING INDIVIDUAL ALIENS
TOO DANGEROUS TO LEAVE AT LARGE.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION RENDERS
MEANINGLESS THE DISCRETION GRANTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHEREVER THE
DEPORTATION CHARGE IS MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  THE ARGUMENT
MEANS THAT HE MAY EXERCISE DISCRETION AS TO BAIL ONLY TO DENY BAIL. 
CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE SUCH A HOBSON'S CHOICE INTO LAW.  TRUE, THE BAIL
PROVISIONS APPLY TO DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT ON OTHER GROUNDS. 
HOWEVER, THE ABSORBING CONCERN OF CONGRESS IN THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
WAS WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY; THAT ACT FOR THE FIRST
TIME EXPLICITLY MADE MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY A GROUND FOR
DEPORTATION.  (FN8)  IT PUTS CONGRESS IN A STULTIFYING POSITION TO
SUGGEST THAT IT GAVE WITH ONE HAND ONLY TO TAKE AWAY WITH THE OTHER. 

IN THESE CASES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NOT EXERCISED HIS DISCRETION
BY APPLYING THE STANDARDS REQUIRED OF HIM.  HE EVIDENTLY THOUGHT
HIMSELF UNDER COMPULSION OF LAW AND MADE AN ABSTRACT, CLASS
DETERMINATION, NOT AN INDIVIDUALIZED JUDGMENT.  WHEN THE FIVE ALIENS
WERE ARRESTED ORIGINALLY (ONE AS LATE AS JUNE, 1950), ALL WERE RELEASED
ON BAIL, RANGING FROM $5,000 FOR ONE TO $1,000 FOR ANOTHER; THREE WERE
RELEASED ON $2,000 BAIL.  MUCH IS MADE OF THE FACT THAT THE ENACTMENT
OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT ON SEPTEMBER 22,1950, INTERVENED BETWEEN
THE ORIGINAL GRANT OF BAIL AND THE SUBSEQUENT REARREST AND DETENTION OF
THE ALIENS.  THE ONLY CHANGE IN THAT ACT RELEVANT TO THESE DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS WAS THE PROVISION MAKING MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY
SPECIFICALLY A BASIS FOR DEPORTATION.  (FN9)  NEW WARRANTS CHARGING
MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY AT SOME TIME AFTER ENTRY WERE SERVED
ON THE REARRESTED ALIENS IN LOS ANGELES, THOUGH NOT ON ZYDOK IN
DETROIT.  THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES WERE BY THE ACT RELIEVED OF
PROVING - IN ORDER TO MAKE A PRIMA FACIE CASE - THAT THE COMMUNIST
PARTY IS AN "ORGANIZATION  ...  THAT BELIEVES IN, ADVISES, ADVOCATES,
OR TEACHES  ...  THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE
GOVERNMENT."  (FN10)  BUT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TODAY A LEGISLATIVE
DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AS AN ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING VIOLENT
OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT MADE LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN THE REQUIRED PROOF. 
(FN11)  AT ANY RATE, A COMPLETE ANSWER IS THAT NOWHERE - EITHER IN HIS
RETURNS TO THE WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ELSEWHERE - HAS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL MADE ANY ASSERTION THAT THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT EASED THE
PROOF OF DEPORTABILITY, INDICATING BY HIS SILENCE THAT SUCH A FACTOR
DID NOT INFLUENCE HIS JUDGMENT.  (FN12) THE RETURNS IN THE LOS ANGELES
CASES SUPPORTED THE DENIAL OF BAIL SOLELY BY THE STATEMENT, "SAID FACTS
CAUSE THE SAID ACTING COMMISSIONER TO BELIEVE THAT IF THE SAID
PETITIONERS) WERE ENLARGED ON BAIL THEY WOULD ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES
WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND WOULD ENDANGER
THE WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE RETURN IN ZYDOK'S
CASE STATED NO REASONS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DECISION.  THE ONLY
EVIDENCE AT THE HEARINGS WAS ALSO DIRECTED SOLELY TO THE COMMUNIST
ACTIVITIES OF THE ALIENS. 

THE INSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR SHOWING ANY DANGER IN
FREEING EACH INDIVIDUAL ALIEN ON BAIL RAISES AMPLE DOUBT WHETHER THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL EXERCISED A DISCRETION AS INSTRUCTED BY STATUTE.  IN
ZYDOK'S CASE THE CLAIM IS THAT HE HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY AND FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF A HAMTRAMCK, MICHIGAN, SECTION IN
1949, A YEAR BEFORE HIS REARREST AND DENIAL OF BAIL ON OCTOBER 23,
1950.  FROM ZYDOK'S FAILURE TO DENY PRESENT MEMBERSHIP DURING HIS
TESTIMONY, THE DISTRICT COURT DREW THE CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS
"KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY PARTICIPATING IN THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT."  THIS
WAS CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF ZYDOK'S PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION, WHICH HE MANY TIMES CLAIMED.  (FN13)  BUT ASSUMING THAT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM THAT ZYDOK WAS AT PRESENT
A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, THAT ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW
DANGER IN FREEING HIM ON BAIL DURING THE DEPORTATION PROCEEDING.  TO
DENY BAIL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS FOR
BELIEVING THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING ZYDOK PRESENT TOO HAZARDOUS
A RISK IN LEAVING HIM AT LARGE. 

THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE OTHER FOUR ALIENS
THAT IS MORE RECENT THAN 1949 - A YEAR BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE
RELEVANT WARRANTS FOR DEPORTATION AND THE DENIALS OF BAIL HERE UNDER
REVIEW - WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE BY CARLSON PUBLISHED
IN LATE 1950.  IN FACT, IN THE CASE OF CARLISLE AND STEVENSON THE
GOVERNMENT HAD NO EVIDENCE OF ACTIVITY OR MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST
PARTY MORE RECENT THAN THE 1930'S.  SINCE ALL THESE ALIENS WHEN
PREVIOUSLY ARRESTED WERE RELEASED ON BAIL, WE CANNOT ESCAPE THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT DID NOT DENY BAIL FROM AN INDIVIDUALIZED ESTIMATE
OF "THE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY OF EACH PERSON'S PRESENCE WITHIN
THE COMMUNITY."  (FN14) 

WE ARE CONFIRMED IN THIS CONCLUSION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
PRACTICE.  FOR WE ARE ADVISED BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL THAT IT HAS BEEN
THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY SINCE THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT TO TERMINATE
BAIL FOR ALL ALIENS AWAITING DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS WHOM IT DEEMS TO
BE PRESENT ACTIVE COMMUNISTS, BARRING ONLY THOSE FOR WHOM SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF PHYSICAL CONDITION OR FAMILY SITUATION COMPEL AN
EXCEPTION.  THE ORDINARY CONSIDERATIONS OF AVAILABILITY TO RESPOND TO
THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN RULED OUT BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT.  ALL
THOSE WHOM THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVES TO BE ACTIVE COMMUNISTS ARE
CONSIDERED UNBAILABLE WITHOUT INDIVIDUALIZED CONSIDERATION OF RISH FROM
THEIR CONTINUED FREEDOM.  IT MUST THEREFORE BE INFERRED THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT, BECAUSE HE WAS CONVINCED
THAT THE ALIENS HERE WERE PRESENT COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERS, THEY WERE
NOT BAILABLE.  THESE PERSONS SHOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF AN EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FREED FROM ANY CONCEPTION THAT
CONGRESS HAD MADE THEM IN EFFECT UNBAILABLE.  WE THINK THAT THE
CALIFORNIA CASE SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DISCHARGE
OF THE FOUR PERSONS DETAINED UNLESS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME MAKES A NEW DETERMINATION ON THE BAIL QUESTION USING
THE STANDARDS HERE OUTLINED.  AND IF ZYDOK IS REARRESTED UNDER A NEW
WARRANT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL HAVE A FRESH OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE
HIS DISCRETION IN SETTING BAIL.    FN1  PUB. L. NO. 831, 81ST CONG., 2D
SESS., 64 STAT. 987.  FN2  H.R. 10, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. READ IN
RELEVANT PART THUS:  "(G) NO COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO RELEASE
ON BOND OR OTHERWISE ANY ALIEN DETAINED UNDER ANY PROVISION OF LAW
RELATING TO THE EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION OF ALIENS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO A
DECISION OF COURT IN HIS FAVOR WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER JUDICIAL
REVIEWS."  SEE 96 CONG.  REC. 10448-10460.  H.R. REP. NO. 1192, 81ST
CONG., 1ST SESS. 10-11 HAD THIS COMMENT:  "THE PROVISION IS DESIGNED TO
LEAVE THE QUESTION OF RELEASING AN ALIEN FROM CUSTODY IN AN IMMIGRATION
CASE ENTIRELY IN THE HANDS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  ...  .  IT IN NO
WAY DENIES THE RIGHT OF ANY ALIEN TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION
THROUGH THE COURTS; IT MERELY STATES THAT THE ALIEN CANNOT BE RELEASED
BY THE COURT UNTIL JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN FINALLY TERMINATED IN
THE ALIEN'S FAVOR." 

FN3  INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, SEC. 23, 64 STAT. 987, 1010, 8
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 156(A). 

FN4  H.R. REP. NO. 1192, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 5-6, COMMENTING ON
H.R. 10, WHICH MADE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DISCRETION UNREVIEWABLE, YET
GAVE "DISCRETION" TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SAID: 

"THIS EXISTING LAW HAS OFTEN BEEN FOUND TO BE LACKING IN CLARITY AND
DOUBTFUL IN PURPOSE WHEN QUESTIONS HAVE ARISEN CONCERNING PROCEDURE
FOLLOWING ARREST OF AN ALIEN, OR DURING THE INTERIM BETWEEN HIS ARREST
AND HIS HEARING AND DECISION ON HIS CASE  ...  .  THE COMMITTEE
BELIEVES THAT THIS BILL WILL GREATLY SIMPLIFY SUCH DETAILS." 

A MEMORANDUM FROM A LAWYERS' GROUP WHICH WAS READ INTO THE RECORD
URGED THAT TO MAKE THE DECISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNREVIEWABLE
"FLOUTS THE RECENT DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
SECOND CIRCUIT," CITING UNITED STATES EX REL. POTASH V. DISTRICT
DIRECTOR, 169 F.2D 747.  96 CONG. REC. 10454. 

FN5  COMPARE THE LANGUAGE "IN THE DISCRETION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"
WITH THE CLAUSE "WHERE THE CONTROLLER HAS REASONABLE GROUNDS TO
BELIEVE," WHICH THE PRIVY COUNCIL HAD BEFORE IT IN NAKKUDA ALI V.
JAYARATNE, (1951) A.C. 66.  IT WAS HELD, IN THE JUDGMENT OF LORD
RADCLIFFE, "THAT THERE MUST IN FACT EXIST SUCH REASONABLE GROUNDS,
KNOWN TO THE CONTROLLER, BEFORE HE CAN VALIDLY EXERCISE THE POWER"
CONFERRED.  AND FOR THIS REASON:  "AFTER ALL, WORDS SUCH AS THESE ARE
COMMONLY FOUND WHEN A LEGISLATURE OR LAW-MAKING AUTHORITY CONFERS
POWERS ON A MINISTER OR OFFICIAL.  HOWEVER READ, THEY MUST BE INTENDED
TO SERVE IN SOME SENSE AS A CONDITION LIMITING THE EXERCISE OF AN
OTHERWISE ARBITRARY POWER.  BUT IF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONDITION
HAS BEEN SATISFIED IS TO BE CONCLUSIVELY DECIDED BY THE MAN WHO WIELDS
THE POWER THE VALUE OF THE INTENDED RESTRAINT IS IN EFFECT NOTHING.  NO
DOUBT HE MUST NOT EXERCISE THE POWER IN BAD FAITH:  BUT THE FIELD IN
WHICH THIS KIND OF QUESTION ARISES IS SUCH THAT THE RESERVATION FOR THE
CASE OF BAD FAITH IS HARDLY MORE THAN A FORMALITY."  ID., AT 77. 

FN6  PROFESSOR MARK DE WOLFE HOWE IN THE NATION, JAN. 12, 1952, P.
30. 

FN7  INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, SEC. 2, 64 STAT. 987. 

FN8  INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, SEC. 22, 64 STAT. 987, 1006, 8
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 137, 137-3. 

FN9  IBID. 

FN10  40 STAT. 1012, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 137(C). 

FN11  SEE DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494, 510-511, AND THE
CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON IN AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS
ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 422. 

FN12  A RADIOGRAM TO THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION IN LOS ANGELES FROM THE ACTING COMMISSIONER IN
WASHINGTON COMPENDIOUSLY JUSTIFIED HOLDING THE FOUR LOS ANGELES ALIENS
WITHOUT BAIL THUS: 

"  ...  THE INSTRUCTION  ...  WAS ISSUED ONLY AFTER THE CASES HAD
BEEN EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT  ...  AND THE
SPIRIT AND INTENTION THEREOF AND ALL OF THE FACTORS CONCERNING THE
LIKELIHOOD OF THE DEPORTABILITY AND THE ACTIVITIES OF SAID ALIEN HAD
BEEN GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE FACTORS OF UNDUE
HARDSHIP WHICH CONTINUED DETENTION MIGHT IMPOSE." 

THE RADIOGRAMS, IN OCTOBER, 1950, TO THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR IN DETROIT
ORDERING ZYDOK'S REARREST AND DETENTION WITHOUT BAIL GAVE NO REASONS
FOR THE ACTION. 

FN13  SEE 20 STAT. 30, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3481; WILSON V. UNITED STATES,
149 U.S. 60, 66.  SEE ALSO BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159. 

FN14  IN A CASE JUST DECIDED, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT FOUND A NOT UNREASONABLE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE HERE WANTING.  AN EXTRACT FROM THE
OPINION OF JUDGE A.N. HAND ILLUMINES THE DIFFERENCES: 

"IN HIS PETITION FOR THE WRIT, YOUNG ALLEGED FACTS INDICATING THAT IF
RELEASED HE WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AT WHICH HIS
PRESENCE WOULD BE REQUIRED.  THE RETURN TO THE WRIT, HOWEVER, CONTAINED
ALLEGATIONS WHICH, IF ACCEPTED, ESTABLISHED A REASONABLE FOUNDATION FOR
THE DENIAL OF BAIL BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THUS THE RETURN, IN
ADDITION TO CONTAINING ALLEGATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST
PARTY, ALLEGED THAT YOUNG HAD ONCE BEFORE ESCAPED FROM CUSTODY DURING
EARLIER PROCEEDINGS; THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE
UNITED STATES BY FURNISHING A FALSE IDENTITY AND WITH A FRAUDULENT
PASSPORT; AND THAT DURING HIS PRESENT DETENTION HE REFUSED TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS RELATING TO PRIOR IDENTIFICATION, PLACES OF RESIDENCE,
EMPLOYMENT AND HOME LIFE.  SECTION 2248 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2248, REQUIRES THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE RETURN BE TAKEN AS
TRUE UNLESS IMPEACHED, AND YOUNG IN HIS TRAVERSE TO THE RETURN DID NOT
REFUTE THOSE STATEMENTS, NOR DID HE IN HIS MOTION FOR REARGUMENT, MAKE
ANY OFFER TO PROVE THE CONTRARY, NOR DID HE ASSERT NEW FACTS, WHICH
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2246 COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY AFFIDAVIT. 
AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECENTLY SAID IN STACK V. BOYLE, 342 U.S. 1,
4:  'THE RIGHT TO RELEASE BEFORE TRIAL IS CONDITIONED UPON THE
ACCUSED'S GIVING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE THAT HE WILL STAND TRIAL AND SUBMIT
TO SENTENCE IF FOUND GUILTY.'"  UNITED STATES EX REL. YOUNG V.
SHAUGHNESSY, 194 F.2D 474 (C.A.2D CIR., FEBRUARY 13, 1952). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

MY REASONS FOR DISSENT STRIKE DEEPER THAN THE BAIL PROVISIONS OF THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT.  ACCORDING TO THE WARRANTS OF ARREST ISSUED ON
OCTOBER 31, 1950, THE PETITIONERS IN NO. 35 ARE BEING DETAINED FOR
DEPORTATION BECAUSE THEY WERE FORMERLY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
OF THE UNITED STATES.  ZYDOK, THE RESPONDENT IN NO. 136, WAS ARRESTED
FOR PRESENT COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERSHIP, BUT NO CHARGE HAS BEEN MADE
THAT HE HAS BEEN GUILTY OF ANY SEDITIOUS CONDUCT OR THAT HE HAS
COMMITTED ANY OVERT ACT ENDANGERING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.  IF THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT EXPULSION OF THESE ALIENS FOR THEIR PAST
ACTIONS OR PRESENT EXPRESSIONS UNACCOMPANIED BY CONDUCT - AND I DO NOT
THINK IT DOES* - THEN THEY ARE ILLEGALLY DETAINED AND SHOULD BE SET
FREE, MAKING THE ISSUE OF BAIL MEANINGLESS. 

*SEE MY DISSENTS IN DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494, 584-589;
HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, 342 U.S. 580, 598. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

I JOIN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND ADD THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT LENDS SUPPORT TO THE STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION HE ADVOCATES.  THAT AMENDMENT CLEARLY PROHIBITS FEDERAL
BAIL THAT IS EXCESSIVE IN AMOUNT WHEN SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF ALL
TRADITIONALLY RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES.  LIKEWISE, IT MUST PROHIBIT
UNREASONABLE DENIAL OF BAIL.  THE AMENDMENT CANNOT WELL MEAN THAT, ON
THE ONE HAND, IT PROHIBITS THE REQUIREMENT OF BAIL SO EXCESSIVE IN
AMOUNT AS TO BE UNATTAINABLE, YET, ON THE OTHER HAND, UNDER LIKE
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE DENIAL OF BAIL, WHICH COMES TO
THE SAME THING.  THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES ARE RELEVANT TO BOTH
PROCEDURES.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS NOW HAS ATTEMPTED
TO GIVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUTHORITY TO DISREGARD THOSE
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DENIAL OF BAIL. 
..END :



FAR EAST CONFERENCE V. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 570 


NO. 15, MISC.  ARGUED JANUARY 30, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1952.  - 94
F. SUPP. 900, REVERSED. 


THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE
THE FAR EAST CONFERENCE, A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION, AND ITS CONSTITUENT
MEMBERS, STEAMSHIP COMPANIES ENGAGED IN "OUTBOUND FAR EAST TRADE."  THE
AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE CONFERENCE OPERATED WAS APPROVED BY THE
PREDECESSOR OF THE FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD, EXERCISING AUTHORITY UNDER
THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, AS AMENDED.  UNDER THIS AGREEMENT THE
CONFERENCE ESTABLISHED A DUAL SYSTEM OF RATES, WHEREBY SHIPPERS WHO
AGREED TO USE EXCLUSIVELY BOTTOMS OF CONFERENCE MEMBERS PAID ONE RATE,
WHILE THOSE WHO DID NOT SO BIND THEMSELVES PAID A FIXED HIGHER RATE. 
THIS DUAL SYSTEM OF RATES CONSTITUTED THE GRAVAMEN OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
SUIT.  HELD: 

1.  THE CASE IS INITIALLY WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD.  UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD S.S.
CO., 284 U.S. 474.  PP. 573-576. 

(A)  A DIFFERENT RESULT FROM THAT REACHED IN THE CUNARD CASE IS NOT
REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT THERE A PRIVATE SHIPPER INVOKED THE ANTITRUST
ACTS WHEREAS HERE IT IS THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 576. 

(B)  THE UNITED STATES IS A "PERSON" WHO UNDER SEC. 22 OF THE
SHIPPING ACT MAY FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD.  P.
576. 

2.  RATHER THAN ORDER THE CASE RETAINED ON THE DISTRICT COURT DOCKET
PENDING ACTION BY THE BOARD, THIS COURT ORDERS DISMISSAL OF THE
PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 576-577. 

FAR EAST CONFERENCE ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
NEW JERSEY. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS.  94 F. SUPP. 900.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S.
811.  REVERSED, P. 577. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW JERSEY TO ENJOIN
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  (FN1)  26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1
AND 2.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE FAR EAST CONFERENCE, A VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATION, AND ITS CONSTITUENT MEMBERS, STEAMSHIP COMPANIES ENGAGED
IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE "OUTBOUND FAR EAST TRADE."  THE CONFERENCE WAS
ORGANIZED IN 1922, AND THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH IT OPERATES
WAS APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, (FN2) EXERCISING
AUTHORITY UNDER THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, AS AMENDED.  (FN3)  UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT THERE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED A DUAL SYSTEM OF RATES,
CALLED THE CONTRACT AND NONCONTRACT RATE SYSTEM.  (FN4)  SHIPPERS WHO
AGREED TO USE EXCLUSIVELY BOTTOMS OF CONFERENCE MEMBERS PAID ONE RATE;
THOSE WHO DID NOT BIND THEMSELVES BY SUCH EXCLUSIVE PATRONAGE CONTRACT
PAID A FIXED HIGHER RATE.  SHIPPERS WHO ADHERED TO THE EXCLUSIVE
PATRONAGE CONTRACT WERE NOT TIED TO A PARTICULAR CARRIER; THEY WERE
FREE TO CHOOSE AMONG CONFERENCE CARRIERS.  THE CONFERENCE MEMBERS,
HOWEVER, WERE OBLIGATED TO SUPPLY FACILITIES SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE
FREIGHT DESTINED FOR THE FAR EAST.  THIS SYSTEM OF TWO LEVELS OF
FREIGHT RATES CONSTITUTED THE GRAVAMEN OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SUIT. 

ADMITTING THE DUAL-RATE SYSTEM, THE DEFENDANTS JUSTIFIED ON THE
MERITS BUT MOVED THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
NATURE OF THE ISSUES REQUIRED THAT RESORT MUST FIRST BE HAD TO THE
FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT COULD ADJUDICATE THE
GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT.  THE BOARD, AS INTERVENOR, JOINED IN THIS
MOTION.  IT WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, 94 F. SUPP. 900, AND WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1651(A), BECAUSE THERE ARE IN ISSUE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS REGARDING
THE RELATION BETWEEN THE SHERMAN LAW AND THE SHIPPING ACT.  342 U.S.
811. 

AT THE THRESHOLD WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER, IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE
UNITED STATES TO ENJOIN A DUAL-RATE SYSTEM ENFORCED IN CONCERT BY
STEAMSHIP CARRIERS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN TRADE, A DISTRICT COURT CAN PASS
ON THE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD HAS
PASSED UPON THE QUESTION.  WE SEE NO REASON TO DEPART FROM UNITED
STATES NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO., 284 U.S. 474.  THAT CASE
ANSWERS OUR PROBLEM.  THERE A COMPETING CARRIER INVOKED THE ANTITRUST
ACTS FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST A COMBINATION OF CARRIERS IN THE NORTH
ATLANTIC TRADE WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO OPERATE A DUAL-RATE SYSTEM SIMILAR
TO THAT HERE INVOLVED.  THE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY CHALLENGED THE
OFFENDING PRACTICE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, THE
PREDECESSOR IN AUTHORITY OF THE PRESENT MARITIME BOARD.  THIS COURT
SUSTAINED THE TWO LOWER COURTS, 39 F.2D 204 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.)  AND 50 F.2D
83 (C.A.2D CIR.), DISMISSING THE BILL BECAUSE INITIAL CONSIDERATION BY
THE SHIPPING BOARD OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN CONTROVERSY HAD NOT BEEN
SOUGHT.  AFTER A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHIPPING
ACT AND THEIR RELATION TO THE CONSTRUCTION THERETOFORE GIVEN TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THIS WAS THE CONCLUSION: 

"THE SHIPPING ACT IS RESTRICTIVE IN ITS OPERATION UPON SOME OF THE
ACTIVITIES OF COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER, AND PERMISSIVE IN RESPECT OF
OTHERS.  THEIR BUSINESS INVOLVES QUESTIONS OF AN EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER,
THE SOLUTION OF WHICH MAY CALL FOR THE EXERCISE OF A HIGH DEGREE OF
EXPERT AND TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE.  WHETHER A GIVEN AGREEMENT AMONG SUCH
CARRIERS SHOULD BE HELD TO CONTRAVENE THE ACT MAY DEPEND UPON A
CONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC RELATIONS, OF FACTS PECULIAR TO THE BUSINESS
OR ITS HISTORY, OF COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE SHIPPING OF
FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OF OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, GENERALLY
UNFAMILIAR TO A JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL, BUT WELL UNDERSTOOD BY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY ESPECIALLY TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED IN THE INTRICATE
AND TECHNICAL FACTS AND USAGES OF THE SHIPPING TRADE; AND WITH WHICH
THAT BODY CONSEQUENTLY, IS BETTER ABLE TO DEAL.  COMPARE CHICAGO BOARD
OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231, 238; UNITED STATES V. HAMBURGH
AMERICAN S.S. LINE, 216 FED. 971. 

"A COMPARISON OF THE ENUMERATION OF WRONGS CHARGED IN THE BILL WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTIONS OF THE SHIPPING ACT ABOVE OUTLINED
CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS, WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL, THAT THE ALLEGATIONS
EITHER CONSTITUTE DIRECT AND BASIC CHARGES OF VIOLATIONS OF THESE
PROVISIONS OR ARE SO INTERRELATED WITH SUCH CHARGES AS TO BE IN EFFECT
A COMPONENT PART OF THEM; AND THE REMEDY IS THAT AFFORDED BY THE
SHIPPING ACT, WHICH TO THAT EXTENT SUPERSEDES THE ANTITURST LAWS. 
COMPARE KEOGH V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., SUPRA (260 U.S. 156), AT P.
162.  THE MATTER, THEREFORE, IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE PRELIMINARY
JURISDICTION OF THE SHIPPING BOARD.  THE SCOPE AND EVIDENT PURPOSE OF
THE SHIPPING ACT, AS IN THE CASE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, ARE
DEMONSTRATIVE OF THIS CONCLUSION."  284 U.S. 474, 485. 

THE COURT THUS APPLIED A PRINCIPLE, NOW FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, THAT IN
CASES RAISING ISSUES OF FACT NOT WITHIN THE CONVENTIONAL EXPERIENCE OF
JUDGES OR CASES REQUIRING THE EXERCISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION,
AGENCIES CREATED BY CONGRESS FOR REGULATING THE SUBJECT MATTER SHOULD
NOT BE PASSED OVER.  THIS IS SO EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS AFTER THEY HAVE
BEEN APPRAISED BY SPECIALIZED COMPETENCE SERVE AS A PREMISE FOR LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES TO BE JUDICIALLY DEFINED.  UNIFORMITY AND CONSISTENCY IN
THE REGULATION OF BUSINESS ENTRUSTED TO A PARTICULAR AGENCY ARE
SECURED, AND THE LIMITED FUNCTIONS OF REVIEW BY THE JUDICIARY ARE MORE
RATIONALLY EXERCISED, BY PRELIMINARY RESORT FOR ASCERTAINING AND
INTERPRETING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDERLYING LEGAL ISSUES TO AGENCIES THAT
ARE BETTER EQUIPPED THAN COURTS BY SPECIALIZATION, BY INSIGHT GAINED
THROUGH EXPERIENCE, AND BY MORE FLEXIBLE PROCEDURE. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS MODE OF ACCOMMODATING THE COMPLEMENTARY
ROLES OF COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAW
WAS ORIGINALLY APPLIED IN A SITUATION WHERE THE FACE OF THE STATUTE
GAVE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION.  "THE PIONEER WORK OF CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE" IN TEXAS &
PACIFIC R. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426, AS HIS
SUCCESSOR CHARACTERIZED IT, 257 U.S. XXVI, WAS ONE OF THOSE CREATIVE
JUDICIAL LABORS WHEREBY MODERN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IS BEING DEVELOPED AS
PART OF OUR TRADITIONAL SYSTEM OF LAW.  IN THIS CASE WE ARE MERELY
APPLYING THE PHILOSOPHY WHICH WAS PUT IN MEMORABLE WORDS BY MR. JUSTICE
(AS HE THEN WAS) STONE: 

"  ...  COURT AND AGENCY ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS WHOLLY INDEPENDENT
AND UNRELATED INSTRUMENTALITIES OF JUSTICE, EACH ACTING IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF ITS PRESCRIBED STATUTORY DUTY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
APPROPRIATE FUNCTION OF THE OTHER IN SECURING THE PLAINLY INDICATED
OBJECTS OF THE STATUTE.  COURT AND AGENCY ARE THE MEANS ADOPTED TO
ATTAIN THE PRESCRIBED END, AND SO FAR AS THEIR DUTIES ARE DEFINED BY
THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, THOSE WORDS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO
ATTAIN THAT END THROUGH COORDINATED ACTION.  NEITHER BODY SHOULD REPEAT
IN THIS DAY THE MISTAKE MADE BY THE COURTS OF LAW WHEN EQUITY WAS
STRUGGLING FOR RECOGNITION AS AN AMELIORATING SYSTEM OF JUSTICE;
NEITHER CAN RIGHTLY BE REGARDED BY THE OTHER AS AN ALIEN INTRUDER, TO
BE TOLERATED IF MUST BE, BUT NEVER TO BE ENCOURAGED OR AIDED BY THE
OTHER IN THE ATTAINMENT OF THE COMMON AIM."  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN,
307 U.S. 183, 191. 

THE SOLE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CUNARD CASE AND THIS IS THAT THERE A
PRIVATE SHIPPER INVOKED THE ANTITRUST ACTS AND HERE IT IS THE
GOVERNMENT.  THIS DIFFERENCE DOES NOT TOUCH THE FACTORS THAT DETERMINED
THE CUNARD CASE.  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTISE
APPLY, WHOEVER INITIATES THE ACTION.  THE SAME ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE
SAME SHIPPING ACT APPLY TO THE SAME DUAL-RATE SYSTEM.  TO THE SAME
EXTENT THEY DEFINE THE APPROPRIATE ORBITS OF ACTION AS BETWEEN COURT
AND MARITIME BOARD. 

BUT THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO GO FIRST TO
THE BOARD BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT BE DEEMED A "PERSON" WHO
UNDER SEC. 22 OF THE SHIPPING ACT MAY FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE
MARITIME BOARD.  (FN5)  SURELY THE LARGE QUESTION HERE IN ISSUE OUGHT
NOT TO TURN ON SUCH A DEBATING POINT.  IT IS ALMOST FRIVOLOUS TO
SUGGEST THAT THE MARITIME BOARD WOULD DENY STANDING TO THE UNITED
STATES AS A COMPLAINANT.  THE BOARD HAS CONSISTENTLY TREATED THE UNITED
STATES AS A "PERSON" WITHIN ITS RULE FOR INTERVENTION.  WE OUGHT NOT TO
DALLY LONGER WITH THIS OBJECTION, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE UNITED
STATES, AS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE, IS TODAY ONE OF THE LARGEST
SHIPPERS IN THE FAR EAST TRADE.  THE MATTER SEEMS TO BE DISPOSED OF BY
UNITED STATES V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 337 U.S. 426, 430 ET
SEQ., INVOLVING SIMILAR PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

HAVING CONCLUDED THAT INITIAL SUBMISSION TO THE FEDERAL MARITIME
BOARD IS REQUIRED, WE MAY EITHER ORDER THE CASE RETAINED ON THE
DISTRICT COURT DOCKET PENDING THE BOARD'S ACTION, GENERAL AMERICAN TANK
CAR CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422, 432-433; EL DORADO
OIL WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 12, 17; SEE UNITED STATES V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, SUPRA, AT 465, N. 12, OR ORDER
DISMISSAL OF THE PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SITUATION PRESENTED BY THE FIRST EL DORADO CASE,
SUPRA, WHICH WAS A CONTRACT ACTION RAISING ONLY INCIDENTALLY A QUESTION
PROPER FOR INITIAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES
QUESTIONS WITHIN THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THE MARITIME BOARD'S
JURISDICTION.  SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, SECS.  14, 15, 39 STAT. 728, 733,
46 U.S.C. SECS. 812, 814.  AN ORDER OF THE BOARD WILL BE SUBJECT TO
REVIEW BY A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR
FURTHER REVIEW IN THIS COURT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  PUB. L. NO. 901,
81ST CONG., 2D SESS., SECS. 2, 10, 64 STAT. 1129, 1132.  IF THE BOARD'S
ORDER IS FAVORABLE TO THE UNITED STATES, IT CAN BE ENFORCED BY PROCESS
OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S APPLICATION.  39 STAT.
728, 737, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 828.  WE BELIEVE THAT NO PURPOSE WILL HERE BE
SERVED TO HOLD THE PRESENT ACTION IN ABEYANCE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
WHILE THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD AND SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW OR
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER ARE BEING PURSUED.  A SIMILAR SUIT IS EASILY
INITIATED LATER, IF APPROPRIATE.  BUSINESS-LIKE PROCEDURE COUNSELS THAT
THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT SHOULD NOW BE DISMISSED, AS WAS THE
COMPLAINT IN UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO.,
SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS BASED ON SEC. 4 OF
THE SHERMAN LAW:  "THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF

FN2  SECTION 3 OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916 CREATED THE SHIPPING
BOARD.  39 STAT. 728, 729.  THROUGH SEVERAL STEPS ITS FUNCTIONS HAVE
COME TO ITS PRESENT SUCCESSOR, THE FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD.  BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6166, JUNE 10, 1933, SEC. 12, ITS FUNCTIONS WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD BUREAU IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.  IN 1936 CONGRESS CREATED THE UNITED STATES
MARITIME COMMISSION, 49 STAT.  1985, 1987, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1114; AND IN
1950 THE PRESENT FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD WAS ESTABLISHED. 
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 21 OF 1950, 15 FED. REG. 3178-3180. 

FN3  39 STAT. 728, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 801 ET SEQ. 

FN4  THE IRRELEVANCE OF THE FAILURE TO FILE THE RATES THEMSELVES WITH
THE BOARD WAS LAID BARE IN UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD
STEAMSHIP CO., 284 U.S. 474, 486-487: 

"IF THERE BE A FAILURE TO FILE AN AGREEMENT AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 15,
THE BOARD, AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT, IS FULLY
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 22, SUPRA, TO AFFORD RELIEF UPON COMPLAINT OR UPON
ITS OWN MOTION.  ITS ORDERS, IN THAT RESPECT, AS IN OTHER RESPECTS, ARE
THEN, UNDER SEC. 31, FOR THE FIRST TIME, OPEN TO A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
TO ENFORCE, SUSPEND OR SET THEM ASIDE IN ACCORDANCE, GENERALLY, WITH
THE RULES AND LIMITATIONS ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT IN RESPECT OF LIKE
ORDERS MADE BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION." 

FN5  39 STAT. 728, 736, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 821. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE SHIPPING ACT WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED FOR ME TO REACH THE RESULT
OF THE MAJORITY.  THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT, APPROVED BY THE BOARD IN
1922, PROVIDES FOR THE ADOPTION BY THE CONFERENCE OF A TARIFF OF RATES
AND CHARGES.  IT STATES THAT THERE SHALL BE NO UNJUST DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST SHIPPERS AND NO REBATES PAID TO THEM.  THERE IS NO PROVISION IN
THE AGREEMENT FOR DUAL RATES - NO ARRANGEMENT FOR ALLOWING ONE RATE TO
SHIPPERS WHO GIVE ALL THEIR BUSINESS TO THE MEMBERS AND FOR
RETALIATIONS AGAINST NONSUBSCRIBING SHIPPERS BY EXACTING FROM THEM A
HIGHER RATE.  NEVERTHELESS PETITIONERS HAVE PRESCRIBED THIS DUAL RATE
SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF BARRING FROM THE OUTBOUND FAR EAST TRADE
STEAMSHIP LINES THAT ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION.  AT LEAST
THESE ARE THE FACTS IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT, AS WE MUST ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS.    IF THE BOARD HAS
EXPRESSLY APPROVED THE DUAL RATE SYSTEM, AND THE DUAL RATE SYSTEM DID
NOT VIOLATE THE SHIPPING ACT, THEN THERE WOULD BE IMMUNITY FROM THE
SHERMAN ACT, SINCE SEC. 15 OF THE SHIPPING ACT, 39 STAT. 733, AS
AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 814, GIVES THE BOARD AUTHORITY TO APPROVE
AGREEMENTS FIXING OR REGULATING RATES, IN EFFECT MAKES "LAWFUL" THE
RATES SO APPROVED, AND EXEMPTS FROM THE SHERMAN ACT EVERY "LAWFUL"
AGREEMENT CONCERNING THEM.  BUT THAT EXEMPTION FROM THE SHERMAN ACT CAN
BE ACQUIRED ONLY IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 15.  HERE NO EFFORT
WAS MADE TO OBTAIN IT.  HENCE THE PETITIONERS ARE AT LARGE, SUBJECT TO
ALL OF THE RESTRAINTS OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

WHY SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BE REMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR ITS
REMEDY?  THE BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE SHERMAN ACT.  (FN1)
IF THE RATES WERE FILED, OF COURSE THE BOARD WOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO PASS ON THEM.  BUT EVEN THEN IT IS RESTRICTED.  SECTION
14, THIRD, FOR EXAMPLE, MAKES UNLAWFUL RETALIATION AGAINST ANY SHIPPER
BY RESORT TO DISCRIMINATORY OR UNFAIR TACTICS BECAUSE A SHIPPER HAS
PATRONIZED ANOTHER CARRIER.  AND IT WOULD SEEM PLAIN THAT WHEN A
SHIPPER IS CHARGED ONE RATE IF HE GIVES THE CONFERENCE A MONOPOLY OF
HIS BUSINESS AND ANOTHER AND HIGHER RATE IF THE SHIPPER USES A CARRIER
NOT A MEMBER OF THE CONFERENCE, THE SHIPPER IS BEING RETALIATED AGAINST
FOR SHOPPING AROUND AMONG CARRIERS. 

PETITIONERS, THEREFORE, OPERATE OUTSIDE THE LAW NOT ONLY BECAUSE THEY
HAVE FAILED TO SUBMIT THEIR SCHEDULE OF RATES TO THE BOARD BUT ALSO
BECAUSE THE RATES ADOPTED WOULD, IF APPROVED, BE ILLEGAL.  (FN2)  THE
STEAMSHIP COMPANIES, THEREFORE, FLOUT THE LAW AS PLAINLY AS IF THEY
USED RATES THAT HAD BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE BOARD.  IN EITHER CASE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST NEEDS PROTECTION IF THE SHERMAN ACT IS TO BE ENFORCED -
WHETHER IT BE REPRESENTED IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR, AS HERE, IN A
CIVIL PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MUST COMMENCE AT THIS
POINT, UNLESS WE ARE TO AMEND THE ACT BY GRANTING AN ANTI-TRUST
EXEMPTION TO RATE FIXING NOT ONLY WHEN THE RATES ARE FILED BY THE
COMPANIES AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD BUT ALSO WHEN THEY ARE NOT FILED AT
ALL OR ARE RATES WHICH, IF FILED, COULD NOT BE APPROVED.  I WOULD READ
THE ACT AS WRITTEN AND REQUIRE THE STEAMSHIP COMPANIES TO OBTAIN THE
ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION IN THE PRECISE WAY CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED. 

FN1  THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY SEC. 22 OF THE SHIPPING ACT IS FOR "ANY
VIOLATION OF THIS ACT."  THE CHARGE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

FN2  THERE IS LESS ROOM FOR EXPERTISE WHERE THE RATES USED BY THE
STEAMSHIP COMPANIES ARE UNFILED OR UNLAWFUL RATES.  CF. U.S. NAVIGATION
CO. V. CUNARD S.S. CO., 284 U.S. 474
..END :






















HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY 342 U.S. 580 


NO. 43.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1952.  - 187 F.2D
137, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940, SO FAR AS IT AUTHORIZES THE
DEPORTATION OF A LEGALLY RESIDENT ALIEN BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE
COMMUNIST PARTY, EVEN THOUGH SUCH MEMBERSHIP TERMINATED BEFORE
ENACTMENT OF THE ACT, WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 581-596. 

(A)  THE ACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE ALIEN OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 584-591. 

(1)  THE POWER TO DEPORT ALIENS IS INHERENT IN EVERY SOVEREIGN
STATE.  PP. 587-588. 

(2)  THE POLICY TOWARD ALIENS IS SO EXCLUSIVELY ENTRUSTED TO THE
POLITICAL BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT AS TO BE LARGELY IMMUNE FROM
JUDICIAL INQUIRY OR INTERFERENCE; AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE POWER
HAS BEEN SO UNREASONABLY OR HARSHLY EXERCISED BY CONGRESS IN THIS ACT
AS TO WARRANT JUDICIAL INTEREFERNCE.  PP. 588-590. 

(3)  THE FACT THAT THE ACT INFLICTS SEVERE HARDSHIP ON THE
INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED DOES NOT RENDER IT VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  PP. 590-591. 

(B)  THE ACT DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE ALIENS' FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  PP. 591-592. 

(C)  THE ACT DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE PROVISION OF ART. I, SEC. 9 OF
THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDDING EX POST FACTO LAWS.  PP. 593-596. 

2.  PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT ARE
NOT MANDATORY AS TO PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE INSTITUTED BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT.  P. 583, N. 4. 

3.  ONE WHO CONSENTED TO THE SAME INDIVIDUAL ACTING BOTH AS PRESIDING
OFFICER AND EXAMINING OFFICER IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IS WITHOUT
STANDING, ON JUDICIAL REVIEW, TO RAISE THE OBJECTION THAT HE WAS
THEREBY DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  P. 583, N. 4. 

HARISIADES V. SHAUGHNESSY, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 206, MASCITTI V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA; AND NO. 264, COLEMAN V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.,
ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

THE CASES ARE STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, PP. 581-584.  THE
JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED, P. 596. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IN THESE THREE CASES IS WHETHER THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY DEPORT A LEGALLY RESIDENT ALIEN BECAUSE OF
MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY WHICH TERMINATED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF
THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT, 1940.  (FN1) 

HARISIADES, A GREEK NATIONAL, ACCOMPANIED HIS FATHER TO THE UNITED
STATES IN 1916, WHEN THIRTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND HAS RESIDED HERE
SINCE.  HE HAS TAKEN A WIFE AND SIRED TWO CHILDREN, ALL CITIZENS.   HE
JOINED THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN 1925, WHEN IT WAS KNOWN AS THE WORKERS
PARTY, AND SERVED AS AN ORGANIZER, BRANCH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN,
SECRETARY OF ITS GREEK BUREAU, AND EDITOR OF ITS PAPER "EMPROS."  THE
PARTY DISCONTINUED HIS MEMBERSHIP, ALONG WITH THAT OF OTHER ALIENS, IN
1939, BUT HE HAS CONTINUED ASSOCIATION WITH MEMBERS.  HE WAS FAMILIAR
WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND SAYS HE
STILL BELIEVES IN THEM.  HE DISCLAIMS PERSONAL BELIEF IN USE OF FORCE
AND VIOLENCE AND ASSERTS THAT THE PARTY FAVORED THEIR USE ONLY IN
DEFENSE.  A WARRANT FOR HIS DEPORTATION BECAUSE OF HIS MEMBERSHIP WAS
ISSUED IN 1930 BUT WAS NOT SERVED UNTIL 1946.  THE DELAY WAS DUE TO
INABILITY TO LOCATE HIM BECAUSE OF HIS USE OF A NUMBER OF ALIASES. 
AFTER HEARINGS, HE WAS ORDERED DEPORTED ON THE GROUNDS THAT AFTER ENTRY
HE HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION WHICH ADVOCATES OVERTHROW OF
THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE AND DISTRIBUTES PRINTED MATTER SO
ADVOCATING.  HE SOUGHT RELEASE BY HABEAS CORPUS, WHICH WAS DENIED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT.  (FN2)  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED.  (FN3) 

MASCITTI, A CITIZEN OF ITALY, CAME TO THIS COUNTRY IN 1920, AT THE
AGE OF SIXTEEN.  HE MARRIED A RESIDENT ALIEN AND HAS ONE AMERICAN-BORN
CHILD.  HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE YOUNG WORKERS PARTY, THE WORKERS PARTY
AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY BETWEEN 1923 AND 1929.  HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT
HE KNEW THE PARTY ADVOCATED A PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP, TO BE
ESTABLISHED BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IF THE CAPITALIST CLASS RESISTED.  HE
HEARD SOME SPEAKERS ADVOCATE VIOLENCE, IN WHICH HE SAYS HE DID NOT
PERSONALLY BELIEVE, AND HE WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO THE PARTY POLICY.  HE
RESIGNED IN 1929, APPARENTLY BECAUSE HE LOST SYMPATHY WITH OR INTEREST
IN THE PARTY.  A WARRANT FOR HIS DEPORTATION ISSUED AND WAS SERVED IN
1946.  AFTER THE USUAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS HE WAS ORDERED DEPORTED
ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS HARISIADES.  HE SOUGHT RELIEF BY DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT OPINION BY A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  HIS CASE COMES TO THIS COURT BY
DIRECT APPEAL. 

MRS. COLEMAN, A NATIVE OF RUSSIA, WAS ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES
IN 1914, WHEN THIRTEEN YEARS OF AGE.  SHE MARRIED AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
AND HAS THREE CHILDREN, CITIZENS BY BIRTH.  SHE ADMITS BEING A MEMBER
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY FOR ABOUT A YEAR, BEGINNING IN 1919, AND AGAIN
FROM 1928 TO 1930, AND AGAIN FROM 1936 TO 1937 OR 1938.  SHE HELD NO
OFFICE AND HER ACTIVITIES WERE NOT SIGNIFICANT.  SHE DISAVOWED MUCH
KNOWLEDGE OF PARTY PRINCIPLES AND PROGRAM, CLAIMING SHE JOINED EACH
TIME BECAUSE OF SOME INJUSTICE THE PARTY WAS THEN FIGHTING.  THE
REASONS SHE GIVES FOR LEAVING THE PARTY ARE HER HEALTH AND THE PARTY'S
DISCONTINUANCE OF ALIEN MEMBERSHIPS.  SHE HAS BEEN ORDERED DEPORTED
BECAUSE AFTER ENTRY SHE BECAME A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  SHE SOUGHT AN
INJUNCTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS.   RELIEF WAS
DENIED, WITHOUT OPINION, BY THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA AND HER CASE ALSO COMES HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL. 

VALIDITY OF THE HEARING PROCEDURES IS QUESTIONED FOR NONCOMPLIANCE
WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, WHICH WE THINK IS HERE
INAPPLICABLE,  (FN4)  ADMITTEDLY, EACH OF THESE DEPORTATIONS IS
AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED BY THE LETTER, SPIRIT AND INTENTION OF THE
STATUTE.  BUT THE ACT IS ASSAILED ON THREE GROUNDS:  (1) THAT IT
DEPRIVES THE ALIENS OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; (2) THAT IT ABRIDGES THEIR FREEDOMS OF SPEECH
AND ASSEMBLY IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT; AND (3) THAT IT
IS AN EX POST FACTO LAW WHICH CONGRESS IS FORBIDDEN TO PASS BY ART. I,
SEC. 9, CL. 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

WE HAVE IN EACH CASE A FINDING, APPROVED BY THE COURT BELOW, THAT THE
COMMUNIST PARTY DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ALIEN'S MEMBERSHIP TAUGHT AND
ADVOCATED OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE.  THOSE FINDINGS ARE NOT QUESTIONED HERE. 

                                        I. 

THESE ALIENS ASK US TO FORBID THEIR EXPULSION BY A DEPARTURE FROM THE
LONG-ACCEPTED APPLICATION TO SUCH CASES OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
PROVISION THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THEIR BASIC CONTENTION IS THAT ADMISSION
FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE CONFERS A "VESTED RIGHT" ON THE ALIEN, EQUAL TO
THAT OF THE CITIZEN, TO REMAIN WITHIN THE COUNTRY, AND THAT THE ALIEN
IS ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IN THAT MATTER TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS THE CITIZEN.  THEIR SECOND LINE OF DEFENSE IS THAT IF ANY
POWER TO DEPORT DOMICILED ALIENS EXISTS IT IS SO DISPERSED THAT THE
JUDICIARY MUST CONCUR IN THE GROUNDS FOR ITS EXERCISE TO THE EXTENT OF
FINDING THEM REASONABLE.  THE ARGUMENT GOES ON TO THE CONTENTION THAT
THE GROUNDS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT OF 1940 BEAR NO REASONABLE RELATION
TO PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CONCLUDES THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE DECLARED INVALID.  ADMITTEDLY THESE
PROPOSITIONS ARE NOT FOUNDED IN PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT. 

FOR OVER THIRTY YEARS EACH OF THESE ALIENS HAS ENJOYED SUCH
ADVANTAGES AS ACCRUE FROM RESIDENCE HERE WITHOUT RENOUNCING HIS FOREIGN
ALLEGIANCE OR FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING ADHERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION HE
NOW INVOKES.  EACH WAS ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES, UPON PASSING
FORMIDABLE EXCLUSIONARY HURDLES, IN THE HOPE THAT, AFTER WHAT MAY BE
CALLED A PROBATIONARY PERIOD, HE WOULD DESIRE AND BE FOUND DESIRABLE
FOR CITIZENSHIP.  EACH HAS BEEN OFFERED NATURALIZATION, WITH ALL OF THE
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF CITIZENSHIP, CONDITIONED ONLY UPON OPEN AND
HONEST ASSUMPTION OF UNDIVIDED ALLEGIANCE TO OUR GOVERNMENT.  (FN5)
BUT ACCEPTANCE WAS AND IS NOT COMPULSORY.  EACH HAS BEEN PERMITTED TO
PROLONG HIS ORIGINAL NATIONALITY INDEFINITELY. 

SO LONG AS ONE THUS PERPETUATES A DUAL STATUS AS AN AMERICAN
INHABITANT BUT FOREIGN CITIZEN, HE MAY DERIVE ADVANTAGES FROM TWO
SOURCES OF LAW - AMERICAN AND INTERNATIONAL.  HE MAY CLAIM PROTECTION
AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT UNAVAILABLE TO THE CITIZEN.  AS AN ALIEN HE
RETAINS A CLAIM UPON THE STATE OF HIS CITIZENSHIP TO DIPLOMATIC
INTERVENTION ON HIS BEHALF, A PATRONAGE OFTEN OF CONSIDERABLE VALUE. 
THE STATE OF ORIGIN OF EACH OF THESE ALIENS COULD PRESENTLY ENTER
DIPLOMATIC REMONSTRANCE AGAINST THESE DEPORTATIONS IF THEY WERE
INCONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE PREVAILING CUSTOM AMONG
NATIONS OR THEIR OWN PRACTICES. 

THE ALIEN RETAINS IMMUNITIES FROM BURDENS WHICH THE CITIZEN MUST
SHOULDER.  BY WITHHOLDING HIS ALLEGIANCE FROM THE UNITED STATES, HE
LEAVES OUTSTANDING A FOREIGN CALL ON HIS LOYALTIES WHICH INTERNATIONAL
LAW NOT ONLY PERMITS OUR GOVERNMENT TO RECOGNIZE BUT COMMANDS IT TO
RESPECT.  IN DEFERENCE TO IT CERTAIN DISPENSATIONS FROM CONSCRIPTION
FOR ANY MILITARY SERVICE HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOREIGN NATIONALS.  (FN6)
THEY CANNOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH OUR INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS, BE
COMPELLED "TO TAKE PART IN THE OPERATIONS OF WAR DIRECTED AGAINST THEIR
OWN COUNTRY."  (FN7)  IN ADDITION TO SUCH GENERAL IMMUNITIES THEY MAY
ENJOY PARTICULAR TREATY PRIVILEGES.  (FN8) 

UNDER OUR LAW, THE ALIEN IN SEVERAL RESPECTS STANDS ON AN EQUAL
FOOTING WITH CITIZENS, (FN9) BUT IN OTHERS HAS NEVER BEEN CONCEDED
LEGAL PARITY WITH THE CITIZEN.  (FN10)  MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO PROTRACT
THIS AMBIGUOUS STATUS WITHIN THE COUNTRY IS NOT HIS RIGHT BUT IS A
MATTER OF PERMISSION AND TOLERANCE.  THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO
TERMINATE ITS HOSPITALITY HAS BEEN ASSERTED AND SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT
SINCE THE QUESTION FIRST AROSE.  (FN11) 

WAR, OF COURSE, IS THE MOST USUAL OCCASION FOR EXTENSIVE RESORT TO
THE POWER.  THOUGH THE RESIDENT ALIEN MAY BE PERSONALLY LOYAL TO THE
UNITED STATES, IF HIS NATION BECOMES OUR ENEMY HIS ALLEGIANCE PREVAILS
OVER HIS PERSONAL PREFERENCE AND MAKES HIM ALSO OUR EMEMY, LIABLE TO
EXPULSION OR INTERNMENT, (FN12) AND HIS PROPERTY BECOMES SUBJECT TO
SEIZURE AND PERHAPS CONFISCATION.  (FN13) BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE WAR
TO BRING THE POWER OF DEPORTATION INTO EXISTENCE OR TO AUTHORIZE ITS
EXERCISE.  CONGRESSIONAL APPREHENSION OF FOREIGN OR INTERNAL DANGERS
SHORT OF WAR MAY LEAD TO ITS USE.  SO LONG AS THE ALIEN ELECTS TO
CONTINUE THE AMBIGUITY OF HIS ALLEGIANCE HIS DOMICILE HERE IS HELD BY A
PRECARIOUS TENURE. 

THAT ALIENS REMAIN VULNERABLE TO EXPULSION AFTER LONG RESIDENCE IS A
PRACTICE THAT BRISTLES WITH SEVERITIES.  BUT IT IS A WEAPON OF DEFENSE
AND REPRISAL CONFIRMED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A POWER INHERENT IN
EVERY SOVEREIGN STATE.  (FN14)  SUCH IS THE TRADITIONAL POWER OF THE
NATION OVER THE ALIEN AND WE LEAVE THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT AS WE FIND
IT. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE ALTERNATIVE DEFENSE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE - THAT, GRANTING THE POWER, IT IS SO UNREASONABLY AND HARSHLY
EXERCISED BY THIS ENACTMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT THE ACT BEFORE US STANDS OUT AS AN EXTREME
APPLICATION OF THE EXPULSION POWER.  THERE IS NO DENYING THAT AS WORLD
CONVULSIONS HAVE DRIVEN US TOWARD A CLOSED SOCIETY THE EXPULSION POWER
HAS BEEN EXERCISED WITH INCREASING SEVERITY, MANIFEST IN MULTIPLICATION
OF GROUNDS FOR DEPORTATION, IN EXPANDING THE SUBJECT CLASSES FROM
ILLEGAL ENTRANTS TO LEGAL RESIDENTS, AND IN GREATLY LENGTHENING THE
PERIOD OF RESIDENCE AFTER WHICH ONE MAY BE EXPELLED.  (FN15)  THIS IS
SAID TO HAVE REACHED A POINT WHERE IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO CALL
A HALT UPON THE POLITICAL BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT ANY POLICY TOWARD ALIENS IS VITALLY
AND INTRICATELY INTERWOVEN WITH CONTEMPORANEOUS POLICIES IN REGARD TO
THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, THE WAR POWER, AND THE MAINTENANCE OF
A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  SUCH MATTERS ARE SO EXCLUSIVELY
ENTRUSTED TO THE POLITICAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AS TO BE LARGELY
IMMUNE FROM JUDICIAL INQUIRY OR INTERFERENCE.  (FN16) 

THESE RESTRAINTS UPON THE JUDICIARY, OCCASIONED BY DIFFERENT EVENTS,
DO NOT CONTROL TODAY'S DECISION BUT THEY ARE PERTINENT.  IT IS NOT
NECESSARY AND PROBABLY NOT POSSIBLE TO DELINEATE A FIXED AND PRECISE
LINE OF SEPARATION IN THESE MATTERS BETWEEN POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL
POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  CERTAINLY, HOWEVER, NOTHING IN THE
STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT OR THE TEXT OF OUR CONSTITUTION WOULD
WARRANT JUDICIAL REVIEW BY STANDARDS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE US TO EQUATE
OUR POLITICAL JUDGMENT WITH THAT OF CONGRESS. 

UNDER THE CONDITIONS WHICH PRODUCED THIS ACT, CAN WE DECLARE THAT
CONGRESSIONAL ALARM ABOUT A COALITION OF COMMUNIST POWER WITHOUT AND
COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IS EITHER A FANTASY OR A
PRETENSE?  THIS ACT WAS APPROVED BY PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT JUNE 28, 1940,
WHEN A WORLD WAR WAS THREATENING TO INVOLVE US, AS SOON IT DID. 
COMMUNISTS IN THE UNITED STATES WERE EXERTING EVERY EFFORT TO DEFEAT
AND DELAY OUR PREPARATIONS.  CERTAINLY NO RESPONSIBLE AMERICAN WOULD
SAY THAT THERE WERE THEN OR ARE NOW NO POSSIBLE GROUNDS ON WHICH
CONGRESS MIGHT BELIEVE THAT COMMUNISTS IN OUR MIDST ARE INIMICAL TO OUR
SECURITY. 

CONGRESS RECEIVED EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT HERE HAS BEEN
HEAVILY LADEN WITH ALIENS AND THAT SOVIET CONTROL OF THE AMERICAN
COMMUNIST PARTY HAS BEEN LARGELY THROUGH ALIEN COMMUNISTS.  IT WOULD BE
EASY FOR THOSE OF US WHO DO NOT HAVE SECURITY RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY
THAT THOSE WHO DO ARE TAKING COMMUNISM TOO SERIOUSLY AND OVERESTIMATING
ITS DANGER.  BUT WE HAVE AN ACT OF ONE CONGRESS WHICH, FOR A DECADE,
SUBSEQUENT CONGRESSES HAVE NEVER REPEALED BUT HAVE STRENGTHENED AND
EXTENDED.  WE, IN OUR PRIVATE OPINIONS, NEED NOT CONCUR IN CONGRESS'
POLICIES TO HOLD ITS ENACTMENTS CONSTITUTIONAL.  JUDICIALLY WE MUST
TOLERATE WHAT PERSONALLY WE MAY REGARD AS A LEGISLATIVE MISTAKE. 

WE ARE URGED, BECAUSE THE POLICY INFLICTS SEVERE AND UNDOUBTED
HARDSHIP ON AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS, TO FIND A RESTRAINT IN THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  BUT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT SHIELD THE CITIZEN
FROM CONSCRIPTION AND THE CONSEQUENT CALAMITY OF BEING SEPARATED FROM
FAMILY, FRIENDS, HOME AND BUSINESS WHILE HE IS TRANSPORTED TO FOREIGN
LANDS TO STEM THE TIDE OF COMMUNISM.  IF COMMUNIST AGGRESSION CREATES
SUCH HARDSHIPS FOR LOYAL CITIZENS, IT IS HARD TO FIND JUSTIFICATION FOR
HOLDING THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT ITS HARDSHIPS MUST BE
SPARED THE COMMUNIST ALIEN.  WHEN CITIZENS RAISED THE CONSTITUTION AS A
SHIELD AGAINST EXPULSION FROM THEIR HOMES AND PLACES OF BUSINESS, THE
COURT REFUSED TO FIND HARDSHIP A CAUSE FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION. 
(FN17)    WE THINK THAT, IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE WORLD, IT WOULD BE
RASH AND IRRESPONSIBLE TO REINTERPRET OUR FUNDAMENTAL LAW TO DENY OR
QUALIFY THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER OF DEPORTATION.  HOWEVER DESIRABLE WORLD
WIDE AMELIORATION OF THE LOT OF ALIENS, WE THINK IT IS PECULIARLY A
SUBJECT FOR INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY.  IT SHOULD NOT BE INITIATED BY
JUDICIAL DECISION WHICH CAN ONLY DEPRIVE OUR OWN GOVERNMENT OF A POWER
OF DEFENSE AND REPRISAL WITHOUT OBTAINING FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS ABROAD
ANY RECIPROCAL PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES.  REFORM IN THIS FIELD MUST BE
ENTRUSTED TO THE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT IN CONTROL OF OUR
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND TREATY-MAKING POWERS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE ACT IS NOT INVALID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 
THESE ALIENS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL RELIEF UNLESS SOME OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION HAS BEEN TRANSGRESSED, TO WHICH INQUIRY WE
TURN. 

                                       II. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS INVOKED AS A BARRIER AGAINST THE ENACTMENT. 
THE CLAIM IS THAT IN JOINING AN ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE THE ALIEN HAS MERELY EXERCISED
FREEDOMS OF SPEECH, PRESS AND ASSEMBLY WHICH THAT AMENDMENT GUARANTEES
TO HIM. 

THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT ALLOWS CONGRESS TO MAKE NO
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADVOCATING CHANGE IN THE EXISTING ORDER BY LAWFUL
ELECTIVE PROCESSES AND ADVOCATING CHANGE BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, THAT
FREEDOM FOR THE ONE INCLUDES FREEDOM FOR THE OTHER, AND THAT WHEN
TEACHING OF VIOLENCE IS DENIED SO IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 

OUR CONSTITUTION SOUGHT TO LEAVE NO EXCUSE FOR VIOLENT ATTACK ON THE
STATUS QUO BY PROVIDING A LEGAL ALTERNATIVE - ATTACK BY BALLOT.  TO ARM
ALL MEN FOR ORDERLY CHANGE, THE CONSTITUTION PUT IN THEIR HANDS A RIGHT
TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTORATE BY PRESS, SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.  THIS MEANS
FREEDOM TO ADVOCATE OR PROMOTE COMMUNISM BY MEANS OF THE BALLOT BOX,
BUT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PRACTICE OR INCITEMENT OF VIOLENCE. 
(FN18) 

TRUE, IT OFTEN IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER AMBIGUOUS SPEECH IS
ADVOCACY OF POLITICAL METHODS OR SUBTLY SHADES INTO A METHODICAL BUT
PRUDENT INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE.  COMMUNIST GOVERNMENTS AVOID THE
INQUIRY BY SUPPRESSING EVERYTHING DISTASTEFUL.  SOME WOULD HAVE US
AVOID THE DIFFICULTY BY GOING TO THE OPPOSITE EXTREME OF PERMITTING
INCITEMENT TO VIOLENT OVERTHROW AT LEAST UNLESS IT SEEMS CERTAIN TO
SUCCEED IMMEDIATELY.  WE APPREHEND THAT THE CONSTITUTION ENJOINS UPON
US THE DUTY, HOWEVER DIFFICULT, OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TWO. 
DIFFERENT FORMULAE HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS AND THE
TEST APPLICABLE TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAS BEEN STATED TOO RECENTLY TO
MAKE FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME PROFITABLE.  (FN19)  WE THINK THE
FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PREVENT THE DEPORTATION OF THESE ALIENS. 

       III. 

THE REMAINING CLAIM IS THAT THIS ACT CONFLICTS WITH ART. I, SEC. 9,
OF THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDDING EX POST FACTO ENACTMENTS.  AN IMPRESSION
OF RETROACTIVITY RESULTS FROM READING AS A NEW AND ISOLATED ENACTMENT
WHAT IS ACTUALLY A CONTINUATION OF PRIOR LEGISLATION. 

DURING ALL THE YEARS SINCE 1920 CONGRESS HAS MAINTAINED A STANDING
ADMONITION TO ALIENS, ON PAIN OF DEPORTATION, NOT TO BECOME MEMBERS OF
ANY ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, A CATEGORY REPEATEDLY HELD TO INCLUDE
THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  THESE ALIENS VIOLATED THAT PROHIBITION AND
INCURRED LIABILITY TO DEPORTATION.  THEY WERE NOT CAUGHT UNAWARES BY A
CHANGE OF LAW.  THERE CAN BE NO CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE NOT
ADEQUATELY FOREWARNED BOTH THAT THEIR CONDUCT WAS PROHIBITED AND OF ITS
CONSEQUENCES. 

IN 1939, THIS COURT DECIDED KESSLER V. STRECKER, 307 U.S. 22, IN
WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT CONGRESS, IN THE STATUTE AS IT THEN STOOD, HAD
NOT CLEARLY EXPRESSED AN INTENT THAT COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERSHIP
REMAINED CAUSE FOR DEPORTATION AFTER IT CEASED.  (FN20)  THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EXPRESSION ONLY CONTEMPORANEOUS
MEMBERSHIP WOULD AUTHORIZE DEPORTATION. 

THE REACTION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY WAS TO DROP ALIENS FROM
MEMBERSHIP, AT LEAST IN FORM, IN ORDER TO IMMUNIZE THEM FROM THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR PARTY MEMBERSHIP. 

THE REACTION OF CONGRESS WAS THAT THE COURT HAD MISUNDERSTOOD ITS
LEGISLATION.  IN THE ACT HERE BEFORE US IT SUPPLIED UNMISTAKABLE
LANGUAGE THAT PAST VIOLATORS OF ITS PROHIBITIONS CONTINUED TO BE
DEPORTABLE IN SPITE OF RESIGNATION OR EXPULSION FROM THE PARTY.  IT
REGARDED THE FACT THAT AN ALIEN DEFIED OUR LAWS TO JOIN THE COMMUNIST
PARTY AS AN INDICATION THAT HE HAD DEVELOPED LITTLE COMPREHENSION OF
THE PRINCIPLES OR PRACTICE OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT OR ELSE WAS
UNWILLING TO ABIDE BY THEM. 

HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE ACT WERE FOUND TO BE RETROACTIVE, TO STRIKE IT
DOWN WOULD REQUIRE US TO OVERRULE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EX POST FACTO
PROVISION WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT FROM EARLIEST TIMES. 
IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED THAT THAT WHICH IT FORBIDS IS PENAL
LEGISLATION WHICH IMPOSES OR INCREASES CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT FOR CONDUCT
LAWFUL PREVIOUS TO ITS ENACTMENT.  (FN21) DEPORTATION, HOWEVER SEVERE
ITS CONSEQUENCES, HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CLASSIFIED AS A CIVIL RATHER
THAN A CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  (FN22)  BOTH OF THESE DOCTRINES AS ORIGINAL
PROPOSALS MIGHT BE DEBATABLE, BUT BOTH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CLOSED FOR
MANY YEARS AND A BODY OF STATUTE AND DECISIONAL LAW HAS BEEN BUILT UPON
THEM.  IN BUGAJEWITZ V. ADAMS, 228 U.S. 585, 591, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES,
FOR THE COURT, SAID:  "IT IS THOROUGHLY ESTABLISHED THAT CONGRESS HAS
POWER TO ORDER THE DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WHOSE PRESENCE IN THE COUNTRY
IT DEEMS HURTFUL.  THE DETERMINATION BY FACTS THAT MIGHT CONSTITUTE A
CRIME UNDER LOCAL LAW IS NOT A CONVICTION OF CRIME, NOR IS THE
DEPORTATION A PUNISHMENT; IT IS SIMPLY A REFUSAL BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
HARBOR PERSONS WHOM IT DOES NOT WANT.  THE COINCIDENCE OF THE LOCAL
PENAL LAW WITH THE POLICY OF CONGRESS IS AN ACCIDENT  ...  .  THE
PROHIBITION OF EX POST FACTO LAWS IN ARTICLE I, SEC. 9, HAS NO
APPLICATION  ...  AND WITH REGARD TO THE PETITIONER IT IS NOT NECESSARY
TO CONSTRUE THE STATUTE AS HAVING ANY RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT."  LATER,
THE COURT SAID, "IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT DEPORTATION, WHILE IT MAY BE
BURDENSOME AND SEVERE FOR THE ALIEN, IS NOT A PUNISHMENT  ...  .  THE
INHIBITION AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF AN EX POST FACTO LAW BY CONGRESS IN
SEC. 9 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES ONLY TO CRIMINAL LAWS
...  AND NOT TO A DEPORTATION ACT LIKE THIS  ...  ."  MAHLER V. EBY,
264 U.S. 32, 39. 

IT IS URGED AGAINST THE FOREGOING OPINIONS THAT IN A FEW CASES THE EX
POST FACTO PROHIBITION HAD BEEN APPLIED TO WHAT APPEARED TO BE CIVIL
DISABILITIES.  FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87; CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4
WALL.  277; EX PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333; PIERCE V. CARSKADON, 16
WALL.  234.  THE COURT HAS SINCE EXPLAINED THAT THOSE CASES PROCEEDED
FROM THE VIEW THAT NOVEL DISABILITIES THERE IMPOSED UPON CITIZENS WERE
REALLY CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR WHICH CIVIL FORM WAS A DISGUISE.  BURGESS
V. SALMON, 97 U.S. 381, 385.  THOSE CASES WERE KNOWN TO THE JUSTICES
WHO PROMULGATED THE ABOVE-QUOTED OPINIONS BUT HAVE NEVER BEEN
CONSIDERED TO GOVERN DEPORTATION.  THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AFFORD NO
BASIS FOR RECONSIDERING OR MODIFYING THE LONG-SETTLED DOCTRINE. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THIS POLICY ALLOWS NO ESCAPE BY REFORMATION.  WE
ARE URGED TO APPLY SOME DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT AND REDEMPTION.  CONGRESS
MIGHT WELL HAVE DONE SO, BUT IT IS NOT FOR THE JUDICIARY TO USURP THE
FUNCTION OF GRANTING ABSOLUTION OR PARDON.  WE CANNOT DO SO FOR
DEPORTABLE EX-CONVICTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE SERVED A TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT CALCULATED TO BRING ABOUT THEIR REFORMATION. 

WHEN THE COMMUNIST PARTY AS A MATTER OF PARTY STRATEGY FORMALLY
EXPELLED ALIEN MEMBERS EN MASSE, IT DESTROYED ANY SIGNIFICANCE THAT
DISCONTINUED MEMBERSHIP MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE AS INDICATION OF CHANGE OF
HEART BY THE INDIVIDUAL.  CONGRESS MAY HAVE BELIEVED THAT THE PARTY
TACTICS THREW UPON THE GOVERNMENT AN ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN IF IT
ATTEMPTED TO SEPARATE THOSE WHO SINCERELY RENOUNCED COMMUNIST
PRINCIPLES OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE FROM THOSE WHO LEFT THE PARTY THE
BETTER TO SERVE IT. CONGRESS, EXERCISING THE WIDE DISCRETION THAT IT
ALONE HAS IN THESE MATTERS, DECLINED TO ACCEPT THAT AS THE GOVERNMENT'S
BURDEN. 

WE FIND NONE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ACT WELL
FOUNDED.  THE JUDGMENTS ACCORDINGLY ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  54 STAT. 670, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 137. 

FN2  90 F. SUPP. 397. 

FN3  187 F.2D 137. 

FN4  PETITIONER HARISIADES AND APPELLANT COLEMAN CONTEND THAT THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM MUST BE NULLIFIED FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 237, 5
U.S.C. SEC. 1001 ET SEQ. HOWEVER, SEC. 12 OF THE ACT, 60 STAT. 244, 5
U.S.C. SEC. 1011, PROVIDES THAT "  ...  NO PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT SHALL
BE MANDATORY AS TO ANY AGENCY PROCEEDING INITIATED PRIOR TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF SUCH REQUIREMENT."  THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
HARISIADES AND COLEMAN WERE INSTITUTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ACT.  HARISIADES ALSO CONTENDS THAT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
ASIDE, HE WAS DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN THAT IN HIS 1946-1947
HEARINGS THE SAME INDIVIDUAL ACTED BOTH AS PRESIDING OFFICER AND
EXAMINING OFFICER.  HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE OFFICER HERE PERFORMED
BOTH FUNCTIONS WITH HARISIADES' CONSENT.  HE, THEREFORE, HAS NO
STANDING TO RAISE THE OBJECTION NOW. 

FN5  40 STAT. 548, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 732(A)(13), (16), (17),
(18), (19); 61 STAT. 122, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 735.  BUT A
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION IS SUBJECT TO REVOCATION ON THE GROUND OF
FRAUD OR OTHER ILLEGALITY IN THE PROCUREMENT.  54 STAT. 1158, 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 738; KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654. 

FN6  SEC. 2 OF THE SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT OF 1917, 40 STAT. 76, AS
AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP.  SEC. 202; SEC. 3 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 303;
SEC. 4(A) OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948, 62 STAT. 604, AS
AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 454(A).  CF. MOSER V. UNITED STATES, 341
U.S. 41. 

FN7  ARTICLE 23, 1907 HAGUE CONVENTION, RESPECTING THE LAWS AND
CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, 36 STAT. 2301-2302. 

FN8  BORCHARD, DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF CITIZENS ABROAD, 64. 

FN9  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION ASSURES HIM A LARGE
MEASURE OF EQUAL ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S.
356; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; HE MAY INVOKE THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS TO PROTECT HIS PERSONAL LIBERTY, NISHIMURA EKIU V. UNITED
STATES, 142 U.S. 651, 660; IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM HE MUST
BE ACCORDED THE PROTECTIONS OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS, WONG
WING V. UNITED STATES, 163 U.S. 228; AND, UNLESS HE IS AN ENEMY ALIEN,
HIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE TAKEN WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.  RUSSIAN
VOLUNTEER FLEET V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S.481. 

FN10  HE CANNOT STAND FOR ELECTION TO MANY PUBLIC OFFICES.  FOR
INSTANCE, ART. I, SEC. 2, CL. 2, SEC. 3, CL. 3, OF THE CONSTITUTION
RESPECTIVELY REQUIRE THAT CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE BE CITIZENS.  SEE BORCHARD, DIPLOMATIC
PROTECTION OF CITIZENS ABROAD, 63.   THE STATES, TO WHOM IS ENTRUSTED
THE AUTHORITY TO SET QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS, FOR MOST PURPOSES
REQUIRE CITIZENSHIP AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE VOTING FRANCHISE. 
THE ALIEN'S RIGHT TO TRAVEL TEMPORARILY OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES IS
SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO CITIZENS.  43 STAT. 158, AS
AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 210.  IF HE IS ARRESTED ON A CHARGE OF ENTERING
THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY, THE BURDEN IS HIS TO PROVE "HIS RIGHT TO ENTER
OR REMAIN" - NO PRESUMPTIONS ACCRUE IN HIS FAVOR BY HIS PRESENCE HERE. 
39 STAT. 889, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A). 

FN11  FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, 707, 711-714,
730; LEM MOON SING V. UNITED STATES, 158 U.S. 538, 545-546; LI SING V.
UNITED STATES, 180 U.S. 486, 494-495; FOK YUNG YO V. UNITED STATES, 185
U.S. 296, 302; THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86, 97; UNITED
STATES V. JU TOY, 198 U.S. 253, 261; ZAKONAITE V. WOLF, 226 U.S. 272,
275; TIACO V. FORBES, 228 U.S. 549, 556-557; BUGAJEWITZ V. ADAMS, 228
U.S. 585, 591. 

FN12  40 STAT. 531, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21. 

FN13  40 STAT. 411, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 2(C); 40 STAT. 415, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 6; 62 STAT. 1246, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 39; GUESSEFELDT V.
MCGRATH, 342 U.S. 308. 

FN14  "  ...  IN STRICT LAW, A STATE CAN EXPEL EVEN DOMICILED ALIENS
WITHOUT SO MUCH AS GIVING THE REASONS, THE REFUSAL OF THE EXPELLING
STATE TO SUPPLY THE REASONS FOR EXPULSION TO THE HOME STATE OF THE
EXPELLED ALIEN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ILLEGAL, BUT ONLY A VERY
UNFRIENDLY ACT."  1 OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW (3D ED., ROXBURGH,
1920), 498-502, AT 499.  BUT CF. 1 OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW (7TH
ED., LAUTERPACHT, 1948), 630-634, AT 631.  SEE ALSO 4 MOORE,
INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST, 67-96, CITING EXAMPLES; WHEATON'S
INTERNATIONAL LAW (6TH ED., KEITH, 1929), 210-211; FONG YUE TING V.
UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698. 

FN15  AN OPEN DOOR TO THE IMMIGRANT WAS THE EARLY FEDERAL POLICY.  IT
BEGAN TO CLOSE IN 1884 WHEN ORIENTALS WERE EXCLUDED.  23 STAT. 115. 
THEREAFTER, CONGRESS HAD INTERMITTENTLY ADDED TO THE EXCLUDED CLASSES,
AND AS REJECTIONS AT THE BORDER MULTIPLIED ILLEGAL ENTRIES INCREASED. 
TO COMBAT THESE, RECOURSE WAS HAD TO DEPORTATION IN THE ACT OF 1891, 26
STAT.  1086.  HOWEVER, THAT ACT COULD BE APPLIED TO AN ILLEGAL ENTRANT
ONLY WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER HIS ENTRY.  ALTHOUGH THAT TIME LIMITATION
WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED, 32 STAT. 1218; 34 STAT. 904-905, UNTIL AFTER
THE TURN OF THE CENTURY EXPULSION WAS USED ONLY AS AN AUXILIARY REMEDY
TO ENFORCE EXCLUSION.    CONGRESS, IN 1907, PROVIDED FOR DEPORTATION OF
LEGALLY RESIDENT ALIENS, BUT THE STATUTE REACHED ONLY WOMEN FOUND
ENGAGING IN PROSTITUTION, AND DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS WERE AUTHORIZED
ONLY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER ENTRY. 

FROM THOSE EARLY STEPS, THE POLICY HAS BEEN EXTENDED.  IN 1910, NEW
CLASSES OF RESIDENT ALIENS WERE LISTED FOR DEPORTATION, INCLUDING FOR
THE FIRST TIME POLITICAL OFFENDERS SUCH AS ANARCHISTS AND THOSE
BELIEVING IN OR ADVOCATING THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE.  36 STAT. 264.  IN 1917, ALIENS WHO WERE FOUND AFTER ENTRY TO
BE ADVOCATING ANARCHIST DOCTRINES OR THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE WERE MADE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION, A FIVE-YEAR TIME
LIMIT BEING RETAINED.  39 STAT. 889.  A YEAR LATER, DEPORTABILITY
BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP IN DESCRIBED SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS WAS
INTRODUCED.  40 STAT. 1012; 41 STAT. 1008.  WHEN THIS COURT, IN 1939,
HELD THAT THAT ACT REACHED ONLY ALIENS WHO WERE MEMBERS WHEN THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM WERE INSTITUTED, KESSLER V, STRECKER, 307 U.S.
22, CONGRESS PROMPTLY ENACTED THE STATUTE BEFORE US, MAKING DEPORTATION
MANDATORY FOR ALL ALIENS WHO AT ANY TIME PAST HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE
PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS.  IN SO DOING IT ALSO ELIMINATED THE TIME
LIMIT FOR INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS THEREUNDER.  ALIEN REGISTRATION
ACT, 1940, 54 STAT. 670, 673. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 319-322;
CHICAGO & SOUTHERN AIR LINES, INC. V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP., 333
U.S. 103, 111; U.S. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 4; LUTHER V. BORDEN, 7 HOW. 
1, 42; PACIFIC TELEPHONE CO. V. OREGON, 223 U.S.118; MARSHALL V. DYE,
231 U.S. 250.  IN RESPECT TO THE WAR POWER OVER EVEN CITIZENS, SEE
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 92; KOREMATSU V. UNITED
STATES, 323 U.S. 214, 217-218.  THAT ENGLISH COURTS ALSO REFUSE TO
REVIEW GROUNDS FOR DEPORTATION ORDERS APPEARS FROM REX V. HOME
SECRETARY; EX PARTE BRESSLER, 27 COX CR. CA. 655. 

FN17  HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81; KOREMATSU V. UNITED
STATES, 323 U.S. 214. 

FN18  DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494. 

FN19  IBID. 

FN20  40 STAT. 1012. 

FN21  CALDER V. BULL, 3 DALL.  386, 390; JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED
STATES, 225 U.S. 227, 242. 

FN22  FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, 730; BUGAJEWITZ
V. ADAMS, 228 U.S. 585, 591; BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S. 149, 154. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO RESHAPE A WORLD ORDER BASED ON
POLITICALLY SOVEREIGN STATES.  IN SUCH AN INTERNATIONAL ORDERING OF THE
WORLD A NATIONAL STATE IMPLIES A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP OF ONE BODY OF
PEOPLE, I.E., CITIZENS OF THAT STATE, WHEREBY THE CITIZENS OF EACH
STATE ARE ALIENS IN RELATION TO EVERY OTHER STATE.  EVER SINCE NATIONAL
STATES HAVE COME INTO BEING, THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO ENJOY THE
HOSPITALITY OF A STATE OF WHICH THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS HAS BEEN A MATTER
OF POLITICAL DETERMINATION BY EACH STATE.  (I PUT TO ONE SIDE THE
ODDITIES OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP.)  THOUGH AS A MATTER OF POLITICAL OUTLOOK
AND ECONOMIC NEED THIS COUNTRY HAS TRADITIONALLY WELCOMED ALIENS TO
COME TO ITS SHORES, IT HAS DONE SO EXCLUSIVELY AS A MATTER OF POLITICAL
OUTLOOK AND NATIONAL SELF-INTEREST.  THIS POLICY HAS BEEN A POLITICAL
POLICY, BELONGING TO THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT WHOLLY
OUTSIDE THE CONCERN AND THE COMPETENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. 

ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THIS POLICY CHANGED AND THE POLITICAL AND LAW
MAKING BRANCH OF THIS GOVERNMENT, THE CONGRESS, DECIDED TO RESTRICT THE
RIGHT OF IMMIGRATION ABOUT SEVENTY YEARS AGO, THIS COURT THEREUPON AND
EVER SINCE HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE DETERMINATION OF A SELECTIVE AND
EXCLUSIONARY IMMIGRATION POLICY WAS FOR THE CONGRESS AND NOT FOR THE
JUDICIARY.  THE CONDITIONS FOR ENTRY OF EVERY ALIEN, THE PARTICULAR
CLASSES OF ALIENS THAT SHALL BE DENIED ENTRY ALTOGETHER, THE BASIS FOR
DETERMINING SUCH CLASSIFICATION, THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE HOSPITALITY TO
ALIENS, THE GROUNDS ON WHICH SUCH DETERMINATION SHALL BE BASED, HAVE
BEEN RECOGNIZED AS MATTERS SOLELY FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONGRESS AND WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO CONTROL. 

THE COURT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS FOR
THESE MATTERS HAS BEEN MADE POSSIBLE BY JUSTICES WHOSE CULTURAL
OUTLOOK, WHOSE BREADTH OF VIEW AND ROBUST TOLERANCE WERE NOT EXCEEDED
BY THOSE OF JEFFERSON.  IN THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS, LIBERTARIANS LIKE MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DOUBTLESS DISAPPROVED OF SOME
OF THESE POLICIES, DEPARTURES AS THEY WERE FROM THE BEST TRADITIONS OF
THIS COUNTRY AND BASED AS THEY HAVE BEEN IN PART ON DISCREDITED RACIAL
THEORIES OR MANIPULATION OF FIGURES IN FORMULATING WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE
QUOTA SYSTEM.  BUT WHETHER IMMIGRATION LAWS HAVE BEEN CRUDE AND CRUEL,
WHETHER THEY MAY HAVE REFLECTED XENOPHOBIA IN GENERAL OR ANTI-SEMITISM
OR ANTI-CATHOLICISM, THE RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO CONGRESS.  COURTS DO
ENFORCE THE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY CONGRESS UPON OFFICIALS IN
ADMINISTERING IMMIGRATION LAWS, E.G., KWOCK JAN FAT V. WHITE, 253 U.S.
454, AND THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS MAY ENTAIL CERTAIN PROCEDURAL
OBSERVANCES.  E.G., NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276.  BUT THE
UNDERLYING POLICIES OF WHAT CLASSES OF ALIENS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ENTER
AND WHAT CLASSES OF ALIENS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO STAY, ARE FOR CONGRESS
EXCLUSIVELY TO DETERMINE EVEN THOUGH SUCH DETERMINATION MAY BE DEEMED
TO OFFEND AMERICAN TRADITIONS AND MAY, AS HAS BEEN THE CASE, JEOPARDIZE
PEACE. 

IN RECOGNIZING THIS POWER AND THIS RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS, ONE
DOES NOT IN THE REMOTEST DEGREE ALIGN ONESELF WITH FEARS UNWORTHY OF
THE AMERICAN SPIRIT OR WITH HOSTILITY TO THE BRACING AIR OF THE FREE
SPIRIT.  ONE MERELY RECOGNIZES THAT THE PLACE TO RESIST UNWISE OR CRUEL
LEGISLATION TOUCHING ALIENS IS THE CONGRESS, NOT THIS COURT. 

I, THEREFORE, JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION IN THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE BASES FOR SUSTAINING THIS ACT: 

(1)  A PERSON WHO WAS ONCE A COMMUNIST IS TAINTED FOR ALL TIME AND
FOREVER DANGEROUS TO OUR SOCIETY; OR: 

(2)  PUNISHMENT THROUGH BANISHMENT FROM THE COUNTRY MAY BE PLACED
UPON AN ALIEN NOT FOR WHAT HE DID, BUT FOR WHAT HIS POLITICAL VIEWS
ONCE WERE. 

EACH OF THESE IS FOREIGN TO OUR PHILOSOPHY.  WE REPUDIATE OUR
TRADITIONS OF TOLERANCE AND OUR ARTICLES OF FAITH BASED UPON THE BILL
OF RIGHTS WHEN WE BOW TO THEM BY SUSTAINING AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH
HAS THEM AS A FOUNDATION. 

THE VIEW THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEPORT ALIENS IS ABSOLUTE AND
MAY BE EXERCISED FOR ANY REASON WHICH CONGRESS DEEMS APPROPRIATE RESTS
ON FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, DECIDED IN 1893 BY A
SIX-TO-THREE VOTE.  THAT DECISION SEEMS TO ME TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WHICH WE HAVE DEVELOPED FOR THE
PROTECTION OF RESIDENT ALIENS.  WE HAVE LONG HELD THAT A RESIDENT ALIEN
IS A "PERSON" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS.  HE THEREFORE MAY NOT BE DEPRIVED EITHER BY THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT OR BY ANY STATE OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  NOR MAY HE BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS.  A STATE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO EXCLUDE AN ALIEN FROM THE LAUNDRY
BUSINESS BECAUSE HE WAS A CHINESE, (FN1) NOR DISCHARGE HIM FROM
EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A CITIZEN, (FN2) NOR DEPRIVE HIM OF THE
RIGHT TO FISH BECAUSE HE WAS A JAPANESE INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP. 
(FN3)  AN ALIEN'S PROPERTY (PROVIDED HE IS NOT AN ENEMY ALIEN), MAY NOT
BE TAKEN WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.  (FN4)  HE IS ENTITLED TO HABEAS
CORPUS TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF HIS RESTRAINT, (FN5) TO THE PROTECTION
OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS, (FN6) AND TO THE
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  (FN7) 

AN ALIEN, WHO IS ASSIMILATED IN OUR SOCIETY, IS TREATED AS A CITIZEN
SO FAR AS HIS PROPERTY AND HIS LIBERTY ARE CONCERNED.  HE CAN LIVE AND
WORK HERE AND RAISE A FAMILY, SECURE IN THE PERSONAL GUARANTEES EVERY
RESIDENT HAS AND SAFE FROM DISCRIMINATIONS THAT MIGHT BE LEVELED
AGAINST HIM BECAUSE HE WAS BORN ABROAD.  THOSE GUARANTEES OF LIBERTY
AND LIVELIHOOD ARE THE ESSENCE OF THE FREEDOM WHICH THIS COUNTRY FROM
THE BEGINNING HAS OFFERED THE PEOPLE OF ALL LANDS.  IF THOSE RIGHTS,
GREAT AS THEY ARE, HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, I THINK THE MORE
IMPORTANT ONE - THE RIGHT TO REMAIN HERE - HAS A LIKE DIGNITY. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXCLUDE, ADMIT, OR DEPORT ALIENS FLOWS FROM
SOVEREIGNTY ITSELF AND FROM THE POWER "TO ESTABLISH AN UNIFORM RULE OF
NATURALIZATION."  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 4.  THE POWER OF
DEPORTATION IS THEREFORE AN IMPLIED ONE.  THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY
IS AN EXPRESS ONE.  WHY THIS IMPLIED POWER SHOULD BE GIVEN PRIORITY
OVER THE EXPRESS GUARANTEE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT HAS NEVER BEEN
SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED.  MR. JUSTICE BREWER'S DISSENT IN FONG YUE TING
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP.  737-738, GROWS IN POWER WITH THE PASSING
YEARS:  "IT IS SAID THAT THE POWER HERE ASSERTED IS INHERENT IN
SOVEREIGNTY.  THIS DOCTRINE OF POWERS INHERENT IN SOVEREIGNTY IS ONE
BOTH INDEFINITE AND DANGEROUS.  WHERE ARE THE LIMITS TO SUCH POWERS TO
BE FOUND, AND BY WHOM ARE THEY TO BE PRONOUNCED?  IS IT WITHIN
LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY TO DECLARE THE LIMITS?  IF SO, THEN THE MERE
ASSERTION OF AN INHERENT POWER CREATES IT, AND DESPOTISM EXISTS.  MAY
THE COURTS ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES?  WHENCE DO THEY OBTAIN THE
AUTHORITY FOR THIS?  SHALL THEY LOOK TO THE PRACTICES OF OTHER NATIONS
TO ASCERTAIN THE LIMITS?  THE GOVERNMENTS OF OTHER NATIONS HAVE ELASTIC
POWERS - OURS IS FIXED AND BOUNDED BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION.  THE
EXPULSION OF A RACE MAY BE WITHIN THE INHERENT POWERS OF A DESPOTISM. 
HISTORY, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, WAS NOT DESTITUTE OF
EXAMPLES OF THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A POWER; AND ITS FRAMERS WERE FAMILIAR
WITH HISTORY, AND WISELY, AS IT SEEMS TO ME, THEY GAVE TO THIS
GOVERNMENT NO GENERAL POWER TO BANISH.  BANISHMENT MAY BE RESORTED TO
AS PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME; BUT AMONG THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE
AND NOT DELEGATED TO THE GOVERNMENT IS THAT OF DETERMINING WHETHER
WHOLE CLASSES IN OUR MIDST SHALL, FOR NO CRIME BUT THAT OF THEIR RACE
AND BIRTHPLACE, BE DRIVEN FROM OUR TERRITORY." 

THE RIGHT TO BE IMMUNE FROM ARBITRARY DECREES OF BANISHMENT CERTAINLY
MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT TO "LIBERTY" THAN THE CIVIL RIGHTS WHICH ALL
ALIENS ENJOY WHEN THEY RESIDE HERE.  UNLESS THEY ARE FREE FROM
ARBITRARY BANISHMENT, THE "LIBERTY" THEY ENJOY WHILE THEY LIVE HERE IS
INDEED ILLUSORY.  BANISHMENT IS PUNISHMENT IN THE PRACTICAL SENSE.  IT
MAY DEPRIVE A MAN AND HIS FAMILY OF ALL THAT MAKES LIFE WORTH WHILE. 
THOSE WHO HAVE THEIR ROOTS HERE HAVE AN IMPORTANT STAKE IN THIS
COUNTRY.  THEIR PLANS FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR HOPES FOR THEIR CHILDREN
ALL DEPEND ON THEIR RIGHT TO STAY.  IF THEY ARE UPROOTED AND SENT TO
LANDS NO LONGER KNOWN TO THEM, NO LONGER HOSPITABLE, THEY BECOME
DISPLACED, HOMELESS PEOPLE CONDEMNED TO BITTERNESS AND DESPAIR. 

THIS DRASTIC STEP MAY AT TIMES BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
NATIONAL INTEREST.  THERE MAY BE OCCASIONS WHEN THE CONTINUED PRESENCE
OF AN ALIEN, NO MATTER HOW LONG HE MAY HAVE BEEN HERE, WOULD BE HOSTILE
TO THE SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE NATION DUE TO THE NATURE OF HIS
CONDUCT.  BUT UNLESS SUCH CONDITION IS SHOWN, I WOULD STAY THE HAND OF
THE GOVERNMENT AND LET THOSE TO WHOM WE HAVE EXTENDED OUR HOSPITALITY
AND WHO HAVE BECOME MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITIES REMAIN HERE AND ENJOY
THE LIFE AND LIBERTY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT PROCEEDED BY THAT STANDARD.  IT HAS ORDERED THESE
ALIENS DEPORTED NOT FOR WHAT THEY ARE BUT FOR WHAT THEY ONCE WERE. 
PERHAPS A HEARING WOULD SHOW THAT THEY CONTINUE TO BE PEOPLE DANGEROUS
AND HOSTILE TO US.  BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF FORGIVENESS AND THE DOCTRINE
OF REDEMPTION ARE TOO DEEP IN OUR PHILOSOPHY TO ADMIT THAT THERE IS NO
RETURN FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ONCE ERRED. 

FN1  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356. 

FN2  TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33. 

FN3  TAKAHASHI V. FISH & GAME COMMISSION, 334 U.S. 410. 

FN4  RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 481. 

FN5  EKIU V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 651, 660. 

FN6  WONG WING V. UNITED STATES, 163 U.S. 228. 

FN7  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252. 
..END :









SACHER V. UNITED STATES 343 U.S.1 


NO. 201, OCT. TERM, 1950.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 10,
1952.  - 182 F.2D 416, AFFIRMED. 


1.  RULE 42(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ALLOWS A
TRIAL JUDGE, UPON THE OCCURRENCE IN HIS PRESENCE OF A CONTEMPT,
IMMEDIATELY AND SUMMARILY TO PUNISH IT, IF, IN HIS OPINION, DELAY WILL
PREJUDICE THE TRIAL.  IF HE BELIEVES THE EXIGENCIES OF THE TRIAL
REQUIRE THAT HE DEFER JUDGMENT UNTIL ITS COMPLETION, HE MAY DO SO
WITHOUT EXTINQUISHING HIS POWER.  P. 11. 

2.  DURING A TURBULENT NINE-MONTHS' TRIAL OF ELEVEN COMMUNIST PARTY
LEADERS ON CHARGES OF VIOLATING THE SMITH ACT, DEFENSE COUNSEL, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE AND IN THE FACE OF REPEATED WARNINGS FROM
HIM THAT THEIR CONDUCT WAS REGARDED AS CONTEMPTUOUS, PERSISTED IN A
COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT WAS HIGHLY CONTEMPTUOUS AND THAT TENDED TO
DISRUPT AND DELAY THE TRIAL AND POSSIBLY TO CAUSE A MISTRIAL.  UPON
RECEIVING THE VERDICT OF THE JURY AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL, THE
TRIAL JUDGE, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OR HEARING, IMMEDIATELY FILED A
CERTIFICATE UNDER RULE 42(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
SUMMARILY FINDING SUCH COUNSEL GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND
SENTENCING THEM TO IMPRISONMENT.  HELD:  THIS ACTION WAS WITHIN THE
POWER OF THE TRIAL JUDGE UNDER RULE 42(A).  PP. 3-11. 

(A)  THE WORD "SUMMARY" AS USED IN RULE 42(A) DOES NOT REFER TO THE
TIMING OF THE ACTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE OFFENSE BUT REFERS TO A
PROCEDURE WHICH DISPENSES WITH THE FORMALITY, DELAY AND DIGRESSION THAT
WOULD RESULT FROM THE ISSUANCE OF PROCESS, SERVICE OF COMPLAINT AND
ANSWER, HOLDING HEARINGS, TAKING EVIDENCE, LISTENING TO ARGUMENTS,
AWAITING BRIEFS, SUBMISSION OF FINDINGS, AND ALL THAT GOES WITH A
CONVENTIONAL COURT TRIAL.  P. 9. 

(B)  NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULE NOR THE REASONS FOR PERMITTING
STRAIGHTWAY EXERCISE OF SUMMARY POWER REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ACTION.  PP. 9
10. 

(C)  THE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION IS THE INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY OF
THE TRIAL PROCESS; AND, IF THE JUDGE DEEMS IMMEDIATE ACTION
INEXPEDIENT, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED DISCRETION TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE
TAKEN IN THIS CASE.  P. 10. 

3.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THIS COURT TO CONSIDER THE TRIAL JUDGE'S
CHARGE THAT PETITIONERS DELIBERATELY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO
IMPAIR HIS HEALTH, SINCE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THE JUDGMENT AMPLY
SUSTAINED WITHOUT THIS COUNT, THE SENTENCES RAN CONCURRENTLY, AND
REVERSAL ON ONE COUNT DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL ON THE OTHERS.  P. 11. 

4.  RULE 42(A) DOES NOT DENY A TRIAL JUDGE POWER SUMMARILY TO PUNISH
A CONTEMPT THAT IS PERSONAL TO HIMSELF, EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY
TO FORESTALL ABORTION OF THE TRIAL.  PP. 11-12. 

5.  THE SENTENCES IMPOSED IN THIS CASE NEED NOT INTIMIDATE LAWYERS IN
THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL DUTIES AS TRIAL COUNSEL
FOR THEY KNOW THAT FROM ANY SUMMARY CONVICTION UNDER RULE 42(A) THEY
HAVE AN APPEAL ON LAW AND FACT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  PP. 12-13. 

6.  IF ITS AID BE NEEDED, THIS COURT WILL UNHESITATINGLY PROTECT
COUNSEL IN FEARLESS, VIGOROUS AND EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE OF EVERY DUTY
PERTAINING TO THE OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF ANY PERSON
WHATSOEVER.  PP. 13-14. 

SACHER ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL IN DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S.
494, THE TRIAL COURT UNDER RULE 42(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, SUMMARILY ADJUDGED PETITIONERS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT WHILE
ACTING AS COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS DURING THE TRIAL AND SENTENCED
THEM TO IMPRISONMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED SOME
SPECIFICATIONS OF CONTEMPT BUT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCES. 
182 F.2D 416.  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 341 U.S. 952, BUT LATER
GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO ONE QUESTION.  342 U.S. 858.  AFFIRMED,
P. 14. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AFTER A TURBULENT NINE MONTHS OF TRIAL, ELEVEN COMMUNIST PARTY
LEADERS WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE SMITH ACT.  (FN1)  ON RECEIVING
THE VERDICT, THE TRIAL JUDGE AT ONCE FILED A CERTIFICATE UNDER RULE
42(A), FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., FINDING PETITIONERS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT AND IMPOSING VARIOUS JAIL TERMS UP TO SIX MONTHS.  THOSE
SENTENCED WERE DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE DEFENDANT WHO
HAD ELECTED TO CONDUCT HIS OWN CASE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVIEWED THE JUDGE'S ACTION, BOTH ON FACTS AND
LAW, REVERSED SOME SPECIFICATIONS OF CONTEMPT, BUT AFFIRMED THE
CONVICTION AND SENTENCES.  (FN2)  JUDGE AUGUSTUS HAND, WHO FAVORED
AFFIRMANCE ON ALL CHARGES, PRONOUNCED PETITIONERS' CONDUCT CONCERTED
AND WILFULLY OBSTRUCTIVE AND DESCRIBED IT AS INCLUDING "PERSISTENT
OBSTRUCTIVE COLLOQUIES, OBJECTIONS, ARGUMENTS, AND MANY GROUNDLESS
CHARGES AGAINST THE COURT  ...  ."  (FN3)  JUDGE FRANK, WHO FAVORED
REVERSAL OF THOSE SPECIFICATIONS WHICH WERE REVERSED, DECLARED THAT THE
COURT AFFIRMED THE REMAINING ONES "ONLY BECAUSE OF THE LAWYERS'
OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT - CONDUCT OF A KIND WHICH NO LAWYER OWES HIS CLIENT,
WHICH CANNOT EVER BE JUSTIFIED, AND WHICH WAS NEVER EMPLOYED BY THOSE
ADVOCATES, FOR MINORITIES OR FOR THE UNPOPULAR, WHOSE COURAGE HAS MADE
LAWYERDOM PROUD."  (FN4)  JUDGE CLARK, WHO WOULD HAVE REVERSED THE
ENTIRE JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER CONSIDERATION BY US,
BEGAN HIS OPINION: "TO ONE SCHOOLED IN ANGLO-SAXON TRADITIONS OF LEGAL
DECORUM, THE RESISTANCE PRESSED BY THESE APPELLANTS ON VARIOUS
OCCASIONS TO THE RULINGS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE NECESSARILY APPEARS
ABOMINABLE."  (FN5) 

THE ACTUAL EFFECT OF PETITIONERS' CONDUCT ON THE TRIAL AND ON THE
BURDEN OF SUBSEQUENT COURTS IN REVIEWING AN UNNECESSARILY LARGE RECORD
ALSO WAS NOTED BY A DIFFERENTLY COMPOSED COURT OF APPEALS WHEN THEY
SOUGHT REVERSAL OF THEIR CLIENTS' CONVICTION AND ASSIGNED MISCONDUCT
AND BIAS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE AS ONE OF THE GROUNDS.  THE COURT FOUND
THAT IT COULD NOT CONSIDER THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE JUDGE SEPARATELY
FROM BEHAVIOR OF COUNSEL.  IT UNANIMOUSLY FOUND THEIR CHARGES AGAINST
THE TRIAL JUDGE "COMPLETELY UNCONVINCING," AND OF THEIR OWN CONDUCT
SAID, "ALL WAS DONE THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO MAKE IMPOSSIBLE AN ORDERLY
AND SPEEDY DISPATCH OF THE CASE  ...  ."  (FN6)  THE NATURE OF THIS
OBSTRUCTION WAS THUS DESCRIBED: 

"THE RECORD DISCLOSES A JUDGE, SORELY TRIED FOR MANY MONTHS OF
TURMOIL, CONSTANTLY PROVOKED BY USELESS BICKERING, EXPOSED TO OFFENSIVE
SLIGHTS AND INSULTS, HARRIED WITH INTERMINABLE REPETITION, WHO, IF AT
TIMES HE DID NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH THE IMPERTURBABILITY OF A
RHADAMANTHUS, SHOWED CONSIDERABLY GREATER SELF-CONTROL AND FORBEARANCE
THAN IT IS GIVEN TO MOST JUDGES TO POSSESS."  (FN7) 

WE DENIED PETITION FOR FURTHER REVIEW OF THE CONTEMPT ISSUE.  (FN8)
ON RECONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, THE IMPORTANCE OF CLARIFYING THE
PERMISSIBLE PRACTICE IN SUCH CASES PERSUADED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI,
LIMITED TO ONE QUESTION OF PROCEDURE ON WHICH THERE WAS DISAGREEMENT IN
THE COURT BELOW.   OUR ORDER STATED THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION: 

"  ...  THE SOLE QUESTION FOR REVIEW IS:  WAS THE CHARGE OF CONTEMPT,
AS AND WHEN CERTIFIED, ONE WHICH THE ACCUSING JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED
UNDER RULE 42(A)  ...  TO DETERMINE AND PUNISH HIMSELF; OR WAS IT ONE
TO BE ADJUDGED AND PUNISHED UNDER RULE 42(B) ONLY BY A JUDGE OTHER THAN
THE ACCUSING ONE AND AFTER NOTICE, HEARING, AND OPPORTUNITY TO
DEFEND?"  (FN9) 

THE CERTIFICATE OF CONTEMPT FILLS SIXTY PAGES OF OUR RECORD AND
INCORPORATES, BY REFERENCE, THE 13,000 PAGES OF TRIAL RECORD.  THE
CERTIFICATE IN FULL (FN10) AND SUMMARY OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN
REPORTED BELOW.  BECAUSE OUR LIMITED REVIEW DOES NOT REQUIRE OR PERMIT
REEXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY DETAILED
RECITALS.  IT IS RELEVANT TO THE QUESTIONS OF LAW TO OBSERVE THAT THE
BEHAVIOR PUNISHED AS A RESULT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS' JUDGMENT HAS
THESE CHARACTERISTICS:  IT TOOK PLACE IN THE IMMEDIATE PRESENCE OF THE
TRIAL JUDGE; IT CONSISTED OF BREACHES OF DECORUM AND DISOBEDIENCE IN
THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY OF HIS ORDERS AND RULINGS UPON THE TRIAL; THE
MISCONDUCT WAS PROFESSIONAL IN THAT IT WAS THAT OF LAWYERS, OR OF A
LAYMAN ACTING AS HIS OWN LAWYER.  IN ADDITION, CONVICTION IS NOT BASED
ON AN ISOLATED INSTANCE OF HASTY CONTUMACIOUS SPEECH OR BEHAVIOR, BUT
UPON A COURSE OF CONDUCT LONG-CONTINUED IN THE FACE OF WARNINGS THAT IT
WAS REGARDED BY THE COURT AS CONTEMPTUOUS.  THE NATURE OF THE
DEPORTMENT WAS NOT SUCH AS MERELY TO OFFEND PERSONAL SENSITIVITIES OF
THE JUDGE, BUT IT PREJUDICED THE EXPEDITIOUS, ORDERLY AND DISPASSIONATE
CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL. 

WE HAVE TAKEN NO ISSUE AS TO THE STATUTE WHICH CONFERS POWER ON A
FEDERAL COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT, (FN11) BUT ONLY AS TO THE
REGULARITY OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER RULE 42, (FN12) DESIGNED TO PROVIDE
FOR THE MANNER OF EXERCISING THAT POWER.  THE ISSUE WE ACCEPTED FOR
REVIEW IS A NARROW ONE.  PETITIONERS DO NOT DENY THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE
BEEN SUMMARILY PUNISHED FOR THEIR CONDUCT WITHOUT HEARING UNDER RULE
42(A) IF THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD ACTED AT ONCE UPON OCCURRENCE OF EACH
INCIDENT.  BUT IT IS CONTENDED THAT THIS POWER OF SUMMARY PUNISHMENT
EXPIRED BY REASON OF TWO CIRCUMSTANCES:  (1) THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE
AWAITED COMPLETION OF THE TRIAL, AT WHICH TIME ITS PROGRESS COULD NO
LONGER BE OBSTRUCTED, AND HENCE, IT IS SAID, SUMMARY ACTION HAD BECOME
UNNECESSARY; AND (2) THAT HE INCLUDED IN THE CERTIFICATE A CHARGE THAT
THE CONTEMPTUOUS INSTANCES WERE THE RESULT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNSEL
WHICH, IF IT EXISTED, WAS NOT MADE IN HIS PRESENCE.  THEREFORE, IT IS
ARGUED THAT PETITIONERS COULD NOT BE CONVICTED OR SENTENCED EXCEPT
AFTER NOTICE, TIME FOR PREPARATION OF A DEFENSE, AND HEARING, PROBABLY
BEFORE ANOTHER JUDGE, AS PROVIDED IN RULE 42(B). 

RULE 42 OBVIOUSLY WAS INTENDED TO MAKE MORE EXPLICIT "THE PREVAILING
USAGES AT LAW" BY WHICH THE STATUTE HAS AUTHORIZED PUNISHMENT OF
CONTEMPTS.  18 U.S.C. SECS. 401, 402.  NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHEDS
LIGHT ON THIS ISSUE.  PRACTICE OF DISTRICT JUDGES HAS NOT BEEN UNIFORM
WHEN THEY HAVE DEEMED RESORT TO THE POWER NECESSARY.  (FN13)  A VARIETY
OF QUESTIONS CONCERNING CONTEMPT POWERS, LIMITATIONS AND PROCEDURES
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT, (FN14) BUT NONE CONSTRUED THIS
RULE, WHICH WAS PROMULGATED BY THIS COURT IN 1944 AND BECAME EFFECTIVE
MARCH 26, 1946.  CASES PRIOR TO IT GREW OUT OF FACTS SO DISTINGUISHING
THAT THEIR DECISIONS ARE OF LITTLE VALUE AS PRECEDENTS. 

SUMMARY PUNISHMENT ALWAYS, AND RIGHTLY, IS REGARDED WITH DISFAVOR
AND, IF IMPOSED IN PASSION OR PETTINESS, BRINGS DISCREDIT TO A COURT AS
CERTAINLY AS THE CONDUCT IT PENALIZES.  BUT THE VERY PRACTICAL REASONS
WHICH HAVE LED EVERY SYSTEM OF LAW TO VEST A CONTEMPT POWER IN ONE WHO
PRESIDES OVER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ALSO ARE THE REASONS WHICH ACCOUNT
FOR IT BEING MADE SUMMARY.  OUR CRIMINAL PROCESSES ARE ADVERSARY IN
NATURE AND RELY UPON THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE LITIGANTS AND COUNSEL FOR
FULL AND ADEQUATE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CASES.  THE NATURE OF
THE PROCEEDINGS PRESUPPOSES, OR AT LEAST STIMULATES, ZEAL IN THE
OPPOSING LAWYERS.  BUT THEIR STRIFE CAN PERVERT AS WELL AS AID THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS UNLESS IT IS SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED BY A NEUTRAL
JUDGE REPRESENTING THE OVERRIDING SOCIAL INTEREST IN IMPARTIAL JUSTICE
AND WITH POWER TO CURB BOTH ADVERSARIES.  THE RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES OF
ACCUSED PERSONS WOULD BE EXPOSED TO SERIOUS AND OBVIOUS ABUSE IF THE
TRIAL BENCH DID NOT POSSESS AND FREQUENTLY EXERT POWER TO CURB
PREJUDICIAL AND EXCESSIVE ZEAL OF PROSECUTORS.  THE INTERESTS OF
SOCIETY IN THE PRESERVATION OF COURTROOM CONTROL BY THE JUDGES ARE NO
MORE TO BE FRUSTRATED THROUGH UNCHECKED IMPROPRIETIES BY DEFENDERS. 

OF COURSE, IT IS THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL FOR EVERY LITIGANT TO PRESS HIS
CLAIM, EVEN IF IT APPEARS FARFETCHED AND UNTENABLE, TO OBTAIN THE
COURT'S CONSIDERED RULING.  FULL ENJOYMENT OF THAT RIGHT, WITH DUE
ALLOWANCE FOR THE HEAT OF CONTROVERSY, WILL BE PROTECTED BY APPELLATE
COURTS WHEN INFRINGED BY TRIAL COURTS.  BUT IF THE RULING IS ADVERSE,
IT IS NOT COUNSEL'S RIGHT TO RESIST IT OR TO INSULT THE JUDGE - HIS
RIGHT IS ONLY RESPECTFULLY TO PRESERVE HIS POINT FOR APPEAL.  DURING A
TRIAL, LAWYERS MUST SPEAK, EACH IN HIS OWN TIME AND WITHIN HIS ALLOWED
TIME, AND WITH RELEVANCE AND MODERATION.  THESE ARE SUCH OBVIOUS
MATTERS THAT WE SHOULD NOT REMIND THE BAR OF THEM WERE IT NOT FOR THE
MISCONCEPTIONS MANIFEST IN THIS CASE. 

THE RULE IN QUESTION CONTEMPLATES THAT OCCASIONS MAY ARISE WHEN THE
TRIAL JUDGE MUST IMMEDIATELY ARREST ANY CONDUCT OF SUCH NATURE THAT ITS
CONTINUANCE WOULD BREAK UP A TRIAL, SO IT GIVES HIM POWER TO DO SO
SUMMARILY.  BUT THE PETITIONERS HERE CONTEND THAT THE RULE NOT ONLY
PERMITS BUT REQUIRES ITS INSTANT EXERCISE, SO THAT ONCE THE EMERGENCY
HAS BEEN SURVIVED PUNISHMENT MAY NO LONGER BE SUMMARY BUT CAN ONLY BE
ADMINISTERED BY THE ALTERNATIVE METHOD ALLOWED BY RULE 42(B).  WE THINK
"SUMMARY" AS USED IN THIS RULE DOES NOT REFER TO THE TIMING OF THE
ACTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE OFFENSE BUT REFERS TO A PROCEDURE WHICH
DISPENSES WITH THE FORMALITY, DELAY AND DIGRESSION THAT WOULD RESULT
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF PROCESS, SERVICE OF COMPLAINT AND ANSWER, HOLDING
HEARINGS, TAKING EVIDENCE, LISTENING TO ARGUMENTS, AWAITING BRIEFS,
SUBMISSION OF FINDINGS, AND ALL THAT GOES WITH A CONVENTIONAL COURT
TRIAL.  THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROCEDURE IS TO INFORM THE COURT OF EVENTS
NOT WITHIN ITS OWN KNOWLEDGE.  THE RULE ALLOWS SUMMARY PROCEDURE ONLY
AS TO OFFENSES WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE JUDGE BECAUSE THEY OCCURRED
IN HIS PRESENCE. 

REASONS FOR PERMITTING STRAIGHTWAY EXERCISE OF SUMMARY POWER ARE NOT
REASONS FOR COMPELLING OR ENCOURAGING ITS IMMEDIATE EXERCISE. 
FORTHWITH JUDGMENT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE TEXT OF THE RULE.  STILL LESS
IS SUCH CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATE AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST ABUSE OF THE
POWER.  IF THE CONDUCT OF THESE LAWYERS WARRANTED IMMEDIATE SUMMARY
PUNISHMENT ON DOZENS OF OCCASIONS, NO POSSIBLE PREJUDICE TO THEM CAN
RESULT FROM DELAYING IT UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
PERMIT SUCH DELAY.  THE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION IS THE INTEGRITY AND
EFFICIENCY OF THE TRIAL PROCESS, AND IF THE JUDGE DEEMS IMMEDIATE
ACTION INEXPEDIENT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED DISCRETION TO FOLLOW THE
PROCEDURE TAKEN IN THIS CASE.  TO SUMMON A LAWYER BEFORE THE BENCH AND
PRONOUNCE HIM GUILTY OF CONTEMPT IS NOT UNLIKELY TO PREJUDICE HIS
CLIENT.  IT MIGHT BE DONE OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, BUT WE HAVE
HELD THAT A CONTEMPT JUDGMENT MUST BE PUBLIC.  (FN15)  ONLY THE NAIVE
AND INEXPERIENCED WOULD ASSUME THAT NEWS OF SUCH ACTION WILL NOT REACH
THE JURORS.  IF THE COURT WERE REQUIRED ALSO THEN TO PRONOUNCE
SENTENCE, A CONSTRUCTION QUITE AS CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXT OF THE RULE
AS PETITIONERS' PRESENT CONTENTION, IT WOULD ADD TO THE PREJUDICE.  IT
MIGHT ALSO HAVE THE ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCE OF DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF
HIS COUNSEL UNLESS EXECUTION OF PRISON SENTENCE WERE SUSPENDED OR
STAYED AS SPEEDILY AS IT HAD BEEN IMPOSED.  THE PROCEDURE ON WHICH
PETITIONERS NOW INSIST IS JUST THE PROCEDURE MOST LIKELY TO ACHIEVE THE
ONLY DISCERNIBLE PURPOSE OF THE CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT.  HAD THE TRIAL
JUDGE HERE PURSUED THAT COURSE, THEY COULD HAVE MADE A FORMIDABLE
ASSERTION THAT IT WAS UNFAIR TO THEM OR TO THEIR CLIENTS AND THAT A NEW
TRIAL WAS REQUIRED ON ACCOUNT OF IT. 

IN THIS CASE COUNSEL REPEATEDLY WERE WARNED THAT THEIR CONDUCT WAS
REGARDED AS CONTEMPTUOUS.  NO CLAIM CAN BE MADE THAT THE JUDGE AWAITED
THE CLOSE OF THE TRIAL TO POUNCE UPON THEM FOR SOME OFFENSE UNNOTED AT
THE TIME IT OCCURRED.  IF WE WERE TO HOLD THAT SUMMARY PUNISHMENT CAN
BE IMPOSED ONLY INSTANTLY UPON THE EVENT, IT WOULD BE AN INCENTIVE TO
PRONOUNCE, WHILE SMARTING UNDER THE IRRITATION OF THE CONTEMPTUOUS ACT,
WHAT SHOULD BE A WELL-CONSIDERED JUDGMENT.  WE THINK IT LESS LIKELY
THAT UNFAIR CONDEMNATION OF COUNSEL WILL OCCUR IF THE MORE DELIBERATE
COURSE BE PERMITTED. 

WE HOLD THAT RULE 42 ALLOWS THE TRIAL JUDGE, UPON THE OCCURRENCE IN
HIS PRESENCE OF A CONTEMPT, IMMEDIATELY AND SUMMARILY TO PUNISH IT, IF,
IN HIS OPINION, DELAY WILL PREJUDICE THE TRIAL.  WE HOLD, ON THE OTHER
HAND, THAT IF HE BELIEVES THE EXIGENCIES OF THE TRIAL REQUIRE THAT HE
DEFER JUDGMENT UNTIL ITS COMPLETION HE MAY DO SO WITHOUT EXTINGUISHING
HIS POWER. 

THE OTHER REASON ASCRIBED FOR REVERSING THIS CASE IS THAT THE
ACCUSING JUDGE CHARGED THE PETITIONERS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WITH AN
AGREEMENT DELIBERATELY ENTERED INTO IN A COLD AND CALCULATED MANNER,
"TO IMPAIR MY HEALTH."  IT IS NOT CHARGED THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT WAS
MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JUDGE.  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER A
PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE CERTIFICATE WOULD BE THAT THE CONCERT OF
ACTION WHICH DID TAKE PLACE IN HIS PRESENCE AMOUNTED TO AN IMPLIED
AGREEMENT OR AS CHARGING AN EARLIER EXPRESS VERBAL AGREEMENT TO ACT IN
CONCERT.  THIS SPECIFICATION WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS,
WHICH, HOWEVER, FOUND THE JUDGMENT AMPLY SUSTAINED WITHOUT IT, AND
CONSIDERED THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES SEPARABLE AND INDEPENDENT, AS DO
WE.  IT FOUND THE JUDGMENT AMPLY SUSTAINED WITHOUT THE CONSPIRACY
COUNT.  THE SENTENCES RAN CONCURRENTLY, SO REVERSAL OF ONE DOES NOT
REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE OTHER. 

A CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULE IS ADVOCATED WHICH WOULD DENY A JUDGE
POWER SUMMARILY TO PUNISH A CONTEMPT THAT IS PERSONAL TO HIMSELF
EXCEPT, PERHAPS, AT A MOMENT WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO FORESTALL ABORTION
OF THE TRIAL.  HIS ONLY RECOURSE, IT IS SAID, IS TO BECOME AN ACCUSER
OR COMPLAINING WITNESS IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE ANOTHER JUDGE. 

THE RULE ITSELF EXPRESSES NO SUCH LIMITATION, AND THE CONTRARY
INFERENCE IS ALMOST INESCAPABLE.  IT IS ALMOST INEVITABLE THAT ANY
CONTEMPT OF A COURT COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JUDGE DURING A
TRIAL WILL BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST HIS DIGNITY AND AUTHORITY.  AT A TRIAL
THE COURT IS SO MUCH THE JUDGE AND THE JUDGE SO MUCH THE COURT THAT THE
TWO TERMS ARE USED INTERCHANGEABLY IN COUNTLESS OPINIONS IN THIS COURT
AND GENERALLY IN THE LITERATURE OF THE LAW, AND CONTEMPT OF THE ONE IS
CONTEMPT OF THE OTHER.  IT CANNOT BE THAT SUMMARY PUNISHMENT IS ONLY
FOR SUCH MINOR CONTEMPTS AS LEAVE THE JUDGE INDIFFERENT AND MAY BE
EVADED BY ADDING HECTORING, ABUSIVE AND DEFIANT CONDUCT TOWARD THE
JUDGE AS AN INDIVIDUAL.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD NULLIFY, IN
PRACTICE, THE POWER IT PURPORTS TO GRANT. 

WE ARE URGED THAT THESE SENTENCES WILL HAVE AN INTIMIDATING EFFECT ON
THE LEGAL PROFESSION, WHOSE MEMBERS HEREAFTER WILL DECLINE TO APPEAR IN
TRIALS WHERE "DEFENDANTS ARE OBJECTS OF HOSTILITY OF THOSE IN POWER,"
OR WILL DO SO UNDER A "CLOUD OF FEAR" WHICH "THREATENS THE RIGHT OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE REPRESENTED FEARLESSLY AND VIGOROUSLY BY
COUNSEL." 

THAT CONTEMPT POWER OVER COUNSEL, SUMMARY OR OTHERWISE, IS CAPABLE OF
ABUSE IS CERTAIN.  MEN WHO MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE BENCH SOMETIMES
EXHIBIT VANITY, IRASCIBILITY, NARROWNESS, ARROGANCE, AND OTHER
WEAKNESSES TO WHICH HUMAN FLESH IS HEIR.  MOST JUDGES, HOWEVER,
RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT COURAGEOUS, FORTHRIGHT LAWYERLY CONDUCT.  THEY
RARELY MISTAKE OVERZEAL OR HEATED WORDS OF A MAN FIRED WITH A DESIRE TO
WIN, FOR THE CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT WHICH DEFIES RULINGS AND DESERVES
PUNISHMENT.  THEY RECOGNIZE THAT OUR PROFESSION NECESSARILY IS A
CONTENTIOUS ONE AND THEY RESPECT THE LAWYER WHO MAKES A STRENUOUS
EFFORT FOR HIS CLIENT. 

THE PROFESSION KNOWS THAT NO LAWYER IS AT THE MERCY OF A SINGLE
FEDERAL TRIAL JUDGE.  THIS CASE DEMONSTRATES THAT BEFORE PUNISHMENT
TAKES EFFECT HE MAY HAVE APPEAL ON LAW AND FACT TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  PETITIONERS, AS YET, HAVE SERVED NO PART OF THEIR SENTENCES
BUT HAVE BEEN ENLARGED ON BAIL WHILE THEIR CONDUCT HAS BEEN DIRECTLY
REVIEWED BY ONE COURT OF APPEALS ON THEIR OWN APPEAL AND CONSIDERED
INDIRECTLY BY A DIFFERENTLY COMPOSED COURT OF APPEALS ON THEIR CLIENTS'
APPEAL.  SOME OF THOSE JUDGES HAD TRIAL AND APPELLATE EXPERIENCE ALMOST
UNPARALLELED IN LENGTH AND VARIETY.  THESE LAWYERS HAVE NOT BEEN
CONDEMNED, AS THEY CLAIM, MERELY BY THE IMPULSE OF ONE LONE AND HOSTILE
JUDGE.   THEIR CONDUCT HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BY EVERY JUDGE WHO HAS
EXAMINED THIS RECORD UNDER A DUTY TO REVIEW THE FACTS.  IT IS TO BE
DOUBTED WHETHER THE PROFESSION WILL BE GREATLY TERRORIZED BY PUNISHMENT
OF SOME OF ITS MEMBERS AFTER SUCH EXTENDED AND DETACHED CONSIDERATION. 
MOREOVER, IF POWER OF CONTEMPT EXCITES FEAR AND TERROR IN THE BAR, IT
WOULD HARDLY BE RELIEVED BY UPHOLDING PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THE
JUDGE MAY PROCEED AGAINST A LAWYER AT THE PRECISE MOMENT OF MAXIMUM
HEAT BUT MAY NOT DO SO IF HE AWAITS A COOLER SECOND THOUGHT. 

WE ARE NOT UNAWARE OR UNCONCERNED THAT PERSONS IDENTIFIED WITH
UNPOPULAR CAUSES MAY FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ENLIST THE COUNSEL OF THEIR
CHOICE.  BUT WE THINK IT MUST BE ASCRIBED TO CAUSES QUITE APART FROM
FEAR OF BEING HELD IN CONTEMPT, FOR WE THINK FEW EFFECTIVE LAWYERS
WOULD REGARD THE TACTICS CONDEMNED HERE AS EITHER NECESSARY OR HELPFUL
TO A SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE.  THAT SUCH CLIENTS SEEM TO HAVE THOUGHT THESE
TACTICS NECESSARY IS LIKELY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE BAR'S RELUCTANCE TO
APPEAR FOR THEM RATHER MORE THAN FEAR OF CONTEMPT. 

BUT THAT THERE MAY BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING, WE MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS
COURT, IF ITS AID BE NEEDED, WILL UNHESITATINGLY PROTECT COUNSEL IN
FEARLESS, VIGOROUS AND EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE OF EVERY DUTY PERTAINING
TO THE OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF ANY PERSON WHATSOEVER.  BUT
IT WILL NOT EQUATE CONTEMPT WITH COURAGE OR INSULTS WITH INDEPENDENCE. 
IT WILL ALSO PROTECT THE PROCESSES OF ORDERLY TRIAL, WHICH IS THE
SUPREME OBJECT OF THE LAWYER'S CALLING.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. SACHER, 182 F.2D 416. 

FN3  ID., AT 423. 

FN4  ID., AT 454. 

FN5  ID., AT 463. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. DENNIS, 183 F.2D 201, 225. 

FN7  ID., AT 226. 

FN8  341 U.S. 952. 

FN9  342 U.S. 858. 

FN10  182 F.2D AT 430-453. 

FN11  18 U.S.C. SEC. 401, "POWER OF COURT," PROVIDES: 

"A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE POWER TO PUNISH BY FINE OR
IMPRISONMENT, AT ITS DISCRETION, SUCH CONTEMPT OF ITS AUTHORITY, AND
NONE OTHER, AS: 

"(1)  MISBEHAVIOR OF ANY PERSON IN ITS PRESENCE OR SO NEAR THERETO AS
TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

"(2)  MISBEHAVIOR OF ANY OF ITS OFFICERS IN THEIR OFFICIAL
TRANSACTIONS. 

"(3)  DISOBEDIENCE OR RESISTANCE TO ITS LAWFUL WRIT, PROCESS, ORDER,
RULE, DECREE, OR COMMAND." 

18 U.S.C. SEC. 402, "CONTEMPTS CONSTITUTING CRIMES," PROVIDES FOR
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTIONS OF ACTS WHICH ARE IN THEMSELVES CRIMINAL
AS WELL AS CONTEMPTUOUS, BUT ADDS: 

"THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RELATE TO CONTEMPTS COMMITTED
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT, OR SO NEAR THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, NOR TO CONTEMPTS COMMITTED IN DISOBEDIENCE
OF ANY LAWFUL WRIT, PROCESS, ORDER, RULE, DECREE, OR COMMAND ENTERED IN
ANY SUIT OR ACTION BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED IN THE NAME OF, OR ON BEHALF
OF, THE UNITED STATES, BUT THE SAME, AND ALL OTHER CASES OF CONTEMPT
NOT SPECIFICALLY EMBRACED IN THIS SECTION MAY BE PUNISHED IN CONFORMITY
TO THE PREVAILING USAGES AT LAW." 

FN12  RULE 42, FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT," READS: 

"(A)  SUMMARY DISPOSITION.  A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT MAY BE PUNISHED
SUMMARILY IF THE JUDGE CERTIFIES THAT HE SAW OR HEARD THE CONDUCT
CONSTITUTING THE CONTEMPT AND THAT IT WAS COMMITTED IN THE ACTUAL
PRESENCE OF THE COURT.  THE ORDER OF CONTEMPT SHALL RECITE THE FACTS
AND SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE JUDGE AND ENTERED OF RECORD. 

"(B)  DISPOSITION UPON NOTICE AND HEARING.  A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (A) OF THIS RULE SHALL BE PROSECUTED
ON NOTICE.  THE NOTICE SHALL STATE THE TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING,
ALLOWING A REASONABLE TIME FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE DEFENSE, AND
SHALL STATE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
CHARGED AND DESCRIBE IT AS SUCH.  THE NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN ORALLY BY
THE JUDGE IN OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT OR, ON
APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OR OF AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED
BY THE COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE, BY AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AN ORDER OF
ARREST.  THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY CASE IN
WHICH AN ACT OF CONGRESS SO PROVIDES.  HE IS ENTITLED TO ADMISSION TO
BAIL AS PROVIDED IN THESE RULES.  IF THE CONTEMPT CHARGED INVOLVES
DISRESPECT TO OR CRITICISM OF A JUDGE, THAT JUDGE IS DISQUALIFIED FROM
PRESIDING AT THE TRIAL OR HEARING EXCEPT WITH THE DEFENDANT'S CONSENT. 
UPON A VERDICT OR FINDING OF GUILT THE COURT SHALL ENTER AN ORDER
FIXING THE PUNISHMENT." 

FN13  IN HALLINAN V. UNITED STATES, 182 F.2D 880, CERT. DENIED, 341
U.S. 952, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS SUMMARILY ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT UNDER RULE
42(A) AND SENTENCED TO SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT WHILE THE TRIAL WAS
STILL IN PROGRESS.  THE TRIAL JUDGE'S POWER TO DO SO WAS SUSTAINED OVER
THE OBJECTION THAT HE HAD DELAYED OVERNIGHT AND THAT PART OF THE
CONDUCT SPECIFIED WAS THAT OF FOUR AND FIVE DAYS EARLIER.  IN MACINNIS
V. UNITED STATES, 191 F.2D 157, CERT. DENIED THIS DATE, 342 U.S. 953,
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT FOR CONDUCT THE DAY BEFORE. 
FILING OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CONTEMPT WAS DELAYED MORE THAN THREE
WEEKS, AND IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE FIXING OF THE PUNISHMENT WOULD BE
DEFERRED UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL.  WHEN THE TRIAL WAS CONCLUDED TWO
MONTHS AFTER THE CONTEMPT, COUNSEL WAS IMMEDIATELY SENTENCED TO THREE
MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT.  THE TRIAL JUDGE'S POWER TO DO SO WAS UPHELD. 

FN14  AMONG THEM:  EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289; COOKE V. UNITED
STATES, 267 U.S. 517; NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33; PENDERGAST V.
UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 412; IN RE MICHAEL, 326 U.S. 224. 

FN15  IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

I WOULD REVERSE THESE CONVICTIONS BECAUSE OF MY BELIEF THAT (1) THE
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PASSED ON THE CONTEMPT CHARGES HE PREFERRED; (2)
WHATEVER JUDGE CONSIDERED THE CHARGES, GUILT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
SUMMARILY DECIDED AS IT WAS - WITHOUT NOTICE, WITHOUT A HEARING AND
WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PETITIONERS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES; (3)
PETITIONERS WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO HAVE THEIR GUILT OR
INNOCENCE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT DECIDED BY A JURY. 

AFTER A NINE MONTHS' TRIAL OF LEADERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY A JURY
BROUGHT IN A VERDICT OF GUILTY AND WAS DISCHARGED.  IMMEDIATELY,
PRESIDING JUDGE MEDINA ASKED ALL THE DEFENDANTS' LAWYERS (FN1) TO STAND
UP, THEN READ THEM A VERY MINOR PART OF A LENGTHY "CONTEMPT
CERTIFICATE" IN WHICH THEY WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MANY ACTS OF
CONTEMPT AT VARIOUS TIMES DURING THE PROTRACTED TRIAL.  WITHOUT
AFFORDING ANY OF THEM A CHANCE TO SAY A WORD BEFORE HE ACTED, THE
PRESIDING JUDGE HELD ALL OF THEM GUILTY OF CONTEMPT AND SENTENCED EACH
ONE TO PRISON. 

FIRST.  I THINK IT WAS A GRAVE ERROR FOR THE JUDGE TO PASS ON THE
CHARGES HE BROUGHT.  REASONS WHY HE SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE SO HAVE BEEN
FORCEFULLY PRESENTED BY MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER HERE AND BY JUDGE
CHARLES CLARK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THEIR ARGUMENTS THAT JUDGE
MEDINA SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THESE ADJUDICATIONS ARE VIVIDLY BUTTRESSED
BY THE COLLECTION OF TRIAL EPISODES PLACED IN THE APPENDIX TO MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S OPINION, POST, P. 42.  THESE EPISODES BESPEAK AN
ATTITUDE OF DISTRUST OF THE LAWYERS AND, I REGRET TO ADD, OF HOSTILITY
TO THEM, GENERALLY DEEMED INCONSISTENT WITH THAT COMPLETE IMPARTIALITY
THE PROCESS OF JUDGING DEMANDS.  FACTS THAT APPEAR OF SPECIAL
IMPORTANCE TO ME IN CONSIDERING WHAT WERE THE JUDGE'S PERSONAL FEELINGS
TOWARDS THOSE HE CONVICTED ARE THESE: 

THE PRESIDING JUDGE WAS CONVINCED THAT THE LAWYERS HAD DELIBERATELY
AND CALCULATINGLY BADGERED AND INSULTED HIM THROUGHOUT THE LONG MONTHS
OF TRIAL.  AMONG THESE INSULTS, SO THE JUDGE BELIEVED AND DECLARED,
WERE INSOLENT, SARCASTIC, IMPUDENT AND DISRESPECTFUL CHARGES THAT HE
ANGLED FOR NEWSPAPER HEADLINES; CONNIVED WITH THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY; ENTERTAINED RACIAL PREJUDICE; JUDICIALLY ACTED WITH "BIAS,
PREJUDICE, CORRUPTION, AND PARTIALITY."  HE FOUND AND REPEATEDLY
DECLARED THAT THESE LAWYERS WERE ACTING IN CONCERTED AGREEMENT IN AN
ATTEMPT TO CREATE CONFUSION, PROVOKE INCIDENTS AND BREAK DOWN HIS
HEALTH.  AS THE TRIAL PROGRESSED, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE JUDGE
EXPRESSED STRONGER AND STRONGER FEARS THAT THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO
DESTROY HIS HEALTH WAS ABOUT TO SUCCEED.  THIS BELIEF MAY EXPLAIN HIS
SHARP AND SOMEWHAT HEATED REPARTEE IN HIS FREQUENT CONTROVERSIES WITH
COUNSEL.  BUT WHATEVER THE PROVOCATION, THE RECORD SHOWS A CONSTANTLY
GROWING RESENTMENT OF THE JUDGE AGAINST THE LAWYERS. 

THE JUDGE'S DISTRUST OF AND DISRESPECT FOR THE LAWYERS CLEARLY APPEAR
FROM HIS FREQUENT CHARGES THAT THEIR STATEMENTS WERE FALSE AND
UNRELIABLE.  THESE REPEATED ACCUSATIONS, AS PARTICULARLY SHOWN BY THE
FOLLOWING COLLOQUY, IMPRESS ME AS SHOWING SUCH BITTER HOSTILITY TO THE
LAWYERS THAT THE ACCUSER SHOULD BE HELD DISQUALIFIED TO TRY THEM:

"MR. SACHER:  I AM OFFENDED ON THESE CONSTANT ASPERSIONS ON THE
VERACITY OF REPRESENTATIONS THAT I MAKE.  I AM AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT
AND I RESENT THESE  ...  . 

"THE COURT:  THERE WAS AN INSTANCE WHEN YOU DELIBERATELY LIED TO ME
WHEN THEY WERE PASSING THESE PRESS RELEASES.  YOU SAID THAT THEY WERE
NOT AND YOU WERE CAUGHT RED-HANDED. 

"MR. SACHER:  THAT IS THE MOST OFFENSIVE CHARGE THAT CAN BE MADE
AGAINST AN OFFICER OF THE COURT ...  .  WHAT HAS A LAWYER GOT BUT HIS
HONOR. 

"THE COURT:  ...  YOU WERE CAUGHT RED-HANDED. 

"MR. SACHER:  THAT IS THE MOST DETESTABLE THING I EVER HEARD FROM A
JUDGE.  I RESENT THAT AND I URGE THAT IT BE EXPUNGED FROM THE RECORD
...  .  I WILL DEFEND MY HONOR AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR AGAINST YOUR
HONOR OR ANYBODY ELSE  ...  .  I THINK AN IDIOT RESORTS TO LYING.  I
DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. 

"THE COURT:  YOU DID IT. 

"WE BETTER LET THESE LITTLE AMENITIES GO.  I CAN SEE FROM YOUR
BELLIGERENT MANNER IF YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD, YOU MIGHT PHYSICALLY COME
UP TO THE BENCH AND PHYSICALLY ATTACK ME.  I KNOW YOUR MANNER, AND IT
DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE."  (FN2) 

LIAR ORDINARILY IS A FIGHTING WORD SPOKEN IN ANGER TO EXPRESS BITTER
PERSONAL HOSTILITY AGAINST ANOTHER.  I CAN THINK OF NO OTHER REASON FOR
ITS USE HERE, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE JUDGE'S CHARGE WAS BASELESS. 
(FN3)  AND THE JUDGE'S PERSONAL FEELING TOWARDS THESE LAWYERS, SACHER
IN PARTICULAR, IS FURTHER INDICATED BY AN OCCURRENCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER
THEY HAD BEEN SENTENCED.  SACHER ASKED AND WAS GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE OF
MAKING A BRIEF STATEMENT.  THIS STATEMENT WAS RELEVANT AND DIGNIFIED. 
(FN4)  NEVERTHELESS THE JUDGE INTERRUPTED HIM AND USED THIS LANGUAGE TO
A LAWYER HE HAD JUST ABRUPTLY AND SUMMARILY SENTENCED TO PRISON:  "YOU
CONTINUE IN THE SAME BRAZEN MANNER THAT YOU USED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE
TRIAL.  ...  DESPITE ALL KINDS OF WARNINGS THROUGHOUT THE CASE, YOU
CONTINUE WITH THE SAME OLD MEALY-MOUTH WAY OF PUTTING IT WHICH I HAVE
BEEN LISTENING TO THROUGHOUT THE CASE."   CANDOR COMPELS ME TO SAY THAT
IN THIS EPISODE THE DECORUM AND DIGNITY OF THE LAWYER WHO HAD JUST BEEN
SENTENCED TO PRISON LOSES NOTHING BY COMPARISON WITH OTHERS. 

CERTAINLY REPEATEDLY CALLING A LAWYER A LIAR MARKS A DRASTIC
DEVIATION FROM THE DESIRABLE JUDICIAL STANDARD.  A JUDGE WHO DOES THIS
SHOULD NO MORE BE PERMITTED TO TRY THE LAWYER HE ACCUSES THAN A JUDGE
SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO TRY HIS OWN CASE.  CF. TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S.
510.  NO MAN SHOULD BE FORCED TO TRIAL BEFORE A JUDGE WHO HAS
PREVIOUSLY PUBLICLY ATTACKED HIS PERSONAL HONOR AND INTEGRITY.  THE
RISK TO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE IS TOO GREAT. 

SECOND.  BEFORE SENTENCE AND CONVICTION THESE PETITIONERS WERE
ACCORDED NO CHANCE AT ALL TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.  THEY WERE NOT EVEN
AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE SUFFICIENCY OR THE ACCURACY OF
THE CHARGES.  THEIR SENTENCES WERE READ TO THEM BUT THE FULL CHARGES
WERE NOT.  I CANNOT RECONCILE THIS SUMMARY BLASTING OF LEGAL CAREERS
WITH A FAIR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.  SUCH A PROCEDURE CONSTITUTES AN
OVERHANGING MENACE TO THE SECURITY OF EVERY COURTROOM ADVOCATE IN
AMERICA.  THE MENACE IS MOST OMINOUS FOR LAWYERS WHO ARE OBSCURE,
UNPOPULAR OR DEFENDERS OF UNPOPULAR PERSONS OR UNORTHODOX CAUSES. 

CONVICTION WITHOUT TRIAL IS NOT ONLY INHERENTLY UNFAIR IN THE FIRST
COURT, BUT THE UNFAIRNESS IS CARRIED UP TO THE APPELLATE LEVEL.  THIS
CASE PROVES THAT.  A FAIR REVIEW REQUIRES SCRUTINY OF 13,000 PAGES OF
EVIDENCE MOST OF WHICH IS IRRELEVANT.  FOR THE CONTEMPT CERTIFICATE
STATES: "AS ISOLATED QUOTATIONS FROM OR REFERENCES TO THE TRANSCRIPT
CAN GIVE BUT A PARTIAL VIEW OF THE ACTS, STATEMENTS, AND CONDUCT ABOVE
REFERRED TO, I HEREBY MAKE THE ENTIRE RECORD PART OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS."  SUCH A RECORD OBSCURED THE LAWYERS' TRIAL CONDUCT IN A
MAZE OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR OWN GUILT OR
INNOCENCE.  IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THIS COURT SHRINKS FROM READING
SUCH A RECORD; IT REFUSES TO DO SO.  NO ASSERTION IS MADE THAT THE
COURT OF APPEALS WADED THROUGH IT.  CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS EVERY
INDICATION THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS APPRAISED THE FACTUAL ACCURACY OF
JUDGE MEDINA'S CHARGES ON A BASIS DEEMED BY HIM AS "INADEQUATE" BECAUSE
PRESENTING ONLY "A PARTIAL VIEW" OF THE NUMEROUS COURT-LAWYER
CONTROVERSIES.  (FN5)  SUCH AN "INADEQUATE" BASIS OF REVIEW IS TO BE
EXPECTED SINCE NO HEARING WAS HELD WHICH COULD HAVE FRAMED CONCRETE
ISSUES AND FOCUSED ATTENTION ON EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THEM. 

THERE ARE OTHER MANIFEST ELEMENTS OF UNFAIRNESS IN A SYSTEM WHICH
CALLS ON APPELLATE COURTS TO JUDGE THE TRIAL CONDUCT OF LAWYERS ACCUSED
OF CONTEMPT ON THE BASIS OF ALL EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AGAINST THEIR
CLIENTS IN A PRIOR CRIMINAL CASE.  THIS UNFAIRNESS IS PARTICULARLY
EMPHASIZED HERE.  THE ROOT OF JUDGE MEDINA'S CHARGES WAS THAT THESE
LAWYERS FOLLOWED A CONCERTED COURSE DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO BRING THE
WHOLE JUDICIAL SYSTEM INTO PUBLIC CONTEMPT AND DISGRACE.  THEIR CLIENTS
WERE COMMUNIST LEADERS.  MUCH OF THE 13,000 PAGES OF EVIDENCE WAS
OFFERED TO SHOW THAT THEY PLANNED TO SUBVERT AND DESTROY ALL
GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING COURTS.  UNLESS WE ARE TO DEPART
FROM HIGH TRADITIONS OF THE BAR, EVIL PURPOSES OF THEIR CLIENTS COULD
NOT BE IMPUTED TO THESE LAWYERS WHOSE DUTY IT WAS TO REPRESENT THEM
WITH FIDELITY AND ZEAL.  YET FROM THE VERY PARTS OF THE RECORD WHICH
JUDGE MEDINA SPECIFIED, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ESCAPE THE IMPRESSION THAT
HIS INFERENCES AGAINST THE LAWYERS WERE COLORED, HOWEVER UNCONSCIOUSLY,
BY HIS NATURAL ABHORRENCE FOR THE UNPATRIOTIC AND TREASONABLE DESIGNS
ATTRIBUTED TO THEIR COMMUNIST LEADER CLIENTS.  IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IF
THERE HAVE EVER BEEN, OR CAN EVER BE, CASES IN WHICH LAWYERS ARE
ENTITLED TO A FULL HEARING BEFORE THEIR LIBERTY IS FORFEITED AND THEIR
PROFESSIONAL HOPES ARE BLIGHTED, THESE ARE SUCH CASES. 

FOR REASONS STATED ABOVE AND FOR REASONS STATED IN THE DISSENT OF MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND THE DISSENT OF JUDGE CHARLES CLARK, I THINK
THESE CASES SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE JUDGE MEDINA DENIED PETITIONERS
A HEARING.  BUT I WOULD REVERSE ON THE FURTHER GROUND THAT PETITIONERS
ARE ENTITLED TO ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED TO PROTECT
PERSONS CHARGED WITH CRIME, INCLUDING A TRIAL BY JURY. 

THIRD.  ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "THE TRIAL
OF ALL CRIMES  ...  SHALL BE BY JURY."  NOT SATISFIED WITH THIS SINGLE
PROTECTION FOR JURY TRIAL, THE FOUNDERS REEMPHASIZED THE GUARANTY BY
DECLARING IN THE SIXTH AMENDMENT THAT "IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS,
THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY  ...  ."  AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT "NO
PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL, OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS
CRIME, UNLESS ON A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY  ...  ." 
THESE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS ARE "CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS" BROUGHT TO
AVENGE AN ALLEGED PUBLIC WRONG.  PETITIONERS WERE IMPRISONED FOR TERMS
UP TO SIX MONTHS, BUT THESE TERMS COULD HAVE BEEN LONGER.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S POSITION IN UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, 330 U.S. 258, WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME
OF CONTEMPT CAN BE FIXED AT A JUDGE'S DISCRETION, WITH NO LIMIT BUT THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. 
CERTAINLY, PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN SENTENCED FOR CRIMES.  (FN6)
CONSEQUENTLY THESE LAWYERS HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY DEPRIVED OF THE JURY
BENEFITS OF THE FOREGOING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS UNLESS THEY ARE
INAPPLICABLE TO THE CRIME OF CONTEMPT. 

THERE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY SAYINGS IN SOME PAST OPINIONS OF THIS COURT
BROAD ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY WHAT WAS DONE HERE.  INDEED JUDGES AND PERHAPS
LAWYERS PRETTY GENERALLY SUBSCRIBE TO THE DOCTRINE THAT JUDICIAL
INSTITUTIONS WOULD BE IMPERILED IF JUDGES WERE WITHOUT POWER SUMMARILY
TO CONVICT AND PUNISH FOR COURTROOM OFFENSES.  OUR RECENT DECISIONS,
HOWEVER, HAVE EXPRESSED MORE CAUTIOUS VIEWS ABOUT THE JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.  RETURNING TO THE EARLY VIEWS OF THIS
COURT, WE HAVE MARKED THE LIMITS OF THAT AUTHORITY AS BEING "THE LEAST
POSSIBLE POWER ADEQUATE TO THE END PROPOSED."  IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S.
257, 274, AND CASES THERE CITED.  THE "END PROPOSED" IS "POWER
ADEQUATE" IN THE COURT TO PRESERVE ORDER AND DECORUM AND TO COMPEL
OBEDIENCE TO VALID COURT ORDERS.  TO ACHIEVE THESE ENDS - DECORUM AND
OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS - COURTS MUST HAVE POWER TO ACT IMMEDIATELY, AND
UPON THIS NEED THE POWER OF CONTEMPT RESTS.  CONCURRING OPINION, UNITED
STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, SUPRA, 330 U.S. AT 331-332. 
MEASURED BY THIS TEST, AS JUDGE CHARLES CLARK'S DISSENTING OPINION
POINTED OUT, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY HERE FOR JUDGE MEDINA'S SUMMARY
ACTION, BECAUSE THE TRIAL WAS OVER AND THE DANGER OF OBSTRUCTING IT WAS
PASSED.  FOR THE SAME REASON THERE WAS NO LONGER NEED, SO FAR AS THAT
TRIAL WAS CONCERNED, TO TRY PETITIONERS FOR THEIR COURTROOM CONDUCT
WITHOUT BENEFIT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS. 

A CONCURRING JUDGE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FEARED THAT IT MIGHT BRING
ABOUT "DEMORALIZATION OF THE COURT'S AUTHORITY" SHOULD ANY ONE OTHER
THAN JUDGE MEDINA TRY THE CASE.  THE REASON GIVEN WAS:  "FOR INSTANCE,
IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, AT A TRIAL OF THE LAWYERS, SACHER WOULD INTRODUCE
THE TESTIMONY OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS IN AN EFFORT TO PROVE THAT HE WAS
NOT 'ANGRILY SHOUTING,' AS CHARGED IN SPECIFICATION VII, AND DID NOT
SPEAK 'IN AN INSOLENT MANNER,' AS CHARGED IN SPECIFICATION VIII;
GLADSTEIN WOULD SIMILARLY SEEK TO PROVE THERE HE DID NOT 'ANGRILY'
ADVANCE 'TOWARD THE BENCH' OR MAKE REMARKS IN A 'TRUCULENT MANNER,' AS
CHARGED IN SPECIFICATION VIII, AND DID NOT SPEAK TO THE JUDGE 'IN A
SARCASTIC AND IMPERTINENT MANNER,' AS CHARGED IN SPECIFICATION XI;
ETC., ETC."  182 F.2D 416, 461.  WHAT WOULD BE WRONG WITH THIS?  ARE
DEFENDANTS ACCUSED BY JUDGES OF BEING OFFENSIVE TO THEM TO BE
CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED GUILTY ON THE THEORY THAT JUDGES' OBSERVATIONS
AND INFERENCES MUST BE ACCEPTED AS INFALLIBLE?  THERE IS ALWAYS A
POSSIBILITY THAT A JUDGE MAY BE HONESTLY MISTAKEN.  UNFORTUNATELY
HISTORY AND THE EXISTENCE OF OUR BILL OF RIGHTS INDICATE THAT JUDICIAL
ERRORS MAY BE FROM WORSE CAUSES. 

THE HISTORIC POWER OF SUMMARY CONTEMPT GREW OUT OF THE NEED FOR
JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE COURTROOM AND TO
COMPEL OBEDIENCE TO COURT ORDERS.  I BELIEVE THE IDEA OF JUDGES HAVING
UNRESTRICTED POWER TO BY-PASS THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN RELATION TO
CRIMINAL TRIALS AND PUNISHMENTS IS AN ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING OF THIS
HISTORIC COERCIVE CONTEMPT POWER.  IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT SUCH A
"SUMMARY PROCESS OF THE STAR CHAMBER SLIPPED INTO THE COMMON LAW
COURTS," AND THAT THE ALLEGED ANCIENT HISTORY TO SUPPORT ITS EXISTENCE
IS "FICTION."  (FN7)  WITH THE SPECIFIC RESERVATION THAT I THINK
SUMMARY CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE EMPLOYED SOLELY TO ENFORCE
OBEDIENCE AND ORDER, AND NOT TO IMPOSE UNCONDITIONAL CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT, I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES: "I WOULD
GO AS FAR AS ANY MAN IN FAVOR OF THE SHARPEST AND MOST SUMMARY
ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER IN COURT AND OBEDIENCE TO DECREES, BUT WHEN THERE
IS NO NEED FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION CONTEMPTS ARE LIKE ANY OTHER BREACH OF
LAW AND SHOULD BE DEALT WITH AS THE LAW DEALS WITH OTHER ILLEGAL
ACTS."  TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402, 425-426. 

I BELIEVE THESE PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL.  I BELIEVE
A JURY IS ALL THE MORE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A FAIR TRIAL WHEN THE
ALLEGED OFFENSE RELATES TO CONDUCT THAT HAS PERSONALLY AFFRONTED A
JUDGE.  THE MAJORITY HERE AND THE MAJORITY BELOW APPEAR TO HAVE
AFFIRMED THESE CONVICTIONS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT APPELLATE REVIEW SO
FULLY GUARANTEES A FAIR TRIAL THAT IT IS AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR
TRIAL BY JURY.  WHILE I AGREE THAT THE POWER OF LAWYER-JUDGES TO SET
ASIDE CONVICTIONS DEEMED PREJUDICIAL OR ERRONEOUS IS ONE VITAL
SAFEGUARD OF LIBERTY, I CANNOT AGREE THAT IT AFFORDS THE FULL MEASURE
OF SECURITY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS PROVIDED AGAINST UNJUST
CONVICTIONS.  (FN8)  PREFERENCE FOR TRIAL BY A JURY OF LAYMEN OVER
TRIAL BY LAWYER-JUDGES LIES BEHIND THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF
TRIAL BY JURY.  I AM AMONG THOSE WHO STILL BELIEVE IN TRIAL BY JURY AS
ONE OF THE INDISPENSABLE SAFEGUARDS OF LIBERTY. 

FN1  THE DEFENDANT DENNIS, WHO HAD ACTED AS HIS OWN LAWYER, IS
INCLUDED IN THIS GROUP. 

FN2  WHILE THE FULL TEXT OF THE COLLOQUY IS PERTINENT, ALL OF IT IS
NOT REPEATED HERE AS IT IS SET OUT AT PP. 80-81 OF THE APPENDIX TO MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S OPINION. 

FN3  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE RECORD FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE
ACCUSATIONS THAT SACHER HAD SPOKEN FALSELY ABOUT THE PRESS RELEASES. 
SPECIFICATION XV BASED ON THAT CHARGE WAS REVERSED. 

FN4  THE PARTS OF SACHER'S STATEMENT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
COURT'S INTERRUPTION WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

"AND I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT, YOUR HONOR, THAT A COUNTRY WITH AN
INTIMIDATED BAR IS A COUNTRY WHOSE LIBERTIES ARE IN DANGER.  HERE IN
AMERICA WE KNOW THAT THE AMERICAN BAR OCCUPIES A PLACE OF HONOR IN THE
ACHIEVEMENT AND PRESERVATION OF THE LIBERTIES OF OUR PEOPLE, AND I SAY,
YOUR HONOR, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOUR DECISION AND JUDGMENT HERE
THAT ANY THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY, INDEPENDENCE AND COURAGE OF THE BAR
CAN ONLY CONSTITUTE A THREAT TO THE INTEGRITY AND WHOLESOMENESS AND
PRESERVATION OF OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. 

"FOR MYSELF LET ME SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT I SPEAK OF INTIMIDATION NOT
IN PERSONAL TERMS.  IF IT BE NECESSARY THAT IN THE CAUSE OF AMERICAN
LIBERTY I SHALL HAVE TO SERVE SIX MONTHS, THEN I SAY TO YOUR HONOR THE
PRICE WILL HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY SMALL.  I HOPE THAT IT WILL NOT BE
NECESSARY IN OUR COUNTRY FOR AN ADVOCATE TO HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT IF IT
BE NECESSARY  ...  . 

"THE COURT:  IT ISN'T THE PRICE OF LIBERTY; IT IS THE PRICE OF
MISBEHAVIOR AND DISORDER AS STATED IN THE CERTIFICATE. 

"MR. SACHER:  I SAY TO YOUR HONOR  ...  ." 

FN5  I DO NOT THINK THE CONVICTIONS OF THESE LAWYERS FOR CONTEMPT
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON THE THEORY THAT SUCH HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPRESSLY
OR IMPLIEDLY DONE BY THE "DIFFERENTLY COMPOSED COURT OF APPEALS" THAT
AFFIRMED CONVICTION OF THE COMMUNIST LEADERS.  THAT "DIFFERENTLY
COMPOSED" COURT MERELY HELD THAT NO CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL JUDGE CALLED
FOR REVERSING THE CONVICTIONS OF THE COMMUNIST LEADERS.  I THINK THAT
AFFIRMANCE DOES NOT SUPPORT AN INFERENCE THAT THE "DIFFERENTLY
COMPOSED" COURT WOULD ALSO HAVE SUSTAINED A JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT
AGAINST THE LAWYERS.  MOREOVER WHILE THIS "DIFFERENTLY COMPOSED" COURT
SEVERELY CONDEMNED THE LAWYERS' CONDUCT, IT APPARENTLY FELT CONSTRAINED
TO IMPLY THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE "DID NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH THE
IMPERTURBABILITY OF A RHADAMANTHUS ...  ."  183 F.2D 226. 

FN6  NEW ORLEANS V. STEAMSHIP CO., 20 WALL.  387, 392; GOMPERS V.
UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 604, 610, 611; MICHAELSON V. UNITED STATES, 266
U.S. 42, 66-67; PENDERGAST V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 412, 416-418; BUT
CF. MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 264 U.S. 95, 103. 

FN7  FRANKFURTER AND LANDIS, POWER OF CONGRESS OVER PROCEDURE IN
CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS IN "INFERIOR" FEDERAL COURTS, 37 HARV. L. REV. 1010,
1047.  SEE ALSO NELLES AND KING, CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES, 28 COL. L. REV. 401; FOX, HISTORY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT (1927). 

FN8  DURING THE PARLIAMENTARY DISCUSSION OF MR. FOX'S LIBEL BILL,
WHICH SOUGHT TO PRESERVE TRIAL BY JURY, IT WAS CALLED TO THE
PARLIAMENT'S ATTENTION THAT MR. JUSTICE BULLER, WHILE TRYING THE DEAN
OF ST. ASAPH AT SHREWSBURY, HAD DECLARED THE "RIGHTS OF APPEAL" TO BE
THE "DEAREST BIRTH-RIGHTS" OF AN ENGLISHMAN:  "THE MARQUIS (OF
LANSDOWNE) RIDICULED THE DECLARATION THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL IN ARREST
OF JUDGMENT, AND OF MOVING FOR A WRIT OF ERROR, WAS ONE OF THE DEAREST
BIRTH-RIGHTS OF ENGLISHMEN, ASSERTING THAT IT WAS NEITHER MORE NOR LESS
THAN THE BEING TURNED OVER FROM ONE SET OF LAWYERS TO ANOTHER, AND FROM
THAT OTHER TO A THIRD.  IN FACT, IT WAS TO BE TURNED OVER FROM THE
JUDGE WHO TRIED THE CAUSE, TO HIMSELF AND THREE OTHERS, IN A SECOND
PLACE; AND FROM THEM TO THEMSELVES AGAIN, MIXED WITH A FEW MORE JUDGES,
IN A THIRD PLACE]"  29 HANSARD, PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND, P.
1419. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

BITTER EXPERIENCE HAS SHARPENED OUR REALIZATION THAT A MAJOR TEST OF
TRUE DEMONCRACY IS THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  IF THE
CONDITIONS FOR A SOCIETY OF FREE MEN FORMULATED IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS
ARE NOT TO BE TURNED INTO MERE RHETORIC, INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL
COURTS MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  TO THAT END, COURTS
MUST HAVE THE POWER TO DEAL WITH ATTEMPTS TO DISRUPT THE COURSE OF
JUSTICE.  THIS SAFEGUARD CONCERNS NOT MERELY THE LITIGANTS IN A
PARTICULAR CASE; IT IS EVERYONE'S CONCERN.  THE IMPARTIAL
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE PRESUPPOSES THE DIGNIFIED AND EFFECTIVE
CONDUCT OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  THAT IN TURN IS DEPENDENT ON A PROPER
ATMOSPHERE IN THE COURTROOM.   THUS, THE POWER OF COURTS TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT IS A MEANS OF ASSURING THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUSTICE ACCORDING TO
LAW.  THE PROTECTION OF THE MOST GENEROUSLY CONCEIVED CIVIL LIBERTIES
PRESUPPOSES A COURT OVERAWED NEITHER BY INTERESTS WITHOUT NOR BY
DISRUPTIVE TACTICS WITHIN THE COURTROOM.  SUCH IS THE TEACHING OF THE
HISTORY OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING NATIONS. 

NO DECISION OF THIS COURT HAS REJECTED THIS TEACHING.  CERTAINLY NONE
OF THE PROFESSIONS OF THE COURT'S OPINIONS HAS.  WHILE, TO BE SURE, IN
A FEW INSTANCES RESTRICTIONS TOO CONFINING AND, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW,
UNWARRANTED HAVE BEEN PLACED UPON THIS POWER OF COURTS TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT, THE POWER ITSELF HAS NEVER BEEN DENIED.  THE FEDERAL COURTS
MAY, UNDER APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, INFLICT PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT
WITHOUT THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS NECESSARY FOR THE
PROSECUTION OF CRIME IN ITS HISTORICAL AND COLLOQUIAL SENSE. 

BUT THIS POWER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ARBITRARY IMPOSITION OF
PUNISHMENT.  TO DISPENSE WITH INDICTMENT BY GRAND JURY AND TRIAL BY A
JURY OF TWELVE DOES NOT MEAN THE RIGHT TO DISREGARD REASON AND
FAIRNESS.  REASON AND FAIRNESS DEMAND, EVEN IN PUNISHING CONTEMPT,
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS WITHIN WHICH THE NEEDS FOR THE EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE CAN BE AMPLY SATISFIED WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
THE REACH OF SO DRASTIC A POWER IS KEPT WITHIN LIMITS THAT WILL
MINIMIZE ABUSE.  WHILE EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THE NECESSITY OF
RECOGNIZING THAT COURTS POSSESS THIS AUTHORITY, EXPERIENCE HAS ALSO
PROVEN THAT RESTRICTIONS APPROPRIATE TO THE PURPOSES OF THE POWER MUST
FENCE IN ITS EXERCISE.  HENCE CONGRESS BY LEGISLATION DATING BACK MORE
THAN A HUNDRED YEARS, HAS PUT GEOGRAPHIC AND PROCEDURAL RESTRICTIONS
UPON THE POWER OF UNITED STATES COURTS TO PUNISH SUMMARILY FOR
CONTEMPT.  SEE MICHAELSON V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 42; NYE V. UNITED
STATES, 313 U.S. 33.  AND EVEN BEFORE CONGRESS DREW ON ITS POWER TO PUT
LIMITS ON INHERENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, THIS COURT DERIVED THE GENERAL
BOUNDARIES OF THIS POWER FROM ITS PURPOSE, SEE ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6
WHEAT.  204; MORE RECENTLY, THE COURT HAS DEFINED THE PROCEDURE
APPROPRIATE FOR ITS EXERCISE.  SEE COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S.
517. 

THE COURT DID SO FOR A REASON DEEPLY IMBEDDED IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AND
BY THAT VERY FACT TOO OFTEN NEGLECTED.  TIMES OF TENSION, WHICH ARE
USUALLY PERIODS OF WAR AND THEIR AFTERMATH, BRING IT TO THE SURFACE. 
REFLECTING NO DOUBT THEIR CONCERN OVER UNTOWARD EVENTS IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT ARISING OUT OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS
AND MR. JUSTICE HOLMES GAVE QUIET WARNING WHEN THEY OBSERVED THAT "IN
THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR LIBERTY INSISTENCE UPON PROCEDURAL REGULARITY
HAS BEEN A LARGE FACTOR."  BURDEAU V. MCDOWELL, 256 U.S. 465, 477.  IT
IS NOT FOR NOTHING THAT MOST OF THE PROVISIONS OF OUR BILL OF RIGHTS
ARE CONCERNED WITH MATTERS OF PROCEDURE. 

THAT IS WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT - "PROCEDURAL REGULARITY."  NOT
WHETHER THESE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF CONDUCT PROFESSIONALLY
INEXCUSABLE, BUT WHAT TRIBUNAL SHOULD SIT IN JUDGMENT; NOT WHETHER THEY
SHOULD BE PUNISHED, BUT WHO SHOULD METE OUT THE APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT;
NOT WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO PREVENT ITS PROCEEDINGS
FROM BEING SUBVERTED, BUT HOW THAT AUTHORITY SHOULD BE EXERCISED SO AS
TO ASSURE THE RECTITUDE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND AT THE SAME TIME NOT
DETRACT FROM THE AUTHORITY OF LAW ITSELF. 

THIS CASE ARISES OUT OF THE TRIAL OF THE ELEVEN COMMUNIST PARTY
LEADERS WHOSE CONVICTIONS WERE SUSTAINED IN DENNIS V. UNITED STATES,
341 U.S. 494.  IN MANY WAYS IT WAS A TRIAL WHOLLY OUT OF THE ORDINARY -
IN ITS LENGTH, THE NATURE OF THE ISSUES, THE POLITICAL AND EMOTIONAL
ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH THEY WERE ENVELOPED, THE CONDUCT OF COURT AND
COUNSEL, THE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THEM.  AFTER SEVERAL WEEKS OF
PROCEEDINGS ON PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS, THE TRIAL PROPER GOT UNDER WAY.  NINE
WEEKS WERE CONSUMED IN GETTING A JURY AND THIRTY MORE IN TRYING THE
CASE TO THE JURY.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE JURY BROUGHT IN THE VERDICT OF
GUILTY AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED THE FIVE DEFENSE
LAWYERS AND ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS (WHO HAD CONDUCTED HIS OWN DEFENSE)
WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT DURING THE TRIAL.  HE FILED A CAREFULLY
PREPARED, ELABORATE CERTIFICATE OF CONTEMPT CONTAINING FORTY CHARGES,
AND WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING FOUND THEM GUILTY AND IMPOSED SENTENCES
RANGING FROM THIRTY DAYS' TO SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT.  THESE
SPECIFICATIONS CHARGED MISCONDUCT OF A NATURE ESPECIALLY REPREHENSIBLE
WHEN COMMITTED BY LAWYERS, WHO, AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT, ARE PART OF
OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  AS SUCH THEY ARE UNDER A DUTY TO FURTHER, NOT
OBSTRUCT, THE RATIONAL AND FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

THE CERTIFICATE ON WHICH PETITIONERS WERE FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT
CHARGED THIRTY-NINE OCCURRENCES DURING THE TRIAL AS THIRTY-NINE ITEMS
OF MISCONDUCT.  HOWEVER, THESE SPECIFIED ITEMS WERE NOT REGARDED BY THE
JUDGE AS DISCRETE INSTANCES.  HE DEEMED THEM MANIFESTATIONS OF A
CONSPIRACY BY THE CONTEMNORS AGAINST HIM.  TO BE SURE, SPECIFICATIONS
II TO XL WERE INDIVIDUALLY CHARGED AND THEREFORE ARE TECHNICALLY
SUSTAINABLE BY THEMSELVES AND NOT MERELY AS OVERT ACTS OF THE
CONSPIRACY, SET FORTH WITH MUCH DETAIL AS SPECIFICATION I. BUT THE CORE
OF THE CHARGES - THE GRAVAMEN OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THESE
PETITIONERS - WAS THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD: 

"JOINED IN A WILFUL, DELIBERATE, AND CONCERTED EFFORT TO DELAY AND
OBSTRUCT THE TRIAL OF UNITED STATES V. FOSTER, ET AL., C 128-87, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CAUSING SUCH DISORDER AND CONFUSION AS WOULD PREVENT A
VERDICT BY A JURY ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE INDICTMENT; AND FOR THE
PURPOSE OF BRINGING THE COURT AND THE ENTIRE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM
INTO GENERAL DISCREDIT AND DISREPUTE, BY ENDEAVORING TO DIVERT THE
ATTENTION OF THE COURT AND JURY FROM THE SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST THEIR
CLIENTS OF A CONSPIRACY IN SUBSTANCE TO TEACH AND ADVOCATE THE
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE,
BY ATTACKING THE PRESIDING JUDGE AND ALL THE JUDGES OF THIS COURT, THE
JURY SYSTEM IN THIS DISTRICT, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE POLICE OF NEW YORK
CITY, AND THE PUBLIC PRESS OF NEW YORK AND OTHER CITIES." 

THOUGH THE CERTIFICATE MAKES IT PLAIN ENOUGH, A READING OF THE RECORD
LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT IN THE JUDGE'S MIND THE INDIVIDUAL OCCURRENCES SET
FORTH IN SPECIFICATIONS II TO XL DERIVED THEIR CHIEF SIGNIFICANCE FROM
HIS FINDING THAT THEY WERE TRIBUTARY TO THE DESIGN UPON WHICH THE
PETITIONERS HAD EMBARKED - A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE JUDGE IN ORDER TO
PREVENT A FAIR TRIAL OF THE ISSUES.  HE FOUND THEM GUILTY OF THAT.  BUT
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED - AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT QUESTIONED
THIS REVERSAL OF THE TRIAL JUDGE - THE CONVICTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
ON THE MAIN CHARGE THAT OF CONSPIRACY.  HOWEVER, THAT COURT, WITH ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING, DID SUSTAIN THE CONVICTIONS ON THIRTY-SEVEN OTHER
SPECIFICATIONS.  182 F.2D 416.  CONVICTIONS ON TWO SPECIFICATIONS WERE
FOUND UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  IBID. 

I WOULD NOT REMOTELY MINIMIZE THE GRAVITY OF THE CONDUCT OF WHICH THE
PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY, LET ALONE CONDONE IT.  BUT THEIR
INTRINSIC GUILT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US. THIS COURT
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE IN ORDER TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT
FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURE IN DETERMINING THAT THE MISCONDUCT OF THE
PETITIONERS SUBJECTED THEM TO PUNISHMENT.  342 U S. 858.  TIME OF OF
MIND THIS COURT HAS REVERSED CONVICTIONS FOR THE MOST HEINOUS OFFENSES,
EVEN THOUGH NO DOUBT ABOUT THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS
ENTERTAINED.  IT REVERSED BECAUSE THE MODE BY WHICH GUILT WAS
ESTABLISHED DISREGARDED THOSE STANDARDS OF PROCEDURE WHICH ARE SO
PRECIOUS AND SO IMPORTANT FOR OUR SOCIETY.  SO HERE, THE ONLY QUESTION
FOR DECISION IS WHETHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE TRIAL
JUDGE HIMSELF SHOULD, WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING AND AFTER THE
SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION OF THE TRIAL, HAVE SUMMARILY PUNISHED A SERIES
OF CONTEMPTS GROWING OUT OF WHAT HE CONCEIVED TO BE A CENTRAL
MISCHIEVOUS DESIGN, COMMITTED OVER A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS; OR WHETHER
ANOTHER JUDGE, DESIGNATED BY THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OR
OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, SHOULD
HAVE HEARD, AFTER DUE NOTICE, THE CHARGES OF CONTEMPT MADE BY THE TRIAL
JUDGE.  AT THE END OF THE TRIAL THE JUDGE WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE
ALTERNATIVES OF DOING WHAT HE DID OR ALLOWING THE CONTEMNORS TO GO
UNPUNISHED.  THE QUESTION WAS NOT PUNISHMENT, BUT WHO SHOULD PUNISH. 
DUE REGARD FOR SUCH PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS, TOO OFTEN MISCONCEIVED AS
NARROW AND TECHNICAL, ALONE JUSTIFIES THE TRUTH OF ONE OF THE GREAT
BOASTS OF OUR DEMOCRACY, THE ESSENTIAL FAIRNESS OF OUR JUDICIAL
SYSTEM. 

THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE COMPEL ME TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE COMBINED IN HIMSELF THE FUNCTIONS OF
ACCUSER AND JUDGE.  FOR HIS ACCUSATIONS WERE NOT IMPERSONAL.  THEY
CONCERNED MATTERS IN WHICH HE PERSONALLY WAS DEEPLY ENGAGED.  WHATEVER
OCCASION MAY HAVE EXISTED DURING THE TRIAL FOR SITTING IN JUDGMENT UPON
CLAIMS OF PERSONAL VICTIMIZATION, IT CEASED AFTER THE TRIAL HAD
TERMINATED.  IT FALLS TO THIS COURT AS HEAD OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL
SYSTEM TO CORRECT SUCH ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER. 

ALL GRANTS OF POWER, INCLUDING THE VERBALLY UNLIMITED TERMS OF RULE
42(A) OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE INHERENT
LIMITATION THAT THE POWER SHALL BE FAIRLY USED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH IT IS CONFERRED.  IT IS A LIMITATION DERIVED NOT MERELY FROM
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OF REASON BUT FROM THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF
THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  "A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
MAY BE PUNISHED SUMMARILY," SO RUNS RULE 42(A), "IF THE JUDGE CERTIFIES
THAT HE SAW OR HEARD THE CONDUCT CONSTITUTING THE CONTEMPT AND THAT IT
WAS COMMITTED IN THE ACTUAL PRESENCE OF THE COURT."  THE RULE MERELY
PERMITS SUMMARY PUNISHMENT.  IT DOES NOT COMMAND SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF
ALL CONTEMPTS "COMMITTED IN THE ACTUAL PRESENCE OF THE COURT," IN ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES AND AT ANY TIME.  THAT THERE ARE UNEXPRESSED LIMITS TO
THIS POWER IS RECOGNIZED EVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FOR IT CONCEDES THAT
A JUDGE COULD NOT SUMMARILY PUNISH CONTEMPT WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING
AT ANY UNDEFINED TIME LONG AFTER IT HAS OCCURRED IN HIS PRESENCE.  IN
SHORT, RULE 42(A), WHICH IN 1946 DECLARED WHAT THE LAW WAS, (FN1)
ACKNOWLEDGES AN UNDEFINED POWER FOR IMPOSING SUMMARY PUNISHMENT WITHOUT
EXPRESSLY LAYING DOWN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE POWER GRANTED.  LEGISLATION
NORMALLY CARRIES SUCH IMPLICATIONS. 

TO RECOGNIZE THE GENERALITY OF A POWER IS THE BEGINNING NOT THE END
OF THE INQUIRY WHETHER IN THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INVOKED THE
POWER DUE REGARD WAS HAD FOR THE IMPLIED RESTRICTIONS.  AMONG THE
RESTRICTIONS TO BE IMPLIED, AS A MATTER OF COURSE, ARE TWO BASIC
PRINCIPLES OF OUR LAW - THAT NO JUDGE SHOULD SIT IN A CASE IN WHICH HE
IS PERSONALLY INVOLVED AND THAT NO CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE METED
OUT EXCEPT UPON NOTICE AND DUE HEARING, UNLESS OVERRIDING NECESSITY
PRECLUDES SUCH INDISPENSABLE SAFEGUARDS FOR ASSURING FAIRNESS AND
AFFORDING THE FEELING THAT FAIRNESS HAS BEEN DONE.  OBSERVANCE OF THESE
COMMONPLACE TRADITIONS HAS ITS PRICE.  IT SOMETIMES RUNS COUNTER TO
PUBLIC FEELING THAT BROOKS NO DELAY.  AT TIMES IT SEEMS TO ENTAIL A
NEEDLESSLY CUMBERSOME PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH THE OBVIOUS.  BUT AS A
PROCESS IT IS ONE OF THE CHERISHED AND INDISPENSABLE ACHIEVEMENTS OF
WESTERN CIVILIZATION.  IT IS HIS DISREGARD OF THESE CONTROLLING
TRADITIONS THAT FORCES ME TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE HOWEVER
SORELY TRIED, ERRED IN USING THE SUMMARY CONTEMPT PROCEDURE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE HIM. 

HAPPILY FEW SUCH EXERCISES OF SUMMARY AUTHORITY HAVE COME BEFORE THIS
COURT.  STILL RARER ARE THE INSTANCES WHERE A JUDGE IS DEEPLY INVOLVED
IN THE CONDUCT ON WHICH HE HAS TO PASS JUDGMENT.  SUCH A SITUATION DID
COME HERE SOME TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO IN COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267
U.S. 517.  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT THEN TOOK OCCASION, ON BEHALF OF THE
WHOLE COURT, TO LAY DOWN THE GUIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHICH SHOULD HAVE
BEEN FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE: 

"THE POWER OF CONTEMPT WHICH A JUDGE MUST HAVE AND EXERCISE IN
PROTECTING THE DUE AND ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND IN
MAINTAINING THE AUTHORITY AND DIGNITY OF THE COURT IS MOST IMPORTANT
AND INDISPENSABLE.  BUT ITS EXERCISE IS A DELICATE ONE AND CARE IS
NEEDED TO AVOID ARBITRARY OR OPPRESSIVE CONCLUSIONS.  THIS RULE OF
CAUTION IS MORE MANDATORY WHERE THE CONTEMPT CHARGED HAS IN IT THE
ELEMENT OF PERSONAL CRITICISM OR ATTACK UPON THE JUDGE.  THE JUDGE MUST
BANISH THE SLIGHTEST PERSONAL IMPULSE TO REPRISAL, BUT HE SHOULD NOT
BEND BACKWARD AND INJURE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT BY TOO GREAT
LENIENCY.  THE SUBSTITUTION OF ANOTHER JUDGE WOULD AVOID EITHER
TENDENCY BUT IT IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE.  OF COURSE WHERE ACTS OF
CONTEMPT ARE PALPABLY AGGRAVATED BY A PERSONAL ATTACK UPON THE JUDGE IN
ORDER TO DRIVE THE JUDGE OUT OF THE CASE FOR ULTERIOR REASONS, THE
SCHEME SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO SUCCEED.  BUT ATTEMPTS OF THIS KIND
ARE RARE.  ALL OF SUCH CASES, HOWEVER, PRESENT DIFFICULT QUESTIONS FOR
THE JUDGE.  ALL WE CAN SAY UPON THE WHOLE MATTER IS THAT WHERE
CONDITIONS DO NOT MAKE IT IMPRACTICABLE, OR WHERE THE DELAY MAY NOT
INJURE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGHT, A JUDGE CALLED UPON TO ACT IN A CASE OF
CONTEMPT BY PERSONAL ATTACK UPON HIM, MAY, WITHOUT FLINCHING FROM HIS
DUTY, PROPERLY ASK THAT ONE OF HIS FELLOW JUDGES TAKE HIS PLACE. 
CORNISH V. THE UNITED STATES, 299 FED. 283, 285; TOLEDO COMPANY V. THE
UNITED STATES, 237 FED. 986, 988. 

"THE CASE BEFORE US IS ONE IN WHICH THE ISSUE BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND
THE PARTIES HAD COME TO INVOLVE MARKED PERSONAL FEELING THAT DID NOT
MAKE FOR AN IMPARTIAL AND CALM JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION AND CONCLUSION,
AS THE STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS ABUNDANTLY SHOWS.  WE THINK,
THEREFORE, THAT WHEN THIS CASE AGAIN REACHES THE DISTRICT COURT TO
WHICH IT MUST BE REMANDED, THE JUDGE WHO IMPOSED THE SENTENCE HEREIN
SHOULD INVITE THE SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT TO ASSIGN ANOTHER
JUDGE TO SIT IN THE SECOND HEARING OF THE CHARGE AGAINST THE
PETITIONER."  267 U.S. AT 539. 

IN THE COOKE CASE THE COURT DID MUCH MORE THAN SET ASIDE A SENTENCE
OF THIRTY DAYS FOR CONTEMPT BECAUSE "THE PROCEDURE PURSUED WAS UNFAIR
AND OPPRESSIVE," 267 U.S. 517, 538.  THERE, AS HERE, THE CONTEMPT WAS
BY A LAWYER; THERE, AS HERE, THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY A
COURT OF APPEALS IN AN OPINION BY ONE OF THE MOST EMINENT JUDGES OF HIS
DAY.  295 F. 292.  IN REVERSING THE TWO LOWER COURTS AND FINDING AN
ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY THE TRIAL COURT, THIS COURT DID WHAT IT
FEELS CALLED UPON TO DO FROM TIME TO TIME IN A CLASS OF CASES THAT HAVE
A CLOSE KINSHIP TO MATTERS DEEMED FUNDAMENTAL WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF DUE
PROCESS.  IT DEFINED THE PROCEDURAL STANDARDS TO BE OBSERVED BY THE
LOWER COURTS.  THE GENERAL DIRECTION THUS GIVEN TO LOWER COURTS IS NOT
LIKELY TO BE RESPECTED BY THEM IF THIS COURT IS TOO GENIAL IN ENFORCING
ITS OBSERVANCE. 

ENFORCEMENT IS NOT HAD BY REPETITION OF GENERALITIES AND SANCTION OF
THEIR DISREGARD IN PRACTICE.  WE MUST START, NO DOUBT, WITH A
PREDISPOSITION IN FAVOR OF THE PROPRIETY OF A TRIAL JUDGE'S ACTION. 
HIS IS THE INITIAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE
DISCRETION WITH WHICH HE IS ENTRUSTED WILL NORMALLY BE EXERCISED BY
JUDGES OF FIRMNESS, SELF-DISCIPLINE, AND GOOD SENSE.  THESE
CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD COUNT HEAVILY ON REVIEW.  BUT WHEN MEN ARE GIVEN
SHORT SHRIFT IN BEING PUNISHED, ABSTRACT RULES CANNOT DISPENSE WITH THE
DUTY OF THE REVIEWING COURT IMAGINATIVELY TO RE-CREATE THE COURTROOM
DRAMA.  IN ORDER TO SAVE TRIAL COURTS FROM BEING UNDULY HAMPERED, IT IS
NOT NECESSARY TO LEAVE THEM WITH ARBITRARY POWER BY RELYING ON THE
PRESUMPTION OF JUDICIAL PROPRIETY TO THE EXCLUSION OF A SOPHISTICATED,
EVEN IF INDULGENT, SCRUTINY OF THE RECORD. 

IF WE ARE TO UNDERSTAND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE SENTENCES
UNDER REVIEW WERE IMPOSED, A CLOSE STUDY OF THE RECORD IN THE DENNIS
CASE CANNOT BE AVOIDED.  THE CERTIFICATE OF CONTEMPT INCORPORATED THE
WHOLE RECORD OF THAT CASE AND MADE ITS FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF IT.  WE
CANNOT DO LESS IN PASSING ON THE PROPRIETY OF THE SUMMARY CONVICTIONS. 
WE CANNOT DO LESS IF WE ARE TO APPRAISE FAIRLY THE POWER ASSUMED BY THE
TRIAL COURT OF PUNISHING WITHOUT FURTHER ADO AT THE END OF THE TRIAL
CONDUCT THAT TOOK PLACE DURING ITS LONG TRAVAIL.  THIS DOES NOT IMPLY
REVIEWING WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF THESE PETITIONERS WAS CONTEMPTUOUS. 
THE WHOLE RECORD IS INDISPENSABLY RELEVANT TO THE PROCEDURAL QUESTION
WHICH WE BROUGHT HERE:  HOW WAS SUCH MISCONDUCT TO BE PUNISHED? 

DEEPLY AS I BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF GIVING WIDE AND NOT
NIGGARDLY SCOPE TO THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF TRIAL JUDGES AND WITH A
LIFELONG REGARD FOR THE WISDOM OF THE JUDGE WHO, ON BEHALF OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS, FOUND THAT THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT
ABUSED, I CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONVICTION THAT ANOTHER DISTRICT JUDGE
SHOULD HAVE TRIED THE CONTEMPT ISSUE.  AND THIS, THOUGH ONE MAY WELL
ASSUME THAT ANY OTHER JUDGE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPELLED TO FIND CONTEMPT
IN THIS CASE AND MIGHT HAVE IMPOSED EVEN SEVERER SENTENCES.  PRESERVING
AND ENHANCING RESPECT FOR LAW IS ALWAYS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SUSTAINING
THE INFLICTION OF PUNISHMENT IN A PARTICULAR CASE. 

A READING OF THE FIFTEEN VOLUMES OF TESTIMONY IN THE DENNIS RECORD
LEAVES ONE WITH THE STRONG FEELING THAT THE CONDUCT FOUND CONTEMPTUOUS
WAS IN THE MAIN DIRECTED AGAINST THE TRIAL JUDGE PERSONALLY AND THAT
THE JUDGE HIMSELF SO REGARDED IT.  IN THE PREAMBLE OF HIS CONTEMPT
CERTIFICATE HE STATES THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE NEFARIOUS
AGREEMENT WITH WHICH HE CHARGED THE LAWYERS WAS "IMPAIRING MY HEALTH SO
THAT THE TRIAL COULD NOT CONTINUE."  THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE SPECIFIC
ACTS TO "EFFECT THIS PLAN" HAD THE JUDGE PERSONALLY AS THEIR TARGET. 
THE PETITIONERS, SO THE JUDGE FOUND IN SPECIFICATION I: 

"B.  SUGGESTED THAT VARIOUS FINDINGS BY THE COURT WERE MADE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF NEWSPAPER HEADLINES: 

"C.  INSINUATED THAT THERE WAS CONNIVANCE BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"E.  PERSISTED IN MAKING LONG, REPETITIOUS, AND UNSUBSTANTIAL
ARGUMENTS, OBJECTIONS, AND PROTESTS, WORKING IN SHIFTS, ACCOMPANIED BY
SHOUTING, SNEERING, AND SNICKERING: 

"F.  URGED ONE ANOTHER ON TO BADGER THE COURT: 

"G.  REPEATEDLY MADE CHARGES AGAINST THE COURT OF BIAS, PREJUDICE,
CORRUPTION, AND PARTIALITY: 

"H.  MADE A SUCCESSION OF DISRESPECTFUL, INSOLENT, AND SARCASTIC
COMMENTS AND REMARKS TO THE COURT: 

     *         *        *         *         * 

"K.  PERSISTED IN ASKING QUESTIONS ON EXCLUDED SUBJECT MATTERS,
KNOWING THAT OBJECTIONS WOULD BE SUSTAINED, TO ENDEAVOR TO CREATE A
FALSE PICTURE OF BIAS AND PARTIALITY ON THE PART OF THE COURT: 

"L.  ACCUSED THE COURT OF RACIAL PREJUDICE WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION;
AND: 

"M.  GENERALLY CONDUCTED THEMSELVES IN A MOST PROVOCATIVE MANNER IN
AN ENDEAVOR TO CALL FORTH SOME INTEMPERATE OR UNDIGNIFIED RESPONSE FROM
THE COURT WHICH COULD THEN BE RELIED UPON AS A DEMONSTRATION OF THE
COURT'S UNFITNESS TO PRESIDE OVER THE TRIAL." 

THE CONVICTION ON SPECIFICATIONS I WAS, AS ALREADY INDICATED,
REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  BUT ITS THEME UNDERLIES THE WHOLE
CERTIFICATE.  IT CONVEYS INESCAPABLY WHAT THE JUDGE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN
THE PERMEATING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BEHAVIOR OF THESE LAWYERS.  THE
"OVERT ACTS" LISTED IN SPECIFICATION I ARE BUT A COMPENDIUM OF THE
OTHER SPECIFICATIONS.  AT LEAST TWENTY-NINE OF THESE DESCRIBE CONDUCT
DIRECTED AGAINST THE TRIAL JUDGE PERSONALLY:  CHARGES OF PREJUDICE AND
RACIAL BIAS, OF COLLUSION WITH THE PROSECUTION, OF HEADLINE-SEEKING. 

NOT ONLY WERE THE CONTEMPTS DIRECTED AGAINST THE TRIAL JUDGE.  THE
CONDUCT OF THE LAWYERS HAD ITS REFLEX IN THE JUDGE.  AT FREQUENT
INTERVALS IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL HIS COMMENTS PLAINLY REVEAL
PERSONAL FEELING AGAINST THE LAWYERS, HOWEVER MUCH THE COURSE OF THE
TRIAL MAY HAVE JUSTIFIED SUCH FEELING.  ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS HE
EXPRESSED HIS BELIEF THAT THE LAWYERS WERE TRYING TO WEAR HIM DOWN, TO
INJURE HIS HEALTH, TO PROVOKE HIM INTO DOING SOMETHING THAT WOULD SHOW
PREJUDICE, OR CAUSE A MISTRIAL OR REVERSAL ON APPEAL. 

THE CERTIFICATE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE QUOTES EXCERPTS OF THE RECORD FROM
THE PRINCIPAL CASE.  BUT THESE EXCERPTS ARE TOO BRIEF FOR A PICTURE
THAT EVEN REMOTELY REVEALS THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL.  THE SPECIFIED
CONTEMPTS CANNOT PROPERLY BE APPRAISED WITH A VIEW TO DETERMINING THE
PROCEDURE APPROPRIATE FOR DEALING WITH THEM, UNLESS THEY ARE GIVEN A
MUCH MORE BALANCED PERSPECTIVE THAN CAN BE GOT FROM THE CERTIFICATE OF
CONTEMPT.  IN ORDER TO PUT THE SPECIFIED CONTEMPTS IN THEIR TRIAL
SETTING, AN APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION SUPPLEMENTS THE MEAGER EXCERPTS IN
THE CERTIFICATE.  THE ONLY ADEQUATE WAY TO DOCUMENT THIS CASE WOULD BE
TO MAKE THE WHOLE DENNIS RECORD PART OF THIS OPINION, AS DID THE TRIAL
JUDGE BY REFERENCE IN HIS CERTIFICATE.  BUT EVEN WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
SPACE IMPOSED BY AN APPENDIX IT IS INDUBITABLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE
JUDGE FELT DEEPLY INVOLVED PERSONALLY IN THE CONDUCT FOR WHICH HE
PUNISHED THE DEFENSE LAWYERS.  HE WAS NOT MERELY A WITNESS TO AN
OCCURRENCE, AS WOULD BE A JUDGE WHO OBSERVED A FIST FIGHT IN HIS
COURTROOM OR BRUTAL BADGERING OF A WITNESS OR AN IMPROPRIETY TOWARDS
THE JURY.  THE JUDGE ACTED AS THE PROSECUTING WITNESS; HE THOUGHT OF
HIMSELF AS SUCH.  HIS SELF-CONCERN PERVADES THE RECORD; IT COULD NOT
HUMANLY HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM HIS JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT.   JUDGES ARE
HUMAN, AND IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT ANY OTHER JUDGE COULD HAVE BEEN
IMPERVIOUS TO THE ABUSE HAD HE BEEN SUBJECTED TO IT.  BUT PRECISELY
BECAUSE A JUDGE IS HUMAN, AND IN COMMON FRAILTY OR MANLINESS WOULD
INTERPRET SUCH CONDUCT OF LAWYERS AS AN ATTACK ON HIMSELF PERSONALLY,
HE SHOULD NOT SUBSEQUENTLY SIT IN JUDGMENT ON HIS ASSAILANTS, BARRING
ONLY INSTANCES WHERE SUCH EXTRAORDINARY PROCEDURE IS COMPELLINGLY
NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT THE TRIAL MAY PROCEED AND NOT BE ABORTED. 
(FN2) 

SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF CONTEMPT IS CONCEDEDLY AN EXCEPTION TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  NECESSITY DICTATES THE DEPARTURE. 
NECESSITY MUST BOUND ITS LIMITS.  IN THIS CASE THE COURSE OF EVENTS TO
THE VERY END OF THE TRIAL SHOWS THAT SUMMARY MEASURES WERE NOT
NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE TRIAL TO GO ON.  DEPARTURE FROM ESTABLISHED
JUDICIAL PRACTICE, WHICH MAKES IT UNFITTING FOR A JUDGE WHO IS
PERSONALLY INVOLVED TO SIT IN HIS OWN CASE, WAS THEREFORE UNWARRANTED. 
NEITHER SELF-RESPECT NOR THE GOOD NAME OF THE LAW REQUIRED IT.  QUITE
OTHERWISE.  DESPITE THE MANY INCIDENTS OF CONTEMPT THAT WERE CHARGED,
THE TRIAL WENT TO COMPLETION, NINE MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST INCIDENT,
WITHOUT A SINGLE OCCASION MAKING IT NECESSARY TO LAY ANY ONE OF THE
LAWYERS BY THE HEEL IN ORDER TO ASSURE THAT THE TRIAL PROCEED.  THE
TRIAL JUDGE WAS ABLE TO KEEP ORDER AND TO CONTINUE THE COURT'S BUSINESS
BY OCCASIONAL BRIEF RECESSES CALCULATED TO COOL PASSIONS AND RESTORE
DECORUM, BY PERIODIC WARNINGS TO DEFENSE LAWYERS, AND BY SHUTTING OFF
OBSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENTS WHENEVER RULINGS WERE CONCISELY STATED AND FIRMLY
HELD TO. 

THIS, THEN, WAS NOT A SITUATION IN WHICH, EVEN THOUGH A JUDGE WAS
PERSONALLY INVOLVED AS THE TARGET OF THE CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT,
PEREMPTORY ACTION AGAINST CONTEMNORS WAS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ORDER
AND TO SALVAGE THE PROCEEDINGS.  WHERE SUCH ACTION IS NECESSARY FOR THE
DECOROUS CONTINUANCE OF A PENDING TRIAL, DISPOSITION BY ANOTHER JUDGE
OF A CHARGE OF CONTEMPT IS IMPRACTICABLE.  INTERRUPTION FOR A HEARING
BEFORE A SEPARATE JUDGE WOULD DISRUPT THE TRIAL AND THUS ACHIEVE THE
ILLICIT PURPOSE OF A CONTEMNOR. 

BUT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND COURTS AS ITS INSTRUMENTS ARE
VINDICATED, AND LAWYERS WHO MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO TRY SIMILAR TACTICS ARE
AMPLY DETERRED, BY THE ASSURANCE THAT PUNISHMENT WILL BE CERTAIN AND
SEVERE REGARDLESS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT IMPOSES IT.  IT IS A DISSERVICE
TO THE LAW TO SANCTION THE IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT BY A JUDGE
PERSONALLY INVOLVED AND THEREFORE NOT UNREASONABLY TO BE DEEMED TO BE
SEEKING RETRIBUTION, HOWEVER UNCONSCIOUSLY, AT A TIME WHEN A HEARING
BEFORE A JUDGE UNDISTURBED BY ANY PERSONAL RELATION IS EQUALLY
CONVENIENT.  IT DOES NOT ENHANCE A BELIEF THAT PUNISHMENT IS A
VINDICATION OF IMPERSONAL LAW; IT DOES NOT FORTIFY THE DETERRENT
FUNCTION OF PUNISHMENT. 

HAD THE JUDGE HERE FOUND THE PETITIONERS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT DURING
THE ACTUAL COURSE OF THE TRIAL A DIFFERENT PROBLEM WOULD BE PRESENTED. 
EVEN THEN, HOWEVER, ONLY COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD JUSTIFY A
PEREMPTORY JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT.  FOR WHILE "COURTS OF JUSTICE ARE
UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE VESTED, BY THEIR VERY CREATION, WITH
POWER TO IMPOSE SILENCE, RESPECT, AND DECORUM, IN THEIR PRESENCE," THE
POWER THAT MAY THUS BE EXERCISED IS "THE LEAST POSSIBLE POWER ADEQUATE
TO THE END PROPOSED."  ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6 WHEAT.  204, 227, 231. 
RESORT BY A JUDGE TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS WITHOUT THE USUAL SAFEGUARDS IN
IMPOSING PUNISHMENT IS TO BE SUPPORTED ONLY IF THE MORAL AUTHORITY OF A
TRIAL JUDGE CANNOT COMMAND ORDER AND RESPECT, ONLY IF A FIRM REPRIMAND
CALCULATED TO SECURE OBEDIENCE WOULD NOT HALT AN INCIPIENT COURT OF
MISCONDUCT. 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS CONCERNED WITH THE PATHOLOGY OF THE BODY
POLITIC.  IN ADMINISTERING THE CRIMINAL LAW, JUDGES WIELD THE MOST
AWESOME SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS OF SOCIETY.  A CRIMINAL TRIAL, IT HAS BEEN
WELL SAID, SHOULD HAVE THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE OPERATING ROOM.  THE
PRESIDING JUDGE DETERMINES THE ATMOSPHERE.  HE IS NOT AN UMPIRE WHO
ENFORCES THE RULES OF A GAME, OR MERELY A MODERATOR BETWEEN
CONTESTANTS.  IF HE IS ADEQUATE TO HIS FUNCTIONS, THE MORAL AUTHORITY
WHICH HE RADIATES WILL IMPOSE THE INDISPENSABLE STANDARDS OF DIGNITY
AND AUSTERITY UPON ALL THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL. 

TRUTH COMPELS THE OBSERVATION, PAINFUL AS IT IS TO MAKE IT, THAT THE
FIFTEEN VOLUMES OF ORAL TESTIMONY IN THE PRINCIPAL TRIAL RECORD
NUMEROUS EPISODES INVOLVING THE JUDGE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT ARE MORE
SUGGESTIVE OF AN UNDISCIPLINED DEBATING SOCIETY THAN OF THE HUSH AND
SOLEMNITY OF A COURT OF JUSTICE.  TOO OFTEN COUNSEL WERE ENCOURAGED TO
VIE WITH THE COURT IN DIALECTIC, IN REPARTEE AND BANTER, IN TALK SO
COPIOUS AS INEVITABLY TO ARREST THE MOMENTUM OF THE TRIAL AND TO WEAKEN
THE RESTRAINTS OF RESPECT THAT A JUDGE SHOULD ENGENDER IN LAWYERS. 
COUNSEL WERE NOT MADE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN A CRIMINAL CASE NOT MERELY
THE LIBERTY OF INDIVIDUALS IS AT STAKE.  LAW ITSELF IS ON TRIAL AS THE
"STERN DAUGHTER OF THE VOICE OF GOD."  THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN
AFTER THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD INDICATED THAT HE THOUGHT DEFENSE COUNSEL
WERE IN CONSPIRACY AGAINST HIM AND WERE SEEKING THEREBY TO SUBVERT THE
TRIAL, HE FAILED TO EXERCISE THE MORAL AUTHORITY OF A COURT POSSESSED
OF A GREAT TRADITION.  HE INDULGED THEM, SOMETIMES RESIGNEDLY,
SOMETIMES PLAYFULLY, IN LENGTHY SPEECHES.  THESE INCONTINENT WRANGLES
BETWEEN COURT AND COUNSEL WERE PUNCTUATED BY OCCASIONAL MINATORY
INTIMATIONS FROM THE BENCH.  AS IN THE CASE OF PARENTAL WARNINGS TO
CHILDREN, FECKLESS REPETITION DEPRIVED THEM OF AUTHORITY. 

TO CALL COUNSEL OFFICERS OF THE COURT IS NO IDLE PHRASE.  OUR WHOLE
CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAW, ESPECIALLY CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
IMPLIES AN EDUCATED, RESPONSIBLE, AND INDEPENDENT BAR.  COUNSEL ARE NOT
FREED FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT APPROPRIATE TO THEIR FUNCTIONS NO
MATTER WHAT THE ENCOURAGEMENTS AND PROVOCATIONS.  PETITIONERS MUST BE
HELD TO STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE CONTEMPTS THEY COMMITTED.  BUT
UNTIL THE INHERENT AUTHORITY THAT SHOULD RADIATE FROM THE BENCH IS
FOUND INEFFECTIVE IN SECURING SEEMLY CONDUCT BY COUNSEL, THERE IS NO
NEED FOR DRASTIC PEREMPTORY PROCEDURE IN BRINGING CONTEMNORS TO BOOK
EVEN DURING A TRIAL.  HISTORY RECORDS TOO MANY ABUSES TO LOOK
INDULGENTLY UPON THE EXERCISE OF SUCH ARBITRARY POWER.  AND WHEN THE
TRIAL IN FACT GOES TO COMPLETION, AS HERE, WITHOUT INVOKING SUMMARY
CONVICTIONS, THAT IN ITSELF PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR
DEPARTURE FROM THE HISTORIC METHOD OF TRYING CRIMINAL CHARGES, THAT IS,
AFTER NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEFENSE BEFORE A DISINTERESTED
JUDGE. 

IT ONLY REMAINS TO POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS CASE AND
TWO OTHER CASES NOW BEFORE THIS COURT ON PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  (AS
TO THE DESIRABLE DISPOSITION OF THESE PETITIONS NO VIEW IS INTENDED TO
BE INDICATED.)  IN HALLINAN V. UNITED STATES, 182 F.2D 880, AND
MACINNIS V. UNITED STATES, 191 F.2D 157, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED CONVICTIONS FOR CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY TWO
LAWYERS IN A TRIAL IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WHICH LASTED
SOME TWENTY WEEKS, FROM NOVEMBER 14, 1949, TO APRIL 4, 1950.  THE
CONTEMPT CHARGE IN THE HALLINAN CASE WAS FOR CONDUCT WHICH OCCURRED
DURING THURSDAY, FRIDAY AND MONDAY OF THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF THE LONG
TRIAL AND CONSISTED IN DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT'S ORDER TO LIMIT THE
OPENING STATEMENT AND THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A GOVERNMENT WITNESS. 
THE COMPLAINED-OF CONDUCT DID NOT AT ALL BRING THE JUDGE PERSONALLY
INTO THE CONTROVERSY.  ON TUESDAY MORNING AFTER THE TIME NECESSARY FOR
PREPARATION OF THE CONTEMPT CERTIFICATE THE JUDGE FOUND HALLINAN IN
CONTEMPT AND SENTENCED HIM TO SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT.  ON THE FACE OF
THE RECORD IT WOULD REQUIRE EVEN MORE THAN THE BOLDNESS OF HINDSIGHT TO
SAY THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT
IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT'S ORDER WAS
NECESSARY TO SECURE RESPECT FOR HIS AUTHORITY DURING THE REMAINDER OF
THE TRIAL. 

LATER, ON FEBRUARY 1, 1950, TH OTHER DEFENSE ATTORNEY - MACINNIS -
THUS ADDRESSED THE COURT AFTER ONE OF ITS RULINGS:  "I THINK YOU SHOULD
CITE YOURSELF FOR MISCONDUCT  ...  .  I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING LIKE
THAT.  YOU OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF."  SOON AFTER THIS REMARK
THE COURT RECESSED UNTIL THE NEXT DAY.  AFTER OVERNIGHT CONSIDERATION,
THE JUDGE INFORMED THE LAWYER THAT HIS REMARK CONSTITUTED CONTEMPT AND
THAT A CERTIFICATE OF CONTEMPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 42 WOULD BE
FILED.  HERE AGAIN, THE JUDGE TOOK PROMPT ACTION IN ORDER AS HE
CONCLUDED, TO ASSURE THE ORDERLY CONTINUANCE OF A TRIAL WHICH STILL HAD
MANY WEEKS TO GO. 

THE HALLINAN AND MACINNIS CASES DISPROVE THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM THAT
PROMPT CITATION FOR CONTEMPT, IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED IT, WOULD
HAVE CAUSED DELAY AND DISRUPTION IN THE NEW YORK TRIAL.  IN THE
CALIFORNIA CASE HALLINAN REMAINED AS DEFENSE COUNSEL BY VIRTUE OF A
STAY IN THE EXECUTION OF HIS SENTENCE; AND MACINNIS, BY A POSTPONEMENT
OF HIS SENTENCE UNTIL AFTER THE VERDICT IN THE PRINCIPAL CASE. 
MACINNIS EVIDENTLY ABSTAINED FROM FURTHER MISCONDUCT IN THE PRINCIPAL
TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE CERTAINTY OF PUNISHMENT, THOUGH HE DID NOT KNOW
ITS MAGNITUDE.  EITHER DEVICE WAS AVAILABLE TO THE TRIAL JUDGE IN NEW
YORK HAD HE FELT THAT ONLY BY A PROMPT JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT COULD HE
KEEP CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  IN FACT HE DID KEEP ORDER BY MEASURES
SHORT OF THOSE USED IN THE CALIFORNIA CASE.  AT THE END OF THE TRIAL
THE ONLY QUESTION WAS WHETHER HE OR ANOTHER JUDGE, NOT PERSONALLY
INVOLVED, SHOULD PASS ON ISSUES OF CONTEMPT THAT HAD ARISEN DURING A
TRIAL THAT HAD ENDED, AND IMPOSE PUNISHMENT IF GUILT WAS FOUND. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT A JUDGE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PUNISH
CONTEMPT PEREMPTORILY, AS DID THE JUDGE HERE, LONG AFTER THE CONTEMPT
OCCURS.  OTHERWISE HE MIGHT BE IMPELLED, SO IT IS SURPRISINGLY ARGUED,
TO ACT ON THE INFLAMED IMPULSE OF THE MOMENT FOR FEAR OF LOSING THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER HIMSELF.  THE HALLINAN AND MACINNIS
CASES SUGGEST THE ANSWER:  POWER TO CITE FOR CONTEMPT SUMMARILY IS NOT
LOST BY TAKING A REASONABLE, BRIEF TIME FOR JUDICIOUS CONSIDERATION
WHETHER SUCH DRASTIC ACTION IS NECESSARY IN A PENDING TRIAL.  MOREOVER,
THE GUIDES TO RIGHT CONDUCT WHICH MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT LAID DOWN IN
THE COOKE CASE, AND ON WHICH I RELY, REST ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
FEDERAL JUDGES ARE NOT UNDISCIPLINED CREATURES WHOSE FEELINGS ARE THEIR
MASTERS.  PRESUMABLY THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE BEINGS WITH COOL HEADS.  IN
ANY EVENT, THIS COURT SITS TO CORRECT A RARE OCCURRENCE OF
IRRESPONSIBLE ACTION.  FINALLY, THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT A HEARING
BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE WOULD GIVE PETITIONERS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR
HARASSING TACTICS, AND THAT TO SUBJECT THE TRIAL JUDGE TO CROSS
EXAMINATION AND REFUTATION BY WITNESSES DRAWN FROM COURT-ROOM
SPECTATORS WOULD EMBROIL THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IN DAMAGING
CONTROVERSY.  ONCE MORE THE GOVERNMENT DEPRECIATES THE STATUS OF
FEDERAL JUDGES.  IT DEROGATES FROM THE HIGH CONCEPTION WHICH ONE SHOULD
HAVE OF THEM NOT TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE JUDGE WHO WOULD PRESIDE IN THE
CONTEMPT HEARING THOSE CAPABILITIES BY WHICH FEDERAL JUDGES, ESPECIALLY
IN NON-JURY CASES, CONDUCT PROCEEDINGS IN AN EFFECTIVE, EXPEDITIOUS AND
DIGNIFIED MANNER, WITH APPROPRIATE CONTROL OVER THE SCOPE OF CROSS
EXAMINATION AND THE OFFER OF WITNESSES. 

PUBLIC RESPECT FOR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IS BEST ENHANCED BY EXACTING
HIGH STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL COMPETENCE IN THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS AND
BY DISCOURAGING AN ASSERTION OF POWER WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED BY THE
USUAL DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS AND WHICH TOO OFTEN MANIFESTS A FAILURE OF
MORAL MASTERY. 

FN1  SEE NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULE 42(A), FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 

FN2 EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289, PRESENTED A TOTALLY DIFFERENT
SITUATION AND LENDS NO SUPPORT WHATEVER TO THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL
COURT IN THIS CASE.  AS WAS STATED IN THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT: "DAVID
S. TERRY WAS GUILTY OF A CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT BY MISBEHAVIOR IN ITS
PRESENCE AND BY A FORCIBLE RESISTANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT TO A
LAWFUL ORDER THEREOF  ...  ."  ID., AT 298.  THIS BRIEFLY INDICATES THE
DIFFERENTIATING CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN THE TERRY CASE AND THIS CASE. 
WHILE THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT WAS SITTING AND ONE MEMBER WAS
DELIVERING ITS OPINION IN A PENDING CASE, MRS. TERRY INTERRUPTED THE
READING BY A VIOLENT OUTBURST.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL WAS
ORDERED BY THE COURT TO REMOVE HER FROM THE COURTROOM, HER HUSBAND, MR.
TERRY, INTERVENED TO ASSAULT THE MARSHAL.  UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE
READING OF THE OPINION, FOLLOWING THIS INTERRUPTION, THE COURT HAVING
DULY DELIBERATED, FOUND BOTH MR. AND MRS. TERRY GUILTY OF CONTEMPT AND
SENTENCED THEM FOR IT.  PLAINLY ENOUGH TERRY'S CONTEMPT DID NOT TOUCH
THE JUDGES PERSONALLY, NOR IMPLICATE THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD COUNSEL.  IT
INVOLVED SIMPLE PHYSICAL ACTIONS IN FULL VIEW OF THE THREE JUDGES.  THE
JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT AND SENTENCING FOLLOWED PROMPTLY UPON EVENTS THAT
CONSTITUTED A SINGLE BRAWL INTERRUPTING THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  SEE IN RE TERRY, 36 F. 419; SWISHER, STEPHEN J. FIELD -
CRAFTSMAN OF THE LAW, 321-341. 

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.  (FN1) 

EXCERPTS FROM THE RECORD OF THE PRINCIPAL CASE, DENNIS V. UNITED
STATES. 

THE COURT:  WELL, IF YOU THINK I AM GOING TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY AS TO
THE REASONS WHY EVERYBODY IS IN EACH ONE OF THE SEATS HERE YOU ARE
MAKING A BIG MISTAKE, BECAUSE I AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT.  THERE ARE
LOTS OF PEOPLE HERE WHO CAME FOR REASONS THAT ARE SUFFICIENT FOR
THEMSELVES. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOUR HONOR WILL CERTAINLY PERMIT ME
TO CALL YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION AT LEAST TO THE FACTS THAT I WANT TO
COMPLAIN ABOUT, EVEN THOUGH I AM TOLD THAT YOUR HONOR IS NOT GOING TO
DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.  AND YOU WILL PERMIT ME, WILL YOU NOT, YOUR HONOR
...  . 

THE COURT:  YOU KNOW, MR. GLADSTEIN, I DON'T LIKE THAT CRACK.  I
DON'T KNOW WHO TOLD YOU THAT I AM NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS
OR THAT.  (PP. 72-73; JAN. 17, 1949.) 

     * *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I THINK MR. SACHER WAS REFERRING TO THE QUESTION OF
THE HOURS THAT YOU WANT TO SIT TODAY, THE TIME.  THAT IS WHY HE ASKED. 
I WAS GETTING A LITTLE HUNGRY MYSELF.  AND YOU LOOK A LITTLE PEAKED I
THINK. 

THE COURT:  IF I FELT ANY STRONGER THAN I DO RIGHT NOW I WOULD BE
SICK.  SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT MY LOOKING PEAKED, I FEEL ALL RIGHT.  (P.
88.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ...  STANDING BEHIND ME HERE ARE TWO MEN WHO ARE
ATTACHES OF THIS COURT, THEY ARE BAILIFFS. 

THE COURT:  BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS THERE, AT EVERY CRIMINAL TRIAL. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  YOUR HONOR, YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ME YET.  I HAVE NO
OBJECTION, PRECISELY. 

THE COURT:  IF I SEEM IMPATIENT TO YOU I AM SURE IT IS A VERY
MISLEADING IMPRESSION. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I WILL ACCEPT THAT, YOUR HONOR, WITH WHAT I THINK YOU
INTENDED TO CONVEY.  (PP. 146-147.) 

     *         *        *         *         * 

THE COURT:  ...  I THINK YOU HAVE SQUEEZED ALL THE JUICE OUT OF THAT
PARTICULAR ORANGE. 

NOW, WHY DON'T YOU GET ON TO THE MERITS OF YOUR CLAIM THAT THE JUDGES
HERE SHOULD NOT TRY THIS ISSUE. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  IF YOU WOULD PERMIT ME, YOUR HONOR, TO CARRY FORWARD
A LITTLE BIT THE ALLUSION THAT YOU HAVE JUST MADE, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE
CLOSELY IDENTIFIED WITH THE STATE FROM WHICH I COME, FROM WHICH THE
CITRUS FRUITS ARE A PRODUCT  ...  . 

THE COURT:  NO CALIFORNIAN EVER MISSES THE CHANCE.  (PP. 207-208.) 

     * *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  IF YOU MEAN THAT AS APPLICABLE TO ME, I SAY I DON'T KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT IT.  I DON'T. I HAVEN'T THE REMOTEST IDEA HOW THESE
JURIES ARE GOT TOGETHER.  I HAVE ONLY BEEN ON THE BENCH HERE AS YOU
KNOW A SHORT TIME. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN, YOUR HONOR? 

THE COURT:  WELL, JULY 1ST, 1947, WAS THE GREAT DAY, AS I REMEMBER
IT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  WELL, THAT IS OVER A YEAR AND A HALF.  (P. 212.) 

     *         *         *         *     * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  BUT WHAT HAPPENED ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO WAS THAT IT WAS
DECIDED TO THROW THAT SYSTEM INTO THE ASHCAN, SO TO SPEAK, AND TO
SUBSTITUTE FOR IT A SYSTEM WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF DEMONCRATIC, FAIR,
TRULY REPRESENTATIVE; AND THIS IS WHAT TOOK PLACE, AS OUR AFFIDAVITS
SHOW: INSTEAD - WELL, FIRST OF ALL  ...  . 

THE COURT:  NOW ALL THIS TIME I AM THINKING, WHERE IS THE BIAS? 
WHERE IS THE PREJUDICE?  WHAT KIND OF A JUDGE MUST YOU HAVE SPECIALLY? 
I AM THINKING ABOUT THAT, AND DOUBTLESS YOU HAVE GOT IT IN MIND. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I CERTAINLY HAVE, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  DON'T CREEP UP ON IT TOO SUDDENLY.  (PP. 238-239.) 

     *         *         * *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ...  YOU AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY STOOD BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND SPOKE ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF
HAVING A DEMOCRATIC JURY SYSTEM IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

THE COURT:  AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE FACT THAT I THEN FOUGHT FOR A
DEMOCRATIC JURY SYSTEM SHOWS NOW THAT MY MIND IS SO BIASED THAT I AM
NOT FIT TO SIT HERE AND HEAR YOUR CASE?  THAT SEEMS A LITTLE
INCONSISTENT TO ME. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  IF YOUR HONOR PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T DISTORT THE
MEANING OF WHAT I SAY, BECAUSE WHAT I AM SAYING IS:  THE FACT THAT 18
MONTHS AGO OR THEREABOUTS YOUR HONOR STOOD BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
DEMANDING THAT IT CONDEMN AN ILLEGAL, VICIOUS KIND OF JURY SYSTEM IN
THE STATE COURTS, PLUS THE FACT THAT FOR 18 MONTHS YOUR HONOR HAS SAT
ON THIS BENCH IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AND HAS SEEN IN OPERATION A SYSTEM
WHICH TO THE NAKED EYE REVEALS THE KIND OF DISCRIMINATION AND
EXCLUSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKING PLACE AND YOUR HONOR HAS DONE NOTHING
ABOUT IT.  (P. 242.) 

 *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  MR. DENNIS HAS A LITTLE SUGGESTION FOR YOU THERE THAT MR.
SACHER IS LOOKING AT.  I THINK HE MEANS TO GIVE IT TO YOU. 

MR. SACHER:  NO. THIS IS A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION.  THANK YOU. 

THE COURT:  I HAD NO IDEA OF DESIRING TO SEE IT, MR. SACHER. 

MR. SACHER:  OH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. 

THE COURT:  I THOUGHT HE INTENDED IT FOR MR. GLADSTEIN AND I
ATTEMPTED TO DO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A COURTEOUS THING IN CALLING HIS
ATTENTION TO IT. 

NOW, PLEASE, DON'T TRY TO MISUNDERSTAND THINGS LIKE THAT.  YOU MAY
ASSUME THAT WHEN I SAY THINGS I SAY THEM IN GOOD FAITH.  I HAVE NO
DESIRE TO DO OTHERWISE, AND I THINK YOU GENTLEMEN WILL DO BETTER TO
RECOGNIZE THAT.    MR. SACHER:  I DON'T LIKE TO GET THE FEELING THAT
THE CLIENTS ARE UNDER THE SURVEILLANCE OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT:  WELL, ALL RIGHT.  I AM SORRY THAT YOU TAKE IT THAT WAY. 
(P. 244.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  THE KEY TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU HAVE JUST
SAID, YOUR HONOR, AND WHAT I AM CONTENDING IS A LITTLE MAGIC PHRASE
CONSISTING OF FOUR WORDS THAT YOU SLIPPED INTO YOUR LAST STATEMENT.  I
THINK IT WAS "REGARDLESS OF THE JUSTIFICATION"  ...  . 

THE COURT:  I DON'T THINK YOU OUGHT TO SAY "SLIPPED IN" NOW.  I
GATHER YOU MEANT THAT COLLOQUIAL EXPRESSION IN A NICE WAY. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  OH YES.  EVERYTHING I SAY TO THE COURT IS ALWAYS
MEANT IN A NICE WAY, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  I KNOW.  (P. 247.) 

     *         *         *         *     * 

MR. SACHER:  ...  I HEARD YOUR HONOR SAY A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT THE
WITNESS DID NOT LOOK LIKE A BANKER. 

THE COURT:  NO, I SAID HE DID NOT LOOK LIKE A MECHANIC. 

MR. SACHER:  OH, I BEG YOUR PARDON.  ALL RIGHT. 

NOW, THE POINT I WANT TO GET AT IS THIS, THAT WHAT THE DECISIONS OF
THE SUPREME COURT ARE CONCERNED WITH ARE NOT THE APPEARANCES, FOR I
HAVE SEEN MANY WORKERS AND MECHANICS WHO LOOK A DARN SIGHT MORE
HANDSOME AND MORE PERSONABLE AND PLEASANT THAT A LOT OF FAT BANKERS. 

THE COURT:  WELL, WE WON'T GO INTO THE QUESTION OF HOW GOOD-LOOKING
EVERYBODY IS.  WE MIGHT NOT COME OUT SO WELL ON THAT. 

MR. SACHER:  THAT MAY BE.  (P. 383.) 

     *         *     *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION II (FN2) - PP. 384-385; JAN. 21,
1949.) 

     * *         *         *         * 

MR. SACHER:  WELL, I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD HAVE CALLED HIM IF YOU HAD
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TRIAL.  YOU WERE TOO GOOD A LAWYER TO DO ANY
SUCH THING. 

THE COURT:  WELL, IT IS QUITE FLATTERING TO HAVE YOU KEEP TALKING
ABOUT ME AS A LAWYER, AND I AM GLAD TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON THE
SUBJECT AS LONG AS THEY ARE FAVORABLE.  AND IF NOT I WILL PRESERVE MY
EQUANIMITY IN ANY EVENT.  (P. 399.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  YOU CAN REOPEN THE MATTER OF CONSIDERATION WHEN I HEAR
FROM MR. ISSERMAN WHO DOUBTLESS IS ABOUT TO ADD SOMETHING OF IMPORTANCE
IN JUST A MOMENT. 

MR. ISSERMAN:  I OBJECT TO YOUR HONOR'S REMARK.  I THINK IT IS
SARCASTIC.  IT DOESN'T SHOW THE RESPECT THAT THIS COURT SHOULD SHOW TO
COUNSEL.  I OBJECT TO IT. 

THE COURT:  WELL, I INTENDED NO DISRESPECT TO COUNSEL.  I WILL LISTEN
TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. 

MR. ISSERMAN:  I ONCE MORE OBJECT TO YOUR HONOR'S RULING ON MATTERS
AFFECTING THE CLIENTS I REPRESENT IN THIS PROCEEDING BEFORE HEARING MY
POSITION IN RESPECT TO THOSE MATTERS.  (P. 404.) 

     *         *         *     *         * 

MR. MCCABE:  ...  JUST TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE MCGRAW
HILL COMPANY.  THE FACT THAT HE GOT A SALARY SOMEWHAT LESS THAN $5,000
I DO NOT THINK WOULD PUT HIM IN THE CLASS OF THOSE WHOSE ECONOMIC
OUTLOOK OR WHOSE ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY WOULD BE AT VARIANCE WITH THAT
EXPRESSED BY THAT OF HIS EMPLOYER.  AT EMPLOYEE OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS MIGHT VERY WELL BE DRAWING A SALARY WHICH
WOULD, UNDER THE ARBITRARY RULE WHICH WE ARE JUST TOYING WITH HERE - I
DON'T SAY WE ARE SETTING IT UP ARBITRARILY, BUT WE HAVE TRIED TO COME
AROUND  ...  . 

THE COURT:  YOU ARE CERTAINLY TOYING WITH IT ALL RIGHT. 

MR. MCCABE:  WELL, MAYBE IT WILL BE LIKE MY GRANDCHILD - WHEN SHE
TOYS WITH TOYS THERE ISN'T MUCH LEFT OF THE TOYS AFTER ABOUT TEN
MINUTES. 

THE COURT:  WELL, I SEEM TO BE SURVIVING ALL RIGHT.  (PP. 428-429.) 

     * *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  ...  AFTER ALL THIS IS NOT THE TRIAL IN CHIEF.  THIS IS
THE PRELIMINARY CHALLENGE, AND THE SITUATION IS A LITTLE BIT
DIFFERENT.  I SUPPOSE I SHOULD TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT.  I DO NOT WANT
TO ACT HASTILY ABOUT IT.  I MUST SAY THAT MY STUDY OF THIS RECORD IN
THIS INTERVAL HAS INDICATED TO ME, HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME PUT IN MY
MIND THE THOUGHT OF A SERIES OF CONCERTED AND DELIBERATE MOVES TO DELAY
THE CASE.  I AM EXCEEDINGLY RELUCTANT TO TAKE THE VIEW THAT ANY LAWYER
WOULD DO THAT, AND EVEN PRESS BY THIS OCCURRENCE THIS MORNING  ...  . 

MR. SACHER:  I WOULD LIKE TO DENY THAT WE HAVE EVER DONE IT OR THAT
WE ARE DOING IT NOW, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  I HAVE PUT THAT THOUGHT FROM MY MIND FOR THE PRESENT, BUT
I WILL SAY THAT IT IS A RATHER DIFFICULT SITUATION THAT HAS BEEN
BROUGHT UP HERE BY THE CONDUCT OF COUNSEL.  (P. 465.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. CROCKETT:  ...  I THINK THE COURT IS AWARE THAT MY ARGUMENTS ARE
USUALLY PRETTY SHORT AND TO THE POINT, THOUGH I MUST CONFESS THEY HAVE
NOT BEEN ANY TOO CONVINCING TO YOUR HONOR  ...  . 

THE COURT:  YES, MUCH BETTER THAN MR. SACHER AND MR. ISSERMAN WHO
HAVE BEEN - WELL, SHALL I SAY, PROLIX AND VOCIFEROUS AND REPETITIOUS,
BUT ALL IN GOOD TASTE, AND I HAVE LISTENED, ALTHOUGH I MUST SAY, AS I
SAID A FEW MOMENTS AGO, THAT THE THOUGHT HAS FINALLY ENTERED MY MIND
THAT ALL THIS BUSINESS THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IS JUST A SERIES OF
WILFUL AND DELIBERATE MANEUVERS FOR DELAY. 

MR. SACHER:  I RESENT THAT AND I WANT TO DENY IT ONCE AGAIN.  (PP.
467-468.) 

     *         *         *     *         * 

MR. MCCABE:  YOUR HONOR TOLD US TO SAW WOOD THE OTHER DAY. 

THE COURT:  YES. 

MR. MCCABE:  AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SAWDUST IS GETTING IN
SOMEBODY'S EYE.  WE ARE SAWING WOOD A LITTLE BIT TOO RAPIDLY. 

THE COURT:  IF YOU MEAN BY THAT THAT YOU HAVE PERHAPS GOT ME IN AN
ILL HUMOR, YOU ARE ENTIRELY MISTAKEN, BECAUSE I FEEL VERY PLEASANT AND
GENIAL, AND I HAVE NO DESIRE OR NO THOUGHT OF FEELING DISTURBED AT ALL;
SO IF YOU MEANT BY YOUR COMMENT THAT MY ATTITUDE WAS PERHAPS CHANGED OR
DIFFERENT, I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKEN. 

MR. MCCABE:  I DID NOT INFER THAT AT ALL, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  WHAT DID YOU MEAN? 

MR. MCCABE:  WHAT I SAID, THAT THE SAWDUST WAS GETTING INTO
SOMEBODY'S EYES? 

THE COURT:  YES.  WHOSE EYES WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT? 

MR. MCCABE:  I SAY THE EYES OF ANYBODY WHO IS INTERESTED IN DEFENDING
A SYSTEM OF SELECTION OF JURORS WHICH IS AS WE CLAIM IT TO BE.  I WILL
SAY THIS, YOUR HONOR  ...  . 

THE COURT:  BUT YOU DID NOT MEAN MY EYES, I TAKE IT, DID YOU?  YOU
COULD EITHER SAY YES OR NO. NOW WHICH IS IT? 

MR. MCCABE:  WELL, WHEN SAWDUST STARTS FLYING AROUND I GUESS IT GETS
IN EVERYBODY'S EYES. 

THE COURT:  SO YOU DIDN'T MEAN ME? 

MR. MCCABE:  NO, I WILL SAY I DID NOT.  I WILL SAY THIS:  YOUR HONOR,
IF I WALKED INTO THIS COURTROOM AND TOLD YOU THAT THE LEGS OF THAT
CHAIR YOU ARE SITTING ON WERE CRACKED AND WERE ABOUT TO FALL, OR IF I
SAID THAT THIS WALL HAD A BIG CRACK IN IT, AND THAT THE WHOLE SYSTEM
LOOKED BAD  ... 

THE COURT:  IT WOULDN'T SCARE ME. 

MR. MCCABE (CONTINUING):  IF I SAID TO YOUR HONOR THAT PERHAPS THERE
WERE OTHER SERIOUS THINGS WRONG WITH THIS COURTROOM, JUST THE PHYSICAL
ASPECTS OF THE COURTROOM, I THINK THAT I AM NOT FAR OFF IN ASSUMING
THAT YOUR HONOR WOULD CAUSE THE FULLEST INVESTIGATION TO BE MADE TO SEE
THAT THE PHYSICAL SAFETY, NOT OF YOURSELF  ...  . 

THE COURT: THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE MAKING A BIG 100 PER CENT MISTAKE. 
IT WOULD ROLL OFF MY BACK LIKE WATER OFF A DUCK, AND I WOULD NOT EVEN
LOOK AT THE LEGS OF THE CHAIR.  (PP. 573-574.) 

     *        *         *         *         * 

MR. MCCABE:  THAT IS NOT REGULATING THE ORDER OF PROOF, YOUR HONOR,
WHEN JUST AS IT LOOKS, AS EVERYBODY REALIZES, THAT THE INITIAL PROOF
ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTS OUR ASSERTION THEN SUDDENLY WE ARE CUT OFF AND
SHUNTED ON TO SOME OTHER WAY; THAT OUR ORDERLY PROCEDURE AND
EXPEDITIOUS PROCEDURE IN PROVING OUR CASE IS SUDDENLY DISRUPTED BY YOUR
HONOR'S RULING.  I SAY IT CERTAINLY INDICATES SOME FEAR ON YOUR HONOR'S
PART. 

THE COURT:  WELL, I HAVE NO FEAR.  IF YOU HAVE ANY IMPRESSION THAT I
AM AFRAID YOU MAY PUT THAT OUT OF YOUR MIND ENTIRELY, BECAUSE I HAVE
NOT FELT ANY FEAR, AND I CAN ONLY REMEMBER ONCE IN MY LIFE THAT I WAS
AFRAID, AND I AM NOT ACCUSTOMED TO BE AFRAID, AND I AM NOT AFRAID NOW. 
SO YOU CAN JUST DROP THAT SUBJECT.  IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT ONE
TIME WAS THAT I WAS AFRAID, I WILL TELL YOU SOMETIME. 

MR. MCCABE:  YOUR HONOR PICKS UP THE WORD "FEAR."  I WOULD LIKE TO
GET BACK TO THE WORD "BIAS," THEN.  (P. 582.) 

     *         *       *         *         * 

THE COURT:  YOU HAVE A CURIOUS WAY OF EXPRESSING YOURSELF, TO SAY THE
LEAST. 

MR. SACHER: PERHAPS THAT MAY BE SO, YOUR HONOR, BUT UNFORTUNATELY I
CAN EXPRESS MYSELF IN NO OTHER WAY.  AND I WOULD LIKE, IF YOUR HONOR
WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO INDULGE ME TO REFRAIN FROM PERSONALITIES SO
THAT I MAY DEVELOP WHAT I REGARD AS A MOST IMPORTANT ARGUMENT ON THIS
QUESTION, ...  . 

THE COURT:  YOU ASK ME TO REFRAIN FROM PERSONALITIES? 

MR. SACHER:  I THINK SO.  YOU HAVE ACCUSED ME  ...  . 

THE COURT:  FOR WHAT PURPOSE?  I INDULGED IN NO PERSONALITIES. 

MR. SACHER:  YOU SAID I HAVE A CURIOUS WAY OF EXPRESSING MYSELF. 

THE COURT:  YES.  YOU SAID THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY HAD CONFESSED
HIS GUILT.  I CONSIDERED THAT ...  . 

MR. SACHER:  I DID NOT USE THOSE WORDS.  I SAID HE MADE A CONFESSION
OF GUILT AND I STAND BY THAT STATEMENT. 

THE COURT:  WELL, THAT IS NO PERSONALITY.  THAT IS A COMMENT ON A
SORT OF ARGUMENT THAT I THINK IS OUT OF PLACE AND NOT HELPFUL. 

MR. SACHER:  ALL RIGHT.  (P. 607.) 

     *   *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  ...  BUT YOU HAVE MADE SO MANY CHALLENGES OF BIAS AND
PREJUDICE AND SAID THAT EVERY TIME I RULED AGAINST YOU THERE IS
SOMETHING ABOUT IT THAT IS ABNORMAL, SO I HAVE BEEN DISPOSED TO LET YOU
GO ON.  BUT I THINK THE RECORD HAS INDICATED AN AMOUNT OF REPETITION
THAT IS UTTERLY UNPRECEDENTED. 

MR. MCCABE:  YOUR HONOR, WHEN THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE BIAS IS
REPEATED THE OBJECTIONS TO IT MUST BY NECESSITY BE REPEATED. 

THE COURT:  WELL, YOU MAY, AS I SAID BEFORE, YOU MAY CHALLENGE MY
BIAS AND PREJUDICE JUST AS OFTEN AS YOU THINK YOU SHOULD. 

MR. MCCABE:  WE SHALL, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  I TAKE NO UMBRAGE AT THAT.  BUT I SHOULD THINK THAT YOU
HAD COVERED THAT GROUND PRETTY WELL.  (PP. 612-613.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  WELL, SO MANY THINGS HAVE HAPPENED THAT SEEM, AS I READ
BACK OVER THAT RECORD, HARDLY CONSISTENT WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN A
CONCERTED AND DELIBERATE AND WILFUL EFFORT TO DELAY.  BUT I HAVE TOLD
YOU THAT THE THOUGHT MERELY OCCURRED TO ME AND I HAVE PUT IT OUT OF MY
MIND FOR THE PRESENT.  I WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING COME ALONG
LATER AND HAVE ANYONE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS THIS
INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON.  I DO NOT SAY IT IS THE RIGHT
INTERPRETATION; IT MAY WELL NOT BE.  AND ALL I DO SAY IS THAT THE
THOUGHT FOR THE FIRST TIME CAME INTO MY MIND AND I PUT IT OUT. 

SO WE ADJOURN NOW UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING AT 10.30. 

MR. SACHER:  I WANT TO STATE ON THE RECORD, HOWEVER, THAT I DENY WHAT
YOUR HONOR SAID. 

THE COURT:  YOU DON'T NEED TO SHOUT, MR. SACHER. 

MR. SACHER:  NO. I RESENT  ...  . 

THE COURT:  IT IS POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THE COURT OCCASIONALLY WITHOUT
SHOUTING. 

MR. SACHER:  YES.  YOUR HONOR IN A QUIET MANNER IS PICKING OUT A
POINT WHICH WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN HEADLINES TOMORROW MORNING.  FOR THE
RECORD I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I HAVE DONE NOTHING AND WILL NEVER
DO ANYTHING TO DELAY OR HINDER THE PROGRESS OF THIS CASE.  AND WHATEVER
I OR ANY OTHER COUNSEL IN THIS CASE HAVE DONE OR HAS DONE HAS BEEN
DIRECTED SOLELY TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE END OF PROVING THAT THIS JURY
SYSTEM IS BAD. 

AND I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR CLOSING
EVERY DAY'S SESSION WITH THE OBSERVATION AS TO WHAT THOUGHT WAS
ENTERING YOUR HONOR'S MIND CONCERNING OUR STATE OF MIND.  (P. 623.) 

*         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  NOW A LITTLE INCIDENT OCCURRED THIS MORNING ABOUT WHICH I
WILL HAVE NO MYSTERY.  DUE TO THE NUMEROUS COMMUNICATIONS OF ONE KIND
OR ANOTHER THAT HAVE BEEN ARRIVING UP AT MY HOME MY WIFE CAME DOWN HERE
THIS MORNING.  I SUPPOSE I SHOULD HAVE TOLD HERE NOT TO, AND IT IS MY
FAULT, BUT SHE DID.  AND, THEN, THERE WAS A LITTLE DISTURBANCE HERE DUE
TO A WOMAN WHO SAW THE EMPTY SEATS OVER ON THE SIDE WHERE THE PRESS
HAVE THEIR LOCATION AND SHE FELT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO GO THERE AND MADE
A LITTLE, SLIGHT DISTURBANCE WITH THE BAILIFFS.  AND SO MY WIFE SENT
THIS NOTE TO THE POLICE WHICH READS, "TELL DETECTIVE MITCHELL TO GUARD
THE JUDGE AT LUNCH HOUR."  AND AS THE MESSENGER PROCEEDED WITH THE NOTE
ONE OF THE ALERT REPORTERS WAS ABLE TO GET A HOLD OF THE NOTE, AND SO
THE RUMORS STARTED AROUND THE BUILDING, AND GOODNESS KNOWS WHERE ELSE
THEY HAVE GONE. 

AS TO THE WOMAN WHO DESIRED TO SIT ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE THE EMPTY
SEATS ARE, I NOTICED THE MATTER AND I SENT A LITTLE COMMUNICATION OF MY
OWN TO THE BAILIFFS TO TELL THEM TO LEAVE HER ALONE.  I THOUGHT SHE WAS
RIGHT.  I SAW HER DURING RECESS HOUR IN MY CHAMBERS, AND I TOLD HER
THAT I THOUGHT SHE WAS RIGHT, AND THAT WHILE THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PRESS
WERE NOT OCCUPYING THE EMPTY SEATS PERHAPS IT WAS ONLY REASONABLE TO
HAVE THE LAST ROW AT LEAST MADE AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO WERE WAITING TO
GET IN. 

NOW, THAT IS ALL THERE IS TO IT.  THERE IS NO MYSTERY.  THERE IS NO
DANGER.  I HAVEN'T FELT THE SLIGHTEST CONCERN ABOUT THE COMMUNICATIONS
I HAVE BEEN RECEIVING.  AND THERE IT IS. 

I HAVE NO NOTION THAT ANY OF THOSE COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN INSPIRED
BY THE DEFENDANTS OR BY ANY OF THEIR COUNSEL.  I DO NOT FEEL THAT I AM
IN ANY PERSONAL DANGER AT ALL.  BUT IF I AM WRONG, I SHALL FACE THE
RISK CALMLY AND I SHALL DO MY DUTY.    NOW I THINK PERHAPS IT IS
APPARENT TO EVERYONE THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE ACCUSATIONS THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE AGAINST ME HERE FROM DAY TO DAY AND THE EXTRAVAGANT CHARGES
THAT HAVE NOT ONLY BEEN MADE ONCE OR TWICE BUT REPEATEDLY AND
EMOTIONALLY AND LOUDLY MAY WELL CAUSE SOME MISGUIDED AND POOR PEOPLE OR
OTHERS TO GET A WRONG IMPRESSION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND
OF WHAT I AM DOING.  I HAVE NO GREAT OPINION OF MYSELF AS AN
INDIVIDUAL.  I DO HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE WHICH I HOLD.  I
REPRESENT HERE NOT THE RICH, NOT THE POOR, BUT ALL THE PEOPLE AND THE
MAJESTY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  AND I AM COGNIZANT OF
THAT AND I AM TRYING TO DO THE BEST I CAN, TO BE JUST AND TO BE FAIR
ACCORDING TO MY LIGHTS.  I MAY MAKE MISTAKES, I SUPPOSE I OFTEN DO, BUT
I CAN ONLY DO MY BEST. 

YOU MAY PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL. 

MR. SACHER:  IF THE COURT PLEASE, I THINK WE TOO, BOTH THE DEFENDANTS
AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL, HAVE RECEIVED A SERIES OF LETTERS WITH THREATS
OF VIOLENCE AGAINST OURSELVES, OUR WIVES AND OUR CHILDREN.  INDEED,
WHEN I RETURNED TO MY HOME AT ONE O'CLOCK THIS MORNING MY WIFE GREETED
ME, NOT WITH A NOTE TO A DETECTIVE, BUT WITH SEVERAL LETTERS. 

I MIGHT IN PASSING SAY THAT YOUR HONOR MAY HAVE RECEIVED CRANK
NOTES.  I AM SURE THAT THEY WERE NOT INSPIRED BY ANYTHING WE SAID OR
DID.  AND IN THAT CONNECTION I MAY SAY THAT SO FAR AS THE DEFENDANTS
ARE CONCERNED THEY HAVE RECEIVED MUCH MORE THAN CRANK NOTES.  YOU WILL
RECALL THAT IN ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS I POINTED OUT  ...  . 

THE COURT:  I AM GLAD YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE  ...  . 

MR. SACHER:  WILL YOUR HONOR  ...  . 

THE COURT:  I AM GLAD YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRANK
NOTE AND OTHERS.  BUT I AM NOT DISPOSED TO HAVE ARGUMENT ABOUT
EVERYTHING. 

MR. SACHER:  I KNOW, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  MAY WE NOT EVEN PASS THIS INCIDENT WITHOUT EXTENDED
DISCUSSION?  (PP. 664-665.) 

     *         *         *         *   * 

MR. SACHER:  MR. GLADSTEIN, NOW WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. 

THE COURT:  NOW THAT IS A STRANGE ACCUSATION, MR. GLADSTEIN, BECAUSE
YOUR VOICE IS VERY PENETRATING AND PLEASANT. 

MR. SACHER:  WHY, YOUR HONOR, I MUST SAY, HOWEVER, THAT I DID NOT
HEAR MR. GLADSTEIN.  HE WAS SPEAKING SO SOFTLY. 

THE COURT:  I DON'T DOUBT IT.  THAT IS ALL RIGHT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  PERHAPS THE NEWSPAPERS SHOULD TAKE NOTE.  THEY HAVE
BEEN SAYING THAT I AM VERY LOUD AND BRASH, AND SO FORTH, BUT IT DOES
NOT REALLY MATTER TO ME PERSONALLY, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  NO, WE MUST NOT WORRY ABOUT WHAT THE NEWSPAPERS SAY ABOUT
IT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  THERE WOULD BE VERY LITTLE TO ENTERTAIN US IF WE TOOK
TOO SERIOUSLY WHAT SOME OF THEM SAY. 

THE COURT:  YOU KNOW, I HAVE OFTEN FELT, AS I HAVE OFTEN EXPRESSED
MYSELF HERE, THAT IT IS BETTER NOT TO BE STUFFY.  I TRY NOT TO BE. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ALL RIGHT.  (P. 667.) 

     *         *         *    *         * 

THE COURT:  NOW, MR. GLADSTEIN, I KNOW ALL ABOUT LEADING QUESTIONS,
AND WHEN THE COURT IN HIS DISCRETION WILL ALLOW THEM, AND WHEN HE
WON'T.  NOW YOU GO AHEAD AND LEAD HIM AS LITTLE AS NECESSARY. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I DON'T HAVE TO LEAD HIM AT ALL, AND I WON'T, YOUR
HONOR. 

THE COURT:  THAT IS ALL RIGHT.  IT IS JUST NOT TO GET INTO AN
UNNECESSARY ARGUMENT ABOUT IT. BECAUSE I KNOW PLENTY ABOUT LEADING
QUESTIONS.  I HAVE PROBABLY TRIED A FEW OF THEM MYSELF IN MY DAY.  (P.
714.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. SACHER:  ...  WE SHALL ASK FOR AND INSIST UPON THE TIME NECESSARY
TO EXPLORE THOSE RECORDS IN ORDER  ...  . 

THE COURT:  I WISH YOU WOULD NOT USE THAT EXPRESSION "INSIST UPON." 

MR. SACHER:  THAT MEANS URGING, THAT IS ALL. 

THE COURT:  YOU KNOW, YOU USE IT ALL THE TIME. 

MR. SACHER:  I DON'T DO IT ALL THE TIME.  I THINK THE RECORD SHOULD
INDICATE THAT "ALL THE TIME" TO YOUR HONOR IN THIS INSTANCE MEANS
ONCE. 

THE COURT:  PERHAPS WHEN I USED THE EXPRESSION "ALL THE TIME" I USED
IT IN A RHETORICAL SENSE.  BUT, ANYWAY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WILL INSIST UPON NOTHING. 

MR. SACHER:  WELL, WE WILL URGE THAT. 

THE COURT:  I WILL RULE WHAT IS TO BE DONE.  (P. 884.) 

     *         *         *         *  * 

MR. SACHER:  I HAVE JUST ONE OBSERVATION TO MAKE, YOU HONOR,
CONCERNING DELAY.  WHILE SPEED IS A VERY COMMENDABLE OBJECTIVE, I THINK
JUSTICE IS A GREATER ONE, AND THAT IF IT BE  ...  . 

THE COURT:  WELL, IT IS NICE TO HAVE YOU REMIND ME OF THAT. 

MR. SACHER:  WHAT IS THAT, YOUR HONOR? 

THE COURT: I SAY, IT IS NICE TO HAVE YOU REMIND ME OF THAT.  (P.
885.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ...  NOW IT SEEMS TO ME VERY PLAIN THAT MR. MCGOHEY
IS HERE TOYING WITH POSSIBILITIES.  THIS WITNESS OR OTHER WITNESSES
...  . 

THE COURT:  WELL, HE HAS GOT SOME COMPETITION IN THAT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  WELL, WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET HIM TOY.  WE ARE VERY
SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. 

THE COURT:  OH, WELL, I KNOW. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  WE ARE QUITE SERIOUS. 

THE COURT: YOU TAKE OVER THE COURTROOM ANY TIME, BUT I AM HERE
RUNNING THE COURT, SO DON'T SAY, AS YOU AND MR. SACHER ARE APT TO DO:
YOU INSIST ON THIS AND WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS.  YOU ARE GOING TO DO
WHAT I TELL YOU TO. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  WELL, I AM GOING TO REMAIN SERIOUS, REGARDLESS OF
WHAT YOUR HONOR TELLS ME. 

THE COURT:  THAT IS RIGHT.  (PP. 931-932.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION III - PP. 933-934; FEB. 2, 1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION IV - PP. 1034-1038; FEB. 3,
1949.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ...  NOW, ALTHOUGH EVERYBODY, ONE WOULD THINK, WHO
DID NOT PREJUDGE THE MATTER HERE  ...  . 

THE COURT:  WELL I DENY THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ME. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  WELL, YOU WERE ANTICIPATING.  I WASN'T GOING TO MAKE
ONE. 

THE COURT:  I AM VERY QUICK TO CATCH ON, AND I THOUGHT WHEN YOU SAID
"ANYBODY WHO DOES NOT PREJUDGE," IT WAS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF TELLING ME
AGAIN WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD ME SO MANY TIMES, AND YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE
TOLD ME SO MANY TIMES:  THAT I HAVE PREJUDGED IT ALL; THAT I AM BIASED
AND PREJUDICED AND UNFIT TO SIT HERE.  NOW, I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT,
AND IF YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET ME EXCITED SAYING THAT OVER
AGAIN, YOU ARE MAKING A BIG MISTAKE. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I WASN'T GOING TO SAY IT OVER AGAIN, AND IF I WERE IT
WOULD NOT BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING YOU EXCITED.  IT IS TRUE I HAVE
A DEFINITE MIND ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER LEGALLY YOU ARE
DISQUALIFIED, WHETHER YOU ARE BIASED, BUT I WASN'T GOING TO EXPRESS
IT. 

THE COURT:  THEY WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT WITH IT, AND I SUPPOSE IF THERE WAS ANY FURTHER YOU COULD GO, YOU
WOULD DO THAT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN: THEY DIDN'T PASS ON YOUR HONOR'S BIAS.  THEY DID NOT
SAY YOU WERE UNBIASED  ...  .

THE COURT:  THEY DENIED THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  YES, THEY REFUSED TO HEAR THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR
NOT YOU WERE BIASED, THAT IS TRUE, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN, YOUR HONOR,
THAT THEY PASSED FAVORABLY ON THE CONTENTION OF THE COURT.   IT DOES
NOT MEAN, OF COURSE, THAT THEY HELD THAT YOU WERE BIASED, BUT NEITHER
DOES IT MEAN THAT THEY HELD YOU WERE UNBIASED. 

THE COURT:  WELL, YOU DON'T REALLY NEED TO KEEP RUBBING IT IN AND
TELLING ME EVERY DAY THAT I AM PREJUDICED, BIASED, CORRUPT, AND ALL
THAT SORT OF THING, BECAUSE AFTER A MAN HAS BEEN CALLED NAMES A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF TIMES THEY HAVE NO EFFECT ON HIM ANY MORE.  (PP. 1034-1035.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION V - PP. 1049-1059; FEB. 3, 1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION VI - PP. 1085-1092; FEB. 4,
1949.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  WELL, YOU SEE, YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE APPARENTLY
ADOPTED A NEW TECHNIQUE IN CRIMINAL CASES BY WHICH INSTEAD OF THE
DEFENDANTS WHO ARE INDICTED BEING TRIED, THE COURT AND ALL THE MEMBERS
OF THE COURT ARE THE ONES WHO MUST SUFFER THE EXCORIATIONS AND
ACCUSATIONS OF COUNSEL.  BUT I THINK, PERHAPS, WITH PATIENCE THERE WILL
BE AN END.  SO YOU WILL PLEASE LET THE MATTER DROP THERE, AND MR.
ISSERMAN WILL PROCEED WITH HIS QUESTIONS. 

MR. ISSERMAN:  I WILL PROCEED, YOUR HONOR, BUT I AM AGAIN CONSTRAINED
ON BEHALF OF MY CLIENTS TO OBJECT TO YOUR HONOR'S REMARK CHARACTERIZING
THE QUESTIONING WHICH I AM INDULGING IN, OR SUGGESTING THAT THE
QUESTIONING IS A STALLING AND DELAYING TACTICS, AND TO THE DESCRIPTION
OF THIS CHALLENGE TO A JURY, WHICH UNDER THE LAW WE HAVE A RIGHT TO
MAKE ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS, AS A NEW TECHNIQUE ...  .  (PP. 1090
1091.) 

*         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  WELL, PERHAPS WE HAD BETTER LET EACH ONE OF THE COUNSEL
FOR THE DEFENDANTS SAY A WORD OR TWO NOW, BECAUSE THEY LOOK AS THOUGH
THEY DESIRE TO STATE THEIR POSITIONS TOO. 

MR. MCCABE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? 

MR. MCCABE:  I HAD NOT INTENDED TO SAY ANYTHING, YOUR HONOR, BUT AS
LONG AS YOUR HONOR INVITES IT I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS A THOUGHT THAT
HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH MY MIND FOR SEVERAL DAYS:  (P. 1091.) 

     *         *       *         *         * 

THE COURT:  IT MIGHT BE PREJUDICE, I SUPPOSE? 

MR. MCCABE:  NO, IT HAS BECOME CLEAR TO ME THAT YOUR HONOR IS DOING
THE VERY SAME THING.  YOUR HONOR BY CONSTANTLY REFERRING TO OUR TACTICS
AS DELAYING TACTICS; BY REFERRING TO EVIDENCE WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO BE
VERY CLEAR AND PRECISE, AS BEING CONFUSING, AND REFERRING TO GAPS IN
THE TESTIMONY - I THINK THAT YOUR HONOR SEEMS TO HAVE IN HIS MIND DOING
THE VERY THING WHICH YOU, I THINK UNJUSTLY, INDICATED THAT WE MIGHT BE
DOING.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOUR HONOR'S WORDS, THAT CONSTANT
REPETITION OF OUR NEW TECHNIQUES AND DELAYING TACTICS, AND DRAGGING
THINGS OUT AND RAMBLING ON, THAT THAT IS ADDRESSED  ...  . 

THE COURT:  WELL, MAYBE I DO RAMBLE A LITTLE NOW AND THEN, BUT I
THINK THAT MAY BE THE PRIVILEGE OF THE COURT.  (P. 1092.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION VII - PP. 1134-1141; FEB. 4,
1949.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 

I HAVE JUST PULLED OUT A RANDOM - SOMETHING THAT THE CLERK IN THIS
COURT DOES NOT DO WHEN HE PICKS JURORS - TWO  ...  . 

MR. MCGOHEY:  I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  I DID NOT EVEN HEAR THAT PART.  I HOPE IT WASN'T ANYTHING
GOOD.  (P. 1569.) 

*         *         *         *         * 

MR. ISSERMAN:  I AM SORRY, I OBJECT TO YOUR HONOR'S REMARK AGAIN.  IT
IS WHOLLY UNCALLED FOR. 

THE COURT:  YOU MAY DO ALL THE OBJECTING YOU WANT, BUT I AM RUNNING
THIS COURT AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE THIS INTERMINABLE DELAY.  (P.
1574.) 

     *         *       *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION VIII - PP. 1660-1671; FEB. 14,
1949.) 

     * *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  MR. SACHER, YOU ARE BECOMING POSITIVELY INSOLENT. 

MR. SACHER:  WELL, I AM NOT.  I AM STATING  ...  . 

THE COURT:  NOW I WON'T HAVE IT. 

MR. SACHER:  I AM STATING WHAT YOUR HONOR SEEMS  ...  . 

THE COURT:  YOU HAVE CHARGED ME WITH ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT A LAWYER
CAN CHARGE A COURT  ...  . 

MR. SACHER:  I AM MAKING NO CHARGE  ...  . 

THE COURT:  YOU ARE CHARGING ME BY THIS INNUENDO OF SOME SORT OF
CONNIVANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, AND I JUST WILL NOT HAVE
ANY MORE OF THAT.  (P. 1661.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  MR. GLADSTEIN, I HOPE I AM MISUNDERSTANDING THE PURPOSE
OF THAT COMMENT.  IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME THAT YOU NEEDED TO DO IT.  I
SEEMED TO HAVE JUST ONE OF THOSE LITTLE FISHHOOKS IN THAT YOU SO OFTEN
SPRINKLE IN YOUR CONVERSATION, AND I SUGGEST THAT YOU OMIT THEM, IF
POSSIBLE. 

NOW, YOU HAVE BEEN ALLOWED EVERY REASONABLE LATITUDE HERE, AND IT IS
MY INTENTION TO GIVE YOU EVERY REASONABLE LATITUDE TO BRING OUT
WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BRING OUT  ...  . 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  VERY WELL. 

THE COURT (CONTINUING):  BUT I CANNOT CONTINUE TO DO IT INDEFINITELY,
AND IF I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT SARCASTIC COMMENTS AND CRITICISMS OF
THE COURT BY INNUENDOES ARE BEING DROPPED IN HERE AND THERE, IT IS
PERHAPS GOING TO AFFECT MY DISCRETION SOMEWHAT IN THE RULINGS I MAKE ON
THE EXTENT OF YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.  (PP. 1813-1814.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A MOTION THAT I DISQUALIFY MYSELF FOR
PREJUDICE, AS YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE? 

MR. CROCKETT:  I WANT TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH A MOTION,
YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  YOU HAVE MADE IT, I SUPPOSE, YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES, I
DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES, AND I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT YOU
CHARGE I AM BIASED AND PREJUDICED AND CORRUPT AND EVERYTHING ELSE.  (P.
2094.) 

     *         *         *      *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION IX - P. 2097; FEB. 18, 1949.) 

     *         *         *  *         * 

THE COURT:  OF COURSE, YOU ABANDONED ALL THOUGHT OF THAT, YOU AND
YOUR COLLEAGUES, LONG AGO HERE BECAUSE YOU CHARGED ME AGAIN AND AGAIN
WITH CORRUPTION, BIAS, PREJUDICE AND HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE
SYSTEM THAT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH.  SO I UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY WHAT
YOU THINK ABOUT ME. NOW, I CAN'T HELP THAT.  I MUST DO MY DUTY AS BEST
I CAN.  SO IF YOU WANT TO GO ON AND CALL ME SOME MORE NAMES, GO AHEAD
AND DO IT.  IT MAY COME WITHIN PART OF YOUR DUTY AS YOU SEE IT, AND
CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THE CASE, AND I AM NOT GOING TO STOP
YOU, SO GO RIGHT AHEAD AND CALL ME ANYTHING YOU WANT.  (P. 2098.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ...  THAT THE COURT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE
CONSUMPTION OF TIME IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT DURING THE PAST 35 OR
40 OR 45 MINUTES, PERHAPS LONGER, AS EACH OF THE FOUR ATTORNEYS WHO
PRECEDED ME ATTEMPTED TO PRESENT HIS STATEMENTS OF OBJECTIONS, THE
COURT CONSTANTLY AND FREQUENTLY INTERRUPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF  ...  . 
THE COURT:  IF YOU EXPECT I AM GOING TO SIT HERE LIKE A BUMP ON A LOG
WHILE THEY MAKE STATEMENTS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT SO, I CAN TELL YOU
NOW I WON'T DO IT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I DESIRE  ...  . 

THE COURT:  THERE IS NO RULE I EVER HEARD OF THAT A JUDGE IS SUPPOSED
TO SIT SILENT WHILE THE ATTORNEYS FLAY HIM. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I DESIRE TO MAKE AN ORDERLY, LOGICAL PRESENTATION OF
WHAT I HAVE TO SAY,  ...  .    THE COURT:  GO AHEAD AND DO IT.  (P.
2099.) 

     *         *         *  *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH MY STATEMENT FOR
THE RECORD.  I WISH THE RECORD TO SHOW MY OBJECTION TO THE TONE AND THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE COURT DELIVERED THAT COMMAND AS UNBECOMING A COURT,
AND I OBJECT TO IT.  I ALSO  ...  . 

THE COURT:  THERE IS NOTHING UNBECOMING ABOUT IT.  I AM THROUGH BEING
FOOLED WITH IN THIS CASE. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  NOW, IF YOUR HONOR PLEASE  ...  . 

THE COURT:  IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT YOU CAN LUMP IT.  PUT THAT DOWN. 

MR. ISSERMAN:  I OBJECT TO YOUR HONOR'S REMARK AND CHARACTERIZATION
OF THE CONDUCT OF COUNSEL, AND I ASK THAT YOUR HONOR STRIKE THAT
REMARK. 

THE COURT:  OH YES, YES, I HAVE HEARD ALL THAT.  NOW I AM SICK OF
IT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  NOW I WISH TO ADD TO MY OBJECTION THE UNSEEMLY REMARK
OF THE COURT SAYING THAT IF WE DO NOT LIKE IT WE COULD LUMP IT.  I
OBJECT TO IT AND ASK THE COURT TO WITHDRAW AND STRIKE THAT STATEMENT
FROM THE RECORD. 

THE COURT:  YES, I REFUSE - I DENY THE MOTION.  (PP. 2276-2277.) 

    *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION X - PP. 2383-2385; FEB. 28,
1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XI - P. 2404; FEB. 28, 1949.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. MCGOHEY:  WELL, IT IS A DISHONEST QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT
IS THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION TO IT. 

THE COURT:  IT IS IN MR. GLADSTEIN'S BEST STYLE.  (P. 2490.) 

     * *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XII - PP. 2528-2529; MARCH 1,
1949.) 

     *    *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ...  I DESIRE THE RIGHT, AND I REQUEST THE COURT TO
GRANT IT, FOR US TO HAVE AN INVENTORY MADE OF THE CONTENTS OF THOSE
ENVELOPES BEFORE THEY ARE TAKEN FROM US PERMANENTLY.  WE WILL ALSO ASK
LEAVE AT TIMES, SUITABLE TO THE COURT, TO MAKE COPIES OF THOSE  ... . 

THE COURT:  DO YOU REALIZE, MR. GLADSTEIN, YOU ARE INSINUATING THAT I
HAVE POSSESSION OF THOSE EXHIBITS AND WILL DESTROY SOME OF THEM? 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I MAKE NO SUCH INSINUATION.  (P. 2556.) 

     *         *         *         * * 

MR. SACHER:  ...  THERE IS REALLY NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT THIS. 

THE COURT:  I WAS JUST THINKING IT WAS ONLY A LITTLE WHILE AGO YOU
WERE TALKING ABOUT JUDGE KNOX'S BOOK IN A RATHER DIFFERENT WAY.  BUT
YOU CAN DO THAT.  THAT IS ALL RIGHT. 

MR. SACHER:  BUT THIS IS A STATEMENT OF FACT. 

THE COURT:  I AM NOT GOING TO STOP SMILING WHEN I SEE SOME OCCASION
TO SMILE JUST BECAUSE MR. SACHER DOES NOT LIKE IT. 

MR. SACHER:  IT IS NOT THE SMILE.  I WELCOME SMILES.  I INDULGE IN
THEM A GOOD DEAL, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU OUGHT TO TREAT THIS ARGUMENT
WITH LEVITY BECAUSE I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.  (PP. 2640
2641.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  ...  WE WILL THEN, BY THE USUAL PROCESS OF SELECTING
NAMES OUT OF THE WHEEL, PUT 12 JURORS IN THE JURY BOX, BUT THE
QUESTIONS WILL BE NOT ONLY TO THEM BUT TO THE OTHERS WHO MAY BE SITTING
IN THE COURTROOM.  OTHERWISE THE REPETITION OF THE QUESTIONS WILL BE
SUCH AS TO UTTERLY WEAR ME OUT, OR ANYONE ELSE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
AND BE UTTERLY UNNECESSARY.  (P. 2665.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  WELL YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS SO EASY FOR THE COURT TO SEND A
LETTER.  MY PRE-OCCUPATIONS NOW ARE SUCH THAT I SIMPLY COULD NOT DO IT.
IT IS HARD FOR PEOPLE TO REALIZE THE BURDEN THAT I HAVE BEEN CARRYING
HERE AND THE MANY DETAILS OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER THAT I HAVE TO TAKE
CARE OF, AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR ME TO DO IT ANYWAY,
BUT THE MAIN QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WOULD BE SOME SPECIAL HARDSHIP
TO YOU.  (P. 2707.) 

*         *         *         *         * 

MR. MCCABE:  I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU THE CITATION.  IT IS FARNSWORTH
VS. SANFORD IN 115 FED.  (2D) 375. 

THE COURT:  THANK YOU.  LET ME GLANCE AT THIS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU ALL
THAT I AM NOT GOING TO DASH OFF ANY DETERMINATION ON SOME QUESTION OF
LAW BY GLANCING AT A CASE OR TWO ON THE SPUR OF THE MOMENT.  I DON'T
LIKE TO SEE JUDGES DO THAT AND I DON'T DO IT MYSELF.  I HAVE TRIED HERE
TO GIVE EVERY QUESTION THAT COMES UP CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND THAT HAS
BEEN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN WEARING ME OUT HERE BECAUSE I HAVE
BEEN GETTING PROPOSITIONS OF LAW IN RATHER CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ONE
ANOTHER.  (P. 3121.) 

     *         *       *         *         * 

MR. SACHER:  IT IS VERY STRANGE THAT ON THE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU
SCRATCHED YOUR HEAD AND PULLED YOUR EAR, WE WERE SPEAKING AND NOT MR.
MCGOHEY. 

THE COURT:  MAYBE YOU WERE NOT WATCHING ME. 

MR. SACHER:  I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT YOUR CONDUCT AT ALL TIMES - YOU
SEE, YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN. 

THE COURT:  I KNOW, YOU ARE GOING TO SAY I AM CORRUPT AND I AM
DISQUALIFIED.  YOU CALLED ME ALL THOSE THINGS BEFORE.  NOW YOU CAN RUN
THE CATALOGUE AGAIN AND I WILL LISTEN PATIENTLY.  MAKE IT JUST AS BAD
AS YOU CAN. 

MR. SACHER:  YOUR HONOR, I AM CERTAINLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IF I
BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST YOUR HONOR IN ANYTHING I HAVE SAID THAT I AM
SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AND I AM NOT INVITING DISCIPLINARY
MEASURES BY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS. 

THE COURT:  YOU MEAN THAT I WILL TAKE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AGAINST
YOU BECAUSE YOU SAID I SCRATCHED MY HEAD?  DON'T BE ABSURD, MR.
SACHER.  DON'T BE ABSURD. 

MR. SACHER:  THE POINT I AM MAKING IS THAT IN EVERY AVAILABLE MEANS
YOUR HONOR IS CONVEYING TO THE JURY YOUR LACK OF SYMPATHY IF NOT
HOSTILITY TO THE DEFENDANTS, THEIR COUNSEL'S PRESENTATION OF THE CASE,
AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I WANT CERTAINLY TO NOTE ON BEHALF OF MY
CLIENTS A VIGOROUS OBJECTION TO YOUR HONOR'S CONDUCT AND I WISH TO JOIN
MR. GLADSTEIN IN THE MOTION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL BY THE WITHDRAWAL OF
A JUROR. 

THE COURT:  MOTION DENIED.  (PP. 3316-3317.) 

     *     *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ...  THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THAT REQUEST AND
WE MAKE IT, AND WE ASK THE COURT TO REALLY GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO
IT. 

THE COURT:  YOU KNOW, THAT WORD "REALLY," THERE, THAT IS THE WAY YOU
DO.  YOU PUT THAT LITTLE SLY INSINUATION IN, AS MUCH AS TO SAY THAT
HERETOFORE I HAVEN'T REALLY GIVEN THE MATTER ANY CONSIDERATION.  (P.
3332.) 

     *         *         * *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I MOVE THAT THE REMARKS YOU HAVE JUST MADE CONCERNING
THE ENJOYMENT  ...  . 

THE COURT:  I SEE THEM SMILING, SNEERING AND SNICKERING THERE.  THE
JURY UNDOUBTEDLY SEES IT AS WELL. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  JUST A MINUTE.  IF YOUR HONOR PLEASE, I ASSIGN THOSE
REMARKS AS PREJUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE COURT.  I ASSIGN
AS MISCONDUCT YOUR REFUSAL TO PERMIT ME TO MAKE AN OBJECTION. 

THE COURT:  WHEN DID I REFUSE? 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  BY YOUR INTERRUPTION AT THE PRESENT TIME AND BY
PYRAMIDING THE MISCONDUCT WHICH I AM ASSIGNING.  I ASK THE COURT TO
INSTRUCT THE JURY  ...  . 

THE COURT:  YOU ARE NOW TOLD THAT YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR
REMARKS IN EXTENSO.  (P. 3769.) 

     *         *         *   *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XIII - PP. 3942-3943; APRIL 4,
1949.) 

     *         *         *       *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  YOUR HONOR, I AM ALLOWED, AM I NOT, TO ASSIGN AS
MISCONDUCT REMARKS OF THE COURT THAT, AS A LAWYER, I THINK CONSTITUTE
MISCONDUCT? 

THE COURT:  YOU MAY ATTACK ME ALL YOU WANT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. 

THE COURT:  YOU MAY CLAIM THAT I HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT OF EVERY NAME, NATURE AND DESCRIPTION, THAT IS YOUR RIGHT -
AND I SHALL TAKE NO OFFENSE AT IT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I OBJECT TO THE COURT'S REMARKS AND ASSIGN THE
COURT'S LAST REMARK AS MISCONDUCT. 

THE COURT:  VERY WELL.  (P. 4028.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XIV - PP. 4058-4059; APRIL 5,
1949.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. CROCKETT:  I MUST OBJECT TO THAT STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, AS
SUGGESTING TO MR. GORDON HOW HE CAN GET WHAT HE SEEMS TO BE TROUBLED
ABOUT GETTING OUT OF THIS WITNESS. 

THE COURT:  MR. CROCKETT, IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT HERE TO
ADMINISTER JUSTICE WHICH I AM TRYING TO DO TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. 
NOW YOU MUST KNOW THAT SUCH COMMENT AS YOU JUST MADE IS NOT RIGHT. 

MR. CROCKETT:  BUT I THINK THE COURT APPRECIATES THE FACT  ...  . 

THE COURT:  NOW I HAVE BEEN STANDING FOR ALL KINDS OF PICKING ON ME
BY THE LAWYERS FOR THE DEFENSE HERE AND I AM NOT GOING TO RAISE ANY
GREAT ISSUE ABOUT THIS ONE, BUT I REALLY - I REALLY THINK IF IT GETS TO
A POINT WHERE THE JUDGE MAY NOT INDICATE WHAT HE THINKS IS THE PROPER
THING TO DO, IT HAS REACHED A STRANGE AND PITIFUL STATE OF AFFAIRS. 
(P. 4177.) 

 *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XV - PP. 4228-4229; APRIL 7,
1949.) 

   *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  MAY I CALL YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT
BECAUSE YOU JUST TOOK UMBRAGE AT AN OBJECTION WHICH MR. ISSERMAN MADE
AS A LAWYER  ...  . 

THE COURT:  I TOOK NO UMBRAGE. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ...  YOU THEN REACTED  ...  . 

THE COURT:  I SUPPOSE YOU BEGIN  ...  . 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  MAY I FINISH, YOUR HONOR? 

THE COURT:  ...  TO TALK ABOUT MY INFLECTION OF VOICE  ...  . 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  NO, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR INFLECTION. 

THE COURT:  BUT I AM NOT TAKING ANY UMBRAGE AT ALL. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  BUT, YOUR HONOR  ...  . 

THE COURT: BUT I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE A LONG-DRAWN-OUT DISCUSSION OF
SOMETHING THAT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR TO ME.  (P. 4403.) 

     *       *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I ASSIGN YOUR HONOR'S HANDLING OF MY OBJECTION AS
MISCONDUCT. 

THE COURT:  I AM GETTING USED TO THESE CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT.  I
DON'T THINK THERE HAS EVER BEEN A CASE WHERE SO MANY CHARGES OF
MISCONDUCT HAVE BEEN MADE WITH SO LITTLE FOUNDATION.  (P. 4622.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XVI - PP. 4787-4788; APRIL 19,
1949.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I ASK YOUR HONOR TO STRIKE THAT EVIDENCE, AND I WILL
ALSO ASSIGN, AS I DID BEFORE, YOUR HONOR'S STATEMENT AS MISCONDUCT
BECAUSE IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE IS SOME POSSIBLE
RELATIONSHIP, WHICH THERE CANNOT BE, BETWEEN THIS KIND OF STATEMENT AND
THE CHARGES IN THE CASE. 

THE COURT:  HOW CAN I RULE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE WITHOUT
NECESSARILY GIVING THE INFERENCE THAT IT HAS A BEARING ON THE CASE. 
AND EVERY TIME A JUDGE RULES THAT WAY, THE DOCTRINE THAT YOU GENTLEMEN
HAVE DEVELOPED HERE IS THAT THAT IS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.  NOW I CAN'T
STOP LAWYERS FROM CALLING ME NAMES AND SAYING I AM GUILTY OF JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT AND THAT I AM PREJUDICED, AND THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER
THING, AND YOU CAN KEEP THAT UP UNTIL THE COWS COME HOME; THAT IS ALL
RIGHT, AND I TAKE NO UMBRAGE AT IT.  (P. 4799.) 

     *         *         *         * * 

THE COURT:  WHY ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS ARE SMILING BROADLY. 

DEFENDANT GATES:  WHY CERTAINLY WE ARE. 

DEFENDANT POTASH:  CERTAINLY WE ARE. 

THE COURT:  WE ARE GETTING BACK TO THAT COUNTRY CLUB ATMOSPHERE
AGAIN.  WELL, THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE ANY COUNTRY CLUB ATMOSPHERE IN MY
COURT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  WHEN A MAN HEARS SOMETHING THAT IS LUDICROUS AND
ABSURD TO THE EXTREME I SUPPOSE HE IS PERMITTED THE HUMAN REACTION OF A
SMILE OF CONTEMPT. 

THE COURT:  THAT TO ME IS IN THE SAME LINE AS SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE
HAVE HAD IN THE PAST.  IT MAY SEEM VERY FUNNY TO THE DEFENDANTS.  THEY
SEEM TO ENJOY IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS, AND THEIR LAUGHING IS NOT
GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT.  (P. 4805.) 

     *         *         *         *     * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  THAT IS WHAT WE GET.  YOUR HONOR ASKED WHY PEOPLE ARE
SMILING, BUT THERE IS AN IRONY TO IT. 

THE COURT:  I HAD OCCASION TO PUT A STOP TO SOME OF THAT BEFORE.  I
AM FAMILIAR WITH THE PRACTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES OF TRYING TO LAUGH
SOMETHING OFF, AND I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING BUT ORDER IN MY
COURT.  WHEN THE DEFENDANTS GET HILARIOUS AND START LAUGHING AND
SMILING AND THAT SORT OF THING IT IS GOING TO BE STOPPED.  YOU CAN PUT
THAT IN YOUR BOOK.  (IBID.) 

     *      *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XVII - P. 4807; APRIL 22, 1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XVIII - PP. 4829-4834, 4860-4861;
APRIL 22, 1949.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. ISSERMAN:  IF THE COURT PLEASE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COURT TO
TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT THE MAN HAYM SOLOMON IS DEAD SOME
SEVERAL YEARS.  HE WAS A FIGURE IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 

THE COURT:  THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I EVER HAVE BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH
THE GENTLEMAN.  I DON'T SEE WHAT THAT HAS GOT TO DO WITH IT.  YOU
COMMUNISTS HAVE A WAY OF TAKING ALL KINDS OF NAMES. 

MR. SACHER:  I OBJECT TO THAT REMARK AND ASK YOUR HONOR TO STRIKE
THAT REMARK AND TO DIRECT THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT.    THE COURT:  I
WILL DENY THE MOTION. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I WISH TO SAY THAT THE REMARK WAS INTENDED TO BE
DEROGATORY TO THE DEFENDANTS AND IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN INTENDED ANY
OTHER WAY.  I OBJECT TO IT. 

THE COURT; YOU HAVE DONE A LOT OF  ...  . 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I WOULD LIKE AN OBJECTION RATHER THAN AN INVITATION
TO ENGAGE IN REPARTEE. 

THE COURT:  WHAT IS THE OBJECTION THAT YOU WANT ME TO RULE ON? 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  THE OBJECTION IS THAT YOUR HONOR MADE A REMARK WHICH
IS INAPPROPRIATE, IMPROPER FOR A JUDGE SITTING IN A TRIAL TO MAKE
BECAUSE IT WAS INTENDED TO CONVEY SOME KIND OF SLUR AGAINST THE
DEFENDANTS. 

THE COURT:  WELL, YOU SEE IT IS THE OLD STORY.  MR. ISSERMAN GETS UP
AND HAS HIS SAY AND IF I REMAIN QUIET AND LET YOU SPREAD EAGLE ALL OVER
THE PLACE EVERYTHING IS FINE.  BUT THE MINUTE I SAY SOMETHING IT IS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.  I THOUGHT THE STATEMENT I MADE WAS WELL BORNE OUT
BY THE RECORD, YOU HAVE OBJECTED TO IT, AND THERE IT IS.  NOW THAT'S
THAT.  (PP.  4956-4957.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XIX - PP. 4968-4970; APRIL 25,
1949.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  YOUR HONOR, MAY I CORRECT ONE STATEMENT THAT I THINK
THE COURT MADE INADVERTENTLY? 

THE COURT:  YOU MAY CORRECT ANY STATEMENT THAT YOU MADE.  I THINK YOU
HAD BETTER LEAVE ME ALONE FOR THE TIME BEING.  (P. 4970.) 

     *         *      *         *         * 

THE COURT:  YES, I AM NOW PROCEEDING TO READ. 

MR. CROCKETT:  I AM VERY GLAD TO NOTICE THAT, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT, MR. CROCKETT? 

MR. CROCKETT:  I TAKE IT YOU SAID IT FOR MY BENEFIT.  YOU LOOKED
DIRECTLY AT ME AND I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT I HAD HEARD IT. 

THE COURT:  WELL, I DID NOT LOOK DIRECTLY AT YOU AND I DID NOT MEAN
THAT FOR YOU BUT FOR ALL OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS, WHO SEEM TO
BE SEDULOUSLY WATCHING AND CLOCKING THE TIME I USE LOOKING AT PAPERS
AND THINGS OF THAT KIND. 

INCIDENTALLY, I CONSIDER THAT AN IMPERTINENCE. 

IT MAY BE ASSUMED, WHEN I AM LOOKING AT PAPERS, AND I RULE ON THEM,
THAT I READ THEM, WITHOUT HAVING COUNSEL MAKE REMARKS OF THAT
CHARACTER.  (PP. 5132-5133.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GORDON:  MR. SACHER THINKS THAT THIS IS VERY FUNNY. 

MR. SACHER:  I DO. 

THE COURT:  HE IS A GREAT FELLOW.  THERE IS NO QUESTION HE CAN GIVE
MORE INDICATION OF WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT BY TITTERING AND LAUGHING AND
GIGGLING. 

MR. SACHER:  I MOVE THAT THAT BE STRICKEN ON THE GROUND IT IS UTTERLY
UNWARRANTED AND NOT FOUNDED ON THE RECORD AND SOLELY AS A DIVERSION. 

THE COURT:  I TAKE IT THAT THAT IS INTENDED TO BE ANOTHER IMPUTATION
ON MY MOTIVES, MR. SACHER.  YOU ARE PILING UP QUITE A RECORD FOR
YOURSELF IN THIS CASE.  (P. 5256.) 

   *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XX - P. 5302; MAY 2, 1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXI - P. 5526; MAY 4, 1949.) 

  *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  THE STATEMENT THAT YOUR HONOR MADE AND THE
IMPLICATION AND INNUENDO THAT IT CARRIED. 

THE COURT:  I HAVEN'T THE REMOTEST IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO TELL YOU. 

THE COURT:  GO AHEAD. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS ROSE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE
COURT AND YOUR HONOR DISTORTED THAT QUESTION BY ASKING ANOTHER
QUESTION, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS TO CONVEY AN IMPLICATION THAT THE
QUESTION OF THE ATTORNEY WAS IMPROPER, THAT THE ATTORNEY WAS INDEED
IMPLIEDLY STATING SOMETHING THAT REFLECTED ON THE COURT'S MOTIVES AND
THE COURT SEIZED THAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT KIND OF INNUENDO. 

THE COURT:  PRETTY INGENIOUS. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  IT WAS; BUT NOT MINE. 

THE COURT:  YOU ARE TRYING TO THROW SOME MORE IMPUTATIONS ON MY
MOTIVES AND SHOWING WHAT I THOUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS EVIDENTLY NOT
WELL JUSTIFIED.  (P. 5700.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  YOUR HONOR, MY ASSIGNMENT OF MISCONDUCT WAS AT THE
REMARKS OF THE COURT, AND I THEREFORE SUBMIT IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE
COURT IN MAKING - IN GIVING ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY ON THAT
SUBJECT, TO DO SO IN THE MANNER THAT YOUR HONOR JUST DID, AND I ASSIGN
THEREFORE YOUR REMARKS AS MISCONDUCT. 

THE COURT:  WELL, I MUST BE VERY BAD, ALL THESE MISCONDUCTS THAT YOU
HAVE CHARGED, AND I MUST SAY IT IS VERY SAD.  (P. 5794.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  NO, YOU MAY NOT HAVE THEM MARKED.  THEY MAY BE SUBMITTED
AT SOME LATER TIME IF YOU DESIRE, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE THEM
SUBMITTED NOW FOR PUBLICITY PURPOSES. 

MR. SACHER:  I OBJECT TO THAT STATEMENT.  THESE ARE NOT PUT IN FOR
PUBLICITY PURPOSES.  THIS IS PUT IN TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
DEFENDANTS.  I THINK THAT IS AN IMPROPER REMARK. 

THE COURT:  THAT CAN ALL BE DONE WITHOUT HAVING ALL THIS IN THE
RECORD NOW.  THAT IS MY RULING FOR THE PRESENT.  LATER THEY MAY BE
PROPERLY IDENTIFIED.  I HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH A LOT OF PRIOR THINGS
THAT SURPRISED ME. 

MR. SACHER:  I OBJECT TO THAT REMARK. 

THE COURT:  YOU MAY OBJECT YOUR HEAD OFF. 

MR. SACHER:  I OBJECT TO THAT ONE TOO.  IT IS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL TO
THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE DEFENDANTS AND I THINK IT IS NOT OBSERVANT OF
THE DUE DECORUM OF A COURTROOM TO MAKE THESE REFERENCES, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  YES, THAT IS ALL RIGHT.  (P. 6116.) 

     *        *         *         *         * 

MR. SACHER:  I OBJECT TO THIS, YOUR HONOR  ...  . 

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.  MR. SACHER, I WILL NOT HEAR FROM YOU
FURTHER. 

MR. SACHER:  ... UNLESS THE TIME AND PLACE ARE FIXED, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  OVERRULED.  YOU NEEDN'T SMILE AND SNEER AT ME THAT WAY
EITHER. 

MR. SACHER:  I WISH TO STATE THAT I DID NOT SNEER OR SMILE. 

THE COURT:  I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MORE OF THAT THAN I CAN HELP,
I WILL TELL YOU THAT.  (P. 6118.) 

     *      *         *         *         * 

DEFENDANT DENNIS:  IS YOUR HONOR TRYING TO INTIMIDATE THE DEFENSE AND
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE? 

THE COURT:  I AM AFRAID I AM NOT VERY GOOD AT INTIMIDATION, BUT I
HAVE HAD A LOT OF IT TRIED ON ME IN THIS CASE.  (P. 6130.) 

     *         *         *         *  * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXII - PP. 6262-6268; MAY 19,
1949.) 

     *         *         *         *     * 

DEFENDANT DENNIS:  YES.  I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT MY POINT OF VIEW
HERE. 

THE COURT:  WHEN YOU BEGIN TALKING ABOUT A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE AND ALL
THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CANNOT EXPECT ME TO SIT HERE LIKE A BUMP ON A LOG
AND HEAR YOU CALL ME NAMES WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING.  I DON'T LIKE TO DO
THAT. 

YOU GO AHEAD NOW AND CALL ME SOME MORE NAMES.  (P. 6264.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ...  AND I WOULD SAY THAT YOUR HONOR SHOULD CONSIDER
IN DETERMINING THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW THAT MR. CROCKETT HAS CITED
TO THIS QUESTION THE STATEMENT THAT THIS COURT MADE IN THE COURSE OF
THIS TRIAL ON THIS VERY QUESTION.  UNWITTINGLY YOUR HONOR HAS PERHAPS
MADE A SINGULAR CONTRIBUTION TO JURISPRUDENCE. 

THE COURT:  THANK YOU FOR THAT "UNWITTINGLY."  YOU REALLY ARE
SOMETHING, MR. GLADSTEIN.  (P. 6331.) 

     *         *  *         *         * 

THE COURT:  MR. SACHER, I HAVE BEEN IN A GREAT MANY CRIMINAL CASES. 
I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN ONE - AND I HAVE BEEN IN MANY THAT WERE VERY
IMPORTANT, TOO - WHERE SO MUCH TIME WAS TAKEN BY COUNSEL ON ARGUMENTS
ON A MOTION TO DISMISS AT THE CLOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE - NEVER
ONE THAT EVEN APPROXIMATED THE TIME TAKEN HERE.  OF COURSE, IF YOU
WOULD ASSUME, AS YOU GENTLEMEN ALL APPEAR TO, THAT THE JUDGE JUST SITS
AS AN AUTOMATON AND DOES NOT HEAR ALL THIS, OR NOTICE ANYTHING, OR
STUDY THE MATTER AT ALL, OR LOOK UP ANY LAW, AND THAT THEN HE COMES TO
THE CLOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE WHOLLY UNINFORMED AS TO THE LAW AND
AS TO THE FACTS, THEN PERHAPS FURTHER ARGUMENT MIGHT BE NEEDED, BUT I
HAVE GIVEN THIS CASE THE CLOSEST ATTENTION; I HAVE STUDIED IT FROM
EARLY MORNING UNTIL LATE AT NIGHT.  I HAVE STUDIED EVERY AUTHORITY I
COULD LAY MY HANDS ON, AND I FEEL THAT THE AMOUNT OF ARGUMENT THAT I
HAVE PERMITTED HERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN ADEQUATE. 

MR. SACHER:  MAY I SAY THIS TO YOUR HONOR, THAT I THINK THAT YOUR
HONOR'S STATEMENTS SIMPLY MEAN THAT ADVOCACY NO LONGER HAS A PLACE IN
OUR COURTS. 

THE COURT:  WELL, YOU HAVE TOLD ME THAT, AND MR. GLADSTEIN IN HIS
PLEASANT WAY HAS MADE IT EVEN MORE PLAIN; BUT, OF COURSE, I KNOW WHAT
IS DONE IN CASES GENERALLY.  WHEN THE JUDGE FEELS THAT HE DOESN'T
REQUIRE ANY MORE ARGUMENT HE SAYS SO, AND COUNSEL ORDINARILY
ACQUIESCE.  IN THIS CASE, OF COURSE, IT IS DIFFERENT  ...  . 

MR. SACHER:  I SHOULD LIKE  ...  . 

THE COURT:  BUT I HAVE TO DO THE BEST I CAN TO KEEP THINGS GOING AS
WELL AS I CAN, WITH MAKING RULINGS THAT I DEEM PROPER ONES, AND I DON'T
INTEND TO BE BLACKJACKED BY ANY FORM OR METHOD INTO DOING ANYTHING THAT
I DON'T THINK IS RIGHT.  (PP. 6343-6344.) 

     *       *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXIII - PP. 6401-6402; MAY 24,
1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXIV - PP. 6520-6522; MAY 25,
1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXV - P. 6565; MAY 26, 1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXVI - P. 6761; JUNE 2, 1949.) 

     *         *         *         *    * 

MR. SACHER:  MAY I POINT OUT, YOUR HONOR, THAT I HAVE USED THE EXACT
WORDS OF A QUESTION THAT YOU YOURSELF PUT TO THE WITNESS BUDENZ? 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  IF THE COURT DOESN'T DESIRE TO ANSWER MR. SACHER'S
QUESTION I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COURT A QUESTION.  IS IT TO BE THE
RULE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE JURY IS TO HEAR ONLY FROM THE GOVERNMENT
WITNESSES AS TO WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD DOCUMENTS OR TEACHINGS TO MEAN, OR
ARE THE DEFENDANTS TO BE ALLOWED TO GIVE THEIR STATE OF MIND, THEIR
BELIEFS AND THEIR INTENTIONS? 

THE COURT:  I THINK I SEE WHAT YOU ARE UP TO.  YOU HAVE HAD A GOOD
REST, AND YOU ARE RIGHT BACK HERE BECAUSE OF THAT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I ASSIGN THOSE REMARKS AS IMPROPER, UNWARRANTED AND
MISCONDUCT. 

THE COURT:  THAT IS ALL RIGHT.  (P. 6765.) 

     *         *         *         *      * 

THE COURT:  I SEE YOU CAME BACK AFTER A LONG REST DETERMINED TO BE
PROVOCATIVE. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I HAD NO REST.  I WAS WORKING ON THIS CASE. 

THE COURT:  YOU CAN BE JUST AS PROVOCATIVE, YOU CAN BE JUST AS UNRULY
AS YOU CHOOSE.  YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TRIED IT SO OFTEN AND FOUND THAT IT
IS UNAVAILING.  NOW GO AHEAD AND DO AS YOU LIKE.  (P. 6791.) 

     *     *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  THAT IS OBJECTED TO. 

THE COURT:  OBJECT AWAY.  THERE IS NO JURY PRESENT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I ASSIGN THAT AS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.  I OBJECT VERY
SERIOUSLY AND I ASSIGN IT AS PREJUDICE AND BIAS OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT:  YOU DID REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHEN I PUT THEM TO YOU
AND YOUR COLLEAGUES AGAIN AND AGAIN.  WHAT IS THE USE OF MAKING OUT YOU
DIDN'T DO IT? 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  AND I ASSIGN THOSE REMARKS AS EVIDENCE OF THE
PREJUDICE OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT:  YOU HEAR YOUR OWN VOICE AND YOU THINK BECAUSE YOU SAY
SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT SO.  YOU HAVE BEEN DOING IT HERE FOR MONTHS. 
NOW GO AHEAD, MR. CROCKETT.  LET'S SEE WHAT THE REST OF YOUR ARGUMENT
IS.  (PP. 6815-6816.) 

  *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXVII - PP. 6845-6847; JUNE 3,
1949.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. MCCABE:  ...  I SAY THAT THE REASON COUNSEL - I AM SPEAKING FOR
MYSELF NOW - THE REASON THAT I HAVE PERHAPS NOT MADE SIMILAR UTTERANCES
IS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF MY GREATER TRAINING TO RESTRAIN MYSELF UNDER GREAT
PROVOCATION. 

THE COURT:  WELL, YOU HAVE BEEN IMPUDENT ENOUGH TO ME ON NUMEROUS
OCCASIONS, AND WERE IT NOT FOR THE FACT THAT I HAVE DETERMINED THAT
THIS TRIAL SHALL NOT BE DISRUPTED BY SUCH THINGS I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN
ACTION AGAINST YOU AND AGAINST EACH OF YOUR COLLEAGUES LONG BEFORE
THIS, BUT I SHALL NOT DO IT.  I SHALL LEAVE THAT TO THE PROPER
AUTHORITIES TO TAKE CARE OF IN DUE COURSE, AND THERE IT SHALL REST, BUT
YOU NEED BE UNDER NO MISAPPREHENSION; I HAVE BEEN QUITE FULLY COGNIZANT
OF YOUR CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT AND YOUR IMPUDENCE. 

DEFENDANT WINTER:  YOUR HONOR, MAY I  ...  . 

MR. MCCABE:  I DENY THE IMPUTATION OF IMPUDENCE OR MISCONDUCT.  I AM
PERFECTLY WILLING TO ANSWER TO ANY PROPER BODY FOR ANY ACTIONS OF MINE
IN THIS COURTROOM OR OUT. 

THE COURT:  DO YOU REMEMBER, MR. MCCABE, THE DATE WHEN YOU ACCUSED ME
OF DOING CERTAIN THINGS JUST SO THAT THE REPORTERS COULD MEET THE
DEADLINE FOR THE PRESS?  DO YOU REMEMBER THAT OCCASION? 

MR. MCCABE:  YES, I RECALL IT QUITE WELL. 

THE COURT:  YOU THOUGHT WHAT YOU SAID THEN WAS ENTIRELY PROPER, NO
DOUBT. 

MR. MCCABE:  I THOUGHT IT WAS ACCURATE. 

THE COURT:  WELL, YES, I THOUGHT IT WAS CONTEMPTUOUS.  NOW I JUST
MENTION THAT SO THAT YOU MAY NOT SUPPOSE THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF THE
PRECISE INCIDENTS THAT I SPEAK OF.  (PP. 6848-6849.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXVIII - PP. 6936-3937; JUNE 7,
1949.) 

     *         *         *         *   * 

MR. SACHER:  I AM OFFENDED ON THESE CONSTANT ASPERSIONS ON THE
VERACITY OF REPRESENTATIONS THAT I MAKE.  I AM AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT
AND I RESENT THESE  ...  . 

THE COURT:  THERE WAS AN INSTANCE WHEN YOU DELIBERATELY LIED TO ME
WHEN THEY WERE PASSING THESE PRESS RELEASES.  YOU SAID THAT THEY WERE
NOT AND YOU WERE CAUGHT RED-HANDED.  (FN3)    MR. SACHER:  THAT IS THE
MOST OFFENSIVE CHARGE THAT CAN BE MADE AGAINST AN OFFICER OF THE
COURT.  YOUR HONOR KNEW THAT THAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE BACK PART OF THE
COURTROOM AND I WAS UNABLE TO SEE THAT.  THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST
OFFENSIVE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO A LAWYER.  WHAT HAS A LAWYER GOT BUT HIS
HONOR. 

THE COURT:  THAT IS THE FIRST THING YOU DID AND YOU WERE CAUGHT RED
HANDED. 

MR. SACHER:  THAT IS THE MOST DETESTABLE THING I EVER HEARD FROM A
JUDGE.  I RESENT THAT AND I URGE THAT IT BE EXPUNGED FROM THE RECORD. 

THE COURT:  YOU ASKED ME WHY I WOULDN'T TAKE YOUR WORD FOR ANYTHING
AND I TOLD YOU.  I MIGHT ENUMERATE OTHER INCIDENTS WERE I SO INCLINED. 
YOU CAN GET JUST AS VIOLENT AS YOU WANT; THE FACT IS I DO NOT TAKE YOUR
WORD FOR ANYTHING. 

MR. SACHER:  I WILL DEFEND MY HONOR AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR AGAINST
YOUR HONOR OR ANYBODY ELSE.  I WILL NOT ACCEPT A DENUNCIATION THAT I AM
A LIAR.  WHEN THE TIME COMES THAT I DON'T HAVE THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO
DEFEND MY CLIENTS ON ANY OTHER BASIS THAN LYING I WILL RESIGN FROM THE
BAR.  I THINK AN IDIOT RESORTS TO LYING.  I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. 

THE COURT:  YOU DID IT. 

WE BETTER LET THESE LITTLE AMENITIES GO.  I CAN SEE FROM YOUR
BELLIGERENT MANNER IF YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD, YOU MIGHT PHYSICALLY COME
UP TO THE BENCH AND PHYSICALLY ATTACK ME.  I KNOW YOUR MANNER, AND IT
DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE.  LET'S GO BACK TO WHAT WE
WERE DOING.  (P. 7029.) 

  *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT: I HAVE A VERY DEFINITE OPINION OF YOU, TOO, MR. CROCKETT. 

MR. CROCKETT:  BUT I AM NOT SPEAKING ABOUT MR. CROCKETT. 

THE COURT:  BUT I SHALL NOT EXPRESS IT BECAUSE I SEE NO OCCASION TO
DO IT.  I SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT TO MR. SACHER, HAD HE NOT ASKED ME. 

MR. CROCKETT:  I AM NOT SPEAKING ABOUT MR. CROCKETT, AND I AM FULLY
AWARE THAT YOU PROBABLY DO HAVE A VERY DEFINITE OPINION AS TO MR.
CROCKETT. 

THE COURT:  WHY, I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO INSULTED AND BAITED, NOR HAVE I
EVER HEARD OF ANY OTHER JUDGE BEING SO INSULTED AND BAITED, DURING THE
TRIAL AS I HAVE BY YOU LAWYERS REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANTS HERE IN THIS
CASE FROM THE 17TH OF JANUARY ON, AND I WILL MAKE NO BONES ABOUT IT.
THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON, AND I HAVE TOLERATED IT BECAUSE OF THE
REASONS I HAVE INDICATED, BUT MAKE NO MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT I
THINK ABOUT IT.  (PP.  7030-7031.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXIX - PP. 7086-7087; JUNE 9,
1949.) 

*         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  I SEE MR. SACHER SMILING. 

MR. SACHER:  YOUR HONOR TAKES AWFULLY GOOD NOTICE ABOUT MY FACIAL
EXPRESSIONS, BUT WHEN MR. GLADSTEIN SPOKE ABOUT MR. GORDON JUMPING UP
LIKE A POPPINJAY YOU SAW NOTHING. 

THE COURT:  WELL, YOU DID SEEM PLEASED.  NOW YOU SEEM DIFFERENT. 

MR. SACHER:  WE ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE BUT YOU NEVER SEE ANYTHING
THAT THE PROSECUTION DOES. 

THE COURT:  THAT IS WHAT YOU SAY.  IT MAY BE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING
DONE BY THE PROSECUTION TO MAKE IT NECESSARY FOR COMMENT. 

I TOLD YOU SOME LITTLE TIME AGO THAT I WASN'T GOING TO PERMIT YOU OR
THE OTHER LAWYERS TO GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING WHILE I WAS PRESIDING HERE
AND I SHALL NOT.  (P. 7094.) 

     *         *       *         *         * 

THE COURT:  I WISH YOU WOULD STOP TALKING ABOUT MY NODDING MY HEAD,
SCRATCHING MY HEAD AND PULLING MY EARS.  WHY DON'T YOU LEAVE THAT ALL
OUT?  WHAT GOOD DOES THAT DO. 

MR. ISSERMAN:  WELL, WHETHER YOUR HONOR  ...  . 

MR. CROCKETT:  PARDON ME ONE MINUTE.  I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE NOT MADE A MATTER OF RECORD ON
THE COURT  ...  . 

THE COURT:  YOU HAVEN'T MISSED ANY OF THEM. 

MR. CROCKETT:  ...  SO FAR AS THE TRANSCRIPT IS CONCERNED.  VERY
FREQUENTLY I NOTICE IN THE COURSE OF TESTIMONY YOUR HONOR MAKES
FREQUENT GLANCES OVER TOWARD THE JURY OR SOME FACIAL EXPRESSION THAT
GIVES THE IMPRESSION, TO ME AT LEAST, THAT THE COURT  ...  . 

THE COURT:  WELL, IT IS FUNNY  ...  . 

MR. CROCKETT:  PARDON ME.  I THINK THAT WHENEVER IT IS SO OBVIOUS, AS
IT WAS A WHILE AGO, SOME MENTION OF IT SHOULD BE MADE SO THAT IT WILL
BE CARRIED IN THE RECORD. 

THE COURT:  IF THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT MY WINKING AT THE JURY OR
SOMETHING OF THAT KIND, I AM SURPRISED THAT YOU DID NOT MENTION IT AT
THE TIME. 

MR. CROCKETT:  NO, I HAVE NOT NOTICED A WINKING YET.  IF I HAD I
WOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT. 

THE COURT:  WELL, THERE ISN'T MUCH THAT YOU HAVE MISSED, BUT YOU MAY
JUST AS WELL GO AHEAD AND GET IT ALL DOWN AND OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM.  I
DENY THAT I HAVE EVER DONE ANYTHING OF THE KIND.  I WOULDN'T STOOP TO
SUCH A THING, AND I DO NOT SEE HOW YOU LAWYERS HAVE THE EFFRONTERY TO
KEEP SAYING SO.  (PP. 7269-7270.) 

     *    *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  NOW YOUR HONOR HAS SAID THAT IF THIS EXHIBIT WERE
RECEIVED IT WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED.  NOW FIRST OF ALL I THINK THAT THAT
WOULDN'T BE AN OBSTACLE BECAUSE A NUMBER OF UNPRECEDENTED THINGS HAVE
ALREADY OCCURRED COMMENCING WITH THE RETURNING OF THE INDICTMENT. 

THE COURT:  HA HA, YOU KNOW I EXPECTED YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I CAN'T OVERLOOK THE OPPORTUNITY NOR THE NECESSITY TO
REPLY TO YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  THIS IS AN UNPRECEDENTED CASE.  IT PRESENTS
UNPRECEDENTED ISSUES.  IT HAS BEEN HANDLED IN AN UNPRECEDENTED WAY. 

THE COURT:  I'LL SAY IT HAS.  (P. 7670.) 

*         *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  MAY I SAY ONE WORD? 

THE COURT:  IF YOU EVER DID THAT, MR. GLADSTEIN, I THINK I WOULD DROP
DEAD. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  WHEN I SAY ONE WORD, I MEAN IT IN A LAWYER'S SENSE. 

THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  (P. 7676.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  WELL, YOU ACCUSE ME OF BEING AN OLD TYRANT AND EVERYTHING
UNDER THE SUN, ACCUSE ME OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF VARIOUS KINDS, AND I
TAKE THAT IN GOOD TEMPER, AND YOU SPEAK ABOUT NOT HAVING A CHANCE TO
PROVE YOUR CASE.  YOU HAD HAD AMPLE CHANCE TO PROVE YOUR CASE AND
ANYBODY WHO READS THIS RECORD CAN SEE THAT YOU HAVE HAD.  SO THERE IS
NO NEED OF YOUR SAYING HOW I CUT YOU OUT AND HOW I WON'T TAKE THE
NECESSARY TIME.  I AM GOING TO TAKE THE NECESSARY TIME BUT I AM GOING
TO BE THE ONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS NECESSARY.  (P. 7929.) 

     *        *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXX - P. 8045; JUNE 30, 1949.) 

     *     *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  MR. SACHER, YOU CANNOT LAUGH THESE THINGS OFF. 

MR. SACHER:  I AM NOT LAUGHING ANYTHING OFF. 

THE COURT:  YOU MUST HAVE LAUGHED AT SOMETHING, AND IT IS VERY
OFFENSIVE TO ME. 

MR. SACHER:  IT IS SO OBVIOUSLY UNRELATED TO THE CASE, I CANNOT
IMAGINE WHY IT IS BEING ASKED. 

THE COURT:  WELL, I CAN IMAGINE, AND I IMAGINE THERE ARE OTHERS WHO
CAN TOO, AND I THINK, PERHAPS, THAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE LAUGHING  ...
. 

MR. SACHER:  NO, THAT IS NOT THE REASON AT ALL. 

THE COURT:  ...  LAUGHING IT OFF. 

MR. SACHER:  THAT IS NOT THE REASON I AM LAUGHING. 

THE COURT:  YOU SHOULD STOP. 

MR. SACHER:  AND I SHOULD SAY THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN LAUGHING. 

THE COURT:  YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT FIRST.  (P. 9167.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. SACHER:  IT USED TO BE DONE TO ME ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

THE COURT:  WHAT USED TO BE DONE TO YOU? 

MR. SACHER:  THIS BUSINESS OF POINTING OUT THAT A QUESTION WAS NOT IN
THE PRECISE WORDS OF THE PRECEDING QUESTION. 

THE COURT:  I RECALL NOTHING OF THAT KIND.  I TAKE IT THAT IS ANOTHER
ONE OF YOUR OFFENSIVE COMMENTS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT I AM
PARTIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT  ...  .  (P. 9185.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. SACHER:  BUT IT IS CONTRADICTORY.  IT SPEAKS OF A RULE AND IT
SPEAKS OF "SOMETIMES."  NOW WHICH IS IT?  IS IT SOMETIMES OR IS IT A
GENERAL RULE? 

MR. MCGOHEY:  I WILL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION AND REFRAME IT, YOUR
HONOR, SO THAT WE CAN SAVE THE ARGUMENT AND GET ON. 

THE COURT:  I WISH TO STATE ON THE RECORD THAT I AM PHYSICALLY AND
MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF GOING THROUGH VERY MUCH MORE OF THIS WRANGLING
AND ARGUMENT AND I SHALL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IF IT IS
CONTINUED AND COUNSEL REFUSE TO OBEY MY ADMONITION.  IT IS MORE THAN
ANY HUMAN BEING CAN STAND.  (P. 9220.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

MR. ISSERMAN:  IF THE COURT PLEASE, MAY I BE HEARD FOR A MOMENT? 

THE COURT:  I SUPPOSE MY MENTIONING MY STATE OF FATIGUE HAS MERELY
SERVED AS A SPUR TO ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT THIS MORNING.  (P. 9224.) 

     *         *         *         *  * 

DEFENDANT DENNIS:  ...  IN VIEW OF THE BIASED AND PREJUDICIAL
RULINGS, RESTRICTING THE  ...  . 

THE COURT:  YOU MEAN BIAS OF MINE? 

DEFENDANT DENNIS:  BIASED, AS I UNDERSTOOD THEM, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT:  I SAY, BUT YOU MEAN BIAS BY ME?  DO YOU SAY THAT? 

DEFENDANT DENNIS:  ON THE PART OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT:  THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT.  I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE WELL TO
HAVE IT CLEAR WHAT YOU CLAIMED.   (P. 9344.) 

    *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXXI - PP. 9376-9377, 9403-9405;
AUG. 1, 1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXXII - PP. 9533-9537, 9541-9543;
AUG. 3, 1949.) 

     *         *    *         *         * 

MR. SACHER:  ...  I DON'T WANT TO APPEAL TO YOU ON THE BASIS OF
SERVING MR. ISSERMAN'S COMFORT OR MR. GLADSTEIN'S OR MR. CROCKETT'S
...  . 

THE COURT:  OR THAT GOLF PLAYER, MR. MCCABE. 

MR. SACHER:  WELL, HE IS NOT A GOLF PLAYER.  I THINK YOU DO HIM AN
INJUSTICE. 

THE COURT:  IF HE HADN'T BEEN PLAYING GOLF FOR ABOUT A WEEK WHEN I
SAW HIM THE OTHER DAY, I MISS MY GUESS. 

MR. SACHER:  NO. I AM SURE IF YOU ARE NOT A GOLF ENTHUSIAST THEN YOU
ARE DOING HIM AN INJUSTICE; IF YOU ARE, THEN YOU ARE JUST ENVIOUS. 

THE COURT: WELL, TO TELL YOU THE HONEST TRUTH, THAT IS JUST PUTTING
THE FINGER RIGHT ON IT.  (P. 9688.) 

     *         *         *         *         * 

THE COURT:  YOU SEE, I HAVE MADE CERTAIN RULINGS IN THE LAST FEW DAYS
WHICH I FELT THE CIRCUMSTANCES COMPELLED ME TO MAKE AND WHICH HAVE LED
TO THE RULINGS THAT I AM NOW MAKING.  I AM DETERMINED TO SURVIVE THIS
CASE. 

MR. SACHER:  WELL, NO ONE HAS ANY PURPOSE THAT YOU SHOULDN'T, YOUR
HONOR. 

THE COURT:  AND IT IS VERY TRUE THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN EVOLUTION IN
MY RULINGS, AND NECESSARILY SO, AND ALTHOUGH ALL THE DEFENSE, INCLUDING
SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ALL OF THE LAWYERS ARE CALLING ME ALL KINDS
OF NAMES, I WAS TRYING, ACCORDING TO MY LIGHTS, TO BE EXTREMELY
LIBERAL, AND I AM QUITE SURE THAT THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT I WAS.  I
THEN FOUND THAT A LOT OF THESE MATTERS, SUCH AS THE ONE YOU SPEAK OF
NOW, SIMPLY HAD TO BE CUT OUT.  THEY HAVE NO BEARING ON THE CASE, AND
SO I HAVE HAD TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF MY RULINGS ON THE BASIS OF
PREVENTING CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE AND ON THE BASIS GENERALLY OF HAVING A
POWER THAT MUST EXIST TO TERMINATE A CASE WITHIN BOUNDS, SUCH AS TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE HEALTH OF THE JURORS AND THE
JUDGE AND EVERYBODY CONCERNED.  (P. 9689.) 

 *         *         *         *         * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXXIII - P. 9731; AUG. 5, 1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXXIV - PP. 9886-9887; AUG. 10,
1949.) 

      *         *         *         *         * 

MR. CROCKETT:  I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR, UNLESS MR. GORDON IS SPECIFYING
SOME PARTICULAR CLASSIC BY SOME PARTICULAR AUTHOR. 

THE COURT:  I THINK HE WILL GET AROUND TO IT IN A MINUTE.  OVERRULED. 

MR. CROCKETT:  I THOUGHT WE WERE NOT HAVING THESE GENERAL QUESTIONS,
THOUGH. 

THE COURT:  WELL, YOU SEE, I GET THE IMPORT OF WHAT YOU SAY.  YOU ARE
JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR, PERHAPS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
SPECTATORS, THAT I RULED ONE WAY THIS MORNING AS TO YOUR GENERAL
QUESTIONS AND THAT I AM SO PREJUDICED AND BIASED THAT I RULED JUST THE
OPPOSITE ON SIMILAR QUESTIONS PUT BY MR. GORDON.  NOW, YOU KNOW THERE
IS NOTHING IN THAT.  THESE QUESTIONS ARE PUT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION HERE
AND THEY ARE PERFECTLY PROPER, AND I SUGGEST THAT THOSE LITTLE IRONICAL
INSINUATIONS BE OMITTED.  (P. 10228.) 

     *   *         *         *         * 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  I OBJECT TO YOUR HONOR'S QUESTION. 

THE COURT:  OVERRULED. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  ALSO TO THE MANNER IN WHICH YOUR HONOR ASKED THE
QUESTION. 

THE COURT:  THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THE MANNER. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  AND THE GESTURE THAT ACCOMPANIED IT. 

THE COURT:  I RAISED MY HAND AND YOU CRITICIZED ME A NUMBER OF TIMES
AND I SEE NO BASIS FOR SUCH CRITICISMS.  I AM GOING TO GET AT THIS  ...
. 

MR. GLADSTEIN:  NATURALLY YOUR HONOR SEES NO BASIS FOR CRITICISM BUT
AN ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTS AND DEFENDS CLIENTS MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT
VIEW. 

THE COURT:  WHAT I OBJECT TO IS FALSE STATEMENTS OF THE THINGS THAT
ARE SAID TO BE DONE BY ME AND NOT DONE BY ME.  THAT IS WHAT I OBJECT TO
AND YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE FILLED THIS RECORD WITH STATEMENTS OF
THINGS I AM SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE AND I NEVER DID.  EVERY TIME YOU
START THAT I AM GOING TO SEE THE RECORD IS KEPT STRAIGHT.  (PP. 10718
10719.) 

     *         *         *         *  * 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXXV - P. 10748; AUG. 26, 1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXXVI - PP. 10855-10856; AUG. 29,
1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXXVII - P. 11213; SEPT. 9,
1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXXVIII - PP. 11418-11421; SEPT.
14, 1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XXXIX - P. 11432; SEPT. 14,
1949.) 

(CONDUCT INVOLVED IN SPECIFICATION XL - PP. 12064-12065; OCT. 4,
1949.)  (FN4)    FN1  SINCE THE WHOLE CERTIFICATE OF CONTEMPT WAS
PUBLISHED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE OPINION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND IS
READILY AVAILABLE, 182 F.2D 416, 430-453, THERE IS HERE NOT REPRODUCED
ANY PART OF THE RECORD WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN QUOTED ADEQUATELY IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE.  EACH SPECIFICATION SHOULD BE
EXAMINED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPENDIX, AT THE APPROPRIATE POINT
INDICATED HEREIN.  EACH SPECIFIED EPISODE INVOLVING CONTEMPTUOUS
CONDUCT SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE TRIAL SETTING AS SHOWN BY THE FURTHER
EXCERPTS REPRODUCED HERE FROM THE WHOLE RECORD. 

THE PAGE REFERENCES ARE TO THE PRINTED RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT IN
DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494.  FN2  SINCE SPECIFICATION I
CHARGED GENERALLY "A WILFUL, DELIBERATE, AND CONCERTED EFFORT TO DELAY
AND OBSTRUCT THE TRIAL," SPECIFICATION II CHARGES THE FIRST SPECIFIC
ACT OF CONTEMPT IN THE PRINCIPAL TRIAL.  SEE 182 F.2D AT 431-432.  THE
PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL RECORD REPRODUCED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE
CONTEMPT CERTIFICATE GIVE, BECAUSE OF THEIR BREVITY, ONLY A MUTILATED
PICTURE OF THE TRIAL.  THE PLACES IN THE RECORD WHERE THE ALLEGED
CONTEMPTS OCCURRED ARE INDICATED IN ORDER THAT EACH INCIDENT OF
CONTEMPT MAY BE VIEWED IN RELATION TO THE RECORD EXCERPTS SET FORTH
HERE. 

FN3  THE INCIDENT REFERRED TO BY THE JUDGE - REPORTED AT PAGES 4228
4229 OF THE RECORD - WAS THE BASIS FOR HIS SPECIFICATION XV.  THE
CONVICTION OF SACHER ON THAT SPECIFICATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS BECAUSE THAT COURT DID NOT THINK IT WAS
SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR "THAT SACHER WAS ATTEMPTING TO MISLEAD THE COURT." 
182 F.2D 416, 424-425. 

FN4  THE JUDGMENTS OF CONTEMPT ON ALL SPECIFICATIONS WERE FILED ON
OCTOBER 14, 1949. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER THAT ONE WHO READS THIS RECORD
WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING WHETHER MEMBERS OF THE BAR
CONSPIRED TO DRIVE A JUDGE FROM THE BENCH OR WHETHER THE JUDGE USED THE
AUTHORITY OF THE BENCH TO WHIPSAW THE LAWYERS, TO TAUNT AND TEMPT THEM,
AND TO CREATE FOR HIMSELF THE ROLE OF THE PERSECUTED.  I HAVE
RELUCTANTLY CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER IS BLAMELESS, THAT THERE IS FAULT ON
EACH SIDE, THAT WE HAVE HERE THE SPECTACLE OF THE BENCH AND THE BAR
USING THE COURTROOM FOR AN UNSEEMLY DEMONSTRATION OF GARRULOUS
DISCUSSION AND OF ILL WILL AND HOT TEMPERS. 

I THEREFORE AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER
THAT THIS IS THE CLASSIC CASE WHERE THE TRIAL FOR CONTEMPT SHOULD BE
HELD BEFORE ANOTHER JUDGE.  I ALSO AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE BLACK THAT
PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO A TRIAL BY JURY. 
..END :









LILLY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE 343 U.S. 90 


NO. 158.  ARGUED DECEMBER 3, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1952.  - 188
F.2D 269, REVERSED. 


PETITIONERS WERE ENGAGED IN THE OPTICAL BUSINESS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND
VIRGINIA IN 1943 AND 1944.  PURSUANT TO AGREEMENTS REFLECTING AN
ESTABLISHED AND WIDESPREAD PRACTICE IN THAT INDUSTRY IN THOSE
LOCALITIES, THEY PAID TO THE RESPECTIVE DOCTORS WHO PRESCRIBED THE
EYEGLASSES WHICH THEY SOLD ONE-THIRD OF THE RETAIL SALES PRICE RECEIVED
FOR THE GLASSES.  HELD: 

1.  SUCH PAYMENTS WERE DEDUCTIBLE BY PETITIONERS AS "ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY" BUSINESS EXPENSES UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  PP. 91-94. 

2.  DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENTS
VIOLATED OR FRUSTRATED "PUBLIC POLICY" WAS UNWARRANTED, SINCE IN 1943
AND 1944 THERE WAS NO GOVERNMENTALLY DECLARED PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL
OR STATE, PROSCRIBING SUCH PAYMENTS.  TEXTILE MILLS CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 326, DISTINGUISHED; COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER,
320 U.S. 467, FOLLOWED.  PP. 94-97. 

LILLY ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN PETITIONERS'
INCOME TAX WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TAX COURT.  14 T.C. 1066.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  188 F.2D 269.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342
U.S. 808.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 98. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS, THOMAS B. LILLY AND HELEN W. LILLY, HIS WIFE, WERE
ENGAGED IN THE OPTICAL BUSINESS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA IN 1943
AND 1944.  PURSUANT TO AGREEMENTS REFLECTING AN ESTABLISHED AND
WIDESPREAD PRACTICE IN THAT INDUSTRY IN THOSE LOCALITIES, THEY PAID TO
THE RESPECTIVE DOCTORS, WHO PRESCRIBED THE EYEGLASSES WHICH THEY SOLD,
ONE-THIRD OF THE RETAIL SALES PRICE RECEIVED FOR THE GLASSES.  THE
QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER SUCH PAYMENTS WERE DEDUCTIBLE BY PETITIONERS
AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  (FN1)  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED WE
HOLD THAT THEY WERE. 

PETITIONERS OWNED AND OPERATED AS PARTNERS THE CITY OPTICAL COMPANY
WITH OFFICES IN WILMINGTON, FAYETTEVILLE AND GREENSBORO, NORTH
CAROLINA, AND RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.  PETITIONER HELEN W. LILLY ALSO OWNED
AND OPERATED THE DUKE OPTICAL COMPANY IN FAYETTEVILLE. 

SINCE LONG BEFORE 1922 WHEN THOMAS B. LILLY ESTABLISHED HIS BUSINESS
IN WILMINGTON, EYE DOCTORS, IN THAT LOCALITY AND TO A SUBSTANTIAL
EXTENT THROUGHOUT COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES IN NORTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA
AND ELSEWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES, NOT ONLY EXAMINED THEIR PATIENTS'
EYES AND PRESCRIBED GLASSES, BUT ALSO SOLD THEM THE GLASSES.  THE
DOCTORS BOUGHT THE FRAMES AND LENSES WHOLESALE, PREPARED AND FITTED THE
GLASSES TO THE PATIENTS AND SOLD THE GLASSES AT A PROFIT. 

LILLY AND OTHER OPTICIANS OFFERED TO FILL THE PRESCRIPTIONS FOR THE
DOCTORS AND TO SUPPLY AND FIT THE FRAMES TO THE PATIENTS.  TO
COMPENSATE THE DOCTORS FOR THEIR LOSS OF PROFIT ON THE SALES, THE
OPTICIANS GENERALLY PAID THE DOCTORS ONE-THIRD OF THE RETAIL PRICE OF
THE GLASSES.  WHILE INFORMATION AS TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS NOT
VOLUNTEERED TO THE PATIENTS, IT WAS FREELY DISCLOSED ON INQUIRY.  THE
DOCTORS MADE IT A PRACTICE TO ASK THEIR PATIENTS TO BRING IN THEIR NEW
GLASSES FOR VERIFICATION OF THE PRESCRIPTIONS AND TO ENABLE THE DOCTORS
TO SEE THAT THE FRAMES WERE PROPERLY FITTED.  WITHOUT FURTHER CHARGE,
THEY MADE WHATEVER REEXAMINATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS WERE NEEDED. 

FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, PETITIONERS TREATED THEIR PAYMENTS TO THE
DOCTORS AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND
DEDUCTED THEM FROM THEIR GROSS INCOMES.  THE DOCTORS, IN TURN, INCLUDED
THEM IN THEIR TAXABLE GROSS INCOMES.  HOWEVER, IN 1943 AND 1944, THE
RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DISALLOWED THESE DEDUCTIONS
IN PETITIONERS' RETURNS AND THEREBY INCREASED PETITIONERS' TAXABLE
INCOME AS FOLLOWS:

          CITY OPTICAL      DUKE OPTICAL   COMPANY

           COMPANY 

1942         $57,063.45 (FN2) 

1943          61,601.95         $6,568.87 

1944          60,021.65          4,798.35 

THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PAYMENTS TO THE DOCTORS WERE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.  ONE JUDGE
DISSENTED.  14 T.C. 1066.  THE RESULTING TAX DEFICIENCES TOTALED
$124,107.78.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  188 F.2D 269.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 342 U.S. 808, TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTED QUESTION OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION AND TO PASS UPON THE APPLICATION TO THESE FACTS OF THE
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN TEXTILE MILLS CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S.
326, AND COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467. 

THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE PAYMENTS TO THE DOCTORS WERE MADE
BY PETITIONERS MONTHLY IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THEIR BUSINESS.  UNDER
THE LONG-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE IN THE OPTICAL INDUSTRY IN THE LOCALITIES
WHERE PETITIONERS DID BUSINESS, THESE PAYMENTS, IN 1943 AND 1944, WERE
NORMAL, USUAL AND CUSTOMARY IN SIZE AND CHARACTER.  THE TRANSACTIONS
FROM WHICH THEY AROSE WERE OF COMMON OR FREQUENT OCCURRENCE IN THE TYPE
OF BUSINESS INVOLVED.  THEY REFLECTED A NATIONWIDE PRACTICE.  (FN3)
CONSEQUENTLY, THEY WERE "ORDINARY" IN THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED MEANING OF
THAT WORD.  SEE DUPUTY V. DU PONT, 308 U.S. 488, 495; WELCH V.
HELVERING, 290 U.S. 111, 114. 

THE PAYMENTS LIKEWISE WERE "NECESSARY" IN THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED
MEANING OF THAT WORD.  IT WAS THROUGH MAKING SUCH PAYMENTS THAT
PETITIONERS HAD BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR BUSINESS.  DISCONTINUANCE
OF THE PAYMENTS WOULD HAVE MEANT, IN 1943 OR 1944, EITHER THE
RESUMPTION OF THE SALE OF GLASSES BY THE DOCTORS OR THE DOCTORS'
REFERENCE OF THEIR PATIENTS TO COMPETING OPTICIANS WHO SHARED PROFITS
WITH THEM.  SEVERAL DOCTORS TESTIFIED THAT THEY HAD RECOMMENDED
PETITIONERS AND PETITIONERS' COMPETITOR, THE AMERICAN OPTICAL COMPANY,
SIMULTANEOUSLY.  BOTH WERE SHARING PROFITS WITH THE DOCTORS ON
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME BASIS.  IF EITHER HAD STOPPED MAKING THE
PAYMENTS WHILE THE OTHER CONTINUED THEM, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT
THAT THE DOCTORS THEREAFTER WOULD HAVE OMITTED THEIR RECOMMENDATION OF
THE NONPAYING OPTICIAN.  IN 1943 AND 1944 THE CONTINUANCE OF THESE
PAYMENTS WAS AS ESSENTIAL TO PETITIONERS AS WERE THEIR OTHER BUSINESS
EXPENSES.  AS HAS BEEN SAID OF LEGAL EXPENSES UNDER SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE
CIRCUMSTANCES, "TO SAY THAT THIS COURSE OF CONDUCT AND THE EXPENSES
WHICH IT INVOLVED WERE EXTRAORDINARY OR UNNECESSARY WOULD BE TO IGNORE
THE WAYS OF CONDUCT AND THE FORMS OF SPEECH PREVAILING IN THE BUSINESS
WORLD."  COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467, 472.  (FN4) 

THERE IS NO STATEMENT IN THE ACT, OR IN ITS ACCOMPANYING REGULATIONS,
PROHIBITING THE DEDUCTION OF ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES
ON THE GROUND THAT THEY VIOLATE OR FRUSTRATE "PUBLIC POLICY." 

THE TAX COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE MADE NO FINDING OF FACT THAT THE
PAYMENTS TO THE DOCTORS WERE NOT ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS
EXPENSES.  IT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DISALLOWANCE OF THEIR
DEDUCTIBILITY BECAUSE IT HELD THAT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE CONTRACTS
UNDER WHICH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY.  (FN5) 

WE DO NOT HAVE BEFORE US THE ISSUE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED BY
EXPENDITURES WHICH THEMSELVES VIOLATED A FEDERAL OR STATE LAW OR WERE
INCIDENTAL TO SUCH VIOLATIONS.  (FN6)  IN SUCH CASE IT COULD BE ARGUED
THAT THE OUTLAWED EXPENDITURES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR ILLEGALITY, WERE NOT
"ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" BUSINESS EXPENSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
23(A)(1)(A).  (FN7) 

IN TEXTILE MILLS CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 326, THIS COURT
ACCEPTED AN INTERPRETATION OF THAT SECTION BY A TREASURY REGULATION
WHICH DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FOR LOBBYING
PURPOSES.  IN DOING SO, THE COURT REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT SOME TYPES
OF LOBBYING EXPENDITURES HAD LONG BEEN CONDEMNED BY IT, AND THAT THE
INTERPRETATIVE REGULATION HAD ITSELF BEEN IN EFFECT MANY YEARS WITH
CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE.  THE INSTANT CASE DOES NOT COME WITHIN THAT
PRECEDENT. 

IN COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467, THIS COURT WAS ASKED TO
GO FURTHER AND TO DISALLOW CERTAIN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND OTHER LEGAL
EXPENSES.  THEY WERE REASONABLE IN AMOUNT AND HAD BEEN LAWFULLY
INCURRED BY A LICENSED DENTIST (1) IN RESISTING THE ISSUANCE BY THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL OF A FRAUD ORDER WHICH WOULD HAVE DESTROYED THE
DENTIST'S BUSINESS AND (2) IN CONNECTION WITH SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ON
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE SAME CONTROVERSY.  WHILE THE SERVICES RESULTED
IN AN INJUNCTION WHICH STAYED THE ORDER DURING THE TIME THAT THE
TAXABLE INCOME IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED, THE FINAL RESULT OF THE
LITIGATION WAS UNSUCCESSFUL FOR THE TAXPAYER.  NEVERTHELESS, THE
EXPENDITURES WERE PERMITTED TO BE DEDUCTED AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY
EXPENSES OF THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS.  THE OPINION IN THAT CASE REVIEWS
THE POSITION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS AND THE FEDERAL COURTS.  ID., AT 473-474.  IT REFERS TO THE
NARROWING OF "THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE USED IN
SEC. 23(A) IN ORDER THAT TAX DEDUCTION CONSEQUENCES MIGHT NOT FRUSTRATE
SHARPLY DEFINED NATIONAL OR STATE POLICIES PROSCRIBING PARTICULAR TYPES
OF CONDUCT."  ID., AT 473.  IT CONCLUDES THAT THE "LANGUAGE OF SEC.
23(A) CONTAINS NO EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL CHARACTER
OF THE BUSINESS EXPENSES WHICH ARE DECLARED TO BE DEDUCTIBLE  ...  .
IF THE RESPONDENT'S LITIGATION EXPENSES ARE TO BE DENIED DEDUCTION, IT
MUST BE BECAUSE ALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION WOULD FRUSTRATE THE SHARPLY
DEFINED POLICIES OF 39 U.S.C. SECS. 259 AND 732 WHICH AUTHORIZE THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL TO ISSUE FRAUD ORDERS."  ID., AT 474.  NEITHER THAT
DECISION NOR THE RULE SUGGESTED BY IT REQUIRES DISALLOWANCE OF
PETITIONERS' EXPENDITURES AS DEDUCTIONS IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT, UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES,
BUSINESS EXPENDITURES WHICH ARE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY IN THE GENERALLY
ACCEPTED MEANINGS OF THOSE WORDS MAY NOT BE DEDUCTIBLE AS "ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY" EXPENSES UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) WHEN THEY "FRUSTRATE SHARPLY
DEFINED NATIONAL OR STATE POLICIES PROSCRIBING PARTICULAR TYPES OF
CONDUCT," SUPRA, NEVERTHELESS THE EXPENDITURES NOW BEFORE US DO NOT
FALL IN THAT CLASS.  THE POLICIES FRUSTRATED MUST BE NATIONAL OR STATE
POLICIES EVIDENCED BY SOME GOVERNMENTAL DECLARATION OF THEM.  IN 1943
AND 1944 THERE WERE NO SUCH DECLARED PUBLIC POLICIES PROSCRIBING THE
PAYMENTS WHICH WERE MADE BY PETITIONERS TO THE DOCTORS. 

CUSTOMS AND THE ACTIONS OF ORGANIZED PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS HAVE
AN APPROPRIATE PLACE IN DETERMINING IN A FACTUAL SENSE WHAT ARE
ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES AT A GIVEN TIME AND PLACE.  FOR
EXAMPLE, THEY MATERIALLY AFFECT COMPETITIVE STANDARDS WHICH DETERMINE
WHETHER CERTAIN EXPENDITURES ARE IN FACT ORDINARY AND NECESSARY. 
EVIDENCE OF THEM IS ADMISSIBLE ON THAT ISSUE.  THEY DO NOT, HOWEVER, IN
THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE THE "SHARPLY DEFINED NATIONAL OR STATE POLICIES"
THE FRUSTRATION OF WHICH MAY, AS A MATTER OF LAW, PRECLUDE THE
DEDUCTIBILITY OF AN EXPENSE UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1)(A). 

WE VOICE NO APPROVAL OF THE BUSINESS ETHICS OR PUBLIC POLICY INVOLVED
IN THE PAYMENTS NOW BEFORE US.  WE RECOGNIZE THE PROVINCE OF
LEGISLATURES TO TRANSLATE PROGRESSIVE STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
INTO LAW AND WE NOTE THAT LEGISLATION HAS BEEN PASSED IN RECENT YEARS
IN NORTH CAROLINA AND OTHER STATES OUTLAWING THE PRACTICE HERE
CONSIDERED.  (FN8)  WE RECOGNIZE ALSO THE ORGANIZED ACTIVITIES OF THE
MEDICAL PROFESSION IN DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT.  (FN9)  A RESULTING
ABOLITION OF THE PRACTICE WILL REFLECT ITSELF IN THE TAX RETURNS OF THE
PARTIES WITHOUT THE RETROACTIVE HARDSHIP COMPLAINED OF HERE.  (FN10) 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE TAX COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
TO SET ASIDE ITS JUDGMENT INSOFAR AS IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "SEC.  23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

"(A)  EXPENSES. 

"(1)  TRADE OR BUSINESS EXPENSES. 

"(A)  IN GENERAL.  ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR
INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS
...  ."  53 STAT. 12, 56 STAT. 819, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(A)(1)(A). 

FN2  THE YEAR 1942 WAS INVOLVED IN THE CALCULATION OF THE TAX FOR
1943 BECAUSE OF SEC. 6 OF THE CURRENT TAX PAYMENT ACT OF 1943, 57 STAT.
145-149. 

FN3  THE AMERICAN OPTICAL COMPANY, WITH MORE THAN 250 OUTLETS
DISTRIBUTED OVER 47 STATES, FOLLOWED THIS PRACTICE, BOTH IN COMPETITION
WITH PETITIONERS AND ELSEWHERE.  SEE ALSO, SNELL, SOME PRINCIPLES OF
MEDICAL ETHICS APPLIED TO THE PRACTICE OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 117 A.M.A.J.
497-499 (1941); "WHAT DO YOU PAY FOR EYEGLASSES?"  FORTUNE MAGAZINE,
OCT. 1940, P. 103. 

FN4  "  ...  WITHOUT THIS EXPENSE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO
BUSINESS.  WITHOUT THE BUSINESS, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO INCOME. 
WITHOUT THE INCOME, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO TAX.  TO SAY THAT THIS
EXPENSE IS NOT ORDINARY AND NECESSARY IS TO SAY THAT THAT WHICH GIVES
LIFE IS NOT ORDINARY AND NECESSARY."  HEININGER V. COMMISSIONER, 133
F.2D 567, 570. 

FN5  "WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PAYMENTS UNDER THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE
TWO OPTICAL BUSINESSES, COMPOSED OF PETITIONERS, AND THE OCULISTS ARE
NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES BECAUSE THE CONTRACTS
UNDER WHICH THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY."  14 T.C.
AT 1086. 

FN6  DEDUCTIONS TO COVER PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT WERE
DISALLOWED IN COMMISSIONER V. LONGHORN PORTLAND CEMENT CO., 148 F.2D
276 (PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF STATE ANTITRUST LAWS); AND GREAT
NORTHERN R. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 40 F.2D 372 (PENALTIES AGAINST
RAILROAD FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL STATUTES OR REGULATIONS).  CF. ROSSMAN
CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 175 F.2D 711, 713-714 (WHERE AN OVERCHARGE UNDER
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT WAS ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED BECAUSE IT
DID NOT FRUSTRATE ANY "SHARPLY DEFINED POLICIES" OF THE ACT).  AS TO
DEDUCTIBILITY OF LEGAL FEES INCIDENT TO THE DEFENSE OF A TAXPAYER
AGAINST CHARGES OF ILLEGAL CONDUCT, SEE COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320
U.S. 467, S.C., 133 F.2D 567; KORNHAUSER V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S.
145; COMMISSIONER V. LONGHORN PORTLAND CEMENT CO., SUPRA; 4 MERTENS,
LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, 384-389; AND SEE GENERALLY, NOTE, 54
HARV. L. REV. 852-860.    FN7  THE GOVERNMENT CALLS ATTENTION TO ITS
PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN OTHER OPTICIANS IN OTHER STATES, IN 1946 FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT DUE TO PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS
MADE WITH OCULISTS IN THE COURSE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE CONSENT
DECREES IN THOSE CASES LEND LITTLE SUPPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY PETITIONERS IN 1943 AND 1944 IN
NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE.  IN FACT, THE RECITALS
IN THOSE DECREES TEND TO CONFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF A LONG-ESTABLISHED,
WIDESPREAD, UNDISTURBED PRACTICE OF THE KIND DESCRIBED.   UNITED STATES
V. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL CO., CIVIL ACTION NO. 46C 1332; UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN OPTICAL CO., CIVIL ACTION NO. 46C 1333; UNITED STATES V.
HOUSE OF VISION-BELGARD-SPERO, INC., CIVIL ACTION NO. 48C 607; AND
UNITED STATES V. UHLEMANN OPTICAL CO. OF ILLINOIS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 48C
608 (ALL IN U.S.D.C.N.D. ILL.). 

FN8  REMINGTON'S WASH. REV. STAT., 1949 SUPP., SEC. 10185-14;
DEERING'S CAL. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, 1951, SECS. 650, 652;
N.C. LAWS 1951, C. 1089, SECS. 21, 23. 

FN9  THE PRESENT TREND MAY LEAD TO THE COMPLETE ABOLITION OF THE
PRACTICE.  IF SO, ITS ABOLITION WILL HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED LARGELY BY
THE DIRECT ACTION OF THOSE QUALIFIED TO PASS JUDGMENT ON ITS
JUSTIFICATION.  THIS GRADUALLY INCREASING OPPOSITION TO THE PRACTICE
BEARS WITNESS TO THE WIDESPREAD EXISTENCE OF THE PRACTICE IN SUCH
RECENT TIMES AS 1943 AND 1944.  SEE RESOLUTION OF SECTION ON
OPHTHALMOLOGY OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ADOPTED IN JUNE,
1924, BUT NOT THEN PRESENTED TO THE A.M.A. HOUSE OF DELEGATES, QUOTED
IN 117 A.M.A.J.  498 (1941); ADDRESS OF CHAIRMAN ALBERT C. SNELL, M.D.,
BEFORE THE SECTION ON OPHTHALMOLOGY, 117 A.M.A.J. 497-499 (1941);
PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL ETHICS OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1943
AND 1949); EDITORIALS IN 131 A.M.A.J. 1128 (1946); 136 A.M.A.J. 176-177
(1948). 

FN10  THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE DOCTORS IN THE INSTANT CASE, AND
DISALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS BY THE COURTS BELOW, AMOUNTED TO BETWEEN 56%
AND 72% OF PETITIONERS' TAXABLE BUSINESS INCOME.  THE INCOME THUS TAXED
HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED LONG AGO TO THE DOCTORS AND THEY HAD PAID THEIR
INCOME TAX ON IT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :








BUCK V. CALIFORNIA 343 U.S. 99 


NO. 165.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 28-29, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1952.  - 101
CAL. APP. 2D 907, 226 P.2D 87, AFFIRMED. 


1.  APPELLANTS ARE TAXICAB DRIVERS WHO TRANSPORTED PASSENGERS FROM
MEXICO ACROSS AN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
TO POINTS NOT IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA.  THEY WERE CONVICTED OF
DRIVING TAXICABS IN AN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY WITHOUT A
PERMIT FROM THE SHERIFF REQUIRED BY A COUNTY ORDINANCE.  THE ORDINANCE
REQUIRED A WRITTEN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT, PAYMENT OF A $1 FEE, AND
COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN STANDARDS RELATING TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY.  HELD:
THE ORDINANCE AS HERE APPLIED WAS NOT INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 100-104. 

(A)  THE ORDINANCE WAS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF
1935 OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REGULATIONS.  PP. 101-102. 

(B)  NOR WAS THE ORDINANCE AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  PP. 102-103. 

2.  THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A PROVISION OF THE
ORDINANCE REQUIRING A TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE AND PAYMENT OF A $50
FEE THEREFOR IS NOT HERE PRESENTED.  PP.  103-104. 

BUCK ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA. 

APPELLANTS' CONVICTION OF VIOLATING A COUNTY ORDINANCE WAS AFFIRMED
BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  101 CAL. APP. 2D 907, 226 P.2D
87.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 104. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS, AMERICAN CITIZENS, ARE TAXICAB DRIVERS.  THEY WERE
ARRESTED BY THE SHERIFF OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND CHARGED
WITH DRIVING TAXICABS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE SHERIFF AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 9 OF ORDINANCE
464, THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.*
THE FACTS WERE STIPULATED WITHOUT THE TAKING OF ANY EVIDENCE.  FROM THE
STIPULATION WE LEARN THAT APPELLANTS HAD PICKED UP PASSENGERS ACROSS
THE LINE IN MEXICO AND WERE TRANSPORTING THEM ACROSS THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY TO POINTS NOT IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA WHEN
THEY WERE ARRESTED.  THEY HAD MADE ORAL REQUESTS FOR PERMITS FROM THE
SHERIFF, RATHER THAN APPLICATION IN WRITING ON THE FORMS PROVIDED
THEREFOR, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 9 OF THE ORDINANCE.  WHEN THESE REQUESTS
WERE DENIED, THEY CONTINUED TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS, ALTHOUGH UPON
ADVICE OF COUNSEL THEY DID NOT PICK UP OR DISCHARGE ANY PASSENGERS IN
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA.  WE TAKE THEIR ACTION TO MEAN THAT THEY
CLAIMED THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE, THEY HAD
EITHER THE RIGHT TO A PERMIT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE OR THE RIGHT TO OPERATE WITHOUT A PERMIT. 
APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THE COUNTY HAD NO RIGHT TO BURDEN THAT FOREIGN
COMMERCE BY REGULATION. 

*"APPLICANTS FOR SUCH PERMITS SHALL FILE APPLICATIONS THEREFOR WITH
THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ON A FORM FURNISHED BY THE
SHERIFF WHICH, WHEN COMPLETED, WILL CONTAIN FULL PERSONAL INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE APPLICANT. 

"UPON OBTAINING A PERMIT AS HEREIN REQUIRED THE HOLDER OF SUCH PERMIT
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO AN IDENTIFICATION CARD OF SUCH DESIGN, AND BEARING
SUCH NUMBER AS THE SHERIFF MAY PRESCRIBE, UPON PAYMENT OF A FEE OF
$1.00 ANNUALLY, THEREFOR, WHICH SHALL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT TO THE
TAX COLLECTOR AND SHALL BE DUE ON THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE OF EACH YEAR. 
SUCH CARD SHALL BE CARRIED BY THE PERMITTEE DURING ALL BUSINESS HOURS
AND SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE. 

"EACH APPLICANT FOR A PERMIT SHALL BE EXAMINED BY THE SHERIFF AS TO
HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE, THE VEHICLE CODE,
TRAFFIC REGULATIONS AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE COUNTY, AND IF THE RESULT
OF THE EXAMINATION IS UNSATISFACTORY HE SHALL BE REFUSED A PERMIT.  THE
SHERIFF MAY DENY THE APPLICATION OR HAVING ISSUED THE PERMIT MAY REVOKE
THE SAME IF THE SHERIFF SHALL DETERMINE THAT THE APPLICANT OR TAXICAB
DRIVER IS OF BAD MORAL CHARACTER OR IS GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF ANY OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE OR OF ANY LAWFUL REGULATION
PROMULGATED PURSUANT THERETO OR HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE." 

THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING SEC. 9 OF THE ORDINANCE BY THE
JUSTICE'S COURT OF NATIONAL TOWNSHIP, SAN DIEGO COUNTY.  THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, APPELLATE
DEPARTMENT, AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION AND ALLOWED AN APPEAL TO THIS
COURT.  101 CAL. APP. 2D SUPP. 912, 226 P.2D 87.  WE NOTED PROBABLE
JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 GAVE BROAD POWER OF REGULATION OVER
MOTOR VEHICLES TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; BUT CONGRESS
PARTIALLY EXCLUDED TAXICABS FROM SUCH REGULATION IN THE FOLLOWING
WORDS: 

"NOTHING IN THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 RELATIVE
TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY
OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE
... (2) TAXICABS, OR OTHER MOTOR VEHICLES PERFORMING A BONA FIDE
TAXICAB SERVICE, HAVING A CAPACITY OF NOT MORE THAN SIX PASSENGERS AND
NOT OPERATED ON A REGULAR ROUTE OR BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI  ...  ."  49
STAT. 545, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(B). 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ACTING UNDER AUTHORIZATION OF
CONGRESS, HAS PROMULGATED REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS FOR DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR CARRIERS, INCLUDING
TAXICABS, ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, 49 CFR SEC.
192.2.  THIS DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION THEREOF, IN
THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER, FROM PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
SPECIFICATIONS AS TO QUALIFICATIONS, NOT INCONSISTENT OR IN CONFLICT
WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  ESPECIALLY
IS THIS TRUE SINCE THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ARE ONLY MINIMUM. 

AS THE ORDINANCE IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH AND MAY BE CONSTRUED
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND IN KEEPING WITH THE
LATTER'S PURPOSE, THEY MAY STAND TOGETHER.  KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302
U.S. 1, 10; MISSOURI, K.&T.R. CO. V. HARRIS, 234 U.S. 412, 419; SAVAGE
V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 539; REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 148. 

CALIFORNIA HAS A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE KIND AND CHARACTER OF
PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN THE TAXICAB BUSINESS IN THE STATE.  THE AUTHORITY
TO ISSUE PERMITS HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE STATE TO THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF EACH COUNTY.  IN RE MARTINEZ, 22 CAL. 2D 259, 262, 138
P.2D 10.  SUCH DELEGATION BY THE STATE TO THE COUNTY HAS BEEN APPROVED
BY THIS COURT.  SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 171, 172. 

THE OPERATION OF TAXICABS IS A LOCAL BUSINESS.  FOR THAT REASON,
CONGRESS HAS LEFT THE FIELD LARGELY TO THE STATES.  OPERATION OF
TAXICABS ACROSS STATE LINES OR INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES IS SO CLOSELY
RELATED TO THE LOCAL SITUATION THAT THE REGULATION OF ALL TAXICABS
OPERATING IN THE COMMUNITY ONLY INDIRECTLY AFFECTS THOSE IN COMMERCE,
AND SO LONG AS THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO DISCRIMINATORILY REGULATE OR
DIRECTLY BURDEN OR CHARGE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, THE REGULATION IS VALID.  THE OPERATION
IS "ESSENTIALLY LOCAL," AND IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL REGULATION, STATE
REGULATION IS REQUIRED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  PANHANDLE PIPE LINE CO.
V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM'N, 341 U.S. 329, 333.  EVEN IF APPELLANTS
WERE ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE AT THE TIME OF THEIR ARREST AND DID
NOT INTEND TO ENGAGE IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, THE PERMIT WAS NOT
REQUIRED BECAUSE THEY WERE ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE.  UNDER THE
PERMIT THEY WERE FREE TO ENGAGE IN BOTH INTRASTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES A WRITTEN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT, A
SMALL FEE, AND COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN STANDARDS RELATING TO THE
SERVICE AND TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY.  OUR PRIOR CASES WOULD NOT JUSTIFY US
IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDINANCE IS AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON FOREIGN
COMMERCE IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE STIPULATED FACTS HERE.  AERO TRANSIT
CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285; HICKLIN V. CONEY, 290 U.S. 169;
CF. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY V. NEW YORK, 336 U.S. 106, 111. 

THUS FAR WE HAVE DEALT ONLY WITH SEC. 9 OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH
EXACTS THE $1 FEE FOR A DRIVER'S PERMIT.  THAT IS ALL THE COURT WE ARE
REVIEWING PASSED UPON.  THAT IS ALL APPELLANTS WERE TRIED AND CONVICTED
FOR.  BUT IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE PERMIT MAY HAVE BEEN DENIED THEM
BECAUSE THEY HAD VIOLATED SEC. 4 OF THE ORDINANCE BY NOT GETTING A
TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE AND PAYING THE $50 FEE THEREFOR.  BUT
APPELLANTS MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN DENIED PERMITS UNDER SEC. 9 FOR THE
REASON THAT ORAL REQUESTS ONLY WERE MADE AND NOT WRITTEN APPLICATIONS
TO THE SHERIFF, AS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE, OR THE SHERIFF MAY HAVE
FOUND THEM WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE COUNTY AND
TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, OR THAT THEY WERE PERSONS OF BAD MORAL CHARACTER
OR HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, ALL
ADEQUATE STATE GROUNDS.  IN THAT EVENT, THIS COURT WOULD NOT TAKE
JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION.  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, SPEAKING
FOR THE COURT IN LYNCH V. NEW YORK EX REL. PIERSON, 293 U.S. 52, 54-55,
SAID: 

"IF IT DOES NOT APPEAR UPON WHICH OF TWO GROUNDS THE JUDGMENT WAS
BASED, AND THE GROUND INDEPENDENT OF A FEDERAL QUESTION IS SUFFICIENT
IN ITSELF TO SUSTAIN IT, THIS COURT WILL NOT TAKE JURISDICTION." 
(CITING NUMEROUS CASES.) 

THIS COURT SHOULD NOT BE REACHING FOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS TO
CAST DOUBT UPON STATE LEGISLATION NOT BEFORE THE COURT.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE $50 REQUIREMENT IS NOT NOW BEFORE THE
COURT AND WAS NOT BEFORE THE LOWER COURT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE APPELLANTS ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO WERE PROSECUTED IN THE
JUSTICE'S COURT OF NATIONAL TOWNSHIP, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA,
FOR VIOLATING SAN DIEGO COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 958 (NEW SERIES), AMENDING
SEC. 9 OF ORDINANCE 464 (NEW SERIES), AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 609 (NEW
SERIES).  THE COMPLAINT SPECIFIED THAT APPELLANTS VIOLATED SEC. 9 OF
THE ORDINANCE BY WILFULLY DRIVING THEIR TAXICABS IN THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A WRITTEN
PERMIT FROM THE SHERIFF AUTHORIZING THEM TO DO SO. 

UNDER THE TERMS OF SEC. 9, EVERY DRIVER OF A TAXICAB IN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY, HEREINAFTER CALLED SIMPLY THE
COUNTY, IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A WRITTEN PERMIT FROM THE SHERIFF.  (FN1)
AFTER THE PERMIT IS ISSUED, THE COUNTY EXACTS A $1 FEE FOR AN
IDENTIFICATION CARD.  THE SHERIFF HAS AUTHORITY TO DENY AN APPLICATION
FOR THE PERMIT IF HE DETERMINES THAT THE APPLICANT (1) IS OF BAD MORAL
CHARACTER; OR (2) HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS
OF THE ORDINANCE; OR (3) HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF AN OFFENSE INVOLVING
MORAL TURPITUDE.  SECTION 13 PROVIDES THAT A VIOLATION OF SEC. 9 IS A
MISDEMEANOR, PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500, OR
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BOTH. 

APPELLANTS WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SEC. 9, AND EACH WAS FINED
$250.  THEY APPEALED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, WHERE THE JUDGMENTS WERE
AFFIRMED.  101 CAL. APP. 2D SUPP. 912, 226 P.2D 87.  THAT COURT, BY
ALLOWING AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT, CONFIRMS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT NO
FURTHER REVIEW WAS AVAILABLE IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS.  (FN2)
ACCORDINGLY, WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

OF THE MULTIPLE ERRORS ASSIGNED, ONLY ONE NEED BE CONSIDERED, FOR IT
DISPOSES OF THE CASE:  THAT THE CALIFORNIA COURTS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
SEC. 9 OF ORDINANCE NO. 464, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED TO THIS
COMPLAINT, DOES  NOT EXCEED THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF THE POWER OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY TO REGULATE FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THIS QUESTION WAS
RAISED IN THE TRIAL COURT BY MOTION FOR ARREST OF JUDGMENT, AND WAS
TREATED AS PROPERLY IN ISSUE BY BOTH CALIFORNIA COURTS.  CLEARLY THEY
REJECTED, AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW, APPELLEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WERE NOT PROPERLY PRESENTED BECAUSE APPELLANTS
HAD FAILED TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE OR OTHER JUDICIAL REMEDIES
ALLEGEDLY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF THE DRIVER'S PERMITS,
THE SUPERIOR COURT SAYING:  "  ...  WE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE
ORDINANCE IS VALID AS TESTED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE  ...  ."  (FN3)  WE
ARE, OF COURSE, BOUND BY THIS DETERMINATION OF CALIFORNIA LAW.  IT IS
THEREFORE UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE WAS AVAILABLE TO
APPELLANTS ANY EFFECTIVE METHOD TO TEST IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DENIAL OF THEIR PERMITS, OR WHETHER - IF SUCH
REMEDIES WERE AVAILABLE - THE FAILURE TO EXERCISE THEM WOULD PRECLUDE
THE DEFENSE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IN THIS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED ON A STIPULATION OF FACTS.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED,
THEREFORE, THAT APPELLANTS APPLIED FOR THE DRIVER'S PERMITS REQUIRED BY
SEC. 9 OF THE ORDINANCE.  (FN4)  THESE APPLICATONS WERE DENIED,
ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THE REASONS FOR THE DENIALS.  THE
SUPERIOR COURT STATED: "EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS HAD APPLIED FOR AND BEEN
DENIED THE LICENSE (PERMIT) REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION."  NO
ISSUE WAS MADE AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE APPLICATION, AND THE
OPINION MAKES NO POINT OF ANY IRREGULARITY IN APPLYING.  THEREAFTER,
APPELLANTS, ON THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, CONTINUED NONETHELESS TO
TRANSPORT PERSONS BY TAXICAB TO AND FROM MEXICO ACROSS THE
UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY.  IT IS THIS TRANSPORTATION,
AFTER DENIAL OF THE DRIVER'S PERMITS, FOR WHICH APPELLANTS ARE BEING
PROSECUTED IN THIS CASE. 

THE STIPULATION FURTHER DISCLOSES THAT APPELLANTS NEITHER PICKED UP
NOR DISCHARGED PASSENGERS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY.  THEIR ONLY OPERATIONS
IN THE COUNTY CONSISTED OF DRIVING PASSENGERS THROUGH THE COUNTY, TO
AND FROM MEXICO.  SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, APPELLANTS ARE ENGAGED
SOLELY IN FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT SAN DIEGO COUNTY, BY
REFUSING TO ISSUE THE DRIVER'S PERMITS, IS ATTEMPTING BY REGULATION TO
EXCLUDE APPELLANTS FROM TRANSPORTING PERSONS IN FOREIGN COMMERCE ACROSS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY UNLESS THEY MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR DRIVERS
ESTABLISHED BY THE ORDINANCE.  THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THIS EXCLUSION CAN
BE RECONCILED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION TO CONGRESS OF THE
POWER TO REGULATE FOREIGN COMMERCE.    GENERALLY, IT IS WELL SETTLED
THAT THE POWER TO REGULATE FOREIGN COMMERCE IS LODGED IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8.  OF COURSE, THIS DOES NOT
MEAN THAT THE STATES ARE POWERLESS IN ALL CASES TO TAKE REASONABLE
MEASURES TO PROTECT THEIR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS.  (FN5) FOR EXAMPLE, IN
THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICTING CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, (FN6) WE ASSUME
THAT SAN DIEGO COUNTY MIGHT REQUIRE THAT LOADS SHOULD NOT EXCEED A
REASONABLE MINIMUM WEIGHT AND THAT, IF APPELLANTS VIOLATED SUCH
REGULATION, THE COUNTY COULD PROPERLY PROHIBIT THEM FROM DRIVING THEIR
TAXICABS ACROSS THE COUNTY.  (FN7) 

THE BURDEN, OF COURSE, IS UPON APPELLANTS AS CHALLENGERS OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ITS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  THAT
BURDEN IS MET PRIMA FACIE WHEN THEY SHOW THAT THE ORDINANCE EXACTS
PAYMENT FROM FOREIGN COMMERCE OF FIFTY DOLLARS ($50) FOR AN OPERATOR'S
LICENSE, NOTE 10, INFRA, PLUS THE DRIVER'S PERMIT.  THE STIPULATED
FACTS SHOW THE FOREIGN COMMERCE; THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT SHOWS
THAT APPELLANTS RELIED UPON THE $50 LICENSE FEE AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BURDEN.  (FN8)  THEREUPON THE GOVERNMENT BODY, SEEKING TO REGULATE,
MUST MAKE IT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR IN SOME WAY THAT THE REGULATION IS
DIRECTED TOWARD AN INCIDENT SUBJECT TO STATE CONTROL.  CF. INTERSTATE
TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183, 186; INGELS V. MORF, 300 U.S.
290, 294; CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583, 599.  A TAXING
MUNICIPALITY MUST SHOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE TAX ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS INTENDED TO COMPENSATE FOR FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE
STATE.  AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. COMMISSIONERS, 332 U.S. 495, 505;
CAPITOL GREYHOUND LINES V. BRICE, 339 U.S. 542; SEE ELGIN V. CAPITOL
GREYHOUND LINES, 192 MD. 303, 310, 318, 64 A.2D 284, 288, 291-292. 
THIS DOES 'NOT REMOTELY IMPLY THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE TAXING
AUTHORITIES TO SUSTAIN THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TAX.  BUT WHERE THE
POWER TO TAX IS NOT UNLIMITED, VALIDITY IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE MERE
IMPOSITION OF A TAX."  MULLANEY V. ANDERSON, 342 U.S. 415, 418. 

WHILE THIS PERMIT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY DENIED FOR AN ADEQUATE
STATE REASON AND NOT FOR LACK OF THE $50 OPERATOR'S LICENSE, IT IS
INCUMBENT ON THE STATE (OR, IN THIS CASE, THE COUNTY) TO STATE THAT
REASON AT THE TRIAL.  APPELLANTS NEED NOT, AND AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
COULD NOT, EXPLAIN WHY THE SHERIFF OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY DENIED THEIR
PERMITS.  THE ALTERNATIVE TO REQUIRING EXPLANATION BY THE COUNTY OF THE
REASON FOR REFUSING A LICENSE WOULD BE TO COMPEL THE APPLICANTS TO
PROVE THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL VALID REQUIREMENTS.  THUS, ASSUMING
THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE ORDINANCE IS VALID, THEY WOULD BE COMPELLED
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE TO SHOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE SHERIFF
BELIEVES THAT THEY ARE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, AND THAT THEY HAVE
NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF AN OFFENSE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.  IN VIEW
OF THE FACT THAT ONLY THE COUNTY THROUGH ITS OFFICERS CAN KNOW THE
REASONS FOR DENIAL OF THE PERMITS, AND CAN, BY PLACING THESE REASONS ON
THE RECORD, NARROW THE ISSUES TO MANAGEABLE PROPORTIONS AND GIVE
APPELLANTS A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR OBJECTIONS, THE BURDEN
OF GOING FORWARD WITH THIS EVIDENCE MUST REST ON THE COUNTY. 

IN THIS CASE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION FOR ITS
ACTION.  THE RECORD SHOWS NO BASIS FOR ANY CONCLUSION BY US.  CF.
HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652, 658.  WE CANNOT DETERMINE,
ON THIS RECORD, WHETHER THE SHERIFF DENIED THE PERMITS BECAUSE HE HAD
FORMED A LOW OPINION OF APPELLANTS' MORAL CHARACTER, (FN9) OR BECAUSE
THE SHERIFF WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE GEOGRAPHY OF
THE COUNTY, OR FOR LACK OF THE $50 OPERATOR'S LICENSE.  WITHOUT SOME
EXPLANATION, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THIS COURT TO DECIDE THAT THE COUNTY
IS JUSTIFIED IN EXCLUDING APPELLANTS FROM ENGAGING IN FOREIGN COMMERCE
IN THE COUNTY.  CF. SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553, 565.   IN COMPARABLE
SITUATIONS THIS COURT HAS FELT THE NEED OF GREATER PARTICULARITY FOR
ADJUDICATION.  RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, 575. 

OF COURSE, IT MIGHT BE UNNECESSARY FOR THE COUNTY TO EXPLAIN THE
PRECISE REASON WHY THE PERMITS WERE DENIED, IF THE ORDINANCE ITSELF
LIMITED THE SHERIFF TO CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID REASONS.  BUT THIS
ORDINANCE DOES NOT SO LIMIT THE SHERIFF'S DECISIONS.  FOR EXAMPLE, SEC.
9 OF THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION HERE CONTEMPLATES THAT THE SHERIFF WILL
DENY A DRIVER'S PERMIT TO ANY PERSON WHO HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.  WHILE WE CANNOT BE SURE, ON THIS
RECORD, WHY THE SHERIFF REFUSED TO ISSUE THE PERMITS TO APPELLANTS, IT
IS LIKELY THAT HIS REFUSAL WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT APPELLANTS HAD
NOT PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED A LICENSE TO OPERATE THEIR TAXICABS IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 4 OF THE ORDINANCE.  (FN10)  THAT
THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING TAXICABS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY.  THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT THE $50 FEE IS LEVIED ONLY AS COMPENSATION FOR THE USE
OF THE ROADS OF THE COUNTY, OR TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF REGULATING
MOTOR TRAFFIC.  CLEARLY SUCH A TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN
FOREIGN COMMERCE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE IMPOSED BY SAN DIEGO
COUNTY.   CF.  SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163; INTERSTATE TRANSIT,
INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183; INGELS V. MORF, 300 U.S. 290; SPECTOR
MOTOR SERVICE, INC. V. O'CONNOR, 340 U.S. 602.  SEE CRUTCHER V.
KENTUCKY, 141 U.S. 47, 57; INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217 U.S.
91; AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. COMMISSIONERS, 332 U.S. 495.  NOR CAN
THE COUNTY INDIRECTLY ENFORCE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE TAX OF
SEC. 4 BY DENYING THE DRIVER'S PERMIT WITHOUT EXPLANATION.  THUS IT IS
CLEAR THAT THIS ORDINANCE PURPORTS TO IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN
ON FOREIGN COMMERCE.  WHILE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT APPELLANTS' PERMITS
WERE DENIED FOR SOME OTHER, AND VALID, REASON, ONLY THE COUNTY (NOT
APPELLANTS) COULD SHOW THAT THIS IS TRUE.  SINCE THE COUNTY HAS OFFERED
NO EXPLANATION FOR PROHIBITING APPELLANTS FROM ENGAGING IN FOREIGN
COMMERCE WITHIN THE COUNTY, THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED FOR SUCH ACTION AS MIGHT BE DEEMED DESIRABLE AND NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  "SECTION 9.  (AMENDED BY ORD. NO. 609 (NEW SERIES) ADOPTED 5-12
47; AND AGAIN AMENDED BY ORD. 958 (NEW SERIES) ADOPTED 4-10-50, TO READ
AS FOLLOWS:)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO DRIVE OR TO BE IN
ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF ANY TAXICAB IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A PERMIT IN WRITING SO
TO DO FROM THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. 

"APPLICANTS FOR SUCH PERMITS SHALL FILE APPLICATIONS THEREFOR WITH
THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ON A FORM FURNISHED BY THE
SHERIFF WHICH, WHEN COMPLETED, WILL CONTAIN FULL PERSONAL INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE APPLICANT. 

"UPON OBTAINING A PERMIT AS HEREIN REQUIRED THE HOLDER OF SUCH PERMIT
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO AN IDENTIFICATION CARD OF SUCH DESIGN, AND BEARING
SUCH NUMBER AS THE SHERIFF MAY PRESCRIBE, UPON PAYMENT OF A FEE OF
$1.00 ANNUALLY, THEREFOR, WHICH SHALL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT TO THE
TAX COLLECTOR AND SHALL BE DUE ON THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE OF EACH YEAR. 
SUCH CARD SHALL BE CARRIED BY THE PERMITTEE DURING ALL BUSINESS HOURS
AND SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE. 

"EACH APPLICANT FOR A PERMIT SHALL BE EXAMINED BY THE SHERIFF AS TO
HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE, THE VEHICLE CODE,
TRAFFIC REGULATIONS AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE COUNTY, AND IF THE RESULT
OF THE EXAMINATION IS UNSATISFACTORY HE SHALL BE REFUSED A PERMIT.  THE
SHERIFF MAY DENY THE APPLICATION OR HAVING ISSUED THE PERMIT MAY REVOKE
THE SAME IF THE SHERIFF SHALL DETERMINE THAT THE APPLICANT OR TAXICAB
DRIVER IS OF BAD MORAL CHARACTER OR IS GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF ANY OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE OR OF ANY LAWFUL REGULATION
PROMULGATED PURSUANT THERETO OR HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE  ...  ." 

FN2  SEE CAL. PENAL CODE, SEC. 1466; CAL. CONST., ART. VI, SEC. 4;
PEOPLE V. MCKAMY, 168 CAL. 531, 143 P. 752; PEOPLE V. REED, 13 CAL.
APP. 2D 39, 56 P.2D 240. 

FN3  OPINION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, 101 CAL.
APP. 2D SUPP. AT 914, 226 P.2D AT 89. 

FN4  SINCE APPELLANTS ARE COMPLAINING OF THE DENIAL OF THE PERMITS,
NOT OF EXACTION OF THE $1 FEE, WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT SAN
DIEGO COUNTY CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRE A $1 FEE FOR THE
IDENTIFICATION CARD, ON THE THEORY THAT THE $1 IS REASONABLY CALCULATED
TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR THE COSTS OF ADMINISTERING ITS VALID
TRAFFIC REGULATIONS. 

FN5  UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 211-212: 

"IN THE ABSENCE OF APPLICABLE FEDERAL REGULATION, A STATE MAY IMPOSE
NON-DISCRIMINATORY REGULATIONS ON THOSE ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE
'FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSURING THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE; ...  A
LICENSE FEE NO LARGER IN AMOUNT THAN IS REASONABLY REQUIRED TO DEFRAY
THE EXPENSE OF ADMINISTERING THE REGULATIONS MAY BE DEMANDED.'  SPROUT
V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 169." 

FN6  BECAUSE THE REGULATION HERE ATTACKED SHOULD FALL IN ANY EVENT,
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHAT, IF ANY, EFFECT THE EXISTING
FEDERAL LEGISLATION MIGHT HAVE ON THE VALIDITY OF THIS ORDINANCE.  SEE
49 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  303(B)(2).  SEE ALSO 49 CFR (1949 ED.) 
SEC.  192.2. 

FN7  SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT V. BARNWELL BROS., INC.,
303 U.S. 177.  CF.  MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407; CENTRAL GREYHOUND
LINES, INC. V. MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653. 

FN8  THE OPINION READS IN PART:  "THE DEFENDANTS  ...  ADVANCE THE
FOLLOWING CONTENTIONS:  ... THAT THE FIFTY DOLLAR LICENSE FEE IS AN
UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON FOREIGN COMMERCE  ...  .  THE DEFENDANTS CONTEND
THAT THE FIFTY DOLLAR ANNUAL LICENSE FEE IS AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE STIPULATED FACTS AS TO
THE COST OF ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE, AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
EVIDENCE, THE COURT WILL ASSUME THAT THE FEE WAS REASONABLE."  THIS
OBJECTION WAS PRESSED THROUGHOUT THE APPEAL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT AND
IN THIS COURT. 

FN9  THE SUPERIOR COURT OPINION REFERS TO BAD MORAL CHARACTER AS A
PROPER GROUND FOR DENIAL OF PERMITS.  WITHOUT A RECORD SHOWING AS TO
THE FACTS UPON WHICH THAT CONCLUSION IS BASED, WE CANNOT APPRAISE THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COMMENT. 

FN10  "SECTION 4.  (AMENDED BY ORD. NO. 958 ADOPTED 4-10-50, AND
AMENDED AGAIN BY ORD. NO. 964 (NEW SERIES) ADOPTED 5-22-50 TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:)  WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE
EVERY TAXICAB OPERATOR SHALL APPLY TO THE SHERIFF AND PROCURE FROM THE
TAX COLLECTOR A LICENSE AND PAY AN ANNUAL LICENSE FEE OF $50.00 (PLUS
$1.00 PER YEAR PER TAXICAB), WHICH SHALL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT TO
THE TAX COLLECTOR AND SHALL BE DUE ON THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE OF EACH
YEAR.  LICENSES ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, THE
FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, AND THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH SHALL BE ISSUED AT A
QUARTERLY REDUCTION OF $12.50 PER QUARTER  ...  ." 
..END :









MEMPHIS STEAM LAUNDRY CLEANER, INC. V. STONE 342 U.S. 389 


NO. 253.  ARGUED DECEMBER 3, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 53 SO.
2D 89, REVERSED. 


A MISSISSIPPI "PRIVILEGE TAX," LAID UPON EACH PERSON "SOLICITING
BUSINESS" FOR A LAUNDRY NOT LICENSED IN THE STATE, HELD INVALID UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, A FOREIGN CORPORATION
OPERATING A LAUNDRY AND CLEANING ESTABLISHMENT IN TENNESSEE AND DOING
NO BUSINESS IN MISSISSIPPI OTHER THAN SENDING ITS TRUCKS THERE TO
SOLICIT BUSINESS, PICK UP, DELIVER, AND COLLECT FOR, LAUNDRY AND
CLEANING.  PP. 398-395. 

1.  IF THE TAX BE IMPOSED UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF SOLICITING INTERSTATE
BUSINESS, IT STANDS ON NO BETTER FOOTING THAN A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS, AND IT IS INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  PP. 392-393. 

2.  IF THE TAX BE IMPOSED ON THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING INTRASTATE
ACTIVITIES IN MISSISSIPPI, IT IS INVALID AS ONE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE - BECAUSE LAUNDRIES NOT LICENSED IN THE STATE ARE
TAXED $50 PER TRUCK FOR SUCH ACTIVITIES, WHEREAS LAUNDRIES LICENSED IN
THE STATE ARE TAXED ONLY $8 PER TRUCK.  PP. 394-395. 

MEMPHIS STEAM LAUNDRY CLEANER, INC. V. STONE, CHAIRMAN, STATE TAX
COMMISSION. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI SUSTAINED A "PRIVILEGE TAX" LEVIED
ON APPELLANT UNDER MISS.  LAWS 1944, C. 138, SECS. 3, 45, AGAINST A
CLAIM THAT IT VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  53 SO. 2D 89.  ON APPEAL
TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 395. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER A MISSISSIPPI TAX LAID UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OF SOLICITING BUSINESS FOR A LAUNDRY NOT LICENSED IN THAT
STATE INFRINGES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  (FN1) 

APPELLANT OPERATES A LAUNDRY AND CLEANING ESTABLISHMENT IN MEMPHIS,
TENNESSEE.  IN SERVING THE AREA SURROUNDING MEMPHIS, APPELLANT SENDS
TEN OF ITS TRUCKS INTO EIGHT MISSISSIPPI COUNTIES WHERE ITS DRIVERS
PICK UP, DELIVER AND COLLECT FOR LAUNDRY AND CLEANING AND SEEK TO
ACQUIRE NEW CUSTOMERS.   APPELLEE, WHO IS CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, DEMANDED THAT APPELLANT PAY
$500 UNDER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE MISSISSIPPI "STATE-WIDE
PRIVILEGE TAX LAW OF 1944":  (FN2) 

"SEC. 3.  EVERY PERSON DESIRING TO ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS, OR
EXERCISE ANY PRIVILEGE HEREAFTER SPECIFIED SHALL FIRST, BEFORE
COMMENCING SAME, APPLY FOR, PAY FOR, AND PROCURE FROM THE STATE TAX
COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, A PRIVILEGE LICENSE
AUTHORIZING HIM TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OR EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGE
SPECIFIED THEREIN, AND THE AMOUNT OF TAX SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING
IN THE BUSINESS SET OUT THEREIN." 

"SEC. 45.  UPON EACH PERSON DOING BUSINESS AS A TRANSIENT VENDOR, OR
DEALER, AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION, AND UPON WHICH A PRIVILEGE TAX IS
NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSED BY ANOTHER SECTION OF THIS ACT, A TAX FOR EACH
COUNTY ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULES: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(T) UPON EACH PERSON SOLICITING BUSINESS FOR A LAUNDRY NOT LICENSED
IN THIS STATE AS SUCH, IN EACH COUNTY.  $50.00. 

     *     *         *         *         * 

"(Y) PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT WHERE ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT
OF THE TAX IMPOSED IN THIS SECTION, MAKES USE OF MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE
IN CARRYING ON SUCH BUSINESS, THE TAX HEREIN IMPOSED SHALL BE PAID ON
EACH VEHICLE USED IN CARRYING ON SUCH BUSINESS." 

AFTER PAYING THE $500 TAX AS DEMANDED TO PREVENT ARREST OF ITS
DRIVERS AND SEIZURE OF ITS TEN TRUCKS, APPELLANT SUED FOR REFUND IN A
STATE COURT, CLAIMING THAT THE MISSISSIPPI TAX ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE
TO ITS OPERATIONS AND THAT, IF SO APPLIED, THE TAX WOULD VIOLATE THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR APPELLANT IN THE TRIAL COURT
BUT THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT REVERSED, HOLDING THAT APPELLANT'S
DRIVERS WERE "TRANSIENT VENDORS OR DEALERS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE AND THAT APPLICATION OF THE TAX TO APPELLANT DID NOT CONFLICT
WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  (FN3)  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  28
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1257(2). 

IN PASSING UPON THE VALIDITY OF A STATE TAX CHALLENGED UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, WE FIRST LOOK TO THE "OPERATING INCIDENCE" OF THE
TAX.  (FN4)  THE MISSISSIPPI ACT REQUIRES A "PRIVILEGE LICENSE" AND
IMPOSES A "PRIVILEGE TAX" UPON APPELLANT'S EMPLOYEES "SOLICITING
BUSINESS."  THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT DESCRIBED THE TAX AS
FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  THE TAX INVOLVED HERE IS NOT A TAX ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
BUT A TAX ON A PERSON SOLICITING BUSINESS FOR A LAUNDRY NOT LICENSED IN
THIS STATE, A LOCAL ACTIVITY WHICH APPLIES TO RESIDENTS AND NON
RESIDENTS ALIKE."  (FN5) 

THE STATE MAY DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE OPERATING INCIDENCE OF ITS
TAX.  BUT IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TAX, AS
CONSTRUED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, IS OR IS NOT "A TAX ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  (FN6) 

IT WOULD APPEAR FROM PORTIONS OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW THAT
THE TAX IS LAID UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF SOLICITING INTERSTATE BUSINESS ON
THE THEORY THAT SOLICITATION OF CUSTOMERS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A
LOCAL ACTIVITY SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION.  HOWEVER, THE OPINION BELOW
MAY ALSO BE READ AS CONSTRUING THE STATUTORY TERM "SOLICITING" MORE
BROADLY, THEREBY RESTING THE TAX UPON APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES APART FORM
SOLICITING NEW CUSTOMERS IN MISSISSIPPI, NAMELY THE PICK UP AND
DELIVERY OF LAUNDRY AND CLEANING ON REGULAR ROUTES WITHIN THE STATE. 
EACH CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE RAISES DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS.  BUT
CLARIFICATION OF THE OPERATING INCIDENCE OF THE TAX IS NOT REQUIRED FOR
DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE SINCE WE FIND THAT THE TAX VIOLATES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE UNDER EITHER READING OF THE STATUTE. 

                                      I. 

IN THE LONG LINE OF "DRUMMER" CASES, BEGINNING WITH ROBBINS V. SHELBY
COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489 (1887), (FN7) THIS COURT HAS HELD
THAT A TAX IMPOSED UPON THE SOLICITATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS A
TAX UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF.  (FN8)  WHETHER OR NOT
SOLICITATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS MAY BE REGARDED AS A LOCAL INCIDENT
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE COURT HAS NOT PERMITTED STATE TAXATION TO
CARVE OUT THIS INCIDENT FROM THE INTEGRAL ECONOMIC PROCESS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.   (FN9)  AS THE COURT NOTED LAST TERM IN A CASE
INVOLVING DOOR-TO-DOOR SOLICITATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS, "INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ITSELF KNOCKS ON THE LOCAL DOOR."  (FN10) 

IF THE MISSISSIPPI TAX IS IMPOSED UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF SOLICITING
INTERSTATE BUSINESS, THE TAX STANDS ON NO BETTER FOOTING THAN A TAX
UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  A TAX SO IMPOSED
CANNOT STAND UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  (FN11)  SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE
V. O'CONNOR, 340 U.S. 602, 608-609 (1951), AND CASES CITED THEREIN. 

                               II. 

ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON APPELLANT'S
MISSISSIPPI ACTIVITIES OF PICKING UP AND DELIVERING LAUNDRY AND
CLEANING, THE "PEDDLER" CASES ARE INVOKED IN SUPPORT OF THE TAX.  UNDER
THAT LINE OF DECISIONS, (FN12) THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED STATE TAXATION
UPON ITINERANT HAWKERS AND PEDDLERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE LOCAL SALE
AND DELIVERY OF GOODS IS AN ESSENTIALLY INTRASTATE PROCESS WHETHER A
RETAILER OPERATES FROM A FIXED LOCATION OR FROM A WAGON.  HOWEVER,
ASSUMING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THAT MISSISSIPPI IMPOSES ITS $50
PER TRUCK TAX ONLY UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING INTRASTATE
ACTIVITIES, THE TAX MUST BE HELD INVALID AS ONE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  (FN13) 

THE $50 PER TRUCK TAX IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO VEHICLES USED BY A PERSON
"SOLICITING BUSINESS FOR A LAUNDRY NOT LICENSED IN THIS STATE AS
SUCH."  LAUNDRIES LICENSED IN MISSISSIPPI PAY A FIXED FEE TO THE
MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH LOCATED, PLUS A TAX OF $8 PER TRUCK UPON EACH
TRUCK USED IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES.  (FN14)  AS A RESULT, IF APPELLANT
"SOLICITS" BUSINESS IN A MISSISSIPPI MUNICIPALITY, IT MUST PAY A TAX OF
$50 PER TRUCK WHILE A COMPETITOR LOCATED IN ANOTHER MISSISSIPPI
LOCALITY MUST PAY A TAX OF ONLY $8 PER TRUCK.  THE "PEDDLER" CASES ARE
INAPPOSITE UNDER SUCH A SHOWING OF DISCRIMINATION SINCE THEY SUPPORT
STATE TAXATION ONLY WHERE NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE
APPEARS EITHER UPON THE FACE OF THE TAX LAWS OR IN THEIR PRACTICAL
OPERATION.  (FN15) 

TO SUM UP, WE HOLD THAT THE TAX BEFORE US INFRINGES THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE UNDER EITHER INTERPRETATION OF THE OPERATING INCIDENCE OF THE
TAX.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE CREATED THE NATION-WIDE AREA OF FREE TRADE
ESSENTIAL TO THIS COUNTRY'S ECONOMIC WELFARE BY REMOVING STATE LINES AS
IMPEDIMENTS TO INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE STATES.  (FN16)  THE TAX IMPOSED
IN THIS CASE MADE THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LINE INTO A LOCAL OBSTRUCTION
TO THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT CANNOT STAND UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8. 

FN2  LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI, 1944, C. 138, SECS. 3, 45. 

FN3 53 SO. 2D 89 (1951).  THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT ALSO REJECTED
APPELLANT'S CLAIMS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WE DO NOT REACH
THESE ISSUES UNDER OUR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 

FN4  SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE V. O'CONNOR, 340 U.S. 602 (1951). 

FN5  53 SO. 2D AT 90. 

FN6  MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327 (1944); CRENSHAW V.
ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 389, 400-401 (1913). 

FN7  CASES IN THIS COURT FOLLOWING THE ROBBINS DECISION INCLUDE:
CORSON V. MARYLAND, 120 U.S. 502 (1887); ASHER V. TEXAS, 128 U.S. 129
(1888); STOUTENBURGH V. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141 (1889); BRENNAN V.
TITUSVILLE, 153 U.S. 289 (1894); STOCKARD V. MORGAN, 185 U.S. 27
(1902); CALDWELL V. NORTH CAROLINA, 187 U.S. 622 (1903); REARICK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 203 U.S. 507 (1906); INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG,
217 U.S. 91 (1910); DOZIER V. ALABAMA, 218 U.S. 124 (1910); CRENSHAW V.
ARKANSAS, NOTE 6, SUPRA; ROGERS V. ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 401 (1913);
STEWART V. MICHIGAN, 232 U.S. 665 (1914); DAVIS V. VIRGINIA, 236 U.S.
697 (1915); CHENEY BROS. CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S. 147 (1918);
REAL SILK HOSIERY MILLS V. PORTLAND, 268 U.S. 325 (1925); BEST & CO. V.
MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454 (1940); NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416
(1946). 

FN8  "THE NEGOTIATION OF SALES OF GOODS WHICH ARE IN ANOTHER STATE,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING THEM INTO THE STATE IN WHICH THE
NEGOTIATION IS MADE, IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  120 U.S. AT 497; REAL
SILK HOSIERY MILLS V. PORTLAND, NOTE 7, SUPRA, AT 335. 

FN9  NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, NOTE 7, SUPRA, AT 422-423. 

FN10  BREARD V. ALEXANDRIA, 341 U.S. 622, 636 (1951).  IN SUSTAINING
THE ORDINANCE BEFORE IT AS ONE THAT WAS NEITHER AN ADDED FINANCIAL
BURDEN ON SALES IN COMMERCE NOR AN EXACTION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT PERTINENT
TO THE INSTANT CASE: 

"WHILE TAXATION AND LICENSING OF HAWKING OR PEDDLING, DEFINED AS
SELLING AND DELIVERING IN THE STATE, HAS LONG BEEN THOUGHT TO SHOW NO
VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SOLICITATION OF ORDERS WITH
SUBSEQUENT INTERSTATE SHIPMENT HAS BEEN IMMUNE FROM SUCH AN EXACTION." 
341 U.S. AT 638. 

FN11  IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, 58 (1940), THE
COURT SUSTAINED A TAX "CONDITIONED UPON A LOCAL ACTIVITY, DELIVERY OF
GOODS WITHIN THE STATE UPON THEIR PURCHASE FOR CONSUMPTION."  IT WAS IN
THAT CONTEXT THAT ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, SUPRA, WAS
REFERRED TO AS RESTING UPON DISCRIMINATION INHERENT IN FIXED-SUM
LICENSE TAXES.  309 U.S. AT 56-57; BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, NOTE 7,
SUPRA, AT 455-456; NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, NOTE 7, SUPRA, AT 424-425. 
COMPARE FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, 257-258 (1946). 

FN12  IN THE LEADING OPINION, EMERT V. MISSOURI, 156 U.S. 296 (1895),
THE COURT REAFFIRMED MACHINE CO. V. GAGE, 100 U.S. 676 (1880), AND
OTHER EARLIER CASES.  SUBSEQUENT ADDITIONS TO THE LINE OF "PEDDLER
CASES" INCLUDE:  BACCUS V. LOUISIANA, 232 U.S. 334 (1914); WAGNER V.
COVINGTON, 251 U.S. 95 (1919); CASKEY BAKING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 313 U.S.
117 (1941). 

FN13  NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, NOTE 7, SUPRA; BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, NOTE
7, SUPRA; HALE V. BIMCO TRADING, INC., 306 U.S. 375 (1939); WALLING V.
MICHIGAN, 116 U.S. 446, 460-461 (1886); WEBBER V. VIRGINIA, 103 U.S.
344 (1881); GUY V. BALTIMORE, 100 U.S. 434 (1880); WELTON V. MISSOURI,
91 U.S. 275 (1876). 

FN14  LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI, 1944, C. 137, SEC. 110, IMPOSES THE
FOLLOWING TAX: 

"UPON EACH PERSON OPERATING A LAUNDRY OTHER THAN A HAND LAUNDRY, AS
FOLLOWS: 

IN MUNICIPALITIES OF CLASS 1.  $120.00 

IN MUNICIPALITIES OF CLASS 2.    80.00 

IN MUNICIPALITIES OF CLASSES 3 AND 4.  60.00 

IN MUNICIPALITIES OF CLASSES 5, 6, 7 AND ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTY. 
32.00 

UPON EACH TRUCK OR OTHER VEHICLE FOR SUCH LAUNDRY IN A MUNICIPALITY
OTHER THAN WHERE THE LAUNDRY IS LOCATED.  8.00" 

FN15  CASKEY BAKING CO. V. VIRGINIA, NOTE 12, SUPRA, AT 119-120;
WAGNER V. COVINGTON, NOTE 12, SUPRA, AT 102; EMERT V. MISSOURI, NOTE
12, SUPRA, AT 311; MACHINE CO. V. GAGE, NOTE 12, SUPRA, AT 679. 

FN16  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 189 (1824); HOOD & SONS V.
DUMOND, 336 U.S. 525, 533-535, 538-539 (1949). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 
..END :




FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. 342 U.S. 396. 


NO. 349.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 190 F.2D
493, REVERSED. 


IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN ILLINOIS, ON GROUNDS
OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, TO RECOVER UNDER THE UTAH WRONGFUL DEATH
STATUTE FOR A DEATH WHICH OCCURRED IN UTAH, AN ILLINOIS STATUTE
PROVIDING THAT "NO ACTION SHALL BE BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED IN THIS STATE
TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR A DEATH OCCURRING OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE WHERE A
RIGHT OF ACTION FOR SUCH DEATH EXISTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PLACE WHERE
SUCH DEATH OCCURRED AND SERVICE OF PROCESS IN SUCH SUIT MAY BE HAD UPON
THE DEFENDANT IN SUCH PLACE" HELD INVALID UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND NO BAR TO THE SUIT. 
HUGHES V. FETTER, 341 U.S. 609.  PP. 396-398. 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, EXECUTOR, V. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

BECAUSE OF ILL. REV. STAT., C. 70, SEC. 2, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
IN ILLINOIS GAVE JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT IN A SUIT TO RECOVER UNDER THE
UTAH WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE FOR A DEATH WHICH OCCURRED IN UTAH.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  190 F.2D 493.  THIS COURT DENIED
CERTIORARI, 341 U.S. 903, BUT LATER GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 875. 
REVERSED, P. 398. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

JOHN LOUIS NELSON WAS KILLED WHEN ONE OF RESPONDENT'S AIRLINERS
CRASHED IN UTAH.  CLAIMING $200,000 UNDER THE UTAH WRONGFUL DEATH
STATUTE, PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT IN ILLINOIS.  DECEDENT PRIOR TO HIS DEATH WAS A RESIDENT AND
CITIZEN OF ILLINOIS; PETITIONER, HIS EXECUTOR, IS AN ILLINOIS BANK; AND
RESPONDENT, UNITED AIR LINES, INC., IS A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING
BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS.  SINCE THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT AND DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, THE CASE IS PROPERLY TRIABLE
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1332 UNLESS CH. 70, SEC. 2 OF THE ILLINOIS REVISED
STATUTES BARS THE ACTION.  THIS ILLINOIS LAW PROVIDES:

"NO ACTION SHALL BE BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED IN THIS STATE TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR A DEATH OCCURRING OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE WHERE A RIGHT OF
ACTION FOR SUCH DEATH EXISTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PLACE WHERE SUCH
DEATH OCCURRED AND SERVICE OF PROCESS IN SUCH SUIT MAY BE HAD UPON THE
DEFENDANT IN SUCH PLACE." 

THE DISTRICT COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS, RELYING ON THE DOCTRINE
DECLARED IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AS DISCUSSED AND
APPLIED IN LATER CASES, (FN1) HELD THAT IN A DIVERSITY CASE SUCH AS
THIS THE STATE STATUTE WAS BINDING ON THE FEDERAL AS WELL AS STATE
COURTS IN ILLINOIS AND CONSTITUTED A BAR MAINTENANCE OF THIS ACTION. 
(FN2)  IN SO DOING, THEY REJECTED TWO CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTIONS MADE
BY PETITIONER:  (1) CONGRESS HAVING GRANTED DIVERSITY JURISDICTION TO
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS PURSUANT TO POWER GRANTED BY ARTICLE III OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THAT JURISDICTION CANNOT BE ABRIDGED OR DESTROYED BY THE
ILLINOIS STATUTE; (2) THE ILLINOIS STATUTE VIOLATES THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (ART. IV, SEC. 1) IN
PROVIDING THAT CLAIMS FOR UTAH DEATHS SHALL NOT BE ENFORCED IN ILLINOIS
STATE COURTS WHERE SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS COULD BE HAD IN UTAH.  WE NEED
NOT DISCUSS THIS FIRST CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION OR THE ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY IT, FOR WE RECENTLY HELD IN HUGHES V.
FETTER, 341 U.S. 609, THAT A WISCONSIN STATUTE, MUCH LIKE THAT OF
ILLINOIS, DID VIOLATE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  IT WAS TO
CONSIDER THIS FULL FAITH AND CREDIT QUESTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE
ILLINOIS STATUTE THAT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 875. 

THE WISCONSIN STATUTE INVALIDATED IN HUGHES V. FETTER, SUPRA, BARRED
SUIT IN THE WISCONSIN COURTS FOR ANY WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSED OUTSIDE THE
STATE.  THE ILLINOIS STATUTE BEFORE US TODAY IS THE EXACT DUPLICATE OF
THE WISCONSIN STATUTE WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION THAT SUIT IS PERMITTED
IN ILLINOIS UNDER ANOTHER STATE'S WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE IF SERVICE OF
PROCESS CANNOT BE HAD ON THE DEFENDANT IN THE STATE WHERE THE DEATH WAS
BROUGHT ABOUT.  THAT ILLINOIS IS WILLING FOR ITS COURTS TO TRY SOME OUT
OF-STATE DEATH ACTIONS IS NO REASON FOR ITS REFUSAL TO GRANT FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT AS TO OTHERS.   THE REASONS SUPPORTING OUR INVALIDATION OF
WISCONSIN'S STATUTE APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE TO THAT OF ILLINOIS.  THIS
IS TRUE ALTHOUGH ILLINOIS AGREES TO TRY CASES WHERE SERVICE CANNOT BE
OBTAINED IN ANOTHER STATE.  WHILE WE SAID IN HUGHES V. FETTER THAT IT
WAS RELEVANT THAT WISCONSIN MIGHT BE THE ONLY STATE IN WHICH SERVICE
COULD BE HAD ON ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS, WE WERE CAREFUL TO POINT OUT
THAT THIS FACT WAS NOT CRUCIAL.  NOR IS IT CRUCIAL HERE THAT ILLINOIS
ONLY EXCLUDES CASES THAT CAN BE TRIED IN OTHER STATES.  WE HOLD AGAIN
THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE FORBIDS SUCH EXCLUSION.  THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THIS CASE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  E.G., ANGEL V. BULLINGTON, 330 U.S. 183; WOODS V. INTERSTATE
REALTY CO., 337 U.S. 535. 

FN2 190 F.2D 493.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CITED AND RELIED ON TWO OF
ITS FORMER HOLDINGS, TRUST CO. OF CHICAGO V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 183
F.2D 640, AND MUNCH V. UNITED AIR LINES, 184 F.2D 630. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE MINTON JOINS, CONCURRING IN THE
RESULT. 

I PART COMPANY WITH THE COURT AS TO THE ROAD WE WILL TRAVEL TO REACH
A DESTINATION WHERE ALL AGREE WE WILL STOP, AT LEAST FOR THE NIGHT. 
BUT SOMETIMES THE PATH THAT WE ARE BEATING OUT BY OUR TRAVEL IS MORE
IMPORTANT TO THE FUTURE WAYFARER THAN THE PLACE IN WHICH WE CHOOSE TO
LODGE. 

THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE ROUTES TO THE AGREED DESTINATION.  ONE
REQUIRES THAT A STATE STATUTE PRESCRIBING JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON
ITS OWN COURTS BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL - A PATH WHICH A CENTURY
AND A HALF OF PRECEDENT CONSTRAINS US TO AVOID IF ANOTHER WAY IS
AVAILABLE.  THIS, TOGETHER WITH ADHERENCE TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN
DISSENT IN HUGHES V. FETTER, 341 U.S. 609, PERSUADES ME TO RESOLVE THE
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS BY REFERENCE TO THE ACT OF
CONGRESS WHICH CONFERS THAT JURISDICTION. 

WHETHER OF NOT ILLINOIS MAY VALIDLY CLOSE HER OWN COURTS TO
LITIGATION OF THIS KIND, ILLINOIS MOST ASSUREDLY CANNOT PRESCRIBE THE
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS EVEN WHEN THEY SIT IN
THAT STATE.  CONGRESS ALREADY HAS DONE THIS, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1332(A)(1),
AND STATE LAW IS POWERLESS TO ENLARGE, VARY, OR LIMIT THIS
REQUIREMENT.  THE PARTIES TO THIS CASE HAVE SHOWED THE DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP AND AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIRED BY CONGRESS, AND
THEREFORE THE FEDERAL COURT, BY VIRTUE OF THE LAW OF ITS OWN BEING, HAS
JURISDICTION OF THEIR ACTION. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AND ITS
PROGENY DIMINISH THE JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN A
DIVERSITY CASE BY ASSIMILATING ANY LIMITATION THAT THE STATE MAY IMPOSE
ON HER OWN COURTS SEEMS TO CONFUSE THE LAW OF JURISDICTION WITH
SUBSTANTIVE LAW.  IN ERIE AND THE CASES WHICH HAVE FOLLOWED, THIS COURT
HAS GONE FAR IN REQUIRING THAT A FEDERAL COURT EXERCISING DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION APPLY THE SAME LAW AS WOULD BE APPLIED IF THE ACTION WERE
BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURTS.  BUT IN SO DOING THE COURT HAS BEEN
INTERPRETING THE RULES OF DECISION ACT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1652, WHICH
READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE CONSTITUTION OR
TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES OR ACTS OF CONGRESS OTHERWISE REQUIRE OR
PROVIDE, SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF DECISION IN CIVIL ACTIONS IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CASES WHERE THEY APPLY." 

IT IS INDEED FANCIFUL TO SUGGEST THAT A STATE STATUTE RELATING TO THE
POWER OF ITS OWN COURTS IS AN APPLICABLE "RULE OF DECISION" UNDER THIS
STATUTE, WHEN CONGRESS IN PASSING THE FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL GRANT HAS
SPECIFICALLY "OTHERWISE REQUIRED AND PROVIDED."  28 U.S.C. SEC.
1332(A)(1).  THE PETITIONER ENTERS THE FEDERAL COURT NOT BY THE GRACE
OF THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS BUT BY THE GRACE OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JURISDICTION IS, HOWEVER, THE BEGINNING AND NOT
THE END OF THE DECISION OF THE CASE IN THE TRIAL COURT.  WHAT LAW MUST
BE APPLIED IN ADJUDICATING THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF THESE PARTIES? 
THE OPINION OF THE COURT IS SILENT ON THIS POINT, BUT ITS LINE OF
REASONING SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURT MUST LOOK TO
ILLINOIS LAW FOR A CONFLICTS RULE WHICH WOULD GOVERN THIS KIND OF CASE
IF BROUGHT IN ILLINOIS COURTS.  SINCE ILLINOIS HAS, PURSUANT TO
STATUTE, REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN SUCH ACTIONS AS THIS, IT MIGHT BE
SUPPOSED THAT SUCH LAW WOULD BE HARD TO FIND. 

IN MY VIEW, THE FEDERAL COURT NO MORE DERIVES SUBSTANTIVE LAW FOR
THIS CASE FROM ILLINOIS THAN IT DOES ITS JURISDICTION.  FOR REGARDLESS
OF WHAT ILLINOIS MIGHT SAY ON THIS SUBJECT, THE CONSTITUTION HAS
"OTHERWISE PROVIDED."  I BELIEVE, AS EXPRESSED IN HUGHES V. FETTER,
THAT THE STATE WAS FREE TO REFUSE THIS CASE A FORUM, BUT, IF IT
UNDERTOOK TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, THE CONSTITUTION
WOULD REQUIRE IT TO APPLY THE LAW OF UTAH, BECAUSE ALL ELEMENTS OF THE
WRONG ALLEGED HERE OCCURRED IN UTAH.  FOR THE ESSENCE OF THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS THAT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS, WHEREVER IN THE UNITED
STATES THEY MAY BE LITIGATED, SHALL HAVE THE SAME LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AS
THEY WOULD HAVE IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY OCCURRED.  ORDER OF UNITED
COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS V. WOLFE, 331 U.S. 586; HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS.
CO. V. YATES, 299 U.S. 178. 

THERE IS UNDOUBTEDLY SOME AREA OF FREEDOM FOR STATE CONFLICTS LAW
OUTSIDE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  IN SUCH
MATTERS, UNREACHED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE STATE RULE WOULD PREVAIL
IN A DIVERSITY COURT.  KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487.  BUT IF
A TRANSACTION IS SO ASSOCIATED WITH ONE JURISDICTION THAT THE
CONSTITUTION COMPELS ANY FORUM IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION IS LITIGATED TO
APPLY THE LAW OF THAT JURISDICTION, IS IT NOT THE CONSTITUTION INSTEAD
OF STATE CONFLICTS LAW WHICH DETERMINES WHAT LAW THE FEDERAL COURT
SHALL APPLY? 

THE COURT'S DETOUR FOLLOWS THIS ITINERARY:  THE FEDERAL COURT IS
BOUND BY THE LAW OF ILLINOIS; ILLINOIS LAW IS WRONG; WE WILL REMAKE THE
LAW OF ILLINOIS TO PROVIDE THE EXACT OPPOSITE TO THAT WHICH THE STATE
HAS PROVIDED; THEN THE FEDERAL COURT CAN APPLY THE LAW WE HAVE REMADE
AND PRETEND IT IS APPLYING ILLINOIS LAW.  THIS IS TOO TORTUOUS AN
EXCURSION FOR ME.  SINCE AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
LIABILITY FOR THIS ALLEGED TORT MUST BE ADJUDGED UNDER UTAH LAW AND,
THE CASE BEING WITHIN THE STATUTORY JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
IT MAY ASCERTAIN AND APPLY THE LAW OF UTAH WITHOUT STRAINING IT THROUGH
THE ILLINOIS SIEVE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

I DISSENT ON THE GROUND THAT HUGHES V. FETTER, 341 U.S. 609, SHOULD
NOT BE EXTENDED TO COMPEL A STATE TO ENTERTAIN AN ACTION FOR WRONGFUL
DEATH IF THE CLAIM COULD BE EFFECTIVELY LITIGATED IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE. 

THE REASONING FOR THIS CONCLUSION IS STATED IN THE DISSENT IN HUGHES
V. FETTER, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

AS TO ANY QUESTION BASED ON DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, THE SERIES OF
CASES CULMINATING IN WOODS V. INTERSTATE REALTY CO., 337 U.S. 535,
DISPOSES OF IT.  AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM UNDER THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE, I ADHERE TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN HUGHES V. FETTER,
341 U.S. 609, 614. 
..END :




















MULLANEY V. ANDERSON 342 U.S. 415 


NO. 329.  ARGUED JANUARY 7-8, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 191
F.2D 123, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATUTE OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE OF ALASKA, LAWS 1949, C.
66, PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING OF COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN IN TERRITORIAL
WATERS, AND IMPOSING A $5 LICENSE FEE ON RESIDENT FISHERMEN AND A $50
FEE ON NONRESIDENTS, HELD VIOLATIVE OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE OF ART. IV, SEC. 2 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  TOOMER V.
WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385.  PP. 417-419. 

2.  SO FAR AS THE REGULATION OF FISHERIES IS CONCERNED, CONGRESS HAS
GRANTED THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE OF ALASKA NO GREATER POWER OVER
CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES THAN A STATE LEGISLATURE HAS.  PP. 419-420. 

3.  THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE ALASKA FISHERMEN'S UNION AND ITS
SECRETARY-TREASURER ON BEHALF OF SOME 3,200 NONRESIDENT UNION MEMBERS. 
HERE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, PETITIONER QUESTIONED THEIR STANDING TO
MAINTAIN THE SUIT.  TO REMOVE THE MATTER FROM CONTROVERSY, RESPONDENTS
MOVED IN THIS COURT FOR LEAVE TO ADD AS PARTIES PLAINTIFF TWO MEMBERS
OF THE UNION WHO ARE NONRESIDENTS OF ALASKA.   HELD:  IN THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE MOTION IS GRANTED.  (SEE RULE 21 OF THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.)  PP. 416-417. 

MULLANEY, COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA, V.
ANDERSON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY
OF ALASKA UPHELD A TAX STATUTE OF ALASKA.  91 F. SUPP. 907.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  191 F.2D 123.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
342 U.S. 865.  AFFIRMED, P. 420. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE OF ALASKA PROVIDED FOR THE LICENSING OF
COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN IN TERRITORIAL WATERS, IMPOSING A $5 LICENSE FEE
ON RESIDENT FISHERMEN AND A $50 FEE ON NONRESIDENTS.  ALASKA LAWS,
1949, C. 66.  THE ALASKA FISHERMEN'S UNION AND ITS SECRETARY-TREASURER,
ON BEHALF OF SOME 3,200 NONRESIDENT UNION MEMBERS, BROUGHT THIS ACTION
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE TERRITORY TO ENJOIN THE TAX COMMISSIONER
FROM COLLECTING THE LICENSE FEE FROM NONRESIDENTS.  PLAINTIFFS
CONTENDED THAT THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE WAS WITHOUT POWER UNDER THE
ORGANIC ACT TO PASS THE STATUTE, THAT THE EXACTION COMPLAINED OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THAT IT IS AN
ABRIDGMENT OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES
FORBIDDEN BY ART. IV, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  AFTER TRIAL, THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE
DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT FEES RESTS ON SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCES BEARING A FAIR AND REASONABLE RELATION TO THE OBJECTS OF
THE LEGISLATION, AND UPHELD THE STATUTE.  91 F. SUPP. 907.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  191
F.2D 123.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE LIMITS ON
THE POWER OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE.  342 U.S. 865. 

HERE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, PETITIONER QUESTIONED THE STANDING OF
RESPONDENT UNION AND ITS SECRETARY-TREASURER TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT.  TO
REMOVE THE MATTER FROM CONTROVERSY, RESPONDENT MOVED FOR LEAVE TO ADD
AS PARTIES PLAINTIFF TWO OF ITS MEMBERS, NONRESIDENTS OF ALASKA AND
SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY EXACTION.  RULE 21 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE AUTHORIZES THE ADDITION OF PARTIES "BY ORDER OF THE
COURT ON MOTION OF ANY PARTY OR OF ITS OWN INITIATIVE AT ANY STAGE OF
THE ACTION AND ON SUCH TERMS AS ARE JUST."  THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS
ALLEGED WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT THEY WERE AUTHORIZED BY THE
NONRESIDENT UNION MEMBERS TO BRING THIS ACTION IN THEIR BEHALF.  THIS
CLAIM OF AUTHORITY IS NOW CONFIRMED IN THE PETITION SUPPORTING THE
MOTION TO ADD THE MEMBER-FISHERMEN AS PLAINTIFFS.  TO GRANT THE MOTION
MERELY PUTS THE PRINCIPAL, THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, IN THE POSITION
OF HIS AVOWED AGENT.  THE ADDITION OF THESE TWO PARTIES PLAINTIFF CAN
IN NO WISE EMBARRASS THE DEFENDANT.  NOR WOULD THEIR EARLIER JOINDER
HAVE IN ANY WAY AFFECTED THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION.  TO DISMISS THE
PRESENT PETITION AND REQUIRE THE NEW PLAINTIFFS TO START OVER IN THE
DISTRICT COURT WOULD ENTAIL NEEDLESS WASTE AND RUNS COUNTER TO
EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION - THE MORE SO SINCE, WITH THE SILENT
CONCURRENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS WERE DEEMED
PROPER PARTIES BELOW.  RULE 21 WILL RARELY COME INTO PLAY AT THIS STAGE
OF A LITIGATION.  WE GRANT THE MOTION IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US. 

IN TOOMER V. WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385, THE COURT HELD THAT ART. IV, SEC.
2 OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD BAR ANY STATE FROM IMPOSING THE LICENSE FEE
HERE ATTACKED.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS SAID:  "THE STATE IS NOT WITHOUT
POWER, FOR EXAMPLE, TO RESTRICT THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED IN ITS
FISHERIES, TO GRADUATE LICENSE FEES ACCORDING TO THE SIZE OF THE BOATS,
OR EVEN TO CHARGE NON-RESIDENTS A DIFFERENTIAL WHICH WOULD MERELY
COMPENSATE THE STATE FOR ANY ADDED ENFORCEMENT BURDEN THEY MAY IMPOSE
OR FOR ANY CONSERVATION EXPENDITURES FROM TAXES WHICH ONLY RESIDENTS
PAY."  ID., AT 398-399.  THE CHALLENGED DISCRIMINATION DOES NOT COME
WITHIN ANY OF THESE EXCEPTIONS.  THE TAX COMMISSIONER RELIED ON THE
HIGHER COST OF ENFORCING THE LICENSE LAW AGAINST NON-RESIDENT FISHERMEN
TO JUSTIFY THE DIFFERENCE IN FEES, AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT
90% OF THE COST OF ENFORCEMENT WAS INCURRED IN COLLECTING THE FEES FROM
NONRESIDENTS.  BUT THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
DIFFERENTIAL IN FEES BEARS ANY RELATION TO THIS DIFFERENCE IN COST,
NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT IT "WOULD MERELY COMPENSATE" FOR THE ADDED
ENFORCEMENT BURDEN.  INDEED THE TAX COMMISSIONER AND HIS SPECIAL DEPUTY
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOLLAR
COST OF ENFORCEMENT.  WHAT EVIDENCE WE HAVE NEGATIVES THE IDEA OF ANY
SUCH RELATION, FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY NONRESIDENT FISHERMEN IN
1949-1950, IN EXCESS OF WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED IF THEY HAD
BEEN RESIDENTS, MAY EASILY HAVE EXCEEDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AVAILABLE
FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE IN THAT YEAR. 
(FN1)  CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AFFECTING TAXATION DO NOT TURN ON EVEN
APPROXIMATE MATHEMATICAL DETERMINATIONS.  BUT SOMETHING MORE IS
REQUIRED THAN BALD ASSERTION TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE RELATION BETWEEN
THE HIGHER FEES AND THE HIGHER COST TO THE TERRITORY.  WE DO NOT
REMOTELY IMPLY THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE TAXING AUTHORITIES TO SUSTAIN
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TAX.  BUT WHERE THE POWER TO TAX IS NOT
UNLIMITED, VALIDITY IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE MERE IMPOSITION OF A
TAX.  IN THIS CASE, RESPONDENTS NEGATIVED OTHER POSSIBLE BASES RAISED
BY THE PLEADINGS FOR THE DISCRIMINATION, AND THE ONE RELIED ON BY THE
COMMISSIONER, HIGHER ENFORCEMENT COSTS, WAS ONE AS TO WHICH ALL THE
FACTS WERE IN HIS POSSESSION.  RESPONDENTS SOUGHT TO ELICIT THESE FACTS
BY INTERROGATORIES AND CROSS-EXAMINATION WITHOUT AVAIL.  UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WE THINK THEY DISCHARGED THEIR BURDEN IN ATTACKING THE
STATUTE. 

BUT, IT IS URGED, ALASKA IS NOT A STATE BUT A TERRITORY TO WHICH THE
CONTROLLING CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS LAID DOWN IN TOOMER V. WITSELL,
SUPRA, ARE NOT APPLICABLE.  HAAVIK V. ALASKA PACKERS ASSN., 263 U.S.
510, IS INVOKED FOR THAT CONTENTION.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION HERE TO
RECONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL HOLDING OF THAT CASE, NAMELY, THAT IT IS
WITHIN THE CONTROLLING POWER OF CONGRESS TO RELIEVE THE TERRITORY OF
SOME OF THE RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO A STATE.  BUT THAT IN FACT WAS
THE REAL ISSUE TO WHICH THE COURT'S ATTENTION WAS DIRECTED IN THE
HAAVIK CASE.  IT WAS ASSUMED THAT IF CONGRESS HAD THE POWER IT WAS
EXERCISED BY THE ORGANIC ACT.  ON FULLER CONSIDERATION, IN LIGHT OF THE
BRIEFS AND RECORD IN THAT CASE AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUBSEQUENT
CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS, (FN2) WE CANNOT SO READ THE ACT.  SECTION 3
PROVIDES "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ALL THE LAWS
THEREOF WHICH ARE NOT LOCALLY INAPPLICABLE, SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE
AND EFFECT WITHIN THE SAID TERRITORY AS ELSEWHERE IN THE UNITED
STATES."  37 STAT. 512, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 23.  AND SEC. 9 EXTENDS THE
LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE TERRITORY TO "ALL RIGHTFUL SUBJECTS OF
LEGISLATION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES,  ...  ."  37 STAT. 512, 514, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 77.  IN THE
LIGHT OF THESE SECTIONS, WE CANNOT PRESUME THAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE
TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE TO TREAT CITIZENS OF STATES THE WAY STATES
CANNOT TREAT CITIZENS OF SISTER STATES.  ONLY THE CLEAREST EXPRESSION
OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT COULD INDUCE SUCH A RESULT.  IT IS NOT
PRESENT.  IF ANYTHING, CONGRESSIONAL PRONOUNCEMENTS SINCE HAAVIK
CONCERNING THE VERY SUBJECT MATTER HERE IN ISSUE FORTIFY THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE, PARTICULARLY IN THE REGULATION OF
FISHERIES, WAS GRANTED NO GREATER POWER OVER CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES
THAN A STATE LEGISLATURE HAS.  THE JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE OFFICE OF TAX COMMISSIONER FOR THE
BIENNIUM BEGINNING APRIL 1, 1949, WAS $500,000.  ALASKA LAWS, 1949, C.
114.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 3,200
NONRESIDENT FISHERMEN WHO WERE MEMBERS OF PLAINTIFF UNION, AND THE
COURT BELOW ADDED THAT IT MIGHT BE INFERRED FROM THE RECORD THAT AN
EQUAL NUMBER OF NONRESIDENT FISHERMEN WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THIS UNION. 
191 F.2D AT 134.  THE $45 DIFFERENTIAL PAID BY NONRESIDENTS MULTIPLIED
BY THE 6,400 NONRESIDENT FISHERMEN AMOUNTS TO $288,000, WELL OVER HALF
THE COMMISSIONER'S BIENNIAL APPROPRIATION. 

FN2  AFTER THE DECISION IN THE HAAVIK CASE CONGRESS PASSED THE WHITE
ACT, 43 STAT. 464, 48 U.S.C. SECS. 221-247, COMPREHENSIVELY REGULATING
"THE FISHERIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN ALL WATERS OF ALASKA" AND
DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE (NOW TO THE SECRETARY
OF INTERIOR) TO ADMINISTER THE LAW.  THAT ACT PROVIDED "  ...  NO
EXCLUSIVE OR SEVERAL RIGHT OF FISHERY SHALL BE GRANTED (IN RESERVED
FISHING AREAS ESTABLISHED BY THE SECRETARY IN ALASKAN WATERS), NOR
SHALL ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO TAKE,
PREPARE, CURE, OR PRESERVE FISH OR SHELLFISH IN ANY AREA OF THE WATERS
OF ALASKA WHERE FISHING IS PERMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR."  43 STAT. 464, AS AMENDED, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 222.  BUT SEE 43
STAT. 464, 467, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 228, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NOTHING IN THE
ACT "SHALL ABROGATE OR CURTAIL THE POWERS GRANTED THE TERRITORIAL
LEGISLATURE OF ALASKA TO IMPOSE TAXES OR LICENSES  ...  ." 

IN 1947, CONGRESS AMENDED THE ORGANIC ACT OF PUERTO RICO TO PROVIDE:
"THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES SHALL BE RESPECTED IN PUERTO RICO TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH
PUERTO RICO WERE A STATE OF THE UNION AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
PARAGRAPH 1 OF SECTION 2 OF ARTICLE IV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES."  61 STAT. 772, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 737.  IN HIS STATEMENT
EXPLAINING THE BILL, SENATOR BUTLER, THE MANAGER OF THE BILL, SAID,
"CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSLY EXTENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO PUERTO RICO,
AS IT DID IN THE CASE OF ALASKA AND HAWAII, AND THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDERED IT ADVISABLE TO BRING PUERTO RICO EXPRESSLY WITHIN THE
OPERATION OF THE COMITY CLAUSE SO AS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THERE MAY
BE NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE NOT
RESIDENTS OF PUERTO RICO."  93 CONG. REC. 10402.  THE REPORT OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION THAT
"LEGISLATION IN PUERTO RICO HAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST NONRESIDENT
AMERICAN CITIZENS."  S. REP. NO. 422, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 4. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON WOULD
REVERSE FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN POINTS A AND B OF THE DISSENTING
OPINION OF CHIEF JUDGE DENMAN, 191 F.2D 123, 134-137. 
..END :











DAY-BRITE LIGHTING, INC. V. MISSOURI 342 U.S. 421 


NO. 317.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 362 MO.
299, 240 S.W.2D 886, AFFIRMED. 


MISSOURI REV. STAT., 1949, SEC. 129.060, WHICH PROVIDES THAT ANY
EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO VOTE MAY ABSENT HIMSELF FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT FOR
FOUR HOURS BETWEEN THE OPENING AND CLOSING OF THE POLLS ON ELECTION
DAYS AND THAT ANY EMPLOYER WHO DEDUCTS WAGES FOR THAT ABSENCE IS GUILTY
OF A MISDEMEANOR, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF ART. I,
SEC. 10, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 421-425. 

DAY-BRITE LIGHTING, INC. V. MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED IN A MISSOURI STATE COURT OF A VIOLATION OF
MO. REV. STAT., 1949, SEC. 129.060.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
AFFIRMED.  362 MO. 299, 240 S.W.2D 886.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 425. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MISSOURI HAS A STATUTE, MO. REV. STAT., 1949, SEC. 129.060, FIRST
ENACTED IN 1897, WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO END THE COERCION OF EMPLOYEES BY
EMPLOYERS IN THE EXERCISE OF THE FRANCHISE.  IT PROVIDES THAT AN
EMPLOYEE MAY ABSENT HIMSELF FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT FOR FOUR HOURS BETWEEN
THE OPENING AND CLOSING OF THE POLLS WITHOUT PENALTY, AND THAT ANY
EMPLOYER WHO AMONG OTHER THINGS DEDUCTS WAGES FOR THAT ABSENCE IS
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR.  (FN1) 

APPELLANT IS A MISSOURI CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN ST. LOUIS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 1946, WAS A DAY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS IN MISSOURI, THE
POLLS BEING OPEN FROM 6 A.M. TO 7 P.M.  ONE GROTEMEYER, AN EMPLOYEE OF
APPELLANT, WAS ON A SHIFT THAT WORKED FROM 8 A.M. TO 4:30 P.M. EACH
DAY, WITH THIRTY MINUTES FOR LUNCH.  HIS RATE OF PAY WAS $1.60 AN
HOUR.  HE REQUESTED FOUR HOURS FROM THE SCHEDULED WORK DAY TO VOTE ON
NOVEMBER 5, 1946.  THAT REQUEST WAS REFUSED; BUT GROTEMEYER AND ALL
OTHER EMPLOYEES ON HIS SHIFT WERE ALLOWED TO LEAVE AT 3 P.M. THAT DAY,
WHICH GAVE THEM FOUR CONSECUTIVE HOURS TO VOTE BEFORE THE POLLS
CLOSED. 

GROTEMEYER LEFT HIS WORK AT 3 P.M. IN ORDER TO VOTE AND DID NOT
RETURN TO WORK THAT DAY.  HE WAS NOT PAID FOR THE HOUR AND A HALF
BETWEEN 3 P.M. AND 4:30 P.M.  APPELLANT WAS FOUND GUILTY AND FINED FOR
PENALIZING GROTEMEYER IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE.  THE JUDGMENT WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT, 362 MO. 299, 240 S.W.2D 886,
OVER THE OBJECTION THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE OF ART. I, SEC. 10. 

THE LIBERTY OF CONTRACT ARGUMENT PRESSED ON US IS REMINISCENT OF THE
PHILOSOPHY OF LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45, WHICH INVALIDATED A NEW
YORK LAW PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM HOURS FOR WORK IN BAKERIES; COPPAGE V.
KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, WHICH STRUCK DOWN A KANSAS STATUTE OUTLAWING
"YELLOW DOG" CONTRACTS; ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525,
WHICH HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL A FEDERAL STATUTE FIXING MINIMUM WAGE
STANDARDS FOR WOMEN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND OTHERS OF THAT
VINTAGE.  OUR RECENT DECISIONS MAKE PLAIN THAT WE DO NOT SIT AS A SUPER
LEGISLATURE TO WEIGH THE WISDOM OF LEGISLATION NOR TO DECIDE WHETHER
THE POLICY WHICH IT EXPRESSES OFFENDS THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  THE
LEGISLATIVE POWER HAS LIMITS, AS TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463,
HOLDS.  BUT THE STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO
EXPERIMENT WITH NEW TECHNIQUES; THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN STANDARD
OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE; THEY MAY WITHIN EXTREMELY BROAD LIMITS CONTROL
PRACTICES IN THE BUSINESS-LABOR FIELD, SO LONG AS SPECIFIC
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS ARE NOT VIOLATED AND SO LONG AS CONFLICTS
WITH VALID AND CONTROLLING FEDERAL LAWS ARE AVOIDED.  THAT IS THE
ESSENCE OF WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379; NEBBIA V. NEW
YORK, 291 U.S. 502; OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313 U.S. 236; LINCOLN UNION V.
NORTHWESTERN CO., 335 U.S. 525; AND CALIFORNIA AUTO.  ASSN.  V.
MALONEY, 341 U.S. 105. 

WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, SUPRA, OVERRULING ADKINS V.
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, SUPRA, HELD CONSTITUTIONAL A STATE LAW FIXING
MINIMUM WAGES FOR WOMEN.  THE PRESENT STATUTE CONTAINS IN FORM A
MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENT.  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION.  HERE IT IS NOT THE PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH AND MORALS OF
THE CITIZEN.  MISSOURI BY THIS LEGISLATION HAS SOUGHT TO SAFEGUARD THE
RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE BY TAKING FROM EMPLOYERS THE INCENTIVE AND POWER TO
USE THEIR LEVERAGE OVER EMPLOYEES TO INFLUENCE THE VOTE.  BUT THE
POLICE POWER IS NOT CONFINED TO A NARROW CATEGORY; IT EXTENDS, AS
STATED IN NOBLE STATE BANK V. HASKELL, 219 U.S. 104, 111, TO ALL THE
GREAT PUBLIC NEEDS.  THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE UNDER OUR
SCHEME OF THINGS IS BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL.  (FN2) 

THE ONLY SEMBLANCE OF SUBSTANCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO
MISSOURI'S LAW IS THAT THE EMPLOYER MUST PAY WAGES FOR A PERIOD IN
WHICH THE EMPLOYEE PERFORMS NO SERVICES.  OF COURSE MANY FORMS OF
REGULATION REDUCE THE NET RETURN OF THE ENTERPRISE; YET THAT GIVES RISE
TO NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY.  SEE QUEENSIDE HILLS CO. V. SAXL, 328
U.S. 80; CALIFORNIA AUTO.  ASSN.  V. MALONEY, SUPRA.  MOST REGULATIONS
OF BUSINESS NECESSARILY IMPOSE FINANCIAL BURDENS ON THE ENTERPRISE FOR
WHICH NO COMPENSATION IS PAID.  THOSE ARE PART OF THE COSTS OF OUR
CIVILIZATION.  EXTREME CASES ARE CONJURED UP WHERE AN EMPLOYER IS
REQUIRED TO PAY WAGES FOR A PERIOD THAT HAS NO RELATION TO THE
LEGITIMATE END.  THOSE CASES CAN AWAIT DECISION AS AND WHEN THEY
ARISE.  THE PRESENT LAW HAS NO SUCH INFIRMITY.  IT IS DESIGNED TO
ELIMINATE ANY PENALTY FOR EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE AND TO
REMOVE A PRACTICAL OBSTACLE TO GETTING OUT THE VOTE.  THE PUBLIC
WELFARE IS A BROAD AND INCLUSIVE CONCEPT.  THE MORAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC,
AND PHYSICAL WELL-BEING OF THE COMMUNITY IS ONE PART OF IT; THE
POLITICAL WELL-BEING ANOTHER.  THE POLICE POWER WHICH IS ADEQUATE TO
FIX THE FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR ONE IS ADEQUATE FOR THE OTHER.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT TIME OUT FOR VOTING SHOULD COST THE
EMPLOYEE NOTHING MAY BE A DEBATABLE ONE.  IT IS INDEED CONCEDED BY THE
OPPOSITION TO BE SUCH.  BUT IF OUR RECENT CASES MEAN ANYTHING, THEY
LEAVE DEBATABLE ISSUES AS RESPECTS BUSINESS, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL
AFFAIRS TO LEGISLATIVE DECISION.  WE COULD STRIKE DOWN THIS LAW ONLY IF
WE RETURNED TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE LOCHNER, COPPAGE, AND ADKINS
CASES. 

THE CLASSIFICATION OF VOTERS SO AS TO FREE EMPLOYEES FROM THE
DOMINATION OF EMPLOYERS IS AN ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH AN EVIL TO WHICH THE
ONE GROUP HAS BEEN EXPOSED.  THE NEED FOR THAT CLASSIFICATION IS A
MATTER FOR LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT (AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V.
AMERICAN SASH CO., 335 U.S. 538), AND DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "ANY PERSON ENTITLED TO VOTE AT ANY ELECTION IN THIS STATE
SHALL, ON THE DAY OF SUCH ELECTION, BE ENTITLED TO ABSENT HIMSELF FROM
ANY SERVICES OR EMPLOYMENT IN WHICH HE IS THEN ENGAGED OR EMPLOYED, FOR
A PERIOD OF FOUR HOURS BETWEEN THE TIMES OF OPENING AND CLOSING THE
POLLS; AND SUCH VOTER SHALL NOT, BECAUSE OF SO ABSENTING HIMSELF, BE
LIABLE TO ANY PENALTY; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT HIS EMPLOYER MAY SPECIFY
THE HOURS DURING WHICH SUCH EMPLOYEE MAY ABSENT HIMSELF AS AFORESAID. 
ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION WHO SHALL REFUSE TO ANY EMPLOYEE THE
PRIVILEGE HEREBY CONFERRED, OR SHALL DISCHARGE OR THREATEN TO DISCHARGE
ANY EMPLOYEE FOR ABSENTING HIMSELF FROM HIS WORK FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SAID ELECTION, OR SHALL CAUSE ANY EMPLOYEE TO SUFFER ANY PENALTY OR
DEDUCTION OF WAGES BECAUSE OF THE EXERCISE OF SUCH PRIVILEGE, OR WHO
SHALL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION,
SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND ON CONVICTION THEREOF BE
FINED IN ANY SUM NOT EXCEEDING FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS." 

FN2  DECISIONS CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT IN THIS
CASE HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY IN ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO. V. COMMONWEALTH, 305 KY. 632, 204 S.W.2D 973, AND BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS IN PEOPLE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO., 306
ILL. 486, 138 N.E. 155.  BUT CF. ZELNEY V. MURPHY, 387 ILL. 492, 56
N.E.2D 754.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK IN
PEOPLE V. FORD MOTOR CO., 271 APP. DIV. 141, 63 N.Y.S.2D 697, AND THE
APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN BALLARINI
V. SCHLAGE LOCK CO., 100 CAL. APP. 2D 859, 226 P.2D 771, HELD IN ACCORD
WITH MISSOURI.  FOR A REVIEW OF LEGISLATION IN THIS FIELD, SEE 47 COL.
L. REV. 135. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE, IF NOT VERY VITAL IN ITS
PRESENT APPLICATION, SURELY IS A DEBATABLE ONE.  TWO STATE COURTS OF
LAST RESORT, THE ONLY ONES TO CONSIDER SIMILAR LEGISLATION, HAVE HELD
IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  (FN1)  ONLY UNREVIEWED DECISIONS OF INTERMEDIATE
COURTS (FN2) CAN BE CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE COURT'S HOLDING. 

APPELLANT EMPLOYED ONE GROTEMEYER, UNDER A UNION CONTRACT, ON AN
HOURLY BASIS AT $1.60 PER HOUR FOR EACH HOUR WORKED.  HE DEMANDED A
FOUR-HOUR LEAVE OF ABSENCE, WITH FULL PAY, ON ELECTION DAY TO DO
CAMPAIGNING AND TO GET OUT THE VOTE.  IT IS STIPULATED THAT HIS
RESIDENCE WAS 200 FEET FROM THE POLLING PLACE AND THAT IT ACTUALLY TOOK
HIM ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO VOTE.  APPELLANT CLOSED THE DAY'S WORK FOR
ALL EMPLOYEES ONE AND ONE-HALF HOURS EARLIER THAN USUAL, WHICH GAVE
THEM THE STATUTORY FOUR HOURS BEFORE THE POLLS CLOSED.  FOR FAILURE TO
PAY SOMETHING LESS THAN $3 FOR THIS HOUR AND A HALF WHICH GROTEMEYER
DID NOT WORK AND FOR WHICH HIS CONTRACT DID NOT PROVIDE THAT HE SHOULD
BE PAID, THE EMPLOYER IS CONVICTED OF CRIME UNDER THE STATUTE SET FORTH
IN THE COURT'S OPINION. 

TO SUSTAIN THIS STATUTE BY RESORT TO THE ANALOGY OF MINIMUM WAGE LAWS
SEEMS SO FARFETCHED AND UNCONVINCING AS TO DEMONSTRATE ITS WEAKNESS
RATHER THAN ITS STRENGTH.  BECAUSE A STATE MAY REQUIRE PAYMENT OF A
MINIMUM WAGE FOR HOURS THAT ARE WORKED IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT MAY
COMPEL PAYMENT FOR TIME THAT IS NOT WORKED.  TO OVERLOOK A DISTINCTION
SO FUNDAMENTAL IS TO CONFUSE THE POINT IN ISSUE. 

THE COURT, BY SPEAKING OF THE STATUTE AS THOUGH IT APPLIES ONLY TO
INDUSTRY, SINISTER AND BIG, FURTHER OBSCURES THE REAL PRINCIPLE
INVOLVED.  THE STATUTE PLAINLY REQUIRES FARMERS, SMALL SERVICE
ENTERPRISES, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, HOUSEWIVES WITH DOMESTIC HELP, AND
ALL OTHER EMPLOYERS, NOT ONLY TO ALLOW THEIR EMPLOYEES TIME TO VOTE,
BUT TO PAY THEM FOR TIME TO DO SO.  IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, REQUIRE THE
EMPLOYEE TO USE ANY PART OF SUCH TIME FOR THAT PURPOSE.  SUCH
LEGISLATION STANDS IN A CLASS BY ITSELF AND SHOULD NOT BE UNCRITICALLY
COMMENDED AS A MERE REGULATION OF "PRACTICES IN THE BUSINESS-LABOR
FIELD." 

OBTAINING A FULL AND FREE EXPRESSION FROM ALL QUALIFIED VOTERS AT THE
POLLS IS SO FUNDAMENTAL TO A SUCCESSFUL REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT THAT
A STATE RIGHTLY CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THE REMOVAL OF EVERY OBSTRUCTION
TO THE RIGHT AND OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FREELY.  COURTS SHOULD GO FAR TO
SUSTAIN LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO RELIEVE EMPLOYEES FROM OBLIGATIONS TO
PRIVATE EMPLOYERS WHICH WOULD STAND IN THE WAY OF THEIR DUTY AS
CITIZENS. 

BUT THERE MUST BE SOME LIMIT TO THE POWER TO SHIFT THE WHOLE VOTING
BURDEN FROM THE VOTER TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAPPENS TO STAND IN SOME
ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP TO HIM.  GETTING OUT THE VOTE IS NOT THE BUSINESS
OF EMPLOYERS; INDEED, I HAVE REGARDED IT AS A POLITICAL ABUSE WHEN
EMPLOYERS CONCERNED THEMSELVES WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES' VOTING.  IT IS
EITHER THE VOTER'S OWN BUSINESS OR THE STATE'S BUSINESS.  I DO NOT
QUESTION THAT THE INCENTIVE WHICH THIS STATUTE OFFERS WILL HELP SWELL
THE VOTE; TO REQUIRE THAT EMPLOYEES BE PAID TIME-AND-A-HALF WOULD SWELL
IT STILL MORE, AND DOUBLE-TIME WOULD DO EVEN BETTER.  BUT DOES THE
SUCCESS OF AN ENTICEMENT TO VOTE JUSTIFY PUTTING ITS COST ON SOME OTHER
CITIZEN? 

THE DISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER OF THIS STATUTE IS FLAGRANT.  IT IS
OBVIOUS THAT NOT EVERYBODY WILL BE PAID FOR VOTING AND THE "RATIONAL
BASIS" ON WHICH THE STATE HAS ORDERED THAT SOME BE PAID WHILE OTHERS
ARE NOT ELUDES ME.  IF THERE IS A NEED FOR A SUBSIDY TO GET OUT THE
VOTE, NO REASON IS APPARENT TO ME WHY IT SHOULD GO TO ONE WHO LIVES 200
FEET FROM HIS POLLING PLACE BUT NOT TO A SELF-EMPLOYED FARMER WHO MAY
HAVE TO LAY DOWN HIS WORK AND LET HIS EQUIPMENT IDLE FOR SEVERAL HOURS
WHILE HE TRAVELS SEVERAL MILES OVER BAD FALL ROADS TO DO HIS DUTY AS A
CITIZEN.  IF HE HAS A HIRED MAN, HE MUST ALSO LOSE HIS HAND'S TIME AND
HIS PAY.  PERHAPS SOME PLAN WILL BE FORTHCOMING TO PAY THE FARMER BY
REQUIRING HIS MORTGAGEE TO REBATE SOME PROPORTION OF THE INTEREST ON
THE FARM MORTGAGE IF HE WILL VOTE.  IT WOULD NOT DIFFER IN PRINCIPLE. 
BUT NO WAY OCCURS TO ME BY WHICH THE DOCTOR CAN CHARGE SOME PATIENT OR
THE LAWYER SOME CLIENT FOR THE CALL HE COULD NOT RECEIVE WHILE HE WAS
VOTING. 

I SUPPOSE A STATE ITSELF HAS CONSIDERABLE LATITUDE TO OFFER
INDUCEMENTS TO VOTERS WHO DO NOT VALUE THEIR FRANCHISE ENOUGH TO VOTE
ON THEIR OWN TIME, EVEN IF THEY SEEM TO ME CORRUPTING OR DISCRIMINATING
ONES.  PERHAPS MY DIFFICULTY WITH TODAY'S DECISION IS THAT I CANNOT
RISE ABOVE AN OLD-FASHIONED VALUATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WHICH
MAKES A STATE-IMPOSED PAY-FOR-VOTING SYSTEM APPEAR TO BE A CONFESSION
OF FAILURE OF POPULAR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

IT UNDOUBTEDLY IS THE RIGHT OF EVERY UNION NEGOTIATING WITH AN
EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN FOR VOTING TIME WITHOUT LOSS OF PAY.  IT IS EQUALLY
THE RIGHT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE TO MAKE THAT PART OF HIS HIRE.  I
HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF VOTERS ALREADY HAVE
VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENTS WHICH MAKE THEIR ABSENCE FOR VOTING WITHOUT
COST.  BUT A CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY WHICH SANCTIONS INTERVENTION BY
THE STATE TO FIX TERMS OF PAY WITHOUT WORK MAY BE AVAILABLE TOMMORROW
TO GIVE CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION TO STATE-IMPOSED TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT
LESS BENEVOLENT.    FN1  ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. COMMONWEALTH, 305
KY. 632, 204 S.W.2D 973; PEOPLE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO., 306 ILL.
486, 138 N.E. 155.  CF. ZELNEY V. MURPHY, 387 ILL. 492, 56 N.E.2D 754. 

FN2  PEOPLE V. FORD MOTOR CO., 271 APP. DIV. 141, 63 N.Y.S.2D 697;
BALLARINI V. SCHLAGE LOCK CO., 100 CAL. APP. 2D 859, 226 P.2D 771. 
..END :
























DOREMUS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE 342 U.S. 429 


NO. 9.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 5 N.J.
435, 75 A.2D 880, APPEAL DISMISSED. 


A STATUTE OF NEW JERSEY PROVIDES FOR THE READING, WITHOUT COMMENT, OF
FIVE VERSES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT THE OPENING OF EACH PUBLIC-SCHOOL
DAY.  IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION INSTITUTED BY THE TWO
APPELLANTS, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTE DID NOT
VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  APPELLANTS APPEALED TO THIS COURT. 
ONE OF THE APPELLANTS HAD SUED AS THE PARENT OF A PUBLIC-SCHOOL CHILD,
AND EACH HAD SUED AS A TAXPAYER.  HELD:  THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  PP. 430-435. 

1.  THE CAUSE IS MOOT SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
IN QUESTION, SINCE SHE GRADUATED FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BEFORE THE
APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT.  PP. 432-433. 

2.  THE FACTS STATED BY APPELLANTS AS TAXPAYERS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT
TO CONSTITUTE A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THIS COURT, BECAUSE THEY DO NOT SHOW SUCH DIRECT AND PARTICULAR
FINANCIAL INTEREST AS IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN A TAXPAYER'S CASE OR
CONTROVERSY.  PP. 433-435. 

DOREMUS ET AL. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY. 

IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION INSTITUTED BY APPELLANTS IN A NEW
JERSEY COURT TO TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE OF THAT STATE,
THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTE DID NOT VIOLATE THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  5 N.J. 435, 75 A.2D 880.  AN APPEAL TO THIS
COURT IS DISMISSED, P. 435. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON A QUESTION OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WAS PROSECUTED IN THE STATE COURTS OF NEW JERSEY. 
IT SOUGHT TO DECLARE INVALID A STATUTE OF THAT STATE WHICH PROVIDES FOR
THE READING, WITHOUT COMMENT, OF FIVE VERSES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AT
THE OPENING OF EACH PUBLIC-SCHOOL DAY.  N.J. REV. STAT., 1937, 18:14
77.  NO ISSUE WAS RAISED UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION, BUT THE ACT WAS
CLAIMED TO VIOLATE THE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION PROHIBITING ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. 

NO TRIAL WAS HELD AND WE HAVE NO FINDINGS OF FACT, BUT THE TRIAL
COURT DENIED RELIEF ON THE MERITS ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS AND A
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, OF WHICH THE RECORD CONTAINS MEAGER NOTES.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, ON APPEAL, RENDERED ITS OPINION THAT THE
ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, IN SPITE OF
JURISDICTIONAL DOUBTS WHICH IT POINTED OUT BUT CONDONED AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO ONE IS BEFORE US ASSERTING THAT HIS RELIGIOUS PRACTICES HAVE BEEN
INTERFERED WITH OR THAT HIS RIGHT TO WORSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
DICTATES OF HIS CONSCIENCE HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED.  NO RELIGIOUS SECT IS A
PARTY TO THE CAUSE.  NO REPRESENTATIVE OF, OR SPOKESMAN FOR, A
RELIGIOUS BODY HAS ATTACKED THE STATUTE HERE OR BELOW.  ONE OF THE
PLAINTIFFS IS 'A CITIZEN AND TAXPAYER;' THE ONLY INTEREST HE ASSERTS IS
JUST THAT AND IN THOSE WORDS, SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT AND NOT
FOLLOWED BY SPECIFICATION OR PROOF.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT HE IS A
CITIZEN AND A TAXPAYER, BUT IT IS NOT CHARGED AND IT IS NEITHER
CONCEDED NOR PROVED THAT THE BRIEF INTERRUPTION IN THE DAY'S SCHOOLING
CAUSED BY COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE ADDS COST TO THE SCHOOL EXPENSES
OR VARIES BY MORE THAN AN INCOMPUTABLE SCINTILLA THE ECONOMY OF THE
DAY'S WORK.  THE OTHER PLAINTIFF, IN ADDITION TO BEING A CITIZEN AND A
TAXPAYER, HAS A DAUGHTER, AGED SEVENTEEN, WHO IS A STUDENT OF THE
SCHOOL.  THOSE FACTS ARE ASSERTED, BUT, AS IN THE CASE OF THE CO
PLAINTIFF, NO VIOLATED RIGHTS ARE URGED.  IT IS NOT CHARGED THAT THE
PRACTICE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE CONFLICTS WITH THE CONVICTIONS OF
EITHER MOTHER OR DAUGHTER.  APPARENTLY THE SOLE PURPOSE AND THE ONLY
FUNCTION OF PLAINTIFFS IS THAT THEY SHALL ASSUME THE ROLE OF ACTORS SO
THAT THERE MAY BE A SUIT WHICH WILL INVOKE A COURT RULING UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE.  RESPONDENTS URGE THAT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE QUESTION IS MOOT AS TO THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS AND
THAT OUR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT STATUTE MAY NOT PROPERLY BE USED IN
JUSTIFICATION OF SUCH A PROCEEDING.  CF. NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
V. PARSONS, 3 N.J. 235; MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, AT 488,
43 SUP. CT. 597, 67 L. ED. 1078, AT 1085 (1923).  THE POINT HAS
SUBSTANCE BUT WE HAVE NEVERTHELESS CONCLUDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL
ON ITS MERITS."  5 N.J. 435, 439, 75 A.2D 880, 881-882 (1950). 

UPON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, WE CONSIDERED APPELLANTS' JURISDICTIONAL
STATEMENT BUT, INSTEAD OF NOTING PROBABLE JURISDICTION, ORDERED THAT
"FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT IN THIS CASE AND OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM IS POSTPONED
TO THE HEARING OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS."  ON FURTHER STUDY, THE
DOUBTS THUS INDICATED RIPEN INTO A CONVICTION THAT WE SHOULD DISMISS
THE APPEAL WITHOUT REACHING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 

THE VIEW OF THE FACTS TAKEN BY THE COURT BELOW, THOUGH IT IS ENTITLED
TO RESPECT, DOES NOT BIND US AND WE MAY MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION
OF THE RECORD.  DOING SO, WE FIND NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL IN SUPPORT
OF JURISDICTION THAN DID THE COURT BELOW.  APPELLANTS, APPARENTLY
SEEKING TO BRING THEMSELVES WITHIN ILLINOIS EX REL.  MCCOLLUM V. BOARD
OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203, ASSERT A CHALLENGE TO THE ACT IN TWO
CAPACITIES - ONE AS PARENT OF A CHILD SUBJECT TO IT, AND BOTH AS
TAXPAYERS BURDENED BECAUSE OF ITS REQUIREMENTS. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE PARENT-AND-SCHOOL-CHILD RELATIONSHIP, THE COMPLAINT
ALLEGED THAT APPELLANT KLEIN WAS PARENT OF A SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD PUPIL
IN HAWTHORNE HIGH SCHOOL, WHERE BIBLE READING WAS PRACTICED PURSUANT TO
THE ACT.  THAT IS ALL.  THERE IS NO ASSERTION THAT SHE WAS INJURED OR
EVEN OFFENDED THEREBY OR THAT SHE WAS COMPELLED TO ACCEPT, APPROVE OR
CONFESS AGREEMENT WITH ANY DOGMA OR CREED OR EVEN TO LISTEN WHEN THE
SCRIPTURES WERE READ.  ON THE CONTRARY, THERE WAS A PRETRIAL
STIPULATION THAT ANY STUDENT, AT HIS OWN OR HIS PARENTS' REQUEST, COULD
BE EXCUSED DURING BIBLE READING AND THAT IT THIS CASE NO SUCH EXCUSE
WAS ASKED.  HOWEVER, IT WAS AGREED UPON ARGUMENT HERE THAT THIS CHILD
HAD GRADUATED FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BEFORE THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO
THIS COURT.  OBVIOUSLY NO DECISION WE COULD RENDER NOW WOULD PROTECT
ANY RIGHTS SHE MAY ONCE HAVE HAD, AND THIS COURT DOES NOT SIT TO DECIDE
ARGUMENTS AFTER EVENTS HAVE PUT THEM TO REST.  UNITED STATES V. ALASKA
STEAMSHIP CO., 253 U.S. 113, 116. 

THE COMPLAINT IS SIMILARLY NIGGARDLY OF FACTS TO SUPPORT A TAXPAYER'S
GRIEVANCE.  DOREMUS IS ALLEGED TO BE A CITIZEN AND TAXPAYER OF THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND OF THE TOWNSHIP OF RUTHERFORD, BUT ANY RELATION
OF THAT TOWNSHIP TO THE LITIGATION IS NOT DISCLOSED TO ONE NOT FAMILIAR
WITH LOCAL GEOGRAPHY.  KLEIN IS SET OUT AS A CITIZEN AND TAXPAYER OF
THE BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND IT IS ALLEGED
THAT HAWTHORNE HAS A HIGH SCHOOL SUPPORTED BY PUBLIC FUNDS.  IN THIS
SCHOOL THE BIBLE IS READ, ACCORDING TO STATUTE.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION
THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS SUPPORTED BY ANY SEPARATE TAX OR PAID FOR FROM
ANY PARTICULAR APPROPRIATION OR THAT IT ADDS ANY SUM WHATEVER TO THE
COST OF CONDUCTING THE SCHOOL.  NO INFORMATION IS GIVEN AS TO WHAT KIND
OF TAXES ARE PAID BY APPELLANTS AND THERE IS NO AVERMENT THAT THE BIBLE
READING INCREASES ANY TAX THEY DO PAY OR THAT AS TAXPAYERS THEY ARE,
WILL, OR POSSIBLY CAN BE OUT OF POCKET BECAUSE OF IT. 

THE STATE RAISED THE DEFENSE THAT APPELLANTS SHOWED NO STANDING TO
MAINTAIN THE ACTION BUT, ON PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, PERHAPS WITH
PREMONITIONS OF SUCCESS, WAIVED IT AND ACQUIESCED IN A DETERMINATION OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  WHETHER SUCH FACTS AMOUNT TO A
JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY IS DECISIVE OF OUR JURISDICTION. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE INTERESTS OF A TAXPAYER IN THE MONEYS OF
THE FEDERAL TREASURY ARE TOO INDETERMINABLE, REMOTE, UNCERTAIN AND
INDIRECT TO FURNISH A BASIS FOR AN APPEAL TO THE PREVENTIVE POWERS OF
THE COURT OVER THEIR MANNER OF EXPENDITURE.  ALABAMA POWER CO. V.
ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 478-479; MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447,
486 ET SEQ. THE LATTER CASE RECOGNIZED, HOWEVER, THAT "THE INTEREST OF
A TAXPAYER OF A MUNICIPALITY IN THE APPLICATION OF ITS MONEYS IS DIRECT
AND IMMEDIATE AND THE REMEDY BY INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THEIR MISUSE IS
NOT INAPPROPRIATE."  262 U.S. AT 486.  INDEED, A NUMBER OF STATES
PROVIDE FOR IT BY STATUTE OR DECISIONAL LAW AND SUCH CAUSES HAVE BEEN
ENTERTAINED IN FEDERAL COURTS.  CRAMPTON V. ZABRISKIE, 101 U.S. 601,
609.  SEE MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, SUPRA, AT 486.  WITHOUT DISPARAGING
THE AVAILABILITY OF THE REMEDY BY TAXPAYER'S ACTION TO RESTRAIN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS WHICH RESULT IN DIRECT PECUNIARY INJURY, WE
REITERATE WHAT THE COURT SAID OF A FEDERAL STATUTE AS EQUALLY TRUE WHEN
A STATE ACT IS ASSAILED:  "THE PARTY WHO INVOKES THE POWER MUST BE ABLE
TO SHOW NOT ONLY THAT THE STATUTE IS INVALID BUT THAT HE HAS SUSTAINED
OR IS IMMEDIATELY IN DANGER OF SUSTAINING SOME DIRECT INJURY AS THE
RESULT OF ITS ENFORCEMENT, AND NOT MERELY THAT HE SUFFERS IN SOME
INDEFINITE WAY IN COMMON WITH PEOPLE GENERALLY."   MASSACHUSETTS V.
MELLON, SUPRA, AT 488. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT FOUND A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY IN EVERSON
V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1.  BUT EVERSON SHOWED A MEASURABLE
APPROPRIATION OR DISBURSEMENT OF SCHOOL-DISTRICT FUNDS OCCASIONED
SOLELY BY THE ACTIVITIES COMPLAINED OF.  THIS COMPLAINT DOES NOT. 

WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO SAY THAT A STATE COURT MAY NOT RENDER AN
OPINION ON A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION EVEN UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT CAN BE REGARDED ONLY AS ADVISORY.  BUT, BECAUSE
OUR OWN JURISDICTION IS CAST IN TERMS OF "CASE OR CONTROVERSY," WE
CANNOT ACCEPT AS THE BASIS FOR REVIEW, NOR AS THE BASIS FOR CONCLUSIVE
DISPOSITION OF AN ISSUE OF FEDERAL LAW WITHOUT REVIEW, ANY PROCEDURE
WHICH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUCH. 

THE TAXPAYER'S ACTION CAN MEET THIS TEST, BUT ONLY WHEN IT IS A GOOD
FAITH POCKETBOOK ACTION.  IT IS APPARENT THAT THE GRIEVANCE WHICH IT IS
SOUGHT TO LITIGATE HERE IS NOT A DIRECT DOLLARS-AND-CENTS INJURY BUT IS
A RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCE.  IF APPELLANTS ESTABLISHED THE REQUISITE
SPECIAL INJURY NECESSARY TO A TAXPAYER'S CASE OR CONTROVERSY, IT WOULD
NOT MATTER THAT THEIR DOMINANT INDUCEMENT TO ACTION WAS MORE RELIGIOUS
THAN MERCENARY.  IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF MOTIVATION BUT OF POSSESSION
OF THE REQUISITE FINANCIAL INTEREST THAT IS, OR IS THREATENED TO BE,
INJURED BY THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT.  WE FIND NO SUCH DIRECT AND
PARTICULAR FINANCIAL INTEREST HERE.  IF THE ACT MAY GIVE RISE TO A
LEGAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY ON SOME BEHALF, THE APPELLANTS CANNOT OBTAIN
A DECISION FROM THIS COURT BY A FEIGNED ISSUE OF TAXATION. 

THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IS GRANTED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THIS CASE DESERVES A DECISION ON THE MERITS.  THERE IS NO
GROUP MORE INTERESTED IN THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS THAN THE TAXPAYERS WHO SUPPORT THEM AND THE PARENTS WHOSE
CHILDREN ATTEND THEM.  CERTAINLY A SUIT BY ALL THE TAXPAYERS TO ENJOIN
A PRACTICE AUTHORIZED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD WOULD BE A SUIT BY VITAL
PARTIES IN INTEREST.  THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SHOW, ANY MORE THAN THE
TWO PRESENT TAXPAYERS HAVE DONE, THAT THE READING OF THE BIBLE ADDS TO
THE TAXES THEY PAY.  BUT IF THEY WERE RIGHT IN THEIR CONTENTIONS ON THE
MERITS, THEY WOULD ESTABLISH THAT THEIR PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE BEING
DEFLECTED FROM THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR WHICH THE TAXES WERE
RAISED.  THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN ADEQUATE INTEREST FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF THIS SUIT BY ALL THE TAXPAYERS.  IF ALL CAN DO IT, THERE
IS NO APPARENT REASON WHY LESS THAN ALL MAY NOT, THE INTEREST BEING THE
SAME.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ISSUES ARE NOT FEIGNED; THE SUIT IS NOT
COLLUSIVE; THE MISMANAGEMENT OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT IS ALLEGED IS
CLEAR AND PLAIN. 

IF THIS WERE A SUIT TO ENJOIN A FEDERAL LAW, IT COULD NOT BE
MAINTAINED BY REASON OF MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 486. 
BUT NEW JERSEY CAN FASHION HER OWN RULES GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION OF
SUITS IN HER COURTS.  IF SHE WANTS TO GIVE THESE TAXPAYERS THE STATUS
TO SUE (BY ANALOGY TO THE RIGHT OF SHAREHOLDERS TO ENJOIN ULTRA VIRES
ACTS OF THEIR CORPORATION), I SEE NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION TO
PREVENT IT.  AND WHERE THE CLASH OF INTERESTS IS AS REAL AND AS STRONG
AS IT IS HERE, IT IS ODD INDEED TO HOLD THERE IS NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
..END :













PERKINS V. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. 342 U.S. 437 


NO. 85.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 27-28, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 155
OHIO ST. 116, 98 N.E.2D 33, VACATED AND REMANDED. 


A FOREIGN CORPORATION, OWNING GOLD AND SILVER MINES IN THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS, TEMPORARILY CARRIED ON IN OHIO (DURING THE JAPANESE OCCUPATION
OF THE PHILIPPINES) A CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC, BUT LIMITED, PART OF
ITS GENERAL BUSINESS - CONSISTING OF DIRECTORS' MEETINGS, BUSINESS
CORRESPONDENCE, BANKING, STOCK TRANSFERS, PAYMENT OF SALARIES,
PURCHASING OF MACHINERY, ETC.  WHILE ENGAGED IN DOING SUCH BUSINESS IN
OHIO, ITS PRESIDENT WAS SERVED WITH SUMMONS IN AN ACTION IN PERSONAM
AGAINST THE CORPORATION FILED IN AN OHIO STATE COURT BY A NONRESIDENT
OF OHIO.  THE CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT ARISE IN OHIO AND DID NOT RELATE
TO THE CORPORATION'S ACTIVITIES THERE.  A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A MOTION
TO QUASH THE SERVICE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  HELD: 

1.  THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT COMPEL OHIO TO OPEN ITS COURTS
TO SUCH A CASE - EVEN THOUGH OHIO PERMITS A COMPLAINANT TO MAINTAIN A
PROCEEDING IN PERSONAM IN ITS COURTS AGAINST A PROPERLY SERVED
NONRESIDENT NATURAL PERSON TO ENFORCE A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH DOES NOT
ARISE OUT OF ANYTHING DONE WITHIN THE STATE.  PP. 440-441. 

2.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ALSO DOES NOT
PROHIBIT OHIO FROM GRANTING SUCH RELIEF AGAINST A FOREIGN CORPORATION. 
OLD WAYNE LIFE ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8, AND SIMON V. SOUTHERN R.
CO., 236 U.S. 115, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 441-447. 

3.  AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS, THE BUSINESS DONE BY THE
CORPORATION IN OHIO WAS SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIAL AND OF SUCH A NATURE
AS TO PERMIT OHIO TO ENTERTAIN THE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST IT, THOUGH
THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE FROM ACTIVITIES ENTIRELY DISTINCT FROM ITS
ACTIVITIES IN OHIO.  PP. 447-449. 

4.  IT NOT CLEARLY APPEARING, UNDER THE OHIO PRACTICE AS TO THE
EFFECT OF THE SYLLABUS, WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RESTED ITS
DECISION ON OHIO LAW OR ON THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF THE
OPINION OF THIS COURT.  PP. 441-449. 

PERKINS V. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

IN TWO ACTIONS IN AN OHIO STATE COURT, THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A
MOTION TO QUASH THE SERVICE ON THE RESPONDENT FOREIGN CORPORATION.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO AFFIRMED, 88 OHIO APP. 118, 95 N.E.2D 5, AS
DID THE STATE SUPREME COURT, 155 OHIO ST. 116, 98 N.E.2D 33.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 808.  JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE
REMANDED, P. 449. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CALLS FOR AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES PRECLUDES OHIO FROM SUBJECTING A FOREIGN CORPORATION TO THE
JURISDICTION OF ITS COURTS IN THIS ACTION IN PERSONAM.  THE CORPORATION
HAS BEEN CARRYING ON IN OHIO A CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC, BUT LIMITED,
PART OF ITS GENERAL BUSINESS.  ITS PRESIDENT, WHILE ENGAGED IN DOING
SUCH BUSINESS IN OHIO, HAS BEEN SERVED WITH SUMMONS IN THIS
PROCEEDING.  THE CAUSE OF ACTION SUED UPON DID NOT ARISE IN OHIO AND
DOES NOT RELATE TO THE CORPORATION'S ACTIVITIES THERE.  FOR THE REASONS
HEREAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LEAVES OHIO
FREE TO TAKE OR DECLINE JURISDICTION OVER THE CORPORATION. 

AFTER EXTENDED LITIGATION ELSEWHERE (FN1) PETITIONER, IDONAH SLADE
PERKINS, A NONRESIDENT OF OHIO, FILED TWO ACTIONS IN PERSONAM IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO, AGAINST THE SEVERAL
RESPONDENTS.  AMONG THOSE SUED IS THE BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING
COMPANY, HERE CALLED THE MINING COMPANY.  IT IS STYLED A "SOCIEDAD
ANONIMA" UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, WHERE IT OWNS AND
HAS OPERATED PROFITABLE GOLD AND SILVER MINES.  IN ONE ACTION
PETITIONER SEEKS APPROXIMATELY $68,400 IN DIVIDENDS CLAIMED TO BE DUE
HER AS A STOCKHOLDER.  IN THE OTHER SHE CLAIMS $2,500,000 DAMAGES
LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE COMPANY'S FAILURE TO ISSUE TO HER CERTIFICATES
FOR 120,000 SHARES OF ITS STOCK. 

IN EACH CASE THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A MOTION TO QUASH THE SERVICE
OF SUMMONS ON THE MINING COMPANY.  99 N.E.2D 515.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF OHIO AFFIRMED THAT DECISION, 88 OHIO APP. 118, 95 N.E.2D 5, AS DID
THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, 155 OHIO ST. 116, 98 N.E.2D 33.  THE CASES
WERE CONSOLIDATED AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN ORDER TO PASS UPON THE
CONCLUSION VOICED WITHIN THE COURT BELOW THAT FEDERAL DUE PROCESS
REQUIRED THE RESULT THERE REACHED.  342 U.S. 808. 

WE START WITH THE HOLDING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, NOT CONTESTED
HERE, THAT, UNDER OHIO LAW, THE MINING COMPANY IS TO BE TREATED AS A
FOREIGN CORPORATION.  (FN2)  ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDING WAS GIVEN
TO THE CORPORATION IN THE INSTANT CASE THROUGH REGULAR SERVICE OF
SUMMONS UPON ITS PRESIDENT WHILE HE WAS IN OHIO ACTING IN THAT
CAPACITY.  ACCORDINGLY, THERE CAN BE NO JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION BASED
UPON A LACK OF NOTICE TO A RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
CORPORATION. 

THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE STATE COURTS OF OHIO ARE
OPEN TO A PROCEEDING IN PERSONAM, AGAINST AN AMPLY NOTIFIED FOREIGN
CORPORATION, TO ENFORCE A CAUSE OF ACTION NOT ARISING IN OHIO AND NOT
RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OR ACTIVITIES OF THE CORPORATION IN THAT STATE
RESTS ENTIRELY UPON THE LAW OF OHIO, UNLESS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT COMPELS A DECISION EITHER WAY. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT FEDERAL DUE PROCESS COMPELS THE STATE TO OPEN ITS
COURTS TO SUCH A CASE HAS NO SUBSTANCE. 

"PROVISIONS FOR MAKING FOREIGN CORPORATIONS SUBJECT TO SERVICE IN THE
STATE IS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION, AND A FAILURE TO PROVIDE
FOR SUCH SERVICE IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  STILL LESS IS IT
INCUMBENT UPON A STATE IN FURNISHING SUCH PROCESS TO MAKE THE
JURISDICTION OVER THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WIDE ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THE
ADJUDICATION OF TRANSITORY ACTIONS NOT ARISING IN THE STATE."  MISSOURI
P.R. CO. V. CLARENDON CO., 257 U.S. 533, 535. 

ALSO WITHOUT MERIT IS THE ARGUMENT THAT MERELY BECAUSE OHIO PERMITS A
COMPLAINANT TO MAINTAIN A PROCEEDING IN PERSONAM IN ITS COURTS AGAINST
A PROPERLY SERVED NONRESIDENT NATURAL PERSON TO ENFORCE A CAUSE OF
ACTION WHICH DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF ANYTHING DONE IN OHIO, THEREFORE,
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES COMPELS OHIO TO PROVIDE LIKE
RELIEF AGAINST A FOREIGN CORPORATION. 

A MORE SERIOUS QUESTION IS PRESENTED BY THE CLAIM THAT THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS OHIO FROM GRANTING
SUCH RELIEF AGAINST A FOREIGN CORPORATION.  THE SYLLABUS IN THE REPORT
OF THE CASE BELOW, WHILE DENYING THE RELIEF SOUGHT, DOES NOT INDICATE
WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO RESTED ITS DECISION ON OHIO LAW OR ON
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT SYLLABUS IS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"1.  THE DOING OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION,
WHICH HAS NOT APPOINTED A STATUTORY AGENT UPON WHOM SERVICE OF PROCESS
AGAINST THE CORPORATION CAN BE MADE IN THIS STATE OR OTHERWISE
CONSENTED TO SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON IT IN ACTIONS BROUGHT IN THIS
STATE, WILL NOT MAKE THE CORPORATION SUBJECT TO SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN
AN ACTION IN PERSONAM BROUGHT IN THE COURTS OF THIS STATE TO ENFORCE A
CAUSE OF ACTION NOT ARISING IN THIS STATE AND IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE
BUSINESS OR ACTIVITIES OF THE CORPORATION IN THIS STATE."  155 OHIO ST.
116, 117, 98 N.E.2D 33, 34. 

IF THE ABOVE STATEMENT STOOD ALONE, IT MIGHT MEAN THAT THE DECISION
RESTED SOLELY UPON THE LAW OF OHIO.  IN SUPPORT OF THAT POSSIBILITY WE
ARE TOLD THAT, UNDER THE RULES AND PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
OHIO, ONLY THE SYLLABUS NECESSARILY CARRIES THE APPROVAL OF THAT
COURT.  (FN3)  AS WE UNDERSTAND THE OHIO PRACTICE, THE SYLLABUS OF ITS
SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTES THE OFFICIAL OPINION OF THAT COURT BUT IT
MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND ISSUES OF THE CASE. 

THE ONLY OPINION ACCOMPANYING THE SYLLABUS OF THE COURT BELOW PLACES
THE CONCURRENCE OF ITS AUTHOR UNEQUIVOCALLY UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE OHIO
COURTS FROM EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN
THIS PROCEEDING.  (FN4) THAT OPINION IS AN OFFICIAL PART OF THE REPORT
OF THE CASE.  THE REPORT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DISCLOSE TO WHAT EXTENT, IF
ANY, THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT MAY HAVE SHARED THE VIEW EXPRESSED
IN THAT OPINION.  ACCORDINGLY, FOR US TO ALLOW THE JUDGMENT TO STAND AS
IT IS WOULD RISK AN AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN
DECIDED DIFFERENTLY IF THE COURT BELOW HAD FELT FREE, UNDER OUR
DECISIONS, TO DO SO. 

THE CASES PRIMARILY RELIED ON BY THE AUTHOR OF THE OPINION
ACCOMPANYING THE SYLLABUS BELOW ARE OLD WAYNE LIFE ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH,
204 U.S. 8, AND SIMON V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 236 U.S. 115.  UNLIKE THE
CASE AT BAR, NO ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS WAS RECEIVED IN THOSE
CASES BY A RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FOREIGN CORPORATION.  IN
EACH CASE, THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO WAS SERVED WITH PROCESS IN AN
ATTEMPT TO BIND THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS HELD TO LACK THE NECESSARY
AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT SERIVCE SO AS TO BIND IT IN A PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE
A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF THE FORUM.  SEE 204
U.S. AT 22-23, AND 236 U.S. AT 130.  THE NECESSARY RESULT WAS A FINDING
OF INADEQUATE SERVICE IN EACH CASE AND A CONCLUSION THAT THE FOREIGN
CORPORATION WAS NOT BOUND BY IT.  THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE TODAY IN A
LIKE PROCEEDING WHERE THE ONLY SERVICE HAD AND THE ONLY NOTICE GIVEN
WAS THAT DIRECTED TO A PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO HAD NO AUTHORITY, BY STATUTE
OR OTHERWISE, TO ACCEPT IT IN THAT KIND OF A PROCEEDING.  AT THE TIME
OF RENDERING THE ABOVE DECISIONS THIS COURT WAS AIDED, IN REACHING ITS
CONCLUSION AS TO THE LIMITED SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE
PUBLIC OFFICIALS, BY THIS COURT'S CONCEPTION THAT THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRECLUDED A STATE FROM GIVING ITS
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT SERVICE IN TERMS BROAD ENOUGH TO
BIND A FOREIGN CORPORATION IN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IT TO ENFORCE AN
OBLIGATION ARISING OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF THE FORUM.  THAT CONCEPTION
NOW HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY THE RATIONALE ADOPTED IN LATER DECISIONS AND
PARTICULARLY IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310. 

TODAY IF AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION BE
PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM AND BE THERE ENGAGED IN
ACTIVITIES APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPTING SERVICE OR RECEIVING NOTICE ON ITS
BEHALF, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS NO UNFAIRNESS IN SUBJECTING THAT
CORPORATION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THAT STATE THROUGH
SUCH SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON THAT REPRESENTATIVE.  THIS HAS BEEN
SQUARELY HELD TO BE SO IN A PROCEEDING IN PERSONAM AGAINST SUCH A
CORPORATION, AT LEAST IN RELATION TO A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING OUT OF
THE CORPORATION'S ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE OF THE FORUM.  (FN5) 

THE ESSENCE OF THE ISSUE HERE, AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL, IS A LIKE
ONE OF GENERAL FAIRNESS TO THE CORPORATION.  APPROPRIATE TESTS FOR THAT
ARE DISCUSSED IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, AT 317
320.  THE AMOUNT AND KIND OF ACTIVITIES WHICH MUST BE CARRIED ON BY THE
FOREIGN CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM SO AS TO MAKE IT
REASONABLE AND JUST TO SUBJECT THE CORPORATION TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THAT STATE ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN EACH CASE.  THE CORPORATE ACTIVITIES
OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH, UNDER STATE STATUTE, MAKE IT NECESSARY
FOR IT TO SECURE A LICENSE AND TO DESIGNATE A STATUTORY AGENT UPON WHOM
PROCESS MAY BE SERVED PROVIDE A HELPFUL BUT NOT A CONCLUSIVE TEST.  FOR
EXAMPLE, THE STATE OF THE FORUM MAY BY STATUTE REQUIRE A FOREIGN MINING
CORPORATION TO SECURE A LICENSE IN ORDER LAWFULLY TO CARRY ON THERE
SUCH FUNCTIONAL INTRASTATE OPERATIONS AS THOSE OF MINING OR REFINING
ORE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE SAME CORPORATION CARRIES ON, IN THAT
STATE, OTHER CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC CORPORATE ACTIVITIES AS IT DID
HERE - CONSISTING OF DIRECTOR'S MEETINGS, BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE,
BANKING, STOCK TRANSFERS, PAYMENT OF SALARIES, PURCHASING OF MACHINERY,
ETC. - THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT FAIR AND REASONABLE TO
SUBJECT THAT CORPORATION TO PROCEEDINGS IN PERSONAM IN THAT STATE, AT
LEAST INSOFAR AS THE PROCEEDINGS IN PERSONAM SEEK TO ENFORCE CAUSES OF
ACTION RELATING TO THOSE VERY ACTIVITIES OR TO OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE
CORPORATION WITHIN THE STATE. 

THE INSTANT CASE TAKES US ONE STEP FURTHER TO A PROCEEDING IN
PERSONAM TO ENFORCE A CAUSE OF ACTION NOT ARISING OUT OF THE
CORPORATION'S ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM.  USING THE TESTS
MENTIONED ABOVE WE FIND NO REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS THAT
EITHER PROHIBITS OHIO FROM OPENING ITS COURTS TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION
HERE PRESENTED OR COMPELS OHIO TO DO SO.  THIS CONFORMS TO THE
REALISTIC REASONING IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, AT
318-319: 

"  ...  THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES IN WHICH THE CONTINUOUS CORPORATE
OPERATIONS WITHIN A STATE WERE THOUGHT SO SUBSTANTIAL AND OF SUCH A
NATURE AS TO JUSTIFY SUIT AGAINST IT ON CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING FROM
DEALINGS ENTIRELY DISTINCT FROM THOSE ACTIVITIES.  SEE MISSOURI,
K.&T.R. CO. V. REYNOLDS, 255 U.S. 565; (FN6) TAUZA V. SUSQUEHANNA COAL
CO., 220 N.Y. 259, 115 N.E. 915; CF. ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. ALEXANDER,
SUPRA (227 U.S. 218). 

"  ...  SOME OF THE DECISIONS HOLDING THE CORPORATION AMENABLE TO
SUIT HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY RESORT TO THE LEGAL FICTION THAT IT HAS
GIVEN ITS CONSENT TO SERVICE AND SUIT, CONSENT BEING IMPLIED FROM ITS
PRESENCE IN THE STATE THROUGH THE ACTS OF ITS AUTHORIZED AGENTS. 
LAFAYETTE INSURANCE CO. V. FRENCH, 18 HOW.  404, 407; ST. CLAIR V. COX,
SUPRA (106 U.S. 350), 356; COMMERCIAL MUTUAL CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA (213
U.S. 245), 254; WASHINGTON V. SUPERIOR COURT, 289 U.S. 361, 364-365. 
BUT MORE REALISTICALLY IT MAY BE SAID THAT THOSE AUTHORIZED ACTS WERE
OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO JUSTIFY THE FICTION.  SMOLIK V. PHILADELPHIA &
READING CO., 222 F. 148, 151.  HENDERSON, THE POSITION OF FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 94-95. 

"  ...  WHETHER DUE PROCESS IS SATISFIED MUST DEPEND RATHER UPON THE
QUALITY AND NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY IN RELATION TO THE FAIR AND ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAWS WHICH IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE TO INSURE.  THAT CLAUSE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT A STATE MAY
MAKE BINDING A JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE
DEFENDANT WITH WHICH THE STATE HAS NO CONTACTS, TIES, OR RELATIONS. 
CF. PENNOYER V. NEFF, SUPRA (95 U.S. 714); MINNESOTA COMMERCIAL ASSN.
V. BENN, 261 U.S. 140." 

IT REMAINS ONLY TO CONSIDER, IN MORE DETAIL, THE ISSUE OF WHETHER, AS
A MATTER OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS, THE BUSINESS DONE IN OHIO BY THE
RESPONDENT MINING COMPANY WAS SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIAL AND OF SUCH A
NATURE AS TO PERMIT OHIO TO ENTERTAIN A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A
FOREIGN CORPORATION, WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE FROM ACITIVITES
ENTIRELY DISTINCT FROM ITS ACTIVITIES IN OHIO.  SEE INTERNATIONAL SHOE
CO. V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, AT 318. 

THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS SUMMARIZED THE EVIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT.  88
OHIO APP. AT 119-125, 95 N.E.2D AT 6-9.  FROM THAT SUMMARY THE
FOLLOWING FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY BEYOND CONTROVERSY: THE COMPANY'S
MINING PROPERTIES WERE IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  IT OPERATIONS THERE
WERE COMPLETELY HALTED DURING THE OCCUPATION OF THE ISLANDS BY THE
JAPANESE.  DURING THAT INTERIM THE PRESIDENT, WHO WAS ALSO THE GENERAL
MANAGER AND PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDER OF THE COMPANY, RETURNED TO HIS HOME
IN CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO.  THERE HE MAINTAINED AN OFFICE IN WHICH HE
CONDUCTED HIS PERSONAL AFFAIRS AND DID MANY THINGS ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPANY.  HE KEPT THERE OFFICE FILES OF THE COMPANY.  HE CARRIED ON
THERE CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND TO ITS
EMPLOYEES.  HE DREW AND DISTRIBUTED THERE SALARY CHECKS ON BEHALF OF
THE COMPANY, BOTH IN HIS OWN FAVOR AS PRESIDENT AND IN FAVOR OF TWO
COMPANY SECRETARIES WHO WORKED THERE WITH HIM.  HE USED AND MAINTAINED
IN CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO, TWO ACTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS CARRYING SUBSTANTIAL
BALANCES OF COMPANY FUNDS.  A BANK IN HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, ACTED AS
TRANSFER AGENT FOR THE STOCK OF THE COMPANY.  SEVERAL DIRECTOR'S
MEETINGS WERE HELD AT HIS OFFICE OR HOME IN CLERMONT COUNTY.  FROM THAT
OFFICE HE SUPERVISED POLICIES DEALING WITH THE REHABILITATION OF THE
CORPORATION'S PROPERTIES IN THE PHILIPPINES AND HE DISPATCHED FUNDS TO
COVER PURCHASES OF MACHINERY FOR SUCH REHABILITATION.  THUS HE CARRIED
ON IN OHIO A CONTINUOUS AND SYSTEMATIC SUPERVISION OF THE NECESSARILY
LIMITED WARTIME ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY.  HE THERE DISCHARGED HIS
DUTIES AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, BOTH DURING THE OCCUPATION OF
THE COMPANY'S PROPERTIES BY THE JAPANESE AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. 
WHILE NO MINING PROPERTIES IN OHIO WERE OWNED OR OPERATED BY THE
COMPANY, MANY OF ITS WARTIME ACTIVITIES WERE DIRECTED FROM OHIO AND
WERE BEING GIVEN THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OF ITS PRESIDENT IN THAT STATE
AT THE TIME HE WAS SERVED WITH SUMMONS.  CONSIDERATION OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH, UNDER THE LAW OF OHIO, ULTIMATELY WILL DETERMINE
WHETHER THE COURTS OF THAT STATE WILL CHOOSE TO TAKE JURISDICTION OVER
THE CORPORATION IS RESERVED FOR THE COURTS OF THAT STATE.  WITHOUT
REACHING THAT ISSUE OF STATE POLICY, WE CONCLUDE THAT, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ABOVE RECITED, IT WOULD NOT VIOLATE FEDERAL DUE PROCESS
FOR OHIO EITHER TO TAKE OR DECLINE JURISDICTION OF THE CORPORATION IN
THIS PROCEEDING.  THIS RELIEVES THE OHIO COURTS OF THE RESTRICTION
RELIED UPON IN THE OPINION ACCOMPANYING THE SYLLABUS BELOW AND WHICH
MAY HAVE INFLUENCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IS VACATED AND
THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE
LIGHT OF THIS OPINION.  (FN7)  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEE PERKINS V. PERKINS, 57 PHIL.  R. 205; HARDEN V. BENGUET
CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., 58 PHIL.  R. 141; PERKINS V. GUARANTY TRUST
CO., 274 N.Y. 250, 8 N.E.2D 849; PERKINS V. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED MINING
CO., 55 CAL. APP. 2D 720, 132 P.2D 70, REHEARING DENIED, 55 CAL. APP.
2D 774, 132 P.2D 102, CERT. DENIED, 319 U.S. 774; 60 CAL. APP. 2D 845,
141 P.2D 19, CERT. DENIED, 320 U.S. 803, 815; PERKINS V. FIRST NATIONAL
BANK OF CINCINNATI (CT. OF COMMON PLEAS, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO), 37
OHIO OP. 162, 79 N.E.2D 159. 

FN2  OHIO REQUIRES A FOREIGN CORPORATION TO SECURE A LICENSE TO
TRANSACT "BUSINESS" IN THAT STATE, THROCKMORTON'S OHIO CODE, 1940, SEC.
8625-4, AND TO APPOINT A "DESIGNATED AGENT" UPON WHOM PROCESS MAY BE
SERVED, SECS. 8625-2, 8625-5.  THE MINING COMPANY HAS NEITHER SECURED
SUCH A LICENSE NOR DESIGNATED SUCH AN AGENT.  WHILE THIS MAY MAKE IT
SUBJECT TO PENALTIES AND HANDICAPS, THIS DOES NOT PREVENT IT FROM
TRANSACTING BUSINESS OR BEING SUED.  SEC. 8625-25.  IF IT HAS A
"MANAGING AGENT" IN OHIO, SERVICE MAY BE MADE UPON HIM.  SEC. 11290. 
SUCH SERVICE IS A PERMISSIVE ALTERNATIVE TO SERVICE ON THE CORPORATION
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT OR OTHER CHIEF OFFICER.  SEC. 11288.  LIVELY V.
PICTON, 218 F. 401, 406-407 (C.A. 6TH CIR.).  THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE CORPORATION IN OHIO IS SUMMARIZED BY THE
OHIO COURT OF APPEALS.  88 OHIO APP. 118, 119-125, 95 N.E.2D 5, 6-9. 
THAT COURT HELD THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE TRANSACTION
OF BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN THE CODE.  IN ITS SYLLABUS, HOWEVER, THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF SUCH
ACTS FOR THE ABOVE STATUTORY PURPOSE, AND WITHOUT DEFINING ITS USE OF
THE TERM, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND ASSUMED
THAT WHAT THE CORPORATION HAD DONE IN OHIO CONSTITUTED "DOING BUSINESS"
TO AN EXTENT SUFFICIENT TO BE RECOGNIZED IN REACHING ITS DECISION. 

FN3  IN 1858 THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO PROMULGATED THE FOLLOWING
RULE: 

"A SYLLABUS OF THE POINTS DECIDED BY THE COURT IN EACH CASE, SHALL BE
STATED, IN WRITING, BY THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO DELIVER THE OPINION OF THE
COURT, WHICH SHALL BE CONFINED TO THE POINTS OF LAW, ARISING FROM THE
FACTS OF THE CASE, THAT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COURT.  AND THE
SYLLABUS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE JUDGES CONCURRING THEREIN, FOR
REVISAL, BEFORE PUBLICATION THEREOF; AND IT SHALL BE INSERTED IN THE
BOOK OF REPORTS WITHOUT ALTERATION, UNLESS BY THE CONSENT OF THE JUDGES
CONCURRING THEREIN."  5 OHIO ST. VII. 

THIS POLICY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY STATUTE.  BATES OHIO R.S. SEC.
427, AS AMENDED, 103 OHIO LAWS 1913, SEC. 1483, AND 108 OHIO LAWS 1919,
SEC. 1483.  IT APPEARS NOW IN THROCKMORTON'S OHIO CODE, 1940, SEC.
1483, AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHENEVER IT HAS BEEN THUS DECIDED TO REPORT A CASE FOR PUBLICATION
THE SYLLABUS THEREOF SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE JUDGE DELIVERING THE
OPINION, AND APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT; AND
THE REPORT MAY BE PER CURIAM, OR IF AN OPINION BE REPORTED, THE SAME
SHALL BE WRITTEN IN AS BRIEF AND CONCISE FORM AS MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH
A CLEAR PRESENTATION OF THE LAW OF THE CASE  ...  .  ONLY SUCH CASES AS
ARE HEREAFTER REPORTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
COURT WITHIN THE STATE." 

THERE ARE MANY REFERENCES TO THIS PRACTICE, BOTH IN THE SYLLABI AND
OPINIONS WRITTEN FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.  TYPICAL OF THESE IS
THE FOLLOWING: 

"IT HAS LONG BEEN THE RULE OF THIS COURT THAT THE SYLLABUS CONTAINS
THE LAW OF THE CASE.  IT IS THE ONLY PART OF OPINION REQUIRING THE
APPROVAL OF ALL THE MEMBERS CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT.  WHERE THE
JUDGE WRITING AN OPINION DISCUSSES MATTERS OR GIVES EXPRESSION TO HIS
VIEWS ON QUESTIONS NOT CONTAINED IN THE SYLLABUS, IT IS MERELY THE
PERSONAL OPINION OF THAT JUDGE."  STATE EX REL. DONAHEY V. EDMONDSON,
89 OHIO ST. 93, 107-108, 105 N.E. 269, 273. 

SEE ALSO, WILLIAMSON HEATER CO. V. RADICH, 128 OHIO ST. 124, 190 N.E.
403; BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. BAILLIE, 112 OHIO ST. 567, 148 N.E. 233. 
A SYLLABUS MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS IN THE CASE, EVEN
WHERE BROUGHT OUT IN THE ACCOMPANYING OPINION RATHER THAN IN THE
SYLLABUS ITSELF.  SEE WILLIAMSON HEATER CO. V. RADICH, SUPRA; PERKINS
V. BRIGHT, 109 OHIO ST. 14, 19-20, 141 N.E. 689, 690-691; IN RE POAGE,
87 OHIO ST. 72, 82-83, 100 N.E. 125, 127-128. 

FN4  "HOWEVER, THE DOING OF BUSINESS IN A STATE BY A FOREIGN
CORPORATION, WHICH HAS NOT APPOINTED A STATUTORY AGENT UPON WHOM
SERVICE OF PROCESS AGAINST THE CORPORATION CAN BE MADE IN THAT STATE OR
OTHERWISE CONSENTED TO SERVICE OF SUMMONS UPON IT IN ACTIONS BROUGHT IN
THAT STATE, WILL NOT MAKE THE CORPORATION SUBJECT TO SERVICE OF SUMMONS
IN AN ACTION IN PERSONAM BROUGHT IN THE COURTS OF THAT STATE TO ENFORCE
A CAUSE OF ACTION IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OR ACTIVITIES OF
THE CORPORATION IN THAT STATE.  OLD WAYNE MUTUAL LIFE ASSN.  OF
INDIANAPOLIS V. MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S., 8, 22, 23, 51 L. ED., 345, 27 S.
CT., 236; SIMON V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 236 U.S., 115, 129, 130 AND 132,
59 L. ED., 492, 35 S. CT. 255.  SEE, ALSO, PENNSYLVANIA FIRE INS. CO.
OF PHILADELPHIA V. GOLD ISSUE MINING & MILLING CO., 243 U.S., 93, 95
AND 96, 61 L. ED., 610, 37 S. CT., 344; ROBERT MITCHELL FURNITURE CO.
V. SELDEN BRECK CONSTRUCTION CO., 257 U.S., 213, 215 AND 216, 66 L.
ED., 201, 42 S. CT., 84; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326
U.S., 310, 319 AND 320, 90 L. ED., 95, 66 S. CT., 154. 

"AN EXAMINATION OF THE OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE FOREGOING CASES WILL CLEARLY DISCLOSE THAT SERVICE OF
SUMMONS IN SUCH AN INSTANCE WOULD BE VOID AS WANTING IN DUE PROCESS OF
LAW."  155 OHIO ST. 116, 119-120, 98 N.E.2D 33, 35. 

FN5  "  ...  THE OBLIGATION WHICH IS HERE SUED UPON AROSE OUT OF
THOSE VERY ACTIVITIES.  IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE OPERATIONS ESTABLISH
SUFFICIENT CONTACTS OR TIES WITH THE STATE OF THE FORUM TO MAKE IT
REASONABLE AND JUST, ACCORDING TO OUR TRADITIONAL CONCEPTION OF FAIR
PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, TO PERMIT THE STATE TO ENFORCE THE
OBLIGATIONS WHICH APPELLANT HAS INCURRED THERE.  HENCE WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
INVOLVES AN UNREASONABLE OR UNDUE PROCEDURE."  INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO.
V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, AT 320. 

FN6  THIS CITATION DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS DECISION
BUT LIGHT IS THROWN UPON IT BY THE OPINIONS OF THE STATE COURT BELOW. 
REYNOLDS V. MISSOURI, K.&T.R. CO., 224 MASS. 379, 113 N.E. 413; 228
MASS. 584, 117 N.E. 913.  IN ADDITION TO THE CASES CITED IN THE TEXT
SEE BARROW S.S. CO. V. KANE, 170 U.S. 100; PENNSYLVANIA FIRE INSURANCE
CO. V. GOLD ISSUE MINING CO., 243 U.S. 93 (STATUTORY AGENT APPOINTED);
PHILADELPHIA & READING R. CO. V. MCKIBBIN, 243 U.S. 264, 268-269
(QUESTION LEFT OPEN). 

FN7  FOR LIKE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED UNDER SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE
CIRCUMSTANCES SEE STATE TAX COMM'N V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, DISSENTING. 

AS I UNDERSTAND THE PRACTICE IN OHIO, THE LAW AS AGREED TO BY THE
COURT IS STATED IN THE SYLLABUS.   IF AN OPINION IS FILED, IT EXPRESSES
THE VIEWS OF THE WRITER OF THE OPINION AND OF THOSE WHO MAY JOIN HIM AS
TO WHY THE LAW WAS SO DECLARED IN THE SYLLABUS.  JUDGE TAFT ALONE FILED
AN OPINION IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

THE LAW AS DECLARED IN THE SYLLABUS, WHICH IS THE WHOLE COURT
SPEAKING, IS CLEARLY BASED UPON ADEQUATE STATE GROUNDS.  JUDGE TAFT IN
HIS OPINION EXPRESSES THE VIEW THAT THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT ON DUE
PROCESS GROUNDS REQUIRE THE COURT TO DECLARE THE LAW AS STATED IN THE
SYLLABUS.  AS THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THIS COURT POINTS OUT, THIS IS AN
ERRONEOUS VIEW OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS.  "THIS BRINGS THE SITUATION
CLEARLY WITHIN THE SETTLED RULE WHEREBY THIS COURT WILL NOT REVIEW A
STATE COURT DECISION RESTING ON AN ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT NON-FEDERAL
GROUND EVEN THOUGH THE STATE COURT MAY HAVE ALSO SUMMONED TO ITS
SUPPORT AN ERRONEOUS VIEW OF FEDERAL LAW."  RADIO STATION WOW V.
JOHNSON, 326 U.S. 120, 129. 

THE CASE OF STATE TAX COMM'N V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511, IS NOT THIS
CASE.  THERE THE CASE WAS NOT CLEARLY DECIDED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE
GROUND, BUT THE STATE GROUND AND THE FEDERAL GROUND WERE SO INTERWOVEN
THAT THIS COURT WAS "UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE JUDGMENT RESTS UPON AN
INDEPENDENT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW."  (P. 514.)  IN THE
INSTANT CASE, A CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE STATE LAW IS MADE BY THE COURT
IN THE SYLLABUS.  ONLY JUDGE TAFT HAS SUMMONED THE ERRONEOUS VIEW OF
THIS COURT'S DECISIONS TO HIS SUPPORT OF THE ADEQUATE STATE GROUND
APPROVED BY THE WHOLE COURT. 

WHAT WE ARE SAYING TO OHIO IS:  "YOU HAVE DECIDED THIS CASE ON AN
ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, DENYING SERVICE, WHICH YOU HAD A RIGHT TO DO,
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, AS FAR AS THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ARE CONCERNED."  I THINK WHAT WE ARE DOING IS
GIVING GRATUITOUSLY AN ADVISORY OPINION TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT.  I
WOULD DISMISS THE WRIT AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 
..END :






BRANNAN V. STARK 342 U.S. 451 


NO. 6.  ARGUED OCTOBER 9, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 87 U.S.
APP. D.C. 388, 185 F.2D 871, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SEC. 8C OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE PROMULGATED AN ORDER REGULATING THE MARKETING
OF MILK IN THE BOSTON AREA.  AS AMENDED IN 1941, THE ORDER PROVIDED FOR
FIXING UNIFORM PRICES TO BE PAID TO ALL PRODUCERS AND REQUIRED THAT, IN
COMPUTING SUCH UNIFORM PRICES, CERTAIN AMOUNTS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FOR
SPECIAL PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS.  CLAIMING THAT
THIS DEDUCTION AND THESE PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES UNLAWFULLY DIVERTED
FUNDS WHICH BELONGED TO PRODUCERS, CERTAIN PRODUCERS WHO WERE NOT
MEMBERS OF ANY COOPERATIVE SUED TO ENJOIN THE SECRETARY FROM CARRYING
OUT THE PROVISIONS THEREFOR.  HELD:  THE PROVISIONS FOR SUCH DEDUCTION
AND FOR SUCH PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES ARE INVALID, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  PP. 452-466. 

1.  THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY ANY PART OF
THE ACT.  P. 458. 

2.  NOR ARE THEY INCLUDED WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SEC.
8C(7)(D), WHICH AUTHORIZES PROVISIONS "INCIDENTAL TO, AND NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTIONS
(5), (6), AND (7) AND NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF
SUCH ORDER."  PP. 462-464. 

(A)  THEY ARE NOT "INCIDENTAL TO" THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED
IN SUBSECTIONS (5), (6), AND (7).  PP. 462-463. 

(B)  THEY ARE "INCONSISTENT WITH" SEC. 8C(5)(A), WHICH PROVIDES THAT
ALL HANDLERS SHALL PAY UNIFORM PRICES FOR EACH CLASS OF MILK, SUBJECT
TO CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS NOT HERE PERTINENT.  P. 463. 

(C)  THEY ARE "INCONSISTENT WITH" SEC. 8C(5)(B), WHICH REQUIRES THE
PAYMENT OF UNIFORM PRICES TO ALL PRODUCERS FOR ALL MILK DELIVERED,
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS NOT HERE PERTINENT.  PP. 463-464. 

3.  NOR ARE THESE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10(B)(1) DIRECTING
THE SECRETARY TO ACCORD "RECOGNITION AND ENCOURAGEMENT" TO COOPERATIVE
MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS.  P. 464. 

4.  NOR IS A DIFFERENT RESULT REQUIRED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  PP. 465-466. 

BRANNAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, V. STARK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 7, DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION,
INC. V. STARK ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED,
P. 466. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION BY DAIRY FARMERS, NONMEMBERS OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS,
CONCERNS 1941 AMENDMENTS TO AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
DEALING WITH THE MARKETING OF MILK IN THE BOSTON AREA.  IT WAS
PREVIOUSLY HERE AS STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288 (1944), WHERE IT WAS
HELD THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD SUCH AN INTEREST IN THE ORDER AS TO GIVE
THEM LEGAL STANDING TO OBJECT TO THOSE OF ITS PROVISIONS HERE UNDER
ATTACK.  UPON REMAND THE PROVISIONS WERE HELD INVALID BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, 82 F. SUPP. 614, AND THAT DECISION WAS AFFIRMED IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.  87 U.S. APP.  D.C. 388,
185 F.2D 871.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 908. 

THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED IS WHETHER THOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDER
WHICH PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS ARE
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE SECRETARY BY THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937.  (FN1)  THE RESPONDENTS SEEK TO ENJOIN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND THE NATURE OF THE SECRETARY'S ORDER NO. 4
THEREUNDER (FN2) ARE SET OUT IN SOME DETAIL IN STARK V. WICKARD, SUPRA,
AT 291-302.  IT IS HERE SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF
ORDER NO. 4, AS AMENDED:  IN THE ORDER, ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE ACT, THE
SECRETARY DIVIDED ALL MILK MARKETED IN THE GREATER BOSTON AREA INTO
CLASS I, WHICH IS SOLD AS FLUID MILK, AND CLASS II, WHICH IS USED FOR
OTHER PURPOSES SUCH AS THE MANUFACTURE OF BUTTER AND CHEESE.  THE ORDER
PROVIDES FOR THE FIXING OF MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID BY HANDLERS FOR
EACH OF THESE CLASSES OF MILK.  EACH HANDLER PAYS FOR MILK IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMOUNT OF EACH CLASS HE HAS PURCHASED.  PRODUCERS,
HOWEVER, ARE PAID THE SAME PRICE FOR MILK DELIVERED NO MATTER WHAT USE
IS MADE OF THE PARTICULAR MILK BY THE HANDLER.  THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR COMPUTES, ON THE BASIS OF PRICES PAID BY HANDLERS, THE
VALUE OF ALL MILK SOLD IN THE AREA EACH MONTH.  AFTER MAKING CERTAIN
ADJUSTMENTS, HE DIVIDES THAT VALUE, AS ADJUSTED, BY THE TOTAL QUANTITY
OF MILK SOLD IN THE AREA DURING THE MONTH, TO DETERMINE THE "BLENDED
PRICE," WHICH IS THE PRICE ACTUALLY PAID THE PRODUCER.  ONE ADJUSTMENT
MADE IN DETERMINING THE BLENDED PRICE IS THE DEDUCTION PROVIDING FOR
THE DISPUTED PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES.  (FN3)  THIS DEDUCTION IS THUS A
"A BURDEN ON EVERY AREA SALE."  STARK V. WICKARD, SUPRA, AT 303. 
"APPARENTLY, IT IS THE ONLY DEDUCTION THAT IS AN UNRECOVERABLE CHARGE
AGAINST THE PRODUCERS.  THE OTHER ITEMS DEDUCTED UNDER THE ORDER ARE
FOR A REVOLVING FUND OR TO MEET DIFFERENTIALS IN PRICE BECAUSE OF
LOCATION, SEASONAL DELIVERY, ET CETERA."  ID., AT 301.  THE EFFECT OF
THE DEDUCTION AND THE CORRELATIVE PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES IS TO REDUCE
THE AMOUNT WHICH PRODUCERS, SUCH AS RESPONDENTS, WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF
COOPERATIVES WOULD OTHERWISE RECEIVE FOR THEIR MILK, AND TO INCREASE
CORRESPONDINGLY THE RECEIPTS OF COOPERATIVES.  (FN4)  WE MUST DETERMINE
WHETHER THE SECRETARY WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE TO INCLUDE THE
PROVISIONS REQUIRING THIS DEDUCTION AND THESE PAYMENTS IN THE ORDER. 
NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE FINDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, BUT RATHER, A QUESTION AS TO THE POWER
GRANTED THE SECRETARY BY CONGRESS. 

THE DISPUTED PROVISIONS WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE BOSTON ORDER IN
1941, AFTER HEARINGS CALLED BY THE SECRETARY.  AFFIDAVITS, FILED BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SECRETARY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, SHOW THE FOLLOWING:  A MAJOR ISSUE AT
THE HEARINGS WAS THE AMOUNT OF A UNIFORM ALLOWANCE, PREVIOUSLY 26 CENTS
PER HUNDREDWEIGHT, WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE PRICE PAID BY ALL
HANDLERS FOR CLASS II MILK.  (FN5)  THIS ALLOWANCE RESULTED IN A LOWER
PRICE TO HANDLERS FOR CLASS II MILK THAN FOR CLASS I MILK.  IT WAS
INTENDED TO DEFRAY THE COST OF HANDLING SURPLUS MILK.  THERE WAS A
CONSIDERABLE VARIANCE IN MILK PLANT COSTS WHICH WAS THOUGHT TO MAKE
CONTINUANCE OF A UNIFORM RATE UNDESIRABLE.  COOPERATIVE PLANTS SHOWED
HIGHER COSTS THAN THOSE OF PROPRIETARY HANDLERS.  THAT DIFFERENCE WAS
ATTRIBUTABLE NOT ONLY TO THE COOPERATIVES' MAINTENANCE OF A RESERVE
SUPPLY TO MEET IRREGULAR DEMANDS OF PROPRIETARY HANDLERS FOR CLASS I
MILK, BUT ALSO TO OVERCAPITALIZATION AND EXCESS CAPACITY WHICH HAD
EXISTED PRIOR TO ANY FEDERAL REGULATION.  TO MEET THESE HIGHER COSTS
COOPERATIVES PROPOSED A LOWER UNIFORM ALLOWANCE FOR CLASS II MILK,
COUPLED WITH A PAYMENT TO COOPERATIVES ONLY FOR MARKET SERVICES,
ALTHOUGH THEY HAD ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES CLAIMED TO CONSTITUTE
MARKET SERVICES FOR YEARS WITHOUT ANY SUCH PAYMENT.  IN THE AMENDMENTS
RESULTING FROM THE HEARINGS, THE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE TO HANDLERS WAS
REDUCED FROM 26 CENTS TO 21 1/2 CENTS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THE
PROVISIONS HERE CONTESTED, REQUIRING PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES ALONE,
WERE INTRODUCED. 

ITS PRODUCTS SHALL CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF CERTAIN ENUMERATED TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, "AND (EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (7)) NO OTHERS." 
(FN6)  IT IS PARAGRAPH (D) OF SUBSECTION (7) UPON WHICH THE SECRETARY
RELIES.  THAT PARAGRAPH AUTHORIZES PROVISIONS "INCIDENTAL TO, AND NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTIONS
(5), (6), AND (7) AND NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF
SUCH ORDER."  (FN7)  THE PROVISIONS HERE IN QUESTION ARE NOT
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY ANY PART OF THE ACT.  BOTH COURTS BELOW
THOUGHT THESE PROVISIONS TO BE NEITHER INCIDENTAL NOR NECESSARY, AND TO
BE INCONSISTENT WITH TERMS SPECIFIED IN THE NAMED SUBSECTIONS.  (FN8) 

THE PAYMENTS TO THE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS ARE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED
AS REMUNERATION FOR SERVICES PERFORMED FOR THE MARKET BY THE
ASSOCIATIONS.  TO QUALIFY FOR THE PAYMENTS, AN ASSOCIATION MUST MEET
EIGHT REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE ORDER.  (FN9)  BUT NONE OF THESE SHOWS
ANY INDICATION THAT THE ACTIVITY IT PRESCRIBES WILL BENEFIT NONMEMBERS,
WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE SEVENTH, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE
ASSOCIATION COLLABORATE "WITH SIMILAR ASSOCIATIONS IN ACTIVITIES
INCIDENT TO THE MAINTENANCE AND STRENGTHENING OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
BY PRODUCERS AND THE OPERATION OF A PLAN OF UNIFORM PRICING OF MILK TO
HANDLERS."  (FN10)  EVEN IF THIS REQUIREMENT COMPREHENDS A SERVICE TO
NONMEMBER PRODUCERS SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO BE SIGNIFICANT IN DETERMINING
THE VALIDITY OF A MANDATORY CONTRIBUTION FROM THEM TO COOPERATIVES, IT
DOES NOT SUPPORT THE EXACTION IN ISSUE, WHICH CONCEDEDLY IS BASED
MAINLY UPON OTHER SERVICES PRIMARILY PERFORMED FOR MEMBERS. 

INDEED, THOSE "SERVICES" WHICH THE SECRETARY PRINCIPALLY URGES AS
JUSTIFYING THE PAYMENTS DO NOT APPEAR AMONG THE EXPRESSED PREREQUISITES
FOR THE PAYMENTS.  CHIEF AMONG THE ACTIVITIES CLAIMED TO BENEFIT ALL
PRODUCERS ARE THOSE WHICH TEND TO MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF FLUID
MILK AT ALL TIMES AND TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS SUPPLY.  A PRINCIPAL SOURCE
OF THE PROBLEMS OF MILK MARKETING IS THE SEASONAL CHARACTER OF MILK
PRODUCTION.  HERDS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE DEMAND FOR FLUID MILK DURING
THE WINTER MONTHS PRODUCE MUCH MORE THAN ENOUGH TO SATISFY THAT DEMAND
DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATIONS HANDLE A PROPORTIONATELY LARGER SHARE OF SURPLUS MILK THAN
OTHER HANDLERS.  IT APPEARS THAT THEY ENGAGE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF MILK
PRODUCTS AS A MEANS OF ABSORBING THE SURPLUS, AND OTHERWISE AID IN
OBVIATING THE "DUMPING" OF SURPLUS AND DISCOURAGING THE REDUCTION OF
HERDS TO A POINT BELOW THAT NECESSARY TO SUPPLY THE DEMAND IN THE
SEASON OF LOW PRODUCTION.  IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT THESE ACTIVITIES ARE
INDIRECTLY BENEFICIAL TO THE WHOLE MARKET, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ENGAGED
IN FOR THE DIRECT ADVANTAGE OF MEMBERS ONLY.  HOWEVER, PROPRIETARY
HANDLERS ALSO CARRY ON ACTIVITIES OF THIS KIND, AND THEIR PLANTS HANDLE
TWO-THIRDS AS MUCH SURPLUS MILK AS DO THOSE OF THE COOPERATIVES. 
(FN11)  PRIOR TO AMENDMENT OF THE ORDER IN 1941, THE COST OF HANDLING
SURPLUS MILK WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE UNIFORM 26 CENTS ALLOWANCE TO ALL
HANDLERS OF CLASS II MILK, BUT ONLY COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS NOW
RECEIVE THE PAYMENTS IN ISSUE HERE.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSOCIATIONS
ARE IN NO WAY REQUIRED TO HANDLE ANY OF THE SURPLUS MILK OF
NONMEMBERS.  MORE SIGNIFICANT, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE ORDER
THAT THE ASSOCIATIONS TAKE ANY ACTION DIRECTED TOWARD SOLUTION OF THE
PROBLEM, EVEN WITH RESPECT TO SURPLUS MILK OF THEIR MEMBERS.  (FN12) 

OTHER "SERVICES" OF THE COOPERATIVES WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO BE
BENEFICIAL TO ALL PRODUCERS ARE, AS THEY AFFECT THE ISSUE HERE,
RELATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT.  THESE ACTIVITIES ARE, LIKE THE OTHERS,
PRIMARILY DESIGNED FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF MEMBERS, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY
SOMETIMES INCIDENTALLY BENEFIT THE WHOLE MARKET.  THEY GENERALLY AMOUNT
TO NO MORE THAN PLAYING THE PART OF AN ALERT, INTELLIGENT, ORGANIZED
PARTICIPANT IN THE MARKET.  THEY INCLUDE SUCH FUNCTIONS AS EMPLOYING
ECONOMISTS TO STUDY THE NEEDS OF THE INDUSTRY, PARTICIPATING IN
HEARINGS ON ORDERS SUCH AS THAT INVOLVED HERE, BEING ATTENTIVE TO
CHANGING FACTORS IN THE MARKET, AND MAINTAINING THE COOPERATIVE
ORGANIZATIONS BY PROMOTIONAL WORK TO SHOW FARMERS THE BENEFITS OF
COOPERATION AND BY EDUCATIONAL WORK AMONG MEMBERS.  ONE MAY OBSERVE
SOME INCONGRUITY IN REQUIRING SOME PRODUCERS TO PAY OTHERS FOR
VIGOROUSLY PROSECUTING THEIR OWN INTERESTS, ESPECIALLY WHERE THEIR
INTERESTS MAY SOMETIMES CONFLICT WITH THOSE OF THE PRODUCERS BURDENED
WITH THE PAYMENTS. 

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE DISPUTED PROVISIONS
FALL WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE CATCHALL PHRASES OF SEC.
8C(7)(D) OF THE ACT.  WE NOTE AT THE OUTSET THAT SEC. 8C(5) STATES IN
SPECIFIC AND LENGTHY DETAIL THE PROVISIONS WHICH MAY BE INCLUDED IN
MILK MARKETING ORDERS.   THAT SUBSECTION LAYS DOWN COMPREHENSIVE
DIRECTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATION, PRICING, AND THE OPERATION OF THE
EQUALIZING POOL MECHANISM, PARTICULARLY AS TO ADJUSTMENTS AND
DEDUCTIONS EMPLOYED IN DETERMINING THE BLENDED PRICE.  BUT SEC. 8C(5)
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE PROVISIONS CHALLENGED HERE.  SECTION 8C(7)
AUTHORIZES A CONGERIES OF GENERAL TERMS WHICH MAY BE INCLUDED IN ALL
MARKETING ORDERS, INCLUDING THOSE DEALING WITH COMMODITIES OTHER THAN
MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS.  THE SECRETARY CLAIMS AUTHORITY FOR THE
PROVISIONS IN QUESTION IS GIVEN BY THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THIS OMNIBUS
SUBSECTION, A PARAGRAPH AUTHORIZING THE INCLUSION OF AUXILIARY
PROVISIONS "INCIDENTAL TO  ...  THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN
SUBSECTIONS (5), (6), AND (7)."  (FN13)  YET IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE
CONTESTED PROVISIONS ARE OF SUCH BASIC IMPORTANCE THAT THEIR VALIDITY
MAY BE CRUCIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE WHOLE MILK MARKETING PROGRAM.  WE
DO NOT THINK IT LIKELY THAT CONGRESS, IN FASHIONING THIS INTRICATE
MARKETING ORDER MACHINERY, WOULD THUS HANG ONE OF THE MAIN GEARS ON THE
TAIL PIPE.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOT "INCIDENTAL"
TO THE SPECIFIED TERMS IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE PRESENCE OF SEC.
8C(5)(E), EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZING DEDUCTIONS FROM PAYMENTS TO PRODUCERS
FOR OTHER, SPECIFIED SERVICES, AND INDICATING THE LIKELIHOOD OF SIMILAR
SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CONTESTED DEDUCTIONS IF CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT THEY SHOULD BE MADE.  FINALLY, THE PROVISIONS CANNOT BE
INCIDENTAL TO THE ENUMERATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS SINCE THEY ARE
INCONSISTENT THEREWITH. 

THE PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH SEC. 8C(5)(A),
WHICH PROVIDES THAT ALL HANDLERS SHALL PAY UNIFORM PRICES FOR EACH
CLASS OF MILK, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS OF NO CONCERN HERE.  THE
DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT OF THE PAYMENTS BECOMES THE MORE EVIDENT WHEN
THEY ARE CONSIDERED IN CONTEXT WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE UNIFORM
ALLOWANCE TO ALL HANDLERS ON THE PRICE OF CLASS II MILK.  THAT
REDUCTION WAS SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SYSTEM OF
PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO COOPERATIVES ONLY AND TO BE FUNDED BY DEDUCTIONS
FROM PRICES PAID ALL PRODUCERS.  THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR IF THE ALLOWANCE TO PROPRIETARY HANDLERS HAD BEEN
REDUCED WHILE THE ALLOWANCE TO COOPERATIVES HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO
REMAIN AT ITS PREVIOUS HIGHER LEVEL.  SUCH A LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN
PRICES PAID BY HANDLERS WOULD CLEARLY HAVE CONTRAVENED SEC. 8C(5)(A). 

THE DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES IS INCONSISTENT WITH
8C(5)(B), WHICH REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF UNIFORM PRICES TO ALL PRODUCERS
FOR ALL MILK DELIVERED, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS NOT HERE
PERTINENT.  IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE DEDUCTION DOES NOT AFFECT
THE UNIFORM PRICE OF MILK, BUT REPRESENTS ONLY A REIMBURSEMENT FOR
SERVICES.  THE ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE THAT ALL PRODUCERS RECEIVE A
UNIFORM PRICE WHILE THE DEDUCTION MERELY CONSTITUTES A CHARGE TO ALL
PRODUCERS FOR SERVICES, A CHARGE WHICH HAPPENS TO BE PAID CERTAIN
ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS BECAUSE THOSE ASSOCIATIONS PERFORM THE
SERVICES.  THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE RECEIPTS OF NONMEMBERS RESULTING
FROM DELIVERY OF A GIVEN QUANTITY OF MILK ARE SMALLER THAN THOSE OF THE
ASSOCIATIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS.  THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE NONMEMBERS ARE
PAID ONLY THE BLENDED PRICE WHILE MEMBERS RECEIVE, THROUGH THEIR
ASSOCIATIONS, THE DISPUTED PAYMENTS IN ADDITION TO THE BLENDED PRICE. 
ALTHOUGH MADE TO MEMBERS COLLECTIVELY, THESE PAYMENTS NECESSARILY
REDOUND TO MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY.  THUS, IF THEY ARE USED TO PAY THE
COSTS OF THE ASSOCIATIONS, THEY REDUCE PRO TANTO THE CONTRIBUTIONS
WHICH ARE REQUIRED FROM INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS.  BUT WE NEED NOT GO FURTHER
THAN TO HOLD THAT THE ARGUMENT CANNOT NEGATE INCONSISTENCY WITH THE
UNIFORM PRICE REQUIREMENT WHERE, AS HERE, THE SERVICES FOR WHICH THE
PAYMENT IS MADE ARE PERFORMED FOR THE DIRECT BENEFIT OF THE
COOPERATIVES' MEMBERSHIPS, ARE BUT INCIDENTALLY HELPFUL TO OTHER
PRODUCERS, AND ARE NOT A REQUIRED CONDITION TO RECEIPT OF THE
PAYMENTS. 

SINCE THE PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES ARE NOT INCIDENTAL
TO SEC. 8C(5) AND (7), BUT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FORMER SUBSECTION,
WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE "NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE
OTHER PROVISIONS" (FN14) OF THE ORDER, THE THIRD REQUIREMENT OF SEC.
8C(7)(D). 

WHEN THE DIRECTLY RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THUS DEMONSTRATE
LACK OF AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES, NO POWER TO REQUIRE
THEM CAN BE IMPLIED FROM THE GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF SEC. 10(B)(1) TO
THE SECRETARY, DIRECTING HIM TO ACCORD "RECOGNITION AND ENCOURAGEMENT"
TO COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS.  (FN15) 

WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS
MUST FALL, FOR NEITHER LEGISLATIVE HISTORY NOR ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION OFFERS ANY COGENT REASONS FOR A CONTRARY RESULT. 
AVAILABLE INDICIA OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT LEND
WEIGHT TO THE CONTENTION THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE
FOR THIS KIND OF PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES IF THEY WERE MEANT TO BE
MADE.  (FN16)  ATTEMPTED AMENDMENT LATER TO PROVIDE AUTHORIZATION FOR
THE PAYMENTS, AND THE ACCOMPANYING DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS, ARE, AS A
WHOLE, INDECISIVE.  (FN17)  APPROVAL OF THE PAYMENTS BY CONGRESS CANNOT
BE INFERRED FROM ITS RATIFICATION, UPON PASSAGE OF THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT IN 1937, OF MARKETING ORDERS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED
UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.  (FN18)  EVEN IF WE WERE TO
ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION THAT CONGRESS THERE INTENDED TO CONFER STATUTORY
AUTHORITY FOR ALL FUTURE PROVISIONS LIKE ANY OF THOSE THEN EXISTING IN
ANY MARKETING ORDER, WE WOULD REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION BECAUSE NEITHER
THE PROVISIONS FOR THESE PARTICULAR PAYMENTS NOR ANY CLOSELY ANALOGOUS
PROVISIONS WERE AT THAT TIME PRESENT IN ANY MARKETING ORDERS.  NOR HAVE
PROVISIONS BEARING SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY TO THOSE BEFORE US SINCE BEEN
INCLUDED IN OTHER ORDERS SO FREQUENTLY AS TO AMOUNT TO A CONSISTENT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF IMPORT IN CONSTRUING THE ACT.  (FN19)
MANY PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES APPEARING IN OTHER ORDERS
HAVE BEEN A KIND SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE.  THUS, THE
PROVISION OF THE FIRST BOSTON MILK ORDER FOR A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL AS
BETWEEN COOPERATIVE MILK AND NONCOOPERATIVE MILK WAS UPHELD IN GREEN
VALLEY CREAMERY V. UNITED STATES, (FN20) AS A "MARKET DIFFERENTIAL"
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 8C(5)(A)(1). 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO JUDGE THE EQUITY OR THE WISDOM OF THE PAYMENTS
TO COOPERATIVES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  WE HOLD THAT THEY ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  50 STAT. 246, AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 601 ET SEQ. THE ACT OF
1937 REENACTED AND AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 31, AS AMENDED. 

FN2  7 CFR SECS. 904.1-904.110. 

FN3  SECTION 904.8(B) OF THE ORDER REQUIRES THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR,
IN COMPUTING THE BLENDED PRICE, TO DEDUCT, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF COOPERATIVE PAYMENTS REQUIRED BY SEC. 904.10(B), WHICH
PROVIDES: 

"(B)  COOPERATIVE PAYMENTS.  ON OR BEFORE THE 25TH DAY AFTER THE END
OF EACH MONTH, EACH QUALIFIED ASSOCIATION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
A COOPERATIVE PAYMENT FROM THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY HANDLERS' PAYMENTS TO
THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.9.  THE PAYMENT SHALL BE
MADE UNDER THE CONDITIONS AND AT THE RATES SPECIFIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH,
AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF THE RECEIPTS AND OTHER ITEMS
UPON WHICH SUCH PAYMENT IS BASED. 

"(1)  EACH QUALIFIED ASSOCIATION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT AT THE
RATE OF 1 CENT PER HUNDREDWEIGHT ON THE MILK WHICH ITS PRODUCER MEMBERS
DELIVER TO THE PLANT OF A HANDLER OTHER THAN A QUALIFIED ASSOCIATION;
EXCEPT ON MILK DELIVERED BY A PRODUCER WHO IS ALSO A MEMBER OF ANOTHER
QUALIFIED ASSOCIATION, AND ON MILK DELIVERED TO A HANDLER WHO FAILS TO
MAKE APPLICABLE PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.9(B)(2) AND SEC. 904.11
WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO DO
SO.  IF THE HANDLER IS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (E) OF THIS SECTION TO
MAKE DEDUCTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION AT A RATE LOWER THAN 1
CENT PER HUNDREDWEIGHT, THE PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBPARAGRAPH SHALL
BE AT SUCH LOWER RATE. 

"(2)  EACH QUALIFIED ASSOCIATION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT AT THE
RATE OF 2 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT ON MILK RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS AT A
PLANT OPERATED BY THAT ASSOCIATION."  7 CFR SEC. 904.10(B). 

FN4  THE TOTAL AMOUNT THUS PAID COOPERATIVES IN THE BOSTON AREA SINCE
1941 IS $1,521,028; IN ADDITION, MORE THAN $400,000 HAS BEEN DEPOSITED
IN A SPECIAL ACCOUNT TO AWAIT THE FINAL RESULT OF THIS LITIGATION. 
HOWEVER, THE PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES HAVE IN EACH YEAR CONSTITUTED NO
MORE THAN A FRACTION OF ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF MILK MARKETED
IN THE AREA. 

FN5  SEE, E.G., R. 60, 70-75. 

FN6  SEC. 8C(5), NOTE 1, SUPRA: 

"(5)  IN THE CASE OF MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS, ORDERS ISSUED PURSUANT TO
THIS SECTION SHALL CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, AND (EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (7)) NO OTHERS: 

"(A)  CLASSIFYING MILK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORM IN WHICH OR THE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS USED, AND FIXING, OR PROVIDING A METHOD FOR
FIXING, MINIMUM PRICES FOR EACH SUCH USE CLASSIFICATION WHICH ALL
HANDLERS SHALL PAY, AND THE TIME WHEN PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE, FOR MILK
PURCHASED FROM PRODUCERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS.  SUCH PRICES
SHALL BE UNIFORM AS TO ALL HANDLERS, SUBJECT ONLY TO ADJUSTMENTS FOR
(1) VOLUME, MARKET, AND PRODUCTION DIFFERENTIALS CUSTOMARILY APPLIED BY
THE HANDLERS SUBJECT TO SUCH ORDER, (2) THE GRADE OR QUALITY OF THE
MILK PURCHASED, AND (3) THE LOCATIONS AT WHICH DELIVERY OF SUCH MILK,
OR ANY USE CLASSIFICATION THEREOF, IS MADE TO SUCH HANDLERS. 

"(B)  PROVIDING: 

(I)  FOR THE PAYMENT TO ALL PRODUCERS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS
DELIVERING MILK TO THE SAME HANDLER OF UNIFORM PRICES FOR ALL MILK
DELIVERED BY THEM:  PROVIDED, THAT EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF ORDERS
COVERING MILK PRODUCTS ONLY, SUCH PROVISION IS APPROVED OR FAVORED BY
AT LEAST THREE-FOURTHS OF THE PRODUCERS WHO, DURING A REPRESENTATIVE
PERIOD DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN
THE PRODUCTION FOR MARKET OF MILK COVERED IN SUCH ORDER OR BY PRODUCERS
WHO, DURING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD, HAVE PRODUCED AT LEAST THREE
FOURTHS OF THE VOLUME OF SUCH MILK PRODUCED FOR MARKET DURING SUCH
PERIOD; THE APPROVAL REQUIRED HEREUNDER SHALL BE SEPARATE AND APART
FROM ANY OTHER APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL PROVIDED FOR BY THIS SECTION;
OR: 

(II)  FOR THE PAYMENT TO ALL PRODUCERS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS
DELIVERING MILK TO ALL HANDLERS OF UNIFORM PRICES FOR ALL MILK SO
DELIVERED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE USES MADE OF SUCH MILK BY THE INDIVIDUAL
HANDLER TO WHOM IT IS DELIVERED: 

SUBJECT, IN EITHER CASE, ONLY TO ADJUSTMENTS FOR (A) VOLUME, MARKET,
AND PRODUCTION DIFFERENTIALS CUSTOMARILY APPLIED BY THE HANDLERS
SUBJECT TO SUCH ORDER, (B) THE GRADE OR QUALITY OF THE MILK DELIVERED,
(C) THE LOCATIONS AT WHICH DELIVERY OF SUCH MILK IS MADE, AND (D) A
FURTHER ADJUSTMENT, EQUITABLY TO APPORTION THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MILK
PURCHASED BY ANY HANDLER, OR BY ALL HANDLERS, AMONG PRODUCERS AND
ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, ON THE BASIS OF THEIR MARKETINGS OF MILK
DURING A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD OF TIME. 

"(C)  IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS (A)
AND (B) OF THIS SUBSECTION (5), PROVIDING A METHOD FOR MAKING
ADJUSTMENTS IN PAYMENTS, AS AMONG HANDLERS (INCLUDING PRODUCERS WHO ARE
ALSO HANDLERS), TO THE END THAT THE TOTAL SUMS PAID BY EACH HANDLER
SHALL EQUAL THE VALUE OF THE MILK PURCHASED BY HIM AT THE PRICES FIXED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (A) HEREOF. 

"(D)  PROVIDING THAT, IN THE CASE OF ALL MILK PURCHASED BY HANDLERS
FROM ANY PRODUCER WHO DID NOT REGULARLY SELL MILK DURING A PERIOD OF 30
DAYS NEXT PRECEDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SUCH ORDER FOR CONSUMPTION IN
THE AREA COVERED THEREBY, PAYMENTS TO SUCH PRODUCER, FOR THE PERIOD
BEGINNING WITH THE FIRST REGULAR DELIVERY BY SUCH PRODUCER AND
CONTINUING UNTIL THE END OF TWO FULL CALENDAR MONTHS FOLLOWING THE
FIRST DAY OF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING CALENDAR MONTH, SHALL BE MADE AT THE
PRICE FOR THE LOWEST USE CLASSIFICATION SPECIFIED IN SUCH ORDER,
SUBJECT TO THE ADJUSTMENTS SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS
SUBSECTION (5). 

"(E)  PROVIDING (I) EXCEPT AS TO PRODUCERS FOR WHOM SUCH SERVICES ARE
BEING RENDERED BY A COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, QUALIFIED AS
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (F) OF THIS SUBSECTION (5), FOR MARKET
INFORMATION TO PRODUCERS AND FOR THE VERIFICATION OF WEIGHTS, SAMPLING,
AND TESTING OF MILK PURCHASED FROM PRODUCERS, AND FOR MAKING
APPROPRIATE DEDUCTIONS THEREFOR FROM PAYMENTS TO PRODUCERS, AND (II)
FOR ASSURANCE OF, AND SECURITY FOR, THE PAYMENT BY HANDLERS FOR MILK
PURCHASED. 

"(F)  NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUBSECTION (5) IS INTENDED OR SHALL
BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT A COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION QUALIFIED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF FEBRUARY 18, 1922, AS
AMENDED, KNOWN AS THE 'CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT', ENGAGED IN MAKING
COLLECTIVE SALES OR MARKETING OF MILK OR ITS PRODUCTS FOR THE PRODUCERS
THEREOF, FROM BLENDING THE NET PROCEEDS OF ALL OF ITS SALES IN ALL
MARKETS IN ALL USE CLASSIFICATIONS, AND MAKING DISTRIBUTION THEREOF TO
ITS PRODUCERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION
AND ITS PRODUCERS:  PROVIDED, THAT IT SHALL NOT SELL MILK OR ITS
PRODUCTS TO ANY HANDLER FOR USE OR CONSUMPTION IN ANY MARKET AT PRICES
LESS THAN THE PRICES FIXED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SUBSECTION
(5) FOR SUCH MILK. 

"(G)  NO MARKETING AGREEMENT OR ORDER APPLICABLE TO MILK AND ITS
PRODUCTS IN ANY MARKETING AREA SHALL PROHIBIT OR IN ANY MANNER LIMIT,
IN THE CASE OF THE PRODUCTS OF MILK, THE MARKETING IN THAT AREA OF ANY
MILK OR PRODUCT THEREOF PRODUCED IN ANY PRODUCTION AREA IN THE UNITED
STATES." 

FN7  SEC. 8C(7)(D), NOTE 1, SUPRA.  SUBSECTION 7 AUTHORIZES CERTAIN
GENERAL TERMS FOR ALL MARKETING ORDERS, INCLUDING BOTH THOSE RELATING
TO MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS AND THOSE RELATING TO OTHER COMMODITIES.  THE
TERMS THUS AUTHORIZED, ASIDE FROM PARAGRAPH (D), PROHIBIT UNFAIR
COMPETITION, PROVIDE FOR FILING OF SALES PRICES BY HANDLERS, AND
PROVIDE FOR SELECTION OF AN AGENCY TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER. 

FN8  82 F. SUPP. 614, 618; 87 U.S. APP. D.C. 388, 397-399, 185 F.2D
871, 880-882. 

FN9  7 CFR SEC. 904.10(A): 

"(A)  APPLICATION AND QUALIFICATION FOR COOPERATIVE PAYMENTS.  ANY
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCERS DULY ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
ANY STATE MAY APPLY TO THE SECRETARY FOR A DETERMINATION THAT IT IS
QUALIFIED TO RECEIVE COOPERATIVE PAYMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.  UPON NOTICE OF THE FILING OF SUCH AN
APPLICATION, THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR SHALL SET ASIDE FOR EACH MONTH,
FROM THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY HANDLERS' PAYMENTS TO THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.9, SUCH AMOUNT AS HE ESTIMATES IS
AMPLE TO MAKE PAYMENT TO THE APPLICANT, AND HOLD IT IN RESERVE UNTIL
THE SECRETARY HAS RULED UPON THE APPLICATION.  THE APPLICANT
ASSOCIATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE A QUALIFIED ASSOCIATION ENTITLED
TO RECEIVE SUCH PAYMENTS FROM THE DATE FIXED BY THE SECRETARY, IF HE
DETERMINES THAT IT MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. 

"(1)  IT CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CHARACTER OF
ORGANIZATION, VOTING, DIVIDEND PAYMENTS, AND DEALING IN PRODUCTS OF
NONMEMBERS, WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT AND IN THE
STATE LAWS UNDER WHICH THE ASSOCIATION IS ORGANIZED. 

"(2)  IT OPERATES AS A RESPONSIBLE PRODUCER-CONTROLLED MARKETING
ASSOCIATION EXERCISING FULL AUTHORITY IN THE SALE OF THE MILK OF ITS
MEMBERS. 

"(3)  IT SYSTEMATICALLY CHECKS THE WEIGHTS AND TESTS OF MILK WHICH
ITS MEMBERS DELIVER TO PLANTS NOT OPERATED BY THE ASSOCIATION. 

"(4)  IT GUARANTEES PAYMENT TO ITS MEMBERS FOR MILK DELIVERED TO
PLANTS NOT OPERATED BY THE ASSOCIATION. 

"(5)  IT MAINTAINS, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR TOGETHER WITH OTHER
QUALIFIED ASSOCIATIONS, A COMPETENT STAFF FOR DEALING WITH MARKETING
PROBLEMS AND FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION TO ITS MEMBERS. 

"(6)  IT CONSTANTLY MAINTAINS CLOSE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ITS
MEMBERS. 

"(7)  IT COLLABORATES WITH SIMILAR ASSOCIATIONS IN ACTIVITIES
INCIDENT TO THE MAINTENANCE AND STRENGTHENING OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
BY PRODUCERS AND THE OPERATION OF A PLAN OF UNIFORM PRICING OF MILK TO
HANDLERS. 

"(8)  IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THIS
SUBPART." 

FN10  IBID. 

FN11  IN 1939 (NO LATER STATISTICS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD),
THERE WERE 21 PLANTS IN THE BOSTON AREA WHICH WERE EQUIPPED FOR
MANUFACTURING MILK POWDER, CONDENSED MILK OR BUTTER, OF WHICH 13 WERE
COOPERATIVE AND 8 PROPRIETARY.  THE COOPERATIVE PLANTS HANDLED 60.2
PERCENT OF THE SURPLUS MILK THAT YEAR.  R. 66 AND 68. 

FN12  CONTRAST THE NEW YORK ORDER, PROVIDING FOR COMPARABLE PAYMENTS,
AT VARIOUS RATES, TO COOPERATIVES.  THAT ORDER EXPRESSLY REQUIRES THAT
AN ASSOCIATION, TO QUALIFY FOR ANY SUCH PAYMENTS, MUST ARRANGE FOR AND
SUPPLY "IN TIMES OF SHORT SUPPLY, CLASS I MILK TO THE MARKETING AREA,"
AND MUST SECURE "UTILIZATION OF MILK, IN TIMES OF LONG SUPPLY, IN A
MANNER TO ASSURE THE GREATEST POSSIBLE RETURN TO ALL PRODUCERS."  7
CFR, 1950 CUM.  SUPP., SEC. 927.9(F).  TO RECEIVE THE HIGHEST RATE OF
PAYMENTS UNDER THAT ORDER, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES A COOPERATIVE MUST
"IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER QUALIFICATIONS  ...  BE DETERMINED BY THE
SECRETARY TO HAVE SUFFICIENT PLANT CAPACITY TO RECEIVE ALL THE MILK OF
PRODUCERS WHO ARE MEMBERS AND TO BE WILLING AND ABLE TO RECEIVE MILK
FROM PRODUCERS NOT MEMBERS."  ID., AT SEC. 927.9(F)(3).  AS PROPOSED AT
ONE POINT IN THE HEARINGS, THE BOSTON ORDER WOULD HAVE CONTAINED
REQUIREMENTS LIKE THOSE OF THE NEW YORK ORDER.  R. 233.  THEIR OMISSION
IN THE ORDER, AS FINALLY ISSUED, PRESUMABLY WAS DELIBERATE.  IN FACT,
THE SECRETARY ADMITS THAT MANY OF THE COOPERATIVES IN THE BOSTON AREA
WERE UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO PERFORM SERVICES SUCH AS THOSE REQUIRED BY
THE NEW YORK ORDER.  R. 24-25 AND 70. 

FN13  SEC. 8C(7)(D), NOTE 1, SUPRA.  SUBSECTION (6) HAS NO
APPLICATION TO ORDERS DEALING WITH MILK. 

FN14  SEC. 8C(7)(D), NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN15  SEC. 10(B)(1), NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN16  THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS SETTING FORTH THE TERMS WHICH MIGHT BE
INCLUDED IN MARKETING ORDERS WERE FIRST ENACTED IN AN AMENDMENT TO THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT IN 1935.  49 STAT. 753.  THIS ENACTMENT
OCCURRED SHORTLY AFTER THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN PANAMA REFINING
CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), AND SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), PLACING LIMITATIONS ON THE DELEGATION OF
RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  WITH THESE CASES
SPECIFICALLY IN MIND, CONGRESS SET FORTH WITH DELIBERATE PARTICULARITY
AND COMPLETENESS THE TERMS WHICH THE SECRETARY MIGHT INCLUDE IN
MARKETING ORDERS.  H.R. REP. NO. 1241, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8; S. REP.
NO. 1011, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8. 

FN17  S. 3426, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 1719, 76TH CONG., 3D
SESS. S. 3426 WOULD HAVE CLEARLY AUTHORIZED PAYMENTS SUCH AS THOSE
CHALLENGED HERE.  IT PASSED THE SENATE, BUT WENT NO FURTHER.  AS TO THE
INCONCLUSIVE NATURE OF THE BILL AND ITS HISTORY, SEE THE OPINION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS, 87 U.S. APP. D.C. 388, 400, 185 F.2D 871, 883. 

FN18  "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS INVALIDATING ANY
MARKETING AGREEMENT, LICENSE, OR ORDER, OR ANY REGULATION RELATING TO,
OR ANY PROVISION OF, OR ANY ACT OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN
CONNECTION WITH, ANY SUCH AGREEMENT, LICENSE , OR ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN
EXECUTED, ISSUED, APPROVED, OR DONE UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT, OR ANY AMENDMENT THEREOF, BUT SUCH MARKETING AGREEMENTS, LICENSES,
ORDERS, REGULATIONS, PROVISIONS, AND ACTS ARE HEREBY EXPRESSLY
RATIFIED, LEGALIZED, AND CONFIRMED."  50 STAT.  246, 249. 

FN19  OF THRITY-NINE CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING MILK MARKETING ORDERS,
ONLY FOUR CONTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL NATURE OF THOSE IN
QUESTION.  ONE OF THESE IS THE BOSTON ORDER INVOLVED HERE; ANOTHER IS
THE NEW YORK ORDER, AS TO WHICH SEE NOTE 12, SUPRA. 

FN20  108 F.2D 342, 345 (C.A. 1ST CIR., 1939). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I DISSENT AND WOULD SUSTAIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE'S BOSTON MILK ORDER WHICH THE MAJORITY HERE INVALIDATES. 
THOSE PROVISIONS REQUIRE THAT COOPERATIVES BE REIMBURSED FOR A PART OF
THE COST THEY INCUR IN PERFORMING SERVICES WHICH THE SECRETARY AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS HAVE FOUND BENEFIT ALL DAIRY FARMERS IN THE BOSTON
MARKET AREA.  TWO OR THREE SENTENCES, OR CLAUSES IN THEM, OF TODAY'S
MAJORITY OPINION AVOW THAT THE COURT INVALIDATES THE PAYMENT PROVISIONS
SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SECRETARY IS WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY
TO INCLUDE THEM IN HIS ORDER.  THE REMAINDER OF THE COURT'S OPINION IS
NOT AT ALL LIMITED TO AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY AN EXCLUSIVELY STATUTORY
HOLDING.  FOR DESPITE THE CLAUSE AT THE END OF THE COURT'S OPINION THAT
IT DOES NOT "JUDGE THE EQUITY OR THE WISDOM OF THE PAYMENTS," NEARLY
ALL OF ITS 15 PAGES ARE DEVOTED TO A STUDIED EFFORT TO LEAVE THE
IMPRESSION THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE UNFAIR HANDOUTS, GRATUITIES, OR
SUBSIDIES TO INEFFICIENTLY OPERATED COOPERATIVES.  IT SEEMS
APPROPRIATE, THEREFORE, TO EXPLAIN AT THE VERY OUTSET THE TRUE NATURE
OF THESE PAYMENTS AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUTLAWING THEM. 

IN GENERAL THE SECRETARY'S ORDER FIXES PRICES AND REGULATES
DISTRIBUTION OF MILK IN THE GREATER BOSTON AREA.  UNDER THIS MARKETING
SYSTEM THE PURCHASE PRICE OF ALL MILK SOLD BY FARMERS IN THE AREA IS
PAID INTO A COLLECTIVE FUND OR POOL.  AFTER DEDUCTION OF LEGALLY
AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR TO DISTRIBUTE THE FUND SO THAT ALL CONTRIBUTING FARMERS
WILL RECEIVE SO FAR AS POSSIBLE EQUAL AMOUNTS FOR EQUAL QUANTITIES OF
MILK OF THE SAME QUALITY.  THE DIFFICULTY OF ACHIEVING THIS UNIFORMITY
OF PRICE AS BETWEEN COOPERATIVE AND NON-COOPERATIVE FARMERS IS
COMPLICATED BY MANY FACTORS.  NON-MEMBER FARMERS RECEIVE DIRECT PAYMENT
FOR THEIR MILK FROM THIS MARKET POOL FUND.  BUT HIGHLY MATERIAL HERE IS
THE FACT THAT THE POOL FUNDS ARE NOT DISTRIBUTED TO FARM COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS BUT INSTEAD ARE PAID DIRECTLY TO THE ASSOCIATIONS
OF WHICH THEY ARE MEMBERS.  THESE ASSOCIATIONS THEN DEDUCT CERTAIN
EXPENSES BEFORE DISTRIBUTING THE BALANCE TO THEIR MEMBER FARMERS.  MANY
OF THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED BY THE ASSOCIATION IN PERFORMING
BENEFICIAL MARKET-WIDE SERVICES WHICH BRING ABOUT HIGHER MILK PRICES
FOR ALL FARMERS.  FUND PAYMENTS TO NON-COOPERATIVE FARMERS, HOWEVER,
ARE SUBJECT TO NO SUCH ASSOCIATION DEDUCTIONS.  THE RESULT IS THAT
FARMER MEMBERS OF COOPERATIVES MAY GET LESS FOR THEIR MILK THAN NON
MEMBERS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 579,
580.  IN THIS WAY NON-MEMBERS CAN GET A FREE RIDE PAID FOR BY
COOPERATING FARMERS; THE LATTER HAVE ALWAYS OBJECTED TO THIS, REGARDING
IT AS A DOG-IN-THE-MANGER ATTITUDE AND AN UNFAIR MARKET PRACTICE. 
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT STEPPED INTO THE MILK PICTURE, THE COOPERATING
FARMERS USED STRONG COERCIVE MEASURES TO COMPEL NON-COOPERATIVES TO
HELP PAY A FAIR SHARE OF COOPERATIVE COSTS IN RENDERING MARKET-WIDE
SERVICES.  AND FROM THE BEGINNING OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION IN THE
1930'S THE GOVERNMENT HAS ADOPTED MEASURES TO INSURE THAT NON-MEMBER
FARMERS PAY FOR THE BENEFITS THEY RECEIVE. 

THE PROVISIONS HERE NULLIFIED PRESCRIBE A LEGAL AND PEACEFUL METHOD
TO REQUIRE NON-COOPERATIVE FARMERS TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF MARKET
COSTS, THEREBY PREVENTING THE RECURRENCE OF THE KIND OF VIOLENT STRIFE
WITH WHICH THIS COUNTRY BECAME ALL TOO FAMILIAR BEFORE THE PRESENT
NATIONAL FARM POLICY WAS ADOPTED.  THE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN A PART OF
THE BOSTON ORDER SINCE 1941 - ELEVEN YEARS.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEM
MORE THAN ONE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS HAVE BEEN PAID TO
COOPERATIVES.  (FN1)  IF ILLEGALLY RECEIVED, I SUPPOSE THE MONEY IS
ILLEGALLY HELD.  WHETHER THESE FARMER ASSOCIATIONS CAN SURVIVE THE
PANDORA'S BOX OF LAWSUITS THIS CASE IS LIKELY TO TURN LOOSE IS
ANYBODY'S GUESS.  PERHAPS MOST DAIRY FARMERS IN NEW ENGLAND WOULD NOT
OF THIER OWN ACCORD FILE SUITS AGAINST THE COOPERATIVES, FOR THE RECORD
INDICATES AN OVERWHELMING FARMER SUPPORT FOR THE MARKET ORDER INCLUDING
THESE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS.  (FN2)  IN FACT, THE FIVE FARMERS WHOSE
NAMES APPEAR AS CHALLENGERS OF THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOT THE PERSONS
MOST INTERESTED IN SABOTAGING THE BOSTON MILK ORDER.  EXPENSES OF THIS
LITIGATION, ALREADY MORE THAN $25,000 BY 1949, HAVE BEEN BORNE BY MILK
HANDLERS.  THESE HANDLERS HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE FUND AND
DID NOT EVEN HAVE STANDING TO BRING THIS SUIT IN THEIR OWN NAME. 
UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., SUPRA, 561.  THE ATTITUDE OF THESE
PROPRIETORS IN THIS AND PAST ATTACKS ON COOPERATIVES JUSTIFIES A RATHER
STRONG INFERENCE THAT COOPERATIVES WILL CONTINUE TO BE DEFENDANTS IN
LAWSUITS PUSHED BY WELL-FINANCED ADVERSARIES. 

IT MAY BE SUGGESTED THAT DESPITE POSSIBLE FLOODS OF LITIGATION, THE
COOPERATIVES CAN BE SAVED FROM COMPLETE BANKRUPTCY BY STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS, JUDICIALLY CREATED DEFENSES, FINESPUN LEGAL OR VERBAL
DISTINCTIONS, OR EVEN BY EMERGENCY CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.  BUT IF
SOME MIGHT HAPPEN TO BEFRIEND COOPERATIVES IN THE FUTURE, THE BLOW
TODAY INFLICTED IS HARDLY CALCULATED TO MAKE COOPERATIVES VERY
ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT PERFORMING THE IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS IN THE MARKET
PROGRAM THAT CONGRESS WANTED THEM TO.  (FN3)  MOREOVER, THESE
PARTICULAR NEW ENGLAND ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES PLACED IN
IMMINENT JEOPARDY BY TODAY'S HOLDING.  AS THE MAJORITY OPINION POINTS
OUT, COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IN OTHER AREAS HAVE BEEN RECEIVING
PAYMENTS FOR MARKET-WIDE SERVICES UNDER SIMILAR MARKET ORDERS OF THE
SECRETARY.  UNDER SUCH PROVISIONS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN
RECEIVED BY THESE OTHER COOPERATIVES.  THEY TOO HAVE LITTLE IF ANY
CHANCE TO ESCAPE HARASSMENT FROM THE SWARM OF LAWSUITS THIS CASE
INVITES.  (FN4) 

CONGRESS INTENDED COOPERATIVES TO BE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN -
THE BACKBONE OF THE FARM MARKET SYSTEM AND THE DYNAMO WHICH MAKES THE
SYSTEM FUNCTION.  WITHOUT THEM, MANY THINK THAT PROGRAM WOULD HAVE BEEN
A FLOP; WITH THEIR HELP COMPARATIVE PEACE HAS NOW COME TO AN INDUSTRY
THAT IN THE TWENTIES AND EARLY THIRTIES WAS DIVIDED INTO FIGHTING
FACTIONS ENGAGING IN BITTER WARFARE AND BLODDSHED ON THE NATION'S
HIGHWAYS.  REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES, HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY'S BODY
BLOW TO COOPERATIVES WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IF REQUIRED BY CONGRESSIONAL
COMMAND.  BUT CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSED ITS DESIRE PRECISELY TO THE
CONTRARY.  THIS IS SHOWN, I BELIEVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT, BY THE LANGUAGE,
HISTORY, BACKGROUND AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARKETING LAWS 

I FEEL DEEPLY THAT THE COURT'S ACTION IN THIS CASE CHECKMATES THE
CONGRESSIONAL WILL, UNJUSTIFIABLY INFLICTS A GRIEVOUS WRONG ON
COOPERATIVES, AND PLAYS HAVOC WITH A NATIONAL FARM POLICY THAT IS
WORKING PEACEFULLY AND WELL.  THE JUDICIARY SHOULD NOT CAVALIERLY THROW
A MONKEY WRENCH INTO ITS MACHINERY. 

HISTORY, BACKGROUND, AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  - AN INHERENT
PROBLEM OF THE MILK INDUSTRY IS THAT COWS PRODUCE MORE MILK AT SOME
SEASONS OF THE YEAR THAN AT OTHERS.  THIS MEANS A SEASONAL EXCESS OF
SUPPLY OVER DEMAND WHICH CAN RESULT IN DISASTROUS PRICE CUTTING IN AN
UNCONTROLLED MARKET.   IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES
OF PRICE CUTTING FARMERS COMBINED IN COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS WHICH
AGREED TO FIND A MARKET FOR ALL THE MILK THEIR MEMBERS PRODUCED. 
THROUGH THE CHANNEL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, THEY WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN
BETTER PRICES AND A WIDER MARKET FOR FLUID MILK.  WITH THE SURPLUSAGE
THAT STILL REMAINED, THEY TURNED TO THE MANUFACTURE OF CHEESE, BUTTER,
AND OTHER BY-PRODUCTS, EVEN THOUGH THEIR MANUFACTURING PLANTS WERE
FORCED TO REMAIN IDLE DURING THE SEASONS OF NO SURPLUSAGE.  CONGRESS
ITSELF RECOGNIZED THE INHERENT VALUE OF THESE COOPERATIVE
ORGANIZATIONS, AND WITH A VIEW TO HELPING FARMERS IMPROVE THEIR MARKET
POSITION, IT PASSED THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT IN 1922 (FN5) AND THE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT OF 1929.  (FN6) 

THESE ACTS TREATED COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS AS USEFUL GOVERNMENTAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES TO ACHIEVE CONGRESSIONAL AGRICULTURAL POLICIES.  WITH
SUCH HELP COOPERATIVES MADE PROGRESS, ALTHOUGH IN EVERY MARKET AREA
THERE WERE SOME PRODUCERS WHO REFUSED TO JOIN.  THESE NON-MEMBER
PRODUCERS, WITHOUT PAYING ANYTHING FOR IT, NEVERTHELESS RECEIVED DIRECT
ADVANTAGES FROM THE WORK OF THE COOPERATIVES IN RAISING MILK PRICES,
DIVERTING SURPLUSAGE, AND IMPROVING GENERAL MARKET CONDITIONS.  THIS
PRODUCED DEEP RESENTMENT ON THE PART OF COOPERATIVE-PRODUCERS WHICH
RESULTED IN BITTER STRIFE AND UNREST.  (FN7) 

THUS, AN ACUTE AGRICULTURAL PROBLEM HAS LONG BEEN ONE OF DEVISING
MEANS WHEREBY EACH PRODUCER WOULD PAY HIS FAIR SHARE OF THE COST OF
RENDERING NEEDED MARKET-WIDE SERVICES.  PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, THE COOPERATIVES THEMSELVES USED
THEIR BARGAINING POWER TO MEET THE SITUATION.  A 1929 CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AND HANDLERS (PURCHASERS OF MILK FROM
PRODUCERS) IN THE CHICAGO MARKETING AREA ILLUSTRATES THE METHODS USED. 
(FN8)  ALL HANDLERS WERE REQUIRED TO AGREE NOT TO PURCHASE MILK FROM
NON-MEMBER PRODUCERS UNLESS THE LATTER AGREED TO A CERTAIN DEDUCTION. 
THIS DEDUCTION WAS EQUAL TO THAT THE HANDLERS WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE IN
THE CASE OF MILK PURCHASED FROM MEMBER-PRODUCERS.  IN BOTH INSTANCES
THE DEDUCTION WAS PAID BY THE HANDLERS TO THE COOPERATIVE TO DEFRAY ITS
EXPENSE INCURRED FOR THE SERVICES.  THIS PROCEDURE INSURED THAT NO
PRODUCER OF MILK RECEIVED BENEFITS WITHOUT PAYING SOMETHING FOR THEM. 

THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933 EMPOWERED THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE TO REGULATE THE MILK INDUSTRY BY A SYSTEM OF LICENSING AND
MARKETING AGREEMENTS.  IN THE LICENSES ISSUED UNDER THIS ACT, THE
SECRETARY INCLUDED VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO PAYMENTS TO
COOPERATIVES FOR THE RENDITION OF MARKETING SERVICES.  SOME LICENSES
CONTAINED PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE CHICAGO CONTRACT OF 1929. 
(FN9)  OTHERS CONTAINED PROVISIONS WHICH REQUIRED ALL PRODUCERS WHO DID
NOT BELONG TO COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS TO PAY "SERVICE CHARGES" TO
ORGANIZATIONS CREATED BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY.  (FN10)  THESE
ORGANIZATIONS RENDERED THE SAME SERVICES WHICH COOPERATIVES DID AND
CHARGED THE SAME FOR THEM.  THUS ALL PRODUCERS WERE REQUIRED TO PAY
THEIR SHARE FOR MARKET SERVICES, EITHER DIRECTLY TO A PRODUCER-OWNED
ASSOCIATION OR TO AN ASSOCIATION SPONSORED BY THE SECRETARY TO FORCE
NON-MEMBERS TO PAY THEIR PART. 

IN 1935 CONGRESS AMENDED THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT TO PROVIDE
FOR MARKET REGULATION BY MEANS OF ORDERS.  THE FIRST BOSTON MILK ORDER
WAS ISSUED UNDER SEC. 8(B) OF THAT ACT AS AMENDED.  THAT ORDER REQUIRED
THE PAYMENT OF A HIGHER PRICE PER HUNDREDWEIGHT FOR COOPERATIVE MILK
THAN FOR NON-COOPERATIVE MILK.  THIS WAS BASED ON THE SECRETARY'S
FINDING THAT "THE DIFFERENTIAL IN PRICES TO ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS,
AND PRODUCERS, IS JUSTIFIED AS A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR SERVICES
ACTUALLY PERFORMED BY ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS."  GREEN VALLEY
CREAMERY V. UNITED STATES, 108 F.2D 342, 345.  THIS DIFFERENTIAL WHICH
REMAINED IN THE ORDER FROM THE DATE IT WAS ISSUED IN 1936 UNTIL 1941
WAS HELD VALID BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT IN GREEN
VALLEY CREAMERY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V.
ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 562, 565.  FROM 1941 TO THE PRESENT
THE SECRETARY'S BOSTON ORDER HAS CONTAINED THE KIND OF COOPERATIVE
PAYMENT PROVISIONS NOW IN ISSUE, AND TREATED BY THE MAJORITY AS A
GRATUITY. 

IN SUMMARY, BEFORE 1933 COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS FORCED PAYMENTS FOR
THEIR SERVICES BY EXERTION OF COLLECTIVE STRENGTH.  AFTER PASSAGE OF
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933 LICENSES ISSUED UNDER IT UP TO
1935 COMPELLED SUCH PAYMENTS.  CONGRESS AMENDED THE ACT IN 1935. 
COMMITTED REPORTS SHOW THAT ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY ISSUED UNDER THE
AMENDMENT SHOULD "FOLLOW THE METHODS EMPLOYED BY COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT AND THE PROVISIONS OF LICENSES ISSUED" BETWEEN 1933 AND
1935.  (FN11)  THE SAME COMMITTEE REPORT IN EXPLAINING WHY THE
SECRETARY SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND ENCOURAGE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS "TO
PROMOTE EFFICIENT METHODS OF MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION" SAID:  "IT HAS
BEEN FOUND FROM EXPERIENCE THAT THE PARTICIPATION BY  ...  ASSOCIATIONS
OF PRODUCERS HAS BEEN OF MATERIAL VALUE IN ADMINISTERING" THE
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM.  (FN12)  THE 1937 AMENDMENT TO THE ACT WENT STILL
FURTHER AND "EXPRESSLY RATIFIED, LEGALIZED, AND CONFIRMED" ALL
"MARKETING AGREEMENTS, LICENSES, ORDERS, REGULATIONS, PROVISIONS, AND
ACTS" OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ISSUED UNDER THE FORMER ACT.  50
STAT. 246, 249.  SOME OF THE ORDERS AND LICENSES THUS EXPRESSLY
RATIFIED BY CONGRESS CONTAINED THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING NONMEMBERS TO
PAY FOR COLLECTIVE MARKET SERVICES.  AND A COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS
1937 LEGISLATION REFERRED TO THE ACT'S MARKETING PROGRAM AS "VALUABLE
SUPPLEMENTS TO THE COOPERATIVE EFFORTS OF PRODUCERS, PARTICULARLY IN
THE CASE OF FRUITS, VEGETABLES, AND MILK."  (FN13)  FINALLY, IN 1948
CONGRESS AGAIN MANIFESTED ITS APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY'S PROGRAM WHICH
AT THAT TIME INCLUDED THE VERY COOPERATIVE PAYMENTS NOW AT ISSUE. 
(FN14) 

THE COURT BRUSHES ASIDE THE FOREGOING HISTORY AND INVALIDATES THE
COOPERATIVE PAYMENT PROVISIONS.  ITS ASSERTED REASON FOR DOING SO IS
THAT STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENTS IS LACKING.  WE ARE LEFT IN
THE DARK AS TO WHETHER THE SECRETARY LACKS ALL AUTHORITY TO MAKE
PAYMENTS TO ANY AND ALL PERSONS, OR HAS AUTHORITY TO PAY EVERYBODY ELSE
EXCEPT COOPERATIVES, OR HAS AUTHORITY TO PAY EVERYBODY ELSE EXCEPT NEW
ENGLAND COOPERATIVES.  THE COURT'S OPINION LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT ITS
REAL BASIS FOR INVALIDATION IS A BELIEF THAT: 

(1)  THE PAYMENTS ARE A MERE GRATUITY, A SUBSIDY TO INEFFICIENTLY
OPERATED COOPERATIVES.  (FN15) 

(2)  THE SECRETARY'S ORDER PROPERLY CONSTRUED DOES NOT REQUIRE
COOPERATIVES TO PERFORM MARKET-WIDE SERVICES; THEREFORE THEY SHOULD BE
PAID NOTHING, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THEY ACTUALLY PERFORMED SUCH
SERVICES FOR THE PAST ELEVEN YEARS. 

(3)  IT IS EVIL AND ILLEGAL TO PAY COOPERATIVES FOR WORKING TO
BENEFIT A WHOLE GROUP OF WHICH THEY ARE A PART. 

FIRST.  IF THESE PAYMENTS WERE MERE GRATUITIES AS THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD AND AS INTIMATED BY THE MAJORITY, I TOO WOULD HOLD THEM ILLEGAL. 
HOWEVER, THEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED GRATUITIES BECAUSE ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE WHOLE RECORD SHOW PRECISELY THE CONTRARY.  I
CANNOT AGREE THAT IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO REDETERMINE FACTS FOUND BY
THE SECRETARY AFTER AT LEAST THREE EXHAUSTIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS (FN16) -
FINDINGS WHICH WERE NOT EVEN CHALLENGED BY THE PARTIES.  THE
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF THE MARKETING ACT SHOWS CONCLUSIVELY THAT AT
THE TIME OF THE FIRST OF THESE HEARINGS IN 1941 THE RIGHT OF
COOPERATIVES TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS FOR MARKET-WIDE SERVICES WAS WELL
EASTABLISHED.  FROM THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SECRETARY AT THIS FIRST
HEARING HE CONCLUDED THAT THE PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES WERE JUSTIFIED
AND WOULD TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  6 FED. REG.
3762, 7 CFR, 1941 SUPP., SEC. 904.0.  IN 1943 ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING
WAS HELD AT WHICH AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ELIMINATE
COOPERATIVE PAYMENT PROVISIONS FROM THE ORDER.  ONE OF THE FINDINGS
RESULTING FROM THIS HEARING IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE PRESENT PLAN OF PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES, WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE
AUGUST 1, 1941, WAS BASED ON THE CONSIDERATION THAT TO ACHIEVE THE
BENEFITS TO ALL PRODUCERS WHICH THE ORDER IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE TWO
TYPES OF ACTIVITY BY PRODUCERS' COOPERATIVE MARKETING ORGANIZATIONS ARE
DESIRABLE:  (1) PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AT HEARINGS CONCERNING THE
NEEDS OF PRODUCERS WITH RESPECT TO PRICES FOR MILK AND DIFFERENTIALS TO
REFLECT HANDLING COSTS TO FURNISH AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE
AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDER, AND (2) ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR A
RESERVE OF MILK TO MEET THE IRREGULAR NEEDS OF DISTRIBUTORS WHICH IS
ESSENTIAL IN A MARKET WHICH PROVIDES MARKET-WIDE EQUALIZATION AMONG ALL
PRODUCERS OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MILK  ...  .  FROM THESE
CONSIDERATIONS IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS TO
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO EQUITABLY APPORTION
THE TOTAL VALUE OF MILK AMONG PRODUCERS.  THE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF
THE PROPOSAL TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THIS FEATURE OF THE ORDER DOES NOT
SHOW THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS."  9 FED.
REG. 3057, 3059. 

IN 1947 STILL ANOTHER UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ELIMINATE
THESE PROVISIONS.  AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING THE SECRETARY EXPRESSLY
REAFFIRMED THE PRIOR CRUCIAL FINDINGS ON WHICH THE ORDER RESTS.  12
FED. REG. 4921, 4928.  IT IS THE PROVISIONS OF THIS 1947 ORDER NOW HELD
INVALID. 

THERE WAS AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SECRETARY'S
FINDINGS THAT THE COOPERATIVES IN THE BOSTON AREA WERE EQUIPPED TO AND
DID CONSTANTLY PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL SERVICES TO HELP SUSTAIN THE MARKET
PRICE OF MILK AND TO STABILIZE ITS DISTRIBUTION.  EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT
NEW ENGLAND COOPERATIVES MAINTAINED EXPENSIVE MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT
TO TAKE CARE OF SURPLUS MILK; THAT MOST OF THE SURPLUS MILK WAS
CONCENTRATED IN COOPERATIVE PLANTS AND THAT EVEN PROPRIETARY HANDLERS
NORMALLY DEPENDED ON COOPERATIVES IN TIME OF SHORT PRODUCTION.  THERE
WAS TESTIMONY THAT ALL THESE ACTIVITIES IMPOSED HUGE FINANCIAL BURDENS
ON COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS AND THAT UNLESS NON-MEMBERS WERE MADE TO
BEAR PART OF THESE LARGE COSTS, COOPERATING FARMERS, WHO SAVED THE
MARKET FROM THE CHAOS OF A FLUCTUATING MILK SUPPLY, WOULD ACTUALLY GET
LESS NET AMOUNT FOR THEIR MILK THAN DID THE NONMEMBERS WHO MERELY
REAPED THE HARVEST SOWN BY OTHERS. 

THE FOREGOING SUGGESTS BUT A VERY MINOR PART OF THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH
THE SECRETARY FOUND THAT THE COOPERATIVE PAYMENT PROVISIONS WERE
CONSISTENT WITH THE ACT'S TERMS AND NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE ORDER'S
OTHER PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN A SMOOTHLY FUNCTIONING MARKET. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AGREED WITH THE SECRETARY AS TO THE VALUE OF
COOPERATIVE SERVICES.  87 U.S. APP. D.C. 388, 392, 399, 185 F.2D 871,
875, 882.  ITS OPINION NOT ONLY CONCEDED THAT "THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE THAT THESE SERVICES WERE RENDERED" BUT EMPHATICALLY DECLARED
"THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THESE SERVICES ARE PRONOUNCED AIDS TO ALL
PARTICIPANTS IN THE MARKETING AREA - PRODUCERS, HANDLERS AND
CONSUMERS."  IN FACT THE COURT OF APPEALS RATHER IMPATIENTLY REJECTED
THE "GRATUITY" THEORY OF THE PAYMENTS BY DECLARING THAT THE RECORD MADE
THE MARKET-WIDE AID OF COOPERATIVES "SO CLEAR THAT IT SERVES NO PURPOSE
TO DESCRIBE THE HELPFUL EFFECTS IN DETAIL."  THIS COURT NOW RESURRECTS
THIS REJECTED THEORY BY IMPLYING THAT THE COOPERATIVE PAYMENTS ARE MERE
GIFTS, THEREBY UPSETTING THE SECRETARY'S FINDINGS WHILE ASSERTING THAT
IT IS INDULGING IN PURE STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  (FN17)  THIS, OF
COURSE, IS THE SAFEST WAY TO UPSET FINDINGS SUPPORTED AS THESE ARE BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

SECOND.  THE MAJORITY SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT EVEN IF THE COOPERATIVES DO
RENDER VALUABLE MARKET-WIDE SERVICES THEY OUGHT NOT TO BE PAID.  THIS
IS BECAUSE THE COURT, READING THE ORDER WITH PUNCTILIOUS NICETY, FINDS
THAT IT LACKS WORDS EXPRESSLY COMPELLING COOPERATIVES TO RENDER THE
PRECISE SERVICES FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAID.  I FAIL TO SEE WHY
COOPERATIVES SHOULD NOT BE PAID FOR WORK THEY ACTUALLY DO, BUT IN ANY
EVENT I READ THE ORDER AS REQUIRING THAT THOSE SERVICES BE PERFORMED. 

THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS ORDER RESULTED IN
FINDINGS THAT COOPERATIVES SHOULD BE PAID FOR RENDERING TWO BROAD TYPES
OF MARKET SERVICES.  MOST IMPORTANTLY, THEY WERE TO BE PAID FOR THE
"ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR A RESERVE OF MILK TO MEET THE
IRREGULAR NEEDS OF DISTRIBUTORS."  9 FED. REG. 3059.  SECTION
904.10(B)(2) OF THE ORDER SPECIFIES THE AMOUNTS TO BE PAID COOPERATIVES
FOR MEETING THIS RESPONSIBILITY.  THIS SECTION BY ITS VERY TERMS
REQUIRES THAT BEFORE THEY GET THEIR PAY COOPERATIVES MUST MEET THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY BY RUNNING PLANTS WHICH SELL OR PROCESS MILK.  IT DOES
SO IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: "EACH QUALIFIED ASSOCIATION SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO PAYMENT AT THE RATE OF 2 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT ON MILK
RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS AT A PLANT OPERATED BY THAT ASSOCIATION." 
NEITHER THE NEW YORK ORDER NOR ANY OTHER ORDER COULD POSSIBLY CONTAIN A
MORE COMPELLING REQUIREMENT FOR THE COOPERATIVES TO PERFORM THESE
MARKET SERVICES THAN DOES THIS ORDER - NAMELY, NO WORK, NO PAY. 
(FN18) 

FOR THEIR WORK IN BRINGING ABOUT BETTER MILK PRICES FOR ALL FARMERS. 
THIS IS THE SECOND BROAD TYPE OF SERVICE WHICH THE SECRETARY FOUND
COOPERATIVES SHOULD BE PAID FOR.  IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
ANY PAYMENT WHATSOEVER FOR THIS SERVICE, A COOPERATIVE MUST NOT ONLY
COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT, BUT ALSO MUST
"COLLABORATES) WITH SIMILAR ASSOCIATIONS IN ACTIVITIES INCIDENT TO THE
MAINTENANCE AND STRENGTHENING OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY PRODUCERS AND
THE OPERATION OF A PLAN OF UNIFORM PRICING OF MILK TO HANDLERS." 
(FN19)  IF A COOPERATIVE DOES THE THINGS REQUIRED BY THE CAPPER
VOLSTEAD ACT AND THE LAST-MENTIONED SECTION OF THE ORDER, IT IS BOUND
TO BE WORKING TO BRING ABOUT BETTER MILK PRICES FOR ALL DAIRY FARMERS
IN THE AREA. 

AFTER PUBLIC HEARING, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THIS ACT HAS FOUND ON
THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS THAT COOPERATIVES EXPENDED THEIR TIME AND
MONEY IN PERFORMING THESE MARKET-WIDE SERVICES.  I AM NOT SURE WHY THE
MAJORITY FORBIDS THE PAYMENTS.  I HOPE IT IS NOT ON THE THEORY THAT THE
SECRETARY'S SUPPOSED LACK OF LINGUISTIC SKILL MUST DEPRIVE COOPERATIVES
OF PAY FOR THE WORK THEY DID DURING THE PAST ELEVEN YEARS.  WHETHER
THIS IS THE THEORY, ONE CANNOT BE SURE. 

THIRD.  THE MAJORITY STATES THAT THERE IS SOMEWHAT OF AN
"INCONGRUITY" IN ALLOWING COOPERATIVES TO BE PAID FOR "VIGOROUSLY
PROSECUTING THEIR OWN INTERESTS," LEAVING THE INFERENCE THAT THERE IS
SOMETHING INHERENTLY EVIL AND ILLEGAL IN SUCH PAYMENTS.  I DO NOT SEE
WHY.  IT SEEMS MORE INCONGRUOUS AND WRONG TO ME TO LET NON-MEMBERS GET
SOMETHING FOR NOTHING AND AT THE SOLE EXPENSE OF THE COOPERATING
FARMERS.  THERE IS CERTAINLY NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST AMONG FARMERS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE OBTAINING OF A HIGHER PRICE FOR THE MILK OF ALL. 
THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO ACHIEVE THIS END.  FURTHERMORE, I DOUBT IF
THE MAJORITY WOULD WANT TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS IS BARRED FROM TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THE BELIEF OF MANY THAT GOVERNMENT REGULATION CAN BE MOST
EFFECTIVE WHERE THE FULLEST POSSIBLE USE IS MADE OF THE AID AND HELPFUL
SERVICES OF THOSE WHO ARE BEING REGULATED.   I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO COMPEL THE SECRETARY TO HIRE MORE
REGULAR, ALL-TIME GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO PERFORM, AND IN MANY
INSTANCES TO DUPLICATE, WORK THAT COULD BE BEST AND PERHAPS LEAST
IRRITATINGLY PERFORMED BY FARMER-OWNED AND FARMER-CONTROLLED
ASSOCIATIONS.  (FN20)  TO THE CONTRARY, THE CONTROLLING LAW EXPRESSLY
DIRECTS THE SECRETARY TO USE COOPERATIVES WHERE HE CAN.  (FN21)  THAT
IT IS EVIL FOR THE SECRETARY TO PAY COOPERATIVES FOR MARKET SERVICES
SEEMS AN UNDULY FASTIDIOUS CONCEPT.  (FN22) 

FINALLY, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY THAT STATUTORY AUTHORITY
FOR THESE PAYMENTS IS LACKING.  THE ACT FIRST AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY
TO TAKE CERTAIN SPECIFIED ACTIONS DESIGNED TO SET UP A WELL-FUNCTIONING
GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED MILK-MARKET SYSTEM.  TO AVOID THE INEVITABLE
RIGIDITY OF ITS EXPRESSLY DEFINED AUTHORIZATIONS CONGRESS WENT FURTHER
AND AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL MARKET
MECHANISMS "INCIDENTAL TO, AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH, THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS SPECIFIED  ...  AND NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE OTHER
PROVISIONS OF SUCH ORDER."  49 STAT. 750, 757, 7 U.S.C. SEC.
608C(7)(D).  THE KEY WORDS IN THIS SECTION, REFERRED TO BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS AS "THE MEASURING STANDARD," ARE "INCIDENTAL," "NOT
INCONSISTENT," AND "NECESSARY."  LARGELY RELYING ON THEIR SELCTIONS OF
ABSTRACT WORD DEFINITIONS, THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
HELD THAT THE SECRETARY'S ORDER WAS FORBIDDEN BY EACH OF THESE KEY
WORDS.  THIS COURT CLEARLY AGREES THAT THE ORDER FOR PAYMENT IS NOT
"INCIDENTAL" AND IS "INCONSISTENT" WITH THE ACT'S TERMS.  HOWEVER, IT
METICULOUSLY AVOIDS ANY RELIANCE ON THE WORK "NECESSARY." 

A. NECESSARY.  - THE SECREATRY CONCLUDED THAT COOPERATIVE PAYMENTS
WERE "NECESSARY" TO EFFECTUATE THE OTHER TERMS OF HIS ORDER.  AN
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE FARMERS AFFECTED BY THE PAYMENT PROVISION
VOTED IN FAVOR OF THEM.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT SHOWS
THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE MADE A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE SMOOTH
OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAM.  CONGRESS ITSELF HAS RATIFIED
THESE VERY PROVISIONS NOW IN ISSUE.  ALL OF THIS IS ENOUGH FOR ME; I
WOULD HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE "NECESSARY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT.    B. INCIDENTAL.  - THE MAJORITY HOLDS THAT THESE PAYMENTS
ARE NOT "INCIDENTAL" TO THE OTHER TERMS OF THE ORDER.  THIS HOLDING
SEEMS TO BE BASED ON THE IDEA THAT THE PAYMENT PROVISIONS ARE TOO
IMPORTANT TO BE MERELY "INCIDENTAL."  (FN23)  THIS IDEA IS IN MARKED
CONTRAST TO THE COURT'S PREVIOUS STATEMENT THAT "THE PAYMENTS TO
COOPERATIVES HAVE IN EACH YEAR CONSTITUTED NO MORE THAN A FRACTION OF
ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF MILK MARKETED IN THE AREA."  I DO NOT
DOUBT THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE IN CARRYING
OUT THE BASIC MARKET CONTROL SYSTEM SET UP BY THE ACT.  BUT I DENY THAT
THEY ARE SUCH INDEPENDENT ENDS IN THEMSELVES THAT THEY ARE SOMETHING
MORE THAN AN "INCIDENTAL" PART OF THE PROGRAM THEY WERE DESIGNED TO
SERVE.  CLEARLY THE PAYMENT PROVISIONS ARE AUXILIARY TO THE MAIN
PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND ITS MARKET SYSTEM.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT
REFUSES TO GIVE THAT "CONSIDERABLE FLEXIBILITY" WHICH WE HAVE
PREVIOUSLY SAID THE SECRETARY SHOULD HAVE "TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS
AUXILIARY TO THOSE DEFINITELY SPECIFIED."  UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL
CO-OP., SUPRA, AT 575, 576. 

C. INCONSISTENT.  - THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE COOPERATIVE PAYMENTS
ARE "INCONSISTENT" WITH THE ACT IS BASED ON THE NOTION THAT THE ORDER
DESTROYS UNIFORMITY OF PRICES RECEIVED BY COOPERATIVE MEMBERS AND NON
MEMBERS TO THE DETRIMENT OF NON-MEMBERS.  THE COURT'S HOLDING IN THIS
REGARD RESTS IN PART ON ITS UNSUPPORTED AND UNSUPPORTABLE FINDINGS THAT
"RECEIPTS OF NONMEMBERS RESULTING FROM DELIVERY OF A GIVEN QUANTITY OF
MILK ARE SMALLER THAN THOSE OF THE ASSOCIATIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS. 
THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE NONMEMBERS ARE PAID ONLY THE BLENDED PRICE WHILE
MEMBERS RECEIVE, THROUGH THEIR ASSOCIATIONS, THE DISPUTED PAYMENTS IN
ADDITION TO THE BLENDED PRICE."  THE CRUCIAL ERROR OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS
OR FINDINGS OF FACT, WHICHEVER THEY ARE, IS THE COURT'S ASSERTION THAT
COOPERATIVE SERVICE PAYMENTS "REDOUND TO MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY."  THERE
IS NOT ONLY AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS ASSERTION, BUT IT IS
CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN FACTS OF THE WAY COOPERATIVES WORK.  THE ONLY
POSSIBLE SUPPORT FOR SUCH AN EXTRAORDINARY INFERENCE IS BY A RENEWED
ADOPTION OF THE THEORY THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE GRATUITIES, A THEORY THE
COURT OF APPEALS EMPHATICALLY REJECTED.  BUT THIS RECORD ACTUALLY SHOWS
THAT IT COSTS THE COOPERATIVES MORE TO PERFORM THE SERVICES THAN THEY
ARE PAID.  IT ALSO SHOWS THAT COOPERATIVES ARE COMPELLED TO DEDUCT THE
COMPLETE COST OF THESE SERVICES LONG BEFORE THE MEMBER FARMERS ARE PAID
FOR THIER MILK.  THE RESULT IS THAT BUT FOR THESE PAYMENTS THE
COOPERATIVE MEMBERS ARE BOUND TO GET LESS THAN THE BLENDED PRICE FOR
THEIR MILK WHILE NON-MEMBERS GET THE BLENDED PRICE.  THE VERY REASON
THE SECRETARY AUTHORIZED THESE PAYMENTS WAS TO INSURE SO FAR AS
POSSIBLE THAT NON-MEMBERS SHOULD NOT GET MORE FOR THEIR MILK THAN
COOPERATING FARMERS DO.  IT IS THEREFORE THE COURT'S ACTION TODAY, NOT
THE SECRETARY'S ORDER, THAT PREVENTS UNIFORMITY OF PRICE IN BOSTON
AREA. 

IN STRIKING DOWN THESE PROVISIONS OF THE SECRETARY'S ORDER, THE COURT
HAS DEPARTED FROM MANY PRINCIPLES IT HAS PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED IN
CONNECTION WITH ITS SUPERVISION OVER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENTS.  UNDER
THESE PRINCIPLES, THE COURT WOULD REFRAIN FROM SETTING ASIDE
ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT WHEN SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE;
(FN24) WE WOULD GIVE WEIGHT TO THE INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE BY ITS
ADMINISTRATORS; (FN25) WHEN ADMINISTRATORS HAVE INTERPRETED BROAD
STATUTORY TERMS, SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED, WE WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS
OUT DUTY TO ACCEPT THIS INTERPRETATION EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT "THE ONLY
REASONABLE ONE" OR THE ONE "WE WOULD HAVE REACHED HAD THE QUESTION
ARISEN IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS."  UNEMPLOYMENT
COMM'N V. ARAGON, 329 U.S. 143, 153.  ONLY A SHORT WHILE AGO IN A LABOR
BOARD CASE THIS COURT SAID:  "NOT ONLY ARE THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD
CONCLUSIVE WITH RESPECT TO QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS FIELD WHEN
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD AS A WHOLE, BUT THE
BOARD'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT AND THE BOARD'S APPLICATION OF IT IN
DOUBTFUL SITUATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO WEIGHT."  LABOR BOARD V. DENVER
BLDG. COUNCIL, 341 U.S. 675, 691, 692.  TRUE, THIS WAS SAID WITH
REFERENCE TO A LABOR BOARD CASE UNDER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, BUT
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE SHOULD
STAND ON NO LOWER LEVEL. 

I DISSENT. 

FN1  IN ADDITION, ABOUT $400,000 HAS BEEN PAID INTO COURT UNDER AN
IMPOUNDING ORDER ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN 1949. 

FN2  IN 1941 FARMERS IN THE BOSTON MILK AREA WERE GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE ORDER. 
THEY VOTED AS FOLLOWS:

                                 FOR  AGAINST 

COOPERATING FARMERS               11,587         0 

NON-MEMBER FARMERS                   694        61 

TOTAL VOTE                        12,281        61 

FN3  "THE SECRETARY, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS TITLE, SHALL
ACCORD SUCH RECOGNITION AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO PRODUCER-OWNED AND
PRODUCER-CONTROLLED COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS AS WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH
THE POLICY TOWARD COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS SET FORTH IN EXISTING ACTS
OF CONGRESS, AND AS WILL TEND TO PROMOTE EFFICIENT METHODS OF MARKETING
AND DISTRIBUTION."  49 STAT. 750, 767. 

FN4  THE MAJORITY APPARENTLY DESIRES TO LEAVE AN INFERENCE THAT SOME
OF THE OTHER ORDERS MIGHT SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGES.  I CANNOT BELIEVE
THAT THE MAJORITY IS TODAY SUSTAINING THESE OTHER ORDERS NOT NOW HERE
AGAINST ATTACKS ON GROUNDS NOT YET ARGUED.  IN EACH MARKET AREA THE
SERVICES FOR WHICH COOPERATIVES ARE PAID ARE OF THE SAME NATURE.  ANY
DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE USED BY THE SECRETARY IN FORUMLATING THE ORDERS
IS OF NO REAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY CRUCIAL
DISTINCTIONS COULD POSSIBLY BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ORDERS EXCEPT
BY ARBITRARY FIAT. 

FN5  42 STAT. 388, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 291.  THIS ACT GAVE SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION AND EXEMPTIONS TO COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS OF FARMERS. 

FN6  46 STAT. 11, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 1141.  A DECLARED POLICY OF THIS ACT
WAS TO ENCOURAGE THE ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF FARMER COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATIONS.  THE ACT ALSO PROVIDED FOR MAKING LOANS TO COOPERATIVES,
TO AID THEM IN TAKING CARE OF THE SURPLUS CROPS, AND TO ASSIST THE
COOPERATIVES IN EDUCATING THE PRODUCERS OF FARM PRODUCTS IN THE
ADVANTAGES OF COOPERATIVE MARKETING. 

FN7  SEE NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502. 

FN8  SEE H.R. DOC. NO. 451, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 47-48. 

FN9  SEE, E.G., TWIN CITY (ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS) AREA MILK
LICENSE NO. 5, EX. A, ARTS. II AND III, ISSUED AUGUST 29, 1933 AND
TERMINATED FEBRUARY 16, 1934; AND LICENSE NO. 32, EX. A, SEC. II,
ISSUED FEBRUARY 12, 1934 AND TERMINATED APRIL 18, 1944. 

FN10  SEE, E.G., BALTIMORE PRODUCTION AREA MILK LICENSE NO. 6, ART.
III, SEC. 5, ISSUED SEPTEMBER 25, 1933.  DETROIT MILK SHED MILK LICENSE
NO. 4, ART. III, SEC. 4, ISSUED AUGUST 23, 1933.  EVANSVILLE, INDIANA,
MILK SHED LICENSE NO. 12, ART. III, SEC. 4, ISSUED OCTOBER 19, 1933. 
PHILADELPHIA MILK SHED LICENSE NO. 3, ART. III, APP. I, SEC. 4, ISSUED
AUGUST 21, 1933. 

FN11  H.R. REP. NO. 1241.  74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 9. 

FN12  SUPRA, P. 13. 

FN13  H.R. REP. NO. 468, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2. 

FN14  "ANY PROGRAM IN EFFECT UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT,
AS REENACTED AND AMENDED BY THIS ACT, ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SECTION
302 OF THE AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1948 SHALL CONTINUE IN EFFECT WITHOUT
THE NECESSITY FOR ANY AMENDATORY ACTION RELATIVE TO SUCH PROGRAM, BUT
ANY SUCH PROGRAM SHALL BE CONTINUED IN OPERATION BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE ONLY TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN SUCH ORDERLY MARKETING
CONDITIONS AS WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED PURPOSE SET OUT IN
AND AMENDED BY THIS ACT."  ACT OF JULY 3, 1948, 62 STAT. 1247, 1258, 7
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 672(B). 

FN15  THIS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE VIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  82
F. SUPP. 614. 

FN16  PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD IN 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 AND 1947. 
THE 1940 AND 1941 HEARING RECORDS ARE BEFORE US AS AN EXHIBIT.  THE
OTHER HEARING RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE; ALL THE FINDINGS RESULTING FROM
ALL THESE HEARINGS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER AS THE
LAW REQUIRES.  AND IF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SECRETARY WERE NOT
AVAILABLE, HIS FINDINGS WOULD CARRY A PRESUMPTION OF A STATE OF FACTS
JUSTIFYING HIS ACTION.  UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S.
533, 567-568. 

FN17  THE MAJORITY DISCLAIMS ANY CHALLENGE TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SECRETARY'S FINDINGS.  IN THE SUCCEEDING
PARAGRAPH THE MAJORITY RESORTS TO AFFIDAVITS FILED IN THE TRIAL COURT
IN AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT THE PURPOSE OF THESE PAYMENT PROVISIONS WAS
TO SUBSIDIZE INEFFICIENT AND OVERCAPITALIZED COOPERATIVE PLANTS.  THE
SECRETARY HAD FOUND THE PAYMENTS WERE BONA FIDE COMPENSATION FOR WORK
PERFORMED.  THUS THE SECRETARY FOUND ONE FACT; THE COURT RELIES ON A
COURT AFFIDAVIT TO FIND A CONTRARY FACT.  I THINK THE AFFIDAVIT DOES
NOT SUPPORT THIS COURT'S FINDING.  MOREOVER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDINGS SHOULD BE TESTED BY EVIDENCE THE ADMINISTRATOR HEARD, NOT BY
DE NOVO PROCEEDINGS IN A REVIEWING COURT. 

FN18  SEE N. 4, SUPRA. 

FN19  7 CFR, 1947 SUPP., SEC. 904.10(A)(1)(7). 

FN20  HOWEVER, THE CONTRARY VIEW OF THE COURT OF APPEALS APPEARS TO
HAVE BEEN A BASIS FOR ITS INVALIDATION OF THE ORDER FOR IT SAID: 

"IT IS ARGUED THAT IT WOULD TAKE A DECIDED INCREASE IN THE PRESENT
STAFF OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES AND THAT SUCH
INCREASE WOULD BE EXPENSIVE.  THIS IS NO ANSWER.  THE ACT MAKES IT THE
DUTY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DO THIS.  HE CANNOT FARM OUT THESE DUTIES
TO ONE CLASS OF PRODUCERS AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER CLASS, FOR THIS
WOULD VIOLATE THE EFFECT OF UNIFORMITY OF PRICE REQUIRED IN SUBSECTIONS
608C (5)(B)(I) AND (II) AND BE 'INCONSISTENT' THEREWITH."  185 F.2D
871, 881. 

FN21  SEE N. 3, SUPRA. 

FN22  I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED ABOVE A FOURTH GROUND UPON WHICH THE COURT
MAY POSSIBLY RELY FOR ITS HOLDING.  THERE SEEMS TO BE A CERTAIN FLAVOR
IN THE MAJORITY OPINION TO THE EFFECT THAT COOPERATIVES SHOULD NOT BE
PAID FOR MAINTAINING SURPLUS MILK RESERVES SINCE CORRESPONDING PAYMENTS
ARE NOT MADE TO PROPRIETARY MILK HANDLERS.  HOWEVER, THIS MUST BE MERE
COLORATION, FOR THE RECORD SHOWS, BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROPRIETARY
INTERESTS THEMSELVES, THAT THEY WILL NOT WORK TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS
MILK AT THE HIGH PRICE WHICH ONLY FLUID MILK BRINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE
UNWILLING TO DEAL WITH THEIR COMPETITORS.  IF THE PROPRIETARY INTERESTS
SHOULD DECIDE TO COOPERATE WITH THEIR COMPETITORS IN THE FUTURE SO THAT
ALL FARMERS CAN RECEIVE HIGHER PRICES FOR THEIR MILK, THE SECRETARY AND
THE FARMERS WILL NO DOUBT BE GLAD TO PAY THEM FOR DOING SO.  AT ANY
RATE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE MAJORITY IS PROCEEDING ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT BECAUSE ONE GROUP HAS BEEN WRONGED, THE COURT MUST INSURE THAT ALL
OTHER GROUPS MUST BE SIMILARLY WRONGED. 

FN23  THE MAJORITY ALSO STATES THAT THESE PAYMENTS CANNOT BE
"INCIDENTAL" BECAUSE THEY ARE "INCONSISTENT" WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT.  MAYBE THESE TWO WORDS ARE SYNONYMS, BUT I HAD NOT THOUGHT SO.
AT ANY RATE I SHALL LATER STATE REASONS WHY THESE PAYMENTS ARE WHOLLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE ACT AND THE MARKET PROGRAM SET UP UNDER IT. 

FN24  SEE UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 340 U.S. 474. 

FN25  GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402. 
..END :




















ADLER V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 342 U.S. 485 


NO. 8.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 301 N.Y.
476, 95 N.E.2D 806, AFFIRMED. 


THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW OF NEW YORK, SEC. 12-A, MAKES INELIGIBLE FOR
EMPLOYMENT IN ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL ANY MEMBER OF ANY ORGANIZATION
ADVOCATING THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE, VIOLENCE OR ANY
UNLAWFUL MEANS.  SECTION 3022 OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ADDED BY THE
FEINBERG LAW, REQUIRES THE BOARD OF REGENTS (1) TO ADOPT AND ENFORCE
RULES FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY EMPLOYEE WHO VIOLATES, OR IS INELIGIBLE
UNDER, SEC. 12-A, (2) TO PROMULGATE A LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS DESCRIBED
IN SEC. 12-A, AND (3) TO PROVIDE IN ITS RULES THAT MEMBERSHIP IS ANY
ORGANIZATION SO LISTED IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION FOR
EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  NO ORGANIZATION MAY BE SO LISTED,
AND NO PERSON SEVERED FROM OR DENIED EMPLOYMENT, EXCEPT AFTER A HEARING
AND SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  HELD:  THIS COURT FINDS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IN SEC. 12-A OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW OF NEW
YORK OR IN SEC. 3022 OF THE EDUCATION LAW.  PP. 486-496. 

1.  SECTION 3022 AND THE RULES PROMULGATED THEREUNDER DO NOT
CONSTITUTE AN ABRIDGEMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY OF
PERSONS EMPLOYED OR SEEKING EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NEW
YORK.  GARNER V. LOS ANGELES BOARD, 341 U.S. 716.  PP. 491-493. 

2.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 3022 DIRECTING THE BOARD OF REGENTS TO
PROVIDE IN RULES THEREUNDER THAT MEMBERSHIP IN ANY ORGANIZATION SO
LISTED BY THE BOARD SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
DISQUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS DOES NOT DENY
MEMBERS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP. 494-496. 

3.  THE USE OF THE WORK "SUBVERSIVE" IN SEC. 1 OF THE FEINBERG LAW,
WHICH IS A PREAMBLE AND NOT A DEFINITIVE PART OF THE ACT, DOES NOT
RENDER THE STATUTE VOID FOR VAGUENESS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN SUBDIVISION 2 OF SEC. 3022 IT IS GIVEN A VERY
DEFINITE MEANING - I.E., AN ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW
OF GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE.  P. 496. 

4.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 3021 OF THE EDUCATION LAW NOT
HAVING BEEN QUESTIONED IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE LOWER COURTS AND BEING
RAISED HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME, IT WILL NOT BE PASSED UPON BY THIS
COURT BEFORE THE STATE COURTS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PASS UPON IT.
P. 496. 

ADLER ET AL. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK,
KINGS COUNTY, HELD THAT SUBDIVISION (C) OF SEC. 12-A OF THE NEW YORK
CIVIL SERVICE LAW, SEC. 3022 OF THE NEW YORK EDUCATION LAW, AND THE
RULES OF THE STATE BOARD OF REGENTS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER VIOLATED THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND ENJOINED ACTION
THEREUNDER BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CITY.  196 MISC. 873,
95 N.Y.S.2D 114.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED.  276 APP. DIV. 527,
96 N.Y.S.2D 466.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED THE
DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION.  301 N.Y. 476, 95 N.E.2D 806.  ON
APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 496. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS BROUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW YORK, KINGS COUNTY, PRAYING THAT SEC. 12-A OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
LAW, (FN1) AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE SO-CALLED FEINBERG LAW, (FN2) BE
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THAT ACTION BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
THE CITY OF NEW YORK THEREUNDER BE ENJOINED.  ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS, THE COURT HELD THAT SUBDIVISION (C) OF SEC. 12-A, THE
FEINBERG LAW, AND THE RULES OF THE STATE BOARD OF REGENTS PROMULGATED
THEREUNDER VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
AND ISSUED AN INJUNCTION.  196 MISC. 873, 95 N.Y.S.2D 114.  THE
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED, 276 APP. DIV. 527, 96
N.Y.S.2D 466, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
APPELLATE DIVISION, 301 N.Y. 476, 95 N.E.2D 806.  THE APPELLANTS COME
HERE BY APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257. 

12-A, IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  (FN3)  TO IMPLEMENT THIS LAW, THE
FEINBERG LAW WAS PASSED, ADDING A NEW SECTION, SEC. 3022, TO THE
EDUCATION LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHICH SECTION SO FAR AS HERE
PERTINENT IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  (FN4)  THE FEINBERG LAW WAS ALSO
TO IMPLEMENT SEC. 3021 OF THE EDUCATION LAW OF NEW YORK.  (FN5)  THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS SECTION WAS NOT ATTACKED IN THE PROCEEDINGS
BELOW. 

THE PREAMBLE OF THE FEINBERG LAW, SEC. 1, MAKES ELABORATE FINDINGS
THAT MEMBERS OF SUBVERSIVE GROUPS, PARTICULARLY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
AND ITS AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS, HAVE BEEN INFILTRATING INTO PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE STATE;THAT THIS HAS OCCURRED
AND CONTINUES NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF PROTECTIVE STATUTES
DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE APPOINTMENT TO OR RETENTION IN EMPLOYMENT IN
PUBLIC OFFICE, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, OF MEMBERS OF
ANY ORGANIZATIONS WHICH TEACH OR ADVOCATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF SHALL BE
OVERTHROWN BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR BY ANY OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS.  AS A
RESULT, PROPAGANDA CAN BE DISSEMINATED AMONG THE CHILDREN BY THOSE WHO
TEACH THEM AND TO WHOM THEY LOOK FOR GUIDANCE, AUTHORITY, AND
LEADERSHIP.  THE LEGISLATURE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE MEMBERS OF SUCH
GROUPS USE THEIR POSITIONS TO ADVOCATE AND TEACH THEIR DOCTRINES, AND
ARE FREQUENTLY BOUND BY OATH, AGREEMENT, PLEDGE, OR UNDERSTANDING TO
FOLLOW, ADVOCATE AND TEACH A PRESCRIBED PARTY LINE OR GROUP DOGMA OR
DOCTRINE WITHOUT REGARD TO TRUTH OR FREE INQUIRY.  THIS PROPAGANDA, THE
LEGISLATURE DECLARED, IS SUFFICIENTLY SUBTLE TO ESCAPE DETECTION IN THE
CLASSROOM; THUS, THE MENACE OF SUCH INFILTRATION INTO THE CLASSROOM IS
DIFFICULT TO MEASURE.  FINALLY, TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN FROM SUCH
INFLUENCE, IT WAS THOUGHT ESSENTIAL THAT THE LAWS PROHIBITING MEMBERS
OF SUCH GROUPS, SUCH AS THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR ITS AFFILIATED
ORGANIZATIONS, FROM OBTAINING OR RETAINING EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS BE RIGOROUSLY ENFORCED.  IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE FEINBERG LAW
TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISQUALIFICATION AND REMOVAL OF SUPERINTENDENTS OF
SCHOOLS, TEACHERS, AND EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN ANY CITY OR
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE STATE WHO ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY UNLAWFUL MEANS OR WHO ARE MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS WHICH
HAVE A LIKE PURPOSE. 

PROVIDES THAT THE BOARD OF REGENTS, WHICH HAS CHARGE OF THE PUBLIC
SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, SHALL, AFTER FULL NOTICE AND
HEARING, MAKE A LISTING OF ORGANIZATIONS WHICH IT FINDS ADVOCATE,
ADVISE, TEACH, OR EMBRACE THE DOCTRINE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
OVERTHROWN BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR ANY OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS, AND THAT
SUCH LISTING MAY BE AMENDED AND REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME. 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE LISTINGS ARE MADE ONLY AFTER FULL NOTICE
AND HEARING.  IN ADDITION, THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSTRUED THE STATUTE
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 78 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT,
GILBERT-BLISS' N.Y. CIV. PRAC., VOL. 6B, SO AS TO PROVIDE LISTED
ORGANIZATIONS A RIGHT OF REVIEW. 

THE BOARD OF REGENTS IS FURTHER AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE IN RULES AND
REGULATIONS, AND HAS SO PROVIDED, THAT MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LISTED
ORGANIZATION, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, "SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE FOR DISQUALIFICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO OR RETENTION IN ANY
OFFICE OR POSITION IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM"; (FN6) BUT BEFORE ONE WHO IS
AN EMPLOYEE OR SEEKS EMPLOYMENT IS SEVERED FROM OR DENIED EMPLOYMENT,
HE LIKEWISE MUST BE GIVEN A FULL HEARING WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  (FN7)  IT IS
SEC. 12-A OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW, AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE FEINBERG LAW
AS ABOVE INDICATED, THAT IS UNDER ATTACK HERE. 

IT IS FIRST ARGUED THAT THE FEINBERG LAW AND THE RULES PROMULGATED
THEREUNDER CONSTITUTE AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS EMPLOYED OR SEEKING EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT SUCH PERSONS HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER OUR LAW TO
ASSEMBLE, SPEAK, THINK AND BELIEVE AS THEY WILL.  COMMUNICATIONS ASSN.
V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382.  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO
WORK FOR THE STATE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM ON THEIR OWN TERMS.  UNITED
PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75.  THEY MAY WORK FOR THE SCHOOL
SYSTEM UPON THE REASONABLE TERMS LAID DOWN BY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES OF
NEW YORK.  IF THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO WORK ON SUCH TERMS, THEY ARE AT
LIBERTY TO RETAIN THEIR BELIEFS AND ASSOCIATIONS AND GO ELSEWHERE.  HAS
THE STATE THUS DEPRIVED THEM OF ANY RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH OR ASSEMBLY? 
WE THINK NOT.  SUCH PERSONS ARE OR MAY BE DENIED, UNDER THE STATUTES IN
QUESTION, THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING FOR THE SCHOOL SYSTEM OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK BECAUSE, FIRST, OF THEIR ADVOCACY OF THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE, OR, SECONDLY, BY UNEXPLAINED
MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION FOUND BY THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, AFTER
NOTICE AND HEARING, TO TEACH AND ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE, AND KNOWN BY SUCH PERSONS TO HAVE SUCH
PURPOSE. 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FIRST PROPOSITION IS NOT QUESTIONED
HERE.  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 667-672, CONSTRUING SEC. 161
OF THE NEW YORK PENAL LAW. 

AS TO THE SECOND, IT IS RATHER SUBTLY SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD NOT
FOLLOW OUR RECENT DECISION IN GARNER V. LOS ANGELES BOARD, 341 U.S.
716.  WE THERE SAID: 

"WE THINK THAT A MUNICIPAL EMPLOYER IS NOT DISABLED BECAUSE IT IS AN
AGENCY OF THE STATE FROM INQUIRING OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS TO MATTERS THAT
MAY PROVE RELEVANT TO THEIR FITNESS AND SUITABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC
SERVICE.  PAST CONDUCT MAY WELL RELATE TO PRESENT FITNESS; PAST LOYALTY
MAY HAVE A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO PRESENT AND FUTURE TRUST.  BOTH
ARE COMMONLY INQUIRED INTO IN DETERMINING FITNESS FOR BOTH HIGH AND LOW
POSITIONS IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND ARE NOT LESS RELEVANT IN PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT."  341 U.S., AT P. 720. 

WE ADHERE TO THAT CASE.  A TEACHER WORKS IN A SENSITIVE AREA IN A
SCHOOLROOM.  THERE HE SHAPES THE ATTITUDE OF YOUNG MINDS TOWARDS THE
SOCIETY IN WHICH THEY LIVE.  IN THIS, THE STATE HAS A VITAL CONCERN. 
IT MUST PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE SCHOOLS.  THAT THE SCHOOL
AUTHORITIES HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO SCREEN THE OFFICIALS,
TEACHERS, AND EMPLOYEES AS TO THEIR FITNESS TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY
OF THE SCHOOLS AS A PART OF ORDERED SOCIETY, CANNOT BE DOUBTED.  ONE'S
ASSOCIATES, PAST AND PRESENT, AS WELL AS ONE'S CONDUCT, MAY PROPERLY BE
CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING FITNESS AND LOYALTY.  FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL,
ONE'S REPUTATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED IN PART BY THE COMPANY HE KEEPS. 
IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF OFFICIALS AND TEACHERS OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, THE
STATE MAY VERY PROPERLY INQUIRE INTO THE COMPANY THEY KEEP, AND WE KNOW
OF NO RULE, CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHERWISE, THAT PREVENTS THE STATE, WHEN
DETERMINING THE FITNESS AND LOYALTY OF SUCH PERSONS, FROM CONSIDERING
THE ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS WITH WHOM THEY ASSOCIATE. 

IF, UNDER THE PROCEDURE SET UP IN THE NEW YORK LAW, A PERSON IS FOUND
TO BE UNFIT AND IS DISQUALIFIED FROM EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LISTED ORGANIZATION, HE IS NOT
THEREBY DENIED THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.  HIS FREEDOM OF
CHOICE BETWEEN MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE
SCHOOL SYSTEM MIGHT BE LIMITED, BUT NOT HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR
ASSEMBLY, EXCEPT IN THE REMOTE SENSE THAT LIMITATION IS INHERENT IN
EVERY CHOICE.  CERTAINLY SUCH LIMITATION IS NOT ONE THE STATE MAY NOT
MAKE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER TO PROTECT THE SCHOOLS FROM
POLLUTION AND THEREBY TO DEFEND ITS OWN EXISTENCE. 

IT IS NEXT ARGUED BY APPELLANTS THAT THE PROVISION IN SEC. 3022
DIRECTING THE BOARD OF REGENTS TO PROVIDE IN RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY ORGANIZATION LISTED BY THE BOARD AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING, WITH PROVISION FOR REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE,
SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION, DENIES DUE
PROCESS, BECAUSE THE FACT FOUND BEARS NO RELATION TO THE FACT
PRESUMED.  IN OTHER WORDS, FROM THE FACT FOUND THAT THE ORGANIZATION
WAS ONE THAT ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT BY UNLAWFUL MEANS
AND THAT THE PERSON EMPLOYED OR TO BE EMPLOYED WAS A MEMBER OF THE
ORGANIZATION AND KNEW OF ITS PURPOSE, (FN8) TO PRESUME THAT SUCH MEMBER
IS DISQUALIFIED FOR EMPLOYMENT IS SO UNREASONABLE AS TO BE A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  WE DO NOT AGREE. 

"THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IS FULL OF PRESUMPTIONS EITHER OF FACT OR LAW. 
THE FORMER ARE, OF COURSE, DISPUTABLE, AND THE STRENGTH OF ANY
INFERENCE OF ONE FACT FROM PROOF OF ANOTHER DEPENDS UPON THE GENERALITY
OF THE EXPERIENCE UPON WHICH IT IS FOUNDED  ...  . 

"LEGISLATION PROVIDING THAT PROOF OF ONE FACT SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE MAIN FACT IN ISSUE IS BUT TO ENACT A RULE OF
EVIDENCE, AND QUITE WITHIN THE GENERAL POWER OF GOVERNMENT.  STATUTES,
NATIONAL AND STATE, DEALING WITH SUCH METHODS OF PROOF IN BOTH CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL CASES ABOUND, AND THE DECISIONS UPHOLDING THEM ARE
NUMEROUS."  MOBILE, J. & K.C.R. CO. V. TURNIPSEED, 219 U.S. 35, AT P.
42. 

MEMBERSHIP IN A LISTED ORGANIZATION FOUND TO BE WITHIN THE STATUTE
AND KNOWN BY THE MEMBER TO BE WITHIN THE STATUTE IS A LEGISLATIVE
FINDING THAT THE MEMBER BY HIS MEMBERSHIP SUPPORTS THE THING THE
ORGANIZATION STANDS FOR, NAMELY, THE OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT BY
UNLAWFUL MEANS.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH A FINDING IS CONTRARY TO FACT
OR THAT "GENERALITY OF EXPERIENCE" POINTS TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. 
DISQUALIFICATION FOLLOWS THEREFORE AS A REASONABLE PRESUMPTION FROM
SUCH MEMBERSHIP AND SUPPORT.  NOR IS THERE HERE A PROBLEM OF PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS.  THE PRESUMPTION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE BUT ARISES ONLY IN A
HEARING WHERE THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM IT MAY ARISE HAS FULL OPPORTUNITY
TO REBUT IT.  THE HOLDING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW IS SIGNIFICANT
IN THIS REGARD: 

"THE STATUTE ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT  ...  PROOF OF SUCH MEMBERSHIP
'SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION' FOR SUCH
EMPLOYMENT.  BUT, AS WAS SAID IN POTTS V. PARDEE (220 N.Y. 431, 433):
'THE PRESUMPTION GROWING OUT OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE  ...  REMAINS ONLY
SO LONG AS THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.  WHEN THAT
IS OFFERED THE PRESUMPTION DISAPPEARS, AND UNLESS MET BY FURTHER PROOF
THERE IS NOTHING TO JUSTIFY A FINDING BASED SOLELY UPON IT.'  THUS THE
PHRASE 'PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION,' AS USED IN THE
STATUTE, IMPORTS A HEARING AT WHICH ONE WHO SEEKS APPOINTMENT TO OR
RETENTION IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL POSITION SHALL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THE PRESUMPTION SANCTIONED
BY THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE FOR WHICH SUBDIVISION 2 OF SECTION 3022
MAKES PROVISION.  ONCE SUCH CONTRARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED,
HOWEVER, THE OFFICIAL WHO MADE THE ORDER OF INELIGIBILITY HAS
THEREAFTER THE BURDEN OF SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF THAT ORDER BY A
FAIR PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.  (CIVIL SERVICE LAW, SEC. 12-A,
SUBD. (D).)  SHOULD AN ORDER OF INELIGIBILITY THEN ISSUE, THE PARTY
AGGRIEVED THEREBY MAY AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW
PRESCRIBED BY THE SECTION OF THE STATUTE LAST CITED ABOVE.  IN THAT
VIEW THERE HERE ARISES NO QUESTION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS."  301
N.Y. 476, AT P. 494, 95 N.E.2D 806, AT 814-815.    WHERE, AS HERE, THE
RELATION BETWEEN THE FACT FOUND AND THE PRESUMPTION IS CLEAR AND DIRECT
AND IS NOT CONCLUSIVE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS ARE SATISFIED. 

WITHOUT RAISING IN THE COMPLAINT OR IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE LOWER
COURTS THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 3021 OF THE
EDUCATION LAW OF NEW YORK, APPELLANTS URGE HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT
THIS SECTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE.  THE QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE
US.  WE WILL NOT PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE
BEFORE THE STATE COURTS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.  ASBURY
HOSPITAL V. CASS COUNTY, 326 U.S. 207, 213-216; ALABAMA STATE
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, 460-462; PLYMOUTH COAL
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 531, 546. 

IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE USE OF THE WORD "SUBVERSIVE" IS VAGUE
AND INDEFINITE.  BUT THE WORD IS FIRST USED IN SEC. 1 OF THE FEINBERG
LAW, WHICH IS THE PREAMBLE TO THE ACT, AND NOT IN A DEFINITIVE PART
THEREOF.  WHEN USED IN SUBDIVISION 2 OF SEC. 3022, THE WORD HAS A VERY
DEFINITE MEANING, NAMELY, AN ORGANIZATION THAT TEACHES AND ADVOCATES
THE OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE. 

WE FIND NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IN SEC. 12-A OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
LAW OF NEW YORK OR IN THE FEINBERG LAW WHICH IMPLEMENTED IT, AND THE
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  N.Y. LAWS 1939, C. 547, AS AMENDED N.Y. LAWS 1940, C. 564. 

FN2  N.Y. LAWS 1949, C. 360. 

FN3  "SEC.  12-A.  INELIGIBILITY. 

"NO PERSON SHALL BE APPOINTED TO ANY OFFICE OR POSITION IN THE
SERVICE OF THE STATE OR OF ANY CIVIL DIVISION OR CITY THEREOF, NOR
SHALL ANY PERSON PRESENTLY EMPLOYED IN ANY SUCH OFFICE OR POSITION BE
CONTINUED IN SUCH EMPLOYMENT, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE EMPLOYED IN THE
PUBLIC SERVICE AS SUPERINTENDENTS, PRINCIPALS OR TEACHERS IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL OR ACADEMY OR IN A STATE NORMAL SCHOOL OR COLLEGE, OR ANY OTHER
STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHO:  (A) BY WORD OF MOUTH OR WRITING
WILFULLY AND DELIBERATELY ADVOCATES, ADVISES OR TEACHES THE DOCTRINE
THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE OR OF ANY
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF SHOULD BE OVERTHROWN OR OVERTURNED BY
FORCE, VIOLENCE OR ANY UNLAWFUL MEANS; OR: 

"(B)  PRINTS, PUBLISHES, EDITS, ISSUES OR SELLS, ANY BOOK, PAPER,
DOCUMENT OR WRITTEN OR PRINTED MATTER IN ANY FORM CONTAINING OR
ADVOCATING, ADVISING OR TEACHING THE DOCTRINE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE OR OF ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
THEREOF SHOULD BE OVERTHROWN BY FORCE, VIOLENCE OR ANY UNLAWFUL MEANS,
AND WHO ADVOCATES, ADVISES, TEACHES, OR EMBRACES THE DUTY, NECESSITY OR
PROPRIETY OF ADOPTING THE DOCTRINE CONTAINED THEREIN: 

"(C)  ORGANIZES OR HELPS TO ORGANIZE OR BECOMES A MEMBER OF ANY
SOCIETY OR GROUP OF PERSONS WHICH TEACHES OR ADVOCATES THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE OR OF ANY POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION THEREOF SHALL BE OVERTHROWN BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE, OR BY ANY
UNLAWFUL MEANS: 

"(D)  A PERSON DISMISSED OR DECLARED INELIGIBLE MAY WITHIN FOUR
MONTHS OF SUCH DISMISSAL OR DECLARATION OF INELIGIBILITY BE ENTITLED TO
PETITION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE SIGNED BY A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT, WHY A HEARING ON SUCH CHARGES SHOULD NOT BE HAD.  UNTIL THE
FINAL JUDGMENT ON SAID HEARING IS ENTERED, THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SHALL STAY THE EFFECT OF ANY ORDER OF DISMISSAL OR INELIGIBILITY BASED
ON THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.  THE HEARING SHALL CONSIST OF THE
TAKING OF TESTIMONY IN OPEN COURT WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS
EXAMINATION.  THE BURDEN OF SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL OR INELIGIBILITY BY A FAIR PREPONDERANCE OF THE CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE SHALL BE UPON THE PERSON MAKING SUCH DISMISSAL OR ORDER OF
INELIGIBILITY." 

FN4  "SEC.  3022.  ELIMINATION OF SUBVERSIVE PERSONS FROM THE PUBLIC
SCHOOL SYSTEM. 

"1.  THE BOARD OF REGENTS SHALL ADOPT, PROMULGATE, AND ENFORCE RULES
AND REGULATIONS FOR THE DISQUALIFICATION OR REMOVAL OF SUPERINTENDENTS
OF SCHOOLS, TEACHERS OR EMPLOYEES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN ANY CITY OR
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE STATE WHO VIOLATE THE PERVISIONS OF SECTION
THREE THOUSAND TWENTY-ONE OF THIS ARTICLE OR WHO ARE INELIGIBLE FOR
APPOINTMENT TO OR RETENTION IN ANY OFFICE OR POSITION IN SUCH PUBLIC
SCHOOLS ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS SET FORTH IN SECTION TWELVE-A OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND SHALL PROVIDE THEREIN APPROPRIATE METHODS AND
PROCEDURE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH SECTIONS OF THIS ARTICLE AND THE
CIVIL SERVICE LAW. 

"2.  THE BOARD OF REGENTS SHALL, AFTER INQUIRY, AND AFTER SUCH NOTICE
AND HEARING AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE, MAKE A LISTING OF ORGANIZATIONS
WHICH IT FINDS TO BE SUBVERSIVE IN THAT THEY ADVOCATE, ADVISE, TEACH OR
EMBRACE THE DOCTRINE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY
STATE OR OF ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF SHALL BE OVERTHROWN OR
OVERTURNED BY FORCE, VIOLENCE OR ANY UNLAWFUL MEANS, OR THAT THEY
ADVOCATE, ADVISE, TEACH OR EMBRACE THE DUTY, NECESSITY OR PROPRIETY OF
ADOPTING ANY SUCH DOCTRINE, AS SET FORTH IN SECTION TWELVE-A OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE LAW.  SUCH LISTINGS MAY BE AMENDED AND REVISED FROM TIME
TO TIME.  THE BOARD, IN MAKING SUCH INQUIRY, MAY UTILIZE ANY SIMILAR
LISTINGS OR DESIGNATIONS PROMULGATED BY ANY FEDERAL AGENCY OR AUTHORITY
AUTHORIZED BY FEDERAL LAW, REGULATION OR EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND FOR THE
PURPOSES OF SUCH INQUIRY, THE BOARD MAY REQUEST AND RECEIVE FROM SUCH
FEDERAL AGENCIES OR AUTHORITIES ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE
THAT MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE TO IT.  THE BOARD OF REGENTS SHALL PROVIDE
IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS REQUIRED BY SUBDIVISION ONE HEREOF THAT
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY SUCH ORGANIZATION INCLUDED IN SUCH LISTING MADE BY IT
SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION FOR
APPOINTMENT TO OR RETENTION IN ANY OFFICE OR POSITION IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS OF THE STATE." 

FN5  "SEC.  3021.  REMOVAL OF SUPERINTENDENTS, TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES
FOR TREASONABLE OR SEDITIOUS ACTS OR UTTERANCES. 

"A PERSON EMPLOYED AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, TEACHER OR EMPLOYEE
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, IN ANY CITY OR SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE STATE,
SHALL BE REMOVED FROM SUCH POSITION FOR THE UTTERANCE OF ANY
TREASONABLE OR SEDITIOUS WORD OR WORDS OR THE DOING OF ANY TREASONABLE
OR SEDITIOUS ACT OR ACTS WHILE HOLDING SUCH POSITION." 

FN6  "SEC.  254.  DISQUALIFICATION OR REMOVAL OF SUPERINTENDENTS,
TEACHERS AND OTHER EMPLOYES. 

     *         *         *      *        * 

"2.  LIST OF SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS TO BE ISSUED.  PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 360 OF THE LAWS OF 1949, THE BOARD OF REGENTS WILL ISSUE A
LIST, WHICH MAY BE AMENDED AND REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME, OF
ORGANIZATIONS WHICH THE BOARD FINDS TO BE SUBVERSIVE IN THAT THEY
ADVOCATE, ADVISE, TEACH OR EMBRACE THE DOCTRINE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY STATE OR OF ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
THEREOF, SHALL BE OVERTHROWN OR OVERTURNED BY FORCE, VIOLENCE OR ANY
UNLAWFUL MEANS, OR THAT THEY ADVOCATE, ADVISE, TEACH OR EMBRACE THE
DUTY, NECESSITY OR PROPRIETY OF ADOPTING ANY SUCH DOCTRINE, AS SET
FORTH IN SECTION 12-A OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW.  EVIDENCE OF MEMBERSHIP
IN ANY ORGANIZATION SO LISTED ON OR AFTER THE TENTH DAY SUBSEQUENT TO
THE DATE OF OFFICIAL PROMULGATION OF SUCH LIST SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO OR RETENTION OF
ANY OFFICE OR POSITION IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.  EVIDENCE OF MEMBERSHIP IN
SUCH AN ORGANIZATION PRIOR TO SAID DAY SHALL BE PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE
THAT MEMBERSHIP HAS CONTINUED, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT SUCH
MEMBERSHIP HAS BEEN TERMINATED IN GOOD FAITH."  OFFICIAL COMPILATION OF
CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (FIFTH SUPP.),
VOL. 1, PP. 205-206. 

FN7  THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSTRUED THE STATUTE IN CONJUNCTION WITH
SEC.12-A SUBD. (D), SUPRA, N. 3.  THE RULES OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS
PROVIDED:  "IN ALL CASES ALL RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL, REPRESENTATION BY
COUNSEL AND APPEAL OR COURT REVIEW AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE OR THE
CONSTITUTION SHALL BE SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVED."  SECTION 254, 1(E),
OFFICIAL COMPILATION OF CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK (FIFTH SUPP.), VOL. 1, P. 206. 

FN8  IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW, BOTH THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSTRUED THE STATUTE TO REQUIRE
SUCH KNOWLEDGE.  276 APP. DIV. 527, 530, 96 N.Y.S.2D 466, 470-471; 301
N.Y. 476, 494, 95 N.E.2D 806, 814-815. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

WHILE I FULLY AGREE WITH THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS HOLDING PROMPTS ME TO ADD THESE THOUGHTS. 

THIS IS ANOTHER OF THOSE RAPIDLY MULTIPLYING LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS
WHICH MAKE IT DANGEROUS - THIS TIME FOR SCHOOL TEACHERS - TO THINK OR
SAY ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT A TRANSIENT MAJORITY HAPPEN TO APPROVE AT THE
MOMENT.  BASICALLY THESE LAWS REST ON THE BELIEF THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD
SUPERVISE AND LIMIT THE FLOW OF IDEAS INTO THE MINDS OF MEN.  THE
TENDENCY OF SUCH GOVERNMENTAL POLICY IS TO MOULD PEOPLE INTO A COMMON
INTELLECTUAL PATTERN.  QUITE A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL POLICY RESTS ON
THE BELIEF THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEAVE THE MIND AND SPIRIT OF MAN
ABSOLUTELY FREE.  SUCH A GOVERNMENTAL POLICY ENCOURAGES VARIED
INTELLECTUAL OUTLOOKS IN THE BELIEF THAT THE BEST VIEWS WILL PREVAIL. 
THIS POLICY OF FREEDOM IS IN MY JUDGMENT EMBODIED IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH.  BECAUSE
OF THIS POLICY PUBLIC OFFICIALS CANNOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY VESTED WITH
POWERS TO SELECT THE IDEAS PEOPLE CAN THINK ABOUT, CENSOR THE PUBLIC
VIEWS THEY CAN EXPRESS, OR CHOOSE THE PERSONS OR GROUPS PEOPLE CAN
ASSOCIATE WITH.  PUBLIC OFFICIALS WITH SUCH POWERS ARE NOT PUBLIC
SERVANTS; THEY ARE PUBLIC MASTERS. 

I DISSENT FROM THE COURT'S JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THIS LAW WHICH
EFFECTIVELY PENALIZES SCHOOL TEACHERS FOR THIER THOUGHTS AND THEIR
ASSOCIATES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

WE ARE ASKED TO PASS ON A SCHEME TO COUNTERACT WHAT ARE CURRENTLY
CALLED "SUBVERSIVE" INFLUENCES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM OF NEW
YORK.  THE SCHEME IS FORMULATED PARTLY IN STATUTES AND PARTLY IN
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, BUT ALL OF IT IS STILL AN UNFINISHED
BLUEPRINT.  WE ARE ASKED TO ADJUDICATE CLAIMS AGAINST ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY BEFORE THE SCHEME HAS BEEN PUT INTO OPERATION, BEFORE
THE LIMITS THAT IT IMPOSES UPON FREE INQUIRY AND ASSOCIATION, THE SCOPE
OF SCRUTINY THAT IT SANCTIONS, AND THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL
BE FOUND TO BE IMPLIED FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT HAVE BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY
DEFINED.  I THINK WE SHOULD ADHERE TO THE TEACHING OF THIS COURT'S
HISTORY TO AVOID CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATIONS ON MERELY ABSTRACT OR
SPECULATIVE ISSUES AND TO BASE THEM ON THE CONCRETENESS AFFORDED BY AN
ACTUAL, PRESENT, DEFINED CONTROVERSY, APPROPRIATE FOR JUDICIAL
JUDGMENT, BETWEEN ADVERSARIES IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED BY IT.  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLED LIMITS UPON OUR JURISDICTION I WOULD
DISMISS THIS APPEAL. 

AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME AND THE ACTION THUS FAR
TAKEN UNDER IT IS NECESSARY TO A PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
WHICH FOR ME CONTROL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, NAMELY, STANDING OF THE
PARTIES AND RIPENESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 

A NEW YORK ENACTMENT OF 1949 PRECIPITATED THIS LITIGATION.  BUT THAT
LEGISLATION IS TIED TO PRIOR STATUTES.  BY A LAW OF 1917 "TREASONABLE
OR SEDITIOUS" UTTERANCES OR ACTS BARRED EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS.  NEW YORK EDUCATION LAW, SEC. 3021.  IN 1939 A FURTHER
ENACTMENT DISQUALIFIED FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE AND THE EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEM ANYONE WHO ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT BY FORCE,
VIOLENCE OR ANY UNLAWFUL MEANS, OR PUBLISHES MATERIAL ADVOCATING SUCH
OVERTHROW OR ORGANIZES OR JOINS ANY SOCIETY ADVOCATING SUCH DOCTRINE. 
NEW YORK CIVIL SERVICE LAW, SEC. 12-A.  THIS STATES WITH SUFFICIENT
ACCURACY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LAW, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED DETAILED
PROVISIONS FOR THE HEARING AND REVIEW OF CHARGES. 

DURING THE THIRTY-TWO YEARS AND TEN YEARS, RESPECTIVELY, THAT THESE
LAWS HAVE STOOD ON THE BOOKS, NO PRECEEDINGS, SO FAR AS APPEARS, HAVE
BEEN TAKEN UNDER THEM.  IN 1949 THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A NEW ACT,
FAMILIARLY KNOWN AS THE FEINBERG LAW, DESIGNED TO REINFORCE THE PRIOR
LEGISLATION.  THE LAW BEGINS WITH A LEGISLATIVE FINDING, BASED ON
"COMMON REPORT" OF WIDESPREAD INFILTRATION BY "MEMBERS OF SUBVERSIVE
GROUPS, AND PARTICULARLY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND CERTAIN OF ITS
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS," INTO THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OF THE STATE AND
THE EVILS ATTENDANT UPON THAT INFILTRATION.  IT TAKES NOTE OF EXISTING
LAWS AND EXHORTS THE AUTHORITIES TO GREATER ENDEAVOR OF ENFORCEMENT. 
THE STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, IN WHICH ARE LODGED EXTENSIVE POWER OVER
NEW YORK'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, WAS CHARGED BY THE FEINBERG LAW WITH
THESE DUTIES: 

(1)  TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE MORE STRINGENT
ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAW. 

(2)  TO LIST "AFTER INQUIRY, AND AFTER SUCH NOTICE AND HEARING AS MAY
BE APPROPRIATE" THOSE ORGANIZATIONS MEMBERSHIP IN WHICH IS PROSCRIBED
BY SUBSECTION (C) OF SEC. 12-A OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW. 

(3)  TO PROVIDE IN ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT MEMBERSHIP IN A
LISTED ORGANIZATION SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION
UNDER SEC. 12-A. 

(4)  TO REPORT SPECIALLY AND IN DETAIL TO THE LEGISLATURE EACH YEAR
ON MEASURES TAKEN FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE LAWS. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD OF REGENTS ADOPTED RULES FOR FERRETING OUT
VIOLATIONS OF SEC.  3021 OR SEC. 12-A.  AN ELABORATE MACHINERY WAS
DESIGNED FOR ANNUAL REPORTS ON EACH EMPLOYEE WITH A VIEW TO DISCOVERING
EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF THESE SECTIONS AND TO ASSURING APPROPRIATE
ACTION ON SUCH DISCOVERY.  THE BOARD ALSO ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTION TO
PUBLISH THE REQUIRED LIST OF PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS AND DEFINED THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF AN EMPLOYEE'S MEMBERSHIP THEREIN IN PROCEEDINGS FOR HIS
DISMISSAL.  THESE RULES BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS WERE PUBLISHED WITH AN
ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM BY THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION.  HE IS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD OF NEW YORK'S SCHOOL SYSTEM AND HIS MEMORANDUM WAS
FOR THE GUIDANCE OF SCHOOL OFFICIALS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.  IT WARNED
OF THE DANGER OF INDISCRIMINATE OR CARELESS ACTION UNDER THE FEINBERG
LAW AND THE REGENTS' RULES, AND LAID DOWN THIS DUTY:    "THE STATUTES
AND THE REGENTS' RULES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS A PRIMARY DUTY OF THE
SCHOOL AUTHORITIES IN EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT TO TAKE POSITIVE ACTION TO
ELIMINATE FROM THE SCHOOL SYSTEM ANY TEACHER IN WHOSE CASE THERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT HE IS GUILTY OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY.  SCHOOL AUTHORITIES
ARE UNDER OBLIGATION TO PROCEED IMMEDIATELY AND CONCLUSIVELY IN EVERY
SUCH CASE."    THE RULES AND MEMORANDUM APPEAR IN THE RECORD; WE SHALL
HAVE OCCASION TO REFER LATER TO THEIR RELEVANCE TO WHAT WAS DECIDED
BELOW.  OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN CALLED TO AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE PRESENT APPELLEE.  THIS ORDER
FURTHER ELABORATES THE PART OF THE REGENTS' RULES LEADING WITH REPORTS
ON TEACHERS.  IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS ORDER HAS GONE INTO EFFECT. 
IN ANY EVENT IT WAS NOT BEFORE THE LOWER COURTS AND IS NOT IN THE
RECORD HERE. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT WE ARE ASKED TO REVIEW A COMPLICATED STATUTORY
SCHEME PROHIBITING THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN THE KIND OF SPEECH OR CONDUCT
THAT IS PROSCRIBED FROM HOLDING POSITIONS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. 
THE SCHEME IS ALIGNED WITH A COMPLEX SYSTEM OF ENFORCEMENT BY
ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION, REPORTING AND LISTING OF PROSCRIBED
ORGANIZATIONS.  ALL THIS MUST FURTHER BE RELATED TO THE GENERAL
PROCEDURES UNDER THE NEW YORK LAW FOR HEARING AND REVIEWING CHARGES OF
MISCONDUCT AGAINST EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES, MODIFIED AS THOSE PROCEDURES
MAY BE BY THE FEINBERG LAW AND THE REGENTS' RULES. 

THIS INTRICATE MACHINERY HAS NOT YET BEEN SET IN MOTION.  ENFORCEMENT
HAS BEEN IN ABEYANCE SINCE THE PRESENT SUIT, AMONG OTHERS, WAS BROUGHT
TO ENJOIN THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FROM TAKING STEPS OR SPENDING FUNDS
UNDER THE STATUTES AND RULES ON THE THEORY THAT THESE TRANSGRESSED
VARIOUS LIMITATIONS WHICH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PLACES ON THE
POWER OF THE STATES.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON THE BARE BONES OF THE
FEINBERG LAW ONLY PARTLY GIVEN FLESH BY THE REGENTS' RULES.  IT WAS
DECIDED WHOLLY ON PLEADINGS:  A COMPLIANT, IDENTIFYING THE PLAINTIFFS
AND THEIR INTERESTS, SETTING OUT THE OFFENDING STATUTES AND RULES, AND
CONCLUDING IN A MORE OR LESS ARGUMENTATIVE FASHION THAT THESE
PROVISIONS VIOLATE NUMEROUS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE VARIOUS
PLAINTIFFS; AN ANSWER, DENYING THAT THE IMPACT OF THE STATUTE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE ANY INTEREST TO SUPPORT
THE SUIT.  ON THESE PLEADINGS SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF SOME OF THE
PLAINTIFFS WAS GRANTED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN KINGS COUNTY, 196 MISC.
873, 95 N.Y.S.2D 114; THIS WAS REVERSED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR
THE SECOND DEPARTMENT WITH DIRECTION THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED,
276 APP. DIV. 527, 96 N.Y.S.2D 466, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED
THE APPELLATE DIVISION.  301 N.Y. 476, 95 N.E.2D 806.  THESE PLEADINGS
AND THE OPINIONS BELOW ARE THE BASIS ON WHICH WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE
THIS CASE. 

ABOUT FORTY PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT THE ACTION INITIALLY; THE TRIAL COURT
DISMISSED AS TO ALL BUT EIGHT.  196 MISC., AT 877, 95 N.Y.S.2D, AT 117
118.  THE OTHERS WERE FOUND WITHOUT STANDING TO SUE UNDER NEW YORK
LAW.  THE EIGHT WHO ARE HERE AS APPELLANTS ALLEGED THAT THEY WERE
MUNICIPAL TAXPAYERS AND WERE EMPOWERED, BY VIRTUE OF N.Y. GEN.
MUNICIPAL LAW SEC. 51, TO BRING SUIT AGAINST MUNICIPAL AGENCIES TO
ENJOIN WASTE OF FUNDS.  NEW YORK IS FREE TO DETERMINE HOW THE VIEWS OF
ITS COURTS ON MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY ARE TO BE INVOKED.  BUT ITS
ACTION CANNOT OF COURSE CONFER JURISDICTION ON THIS COURT, LIMITED AS
THAT IS BY THE SETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF ARTICLE III OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  WE CANNOT ENTERTAIN, AS WE AGAIN RECOGNIZE THIS VERY
DAY, A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM AT THE INSTANCE OF ONE WHOSE INTEREST HAS
NO MATERIAL SIGNIFICANCE AND IS UNDIFFERENTIATED FROM THE MASS OF HIS
FELLOW CITIZENS.  DOREMUS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 342 U.S. 429.  THIS IS
NOT A "POCKETBOOK ACTION."  AS TAXPAYERS THESE PLAINTIFFS CANNOT
POSSIBLY BE AFFECTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BY ANY DISPOSITION OF THIS
CASE, AND THEY MAKE NO SUCH CLAIM.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE AUTHORITIES
WILL, IF LEFT FREE, DIVERT FUNDS AND EFFORT FROM OTHER PURPOSES FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER REVIEW, THOUGH HOW MUCH LEADS TO
THE MEREST CONJECTURE.  BUT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE, CERTAINLY THE NEW
EXPENDITURE, NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE ACT AND RULES MAY WELL BE DE
MINIMIS.  THE PLAINTIFFS AT ANY RATE HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO SHOW THAT
ANY SUCH EXPENDITURE WOULD COME FROM FUNDS TO WHICH THEIR TAXES
CONTRIBUTE.  IN SHORT, THEY HAVE NEITHER ALLEGED NOR SHOWN THAT OUR
DECISION ON THE ISSUES THEY TENDER WOULD HAVE THE SLIGHTEST EFFECT ON
THEIR TAX BILLS OR EVEN ON THE AGGREGATE BILL OF ALL THE CITY'S
TAXPAYERS WHOM THEY CLAIM TO REPRESENT.  THE HIGH IMPROBABILITY OF
BEING ABLE TO MAKE SUCH A DEMONSTRATION, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR JURISDICTION.  IF
THE INCIDENCE OF TAXATION IN A CITY LIKE NEW YORK BEARS NO RELATION TO
THE FACTORS HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT IS PRECISELY WHY THESE
TAXPAYERS HAVE NO CLAIM ON OUR JURISDICTION. 

THIS ENDS THE MATTER FOR PLAINTIFFS KRIEGER AND NEWMAN.  BUT SIX OF
THE PLAINTIFFS ADVANCED GROUNDS OTHER THAN THAT OF BEING TAXPAYERS IN
BRINGING THIS ACTION.  TWO ARE PARENTS OF CHILDREN IN NEW YORK CITY
SCHOOLS.  FOUR ARE TEACHERS IN THESE SCHOOLS.  ON THE BASIS OF THE
RECORD BEFORE US THESE CLAIMS, TOO, ARE INSUFFICIENT, IN VIEW OF OUR
CONTROLLING ADJUDICATIONS, TO SUPPORT THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE INTERESTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS PARENTS
INCONSEQUENTIAL.  196 MISC., AT 875, 95 N.Y.S.2D, AT 816.  I AGREE. 
PARENTS MAY DISLIKE TO HAVE CHILDREN EDUCATED IN A SCHOOL SYSTEM WHERE
TEACHERS FEEL RESTRAINED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THEIR
FREEDOM.  BUT IT IS LIKE CATCHING BUTTERFLIES WITHOUT A NET TO TRY TO
FIND A LEGAL INTEREST, INDISPENSABLE FOR OUR JURISDICTION, IN A
PARENT'S DESIRE TO HAVE HIS CHILD EDUCATED IN SCHOOLS FREE FROM SUCH
RESTRICTIONS.  THE HURT TO PARENTS' SENSIBILITIES IS TOO TENUOUS OR THE
INROAD UPON RIGHTFUL CLAIMS TO PUBLIC EDUCATION TOO ARGUMENTATIVE TO
SERVE AS THE EARTHY STUFF REQUIRED FOR A LEGAL RIGHT JUDICIALLY
ENFORCEABLE.  THE CLAIM DOES NOT APPROACH IN IMMEDIACY OR DIRECTNESS OR
SOLIDITY THAT WHICH OUR WHOLE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION
HAS DEEMED A NECESSARY CONDITION TO THE COURT'S SETTLEMENT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. 

AN APT CONTRAST IS PROVIDED BY MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333
U.S. 203, WHERE A PARENT DID PRESENT AN INDIVIDUALIZED CLAIM OF HIS OWN
THAT WAS DIRECT AND PALPABLE.  THERE THE PARENT ALLEGED THAT ILLINOIS
IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON THE CHILD'S FREE EXERCISE OF FAITH AND THEREBY
ON THE PARENT'S.  THE BASIS OF JURISDICTION IN THE MCCOLLUM CASE WAS
NOT AT ALL A PARENTAL RIGHT TO CHALLENGE IN THE COURTS - OR AT LEAST IN
THIS COURT - EDUCATIONAL PROVISIONS IN GENERAL.  THE CLOSELY DEFINED
ENCROACHMENT OF THE PARTICULAR ARRANGEMENT ON A CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED RIGHT OF THE CHILD, AND OF THE PARENT'S RIGHT IN THE CHILD,
FURNISHED THE BASIS FOR OUR REVIEW.  THE FEINBERG LAW PUTS NO LIMITS ON
ANY DEFINABLE LEGAL INTEREST OF THE CHILD OR OF ITS PARENTS. 

THIS LEAVES ONLY THE TEACHERS, ADLER, SPENCER, AND GEORGE AND MARK
FRIEDLANDER.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THEIR INTEREST AS TEACHERS WAS
SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THEM STANDING TO SUE WAS THOUGHT BY THE TRIAL COURT
TO BE CONCLUSIVELY SETTLED BY OUR DECISION IN UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V.
MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75.  I SEE NO ESCAPE FROM THE CONTROLLING RELEVANCE
OF THE MITCHELL CASE.  THERE INDIVIDUAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SOUGHT TO
ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE HATCH ACT FORBIDDING
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO TAKE ACTIVE PART IN POLITCS.  THE COMPLAINT
CONTAINED DETAILED RECITALS OF THE DESIRE, INTENT AND SPECIFIC STEPS
SHORT OF VIOLATION ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFFS TO ENGAGE IN THE
PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.  SEE ID., AT 87-88, N. 18.  THERE AS HERE THE
LAW WAS ATTACKED AS VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH.  WE FOUND JURISDICTION WANTING TO DECIDE THE ISSUE EXCEPT AS TO
ONE PLAINTIFF WHOSE CONDUCT HAD ALREADY VIOLATED THE APPLICABLE
STANDARDS. 

THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PRESENT ACTION FALL SHORT OF THOSE FOUND
INSUFFICIENT IN THE MITCHELL CASE.   THESE TEACHERS DO NOT ALLEGE THAT
THEY HAVE ENGAGED IN PROSCRIBED CONDUCT OR THAT THEY HAVE ANY INTENTION
TO DO SO.  THEY DO NOT SUGGEST THAT THEY HAVE BEEN, OR ARE, DETERRED
FROM SUPPORTING CAUSES OR FROM JOINING ORGANIZATIONS FOR FEAR OF THE
FEINBERG LAW'S INTERDICT, EXCEPT TO SAY GENERALLY THAT THE SYSTEM
COMPLAINED OF WILL HAVE THIS EFFECT ON TEACHERS AS A GROUP.  THEY DO
NOT ASSERT THAT THEY ARE THREATENED WITH ACTION UNDER THE LAW, OR THAT
STEPS ARE IMMINENT WHEREBY THEY WOULD INCUR THE HAZARD OF PUNISHMENT
FOR CONDUCT INNOCENT AT THE TIME, OR UNDER STANDARDS TOO VAGUE TO
SATISFY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THEY MERELY ALLEGE THAT THE STATUTES AND
RULES PERMIT SUCH ACTION AGAINST SOME TEACHERS.  SINCE WE RIGHTLY
REFUSED IN THE MITCHELL CASE TO HEAR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHOSE CONDUCT
WAS MUCH MORE INTIMATELY AFFECTED BY THE LAW THERE ATTACKED THAN ARE
THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS HERE, THIS SUIT IS WANTING IN THE NECESSARY
BASIS FOR OUR REVIEW. 

THIS CASE PROVES ANEW THE WISDOM OF RIGOROUS ADHERENCE TO THE
PREREQUISITES FOR PRONOUNCEMENT BY THIS COURT ON MATTERS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  THE ABSENCE IN THESE PLAINTIFFS OF THE IMMEDIACY
AND SOLIDITY OF INTEREST NECESSARY TO SUPPORT JURISDICTION IS REFLECTED
IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF ABSTRACTION AND AMBIGUITY IN WHICH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE PRESENTED.  THE BROAD, GENERALIZED CLAIMS
URGED AT THE BAR TOUCH THE DEEPEST INTERESTS OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY:
ITS RIGHT TO SELF-PRESERVATION AND AMPLE SCOPE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL'S
FREEDOM, ESPECIALLY THE TEACHER'S FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, INQUIRY AND
EXPRESSION.  NO PROBLEM OF A FREE SOCIETY IS PROBABLY MORE DIFFICULT
THAN THE RECONCILIATION OR ACCOMMODATION OF THESE TOO OFTEN CONFLICTING
INTERESTS.  THE JUDICIAL ROLE IN THIS PROCESS OF ACCOMMODATION IS
NECESSARILY VERY LIMITED AND MUST BE CAREFULLY CIRCUMSCRIBED.  TO THAT
END THE COURT, IN ITS LONG HISTORY, HAS DEVELOPED "A SERIES OF RULES"
CAREFULLY FORMULATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, "UNDER WHICH IT HAS
AVOIDED PASSING UPON A LARGE PART OF ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
PRESSED UPON IT FOR DECISION."  ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 346. 

WE HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT, AS TO THE KIND OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
RAISED BY THE FEINBERG LAW, "THE DISTINCTION IS ONE OF DEGREE, AND IT
IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE IN PROSCRIBING
BELIEFS - LIKE ITS EFFECT IN RESTRAINING SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF
ASSOCIATION - MUST BE CAREFULLY WEIGHED BY THE COURTS IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE BALANCE STRUCK BY (THE STATE) COMPORTS WITH THE DICTATES OF
THE CONSTITUTION."  AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S.
382, 409.  BUT AS THE CASE COMES TO US WE CAN HAVE NO GUIDE OTHER THAN
OUR OWN NOTIONS - HOWEVER UNCRITICALLY EXTRA-JUDICIAL - OF THE REAL
BEARING OF THE NEW YORK ARRANGEMENT ON THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND
ACTIVITY, AND ESPECIALLY ON THE FEELING OF SUCH FREEDOM, WHICH ARE, AS
I SUPPOSE NO ONE WOULD DENY, PART OF THE NECESSARY PROFESSIONAL
EQUIPMENT OF TEACHERS IN A FREE SOCIETY.  THE SCHEME FOR PROTECTING THE
SCHOOL SYSTEM FROM BEING MADE THE INSTRUMENT OF PURPOSES OTHER THAN A
SCHOOL SYSTEM SHOULD SERVE IN A FREE SOCIETY - CERTAINLY A CONCERN
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF A STATE - BRISTLES WITH AMBIGUITIES
WHICH MUST ENTER INTO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION WE MAY MAKE.  OF
THESE ONLY A FEW HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURTS BELOW.  WE ARE TOLD
THAT AN ORGANIZATION CANNOT BE LISTED BY THE REGENTS EXCEPT AFTER
HEARING.  301 N.Y., AT 488, 493, 494, 95 N.E.2D, AT 810-811, 814-815. 
FROM THIS IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE HEARING CONTEMPLATED IS THAT FOUND
WANTING BY SOME MEMBERS OF THIS COURT IN JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE
COMMITTEE V. MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 123.  THE EFFECT OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT
MEMBERSHIP IN A LISTED ORGANIZATION BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
DISQUALIFICATION IN A DISMISSAL PROCEEDING IS ENLARGED UPON.  301 N.Y.,
AT 494, 95 N.E.2D, AT 814-815.  AND THE COURT OF APPEALS INDICATES THAT
ONLY ONE WHO "KNOWINGLY HOLDS MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION NAMED UPON
ANY LISTING" IS SUBJECTED TO THE OPERATION OF THAT REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION.  ID., AT 494, 95 N.E.2D, AT 814. 

THESE ARE THE ONLY ISLANDS OF CLARITY.  OTHERWISE WE ARE AT SEA.  WE
ARE NOT TOLD THE MEANING TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE WORDS "TREASONABLE OR
SEDITIOUS" IN SEC. 3021 OF THE EDUCATION LAW, THOUGH THAT IS ONE OF THE
TWO SECTIONS OF PREEXISTING LAW WHICH THE ELABORATE APPARATUS OF THE
FEINBERG LAW IS DESIGNED TO ENFORCE.  IN LIGHT OF THE EXPERIENCE UNDER
THE SEDITION ACT OF 1798, 1 STAT. 596, "SEDITIOUS" CAN HARDLY BE DEEMED
A SELF-DEFINING TERM OR A WORD OF ART. SEE MILLER, CRISIS IN FREEDOM,
136-137.  NOR CAN WE TURN TO PRACTICAL APPLICATION OR JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION FOR SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY OF THE MEANING TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE RANGE OF ACTIVITY PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 12-A. CONCERN
OVER THE LATITUDE AFFORDED BY SUCH PHRASES AS "THE OVERTHROW OF
GOVERNMENT BY  ...  ANY UNLAWFUL MEANS" WHEN POSITIONS OF TRUST OR
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT ARE CONDITIONED UPON DISBELIEF IN SUCH AN OBJECTIVE
CANNOT BE DEEMED WITHOUT WARRANT.  SEE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.
DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 415, 435; GARNER V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF LOS
ANGELES, 341 U.S. 716, 724.  IN THOSE CASES THE COURT HAD GROUND FOR
LIMITING THE REACH OF A DUBIOUS FORMULA.  NO SUCH ALTERNATIVE IS
AVAILABLE HERE.    THESE GAPS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRECISE SCOPE
OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE DEEPENED BY EQUAL UNCERTAINTIES IN THE
IMPLEMENTING RULES.  INDEED, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION THESE
RULES ARE NOT IN THE CASE.  276 APP. DIV., AT 531, 96 N.Y.S.2D, AT
471.  AND THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS SILENT ON THE POINT.  THEREFORE WE
ARE WITHOUT ENLIGHTENMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE NATURE OF THE REPORTING
SYSTEM DESCRIBED BY THE RULES.  THIS MAY BE A VITAL MATTER, AFFECTING
NOT THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR CASE BUT COLORING THE
WHOLE SCHEME.  FOR IT MAY WELL BE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
WHETHER THE REPORTING SYSTEM COMTEMPLATES MERELY THE NOTATION AS TO
EACH TEACHER THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION HAS TURNED UP, IF
SUCH BE THE CASE, OR WHETHER IT DEMANDS SYSTEMATIC AND CONTINUOUS
SURVEILLANCE AND INVESTIGATION OF EVIDENCE.  THE DIFFERENCE CANNOT BE
MEANINGLESS, IT MAY EVEN BE DECISIVE, IF OUR FUNCTION IS TO BALANCE THE
RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF UTTERANCE AND OF ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE
EVIL TO BE SUPPRESSED.  AGAIN, THE RULES SEEM TO INDICATE THAT PAST
ACTIVITIES OF THE PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS OR PAST MEMBERSHIP IN LISTED
ORGANIZATIONS MAY BE ENOUGH TO BAR NEW APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT.  BUT
WE DO NOT KNOW, NOR CAN WE DETERMINE IT.  THIS, TOO, MAY MAKE A
DIFFERENCE.  SEE GARNER V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF LOS ANGELES, SUPRA,
AT 729 (MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENTING IN PART).  WE DO NOT KNOW, NOR
CAN WE ASCERTAIN, THE EFFECT OF THE PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUING
MEMBERSHIP IN PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS THAT IS DRAWN FROM EVIDENCE OF
PAST MEMBERSHIP "IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT SUCH MEMBERSHIP HAS
BEEN TERMINATED IN GOOD FAITH."  WE ARE UNINFORMED OF THE EFFECT IN LAW
OF THE COMMISSIONER'S MEMORANDUM, AND THERE IS NO BASIS ON WHICH TO
APPRAISE ITS EFFECT IN PRACTICE.  AS FOR THE ORDER OF THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, IT IS NOT EVEN FORMALLY IN THE
CASE.  IN THE FACE OF SUCH UNCERTAINTIES THIS COURT HAS IN THE PAST
FOUND JURISDICTION WANTING, HOWSOEVER MUCH THE LITIGANTS WERE EAGER FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL PRONOUNCEMENTS.  ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V.
MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450; CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS V. MCADORY,
325 U.S. 472; RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549; PARKER V.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 338 U.S. 327. 

THIS STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECLINING JURISDICTION SOUNDS
TECHNICAL, PERHAPS, BUT THE PRINCIPLES CONCERNED ARE NOT SO.  RARE
DEPARTURES FROM THEM ARE REGRETTABLE CHAPTERS IN THE COURT'S HISTORY,
AND IN WELL-KNOWN INSTANCES THEY CAUSED GREAT PUBLIC MISFORTUNE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT THE RECENT DOCTRINE THAT A CITIZEN WHO
ENTERS THE PUBLIC SERVICE CAN BE FORCED TO SACRIFICE HIS CIVIL RIGHT.*
I CANNOT FOR EXAMPLE FIND IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME THE POWER OF A
STATE TO PLACE ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE CATEGORY OF SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS
BY DENYING THEM FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION.  THE CONSTITUTION
GUARANTEES FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION TO EVERYONE IN OUR
SOCIETY.  ALL ARE ENTITLED TO IT; AND NONE NEEDS IT MORE THAN THE
TEACHER. 

*UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75; GARNER V. BOARD OF
PUBLIC WORKS OF LOS ANGELES, 341 U.S. 716. 

THE PUBLIC SCHOOL IS IN MOST RESPECTS THE CRADLE OF OUR DEMOCRACY. 
THE INCREASING ROLE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL IS SEIZED UPON BY PROPONENTS
OF THE TYPE OF LEGISLATION REPRESENTED BY NEW YORK'S FEINBERG LAW AS
PROOF OF THE IMPORTANCE AND NEED FOR KEEPING THE SCHOOL FREE OF
"SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCES."  BUT THAT IS TO MISCONCEIVE THE EFFECT OF THIS
TYPE OF LEGISLATION.  INDEED THE IMPACT OF THIS KIND OF CENSORSHIP ON
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM ILLUSTRATES THE HIGH PURPOSE OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT IN FREEING SPEECH AND THOUGHT FROM CENSORSHIP. 

THE PRESENT LAW PROCEEDS ON A PRINCIPLE REPUGNANT TO OUR SOCIETY -
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.  A TEACHER IS DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE OF HER
MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION FOUND TO BE "SUBVERSIVE."  THE FINDING AS
TO THE "SUBVERSIVE" CHARACTER OF THE ORGANIZATION IS MADE IN A
PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE TEACHER IS NOT A PARTY AND IN WHICH IT IS NOT
CLEAR THAT SHE MAY EVEN BE HEARD.  TO BE SURE, SHE MAY HAVE A HEARING
WHEN CHARGES OF DISLOYALTY ARE LEVELED AGAINST HER.  BUT IN THAT
HEARING THE FINDING AS TO THE "SUBVERSIVE" CHARACTER OF THE
ORGANIZATION APPARENTLY MAY NOT BE REOPENED IN ORDER TO ALLOW HER TO
SHOW THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER.  THE IRREBUTTABLE CHARGE THAT THE
ORGANIZATION IS "SUBVERSIVE" THEREFORE HANGS AS AN OMINOUS CLOUD OVER
HER OWN HEARING.  THE MERE FACT OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORGANIZATION
RAISES A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF HER OWN GUILT.  SHE MAY, IT IS SAID, SHOW
HER INNOCENCE.  BUT INNOCENCE IN THIS CASE TURNS ON KNOWLEDGE; AND WHEN
THE WITCH HUNT IS ON, ONE WHO MUST RELY ON IGNORANCE LEANS ON A FEEBLE
REED. 

THE VERY THREAT OF SUCH A PROCEDURE IS CERTAIN TO RAISE HAVOC WITH
ACADEMIC FREEDOM.  YOUTHFUL INDISCRETIONS, MISTAKEN CAUSES, MISGUIDED
ENTHUSIASMS - ALL LONG FORGOTTEN - BECOME THE GHOSTS OF A HARROWING
PRESENT.  ANY ORGANIZATION COMMITTED TO A LIBERAL CAUSE, ANY GROUPS
ORGANIZED TO REVOLT AGAINST AN HYSTERICAL TREND, ANY COMMITTEE LAUNCHED
TO SPONSOR AN UNPOPULAR PROGRAM BECOMES SUSPECT.   THESE ARE THE
ORGANIZATIONS INTO WHICH COMMUNISTS OFTEN INFILTRATE.  THEIR PRESENCE
INFECTS THE WHOLE, EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT WAS NOT CONCEIVED IN SIN.  A
TEACHER CAUGHT IN THAT MESH IS ALMOST CERTAIN TO STAND CONDEMNED. 
FEARING CONDEMNATION, SHE WILL TEND TO SHRINK FROM ANY ASSOCIATION THAT
STIRS CONTROVERSY.  IN THAT MANNER FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WILL BE
STIFLED. 

BUT THAT IS ONLY PART OF IT.  ONCE A TEACHER'S CONNECTION WITH A
LISTED ORGANIZATION IS SHOWN, HER VIEWS BECOME SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER HER MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORGANIZATION IS INNOCENT OR, IF
SHE WAS FORMERLY A MEMBER, WHETHER SHE HAS BONA FIDE ABANDONED HER
MEMBERSHIP. 

THE LAW INEVITABLY TURNS THE SCHOOL SYSTEM INTO A SPYING PROJECT. 
REGULAR LOYALTY REPORTS ON THE TEACHERS MUST BE MADE OUT.  THE
PRINCIPALS BECOME DETECTIVES; THE STUDENTS, THE PARENTS, THE COMMUNITY
BECOME INFORMERS.  EARS ARE COCKED FOR TELL-TALE SIGNS OF DISLOYALTY. 
THE PREJUDICES OF THE COMMUNITY COME INTO PLAY IN SEARCHING OUT THE
DISLOYAL.  THIS IS NOT THE USUAL TYPE OF SUPERVISION WHICH CHECKS A
TEACHER'S COMPETENCY; IT IS A SYSTEM WHICH SEARCHES FOR HIDDEN MEANINGS
IN A TEACHER'S UTTERANCES. 

WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REFERENCE OF THE ART TEACHER TO
SOCIALISM?  WHY WAS THE HISTORY TEACHER SO OPENLY HOSTILE TO FRANCO
SPAIN?  WHO HEARD OVERTONES OF REVOLUTION IN THE ENGLISH TEACHER'S
DISCUSSION OF THE GRAPES OF WRATH?  WHAT WAS BEHIND THE PRAISE OF
SOVIET PROGRESS IN METALLURGY IN THE CHEMISTRY CLASS?  WAS IT NOT
"SUBVERSIVE" FOR THE TEACHER TO CAST DOUBT ON THE WISDOM OF THE VENTURE
IN KOREA? 

WHAT HAPPENS UNDER THIS LAW IS TYPICAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN A POLICE
STATE.  TEACHERS ARE UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE; THEIR PASTS ARE
COMBED FOR SIGNS OF DISLOYALTY; THEIR UTTERANCES ARE WATCHED FOR CLUES
TO DANGEROUS THOUGHTS.  A PALL IS CAST OVER THE CLASSROOMS.  THERE CAN
BE NO REAL ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.  WHERE SUSPICION FILLS
THE AIR AND HOLDS SCHOLARS IN LINE FOR FEAR OF THEIR JOBS, THERE CAN BE
NO EXERCISE OF THE FREE INTELLECT.  SUPINENESS AND DOGMATISM TAKE THE
PLACE OF INQUIRY.  A "PARTY LINE" - AS DANGEROUS AS THE "PARTY LINE" OF
THE COMMUNISTS - LAYS HOLD.  IT IS THE "PARTY LINE" OF THE ORTHODOX
VIEW, OF THE CONVENTIONAL THOUGHT, OF THE ACCEPTED APPROACH.  A PROBLEM
CAN NO LONGER BE PURSUED WITH IMPUNITY TO ITS EDGES.  FEAR STALKS THE
CLASSROOM.  THE TEACHER IS NO LONGER A STIMULANT TO ADVENTUROUS
THINKING; SHE BECOMES INSTEAD A PIPE LINE FOR SAFE AND SOUND
INFORMATION.  A DEADENING DOGMA TAKES THE PLACE OF FREE INQUIRY. 
INSTRUCTION TENDS TO BECOME STERILE; PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE IS
DISCOURAGED; DISCUSSION OFTEN LEAVES OFF WHERE IT SHOULD BEGIN. 

THIS, I THINK, IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A CENSOR LOOKS OVER A TEACHER'S
SHOULDER.  THIS SYSTEM OF SPYING AND SURVEILLANCE WITH ITS ACCOMPANYING
REPORTS AND TRIALS CANNOT GO HAND IN HAND WITH ACADEMIC FREEDOM.  IT
PRODUCES STANDARDIZED THOUGHT, NOT THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH.  YET IT WAS
THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO
PROTECT.  A SYSTEM WHICH DIRECTLY OR INEVITABLY HAS THAT EFFECT IS
ALIEN TO OUR SYSTEM AND SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN.  ITS SURVIVAL IS A REAL
TREAT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE.  WE NEED BE BOLD AND ADVENTURESOME IN OUR
THINKING TO SURVIVE.  A SCHOOL SYSTEM PRODUCING STUDENTS TRAINED AS
ROBOTS THREATENS TO ROB A GENERATION OF THE VERSATILITY THAT HAS BEEN
PERHAPS OUR GREATEST DISTINCTION.  THE FRAMERS KNEW THE DANGER OF
DOGMATISM; THEY ALSO KNEW THE STRENGTH THAT COMES WHEN THE MIND IS
FREE, WHEN IDEAS MAY BE PURSUED WHEREVER THEY LEAD.  WE FORGET THESE
TEACHINGS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHEN WE SUSTAIN THIS LAW. 

OF COURSE THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS OF THE COUNTRY NEED NOT BECOME CELLS FOR
COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES; AND THE CLASSROOMS NEED NOT BECOME FORUMS FOR
PROPAGANDIZING THE MARXIST CREED.  BUT THE GUILT OF THE TEACHER SHOULD
TURN ON OVERT ACTS.  SO LONG AS SHE IS A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN, SO LONG
AS HER PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM MEETS PROFESSIONAL
STANDARDS, HER PRIVATE LIFE, HER POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, HER SOCIAL CREED
SHOULD NOT BE THE CAUSE OF REPRISALS AGAINST HER. 
..END :




















BLACKMAR V. GUERRE 342 U.S. 512 


NO. 361.  ARGUED JANUARY 30-31, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 190
F.2D 427, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER WAS DISCHARGED FROM HIS POSITION IN THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF
THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION IN NEW ORLEANS AND THIS ACTION WAS
SUSTAINED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IN WASHINGTON.  HE BROUGHT
SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN LOUISIANA AGAINST THE MANAGER OF
THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (EO NOMINE) TO
HAVE THESE ACTIONS SET ASIDE.  HELD:  THE SUIT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED. 
PP. 513-516. 

1.  DEFENDANTS' CHALLENGES TO THE VENUE AND JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WERE PROPERLY PRESENTED BY MOTION AND ANSWER.  FED.
RULES CIV. PROC., 12(B).  P. 514. 

2.  CONGRESS HAS NOT CONSTITUTED THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION A BODY
CORPORATE OR AUTHORIZED IT TO BE SUED EO NOMINE.  PP. 514-516. 

(A)  THE PRESENT SUIT AGAINST THE COMMISSION EO NOMINE IS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE HATCH ACT, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 118KC).  PP. 514-515. 

(B)  NOR WAS THIS SUIT AUTHORIZED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT, 5 U.S.C. SEC.  1009, WHICH PROVIDES FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION
ONLY IN A COURT OF "COMPETENT JURISDICTION."  THE COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARE THE ONLY COURTS OF "COMPETENT JURISDICTION" TO
REACH THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.  PP. 515-516. 

3.  THE ONLY DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT WAS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NO RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED AGAINST HIM IN THIS
SUIT.  PP. 515, 516. 

BLACKMAR V. GUERRE, REGIONAL MANAGER, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT COURT IN LOUISIANA DISMISSED THIS SUIT FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  190 F.2D 427.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 884.  AFFIRMED, P. 516. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A VETERAN EMPLOYED AS AUTHORIZATION OFFICER IN THE
REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION IN NEW ORLEANS, WAS
REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION.  HE APPEALED UNDER SEC. 14 OF THE VETERANS'
PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944 (5 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 863) TO THE TENTH
REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IN NEW
ORLEANS.  THE REGIONAL BOARD FOUND THAT HIS DISCHARGE WAS NOT WARRANTED
AND RECOMMENDED THAT HE BE REINSTATED TO HIS POSITION.  THE VETERANS'
ADMINISTRATION APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND REVIEW OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION IN WASHINGTON.  THE COMMISSION REVERSED THE TENTH
REGIONAL BOARD AND SO NOTIFIED PETITIONER. 

PETITIONER THEN INSTITUTED THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, NAMING AS DEFENDANTS GUERRE, THE
REGIONAL MANAGER OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, WHO HAD FIRST
DISCHARGED HIM, AND THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.  GUERRE
WAS SERVED PERSONALLY.  SERVICE ON THE COMMISSION WAS SOUGHT THROUGH
PERSONAL SERVICE ON WEINSTEIN, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND
ON LEACH, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE TENTH UNITED STATES CIVIL
SERVICE REGION.  BOTH WEINSTEIN AND LEACH RESIDED WITHIN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.  SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL WAS MADE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UPON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

PETITIONER PRAYED FOR A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SETTING ASIDE
AND ANNULLING HIS DISCHARGE BY GUERRE AND THE ACTION OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION CONFIRMING GUERRE'S ACTION, AND DECLARING THAT
"PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER FROM THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION DIRECTING ...  GUERRE  ...  TO RESTORE PLAINTIFF TO HIS
AFORE-SAID POSITION" WITH BACK PAY.  RESPONDENTS APPEARED AND FILED A
MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE OF IMPROPER VENUE AND LACK OF JURISDICTION. 
AFTER THIS MOTION WAS OVERRULED, RESPONDENTS FILED AN ANSWER RAISING,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE SAME ISSUES.   ON MOTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT SUSTAINED THAT OF RESPONDENTS, HOLDING THAT
IT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS OF THE COMMISSIONERS, WHO WERE
NOT RESIDENTS OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AND WHO WERE
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND
THAT THERE WAS NO VENUE IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BY PETITIONER IN THE PROPER VENUE.  190 F.2D 427. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 884. 

WE DO NOT REACH THE MERITS IN THIS PROCEEDING.  WE ARE MET AT THE
THRESHOLD WITH A CHALLENGE BY MOTION AND ANSWER AS TO THE VENUE AND
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOUISIANA TO ENTERTAIN THIS
ACTION.  THESE DEFENSES AS TO LAW AND FACT WERE PROPERLY PRESENTED IN
THIS MANNER.  FED. RULES CIV. PROC., 12(B). 

IF THE COMMISSION COULD BE SUED EO NOMINE, WE WOULD BE CONFRONTED
WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SERVICE AS HERE MADE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT
TO BRING THE COMMISSION INTO COURT; BUT CONGRESS HAS NOT CONSTITUTED
THE COMMISSION A BODY CORPORATE OR AUTHORIZED IT TO BE SUED EO NOMINE. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SUCH AUTHORIZATION IS GIVEN BY THE HATCH ACT. 
(FN1)  NOT SO.  WHILE SEC. 118KC) OF 5 U.S.C. DOES PROVIDE THAT A STATE
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED SEC 118KB) MAY OBTAIN REVIEW
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HE RESIDES, THIS IS NOT
AUTHORIZATION FOR A NEW PROCEEDING AGAINST THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION.  IT IS AUTHORIZATION ONLY FOR A TRANSFER OF THE CASE FROM
THE COMMISSION TO THE DISTRICT COURT - A CONTINUATION OF THE SAME
PROCEEDING BEFORE ANOTHER TRIBUNAL.  REVIEW IS INSTITUTED BY PETITION
AND NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION, WHICH IS DIRECTED BY THE ACT TO FILE A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD IN THE CASE IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE COURT
REVIEWS THE CASE ON THE OLD RECORD, WITH THE RIGHT TO HEAR FURTHER
EVIDENCE.  EVEN THIS LIMITED REVIEW IS NOT AFFORDED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED SEC. 118(I).  THUS, BY NO STRETCH OF THE
IMAGINATION CAN THE LIMITED REVIEW GRANTED STATE EMPLOYEES BY THE HATCH
ACT BE DEEMED AN AUTHORIZATION BY CONGRESS FOR THE PRESENT SUIT AGAINST
THE COMMISSION.  WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZES ONE OF ITS AGENCIES TO BE
SUED EO NOMINE, IT DOES SO IN EXPLICIT LANGUAGE, OR IMPLIEDLY BECAUSE
THE AGENCY IS THE OFFSPRING OF SUCH A SUABLE ENTITY.  SEE KEIFER &
KEIFER V. R.F.C., 306 U.S. 381, 390. 

SINCE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IS NOT A CORPORATE ENTITY WHICH
CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED TO BE SUED, A SUIT INVOLVING THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION GENERALLY MUST BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONERS AS MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION.  NO SUCH SUIT WAS BROUGHT HERE, AND NO SERVICE WAS HAD UPON
THE INDIVIDUALS COMPRISING THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.  THEREFORE,
NEITHER THE INDIVIDUALS COMPRISING THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NOR THE
COMMISSION AS A SUABLE ENTITY WAS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT. 

WE DO NOT HAVE A QUESTION OF VENUE AS TO DEFENDANTS UNTIL WE HAVE
DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE COURT.  THE ONLY DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT WAS
GUERRE.  THE VENUE AS TO HIM WAS ALL RIGHT, BUT IT IS OBVIOUS NO RELIEF
CAN BE GRANTED AGAINST HIM. 

IT IS FURTHER SUGGESTED THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AUTHORIZED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1001 ET SEQ. CERTAINLY
THERE IS NO SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION IN THAT ACT FOR SUIT AGAINST THE
COMMISSION AS AN ENTITY.  STILL LESS IS THE ACT TO BE DEEMED AN IMPLIED
WAIVER OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.  IF THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION IS REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 1009, (FN2) IT IS REVIEWABLE ONLY IN A
COURT OF "COMPETENT JURISDICTION."  ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT
COMMISSION ACTION IS REVIEWABLE BY COURT ACTION UNDER SEC. 1009, IT
MUST FOLLOW THAT REVIEW MUST BE IN THAT DISTRICT WHERE THE
COMMISSIONERS CAN BE SERVED.  SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION IS NOT AN ENTITY THAT MAY BE SUED ANYWHERE IT MAY BE
FUNCTIONING BUT ONLY THE COMMISSIONERS MAY BE SUED WHERE THEY CAN BE
SERVED, SEC. 1009 DOES NOT AID PETITIONER IN AN ACTION BROUGHT IN
LOUISIANA.  THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARE THE ONLY COURTS
OF "COMPETENT JURISDICTION" TO REACH THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION. 

SINCE THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WERE NEVER SERVED,
AND COULD NOT BE SERVED, IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF LOUISIANA, AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IS NOT A CORPORATE
ENTITY, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ONLY DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT WAS GUERRE,
AND, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, NO RELIEF COULD POSSIBLY BE GRANTED
AGAINST HIM IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  53 STAT. 1147, AS AMENDED, 54 STAT. 767, SEC. 12(C), 5 U.S.C.
(SUPP. IV) SEC. 118KC). 

FN2  "SEC.  1009.  JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION. 

"EXCEPT SO FAR AS (1) STATUTES PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW OR (2) AGENCY
ACTION IS BY LAW COMMITTED TO AGENCY DISCRETION  ...  . 

"(A)  RIGHT OF REVIEW. 

"ANY PERSON SUFFERING LEGAL WRONG BECAUSE OF ANY AGENCY ACTION, OR
ADVERSELY AFFECTED OR AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF
ANY RELEVANT STATUTE, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW THEREOF. 

"(B)  FORM AND VENUE OF PROCEEDINGS. 

"THE FORM OF PROCEEDING FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW SHALL BE ANY SPECIAL
STATUTORY REVIEW PROCEEDING RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER IN ANY COURT
SPECIFIED BY STATUTE OR, IN THE ABSENCE OR INADEQUACY THEREOF, ANY
APPLICABLE FORM OF LEGAL ACTION  ...  IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION  ...  ." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 
..END :







GRAY V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE 342 U.S. 517 


NO. 120.  ARGUED JANUARY 9-10, 1952.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 100 F.
SUPP. 113; 97 F. SUPP. 463, JUDGMENTS VACATED WITH DIRECTIONS TO
DISMISS THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CAUSE IS MOOT. 


THIS SUIT BY APPELLANTS TO ENJOIN APPELLEES FROM ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN REFUSING TO ADMIT NEGROES TO THE UNIVERSITY
OF TENNESSEE MUST BE DISMISSED AS MOOT, SINCE APPELLANTS' REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITY HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT ANY PERSON "SIMILARLY SITUATED" WILL NOT BE AFFORDED
SIMILAR TREATMENT.  PP. 517-518. 

GRAY ET AL. V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF TENNESSEE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 159, MISC., EX PARTE GRAY ET AL., ON PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

APPELLANTS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHER NEGROES "SIMILARLY
SITUATED," SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN APPELLEES FROM ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN REFUSING TO ADMIT NEGROES TO
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE.  A THREE-JUDGE COURT, CONVENED AT
APPELLANTS' REQUEST, HELD THAT THIS CASE WAS NOT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC.
2281 AND ORDERED THAT THE CASE PROCEED BEFORE A SINGLE DISTRICT JUDGE. 
100 F. SUPP. 113.  THE SINGLE JUDGE HELD THAT APPELLANTS WERE ENTITLED
TO RELIEF BUT DID NOT ENTER AN ORDER.  97 F. SUPP. 463. 

APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT ONLY A COURT OF THREE JUDGES HAS JURISDICTION
OVER THE CAUSE.  NO. 120 IS AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER DISSOLVING THE
THREE-JUDGE COURT BROUGHT DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. (SUPP.
IV) SEC. 1253.  WE SET THE APPEAL DOWN FOR ARGUMENT, POSTPONING
CONSIDERATION OF JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS.  IN NO. 159 MISC.,
APPELLANTS ASKED, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT WE ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO VACATE THE ORDER DISSOLVING THE THREE-JUDGE COURT.  WE ISSUED A RULE
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, 342
U.S. 846, AND, UPON THE FILING OF A RESPONSE TO THE RULE, SET THE
PETITION DOWN FOR ARGUMENT WITH THE APPEAL. 

AT THE ARGUMENT, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES STATED THAT APPELLANTS WOULD
BE ADMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AS REQUESTED.  THEREAFTER,
APPELLANTS FILED A MOTION STATING THAT APPELLANT GRAY HAS BEEN ADMITTED
TO THE UNIVERSITY AND THAT THE OTHER APPELLANTS WERE, BECAUSE OF
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, UNABLE TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE OPPORTUNITY AT
PRESENT.  APPELLANTS MOVED THIS COURT TO VACATE THE ORDER DISSOLVING
THE THREE-JUDGE COURT AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  SINCE APPELLANTS' REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND SINCE THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT ANY PERSON "SIMILARLY SITUATED" WILL NOT BE AFFORDED
SIMILAR TREATMENT, APPELLANTS' MOTION IS DENIED AND THE JUDGMENTS BELOW
ARE VACATED AND THE DISTRICT COURT IS DIRECTED TO DISMISS THE ACTION
UPON THE GROUND THAT THE CAUSE IS MOOT.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 
..END :
















HUGHES V. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 353 


NO. 86.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1952 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1952 - REVERSED. 


A SHERMAN ACT CONSENT DECREE PROVIDED FOR DIVORCEMENT OF A MOTION
PICTURE COMPANY'S PRODUCTION-DISTRIBUTION ASSETS FROM ITS THEATER
ASSETS.  TWO NEW COMPANIES WERE TO BE FORMED; THEIR STOCK WAS TO BE
DISTRIBUTED TO STOCKHOLDERS OF THE OLD COMPANY; AND THE LATTER WAS TO
BE DISSOLVED.  RELATIVE TO APPELLANT, WHO OWNED 24% OF THE STOCK OF THE
OLD COMPANY, THE DECREE PROVIDED THAT HE MIGHT "EITHER" SELL HIS STOCK
IN ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE NEW COMPANIES "OR" DEPOSIT SUCH STOCK WITH A
COURT-DESIGNATED TRUSTEE UNDER A VOTING TRUST AGREEMENT TO REMAIN IN
FORCE UNTIL APPELLANT "SHALL HAVE SOLD" HIS STOCK IN ONE OF THE
COMPANIES.  APPELLANT CHOSE NOT TO SELL ANY STOCK, AND THE DISTRICT
COURT APPOINTED A TRUSTEE AND APPROVED THE AGREED TERMS OF A VOTING
TRUST.  WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR FINDINGS OF FACT, AND OVER APPELLANT'S
PROTESTS, THE DISTRICT COURT LATER AMENDED ITS ORDER APPOINTING THE
TRUSTEE AND ORDERED THAT THE TRUSTEED STOCK BE SOLD.  HELD: 

1.  THE PROVISION OF THE DECREE DID NOT REQUIRE THAT APPELLANT SELL
HIS STOCK WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.  PP. 356-357. 

2.  UNDER THE POWERS RESERVED IN THE CONSENT DECREE, THE DISTRICT
COURT CAN REQUIRE THE SALE OF APPELLANT'S STOCK; BUT THAT WOULD BE A
SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE, WHICH CANNOT BE MADE
WITHOUT A HEARING THAT INCLUDES EVIDENCE AND A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
BASED UPON IT.  PP. 357-358. 

HUGHES V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

FROM AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT IN A SHERMAN ACT
PROCEEDING, COMPELLING APPELLANT TO SELL CERTAIN SHARES OF STOCK, HE
APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER 15 U.S.C.  SEC. 29.  REVERSED, P.
358. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS. 

A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT HAS CONSTRUED CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF A
SHERMAN ACT CONSENT DECREE AS COMPELLING THE SALE OF CERTAIN MOVING
PICTURE STOCKS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT HUGHES.  THIS CASE IS PROPERLY
HERE ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER ENTERED TO COMPEL THE SALE.  15 U.S.C.
(SUPP. IV) SEC. 29. 

THESE ANTI-TRUST PROCEEDINGS WERE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT BY THE UNITED
STATES AGAINST RADIO-KEITH-ORPHEUM CORPORATION AND OTHER MOVING PICTURE
PRODUCERS, DISTRIBUTORS, AND EXHIBITORS.  FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND DEFENDANTS APPEALED.  WE
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT
PICTURES, INC., 334 U.S. 131.  WE REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT
COURT LEAVING IT FREE TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY TO REQUIRE
THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF ALL
OWNERSHIP AND INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS OF EXHIBITING PICTURES. 
THEREAFTER A CONSENT DECREE WAS ENTERED CONTAINING DETAILED PROVISIONS
FOR COMPLETE DIVORCEMENT OF R.K.O.'S PRODUCTION-DISTRIBUTION ASSETS
FROM ITS THEATER ASSETS.  TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, R.K.O. WAS TO FORM TWO
NEW HOLDING COMPANIES:  ONE, THE "NEW PICTURE COMPANY," WAS TO TAKE
OVER ALL R.K.O. SUBSIDIARIES ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION;
THE OTHER, THE "NEW THEATER COMPANY," WAS TO OWN AND CONTROL R.K.O.
SUBSIDIARIES WHICH OPERATED THEATERS.  UPON FORMATION OF THE NEW
COMPANIES, R.K.O. WAS TO BE DISSOLVED.  FORMER STOCKHOLDERS WERE TO
BECOME THE OWNERS OF ALL THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE TWO NEW COMPANIES. 
A FACTOR CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS DIVORCEMENT WAS THAT HOWARD
R. HUGHES, APPELLANT HERE, OWNED 24% OF THE COMMON STOCK OF R.K.O.  NO
OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION OWNED AS MUCH AS 1%.  HE AND GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVES AGREED ON TERMS TO MEET THIS SITUATION.  THEIR
AGREEMENT WAS EMBODIED IN THE CONSENT DECREE, BECOMING SECTION V. THIS
CONTROVERSY.  IT PROVIDES THAT HUGHES MAY "EITHER" (A) SELL HIS STOCK
IN ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE TWO NEWLY FORMED COMPANIES, "OR" (B) DEPOSIT
SUCH STOCK WITH A COURT-DESIGNATED TRUSTEE UNDER A VOTING TRUST
AGREEMENT TO REMAIN IN FORCE UNTIL HUGHES SHALL HAVE SOLD HIS STOCK IN
ONE OF THE COMPANIES.  HUGHES CHOSE NOT TO SELL ANY STOCK, AND HE AND
THE UNITED STATES AGREED ON A TRUSTEE AND THE TERMS OF A VOTING TRUST,
WHICH AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED BY A COURT ORDER.  LATER, BY MOTION THE
UNITED STATES SOUGHT A COURT ORDER FORCING THE TRUSTEE TO SELL HUGHES'
STOCK.  WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR FINDINGS OF FACT, AND OVER HUGHES'
PROTESTS, THE DISTRICT COURT AMENDED ITS ORDER APPOINTING A TRUSTEE BY
PROVIDING THAT "IF THE STOCK TRUSTEED SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF
BY HOWARD R. HUGHES BY FEBRUARY 20TH, 1953, THE TRUSTEE SHALL DISPOSE
OF SUCH STOCK WITHIN TWO YEARS THEREAFTER."  APPELLANT HUGHES URGES
THAT IT WAS ERROR TO ORDER HIS STOCK SOLD IN SO SUMMARY A MANNER. 

*V. HOWARD R. HUGHES REPRESENTS THAT HE NOW OWNS APPROXIMATELY 24
PERCENT OF THE COMMON STOCK OF RADIO-KEITH-ORPHEUM CORPORATION.  WITHIN
A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE HEREOF, HOWARD R. HUGHES SHALL
EITHER: 

"A.  DISPOSE OF HIS HOLDINGS OF THE STOCK OF (1) THE NEW PICTURE
COMPANY, OR (2) THE NEW THEATER COMPANY, AS HE MAY ELECT, TO A
PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS WHO IS OR ARE NOT A DEFENDANT HEREIN OR OWNED
OR CONTROLLED BY OR AFFILIATED WITH A DEFENDANT IN THIS CAUSE; OR 

"B.  DEPOSIT WITH A TRUSTEE DESIGNATED BY THE COURT ALL OF HIS SHARES
OF THE NEW PICTURE COMPANY OR THE NEW THEATER COMPANY, AS HE MAY ELECT,
UNDER A VOTING TRUST AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE TRUSTEE SHALL POSSESS AND BE
ENTITLED TO EXERCISE ALL THE VOTING RIGHTS OF SUCH SHARES, INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO EXECUTE PROXIES AND CONSENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO.  SUCH
VOTING TRUST AGREEMENT SHALL THEREAFTER REMAIN IN FORCE UNTIL HOWARD R.
HUGHES SHALL HAVE SOLD HIS HOLDINGS OF STOCK OF THE NEW PICTURE COMPANY
OR THE NEW THEATER COMPANY TO A PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS WHO IS OR ARE
NOT A DEFENDANT HEREIN OR OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY OR AFFILIATED WITH A
DEFENDANT HEREIN, AND UPON SUCH SALE AND TRANSFER SUCH VOTING TRUST
AGREEMENT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE.  SUCH TRUST SHALL BE UPON SUCH
OTHER TERMS OR CONDITIONS, INCLUDING COMPENSATION TO THE TRUSTEE, AS
SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COURT.  DURING THE PERIOD OF SUCH VOTING
TRUST, HOWARD R. HUGHES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ALL DIVIDENDS AND
OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRUSTEED SHARES, AND
PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE THEREOF. 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVIDENCING HIS CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS
OF SECTION V OF THIS DECREE, HOWARD R. HUGHES INDIVIDUALLY HAS
CONSENTED TO ITS ENTRY AND IT SHALL BE BINDING UPON HIS AGENTS AND
EMPLOYEES." 

FIRST.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT SECTION V SHOULD BE READ AS
COMPELLING HUGHES TO SELL HIS STOCK WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.  WE HOLD
THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION IMPOSES NO SUCH REQUIREMENT.  A
READING OF THE EITHER/OR WORDING WOULD MAKE MOST PERSONS BELIEVE THAT
HUGHES WAS TO HAVE A CHOICE OF TWO DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES.  HUGHES
WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE IF THE FIRST "ALTERNATIVE" WAS TO SELL THE STOCK
AND THE SECOND "ALTERNATIVE" WAS ALSO TO SELL THE STOCK.  MOREOVER,
PLACE IT IN A VOTING TRUST, THIS TRUST SHOULD REMAIN IN FORCE "UNTIL
HOWARD R. HUGHES SHALL HAVE SOLD" HIS STOCK.  THIS WOULD ORDINARILY
MEAN THAT HUGHES, NOT THE COURT, COULD DECIDE WHETHER HIS STOCK SHOULD
BE SOLD.  NOR CAN A DIFFERENT INFERENCE BE DRAWN FROM THE LANGUAGE
AUTHORIZING THE COURT TO PROVIDE THE TRUST'S GENERAL "TERMS OR
CONDITIONS, INCLUDING COMPENSATION TO THE TRUSTEE."  THIS LANGUAGE
CANNOT SUPPORT AN INFERENCE THAT THE COURT WAS EMPOWERED TO DEPRIVE
HUGHES OF EITHER OF HIS EXPRESSLY GRANTED ALTERNATIVES. 

ARGUING ON A BROADER FRONT THAN THE MERE LANGUAGE OF SECTION V, THE
GOVERNMENT URGES: THAT SECTION V MUST BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO ACHIEVE
THE PURPOSES OF THE ENTIRE R.K.O.  CONSENT DECREE; THAT THE BASIC
PURPOSE OF THAT DECREE WAS DIVORCEMENT OF PRODUCTION-DISTRIBUTION
COMPANIES FROM THEATER EXHIBITION COMPANIES; AND THAT HUGHES CANNOT
CONSISTENTLY WITH THIS PURPOSE BE LEFT WITH A 24% INTEREST IN BOTH
TYPES OF COMPANIES.  IT MAY BE TRUE AS THE GOVERNMENT NOW CONTENDS THAT
HUGHES' LARGE BLOCK OF OWNERSHIP IN BOTH TYPES OF COMPANIES ENDANGERS
THE INDEPENDENCE OF EACH.  EVIDENCE MIGHT SHOW THAT A SALE BY HUGHES IS
INDISPENSABLE IF COMPETITION IS TO BE PRESERVED.  HOWEVER, IN SECTION V
THE PARTIES AND THE DISTRICT COURT PROVIDED THEIR OWN DETAILED PLAN TO
NEUTRALIZE THE EVILS FROM SUCH OWNERSHIP.  WHATEVER JUSTIFICATION THERE
MAY BE NOW OR HEREAFTER FOR NEW TERMS THAT REQUIRE A SALE OF HUGHES'
STOCK, WE THINK THERE IS NO FAIR SUPPORT FOR READING THAT REQUIREMENT
INTO THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION V. THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER CANNOT BE
SUPPORTED BY RELIANCE ON SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.  CONSEQUENTLY THE
COURT'S COMMAND TO SELL THE STOCK EFFECTED A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION
OF THE ORIGINAL DECREE. 

SECOND.  THE GOVERNMENT FINDS SUPPORT FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN
THE DECREE BY REFERENCE TO (1) PROVISIONS IN THE DECREE RESERVING
JURISDICTION TO AMEND, AND (2) THE INHERENT EQUITY POWERS OF THE
COURT.  WE ENTERTAIN NO DOUBT CONCERNING THE DISTRICT COURT'S POWER TO
REQUIRE SALE OF HUGHES' STOCK AFTER A PROPER HEARING.  WHEN THIS CASE
WAS FORMERLY HERE ON OTHER PHASES, 334 U.S. 131, WE HAD OCCASION TO
POINT OUT THE DISTRICT COURT'S POWER TO REQUIRE SOME COMPANIES TO
DIVEST THEMSELVES OF OWNERSHIP OF OTHER COMPANIES WHERE NECESSARY TO
PRESERVE COMPETITION AND TO PREVENT MONOPOLY.  THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
THERE SET OUT WOULD ALSO JUSTIFY COMPULSORY DIVESTMENT OF STOCKS BY AN
INDIVIDUAL.  BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO ADEQUATE HEARING OF THIS ISSUE AS TO
HUGHES.  NEITHER WHEN THE PRESENT ORDER WAS CONSIDERED NOR WHEN THE
ORIGINAL DECREE WAS ENTERED WERE ANY FINDINGS OF FACT MADE TO SUPPORT
AN ORDER OF COMPULSORY SALE OF HUGHES' STOCK.  AS PREVIOUSLY POINTED
OUT THE CONSENT OF HUGHES DID NOT INCLUDE CONSENT TO MAKE HIM SELL.  AT
EVERY STAGE HUGHES OBJECTED TO THE ORDER FORCING SALE OF HIS STOCK
WITHOUT A HEARING THAT INCLUDED EVIDENCE AND A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
BASED ON IT. 

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THAT IT WAS ERROR TO ENTER AN ORDER
FORCING HUGHES TO SELL HIS STOCK.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





DICE V. AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD CO. 342 U.S. 359 


NO. 374.  ARGUED DECEMBER 3-4, 1951 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1952 - 155
OHIO ST. 185, 98 N.E.2D 301, REVERSED. 


1.  IN AN ACTION IN A STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF A RELEASE GRANTED TO THE
CARRIER BY THE INJURED EMPLOYEE IS A FEDERAL QUESTION AND IS TO BE
DETERMINED BY FEDERAL RATHER THAN STATE LAW.  PP. 361-362. 

2.  A RELEASE OF RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IS
VOID WHEN THE EMPLOYEE IS INDUCED TO SIGN IT BY DELIBERATELY FALSE AND
MATERIAL STATEMENTS OF THE CARRIER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, MADE
TO DECEIVE THE EMPLOYEE AS TO THE CONTENTS OF THE RELEASE.  P. 362. 

3.  IN AN ACTION BROUGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
IN AN OHIO STATE COURT, WHICH PROVIDES JURY TRIALS FOR CASES ARISING
UNDER THE ACT, IT WAS ERROR FOR THE JUDGE TO TAKE FROM THE JURY THE
DETERMINATION OF THE FACTUAL QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER A RELEASE HAD BEEN
FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED.  PP. 362-364. 

DICE V. AKRON, CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

IN A STATE COURT ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT,
THE STATE SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED A JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT
NOTWITHSTANDING A VERDICT OF THE JURY IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.  155
OHIO ST. 185, 98 N.E.2D 301.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S.
811.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 364. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS. 

PETITIONER, A RAILROAD FIREMAN, WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED WHEN AN ENGINE
IN WHICH HE WAS RIDING JUMPED THE TRACK.  ALLEGING THAT HIS INJURIES
WERE DUE TO RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE, HE BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR DAMAGES
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT.  65, 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 51 ET SEQ., IN AN OHIO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.  RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSES WERE (1) A DENIAL OF NEGLIGENCE AND (2) A WRITTEN DOCUMENT
SIGNED BY PETITIONER PURPORTING TO RELEASE RESPONDENT IN FULL FOR
$924.63.  PETITIONER ADMITTED THAT HE HAD SIGNED SEVERAL RECEIPTS FOR
PAYMENTS MADE HIM IN CONNECTION WITH HIS INJURIES BUT DENIED THAT HE
HAD MADE A FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL HIS CLAIMS.  HE ALLEGED
THAT THE PURPORTED RELEASE WAS VOID BECAUSE HE HAD SIGNED IT RELYING ON
RESPONDENT'S DELIBERATELY FALSE STATEMENT THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS NOTHING
MORE THAN A MERE RECEIPT FOR BACK WAGES. 

AFTER BOTH PARTIES HAD INTRODUCED CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE THE JURY
FOUND IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER AND AWARDED HIM A $25,000 VERDICT.  THE
TRIAL JUDGE LATER ENTERED JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  IN
DOING SO HE REAPPRAISED THE EVIDENCE AS TO FRAUD, FOUND THAT PETITIONER
HAD BEEN "GUILTY OF SUPINE NEGLIGENCE" IN FAILING TO READ THE RELEASE,
AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE FACTS DID NOT "SUSTAIN EITHER IN LAW OR
EQUITY THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD BY CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE."*  THIS JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT WAS REVERSED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO, ON THE GROUND THAT UNDER
FEDERAL LAW, WHICH CONTROLLED, THE JURY'S VERDICT MUST STAND BECAUSE
THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS FINDING OF FRAUD.  THE OHIO
SUPREME COURT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED THE COURT OF APPEALS'
JUDGMENT AND SUSTAINED THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION, HOLDING THAT:  (1)
OHIO, NOT FEDERAL, LAW GOVERNED; (2) UNDER THAT LAW PETITIONER, A MAN
OF ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE WHO COULD READ, WAS BOUND BY THE RELEASE EVEN
THOUGH HE HAD BEEN INDUCED TO SIGN IT BY THE DELIBERATELY FALSE
STATEMENT THAT IT WAS ONLY A RECEIPT FOR BACK WAGES; AND (3) UNDER
CONTROLLING OHIO LAW FACTUAL ISSUES AS TO FRAUD IN THE EXECUTION OF
THIS RELEASE WERE PROPERLY DECIDED BY THE JUDGE RATHER THAN BY THE
JURY.  155 OHIO ST. 185, 98 N.E.2D 301.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO APPEARED TO DEVIATE FROM
PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT FEDERAL LAW GOVERNS CASES ARISING
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  342 U.S. 811. 

*THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD CHARGED THE JURY THAT PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF
FRAUD MUST BE SUSTAINED "BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE," BUT SINCE
THE VERDICT WAS FOR PETITIONER, HE DOES NOT HERE CHALLENGE THIS CHARGE
AS IMPOSING TOO HEAVY A BURDEN UNDER CONTROLLING FEDERAL LAW. 

FIRST.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS OF SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO,
AND THE DISSENTING JUDGE IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT AND HOLD THAT
VALIDITY OF RELEASES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT RAISES
A FEDERAL QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED BY FEDERAL RATHER THAN STATE LAW. 
CONGRESS IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT GRANTED PETITIONER A RIGHT TO RECOVER
AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER FOR DAMAGES NEGLIGENTLY INFLICTED.  STATE LAWS ARE
NOT CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING WHAT THE INCIDENTS OF THIS FEDERAL RIGHT
SHALL BE.  CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V. KUHN, 284 U.S. 44; RICKETTS V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 153 F.2D 757, 759.  MANIFESTLY THE FEDERAL RIGHTS
AFFORDING RELIEF TO INJURED RAILROAD EMPLOYEES UNDER A FEDERALLY
DECLARED STANDARD COULD BE DEFEATED IF STATES WERE PERMITTED TO HAVE
THE FINAL SAY AS TO WHAT DEFENSES COULD AND COULD NOT BE PROPERLY
INTERPOSED TO SUITS UNDER THE ACT.  MOREOVER, ONLY IF FEDERAL LAW
CONTROLS CAN THE FEDERAL ACT BE GIVEN THAT UNIFORM APPLICATION
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY ESSENTIAL TO EFFECTUATE ITS PURPOSES.  SEE
GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239, 244, AND CASES THERE
CITED.  RELEASES AND OTHER DEVICES DESIGNED TO LIQUIDATE OR DEFEAT
INJURED EMPLOYEES' CLAIMS PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART IN THE FEDERAL ACT'S
ADMINISTRATION.  COMPARE DUNCAN V. THOMPSON, 315 U.S. 1.  THEIR
VALIDITY IS BUT ONE OF THE MANY INTERRELATED QUESTIONS THAT MUST
CONSTANTLY BE DETERMINED IN THESE CASES ACCORDING TO A UNIFORM FEDERAL
LAW. 

SECOND.  IN EFFECT THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE
TRUSTS HIS EMPLOYER AT HIS PERIL, AND THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN
INNOCENT WORKER IS SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE HIS EMPLOYER TO BENEFIT BY ITS
DELIBERATE FRAUD.  APPLICATION OF SO HARSH A RULE TO DEFEAT A RAILROAD
EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM IS WHOLLY INCONGRUOUS WITH THE GENERAL POLICY OF THE
ACT TO GIVE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES A RIGHT TO RECOVER JUST COMPENSATION FOR
INJURIES NEGLIGENTLY INFLICTED BY THEIR EMPLOYERS.  AND THIS OHIO RULE
IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH MODERN JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE TO
RELIEVE INJURED PERSONS FROM THE EFFECT OF RELEASES FRAUDULENTLY
OBTAINED.  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN NOTE, 164 A.L.R. 402-415.  SEE ALSO
UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. HARRIS, 158 U.S. 326; CALLEN V. PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO., 332 U.S. 625; CHESAPEAKE & O.R. CO. V. HOWARD, 14 APP.  D.C. 262,
AFF'D, 178 U.S. 153; GRAHAM V. ATCHISON T.&S.F.R. CO., 176 F.2D 819. 
WE HOLD THAT THE CORRECT FEDERAL RULE IS THAT ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO, AND THE DISSENTING JUDGE IN THE OHIO
SUPREME COURT - A RELEASE OF RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT IS VOID WHEN THE
EMPLOYEE IS INDUCED TO SIGN IT BY THE DELIBERATELY FALSE AND MATERIAL
STATEMENTS OF THE RAILROAD'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES MADE TO DECEIVE
THE EMPLOYEE AS TO THE CONTENTS OF THE RELEASE.  THE TRIAL COURT'S
CHARGE TO THE JURY CORRECTLY STATED THIS RULE OF LAW. 

THIRD.  OHIO PROVIDES AND HAS HERE ACCORDED PETITIONER THE USUAL JURY
TRIAL OF FACTUAL ISSUES RELATING TO NEGLIGENCE.  BUT OHIO TREATS
FACTUAL QUESTIONS OF FRAUDULENT RELEASES DIFFERENTLY.  IT PERMITS THE
JUDGE TRYING A NEGLIGENCE CASE TO RESOLVE ALL FACTUAL QUESTIONS OF
FRAUD "OTHER THAN FRAUD IN THE FACTUM."  THE FACTUAL ISSUE OF FRAUD IS
THUS SPLIT INTO FRAGMENTS, SOME TO BE DETERMINED BY THE JUDGE, OTHERS
BY THE JURY. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT SINCE A STATE MAY CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION PROVIDE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER THE ACT BY A NONUNANIMOUS
VERDICT, MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V. BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S. 211, OHIO
MAY LAWFULLY ELIMINATE TRIAL BY JURY AS TO ONE PHASE OF FRAUD WHILE
ALLOWING JURY TRIAL AS TO ALL OTHER ISSUES RAISED.  THE BOMBOLIS CASE
MIGHT BE MORE IN POINT HAD OHIO ABOLISHED TRIAL BY JURY IN ALL
NEGLIGENCE CASES INCLUDING THOSE ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT.  BUT
OHIO HAS NOT DONE THIS.  IT HAS PROVIDED JURY TRIALS FOR CASES ARISING
UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT BUT SEEKS TO SINGLE OUT ONE PHASE OF THE QUESTION
OF FRAUDULENT RELEASES FOR DETERMINATION BY A JUDGE RATHER THAN BY A
JURY.  COMPARE TESTA V. KATT, 330 U.S. 386. 

WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT "THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IS 'A BASIC
AND FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF OUR SYSTEM OF FEDERAL JURISPRUDENCE'" AND
THAT IT IS "PART AND PARCEL OF THE REMEDY AFFORDED RAILROAD WORKERS
UNDER THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT."  BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO.,
319 U.S. 350, 354.  WE ALSO RECOGNIZED IN THAT CASE THAT TO DEPRIVE
RAILROAD WORKERS OF THE BENEFIT OF A JURY TRIAL WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT NEGLIGENCE "IS TO TAKE AWAY A GOODLY PORTION OF THE RELIEF
WHICH CONGRESS HAS AFFORDED THEM."  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RIGHT TO TRIAL
BY JURY IS TOO SUBSTANTIAL A PART OF THE RIGHTS ACCORDED BY THE ACT TO
PERMIT IT TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A MERE "LOCAL RULE OF PROCEDURE" FOR
DENIAL IN THE MANNER THAT OHIO HAS HERE USED.  BROWN V. WESTERN R. CO.,
338 U.S. 294. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE OHIO SUPREME COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
PETITIONER'S RIGHTS WERE TO BE DETERMINED BY OHIO LAW AND IN TAKING
AWAY PETITIONER'S VERDICT WHEN THE ISSUES OF FRAUD HAD BEEN SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY ON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AND DETERMINED IN PETITIONER'S
FAVOR.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO,
WAS CORRECT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
OHIO.  THE CAUSE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
FOR FURTHER ACTION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN, CONCURRING FOR REVERSAL BUT DISSENTING
FROM THE COURT'S OPINION. 

OHIO, AS DO MANY OTHER STATES, (FN1) MAINTAINS THE OLD DIVISION
BETWEEN LAW AND EQUITY AS TO THE MODE OF TRYING ISSUES, EVEN THOUGH THE
SAME JUDGE ADMINISTERS BOTH.  THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS TOLD US WHAT,
ON ONE ISSUE, IS THE DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS IN ALL NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS
BROUGHT IN THE OHIO COURTS:  "WHERE IT IS CLAIMED THAT A RELEASE WAS
INDUCED BY FRAUD (OTHER THAN FRAUD IN THE FACTUM) OR BY MISTAKE, IT IS
NECESSARY, BEFORE SEEKING TO ENFORCE A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH SUCH
RELEASE PURPORTS TO BAR, THAT EQUITABLE RELIEF FROM THE RELEASE BE
SECURED."  155 OHIO ST. 185, 186, 98 N.E.2D 301, 302.  THUS, IN ALL
CASES IN OHIO, THE JUDGE IS THE TRIER OF FACT ON THIS ISSUE OF FRAUD,
RATHER THAN THE JURY.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT REQUIRES THAT OHIO COURTS SEND THE FRAUD ISSUE TO A JURY
IN THE CASES FOUNDED ON THAT ACT.  TO REQUIRE OHIO TO TRY A PARTICULAR
ISSUE BEFORE A DIFFERENT FACT-FINDER IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS BROUGHT
UNDER THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT FROM THE FACT-FINDER ON THE
IDENTICAL ISSUE IN EVERY OTHER NEGLIGENCE CASE DISREGARDS THE SETTLED
DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS WHERE
CONGRESS AUTHORIZES CONCURRENT ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERALLY-CREATED
RIGHTS. 

IT HAS BEEN SETTLED EVER SINCE THE SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES,
223 U.S. 1, THAT NO STATE WHICH GIVES ITS COURTS JURISDICTION OVER
COMMON LAW ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE MAY DENY ACCESS TO ITS COURTS FOR A
NEGLIGENCE ACTION FOUNDED ON THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  NOR
MAY A STATE DISCRIMINATE DISADVANTAGEOUSLY AGAINST ACTIONS FOR
NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT AS COMPARED WITH LOCAL CAUSES OF
ACTION IN NEGLIGENCE.  MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO., 292 U.S. 230,
234; MISSOURI EX REL. SOUTHERN R. CO. V. MAYFIELD, 340 U.S. 1, 4. 
CONVERSELY, HOWEVER, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS OVER ACTIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, A STATE IS UNDER NO DUTY TO TREAT ACTIONS ARISING UNDER THAT ACT
DIFFERENTLY FROM THE WAY IT ADJUDICATES LOCAL ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE,
SO FAR AS THE MECHANICS OF LITIGATION, THE FORMS IN WHICH LAW IS
ADMINISTERED, ARE CONCERNED.  THIS SURELY COVERS THE DISTRIBUTION OF
FUNCTIONS AS BETWEEN JUDGE AND JURY IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES
IN A NEGLIGENCE CASE. 

IN 1916 THE COURT DECIDED WITHOUT DISSENT THAT STATES IN ENTERTAINING
ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT NEED NOT PROVIDE A
JURY SYSTEM OTHER THAN THAT ESTABLISHED FOR LOCAL NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS. 
STATES ARE NOT COMPELLED TO PROVIDE THE JURY REQUIRED OF FEDERAL COURTS
BY THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT.  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L.R. CO. V. BOMBOLIS, 241
U.S. 211.  IN THE THIRTY-SIX YEARS SINCE THIS EARLY DECISION AFTER THE
ENACTMENT OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65 (1908),
THE BOMBOLIS CASE HAS OFTEN BEEN CITED BY THIS COURT BUT NEVER
QUESTIONED.  UNTIL TODAY ITS SIGNIFICANCE HAS BEEN TO LEAVE TO STATES
THE CHOICE OF THE FACT-FINDING TRIBUNAL IN ALL NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS,
INCLUDING THOSE ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT.  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
WHITE'S OPINION CANNOT BEAR ANY OTHER MEANING: 

"TWO PROPOSITIONS AS TO THE OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE SEVENTH
AMENDMENT ARE AS CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED AS IS THAT CONCERNING THE
NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE JURY REQUIRED BY THAT AMENDMENT WHERE
APPLICABLE.  (A) THAT THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING OF COURSE THE
SEVENTH, ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH STATE ACTION AND DEAL ONLY WITH FEDERAL
ACTION.  WE SELECT FROM A MULTITUDE OF CASES THOSE WHICH WE DEEM TO BE
LEADING.  BARRON V. BALTIMORE, 7 PET. 243; FOX V. OHIO, 5 HOW.  410,
434; TWITCHELL V. COMMONWEALTH, 7 WALL.  321; BROWN V. NEW JERSEY, 175
U.S. 172, 174; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 93.  AND, AS A
NECESSARY COROLLARY, (B) THAT THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT APPLIES ONLY TO
PROCEEDINGS IN COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER
WHATEVER GOVERN OR REGULATE TRIALS BY JURY IN STATE COURTS OR THE
STANDARDS WHICH MUST BE APPLIED CONCERNING THE SAME.  LIVINGSTON V.
MOORE, 7 PET. 469, 552; THE JUSTICES V. MURRAY, 9 WALL.  274; EDWARDS
V. ELLIOTT, 21 WALL.  532; WALKER V. SAUVINET, 92 U.S. 90; PEARSON V.
YEWDALL, 95 U.S. 294."  ID., AT 217. 

"AND IT WAS OF COURSE PRESUMABLY AN APPRECIATION OF THE PRINCIPLES SO
THOROUGHLY SETTLED WHICH CAUSED CONGRESS IN THE ENACTMENT OF THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO CLEARLY CONTEMPLATE THE EXISTENCE OF A
CONCURRENT POWER AND DUTY OF BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS TO
ADMINISTER THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
MODES OF PROCEDURE PREVAILING IN SUCH COURTS."  ID., AT 218.    "THE
PROPOSITION THAT AS THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT IS CONTROLLING UPON CONGRESS,
ITS PROVISIONS MUST THEREFORE BE APPLICABLE TO EVERY RIGHT OF A FEDERAL
CHARACTER CREATED BY CONGRESS AND REGULATE THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH
RIGHT, BUT IN SUBSTANCE CREATES A CONFUSION BY WHICH THE TRUE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AMENDMENT IS OBSCURED.  THAT IS, IT SHUTS OUT OF
VIEW THE FACT THAT THE LIMITATIONS OF THE AMENDMENT ARE APPLICABLE ONLY
TO THE MODE IN WHICH POWER OR JURISDICTION SHALL BE EXERCISED IN
TRIBUNALS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THEREFORE THAT ITS TERMS HAVE NO
RELATION WHATEVER TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS IN OTHER FORUMS MERELY
BECAUSE THE RIGHT ENFORCED IS ONE CONFERRED BY THE LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES."  ID., AT 219-220. 

ALTHOUGH A STATE MUST ENTERTAIN NEGLIGENCE SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IF IT ENTERTAINS ORDINARY ACTIONS FOR
NEGLIGENCE, IT NEED CONDUCT THEM ONLY IN THE WAY IN WHICH IT CONDUCTS
THE RUN OF NEGLIGENCE LITIGATION.  THE BOMBOLIS CASE DIRECTLY
ESTABLISHES THAT THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DOES NOT IMPOSE THE JURY
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT ON THE STATES PRO TANTO FOR
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LITIGATION.  IF ITS REASONING MEANS ANYTHING, THE
BOMBOLIS DECISION MEANS THAT, IF A STATE CHOOSES NOT TO HAVE A JURY AT
ALL, BUT TO LEAVE QUESTIONS OF FACT IN ALL NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS TO A
COURT, CERTAINLY THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A STATE
TO HAVE JURIES FOR NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT IN
ITS COURTS.  OR, IF A STATE CHOOSES TO RETAIN THE OLD DOUBLE SYSTEM OF
COURTS, COMMON LAW AND EQUITY - AS DID A GOOD MANY STATES UNTIL THE
OTHER DAY, AND AS FOUR STATES STILL DO (FN2) - SURELY THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT THAT REQUIRES TRADITIONAL DISTRIBUTION
OF AUTHORITY FOR DISPOSING OF LEGAL ISSUES AS BETWEEN COMMON LAW AND
CHANCERY COURTS TO GO BY THE BOARD.  AND, IF STATES ARE FREE TO MAKE A
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN EQUITY AND COMMON LAW COURTS, IT
SURELY MAKES NO RATIONAL DIFFERENCE WHETHER A STATE CHOOSES TO PROVIDE
THAT THE SAME JUDGE PRESIDE ON BOTH THE COMMON LAW AND THE CHANCERY
SIDES IN A SINGLE LITIGATION, INSTEAD OF IN SEPARATE ROOMS IN THE SAME
BUILDING.  SO LONG AS ALL NEGLIGENCE SUITS IN A STATE ARE TREATED IN
THE SAME WAY, BY THE SAME MODE OF DISPOSING EQUITABLE, NON-JURY, AND
COMMON LAW, JURY ISSUES, THE STATE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY SUITS NOR DOES IT MAKE ANY INROAD UPON SUBSTANCE. 

OHIO AND HER SISTER STATES WITH A SIMILAR DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS
BETWEEN LAW AND EQUITY ARE NOT TRYING TO EVADE THEIR DUTY UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT; NOR ARE THEY TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE
DIFFICULT FOR RAILROAD WORKERS TO RECOVER, THAN FOR THOSE SUING UNDER
LOCAL LAW.  THE STATES MERELY EXERCISE A PREFERENCE IN ADHERING TO
HISTORIC WAYS OF DEALING WITH A CLAIM OF FRAUD; THEY PREFER THE
TRADITIONAL WAY OF MAKING UNAVAILABLE THROUGH EQUITY AN OTHERWISE VALID
DEFENSE.  THE STATE JUDGES AND LOCAL LAWYERS WHO MUST ADMINISTER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IN STATE COURTS ARE TRAINED IN THE
WAYS OF LOCAL PRACTICE; IT MULTIPLIES THE DIFFICULTIES AND CONFUSES THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TO REQUIRE, ON PURELY THEORETICAL GROUNDS, A
HYBRID OF STATE AND FEDERAL PRACTICE IN THE STATE COURTS AS TO A SINGLE
CLASS OF CASES.  NOTHING IN THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OR IN THE
JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT FOR OVER FORTY YEARS FORCES SUCH
JUDICIAL HYBRIDIZATION UPON THE STATES.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO BE
BROUGHT IN STATE AS WELL AS IN FEDERAL COURTS SEEMS A STRANGE BASIS FOR
THE INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS OVERRODE STATE PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS
CONTROLLING ALL OTHER NEGLIGENCE SUITS IN A STATE, BY IMPOSING UPON
STATE COURTS TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS CHOOSE TO GO THE RULES PREVAILING IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS REGARDING JURIES.  SUCH AN INFERENCE IS ADMISSIBLE,
SO IT SEEMS TO ME, ONLY ON THE THEORY THAT CONGRESS INCLUDED AS PART OF
THE RIGHT CREATED BY THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AN ASSUMED LIKELIHOOD
THAT TRYING ALL ISSUES TO JURIES IS MORE FAVORABLE TO PLAINTIFFS.  AT
LEAST, IF A PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO HAVE ALL ISSUES DECIDED BY A JURY
RATHER THAN THE COURT IS "PART AND PARCEL OF THE REMEDY AFFORDED
RAILROAD WORKERS UNDER THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT," THE BOMBOLIS CASE
SHOULD BE OVERRULED EXPLICITLY INSTEAD OF LEFT AS A DERELICT BOUND TO
OCCASION COLLISIONS ON THE WATERS OF THE LAW.  WE HAVE PUT THE
QUESTIONS SQUARELY BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO BE PRECISELY WHAT WILL BE
ROUSED IN THE MINDS OF LAWYERS PROPERLY PRESSING THEIR CLIENTS'
INTERESTS AND IN THE MINDS OF TRIAL AND APPELLATE JUDGES CALLED UPON TO
APPLY THIS COURT'S OPINION.  IT IS ONE THING NOT TO BORROW TROUBLE FROM
THE MORROW.  IT IS ANOTHER THING TO CREATE TROUBLE FOR THE MORROW. 

EVEN THOUGH THE METHOD OF TRYING THE EQUITABLE ISSUE OF FRAUD WHICH
THE STATE APPLIES IN ALL OTHER NEGLIGENCE CASES GOVERNS EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, TWO QUESTIONS REMAIN FOR DECISION:  SHOULD THE
VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE BE TESTED BY A FEDERAL OR A STATE STANDARD? 
AND IF BY A FEDERAL ONE, DID THE OHIO COURTS IN THE PRESENT CASE
CORRECTLY ADMINISTER THE STANDARD?  IF THE STATES AFFORD COURTS FOR
ENFORCING THE FEDERAL ACT, THEY MUST ENFORCE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE RIGHT
GIVEN BY CONGRESS.  THEY CANNOT DEPRECIATE THE LEGISLATIVE CURRENCY
ISSUED BY CONGRESS - EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY LOCAL METHODS OF
ENFORCEMENT THAT ACCOMPLISH THE SAME RESULT.  DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263
U.S. 22, 24.  IN ORDER TO PREVENT DIMINUTION OF RAILROAD WORKERS'
NATIONALLY-UNIFORM RIGHT TO RECOVER, THE STANDARD FOR THE VALIDITY OF A
RELEASE OF CONTESTED LIABILITY MUST BE FEDERAL.  WE HAVE RECENTLY SAID:
"ONE WHO ATTACKS A SETTLEMENT MUST BEAR THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE
CONTRACT HE HAS MADE IS TAINTED WITH INVALIDITY, EITHER BY FRAUD
PRACTICED UPON HIM OR BY A MUTUAL MISTAKE UNDER WHICH BOTH PARTIES
ACTED."  CALLEN V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 332 U.S. 625, 630.  SUCH PROOF
OF FRAUD NEED BE ONLY BY A PREPONDERANCE OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE.  SEE
UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. HARRIS, 158 U.S. 326.  THE ADMITTED FACT THAT
THE INJURED WORKER SIGNED THE RELEASE IS MATERIAL IN TENDING TO SHOW
THE RELEASE TO BE VALID, BUT PRESUMPTIONS MUST NOT BE DRAWN FROM THAT
FACT SO AS TO HOBBLE THE PLAINTIFF'S SHOWING THAT IT WOULD BE UNJUST TO
ALLOW A FORMALLY GOOD DEFENSE TO PREVAIL.  SEE SEC. 5, FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, 66, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 55. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT MUST BE REVERSED FOR IT APPLIED
THE STATE RULE AS TO VALIDITY OF RELEASES, 155 OHIO ST. 185, 98 N.E.2D
301, AND IT IS NOT FOR US TO INTERPRET OHIO DECISIONS IN ORDER TO BE
ASSURED THAT ON A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE THE STATE AND FEDERAL CRITERIA
COINCIDE.  MOREOVER, WE CANNOT SAY WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THE OHIO TRIAL
JUDGE APPLIED THE FEDERAL STANDARD CORRECTLY.  HE DULY RECOGNIZED THAT
"THE FEDERAL LAW CONTROLS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A RELEASE PLEADED AND
PROVED IN BAR OF THE ACTION, AND THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE ALLEGED
FRAUD VITIATES THE CONTRACT OR COMPROMISE OR RELEASE RESTS UPON THE
PARTY ATTACKING THE RELEASE."  AND HE MADE AN EXTENDED ANALYSIS OF THE
RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RELEASE, CONCLUDING, HOWEVER, THAT THERE
WAS NO "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE" OF FRAUD.  SINCE
THESE ELUSIVE WORDS FAIL TO ASSURE US THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE FOLLOWED THE
FEDERAL TEST AND DID NOT REQUIRE SOME LARGER QUANTUM OF PROOF, WE WOULD
RETURN THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE SOLE QUESTION OF FRAUD
IN THE RELEASE. 

FN1  CHAFEE, SIMPSON, AND MALONEY, CASES ON EQUITY (1951 ED.)  12. 

FN2  IBID.
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. NEW WRINKLE, INC. 342 U.S. 371 


NO. 250.  ARGUED JANUARY 10-11, 1952 - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1952 -
REVERSED. 


A COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT CHARGING THAT THE TWO DEFENDANTS SUCCESSFULLY CONSPIRED TO
FIX UNIFORM MINIMUM PRICES AND TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION THROUGHOUT
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE WRINKLE FINISH INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES
BY MEANS OF PATENT-LICENSE AGREEMENTS, HELD TO HAVE CHARGED A VIOLATION
OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY BOTH DEFENDANTS.  PP. 372-380. 

1.  THAT ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS, A PATENT-HOLDING COMPANY, ABSTAINED
FROM MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES AND CONCENTRATED ON PATENT LICENSING DID
NOT INSULATE ITS ACTIVITY FROM THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 1 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 376-378. 

2.  THE MAKING OF THESE LICENSE CONTRACTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REGULATING DISTRIBUTION AND FIXING PRICES OF COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS SUBJECT TO THE SHERMAN ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE ISOLATED ACT OF
CONTRACTING FOR THE LICENSES IS WHOLLY WITHIN A SINGLE STATE.  P. 377. 

3.  PATENTS GIVE NO PROTECTION FROM THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN
ACT WHEN LICENSING AGREEMENTS ARE USED AS A MEANS OF RESTRAINING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND FIXING PRICES THROUGHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF
AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY INVOLVING MANY DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS.  UNITED
STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 333 U.S. 287; UNITED STATES V. UNITED
STATES GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364.  PP. 378-380. 

UNITED STATES V. NEW WRINKLE, INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A COMPLAINT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER
SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 1 BY
APPELLEES.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29,
REVERSED, P. 380. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT AGAINST NEW WRINKLE, INC., AND THE KAY & ESS CO. WAS
INSTITUTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO BY THE UNITED STATES AS A CIVIL PROCEEDING UNDER SEC.
4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  (FN1)  DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED WITH HAVING
VIOLATED SEC. 1 OF THAT LAW (FN2) BY CONSPIRING TO FIX UNIFORM MINIMUM
PRICES AND TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION THROUGHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE
WRINKLE FINISH INDUSTRY (FN3) OF THE UNITED STATES BY MEANS OF PATENT
LICENSE AGREEMENTS.  MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE SUIT WERE FILED BY
DEFENDANTS.  THE DEFENDANT KAY & ESS URGED THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO
STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  DEFENDANT NEW WRINKLE PRESSED A SOLE
CONTENTION:  THAT IT WAS NOT THEN AND NEVER HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND COULD, THEREFORE, NOT BE GUILTY OF VIOLATING
THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHOUT OPINION, THEREAFTER ENTERED SEPARATE
JUDGMENTS AS TO EACH DEFENDANT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND RECITING IN
EACH JUDGMENT THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS "WELL TAKEN."  A PETITION
FOR APPEAL WAS FILED AND ALLOWED, AND ON OCTOBER 8, 1951, PROBABLE
JURISDICTION WAS NOTED ON DIRECT APPEAL PURSUANT TO A JURISDICTION
CONFERRED ON THIS COURT BY SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF FEBRUARY 11,
1903.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 29. 

                 I. 

IN GRANTING THE MOTIONS OF DEFENDANTS, THE DISTRICT COURT, OF COURSE,
TREATED THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AS TRUE.  IN SUBSTANCE THE
COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT PRIOR TO AND DURING 1937, DEFENDANT KAY & ESS
WAS ENGAGED IN LITIGATION WITH A NAMED COCONSPIRATOR, THE CHADELOID
CHEMICAL CO., IN REGARD TO CERTAIN PATENTS COVERING MANUFACTURE OF
WRINKLE FINISH ENAMELS, VARNISHES AND PAINTS.  EACH COMPANY CLAIMED IT
CONTROLLED THE BASIC PATENTS ON WRINKLE FINISH, CONTENDING THAT THE
PATENTS OF THE OTHER WERE SUBSERVIENT TO ITS OWN.  NEGOTIATIONS
THROUGHOUT 1937 RESULTED IN A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY KAY & ESS AND
CHADELOID ON NOVEMBER 2, 1937.  THIS CONTRACT MADE PROVISION FOR THE
ORGANIZATION OF A NEW CORPORATION, THE DEFENDANT NEW WRINKLE.  BOTH KAY
& ESS AND CHADELOID AGREED TO ACCEPT STOCK IN THE NEW COMPANY IN
EXCHANGE FOR ASSIGNMENTS OF THEIR WRINKLE FINISH PATENTS.  NEW WRINKLE
WAS TO GRANT PATENT LICENSES, INCORPORATING AGREEMENTS WHICH FIXED THE
MINIMUM PRICES AT WHICH ALL LICENSED MANUFACTURERS MIGHT SELL, TO THE
MANUFACTURERS IN THE WRINKLE FINISH INDUSTRY, INCLUDING KAY & ESS AND
CHADELOID.  THE PRICE-FIXING SCHEDULES WERE NOT TO BECOME OPERATIVE
UNTIL TWELVE OF THE PRINCIPAL PRODUCERS OF WRINKLE FINISHES HAD
SUBSCRIBED TO THE MINIMUM PRICES PRESCRIBED IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 

PURSUANT TO THIS ARRANGEMENT THE COMPLAINT CHARGES NEW WRINKLE WAS
INCORPORATED, AND THE PATENT RIGHTS OF KAY & ESS AND CHADELOID WERE
TRANSFERRED TO IT.  IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER NAMED COMPANIES AND
PERSONS, THE DEFENDANTS AND CHADELOID THEREAFTER WORKED TOGETHER TO
INDUCE MAKERS OF WRINKLE FINISHES TO ACCEPT THE PRICE-FIXING PATENT
LICENSES WHICH NEW WRINKLE HAD TO OFFER.  THESE PROSPECTIVE LICENSEES
WERE ADVISED OF THE AGREED-UPON PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE IN
THE NEW WRINKLE LICENSES, AND THEY WERE ASSURED THAT LIKE ADVICE WAS
BEING GIVEN TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS "IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM
PRICES THROUGHOUT THE INDUSTRY."  AFTER MAY 7, 1938, WHEN THE REQUISITE
TWELVE LEADING MANUFACTURING COMPANIES HAD ACCEPTED NEW WRINKLE
LICENSES, THE PRICE SCHEDULES BECAME OPERATIVE.  BY SEPTEMBER 1948,
WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN THIS ACTION, MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED, OR
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL, MANUFACTURERS OF WRINKLE FINISHES IN THE UNITED
STATES HELD NEARLY IDENTICAL TEN-YEAR EXTENDABLE LICENSE AGREEMENTS
FROM NEW WRINKLE.  THESE AGREEMENTS REQUIRED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT
A LICENSE OBSERVE IN ALL SALES OF PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE LICENSED
PATENTS A SCHEDULE OF MINIMUM PRICES, DISCOUNTS AND SELLING TERMS
ESTABLISHED BY THE LICENSOR NEW WRINKLE.  UPON THIRTY DAYS' NOTICE IN
WRITING, NEW WRINKLE MIGHT ALTER ANY OR ALL OF THE TERMS OF THE PRICE
SCHEDULE, BUT SUCH PRICES, TERMS AND DISCOUNTS AS NEW WRINKLE MIGHT
ESTABLISH WERE TO BIND THE LICENSEE ONLY IF IMPOSED AT THE SAME TIME
AND IN THE SAME TERMS UPON THE LICENSOR AND ALL OTHER LICENSEES.  (FN4)
TERMINATION PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENTS REQUIRED A LICENSEE TO GIVE
THREE MONTHS' WRITTEN NOTICE AND ALLOWED THE LICENSOR TO TERMINATE THE
LICENSE IF A LICENSEE FAILED TO REMEDY A VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE THEREOF BY THE LICENSOR.  A 5
CENT PER GALLON ROYALTY WAS MADE PAYABLE ON ALL WRINKLE FINISH SOLD OR
USED BY A LICENSEE, SAID ROYALTY TO BE REDUCED TO THE SAME FIGURE AS
THAT CONTAINED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT LICENSE GRANTED AT A LOWER ROYALTY
CHARGE. 

NEW WRINKLE, ACTING WITH THE CONSENT OF ITS LICENSEES, ISSUED AT
INTERVALS "LICENSE RULINGS" GIVING MINIMUM PRICES, DETAILED TERMS AND
CONDITIONS SUCH AS ALLOWABLE DISCOUNTS AND PERMISSIBLE PRACTICES.  THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THESE "RULINGS" WERE ADHERED TO BY THE LICENSEES. 
SINCE AN ENTIRE COPY OF "LICENSE RULINGS," AS FILED WITH THE COMPLAINT
AS AN EXHIBIT, IS TOO BULKY FOR REPRINTING, THE SCHEDULE OF PRICES
OPERATIVE AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS ACTION, AS
ILLUSTRATIVE, IS SET OUT IN AN APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION, POST, P. 381. 
IT PRECISELY DETAILS AND MAKES RIGID THE SELLING PROCEDURE FOR A
VARIETY OF MINUTELY PRESCRIBED PRODUCTS DEEMED TO BE COVERED BY THE
PATENTS AND THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 

                     II. 

SINCE THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS MUST BE DEEMED TO ADMIT ALL OF THE ABOVE
AS TRUE, WE NEED ONLY CONSIDER WHETHER OF NOT THESE FACTS WOULD
ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY APPELLEES, NEW
WRINKLE AND KAY & ESS. 

APPELLEE, NEW WRINKLE, DIFFERS FROM KAY & ESS.  NEW WRINKLE IS NOT A
MANUFACTURER OF THE COMMODITIES COVERED BY ITS PATENTS.  IT IS SOLEY A
HOLDER OR OWNER OF THE PATENTS, GRANTING THE RIGHT OF MAKING AND
VENDING TO OTHERS.  KAY & ESS DOES MANUFACTURE UNDER THE NEW WRINKLE
LICENSE.  NEW WRINKLE URGES THAT ITS ABSTENTION FROM MANUFACTURING
ACTIVITIES AND CONCENTRATION ON PATENT LICENSING INSULATES ITS ACTIVITY
FROM THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PERSONS ENGAGED
EXCLUSIVELY IN LICENSING PATENTS ARE SAID BY APPELLEE TO BE EXEMPT FROM
THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE SUCH CONTRACTS ARE NOT COMMERCE AND ARE
FUNCTIONS SOLELY CONTROLLED BY THE PATENT LAWS.  FOR THE CONTENTION
THAT ITS LICENSING IS NOT COMMERCE, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495, AND CASES INVOLVING SUCH
LOCAL INCIDENTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS WERE TREATED IN UNITED SHOE
MACHINERY CO. V. UNITED STATES.  (FN5)  FOR THE LATTER CONTENTION, IF
WE UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT CORRECTLY, NEW WRINKLE ASSERTS THAT SINCE
PATENTS GIVE THEIR OWNERS A RIGHT TO SELL, THEY MAY DO SO ON SUCH TERMS
AS THEY PLEASE BECAUSE THEY ARE MERELY SELLING PERSONAL SERVICES, AND
SUCH SERVICES ARE NOT COMMERCE, CITING APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310
U.S. 469, 502, A CASE HOLDING THAT A STRIKE TO UNIONIZE A FACTORY DID
NOT VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THESE CONTENTIONS LEAVE OUT OF CONSIDERATION THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE ALLEGED COMBINATION IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 
THE UNITED STATES CHARGED THE USE OF PATENT LICENSES AS AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF THE PLAN TO RESTRAIN TRADE, A TRADE IN ENAMELS, VARNISHES AND
PAINTS THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE AND OBVIOUSLY IS INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER. 
IT CHARGES THAT THE PRICE CONTROL IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THAT
RESTRAINT. 

WE THINK IT BEYOND QUESTION THAT THIS MAKING OF LICENSE CONTRACTS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING DISTRIBUTION AND FIXING PRICES OF COMMODITIES
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SUBJECT TO THE SHERMAN ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE
ISOLATED ACT OF CONTRACTING FOR THE LICENSES IS WHOLLY WITHIN A SINGLE
STATE.  CERTAINLY SINCE UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES, 273 U.S.
392, 397 (DECIDED IN 1927), PRICE FIXING IN COMMERCE, REASONABLE OR
UNREASONABLE, HAS BEEN CONSIDERED A PER SE VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  (FN6)  LIKEWISE IT IS CLEAR THAT, ALTHOUGH THE EXECUTION OF A
CONTRACT OF INSURANCE MAY NOT BE INTERSTATE COMMERCE: 

"IF CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE ARE IN FACT MADE THE INSTRUMENTS OF
RESTRAINT IN THE MARKETING OF GOODS AND SERVICES IN OR AFFECTING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THEY ARE NOT BEYOND THE REACH OF THE SHERMAN ACT
MORE THAN CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF COMMODITIES, - CONTRACTS WHICH, NOT
IN THEMSELVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE, MAY NEVERTHELESS BE USED AS THE
MEANS OF ITS RESTRAINT."  (FN7) 

AND SO IT IS WITH PATENT LICENSE CONTRACTS WHICH ARE A PART OF A PLAN
TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE.  PATENTS GIVE NO PROTECTION FROM THE PROHIBITIONS
OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO SUCH ACTIVITIES, WHEN THE LICENSES ARE USED, AS
HERE, IN THE SCHEME TO RESTRAIN.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
COVER SUCH A SITUATION AND NEW WRINKLE AND ITS MANUFACTURING LICENSEE,
KAY & ESS, ARE ALIKE COVERED BY THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 1. 

                III. 

APPELLEES ARGUE FURTHER, HOWEVER, THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF UNITED
STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, AND BEMENT V. NATIONAL
HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, CONTROL HERE.  SINCE WE EXAMINED THESE
PRINCIPLES IN DETAIL AS RECENTLY AS 1948, WE DRAW UPON THAT DISCUSSION
FOR OUR CONCLUSIONS HERE.  (FN8)  THE BEMENT AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CASES
ALLOWED A PATENTEE TO LICENSE A COMPETITOR IN COMMERCE TO MAKE AND VEND
WITH A PRICE LIMITATION CONTROLLED BY THE PATENTEE.  WHEN WE EXAMINED
THE RULE IN 1948, THE HOLDING OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE WAS LEFT AS
STATED ABOVE.  333 U.S. AT 310.  BUT IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT: 

"THE POSSESSION OF A VALID PATENT OR PATENTS DOES NOT GIVE THE
PATENTEE ANY EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT BEYOND
THE LIMITS OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY."  P. 308. 

WE SAID THAT: 

"TWO OR MORE PATENTEES IN THE SAME PATENT FIELD MAY (NOT) LEGALLY
COMBINE THEIR VALID PATENT MONOPOLIES TO SECURE MUTUAL BENEFITS FOR
THEMSELVES THROUGH CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS, BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND OTHER
LICENSEES, FOR CONTROL OF THE SALE PRICE OF THE PATENTED DEVICES."  P.
305. 

PRICE CONTROL THROUGH CROSS-LICENSING WAS BARRED AS BEYOND THE PATENT
MONOPOLY. 

ON THE DAY OF THE LINE MATERIAL DECISION, THIS COURT HANDED DOWN
UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364.  THE GYPSUM
CASE WAS BASED ON FACTS SIMILAR TO THOSE HERE ALLEGED EXCEPT THAT THE
PATENT OWNER WAS ALSO A MANUFACTURER.  WE HAVE POINTED OUT ABOVE IN
IS EXCLUSIVELY A PATENT-HOLDING COMPANY OF NO SIGNIFICANCE AS A DEFENSE
TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  WE SAID IN GYPSUM THAT: 

"INDUSTRY-WIDE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, ENTERED INTO WITH KNOWLEDGE ON THE
PART OF LICENSOR AND LICENSEES OF THE ADHERENCE OF OTHERS, WITH THE
CONTROL OVER PRICES AND METHODS OF DISTRIBUTION THROUGH THE AGREEMENTS
AND THE BULLETINS, WERE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
CONSPIRACY."  P. 389. 

ON REMAND, THE PRIMA FACIE CASE RESULTED IN A FINAL JUDGMENT,
AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT.  (FN9)  IN DISCUSSING THE GENERAL ELECTRIC
CASE, THE COURT WAS UNANIMOUS IN SAYING THAT IT: 

"GIVES NO SUPPORT FOR A PATENTEE, ACTING IN CONCERT WITH ALL MEMBERS
OF AN INDUSTRY, TO ISSUE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL LICENSES TO ALL
MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRY UNDER THE TERMS OF WHICH THE INDUSTRY IS
COMPLETELY REGIMENTED, THE PRODUCTION OF COMPETITIVE UNPATENTED
PRODUCTS SUPPRESSED, A CLASS OF DISTRIBUTORS SQUEEZED OUT, AND PRICES
ON UNPATENTED PRODUCTS STABILIZED.  ...  IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW
THAT THE DEFENDANTS, CONSTITUTING ALL FORMER COMPETITORS IN AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY, HAD ACTED IN CONCERT TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE IN AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY UNDER PATENT LICENSES IN ORDER TO ORGANIZE THE INDUSTRY AND
STABILIZE PRICES."  PP. 400-401. 

WE SEE NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SITUATION IN LINE MATERIAL
AND GYPSUM AND THE CASE PRESENTED BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THIS
COMPLAINT.  AN ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE BETWEEN PATENT HOLDERS TO POOL
THEIR PATENTS AND FIX PRICES ON THE PRODUCTS FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR
LICENSEES.  THE PURPOSE AND RESULT PLAINLY VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT. 
THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  15 U.S.C. SEC. 4: 

"THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE INVESTED WITH
JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 1-7 OF THIS
TITLE; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF
THE UNITED STATES, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY TO PREVENT
AND RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS.  SUCH PROCEEDINGS MAY BE BY WAY OF
PETITION SETTING FORTH THE CASE AND PRAYING THAT SUCH VIOLATION SHALL
BE ENJOINED OR OTHERWISE PROHIBITED.  WHEN THE PARTIES COMPLAINED OF
SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY NOTIFIED OF SUCH PETITION THE COURT SHALL PROCEED,
AS SOON AS MAY BE, TO THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE CASE; AND
PENDING SUCH PETITION AND BEFORE FINAL DECREE, THE COURT MAY AT ANY
TIME MAKE SUCH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR PROHIBITION AS AS SHALL
BE DEEMED JUST IN THE PREMISES."    FN2  ID., SEC. 1: 

"EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR
CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL:  ...  ."

FN3  "8.  'WRINKLE' FINISHES, ALSO KNOWN AS 'CRINKLE,' 'SHRIVEL,'
'SAG,' 'MOROCCO,' AND BY OTHER DESIGNATIONS, ARE DEFINED AS ENAMELS,
VARNISHES AND PAINTS WHICH HAVE BEEN COMPOUNDED FROM SUCH MATERIALS AND
BY SUCH METHODS AS TO PRODUCE WHEN APPLIED AND DRIED, A HARD WRINKLED
SURFACE ON METAL OR OTHER MATERIAL. 

"9.  WRINKLE FINISHES ARE WIDELY USED AS COVERINGS FOR THE SURFACES
OF TYPEWRITERS, CASH REGISTERS, MOTORS, ADDING MACHINES, AND MANY OTHER
ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE.  THEY HAVE THE FOLLOWING ADVANTAGES OVER
SMOOTH FINISHES SUCH AS ORDINARY ENAMELS AND VARNISHES: 

"A.  ONE COAT OF WRINKLE FINISH IS SUFFICIENT FOR MANY PURPOSES FOR
WHICH TWO OR MORE COATS OF SMOOTH FINISH WOULD BE REQUIRED: 

"B.  SURFACES TO WHICH WRINKLE FINISHES ARE TO BE APPLIED NEED NOT BE
PREPARED AS CAREFULLY AS THOSE WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE SMOOTH FINISHES,
SINCE THE WRINKLE FINISHES COVER SMALL IMPERFECTIONS; AND: 

"C.  THE ORIGINAL APPEARANCE OF WRINKLE-FINISHED ARTICLES CAN BE
MAINTAINED WITH LESS CLEANING AND POLISHING THAN THAT OF SMOOTH
FINISHED ARTICLES." 

FN4  A COPY OF THE LICENSE WAS FILED WITH THE COMPLAINT.  AN
IMPORTANT SECTION, SEC. 7, READS, SO FAR AS MATERIAL IN THIS
PROCEEDINGS, AS FOLLOWS: 

"7.  THE LICENSOR HEREBY RESERVES AND SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY
TIME TO ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE OF MINIMUM PRICES, DISCOUNTS, AND SELLING
TERMS ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LICENSEE, LICENSOR, AND ALL OTHER
LICENSEES SHALL THEREAFTER SELL OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF PRODUCTS
COVERED BY PATENTS INCLUDED HEREIN, AND THEREAFTER TO MODIFY, AMEND AND
SUSPEND ANY SUCH SCHEDULE AND/OR ESTABLISH A NEW SCHEDULE  ...  .  THE
LICENSOR ANNOUNCES AS A MATTER OF POLICY THAT IT WILL FIX SAID PRICE
BASED UPON THE COST OF RAW MATERIALS AND LABOR AS REPORTED BY THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, PLUS THE ROYALTY CHARGED HEREUNDER, IT BEING THE INTENT AND
PURPOSE OF THE LICENSOR TO OPEN TO THE ENTIRE TRADE THE USE OF THESE
PATENTS SO LICENSED AT THE LOWEST PRICE CONSISTENT WITH A REASONABLE
PROFIT TO THE MANUFACTURER, LICENSEE, THE TRADE, AND TO THIS LICENSOR. 
NO SCHEDULE OF MINIMUM PRICES, DISCOUNTS AND SELLING TERMS NOR ANY
MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OR SUSPENSION THEREOF SHALL BE BINDING UPON
LICENSEE UNLESS AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME TERMS IMPOSED UPON
LICENSOR AND ALL OTHER LICENSEES." 

FN5  258 U.S. 451, 465.  THERE IT IS SAID: 

"IT IS TRUE THAT THE MERE MAKING OF THE LEASE OF THE MACHINES IS NOT
OF ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 333 U.S. 287, 307. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533, DISSENT 570,
SEE MAJORITY 546.  AND SEE POLISH ALLIANCE V. LABOR BOARD, 322 U.S.
643, 647, AND LORAIN JOURNAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 143, 149. 

FN8 UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 333 U.S. 287; UNITED STATES
V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 340 U.S. 76.  COMPARE
AS TO COPYRIGHTS UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, 334 U.S. 131,
143. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

                              APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. 

   NEW WRINKLE, INC.

                              LICENSORS OF PROCESSES AND FINISHES

 MINIMUM PRICE SCHEDULE NO. 5

       (ANNOUNCED JUNE 1, 1947)

         EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1947

               (SUPERSEDING MINIMUM PRICE SCHEDULE NO. 4 AS REVISED
DECEMBER 12, 1946)

                PART OF NEW WRINKLE, INC., LICENSE AGREEMENT

                                   DATED APRIL 1, 1938 

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MINIMUM PRICES AT WHICH PATENTED WRINKLE FINISH
MAY BE SOLD UNDER LICENSE AGREEMENT, TO TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 1, 1947 AND
TO REMAIN IN FORCE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. 

                              WRINKLE FINISH CLEAR

     1 GAL.              5 GAL.              1/2 DRUM      DRUM 

-100        $2.85               $2.70    $2.65               $2.60 

100         2.70    2.55                2.50                2.45

                 WRINKLE FINISH BLACK 

-100         3.40                3.25                3.20
3.10 

100         3.25                3.10                3.05
2.95

                         WRINKLE FINISH ORDINARY COLORS 

-100         3.65                3.50         3.40
3.35 

100         3.50        3.35                3.25                3.20

                     WRINKLE FINISH ORGANICS              (SEE PAGE
3) 

-100         4.00                3.85      3.75                3.70 

100         3.85     3.70                3.60                3.55

                  WRINKLE FINISH METALLICS             (SEE PAGE 3)

                         (ADDITION OF METALLIC TO CLEAR WRINKLE) 

-100         3.50                3.35          3.25
3.20 

100         3.35         3.20                3.10
3.05 

IN THE EVENT THAT A METALLIC IS ADDED TO PIGMENTED WRINKLE FINISH,
THE ESTABLISHED MINIMUM FOR THAT PIGMENTED FINISH, PLUS $.25, WILL BE
THE MINIMUM PRICE. 

REDUCTIONS IN PRICE FOR QUANTITY AS SHOWN ON ABOVE SCHEDULE ARE
PERMISSABLE ON AND SHALL APPLY ONLY TO QUANTITIES OF WRINKLE FINISH
CONTAINED IN A SINGLE SHIPMENT. 

WRINKLE FINISH IN CONCENTRATED FORM OR INGREDIENTS FROM WHICH
CUSTOMER MAY PRODUCE WRINKLE FINISH MAY BE SOLD BY LICENSEE ONLY AT
MINIMUM PRICE PER GALLON ON THE NUMBER OF GALLONS OF THE KIND OR COLOR
OF WRINKLE FINISH FOR FINAL USE BY THE CUSTOMER THAT CAN NORMALLY BE
PRODUCED BY ADDING TO SUCH CONCENTRATE OR INGREDIENTS SUPPLIED BY
LICENSEE. 

CLEAR WRINKLE FINISH SOLD BY LICENSEE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES CHARGING
SELLER WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT CUSTOMER INTENDS CONVERTING SAME INTO
COLORED WRINKLE FINISH MAY BE SOLD ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINIMUM
PRICE PER GALLON HEREBY ESTABLISHED FOR WRINKLE FINISH OF THE COLOR AND
QUANTITY IN QUESTION. 

PRICES ARE F.O.B. DESTINATION OR FREIGHT ALLOWED. 

IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION OF ORDERS OR RETURN OF GOODS PRICES
SHALL BE READJUSTED AND SETTLEMENT MADE ACCORDING TO THE ACTUAL
QUANTITIES PURCHASED AND RETAINED. 

TERMS:  30 DAYS NET, 1% FOR CASH WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SHIPMENT. 

IN MAKING BIDS, IT IS NOT PERMISSABLE TO DEDUCT THE CASH DISCOUNT. 
THE CASH DISCOUNT OF 1% CAN ONLY BE GIVEN OR ALLOWED IF THE "WRINKLE
FINISH" IS ACTUALLY PAID FOR WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SHIPMENT. 

SEE MINIMUM PRICE SCHEDULE (NO. 2-A) ON PAGE 7 FOR CANADIAN PRICES. 
..END :













STANDARD OIL CO. V. PECK 342 U.S. 382 


NO. 184.  ARGUED JANUARY 3-4, 1952.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1952.  - 155
OHIO ST. 61, 98 N.E.2D 8, REVERSED. 


OHIO LEVIED AN AD VALOREM PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ON ALL THE BOATS AND
BARGES OWNED BY APPELLANT, AN OHIO CORPORATION, AND EMPLOYED IN
TRANSPORTING OIL ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI AND OHIO RIVERS.  THE MAIN
TERMINALS ARE IN TENNESSEE, INDIANA, KENTUCKY AND LOUISIANA.  THE
VESSELS ARE REGISTERED IN CINCINNATI; BUT THEY NEITHER PICK UP NOR
DISCHARGE OIL IN OHIO, THEY STOP IN OHIO ONLY FOR OCCASIONAL FUEL OR
REPAIRS, THEY TRAVERSE A MAXIMUM OF ONLY 17 1/2 MILES OF WATERS
BORDERING OHIO, AND THEY WERE ALMOST CONTINUOUSLY OUTSIDE OHIO DURING
THE TAXABLE YEAR.  HELD:  SINCE THE VESSELS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
TAXATION ON AN APPORTIONMENT BASIS IN SEVERAL OTHER STATES, THE OHIO
TAX ON THEIR FULL VALUE VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 382-385. 

STANDARD OIL CO. V. PECK, TAX COMMISSIONER, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO SUSTAINED AN AD VALOREM TAX ON THE ENTIRE
VALUE OF APPELLANT'S BOATS AND BARGES EMPLOYED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
155 OHIO ST. 61, 98 N.E. 2D 8.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P.
385. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, AN OHIO CORPORATION, OWNS BOATS AND BARGES WHICH IT
EMPLOYS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI AND OHIO
RIVERS.  THE VESSELS NEITHER PICK UP OIL NOR DISCHARGE IT IN OHIO.  THE
MAIN TERMINALS ARE IN TENNESSEE, INDIANA, KENTUCKY, AND LOUISIANA.  THE
MAXIMUM RIVER MILEAGE TRAVERSED BY THE BOATS AND BARGES ON ANY TRIP
THROUGH WATERS BORDERING OHIO WAS 17 1/2 MILES.  THESE 17 1/2 MILES
WERE IN THE SECTION OF THE OHIO RIVER WHICH HAD TO BE TRAVERSED TO
REACH BROMLEY, KENTUCKY.  WHILE THIS STRETCH OF WATER BORDERED OHIO, IT
WAS NOT NECESSARILY WITHIN OHIO.  THE VESSELS WERE REGISTERED IN
CINCINNATI, OHIO, BUT ONLY STOPPED IN OHIO FOR OCCASIONAL FUEL OR
REPAIRS.  THESE STOPS WERE MADE AT CINCINNATI; BUT NONE OF THEM
INVOLVED LOADING OR UNLOADING CARGO. 

THE TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO, ACTING UNDER SECS. 5325 AND 5328 OF THE
OHIO GENERAL CODE, LEVIED AN AD VALOREM PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ON ALL OF
THESE VESSELS.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AFFIRMED (WITH AN EXCEPTION
NOT MATERIAL HERE), AND THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO SUSTAINED THE BOARD,
155 OHIO ST. 61, 98 N.E. 2D 8, OVER THE OBJECTION THAT THE TAX VIOLATED
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE CASE IS HERE
ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

UNDER THE EARLIER VIEW GOVERNING THE TAXABILITY OF VESSELS MOVING IN
THE INLAND WATERS (ST. LOUIS V. FERRY CO., 11 WALL.  423; AYER & LORD
TIE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 202 U.S. 409; CF. OLD DOMINION S.S. CO. V.
VIRGINIA, 198 U.S. 299), OHIO, THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE, WOULD HAVE A
STRONG CLAIM TO THE WHOLE OF THE TAX THAT HAS BEEN LEVIED.  BUT THE
RATIONALE OF THOSE CASES WAS REJECTED IN OTT V. MISSISSIPPI BARGE LINE
CO., 336 U.S. 169, WHERE WE HELD THAT VESSELS MOVING IN INTERSTATE
OPERATIONS ALONG THE INLAND WATERS WERE TAXABLE BY THE SAME STANDARDS
AS THOSE WHICH PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S. 18, FIRST
APPLIED TO RAILROAD CARS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE FORMULA APPROVED
WAS ONE WHICH FAIRLY APPORTIONED THE TAX TO THE COMMERCE CARRIED ON
WITHIN THE STATE.  IN THAT WAY WE PLACED INLAND WATER TRANSPORTATION ON
THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL FOOTING AS OTHER INTERSTATE ENTERPRISES. 

THE OTT CASE INVOLVED A TAX BY LOUSISIANA ON VESSELS OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION OPERATING IN LOUISIANA WATERS.  LOUISIANA SOUGHT TO TAX
ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE VALUE OF THE VESSELS REPRESENTED BY THE RATIO
BETWEEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MILES IN LOUISIANA AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
MILES IN THE ENTIRE OPERATION.  THE PRESENT CASE IS SOUGHT TO BE
DISTINGUISHED ON THE GROUND THAT OHIO IS THE DOMICILIARY STATE AND
THEREFORE MAY TAX THE WHOLE VALUE EVEN THOUGH THE BOATS AND BARGES
OPERATE OUTSIDE OHIO.  NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. MILLER, 202 U.S. 584,
SUSTAINED A TAX BY THE DOMICILIARY STATE ON ALL THE ROLLING STOCK OF A
RAILROAD.  BUT IN THAT CASE IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT "ANY SPECIFIC CARS
OR ANY AVERAGE OF CARS" WAS SO CONTINUOUSLY IN ANOTHER STATE AS TO BE
TAXABLE THERE.  P. 597.  NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. V. MINNESOTA, 322
U.S. 292, ALLOWED THE DOMICILIARY STATE TO TAX THE ENTIRE FLEET OF
AIRPLANES OPERATING INTERSTATE; BUT IN THAT CASE, AS IN THE MILLER
CASE, IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT "A DEFINED PART OF THE DOMICILIARY CORPUS"
HAD ACQUIRED A TAXABLE SITUS ELSEWHERE.  P. 295.  THOSE CASES, THOUGH
EXCEPTIONAL ON THEIR FACTS, ILLUSTRATE THE REACH OF THE TAXING POWER OF
THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE AS CONTRASTED TO THAT OF THE OTHER STATES. 
BUT THEY HAVE NO APPLICATION HERE SINCE MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THE BARGES
AND BOATS WHICH OHIO HAS TAXED WERE ALMOST CONTINUOUSLY OUTSIDE OHIO
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR.  NO ONE VESSEL MAY HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY IN
ANOTHER STATE DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR.  BUT WE DO KNOW THAT MOST, IF
NOT ALL, OF THEM WERE OPERATING IN OTHER WATERS AND THEREFORE UNDER OTT
V. MISSISSIPPI BARGE LINE CO., SUPRA, COULD BE TAXED BY THE SEVERAL
STATES ON AN APPORTIONMENT BASIS.  THE RULE WHICH PERMITS TAXATION BY
TWO OR MORE STATES ON AN APPORTIONMENT BASIS PRECLUDES TAXATION OF ALL
OF THE PROPERTY BY THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE.  SEE UNION TRANSIT CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194.  OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE MULTIPLE TAXATION OF
INTERSTATE OPERATIONS AND THE TAX WOULD HAVE NO RELATION TO THE
OPPORTUNITIES, BENEFITS, OR PROTECTION WHICH THE TAXING STATE GIVES
THOSE OPERATIONS.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, DISSENTING. 

I ASSUME FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISSENT THAT NONE OF THE VESSELS IN
QUESTION WERE WITHIN OHIO DURING THE TAX YEAR, AND THAT THEY WERE TAXED
TO THEIR FULL VALUE BY OHIO.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE VESSELS WERE
ALL REGISTERED IN CINCINNATI, OHIO, AS THE HOME PORT, AND THAT OHIO IS
THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER.  OHIO CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO TAX THESE VESSELS
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT ACQUIRED A TAX SITUS ELSEWHERE THAN THEIR HOME
PORT AND DOMICILE. 

SEAGOING VESSELS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TAXABLE AT THE DOMICILE OF THE
OWNER.  SOURTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, 222 U.S. 63; MORGAN V.
PARHAM, 16 WALL.  471; HAYS V. PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO., 17 HOW.  596. 
THIS SAME RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED TO VESSELS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE BETWEEN
THE DIFFERENT STATES.  TRANSPORTATION CO. V. WHEELING, 99 U.S. 273; ST.
LOUIS V. FERRY CO., 11 WALL.  423.  THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
UNTIL TODAY WAS THAT WHERE VESSELS HAD ACQUIRED A SITUS FOR TAXATION IN
SOME OTHER STATE, THAT OTHER STATE MIGHT TAX THEM.  OLD DOMINION S.S.
CO. V. VIRGINIA, 198 U.S. 299.  IN AYER & LORD TIE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 202
U.S. 409, 421, THIS COURT SAID: 

"THE GENERAL RULE HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED AS TO VESSELS PLYING BETWEEN
THE PORTS OF DIFFERENT STATES, ENGAGED IN THE COASTWISE TRADE, THAT THE
DOMICIL OF THE OWNER IS THE SITUS OF A VESSEL FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TAXATION, WHOLLY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PLACE OF ENROLLMENT, SUBJECT,
HOWEVER, TO THE EXCEPTION THAT WHERE A VESSEL ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE HAS ACQUIRED AN ACTUAL SITUS IN A STATE OTHER THAN THE PLACE
OF THE DOMICIL OF THE OWNER, IT MAY THERE BE TAXED BECAUSE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY." 

IN THE CASE AT HAND, THE VESSELS HAD NOT ACQUIRED A SITUS FOR
TAXATION IN ANY OTHER STATE.  THEY WERE AT LARGE IN THE OHIO AND
MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, TOUCHING PORTS THEREIN FROM TIME TO TIME.  THERE
WAS NO SHOWING AS TO HOW MUCH TIME ANY OF THE VESSELS SPENT IN ANY
STATE.  INDEED, THE TIME SPENT IN ANY STATE BY THE VESSELS PLYING THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COULD NOT BE SHOWN WITH ANY ACCURACY, AS THE STATES
ON EACH SIDE OWN TO THE MIDDLE OF THE STREAM.*  THE NAVIGATION CHANNEL
MIGHT BE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OR RIGHT ON THE CENTER
LINE.  WHO IS TO SAY WHAT STATE THE VESSELS WERE IN? 

*DOUGLAS, BOUNDARIES, AREAS, GEOGRAPHIC CENTERS, AND ALTITUDES OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE SEVERAL STATES, 2D ED. (U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR,
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULL.  817). 

THE DOCTRINE OF APPORTIONMENT APPLIED IN OTT V. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY
BARGE LINE CO., 336 U.S. 169, IS NOT IN POINT.  IN THAT CASE THE
DOMICILIARY STATE HAD NOT SOUGHT TO TAX THE VESSELS.  THE TAX WAS
APPROVED IN THE OTT CASE ONLY ON THE ASSURANCE OF THE LOUISIANA
ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE TAXING STATUTE "WAS INTENDED TO COVER AND
ACTUALLY COVERS HERE, AN AVERAGE PORTION OF PROPERTY PERMANENTLY WITHIN
THE STATE - AND BY PERMANENTLY IS MEANT THROUGHOUT THE TAXING YEAR." 
IBID., AT 175.  WITHOUT SUCH ASSURANCE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BASIS
FOR APPLYING THE APPORTIONMENT RULE.  NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V.
MILLER, 202 U.S. 584; PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141
U.S. 18, 26; UNION REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194,
206. 

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE IS SILENT AS TO WHETHER ANY PROPORTION OF THE
VESSELS WERE IN ANY ONE STATE FOR THE WHOLE OF A TAXABLE YEAR.  THE
RECORD DOES SHOW THAT NO OTHER STATE COLLECTED TAXES ON THE VESSELS FOR
THE YEARS IN QUESTION OR ANY OTHER YEAR.  UNTIL THIS CASE, IT HAS NOT
BEEN THE LAW THAT THE STATE OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE IS PROHIBITED FROM
TAXING UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. 

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, IS A CASE IN POINT.  THERE
THE OWNER OF THE VESSELS WAS A KENTUCKY CORPORATION WHICH OPERATED
BETWEEN VARIOUS COASTAL PORTS.  NONE OF THE VESSELS WERE EVER NEAR
KENTUCKY, BUT KENTUCKY WAS ALLOWED TO TAX THEM BECAUSE IT WAS THE STATE
OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE.  THE VESSELS WERE IN AND OUT OF OTHER STATES'
PORTS, JUST AS THE INSTANT VESSELS WERE IN AND OUT OF OTHER STATES'
PORTS; BUT THE MERE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OTHER STATE MIGHT ATTEMPT TO
LEVY AN APPORTIONED TAX ON THE VESSELS WAS NOT PERMITTED TO DESTROY
KENTUCKY'S POWER TO TAX.  THE CRUCIAL FACT WAS THAT THE VESSELS WERE
NOT SHOWN TO HAVE ACQUIRED A TAX SITUS ELSEWHERE. 

AS RECENTLY AS 1944 THIS COURT WOULD SEEM TO HAVE ADDED VITALITY TO
THE DOCTRINE WHICH SHOULD GOVERN THIS CASE.  MINNESOTA HAD TAXED AN
AIRLINE ON THE FULL VALUE OF ITS AIRPLANES, INCLUDING THOSE USED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT UPHOLDING THE TAX, STATED: 

"THE FACT THAT NORTHWEST PAID PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE YEAR
1939 UPON 'SOME PROPORTION OF ITS FULL VALUE' OF ITS AIRPLANE FLEET IN
SOME OTHER STATES DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE POWER OF TAXATION OF MINNESOTA
AS THE HOME STATE OF THE FLEET IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE.  THE TAXABILITY OF ANY PART OF THIS FLEET BY ANY OTHER STATE THAN
MINNESOTA, IN VIEW OF THE TAXABILITY OF THE ENTIRE FLEET BY THAT STATE,
IS NOT NOW BEFORE US.  IT  ...  IS NOT SHOWN HERE THAT A DEFINED PART
OF THE DOMICILIARY CORPUS HAS ACQUIRED A PERMANENT LOCATION, I.E., A
TAXING SITUS, ELSEWHERE."  NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S.
292, 295. 

THE FEAR OF "DOUBLE TAXATION" WAS MUCH MORE REAL IN THAT CASE THAN IN
THE INSTANT CASE; YET THE MINNESOTA TAX WAS SUSTAINED BECAUSE THERE WAS
NO SHOWING THAT A TAXING SITUS HAD BEEN ACQUIRED ELSEWHERE.  THE
QUESTION OF WHAT SOME OTHER STATE MIGHT DO IS NO MORE BEFORE THE COURT
IN THIS CASE THAN IT WAS IN THE NORTHWEST CASE. 

THE MAJORITY TODAY SEEKS TO DISTINGUISH THE EARLIER CASES BY
MAGNIFYING THE RELEVANCE OF THE CONTINUOUS ABSENCE OF THE VESSELS FROM
THE DOMICILIARY STATE.  BUT THE OPERATIVE FACT OF THE EARLIER CASES WAS
THE ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF ANOTHER TAXING SITUS.  WHERE NO OTHER TAXING
SITUS WAS SHOWN TO EXIST, THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE WAS PERMITTED TO
TAX, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME THE VESSELS WERE PRESENT IN
THAT STATE.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA. 

AS IT IS ADMITTEDLY NOT SHOWN ON THIS RECORD THAT THESE VESSELS HAVE
ACQUIRED A TAX SITUS ELSEWHERE, OHIO SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO TAX THEM AS
THE STATE OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE.  I WOULD AFFIRM. 
..END :




















GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. V. REDWINE 342 U.S. 299 


NO. 1.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 1950 - CONTINUED FEBRUARY 20, 1950 -
REARGUED NOVEMBER 26, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1952 - 85 F. SUPP.
749, REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


1.  UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1341, IT CANNOT BE SAID, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE, THAT ANY OF THE REMEDIES SUGGESTED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF GEORGIA AFFORDS APPELLANT THE "PLAIN, SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
REMEDY" IN THE STATE COURTS NECESSARY TO DEPRIVE THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT OF JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN THE STATE REVENUE COMMISSIONER
FROM ASSESSING OR COLLECTING AD VALOREM TAXES FROM APPELLANT
CORPORATION CONTRARY TO AN EXEMPTION IN ITS SPECIAL STATE CHARTER AND
IN VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AGAINST A
STATE PASSING ANY LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.  PP. 300
303. 

(A)  A SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IN A STATE COURT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SUCH
A REMEDY, SINCE IT WAS TRIED BY APPELLANT WITHOUT SUCCESS IN MUSGROVE
V. GEORGIA R. CO., 204 GA. 139, 49 S.E.2D 26, APPEAL DISMISSED, 335
U.S. 900.  PP. 301, 303. 

(B)  NOR CAN ARRESTING TAX EXECUTIONS BY AFFIDAVITS OF ILLEGALITY BE
SAID TO BE SUCH A REMEDY WHEN IT WOULD REQUIRE THE FILING OF OVER 300
SEPARATE CLAIMS IN 14 DIFFERENT COUNTIES TO PROTECT THE SINGLE FEDERAL
CLAIM ASSERTED BY APPELLANT.  P. 303. 

(C)  NOR CAN A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE FOR REFUND AFTER PAYMENT OF
TAXES BE SAID TO BE SUCH A REMEDY WHEN IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO TAXES
AMOUNTING TO LESS THAN 15% OF THE TOTAL TAXES IN CONTROVERSY.  P. 303. 

(D)  RAISING APPELLANT'S FEDERAL CLAIM IN DEFENSE OF A SUIT BY THE
STATE REVENUE COMMISSIONER TO RECOVER TAXES IS NOT A REMEDY THAT COULD
HAVE BEEN INVOKED BY APPELLANT.  P. 303, N. 11. 

2.  THIS SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BY A CORPORATION TO ENJOIN
A STATE REVENUE COMMISSIONER FROM ASSESSING OR COLLECTING AD VALOREM
TAXES FROM THE CORPORATION, CONTRARY TO AN EXEMPTION IN ITS SPECIAL
STATE CHARTER AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AGAINST A STATE PASSING ANY LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION
OF CONTRACTS, IS NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE WHICH CANNOT BE BROUGHT
WITHOUT THE STATE'S CONSENT.  IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 303-306. 

GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. V. REDWINE, STATE REVENUE COMMISSIONER. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 

A THREE-JUDGE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED APPELLANT'S SUIT TO
ENJOIN A STATE REVENUE COMMISSIONER FROM ASSESSING OR COLLECTING AD
VALOREM TAXES CONTRARY TO AN EXEMPTION IN APPELLANT'S SPECIAL STATE
CHARTER AND THE PROHIBITION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AGAINST ANY
STATE LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.  85 F. SUPP. 749.  ON
APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 306. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT WAS INCORPORATED IN 1833 BY A SPECIAL ACT OF THE GEORGIA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT INCLUDED A PROVISION FOR EXEMPTION FROM
TAXATION.  (FN1)  IN 1945, THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION WAS AMENDED TO
PROVIDE THAT "ALL EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION HERETOFORE GRANTED IN
CORPORATE CHARTERS ARE DECLARED TO BE HENCEFORTH NULL AND VOID."  (FN2)
ACCORDING TO APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT, APPELLEE, WHO IS STATE REVENUE
COMMISSIONER, IS THREATENING TO ACT PURSUANT TO THIS AMENDMENT BY
PROCEEDING AGAINST APPELLANT FOR THE COLLECTION OF AD VALOREM TAXES FOR
THE YEAR 1939, AND ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AND
EVERY COUNTY, SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MUNICIPALITY THROUGH WHICH
APPELLANT'S LINES RUN.  (FN3)  APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THIS THREATENED
TAXATION WOULD BE CONTRARY TO ITS LEGISLATIVE CHARTER AND WOULD IMPAIR
THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT BETWEEN APPELLANT AND THE STATE OF GEORGIA,
CONTRARY TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  (FN4) 

THIS LATEST PHRASE (FN5) OF APPELLANT'S FREQUENT LITIGATION OVER THE
TAX EXEMPTION PROVISION OF ITS 1833 CHARTER BEGAN WHEN APPELLANT FILED
SUIT AGAINST APPELLEE'S PREDECESSOR IN A GEORGIA STATE COURT SEEKING
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF.  RELIEF WAS DENIED WITHOUT REACHING
THE MERITS OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM WHEN THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT HELD
THAT THE ACTION WAS, IN EFFECT, AN UNCONSENTED SUIT AGAINST THE STATE
WHICH COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE STATE COURTS.  MUSGROVE V. GEORGIA
RAILROAD & BANKING CO., 204 GA. 139,  49 S.E.2D 25 (1948).  WE
DISMISSED AN APPEAL FROM THAT JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON A
NONFEDERAL GROUND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT IT.  335 U.S. 900 (1949). 

THEREAFTER, APPELLANT FILED THIS ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
ENJOIN APPELLEE FROM ASSESSING OR COLLECTING AD VALOREM TAXES CONTRARY
TO ITS LEGISLATIVE CHARTER.  APPELLANT ALSO ASKED THAT APPELLEE'S
THREATENED ACTS BE ADJUDGED IN VIOLATION OF A PRIOR DECREE ALSO ENTERED
BY THE COURT BELOW AND AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT.  WRIGHT V. GEORGIA
RAILROAD & BANKING CO., 216 U.S. 420 (1910).  A COURT OF THREE JUDGES
(FN6) DISMISSED APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, HOLDING
THAT THE STATE OF GEORGIA HAD NOT SUBMITTED ITSELF TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT SO AS TO BE BARRED BY THE WRIGHT DECREE AND THAT THIS
ACTION AGAINST APPELLEE IS IN EFFECT AN UNCONSENTED SUIT AGAINST THE
STATE PROHIBITED BY THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.  (FN7)  85 F. SUPP. 749
(1949). 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA STATED AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT THAT
"PLAIN, SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT" STATE REMEDIES WERE AVAILABLE TO
APPELLANT, PARTICULARLY BY APPEAL FROM AN ASSESSMENT BY APPELLEE.  WE
ORDERED THE CAUSE CONTINUED TO ENABLE APPELLANT TO ASSERT SUCH
REMEDIES.  339 U.S. 901 (1950).  AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT MODIFIED THE
RESTRAINING ORDER WHICH IT HAS ENTERED PENDING APPEAL TO PERMIT
ASSESSMENT, APPELLEE HELD APPELLANT LIABLE FOR THE FULL AD VALOREM TAX
AND APPELLANT APPEALED TO THE STATE COURTS.  THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, HOLDING THAT SUCH REMEDY
WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO APPELLANT.  GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. V.
REDWINE, 208 GA. 261, 66 S.E.2D 234 (1951).  FOLLOWING THIS DECISION,
APPELLANT MOVED FOR TERMINATION OF THE CONTINUANCE OF ITS APPEAL IN
THIS COURT AND WE ORDERED REARGUMENT. 

FIRST.  ON REARGUMENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA AGAIN
MAINTAINED THAT "PLAIN, SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT" REMEDIES WERE AVAILABLE
TO APPELLANT IN THE STATE COURTS.  IF SO, THE DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1341.  (FN8) THE REMEDIES
NOW SUGGESTED ARE: (1) SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA; (2) ARRESTING TAX EXECUTION BY AFFIDAVITS OF
ILLEGALITY; AND (3) SUING THE STATE FOR REFUND AFTER PAYMENT OF TAXES. 
THE FIRST ROUTE WAS TRIED BY APPELLANT WITHOUT SUCCESS IN THE MUSGROVE
LITIGATION, SUPRA.  THE SECOND REMEDY, THE PRESENT AVAILABILITY OF
WHICH WAS DOUBTED BY THE THREE JUSTICES OF THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
THAT CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN THE APPEAL CASE, (FN9) WOULD REQUIRE THE
FILING OF OVER THREE HUNDRED SEPARATE CLAIMS IN FOURTEEN DIFFERENT
COUNTIES TO PROTECT THE SINGLE FEDERAL CLAIM ASSERTED BY APPELLANT. 
(FN10)  THE THIRD REMEDY, SUIT FOR REFUND AFTER PAYMENT, IS APPLICABLE
ONLY TO TAXES PAYABLE DIRECTLY TO THE STATE AND AMOUNTING TO LESS THAN
15% OF THE TOTAL TAXES IN CONTROVERSY.  (FN11)  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
REMEDIES SUGGESTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AFFORD APPELLANT THE "PLAIN,
SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT REMEDY" NECESSARY TO DEPRIVE THE DISTRICT COURT OF
JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1341. 

SECOND.  PASSING TO THE JURISDICTION GROUND UPON WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURT RESTED ITS DECISION, WE NOTE THAT THE STATE OF GEORGIA WAS NOT
NAMED AS A PARTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  BUT, SINCE APPELLEE IS A STATE
OFFICER, THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED WHETHER THE RELIEF SOUGHT
AGAINST THE OFFICER IS NOT, IN SUBSTANCE, SOUGHT AGAINST THE
SOVEREIGN.  (FN12)  IF THIS ACTION IS, IN EFFECT, AN UNCONSENTED SUIT
AGAINST THE STATE, THE ACTION IS BARRED.  (FN13) 

THE DISTRICT COURT CHARACTERIZED APPELLANT'S ACTION AS ONE TO ENFORCE
AN ALLEGED CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND, AS SUCH, A SUIT
AGAINST THE STATE.  BUT APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT IS NOT FRAMED AS A SUIT
FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.  IT SEEKS TO ENJOIN APPELLEE FROM COLLECTING
TAXES IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  THIS COURT HAS LONG HELD THAT A SUIT TO RESTRAIN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION THREATENED BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A STATE
OFFICER IS NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE.  (FN14)  THESE DECISIONS WERE
REEXAMINED AND REAFFIRMED IN EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), AND
HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED TO THE PRESENT DAY.  (FN15)  THIS
GENERAL RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED IN SUITS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS THREATENING
TO ENFORCE ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAXATION, INCLUDING CASES WHERE,
AS HERE, IT IS ALLEGED THAT TAXATION WOULD IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF
CONTRACT.  GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 200 U.S. 273 (1906);
PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY, 140 U.S. 1 (1891); ALLEN V. BALTIMORE & O.R.
CO., 114 U.S. 311 (1885). 

IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443 (1887), RELIED UPON BELOW, IS NOT A
CONTRARY HOLDING.  IN THAT CASE, COMPLAINANT HAD NOT ALLEGED THAT
OFFICERS THREATENED TO TAX ITS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  AS A RESULT, THE COURT HELD THE ACTION BARRED
AS ONE IN SUBSTANCE DIRECTED AT THE STATE MERELY TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE.  (FN16)  SINCE APPELLANT
SEEKS TO ENJOIN APPELLEE FROM A THREATENED AND ALLEGEDLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF ITS PROPERTY, WE HOLD THAT THIS ACTION
AGAINST APPELLEE AS AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT BARRED AS AN UNCONSENTED SUIT
AGAINST THE STATE.  (FN17)  THE STATE IS FREE TO CARRY OUT ITS
FUNCTIONS WITHOUT JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE DIRECTED AT THE SOVEREIGN OR
ITS AGENTS, BUT THIS IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION DOES NOT EXTEND
TO INDIVIDUALS WHO ACT AS OFFICERS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF
JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE ON EITHER THE GROUND THAT IT IS A SUIT
AGAINST THE STATE OR THAT "PLAIN, SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT" REMEDIES ARE
AVAILABLE TO APPELLANT IN THE STATE COURTS.  SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT
DID NOT DETERMINE WHETHER APPELLEE WAS BOUND BY THE WRIGHT DECREE AND
DID NOT ADDRESS ITSELF TO THE MERITS OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM, WE DO NOT
PASS UPON THESE QUESTIONS BUT REMAND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  GA. LAWS 1833, PP. 256, 264. 

FN2  GA. CONST., ART. I, SEC. III, PAR. III.  SEE GA. LAWS 1945, NO.
34, PP. 8, 14. 

FN3  GA. CODE ANN., 1937, CC. 92-26, 92-27, 92-28, AS AMENDED,
CONTAINS THE TAXATION PROVISIONS WHICH APPELLEE IS ALLEGEDLY
THREATENING TO INVOKE AGAINST APPELLANT. 

FN4  "NO STATE SHALL  ...  PASS ANY BILL OF ATTAINDER, EX POST FACTO
LAW, OR LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS,  ...  ."  U.S.
CONST., ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 1. 

FN5  THE CASES CONCERNING THIS EXEMPTION THAT HAVE REACHED THIS COURT
ARE COLLECTED IN ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. PHILLIPS, 332 U.S. 168,
173 (1947). 

FN6  REQUIRED UNDER 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 2281, 2284.  QUERY V.
UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 486 (1942). 

FN7  "THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED
TO EXTEND TO ANY SUIT IN LAW OR EQUITY, COMMENCED OR PROSECUTED AGAINST
ONE OF THE UNITED STATES BY CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE, OR BY CITIZENS
OR SUBJECTS OF ANY FOREIGN STATE."  U.S. CONST., AMEND. XI. 

FN8  "THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL NOT ENJOIN, SUSPEND OR RESTRAIN THE
ASSESSMENT, LEVY OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX UNDER STATE LAW WHERE A
PLAIN, SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD IN THE COURTS OF SUCH
STATE." 

FN9  208 GA. AT 272, 66 S.E.2D AT 241. 

FN10  COMPARE GREENE V. LOUISVILLE & INTERURBAN R. CO., 244 U.S. 499,
520 (1917), WITH MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 529-530 (1932). 
SEE ALSO GRAVES V. TEXAS CO., 298 U.S. 393, 403 (1936). 

FN11  AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AS TO ONLY A PORTION OF THE TAXES IN
CONTROVERSY DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE FEDERAL COURT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE
ENTIRE CONTROVERSY.  GREENE V. LOUISVILLE & INTERURBAN R. CO., NOTE 10,
SUPRA.  SEE HILLSBOROUGH V. CROMWELL, 326 U.S. 620, 629 (1946). 

IT WAS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT APPELLANT'S FEDERAL CLAIM COULD BE RAISED
IN DEFENSE TO A SUIT BROUGHT BY APPELLEE TO RECOVER TAXES, BUT THIS IS
HARDLY A REMEDY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN INVOKED BY APPELLANT. 

FN12  LARSON V. DOMESTIC & FOREIGN COMMERCE CORP., 337 U.S. 682, 687
688 (1949); IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443 (1887). 

FN13  APPELLANT IS INCORPORATED IN GEORGIA AND A SUIT BY IT AGAINST
THE STATE OF GEORGIA IS NOT EXPRESSLY BARRED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.  NEVERTHELESS, A FEDERAL COURT MAY NOT ENTERTAIN
THE ACTION IF IT IS A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE.  HANS V. LOUISIANA, 134
U.S. 1 (1890). 

FN14  GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 200 U.S. 273 (1906);
PROUT V. STARR, 188 U.S. 537 (1903); SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466, 518
519 (1898); TINDAL V. WESLEY, 167 U.S. 204 (1897); REAGAN V. FARMERS'
LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362 (1894); PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY, 140
U.S. 1 (1891), AND NUMEROUS CASES CITED THEREIN. 

FN15  ALABAMA COMM'N V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 341 U.S. 341, 344 (1951);
STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 393 (1932), AND CASES CITED
THEREIN; GREENE V. LOUISVILLE & INTERURBAN R. CO., NOTE 10, SUPRA, AT
507, AND CASES CITED THEREIN.  SEE LARSON V. DOMESTIC & FOREIGN
COMMERCE CORP., NOTE 12, SUPRA, AT 690-691, 704. 

APPELLANT IN THIS CASE MERELY SEEKS THE CESSATION OF APPELLEE'S
ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT AND DOES NOT REQUEST AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION BY THE STATE.  COMPARE FORD MOTOR CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
323 U.S. 459, 462-463 (1945); GREAT NORTHERN INS. CO. V. READ, 322 U.S.
47, 50-51 (1944); NORTH CAROLINA V. TEMPLE, 134 U.S. 22 (1890); HAGOOD
V. SOUTHERN, 177 U.S. 52 (1886). 

FN16  THAT THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DECISION IN AYERS
AND THE CASES ABOVE CITED IS SHOWN BY THE CAREFUL DIFFERENTIATION OF
ALLEN V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., SUPRA, AN OPINION ALSO WRITTEN BY MR.
JUSTICE MATTHEWS.  SEE ALSO PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY, NOTE 14, SUPRA. 

FN17  THE FACT THAT THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT HAS CONSIDERED THAT
APPELLEE ACTS WITH OFFICIAL IMMUNITY DOES NOT, OF COURSE, IMPART
IMMUNITY FROM RESPONSIBILITY TO THE SUPREME FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  EX
PARTE YOUNG, SUPRA, AT 167.  SEE ALSO GRAVES V. TEXAS CO., NOTE 10,
SUPRA, AT 403-404. 

WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE STATE OF GEORGIA
HAD SUBMITTED ITSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE
WRIGHT LITIGATION.  UNLIKE GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., SUPRA,
WHERE ADDITIONAL PARTIES WERE BROUGHT INTO THE SECOND ACTION, APPELLANT
HAS LIMITED ITS COMPLAINT TO A REQUEST FOR RELIEF AGAINST APPELLEE
ALONE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

IT IS MY VIEW THAT APPELLANT'S SUIT IS IN REALITY AGAINST THE STATE
OF GEORGIA TO ENJOIN A BREACH OF CONTRACT.  IT IS THE SAME CONTRACT
THAT WAS INVOLVED IN WRIGHT V. GEORGIA R. & BANKING CO., 216 U.S. 420. 
IN THAT CASE THE COURT HELD THAT THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION BARRED GEORGIA FROM BREACHING HER AGREEMENT GRANTING
APPELLANT TAX IMMUNITY BY LEGISLATIVE ACT. 

THE SUIT IN THE WRIGHT CASE WAS AGAINST A STATE OFFICER.  BUT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEARED AND DEFENDED THE CASE ON THE MERITS.  IT IS
CLEAR TO ME THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REPRESENTED AND SPOKE FOR THE
INTERESTS OF GEORGIA IN THE LOWER COURT AND IN THIS COURT.  THE GEORGIA
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES AUTHORIZED THE GOVERNOR TO ALLOW THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO DEFEND SUITS INVOLVING THE STATE'S INTERESTS.  SEE GA. CODE
OF 1895, SECS. 23, 220; GA.  CONST. OF 1877, ART. VI, SEC. X, PAR. II.
THE DECREE THAT WAS ENTERED ADJUDICATED THE RIGHTS OF GEORGIA,
DECLARING HER BOUND BY THE CONTRACT, STATING THAT THE ACTS OF THE
GEORGIA LEGISLATURE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION WERE "A VALID AND
BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATE OF GEORGIA" AND THE PRESENT
APPELLANT.  THERE WERE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS IN LAND V. DOLLAR,
330 U.S. 731, THAT WOULD KEEP THE SUIT FROM BEING RES JUDICATA AGAINST
THE STATE.    I WOULD CONCLUDE THAT GEORGIA IS BOUND BY THE DECREE IN
THE WRIGHT CASE.  THEREFORE, RELIEF IS NOW AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF AN
ANCILLARY EXERCISE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S EQUITY JURISDICTION TO
PROTECT APPELLANT'S RIGHTS SECURED UNDER THE PRIOR DECREE.  GUNTER V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S. 273. 
..END :


















GUESSEFELDT V. MCGRATH 342 U.S. 308 


NO. 204.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 29, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1952 - 88 U.S.
APP. D.C. 383, 191 F.2D 639, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER SUED UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS
AMENDED, TO RECOVER PROPERTY VESTED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN. 
HE ALLEGED THAT:  HE IS A GERMAN CITIZEN WHO HAD LIVED CONTINUOUSLY IN
HAWAII FROM 1896 TO 1938.  IN APRIL, 1938, HE TOOK HIS FAMILY TO
GERMANY FOR A VACATION.  AFTER THE OUTBREAK OF WAR, HE WAS UNABLE TO
SECURE PASSAGE HOME BEFORE MARCH, 1940, WHEN HIS RE-ENTRY PERMIT
EXPIRED.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES ENTERED THE WAR, HE WAS DETAINED
INVOLUNTARILY IN GERMANY, FIRST BY THE GERMANS AND LATER BY THE
RUSSIANS, UNTIL JULY, 1949, WHEN HE RETURNED TO THIS COUNTRY.  HE HAD
DONE NOTHING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO AID THE WAR EFFORT OF THE
ENEMY.  HELD:

1.  PETITIONER WAS NOT "RESIDENT WITHIN" GERMANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE DEFINITION OF "ENEMY" IN SEC. 2 AND, THEREFORE, WAS "NOT AN
ENEMY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 9(A), AUTHORIZING A SUIT BY ANY
PERSON "NOT AN ENEMY" TO RECOVER PROPERTY VESTED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN.  PP. 311-312. 

2.  PROPERLY CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSES, ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD BE RAISED,
SEC. 39, FORBIDDING THE RETURN OF PROPERTY OF ANY "NATIONAL" OF GERMANY
OR JAPAN VESTED IN THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY TIME AFTER DECEMBER 17, 1941,
APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE GERMAN AND JAPANESE NATIONALS OTHERWISE
INELIGIBLE TO BRING SUIT UNDER SEC. 9(A).  PP. 312-320. 

GUESSEFELDT V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED PETITIONER'S SUIT UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1 ET SEQ.,
TO RECOVER PROPERTY VESTED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  89 F.
SUPP. 344.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  88 U.S. APP. D.C. 383, 191
F.2D 639.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 810.  REVERSED, P.
320. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A CASE BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT, 40 STAT. 411, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1 ET SEQ., (FN1) TO
RECOVER PROPERTY VESTED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, HOLDING THAT
PLAINTIFF, WHILE NOT "RESIDENT WITHIN" GERMANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, AND THUS "NOT AN ENEMY" FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC.
9(A), WAS PRECLUDED FROM RECOVERING BY SEC. 39 WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO
PROPERTY  ...  OF GERMANY, JAPAN, OR ANY NATIONAL OF EITHER SUCH
COUNTRY VESTED IN  ...  THE GOVERNMENT ...  PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE RETURNED TO FORMER OWNERS THEREOF ...  ."  62
STAT. 1240, 1246, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV, 1946) SEC. 39.  (FN2)  89
F. SUPP. 344.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  88 U.S. APP. D.C. 383, 191 F.2D 639.  WE BROUGHT THE
CASE HERE FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY AND THE
REMEDIES OPEN UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  342 U.S. 810. 

ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH THE
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS, THE SITUATION BEFORE US
MAY BE BRIEFLY STATED.  GUESSEFELDT, A GERMAN CITIZEN, LIVED
CONTINUOUSLY IN HAWAII FROM 1896 TO 1938.  IN APRIL OF THAT YEAR HE
TOOK HIS FAMILY TO GERMANY FOR A VACATION.  AFTER THE OUTBREAK OF WAR,
HE WAS UNABLE TO SECURE PASSAGE HOME BEFORE MARCH, 1940, WHEN HIS RE
ENTRY PERMIT EXPIRED.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES ENTERED THE WAR, HE WAS
INVOLUNTARILY DETAINED IN GERMANY, FIRST BY THE GERMANS AND AFTER 1945
BY THE RUSSIANS, UNTIL JULY, 1949, WHEN HE RETURNED TO THIS COUNTRY. 
DURING THAT TIME HE DID NOTHING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO AID THE WAR
EFFORT OF THE ENEMY. 

THE FIRST QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE CLAIMANT WAS
"RESIDENT WITHIN" THE TERRITORY OF A NATION WITH WHICH THIS COUNTRY WAS
AT WAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 2 AND 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT.  HE WAS PHYSICALLY WITHIN THE ENEMY'S TERRITORY.  HE
CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE MEANING CONVEYED BY "RESIDENT WITHIN" IS
SOMETHING MORE THAN MERE PRESENCE; AT THE LEAST A DOMICILIARY
CONNOTATION, IF NOT DOMICILE, IS IMPLIED. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY LEAVES THE MEANING SHROUDED.  SOME USE OF THE
TERM "DOMICILE" AS THE TOUCHSTONE OF ENEMY STATUS IS TO BE FOUND IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND REPORTS.  (FN3)  BUT ON THE FLOOR,
REPRESENTATIVE MONTAGUE, ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF THE BILL, UNEQUIVOCALLY
STATED UNDER CLOSE QUESTIONING THAT THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE WAS INTENDED
TO COVER MUCH MORE THAN THOSE DOMICILED IN ENEMY NATIONS.  YET
PRISONERS OF WAR, EXPEDITIONARY FORCES AND "SOJOURNERS" WERE NOT, HE
SAID, INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED.  55 CONG. REC. 4922.  (FN4) 

GUESSEFELDT RETAINED HIS AMERICAN DOMICILE.  MOREOVER, IF ANYTHING
MORE THAN MERE PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN ENEMY TERRITORY IS REQUIRED, IT
WOULD SEEM CLEAR THAT HE WAS NOT AN "ENEMY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
2.  HIS STAY BEFORE THE WAR, AS A MATTER OF CHOICE, WAS SHORT.  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES NEGATIVE ANY DESIRE FOR A PERMANENT OR LONG-TERM
CONNECTION WITH GERMANY.  HE INTENDED, AND INDEED ATTEMPTED, TO LEAVE
THERE BEFORE THIS COUNTRY ENTERED THE WAR.  BEING THERE UNDER PHYSICAL
CONSTRAINT, HE IS ALMOST LITERALLY WITHIN THE EXCEPTED CLASS AS
AUTHORITATIVELY INDICATED BY MR. MONTAGUE.  TO HOLD THAT "RESIDENT
WITHIN" ENEMY TERRITORY IMPLIES SOMETHING MORE THAN MERE PHYSICAL
PRESENCE AND SOMETHING LESS THAN DOMICILE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
EMANATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE MANIFESTED IN THE ENTIRE ACT, AND
THE RELEVANT EXTRINSIC LIGHT, INCLUDING THE DECISIONS OF LOWER COURTS
ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WE NOTE WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY APPROVING ANY OF
THEM.  SEE MCGRATH V. ZANDER, 85 U.S. APP. D.C. 344, 177 F.2D 649;
JOSEPHBERG V. MARKHAM, 152 F.2D 644; STADTMULLER V. MILLER, 11 F.2D
732; VOWINCKEL V. FIRST FEDERAL TRUST CO., 10 F.2D 19; SARTHOU V.
CLARK, 78 F. SUPP. 139. 

GUESSEFELDT HAS THE FURTHER OBSTACLE OF SEC. 39 TO CLEAR BEFORE HE
CAN SUCCEED.  CONGRESS IN 1948, SO THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT RUNS,
ADOPTED A "POLICY OF NONRETURN," (FN5) AND PROHIBITED THE RESTORATION
OF VESTED PROPERTY TO A "NATIONAL" OF GERMANY.  A CITIZEN IS A
NATIONAL, AND GUESSEFELDT IS A GERMAN CITIZEN.  THUS, EVEN THOUGH HE
MAY, BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 39, HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO BRING SUIT
AS A NONENEMY UNDER SEC. 9(A), THAT PRIVILEGE HAS SINCE BEEN CUT OFF. 
TO WHICH GUESSEFELDT COUNTERS THAT SEC. 39 MUST BE CONSTRUED
HARMONIOUSLY WITH SEC. 9(A); THE TERM "NATIONAL" IN THE NEW SECTION
MUST ACCORDINGLY BE TAKEN TO MEAN ONLY THOSE GERMAN AND JAPANESE
CITIZENS WHO COULD NOT THERETOFORE HAVE ENFORCED THE RETURN OF THEIR
PROPERTY AS OF RIGHT.  SECTION 39, IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE SCHEME AND BACKGROUND OF THE STATUTE,
MAKES THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION UNPERSUASIVE. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CUSTODIAN CAN LAWFULLY VEST UNDER SEC. 5 A GOOD
DEAL MORE THAN HE CAN HOLD AGAINST A SEC. 9(A) ACTION.  CENTRAL UNION
TRUST CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U.S. 554; CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., 332
U.S. 480.  THUS CONGRESS HAD TO MAKE PROVISION FOR THE DISPOSAL OF TWO
CLASSES OF VESTED PROPERTY.  NONENEMY PROPERTY, LAWFULLY VESTED UNDER
SEC. 5, WAS RECOVERABLE IN A SUIT AGAINST THE CUSTODIAN.  SEC. 9(A);
SEE BECKER STEEL CO. V. CUMMINGS, 296 U.S. 74.  THE SECOND CLASS,
PROPERTY OWNED BY "ENEMIES" AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO RECOVERY UNDER
SEC. 9(A), WAS RESERVED FOR DISPOSITION "AFTER THE END OF THE WAR  ...
AS CONGRESS SHALL DIRECT."  40 STAT. 411, 423, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 12. 

AFTER BOTH WARS, CONGRESS DID ADOPT MEASURES TO DISPOSE OF THIS
PROPERTY.  THE TREATY OF BERLIN, 42 STAT. 1939, 1940, AT THE END OF
WORLD WAR I, CONFIRMED THE POSSESSION OF VESTED ENEMY PROPERTY BY THE
UNITED STATES.  JUNKERS V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, INC., 287 F. 597; LANGE
V. WINGRAVE, 295 F. 565; KLEIN V. PALMER, 18 F.2D 932.  FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN SIMPLY TO
SECURE CLAIMS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS AGAINST GERMANY OR WAS REGARDED AS
THE RIGHTFUL WITHHOLDING OF SPOILS OF WAR.  IN THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR
CLAIMS ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT. 254, 270, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 9(B)(12),
(13), (14), (16), 9(M), CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR THE RETURN TO ADMITTEDLY
ENEMY OWNERS OF 80% OF THEIR VESTED PROPERTY.  SEE CUMMINGS V. DEUTSCHE
BANK, 300 U.S. 115.  (FN6) SECTION 32 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT, 60 STAT. 50, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV, 1946) SEC. 32,
ENACTED AFTER WORLD WAR II, PROVIDED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RETURNS OF
PROPERTY TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF "TECHNICAL" ENEMIES WHO WERE INELIGIBLE
TO BRING SUIT UNDER SEC. 9(A).  THUS, IF SEC. 39 IS TREATED AS DEALING
ONLY WITH PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO RECOVERY, THE CONSISTENCY
OF THE PATTERN OF ENACTMENT IS PRESERVED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE
SIGNIFICANT LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION IS REGARDED AS REQUIRING THE
RETENTION OF PROPERTY WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE RECOVERABLE IN A SUIT
UNDER SEC. 9(A), IT WOULD MARK THE FIRST DEPARTURE FROM WHAT APPEARS TO
BE A HERETOFORE CONSISTENT CONGRESSIONAL POLICY. 

ON THE PROBLEM OF COMPENSATING AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR, INTERNEES AND
OTHERS WHO SUFFERED PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE AT THE HANDS OF
WORLD WAR II ENEMIES.  CONGRESSIONAL ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON THE
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THESE CLAIMS AND METHODS OF ADJUDICATING THEM. 
THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN SEC. 39 WERE OF PERIPHERAL CONCERN.  READING THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN THIS LIGHT, IT LENDS SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT
SEC. 39 WAS CONCEIVED AS DEALING WITH PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO
RETURN.  SENATE HEARINGS OPENED WITH DETAILED TESTIMONY ANALYZING THE
VALUE OF ASSETS WHICH WOULD BE LEFT AFTER PAYMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATION
AND LIQUIDATION, RETURNS UNDER SEC. 32, AND DISBURSEMENTS IN
SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS IN SUITS BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 9(A).  HEARINGS
BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R.
4044, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 12-21.  SEE ALSO ID., AT 44, AND HEARINGS
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R.
873, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 264.  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATION
LOOKS TO THE DISPOSITION OF THIS FUND, AND THE CONCLUSION IS REINFORCED
BY THE PROVISION OF THE SECTION THAT "THE NET PROCEEDS REMAINING UPON
THE COMPLETION OF ADMINISTRATION, LIQUIDATION, AND DISPOSITION PURSUANT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OF ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN
SHALL BE COVERED INTO THE TREASURY AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE DATE." 

THE TENOR OF THE HEARINGS DEMONSTRATES NO PURPOSE TO CHANGE THE
EXISTING SCOPE OF SEC. 9(A).  THE ONLY REASON A PROVISO TO THAT EFFECT
WAS NOT INCLUDED IN SEC. 39 AS PASSED SEEMS TO BE AN ASSUMPTION -
UNWARRANTED IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEES
DISCUSSED BELOW - THAT A NATIONAL OF ANY ENEMY NATION HAD NO RIGHTS
UNDER SEC. 9(A) IN ANY CASE.  (FN7)  INDEED, THE TERMS "ENEMY," "ENEMY
ALIEN," "ENEMY NATIONAL," AND "GERMAN OR JAPANESE NATIONAL" ARE USED
INTERCHANGEABLY IN THE HEARINGS, NOT ONLY BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS BUT BY
WITNESSES FROM THE OFFICE OF ALIEN PROPERTY, WITHOUT REGARD TO PRECISE
SHADES OF MEANING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT. 

BY SEC. 39 CONGRESS WAS MANIFESTING ITS "FIRM RESOLVE NOT TO PERMIT
THE RECURRENCE OF EVENTS WHICH AFTER THE CLOSE OF WORLD WAR I LED TO
THE RETURN OF ENEMY PROPERTY TO THEIR FORMER OWNERS."  H.R. REP. NO.
976, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2.  THOSE EVENTS, AS WE HAVE SEEN,
CULMINATED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928 PERMITTING
ENEMIES AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT TO
RECOVER 80% OF THEIR VESTED ASSETS.  THE MAJOR CONTROVERSY ON SEC. 39
WAS WHETHER THIS REVERSAL OF POST-WORLD WAR I POLICY WAS JUSTIFIABLE AS
A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW OR APPROPRIATE AS A COURSE OF ACTION FOR
THE UNITED STATES.  OPPONENTS OF THE SECTION CONSIDERED THE "POLICY OF
NONRETURN" AS APPLIED TO ADMITTED ENEMIES ILLEGAL, OR AT LEAST UNJUST,
CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.  TO THIS POINT - AND NOT TO THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS CASE - WERE DIRECTED THE REFERENCES IN THE
REPORTS, H.R. REP. NO. 976, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2, AND DEBATE, 94
CONG. REC. 550-551, ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RELIES. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, BOTH SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES HAD BEFORE THEM
TESTIMONY CALLING ATTENTION TO THE VERY PROBLEM NOW IN ISSUE.  HEARINGS
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, SUPRA,
AT 265; HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, SUPRA, AT 197, 254.  AND ONE WITNESS PRESENTED A DRAFT
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE SECTION, COMPLEX TO BE SURE, WHICH WOULD EXPRESSLY
HAVE SAVED CASES LIKE GUESSEFELDT'S FROM THE OPERATION OF THE BILL. 
ID., AT 233-236.  THIS SUGGESTION WAS NOT ACTED UPON BY THE COMMITTEE. 
YET TAKEN AS A WHOLE, THE TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE WAS MEAGRE AND
UNIMPRESSIVE.  IT WAS LARGELY IN WRITTEN FORM, AND THEREFORE LESS
LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN SEEN BY OR TO HAVE HAD IMPACT ON THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS OR TO REFLECT THEIR VIEWS.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS, TAKEN
TOGETHER WITH THE PERIPHERAL CHARACTER OF THE PROBLEM FROM THE
COMMITTEES' POINT OF VIEW, THE CONSISTENT FAILURE TO APPRECIATE THE
TECHNICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM "ENEMY NATIONAL" IN THE FRAMEWORK OF
THE ACT, AND THE FACT THAT THE MATTERS RAISED BY THIS TESTIMONY WERE
NOT TOUCHED UPON IN FLOOR DEBATE - ALL GO FAR TO OVERCOME ANY
PRESUMPTION THAT THE CLAIMANT'S SITUATION WAS CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS
AND REJECTED. 

MOREOVER, A DECISION FOR THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REQUIRE US TO DECIDE
DEBATABLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  IN SUITS BY UNITED STATES
CITIZENS, SEC. 9(A) HAS BEEN CONSTRUED, OVER THE GOVERNMENT'S
OBJECTION, TO REQUIRE REPAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION WHEN THE CUSTODIAN
HAS LIQUIDATED THE VESTED ASSETS.  BECKER STEEL CO. V. CUMMINGS, SUPRA;
HENKELS V. SUTHERLAND, 271 U.S. 298; SEE CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO. V.
GARVAN, 254 U.S. AT 566; STOEHR V. WALLACE, 255 U.S. 239, 245.  SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION, IT IS SAID, IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE ACT FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBT.  IT IS CLEAR TOO THAT FRIENDLY ALIENS ARE
PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REQUIREMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION. 
RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 481.  THE QUESTION
WHICH REMAINS IS WHETHER A CITIZEN IN GUESSEFELDT'S POSITION OF A
NATION WITH WHICH THIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR IS DEEMED A FRIENDLY ALIEN. 
MORE BROADLY, IS ANY NATIONAL OF AN ENEMY COUNTRY WITHIN THE REACH OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION?  THE THRUST OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT IS
THAT SEC. 39 BARS ANY SUCH CLAIMANT ON THE MERE SHOWING OF HIS
CITIZENSHIP.  EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69, HOLDS THAT AS A MATTER OF
COMMON LAW AS WELL AS INTERPRETATION OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT,
A RESIDENT ENEMY NATIONAL, EVEN THOUGH INTERNED, MUST BE PERMITTED
ACCESS TO AMERICAN COURTS.  AND THE VENUS, 8 CRANCH 253, SEEMS TO SAY
THAT AT COMMON AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, IN THE ABSENCE OF HOSTILE ACTS,
ENEMY STATUS, AT LEAST FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRADE, FOLLOWS LOCATION AND
NOT NATIONALITY.  CF. MILLER V. UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  268, 310-311. 
ON THE OTHER SIDE IS MR. JUSTICE (THEN JUDGE) CARDOZO'S CAREFUL
OPINION IN TECHT V. HUGHES, 229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E. 185, HOLDING THAT A
NATIONAL OF AN ENEMY COUNTRY, WHEREVER RESIDENT, IS AN ENEMY ALIEN AND
THAT ANY MITIGATION OF THE RIGORS OF THAT STATUS, AS IN THE RIGHT TO
SUE, IS A MATTER OF GRACE.  HE SUGGESTS, HOWEVER, THAT "ENEMY ALIEN"
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRADE WITH THE ENEMY MAY BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, BUT HE HAD, OF COURSE, NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THIS DIFFERENCE ATTAINED CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS.  IN KLEIN
V. PALMER, SUPRA, A SUIT BY TWO RESIDENT GERMAN CITIZENS, ONE
PROCLAIMED A DANGEROUS ENEMY ALIEN DURING WORLD WAR I, AGAINST THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF, JUDGES
HOUGH, L. HAND AND MACK HELD THAT "THE GOVERNMENT WAS UNDER NO
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION FROM CONFISCATING THE PROPERTY OF THE
ENEMY'S NATIONALS, WHETHER RESIDENT OR NONRESIDENT."  ID., AT 934.  IT
WAS THE COURT'S VIEW THAT THE CLASS OF NONENEMIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SEC. 2 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT WAS BROADER THAN THE CLASS
ENTITLED TO JUST COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

CERTAINLY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM IS NOT IMAGINARY, AND THE CLAIM
NOT FRIVOLOUS WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE REJECTED TO DECIDE IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S FAVOR.  CONSIDERING THAT CONFISCATION IS NOT EASILY TO BE
ASSUMED, A CONSTRUCTION THAT AVOIDS IT AND IS NOT BARRED BY A FAIR
READING OF THE LEGISLATION IS INVITED. 

THE CONCERN OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT IS WITH PROBLEMS AT
ONCE COMPLICATED AND FAR-REACHING IN THEIR REPERCUSSIONS.  INSTEAD OF A
CAREFULLY MATURED ENACTMENT, THE LEGISLATION WAS A MAKESHIFT
PATCHWORK.  SUCH LEGISLATION STRONGLY COUNSELS AGAINST LITERALNESS OF
APPLICATION.  IT FAVORS A WISE LATITUDE OF CONSTRUCTION IN ENFORCING
ITS PURPOSES.  CF. CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., 332 U.S. 480;
MARKHAM V. CABELL, 326 U.S. 404; SILESIAN-AMERICAN CORP. V. CLARK, 332
U.S. 469.  (FN8) 

NONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE CANVASSED STANDING ALONE IS
CONCLUSIVE IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANT.  PERHAPS NONE, BY ITSELF, WOULD
JUSTIFY A DECISION IN HIS FAVOR.  THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT, HOWEVER,
PLACES SUCH A DECISION WELL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF REASONABLE
CONSTRUCTION.  WE HAVE SAID ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE QUESTION IS NOT
FREE FROM DOUBT.  ON THE BALANCE, HOWEVER, WE THINK SEC. 39 IS PROPERLY
CONSTRUED AS APPLYING ONLY TO THOSE GERMAN AND JAPANESE NATIONALS
OTHERWISE INELIGIBLE TO BRING SUIT UNDER SEC. 9(A). 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 2.  "THE WORD 'ENEMY,' AS USED HEREIN, SHALL BE DEEMED TO
MEAN, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUCH TRADING AND OF THIS ACT: 

"(A) ANY INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, OR OTHER BODY OF INDIVIDUALS, OF
ANY NATIONALITY, RESIDENT WITHIN THE TERRITORY (INCLUDING THAT OCCUPIED
BY THE MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES) OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS AT WAR, OR RESIDENT OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY, AND ANY CORPORATION INCORPORATED WITHIN
SUCH TERRITORY OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR OR
INCORPORATED WITHIN ANY COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES AND DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY." 

SEC. 9.  "(A)  ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY  ...  CLAIMING ANY INTEREST,
RIGHT, OR TITLE IN ANY MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, DELIVERED, OR PAID TO THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR SEIZED BY HIM HEREUNDER AND HELD BY HIM OR BY THE
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES,  ...  MAY FILE WITH THE SAID CUSTODIAN
A NOTICE OF HIS CLAIM UNDER OATH AND IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAINING SUCH
PARTICULARS AS THE SAID CUSTODIAN SHALL REQUIRE; ...  SAID CLAIMANT MAY
INSTITUTE A SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH CLAIMANT RESIDES, OR, IF A
CORPORATION, WHERE IT HAS ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS (TO WHICH
SUIT THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED
STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE MADE A PARTY DEFENDANT), TO
ESTABLISH THE INTEREST, RIGHT, TITLE, OR DEBT SO CLAIMED, AND IF SO
ESTABLISHED THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PAYMENT, CONVEYANCE, TRANSFER,
ASSIGNMENT, OR DELIVERY TO SAID CLAIMANT OF THE MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY
SO HELD  ...  OR THE INTEREST THEREIN TO WHICH THE COURT SHALL
DETERMINE SAID CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED."  50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 2, 2(A),
9(A). 

FN2  "SEC.  39.  NO PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN OF GERMANY, JAPAN,
OR ANY NATIONAL OF EITHER SUCH COUNTRY VESTED IN OR TRANSFERRED TO ANY
OFFICER OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY TIME AFTER DECEMBER 17,
1941, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE RETURNED TO
FORMER OWNERS THEREOF OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, AND THE UNITED
STATES SHALL NOT PAY COMPENSATION FOR ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR INTEREST
THEREIN.  THE NET PROCEEDS REMAINING UPON THE COMPLETION OF
ADMINISTRATION, LIQUIDATION, AND DISPOSITION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT OF ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN SHALL BE COVERED
INTO THE TREASURY AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE DATE.  NOTHING IN THIS
OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THIS ACT OR OF THE PHILIPPINE
PROPERTY ACT OF 1946." 

FN3  SEE STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT LANSING, SECRETARY OF STATE,
HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
ON H.R. 4704, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3, 4.  BUT SEE ID., AT 9. 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARLES WARREN, PRINCIPAL DRAFTSMAN OF THE
BILL, TESTIFIED THAT IT HAD NO APPLICATION TO GERMANS "DOMICILED" IN
THIS COUNTRY.  ID., AT 34.  AND THE HOUSE REPORT SPEAKS OF ENEMY STATUS
AS BEING DETERMINED "NOT SO MUCH  ...  BY THE NATIONALITY OR ALLEGIANCE
OF THE INDIVIDUAL,  ...  AS BY HIS  ...  COMMERCIAL DOMICILE OR
RESIDENCE IN ENEMY TERRITORY.  THE ENEMY DOMICILED OR RESIDING IN THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT INCLUDED  ...  ."  H.R. REP. NO. 85, 65TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 2. 

FN4  THE VALIDITY OF THIS CONSTRUCTION IS ADDITIONALLY SUGGESTED BY
THE EXPLANATION IN THE SENATE REPORT OF THE PARALLEL TERM OF SEC. 2,
"DOING BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY."  ACCORDING TO THE REPORT THAT
MEANT "HAVING A BRANCH OR AGENCY ACTIVELY CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN
THAT COUNTRY."  S. REP. NO. 111, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 4.  THAT IS TO
SAY, NOT "DOMICILED" IN ENEMY TERRITORY BY AMERICAN CORPORATION LAW
STANDARDS, BUT HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL, NOT CASUAL OR TRANSITORY
CONNECTION WITH IT.  SEE ALSO HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE ON H.R. 4960, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 136
137. 

FN5  H.R. REP. NO. 976, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2. 

FN6  THE RESOLUTION OF JULY 2, 1921, TERMINATING THE STATE OF WAR
WITH GERMANY, PROVIDED THAT "ALL PROPERTY OF THE IMPERIAL GERMAN
GOVERNMENT  ...  AND OF ALL GERMAN NATIONALS WHICH  ...  HAS  ... COME
INTO THE POSSESSION OR UNDER CONTROL OF  ...  THE UNITED STATES  ...
SHALL BE RETAINED  ... AND NO DISPOSITION THEREOF MADE, EXCEPT AS SHALL
HAVE BEEN HERETOFORE OR SPECIFICALLY HEREAFTER SHALL BE PROVIDED BY
LAW."  42 STAT. 105, 106.  BY THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES, ART. 297(D),
"ALL THE EXCEPTIONAL WAR MEASURES, OR MEASURES OF TRANSFER  ...  SHALL
BE CONSIDERED AS FINAL AND BINDING UPON ALL PERSONS."  IN ART. 297(I),
GERMANY UNDERTOOK "TO COMPENSATE HER NATIONALS IN RESPECT OF THE SALE
OR RETENTION OF THEIR PROPERTY, RIGHTS OR INTERESTS IN ALLIED OR
ASSOCIATED STATES."  THE TREATY OF BERLIN, 42 STAT. 1939, 1940,
INCORPORATED THESE PROVISIONS OF THE VERSAILLES TREATY, TOGETHER WITH
APPENDICES DEFINING "EXCEPTIONAL WAR MEASURES" AND CUTTING OFF THE
RIGHT OF SUIT BY GERMAN NATIONALS AGAINST AMERICAN OFFICIALS ON ACCOUNT
OF WARTIME ACTION.  AN AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 2200,
ESTABLISHED A MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION TO ADJUDICATE CLAIMS OF AMERICAN
NATIONALS AGAINST GERMANY.  PROVISIONS FOR THE RETURN OF VESTED
PROPERTY WERE MADE BY SUCCESSIVE AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 9.  FINALLY, IN THE
SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT, 45 STAT. 254, 270, CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR
THE RETURN OF 80% OF THEIR VESTED PROPERTY TO GERMAN ENEMIES WHO WOULD
WAIVE THEIR CLAIMS TO THE REMAINING 20%.  GERMANY IN A DEBT FUNDING
AGREEMENT OF JUNE 23, 1930, DEPOSITED BONDS WITH THE UNITED STATES,
PAYMENTS ON WHICH WERE TO BE APPLIED TO THE SETTLEMENT OF AWARDS OF THE
MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION.  WHEN GERMANY DEFAULTED ON THESE PAYMENTS,
CONGRESS, BY PUBLIC RESOLUTION NO. 53 OF JUNE 27, 1934, 48 STAT. 1267,
SUSPENDED ALL DELIVERIES OF PROPERTY UNDER THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS
ACT TO GERMAN NATIONALS UNTIL GERMANY SHOULD CLEAR UP THE ARREARS. 

FN7 AS IT PASSED THE HOUSE, THE BILL CONTAINED A PROVISION SUSPENDING
THE PAYMENT OUT OF VESTED ASSETS OF DEBTS OWED BY ENEMIES TO CITIZENS. 
IN THE SENATE HEARINGS, REPRESENTATIVE BECKWORTH, WHO HAD SPONSORED
THAT PROVISION, URGED THE SENATE TO GO FURTHER AND SUSPEND THE PAYMENT
OF SO-CALLED "TITLE CLAIMS" AS WELL.  HE PRESENTED A DRAFT AMENDMENT
FOR THE SENATE COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION WHICH PROVIDED THAT "NO
PROPERTY  ...  SHALL BE RETURNED TO FORMER OWNERS  ...  EXCEPT AS
DIRECTED BY A COURT UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE ACT."  THIS WAS TO BE AN
ADDITION TO THE PROVISION WHICH BECAME SEC. 39.  HEARINGS BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 4044,
80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 124.  BOTH OF THESE PROVISIONS WERE OMITTED FROM
THE BILL REPORTED BY THE SENATE.  ALTHOUGH THIS BIT OF LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY REVEALS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THE OPERATION OF
THE ACT, IT IS TOLERABLY CLEAR FROM IT THAT THE OPERATION OF SEC. 9(A)
WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE AFFECTED BY THE LEGISLATION. 

FN8  OTHER THAN THOSE HERE FOR REVIEW, SIX DISTRICT COURT CASES HAVE
INVOLVED CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 39.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT FIVE OF
THESE HAVE ACCEPTED THE POSITION IT URGES IN THIS CASE.  SCHILL V.
MCGRATH, 89 F. SUPP. 339; LIPPMANN V. MCGRATH, 94 F. SUPP. 1016;
BELLMAN V. CLARK, CIV. NO. 47-229 (S.D.N.Y. NOV. 8, 1948); MITTLER V.
MCGRATH, CIV. NO. 3276-48 (D.D.C. MAR. 31, 1950); JANNER V. MCGRATH,
CIV. NO. 3685-49 (D.D.C. MAR. 31, 1950).  EVEN IF THIS WERE TRUE, IT
WOULD PRESENT NO SUCH SETTLED LINE OF ADJUDICATION AS TO GIVE PAUSE TO
THIS COURT IN UPSETTING IT.  BUT AT LEAST THREE OF THESE CASES PRESENT
NO CONFLICT WITH A DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANT HERE.  IN MITTLER,
JANNER AND LIPPMAN, PLAINTIFFS ARE ENEMIES WITHIN SEC. 2, THUS
INELIGIBLE UNDER SEC. 9(A), AND BECAUSE THEY ARE ALSO CITIZENS OF
GERMANY MUST BE BARRED BY SEC. 39 WHATEVER THE MEANING ASCRIBED TO THE
TERM "NATIONAL" IN THAT SECTION.  THE SAME IS POSSIBLY TRUE OF SCHILL,
SINCE THE PLAINTIFF THERE WAS INTERNED AS A DANGEROUS ENEMY ALIEN
DURING THE WAR.  IT MIGHT ALSO BE ADDED THAT IN MCGRATH V. ZANDER,
SUPRA, DECIDED AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 39, THE GOVERNMENT
APPARENTLY MADE NO CONTENTION THAT THE SECTION WOULD BAR THE SUIT,
ALTHOUGH ON THE GOVERNMENT'S THEORY THAT RESULT WOULD CLEARLY FOLLOW. 
THUS, ANALYSIS OF THE CASES SHOWS NO SUCH NEAR UNANIMITY IN ITS FAVOR
AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

I DISSENT BECAUSE I WOULD READ SECTION 39 AS IT IS WRITTEN.  THAT
GERMANY OR JAPAN.  (FN1)  PETITIONER IS A GERMAN CITIZEN AND THE COURT
ITSELF CONCEDES THAT A GERMAN CITIZEN IS A GERMAN NATIONAL.  (OP. P.
320.)  YET THE COURT PERMITS RETURN OF PROPERTY TO PETITIONER, LIMITING
THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 39 TO SOME NATIONALS, NAMELY THOSE NATIONALS
WHO ARE ALSO "ENEMIES" AS THE TERM IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(A) OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT. 

THE TERM "NATIONAL" HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN LEGISLATIVE DEFINITION. 
"NATIONAL" IS DEFINED AS INCLUDING "A SUBJECT, CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY" IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, (FN2) A REGULATION
"APPROVED, RATIFIED, AND CONFIRMED" BY CONGRESS IN 1941.  (FN3)  THE
COURT APPLIES SECTION 39 BY READING OUT THE TERM "NATIONAL" AND
INSERTING THE TERM "ENEMY" AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(A).  SINCE IT IS
APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE THAT CONGRESS IN NO WISE CHOSE TO
ASSIMILATE THESE TWO CLEARLY DEFINED TERMS, THE COURT SHOULD NOT. 

JUST THE OTHER DAY, WE HELD THAT "WE ARE NOT FREE, UNDER THE GUISE OF
CONSTRUCTION, TO AMEND A STATUTE" BY READING "CAREFULLY DISTINGUISHED
AND SEPARATELY DEFINED TERMS TO MEAN THE SAME THING."  PILLSBURY V.
UNITED ENGINEERING CO., 342 U.S. 197, 199-200 (1952).  IN DEPARTING
FROM THAT STANDARD IN THIS CASE, THE COURT REWRITES SECTION 39 SO THAT
THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917, AS AMENDED, WILL CONFORM MORE
CLOSELY TO ITS OWN NOTIONS OF STATUTORY SYMMETRY.  CONDEMNING THAT ACT
AS "MAKESHIFT PATCHWORK" DOES NOT JUSTIFY A FAILURE TO READ THE 1948
ADDITION OF SECTION 39 AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS.  STATUTORY
REVISION BY THIS COURT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH OUR JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF
ENFORCING STATUTORY LAW AS WRITTEN BY THE LEGISLATURE. 

IN MY VIEW, THIS CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE
LEGISLATIVELY DEFINED LANGUAGE OF SECTION 39.  BUT THE COURT HAS
BROADENED THE INQUIRY.  EVEN ON THE COURT'S OWN BASIS, THE RESULT IN
THIS CASE CANNOT BE SQUARED WITH THE HISTORY OF THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT, THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND OF SECTION 39 OR THE SCOPE OF
CONGRESS' WAR POWER OVER ENEMY PROPERTY. 

AT THE OUTSET, IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT WHEN PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY WAS VESTED, HE WAS AN ALIEN ENEMY IN EVERY ORDINARY SENSE OF
THAT TERM.  SO LONG AS HIS CITIZENSHIP WAS GERMAN, HE BECAME AN ENEMY
UPON THE DECLARATION OF WAR WITH GERMANY, WHEREVER HIS RESIDENCE AND
WHATEVER HIS PERSONAL SENTIMENTS.  THIS COURT HAS SO HELD THROUGHOUT
ITS HISTORY.  (FN4)  THE COURT TODAY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT TECHT V. HUGHES,
229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E. 185 (1920), SO HELD AFTER AN EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW
OF THE AUTHORITIES.  IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT THIS COURT RECENTLY
ADOPTED THE RATIONALE OF TECHT V. HUGHES, SUPRA, IN JOHNSON V.
EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763, 771-773 (1950).  NOR NEED WE LOOK ONLY TO
JUDICIAL DEFINITION OF PETITIONER'S STATUS.  CONGRESS HAD DEFINED
"ALIEN ENEMIES" AS INCLUDING "ALL NATIVES, CITIZENS, DENIZENS, OR
SUBJECTS OF THE HOSTILE NATION OR GOVERNMENT."  (FN5)  AS WE SO
RECENTLY SAID, THE CLASSIFICATION BETWEEN FRIEND AND ENEMY BASED UPON
CITIZENSHIP, IF EVER "DOCTRINAIRE," HAS NOW BEEN "VALIDATED BY THE
ACTUALITIES OF MODERN TOTAL WARFARE."  JOHNSON V. EISENTRAGER, SUPRA,
AT 772. 

WHEN, IN 1917, CONGRESS DEFINED THE TERM "ENEMY" SOLELY "FOR THE
PURPOSES OF" THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, IT WAS AWARE THAT SUCH
STATUS WAS ORDINARILY DETERMINED BY "NATIONALITY OR ALLEGIANCE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL" RATHER THAN BY "DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE."  (FN6)  HOWEVER, AT
THAT TIME, CONGRESS CHOSE TO LIMIT THE DEFINITION OF "ENEMY" TO INCLUDE
ONLY THOSE PERSONS "RESIDENT WITHIN" ENEMY TERRITORY - A DEFINITION
WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE PETITIONER ON THE PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE. 
DELIBERATE "RELAXATION" AND "MODIFICATION" OF CONGRESS' POWER OVER
ENEMY PROPERTY.  (FN7)  THIS POLICY OF MODIFICATION WAS FOLLOWED
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WAR I ALIEN PROPERTY PROGRAM, CULMINATING IN THE
SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928 WHICH AUTHORIZED RETURN OF 80% OF
SEIZED PROPERTY TO ITS FORMER OWNERS.  (FN8) 

WORLD WAR II LEGISLATION OVER ALIEN PROPERTY REPRESENTED A COMPLETE
REVERSAL OF THE SOFT POLICY OF WORLD WAR I. IN 1941, CONGRESS EXTENDED
THE POWER OF SEIZURE AND VESTING TO ALL PROPERTY OF "ANY FOREIGN
COUNTRY OR NATIONAL THEREOF" IN EXERCISING ITS WAR POWER "TO
AFFIRMATIVELY COMPEL THE USE AND APPLICATION OF FOREIGN PROPERTY IN A
MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES."   (FN9)  IN
1946, CONGRESS ADDED SECTION 32 TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT,
AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE RETURN OF VESTED PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
CONDITIONS, ONE OF WHICH PREVENTED ADMINISTRATIVE RETURN TO A "CITIZEN
OR SUBJECT OF AN ENEMY NATION" WHO WAS "PRESENT  ...  IN THE TERRITORY
OF SUCH NATION."  (FN10)  FINALLY, IN THE WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1948,
CONGRESS ADDED SECTION 39 TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, THEREBY
EXPRESSING ITS "FIRM RESOLVE NOT TO PERMIT THE RECURRENCE" OF THE WORLD
WAR I POLICY OF RETURNING ENEMY PROPERTY.  (FN11)  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, IN REPORTING FAVORABLY UPON THE
BILL, STATED: 

"THE POLICY OF NONRETURN AND NONCOMPENSATION IS A SOUND PUBLIC POLICY
WHICH SHOULD BE ENACTED INTO LAW.  IT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY CONCEPTS OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW OR INTERNATIONAL MORALITY.  NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE
EXISTS BETWEEN PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PUBLIC PROPERTY IN THE CASE OF
GERMANY AND JAPAN.  FOR SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE WORLD WAR II WHILE GERMANY
AND JAPAN WERE PREPARING TO MAKE WAR UPON THE UNITED STATES, PROPERTY
OWNED IN THE UNITED STATES BY THE CITIZENS OF BOTH OF THESE COUNTRIES
WAS SUBJECT TO RIGID CONTROL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS.  WHILE
THE FICTION OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WAS RETAINED, ACTUALLY PROPERTY OF
GERMAN AND JAPANESE NATIONALS IN THE UNITED STATES WAS WIDELY USED TO
ACCOMPLISH THE NATIONAL OBJECTIVES OF THOSE COUNTRIES. 

"THE POSITION OF GERMANY AND JAPAN (WITH RESPECT TO WAR CLAIMS
AGAINST THESE COUNTRIES) IS SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF A BANKRUPT
AGAINST WHOM CLAIMS ARE APT TO BE FILED IN AN AMOUNT GREATLY IN EXCESS
OF THE BANKRUPT'S ASSETS.  THE LEGITIMATE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES
ALONE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN FIGHTING WORLD WAR II,
WILL MOST LIKELY EXCEED MANY TIMES THE ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT
EVEN OVER A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF YEARS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT
IS THEREFORE NOT ONLY EXPEDIENT BUT JUST AND FAIR FOR THE UNITED STATES
TO MARSHAL ALL JAPANESE AND GERMAN ASSETS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN THIS
COUNTRY."  (FN12) 

UNDER THIS REVERSAL OF WORLD WAR I POLICY, THE PROPERTY OF GERMAN
NATIONALS, INCLUDING PETITIONER'S, WAS TO BE RETAINED TO SATISFY WAR
CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF GERMAN AGGRESSION.  THE POLICY OF NON-RETURN OF
VESTED PROPERTY TO GERMAN NATIONALS RESTRICTS THE SCOPE OF SECTION 9(A)
AS TO RETURNS TO GERMAN NATIONALS SUCH AS PETITIONER WHO ARE NOT
"ENEMIES" AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(A).  THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SECTION
9(A) - TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL RETURN OF PROPERTY MISTAKENLY SEIZED
FROM AMERICAN CITIZENS OR NATIONALS OF FRIENDLY COUNTRIES - IS
PRESERVED.  (FN13)  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 39, READING THE
WORD "NATIONAL" AS MEANING "NATIONAL" AND NOT "ENEMY," IS FAR MORE
HARMONIOUS WITH THE ENTIRE ACT AND PARTICULARLY THE WORLD WAR II
LEGISLATION ON ALIEN PROPERTY (FN14) THAN THE COURT'S READING OF THE
STATUTE. 

LOOKING TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 39 ITSELF, THE COURT
NOTES THAT CONGRESSIONAL ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON THE PROBLEM OF
COMPENSATING PRISONERS OF WAR, INTERNEES AND OTHERS INJURED BY OUR
WORLD WAR II ENEMIES.  WITH THE CLAIMS OF THE VICTIMS OF AGGRESSION
PRESSED UPON IT, IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT, WHEN CONGRESS BALANCED
THOSE CLAIMS AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF ENEMY NATIONALS TO PROPERTY LAWFULLY
VESTED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, IT PROHIBITED RETURN OF
PROPERTY TO ENEMY "NATIONALS" AND NOT MERELY TO "ENEMIES" AS
RESTRICTIVELY DEFINED IN SECTION 2(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
OF 1917.  IT CANNOT BE FAIRLY SUGGESTED THAT CONGRESSIONAL USE OF THE
TERM "NATIONAL" WAS INADVERTENT.  OBJECTIONS TO THE RESTRICTION ON
RECOVERY OF PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 9(A) RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE
TERM "NATIONAL" INSTEAD OF "ENEMY" IN SECTION 39 WERE PRESSED UPON
CONGRESS IN A WRITTEN STATEMENT AND IN ORAL TESTIMONY BEFORE A
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.  (FN15)  A WITNESS OFFERED A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 39 THAT WOULD HAVE LIMITED ITS APPLICATION TO
CERTAIN DESCRIBED ENEMY NATIONALS.  (FN16)  EVEN THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
NOT HAVE SAVED PETITIONER'S CLAIM.  IT WOULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED THE
TERM "ENEMY" AS NARROWLY DEFINED IN SECTION 2(A) OF THE ACT AND HENCE
WOULD NOT HAVE LIMITED THE OPERATION OF SECTION 39 AS DRASTICALLY AS
THE COURT DOES TODAY. 

THE COURT CLOSES WITH THE STATEMENT THAT ITS CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION
39 AVOIDS A CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM WHICH, IT SAYS, "IS NOT IMAGINARY." 
AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS SETTLED THAT PETITIONER IS AN ALIEN ENEMY IN
EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD BUT THE PURPOSELY RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST CONFISCATION OF ENEMY PROPERTIES." 
UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, INC., 272 U.S. 1, 11 (1926), AND
CASES CITED THEREIN.  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE RELAXED LEGISLATIVE
DEFINITION OF "ENEMY" IN 1917 COULD LIMIT THE CONSTITUTIONAL WAR POWER
OF CONGRESS OVER ENEMY PROPERTY FINDS NO SUPPORT IN DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT.  (FN17) 

PETITIONER, A GERMAN CITIZEN PRESENT IN GERMANY DURING THE WAR, IS
CERTAINLY AS MUCH AN ENEMY ALIEN AS WAS LUDECKE, A GERMAN CITIZEN
LAWFULLY RESIDENT IN THIS COUNTRY DURING THE WAR.  WE FOUND NO
CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER TO LUDECKE'S SUMMARY REMOVAL WITHOUT JUDICIAL
SCRUTINY UNDER THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798.  LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335
U.S. 160 (1948).  THAT OPINION RELIED UPON AN EXCERPT FROM A PARAGRAPH
BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 8 CRANCH 110, 126
(1814), A CASE DEALING WITH CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY.  335 U.S. AT
164.  THE FULL PARAGRAPH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WAR GIVES AN EQUAL RIGHT OVER PERSONS AND PROPERTY:  AND IF ITS
DECLARATION IS NOT CONSIDERED AS PRESCRIBING A LAW RESPECTING THE
PERSON OF AN ENEMY FOUND IN OUR COUNTRY, NEITHER DOES IT PRESCRIBE A
LAW FOR HIS PROPERTY.  THE ACT CONCERNING ALIEN ENEMIES, WHICH CONFERS
ON THE PRESIDENT VERY GREAT DISCRETIONARY POWERS RESPECTING THEIR
PERSONS, AFFORDS A STRONG IMPLICATION THAT HE DID NOT POSSESS THOSE
POWERS BY VIRTUE OF THE DECLARATION OF WAR." 

ANY DOUBTS AS TO CONGRESS'"EQUAL RIGHT OVER PERSONS AND PROPERTY" OF
ENEMY ALIENS SHOULD HAVE VANISHED WITH THE LUDECKE DECISION.  THE JUST
COMPENSATION CLAUSE, LIKE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, IS FOUND IN THE BILL
OF RIGHTS.  AS WE SAID IN OUR LUDECKE DECISION, "IT WOULD SAVOR OF
DOCTRINAIRE AUDACITY NOW TO FIND THE STATUTE OFFENSIVE TO SOME
EMANATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS."  335 U.S. AT 171.  IN ADDITION TO
WHAT WAS SAID IN LUDECKE, THE ADMONITION OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN
BROWN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE: 

"RESPECTING THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT NO DOUBT IS ENTERTAINED.  THAT
WAR GIVES TO THE SOVEREIGN FULL RIGHT TO TAKE THE PERSONS AND
CONFISCATE THE PROPERTY OF THE ENEMY WHEREVER FOUND, IS CONCEDED.  THE
MITIGATIONS OF THIS RIGID RULE, WHICH THE HUMANE AND WISE POLICY OF
MODERN TIMES HAS INTRODUCED INTO PRACTICE, WILL MORE OR LESS AFFECT THE
EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT, BUT CANNOT IMPAIR THE RIGHT ITSELF.  THAT
REMAINS UNDIMINISHED, AND WHEN THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY SHALL CHOOSE TO
BRING IT INTO OPERATION, THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT MUST GIVE EFFECT TO
ITS WILL.  BUT UNTIL THAT WILL SHALL BE EXPRESSED, NO POWER OF
CONDEMNATION CAN EXIST IN THE COURT."  8 CRANCH AT 122-123. 

THE WILL OF CONGRESS HAVING BEEN EXPRESSED IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS IN

FN1  "NO PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN OF GERMANY, JAPAN, OR ANY
NATIONAL OF EITHER SUCH COUNTRY VESTED IN OR TRANSFERRED TO ANY OFFICER
OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY TIME AFTER DECEMBER 17, 1941,
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE RETURNED TO FORMER
OWNERS THEREOF OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, AND THE UNITED STATES
SHALL NOT PAY COMPENSATION FOR ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN. 
THE NET PROCEEDS REMAINING UPON THE COMPLETION OF ADMINISTRATION,
LIQUIDATION, AND DISPOSITION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OF
ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN SHALL BE COVERED INTO THE
TREASURY AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE DATE.  NOTHING IN THIS SECTION
SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REPEAL OR OTHERWISE AFFECT THE OPERATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THIS ACT OR OF THE PHILIPPINE PROPERTY ACT
OF 1946."  62 STAT. 1240, 1246 (1948), 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC.
39. 

FN2  SEC. 5(E)(I), 6 FED. REG. 2897, 2898 (1941). 

FN3  55 STAT. 838, 840 (1941). 

FN4  THE RAPID, 8 CRANCH 155, 161 (1814); WHITE V. BURNLEY, 20 HOW. 
235, 249 (1858); THE VENICE, 2 WALL.  258, 274 (1865); THE BENITO
ESTENGER, 176 U.S. 568, 571 (1900); HERRERA V. UNITED STATES, 222 U.S.
558, 569 (1912). 

FN5  ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798, 1 STAT. 577, NOW 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21.  A
SIMILAR DEFINITION OF "ALIEN ENEMIES" HAD ALSO BEEN USED IN THE
NATURALIZATION LAWS.  2 STAT. 153, 154 (1802); R.S. SEC. 2171.  IN
WORLD WAR I, CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED "ALIEN ENEMIES" FROM THE
DRAFT, A CONTEXT IN WHICH THE TERM "ALIEN ENEMY" WOULD BE MEANINGLESS
IF IT DID NOT INCLUDE NATIONALS OF ENEMY NATIONS RESIDING IN THIS
COUNTRY.  40 STAT. 76-78, 885, 955 (1917-1918). 

FN6  H.R. REP. NO. 85, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1917). 

FN7  IBID.; S. REP. NO. 111, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2 (1917); 55 CONG.
REC. 4842 (1917).  SEE EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69, 76-77 (1942). 

FN8  45 STAT. 254, 270-274 (1928), 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 9(B)(12)-(14)
AND (16), 9(M).  RETURNS OF GERMAN PROPERTY WERE POSTPONED IN 1934 WHEN
IT APPEARED THAT GERMANY WAS IN DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF WAR CLAIMS. 
48 STAT. 1267 (1934). 

FN9  55 STAT. 838, 839 (1941), 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 5(B); S. REP. NO.
911, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2 (1941).  SEE CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ
KORP., 332 U.S. 480 (1947). 

FN10  60 STAT. 50 (1946), 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 32(A)(2)(D). 

FN11  H.R. REP. NO. 976, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2 (1947). 

FN12  ID., AT 2-3. 

FN13  SECTION 9(A) WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICAN
CITIZENS, S. REP. NO. 111, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8 (1917), AND
APPARENTLY THE BULK OF THE CLAIMS FILED UNDER SEC. 9(A) ARE THOSE OF
AMERICAN CITIZENS.  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ON H.R. 4044, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 44 (1948). 

FN14  1946 PATENT LEGISLATION LIKEWISE CONFORMS TO THIS PATTERN.  IN
1921, CONGRESS BARRED CLAIMS BASED UPON WORLD WAR I USE OF PATENT
RIGHTS OF AN "ALIEN ENEMY."  41 STAT. 1313, 1314, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 86. 
IN 1946, CONGRESS BARRED CLAIMS FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DURING WORLD
WAR II BROUGHT BY A "NATIONAL" OF AN ENEMY COUNTRY.  60 STAT. 940, 944,
35 U.S.C. SEC. 111.  THE FAILURE TO USE THE TERM "ENEMY" WAS
DELIBERATE.  THE NEXT SECTION OF THE 1946 ACT REFERS TO "RIGHTS OF ANY
ENEMY  ...  AS DEFINED BY THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT  ...  ."  60
STAT. 940, 944, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 112.  AND THE BILL AS DRAFTED IN THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS, H.R. REP. NO. 1498, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS.
(1946), USED THE TERM "NATIONAL" AS USED IN PROPOSED BILL H.R. 2111
(SEC. 9), REJECTING THE TERM "ALIEN ENEMY" AS USED IN THE 1921
LEGISLATION AND IN PROPOSED BILL H.R. 4079 (SEC. 10).  THIS WAS DONE
AFTER THE DIFFERENCE IN MEANING OF THE TERM WAS CALLED TO THE ATTENTION
OF THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICE OF ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  HEARINGS
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS ON H.R. 2111 AND H.R. 4079, 79TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 105 (1945). 

FN15  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R.
4044, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 197-198, 233-234 (1948).  SEE ALSO ID., AT
254-255, AND 94 CONG. REC. 551 (1948). 

FN16  ID., AT 235. 

FN17  EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69 (1942), IN HOLDING THAT AN ENEMY
ALIEN'S RIGHT OF ACCESS TO FEDERAL COURTS WAS NOT BARRED BY COMMON LAW
OR STATUTE, DID NOT TOUCH UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS
OVER ENEMY PROPERTY.  THE EXTENSION OF THAT POWER TO INCLUDE PROPERTY
OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN RESIDENT IN AN ENEMY COUNTRY, THE VENUS, 8
CRANCH 253 (1814), HARDLY SUPPORTS A RESTRICTION OF THAT POWER IN CASE
OF PETITIONER, AN ENEMY CITIZEN PRESENT IN AN ENEMY COUNTRY.    IN
SILESIAN-AMERICAN CORP. V. CLARK, 332 U.S. 469, 475 (1947), THE COURT
STATED: 

"THERE IS NO DOUBT BUT THAT UNDER THE WAR POWER (ART. I, SEC. 8, CL.
11), AS HERETOFORE INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT, THE UNITED STATES, ACTING
UNDER A STATUTE, MAY VEST IN ITSELF THE PROPERTY OF A NATIONAL OF AN
ENEMY NATION.  UNQUESTIONABLY TO WAGE WAR SUCCESSFULLY, THE UNITED
STATES MAY CONFISCATE ENEMY PROPERTY.  UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL
FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1, 11."    IN DISCUSSING THE REQUIREMENT THAT JUST
COMPENSATION BE PAID FOR SEIZURE OF PROPERTY OF "FRIENDLY ALIENS," THE
COURT HAD OBVIOUS REFERENCE TO THE NATIONALS OF FRIENDLY NATIONS.  332
U.S. AT 475-476, 479-480. 
..END :


















CITIES SERVICE CO. V. MCGRATH 342 U.S. 330 


NO.  305.  ARGUED JANUARY 2-3, 1952 - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1952 - 189
F.2D 744, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AUTHORIZES THE VESTING OF
OBLIGATIONS EVIDENCED BY NEGOTIABLE DEBENTURES PAYABLE TO BEARER, THE
OBLIGORS OF WHICH ARE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, EVEN THOUGH THE
DEBENTURES THEMSELVES ARE NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CUSTODIAN AND
ARE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 331-334. 

(A)  SUCH OBLIGATIONS ARE "WITHIN THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORIZING, PURSUANT TO THE ACT, THE
VESTING OF PROPERTY "WITHIN THE UNITED STATES."  P. 332, N. 6; PP. 333
334. 

2.  IT IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE
THE CUSTODIAN TO SEIZE AN INTEREST REPRESENTED BY A BOND OR DEBENTURE
WITHOUT SEIZING THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF, WHERE THE OBLIGOR OF THE BOND OR
DEBENTURE IS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  P. 334. 

3.  AMERICAN OBLIGORS WHO ARE COMPELLED, UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT, TO MAKE PAYMENT TO THE CUSTODIAN ON NEGOTIABLE DEBENTURES,
PAYABLE TO BEARER, LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WILL BE ENTITLED
UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO "JUST COMPENSATION" TO THE EXTENT OF ANY
DOUBLE LIABILITY TO WHICH THEY MAY BE SUBJECTED IN THE EVENT A FOREIGN
COURT HOLDS THEM LIABLE TO A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE; AND SUCH CAUSE OF
ACTION WILL ACCRUE WHEN, AS, AND IF A FOREIGN COURT COMPELS THEM TO
MAKE PAYMENT TO A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.  PP. 334-336. 

CITIES SERVICE CO. ET AL. V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN NEGOTIABLE DEBENTURES
PAYABLE TO BEARER PREVIOUSLY VESTED UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.  93 F.
SUPP. 408.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  189 F.2D 744.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 865.  AFFIRMED, P. 336. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS SUIT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AS SUCCESSOR
TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN (FN1) SEEKS PAYMENT BY PETITIONERS OF
TWO 5% GOLD DEBENTURES OF THE FACE VALUE OF $1,000 EACH AND PAYABLE TO
BEARER.  PETITIONER CITIES SERVICE COMPANY IS OBLIGOR ON THE DEBENTURES
AND PETITIONER CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF NEW YORK IS THE INDENTURE
TRUSTEE.  THE OBLIGATIONS REPRESENTED BY THESE DEBENTURES HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN VESTED, UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT, (FN2) UPON A FINDING THAT THE OBLIGATIONS WERE OWNED BY A RESIDENT
AND NATIONAL OF GERMANY.  (FN3) NEITHER OF THE DEBENTURES IS OR EVER
HAS BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF RESPONDENT.  ONE OF THE DEBENTURES,
ALTHOUGH NOT MATURING UNTIL 1969, WAS PRESENTED FOR REDEMPTION AT
CHASE'S OFFICES IN NEW YORK CITY ON JANUARY 5, 1950, SUBSEQUENT TO THE
DATE OF THE VESTING ORDER.  A LEGEND WAS THEN TYPED ON THE DEBENTURE
RECITING THE ISSUANCE OF THE VESTING ORDER AND THE CLAIMS OF RESPONDENT
THEREUNDER.   THIS DEBENTURE IS AT PRESENT IN THE POSSESSION OF A
BROKERAGE HOUSE IN NEW YORK CITY.  (FN4)  THE OTHER DEBENTURE MATURED
IN 1950 BUT HAS NEVER BEEN PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT.  ITS WHEREABOUTS ARE
UNKNOWN BUT IT WAS LAST REPORTED TO BE IN BERLIN IN THE HANDS OF THE
RUSSIANS.  (FN5) 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN ISSUING THE VESTING ORDER IN
QUESTION, HAD EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY TO VEST PROPERTY "WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES."  (FN6)  93 F. SUPP. 408.  THE COURT FELT THAT THE
OBLIGATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE DEBENTURES WERE INSEPARABLE FROM THE
CERTIFICATES THEMSELVES, WHICH, INSOFAR AS IS KNOWN, WERE OUTSIDE THIS
COUNTRY AT THE TIME OF VESTING.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND
DIRECTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT, HOLDING THAT THE ACT
AUTHORIZED THE SEIZURE AND ENFORCEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS EVIDENCED BY
DEBENTURES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY SO LONG AS THE OBLIGOR IS WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES.  189 F.2D 744.  IN REACHING THIS RESULT, THE COURT OF
APPEALS INDICATED THAT PETITIONERS WOULD HAVE A "CLAIM AGAINST THE
TREASURY FOR RECOUPMENT" IN THE EVENT OF A SUBSEQUENT RECOVERY AGAINST
THEM IN A FOREIGN COURT BY A BONA FIDE HOLDER OF THE DEBENTURES. 
OTHERWISE, THE COURT FELT, THE VESTING ORDER WOULD TAKE PETITIONERS'
PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  ID., AT 747-749.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 342 U.S. 865. 

WE BELIEVE THAT THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT GRANTS THE AUTHORITY
NECESSARY TO VEST OBLIGATIONS EVIDENCED BY DOMESTIC NEGOTIABLE BEARER
DEBENTURES EVEN THOUGH THE DEBENTURES THEMSELVES ARE OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES.  BY SEC. 7(C) OF THE ACT, ENACTED DURING WORLD WAR I, THE
PRESIDENT IS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO SEIZE ALL ENEMY PROPERTY,
"INCLUDING  ...  CHOSES IN ACTION, AND RIGHTS AND CLAIMS OF EVERY
CHARACTER AND DESCRIPTION OWING OR BELONGING TO  ...  AN ENEMY  ...
."  AT THE BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR II, CONGRESS MADE AN EVEN BROADER
GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO THE EXECUTIVE THROUGH AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5(B),
PROVIDING THAT "ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR
NATIONAL THEREOF SHALL VEST, WHEN, AS, AND UPON THE TERMS, DIRECTED BY
THE PRESIDENT  ...  ."  SEE MARKHAM V. CABELL, 326 U.S. 404, 411
(1945); SILESIAN-AMERICAN CORP. V. CLARK, 332 U.S. 469, 479 (1947);
CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., 332 U.S. 480, 485-486 (1947).  THAT THE
OBLIGATIONS REPRESENTED BY NEGOTIABLE BEARER DEBENTURES COME WITHIN
THESE BROAD TERMS IS BEYOND QUESTION. 

PETITIONERS URGE, HOWEVER, THAT THE DEBENTURES THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE
THE DEBT, AND SINCE THE DEBENTURES WERE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED
STATES AT THE TIME OF VESTING, THE DEBTS DID NOT HAVE A SITUS WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES AND THEREFORE WERE NOT PROPER SUBJECTS OF SEIZURE. 
TO APPLY THIS FICTION HERE WOULD NOT ONLY PROVIDE A SANCTUARY FOR ENEMY
INVESTMENTS AND DEFEAT THE RECOVERY OF AMERICAN SECURITIES LOOTED BY
CONQUERING FORCES; IT WOULD ALSO RESTRICT THE EXERCISE OF THE WAR
POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES.  CONGRESS DID NOT SO INTEND.  THE
CUSTODIAN'S AUTHORITY TO REACH A DEBENTURE OR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
WITHOUT SEIZURE OF THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF IS EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED BY
SEC. 9(N) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY
CONSISTING  ...  OF BONDED OR OTHER INDEBTEDNESS  ...  , EVIDENCED  ...
BY BONDS OR BY OTHER CERTIFICATES OF INTEREST  ...  OR INDEBTEDNESS
...  , WHERE THE RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (BUT NOT
THE ACTUAL  ... BOND OR OTHER CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST OR INDEBTEDNESS)
WAS CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, DELIVERED, OR PAID TO THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, OR SEIZED BY HIM  ...  ," THEN THE PRESIDENT MAY,
IN PROPER CASES, ORDER RETURN OF 80% OF THE PROPERTY.  (FN7)  MOREOVER,
IN GIVING THE CUSTODIAN THIS POWER TO SEIZE AN INTEREST REPRESENTED BY
A BOND OR DEBENTURE WITHOUT SEIZURE OF THE ACTUAL INSTRUMENT, CONGRESS
TRANSGRESSED NO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON ITS JURISDICTION.  AS THE
COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT, THE OBLIGOR, CITIES SERVICE COMPANY, IS
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND THE OBLIGATION OF WHICH THE DEBENTURE IS
EVIDENCE CAN BE EFFECTIVELY DEALT WITH THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION OVER THAT PETITIONER.  SEE STANDARD OIL CO. V. NEW JERSEY,
341 U.S. 428, 438-439 (1951). 

A MORE SERIOUS QUESTION IS WHETHER APPLICATION OF THE SEIZURE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO PETITIONERS WILL TAKE THEIR PROPERTY IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, UNLESS THEY HAVE A REMEDY AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES IN THE EVENT A FOREIGN COURT HOLDS THEM LIABLE TO A
HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF THE DEBENTURES.  WHILE PETITIONERS CONCEDE THAT
THE ACT DISCHARGES THEM FROM LIABILITY IN ANY COURT IN THE UNITED
STATES, (FN8) THEY CONTEND THAT THEY HAVE EXTENSIVE PROPERTIES OVER THE
WORLD WHICH SUBJECT THEM TO FOREIGN SUITS FROM WHICH THE ACT AFFORDS NO
CERTAIN PROTECTION.  PETITIONERS READILY ADMIT THAT THE COURT OF THE
COUNTRY IN WHICH SUIT IS BROUGHT MAY APPLY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND RECOGNIZE THEIR PRIOR PAYMENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS A
COMPLETE DEFENSE; AND THAT THE HOLDER, IF QUALIFIED, MIGHT FILE A CLAIM
UNDER THE ACT.  NEVERTHELESS, THEY INSIST, THERE REMAINS AT LEAST THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THEY WILL BE EXPOSED TO LIABILITY IN A FOREIGN COURT. 
WHILE THEIR DEFENSE TO SUCH LITIGATION SEEMS ADEQUATE AND FINAL PAYMENT
BY THEM IMPROBABLE, WE AGREE THAT PETITIONERS MIGHT SUFFER JUDGMENT THE
PAYMENT OF WHICH WOULD EFFECT A DOUBLE RECOVERY AGAINST THEM.  IN THAT
EVENT, PETITIONERS WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECOUP FROM THE UNITED
STATES, FOR A "TAKING" OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, "JUST COMPENSATION" TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR DOUBLE
LIABILITY.  (FN9)  SUCH CAUSE OF ACTION WILL ACCRUE WHEN, AS, AND IF A
FOREIGN COURT FORCES PETITIONERS TO PAY A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE OF THE
DEBENTURES.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT ONLY WITH THIS
ASSURANCE AGAINST DOUBLE LIABILITY CAN IT FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE
PRESENT SEIZURE IS NOT ITSELF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF
PETITIONERS' PROPERTY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY EXEC. ORDER NO. 9788 (OCT. 14,
1946), 11 FED. REG. 11981.  THE TERMS "CUSTODIAN" AND "ATTORNEY
GENERAL" ARE USED INTERCHANGEABLY IN THIS OPINION. 

FN2  40 STAT. 411, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. 

FN3  VESTING ORDER NO. 12960 (MARCH 11, 1949), 14 FED. REG. 1405. 
THE VESTING ORDER RECITED THAT THE OBLIGATIONS WERE "OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY, PAYABLE OR DELIVERABLE TO, HELD ON BEHALF OF OR ON
ACCOUNT OF, OR OWING TO, OR WERE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL BY,"
THE SPECIFIED RESIDENT AND NATIONAL OF GERMANY. 

FN4  WITH RESPECT TO THIS DEBENTURE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS
PAYMENT BY PETITIONERS OF THE PROCEEDS OF REDEMPTION PLUS ACCRUED
INTEREST; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE ISSUANCE TO HIM OF A NEW
DEBENTURE OF THE SAME SERIES AND FOR THE SAME FACE VALUE, AND WITH THE
SAME NUMBER OF UNPAID INTEREST COUPONS ATTACHED. 

FN5  WITH RESPECT TO THIS DEBENTURE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SEEKS
PAYMENT OF THE REDEMPTION PROCEEDS PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST. 

FN6  BY SEC. 2(C) OF EXEC. ORDER NO. 9095 (MARCH 11, 1942), 7 FED.
REG. 1971, AS AMENDED BY EXEC. ORDER NO. 9193 (JULY 6, 1942), 7 FED.
REG. 5205, AND EXEC. ORDER NO. 9567 (JUNE 8, 1945), 10 FED. REG. 6917,
THE PRESIDENT, ACTING PURSUANT TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS
AMENDED, DELEGATED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUTHORITY TO VEST PROPERTY
"WITHIN THE UNITED STATES" OWNED BY A DESIGNATED ENEMY COUNTRY OR
NATIONAL THEREOF, WITH SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS NOT RELEVANT HERE. 
ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS NARROWER THAN THE
LANGUAGE OF SECS. 5(B) AND 7(C) OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED, WE NEED NOT
DECIDE WHICH LANGUAGE IS CONTROLLING.  FOR, AS INDICATED BELOW, WE
BELIEVE THAT IN ANY EVENT THE OBLIGATIONS VESTED HERE WERE "WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES" AND THUS COME WITHIN THE PRESUMABLY NARROWER TERMS OF
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. 

FN7  SECTION 9(N) WAS ADDED IN 1928 BY THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS
ACT, 45 STAT. 254, WHICH PROVIDED IN GENERAL FOR THE RETURN OF 80% OF
ALL SEIZED PROPERTY.  THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 9(N) WAS TO AUTHORIZE THE
PRESIDENT, WHERE HE HAD SEIZED A STOCK OR BOND INTEREST WITHOUT SEIZING
THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF, TO MAKE SUCH 80% RETURN TO THE CURRENT HOLDER OF
THE INSTRUMENT.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 17, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 21; S.
REP. NO. 273, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 30. 

FN8  SEE SECS. 5(B)(2) AND 7(E). 

FN9  SUCH RECOVERY WILL NOT BE PREVENTED BY SEC. 7(C) OF THE ACT. 
THAT SUBSECTION PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE SOLE RELIEF AND REMEDY OF ANY PERSON HAVING ANY CLAIM TO ANY
MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED,
ASSIGNED, DELIVERED, OR PAID OVER TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, OR
REQUIRED SO TO BE, OR SEIZED BY HIM SHALL BE THAT PROVIDED BY THE TERMS
OF THIS ACT  ...  ." 

PETITIONERS, HOWEVER, WILL NOT BE CLAIMING "ANY MONEY OR OTHER
PROPERTY  ...  CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, DELIVERED, OR PAID OVER
TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, OR REQUIRED SO TO BE, OR SEIZED BY HIM
... ."  RATHER THEY WILL BE CLAIMING JUST COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT FOR A TAKING OF THEIR PROPERTY.  THEREFORE THE PROVISION
QUOTED ABOVE WILL NOT APPLY TO THEM. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MINTON JOINS, CONCURRING. 

WE CONCUR IN THE RESULT AND IN THE OPINION EXCEPT AS TO ITS
DECLARATION THAT PETITIONERS WILL BE ABLE TO RECOUP JUST COMPENSATION
FROM THE UNITED STATES SHOULD THEY SUFFER A JUDGMENT EFFECTING A SECOND
RECOVERY AGAINST THEM. 

IN OUR VIEW THERE IS NO PRESENT TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OF CITIES
SERVICE, BUT ONLY OF THE MONEY DUE FROM CITIES SERVICE TO THE FOREIGN
BONDHOLDER ON MATURITY OF THE OBLIGATION.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. NEW
JERSEY, 341 U.S. 428.  IT MAY BE THAT IF CITIES SERVICE IS LATER
REQUIRED TO PAY A CLAIMANT OTHER THAN THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, IT
WILL HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR SATISFACTION OF ITS
EXPENDITURE.  DETERMINATION THAT THE UNITED STATES OWES SUCH AN
OBLIGATION SHOULD AWAIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A SECOND
JUDGMENT.  DIRECTION DER DISCONTO-GESELLSCHAFT V. U.S. STEEL CORP., 300
F. 741, 743; 267 U.S. 22, 29. 
..END :
















BOYCE MOTOR LINES, INC. V. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 337 


NO. 167.  ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1952 - 188 F.2D
889, AFFIRMED. 


A REGULATION PROMULGATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER
18 U.S.C. SEC. 835 PROVIDES THAT DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TRANSPORTING
INFLAMMABLES OR EXPLOSIVES "SHALL AVOID, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE,  ...
DRIVING INTO OR THROUGH CONGESTED THOROUGHFARES, PLACES WHERE CROWDS
ARE ASSEMBLED, STREET CAR TRACKS, TUNNELS, VIADUCTS, AND DANGEROUS
CROSSINGS."  UNDER THE STATUTE, "WHOEVER KNOWINGLY VIOLATES" ANY SUCH
REGULATION IS SUBJECT TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  PETITIONER WAS
INDICTED FOR HAVING ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS OPERATED THROUGH THE
HOLLAND TUNNEL A TRUCK CARRYING INFLAMMABLE CARBON BISULPHIDE.  THE
INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT "THERE WERE OTHER AVAILABLE AND MORE
PRACTICABLE ROUTES" FOR THE SHIPMENTS, AND THAT PETITIONER "WELL KNEW"
THAT THE SHIPMENTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION.  HELD:  THE
REGULATION WAS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS, AND THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD
NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT BASED THEREON.  PP. 338
343. 

1.  NO MORE THAN A REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY CAN BE DEMANDED IN
THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN A CRIMINAL STATUTE, AND IT
IS NOT UNFAIR TO REQUIRE THAT ONE WHO DELIBERATELY GOES PERILOUSLY
CLOSE TO AN AREA OF PROSCRIBED CONDUCT SHALL TAKE THE RISK THAT HE MAY
CROSS THE LINE.  P. 340. 

2.  IN ORDER TO CONVICT, THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE NOT ONLY THAT
PETITIONER COULD HAVE TAKEN ANOTHER ROUTE WHICH WAS BOTH COMMERCIALLY
PRACTICABLE AND APPRECIABLY SAFER, BUT ALSO THAT PETITIONER KNEW THERE
WAS SUCH A PRACTICABLE, SAFER ROUTE AND DELIBERATELY TOOK THE MORE
DANGEROUS ROUTE THROUGH THE TUNNEL, OR THAT PETITIONER WILLFULLY
NEGLECTED TO INQUIRE INTO THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE
ROUTE.  PP. 342-343. 

BOYCE MOTOR LINES, INC. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT COURT, ON THE
GROUND OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE REGULATION, DISMISSED THE COUNTS OF THE
INDICTMENT WHICH WERE BASED UPON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF A REGULATION OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  90 F. SUPP. 996.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.   188 F.2D 889.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342
U.S. 846.  AFFIRMED, P. 343. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER IS CHARGED WITH THE VIOLATION OF A REGULATION
PROMULGATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC.
835.  (FN1)  THE REGULATION PROVIDES: 

"DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES TRANSPORTING ANY EXPLOSIVE, INFLAMMABLE
LIQUID, INFLAMMABLE COMPRESSED GAS, OR POISONOUS GAS SHALL AVOID, SO
FAR AS PRACTICABLE, AND, WHERE FEASIBLE, BY PREARRANGEMENT OF ROUTES,
DRIVING INTO OR THROUGH CONGESTED THOROUGHFARES, PLACES WHERE CROWDS
ARE ASSEMBLED, STREET CAR TRACKS, TUNNELS, VIADUCTS, AND DANGEROUS
CROSSINGS."  (FN2) 

THE STATUTE DIRECTS THAT "WHOEVER KNOWINGLY VIOLATES" THE REGULATION
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.  (FN3) 

THE INDICTMENT, IN COUNTS 1, 3, AND 5, CHARGES THAT PETITIONER ON
THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS SENT ONE OF ITS TRUCKS CARRYING CARBON
BISULPHIDE, A DANGEROUS AND INFLAMMABLE LIQUID, THROUGH THE HOLLAND
TUNNEL, A CONGESTED THOROUGHFARE.  IN EACH INSTANCE, THE TRUCK WAS EN
ROUTE FROM CASCADE MILLS, NEW YORK, TO BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.  ON THE
THIRD OF THESE TRIPS THE LOAD OF CARBON BISULPHIDE EXPLODED IN THE
TUNNEL AND ABOUT SIXTY PERSONS WERE INJURED.  THE INDICTMENT FURTHER
STATES THAT "THERE WERE OTHER AVAILABLE AND MORE PRACTICABLE ROUTES FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF SAID SHIPMENT, AND  ...  THE PETITIONER WELL KNEW
THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE SHIPMENT OF CARBON BISULPHIDE  ... INTO
THE  ...  HOLLAND TUNNEL WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED  ...  BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION  ...  ."  (FN4)
THERE IS NO ALLEGATION AS TO THE FEASIBILITY OF PREARRANGEMENT OF
ROUTES, AND PETITIONER IS NOT CHARGED WITH ANY OMISSION IN THAT
RESPECT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THOSE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WHICH
WERE BASED UPON THE REGULATION IN QUESTION, HOLDING IT TO BE INVALID ON
THE GROUND THAT THE WORDS "SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, AND, WERE FEASIBLE"
ARE "SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE AS TO MAKE THE STANDARD OF GUILT
CONJECTURAL."  90 F. SUPP. 996, 998.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE REGULATION, INTERPRETED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATUTE, ESTABLISHES A REASONABLY CERTAIN STANDARD
OF CONDUCT.  188 F.2D 889.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 846. 

A CRIMINAL STATUTE MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO GIVE NOTICE OF
THE REQUIRED CONDUCT TO ONE WHO WOULD AVOID ITS PENALTIES, AND TO GUIDE
THE JUDGE IN ITS APPLICATION AND THE LAWYER IN DEFENDING ONE CHARGED
WITH ITS VIOLATION.  (FN5)  BUT FEW WORDS POSSESS THE PRECISION OF
MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLS, MOST STATUTES MUST DEAL WITH UNTOLD AND
UNFORESEEN VARIATIONS IN FACTUAL SITUATIONS, AND THE PRACTICAL
NECESSITIES OF DISCHARGING THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT INEVITABLY LIMIT
THE SPECIFICITY WITH WHICH LEGISLATORS CAN SPELL OUT PROHIBITIONS. 
CONSEQUENTLY, NO MORE THAN A REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY CAN BE
DEMANDED.  NOR IS IT UNFAIR TO REQUIRE THAT ONE WHO DELIBERATELY GOES
PERILOUSLY CLOSE TO AN AREA OF PROSCRIBED CONDUCT SHALL TAKE THE RISK
THAT HE MAY CROSS THE LINE.  (FN6) 

IN SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374 (1932), THESE PRINCIPLES WERE
APPLIED IN UPHOLDING WORDS IN A CRIMINAL STATUTE SIMILAR TO THOSE NOW
BEFORE US.  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, THERE
SAID: 

"'SHORTEST PRACTICABLE ROUTE' IS NOT AN EXPRESSION TOO VAGUE TO BE
UNDERSTOOD.  THE REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLE CERTAINTY DOES NOT PRECLUDE
THE USE OF ORDINARY TERMS TO EXPRESS IDEAS WHICH FIND ADEQUATE
INTERPRETATION IN COMMON USAGE AND UNDERSTANDING  ...  .  THE USE OF
COMMON EXPERIENCE AS A GLOSSARY IS NECESSARY TO MEET THE PRACTICAL
DEMANDS OF LEGISLATION."  (FN7) 

THE REGULATION CHALLENGED HERE IS THE PRODUCT OF A LONG HISTORY OF
REGULATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVES AND INFLAMMABLES. 
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE
HAZARDS INVOLVED IN TRANSPORTING EXPLOSIVES AS EARLY AS 1866.  (FN8)
THE INADEQUACY OF THE LEGISLATION THEN ENACTED LED TO THE PASSAGE, IN
1908, OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVES ACT, (FN9) WHICH WAS LATER
EXTENDED TO COVER INFLAMMABLES.  (FN10)  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT ACT,
THE COMMISSION IN THE SAME YEAR ISSUED REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
RAILROADS.  IN 1934 THE COMMISSION EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE
ACT TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS GOVERNING MOTOR TRUCKS, INCLUDING THE
REGULATION HERE IN QUESTION.  (FN11)  IN 1940 THIS REGULATION WAS
AMENDED TO SUBSTANTIALLY ITS PRESENT TERMINOLOGY.  (FN12)  THAT
TERMINOLOGY WAS ADOPTED ONLY AFTER MORE THAN THREE YEARS OF STUDY AND A
NUMBER OF DRAFTS.  THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY PARTICIPATED EXTENSIVELY IN
THIS PROCESS, MAKING SUGGESTIONS RELATING TO DRAFTS SUBMITTED TO
CARRIERS AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS, AND TAKING PART IN SEVERAL HEARINGS. 
THE REGULATION'S HISTORY INDICATES THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS
GIVEN TO THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN FRAMING A REGULATION WHICH WOULD
DEAL PRACTICALLY WITH THIS ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THE
NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS EXPLOSIVES ON THE HIGHWAYS. 
(FN13) 

THE STATUTE PUNISHES ONLY THOSE WHO KNOWINGLY VIOLATE THE
REGULATION.  THIS REQUIREMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF CULPABLE INTENT AS A
NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE DOES MUCH TO DESTROY ANY FORCE IN THE
ARGUMENT THAT APPLICATION OF THE REGULATION WOULD BE SO UNFAIR THAT IT
MUST BE HELD INVALID.  (FN14)  THAT IS EVIDENT FROM A CONSIDERATION OF
THE EFFECT OF THE REQUIREMENT IN THIS CASE.  TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION,
THE GOVERNMENT NOT ONLY MUST PROVE THAT PETITIONER COULD HAVE TAKEN
ANOTHER ROUTE WHICH WAS BOTH COMMERCIALLY PRACTICABLE AND APPRECIABLY
SAFER (IN ITS AVOIDANCE OF CROWDED THOROUGHFARES, ETC.) THAN THE ONE IT
DID FOLLOW.  IT MUST ALSO BE SHOWN THAT PETITIONER KNEW THAT THERE WAS
SUCH A PRACTICABLE, SAFER ROUTE AND YET DELIBERATELY TOOK THE MORE
DANGEROUS ROUTE THROUGH THE TUNNEL, OR THAT PETITIONER WILLFULLY
NEGLECTED TO EXERCISE ITS DUTY UNDER THE REGULATION TO INQUIRE INTO THE
AVAILABILITY OF SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE.  (FN15) 

IN AN EFFORT TO GIVE POINT TO ITS ARGUMENT, PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT
THERE WAS NO PRACTICABLE ROUTE ITS TRUCKS MIGHT HAVE FOLLOWED WHICH DID
NOT PASS THROUGH PLACES THEY WERE REQUIRED TO AVOID.  IF IT IS TRUE
THAT IN THE CONGESTION SURROUNDING THE LOWER HUDSON THERE WAS NO
PRACTICABLE WAY OF CROSSING THE RIVER WHICH WOULD HAVE AVOIDED SUCH
POINTS OF DANGER TO A SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER EXTENT THAN THE ROUTE
TAKEN, THEN PETITIONER HAS NOT VIOLATED THE REGULATION.  BUT THAT IS
PLAINLY A MATTER FOR PROOF AT THE TRIAL.  WE ARE NOT SO CONVERSANT WITH
ALL THE ROUTES IN THAT AREA THAT WE MAY, WITH NO FACTS IN THE RECORD
BEFORE US, ASSUME THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT TO BE FALSE. 
(FN16)  WE WILL NOT THUS DISTORT THE JUDICIAL NOTICE CONCEPT TO STRIKE
DOWN A REGULATION ADOPTED ONLY AFTER MUCH CONSULTATION WITH THOSE
AFFECTED AND PENALIZING ONLY THOSE WHO KNOWINGLY VIOLATE ITS
PROHIBITION. 

WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS REMANDING
THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO REINSTATE COUNTS 1,
3, AND 5 OF THE INDICTMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. SEC. 835: 

"THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SHALL FORMULATE REGULATIONS FOR
THE SAFE TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES OF EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DANGEROUS ARTICLES, INCLUDING
FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS, FLAMMABLE SOLIDS, OXIDIZING MATERIALS, CORROSIVE
LIQUIDS, COMPRESSED GASES, AND POISONOUS SUBSTANCES, WHICH SHALL BE
BINDING UPON ALL COMMON CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE WHICH TRANSPORT EXPLOSIVES OR OTHER DANGEROUS ARTICLES BY
LAND, AND UPON ALL SHIPPERS MAKING SHIPMENTS OF EXPLOSIVES OR OTHER
DANGEROUS ARTICLES VIA ANY COMMON CARRIER ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE BY LAND OR WATER. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORD WITH THE BEST-KNOWN PRACTICABLE
MEANS FOR SECURING SAFETY IN TRANSIT, COVERING THE PACKING, MARKING,
LOADING, HANDLING WHILE IN TRANSIT, AND THE PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERIAL WHEN OFFERED IS IN PROPER CONDITION TO
TRANSPORT." 

FN2  49 CFR SEC. 197.1(B). 

FN3  "WHOEVER KNOWINGLY VIOLATES ANY SUCH REGULATION SHALL BE FINED
NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH;
AND, IF THE DEATH OR BODILY INJURY OF ANY PERSON RESULTS FROM SUCH
VIOLATION, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE
THAN TEN YEARS, OR BOTH."  18 U.S.C. SEC. 835 (SIXTH PARAGRAPH). 

FN4  R. 2. 

FN5  LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451 (1939). 

FN6  NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 377 (1913); HYGRADE
PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497, 502-503 (1925); UNITED STATES
V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1947). 

FN7  SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 393 (1932).  THE PROVISION
WHICH WAS THERE CHALLENGED AND UPHELD WAS CONCERNED BASICALLY WITH A
REQUIREMENT AS TO DISTANCE, A REQUIREMENT APPLYING WITHIN NECESSARY
LIMITS OF PRACTICABILITY, JUST AS THE REGULATION HERE CHALLENGED IS
CONCERNED BASICALLY WITH AVOIDANCE OF DESIGNATED POINTS OF DANGER,
WITHIN LIKE LIMITS OF PRACTICABILITY. 

FN8  14 STAT. 81. 

FN9  35 STAT. 554, AS AMENDED, 35 STAT. 1134. 

FN10  41 STAT. 1444. 

FN11  49 CFR, 1938, SEC. 85.34(B); SEE REGULATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION
OF EXPLOSIVES, 211 I.C.C. 351, 354 (1935). 

FN12  49 CFR, 1940 SUPP., SEC. 197-7.3082:  "DRIVERS OF MOTOR
VEHICLES TRANSPORTING INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS SHALL AVOID, SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE, DRIVING INTO OR THROUGH CONGESTED THOROUGHFARES, PLACES
WHERE CROWDS ARE ASSEMBLED, STREET CAR TRACKS, TUNNELS, VIADUCTS AND
DANGEROUS CROSSINGS.  SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THIS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED
BY PREARRANGEMENT OF ROUTES."  THE SECTION WAS AMENDED TO ITS PRESENT
FORM IN 1942.  7 FED. REG. 2869. 

FN13 COMPARE UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1, 7 (1947); MILLER
V. STRAHL, 239 U.S. 426, 434 (1915); BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612, 620 (1911). 

FN14  SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, 101-103 (1945); UNITED
STATES V. RAGEN, 314 U.S. 513, 524 (1942); GORIN V. UNITED STATES, 312
U.S. 19, 27-28 (1941); OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246 U.S. 343, 348
(1918). 

FN15  THE OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES OF EVERY MOTOR CARRIER
CONCERNED WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DANGEROUS
ARTICLES ARE REQUIRED TO "BECOME CONVERSANT" WITH THIS AND OTHER
REGULATIONS APPLYING TO SUCH TRANSPORTATION.  49 CFR SEC. 197.02. 

FN16  THIS CASE IS HERE TO REVIEW THE GRANTING OF A MOTION TO DISMISS
THE INDICTMENT.  IT SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO MENTION THE FAMILIAR
RULE THAT, AT THIS STAGE OF THE CASE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT
MUST BE TAKEN AS TRUE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER JOIN, DISSENTING. 

CONGRESS APPARENTLY FOUND THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION NEEDED FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVES AND INFLAMMABLES TOO INTRICATE AND
DETAILED FOR ITS OWN PROCESSES.  IT DELEGATED THE TASK OF FRAMING
REGULATIONS TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND MADE A KNOWING
VIOLATION OF THEM CRIMINAL.  WHERE THE FEDERAL CRIME-MAKING POWER IS
DELEGATED TO SUCH A BODY, WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN REQUIRING CONSIDERABLE
PRECISION IN ITS EXERCISE.  KRAUS & BROS.  V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S.
614, 621-622. 

THIS REGULATION DOES NOT PROHIBIT CARRIAGE OF EXPLOSIVES.  IT
PRESUPPOSES THAT THEY MUST BE TRANSPORTED, AND, THEREFORE, ATTEMPTS TO
LAY DOWN A RULE FOR CHOICE OF ROUTINGS.  PETITIONER WAS ADMONISHED TO
AVOID CONGESTED THOROUGHFARES, PLACES WHERE CROWDS ARE ASSEMBLED,
STREETCAR TRACKS, TUNNELS, VIADUCTS AND DANGEROUS CROSSINGS.  NOBODY
SUGGESTS THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE TO AVOID ALL OF THESE IN CARRYING THIS
SHIPMENT FROM ITS ORIGIN TO ITS DESTINATION.  NOR DOES THE REGULATION
REQUIRE THAT ALL OR ANY ONE OF THEM BE AVOIDED EXCEPT "SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE."  I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THE OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE
HUGHES AND THE COURT IN SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, THAT, IN THE
CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS USED, "'SHORTEST PRACTICABLE ROUTE' IS NOT AN
EXPRESSION TOO VAGUE TO BE UNDERSTOOD."  A BASIC STANDARD WAS
PRESCRIBED WITH DEFINITENESS - DISTANCE.  THAT ORDINARILY WAS TO
PREVAIL, AND, IF DEPARTED FROM, THE TRUCKER WAS TO BE PREPARED TO OFFER
PRACTICAL JUSTIFICATIONS. 

BUT THE REGULATION BEFORE US CONTAINS NO SUCH DEFINITE STANDARD FROM
WHICH ONE CAN START IN THE CALCULATION OF HIS DUTY.  IT LEAVES ALL
ROUTES EQUALLY OPEN AND ALL EQUALLY CLOSED.  THE CARRIER MUST CHOOSE
WHAT IS "PRACTICABLE," NOT, AS IN THE SPROLES CASE, BY WEIGHING
DISTANCE AGAINST OBSTACLES TO PASSAGE.  WE MAY, OF COURSE, TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF GEOGRAPHY.  DELIVERY OF THESE GOODS WAS IMPOSSIBLE
EXCEPT BY PASSING THROUGH MANY CONGESTED THOROUGHFARES AND EITHER
TUNNELS, VIADUCTS OR BRIDGES.  AN EXPLOSION WOULD HAVE BEEN EQUALLY
DANGEROUS AND EQUALLY INCRIMINATING IN ANY OF THEM.  WHAT GUIDANCE CAN
BE GLEANED FROM THIS REGULATION AS TO HOW ONE COULD WITH REASONABLE
CERTAINTY MAKE A CHOICE OF ROUTES THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH ITS
REQUIREMENTS?    IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT DEFINITENESS MAY BE ACHIEVED
ON THE TRIAL BECAUSE EXPERT TESTIMONY WILL ADVISE THE JURY AS TO WHAT
ROUTES ARE PREFERABLE.  DEFECTS IN THAT SOLUTION ARE TWOFOLD:  FIRST,
THERE IS NO STANDARD BY WHICH TO DIRECT, CONFINE AND TEST THE EXPERT
OPINION TESTIMONY AND, SECOND, NONE TO GUIDE A JURY IN CHOOSING BETWEEN
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS. 

IT IS FURTHER SUGGESTED THAT A DEFENDANT IS PROTECTED AGAINST
INDEFINITENESS BECAUSE CONVICTION IS AUTHORIZED ONLY FOR KNOWING
VIOLATIONS.  THE ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE JURY CAN FIND THAT
DEFENDANT KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THE REGULATION ONLY IF IT FINDS THAT IT
KNEW THE MEANING OF THE REGULATION HE WAS ACCUSED OF VIOLATING.  WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, WHICH RESTS ON A
VERY PARTICULARIZED BASIS, THE KNOWLEDGE REQUISITE TO KNOWING VIOLATION
OF A STATUTE IS FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM KNOWLEDGE OF
THE LAW.  I DO NOT SUPPOSE THE COURT INTENDS TO SUGGEST THAT IF
PETITIONER KNEW NOTHING OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A REGULATION ITS
IGNORANCE WOULD CONSTITUTE A DEFENSE. 

THIS REGULATION PRESCRIBES NO DUTY IN TERMS OF A DEGREE OF CARE THAT
MUST BE EXERCISED IN MOVING THE SHIPMENT.  THE UTMOST CARE WOULD NOT
PROTECT DEFENDANT FROM PROSECUTION UNDER IT.  ONE CAN LEARN HIS DUTY
FROM SUCH TERMS AS "REASONABLE CARE" OR "HIGH DEGREE OF CARE."  OF
COURSE, ONE MAY NOT BE SURE WHETHER A TRIER OF FACT WILL FIND
PARTICULAR CONDUCT TO MEASURE UP TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW, BUT HE
MAY LEARN AT LEAST WHAT HE MUST STRIVE FOR, AND THAT IS MORE THAN HE
CAN LEARN FROM THIS REGULATION. 

THIS QUESTION IS BEFORE THIS COURT ON THE INDICTMENT ONLY.  IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES WE MIGHT FEEL IT BETTER THAT A CASE SHOULD PROCEED TO
TRIAL AND OUR DECISION BE RESERVED UNTIL A REVIEW OF THE CONVICTION, IF
ONE RESULTS.  BUT A TRIAL CAN GIVE US NO BETTER INFORMATION THAN WE
HAVE NOW AS TO WHETHER THIS REGULATION CONTAINS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE
STANDARDS AND DEFINITION OF THE CRIME.  AN ACQUITTAL OR DISAGREEMENT
WOULD LEAVE THIS UNWORKABLE, INDEFINITE REGULATION STANDING AS THE ONLY
GUIDE IN A MATTER THAT BADLY NEEDS INTELLIGIBLE AND RATHER TIGHT
REGULATION.  IT WOULD REMAIN, AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT, AS AN INCOHERENT
BARRIER AGAINST STATE ENACTMENT OR ENFORCEMENT OF LOCAL REGULATIONS OF
THE SAME SUBJECT.  WOULD IT NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO THIS PETITIONER TO PRONOUNCE THIS VAGUE
REGULATION INVALID, SO THAT THOSE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
SUPERVISION OF THIS DANGEROUS TRAFFIC CAN GO ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF
FRAMING A REGULATION THAT WILL SPECIFY INTELLIGIBLE STANDARDS OF
CONDUCT? 
..END :





UNITED STATES, JAEGELER V. CARUSI 342 U.S. 347 


NO. 275.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1952 - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1952 - 187 F.2D
912, VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


1.  UNDER THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT, THE POWER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
REMOVE TO GERMANY A GERMAN CITIZEN RESIDING IN THIS COUNTRY ENDED WHEN
CONGRESS, BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF OCTOBER 19, 1951, TERMINATED THE
STATE OF WAR WHICH HAD EXISTED BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY. 
P. 348. 

2.  PETITIONER, A GERMAN CITIZEN RESIDING IN THIS COUNTRY, WHO HAD
BEEN INTERNED IN 1942 AND ORDERED REMOVED TO GERMANY IN 1946 AND WHO
HAD APPLIED FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OF OCTOBER 19, 1951, TERMINATING THE STATE OF WAR BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY, IS NO LONGER REMOVABLE UNDER THE ALIEN
ENEMY ACT AND IS ENTITLED TO HIS RELEASE.   PP. 347-349. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. JAEGELER V. CARUSI, COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

PER CURIAM. 

ON FEBRUARY 1, 1942, PURSUANT TO THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798, AS
AMENDED, (FN1) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNED
PETITIONER, A GERMAN CITIZEN RESIDING IN THIS COUNTRY.  ON MAY 3, 1946,
ACTING UNDER THE SAME STATUTE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DIRECTED
PETITIONER'S REMOVAL TO GERMANY.  THEREAFTER, PETITIONER APPLIED FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, AND ON OCTOBER 9, 1950, AFTER HEARINGS, THE DISTRICT
COURT DENIED RELIEF.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED, 187 F.2D 912, AND PETITIONER APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI ON AUGUST 24, 1951. 

WHILE THAT PETITION WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, A JOINT
RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS, APPROVED ON OCTOBER 19, 1951, TERMINATED THE
STATE OF WAR WHICH HAD EXISTED BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY. 
65 STAT. 451.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 864 (1951). 

THE STATUTORY POWER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REMOVE PETITIONER AS
AN ENEMY ALIEN ENDED WHEN CONGRESS TERMINATED THE WAR WITH GERMANY. 
(FN2)  THUS PETITIONER IS NO LONGER REMOVABLE UNDER THE ALIEN ENEMY
ACT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE ITS JUDGMENT
AND DIRECT PETITIONER'S RELEASE FROM CUSTODY.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "WHENEVER THERE IS A DECLARED WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
ANY FOREIGN NATION OR GOVERNMENT, OR ANY INVASION OR PREDATORY
INCURSION IS PERPETRATED, ATTEMPTED OR THREATENED AGAINST THE TERRITORY
OF THE UNITED STATES BY ANY FOREIGN NATION OR GOVERNMENT, AND THE
PRESIDENT MAKES PUBLIC PROCLAMATION OF THE EVENT, ALL NATIVES,
CITIZENS, DENIZENS, OR SUBJECTS OF THE HOSTILE NATION OR GOVERNMENT,
BEING OF THE AGE OF FOURTEEN YEARS AND UPWARD, WHO SHALL BE WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES AND NOT ACTUALLY NATURALIZED, SHALL BE LIABLE TO BE
APPREHENDED, RESTRAINED, SECURED, AND REMOVED AS ALIEN ENEMIES.  THE
PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED IN ANY SUCH EVENT, BY HIS PROCLAMATION THEREOF,
OR OTHER PUBLIC ACT, TO DIRECT THE CONDUCT TO BE OBSERVED ON THE PART
OF THE UNITED STATES, TOWARD THE ALIENS WHO BECOME SO LIABLE; THE
MANNER AND DEGREE OF THE RESTRAINT TO WHICH THEY SHALL BE SUBJECT AND
IN WHAT CASES, AND UPON WHAT SECURITY THEIR RESIDENCE SHALL BE
PERMITTED, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THOSE WHO, NOT BEING
PERMITTED TO RESIDE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, REFUSE OR NEGLECT TO
DEPART THEREFROM; AND TO ESTABLISH ANY OTHER REGULATIONS WHICH ARE
FOUND NECESSARY IN THE PREMISES AND FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY."  1 STAT.
577, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTED UNDER PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. 2526,
6 FED. REG. 6323, AND PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. 2655, 10 FED. REG.
8947. 

FN2  "RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT THE STATE OF WAR
DECLARED TO EXIST BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE GOVERNMENT OF
GERMANY BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS APPROVED DECEMBER 11, 1941,
IS HEREBY TERMINATED AND SUCH TERMINATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE DATE
OF ENACTMENT OF THIS RESOLUTION: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS RESOLUTION AND ANY PROCLAMATION ISSUED BY THE
PRESIDENT PURSUANT THERETO, ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST WHICH PRIOR TO
JANUARY 1, 1947, WAS SUBJECT TO VESTING OR SEIZURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917 (40 STAT. 411), AS
AMENDED, OR WHICH HAS HERETOFORE BEEN VESTED OR SEIZED UNDER THAT ACT,
INCLUDING ACCRUALS TO OR PROCEEDS OF ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR INTEREST,
SHALL CONTINUE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT IN THE SAME
MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THIS RESOLUTION HAD NOT BEEN
ADOPTED AND SUCH PROCLAMATION HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED.  NOTHING HEREIN AND
NOTHING IN SUCH PROCLAMATION SHALL ALTER THE STATUS, AS IT EXISTED
IMMEDIATELY PRIOR HERETO, UNDER THAT ACT, OF GERMANY OR OF ANY PERSON
WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR INTEREST."  H.J. RES. 289, 82D
CONG., 1ST SESS., 65 STAT. 451. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















BRIGGS V. ELLIOTT 342 U.S. 350 


NO. 273.  DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1952 - 98 F. SUPP. 529, JUDGMENT VACATED
AND CASE REMANDED. 


THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE DECIDED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA REQUIRING SEPARATE SCHOOLS FOR
THE WHITE AND COLORED RACES DID NOT OF THEMSELVES VIOLATE THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BUT ORDERED THE SCHOOL OFFICIALS TO PROCEED AT
ONCE TO FURNISH EQUAL EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND TO REPORT TO THE COURT
WITHIN SIX MONTHS WHAT ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN.  AFTER AN APPEAL TO THIS
COURT HAD BEEN DOCKETED, THE REQUIRED REPORT WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  HELD:  IN ORDER THAT THIS COURT MAY HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE
VIEWS OF THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE ADDITIONAL FACTS BROUGHT OUT IN
THE REPORT, AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MAY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IT MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF THAT REPORT,
THE JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 350-352. 

BRIGGS ET AL. V. ELLIOTT ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

PER CURIAM. 

APPELLANT NEGRO SCHOOL CHILDREN BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN APPELLEE SCHOOL OFFICIALS FROM MAKING ANY
DISTINCTIONS BASED UPON RACE OR COLOR IN PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22, CLARENDON COUNTY, SOUTH
CAROLINA.  AS THE BASIS FOR THEIR COMPLAINT, APPELLANTS ALLEGED THAT
EQUAL FACILITIES ARE NOT PROVIDED FOR NEGRO PUPILS AND THAT THOSE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA REQUIRING
SEPARATE SCHOOLS "FOR CHILDREN OF THE WHITE AND COLORED RACES"* ARE
INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AT THE TRIAL BEFORE A COURT OF
THREE JUDGES, APPELLEES CONCEDED THAT THE SCHOOL FACILITIES PROVIDED
FOR NEGRO STUDENTS "ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THOSE AFFORDED IN
THE DISTRICT FOR WHITE PUPILS." 

*S.C. CONST., ART. XI, SEC. 7; S.C. CODE, 1942, SEC. 5377. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, THAT THE CHALLENGED
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS WERE NOT OF THEMSELVES
VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT BELOW ALSO FOUND THAT
THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AFFORDED BY APPELLEES FOR NEGRO PUPILS ARE
NOT EQUAL TO THOSE PROVIDED FOR WHITE CHILDREN.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID
NOT ISSUE AN INJUNCTION ABOLISHING RACIAL DISTINCTIONS AS PRAYED BY
APPELLANTS, BUT DID ORDER APPELLEES TO PROCEED AT ONCE TO FURNISH
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR NEGROES EQUAL TO THOSE FURNISHED WHITE
PUPILS.  IN ITS DECREE, ENTERED JUNE 21, 1951, THE DISTRICT COURT
ORDERED THAT APPELLEES REPORT TO THAT COURT WITHIN SIX MONTHS AS TO
ACTION TAKEN BY THEM TO CARRY OUT THE COURT'S ORDER.  98 F. SUPP. 529. 

DISSATISFIED WITH THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT,
APPELLANTS BROUGHT A TIMELY APPEAL DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER 28
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1253.  AFTER THE APPEAL WAS DOCKETED BUT BEFORE
ITS CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT, APPELLEES FILED IN THE COURT BELOW
THEIR REPORT AS ORDERED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HAS NOT GIVEN ITS VIEWS ON THIS REPORT, HAVING
ENTERED AN ORDER STATING THAT IT WILL WITHHOLD FURTHER ACTION THEREON
WHILE THE CAUSE IS PENDING IN THIS COURT ON APPEAL.  PRIOR TO OUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED ON THIS APPEAL, WE SHOULD HAVE
THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWS OF THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE ADDITIONAL
FACTS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THAT COURT IN THE REPORT WHICH IT
ORDERED.  THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD ALSO BE AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IT MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF THAT REPORT. 
IN ORDER THAT THIS MAY BE DONE, WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT AND REMAND THE CASE TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 
ANOTHER JUDGMENT, ENTERED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS, MAY
PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR ANY FURTHER APPEALS TO THIS COURT.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT TO VACATION OF THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUNDS STATED.  THEY BELIEVE
THAT THE ADDITIONAL FACTS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT TO THE DISTRICT COURT
ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE
APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AND THAT WE SHOULD NOTE JURISDICTION AND SET THE
CASE DOWN FOR ARGUMENT. 
..END :
















HALCYON LINES V. HAENN SHIP CEILING & REFITTING CORP. 342 U.S. 282. 


NO. 62.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 27, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1952 - 187 F.2D
403, REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


AN EMPLOYEE OF A SHORESIDE CONTRACTOR ENGAGED BY A SHIPOWNER TO REPAIR
A SHIP MOORED IN NAVIGABLE WATERS WAS INJURED ABOARD THE SHIP WHILE
ENGAGED IN MAKING REPAIRS.  HIS INJURIES DID NOT RESULT FROM A
COLLISION.  ALLEGING THAT THEY WERE CAUSED BY THE SHIPOWNER'S
NEGLIGENCE AND THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE SHIP, HE SUED THE SHIPOWNER
FOR DAMAGES.  CLAIMING THAT THE CONTRACTOR'S NEGLIGENCE HAD CONTRIBUTED
TO THE INJURIES, THE SHIPOWNER BROUGHT IN THE CONTRACTOR AS A THIRD
PARTY DEFENDANT AND URGED THAT IT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE CONTRIBUTION. 
HELD:  THE CONTRIBUTION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE
DISMISSED.  PP. 283-287. 

(A)  THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION BETWEEN JOINT
TORTFEASORS IN SUCH NON-COLLISION, MARITIME, INJURY CASES.  P. 284. 

(B)  SINCE CONGRESS HAS ENACTED MUCH LEGISLATION IN THE FIELD OF
MARITIME INJURIES AND HAS NOT APPROVED SUCH A RULE OF CONTRIBUTION
BETWEEN JOINT TORTFEASORS, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS COURT TO
DO SO.  PP. 285-287. 

HALCYON LINES ET AL. V. HAENN SHIP CEILING & REFITTING CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 197, HAENN SHIP CEILING & REFITTING CORP. V.
HALCYON LINES ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 287. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HALCYON LINES (FN1) HIRED THE HAENN SHIP CEILING AND REFITTING
CORPORATION (FN2) TO MAKE REPAIRS ON HALCYON'S SHIP WHICH WAS MOORED IN
NAVIGABLE WATERS.  SALVADOR BACCILE, AN EMPLOYEE OF HAENN, WAS INJURED
ABOARD SHIP WHILE ENGAGED IN MAKING THESE REPAIRS.  ALLEGING THAT HIS
INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY HALCYON'S NEGLIGENCE AND THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF
ITS VESSEL, HE BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST HALCYON IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.  ON THE GROUND THAT HAENN'S NEGLIGENCE
HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURIES, HALCYON BROUGHT HAENN IN AS A THIRD
PARTY DEFENDANT.  BY AGREEMENT OF ALL PARTIES, A $65,000 JUDGMENT WAS
RENDERED FOR BACCILE AND PAID BY HALCYON.  DESPITE HAENN'S PROTEST, THE
DISTRICT JUDGE ALLOWED THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THE
RELATIVE DEGREE OF FAULT OF THE TWO PARTIES.  ON THIS EVIDENCE THE JURY
RETURNED A SPECIAL VERDICT FINDING HAENN 75% AND HALCYON 25%
RESPONSIBLE.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE REFUSED TO FOLLOW THIS JURY
DETERMINATION AND ENTERED JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS CONCLUSION
THAT THERE WAS A GENERAL RULE GOVERNING MARITIME TORTS SUCH AS THIS
UNDER WHICH EACH JOINT TORTFEASOR MUST PAY HALF THE DAMAGES.  80 F.
SUPP. 765.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AGREED THAT A RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION
EXISTED IN THIS CASE BUT HELD THAT IT COULD NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT HAENN
WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPELLED TO PAY BACCILE HAD HE ELECTED TO CLAIM
COMPENSATION UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT, 44 STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET SEQ. 187 F.2D 403.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING VIEWS TAKEN BY THE
CIRCUITS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONTRIBUTION
CAN BE OBTAINED IN CASES SUCH AS THIS.  (FN3)  342 U.S. 809. 

WHERE TWO VESSELS COLLIDE DUE TO THE FAULT OF BOTH, IT IS ESTABLISHED
ADMIRALTY DOCTRINE THAT THE MUTUAL WRONGDOERS SHALL SHARE EQUALLY THE
DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY EACH, AS WELL AS PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE INFLICTED ON INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES.  THIS MARITIME RULE IS OF
ANCIENT ORIGIN AND HAS BEEN APPLIED IN MANY CASES, (FN4) BUT THIS COURT
HAS NEVER EXPRESSLY APPLIED IT TO NON-COLLISION CASES.  (FN5)  HALCYON
NOW URGES US TO EXTEND IT TO NON-COLLISION CASES AND TO ALLOW A
CONTRIBUTION HERE BASED UPON THE RELATIVE DEGREE OF FAULT OF HALCYON
AND HAENN AS FOUND BY THE JURY.  HAENN URGES US TO HOLD THAT THERE IS
NO RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE RIGHT BE
BASED UPON AN EQUAL DIVISION OF ALL DAMAGES.  BOTH PARTIES CLAIM THAT
THE DECISION BELOW LIMITING AN EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR CONTRIBUTION TO
THOSE UNCERTAIN AMOUNTS RECOVERABLE UNDER THE HARBOR WORKERS' ACT IS
IMPRACTICAL AND UNDESIRABLE. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION, COURTS EXERCISING A COMMON-LAW
JURISDICTION HAVE GENERALLY HELD THAT THEY CANNOT ON THEIR OWN
INITIATIVE CREATE AN ENFORCEABLE RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION AS BETWEEN JOINT
TORTFEASORS.  (FN6)  THIS JUDICIAL ATTITUDE HAS PROVOKED PROTEST ON THE
GROUND THAT IT IS INEQUITABLE TO COMPEL ONE TORTFEASOR TO BEAR THE
ENTIRE BURDEN OF A LOSS WHICH HAS BEEN CAUSED IN PART BY THE NEGLIGENCE
OF SOMEONE ELSE.  (FN7)  OTHERS HAVE DEFENDED THE POLICY OF COMMON-LAW
COURTS IN REFUSING TO FASHION RULES OF CONTRIBUTION.  (FN8)  TO SOME
EXTENT COURTS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MARITIME AFFAIRS HAVE FELT
FREER THAN COMMON-LAW COURTS IN FASHIONING RULES, (FN9) AND WE WOULD
FEEL FREE TO DO SO HERE IF WHOLLY CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD BEST SERVE
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 

WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD BE UNWISE TO ATTEMPT TO FASHION NEW
JUDICIAL RULES OF CONTRIBUTION AND THAT THE SOLUTION OF THIS PROBLEM
SHOULD AWAIT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  CONGRESS HAS ALREADY ENACTED MUCH
LEGISLATION IN THE AREA OF MARITIME PERSONAL INJURIES.  (FN10)  FOR
EXAMPLE, UNDER THE HARBOR WORKERS' ACT CONGRESS HAS MADE FAULT
UNIMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO HIS
EMPLOYEE; CONGRESS HAS MADE FURTHER INROADS ON TRADITIONAL COURT LAW BY
ABOLITION OF THE DEFENSES OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ASSUMPTION OF
RISK AND BY THE CREATION OF A STATUTORY SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION.  THE
HARBOR WORKERS' ACT IN TURN MUST BE INTEGRATED WITH OTHER ACTS SUCH AS
THE JONES ACT (41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688), THE PUBLIC VESSELS
ACT (43 STAT. 1112, 46 U.S.C.  SECS. 781-790), THE LIMITED LIABILITY
ACT (R.S. SEC. 4281, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC.  181 ET SEQ.) AND THE
HARTER ACT (27 STAT. 445, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 190-195).  MANY GROUPS OF
PERSONS WITH VARYING INTERESTS ARE VITALLY CONCERNED WITH THE PROPER
FUNCTIONING AND ADMINISTRATION OF ALL THESE ACTS AS AN INTEGRATED
WHOLE.  WE THINK THAT LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION CAN BEST
BRING ABOUT A FAIR ACCOMMODATION OF THE DIVERSE BUT RELATED INTERESTS
OF THESE GROUPS.  THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IS PECULIARLY ADAPTED TO
DETERMINE WHICH OF THE MANY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM WOULD BE
MOST BENEFICIAL IN THE LONG RUN.  A LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY MIGHT SHOW THAT
NEITHER CARRIERS, SHIPPERS, EMPLOYEES, NOR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES
DESIRE SUCH A CHANGE TO BE MADE.  THE RECORD BEFORE US IS SILENT AS TO
THE WISHES OF EMPLOYEES, CARRIERS, AND SHIPPERS; IT ONLY SHOWS THAT THE
HALCYON LINE IS IN FAVOR OF SUCH A CHANGE IN ORDER TO RELIEVE ITSELF OF
A PART OF ITS BURDEN IN THIS PARTICULAR LAWSUIT.  APPARENTLY INSURANCE
COMPANIES ARE OPPOSED TO SUCH A CHANGE.  (FN11)  SHOULD A LEGISLATIVE
INQUIRY CONVINCE CONGRESS THAT A RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION AMONG JOINT
TORTFEASORS IS DESIRABLE, THERE WOULD STILL BE MUCH DOUBT AS TO WHETHER
APPLICATION OF THE RULE OR THE AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION SHOULD BE LIMITED
BY THE HARBOR WORKERS' ACT, (FN12) OR SHOULD BE BASED ON AN EQUAL
DIVISION OF DAMAGES, OR SHOULD BE RELATIVELY APPORTIONED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE DEGREE OF FAULT OF THE PARTIES. 

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, AND BECAUSE CONGRESS WHILE ACTING IN THE
FIELD HAS STOPPED SHORT OF APPROVING THE RULE OF CONTRIBUTION HERE
URGED, WE THINK IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO DO SO. THE
JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE
CONTRIBUTION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HAENN.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  HALCYON LINES REFERS TO HALCYON LINES AND VINKE & CO., TWO
CORPORATE JOINT OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF THE SHIP HERE INVOLVED. 
HALCYON IS PETITIONER IN NO. 62 AND THE RESPONDENT IN NO. 197. 

FN2  HAENN IS THE PETITIONER IN NO. 197 AND THE RESPONDENT IN NO.
62. 

FN3  AMERICAN MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. V. MATTHEWS, 182 F.2D 322; UNITED
STATES V. ROTHSCHILD INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO., 183 F.2D 181.  SEE
ALSO SLATTERY V. MARRA BROS., INC., 186 F.2D 134; SPAULDING V. PARRY
NAVIGATION CO., 187 F.2D 257; HITAFFER V. ARGONNE CO., 87 U.S. APP.
D.C. 57, 183 F.2D 811. 

FN4  THE NORTH STAR, 106 U.S. 17, 21, TRACES THE DOCTRINE BACK TO THE
RULES OF OLERON AND THE LAWS OF WISBUY.  SEE ALSO, THE WASHINGTON, 9
WALL.  513; THE ALABAMA, 92 U.S. 695; THE ATLAS, 93 U.S. 302; THE
CHATTAHOOCHEE, 173 U.S. 540, 551-555. 

FN5  AMERICAN STEVEDORES, INC. V. PORELLO, 330 U.S. 446, RECOGNIZED
THAT SOME LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAD APPLIED THE EQUAL-DIVISION RULE OF
CONTRIBUTION IN NON-COLLISION CASES.  THE OPINION IN THAT CASE IMPLIED
THAT ON REMAND AND UNDER CERTAIN CONTINGENCIES THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD
"BE FREE TO ADJUDGE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTIES "IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CONTRIBUTION RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  THAT
STATEMENT WAS ONLY INCIDENTAL AS COMPARED TO THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
THERE DECIDED AND CANNOT BE TAKEN AS FORECLOSING A FULL CONSIDERATION
AND DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE WHICH IS NOW DIRECTLY PRESENTED AND
CRUCIAL TO OUR DECISION. 

FN6  UNION STOCK YARDS CO. V. CHICAGO, B.&Q.R. CO., 196 U.S. 217,
224.  AND SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 3 A.L.R. DIGEST, PP. 864-866, AND IN
PROSSER ON TORTS (1941), P. 1113. 

FN7  SEE E.G., GREGORY, CONTRIBUTION AMONG JOINT TORTFEASORS:  A
DEFENSE, 54 HARV. L. REV. 1170. 

FN8  GEORGE'S RADIO, INC. V. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO., 75 U.S. APP. D.C.
187, 191, 126 F.2D 219, 223, DISSENTING OPINION.  SEE ALSO JAMES,
CONTRIBUTION AMONG JOINT TORTFEASORS:  A PRAGMATIC CRITICISM, 54 HARV.
L. REV. 1156. 

FN9  SWIFT & CO. V. COMPANIA COLOMBIANA DEL CARIBE, 339 U.S. 684,
690, 691.  COMPARE THE LOTTAWANNA, 21 WALL.  558. 

FN10  SEE E.G., THE JONES ACT (41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688),
THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT (43 STAT. 1112, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 781-790), AND
THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT (44 STAT. 1424,
33 U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET SEQ.). 

FN11  GREGORY, SUPRA, N. 7, P. 1177.  JAMES, SUPRA, N. 8, PP. 1179
1180. 

FN12  SECTION 5 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "THE LIABILITY OF AN
EMPLOYER PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 4 SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND IN PLACE OF ALL
OTHER LIABILITY OF SUCH EMPLOYER TO THE EMPLOYEE, HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE, HUSBAND OR WIFE, PARENTS, DEPENDENTS, NEXT OF KIN, AND
ANYONE OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM SUCH EMPLOYER AT LAW
OR IN ADMIRALTY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INJURY OR DEATH,  ... ."  HAENN
ARGUES THAT THIS SECTION PROVIDES THE EMPLOYER'S EXCLUSIVE LIABILITY
THEREBY PREVENTING A THIRD PARTY FROM HAVING ANY RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION
AGAINST AN EMPLOYER UNDER THE ACT IN CASES WHERE THE JOINT NEGLIGENCE
OF A THIRD PARTY AND THE EMPLOYER INJURE AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE
ACT.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE THIS QUESTION WHICH IS TREATED
BY THE CASES CITED IN N. 3, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON WOULD REVERSE WITH DIRECTIONS
TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO ALLOW CONTRIBUTIONS EQUAL TO FIFTY PERCENT OF
THE JUDGMENT RECOVERED BY BACCILE AGAINST HALCYON. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. SHANNON 342 U.S. 288 


NO. 47.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 27, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1952 - 186 F.2D
430, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENTS PURCHASED FROM THE OWNERS A TRACT OF LAND ON WHICH STOOD
BUILDINGS THAT HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.  BY THE
SALE AGREEMENT THE VENDORS ASSIGNED ANY CLAIM WHICH THEY HAD AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES FOR DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY.  RESPONDENTS BROUGHT AN
ACTION UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT TO RECOVER ON THE DAMAGE CLAIM, AND
JOINED THEIR ASSIGNORS AS WELL AS THE UNITED STATES AS PARTIES
DEFENDANT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES ALONE, ON THE GROUND THAT ALL POSSIBLE CLAIMANTS WERE
BEFORE THE COURT AND THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT ACT WAS THEREFORE
INAPPLICABLE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  HELD:  THE ASSIGNMENT OF
THE CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WAS VOID UNDER THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT
ACT, AND THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED.  PP. 289-294. 

1.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS BASED ON A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT.  THE
CONSIDERATIONS JUSTIFYING EXCEPTIONS TO THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT ACT FOR
CERTAIN TYPES OF VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENTS ARE NOT PRESENT HERE, SO THE
ASSIGNMENT FALLS WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THAT ACT.  PP. 292-293. 

2.  THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT ACT IS NOT RENDERED INAPPLICABLE TO THIS CASE
BY THE FACT THAT ALL POSSIBLE CLAIMANTS WERE BEFORE THE COURT; NOR BY
THE FACT THAT THE ASSIGNMENT WAS EXECUTED UNDER A "MUTUAL MISTAKE OF
LAW"; NOR BY THE FACT THAT "HARDSHIP" MIGHT OTHERWISE RESULT.  PP. 293
294. 

3.  THERE WAS IN THIS CASE NO "UNCONSCIONABLE" CONDUCT ON THE PART OF
THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS, WHO HAD NO PART IN THE MAKING OF THE
ASSIGNMENT.  P. 294. 

UNITED STATES V. SHANNON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES AND OTHERS, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE
RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ALONE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  186 F.2D 430.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S.
808.  REVERSED, P. 294. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE BROUGHT HERE ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI (FN1) TESTS THE VALIDITY
UNDER THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT ACT, R.S. SEC. 3477, (FN2) OF AN ASSIGNMENT
OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE.  IN AN EFFORT
TO ESCAPE THE PROHIBITION OF THAT ACT, RESPONDENTS JOINED THEIR
ASSIGNORS, MRS. KATHLEEN BOSHAMER ET AL., (FN3) AS WELL AS THE UNITED
STATES AS PARTIES DEFENDANT.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HOLDING THE
ASSIGNMENT TO BE "OF FULL FORCE AND EFFECT," ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR
RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ALONE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, 186 F.2D 430. 

THE BOSHAMERS OWNED, IN ADDITION TO ADJOINING LAND WHICH THEY LEASED
TO THE UNITED STATES, TWO ONE-ACRE TRACTS OF LAND NOT UNDER LEASE ON
WHICH WERE LOCATED TWO HOUSES AND A BARN.  DURING JANUARY AND FEBRUARY,
1945, THESE BUILDINGS WERE DAMAGED BY SOLDIERS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
ON APRIL 30, 1946, THE BOSHAMERS AGREED TO SELL THE ENTIRE TRACT -
INCLUDING BOTH THE LEASED AND UNLEASED PORTIONS - TO RESPONDENTS SAMUEL
AND W.L.  SHANNON, AND IN THAT INSTRUMENT AGREED THAT "AFTER COMPLETION
OF THE SALE AND AFTER DELIVERY OF THE DEED, THE SELLERS HEREBY RELEASE
TO THE PURCHASERS ANY CLAIM, REPARATION, OR OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED THE PROPERTY
...  ."  (FN4) 

RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THE PRESENT ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS
ACT, 28 U.S.C.  (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1346(B).  (FN5)  IN THEIR COMPLAINT
RESPONDENTS ALLEGED THAT THE BOSHAMERS "HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SINCE THEY HAVE ASSIGNED THIS CAUSE OF
ACTION TO RESPONDENTS FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION AND SINCE THEY MUST
PROSECUTE THIS ACTION IN THEIR OWN NAMES THEY ARE EQUITABLY LIABLE TO
RESPONDENTS FOR THE AMOUNT OF ANY JUDGMENT THAT THEY MAY RECOVER
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA," AND FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE
BOSHAMERS HAD "REFUSED TO AID RESPONDENTS IN RECOVERING THE DAMAGES TO
WHICH RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED."  (FN6)  THE BOSHAMERS FILED AN ANSWER
STATING THAT THEY HAD MADE THE ASSIGNMENT BUT "ARE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OR
INFORMATION AS TO ANY DAMAGES DONE  ...  AND  ...  HAVE BEEN UNWILLING
TO INSTITUTE OR PROSECUTE A DAMAGE SUIT AGAINST THEIR GOVERNMENT FOR
SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF."  (FN7)  AT THE TRIAL RESPONDENTS
ADMITTED THAT ALL OF THE DAMAGE HAD OCCURRED BEFORE THE CLAIM HAD BEEN
ASSIGNED TO THEM, AND THAT THEY HAD KNOWN OF THE DAMAGE AT THE TIME OF
THE ASSIGNMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, HELD THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT
ACT INAPPLICABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE JOINDER OF THE ASSIGNORS
PREVENTED ANY POSSIBLE PREJUDICE TO THE GOVERNMENT, SINCE "THE RIGHTS
OF ALL OF THE POSSIBLE CLAIMANTS AND OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE
FINALLY ADJUDICATED ON THIS ONE SUIT."  (FN8) 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, BELIEVING THAT THE ASSIGNMENT HAD
RESULTED FROM A "MUTUAL MISTAKE AS TO THE LAW," AND HOLDING THAT: 

"RELIEF IS GRANTED, NOT MERELY BECAUSE RESPONDENTS ARE ASSIGNEES, NOR
EVEN BECAUSE THE VENDORS HAVE BEEN MADE PARTIES TO THE SUIT, BUT
BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE THAT LED TO THE MAKING OF THE ASSIGNMENT, WHICH
WAS A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY
RESPONDENTS FOR THE LAND CONVEYED TO THEM.  THE RELIEF IS GIVEN TO THE
ASSIGNEES, NOT AS A MATTER OF LAW, BUT AS A MATTER OF EQUITY BECAUSE OF
THE MISTAKE INVOLVED AND THE HARDSHIP WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE RESULT." 
186 F.2D 430, 434. 

WE CANNOT AGREE.  IN OUR VIEW THE JUDGMENT IS BASED ENTIRELY ON THE
ASSIGNMENT, WHICH FALLS CLEARLY WITHIN THE BAN OF THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT
ACT.  WE HAVE RECENTLY HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW THE ACT'S PURPOSES.  IN
UNITED STATES V. AETNA SURETY CO., 338 U.S. 366, 373 (1949), WE STATED
THAT "ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY TO PREVENT PERSONS OF
INFLUENCE FROM BUYING UP CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WHICH MIGHT
THEN BE IMPROPERLY URGED UPON OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT," AND THAT A
SECOND PURPOSE WAS "TO PREVENT POSSIBLE MULTIPLE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, TO
MAKE UNNECESSARY THE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED ASSIGNMENTS, AND TO
ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO DEAL ONLY WITH THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANT."  OTHER
COURTS HAVE FOUND YET ANOTHER PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE, NAMELY, TO SAVE
TO THE UNITED STATES "DEFENSES WHICH IT HAS TO CLAIMS BY AN ASSIGNOR BY
WAY OF SET-OFF, COUNTER CLAIM, ETC., WHICH MIGHT NOT BE APPLICABLE TO
AN ASSIGNEE."  (FN9) 

IN THE AETNA CASE, SUPRA, THIS COURT REAFFIRMED THE PRINCIPLE THAT
THE STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO ASSIGNMENTS BY OPERATION OF LAW, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENTS.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT
IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSIGNMENT WAS VOLUNTARY.  THE BOSHAMERS WERE
FREE TO SELL THEIR LAND AS WELL AS THEIR DAMAGE CLAIM TO WHOMEVER THEY
PLEASED, OR, HAD THEY CHOSEN, THEY COULD HAVE SOLD THE LAND AND THE
CLAIM SEPARATELY.  THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF THE ASSIGNMENT IS REFLECTED
IN THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS "BUYING A CLAIM AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT."  (FN10) 

THAT AN ASSIGNMENT IS VOLUNTARY IS NOT AN END TO THE MATTER, HOWEVER,
IN THE NINETY-NINE-YEAR HISTORY OF THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT ACT, THIS COURT
HAS RECOGNIZED AS EXCEPTIONS TO THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE STATUTE TWO
TYPES OF VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENTS (ASIDE FROM VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENTS MADE
AFTER A CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED):  TRANSFERS BY WILL, ERWIN V. UNITED
STATES, 97 U.S. 392, 397 (1878), AND GENERAL ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE
BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, GOODMAN V. NIBLACK, 102 U.S. 556, 560-561
(1881).  THE FIRST OF THESE EXCEPTIONS IS JUSTIFIED BY ANALOGY TO
TRANSFERS BY INTESTACY, WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM THE STATUTE AS BEING
TRANSFERS BY OPERATION OF LAW.  IT WOULD BE UNWISE TO MAKE A
DISTINCTION FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT BETWEEN TRANSFERS WHICH SERVE SO
MUCH THE SAME PURPOSES AS TRANSFERS BY WILL AND BY INTESTACY.  IN
SIMILAR FASHION, THE EXCEPTION FOR VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE
BENEFIT OF CREDITORS HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED BY ANALOGY TO ASSIGNMENTS IN
BANKRUPTCY.  SEE GOODMAN V. NIBLACK, SUPRA.  WE FIND NO SUCH COMPELLING
ANALOGIES IN THE CASE AT BAR.  ON THE CONTRARY, THIS CASE PRESENTS A
SITUATION PRODUCTIVE OF THE VERY EVILS WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO
PREVENT.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE ASSIGNORS KNEW OF NO DAMAGE AND REFUSED TO
BRING SUIT, YET BY THEIR ASSIGNMENT THE GOVERNMENT IS FORCED TO DEFEND
THIS SUIT THROUGH THE COURTS AND DEAL WITH PERSONS WHO WERE STRANGERS
TO THE DAMAGE AND ARE SEEKING TO ENFORCE A CLAIM WHICH THEIR ASSIGNORS
HAVE FORSWORN.  ONE OF CONGRESS' BASIC PURPOSES IN PASSING THE ACT WAS
"THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT NOT BE HARASSED BY MULTIPLYING THE NUMBER OF
PERSONS WITH WHOM IT HAD TO DEAL."  HOBBS V. MCLEAN, 117 U.S. 567, 576
(1886).  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. AETNA SURETY CO., SUPRA. 

NOR ARE WE PERSUADED BY THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH THE COURT OF
APPEALS THOUGHT WERE CONTROLLING HERE.  TO HOLD THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT ACT
INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE AN ASSIGNMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED UNDER A "MUTUAL
MISTAKE OF LAW" WOULD REQUIRE AN INQUIRY INTO THE STATE OF MIND OF ALL
PARTIES TO A CHALLENGED ASSIGNMENT, AND WOULD REWARD THOSE WHO ARE
IGNORANT OF A STATUTE WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR NEARLY A
CENTURY.  THE ALL-INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT PERMITS NO SUCH EASY
ESCAPE FROM ITS PROHIBITION.  IN LIKE MANNER, TO HOLD THE ACT
INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE ALL POSSIBLE CLAIMANTS ARE BEFORE THE COURT WOULD
BE TO DRAW A DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF A PURELY FORTUITOUS FACTOR -
WHETHER AN ASSIGNEE, IN HIS SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, CAN GET
PERSONAL SERVICE ON HIS ASSIGNOR.  EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THIS THEORY
THAT AN ASSIGNEE CAN AVOID THE ACT BY JOINING HIS ASSIGNOR AS A PARTY
DEFENDANT OR AN UNWILLING PARTY PLAINTIFF, WOULD NOT ONLY SUBVERT THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT BUT FLOOD THE COURTS WITH LITIGATION BY PERMITTING
THEM TO RECOGNIZE ASSIGNED CLAIMS WHICH THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO REJECT.  SINCE ONLY A COURT CAN GIVE
THE BINDING ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL PARTIES TO THE
TRANSACTION - UNITED STATES, ASSIGNOR, AND ASSIGNEE - WHICH IT IS
CLAIMED PREVENTS ANY POSSIBLE PREJUDICE TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE COURTS
WOULD BE APPLYING A LAXER RULE UNDER THE STATUTE THAN WOULD THE
ACCOUNTING OFFICERS.  SUCH WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. GILLIS, 95 U.S. 407 (1877).  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE ACT
CAN BE BY-PASSED BY THE USE OF ANY SUCH PROCEDURAL CONTRIVANCE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO FELT THAT RESPONDENTS' CLAIM SHOULD BE
UPHELD BECAUSE "HARDSHIP" WOULD OTHERWISE RESULT.  IF IT WERE NECESSARY
ONLY TO BALANCE EQUITIES IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT
ACT APPLIES - A VIEW WHICH THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES REPUDIATED -
RESPONDENTS WOULD HAVE LITTLE WEIGHT ON THEIR SIDE OF THE SCALES.  THEY
PAID THE BOSHAMERS $30 PER ACRE FOR THE LAND AND BUILDINGS PLUS THE
CLAIM; YET THEY ADMITTED AT THE TRIAL THAT LAND ADJOINING THE BOSHAMER
FARM WAS WORTH $100 AN ACRE OR MORE, AND THAT THE BOSHAMER FARM WAS ONE
OF THE BEST IN THE COUNTY.  FURTHERMORE, WE FIND HERE NO
"UNCONSCIONABLE" CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS.  THEY
HAD NO PART IN THE MAKING OF THE ASSIGNMENT UPON WHICH RESPONDENTS
RELY, AND IN FACT THE FIRST DEALING BETWEEN RESPONDENTS AND THE
GOVERNMENT AGENTS OCCURRED AT LEAST SIX WEEKS AFTER THAT ASSIGNMENT HAD
BEEN EXECUTED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  342 U.S. 808. 

FN2  10 STAT. 170, AS AMENDED, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 203: 

"ALL TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS MADE OF ANY CLAIM UPON THE UNITED
STATES, OR OF ANY PART OR SHARE THEREOF, OR INTEREST THEREIN, WHETHER
ABSOLUTE OR CONDITIONAL, AND WHATEVER MAY BE THE CONSIDERATION
THEREFOR, AND ALL POWERS OF ATTORNEY, ORDERS, OR OTHER AUTHORITIES FOR
RECEIVING PAYMENT OF ANY SUCH CLAIM, OR OF ANY PART OR SHARE THEREOF,
SHALL BE ABSOLUTELY NULL AND VOID, UNLESS THEY ARE FREELY MADE AND
EXECUTED IN THE PRESENCE OF AT LEAST TWO ATTESTING WITNESSES, AFTER THE
ALLOWANCE OF SUCH A CLAIM, THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE, AND THE
ISSUING OF A WARRANT FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF ...  ." 

FN3  HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE BOSHAMERS." 

FN4  R. 33. 

FN5  ORIGINALLY THERE WERE TWO CASES, ONE UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, 28
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1346(A)(2), FOR DAMAGES TO PROPERTY UNDER LEASE
TO THE UNITED STATES, AND THE SECOND UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT FOR
DAMAGES TO BUILDINGS ON PROPERTY NOT UNDER LEASE.  THE DISTRICT COURT
AWARDED RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT FOR $2,050 IN THE FIRST ACTION AND $975 IN
THE SECOND, AND BOTH JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
THE TORT CLAIMS ACTION ALONE IS INVOLVED HERE. 

FN6  R. 20. 

FN7  R. 23. 

FN8  R. 18. 

FN9  GRACE V. UNITED STATES, 76 F. SUPP. 174, 175 (1948). 

FN10  R. 13. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.* 

*THIS OPINION APPLIES ALSO TO NO. 46, UNITED STATES V. JORDAN, POST,
P. 911. 

I WOULD DISMISS THESE WRITS OF CERTIORARI. 

AFTER THE ARGUMENT OF THESE CASES IT BECAME MANIFEST THAT THEY WERE
LEGAL SPORTS.  EACH PRESENTS A UNIQUE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.  NEITHER IS
LIKELY TO RECUR; BOTH ARE INDIVIDUALIZED INSTANCES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
THOSE CONSIDERATIONS OF IMPORTANCE WHICH ALONE, AS A MATTER OF SOUND
JUDICIAL DISCRETION, JUSTIFY DISPOSITION OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON THE
MERITS. 

THE CONTROLLING PURPOSE OF THE RADICAL REFORMS INTRODUCED BY THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, REINFORCED BY AN EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S RULE
MAKING POWER IN REGARD TO THE RESIDUAL JURISDICTION ON APPEAL (SEE RULE
12 AND 275 U.S. 603-604, 43 HARV. L. REV. 33, 42 ET SEQ.), WAS TO PUT
THE RIGHT TO COME HERE, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IN THE COURT'S
JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE REASON FOR THIS IS TO ENABLE
THE COURT TO ADJUDICATE WISELY, AND THEREFORE AFTER ADEQUATE
DELIBERATION, THE CONTROVERSIES THAT MAKE THE COURT'S EXISTENCE
INDISPENSABLE UNDER OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

FROM TIME TO TIME SOME CASES WHICH OUGHT NEVER TO HAVE BEEN HERE IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE ARE BOUND TO REACH THE STAGE OF ARGUMENT, DESPITE
THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE WHEAT OF WORTHY PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI IS
SIFTED FROM THE VAST CHAFF OF CASES FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT HERE,
TOO OFTEN BECAUSE OF THE BLIND LITIGIOUSNESS OF PARTIES OR OF THE
IRRESPONSIBILITY AND EXCESSIVE ZEAL OF THEIR COUNSEL.  SINCE THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, SUCCESSIVE CHIEF JUSTICES HAVE REPEATEDLY
BROUGHT THIS ABUSE OF THE CERTIORARI PRIVILEGE TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
BAR, BUT THUS FAR WITHOUT AVAIL.  WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED THAT AT THE
LAST TERM THE COURT PASSED ON 987 SUCH PETITIONS, IT IS SURPRISING, NOT
THAT PETITIONS ARE GRANTED THAT ESCAPED APPROPRIATE WEEDING-OUT - AND,
PARENTHETICALLY, THAT A FEW ARE INAPPROPRIATELY DENIED - BUT THAT THE
PROCESS OF REJECTION WORKS AS WELL AS IT DOES.  (FN1)  AND OF COURSE
DISPOSITION OF THIS VOLUME OF PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI IS THE SMALLER
PART OF THE COURT'S WORK.  (FN2)    THE FACT THAT A CASE INAPPROPRIATE
FOR REVIEW ESCAPED DENIAL THROUGH A WEEDING-OUT PROCESS THAT IS BOUND
TO BE CIRCUMSCRIBED, IS NO REASON FOR COMPOUNDING THE OVERSIGHT BY
DISPOSING OF SUCH A CASE ON THE MERITS, AFTER ARGUMENT HAS MADE MORE
LUMINOUSLY CLEAR THAN DID THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE PAPERS
THAT THE LITIGATION OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO REST WHERE IT IS BY
DISMISSING THE WRIT.  THE REASON FOR THIS WAS SET FORTH ON BEHALF OF
THE COURT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT: 

"IF IT BE SUGGESTED THAT AS MUCH EFFORT AND TIME AS WE HAVE GIVEN TO
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ALLEGED CONFLICT WOULD HAVE ENABLED US TO
DISPOSE OF THE CASE BEFORE US ON THE MERITS, THE ANSWER IS THAT IT IS
VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE BE CONSISTENT IN NOT GRANTING THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI EXCEPT IN CASES INVOLVING PRINCIPLES THE SETTLEMENT OF WHICH
IS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THAT OF THE
PARTIES, AND IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A REAL AND EMBARRASSING CONFLICT
OF OPINION AND AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL.  THE
PRESENT CASE CERTAINLY COMES UNDER NEITHER HEAD."  LAYNE & BOWLER CORP.
V. WESTERN WELL WORKS, INC., 261 U.S. 387, 393. 

IN FAIRNESS TO THE EFFECTIVE ADJUDICATION OF THOSE CASES FOR WHICH
THE COURT SITS, THE COURT HAS AGAIN AND AGAIN ACTED ON THESE
CONSIDERATIONS AND DISMISSED THE WRIT AS "IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED" AFTER
THE PRELIMINARY AND NECESSARILY TENTATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE
PETITION.  (FN3)  THESE REASONS ARE ESPECIALLY COMPELLING WHEN THE
COURT'S MISTAKE IN ASSUMING THAT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE OF GENERAL LAW WAS
INVOLVED DOES NOT SURVIVE ARGUMENT AS TO CASES LIKE THE PRESENT, WHICH
WERE PART OF THE VAST SUMMER ACCUMULATION OF PETITIONS TO COME BEFORE
THE COURT AT THE OPENING OF THE TERM.  (FN4) 

FN1  COMPARE THE 154 PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI PRESENTED TO THE COURT
DURING THE OCTOBER TERM, 1915.  EVEN ONE-SIXTH OF OUR CURRENT VOLUME OF
PETITIONS IMPELLED THE COURT TO EMPHASIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE IMPORTANCE
OF FREEING THIS COURT FROM THE IMPOSITION OF IMPROPERLY GRANTED
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  FURNESS, WITHY & CO. V. YANG-TSZE INS.
ASSN., LTD., 242 U.S. 430, 434. 

FN2  IN ADDITION TO PASSING UPON THE 987 PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI,
THE COURT DURING THE LAST TERM CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF 77 CASES BY
THE "PER CURIAM DECISIONS," 121 "OTHER APPLICATIONS" ON THE
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET, AND 5 CASES ON THE ORIGINAL DOCKET, AND AFTER
ARGUMENT DECIDED WITH FULL OPINION 114 CASES.  JOURNAL SUP. COURT U.S.,
OCTOBER TERM, 1950, I. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. RIMER, 220 U.S. 547; FURNESS, WITHY & CO. V.
YANG-TSZE INS. ASSN., LTD., SUPRA; TYRRELL V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 243
U.S. 1; LAYNE & BOWLER CORP. V. WESTERN WELL WORKS, INC., SUPRA;
SOUTHERN POWER CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 263 U.S. 508;
KELLER V. ADAMS-COMPBELL CO., 264 U.S. 314; WISCONSIN ELEC.  CO. V.
DUMORE CO., 282 U.S. 813; SANCHEZ V. BORRAS, 283 U.S. 798; FRANKLIN
AMERICAN TRUST CO. V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 286 U.S. 533; MOOR V.
TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO., 297 U.S. 101; TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V.
NEILL, 302 U.S. 645; GOODMAN V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 578; GOINS V.
UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 622; MCCULLOUGH V. KAMMERER CORP., 323 U.S.
327; MCCARTHY V. BRUNER, 323 U.S. 673.  SEE ALSO WASHINGTON FIDELITY
NAT. INS. CO. V. BURTON, 287 U.S. 97, 100; WILKERSON V. MCCARTHY, 336
U.S. 53, 64. 

FN4  BOTH OF THE PETITIONS IN THESE CASES WERE FILED ON MAY 3, 1951,
AND GRANTED ON OCTOBER 8, 1951.  342 U.S. 808, 809.  AT THIS TERM'S
OPENING THE COURT PASSED ON 224 PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI ACCUMULATED
DURING THE SUMMER.  IN ADDITION, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS TERM 4 CASES
WERE DISMISSED ON MOTION, 6 OTHER CASES WERE DISPOSED OF BY "PER CURIAM
DECISIONS," AND 14 MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET "APPLICATIONS" WERE DISPOSED
OF. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

FIRST.  IF THE SHANNONS WERE THE ONLY PLAINTIFFS IN THE ACTION, I
ASSUME THAT THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT ACT, R.S. SEC. 3477, WOULD BAR A
RECOVERY.  BUT THE SHANNONS - THE ASSIGNEES - HAVE JOINED THE BOSHAMERS
- THE ASSIGNORS - AS DEFENDANTS.  HENCE ALL THE PARTIES WHO CAN
POSSIBLY BE AFFECTED BY THE ASSIGNMENT ARE BEFORE THE COURT.  CERTAINLY
THE BOSHAMERS COULD RECOVER FROM THE UNITED STATES AND, IF THE
ASSIGNMENT WERE TREATED AS VOID (AS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES), ANY
RECOVERY BY THE BOSHAMERS WOULD IN EQUITY BELONG TO THE SHANNONS.  SEE
MARTIN V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 588, 597.  IF THEY CAN RECOVER,
I SEE NO REASON, EXCEPT A NARROW CONCEPTUAL ONE, WHY IN THIS PROCEEDING
THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY CANNOT BE SETTLED.  THE JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY THE
BOSHAMERS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WOULD IN GOOD CONSCIENCE HAVE TO BE
HELD IN TRUST FOR THE SHANNONS. 

SECOND.  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE WRIT BE DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED RAISES A RECURRING PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
BUSINESS OF THE COURT.  A JUSTICE WHO HAS VOTED TO DENY THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI IS IN NO POSITION AFTER ARGUMENT TO VOTE TO DISMISS THE WRIT
AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE VOTED TO GRANT THE WRIT
HAVE THAT PRIVILEGE.  THE REASON STRIKES DEEP.   IF AFTER THE WRIT IS
GRANTED OR AFTER ARGUMENT, THOSE WHO VOTED TO DENY CERTIORARI VOTE TO
DISMISS THE WRIT AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED, THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
CERTIORARI JURISDICTION IS IMPAIRED.  BY LONG PRACTICE - ANNOUNCED TO
THE CONGRESS AND WELL-KNOWN TO THIS BAR - IT TAKES FOUR VOTES OUT OF A
COURT OF NINE TO GRANT A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  IF FOUR CAN GRANT
AND THE OPPOSING FIVE DISMISS, THEN THE FOUR CANNOT GET A DECISION OF
THE CASE ON THE MERITS.  THE INTEGRITY OF THE FOUR-VOTE RULE ON
CERTIORARI WOULD THEN BE IMPAIRED. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. HAYMAN 342 U.S. 205 


NO. 23.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1952 - 187 F.2D
456, JUDGMENT VACATED. 


UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2255, WHICH PROVIDES THAT A FEDERAL PRISONER MAY
MOVE THE SENTENCING COURT TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT ANY SENTENCE
SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK, RESPONDENT, CONFINED IN A FEDERAL
PENITENTIARY IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, FILED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT IN CALIFORNIA A MOTION TO VACATE HIS SENTENCE AND GRANT A NEW
TRIAL.  HE ALLEGED THAT AT HIS TRIAL HE DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE HIS
COUNSEL WAS ALSO COUNSEL FOR ANOTHER PERSON, WHO WAS THE PRINCIPAL
WITNESS AGAINST RESPONDENT AND WAS DEFENDANT IN A RELATED CASE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT, WITHOUT NOTICE TO RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT ORDERING THE
PRESENCE OF RESPONDENT, FOUND THAT THE COUNSEL'S DUAL REPRESENTATION
WAS WITH RESPONDENT'S KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT, AND DENIED RESPONDENT'S
MOTION.  HELD:  THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE FACTUAL
ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENT'S MOTION UNDER SEC. 2255 WITHOUT NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT HIS PRESENCE.  PP. 206-224. 

1.  A REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF SEC. 2255 SHOWS THAT IT WAS PASSED AT
THE INSTANCE OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE TO MEET PRACTICAL PROBLEMS THAT
HAD ARISEN IN ADMINISTERING THE HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  PP. 210-219. 

2.  SECTION 2255 WAS NOT INTENDED TO IMPINGE UPON PRISONERS' RIGHTS
OF COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON THEIR CONVICTIONS; ITS SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO
MINIMIZE THE DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN HABEAS CORPUS HEARINGS BY
AFFORDING THE SAME RIGHTS IN ANOTHER AND MORE CONVENIENT FORUM.  PP.
214-219. 

3.  IN MAKING FINDINGS ON CONTROVERTED ISSUES OF FACT RELATING TO
RESPONDENT'S OWN KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT NOTICE TO RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT HIS
BEING PRESENT, THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH
SEC. 2255.  PP. 219-223. 

(A)  THE CRUCIAL ISSUE OF FACT PRESENTED BY RESPONDENT'S MOTION UNDER
SEC. 2255 WAS WHETHER HIS COUNSEL REPRESENTED THE OTHER PERSON WITH
RESPONDENT'S KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT, AND RESPONDENT'S PRESENCE AT A
HEARING ON THIS ISSUE IS NECESSARY IF THE PROCEDURE UNDER SEC. 2255 IS
TO BE ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE IN THIS CASE.  PP. 219-220. 

(B)  ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO PRODUCE THE PRISONER IS AUXILIARY TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT OVER RESPONDENT GRANTED IN SEC. 2255
ITSELF AND INVOKED BY RESPONDENT'S FILING OF A MOTION UNDER THAT

(C)  WHERE, AS HERE, THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES OF FACT AS TO
EVENTS IN WHICH THE PRISONER PARTICIPATED, THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD
REQUIRE HIS PRODUCTION FOR A HEARING.  PP. 222-223. 

4.  THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 2255 WILL BE ADEQUATE AND
EFFECTIVE IF RESPONDENT IS PRESENT FOR A HEARING IN THE DISTRICT COURT
ON REMAND OF THIS CASE; AND, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS COURT DOES NOT
REACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  P. 223. 

5.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, BUT SHOULD HAVE REMANDED THE CASE FOR A HEARING UNDER SEC. 2255
INSTEAD OF ORDERING THAT RESPONDENT'S MOTION BE DISMISSED.  PP. 223
224. 

UNITED STATES V. HAYMAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2255, TO VACATE HIS SENTENCE
AND GRANT A NEW TRIAL, WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED AND ORDERED THE MOTION DISMISSED.  187 F.2D 456.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 930.  VACATED AND REMANDED, P.
224. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN ITS 1948 REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT
PRISONERS IN CUSTODY UNDER SENTENCE OF A FEDERAL COURT MAY MOVE THE
SENTENCING COURT TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT ANY SENTENCE SUBJECT
TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2255.  (FN1) 

RESPONDENT, CONFINED AT THE MCNEIL ISLAND PENITENTIARY IN THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, (FN2) INVOKED THIS NEW PROCEDURE BY FILING A
MOTION TO VACATE HIS SENTENCE AND GRANT A NEW TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.  THAT COURT HAD IMPOSED
A SENTENCE OF TWENTY YEARS' IMPRISONMENT IN 1947 FOR FORGING GOVERNMENT
CHECKS AND RELATED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW.  (FN3) 

IN HIS MOTION, RESPONDENT ALLEGED THAT HE DID NOT ENJOY THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED DEFENDANTS IN FEDERAL COURTS BY THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT.  SPECIFICALLY, HE ALLEGED THAT ONE JUANITA JACKSON, A
PRINCIPAL WITNESS AGAINST RESPONDENT AT HIS TRIAL AND A DEFENDANT IN A
RELATED CASE, WAS REPRESENTED BY THE SAME LAWYER AS RESPONDENT. 
RESPONDENT CLAIMS THAT HE WAS NOT TOLD OF THE DUAL REPRESENTATION AND
THAT HE HAD NO WAY OF DISCOVERING THE CONFLICT UNTIL AFTER THE TRIAL
WAS OVER.  IT APPEARED FROM COURT RECORDS THAT JUANITA JACKSON
TESTIFIED AGAINST RESPONDENT AFTER ENTERING A PLEA OF GUILTY BUT BEFORE
SENTENCE.  SINCE A CONFLICT IN THE INTERESTS OF HIS ATTORNEY MIGHT HAVE
PREJUDICED RESPONDENT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SENTENCING COURT
AND THE COURT BELOW, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, FOUND THAT THE ALLEGATIONS
OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION WARRANTED A HEARING.  RESPONDENT'S MOTION
REQUESTED THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE AT SUCH A
HEARING. 

FOR THREE DAYS, THE DISTRICT COURT RECEIVED TESTIMONY IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ISSUES OF FACT RAISED BY THE MOTION.  THIS PROCEEDING WAS
CONDUCTED WITHOUT NOTICE TO RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT ORDERING THE
PRESENCE OF RESPONDENT.  ON THE BASIS OF THIS EX PARTE INVESTIGATION,
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND AS A FACT THAT RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL HAD ALSO
REPRESENTED JUANITA JACKSON BUT THAT HE "DID SO ONLY WITH THE KNOWLEDGE
AND CONSENT, AND AT THE INSTANCE AND REQUEST OF RESPONDENT."  PURSUANT
TO THIS FINDING, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN ORDER DENYING
RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO VACATE HIS SENTENCE AND TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL. 

ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, (FN4) THE
MAJORITY, ACTING SUA SPONTE, RAISED QUESTIONS AS TO THE ADEQUACY AND
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 2255.  THE COURT ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE
PROVISION THAT AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS "SHALL NOT BE
ENTERTAINED" WHERE THE SENTENCING COURT HAS DENIED RELIEF "UNLESS IT
ALSO APPEARS THAT THE REMEDY BY MOTION IS INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTIVE TO
TEST THE LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION."  CONSIDERING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT WERE PROPER UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION 2255, THE
COURT BELOW HELD, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, THAT THE SECTION 2255 PROCEDURE
COULD NOT BE ADEQUATE OR EFFECTIVE IN THIS CASE AND, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE SECTION, IN PRECLUDING RESORT TO HABEAS CORPUS,
AMOUNTED TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL "SUSPENSION" OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AS TO RESPONDENT.  (FN5) 

ON REHEARING BELOW, AND AGAIN IN THIS COURT, THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED
THAT RESPONDENT'S MOTION RAISED FACTUAL ISSUES WHICH REQUIRED
RESPONDENT'S PRESENCE AT A HEARING.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER,
REFUSED EITHER TO AFFIRM THE DENIAL OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION OR TO ACCEPT
THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSION AND REMAND THE CASE FOR A HEARING WITH
RESPONDENT PRESENT.  INSTEAD, IT TREATED SECTION 2255 AS A NULLITY AND
ORDERED RESPONDENT'S MOTION DISMISSED SO THAT RESPONDENT MIGHT PROCEED
BY HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT OF HIS CONFINEMENT.  187 F.2D 456. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE, 341 U.S. 930 (1951), TO REVIEW
THE DECISION THAT SECTION 2255 MUST BE CONSIDERED A NULLITY, A HOLDING
THAT STANDS IN CONFLICT WITH CASES DECIDED IN OTHER CIRCUITS.  (FN6)
WE DO NOT RECONSIDER THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF BOTH COURTS BELOW THAT
RESPONDENT'S MOTION STATES GROUNDS TO SUPPORT A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON
HIS SENTENCE AND RAISES SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES OF FACT CALLING FOR AN
INQUIRY INTO THEIR VERITY. 

FIRST.  THE NEED FOR SECTION 2255 IS BEST REVEALED BY A REVIEW OF THE
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS THAT HAD ARISEN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS' HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION. 

POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, "THE MOST CELEBRATED WRIT
IN THE ENGLISH LAW," (FN7) WAS GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 73, 81-82.  SINCE CONGRESS HAD NOT
DEFINED THE TERM "HABEAS CORPUS," RESORT TO THE COMMON LAW WAS
NECESSARY.  (FN8)  ALTHOUGH THE OBJECTIVE OF THE GREAT WRIT LONG HAS
BEEN THE LIBERATION OF THOSE UNLAWFULLY IMPRISONED, AT COMMON LAW A
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION RENDERED BY A COURT OF GENERAL CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION WAS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT CONFINEMENT WAS LEGAL.  SUCH A
JUDGMENT PREVENTED ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT WITHOUT MORE.  (FN9) 

IN 1867, CONGRESS CHANGED THE COMMON-LAW RULE BY EXTENDING THE WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS TO "ALL CASES WHERE ANY PERSON MAY BE RESTRAINED OF
HIS OR HER LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, OR OF ANY TREATY
OR LAW OF THE UNITED STATES," AND PROVIDING FOR INQUIRY INTO THE FACTS
OF DETENTION.  14 STAT. 385.  IN COMMENTING ON THE 1867 ACT THIS COURT
HAS SAID: 

"THE EFFECT IS TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BARE LEGAL REVIEW THAT SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN THE LIMIT OF JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMON-LAW
PRACTICE, AND UNDER THE ACT OF 31 CAR.  II, C. 2, A MORE SEARCHING
INVESTIGATION, IN WHICH THE APPLICANT IS PUT UPON HIS OATH TO SET FORTH
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER RESPECTING THE CAUSES OF HIS DETENTION, AND THE
COURT, UPON DETERMINING THE ACTUAL FACTS, IS TO 'DISPOSE OF THE PARTY
AS LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRE.' 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"  ...  A PRISONER IN CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF A
...  COURT OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION MAY HAVE A JUDICIAL INQUIRY IN A
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES INTO THE VERY TRUTH AND SUBSTANCE OF THE
CAUSES OF HIS DETENTION, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BECOME NECESSARY TO LOOK
BEHIND AND BEYOND THE RECORD OF HIS CONVICTION TO A SUFFICIENT EXTENT
TO TEST THE JURISDICTION OF THE ...  COURT TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT
AGAINST HIM  ...  ."  (FN10) 

UNDER THE 1867 ACT, (FN11) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS HAVE
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PRISONER HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF
LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH THE PROCEEDINGS
RESULTING IN INCARCERATION MAY BE UNASSAILABLE ON THE FACE OF THE
RECORD.  UNDER THAT ACT, A VARIETY OF ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN HELD TO
PERMIT CHALLENGE OF CONVICTIONS ON FACTS DEHORS THE RECORD.  (FN12) 

ONE AFTERMATH OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW HAS BEEN A GREAT
INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS FILED IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS BY STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS.  THE ANNUAL VOLUME OF
APPLICATIONS HAD NEARLY TRIPLED IN THE YEARS PRECEDING ENACTMENT OF
VOLUME OF APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS THAT ARE REPETITIOUS (FN14)
AND PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS, SERIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS DEVELOPED IN
THE CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS WHICH APPEAR MERITORIOUS ON THEIR
FACE.  OFTEN, SUCH APPLICATIONS ARE FOUND TO BE WHOLLY LACKING IN MERIT
WHEN COMPARED WITH THE RECORDS OF THE SENTENCING COURT.  BUT, SINCE A
HABEAS CORPUS ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT OF CONFINEMENT,
(FN15) THOSE RECORDS ARE NOT READILY AVAILABLE TO THE HABEAS CORPUS
COURT. 

WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275 (1941), ILLUSTRATES A FURTHER
PRACTICAL PROBLEM PRESENTED WHEN AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
ALLEGES A MERITORIOUS CLAIM NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE RECORDS OF THE
TRIAL COURT.  IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WALKER ALLEGED
THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED COUNSEL AND COERCED INTO PLEADING GUILTY BY THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, HIS ASSISTANT AND A DEPUTY MARSHAL IN THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA REFUSED TO GRANT THE WRIT AFTER RECEIVING EX
PARTE AFFIDAVITS FROM THE FEDERAL OFFICERS DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS. 
THIS COURT REVERSED, FINDING THAT WALKER'S APPLICATION RAISED MATERIAL
ISSUES OF FACT AND HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MUST DETERMINE SUCH
ISSUES BY THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE, NOT BY EX PARTE AFFIDAVITS.  (FN16)
GRANTING THE NEED FOR SUCH A HEARING TO RESOLVE THE FACTUAL ISSUES, THE
REQUIRED HEARING HAD TO BE HELD IN THE HABEAS CORPUS COURT IN
CALIFORNIA ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL OFFICERS INVOLVED WERE STATIONED IN
TEXAS AND THE FACTS OCCURRED IN TEXAS.  (FN17) 

THESE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN GREATLY AGGRAVATED BY THE FACT
THAT THE FEW DISTRICT COURTS IN WHOSE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION MAJOR
FEDERAL PENAL INSTITUTIONS ARE LOCATED WERE REQUIRED TO HANDLE AN
INORDINATE NUMBER OF HABEAS CORPUS ACTIONS FAR FROM THE SCENE OF THE
FACTS, THE HOMES OF THE WITNESSES AND THE RECORDS OF THE SENTENCING
COURT SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE FORTUITOUS CONCENTRATION OF FEDERAL
PRISONERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT.  (FN18) 

SECOND.  THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, (FN19)
ADDRESSING ITSELF TO THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE INCREASED HABEAS CORPUS
BUSINESS IN 1942, CREATED A COMMITTEE OF FEDERAL JUDGES "TO STUDY THE
ENTIRE SUBJECT OF PROCEDURE ON APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS."  (FN20)  AT THE NEXT SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE, THE
COMMITTEE ON HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURE SUBMITTED ITS REPORT.  AFTER
EXTENSIVE CONSIDERATION, THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE RECOMMENDED ADOPTION
OF TWO PROPOSED BILLS, A "PROCEDURAL BILL" CONTAINING PROVISIONS
DESIGNED TO PREVENT ABUSE OF THE HABEAS CORPUS WRIT AND A
"JURISDICTIONAL BILL," SECTION 2 OF WHICH ESTABLISHED A PROCEDURE
WHEREBY A FEDERAL PRISONER MIGHT COLLATERALLY ATTACK HIS CONVICTION IN
THE SENTENCING COURT.  (FN21)  THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE REPEATEDLY
REAFFIRMED ITS APPROVAL OF THIS FORERUNNER OF SECTION 2255.  (FN22) 

IN 1944, THE TWO BILLS APPROVED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE WERE
SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS ON BEHALF OF THE CONFERENCE.  IN THE LETTER
OF TRANSMITTAL AND ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM, SECTION 2 OF THE
"JURISDICTIONAL BILL" WAS DESCRIBED AS REQUIRING PRISONERS CONVICTED IN
FEDERAL COURTS TO APPLY BY MOTION IN THE SENTENCING COURT "INSTEAD OF
MAKING APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY ARE
CONFINED."  (FN23)  AT THE REQUEST OF THE CHAIRMEN OF THE HOUSE AND
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES, A "STATEMENT" DESCRIBING THE NECESSITY AND
PURPOSES OF THE BILLS WAS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS ON BEHALF OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURE.  IN THIS
STATEMENT, CONGRESS WAS FURNISHED STATISTICS SHOWING IN DETAIL THE
INCREASED VOLUME OF APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  (FN24)  THE
STATEMENT, STRESSING THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN HEARINGS
HELD IN THE DISTRICT OF CONFINEMENT RATHER THAN THE DISTRICT OF
SENTENCE, DESCRIBED SECTION 2 OF THE "JURISDICTIONAL BILL" AS FOLLOWS: 

"THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO FEDERAL SENTENCES.  IT CREATES A
STATUTORY REMEDY CONSISTING OF A MOTION BEFORE THE COURT WHERE THE
MOVANT HAS BEEN CONVICTED.  THE REMEDY IS IN THE NATURE OF, BUT MUCH
BROADER THAN, CORAM NOBIS.  THE MOTION REMEDY BROADLY COVERS ALL
SITUATIONS WHERE THE SENTENCE IS 'OPEN TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.'  AS A
REMEDY, IT IS INTENDED TO BE AS BROAD AS HABEAS CORPUS."  (FN25) 

WHILE THE BILLS PROPOSED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE WERE PENDING, THE
COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE LAWS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAD
DRAFTED A BILL REVISING THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL CODE.  PORTIONS OF THIS
BILL DEALING WITH HABEAS CORPUS WERE DRAFTED TO CONFORM WITH THE BILLS
APPROVED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, (FN26) INCLUDING SECTION 2255,
MODELED AFTER SECTION 2 OF THE "JURISDICTIONAL BILL" APPROVED BY THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE.  ACCORDING TO THE REVISER'S NOTE ON SECTION 2255: 

"THIS SECTION RESTATES, CLARIFIES AND SIMPLIFIES THE PROCEDURE IN THE
NATURE OF THE ANCIENT WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS.  IT PROVIDES AN
EXPEDITIOUS REMEDY FOR CORRECTING ERRONEOUS SENTENCES WITHOUT RESORT TO
HABEAS CORPUS.  IT HAS THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES.  ITS PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS ARE INCORPORATED IN H.R. 4233,
SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS (THE SO-CALLED JURISDICTIONAL BILL)."  (FN27) 

AFTER THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAD PASSED THE BILL REVISING THE
JUDICIAL CODE, THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE RECONSIDERED THE TWO BILLS
DRAFTED BY ITS COMMITTEE ON HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURE.  THE CONFERENCE
NOTED THE IMPORTANCE OF SECURING LEGISLATION ALONG THE LINES OF ITS
PROPOSALS, APPROVED THE HABEAS CORPUS CHAPTER OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
REVISION BILL WITH TWO AMENDMENTS NOT AFFECTING SECTION 2255 AND
DIRECTED THAT CONGRESS BE INFORMED OF THE INTEREST OF THE CONFERENCE IN
THE ENACTMENT OF THE HABEAS CORPUS PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED JUDICIAL
CODE.  (FN28)    THIS REVIEW OF THE HISTORY OF SECTION 2255 SHOWS THAT
IT WAS PASSED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE TO MEET
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES THAT HAD ARISEN IN ADMINISTERING THE HABEAS
CORPUS JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  NOWHERE IN THE HISTORY OF
OF COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON THEIR CONVICTIONS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE SOLE
PURPOSE WAS TO MINIMIZE THE DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN HABEAS CORPUS
HEARINGS BY AFFORDING THE SAME RIGHTS IN ANOTHER AND MORE CONVENIENT
FORUM.  (FN29) 

THIRD.  THE CRUCIAL ISSUE OF FACT PRESENTED BY RESPONDENT'S MOTION
UNDER SECTION 2255 WAS WHETHER HIS ATTORNEY APPEARED AS COUNSEL FOR
JUANITA JACKSON "WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT" OF RESPONDENT.   THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOUND, AND THE GOVERNMENT NOW AGREES, THAT
RESPONDENT'S PRESENCE AT A HEARING ON THIS ISSUE IS REQUIRED IF THE
IN HOLDING THAT SECTION 2255 SHOULD BE TREATED AS A NULLITY IN THIS
CASE, THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT THE SECTION CONTEMPLATED AND PERMITTED
THE EX PARTE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT RESPONDENT'S PRESENCE. 

WE DO NOT FIND IN SECTION 2255 THE DISTURBING INADEQUACIES FOUND BY
THE COURT BELOW.  THE ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENT'S MOTION WERE NOT
DETERMINED BY THE "FILES AND RECORDS" IN THE TRIAL COURT.  IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, SECTION 2255 REQUIRES THAT THE TRIAL COURT ACT ON THE
MOTION AS FOLLOWS:  "  ...  CAUSE NOTICE THEREOF TO BE SERVED UPON THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, GRANT A PROMPT HEARING THEREON, DETERMINE THE
ISSUES AND MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITH RESPECT
THERETO."  IN REQUIRING A "HEARING," THE SECTION "HAS OBVIOUS REFERENCE
TO THE TRADITION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS."  (FN30)  RESPONDENT, DENIED
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, "HAS LOST SOMETHING INDISPENSABLE, HOWEVER
CONVINCING THE EX PARTE SHOWING."  (FN31)  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT DID NOT PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 2255 WHEN IT
MADE FINDINGS ON CONTROVERTED ISSUES OF FACT RELATING TO RESPONDENT'S
OWN KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT NOTICE TO RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT HIS BEING
PRESENT. 

THE COURT BELOW ALSO HELD THAT THE SENTENCING COURT COULD NOT HOLD
THE REQUIRED HEARING BECAUSE IT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ORDER THE PRESENCE
OF A PRISONER CONFINED IN ANOTHER DISTRICT.  THIS WANT OF POWER WAS
THOUGHT TO FOLLOW FROM OUR DECISION IN AHRENS V. CLARK, 335 U.S. 188
(1948), WHERE WE HELD THAT THE PHRASE "WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS" IN THE HABEAS CORPUS STATUTE (FN32) REQUIRED THE
PRESENCE OF THE PRISONER WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AS A PREREQUISITE TO HIS FILING AN APPLICATION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS.  THIS IS NOT A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING.  THE SENTENCING
COURT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WOULD NOT BE ISSUING AN
ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO SECURE RESPONDENT'S PRESENCE FROM
ANOTHER DISTRICT.  ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO PRODUCE THE PRISONER IS
AUXILIARY TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT OVER RESPONDENT
GRANTED IN SECTION 2255 ITSELF AND INVOKED BY RESPONDENT'S FILING OF A
MOTION UNDER THAT SECTION. 

THE VERY PURPOSE OF SECTION 2255 IS TO HOLD ANY REQUIRED HEARING IN
THE SENTENCING COURT BECAUSE OF THE INCONVENIENCE OF TRANSPORTING COURT
OFFICIALS AND OTHER NECESSARY WITNESSES TO THE DISTRICT OF
CONFINEMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT IMPOTENT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS
PURPOSE, AT LEAST SO LONG AS IT MAY INVOKE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF
FEDERAL COURTS TO ISSUE "ALL WRITS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN AID OF
THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND
PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  (FN33)  AN ORDER TO SECURE RESPONDENT'S PRESENCE
IN THE SENTENCING COURT TO TESTIFY OR OTHERWISE PROSECUTE HIS MOTION IS
"NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE" (FN34) TO THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION
UNDER SECTION 2255 AND FINDS AMPLE PRECEDENT IN THE COMMON LAW.  (FN35)
THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF SECTION 2255 THAT A "COURT MAY ENTERTAIN AND
DETERMINE SUCH MOTION WITHOUT REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF THE PRISONER
AT THE HEARING" NEGATIVES ANY PURPOSE TO LEAVE THE SENTENCING COURT
POWERLESS TO REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF THE PRISONER IN AN APPROPRIATE
CASE.  (FN36)  OTHER FEDERAL COURTS CONDUCTING SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS
HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED DIFFICULTIES IN SECURING THE PRESENCE OF PRISONERS
CONFINED OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT.  (FN37) 

THE EXISTENCE OF POWER TO PRODUCE THE PRISONER DOES NOT, OF COURSE,
MEAN THAT HE SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY PRODUCED IN EVERY SECTION 2255
PROCEEDING.  THIS IS IN ACCORD WITH PROCEDURE IN HABEAS CORPUS
ACTIONS.  (FN38)  UNLIKE THE CRIMINAL TRIAL WHERE THE GUILT OF THE
DEFENDANT IS IN ISSUE AND HIS PRESENCE IS REQUIRED BY THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT, A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 2255 IS AN INDEPENDENT AND
COLLATERAL INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF THE CONVICTION.  WHETHER THE
PRISONER SHOULD BE PRODUCED DEPENDS UPON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE
PARTICULAR CASE.  WHERE, AS HERE, THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES OF FACT
AS TO EVENTS IN WHICH THE PRISONER PARTICIPATED, THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD
REQUIRE HIS PRODUCTION FOR A HEARING.  (FN39) 

FOURTH.  NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WARRANT OUR HOLDING AT THIS STAGE
OF THE PROCEEDING THAT THE SECTION 2255 PROCEDURE WILL BE "INADEQUATE
OR INEFFECTIVE" IF RESPONDENT IS PRESENT FOR A HEARING IN THE DISTRICT
COURT ON REMAND OF THIS CASE.  IN A CASE WHERE THE SECTION 2255
PROCEDURE IS SHOWN TO BE "INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTIVE," THE SECTION
PROVIDES THAT THE HABEAS CORPUS REMEDY SHALL REMAIN OPEN TO AFFORD THE
NECESSARY HEARING.  (FN40)  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT REACH
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  THIS COURT WILL NOT PASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHERE THE QUESTION IS PROPERLY
PRESENTED UNLESS SUCH ADJUDICATION IS UNAVOIDABLE, (FN41) MUCH LESS
ANTICIPATE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  (FN42) 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE FACTUAL
ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENT'S MOTION UNDER SECTION 2255 WITHOUT NOTICE
TO RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT HIS PRESENCE.  WE HOLD THAT THE REQUIRED
HEARING CAN BE AFFORDED RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED IN
DISTRICT COURT BUT SHOULD HAVE REMANDED THE CASE FOR A HEARING UNDER
DISMISSED.  ACCORDINGLY, WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  VACATED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  "A PRISONER IN CUSTODY UNDER SENTENCE OF A COURT ESTABLISHED BY
ACT OF CONGRESS CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO BE RELEASED UPON THE GROUND THAT
THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE
SUCH SENTENCE, OR THAT THE SENTENCE WAS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM
AUTHORIZED BY LAW, OR IS OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK, MAY
MOVE THE COURT WHICH IMPOSED THE SENTENCE TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR
CORRECT THE SENTENCE. 

"A MOTION FOR SUCH RELIEF MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME. 

"UNLESS THE MOTION AND THE FILES AND RECORDS OF THE CASE CONCLUSIVELY
SHOW THAT THE PRISONER IS ENTITLED TO NO RELIEF, THE COURT SHALL CAUSE
NOTICE THEREOF TO BE SERVED UPON THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, GRANT A
PROMPT HEARING THEREON, DETERMINE THE ISSUES AND MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITH RESPECT THERETO.  IF THE COURT FINDS THAT
THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION, OR THAT THE SENTENCE
IMPOSED WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW OR OTHERWISE OPEN TO COLLATERAL
ATTACK, OR THAT THERE HAS BEEN SUCH A DENIAL OR INFRINGEMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PRISONER AS TO RENDER THE JUDGMENT
VULNERABLE TO COLLATERAL ATTACK, THE COURT SHALL VACATE AND SET THE
JUDGMENT ASIDE AND SHALL DISCHARGE THE PRISONER OR RESENTENCE HIM OR
GRANT A NEW TRIAL OR CORRECT THE SENTENCE AS MAY APPEAR APPROPRIATE. 

"A COURT MAY ENTERTAIN AND DETERMINE SUCH MOTION WITHOUT REQUIRING
THE PRODUCTION OF THE PRISONER AT THE HEARING. 

"THE SENTENCING COURT SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ENTERTAIN A SECOND OR
SUCCESSIVE MOTION FOR SIMILAR RELIEF ON BEHALF OF THE SAME PRISONER. 

"AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE ORDER
ENTERED ON THE MOTION AS FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

"AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF A PRISONER
WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR RELIEF BY MOTION PURSUANT TO THIS
FAILED TO APPLY FOR RELIEF, BY MOTION, TO THE COURT WHICH SENTENCED
HIM, OR THAT SUCH COURT HAS DENIED HIM RELIEF, UNLESS IT ALSO APPEARS
THAT THE REMEDY BY MOTION IS INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTIVE TO TEST THE
LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION." 

FN2  RESPONDENT IS NOW CONFINED AT ALCATRAZ IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA. 

FN3  THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.  163 F.2D 1018 (1947). 

FN4  THE APPEAL WAS TIMELY.  APPEALS FROM ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS
UNDER SECTION 2255 ARE GOVERNED BY THE CIVIL RULES APPLICABLE TO
APPEALS FROM FINAL JUDGMENTS IN HABEAS CORPUS ACTIONS.  SEE MERCADO V.
UNITED STATES, 183 F.2D 486 (C.A. 1ST CIR. 1950). 

FN5  "THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE
SUSPENDED, UNLESS WHEN IN CASES OF REBELLION OR INVASION THE PUBLIC
SAFETY MAY REQUIRE IT."  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 2. 

FN6  MARTIN V. HIATT, 174 F.2D 350 (C.A. 5TH CIR. 1949), AND BARRETT
V. HUNTER, 180 F.2D 510 (C.A. 10TH CIR. 1950), HAVE HELD EXPRESSLY THAT
BASIS OF SECTION 2255 IN THE FOLLOWING CASES IN OTHER CIRCUITS WITHOUT
ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE SECTION WAS INVALID:  SMITH V. REID, 89 U.S.
APP. D.C. - , 191 F.2D 491 (C.A.D.C. CIR. 1951); MEYERS V. WELCH, 179
F.2D 707 (C.A. 4TH CIR. 1950); WEBER V. STEELE, 185 F.2D 799 (C.A. 8TH
CIR. 1950).  AND IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, OTHER CIRCUITS REMANDED
190 F.2D 445 (C.A.2D CIR. 1951); HOWARD V. UNITED STATES, 186 F.2D 778
(C.A. 6TH CIR. 1951); UNITED STATES V. VON WILLER, 181 F.2D 774 (C.A.
7TH CIR. 1950). 

FN7  3 BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES 129.  THE ANCIENT ORIGINS OF HABEAS
CORPUS ARE TRACED IN 9 HOLDSWORTH, HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW (1926), 108
125; JENKS, THE STORY OF HABEAS CORPUS, 18 L.Q. REV. 64 (1902);
LONGSDORF, HABEAS CORPUS:  A PROTEAN WRIT AND REMEDY, 8 F.R.D. 179
(1948). 

FN8  EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 4 CRANCH 75, 93-94 (1807). 

FN9  EX PARTE WATKINS, 3 PET. 193 (1830). 

FN10  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 466 (1938)(FEDERAL PRISONER);
FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 330-331 (1915)(STATE PRISONER). 

FN11  NOW INCORPORATED IN 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2241 ET SEQ. 

FN12  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86 (1923)(MOB DOMINATION OF TRIAL);
MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103 (1935)(KNOWING USE OF PREJURED
TESTIMONY BY PROSECUTION); JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458 (1938)(NO
INTELLIGENT WAIVER OF COUNSEL IN FEDERAL COURT); WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316
U.S. 101 (1942)(COERCED PLEA OF GUILTY); UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN
V. ADAMS, 320 U.S. 220 (1943)(NO INTELLIGENT WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL IN
FEDERAL COURT); HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42 (1945)(DENIAL OF RIGHT TO
CONSULT WITH COUNSEL). 

FN13  DURING 1936 AND 1937, AN ANNUAL AVERAGE OF 310 APPLICATIONS FOR
HABEAS CORPUS WERE FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS AND AN ANNUAL AVERAGE
OF 22 PRISONERS WERE RELEASED.  BY 1943, 1944 AND 1945, HOWEVER, THE
ANNUAL AVERAGE OF FILINGS REACHED 845, ALTHOUGH AN AVERAGE OF ONLY 26
PRISONERS WERE RELEASED PER YEAR.  FIGURES FROM TABLES SUBMITTED TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES.  SEE PP. 215
216, INFRA. 

THESE FIGURES DO NOT INCLUDE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA WHERE A SIMILAR INCREASE IN THE VOLUME OF APPLICATIONS FOR
HABEAS CORPUS HAD BEEN REPORTED.  SEE DORSEY V. GILL, 80 U.S. APP. D.C.
9, 14, 148 F.2D 857, 862 (C.A.D.C. CIR. 1945). 

FN14  IN SEVERAL DISTRICTS, UP TO 40% OF ALL APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS
CORPUS FILED DURING THE YEARS 1943, 1944 AND 1945 WERE SO-CALLED
REPEATER PETITIONS.  SPECK, STATISTICS ON FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS, 10
OHIO ST. L.J. 337, 352 (1949).  SEE ALSO PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334 U.S.
266 (1948); DORSEY V. GILL, NOTE 13, SUPRA; GOODMAN, USE AND ABUSE OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, 7 F.R.D. 313 (1947). 

FN15  AHRENS V. CLARK, 335 U.S. 188 (1948). 

FN16  NOR CAN THE FACTUAL ISSUES BE HEARD BEFORE A COMMISSIONER. 
HOLIDAY V. JOHNSTON, 313 U.S. 342 (1941). 

FN17  IT WAS TO MEET THIS PROBLEM THAT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROPOSED THAT A MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT MIGHT BE MADE AT ANY TIME AFTER JUDGMENT.  REPORT
OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (1944) RULE 35.  THIS PROPOSAL WAS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE RULES AS FINALLY PROMULGATED.  SEE DESSION, THE NEW
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:  II, 56 YALE L.J. 197, 233
(1947). 

FN18  OF ALL HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY FEDERAL PRISONERS,
63% WERE FILED IN BUT FIVE OF THE EIGHTY-FOUR DISTRICT COURTS.  AND,
ALTHOUGH HABEAS CORPUS TRIALS AVERAGE ONLY 3% OF ALL TRIALS IN ALL
DISTRICTS, THE PROPORTION OF HABEAS CORPUS TRIALS IN THOSE FIVE
DISTRICTS HAS RUN FROM 20% TO AS HIGH AS 65% OF ALL TRIALS CONDUCTED IN
THE DISTRICT. 

THE BASIC DATA, COMPILED BY SPECK, NOTE 14, SUPRA, COVERS THE SIX
YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ENACTMENT OF SECTION 2255 IN 1948.  AGAIN,
THE FIGURES DO NOT INCLUDE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THE FIVE DISTRICTS ARE:  NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (ALCATRAZ);
NORTHERN GEORGIA (ATLANTA); KANSAS (LEAVENWORTH); WESTERN WASHINGTON
(MCNEIL IS.); AND WESTERN MISSOURI (SPRINGFIELD MEDICAL CENTER). 
FN19  THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, ESTABLISHED BY
CONGRESS IN 1922, 42 STAT. 838, IS A CONFERENCE OF THE CHIEF JUDGES OF
THE JUDICIAL CIRCUITS AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT
IS THE FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE TO MAKE A COMPREHENSIVE
SURVEY OF THE CONDITION OF BUSINESS IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  ITS PROCEEDINGS, TOGETHER WITH ITS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
LEGISLATION, ARE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS.  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC.
331. 

FN20  REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE (1942) 18.    FN21  REPORT OF
THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE (1943) 22-24. 

FN22  REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE (1944) 22; ID. (1945) 18. 

FN23  LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL, DATED MARCH 2, 1944.  THE COMPLETE
DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 2 OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BILL IN THE MEMORANDUM
IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION TWO OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BILL REFERS TO PRISONERS WHO HAVE
BEEN CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL COURT, AND REQUIRES THEM, INSTEAD OF MAKING
APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY ARE
CONFINED, TO APPLY BY MOTION TO THE TRIAL COURT TO VACATE OR SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT.  THAT COURT IS THEN REQUIRED TO GRANT A PROMPT HEARING
AND RENDER ITS DECISION ON THE MOTION, FROM WHICH AN APPEAL LIES TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IF IT APPEARS THAT IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE FOR
THE PRISONER TO HAVE HIS MOTION DETERMINED IN THE TRIAL COURT BECAUSE
OF HIS INABILITY TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING, 'OR FOR OTHER REASONS,'
THEN HE HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COURT IN THE DISTRICT
WHERE HE IS CONFINED.  SUCH AN INSTANCE MIGHT OCCUR WHERE A DANGEROUS
PRISONER, WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,
WAS CONFINED IN ALCATRAZ PENITENTIARY.  THE BILL EXPRESSLY PROVIDES
THAT NO CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL ENTERTAIN
AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT IN BEHALF OF ANY PRISONER UNLESS IT APPEARS
THAT HIS RIGHT TO DISCHARGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY MOTION MADE IN THE
TRIAL COURT." 

AS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS, SECTION 2 OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BILL
PROVIDED: 

"NO CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL ENTERTAIN AN
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF ANY PRISONER WHO IS
AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR RELIEF BY MOTION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS SECTION, UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN OR WILL NOT BE
PRACTICABLE TO DETERMINE HIS RIGHTS TO DISCHARGE FROM CUSTODY ON SUCH A
MOTION BECAUSE OF HIS INABILITY TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING ON SUCH A
MOTION, OR FOR OTHER REASONS.  WHERE THE PRISONER HAS SOUGHT RELIEF ON
SUCH A MOTION, IF THE CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE CONCLUDES THAT IT HAS
NOT BEEN PRACTICABLE TO DETERMINE THE PRISONER'S RIGHTS ON SUCH MOTION,
THE FINDINGS, ORDER, OR JUDGMENT ON THE MOTION SHALL NOT BE ASSERTED AS
A DEFENSE TO THE PRISONER'S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF ON HABEAS CORPUS." 

H.R. 4232 AND S. 1452, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (PROCEDURAL BILL); H.R.
4233 AND S. 1451, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (JURISDICTIONAL BILL) WERE
INTRODUCED IN 1945, BUT NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY CONGRESS. 

H.R. 6723, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., INTRODUCED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE
JURISDICTIONAL BILL, WOULD HAVE PLACED A TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH MOTION
TO VACATE SENTENCES COULD BE FILED BY FEDERAL PRISONERS.  THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL WAS CONSIDERED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, AND ORDERED
CIRCULATED AMONG THE FEDERAL JUDGES.  REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
(1946) 21.  NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY CONGRESS ON THIS SUBSTITUTE BILL. 

FN24  THIS STATISTICAL DATA IS SUMMARIZED IN NOTE 13, SUPRA. 

FN25  THE STATEMENT, PREPARED BY CIRCUIT JUDGE STONE AND APPROVED BY
CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DESCRIBED THE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"MOST HABEAS CORPUS CASES RAISE FACT ISSUES INVOLVING THE TRIAL
OCCURRENCES OR THE ALLEGED ACTIONS OF JUDGES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS,
MARSHALS OR OTHER COURT OFFICIALS.  OBVIOUSLY, IT INVOLVES INTERRUPTION
OF JUDICIAL DUTIES IF THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, THE
COURT CLERK OR THE MARSHAL (ONE OR ALL OF THEM) ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND
THE HABEAS CORPUS HEARING AS WITNESSES.  SUCH ATTENDANCE IS SOMETIMES
NECESSARY TO REFUTE PARTICULAR TESTIMONY WHICH THE PRISONER MAY GIVE
AND, OBVIOUSLY, SUCH ATTENDANCE IS THE SAFEST COURSE.  THIS IS SO
BECAUSE EXPERIENCE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT OFTEN PETITIONER WILL TESTIFY
TO ANYTHING HE MAY THINK USEFUL, HOWEVER FALSE; AND, WITHOUT THE
WITNESSES PRESENT TO REFUTE SUCH, HE IS ENCOURAGED TO DO SO AND MAY
MAKE OUT A CASE FOR DISCHARGE FROM MERITED PUNISHMENT.  SOME
REALIZATION OF THE POSSIBLE EXTENT OF THIS BURDEN ON COURT OFFICIALS
MAY BE GAINED FROM THE BARE STATEMENT THAT, WHILE CONVICTIONS OCCUR IN
ALL OF THE DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, FEDERAL PRISONERS ARE
CONFINED IN A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PENAL INSTITUTIONS; AND HABEAS
CORPUS MUST NOW BE BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE PETITIONER IS
CONFINED.  EVEN IF THE TESTIMONY OF THESE OFFICIALS IS TAKEN BY
DEPOSITION, THE INTERFERENCE AND INTERRUPTION IS MERELY LESSENED IN
DEGREE AND THE ABOVE DANGER IS RISKED. 

"THE MAIN DISADVANTAGES OF THE MOTION REMEDY ARE AS FOLLOWS:  THE
RISK DURING OR THE EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTING THE PRISONER TO THE DISTRICT
WHERE HE WAS CONVICTED; AND THE INCENTIVE TO FILE BASELESS MOTIONS IN
ORDER TO HAVE A 'JOY RIDE' AWAY FROM THE PRISON AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. 

"BALANCING THESE, AS WELL AS LESS IMPORTANT, CONSIDERATIONS, THE
CONFERENCE IS OF OPINION THAT THE ADVANTAGES OUTWEIGH AND THAT THE
MOTION REMEDY IS PREFERABLE.  AS TO THE RISK (ESCAPE OR DELIVERY) WHILE
TRANSPORTING THE PRISONER TO THE DISTRICT OF CONVICTION, THE DIFFERENCE
IS ONLY ONE OF DEGREE - OF DISTANCE AND, THEREFORE, OF OPPORTUNITY.  AS
TO THE EXPENSE, IT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT IT WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE
FOR THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES TO GO FROM THE DISTRICT WHERE SENTENCE WAS
IMPOSED AND RETURN THAN FOR THE PRISONER TO BE BROUGHT TO SUCH DISTRICT
AND RETURNED.  AS TO THE INCENTIVE TO FILE PETITIONS, THE DIFFERENCE IS
BETWEEN A LONGER AND A SHORTER TRIP TO THE COURT.  IT IS THOUGHT THAT
THE PROVISION IN SECTION 2 PROVIDING FOR HABEAS CORPUS (IN THE DISTRICT
OF CONFINEMENT) WHERE IT IS NOT 'PRACTICABLE TO DETERMINE HIS RIGHTS
...  ON SUCH A MOTION' WILL FURNISH A SUFFICIENT DISCRETION IN THE
JUDGE OR COURT BEFORE WHOM HABEAS CORPUS IS FILED TO EVALUATE AND
DEFEAT THE ABOVE 'DISADVANTAGES' TO A LARGE DEGREE."  P. 8. 

FN26  H.R. REP. NO. 2646, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1946) 7. 

FN27  H.R. REP. NO. 2646, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1946) A172; H.R. REP.
NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1947) A180. 

FN28  REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE (1947) 17-18.  SEE S. REP.
NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1948) 8-10. 

FN29  PARKER, LIMITING THE ABUSE OF HABEAS CORPUS, 8 F.R.D. 171, 175
(1948).  JUDGE PARKER SERVED AS CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE ON HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURE. 

FN30  SEE MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 480 (1936). 

FN31  SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 116 (1934). 

FN32  28 U.S.C. SEC. 452 (NOW 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2241). 

FN33  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1651(A). 

FN34  SEE ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 272
273 (1942). 

FN35  IN DETERMINING WHAT AUXILIARY WRITS ARE "AGREEABLE TO THE
USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW," WE LOOK FIRST TO THE COMMON LAW.  SEE
PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334 U.S. 266, 281 (1948).  IN ADDITION TO "THE GREAT
AND EFFICACIOUS WRIT," HABEAS CORPUS AND SUBJICIENDUM, OTHER VARIETIES
OF THE WRIT WERE KNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW.  BLACKSTONE DESCRIBED THE
WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS "AD PROSEQUENDUM, TESTIFICANDUM, DELIBERANDUM,
ETC.; WHICH ISSUE WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO REMOVE A PRISONER, IN ORDER
TO PROSECUTE OR BEAR TESTIMONY IN ANY COURT, OR TO BE TRIED IN THE
PROPER JURISDICTION WHEREIN THE FACT WAS COMMITTED."  3 BLACKSTONE'S
COMMENTARIES 129-130.  SEE EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 4 CRANCH 75, 97-98
(1807). 

FN36  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE COMMON LAW WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS IN THE REVISER'S NOTE ON SECTION 2255 SHOWS AN INTENTION TO
ADOPT AN EX PARTE INVESTIGATION IN LIEU OF A HEARING IN THE USUAL
SENSE.  CONGRESS DID NOT ADOPT THE CORAM NOBIS PROCEDURE AS IT EXISTED
AT COMMON LAW, THE REVISER'S NOTE MERELY STATING THAT THE SECTION 2255
MOTION WAS "IN THE NATURE OF" THE CORAM NOBIS WRIT IN THE SENSE THAT A
BROUGHT IN THE COURT THAT ENTERED JUDGMENT.  NOTE 27, SUPRA.  FURTHER,
IT BY NO MEANS FOLLOWS THAT AN ISSUE OF FACT COULD BE DETERMINED IN A
CORAM NOBIS PROCEEDING WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE PRISONER, THE NEW
YORK COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY HOLDING THAT HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED
UNDER THE COMMON LAW.  PEOPLE V. RICHETTI, 302 N.Y. 290, 297-298, 97
N.E.2D 908, 911-912 (1951). 

FN37  AMONG THE REPORTED CASES ARE:  UNITED STATES V. PARKER, 91 F.
SUPP. 996 (M.D.N.C.  1950), AFF'D, 184 F.2D 488 (C.A. 4TH CIR. 1950);
JONES V. UNITED STATES, 179 F.2D 303 (C.A. 4TH CIR. 1950); STURGEON V.
UNITED STATES, 187 F.2D 9 (C.A. 5TH CIR. 1951); FOSTER V. UNITED
STATES, 184 F.2D 571 (C.A. 5TH CIR. 1950); WOOLARD V. UNITED STATES, 83
F. SUPP. 521 (N.D. ALA. 1949), AFF'D, 178 F.2D 84 (C.A. 5TH CIR. 1949);
UNITED STATES V. JONES, 177 F.2D 476 (C.A. 7TH CIR. 1949); CHERRIE V.
UNITED STATES, 179 F.2D 94 (C.A. 10TH CIR. 1949)(REV'D FOR HEARING), 90
F. SUPP. 261 (D. WYO. 1950), AFF'D, 184 F.2D 384 (C.A. 10TH CIR. 1950);
HURST V. UNITED STATES, 180 F.2D 835 (C.A. 10TH CIR. 1950); MOSS V.
UNITED STATES, 177 F.2D 438 (C.A. 10TH CIR. 1949); DOLL V. UNITED
STATES, 175 F.2D 884 (C.A. 10TH CIR. 1949); PAYNE V. UNITED STATES, 85
F. SUPP. 4040 (M.D. PA. 1949); UNITED STATES V. BOWEN, 94 F. SUPP. 1006
(N.D. GA. 1951); UNITED STATES V. KRATZ, 97 F. SUPP. 999 (D. NEBR. 
1951). 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS ORDERED IN A SECTION
2255 PROCEEDING THAT A "HEARING" BE HELD IN OPEN COURT WITH THE
PRISONER PRESENT AND FREE TO TESTIFY.  UNITED STATES V. PAGLIA, 190
F.2D 445, 448 (1951). 

FN38  WALKER V. JOHNSTON, SUPRA, AT 284.  ACCORDING TO THE REVISER'S
NOTE, 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2243, GOVERNING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
PRESENCE OF A PRISONER IN HABEAS CORPUS ACTIONS, WAS DRAFTED TO CONFORM
WITH THE PRACTICE DESCRIBED IN THE WALKER CASE. 

FN39  SEE BARRETT V. HUNTER, 180 F.2D 510, 514 (C.A. 10TH CIR.
1950). 

FN40  IF SECTION 2255 HAD NOT EXPRESSLY REQUIRED THAT THE
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS BE WITHHELD PENDING RESORT TO
ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES PROVIDING THE SAME RELIEF, THE SAME RESULT WOULD
HAVE FOLLOWED UNDER OUR DECISIONS.  STACK V. BOYLE, 342 U.S. 1, 6-7
(1951); JOHNSON V. HOY, 227 U.S. 245 (1913); EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S.
241 (1886). 

FN41  ALMA MOTOR CO. V. TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO., 329 U.S. 129 (1946);
ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 347
(1936)(BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING). 

FN42  RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, 568-569 (1947);
ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, NOTE 41, SUPRA, AT 346-347,
AND CASES CITED THEREIN. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. SMITH 342 U.S. 225 


NO. 20.  ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1952 - AFFIRMED. 


THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, WHICH
PROVIDED THAT THE "RUNNING" OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON FRAUDS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES "SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THREE YEARS AFTER
THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES," IS INAPPLICABLE TO CRIMES COMMITTED
AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1946, WHEN HOSTILITIES WERE DECLARED TERMINATED BY
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION.  PP. 225-230. 

UNITED STATES V. SMITH. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 162, UNITED STATES V. DAILEY, ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES, AN INDICTMENT OF THE APPELLEE WAS DISMISSED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS.  ON DIRECT APPEALS BY
THE UNITED STATES TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 230. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLEE SMITH (NO. 20) WAS INDICTED OCTOBER 2, 1950, FOR HAVING ON
OR ABOUT JULY 1, 1947, FORGED THE NAME OF THE PAYEE ON A CHECK DRAWN ON
THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES. 

APPELLEE DAILEY (NO. 162) WAS INDICTED SEPTEMBER 29, 1950, FOR HAVING
ON OR ABOUT MARCH 14, 1947, KNOWINGLY MADE A FALSE STATEMENT IN
CONNECTION WITH HIS APPLICATION FOR FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES. 

IN EACH CASE THE CRIME CHARGED WAS COMMITTED MORE THAN THREE YEARS
BEFORE THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED AND THEREFORE WOULD BE BARRED BY THE
THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (18 U.S.C. SEC. 3282), UNLESS THAT
STATUTE HAS BEEN TOLLED.  THE PROSECUTION ARGUED THAT IT WAS TOLLED BY
THE WARTIME SUSPENSION OF LIMITATIONS ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, 18
U.S.C.  (1946 ED.)  SEC.  590A.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN EACH CASE
DISAGREED WITH THE PROSECUTION AND DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT.  THE CASES
ARE HERE ON APPEAL.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731. 

THE ACT DERIVES FROM THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1942, WHICH SUSPENDED THE
RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES INVOLVING
FRAUDS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNTIL JUNE 30, 1945, OR UNTIL SUCH
EARLIER TIME AS THE CONGRESS BY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, OR THE
PRESIDENT, MAY DESIGNATE.  56 STAT. 747.  THAT ACT WAS AMENDED BY THE
CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 649, 667, TO PROVIDE AMONG
OTHER THINGS THAT THE TERM OF SUSPENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
WAS "UNTIL THREE YEARS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES IN THE
PRESENT WAR AS PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT OR BY A CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION OF THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS."  OFFENSES IN CONNECTION WITH
THE NEGOTIATION, AWARD, TERMINATION, OR SETTLEMENT OF CONTRACTS WERE
INCLUDED BY THAT ACT.  AND OFFENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CARE,
HANDLING, AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY WERE ADDED BY THE SURPLUS PROPERTY
ACT OF 1944.  58 STAT. 765, 781.  AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSES
THE ACT READ IN RELEVANT PART:  (FN1) 

"THE RUNNING OF ANY EXISTING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ANY
OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES (1) INVOLVING DEFRAUDING
OR ATTEMPTS TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF WHETHER
BY CONSPIRACY OR NOT, AND IN ANY MANNER,  ...  SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL
THREE YEARS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES IN THE PRESENT WAR AS
PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT OR BY A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE TWO
HOUSES OF CONGRESS." 

THE HOSTILITIES OF WORLD WAR II WERE DECLARED TERMINATED DECEMBER 31,
1946, BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. 2714, 61 STAT. (PT. 2) 1048
1049; 12 FED. REG. 1.  IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT IF THE DESIGNATED
OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE
OF THE ACT OR BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE ACT AND DECEMBER 31, 1946, THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WOULD BE SUSPENDED.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
ACT IS LIKEWISE APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES COMMITTED AFTER DECEMBER 31,
1946, THE DATE OF THE PROCLAMATION OF TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES. 

THE ARGUMENT OF THE PROSECUTION IS THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT MAKES
NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN OFFENSES COMMITTED BEFORE AND OFFENSES COMMITTED
AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES, THE EMPHASIS OF THE ACT BEING ON
THE SUSPENSION OF THE "RUNNING" OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS.  IT IS
CONTENDED THAT THE EXTENSION OF THE ACT TO OFFENSES PRESCRIBED BY THE
CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT AND THE SURPLUS PROPERTY ACT - OFFENSES OF THE
TYPE LIKELY TO BE COMMITTED DURING THE POST-HOSTILITIES PERIOD - IS
PERSUASIVE INDICATION THAT CONGRESS MADE THE ACT OPERATIVE AFTER, AS
WELL AS BEFORE, THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES. 

WE TAKE THE CONTRARY VIEW.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE SUSPENSION ACT IS
INAPPLICABLE TO CRIMES COMMITTED AFTER THE DATE OF TERMINATION OF
HOSTILITIES.  THE WORDS OF THE ACT ARE THAT THE "RUNNING" OF THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS "SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THREE YEARS AFTER THE
TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES."  THE CONNOTATION IS THAT OFFENSES OCCURING
PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED LEGALLY TO
BE FORGOTTEN IN THE RUSH OF WAR ACTIVITIES.  THAT IS THE GIST OF THE
REPORTS.  (FN2)  THE FEAR WAS THAT THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WOULD
BE SO PREOCCUPIED WITH PROSECUTION OF THE WAR EFFORT THAT THE CRIMES OF
FRAUD PERPETRATED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE FORGOTTEN UNTIL IT
WAS TOO LATE.  THE IMPLICIT PREMISE OF THE LEGISLATION IS THAT THE
FRENZIED ACTIVITIES, EXISTING AT THE TIME THE ACT BECAME LAW, WOULD
CONTINUE UNTIL HOSTILITIES TERMINATED AND THAT UNTIL THEN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST SHOULD NOT BE DISADVANTAGED.  THE PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE US
CHANGE THE FUNCTION OF THE DATE OF TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES.  IT
WOULD BE USED TO PROVIDE VARIOUS PERIODS OF SUSPENSION FOR CRIMES
COMMITTED WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING WITH THE TERMINATION
OF HOSTILITIES.  THAT SEEMS TO US TO BE AN ALTERATION IN THE STATUTORY
SCHEME, ONE THAT DESTROYS ITS SYMMETRY.  SINCE UNDER OUR CONSTRUCTION
THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE SUSPENSION ACT STARTS TO RUN AT
THE DATE OF TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES, ALL CRIMES TO WHICH THE ACT IS
APPLICABLE ARE TREATED UNIFORMLY.  THE TIME WHEN LAW-ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS WERE BUSY WITH WAR ACTIVITIES IS NOT COUNTED; WHEN THE
PRESSURE WAS OFF, THE TIME BEGAN TO RUN AGAIN.  NO REASONS OF POLICY
ARE SUGGESTED FOR STRAINING THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT TO SUSPEND THE
RUNNING OF THE STATUTE BEYOND THE EMERGENCY WHICH MADE THE SUSPENSION
SEEM ADVISABLE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 683, WHICH REVISED THE
CRIMINAL CODE, REPEALED THE SUSPENSION ACT (ID., 862, 868) AND, WITH A
FEW CHANGES IN WORDING, REENACTED IT.  ID., 828, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3287. 
THE REPEALED SECTIONS.  WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THIS
RESERVATION HAS NO EFFECT ON THE RUNNING OF A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. OBERMEIER, 186 F.2D 243, 251.  THE REVISER ADDED
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SECTION A NEW CLAUSE READING "WHEN THE UNITED
STATES IS AT WAR" TO MAKE THE SECTION "PERMANENT INSTEAD OF TEMPORARY
LEGISLATION, AND TO OBVIATE THE NECESSITY OF REENACTING SUCH
LEGISLATION IN THE FUTURE."  SEE REVISER'S NOTE FOLLOWING 18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. II) SEC. 3287. 

FN2  S. REP. NO. 1544, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1-2: 

"THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS TO SUSPEND ANY EXISTING
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES INVOLVING THE DEFRAUDING
OR ATTEMPTS TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, FOR THE
PERIOD OF THE PRESENT WAR.  CONTRACTING FOR THE UNITED STATES IS DONE
THROUGH ITS VARIOUS AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENTS AND INDEPENDENT
ESTABLISHMENTS AND GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS, AND FRAUDS AGAINST ALL OF THESE AGENCIES ARE INTENDED TO
BE EMBRACED BY THE BILL. 

     *         *         *         *       * 

"DURING NORMAL TIMES THE PRESENT 3-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MAY
AFFORD THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUFFICIENT TIME TO INVESTIGATE,
DISCOVER, AND GATHER EVIDENCE TO PROSECUTE FRAUDS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, IS ENGAGED IN A GIGANTIC WAR
PROGRAM.  HUGE SUMS OF MONEY ARE BEING EXPENDED FOR MATERIALS AND
EQUIPMENT IN ORDER TO CARRY ON THE WAR SUCCESSFULLY.  ALTHOUGH STEPS
HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO PREVENT AND TO PROSECUTE FRAUDS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT IN THE VARIED DEALINGS OPPORTUNITIES
WILL NO DOUBT BE PRESENTED FOR UNSCRUPULOUS PERSONS TO DEFRAUD THE
GOVERNMENT OR SOME AGENCY.  THESE FRAUDS MAY BE DIFFICULT TO DISCOVER
AS IS OFTEN TRUE OF THIS TYPE OF OFFENSE AND MANY OF THEM MAY NOT COME
TO LIGHT FOR SOME TIME TO COME.  THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT IS ALSO BUSILY ENGAGED IN ITS MANY DUTIES, INCLUDING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ESPIONAGE, SABOTAGE, AND OTHER LAWS. 

"YOUR COMMITTEE IS OF THE OPINION THAT ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN AT THIS
TIME TO EXTEND THE LIMITATIONS STATUTE SO THAT FRAUDS MAY BE DISCOVERED
AND PUNISHED EVEN AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE PRESENT CONFLICT, AND TO
INSURE THAT THE LIMITATIONS STATUTE WILL NOT OPERATE, UNDER STRESS OF
THE PRESENT-DAY EVENTS, FOR THE PROTECTION OF THOSE WHO WOULD DEFRAUD
OR ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES." 

THE HISTORY OF THE 1944 AMENDMENT SUPPORTS THE SAME VIEW.  S. REP.
NO. 1057, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 14, STATES: 

"AS WAS PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1944, THE STATUE
OF LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS ACT WAS
SUSPENDED UNTIL 3 YEARS AFTER TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES IN THE PRESENT
WAR.  THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN NECESSITATED BY THE MAGNITUDE OF THE
OPERATIONS INVOLVED UNDER THIS ACT, AND THE INTENSIVE PREOCCUPATION OF
BOTH PARTICIPANTS AND WITNESSES WITH THE WAR EFFORT.  IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE BULK OF THE OFFENSES COGNIZABLE UNDER THIS STATUTE WILL NOT BE
APPREHENDED OR INVESTIGATED UNTIL THE END OF THE WAR AND WILL THEN
REQUIRE CONSIDERABLE TIME BEFORE THEY ADVANCE TO THE STAGE OF
LITIGATION." 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.  SOON AFTER THE
BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR II, CONGRESS REALIZED THAT IT WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CURRENTLY TO INVESTIGATE AND
PROSECUTE THE LARGE NUMBER OF OFFENSES ARISING OUT OF THE WAR EFFORT. 
THEREFORE CONGRESS SUSPENDED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
AS TO FRAUDS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, FIRST UNTIL JUNE 30, 1945, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY UNTIL THREE YEARS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES. 
IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE THE DEPARTMENT MORE TIME TO
APPREHEND, INVESTIGATE, AND PROSECUTE OFFENSES OCCURRING "UNDER THE
STRESS OF PRESENT-DAY EVENTS" OF THE WAR "EVEN AFTER THE TERMINATION OF
THE PRESENT CONFLICT."  H.R. REP. NO. 2051, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2; S.
REP. NO. 1544, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2; SEE UNITED STATES V. GOTTFRIED,
165 F.2D 360 (1948).  V-E DAY WAS MAY 8, 1945, AND V-J DAY WAS
SEPTEMBER 2, 1945.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER V-J DAY ALL WAR PROCUREMENT
STOPPED, CONTRACTS WERE CANCELED, AND RENEGOTIATION WAS SPEEDED UP.
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT PROCLAIM THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES UNTIL
DECEMBER 31, 1946, SIXTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE FIGHTING CEASED.  DURING
THIS PERIOD, THE PRESSING PROBLEMS OF DEMOBILIZATION AND RECONVERSION -
PROBLEMS LIKELY TO CAUSE THE CONTINUED PERPETRATION OF FRAUDS ON THE
GOVERNMENT - WERE FOR THE MOST PART BROUGHT TO AN END. 

THE PRESENT CASES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR OR THE RECONVERSION
THEREAFTER, SMITH BEING CHARGED WITH FORGERY OF A GOVERNMENT CHECK FOR
$90 DATED JUNE 30, 1947, AND DAILEY BEING INDICTED FOR HAVING MADE A
FALSE STATEMENT ON MARCH 14, 1947, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AS
TO VALUE OF HIS FARM, COWS, POULTRY, ETC., IN CONNECTION WITH AN
APPLICATION FOR THE SERVICES OF THE FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION.  BOTH
OF THE OFFENSES OCCURRED LONG AFTER THE FIGHTING WAR WAS OVER AND AFTER
"THE INTENSIVE PREOCCUPATION OF BOTH PARTICIPANTS AND WITNESSES WITH
THE WAR EFFORT"* HAD CEASED, IF EVER THOSE PERSONS WERE SO EMPLOYED. 

*S. REP. NO. 1057, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 14. 

THESE CASES CLEARLY ILLUSTRATE THAT THE SUSPENSION STATUTE WAS NOT
INTENDED TO AND SHOULD NOT EMBRACE OFFENSES COMMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO
DECEMBER 31, 1946.  IT APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENSES COMMITTED BETWEEN
AUGUST 25, 1939, AND DECEMBER 31, 1946.  FOR THOSE OFFENSES WHICH
OCCURRED BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE 1942 ACT AND THE CESSATION OF
HOSTILITIES, CONGRESS' INTENTION WAS TO GIVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SIX YEARS FROM THE LATTER DATE TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE.  FOR THOSE
OFFENSES WHICH OCCURRED BEFORE THE DATE OF THE 1942 ACT, CONGRESS'
INTENTION WAS TO GIVE THE DEPARTMENT THREE YEARS AFTER THE CESSATION OF
HOSTILITIES PLUS WHATEVER PORTION OF THE REGULAR THREE-YEAR
LIMITATIONS' PERIOD HAD NOT YET RUN WHEN THE 1942 ACT WAS PASSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

AS I READ THE STATUTE, CONGRESS INTENDED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
TO BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THREE YEARS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES,
WHICH WOULD BE DECEMBER 31, 1949.  UNTIL THAT TIME, THERE WAS TO BE NO
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  ON THAT DATE THE SUSPENSION WAS LIFTED, AND
THE STATUTE BEGAN TO RUN AGAIN.  THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION THAT THE
SUSPENSION WAS LIFTED AT THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES GIVES NO EFFECT
TO THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD.  I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS IN THESE
CASES. 
..END :














CARSON V. ROANE-ANDERSON COMPANY 342 U.S. 232 


NO. 186.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1952 - 192 TENN.
150, 239 S.W.2D 27, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TENNESSEE RETAILERS' SALES TAX ACT IMPOSES A SALES TAX ON THE
SALE OF GOODS WITHIN THE STATE AND A USE TAX ON THE USE WITHIN THE
STATE OF GOODS PURCHASED ELSEWHERE.  RESPONDENTS ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES
WHO ARE CONTRACTORS FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND VENDORS OF
THOSE CONTRACTORS WHO PAID UNDER PROTEST SALES TAXES AND USE TAXES
IMPOSED UNDER THE ACT ON ARTICLES USED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS
WITH THE COMMISSION.  HELD:  THE CHALLENGED TAXES ARE PROHIBITED BY
SEC. 9(B) OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1946.  PP. 233-236. 

2.  THE CONTRACTS WHICH THE RESPONDENTS HAVE WITH THE UNITED STATES,
AND THE PERFORMANCE THEREUNDER, ARE COMMISSION "ACTIVITIES" WHICH SEC.
9(B) EXEMPTS FROM STATE TAXATION.  PP. 234-236. 

CARSON, COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE & TAXATION, V. ROANE-ANDERSON COMPANY ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 187, CARSON, COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE & TAXATION,
V. CARBIDE & CARBON CHEMICALS CORP. ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SAME COURT. 

IN SUITS BROUGHT BY RESPONDENTS TO RECOVER AMOUNTS PAID AS STATE
SALES AND USE TAXES AND TO ENJOIN FUTURE COLLECTIONS, THE STATE SUPREME
COURT HELD THAT THE CHALLENGED TAXES WERE PROHIBITED BY SEC. 9(B) OF
THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1946.  192 TENN. 150, 239 S.W.2D 27.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 847.  AFFIRMED, P. 236. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RETAILERS' SALES TAX ACT OF TENNESSEE, TENN. ACTS 1947, C. 3,
IMPOSES A SALES TAX ON THE SALE OF GOODS IN TENNESSEE AND A USE TAX ON
THE USE WITHIN THE STATE OF GOODS PURCHASED ELSEWHERE.  TENNESSEE
COLLECTED THESE TAXES FROM RESPONDENTS WHO PAID THEM UNDER PROTEST AND
THEN BROUGHT THESE SUITS TO RECOVER THEM AND TO ENJOIN FUTURE
COLLECTIONS.  TWO OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES WHO ARE
CONTRACTORS FOR THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AND WHO PAID USE TAXES;
TWO ARE MERCHANTS WHO PAID SALES TAXES ON SALES TO THOSE CONTRACTORS
AND WHO PASSED THE TAXES ON TO THEM.  THE USE TAXES AND THE SALES TAXES
WERE ON ARTICLES USED BY THE CONTRACTORS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR
CONTRACTS WITH THE COMMISSION. 

THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT HELD BY A DIVIDED VOTE (192 TENN. 150,
239 S.W.2D 27) THAT THE CHALLENGED TAXES, THOUGH NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE
CONSTITUTION, WERE PROHIBITED BY SEC. 9(B) OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF
1946, 60 STAT. 765, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1809(B).  THE CASES ARE HERE ON
CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 847. 

SEC. 9(B) PROVIDES IN PART THAT "THE COMMISSION, AND THE PROPERTY,
ACTIVITES, AND INCOME OF THE COMMISSION, ARE HEREBY EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED
FROM TAXATION IN ANY MANNER OR FORM BY ANY STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY,
OR ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF."  THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO
PROTECT ANY OF ITS AGENCIES FROM STATE TAXATION (PITTMAN V. HOME
OWNERS' CORPORATION, 308 U.S. 21; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK CO.,
314 U.S. 95) HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS APPLYING TO THOSE WITH WHOM IT
HAS MADE AUTHORIZED CONTRACTS.  SEE THOMSON V. PACIFIC R. CO., 9 WALL. 
579, 588-589; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 160-161. 
CERTAINLY THE POLICY BEHIND THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CREATE TAX
IMMUNITIES DOES NOT TURN ON THE NATURE OF THE AGENCY DOING THE WORK OF
THE GOVERNMENT.  THE POWER STEMS FROM THE POWER TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT
FUNCTIONS VALIDLY AUTHORIZED (PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' CORP., SUPRA, P.
33) - THE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO
EXECUTION THE POWERS VESTED IN THE CONGRESS.  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC.
8, CL. 18.  HENCE IF THE PRESENT CONTRACTS WHICH THE RESPONDENT
CONTRACTORS HAVE WITH THE UNITED STATES, AND THE PERFORMANCE
THEREUNDER, ARE "ACTIVITIES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 9(B) OF THE
ACT, THE IMMUNITY IS CLEAR.  OUR VIEW IS THAT THEY ARE AND THAT THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

RESPONDENT ROANE-ANDERSON MANAGES THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED TOWN OF OAK
RIDGE, TENNESSEE; CARBIDE AND CARBON CHEMICALS OPERATES THE OAK RIDGE
PLANTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF FISSIONABLE MATERIALS.  THEIR CONTRACTS
ANTEDATE THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1946, HAVING BEEN ORIGINALLY ENTERED
INTO WITH THE MANHATTAN DISTRICT OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.  PURSUANT
TO SEC. 9(A) OF THE ACT THESE CONTRACTS WERE TRANSFERRED BY EXECUTIVE
ORDER (FN1) TO THE COMMISSION.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSION
SHOULD BE EMPOWERED TO EMPLOY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS IN PERFORMANCE OF ITS
FUNCTIONS OR WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD ITSELF BE THE ENTREPRENEUR
WAS AN ISSUE OF NATIONAL POLICY MUCH DISCUSSED AND DEBATED AT THE TIME
THE LEGISLATION WAS BEFORE THE CONGRESS.  ONE MEASURE, WHICH HAD THE
BACKING OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT, WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO
LEAN HEAVILY ON PRIVATE ENTERPRISE FOR PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS. 
(FN2)  ANOTHER MEASURE, ORIGINATING IN THE SENATE AND AFTER EXTENSIVE
REVISIONS BECOMING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1946, CONTAINED NO
PROVISION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CONTRACTORS TO THE EXTENT HERE
INVOLVED, REQUIRED THE COMMISSION TO PRODUCE ITS OWN FISSIONABLE
MATERIALS IN ITS OWN PLANTS BY ITS OWN EMPLOYEES, AND DIRECTED THE
COMMISSION TO TERMINATE CONTRACTS PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
FISSIONABLE MATERIALS.  (FN3)  BUT THAT BILL WAS MATERIALLY ALTERED SO
AS TO ADOPT AS THE NATIONAL POLICY THE USE OF "MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS FOR
THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED PLANTS SO AS TO GAIN THE FULL
ADVANTAGE OF THE SKILL AND EXPERIENCE OF AMERICAN INDUSTRY."  (FN4)
ACCORDINGLY SEC. 4(C)(2) OF THE ACT AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION "TO MAKE,
OR TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT, CONTRACTS WITH PERSONS OBLIGATING THEM TO
PRODUCE FISSIONABLE MATERIAL IN FACILITIES OWNED BY THE COMMISSION." 
AND SEC. 9(A) AUTHORIZES THE TRANSFER TO THE COMMISSION OF ALL
CONTRACTS CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION OF FISSIONABLE MATERIAL.  THE USE
OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS IS THEREFORE ONE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THE
COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO MANAGE ITS AFFAIRS.  ITS ACTIVITIES MAY, IN
OTHER WORDS, BE PERFORMED BY IT DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE AGENCIES OF
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. 

CONGRESS USES THE WORD "ACTIVITIES" IN VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ACT,
AND SEEMS EACH TIME TO GIVE IT A BROAD SWEEP.  THE CONGRESSIONAL OR
JOINT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER SEC. 15 IS DIRECTED TO STUDY "THE
ACTIVITIES" OF THE COMMISSION.  THE REPORTS WHICH THE COMMISSION IS
DIRECTED TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SEC. 17 CONCERN ITS
"ACTIVITIES."  SECTION 9(B) AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO MAKE PAYMENTS
TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN LIEU OF PROPERTY TAXES IN THOSE AREAS
"IN WHICH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMISSION ARE CARRIED ON AND IN WHICH
THE COMMISSION HAS ACQUIRED PROPERTY" PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO LOCAL
TAXATION.  IN NONE OF THESE SECTIONS DO WE FIND ANY SUGGESTION THAT
"ACTIVITIES" IS USED IN A NARROW SENSE TO DESCRIBE LESS THAN ALL OF THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.   THE MEANING OF "ACTIVITIES" AS APPLIED
EITHER TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR TO A GOVERNMENT AGENCY MAY BE BROAD ENOUGH
TO INCLUDE WHAT IS DONE THROUGH INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AS WELL AS
THROUGH AGENTS.  CERTAINLY WHERE THE PATTERN OF CONDUCT VISUALIZED BY
THE ACT IS THE USE OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS OR AGENTS FROM THE FIELD
OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, THE INFERENCE IS STRONG THAT "ACTIVITIES" MEANS
ALL AUTHORIZED METHODS OF PERFORMING THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.  WE
FIND NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

IN VIEW OF THIS CONCLUSION WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO REACH THE
PROBLEMS OF IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY INVOLVED IN JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA, AND ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1.
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9816, DEC. 31, 1946, 12 FED. REG. 37. 

FN2  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1186, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN3  SEE S. 1717 REPRINTED IN HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE SPECIAL
COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1-9. 

FN4  S. REP. NO. 1211, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 15. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION V. JUNEAU SPRUCE
CORP. 342 U.S. 237 


NO. 280.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1952 - 189 F.2D
177, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA IS A "DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 303(B) OF THE
LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, WHICH AUTHORIZES ANY PERSON
INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY REASON OF ANY VIOLATION OF SEC.
303(A) (RELATING TO SECONDARY BOYCOTTS, JURISDICTIONAL STRIKES, ETC.)
TO SUE THEREFOR IN ANY "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  PP. 240
243. 

2.  THE RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER SEC. 303(B) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947, FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY JURISDICTIONAL STRIKES
PROHIBITED BY SEC. 303(A)(4) IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON ANY PRIOR
DETERMINATION BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNDER SECS.
8(B)(4)(D) AND (10)(K) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS
AMENDED.  PP. 243-245. 

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION ET AL. V. JUNEAU
SPRUCE CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA AWARDED RESPONDENT A
JUDGMENT FOR $750,000 PLUS COSTS AGAINST PETITIONERS FOR INJURIES
SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 303(A) OF THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 61 STAT. 136, 158, 29 U.S.C.  SEC.
187(A).  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  189 F.2D 177.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 857.  AFFIRMED, P. 245. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THE SPRING OF 1947, RESPONDENT PURCHASED CERTAIN PROPERTIES FOR
THE MANUFACTURE OF LUMBER, INCLUDING A SAWMILL AT JUNEAU, ALASKA, AND
COMMENCED OPERATIONS.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE INTERNATIONAL
WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA REQUESTED NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT WITH
RESPONDENT, CLAIMING REPRESENTATION OF A MAJORITY OF RESPONDENT'S
EMPLOYEES.  A BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED WITH THAT UNION ON
NOVEMBER 3, 1947. 

RESPONDENT DECIDED TO SHIP ITS LUMBER TO PORTS IN CANADA AND THE
UNITED STATES AND ACQUIRED BARGES FOR THAT PURPOSE.  RESPONDENT'S
POLICY WAS TO UTILIZE ITS OWN EMPLOYEES TO LOAD ITS BARGES.  IN
OCTOBER, 1947, PETITIONER, LOCAL 16 OF THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, ASKED THAT ITS MEN BE ALLOWED TO LOAD
RESPONDENT'S BARGES.  THE REQUEST WAS DENIED.  THE REQUEST WAS REPEATED
THE FOLLOWING SPRING AND WAS AGAIN DENIED.  PETITIONER LOCAL
ESTABLISHED A PICKET LINE AT RESPONDENT'S PLANT ON APRIL 10, 1948. 
MOST OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES REFUSED TO CROSS THE PICKET LINE AND THE
MILL SHUT DOWN.  THE MILL REOPENED ON JULY 19, 1948, BUT PICKETING
CONTINUED.  PETITIONER INTERNATIONAL NOTIFIED ITS CANADIAN LOCALS THAT
RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS WERE UNFAIR.  RESPONDENT WAS UNABLE TO UNLOAD ITS
BARGES IN CANADA OR PUGET SOUND DUE TO THE REFUSAL OF LONGSHOREMEN TO
WORK RESPONDENT'S VESSELS.  ON OCTOBER 11, 1948, THE MILL AGAIN CLOSED
DOWN DUE TO LACK OF STORAGE FACILITIES TO HOLD THE ACCUMULATING
LUMBER.  PICKETING WAS NOT DISCONTINUED UNTIL MAY 9, 1949. 

ON AUGUST 3, 1948, RESPONDENT FILED A CHARGE AGAINST LOCAL 16
ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(D) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, (FN1) 61
STAT. 136, 141, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. II) SECS. 151, 158, ON THE GROUND THAT
THE LOCAL ATTEMPTED TO INDUCE ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICULAR WORK TO ITS
MEMBERS.  FOLLOWING A HEARING PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(K) OF THE ACT, THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DETERMINED ON APRIL 1, 1949, THAT
LONGSHOREMEN REPRESENTED BY LOCAL 16 WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BARGE
LOADING WORK.  82 N.L.R.B. 650.  IN THE MEANTIME, RESPONDENT HAD FILED
SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST BOTH THE LOCAL AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNDER
SEC. 303(A)(4) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT.  (FN2)
RESPONDENT ASKED, PURSUANT TO AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, FOR DAMAGES FROM
APRIL 10, 1948, TO APRIL 27, 1949.  AFTER TRIAL BEFORE A JURY,
RESPONDENT WAS AWARDED A JUDGMENT OF $750,000 PLUS COSTS.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  189 F.2D 177.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 857. 

FIRST.  THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY
OF ALASKA.  AND THE QUESTION WHICH LIES AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE CASE IS
WHETHER THAT COURT IS A "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 303(B) OF THE ACT.  (FN3)  THAT COURT HAS THE
JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE LAW WHICH
CREATED IT.  48 U.S.C. SEC. 101.  YET VESTING IT WITH THAT JURISDICTION
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT A DISTRICT COURT FOR ALL THE VARIED
FUNCTIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  SEE REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S.
145, 154; MCALLISTER V. UNITED STATES, 141 U.S. 174; UNITED STATES V.
BURROUGHS, 289 U.S. 159, 163; MOOKINI V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 201,
205.  THE WORDS "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" COMMONLY DESCRIBE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS CREATED UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION,
NOT THE LEGISLATIVE COURTS WHICH HAVE LONG BEEN THE COURTS OF THE
TERRITORIES.  (FN4)  SEE MOOKINI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 205.  BUT
WE THINK THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS LEGISLATION THEY ARE USED TO
DESCRIBE COURTS WHICH EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS. 
THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY SEC. 303(B) (FN5) IS MADE "SUBJECT TO THE
LIMITATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 301."  SECTION 301 LIFTS THE
LIMITATIONS GOVERNING DISTRICT COURTS AS RESPECTS THE AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY AND THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES; IT DEFINES THE CAPACITY
OF LABOR UNIONS TO SUE OR BE SUED; IT RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEABILITY OF A
MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST A LABOR UNION TO ITS ASSETS; AND IT SPECIFIES
THE JURISDICTION OF A DISTRICT COURT OVER A UNION AND DEFINES THE
SERVICE OF PROCESS.  (FN6)  CONGRESS WAS HERE CONCERNED WITH RESHAPING
LABOR-MANAGEMENT LEGAL RELATIONS; AND IT WAS TAKING PRECISE STEPS TO
DECLARED AND ANNOUNCED OBJECTIVES.  ONE OF THOSE WAS THE ELIMINATION OF
OBSTACLES TO SUITS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IT REVISED THE
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUITS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS,
REQUIREMENTS AS APPLICABLE TO THE TRIAL COURT AS TO ANY COURT WHICH IN
THE TECHNICAL SENSE IS A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE ACT
EXTENDS IN ITS FULL SWEEP TO ALASKA AS WELL AS TO THE STATES AND THE
OTHER TERRITORIES.  (FN7)  THE TRIAL COURT IS INDEED THE ONLY COURT IN
ALASKA TO WHICH RECOURSE COULD BE HAD.  EVEN IF IT WERE NOT A "DISTRICT
COURT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 303(B), IT PLAINLY WOULD BE "ANY
OTHER COURT" FOR PURPOSES OF THAT SECTION.  AS SUCH OTHER COURT IT
MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS DISPUTE DEPENDING ON
ASPECTS OF TERRITORIAL LAW WHICH WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED.  BUT SINCE
CONGRESS LIFTED THE RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS WHICH MIGHT PRECLUDE SUIT
IN COURTS HAVING THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION, WE THINK IT IS MORE
CONSONANT WITH THE UNIFORM, NATIONAL POLICY OF THE ACT TO HOLD THAT
THOSE RESTRICTIONS WERE LIFTED AS RESPECTS ALL COURTS UPON WHICH THE
JURISDICTION OF A DISTRICT COURT HAS BEEN CONFERRED.  THAT READING OF
THE ACT DOES NOT, TO BE SURE, TAKE THE WORDS "DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES" IN THEIR HISTORIC, TECHNICAL SENSE.  BUT LITERALNESS IS
NO SURE TOUCHSTONE OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  THE PURPOSE HERE IS MORE
CLOSELY APPROXIMATED, WE BELIEVE, BY GIVING THE HISTORIC PHRASE A
LOOSER, MORE LIBERAL MEANING IN THE SPECIAL CONTEXT OF THIS
LEGISLATION. 

SECOND.  THE MAIN CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS IN THE CASE IS THAT SEC.
303(A)(4) READ IN LIGHT OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(D) (FN8) RENDERS ILLEGAL ONLY
SUCH PICKETING AS TAKES PLACE AFTER AND IN THE FACE OF A DETERMINATION
BY THE BOARD THAT THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WERE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. 
IF THAT CONCLUSION IS WARRANTED, THERE MUST BE A REVERSAL HERE SINCE
THE DAMAGES REFLECTED IN THE PRESENT JUDGMENT FOR THE MOST PART ACCRUED
PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, UNDER SEC. 10(K) OF THE ACT, (FN9)
THAT PETITIONERS HAD COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(D). 

THE CONDUCT CONDEMNED.  SECTION 8(B)(4)(D) GIVES RISE TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING; (FN10) SEC.  303(A)(4), TO A JUDGMENT FOR
DAMAGES.  THE FACT THAT THE TWO SECTIONS HAVE AN IDENTITY OF LANGUAGE
AND YET SPECIFY TWO DIFFERENT REMEDIES IS STRONG CONFIRMATION OF OUR
CONCLUSION THAT THE REMEDIES PROVIDED WERE TO BE INDEPENDENT OF EACH
OTHER.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 303(A)(4)
WHICH MAKES ITS REMEDY DEPENDENT ON ANY PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION THAT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HAS BEEN COMMITTED. 
RATHER, THE OPPOSITE SEEMS TO BE TRUE.  FOR THE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES
PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 303(A)(4) ARE RENDERED UNLAWFUL "FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THIS SECTION ONLY," THUS SETTING APART FOR PRIVATE REDRESS, ACTS WHICH
MIGHT ALSO BE SUBJECTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  THE FACT THAT
THE BOARD MUST FIRST ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE BY MEANS OF A SEC.
10(K) DETERMINATION BEFORE IT CAN MOVE UNDER SEC. 10(B) AND (C) FOR A
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER (FN11) IS ONLY A LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE
POWER, AS IS THE PROVISION IN SEC. 10(K) THAT UPON COMPLIANCE "WITH THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD OR UPON SUCH VOLUNTARY ADJUSTMENT OF THE
DISPUTE," THE CHARGE SHALL BE DISMISSED.  THESE PROVISIONS, LIMITING
AND CURTAILING THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER, FIND NO COUNTERPART IN THE
PROVISION FOR PRIVATE REDRESS CONTAINED IN SEC. 303(A)(4).  SECTION
303(A)(4) AS EXPLAINED BY SENATOR TAFT, ITS AUTHOR, "RETAINS SIMPLY A
RIGHT OF SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH
UNDERTAKES A SECONDARY BOYCOTT OR A JURISDICTIONAL STRIKE."  (FN12) 

THE RIGHT TO SUE IN THE COURTS IS CLEAR, PROVIDED THE PRESSURE ON THE
EMPLOYER FALLS IN THE PRESCRIBED CATEGORY WHICH, SO FAR AS MATERIAL
HERE, IS FORCING OR REQUIRING HIM TO ASSIGN PARTICULAR WORK "TO
EMPLOYEES IN A PARTICULAR LABOR ORGANIZATION" RATHER THAN TO EMPLOYEES
"IN ANOTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION" OR IN ANOTHER "CLASS."  HERE THE
JURISDICTIONAL ROW WAS BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE UNION AND THE INSIDE UNION. 
THE FACT THAT THE UNION OF MILL EMPLOYEES TEMPORARILY ACCEDED TO THE
CLAIM OF THE OUTSIDE GROUP DID NOT WITHDRAW THE DISPUTE FROM THE
CATEGORY OF JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES CONDEMNED BY SEC. 303(A)(4). 
PETITIONERS, REPRESENTING ONE UNION AND EMPLOYING OUTSIDE LABOR, WERE
TRYING TO GET WORK WHICH ANOTHER UNION, EMPLOYING MILL LABOR, HAD. 
THAT COMPETITION FOR WORK AT THE EXPENSE OF EMPLOYERS HAS BEEN
CONDEMNED BY THE ACT.  WHETHER THAT CONDEMNATION WAS WISE OR UNWISE IS
NOT OUR CONCERN.  IT REPRESENTS NATIONAL POLICY WHICH HAS BOTH
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONVENTIONAL LEGAL SANCTIONS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 8(B)(4)(D) PROVIDES: 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR ITS AGENTS: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(4)  TO ENGAGE IN, OR TO INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY
EMPLOYER TO ENGAGE IN, A STRIKE OR A CONCERTED REFUSAL IN THE COURSE OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT TO USE, MANUFACTURE, PROCESS, TRANSPORT, OR OTHERWISE
HANDLE OR WORK ON ANY GOODS, ARTICLES, MATERIALS, OR COMMODITIES OR TO
PERFORM ANY SERVICES, WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF IS:  ...  (D) FORCING OR
REQUIRING ANY EMPLOYER TO ASSIGN PARTICULAR WORK TO EMPLOYEES IN A
PARTICULAR LABOR ORGANIZATION OR IN A PARTICULAR TRADE, CRAFT, OR CLASS
RATHER THAN TO EMPLOYEES IN ANOTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION OR IN ANOTHER
TRADE, CRAFT, OR CLASS, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYER IS FAILING TO CONFORM TO
AN ORDER OR CERTIFICATION OF THE BOARD DETERMINING THE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES FOR EMPLOYEES PERFORMING SUCH WORK:  PROVIDED, THAT
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUBSECTION (B) SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE
UNLAWFUL A REFUSAL BY ANY PERSON TO ENTER UPON THE PREMISES OF ANY
EMPLOYER (OTHER THAN HIS OWN EMPLOYER), IF THE EMPLOYEES OF SUCH
EMPLOYER ARE ENGAGED IN A STRIKE RATIFIED OR APPROVED BY A
REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES WHOM SUCH EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO
RECOGNIZE UNDER THIS ACT; ...  ." 

FN2 SECTION 303(A)(4) PROVIDES: 

"(A)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION ONLY, IN
AN INDUSTRY OR ACTIVITY AFFECTING COMMERCE, FOR ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION
TO ENGAGE IN, OR TO INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY EMPLOYER
TO ENGAGE IN, A STRIKE OR A CONCERTED REFUSAL IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT TO USE, MANUFACTURE, PROCESS, TRANSPORT, OR OTHERWISE HANDLE
OR WORK ON ANY GOODS, ARTICLES, MATERIALS, OR COMMODITIES OR TO PERFORM
ANY SERVICES, WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF IS: 

  *         *         *         *         * 

"(4)  FORCING OR REQUIRING ANY EMPLOYER TO ASSIGN PARTICULAR WORK TO
EMPLOYEES IN A PARTICULAR LABOR ORGANIZATION OR IN A PARTICULAR TRADE,
CRAFT, OR CLASS RATHER THAN TO EMPLOYEES IN ANOTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR IN ANOTHER TRADE, CRAFT, OR CLASS UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYER IS FAILING TO
CONFORM TO AN ORDER OR CERTIFICATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD DETERMINING THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR EMPLOYEES
PERFORMING SUCH WORK.  NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO MAKE UNLAWFUL A REFUSAL BY ANY PERSON TO ENTER UPON THE
PREMISES OF ANY EMPLOYER (OTHER THAN HIS OWN EMPLOYER), IF THE
EMPLOYEES OF SUCH EMPLOYER ARE ENGAGED IN A STRIKE RATIFIED OR APPROVED
BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES WHOM SUCH EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO
RECOGNIZE UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT." 

FN3  SECTION 303(B) PROVIDES: 

"WHOEVER SHALL BE INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY REASON OF
ANY VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (A) MAY SUE THEREFOR IN ANY DISTRICT COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
ANY OTHER COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES, AND SHALL RECOVER
THE DAMAGES BY HIM SUSTAINED AND THE COST OF THE SUIT." 

FN4  THE NEW JUDICIAL CODE CREATES JUDICIAL DISTRICTS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 88; FOR HAWAII, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 91;
AND FOR PUERTO RICO, 28 U.S.C. SEC.  119; BUT NONE FOR THE CANAL ZONE,
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, OR FOR ALASKA. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA.    FN6  SECTION 301 PROVIDES: 

"(A)  SUITS FOR VIOLATION OF CONTRACTS BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND A
LABOR ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING EMPLOYEES IN AN INDUSTRY AFFECTING
COMMERCE AS DEFINED IN THIS ACT, OR BETWEEN ANY SUCH LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, MAY BE BROUGHT IN ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES, WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY OR WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE
PARTIES. 

"(B) ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH REPRESENTS EMPLOYEES IN AN INDUSTRY
AFFECTING COMMERCE AS DEFINED IN THIS ACT AND ANY EMPLOYER WHOSE
ACTIVITIES AFFECT COMMERCE AS DEFINED IN THIS ACT SHALL BE BOUND BY THE
ACTS OF ITS AGENTS.  ANY SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION MAY SUE OR BE SUED AS
AN ENTITY AND IN BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES WHOM IT REPRESENTS IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  ANY MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST A LABOR
ORGANIZATION IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE
ENFORCEABLE ONLY AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION AS AN ENTITY AND AGAINST ITS
ASSETS, AND SHALL NOT BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OR
HIS ASSETS. 

"(C)  FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BY OR AGAINST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, DISTRICT
COURTS SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE JURISDICTION OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION (1)
IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH ORGANIZATION MAINTAINS ITS PRINCIPAL
OFFICE, OR (2) IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS OR
AGENTS ARE ENGAGED IN REPRESENTING OR ACTING FOR EMPLOYEE MEMBERS. 

"(D)  THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS, SUBPENA, OR OTHER LEGAL PROCESS OF ANY
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPON AN OFFICER OR AGENT OF A LABOR
ORGANIZATION, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SUCH, SHALL CONSTITUTE SERVICE UPON
THE LABOR ORGANIZATION. 

"(E)  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, IN DETERMINING WHETHER ANY
PERSON IS ACTING AS AN 'AGENT' OF ANOTHER PERSON SO AS TO MAKE SUCH
OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTS, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
SPECIFIC ACTS PERFORMED WERE ACTUALLY AUTHORIZED OR SUBSEQUENTLY
RATIFIED SHALL NOT BE CONTROLLING." 

FN7  SECTION 2(6) DEFINES COMMERCE TO INCLUDE TRADE, ETC., BETWEEN A
STATE AND A TERRITORY OR WITHIN ANY TERRITORY. 

FN8  SEE NOTES 1 AND 2, SUPRA. 

FN9  SECTION 10(K) PROVIDES: 

"WHENEVER IT IS CHARGED THAT ANY PERSON HAS ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH (4)(D) OF SECTION 8(B),
THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED AND DIRECTED TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE DISPUTE
OUT OF WHICH SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE SHALL HAVE ARISEN, UNLESS,
WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER NOTICE THAT SUCH CHARGE HAS BEEN FILED, THE
PARTIES TO SUCH DISPUTE SUBMIT TO THE BOARD SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT
THEY HAVE ADJUSTED, OR AGREED UPON METHODS FOR THE VOLUNTARY ADJUSTMENT
OF, THE DISPUTE.  UPON COMPLIANCE BY THE PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE WITH
THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OR UPON SUCH VOLUNTARY ADJUSTMENT OF THE
DISPUTE, SUCH CHARGE SHALL BE DISMISSED." 

FN10  THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING UNDER SEC. 10(K) CAN BE THE BASIS
FOR A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER UNDER SEC. 10(B) AND (C).  A CEASE AND
DESIST ORDER WAS ISSUED IN THE PRESENT DISPUTE.  90 N.L.R.B. 1753. 

FN11  JUNEAU SPRUCE CORP., 82 N.L.R.B. 650, 655. 

FN12  93 CONG. REC. 4858; 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, P. 1371. 
..END :








MORISSETTE V. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 246 


NO. 12.  ARGUED OCTOBER 9-10, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1952 - 187 F.2D
427, REVERSED. 


1.  A CRIMINAL INTENT IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF AN OFFENSE UNDER 18
U.S.C. SEC. 641, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "WHOEVER EMBEZZLES, STEALS,
PURLOINS, OR KNOWINGLY CONVERTS" PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES IS
PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  PP. 247-273. 

(A)  MERE OMISSION FROM SEC. 641 OF ANY MENTION OF INTENT IS NOT TO
BE CONSTRUED AS ELIMINATING THAT ELEMENT FROM THE CRIMES DEFINED. 
UNITED STATES V. BEHRMAN, 258 U.S. 280, AND UNITED STATES V. BALINT,
258 U.S. 250, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 250-263. 

(B)  THE HISTORY AND PURPOSES OF SEC. 641 AFFORD NO GROUND FOR
INFERRING ANY AFFIRMATIVE INSTRUCTION FROM CONGRESS TO ELIMINATE INTENT
FROM THE OFFENSE OF "KNOWINGLY CONVERTING" OR STEALING GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY.  PP. 263-273. 

2.  WHERE INTENT OF THE ACCUSED IS AN INGREDIENT OF THE CRIME
CHARGED, ITS EXISTENCE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH MUST BE SUBMITTED TO
THE JURY FOR DETERMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE; AND
THE TRIAL COURT MAY NOT WITHDRAW OR PREJUDGE THE ISSUE BY INSTRUCTING
THE JURY THAT THE LAW RAISES A PRESUMPTION OF INTENT FROM A SINGLE
ACT.  PP. 273-276. 

MORISSETTE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 641.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  187 F.2D 427.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 925.  REVERSED, P. 276. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WOULD HAVE REMAINED A PROFOUNDLY INSIGNIFICANT CASE TO ALL
EXCEPT ITS IMMEDIATE PARTIES HAD IT NOT BEEN SO TRIED AND SUBMITTED TO
THE JURY AS TO RAISE QUESTIONS BOTH FUNDAMENTAL AND FAR-REACHING IN
FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW, FOR WHICH REASON WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  (FN1) 

ON A LARGE TRACT OF UNINHABITED AND UNTILLED LAND IN A WOODED AND
SPARSELY POPULATED AREA OF MICHIGAN, THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED A
PRACTICE BOMBING RANGE OVER WHICH THE AIR FORCE DROPPED SIMULATED BOMBS
AT GROUND TARGETS.  THESE BOMBS CONSISTED OF A METAL CYLINDER ABOUT
FORTY INCHES LONG AND EIGHT INCHES ACROSS, FILLED WITH SAND AND ENOUGH
BLACK POWDER TO CAUSE A SMOKE PUFF BY WHICH THE STRIKE COULD BE
LOCATED.  AT VARIOUS PLACES ABOUT THE RANGE SIGNS READ "DANGER - KEEP
OUT - BOMBING RANGE."  NEVERTHELESS, THE RANGE WAS KNOWN AS GOOD DEER
COUNTRY AND WAS EXTENSIVELY HUNTED. 

SPENT BOMB CASINGS WERE CLEARED FROM THE TARGETS AND THROWN INTO
PILES "SO THAT THEY WILL BE OUT OF THE WAY."  THEY WERE NOT STACKED OR
PILED IN ANY ORDER BUT WERE DUMPED IN HEAPS, SOME OF WHICH HAD BEEN
ACCUMULATING FOR FOUR YEARS OR UPWARDS, WERE EXPOSED TO THE WEATHER AND
RUSTING AWAY. 

MORISSETTE, IN DECEMBER OF 1948, WENT HUNTING IN THIS AREA BUT DID
NOT GET A DEER.  HE THOUGHT TO MEET EXPENSES OF THE TRIP BY SALVAGING
SOME OF THESE CASINGS.  HE LOADED THREE TONS OF THEM ON HIS TRUCK AND
TOOK THEM TO A NEARBY FARM, WHERE THEY WERE FLATTENED BY DRIVING A
TRACTOR OVER THEM.  AFTER EXPENDING THIS LABOR AND TRUCKING THEM TO
MARKET IN FLINT, HE REALIZED $84. 

MORISSETTE, BY OCCUPATION, IS A FRUIT STAND OPERATOR IN SUMMER AND A
TRUCKER AND SCRAP IRON COLLECTOR IN WINTER.  AN HONORABLY DISCHARGED
VETERAN OF WORLD WAR II, HE ENJOYS A GOOD NAME AMONG HIS NEIGHBORS AND
HAS HAD NO BLEMISH ON HIS RECORD MORE DISREPUTABLE THAN A CONVICTION
FOR RECKLESS DRIVING. 

THE LOADING, CRUSHING AND TRANSPORTING OF THESE CASINGS WERE ALL IN
BROAD DAYLIGHT, IN FULL VIEW OF PASSERS-BY, WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST
EFFORT AT CONCEALMENT.  WHEN AN INVESTIGATION WAS STARTED, MORISSETTE
VOLUNTARILY, PROMPTLY AND CANDIDLY TOLD THE WHOLE STORY TO THE
AUTHORITIES, SAYING THAT HE HAD NO INTENTION OF STEALING BUT THOUGHT
THE PROPERTY WAS ABANDONED, UNWANTED AND CONSIDERED OF NO VALUE TO THE
GOVERNMENT.  HE WAS INDICTED, HOWEVER, ON THE CHARGE THAT HE "DID
UNLAWFULLY, WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY STEAL AND CONVERT" PROPERTY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF THE VALUE OF $84, IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 641,
WHICH PROVIDES THAT "WHOEVER EMBEZZLES, STEALS, PURLOINS, OR KNOWINGLY
CONVERTS" GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. 
(FN2)  MORISSETTE WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO
MONTHS OR TO PAY A FINE OF $200.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING.  (FN3) 

ON HIS TRIAL, MORISSETTE, AS HE HAD AT ALL TIMES TOLD INVESTIGATING
OFFICERS, TESTIFIED THAT FROM APPEARANCES HE BELIEVED THE CASINGS WERE
CAST-OFF AND ABANDONED, THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO STEAL THE PROPERTY,
AND TOOK IT WITH NO WRONGFUL OR CRIMINAL INTENT.  THE TRIAL COURT,
HOWEVER, WAS UNIMPRESSED, AND RULED:  "HE TOOK IT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT
WAS ABANDONED AND HE KNEW HE WAS ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY  ...  .  THAT
IS NO DEFENSE  ...  .  I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN HAVE THE DEFENSE THEY
THOUGHT THE PROPERTY WAS ABANDONED ON ANOTHER MAN'S PIECE OF
PROPERTY."  THE COURT STATED:  "I WILL NOT PERMIT YOU TO SHOW THIS MAN
THOUGHT IT WAS ABANDONED  ...  .  I HOLD IN THIS CASE THAT THERE IS NO
QUESTION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY."  THE COURT REFUSED TO SUBMIT OR TO
ALLOW COUNSEL TO ARGUE TO THE JURY WHETHER MORISSETTE ACTED WITH
INNOCENT INTENTION.  IT CHARGED:  "AND I INSTRUCT YOU THAT IF YOU
BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE, HE INTENDED TO
TAKE IT  ...  .  HE HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY  ...  .  AND IT
IS NO DEFENSE TO CLAIM THAT IT WAS ABANDONED, BECAUSE IT WAS ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY  ...  .  AND I INSTRUCT YOU TO THIS EFFECT:  THAT IF THIS
YOUNG MAN TOOK THIS PROPERTY (AND HE SAYS HE DID), WITHOUT ANY
PERMISSION (HE SAYS HE DID), THAT WAS ON THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT (HE SAYS IT WAS), THAT IT WAS OF THE VALUE OF ONE
CENT OR MORE (AND EVIDENTLY IT WAS), THAT HE IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE
CHARGED HERE.  IF YOU BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT, HE IS GUILTY  ...  .  THE
QUESTION ON INTENT IS WHETHER OR NOT HE INTENDED TO TAKE THE PROPERTY. 
HE SAYS HE DID.  THEREFORE, IF YOU BELIEVE EITHER SIDE, HE IS GUILTY." 
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL CONTENDED, "BUT THE TAKING MUST HAVE BEEN WITH A
FELONIOUS INTENT."  THE COURT RULED, HOWEVER:  "THAT IS PRESUMED BY HIS
OWN ACT." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS SUGGESTED THAT "GREATER RESTRAINT IN EXPRESSION
SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXERCISED," BUT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION BECAUSE, "AS
WE HAVE INTERPRETED THE STATUTE, APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF ITS VIOLATION
BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT, AS EVIDENCED EVEN BY HIS OWN ADMISSIONS." 
ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IS THAT IT CREATES SEVERAL SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT OFFENSES, ONE BEING KNOWING CONVERSION OF GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY.  THE COURT RULED THAT THIS PARTICULAR OFFENSE REQUIRES NO
ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL INTENT.  THIS CONCLUSION WAS THOUGHT TO BE REQUIRED
BY THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO EXPRESS SUCH A REQUISITE AND THIS COURT'S
DECISIONS IN UNITED STATES V. BEHRMAN, 258 U.S. 280, AND UNITED STATES
V. BALINT, 258 U.S. 250. 

                   I. 

IN THOSE CASES THIS COURT DID CONSTRUE MERE OMISSION FROM A CRIMINAL
ENACTMENT OF ANY MENTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT AS DISPENSING WITH IT.  IF
THEY BE DEEMED PRECEDENTS FOR PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION GENERALLY
APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL PENAL STATUTES, THEY AUTHORIZE THIS CONVICTION. 
INDEED, SUCH ADOPTION OF THE LITERAL REASONING ANNOUNCED IN THOSE CASES
WOULD DO THIS AND MORE - IT WOULD SWEEP OUT OF ALL FEDERAL CRIMES,
EXCEPT WHEN EXPRESSLY PRESERVED, THE ANCIENT REQUIREMENT OF A CULPABLE
STATE OF MIND.  WE THINK A RESUME OF THEIR HISTORICAL BACKGROUND IS
CONVINCING THAT AN EFFECT HAS BEEN ASCRIBED TO THEM MORE COMPREHENSIVE
THAN WAS CONTEMPLATED AND ONE INCONSISTENT WITH OUR PHILOSOPHY OF
CRIMINAL LAW. 

THE CONTENTION THAT AN INJURY CAN AMOUNT TO A CRIME ONLY WHEN
INFLICTED BY INTENTION IS NO PROVINCIAL OR TRANSIENT NOTION.  IT IS AS
UNIVERSAL AND PERSISTENT IN MATURE SYSTEMS OF LAW AS BELIEF IN FREEDOM
OF THE HUMAN WILL AND A CONSEQUENT ABILITY AND DUTY OF THE NORMAL
INDIVIDUAL TO CHOOSE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL.  (FN4)  A RELATION BETWEEN
SOME MENTAL ELEMENT AND PUNISHMENT FOR A HARMFUL ACT IS ALMOST AS
INSTINCTIVE AS THE CHILD'S FAMILIAR EXCULPATORY "BUT I DIDN'T MEAN TO,"
AND HAS AFFORDED THE RATIONAL BASIS FOR A TARDY AND UNFINISHED
SUBSTITUTION OF DETERRENCE AND REFORMATION IN PLACE OF RETALIATION AND
VENGEANCE AS THE MOTIVATION FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTION.  (FN5) UNQUALIFIED
ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE BY ENGLISH COMMON LAW IN THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY WAS INDICATED BY BLACKSTONE'S SWEEPING STATEMENT THAT TO
CONSTITUTE ANY CRIME THERE MUST FIRST BE A "VICIOUS WILL."  (FN6)
COMMON-LAW COMMENTATORS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY EARLY PRONOUNCED THE
SAME PRINCIPLE, (FN7) ALTHOUGH A FEW EXCEPTIONS NOT RELEVANT TO OUR
PRESENT PROBLEM CAME TO BE RECOGNIZED.  (FN8) 

CRIME, AS A COMPOUND CONCEPT, GENERALLY CONSTITUTED ONLY FROM
CONCURRENCE OF AN EVIL-MEANING MIND WITH AN EVIL-DOING HAND, WAS
CONGENIAL TO AN INTENSE INDIVIDUALISM AND TOOK DEEP AND EARLY ROOT IN
AMERICAN SOIL.  (FN9)  AS THE STATES CODIFIED THE COMMON LAW OF CRIMES,
EVEN IF THEIR ENACTMENTS WERE SILENT ON THE SUBJECT, THEIR COURTS
ASSUMED THAT THE OMISSION DID NOT SIGNIFY DISAPPROVAL OF THE PRINCIPLE
BUT MERELY RECOGNIZED THAT INTENT WAS SO INHERENT IN THE IDEA OF THE
OFFENSE THAT IT REQUIRED NO STATUTORY AFFIRMATION.  COURTS, WITH LITTLE
HESITATION OR DIVISION, FOUND AN IMPLICATION OF THE REQUIREMENT AS TO
OFFENSES THAT WERE TAKEN OVER FROM THE COMMON LAW.  (FN10)  THE
UNANIMITY WITH WHICH THEY HAVE ADHERED TO THE CENTRAL THOUGHT THAT
WRONGDOING MUST BE CONSCIOUS TO BE CRIMINAL IS EMPHASIZED BY THE
VARIETY, DISPARITY AND CONFUSION OF THEIR DEFINITIONS OF THE REQUISITE
BUT ELUSIVE MENTAL ELEMENT.  HOWEVER, COURTS OF VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS,
AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF DIFFERENT OFFENSES, HAVE DEVISED WORKING
FORMULAE, IF NOT SCIENTIFIC ONES, FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF JURIES AROUND
SUCH TERMS AS "FELONIOUS INTENT," "CRIMINAL INTENT," "MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT," "GUILTY KNOWLEDGE," "FRAUDULENT INTENT," "WILFULNESS,"
"SCIENTER," TO DENOTE GUILTY KNOWLEDGE, OR "MENS REA," TO SIGNIFY AN
EVIL PURPOSE OR MENTAL CULPABILITY.  BY USE OR COMBINATION OF THESE
VARIOUS TOKENS, THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO PROTECT THOSE WHO WERE NOT
BLAMEWORTHY IN MIND FROM CONVICTION OF INFAMOUS COMMON-LAW CRIMES. 

HOWEVER, THE BALINT AND BEHRMAN OFFENSES BELONG TO A CATEGORY OF
ANOTHER CHARACTER, WITH VERY DIFFERENT ANTECEDENTS AND ORIGINS.  THE
CRIMES THERE INVOLVED DEPEND ON NO MENTAL ELEMENT BUT CONSIST ONLY OF
FORBIDDEN ACTS OR OMISSIONS.  THIS, WHILE NOT EXPRESSED BY THE COURT,
IS MADE CLEAR FROM EXAMINATION OF A CENTURY-OLD BY ACCELERATING
TENDENCY, DISCERNIBLE BOTH HERE (FN11) AND IN ENGLAND, (FN12) TO CALL
INTO EXISTENCE NEW DUTIES AND CRIMES WHICH DISREGARD ANY INGREDIENT OF
INTENT.  THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION MULTIPLIED THE NUMBER OF WORKMEN
EXPOSED TO INJURY FROM INCREASINGLY POWERFUL AND COMPLEX MECHANISMS,
DRIVEN BY FRESHLY DISCOVERED SOURCES OF ENERGY, REQUIRING HIGHER
PRECAUTIONS BY EMPLOYERS.  TRAFFIC OF VELOCITIES, VOLUMES AND VARIETIES
UNHEARD OF CAME TO SUBJECT THE WAYFARER TO INTOLERABLE CASUALTY RISKS
IF OWNERS AND DRIVERS WERE NOT TO OBSERVE NEW CARES AND UNIFORMITIES OF
CONDUCT.  CONGESTION OF CITIES AND CROWDING OF QUARTERS CALLED FOR
HEALTH AND WELFARE REGULATIONS UNDREAMED OF IN SIMPLER TIMES.  WIDE
DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS BECAME AN INSTRUMENT OF WIDE DISTRIBUTION OF HARM
WHEN THOSE WHO DISPERSED FOOD, DRINK, DRUGS, AND EVEN SECURITIES, DID
NOT COMPLY WITH REASONABLE STANDARDS OF QUALITY, INTEGRITY, DISCLOSURE
AND CARE.  SUCH DANGERS HAVE ENGENDERED INCREASINGLY NUMEROUS AND
DETAILED REGULATIONS WHICH HEIGHTEN THE DUTIES OF THOSE IN CONTROL OF
PARTICULAR INDUSTRIES, TRADES, PROPERTIES OR ACTIVITIES THAT AFFECT
PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE. 

WHILE MANY OF THESE DUTIES ARE SANCTIONED BY A MORE STRICT CIVIL
LIABILITY, (FN13) LAWMAKERS, WHETHER WISELY OR NOT, (FN14) HAVE SOUGHT
TO MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS MORE EFFECTIVE BY INVOKING CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
TO BE APPLIED BY THE FAMILIAR TECHNIQUE OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND
CONVICTIONS.   THIS HAS CONFRONTED THE COURTS WITH A MULTITUDE OF
PROSECUTIONS, BASED ON STATUTES OR ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, FOR WHAT
HAVE BEEN APTLY CALLED "PUBLIC WELFARE OFFENSES."  THESE CASES DO NOT
FIT NEATLY INTO ANY OF SUCH ACCEPTED CLASSIFICATIONS OF COMMON-LAW
OFFENSES, SUCH AS THOSE AGAINST THE STATE, THE PERSON, PROPERTY, OR
PUBLIC MORALS.  MANY OF THESE OFFENSES ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF
POSITIVE AGGRESSIONS OR INVASIONS, WITH WHICH THE COMMON LAW SO OFTEN
DEALT, BUT ARE IN THE NATURE OF NEGLECT WHERE THE LAW REQUIRES CARE, OR
INACTION WHERE IT IMPOSES A DUTY.  MANY VIOLATIONS OF SUCH REGULATIONS
RESULT IN NO DIRECT OR IMMEDIATE INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY BUT
MERELY CREATE THE DANGER OR PROBABILITY OF IT WHICH THE LAW SEEKS TO
MINIMIZE.  WHILE SUCH OFFENSES DO NOT THREATEN THE SECURITY OF THE
STATE IN THE MANNER OF TREASON, THEY MAY BE REGARDED AS OFFENSES
AGAINST ITS AUTHORITY, FOR THEIR OCCURRENCE IMPAIRS THE EFFICIENCY OF
CONTROLS DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE SOCIAL ORDER AS PRESENTLY
CONSTITUTED.  IN THIS RESPECT, WHATEVER THE INTENT OF THE VIOLATOR, THE
INJURY IS THE SAME, AND THE CONSEQUENCES ARE INJURIOUS OR NOT ACCORDING
TO FORTUITY.  HENCE, LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO SUCH OFFENSES, AS A
MATTER OF POLICY, DOES NOT SPECIFY INTENT AS A NECESSARY ELEMENT.  THE
ACCUSED, IF HE DOES NOT WILL THE VIOLATION, USUALLY IS IN A POSITION TO
PREVENT IT WITH NO MORE CARE THAN SOCIETY MIGHT REASONABLY EXPECT AND
NO MORE EXERTION THAN IT MIGHT REASONABLY EXACT FROM ONE WHO ASSUMED
HIS RESPONSIBILITIES.  ALSO, PENALTIES COMMONLY ARE RELATIVELY SMALL,
AND CONVICTION DOES NO GRAVE DAMAGE TO AN OFFENDER'S REPUTATION.  UNDER
SUCH CONSIDERATIONS, COURTS HAVE TURNED TO CONSTRUING STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS WHICH MAKE NO MENTION OF INTENT AS DISPENSING WITH IT AND
HOLDING THAT THE GUILTY ACT ALONE MAKES OUT THE CRIME.  THIS HAS NOT,
HOWEVER, BEEN WITHOUT EXPRESSIONS OF MISGIVING. 

THE PILOT OF THE MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY APPEARS TO BE A HOLDING
THAT A TAVERNKEEPER COULD BE CONVICTED FOR SELLING LIQUOR TO AN
HABITUAL DRUNKARD EVEN IF HE DID NOT KNOW THE BUYER TO BE SUCH.  BARNES
V. STATE, 19 CONN. 398 (1849).  LATER CAME MASSACHUSETTS HOLDINGS THAT
CONVICTIONS FOR SELLING ADULTERATED MILK IN VIOLATION OF STATUTES
FORBIDDING SUCH SALES REQUIRE NO ALLEGATION OR PROOF THAT DEFENDANT
KNEW OF THE ADULTERATION.  COMMONWEALTH V. FARREN, 9 ALLEN 489 (1864);
COMMONWEALTH V. NICHOLS, 10 ALLEN 199 (1865); COMMONWEALTH V. WAITE, 11
ALLEN 264 (1865).  DEPARTURES FROM THE COMMON-LAW TRADITION, MAINLY OF
THESE GENERAL CLASSES, WERE REVIEWED AND THEIR RATIONALE APPRAISED BY
CHIEF JUSTICE COOLEY, AS FOLLOWS:    "I AGREE THAT AS A RULE THERE CAN
BE NO CRIME WITHOUT A CRIMINAL INTENT; BUT THIS IS NOT BY ANY MEANS A
UNIVERSAL RULE  ...  .  MANY STATUTES WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF POLICE
REGULATIONS, AS THIS IS, IMPOSE CRIMINAL PENALTIES IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY
INTENT TO VIOLATE THEM; THE PURPOSE BEING TO REQUIRE A DEGREE OF
DILIGENCE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC WHICH SHALL RENDER VIOLATION
IMPOSSIBLE."  PEOPLE V. ROBY, 52 MICH. 577, 579, 18 N.W. 365, 366
(1884).    AFTER THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, A NEW USE FOR CRIMES WITHOUT
INTENT APPEARED WHEN NEW YORK ENACTED NUMEROUS AND NOVEL REGULATIONS OF
TENEMENT HOUSES, SANCTIONED BY MONEY PENALTIES.  LANDLORDS CONTENDED
THAT A GUILTY INTENT WAS ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION.  JUDGE
CARDOZO WROTE THE ANSWER: 

"THE DEFENDANT ASKS US TO TEST THE MEANING OF THIS STATUTE BY
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO STATUTES THAT GOVERN INFAMOUS CRIMES.  THE
ANALOGY, HOWEVER, IS DECEPTIVE.  THE ELEMENT OF CONSCIOUS WRONGDOING,
THE GUILTY MIND ACCOMPANYING THE GUILTY ACT, IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONCEPT OF CRIMES THAT ARE PUNISHED AS INFAMOUS  ...  .  EVEN THERE IT
IS NOT AN INVARIABLE ELEMENT  ...  .  BUT IN THE PROSECUTION OF MINOR
OFFENSES, THERE IS A WIDER RANGE OF PRACTICE AND OF POWER. 
PROSECUTIONS FOR PETTY PENALTIES HAVE ALWAYS CONSTITUTED IN OUR LAW A
CLASS BY THEMSELVES  ...  .  THAT IS TRUE THOUGH THE PROSECUTION IS
CRIMINAL IN FORM."  TENEMENT HOUSE DEPARTMENT V. MCDEVITT, 215 N.Y.
160, 168, 109 N.E.  88, 90 (1915). 

SOON, EMPLOYERS ADVANCED THE SAME CONTENTION AS TO VIOLATIONS OF
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY A NEW LABOR LAW.  JUDGE CARDOZO, AGAIN FOR
THE COURT, POINTED OUT, AS A BASIS FOR PENALIZING VIOLATIONS WHETHER
INTENTIONAL OR NOT, THAT THEY WERE PUNISHABLE ONLY BY FINE "MODERATE IN
AMOUNT," BUT CAUTIOUSLY ADDED THAT IN SUSTAINING THE POWER SO TO FINE
UNINTENDED VIOLATIONS "WE ARE NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS SUSTAINING TO A
LIKE LENGTH THE POWER TO IMPRISON.  WE LEAVE THAT QUESTION OPEN." 
PEOPLE EX REL. PRICE V. SHEFFIELD FARMS CO., 225 N.Y. 25, 32-33, 121
N.E. 474, 477 (1918). 

THUS, FOR DIVERSE BUT RECONCILABLE REASONS, STATE COURTS CONVERGED ON
THE SAME RESULT, DISCONTINUING INQUIRY INTO INTENT IN A LIMITED CLASS
OF OFFENSES AGAINST SUCH STATUTORY REGULATIONS. 

BEFORE LONG, SIMILAR QUESTIONS GROWING OUT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION
REACHED THIS COURT.  ITS JUDGMENTS WERE IN HARMONY WITH THIS CONSENSUS
OF STATE JUDICIAL OPINION, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH MAY HAVE LED THE
COURT TO OVERLOOK THE NEED FOR FULL EXPOSITION OF THEIR RATIONALE IN
THE CONTEXT OF FEDERAL LAW.  IN OVERRULING A CONTENTION THAT THERE CAN
BE NO CONVICTION ON AN INDICTMENT WHICH MAKES NO CHARGE OF CRIMINAL
INTENT BUT ALLEGES ONLY MAKING OF A SALE OF A NARCOTIC FORBIDDEN BY
LAW, CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, WROTE: 

"WHILE THE GENERAL RULE AT COMMON LAW WAS THAT THE SCIENTER WAS A
NECESSARY ELEMENT IN THE INDICTMENT AND PROOF OF EVERY CRIME, AND THIS
WAS FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO STATUTORY CRIMES EVEN WHERE THE STATUTORY
DEFINITION DID NOT IN TERMS INCLUDE IT  ...  , THERE HAS BEEN A
MODIFICATION OF THIS VIEW IN RESPECT TO PROSECUTIONS UNDER STATUTES THE
PURPOSE OF WHICH WOULD BE OBSTRUCTED BY SUCH A REQUIREMENT.  IT IS A
QUESTION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO BE CONSTRUED BY THE COURT  ...  ." 
UNITED STATES V. BALINT, SUPRA, 251-252. 

HE REFERRED, HOWEVER, TO "REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE EXERCISE OF WHAT
IS CALLED THE POLICE POWER WHERE THE EMPHASIS OF THE STATUTE IS
EVIDENTLY UPON ACHIEVEMENT OF SOME SOCIAL BETTERMENT RATHER THAN THE
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIMES AS IN CASES OF MALA IN SE," AND DREW HIS
CITATION OF SUPPORTING AUTHORITY CHIEFLY FROM STATE COURT CASES DEALING
WITH REGULATORY OFFENSES.  ID., AT 252. 

ON THE SAME DAY, THE COURT DETERMINED THAT AN OFFENSE UNDER THE
NARCOTIC DRUG ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE INTENT, SAYING, "IF THE OFFENSE BE A
STATUTORY ONE, AND INTENT OR KNOWLEDGE IS NOT MADE AN ELEMENT OF IT,
THE INDICTMENT NEED NOT CHARGE SUCH KNOWLEDGE OR INTENT."  UNITED
STATES V. BEHRMAN, SUPRA, AT 288. 

OF COURSE, THE PURPOSE OF EVERY STATUTE WOULD BE "OBSTRUCTED" BY
REQUIRING A FINDING OF INTENT, IF WE ASSUME THAT IT HAD A PURPOSE TO
CONVICT WITHOUT IT.  THEREFORE, THE OBSTRUCTION RATIONALE DOES NOT HELP
US TO LEARN THE PURPOSE OF THE OMISSION BY CONGRESS.  AND SINCE NO
FEDERAL CRIME CAN EXIST EXCEPT BY FORCE OF STATUTE, THE REASONING OF
THE BEHRMAN OPINION, IF READ LITERALLY, WOULD WORK FAR-REACHING CHANGES
IN THE COMPOSITION OF ALL FEDERAL CRIMES.  HAD SUCH A RESULT BEEN
CONTEMPLATED, IT COULD HARDLY HAVE ESCAPED MENTION BY A COURT WHICH
NUMBERED AMONG ITS MEMBERS ONE ESPECIALLY INTERESTED AND INFORMED
CONCERNING THE IMPORTANCE OF INTENT IN COMMON-LAW CRIMES.  (FN15)  THIS
MIGHT BE THE MORE EXPECTED SINCE THE BEHRMAN HOLDING DID CALL FORTH HIS
DISSENT, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS
JOINED, OMITTING ANY SUCH MENTION. 

IT WAS NOT UNTIL RECENTLY THAT THE COURT TOOK OCCASION MORE
EXPLICITLY TO RELATE ABANDONMENT OF THE INGREDIENT OF INTENT, NOT
MERELY WITH CONSIDERATIONS OF EXPEDIENCY IN OBTAINING CONVICTIONS, NOR
WITH THE MALUM PROHIBITUM CLASSIFICATION OF THE CRIME, BUT WITH THE
PECULIAR NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE OFFENSE.  WE REFERRED TO "  ...  A
NOW FAMILIAR TYPE OF LEGISLATION WHEREBY PENALTIES SERVE AS EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF REGULATION," AND CONTINUED, "SUCH LEGISLATION DISPENSES WITH
THE CONVENTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT - AWARENESS OF SOME
WRONGDOING.  IN THE INTEREST OF THE LARGER GOOD IT PUTS THE BURDEN OF
ACTING AT HAZARD UPON A PERSON OTHERWISE INNOCENT BUT STANDING IN
RESPONSIBLE RELATION TO A PUBLIC DANGER."  BUT WE WARNED:  "HARDSHIP
THERE DOUBTLESS MAY BE UNDER A STATUTE WHICH THUS PENALIZES THE
TRANSACTION THOUGH CONSCIOUSNESS OF WRONGDOING BE TOTALLY WANTING." 
UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277, 280-281, 284.  (FN16) 

NEITHER THIS COURT NOR, SO FAR AS WE ARE AWARE, ANY OTHER HAS
UNDERTAKEN TO DELINEATE A PRECISE LINE OR SET FORTH COMPREHENSIVE
CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN CRIMES THAT REQUIRE A MENTAL
ELEMENT AND CRIMES THAT DO NOT.  WE ATTEMPT NO CLOSED DEFINITION, FOR
THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT IS NEITHER SETTLED NOR STATIC.  THE CONCLUSION
REACHED IN THE BALINT AND BEHRMAN CASES HAS OUR APPROVAL AND ADHERENCE
FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH IT WAS THERE APPLIED.  A QUITE DIFFERENT
QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER WE WILL EXPAND THE DOCTRINE OF CRIMES WITHOUT
INTENT TO INCLUDE THOSE CHARGED HERE. 

STEALING, LARCENY, AND ITS VARIANTS AND EQUIVALENTS, WERE AMONG THE
EARLIEST OFFENSES KNOWN TO THE LAW THAT EXISTED BEFORE LEGISLATION;
(FN17) THEY ARE INVASIONS OF RIGHTS OF PROPERTY WHICH STIR A SENSE OF
INSECURITY IN THE WHOLE COMMUNITY AND AROUSE PUBLIC DEMAND FOR
RETRIBUTION, THE PENALTY IS HIGH AND, WHEN A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT IS
INVOLVED, THE INFAMY IS THAT OF A FELONY, WHICH, SAYS MAITLAND, IS "
...  AS BAD A WORD AS YOU CAN GIVE TO MAN OR THING."  (FN18)  STATE
COURTS OF LAST RESORT, ON WHOM FALL THE HEAVIEST BURDEN OF INTERPRETING
CRIMINAL LAW IN THIS COUNTRY, HAVE CONSISTENTLY RETAINED THE
REQUIREMENT OF INTENT IN LARCENY-TYPE OFFENSES.  (FN19)  IF ANY STATE
HAS DEVIATED, THE EXCEPTION HAS NEITHER BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION
NOR DISCLOSED BY OUR RESEARCH. 

CONGRESS, THEREFORE, OMITTED ANY EXPRESS PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMINAL
INTENT FROM THE ENACTMENT BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF AN UNBROKEN COURSE
OF JUDICIAL DECISION IN ALL CONSTITUENT STATES OF THE UNION HOLDING
INTENT INHERENT IN THIS CLASS OF OFFENSE, EVEN WHEN NOT EXPRESSED IN A
STATUTE.  CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE AS TO MENTAL ELEMENTS IN AN ACT MERELY
ADOPTING INTO FEDERAL STATUTORY LAW A CONCEPT OF CRIME ALREADY SO WELL
DEFINED IN COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION BY THE STATES MAY
WARRANT QUITE CONTRARY INFERENCES THAN THE SAME SILENCE IN CREATING AN
OFFENSE NEW TO GENERAL LAW, FOR WHOSE DEFINITION THE COURTS HAVE NO
GUIDANCE EXCEPT THE ACT.  BECAUSE THE OFFENSES BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE
BALINT AND BEHRMAN CASES WERE OF THIS LATTER CLASS, WE CANNOT ACCEPT
THEM AS AUTHORITY FOR ELIMINATING INTENT FROM OFFENSES INCORPORATED
FROM THE COMMON LAW.  NOR DO EXHAUSTIVE STUDIES OF STATE COURT CASES
DISCLOSE ANY WELL-CONSIDERED DECISIONS APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF CRIME
WITHOUT INTENT TO SUCH ENACTED COMMON-LAW OFFENSES, (FN20) ALTHOUGH A
FEW DEVIATIONS ARE NOTABLE AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE DANGER INHERENT IN
THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTIONS HERE.  (FN21) 

THE GOVERNMENT ASKS US BY A FEAT OF CONSTRUCTION RADICALLY TO CHANGE
THE WEIGHTS AND BALANCES IN THE SCALES OF JUSTICE.  THE PURPOSE AND
OBVIOUS EFFECT OF DOING AWAY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF A GUILTY INTENT IS
TO EASE THE PROSECUTION'S PATH TO CONVICTION, TO STRIP THE DEFENDANT OF
SUCH BENEFIT AS HE DERIVED AT COMMON LAW FROM INNOCENCE OF EVIL
PURPOSE, AND TO CIRCUMSCRIBE THE FREEDOM HERETOFORE ALLOWED JURIES. 
SUCH A MANIFEST IMPAIRMENT OF THE IMMUNITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD
NOT BE EXTENDED TO COMMON-LAW CRIMES ON JUDICIAL INITIATIVE. 

THE SPIRIT OF THE DOCTRINE WHICH DENIES TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY
POWER TO CREATE CRIMES FORTHRIGHTLY (FN22) ADMONISHES THAT WE SHOULD
NOT ENLARGE THE REACH OF ENACTED CRIMES BY CONSTITUTING THEM FROM
ANYTHING LESS THAN THE INCRIMINATING COMPONENTS CONTEMPLATED BY THE
WORDS USED IN THE STATUTE.  AND WHERE CONGRESS BORROWS TERMS OF ART IN
WHICH ARE ACCUMULATED THE LEGAL TRADITION AND MEANING OF CENTURIES OF
PRACTICE, IT PRESUMABLY KNOWS AND ADOPTS THE CLUSTER OF IDEAS THAT WERE
ATTACHED TO EACH BORROWED WORD IN THE BODY OF LEARNING FROM WHICH IT
WAS TAKEN AND THE MEANING ITS USE WILL CONVEY TO THE JUDICIAL MIND
UNLESS OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED.  IN SUCH CASE, ABSENCE OF CONTRARY
DIRECTION MAY BE TAKEN AS SATISFACTION WITH WIDELY ACCEPTED
DEFINITIONS, NOT AS A DEPARTURE FROM THEM. 

WE HOLD THAT MERE OMISSION FROM SEC. 641 OF ANY MENTION OF INTENT
WILL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ELIMINATING THAT ELEMENT FROM THE CRIMES
DENOUNCED. 

                   II. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE HISTORY AND PURPOSES OF SEC. 641
IMPLY SOMETHING MORE AFFIRMATIVE AS TO ELIMINATION OF INTENT FROM AT
LEAST ONE OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED UNDER IT IN THIS CASE.  THE ARGUMENT
DOES NOT CONTEST THAT CRIMINAL INTENT IS RETAINED IN THE OFFENSES OF
EMBEZZLEMENT, STEALING AND PURLOINING, AS INCORPORATED INTO THIS
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT OFFENSE, KNOWINGLY TO CONVERT GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH IMPLY THAT IT IS AN OFFENSE IN
WHICH THE MENTAL ELEMENT OF INTENT IS NOT NECESSARY. 

CONGRESS HAS BEEN ALERT TO WHAT OFTEN IS A DECISIVE FUNCTION OF SOME
MENTAL ELEMENT IN CRIME.  IT HAS SEEN FIT TO PRESCRIBE WHAT AN EVIL
STATE OF MIND, DESCRIBED VARIOUSLY IN ONE OR MORE SUCH TERMS AS
"INTENTIONAL," "WILFUL," "KNOWING," "FRAUDULENT" OR "MALICIOUS," WILL
MAKE CRIMINAL AN OTHERWISE INDIFFERENT ACT, (FN23) OR INCREASE THE
DEGREE OF THE OFFENSE OR ITS PUNISHMENT.  (FN24)  ALSO, IT HAS AT TIMES
REQUIRED A SPECIFIC INTENT OR PURPOSE WHICH WILL REQUIRE SOME
SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE OR DESIGN FOR SOME EVIL BEYOND THE COMMON-LAW
INTENT TO DO INJURY.  (FN25)  THE LAW UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES
RECOGNIZES GOOD FAITH OR BLAMELESS INTENT AS A DEFENSE, PARTIAL
DEFENSE, OR AS AN ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED IN MITIGATION OF
PUNISHMENT.  (FN26)  AND TREASON - THE ONE CRIME DEEMED GRAVE ENOUGH
FOR DEFINITION IN OUR CONSTITUTION ITSELF - REQUIRES NOT ONLY THE DULY
WITNESSED OVERT ACT OF AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY BUT ALSO THE MENTAL
ELEMENT OF DISLOYALTY OR ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY.  (FN27)  IN VIEW OF
THE CARE THAT HAS BEEN BESTOWED UPON THE SUBJECT, IT IS SIGNIFICANT
THAT WE HAVE NOT FOUND, NOR HAS OUR ATTENTION BEEN DIRECTED TO, ANY
INSTANCE IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY ELIMINATED THE MENTAL ELEMENT
FROM A CRIME TAKEN OVER FROM THE COMMON LAW. 

THE SECTION WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WAS ENACTED IN 1948, AS
A CONSOLIDATION OF FOUR FORMER SECTIONS OF TITLE 18, AS ADOPTED IN
1940, WHICH IN TURN WERE DERIVED FROM TWO SECTIONS OF THE REVISED
STATUTES.  THE PERTINENT LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL HISTORY OF THESE
ANTECEDENTS, AS WELL AS OF SEC. 641, IS FOOTNOTED.  (FN28)  WE FIND NO
OTHER PURPOSE IN THE 1948 RE-ENACTMENT THAN TO COLLECT FROM SCATTERED
SOURCES CRIMES SO KINDRED AS TO BELONG IN ONE CATEGORY.  NOT ONE OF
THESE HAD BEEN INTERPRETED TO BE A CRIME WITHOUT INTENTION AND NO
PURPOSE TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THEM IN THE MATTER OF INTENT IS
DISCLOSED.  NO INFERENCE THAT SOME WERE AND SOME WERE NOT CRIMES OF
INTENTION CAN BE DRAWN FROM ANY DIFFERENCE IN CLASSIFICATION OR
PUNISHMENT.  NOT ONE FITS THE CONGRESSIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE PETTY
OFFENSE; EACH IS, AT ITS LEAST, A MISDEMEANOR, AND IF THE AMOUNT
INVOLVED IS ONE HUNDRED OR MORE DOLLARS EACH IS A FELONY.  (FN29)  IF
ONE CRIME WITHOUT INTENT HAS BEEN SMUGGLED INTO A SECTION WHOSE
DOMINANT OFFENSES DO REQUIRE INTENT, IT WAS PUT IN ILL-FITTING AND
COMPROMISING COMPANY.  THE GOVERNMENT APPARENTLY DID NOT BELIEVE THAT
CONVERSION STOOD SO ALONE WHEN IT DREW THIS ONE-COUNT INDICTMENT TO
CHARGE THAT MORISSETTE "DID UNLAWFULLY, WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY STEAL
AND CONVERT TO HIS OWN USE."  (FN30) 

CONGRESS, BY THE LANGUAGE OF THIS SECTION, HAS BEEN AT PAINS TO
INCRIMINATE ONLY "KNOWING" CONVERSIONS.  BUT, AT COMMON LAW, THERE ARE
UNWITTING ACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE CONVERSIONS.  IN THE CIVIL TORT, EXCEPT
FOR RECOVERY OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, THE DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE, INTENT,
MOTIVE, MISTAKE, AND GOOD FAITH ARE GENERALLY IRRELEVANT.  (FN31)  IF
ONE TAKES PROPERTY WHICH TURNS OUT TO BELONG TO ANOTHER, HIS INNOCENT
INTENT WILL NOT SHIELD HIM FROM MAKING RESTITUTION OR INDEMNITY, FOR
HIS WELL-MEANING MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEPRIVE ANOTHER OF HIS OWN. 
HAD THE STATUTE APPLIED TO CONVERSIONS WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, IT WOULD
HAVE MADE CRIMES OF ALL UNWITTING, INADVERTENT AND UNINTENDED
CONVERSIONS.  KNOWLEDGE, OF COURSE, IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH INTENT AND
MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE MOST APT WORDS OF LIMITATION.  BUT KNOWING
CONVERSION REQUIRES MORE THAN KNOWLEDGE THAT DEFENDANT WAS TAKING THE
PROPERTY INTO HIS POSSESSION.  HE MUST HAVE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS,
THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY THE LAW, THAT MADE THE TAKING A CONVERSION.  IN
THE CASE BEFORE US, WHETHER THE MENTAL ELEMENT THAT CONGRESS REQUIRED
BE SPOKEN OF AS KNOWLEDGE OR AS INTENT, WOULD NOT SEEM TO ALTER ITS
BEARING ON GUILT.  FOR IT IS NOT APPARENT HOW MORISSETTE COULD HAVE
KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY CONVERTED PROPERTY THAT HE DID NOT KNOW
COULD BE CONVERTED, AS WOULD BE THE CASE IF IT WAS IN FACT ABANDONED OR
IF HE TRULY BELIEVED IT TO BE ABANDONED AND UNWANTED PROPERTY. 

IT IS SAID, AND AT FIRST BLUSH THE CLAIM HAS PLAUSIBILITY, THAT, IF
WE CONSTRUE THE STATUTE TO REQUIRE A MENTAL ELEMENT AS PART OF CRIMINAL
CONVERSION, IT BECOMES A MEANINGLESS DUPLICATION OF THE OFFENSE OF
STEALING, AND THAT CONVERSION CAN BE GIVEN MEANING ONLY BY INTERPRETING
IT TO DISREGARD INTENTION.  BUT HERE AGAIN A BROADER VIEW OF THE
EVOLUTION OF THESE CRIMES THROWS A DIFFERENT LIGHT ON THE LEGISLATION. 

IT IS NOT SURPRISING IF THERE IS CONSIDERABLE OVERLAPPING IN THE
EMBEZZLEMENT, STEALING, PURLOINING AND KNOWING CONVERSION GROUPED IN
THIS STATUTE.  WHAT HAS CONCERNED CODIFIERS OF THE LARCENY-TYPE OFFENSE
IS THAT GAPS OR CREVICES HAVE SEPARATED PARTICULAR CRIMES OF THIS
GENERAL CLASS AND GUILTY MEN HAVE ESCAPED THROUGH THE BREACHES.  THE
BOOKS CONTAIN A SURFEIT OF CASES DRAWING FINE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH ONE MAY OBTAIN WRONGFUL
ADVANTAGES FROM ANOTHER'S PROPERTY.  THE CODIFIERS WANTED TO REACH ALL
SUCH INSTANCES.  PROBABLY EVERY STEALING IS A CONVERSION, BUT CERTAINLY
NOT EVERY KNOWING CONVERSION IS A STEALING.  "TO STEAL MEANS TO TAKE
AWAY FROM ONE IN LAWFUL POSSESSION WITHOUT RIGHT WITH THE INTENTION TO
KEEP WRONGFULLY."  IRVING TRUST CO. V. LEFF, 253 N.Y. 359, 364, 171
N.E. 569, 571.  CONVERSION, HOWEVER, MAY BE CONSUMMATED WITHOUT ANY
INTENT TO KEEP AND WITHOUT ANY WRONGFUL TAKING, WHERE THE INITIAL
POSSESSION BY THE CONVERTER WAS ENTIRELY LAWFUL.  CONVERSION MAY
INCLUDE MISUSE OR ABUSE OF PROPERTY.  IT MAY REACH USE IN AN
UNAUTHORIZED MANNER OR TO AN UNAUTHORIZED EXTENT OF PROPERTY PLACED IN
ONE'S CUSTODY FOR LIMITED USE.  MONEY RIGHTFULLY TAKEN INTO ONE'S
CUSTODY MAY BE CONVERTED WITHOUT ANY INTENT TO KEEP OR EMBEZZLE IT
MERELY BY COMMINGLING IT WITH THE CUSTODIAN'S OWN, IF HE WAS UNDER A
DUTY TO KEEP IT SEPARATE AND INTACT.  IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO THINK OF
INTENTIONAL AND KNOWING ABUSES AND UNAUTHORIZED USES OF GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY THAT MIGHT BE KNOWING CONVERSIONS BUT WHICH COULD NOT BE
REACHED AS EMBEZZLEMENT, STEALING OR PURLOINING.  KNOWING CONVERSION
ADDS SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE RANGE OF PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
WITHOUT INTERPRETING IT TO PUNISH UNWITTING CONVERSIONS. 

THE PURPOSE WHICH WE HERE ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS PARALLELS THAT OF
CODIFIERS OF COMMON LAW IN ENGLAND (FN32) AND IN THE STATES (FN33) AND
DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SERIOUS PROBLEM IN DRAFTING SUCH A STATUTE IS TO
AVOID GAPS AND LOOPHOLES BETWEEN OFFENSES.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE
ENGLISH AND STATE CODIFIERS HAVE TRIED TO COVER THE SAME TYPE OF
CONDUCT THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING AS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS HERE,
WITHOUT, HOWEVER, DEPARTING FROM THE COMMON-LAW TRADITION THAT THESE
ARE CRIMES OF INTENDMENT. 

WE FIND NO GROUNDS FOR INFERRING ANY AFFIRMATIVE INSTRUCTION FROM
CONGRESS TO ELIMINATE INTENT FROM ANY OFFENSE WITH WHICH THIS DEFENDANT
WAS CHARGED. 

                                       III. 

AS WE READ THE RECORD, THIS CASE WAS TRIED ON THE THEORY THAT EVEN IF
CRIMINAL INTENT WERE ESSENTIAL ITS PRESENCE (A) SHOULD BE DECIDED BY
THE COURT (B) AS A PRESUMPTION OF LAW, APPARENTLY CONCLUSIVE, (C)
PREDICATED UPON THE ISOLATED ACT OF TAKING RATHER THAN UPON ALL OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN EACH OF THESE RESPECTS WE BELIEVE THE TRIAL COURT
WAS IN ERROR. 

WHERE INTENT OF THE ACCUSED IS AN INGREDIENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED,
ITS EXISTENCE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHICH MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY.  STATE COURT AUTHORITIES CITED TO THE EFFECT THAT INTENT IS
RELEVANT IN LARCENOUS CRIMES ARE EQUALLY EMPHATIC AND UNIFORM THAT IT
IS A JURY ISSUE.  THE SETTLED PRACTICE AND ITS REASON ARE WELL STATED
BY JUDGE ANDREWS IN PEOPLE V. FLACK, 125 N.Y. 324, 334, 26 N.E. 267,
270: 

"IT IS ALIKE THE GENERAL RULE OF LAW AND THE DICTATE OF NATURAL
JUSTICE THAT TO CONSTITUTE GUILT THERE MUST BE NOT ONLY A WRONGFUL ACT,
BUT A CRIMINAL INTENTION.  UNDER OUR SYSTEM (UNLESS IN EXCEPTIONAL
CASES), BOTH MUST BE FOUND BY THE JURY TO JUSTIFY A CONVICTION FOR
CRIME.  HOWEVER CLEAR THE PROOF MAY BE, OR HOWEVER INCONTROVERTIBLE MAY
SEEM TO THE JUDGE TO BE THE INFERENCE OF A CRIMINAL INTENTION, THE
QUESTION OF INTENT CAN NEVER BE RULED AS A QUESTION OF LAW, BUT MUST
ALWAYS BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  JURORS MAY BE PERVERSE; THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE MAY BE DEFEATED BY UNRIGHTEOUS VERDICTS, BUT SO LONG AS THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE JUDGE AND JURY ARE DISTINCT, THE ONE RESPONDING TO THE
LAW, THE OTHER TO THE FACTS, NEITHER CAN INVADE THE PROVINCE OF THE
OTHER WITHOUT DESTROYING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TRIAL BY COURT AND JURY
...  ." 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE TRIAL COURT MAY NOT WITHDRAW OR PREJUDGE THE
ISSUE BY INSTRUCTION THAT THE LAW RAISES A PRESUMPTION OF INTENT FROM
AN ACT.  IT OFTEN IS TEMPTING TO CAST IN TERMS OF A "PRESUMPTION" A
CONCLUSION WHICH A COURT THINKS PROBABLE FROM GIVEN FACTS.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A LARCENY CASE, FROM SELECTED
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE, HAS DECLARED A
PRESUMPTION OF EXACTLY OPPOSITE EFFECT FROM THE ONE ANNOUNCED BY THE
TRIAL COURT HERE: 

"  ...  BUT WHERE THE TAKING IS OPEN AND THERE IS NO SUBSEQUENT
ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE PROPERTY, AND NO DENIAL, BUT AN AVOWAL, OF THE
TAKING A STRONG PRESUMPTION ARISES THAT THERE WAS NO FELONIOUS INTENT,
WHICH MUST BE REPELLED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE BEFORE A
CONVICTION IS AUTHORIZED ...  ."  KEMP V. STATE, 146 FLA. 101, 104, 200
SO.  368, 369. 

WE THINK PRESUMPTIVE INTENT HAS NO PLACE IN THIS CASE.  A CONCLUSIVE
PRESUMPTION WHICH TESTIMONY COULD NOT OVERTHROW WOULD EFFECTIVELY
ELIMINATE INTENT AS AN INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE.  A PRESUMPTION WHICH
WOULD PERMIT BUT NOT REQUIRE THE JURY TO ASSUME INTENT FROM AN ISOLATED
FACT WOULD PREJUDGE A CONCLUSION WHICH THE JURY SHOULD REACH OF ITS OWN
VOLITION.  A PRESUMPTION WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE JURY TO MAKE AN
ASSUMPTION WHICH ALL THE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED TOGETHER DOES NOT
LOGICALLY ESTABLISH WOULD GIVE TO A PROVEN FACT AN ARTIFICIAL AND
FICTIONAL EFFECT.  (FN34)  IN EITHER CASE, THIS PRESUMPTION WOULD
CONFLICT WITH THE OVERRIDING PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WITH WHICH THE
LAW ENDOWS THE ACCUSED AND WHICH EXTENDS TO EVERY ELEMENT OF THE
CRIME.  SUCH INCRIMINATING PRESUMPTIONS ARE NOT TO BE IMPROVISED BY THE
JUDICIARY.  EVEN CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO FACILITATE CONVICTIONS BY
SUBSTITUTING PRESUMPTIONS FOR PROOF IS NOT WITHOUT LIMIT.  TOT V.
UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463. 

MOREOVER, THE CONCLUSION SUPPLIED BY PRESUMPTION IN THIS INSTANCE WAS
ONE OF INTENT TO STEAL THE CASINGS, AND IT WAS BASED ON THE MERE FACT
THAT DEFENDANT TOOK THEM.  THE COURT THOUGHT THE ONLY QUESTION WAS,
"DID HE INTEND TO TAKE THE PROPERTY?"  THAT THE REMOVAL OF THEM WAS A
CONSCIOUS AND INTENTIONAL ACT WAS ADMITTED.  BUT THAT ISOLATED FACT IS
NOT AN ADEQUATE BASIS ON WHICH THE JURY SHOULD FIND THE CRIMINAL INTENT
TO STEAL OR KNOWINGLY CONVERT, THAT IS, WRONGFULLY TO DEPRIVE ANOTHER
OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY.  WHETHER THAT INTENT EXISTED, THE JURY MUST
DETERMINE, NOT ONLY FROM THE ACT OF TAKING, BUT FROM THAT TOGETHER WITH
DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AND ALL OF THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

OF COURSE, THE JURY, CONSIDERING MORISSETTE'S AWARENESS THAT THESE
CASINGS WERE ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, HIS FAILURE TO SEEK ANY PERMISSION
FOR THEIR REMOVAL AND HIS SELF-INTEREST AS A WITNESS, MIGHT HAVE
DISBELIEVED HIS PROFESSION OF INNOCENT INTENT AND CONCLUDED THAT HIS
ASSERTION OF A BELIEF THAT THE CASINGS WERE ABANDONED WAS AN
AFTERTHOUGHT.  HAD THE JURY CONVICTED ON PROPER INSTRUCTIONS IT WOULD
BE THE END OF THE MATTER.  BUT JURIES ARE NOT BOUND BY WHAT SEEMS
INESCAPABLE LOGIC TO JUDGES.  THEY MIGHT HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE HEAPS
OF SPENT CASINGS LEFT IN THE HINTERLAND TO RUST AWAY PRESENTED AN
APPEARANCE OF UNWANTED AND ABANDONED JUNK, AND THAT LACK OF ANY
CONSCIOUS DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY OR INTENTIONAL INJURY WAS INDICATED
BY MORISSETTE'S GOOD CHARACTER, THE OPENNESS OF THE TAKING, CRUSHING
AND TRANSPORTING OF THE CASINGS, AND THE CANDOR WITH WHICH IT WAS ALL
ADMITTED.  THEY MIGHT HAVE REFUSED TO BRAND MORISSETTE AS A THIEF.  HAD
THEY DONE SO, THAT TOO WOULD HAVE BEEN THE END OF THE MATTER. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  341 U.S. 925. 

FN2  18 U.S.C. SEC. 641, SO FAR AS PERTINENT, READS: 

"WHOEVER EMBEZZLES, STEALS, PURLOINS, OR KNOWINGLY CONVERTS TO HIS
USE OR THE USE OF ANOTHER, OR WITHOUT AUTHORITY, SELLS, CONVEYS OR
DISPOSES OF ANY RECORD, VOUCHER, MONEY, OR THING OF VALUE OF THE UNITED
STATES OR OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY THEREOF, OR ANY PROPERTY MADE OR
BEING MADE UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE UNITED STATES OR ANY DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY THEREOF: 

     *         *         *    *         * 

"SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN
YEARS, OR BOTH; BUT IF THE VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY DOES NOT EXCEED THE
SUM OF $100, HE SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT
MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 

FN3  MORISSETTE V. UNITED STATES, 187 F.2D 427. 

FN4  FOR A BRIEF HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF THIS CONCEPT IN BIBLICAL,
GREEK, ROMAN, CONTINENTAL AND ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW, SEE RADIN, INTENT,
CRIMINAL, 8 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 126.  FOR MORE EXTENSIVE TREATMENT OF
THE DEVELOPMENT IN ENGLISH LAW, SEE 2 POLLOCK AND MAITLAND, HISTORY OF
ENGLISH LAW, 448-511.  "HISTORICALLY, OUR SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW IS
BASED UPON A THEORY OF PUNISHING THE VICIOUS WILL.  IT POSTULATES A
FREE AGENT CONFRONTED WITH A CHOICE BETWEEN DOING RIGHT AND DOING WRONG
AND CHOOSING FREELY TO DO WRONG."  POUND, INTRODUCTION TO SAYRE, CASES
ON CRIMINAL LAW (1927). 

FN5  IN WILLIAMS V. NEW YORK, 337 U.S. 241, 248, WE OBSERVED THAT
"RETRIBUTION IS NO LONGER THE DOMINANT OBJECTIVE OF THE CRIMINAL LAW. 
REFORMATION AND REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS HAVE BECOME IMPORTANT GOALS
OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE."  WE ALSO THERE REFERRED TO "  ...  A
PREVALENT MODERN PHILOSOPHY OF PENOLOGY THAT THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT
THE OFFENDER AND NOT MERELY THE CRIME."  ID., AT 247.  SUCH ENDS WOULD
SEEM ILLUSORY IF THERE WERE NO MENTAL ELEMENT IN CRIME. 

FN6  4 BL. COMM. 21. 

FN7  EXAMPLES OF THESE TEXTS AND THEIR ALTERATIONS IN SUCCESSIVE
EDITIONS IN CONSEQUENCE OF EVOLUTION IN THE LAW OF "PUBLIC WELFARE
OFFENSES," AS HEREINAFTER RECITED, ARE TRACED IN SAYRE, PUBLIC WELFARE
OFFENSES, 33 COL. L. REV. 55, 66. 

FN8  EXCEPTIONS CAME TO INCLUDE SEX OFFENSES, SUCH AS RAPE, IN WHICH
THE VICTIM'S ACTUAL AGE WAS DETERMINATIVE DESPITE DEFENDANT'S
REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE GIRL HAD REACHED AGE OF CONSENT.  ABSENCE OF
INTENT ALSO INVOLVES SUCH CONSIDERATIONS AS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
BECAUSE OF INSANITY, SUBNORMAL MENTALITY, OR INFANCY, LACK OF VOLITION
DUE TO SOME ACTUAL COMPULSION, OR THAT INFERRED FROM DOCTRINES OF
COVERTURE.  MOST EXTENSIVE INROADS UPON THE REQUIREMENT OF INTENTION,
HOWEVER, ARE OFFENSES OF NEGLIGENCE, SUCH AS INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
OR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND THE WHOLE RANGE OF CRIMES ARISING FROM
OMISSION OF DUTY.  CF. COMMONWEALTH V. WELANSKY, 316 MASS. 383, 55
N.E.2D 902 (1944). 

FN9  HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW, CONSIDERS INTENT IN THE CHAPTER ON THE
CRIMINAL LAW, AND EARLIER MAKES THE PITHY OBSERVATION:  "EVEN A DOG
DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN BEING STUMBLED OVER AND BEING KICKED."  P. 3. 
RADIN, INTENT, CRIMINAL, 8 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 126, 127, POINTS OUT THAT
IN AMERICAN LAW "MENS REA IS NOT SO READILY CONSTITUTED FROM ANY
WRONGFUL ACT" AS ELSEWHERE. 

FN10  IN THE BALINT CASE, CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT RECOGNIZED THIS BUT
RATHER OVERSTATED IT BY MAKING NO ALLOWANCE FOR EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS
THOSE MENTIONED IN N. 8. 

FN11  THIS TREND AND ITS CAUSES, ADVANTAGES AND DANGERS HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED BY SAYRE, PUBLIC WELFARE OFFENSES, 33 COL. L. REV. 55; HALL,
PROLEGOMENA TO A SCIENCE OF CRIMINAL LAW, 89 U. OF PA. L. REV. 549;
HALL, INTERRELATIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW AND TORTS, 43 COL.  L. REV. 753,
967. 

FN12  THE CHANGES IN ENGLISH LAW ARE ILLUSTRATED BY NINETEENTH
CENTURY ENGLISH CASES.  IN 1814, IT WAS HELD THAT ONE COULD NOT BE
CONVICTED OF SELLING IMPURE FOODS UNLESS HE WAS AWARE OF THE
IMPURITIES.  REX V. DIXON, 3 M.&S. 11 (K.B. 1814).  HOWEVER, THIRTY-TWO
YEARS LATER, IN AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A STATUTORY FORFEITURE FOR
POSSESSION OF ADULTERATED TOBACCO, THE RESPONDENT WAS HELD LIABLE EVEN
THOUGH HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF, OR CAUSE TO SUSPECT, THE ADULTERATION. 
COUNTERING RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS, BARON PARKE SAID, "IT IS VERY TRUE
THAT IN PARTICULAR INSTANCES IT MAY PRODUCE MISCHIEF, BECAUSE AN
INNOCENT MAN MAY SUFFER FROM HIS WANT OF CARE IN NOT EXAMINING THE
TOBACCO HE HAS RECEIVED, AND NOT TAKING A WARRANTY; BUT THE PUBLIC
INCONVENIENCE WOULD BE MUCH GREATER, IF IN EVERY CASE THE OFFICERS WERE
OBLIGED TO PROVE KNOWLEDGE.  THEY WOULD BE VERY SELDOM ABLE TO DO SO." 
REGINA V. WOODROW, 15 M.&W. 404, 417 (EXCH.  1846).  CONVENIENCE OF THE
PROSECUTION THUS EMERGED AS A RATIONALE.  IN 1866, A QUARRY OWNER WAS
HELD LIABLE FOR THE NUISANCE CAUSED BY HIS WORKMEN DUMPING REFUSE INTO
A RIVER, IN SPITE OF HIS PLEA THAT HE PLAYED NO ACTIVE PART IN THE
MANAGEMENT OFF THE BUSINESS AND KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE DUMPING
INVOLVED.  HIS KNOWLEDGE OR LACK OF IT WAS DEEMED IRRELEVANT.  REGINA
V. STEPHENS, L.R. 1 Q.B. 702 (1866).  BISHOP, REFERRING TO THIS
DECISION, SAYS, "THE DOCTRINE OF THIS ENGLISH CASE MAY ALMOST BE DEEMED
NEW IN THE CRIMINAL LAW  ...  .  AND, PROPERLY LIMITED, THE DOCTRINE IS
EMINENTLY WORTHY TO BE FOLLOWED HEREAFTER."  1 BISHOP, NEW CRIMINAL LAW
(8TH ED. 1892), SEC. 1076.  AFTER THESE DECISIONS, STATUTES PROHIBITING
THE SALE OF IMPURE OR ADULTERATED FOOD WERE ENACTED.  ADULTERATION OF
FOOD ACT (35 & 36 VICT., C. 74, SEC. 2 (1872)); SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS
ACT OF 1875 (38 & 39 VICT., C. 63).  A CONVICTION UNDER THE FORMER WAS
SUSTAINED IN A HOLDING THAT NO GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OR INTENT NEED BE
PROVED IN A PROSECUTION FOR THE SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER, FITZPATRICK
V. KELLY, L.R. 8 Q.B. 337 (1873), AND IN BETTS V. ARMSTEAD, L.R. 20
Q.B.D. 771 (1888), INVOLVING THE LATTER STATUTE, IT WAS HELD THAT THERE
WAS NO NEED FOR A SHOWING THAT THE ACCUSED HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT HIS
PRODUCT DID NOT MEASURE UP TO THE STATUTORY SPECIFICATIONS. 

FN13  THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRICT CRIMINAL LIABILITY REGARDLESS OF
INTENT HAS BEEN ROUGHLY PARALLELED BY AN EVOLUTION OF A STRICT CIVIL
LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENCES REGARDLESS OF FAULT IN CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS, AS SHOWN BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS, AND BY
VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR FAULT OF OTHERS AS EVIDENCED BY VARIOUS MOTOR
VEHICLE ACTS. 

FN14  CONSEQUENCES OF A GENERAL ABOLITION OF INTENT AS AN INGREDIENT
OF SERIOUS CRIMES HAVE AROUSED THE CONCERN OF RESPONSIBLE AND
DISINTERESTED STUDENTS OF PENOLOGY.  OF COURSE, THEY WOULD NOT JUSTIFY
JUDICIAL DISREGARD OF A CLEAR COMMAND TO THAT EFFECT FROM CONGRESS, BUT
THEY DO ADMONISH US TO CAUTION IN ASSUMING THAT CONGRESS, WITHOUT CLEAR
EXPRESSION, INTENDS IN ANY INSTANCE TO DO SO.

RADIN, INTENT, CRIMINAL, 8 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 126, 130, SAYS, "  ...
AS LONG AS IN POPULAR BELIEF INTENTION AND THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL ARE
TAKEN AS AXIOMATIC, NO PENAL SYSTEM THAT NEGATES THE MENTAL ELEMENT CAN
FIND GENERAL ACCEPTANCE.  IT IS VITAL TO RETAIN PUBLIC SUPPORT OF
METHODS OF DEALING WITH CRIME."  AGAIN, "THE QUESTION OF CRIMINAL
INTENT WILL PROBABLY ALWAYS HAVE SOMETHING OF AN ACADEMIC TAINT. 
NEVERTHELESS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN INTENT AND NEGLIGENCE SPELLS FREEDOM OR CONDEMNATION FOR
THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS.  THE WATCHFULNESS OF THE JURIST JUSTIFIES
ITSELF AT PRESENT IN ITS INSISTENCE UPON THE EXAMINATION OF THE MIND OF
EACH INDIVIDUAL OFFENDER." 

SAYRE, PUBLIC WELFARE OFFENSES, 33 COL. L. REV. 55, 56, SAYS:  "TO
INFLICT SUBSTANTIAL PUNISHMENT UPON ONE WHO IS MORALLY ENTIRELY
INNOCENT, WHO CAUSED INJURY THROUGH REASONABLE MISTAKE OR PURE
ACCIDENT, WOULD SO OUTRAGE THE FEELINGS OF THE COMMUNITY AS TO NULLIFY
ITS OWN ENFORCEMENT." 

HALL, PROLEGOMENA TO A SCIENCE OF CRIMINAL LAW, 89 U. OF PA. L. REV.
549, 569, APPEARS SOMEWHAT LESS DISTURBED BY THE TREND, IF PROPERLY
LIMITED, BUT, AS TO SO-CALLED PUBLIC WELFARE CRIMES, SUGGESTS THAT
"THERE IS NO REASON TO CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENT MODE OF
DEALING WITH THESE OFFENSES IS THE BEST SOLUTION OBTAINABLE, OR THAT WE
MUST BE CONTENT WITH THIS SACRIFICE OF ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES.  THE
RAISING OF A PRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE MIGHT BE AN IMPROVEMENT." 

IN FELTON V. UNITED STATES, 96 U.S. 699, 703, THE COURT SAID, "BUT
THE LAW AT THE SAME TIME IS NOT SO UNREASONABLE AS TO ATTACH
CULPABILITY, AND CONSEQUENTLY TO IMPOSE PUNISHMENT, WHERE THERE IS NO
INTENTION TO EVADE ITS PROVISIONS  ...  ." 

FN15  HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW. 

FN16  FOR THE PLACE OF THE MENTAL ELEMENT IN OFFENSES AGAINST THE
REVENUES,  SEE SPIES V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 492; UNITED STATES V.
SCHARTON, 285 U.S. 518. 

FN17  2 RUSSELL ON CRIME (10TH ED., TURNER, 1950) 1037. 

FN18  2 POLLOCK AND MAITLAND, HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 465. 

FN19  EXAMPLES OF DECISION IN DIVERSE JURISDICTIONS MAY BE CULLED
FROM ANY DIGEST.  MOST NEARLY IN POINT ARE JOHNSON V. STATE, 36 TEX.
375, HOLDING THAT TO TAKE A HORSE RUNNING AT LARGE ON THE RANGE IS NOT
LARCENY IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INTENT TO DEPRIVE AN OWNER OF HIS
PROPERTY; JORDAN V. STATE, 107 TEX. CR. R. 414, 296 S.W. 585, THAT, IF
AT THE TIME OF TAKING PARTS FROM AN AUTOMOBILE THE ACCUSED BELIEVED
THAT THE CAR HAD BEEN ABANDONED BY ITS OWNER, HE SHOULD BE ACQUITTED;
FETKENHAUER V. STATE, 112 WIS. 491, 88 N.W. 294, THAT AN HONEST,
ALTHOUGH MISTAKEN, BELIEF BY DEFENDANT THAT HE HAD PERMISSION TO TAKE
PROPERTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY; AND DEVINE V. PEOPLE.  20
HUN (N.Y.)  98, HOLDING THAT A CLAIM THAT AN ACT WAS ONLY A PRACTICAL
JOKE MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST AN ADMITTED TAKING OF PROPERTY. 

OTHERS OF LIKE PURPORT ARE FARZLEY V. STATE, 231 ALA. 60, 163 SO.
394; NICKERSON V. STATE, 22 ALA. APP. 640, 119 SO. 243; PEOPLE V.
WILLIAMS, 73 CAL. APP. 2D 154, 166 P.2D 63; SCHIFF V. PEOPLE, 111 COLO.
333, 141 P.2D 892; KEMP V. STATE, 146 FLA. 101, 200 SO. 368; PERDEW V.
COMMONWEALTH, 260 KY. 638, 86 S.W.2D 534, HOLDING THAT APPROPRIATION BY
A FINDER OF LOST PROPERTY CANNOT CONSTITUTE LARCENY IN THE ABSENCE OF
INTENT; PEOPLE V. SHAUNDING, 268 MICH. 218, 255 N.W. 770; PEOPLE V.
WILL, 289 N.Y. 413, 46 N.E.2D 498; VAN VECHTEN V. AMERICAN EAGLE FIRE
INS. CO., 239 N.Y. 303, 146 N.E. 432; THOMAS V. KESSLER, 334 PA. 7, 5
A.2D 187; BARNES V. STATE, 145 TEX. CR. R. 131, 166 S.W.2D 708; SANDEL
V. STATE, 131 TEX. CR. R. 132, 97 S.W.2D 225; WEEKS V. STATE, 114 TEX.
CR. R. 406, 25 S.W.2D 855; HESKEW V. STATE, 18 TEX. CT. APP. 275; PAGE
V. COMMONWEALTH, 148 VA. 733, 138 S.E. 510, HOLDING REVERSIBLE ERROR TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE HAVING A TENDENCY TO THROW LIGHT ON THE QUESTION OF
THE BONA FIDES OF ONE ACCUSED OF LARCENY; BUTTS V. COMMONWEALTH, 145
VA. 800, 133 S.E. 764; STATE V. LEVY, 113 VT. 459, 35 A.2D 853, HOLDING
THAT THE TAKING OF ANOTHER'S PROPERTY IN GOOD FAITH BY INADVERTENCE OR
MISTAKE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LARCENY. 

FN20  SAYRE, PUBLIC WELFARE OFFENSES, 33 COL. L. REV. 55, 73, 84,
CITES AND CLASSIFIES A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES AND CONCLUDES THAT THEY
FALL ROUGHLY INTO SUBDIVISIONS OF (1) ILLEGAL SALES OF INTOXICATING
LIQUOR, (2) SALES OF IMPURE OR ADULTERATED FOOD OR DRUGS, (3) SALES OF
MISBRANDED ARTICLES, (4) VIOLATIONS OF ANTINARCOTIC ACTS, (5) CRIMINAL
NUISANCES, (6) VIOLATIONS OF TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, (7) VIOLATIONS OF
MOTOR-VEHICLE LAWS, AND (8) VIOLATIONS OF GENERAL POLICE REGULATIONS,
PASSED FOR THE SAFETY, HEALTH OR WELL-BEING OF THE COMMUNITY. 

FN21  SAYRE POINTS OUT THAT IN CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM OR SEDITION
CASES, WHERE THE PRESSURE TO CONVICT IS STRONG, IT HAS BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED BY DISPENSING WITH THE ELEMENT OF INTENT, IN SOME
INSTANCES BY ANALOGY WITH THE PUBLIC WELFARE OFFENSE.  EXAMPLES ARE
STATE V. HENNESSY, 114 WASH. 351, 195 P. 211; PEOPLE V. RUTHENBERG, 229
MICH. 315, 201 N.W. 358; STATE V. KAHN, 56 MONT. 108, 182 P. 107; STATE
V. SMITH, 57 MONT. 563, 190 P. 107.  COMPARE PEOPLE V. MCCLENNEGEN, 195
CAL. 445, 234 P. 91.  THIS ALTHOUGH INTENT IS OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF
OFFENSES BASED ON DISLOYALTY.  CF. CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1;
HAUPT V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 631, WHERE INNOCENCE OF INTENTION WILL
DEFEAT A CHARGE EVEN OF TREASON. 

FN22  UNITED STATES V. HUDSON AND GOODWIN, 7 CRANCH 32; UNITED STATES
V. GOODING, 12 WHEAT.  460. 

FN23  18 U.S.C. SEC. 81, ARSON:  "  ...  WILLFULLY AND MALICIOUSLY
...  "; 18 U.S.C.  SEC. 113, ASSAULT:  "(A)  ...  WITH INTENT TO COMMIT
MURDER OR RAPE  ...  .  (B)  ...  WITH INTENT TO COMMIT ANY FELONY,
EXCEPT MURDER OR RAPE  ...  "; 18 U.S.C. SEC.  152, BANKRUPTCY -
CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS, FALSE OATHS AND CLAIMS, BRIBERY:  "  ...
KNOWINGLY AND FRAUDULENTLY  ...  "; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 201, BRIBERY AND
GRAFT:  "  ...  WITH INTENT TO INFLUENCE  ...  "; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 471,
COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY: "  ...  WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD  ...  "; 18
U.S.C. SEC. 594, INTIMIDATION OF VOTERS:  " ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF
...  "; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1072, CONCEALING ESCAPED PRISONER:  "  ...
WILLFULLY ...  "; 61 STAT. 151, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 162, INTERFERENCE WITH A
MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OR AN AGENT OF THE BOARD
IN HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES:  "  ...  WILLFULLY ...  "; 52 STAT.
1069, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 216(A), VIOLATIONS OF PROVISIONS OF FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT: "  ...  WILLFULLY  ...  "; 37 STAT. 251, 21 U.S.C. SEC.
23, PACKING OR SELLING MISBRANDED BARRELS OF APPLES:  "  ...  KNOWINGLY
...  ." 

FN24  18 U.S.C. SEC. 1112, MANSLAUGHTER, "  ...  THE UNLAWFUL KILLING
OF A HUMAN BEING WITHOUT MALICE," IF VOLUNTARY, CARRIES A MAXIMUM
PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT NOT TO EXCEED TEN YEARS.  IF THE KILLING IS
"WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT," THE CRIME IS MURDER, 18 U.S.C.  SEC. 1111,
AND, IF OF THE FIRST DEGREE, PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT,
OR, IF OF THE SECOND DEGREE, PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR ANY TERM OF
YEARS OR LIFE. 

FN25  18 U.S.C. SEC. 242; SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91. 

FN26  I.R.C. SECS. 145(A), 145(B), 53 STAT. 62, AS AMENDED, 26 U.S.C.
SECS. 145(A), 145(B), AS CONSTRUED IN SPIES V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S.
492; 52 STAT. 1069, 29 U.S.C.  SEC. 216(A), STATING THE CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, PROVIDES
THAT:  "NO PERSON SHALL BE IMPRISONED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT FOR
AN OFFENSE COMMITTED AFTER THE CONVICTION OF SUCH PERSON FOR A PRIOR
OFFENSE UNDER THIS SUBSECTION."  N.Y. PENAL LAW, SEC. 1306, PROVIDES
THAT, "UPON AN INDICTMENT FOR LARCENY IT IS A SUFFICIENT DEFENSE THAT
THE PROPERTY WAS APPROPRIATED OPENLY AND AVOWEDLY, UNDER A CLAIM OF
TITLE PREFERRED IN GOOD FAITH, EVEN THOUGH SUCH CLAIM IS UNTENABLE." 

FN27  U.S. CONST., ART. III, SEC. 3, CL. 1. 

THIS PROVISION WAS TO PREVENT INCRIMINATION OF MERE MENTAL OPERATIONS
SUCH AS "COMPASSING" THE DEATH OF THE KING.  SEE CRAMER V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 1.  TO HOLD THAT A MENTAL ELEMENT IS NECESSARY TO A
CRIME IS, OF COURSE, NOT TO SAY THAT IT IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY. 

FN28 THE REVISER'S NOTE TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 641 STATES THAT IT IS
DERIVED FROM 18 U.S.C.  (1940 ED.)  SECS.  82, 87, 100, AND 101 WHICH,
IN TURN, ARE FROM REV. STAT. SECS. 5438 AND 5439.  WE SHALL CONSIDER
ONLY THE 1940 CODE SECTIONS AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS. 

18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  82 READS: 

"WHOEVER SHALL TAKE AND CARRY AWAY OR TAKE FOR HIS USE, OR FOR THE
USE OF ANOTHER, WITH INTENT TO STEAL OR PURLOIN  ...  ANY PROPERTY OF
THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL BE PUNISHED AS FOLLOWS  ...  ." 

IN UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, 45 F. SUPP. 943, A PROSECUTION FOR
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THAT SECTION, DISTRICT JUDGE YANKWICH SAID: 

"IT HAS BEEN BEFORE THE COURTS IN VERY FEW CASES.  BUT SUCH COURTS AS
HAVE HAD CASES UNDER IT, INCLUDING OUR OWN NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, HAVE HELD THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SECTION IS TO INTRODUCE THE
CRIME OF LARCENY INTO THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE. 

"IN FRACH V. MASS, 9 CIR., 1939, 106 F.2D 820, 821, WE FIND THESE
WORDS:  'LARCENY OF PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES IS MADE A CRIME BY 18
U.S.C.A. SEC. 82.' 

"THIS MEANS OF COURSE, THAT IN INTERPRETING THE STATUTE, WE MAY APPLY
THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE COMMON LAW CRIME OF LARCENY, AS
INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS OF VARIOUS STATES."  45 F. SUPP. AT 945. 

UNITED STATES V. TRINDER, 1 F. SUPP. 659, WAS A PROSECUTION OF A GROUP
OF BOYS, UNDER SEC. 82, FOR "STEALING" A GOVERNMENT AUTOMOBILE.  THEY
HAD TAKEN IT FOR A JOY RIDE WITHOUT PERMISSION, FULLY INTENDING TO
RETURN IT WHEN THEY WERE THROUGH.  THEIR PLANS WENT AWRY WHEN THE AUTO
CAME TO GRIEF AGAINST A TELEPHONE POLE.  IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT,
THE DISTRICT JUDGE SAID: 

"UPON PRINCIPLE AND AUTHORITY THERE WAS NO STEALING BUT MERELY
TRESPASS; SECRET BORROWING.  AT COMMON LAW AND LIKEWISE BY THE FEDERAL
STATUTE (18 U.S.C.A. SEC. 82) ADOPTING COMMON-LAW TERMS, STEALING IN
GENERAL IMPORTS LARCENY; THAT IS, FELONIOUS TAKING AND INTENT TO
PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY."  1 F. SUPP. AT 660. 

18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  87, ENTITLED "EMBEZZLING ARMS AND
STORES," PROVIDES: 

"WHOEVER SHALL STEAL, EMBEZZLE, OR KNOWINGLY APPLY TO HIS OWN USE, OR
UNLAWFULLY SELL, CONVEY, OR DISPOSE OF, ANY ORDNANCE, ARMS, AMMUNITION,
CLOTHING, SUBSISTENCE, STORES, MONEY, OR OTHER PROPERTY OF THE UNITED
STATES, FURNISHED OR TO BE USED FOR THE MILITARY OR NAVAL SERVICE,
SHALL BE PUNISHED AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 80 AND 82-86 OF THIS
TITLE." 

NO CASES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED RELATING TO THE ELEMENT OF
INTENT IN THE ACTS PROSCRIBED IN THAT SECTION. 

18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  100, "EMBEZZLING PUBLIC MONEYS OR OTHER
PROPERTY," STATES THAT: 

"WHOEVER SHALL EMBEZZLE, STEAL, OR PURLOIN ANY MONEY, PROPERTY,
RECORD, VOUCHER, OR VALUABLE THING WHATEVER, OF THE MONEYS, GOODS,
CHATTELS, RECORDS, OR PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE FINED NOT
MORE THAN $5,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH." 

THE ONLY NOTED CASE OF CONSEQUENCE IS CRABB V. ZERBST, 99 F.2D 562
(C.A. 5TH CIR.), TO WHICH THE DISSENT BELOW REFERRED AT SOME LENGTH. 
THE APPELLANT THERE WAS CONVICTED OF FELONIOUSLY TAKING AND CARRYING
AWAY CERTAIN PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 46 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  99, AND HAD
BEEN SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.   HE ARGUED THAT THE FIVE
YEAR LIMITATION OF SENTENCE IN 18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  100 FOR
STEALING PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES REDUCED THE TEN-YEAR LIMITATION
IN SEC. 99 FOR FELONIOUSLY TAKING AND CARRYING AWAY PROPERTY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO FIVE YEARS ALSO. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED HIS ARGUMENT, HOLDING THAT THE CRIME OF
"STEALING" IN SEC. 100 WAS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE OFFENSE
SPECIFIED IN SEC. 99, ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 100 WAS A BROADENING OF
THE COMMON-LAW CRIME OF LARCENY TO FORECLOSE ANY AVENUE BY WHICH ONE
MIGHT, IN THE PROCESS OF PLEADING, ESCAPE CONVICTION FOR ONE OFFENSE BY
PROVING THAT HE HAD COMMITTED ANOTHER ONLY A HAIR'S BREADTH DIFFERENT. 
IN THE COURSE OF ITS OPINION, IT ADVANCED THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT
OBSERVATIONS: 

"THAT FELONIOUS TAKING AND CARRYING AWAY OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE THE
SUBJECT OF THE OFFENSE CONSTITUTES THE COMMON LAW OFFENSE OF LARCENY
CANNOT BE DISPUTED  ...  .  HOWEVER, IT IS DOUBTFUL IF AT COMMON LAW
ANY FIXED DEFINITION OR FORMULA (AS TO THE MEANING OF 'LARCENY') WAS
NOT STRAINED IN ITS APPLICATION TO SOME OF THE CASES CLEARLY
CONSTITUTING THE OFFENSE.  MODERN CRIMINAL CODES TREAT THE OFFENSE IN
VARIOUS WAYS.  SOME DEFINE THE OFFENSE BY FOLLOWING THE OLD CASES AND
ARE MERELY DECLARATORY OF THE COMMON LAW, WHILE OTHERS HAVE BROADENED
THE OFFENSE TO INCLUDE OFFENSES PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS EMBEZZLEMENT, FALSE
PRETENSES, AND EVEN FELONIOUS BREACHES OF TRUST.           *         *
  *         *         * 

"AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE MODERN TENDENCY IS TO BROADEN THE OFFENSE
OF LARCENY, BY WHATEVER NAME IT MAY BE CALLED, TO INCLUDE SUCH RELATED
OFFENSES AS WOULD TEND TO COMPLICATE PROSECUTIONS UNDER STRICT PLEADING
AND PRACTICE.  IN SOME OF THESE STATUTES THE OFFENSE IS DENOMINATED
'THEFT' OR 'STEALING.'  NO STATUTE OFFERS A CLEARER EXAMPLE OF
COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE COMMON LAW AND THE MODERN CODE THAN THE TWO
DEALS WITH ROBBERY AND LARCENY, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LATTER BEING
TAKEN FROM THE COMMON LAW.  SECTION 47 (18 U.S.C.  (1940 ED.)  SEC. 
100) DENOUNCES THE RELATED OFFENSES WHICH MIGHT BE INCLUDED WITH THOSE
DESCRIBED IN SECTION 46 UNDER A CODE PRACTICE SEEKING TO AVOID THE
PITFALLS OF TECHNICAL PLEADING.  IN IT THE OFFENSE OF EMBEZZLEMENT IS
INCLUDED BY NAME, WITHOUT DEFINITION.  THEN TO COVER SUCH CASES AS MAY
SHADE INTO LARCENY, AS WELL AS ANY NEW SITUATIONS WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER
CHANGING MODERN CONDITIONS AND NOT ENVISIONED UNDER THE COMMON LAW, IT
ADDS THE WORDS STEAL OR PURLOIN  ...  . STEALING, HAVING NO COMMON LAW
DEFINITION TO RESTRICT ITS MEANING AS AN OFFENSE, IS COMMONLY USED TO
DENOTE ANY DISHONEST TRANSACTION WHEREBY ONE PERSON OBTAINS THAT WHICH
RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO ANOTHER, AND DEPRIVES THE OWNER OF THE RIGHTS AND
BENEFITS OF OWNERSHIP, BUT MAY OR MAY NOT INVOLVE THE ELEMENT OF
STEALTH USUALLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE WORD PURLOIN  ...  .  THUS, IN ANY
CASE INVOLVING LARCENY AS DEFINED BY THE COMMON LAW, SECTION 46 (18
U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  99) WOULD APPLY.  WHERE THE OFFENSE IS
EMBEZZLEMENT, OR ITS NATURE SO DOUBTFUL AS TO FALL BETWEEN LARCENY AND
EMBEZZLEMENT, IT MAY BE PROSECUTED UNDER SECTION 47 (18 U.S.C. (1940
ED.)  SEC.  100)."  99 F.2D AT 564-565. 

THE REFERENCE IN CRABB V. ZERBST TO 18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  99,
THE ROBBERY AND LARCENY STATUTE THEN OPERATIVE, SUGGESTS EXAMINATION OF
ITS SUCCESSOR IN TODAY'S CODE.  FOR PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION, THAT

"WHOEVER SHALL ROB ANOTHER OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES, OR SHALL FELONIOUSLY TAKE AND
CARRY AWAY THE SAME, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR IMPRISONED
NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS, OR BOTH." 

THE REVISER'S NOTE TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 641 MAKES NO MENTION OF IT AS A
SUCCESSOR TO THAT SECTION.  THE PRESENT ROBBERY STATUTE IS 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 2112, "PERSONAL PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES," PROVIDING THAT: 

"WHOEVER ROBS ANOTHER OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN
FIFTEEN YEARS." 

THE REVISER'S NOTE TO THAT SECTION RECITES THAT IT IS DERIVED FROM
SEC. 99 OF THE 1940 CODE, AND "THAT PORTION OF SAID SECTION 99 RELATING
TO FELONIOUS TAKING WAS OMITTED AS COVERED BY SECTION 641 OF THIS
TITLE," WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF ANY
REFERENCE TO 18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  99 IN THE NOTE TO 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 641, THE CRIME OF LARCENY BY A FELONIOUS TAKING AND CARRYING AWAY
HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED DIRECTLY FROM THE FORMER INTO THE LATTER. 

18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  101 IS THE FORERUNNER OF THAT PART OF
PRESENT SEC. 641 DEALING WITH RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY, AND HAS NO
APPLICATION TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND. 

THE HISTORY OF SEC. 641 DEMONSTRATES THAT IT WAS TO APPLY TO ACTS
WHICH CONSTITUTED LARCENY OR EMBEZZLEMENT AT COMMON LAW AND ALSO ACTS
WHICH SHADE INTO THOSE CRIMES BUT WHICH, MOST STRICTLY CONSIDERED,
MIGHT NOT BE FOUND TO FIT THEIR FIXED DEFINITIONS.  IT IS ALSO
PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IT RENDERS ONE SUBJECT TO ITS PENALTY WHO
"KNOWINGLY CONVERTS TO HIS OWN USE" PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
WORD "CONVERTS" DOES NOT APPEAR IN ANY OF ITS PREDECESSORS.  18 U.S.C.
(1940 ED.)  SEC.  82 IS APPLICABLE TO ONE WHO "TAKES FOR HIS OWN USE
...  WITH INTENT TO STEAL OR PURLOIN  ...  ."  18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.) 
SEC.  87 USES THE WORDS "KNOWINGLY APPLY TO HIS OWN USE."  NEITHER 18
U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SECS.  99, 100, NOR 101 HAS ANY WORDS RESEMBLING
"KNOWINGLY CONVERTS TO HIS OWN USE."  THE 1948 REVISION WAS NOT
INTENDED TO CREATE NEW CRIMES BUT TO RECODIFY THOSE THEN IN EXISTENCE. 
WE FIND NO SUGGESTION THAT A GUILTY INTENT WAS NOT A PART OF EACH CRIME
NOW EMBODIED IN SEC. 641. 

FN29  18 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 641. 

FN30  HAD THE INDICTMENT BEEN LIMITED TO A CHARGE IN THE WORDS OF THE
STATUTE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFECTIVE IF, IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMMON
LAW, THE STATUTE ITSELF FAILED TO SET FORTH EXPRESSLY, FULLY, AND
CLEARLY ALL ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE.  UNITED
STATES V. CARLL, 105 U.S. 611. 

FN31  HARKER V. DEMENT, 9 GILL (MD.)  7, 52 AM. DEC. 670 (1850);
RAILROAD CO. V. O'DONNELL, 49 OHIO ST. 489, 32 N.E. 476 (1892).  THE
RATIONALE UNDERLYING SUCH CASES IS THAT WHEN ONE CLEARLY ASSUMES THE
RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP OVER PROPERTY OF ANOTHER NO PROOF OF INTENT TO
CONVERT IS NECESSARY.   IT HAS EVEN BEEN HELD THAT ONE MAY BE HELD
LIABLE IN CONVERSION EVEN THOUGH HE REASONABLY SUPPOSED THAT HE HAD A
LEGAL RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.  ROW V. HOME SAV. BANK, 306
MASS. 522, 29 N.E.2D 552 (1940).  FOR OTHER CASES IN THE SAME VEIN, SEE
THOSE COLLECTED IN 53 AM. JUR.  852-854.  THESE AUTHORITIES LEAVE NO
DOUBT THAT MORISSETTE COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR A CIVIL CONVERSION FOR
HIS TAKING OF THE PROPERTY HERE INVOLVED, AND THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
JURY MIGHT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE IN SUCH A CIVIL ACTION.  THIS ASSUMES
OF COURSE THAT ACTUAL ABANDONMENT WAS NOT PROVEN, A MATTER WHICH
PETITIONER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROVE IF HE CAN. 

FN32 THE LARCENY ACT OF 1916, 6&7 GEO. V, C. 50, AN ACT "TO
CONSOLIDATE AND SIMPLIFY THE LAW RELATING TO LARCENY TRIABLE ON
INDICTMENT AND KINDRED OFFENCES," PROVIDES: 

"1.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT: 

"(1)  A PERSON STEALS WHO, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER,
FRAUDULENTLY AND WITHOUT A CLAIM OF RIGHT MADE IN GOOD FAITH, TAKES AND
CARRIES AWAY ANYTHING CAPABLE OF BEING STOLEN WITH INTENT, AT THE TIME
OF SUCH TAKING, PERMANENTLY TO DEPRIVE THE OWNER THEREOF: 

"PROVIDED THAT A PERSON MAY BE GUILTY OF STEALING ANY SUCH THING
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE HAS LAWFUL POSSESSION THEREOF, IF, BEING A
BAILEE OR PART OWNER THEREOF, HE FRAUDULENTLY CONVERTS THE SAME TO HIS
OWN USE OR THE USE OF ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE OWNER  ...  ." 

FOR THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRIME OF LARCENY IN ENGLAND,
SEE 2 RUSSELL ON CRIME (10TH ED., TURNER, 1950), 1037-1222, FROM WHICH
THE MATERIAL ABOVE WAS TAKEN. 

FN33  N.Y. PENAL LAW, SEC. 1290, DEFINES LARCENY AS FOLLOWS: 

"A PERSON WHO, WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE OR DEFRAUD ANOTHER OF THE
USE AND BENEFIT OF PROPERTY OR TO APPROPRIATE THE SAME TO THE USE OF
THE TAKER, OR OF ANY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE TRUE OWNER, WRONGFULLY
TAKES, OBTAINS OR WITHHOLDS, BY ANY MEANS WHATEVER, FROM THE POSSESSION
OF THE TRUE OWNER OR OF ANY OTHER PERSON ANY MONEY, PERSONAL PROPERTY,
THING IN ACTION, EVIDENCE OF DEBT OR CONTRACT, OR ARTICLE OF VALUE OF
ANY KIND, STEALS SUCH PROPERTY AND IS GUILTY OF LARCENY." 

THE SAME SECTION PROVIDES FURTHER THAT IT SHALL BE NO DEFENSE TO A
PROSECUTION THAT: 

"2.  THE ACCUSED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE OBTAINED POSSESSION OF, OR
TITLE TO, SUCH PROPERTY LAWFULLY, PROVIDED HE SUBSEQUENTLY WRONGFULLY
WITHHELD OR APPROPRIATED SUCH PROPERTY TO HIS OWN USE OR THE USE OF ANY
PERSON NOT ENTITLED TO THE USE AND BENEFIT OF SUCH PROPERTY  ...  ." 

THE HISTORICAL NOTE TO THAT SECTION DISCLOSES THAT IT REPRESENTS AN
ATTEMPT TO ABOLISH THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN KINDS OF LARCENIES.  LAWS
1942, C. 732, SEC. 1, PROVIDED: 

"IT IS HEREBY DECLARED AS THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE THAT THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE WILL BE SERVED, AND CONFUSION
AND INJUSTICE AVOIDED, BY ELIMINATING AND ABOLISHING THE DISTINCTIONS
WHICH HAVE HITHERTO DIFFERENTIATED ONE SORT OF THEFT FROM ANOTHER, EACH
OF WHICH, UNDER SECTION TWLEVE HUNDRED AND NINETY OF THE PENAL LAW, WAS
DENOMINATED A LARCENY, TO WIT:  COMMON LAW LARCENY BY ASPORTATION,
COMMON LAW LARCENY BY TRICK AND DEVICE, OBTAINING PROPERTY BY FALSE
PRETENSES, AND EMBEZZLEMENT." 

FN34  CF. MORGAN, INSTRUCTING THE JURY UPON PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDEN
OF PROOF, 47 HARV.  L. REV. 59; MORGAN, SOME OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING
PRESUMPTION, 44 HARV. L. REV. 906. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. HALSETH 342 U.S. 277 


NO. 91.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 28, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1952 - AFFIRMED. 


IN SEC. 213 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF 1909, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 
336, WHICH FORBIDS THE MAILING OF ANY LETTER, PACKAGE, POSTAL CARD, OR
CIRCULAR "CONCERNING ANY LOTTERY" OR SIMILAR SCHEME, THE WORDS
"CONCERNING ANY LOTTERY" MEAN AN EXISTING, GOING LOTTERY OR GAMBLING
SCHEME; AND THE SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE MAILING OF A
PUNCHBOARD WITH A LETTER SUGGESTING HOW IT MIGHT BE USED AND AN ORDER
BLANK FOR ORDERING MERCHANDISE TO BE USED FOR PRIZES, WHEN NEITHER THE
SENDER NOR THE ADDRESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF A LOTTERY OR
SIMILAR SCHEME.  PP. 277-281. 

UNITED STATES V. HALSETH. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF WISCONSIN. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN INDICTMENT OF RESPONDENT FOR
VIOLATION OF SEC. 213 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF 1909, 18 U.S.C. (1946
ED.)  SEC.  336.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC.
3731, AFFIRMED, P. 281. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLEE WAS INDICTED ON EIGHT COUNTS IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 213 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE OF 1909, 35 STAT. 1129-1130, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 336.  THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT, AND THE
UNITED STATES APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
(SUPP. IV) SEC. 3731.  THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE UPON
WHICH THE INDICTMENT WAS BASED WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO LETTER, PACKAGE, POSTAL CARD, OR CIRCULAR CONCERNING ANY LOTTERY
...  OR SIMILAR SCHEME OFFERING PRIZES DEPENDENT IN WHOLE OR IN PART
UPON LOT OR CHANCE  ...  SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN OR CARRIED BY THE MAILS
...  .  WHOEVER SHALL KNOWINGLY DEPOSIT  ...  ANYTHING TO BE  ...
DELIVERED BY MAIL IN VIOLATION OF  ...  THIS SECTION  ...  SHALL BE
FINED  ...  OR IMPRISONED  ...  ." 

THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT: 

"PERRY HALSETH, KNOWINGLY, WILFULLY AND UNLAWFULLY DID CAUSE TO BE
DELIVERED BY MAIL TO MISS LUCIA BROWN A CIRCULAR LETTER CONCERNING A
LOTTERY OR SCHEME OFFERING A PRIZE DEPENDENT UPON LOT OR CHANCE  ...
." 

THE OTHER COUNTS WERE IDENTICAL EXCEPT AS TO THE NAME OF THE
ADDRESSEE AND THE POINT OF DELIVERY. 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE PARTIES STIPULATED AS
TO PARTICULARITY THAT A LETTER, A CIRCULAR, AN ORDER BLANK, AND A
PUNCHBOARD WERE SENT TO THE ADDRESSEE BY MAIL.  THE LETTER SUBTLY
INDICATED HOW THE ADDRESSEE MIGHT OBTAIN A RADIO FREE BY SELLING THE
CHANCES ON THE PUNCHBOARD AND HOW CERTAIN LUCKY NUMBERS WOULD REWARD
THE PURCHASER WITH PRIZES OF A RADIO AND THREE ROLPOINT BALL PENS. 
(FN1)  THE PUNCHBOARD CONTAINED AN ILLUSTRATION OF MERCHANDISE TO BE
WON.  NO MERCHANDISE WAS SENT WITH THE MAILING.  IF THE ADDRESSEE
DESIRED TO PUT THE SCHEME INTO OPERATION, THE MERCHANDISE COULD BE
OBTAINED BY SENDING THE FULL AMOUNT IN CASH, OR BY A DOWN PAYMENT OR
$2.00 WITH THE ORDER AND THE BALANCE PAYABLE ON DELIVERY, OR BY A
C.O.D. SHIPMENT.  THE PUNCHBOARD ALSO INFORMED THE ADDRESSEE THAT
MERCHANDISE COULD BE "PURCHASED" FROM APPELLEE AT ANY TIME. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT EVEN IF THESE STIPULATED FACTS HAD BEEN
ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
MOTION TO DISMISS, STILL THE INDICTMENT DID NOT STATE AN OFFENSE
BECAUSE THE MAILING DID NOT CONCERN AN EXISTING LOTTERY OR SCHEME TO
OBTAIN PRIZES BY LOT OR CHANCE.  THE QUESTION THEREFORE IS WHETHER THE
MAILING OF GAMBLING PARAPHERNALIA THAT MAY BE USED TO SET UP A LOTTERY
OR SIMILAR SCHEME IS A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE. 

THE STATUTE ON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS BASED WAS PASSED IN 1909, AND
SINCE THAT TIME NO REPORTED CASE HAS BEEN FOUND CONSTRUING IT.
HOWEVER, IN CASES CONSTRUING ANALOGOUS LOTTERY STATUTES, OLD IN OUR
LAW, THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THEY APPLY ONLY TO EXISTING LOTTERIES OR
SCHEMES.  (FN2) 

IN FRANCE V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 676, A LOTTERY HAD BEEN
CONDUCTED IN KENTUCKY.  AFTER THE DRAWING WAS OVER, PERSONS WHO WERE
INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME AND WHO HAD TAKEN MONEY TO THE OPERATORS OF
THE LOTTERY FOR CHANCES PURCHASED WERE RETURNING ACROSS THE STATE LINE
TO OHIO; THEY HAD IN THEIR POSSESSION THE OFFICIAL PRINT OF THE LUCKY
NUMBER THAT HAD BEEN DRAWN, SLIPS THAT CORRESPONDED WITH THE LUCKY
NUMBER, KNOWN AS "HIT SLIPS" AND MONEY WHICH WAS TO BE GIVEN TO
WINNERS.   THEY WERE ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
A STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITED THE CARRYING ACROSS STATE LINES OF "ANY
PAPER, CERTIFICATE, OR INSTRUMENT PURPORTING TO BE OR REPRESENT A
TICKET, CHANCE, SHARE, OR INTEREST IN OR DEPENDENT UPON THE EVENT OF A
LOTTERY  ...  ."  (28 STAT. 963).  IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD
NOT VIOLATED THE STATUTE THIS COURT SAID: 

"THE LOTTERY HAD ALREADY BEEN DRAWN; THE PAPERS CARRIED BY THE
MESSENGERS WERE NOT THEN DEPENDENT UPON THE EVENT OF ANY LOTTERY  ...
. 

"THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION IN THE TESTIMONY, AND THE GOVERNMENT
ADMITS AND ASSUMES THAT THE DRAWING IN REGARD TO WHICH THESE PAPERS
CONTAINED ANY INFORMATION HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE IN KENTUCKY, AND IT
WAS THE RESULT OF THAT DRAWING ONLY THAT WAS ON ITS WAY IN THE HANDS OF
MESSENGERS TO THE AGENTS OF THE LOTTERY IN CINCINNATI. 

"THE STATUTE DOES NOT COVER THE TRANSACTION, AND HOWEVER
REPREHENSIBLE THE ACTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR MAY BE THOUGHT TO BE,
WE CANNOT SUSTAIN A CONVICTION ON THAT GROUND.  ALTHOUGH THE OBJECTION
IS A NARROW ONE, YET THE STATUTE BEING HIGHLY PENAL, RENDERING ITS
VIOLATOR LIABLE TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT, WE ARE COMPELLED TO CONSTRUE
IT STRICTLY.  FULL EFFECT IS GIVEN TO THE STATUTE BY HOLDING THAT THE
LANGUAGE APPLIES ONLY TO THAT KIND OF A PAPER WHICH DEPENDS UPON A
LOTTERY THE DRAWING OF WHICH HAS NOT YET TAKEN PLACE, AND WHICH PAPER
PURPORTS TO BE A CERTIFICATE, ETC., AS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT.  IF IT BE
URGED THAT THE ACT OF THESE PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR IS WITHIN THE REASON OF
THE STATUTE, THE ANSWER MUST BE THAT IT IS SO FAR OUTSIDE OF ITS
LANGUAGE THAT TO INCLUDE IT WITHIN THE STATUTE WOULD BE TO LEGISLATE
AND NOT TO CONSTRUE LEGISLATION."  164 U.S. AT 682-683. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, TOO, THE STATUTE IS PENAL AND MUST BE STRICTLY
CONSTRUED.  WE HOLD THAT THE WORDS "CONCERNING ANY LOTTERY" MEAN AN
EXISTING, GOING LOTTERY OR GAMBLING SCHEME.  THE MAILING DOES NOT
PURPORT TO CONCERN ANY EXISTING LOTTERY, AND NEITHER THE ADDRESSEE NOR
THE APPELLEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF A LOTTERY OR SIMILAR
SCHEME.  THE LOTTERY OR SCHEME WOULD COME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY IF THE
ADDRESSEE PUT THE PARAPHERNALIA INTO OPERATION.  THE MERE MAILING OF
INFORMATION CONCERNING SUCH SCHEMES AND HOW THEY MAY BE SET UP OR THE
MAILING OF PARAPHERNALIA FOR SUCH SCHEMES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE STATUTE
IN QUESTION.  IN FACT, THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT ITSELF DID NOT REGARD
THE STATUTE AS COVERING THE ACTIVITY COMPLAINED OF HERE.  BEGINNING IN
1915, THE DEPARTMENT HAS SOUGHT TO AMEND THE STATUTE WITHOUT SUCCESS. 
(FN3) 

CONGRESS HAS HAD BEFORE IT MANY TIMES THE QUESTION OF WHAT GAMBLING
DEVICES AND PARAPHERNALIA IT WOULD EXCLUDE FROM THE MAILS AND
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, (FN4) AND ONLY RECENTLY HAS IT PASSED AN ACT
CONCERNING THE SUBJECT.  ACT OF JANUARY 2, 1951, P.L. NO. 906, 64 STAT.
1134, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1171.  IF PUNCHBOARDS ARE TO BE ADDED TO THE
CATEGORY OF DEVICES TO BE EXCLUDED, IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO MAKE THE
ADDITION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACTUALLY, FOUR COUNTS WERE BASED ON MATERIAL RELATING TO RADIOS
AND PENS AND FOUR TO CAMERAS AND A TELESCOPE; BUT SINCE THE NATURE OF
THE MAILINGS WAS THE SAME, WE CONSIDER ONLY THE MATERIAL RELATING TO
RADIOS AND PENS. 

FN2 FRANCE V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 676; FRANCIS V. UNITED STATES,
188 U.S. 375; UNITED STATES V. IRVINE, 156 F. 376. 

FN3  REPORT OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL 72 (1915). 

FN4  HEARINGS OF APRIL, MAY AND JUNE 1950, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON S. 3357 AND H.R. 6736, 81ST CONG.,
2D SESS. 259-260. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT. 
..END :





ROCHIN V. CALIFORNIA 342 U.S. 165 


NO. 83.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1952 - 101 CAL.
APP. 2D 140, 225 P.2D 1, REVERSED. 


HAVING "SOME INFORMATION" THAT PETITIONER WAS SELLING NARCOTICS, THREE
STATE OFFICERS ENTERED HIS HOME AND FORCED THEIR WAY INTO THE BEDROOM
OCCUPIED BY HIM AND HIS WIFE.  WHEN ASKED ABOUT TWO CAPSULES LYING ON A
BEDSIDE TABLE, PETITIONER PUT THEM IN HIS MOUTH.  AFTER AN UNSUCCESSFUL
STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM BY FORCE, THE OFFICERS TOOK PETITIONER TO A
HOSPITAL, WHERE AN EMETIC WAS FORCED INTO HIS STOMACH AGAINST HIS
WILL.  HE VOMITED TWO CAPSULES WHICH WERE FOUND TO CONTAIN MORPHINE. 
THESE WERE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER HIS OBJECTION AND HE WAS CONVICTED
IN A STATE COURT OF VIOLATING A STATE LAW FORBIDDING POSSESSION OF
MORPHINE.  HELD:  THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED, BECAUSE IT WAS OBTAINED
BY METHODS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 166-174. 

ROCHIN V. CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

IN A CALIFORNIA STATE COURT, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING A
STATE LAW FORBIDDING THE POSSESSION OF MORPHINE.  THE DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL AFFIRMED.  101 CAL. APP. 2D 140, 225 P.2D 1.  THE STATE SUPREME
COURT DENIED A REVIEW.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 939. 
REVERSED, P. 174. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HAVING "SOME INFORMATION THAT (THE PETITIONER HERE) WAS SELLING
NARCOTICS," THREE DEPUTY SHERIFFS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ON THE
MORNING OF JULY 1, 1949, MADE FOR THE TWO-STORY DWELLING HOUSE IN WHICH
ROCHIN LIVED WITH HIS MOTHER, COMMON-LAW WIFE, BROTHERS AND SISTERS. 
FINDING THE OUTSIDE DOOR OPEN, THEY ENTERED AND THEN FORCED OPEN THE
DOOR TO ROCHIN'S ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR.  INSIDE THEY FOUND
PETITIONER SITTING PARTLY DRESSED ON THE SIDE OF THE BED, UPON WHICH
HIS WIFE WAS LYING.  ON A "NIGHT STAND" BESIDE THE BED THE DEPUTIES
SPIED TWO CAPSULES.  WHEN ASKED "WHOSE STUFF IS THIS?"  ROCHIN SEIZED
THE CAPSULES AND PUT THEM IN HIS MOUTH.  A STRUGGLE ENSUED, IN THE
COURSE OF WHICH THE THREE OFFICERS "JUMPED UPON HIM" AND ATTEMPTED TO
EXTRACT THE CAPSULES.  THE FORCE THEY APPLIED PROVED UNAVAILING AGAINST
ROCHIN'S RESISTANCE.  HE WAS HANDCUFFED AND TAKEN TO A HOSPITAL.  AT
THE DIRECTION OF ONE OF THE OFFICERS A DOCTOR FORCED AN EMETIC SOLUTION
THROUGH A TUBE IN ROCHIN'S STOMACH AGAINST HIS WILL.  THIS "STOMACH
PUMPING" PRODUCED VOMITING.  IN THE VOMITED MATTER WERE FOUND TWO
CAPSULES WHICH PROVED TO CONTAIN MORPHINE. 

ROCHIN WAS BROUGHT TO TRIAL BEFORE A CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT,
SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, ON THE CHARGE OF POSSESSING "A PREPARATION OF
MORPHINE" IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, 1947,
SEC. 11,500.  ROCHIN WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO SIXTY DAYS'
IMPRISONMENT.  THE CHIEF EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM WAS THE TWO CAPSULES. 
THEY WERE ADMITTED OVER PETITIONER'S OBJECTION, ALTHOUGH THE MEANS OF
OBTAINING THEM WAS FRANKLY SET FORTH IN THE TESTIMONY BY ONE OF THE
DEPUTIES, SUBSTANTIALLY AS HERE NARRATED. 

ON APPEAL, THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION,
DESPITE THE FINDING THAT THE OFFICERS "WERE GUILTY OF UNLAWFULLY
BREAKING INTO AND ENTERING DEFENDANT'S ROOM AND WERE GUILTY OF
UNLAWFULLY ASSAULTING AND BATTERING DEFENDANT WHILE IN THE ROOM," AND
"WERE GUILTY OF UNLAWFULLY ASSAULTING, BATTERING, TORTURING AND FALSELY
IMPRISONING THE DEFENDANT AT THE ALLEGED HOSPITAL."  101 CAL. APP. 2D
140, 143, 225 P.2D 1, 3.  ONE OF THE THREE JUDGES, WHILE FINDING THAT
"THE RECORD IN THIS CASE REVEALS A SHOCKING SERIES OF VIOLATIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," CONCURRED ONLY BECAUSE HE FELT BOUND BY
DECISIONS OF HIS SUPREME COURT.  THESE, HE ASSERTED, "HAVE BEEN LOOKED
UPON BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AS AN ENCOURAGEMENT, IF NOT AN
INVITATION, TO THE COMMISSION OF SUCH LAWLESS ACTS."  IBID.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA DENIED WITHOUT OPINION ROCHIN'S PETITION
FOR A HEARING.  (FN1)  TWO JUSTICES DISSENTED FROM THIS DENIAL, AND IN
DOING SO EXPRESSED THEMSELVES THUS:  "  ...  A CONVICTION WHICH RESTS
UPON EVIDENCE OF INCRIMINATING OBJECTS OBTAINED FROM THE BODY OF THE
ACCUSED BY PHYSICAL ABUSE IS AS INVALID AS A CONVICTION WHICH RESTS
UPON A VERBAL CONFESSION EXTRACTED FROM HIM BY SUCH ABUSE  ...  .  HAD
THE EVIDENCE FORCED FROM THE DEFENDANT'S LIPS CONSISTED OF AN ORAL
CONFESSION THAT HE ILLEGALLY POSSESSED A DRUG  ...  HE WOULD HAVE THE
PROTECTION OF THE RULE OF LAW WHICH EXCLUDES COERCED CONFESSIONS FROM
EVIDENCE.  BUT BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE FORCED FROM HIS LIPS CONSISTED OF
REAL OBJECTS THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE ARE PERMITTED TO BASE A
CONVICTION UPON IT.  (WE) FIND NO VALID GROUND OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN A
VERBAL CONFESSION EXTRACTED BY PHYSICAL ABUSE AND A CONFESSION WRESTED
FROM DEFENDANT'S BODY BY PHYSICAL ABUSE."  101 CAL. APP. 2D 143, 149
150, 225 P.2D 913, 917-918. 

THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 341 U.S. 939, BECAUSE A SERIOUS
QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IMPOSES ON THE CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS BY THE STATES. 

IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS
PREDOMINANTLY COMMITTED TO THE CARE OF THE STATES.  THE POWER TO DEFINE
CRIMES BELONGS TO CONGRESS ONLY AS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF CARRYING
INTO EXECUTION ITS LIMITED GRANT OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS.  U.S. CONST.,
ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 18.  BROADLY SPEAKING, CRIMES IN THE UNITED STATES
ARE WHAT THE LAWS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES MAKE THEM, SUBJECT TO THE
LIMITATIONS OF ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 1, IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION,
PROHIBITING BILLS OF ATTAINDER AND EX POST FACTO LAWS, AND OF THE
THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. 

THESE LIMITATIONS, IN THE MAIN, CONCERN NOT RESTRICTIONS UPON THE
POWERS OF THE STATES TO DEFINE CRIME, EXCEPT IN THE RESTRICTED AREA
WHERE FEDERAL AUTHORITY HAS PREEMPTED THE FIELD, BUT RESTRICTIONS UPON
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATES MAY ENFORCE THEIR PENAL CODES. 
ACCORDINGLY, IN REVIEWING A STATE CRIMINAL CONVICTION UNDER A CLAIM OF
RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
FROM WHICH IS DERIVED THE MOST FAR-REACHING AND MOST FREQUENT FEDERAL
BASIS OF CHALLENGING STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE, "WE MUST BE DEEPLY MINDFUL
OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STATES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL
LAWS, AND EXERCISE WITH DUE HUMILITY OUR MERELY NEGATIVE FUNCTION IN
SUBJECTING CONVICTIONS FROM STATE COURTS TO THE VERY NARROW SCRUTINY
WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES." 
MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 412, 418.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW,
"ITSELF A HISTORICAL PRODUCT," JACKMAN V. ROSENBAUM CO., 260 U.S. 22,
31, IS NOT TO BE TURNED INTO A DESTRUCTIVE DOGMA AGAINST THE STATES IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. 

HOWEVER, THIS COURT TOO HAS ITS RESPONSIBILITY.  REGARD FOR THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE "INESCAPABLY IMPOSES UPON THIS
COURT AN EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT UPON THE WHOLE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
(RESULTING IN A CONVICTION) IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THEY OFFEND
THOSE CANONS OF DECENCY AND FAIRNESS WHICH EXPRESS THE NOTIONS OF
JUSTICE OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES EVEN TOWARD THOSE CHARGED WITH THE
MOST HEINOUS OFFENSES."  MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, AT 416-417. 
THESE STANDARDS OF JUSTICE ARE NOT AUTHORITATIVELY FORMULATED ANYWHERE
AS THOUGH THEY WERE SPECIFICS.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS A SUMMARIZED
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF RESPECT FOR THOSE PERSONAL IMMUNITIES
WHICH, AS MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TWICE WROTE FOR THE COURT, ARE "SO ROOTED
IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AS TO BE RANKED AS
FUNDAMENTAL," SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 105, OR ARE
"IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT,
302 U.S. 319, 325.  (FN2) 

THE COURT'S FUNCTION IN THE OBSERVANCE OF THIS SETTLED CONCEPTION OF
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT LEAVE US WITHOUT ADEQUATE GUIDES IN
SUBJECTING STATE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUDGMENT.  IN
DEALING NOT WITH THE MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT BUT WITH HUMAN RIGHTS, THE
ABSENCE OF FORMAL EXACTITUDE, OR WANT OF FIXITY OF MEANING, IS NOT AN
UNUSUAL OR EVEN REGRETTABLE ATTRIBUTE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. 
WORDS BEING SYMBOLS DO NOT SPEAK WITHOUT A GLOSS.  ON THE ONE HAND THE
GLOSS MAY BE THE DEPOSIT OF HISTORY, WHEREBY A TERM GAINS TECHNICAL
CONTENT.  THUS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH AMENDMENTS FOR
TRIAL BY JURY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE A RIGID MEANING.  NO CHANGES
OR CHANCES CAN ALTER THE CONTENT OF THE VERBAL SYMBOL OF "JURY" - A
BODY OF TWELVE MEN WHO MUST REACH A UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION IF THE VERDICT
IS TO GO AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.  (FN3)  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GLOSS OF
SOME OF THE VERBAL SYMBOLS OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE THEM A
FIXED TECHNICAL CONTENT.  IT EXACTS A CONTINUING PROCESS OF
APPLICATION. 

WHEN THE GLOSS HAS THUS NOT BEEN FIXED BUT IS A FUNCTION OF THE
PROCESS OF JUDGMENT, THE JUDGMENT IS BOUND TO FALL DIFFERENTLY AT
DIFFERENT TIMES AND DIFFERENTLY AT THE SAME TIME THROUGH DIFFERENT
JUDGES.  EVEN MORE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS, SUCH AS THE GUARANTY OF FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND THE DETAILED PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES, HAVE INEVITABLY EVOKED AS SHARP DIVISIONS IN THIS COURT AS
THE LEAST SPECIFIC AND MOST COMPREHENSIVE PROTECTION OF LIBERTIES, THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 

THE VAGUE CONTOURS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DO NOT LEAVE JUDGES AT
LARGE.  (FN4)  WE MAY NOT DRAW ON OUR MERELY PERSONAL AND PRIVATE
NOTIONS AND DISREGARD THE LIMITS THAT BIND JUDGES IN THEIR JUDICIAL
FUNCTION.  EVEN THOUGH THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS NOT FINAL
AND FIXED, THESE LIMITS ARE DERIVED FROM CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE FUSED
IN THE WHOLE NATURE OF OUR JUDICIAL PROCESS.  SEE CARDOZO, THE NATURE
OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS; THE GROWTH OF THE LAW; THE PARADOXES OF LEGAL
SCIENCE.  THESE ARE CONSIDERATIONS DEEPLY ROOTED IN REASON AND IN THE
COMPELLING TRADITIONS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
PLACES UPON THIS COURT THE DUTY OF EXERCISING A JUDGMENT, WITHIN THE
NARROW CONFINES OF JUDICIAL POWER IN REVIEWING STATE CONVICTIONS, UPON
INTERESTS OF SOCIETY PUSHING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. 

DUE PROCESS OF LAW THUS CONCEIVED IS NOT TO BE DERIDED AS RESORT TO A
REVIVAL OF "NATURAL LAW."  (FN5)  TO BELIEVE THAT THIS JUDICIAL
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT COULD BE AVOIDED BY FREEZING "DUE PROCESS OF LAW"
AT SOME FIXED STAGE OF TIME OR THOUGHT IS TO SUGGEST THAT THE MOST
IMPORTANT ASPECT OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION IS A FUNCTION FOR
INANIMATE MACHINES AND NOT FOR JUDGES, FOR WHOM THE INDEPENDENCE
SAFEGUARDED BY ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED AND WHO ARE
PRESUMABLY GUIDED BY ESTABLISHED STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL BEHAVIOR.  EVEN
CYBERNETICS HAS NOT YET MADE THAT HAUGHTY CLAIM.  TO PRACTICE THE
REQUISITE DETACHMENT AND TO ACHIEVE SUFFICIENT OBJECTIVITY NO DOUBT
DEMANDS OF JUDGES THE HABIT OF SELF-DISCIPLINE AND SELF-CRITICISM,
INCERTITUDE THAT ONE'S OWN VIEWS ARE INCONTESTABLE AND ALERT TOLERANCE
TOWARD VIEWS NOT SHARED.  BUT THESE ARE PRECISELY THE PRESUPPOSITIONS
OF OUR JUDICIAL PROCESS.  THEY ARE PRECISELY THE QUALITIES SOCIETY HAS
A RIGHT TO EXPECT FROM THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH ULTIMATE JUDICIAL POWER. 

RESTRAINTS ON OUR JURISDICTION ARE SELF-IMPOSED ONLY IN THE SENSE
THAT THERE IS FROM OUR DECISIONS NO IMMEDIATE APPEAL SHORT OF
IMPEACHMENT OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.  BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW A MATTER OF JUDICIAL CAPRICE.  THE FACULTIES OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE MAY BE INDEFINITE AND VAGUE, BUT THE MODE OF THEIR
ASCERTAINMENT IS NOT SELF-WILLED.  IN EACH CASE "DUE PROCESS OF LAW"
REQUIRES AN EVALUATION BASED ON A DISINTERESTED INQUIRY PURSUED IN THE
SPIRIT OF SCIENCE, ON A BALANCED ORDER OF FACTS EXACTLY AND FAIRLY
STATED, ON THE DETACHED CONSIDERATION OF CONFLICTING CLAIMS, SEE HUDSON
COUNTY WATER CO. V. MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349, 355, ON A JUDGMENT NOT AD
HOC AND EPISODIC BUT DULY MINDFUL OF RECONCILING THE NEEDS BOTH OF
CONTINUITY AND OF CHANGE IN A PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY. 

APPLYING THESE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
PRESENT CASE, WE ARE COMPELLED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BY
WHICH THIS CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED DO MORE THAN OFFEND SOME FASTIDIOUS
SQUEAMISHNESS OR PRIVATE SENTIMENTALISM ABOUT COMBATTING CRIME TOO
ENERGETICALLY.  THIS IS CONDUCT THAT SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE.  ILLEGALLY
BREAKING INTO THE PRIVACY OF THE PETITIONER, THE STRUGGLE TO OPEN HIS
MOUTH AND REMOVE WHAT WAS THERE, THE FORCIBLE EXTRACTION OF HIS
STOMACH'S CONTENTS - THIS COURSE OF PROCEEDING BY AGENTS OF GOVERNMENT
TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE IS BOUND TO OFFEND EVEN HARDENED SENSIBILITIES. 
THEY ARE METHODS TOO CLOSE TO THE RACK AND THE SCREW TO PERMIT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION. 

IT HAS LONG SINCE CEASED TO BE TRUE THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS
HEEDLESS OF THE MEANS BY WHICH OTHERWISE RELEVANT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
IS OBTAINED.  THIS WAS NOT TRUE EVEN BEFORE THE SERIES OF RECENT CASES
ENFORCED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATES MAY NOT BASE
CONVICTIONS UPON CONFESSIONS, HOWEVER MUCH VERIFIED, OBTAINED BY
COERCION.  THESE DECISIONS ARE NOT ARBITRARY EXCEPTIONS TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE RIGHT OF STATES TO FASHION THEIR OWN RULES OF EVIDENCE
FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS.  THEY ARE NOT SPORTS IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BUT
APPLICATIONS OF A GENERAL PRINCIPLE.  THEY ARE ONLY INSTANCES OF THE
GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT STATES IN THEIR PROSECUTIONS RESPECT CERTAIN
DECENCIES OF CIVILIZED CONDUCT.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS A HISTORIC AND
GENERATIVE PRINCIPLE, PRECLUDES DEFINING, AND THEREBY CONFINING, THESE
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT MORE PRECISELY THAN TO SAY THAT CONVICTIONS CANNOT
BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY METHODS THAT OFFEND "A SENSE OF JUSTICE."  SEE MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN BROWN V.
MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278, 285-286.  IT WOULD BE A STULTIFICATION OF
THE RESPONSIBILITY WHICH THE COURSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY HAS CAST
UPON THIS COURT TO HOLD THAT IN ORDER TO CONVICT A MAN THE POLICE
CANNOT EXTRACT BY FORCE WHAT IS IN HIS MIND BUT CAN EXTRACT WHAT IS IN
HIS STOMACH.  (FN6)    TO ATTEMPT IN THIS CASE TO DISTINGUISH WHAT
LAWYERS CALL "REAL EVIDENCE" FROM VERBAL EVIDENCE IS TO IGNORE THE
REASONS FOR EXCLUDING COERCED CONFESSIONS.  USE OF INVOLUNTARY VERBAL
CONFESSIONS IN STATE CRIMINAL TRIALS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY OBNOXIOUS NOT
ONLY BECAUSE OF THEIR UNRELIABILITY.  THEY ARE INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE EVEN THOUGH STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THEM MAY BE
INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED AS TRUE.  COERCED CONFESSIONS OFFEND THE
COMMUNITY'S SENSE OF FAIR PLAY AND DECENCY.  SO HERE, TO SANCTION THE
BRUTAL CONDUCT WHICH NATURALLY ENOUGH WAS CONDEMNED BY THE COURT WHOSE
JUDGMENT IS BEFORE US, WOULD BE TO AFFORD BRUTALITY THE CLOAK OF LAW. 
NOTHING WOULD BE MORE CALCULATED TO DISCREDIT LAW AND THEREBY TO
BRUTALIZE THE TEMPER OF A SOCIETY.    IN DECIDING THIS CASE WE DO NOT
HEEDLESSLY BRING INTO QUESTION DECISIONS IN MANY STATES DEALING WITH
ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT, EVEN IF RELATED, PROBLEMS.  WE THEREFORE PUT TO
ONE SIDE CASES WHICH HAVE ARISEN IN THE STATE COURTS THROUGH USE OF
MODERN METHODS AND DEVICES FOR DISCOVERING WRONGDOERS AND BRINGING THEM
TO BOOK.  IT DOES NOT FAIRLY REPRESENT THESE DECISIONS TO SUGGEST THAT
THEY LEGALIZE FORCE SO BRUTAL AND SO OFFENSIVE TO HUMAN DIGNITY IN
SECURING EVIDENCE FROM A SUSPECT AS IS REVEALED BY THIS RECORD.  INDEED
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS NOT SANCTIONED THIS MODE OF SECURING A
CONVICTION.  IT MERELY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO DECLINE A REVIEW OF
THE CONVICTION.  ALL THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES WHO HAVE EXPRESSED
THEMSELVES IN THIS CASE HAVE CONDEMNED THE CONDUCT IN THE STRONGEST
LANGUAGE. 

WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL THAT HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS CAN BE CONJURED UP,
SHADING IMPERCEPTIBLY FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND BY
GRADATIONS PRODUCING PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES DESPITE SEEMINGLY LOGICAL
EXTENSIONS.  BUT THE CONSTITUTION IS "INTENDED TO PRESERVE PRACTICAL
AND SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, NOT TO MAINTAIN THEORIES."  DAVIS V. MILLS, 194
U.S. 451, 457. 

ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN
OBTAINED BY METHODS THAT OFFEND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  THE JUDGMENT
BELOW MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  THE PETITION FOR A HEARING IS ADDRESSED TO THE DISCRETION OF THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AND A DENIAL HAS APPARENTLY THE SAME
SIGNIFICANCE AS THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT.  CAL. CONST.,
ART. VI, SECS. 4, 4C; "RULES ON APPEAL," RULES 28, 29, 36 CAL. 2D 24-25
(1951).  SEE 3 STAN.  L. REV. 243-269 (1951). 

FN2  WHAT IS HERE SUMMARIZED WAS DEEMED BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT,
IN MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 325 U.S. 401, 412 AND 438, TO BE "THE
CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THIS COURT REVIEWS ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS A STATE COURT CONVICTION FOR CRIME."  THEY HAVE BEEN APPLIED BY
THIS COURT MANY TIMES, LONG BEFORE AND SINCE THE MALINSKI CASE. 

FN3  THIS IS THE FEDERAL JURY REQUIRED CONSTITUTIONALLY ALTHOUGH
ENGLAND AND AT LEAST HALF OF THE STATES HAVE IN SOME CIVIL CASES JURIES
WHICH ARE COMPOSED OF LESS THAN 12 OR WHOSE VERDICT MAY BE LESS THAN
UNANIMOUS.  SEE COUNTY COURTS ACT, 1934, 24 & 25 GEO.  V, C. 53, SEC.
93; ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATIVE BUREAU, LEGISLATIVE BRIEFS NO. 4, GRAND
AND PETIT JURIES IN THE UNITED STATES, V-VI (FEB. 15, 1940); THE
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, THE BOOK OF THE STATES, 1950-1951, 515. 

FN4  BURKE'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE METHOD OF ASCERTAINING LAW BY JUDGES
ARE PERTINENT: 

"YOUR COMMITTEE DO NOT FIND ANY POSITIVE LAW WHICH BINDS THE JUDGES
OF THE COURTS IN WESTMINSTER-HALL PUBLICLY TO GIVE A REASONED OPINION
FROM THE BENCH, IN SUPPORT OF THEIR JUDGMENT UPON MATTERS THAT ARE
STATED BEFORE THEM.  BUT THE COURSE HATH PREVAILED FROM THE OLDEST
TIMES.  IT HATH BEEN SO GENERAL AND SO UNIFORM, THAT IT MUST BE
CONSIDERED AS THE LAW OF THE LAND."  REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF
MANAGERS ON THE CAUSES OF THE DURATION OF MR. HASTINGS'S TRIAL, 4
SPEECHES OF EDMUND BURKE (1816) 200-201. 

AND BURKE HAD AN ANSWER FOR THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT THE LIBERTY OF THE
CITIZEN CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY THE FLEXIBLE CONCEPTION OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW: 

"  ... THE ENGLISH JURISPRUDENCE HAS NOT ANY OTHER SURE FOUNDATION,
NOR CONSEQUENTLY THE LIVES AND PROPERTIES OF THE SUBJECT ANY SURE HOLD,
BUT IN THE MAXIMS, RULES, AND PRINCIPLES, AND JURIDICAL TRADITIONARY
LINE OF DECISIONS  ...  ."  ID., AT 201. 

FN5 MORRIS R. COHEN, "JUS NATURALE REDIVIVUM," 25 PHILOSOPHICAL
REVIEW 761 (1916), AND "NATURAL RIGHTS AND POSITIVE LAW," REASON AND
NATURE (1931), 401-426; F. POLLOCK, "THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF NATURE,"
ESSAYS IN THE LAW (1922), 31-79. 

FN6  AS TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
CRIMINATION PROTECTED, IN FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS, UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, AND THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IMPOSES UPON THE STATES AGAINST THE USE OF COERCED
CONFESSIONS, SEE BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, SUPRA, AT 285. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46, 68-123, SETS OUT REASONS FOR MY
BELIEF THAT STATE AS WELL AS FEDERAL COURTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS MUST OBEY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S COMMAND THAT "NO PERSON ...
SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF."  I THINK A PERSON IS COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF NOT ONLY WHEN HE IS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY, BUT ALSO WHEN AS
HERE, INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE IS FORCIBLY TAKEN FROM HIM BY A
CONTRIVANCE OF MODERN SCIENCE.  CF. BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S.
616; COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, 562; BRAM V. UNITED STATES,
168 U.S. 532; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227.  CALIFORNIA CONVICTED
THIS PETITIONER BY USING AGAINST HIM EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN THIS MANNER,
AND I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REVERSED
ON THIS GROUND. 

IN THE VIEW OF A MAJORITY OF THE COURT, HOWEVER, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
IMPOSES NO RESTRAINT OF ANY KIND ON THE STATES.  THEY NEVERTHELESS HOLD
THAT CALIFORNIA'S USE OF THIS EVIDENCE VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SINCE THEY HOLD AS I DO IN THIS CASE, I
REGRET MY INABILITY TO ACCEPT THEIR INTERPRETATION WITHOUT PROTEST. 
BUT I BELIEVE THAT FAITHFUL ADHERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC GUARANTEES IN THE
BILL OF RIGHTS INSURES A MORE PERMANENT PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL
LIBERTY THAN THAT WHICH CAN BE AFFORDED BY THE NEBULOUS STANDARDS
STATED BY THE MAJORITY. 

WHAT THE MAJORITY HOLDS IS THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE EMPOWERS THIS
COURT TO NULLIFY ANY STATE LAW IF ITS APPLICATION "SHOCKS THE
CONSCIENCE," OFFENDS "A SENSE OF JUSTICE" OR RUNS COUNTER TO THE
"DECENCIES OF CIVILIZED CONDUCT."  THE MAJORITY EMPHASIZE THAT THESE
STATEMENTS DO NOT REFER TO THEIR OWN CONSCIENCES OR TO THEIR SENSES OF
JUSTICE AND DECENCY.  FOR WE ARE TOLD THAT "WE MAY NOT DRAW ON OUR
MERELY PERSONAL AND PRIVATE NOTIONS"; OUR JUDGMENT MUST BE GROUNDED ON
"CONSIDERATIONS DEEPLY ROOTED IN REASON AND IN THE COMPELLING
TRADITIONS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION."  WE ARE FURTHER ADMONISHED TO
MEASURE THE VALIDITY OF STATE PRACTICES, NOT BY OUR REASON, OR BY THE
TRADITIONS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, BUT BY "THE COMMUNITY'S SENSE OF
FAIR PLAY AND DECENCY"; BY THE "TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR
PEOPLE"; OR BY "THOSE CANONS OF DECENCY AND FAIRNESS WHICH EXPRESS THE
NOTIONS OF JUSTICE OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES."  THESE CANONS ARE MADE
NECESSARY, IT IS SAID, BECAUSE OF "INTERESTS OF SOCIETY PUSHING IN
OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS." 

IF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES VEST THIS COURT WITH SUCH UNLIMITED
POWER TO INVALIDATE LAWS, I AM STILL IN DOUBT AS TO WHY WE SHOULD
CONSIDER ONLY THE NOTIONS OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES TO DETERMINE WHAT
ARE IMMUTABLE AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE.  MOREOVER, ONE MAY
WELL ASK WHAT AVENUES OF INVESTIGATION ARE OPEN TO DISCOVER "CANONS" OF
CONDUCT SO UNIVERSALLY FAVORED THAT THIS COURT SHOULD WRITE THEM INTO
THE CONSTITUTION?  ALL WE ARE TOLD IS THAT THE DISCOVERY MUST BE MADE
BY AN "EVALUATION BASED ON A DISINTERESTED INQUIRY PURSUED IN THE
SPIRIT OF SCIENCE, ON A BALANCED ORDER OF FACTS." 

SOME CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ARE STATED IN ABSOLUTE AND UNQUALIFIED
LANGUAGE SUCH, FOR ILLUSTRATION, AS THE FIRST AMENDMENT STATING THAT NO
LAW SHALL BE PASSED PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION OR
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR PRESS.  OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS DO REQUIRE COURTS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN COMPETING POLICIES, SUCH
AS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WHICH, BY ITS TERMS, NECESSITATES A JUDICIAL
DECISION AS TO WHAT IS AN "UNREASONABLE" SEARCH OR SEIZURE.  THERE IS,
HOWEVER, NO EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE GRANTING JUDICIAL POWER TO
INVALIDATE EVERY STATE LAW OF EVERY KIND DEEMED "UNREASONABLE" OR
CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S NOTION OF CIVILIZED DECENCIES; YET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY USED BY THE MAJORITY HAS, IN THE PAST, BEEN
USED TO DENY A STATE THE RIGHT TO FIX THE PRICE OF GASOLINE, WILLIAMS
V. STANDARD OIL CO., 278 U.S. 235; AND EVEN THE RIGHT TO PREVENT BAKERS
FROM PALMING OFF SMALLER FOR LARGER LOAVES OF BREAD, JAY BURNS BAKING
CO. V. BRYAN, 264 U.S. 504.  THESE CASES, AND OTHERS, (FN1) SHOW THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE EVANESCENT STANDARDS OF THE MAJORITY'S PHILOSOPHY
HAVE BEEN USED TO NULLIFY STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS PASSED TO SUPPRESS
EVIL ECONOMIC PRACTICES.  WHAT PARALYZING ROLE THIS SAME PHILOSOPHY
WILL PLAY IN THE FUTURE ECONOMIC AFFAIRS OF THIS COUNTRY IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO PREDICT.  OF EVEN GRAVER CONCERN, HOWEVER, IS THE USE OF THE
PHILOSOPHY TO NULLIFY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  I LONG AGO CONCLUDED THAT
THE ACCORDION-LIKE QUALITIES OF THIS PHILOSOPHY MUST INEVITABLY IMPERIL
ALL THE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE
BILL OF RIGHTS.  (FN2)  REFLECTION AND RECENT DECISIONS (FN3) OF THIS
COURT SANCTIONING ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS HAVE
STRENGTHENED THIS CONCLUSION. 

FN1  SEE N. 12 OF DISSENTING OPINION, ADMANSON V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA,
AT P. 83. 

FN2  E.G., ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, AND CASES CITED IN THE
DISSENT. 

FN3 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382; FEINER V.
NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 315; DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THIS ACCUSED'S STOMACH WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE
IN THE MAJORITY OF STATES WHERE THE QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED.  (FN1)
SO FAR AS THE REPORTED CASES REVEAL, THE ONLY STATES WHICH WOULD
PROBABLY EXCLUDE THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE ARKANSAS, IOWA, MICHIGAN, AND
MISSOURI.  (FN2) YET THE COURT NOW SAYS THAT THE RULE WHICH THE
MAJORITY OF THE STATES HAVE FASHIONED VIOLATES THE "DECENCIES OF
CIVILIZED CONDUCT."  TO THAT I CANNOT AGREE.  IT IS A RULE FORMULATED
BY RESPONSIBLE COURTS WITH JUDGES AS SENSITIVE AS WE ARE TO THE PROPER
STANDARDS FOR LAW ADMINISTRATION. 

AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER IT MIGHT BE DEBATABLE WHETHER THE PROVISION IN
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAT NO PERSON "SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL
CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF" SERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  NOT
ALL CIVILIZED LEGAL PROCEDURES RECOGNIZE IT.  (FN3)  BUT THE CHOICE WAS
MADE BY THE FRAMERS, A CHOICE WHICH SETS A STANDARD FOR LEGAL TRIALS IN
THIS COUNTRY.  THE FRAMERS MADE IT A STANDARD OF DUE PROCESS FOR
PROSECUTIONS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IF IT IS A REQUIREMENT OF DUE
PROCESS FOR A TRIAL IN THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME
TO SAY IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS FOR A TRIAL IN THE STATE
COURTHOUSE.  THAT WAS THE ISSUE RECENTLY SURVEYED IN ADAMSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46.  THE COURT REJECTED THE VIEW THAT COMPELLED
TESTIMONY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AND HELD IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE ACCUSED IN
A STATE TRIAL CAN BE FORCED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF.  I DISAGREE. 
OF COURSE AN ACCUSED CAN BE COMPELLED TO BE PRESENT AT THE TRIAL, TO
STAND, TO SIT, TO TURN THIS WAY OR THAT, AND TO TRY ON A CAP OR A
COAT.  SEE HOLT V. UNITED STATES, 218 U.S. 245, 252-253.  BUT I THINK
THAT WORDS TAKEN FROM HIS LIPS, CAPSULES TAKEN FROM HIS STOMACH, BLOOD
TAKEN FROM HIS VEINS ARE ALL INADMISSIBLE PROVIDED THEY ARE TAKEN FROM
HIM WITHOUT HIS CONSENT.  THEY ARE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE COMMAND
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THAT IS AN UNEQUIVOCAL, DEFINITE AND WORKABLE RULE OF EVIDENCE FOR
STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  BUT WE CANNOT IN FAIRNESS FREE THE STATE
COURTS FROM THAT COMMAND AND YET EXCORIATE THEM FOR FLOUTING THE
"DECENCIES OF CIVILIZED CONDUCT" WHEN THEY ADMIT THE EVIDENCE.  THAT IS
TO MAKE THE RULE TURN NOT ON THE CONSTITUTION BUT ON THE IDIOSYNCRASIES
OF THE JUDGES WHO SIT HERE. 

THE DAMAGE OF THE VIEW SPONSORED BY THE COURT IN THIS CASE MAY NOT BE
CONSPICUOUS HERE.  BUT IT IS PART OF THE SAME PHILOSOPHY THAT PRODUCED
BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, DENYING COUNSEL TO AN ACCUSED IN A STATE
TRIAL AGAINST THE COMMAND OF THE SIXTY AMENDMENT, AND WOLF V. COLORADO,
338 U.S. 25, ALLOWING EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF A SEARCH AND
SEIZURE THAT IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO BE INTRODUCED IN
A STATE TRIAL.  IT IS PART OF THE PROCESS OF EROSION OF CIVIL RIGHTS OF
THE CITIZEN IN RECENT YEARS. 

FN1  SEE PEOPLE V. ONE 1941 MERCURY SEDAN, 74 CAL. APP. 2D 199, 168
P.2D 443 (PUMPING OF ACCUSED'S STOMACH TO RECOVER SWALLOWED NARCOTIC);
ROCHIN V. CALIFORNIA, 101 CAL.  APP. 2D 140, 225 P.2D 1 (PUMPING OF
ACCUSED'S STOMACH TO RECOVER SWALLOWED NARCOTIC); PEOPLE V. TUCKER, 88
CAL. APP. 2D 333, 198 P.2D 941 (BLOOD TEST TO DETERMINE INTOXICATION);
STATE V. AYRES, 70 IDAHO 18, 211 P.2D 142 (BLOOD TEST TO DETERMINE
INTOXICATION); DAVIS V. STATE, 189 MD. 640, 57 A.2D 289 (BLOOD TYPING
TO LINK ACCUSED WITH MURDER); SKIDMORE V. STATE, 59 NEV. 320, 92 P.2D
979 (EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED FOR VENEREAL DISEASE); STATE V. STURTEVANT,
96 N.H. 99, 70 A.2D 909 (BLOOD TEST TO DETERMINE INTOXICATION); STATE
V. ALEXANDER, 7 N.J. 585, 83 A.2D 441 (BLOOD TYPING TO ESTABLISH
GUILT); STATE V. GATTON, 60 OHIO APP. 192, 20 N.E.2D 265 (COMMENTING ON
REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO BLOOD TEST OR URINALYSIS TO DETERMINE
INTOXICATION); STATE V. NUTT, 78 OHIO APP. 336, 65 N.E.2D 675
(COMMENTING ON REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO URINALYSIS TO DETERMINE
INTOXICATION); BUT CF.  BOOKER V. CINCINNATI, 1 OHIO SUPP. 152
(EXAMINATION AND URINALYSIS TO DETERMINE INTOXICATION); STATE V. CRAM,
176 ORE.  577, 160 P.2D 283, 164 A.L.R. 952, 967 (BLOOD TEST TO
DETERMINE INTOXICATION); COMMONWEALTH V. STATTI, 166 PA. SUPER.  577,
73 A.2D 688 (BLOOD TYPING LINKING ACCUSED TO ASSAULT).    FN2  BETHEL
V. STATE, 178 ARK. 277, 10 S.W.2D 370 (EXAMINATION FOR VENEREAL
DISEASE); STATE V. HEIGHT, 117 IOWA 650, 91 N.W. 935 (EXAMINATION FOR
VENEREAL DISEASE); STATE V. WELTHA, 228 IOWA 519, 292 N.W. 148 (BLOOD
TEST TO DETERMINE INTOXICATION, LIMITING RULES ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE);
BUT CF. STATE V. BENSON, 230 IOWA 1168, 300 N.W. 275 (COMMENT ON
REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO BLOOD TEST TO DETERMINE INTOXICATION); PEOPLE V.
CORDER, 244 MICH.  274, 221 N.W. 309 (EXAMINATION FOR VENEREAL
DISEASE); BUT SEE PEOPLE V. PLACIDO, 310 MICH. 404, 408, 17 N.W.2D 230,
232; STATE V. NEWCOMB, 220 MO. 54, 119 S.W. 405 (EXAMINATION FOR
VENEREAL DISEASE); STATE V. MATSINGER, 180 S.W. 856 (EXAMINATION FOR
VENEREAL DISEASE). 

FN3  SEE PLOSCOWE, THE INVESTIGATING MAGISTRATE IN EUROPEAN CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 33 MICH. L. REV. 1010 (1935). 
..END :

















KEROTEST MANUFACTURING CO. V. C-O-TWO FIRE EQUIPMENT CO. 342 U.S. 180 


NO. 180.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 30, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1952 - 189 F.2D
31, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT, A PENNSYLVANIA
MANUFACTURER, WHOSE CUSTOMER WAS ALREADY BEING SUED IN ILLINOIS BY A
DELAWARE CORPORATION FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, SUED IN A FEDERAL COURT
IN DELAWARE FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE PATENTS WERE INVALID
AND THAT DEVICES WHICH THE MANUFACTURER SUPPLIES TO ITS CUSTOMERS DID
NOT INFRINGE THEM.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE MANUFACTURER WAS JOINED AS A
DEFENDANT IN THE ILLINOIS INFRINGEMENT SUIT.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN
DELAWARE DENIED A STAY OF THE DELAWARE SUIT AND ENJOINED THE PATENTEE
FROM PROCEEDING AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER IN THE ILLINOIS SUIT.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ON THE GROUND THAT ALL INTERESTS WOULD BE
BEST SERVED BY PROSECUTION OF THE SUIT IN ILLINOIS.  HELD:  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 181-186. 

(A)  AMPLE DISCRETION MUST BE LEFT TO THE LOWER COURTS FOR THE WISE
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT, WHICH
HAS CREATED COMPLICATED PROBLEMS FOR COORDINATE COURTS BY FACILITATING
THE INITIATION OF LITIGATION BY DIFFERENT PARTIES TO MANY-SIDED
TRANSACTIONS.  PP. 183-184. 

(B)  IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT THE LOWER COURTS WILL PERMIT OWNERS
TO WEAK PATENTS TO AVOID REAL TESTS OF THEIR PATENTS' VALIDITY BY
SUCCESSIVE SUITS AGAINST CUSTOMERS IN FORUMS INCONVENIENT TO THE
MANUFACTURERS OR SELECTED BECAUSE OF GREATER HOSPITALITY TO PATENTS. 
PP. 184-185. 

(C)  A MANUFACTURER WHO IS CHARGED WITH INFRINGING A PATENT CANNOT
STRETCH THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT TO GIVE HIM A PARAMOUNT
RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE FORUM FOR TRYING OUT QUESTIONS OF INFRINGEMENT AND
VALIDITY.  PP. 185-186. 

KEROTEST MANUFACTURING CO. V. C-O-TWO FIRE EQUIPMENT CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN DELAWARE TEMPORARILY STAYED A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT PROCEEDING AGAINST RESPONDENT TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF ITS
PATENTS AND DENIED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST RESPONDENT PROCEEDING AGAINST
PETITIONER IN A PENDING INFRINGEMENT SUIT IN ILLINOIS AGAINST
PETITIONER'S CUSTOMER.  85 U.S.P.Q. 185.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  182 F.2D 773.  AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN JOINED AS A
DEFENDANT IN THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS, THE DISTRICT COURT IN DELAWARE
DENIED A STAY OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING AND ENJOINED
RESPONDENT FROM PROCEEDING AGAINST PETITIONER IN THE ILLINOIS SUIT.  92
F. SUPP. 943.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  88 U.S.P.Q. 335.  ON
REHEARING, THE COURT OF APPEALS, SITTING EN BANC, ADHERED TO THE
REVERSAL.  189 F.2D 31.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 810. 
AFFIRMED, P. 186. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE C-O-TWO FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, THE RESPONDENT HERE, OWNS TWO
PATENTS, ONE ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 23, 1948, AND THE OTHER REISSUED ON
AUGUST 23, 1949, FOR SQUEEZE-GRIP VALVES AND DISCHARGE HEADS FOR
PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.  C-O-TWO, INCORPORATED IN DELAWARE, HAS
OFFICES IN NEWARK, NEW JERSEY.  ON JANUARY 17, 1950, IT COMMENCED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AN ACTION
AGAINST THE ACME EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR "MAKING AND CAUSING TO BE MADE
AND SELLING AND USING" DEVICES WHICH WERE CHARGED WITH INFRINGING C-O
TWO'S PATENTS. 

ON MARCH 9, 1950, THE PETITIONER KEROTEST BEGAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF DELAWARE THIS PROCEEDING AGAINST C-O-TWO FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE
TWO PATENTS SUED ON IN THE ILLINOIS ACTION ARE INVALID AND THAT THE
DEVICES WHICH KEROTEST MANUFACTURES AND SUPPLIES TO ACME, THE ILLINOIS
DEFENDANT, DO NOT INFRINGE THE C-O-TWO PATENTS.  KEROTEST, A
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, HAS ITS OFFICES IN PITTSBURGH, BUT WAS
SUBJECT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS IN ILLINOIS.  C-O-TWO ON MARCH 22, 1950,
FILED AN AMENDMENT TO ITS COMPLAINT JOINING KEROTEST AS A DEFENDANT IN
THE ILLINOIS ACTION. 

IN DELAWARE, C-O-TWO MOVED FOR A STAY OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACTION AND KEROTEST SOUGHT TO ENJOIN C-O-TWO FROM PROSECUTING THE
ILLINOIS SUIT "EITHER AS AGAINST KEROTEST ALONE, OR GENERALLY, AS (THE
DELAWARE DISTRICT COURT MIGHT) DEEM JUST AND PROPER."  THE DISTRICT
COURT STAYED THE DELAWARE PROCEEDING AND REFUSED TO ENJOIN THAT IN
ILLINOIS, SUBJECT TO REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS AFTER 90 DAYS.  85
U.S.P.Q. 185.  ON APPEAL BY KEROTEST, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NOT ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION IN STAYING THE DELAWARE ACTION FOR 90 DAYS TO PERMIT IT
TO GET "MORE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONTROVERTED STATUS OF KEROTEST
IN THE ILLINOIS SUIT."  182 F.2D 773, 775. 

DURING THE 90-DAY PERIOD THE ILLINOIS DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED THE
JOINDER OF KEROTEST AS A DEFENDANT, DENYING A MOTION BY ACME TO STAY
THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDING PENDING DISPOSITION OF THE DELAWARE SUIT, AND
KEROTEST MADE A GENERAL APPEARANCE.  AFTER 90 DAYS BOTH PARTIES RENEWED
THEIR MOTIONS IN DELAWARE, WITH KEROTEST THIS TIME ASKING THAT C-O-TWO
BE ENJOINED FROM PROSECUTING THE ILLINOIS SUIT ONLY AS TO KEROTEST. 
THE DISTRICT COURT, A DIFFERENT JUDGE SITTING, ENJOINED C-O-TWO FORM
PROCEEDING IN THE ILLINOIS SUIT AGAINST KEROTEST, AND DENIED THE STAY
OF THE DELAWARE ACTION, LARGELY ACTING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT RULINGS
BY ITS OWN AND OTHER COURTS OF APPEALS REQUIRED SUCH A RESULT EXCEPT IN
"EXCEPTIONAL CASES," SINCE THE DELAWARE ACTION BETWEEN C-O-TWO AND
KEROTEST WAS COMMENCED BEFORE KEROTEST WAS MADE A DEFENDANT IN THE
ILLINOIS SUIT.  92 F. SUPP. 943.  ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT REVERSED, SAYING IN PART: 

"  ...  THE WHOLE OF THE WAR AND ALL THE PARTIES TO IT ARE IN THE
CHICAGO THEATRE AND THERE ONLY CAN IT BE FOUGHT TO A FINISH AS THE
LITIGATIONS ARE NOW CAST.  ON THE OTHER HAND IF THE BATTLE IS WAGED IN
THE DELAWARE ARENA THERE IS A STRONG PROBABILITY THAT THE CHICAGO SUIT
NONETHELESS WOULD HAVE TO BE PROCEEDED WITH FOR ACME IS NOT AND CANNOT
BE MADE A PARTY TO THE DELAWARE LITIGATION.  THE CHICAGO SUIT WHEN
ADJUDICATED WILL BIND ALL THE PARTIES IN BOTH CASES.  WHY SHOULD THERE
BE TWO LITIGATIONS WHERE ONE WILL SUFFICE?  WE CAN FIND NO ADEQUATE
REASON.  WE ASSUME, OF COURSE, THAT THERE WILL BE PROMPT ACTION IN THE
CHICAGO THEATRE."  88 U.S.P.Q. 335, 337. 

A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS GRANTED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE
SEVEN CIRCUIT JUDGES SITTING EN BANC, IN AN EXPANDED OPINION FROM WHICH
TWO JUDGES DISSENTED, ADHERED TO THE VIEWS OF THE COURT OF THREE
JUDGES.  189 F.2D 31, 89 U.S.P.Q. 411.  INASMUCH AS A QUESTION OF
IMPORTANCE TO THE CONDUCT OF MULTIPLE LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL
JUDICIAL SYSTEM WAS INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 810. 

THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT, (FN1) FACILITATING AS IT DOES
THE INITIATION OF LITIGATION BY DIFFERENT PARTIES TO MANY-SIDED
TRANSACTIONS, HAS CREATED COMPLICATED PROBLEMS FOR COORDINATE COURTS. 
(FN2)  WISE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, GIVING REGARD TO CONSERVATION OF
JUDICIAL RESOURCES AND COMPREHENSIVE DISPOSITION OF LITIGATION, DOES
NOT COUNSEL RIGID MECHANICAL SOLUTION OF SUCH PROBLEMS.  THE FACTORS
RELEVANT TO WISE ADMINISTRATION HERE ARE EQUITABLE IN NATURE. 
NECESSARILY, AN AMPLE DEGREE OF DISCRETION, APPROPRIATE FOR DISCIPLINED
AND EXPERIENCED JUDGES, MUST BE LEFT TO THE LOWER COURTS.  THE
CONCLUSION WHICH WE ARE ASKED TO UPSET DERIVES FROM AN EXTENDED AND
CAREFUL STUDY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS LITIGATION.  SUCH AN
ESTIMATE HAS LED THE COURT OF APPEALS TWICE TO CONCLUDE THAT ALL
INTERESTS WILL BE BEST SERVED BY PROSECUTION OF THE SINGLE SUIT IN
ILLINOIS.  EVEN IF WE HAD MORE DOUBTS THAN WE DO ABOUT THE ANALYSIS
MADE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, WE WOULD NOT FEEL JUSTIFIED IN DISPLACING
ITS JUDGMENT WITH OURS.  (FN3) 

IT WAS STRONGLY PRESSED UPON US THAT THE RESULT BELOW MAY ENCOURAGE
OWNERS OF WEAK PATENTS TO AVOID REAL TESTS OF THEIR PATENTS' VALIDITY
BY SUCCESSIVE SUITS AGAINST CUSTOMERS IN FORUMS INCONVENIENT FOR THE
MANUFACTURERS, OR SELECTED BECAUSE OF GREATER HOSPITALITY TO PATENTS. 
SUCH APPREHENSION IMPLIES A LACK OF DISCIPLINE AND OF DISINTERESTEDNESS
ON THE PART OF THE LOWER COURTS, HARDLY A WORTHY OR WISE BASIS FOR
FASHIONING RULES OF PROCEDURE.  IT REFLECTS AN ATTITUDE AGAINST WHICH
WE WERE WARNED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR THE WHOLE COURT,
LIKEWISE IN REGARD TO A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE:  "UNIVERSAL DISTRUST
CREATES UNIVERSAL INCOMPETENCE."  GRAHAM V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S.
474, 480.  IF IN A RARE INSTANCE A DISTRICT JUDGE ABUSES THE
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY THE WANT OF WHICH PRECLUDES AN EFFECTIVE,
INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY, THERE IS ALWAYS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRECTIVE
REVIEW BY A COURT OF APPEALS AND ULTIMATELY BY THIS COURT. 

THE MANUFACTURER WHO IS CHARGED WITH INFRINGING A PATENT CANNOT
STRETCH THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT TO GIVE HIM A PARAMOUNT
RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE FORUM FOR TRYING OUT QUESTIONS OF INFRINGEMENT AND
VALIDITY.  HE IS GIVEN AN EQUAL START IN THE RACE TO THE COURTHOUSE,
NOT A HEADSTART.  IF HE IS FOREHANDED, SUBSEQUENT SUITS AGAINST HIM BY
THE PATENTEE CAN WITHIN THE TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION BE ENJOINED
PENDING DETERMINATION OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SUIT, (FN4) AND A
JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR BARS SUITS AGAINST HIS CUSTOMERS.  (FN5)  IF HE
IS ANTICIPATED, THE COURT'S DISCRETION IS BROAD ENOUGH TO PROTECT HIM
FROM HARASSMENT OF HIS CUSTOMERS.  IF THE PATENTEE'S SUIT AGAINST A
CUSTOMER IS BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT WHERE THE MANUFACTURER CANNOT BE
JOINED AS A DEFENDANT, THE MANUFACTURER MAY BE PERMITTED SIMULTANEOUSLY
TO PROSECUTE A DECLARATORY ACTION AGAINST THE PATENTEE ELSEWHERE.  AND
IF THE MANUFACTURER IS JOINED AS AN UNWILLING DEFENDANT IN A FORUM NON
CONVENIENS, HE HAS AVAILABLE UPON AN APPROPRIATE SHOWING THE RELIEF
PROVIDED BY SEC. 1404(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  62 STAT. 869, 937, 28
U.S.C. SEC.  1404(A).  (FN6) 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 955, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 2201-2202. 

FN2  SEE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW - DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS, 1941-1949,
62 HARV. L. REV. 787, 814-815, 866 (1949). 

FN3  OTHER CASES IN COURTS OF APPEALS WHICH PRESENT AT ALL COMPARABLE
SITUATIONS DO NOT SHOW ANY RIGID RULE SUCH AS THAT UNDER WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT FELT CONSTRAINED.  IN VIEW OF THE BASIS OF OUR DECISION
IT WOULD NOT BE PROFITABLE TO DISCUSS THESE CASES IN DETAIL.  IT WILL
SUFFICE TO INDICATE THE CONCURRENT CONTROVERSIES FOR WHICH ADJUSTMENT
WAS SOUGHT.  TRIANGLE CONDUIT & CABLE CO. V. NATIONAL ELEC.  PROD. 
CORP., 125 F.2D 1008 (C.A. 3D CIR.)(SUIT 1 - DECLARATORY ACTION BY
MANUFACTURER AGAINST PATENTEE; SUIT 2 - PATENTEE SUES MANUFACTURER AND
CUSTOMER FOR INFRINGEMENT; SUIT 2 ENJOINED AS TO MANUFACTURER); CRESTA
BLANCA WINE CO. V. EASTERN WINE CORP., 143 F.2D 1012 (C.A.2D
CIR.)(SUITE 1 - DECLARATORY ACTION BY MANUFACTURER AGAINST TRADEMARK
OWNER; SUIT 2 - TRADEMARK OWNER SUES MANUFACTURER AND DISTRIBUTOR FOR
INFRINGEMENT; THEREAFTER, DISTRIBUTOR SEEKS TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF
IN SUIT 1:  INTERVENTION DENIED AND SUIT 2 ENJOINED AS TO
MANUFACTURER); SPEED PRODUCTS CO. V. TINNERMAN PRODUCTS, INC., 83 U.S.
APP. D.C. 243, 171 F.2D 727 (SUIT 1 - A SUES COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS IN
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARK; SUIT 2 - SUIT BY A
IN N.Y. AGAINST B ALONE FOR REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARK AND FOR
DECLARATION OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF B'S MARK; THEREAFTER, B JOINS AS
DEFENDANT IN SUIT 1 AND FILES COUNTERCLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT OF B'S
MARK:  SUIT 2 NOT ENJOINED AND SUIT 1 NOT ADVANCED FOR TRIAL); HAMMETT
V. WARNER BROS. PICTURES, INC., 176 F.2D 145 (C.A.2D CIR.)(SUIT 1 -
ALLEGED COPYRIGHT OWNER SUES BROADCASTER FOR INFRINGEMENT; SUIT 2 -
DECLARATORY ACTION BY WRITER FOR BROADCASTER AGAINST ALLEGED COPYRIGHT
OWNER; THEREAFTER, WRITER JOINED AS DEFENDANT IN SUIT 1:  SUIT 2
DISMISSED); REMINGTON PROD.  CORP.  V. AMERICAN AEROVAP, INC., 192 F.2D
872 (C.A.2D CIR.), DECEMBER 4, 1951 (SUIT 1 - MANUFACTURER AND CUSTOMER
A BRING DECLARATORY ACTION AGAINST PATENTEE; SUIT 2 - PATENTEE SUES
CUSTOMERS A, B, C, AND D FOR INFRINGEMENT; THEREAFTER, CUSTOMER B JOINS
AS PLAINTIFF IN SUIT 1:  SUIT 2 ENJOINED).  BY ENDORSING WHAT WAS IN
EFFECT AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW UPON
CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, WE NEITHER APPROVE
NOR THROW DOUBT UPON DECISIONS BY IT OR OTHER COURTS OF APPEALS. 

FN4  SEE, E.G., CROSLEY CORP. V. WESTINGHOUSE ELEC.  & MFG. CO., 130
F.2D 474 (C.A. 3D CIR.); CARBIDE & CARBON CHEMICALS CORP. V. UNITED
STATES INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, INC., 140 F.2D 47 (C.A. 4TH CIR.);
INDEPENDENT PNEUMATIC TOOL CO. V. CHICAGO PNEUMATIC TOOL CO., 167 F.2D
1002 (C.A. 7TH CIR.). 

FN5  KESSLER V. ELDRED, 206 U.S. 285. 

FN6  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT RULE 15(C) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE MAKES THE JOINDER OF KEROTEST TAKE THE DATE, AS IT WERE, OF
THE ORIGINAL ACTION AGAINST ACME, WHICH OF COURSE PRECEDED THE DELAWARE
ACTION.  THE EQUITIES OF THE SITUATION DO NOT DEPEND ON THIS ARGUMENT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENT. 
..END :























DESPER V. STARVED ROCK FERRY CO. 342 U.S. 187 


NO. 231.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1952 - 188 F.2D
177, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE SCOPE OF THE WORD "SEAMAN," AS USED IN THE JONES ACT, WAS NOT
EXTENDED BY THE 1939 AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
TO INCLUDE ONE WHO WAS NOT A "SEAMAN" BEFORE.  PP. 189-190. 

2.  WHETHER AN INJURED PERSON WAS A "SEAMAN" ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS
OF THE JONES ACT DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE
AND THE ACTIVITY IN WHICH HE WAS ENGAGED AT THE TIME OF INJURY.  P.
190. 

3.  DECEDENT HAD BEEN EMPLOYED AS AN OPERATOR OF ONE OF A FLEET OF
MOTORBOATS CARRYING SIGHTSEERS ON A RIVER DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS
ONLY.  HIS EMPLOYMENT HAD TERMINATED IN DECEMBER, AFTER HE HAD HELPED
TO LAY THE BOATS UP FOR THE WINTER.  HE WAS REEMPLOYED THE NEXT MARCH
AND INJURED IN APRIL WHILE HELPING TO PAINT, CLEAN AND WATERPROOF THE
BOATS, PREPARING THEM FOR NAVIGATION.  AT THAT TIME, NONE OF THE BOATS
WAS AFLOAT, NONE HAD A CAPTAIN OR CREW, AND THE WORK BEING DONE WAS OF
THE KIND THAT, IN THE CASE OF LARGER VESSELS, WOULD CUSTOMARILY BE DONE
EXCLUSIVELY BY SHOREBASED PERSONNEL.  HELD:  AT THE TIME OF HIS INJURY,
DECEDENT WAS NOT A "SEAMAN" WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE JONES ACT.  PP.
188-192. 

4.  THE FACT THAT DECEDENT HAD BEEN, OR EXPECTED IN THE FUTURE TO BE,
A SEAMAN DID NOT RENDER MARITIME WORK WHICH WAS NOT MARITIME IN ITS
NATURE.  P. 191. 

DESPER, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. STARVED ROCK FERRY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDED PETITIONER A JUDGMENT UNDER THE JONES ACT
FOR THE DEATH OF HER SON FROM INJURIES SUSTAINED IN HIS EMPLOYMENT BY
RESPONDENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  188 F.2D 177.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 847.  AFFIRMED, P. 192. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT SUIT UNDER THE JONES ACT (FN1) TO RECOVER DAMAGES
FOR THE DEATH OF HER INTESTATE SON FROM INJURIES SUSTAINED DURING THE
COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BY RESPONDENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ON
A JURY'S VERDICT IN PETITIONER'S FAVOR.  (FN2)  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  (FN3) 

RESPONDENT OPERATES A SMALL FLEET OF SIGHTSEEING MOTORBOATS ON THE
ILLINOIS RIVER IN THE VICINITY OF STARVED ROCK.  THE BOATS ARE
NAVIGATED UNDER COAST GUARD REGULATIONS BY PERSONNEL LICENSED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.  OPERATIONS ARE NECESSARILY RESTRICTED TO
SUMMER MONTHS.  EACH FALL THE BOATS ARE BEACHED AND PUT UP ON BLOCKS
FOR THE WINTER.  IN THE SPRING EACH IS OVERHAULED BEFORE BEING LAUNCHED
FOR THE SEASON.  THE DECEDENT, THOMAS J. DESPER, JR., WAS FIRST
EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT IN APRIL, 1947, TO HELP PREPARE THE BOATS FOR
THEIR SEASONAL LAUNCHING.  IN JUNE OF THE SAME YEAR HE ACQUIRED THE
NECESSARY OPERATOR'S LICENSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND, FOR
THE REMAINDER OF THAT SEASON, HE WAS EMPLOYED AS A BOAT OPERATOR.  WHEN
THE SEASON CLOSED, HE HELPED TAKE THE BOATS OUT OF THE WATER AND BLOCK
THEM UP FOR THE WINTER.  HIS EMPLOYMENT TERMINATED DECEMBER 19, 1947. 

DESPER WAS RE-EMPLOYED MARCH 15, 1948.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT HE
WAS THEN ENGAGED FOR THE SEASON AND WAS TO RESUME HIS OPERATOR'S DUTIES
WHEN THE BOATS WERE BACK IN THE WATER.  FOR THE TIME BEING, HOWEVER, HE
WAS PUT TO CLEANING, PAINTING, AND WATERPROOFING THE BOATS, PREPARING
THEM FOR NAVIGATION.  ON THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, APRIL 26TH, THE
BOATS WERE STILL BLOCKED UP ON LAND.  SEVERAL MEN, DESPER AMONG THEM,
WERE ON BOARD A MOORED BARGE, MAINTAINED BY RESPONDENT AS A MACHINE
SHOP, WAREHOUSE, WAITING ROOM AND TICKET OFFICE, ENGAGED IN PAINTING
LIFE PRESERVERS FOR USE ON THE BOATS.  ONE MAN WAS WORKING ON A FIRE
EXTINGUISHER.  IT EXPLODED, KILLING HIM AND DESPER. 

THE JONES ACT CONFERS A CAUSE OF ACTION ON "ANY SEAMAN."  (FN4)  IN
OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S SUIT UNDER THE ACT, RESPONDENT CONTENDED
THAT DESPER, AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, WAS NOT A "SEAMAN" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  WHETHER HE WAS SUCH A "SEAMAN" IS THE CRITICAL
ISSUE IN THE CASE WHICH REACHED THIS COURT. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE 1939 AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT (FN5) EXTENDED THE SCOPE OF THE WORD "SEAMAN," AS USED IN
THE JONES ACT, TO INCLUDE THOSE WHOSE WORK "SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS"
NAVIGATION.  THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT: 

"ANY EMPLOYEE OF A CARRIER, ANY PART OF WHOSE DUTIES AS SUCH EMPLOYEE
SHALL BE THE FURTHERANCE OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE; OR SHALL,
IN ANY WAY DIRECTLY OR CLOSELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY, AFFECT SUCH COMMERCE
AS ABOVE SET FORTH SHALL  ...  BE CONSIDERED AS BEING EMPLOYED BY SUCH
CARRIER IN SUCH COMMERCE AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS ENTITLED TO THE
BENEFITS OF THIS CHAPTER." 

PETITIONER READS WITH THAT AMENDMENT THE PROVISION OF THE JONES ACT
THAT STATUTES "MODIFYING OR EXTENDING THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OR REMEDY IN
CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES" SHALL APPLY IN A
SEAMAN'S ACTION.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE AMENDMENT HAS
NO EFFECT ON THE "RIGHT OR REMEDY" OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES BUT MERELY
REDEFINES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT THE
SCOPE OF THE WORD "EMPLOYEE" TO INCLUDE CERTAIN PERSONS NOT THERETOFORE
COVERED, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT DIRECTLY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  IT DOES NOT EXTEND THE MEANING OF "SEAMAN" IN THE
JONES ACT TO INCLUDE ONE WHO WAS NOT A "SEAMAN" BEFORE.  SEAMEN WERE
GIVEN THE RIGHTS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES BY THE JONES ACT, BUT THE
DEFINITION OF "SEAMAN" WAS NEVER MADE DEPENDENT ON THE MEANING OF
"EMPLOYEE" AS USED IN LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO RAILROADS. 

THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THIS 1939
AMENDMENT, DECEDENT WAS A "SEAMAN" AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.  THE MANY
CASES TURNING UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL WAS A "SEAMAN"
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MATTER DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE FACTS OF THE
PARTICULAR CASE AND THE ACTIVITY IN WHICH HE WAS ENGAGED AT THE TIME OF
INJURY.  THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE UNIQUE.  THE WORK IN WHICH THE
DECEDENT WAS ENGAGED AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH QUITE CLEARLY WAS NOT
THAT USUALLY DONE BY A "SEAMAN."  THE BOATS WERE NOT AFLOAT AND HAD
NEITHER CAPTAIN NOR CREW.  THEY WERE UNDERGOING SEASONAL REPAIRS, THE
WORK BEING OF THE KIND THAT, IN THE CASE OF LARGER VESSELS, WOULD
CUSTOMARILY BE DONE BY EXCLUSIVELY SHORE-BASED PERSONNEL.  FOR A NUMBER
OF REASONS THE SHIPS MIGHT NOT BE LAUNCHED, OR HE MIGHT NOT OPERATE
ONE.  TO BE SURE, HE WAS A PROBABLE NAVIGATOR IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT
THE LAW DOES NOT COVER PROBABLE OR EXPECTANT SEAMEN BUT SEAMEN IN
BEING.  IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT WHILE ENGAGED IN SUCH SEASONAL REPAIR
WORK DESPER WAS NOT A "SEAMAN" WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE JONES ACT. 
THE DISTINCT NATURE OF THE WORK IS EMPHASIZED BY THE FACT THAT THERE
WAS NO VESSEL ENGAGED IN NAVIGATION AT THE TIME OF THE DECEDENT'S
DEATH.  ALL HAD BEEN "LAID UP FOR THE WINTER."  HAWN V. AMERICAN S.S.
CO., 107 F.2D 999, 1000 (C.A.2D CIR.); CF. SENECA WASHED GRAVEL CORP.
V. MCMANIGAL, 65 F.2D 779, 780 (C.A.2D CIR.).  IN THE WORDS OF THE
COURT IN ANTUS V. INTEROCEAN S.S. CO., 108 F.2D 185, 187 (C.A. 6TH
CIR.), WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT ONE WHO HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF A SHIP'S
CREW AND WAS INJURED WHILE PREPARING IT FOR WINTER QUARTERS COULD NOT
MAINTAIN A JONES ACT SUIT FOR HIS INJURIES:  "THE FACT THAT HE HAD
BEEN, OR EXPECTED IN THE FUTURE TO BE, A SEAMAN DOES NOT RENDER
MARITIME WORK WHICH WAS NOT MARITIME IN ITS NATURE." 

BOTH PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT FILED APPLICATIONS WITH THE INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS SEEKING THE BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT OF THAT STATE.  THE COMMISSIONER RENDERED AN AWARD IN
PETITIONER'S FAVOR, BUT SHE STATES THAT SHE HAS TAKEN AN APPEAL TO THE
APPROPRIATE STATE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS "WITHOUT
JURISDICTION."  SHE DOES NOT SPECIFY WHY SHE THINKS SO, BUT WE SURMISE
THAT HER REASON IS TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH HER CONTENTION THAT EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IN THE PREMISES IS VESTED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BY THE
JONES ACT.  WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HER TO HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT IF
THE JONES ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT (FN6) IS, AND THAT THE STATE COMMISSION, THEREFORE, IS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ANY EVENT.  THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY
OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD TO HAVE BEEN
RAISED BY EITHER PARTY IN THE COURTS BELOW.  (FN7)  NEITHER HAS RAISED
IT IN THIS COURT.  WE, THEREFORE, FIND IT INAPPROPRIATE TO RESOLVE THE
CONFLICT, IF ANY, BETWEEN THE ILLINOIS COMPENSATION ACT AND THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.  CF. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205; PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314
U.S. 244; DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S. 249. 

WE THINK THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY DISPOSED OF THE QUESTION
PRESENTED.  ACCORDINGLY, ITS JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  38 STAT. 1185, 41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688. 

FN2  188 F.2D 177. 

FN3  342 U.S. 847. 

FN4  38 STAT. 1185, 41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688, ENTITLED
"RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO OR DEATH OF SEAMAN" PROVIDES THAT: 

"ANY SEAMAN WHO SHALL SUFFER PERSONAL INJURY IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT MAY, AT HIS ELECTION, MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AT LAW,
WITH THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, AND IN SUCH ACTION ALL STATUTES OF THE
UNITED STATES MODIFYING OR EXTENDING THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OR REMEDY IN
CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES SHALL APPLY; AND IN CASE
OF THE DEATH OF ANY SEAMAN AS A RESULT OF ANY SUCH PERSONAL INJURY THE
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH SEAMAN MAY MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR
DAMAGES AT LAW WITH THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, AND IN SUCH ACTION ALL
STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERRING OR REGULATING THE RIGHT OF
ACTION FOR DEATH IN THE CASE OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES SHALL BE APPLICABLE. 
JURISDICTION IN SUCH ACTIONS SHALL BE UNDER THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT
IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER RESIDES OR IN WHICH HIS PRINCIPAL
OFFICE IS LOCATED." 

FN5  53 STAT. 1404, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

FN6  44 STAT. 1424 AS AMENDED, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET SEQ. 

FN7  THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, IN PHRASING THE QUESTION
PRESENTED IN THE CASE, ADVANCED THE PROPOSITION THAT IF PETITIONER WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVERY UNDER THE JONES ACT SHE "IS RESTRICTED TO THE
REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT  ...  ."  WE TAKE THAT AS MEANING THAT PETITIONER'S ONLY FEDERAL
REMEDY, IF SHE CANNOT PREVAIL UNDER THE JONES ACT, IS IN THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT.  IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO DECIDE WHETHER SHE COULD
PROCEED UNDER THE STATE COMPENSATION ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT, AND WOULD AFFIRM
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. KELLY 342 U.S. 193 


NO. 209.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 30, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1952 - 119 CT.
CL. 197, 96 F. SUPP. 611, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE APPLICABLE WAGE AGREEMENT QUOTED IN THE OPINION AND THE
JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 29, 1938, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 86A, GRANTING PER DIEM
EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT GRATUITY PAY FOR HOLIDAYS ON WHICH THEY ARE
PREVENTED FROM WORKING, PER DIEM EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE WHO WERE REQUIRED TO WORK ON HOLIDAYS DURING WORLD WAR II ARE
ENTITLED TO AGGREGATE PAY THEREFOR AT THE RATE OF 2 1/2 TIMES THE
REGULAR RATE.  PP. 193-196. 

(A)  MERELY BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION ITSELF MAY NOT AWARD GRATUITY PAY
FOR HOLIDAYS WORKED IS NO GROUND FOR VITIATING A WAGE AGREEMENT THAT
DOES.  PP. 194-195. 

(B)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE
OF MAY 12, 1943, THAT, FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR, ALL HOLIDAYS EXCEPT
CHRISTMAS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED REGULAR WORKDAYS FOR GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.  PP. 195-196. 

UNITED STATES V. KELLY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED RESPONDENT A JUDGMENT FOR PREMIUM PAY AND
GRATUITY PAY FOR WORK PERFORMED BY HIM ON CERTAIN HOLIDAYS DURING WORLD
WAR II.  119 CT. CL. 197, 96 F. SUPP. 611.  THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT
REVIEW OF THAT PART OF THE JUDGMENT AWARDING GRATUITY PAY, AND THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 808.  AFFIRMED, P. 196. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, A PER DIEM
EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, FOR PREMIUM PAY AND
GRATUITY PAY FOR WORK PERFORMED BY HIM ON CERTAIN HOLIDAYS DURING WORLD
WAR II.  119 CT. CL. 197, 96 F. SUPP. 611.  THUS, RESPONDENT WAS HELD
ENTITLED TO THE AGGREGATE OF: 

1.  HIS REGULAR COMPENSATION FOR THE DAYS WORKED: 

2.  FIFTY PER CENT OF HIS REGULAR COMPENSATION AS PREMIUM PAY: 

3.  A FULL DAY'S COMPENSATION AS GRATUITY PAY. 

THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT REVIEW OF THAT PART OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH
AWARDED GRATUITY PAY TO RESPONDENT AND OTHERS LIKE HIM, (FN1) AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 342 U.S. 808. 

RESPONDENT'S COMPENSATION WAS FIXED BY A WAGE AGREEMENT WHICH
PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART: 

"HOLIDAY RATE.  EMPLOYEES REQUIRED TO WORK ON A LEGAL HOLIDAY OR A
SPECIAL HOLIDAY DECLARED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER SHALL BE PAID AT THE DAY
RATE PLUS 50 PER CENT FOR ALL THE TIME ACTUALLY EMPLOYED IN ADDITION TO
THEIR GRATUITY PAY FOR THE HOLIDAY AS PROVIDED BY LAW  ...  ." 

BY A 1938 RESOLUTION, THE APPLICABLE LAW DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION, CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT WHENEVER PER DIEM EMPLOYEES WERE
"RELIEVED OR PREVENTED FROM WORKING SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE OCCURRENCE
OF" HOLIDAYS DECLARED BY STATUTE OR EXECUTIVE ORDER, "THEY SHALL
RECEIVE THE SAME PAY FOR SUCH DAYS AS FOR OTHER DAYS ON WHICH AN
ORDINARY DAY'S WORK IS PERFORMED."  (FN2)  THE QUESTION THUS PRESENTED
IS WHETHER THE RESOLUTION SOMEHOW PRECLUDES THE AWARDING OF THE
GRATUITY PAY WHICH THE AGREEMENT SEEMS TO GRANT. 

THE 1938 RESOLUTION AMENDED THE ACT OF 1895 (FN3) WHICH HAD BEEN
CONSISTENTLY ADMINISTERED AS PROVIDING FOR GRATUITY PAY IN ADDITION TO
REGULAR COMPENSATION IF THE EMPLOYEE WORKED ON A HOLIDAY.  (FN4)  THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO REPEAL THE EARLIER
STATUTE IN THIS RESPECT, AND THAT THE RESOLUTION PROVIDED GRATUITY PAY
ONLY FOR HOLIDAYS ON WHICH AN EMPLOYEE IS "RELIEVED OR PREVENTED FROM
WORKING." 

WE THINK THIS ARGUMENT MISSES THE POINT.  THE 1938 RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHED THE HOLIDAYS FOR WHICH GRATUITY PAY WAS TO BE ALLOWED.  IT
WAS SILENT ON THE SUBJECT OF GRATUITY PAY FOR HOLIDAYS ON WHICH WORK
WAS PERFORMED, AND WE MAY EVEN ASSUME THAT IT DID NOT PROVIDE GRATUITY
PAY FOR THOSE DAYS.  BUT THE WAGE AGREEMENT IS NOT SILENT ON THE
SUBJECT.  IT PROVIDES THAT WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WORKS ON A HOLIDAY HE IS TO
RECEIVE REGULAR COMPENSATION, PREMIUM PAY, AND GRATUITY PAY "FOR THE
HOLIDAY AS PROVIDED BY LAW."  THE HOLIDAYS "AS PROVIDED BY LAW" ARE THE
DAYS PROVIDED FOR IN THE 1938 RESOLUTION.  NOTHING IN THE RESOLUTION
PROHIBITS SUCH A WAGE AGREEMENT, AND, INDEED, THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES
THIS FACT.  MERELY BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION ITSELF MAY NOT AWARD GRATUITY
PAY FOR HOLIDAYS WORKED IS NO GROUND FOR VITIATING A WAGE AGREEMENT
WHICH DOES. 

THE GOVERNMENT POINTS TO THE 1943 PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE TO FEDERAL
AGENCIES, UNDER WHICH ALL HOLIDAYS EXCEPT CHRISTMAS WERE TO BE
CONSIDERED AS REGULAR WORKDAYS FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR, (FN5) AND
URGES THAT THE DIRECTIVE INDICATED A POLICY AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF
GRATUITY PAY FOR HOLIDAYS WORKED.  CLEARLY, THE PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE
WAS NOT INTENDED TO ABROGATE THE WAGE AGREEMENT. 

WE NEED NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THE ANOMALOUS RESULTS WHICH WOULD STEM
FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION.  (FN6)  SINCE THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED
FOR GRATUITY PAY FOR HOLIDAYS WORKED, RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO SUCH
PAY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED THAT THE DISPOSITION OF THE CLAIM OF
RESPONDENT KELLY WILL BE DETERMINATIVE OF CLAIMS FILED BY 613 OTHER
EMPLOYEES OF THE PRINTING OFFICE. 

FN2  52 STAT. 1246, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 86A. 

FN3  28 STAT. 601, 607, SEC. 46. 

FN4  8 COMP. DEC. 322 (1901); 13 COMP. DEC. 40 (1906); 3 COMP. GEN.
411 (1924). 

FN5  SEE DIGEST OF PROVISIONS OF LAW FIXING PAY FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (U.S. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, 1945), AT P. 94, NOTE 2; H.R. REP.  NO. 514, 79TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., APPENDIX, P. 94, NOTE 2. 

FN6  THUS, UNDER THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW AN EMPLOYEE WHO WORKED FIVE
HOURS ON A HOLIDAY WOULD RECEIVE HIS REGULAR COMPENSATION PLUS PREMIUM
PAY, OR SEVEN AND ONE-HALF HOURS' PAY; IF HE STAYED HOME ALL DAY, HE
WOULD RECEIVE EIGHT HOURS' PAY. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK
JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE 1938 RESOLUTION REFERS ONLY TO HOLIDAYS THAT "RELIEVED OR
PREVENTED" WORK.  IT REQUIRES A GRATUITY PAYMENT TO THEM EQUAL TO THE
REGULAR DAILY WAGE.  WHERE WORK IS DONE, AS BY THESE PER DIEM
EMPLOYEES, NO GRATUITY IS "PROVIDED BY LAW."  UNDER THE WAGE AGREEMENT,
HOWEVER, AN EMPLOYEE WORKING SHOULD BE PAID TIME AND A HALF FOR HOLIDAY
WORK - A PREMIUM OF FIFTY PER CENT MORE THAN THE GRATUITY PAID TO AN
EMPLOYEE WHO DOES NOT WORK. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE WAGE AGREEMENT ENTITLES THE
EMPLOYEES TO THIS PREMIUM PAY FOR WORK ON HOLIDAYS.  IN OUR OPINION
RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY GRATUITY PAY, AND THIS HAS BEEN THE
CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL. 
18 COMP. GEN. 191.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE JOURNEYMEN PRINTERS
ACQUIESCED IN THIS INTERPRETATION FOR EIGHT YEARS AFTER 1938. 

WE WOULD REVERSE. 
..END :




















PILLSBURY V. UNITED ENGINEERING CO. 342 U.S. 197 


NO. 229.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1951 - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1952 - 187 F.2D
987, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SEC. 13(A) OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT, THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATION ON THE FILING OF
CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY BEGINS TO RUN ON THE DATE OF THE
INJURY AND NOT ON SOME SUBSEQUENT DATE WHEN DISABILITY OCCURS.  PP. 197
200. 

PILLSBURY ET AL., DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS, V. UNITED ENGINEERING CO. ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT VACATED CERTAIN AWARDS OF COMPENSATION UNDER THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.  92 F. SUPP. 898. 
THIS COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  187 F.2D 987.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 847.  AFFIRMED, P. 200. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE FOUR CASES PRESENT THE SAME QUESTION, NAMELY, THE CONSTRUCTION
AND APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVISION OF THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 44 STAT. 1424,
SEC. 13(A), 33 U.S.C. SEC. 913(A), WHICH PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS
FOLLOWS: 

"THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE
BARRED UNLESS A CLAIM THEREFOR IS FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
INJURY  ...  ." 

THE CLAIMS HERE INVOLVED WERE FILED FROM EIGHTEEN TO TWENTY-FOUR
MONTHS FROM THE DATES THE EMPLOYEES WERE INJURED.  THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER HELD THAT THE CLAIMS WERE NEVERTHELESS TIMELY, SINCE THEY
HAD BEEN FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE CLAIMANTS HAD BECOME DISABLED
BECAUSE OF THEIR INJURIES.  THE DISTRICT COURT VACATED THE AWARDS, 92
F. SUPP. 898, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
CLAIMS WERE BARRED BECAUSE NOT "FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
INJURY,"  187 F.2D 987, 990.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 342 U.S. 847,
BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN CIRCUITS, (FN1) IDENTICAL TO THE PRESENT
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE HOLDINGS OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS, AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN THE LIMITATIONS
PROVISION.  THIS SAME QUESTION WAS BEFORE US IN 1940 IN KOBILKIN V.
PILLSBURY, 103 F.2D 667, AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 309 U.S.
619. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE WORD "INJURY" AS USED IN THE STATUTE
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN "DISABILITY."  THIS CONTENTION IS PREMISED
ON PETITIONERS' CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 6(A) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES
THAT "NO COMPENSATION SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR THE FIRST SEVEN DAYS OF THE
DISABILITY," (FN2) ("DISABILITY" IS ELSEWHERE DEFINED IN THE ACT AS
"INCAPACITY BECAUSE OF INJURY TO EARN THE WAGES WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS
RECEIVING AT THE TIME OF INJURY IN THE SAME OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYMENT")
(FN3) AND SEC. 19(A), WHICH PROVIDES THAT "A CLAIM  ...  MAY BE FILED
...  AT ANY TIME AFTER THE FIRST SEVEN DAYS OF DISABILITY FOLLOWING ANY
INJURY," (FN4) OPERATE TO PREVENT THE FILING OF A CLAIM BEFORE SEVEN
DAYS OF DISABILITY HAVE OCCURRED.  SINCE, AS WAS THE CASE OF EACH OF
THE CLAIMANTS HERE, AN INJURED EMPLOYEE MAY FAIL TO ACCRUE SEVEN
DAYS'"DISABILITY" WITHIN A YEAR AFTER HIS INJURY, PETITIONERS ARGUE
THAT SUCH AN EMPLOYEE WILL BE BARRED FROM FILING HIS CLAIM BEFORE HIS
RIGHT TO FILE IT ARISES, IF "INJURY" IS CONSTRUED TO MEAN "INJURY." 
THUS, PETITIONERS CONCLUDE THAT THE LIMITATION SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO
RUN UNTIL THE INJURY BECOMES COMPENSABLE, I.E., AFTER SEVEN
DAYS'"DISABILITY." 

BUT THE RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR DISABILITY IS ONE THING, AND THE RIGHT
TO FILE A CLAIM IS ANOTHER.  IT HAS LONG BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO PERMIT FILING TO AVOID THE RUNNING OF THE ONE
YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD HERE INVOLVED.  A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF SECS.
6(A) AND 19(A) DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE FILING OF A CLAIM BEFORE THE
ACCRUAL OF SEVEN DAYS' DISABILITY.  EACH OF THE CLAIMANTS HERE WAS
IMMEDIATELY AWARE OF HIS INJURY, RECEIVED MEDICAL TREATMENT, AND
SUFFERED CONTINUOUS PAIN.  WE ARE NOT HERE DEALING WITH A LATENT INJURY
OR AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE. 

WE ARE NOT FREE, UNDER THE GUISE OF CONSTRUCTION, TO AMEND THE
STATUTE BY INSERTING THEREIN BEFORE THE WORD "INJURY" THE WORD
"COMPENSABLE" SO AS TO MAKE "INJURY" READ AS IF IT WERE "DISABILITY." 
CONGRESS KNEW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "DISABILITY" AND "INJURY" AND USED
THE WORDS ADVISEDLY.  THIS VIEW IS ESPECIALLY COMPELLING WHEN IT IS
NOTED THAT THE TWO WORDS ARE USED IN THE SAME SENTENCE OF THE
LIMITATIONS PROVISION; THEREIN "DISABILITY" IS RELATED TO THE RIGHT TO
COMPENSATION, WHILE "INJURY" IS RELATED TO THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE
CLAIM MUST BE FILED.  FURTHERMORE, CONGRESS DEFINED BOTH "DISABILITY"
AND "INJURY" IN THE ACT, (FN5) AND ITS AWARENESS OF THE DIFFERENCE IS
APPARENT THROUGHOUT.  THUS, WE THINK THAT WHEN CONGRESS USED
"DISABILITY" AND "INJURY" IN THE SAME SENTENCE, MAKING EACH WORD
APPLICABLE TO A DIFFERENT THING, IT DID NOT INTEND THE CAREFULLY
DISTINGUISHED AND SEPARATELY DEFINED WORDS TO MEAN THE SAME THING. 
CONGRESS MEANT WHAT IT SAID WHEN IT LIMITED RECOVERY TO ONE YEAR FROM
DATE OF INJURY, AND "INJURY" DOES NOT MEAN "DISABILITY." 

WE ARE AWARE THAT THIS IS A HUMANITARIAN ACT, AND THAT IT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED LIBERALLY TO EFFECTUATE ITS PURPOSES; BUT THAT DOES NOT GIVE
US THE POWER TO REWRITE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AT WILL, AND MAKE
WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A LIMITATION NO LIMITATION AT ALL. 
PETITIONERS' CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF EXTENDING THE
LIMITATION INDEFINITELY IF A CLAIM FOR DISABILITY HAD NOT BEEN FILED;
THE PROVISION WOULD THEN BE ONE OF EXTENSION RATHER THAN LIMITATION. 
WHILE IT MIGHT BE DESIRABLE FOR THE STATUTE TO PROVIDE AS PETITIONERS
CONTEND, THE POWER TO CHANGE THE STATUTE IS WITH CONGRESS, NOT US. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CONFLICT IS BETWEEN THE INSTANT DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT IN GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO. V.
BRITTON, 86 U.S. APP. D.C. 44, 179 F.2D 60. 

FN2  44 STAT. 1426, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 906(A). 

FN3  44 STAT. 1425, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 902(10). 

FN4  44 STAT. 1435, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 919(A). 

FN5  "SEC.  2.  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT: 

*         *         *         *         * 

"(2)  THE TERM 'INJURY' MEANS ACCIDENTIAL INJURY OR DEATH ARISING OUT
OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, AND SUCH OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE OR
INFECTION AS ARISES NATURALLY OUT OF SUCH EMPLOYMENT OR AS NATURALLY OR
UNAVOIDABLY RESULTS FROM SUCH ACCIDENTIAL INJURY, AND INCLUDES AN
INJURY CAUSED BY THE WILLFUL ACT OF A THIRD PERSON DIRECTED AGAINST AN
EMPLOYEE BECAUSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. 

*         *         *         *         * 

"(10)  'DISABILITY' MEANS INCAPACITY BECAUSE OF INJURY TO EARN THE
WAGES WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS RECEIVING AT THE TIME OF INJURY IN THE
SAME OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYMENT."  44 STAT. 1424-1425, 33 U.S.C. SEC.
902(2), (10). 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT'S COMPUTATION OF THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR FILING CLAIMS UNDER
THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT IS SO OPPOSED
TO THE BENEFICIAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT THAT IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE
ABSENCE OF A MORE EXPRESS BASIS FOR IT.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO
PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR THE DISABILITY OR DEATH OF EMPLOYEES IN
CERTAIN MARITIME EMPLOYMENTS WHEN CAUSED BY INJURIES ARISING OUT OF AND
IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  THE COURT NOW RESTRICTS THE
BENEFICIAL EFFECT OF THE ACT BY ITS COMPUTATION OF THE PERIOD ALLOWED
AN EMPLOYEE FOR FILING HIS CLAIM UNDER THE ACT.  THE COURT COMPUTES IT
FROM THE DATE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S ACCIDENT RATHER THAN FROM THAT OF HIS
RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.  ONE YEAR AFTER HIS ACCIDENT THE EMPLOYEE IS
THUS BARRED FROM CLAIMING COMPENSATION FOR ANY DISABILITY LATER
RESULTING FROM IT UNLESS, WITHIN THAT YEAR, HE HAS FILED A CLAIM FOR
COMPENSATION - ALTHOUGH DURING THE YEAR HE HAS SUFFERED NO DISABILITY
AND HAS ACQUIRED NO RIGHT TO COMPENSATION UNDER THE ACT. 

THE ACT DOES NOT CALL FOR OR JUSTIFY SUCH A FRUSTRATING
INTERPRETATION.  SECTION 13(A) DOES NOT SAY THAT AN EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM
MUST BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE "ACCIDENT."  IT SAYS THAT HIS
CLAIM MUST BE FILED "WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE INJURY."  44 STAT. 1432,
33 U.S.C. SEC. 913(A).  THE ACT DEALS ONLY WITH DISABLING INJURIES AND
PROVIDES COMPENSATION ONLY FOR THE LOSS OF EARNING POWER OR DEATH
RESULTING FROM THEM.  IF IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THE WORD "INJURY" IN
SEC. 13(A) MEANS A DISABLING OR COMPENSABLE INJURY, A NATURAL RESULT
FLOWS FROM IT.  SO INTERPRETED, THE SECTION REQUIRES ONLY THAT A CLAIM
FOR COMPENSATION MUST BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER A RIGHT TO
COMPENSATION FIRST ARISES. 

THAT THE ACT IS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY OR
DEATH APPEARS ON ITS FACE.  COMPENSATION IS NOT PAYABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE
MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT, NOR EVEN BECAUSE HE HAS SUFFERED PHYSICAL DAMAGE FROM THAT
ACCIDENT.  THE ACT ALLOWS COMPENSATION ONLY WHEN THE EMPLOYEE ALSO HAS
SUFFERED A RESULTING LOSS OF EARNING POWER. 

THE ACT EXPRESSLY LIMITS "INJURIES" TO THOSE OF A CERTAIN ORIGIN BY
STATING THAT THEY MUST ARISE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S
EMPLOYMENT.  (FN1) IT ALLOWS COMPENSATION ONLY FOR RESULTING DISABILITY
OR DEATH.  (FN2)  IT DEFINES THE REQUIRED DISABILITY AS A DIMINUTION OF
EARNING POWER.  (FN3) 

ACT, HAS A REASONABLE EFFECT IF IT IS READ AS CONCERNED ONLY WITH
COMPENSABLE INJURIES.  (FN4)  ON THE OTHER HAND, TO INTERPRET SEC.
13(A) AS CUTTING OFF THE PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIMS ONE YEAR AFTER THE
DATE OF THE ACCIDENT IS TO MEASURE THE PERIOD FROM A DATE BEARING NO
CERTAIN RELATION TO THE TIME WHEN A RIGHT TO COMPENSATION ARISES.  IF
AN EMPLOYEE'S INJURY CAUSES HIM NO DIMINUTION OF EARNING POWER WITHIN
ONE YEAR AFTER THE ACCIDENT, HE IS ENTITLED TO NO COMPENSATION WITHIN
THAT YEAR.  YET, UNDER THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 13(A), HE
WILL BE BARRED ALSO FROM CLAIMING COMPENSATION FOR SUBSEQUENTLY
RESULTING DISABILITIES UNLESS, WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR FOLLOWING HIS
ACCIDENT, HE HAS FILED A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.  THE INSTANT CASES
SHOW HOW READILY SUCH SITUATIONS MAY ARISE. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 13(A) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
PETITIONERS' INTERPRETATION.  (FN5) THEIR INTERPRETATION ALSO HAS HAD
JUDICIAL SUPPORT FROM THE APPELLATE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT AND THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  SEE GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO. V.
BRITTON, 86 U.S. APP. D.C. 44, 179 F.2D 60; POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO.
V. CARDILLO, 71 APP. D.C. 163, 107 F.2D 962; DI GIORGIO FRUIT CORP. V.
NORTON, 93 F.2D 119 (C.A. 3D CIR.). 

BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THIS COMPENSATION ACT BY CONGRESS, SEVERAL
STATES HAD INTERPRETED "INJURY" IN COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THEIR
COMPENSATION ACTS TO MEAN "COMPENSABLE INJURY" RATHER THAN "ACCIDENT." 
ESPOSITO V. MARLIN-ROCKWELL CORP., 96 CONN. 414, 114 A. 92; GUDERIAN V.
STERLING S.&R. CO., 151 LA. 59, 91 SO. 546; HUSTUS' CASE, 123 ME. 428,
123 A. 514.  CF. HORNBROOK-PRICE CO. V. STEWART, 66 IND. APP. 400, 118
N.E. 315; IN RE MCCASKEY, 65 IND. APP.  349, 117 N.E. 268.  CONTRA:
COOKE V. HOLLAND FURNACE CO., 200 MICH. 192, 166 N.W. 1013. 

TO DETERMINE WHEN THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIMS BEGINS IT IS
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE DATE WHEN THE EMPLOYEE'S INJURY RESULTED IN
A DIMINUTION OF HIS EARNING POWER.  THAT DATE IS NOT NECESSARILY
COINCIDENT WITH THAT OF THE FIRST PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO THE EMPLOYEE OR
THE FIRST REDUCTION IN THE RATE OF WAGES ACTUALLY PAID HIM.  IN THE
INSTANT CASES THE RESPECTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT
EACH CLAIM WAS FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE EMPLOYEE'S DISABILITY
OCCURRED, ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE CLAIMS WERE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER
THE ACCIDENT IN QUESTION.  THESE FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TAKEN AS A WHOLE.  SEE O'LEARY V. BROWN-PACIFIC
MAXON, INC., 340 U.S. 504.  ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD HOLD EACH OF THE
CLAIMS TIMELY AND WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND THE CASES TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DISMISSAL
OF THE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS. 

FN1  "SEC.  2.  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT: 

     *         *         *       *         * 

"(2)  THE TERM 'INJURY' MEANS ACCIDENTAL INJURY OR DEATH ARISING OUT
OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, AND SUCH OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE OR
INFECTION AS ARISES NATURALLY OUT OF SUCH EMPLOYMENT OR AS NATUALLY OR
UNAVOIDABLY RESULTS FROM SUCH ACCIDENTAL INJURY, AND INCLUDES AN INJURY
CAUSED BY THE WILLFUL ACT OF A THIRD PERSON DIRECTED AGAINST AN
EMPLOYEE BECAUSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT."  44 STAT. 1424-1425, 33 U.S.C.
SEC. 902(2). 

FN2  "SEC.  3.  (A)  COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAYABLE UNDER THIS ACT IN
RESPECT OF DISABILITY OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE, BUT ONLY IF THE
DISABILITY OR DEATH RESULTS FROM AN INJURY OCCURRING UPON THE NAVIGABLE
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (INCLUDING ANY DRY DOCK) AND IF RECOVERY
FOR THE DISABILITY OR DEATH THROUGH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS
MAY NOT VALIDLY BE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW  ...  ."  44 STAT. 1426, 33
U.S.C. SEC. 903(A). 

FN3  "SEC.  2.  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT: 

     *     *         *         *         * 

"(10)  'DISABILITY' MEANS INCAPACITY BECAUSE OF INJURY TO EARN THE
WAGES WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS RECEIVING AT THE TIME OF INJURY IN THE
SAME OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYMENT."  44 STAT. 1424-1425, 33 U.S.C. SEC.
902(10).    FN4  "SEC.  13.  (A)  THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR
DISABILITY UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE BARRED UNLESS A CLAIM THEREFOR IS
FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE INJURY, AND THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION
FOR DEATH SHALL BE BARRED UNLESS A CLAIM THEREFOR IS FILED WITHIN ONE
YEAR AFTER THE DEATH, EXCEPT THAT IF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION HAS BEEN
MADE WITHOUT AN AWARD ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INJURY OR DEATH A CLAIM MAY BE
FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT  ...  ."  44
STAT. 1432, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 913(A). 

FN5  THE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL WHICH BECAME SEC. 13 OF THE
COMPENSATION ACT (S. 3170, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 67 CONG. REC. 4119)
WERE AMENDED SO AS TO REDUCE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING CLAIMS FROM TWO
YEARS TO ONE YEAR AND SO AS TO SUBSTITUTE THE WORD "INJURY" IN PLACE OF
THE WORD "ACCIDENT" AS THE STARTING POINT OF THE PERIOD.  A LIKE
SUBSTITUTION OF "INJURY" FOR "ACCIDENT" WAS MADE IN SEVERAL OTHER
PLACES AND A PROVISION FOR COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY OR DEATH
RESULTING FROM OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE WAS ADDED.  THESE CHANGES EMPHASIZE
THE IMPROPRIETY OF NOW READING "INJURY" AS MEANING "ACCIDENT."  IN THE
CASE OF AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE, IT IS ESPECIALLY RESTRICTIVE OF AN
EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS TO LIMIT HIS FILING PERIOD TO ONE YEAR FROM SOME DATE
OF EARLY CONTACT CONSTITUTING THE "ACCIDENT," RATHER THAN FROM THE DATE
OF HIS FIRST COMPENSABLE DIMINUTION OF EARNING POWER DUE TO THE
DISEASE. 
..END :

















PALMER V. ASHE 342 U.S. 134 


NO. 38.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 1951 - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1951 - REVERSED
AND REMANDED. 


1.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES A
STATE TO AFFORD A DEFENDANT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN A NONCAPITAL
CRIMINAL CASE WHEN THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING THAT WITHOUT
A LAWYER THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE AND FAIR DEFENSE.  P.
134. 

2.  WITHOUT COUNSEL AND WITHOUT BEING OFFERED COUNSEL OR ADVISED OF
HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY AND WAS SENTENCED TO
TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF FIVE TO FIFTEEN YEARS EACH ON CHARGES OF ARMED
ROBBERY AND ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY.  YEARS LATER, IN A HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING IN A PENNSYLVANIA COURT, HE ALLEGED THAT, BOTH UPON HIS
ARREST AND AT HIS ARRAIGNMENT, HE WAS TOLD THAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH
"BREAKING AND ENTERING," THAT HE WAS THEN A YOUNG, IRRESPONSIBLE BOY
WHO HAD SPENT SEVERAL YEARS IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION, AND THAT HE DID
NOT KNOW THAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH ARMED ROBBERY UNTIL AFTER HE REACHED
PRISON.  THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REFUTE THESE ALLEGATIONS; BUT
THE STATE COURT DISMISSED HIS PETITION WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEM.  HELD: JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 135-138. 

(A)  IF PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS ARE PROVEN, THEY WOULD PRESENT
COMPELLING REASONS WHY HE DESPERATELY NEEDED LEGAL COUNSEL AND
SERVICES.  PP. 136-137. 

(B)  IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF A CONVICTION FOR CRIME, THE TRIAL RECORD MAY RELEVANTLY BE
CONSIDERED; BUT THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT EVEN INFERENTIALLY
DENY PETITIONER'S CHARGE THAT THE OFFICERS DECEIVED HIM, NOR SHOW AN
UNDERSTANDING PLEA OF GUILTY.  PP. 137-138. 

PALMER V. ASHE, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

A PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL COURT DISMISSED PETITIONER'S HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING.  THE SUPERIOR COURT AFFIRMED.  167 PA. SUPER.  88, 74 A.2D
725.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO ALLOW AN APPEAL.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 919.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 138. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER. 

THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES STATES TO AFFORD DEFENDANTS ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IN NONCAPITAL CRIMINAL CASES WHEN THERE ARE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING THAT WITHOUT A LAWYER A DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE
AN ADEQUATE AND FAIR DEFENSE.*  PETITIONER, A PRISONER IN A
PENNSYLVANIA PENITENTIARY, IS SERVING THE SECOND OF TWO FIVE-TO-FIFTEEN
YEAR SENTENCES SIMULTANEOUSLY IMPOSED AFTER PLEAS OF GUILTY TO STATE
OFFENSES.  HE SOUGHT RELEASE IN THESE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS FILED
IN A PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.  HIS PETITION ALLEGED THAT HIS
PLEAS OF GUILTY WERE ENTERED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF COUNSEL AND THAT OTHER
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED WHICH DEPRIVED HIM OF OPPORTUNITY AND
CAPACITY FAIRLY TO DEFEND HIMSELF.  ANSWERS OF THE WARDEN AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEY ADMITTED THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT BEEN REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL,
BUT ASSERTED THAT THE TRIAL RECORD SUFFICIENTLY REFUTED PETITIONER'S
ALLEGATIONS.  ON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION AND ANSWERS THE COURT
HELD THAT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS, IN LIGHT OF THE RECORD, FAILED TO
SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE FOR HIS DISCHARGE.  THE CASE WAS THEN DISMISSED,
THEREBY DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF ANY OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER EVIDENCE TO
PROVE HIS ALLEGATIONS.  THE SUPERIOR COURT AFFIRMED, 167 PA. SUPER. 
88, 74 A.2D 725, AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO ALLOW AN
APPEAL.  THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL BEING AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARD, WE GRANTED PETITIONER'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 919. 

*UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, 335 U.S. 437; BUTE V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S.
640, 677, AND CASES CITED.  IT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE UVEGES OPINION
THAT A MINORITY OF THE COURT BELIEVED THE FOURTEENTH AND SIXTH
AMENDMENTS REQUIRE BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS TO AFFORD DEFENDANTS
IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR THEIR
DEFENSE. 

WE MUST LOOK TO THE PETITION AND ANSWERS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGED ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE PETITIONER
TO A JUDICIAL HEARING.  IN SUMMARY THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE:  WHEN
PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED DECEMBER 20, 1930, THE OFFICERS TOLD HIM THAT
HE WAS CHARGED WITH "BREAKING AND ENTERING THE LEADERS DRY GOODS
STORE."  LATER, BEFORE A MAGISTRATE, HE WAS AGAIN TOLD THAT THE CHARGE
WAS "BREAKING AND ENTERING."  PETITIONER NEVER SAW THE INDICTMENTS
AGAINST HIM NOR WERE THEY READ TO HIM.  HE NEVER KNEW HE HAD BEEN
CHARGED WITH ROBBERY AND NEVER INTENDED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO SUCH A
CRIME.  TAKEN TO THE COURTROOM "THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY INFORMED THE
COURT, THAT 'THE DEFENDANT WISHES TO PLEAD GUILTY' AND IN THE MATTER OF
A MINUTE, MORE OR LESS, THE FOREGOING SENTENCE WAS ENTERED AFTER HE
ANSWERED 'YES' TO THE COURT'S QUERY, 'DO YOU PLEAD GUILTY TO THIS
CHARGE?'"  PETITIONER "WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, NOR OFFERED
COUNSEL, OR ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL  ...  ."  AFTER
ARRIVAL AT THE PENITENTIARY, PETITIONER FIRST LEARNED, ACCORDING TO HIS
PETITION, THAT HE HAD BEEN SENTENCED FOR ROBBERY AND NOT FOR THE LESSER
CHARGE OF "BREAKING AND ENTERING."  THE PETITION ALSO ALLEGES THAT
PETITIONER WHEN ARRESTED WAS "A YOUNG IRRESPONSIBLE BOY, HAVING SPENT
SEVERAL YEARS IN POLK (BECAUSE HE WAS MENTALLY ABNORMAL), AS WELL AS
SEVERAL YEARS IN MORGANZA."  THIS ALLEGATION OF MENTAL ABNORMALITY IS
SUPPORTED BY THE PENITENTIARY WARDEN'S ANSWER SHOWING THAT PETITIONER
HAD BEEN CONFINED IN POLK (A STATE INSTITUTION) FROM AUGUST, 1918, TO
SEPTEMBER, 1920, BECAUSE HE WAS AN "IMBECILE."  THE WARDEN'S ANSWER
ALSO SHOWS THAT PETITIONER WAS BORN IN 1909; WAS A STATE ORPHANAGE
INMATE FOR A YEAR BEGINNING IN 1916; AND WAS IN REFORMATORIES FOR
LARCENY OR "BREAKING AND ENTERING" FOR EIGHT OF THE TEN YEARS BETWEEN
THE TIME OF HIS RELEASE FROM THE MENTAL INSTITUTION AND THE TIME OF THE
OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE IS NOW IN PRISON. 

ALL OF THE FOREGOING ALLEGATIONS, IF PROVEN, WOULD PRESENT COMPELLING
REASONS WHY PETITIONER DESPERATELY NEEDED LEGAL COUNSEL AND SERVICES. 
INCARCERATION AS A BOY FOR IMBECILITY, FOLLOWED BY REPEATED ACTIVITIES
WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH NORMAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, INDICATES NO
QUALITIES OF MIND OR CHARACTER CALCULATED TO ENABLE PETITIONER TO
PROTECT HIMSELF IN THE GIVE-AND-TAKE OF A COURTROOM TRIAL.  MOREOVER,
IF THERE CAN BE PROOF OF WHAT HE CHARGES, HE IS THE VICTIM OF
INADVERTENT OR INTENTIONAL DECEPTION OF OFFICERS WHO, SO HE ALLEGES,
PERSUADED HIM TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ARMED ROBBERY BY TELLING HIM HE WAS
ONLY CHARGED WITH BREAKING AND ENTERING, AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE
MAXIMUM IMPRISONMENT IS ONLY TEN YEARS AS COMPARED TO TWENTY YEARS FOR
ARMED ROBBERY.  18 PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN. (1930) SEC. 2892, SEC.
3041.  IN THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE THE ALLEGATIONS ARE STRIKINGLY LIKE
THOSE THAT WE HELD ENTITLED THE PETITIONER TO A HEARING IN SMITH V.
O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329. 

IT IS STRONGLY URGED HERE, HOWEVER, THAT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS ARE
SATISFACTORILY REFUTED BY THE TRIAL RECORD, AND THAT THE COURT SHOULD
NOT NOW LOOK BEHIND THAT RECORD, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE LONG TIME
THAT HAS ELAPSED SINCE PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY.  OF COURSE THE TRIAL
RECORD MAY RELEVANTLY BE CONSIDERED IN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING. 
IN SOME RESPECTS PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS ARE REFUTED BY THE RECORD. 
BUT THAT RECORD DOES NOT EVEN INFERENTIALLY DENY PETITIONER'S CHARGE
THAT THE OFFICERS DECEIVED HIM, NOR DOES THE RECORD SHOW AN
UNDERSTANDING PLEA OF GUILTY FROM THIS PETITIONER, UNLESS BY A RESORT
TO SPECULATION AND SURMISE.  THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS TOO VALUABLE IN
OUR SYSTEM TO DILUTE IT BY SUCH UNTRUSTWORTHY REASONING.  CF.  HAWK V.
OLSON, 326 U.S. 271, 278.  THE JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PETITION IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR
FURTHER ACTION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
OF HIS CASE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HIM COUNSEL WAS A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS OF RECORD WERE BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS:
MOST OF PETITIONER'S LIFE HAD BEEN SPENT IN PENNSYLVANIA MENTAL AND
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS.  AT THE AGE OF EIGHT HE WAS PLACED IN POLK
STATE SCHOOL, A MENTAL INSTITUTION, FROM WHICH HE WAS DISCHARGED IN
LESS THAN TWO YEARS.  ABOUT A YEAR AFTER HIS DISCHARGE FROM POLK, HE
WAS SENT AT THE AGE OF ELEVEN TO THORN HILL SCHOOL ON A CHARGE OF
LARCENY.  HE WAS PAROLED IN LESS THAN THREE YEARS, RETURNED IN LESS
THAN THREE MONTHS FOR DELINQUENCY AND LARCENY, AND FINALLY DISCHARGED
TWO YEARS LATER.  APPROXIMATELY FOURTEEN MONTHS AFTER HIS DISCHARGE
FROM THORN HILL, HE WAS SENT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA TRAINING SCHOOL AT
MORGANZA FOR BREAKING AND ENTERING.  IN TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS HE WAS
PAROLED AND IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR RETURNED AS A PAROLE VIOLATOR.  HE
WAS DISCHARGED FINALLY ABOUT FOUR MONTHS LATER, DECEMBER 18, 1930, HIS
TWENTY-FIRST BIRTHDAY.  ON THAT DAY, THE ROBBERY AND ATTEMPTED ROBBERY
WERE COMMITTED FOR WHICH PETITIONER WAS INDICTED, PLEADED GUILTY AND
WAS SENTENCED TO THE PENITENTIARY ON FEBRUARY 18, 1931, FOR A TERM OF
FIVE TO FIFTEEN YEARS FOR EACH OFFENSE, THE SENTENCES TO RUN
CONSECUTIVELY.  THESE ARE THE SENTENCES ATTACKED BY PETITIONER.  HE WAS
PAROLED ON THE FIRST SENTENCE, ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY, ON AUGUST 26,
1942, TO ENABLE HIM TO BEGIN SERVING THE ARMED ROBBERY SENTENCE.  HE
WAS PAROLED ON HIS SECOND SENTENCE SEPTEMBER 19, 1947, RETURNED AS A
PAROLE VIOLATOR APRIL 1, 1949, AND HAS SINCE BEEN INCARCERATED IN THE
PENITENTIARY. 

IN THIS RECORD AND PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS IN HIS PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS TO THE STATE COURTS MUST BE FOUND THE "SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES" WHICH WOULD WARRANT THIS COURT TO HOLD THAT HE HAD SHOWN
SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE WHY HIS CONVICTION AND SENTENCING, ON
FEBRUARY 18, 1931, WERE VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 

PETITIONER DID NOT ALLEGE THAT AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING HE WAS
MENTALLY INCOMPETENT.  HIS ONLY ALLEGATION CONCERNING MENTAL
INCOMPETENCY IS A RECITAL IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF HIS PETITION AS FOLLOWS: 

"YOUR PETITIONER, A YOUNG IRRESPONSIBLE BOY, HAVING SPENT SEVERAL
YEARS IN POLK (BECAUSE HE WAS MENTALLY ABNORMAL)  ...  ." 

YET HIS DISCHARGE FROM POLK WAS MORE THAN TEN YEARS BEFORE HE ENTERED
THE PLEA OF GUILTY NOW BEFORE US. 

PETITIONER DID ALLEGE THAT WHEN HE PLEADED GUILTY TO THE ROBBERY
INDICTMENTS HE THOUGHT HE WAS PLEADING GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE OF BREAKING
AND ENTERING, AS THE POLICE HAD TOLD HIM WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED THAT THAT
WAS THE CHARGE.  HOWEVER, AT THE ARGUMENT BEFORE THIS COURT IT WAS
CONTENDED BY THE STATE, AND NOT DENIED, THAT THE RECORD SHOWED THAT AT
THE TIME HE PLEADED GUILTY TO THE ROBBERY INDICTMENTS, PETITIONER ALSO
PLEADED GUILTY TO BREAKING AND ENTERING LEADERS' DRY GOODS STORE, FOR
WHICH HE RECEIVED A SUSPENDED SENTENCE.  PETITIONER ALSO ALLEGED THAT
HE DISCOVERED HIS MISTAKE FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN HE WAS BEING EXAMINED
BY THE PENITENTIARY'S PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT UPON HIS ADMISSION.  WITH
THAT KNOWLEDGE, HE REMAINED SILENT FOR EIGHTEEN YEARS, A YEAR AND A
HALF OF WHICH TIME HE WAS ON PAROLE. 

A CONTINUOUS LIFE OF CRIME, EXTENDING THROUGHOUT HIS ENTIRE YOUTH,
WAS THE EXPERIENCE OF THIS UNHAPPY BOY.  ONE WOULD THINK THAT SUCH A
PROPENSITY FOR CRIME WOULD OR SHOULD ALERT A COURT TO HIS MENTAL
CONDITION.  HE DID NOT ALLEGE THAT HE WAS MENTALLY INCOMPETENT AT THE
TIME HE WAS SERVING ALMOST NINE YEARS IN THORN HILL AND MORGANZA, FROM
1921 UNTIL 1930.  IF HE HAD SHOWN ANY SUCH INFIRMITY, SURELY THE
OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF THESE TWO INSTITUTIONS WOULD HAVE HAD THE FACT
CALLED TO THEIR ATTENTION AND WOULD HAVE HAD HIM SENT TO A MENTAL
INSTITUTION.  THE OFFICIALS OF PENNSYLVANIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
HAD SUCH DUTY IMPOSED BY STATUTE IN 1927, SO THAT THE MORGANZA
OFFICIALS, WHERE HE WAS CONFINED FROM 1927 TO 1930, CLEARLY HAD SUCH
DUTY AS TO PETITIONER.   PA. LAWS 1927, NO. 281, PURDON'S PA.  STAT.
ANN., 1931, TIT. 50, SEC. 51.  THIS DUTY WAS IMPOSED ALSO UPON THE
COURT THAT SENTENCED HIM.  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE TRIAL COURT WHICH
ACCEPTED HIS PLEA IN OPEN COURT WOULD HAVE DONE SO IF IT HAD KNOWN OR
HAD ANY INTIMATION THAT HE WAS MENTALLY DEFECTIVE.  I THINK THE COURTS
OF PENNSYLVANIA HAD A RIGHT TO ASSUME UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
RECORD, WHICH UNDER PENNSYLVANIA PRACTICE WAS BEFORE THEM AT THE TIME
OF SENTENCING AND AT THE DISPOSITION OF THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE IN THE
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, THAT PETITIONER WAS A MENTALLY COMPETENT MAN
OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS AT THE TIME HE WAS SENTENCED.*  IT WAS NOT ALLEGED
OTHERWISE. 

*THE MAJORITY STATES THAT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION OF MENTAL
ABNORMALITY IS "SUPPORTED BY THE PENITENTIARY WARDEN'S ANSWER SHOWING
THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN CONFINED IN POLK (A STATE INSTITUTION) FROM
AUGUST, 1918, TO SEPTEMBER, 1920, BECAUSE HE WAS AN 'IMBECILE.'" 

IF HE WERE AN IMBECILE, IT WOULD SEEM PROBABLE THAT IN HIS MANY
ENCOUNTERS WITH THE COURTS THEY WOULD HAVE OBSERVED SUCH LOW GRADE OF
MENTALITY.  AN IMBECILE HAS NEXT TO THE LOWEST GRADE OF INTELLIGENCE
AMONG MENTAL DEFECTIVES, "WITH AN INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT OF FROM 25 TO
49, OR A MENTAL AGE FOR AN ADULT EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF A CHILD OF FROM
3 TO 7 YEARS."  FAIRCHILD, DICTIONARY OF SOCIOLOGY (1944), 149. 
PETITIONER'S BRIEF IN THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT STATED THAT WHEN
HE WAS EXAMINED AT THE PENITENTIARY UPON HIS ADMISSION HE HAD AN IQ OF
74. 

WHEN PETITIONER ENTERED HIS PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE ROBBERY INDICTMENTS
ON FEBRUARY 18, 1931, DID HE KNOW HE WAS DOING SO? HE ALLEGED HE DID
NOT; THAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS PLEADING GUILTY TO BREAKING AND ENTERING
LEADERS' DRY GOODS STORE, AS THE POLICE HAD TOLD HIM THAT WAS WHY HE
WAS BEING ARRESTED.  ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT HE PLEADED GUILTY ALSO TO
THE BREAKING AND ENTERING OF LEADERS' AND RECEIVED A SUSPENDED SENTENCE
THEREON AND THAT HE FIRST MADE KNOWN HIS ERROR MORE THAN EIGHTEEN YEARS
AFTER HE DISCOVERED IT, THE COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN SEEKING TO
DETERMINE FROM THE PETITION AND THE ANSWERS OF THE WARDEN AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DISCHARGING HIM, TOOK
INTO CONSIDERATION THESE FURTHER FACTS OF RECORD: 

THE RECORD REVEALED THAT AFTER PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED, HE WAS
PRESENTED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE ON AN INFORMATION FILED BY A POLICE
OFFICER WHICH CHARGED PETITIONER AND TWO OTHERS, SEPARATELY, WITH ARMED
ROBBERY OF DAVID BRINN, A GROCERY STORE OWNER, AND ATTEMPTED ARMED
ROBBERY OF PETER ROSELLA, ALSO A GROCERY STORE OWNER.  THE VICTIMS
APPEARED AT THE HEARING AND TESTIFIED, TOGETHER WITH TWO OTHER
WITNESSES.  THE THREE DEFENDANTS WERE CHARGED IN TWO INDICTMENTS WITH
THE ARMED ROBBERY OF BRINN AND ATTEMPTED ARMED ROBBERY OF ROSELLA, WHO
WERE IN COURT WITH SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES, PREPARED TO TESTIFY.  THEIR
NAMES WERE ENDORSED UPON THE INDICTMENTS AS WITNESSES AGAINST THE
DEFENDANTS.  PETITIONER'S PLEA OF GUILTY IN OPEN COURT TO THESE
INDICTMENTS WAS ALSO SO ENDORSED.    I THINK IT AN ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT
FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS TO CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS,
MADE EIGHTEEN YEARS AFTER TRIAL, WERE PROBABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE
MATTERS OF RECORD, THAT PROBABLE CAUSE DID NOT EXIST FOR HIS DISCHARGE,
AND THAT THE NECESSITY OF A HEARING WAS NOT INDICATED.  THE COURTS HAD
A RIGHT TO ASSUME, IN THE ABSENCE OF ALLEGATIONS OR RECORD TO THE
CONTRARY, THAT PETITIONER WAS A MENTALLY COMPETENT YOUNG MAN OF TWENTY
ONE YEARS, AND THAT HIS CONTENTION, MADE EIGHTEEN YEARS LATE, THAT HE
HAD PLEADED GUILTY TO CRIMES OTHER THAN HE THOUGHT HE WAS PLEADING TO
WAS A BIT HARD TO BELIEVE, ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION
THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENTS TO WHICH
HE PLEADED GUILTY.  FOR AUGHT THAT APPEARS IN HIS PETITION, HE DID
COMMIT THE OFFENSES - HE ALLEGED ONLY THAT HE DID NOT PLEAD GUILTY TO
THEM.  TO ME IT APPEARS PLAIN THAT THE RECORD ON THE WHOLE IS AGAINST
PETITIONER.  UNDER THE PRACTICE OF PENNSYLVANIA, PETITIONER IS ENTITLED
TO THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ONLY WHEN THE COURT IS SATISFIED THERE IS
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR IT TO ISSUE.  COMMONWEALTH EX REL. MCGLINN V. SMITH,
344 PA. 41, 47-48, 24 A.2D 1, 4-5.  ON THIS RECORD IT WAS PERMISSIBLE
FOR THE COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE
CAUSE SHOWN WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE, AND THAT A HEARING WAS NOT
NECESSARY. 
..END :












LORAIN JOURNAL CO. V. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 143 


NO. 26.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1951 - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1951 - 92 F.
SUPP. 794, AFFIRMED. 


FOR 15 YEARS A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER ENJOYED A SUBSTANTIAL MONOPOLY OF
THE MASS DISSEMINATION OF LOCAL AND NATIONAL NEWS AND ADVERTISING IN
ITS COMMUNITY, AND 99% COVERAGE OF THE COMMUNITY'S FAMILIES.  AFTER THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPETING RADIO STATION, THE PUBLISHER REFUSED TO
ACCEPT LOCAL ADVERTISING FROM THOSE WHO ADVERTISED OVER THE RADIO
STATION.  THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLISHER WAS TO DESTROY THE BROADCASTING
COMPANY.  HELD:  THE PUBLISHER WAS ENGAGED IN AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST
ACT, AND WAS PROPERLY ENJOINED UNDER SEC. 4 FROM CONTINUING THE
ATTEMPT.  PP. 144-157. 

1.  THE CONDUCT OF THE PUBLISHER WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PP. 149-152. 

(A)  THE DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF THE NEWS AND
ADVERTISING TRANSMITTED THERE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF IMMEDIATE AND PROFITABLE REPRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION TO
THE READING PUBLIC IS AN INSEPARABLE PART OF THE FLOW OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE INVOLVED.  P. 152. 

(B)  WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF COMPETITION AT THE OUTLETS OF THE FLOW
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE PROTECTION OF ITS EARLIER STAGES IS OF
LITTLE WORTH.  P. 152. 

2.  THE PUBLISHER'S ATTEMPT TO REGAIN ITS MONOPOLY OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BY FORCING ADVERTISERS TO BOYCOTT A COMPETING RADIO STATION
VIOLATED SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 152-155. 

(A)  IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THIS VIOLATION OF SEC. 2, IT WAS NOT
NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THE PUBLISHER'S ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE WAS
SUCCESSFUL.  PP. 153-154. 

(B)  A LONE NEWSPAPER, ALREADY ENJOYING A SUBSTANTIAL MONOPOLY IN ITS
AREA, VIOLATES THE "ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE" CLAUSE OF SEC. 2 WHEN IT
USES ITS MONOPOLY TO DESTROY THREATENED COMPETITION.  P. 154. 

(C)  THE RIGHT CLAIMED BY THE PUBLISHER AS A PRIVATE BUSINESS CONCERN
TO SELECT ITS CUSTOMERS AND TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT ADVERTISEMENTS FROM
WHOMEVER IT PLEASES IS NEITHER ABSOLUTE NOR EXEMPT FROM REGULATION. 
ITS EXERCISE AS A PURPOSEFUL MEANS OF MONOPOLIZING INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 155. 

3.  THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER'S CONTINUING TO
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  PP. 155-156. 

4.  THERE IS NO OBVIOUS ERROR IN THE FORM OR SUBSTANCE OF THE DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT; AND, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS
COURT RELIES UPON THAT COURT'S RETENTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CAUSE
FOR WHATEVER MODIFICATION THE DECREE MAY NEED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS.  PP. 156-157. 

LORAIN JOURNAL CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

IN A CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT,
THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED APPELLANTS FROM VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  92
F. SUPP. 794.  A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS TAKEN UNDER THE
EXPEDITING ACT.  AFFIRMED, P. 157. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER'S
CONDUCT CONSTITUTED AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
JUSTIFYING THE INJUNCTION ISSUED AGAINST IT UNDER SECS. 2 AND 4 OF THE
SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT.  (FN1)  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, WE
HOLD THAT THE INJUNCTION WAS JUSTIFIED. 

THIS IS A CIVIL ACTION, INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, AGAINST THE LORAIN
JOURNAL COMPANY, AN OHIO CORPORATION, PUBLISHING, DAILY EXCEPT SUNDAY,
IN THE CITY OF LORAIN, OHIO, A NEWSPAPER HERE CALLED THE JOURNAL.  THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE CORPORATION, TOGETHER WITH FOUR OF ITS
OFFICIALS, WAS ENGAGING IN A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST
ACT, AND IN A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE SUCH COMMERCE IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, AS WELL AS ATTEMPTING TO MONOPOLIZE
SUCH COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2.  (FN2)  THE DISTRICT COURT
DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION BUT, AFTER TRIAL, FOUND THAT
THE PARTIES WERE ENGAGING IN AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE AS CHARGED. 
CONFINING ITSELF TO THAT ISSUE, THE COURT ENJOINED THEM FROM CONTINUING
THE ATTEMPT.  92 F. SUPP. 794.  THEY APPEALED TO THIS COURT UNDER THE
EXPEDITING ACT OF 1903, 32 STAT. 823, AS AMENDED, 62 STAT. 989, 15
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 29, AND THE ISSUES BEFORE US ARE THOSE ARISING
FROM THAT FINDING AND THE TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION. 

THE APPELLANT CORPORATION, HERE CALLED THE PUBLISHER, HAS PUBLISHED
THE JOURNAL IN THE CITY OF LORAIN SINCE BEFORE 1932.  IN THAT YEAR IT,
WITH OTHERS, PURCHASED THE TIMES-HERALD WHICH WAS THE ONLY COMPETING
DAILY PAPER PUBLISHED IN THAT CITY.  LATER, WITHOUT SUCCESS, IT SOUGHT
A LICENSE TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A RADIO BROADCASTING STATION IN
LORAIN.  92 F. SUPP. 794, 796, AND SEE LORAIN JOURNAL CO. V. FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N, 86 U.S. APP. D.C. 102, 180 F.2D 28. 

THE COURT BELOW DESCRIBES THE POSITION OF THE JOURNAL SINCE 1933, AS
"A COMMANDING AND AN OVERPOWERING ONE.  IT HAS A DAILY CIRCULATION IN
LORAIN OF OVER 13,000 COPIES AND IT REACHES NINETY-NINE PER CENT OF THE
FAMILIES IN THE CITY."  92 F. SUPP. AT 796.  LORAIN IS AN INDUSTRIAL
CITY ON LAKE ERIE WITH A POPULATION OF ABOUT 52,000 OCCUPYING 11,325
DWELLING UNITS.  THE SUNDAY NEWS, APPEARING ONLY ON SUNDAYS, IS THE
ONLY OTHER NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED THERE.  (FN3) 

WHILE BUT 165 OUT OF THE JOURNAL'S DAILY CIRCULATION OF OVER 20,000
COPIES ARE SENT OUT OF OHIO, IT PUBLISHES NOT ONLY LORAIN NEWS BUT
SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITIES OF STATE, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL NEWS.  IT
PAYS SUBSTANTIAL SUMS FOR SUCH NEWS AND FOR FEATURE MATERIAL SHIPPED TO
IT FROM VARIOUS PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE REST OF THE WORLD. 
IT CARRIES A SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITY OF NATIONAL ADVERTISING SENT TO IT
FROM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  SHIPMENTS AND PAYMENTS INCIDENTAL
TO THE ABOVE MATTERS, AS WELL AS THE PUBLISHER'S PURCHASES OF PAPER AND
INK, INVOLVE MANY TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

FROM 1933 TO 1948 THE PUBLISHER ENJOYED A SUBSTANTIAL MONOPOLY IN
LORAIN OF THE MASS DISSEMINATION OF NEWS AND ADVERTISING, BOTH OF A
LOCAL AND NATIONAL CHARACTER.  HOWEVER, IN 1948 THE ELYRIA-LORAIN
BROADCASTING COMPANY, A CORPORATION INDEPENDENT OF THE PUBLISHER, WAS
LICENSED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH AND
OPERATE IN ELYRIA, OHIO, EIGHT MILES SOUTH OF LORAIN, A RADIO STATION
WHOSE CALL LETTERS, WEOL, STAND FOR ELYRIA, OBERLIN AND LORAIN.  (FN4)
SINCE THEN IT HAS OPERATED ITS PRINCIPAL STUDIO IN ELYRIA AND A BRANCH
STUDIO IN LORAIN.  LORAIN HAS ABOUT TWICE THE POPULATION OF ELYRIA AND
IS BY FAR THE LARGEST COMMUNITY IN THE STATION'S IMMEDIATE AREA. 
OBERLIN IS MUCH SMALLER THAN ELYRIA AND EIGHT MILES SOUTH OF IT. 

WHILE THE STATION IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH A NATIONAL NETWORK IT
DISSEMINATES BOTH INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE NEWS AND ADVERTISING. 
ABOUT 65% OF ITS PROGRAM CONSISTS OF MUSIC BROADCAST FROM ELECTRICAL
TRANSCRIPTIONS.  THESE ARE SHIPPED AND LEASED TO THE STATION BY OUT-OF
STATE SUPPLIERS.  MOST OF THEM ARE COPYRIGHTED AND THE STATION PAYS
ROYALTIES TO THE OUT-OF-STATE HOLDERS OF THE COPYRIGHTS.  FROM 10 TO
12% OF THE STATION'S PROGRAM CONSISTS OF NEWS, WORLD-WIDE IN COVERAGE,
GATHERED BY UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATIONS.  THE NEWS IS RECEIVED FROM
OUTSIDE OF OHIO AND RELAYED TO ELYRIA THROUGH COLUMBUS OR CLEVELAND. 
FROM APRIL, 1949, TO MARCH, 1950, THE STATION BROADCAST OVER 100
SPONSORED SPORTS EVENTS ORIGINATING IN VARIOUS STATES. 

SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE STATION'S INCOME IS DERIVED FROM ITS
BROADCASTS OF ADVERTISEMENTS OF GOODS OR SERVICES.  ABOUT 16% OF ITS
INCOME COMES FROM NATIONAL ADVERTISING UNDER CONTRACTS WITH ADVERTISERS
OUTSIDE OF OHIO.  THIS PRODUCES A CONTINUOUS FLOW OF COPY, PAYMENTS AND
MATERIALS MOVING ACROSS STATE LINES.  (FN5) 

THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT APPELLANTS KNEW THAT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER
OF JOURNAL ADVERTISERS WISHED TO USE THE FACILITIES OF THE RADIO
STATION AS WELL.  FOR SOME OF THEM IT FOUND THAT ADVERTISING IN THE
JOURNAL WAS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROMOTION OF THEIR SALES IN LORAIN
COUNTY.  IT FOUND THAT AT ALL TIMES SINCE WEOL COMMENCED BROADCASTING,
APPELLANTS HAD EXECUTED A PLAN CONCEIVED TO ELIMINATE THE THREAT OF
COMPETITION FOR THE STATION.  UNDER THIS PLAN THE PUBLISHER REFUSED TO
ACCEPT LOCAL ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE JOURNAL FROM AN LORAIN COUNTY
ADVERTISER WHO ADVERTISED OR WHO APPELLANTS BELIEVED TO BE ABOUT TO
ADVERTISE OVER WEOL.  THE COURT FOUND EXPRESSLY THAT THE PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THIS PROCEDURE WAS TO DESTROY THE BROADCASTING COMPANY. 

THE COURT CHARACTERIZED ALL THIS AS "BOLD, RELENTLESS, AND PREDATORY
COMMERCIAL BEHAVIOR."  92 F. SUPP. AT 796.  TO CARRY OUT APPELLANT'S
PLAN, THE PUBLISHER MONITORED WEOL PROGRAMS TO DETERMINE THE IDENTITY
OF THE STATION'S LOCAL LORAIN ADVERTISERS.  THOSE USING THE STATION'S
FACILITIES HAD THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE PUBLISHER TERMINATED AND WERE
ABLE TO RENEW THEM ONLY AFTER CEASING TO ADVERTISE THROUGH WEOL.  THE
PROGRAM WAS EFFECTIVE.  NUMEROUS LORAIN COUNTY MERCHANTS TESTIFIED
THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE PUBLISHER'S POLICY, THEY EITHER CEASED OR
ABANDONED THEIR PLANS TO ADVERTISE OVER WEOL. 

"HAVING THE PLAN AND DESIRE TO INJURE THE RADIO STATION, NO MORE
EFFECTIVE AND MORE DIRECT DEVICE TO IMPEDE THE OPERATIONS AND TO
RESTRAIN THE COMMERCE OF WEOL COULD BE FOUND BY THE JOURNAL THAN TO CUT
OFF ITS BLOODSTREAM OF EXISTENCE - THE ADVERTISING REVENUES WHICH
CONTROL ITS LIFE OR DEMISE. 

      *        *         *         *          * 

"  ...  THE VERY EXISTENCE OF WEOL IS IMPERILED BY THIS ATTACK UPON
ONE OF ITS PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF BUSINESS AND INCOME."  ID., AT 798,
799. 

THE PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF THE INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT ARE NOT SET FORTH IN THE PUBLISHED REPORT OF THE CASE BELOW BUT
ARE PRINTED IN AN APPENDIX, INFRA, PP. 157-159.  SECTIONS IV AND VB OF
THE DECREE, RELATING TO NOTICES, ARE STAYED PENDING FINAL DISPOSITION
OF THIS APPEAL. 

1.  THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IT CONSISTED OF THE PUBLISHER'S PRACTICE OF REFUSING TO
ACCEPT LOCAL LORAIN ADVERTISING FROM PARTIES USING WEOL FOR LOCAL
ADVERTISING.  BECAUSE OF THE JOURNAL'S COMPLETE DAILY NEWSPAPER
MONOPOLY OF LOCAL ADVERTISING IN LORAIN AND ITS PRACTICALLY
INDISPENSABLE COVERAGE OF 99% OF THE LORAIN FAMILIES, THIS PRACTICE
FORCED NUMEROUS ADVERTISERS TO REFRAIN FROM USING WEOL FOR LOCAL
ADVERTISING.  THE RESULT NOT ONLY REDUCED THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS
AVAILABLE TO WEOL IN THE FIELD OF LOCAL LORAIN ADVERTISING AND
STRENGTHENED THE JOURNAL'S MONOPOLY IN THAT FIELD, BUT MORE
SIGNIFICANTLY TENDED TO DESTROY AND ELIMINATE WEOL ALTOGETHER. 
ATTAINMENT OF THAT SOUGHT-FOR ELIMINATION WOULD AUTOMATICALLY RESTORE
TO THE PUBLISHER OF THE JOURNAL ITS SUBSTANTIAL MONOPOLY IN LORAIN OF
THE MASS DISSEMINATION OF ALL NEWS AND ADVERTISING, INTERSTATE AND
NATIONAL, AS WELL AS LOCAL.  IT WOULD DEPRIVE NOT MERELY LORAIN BUT
ELYRIA AND ALL SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES OF THEIR ONLY NEARBY RADIO
STATION. 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT THE OUT-OF-STATE DISTRIBUTION OF SOME
COPIES OF THE JOURNAL, COUPLED WITH THE CONSIDERABLE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ENGAGED IN BY ITS PUBLISHER IN THE PURCHASE OF ITS OPERATING
SUPPLIES, PROVIDED, IN ANY EVENT, A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR CLASSIFYING
THE PUBLISHER'S ENTIRE OPERATION AS ONE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS
POINTED OUT ALSO THAT THE JOURNAL'S DAILY PUBLICATION OF LOCAL NEWS AND
ADVERTISING WAS SO INSEPARABLY INTEGRATED WITH ITS PUBLICATION OF
INTERSTATE NEWS AND NATIONAL ADVERTISING THAT ANY COERCION USED BY IT
IN SECURING LOCAL ADVERTISING INEVITABLY OPERATED TO STRENGTHEN ITS
ENTIRE OPERATION, INCLUDING ITS MONOPOLY OF INTERSTATE NEWS AND
NATIONAL ADVERTISING. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY, HOWEVER, TO RELY ON THE ABOVE SUGGESTIONS.  THE
FINDINGS GO FURTHER.  THEY EXPRESSLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THAT THE
PUBLISHER'S CONDUCT WAS AIMED AT A LARGER TARGET - THE COMPLETE
DESTRUCTION AND ELIMINATION OF WEOL.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE
PUBLISHER, BEFORE 1948, ENJOYED A SUBSTANTIAL MONOPOLY IN LORAIN OF THE
MASS DISSEMINATION NOT ONLY OF LOCAL NEWS AND ADVERTISING, BUT OF NEWS
OF OUT-OF-STATE EVENTS TRANSMITTED TO LORAIN FOR IMMEDIATE
DISSEMINATION, AND OF ADVERTISING OF OUT-OF-STATE PRODUCTS FOR SALE IN
LORAIN.  WEOL OFFERED COMPETITION BY RADIO IN ALL THESE FIELDS SO THAT
THE PUBLISHER'S ATTEMPT TO DESTROY WEOL WAS IN FACT AN ATTEMPT TO END
THE INVASION BY RADIO OF THE LORAIN NEWSPAPER'S MONOPOLY OF INTERSTATE
AS WELL AS LOCAL COMMERCE.  (FN6) 

THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT TODAY THAT THE IMMEDIATE DISSEMINATION OF
NEWS GATHERED FROM THOUGHOUT THE NATION OR THE WORLD BY AGENCIES
SPECIALLY ORGANIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE IS A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 14; ASSOCIATED PRESS V.
LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF NATIONAL ADVERTISING
ORIGINATING THROUGHOUT THE NATION AND OFFERING PRODUCTS FOR SALE ON A
NATIONAL SCALE.  THE LOCAL DISSEMINATION OF SUCH NEWS AND ADVERTISING
REQUIRES CONTINUOUS INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION OF MATERIALS AND PAYMENTS,
TO SAY NOTHING OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE INVOLVED IN THE SALE AND
DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS SOLD.  THE DECISION IN BLUMENSTOCK BROS. V. CURTIS
PUB. CO., 252 U.S. 436, RELATED TO THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS FOR
ADVERTISING RATHER THAN TO THE PREPARATION AND DISSEMINATION OF
ADVERTISING.  MOREOVER, THE VIEW THERE STATED, THAT THE MAKING OF
CONTRACTS BY PARTIES OUTSIDE OF A STATE FOR THE INSERTION OF
ADVERTISING MATERIAL IN PERIODICALS OF NATIONWIDE CIRCULATION DID NOT
AMOUNT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, RESTED EXPRESSLY ON A LINE OF CASES
HOLDING "THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE ARE NOT ARTICLES OF COMMERCE, AND
THAT THE MAKING OF SUCH CONTRACTS IS A MERE INCIDENT OF COMMERCIAL
INTERCOURSE."  ID., AT 443.  SEE PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, AND
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495.  THAT LINE
OF CASES NO LONGER STANDS IN THE WAY.  UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN
UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533.  SEE ALSO, NORTH AMERICAN CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N, 327 U.S. 686; INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUB.
CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER PUB. CO., 293 U.S. 268. 

THE DISTRIBUTION WITHIN LORAIN OF THE NEWS AND ADVERTISEMENTS
TRANSMITTED TO LORAIN IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
IMMEDIATE AND PROFITABLE REPRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION TO THE READING
PUBLIC IS AN INSEPARABLE PART OF THE FLOW OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
INVOLVED.  SEE BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291, 309; STAFFORD
V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495, 516; ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. LOUISIANA R.
COMM'N, 236 U.S. 157, 163; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375,
398.  UNLESS PROTECTED BY LAW, THE CONSUMING PUBLIC IS AT THE MERCY OF
RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIZATIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT WHATEVER
POINTS THEY OCCUR.  WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF COMPETITION AT THE
OUTLETS OF THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE PROTECTION OF ITS
EARLIER STAGES IS OF LITTLE WORTH. 

2.  THE PUBLISHER'S ATTEMPT TO REGAIN ITS MONOPOLY OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BY FORCING ADVERTISERS TO BOYCOTT A COMPETING RADIO STATION
VIOLATED SEC. 2.  THE FINDINGS AND OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT DESCRIBE
THE CONDUCT OF THE PUBLISHER UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RELIES.  THE
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IMPORTANT.  THE MOST ILLUMINATING OF
THESE IS THE SUBSTANTIAL MONOPOLY WHICH WAS ENJOYED IN LORAIN BY THE
PUBLISHER FROM 1933 TO 1948, TOGETHER WITH A 99% COVERAGE OF LORAIN
FAMILIES.  THOSE FACTORS MADE THE JOURNAL AN INDISPENSABLE MEDIUM OF
ADVERTISING FOR MANY LORAIN CONCERNS.  ACCORDINGLY, ITS PUBLISHER'S
REFUSALS TO PRINT LORAIN ADVERTISING FOR THOSE USING WEOL FOR LIKE
ADVERTISING OFTEN AMOUNTED TO AN EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF
WEOL FOR THAT PURPOSE.   NUMEROUS LORAIN ADVERTISERS WISHED TO
SUPPLEMENT THEIR LOCAL NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING WITH LOCAL RADIO
ADVERTISING BUT COULD NOT AFFORD TO DISCONTINUE THEIR NEWSPAPER
ADVERTISING IN ORDER TO USE THE RADIO.    WEOL'S GREATEST POTENTIAL
SOURCE OF INCOME WAS LOCAL LORAIN ADVERTISING.  LOSS OF THAT WAS A
MAJOR THREAT TO ITS EXISTENCE.  THE COURT BELOW FOUND UNEQUIVOCALLY
THAT APPELLANTS' CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO AN ATTEMPT BY THE PUBLISHER TO
DESTROY WEOL AND, AT THE SAME TIME, TO REGAIN THE PUBLISHER'S PRE-1948
SUBSTANTIAL MONOPOLY OVER THE MASS DISSEMINATION OF ALL NEWS AND
ADVERTISING. 

TO ESTABLISH THIS VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 AS CHARGED, IT WAS NOT
NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT SUCCESS REWARDED APPELLANTS' ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE.  THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER SEC. 4 SOUGHT TO FORESTALL
THAT SUCCESS.  WHILE APPELLANTS' ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE DID SUCCEED
INSOFAR AS IT DEPRIVED WEOL OF INCOME, WEOL HAS NOT YET BEEN
ELIMINATED.  THE INJUNCTION MAY SAVE IT.  "WHEN THAT INTENT (TO
MONOPOLIZE) AND THE CONSEQUENT DANGEROUS PROBABILITY EXIST, THIS
STATUTE (THE SHERMAN ACT), LIKE MANY OTHERS AND LIKE THE COMMON LAW IN
SOME CASES, DIRECTS ITSELF AGAINST THAT DANGEROUS PROBABILITY AS WELL
AS AGAINST THE COMPLETED RESULT."  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196
U.S. 375, 396.  SEE ALSO, AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328
U.S. 781; UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO., 148 F.2D 416, 431. 

"THE SECOND SECTION (OF THE SHERMAN ACT) SEEKS, IF POSSIBLE, TO MAKE
THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACT ALL THE MORE COMPLETE AND PERFECT BY
EMBRACING ALL ATTEMPTS TO REACH THE END PROHIBITED BY THE FIRST
MONOPOLIZATION THEREOF, EVEN ALTHOUGH THE ACTS BY WHICH SUCH RESULTS
ARE ATTEMPTED TO BE BROUGHT ABOUT OR ARE BROUGHT ABOUT BE NOT EMBRACED
WITHIN THE GENERAL ENUMERATION OF THE FIRST SECTION."  STANDARD OIL CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 61.  (FN7) 

ASSUMING THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCE INVOLVED, IT SEEMS
CLEAR THAT IF ALL THE NEWSPAPERS IN A CITY, IN ORDER TO MONOPOLIZE THE
DISSEMINATION OF NEWS AND ADVERTISING BY ELIMINATING A COMPETING RADIO
STATION, CONSPIRED TO ACCEPT NO ADVERTISEMENTS FROM ANYONE WHO
ADVERTISED OVER THAT STATION, THEY WOULD VIOLATE SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  CF. FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N,
312 U.S. 457, 465; BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291; FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO., 257 U.S. 441; LOEWE V. LAWLOR,
208 U.S. 274; WILLIAM GOLDMAN THEATRES V. LOEW'S, INC., 150 F.2D 738. 
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT RESULT TO HOLD HERE THAT A SINGLE NEWSPAPER,
ALREADY ENJOYING A SUBSTANTIAL MONOPOLY IN ITS AREA, VIOLATES THE
"ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE" CLAUSE OF SEC. 2 WHEN IT USES ITS MONOPOLY TO
DESTROY THREATENED COMPETITION.  (FN8) 

THE PUBLISHER CLAIMS A RIGHT AS A PRIVATE BUSINESS CONCERN TO SELECT
ITS CUSTOMERS AND TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT ADVERTISEMENTS FROM WHOMEVER IT
PLEASES.  WE DO NOT DISPUTE THAT GENERAL RIGHT.  "BUT THE WORD 'RIGHT'
IS ONE OF THE MOST DECEPTIVE OF PITFALLS; IT IS SO EASY TO SLIP FROM A
QUALIFIED MEANING IN THE PREMISE TO AN UNQUALIFIED ONE IN THE
CONCLUSION.  MOST RIGHTS ARE QUALIFIED."  AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO. V.
FEDERAL BANK, 256 U.S. 350, 358.  THE RIGHT CLAIMED BY THE PUBLISHER IS
NEITHER ABSOLUTE NOR EXEMPT FROM REGULATION.  ITS EXERCISE AS A
PURPOSEFUL MEANS OF MONOPOLIZING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS PROHIBITED BY
THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE OPERATOR OF THE RADIO STATION, EQUALLY WITH THE
PUBLISHER OF THE NEWSPAPER, IS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THAT ACT. 
"IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PURPOSE TO CREATE OR MAINTAIN A MONOPOLY, THE
ACT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE LONG RECOGNIZED RIGHT OF TRADER OR
MANUFACTURER ENGAGED IN AN ENTIRELY PRIVATE BUSINESS, FREELY TO
EXERCISE HIS OWN INDEPENDENT DISCRETION AS TO PARTIES WITH WHOM HE WILL
DEAL."  UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250 U.S. 300, 307.  SEE
ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 15; UNITED STATES V.
BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707, 721-723. 

3.  THE INJUNCTION DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY GUARANTEED FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS.  THE PUBLISHER SUGGESTS THAT THE INJUNCTION AMOUNTS TO A PRIOR
RESTRAINT UPON WHAT IT MAY PUBLISH.  WE FIND IN IT NO RESTRICTION UPON
ANY GUARANTEED FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  THE INJUNCTION APPLIES TO A
PUBLISHER WHAT THE LAW APPLIES TO OTHERS.  THE PUBLISHER MAY NOT ACCEPT
OR DENY ADVERTISEMENTS IN AN "ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE  ...  ANY PART OF
THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES  ...  ."  ASSOCIATED
PRESS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 6-7, 20; INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUB.
CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER PUB. CO., 293 U.S. 268.  SEE ALSO, OKLAHOMA PRESS
PUB. CO. V. WALLING, 327 U.S. 186, 192; MABEE V. WHITE PLAINS PUB. CO.,
327 U.S. 178, 184; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103. 
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS AS APPROPRIATE A
MEANS OF ENFORCING THE ACT AGAINST NEWSPAPERS AS IT IS AGAINST OTHERS. 

4.  THE DECREE IS REASONABLY CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CASE AND REMAINS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE COURT BELOW.  (FN9)  WE HAVE
CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS MADE TO THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE DECREE
AND DO NOT FIND OBVIOUS ERROR.  IT IS SUGGESTED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE
DECREE COVERS A BROADER SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE
EVIDENCE AND REQUIRES UNNECESSARY SUPERVISION OF FUTURE CONDUCT OF THE
PUBLISHER, THAT NOTICE OF ITS TERMS MUST BE PUBLISHED AT LEAST ONCE A
WEEK FOR 25 WEEKS AND THAT THE PUBLISHER FOR FIVE YEARS MUST MAINTAIN
RECORDS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT OF THE JUDGMENT AND KEEP THEM
ACCESSIBLE FOR GOVERNMENTAL INSPECTION. 

WHILE THE DECREE SHOULD ANTICIPATE PROBABILITIES OF THE FUTURE, IT IS
EQUALLY IMPORTANT THAT IT DO NOT IMPOSE UNNECESSARY RESTRICTIONS AND
THAT THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR SUPERVISION, GIVING NOTICE, KEEPING
RECORDS AND MAKING INSPECTIONS BE NOT UNDULY BURDENSOME. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PRINTED RECORD CONTAINS NEITHER THE ENTIRE
TESTIMONY NOR ALL THE EXHIBITS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE COURT BELOW.  IT
OMITS ALSO MATERIAL MENTIONED DURING THE TRIAL AS HAVING BEEN
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT WHEN DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE CONTENT TO RELY
UPON THE TRIAL COURT'S RETENTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CAUSE FOR
WHATEVER MODIFICATION THE DECREE MAY REQUIRE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS AND OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS.  SEE ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AT 22-23; UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., SUPRA, AT
727-729. 

THE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  2.  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE, OR ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO
MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR  ...
. 

     *         *  *         *         * 

"SEC. 4.  THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE HEREBY
INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THIS
ACT; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY TO PREVENT AND
RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS  ... ."  26 STAT. 209, 36 STAT. 1167, 15
U.S.C.  SECS. 2 AND 4. 

FN2  THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT WERE SAMUEL A.
HORVITZ, VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY AND A DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION;
ISADORE HORVITZ, PRESIDENT, TREASURER AND A DIRECTOR; D.P. SELF,
BUSINESS MANAGER; AND FRANK MALOY, EDITOR.  EACH PARTICIPATED IN THE
CONDUCT ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE THE ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE.  MALOY HAS
DIED PENDING THE APPEAL. 

FN3  THE SUNDAY NEWS HAS A WEEKLY CIRCULATION OF ABOUT 3,000 COPIES,
LARGELY IN LORAIN.  THE CHRONICLE-TELEGRAM IS A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED
DAILY, EXCEPT SUNDAY, EIGHT MILES AWAY IN ELYRIA.  IT HAS A DAILY
CIRCULATION IN THAT CITY OF ABOUT 9,000 BUT NONE IN LORAIN.  THE
CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, NEWS AND PRESS ARE METROPOLITAN NEWSPAPERS
PUBLISHED DAILY, EXCEPT SUNDAY, IN CLEVELAND, 28 MILES EAST OF LORAIN. 
THEY HAVE A COMBINED DAILY CIRCULATION IN LORAIN OF ABOUT 6,000.  THE
CLEVELAND SUNDAY PLAIN DEALER HAS A SUNDAY CIRCULATION IN LORAIN OF
ABOUT 11,000.  THE CLEVELAND PAPERS CARRY NO LORAIN ADVERTISING AND
LITTLE LORAIN NEWS.  NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE RECORD OR IN THE
ARGUMENT HERE TO COMPETITION FROM ANY RADIO STATION OTHER THAN WEOL. 

FN4  THE LICENSE ALSO COVERS WEOL-FM BUT THE TWO STATIONS ARE HERE
TREATED AS ONE.  WEOL OPERATES ON A FREQUENCY OF 930 KILOCYCLES AND
WEOL-FM OF 107.6 MEGACYCLES.  THE STATION OUTLINES ITS PRIMARY
LISTENING OR MARKET AREA ON THE BASIS OF A HALF MILLIVOLT DAYTIME
PATTERN AND A TWO MILLIVOLT NIGHTTIME PATTERN.  ITS DAY PATTERN REACHES
AN AREA CONTAINING ALL OR PART OF 20 COUNTIES AND AN ESTIMATED
POPULATION OF OVER 2,250,000.  ITS NIGHT PATTERN REACHES AN AREA
CONTAINING PARTS OF NINE OR THESE COUNTIES AND AN ESTIMATED POPULATION
OF ABOUT 450,000.  LORAIN COUNTY, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMMUNITIES OF
LORAIN, ELYRIA AND OBERLIN, CONTAINS ABOUT 120,000 PEOPLE, 52,000 OF
WHOM LIVE IN THE CITY OF LORAIN. 

FN5  OTHER FINDINGS SHOW THAT THE STATION BROADCASTS ADVERTISEMENTS
OF GOODS AND SERVICES ON BEHALF OF SUPPLIERS OUTSIDE OF OHIO.  THESE
SOMETIMES RESULT IN INTERSTATE ORDERS AND SHIPMENTS.  ORDERS RECEIVED
BY ITS LOCAL ADVERTISERS ARE SOMETIMES FILLED BY OUT-OF-STATE
SUPPLIERS.  THE STATION'S BROADCASTS INEVITABLY REACH ACROSS STATE
LINES.  THEY ARE HEARD WITH SOME REGULARITY BY MANY PEOPLE IN
SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN.  THE APPLICATION WHICH LED TO WEOL'S LICENSE WAS
CONSIDERED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IN CONJUNCTION WITH
AN APPLICATION FOR ANOTHER LICENSE, SOUGHT BY A MICHIGAN STATION,
INVOLVING POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN ITS COVERAGE AND THAT OF WEOL. 

FN6  THE REFERENCE IN SEC. 2 TO AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE "ANY PART OF
THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" RELATES NOT MERELY TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN ANY GEOGRAPHICAL PART OF THE UNITED STATES
BUT ALSO TO ANY APPRECIABLE PART OF SUCH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  "THE
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 HAVE BOTH A GEOGRAPHICAL AND DISTRIBUTIVE
SIGNIFICANCE AND APPLY TO ANY PART OF THE UNITED STATES AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE WHOLE AND TO ANY PART OF THE CLASSES OF THINGS
FORMING A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUB.
CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER PUB. CO., 293 U.S. 268, 279.  SEE ALSO, UNITED
STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, 106; UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO.,
332 U.S. 218, 225; MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38. 

FN7  "SECTION 2 IS NOT RESTRICTED TO CONSPIRACIES OR COMBINATIONS TO
MONOPOLIZE BUT ALSO MAKES IT A CRIME FOR ANY PERSON TO MONOPOLIZE OR TO
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN TRADE OR
COMMERCE  ...  .  IT IS INDEED 'UNREASONABLE, PER SE, TO FORECLOSE
COMPETITORS FROM ANY SUBSTANTIAL MARKET  ...  .'  THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS
ARE AS MUCH VIOLATED BY THE PREVENTION OF COMPETITION AS BY ITS
DESTRUCTION  ...  .  IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT THE USE OF MONOPOLY
POWER, HOWEVER LAWFULLY ACQUIRED, TO FORECLOSE COMPETITION, TO GAIN A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, OR TO DESTROY A COMPETITOR, IS UNLAWFUL." 
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, 106-107. 

FN8  APPELLANTS HAVE SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THEIR CONDUCT ON THE GROUND
THAT IT WAS PART OF THE PUBLISHER'S PROGRAM FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
LORAIN MARKET FROM OUTSIDE COMPETITION.  THE PUBLISHER CLAIMED TO HAVE
REFUSED ADVERTISING FROM ELYRIA OR OTHER OUT-OF-TOWN ADVERTISERS FOR
THE REASON THAT SUCH ADVERTISERS MIGHT COMPETE WITH LORAIN CONCERNS. 
THE PUBLISHER THEN CLASSIFIED WEOL AS THE PUBLISHER'S OWN COMPETITOR
FROM ELYRIA AND ASKED ITS LORAIN ADVERTISERS TO REFUSE TO EMPLOY WEOL
AS AN ADVERTISING MEDIUM IN COMPETITION WITH THE JOURNAL.  WE FIND NO
PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH REQUIRED LORAIN ADVERTISERS THUS TO BOYCOTT AN
ELYRIA ADVERTISING MEDIUM MERELY BECAUSE THE PUBLISHER OF A LORAIN
ADVERTISING MEDIUM HAD CHOSEN TO BOYCOTT SOME ELYRIA ADVERTISERS WHO
MIGHT COMPETE FOR BUSINESS IN THE LORAIN MARKET.  NOR DO WE FIND ANY
PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH PERMITTED THIS PUBLISHER TO DICTATE TO
PROSPECTIVE ADVERTISERS THAT THEY MIGHT ADVERTISE EITHER BY NEWSPAPER
OR BY RADIO BUT THAT THEY MIGHT NOT USE BOTH FACILITIES. 

FN9  A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE DECREE IS PRINTED IN THE APPENDIX,
INFRA, PP. 157-159. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

                                        APPENDIX. 

                               "FINAL JUDGMENT -  ...  . 

     *         *         *         *         *

                                       "III 

"DEFENDANT THE LORAIN JOURNAL COMPANY IS ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED
FROM: 

"A.  REFUSING TO ACCEPT FOR PUBLICATION OR REFUSING TO PUBLISH ANY
ADVERTISEMENT OR ADVERTISEMENTS OR DISCRIMINATING AS TO PRICE, SPACE,
ARRANGEMENT, LOCATION, COMMENCEMENT OR PERIOD OF INSERTION OR ANY OTHER
TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT OR ADVERTISEMENTS
WHERE THE REASON FOR SUCH REFUSAL OR DISCRIMINATION IS, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT THE PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION
SUBMITTING THE ADVERTISEMENT OR ADVERTISEMENTS HAS ADVERTISED,
ADVERTISES, HAS PROPOSED OR PROPOSES TO ADVERTISE IN OR THROUGH ANY
OTHER ADVERTISING MEDIUM. 

"B.  ACCEPTING FOR PUBLICATION OR PUBLISHING ANY ADVERTISEMENT OR
MAKING OR ADHERING TO ANY CONTRACT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF
ADVERTISEMENTS ON OR ACCOMPANIED BY ANY CONDITION, AGREEMENT OR
UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED: 

"1.  THAT THE ADVERTISER SHALL NOT USE THE ADVERTISING MEDIUM OF ANY
PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION OTHER THAN DEFENDANT THE LORAIN JOURNAL
COMPANY: 

"2.  THAT THE ADVERTISER USE ONLY THE ADVERTISING MEDIUM OF DEFENDANT
THE LORAIN JOURNAL COMPANY:    "C.  CANCELLING, TERMINATING, REFUSING
TO RENEW OR IN ANY MANNER IMPAIRING ANY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT OR
UNDERSTANDING, INVOLVING THE PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS, BETWEEN THE
DEFENDANTS, OR ANY OF THEM, AND ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION FOR THE
REASON, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THAT SUCH PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION
ADVERTISED, ADVERTISES OR PROPOSES TO ADVERTISE IN OR THROUGH ANY
ADVERTISING MEDIUM OTHER THAN THE NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED BY THE CORPORATE
DEFENDANT. 

      "IV 

"COMMENCING FIFTEEN (15) DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THIS JUDGMENT AND AT
LEAST ONCE A WEEK FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY-FIVE WEEKS THEREAFTER THE
CORPORATE DEFENDANT SHALL INSERT IN THE NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED BY IT A
NOTICE WHICH SHALL FAIRLY AND FULLY APPRISE THE READERS THEREOF OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE TERMS OF THIS JUDGMENT AND WHICH NOTICE SHALL BE PLACED IN
A CONSPICUOUS LOCATION. 

                                             "V 

"DEFENDANT THE LORAIN JOURNAL COMPANY AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
ARE ORDERED AND DIRECTED TO: 

"A.  MAINTAIN FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
JUDGMENT, ALL BOOKS AND RECORDS, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE ALL
CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDA, REPORTS AND OTHER WRITINGS, RELATING TO THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS JUDGMENT: 

"B.  ADVISE IN WRITING WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
JUDGMENT ANY OFFICERS, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, AND ANY OTHER PERSONS ACTING
FOR, THROUGH OR UNDER DEFENDANTS OR ANY OF THEM OF THE TERMS OF THIS
JUDGMENT AND THAT EACH AND EVERY SUCH PERSON IS SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS JUDGMENT.  THE DEFENDANTS SHALL MAKE READILY
AVAILABLE TO SUCH PERSONS A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT AND SHALL INFORM THEM
OF SUCH AVAILABILITY. 

     *         *         *         *         *

                                             "VII 

"JURISDICTION OF THIS CAUSE IS RETAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING
ANY OF THE PARTIES TO THIS JUDGMENT TO APPLY TO THE COURT AT ANY TIME
FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE IN RELATION TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF, OR CARRYING OUT OF THIS
JUDGMENT, FOR THE AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF, OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THEREWITH AND FOR THE
PUNISHMENT OF VIOLATIONS THEREOF." 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. FORTIER 342 U.S. 160 


NO. 14.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 1951 - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1951 - 185 F.2D
608, AFFIRMED. 


A MAXIMUM SALE PRICE STIPULATED BY A BUILDER OF HOUSES, IN SECURING
PERMISSION TO BUILD AND PRIORITIES ASSISTANCE UNDER THE VETERANS'
EMERGENCY HOUSING ACT OF 1946 AND PRIORITIES REGULATION 33, DOES NOT
SURVIVE THE REPEAL OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THAT REGULATION BY
THE HOUSING AND RENT ACT OF 1947 AND MAY NOT BE ENFORCED AS TO HOUSES
SOLD AFTER SUCH REPEAL.  PP. 160-162. 

UNITED STATES V. FORTIER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS ACTION UNDER THE VETERANS' EMERGENCY
HOUSING ACT OF 1946 (FN1) TO COMPEL RESTITUTION OF ALLEGEDLY EXCESSIVE
PRICES CHARGED BY RESPONDENTS IN THE SALE OF TWO HOUSES.  THE DISTRICT
COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS, 89 F. SUPP. 708, AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 185 F.2D 608.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 341 U.S. 925. 

MAXIMUM SALES PRICES FOR THE TWO HOUSES HAD BEEN STIPULATED BY
RESPONDENTS IN SECURING THE PERMISSION TO BUILD REQUIRED UNDER
PRIORITIES REGULATION 33.  (FN2)  STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THAT
REGULATION HAD BEEN REPEALED BEFORE THE SALE OF RESPONDENTS' HOUSES,
EXCEPT FOR A PROVISO CONTINUING IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT PRIORITIES FOR
BUILDING MATERIALS ISSUED UNDER THE VETERANS' EMERGENCY HOUSING ACT OF
1946.  (FN3)  THE GOVERNMENT VIEWS THE MAXIMUM PRICES STIPULATED BY
RESPONDENTS AS A CONDITION OF CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION AND PRIORITIES
ASSISTANCE THAT SURVIVED REPEAL UNDER THE PROVISO.  WE REJECT THIS
VIEW. 

THE 1946 ACT CONTAINED DETAILED AUTHORIZATION FOR PRICE RESTRICTIONS
ON HOUSES AND FOR PRIORITIES ON BUILDING MATERIALS.  WHEN THAT ACT WAS
REPEALED IN 1947, CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR VETERANS' PREFERENCES IN THE
SALE AND RENTAL OF HOUSING AND FOR RENT CEILINGS ON CERTAIN
ACCOMMODATIONS CONSTRUCTED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF PRIORITIES SECURED
UNDER THE 1946 ACT.  (FN4)  CONGRESS ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE PROBLEM OF
VETERANS' HOUSING, BUT REFRAINED FROM IMPOSING ANY PRICE RESTRICTIONS
ON THE SALE OF HOUSES.  CONGRESS HAVING INDICATED A CONTRARY PURPOSE,
WE WILL NOT IMPOSE SUCH RESTRICTIONS BY IMPLICATION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1821 ET SEQ. 

FN2  10 FED. REG. 15301, AS AMENDED, 11 FED. REG. 6598.  RESPONDENTS
WERE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THIS REGULATION BY VETERANS' HOUSING
PROGRAM ORDER NO. 1, 11 FED.  REG. 3190. 

FN3  50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1881(A), IN REPEALING THE 1946
ACT, PROVIDED: 

"THAT ANY ALLOCATIONS MADE OR COMMITTED, OR PRIORITIES GRANTED FOR
THE DELIVERY, OR ANY HOUSING MATERIALS OR FACILITIES UNDER ANY
REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SAID ACT,
AND BEFORE THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT (JUNE 30, 1947), WITH
RESPECT TO VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II, THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, AND
OTHERS, SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT." 

RESPONDENTS' HOUSES WERE NOT SOLD UNTIL NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1947,
MONTHS AFTER REPEAL OF THE 1946 ACT.  AS A RESULT, NO "PENALTY,
FORFEITURE, OR LIABILITY" HAD BEEN INCURRED UNDER THE 1946 ACT WHICH
WOULD SURVIVE REPEAL UNDER THE GENERAL SAVING CLAUSE, 1 U.S.C.  (SUPP.
IV) SEC. 109.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CARTER, 171 F.2D 530 (C.A. 5TH
CIR. 1948). 

FN4  50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1884(A); ID., SEC.
1892(C)(1)(B)(3)(A). 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















EX PARTE COGDELL 342 U.S. 163 


NO. 71, MISC.  CONTINUED DECEMBER 11, 1951 - CAUSE CONTINUED. 


BECAUSE THE QUESTION WHETHER A COURT OF THREE JUDGES IS REQUIRED BY 28
U.S.C. SEC. 2282 IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
ENFORCEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS AFFECTING ONLY THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IS A QUESTION OF GENERAL IMPORTANCE TO JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IS NECESSARILY BEFORE THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN A PENDING APPEAL TAKEN BY
PETITIONERS, THE CASE ARISING ON THEIR PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
FILED IN THIS COURT AND RAISING THE SAME QUESTION IS CONTINUED ON THE
DOCKET TO AWAIT THE VIEWS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  PP. 163-164. 

EX PARTE COGDELL ET AL. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA TO RESTRAIN ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS THE ENFORCEMENT OF
CERTAIN LEGISLATION PASSED BY CONGRESS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOOL SYSTEM.  PETITIONERS' REQUEST THAT A COURT
OF THREE JUDGES BE CONVENED UNDER SECTION 2282 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
(FN1) WAS DENIED.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT SCHOOL
OFFICIALS TO DISMISS THE SUIT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
WAS GRANTED. 

PETITIONERS FILED A MOTION IN THIS COURT FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THAT A COURT OF THREE JUDGES BE
CONVENED TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS.  AS
SUBSTANTIAL JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS WERE RAISED, WE GRANTED THE MOTION
AND ISSUED A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ANY MANDAMUS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. 
342 U.S. 805.  IN ADDITION TO THIS MANDAMUS ACTION, APPEALS WERE TAKEN
BY PETITIONERS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT AND ARE NOW PENDING IN THAT COURT. 

ONE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER A
COURT OF THREE JUDGES IS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2282 IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS AFFECTING ONLY THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THE SECTION USES THE WORDS "ANY ACT OF CONGRESS."  AS
AGAINST PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT ALL LEGISLATION PASSED BY CONGRESS
IS EMBRACED WITHIN THAT LANGUAGE, IT IS URGED THAT A PROPER
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2282 CONFINES THE PHRASE "ACT OF CONGRESS" TO
LAWS HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. 
RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE DETERMINES WHETHER THIS COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THIS CLASS OF CASE, (FN2) OR WHETHER THE
COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION.  AS A RESULT, THE SAME QUESTION IS
NECESSARILY BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT IN ITS CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONERS' APPEALS NOW PENDING IN
THAT COURT.  (FN3)  BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS ONE OF GENERAL IMPORTANCE
TO JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WE CONTINUE
THIS CASE ON OUR DOCKET TO AWAIT THE VIEWS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
CAUSE CONTINUED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2282: 

"AN INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE
ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION OR EXECUTION OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS FOR
REPUGNANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL NOT BE
GRANTED BY ANY DISTRICT COURT OR JUDGE THEREOF UNLESS THE APPLICATION
THEREFOR IS HEARD AND DETERMINED BY A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES
UNDER SECTION 2284 OF THIS TITLE." 

FN2  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1253. 

FN3  STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN R. CO., 282 U.S. 10 (1930). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :



JENNINGS V. ILLINOIS 342 U.S. 104 


NO. 95.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 5-6, 1951 - DECIDED DECEMBER 3, 1951 -
JUDGMENTS VACATED AND CAUSES REMANDED. 


UNDER THE ILLINOIS POST-CONVICTION HEARING ACT, PETITIONER, A PRISONER
IN AN ILLINOIS PENITENTIARY, FILED IN THE STATE COURT IN WHICH HE HAD
BEEN CONVICTED A PETITION ALLEGING FACTS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A
PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
THROUGH THE ADMISSION OF A COERCED CONFESSION IN EVIDENCE AT HIS
TRIAL.  THE STATE'S ATTORNEY DID NOT DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS BUT MOVED
TO DISMISS THE PETITION ON GROUNDS OF RES JUDICATA AND FAILURE TO STATE
A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION WITHOUT A HEARING
OR OTHERWISE DETERMINING THE FACTUAL ISSUES PRESENTED.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT, WITHOUT ARGUMENT AND WITHOUT OPINION, DISMISSED A WRIT
OF ERROR BY A FORM ORDER RECITING THAT IT HAD EXAMINED AND REVIEWED THE
PETITION AND RECORD IN THE POST-CONVICTION HEARING AND FOUND THE SAME
TO DISCLOSE NO VIOLATION OR DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  HELD:  JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 105-112. 

1.  IF HIS ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE AND IF HIS CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED
AT OR AFTER TRIAL, PETITIONER IS HELD IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; AND HE IS ENTITLED TO HIS DAY IN COURT
FOR RESOLUTION OF THESE ISSUES.  PP. 110-111. 

2.  ON REMAND, PETITIONER SHOULD BE ADVISED WHETHER HIS CLAIM THAT
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE INFRINGED AT HIS TRIAL MAY BE DETERMINED
UNDER THE POST-CONVICTION HEARING ACT, OR WHETHER THAT ACT DOES NOT
PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE STATE REMEDY IN THIS CASE.  P. 111. 

3.  IF PETITIONER'S CLAIM MAY BE RESOLVED IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THAT
ACT, EITHER BY AN INQUIRY INTO THE VERITY OF HIS FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OR
A FINDING THAT HIS FEDERAL RIGHTS WERE WAIVED DURING OR AFTER HIS
TRIAL, SUCH RESOLUTION MAY PROCEED WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION BY THIS
COURT.  PP. 111-112. 

4.  IF ILLINOIS DOES NOT PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR SUCH A
DETERMINATION, PETITIONER MAY PROCEED WITHOUT MORE TO APPLY TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  P. 112. 

JENNINGS V. ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 96, LA FRANA V. ILLINOIS; AND NO. 375, SHERMAN V.
ILLINOIS, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

ILLINOIS TRIAL COURTS DISMISSED PETITIONERS' PETITIONS UNDER THE
ILLINOIS POST-CONVICTION HEARING ACT, ILL. REV. STAT., 1951, C. 38,
SECS. 826-832.  THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DISMISSED WRITS OF ERROR. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 947; 342 U.S. 811.  JUDGMENTS
VACATED AND CAUSES REMANDED, P. 112. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

EACH OF THE THREE PETITIONERS IS CONFINED IN AN ILLINOIS PENITENTIARY
FOLLOWING CONVICTION OF SERIOUS CRIMES.  PETITIONERS' FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS NEED NOT BE DESCRIBED, EXCEPT TO NOTE PETITIONERS' SPECIFIC
CLAIMS THAT CONFESSIONS INTRODUCED AT THEIR TRIALS WERE WRUNG FROM THEM
BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  ALTHOUGH SUCH ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH A PRIMA
FACIE VIOLATION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, (FN1) THERE HAS BEEN
NO DETERMINATION, EITHER BY REVIEW OF THE TRIAL RECORD OR BY HEARING OF
EVIDENCE, AS TO WHETHER PETITIONERS, IN FACT, ARE BEING IMPRISONED IN
VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 

PRIOR TO THE CASE OF UNITED STATES EX REL. BONGIORNO V. RAGEN, 54 F.
SUPP. 973, 975-976 (D.C.N.D. ILL. 1944), INMATES OF ILLINOIS
PENITENTIARIES WERE DENIED THE RIGHT OF SENDING PAPERS TO THE COURTS. 
SINCE THAT DECISION, MANY ILLINOIS PRISONERS HAVE PRESENTED CLAIMS OF
DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND COURTS HAVE SOUGHT TO DETERMINE
WHAT, IF ANY, IS THE POST-CONVICTION REMEDY AVAILABLE IN ILLINOIS TO
RAISE SUCH CLAIMS.  THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE.  WHITE V. RAGEN,
324 U.S. 760 (1945); WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211 (1946); CARTER
V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173 (1946); FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134
(1947); MARINO V. RAGEN, 332 U.S. 561 (1947); LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS, 334
U.S. 804 (1948), 337 U.S. 935 (1949).  FINALLY, IN YOUNG V. RAGEN, 337
U.S. 235 (1949), IT BECAME APPARENT THAT UNLESS HABEAS CORPUS WAS
AVAILABLE, THE ILLINOIS COURTS AFFORDED NO REMEDY FOR THE EIGHT
PRISONERS THEN BEFORE THE COURT, INCLUDING PETITIONER SHERMAN, NOW HERE
IN NO. 375.  ON REMAND TO THE CRIMINAL COURT OF COOK COUNTY, THAT COURT
HELD THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY, A HOLDING THAT
COULD NOT BE REVIEWED BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT UNDER STATE
PRACTICE. 

MEANWHILE, THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY PASSED THE ILLINOIS POST
CONVICTION HEARING ACT (FN2) TO PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR: 

"ANY PERSON IMPRISONED IN THE PENITENTIARY WHO ASSERTS THAT IN THE
PROCEEDINGS WHICH RESULTED IN HIS CONVICTION THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
DENIAL OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS OR BOTH  ...  ." 

UNDER THIS ACT, THE COURT IN WHICH CONVICTION TOOK PLACE IS
AUTHORIZED TO GRANT RELIEF IN A PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE FILING OF A
PETITION SETTING FORTH THE RESPECTS IN WHICH A PRISONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.  THE STATE MAY THEN ANSWER TO MOVE
TO DISMISS THE PETITION AND THE TRIAL COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE
ORAL TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTARY PROOF.  A FINAL JUDGMENT ON A PETITION
FILED UNDER THE ACT IS MADE REVIEWABLE IN THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ON
WRIT OF ERROR.  (FN3) 

IN PEOPLE V. DALE, 406 ILL. 238, 92 N.E.2D 761 (1950), THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED THE POST-CONVICTION HEARING ACT AGAINST ATTACK
ON ILLINOIS CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  THE ACT WAS DESCRIBED AS PROVIDING
A NEW PROCEEDING TO AFFORD THE REQUIRED INQUIRY INTO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
INTEGRITY OF A CONVICTION.  IN THE DALE CASE, THE COURT ALSO STATED
THAT THE ACT DOES NOT AFFORD A REHEARING OF ISSUES THAT HAD ALREADY
BEEN FINALLY ADJUDICATED, REFERRING TO CASES WHERE THE ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT HAD MADE SUCH AN ADJUDICATION. 

IN THE THREE CASES NOW BEFORE THE COURT, PETITIONERS PRESENTED THEIR
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT IN PETITIONS FILED UNDER THE
POST-CONVICTION HEARING ACT.  THE STATE'S ATTORNEY FILED MOTIONS TO
DISMISS ON GROUNDS OF RES JUDICATA AND FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION AND THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED EACH PETITION WITHOUT CONDUCTING A
HEARING OR OTHERWISE DETERMINING THE FACTUAL ISSUES PRESENTED.  THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DISMISSED WRIT OF ERROR IN EACH CASE WITHOUT
ARGUMENT AND WITHOUT OPINION, ENTERING FORM ORDERS PROVIDING THAT: 

"AFTER HAVING EXAMINED AND REVIEWED THE PETITION AND RECORD IN THE
POST CONVICTION HEARING THE SAME IS FOUND TO DISCLOSE NO VIOLATION OR
DENIAL OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS." 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 341 U.S. 947, 342 U.S. 811 (1951). 

THE FORM ORDER ENTERED IN THESE THREE CASES HAS BEEN ENTERED IN EACH
OF THE TWENTY-FIVE CASES ARISING UNDER THE POST-CONVICTION HEARING ACT
THAT HAVE REACHED THIS COURT.  CERTIORARI HAS BEEN DENIED IN MANY OF
THESE CASES WHERE PETITIONERS ALLEGED FACTS WHICH, IF TRUE, PRESENTED
NO FEDERAL QUESTION.  IN SEVERAL OTHER CASES, THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED
TO GRANT THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE POST-CONVICTION PETITION. 
INSTEAD, THE TRIAL COURT OBTAINED A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PETITIONER'S
TRIAL, REVIEWED THE ENTIRE RECORD AND FOUND THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO
DENIAL OF SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  (FN4)  HOWEVER, IN THE
CASES NOW BEFORE THE COURT, THE PETITIONS FILED IN THE TRIAL COURT
RAISED SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL CLAIMS, PETITIONERS' FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
WERE NOT DENIED BY THE STATE'S ATTORNEY AND THE COURTS BELOW HAVE
DENIED RELIEF WITHOUT INQUIRING INTO THE VERITY OF THE ALLEGATIONS OR
WHETHER PETITIONERS HAD WAIVED THEIR CLAIMS. 

AGAIN IN THESE CASES, AS IN YOUNG V. RAGEN, SUPRA, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ILLINOIS CONCEDES THAT PETITIONERS HAVE ALLEGED FACTS
SHOWING AN INFRINGEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS.  AGAIN HE AGREES THAT
PETITIONERS ARE OR WERE ENTITLED TO A RESOLUTION OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES
RAISED.  BUT, AGAIN, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLAINS THE ACTION OF THE
STATE COURT AS RESTING UPON AN ADEQUATE GROUND OF STATE PROCEDURE. 
CITING CERTAIN LANGUAGE IN PEOPLE V. DALE, SUPRA, HE URGES THAT THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW MEAN THAT THE POST-CONVICTION HEARING ACT DOES NOT
PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS WHICH WERE,
OR COULD HAVE BEEN, ADJUDICATED AT PETITIONERS' TRIALS. 

PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THEY ARE HELD IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THAT COERCED CONFESSIONS WERE USED TO OBTAIN
THEIR CONVICTIONS.  WHERE, AS HERE, A FEDERAL CLAIM CAN BE RAISED AT
THE TRIAL, IT MAY BE FORFEITED BY FAILURE TO MAKE A TIMELY ASSERTION OF
THE CLAIM.  (FN5) AND, IF A STATE PROVIDES A POST-CONVICTION CORRECTIVE
PROCESS, THAT PROCESS MUST BE INVOKED AND RELIEF DENIED BEFORE A CLAIM
OF DENIAL OF SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL RIGHTS MAY BE ENTERTAINED BY A FEDERAL
COURT.  (FN6) IN INQUIRING WHETHER ANY SUCH CORRECTIVE PROCESS WAS
AVAILABLE TO PETITIONERS FOLLOWING THEIR CONVICTION, WE NOTE THAT UNDER
ILLINOIS PRACTICE, WRIT OF ERROR CAN BE USED TO BRING THE TRIAL RECORD,
INCLUDING A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT FOR REVIEW.  HOWEVER, PETITIONERS COULD OBTAIN REVIEW BY WRIT OF
ERROR ONLY IF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS OR THE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS AT THE
TRIAL HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE TRIAL COURT WITHIN A LIMITED PERIOD
AFTER CONVICTION.  (FN7) WHILE ILLINOIS PROVIDES A TRANSCRIPT WITHOUT
COST TO INDIGENT DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH, IN THE
ABSENCE OF SOME ILLINOIS PROCEDURE TO PERMIT OTHER INDIGENT DEFENDANTS
TO SECURE AN ADEQUATE RECORD PETITIONERS COULD UTILIZE THE WRIT OF
ERROR PROCEDURE ONLY BY PURCHASING THE TRANSCRIPT WITHIN THE LIMITED
PERIOD FOLLOWING CONVICTION.  (FN8)  SINCE PETITIONERS IN THESE CASES
HAVE TAKEN PAUPERS' OATHS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS CONCEDES
THAT WRIT OF ERROR HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE TO REVIEW THEIR CLAIMS, AND
WE FIND NOTHING IN THIS RECORD TO JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT POSITION.  (FN9)
WE DO NOT CONSIDER HERE ANY INDEPENDENT QUESTION THAT MIGHT BE RAISED
BY A STATE'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE TO AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT THE TRANSCRIPT
OF HIS TRIAL.  IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CASE THAT, IF
WRIT OF ERROR WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO PETITIONERS AND IF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IS CORRECT IN STATING THAT THE POST-CONVICTION HEARING ACT DOES
NOT PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN THIS TYPE OF CASE, THERE NEVER HAS
BEEN, AND IS NOT NOW, ANY STATE POST-CONVICTION REMEDY AVAILABLE FOR
DETERMINATION OF PETITIONERS' CLAIMS THAT THEIR FEDERAL RIGHTS HAVE
BEEN INFRINGED. 

IF THEIR ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE AND IF THEIR CLAIMS HAVE NOT BEEN
WAIVED AT OR AFTER TRIAL, PETITIONERS ARE HELD IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION
OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR
DAY IN COURT FOR RESOLUTION OF THESE ISSUES.  WHERE THE STATE DOES NOT
AFFORD A REMEDY, A STATE PRISONER MAY APPLY FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TO SECURE PROTECTION OF HIS FEDERAL
RIGHTS.  (FN10) 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS ASKS US TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENTS
BELOW AS RESTING UPON AN INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND EVEN THOUGH HE
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD PERMIT PETITIONERS TO PROCEED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT MORE.  BUT WE DO NOT LIGHTLY ASSUME THAT A
STATE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY POST-CONVICTION REMEDY IF A DEFENDANT
IS IMPRISONED IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  (FN11)
ACCORDINGLY, WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
BE PERMITTED TO PROVIDE DEFINITE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW
RAISED BY THESE CASES. 

UNLIKE OUR ACTION IN LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA, HOWEVER, WE DO NOT
CONTINUE THESE CASES ON OUR DOCKET PENDING FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.  INSTEAD, WE VACATE THE JUDGMENTS BELOW AND
REMAND THE CASES TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  SEE MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551 (1940). 
ON REMAND, PETITIONERS SHOULD BE ADVISED WHETHER THEIR CLAIMS THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE INFRINGED AT THEIR TRIALS MAY BE DETERMINED
UNDER THE POST-CONVICTION HEARING ACT, OR WHETHER THAT ACT DOES NOT
PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE STATE REMEDY IN THESE CASES.  IF PETITIONERS'
CLAIMS MAY BE RESOLVED IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT, EITHER BY AN
INQUIRY INTO THE VERITY OF THEIR FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OR A FINDING THAT
FEDERAL RIGHTS WERE WAIVED DURING OR AFTER THEIR TRIALS, SUCH
RESOLUTION MAY PROCEED WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION BY THIS COURT.  IF
ILLINOIS DOES NOT PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR SUCH A
DETERMINATION, PETITIONERS MAY PROCEED WITHOUT MORE IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278 (1936). 

FN2  ILL. REV. STAT., 1951, C. 38, SECS. 826-832. 

FN3  IN A NUMBER OF RECENT CASES IN WHICH OTHER ILLINOIS PROCEDURES
WERE INVOKED, THIS COURT HAS DENIED CERTIORARI WITH THE EXPRESS
STATEMENT THAT DENIAL WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PETITIONERS' PROCEEDING
UNDER THE NEW ACT.  E.G., WALKER V. RAGEN, 338 U.S. 833 (1949). 

FN4  E.G., PEOPLE V. SUPERO, NO. 1169, AND PEOPLE V. GEHANT, NO.
1146, BOTH CASES DECIDED BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ON MAY 24,
1951.  CERTIORARI WAS ALSO DENIED IN THESE CASES.  342 U.S. 836, 840
(1951). 

FN5  SEE YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944), AND CASES
CITED THEREIN.  AS A RESULT OF THE FACT THAT THE TRANSCRIPTS OF
PETITIONERS' TRIALS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECORDS IN THESE POST
CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS, NOTE 8, INFRA, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN AT THIS STAGE
OF THE PROCEEDINGS THAT PETITIONERS WAIVED ALL OF THEIR FEDERAL CLAIMS
AT THEIR TRIALS. 

FN6  SEE FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 327 (1915).  PETITIONERS DO
NOT ALLEGE THAT ANY COERCION WAS USED TO BAR OBJECTION TO THE USE OF
THE CONFESSIONS OR FROM HAVING THEIR CONVICTIONS SET ASIDE ON REVIEW. 

FN7  ILL. REV. STAT., 1951, C. 110, SEC. 259.70A.  AT THE TIME OF
PETITIONERS' CONVICTIONS, THE PERIOD WAS 50 DAYS, SUBJECT TO EXTENSION
ON MOTION FILED WITHIN THAT PERIOD.  RECENTLY, THE PERIOD WAS EXTENDED
TO 100 DAYS.  COMPARE ILL. REV. STAT., 1949, C. 110, SEC. 259.70A. 

FN8  ILL. REV. STAT., 1951, C. 37, SEC. 163B; ID. C. 38, SEC. 769A. 
COMPARE 28 U.S.C.  (SUPP. IV) SECS. 1915, 2245, 2250.  THE TRANSCRIPTS
OF PETITIONERS' TRIALS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE PART OF THE RECORD IN THEIR
POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS.  INCOMPLETE EXCERPTS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED,
ACCORDING TO PETITIONERS, OUT OF THEIR MEAGER EARNINGS WHILE IN
PRISON.  THOSE EXCERPTS WERE ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS TO THE PETITIONS
FILED IN THE TRIAL COURT. 

FN9  THIS DOES NOT, OF COURSE, FORECLOSE THE STATE FROM SHOWING THAT
ANY OF THE PETITIONERS, IN FACT, COULD HAVE OBTAINED REVIEW OF THEIR
CLAIMS BY WRIT OF ERROR AND FROM DETERMINING WHAT, IF ANY, EFFECT SUCH
A SHOWING WOULD HAVE ON THE AVAILABILITY OF ANY OTHER REMEDY UNDER
ILLINOIS LAW.  THE STATE IS ALSO FREE TO REQUIRE MORE PARTICULARITY IN
THE ALLEGATIONS AND ASSERTIONS OF THESE PETITIONERS WHO HAVE FILED
THEIR PAPERS PRO SE THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS.  PYLE V. KANSAS, 317
U.S. 213, 216 (1942). 

IN REJECTING THE SUGGESTION THAT THESE WRITS OF CERTIORARI BE
DISMISSED, WE NOTE THAT IT IS AT LEAST HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE WHETHER, IF
THE JUDGMENTS BELOW ARE PERMITTED TO STAND, PETITIONERS WOULD BE
PERMITTED TO RAISE AGAIN IN NEW PROCEEDINGS ANY CLAIMS THAT WERE OR
COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.  ILL. REV. STAT., 1951, C.
38, SECS. 828, 832.  SEE JENNER, THE ILLINOIS POST-CONVICTION HEARING
ACT, 9 F.R.D. 347, 358, 360 (1949).    FN10  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS.
2241(C)(3), 2254; HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271, 276 (1945); HOUSE V.
MAYO, 324 U.S. 42, 46 (1945); EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 118 (1944);
MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86 (1923). 

FN11  YOUNG V. RAGEN, SUPRA; SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329, 331
(1941). 

FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MINTON, SEE POST, P. 116. 
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

WE ALL AGREE, I ASSUME, THAT WE OUGHT NOT TO IMPUTE AN OBSTINATE
FLOUTING OF THIS COURT'S REPEATED ADJUDICATIONS TO THE HIGHEST COURT OF
A STATE UNLESS ITS ACTION PRECLUDES ANY OTHER FAIR INFERENCE.  THIS IS
MORE THAN A MERE GESTURE OF COURTESY.  IT GOES TO THE VERY CONCEPTION
OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE STATE COURTS TO THIS COURT IN OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM.  ACCORDINGLY, JUST AS REASONABLE LEGAL GROUND MUST BE
ATTRIBUTED TO OUR DISPOSITIONS WITHOUT OPINION, SO EXPLANATIONS
RATIONALLY CONSONANT WITH LEGALITY MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ILLINOIS
ORDERS. 

ONE DIFFICULTY WITH THE REMAND OF THE CASES TO ILLINOIS IS THAT THE
EXPLANATORY OPINION LEAVES UNCERTAINTY REGARDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH
THIS COURT IS ASKING THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT FOR CLARIFICATION.  THE
ORDERS UNDER REVIEW MAY REST ON ONE OF TWO LEGALLY ENTERTAINABLE
GROUNDS:  THAT (A) THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS DISCLOSE NO INFRACTION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, OR (B) AS A MATTER OF LOCAL PROCEDURAL LAW,
THE CLAIM OF SUCH INFRACTION WAS NOT PROPERLY PRESENTED. 

IF WE THINK THAT A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL CLAIM IS RAISED IN THESE
CASES, FOR WHICH A HEARING WAS REQUIRED BUT DENIED, AND THE DENIAL
COULD ONLY BE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE ALLOWABLE LOCAL PROCEDURE WAS
DISREGARDED IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS FEDERAL RIGHT WAS PURSUED, IT
WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, OF COURSE, FOR US TO ASK THE ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT TO TELL US EXPLICITLY WHETHER THESE CASES WENT OFF ON SUCH A NON
FEDERAL GROUND, AND IF SO WHAT IT IS.  SEE MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA
CO., 309 U.S. 551.  IF THIS IS WHAT THE COURT MEANS TO DO, IT OUGHT NOT
TO BE TOO DIFFICULT FOR THE OPINION TO SAY SO VERY SIMPLY.  BUT TO
ADOPT THIS COURSE, WE MUST BE CONVINCED THAT A FEDERAL CLAIM OF
SUBSTANCE IS PRESENTED BY THE RECORD WHICH, BUT FOR THE LEGITIMATE
STATE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT, IS ENTITLED TO BE HEARD.  WE SHOULD,
THEN, AT LEAST SUGGEST WHAT THAT CLAIM IS. 

ALTERNATIVELY, THESE ILLINOIS ORDERS MAY REST, NOT ON A PROCEDURALLY
JUSTIFIABLE REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL CLAIM, BUT ON
THE VIEW OF THE ILLINOIS COURT THAT NO SUCH SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL CLAIM
IS IN ISSUE.  IF THE COURT DISAGREES, IT IS CERTAINLY PROPER TO REMAND
THE CASE TO THE STATE COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCORD A HEARING TO
THE CLAIM OF FEDERAL RIGHT PRESENTED. 

BUT IN EITHER CASE, IS IT NOT INCUMBENT ON THIS COURT TO STATE
WITHOUT ANY ROUNDABOUTNESS WHAT THE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION IS AND
HOW IT IS PROPERLY BEFORE US?  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE FORMULATION OF
THE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL CLAIM, TO WHICH THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT IS
SAID TO HAVE BEEN DEAF, IS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE IN THESE CASES.  WE WOULD
BE EXACTLY WHERE WE NOW ARE IF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT WERE MOST
RESPECTFULLY TO REPLY TO OUR REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION BY SAYING: "WHY
OF COURSE A HEARING IS REQUIRED UNDER ILLINOIS LAW OF A SUBSTANTIAL
CLAIM UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  BUT IN THESE CASES WE
FOUND NO SUCH SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL CLAIM."  (FN1) 

WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION?  CERTAINLY WHETHER A CLAIM
WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE METHOD OF DIRECT REVIEW OF THE
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS BUT WAS NOT, MUST BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED IN SOME
COLLATERAL ATTACK, IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  SUCH A
REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE MADE OF THE STATES UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  IT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE EVEN AS TO FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS. 
SUNAL V. LARGE, 332 U.S. 174. 

IS THEN THE FEDERAL CLAIM THE DENIAL BY ILLINOIS OF STENOGRAPHIC
MINUTES OF A TRIAL TO AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT?  I APPRECIATE THAT SUCH A
DENIAL MIGHT BE FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
AND MORE PARTICULARLY OF ITS EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, IN A STATE WHICH
HAS A SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.  IS THIS BEING DECIDED NOW?  AND IS
SO FAR-REACHING A GENERAL CLAIM DECIDED INFERENTIALLY, WITHOUT ARGUMENT
OR CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS THAT THE
GENERAL PROPOSITION WOULD RAISE?  (FN2) 

OR DOES THE COURT HOLD THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE
PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED, AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL RIGHT, TO AN
INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THEIR
CONVICTIONS EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTIONS RAISED WERE, OR COULD HAVE BEEN,
DETERMINED AT THE TRIALS?  AND IF SO WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THAT CONCLUSION? 

A READING OF THE COURT'S OPINION WITH THE CARE AND DEFERENCE THAT
SHOULD BE ACCORDED IT BY A DOUBTER HAS NOT REVEALED WHICH IF ANY OF
THESE POSSIBLE FEDERAL CLAIMS HAS BEEN DENIED SO AS TO PROVIDE THE
NECESSARY BASIS FOR A REMAND TO THE STATE COURT. 

MY DIFFICULTY, HOWEVER, IS NOT MERELY WITH AMBIGUITY OR, PERHAPS,
OBSCURITY IN DEFINING THE FEDERAL RIGHT WHICH WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN,
DENIED BY THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS HERE FOR REVIEW.  THE FATAL
WEAKNESS, AS I SEE IT, IS THAT THE QUESTION OF A DENIAL OR ONE OR MORE
PUTATIVE FEDERAL RIGHTS IS NOWHERE PROPERLY RAISED ON THE RECORD BEFORE
US. 

IT IS TRUE THAT PETITIONERS ALLEGE THEY WERE CONVICTED ON THE BASIS
OF COERCED CONFESSIONS AND PERJURED TESTIMONY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BUT SO FAR AS APPEARS FROM THE
RECORD, THESE ISSUES WERE FULLY LITIGATED AND DETERMINED AT THE
TRIALS.  UNTIL THE CASES CAME TO THIS COURT, NO SHOWING WAS MADE, OR
SOUGHT TO BE MADE, THAT CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH AS TO WARRANT A NEW AND
INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THOSE DETERMINATIONS AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL
RIGHT. 

WHETHER THESE PETITIONERS COULD HAVE APPEALED FROM THEIR CONVICTIONS
BUT DID NOT, WHAT PROCEDURES WERE AVAILABLE FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL,
WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH AS EFFECTIVELY TO DENY TO THESE
PETITIONERS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR DIRECT REVIEW OF THEIR CONVICTIONS -
ANSWERS TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS ARE INDISPENSABLE TO A JUDGMENT ON THE
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL RIGHT, IF ANY, WHICH ILLINOIS MAY HAVE
DENIED THESE PRISONERS IN THIS PROCEEDING.  BUT THEY ARE QUESTIONS
ENTANGLED IN THE PROCEDURAL LAW OF ILLINOIS AND IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CONVICTION OF THESE PETITIONERS.  THE
ILLINOIS COURTS HAVE NEVER PASSED ON THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER
RAISED.  AND NEITHER THEY NOR WE CAN PASS ON THEM UNLESS THEY ARE
RAISED IN SOME APPROPRIATE WAY.  WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357,
379-380 (MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, CONCURRING). 

OF COURSE, WE READ THE SELF-COMPOSED CLAIMS OF AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT
WITH GENEROUS INFERENCES AND DO NOT REQUIRE ELEGANCE OF PLEADING.  WE
DO NOT MAKE SUCH AN EXACTION EVEN OF LAWYERS' PLEADINGS.  WE OUGHT TO
DIG OUT OF A COMPLAINT WHAT IS IN IT, AND STATE COURTS SURELY FEEL
THEMSELVES UNDER A SIMILAR OBLIGATION WHEN QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT ARE INVOLVED.  BUT THIS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM CONSTRUCTING A
NEW CASE NOT EVEN VAGUELY ADUMBRATED IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH MOVES A
COURT TO ACTION.  STILL LESS OUGHT THIS COURT TO ORIGINATE LITIGATION
IN THIS WAY WHEN TO DO SO IS TO DISRESPECT THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE
COURT AND TO DECIDE, AT LEAST IMPLICITLY, DIFFICULT CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS WITHOUT THE FOUNDATION OF FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE NEEDED TO
ILLUMINE THEIR CONSIDERATION. 

IN LIGHT OF THESE VIEWS, I CANNOT JOIN THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF
THESE CASES.  I THINK THE WRITS SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A
PROPERLY PRESENTED FEDERAL QUESTION.  SUCH A DISMISSAL WOULD NOT, OF
COURSE, BAR A NEW PROCEEDING, DIFFERENTLY CONCEIVED, TENDERING ONE OR
MORE OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS HERE DISCUSSED.  CERTAINLY IF, FOR
WHATEVER REASON, THE ILLINOIS COURTS FAIL TO AFFORD CORRECTIVE RELIEF
FOR THE DENIAL OF A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,
THE ROAD TO THE FEDERAL COURT IS OPEN.  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S.
103; DOWD V. UNITED STATES EX REL. COOK, 340 U.S. 206.  AT THE CORE OF
THE PROBLEM REMAINS THE PRECISE DEFINITION OF THE BASIS FOR INVOKING
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FN1  INDEED, IT IS DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET THE ORDERS BEFORE US FOR
REVIEW AS SAYING ANYTHING ELSE:  "IT IS FURTHER CONSIDERED BY THE COURT
THAT AFTER HAVING EXAMINED AND REVIEWED THE PETITION AND RECORD IN THE
POST CONVICTION HEARING THE SAME IS FOUND TO DISCLOSE NO VIOLATION OR
DENIAL OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  ."

FN2  IT IS AT LEAST RELEVANT TO REMIND THAT UNDER EXISTING FEDERAL
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURE, THE JUDGE WHO PRESIDED AT THE TRIAL RESULTING
IN CONVICTION MAY PREPARE A CERTIFICATE "SETTING FORTH THE FACTS
OCCURRING AT THE TRIAL" FOR USE IN THE HABEAS CORPUS COURT.  28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2245 (I AM NOT UNMINDFUL OF SEC. 2250 ENACTED IN 1948).  AND THE
"JUDGE'S NOTES" IS THE HISTORIC BASIS FOR APPELLATE REVIEW IN ENGLAND,
WHICH, I TAKE IT, IS A MODE NOT UNLIKE THAT OF THE "BYSTANDER'S RECORD"
IN SOME OF THE STATES.  I DO NOT NOW MEAN TO ARGUE THE MAIN QUESTION
NOR ITS SUBSIDIARY PROBLEMS NOR TO INTIMATE ANY CONSIDERED VIEW UPON
THEM.  BUT AS AN INDICATION OF THE KIND OF ISSUES THAT ARE RAISED
BEFORE REACHING A CONCLUSION ON THE GENERAL AND ABSTRACT PROPOSITION
THAT FAILURE TO PROVIDE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES WITHOUT COST TO AN
INDIGENT DEFENDANT IS A VIOLATION OF A GUARANTY OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, IT IS USEFUL TO RECALL SOMETHING OF THE HISTORY TOUCHING THE
MEANS BY WHICH ERRORS AT NISI ARE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF AN
APPELLATE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, DISSENTING. 

I DISSENT AS I AM OF THE OPINION THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT BASED ITS
JUDGMENT AND OPINION UPON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND. 
..END :





















STEFANELLI V. MINARD 342 U.S. 117 


NO. 2.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1951 - DECIDED DECEMBER 3, 1951 - 184 F.2D
575, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER
R.S. SEC. 1979, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43 (CIVIL RIGHTS ACT), PETITIONERS SOUGHT
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE USE, IN PENDING STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THEM IN NEW JERSEY, OF EVIDENCE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
BY AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH BY STATE POLICE.  HELD:  THE DISTRICT COURT
PROPERLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTS.  PP. 117-125. 

2.  FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD REFUSE TO INTERVENE IN STATE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPRESS THE USE OF EVIDENCE EVEN WHEN CLAIMED TO HAVE
BEEN SECURED BY UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  PP. 120-125. 

STEFANELLI ET AL. V. MINARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN SUITS BROUGHT BY PETITIONERS UNDER R.S. SEC. 1979, 8 U.S.C. SEC.
43, TO ENJOIN THE USE, IN A STATE CRIMINAL TRIAL, OF EVIDENCE CLAIMED
TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH BY STATE POLICE, THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  184 F.2D 575.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S.
930.  AFFIRMED, P. 125. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ASKED EQUITABLE RELIEF FROM THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO
PREVENT THE FRUIT OF AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH BY NEW JERSEY POLICE FROM BEING
USED IN EVIDENCE IN A STATE CRIMINAL TRIAL.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT UNDER
R.S. SEC. 1979, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43, PROVIDING FOR REDRESS AGAINST "EVERY
PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM,
OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE
SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER PERSON WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR
IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS  ...  ."  (FN1)  UPON
RESPONDENTS' MOTION, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTS, "IT
APPEARING THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT EXHAUSTED THEIR REMEDIES UNDER
STATE LAW."  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  184 F.2D 575.  SINCE IT
RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS TOUCHING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN THE CONTEXT
OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  341 U.S. 930. 

TWO SUITS, ARISING OUT OF SEPARATE SERIES OF EVENTS, WERE
CONSOLIDATED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ARE BEFORE US AS ONE CASE. 
THE FACTS DO NOT DIFFER MATERIALLY.  NEWARK POLICE OFFICERS ENTERED
PETITIONERS' HOMES WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY.  THERE THEY SEIZED PROPERTY
OF PETITIONERS USEFUL IN BOOKMAKING, A MISDEMEANOR UNDER N.J. REV.
STAT. 2:135-3.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THESE SEARCHES, IF MADE BY
FEDERAL OFFICERS, WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  STEFANELLI
WAS ARRESTED, ARRAIGNED AND SUBSEQUENTLY INDICTED FOR BOOKMAKING.  HE
PLEADED NOT GUILTY.  THE OTHER PETITIONERS, AFTER HEARING, WERE HELD ON
THE SAME CHARGE TO AWAIT THE ACTION OF THE ESSEX COUNTY GRAND JURY. 
ALL ALLEGE THAT THE SEIZED PROPERTY IS DESTINED FOR EVIDENCE AGAINST
THEM IN THE NEW JERSEY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  PETITIONERS HAVE MADE NO
MOVE IN THE STATE COURTS TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE, JUSTIFYING THEIR
FAILURE TO DO SO ON THE GROUND THAT UNDER EXISTING NEW JERSEY LAW THE
SEIZED PROPERTY IS ADMISSIBLE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ILLEGALITY OF ITS
PROCUREMENT. 

PETITIONERS INVOKE OUR DECISION IN WOLF V. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25. 
THE PRECISE HOLDING IN THAT CASE WAS "THAT IN A PROSECUTION IN A STATE
COURT FOR A STATE CRIME THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID THE
ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE." 
ID., AT 33.  ALTHOUGH OUR HOLDING WAS THUS NARROWLY CONFINED, IN THE
COURSE OF THE OPINION IT WAS SAID:  "THE SECURITY OF ONE'S PRIVACY
AGAINST ARBITRARY INTRUSION BY THE POLICE - WHICH IS AT THE CORE OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT - IS BASIC TO A FREE SOCIETY.  IT IS THEREFORE
IMPLICIT IN 'THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY' AND AS SUCH ENFORCEABLE
AGAINST THE STATES THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE  ...  . ACCORDINGLY,
WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN SAYING THAT WERE A STATE AFFIRMATIVELY TO
SANCTION SUCH POLICE INCURSION INTO PRIVACY IT WOULD RUN COUNTER TO THE
GUARANTY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  ID., AT 27-28.  THERE WAS
DISAGREEMENT AS TO THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS VIEW, BUT NONE AS TO
ITS VALIDITY.  WE ADHERE TO IT.  UPON IT IS FOUNDED THE ARGUMENT OF
PETITIONERS. 

IF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES BY THE STATES, THEY CONTEND, SUCH A SEARCH AND SEIZURE BY
STATE POLICE OFFICERS SUBJECTS ITS VICTIMS TO THE DEPRIVATION, UNDER
COLOR OF STATE LAW, OF A RIGHT, PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION FOR WHICH REDRESS IS AFFORDED BY R.S. SEC. 1979. 
APPROPRIATE REDRESS, THEY URGE, IS A SUIT IN EQUITY TO SUPPRESS THE
EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO BAR ITS FURTHER USE IN STATE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS. 

THERE IS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS UNLESS
THEIR ANSWERS ARE INDISPENSABLE TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE BEFORE
US.  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE, WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE COMPLAINT
STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER R.S. SEC. 1979.  FOR EVEN IF THE POWER
TO GRANT THE RELIEF HERE SOUGHT MAY FAIRLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
DERIVED FROM THE GENERALITY OF LANGUAGE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, TO
SUSTAIN THE CLAIM WOULD DISREGARD THE POWER OF COURTS OF EQUITY TO
EXERCISE DISCRETION WHEN, IN A MATTER OF EQUITY JURISDICTION, THE
BALANCE IS AGAINST THE WISDOM OF USING THEIR POWER.  HERE THE
CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING THAT DISCRETION TOUCH PERHAPS THE MOST
SENSITIVE SOURCE OF FRICTION BETWEEN STATES AND NATION, NAMELY, THE
ACTIVE INTRUSION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW FOR THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMES SOLELY WITHIN THE POWER OF
THE STATES. 

WE HOLD THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD REFUSE TO INTERVENE IN STATE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPRESS THE USE OF EVIDENCE EVEN WHEN CLAIMED
TO HAVE BEEN SECURED BY UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  THE MAXIM THAT
EQUITY WILL NOT ENJOIN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SUMMARIZES CENTURIES OF
WEIGHTY EXPERIENCE IN ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW.  IT IS IMPRESSIVELY
REINFORCED WHEN NOT MERELY THE RELATIONS BETWEEN COORDINATE COURTS BUT
BETWEEN COORDINATE POLITICAL AUTHORITIES ARE IN ISSUE.  THE SPECIAL
DELICACY OF THE ADJUSTMENT TO BE PRESERVED BETWEEN FEDERAL EQUITABLE
POWER AND STATE ADMINISTRATION OF ITS OWN LAW, HAS BEEN AN HISTORIC
CONCERN OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, SEE, E.G., 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1341,
1342, 2283, 2284(5).  THIS CONCERN HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT, NOT GOVERNED BY EXPLICIT CONGRESSIONAL REQUIREMENT, BEARING
ON A STATE'S ENFORCEMENT OF ITS CRIMINAL LAW.  E.G., WATSON V. BUCK,
313 U.S. 387; BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 312 U.S. 45; SPIELMAN
MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89; FENNER V. BOYKIN, 271 U.S. 240.  IT
HAS RECEIVED STRIKING CONFIRMATION EVEN WHERE AN IMPORTANT
COUNTERVAILING FEDERAL INTEREST WAS INVOLVED.  MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO.
1), 270 U.S. 9; MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 2), 270 U.S. 36; MARYLAND V.
SOPER (NO. 3), 270 U.S. 44.  (FN2) 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS HAVE INFORMED OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT.  THIS ACT HAS GIVEN RISE TO DIFFERENCES OF APPLICATION
HERE.  SUCH DIFFERENCES INHERE IN THE ATTEMPT TO CONSTRUE THE REMAINING
FRAGMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE ENACTMENT, DISMEMBERED BY PARTIAL REPEAL
AND INVALIDITY, LOOSELY AND BLINDLY DRAFTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE,
(FN3) AND DRAWING ON THE WHOLE CONSTITUTION ITSELF FOR ITS SCOPE AND
MEANING.  REGARDLESS OF DIFFERENCES IN PARTICULAR CASES, HOWEVER, THE
COURT'S LODESTAR OF ADJUDICATION HAS BEEN THAT THE STATUTE "SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED SO AS TO RESPECT THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE STATES AND
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT."  SCREWS V. UNITED STATES,
325 U.S. 91, 108.  ONLY LAST TERM WE REITERATED OUR CONVICTION THAT THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT "WAS NOT TO BE USED TO CENTRALIZE POWER SO AS TO UPSET
THE FEDERAL SYSTEM."  COLLINS V. HARDYMAN, 341 U.S. 651, 658. 
DISCRETIONARY REFUSAL TO EXERCISE EQUITABLE POWER UNDER THE ACT TO
INTERFERE WITH STATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS ONE OF THE DEVICES WE HAVE
SANCTIONED FOR PRESERVING THIS BALANCE.  DOUGLAS V. CITY OF JEANNETTE,
319 U.S. 157.  AND UNDER THE VERY SECTION NOW INVOKED, WE HAVE WITHHELD
RELIEF IN EQUITY EVEN WHEN RECOGNIZING THAT COMPARABLE FACTS WOULD
CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES.  COMPARE GILES V. HARRIS, 189
U.S. 475, WITH LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268. 

IN DOUGLAS V. CITY OF JEANNETTE, SUPRA, THE COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH
CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, SAID: 

"CONGRESS, BY ITS LEGISLATION, HAS ADOPTED THE POLICY, WITH CERTAIN
WELL DEFINED STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS, OF LEAVING GENERALLY TO THE STATE
COURTS THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES ARISING UNDER STATE LAWS, SUBJECT TO
REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF ANY FEDERAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  HENCE, COURTS
OF EQUITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWERS SHOULD CONFORM
TO THIS POLICY BY REFUSING TO INTERFERE WITH OR EMBARRASS THREATENED
PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS SAVE IN THOSE EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHICH CALL
FOR THE INTERPOSITION OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE
INJURY WHICH IS CLEAR AND IMMINENT; ... ."  ID., AT 163.  (FN4) 

NO SUCH IRREPARABLE INJURY, CLEAR AND IMMINENT, IS THREATENED HERE. 
AT WORST, THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE SUPPRESSED MAY PROVIDE THE BASIS
FOR CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE NEW JERSEY COURTS.  SUCH A
CONVICTION, WE HAVE HELD, WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THEM OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  WOLF V. COLORADO, SUPRA. 

IF THESE CONSIDERATIONS LIMIT FEDERAL COURTS IN RESTRAINING STATE
PROSECUTIONS MERELY THREATENED, HOW MUCH MORE COGENT ARE THEY TO
PREVENT FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROCEEDINGS ONCE BEGUN.  IF THE
FEDERAL EQUITY POWER MUST REFRAIN FROM STAYING STATE PROSECUTIONS
OUTRIGHT TO TRY THE CENTRAL QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE ON
WHICH THE PROSECUTION IS BASED, HOW MUCH MORE RELUCTANT MUST IT BE TO
INTERVENE PIECEMEAL TO TRY COLLATERAL ISSUES.  (FN5) 

THE CONSEQUENCES OF EXERCISING THE EQUITY POWER HERE INVOKED ARE NOT
THE CONCERN OF A MERELY DOCTRINAIRE ALERTNESS TO PROTECT THE PROPER
SPHERE OF THE STATES IN ENFORCING THEIR CRIMINAL LAW.  IF WE WERE TO
SANCTION THIS INTERVENTION, WE WOULD EXPOSE EVERY STATE CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION TO INSUPPORTABLE DISRUPTION.  EVERY QUESTION OF PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS OF LAW - WITH ITS FAR-FLUNG AND UNDEFINED RANGE - WOULD
INVITE A FLANKING MOVEMENT AGAINST THE SYSTEM OF STATE COURTS BY RESORT
TO THE FEDERAL FORUM, WITH REVIEW IF NEED BE TO THIS COURT, TO
DETERMINE THE ISSUE.  ASSERTED UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE IMPANELING
AND SELECTION OF THE GRAND (FN6) AND PETIT (FN7) JURIES, IN THE FAILURE
TO APPOINT COUNSEL, (FN8) IN THE ADMISSION OF A CONFESSION, (FN9) IN
THE CREATION OF AN UNFAIR TRIAL ATMOSPHERE, (FN10) IN THE MISCONDUCT OF
THE TRIAL COURT (FN11) - ALL WOULD PROVIDE READY OPPORTUNITIES, WHICH
CONSCIENTIOUS COUNSEL MIGHT BE BOUND TO EMPLOY, TO SUBVERT THE ORDERLY,
EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF LOCAL CRIME IN LOCAL COURTS.  TO SUGGEST THESE
DIFFICULTIES IS TO RECOGNIZE THEIR SOLUTION.  (FN12) 

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES DEALT WITH THIS PROBLEM IN A SITUATION ESPECIALLY
APPEALING:  "THE RELATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES TO THE STATES AND THE COURTS OF THE STATES IS A VERY
DELICATE MATTER THAT HAS OCCUPIED THE THOUGHTS OF STATESMEN AND JUDGES
FOR A HUNDRED YEARS AND CAN NOT BE DISPOSED OF BY A SUMMARY STATEMENT
THAT JUSTICE REQUIRES ME TO CUT RED TAPE AND TO INTERVENE."  MEMORANDUM
OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN 5 THE SACCO-VANZETTI CASE, TRANSCRIPT OF THE
RECORD (HENRY HOLT & CO., 1929) 5516.  A PROPER RESPECT FOR THOSE
RELATIONS REQUIRES THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR
CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER
PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN
EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS." 

JURISDICTION WAS FOUNDED, WITHOUT REGARD TO CITIZENSHIP OF THE
PARTIES OR AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, ON 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1343(3): 

"THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF ANY CIVIL
ACTION AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO BE COMMENCED BY ANY PERSON: 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"(3)  TO REDRESS THE DEPRIVATION, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATE LAW,
STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM OR USAGE, OF ANY RIGHT,
PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
OR BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS PROVIDING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OR OF
ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  HAGUE V.
C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496. 

FN2  IN THOSE CASES, DESPITE THE OBVIOUS CONCERN OF CONGRESS FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF REVENUE LAWS UNIMPEDED BY LOCAL OPPOSITION, THE COURT
DULY RESPECTED STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE BY CAREFULLY LIMITING THE POWER
OF REMOVING TO THE FEDERAL COURTS STATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS INVOLVING
FEDERAL REVENUE OFFICERS WHO CLAIMED THAT SUCH PROSECUTIONS WERE "ON
ACCOUNT OF ANY ACT DONE UNDER THE COLOR OF THEIR OFFICE."  R.S. SEC.
643, NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1442. 

FN3  WE RECENTLY COMMENTED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION IN UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 341 U.S.
70, 74, AND COLLINS V. HARDYMAN, 341 U.S. 651, 657. 

FN4  HAGUE V. C.I.O., SUPRA, WAS DISTINGUISHED IN THE JEANNETTE CASE:
"IN THESE RESPECTS THE CASE DIFFERS FROM HAGUE V. C.I.O., SUPRA, 501
02, WHERE LOCAL OFFICIALS FORCIBLY BROKE UP MEETINGS OF THE
COMPLAINANTS AND IN MANY INSTANCES FORCIBLY DEPORTED THEM FROM THE
STATE WITHOUT TRIAL."  DOUGLAS V. CITY OF JEANNETTE, SUPRA, AT 164. 

FN5  CONGRESS HAS CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATED CONCERN THAT THE ORDERLY
COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPELLING
CIRCUMSTANCES DEFINED BY STATUTE, BE BROKEN UP FOR THE PIECEMEAL
DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED.  SEE, E.G., 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1291;
COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 323 (APPEALS FROM "FINAL
DECISIONS" OF THE DISTRICT COURTS); 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(C) (REMOVAL OF
"SEPARABLE CONTROVERSIES"); AND CF. HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238. 
FN6  SEE SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128. 

FN7  SEE STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 303; PIERRE V.
LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354. 

FN8  SEE POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45. 

FN9  SEE WATTS V. INDIANA, 338 U.S. 49. 

FN10  SEE MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86.    FN11  SEE TOWNSEND V.
BURKE, 334 U.S. 736. 

FN12  ALTHOUGH THIS IS THE FIRST SUCH CASE TO REACH US, INSTANCES ARE
NOT WANTING WHERE THE FAIRNESS OF STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN
ATTACKED IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS UNDER R.S.  SEC. 1979 AND RELATED
DAMAGES WAS SUSTAINED AGAINST A MOTION TO DISMISS WHERE PLAINTIFF
ALLEGED THAT SHE WAS ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANT, THAT DEFENDANTS, A
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND A CONSTABLE, MALICIOUSLY SECURED THE
APPOINTMENT OF A BIASED JURY AND SUBJECTED HER TO A FRAUDULENT TRIAL
RESULTING IN A CONVICTION REVERSED ON APPEAL.  MCSHANE V. MOLDOVAN, 172
F.2D 1016; CF. PICKING V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 151 F.2D 240 (COMPLAINT
SEEKING DAMAGES FOR FALSE ARREST AND DETENTION IN VIOLATION OF THE
UNIFORM EXTRADITION ACT SUSTAINED AGAINST MOTION TO DISMISS).  BUT SEE
CAMPO V. NIEMEYER, 182 F.2D 115; LYONS V. BAKER, 180 F.2D 893; BOTTONE
V. LINDSLEY, 170 F.2D 705; MITCHELL V. GREENOUGH, 100 F.2D 184; LLANO
DEL RIO CO. V. ANDERSON-POST HARDWOOD LUMBER CO., 79 F. SUPP. 382,
AFF'D PER CURIAM, 187 F.2D 235.  CLOSER TO THE CASE BEFORE US ARE SUITS
FOR INJUNCTIONS GROUNDED ON THE CONTENTION THAT PARTICULAR PHASES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE UNFAIR.  THE LOWER COURTS HAVE REFUSED TO
INTERVENE.  COOPER V. HUTCHINSON, 184 F.2D 119 (REFUSAL OF STATE COURT
TO ALLOW CRIMINAL DEFENDANT COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOOSING; CASE REMANDED
FOR DISTRICT COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION PENDING EXHAUSTION OF STATE
REMEDIES); ACKERMAN V.  INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION, 187 F.2D 860, REVERSING 82 F. SUPP. 65, WHICH HAD ENJOINED
PROSECUTIONS IN PART ON THE GROUND OF DISCRIMINATION IN SELECTION OF
GRAND JURY PANEL; MCGUIRE V. AMREIN, 101 F. SUPP. 414 (REFUSAL TO
SUPPRESS WIRE TAP EVIDENCE; ALTERNATE GROUND); ERICKSON V. HOGAN, 94 F.
SUPP. 459 (SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND
SEIZURE); REFOULE V. ELLIS, 74 F. SUPP. 336 (COURT WOULD NOT ENJOIN USE
OF ALLEGEDLY COERCED CONFESSION IN STATE PROSECUTION ALTHOUGH ENJOINING
FUTURE UNLAWFUL ARREST, DETENTION AND INTERROGATION OF PLAINTIFF); CF.
EASTUS V. BRADSHAW, 94 F.2D 788.  AND SEE HOFFMAN V. O'BRIEN, 88 F.
SUPP. 490, WHERE AN ACTION UNDER R.S. SEC. 1979 TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEW YORK WIRE TAP LAW WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, AND I VOTED IN WOLF V.
COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25, THAT EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF AN
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM STATE AS WELL
AS FEDERAL TRIALS.  IN RETROSPECT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE GROW IN POWER AND PERSUASIVENESS.  I
ADHERE TO THEM.  I THEREFORE THINK THAT ANY COURT MAY WITH PROPRIETY
STEP IN TO PREVENT THE USE OF THIS ILLEGAL EVIDENCE.  TO HOLD FIRST
THAT THE EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED AND SECOND THAT ITS USE MAY NOT BE
ENJOINED IS TO MAKE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AN EMPTY AND HOLLOW GUARANTEE
SO FAR AS STATE PROSECUTIONS ARE CONCERNED. 
..END :





COOK V. COOK 342 U.S. 126 


NO. 30.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1951 - DECIDED DECEMBER 3, 1951 - 116 VT.
374, 76 A.2D 593, REVERSED. 


1.  IT IS TO BE PRESUMED, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY,
THAT A FLORIDA COURT WHICH GRANTED A DECREE OF DIVORCE HAD JURISDICTION
OVER BOTH PARTIES, THEREBY RENDERING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION OVER THE
CAUSE RES JUDICATA ON A COLLATERAL ATTACK IN ANOTHER STATE.  PP. 127
128. 

2.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE VERMONT COURT COULD NOT
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE SUSTAIN A COLLATERAL
ATTACK UPON A FLORIDA DIVORCE DECREE, SINCE THE PRESUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE CAUSE AND THE PARTIES, TO WHICH THE FLORIDA
DECREE WAS ENTITLED, WAS NOT OVERCOME BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE OR BY THE
RECORD ITSELF.  PP. 126-129. 

COOK V. COOK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT. 

IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT IN A VERMONT STATE COURT FOR
THE ANNULMENT OF HIS MARRIAGE AND REMARRIAGE TO PETITIONER, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HELD BOTH MARRIAGES NULL AND VOID.  116 VT. 374, 76 A.2D
593.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 914.  REVERSED, P. 129. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SHORTLY AFTER PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT WERE MARRIED ON FEBRUARY 5,
1943, RESPONDENT DISCOVERED THAT PETITIONER WAS THE LAWFUL WIFE OF ONE
MANN.  AT THAT TIME PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT WERE LIVING IN VIRGINIA
AND AGREED THAT PETITIONER WOULD GO TO FLORIDA AND OBTAIN THERE A
DIVORCE FROM MANN, SO THAT THEY COULD BE REMARRIED.  THAT COURSE WAS
FOLLOWED, RESPONDENT PAYING A PART OF THE EXPENSES OF THE TRIP TO
FLORIDA AND OF THE DIVORCE ACTION.  PETITIONER RECEIVED A FLORIDA
DECREE AND A FEW WEEKS LATER, DECEMBER 18, 1943, AGAIN MARRIED
RESPONDENT.  MARITAL DIFFICULTIES DEVELOPED AND PETITIONER SECURED IN
HAWAII A DECREE OF SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE.  THEREAFTER RESPONDENT
BROUGHT THE PRESENT ACTION IN THE VERMONT COURTS TO HAVE THE MARRIAGES
DECLARED NULL AND VOID.  PETITIONER WAS SERVED BY PUBLICATION AND
APPEARED.  THERE WAS A TRIAL, AFTER WHICH THE WINDSOR COUNTY COURT
GRANTED A JUDGMENT OF ANNULMENT.  IT FOUND THAT UNDER FLORIDA LAW IT
WAS NECESSARY FOR PETITIONER TO HAVE HAD AN INTENTION TO LIVE AND
REMAIN IN FLORIDA, WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE; THAT SHE TESTIFIED FALSELY
IN THE FLORIDA PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING HER DOMICILE IN FLORIDA; AND THAT
SHE SECURED THE FLORIDA DECREE BY DECEIVING THE FLORIDA COURT AS TO HER
DOMICILE.  THE WINDSOR COUNTY COURT ANNULLED THE MARRIAGE OF FEBRUARY
5, 1943, AND DISMISSED THE PETITION AS RESPECTS THE SECOND MARRIAGE. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT ANNULLING THE FIRST
MARRIAGE BUT REVERSED THE DISMISSAL AS TO THE SECOND MARRIAGE AND HELD
IT ALSO NULL AND VOID.  116 VT. 374, 76 A.2D 593.  THE CASE IS HERE ON
CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 914. 

ON THIS RECORD WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FLORIDA DIVORCE
PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT THAT THE FLORIDA COURT ENTERED A DIVORCE DECREE IN
FAVOR OF PETITIONER AND AGAINST MANN.  SO FAR AS WE KNOW, THE ISSUE OF
DOMICILE WAS CONTESTED, LITIGATED AND RESOLVED IN PETITIONER'S FAVOR. 
IF THE DEFENDANT SPOUSE APPEARED IN THE FLORIDA PROCEEDINGS AND
CONTESTED THE ISSUE OF THE WIFE'S DOMICILE (SHERRER V. SHERRER, 334
U.S. 343) OR APPEARED AND ADMITTED HER FLORIDA DOMICILE (COE V. COE,
334 U.S. 378) OR WAS PERSONALLY SERVED IN THE DIVORCE STATE (JOHNSON V.
MUELBERGER, 340 U.S. 581, 587), HE WOULD BE BARRED FROM ATTACKING THE
DECREE COLLATERALLY; AND SO WOULD A STRANGER TO THE FLORIDA
PROCEEDINGS, SUCH AS RESPONDENT, UNLESS FLORIDA APPLIES A LESS STRICT
RULE OF RES JUDICATA TO THE SECOND HUSBAND THAN IT DOES TO THE FIRST. 
SEE JOHNSON V. MUELBERGER, SUPRA.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE DEFENDANT
SPOUSE HAD NEITHER APPEARED NOR BEEN SERVED IN FLORIDA, THE VERMONT
COURT, UNDER THE RULING IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226,
COULD REOPEN THE ISSUE OF DOMICILE. 

BUT THE BURDEN OF UNDERMINING THE DECREE OF A SISTER STATE "RESTS
HEAVILY UPON THE ASSAILANT."  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, P.
234; ESENWEIN V. COMMONWEALTH, 325 U.S. 279, 280-281.  A JUDGMENT
PRESUMES JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AND OVER THE PERSONS. 
SEE TITUS V. WALLICK, 306 U.S. 282, 287.  AS STATED FOR THE COURT OF
JUSTICE STONE IN ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59, 62, "IF IT APPEARS ON
ITS FACE TO BE A RECORD OF A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION, SUCH
JURISDICTION OVER THE CAUSE AND THE PARTIES IS TO BE PRESUMED UNLESS
DISPROVED BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE, OR BY THE RECORD ITSELF." 

THE FLORIDA DECREE IS ENTITLED TO THAT PRESUMPTION.  THAT PRESUMPTION
MAY OF COURSE BE OVERCOME BY SHOWING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT MANN NEVER WAS
SERVED IN FLORIDA NOR MADE AN APPEARANCE IN THE CASE EITHER GENERALLY
OR SPECIFICALLY TO CONTEST THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.  THE VERMONT
SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WERE NO FINDINGS ON THOSE ISSUES IN
THE PRESENT RECORD.  THE COURT IN REFERRING TO THE CASE OF WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226, SAID, "IT WAS THERE HELD THAT THE
QUESTION OF BONA FIDE DOMICILE WAS OPEN TO ATTACK, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE WHEN THE OTHER SPOUSE NEITHER HAD APPEARED
NOR BEEN SERVED WITH PROCESS IN THE STATE.  THE FINDINGS HERE DO NOT
SHOW EITHER OF THESE CRITERIA."  116 VT. 374, 378, 76 A.2D 593, 595. 
YET IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE COURT KNOW WHAT TRANSPIRED IN FLORIDA
BEFORE THIS COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE FLORIDA DECREE CAN BE RESOLVED. 
FOR UNTIL FLORIDA'S JURISDICTION IS SHOWN TO BE VULNERABLE, VERMONT MAY
NOT RELITIGATE THE ISSUE OF DOMICILE ON WHICH THE FLORIDA DECREE
RESTS.  IT WAS SAID ON ARGUMENT THAT THE FIRST HUSBAND APPEARED IN THE
FLORIDA PROCEEDING.  BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN THE FLORIDA DECREE
NOR ANY STIPULATION CONCERNING IT. 

WE DEAL ONLY WITH THE PRESUMPTION, NOT WITH THE ISSUES ON WHICH THE
VERMONT COURT MADE ITS FINDINGS.  WE ALSO RESERVE THE QUESTION,
DISCUSSED ON ARGUMENT, WHETHER RESPONDENT WOULD NOW BE IN A POSITION TO
ATTACK THE FLORIDA DECREE COLLATERALLY IF IT WERE FOUND TO BE COLLUSIVE
AND HE PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUD. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF VERMONT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

CONCEDEDLY, WHEN A FLORIDA COURT, ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1943, PURPORTED TO
GRANT A DECREE OF DIVORCE TO THE PETITIONER, THEN MRS. ALBERT MANN, SHE
SECURED THE DECREE "BY DECEIVING THE FLORIDA COURT AS TO THE FACTS OF
HER DOMICILE" IN THAT SHE "WENT TO FLORIDA FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF
GETTING A DIVORCE" AND WITHOUT ANY "INTENTION TO LIVE AND REMAIN IN
FLORIDA," WHENCE SHE DEPARTED IMMEDIATELY ON SECURING HER DECREE. 
THEREFORE, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE VERMONT TO
RESPECT THIS FLORIDA DECREE, UNLESS MR. MANN HAS BEEN SERVED IN FLORIDA
OR HAD PERSONALLY PARTICIPATED IN THE FLORIDA DIVORCE PROCEEDING.  IF
THERE WERE FAIR DOUBT THAT MRS. MANN'S HUSBAND HAD SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THE FLORIDA DECREE, THE THINGS WHICH IT IMPORTS
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNDERMINED AND VERMONT WOULD HAVE TO RESPECT IT. 

IT IS THE VIEW OF MY BRETHREN THAT THE VERMONT SUPREME COURT HELD THE
FLORIDA DECREE TO BE A NULLITY, ALTHOUGH IT "RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WERE
NO FINDINGS ON THOSE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT RECORD" - THE ISSUES BEING,
WHETHER PETITIONER'S HUSBAND "WAS SERVED IN FLORIDA OR MADE AN
APPEARANCE IN THE CASE."  IF THIS WERE WHAT THE VERMONT SUPREME COURT
"RECOGNIZED" I WOULD JOIN MY BRETHREN.  BUT SO TO READ WHAT THE VERMONT
SUPREME COURT WROTE IS TO MISREAD.  IN ITS OWN VERMONT WAY, THE VERMONT
SUPREME COURT WROTE JUST THE OPPOSITE.  REFERRING TO THE SECOND
WILLIAMS CASE, 325 U.S. 226, THE VERMONT SUPREME COURT WENT ON: 

"IT WAS THERE HELD THAT THE QUESTION OF BONA FIDE DOMICILE WAS OPEN
TO ATTACK, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE WHEN THE
OTHER SPOUSE NEITHER HAD APPEARED NOR BEEN SERVED WITH PROCESS IN THE
STATE.  THE FINDINGS HERE DO NOT SHOW EITHER OF THESE CRITERIA."  COOK
V. COOK, 116 VT. 374, 378, 76 A.2D 593, 595. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE WHOLE RECORD, IS NOT THE MEANING OF THIS, HOWEVER
OBLIQUELY EXPRESSED, THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE WAS WANTING WHICH ALONE
WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE FLORIDA COURT JURISDICTION OVER MRS. MANN'S SUIT,
NAMELY, MR. MANN'S SUBMISSION TO IT?  A FAIR READING OF THIS RECORD
IMPLIES THAT THE FLORIDA DECREE WAS NEITHER CONSENTED TO NOR CONTESTED
BY MANN.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BE FORMALISM OF THE MOST ARID
KIND IF A STATE IN A THIRD-PARTY PROCEEDING MAY DENY FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT TO AN EX PARTE DIVORCE FRAUDULENTLY SECURED BY A SPOUSE IN A
SISTER STATE ONLY IF IT MAKES FORMAL FINDINGS THAT SUCH AN EX PARTE
FRAUDULENT DECREE WAS OBTAINED WITHOUT THE JURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION
OF THE HUSBAND. 

IF MRS. MANN DID NOT HAVE A FLORIDA DOMICILE AND HER HUSBAND DID NOT
SUBMIT, UNDER THE SHERRER DOCTRINE, 334 U.S. 343, TO THE STATE'S
JURISDICTION, FLORIDA HAD NO POWER TO TERMINATE THE MARRIAGE.   IF
THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION TO GRANT A DIVORCE, THERE WAS NO DIVORCE. 
THE SHAM DIVORCE WAS A NULLITY, NO MORE BINDING ON THE VERMONT COURTS
THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN A PRIVATE LETTER TO THE LADY BY THE LOCAL FLORIDA
JUDGE.  AND WHILE VERMONT COULD, IF THAT STATE CHOSE, DENY RELIEF TO
COOK BECAUSE OF HIS "UNCLEAN HANDS," THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT DEFENSE. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEEDING THE
PETITIONER HERE APPEARED PERSONALLY AND WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 
THE FINDINGS OF THE WINDSOR COUNTY COURT WERE BASED ON "A CONSIDERATION
OF THE STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL, ORAL TESTIMONY AND THE EXHIBITS IN THE
CASE."  THE FINDINGS ARE INESCAPABLE THAT THE FLORIDA DECREE WAS A
COOKED-UP AFFAIR NOT BETWEEN MR. AND MRS. MANN BUT BETWEEN MRS. MANN
AND COOK.  "FLORIDA WAS CHOSEN AS THE PLACE WHERE THE DIVORCE WAS TO BE
OBTAINED BECAUSE FLORIDA WOULD BE THE NEAREST AND BEST PLACE TO SECURE
A DIVORCE."  ALL THIS TOOK PLACE TWO MONTHS AFTER MRS. MANN AND COOK
HAD SUPPOSEDLY BEEN MARRIED, WHEN HE DISCOVERED SHE WAS THE WIFE OF
MANN.  THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, BEGUN IN DECEMBER, 1949, DID NOT COME
TO ISSUE UNTIL MARCH, 1950, THE FINDINGS OF FACT WERE MADE IN MAY,
1950, AND THE CASE DISPOSED OF BY THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT IN
NOVEMBER, 1950.  THE FLORIDA DECREE WAS URGED AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE
PRAYER FOR A DECLARATION OF ANNULMENT ON TWO GROUNDS, AS ONE READS THE
RECORD, AND TWO GROUNDS ONLY: UNCLEAN HANDS AND CONDONATION - UNCLEAN
HANDS IN THAT COOK COOPERATED WITH MRS. MANN IN DECEIVING THE FLORIDA
COURT AS TO THE FALSITY OF HER DOMICILIARY CLAIM; CONDONATION BY
CONDUCT ON COOK'S PART SUBSEQUENT TO, AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OF, MRS.
MANN'S FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED DIVORCE DECREE. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF THE WINDSOR COUNTY
COURT AND OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT CAME TWO YEARS AFTER THIS
COURT'S DECISIONS IN SHERRER V. SHERRER, SUPRA, AND COE V. COE, 334
U.S. 378.  THESE WERE NOT PUSS-IN-THE-CORNER ADJUDICATIONS.  IT IS
INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE VERMONT COURTS DID NOT KNOW THAT THE FRAUDULENT
CLAIM OF DOMICILE BY A DIVORCING SPOUSE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE
ENFORCEABILITY IN SISTER STATES OF A DECREE OF DIVORCE IF THE OTHER
SPOUSE CONTESTS OR CONSENTS TO THE PROCEEDING LEADING TO THE DECREE. 
WHEN THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT IN 1950 FINDS A DECREE OF DIVORCE TO
HAVE BEEN FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED BY A SPOUSE AND SAYS THAT THERE ARE NO
FINDINGS THAT THE OTHER SPOUSE HAD EITHER APPEARED OR BEEN SERVED WITH
PROCESS, AND REJECTS THE CLAIM THAT THE DIVORCE DECREE MUST BE
RESPECTED BY REASON OF UNCLEAN HANDS OR CONDONATION, PLAINLY PART OF
THE CASE IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WAS NOT A SHERRER V. SHERRER OR
COE V. COE SITUATION.  AN ISSUE WHICH IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSUMPTIONS
IN A LITIGATION IS AS TRULY ESTABLISHED AS THOUGH PUT INTO WORDS. 

IN VIEW OF WHAT THIS RECORD DISCLOSES - THE EXPLICIT FINDINGS AS TO
THE FRAUDULENTLY PREARRANGED DIVORCE FROM THE HUSBAND BETWEEN A WIFE
AND HER PUTATIVE HUSBAND, THE ISSUES THAT WERE TENDERED IN THE
PERSONALLY CONTESTED PROCEEDING FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE BY THE
DISILLUSIONED THIRD PARTY, THE CHARGES OF UNCLEAN HANDS AND CONDONATION
AS GROUNDS ON WHICH THE WIFE SOUGHT TO RELY ON THE DIVORCE, THE ONLY
ISSUES THUS TENDERED TO THE VERMONT COURTS AND THEIR DISPOSITION TWO
YEARS AFTER SHERRER V. SHERRER AND COE V. COE - TO HOLD THAT THERE MUST
BE A FINDING IN EXPLICIT WORDS THAT MANN DID NOT APPEAR IN THE FLORIDA
PROCEEDINGS IS TO GO BACK TO THE DAYS ANTEDATING BARON PARKE, WHEN
CERTAIN WORDS IN THE LAW WERE INDISPENSABLE.  NOT TO USE THEM WAS
FATAL.  THE FLORIDA DECREE IS NOT SET FORTH IN THE RECORD BEFORE US.
FOR ALL WE KNOW, THE DECREE MAY RECITE THE NON-APPEARANCE OF MANN.  AND
YET THE VERMONT SUPREME COURT IS REVERSED ON THE UNWARRANTED
PRESUMPTION THAT MANN APPEARED IN THE FLORIDA SUIT. 

THE CASE NOW GOES BACK TO VERMONT.  IT WOULD NOT BE SUPRISING IF, IN
THE PROCEEDINGS TO FOLLOW, IT WILL BE FORMALLY ESTABLISHED THAT
INASMUCH AS MANN WAS NEITHER SERVED NOR APPEARED IN FLORIDA THE DECREE
WAS A NULLITY, TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT
REQUIRE OBEDIENCE FROM VERMONT.  I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE WHO THINK THAT
PROCEDURE IS JUST FOLDEROL OR NOXIOUS MOSS.  PROCEDURE - THE FAIR,
ORDERLY AND DELIBERATIVE METHOD BY WHICH CLAIMS ARE TO BE LITIGATED -
GOES TO THE VERY SUBSTANCE OF LAW.  BUT TO DENY THE MEANING OF WHAT
LIES ON THE SURFACE OF A RECORD SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS INEPTLY CONVEYED
IS TO REVERT TO ARCHAISMS AND NOT TO RESPECT ESSENTIALS. 
..END :




















SUTTON V. LEIB 342 U.S. 402 


NO. 143.  SUBMITTED DECEMBER 3, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1952.  - 188
F.2D 766, REVERSED. 


ASSERTING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, PETITIONER BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IN ILLINOIS TO RECOVER ALIMONY UNDER AN ILLINOIS DIVORCE
DECREE WHICH AWARDED HER ALIMONY UNTIL REMARRIAGE.  SUBSEQUENT TO THE
ILLINOIS DIVORCE, PETITIONER REMARRIED IN NEVADA, BUT THE MARRIAGE WAS
LATER ANNULLED IN NEW YORK ON THE GROUND THAT THE MAN SHE MARRIED IN
NEVADA WAS ALREADY MARRIED IN NEW YORK AND HIS NEVADA DIVORCE FROM HIS
FIRST WIFE WAS INVALID.  HELD: 

1.  THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE IS GOVERNED BY THE
STATE LAW OF ILLINOIS, ALTHOUGH THE DECISION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES INVOLVED RESTS FINALLY ON THIS COURT.  P. 406. 

2.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE NEW YORK ANNULMENT OF THE NEVADA
MARRIAGE MUST BE ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN ILLINOIS.  PP. 406
409. 

(A)  THE NEVADA DECREE DIVORCING PETITIONER'S SECOND HUSBAND FROM HIS
FIRST WIFE, WHO WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED IN NEVADA AND ENTERED NO
APPEARANCE THERE, WAS SUBJECT TO ATTACK AND NULLIFICATION IN NEW YORK
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES IN A CONTESTED ACTION.  PP.
408-409. 

3.  THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF THE NEVADA MARRIAGE AND THE NEW
YORK ANNULMENT ON THE OBLIGATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE ALIMONY SUIT
MUST BE DETERMINED UNDER ILLINOIS LAW.  PP. 409-412. 

(A)  AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ILLINOIS IS FREE TO DECIDE
FOR ITSELF THE EFFECT OF NEW YORK'S DECLARATION OF ANNULMENT ON THE
OBLIGATIONS OF PETITIONER'S FIRST HUSBAND, A STRANGER TO THE NEW YORK
DECREE.  P. 410. 

(B)  THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT IN THIS CASE RESTS ON
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP; THE CASE DOES NOT PRESENT ANY NON-FEDERAL
ISSUE SUITABLE FOR SEPARATION AND DETERMINATION IN THE STATE COURTS;
AND THE REMAINING QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 410. 

4.  THE COURT OF APPEALS' RULING THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, THERE WAS NO COMPROMISE OF A DISPUTED CLAIM, IS ACCEPTED HERE. 
P. 411. 

SUTTON V. LEIB. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A DIVERSITY SUIT TO RECOVER UNPAID INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY, THE
DISTRICT COURT RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  188 F.2D 766.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
342 U.S. 846.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 412. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY REASON OF A DIVORCE IN AN ILLINOIS STATE COURT, WITH A JUDGMENT
FOR MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY UNTIL REMARRIAGE, PETITIONER
ASSERTS THAT HER DIVORCED HUSBAND, THE RESPONDENT LEIB, IS LIABLE FOR
UNPAID INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY.  ASSERTING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION,
PETITIONER, A DIVORCEE, FILED SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DICTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.  CLAIM FOR RECOVERY IS MADE,
NOTWITHSTANDING A LATER MARRIAGE BY PETITIONER TO ANOTHER IN NEVADA,
SUBSEQUENTLY ANNULLED IN NEW YORK, FOR THE PERIOD FROM THE NEVADA
REMARRIAGE TO HER THIRD PRESUMABLY VALID MARRIAGE IN NEW YORK TO A
THIRD MAN.  TO RESPONDENT'S PLEA THAT THE ILLINOIS ALIMONY OBLIGATION
WAS FINALLY ENDED BY THE NEVADA REMARRIAGE OF PETITIONER, MRS. SUTTON
RELIED UPON THE NEW YORK ANNULMENT DECREE AS DETERMINING THAT HER
NEVADA MARRIAGE WAS VOID.  SHE CONTENDS THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT ILLINOIS HOLD HER
NEVADA MARRIAGE VOID AB INITIO BY VIRTUE OF THE NEW YORK ANNULMENT;
(FN1) THAT AS THE ANNULMENT DECREE OBLITERATES THE EXISTENCE OF HER
NEVADA MARRIAGE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR UNPAID ALIMONY UNTIL HER NEW
YORK MARRIAGE TO SUTTON. 

THE TRIAL COURT RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  188 F.2D 766.  THE
AFFIRMANCE WAS BOTTOMED ON THE CONCLUSION THAT, AS THE NEVADA MARRIAGE
OF PETITIONER WAS VALID IN NEVADA, IT TERMINATED THE LIABILITY FOR
ALIMONY UNDER THE ILLINOIS JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE.  THE COURT THUS GAVE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE NEVADA MARRIAGE RATHER THAN THE NEW YORK
ANNULMENT.  (FN2)  BECAUSE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE REQUIRED TREATMENT
OF AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW, REVIEW WAS GRANTED ON A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI.  342 U.S. 846. 

FACTS.  PETITIONER, VERNA SUTTON, DIVORCED RESPONDENT, LEIB, IN
ILLINOIS IN 1939, AND UNDER THE TERMS OF THE DECREE OF DIVORCE WAS
AWARDED $125 "ON OR BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF EACH CALENDAR MONTH ...
FOR SO LONG AS THE PLAINTIFF SHALL REMAIN UNMARRIED, OR FOR SO LONG AS
THIS DECREE REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT."  ON JULY 3, 1944, IN
RENO, NEVADA, PETITIONER MARRIED WALTER HENZEL WHO HAD THAT DAY
OBTAINED A NEVADA DIVORCE FROM DOROTHY HENZEL, A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK
WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED IN NEVADA AND WHO MADE NO APPEARANCE THERE. 
ONE MONTH LATER, AUGUST 3, 1944, DOROTHY HENZEL BROUGHT A SEPARATE
MAINTENANCE PROCEEDING IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK.  WALTER HENZEL
DEFENDED THIS SUIT.  THE PROCEEDING RESULTED IN A DECREE IN DOROTHY
HENZEL'S FAVOR, DECLARING WALTER HENZEL'S NEVADA DIVORCE FROM HER "NULL
AND VOID."  WITH THE SERVICE OF DOROTHY'S PROCESS ON WALTER, PETITIONER
CEASED LIVING WITH HIM AND IN JANUARY 1945 FILED SUIT IN NEW YORK FOR
ANNULMENT OF HER MARRIAGE TO HIM.  IN THIS PROCEEDING WALTER HENZEL
ALSO APPEARED.  ON JUNE 6, 1947, THE NEW YORK COURT ENTERED AN
INTERLOCUTORY DECREE AFTER TRIAL WHICH BECAME FINAL THREE MONTHS
THEREAFTER.  THIS JUDGMENT DECLARED THAT PETITIONER'S MARRIAGE TO
HENZEL WAS "NULL AND VOID" FOR THE REASON THAT HE "HAD ANOTHER WIFE
LIVING AT THE TIME OF SAID MARRIAGE." 

THERE WAS NO APPEAL IN NEVADA FROM THE NEVADA DIVORCE OF THE
HENZELS.  NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN IN NEVADA CONCERNING THE MARRIAGE
OF HENZEL AND PETITIONER, AND NO APPEAL TAKEN IN NEW YORK FROM THE
JUDGMENT HOLDING THE HENZEL'S NEVADA DIVORCE NULL AND VOID OR FROM THE
JUDGMENT ANNULLING THE NEVADA MARRIAGE OF HENZEL AND PETITIONER.  THE
JURISDICTION OF THE NEW YORK COURTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENTS IS
UNQUESTIONED. 

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES.  COLLECTION OF ALIMONY IS SOUGHT AGAINST
RESPONDENT WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO ANY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN
NEVADA OR NEW YORK AND APPEARS IN NONE OF THE RECORDS FROM EITHER
STATE.  ILLINOIS LAW AS TO REPONDENT'S LIABILITY GOVERNS THE FEDERAL
COURT'S DECISION OF THIS CASE.  (FN3)  BUT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
DECISION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVED RESTS FINALLY ON
THIS COURT.  (FN4)  THIS CONTROVERSY PRESENTS, FUNDAMENTALLY, A PROBLEM
OF ILLINOIS LAW, TO WIT, THE ILLINOIS RULE AS TO THE EFFECT OF A
SUBSEQUENTLY ANNULLED SECOND MARRIAGE ON THE ALIMONY PROVISIONS OF AN
ILLINOIS DIVORCE AWARDING SUPPORT UNTIL REMARRIAGE. 

AS THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE REQUIRES ILLINOIS TO RECOGNIZE
THE VALIDITY OF RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF SISTER STATES, THE
CONCLUSION WILL NOT VARY BECAUSE THE POST-DIVORCE RECORDED EVENTS
UNDERLYING THIS LITIGATION TOOK PLACE IN OTHER STATES THAN ILLINOIS. 
THIS IS NOT AN ALLEGED CONFLICT OF DECISIONS BETWEEN STATES SUCH AS
EXISTED IN CERTAIN TAX AND ESTATE CASES.  (FN5)  RATHER THE SITUATION
MORE NEARLY APPROACHES BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S. 77.  THERE TENNESSEE
REFUSED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A NORTH CAROLINA JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS
OF ALIMONY ON THE GROUND OF ITS LACK OF FINALITY IN NORTH CAROLINA.  WE
REVERSED TENNESSEE'S DECISION, NOT ON THE GROUND OF ERROR IN TENNESSEE
RULES OF LAW BUT ON OUR DETERMINATION THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA JUDGMENT
WAS FINAL AND THEREFORE ENFORCEABLE AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW IN
TENNESSEE UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  SO IN THIS CASE,
ILLINOIS' CONCLUSION AS TO THIS CLAIM FOR ALIMONY MUST BE REACHED UNDER
ILLINOIS LAW ON THE BASIS OF GIVING THE VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS THE EFFECT
TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTION ENTITLES THEM.  IN THIS WAY THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE PERFORMS ITS INTENDED FUNCTION OF AVOIDING
RELITIGATION IN OTHER STATES OF ADJUDICATED ISSUES, WHILE LEAVING TO
THE LAW OF THE FORUM STATE THE APPLICATION OF THE PREDETERMINED FACTS
TO THE NEW PROBLEM.  RILEY V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 315 U.S. 343, 348
349. 

LEGAL EFFECT OF NEVADA AND NEW YORK EVENTS.  PETITIONER AND HENZEL
WERE MARRIED IN NEVADA.  THEREAFTER PETITIONER BROUGHT HER PUTATIVE
HUSBAND BEFORE THE NEW YORK COURT.  PETITIONER AND HENZEL SUBJECTED
THEMSELVES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEW YORK COURT AND ITS DECREE
ANNULLING THEIR NEVADA MARRIAGE WAS ENTERED WITH JURISDICTION, SO FAR
AS THIS RECORD SHOWS, OF THE PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER.  THE
BURDEN IS UPON ONE ATTACKING THE VALIDITY OF A JUDGMENT TO DEMONSTRATE
ITS INVALIDITY.  (FN6)  THAT JUDGMENT IS RES JUDICATA BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AND IS UNASSAILABLE COLLATERALLY.  (FN7) AS BOTH PARTIES WERE
BEFORE THE NEW YORK COURT, ITS DECREE OF ANNULMENT OF THEIR NEVADA
MARRIAGE CEREMONY IS EFFECTIVE TO DETERMINE THAT THE MARRIAGE
RELATIONSHIP OF PETITIONER AND HENZEL DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF
FILING THE PRESENT COMPLAINT IN ILLINOIS FOR UNPAID ALIMONY.  THE
EFFECT IN ILLINOIS OF THE NEW YORK DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE
OBLIGATION FOR ALIMONY IS A MATTER OF ILLINOIS LAW HEREINAFTER
TREATED.  THE NEW YORK ANNULMENT DETERMINES THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP
THAT IS THE MARITAL STATUS OF PETITIONER AND HENZEL, JUST AS ANY
DIVORCE JUDGMENT DETERMINES SUCH RELATIONSHIP.  IF THE NEVADA COURT HAD
HAD JURISDICTION BY PERSONAL SERVICE IN THE STATE OR APPEARANCE IN THE
CASE OF HENZEL AND THE FIRST MRS. HENZEL, ITS DECREE OF DIVORCE WOULD
HAVE BEEN UNASSAILABLE IN OTHER STATES.  (FN8)  SO AS TO THE NEW YORK
DECREE ANNULLING THE MARRIAGE, NEW YORK HAD SUCH JURISDICTION OF THE
PARTIES AND ITS DECREE IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH THROUGHOUT THE NATION,
IN NEVADA AS WELL AS IN ILLINOIS.  (FN9) 

THE NEW YORK INVALIDATION OF THE NEVADA DIVORCE OF THE HENZELS STANDS
IN THE SAME POSITION.  AS MRS. HENZEL WAS NEITHER PERSONALLY SERVED IN
NEVADA NOR ENTERED HER APPEARANCE, THE NEVADA DIVORCE DECREE WAS
SUBJECT TO ATTACK AND NULLIFICATION IN NEW YORK FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES IN A CONTESTED ACTION.  (FN10) 

THIS LEADS US TO HOLD THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
QUOTED IN NOTE 2, SUPRA, IS INCORRECT UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 
THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY PERFORMED FOR PETITIONER AND HENZEL IN NEVADA
MUST BE HELD INVALID BECAUSE THEN HENZEL HAD A LIVING WIFE.  THE NEW
YORK ANNULMENT HELD THE NEVADA MARRIAGE VOID.  NEVADA DECLARES BIGAMOUS
MARRIAGES VOID.  (FN11) 

CONCLUSION.  THE DETERMINATION THAT THE NEW YORK ADJUDICATIONS MUST
BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN ILLINOIS, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DECIDE
THIS CONTROVERSY.  ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL COURTS MUST GIVE THE SAME FORCE
AND EFFECT TO THE NEW YORK DECREES AS ILLINOIS DOES, (FN12) A QUESTION
OF STATE LAW REMAINS.  DOES ILLINOIS GIVE THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY OF AN
ANNULLED MARRIAGE SUFFICIENT VITALITY TO RELEASE LEIB, THE RESPONDENT,
FROM HIS OBLIGATION TO PAY ALIMONY SUBSEQUENTLY DUE? 

FULL FAITH TO THE NEW YORK ANNULMENT, WHICH IS CONCLUSIVE EVERYWHERE
AS TO THE MARRIAGE STATUS OF PETITIONER AND HENZEL, COMPELS ILLINOIS TO
TREAT THEIR NEVADA MARRIAGE CEREMONY AS VOID.  (FN13) THE FORCE OF THAT
RULE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE EFFECT OF THE NEW YORK
ANNULMENT ON RIGHTS INCIDENT TO THIS DECLARATION OF THE INVALIDITY OF
THE NEVADA MARRIAGE CEREMONY SHALL BE THE SAME IN ALL STATES. 
ANNULMENT IS, IN RESPECT TO ITS EFFECT, ANALOGOUS TO DIVORCE.  A VALID
DIVORCE, ONE SPOUSE APPEARING ONLY BY CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE, THAT FREES
THE PARTIES FROM THE BONDS OF MATRIMONY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES
DOES NOT REQUIRE A SECOND STATE TO ACCORD ITS TERMS THE SAME RESULT IN
LITIGATION OVER SEPARABLE LEGAL RIGHTS AS THE DECREE WOULD HAVE IN THE
COURTS OF THE STATE ENTERING THE DECREE.  (FN14)  WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
THE EFFECT OF A DIVORCE ON INCIDENTS OF THE MARRIAGE RELATION WHERE
BOTH SPOUSES ARE ACTUALLY BEFORE THE COURT, WE THINK IT EQUALLY CLEAR,
AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THAT ILLINOIS IS FREE TO DECIDE FOR
ITSELF THE EFFECT OF NEW YORK'S DECLARATION OF ANNULMENT ON THE
OBLIGATIONS OF RESPONDENT, A STRANGER TO THAT DECREE. 

ALTHOUGH THE PRESENT PROCEEDING NECESSARILY PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF
STATE LAW, RESTING AS IT DOES UPON DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, THE CASE
DOES NOT PRESENT ANY NON-FEDERAL ISSUE SUITABLE FOR SEPARATION AND
DETERMINATION IN THE STATE COURTS.  (FN15)  THE REMAINING MATTERS OF
STATE LAW ARE FOR THE DECISION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  (FN16) 

IT IS FREQUENTLY SAID, AS A LEGAL FICTION, THAT ANNULMENT MAKES THE
ANNULLED MARRIAGE CEREMONY AS THOUGH IT HAD NEVER OCCURRED.  THAT
FICTION IS VARIOUSLY TREATED IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS.  (FN17)  FOR
EXAMPLE IN NEW YORK, THE PETITIONER APPARENTLY WOULD RECOVER ALIMONY
AFTER ANNULMENT BUT NOT FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE REMARRIAGE CEREMONY
AND THE ANNULMENT.  (FN18) 

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT HAS DECLARED ON AN ISSUE
AS TO WHETHER THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR ALIMONY HAD BEEN ADJUSTED THAT
THERE HAS BEEN IN THIS CONTROVERSY NO COMPROMISE OF A DISPUTED CLAIM. 
SEE NOTE 15, SUPRA.  WE ACCEPT THAT RULING.  THAT COURT HAS NOT HAD
OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE ANNULMENT UNDER THE LAW OF
ILLINOIS ON THE RESPONDENT'S ALIMONY OBLIGATION. 

WHERE THERE HAD BEEN A VALID FOREIGN MARRIAGE, FOLLOWED BY AN
ANNULMENT, BASED PARTLY ON ISSUES NOT HERE INVOLVED, ILLINOIS HAS HELD
THAT THE OBLIGATION OF A FORMER HUSBAND TO PAY ALIMONY UNTIL THE WIFE
"REMARRY" IS TERMINATED BY THE REMARRIAGE.  (FN19)  WHAT THE ILLINOIS
RULE IS WHEN THE FOREIGN (NEVADA) MARRIAGE IS JUDICIALLY DECLARED
INVALID, UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, OR WHETHER RESPONDENT, IF LIABLE
AT ALL, IS LIABLE FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH HENZEL MAY HAVE OWED
SUPPORT UNDER A RULE SUCH AS THAT OF SLEICHER V. SLEICHER, 251 N.Y.
366, 167 N.E. 501, HAS NOT, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, BEEN DETERMINED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE
PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE. 
AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH
ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE EFFECT
THEREOF."  U.S. CONSTITUTION, ART. IV, SEC. 1. 

PURSUANT TO THE SECTION, CONGRESS EARLY PRESCRIBED THE EFFECT
SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE WORDS NOW USED:

"SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR COPIES THEREOF, SO
AUTHENTICATED, SHALL HAVE THE SAME FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN EVERY COURT
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS AS THEY
HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE, TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1738. 

FN2  "WE HAVE SEARCHED THE NUMEROUS CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE SUBJECT OF MIGRATORY DIVORCE FOR A
DEFINITIVE HOLDING AS TO THE JUDICIAL STATUS OF SUCH DIVORCE IN THE
STATE THAT DECREED IT.  IT APPEARS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THE DECREE IS
VALID AND BINDING IN THE STATE WHERE IT IS RENDERED.  THUS MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER REMARKS IN HIS CONCURRING OPINION, WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 307,  ...  'IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT THE NEVADA
DECREES HERE, LIKE THE CONNECTICUT DECREE IN THE HADDOCK  ...  CASE,
...  WERE VALID AND BINDING IN THE STATE WHERE THEY WERE RENDERED.' 
AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING IN WILLIAMS V. STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 266, 239,  ...  STATES THAT "THE STATE OF NEVADA HAS
UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY, CONSISTENT WITH PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, TO
GRANT DIVORCES ON WHATEVER BASIS IT SEES FIT TO ALL WHO MEET ITS
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.  IT IS ENTITLED, MOREOVER, TO GIVE TO ITS
DIVORCE DECREES ABSOLUTE AND BINDING FINALITY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF
ITS BORDERS.'  AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING IN THE SAME CASE,
325 U.S. AT PAGE 244,  ...  COMMENTS ON THE FACT THAT THE NEVADA
JUDGMENT WAS NOT VOIDED BY THE DECISION.  'IT COULD NOT BE, IF THE SAME
TEST APPLIES TO SUSTAIN IT AS UPHOLDS THE NORTH CAROLINA CONVICTIONS. 
IT STANDS, WITH THE MARRIAGES FOUNDED UPON IT, UMIMPEACHED.'  HE AND
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, ALSO DISSENTING, BOTH CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT
THAT THE COURT, IN ITS DECISION, DOES NOT HOLD THAT THE NEVADA JUDGMENT
IS INVALID IN NEVADA.  HENCE, IN SPITE OF THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR-CUT
STATEMENT IN ANY OF THE MAIN OPINIONS OF THE COURT AS TO THE STATUS OF
THE NEVADA DECREE IN NEVADA AFTER SUCCESSFUL EXTRATERRITORIAL CHALLENGE
OF IT, WE THINK WE MAY SPELL OUT AUTHORITY FOR OUR ASSUMPTION THAT IT
SURVIVES SUCH CHALLENGE AND REMAINS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF THE STATE OF NEVADA UNTIL AND UNLESS IT IS SET ASIDE UPON
REVIEW IN THAT STATE. 

"ASSUMING THE VALIDITY OF THE DIVORCE IN NEVADA, THEN THE PARTY OR
PARTIES THERETO RESUMED FULL MARITAL CAPACITY IN THAT STATE.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT, SO FAR AS THE STATE OF NEVADA IS CONCERNED, THERE WAS NO
INHIBITION AGAINST THE REMARRIAGE OF WALTER HENZEL IN THAT STATE, AND
NO REASON APPEARS FOR CHALLENGING HIS MARRIAGE THERE TO PLAINTIFF
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DECREE OF DIVORCE WAS RENDERED.  UNDER THE TERMS
OF THE ILLINOIS DECREE OF DIVORCE OF PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, SUCH
MARRIAGE IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED THE OBLIGATION OF THE LATTER TO
CONTINUE THE ALIMONY PAYMENTS REQUIRED THEREBY.  WE THINK THAT
OBLIGATION WAS NOT REINSTATED AND REVIVED BY THE SUBSEQUENT ANNULMENT
OF THE NEVADA MARRIAGE IN NEW YORK."  188 F.2D AT 768. 

FN3 ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64; ANGEL V. BULLINGTON, 330
U.S. 183. 

FN4  BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S. 77, 81. 

FN5 WORCESTER COUNTY CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, AND CASES CITED.  IN
THIS CASE THIS COURT HELD, P. 299, AS A BASIS THAT THE ACTION WAS
AGAINST A STATE WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE UNIFORMITY OF DECISION AS TO DOMICILE BETWEEN
THE COURTS OF DIFFERENT STATES.  CF. TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398,
410. 

RILEY V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 315 U.S. 343.  IN THIS CASE GEORGIA HAD
DETERMINED THAT DECEDENT'S DOMICILE WAS GEORGIA.  NEW YORK HAD
DETERMINED THE DOMICILE WAS NEW YORK.  IN AN INTERPLEADER SUIT IN
DELAWARE, INVOLVING THE TRANSFER OF STOCK OF A DELAWARE CORPORATION TO
ONE OF THE TWO PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEDENT APPOINTED BY THE
RESPECTIVE STATES, THIS COURT HELD, WHERE NEITHER PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE HAD BEEN A PARTY TO THE DETERMINATION OF DOMICILE IN THE
STATE OF THE OTHER, DELAWARE WAS FREE TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF
DOMICILE AND REQUIRE DELIVERY OF THE STOCK TO THAT REPRESENTATIVE. 

FN6  BARBER V. BARBER, SUPRA, 86; COOK V. COOK, 342 U.S. 126, 128. 

FN7  TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66, 76-78. 

FN8  SHERRER V. SHERRER, 334 U.S. 343. 

FN9  TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., SUPRA; MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311
U.S. 457, 462. 

FN10  COOK V. COOK, SUPRA, CITING WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325
U.S. 226; RICE V. RICE, 336 U.S. 674.  CF. SHERRER V. SHERRER, SUPRA.

FN11  NEV. COMP. LAWS, 1929, SEC. 4066; POUPART V. DISTRICT COURT, 34
NEV. 336, 123 P. 769. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 1, AND UNION & PLANTERS' BANK V. MEMPHIS, 189 U.S. 71,
75. 

FN13  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 291-304. 

FN14  ESTIN V. ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541.  SEE MACKAY V. MACKAY, 279 APP.
DIV. 350, 110 N.Y.S.2D 82. 

FN15  PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472, 489, ET SEQ., AND CASES CITED. 

FURTHERMORE THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT CERTAIN
PAYMENTS OF ALIMONY MADE TO PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT IN SETTLEMENT OF
INSTALLMENTS ACCRUING PRIOR TO THE NEVADA MARRIAGE DO NOT AMOUNT TO A
COMPROMISE OF THE DISPUTED CLAIM.  188 F.2D AT 767-768.  CF. MOORE V.
SHOOK, 276 ILL. 47, 55, 114 N.E. 592; DARST V. LANGE, 367 ILL. 119, 10
N.E.2D 659. 

FN16  MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228; PROPPER V. CLARK,
SUPRA, 486. 

FN17  IN RE WOMBWELL'S SETTLEMENT, (1922) 2 CH. 298.  HERE A MARRIAGE
SETTLEMENT WAS IN TRUST FOR THE SETTLOR "UNTIL THE SAID INTENDED
MARRIAGE" AND THEREAFTER ON DECLARED TRUSTS FOR THE SPOUSES.  THE
MARRIAGE WAS ANNULLED.  THE SETTLOR WAS HELD ENTITLED TO THE FUNDS AS A
VALID MARRIAGE WAS INTENDED AND THIS ONE WAS VOID AB INITIO.  LIKEWISE
CHAPMAN V. BRADLEY, 33 L.J. CH. 139.  CF. IN RE GARNETT, 74 L.J. CH.
570; BISHOP V. SMITH, 1 VICT.  L.R. 313; P. V. P., (1916) 2 I.R. 400. 

SEE VERNIER, AMERICAN FAMILY LAWS, SEC. 53, SUITS TO ANNUL - EFFECT
OF JUDGMENT, AND SEC. 48, ISSUE OF PROHIBITED MARRIAGES (THIS INCLUDES
ANNULMENT). 

NEW YORK DECLARES SOME MARRIAGES VOID FROM THE TIME THEIR NULLITY IS
DECLARED.  MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW YORK, BOOK 14, DOMESTIC
RELATIONS LAW, SEC. 7. 

FOR EFFECT ON DIFFERENT INCIDENTS, SEE HENNEGER V. LOMAS, 145 IND.
287, 44 N.E. 462 (SEDUCTION, TORT); BURNEY V. STATE, 111 TEX. CR. R.
599, 13 S.W.2D 375 (SEDUCTION, CRIMINAL); MILLER V. WALL, 216 ALA. 448,
113 SO. 501 (MARRIAGE, LATER ANNULLED, HELD ANNULMENT DID NOT POSTPONE
DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE, DISTRIBUTABLE MARRIAGE); DEEDS V. STRODE, 6
IDAHO 317, 55 P. 656 (CIVIL ACTION); FIGONI V. FIGONI, 211 CAL. 354,
295 P.2D 339 (DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY). 

FN18  THIS AVOIDS DOUBLE SUPPORT TO THE WIFE.  SLEICHER V. SLEICHER,
251 N.Y. 366, 167 N.E. 501.  SEE FRANK V. CARTER, 219 N.Y. 35, 113 N.E.
549 (HUSBAND LIABLE FOR NECESSARIES PRIOR TO ANNULMENT); IN THE MATTER
OF MONCRIEF, 235 N.Y. 390, 139 N.E. 550 (CHILD OF ANNULLED MARRIAGE,
ILLEGITIMATE). 

THE SLEICHER CASE CALLED FORTH MANY COMMENTS WHEN IT WAS HANDED
DOWN.  SEE 43 HARV. L. REV.  109; 30 COL. L. REV. 877; 25 ILL. L. REV.
99; 14 MINN. L. REV. 93; 39 YALE L.J. 133. 

FN19  LEHMANN V. LEHMANN, 225 ILL. APP. 513, SAYING: 

"WE THINK THAT SAID WORDS AS SO USED WERE INTENDED BY THE PARTIES TO
REFER TO THE CEREMONY OR ACT OF MARRIAGE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE
STATUS OR RELATION THEREAFTER."  P. 522. 

"EVEN THOUGH IT BE CONSIDERED THAT SUCH MARRIAGE WAS NOT A VALID ONE
IN ILLINOIS, IT WAS VALID IN NEW JERSEY, WHERE PERFORMED, AND ALSO
VALID IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT SUCCESSIVE DOMICILES, AND WE THINK THAT UNDER
ALL THE FACTS DISCLOSED IT SHOULD BE HELD, CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF
THE CHANCELLOR IN THE DECREE APPEALED FROM, THAT SHE REMARRIED WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE WORDS CONTAINED IN SAID DIVORCE DECREE OF APRIL 1,
1915, AND IN THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES
ABOUT THAT TIME, AND THAT SHE THEREBY ELECTED TO FORFEIT, AND DID
FORFEIT, HER RIGHT TO RECEIVE ALIMONY FOR HER OWN SUPPORT THEREAFTER
FROM RESPONDENT."  P. 526. 

THE ILLINOIS COURT WAS INFLUENCED BY THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION GIVEN
TO THE ALIMONY DECREE BY THE PARTIES.  PP. 516, 527.  SEE WILSON V.
COOK, 256 ILL. 460, 100 N.E. 222. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AGREES WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS AND WOULD AFFIRM
ITS JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES WHAT LITTLE EXCUSE IS LEFT FOR DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION, CERTAINLY SINCE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, HAS
CURBED THE UNWARRANTED FREEDOM OF FEDERAL COURTS TO FASHION RULES OF
LOCAL LAW IN DEFIANCE OF LOCAL LAW.  FOR MY BROTHER REED NATURALLY
ENOUGH CONCLUDES THAT THE TURNING POINT OF THIS CASE IS A MATTER OF
ILLINOIS LAW HAVING NO RELATION WHATEVER TO THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS
WHICH FEDERAL COURTS SERVE, AND A MATTER WHICH IS PECULIARLY ILL-SUITED
FOR DETERMINATION BY A FEDERAL COURT.  THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS
WHETHER THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY AN ILLINOIS DIVORCE DECREE TO PAY
ALIMONY "FOR SO LONG AS PLAINTIFF SHALL REMAIN UNMARRIED" CEASES UNDER
ILLINOIS LAW WHEN THE PLAINTIFF GOES THROUGH THE FORM OF ANOTHER
MARRIAGE CEREMONY REGARDLESS OF THE BINDING VALIDITY OF SUCH A
CEREMONY.  ILLINOIS IS FREE TO CONSULT SOLELY HER OWN WILL WHETHER SUCH
A PROVISION IN A DECREE RELATES MERELY TO CEREMONY OR REQUIRES A UNION
WITH A SPOUSE LEGALLY FREE TO MARRY.  ON THAT CRUCIAL ISSUE, WE ARE
TOLD, THERE IS NO ILLINOIS LAW.  BY WHAT SEEMS TO ME UNDESIRABLE
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, THE ASCERTAINMENT - FOR ALL I KNOW THE
FORMULATION - OF ILLINOIS LAW IS COMMITTED TO A FEDERAL COURT WHICH IN
THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS CAN RENDER ONLY A TENTATIVE AND INDECISIVE
JUDGMENT. 

TENTATIVE AND INDECISIVE, BECAUSE WHATEVER VIEW THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT TAKES ON THIS QUESTION MAY BE AUTHORITATIVELY
SUPPLANTED BY THE ONLY COURT THAT CAN FINALLY SETTLE THE ISSUE, NAMELY,
THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.  SUCH A DECISION FROM THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT CAN READILY BE SOLICITED BY THE PLAINTIFF THROUGH THE
ILLINOIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE.  IT IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF
CONTROVERSY FOR WHICH THE UTILITY OF THE DEVICE OF A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT HAS BEEN SO FULSOMELY ACCLAIMED.  INSTEAD OF AVAILING ITSELF
OF THIS MODERN PROCEDURE, THE COURT MAKES ITSELF A PARTY TO A DISCORD
WHICH PASSETH UNDERSTANDING. 

NO DOUBT THE COURT OF APPEALS MAY TENTATIVELY ANSWER THIS QUESTION OF
ILLINOIS LAW SO FAR AS THE IMMEDIATE PARTIES ARE CONCERNED.  BUT IT IS
NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE INTERESTS OF LAW IN GENERAL THAT THIS COURT SHOULD
COMPEL A DECISION IN A FEDERAL COURT WHICH TOMORROW OR THE DAY AFTER
MAY BE DEFINITIVELY CONTRADICTED BY THE STATE COURT WITH THE FINAL
SAY.  I WOULD REMAND THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS TO BE HELD BY IT
UNTIL THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED A DECISION ON THE
CRUCIAL QUESTION OF THE CASE IN THE ILLINOIS COURTS. 

SUBJECT TO THIS QUALIFICATION, I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE
COURT. 
..END :





GALLEGOS V. NEBRASKA 342 U.S. 55 


NO. 94.  ARGUED OCTOBER 8, 1951 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 26, 1951 - 152 NEB.
831, 43 N.W.2D 1, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, A 38-YEAR-OLD MEXICAN FARM HAND WHO CAN NEITHER SPEAK NOR
WRITE ENGLISH, WAS ARRESTED, JAILED AND QUESTIONED IN TEXAS, AND AFTER
FOUR DAYS, DURING WHICH HE CLAIMS HE WAS MISTREATED, HE CONFESSED TO A
HOMICIDE IN NEBRASKA.  THEREAFTER HE WAS TAKEN TO NEBRASKA, WHERE HE
AGAIN CONFESSED, ALTHOUGH HE MAKES NO CLAIM OF MISTREATMENT BY THE
NEBRASKA AUTHORITIES.  TWENTY-FIVE DAYS AFTER HIS ARREST AND FOURTEEN
DAYS AFTER HIS ARRIVAL IN NEBRASKA, HE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A MAGISTRATE
FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND HE PLEADED GUILTY.  TWO DAYS LATER, BEFORE
TRIAL, COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED TO DEFEND HIM.  AT HIS TRIAL IN A STATE
COURT, THE TWO CONFESSIONS AND THE PLEA WERE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER
HIS OBJECTION AND HE WAS CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER.  THE STATE SUPREME
COURT AFFIRMED.  HELD: UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID
THAT THE ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF THE CONFESSIONS AND PLEA VIOLATED
PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 56-68; 68-73. 

(A)  THE RULE OF MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, IS NOT A
LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TRIALS
OF CRIMINAL CASES IN STATE COURTS.  PP. 63-65; 71-72. 

(B)  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NEBRASKA
VIOLATED THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IN THIS CONVICTION.  PP. 60
63, 65-68; 68-73. 

GALLEGOS V. NEBRASKA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA. 

PETITIONER'S CONVICTION IN A STATE COURT OF NEBRASKA FOR
MANSLAUGHTER, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WAS AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  152
NEB. 831, 43 N.W.2D 1.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 947. 
AFFIRMED, P. 68. 

MR. JUSTICE REED ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN OPINION
IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK
JOIN. 

PETITIONER, AGAPITA GALLEGOS, WAS CONVICTED IN A DISTRICT COURT OF
NEBRASKA OF MANSLAUGHTER AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT, THE
MAXIMUM PENALTY.  THE CHARGE WAS THE SLAYING OF HIS PARAMOUR WITHOUT
DELIBERATION OR PREMEDITATION.  THIS JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS
SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA OVER THE OBJECTION THAT
INTRODUCTION AT THE TRIAL OF PETITIONER'S PRIOR STATEMENTS ADMITTING
THE HOMICIDE VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN
VIEW OF CERTAIN UNDENIED INCIDENTS GIVING COLOR TO PETITIONER'S
ALLEGATION OF UNFAIRNESS IN THE PROSECUTION, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT WERE VIOLATED BY THE ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENTS.  341 U.S.
947. 

ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1949, AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, PETITIONER, A THIRTY-EIGHT-YEAR
OLD MEXICAN FARM HAND WHO CAN NEITHER SPEAK NOR WRITE ENGLISH, WAS
ARRESTED, TOGETHER WITH HIS BROTHER, BY POLICE OFFICERS OF EL PASO
COUNTY, AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TEXAS, AND THERE BOOKED ON A CHARGE
OF VAGRANCY.  GALLEGOS HAD BEEN AN ITINERANT FARM WORKER IN THIS
COUNTRY BEFORE HIS ARREST AND HAD RECENTLY RETURNED HERE FOR SUCH
WORK. 

WE GATHER FROM THE ABBREVIATED RECORD THAT INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT BY
THE TEXAS AUTHORITIES AS TO PETITIONER'S ACTS IN NEBRASKA, WHERE HE HAD
WORKED THE PRECEDING YEAR.  AFTER ARREST, PETITIONER WAS QUESTIONED
REGARDING HIS IDENTITY.  HE AT ONCE GAVE A FALSE NAME.  THEREAFTER, HE
WAS JAILED IN A SMALL ROOM FOR THE NEXT TWENTY-ONE HOURS.  FURTHER
QUESTIONING TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY WAS HAD ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1949,
WITHOUT RESULT.  FOLLOWING HIS SECOND INTERROGATION, PETITIONER WAS
LEFT ALONE FOR FORTY-EIGHT HOURS.  ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1949, PETITIONER
WAS REMOVED FROM HIS CELL AND INTERROGATED.  AFTER HE GAVE HIS NAME AND
AN ADMISSION THAT HE HAD BEEN IN NEBRASKA, HE WAS RECONFINED; THIS TIME
CONFINEMENT RAN FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. 

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1949, PETITIONER DISCLOSED DETAILS OF THIS NEBRASKA
CRIME.  A STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE CRIME WAS IMMEDIATELY PREPARED IN
ENGLISH.  THIS WAS READ TO THE PETITIONER IN SPANISH, AND HE THEREAFTER
SIGNED IT.  HIS TEXAS DETENTION CONTINUED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27, 1949. 
DURING THE ENTIRE TIME NO CHARGE WAS FILED AGAINST HIM IN ANY STATE OR
FEDERAL COURT NOR WAS HE BROUGHT BEFORE A MAGISTRATE. 

WE HAVE GALLEGOS' EVIDENCE AS TO HIS TEXAS CONFINEMENT, THE ROOMS HE
WAS PLACED IN, THEIR CONDITION AS TO FURNISHINGS, AND THE FOOD
PROVIDED.  HIS TESTIMONY ON THESE POINTS IS MET ONLY IN PART BY THE
TESTIMONY OF THE CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF OF EL PASO, HIS INTERROGATOR. 
THERE WERE TIMES WHEN GALLEGOS WAS NOT UNDER HIS DIRECT OBSERVATION. 
NEBRASKA HAD NO OTHER WITNESS FOR THE TRIAL FAMILIAR WITH CONDITIONS OF
THE TEXAS RESTRAINT.  GALLEGOS' TESTIMONY THROUGH THE INTERPRETER
CONCERNING THESE MATTERS IS VAGUE.  FROM IT ONE GATHERS THAT GALLEGOS
SOUGHT TO CONVEY THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ROOMS WERE CELLS, THAT THE ONE
HE OCCUPIED FOR TWENTY-ONE HOURS WAS WITHOUT A BED, THAT ONE HE
OCCUPIED WAS WITHOUT LIGHT OR POORLY LIGHTED, AND THAT THE FOOD WAS
SPARSE, PERHAPS NOT MORE THAN A MEAL A DAY. 

DURING THE QUESTIONING IN THE FOUR-DAY PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 19TH
THROUGH THE 23D, THE STATE SAYS PETITIONER WAS NOT TREATED OR
THREATENED WITH VIOLENCE.  HIS QUESTIONING DID NOT LAST LONGER THAN AN
HOUR OR TWO ON ANY DAY AND ACCORDING TO THE RECORD WAS CONDUCTED ALMOST
ENTIRELY BY THE STATE'S WITNESS, THE CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF.  HOWEVER,
GALLEGOS TESTIFIES THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT HE MIGHT BE TURNED OVER TO THE
MEXICAN AUTHORITIES FOR MORE SEVERE QUESTIONING AND THAT A LIE DETECTOR
MIGHT BE USED UPON HIM.  THE RECORD SHOWS NO FLAT DENIAL OF GALLEGOS'
ASSERTIONS CONTAINED IN THE LAST SENTENCE, BUT IT DOES SHOW, BY
TESTIMONY OF THE DEPUTY SHERIFF, THAT NO THREATS OR PROMISES WERE MADE
AND THAT REFERENCE TO THE MEXICAN AUTHORITIES, IF MADE, WAS THAT
GALLEGOS WOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION SERVICE
WHO, IN TURN, WOULD DELIVER HIM TO THE MEXICAN IMMIGRATION SERVICE. 
GALLEGOS ALSO SPOKE OF THREATENED VIOLENCE.  (FN1) 

ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1949, A NEBRASKA SHERIFF REACHED TEXAS AND TOOK
PETITIONER TO THE SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY, NEBRASKA, JAIL, ARRIVING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, AT 1 A.M.  GALLEGOS WAS QUESTIONED ON SATURDAY,
OCTOBER 1, AT WHICH TIME HE WAS INTERVIEWED THROUGH AN INTERPRETER BY
THREE COUNTY POLICE OFFICERS.  HE DESCRIBED THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE WAS
CONVICTED.  A TRANSCRIPT IN ENGLISH OF THE INTERPRETER'S TRANSLATIONS
OF THE INTERVIEW WAS MADE AND SOME DAYS LATER READ BACK TO PETITIONER
IN A SPANISH RETRANSLATION.  THE EVIDENCE IS THAT GALLEGOS CONFIRMED
THIS RECORD.  THE RECORD SHOWN NO CLAIM OF MISTREATMENT BY NEBRASKA
AUTHORITIES. 

BY SEC. 29-406, NEB. REV. STAT., 1943, A POLICE OFFICER IS COMMANDED
TO TAKE AN ACCUSED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE.  THIS WAS NOT DONE UNTIL
OCTOBER 13, 1949, WHEN PETITIONER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNTY JUDGE
OF SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY FOR A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT
CHARGING MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.  THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME
PETITIONER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE ANY MAGISTRATE OR COURT.  AS AN INCIDENT
TO THE HEARING, PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO PLEAD.  HE PLEADED GUILTY. 
THESE TWO CONFESSIONS AND THE PLEA WERE INTRODUCED AT PETITIONER'S
TRIAL BY THE STATE.  ON OCTOBER 15, 1949, BEFORE TRIAL, THE DISTRICT
COURT OF SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY FOUND PETITIONER TO BE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
APPOINTED BY THE COURT, AND COUNSEL WAS THEN FOR THE FIRST TIME
APPOINTED. 

PETITIONER PRESENTS IN HIS BRIEF ONLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: 

"ARE CONFESSIONS AND A PLEA OBTAINED FROM A PRISONER DURING A PERIOD
OF TWENTY-FIVE DAYS ILLEGAL DETENTION BY FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICERS
BEFORE BEING BROUGHT BEFORE A MAGISTRATE AND BEFORE COUNSEL IS
APPOINTED TO ASSIST THE PRISONER ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE?" 

AN ANSWER REQUIRES AN EXAMINATION INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF RECORD
SURROUNDING THE STATEMENTS. 

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, ON THE BASIS OF FACTS IN THE
RECORD OF THE TRIAL, IT WAS URGED THAT THE CONFESSIONS AND PLEA WERE
INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THEY WERE THE RESULT OF "PHYSICAL TORTURE AND
THREATS OF TORTURE, MENTAL DURESS, ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION AND ILLEGAL
DETENTION," IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS.  AS
CONVICTION WITHOUT ACCEPTANCE OF THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE
CONFESSIONS WOULD LOGICALLY HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE, WE ASSUME THAT THE
JURY, UNDER APPLICABLE INSTRUCTIONS, FOUND THE STATEMENTS VOLUNTARY. 
152 NEB. 831, 837-840, 43 N.W.2D 1, 4-6.  EVIDENTLY, NEITHER JUDGE NOR
JURY ACCEPTED THE TESTIMONY OF GALLEGOS ON DISPUTED FACTS AS TO
COERCION.  WHERE DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF PETITIONER'S ASSERTIONS AS TO
CONDITIONS OF HIS DETENTION IN TEXAS WAS UNAVAILABLE OR UNOBTAINABLE,
THE JURY DISREGARDED OR MINIMIZED OR DISBELIEVED GALLEGOS TO SUCH AN
EXTENT THAT HIS CONFESSIONS WERE ACCEPTED AS VOLUNTARY.  THE DEPUTY
SHERIFF, THE PROSECUTION WITNESS IN THE BEST POSITION TO KNOW, DENIED
ANY COERCION BY PROMISE, THREAT OR VIOLENCE.  A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
APPROVED BY THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE AS VIOLATIVE OF DUE
PROCESS WITHOUT CLEAR PROOF THAT SUCH DRASTIC ACTION IS REQUIRED TO
PROTECT FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  WHILE OUR CONCLUSION ON DUE
PROCESS DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATIONS OF
JUDGES OR JURIES AS TO THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF A DEFENDANT'S
STATEMENTS PRIOR TO TRIAL, THE BETTER OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED THOSE STATE
AGENCIES TO APPRAISE THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, BECAUSE THE WITNESSES
GAVE IT PERSONALLY BEFORE THEM, LEADS US TO ACCEPT THEIR JUDGMENT
INSOFAR AS FACTS UPON WHICH CONCLUSIONS MUST BE REACHED ARE IN
DISPUTE.  THE STATE'S ULTIMATE CONCLUSION ON GUILT IS EXAMINED FROM THE
DUE PROCESS STANDPOINT IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS UNDISPUTED BY THE STATE. 
(FN2)  THAT MEANS NOT ONLY ADMITTED FACTS BUT ALSO THOSE THAT CAN BE
CLASSIFIED FROM THE RECORD AS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHALLENGE. 

AS THIS COURT HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH POWER TO INTERPRET AND APPLY
OUR CONSTITUTION TO THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO
FEDERAL DUE PROCESS IN STATE CRIMINAL TRIALS, THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF
THAT DUTY REQUIRES US TO EXAMINE, IN CASES BEFORE US, SUCH UNDISPUTED
FACTS AS FORM THE BASIS OF A STATE COURT'S DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT. 
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO. V. ALBERS COMM'N CO., 223 U.S. 573, 591;
NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 594; WATTS V. INDIANA, 338 U.S. 49,
51.  A CONTRARY RULE WOULD DENY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ULTIMATE
AUTHORITY TO REDRESS A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  AS STATE
COURTS ALSO ARE CHARGED WITH APPLYING CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS OF DUE
PROCESS, IN RECOGNITION OF THEIR SUPERIOR OPPORTUNITY TO APPRAISE
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY, WE GIVE DEFERENCE TO THEIR CONCLUSIONS ON
DISPUTED AND ESSENTIAL ISSUES OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  SEE NOTE 2,
INFRA.  ITS DUTY COMPELS THIS COURT, HOWEVER, TO DECIDE FOR ITSELF, ON
THE FACTS THAT ARE UNDISPUTED, THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A
JUDGMENT THAT DENIES CLAIMED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

CONTROVERSIES AS TO FACTS TAKE VARIOUS FORMS.  THE JURY MAY REACH A
VERDICT OF GUILTY ALTHOUGH THEY RESOLVED SOME SUBSIDIARY FACT IN FAVOR
OF THE ACCUSED.  IN GALLEGOS' CASE WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER HIS
ASSERTIONS NOT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED AS TO QUESTIONABLE CONDITIONS OF
HIS TEXAS DETENTION AND EXAMINATION WERE ACCEPTED AS TRUE BY THE JURY. 
IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE JURY THOUGHT THE CONFESSION VOLUNTARY
EVEN THOUGH IT IT BELIEVED ALL OF GALLEGOS' TESTIMONY.  AS WE CANNOT
ACCEPT THE VERDICT AS A FINDING SOLELY ON DISPUTED FACTS, WE MUST WEIGH
GALLEGOS' UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY ALONG WITH THE UNDISPUTED FACTS.  WE
ARE NOT FREE, AS NEBRASKA WAS, TO LEAVE TO THE JURY DETERMINATIONS OF
FACTS UPON WHICH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE STATEMENTS IS BASED.  (FN3) 

THE ISSUE OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS NOW TENDERED IS TO BE CONSIDERED
ONLY ON UNCONTROVERTED FACTS.  THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED
DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM THE ADMITTED CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE TWO
CONFESSIONS OF SEPTEMBER 23 AND OCTOBER 1 WERE GIVEN TO POLICE OFFICERS
AFTER ARREST IN TEXAS ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1949, WHILE NO MAGISTRATE WITH
SUPERVISORY POWER OVER THE EXAMINATIONS WAS PRESENT AND WHILE THE
ACCUSED WAS WITHOUT COUNSEL.  CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE TEXAS, AS
WELL AS THE NEBRASKA, CONFESSION MUST BE APPRAISED BECAUSE NEBRASKA
INTRODUCED THE TEXAS CONFESSION IN EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL.  THE USE OF
ANY CONFESSION OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THE
REVERSAL OF A CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE, ADEQUATE TO
CONVICT, REMAINS.  MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 404.  BOTH
STATES REQUIRE FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE TO BE PROMPTLY TAKEN BEFORE A
MAGISTRATE ON ARREST FOR EXTRADITION.  TEXAS, VERNON'S CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, ARTS. 998, 999, 217.  NEB. REV. STAT., 1943, SECS. 29-713,
29-715.  THE QUESTION MUST BE WEIGHED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
UNCONTRADICTED PORTION OF GALLEGOS' OWN TESTIMONY OF HARSH TREATMENT
AND THE ANSWERS OF THE PROSECUTION AND THE JUDGE AND THE JURY.  THE
PLEA OF GUILTY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON OCTOBER 13 IS ALSO A
FACTOR.  WE THEREFORE LIMIT OUR EXAMINATION TO AN INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER
USE AT TRIAL OF THESE ADMISSIONS OF GUILT THERETOFORE MADE BY AN
ACCUSED VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE DECISION AND JUDGMENT BELOW DETERMINE FOR US THAT UNDER THE LAW
OF NEBRASKA SUCH DETENTION AND EXAMINATION, WITHOUT APPEARANCE OR
ARRAIGNMENT, DO NOT REQUIRE EXCLUSION OF THE CONFESSIONS OR PLEA AS
INVOLUNTARY.  (FN4)  THE RULE OF THE MCNABB CASE, CONSIDERED RECENTLY
IN UNITED STATES V. CARIGNAN, 342 U.S. 36, IS NOT A LIMITATION IMPOSED
BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 340;
LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596, 597, NOTE 2.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE
MCNABB RULE IS REQUIRED IN FEDERAL COURTS BY THIS COURT THROUGH ITS
POWER OF SUPERVISION OVER THE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICES OF FEDERAL COURTS
IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES.  THAT POWER OVER STATE CRIMINAL TRIALS
IS NOT VESTED IN THIS COURT.  A CONFESSION CAN BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE
IN A STATE CRIMINAL TRIAL BY THIS COURT ONLY WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH IT IS RECEIVED VIOLATE THOSE "FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE" PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
INFRACTION BY ANY STATE.  (FN5) 

THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT COMMAND A STATE TO FURNISH
DEFENDANTS COUNSEL AS A MATTER OF COURSE, AS IS REQUIRED BY THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT IN FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS.  (FN6)  LACK OF COUNSEL AT STATE
NONCAPITAL TRIALS DENIES FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION ONLY WHEN
THE ABSENCE RESULTS IN A DENIAL TO ACCUSED OF THE ESSENTIALS OF
JUSTICE.  (FN7)  LACK OF COUNSEL PRIOR TO TRIAL CERTAINLY HAS NO
GREATER EFFECT.  LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, P. 599.  "THE MERE FACT THAT
A CONFESSION WAS MADE WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE POLICE DOES NOT
RENDER IT INADMISSIBLE."  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 346;
CF. UNITED STATES V. CARIGNAN, 342 U.S. 36, 39.    PROLONGED DETENTION
WITHOUT A CHARGE OF CRIME OR WITHOUT PRELIMINARY APPEARANCE BEFORE A
MAGISTRATE, THE LACK OF COUNSEL BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER ARRAIGNMENT,
AND CONFESSION TO THE POLICE IN PRIVATE, ARE, HOWEVER, ELEMENTS THAT
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER A CONFESSION, PERMITTED TO
BE INTRODUCED AND RELIED UPON AT A TRIAL, HAS BEEN OBTAINED UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ITS USE VIOLATES DUE PROCESS.  WATTS V. INDIANA, 338
U.S. 49, 54.  OF COURSE, THE PLEA OF GUILTY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING
SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS THE CONFESSIONS. 

SO FAR AS DUE PROCESS AFFECTS ADMISSIONS BEFORE TRIAL OF THE
DEFENDANT, THE ACCEPTED TEST IS THEIR VOLUNTARINESS.  (FN8)  THIS
REQUIRES APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS OF EACH PARTICULAR CASE OPEN TO
CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT.  IN RECENT CASES, WHERE UNDISPUTED FACTS
EXISTED FAR MORE LIKELY TO PRODUCE INVOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS THAN THOSE
IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHETHER DUE PROCESS WAS
VIOLATED.  (FN9)  THE FACTS HERE TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS ARE NOT SO CONVINCING. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE RECORD DISCLOSED A
SERIOUS CHARGE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AGAINST NEBRASKA PROCEDURE
IN A CRIMINAL CASE.  WE HAVE CAREFULLY WEIGHED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
PETITIONER'S LACK OF EDUCATION AND FAMILIARITY WITH OUR LAW, HIS
EXPERIENCE AND CONDITION IN LIFE, HIS NEED FOR ADVICE OF COUNSEL AS TO
THE LAW OF HOMICIDE AND THE PROBABLE EFFECT ON SUCH A MAN OF
INTERROGATION DURING CONFINEMENT.  WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION GALLEGOS' UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY ABOUT HIS
ACCOMMODATIONS, HIS LIMITED AMOUNTS OF FOOD AND CERTAIN THREATS MADE BY
A TEXAS ASSISTANT SHERIFF NOT PRESENT AT THE TRIAL.  THE UNCERTAIN
CHARACTER OF THIS UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY, ITS LACK OF DEFINITENESS,
AND THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE AND JURY LEAD US TO PLACE LITTLE
WEIGHT UPON IT.  OUR POSITION IS CONFIRMED BY GALLEGOS' REITERATION OF
HIS CONFESSION WHILE IN CUSTODY IN NEBRASKA, WHEN HE CHARGES NO
COERCION EXCEPT DETENTION.  SEE LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596, 603. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT NEBRASKA HAS HERE VIOLATED STANDARDS OF DECENCY OR
JUSTICE IN THIS CONVICTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "A.  AT ANY TIME WHEN ANYBODY WAS TALKING TO YOU AT THE JAIL IN
EL PASO, TEXAS, DID THEY ACT LIKE THEY WERE TRYING TO SCARE YOU? 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"A. YES, SIR. 

"Q.  TELL US WHEN THAT WAS? 

"A.  WHEN THEY STARTED TO INVESTIGATE ME. 

"Q.  WAS THAT THE FIRST DAY YOU WERE IN JAIL OR THE SECOND DAY OR THE
THIRD DAY? 

"A.  THE FIRST DAY. 

"Q.  TELL US WHAT HAPPENED. 

"A.  THEY TRIED TO GET WORDS OUT OF MY FORCIBLY BY ANOTHER SHERIFF
THAT IS THERE. 

"Q.  DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT OTHER SHERIFF WAS? 

"A.  I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS NAME IS. 

"Q.  HAVE YOU SEEN HIM HERE IN THIS COURT ROOM? 

"A.  NO, SIR. 

"Q.  WHAT DID HE DO? 

"A.  HE WOULD NOT TAKE HIS EYES AWAY FROM ME AND HE SEEMED LIKE HE
WANTED TO HIT ME AND I WAS FRIGHTENED AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO." 
(R. 84-85.) 

"Q.  BUT YOU SAY NO ONE STRUCK YOU? 

"A.  NO. 

"Q.  AND NO ONE EVER RAISED THEIR ARM AS IF THEY WERE GOING TO STRIKE
YOU? 

"A.  THE OTHER FELLOW. 

"Q.  WHAT OTHER FELLOW? 

"A.  THE OTHER ONE THAT INVESTIGATED ME. 

"Q.  WHERE DID HE DO THAT? 

"A.  IN ONE ROOM THAT HE HAD THERE WHERE HE WAS INVESTIGATING ME. 

"Q.  HOW DID HE THREATEN TO STRIKE YOU? 

"A.  WITH HIS HAND. 

"Q.  DID HE STRIKE YOU AT THAT TIME? 

"A.  HE JUST RAISED HIS HAND. 

"Q.  DID HE SAY HE WAS GOING TO STRIKE YOU? 

"A.  HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO HIT ME BECAUSE I WOULD NOT TELL HIM THE
TRUTH. 

"Q.  BUT HE STILL DID NOT HIT YOU? 

"A.  NO, HE DID NOT HIT ME."  (R. 90-91.) 

FN2  LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596, 603; MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324
U.S. 401, 404; HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596, 599; WATTS V. INDIANA, 338
U.S. 49, 51.  CF. LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 238-241. 

FN3  152 NEB. 839, 43 N.W.2D 5: 

"WHILE THERE IS TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT FROM WHICH THE JURY
COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CONFESSIONS MADE WERE INVOLUNTARY DUE TO THE
MANNER IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS HELD IN CONFINEMENT, THE TREATMENT
RECEIVED WHILE SO HELD, AND THE THREATS MADE; HOWEVER, THE TESTIMONY OF
THE AUTHORITIES IN CHARGE, BOTH AT EL PASO AND SCOTTSBLUFF, DENY THESE
FACTS AND WHEN THEIR TESTIMONY IS TAKEN TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN TESTIMONY
OF THE DEFENDANT, IT PRESENTS A FACTUAL SITUATION FROM WHICH THE JURY
COULD PROPERLY FIND THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY
MADE.  THIS INCLUDES THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE EVIDENCE OFFERED AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY TRANSLATED AT THE PRELIMINARY
HEARING SO IT WAS UNDERSTOOD BY THE DEFENDANT IN MAKING HIS PLEA
THERETO.  IT ALSO INCLUDES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT HE UNDERSTOOD
THE NATURE OR DEGREE OF THE CRIME WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED.  THESE
ISSUES BOTH RELATE THEMSELVES DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR
NOT HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE WAS DOING WHEN HE MADE HIS ADMISSION OF GUILT
AND CONSEQUENTLY RELATE DIRECTLY TO WHETHER IT WAS VOLUNTARILY OR
INVOLUNTARILY MADE." 

FN4  GALLEGOS V. STATE, 152 NEB. 831, 839-840, 43 N.W.2D 1, 6: 

"IN REGARD TO HOW SOON AFTER A PERSON IS ARRESTED HE MUST BE GIVEN A
PRELIMINARY HEARING WE SAID IN MAHER V. STATE, 144 NEB. 463, 13 N.W.2D
641: 'THE QUESTION AS TO THE TIME IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE
GIVEN A PRELIMINARY HEARING IS A QUESTION FOR THE COURT.  THERE CAN BE
NO PRECISE LENGTH OF TIME, AFTER THE ARREST OF A PERSON, IN WHICH HE
MUST BE GIVEN A HEARING.  THE THEORY OF THE LAW IS THAT HE MUST BE
GIVEN A HEARING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.  A PERSON CHARGED SHOULD BE GIVEN
A PRELIMINARY HEARING JUST AS SOON AS THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE WILL PERMIT.' 

"  ...  HERE THE COURT, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, HEARD ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE RELATING THERETO AND DETERMINED THAT SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION HAD
BEEN LAID FOR THEIR ADMISSION.  THE EVIDENCE WAS THEN PRESENTED TO THE
JURY AND THE QUESTION AS TO THEIR CHARACTER, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR
INVOLUNTARY, WAS SUBMITTED TO IT BY THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS NOS. 12,
13, AND 14.  WE FIND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO THE GIVING
OF THE TWO CONFESSIONS AND THE ADMISSION OF GUILT AT THE PRELIMINARY
HEARING JUSTIFIED THE TRIAL COURT IN ADMITTING THEM IN EVIDENCE IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE AND SUBMITTING THEIR CHARACTER, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR
INVOLUNTARY, TO THE JURY.  SEE KITTS.  V. STATE (151 NEB. 679, 39
N.W.2D 283)." 

FN5  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316; ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA,
332 U.S. 46, 54. 

FN6  QUICKSALL V. MICHIGAN, 339 U.S. 660; BUTE V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S.
640; FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134. 

FN7  UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, 335 U.S. 437, 441; BETTS V. BRADY, 316
U.S. 455, 462; COMPARE HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271, 278. 

FN8  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278, 285-286; CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 236, 238; LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219,
238. 

FN9  WATTS V. INDIANA, 338 U.S. 49, 51, 52: 

"ON NOVEMBER 12, 1947, A WEDNESDAY, PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED AND HELD
AS THE SUSPECTED PERPETRATOR OF AN ALLEGED CRIMINAL ASSAULT EARLIER IN
THE DAY.  LATER THE SAME DAY, IN THE VICINITY OF THIS OCCURRENCE, A
WOMAN WAS FOUND DEAD UNDER CONDITIONS SUGGESTING MURDER IN THE COURSE
OF AN ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL ASSAULT.  SUSPICION OF MURDER QUICKLY TURNED
TOWARDS PETITIONER AND THE POLICE BEGAN TO QUESTION HIM.  THEY TOOK HIM
FROM THE COUNTY JAIL TO STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, WHERE HE WAS
QUESTIONED BY OFFICERS IN RELAYS FROM ABOUT 11:30 THAT NIGHT UNTIL
SOMETIME BETWEEN 2:30 AND 3 O'CLOCK THE FOLLOWING MORNING.  THE SAME
PROCEDURE OF PERSISTENT INTERROGATION FROM ABOUT 5:30 IN THE AFTERNOON
UNTIL ABOUT 3 O'CLOCK THE FOLLOWING MORNING, BY A RELAY OF SIX TO EIGHT
OFFICERS, WAS PURSUED ON THURSDAY THE 13TH, FRIDAY THE 14TH, SATURDAY
THE 15TH, MONDAY THE 17TH.  SUNDAY WAS A DAY OF REST FROM
INTERROGATION.  ABOUT 3 O'CLOCK ON TUESDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 18, THE
PETITIONER MADE AN INCRIMINATING STATEMENT AFTER CONTINUOUS QUESTIONING
SINCE 6 O'CLOCK OF THE PRECEDING EVENING.  THE STATEMENT DID NOT
SATISFY THE PROSECUTOR WHO HAD BEEN CALLED IN AND HE THEN TOOK
PETITIONER IN HAND.   PETITIONER, QUESTIONED BY AN INTERROGATOR OF
TWENTY YEARS' EXPERIENCE AS LAWYER, JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR, YIELDED A
MORE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT. 

"UNTIL HIS INCULPATORY STATEMENTS WERE SECURED, THE PETITIONER WAS A
PRISONER IN THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES.  HE
WAS KEPT FOR THE FIRST TWO DAYS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN A CELL APTLY
ENOUGH CALLED 'THE HOLE' IN VIEW OF ITS PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AS
DESCRIBED BY THE STATE'S WITNESSES.  APART FROM THE FIVE NIGHT
SESSIONS, THE POLICE INTERMITTENTLY INTERROGATED WATTS DURING THE DAY
AND ON THREE DAYS DROVE HIM AROUND TOWN, HOURS AT A TIME, WITH A VIEW
TO ELICITING IDENTIFICATIONS AND OTHER DISCLOSURES.  ALTHOUGH THE LAW
OF INDIANA REQUIRED THAT PETITIONER BE GIVEN A PROMPT PRELIMINARY
HEARING BEFORE A MAGISTRATE, WITH ALL THE PROTECTION A HEARING WAS
INTENDED TO GIVE HIM, THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ONLY GIVEN NO HEARING
DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF INTERROGATION BUT WAS WITHOUT FRIENDLY OR
PROFESSIONAL AID AND WITHOUT ADVICE AS TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
DISREGARD OF RUDIMENTARY NEEDS OF LIFE - OPPORTUNITIES FOR SLEEP AND A
DECENT ALLOWANCE OF FOOD - ARE ALSO RELEVANT, NOT AS AGGRAVATING
ELEMENTS OF PETITIONER'S TREATMENT, BUT AS PART OF THE TOTAL SITUATION
OUT OF WHICH HIS CONFESSIONS CAME AND WHICH STAMPED THEIR CHARACTER." 

TURNER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 338 U.S. 62, 63-64: 

"THE OFFICERS MAKING THE ARREST HAD NO WARRANT AND DID NOT TELL THE
PETITIONER WHY HE WAS BEING ARRESTED.  THESE OFFICERS BEGAN TO QUESTION
THE PETITIONER AS SOON AS THEY REACHED THE CITY HALL POLICE STATION. 
ONE OF THEM EXAMINED THE PETITIONER FOR THREE HOURS ON THAT AFTERNOON
AND AGAIN THAT NIGHT FROM EIGHT TO ELEVEN O'CLOCK.  FROM TIME TO TIME
OTHER OFFICERS JOINED IN THE INTERROGATION.  PETITIONER PERSISTENTLY
DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE MURDER. 

"THE NEXT MORNING, JUNE 4, THE PETITIONER WAS BOOKED ON THE POLICE
RECORDS AS BEING HELD FOR QUESTIONING.  LATER THAT DAY HE WAS
QUESTIONED FOR ABOUT FOUR HOURS MORE.  ON JUNE 5 HE WAS INTERROGATED
FOR ANOTHER FOUR HOURS AND ON THE 6TH FOR DAY AND NIGHT SESSIONS
TOTALING SIX HOURS.  THE QUESTIONING WAS CONDUCTED SOMETIMES BY ONE
OFFICER AND AT OTHER TIMES BY SEVERAL WORKING TOGETHER; IT APPEARS, IN
FACT, THAT WHENEVER ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS INTERESTED IN THE
INVESTIGATION HAD ANY FREE TIME HE WOULD HAVE THE PETITIONER BROUGHT
FROM HIS CELL FOR QUESTIONING. 

"ON JUNE 7, THE DAY WHEN A CONFESSION WAS FINALLY OBTAINED,
QUESTIONING BEGAN IN THE AFTERNOON AND CONTINUED FOR THREE HOURS. 
LATER THAT DAY THE OFFICERS WHO HAD BEEN PRESENT DURING THE AFTERNOON
RETURNED WITH OTHERS TO RESUME THE EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER.  DESPITE
THE FACT THAT HE WAS FALSELY TOLD THAT OTHER SUSPECTS HAD 'OPENED UP'
ON HIM, PETITIONER REPEATEDLY DENIED GUILT.  BUT FINALLY, AT ABOUT
ELEVEN O'CLOCK, PETITIONER STATED THAT HE HAD KILLED THE PERSON FOR
WHOSE MURDER HE WAS LATER ARRAIGNED." 

HARRIS V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 338 U.S. 68, 69-70: 

"ON MONDAY NIGHT QUESTIONING BEGAN IN EARNEST.  AT LEAST FIVE
OFFICERS WORKED IN RELAYS, RELIEVING EACH OTHER FROM TIME TO TIME TO
PERMIT RESPITE FROM THE STIFLING HEAT OF THE CUBICLE IN WHICH THE
INTERROGATION WAS CONDUCTED.  THROUGHOUT THE EVENING PETITIONER DENIED
THAT HE HAD KILLED THE BENNETTS.  ON TUESDAY THE QUESTIONING CONTINUED
UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS FROM 1:30 IN THE AFTERNOON UNTIL PAST ONE THE
FOLLOWING MORNING WITH ONLY AN HOUR'S INTERVAL AT 5:30.  ON WEDNESDAY
AFTERNOON THE CHIEF OF THE STATE CONSTABULARY, WITH HALF A DOZEN OF HIS
MEN, QUESTIONED PETITIONER FOR ABOUT AN HOUR, AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES
CARRIED ON THE INTERROGATION FOR THREE AND A HALF HOURS LONGER.  AT
6:30 THAT EVENING THE EXAMINATION RESUMED.  PETITIONER CONTINUED TO
DENY IMPLICATION IN THE KILLINGS.  THE SHERIFF THEN THREATENED TO
ARREST PETITIONER'S MOTHER FOR HANDLING STOLEN PROPERTY.  PETITIONER
REPLIED, 'DON'T GET MY MOTHER MIXED UP IN IT AND I WILL TELL YOU THE
TRUTH.'  PETITIONER THEN STATED IN SUBSTANCE WHAT APPEARS IN THE
CONFESSION INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL.  THE SESSION ENDED AT MIDNIGHT. 

"PETITIONER WAS NOT INFORMED OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER SOUTH CAROLINA LAW,
SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SECURE A LAWYER, THE RIGHT TO REQUEST A
PRELIMINARY HEARING, OR THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.  NO PRELIMINARY
HEARING WAS EVER GIVEN AND HIS CONFESSION DOES NOT EVEN CONTAIN THE
USUAL STATEMENT THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT WHAT HE SAID MIGHT BE USED
AGAINST HIM.  DURING THE SHOLE PERIOD OF INTERROGATION HE WAS DENIED
THE BENEFIT OF CONSULTATION WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND WAS SURROUNDED
BY AS MANY AS A DOZEN MEMBERS OF A DOMINANT GROUP IN POSITIONS OF
AUTHORITY.  IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT HARRIS WAS AN ILLITERATE." 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS, CONCURRING. 

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA IS THE PARTY THAT WE HAVE SUMMONED TO ANSWER
FOR STATE ACTION CLAIMED TO VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  I BEGIN,
THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING JUST WHAT NEBRASKA ITSELF HAS DONE THAT MAY
BE SAID TO VIOLATE RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER. 

NEBRASKA AUTHORITIES WERE NOT PURSUING GALLEGOS.  THEY DID NOT KNOW
THAT MURDER HAD BEEN DONE IN THAT STATE AND WERE UNDER NO PRESSURE TO
PIN GUILT ON SOMEONE.  GALLEGOS, A MEXICAN ILLEGALLY IN THIS COUNTRY,
HAD BEEN A TRANSIENT WORKER IN NEBRASKA BEET FIELDS AND HAD WITH HIM A
WOMAN AND TWO CHILDREN.  THE WHENCE AND WHITHER OF THEIR COMINGS AND
GOINGS MADE NO IMPRESSION ON THE COMMUNITY, AND WHEN THEY DISAPPEARED
NO ONE ASKED HOW OR WHY.    FROM TEXAS AUTHORITIES, HOWEVER, CAME WORD
THAT A MEXICAN, HELD THERE AT REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, HAD CONFESSED TO MURDERING HIS WOMAN IN
NEBRASKA AND HAD TOLD WHERE THE BODY WAS BURIED.  NEBRASKA DOES NOT
CHARGE MURDER ON THE BASIS OF A CONFESSION WITHOUT PROOF OF THE CORPUS
DELICTI, SO THE NEBRASKA OFFICERS - FROM INFORMATION GIVEN BY GALLEGOS
IN TEXAS - FOUND A GRAVE AND A DECOMPOSED BODY ULTIMATELY IDENTIFIED AS
THAT OF THE WOMAN WHO HAD BEEN LIVING THERE WITH GALLEGOS WITHOUT
BENEFIT OF CLERGY.  ONLY AFTER THIS DISCOVERY AND IDENTIFICATION WERE
THEY IN A POSITION TO MAKE A MURDER CHARGE. 

GALLEGOS WAS BROUGHT FROM TEXAS TO SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY, NEBRASKA. 
THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME HE WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF NEBRASKA.  THERE IS
NOT THE SLIGHTEST PROOF OR SUGGESTION BY THE DEFENDANT OR HIS COUNSEL
THAT NEBRASKA OFFICIALS ABUSED, THREATENED, OR UNDULY QUESTIONED HIM. 
ON THE CONTRARY, HE WILLINGLY TOLD HOW HE BEAT HIS PARAMOUR TO DEATH IN
A FIT OF JEALOUSY.  THE ONLY COMPLAINT AGAINST NEBRASKA IS THAT IT
DETAINED GALLEGOS AN UNDULY LONG TIME BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT.  EVEN IF IT
DID, THE DELAY WAS AFTER CONFESSION AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
FOR ANY SINISTER PURPOSE OF COERCING ONE, NOR COULD THE DETENTION HAVE
BEEN THE CAUSE OF CONFESSION.  THERE IS NOT, FROM ANY STATE ACTION BY
NEBRASKA, THE SLIGHTEST GROUND FOR INFERENCE THAT THE CONFESSION TO ITS
OFFICIALS WAS NOT GIVEN VOLUNTARILY. 

UPON THE TRIAL, HOWEVER, THE PROSECUTION PROVED NOT ONLY THE NEBRASKA
CONFESSION BUT ALSO AN EARLIER ONE MADE IN TEXAS.  IN CONNECTION WITH
THE LATTER, VAGUE ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE AGAINST THE TEXAS OFFICIALS. 
PERHAPS THE PROSECUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL ADVISED NOT TO HAVE PROVED
HOW THE MURDER ORIGINALLY CAME TO LIGHT.  BUT THE PROSECUTION CHOSE TO
LAY THE WHOLE MATTER BEFORE THE JURY, AND HAD IT FAILED TO DO SO IT
WOULD NO DOUBT HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH SOME SINISTER PURPOSE IN ITS
SUPPRESSION. 

EVEN IF WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT TEXAS OFFICIALS COERCED THIS
CONFESSION, THEY WERE NOT ACTING AT THE REQUEST OF NEBRASKA NOR IN ANY
SENSE AS HER AGENT.  BEFORE WE COULD REVERSE THE CONVICTION, WE WOULD
HAVE TO DECIDE A QUESTION NOT HERETOFORE ANSWERED IN ANY DECISION THAT
I RECALL, NAMELY, WHETHER NEBRASKA MERELY BY ADMITTING A COERCED
FOREIGN CONFESSION IN EVIDENCE WOULD DENY DUE PROCESS.  INSOFAR AS THE
REASON FOR EXCLUSION IS TO PREVENT CONVICTIONS ON COERCED CONFESSIONS,
WHICH ARE SHOWN BY LEGAL EXPERIENCE TO BE INTRINSICALLY UNRELIABLE, I
SHOULD SUPPOSE THAT ANY DEFECT IN ITS ORIGIN WOULD INHERE IN THE
CONFESSION WHEREVER OFFERED.  INSOFAR, HOWEVER, AS THE REASON FOR
EXCLUSION IS TO DETER STATES FROM ATTEMPTING COERCION IN ORDER TO BRING
ABOUT CONVICTIONS, THE REASON WOULD HARDLY APPLY TO A CASE WHERE A
STATE OF CONFESSION SOUGHT NO CONVICTION AND THE STATE OF CONVICTION
DID NOT SEEK THE CONFESSION.  BUT HERE THERE IS NO NEED TO RESOLVE SUCH
DIFFICULT QUESTIONS IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION, FOR I FIND NO COERCION
SUCH AS WOULD REQUIRE EXCLUSION OF THIS CONFESSION, EVEN IF NEBRASKA BE
HELD TO ANSWER FOR THE CONDUCT OF EVERY OFFICIAL INVOLVED. 

GALLEGOS WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY THE TEXAS AUTHORITIES AT THE
REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION SERVICE.  THEY HAD PROBABLE
CAUSE TO BELIEVE HE WAS ILLEGALLY IN THE COUNTRY, AS INDEED HE WAS, AND
I SHOULD NOT SUPPOSE HIS DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL.  THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF
DOES NOT CLAIM THAT HE WAS BEATEN, UNDULY QUESTIONED, OR THREATENED,
EXCEPT THAT HE WAS TOLD HE MIGHT BE SHIPPED BACK TO MEXICO AND TURNED
OVER TO THE MEXICAN AUTHORITIES - A STATEMENT WHICH, IF MADE, WAS
PATENTLY TRUE. 

IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE DETAINING OFFICERS DID NOT KNOW
OF THIS MURDER EXCEPT THAT THE IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS APPARENTLY HAD
SOME INFORMATION THAT THE WOMAN IN THE CASE HAD DISAPPEARED.  THE TEXAS
AUTHORITIES WERE NOT UNDER PRESSURE TO SOLVE A LOCAL MURDER.  IT IS NOT
EVEN CLEAR THAT THEY ACCUSED GALLEGOS OF MURDER AND CERTAINLY THEY HAD
NO THEORY OF A CRIME WHICH THEY WERE TRYING TO SUPPORT BY OBTAINING A
CONFESSION. 

BUT "THE GUILTY FLEE WHEN NO MAN PURSUETH."  FOR THREE DAYS, GALLEGOS
REFUSED TO TELL HIS NAME.  BUT WHEN HE FINALLY REVEALED HIS IDENTITY,
HE WENT ON AND TOLD ALL.  HE MAY HAVE BEEN OF THE IMPRESSION THAT THE
AUTHORITIES WHO WERE HOLDING HIM KNEW MORE THAN THEY DID.  ONLY THE
FACT THAT HE WAS IN CUSTODY, THE FEAR THAT HIS DEEDS WERE KNOWN, AND
THE WEIGHT OF THE CRIME ON HIS CONSCIENCE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE COERCED
THIS CONFESSION. 

THIS DEFENDANT'S TRIAL APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN SCRUPULOUSLY FAIR AND
DISPASSIONATE.  THE JURY AND THE NEBRASKA COURTS APPEAR TO HAVE WEIGHED
ALL OF THE CLAIMS OF GALLEGOS FAIRLY AND FOUND, WHAT I DO NOT SEE HOW
THEY COULD AVOID FINDING, THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE VOLUNTARY WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE LAW.   THESE ARE NOT CONFESSIONS OBTAINED TO FIT THE
FACTS KNOWN TO THE OFFICIALS.  IT IS A CASE WHERE THE OFFICIALS WERE
DIRECTED TO FACTS THAT FITTED DETAILS OF THE CONFESSION.  NOR IS IT A
CASE WHERE THE CONFESSION WAS ALTERED OR EMBELLISHED IN A PROLONGED
PROCESS OF EXAMINATION.  THE STORY FIRST GIVEN TO THE AUTHORITIES IN
TEXAS IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT RECITED TO THE NEBRASKA
AUTHORITIES IN GREATER DETAIL. 

INDEED NO CONTENTION IS BROUGHT TO THIS COURT THAT THE CONFESSIONS
WERE IN FACT COERCED OR INVOLUNTARY.  THE REASON NO SUCH CONTENTION IS
MADE IS THAT CAPABLE AND ZEALOUS COUNSEL CANNOT SUPPORT THEM ON THIS
RECORD.  BUT THE CONTENTION IS THAT BOTH CONFESSIONS SHOULD BE MADE
INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE WE SHOULD CONVERT THE SO-CALLED MCNABB
RULE, A RULE OF EVIDENCE FOR FEDERAL COURTS, INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATION UPON THE STATES.  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332. 
THE CLAIM, AND THE ONLY CLAIM, IS THAT BECAUSE GALLEGOS WAS NOT
ARRAIGNED BY TEXAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER ARREST AND AGAIN BY NEBRASKA
IMMEDIATELY AFTER ARRIVAL IN THAT STATE, EACH DETENTION WAS ILLEGAL AND
THE CONFESSIONS, EVEN IF MADE WITHOUT ABUSE OR THREAT OF IT, BUT AS A
RESULT OF QUESTIONING DURING THIS DETENTION, ARE INADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE.  THE ONLY "QUESTION PRESENTED" BY THE PETITION TO THIS COURT
READS: "ARE CONFESSIONS OF AN ACCUSED OBTAINED FROM HIM DURING A
PROLONGED PERIOD OF UNLAWFUL DETENTION BEFORE HE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A
MAGISTRATE AND BEFORE A COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED TO ASSIST HIM, ADMISSIBLE
IN EVIDENCE?"  EVERY ONE OF THE THREE SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR URGED IN
PETITIONER'S BRIEF IS BASED ON "TWENTY-FIVE DAYS OF UNLAWFUL DETENTION"
AND ON THAT ALONE. 

LET US SEE WHAT THIS WOULD MEAN AS APPLIED TO TEXAS.  TEXAS MADE THE
ARREST AT THE REQUEST OF THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES AND IT IS NOT
DENIED THAT THEY HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE HE WAS AN ALIEN WHO HAD
ENTERED THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY.  BUT, FOR THREE DAYS HE WOULD NOT TELL
HIS NAME.  I SHOULD NOT SUPPOSE THE AUTHORITIES WERE OBLIGED TO RELEASE
AN OBVIOUS ALIEN SO CHARGED BEFORE THEY COULD LEARN HIS IDENTITY.  THEN
HE DISCLOSED THE MURDER.  BUT THE MURDER DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN TEXAS. 
THAT STATE OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT ARRAIGN HIM FOR IT.  WAS IT OBLIGED TO
TURN LOOSE A CONFESSED MURDERER BECAUSE THE MURDER OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF
THEIR JURISDICTION?  IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME THAT TO HOLD SUCH A PERSON
WITHOUT ARRAIGNMENT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DENIES DUE PROCESS,
UNLESS DUE PROCESS PROHIBITS SOCIETY FROM TAKING COMMON-SENSE STEPS TO
SOLVE A MURDER. 

BUT IT IS COMPLAINED THAT NEBRASKA HELD HIM TOO LONG (JUST HOW LONG
IS TOO LONG WE NEVER ARE TOLD) WITHOUT ARRAIGNMENT.  AS I HAVE POINTED
OUT, NEBRASKA KNEW NOTHING OF THE MURDER AND HAD TO CONDUCT AN
INVESTIGATION BEFORE IT COULD MAKE A PROPERLY SUPPORTED CHARGE OF
MURDER.  CERTAINLY DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT CHARGES BE PLACED
HURRIEDLY AND RECKLESSLY.  SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY IS A RURAL COUNTY WITH
LESS THAN FORTY THOUSAND INHABITANTS, MORE THAN HALF OF WHOM ARE
CONCENTRATED IN TWO TOWNS, THE LARGEST OF WHICH HAS A POPULATION OF
ONLY TWELVE THOUSAND.  THE SMALL PROSECUTING STAFF THAT SUCH A COUNTY
WOULD MAINTAIN CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO MOVE WITH THE SPEED OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, WITH ITS MANY THOUSAND AGENTS AND COUNTLESS ATTORNEYS, OR
WITH THE SPEED OF BIG CITY POLICE FORCES.  WHAT WAS THERE TO HURRY
ABOUT?  GALLEGOS HAD ALREADY CONFESSED AND HE WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE
DELAY.  THE AUTHORITIES TOOK THEIR TIME DRAWING PAPERS AND GETTING
PROOF OF THE CORPUS DELICTI IN ORDER.  THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN NO
PASSION OR REVENGE AT WORK IN THE CASE.  A SMALL PROSECUTING OFFICE IN
A TOWN WHERE LIFE IS LEISURELY MADE A SIMPLE EFFORT TO GO ABOUT ITS
DUTY WITH CONVENIENT SPEED. 

EVEN IF, AS SOME MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARDENTLY DESIRE, THE MCNABB
RULE WERE EVER TO BE CONVERTED INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION UPON
THE STATES, THE FACTS IN THIS CASE WOULD AFFORD A POOR FOUNDATION FOR
IT.  I CONCUR IN THE AFFIRMANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, DISSENTING. 

AMERICANS JUSTLY COMPLAIN WHEN THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS IN CERTAIN
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ARE POUNCED UPON AT WILL BY STATE POLICE, HELD IN
JAIL INCOMMUNICADO, AND LATER CONVICTED OF CRIME ON CONFESSIONS
OBTAINED DURING SUCH INCARCERATION.  YET IN PART* UPON JUST SUCH A
CONFESSION, THIS COURT TODAY AFFIRMS NEBRASKA'S CONVICTION OF A CITIZEN
OF MEXICO WHO CAN NEITHER READ NOR UNDERSTAND ENGLISH. 

*DURING PETITIONER'S TRIAL AN ALLEGED CONFESSION MADE IN TEXAS, AN
ALLEGED CONFESSION MADE IN NEBRASKA AND A PLEA OF GUILTY ENTERED IN A
NEBRASKA COURT WERE INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.  HIS CONVICTION
SHOULD BE REVERSED IF ANY ONE OF THESE THREE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE
SECURED IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHICH THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES.  FOR THIS REASON I CONSIDER THE TEXAS
CONFESSION ONLY. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THE FOLLOWING FACTS WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE AT ALL:
WHILE WORKING IN A FIELD IN EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS, ON SEPTEMBER 19,
1949, THE PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED BY A LOCAL DEPUTY SHERIFF WITHOUT A
WARRANT.  THE EXCUSE GIVEN FOR THE ARREST WAS THAT IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
HAD REQUESTED IT. NO CHARGE WAS EVER FILED AGAINST PETITIONER IN ANY
TEXAS STATE COURT NOR WAS ANY WARRANT SWORN OUT AGAINST HIM DURING THE
EIGHT DAYS HE WAS KEPT IN THE TEXAS JAIL.  HIS DETENTION WAS
INCOMMUNICADO EXCEPT FOR REPEATED QUESTIONING BY THE DEPUTIES.  PART OF
THE TIME PETITIONER WAS KEPT IN AN 8 FOOT X 8 FOOT CELL WITH NO
WINDOWS, A CELL WHICH A TEXAS DEPUTY TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE REFERRED
TO AS THE "DARK ROOM" OR THE "PUNISHMENT ROOM," ALTHOUGH PETITIONER WAS
A "DOCILE PRISONER" AND DID ALL HE WAS TOLD TO DO BY THE OFFICERS.  IT
WAS DURING THIS INCARCERATION OF EIGHT DAYS THAT THE PETITIONER GAVE A
CONFESSION USED TO CONVICT HIM IN THIS CASE.  AS IS USUAL IN THIS TYPE
OF CASE THE DEPUTIES SAY THAT THE CONFESSION WAS WHOLLY "VOLUNTARY";
PETITIONER SAYS THAT IT WAS DUE TO FEAR ENGENDERED BY HIS INCARCERATION
AND THE ACTIONS OF THE DEPUTIES.  EVEN IF THE OFFICERS' STORY SHOULD
HAPPEN TO BE CORRECT, I BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE USE OF
CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BY THE KIND OF SECRET INQUISITION THESE DEPUTIES
CONDUCTED. 

THERE ARE COUNTRIES WHERE ARBITRARY ARRESTS LIKE THIS, FOLLOWED BY
SECRET IMPRISONMENT AND SYSTEMATIC QUESTIONING UNTIL CONFESSIONS ARE
OBTAINED, ARE STILL RECOGNIZED AND PERMISSIBLE LEGAL PROCEDURES.  SEE
"THE TRAP CLOSES" BY ROBERT A. VOGELER WITH LEIGH WHITE, THE SATURDAY
EVENING POST, NOVEMBER 3, 1951, P. 36 ET SEQ. MY OWN BELIEF IS THAT
ONLY BY DEPARTURE FROM THE CONSTITUTION AS PROPERLY INTERPRETED CAN
AMERICA TOLERATE SUCH PRACTICES.  SEE ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S.
143, 154-155; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; BRAM V. UNITED STATES,
168 U.S. 532, 556, 562-563.  I WOULD REVERSE THIS JUDGMENT. 
..END :



BINDCZYCK V. FINUCANE 342 U.S. 76 


NO. 18.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 1951 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 26, 1951 - 87 U.S.
APP. D.C. 137, 184 F.2D 225, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 338 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF
1940, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 738, IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE FOR REVOKING
NATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD OR ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT, BASED ON
EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD.  PP. 77-88. 

2.  A STATE COURT GRANTED PETITIONER A CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP. 
AT THE SAME TERM, AS PERMITTED BY STATE PRACTICE, IT GRANTED A MOTION
OF THE GOVERNMENT, BASED ON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD, TO VACATE AND
SET ASIDE ITS ORDER OF NATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD IN
PROCUREMENT.  PETITIONER APPEARED PERSONALLY AND ADMITTED THE FRAUD. 
HELD:  THIS REVOCATION OF PETITIONER'S NATURALIZATION IS VOID, BECAUSE
IT WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFORM PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY SEC.
338 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT.  PP. 77-88. 

(A)  CONGRESS INTENDED TO PRESCRIBE A UNIFORM AND CAREFULLY
SAFEGUARDED PROCEDURE FOR REVOKING NATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF
FRAUD OR ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD; AND
THIS PURPOSE WOULD BE DEFEATED IF STATE COURTS COULD FOLLOW INSTEAD
WIDELY DIVERSE STATE RULES AFFECTING THE FINALITY OF LOCAL JUDGMENTS. 
PP. 79-86. 

(B)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY TUTUN V. UNITED STATES,
270 U.S. 568, SUSTAINING THE RIGHT OF AN ALIEN TO APPEAL FROM AN ORDER
DENYING NATURALIZATION.  PP. 86-88. 

BINDCZYCK V. FINUCANE, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PETITIONER A JUDGMENT DECLARING HIM TO BE
A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  87
U.S. APP. D.C. 137, 184 F.2D 225.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341
U.S. 919.  REVERSED, P. 88. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON DECEMBER 2, 1943, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND,
ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION TO PETITIONER AFTER PROCEEDINGS
THAT CONFORMED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940. 
54 STAT. 1137, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 501 FF.  SEVEN DAYS LATER, AND AT THE SAME
TERM OF COURT, THE GOVERNMENT MOVED TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
OF NATURALIZATION, CLAIMING ON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD THAT IT WAS
OBTAINED BY FRAUD AND THAT THEREFORE THE CITIZENSHIP WAS ILLEGALLY
PROCURED. 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 338 OF THE NATIONALITY
ACT, WHEREIN CONGRESS MADE SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR "REVOKING  ...  THE
ORDER ADMITTING  ...  TO CITIZENSHIP  ...  ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD OR ON
THE GROUND THAT SUCH ORDER  ...  WAS ILLEGALLY PROCURED," (FN1) WERE
NOT FOLLOWED.  INSTEAD, THE MARYLAND COURT EXERCISED ITS GENERAL POWER
UNDER MARYLAND LAW TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENTS DURING THE TERM OF COURT IN
WHICH THEY WERE RENDERED.  (FN2) 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SEC. 338 CONTROL THE REVOCATION OF CITIZENSHIP ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD
OR ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS ILLEGALLY PROCURED; OR WHETHER THE GRANT
OF CITIZENSHIP BY THE COURTS OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES IS SUBJECT TO
WHATEVER SUMMARY CONTROL STATE COURTS MAY HAVE OVER THEIR MERELY LOCAL
JUDGMENTS.  THE QUESTIONS ARE OF OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATURALIZATION LAWS, APART FROM THE CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE VIEWS OF THE COURT BELOW AND THOSE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN UNITED STATES EX REL. VOLPE V. JORDAN, 161
F.2D 390. 

THE ISSUE WAS RAISED BY PETITIONER'S ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING HIM TO BE A CITIZEN
OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOR AN ORDER RESTRAINING RESPONDENTS FROM
DEPORTING HIM.  UPON A MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT, PETITIONER MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, DECLARING PETITIONER "TO BE A NATIONAL AND CITIZEN
OF THE UNITED STATES" BUT "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT
TO INSTITUTE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR DENATURALIZATION UNDER SEC.
338 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940."  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 87
U.S. APP. D.C. 137, 184 F.2D 225, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S.
919. 

DUE REGARD FOR SEC. 338, INCLUDING THE HISTORY OF ITS ORIGIN, AND FOR
THE NATURE OF A JUDGMENT OF NATURALIZATION, TOGETHER WITH A
CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFLICTING AND CAPRICIOUS DIVERSITIES OF LOCAL
LAW AFFECTING THE FINALITY OF LOCAL JUDGMENTS, COMPEL US TO HOLD THAT
SEC. 338 IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE FOR CANCELING CITIZENSHIP ON THE
SCORE OF FRAUDULENT OR ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE
THE RECORD. 

REENACTMENT OF SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 34 STAT. 596, 601. 
THAT ACT WAS THE CULMINATION OF HALF A CENTURY'S AGITATION DIRECTED AT
NATURALIZATION FRAUDS, PARTICULARLY IN THEIR BEARING UPON THE
SUFFRAGE.  (FN3)  ON THE BASIS OF A NATIONWIDE SURVEY TO DETERMINE THE
INCIDENCE AND CAUSES OF NATURALIZATION FRAUDS WITH A VIEW TO DEVISING
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION, PRESIDENT THEODORE
ROOSEVELT'S COMMISSION ON NATURALIZATION PREPARED A REPORT WHICH WAS
THE FOUNDATION OF THE ACT OF 1906.  H.R. DOC. NO. 46, 59TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.  THIS REPORT, THE HEARINGS BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND
THEIR REPORTS, THE FLOOR DEBATES ON THE PROPOSED MEASURE, LEAVE NO
DOUBT THAT THE TARGET OF LEGISLATION WAS FRAUDULENT NATURALIZATION. 
(FN4)  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE REMEDY FOR THE DISCLOSED EVIL LAY
IN THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS "TO ESTABLISH AN
UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION."  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 4. 

TO PREVENT FRAUD IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE A NATURALIZATION COURT, THE
ACT DEVISED A SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT FOR THE NATURALIZATION
PROCESS.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO APPEAR.  SEC. 11, 34
STAT. 596, 599.  THIS RIGHT WAS FORTIFIED BY REQUIRING NOTICE OF THE
PETITION TO THE NEWLY CREATED BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
AND A NINETY-DAY WAITING PERIOD BETWEEN THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND
THE FINAL HEARING.  SECS. 6 AND 12, 34 STAT. 596, 598 AND 599.  THESE
WERE SAFEGUARDS TO ENABLE VERIFICATION BY THE BUREAU OF THE FACTS
ALLEGED IN THE PETITION AND INVESTIGATION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE
APPLICANT FOR CITIZENSHIP.  (FN5)  BY THESE PROVISIONS CONGRESS
RECOGNIZED THAT ENFORCEMENT IS THE HEART OF THE LAW. 

BUT CONGRESS WAS NOT CONTENT TO DEVISE MEASURES AGAINST FRAUD IN
PROCURING NATURALIZATION ONLY.  IN SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF 1906 IT
FORMULATED A CAREFULLY SAFEGUARDED METHOD FOR DENATURALIZATION.  THOUGH
THE PRINCIPAL CRITICISM LEADING TO THE ENACTMENT CONCERNED THE EVILS
INHERENT IN WIDELY DIVERSE NATURALIZATION PROCEDURES, EXPERIENCE WAS
NOT WANTING OF THE DANGERS AND HARDSHIPS ATTENDANT ON HAPHAZARD
DENATURALIZATION.  INFORMATION WAS BEFORE CONGRESS THAT EVER SINCE 1890
THE THEN CIRCUIT COURTS HAD VACATED NATURALIZATION ORDERS AT THE SUIT
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, (FN6) ALTHOUGH WHEN THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 15
WAS BEFORE IT, THIS COURT LEFT OPEN THE QUESTION WHETHER A COURT OF
EQUITY HAD SUCH POWER WITHOUT EXPRESS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. 
JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 227, 240.  BUT THE REVOCATION OF
CITIZENSHIP BEFORE 1906 WAS NOT ALWAYS SURROUNDED BY THE SAFEGUARDS OF
AN ORIGINAL EQUITY PROCEEDING.  SEE, E.G., TINN V. UNITED STATES
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 148 CAL. 773, 84 P. 152 (1906).  (FN7)  INDEED, THE
HISTORY OF THE ACT OF 1906 MAKES CLEAR THAT ELECTIONS COULD BE
INFLUENCED BY IRREGULAR DENATURALIZATIONS AS WELL AS BY FRAUDULENT
NATURALIZATIONS.  THE ONLY INSTANCE IN THE EXTENSIVE LEGISLATIVE
MATERIALS OF VACATION OF NATURALIZATION ORDERS BY WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE
BEEN THE PROCEDURE URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE INVOLVED JUST
SUCH A SITUATION.  A JUDGE WHO HAD NATURALIZED SEVEN ALIENS ON THE
SUPPOSITION THAT THEY WERE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN POLITICAL PARTY PROMPTLY
VACATED HIS ORDER WHEN THIS SUPPOSITION WAS CORRECTED.  SEE REP. ATTY.
GEN. 394 (1903).  (FN8)

SIGNIFICANTLY, FLOOR ACTION ON SEC. 15 IN THE HOUSE REVEALS A
SPECIFIC PURPOSE TO DEPRIVE THE NATURALIZING COURT AS SUCH OF POWER TO
REVOKE.  THE ORIGINAL BILL AUTHORIZED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS TO
INSTITUTE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE
AS WELL AS IN A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO NATURALIZE IN THE DISTRICT
OF THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN'S RESIDENCE.  H.R. 15442, 59TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., SEC. 17.  A COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ADOPTED JUST BEFORE FINAL
PASSAGE PUT THE SECTION IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT WAS ENACTED.  THAT
AMENDMENT, IN THE WORDS OF CONGRESSMAN BONYNGE, THE MANAGER OF THE
BILL, "TAKES AWAY THE RIGHT TO INSTITUTE A REVOCATION PROCEEDING IN THE
COURT OUT OF WHICH THE CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP MAY HAVE BEEN ISSUED,
UNLESS THE ALIEN HAPPENS TO RESIDE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THAT
COURT."  40 CONG. REC. 7874. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WE CANNOT ESCAPE THE
CONCLUSION THAT IN ITS DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR REVOKING A
NATURALIZATION BECAUSE OF FRAUD OR ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT NOT APPEARING ON
THE FACE OF THE RECORD, CONGRESS FORMULATED A SELF-CONTAINED, EXCLUSIVE
PROCEDURE.  WITH A VIEW TO PROTECTING THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST FRAUD
WHILE SAFEGUARDING CITIZENSHIP FROM ABROGATION EXCEPT BY A CLEARLY
DEFINED PROCEDURE, CONGRESS INSISTED ON THE DETAILED, EXPLICIT
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 15.  TO FIND THAT AT THE SAME TIME IT LEFT THE SAME
RESULT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE CONFUSED AND CONFLICTING MEDLEY, AS WE
SHALL SEE, OF STATE PROCEDURES FOR SETTING ASIDE LOCAL JUDGMENTS IS TO
READ CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT WITHOUT RESPECT FOR REASON. 

BETWEEN THEM, THESE TWO SECTIONS, SEC. 11 AND SEC. 15, PROVIDED A
COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR SAFEGUARDING CITIZENSHIP AGAINST
UNQUALIFIED APPLICANTS.  UNDER THE FIRST, THE GOVERNMENT WAS GIVEN
AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERPOSE OBJECTIONS PRIOR TO THE ORDER OF
NATURALIZATION.  IF PROPER ACCOUNT WAS NOT TAKEN OF THE EVIDENCE, THE
GOVERNMENT HAD RECOURSE TO APPEAL FOR EXAMINATION OF THE ACTION OF THE
NATURALIZING COURT ON THE RECORD.  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S.
568.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, THOUGHT THAT NINETY DAYS WAS QUITE ENOUGH TIME
FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DEVELOP ITS CASE - INDEED MANY MEMBERS DEEMED IT
TOO LONG.  40 CONG. REC. 7766-7770.  AT THE EXPIRATION OF THAT TIME, IF
CITIZENSHIP WAS GRANTED, IT WAS TO BE PROOF AGAINST ATTACKS FOR FRAUD
OR ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD, EXCEPT
THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 15.  THE CONGRESSIONAL
SCHEME, PROVIDING CAREFULLY FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
INTEREST BEFORE THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP AND A DETAILED, SAFEGUARDED
PROCEDURE FOR ATTACKING THE DECREE ON EVIDENCE OF FRAUD OUTSIDE THE
RECORD, (FN9) COVERS THE WHOLE GROUND.  EVERY NATIONAL INTEREST IS
THEREBY PROTECTED. 

NEITHER UNCONTESTED PRACTICE NOR ADJUDICATION BY LOWER COURTS HAS
RENDERED A VERDICT WHICH IS DISREGARDED BY OUR CONSTRUCTION OF SEC.
338.  NOR AS A RULE FOR FUTURE CONDUCT IS ANY BURDEN THEREBY PLACED ON
THE GOVERNMENT IN SETTING ASIDE A NATURALIZATION ORDER WHERE IT CAN
PROVE ILLEGALITY OR FRAUD. 

AN ABSTRACT SYLLOGISM IS PRESSED AGAINST THIS NATURAL, BECAUSE
RATIONAL, TREATMENT OF SEC. 338 AS THE EXCLUSIVE AND SAFEGUARDING
PROCEDURE FOR VOIDING NATURALIZATIONS GRANTED AFTER COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CAREFUL FORMALITIES OF SEC. 334.  (FN10)  GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP IS A
JUDGMENT; A JUDGMENT IS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE ISSUING COURT DURING
THE COURT'S TERM; THEREFORE NATURALIZATION IS SUBJECT TO REVOCATION FOR
FRAUD OR ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT DURING THE TERM OF THE COURT THAT GRANTED
IT.  SO RUNS THE ARGUMENT.  SUCH ABSTRACT REASONING IS MECHANICAL
JURISPRUDENCE IN ITS MOST GLITTERING FORM.   IT DISREGARDS ALL THOSE
DECISIVE CONSIDERATIONS BY WHICH A PROVISION LIKE SEC. 338 DERIVES THE
MEANING OF LIFE FROM THE CONTEXT OF ITS GENERATING FORCES AND ITS
PURPOSES.  IT ALSO DISREGARDS THE CAPRICIOUS AND HAPHAZARD RESULTS THAT
WOULD FLOW FROM APPLYING SUCH AN EMPTY SYLLOGISM TO THE ACTUALITIES OF
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION. 

BY GIVING STATE COURTS JURISDICTION IN NATURALIZATION CASES, CONGRESS
EMPOWERED SOME THOUSAND STATE COURT JUDGES TO ADJUDICATE CITIZENSHIP. 
IF THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IN SEC. 338 FOR REVOCATION OF
CITIZENSHIP WERE TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY STATE LAW REGARDING CONTROL OVER
JUDGMENTS BY WAY OF THE "TERM RULE" OR OTHERWISE, THE RETENTION OF
CITIZENSHIP WOULD BE CONTINGENT UPON APPLICATION OF MYRIAD DISCORDANT
RULES BY A THOUSAND JUDGES SCATTERED OVER THE LAND. 

WIDE AND WHIMSICAL DIVERSITIES ARE REVEALED BY THE LOCAL LAW OF THE
FORTY-EIGHT STATES IN THE POWER OF THEIR COURTS TO SET ASIDE LOCAL
JUDGMENTS.  (FN11)  THE COURTS OF SOME STATES HAVE NO POWER TO SET
ASIDE THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS; COURTS IN OTHER STATES HAVE ALMOST UNLIMITED
POWER.  NOT ONLY IS THERE THIS GREAT DIVERSITY AMONG THE STATES.  THERE
ARE CAPRICIOUS DIFFERENCES WITHIN INDIVIDUAL STATES.  THAT CONGRESS,
COMPOSED LARGELY OF LAWYERS, SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
THE ELABORATE DEFINITION IN SEC. 338 BUT IMPLIEDLY ALSO ALLOWED
DENATURALIZATION THROUGH THE ECCENTRICITIES AND ACCIDENTS OF VARIEGATED
STATE PRACTICE, IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT OUGHT TO HAVE A SOLIDER
FOUNDATION THAN AN ABSTRACT SYLLOGISM.  WITHOUT MORE, WE CANNOT BELIEVE
THAT CONGRESS WOULD SUBJECT A NATURALIZED CITIZEN - WHO HAS ACHIEVED
THAT STATUS ONLY BY THE PROTECTING FORMALITIES OF THE NATIONALITY ACT -
TO SUCH UNPREDICTABLE ATTACK.  (FN12) 

FINALLY, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SINCE SEC. 15 WAS FOUND NOT TO PREVENT
THE TAKING OF APPEALS FROM A NATURALIZATION ORDER, TUTUN V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AND SINCE THERE ARE DIVERSITIES IN THE TIME FOR APPEAL
AMONG STATE COURTS WITH POWER TO NATURALIZE, THE DIVERSITIES AMONG
STATE COURTS IN THE POWER TO VACATE THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS OUGHT NOT TO
REQUIRE RESORT TO SEC. 338 AS THE EXCLUSIVE, UNIFORM PROCEDURE FOR
DENATURALIZATION. 

ONE ANSWER IS THAT THE ACT OF 1906 AND ITS SUCCESSOR, THE NATIONALITY
ACT OF 1940, HAD NO PROVISION WHATEVER AS TO APPELLATE REVIEW OF ERRORS
APPEARING OF RECORD IN A NATURALIZATION COURT.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
CONGRESS LABORIOUSLY DEALT WITH THE REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION
OBTAINED BY FRAUD OR OTHERWISE ILLEGALLY.  AND SINCE APPELLATE REVIEW
IS SO INGRAINED A PART OF AMERICAN JUSTICE, THIS COURT IN THE TUTUN
CASE NATURALLY HELD THAT IT WAS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS DENIED
THE RIGHT OF APPEAL MERELY BECAUSE IT DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY CONFER IT.
OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AMONG STATE JUDICIARIES AS TO THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH AN APPEAL CAN BE TAKEN.  BUT THE DIFFERENCES ARE WITHIN A
NARROW AND UNIMPORTANT RANGE (FN13) COMPARED WITH THE ENORMOUS AND
QUIXOTIC DIFFERENCES RELATING TO A COURT'S CONTROL OVER ITS JUDGMENTS
ON THE SCORE OF FRAUD OR ILLEGALITY.  IT IS ONE THING TO ALLOW SOME
PLAY FOR THE JOINTS IN A STATUTORY SCHEME LIKE THE NATIONALITY ACT,
ENFORCEABLE BY BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO
INJECT A WHOLLY DISLOCATING FACTOR BY INCORPORATING THE DIVERSE STATE
RULES FOR VACATING JUDGMENTS INTO THE REVOCATION PROCESS, WHICH
CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY DEALT WITH IN SEC. 338. 
CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN FOR UNIFORMITY IN POST-NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS
WAS SHOWN IN THIS VERY CONNECTION.  THE BILL BEFORE CONGRESS IN 1906
PROVIDED FOR A UNIFORM MODE OF APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS FROM NATURALIZATION JUDGMENTS RENDERED BY STATE, AS
WELL AS FEDERAL, COURTS.  H.R. 15442, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 13. 
CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBTS AND THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS WHICH SUCH AN
ANOMALOUS PROCEDURE WOULD RAISE LED TO THE OMISSION OF THIS SECTION,
LEAVING APPEAL PROCEDURE TO THE STATES.  40 CONG. REC. 7784-7787.  IT
IS NOT TO BE SUPPOSED, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE, AS WITH DENATURALIZATION,
SUCH DOUBTS AND ANOMALIES WERE NOT PRESENT, CONGRESS WOULD GRATUITOUSLY
ABANDON THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO ESTABLISH "AN UNIFORM RULE OF
NATURALIZATION."  IT ESTABLISHED SUCH A RULE IN SEC. 338. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT REINSTATED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1 54 STAT. 1137, 1158, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 738.  THE PERTINENT PORTIONS
OF THE SECTION ARE: 

"(A)  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
FOR THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UPON AFFIDAVIT SHOWING GOOD CAUSE
THEREFOR, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION
(A) OF SECTION 301 IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE NATURALIZED
CITIZEN MAY RESIDE AT THE TIME OF BRINGING SUIT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REVOKING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ADMITTING SUCH PERSON TO
CITIZENSHIP AND CANCELING THE CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION ON THE
GROUND OF FRAUD OR ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ORDER AND CERTIFICATE OF
NATURALIZATION WERE ILLEGALLY PROCURED. 

"(B)  THE PARTY TO WHOM WAS GRANTED THE NATURALIZATION ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN FRAUDULENTLY OR ILLEGALLY PROCURED SHALL, IN ANY SUCH
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION, HAVE SIXTY DAYS'
PERSONAL NOTICE IN WHICH TO MAKE ANSWER TO THE PETITION OF THE UNITED
STATES; AND IF SUCH NATURALIZED PERSON BE ABSENT FROM THE UNITED STATES
OR FROM THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PERSON LAST HAD HIS
RESIDENCE, SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN BY PUBLICATION IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED FOR THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION OR UPON ABSENTEES BY
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR THE PLACE WHERE SUCH SUIT IS BROUGHT." 

FN2  SEE EDDY V. SUMMERS, 183 MD. 683, 687, 39 A.2D 812, 814 (1944). 

FN3  AS EARLY AS 1844, A SENATE RESOLUTION CALLED FOR AN INQUIRY INTO
THESE FRAUDS AND INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF A JUDICIAL PROCEDURE FOR
CANCELING FRAUDULENT NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATES.  S.J., 28TH CONG., 2D
SESS. 40, 44.  FOR A SUMMARY OF PRE-CIVIL WAR LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY IN
REGARD TO NATURALIZATION SEE FRANKLIN, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
NATURALIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES.  ANNUAL MESSAGES OF THE
PRESIDENTS, FROM GRANT ONWARD, URGED REMEDIAL LEGISLATION.  RICHARDSON,
MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS:  GRANT, 1ST ANNUAL MESSAGE,
1869, 6TH ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1874, 7TH ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1875, 8TH ANNUAL
MESSAGE, 1876; ARTHUR, 4TH ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1884; CLEVELAND, 1ST ANNUAL
MESSAGE, 1885, 2D ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1886, 4TH ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1888;
HARRISON, 1ST ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1889, 2D ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1890; ROOSEVELT,
3D ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1903, 4TH ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1904, 5TH ANNUAL MESSAGE,
1905.  GRANT AND CLEVELAND ASSERTED SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE WAS NO WAY
FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN A REVOCATION OF FRAUDULENTLY ACQUIRED
CITIZENSHIP AND ASKED FOR CORRECTION OF THIS DEFICIENCY.  ID., GRANT,
6TH ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1874; CLEVELAND, 1ST ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1885.  BUT
HARRISON CALLED ATTENTION TO A "NEW APPLICATION OF A FAMILIAR EQUITY
JURISDICTION" WHEREBY OVER A HUNDRED NATURALIZATION ORDERS HAD BEEN
VACATED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY THE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT COURTS IN ORIGINAL EQUITY SUITS.  AS HE SAW IT, THE URGENT
REMAINING NEED WAS FOR AN ADEQUATE PRENATURALIZATION INVESTIGATION. 
ID., HARRISON, 2D ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1890. 

IN 1903, A FEDERAL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATED AND A SPECIAL ASSISTANT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY WAS CHARGED WITH PROSECUTION OF NATURALIZATION
FRAUDS IN NEW YORK CITY.  SEE REP. ATTY. GEN. V, 392 (1903); H.R. DOC.
NO. 46, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 76.  A SPECIAL EXAMINER FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MADE A NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATION, A REPORT OF
WHICH WAS TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS.  SEE REP. ATTY. GEN. 393 (1903). 
SEE GENERALLY ROCHE, PRE-STATUTORY DENATURALIZATION, 35 CORNELL L.Q.
120. 

FN4  SEE, E.G., H.R. DOC. NO. 46, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 11-15, 20-23,
76-78, 79-92; HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION ON THE BILLS TO ESTABLISH A BUREAU OF NATURALIZATION,
AND TO PROVIDE FOR A UNIFORM RULE FOR THE NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3-54; H.R. REP. NO.
1789, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2; S. REP. NO. 4373, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
2; 40 CONG. REC. 3640 FF. 

FN5  THESE PROVISIONS WERE SUGGESTED BY THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON
NATURALIZATION.  SEE H.R. DOC. NO. 46, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS 17, 99.  IN
HIS SECOND ANNUAL MESSAGE, PRESIDENT HARRISON HAD RECOMMENDED A WAITING
PERIOD FOR INVESTIGATION.  SEE RICHARDSON, MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, HARRISON, 2D ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1890.  SEE ALSO REP. ATTY.
GEN. 397 (1903) FOR A SIMILAR SUGGESTION FROM THE SPECIAL EXAMINER IN
RELATION TO NATURALIZATION. 

NO SECTION OF THE ACT WAS MORE THOROUGHLY DEBATED THAN THIS ONE. 
THREE SEPARATE AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE THE WAITING PERIOD WERE REJECTED. 
40 CONG. REC. 7762-7770.  THE PERIOD WAS CUT TO THIRTY DAYS IN THE
NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1137, 1156, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 734(C). 
BUT THE CODIFIERS REITERATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DELAY WAS TO
PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT "TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY AS TO THE ELIGIBILITY OF
THE APPLICANT AND THE COMPETENCY OF HIS WITNESSES."  HEARINGS BEFORE
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 6127,
SUPERSEDED BY H.R. 9980, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 466. 

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR INVESTIGATION PROVIDED BY THESE SECTIONS WAS
TAKEN FULL ADVANTAGE OF BY THE BUREAU.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1328, 69TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 1.  INDEED, IN 1926, THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE MADE A
FORMAL PART OF THE NATURALIZATION PROCESS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BY
PERMITTING OFFICERS OF THE BUREAU TO CONDUCT THE EXAMINATION OF THE
APPLICANT'S WITNESSES PRIOR TO FINAL HEARING ON THE PETITION AND
AUTHORIZING THE NATURALIZATION JUDGE TO FOREGO SUCH EXAMINATION ON
FINAL HEARINGS IF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BUREAU WAS FAVORABLE.  44
STAT. 709.  THIS PROCEDURE WAS EXTENDED TO STATE NATURALIZATION COURTS
AS WELL IN 1940.  54 STAT. 1137, 1156, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 733. 

FN6  SEE RICHARDSON, MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS, HARRISON,
2D ANNUAL MESSAGE, 1890.  1,916 FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED NATURALIZATION
CERTIFICATES WERE CANCELED IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY IN THE
TWO-YEAR PERIOD TO MAY 29, 1905.  H.R. DOC. NO. 46, 59TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 76; H.R. REP. NO. 1789, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2. 

FN7  IN THAT CASE, NINE CITIZENSHIP ORDERS WERE REVOKED IN AN EX
PARTE PROCEEDING ON ORAL MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
PURPORTING TO BE MADE AS IN THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS,
OVER THREE YEARS AFTER THE ORDERS ADMITTING TO CITIZENSHIP.  THIS
ACTION WAS, HOWEVER, REVERSED ON APPEAL.  SEE ALSO 40 CONG. REC. 7045
WHERE IT IS STATED THAT UPON THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN SAN FRANCISCO THAT IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION WOULD
BE GIVEN TO ANY HOLDER OF A FRAUDULENTLY ACQUIRED CERTIFICATE WHO
SURRENDERED IT FOR CANCELLATION, 204 CERTIFICATES WERE TURNED IN IN THE
FIRST THIRTY DAYS. 

FN8  OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED, ON SIMILAR GROUNDS, TO THE SECTION IN
THE ORIGINAL BILL PROVIDING FOR APPEAL FROM NATURALIZATION ORDERS AND
REQUIRING A STAY OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE PENDING APPEAL.  IT
WAS ARGUED THAT A PARTISAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY MIGHT INFLUENCE A CLOSE
ELECTION BY JUDICIOUSLY CHOOSING THE CASES IN WHICH TO APPEAL AND
OBTAIN THE STAY.  40 CONG. REC. 7786. 

FN9  IT DESERVES EMPHASIS THAT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH THE
REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION "ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD OR ON THE GROUND
THAT  ...  THE NATURALIZATION WAS ILLEGALLY PROCURED," TO BE
ESTABLISHED OUTSIDE THE RECORD.  WE HAVE NOT BEFORE US, AND THEREFORE
DO NOT DECIDE, THE POWER OF A STATE COURT TO CONTROL ITS NATURALIZATION
JUDGMENT TO THE EXTENT OF CORRECTING SOME CLERICAL ERROR. 

AND, OF COURSE, THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT TOUCH SITUATIONS WHERE
UNDER STATE LAW A JUDGMENT DOES NOT COME INTO BEING UNTIL A DEFINED
PERIOD OR EVENT AFTER A DECISION IS RENDERED.  COMPARE COMMISSIONER V.
ESTATE OF BEDFORD, 325 U.S. 283, 284-288. 

FN10  54 STAT. 1137, 1156, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 734. 

FN11  THE CONFLICTING VARIETIES OF STATE RULES FOR VACATING JUDGMENTS
ARE ILLUSTRATIVELY SUMMARIZED IN AN APPENDIX, POST, P. 88. 

FN12  THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT INATTENTIVE TO EXISTING VARIATIONS IN
STATE PRACTICE, WHERE IT WISHED TO ABSORB THEM, IS SHOWN BY THE LAST
PORTION OF SEC. 338(B) WHICH READS: 

"  ...  AND IF SUCH NATURALIZED PERSON BE ABSENT FROM THE UNITED
STATES OR FROM THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PERSON LAST HAD HIS
RESIDENCE, SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN BY PUBLICATION IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED FOR THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION OR UPON ABSENTEES BY
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR THE PLACE WHERE SUCH SUIT IS BROUGHT." 

FN13  VAGARIES AMONG THE STATES AS TO TIME FOR APPEALS ARE NOT
SUBSTANTIAL.  THE TIMES FOR APPEAL FIXED BY STATES RANGE PRINCIPALLY
FROM THIRTY DAYS TO THREE MONTHS.  SEE POUND, APPELLATE PROCEDURE IN
CIVIL CASES, 340-342. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE REED, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE
BURTON, SEE POST, P. 92. 

                                    APPENDIX. 

                 POWER OF STATE COURTS TO VACATE THEIR OWN

                                 JUDGMENTS  (FN1) 

THE DIVERSITIES IN STATE RULES GOVERNING THE POWER TO VACATE
JUDGMENTS ARE ILLUSTRATED BY THE FOLLOWING: 

(1)  THE COMMON LAW RULE, STILL FOLLOWED BY MANY STATES, INCLUDING
MARYLAND, IS THAT FOR THE DURATION OF THE TERM IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS
ENTERED THE COURT MAY ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CHANGE IT.  (FN2)  THIS
"TERM RULE" INEVITABLY WOULD PRODUCE ERRATIC RESULTS AS TO
NATURALIZATION:  (FN3)

(A)  STATES DIFFER VERY SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE LENGTH OF COURT TERMS
SET BY LEGISLATURE OR COURT.  SEE 3 MARTINDALE-HUBBELL LAW DIRECTORY,
"COURT CALENDARS" (1951).  FOR EXAMPLE, IN SEVERAL COUNTIES OF KENTUCKY
THE CIRCUIT COURT HOLDS TERMS OF ONLY SIX DAYS' DURATION; IN CONTRAST,
THE TERMS OF THE OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURTS ARE SIX MONTHS IN LENGTH. 

(B)  EVEN WITHIN A STATE THE LENGTH OF TERMS MAY VARY GREATLY. 
CONSIDER INDIANA, FOR EXAMPLE.  THE MARION COUNTY (INDIANAPOLIS)
SUPERIOR COURT HAS MONTHLY TERMS; SOME JUDGES OF THE LAKE COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT HOLD TERMS LASTING FOR SIX MONTHS.  (FN4) 

(C) IN A GOOD MANY STATES THE LENGTH OF TERM MAY FLUCTUATE WITH THE
AMOUNT OF BUSINESS THAT HAPPENS TO BE BEFORE THE COURT, AND WITH THE
UNTRAMMELLED DISCRETION OF A JUDGE IN ADJOURNING SINE DIE.  UNLESS
ADJOURNED SINE DIE OR CONCLUDED BY THE TERMINAL DATE SET BY STATUTE, A
TERM, IN GENERAL, ENDS ONLY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING
TERM HELD AT THE SAME PLACE.  SEE, E.G., COMES V. COMES, 190 IOWA 547,
178 N.W. 403 (1920); HENSLEY V. STATE, 53 OKLA. CR. 22, 3 P.2D 211
(1931).  THUS, A TERM MAY BE LESS THAN A DAY IN LENGTH, OR IT MIGHT BE
A FULL YEAR WHERE THE COURT HAS ONLY ONE PRESCRIBED TERM ANNUALLY. 

(D)  THERE IS AN INHERENT UNCERTAINTY IN THE "TERM RULE."  CONSIDER A
COURT WITH A PRESCRIBED OR PERMITTED TERM OF TEN MONTHS.  E.G., RHODE
ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT IN PROVIDENCE, R.I. GEN. LAWS, 1938, C. 498, SEC.
2.  A CITIZENSHIP OBTAINED BY NATURALIZATION ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE
TERM MIGHT BE VACATED AT ANY TIME WITHIN 10 MONTHS - UNDER THE
REASONING OF THE GOVERNMENT; WHEREAS THE ALIEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE
NATURALIZED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE TERM WOULD HAVE CITIZENSHIP
INDEFEASIBLY EXCEPT BY THE SAFEGUARDED PROCEDURE OF SEC. 338. 

(2)  A NUMBER OF STATES HAVE STATUTES SIMILAR TO THAT OF ALABAMA
READING:  "THE CIRCUIT COURTS ...  SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRANSACTION OF
ANY AND ALL BUSINESS, OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY KIND, AT ALL
TIMES."  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 13, SEC. 114.  IN THOSE STATES WIDE
DISPARITY IN THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A JUDGMENT MAY BE VACATED IS
INTRODUCED BY THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: 

(A)  SOME OF THESE STATES PROVIDE BY STATUTE THAT A COURT HAS CONTROL
OF ITS JUDGMENTS AND MAY VACATE THEM WITHIN SOME FIXED TIME; THE TIMES
VARY GREATLY: 

ONE YEAR: 

MINNESOTA - MINN. STAT., 1949, SEC. 544.32. 

60 DAYS: 

KENTUCKY (COURTS IN CONTINUOUS SESSION) - KY. REV. STAT., 1946, SEC.
451.130(1). 

30 DAYS: 

ALABAMA - ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 13, SEC. 119. 

ILLINOIS - ILL. REV. STAT., 1949, C. 77, SEC. 82. 

MARYLAND (BALTIMORE CITY COURT) - SEE HARVEY V. SLACUM, 181 MD. 206,
29 A.2D 276 (1942). 

NEW MEXICO - N.M. STAT., 1941, SEC. 19-901. 

(B)  OTHER STATES PROVIDE THAT ONLY THE MOTION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT NEED BE FILED WITHIN A FIXED PERIOD; THE LENGTH OF THESE
PERIODS ALSO VARIES CONSIDERABLY: 

"A REASONABLE TIME NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS:" 

ARIZONA - ARIZ. CODE ANN., 1939, SEC. 21-1502. 

CALIFORNIA - DEERING'S CAL. CODE CIV. PROC., 1949, SEC. 473. 

6 MONTHS:    NEVADA - SEE LAUER V. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 62
NEV. 78, 140 P.2D 953 (1943). 

(C)  AT ANY RATE EITHER THE FIXED PERIOD OR THE REASONABLE TIME FOR
VACATING JUDGMENTS PRODUCES QUITE DIFFERENT RESULTS FROM THE ERRATIC
CONSEQUENCES OF THE "TERM RULE." 

(3)  IN SOME STATES, IT APPEARS, A COURT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ITS
JUDGMENTS AFTER THEY ARE SIGNED AND ENTERED.  SEE, E.G., LOUISIANA BANK
V. HAMPTON, 4 MART.  94 (LA. 1816); NELSON & CO. V. ROCQUET & CO., 123
LA. 91, 48 SO. 756 (1909).  IN MASSACHUSETTS A COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION TO VACATE A JUDGMENT "ON MERE MOTION" EXCEPT FOR CLERICAL
ERROR.  SHAWMUT COMMERCIAL PAPER CO. V. CRAM, 212 MASS. 108, 98 N.E.
696 (1912).  BUT SEE MASS. GEN. LAWS, 1932, C. 250, SECS. 14-20.    FN1
IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO NOTE THAT THE BEST EFFORT TO SECURE
FASTIDIOUS ACCURACY AND CURRENCY IN SUCH MATTERS AS THE LOCAL RULES
HERE SUMMARIZED CANNOT ASSURE THEM.  THE INTERPRETATION OF LOCAL LAW,
ESPECIALLY AS TO PRACTICE, IS TREACHEROUS BUSINESS FOR AN OUTSIDER. 
THE VERY UNCERTAINTY OF THE LOCAL RULES MAKES IT ALL THE MORE UNLIKELY
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO SUBJECT CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION TO SUCH
ATTACK. 

OF COURSE ONLY STATE COURTS WITH POWER TO NATURALIZE, THAT IS,
"HAVING A SEAL, A CLERK, AND JURISDICTION IN ACTIONS AT LAW OR EQUITY,
OR LAW AND EQUITY, IN WHICH THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IS UNLIMITED," 54
STAT. 1137, 1140, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 701(A), ARE HERE CANVASSED. 

A GREAT MANY STATES PROVIDE PROCEDURES - STATUTORY OR COMMON LAW -
FOR VACATING JUDGMENTS BY A SEPARATE PROCEEDING IN THE NATURE OF AN
EQUITY SUIT.  SEE, E.G., KAN. GEN. STAT., 1949, SEC. 60-3007 ET SEQ.
THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE DOES NOT ARGUE THAT THESE COLLATERAL
PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FACE OF SEC. 338.  BUT IT IS NOT
OBVIOUS WHY THE ARGUMENT OF IMPLIED STATE CONTROL OVER A STATE JUDGMENT
IS NOT ALSO RELEVANT AS TO THESE STATE METHODS FOR CONTROLLING
JUDGMENTS. 

FN2  THE MEDIEVAL IDEA OF DIVIDING THE CALENDAR YEAR FOR JUDICIAL
PURPOSES INTO TERMS AND VACATIONS DEVELOPED FROM THE NECESSITIES OF
SOWING AND HARVESTING, AND FROM THE DEMANDS OF THE CHURCH FOR RELIGIOUS
PEACE AT CERTAIN SEASONS OF THE YEAR.  SEE 1 REEVES, HISTORY OF ENGLISH
LAW, 191-192; 3 HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 674-675. 

FN3  THE STATES USED AS ILLUSTRATION UNDER THIS DIVISION (1) ARE ONLY
THOSE WHICH, AS FAR AS INVESTIGATION DISCLOSES, FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW
"TERM RULE." 

FN4  TEXAS PROVIDES STRIKING ILLUSTRATIONS OF DIVERSITY WITHIN A
SINGLE STATE.  THE TEXAS DISTRICT COURTS VARY GREATLY FROM COUNTY TO
COUNTY IN THE NUMBER OF TERMS PER YEAR AND IN THE SPECIFIED LENGTH OF
THE TERMS; MANY DISTRICT COURTS ARE IN CONTINUOUS SESSION, OTHERS SIT
"TILL FINISHED," AND OTHERS HAVE FIXED TERMS OF 3, 4, 6, 8 OR 10
WEEKS.  THE JUDGMENTS OF CERTAIN DISTRICT COURTS WITH TERMS OF 3 MONTHS
OR LONGER BECOME "AS FINAL  ...  30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF JUDGMENT
...  AS IF THE TERM OF COURT HAD EXPIRED."  VERNON'S TEX. CIV. STAT.,
1926, ART. 2092 (30); JOY V. YOUNG, 194 S.W.2D 159 (TEX. CIV. APP.
1946). 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

UPON FILING OF HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION, AN ORDER AND A
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION WERE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND, ON DECEMBER 2, 1943, TO PETITIONER
BINDCZYCK, A SOLDIER IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY.  NATIONALITY ACT OF
1940, SEC. 324, 54 STAT. 1149.  ON THE NEXT DAY HE DISCLAIMED LOYALTY
TO THE UNITED STATES AND STATED HIS DESIRE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY AFTER
THE WAR. 

SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE NATURALIZATION AND WITHIN THE SAME TERM OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT, THE UNITED STATES FILED IN THE NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING
A MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF NATURALIZATION ON THE
GROUND THAT NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE SHOWED BINDCZYCK SWORE FALSELY
CONCERNING HIS LOYALTY TOWARD THE UNITED STATES AND ITS DEFENSE. 
BINDCZYCK IN OPEN COURT ADMITTED THE CHARGE.  THEREUPON THE MARYLAND
COURT DIRECTED THAT THE ORDER OF CITIZENSHIP BE VACATED, THE
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION VOIDED, AND THE CASE RESTORED TO THE
PENDING CALENDAR FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING.  THE RECORD SHOWS NO FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN MARYLAND, EITHER BY FURTHER HEARING OR BY APPEAL. 

ON JUNE 15, 1948, WHILE HE WAS IN CUSTODY FOR DEPORTATION, BINDCZYCK
FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PRAYING A DECLARATION THAT HE WAS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  THIS
WAS BASED ON THE CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER VACATING HIS ADMISSION TO
CITIZENSHIP WAS VOID BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH
SEC. 338 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, SET OUT IN NOTE 1 OF THE
COURT'S OPINION, ANTE, P. 77. 

THE COURT UPHOLDS BINDCZYCK'S CONTENTION.  BY THAT JUDGMENT THE COURT
IN A COLLATERAL PROCEEDING DETERMINES THAT THE VACATION BY THE MARYLAND
COURT OF ITS ORDER AND THE CANCELLATION BY THAT COURT OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION ARE VOID BECAUSE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT
TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED SEC. 338.  THAT IS, A
STATE COURT WITH THE ALIEN BEFORE IT HAS NO POWER SO TO ACT, ALTHOUGH
IT HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR HIS APPLICATION AND ENTER AN ORDER FOR HIS
NATURALIZATION.  SEC. 301. 

THE COURT'S JUDGMENT, WE THINK, FLOWS FROM ITS DISREGARD OF A
POSTULATE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.   THIS IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE IS THAT
NEW LEGISLATION IS TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE SETTING OF EXISTING LAW AND
PRACTICE.  (FN1)  SINCE SOUND METHODS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ARE
IMPORTANT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, IT SEEMS WORTHWHILE TO
STATE THE REASONS FOR DISAGREEMENT.  A DISSENT MAY HELP TO AVOID
ANOTHER AND FURTHER DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. 

EVEN THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS
THOUGH IT WERE THE ENTIRE BODY OF THE LAW.  THE CONTINUATION OF COURTS
AND PRACTICES IS ASSUMED.  CONGRESS MAY GIVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
OVER FEDERAL MATTERS TO BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  OF COURSE, THE
JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS OVER FEDERAL MATTERS MAY BE MADE
EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHER TRIBUNALS BY CONGRESS.  (FN2)  THAT BODY MAY
ALSO, WE ASSUME, PUT LIMITS ON STATE COURT POWERS CONCERNING FEDERAL
RIGHTS.  WHEN CONGRESS GRANTS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL
MATTERS, HOWEVER, SUCH A GRANT OF POWER IS TO BE EXERCISED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMAL PRACTICES AND PROCEDURE OF THE RESPECTIVE
COURTS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION THE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION REQUIRES SUCH LIMITATION.  (FN3) 

WE HAVE HAD PROVISIONS FOR NATURALIZATION SINCE MARCH 26, 1790. 
(FN4)  THEY HAVE GROWN IN COMPLEXITY THROUGH THE YEARS.  UNDER THE ACT
OF 1906, AS SHOWN BY THE COURT'S OPINION, THE CONGRESS SOUGHT TO REMEDY
THE EVILS OF FRAUDULENT NATURALIZATION AND TO PROTECT THE NEW CITIZEN
AGAINST CANCELLATION OF HIS CERTIFICATE IN AN INCONVENIENT FORUM OR
WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE.  THIS PURPOSE HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE
PRESENT 1940 ACT PRACTICALLY BY THE SAME WORDS, SO FAR AS THE SECTIONS
HERE INVOLVED ARE CONCERNED.  POWER OVER NATURALIZATION HAS REMAINED IN
BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION.  (FN5) 

THERE IS NOT A SUGGESTION IN THE ACTS OR IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
THAT, BY THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 15 OF THE EARLIER ACT OR SEC. 338 OF THE
PRESENT ACT, THE CONGRESS INTENDED TO AFFECT THE POWER WHICH STATE AND
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE TO GRANT NEW TRIALS OR REHEARINGS OR TO SET ASIDE
ORDERS DURING A TERM OR WITHIN SUCH OTHER LIMITED TIME AS STATUTE OR
PRACTICE MAY PRESCRIBE.  SECTION 338 IN PROVIDING A METHOD FOR
"REVOKING AND SETTING ASIDE" THE ORDER AND "CANCELING THE CERTIFICATE"
OF NATURALIZATION REFERS TO THE METHOD OF OVERTURNING A JUDGMENT OF
NATURALIZATION AFTER THE JUDICIAL PROCEDURE REQUIRED FOR THE GRANT IS
AT AN END.  SECTION 338, IN OUR VIEW, COVERS ONLY THOSE NEW CASES WHERE
CIRCUMSTANCES CALL FOR THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE WORDS OF THE SECTION "TO
INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A) OF
NATURALIZED CITIZEN MAY RESIDE AT THE TIME OF BRINGING SUIT."  UNDER
SUBSECTION (B) OF SEC. 338 THE DEFENDANT IS TO "MAKE ANSWER TO THE
PETITION OF THE UNITED STATES."  THIS LANGUAGE IS AIMED AT NEW
LITIGATION, NOT AT STEPS IN A PENDING CASE.  (FN6)  ACTION ON JUDGMENTS
DURING TERM TIME IS A STEP IN A PENDING CASE.  (FN7) 

THE CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION, AS EVIDENCE OF CITIZENSHIP, IS
ISSUED WHEN THE JUDGE SIGNS THE ORDER.  8 CFR (1949 ED.)  SEC.  377.1. 
A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM AN ORDER OF NATURALIZATION
WOULD RESULT IN CANCELLATION OF AN ISSUED CERTIFICATE.  IT IS SETTLED
LAW, HOWEVER, THAT APPEALS ARE ALLOWABLE FROM FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS.  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568, 575, NOTE 3, 580.  THIS
CONCLUSION WAS REACHED IN THE FACE OF THE ARGUMENTS THERE ADVANCED THAT
"EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" WAS CONFERRED ON THE TRIAL COURTS BY THE ACT
AND THAT A MEANS OF REVIEW WAS GRANTED TO THE UNITED STATES BY SEC.
15.  THE REASON WHICH LED THIS COURT TO ALLOW APPEALS UNDER THE
NATURALIZATION ACT WAS THE SAME REASON THAT SHOULD GUIDE US HERE, THAT
IS, "A DENIAL OF A REVIEW IN NATURALIZATION CASES WOULD ENGRAFT AN
EXCEPTION UPON AN OTHERWISE UNIVERSAL RULE."  P. 579; SEE PP. 578-580. 

THE RULING IN THE TUTUN CASE COMPELS A DISTINCTION SOUGHT TO BE MADE
IN TODAY'S OPINION.  THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT "SEC.  338 IS THE
EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE FOR CANCELING CITIZENSHIP ON THE SCORE OF
FRAUDULENT OR ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT BASED ON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE
RECORD."  SINCE TUTUN SUSTAINED REVIEW THAT WOULD ON APPEAL SET ASIDE
NATURALIZATION ORDERS AND CANCEL CERTIFICATES ON FACTS OF RECORD, THE
JUDGMENT TODAY DIFFERENTIATES THAT CASE BY MAKING THE EXISTENCE OF
FACTS DEHORS THE RECORD, AT LEAST WHERE THEY AMOUNT TO FRAUD OR ILLEGAL
PROCUREMENT, THE DECISIVE INCIDENT TO BAR STATE ACTION ON REHEARING FOR
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  WE THINK TODAY'S DECISION DEPARTS FROM THE
REASONING OF THE TUTUN CASE AND ENGRAFTS "AN EXCEPTION UPON AN
OTHERWISE UNIVERSAL RULE." 

THE CERTAINTY THAT NATURALIZATION MAY BE REVOKED BY APPEAL DETERMINES
ANOTHER POINT.  THERE IS A SUGGESTION IN THE COURT'S OPINION, NOT
ELABORATED, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO BAR STATE ACTION FOR REHEARING OR
VACATION DURING TERM ON FACTS DEHORS THE RECORD BECAUSE TO DO OTHERWISE
"WOULD GRATUITOUSLY ABANDON THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO ESTABLISH 'AN
UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION.'"  TO ALLOW PROCEDURE TO BE DETERMINED
ACCORDING TO THE PARTICULAR COURT THAT THE ALIEN MIGHT UTILIZE WOULD
NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITY.  (FN8)  THAT IS THE KIND OF
UNIFORMITY THAT THE TUTUN CASE APPROVES BY IMPLIEDLY ALLOWING APPEALS
UNDER STATE PROCEDURE. 

INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH ITS
ADMINISTRATION CARRIES WEIGHT.  (FN9)  A PRACTICE UNDER THAT
INTERPRETATION INCREASES ITS IMPORTANCE.  APPARENTLY THE GOVERNMENT
AVAILS ITSELF OF THE LOCAL METHODS OF DIRECTLY ATTACKING A JUDGMENT OF
NATURALIZATION WITHIN THE TERM, OR WITHIN LIMITED PERIODS UNDER
APPROPRIATE RULES.  (FN10)  THE GOVERNMENT, AND IN THIS BINDCZYCK CASE
THE SERVICE, THUS MAKES CLEAR ITS UNDERSTANDING THAT SEC. 338 DOES NOT
LIMIT THE POWER OF COURTS OVER JUDGMENTS DURING TERM TIME. 

WHEN WE CONSIDER THAT CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH PREVENTING FRAUD
AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES IN NATURALIZATION, THE COURT'S CONCLUSION DOES
NOT SEEM JUSTIFIED.  IT DISREGARDS WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, WITHOUT FURTHERING THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE,
AND PUTS A USELESS BURDEN ON THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ANY ULTIMATE
BENEFIT TO THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN.  SUCH A FORMALISTIC APPROACH TO
LEGAL PROBLEMS IS NOT HELPFUL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

WE THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE UNITED STATES V. SANGES, 144 U.S. 310, 311; CRAWFORD,
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION (1940), C. XXII; 1 BISHOP ON CRIMINAL LAW (9TH
ED., ZANE & ZOLLMAN, 1923) SEC. 291B.  CF. STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S.
288, 309; BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 108. 

FN2  FOR EXAMPLES, SEE 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1333, 1334, 1338(A), 1351,
1355, AND 1356. 

FN3  THIS PRINCIPLE WAS ADVERTED TO IN THE SECOND EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 56, IN THESE WORDS: 

"BECAUSE OF SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF ERRORS, AND TO THE END THAT THE REMAINING GROUND OF DECISION
ADVANCED THEREIN MAY BE MORE ACCURATELY UNDERSTOOD, WE DEEM IT WELL TO
OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NOT HERE INVOLVED ANY ATTEMPT BY CONGRESS TO
ENLARGE OR REGULATE THE JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS OR TO CONTROL OR
AFFECT THEIR MODES OF PROCEDURE, BUT ONLY A QUESTION OF THE DUTY OF
SUCH A COURT, WHEN ITS ORDINARY JURISDICTION AS PRESCRIBED BY LOCAL
LAWS IS APPROPRIATE TO THE OCCASION AND IS INVOKED IN CONFORMITY WITH
THOSE LAWS, TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF CIVIL
RECOVERY ARISING UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS AND SUSCEPTIBLE OF
ADJUDICATION ACCORDING TO THE PREVAILING RULES OF PROCEDURE." 

FN4  ACT OF MARCH 26, 1790, 1 STAT. 103.  SEE STATUTORY HISTORY OF
NATURALIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES, REPORT OF SECRETARY OF STATE,
JANUARY 19, 1904, APPENDED TO REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION
ON NATURALIZATION, H.R. DOC. NO. 46, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 58. 

FN5  ACT TO ESTABLISH A BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, 34
STAT. 596, SECS. 3 AND 15; NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1137,
SECS. 301 AND 338. 

FN6  SEE JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 227, 236: 

"IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT CONGRESS MAY NOT AUTHORIZE A DIRECT ATTACK
UPON CERTIFICATES OF CITIZENSHIP IN AN INDEPENDENT PROCEEDING SUCH AS
IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF 1906."  COMPARE ALSO UNITED
STATES V. NESS, 245 U.S. 319, 326, WHERE THE COURT SPEAKS OF SEC. 15 AS
AFFORDING A REMEDY BY "INDEPENDENT SUIT." 

FN7  "KNOWING THAT THE COURT HAD FULL POWER DURING THE TERM TO VACATE
ITS OWN DECREE, HE TOOK THESE LEASES SUBJECT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
VACATING OF THE DECREE."  HENDERSON V. CARBONDALE COAL & COKE CO., 140
U.S. 25, 40; GODDARD V. ORDWAY, 101 U.S. 745, 749-751; ZIMMERN V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 167.  SEE EDDY V. SUMMERS, 183 MD. 683, 687, 39
A.2D 812, 814.    FN8  HANOVER NATIONAL BANK V. MOYSES, 186 U.S. 181,
189; WRIGHT V. VINTON BANK, 300 U.S. 440, 463, N. 7; FERNANDEZ V.
WIENER, 326 U.S. 340, 359. 

FN9  CF. UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534,
545. 

FN10  SEE, E.G., PETITION OF WELTZIEN, 68 F. SUPP. 1000; UNITED
STATES EX REL. VOLPE V. JORDAN, 161 F.2D 390. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. WUNDERLICH 342 U.S. 98 


NO. 11.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 1951 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 26, 1951 - 117 CT.
CL. 92, REVERSED. 


UNDER THE STANDARD PROVISION OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT THAT ALL
DISPUTES INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF FACT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER, WITH THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT, "WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE
PARTIES THERETO," A FINDING BY THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT ON A QUESTION
OF FACT MAY NOT BE SET ASIDE BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, UNLESS IT WAS
FOUNDED ON FRAUD, ALLEGED AND PROVED.  PP. 98-101. 

(A)  BY FRAUD IS MEANT CONSCIOUS WRONGDOING, AN INTENTION TO CHEAT OR
BE DISHONEST.  P. 100. 

(B)  A FINDING BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT THE DECISION OF THE
DEPARTMENT HEAD WAS "ARBITRARY," "CAPRICIOUS" AND "GROSSLY ERRONEOUS"
IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SETTING IT ASIDE.  P. 100. 

UNITED STATES V. WUNDERLICH ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS SET ASIDE A DECISION OF A DEPARTMENT HEAD ON A
QUESTION OF FACT ARISING UNDER A STANDARD-FORM GOVERNMENT CONTRACT. 
117 CT. CL. 92.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 924. 
REVERSED, P. 101. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS COURT IS AGAIN CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OF THE
"FINALITY CLAUSE" OF A STANDARD FORM GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.  RESPONDENTS
AGREED TO BUILD A DAM FOR THE UNITED STATES UNDER A CONTRACT CONTAINING
THE USUAL "ARTICLE 15."*  THAT ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT ALL DISPUTES
INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF FACT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER, WITH THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT "WHOSE
DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES THERETO." 
DISSATISFIED WITH THE RESOLUTION OF VARIOUS DISPUTES BY THE DEPARTMENT
HEAD, IN THIS INSTANCE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, RESPONDENTS
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THAT COURT REVIEWED THEIR
CONTENTIONS, AND IN THE ONE CLAIM INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING SET ASIDE
THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD.  117 CT. CL. 92.  ALTHOUGH THERE
WAS SOME DISPUTE BELOW, THE PARTIES NOW AGREE THAT THE QUESTION DECIDED
BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD WAS A QUESTION OF FACT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
341 U.S. 924, TO CLARIFY THE RULE OF THIS COURT WHICH CREATED AN
EXCEPTION TO THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. 

*"ARTICLE 15.  DISPUTES.  - EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
IN THIS CONTRACT, ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF FACT ARISING
UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUBJECT
TO WRITTEN APPEAL BY THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT CONCERNED OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WHOSE
DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES THERETO.  IN
THE MEANTIME THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DILIGENTLY PROCEED WITH THE WORK AS
DIRECTED." 

THE SAME ARTICLE 15 OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WAS BEFORE THIS COURT
RECENTLY, AND WE HELD, AFTER A REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITIES, THAT SUCH
ARTICLE WAS VALID.  UNITED STATES V. MOORMAN, 338 U.S. 457.  NOR WAS
THE MOORMAN CASE ONE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.  CONTRACTS, BOTH GOVERNMENTAL
AND PRIVATE, HAVE BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT IN SEVERAL CASES IN WHICH
PROVISIONS EQUIVALENT TO ARTICLE 15 HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND ENFORCED "IN
THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD OR SUCH GROSS MISTAKE AS WOULD NECESSARILY IMPLY
BAD FAITH, OR A FAILURE TO EXERCISE AN HONEST JUDGMENT  ...  ." 
KIHLBERG V. UNITED STATES, 97 U.S. 398, 402; SWEENEY V. UNITED STATES,
109 U.S. 618, 620; MARTINSBURG & P.R. CO. V. MARCH, 114 U.S. 549, 553;
CHICAGO, S.F.&C.R. CO. V. PRICE, 138 U.S. 185, 195. 

IN RIPLEY V. UNITED STATES, 223 U.S. 695, 704, GROSS MISTAKE IMPLYING
BAD FAITH IS EQUATED TO "FRAUD."  DESPITE THE FACT THAT OTHER WORDS
SUCH AS "NEGLIGENCE," "INCOMPETENCE," "CAPRICIOUSNESS," AND "ARBITRARY"
HAVE BEEN USED IN THE COURSE OF THE OPINIONS, THIS COURT HAS
CONSISTENTLY UPHELD THE FINALITY OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD'S DECISION
UNLESS IT WAS FOUNDED ON FRAUD, ALLEGED AND PROVED.  SO FRAUD IS IN
ESSENCE THE EXCEPTION.  BY FRAUD WE MEAN CONSCIOUS WRONGDOING, AN
INTENTION TO CHEAT OR BE DISHONEST.  THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT
HEAD, ABSENT FRAUDULENT CONDUCT, MUST STAND UNDER THE PLAIN MEANING OF
THE CONTRACT. 

IF THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD UNDER ARTICLE 15 IS TO BE SET
ASIDE FOR FRAUD, FRAUD SHOULD BE ALLEGED AND PROVED, AS IT IS NEVER
PRESUMED.  UNITED STATES V. COLORADO ANTHRACITE CO., 225 U.S. 219,
226.  IN THE CASE AT BAR, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION OF FRAUD.  THERE WAS
NO FINDING OF FRAUD NOR REQUEST FOR SUCH A FINDING.  THE FINDING OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS WAS THAT THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD WAS
"ARBITRARY," "CAPRICIOUS," AND "GROSSLY ERRONEOUS."  BUT THESE WORDS
ARE NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF FRAUD, THE EXCEPTION WHICH THIS COURT HAS
HERETOFORE LAID DOWN AND TO WHICH IT NOW ADHERES WITHOUT
QUALIFICATION. 

RESPONDENTS WERE NOT COMPELLED OR COERCED INTO MAKING THE CONTRACT. 
IT WAS A VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING ON THEIR PART.  AS COMPETENT PARTIES
THEY HAVE CONTRACTED FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES IN AN ARBITRAL
MANNER.  THIS, WE HAVE SAID IN MOORMAN, CONGRESS HAS LEFT THEM FREE TO
DO.  UNITED STATES V. MOORMAN, SUPRA, AT 462.  THE LIMITATION UPON THIS
ARBITRAL PROCESS IS FRAUD, PLACED THERE BY THIS COURT.  IF THE STANDARD
OF FRAUD THAT WE ADHERE TO IS TOO LIMITED, THAT IS A MATTER FOR
CONGRESS. 

SINCE THERE WAS NO PLEADING OF FRAUD, AND NO FINDING OF FRAUD, AND NO
REQUEST FOR SUCH A FINDING, WE ARE NOT DISPOSED TO REMAND THE CASE FOR
ANY FURTHER FINDINGS, AS RESPONDENTS URGE.  WE ASSUME THAT IF THE
EVIDENCE HAD BEEN SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE FRAUD, THE COURT OF CLAIMS
WOULD HAVE SO FOUND.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDING, THE DECISION OF
THE DEPARTMENT HEAD MUST STAND AS CONCLUSIVE, AND THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

LAW HAS REACHED ITS FINEST MOMENTS WHEN IT HAS FREED MAN FROM THE
UNLIMITED DISCRETION OF SOME RULER, SOME CIVIL OR MILITARY OFFICIAL,
SOME BUREAUCRAT.  WHERE DISCRETION IS ABSOLUTE, MAN HAS ALWAYS
SUFFERED.  AT TIMES IT HAS BEEN HIS PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN INVADED; AT
TIMES, HIS PRIVACY; AT TIMES, HIS LIBERTY OF MOVEMENT; AT TIMES, HIS
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT; AT TIMES, HIS LIFE.  ABSOLUTE DISCRETION IS A
RUTHLESS MASTER.  IT IS MORE DESTRUCTIVE OF FREEDOM THAN ANY OF MAN'S
OTHER INVENTIONS. 

THE INSTANT CASE REVEALS ONLY A MINOR FACET OF THE AGE-LONG
STRUGGLE.  THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT CAN BE RATIONALIZED OR MADE
PLAUSIBLE BY CASTING IT IN TERMS OF CONTRACT LAW:  THE PARTIES NEED NOT
HAVE MADE THIS CONTRACT; THOSE WHO CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT MUST
TURN SQUARE CORNERS; THE PARTIES WILL BE LEFT WHERE THEIR ENGAGEMENT
BROUGHT THEM.  AND IT MAY BE THAT IN THIS CASE THE EQUITIES ARE WITH
THE GOVERNMENT, NOT WITH THE CONTRACTOR.  BUT THE RULE WE ANNOUNCE HAS
WIDE APPLICATION AND A DEVASTATING EFFECT.  IT MAKES A TYRANT OUT OF
EVERY CONTRACTING OFFICER.  HE IS GRANTED THE POWER OF A TYRANT EVEN
THOUGH HE IS STUBBORN, PERVERSE OR CAPTIOUS.  HE IS ALLOWED THE POWER
OF A TYRANT THOUGH HE IS INCOMPETENT OR NEGLIGENT.  HE HAS THE POWER OF
LIFE AND DEATH OVER A PRIVATE BUSINESS EVEN THOUGH HIS DECISION IS
GROSSLY ERRONEOUS.  POWER GRANTED IS SELDOM NEGLECTED. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IS A HEALTHY ONE.  AN OFFICIAL
WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE WILL ACT MORE PRUDENTLY.  A CITIZEN WHO HAS AN
APPEAL TO A BODY INDEPENDENT OF THE CONTROVERSY HAS PROTECTION AGAINST
PASSION, OBSTINACY, IRRATIONAL CONDUCT, AND INCOMPETENCY OF AN
OFFICIAL.  THE OPINION BY JUDGE MADDEN IN THIS CASE EXPRESSES A
REVULSION TO ALLOWING ONE MAN AN UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION OVER ANOTHER'S
FISCAL AFFAIRS.  WE SHOULD ALLOW THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE AGENCY CLOSE
TO THESE DISPUTES, TO REVERSE AN OFFICIAL WHOSE CONDUCT IS PLAINLY OUT
OF BOUNDS WHETHER HE IS FRAUDULENT, PERVERSE, CAPTIOUS, INCOMPETENT OR
JUST PALPABLY WRONG.  THE RULE WE ANNOUNCE MAKES GOVERNMENT
OPPRESSIVE.  THE RULE THE COURT OF CLAIMS ESPOUSES GIVES A CITIZEN
JUSTICE EVEN AGAINST HIS GOVERNMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS, WHICH DEALS WITH MANY SUCH
CASES WHILE WE DEAL WITH FEW, HAS REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT CONTRACTING
OFFICERS AND HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS SOMETIMES ARE ABUSING THE POWER OF
DECIDING THEIR OWN LAWSUITS WHICH THESE CONTRACT PROVISIONS GIVE TO
THEM.  IT ALSO IS APPARENT THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS DOES NOT BELIEVE
THAT OUR DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. MOORMAN, 338 U.S. 457, COMPLETELY
CLOSED THE DOOR TO JUDICIAL RELIEF FROM ARBITRARY ACTION UNLESS IT ALSO
IS FRAUDULENT IN THE SENSE OF "CONSCIOUS WRONGDOING, AN INTENTION TO
CHEAT OR BE DISHONEST."  NOR COULD I HAVE BELIEVED IT. 

GRANTED THAT THESE CONTRACTS ARE LEGAL, IT SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THAT ONE
WHO TAKES A PUBLIC CONTRACT PUTS HIMSELF WHOLLY IN THE POWER OF
CONTRACTING OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS.  WHEN WE RECENTLY REPEATED
IN MOORMAN THAT THEIR DECISIONS WERE "'CONCLUSIVE, UNLESS IMPEACHED ON
THE GROUND OF FRAUD, (OR SUCH GROSS MISTAKE AS NECESSARILY IMPLIED BAD
FAITH,)'" ID., AT 461, I SUPPOSED THAT WE MEANT THAT PART OF THE
RESERVATION INCLUDED IN PARENTHESES.  TODAY'S DECISION SEEMS NOT ONLY
TO READ THAT OUT OF THE MOORMAN DECISION, BUT ALSO TO ADD AN
EXCEEDINGLY RIGID MEANING TO THE WORD "FRAUD." 

UNDOUBTEDLY CONTRACTING PARTIES CAN AGREE TO PUT DECISION OF THEIR
DISPUTES IN THE HANDS OF ONE OF THEM.  BUT ONE WHO UNDERTAKES TO ACT AS
A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE OR, WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, IN THE CASE
OF HIS OWN DEPARTMENT, SHOULD BE UNDER SOME FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO THE
POSITION WHICH HE ASSUMES.  HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO MAKE ARBITRARY OR
RECKLESS USE OF HIS POWER, NOR TO DISREGARD EVIDENCE, NOR TO SHIELD HIS
DEPARTMENT FROM CONSEQUENCES OF ITS OWN BLUNDERS AT THE EXPENSE OF
CONTRACTORS.  HE IS SOMEWHAT IN THE POSITION OF THE LAWYER DEALING WITH
HIS CLIENT OR THE DOCTOR WITH HIS PATIENT, FOR THE SUPERIORITY OF HIS
POSITION IMPOSES RESTRAINTS APPROPRIATE TO THE TRUST.  THOUGH THE
CONTRACTOR MAY HAVE COVENANTED TO BE SATISIFED WITH WHAT HIS ADVERSARY
RENDERS TO HIM, IT MUST BE TRUE THAT HE WHO BARGAINS TO BE MADE JUDGE
OF HIS OWN CAUSE ASSUMES AN IMPLIED OBLIGATION TO DO JUSTICE.  THIS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY PETTY DISAGREEMENT SHOULD BE READJUDGED, BUT
THAT THE COURTS SHOULD HOLD THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS TO THE OLD BUT
VANISHING STANDARD OF GOOD FAITH AND CARE. 

I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ADHERE TO THE RULE THAT WHERE THE DECISION OF
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR DEPARTMENT HEAD SHOWS "SUCH GROSS MISTAKE AS
NECESSARILY TO IMPLY BAD FAITH" THERE IS A JUDICIAL REMEDY EVEN IF IT
HAS ITS ORIGIN IN OVERZEAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT, NEGLIGENCE OF THE
DECIDING OFFICIAL, MISREPRESENTATIONS - HOWEVER INNOCENT - BY
SUBORDINATES, PREJUDICE AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR, OR OTHER CAUSES THAT
FALL SHORT OF ACTUAL CORRUPTION.  MEN ARE MORE OFTEN BRIBED BY THEIR
LOYALTIES AND AMBITIONS THAN BY MONEY.  I STILL BELIEVE ONE SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO HAVE A JUDICIAL HEARING BEFORE HIS BUSINESS CAN BE DESTROYED
BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE COURT AGAIN THINKS OTHERWISE. 
CF.  EWING V. MYTINGER & CASSELBERRY, 339 U.S. 594, 604. 
..END :









UNITED STATES V. CARIGNAN 342 U.S. 36 


NO. 5.  ARGUED OCTOBER 8, 1951 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1951 - 185 F.2D
954, AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS. 


1.  HAVING CONFESSED THAT HE ASSAULTED A WOMAN WITH INTENT TO COMMIT
RAPE, RESPONDENT WAS ARRESTED AND DULY COMMITTED ON THAT CHARGE ON A
FRIDAY.  WHILE IN LAWFUL CUSTODY ON THAT CHARGE, HE WAS QUESTIONED ON
SATURDAY AND MONDAY (BUT NOT ON SUNDAY) ABOUT THE MURDER OF ANOTHER
WOMAN DURING AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT RAPE; AND HE CONFESSED TO THE MURDER
ON MONDAY, WITHOUT HAVING BEEN ARRESTED, INDICTED OR COMMITTED ON THAT
CHARGE.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF VIOLENCE, PERSISTENT QUESTIONING OR
DEPRIVATION OF FOOD OR REST.  RESPONDENT WAS TOLD THAT HE DID NOT HAVE
TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND THAT NO PROMISES COULD BE MADE TO HIM IN ONE
WAY OR ANOTHER.  PRIOR TO HIS CONFESSION, HE WAS PERMITTED TO CONSULT
PRIVATELY WITH A PRIEST ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.  HELD: ON THE
UNCONTRADICTED FACTS IN THIS RECORD, THE CONFESSION OF MURDER WAS NOT
INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF MCNABB V. UNITED
STATES, 318 U.S. 332, AND UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 410.  PP.
37-45. 

(A)  SO LONG AS NO COERCIVE METHODS BY THREATS OR INDUCEMENTS TO
CONFESS ARE EMPLOYED, CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS DO NOT FORBID POLICE
EXAMINATION IN PRIVATE OF THOSE IN LAWFUL CUSTODY OR THE USE AS
EVIDENCE OF INFORMATION VOLUNTARILY GIVEN.  P. 39. 

(B)  THE MCNABB DOCTRINE WAS NOT INTENDED AS A PENALTY OR SANCTION
FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 5 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 
UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65.  P. 42. 

(C)  RESPONDENT'S CONFESSION OF MURDER WAS NOT GIVEN DURING UNLAWFUL
DETENTION, BECAUSE HE WAS BEING LAWFULLY DETAINED ON ANOTHER CHARGE
ALTHOUGH HE HAD NOT BEEN ARRESTED FOR OR CHARGED WITH MURDER WHEN THE
CONFESSION OF MURDER WAS MADE.  PP. 43-44. 

(D)  THIS COURT DECLINES TO EXTEND THE MCNABB DOCTRINE TO STATEMENTS
TO POLICE OR WARDENS CONCERNING OTHER CRIMES WHILE PRISONERS ARE
LEGALLY DETAINED ON CRIMINAL CHARGES.  P. 45. 

2.  ISSUES WHICH WERE IN CONTROVERSY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, BUT
WHICH THAT COURT DID NOT DECIDE, ARE AVAILABLE TO A RESPONDENT IN
CERTIORARI AS GROUNDS FOR AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE
RESPONDENT DID NOT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  P. 38, N. 1. 

3.  WHEN THE ADMISSIBILITY OF RESPONDENT'S CONFESSION WAS IN ISSUE IN
THE TRIAL COURT, THE JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN REFUSING TO
PERMIT RESPONDENT TO TESTIFY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE JURY TO FACTS
BELIEVED TO INDICATE THE INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF HIS CONFESSION.  P.
38. 

4.  THE FACTS IN THIS RECORD SURROUNDING THE GIVING OF THE CONFESSION
DO NOT NECESSARILY ESTABLISH COERCION, PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL, SO AS
TO RENDER THE CONFESSION INADMISSIBLE.  P. 39. 

UNITED STATES V. CARIGNAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA, RESPONDENT WAS
CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER IN ATTEMPTING TO PERPETRATE A RAPE AND
WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  185 F.2D 954. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 934.  AFFIRMED ON OTHER
GROUNDS, P. 45. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT CARIGNAN WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
TERRITORY OF ALASKA OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER IN ATTEMPTING TO PERPETRATE
A RAPE.  ALASKA COMPILED LAWS ANNOTATED, 1949, SEC. 65-4-1.  HE WAS
SENTENCED TO DEATH.  THE CONVICTION WAS REVERSED BY THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.  CARIGNAN V. UNITED STATES, 185
F.2D 954.  THE SOLE GROUND OF THE REVERSAL WAS THE ADMISSION OF A
CONFESSION OBTAINED IN A MANNER HELD TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES
EXPOUNDED BY THIS COURT IN MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, AND
UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 410. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED ON THE PETITION OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  341 U.S. 934.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION WAS
WHETHER IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT AT THE TRIAL RESPONDENT'S CONFESSION OF
THE MURDER.  THE CONFESSION WAS HELD INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE GIVEN BEFORE
ARREST, INDICTMENT, OR COMMITMENT ON THE MURDER CHARGE.  THE CONFESSION
WAS GIVEN AFTER RESPONDENT HAD BEEN DULY COMMITTED TO JAIL, RULE 5,
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, UNDER A WARRANT WHICH CHARGED THAT
HE HAD, AT A TIME SIX WEEKS AFTER THE MURDER, PERPETRATED AN ASSAULT
WITH INTENT TO RAPE. 

RESPONDENT ADVANCES THREE ADDITIONAL ISSUES TO SUPPORT THE REVERSAL
OF THE CONVICTION BESIDES THE ABOVE POINT ON DETENTION.  FIRST.  ERROR,
IT IS ARGUED, WAS COMMITTED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN ADMITTING THE
CONFESSION BECAUSE IT WAS OBTAINED BY SECRET INTERROGATION AND
PHYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE BY POLICE OFFICERS.  SECOND.  FURTHER ERROR, IT
IS SAID, FOLLOWED FROM A FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO SUBMIT TO THE
JURY, AS A QUESTION OF FACT, THE VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF
THE CONFESSION.  THIRD.  ERROR OCCURRED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO
PERMIT RESPONDENT TO TAKE THE STAND AND TESTIFY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
JURY TO FACTS BELIEVED TO INDICATE THE INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE
CONFESSION.  (FN1) 

THE UNITED STATES CONCEDES IN REGARD TO THE THIRD ISSUE THAT THE
BETTER PRACTICE, WHEN ADMISSIBILITY OF A CONFESSION IS IN ISSUE, IS FOR
THE JUDGE TO HEAR A DEFENDANT'S OFFERED TESTIMONY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
JURY AS TO THE SURROUNDING FACTS.  THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT MAKES NO
OBJECTION TO THE REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION ON THAT GROUND.  WE THINK
IT CLEAR THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY.  AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE.  WILSON V. UNITED
STATES, 162 U.S. 613, 623.  SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD BE PERTINENT TO THE
INQUIRY ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MIGHT BE MATERIAL AND DETERMINATIVE.  THE
REFUSAL TO ADMIT THE TESTIMONY WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.  AS THIS ERROR
MAKES NECESSARY A NEW EXAMINATION INTO THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE
CONFESSION, THERE IS NO NEED NOW TO PURSUE ON THIS RECORD THE FIRST AND
SECOND ISSUES BROUGHT FORWARD BY RESPONDENT, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THE
FACTS IN THIS RECORD SURROUNDING THE GIVING OF THE CONFESSION DO NOT
NECESSARILY ESTABLISH COERCION, PHYSICAL OR PHYCHOLOGICAL, SO AS TO
RENDER THE CONFESSION INADMISSIBLE.  THE EVIDENCE ON THE NEW TRIAL WILL
DETERMINE THE NECESSITY FOR OR CHARACTER OF INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY ON
THE WEIGHT TO BE ACCORDED THE CONFESSION, IF IT IS ADMITTED IN
EVIDENCE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. LUSTIG, 163 F.2D 85, 88-89.  MCNABB V.
UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 338, NOTE 5.  SO LONG AS NO COERCIVE
METHODS BY THREATS OR INDUCEMENTS TO CONFESS ARE EMPLOYED,
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS DO NOT FORBID POLICE EXAMINATION IN PRIVATE
OF THOSE IN LAWFUL CUSTODY OR THE USE AS EVIDENCE OF INFORMATION
VOLUNTARILY GIVEN.  (FN2) 

THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY OF THE UNCONTRADICTED FACTS DISCLOSES THE
CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE CONFESSION.  RESPONDENT CARIGNAN WAS
DETAINED BY THE ANCHORAGE POLICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUBSEQUENT
ASSAULT CASE FROM ABOUT 11 A.M., FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1949.  HE WAS
IDENTIFIED IN A LINE-UP BY THE VICTIM, AND CONFESSED TO THE ASSAULT. 
AROUND 4 P.M. ON THE SAME DAY HE WAS ARRESTED AND DULY COMMITTED FOR
THE ASSAULT.  HIS TRIAL ON THE ASSAULT CHARGE TOOK PLACE SUBSEQUENT TO
THIS CONFESSION. 

DURING THE TIME BETWEEN HIS DETENTION AND COMMITMENT FOR THE ASSAULT,
RESPONDENT WAS QUESTIONED BY THE POLICE ABOUT THE MURDER WHICH WAS THE
BASIS OF THE CONVICTION NOW UNDER REVIEW.  A WITNESS WHO HAD SEEN THE
MAN INVOLVED IN THE MURDER AND HIS VICTIM TOGETHER AT THE SCENE OF THE
CRIME WAS BROUGHT TO THE POLICE STATION DURING THIS TIME.  FROM A LINE
UP HE PICKED OUT RESPONDENT CARIGNAN AS ONE APPEARING TO BE THE PERSON
THAT HE SAW ON THAT OCCASION.  CARIGNAN DID NOT GIVE ANY INFORMATION
ABOUT HIS ACTIVITIES ON THE DAY THE MURDER WAS COMMITTED. 

THE NIGHT OF FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, CARIGNAN WAS LODGED IN THE CITY
JAIL.  THE NEXT MORNING, SATURDAY, HERRING, THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL,
UNDERTOOK TO QUESTION RESPONDENT IN REGARD TO THE EARLIER CRIME OF
MURDER.  NO EVIDENCE APPEARS OF VIOLENCE, OF PERSISTENT QUESTIONING, OR
OF DEPRIVATION OF FOOD OR REST.  RESPONDENT WAS TOLD THAT HE DID NOT
HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT, AND THAT NO PROMISES COULD BE MADE TO HIM ONE
WAY OR ANOTHER.  THERE WERE PCITURES OF CHRIST AND OF VARIOUS SAINTS ON
THE WALLS OF THE OFFICE IN WHICH THE CONVERSATION OCCURRED.  THE
MARSHAL EVIDENTLY SUGGESTED TO HIM THAT HIS MAKER MIGHT THINK MORE OF
HIM IF HE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CRIME.  THE EVIDENCE ALSO SHOWS THAT
THE MARSHAL TOLD CARIGNAN THAT HE, THE MARSHAL, HAD BEEN IN AN ORPHAN
ASYLUM AS A YOUTH, AS HAD CARIGNAN.  ON RESPONDENT'S REQUEST A PRIEST
WAS CALLED.  THE ACCUSED TALKED TO THE PRIEST ALONE FOR SOME TIME AND
LATER TOLD THE MARSHAL HE WOULD GIVE HIM A STATEMENT.  AFTER HIS RETURN
TO THE JAIL ABOUT 5 P.M. ON SATURDAY, HE WAS LEFT UNDISTURBED. 

ON SUNDAY HE WAS NOT QUESTIONED, AND ON MONDAY MORNING THE MARSHAL
AGAIN TOOK RESPONDENT OUT OF JAIL AND INTO THE GRAND JURY ROOM IN THE
COURTHOUSE.  UPON THE MARSHAL'S INQUIRY IF HE HAD ANY STATEMENT TO
MAKE, RESPONDENT ANSWERED THAT HE HAD BUT THAT HE WISHED TO SEE THE
PRIEST FIRST. 

AFTER TALKING TO THE PRIEST AGAIN FOR SOME TIME, HE GAVE THE MARSHAL
A WRITTEN STATEMENT.  THE STATEMENT WAS NONCOMMITTAL AS TO THE MURDER
CHARGE.  TWO OTHER POLICE OFFICERS WHO WERE WITH THE MARSHAL AND
CARIGNAN THEN SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS CARIGNAN WOULD RATHER TALK TO THE
MARSHAL ALONE.  THEY WITHDREW.  THE MARSHAL TOLD CARIGNAN, IN RESPONSE
TO AN INQUIRY, THAT HE HAD BEEN AROUND THAT COURT FOR TWENTY-SEVEN
YEARS AND THAT DURING THAT TIME "THERE HAD BEEN NO HANGING, WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN TO HIM I COULDN'T PROMISE HIM OR ANYONE ELSE."  THERE WAS ALSO
SOME TALK ABOUT MCNEIL ISLAND, THE LOCATION OF THE NEAREST FEDERAL
PENITENTIARY, AND THE MARSHAL SAID, IN REPLY TO A QUESTION OF
CARIGNAN'S, THAT HE, THE MARSHAL, "HAD KNOWN MEN THAT HAD BEEN THERE
AND LEARNED A TRADE AND THAT MADE SOMETHING OF THEIR LIVES."  AFTER A
FEW MOMENTS' FURTHER CONVERSATION CARIGNAN COMPLETED THE WRITTEN
STATEMENT THAT WAS LATER PUT IN EVIDENCE.  IT THEN ADMITTED THE
KILLING. 

WHETHER INVOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM FEDERAL CRIMINAL
TRIALS ON THE GROUND OF A VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, (FN3) OR FROM A RULE THAT FORCED
CONFESSIONS ARE UNTRUSTWORTHY, (FN4) THESE UNCONTRADICTED FACTS DO NOT
BAR THIS CONFESSION AS A MATTER OF LAW.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST FOR
ADMISSION OF AN ACCUSED'S CONFESSION IN FEDERAL COURTS FOR A LONG TIME
HAS BEEN WHETHER IT WAS MADE "FREELY, VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT
COMPULSION OR INDUCEMENT OF ANY SORT."  (FN5)  HOWEVER, THIS COURT IN
RECENT YEARS HAS ENFORCED A JUDICIALLY CREATED FEDERAL RULE OF
EVIDENCE, TO WHICH THE LABEL "MCNABB RULE" HAS BEEN APPLIED, THAT
CONFESSIONS SHALL BE EXCLUDED IF OBTAINED DURING "ILLEGAL DETENTION DUE
TO FAILURE PROMPTLY TO CARRY A PRISONER BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE,
WHETHER OR NOT THE 'CONFESSION IS THE RESULT OF TORTURE, PHYSICAL OR
PSYCHOLOGICAL.'"  (FN6)  VIOLATION OF THE MCNABB RULE, IN THE VIEW OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS, NOT THE ASSERTEDLY INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE
CONFESSION, CAUSED THAT COURT TO REVERSE THE CONVICTION.  (FN7)  OUR
PROBLEM IN THIS REVIEW IS WHETHER THE MCNABB RULE COVERS THIS
CONFESSION OR, IF NOT, WHETHER THAT RULE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOW BE
JUDICIALLY EXTENDED TO THESE FACTS. 

BY UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65, 70-71, THIS COURT DECIDED
THAT THE MCNABB RULE WAS NOT INTENDED AS A PENALTY OR SANCTION FOR
VIOLATION OF R.S.D.C. SEC. 397, A COMMITMENT STATUTE.  THE SAME
CONCLUSION APPLIES TO RULE 5, FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 
(FN8)  THIS RULE APPLIES TO ALASKA.  RULE 54(A).  SEE UPSHAW V. UNITED
STATES, 335 U.S. 410, 411.  MITCHELL'S CONFESSION, MADE BEFORE
COMMITMENT, BUT ALSO BEFORE HIS DETENTION HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY PROLONGED,
WAS ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ELICITED "THROUGH
ILLEGALITY."  THE ADMISSION THEREFORE, WAS NOT "USE BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE FRUITS OF WRONGDOING BY ITS OFFICERS."  UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 413.  (FN9) 

THE MCNABB RULE HAS BEEN STATED THUS: 

"  ...  THAT A CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE IF MADE DURING ILLEGAL
DETENTION DUE TO FAILURE PROMPTLY TO CARRY A PRISONER BEFORE A
COMMITTING MAGISTRATE, WHETHER OR NOT THE 'CONFESSION IS THE RESULT OF
TORTURE, PHYSICAL OR PHYCHOLOGICAL  ...  .'"  UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES,
335 U.S. AT 413. 

ONE CANNOT SAY THAT THIS RECORD JUSTIFIES CHARACTERIZATION OF THIS
CONFESSION AS GIVEN DURING UNLAWFUL DETENTION.  RULE 5, FEDERAL RULES
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, DOES NOT APPLY IN TERMS, BECAUSE CARIGNAN WAS
NEITHER ARRESTED FOR NOR CHARGED WITH THE MURDER WHEN THE CONFESSION TO
THAT CRIME WAS MADE.  HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND COMMITTED FOR THE
ASSAULT PERPETRATED SIX WEEKS AFTER THE MURDER.  HIS DETENTION,
THEREFORE, WAS LEGAL.  FURTHER, BEFORE THE CONFESSION, THERE WAS BASIS
FOR NO MORE THAN A STRONG SUSPICION THAT CARIGNAN WAS THE MURDERER. 
THAT SUSPICION AROSE FROM A DOUBTFUL IDENTIFICATION BY A PERSON WHO HAD
IN PASSING SEEN A MAN RESEMBLING THE RESPONDENT AT THE SCENE OF THE
MURDER AND FROM A SIMILARITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN THE MURDER AND
THE ASSAULT.  (FN10)  THE POLICE COULD HARDLY BE EXPECTED TO MAKE A
MURDER CHARGE ON SUCH UNCERTAINTIES WITHOUT FURTHER INQUIRY AND
INVESTIGATION.  THIS CASE FALLS OUTSIDE THE REASON FOR THE RULE, I.E.,
TO ABOLISH UNLAWFUL DETENTION.  SUCH DETENTION WAS THOUGHT TO GIVE
OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROPER PRESSURE BY POLICE BEFORE THE ACCUSED HAD THE
BENEFIT OF THE STATEMENT BY THE COMMISSIONER.  RULE 5(B), SUPRA, NOTE
8.  UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 414; MCNABB V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 344.  CARIGNAN HAD RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION AT HIS COMMITMENT
FOR THE ASSAULT. 

ANOTHER EXTENSION OF THE MCNABB RULE WOULD ACCENTUATE THE SHIFT OF
THE INQUIRY AS TO ADMISSIBILITY FROM THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE
CONFESSION TO THE LEGALITY OF THE ARREST AND RESTRAINT.  COMPLETE
PROTECTION IS AFFORDED THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED WHO MAKES AN
INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION OR STATEMENT WHEN SUCH CONFESSION MUST BE
EXCLUDED BY THE JUDGE OR DISREGARDED BY THE JURY UPON PROOF THAT IT IS
NOT VOLUNTARY.  SUCH A JUST AND MERCIFUL RULE PRESERVES THE RIGHTS OF
ACCUSED AND SOCIETY ALIKE.  IT DOES NOT SACRIFICE JUSTICE TO
SENTIMENTALITY.  AN EXTENSION OF A MECHANICAL RULE BASED ON THE TIME OF
A CONFESSION WOULD NOT BE A HELPFUL ADDITION TO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE.  WE DECLINE TO EXTEND THE MCNABB FIXED RULE OF EXCLUSION TO
STATEMENTS TO POLICE OR WARDENS CONCERNING OTHER CRIMES WHILE PRISONERS
ARE LEGALLY IN DETENTION ON CRIMINAL CHARGES. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED BY
THIS OPINION, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SINCE THESE ISSUES WERE IN CONTROVERSY BELOW, THEY ARE AVAILABLE
TO RESPONDENT AS GROUNDS FOR AFFIRMANCE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, 535, 538; UNITED STATES V. CURTISS
WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 330. 

FN2  ZIANG SUNG WAN V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1, 14; LISENBA V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 239; MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332,
346.  CF. HARDY V. UNITED STATES, 186 U.S. 224, 228. 

FN3  BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 542; POWERS V. UNITED
STATES, 223 U.S. 303, 313. 

FN4  WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (1940 ED.), SEC. 822.  CF. ZIANG SUNG WAN V.
UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1, 14. 

FN5  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 162 U.S. 613, 623. 

FN6  UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 410, 413; MCNABB V. UNITED
STATES, 318 U.S. 332. 

FN7  CARIGNAN V. UNITED STATES, 185 F.2D 954: 

HEALY, CIRCUIT JUDGE: 

"WHAT THE COURT HAS TO DECIDE IS WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED
WERE SUCH AS TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF RULE 5
AND THE HOLDING OF THE MCNABB DECISION, SUPRA, AS FURTHER EXPOUNDED IN
UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 410,  ...  .  (FN4) 

"FN4  IN THE VIEW OF THE WRITER OF THIS OPINION SOMETHING APPROACHING
PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE, NOT UNMIXED WITH DECEIT, CONTRIBUTED TO THE
EXTRACTION OF THE CONFESSION.  SINCE THE MAJORITY ARE OF A CONTRARY
OPINION THIS POSSIBLE ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN WEIGHT IN THE DECISION
TO REVERSE."  P. 958.    BONE, CIRCUIT JUDGE: 

"HOWEVER, I EMPHASIZE THAT MY CONCURRENCE RESTS SOLELY UPON THE FACT
THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT ARRAIGNED PRIOR TO BEING INTERROGATED BY THE
MARSHAL AND PRIOR TO THE MAKING OF THE CONFESSION.  THE EVIDENCE IN
THIS CASE CONVINCES ME THAT THE CONFESSION WAS FREELY MADE AND WAS NOT
THE PRODUCT OF ANY FORM OF PROMISES OR INDUCEMENT THAT WOULD OR SHOULD
VITIATE IT."  P. 961.    SEE ALSO POPE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, DISSENTING, P.
962. 

FN8  FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:

 "RULE 5.  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. 

"(A)  APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER.  AN OFFICER MAKING AN
ARREST UNDER A WARRANT ISSUED UPON A COMPLAINT OR ANY PERSON MAKING AN
ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT SHALL TAKE THE ARRESTED PERSON WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY DELAY BEFORE THE NEAREST AVAILABLE COMMISSIONER OR BEFORE
ANY OTHER NEARBY OFFICER EMPOWERED TO COMMIT PERSONS CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  WHEN A PERSON ARRESTED
WITHOUT A WARRANT IS BROUGHT BEFORE A COMMISSIONER OR OTHER OFFICER, A
COMPLAINT SHALL BE FILED FORTHWITH. 

"(B)  STATEMENT BY THE COMMISSIONER.  THE COMMISSIONER SHALL INFORM
THE DEFENDANT OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM, OF HIS RIGHT TO RETAIN
COUNSEL AND OF HIS RIGHT TO HAVE A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION.  HE SHALL
ALSO INFORM THE DEFENDANT THAT HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE A STATEMENT
AND THAT ANY STATEMENT MADE BY HIM MAY BE USED AGAINST HIM.  THE
COMMISSIONER SHALL ALLOW THE DEFENDANT REASONABLE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY
TO CONSULT COUNSEL AND SHALL ADMIT THE DEFENDANT TO BAIL AS PROVIDED IN
THESE RULES." 

FN9  IN THE MITCHELL CASE, DEFENDANT'S CONFESSION WAS GIVEN AT THE
POLICE STATION BEFORE COMMITMENT, A FEW MINUTES AFTER TWO POLICEMEN HAD
JAILED HIM FOLLOWING HIS ARREST ON A CHARGE OF HOUSEBREAKING AND
LARCENY.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF AIDING IN CLEARING UP A SERIES OF
HOUSEBREAKINGS, MITCHELL'S APPEARANCE FOR COMMITMENT WAS ILLEGALLY
POSTPONED FOR EIGHT DAYS. 

FN10  THE WEAKNESS OF THIS EVIDENCE IS SHOWN BY THE RECORD. 

"Q.  NOW, AT ANY LATER TIME, MR. KEITH, WERE YOU CALLED UPON TO
IDENTIFY ANYONE THAT RESEMBLED THE PERSON THAT YOU SAW, THE MALE PERSON
IN THE GRASS THAT NIGHT? 

"A.  I WAS TAKEN TO THE POLICE STATION AND VIEWED THE LINE-UP. 

"Q.  DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY WERE IN THAT LINE-UP? 

"A.  THERE WAS EITHER FOUR OR FIVE, I DON'T EXACTLY RECOLLECT. 

"Q.  DID YOU PICK OUT SOME PERSON THAT APPEARED TO BE THE PERSON THAT
YOU SAW ON THIS PARTICULAR OCCASION? 

"A.  I DID. 

"Q.  DO YOU SEE ANYONE IN THE COURTROOM TODAY THAT RESEMBLES THE
PARTY THAT YOU SAW THAT NIGHT IN QUESTION? 

"A.  I DO. 

"Q.  WILL YOU POINT HIM OUT? 

"A.  HE IS RIGHT OVER THERE."  R. 120-121. 

     *  *         *         *         * 

"Q.  NOW, WERE YOU ABLE TO REMEMBER THE PERSON YOU SAW THERE SO THAT
WHEN YOU SAW HIM IN THE COURTROOM TODAY YOU WERE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE HIM
AS THE SAME PERSON? 

"A.  I COULDN'T POSITIVELY SWEAR THAT HE IS THE SAME PERSON."  R.
128. 

     *         *         *         *         * 

"Q.  WHEN DID YOU NEXT SEE THE MAN WHOM YOU IDENTIFIED AS THE PERSON
YOU SAW IN THE PARK IN THE GRASS? 

"A. IN THE POLICE LINE-UP. 

"Q.  DID YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY RECOGNIZING HIM AT THAT TIME? 

"A.  WELL, NO. I PICKED HIM OUT AS LOOKING NEARER LIKE THE MAN THAT I
SAW THERE THAN ANY MAN I HAVE SEEN."  R. 130. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER JOIN, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE.  BUT
MY REASON STRIKES DEEPER THAN THE ONE ON WHICH THE COURT RESTS ITS
OPINION.  THERE ARE TIME-HONORED POLICE METHODS FOR OBTAINING
CONFESSIONS FROM AN ACCUSED.  ONE IS DETENTION WITHOUT ARRAIGNMENT, THE
PROBLEM WE DEALT WITH IN MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332.  THEN
THE ACCUSED IS UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE POLICE, SUBJECT TO
THEIR MERCY, AND BEYOND THE REACH OF COUNSEL OR OF FRIENDS.  WHAT
HAPPENS BEHIND DOORS THAT ARE OPENED AND CLOSED AT THE SOLE DISCRETION
OF THE POLICE IS A BLACK CHAPTER IN EVERY COUNTRY - THE FREE AS WELL AS
THE DESPOTIC, THE MODERN AS WELL AS THE ANCIENT.  IN THE MCNABB CASE WE
TRIED TO RID THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF THOSE BREEDING GROUNDS FOR COERCED
CONFESSIONS. 

ANOTHER TIME-HONORED POLICE METHOD FOR OBTAINING CONFESSIONS IS TO
ARREST A MAN ON ONE CHARGE (OFTEN A MINOR ONE) AND USE HIS DETENTION
FOR INVESTIGATING A WHOLLY DIFFERENT CRIME.  THIS IS AN EASY SHORT CUT
FOR THE POLICE.  HOW CONVENIENT IT IS TO MAKE DETENTION THE VEHICLE OF
INVESTIGATION]   THEN THE POLICE CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THE PRISONER DAY
AND NIGHT.  ARRAIGNMENT FOR ONE CRIME GIVES SOME PROTECTION.  BUT WHEN
IT IS A PRETENSE OR USED AS THE DEVICE FOR BREAKING THE WILL OF THE
PRISONER ON LONG, RELENTLESS, OR REPEATED QUESTIONINGS, IT IS
ABHORRENT.  WE SHOULD FREE THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF THAT DISREPUTABLE
PRACTICE WHICH HAS HONEYCOMBED THE MUNICIPAL POLICE SYSTEM IN THIS
COUNTRY.*  WE SHOULD MAKE ILLEGAL SUCH A PERVERSION OF A "LEGAL"
DETENTION. 

*SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, 29 CITY CLUB BULLETIN OF PORTLAND, OREGON, NO. 7,
JUNE 18, 1948. 

THE RULE I PROPOSE WOULD, OF COURSE, REDUCE THE "EFFICIENCY" OF THE
POLICE.  BUT SO DO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ARRAIGNMENT, THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST COERCED CONFESSIONS, THE RIGHT TO BAIL, THE JURY TRIAL, AND
MOST OF OUR OTHER PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.  WE IN THIS COUNTRY, HOWEVER,
EARLY MADE THE CHOICE - THAT THE DIGNITY AND PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
WERE WORTH MORE TO SOCIETY THAN AN ALL-POWERFUL POLICE. 

WE ARE FRAMING HERE A RULE OF EVIDENCE FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  THAT RULE MUST BE DRAWN IN LIGHT NOT OF THE FACTS OF
THE PARTICULAR CASE BUT OF THE SYSTEM WHICH THE PARTICULAR CASE
REFLECTS.  HENCE, THE FACT THAT THE CHARGE ON WHICH THIS RESPONDENT WAS
ARRAIGNED WAS NOT A MINOR ONE NOR ONE EASILY CONCEIVED BY THE POLICE IS
IMMATERIAL.  THE RULE OF EVIDENCE WE ANNOUNCE TODAY GIVES SANCTION TO A
POLICE PRACTICE WHICH MAKES DETENTION THE MEANS OF INVESTIGATION. 
THEREIN LIES ITS VICE.  HENCE, WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER A
CONFESSION SO OBTAINED VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
..END :



















UNITED STATES V. JEFFERS 342 U.S. 48 


NO. 3.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1951 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1951 - 88 U.S.
APP. D.C. 58, 187 F.2D 498, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WITHOUT A WARRANT FOR SEARCH OR ARREST, BUT WITH REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT RESPONDENT HAD NARCOTICS UNLAWFULLY CONCEALED THERE, OFFICERS
ENTERED THE HOTEL ROOM OF RESPONDENT'S AUNTS, IN THEIR ABSENCE AND IN
THE ABSENCE OF RESPONDENT, SEARCHED IT, AND SEIZED NARCOTICS CLAIMED BY
RESPONDENT.  THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WERE NOT INCIDENT TO A VALID
ARREST; AND THERE WERE NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY THEIR
BEING MADE WITHOUT A WARRANT.  HELD:  THE SEIZURE VIOLATED THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT; AND, ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION, THE NARCOTICS SO SEIZED SHOULD
HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE IN HIS TRIAL FOR VIOLATION OF THE
NARCOTICS LAWS.  PP. 49-54. 

(A)  THAT THE EVIDENCE SEIZED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS NOT ON
RESPONDENT'S PREMISES, DID NOT DEPRIVE HIM OF STANDING TO SUPPRESS IT.
PP. 51-52. 

(B)  NOR IS A DIFFERENT RESULT REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION OF 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 3116 THAT "NO PROPERTY RIGHTS SHALL EXIST" IN SUCH CONTRABAND
GOODS.  PP. 52-54. 

2.  SINCE THE EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY SEIZED WAS CONTRABAND, THE
RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE IT RETURNED TO HIM.  P. 54. 

UNITED STATES V. JEFFERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
SEIZED WITHOUT A WARRANT WAS DENIED AND HE WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING
THE NARCOTICS LAWS, 26 U.S.C. SEC.  2553(A) AND 21 U.S.C. SEC. 174. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  88 U.S. APP. D.C. 58, 187 F.2D 498. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 951.  AFFIRMED, P. 54. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HERE WE ARE FACED WITH TROUBLESOME QUESTIONS AS TO THE EXCLUSION FROM
EVIDENCE, ON MOTION OF THE ACCUSED, OF CONTRABAND NARCOTICS CLAIMED BY
HIM WHICH WERE SEIZED ON THE PREMISES OF OTHER PERSONS IN THE COURSE OF
A SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT.  ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED NARCOTICS, THE
ACCUSED, RESPONDENT HERE, WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF THE NARCOTICS
LAWS, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2553(A) AND 21 U.S.C. SEC. 174  (FN1)  PRIOR TO
TRIAL THE DISTRICT COURT HAD DENIED RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS, AS
EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL, THE PROPERTY SEIZED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THE CONVICTION BY A DIVIDED COURT, 88 U.S. APP. D.C. 58, 187
F.2D 498.  SINCE A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION IS IMPORTANT IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  340 U.S.
951. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT ONE ROBERTS CAME TO THE DUNBAR HOTEL IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1949, AT ABOUT 3 P.M.,
SOUGHT OUT THE HOUSE DETECTIVE, SCOTT, AND OFFERED HIM $500 TO LET HIM
INTO A ROOM IN THE HOTEL OCCUPIED BY RESPONDENT'S TWO AUNTS, THE MISSES
JEFFRIES.  ROBERTS TOLD SCOTT THAT RESPONDENT HAD "SOME STUFF STASHED"
IN THE ROOM.  THE HOUSE DETECTIVE TOLD ROBERTS TO CALL BACK LATER IN
THE EVENING AND HE WOULD SEE ABOUT IT.  HE THEN IMMEDIATELY REPORTED
THE INCIDENT TO LIEUT.  KARPER, IN CHARGE OF THE NARCOTICS SQUAD OF THE
METROPOLITAN POLICE, WHO CAME TO THE HOTEL ABOUT 4 P.M.  KARPER WENT
WITH SCOTT TO THE ROOM OCCUPIED BY THE MISSES JEFFRIES.  WHEN THERE WAS
NO ANSWER TO THEIR KNOCK ON THE DOOR THE TWO OFFICERS THEN WENT TO THE
ASSISTANT MANAGER AND OBTAINED A KEY TO THE ROOM.  ALTHOUGH NEITHER
OFFICER HAD EITHER A SEARCH OR AN ARREST WARRANT THEY UNLOCKED THE
DOOR, ENTERED THE ROOM AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE MISSES JEFFRIES AS
WELL AS THE RESPONDENT, PROCEEDED TO CONDUCT A DETAILED SEARCH
THEREOF.  ON THE TOP SHELF OF A CLOSET THEY DISCOVERED A PASTEBOARD BOX
CONTAINING 19 BOTTLES OF COCAINE, OF WHICH ONLY TWO HAD U.S. TAX STAMPS
ATTACHED, AND ONE BOTTLE OF CODEINE, ALSO WITHOUT STAMPS.  THE BOTTLES
WERE SEIZED AND TAKEN TO SCOTT'S OFFICE, WHERE LIEUT. KARPER TELEPHONED
THE FEDERAL NARCOTICS AGENT AND UPON THE LATTER'S ARRIVAL TURNED THE
SEIZED ARTICLES OVER TO HIM.  RESPONDENT WAS ARRESTED THE FOLLOWING DAY
ON THE CHARGES BEFORE US, AT WHICH TIME HE CLAIMED OWNERSHIP OF THE
NARCOTICS SEIZED. 

IT APPEARED FROM THE EVIDENCE AT THE PRETRIAL HEARING THAT THE MISSES
JEFFRIES HAD GIVEN RESPONDENT A KEY TO THEIR ROOM, THAT HE HAD THEIR
PERMISSION TO USE THE ROOM AT WILL, AND THAT HE OFTEN ENTERED THE ROOM
FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES.  THEY HAD NOT GIVEN HIM PERMISSION TO STORE
NARCOTICS THERE AND HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT ANY WERE SO STORED.  THE
HOTEL RECORDS REFLECTED THAT THE ROOM WAS ASSIGNED TO AND PAID FOR BY
THEM ALONE. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE SEIZURE WAS MADE IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ON MOTION OF RESPONDENT ITS
FRUITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE ON HIS TRIAL. 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT (FN2) PROHIBITS BOTH UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
UNREASONABLE SEIZURES, AND ITS PROTECTION EXTENDS TO BOTH "HOUSES" AND
"EFFECTS."  OVER AND AGAIN THIS COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE MANDATE
OF THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES ADHERENCE TO JUDICIAL PROCESSES.  SEE WEEKS
V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383 (1914); AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269
U.S. 20 (1925).  ONLY WHERE INCIDENT TO A VALID ARREST, UNITED STATES
V. RABINOWITZ, 339 U.S. 56 (1950), OR IN "EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES,"
JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), MAY AN EXEMPTION LIE, AND
THEN THE BURDEN IS ON THOSE SEEKING THE EXEMPTION TO SHOW THE NEED FOR
IT, MCDONALD V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948).  IN SO DOING
THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PLACE AN UNDULY OPPRESSIVE WEIGHT ON LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BUT MERELY INTERPOSES AN ORDERLY PROCEDURE UNDER
THE AEGIS OF JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY THAT IS NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE
BENEFICENT PURPOSES INTENDED.  JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
OFFICERS INSTEAD OF OBEYING THIS MANDATE HAVE TOO OFTEN, AS SHOWN BY
THE NUMEROUS CASES IN THIS COURT, TAKEN MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS
AND INVADED THE SECURITY OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE. 

THE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT EVERY ENTRY, WITHOUT A WARRANT, INTO A
HOTEL ROOM.  CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT MAKE EXCEPTIONS AND CERTAINLY IMPLIED
OR EXPRESS PERMISSION IS GIVEN TO SUCH PERSONS AS MAIDS, JANITORS OR
REPAIRMEN IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES.  BUT HERE THE GOVERNMENT
ADMITS THAT THE SEARCH OF THE HOTEL ROOM, AS TO THE MISSES JEFFRIES,
WAS UNLAWFUL.  THEY WERE NOT EVEN PRESENT WHEN THE ENTRY, SEARCH AND
SEIZURE WERE CONDUCTED; NOR WERE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT TO
JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF THE OFFICERS.  THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF VIOLENCE,
NO MOVABLE VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED, NOR WAS THERE AN ARREST OR IMMINENT
DESTRUCTION, REMOVAL, OR CONCEALMENT OF THE PROPERTY INTENDED TO BE
SEIZED.  IN FACT, THE OFFICERS ADMIT THEY COULD HAVE EASILY PREVENTED
ANY SUCH DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL BY MERELY GUARDING THE DOOR.  INSTEAD,
IN ENTERING THE ROOM AND MAKING THE SEARCH FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
SEIZING RESPONDENT'S NARCOTICS, THE OFFICERS NOT ONLY PROCEEDED WITHOUT
A WARRANT OR OTHER LEGAL AUTHORITY, BUT THEIR INTRUSION WAS CONDUCTED
SURREPTITIOUSLY AND BY MEANS DENOUNCED AS CRIMINAL. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, HOWEVER, THAT THE SEARCH DID NOT INVADE
RESPONDENT'S PRIVACY AND THAT HE, THEREFORE, LACKED THE NECESSARY
STANDING TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED.  THE SIGNIFICANT ACT, IT
SAYS, IS THE SEIZURE OF THE GOODS OF THE RESPONDENT WITHOUT A WARRANT. 
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE EVENTS ARE SO EASILY ISOLABLE.  RATHER THEY ARE
BOUND TOGETHER BY ONE SOLE PURPOSE - TO LOCATE AND SEIZE THE NARCOTICS
OF RESPONDENT.  THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ARE, THEREFORE, INCAPABLE OF
BEING UNTIED.  TO HOLD THAT THIS SEARCH AND SEIZURE WERE LAWFUL AS TO
THE RESPONDENT WOULD PERMIT A QUIBBLIG DISTINCTION TO OVERTURN A
PRINCIPLE WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.  THE
RESPONDENT UNQUESTIONABLY HAD STANDING TO OBJECT TO THE SEIZURE MADE
WITHOUT WARRANT OR ARREST UNLESS THE CONTRABAND NATURE OF THE NARCOTICS
SEIZED PRECLUDED HIS ASSERTION, FOR PURPOSES OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE,
OF A PROPERTY INTEREST THEREIN. 

IT IS URGENTLY CONTENDED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT NO PROPERTY RIGHTS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT EXIST IN THE NARCOTICS
SEIZED HERE, BECAUSE THEY ARE CONTRABAND GOODS IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS
DECLARED THAT "NO PROPERTY RIGHTS SHALL EXIST."  (FN3)  THE GOVERNMENT
MADE THE SAME CONTENTION IN TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699
(1948).  SEE BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES, PP. 24-45.  THIS COURT
DISPOSED OF THE CONTENTION SAYING: 

"IT FOLLOWS THAT IT WAS ERROR TO REFUSE PETITIONERS' MOTION TO
EXCLUDE AND SUPPRESS THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS IMPROPERLY SEIZED.  BUT
SINCE THIS PROPERTY WAS CONTRABAND, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO HAVE IT
RETURNED TO THEM."  334 U.S. AT 710. 

THE SAME SECTION DECLARING THAT "NO PROPERTY RIGHTS SHALL EXIST" IN
CONTRABAND GOODS PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANTS "FOR THE
SEIZURE" OF SUCH PROPERTY.  THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW IN TRUPIANO WAS THAT
THE LATTER PROVISION APPLIES "WHEN THE ENTRY MUST BE MADE TO SEIZE";
BUT NOT "WHERE, AFTER A LAWFUL ENTRY FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, THE
CONTRABAND PROPERTY IS BEFORE THE EYES OF THE ENFORCING OFFICERS." 
(FN4)  THIS CONSTRUCTION WOULD MAKE IT NECESSARY FOR THE OFFICERS TO
HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT HERE.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CONGRESS, IN
ABROGATING PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SUCH GOODS, MERELY INTENDED TO AID IN
THEIR FORFEITURE AND THEREBY PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THE TRAFFIC IN DRUGS
RATHER THAN TO ABOLISH THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE FORMULATED BY THE COURTS
IN FURTHERANCE OF THE HIGH PURPOSES OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  SEE IN RE
FRIED, 161 F.2D 453 (1947). 

SINCE THE EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY SEIZED WAS CONTRABAND THE RESPONDENT WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE IT RETURNED TO HIM.  IT BEING HIS PROPERTY, FOR
PURPOSES OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, HE WAS ENTITLED ON MOTION TO HAVE IT
SUPPRESSED AS EVIDENCE ON HIS TRIAL.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO PURCHASE, SELL,
DISPENSE, OR DISTRIBUTE ANY OF THE DRUGS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2550(A)
EXCEPT IN THE ORIGINAL STAMPED PACKAGE OR FROM THE ORIGINAL STAMPED
PACKAGE; AND THE ABSENCE OF APPROPRIATE TAX-PAID STAMPS FROM ANY OF THE
AFORESAID DRUGS SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION OF THIS
SUBSECTION BY THE PERSON IN WHOSE POSSESSION SAME MAY BE FOUND; ...
."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 2553(A). 

"IF ANY PERSON FRAUDULENTLY OR KNOWINGLY IMPORTS OR BRINGS ANY
NARCOTIC DRUG INTO THE UNITED STATES OR ANY TERRITORY UNDER ITS CONTROL
OR JURISDICTION, CONTRARY TO LAW, OR ASSISTS IN SO DOING OR RECEIVES,
CONCEALS, BUYS, SELLS OR IN ANY MANNER FACILITATES THE TRANSPORTATION,
CONCEALMENT, OR SALE OF ANY SUCH NARCOTIC DRUG AFTER BEING IMPORTED OR
BROUGHT IN, KNOWING THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN IMPORTED CONTRARY TO LAW,
SUCH PERSON SHALL, UPON CONVICTION, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000 AND
IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS.  WHENEVER ON TRIAL FOR A
VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION THE DEFENDANT IS SHOWN TO HAVE OR TO HAVE HAD
POSSESSION OF THE NARCOTIC DRUG, SUCH POSSESSION SHALL BE DEEMED
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO AUTHORIZE CONVICTION UNLESS THE DEFENDANT
EXPLAINS THE POSSESSION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE JURY."  21 U.S.C.
SEC. 174. 

FN2  "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES,
PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL
NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,
SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE
TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

FN3  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO HAVE OR POSSESS ANY LIQUOR OR PROPERTY
INTENDED FOR USE IN VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, OR THE
INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS, OR REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SUCH PART OR
LAWS, OR WHICH HAS BEEN SO USED, AND NO PROPERTY RIGHTS SHALL EXIST IN
ANY SUCH LIQUOR OR PROPERTY.  A SEARCH WARRANT MAY ISSUE AS PROVIDED IN
TITLE XI OF THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, 40 STAT. 228 (U.S.C., TITLE 18,
SECS. 611-633) (SINCE SUPERSEDED BY FED. RULES CRIM. PROC. 41), FOR THE
SEIZURE OF SUCH LIQUOR OR PROPERTY.  NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL IN
ANY MANNER LIMIT OR AFFECT ANY CRIMINAL OR FORFEITURE PROVISION OF THE
INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS, OR OF ANY OTHER LAW.  THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE
OF ANY LIQUOR OR PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, AND THE
DISPOSITION OF SUCH LIQUOR OR PROPERTY SUBSEQUENT TO SEIZURE AND
FORFEITURE, OR THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF SUCH
LIQUOR OR PROPERTY, SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING LAWS OR THOSE
HEREAFTER IN EXISTENCE RELATING TO SEIZURES, FORFEITURES, AND
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY OR PROCEEDS, FOR VIOLATION OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE LAWS."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 3116. 

FN4  BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES, PP. 35-36. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



STACK V. BOYLE 342 U.S. 1 


NO. 400.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1951 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1951 - 192 F.2D
56, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE REMANDED. 


1.  THE TWELVE PETITIONERS WERE ARRESTED ON CHARGES OF CONSPIRING TO
VIOLATE THE SMITH ACT, 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 371, 2385, AND THEIR
BAIL WAS FIXED INITIALLY IN AMOUNTS VARYING FROM $2,500 TO $100,000. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DISTRICT COURT FIXED BAIL PENDING TRIAL IN THE
UNIFORM AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR EACH OF THEM.  THEY MOVED TO REDUCE BAIL,
CLAIMING THAT IT WAS "EXCESSIVE" UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND FILED
SUPPORTING STATEMENTS OF FACT WHICH WERE NOT CONTROVERTED.  THE ONLY
EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS A CERTIFIED RECORD SHOWING THAT
FOUR OTHER PERSONS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED UNDER THE SMITH ACT IN ANOTHER
DISTRICT HAD FORFEITED BAIL; AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE RELATING THEM TO
PETITIONERS.  THE MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL WAS DENIED.  HELD:  BAIL HAS
NOT BEEN FIXED BY PROPER METHODS IN THIS CASE.  PP. 3-7. 

(A)  BAIL SET BEFORE TRIAL AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN AN AMOUNT
REASONABLY CALCULATED TO FULFILL THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE PRESENCE
OF THE DEFENDANT IS "EXCESSIVE" UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.  P. 5. 

(B)  THE FIXING OF BAIL BEFORE TRIAL FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT
MUST BE BASED UPON STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE
PRESENCE OF THAT DEFENDANT.  RULE 46(C) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  P. 5. 

(C)  IF BAIL IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN THAT USUALLY FIXED FOR SERIOUS
CHARGES OF CRIMES IS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF ANY OF THE PETITIONERS,
THAT IS A MATTER TO WHICH EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DIRECTED IN A HEARING, SO
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EACH PETITIONER MAY BE PRESERVED.  P.
6. 

2.  AFTER THEIR MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL WAS DENIED, PETITIONERS DID NOT
APPEAL, BUT APPLIED TO THE SAME DISTRICT COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  THIS
WAS DENIED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  HELD: 

(A)  PETITIONERS' REMEDY IS BY MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL, WITH THE RIGHT
OF APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  PP. 6-7. 

(B)  THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL IS APPEALABLE AS A
"FINAL DECISION" OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC.
1291.  P. 6. 

(C)  WHILE HABEAS CORPUS IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR ONE HELD IN
CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD
WITHHOLD RELIEF IN THIS COLLATERAL HABEAS CORPUS ACTION WHERE AN
ADEQUATE REMEDY AVAILABLE IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING HAS NOT BEEN
EXHAUSTED.  PP. 6-7. 

(D)  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CASE IS
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE ITS ORDER
DENYING PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO
DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  P. 7. 

(E)  PETITIONERS MAY MOVE FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL IN THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING, SO THAT A HEARING MAY BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING
REASONABLE BAIL FOR EACH PETITIONER.  P. 7. 

STACK ET AL. V. BOYLE, UNITED STATES MARSHAL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS WERE DENIED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  192 F.2D 56.  THIS
COURT GRANTS CERTIORARI, POST, P. 4.  JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE
REMANDED, P. 7. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

INDICTMENTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHARGING THE TWELVE PETITIONERS WITH CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE THE SMITH
ACT, 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SECS. 371, 2385.  UPON THEIR ARREST, BAIL WAS
FIXED FOR EACH PETITIONER IN THE WIDELY VARYING AMOUNTS OF $2,500,
$7,500, $75,000 AND $100,000.  ON MOTION OF PETITIONER SCHNEIDERMAN
FOLLOWING ARREST IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, HIS BAIL WAS
REDUCED TO $50,000 BEFORE HIS REMOVAL TO CALIFORNIA.  ON MOTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE BAIL IN THE CASE OF OTHER PETITIONERS, AND AFTER
SEVERAL INTERMEDIATE PROCEDURAL STEPS NOT MATERIAL TO THE ISSUES
PRESENTED HERE, BAIL WAS FIXED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNIFORM AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR EACH
PETITIONER. 

PETITIONERS MOVED TO REDUCE BAIL ON THE GROUND THAT BAIL AS FIXED WAS
EXCESSIVE UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.  (FN1)  IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION, PETITIONERS SUBMITTED STATEMENTS AS TO THEIR FINANCIAL
RESOURCES, FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, HEALTH, PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORDS, AND
OTHER INFORMATION.  THE ONLY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS A
CERTIFIED REPORT SHOWING THAT FOUR PERSONS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED UNDER
THE SMITH ACT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HAD FORFEITED BAIL. 
NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED RELATING THOSE FOUR PERSONS TO THE PETITIONERS
IN THIS CASE.  AT A HEARING ON THE MOTION, PETITIONERS WERE EXAMINED BY
THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND CROSS-EXAMINED BY AN ATTORNEY FOR THE
GOVERNMENT.  PETITIONERS' FACTUAL STATEMENTS STAND UNCONTROVERTED. 

AFTER THEIR MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL WAS DENIED, PETITIONERS FILED
APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE SAME DISTRICT COURT.  UPON
CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD ON THE MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL, THE WRITS
WERE DENIED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  192
F.2D 56.  PRIOR TO FILING THEIR PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT,
PETITIONERS FILED WITH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AN APPLICATION FOR BAIL AND
AN ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING INTERIM RELIEF. 
BOTH APPLICATIONS WERE REFERRED TO THE COURT AND THE MATTER WAS SET
DOWN FOR ARGUMENT ON SPECIFIC QUESTIONS COVERING THE ISSUES RAISED BY
THIS CASE. 

RELIEF IN THIS TYPE OF CASE MUST BE SPEEDY IF IT IS TO BE EFFECTIVE. 
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND THE FULL RECORD ARE NOW BEFORE THE
COURT AND, SINCE THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION HAVE BEEN
FULLY BRIEFED AND ARGUED, WE CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE OF THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AT THIS TIME.  ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI IS GRANTED FOR REVIEW OF QUESTIONS IMPORTANT TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  (FN2) 

FIRST.  FROM THE PASSAGE OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 73,
91, TO THE PRESENT FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 46(A)(1),
FEDERAL LAW HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVIDED THAT A PERSON ARRESTED FOR A NON
CAPITAL OFFENSE SHALL BE ADMITTED TO BAIL.  THIS TRADITIONAL RIGHT TO
FREEDOM BEFORE CONVICTION PERMITS THE UNHAMPERED PREPARATION OF A
DEFENSE, AND SERVES TO PREVENT THE INFLICTION OF PUNISHMENT PRIOR TO
CONVICTION.  SEE HUDSON V. PARKER, 156 U.S. 277, 285 (1895).  UNLESS
THIS RIGHT TO BAIL BEFORE TRIAL IS PRESERVED, THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE, SECURED ONLY AFTER CENTURIES OF STRUGGLE, WOULD LOSE ITS
MEANING. 

THE RIGHT TO RELEASE BEFORE TRIAL IS CONDITIONED UPON THE ACCUSED'S
GIVING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE THAT HE WILL STAND TRIAL AND SUBMIT TO
SENTENCE IF FOUND GUILTY.  EX PARTE MILBURN, 9 PET. 704, 710 (1835). 
LIKE THE ANCIENT PRACTICE OF SECURING THE OATHS OF RESPONSIBLE PERSONS
TO STAND AS SURETIES FOR THE ACCUSED, THE MODERN PRACTICE OF REQUIRING
A BAIL BOND OR THE DEPOSIT OF A SUM OF MONEY SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE
SERVES AS ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED.  BAIL
SET AT A FIGURE HIGHER THAN AN AMOUNT REASONABLY CALCULATED TO FULFILL
THIS PURPOSE IS "EXCESSIVE" UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. MOTLOW, 10 F.2D 657 (1926, OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AS
CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT). 

SINCE THE FUNCTION OF BAIL IS LIMITED, THE FIXING OF BAIL FOR ANY
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT MUST BE BASED UPON STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE
PURPOSE OF ASSURING THE PRESENCE OF THAT DEFENDANT.  THE TRADITIONAL
STANDARDS AS EXPRESSED IN THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (FN3)
ARE TO BE APPLIED IN EACH CASE TO EACH DEFENDANT.  IN THIS CASE
PETITIONERS ARE CHARGED WITH OFFENSES UNDER THE SMITH ACT AND, IF FOUND
GUILTY, THEIR CONVICTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW WITH THE SCRUPULOUS
CARE DEMANDED BY OUR CONSTITUTION.  DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S.
494, 516 (1951).  UPON FINAL JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, PETITIONERS FACE
IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AND A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$10,000.  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT BAIL FOR EACH PETITIONER HAS BEEN FIXED
IN A SUM MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT USUALLY IMPOSED FOR OFFENSES WITH LIKE
PENALTIES AND YET THERE HAS BEEN NO FACTUAL SHOWING TO JUSTIFY SUCH
ACTION IN THIS CASE.  THE GOVERNMENT ASKS THE COURTS TO DEPART FROM THE
NORM BY ASSUMING, WITHOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE, THAT EACH
PETITIONER IS A PAWN IN A CONSPIRACY AND WILL, IN OBEDIENCE TO A
SUPERIOR, FLEE THE JURISDICTION.  TO INFER FROM THE FACT OF INDICTMENT
ALONE A NEED FOR BAIL IN AN UNUSUALLY HIGH AMOUNT IS AN ARBITRARY ACT. 
SUCH CONDUCT WOULD INJECT INTO OUR OWN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THE VERY
PRINCIPLES OF TOTALITARIANISM WHICH CONGRESS WAS SEEKING TO GUARD
AGAINST IN PASSING THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN
INDICTED. 

IF BAIL IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN THAT USUALLY FIXED FOR SERIOUS
CHARGES OF CRIMES IS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF ANY OF THE PETITIONERS,
THAT IS A MATTER TO WHICH EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DIRECTED IN A HEARING SO
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EACH PETITIONER MAY BE PRESERVED.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A SHOWING, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FIXING OF
BAIL BEFORE TRIAL IN THESE CASES CANNOT BE SQUARED WITH THE STATUTORY
AND CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS FOR ADMISSION TO BAIL. 

SECOND.  THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGING BAIL AS UNLAWFULLY
FIXED IS BY MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL AND APPEAL TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS FROM AN ORDER DENYING SUCH MOTION.  PETITIONERS' MOTION TO
REDUCE BAIL DID NOT MERELY INVOKE THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
SETTING BAIL WITHIN A ZONE OF REASONABLENESS, BUT CHALLENGED THE BAIL
AS VIOLATING STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.  AS THERE IS NO
DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO REDUCE EXCESSIVE BAIL, THE ORDER DENYING THE
MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL IS APPEALABLE AS A "FINAL DECISION" OF THE
DISTRICT COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 1291.   COHEN V.
BENEFICIAL LOAN CORP., 337 U.S. 541, 545-547 (1949).  IN THIS CASE,
HOWEVER, PETITIONERS DID NOT TAKE AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DENYING THEIR MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF BAIL.  INSTEAD,
THEY PRESENTED THEIR CLAIMS UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT IN APPLICATIONS
FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS.  WHILE HABEAS CORPUS IS AN APPROPRIATE
REMEDY FOR ONE HELD IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, 28
U.S.C. (SUPP. IV) SEC. 2241(C)(3), THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD WITHHOLD
RELIEF IN THIS COLLATERAL HABEAS CORPUS ACTION WHERE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY
AVAILABLE IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING HAS NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED.  EX PARTE
ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241 (1886); JOHNSON V. HOY, 227 U.S. 245 (1913). 

THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT BAIL HAS NOT BEEN FIXED BY PROPER METHODS IN
THIS CASE AND THAT PETITIONERS' REMEDY IS BY MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL,
WITH RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE ITS ORDER DENYING
PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DISMISS THE
APPLICATIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  PETITIONERS MAY MOVE FOR REDUCTION OF
BAIL IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING SO THAT A HEARING MAY BE HELD FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FIXING REASONABLE BAIL FOR EACH PETITIONER.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  "EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES
IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED."  U.S. CONST.,
AMEND. VIII. 

FN2    IN VIEW OF OUR ACTION IN GRANTING AND MAKING FINAL DISPOSITION
OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE THE
POWER OF A SINGLE JUSTICE OR CIRCUIT JUSTICE TO FIX BAIL PENDING
DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN A CASE OF THIS KIND. 

FN3  RULE 46(C).  "AMOUNT.  IF THE DEFENDANT IS ADMITTED TO BAIL, THE
AMOUNT THEREOF SHALL BE SUCH AS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER OR
COURT OR JUDGE OR JUSTICE WILL INSURE THE PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT,
HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED,
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, THE FINANCIAL ABILITY OF THE
DEFENDANT TO GIVE BAIL AND THE CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT." 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS. 

I THINK THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ALLOWANCE OF BAIL HAVE BEEN
MISUNDERSTOOD OR TOO CASUALLY APPLIED IN THESE CASES AND THAT THEY
SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE CIRCUIT JUSTICE OR THE DISTRICT COURTS FOR
RECONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF STANDARDS WHICH IT IS OUR FUNCTION TO
DETERMINE.  WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON ONLY FOUR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
RELATING TO BAIL BEFORE CONVICTION - TWO INVOLVING CONSIDERATIONS OF
LAW AND OF FACT WHICH SHOULD DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF BAIL, AND TWO
RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE FOR CORRECTING ANY DEPARTURE THEREFROM.  I
CONSIDER FIRST THE PRINCIPLES WHICH GOVERN RELEASE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
UPON BAIL PENDING THEIR TRIAL. 

THE PRACTICE OF ADMISSION TO BAIL, AS IT HAS EVOLVED IN ANGLO
AMERICAN LAW, IS NOT A DEVICE FOR KEEPING PERSONS IN JAIL UPON MERE
ACCUSATION UNTIL IT IS FOUND CONVENIENT TO GIVE THEM A TRIAL.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THE SPIRIT OF THE PROCEDURE IS TO ENABLE THEM TO STAY OUT OF
JAIL UNTIL A TRIAL HAS FOUND THEM GUILTY.  WITHOUT THIS CONDITIONAL
PRIVILEGE, EVEN THOSE WRONGLY ACCUSED ARE PUNISHED BY A PERIOD OF
IMPRISONMENT WHILE AWAITING TRIAL AND ARE HANDICAPPED IN CONSULTING
COUNSEL, SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, AND PREPARING A
DEFENSE.  TO OPEN A WAY OF ESCAPE FROM THIS HANDICAP AND POSSIBLE
INJUSTICE, CONGRESS COMMANDS ALLOWANCE OF BAIL FOR ONE UNDER CHARGE OF
ANY OFFENSE NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH, FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., 46(A)(1)
PROVIDING:  "A PERSON ARRESTED FOR AN OFFENSE NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH
SHALL BE ADMITTED TO BAIL  ...  " BEFORE CONVICTION. 

ADMISSION TO BAIL ALWAYS INVOLVES A RISK THAT THE ACCUSED WILL TAKE
FLIGHT.  THAT IS A CALCULATED RISK WHICH THE LAW TAKES AS THE PRICE OF
OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.  WE KNOW THAT CONGRESS ANTICIPATED THAT BAIL
WOULD ENABLE SOME ESCAPES, BECAUSE IT PROVIDED A PROCEDURE FOR DEALING
WITH THEM.  FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., 46(F). 

IN ALLOWANCE OF BAIL, THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE IS TO REDUCE THE RISK BY
FIXING AN AMOUNT REASONABLY CALCULATED TO HOLD THE ACCUSED AVAILABLE
FOR TRIAL AND ITS CONSEQUENCE.  FED.  RULES CRIM. PROC., 46(C).  BUT
THE JUDGE IS NOT FREE TO MAKE THE SKY THE LIMIT, BECAUSE THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION SAYS:  "EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE
REQUIRED  ...  ." 

CONGRESS HAS REDUCED THIS GENERALITY IN PROVIDING MORE PRECISE
STANDARDS, STATING THAT "  ...  THE AMOUNT THEREOF SHALL BE SUCH AS IN
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER OR COURT OR JUDGE OR JUSTICE WILL
INSURE THE PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED, THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIM, THE FINANCIAL ABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT TO GIVE BAIL AND
THE CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT."  FED.  RULES CRIM. PROC., 46(C). 

THESE STATUTORY STANDARDS ARE NOT CHALLENGED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
RATHER THE AMOUNTS OF BAIL ESTABLISHED FOR THESE PETITIONERS ARE
ALLEGED TO EXCEED THESE STANDARDS.  WE SUBMITTED NO CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS TO ARGUMENT BY THE PARTIES, AND IT IS OUR DUTY TO AVOID
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IF POSSIBLE.  FOR ME, THE RECORD IS INADEQUATE TO
SAY WHAT AMOUNTS WOULD BE REASONABLE IN ANY PARTICULAR ONE OF THESE
CASES AND I REGARD IT AS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO DO SO.
FURTHERMORE, THE WHOLE COURT AGREES THAT THE REMEDY PURSUED IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IS INAPPROPRIATE TO TEST THE QUESTION AND
BRING IT HERE.  BUT I DO THINK THERE IS A FAIR SHOWING THAT THESE
CONGRESSIONALLY ENACTED STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTLY APPLIED. 

IT IS COMPLAINED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FIXED A UNIFORM BLANKET BAIL
CHIEFLY BY CONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE ACCUSATION AND DID NOT
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DIFFERENCE IN CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT
DEFENDANTS.  IF THIS OCCURRED, IT IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46(C). 
EACH DEFENDANT STANDS BEFORE THE BAR OF JUSTICE AS AN INDIVIDUAL.  EVEN
ON A CONSPIRACY CHARGE DEFENDANTS DO NOT LOSE THEIR SEPARATENESS OR
IDENTITY.  WHILE IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE THAT THESE DEFENDANTS ARE
IDENTICAL IN FINANCIAL ABILITY, CHARACTER AND RELATION TO THE CHARGE -
ELEMENTS CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED TO BE REGARDED IN FIXING BAIL - I THINK
IT VIOLATES THE LAW OF PROBABILITIES.  EACH ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO ANY
BENEFITS DUE TO HIS GOOD RECORD, AND MISDEEDS OR A BAD RECORD SHOULD
PREJUDICE ONLY THOSE WHO ARE GUILTY OF THEM.  THE QUESTION WHEN
APPLICATION FOR BAIL IS MADE RELATES TO EACH ONE'S TRUSTWORTHINESS TO
APPEAR FOR TRIAL AND WHAT SECURITY WILL SUPPLY REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF
HIS APPEARANCE.    COMPLAINT FURTHER IS MADE THAT THE COURTS BELOW HAVE
BEEN UNDULY INFLUENCED BY RECOMMENDATIONS OF VERY HIGH BAIL MADE BY THE
GRAND JURY.  IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE GRAND JURY TO FIX BAIL, AND
ITS VOLUNTEERED ADVICE IS NOT GOVERNING.  SINCE THE GRAND JURY IS A
SECRET BODY, ORDINARILY HEARING NO EVIDENCE BUT THE PROSECUTION'S,
ATTENDED BY NO COUNSEL EXCEPT THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT IT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE AN IMPARTIAL RECOMMENDATION.  ITS
SUGGESTION MAY INDICATE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE HEARD THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
PROSECUTION REGARD IT AS STRONGLY INDICATIVE THAT THE ACCUSED MAY BE
GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED.  IT COULD NOT MEAN MORE THAN THAT WITHOUT
HEARING THE DEFENSE, AND IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE INFERENCE FROM THE FACT
OF INDICTMENT.  SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BETTER LEFT UNMADE, AND IF
MADE SHOULD BE GIVEN NO WEIGHT. 

BUT THE PROTEST CHARGES, AND THE DEFECT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
APPEARS TO BE, THAT, PROVOKED BY THE FLIGHT OF CERTAIN COMMUNISTS AFTER
CONVICTION, THE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS AND PUBLIC OPINION SUPPORTS A USE OF
THE BAIL POWER TO KEEP COMMUNIST DEFENDANTS IN JAIL BEFORE CONVICTION. 
THUS, THE AMOUNT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN FIXED NOT AS A REASONABLE
ASSURANCE OF THEIR PRESENCE AT THE TRIAL, BUT ALSO AS AN ASSURANCE THEY
WOULD REMAIN IN JAIL.  THERE SEEMS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS MAY HAVE
BEEN THE SPIRIT TO WHICH THE COURTS BELOW HAVE YIELDED, AND IT IS
CONTRARY TO THE WHOLE POLICY AND PHILOSOPHY OF BAIL.  THIS IS NOT TO
SAY THAT EVERY DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO SUCH BAIL AS HE CAN PROVIDE,
BUT HE IS ENTITLED TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT IN A REASONABLE
AMOUNT.  I THINK THE WHOLE MATTER SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED BY THE
APPROPRIATE JUDGES IN THE TRADITIONAL SPIRIT OF BAIL PROCEDURE. 

THE OTHER QUESTIONS WE HAVE HEARD ARGUED RELATE TO THE REMEDY
APPROPRIATE WHEN THE STANDARDS FOR AMOUNT OF BAIL ARE MISAPPLIED.  OF
COURSE, PROCEDURAL RIGHTS SO VITAL CANNOT BE WITHOUT MEANS OF
VINDICATION.  IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WE
SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO SAY THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD IT BE
APPROPRIATE.  BUT THAT WRIT WILL BEST SERVE ITS PURPOSE AND BE BEST
PROTECTED FROM DISCREDITING ABUSE IF IT IS RESERVED FOR CASES IN WHICH
NO OTHER PROCEDURE WILL PRESENT THE ISSUES TO THE COURTS.  ITS USE AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR APPEALS OR AS AN OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE TO OTHER REMEDIES
IS NOT TO BE ENCOURAGED.  HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PROCEDURE TO TEST REASONABLENESS OF
BAIL. 

WE THINK THAT, PROPERLY LIMITED AND ADMINISTERED, THE MOTION TO
REDUCE BAIL WILL AFFORD A PRACTICAL, SIMPLE, ADEQUATE AND EXPEDITIOUS
PROCEDURE.  IN VIEW OF PREVAILING CONFUSIONS AND CONFLICTS IN PRACTICE,
THIS COURT SHOULD DEFINE AND LIMIT THE PROCEDURE WITH CONSIDERABLE
PRECISION, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH WE MAY FLOOD THE COURTS WITH MOTIONS
AND APPEALS IN BAIL CASES. 

THE FIRST FIXING OF BAIL, WHETHER BY A COMMISSIONER UNDER RULE 5(B),
OR UPON REMOVAL UNDER RULE 40(A), FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., OR BY THE
COURT UPON ARRAIGNMENT AFTER INDICTMENT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3141, IS A
SERIOUS EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  BUT OFTEN IT MUST BE DONE IN
HASTE - THE DEFENDANT MAY BE TAKEN BY SURPRISE, COUNSEL HAS JUST BEEN
ENGAGED, OR FOR OTHER REASONS THE BAIL IS FIXED WITHOUT THAT FULL
INQUIRY AND CONSIDERATION WHICH THE MATTER DESERVES.  SOME PROCEDURE
FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A PRACTICAL NECESSITY, AND THE COURT'S POWER
OVER REVOCATION OR REDUCTION IS A CONTINUING POWER WHICH EITHER PARTY
MAY INVOKE AS CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES MAY REQUIRE.  IT IS HIGHLY
IMPORTANT THAT SUCH PRELIMINARY MATTERS AS BAIL BE DISPOSED OF WITH AS
MUCH FINALITY AS POSSIBLE IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE THE CASE IS TO BE
TRIED.  IT IS CLOSE TO THE SCENE OF THE OFFENSE, MOST ACCESSIBLE TO
DEFENDANT, HAS OPPORTUNITY TO SEE AND HEAR THE DEFENDANT AND THE
WITNESSES PERSONALLY, AND IS LIKELY TO BE BEST INFORMED FOR SOUND
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION.  RARELY WILL THE ORIGINAL DETERMINATION BE
DISTURBED, IF CAREFULLY MADE, BUT IF THE ACCUSED MOVES TO REDUCE OR THE
GOVERNMENT TO REVOKE BAIL, A MORE CAREFUL DELIBERATION MAY THEN BE MADE
ON THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES, AND IF THE DEFENDANT
OR THE GOVERNMENT IS AGGRIEVED BY A DENIAL OF THE MOTION AN APPEAL MAY
BE TAKEN ON THE RECORD AS IT THEN STANDS. 

IT IS MY CONCLUSION THAT AN ORDER DENYING REDUCTION OF BAIL IS TO BE
REGARDED AS A FINAL DECISION WHICH MAY BE APPEALED TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  BUT THIS IS NOT BECAUSE EVERY CLAIM OF EXCESSIVE BAIL RAISES
A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  IT IS BECAUSE WE MAY PROPERLY HOLD APPEAL
TO BE A STATUTORY RIGHT.  WHILE ONLY A SENTENCE CONSTITUTES A FINAL
JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE, BERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 211,
212, IT IS A FINAL DECISION THAT CONGRESS HAS MADE REVIEWABLE.  28
U.S.C. SEC. 1291.  WHILE A FINAL JUDGMENT ALWAYS IS A FINAL DECISION,
THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH A FINAL DECISION IS NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT. 
THE PURPOSE OF THE FINALITY REQUIREMENT IS TO AVOID PIECEMEAL
DISPOSITION OF THE BASIC CONTROVERSY IN A SINGLE CASE "WHERE THE RESULT
OF REVIEW WILL BE 'TO HALT IN THE ORDERLY PROGRESS OF A CAUSE AND
CONSIDER INCIDENTALLY A QUESTION WHICH HAS HAPPENED TO CROSS THE PATH
OF SUCH LITIGATION  ...  .'"  COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S.
323, 326.  BUT AN ORDER FIXING BAIL CAN BE REVIEWED WITHOUT HALTING THE
MAIN TRIAL - ITS ISSUES ARE ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE
TRIED - AND UNLESS IT CAN BE REVIEWED BEFORE SENTENCE, IT NEVER CAN BE
REVIEWED AT ALL.  THE RELATION OF AN ORDER FIXING BAIL TO FINAL
JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS ANALOGOUS TO AN ORDER DETERMINING THE
RIGHT TO SECURITY IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING, COHEN V. BENEFICIAL INDUSTRIAL
LOAN CORP., 337 U.S. 541, OR OTHER INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS REVIEWABLE
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1292.  I WOULD HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT SUCH ORDERS
ARE APPEALABLE. 

I CANNOT AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT AN ORDER DETERMINING WHAT AMOUNT OF
BAIL IS REASONABLE UNDER THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED DOES NOT CALL FOR AN
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS IS NOT REQUIRED TO
REEXAMINE EVERY ORDER COMPLAINED OF.  THEY REPRESENT EXERCISES OF
DISCRETION, UPON QUESTIONS, USUALLY OF FACT.  TRIVIAL DIFFERENCES OR
FRIVOLOUS OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD
ONLY REVERSE FOR CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR OTHER MISTAKE OF LAW. 
AND IT OUGHT TO BE NOTED THAT THIS COURT WILL NOT EXERCISE ITS
CERTIORARI POWER IN INDIVIDUAL CASES EXCEPT WHERE THEY ARE TYPICAL OF A
PROBLEM SO IMPORTANT AND GENERAL AS TO DESERVE THE ATTENTION OF THE
SUPERVISORY POWER. 

IF WE WOULD FOLLOW THIS COURSE OF REASONING, I THINK IN ACTUAL
EXPERIENCE IT WOULD PROTECT EVERY RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED EXPEDITIOUSLY
AND CHEAPLY.  AT THE SAME TIME, IT WOULD NOT OPEN THE FLOODGATES TO A
MULTITUDE OF TRIVIAL DISPUTES ABUSIVE OF THE MOTION PROCEDURE. 

HAVING FOUND THAT THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IN WHICH ITS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS, WE SHOULD TO THAT EXTENT AFFIRM.  HAVING THUS DECIDED THAT
THE PROCEDURE TAKEN IN THIS CASE IS NOT THE PROPER ONE TO BRING THE
QUESTION OF EXCESSIVENESS OF BAIL BEFORE THE COURTS, THERE IS A MEASURE
OF INCONSISTENCY AND DEPARTURE FROM USUAL PRACTICE IN OUR DISCUSSION OF
MATTERS NOT BEFORE US.  CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO SAY NOW
THAT ANY PARTICULAR AMOUNT AS TO ANY PARTICULAR DEFENDANT IS EITHER
REASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE.   THAT CONCRETE AMOUNT, IN THE LIGHT OF EACH
DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY AND THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT, SHOULD BE FIXED BY
THE APPROPRIATE JUDGE OR JUSTICE UPON EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE
STANDARDS PRESCRIBED.  IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT AS A WHOLE
TO FIX BAIL WHERE THE POWER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND
JUSTICES TO DO SO.  BUT THERE IS LITTLE IN OUR BOOKS TO HELP GUIDE
FEDERAL JUDGES IN BAIL PRACTICE, AND THE EXTRAORDINARY AND RECURRING
NATURE OF THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM SEEMS TO WARRANT A DISCUSSION OF THE
MERITS IN WHICH WE WOULD NOT ORDINARILY ENGAGE. 

IT REMAINS TO ANSWER OUR OWN QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE POWER TO
GRANT BAIL IS IN THE COURT OR IN THE CIRCUIT JUSTICE.  THERE IS
CONSIDERABLE CONFUSION AS TO THE SOURCE AND EXTENT OF THAT POWER. 

FED. RULES CRIM. PROC., 46(A)(1), WITH RESPECT TO NONCAPITAL CASES
DOES NOT STATE WHO HAS POWER TO GRANT BAIL BEFORE CONVICTION - IT
SIMPLY DIRECTS THAT IN SUCH CASE BAIL "SHALL" BE GRANTED.  FOR AN
ANSWER TO THE "WHO" QUESTION IT IS NECESSARY TO TURN TO THE CRIMINAL
CODE. 

18 U.S.C.A. SEC. 3141, ENTITLED "POWER OF COURTS AND MAGISTRATES,"
PROVIDES: 

"BAIL MAY BE TAKEN BY ANY COURT, JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE AUTHORIZED TO
ARREST AND COMMIT OFFENDERS, BUT IN CAPITAL CASES BAIL MAY BE TAKEN
ONLY BY A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING ORIGINAL OR APPELLATE
JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES OR BY A JUSTICE OR JUDGE THEREOF." 

THE POWER TO ARREST AND COMMIT OFFENDERS IS CONTAINED IN 18 U.S.C.A.
SEC. 3041, WHICH STATES THAT:

"FOR ANY OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THE OFFENDER MAY, BY ANY
JUSTICE OR JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES,  ...  BE ARRESTED AND
IMPRISONED, OR BAILED, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR TRIAL BEFORE SUCH COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES AS BY LAW HAS COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENSE." 

THE FACT THAT THIS SECTION SPECIFICALLY GRANTS THE POWER OF ARREST TO
"ANY JUSTICE  ...  OF THE UNITED STATES" SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT
JUSTICES OF THIS COURT HAVE THE POWER OF ARREST, AND, HAVING THAT POWER
UNDER THIS SECTION, THEY THEREFORE ALSO HAVE POWER TO GRANT BAIL UNDER
SEC. 3141. 

THE REVISER'S NOTES TO SEC. 3141 DISCLOSE THAT IT IS THE PRODUCT OF
REV. STAT. SECS.  1015 AND 1016, WHICH WERE EMBODIED VERBATIM IN 18
U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SECS.  596 AND 597.  THE REVISER ALSO STATES THAT,
"SECTIONS 596 AND 597 OF TITLE 18, U.S.C., 1940 ED., EXCEPT AS
SUPERSEDED BY RULE 46(A)(1) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ARE CONSOLIDATED AND REWRITTEN IN THIS SECTION WITHOUT CHANGE OF
MEANING.  80TH CONGRESS HOUSE REPORT NO. 304."  SINCE NO CHANGE OF
MEANING WAS INTENDED, THE CONTEXT OF THE OLD SECTIONS BECOMES
PERTINENT. 

REV. STAT. SEC. 1015 READS: 

"BAIL SHALL BE ADMITTED UPON ALL ARRESTS IN CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE
OFFENSE IS NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH; AND IN SUCH CASES IT MAY BE TAKEN
BY ANY OF THE PERSONS AUTHORIZED BY THE PRECEDING SECTION TO ARREST AND
IMPRISON OFFENDERS." 

"THE PRECEDING SECTION," SEC. 1014, IS THE PREDECESSOR OF 18 U.S.C.A.
SEC. 3041, AND READS THE SAME AS THAT SECTION, NAMELY: 

"FOR ANY CRIME OR OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THE OFFENDER
MAY, BY ANY JUSTICE OR JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES,  ...  BE ARRESTED
AND IMPRISONED, OR BAILED, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR TRIAL BEFORE SUCH
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AS BY LAW HAS COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENSE  ...
." 

GOING ON IN THE REVISED STATUTES, SEC. 1016 STATES THAT: 

"BAIL MAY BE ADMITTED UPON ALL ARRESTS IN CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE
PUNISHMENT MAY BE DEATH; BUT IN SUCH CASES IT SHALL BE TAKEN ONLY BY
THE SUPREME COURT OR A CIRCUIT COURT, OR BY A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT, A CIRCUIT JUDGE, OR A JUDGE OF A DISTRICT COURT, WHO SHALL
EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION THEREIN, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE, AND OF THE EVIDENCE, AND TO THE USAGES OF
LAW." 

THE EVIDENT TENOR OF SECS. 1015 AND 1016, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH SEC.
1014, IS THAT A JUSTICE OF THIS COURT IS ONE OF MANY WHO CAN GRANT BAIL
IN A NONCAPITAL CASE BUT IS ONE OF A RESTRICTED CLASS WHO CAN GRANT
BAIL IN A CAPITAL CASE.  SECTION 1016 APPEARS TO NARROW THE CLASS
INCLUDED IN SEC. 1015. 

TO CORRELATE THE REVISED STATUTES WITH THE PRESENT STATUTORY SCHEME: 

1.  RULE 46(A)(1), READING AS FOLLOWS, IS TAKEN FROM REV. STAT. SECS.
1015 AND 1016 INSOFAR AS THE LATTER GOVERN WHO SHALL BE ADMITTED TO
BAIL AND THE CONSIDERATIONS TO BE GIVEN THE ADMISSION TO BAIL OF A
CAPITAL CASE DEFENDANT. 

RULE 46(A)(1), "BAIL BEFORE CONVICTION": 

"A PERSON ARRESTED FOR AN OFFENSE NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH SHALL BE
ADMITTED TO BAIL.  A PERSON ARRESTED FOR AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH
MAY BE ADMITTED TO BAIL BY ANY COURT OR JUDGE AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO DO
SO IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE AND
TO THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE." 

2.  18 U.S.C.A. SEC. 3041, GOVERNING POWER OF ARREST, IS TAKEN
DIRECTLY FROM REV. STAT.  SEC. 1014. 

3.  18 U.S.C.A. SEC. 3141, SETTING OUT WHO MAY GRANT BAIL, IS TAKEN
FROM REV. STAT.  SECS. 1015 AND 1016 INSOFAR AS THE LATTER ARE APROPOS
OF THAT SUBJECT. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE SCHEME OF THE REVISED STATUTES HAS BEEN
TAKEN OVER BODILY INTO THE PRESENT CODE AND RULES.  THE ONLY CHANGE I
PERCEIVE IS THAT, UNDER THE REVISED STATUTES, THERE WAS NO CLEAR
STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR A COURT TO GRANT BAIL IN A NONCAPITAL CASE. 
REV. STAT. SEC. 1015 (AND SEC. 1014) APPLICABLE TO SUCH CASE SPEAK ONLY
OF INDIVIDUALS.  18 U.S.C.A. SEC. 3141 CONFERS THE POWER ON "ANY COURT,
JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE AUTHORIZED TO ARREST AND COMMIT OFFENDERS."  THE
ONLY REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LATTER IS THE OBVIOUS LITERAL ONE,
THAT IS, THAT COURTS AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUALS EMPOWERED TO ARREST AND
COMMIT OFFENDERS BY 18 U.S.C.A. SEC. 3041 ARE AUTHORIZED TO GRANT
BAIL.  THIS IS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE LANGUAGE OF FED. RULES CRIM. PROC.,
46(C), "AMOUNT OF BAIL":    "IF THE DEFENDANT IS ADMITTED TO BAIL, THE
AMOUNT THEREOF SHALL BE SUCH AS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER OR
COURT OR JUDGE OR JUSTICE WILL INSURE THE PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT
...  ." 

THAT IS THE ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REVISED STATUTES' SCHEME AND
THE PRESENT - THE POWER TO GRANT BAIL IN NONCAPITAL CASES NOW CLEARLY
IS VESTED IN THE COURTS AS WELL AS IN INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND JUSTICES. 

WITH THE PREMISE PROVIDED BY THE REVISOR THAT THE POWER TO GRANT BAIL
BEFORE CONVICTION IS THE SAME NOW AS UNDER THE REVISED STATUTES, THE
ONE EXCEPTION BEING THE EXTENSION TO THE COURTS JUST NOTED, THE
CONCLUSION FOLLOWS THAT BAIL CAN BE GRANTED BY ANY COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, INCLUDING THIS COURT, OR BY ANY JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES,
INCLUDING THE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT. 

THE NEXT PROBLEM IS HOW RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF THIS COURT IS TO BE
ASSIMILATED WITH THE FOREGOING.  ONLY THE FIRST AND FOURTH SUBSECTIONS
OF THE RULE HAVE ANY PRESENT PERTINENCE.  THEY READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  PENDING REVIEW OF A DECISION REFUSING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
THE CUSTODY OF THE PRISONER SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED. 

     *        *         *         *         * 

"4.  THE INITIAL ORDER RESPECTING THE CUSTODY OR ENLARGEMENT OF THE
PRISONER PENDING REVIEW, AS ALSO ANY RECOGNIZANCE TAKEN, SHALL BE
DEEMED TO COVER NOT ONLY THE REVIEW IN THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
BUT ALSO THE FURTHER POSSIBLE REVIEW IN THIS COURT; AND ONLY WHERE
SPECIAL REASONS THEREFOR ARE SHOWN TO THIS COURT WILL IT DISTURB THAT
ORDER, OR MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ORDER IN THAT REGARD." 

THE APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO SUBSECTIONS DISAPPEARS WHEN
SUBSECTION 4 IS VIEWED AS A RESERVATION OF POWER IN THIS COURT ONLY,
NOT IN AN INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE OF THIS COURT, TO ISSUE AN ORDER IN
EXCEPTIONAL CASES DISTURBING THE CUSTODY OF THE PRISONER.  NO OTHER
COURT AND NO INDIVIDUAL JUDGE OR JUSTICE CAN DISTURB THE CUSTODY OF THE
PRISONER.  SEE CARLSON V. LANDON, 341 U.S. 918. 

THE NEXT PROBLEM IS THE BEARING, IF ANY, OF FED. RULES CRIM. PROC.,
46(A)(2), COVERING THE RIGHT TO BAIL "UPON REVIEW."  IT READS: 

"BAIL MAY BE ALLOWED PENDING APPEAL OR CERTIORARI ONLY IF IT APPEARS
THAT THE CASE INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION WHICH SHOULD BE
DETERMINED BY THE APPELLATE COURT.  BAIL MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE TRIAL
JUDGE OR BY THE APPELLATE COURT OR BY ANY JUDGE THEREOF OR BY THE
CIRCUIT JUSTICE  ...  ." 

INSOFAR AS IT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE TO PETITIONERS' CASE, SINCE THEY
WERE SEEKING A REVIEW WHEN THEY FILED THEIR PETITION FOR BAIL, IT WOULD
NOT SEEM THAT IT HAS ANY EFFICACY.  THEY HAVE NOT YET BEEN TRIED FOR
THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN INDICTED, SO THAT THE MUCH WIDER
POWERS OF BAIL CONFERRED BY THE STATUTES GOVERNING BAIL BEFORE
CONVICTION ARE APPLICABLE.  RULE 46(A)(2) IS ONLY INTENDED TO APPLY
WHERE A REVIEW OF A CONVICTION ON THE MERITS IS SOUGHT. 

TURNING BACK TO THE CASE AT HAND, AND TREATING THE APPLICATION TO MR.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS FOR BAIL AS ONE FOR BAIL PENDING REVIEW OF A DENIAL OF
HABEAS CORPUS, I THINK IT CLEAR THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO GRANT
BAIL, BUT THE FULL COURT DOES HAVE THAT POWER.  HOWEVER, SINCE THE
COURT SUSTAINS THE DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS, TREATING THE APPLICATION
FOR BAIL STRICTLY AS ONE PENDING REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS,
THE PROBLEMS IT RAISES ARE ACTUALLY MOOT.  IF THE APPLICATION TO MR.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS BE TREATED AS ONE MADE FOR FIXING BAIL IN THE ORIGINAL
CASE, IT IS MY OPINION THAT HE HAS POWER TO ENTERTAIN IT.
..END :







SUTPHEN ESTATES, INC. V. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 19 


NO. 25.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1951 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1951 - APPEAL
DISMISSED. 


PURSUANT TO A DECREE IN SHERMAN ACT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CERTAIN MOTION
PICTURE COMPANIES, A PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF WARNER BROS.
PROVIDED FOR THE SEPARATION OF WARNER'S THEATRE BUSINESS FROM ITS
PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS.  TWO NEW COMPANIES WERE TO BE
FORMED, ONE TO RECEIVE THE THEATRE ASSETS, THE OTHER TO RECEIVE THE
PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSETS; AND WARNER BROS. WAS TO BE
DISSOLVED.  WARNER WAS GUARANTOR OF A LONG-TERM LEASE OF THEATRE
PROPERTIES MADE BY APPELLANT TO A WARNER SUBSIDIARY; AND, UNDER THE
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, THE GUARANTY WAS TO BE ASSUMED ONLY BY THE NEW
THEATRE COMPANY.  APPELLANT SOUGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE SHERMAN ACT
PROCEEDINGS TO PROTECT ITS GUARANTY, BUT THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED
LEAVE.  HELD: 

1.  IF APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT, THE ORDER
DENYING LEAVE IS APPEALABLE.  P. 20. 

2.  THE DECREE IN THE SHERMAN ACT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT RES JUDICATA OF
THE RIGHTS WHICH APPELLANT SOUGHT TO PROTECT THROUGH INTERVENTION, AND
APPELLANT WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT UNDER
RULE 24(A)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  P. 21. 

3.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT IT WILL
BE "ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BY THE REORGANIZATION, AND HENCE MAY NOT
INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT UNDER RULE 24(A)(3).  P. 22. 

4.  THE CLAIM OF INJURY TO APPELLANT IS TOO SPECULATIVE AND TOO
CONTINGENT ON UNKNOWN FACTORS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT'S DENIAL OF
LEAVE TO INTERVENE WAS AN ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION UNDER RULE 24(B).  P.
23. 

SUTPHEN ESTATES INC. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED A CONSENT DECREE AGAINST WARNER BROS. AND CERTAIN OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES, AND ENTERED AN ORDER DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO INTERVENE.  ON A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM THIS ORDER AND
FROM THE CONSENT DECREE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED, P. 23. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RULE 24(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES IN PART
AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  INTERVENTION OF RIGHT.  UPON TIMELY APPLICATION ANYONE SHALL BE
PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN AN ACTION:  ...  (2) WHEN THE REPRESENTATION
OF THE APPLICANT'S INTEREST BY EXISTING PARTIES IS OR MAY BE INADEQUATE
AND THE APPLICANT IS OR MAY BE BOUND BY A JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION; OR
(3) WHEN THE APPLICANT IS SO SITUATED AS TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A
DISTRIBUTION OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY WHICH IS IN THE CUSTODY
OR SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OR DISPOSITION OF THE COURT OR AN OFFICER
THEREOF." 

APPELLANT CLAIMS INTERVENTION OF RIGHT IN THE SHERMAN ACT PROCEEDINGS
INVOLVING THE REORGANIZATION OF CERTAIN PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTORS OF
MOTION PICTURE FILMS WHOSE ACTIVITIES HAD BEEN FOUND TO VIOLATE THE
ACT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., 334 U.S. 131.  IF
APPELLANT MAY INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT, THE ORDER OF THE COURT DENYING
INTERVENTION IS APPEALABLE.  SEE RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. B.&O.R. CO., 331
U.S. 519, 524; 32 STAT. 823, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. (SUPP. II) SEC. 29. 
IT WAS TO RESOLVE THAT QUESTION THAT WE POSTPONED THE QUESTION OF OUR
JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL TO THE HEARING ON THE MERITS. 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY STEMS FROM THE REORGANIZATION OF WARNER BROS.
PICTURES, INC., PURSUANT TO A DECREE OF THE COURT IN THE SHERMAN ACT
PROCEEDINGS.  UNDER THIS DECREE PROVISION IS MADE FOR THE DIVORCEMENT
OF WARNER'S THEATRE BUSINESS FROM ITS PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION
BUSINESS.  THE VARIOUS STEPS IN THE REORGANIZATION ARE NOT MATERIAL
HERE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE PLAN THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF WARNER WILL VOTE A DISSOLUTION OF WARNER.  TWO NEW
COMPANIES WILL BE FORMED, ONE TO RECEIVE THE THEATRE ASSETS, THE OTHER
TO RECEIVE THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION ASSETS.  EACH OF THE NEW
COMPANIES WILL DISTRIBUTE ITS CAPITAL STOCK PRO RATA TO WARNER'S
STOCKHOLDERS. 

WARNER IS A GUARANTOR OF A LEASE OF THEATRE PROPERTIES MADE BY
APPELLANT TO A SUBSIDIARY OF A SUBSIDIARY OF WARNER.  THE LEASE,
EXECUTED IN 1928 AND MODIFIED IN 1948, IS FOR A TERM OF 98 YEARS.  THE
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION SUBMITTED TO THE STOCKHOLDERS PROVIDES, AS WE
READ IT AND AS CONSTRUED BY COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES ON ORAL ARGUMENT,
THAT LIABILITIES OF THE CLASS IN WHICH THE GUARANTY FALLS WILL BE
ASSUMED BY THE NEW THEATRE COMPANY.  APPELLANT SEEKS INTERVENTION TO
PROTECT ITS GUARANTY. 

THERE IS INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT UNDER RULE 24(A)(2) "WHEN THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT'S INTEREST BY EXISTING PARTIES IS OR
MAY BE INADEQUATE AND THE APPLICANT IS OR MAY BE BOUND BY A JUDGMENT IN
THE ACTION."  APPELLANT, HOWEVER, IS NOT A PRIVY OF WARNER; ITS RIGHTS
NOT ONLY DO NOT DERIVE FROM WARNER, THEY ARE INDEED ADVERSE TO WARNER. 
THE DECREE IN THIS CASE, LIKE THAT IN CREDITS COMMUTATION CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 177 U.S. 311, THEREFORE IS NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE RIGHTS
SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED THROUGH INTERVENTION. 

NOR IS APPELLANT ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT BY REASON OF RULE
24(A)(3).  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS IS A CASE OF "A DISTRIBUTION OR OTHER
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY WHICH IS IN THE CUSTODY OR SUBJECT TO THE
CONTROL OR DISPOSITION OF THE COURT  ... " WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE
24(A)(3).  FOR IT IS THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT
THAT SANCTIONS AND DIRECTS THE REORGANIZATION.  UNITED STATES V.
PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., SUPRA, PP. 170 ET SEQ. APPELLANT ARGUES THAT
IT IS "ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BY THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY.  IT
POINTS OUT THAT UNDER THE PLAN ITS GUARANTOR IS DISSOLVED AND HIS
PROPERTY DIVIDED AMONG TWO NEW COMPANIES, ONLY ONE OF WHICH ASSUMES THE
GUARANTOR'S LIABILITIES UNDER THE LEASE.  IT ARGUES THAT IT IS ENTITLED
TO A JUDICIALLY ASCERTAINED EQUIVALENT FOR THE WARNER GUARANTY.  AND IT
CLAIMS THAT IN THIS CASE THAT EQUIVALENT WOULD BE A GUARANTY BY EACH OF
THE NEW COMPANIES. 

WE DO NOT THINK, HOWEVER, THAT ON THIS RECORD APPELLANT HAS SHOWN
THAT IT WILL BE "ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BY THE REORGANIZATION WITHIN THE
MEANING OF RULE 24(A)(3).  IT WILL HAVE THE GUARANTY OF THE NEW THEATRE
COMPANY.  NO SHOWING IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED THAT THAT COMPANY LACKS THE
FINANCIAL STRENGTH TO ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GUARANTY.  NO
SHOWING IS MADE OR ATTEMPTED THAT THE CONTINGENT LIABILITY UNDER THE
GUARANTY IS SO IMMINENT AND ONEROUS AS TO MAKE THE GUARANTY OF THE NEW
COMPANY SUBSTANTIALLY LESS VALUABLE THAN THE GUARANTY OF WARNER'S.  FOR
ALL WE KNOW, A GUARANTY OF A COMPANY IN THE THEATRE BUSINESS, FREED
FROM THE HAZARDS OF THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS, MAY BE
EVEN MORE VALUABLE THAN THE GUARANTY OF WARNER'S.  WE DO NOT PASS HERE
ON THE FAIRNESS OF THE PLAN OR REORGANIZATION.  CF. CONTINENTAL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 156.  WE HOLD ONLY THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT
MAINTAINED THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT UNDER RULE 24(A)(3) IT MAY
INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT. 

PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION IS GOVERNED BY RULE 24(B).  BUT WE HAVE SAID
ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIM OF INJURY TO APPELLANT IS TOO SPECULATIVE
AND TOO CONTINGENT ON UNKNOWN FACTORS TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING LEAVE TO INTERVENE.  THE COURT HAD AMPLE
REASON TO PREVENT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DECREE FROM BEING BURDENED
WITH A COLLATERAL ISSUE THAT ON THIS RECORD CAN PROPERLY BE ADJUDICATED
ELSEWHERE.  THE APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

WARNER BROTHERS, INC., HAS BEEN GUARANTOR ON A LEASE OF THEATER
PROPERTIES MADE BY APPELLANT SUTPHEN ESTATES.  UNDER A COURT DECREE OF
DISSOLUTION WARNER IS TO BE SPLIT UP INTO TWO COMPANIES, ONLY ONE OF
WHICH WILL EXPRESSLY ASSUME THE WARNER GUARANTEE TO SUTPHEN.  SUTPHEN'S
LEASE CAN NO LONGER BE GUARANTEED BY THE COMBINED ASSETS OF THE ILLEGAL
CORPORATION WE HAVE ORDERED DISSOLVED.  PERHAPS IT IS INEVITABLE THAT
THE GUARANTEE WILL BE IMPAIRED TO SOME EXTENT, BUT WE SHOULD INSURE
THAT SUTPHEN SUFFERS NO MORE THAN ITS FAIR SHARE OF WHATEVER LOSSES MAY
RESULT FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS. 

I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE OF IMPAIRMENT CAN BEST BE AND
SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS A PART OF THE DISSOLUTION
PROCEEDINGS.  FURTHERMORE, I CANNOT ASSENT TO AN OPINION THAT PERMITS
THIS QUESTION OF IMPAIRMENT TO REMAIN OPEN FOR ADJUDICATION ELSEWHERE
AT SOME INDEFINITE TIME IN THE FUTURE. 

DISSOLUTION OF WARNER, WHICH WE HAVE ORDERED, CANNOT BE COMPLETELY
CONSUMMATED IF THE DECREE LEAVES IN DOUBT WHETHER BOTH NEW COMPANIES
ARE JOINTLY OBLIGATED ON SUTPHEN'S LEASE.  CF. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 156, 173-174.  SURELY, IF WE HAVE THE
POWER TO ORDER A DISSOLUTION TO PREVENT SHERMAN ACT VIOLATIONS, WE HAVE
THE POWER TO INSURE THAT THE NEWLY CREATED COMPANIES ARE PERMANENTLY
AND TOTALLY DISINTERESTED IN EACH OTHER'S FUTURE ACTIVITIES, AND ARE IN
NO WAY UNITED BY PAST OBLIGATIONS. 
..END :















MCMAHON V. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 25 


NO. 17.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1951 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1951 - 186 F.2D
227, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE CLARIFICATION ACT THE CLAIM OF A SEAMAN AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES FOR INJURIES AND MAINTENANCE AND CURE, "IF
ADMINISTRATIVELY DISALLOWED IN WHOLE OR IN PART," MAY BE ENFORCED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT ANY SUIT THEREUNDER "SHALL BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS
AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES."  HELD:  THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION
BEGINS TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF THE INJURY, NOT FROM THE TIME OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM.  PP. 25-27. 

2.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TOLLED FOR A MAXIMUM OF SIXTY
DAYS WHILE A CLAIM IS PENDING AND NOT DISALLOWED EITHER BY NOTICE OR BY
OPERATION OF THE REGULATIONS.  P. 28. 

MCMAHON V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WAS
DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS.  91 F. SUPP.
593.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  186 F.2D 227.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  341 U.S. 930.  AFFIRMED, P. 28. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A SEAMAN, BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN ADMIRALTY ALLEGING IN THE
FIRST COUNT A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON NEGLIGENCE AND UNSEAWORTHINESS,
WHILE IN THE SECOND COUNT HE SOUGHT MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  HE ALLEGED
THE ACTIONABLE WRONGS TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER OF
1945, BUT HE DID NOT FILE HIS LIBEL UNTIL JANUARY 22, 1948. 

THE ACT WHICH GIVES TO SEAMEN EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES ON
GOVERNMENT-OWNED VESSELS THE SAME RIGHTS AS THOSE EMPLOYED ON PRIVATELY
OWNED AND OPERATED AMERICAN VESSELS PROVIDES THAT CLAIMS LIKE THOSE OF
THE PETITIONER, "  ...  IF ADMINISTRATIVELY DISALLOWED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART  ...  ," MAY BE ENFORCED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUITS
IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  (FN1)  THAT ACT IN TURN PROVIDES THAT ANY SUIT
THEREUNDER " ...  SHALL BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF
ACTION ARISES ...  ."  (FN2)  COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE RENDERED
CONFLICTING DECISIONS AS TO WHETHER THE DATE OF INJURY OR THE DATE OF
DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM COMMENCES THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THIS PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND SET
UP BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE
DATES OF HIS INJURIES.  (FN3)  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED ON THE SAME GROUND, ADHERING TO ITS VIEW EXPRESSED IN
AN EARLIER CASE, AND, IT SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOPED, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  (FN4) 

THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT HE COULD NOT SUE UNTIL HIS
CLAIM HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISALLOWED, AND THAT HE HAD NO "CAUSE
OF ACTION" UNTIL HE COULD SUE.  ACCORDINGLY, HE ARGUES THAT THE PERIOD
OF LIMITATIONS CANNOT START TO RUN UNTIL HIS CLAIM HAS BEEN
ADMINISTRATIVELY DISALLOWED BECAUSE ONLY THEN DOES HIS "CAUSE OF
ACTION" ARISE.  IN HIS SUPPORT HE POINTS TO THURSTON V. UNITED STATES,
179 F.2D 514, IN WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD
IN ACCORD WITH HIS PRESENT CONTENTIONS. 

WE FIND OURSELVES UNABLE TO AGREE WITH PETITIONER AND THE NINTH
CIRCUIT, FOR WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE
LANGUAGE USED IN THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT IS THAT THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION IS TO BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE OF THE INJURY.  IT WAS
ENACTED SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE SUITS SUCH AS THE PRESENT, ON DISALLOWED
CLAIMS, WERE AUTHORIZED.  CERTAINLY DURING THOSE YEARS THE LIMITATION
DEPENDED UPON THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIMS, NOT UPON THE
REJECTION.  WHEN LATER THE RIGHT TO SUE WAS BROADENED TO INCLUDE SUCH
CLAIMS AS THIS, THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY CHANGE IN THE LIMITATION
CONTAINED IN THE OLDER ACT.  WHILE, AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT,
LEGISLATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF SEAMEN IS TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY IN
THEIR FAVOR, IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT STATUTES WHICH WAIVE IMMUNITY OF
THE UNITED STATES FROM SUIT ARE TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY IN FAVOR OF
THE SOVEREIGN.  (FN5)  SINCE NO TIME IS FIXED WITHIN WHICH THE SEAMAN
IS OBLIGED TO PRESENT HIS CLAIM, UNDER PETITIONER'S POSITION HE WOULD
HAVE IT IN HIS POWER, BY DELAYING ITS FILING, TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY
COMMENCEMENT OF THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND THUS TO
DELAY INDEFINITELY KNOWLEDGE BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT A CLAIM EXISTED. 
WE CANNOT CONSTRUE THE ACT AS GIVING CLAIMANTS AN OPTION AS TO WHEN
THEY WILL CHOOSE TO START THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF AN ACTION AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES.  ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE INJURY, AND AFFIRM THE COURT
BELOW. 

IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE FILING OF
SUCH A CLAIM PROVIDE THAT, IF IT IS NOT REJECTED IN WRITING WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS FROM FILING, IT SHALL BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN
ADMINISTRATIVELY DISALLOWED AND THE CLAIMANT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
ENFORCE HIS CLAIM.  (FN6)  THE RECORD FILED WITH US DOES NOT DISCLOSE
WHEN PETITIONER'S CLAIM WAS FILED OR, WITH PRECISION, WHEN IT WAS
DISALLOWED.  IN VIEW OF THAT STATE OF THE RECORD MAKING IT UNCERTAIN
WHETHER THE POINT WOULD HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME AND THE FACT
THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT RAISED THE POINT, WE FIND IT INAPPROPRIATE TO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TOLLED FOR A MAXIMUM OF
SIXTY DAYS WHILE A CLAIM IS PENDING AND NOT DISALLOWED EITHER BY NOTICE
OR BY OPERATION OF THE REGULATIONS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CLARIFICATION ACT OF MARCH 24, 1943, SEC. 1(A), 57 STAT. 45, 50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1291(A). 

FN2  SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, SEC. 5, 41 STAT. 526, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
745. 

FN3  91 F. SUPP. 593. 

FN4  186 F.2D 227; RODINCIUC V. UNITED STATES, 175 F.2D 479, 481
(C.A. 3D CIR.); GREGORY V. UNITED STATES, 187 F.2D 101, 103 (C.A.2D
CIR.). 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. MICHEL, 282 U.S. 656, 659; UNITED STATES V.
SHAW, 309 U.S. 495, 500-501; UNITED STATES V. SHERWOOD, 312 U.S. 584,
586-587. 

FN6  GENERAL ORDER 32, ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, 8
FED. REG. 5414, 46 CFR SEC. 304.26. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS THINK THAT, FOR REASONS
STATED IN THURSTON V. UNITED STATES, 179 F.2D 514, THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED AND
WOULD THEREFORE REVERSE THIS JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













GARDNER V. PANAMA RAILROAD CO. 342 U.S. 29 


NO. 22.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1951 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1951 - 185 F.2D
730, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, LACHES WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO
PETITIONER'S SUIT IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST RESPONDENT TO RECOVER DAMAGES
FOR INJURIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED WHILE A PASSENGER ON
RESPONDENT'S STEAMSHIP, ALTHOUGH AN ACTION AT LAW WAS BARRED BY THE
LOCAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.   PP. 30-32. 

(A)  ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION OF LACHES IS ONE PRIMARILY ADDRESSED TO
THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT, IT SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED MERELY
BY A REFERENCE TO AND A MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS; THE EQUITIES OF THE PARTIES MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED.  PP.
30-31. 

(B)  WHERE THERE HAS BEEN ON INEXCUSABLE DELAY IN SEEKING A REMEDY
AND WHERE NO PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT HAS ENSUED FROM THE MERE
PASSAGE OF TIME, RELIEF SHOULD NOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND OF LACHES. 
P. 31. 

2.  PUBLIC LAW 172, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS., 63 STAT. 444, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2680(M), WHICH EXCLUDED CLAIMS AGAINST THE PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS
SUMMARILY CUTTING OFF THE REMEDY OF ALL WHO HAD SUED THE UNITED STATES
FOR TORTS WHICH HAD BEEN COMMITTED BY THE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR
PRECEDING ITS ENACTMENT, BUT AS PERMITTING OUTSTANDING CLAIMS UPON
WHICH SUIT HAD BEEN INSTITUTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO BE ENFORCED
BY PROMPT PROCEEDINGS DIRECTLY AGAINST THE COMPANY.  PP. 31-32. 

GARDNER V. PANAMA RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S SUIT IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST RESPONDENT WAS DISMISSED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUND OF LACHES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  185 F.2D 730.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  341 U.S.
934.  REVERSED, P. 32. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS SUIT IN ADMIRALTY, A LIBEL IN PERSONAM BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE CANAL ZONE, IS PETITIONER'S THIRD ATTEMPT TO SECURE
DAMAGES FOR INJURIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED ON DECEMBER 3,
1947, WHILE A PASSENGER ON BOARD RESPONDENT'S STEAMSHIP PANAMA. 

PETITIONER INSTITUTED HER FIRST ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ON
APRIL 10, 1948.  THIS COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED OCTOBER 7, 1948, AFTER
THE COMPANY SUCCESSFULLY MAINTAINED THAT PETITIONER'S ONLY REMEDY WAS
TO SUE THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT; THAT
RESPONDENT, WHOSE ENTIRE STOCK IS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES, WAS A
"FEDERAL AGENCY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT ACT.  (FN1) 

AN ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FILED ON NOVEMBER 28, 1948 -
STILL WITHIN THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATION - WAS DISMISSED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT BEFORE REACHING TRIAL ON THE MERITS, AFTER CONGRESS HAD
AMENDED, ON JULY 16, 1949, THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, EXCLUDING FROM
ITS COVERAGE "ANY CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PANAMA
RAILROAD COMPANY."  (FN2) 

FIVE DAYS LATER, ON OCTOBER 19, 1949, PETITIONER COMMENCED THE
PRESENT SUIT.  RESPONDENT PLEADED LACHES ON THE THEORY THAT, SINCE THE
ONE-YEAR CANAL ZONE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FN3) NOW BARRED ANY ACTION
AT LAW, LACHES SHOULD BAR ANY REMEDY IN ADMIRALTY.  THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINED THIS DEFENSE, AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THAT GROUND, 185 F.2D 730.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 341 U.S. 934. 

THOUGH THE EXISTENCE OF LACHES IS A QUESTION PRIMARILY ADDRESSED TO
THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT, THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED
MERELY BY A REFERENCE TO AND A MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  THE EQUITIES OF THE PARTIES MUST BE CONSIDERED AS WELL. 
WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO INEXCUSABLE DELAY IN SEEKING A REMEDY AND WHERE
NO PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT HAS ENSUED FROM THE MERE PASSAGE OF TIME,
THERE SHOULD BE NO BAR TO RELIEF.  THE KEY CITY, 14 WALL.  653 (1872);
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. BOGERT, 250 U.S. 483 (1919); HOLMBERG V.
ARMBRECHT, 327 U.S. 392 (1946); SEE MCGRATH V. PANAMA R. CO., 298 F.
303, 304 (1924). 

PETITIONER HAS DILIGENTLY SOUGHT REDRESS IN THIS CASE.  TWICE WITHIN
THE YEAR FOLLOWING HER INJURIES SHE BROUGHT SUIT.  THE SECOND ACTION
ABATED THROUGH AN ACT OF CONGRESS AND NOT THROUGH ANY FAULT OF HER
OWN.  THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT RESPONDENT'S POSITION HAS SUFFERED FROM
THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM HAS NOT YET PROCEEDED TO TRIAL ON ITS MERITS. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE DECISION BELOW MUST BE
AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE PETITIONER AT NO TIME HAS HAD A CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST THE COMPANY.  IT CONTENDS THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY, THE
UNITED STATES AND NOT THE COMPANY WAS LIABLE, AND THAT PUBLIC LAW 172,
WHICH NOW RENDERS THE COMPANY AMENABLE TO SUIT, SHOULD NOT OPERATE
RETROACTIVELY TO TRANSFER THE PREEXISTING LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT
TO THE RESPONDENT. 

WE MUST REJECT THIS VIEW.  THE COMPANY WAS SUBJECT TO SUIT BEFORE
PASSAGE OF THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, PANAMA R. CO. V. MINNIX, 282 F. 47
(1922), AND ITS INCLUSION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT ACT MEANT ONLY THAT
THE UNITED STATES WAS RESPONSIBLE IN DAMAGES FOR ITS TORTS.  WITHOUT
INTERVAL, FROM THE TIME OF RESPONDENT'S INCORPORATION, UNTIL JULY 16,
1949, THOSE INJURED THROUGH FAULT OF THE COMPANY WERE NEVER LEFT
WITHOUT MEANS OF REDRESS.  RESPONDENT WOULD NOW HAVE US ATTRIBUTE TO
CONGRESS THE INTENT TO CREATE AN INEQUITABLE HIATUS.  DESPITE THE FACT
THAT THE STATED "PURPOSE" OF PUBLIC LAW 172 WAS SIMPLY TO "EXCLUDE
CLAIMS AGAINST THE  ...  COMPANY FROM THE PROVISIONS" OF THE TORT
CLAIMS ACT, (FN4) RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE US HOLD THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO
CUT OFF, SUMMARILY, THE REMEDY OF ALL WHO HAD SUED THE UNITED STATES
FOR TORTS WHICH HAD BEEN COMMITTED BY THE PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY
DURING THE YEAR PRECEDING ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 172. 

IN OUR VIEW, THE AMENDMENT PERMITTED OUTSTANDING CLAIMS UPON WHICH
SUIT HAD BEEN INSTITUTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO BE ENFORCED BY
PROMPT PROCEEDINGS DIRECTLY AGAINST THE COMPANY.  THE PETITIONER
FOLLOWED THIS COURSE.  THIS INTERPRETATION WOULD SEEM TO BE SUSTAINED
BY THE STATEMENT OF THE COMPANY'S PRESIDENT WHEN HE ENDORSED THE
PASSAGE OF PUBLIC LAW 172, SECURING THE EXCLUSION OF RESPONDENT FROM
THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, AT WHICH TIME HE SAID THAT THOUGH THE ACT EMBRACED
"CLAIMS AGAINST THE PANAMA RAILROAD COMPANY," ITS PROVISIONS WERE NOT
WELL DESIGNED TO EXPEDITE THE REDRESS OF SUCH INJURIES, AND THAT
CONGRESS SHOULD ENACT PUBLIC LAW 172 "TO CONTINUE UNIMPAIRED  ...  THE
AMENABILITY OF THE COMPANY TO SUIT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE."  (FN5) 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SECS. 2671, 2679. 

FN2  PUBLIC LAW 172, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS., 63 STAT. 444, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2680(M). 

FN3  CANAL ZONE CODE, 1934, TIT. 4, SEC. 87(3). 

FN4  H.R. REP. NO. 830, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 167, ID. 

FN5  H.R. REP. NO. 830, SUPRA, 3, 4; S. REP. NO. 167, SUPRA, 3, 4. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























DIXON V. DUFFY 342 U.S. 33 


NO. 79.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1951 - CONTINUED NOVEMBER 5, 1951. 


THIS CAUSE IS CONTINUED FOR SUCH PERIOD AS WILL ENABLE COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER TO SECURE A DETERMINATION FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA AS TO WHETHER ITS JUDGMENT HEREIN WAS INTENDED TO REST ON AN
ADEQUATE INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND OR WHETHER DECISION OF THE FEDERAL
CLAIM WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED.  PP. 33-34. 

DIXON V. DUFFY, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT IN 1949 OF
MAKING AND POSSESSING COUNTERFEITING DIES OR PLATES IN VIOLATION OF
CAL. PENAL CODE, 1949, SEC. 480.  HE DID NOT APPEAL, BUT SOUGHT TO
CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF HIS CONVICTION BY FILING SUCCESSIVE PETITIONS
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT AND
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. 

FOLLOWING DENIAL OF THESE PETITIONS, HE INSTITUTED THIS CASE BY
FILING AN ORIGINAL PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA DENIED THE
PETITION WITHOUT OPINION, TWO JUSTICES THEREOF VOTING FOR ISSUANCE OF
THE WRIT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 341 U.S. 938, BECAUSE OF A SERIOUS
CLAIM THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ARGUED THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT A PROPER STATE REMEDY FOR
DETERMINATION OF PETITIONER'S FEDERAL CLAIM.  IT IS THE POSITION OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO APPEAL IN THIS CASE
BARRED HIM FROM SEEKING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF BY WAY OF A COLLATERAL
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING.  HE ADMITS THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE IN
CALIFORNIA IN CASES INVOLVING CERTAIN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT
CONTENDS THAT THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE.  IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
CORRECT, THE JUDGMENT MAY REST ON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND, THUS CALLING
FOR DISMISSAL OF OUR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  IN THIS STATE OF UNCERTAINTY,
WE FOLLOW OUR PRECEDENTS IN HERB V. PITCAIRN, 324 U.S. 117 (1945), AND
LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS, 334 U.S. 804 (1948). 

ACCORDINGLY, THE CAUSE IS ORDERED CONTINUED FOR SUCH PERIOD AS WILL
ENABLE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO SECURE A DETERMINATION FROM THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AS TO WHETHER THE JUDGMENT HEREIN WAS
INTENDED TO REST ON AN ADEQUATE INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND OR WHETHER
DECISION OF THE FEDERAL CLAIM WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED. 
CAUSE CONTINUED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















PALMER OIL CORP. V. AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. 342 U.S. 35 


NO. 301.  CONTINUED NOVEMBER 5, 1951. 


THESE CAUSES ARE CONTINUED FOR SUCH PERIOD AS WILL ENABLE APPELLANTS
WITH ALL CONVENIENT SPEED TO SECURE IN AN APPROPRIATE STATE PROCEEDING
A DETERMINATION AS TO THE EFFECT ON THESE APPEALS OF THE REPEAL OF THE
STATE STATUTE WHOSE CONSTITUTIONALITY IS DRAWN IN QUESTION BY THESE
APPEALS. 

PALMER OIL CORP. ET AL. V. AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 302, FARWELL ET AL. V. AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. ET
AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

THE DECISION BELOW IS REPORTED IN 204 OKLA. 543, 231 P.2D 997. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE COURT IS ADVISED THAT, ON MAY 26, 1951, THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE
REPEALED OKLA.  STAT., 1941 (CUM. SUPP. 1949), TIT. 52, SECS. 286.1
286.17, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHICH IS DRAWN IN QUESTION BY THESE
APPEALS.  THE CAUSES ARE THEREFORE ORDERED CONTINUED FOR SUCH PERIOD AS
WILL ENABLE APPELLANTS WITH ALL CONVENIENT SPEED TO SECURE IN AN
APPROPRIATE STATE PROCEEDING A DETERMINATION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THIS
REPEAL ON THE MATTERS RAISED IN THESE APPEALS.  CAUSE CONTINUED. 
..END :























DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 494 


NO. 336.  ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.- 183 F.2D
201, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THIS CASE, SECS. 2(A)(1), 2(A)(3) AND
3 OF THE SMITH ACT, 54 STAT. 671, MAKING IT A CRIME FOR ANY PERSON
KNOWINGLY OR WILLFULLY TO ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OR DESTRUCTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE, TO ORGANIZE OR
HELP TO ORGANIZE ANY GROUP WHICH DOES SO, OR TO CONSPIRE TO DO SO, DO
NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS AND DO NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST OR FIFTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF
INDEFINITENESS.  PP. 495-499, 517. 

2.  PETITIONERS, LEADERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY, WERE
INDICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE SMITH ACT FOR
WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY CONSPIRING (1) TO ORGANIZE AS THE COMMUNIST
PARTY A GROUP OF PERSONS TO TEACH AND ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW AND
DESTRUCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE, AND (2) KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY TO ADVOCATE AND TEACH THE
DUTY AND NECESSITY OF OVERTHROWING AND DESTROYING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  THE TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE
JURY THAT THEY COULD NOT CONVICT UNLESS THEY FOUND THAT PETITIONERS
INTENDED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT "AS SPEEDILY AS CIRCUMSTANCES
WOULD PERMIT" BUT THAT, IF THEY SO FOUND, THEN, AS A MATTER OF LAW,
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT DANGER OF A SUBSTANTIVE EVIL THAT CONGRESS HAS A
RIGHT TO PREVENT TO JUSTIFY APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE
SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI,
LIMITED TO THE QUESTIONS:  (1) WHETHER EITHER SEC. 2 OR SEC. 3 OF THE
SMITH ACT, INHERENTLY OR AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THE INSTANT CASE,
VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS; AND (2) WHETHER EITHER SEC. 2 OR SEC. 3, INHERENTLY OR AS
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THE INSTANT CASE, VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF INDEFINITENESS.  HELD:  THE CONVICTIONS ARE
AFFIRMED.  PP. 495-499, 511-512, 517. 

FOR THE OPINIONS OF THE JUSTICES CONSTITUTING THE MAJORITY OF THE
COURT, SEE: 

OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE
BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON, P. 495. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, P. 517. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, P. 561. 

FOR THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, SEE P. 579. 

FOR THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, SEE P. 581. 

DENNIS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE, PP. 495-499. 
AFFIRMED, P. 517. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON JOIN. 

PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED IN JULY, 1948, FOR VIOLATION OF THE
CONSPIRACY PROVISIONS OF THE SMITH ACT, 54 STAT. 671, 18 U.S.C. (1946
ED.)  SEC.  11, DURING THE PERIOD OF APRIL, 1945, TO JULY, 1948.  THE
PRETRIAL MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUNDS, INTER ALIA,
THAT THE STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAS DENIED, UNITED STATES V.
FOSTER, 80 F.SUPP.  479, AND THE CASE WAS SET FOR TRIAL ON JANUARY 17,
1949.  A VERDICT OF GUILTY AS TO ALL THE PETITIONERS WAS RETURNED BY
THE JURY ON OCTOBER 14, 1949.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
CONVICTIONS.  183 F.2D 201.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 863,
LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS:  (1) WHETHER EITHER SEC. 2 OR
SEC. 3 OF THE SMITH ACT, INHERENTLY OR AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THE
INSTANT CASE, VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS; (2) WHETHER EITHER SEC. 2 OR SEC. 3 OF THE ACT,
INHERENTLY OR AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THE INSTANT CASE, VIOLATES
THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF INDEFINITENESS. 

ED.)  SECS.  10, 11(SEE PRESENT 18 U.S.C. SEC. 2385), PROVIDE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 2.  (A)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON - 

"(1)  TO KNOWINGLY OR WILLFULLY ADVOCATE, ABET, ADVISE, OR TEACH THE
DUTY, NECESSITY, DESIRABILITY, OR PROPRIETY OF OVERTHROWING OR
DESTROYING ANY GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE, OR
BY THE ASSASSINATION OF ANY OFFICER OF ANY SUCH GOVERNMENT; 

"(2)  WITH INTENT TO CAUSE THE OVERTHROW OR DESTRUCTION OF ANY
GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES, TO PRINT, PUBLISH, EDIT, ISSUE,
CIRCULATE, SELL, DISTRIBUTE, OR PUBLICLY DISPLAY ANY WRITTEN OR PRINTED
MATTER ADVOCATING, ADVISING, OR TEACHING THE DUTY, NECESSITY,
DESIRABILITY, OR PROPRIETY OF OVERTHROWING OR DESTROYING ANY GOVERNMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE; 

"(3)  TO ORGANIZE OR HELP TO ORGANIZE ANY SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY
OF PERSONS WHO TEACH, ADVOCATE, OR ENCOURAGE THE OVERTHROW OR
DESTRUCTION OF ANY GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE OR
VIOLENCE; OR TO BE OR BECOME A MEMBER OF, OR AFFILIATE WITH, ANY SUCH
SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS, KNOWING THE PURPOSES THEREOF. 

"(B)  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM 'GOVERNMENT IN THE
UNITED STATES' MEANS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
GOVERNMENT OF ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF ANY OF THEM. 

"SEC. 3.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO ATTEMPT TO COMMIT,
OR TO CONSPIRE TO COMMIT, ANY OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED BY THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS TITLE." 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THE PETITIONERS WITH WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY
CONSPIRING (1) TO ORGANIZE AS THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA A SOCIETY, GROUP AND ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS WHO TEACH AND
ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW AND DESTRUCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, AND (2) KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY TO
ADVOCATE AND TEACH THE DUTY AND NECESSITY OF OVERTHROWING AND
DESTROYING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE. 
THE INDICTMENT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT SEC. 2 OF THE SMITH ACT PROSCRIBES
THESE ACTS AND THAT ANY CONSPIRACY TO TAKE SUCH ACTION IS A VIOLATION
OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT. 

THE TRIAL OF THE CASE EXTENDED OVER NINE MONTHS, SIX OF WHICH WERE
DEVOTED TO THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE, RESULTING IN A RECORD OF 16,000
PAGES.  OUR LIMITED GRANT OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI HAS REMOVED FROM
OUR CONSIDERATION ANY QUESTION AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE JURY'S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONERS ARE GUILTY OF THE
OFFENSE CHARGED.  WHETHER ON THIS RECORD PETITIONERS DID IN FACT
ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IS NOT
BEFORE US, AND WE MUST BASE ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS POINT UPON THE
CONCLUSIONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH
TREATED THE ISSUE IN GREAT DETAIL.  THAT COURT HELD THAT THE RECORD IN
THIS CASE AMPLY SUPPORTS THE NECESSARY FINDING OF THE JURY THAT
PETITIONERS, THE LEADERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY, WERE
UNWILLING TO WORK WITHIN OUR FRAMEWORK OF DEMOCRACY, BUT INTENDED TO
INITIATE A VIOLENT REVOLUTION WHENEVER THE PROPITIOUS OCCASION
APPEARED.  PETITIONERS DISPUTE THE MEANING TO BE DRAWN FROM THE
EVIDENCE, CONTENDING THAT THE MARXIST-LENINIST DOCTRINE THEY ADVOCATED
TAUGHT THAT FORCE AND VIOLENCE TO ACHIEVE A COMMUNIST FORM OF
GOVERNMENT IN AN EXISTING DEMOCRATIC STATE WOULD BE NECESSARY ONLY
BECAUSE THE RULING CLASSES OF THAT STATE WOULD NEVER PERMIT THE
TRANSFORMATION TO BE ACCOMPLISHED PEACEFULLY, BUT WOULD USE FORCE AND
VIOLENCE TO DEFEAT ANY PEACEFUL POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC GAIN THE
COMMUNISTS COULD ACHIEVE.  BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE
RECORD SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING BROAD CONCLUSIONS:  BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
CONTROL OVER THE POLITICAL APPARATUS OF THE COMMUNIST POLITICAL
ASSOCIATION,  FN1  PETITIONERS WERE ABLE TO TRANSFORM THAT ORGANIZATION
INTO THE COMMUNIST PARTY; THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ASSOCIATION WERE
CHANGED FROM PEACEFUL COOPERATION WITH THE UNITED STATES AND ITS
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE TO A POLICY WHICH HAD EXISTED BEFORE
THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET UNION WERE FIGHTING A COMMON ENEMY,
NAMELY, A POLICY WHICH WORKED FOR THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE; THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS A HIGHLY DISCIPLINED
ORGANIZATION, ADEPT AT INFILTRATION INTO STRATEGIC POSITIONS, USE OF
ALIASES, AND DOUBLE-MEANING LANGUAGE; THAT THE PARTY IS RIGIDLY
CONTROLLED; THAT COMMUNISTS, UNLIKE OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES, TOLERATE
NO DISSENSION FROM THE POLICY LAID DOWN BY THE GUIDING FORCES, BUT THAT
THE APPROVED PROGRAM IS SLAVISHLY FOLLOWED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PARTY;
THAT THE LITERATURE OF THE PARTY AND THE STATEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES OF
ITS LEADERS, PETITIONERS HERE, ADVOCATE, AND THE GENERAL GOAL OF THE
PARTY WAS, DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, TO ACHIEVE A SUCCESSFUL
OVERTHROW OF THE EXISTING ORDER BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE. 

                                  I. 

IT WILL BE HELPFUL IN CLARIFYING THE ISSUES TO TREAT NEXT THE
CONTENTION THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY INTERPRETED THE STATUTE BY
CHARGING THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRED AN UNLAWFUL INTENT BEFORE THE JURY
COULD CONVICT.  MORE SPECIFICALLY, HE CHARGED THAT THE JURY COULD NOT
FIND THE PETITIONERS GUILTY UNDER THE INDICTMENT UNLESS THEY FOUND THAT
PETITIONERS HAD THE INTENT TO "OVERTHROW  ...  THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE AS SPEEDILY AS CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD
PERMIT." 

ADVOCATE,  ... OR TEACH THE DUTY, NECESSITY, DESIRABILITY, OR PROPRIETY
OF OVERTHROWING OR DESTROYING ANY GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES BY
FORCE OR VIOLENCE  ...  "; SECTION 2(A)(3), "TO ORGANIZE OR HELP TO
ORGANIZE ANY SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS WHO TEACH,
ADVOCATE, OR ENCOURAGE THE OVERTHROW  ...  " BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT
SEC. 2(A)(2) EXPRESSLY REQUIRES A SPECIFIC INTENT TO OVERTHROW THE
GOVERNMENT, AND BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF PRECISE LANGUAGE IN THE
FOREGOING SUBSECTIONS, IT IS CLAIMED THAT CONGRESS DELIBERATELY OMITTED
ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT.  WE DO NOT AGREE.  IT WOULD REQUIRE A FAR GREATER
INDICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL DESIRE THAT INTENT NOT BE MADE AN ELEMENT
OF THE CRIME THAN THE USE OF THE DISJUNCTIVE "KNOWINGLY OR WILLFULLY"
IN SEC. 2(A)(1), OR THE OMISSION OF EXACT LANGUAGE IN SEC. 2(A)(3). 
THE STRUCTURE AND PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE DEMAND THE INCLUSION OF INTENT
AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME.  CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH THOSE WHO
ADVOCATE AND ORGANIZE FOR THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT.  CERTAINLY
THOSE WHO RECRUIT AND COMBINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVOCATING OVERTHROW
INTEND TO BRING ABOUT THAT OVERTHROW.  WE HOLD THAT THE STATUTE
REQUIRES AS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME PROOF OF THE INTENT OF
THOSE WHO ARE CHARGED WITH ITS VIOLATION TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  SEE WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 97, 101
102(1951); SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, 101-105(1945); CRAMER
V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1, 31(1945). 

NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THERE MUST BE AN INVESTIGATION OF A STATE OF
MIND UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION AFFORD ANY BASIS FOR REJECTION OF THAT
MEANING.  A SURVEY OF TITLE 18 OF THE U.S.C. INDICATES THAT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THE CRIMES DESIGNATED BY THAT TITLE REQUIRE, BY EXPRESS
LANGUAGE, PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A CERTAIN MENTAL STATE, IN WORDS
SUCH AS "KNOWINGLY," "MALICIOUSLY," "WILFULLY," "WITH THE PURPOSE OF,"
"WITH INTENT TO," OR COMBINATIONS OR PERMUTATIONS OF THESE AND
SYNONYMOUS TERMS.  THE EXISTENCE OF A MENS REA IS THE RULE OF, RATHER
THAN THE EXCEPTION TO, THE PRINCIPLES OF ANGLO-AMERICAN CRIMINAL
JURISPRUDENCE.  SEE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S.
382, 411(1950). 

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE PRESENCE OF INTENT MAKES A DIFFERENCE
IN THE LAW WHEN AN "ACT OTHERWISE EXCUSABLE OR CARRYING MINOR
PENALTIES" IS ACCOMPANIED BY SUCH AN EVIL INTENT.  YET THE EXISTENCE OF
SUCH AN INTENT MADE THE KILLING CONDEMNED IN SCREWS, SUPRA, AND THE
BEATING IN WILLIAMS, SUPRA, BOTH CLEARLY AND SEVERELY PUNISHABLE UNDER
STATE LAW, OFFENSES CONSTITUTIONALLY PUNISHABLE BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  IN THOSE CASES, THE COURT REQUIRED THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE
THAT THE DEFENDANTS INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THE VICTIM OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT.  IF THAT PRECISE MENTAL STATE MAY BE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A
CRIME, SURELY AN INTENT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES BY ADVOCACY THEREOF IS EQUALLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF PROOF.  FN2

      II. 

THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS TO PROTECT EXISTING GOVERNMENT,
NOT FROM CHANGE BY PEACEABLE, LAWFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS, BUT FROM
CHANGE BY VIOLENCE, REVOLUTION AND TERRORISM.  THAT IT IS WITHIN THE
POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
FROM ARMED REBELLION IS A PROPOSITION WHICH REQUIRES LITTLE
DISCUSSION.  WHATEVER THEORETICAL MERIT THERE MAY BE TO THE ARGUMENT
THAT THERE IS A "RIGHT" TO REBELLION AGAINST DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENTS IS
WITHOUT FORCE WHERE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OF THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES
FOR PEACEFUL AND ORDERLY CHANGE.  WE REJECT ANY PRINCIPLE OF
GOVERNMENTAL HELPLESSNESS IN THE FACE OF PREPARATION FOR REVOLUTION,
WHICH PRINCIPLE, CARRIED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION, MUST LEAD TO
ANARCHY.  NO ONE COULD CONCEIVE THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT ACTS INTENDED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE
AND VIOLENCE.  THE QUESTION WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED HERE IS NOT
WHETHER CONGRESS HAS SUCH POWER, BUT WHETHER THE MEANS WHICH IT HAS
EMPLOYED CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION. 

ONE OF THE BASES FOR THE CONTENTION THAT THE MEANS WHICH CONGRESS HAS
EMPLOYED ARE INVALID TAKES THE FORM OF AN ATTACK ON THE FACE OF THE
STATUTE ON THE GROUNDS THAT BY ITS TERMS IT PROHIBITS ACADEMIC
DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF MARXISM-LENINISM, THAT IT STIFLES IDEAS AND
IS CONTRARY TO ALL CONCEPTS OF A FREE SPEECH AND A FREE PRESS. 
ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT AGREE THAT THE LANGUAGE ITSELF HAS THAT
SIGNIFICANCE, WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS TO INTERPRET FEDERAL LEGISLATION IN A MANNER NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.
DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 407(1950).  WE ARE NOT HERE CONFRONTED WITH CASES
SIMILAR TO THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88(1940); HERNDON V. LOWRY,
301 U.S. 242(1937); AND DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353(1937), WHERE A
STATE COURT HAD GIVEN A MEANING TO A STATE STATUTE WHICH WAS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THIS IS A FEDERAL STATUTE
WHICH WE MUST INTERPRET AS WELL AS JUDGE.  HEREIN LIES THE FALLACY OF
RELIANCE UPON THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS TREATED JUDGMENTS OF
STATE COURTS.  WHERE THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT
TRANSGRESSED THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE COULD NOT BUT INVALIDATE THE
JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION. 

THE VERY LANGUAGE OF THE SMITH ACT NEGATES THE INTERPRETATION WHICH
PETITIONERS WOULD HAVE US IMPOSE ON THAT ACT.  IT IS DIRECTED AT
ADVOCACY, NOT DISCUSSION.  THUS, THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY CHARGED THE
JURY THAT THEY COULD NOT CONVICT IF THEY FOUND THAT PETITIONERS DID "NO
MORE THAN PURSUE PEACEFUL STUDIES AND DISCUSSIONS OR TEACHING AND
ADVOCACY IN THE REALM OF IDEAS."  HE FURTHER CHARGED THAT IT WAS NOT
UNLAWFUL "TO CONDUCT IN AN AMERICAN COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY A COURSE
EXPLAINING THE PHILOSOPHICAL THEORIES SET FORTH IN THE BOOKS WHICH HAVE
BEEN PLACED IN EVIDENCE."  SUCH A CHARGE IS IN STRICT ACCORD WITH THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE, AND ILLUSTRATES THE MEANING TO BE PLACED ON THOSE
WORDS.  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO ERADICATE THE FREE DISCUSSION OF
POLITICAL THEORIES, TO DESTROY THE TRADITIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERICANS TO
DISCUSS AND EVALUATE IDEAS WITHOUT FEAR OF GOVERNMENTAL SANCTION. 
RATHER CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH THE VERY KIND OF ACTIVITY IN WHICH
THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THESE PETITIONERS ENGAGED. 
        III. 

BUT ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE IS NOT DIRECTED AT THE HYPOTHETICAL CASES
WHICH PETITIONERS HAVE CONJURED, ITS APPLICATION IN THIS CASE HAS
RESULTED IN CONVICTIONS FOR THE TEACHING AND ADVOCACY OF THE OVERTHROW
OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, WHICH, EVEN THOUGH COUPLED
WITH THE INTENT TO ACCOMPLISH THAT OVERTHROW, CONTAINS AN ELEMENT OF
SPEECH.  FOR THIS REASON, WE MUST PAY SPECIAL HEED TO THE DEMANDS OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT MARKING OUT THE BOUNDARIES OF SPEECH.    WE POINTED
OUT IN DOUDS, SUPRA, THAT THE BASIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS THE
HYPOTHESIS THAT SPEECH CAN REBUT SPEECH, PROPAGANDA WILL ANSWER
PROPAGANDA, FREE DEBATE OF IDEAS WILL RESULT IN THE WISEST GOVERNMENTAL
POLICIES.  IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE
INHERENT VALUE OF FREE DISCOURSE.  AN ANALYSIS OF THE LEADING CASES IN
THIS COURT WHICH HAVE INVOLVED DIRECT LIMITATIONS ON SPEECH, HOWEVER,
WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT BOTH THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT AND THE DISSENTERS
IN PARTICULAR CASES HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THIS IS NOT AN UNLIMITED,
UNQUALIFIED RIGHT, BUT THAT THE SOCIETAL VALUE OF SPEECH MUST, ON
OCCASION, BE SUBORDINATED TO OTHER VALUES AND CONSIDERATIONS. 

NO IMPORTANT CASE INVOLVING FREE SPEECH WAS DECIDED BY THIS COURT
PRIOR TO SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47(1919).  INDEED, THE
SUMMARY TREATMENT ACCORDED AN ARGUMENT BASED UPON AN INDIVIDUAL'S CLAIM
THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED CERTAIN UTTERANCES INDICATES THAT
THE COURT AT EARLIER DATES PLACED NO UNIQUE EMPHASIS UPON THAT RIGHT. 
FN3  IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE CLASSIC DICTUM OF JUSTICE HOLMES IN THE
SCHENCK CASE THAT SPEECH PER SE RECEIVED THAT EMPHASIS IN A MAJORITY
OPINION.  THAT CASE INVOLVED A CONVICTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL ESPIONAGE
ACT, 40 STAT. 217.  THE QUESTION THE COURT FACED WAS WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION.  WRITING FOR A
UNANIMOUS COURT, JUSTICE HOLMES STATED THAT THE "QUESTION IN EVERY CASE
IS WHETHER THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF
SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THEY WILL
BRING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS THAT CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO
PREVENT."  249 U.S. AT 52.  BUT THE FORCE OF EVEN THIS EXPRESSION IS
CONSIDERABLY WEAKENED BY THE REFERENCE AT THE END OF THE OPINION TO
GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 474(1918), A PROSECUTION UNDER THE
SAME STATUTE.  SAID JUSTICE HOLMES, "INDEED (GOLDMAN) MIGHT BE SAID TO
DISPOSE OF THE PRESENT CONTENTION IF THE PRECEDENT COVERS ALL MEDIA
CONCLUDENDI.  BUT AS THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH WAS NOT REFERRED TO
SPECIALLY, WE HAVE THOUGHT FIT TO ADD A FEW WORDS."  249 U.S. AT 52. 
THE FACT IS INESCAPABLE, TOO, THAT THE PHRASE BORE NO CONNOTATION THAT
THE DANGER WAS TO BE ANY THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF THE REPUBLIC.  THE
CHARGE WAS CAUSING AND ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION IN THE
MILITARY FORCES AND OBSTRUCT RECRUITING.  THE OBJECTIONABLE DOCUMENT
DENOUNCED CONSCRIPTION AND ITS MOST INCITING SENTENCE WAS, "YOU MUST DO
YOUR SHARE TO MAINTAIN, SUPPORT AND UPHOLD THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF
THIS COUNTRY."  249 U.S. AT 51.  FIFTEEN THOUSAND COPIES WERE PRINTED
AND SOME CIRCULATED.  THIS INSUBSTANTIAL GESTURE TOWARD INSUBORDINATION
IN 1917 DURING WAR WAS HELD TO BE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF
BRINGING ABOUT THE EVIL OF MILITARY INSUBORDINATION. 

IN SEVERAL LATER CASES INVOLVING CONVICTIONS UNDER THE CRIMINAL
ESPIONAGE ACT, THE NUB OF THE EVIDENCE THE COURT HELD SUFFICIENT TO
MEET THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST ENUNCIATED IN SCHENCK WAS AS
FOLLOWS:  FROHWERK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 204(1919) - PUBLICATION
OF TWELVE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ATTACKING THE WAR; DEBS V. UNITED STATES,
249 U.S. 211(1919) - ONE SPEECH ATTACKING UNITED STATES' PARTICIPATION
IN THE WAR; ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616(1919) - CIRCULATION
OF COPIES OF TWO DIFFERENT SOCIALIST CIRCULARS ATTACKING THE WAR;
SCHAEFER V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 466(1920) - PUBLICATION OF A GERMAN
LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER WITH ALLEGEDLY FALSE ARTICLES, CRITICAL OF
CAPITALISM AND THE WAR; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S. 239(1920) -
CIRCULATION OF COPIES OF A FOUR-PAGE PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY A CLERGYMAN,
ATTACKING THE PURPOSES OF THE WAR AND UNITED STATES' PARTICIPATION
THEREIN.  JUSTICE HOLMES WROTE THE OPINIONS FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN
SCHENCK, FROHWERK AND DEBS.  HE AND JUSTICE BRANDEIS DISSENTED IN
ABRAMS, SCHAEFER AND PIERCE.  THE BASIS OF THESE DISSENTS WAS THAT,
BECAUSE OF THE PROTECTION WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES TO SPEECH,
THE EVIDENCE IN EACH CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANTS
HAD CREATED THE REQUISITE DANGER UNDER SCHENCK.  BUT THESE DISSENTS DID
NOT MARK A CHANGE OF PRINCIPLE.  THE DISSENTERS DOUBTED ONLY THE
PROBABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PUNY EFFORTS TOWARD SUBVERSION.  IN
ABRAMS, THEY WROTE, "I DO NOT DOUBT FOR A MOMENT THAT BY THE SAME
REASONING THAT WOULD JUSTIFY PUNISHING PERSUASION TO MURDER, THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY PUNISH SPEECH THAT PRODUCES OR IS INTENDED
TO PRODUCE A CLEAR AND IMMINENT DANGER THAT IT WILL BRING ABOUT
FORTHWITH CERTAIN SUBSTANTIVE EVILS THAT THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY SEEK TO PREVENT."  250 U.S. AT 627.  AND IN
SCHAEFER THE TEST WAS SAID TO BE ONE OF "DEGREE," 251 U.S. AT 482,
ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER "DEGREE" REFERS TO CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER OR EVIL.  PERHAPS BOTH WERE MEANT. 

THE RULE WE DEDUCE FROM THESE CASES IS THAT WHERE AN OFFENSE IS
SPECIFIED BY A STATUTE IN NONSPEECH OR NONPRESS TERMS, A CONVICTION
RELYING UPON SPEECH OR PRESS AS EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION MAY BE SUSTAINED
ONLY WHEN THE SPEECH OR PUBLICATION CREATED A "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER" OF ATTEMPTING OR ACCOMPLISHING THE PROHIBITED CRIME, E.G.,
INTERFERENCE WITH ENLISTMENT.  THE DISSENTS, WE REPEAT, IN EMPHASIZING
THE VALUE OF SPEECH, WERE ADDRESSED TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE EVIDENCE. 

THE NEXT IMPORTANT CASE  FN4  BEFORE THE COURT IN WHICH FREE SPEECH
WAS THE CRUX OF THE CONFLICT WAS GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S.
652(1925).  THERE NEW YORK HAD MADE IT A CRIME TO ADVOCATE "THE
NECESSITY OR PROPRIETY OF OVERTHROWING  ...  ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT BY
FORCE ...  "  THE EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE WAS THAT THE
DEFENDANT HAD PUBLISHED A MANIFESTO ATTACKING THE GOVERNMENT AND
CAPITALISM.  THE CONVICTIONS WERE SUSTAINED, JUSTICES HOLMES AND
BRANDEIS DISSENTING.  THE MAJORITY REFUSED TO APPLY THE "CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER" TEST TO THE SPECIFIC UTTERANCE.  ITS REASONING WAS AS
FOLLOWS:  THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST WAS APPLIED TO THE
UTTERANCE ITSELF IN SCHENCK BECAUSE THE QUESTION WAS MERELY ONE OF
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE UNDER AN ADMITTEDLY CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE. 
GITLOW, HOWEVER, PRESENTED A DIFFERENT QUESTION.  THERE A LEGISLATURE
HAD FOUND THAT A CERTAIN KIND OF SPEECH WAS, ITSELF, HARMFUL AND
UNLAWFUL.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH A STATE STATUTE HAD TO BE
ADJUDGED BY THIS COURT JUST AS IT DETERMINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
ANY STATE STATUTE, NAMELY, WHETHER THE STATUTE WAS "REASONABLE."  SINCE
IT WAS ENTIRELY REASONABLE FOR A STATE TO ATTEMPT TO PROTECT ITSELF
FROM VIOLENT OVERTHROW, THE STATUTE WAS PERFORCE REASONABLE.  THE ONLY
QUESTION REMAINING IN THE CASE BECAME WHETHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE CONVICTION, A QUESTION WHICH GAVE THE MAJORITY NO
DIFFICULTY.  JUSTICES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THIS
APPROACH, BUT INSISTED THAT WHEREVER SPEECH WAS THE EVIDENCE OF THE
VIOLATION, IT WAS NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THE SPEECH CREATED THE "CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER" OF THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAD
THE RIGHT TO PREVENT.  JUSTICES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS, THEN, MADE NO
DISTINCTION BETWEEN A FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH MADE CERTAIN ACTS UNLAWFUL,
THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION BEING SPEECH, AND A STATUTE
WHICH MADE SPEECH ITSELF THE CRIME.  THIS APPROACH WAS EMPHASIZED IN
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357(1927), WHERE THE COURT WAS
CONFRONTED WITH A CONVICTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL SYNDICALIST
STATUTE.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE CONVICTION, JUSTICES BRANDEIS AND
HOLMES CONCURRING IN THE RESULT.  IN THEIR CONCURRENCE THEY REPEATED
THAT EVEN THOUGH THE LEGISLATURE HAD DESIGNATED CERTAIN SPEECH AS
CRIMINAL, THIS COULD NOT PREVENT THE DEFENDANT FROM SHOWING THAT THERE
WAS NO DANGER THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL WOULD BE BROUGHT ABOUT. 

ALTHOUGH NO CASE SUBSEQUENT TO WHITNEY AND GITLOW HAS EXPRESSLY
OVERRULED THE MAJORITY OPINIONS IN THOSE CASES, THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT
THAT SUBSEQUENT OPINIONS HAVE INCLINED TOWARD THE HOLMES-BRANDEIS
RATIONALE.  FN5  AND IN AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, SUPRA,
WE WERE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 9(H) OF THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947.  THAT SECTION REQUIRED OFFICIALS OF
UNIONS WHICH DESIRED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE FACILITIES OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO TAKE OATHS THAT THEY DID NOT BELONG
TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THAT THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE OVERTHROW
OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  WE POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS
DID NOT INTEND TO PUNISH BELIEF, BUT RATHER INTENDED TO REGULATE THE
CONDUCT OF UNION AFFAIRS.  WE THEREFORE HELD THAT ANY INDIRECT SANCTION
ON SPEECH WHICH MIGHT ARISE FROM THE OATH REQUIREMENT DID NOT PRESENT A
PROPER CASE FOR THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST, FOR THE REGULATION
WAS AIMED AT CONDUCT RATHER THAN SPEECH.  IN DISCUSSING THE PROPER
MEASURE OF EVALUATION OF THIS KIND OF LEGISLATION, WE SUGGESTED THAT
THE HOLMES-BRANDEIS PHILOSOPHY INSISTED THAT WHERE THERE WAS A DIRECT
RESTRICTION UPON SPEECH, A "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" THAT THE
SUBSTANTIVE EVIL WOULD BE CAUSED WAS NECESSARY BEFORE THE STATUTE IN
QUESTION COULD BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED.  AND WE STATED, "(THE
FIRST) AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT ONE BE PERMITTED TO BELIEVE WHAT HE
WILL.  IT REQUIRES THAT ONE BE PERMITTED TO ADVOCATE WHAT HE WILL
UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC
EVIL WILL RESULT THEREFROM."  339 U.S. AT 412.  BUT WE FURTHER
SUGGESTED THAT NEITHER JUSTICE HOLMES NOR JUSTICE BRANDEIS EVER
ENVISIONED THAT A SHORTHAND PHRASE SHOULD BE CRYSTALLIZED INTO A RIGID
RULE TO BE APPLIED INFLEXIBLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
EACH CASE.  SPEECH IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE, ABOVE AND BEYOND CONTROL BY THE
LEGISLATURE WHEN ITS JUDGMENT, SUBJECT TO REVIEW HERE, IS THAT CERTAIN
KINDS OF SPEECH ARE SO UNDESIRABLE AS TO WARRANT CRIMINAL SANCTION. 
NOTHING IS MORE CERTAIN IN MODERN SOCIETY THAN THE PRINCIPLE THAT THERE
ARE NO ABSOLUTES, THAT A NAME, A PHRASE, A STANDARD HAS MEANING ONLY
WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH GAVE BIRTH TO THE
NOMENCLATURE.  SEE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. AT
397.  TO THOSE WHO WOULD PARALYZE OUR GOVERNMENT IN THE FACE OF
IMPENDING THREAT BY ENCASING IT IN A SEMANTIC STRAITJACKET WE MUST
REPLY THAT ALL CONCEPTS ARE RELATIVE. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE SQUARELY PRESENTED WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE
"CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST, AND MUST DECIDE WHAT THAT PHRASE
IMPORTS.  WE FIRST NOTE THAT MANY OF THE CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS
REVERSED CONVICTIONS BY USE OF THIS OR SIMILAR TESTS HAVE BEEN BASED ON
THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST WHICH THE STATE WAS ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT
WAS ITSELF TOO INSUBSTANTIAL TO WARRANT RESTRICTION OF SPEECH.  IN THIS
CATEGORY WE MAY PUT SUCH CASES AS SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S.
147(1939); CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296(1940); MARTIN V.
STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141(1943); WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION V.
BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624(1943); THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516(1945);
MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S. 501(1946); BUT CF. PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS,
321 U.S. 158(1944); COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569(1941). 
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IS CERTAINLY A
SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH INTEREST FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO LIMIT SPEECH. 
INDEED, THIS IS THE ULTIMATE VALUE OF ANY SOCIETY, FOR IF A SOCIETY
CANNOT PROTECT ITS VERY STRUCTURE FROM ARMED INTERNAL ATTACK, IT MUST
FOLLOW THAT NO SUBORDINATE VALUE CAN BE PROTECTED.  IF, THEN, THIS
INTEREST MAY BE PROTECTED, THE LITERAL PROBLEM WHICH IS PRESENTED IS
WHAT HAS BEEN MEANT BY THE USE OF THE PHRASE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER"
OF THE UTTERANCES BRINGING ABOUT THE EVIL WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS
TO PUNISH. 

OBVIOUSLY, THE WORDS CANNOT MEAN THAT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT MAY ACT,
IT MUST WAIT UNTIL THE PUTSCH IS ABOUT TO BE EXECUTED, THE PLANS HAVE
BEEN LAID AND THE SIGNAL IS AWAITED.  IF GOVERNMENT IS AWARE THAT A
GROUP AIMING AT ITS OVERTHROW IS ATTEMPTING TO INDOCTRINATE ITS MEMBERS
AND TO COMMIT THEM TO A COURSE WHEREBY THEY WILL STRIKE WHEN THE
LEADERS FEEL THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT, ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT IS
REQUIRED.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR GOVERNMENT TO CONCERN
ITSELF, FOR GOVERNMENT IS STRONG, IT POSSESSES AMPLE POWERS TO PUT DOWN
A REBELLION, IT MAY DEFEAT THE REVOLUTION WITH EASE NEEDS NO ANSWER. 
FOR THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION.  CERTAINLY AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE, EVEN THOUGH DOOMED FROM THE OUTSET BECAUSE OF
INADEQUATE NUMBERS OR POWER OF THE REVOLUTIONISTS, IS A SUFFICIENT EVIL
FOR CONGRESS TO PREVENT.  THE DAMAGE WHICH SUCH ATTEMPTS CREATE BOTH
PHYSICALLY AND POLITICALLY TO A NATION MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE
THE VALIDITY IN TERMS OF THE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS, OR THE IMMEDIACY
OF A SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED
THE JURY THAT THEY COULD NOT CONVICT UNLESS THEY FOUND THAT PETITIONERS
INTENDED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT "AS SPEEDILY AS CIRCUMSTANCES
WOULD PERMIT."  THIS DOES NOT MEAN, AND COULD NOT PROPERLY MEAN, THAT
THEY WOULD NOT STRIKE UNTIL THERE WAS CERTAINTY OF SUCCESS.  WHAT WAS
MEANT WAS THAT THE REVOLUTIONISTS WOULD STRIKE WHEN THEY THOUGHT THE
TIME WAS RIPE.  WE MUST THEREFORE REJECT THE CONTENTION THAT SUCCESS OR
PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS IS THE CRITERION.    THE SITUATION WITH WHICH
JUSTICES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS WERE CONCERNED IN GITLOW WAS A
COMPARATIVELY ISOLATED EVENT, BEARING LITTLE RELATION IN THEIR MINDS TO
ANY SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY.  SUCH ALSO IS
TRUE OF CASES LIKE FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380(1927), AND DE JONGE V.
OREGON, 299 U.S. 353(1937); BUT CF. LAZAR V. PENNSYLVANIA, 286 U.S.
532(1932).  THEY WERE NOT CONFRONTED WITH ANY SITUATION COMPARABLE TO
THE INSTANT ONE - THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPARATUS DESIGNED AND
DEDICATED TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE CONTEXT OF WORLD
CRISIS AFTER CRISIS.    CHIEF JUDGE LEARNED HAND, WRITING FOR THE
MAJORITY BELOW, INTERPRETED THE PHRASE AS FOLLOWS: "IN EACH CASE
(COURTS) MUST ASK WHETHER THE GRAVITY OF THE 'EVIL,' DISCOUNTED BY ITS
IMPROBABILITY, JUSTIFIES SUCH INVASION OF FREE SPEECH AS IS NECESSARY
TO AVOID THE DANGER."  183 F.2D AT 212.  WE ADOPT THIS STATEMENT OF THE
RULE.  AS ARTICULATED BY CHIEF JUDGE HAND, IT IS AS SUCCINCT AND
INCLUSIVE AS ANY OTHER WE MIGHT DEVISE AT THIS TIME.  IT TAKES INTO
CONSIDERATION THOSE FACTORS WHICH WE DEEM RELEVANT, AND RELATES THEIR
SIGNIFICANCES.  MORE WE CANNOT EXPECT FROM WORDS. 

LIKEWISE, WE ARE IN ACCORD WITH THE COURT BELOW, WHICH AFFIRMED THE
TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE REQUISITE DANGER EXISTED.  THE MERE FACT
THAT FROM THE PERIOD 1945 TO 1948 PETITIONERS' ACTIVITIES DID NOT
RESULT IN AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE
IS OF COURSE NO ANSWER TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A GROUP THAT WAS
READY TO MAKE THE ATTEMPT.  THE FORMATION BY PETITIONERS OF SUCH A
HIGHLY ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY, WITH RIGIDLY DISCIPLINED MEMBERS SUBJECT
TO CALL WHEN THE LEADERS, THESE PETITIONERS, FELT THAT THE TIME HAD
COME FOR ACTION, COUPLED WITH THE INFLAMMABLE NATURE OF WORLD
CONDITIONS, SIMILAR UPRISINGS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, AND THE TOUCH-AND-GO
NATURE OF OUR RELATIONS WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHOM PETITIONERS WERE IN
THE VERY LEAST IDEOLOGICALLY ATTUNED, CONVINCE US THAT THEIR
CONVICTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED ON THIS SCORE.  AND THIS ANALYSIS DISPOSES
OF THE CONTENTION THAT A CONSPIRACY TO ADVOCATE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
THE ADVOCACY ITSELF, CANNOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRAINED, BECAUSE IT
COMPRISES ONLY THE PREPARATION.  IT IS THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY
WHICH CREATES THE DANGER.  CF. PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S.
640(1946); GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 474(1918); UNITED STATES
V. RABINOWICH, 238 U.S. 78(1915).  IF THE INGREDIENTS OF THE REACTION
ARE PRESENT, WE CANNOT BIND THE GOVERNMENT TO WAIT UNTIL THE CATALYST
IS ADDED. 

         IV. 

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE FINDING THAT THERE WAS A
SUFFICIENT DANGER TO WARRANT THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE WAS
JUSTIFIED ON THE MERITS, THERE REMAINS THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER THE TRIAL
JUDGE'S TREATMENT OF THE ISSUE WAS CORRECT.  HE CHARGED THE JURY, IN
RELEVANT PART, AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN FURTHER CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE I CHARGE
YOU THAT IT IS NOT THE ABSTRACT DOCTRINE OF OVERTHROWING OR DESTROYING
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT BY UNLAWFUL MEANS WHICH IS DENOUNCED BY THIS LAW,
BUT THE TEACHING AND ADVOCACY OF ACTION FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THAT
PURPOSE, BY LANGUAGE REASONABLY AND ORDINARILY CALCULATED TO INCITE
PERSONS TO SUCH ACTION.  ACCORDINGLY, YOU CANNOT FIND THE DEFENDANTS OR
ANY OF THEM GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED UNLESS YOU ARE SATISFIED BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY CONSPIRED TO ORGANIZE A SOCIETY, GROUP AND
ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS WHO TEACH AND ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OR DESTRUCTION
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE AND TO
ADVOCATE AND TEACH THE DUTY AND NECESSITY OF OVERTHROWING OR DESTROYING
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, WITH THE
INTENT THAT SUCH TEACHING AND ADVOCACY BE OF A RULE OR PRINCIPLE OF
ACTION AND BY LANGUAGE REASONABLY AND ORDINARILY CALCULATED TO INCITE
PERSONS TO SUCH ACTION, ALL WITH THE INTENT TO CAUSE THE OVERTHROW OR
DESTRUCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE AS SPEEDILY AS CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD PERMIT. 

     .         .      .         .         . 

"IF YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANTS, OR ANY OF THEM, ARE GUILTY OF A
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, AS I HAVE INTERPRETED IT TO YOU, I FIND AS
MATTER OF LAW THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT DANGER OF A SUBSTANTIVE EVIL
THAT THE CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT TO JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION OF
THE STATUTE UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

"THIS IS MATTER OF LAW ABOUT WHICH YOU HAVE NO CONCERN.  IT IS A
FINDING ON A MATTER OF LAW WHICH I DEEM ESSENTIAL TO SUPPORT MY RULING
THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO YOU TO PASS UPON THE GUILT OR
INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS.  ...  " 

IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT HE RESERVED THE QUESTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF
THE DANGER FOR HIS OWN DETERMINATION, AND THE QUESTION BECOMES WHETHER
THE ISSUE IS OF SUCH A NATURE THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY. 

THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE QUOTED INSTRUCTIONS CALLS FOR THE JURY TO
FIND THE FACTS ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME, VIOLATION
OF SECS. 2(A)(1) AND 2(A)(3) OF THE SMITH ACT, INVOLVED IN THE
CONSPIRACY CHARGE.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT IF THE JURY FOUND THOSE
FACTS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS VIOLATION OF THE ACT WOULD BE
ESTABLISHED.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS
ERRONEOUS, IN DECLARING AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT SUCH VIOLATION SHOWS
SUFFICIENT DANGER TO JUSTIFY THE PUNISHMENT DESPITE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, RESTS ON THE THEORY THAT A JURY MUST DECIDE A QUESTION OF
THE APPLICATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  WE DO NOT AGREE. 

WHEN FACTS ARE FOUND THAT ESTABLISH THE VIOLATION OF A STATUTE, THE
PROTECTION AGAINST CONVICTION AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS A
MATTER OF LAW.  THE DOCTRINE THAT THERE MUST BE A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER OF A SUBSTANTIVE EVIL THAT CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT IS A
JUDICIAL RULE TO BE APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY THE COURTS.  THE
GUILT IS ESTABLISHED BY PROOF OF FACTS.  WHETHER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
PROTECTS THE ACTIVITY WHICH CONSTITUTES THE VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE
MUST DEPEND UPON A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT APPLIED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 

PETITIONERS' RELIANCE UPON JUSTICE BRANDEIS' LANGUAGE IN HIS
CONCURRENCE IN WHITNEY, SUPRA, IS MISPLACED.  IN THAT CASE JUSTICE
BRANDEIS POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE MADE THE EXISTENCE
OF THE REQUISITE DANGER THE IMPORTANT ISSUE AT HER TRIAL, BUT THAT SHE
HAD NOT DONE SO. IN DISCUSSING THIS FAILURE, HE STATED THAT THE
DEFENDANT COULD HAVE HAD THE ISSUE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OR THE
JURY.  FN6  NO REALISTIC CONSTRUCTION OF THIS DISJUNCTIVE LANGUAGE
COULD ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT HE INTENDED TO STATE THAT THE
QUESTION WAS ONLY DETERMINABLE BY A JURY.  NOR IS THE INCIDENTAL
STATEMENT OF THE MAJORITY IN PIERCE, SUPRA, OF ANY MORE PERSUASIVE
EFFECT.  FN7  THERE THE ISSUE OF THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF THE PUBLICATION
HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, AND THE MAJORITY WAS APPARENTLY
ADDRESSING ITS REMARKS TO THE CONTENTION OF THE DISSENTERS THAT THE
JURY COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE
EVIDENCE.  FN8  INDEED, IN THE VERY CASE IN WHICH THE PHRASE WAS BORN,
SCHENCK, THIS COURT ITSELF EXAMINED THE RECORD TO FIND WHETHER THE
REQUISITE DANGER APPEARED, AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO A JURY. 
AND IN EVERY LATER CASE IN WHICH THE COURT HAS MEASURED THE VALIDITY OF
A STATUTE BY THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST, THAT DETERMINATION
HAS BEEN BY THE COURT, THE QUESTION OF THE DANGER NOT BEING SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE STATUTE WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ENACTED MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED.  IN OTHER
WORDS, THE COURT MUST EXAMINE JUDICIALLY THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
TO THE PARTICULAR SITUATION, TO ASCERTAIN IF THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS
THE CONVICTION.  WE HOLD THAT THE STATUTE MAY BE APPLIED WHERE THERE IS
A "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" OF THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAD THE RIGHT TO PREVENT.  BEARING, AS IT DOES, THE MARKS
OF A "QUESTION OF LAW," THE ISSUE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR THE JUDGE TO
DECIDE. 

                         V. 

THERE REMAINS TO BE DISCUSSED THE QUESTION OF VAGUENESS - WHETHER THE
STATUTE AS WE HAVE INTERPRETED IT IS TOO VAGUE, NOT SUFFICIENTLY
ADVISING THOSE WHO WOULD SPEAK OF THE LIMITATIONS UPON THEIR ACTIVITY. 
IT IS URGED THAT SUCH VAGUENESS CONTRAVENES THE FIRST AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS.  THIS ARGUMENT IS PARTICULARLY NONPERSUASIVE WHEN PRESENTED
BY PETITIONERS, WHO, THE JURY FOUND, INTENDED TO OVERTHROW THE
GOVERNMENT AS SPEEDILY AS CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD PERMIT.  SEE ABRAMS V.
UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 627-629(1919)(DISSENTING OPINION); WHITNEY
V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 373(1927)(CONCURRING OPINION); TAYLOR V.
MISSISSIPPI, 319 U.S. 583, 589(1943).  A CLAIM OF GUILELESSNESS ILL
BECOMES THOSE WITH EVIL INTENT.  WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S.
97, 101-102(1951); JORDAN V. DE GEORGE, 341 U.S. 223, 230-232(1951);
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. AT 413; SCREWS V.
UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, 101(1945). 

WE AGREE THAT THE STANDARD AS DEFINED IS NOT A NEAT, MATHEMATICAL
FORMULARY.  LIKE ALL VERBALIZATIONS IT IS SUBJECT TO CRITICISM ON THE
SCORE OF INDEFINITENESS.  BUT PETITIONERS THEMSELVES CONTEND THAT THE
VERBALIZATION "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" IS THE PROPER STANDARD.  WE
SEE NO DIFFERENCE, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF VAGUENESS, WHETHER THE
STANDARD OF "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" IS ONE CONTAINED IN HAEC VERBA
WITHIN THE STATUTE, OR WHETHER IT IS THE JUDICIAL MEASURE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL APPLICABILITY.  WE HAVE SHOWN THE INDETERMINATE STANDARD
THE PHRASE NECESSARILY CONNOTES.  WE DO NOT THINK WE HAVE RENDERED THAT
STANDARD ANY MORE INDEFINITE BY OUR ATTEMPT TO SUM UP THE FACTORS WHICH
ARE INCLUDED WITHIN ITS SCOPE.  WE THINK IT WELL SERVES TO INDICATE TO
THOSE WHO WOULD ADVOCATE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED CONDUCT THAT THERE
IS A LINE BEYOND WHICH THEY MAY NOT GO - A LINE WHICH THEY, IN FULL
KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY INTEND AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEIR
ACTIVITY TAKES PLACE, WILL WELL APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND.  WILLIAMS,
SUPRA, AT 101-102; JORDAN, SUPRA, AT 230-232; UNITED STATES V.
PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1, 7(1948); UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH, 280 U.S. 396,
399(1930); NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 376-377(1913).  WHERE
THERE IS DOUBT AS TO THE INTENT OF THE DEFENDANTS, THE NATURE OF THEIR
ACTIVITIES, OR THEIR POWER TO BRING ABOUT THE EVIL, THIS COURT WILL
REVIEW THE CONVICTIONS WITH THE SCRUPULOUS CARE DEMANDED BY OUR
CONSTITUTION.  BUT WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT BECAUSE THERE MAY BE
BORDERLINE CASES AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE, THESE CONVICTIONS SHOULD
BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE PETITIONERS COULD NOT
KNOW THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROSCRIBED BY THE
STATUTE. 

WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED MANY OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH COULD BE EXTRACTED
FROM THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE TREATED IN DETAIL BY THE COURT
BELOW.  OUR LIMITED GRANT OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI HAS WITHDRAWN FROM
OUR CONSIDERATION AT THIS DATE THOSE QUESTIONS, WHICH INCLUDE, INTER
ALIA, SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, COMPOSITION OF JURY, AND CONDUCT OF
THE TRIAL. 

WE HOLD THAT SECS. 2(A)(1), 2(A)(3) AND 3 OF THE SMITH ACT DO NOT
INHERENTLY, OR AS CONSTRUED OR APPLIED IN THE INSTANT CASE, VIOLATE THE
FIRST AMENDMENT AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, OR THE
FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE OF INDEFINITENESS.  PETITIONERS
INTENDED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS SPEEDILY
AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD PERMIT.  THEIR CONSPIRACY TO ORGANIZE THE
COMMUNIST PARTY AND TO TEACH AND ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE CREATED A "CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER" OF AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE
AND VIOLENCE.  THEY WERE PROPERLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY CONVICTED FOR
VIOLATION OF THE SMITH ACT.  THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  FOLLOWING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL IN
1943, THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES DISSOLVED AND WAS
RECONSTITUTED AS THE COMMUNIST POLITICAL ASSOCIATION.  THE PROGRAM OF
THIS ASSOCIATION WAS ONE OF COOPERATION BETWEEN LABOR AND MANAGEMENT,
AND, IN GENERAL, ONE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE NATIONAL UNITY AND PEACE AND
PROSPERITY IN THE POST-WAR PERIOD. 

FN2  WE HAVE TREATED THIS POINT BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION ACCORDED IT
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THIS STATUTE, COMPARE JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189(1943),
ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS THEMSELVES REQUESTED A CHARGE SIMILAR TO THE ONE
GIVEN, AND UNDER RULE 30 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
WOULD APPEAR TO BE BARRED FROM RAISING THIS POINT ON APPEAL.  CF. BOYD
V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 104(1926). 

FN3  TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402(1918); FOX
V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273(1915); DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S.
43(1897); SEE GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418,
439(1911); ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 281(1897). 

FN4  CF. GILBERT V. MINNESOTA, 254 U.S. 325(1920). 

FN5  CONTEMPT OF COURT:  CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367, 373(1947);
PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, 333-336(1946); BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 260-263(1941). 

VALIDITY OF STATE STATUTE:  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516,
530(1945); TAYLOR V. MISSISSIPPI, 319 U.S. 583, 589-590(1943);
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 104-106(1940). 

VALIDITY OF LOCAL ORDINANCE OR REGULATION:  WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF
EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 639(1943); CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA,
310 U.S. 106, 113(1940).    COMMON LAW OFFENSE:  CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 308, 311(1940). 

FN6  "WHETHER IN 1919, WHEN MISS WHITNEY DID THE THINGS COMPLAINED
OF, THERE WAS IN CALIFORNIA SUCH CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF SERIOUS
EVIL, MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE THE IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE CASE.  SHE MIGHT
HAVE REQUIRED THAT THE ISSUE BE DETERMINED EITHER BY THE COURT OR THE
JURY.  SHE CLAIMED BELOW THAT THE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO HER VIOLATED
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; BUT SHE DID NOT CLAIM THAT IT WAS VOID
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF SERIOUS EVIL, NOR DID
SHE REQUEST THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THESE CONDITIONS OF A VALID MEASURE
THUS RESTRICTING THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY BE PASSED UPON
BY THE COURT OR A JURY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE WAS EVIDENCE ON WHICH
THE COURT OR JURY MIGHT HAVE FOUND THAT SUCH DANGER EXISTED."  274 U.S.
AT 379. 

FN7  "WHETHER THE PRINTED WORDS WOULD IN FACT PRODUCE AS A PROXIMATE
RESULT A MATERIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE RECRUITING OR ENLISTMENT
SERVICE, OR THE OPERATION OR SUCCESS OF THE FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES, WAS A QUESTION FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE IN VIEW OF ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TIME AND CONSIDERING THE PLACE AND MANNER OF
DISTRIBUTION."  252 U.S. 239, 250(1920). 

FN8  A SIMILARLY WORDED EXPRESSION IS FOUND IN THAT PART OF THE
MAJORITY OPINION SUSTAINING THE OVERRULING OF THE DEFENDANTS' GENERAL
DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT.  252 U.S. AT 244.  SINCE THE DEFENDANTS HAD
NOT RAISED THE ISSUE OF "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" AT THE TRIAL, IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE COURT WAS NOT FACED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRIAL
JUDGE ERRED IN NOT DETERMINING, AS A CONCLUSIVE MATTER, THE EXISTENCE
OR NONEXISTENCE OF A "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER."  THE ONLY ISSUE TO
WHICH THE REMARKS WERE ADDRESSED WAS WHETHER THE INDICTMENT
SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE VIOLATION. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT. 

THE DEFENDANTS WERE CONVICTED UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE SMITH ACT FOR
CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE SEC. 2 OF THAT ACT, WHICH MAKES IT UNLAWFUL "TO
ORGANIZE OR HELP TO ORGANIZE ANY SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS
WHO TEACH, ADVOCATE, OR ENCOURAGE THE OVERTHROW OR DESTRUCTION OF ANY
GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE."  ACT OF JUNE 28,
1940, SEC. 2(A)(3), 54 STAT. 670, 671, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 10, NOW 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 2385.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INDICTMENT IS THAT THE DEFENDANTS
BETWEEN APRIL 1, 1945, AND JULY 20, 1948, AGREED TO BRING ABOUT THE
DISSOLUTION OF A BODY KNOWN AS THE COMMUNIST POLITICAL ASSOCIATION AND
TO ORGANIZE IN ITS PLACE THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES; THAT
THE AIM OF THE NEW PARTY WAS "THE OVERTHROW AND DESTRUCTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE"; THAT THE
DEFENDANTS WERE TO ASSUME LEADERSHIP OF THE PARTY AND TO RECRUIT
MEMBERS FOR IT AND THAT THE PARTY WAS TO PUBLISH BOOKS AND CONDUCT
CLASSES, TEACHING THE DUTY AND THE NECESSITY OF FORCEFUL OVERTHROW. 
THE JURY FOUND ALL THE DEFENDANTS GUILTY.  WITH ONE EXCEPTION, EACH WAS
SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE YEARS AND TO A FINE OF $10,000.  THE
CONVICTIONS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT.  183 F.2D 201.  WE WERE ASKED TO REVIEW THIS AFFIRMANCE ON ALL
THE GROUNDS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THESE INCLUDED NOT
ONLY THE SCOPE OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
BUT ALSO SERIOUS QUESTIONS REGARDING THE LEGAL COMPOSITION OF THE JURY
AND THE FAIR CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, STRICTLY
LIMITED, HOWEVER, TO THE CONTENTION THAT SECS. 2 AND 3 OF THE SMITH
ACT, INHERENTLY AND AS APPLIED, VIOLATED THE FIRST AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS.  340 U.S. 863.  NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO SEEK AN ENLARGEMENT
OF THE RANGE OF QUESTIONS THUS DEFINED, AND THESE ALONE ARE NOW OPEN
FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.  ALL OTHERS ARE FORECLOSED BY THE DECISION OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

AS THUS LIMITED, THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS COURT TURNS ESSENTIALLY ON
THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE JURY FOR DETERMINING GUILT OR INNOCENCE. 
9 F.R.D. 367.  THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER - WHOLLY APART FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS - THE JUDGE'S CHARGE PROPERLY EXPLAINED TO THE
JURY WHAT IT IS THAT THE SMITH ACT CONDEMNS.  THE CONCLUSION THAT HE
DID SO REQUIRES NO LABORED ARGUMENT.  ON THE BASIS OF THE INSTRUCTIONS,
THE JURY FOUND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OUR REVIEW, THAT THE ADVOCACY WHICH
THE DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO PROMOTE WAS TO BE A RULE OF ACTION, BY
LANGUAGE REASONABLY CALCULATED TO INCITE PERSONS TO SUCH ACTION, AND
WAS INTENDED TO CAUSE THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE AS SOON AS CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT.  THIS BRINGS US TO THE
ULTIMATE ISSUE.  IN ENACTING A STATUTE WHICH MAKES IT A CRIME FOR THE
DEFENDANTS TO CONSPIRE TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE
CONSPIRED TO DO, DID CONGRESS EXCEED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER? 

FEW QUESTIONS OF COMPARABLE IMPORT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS COURT IN
RECENT YEARS.  THE APPELLANTS MAINTAIN THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO
ADVOCATE A POLITICAL THEORY, SO LONG, AT LEAST, AS THEIR ADVOCACY DOES
NOT CREATE AN IMMEDIATE DANGER OF OBVIOUS MAGNITUDE TO THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF OUR PRESENT SCHEME OF SOCIETY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THE RIGHT TO SAFEGUARD THE SECURITY OF THE NATION BY
SUCH A MEASURE AS THE SMITH ACT.  OUR JUDGMENT IS THUS SOLICITED ON A
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS OF THE UTMOST CONCERN TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE
COUNTRY.  THIS CONFLICT OF INTERESTS CANNOT BE RESOLVED BY A DOGMATIC
PREFERENCE FOR ONE OR THE OTHER, NOR BY A SONOROUS FORMULA WHICH IS IN
FACT ONLY A EUPHEMISTIC DISGUISE FOR AN UNRESOLVED CONFLICT.  IF
ADJUDICATION IS TO BE A RATIONAL PROCESS, WE CANNOT ESCAPE A CANDID
EXAMINATION OF THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS WITH FULL RECOGNITION THAT BOTH
ARE SUPPORTED BY WEIGHTY TITLE-DEEDS. 

                                  I. 

THERE COME OCCASIONS IN LAW, AS ELSEWHERE, WHEN THE FAMILIAR NEEDS TO
BE RECALLED.  OUR WHOLE HISTORY PROVES EVEN MORE DECISIVELY THAN THE
COURSE OF DECISIONS IN THIS COURT THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS THE POWERS
INSEPARABLE FROM A SOVEREIGN NATION.  "AMERICA HAS CHOSEN TO BE, IN
MANY RESPECTS, AND TO MANY PURPOSES, A NATION; AND FOR ALL THESE
PURPOSES, HER GOVERNMENT IS COMPLETE; TO ALL THESE OBJECTS, IT IS
COMPETENT."  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT. 
264, 414.  THE RIGHT OF A GOVERNMENT TO MAINTAIN ITS EXISTENCE - SELF
PRESERVATION - IS THE MOST PERVASIVE ASPECT OF SOVEREIGNTY.  "SECURITY
AGAINST FOREIGN DANGER," WROTE MADISON, "IS ONE OF THE PRIMITIVE
OBJECTS OF CIVIL SOCIETY."  THE FEDERALIST, NO. 41.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO ACT UPON THIS BASIC PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THIS
COURT AT DIFFERENT PERIODS AND UNDER DIVERSE CIRCUMSTANCES.  "TO
PRESERVE ITS INDEPENDENCE, AND GIVE SECURITY AGAINST FOREIGN AGGRESSION
AND ENCROACHMENT, IS THE HIGHEST DUTY OF EVERY NATION, AND TO ATTAIN
THESE ENDS NEARLY ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE TO BE SUBORDINATED.  IT
MATTERS NOT IN WHAT FORM SUCH AGGRESSION AND ENCROACHMENT COME  ...
THE GOVERNMENT, POSSESSING THE POWERS WHICH ARE TO BE EXERCISED FOR
PROTECTION AND SECURITY, IS CLOTHED WITH AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE
OCCASION ON WHICH THE POWERS SHALL BE CALLED FORTH  ...  "  CHINESE
EXCLUSION CASE, 130 U.S. 581, 606.  SEE ALSO DE LIMA V. BIDWELL, 182
U.S. 1; MACKENZIE V. HARE, 239 U.S. 299; MISSOURI V. HOLLAND, 252 U.S.
416; UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304.  THE MOST
TRAGIC EXPERIENCE IN OUR HISTORY IS A POIGNANT REMINDER THAT THE
NATION'S CONTINUED EXISTENCE MAY BE THREATENED FROM WITHIN.  TO PROTECT
ITSELF FROM SUCH THREATS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT "IS INVESTED WITH ALL
THOSE INHERENT AND IMPLIED POWERS WHICH, AT THE TIME OF ADOPTING THE
CONSTITUTION, WERE GENERALLY CONSIDERED TO BELONG TO EVERY GOVERNMENT
AS SUCH, AND AS BEING ESSENTIAL TO THE EXERCISE OF ITS FUNCTIONS."  MR.
JUSTICE BRADLEY, CONCURRING IN LEGAL TENDER CASES, 12 WALL.  457, 554,
556; AND SEE IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564, 582. 

BUT EVEN THE ALL-EMBRACING POWER AND DUTY OF SELFPRESERVATION ARE NOT
ABSOLUTE.  LIKE THE WAR POWER, WHICH IS INDEED AN ASPECT OF THE POWER
OF SELF-PRESERVATION, IT IS SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS.  SEE HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. 146,
156.  OUR CONSTITUTION HAS NO PROVISION LIFTING RESTRICTIONS UPON
GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY DURING PERIODS OF EMERGENCY, ALTHOUGH THE SCOPE
OF A RESTRICTION MAY DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT IS
INVOKED. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS SUCH A RESTRICTION.  IT EXACTS OBEDIENCE EVEN
DURING PERIODS OF WAR; IT IS APPLICABLE WHEN WAR CLOUDS ARE NOT
FIGMENTS OF THE IMAGINATION NO LESS THAN WHEN THEY ARE.  THE FIRST
AMENDMENT CATEGORICALLY DEMANDS THAT "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW
RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE
EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS;
OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES."  THE RIGHT OF A MAN TO THINK
WHAT HE PLEASES, TO WRITE WHAT HE THINKS, AND TO HAVE HIS THOUGHTS MADE
AVAILABLE FOR OTHERS TO HEAR OR READ HAS AN ENGAGING RING OF
UNIVERSALITY.  THE SMITH ACT AND THIS CONVICTION UNDER IT NO DOUBT
RESTRICT THE EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.  DOES THAT, WITHOUT
MORE, DISPOSE OF THE MATTER? 

JUST AS THERE ARE THOSE WHO REGARD AS INVULNERABLE EVERY MEASURE FOR
WHICH THE CLAIM OF NATIONAL SURVIVAL IS INVOKED, THERE ARE THOSE WHO
FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION A WHOLLY UNFETTERED RIGHT OF EXPRESSION.  SUCH
LITERALNESS TREATS THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THOUGH THEY WERE
FOUND ON A PIECE OF OUTWORN PARCHMENT INSTEAD OF BEING WORDS THAT HAVE
CALLED INTO BEING A NATION WITH A PAST TO BE PRESERVED FOR THE FUTURE. 
THE SOIL IN WHICH THE BILL OF RIGHTS GREW WAS NOT A SOIL OF ARID
PEDANTRY.  THE HISTORIC ANTECEDENTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT PRECLUDE THE
NOTION THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO GIVE UNQUALIFIED IMMUNITY TO EVERY
EXPRESSION THAT TOUCHED ON MATTERS WITHIN THE RANGE OF POLITICAL
INTEREST.  THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION OF 1780 GUARANTEED FREE
SPEECH; YET THERE ARE RECORDS OF AT LEAST THREE CONVICTIONS FOR
POLITICAL LIBELS OBTAINED BETWEEN 1799 AND 1803.  FN1 THE PENNSYLVANIA
CONSTITUTION OF 1790 AND THE DELAWARE CONSTITUTION OF 1792 EXPRESSLY
IMPOSED LIABILITY FOR ABUSE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  FN2
MADISON'S OWN STATE PUT ON ITS BOOKS IN 1792 A STATUTE CONFINING THE
ABUSIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF UTTERANCE.  FN3  AND IT DESERVES TO BE
NOTED THAT IN WRITING TO JOHN ADAMS'S WIFE, JEFFERSON DID NOT REST HIS
CONDEMNATION OF THE SEDITION ACT OF 1798 ON HIS BELIEF IN UNRESTRAINED
UTTERANCE AS TO POLITICAL MATTER.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT, HE ARGUED,
REFLECTED A LIMITATION UPON FEDERAL POWER, LEAVING THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE
RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH TO THE STATES.  FN4 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS TO BE READ NOT AS BARREN WORDS
FOUND IN A DICTIONARY BUT AS SYMBOLS OF HISTORIC EXPERIENCE ILLUMINED
BY THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THOSE WHO EMPLOYED THEM.  NOT WHAT WORDS DID
MADISON AND HAMILTON USE, BUT WHAT WAS IT IN THEIR MINDS WHICH THEY
CONVEYED?  FREE SPEECH IS SUBJECT TO PROHIBITION OF THOSE ABUSES OF
EXPRESSION WHICH A CIVILIZED SOCIETY MAY FORBID.  AS IN THE CASE OF
EVERY OTHER PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT IS NOT CRYSTALLIZED BY
THE NATURE OF ITS TECHNICAL CONCEPTS, THE FACT THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
IS NOT SELF-DEFINING AND SELF-ENFORCING NEITHER IMPAIRS ITS USEFULNESS
NOR COMPELS ITS PARALYSIS AS A LIVING INSTRUMENT. 

"THE LAW IS PERFECTLY WELL SETTLED," THIS COURT SAID OVER FIFTY YEARS
AGO, "THAT THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, COMMONLY KNOWN
AS THE BILL OF RIGHTS, WERE NOT INTENDED TO LAY DOWN ANY NOVEL
PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT, BUT SIMPLY TO EMBODY CERTAIN GUARANTIES AND
IMMUNITIES WHICH WE HAD INHERITED FROM OUR ENGLISH ANCESTORS, AND WHICH
HAD FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL BEEN SUBJECT TO CERTAIN WELL-RECOGNIZED
EXCEPTIONS ARISING FROM THE NECESSITIES OF THE CASE.  IN INCORPORATING
THESE PRINCIPLES INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF
DISREGARDING THE EXCEPTIONS, WHICH CONTINUED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS IF
THEY HAD BEEN FORMALLY EXPRESSED."  ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275,
281.  THAT THIS REPRESENTS THE AUTHENTIC VIEW OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND
THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT MUST BE CONSTRUED HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AGAIN AND
AGAIN IN CASES THAT HAVE COME HERE WITHIN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS.  SEE,
E.G., GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 604, 610.  ABSOLUTE RULES
WOULD INEVITABLY LEAD TO ABSOLUTE EXCEPTIONS, AND SUCH EXCEPTIONS WOULD
EVENTUALLY CORRODE THE RULES.  FN5  THE DEMANDS OF FREE SPEECH IN A
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AS WELL AS THE INTEREST IN NATIONAL SECURITY ARE
BETTER SERVED BY CANDID AND INFORMED WEIGHING OF THE COMPETING
INTERESTS, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, THAN BY
ANNOUNCING DOGMAS TOO INFLEXIBLE FOR THE NON-EUCLIDIAN PROBLEMS TO BE
SOLVED. 

BUT HOW ARE COMPETING INTERESTS TO BE ASSESSED?  SINCE THEY ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO QUANTITATIVE ASCERTAINMENT, THE ISSUE NECESSARILY RESOLVES
ITSELF INTO ASKING, WHO IS TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT?  - WHO IS TO BALANCE
THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND ASCERTAIN WHICH INTEREST IS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES TO PREVAIL?  FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHOICE CANNOT BE
GIVEN TO THE COURTS.  COURTS ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE BODIES.  THEY ARE
NOT DESIGNED TO BE A GOOD REFLEX OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.  THEIR
JUDGMENT IS BEST INFORMED, AND THEREFORE MOST DEPENDABLE, WITHIN NARROW
LIMITS.  THEIR ESSENTIAL QUALITY IS DETACHMENT, FOUNDED ON
INDEPENDENCE.  HISTORY TEACHES THAT THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
IS JEOPARDIZED WHEN COURTS BECOME EMBROILED IN THE PASSIONS OF THE DAY
AND ASSUME PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IN CHOOSING BETWEEN COMPETING
POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PRESSURES. 

PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADJUSTING THE INTERESTS WHICH COMPETE IN
THE SITUATION BEFORE US OF NECESSITY BELONGS TO THE CONGRESS.  THE
NATURE OF THE POWER TO BE EXERCISED BY THIS COURT HAS BEEN DELINEATED
IN DECISIONS NOT CHARGED WITH THE EMOTIONAL APPEAL OF SITUATIONS SUCH
AS THAT NOW BEFORE US.  WE ARE TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THOSE WHOSE
DUTY IT IS TO LEGISLATE ONLY IF THERE IS NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR IT.
SINKING-FUND CASES, 99 U.S. 700, 718; MUGLER V. KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623,
660-661; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144.  WE ARE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER A STATUTE IS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO MEET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS, AND WHETHER IT RESPECTS THE
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITY SECURED BY
SEPARATION OF POWER.  UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81. 
WE MUST ASSURE FAIRNESS OF PROCEDURE, ALLOWING FULL SCOPE TO
GOVERNMENTAL DISCRETION BUT MINDFUL OF ITS IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM INVOLVED.  JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMM. V.
MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 123.  AND, OF COURSE, THE PROCEEDINGS IN A PARTICULAR
CASE BEFORE US MUST HAVE THE WARRANT OF SUBSTANTIAL PROOF.  BEYOND
THESE POWERS WE MUST NOT GO; WE MUST SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVE THE NARROW
LIMITS OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY EVEN THOUGH SELF-RESTRAINT IS ALONE SET
OVER US.  ABOVE ALL WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THIS COURT'S POWER OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT "AN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF A SUPER
LEGISLATURE."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, DISSENTING
IN BURNS BAKING CO. V. BRYAN, 264 U.S. 504, 534. 

A GENERATION AGO THIS DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN QUESTIONED.  SEE FOX V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273; MEYER V.
NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390; BARTELS V. IOWA, 262 U.S. 404; CF. NEW YORK EX
REL. BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63.  BUT IN RECENT DECISIONS WE HAVE
MADE EXPLICIT WHAT HAS LONG BEEN IMPLICITLY RECOGNIZED.  IN REVIEWING
STATUTES WHICH RESTRICT FREEDOMS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE
HAVE EMPHASIZED THE CLOSE RELATION WHICH THOSE FREEDOMS BEAR TO
MAINTENANCE OF A FREE SOCIETY.  SEE KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77, 89,
95(CONCURRING).  SOME MEMBERS OF THE COURT - AND AT TIMES A MAJORITY -
HAVE DONE MORE.  THEY HAVE SUGGESTED THAT OUR FUNCTION IN REVIEWING
STATUTES RESTRICTING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION DIFFERS SHARPLY FROM OUR
NORMAL DUTY IN SITTING IN JUDGMENT ON LEGISLATION.  IT HAS BEEN SAID
THAT SUCH STATUTES "MUST BE JUSTIFIED BY CLEAR PUBLIC INTEREST,
THREATENED NOT DOUBTFULLY OR REMOTELY, BUT BY CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER.  THE RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE REMEDY PROVIDED AND THE
EVIL TO BE CURBED, WHICH IN OTHER CONTEXTS MIGHT SUPPORT LEGISLATION
AGAINST ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS, WILL NOT SUFFICE."  THOMAS V.
COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 530.  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, WITH THE CASUALNESS
OF A FOOTNOTE, THAT SUCH LEGISLATION IS NOT PRESUMPTIVELY VALID, SEE
UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152, N. 4, AND IT
HAS BEEN WEIGHTILY REITERATED THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS A "PREFERRED
POSITION" AMONG CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS.  KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S.
77, 88. 

THE PRECISE MEANING INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED BY THESE PHRASES NEED NOT
NOW BE PURSUED.  IT IS ENOUGH TO NOTE THAT THEY HAVE RECURRED IN THE
COURT'S OPINIONS, AND THEIR CUMULATIVE FORCE HAS, NOT WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION, ENGENDERED BELIEF THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLE, EXPRESSED BY THOSE ATTRACTIVE BUT IMPRECISE WORDS,
PROHIBITING RESTRICTION UPON UTTERANCE UNLESS IT CREATES A SITUATION OF
"IMMINENT" PERIL AGAINST WHICH LEGISLATION MAY GUARD.  FN6  IT IS ON
THIS BODY OF THE COURT'S PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT THE DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENT
HERE IS BASED. 

IN ALL FAIRNESS, THE ARGUMENT CANNOT BE MET BY REINTERPRETING THE
COURT'S FREQUENT USE OF "CLEAR" AND "PRESENT" TO MEAN AN ENTERTAINABLE
"PROBABILITY."  IN GIVING THIS MEANING TO THE PHRASE "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER," THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS FASTIDIOUSLY CONFINING THE RHETORIC
OF OPINIONS TO THE EXACT SCOPE OF WHAT WAS DECIDED BY THEM.  WE HAVE
GREATER RESPONSIBILITY FOR HAVING GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT, OVER
REPEATED PROTESTS, TO UNCRITICAL LIBERTARIAN GENERALITIES. 

NOR IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS ADEQUATELY MET BY CITING
ISOLATED CASES.  ADJUSTMENT OF CLASH OF INTERESTS WHICH ARE AT ONCE
SUBTLE AND FUNDAMENTAL IS NOT LIKELY TO REVEAL ENTIRE CONSISTENCY IN A
SERIES OF INSTANCES PRESENTING THE CLASH.  IT IS NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO
FIND WHAT ONE SEEKS IN THE LANGUAGE OF DECISIONS REPORTING THE EFFORT
TO RECONCILE FREE SPEECH WITH THE INTERESTS WITH WHICH IT CONFLICTS. 
THE CASE FOR THE DEFENDANTS REQUIRES THAT THEIR CONVICTION BE TESTED
AGAINST THE ENTIRE BODY OF OUR RELEVANT DECISIONS.  SINCE THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF EVERY EXPRESSION OF THOUGHT DERIVES FROM THE
CIRCUMSTANCES EVOKING IT, RESULTS REACHED RATHER THAN LANGUAGE EMPLOYED
GIVE THE VITAL MEANING.  SEE COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264, 442;
WAMBAUGH, THE STUDY OF CASES, 10. 

THERE IS AN ADDED REASON WHY WE MUST TURN TO THE DECISIONS.  "GREAT
CASES," IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMEMBER, "LIKE HARD CASES MAKE BAD LAW. 
FOR GREAT CASES ARE CALLED GREAT, NOT BY REASON OF THEIR REAL
IMPORTANCE IN SHAPING THE LAW OF THE FUTURE, BUT BECAUSE OF SOME
ACCIDENT OF IMMEDIATE OVERWHELMING INTEREST WHICH APPEALS TO THE
FEELINGS AND DISTORTS THE JUDGMENT.  THESE IMMEDIATE INTERESTS EXERCISE
A KIND OF HYDRAULIC PRESSURE WHICH MAKES WHAT PREVIOUSLY WAS CLEAR SEEM
DOUBTFUL, AND BEFORE WHICH EVEN WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW WILL
BEND."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, DISSENTING IN NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197, 400-401. 

THIS IS SUCH A CASE.  UNLESS WE ARE TO COMPROMISE JUDICIAL
IMPARTIALITY AND SUBJECT THESE DEFENDANTS TO THE RISK OF AN AD HOC
JUDGMENT INFLUENCED BY THE IMPREGNATING ATMOSPHERE OF THE TIMES, THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THEIR CONVICTION MUST BE DETERMINED BY PRINCIPLES
ESTABLISHED IN CASES DECIDED IN MORE TRANQUIL PERIODS.  IF THOSE
DECISIONS ARE TO BE USED AS A GUIDE AND NOT AS AN ARGUMENT, IT IS
IMPORTANT TO VIEW THEM AS A WHOLE AND TO DISTRUST THE EASY
GENERALIZATIONS TO WHICH SOME OF THEM LEND THEMSELVES. 

                                 II. 

WE HAVE RECOGNIZED AND RESOLVED CONFLICTS BETWEEN SPEECH AND
COMPETING INTERESTS IN SIX DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES.  FN7 

1.  THE CASES INVOLVING A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE INTEREST IN ALLOWING
FREE EXPRESSION OF IDEAS IN PUBLIC PLACES AND THE INTEREST IN
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC PEACE AND THE PRIMARY USES OF STREETS AND
PARKS, WERE TOO RECENTLY CONSIDERED TO BE REHEARSED HERE.  NIEMOTKO V.
MARYLAND, 340 U.S. 268, 273.  IT SUFFICES TO RECALL THAT THE RESULT IN
EACH CASE WAS FOUND TO TURN ON THE CHARACTER OF THE INTEREST WITH WHICH
THE SPEECH CLASHED, THE METHOD USED TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTION, AND THE
NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE UTTERANCE PROHIBITED.  WHILE THE
DECISIONS RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF FREE SPEECH AND CAREFULLY
SCRUTINIZED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS REGULATION, THEY REJECTED THE
NOTION THAT VINDICATION OF THE DEEP PUBLIC INTEREST IN FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION REQUIRES SUBORDINATION OF ALL CONFLICTING VALUES. 

2.  A CRITIQUE OF THE CASES TESTING RESTRICTIONS ON PICKETING IS MADE
MORE DIFFICULT BY THE INADEQUATE RECOGNITION BY THE COURT FROM THE
OUTSET THAT THE LOYALTIES AND RESPONSES EVOKED AND EXACTED BY PICKET
LINES DIFFERENTIATE THIS FORM OF EXPRESSION FROM OTHER MODES OF
COMMUNICATION.  SEE THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88.  BUT THE CRUX OF
THE DECISION IN THE THORNHILL CASE WAS THAT A STATE COULD NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY PUNISH PEACEFUL PICKETING WHEN NEITHER THE AIM OF THE
PICKETING NOR THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS CARRIED OUT CONFLICTED WITH A
SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.  IN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS WE SUSTAINED
RESTRICTIONS DESIGNED TO PREVENT RECURRENCE OF VIOLENCE, MILK WAGON
DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, 312 U.S. 287, OR REASONABLY TO
LIMIT THE AREA OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE, CARPENTERS & JOINERS UNION V.
RITTER'S CAFE, 315 U.S. 722; CF. BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL,
315 U.S. 769.  WE HELD THAT A STATE'S POLICY AGAINST RESTRAINTS OF
TRADE JUSTIFIED IT IN PROHIBITING PICKETING WHICH VIOLATED THAT POLICY,
GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE CO., 336 U.S. 490; WE SUSTAINED RESTRICTIONS
DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS UNION V. HANKE, 339 U.S. 470; AND TO PREVENT RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION, HUGHES V. SUPERIOR COURT, 339 U.S. 460.  THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT BARS A STATE FROM PROHIBITING PICKETING WHEN THERE IS NO FAIR
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BREADTH OF THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED.  AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321; CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION
V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. 293.  BUT IT DOES NOT PREVENT A STATE FROM DENYING
THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION THAT PICKETING AFFORDS IN A FAIR BALANCE
BETWEEN THE INTERESTS OF TRADE UNIONISM AND OTHER INTERESTS OF THE
COMMUNITY. 

3.  IN THREE CASES WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF
THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO EXCLUDE, DEPORT, OR DENATURALIZE ALIENS
BECAUSE OF THEIR ADVOCACY OR THEIR BELIEFS.  IN UNITED STATES EX REL.
TURNER V. WILLIAMS, 194 U.S. 279, WE HELD THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT DID
NOT DISABLE CONGRESS FROM DIRECTING THE EXCLUSION OF AN ALIEN FOUND IN
AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING TO BE AN ANARCHIST.  "(AS) LONG AS HUMAN
GOVERNMENTS ENDURE," WE SAID, "THEY CANNOT BE DENIED THE POWER OF SELF
PRESERVATION, AS THAT QUESTION IS PRESENTED HERE."  194 U.S. AT 294. 
IN SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, AND BRIDGES V. WIXON,
326 U.S. 135, WE DID NOT CONSIDER THE EXTENT OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS. 
IN EACH CASE, BY A CLOSELY DIVIDED COURT, WE INTERPRETED A STATUTE
AUTHORIZING DENATURALIZATION OR DEPORTATION TO IMPOSE ON THE GOVERNMENT
THE STRICTEST STANDARDS OF PROOF. 

4.  HISTORY REGARDS "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS" AS INDISPENSABLE FOR A
FREE SOCIETY AND FOR ITS GOVERNMENT.  WE HAVE, THEREFORE, INVALIDATED
DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION AGAINST THE PRESS AND PRIOR RESTRAINTS ON
PUBLICATION OF DEFAMATORY MATTER.  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297
U.S. 233; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697. 

WE HAVE ALSO GIVEN CLEAR INDICATION OF THE IMPORTANCE WE ATTACH TO
DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS IN REVIEWING THE ATTEMPTS OF STATES TO RECONCILE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS WITH PROTECTION OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS.  IN PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, THE COURT AGREED THAT
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BARRED A STATE FROM ADJUDGING IN CONTEMPT OF
COURT THE PUBLISHER OF CRITICAL AND INACCURATE COMMENT ABOUT PORTIONS
OF A LITIGATION THAT FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES WERE NO LONGER
PENDING.  WE LIKEWISE AGREED, IN A MINOR PHASE OF OUR DECISION IN
BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, THAT EVEN WHEN STATEMENTS IN THE
PRESS RELATE TO MATTERS STILL PENDING BEFORE A COURT, CONVICTIONS FOR
THEIR PUBLICATION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IF THEIR UTTERANCE IS TOO TRIVIAL
TO BE DEEMED A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO THE IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE. 

THE COURT HAS, HOWEVER, SHARPLY DIVIDED ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A
SUFFICIENT INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.  IN THE FIRST
DECISION, PATTERSON V. COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454, THE COURT AFFIRMED A
JUDGMENT FOR CONTEMPT IMPOSED BY A STATE SUPREME COURT FOR PUBLICATION
OF ARTICLES REFLECTING ON THE CONDUCT OF THE COURT IN CASES STILL
BEFORE IT ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING.  IN THE BRIDGES CASE, HOWEVER, A
MAJORITY HELD THAT A STATE COURT COULD NOT PROTECT ITSELF FROM THE
IMPLIED THREAT OF A POWERFUL NEWSPAPER THAT FAILURE OF AN ELECTED JUDGE
TO IMPOSE A SEVERE SENTENCE WOULD BE A "SERIOUS MISTAKE."  THE SAME
CASE ALSO PLACED BEYOND A STATE'S POWER TO PUNISH THE PUBLICATION OF A
TELEGRAM FROM THE PRESIDENT OF AN IMPORTANT UNION WHO THREATENED A
DAMAGING STRIKE IN THE EVENT OF AN ADVERSE DECISION.  THE MAJORITY IN
CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367, 376, HELD THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
PROTECTED "STRONG," "INTEMPERATE," "UNFAIR" CRITICISM OF THE WAY AN
ELECTED LAY JUDGE WAS CONDUCTING A PENDING CIVIL CASE.  NONE OF THE
CASES ESTABLISHES THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A FREE PRESS MUST IN ALL
INSTANCES PREVAIL OVER THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN DISPASSIONATE
ADJUDICATION.  BUT THE BRIDGES AND CRAIG DECISIONS, IF THEY SURVIVE,
TEND TO REQUIRE A SHOWING THAT INTERFERENCE BE SO IMMINENT AND SO
DEMONSTRABLE THAT THE POWER THEORETICALLY POSSESSED BY THE STATE IS
LARGELY PARALYZED. 

5.  OUR DECISION IN AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S.
382, RECOGNIZED THAT THE EXERCISE OF POLITICAL RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT WAS NECESSARILY DISCOURAGED BY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE
TAFT-HARTLEY ACT THAT OFFICERS OF UNIONS EMPLOYING THE SERVICES OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SIGN AFFIDAVITS THAT THEY ARE NOT
COMMUNISTS.  BUT WE HELD THAT THE STATUTE WAS NOT FOR THIS REASON
PRESUMPTIVELY INVALID.  THE PROBLEM, WE SAID, WAS "ONE OF WEIGHING THE
PROBABLE EFFECTS OF THE STATUTE UPON THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF
SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY AGAINST THE CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION THAT
POLITICAL STRIKES ARE EVILS OF CONDUCT WHICH CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT COMMUNISTS AND OTHERS IDENTIFIED BY SEC.
9(H) POSE CONTINUING THREATS TO THAT PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN IN POSITIONS
OF UNION LEADERSHIP."  339 U.S. AT 400.  ON BALANCE, WE DECIDED THAT
THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT WAS A PERMISSIBLE ONE.  FN8 

6.  STATUTES PROHIBITING SPEECH BECAUSE OF ITS TENDENCY TO LEAD TO
CRIME PRESENT A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS WHICH BEARS DIRECTLY ON THE
PROBLEM NOW BEFORE US.  THE FIRST CASE IN WHICH WE CONSIDERED THIS
CONFLICT WAS FOX V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA.  THE STATUTE THERE CHALLENGED
HAD BEEN INTERPRETED TO PROHIBIT PUBLICATION OF MATTER "ENCOURAGING AN
ACTUAL BREACH OF LAW."  WE HELD THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT
PROHIBIT APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO AN ARTICLE WHICH WE CONCLUDED
INCITED A BREACH OF LAWS AGAINST INDECENT EXPOSURE.  WE SAID THAT THE
STATUTE "LAYS HOLD OF ENCOURAGEMENTS THAT, APART FROM STATUTE, IF
DIRECTED TO A PARTICULAR PERSON'S CONDUCT, GENERALLY WOULD MAKE HIM WHO
UTTERED THEM GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR IF NOT AN ACCOMPLICE OR A
PRINCIPAL IN THE CRIME ENCOURAGED, AND DEALS WITH THE PUBLICATION OF
THEM TO A WIDER AND LESS SELECTED AUDIENCE."  236 U.S. AT 277-278.  TO
BE SURE, THE FOX CASE PRECEDED THE EXPLICIT ABSORPTION OF THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE FOURTEENTH.  BUT SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS
EXTENDED THE FOX PRINCIPLE TO FREE-SPEECH SITUATIONS.  THEY ARE SO
IMPORTANT TO THE PROBLEM BEFORE US THAT WE MUST CONSIDER THEM IN
DETAIL.    (A)  THE FIRST IMPORTANT APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE WAS
MADE IN SIX CASES ARISING UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917.  THAT ACT
PROHIBITS CONSPIRACIES AND ATTEMPTS TO "OBSTRUCT THE RECRUITING OR
ENLISTMENT SERVICE."  IN EACH OF THE FIRST THREE CASES, MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES WROTE FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, AFFIRMING THE CONVICTIONS.  THE
EVIDENCE IN SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, SHOWED THAT THE
DEFENDANT HAD CONSPIRED TO CIRCULATE AMONG MEN CALLED FOR THE DRAFT
15,000 COPIES OF A CIRCULAR WHICH ASSERTED A "RIGHT" TO OPPOSE THE
DRAFT.  THE DEFENDANT IN FROHWERK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 204, WAS
SHOWN TO HAVE CONSPIRED TO PUBLISH IN A NEWSPAPER TWELVE ARTICLES
DESCRIBING THE SUFFERINGS OF AMERICAN TROOPS AND THE FUTILITY OF OUR
WAR AIMS.  THE RECORD WAS INADEQUATE, AND WE SAID THAT IT WAS THEREFORE
"IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND THAT THE
CIRCULATION OF THE PAPER WAS IN QUARTERS WHERE A LITTLE BREATH WOULD BE
ENOUGH TO KINDLE A FLAME AND THAT THE FACT WAS KNOWN AND RELIED UPON BY
THOSE WHO SENT THE PAPER OUT."  249 U.S. AT 209.  IN DEBS V. UNITED
STATES, 249 U.S. 211, THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD
DELIVERED A PUBLIC SPEECH EXPOUNDING SOCIALISM AND PRAISING SOCIALISTS
WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF ABETTING VIOLATION OF THE DRAFT LAWS. 

THE GROUND OF DECISION IN EACH CASE WAS THE SAME.  THE FIRST
AMENDMENT "CANNOT HAVE BEEN, AND OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT, INTENDED TO GIVE
IMMUNITY FOR EVERY POSSIBLE USE OF LANGUAGE.  ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165
U.S. 275, 281."  FROHWERK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 206.  "THE
QUESTION IN EVERY CASE IS WHETHER THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER THAT THEY WILL BRING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS THAT CONGRESS
HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT.  IT IS A QUESTION OF PROXIMITY AND DEGREE." 
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 52.  WHEN "THE WORDS USED HAD AS
THEIR NATURAL TENDENCY AND REASONABLY PROBABLE EFFECT TO OBSTRUCT THE
RECRUITING SERVICE," AND "THE DEFENDANT HAD THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO DO
SO IN HIS MIND," CONVICTION IN WARTIME IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  DEBS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 216. 

IN THE THREE SUCCEEDING CASES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS, JJ., DISSENTED
FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT AFFIRMING CONVICTIONS.  THE INDICTMENT IN
ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, WAS LAID UNDER AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ESPIONAGE ACT WHICH PROHIBITED CONSPIRACIES TO ADVOCATE CURTAILMENT
OF PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL NECESSARY TO PROSECUTION OF THE WAR, WITH THE
INTENT THEREBY TO HINDER THE UNITED STATES IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE
WAR.  IT APPEARED THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE ANARCHISTS WHO HAD PRINTED
CIRCULARS AND DISTRIBUTED THEM IN NEW YORK CITY.  THE LEAFLETS REPEATED
STANDARD MARXIST SLOGANS, CONDEMNED AMERICAN INTERVENTION IN RUSSIA,
AND CALLED FOR A GENERAL STRIKE IN PROTEST.  IN SCHAEFER V. UNITED
STATES, 251 U.S. 466, THE EDITORS OF A GERMAN-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER IN
PHILADELPHIA WERE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTING THE RECRUITING SERVICE AND
WITH WILFULLY PUBLISHING FALSE REPORTS WITH THE INTENT TO PROMOTE THE
SUCCESS OF THE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWED
PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES WHICH ACCUSED AMERICAN TROOPS OF WEAKNESS AND
MENDACITY AND IN ONE INSTANCE MISQUOTED OR MISTRANSLATED TWO WORDS OF A
SENATOR'S SPEECH.  THE INDICTMENT IN PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S.
239, CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD ATTEMPTED TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION
IN THE ARMED FORCES AND HAD CONVEYED FALSE REPORTS WITH INTENT TO
INTERFERE WITH MILITARY OPERATIONS.  CONVICTION WAS BASED ON
CIRCULATION OF A PAMPHLET WHICH BELITTLED ALLIED WAR AIMS AND
CRITICIZED CONSCRIPTION IN STRONG TERMS. 

IN EACH CASE BOTH THE MAJORITY AND THE DISSENTING OPINIONS RELIED ON
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES.  THE COURT DIVIDED ON ITS VIEW OF THE
EVIDENCE.  THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE JURY COULD INFER THE REQUIRED
INTENT AND THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF THE ARTICLES FROM THEIR CONTENT. 
HOLMES AND BRANDEIS, JJ., THOUGHT THAT ONLY "EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION AND
EXHORTATIONS," 250 U.S. AT 631, WERE INVOLVED, THAT THEY WERE "PUNY
ANONYMITIES," 250 U.S. AT 629, "IMPOTENT TO PRODUCE THE EVIL AGAINST
WHICH THE STATUTE AIMED," 251 U.S. 493, AND THAT FROM THEM THE SPECIFIC
INTENT REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE COULD NOT REASONABLY BE INFERRED.  THE
COURT AGREED THAT AN INCITEMENT TO DISOBEY THE DRAFT STATUTE COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE PUNISHED.  IT DISAGREED OVER THE PROOF REQUIRED TO
SHOW SUCH AN INCITEMENT. 

(B)  IN THE EYES OF A MAJORITY OF THE COURT, GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268
U.S. 652, PRESENTED A VERY DIFFERENT PROBLEM.  THERE THE DEFENDANT HAD
BEEN CONVICTED UNDER A NEW YORK STATUTE NEARLY IDENTICAL WITH THE SMITH
ACT NOW BEFORE US.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS AN
OFFICIAL OF THE LEFT WING SECTION OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY, AND THAT HE
WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PUBLICATION OF A LEFT WING MANIFESTO.  THIS
DOCUMENT REPUDIATED "MODERATE SOCIALISM," AND URGED THE NECESSITY OF A
MILITANT "REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM," BASED ON CLASS STRUGGLE AND
REVOLUTIONARY MASS ACTION.  NO EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECT OF THE MANIFESTO
WAS INTRODUCED; BUT THE JURY WERE INSTRUCTED THAT THEY COULD NOT
CONVICT UNLESS THEY FOUND THAT THE DOCUMENT ADVOCATED EMPLOYING
UNLAWFUL ACTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OVERTHROWING ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT. 

THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED.  THE QUESTION, THE COURT HELD, WAS
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT INVOLVED IN SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES,
WHERE THE STATUTE PROHIBITED ACTS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO LANGUAGE.  HERE,
WHERE "THE LEGISLATIVE BODY HAS DETERMINED GENERALLY, IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, THAT UTTERANCES OF A CERTAIN
KIND INVOLVE SUCH DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL THAT THEY MAY BE PUNISHED,
THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY SPECIFIC UTTERANCE COMING WITHIN THE
PROHIBITED CLASS IS LIKELY, IN AND OF ITSELF, TO BRING ABOUT THE
SUBSTANTIVE EVIL, IS NOT OPEN TO CONSIDERATION."  268 U.S. AT 670.  IT
IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT FALLS WITHIN THE STATUTE,
AND THAT THE STATUTE IS A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT. 

THIS PRINCIPLE WAS ALSO APPLIED IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S.
357, TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION UNDER A STATE CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM
STATUTE.  THAT STATUTE MADE IT A FELONY TO ASSIST IN ORGANIZING A GROUP
ASSEMBLED TO ADVOCATE THE COMMISSION OF CRIME, SABOTAGE, OR UNLAWFUL
ACTS OF VIOLENCE AS A MEANS OF EFFECTING POLITICAL OR INDUSTRIAL
CHANGE.  THE DEFENDANT WAS FOUND TO HAVE ASSISTED IN ORGANIZING THE
COMMUNIST LABOR PARTY OF CALIFORNIA, AN ORGANIZATION FOUND TO HAVE THE
SPECIFIED CHARACTER.  IT WAS HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS NOT
UNREASONABLE IN BELIEVING ORGANIZATION OF SUCH A PARTY "INVOLVES SUCH
DANGER TO THE PUBLIC PEACE AND THE SECURITY OF THE STATE, THAT THESE
ACTS SHOULD BE PENALIZED IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER."  274
U.S. AT 371. 

IN NEITHER OF THESE CASES DID MR. JUSTICE HOLMES AND MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS ACCEPT THE REASONING OF THE COURT.  "'THE QUESTION,'" THEY
SAID, QUOTING FROM SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, "'IN EVERY CASE IS WHETHER
THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF SUCH A NATURE
AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THEY WILL BRING ABOUT THE
SUBSTANTIVE EVILS THAT (THE STATE) HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT.'"  268 U.S.
AT 672-673.  SINCE THE MANIFESTO CIRCULATED BY GITLOW "HAD NO CHANCE OF
STARTING A PRESENT CONFLAGRATION," 268 U.S. AT 673, THEY DISSENTED FROM
THE AFFIRMANCE OF HIS CONVICTION.  IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, THEY
CONCURRED IN THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE
RECORD CONTAINED SOME EVIDENCE THAT ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNIST LABOR
PARTY MIGHT FURTHER A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT IMMEDIATE SERIOUS CRIMES,
AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT PUT IN ISSUE BY THE
DEFENDANT.  FN9 

(C)  SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS HAVE ADDED LITTLE TO THE PRINCIPLES
ESTABLISHED IN THESE TWO GROUPS OF CASES.  IN THE ONLY CASE ARISING
UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT DECIDED BY THIS COURT DURING THE LAST WAR, THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE EVIDENCE WAS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE.  THE DEFENDANT IN
HARTZEL V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 680, WAS AN EDUCATED MAN AND A
CITIZEN, NOT ACTIVELY AFFILIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL GROUP.  IN 1942 HE
WROTE THREE ARTICLES CONDEMNING OUR WARTIME ALLIES AND URGING THAT THE
WAR BE CONVERTED INTO A RACIAL CONFLICT.  HE MAILED THE TRACTS TO 600
PEOPLE, INCLUDING HIGH-RANKING MILITARY OFFICERS.  ACCORDING TO HIS
TESTIMONY HIS INTENTION WAS TO "CREATE SENTIMENT AGAINST WAR AMONGST
THE WHITE RACES."  THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT HELD THAT A JURY COULD
NOT REASONABLY INFER FROM THESE FACTS THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD ACTED WITH
A SPECIFIC INTENT TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION OR DISLOYALTY IN THE ARMED
FORCES. 

OF GREATER IMPORTANCE IS THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE OF LAW WHICH DIVIDED
THE COURT IN THE GITLOW AND WHITNEY CASES HAS NOT AGAIN BEEN CLEARLY
RAISED, ALTHOUGH IN FOUR ADDITIONAL INSTANCES WE HAVE REVIEWED
CONVICTIONS UNDER COMPARABLE STATUTES.  FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380,
INVOLVED A CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM STATUTE SIMILAR TO THAT BEFORE US IN
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA.  WE REVERSED A CONVICTION BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT
THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITED AN INNOCUOUS PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD IN SOLICITING MEMBERS FOR THAT
ORGANIZATION.  IN HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, THE DEFENDANT HAD
SOLICITED MEMBERS FOR THE COMMUNIST PARTY, BUT THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT
HE HAD URGED OR EVEN APPROVED THOSE OF THE PARTY'S AIMS WHICH WERE
UNLAWFUL.  WE REVERSED A CONVICTION OBTAINED UNDER A STATUTE
PROHIBITING AN ATTEMPT TO INCITE TO INSURRECTION BY VIOLENCE, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITED CONVICTION WHERE ON THE
EVIDENCE A JURY COULD NOT REASONABLY INFER THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD
VIOLATED THE STATUTE THE STATE SOUGHT TO APPLY.  FN10 

THE OTHER TWO DECISIONS GO NO FURTHER THAN TO HOLD THAT THE STATUTE
AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURTS EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF A LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT FOUNDED IN REASON.  THE STATUTE PRESENTED IN DE JONGE V.
OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, HAD BEEN CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO ANYONE WHO MERELY
ASSISTED IN THE CONDUCT OF A MEETING HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY.  IN TAYLOR V. MISSISSIPPI, 319 U.S. 583, THE STATUTE
PROHIBITED DISSEMINATION OF PRINTED MATTER "DESIGNED AND CALCULATED TO
ENCOURAGE VIOLENCE, SABOTAGE, OR DISLOYALTY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI."  WE REVERSED A CONVICTION
FOR WHAT WE CONCLUDED WAS MERE CRITICISM AND PROPHESY, WITHOUT
INDICATING WHETHER WE THOUGHT THE STATUTE COULD IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
VALIDLY BE APPLIED.  WHAT THE DEFENDANTS COMMUNICATED, WE SAID, "IS NOT
CLAIMED OR SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN DONE WITH AN EVIL OR SINISTER PURPOSE, TO
HAVE ADVOCATED OR INCITED SUBVERSIVE ACTION AGAINST THE NATION OR
STATE, OR TO HAVE THREATENED ANY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR
INSTITUTIONS OR OUR GOVERNMENT."  319 U.S. AT 589-590. 

I MUST LEAVE TO OTHERS THE UNGRATEFUL TASK OF TRYING TO RECONCILE ALL
THESE DECISIONS.  IN SOME INSTANCES WE HAVE TOO READILY PERMITTED
JURIES TO INFER DECEPTION FROM ERROR, OR INTENTION FROM ARGUMENTATIVE
OR CRITICAL STATEMENTS.  ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; SCHAEFER V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; GILBERT V.
MINNESOTA, 254 U.S. 325.  IN OTHER INSTANCES WE WEIGHTED THE INTEREST
IN FREE SPEECH SO HEAVILY THAT WE PERMITTED ESSENTIAL CONFLICTING
VALUES TO BE DESTROYED.  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; CRAIG V. HARNEY,
SUPRA.  VIEWED AS A WHOLE, HOWEVER, THE DECISIONS EXPRESS AN ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND A STANDARD OF VALUES WHICH FOR ME ARE
DECISIVE OF THE CASE BEFORE US. 

FIRST. - FREE-SPEECH CASES ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT
WE ARE NOT LEGISLATORS, THAT DIRECT POLICYMAKING IS NOT OUR PROVINCE. 
HOW BEST TO RECONCILE COMPETING INTERESTS IS THE BUSINESS OF
LEGISLATURES, AND THE BALANCE THEY STRIKE IS A JUDGMENT NOT TO BE
DISPLACED BY OURS, BUT TO BE RESPECTED UNLESS OUTSIDE THE PALE OF FAIR
JUDGMENT. 

ON OCCASION WE HAVE STRAINED TO INTERPRET LEGISLATION IN ORDER TO
LIMIT ITS EFFECT ON INTERESTS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 
SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; BRIDGES V. WIXON, SUPRA. IN SOME
INSTANCES WE HAVE DENIED TO STATES THE DEFERENCE TO WHICH I THINK THEY
ARE ENTITLED.  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; CRAIG V. HARNEY, SUPRA.
ONCE IN THIS RECENT COURSE OF DECISIONS THE COURT REFUSED TO PERMIT A
JURY TO DRAW INFERENCES WHICH SEEMED TO ME TO BE OBVIOUSLY REASONABLE. 
HARTZEL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

BUT IN NO CASE HAS A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT HELD THAT A LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT, EVEN AS TO FREEDOM OF UTTERANCE, MAY BE OVERTURNED MERELY
BECAUSE THE COURT WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENT CHOICE BETWEEN THE
COMPETING INTERESTS HAD THE INITIAL LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT BEEN FOR IT TO
MAKE.  IN THE CASES IN WHICH THE OPINIONS GO FARTHEST TOWARDS
INDICATING A TOTAL REJECTION OF RESPECT FOR LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATIONS,
THE INTERESTS BETWEEN WHICH CHOICE WAS ACTUALLY MADE WERE SUCH THAT
DECISION MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED IN THE FAMILIAR TERMS OF WANT
OF REASON IN THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  IN THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S.
516, FOR EXAMPLE, DECISION COULD NOT UNREASONABLY HAVE BEEN PLACED ON
THE GROUND THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST JUSTIFIED A STATE IN REQUIRING
AN OUT-OF-STATE LABOR LEADER TO REGISTER BEFORE SPEAKING IN ADVOCACY OF
THE CAUSE OF TRADE UNIONISM.  IN MARTIN V. CITY OF STRUTHERS, 319 U.S.
141, IT WAS BROADLY HELD THAT A MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN
PROHIBITING KNOCKING ON DOORS AND RINGING DOORBELLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DELIVERING HANDBILLS.  BUT SINCE THE GOOD FAITH AND REASONABLENESS OF
THE REGULATION WERE PLACED IN DOUBT BY THE FACT THAT THE CITY DID NOT
THINK IT NECESSARY ALSO TO PROHIBIT DOOR-TO-DOOR COMMERCIAL SALES,
DECISION COULD BE SUSTAINED ON NARROWER GROUND.  AND COMPARE BREARD V.
ALEXANDRIA, POST, P. 622, DECIDED THIS DAY.    IN OTHER CASES,
MOREOVER, WE HAVE GIVEN CLEAR INDICATION THAT EVEN WHEN FREE SPEECH IS
INVOLVED WE ATTACH GREAT SIGNIFICANCE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE
LEGISLATURE.  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, SUPRA; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA;
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, SUPRA; CF. BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. AT 260.  AND SEE HUGHES V. SUPERIOR COURT, SUPRA;
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS UNION V. HANKE, SUPRA. 

IN GITLOW V. NEW YORK, WE PUT OUR RESPECT FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT IN TERMS WHICH, IF THEY WERE ACCEPTED HERE, WOULD MAKE
DECISION EASY.  FOR THAT CASE HELD THAT, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS
DETERMINED THAT ADVOCACY OF FORCEFUL OVERTHROW SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN, A
CONVICTION MAY BE SUSTAINED WITHOUT A FINDING THAT IN THE PARTICULAR
CASE THE ADVOCACY HAD A CLOSE RELATION TO A SERIOUS ATTEMPT AT
OVERTHROW.  WE HELD THAT IT WAS ENOUGH THAT THE STATUTE BE A REASONABLE
EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT, AND THAT THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT
FALL WITHIN THE STATUTE. 

ONE OF THE JUDGES BELOW RESTED HIS AFFIRMANCE ON THE GITLOW DECISION,
AND THE DEFENDANTS DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THE CASE.  THEY PLACE
THEIR ARGUMENT SQUARELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE HAS BEEN OVERRULED
BY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS.  IT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLICITLY OVERRULED.  BUT IT
WOULD BE DISINGENUOUS TO DENY THAT THE DISSENT IN GITLOW HAS BEEN
TREATED WITH THE RESPECT USUALLY ACCORDED TO A DECISION. 

THE RESULT OF THE GITLOW DECISION WAS TO SEND A LEFT-WING SOCIALIST
TO JAIL FOR PUBLISHING A MANIFESTO EXPRESSING MARXIST EXHORTATIONS.  IT
REQUIRES EXCESSIVE TOLERANCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT TO SUPPOSE
THAT THE GITLOW PUBLICATION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES COULD JUSTIFY SERIOUS
CONCERN. 

IN CONTRAST, THERE IS AMPLE JUSTIFICATION FOR A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT
THAT THE CONSPIRACY NOW BEFORE US IS A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO NATIONAL
ORDER AND SECURITY.  IF THE SMITH ACT IS JUSTIFIED AT ALL, IT IS
JUSTIFIED PRECISELY BECAUSE IT MAY SERVE TO PROHIBIT THE TYPE OF
CONSPIRACY FOR WHICH THESE DEFENDANTS WERE CONVICTED.  THE COURT BELOW
PROPERLY HELD THAT AS A MATTER OF SEPARABILITY THE SMITH ACT MAY BE
LIMITED TO THOSE SITUATIONS TO WHICH IT CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
APPLIED.  SEE 183 F.2D AT 214-215.  OUR DECISION TODAY CERTAINLY DOES
NOT MEAN THAT THE SMITH ACT CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED TO FACTS
LIKE THOSE IN GITLOW V. NEW YORK.  WHILE RELIANCE MAY PROPERLY BE
PLACED ON THE ATTITUDE OF JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT WHICH THE GITLOW
DECISION REFLECTS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DEPEND ON THE FACTS OR THE
FULL EXTENT OF THE THEORY OF THAT CASE IN ORDER TO FIND THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS, AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE NOW BEFORE
US, IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

SECOND. - A SURVEY OF THE RELEVANT DECISIONS INDICATES THAT THE
RESULTS WHICH WE HAVE REACHED ARE ON THE WHOLE THOSE THAT WOULD ENSUE
FROM CAREFUL WEIGHING OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS.  THE COMPLEX ISSUES
PRESENTED BY REGULATION OF SPEECH IN PUBLIC PLACES, BY PICKETING, AND
BY LEGISLATION PROHIBITING ADVOCACY OF CRIME HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY
SCRUTINY OF MANY FACTORS BESIDES THE IMMINENCE AND GRAVITY OF THE EVIL
THREATENED.  THE MATTER HAS BEEN WELL SUMMARIZED BY A REFLECTIVE
STUDENT OF THE COURT'S WORK.  "THE TRUTH IS THAT THE CLEAR-AND-PRESENT
DANGER TEST IS AN OVERSIMPLIFIED JUDGMENT UNLESS IT TAKES ACCOUNT ALSO
OF A NUMBER OF OTHER FACTORS:  THE RELATIVE SERIOUSNESS OF THE DANGER
IN COMPARISON WITH THE VALUE OF THE OCCASION FOR SPEECH OR POLITICAL
ACTIVITY; THE AVAILABILITY OF MORE MODERATE CONTROLS THAN THOSE WHICH
THE STATE HAS IMPOSED; AND PERHAPS THE SPECIFIC INTENT WITH WHICH THE
SPEECH OR ACTIVITY IS LAUNCHED.  NO MATTER HOW RAPIDLY WE UTTER THE
PHRASE 'CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER,' OR HOW CLOSELY WE HYPHENATE THE
WORDS, THEY ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE WEIGHING OF VALUES.  THEY TEND
TO CONVEY A DELUSION OF CERTITUDE WHEN WHAT IS MOST CERTAIN IS THE
COMPLEXITY OF THE STRANDS IN THE WEB OF FREEDOMS WHICH THE JUDGE MUST
DISENTANGLE."  FREUND, ON UNDERSTANDING THE SUPREME COURT, 27-28. 

IT IS A FAMILIAR EXPERIENCE IN THE LAW THAT NEW SITUATIONS DO NOT FIT
NEATLY INTO LEGAL CONCEPTIONS THAT AROSE UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES
TO SATISFY DIFFERENT NEEDS.  SO IT WAS WHEN THE INJUNCTION WAS TORTURED
INTO AN INSTRUMENT OF OPPRESSION AGAINST LABOR IN INDUSTRIAL
CONFLICTS.  SO IT IS WITH THE ATTEMPT TO USE THE DIRECTION OF THOUGHT
LYING BEHIND THE CRITERION OF "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" WHOLLY OUT OF
THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT ORIGINATED, AND TO MAKE OF IT AN ABSOLUTE DOGMA
AND DEFINITIVE MEASURING ROD FOR THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH
ASSAULTS AGAINST SECURITY THROUGH DEVICES OTHER THAN OVERT PHYSICAL
ATTEMPTS. 

BEARING IN MIND THAT MR. JUSTICE HOLMES REGARDED QUESTIONS UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT AS QUESTIONS OF "PROXIMITY AND DEGREE," SCHENCK V.
UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. AT 52, IT WOULD BE A DISTORTION, INDEED A
MOCKERY, OF HIS REASONING TO COMPARE THE "PUNY ANONYMITIES," 250 U.S.
AT 629, TO WHICH HE WAS ADDRESSING HIMSELF IN THE ABRAMS CASE IN 1919
OR THE PUBLICATION THAT WAS "FUTILE AND TOO REMOTE FROM POSSIBLE
CONSEQUENCES," 268 U.S. AT 673, IN THE GITLOW CASE IN 1925 WITH THE
SETTING OF EVENTS IN THIS CASE IN 1950. 

"IT DOES AN ILL-SERVICE TO THE AUTHOR OF THE MOST QUOTED JUDICIAL
PHRASES REGARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, TO MAKE HIM THE VICTIM OF A
TENDENCY WHICH HE FOUGHT ALL HIS LIFE, WHEREBY PHRASES ARE MADE TO DO
SERVICE FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS BY BEING TURNED INTO DOGMA.  'IT IS ONE
OF THE MISFORTUNES OF THE LAW THAT IDEAS BECOME ENCYSTED IN PHRASES AND
THEREAFTER FOR A LONG TIME CEASE TO PROVOKE FURTHER ANALYSIS.'  HOLMES,
J., DISSENTING, IN HYDE V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 384, AT 391." 
THE PHRASE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER," IN ITS ORIGIN, "SERVED TO
INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO A FREE SOCIETY BUT ALSO
TO EMPHASIZE THAT ITS EXERCISE MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRESERVATION
OF OTHER FREEDOMS ESSENTIAL TO A DEMOCRACY AND GUARANTEED BY OUR
CONSTITUTION."  PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, 350, 352
353(CONCURRING).  IT WERE FAR BETTER THAT THE PHRASE BE ABANDONED THAN
THAT IT BE SOUNDED ONCE MORE TO HIDE FROM THE BELIEVERS IN AN ABSOLUTE
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH THE PLAIN FACT THAT THE INTEREST IN SPEECH,
PROFOUNDLY IMPORTANT AS IT IS, IS NO MORE CONCLUSIVE IN JUDICIAL REVIEW
THAN OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF DEMOCRACY OR THAN A DETERMINATION OF THE
PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES THAT A MEASURE IS NECESSARY TO ASSURE THE
SAFETY OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF. 

THIRD. - NOT EVERY TYPE OF SPEECH OCCUPIES THE SAME POSITION ON THE
SCALE OF VALUES.  THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN PERMITTING
CERTAIN KINDS OF UTTERANCES:  "THE LEWD AND OBSCENE, THE PROFANE, THE
LIBELOUS, AND THE INSULTING OR 'FIGHTING' WORDS - THOSE WHICH BY THEIR
VERY UTTERANCE INFLICT INJURY OR TEND TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF
THE PEACE."  CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 572.  WE HAVE
FREQUENTLY INDICATED THAT THE INTEREST IN PROTECTING SPEECH DEPENDS ON
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OCCASION.  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN NIEMOTKO V.
MARYLAND, 340 U.S. AT 275-283.  IT IS PERTINENT TO THE DECISION BEFORE
US TO CONSIDER WHERE ON THE SCALE OF VALUES WE HAVE IN THE PAST PLACED
THE TYPE OF SPEECH NOW CLAIMING CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY. 

THE DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CONSPIRING TO ORGANIZE A PARTY
OF PERSONS WHO ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE.  THE JURY HAS FOUND THAT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY IS
ADVOCACY AS "A RULE OR PRINCIPLE OF ACTION," "BY LANGUAGE REASONABLY
AND ORDINARILY CALCULATED TO INCITE PERSONS TO SUCH ACTION," AND WITH
THE INTENT TO CAUSE THE OVERTHROW "AS SPEEDILY AS CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD
PERMIT." 

ON ANY SCALE OF VALUES WHICH WE HAVE HITHERTO RECOGNIZED, SPEECH OF
THIS SORT RANKS LOW. 

THROUGHOUT OUR DECISIONS THERE HAS RECURRED A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
STATEMENT OF AN IDEA WHICH MAY PROMPT ITS HEARERS TO TAKE UNLAWFUL
ACTION, AND ADVOCACY THAT SUCH ACTION BE TAKEN.  THE DISTINCTION HAS
ITS ROOT IN THE CONCEPTION OF THE COMMON LAW, SUPPORTED BY PRINCIPLES
OF MORALITY, THAT A PERSON WHO PROCURES ANOTHER TO DO AN ACT IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ACT AS THOUGH HE HAD DONE IT HIMSELF.  THIS
PRINCIPLE WAS EXTENDED IN FOX V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, TO WORDS DIRECTED
TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE AN INCITEMENT WERE THEY
DIRECTED TO AN INDIVIDUAL.  IT WAS ADAPTED IN SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, INTO A RULE OF EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RESTRICT APPLICATION OF THE
ESPIONAGE ACT.  IT WAS RELIED ON BY THE COURT IN GITLOW V. NEW YORK,
SUPRA. THE DISTINCTION HAS BEEN REPEATED IN MANY OF THE DECISIONS IN
WHICH WE HAVE UPHELD THE CLAIMS OF SPEECH.  WE FREQUENTLY HAVE
DISTINGUISHED PROTECTED FORMS OF EXPRESSION FROM STATEMENTS WHICH
"INCITE TO VIOLENCE AND CRIME AND THREATEN THE OVERTHROW OF ORGANIZED
GOVERNMENT BY UNLAWFUL MEANS."  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. AT
369.  SEE ALSO NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. AT 716; DE JONGE V. OREGON,
299 U.S. AT 365; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 308; TAYLOR V.
MISSISSIPPI, 319 U.S. AT 589. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS NO DIVINING ROD BY WHICH WE MAY LOCATE
"ADVOCACY."  EXPOSITION OF IDEAS READILY MERGES INTO ADVOCACY.  THE
SAME JUSTICE WHO GAVE CURRENCY TO APPLICATION OF THE INCITEMENT
DOCTRINE IN THIS FIELD DISSENTED FOUR TIMES FROM WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS
ITS MISAPPLICATION.  AS HE SAID IN THE GITLOW DISSENT, "EVERY IDEA IS
AN INCITEMENT."  268 U.S. AT 673.  EVEN THOUGH ADVOCACY OF OVERTHROW
DESERVES LITTLE PROTECTION, WE SHOULD HESITATE TO PROHIBIT IT IF WE
THEREBY INHIBIT THE INTERCHANGE OF RATIONAL IDEAS SO ESSENTIAL TO
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND FREE SOCIETY. 

BUT THERE IS UNDERLYING VALIDITY IN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADVOCACY
AND THE INTERCHANGE OF IDEAS, AND WE DO NOT DISCARD A USEFUL TOOL
BECAUSE IT MAY BE MISUSED.  THAT SUCH A DISTINCTION COULD BE USED
UNREASONABLY BY THOSE IN POWER AGAINST HOSTILE OR UNORTHODOX VIEWS DOES
NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT IT MAY BE USED REASONABLY AGAINST AN
ORGANIZATION WIELDING THE POWER OF THE CENTRALLY CONTROLLED
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.  THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE
US IS SO CLEAR THAT THE CHANCE OF ERROR IN SAYING THAT THE DEFENDANTS
CONSPIRED TO ADVOCATE RATHER THAN TO EXPRESS IDEAS IS SLIGHT.  MR.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS QUITE PROPERLY POINTS OUT THAT THE CONSPIRACY BEFORE US
IS NOT A CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.  BUT IT WOULD BE
EQUALLY WRONG TO TREAT IT AS A SEMINAR IN POLITICAL THEORY. 

            III. 

THESE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLIE DECISION OF THE CASE BEFORE
US. 

ON THE ONE HAND IS THE INTEREST IN SECURITY.  THE COMMUNIST PARTY WAS
NOT DESIGNED BY THESE DEFENDANTS AS AN ORDINARY POLITICAL PARTY.  FOR
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS ORGANIZATION, ITS AIMS AND METHODS, AND THE
RELATION OF THE DEFENDANTS TO ITS ORGANIZATION AND AIMS WE ARE
CONCLUDED BY THE JURY'S VERDICT.  THE JURY FOUND THAT THE PARTY REJECTS
THE BASIC PREMISE OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM - THAT CHANGE IS TO BE
BROUGHT ABOUT BY NONVIOLENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS.  THE JURY FOUND
THAT THE PARTY ADVOCATES THE THEORY THAT THERE IS A DUTY AND NECESSITY
TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  IT FOUND THAT THE
PARTY ENTERTAINS AND PROMOTES THIS VIEW, NOT AS A PROPHETIC INSIGHT OR
AS A BIT OF UNWORLDLY SPECULATION, BUT AS A PROGRAM FOR WINNING
ADHERENTS AND AS A POLICY TO BE TRANSLATED INTO ACTION. 

IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE STATUTE, WE MAY NOT TREAT
AS ESTABLISHED FACT THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY IS OF
SIGNIFICANT SIZE, WELL-ORGANIZED, WELL-DISCIPLINED, CONDITIONED TO
EMBARK ON UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY WHEN GIVEN THE COMMAND.  BUT IN DETERMINING
WHETHER APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO THE DEFENDANTS IS WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF CONGRESS, WE ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FACTS
FOUND BY THE JURY.  WE MUST VIEW SUCH A QUESTION IN THE LIGHT OF
WHATEVER IS RELEVANT TO A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  WE MAY TAKE JUDICIAL
NOTICE THAT THE COMMUNIST DOCTRINES WHICH THESE DEFENDANTS HAVE
CONSPIRED TO ADVOCATE ARE IN THE ASCENDENCY IN POWERFUL NATIONS WHO
CANNOT BE ACQUITTED OF UNFRIENDLINESS TO THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS
COUNTRY.  WE MAY TAKE ACCOUNT OF EVIDENCE BROUGHT FORWARD AT THIS TRIAL
AND ELSEWHERE, MUCH OF WHICH HAS LONG BEEN COMMON KNOWLEDGE.  IN SUM,
IT WOULD AMPLY JUSTIFY A LEGISLATURE IN CONCLUDING THAT RECRUITMENT OF
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS FOR THE PARTY WOULD CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL DANGER TO
NATIONAL SECURITY. 

IN 1947, IT HAS BEEN RELIABLY REPORTED, AT LEAST 60,000 MEMBERS WERE
ENROLLED IN THE PARTY.  FN11  EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED IN THIS CASE THAT
THE MEMBERSHIP WAS ORGANIZED IN SMALL UNITS, LINKED BY AN INTRICATE
CHAIN OF COMMAND, AND PROTECTED BY ELABORATE PRECAUTIONS DESIGNED TO
PREVENT DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY.  THERE ARE NO RELIABLE DATA
TRACING ACTS OF SABOTAGE OR ESPIONAGE DIRECTLY TO THESE DEFENDANTS. 
BUT A CANADIAN ROYAL COMMISSION APPOINTED IN 1946 TO INVESTIGATE
ESPIONAGE REPORTED THAT IT WAS "OVERWHELMINGLY ESTABLISHED" THAT "THE
COMMUNIST MOVEMENT WAS THE PRINCIPAL BASE WITHIN WHICH THE ESPIONAGE
NETWORK WAS RECRUITED."  FN12  THE MOST NOTORIOUS SPY IN RECENT HISTORY
WAS LED INTO THE SERVICE OF THE SOVIET UNION THROUGH COMMUNIST
INDOCTRINATION.  FN13  EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT MEMBERS OF
THE PARTY SEEK AND OCCUPY POSITIONS OF IMPORTANCE IN POLITICAL AND
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  FN14  CONGRESS WAS NOT BARRED BY THE CONSTITUTION
FROM BELIEVING THAT INDIFFERENCE TO SUCH EXPERIENCE WOULD BE AN
EXERCISE NOT OF FREEDOM BUT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY. 

ON THE OTHER HAND IS THE INTEREST IN FREE SPEECH.  THE RIGHT TO EXERT
ALL GOVERNMENTAL POWERS IN AID OF MAINTAINING OUR INSTITUTIONS AND
RESISTING THEIR PHYSICAL OVERTHROW DOES NOT INCLUDE INTOLERANCE OF
OPINIONS AND SPEECH THAT CANNOT DO HARM ALTHOUGH OPPOSED AND PERHAPS
ALIEN TO DOMINANT, TRADITIONAL OPINION.  THE TREATMENT OF ITS
MINORITIES, ESPECIALLY THEIR LEGAL POSITION, IS AMONG THE MOST
SEARCHING TESTS OF THE LEVEL OF CIVILIZATION ATTAINED BY A SOCIETY.  IT
IS BETTER FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ALMOST UNLIMITED POWER OF GOVERNMENT IN
THEIR HANDS TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM.  WE HAVE ENJOYED SO MUCH
FREEDOM FOR SO LONG THAT WE ARE PERHAPS IN DANGER OF FORGETTING HOW
MUCH BLOOD IT COST TO ESTABLISH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.    OF COURSE NO
GOVERNMENT CAN RECOGNIZE A "RIGHT" OF REVOLUTION, OR A "RIGHT" TO
INCITE REVOLUTION IF THE INCITEMENT HAS NO OTHER PURPOSE OR EFFECT. 
BUT SPEECH IS SELDOM RESTRICTED TO A SINGLE PURPOSE, AND ITS EFFECTS
MAY BE MANIFOLD.  A PUBLIC INTEREST IS NOT WANTING IN GRANTING FREEDOM
TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS EVEN TO THOSE WHO ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE.  FOR, AS THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE ABUNDANTLY
ILLUSTRATES, COUPLED WITH SUCH ADVOCACY IS CRITICISM OF DEFECTS IN OUR
SOCIETY.  CRITICISM IS THE SPUR TO REFORM; AND BURKE'S ADMONITION THAT
A HEALTHY SOCIETY MUST REFORM IN ORDER TO CONSERVE HAS NOT LOST ITS
FORCE.  ASTUTE OBSERVERS HAVE REMARKED THAT ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC IS INDIFFERENCE TO FUNDAMENTAL CRITICISM. 
BRYCE, THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH, C. 84.  IT IS A COMMONPLACE THAT
THERE MAY BE A GRAIN OF TRUTH IN THE MOST UNCOUTH DOCTRINE, HOWEVER
FALSE AND REPELLENT THE BALANCE MAY BE. SUPPRESSING ADVOCATES OF
OVERTHROW INEVITABLY WILL ALSO SILENCE CRITICS WHO DO NOT ADVOCATE
OVERTHROW BUT FEAR THAT THEIR CRITICISM MAY BE SO CONSTRUED.  NO MATTER
HOW CLEAR WE MAY BE THAT THE DEFENDANTS NOW BEFORE US ARE PREPARING TO
OVERTHROW OUR GOVERNMENT AT THE PROPITIOUS MOMENT, IT IS SELF-DELUSION
TO THINK THAT WE CAN PUNISH THEM FOR THEIR ADVOCACY WITHOUT ADDING TO
THE RISKS RUN BY LOYAL CITIZENS WHO HONESTLY BELIEVE IN SOME OF THE
REFORMS THESE DEFENDANTS ADVANCE.  IT IS A SOBERING FACT THAT IN
SUSTAINING THE CONVICTIONS BEFORE US WE CAN HARDLY ESCAPE RESTRICTION
ON THE INTERCHANGE OF IDEAS. 

WE MUST NOT OVERLOOK THE VALUE OF THAT INTERCHANGE.  FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION IS THE WELL-SPRING OF OUR CIVILIZATION - THE CIVILIZATION WE
SEEK TO MAINTAIN AND FURTHER BY RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO
PUT SOME LIMITATION UPON EXPRESSION.  SUCH ARE THE PARADOXES OF LIFE. 
FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF TRIAL AND ERROR, THE FULLEST POSSIBLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FREE PLAY OF THE HUMAN MIND IS AN INDISPENSABLE
PREREQUISITE.  THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IS IN CONSIDERABLE MEASURE
THE DISPLACEMENT OF ERROR WHICH ONCE HELD SWAY AS OFFICIAL TRUTH BY
BELIEFS WHICH IN TURN HAVE YIELDED TO OTHER TRUTHS.  THEREFORE THE
LIBERTY OF MAN TO SEARCH FOR TRUTH OUGHT NOT TO BE FETTERED, NO MATTER
WHAT ORTHODOXIES HE MAY CHALLENGE.  LIBERTY OF THOUGHT SOON SHRIVELS
WITHOUT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  NOR CAN TRUTH BE PURSUED IN AN
ATMOSPHERE HOSTILE TO THE ENDEAVOR OR UNDER DANGERS WHICH ARE HAZARDED
ONLY BY HEROES. 

"THE INTEREST, WHICH (THE FIRST AMENDMENT) GUARDS, AND WHICH GIVES IT
ITS IMPORTANCE, PRESUPPOSES THAT THERE ARE NO ORTHODOXIES - RELIGIOUS,
POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, OR SCIENTIFIC - WHICH ARE IMMUNE FROM DEBATE AND
DISPUTE.  BACK OF THAT IS THE ASSUMPTION - ITSELF AN ORTHODOXY, AND THE
ONE PERMISSIBLE EXCEPTION - THAT TRUTH WILL BE MOST LIKELY TO EMERGE,
IF NO LIMITATIONS ARE IMPOSED UPON UTTERANCES THAT CAN WITH ANY
PLAUSIBILITY BE REGARDED AS EFFORTS TO PRESENT GROUNDS FOR ACCEPTING OR
REJECTING PROPOSITIONS WHOSE TRUTH THE UTTERER ASSERTS, OR DENIES." 
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS V. LABOR BOARD, 181
F.2D 34, 40.  IN THE LAST ANALYSIS IT IS ON THE VALIDITY OF THIS FAITH
THAT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY IS STAKED. 

IT IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE HOW WE WOULD ADJUST THE CLASH OF INTERESTS
WHICH THIS CASE PRESENTS WERE THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
RECONCILING IT OURS.  CONGRESS HAS DETERMINED THAT THE DANGER CREATED
BY ADVOCACY OF OVERTHROW JUSTIFIES THE ENSUING RESTRICTION ON FREEDOM
OF SPEECH.  THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE AFTER DUE DELIBERATION, AND THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IS ATTESTED BY THE VOLUME OF
LEGISLATION PASSED TO EFFECTUATE THE SAME ENDS.  FN15 

CAN WE THEN SAY THAT THE JUDGMENT CONGRESS EXERCISED WAS DENIED IT BY
THE CONSTITUTION?  CAN WE ESTABLISH A CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE WHICH
FORBIDS THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE TO MAKE THIS CHOICE? 
CAN WE HOLD THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT DEPRIVES CONGRESS OF WHAT IT
DEEMED NECESSARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S PROTECTION? 

TO MAKE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION DEPEND ON JUDICIAL READING OF EVENTS
STILL IN THE WOMB OF TIME - A FORECAST, THAT IS, OF THE OUTCOME OF
FORCES AT BEST APPRECIATED ONLY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE TOPMOST SECRETS
OF NATIONS - IS TO CHARGE THE JUDICIARY WITH DUTIES BEYOND ITS
EQUIPMENT.  WE DO NOT EXPECT COURTS TO PRONOUNCE HISTORIC VERDICTS ON
BYGONE EVENTS.  EVEN HISTORIANS HAVE CONFLICTING VIEWS TO THIS DAY ON
THE ORIGINS AND CONDUCT OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, OR, FOR THAT MATTER,
VARYING INTERPRETATIONS OF "THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION" OF 1688.  IT IS AS
ABSURD TO BE CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN MEASURE THE PRESENT CLASH OF FORCES
AND THEIR OUTCOME AS TO ASK US TO READ HISTORY STILL ENVELOPED IN
CLOUDS OF CONTROVERSY. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR EXPERIENCE, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
CHOSE TO KEEP THE JUDICIARY DISSOCIATED FROM DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  IN ASSERTING THE POWER TO PASS ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION, MARSHALL AND HIS COURT EXPRESSED THE
PURPOSES OF THE FOUNDERS.  SEE CHARLES A. BEARD, THE SUPREME COURT AND
THE CONSTITUTION.  BUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER
WOULD INTERPENETRATE MATTERS OF POLICY COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN FORESEEN
BY THE MOST PRESCIENT.  THE DISTINCTION WHICH THE FOUNDERS DREW BETWEEN
THE COURT'S DUTY TO PASS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS AND ITS COMPLEMENTARY
DUTY NOT TO ENTER DIRECTLY THE DOMAIN OF POLICY IS FUNDAMENTAL.  BUT IN
ITS ACTUAL OPERATION IT IS RATHER SUBTLE, CERTAINLY TO THE COMMON
UNDERSTANDING.  OUR DUTY TO ABSTAIN FROM CONFOUNDING POLICY WITH
CONSTITUTIONALITY DEMANDS PERCEPTIVE HUMILITY AS WELL AS SELF-RESTRAINT
IN NOT DECLARING UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHAT IN A JUDGE'S PRIVATE JUDGMENT IS
DEEMED UNWISE AND EVEN DANGEROUS. 

EVEN WHEN MOVING STRICTLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION, JUDGES ARE CONCERNED WITH ISSUES THAT MAY BE SAID TO
INVOLVE VITAL FINALITIES.  THE TOO EASY TRANSITION FROM DISAPPROVAL OF
WHAT IS UNDESIRABLE TO CONDEMNATION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, HAS LED SOME
OF THE WISEST JUDGES TO QUESTION THE WISDOM OF OUR SCHEME IN LODGING
SUCH AUTHORITY IN COURTS.  BUT IT IS RELEVANT TO REMIND THAT IN
SUSTAINING THE POWER OF CONGRESS IN A CASE LIKE THIS NOTHING
IRREVOCABLE IS DONE.  THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AT ALL EVENTS IS NOT
IMPAIRED OR RESTRICTED.  POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY REMAIN WITH THE
PEOPLE AND IMMEDIATELY WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.  ALL THE COURT SAYS
IS THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION TO PASS THIS
ENACTMENT AND THAT A PROSECUTION UNDER IT MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST A
CONSPIRACY SUCH AS THE ONE BEFORE US.

                                 IV. 

THE WISDOM OF THE ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE LEGISLATION AND
PROSECUTION IS ANOTHER MATTER.  IN FINDING THAT CONGRESS HAS ACTED
WITHIN ITS POWER, A JUDGE DOES NOT REMOTELY IMPLY THAT HE FAVORS THE
IMPLICATIONS THAT LIE BENEATH THE LEGAL ISSUES.  CONSIDERATIONS THERE
ENTER WHICH GO BEYOND THE CRITERIA THAT ARE BINDING UPON JUDGES WITHIN
THE NARROW CONFINES OF THEIR LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY.  THE LEGISLATION WE
ARE HERE CONSIDERING IS BUT A TRUNCATED ASPECT OF A DEEPER ISSUE.  FOR
ME IT HAS BEEN MOST ILLUMINATINGLY EXPRESSED BY ONE IN WHOM
RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPERIENCE HAVE FRUCTIFIED NATIVE INSIGHT, THE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION: 

"WE HAVE TO FACE UP TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE POWERFUL FORCES IN THE
WORLD TODAY MISUSING THE PRIVILEGES OF LIBERTY IN ORDER TO DESTROY
HER.  THE QUESTION MUST BE ASKED, HOWEVER, WHETHER SUPPRESSION OF
INFORMATION OR OPINION IS THE TRUE DEFENSE.  WE MAY HAVE COME A LONG
WAY FROM MILL'S FAMOUS DICTUM THAT: 

"'IF ALL MANKIND MINUS ONE WERE OF ONE OPINION, AND ONLY ONE PERSON
WERE OF THE CONTRARY OPINION, MANKIND WOULD BE NO MORE JUSTIFIED IN
SILENCING THAT ONE PERSON, THAN HE, IF HE HAD THE POWER, WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED IN SILENCING MANKIND,' 

BUT MILL'S REMINDERS FROM HISTORY AS TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED WHEN
SUPPRESSION WAS MOST VIRULENTLY EXERCISED OUGHT TO WARN US THAT NO
DEBATE IS EVER PERMANENTLY WON BY SHUTTING ONE'S EARS OR BY EVEN THE
MOST DRACONIAN POLICY OF SILENCING OPPONENTS.  THE DEBATE MUST BE WON. 
AND IT MUST BE WON WITH FULL INFORMATION.  WHERE THERE ARE LIES, THEY
MUST BE SHOWN FOR WHAT THEY ARE.  WHERE THERE ARE ERRORS, THEY MUST BE
REFUTED.  IT WOULD BE A MAJOR DEFEAT IF THE ENEMIES OF DEMOCRACY FORCED
US TO ABANDON OUR FAITH IN THE POWER OF INFORMED DISCUSSION AND SO
BROUGHT US DOWN TO THEIR OWN LEVEL.  MANKIND IS SO CONSTITUTED,
MOREOVER, THAT IF, WHERE EXPRESSION AND DISCUSSION ARE CONCERNED, THE
ENEMIES OF LIBERTY ARE MET WITH A DENIAL OF LIBERTY, MANY MEN OF
GOODWILL WILL COME TO SUSPECT THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE PROSCRIBED
DOCTRINE AFTER ALL.  ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES THRIVE ON BEING EXPUNGED. 
THEY DIE IF EXPOSED."  SIR WILLIAM HALEY, WHAT STANDARDS FOR
BROADCASTING?  MEASURE, VOL. I, NO. 3, SUMMER 1950, PP. 211-212. 

IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS DEEPER STRUGGLE, ANOTHER VOICE HAS INDICATED
THE LIMITATIONS OF WHAT WE DECIDE TODAY.  NO ONE IS BETTER EQUIPPED
THAN GEORGE F. KENNAN TO SPEAK ON THE MEANING OF THE MENACE OF
COMMUNISM AND THE SPIRIT IN WHICH WE SHOULD MEET IT. 

"IF OUR HANDLING OF THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNIST INFLUENCE IN OUR MIDST
IS NOT CAREFULLY MODERATED - IF WE PERMIT IT, THAT IS, TO BECOME AN
EMOTIONAL PREOCCUPATION AND TO BLIND US TO THE MORE IMPORTANT POSITIVE
TASKS BEFORE US - WE CAN DO A DAMAGE TO OUR NATIONAL PURPOSE BEYOND
COMPARISON GREATER THAN ANYTHING THAT THREATENS US TODAY FROM THE
COMMUNIST SIDE.  THE AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY IS TODAY, BY AND LARGE,
AN EXTERNAL DANGER.  IT REPRESENTS A TINY MINORITY IN OUR COUNTRY; IT
HAS NO REAL CONTACT WITH THE FEELINGS OF THE MASS OF OUR PEOPLE; AND
ITS POSITION AS THE AGENCY OF A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER IS CLEARLY
RECOGNIZED BY THE OVERWHELMING MASS OF OUR CITIZENS. 

"BUT THE SUBJECTIVE EMOTIONAL STRESSES AND TEMPTATIONS TO WHICH WE
ARE EXPOSED IN OUR ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH THIS DOMESTIC PROBLEM ARE NOT
AN EXTERNAL DANGER:  THEY REPRESENT A DANGER WITHIN OURSELVES - A
DANGER THAT SOMETHING MAY OCCUR IN OUR OWN MINDS AND SOULS WHICH WILL
MAKE US NO LONGER LIKE THE PERSONS BY WHOSE EFFORTS THIS REPUBLIC WAS
FOUNDED AND HELD TOGETHER, BUT RATHER LIKE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THAT
VERY POWER WE ARE TRYING TO COMBAT:  INTOLERANT, SECRETIVE, SUSPICIOUS,
CRUEL, AND TERRIFIED OF INTERNAL DISSENSION BECAUSE WE HAVE LOST OUR
OWN BELIEF IN OURSELVES AND IN THE POWER OF OUR IDEALS.  THE WORST
THING THAT OUR COMMUNISTS COULD DO TO US, AND THE THING WE HAVE MOST TO
FEAR FROM THEIR ACTIVITIES, IS THAT WE SHOULD BECOME LIKE THEM. 

"THAT OUR COUNTRY IS BESET WITH EXTERNAL DANGERS I READILY CONCEDE. 
BUT THESE DANGERS, AT THEIR WORST, ARE ONES OF PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION, OF
THE DISRUPTION OF OUR WORLD SECURITY, OF EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE AND
SACRIFICE.  THESE ARE SERIOUS, AND SOMETIMES TERRIBLE THINGS, BUT THEY
ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE CAN TAKE AND STILL REMAIN AMERICANS. 

"THE INTERNAL DANGER IS OF A DIFFERENT ORDER.  AMERICA IS NOT JUST
TERRITORY AND PEOPLE.  THERE IS LOTS OF TERRITORY ELSEWHERE, AND THERE
ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE; BUT IT DOES NOT ADD UP TO AMERICA.  AMERICA IS
SOMETHING IN OUR MINDS AND OUR HABITS OF OUTLOOK WHICH CAUSES US TO
BELIEVE IN CERTAIN THINGS AND TO BEHAVE IN CERTAIN WAYS, AND BY WHICH,
IN ITS TOTALITY, WE HOLD OURSELVES DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHERS.  IF THAT
ONCE GOES THERE WILL BE NO AMERICA TO DEFEND.  AND THAT CAN GO TOO
EASILY IF WE YIELD TO THE PRIMITIVE HUMAN INSTINCT TO ESCAPE FROM OUR
FRUSTRATIONS INTO THE REALMS OF MASS EMOTION AND HATRED AND TO FIND
SCAPEGOATS FOR OUR DIFFICULTIES IN INDIVIDUAL FELLOW-CITIZENS WHO ARE,
OR HAVE AT ONE TIME BEEN, DISORIENTED OR CONFUSED."  GEORGE F. KENNAN,
WHERE DO YOU STAND ON COMMUNISM?  NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, MAY 27,
1951, PP. 7, 53, 55. 

CIVIL LIBERTIES DRAW AT BEST ONLY LIMITED STRENGTH FROM LEGAL
GUARANTIES.  PREOCCUPATION BY OUR PEOPLE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY,
INSTEAD OF WITH THE WISDOM, OF LEGISLATION OR OF EXECUTIVE ACTION IS
PREOCCUPATION WITH A FALSE VALUE.  EVEN THOSE WHO WOULD MOST FREELY USE
THE JUDICIAL BRAKE ON THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS BY INVALIDATING
LEGISLATION THAT GOES DEEPLY AGAINST THEIR GRAIN, ACKNOWLEDGE, AT LEAST
BY PAYING LIP SERVICE, THAT CONSTITUTIONALITY DOES NOT EXACT A SENSE OF
PROPORTION OR THE SANITY OF HUMOR OR AN ABSENCE OF FEAR.  FOCUSING
ATTENTION ON CONSTITUTIONALITY TENDS TO MAKE CONSTITUTIONALITY
SYNONYMOUS WITH WISDOM.  WHEN LEGISLATION TOUCHES FREEDOM OF THOUGHT
AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH, SUCH A TENDENCY IS A FORMIDABLE ENEMY OF THE
FREE SPIRIT.  MUCH THAT SHOULD BE REJECTED AS ILLIBERAL, BECAUSE
REPRESSIVE AND ENVENOMING, MAY WELL BE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE
ULTIMATE RELIANCE FOR THE DEEPEST NEEDS OF CIVILIZATION MUST BE FOUND
OUTSIDE THEIR VINDICATION IN COURTS OF LAW; APART FROM ALL ELSE,
JUDGES, HOWSOEVER THEY MAY CONSCIENTIOUSLY SEEK TO DISCIPLINE
THEMSELVES AGAINST IT, UNCONSCIOUSLY ARE TOO APT TO BE MOVED BY THE
DEEP UNDERCURRENTS OF PUBLIC FEELING.  A PERSISTENT, POSITIVE
TRANSLATION OF THE LIBERATING FAITH INTO THE FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS AND
ACTIONS OF MEN AND WOMEN IS THE REAL PROTECTION AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO
STRAIT-JACKET THE HUMAN MIND.  SUCH TEMPTATIONS WILL HAVE THEIR WAY, IF
FEAR AND HATRED ARE NOT EXORCIZED.  THE MARK OF A TRULY CIVILIZED MAN
IS CONFIDENCE IN THE STRENGTH AND SECURITY DERIVED FROM THE INQUIRING
MIND.  WE MAY BE GRATEFUL FOR SUCH HONEST COMFORTS AS IT SUPPORTS, BUT
WE MUST BE UNAFRAID OF ITS INCERTITUDES.  WITHOUT OPEN MINDS THERE CAN
BE NO OPEN SOCIETY.  AND IF SOCIETY BE NOT OPEN THE SPIRIT OF MAN IS
MUTILATED AND BECOMES ENSLAVED.                 APPENDIX TO OPINION OF
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

OPINIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIEW THAT SPEECH COULD NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE RESTRICTED UNLESS THERE WOULD RESULT FROM IT AN
IMMINENT - I.E., CLOSE AT HAND - SUBSTANTIVE EVIL. 

1.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 104-105(STATE STATUTE
PROHIBITING PICKETING HELD INVALID):  "  ...  EVERY EXPRESSION OF
OPINION ON MATTERS THAT ARE IMPORTANT HAS THE POTENTIALITY OF INDUCING
ACTION IN THE INTERESTS OF ONE RATHER THAN ANOTHER GROUP IN SOCIETY. 
BUT THE GROUP IN POWER AT ANY MOMENT MAY NOT IMPOSE PENAL SANCTIONS ON
PEACEFUL AND TRUTHFUL DISCUSSION OF MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST MERELY
ON A SHOWING THAT OTHERS MAY THEREBY BE PERSUADED TO TAKE ACTION
INCONSISTENT WITH ITS INTERESTS.  ABRIDGMENT OF THE LIBERTY OF SUCH
DISCUSSION CAN BE JUSTIFIED ONLY WHERE THE CLEAR DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE
EVILS ARISES UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES AFFORDING NO OPPORTUNITY TO TEST THE
MERITS OF IDEAS BY COMPETITION FOR ACCEPTANCE IN THE MARKET OF PUBLIC
OPINION.  ... 

"  ...  (NO) CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF DESTRUCTION OF LIFE OR
PROPERTY, OR INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY, OR BREACH OF THE PEACE
CAN BE THOUGHT TO BE INHERENT IN THE ACTIVITIES OF EVERY PERSON WHO
APPROACHES THE PREMISES OF AN EMPLOYER AND PUBLICIZES THE FACTS OF A
LABOR DISPUTE INVOLVING THE LATTER." 

2.  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 262-263(CONVICTIONS FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT REVERSED):  " ...  (THE) 'CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER'
LANGUAGE OF THE SCHENCK CASE HAS AFFORDED PRACTICAL GUIDANCE IN A GREAT
VARIETY OF CASES IN WHICH THE SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WAS IN ISSUE.  IT HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY EITHER A
MAJORITY OR MINORITY OF THIS COURT IN PASSING UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CONVICTIONS UNDER ESPIONAGE ACTS, SCHENCK V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA (249 U.S. 47); ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S.
616; UNDER A CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM ACT, WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA
(274 U.S. 357); UNDER AN 'ANTI-INSURRECTION' ACT, HERNDON V. LOWRY,
SUPRA (301 U.S. 242); AND FOR BREACH OF THE PEACE AT COMMON LAW,
CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA (310 U.S. 296).  AND VERY RECENTLY WE
HAVE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT 'CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER' IS AN APPROPRIATE
GUIDE IN DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RESTRICTIONS UPON
EXPRESSION WHERE THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED BY THE
RESTRICTION IS 'DESTRUCTION OF LIFE OR PROPERTY, OR INVASION OF THE
RIGHT OF PRIVACY.'  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 105. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"WHAT FINALLY EMERGES FROM THE 'CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER' CASES IS A
WORKING PRINCIPLE THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL MUST BE EXTREMELY SERIOUS
AND THE DEGREE OF IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH BEFORE UTTERANCES CAN BE
PUNISHED.  THOSE CASES DO NOT PURPORT TO MARK THE FURTHERMOST
CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF PROTECTED EXPRESSION, NOR DO WE HERE. 
THEY DO NO MORE THAN RECOGNIZE A MINIMUM COMPULSION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.  FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT SPEAK EQUIVOCALLY.  IT
PROHIBITS ANY LAW 'ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS.' 
IT MUST BE TAKEN AS A COMMAND OF THE BROADEST SCOPE THAT EXPLICIT
LANGUAGE, READ IN THE CONTEXT OF A LIBERTY-LOVING SOCIETY, WILL
ALLOW." 

3.  WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624,
639(FLAG-SALUTE REQUIREMENT FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN HELD INVALID):  "IN
WEIGHING ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS AN
INSTRUMENT FOR TRANSMITTING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND
THOSE CASES IN WHICH IT IS APPLIED FOR ITS OWN SAKE.  THE TEST OF
LEGISLATION WHICH COLLIDES WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT
ALSO COLLIDES WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST, IS MUCH MORE DEFINITE
THAN THE TEST WHEN ONLY THE FOURTEENTH IS INVOLVED.  MUCH OF THE
VAGUENESS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DISAPPEARS WHEN THE SPECIFIC
PROHIBITIONS OF THE FIRST BECOME ITS STANDARD.  THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO
REGULATE, FOR EXAMPLE, A PUBLIC UTILITY MAY WELL INCLUDE, SO FAR AS THE
DUE PROCESS TEST IS CONCERNED, POWER TO IMPOSE ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS
WHICH A LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE A 'RATIONAL BASIS' FOR ADOPTING.  BUT
FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND OF PRESS, OF ASSEMBLY, AND OF WORSHIP MAY NOT BE
INFRINGED ON SUCH SLENDER GROUNDS.  THEY ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF RESTRICTION
ONLY TO PREVENT GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER TO INTERESTS WHICH THE STATE
MAY LAWFULLY PROTECT.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHILE IT IS THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH BEARS DIRECTLY UPON THE STATE IT IS THE MORE
SPECIFIC LIMITING PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT FINALLY GOVERN
THIS CASE." 

4.  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 529-530(STATE STATUTE REQUIRING
REGISTRATION OF LABOR ORGANIZERS HELD INVALID AS APPLIED):  "THE CASE
CONFRONTS US AGAIN WITH THE DUTY OUR SYSTEM PLACES ON THIS COURT TO SAY
WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOM ENDS AND THE STATE'S POWER BEGINS. 
CHOICE ON THAT BORDER, NOW AS ALWAYS DELICATE, IS PERHAPS MORE SO WHERE
THE USUAL PRESUMPTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION IS BALANCED BY THE
PREFERRED PLACE GIVEN IN OUR SCHEME TO THE GREAT, THE INDISPENSABLE
DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  CF. SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296; PRINCE V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158.  THAT PRIORITY GIVES THESE LIBERTIES A
SANCTITY AND A SANCTION NOT PERMITTING DUBIOUS INTRUSIONS.  AND IT IS
THE CHARACTER OF THE RIGHT, NOT OF THE LIMITATION, WHICH DETERMINES
WHAT STANDARD GOVERNS THE CHOICE.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE
PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152-153. 

"FOR THESE REASONS ANY ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT THOSE LIBERTIES MUST BE
JUSTIFIED BY CLEAR PUBLIC INTEREST, THREATENED NOT DOUBTFULLY OR
REMOTELY, BUT BY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.  THE RATIONAL CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE REMEDY PROVIDED AND THE EVIL TO BE CURBED, WHICH IN OTHER
CONTEXTS MIGHT SUPPORT LEGISLATION AGAINST ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS
GROUNDS, WILL NOT SUFFICE.  THESE RIGHTS REST ON FIRMER FOUNDATION. 
ACCORDINGLY, WHATEVER OCCASION WOULD RESTRAIN ORDERLY DISCUSSION AND
PERSUASION, AT APPROPRIATE TIME AND PLACE, MUST HAVE CLEAR SUPPORT IN
PUBLIC DANGER, ACTUAL OR IMPENDING.  ONLY THE GRAVEST ABUSES,
ENDANGERING PARAMOUNT INTERESTS, GIVE OCCASION FOR PERMISSIBLE
LIMITATION." 

5.  CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367, 376(CONVICTION FOR CONTEMPT OF
COURT REVERSED):  "THE FIRES WHICH (THE LANGUAGE) KINDLES MUST
CONSTITUTE AN IMMINENT, NOT MERELY A LIKELY, THREAT TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  THE DANGER MUST NOT BE REMOTE OR EVEN
PROBABLE; IT MUST IMMEDIATELY IMPERIL." 

6.  GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE CO., 336 U.S. 490, 503(INJUNCTION
AGAINST PICKETING UPHELD):  " ...  THERE WAS CLEAR DANGER, IMMINENT AND
IMMEDIATE, THAT UNLESS RESTRAINED, APPELLANTS WOULD SUCCEED IN MAKING
(THE STATE'S POLICY AGAINST RESTRAINTS OF TRADE) A DEAD LETTER INSOFAR
AS PURCHASES BY NONUNION MEN WERE CONCERNED.  ...  " 

7.  TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1, 4-5(CONVICTION FOR DISORDERLY
CONDUCT REVERSED): "SPEECH IS OFTEN PROVOCATIVE AND CHALLENGING.  IT
MAY STRIKE AT PREJUDICES AND PRECONCEPTIONS AND HAVE PROFOUND
UNSETTLING EFFECTS AS IT PRESSES FOR ACCEPTANCE OF AN IDEA.  THAT IS
WHY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THOUGH NOT ABSOLUTE, CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA, (315 U.S. 568) 571-572, IS NEVERTHELESS PROTECTED
AGAINST CENSORSHIP OR PUNISHMENT, UNLESS SHOWN LIKELY TO PRODUCE A
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF A SERIOUS SUBSTANTIVE EVIL THAT RISES FAR
ABOVE PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE, ANNOYANCE, OR UNREST.  SEE BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 262; CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367, 373. 
THERE IS NO ROOM UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION FOR A MORE RESTRICTIVE VIEW. 
FOR THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD LEAD TO STANDARDIZATION OF IDEAS EITHER BY
LEGISLATURES, COURTS, OR DOMINANT POLITICAL OR COMMUNITY GROUPS." 

8.  AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 396,
412("NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVIT" PROVISION OF TAFT-HARTLEY ACT UPHELD):
"SPEECH MAY BE FOUGHT WITH SPEECH.  FALSEHOODS AND FALLACIES MUST BE
EXPOSED, NOT SUPPRESSED, UNLESS THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME TO AVERT
THE EVIL CONSEQUENCES OF NOXIOUS DOCTRINE BY ARGUMENT AND EDUCATION. 
THAT IS THE COMMAND OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT."  AND AGAIN, "(THE FIRST)
AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT ONE BE PERMITTED TO BELIEVE WHAT HE WILL.  IT
REQUIRES THAT ONE BE PERMITTED TO ADVOCATE WHAT HE WILL UNLESS THERE IS
A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC EVIL WILL RESULT
THEREFROM." 

FN1  MASS. CONST., 1780, PART I, ART. XVI.  SEE DUNIWAY, FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS IN MASSACHUSETTS, 144-146. 

FN2  PA. CONST., 1790, ART. IX, SEC. 7; DEL. CONST., 1792, ART. I,
SEC. 5. 

FN3  THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA PASSED A STATUTE ON DECEMBER
26, 1792, DIRECTED AT ESTABLISHMENT OF "ANY GOVERNMENT SEPARATE FROM,
OR INDEPENDENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF VIRGINIA, WITHIN THE LIMITS
THEREOF, UNLESS BY ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THIS COMMONWEALTH FOR THAT
PURPOSE FIRST OBTAINED."  THE STATUTE PROVIDED THAT "EVERY PERSON  ...
WHO SHALL BY WRITING OR ADVISED SPEAKING, ENDEAVOUR TO INSTIGATE THE
PEOPLE OF THIS COMMONWEALTH TO ERECT OR ESTABLISH SUCH GOVERNMENT
WITHOUT SUCH ASSENT AS AFORESAID, SHALL BE ADJUDGED GUILTY OF A HIGH
CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR  ...  "  VA. CODE, 1803, C. CXXXVI. 

FN4  IN A LETTER TO ABIGAIL ADAMS, DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 1804,
JEFFERSON SAID WITH REFERENCE TO THE SEDITION ACT: 

"NOR DOES THE OPINION OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY AND CONSEQUENT
NULLITY OF THAT LAW REMOVE ALL RESTRAINT FROM THE OVERWHELMING TORRENT
OF SLANDER WHICH IS CONFOUNDING ALL VICE AND VIRTUE, ALL TRUTH AND
FALSEHOOD IN THE US.  THE POWER TO DO THAT IS FULLY POSSESSED BY THE
SEVERAL STATE LEGISLATURES.  IT WAS RESERVED TO THEM, AND WAS DENIED TO
THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, BY THE CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO OUR
CONSTRUCTION OF IT.  WHILE WE DENY THAT CONGRESS HAVE A RIGHT TO
CONTROUL THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, WE HAVE EVER ASSERTED THE RIGHT OF
THE STATES, AND THEIR EXCLUSIVE RIGHT, TO DO SO." 

THE LETTER WILL BE PUBLISHED IN A FORTHCOMING VOLUME OF THE PAPERS OF
THOMAS JEFFERSON (BOYD ED.), TO WHICH I AM INDEBTED FOR ITS
REPRODUCTION HERE IN ITS EXACT FORM. 

THE SEDITION ACT OF JULY 14, 1798, WAS DIRECTED AT TWO TYPES OF
CONDUCT.  SECTION 1 MADE IT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO CONSPIRE "TO IMPEDE
THE OPERATION OF ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES," AND TO "COUNSEL, ADVISE
OR ATTEMPT TO PROCURE ANY INSURRECTION, RIOT, UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, OR
COMBINATION."  SECTION 2 PROVIDED: 

"THAT IF ANY PERSON SHALL WRITE, PRINT, UTTER OR PUBLISH, OR SHALL
CAUSE OR PROCURE TO BE WRITTEN, PRINTED, UTTERED OR PUBLISHED, OR SHALL
KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY ASSIST OR AID IN WRITING, PRINTING, UTTERING OR
PUBLISHING ANY FALSE, SCANDALOUS AND MALICIOUS WRITING OR WRITINGS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR EITHER HOUSE OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
WITH INTENT TO DEFAME THE SAID GOVERNMENT, OR EITHER HOUSE OF THE SAID
CONGRESS, OR THE SAID PRESIDENT, OR TO BRING THEM, OR EITHER OF THEM,
INTO CONTEMPT OR DISREPUTE; OR TO EXCITE AGAINST THEM, OR EITHER OR ANY
OF THEM, THE HATRED OF THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO STIR
UP SEDITION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, OR TO EXCITE ANY UNLAWFUL
COMBINATIONS THEREIN, FOR OPPOSING OR RESISTING ANY LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR ANY ACT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DONE IN
PURSUANCE OF ANY SUCH LAW, OR OF THE POWERS IN HIM VESTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO RESIST, OPPOSE, OR DEFEAT ANY
SUCH LAW OR ACT, OR TO AID, ENCOURAGE OR ABET ANY HOSTILE DESIGNS OF
ANY FOREIGN NATION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THEIR PEOPLE OR
GOVERNMENT, THEN SUCH PERSON, BEING THEREOF CONVICTED BEFORE ANY COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY
A FINE NOT EXCEEDING TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND BY IMPRISONMENT NOT
EXCEEDING TWO YEARS."  1 STAT. 596-597. 

NO SUBSTANTIAL OBJECTION WAS RAISED TO SEC. 1 OF THE ACT.  THE
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 2 IS STATED MOST FULLY IN THE
VIRGINIA REPORT OF 1799-1800.  THAT REPORT, PREPARED FOR THE HOUSE OF
DELEGATES BY A COMMITTEE OF WHICH MADISON WAS CHAIRMAN, ATTEMPTED TO
ESTABLISH THAT THE POWER TO REGULATE SPEECH WAS NOT DELEGATED TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
HAD PROHIBITED THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FROM EXERCISING THE POWER.  IN
REPLY IT WAS URGED THAT POWER TO RESTRICT SEDITIOUS WRITING WAS
IMPLICIT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGED POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
PROHIBIT SEDITIOUS ACTS, AND THAT THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS DID NOT
EXTEND TO THE SORT OF SPEECH RESTRICTED BY THE ACT.  SEE THE REPORT OF
THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO WHICH WERE REFERRED
MEMORIALS FROM THE STATES, H.R. REP. NO. 110, 5TH CONG., 3D SESS.,
PUBLISHED IN AMERICAN STATE PAPERS, MISC. VOL. 1, P. 181.  FOR AN
EXTENSIVE CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY, SEE ST. GEORGE
TUCKER'S 1803 EDITION OF BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, APPENDIX TO VOL.
FIRST, PART SECOND, NOTE G. 

FN5  PROFESSOR ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN IS A LEADING EXPONENT OF THE
ABSOLUTIST INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  RECOGNIZING THAT
CERTAIN FORMS OF SPEECH REQUIRE REGULATION, HE EXCLUDES THOSE FORMS OF
EXPRESSION ENTIRELY FROM THE PROTECTION ACCORDED BY THE AMENDMENT. 
"THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF A MERCHANT ADVERTISING HIS WARES, OF A
PAID LOBBYIST FIGHTING FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF HIS CLIENT, IS UTTERLY
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A CITIZEN WHO IS PLANNING FOR THE GENERAL
WELFARE."  MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH, 39.  "THE RADIO AS IT NOW OPERATES
AMONG US IS NOT FREE.  NOR IS IT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  IT IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE TASK OF ENLARGING AND
ENRICHING HUMAN COMMUNICATION.  IT IS ENGAGED IN MAKING MONEY."  ID. AT
104.  PROFESSOR MEIKLEJOHN EVEN SUGGESTS THAT SCHOLARSHIP MAY NOW
REQUIRE SUCH SUBVENTION AND CONTROL THAT IT NO LONGER IS ENTITLED TO
PROTECTION BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  SEE ID. AT 99-100.  PROFESSOR
CHAFEE IN HIS REVIEW OF THE MEIKLEJOHN BOOK, 62 HARV. L. REV. 891, HAS
SUBJECTED THIS POSITION TO TRENCHANT COMMENT.    FN6  IN HARTZEL V.
UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 680, 687, THE COURT REVERSED A CONVICTION FOR
WILFULLY CAUSING INSUBORDINATION IN THE MILITARY FORCES ON THE GROUND
THAT THE INTENT REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE WAS NOT SHOWN.  IT ADDED THAT
THERE WAS A SECOND ELEMENT NECESSARY TO CONVICTION, "CONSISTING OF A
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THE ACTIVITIES IN QUESTION WILL BRING
ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS WHICH CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT. 
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47.  BOTH ELEMENTS MUST BE PROVED BY
THE GOVERNMENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT." 

OTHER PASSAGES RESPONSIBLE FOR ATTRIBUTING TO THE COURT THE PRINCIPLE
THAT IMMINENCE OF THE APPREHENDED EVIL IS NECESSARY TO CONVICTION IN
FREE-SPEECH CASES ARE COLLECTED IN AN APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION, POST,
P. 556. 

FN7  NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY CONSIDERING HERE DECISIONS
IN WHICH THE COURT TREATED THE CHALLENGED REGULATION AS THOUGH IT
IMPOSED NO REAL RESTRAINT ON SPEECH OR ON THE PRESS.  E.G., ASSOCIATED
PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103; VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN, 316 U.S.
52; RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY V. NEW YORK, 336 U.S. 106; LEWIS PUBLISHING
CO. V. MORGAN, 229 U.S. 288.  WE RECOGNIZED THAT RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH
WERE INVOLVED IN UNITED STATES EX REL. MILWAUKEE PUBLISHING CO. V.
BURLESON, 255 U.S. 407, AND GILBERT V. MINNESOTA, 254 U.S. 325; BUT THE
DECISIONS RAISED ISSUES SO DIFFERENT FROM THOSE PRESENTED HERE THAT
THEY TOO NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL.  OUR DECISIONS IN STROMBERG
V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, AND WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507,
TURNED ON THE INDEFINITENESS OF THE STATUTES. 

FN8  THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT ALSO REQUIRES THAT AN OFFICER OF A UNION
USING THE SERVICES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TAKE OATH THAT
HE "DOES NOT BELIEVE IN, AND IS NOT A MEMBER OF OR SUPPORTS ANY
ORGANIZATION THAT BELIEVES IN OR TEACHES, THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR BY ANY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL
METHODS."  THE COURT DIVIDED ON THE VALIDITY OF THIS REQUIREMENT.  TEST
OATHS RAISE SUCH SPECIAL PROBLEMS THAT DECISIONS ON THEIR VALIDITY ARE
NOT DIRECTLY HELPFUL HERE.  SEE WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION V.
BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624. 

FN9  BURNS V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 328, ADDS NOTHING TO THE
DECISION IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA. 

FN10  IN HERNDON V. GEORGIA, 295 U.S. 441, THE OPINION OF THE COURT
WAS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.  MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, MR. JUSTICE STONE, AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, HOWEVER, THOUGHT
THAT THE PROBLEM OF GITLOW V. NEW YORK WAS RAISED.  SEE 295 U.S. AT
446. 

FN11  SEE THE TESTIMONY OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION.  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN
ACTIVITIES, ON H.R. 1884 AND H.R. 2122, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PART 2,
P. 37. 

FN12  REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE COMMUNICATION OF
SECRET AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO AGENTS OF A FOREIGN POWER, JUNE
27, 1946, P. 44.  THERE APPEARS TO BE LITTLE RELIABLE EVIDENCE
DEMONSTRATING DIRECTLY THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY HAS
RECRUITED PERSONS WILLING TO ENGAGE IN ESPIONAGE OR OTHER UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE SOVIET UNION.  THE DEFECTION OF A SOVIET
DIPLOMATIC EMPLOYEE, HOWEVER, LED TO A CAREFUL INVESTIGATION OF AN
ESPIONAGE NETWORK IN CANADA, AND HAS DISCLOSED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
CANADIAN COMMUNIST PARTY IN CONDITIONING ITS MEMBERS TO DISCLOSE TO
SOVIET AGENTS VITAL INFORMATION OF A SECRET CHARACTER.  ACCORDING TO
THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION INVESTIGATING THE NETWORK,
CONSPIRATORIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTY SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN IN
THE EVIDENCE NOW BEFORE US WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN DEVELOPING THE
NECESSARY MOTIVATION TO COOPERATE IN THE ESPIONAGE.  SEE PP. 43-83 OF
THE REPORT. 

FN13  THE COMMUNIST BACKGROUND OF DR. KLAUS FUCHS WAS BROUGHT OUT IN
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM.  SEE THE (LONDON) TIMES, MAR. 2, 1950, P.
2, COL. 6. 

FN14  SEE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382. 
FORMER SENATOR ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, JR., HAS REPORTED HIS EXPERIENCE
WITH INFILTRATION OF COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS INTO CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE STAFFS.  COLLIER'S, FEB. 8, 1947, P. 22. 

FN15  IMMIGRATION LAWS REQUIRE, FOR INSTANCE, EXCLUSION AND
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WHO ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE, AND DECLARE INELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION ALIENS
WHO ARE MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS SO ADVOCATING.  ACT OF FEB. 5, 1917,
SEC. 19, 39 STAT. 889, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155; ACT OF OCT. 16, 1918, 40
STAT. 1012, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 137; ACT OF OCT. 14, 1940, SEC. 305, 54 STAT.
1141, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 705.  THE HATCH ACT PROHIBITS EMPLOYMENT BY ANY
GOVERNMENT AGENCY OF MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF
"OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT."  ACT OF AUG. 2, 1939, SEC. 9A,
53 STAT. 1148, 5 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 118J.  THE VOORHIS ACT OF OCT.
17, 1940, WAS PASSED TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF ORGANIZATIONS SUBJECT
TO FOREIGN CONTROL WHICH ENGAGE IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY.  54 STAT. 1201,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 2386.  THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT CONTAINS A SECTION DESIGNED
TO EXCLUDE COMMUNISTS FROM POSITIONS OF LEADERSHIP IN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS.  ACT OF JUNE 23, 1947, SEC. 9(H), 61 STAT. 146, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 159(H).  AND, MOST RECENTLY, THE MCCARRAN ACT
REQUIRES REGISTRATION OF "COMMUNIST-ACTION" AND "COMMUNIST-FRONT"
ORGANIZATIONS.  ACT OF SEPT. 23, 1950, SEC. 7, 64 STAT. 987, 993. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

THIS PROSECUTION IS THE LATEST OF NEVER-ENDING, BECAUSE NEVER
SUCCESSFUL, QUESTS FOR SOME LEGAL FORMULA THAT WILL SECURE AN EXISTING
ORDER AGAINST REVOLUTIONARY RADICALISM.  IT REQUIRES US TO REAPPRAISE,
IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OWN TIMES AND CONDITIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES
DEVISED UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN AUTHORITY
AND LIBERTY. 

ACTIVITY HERE CHARGED TO BE CRIMINAL IS CONSPIRACY - THAT DEFENDANTS
CONSPIRED TO TEACH AND ADVOCATE, AND TO ORGANIZE THE COMMUNIST PARTY TO
TEACH AND ADVOCATE, OVERTHROW AND DESTRUCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  THERE IS NO CHARGE OF ACTUAL VIOLENCE OR ATTEMPT
AT OVERTHROW.  FN1 

THE PRINCIPAL RELIANCE OF THE DEFENSE IN THIS COURT IS THAT THE
CONVICTION CANNOT STAND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THE CONSPIRACY
OF THESE DEFENDANTS PRESENTS NO "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" OF IMMINENT
OR FORESEEABLE OVERTHROW. 

                                  I. 

THE STATUTE BEFORE US REPEATS A PATTERN, ORIGINALLY DEVISED TO COMBAT
THE WAVE OF ANARCHISTIC TERRORISM THAT PLAGUED THIS COUNTRY ABOUT THE
TURN OF THE CENTURY,  FN2  WHICH LAGS AT LEAST TWO GENERATIONS BEHIND
COMMUNIST PARTY TECHNIQUES. 

ANARCHISM TAUGHT A PHILOSOPHY OF EXTREME INDIVIDUALISM AND HOSTILITY
TO GOVERNMENT AND PROPERTY.  ITS AVOWED AIM WAS A MORE JUST ORDER, TO
BE ACHIEVED BY VIOLENT DESTRUCTION OF ALL GOVERNMENT.  FN3  ANARCHISM'S
SPORADIC AND UNCOORDINATED ACTS OF TERROR WERE NOT INTEGRATED WITH AN
EFFECTIVE REVOLUTIONARY MACHINE, BUT THE CHICAGO HAYMARKET RIOTS OF
1886,  FN4  ATTEMPTED MURDER OF THE INDUSTRIALIST FRICK, ATTACKS ON
STATE OFFICIALS, AND ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT MCKINLEY IN 1901, WERE
FRUITS OF ITS PREACHING. 

HOWEVER, EXTREME INDIVIDUALISM WAS NOT CONDUCIVE TO COHESIVE AND
DISCIPLINED ORGANIZATION.  ANARCHISM FELL INTO DISFAVOR AMONG
INCENDIARY RADICALS, MANY OF WHOM SHIFTED THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO THE
RISING COMMUNIST PARTY.  MEANWHILE, IN EUROPE ANARCHISM HAD BEEN
DISPLACED BY BOLSHEVISM AS THE DOCTRINE AND STRATEGY OF SOCIAL AND
POLITICAL UPHEAVAL.  LED BY INTELLECTUALS HARDENED BY REVOLUTIONARY
EXPERIENCE, IT WAS A MORE SOPHISTICATED, DYNAMIC AND REALISTIC
MOVEMENT.  ESTABLISHING A BASE IN THE SOVIET UNION, IT FOUNDED AN
AGGRESSIVE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST APPARATUS WHICH HAS MODELED AND
DIRECTED A REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT ABLE ONLY TO HARASS OUR OWN COUNTRY. 
BUT IT HAS SEIZED CONTROL OF A DOZEN OTHER COUNTRIES. 

COMMUNISM, THE ANTITHESIS OF ANARCHISM,  FN5  APPEARS TODAY AS A
CLOSED SYSTEM OF THOUGHT REPRESENTING STALIN'S VERSION OF LENIN'S
VERSION OF MARXISM.  AS AN IDEOLOGY, IT IS NOT ONE OF SPONTANEOUS
PROTEST ARISING FROM AMERICAN WORKING-CLASS EXPERIENCE.  IT IS A
COMPLICATED SYSTEM OF ASSUMPTIONS, BASED ON EUROPEAN HISTORY AND
CONDITIONS, SHROUDED IN AN OBSCURE AND AMBIGUOUS VOCABULARY, WHICH
ALLURES OUR ULTRASOPHISTICATED INTELLIGENTSIA MORE THAN OUR HARD-HEADED
WORKING PEOPLE.  FROM TIME TO TIME IT CHAMPIONS ALL MANNER OF CAUSES
AND GRIEVANCES AND MAKES ALLIANCES THAT MAY ADD TO ITS FOOTHOLD IN
GOVERNMENT OR EMBARRASS THE AUTHORITIES. 

THE COMMUNIST PARTY, NEVERTHELESS, DOES NOT SEEK ITS STRENGTH
PRIMARILY IN NUMBERS.  ITS AIM IS A RELATIVELY SMALL PARTY WHOSE
STRENGTH IS IN SELECTED, DEDICATED, INDOCTRINATED, AND RIGIDLY
DISCIPLINED MEMBERS.  FROM ESTABLISHED POLICY IT TOLERATES NO DEVIATION
AND NO DEBATE.  IT SEEKS MEMBERS THAT ARE, OR MAY BE, SECRETED IN
STRATEGIC POSTS IN TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, INDUSTRY,
GOVERNMENT, AND ESPECIALLY IN LABOR UNIONS WHERE IT CAN COMPEL
EMPLOYERS TO ACCEPT AND RETAIN ITS MEMBERS.  FN6  IT ALSO SEEKS TO
INFILTRATE AND CONTROL ORGANIZATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER GROUPS. 
THROUGH THESE PLACEMENTS IN POSITIONS OF POWER IT SEEKS A LEVERAGE OVER
SOCIETY THAT WILL MAKE UP IN POWER OF COERCION WHAT IT LACKS IN POWER
OF PERSUASION. 

THE COMMUNISTS HAVE NO SCRUPLES AGAINST SABOTAGE, TERRORISM,
ASSASSINATION, OR MOB DISORDER; BUT VIOLENCE IS NOT WITH THEM, AS WITH
THE ANARCHISTS, AN END IN ITSELF.  THE COMMUNIST PARTY ADVOCATES FORCE
ONLY WHEN PRUDENT AND PROFITABLE.  THEIR STRATEGY OF STEALTH PRECLUDES
PREMATURE OR UNCOORDINATED OUTBURSTS OF VIOLENCE, EXCEPT, OF COURSE,
WHEN THE BLAME WILL BE PLACED ON SHOULDERS OTHER THAN THEIR OWN.  THEY
RESORT TO VIOLENCE AS TO TRUTH, NOT AS A PRINCIPLE BUT AS AN
EXPEDIENT.  FORCE OR VIOLENCE, AS THEY WOULD RESORT TO IT, MAY NEVER BE
NECESSARY, BECAUSE INFILTRATION AND DECEPTION MAY BE ENOUGH. 

FORCE WOULD BE UTILIZED BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY NOT TO DESTROY
GOVERNMENT BUT FOR ITS CAPTURE.  THE COMMUNIST RECOGNIZES THAT AN
ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT IN CONTROL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE
OVERTHROWN BY FORCE UNTIL IT IS ABOUT READY TO FALL OF ITS OWN WEIGHT. 
CONCERTED UPRISING, THEREFORE, IS TO AWAIT THAT CONTINGENCY AND
REVOLUTION IS SEEN, NOT AS A SUDDEN EPISODE, BUT AS THE CONSUMMATION OF
A LONG PROCESS. 

THE UNITED STATES, FORTUNATELY, HAS EXPERIENCED COMMUNISM ONLY IN ITS
PREPARATORY STAGES AND FOR ITS PATTERN OF FINAL ACTION MUST LOOK
ABROAD.  RUSSIA, OF COURSE, WAS THE PILOT COMMUNIST REVOLUTION, WHICH
TO THE MARXIST CONFIRMS THE PARTY'S ASSUMPTIONS AND POINTS ITS
DESTINY.  FN7 BUT COMMUNIST TECHNIQUE IN THE OVERTURN OF A FREE
GOVERNMENT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE COUP D'ETAT IN WHICH THEY SEIZED POWER
IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA.  FN8  THERE THE COMMUNIST PARTY DURING ITS
PREPARATORY STAGE CLAIMED AND RECEIVED PROTECTION FOR ITS FREEDOMS OF
SPEECH, PRESS, AND ASSEMBLY.  PRETENDING TO BE BUT ANOTHER POLITICAL
PARTY, IT EVENTUALLY WAS CONCEDED PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT, WHERE IT
ENTRENCHED RELIABLE MEMBERS CHIEFLY IN CONTROL OF POLICE AND
INFORMATION SERVICES.  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FACED A FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC
CRISIS, THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAD ESTABLISHED A LEVERAGE STRONG ENOUGH TO
THREATEN CIVIL WAR.  IN A PERIOD OF CONFUSION THE COMMUNIST PLAN
UNFOLDED AND THE UNDERGROUND ORGANIZATION CAME TO THE SURFACE
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IN THE FORM CHIEFLY OF LABOR "ACTION
COMMITTEES."  COMMUNIST OFFICERS OF THE UNIONS TOOK OVER TRANSPORTATION
AND ALLOWED ONLY PERSONS WITH PARTY PERMITS TO TRAVEL.  COMMUNIST
PRINTERS TOOK OVER THE NEWSPAPERS AND RADIO AND PUT OUT ONLY PARTY
APPROVED VERSIONS OF EVENTS.  POSSESSION WAS TAKEN OF TELEGRAPH AND
TELEPHONE SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATIONS WERE CUT OFF WHEREVER DIRECTED BY
PARTY HEADS.  COMMUNIST UNIONS TOOK OVER THE FACTORIES, AND IN THE
CITIES A PARTISAN DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD WAS MANAGED BY THE COMMUNIST
ORGANIZATION.  A VIRTUALLY BLOODLESS ABDICATION BY THE ELECTED
GOVERNMENT ADMITTED THE COMMUNISTS TO POWER, WHEREUPON THEY INSTITUTED
A REIGN OF OPPRESSION AND TERROR, AND RUTHLESSLY DENIED TO ALL OTHERS
THE FREEDOMS WHICH HAD SHELTERED THEIR CONSPIRACY. 

  II. 

THE FOREGOING IS ENOUGH TO INDICATE THAT, EITHER BY ACCIDENT OR
DESIGN, THE COMMUNIST STRATAGEM OUTWITS THE ANTI-ANARCHIST PATTERN OF
STATUTE AIMED AGAINST "OVERTHROW BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE" IF QUALIFIED BY
THE DOCTRINE THAT ONLY "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" OF ACCOMPLISHING THAT
RESULT WILL SUSTAIN THE PROSECUTION. 

THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST WAS AN INNOVATION BY MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES IN THE SCHENCK CASE, FN9  REITERATED AND REFINED BY HIM AND MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN LATER CASES,  FN10  ALL ARISING BEFORE THE ERA OF
WORLD WAR II REVEALED THE SUBTLETY AND EFFICACY OF MODERNIZED
REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUES USED BY TOTALITARIAN PARTIES.  IN THOSE CASES,
THEY WERE FACED WITH CONVICTIONS UNDER SO-CALLED CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM
STATUTES AIMED AT ANARCHISTS BUT WHICH, LOOSELY CONSTRUED, HAD BEEN
APPLIED TO PUNISH SOCIALISM, PACIFISM, AND LEFT-WING IDEOLOGIES, THE
CHARGES OFTEN RESTING ON FARFETCHED INFERENCES WHICH, IF TRUE, WOULD
ESTABLISH ONLY TECHNICAL OR TRIVIAL VIOLATIONS.  THEY PROPOSED "CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER" AS A TEST FOR THE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE IN
PARTICULAR CASES. 

I WOULD SAVE IT, UNMODIFIED, FOR APPLICATION AS A "RULE OF REASON"
FN11  IN THE KIND OF CASE FOR WHICH IT WAS DEVISED.  WHEN THE ISSUE IS
CRIMINALITY OF A HOT-HEADED SPEECH ON A STREET CORNER, OR CIRCULATION
OF A FEW INCENDIARY PAMPHLETS, OR PARADING BY SOME ZEALOTS BEHIND A RED
FLAG, OR REFUSAL OF A HANDFUL OF SCHOOL CHILDREN TO SALUTE OUR FLAG, IT
IS NOT BEYOND THE CAPACITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS TO GATHER,
COMPREHEND, AND WEIGH THE NECESSARY MATERIALS FOR DECISION WHETHER IT
IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL OR A HARMLESS LETTING
OFF OF STEAM.  IT IS NOT A PROPHECY, FOR THE DANGER IN SUCH CASES HAS
MATURED BY THE TIME OF TRIAL OR IT WAS NEVER PRESENT.  THE TEST APPLIES
AND HAS MEANING WHERE A CONVICTION IS SOUGHT TO BE BASED ON A SPEECH OR
WRITING WHICH DOES NOT DIRECTLY OR EXPLICITLY ADVOCATE A CRIME BUT TO
WHICH SUCH TENDENCY IS SOUGHT TO BE ATTRIBUTED BY CONSTRUCTION OR BY
IMPLICATION FROM EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE FORMULA IN SUCH CASES
FAVORS FREEDOMS THAT ARE VITAL TO OUR SOCIETY, AND, EVEN IF SOMETIMES
APPLIED TOO GENEROUSLY, THE CONSEQUENCES CANNOT BE GRAVE.  BUT ITS
RECENT EXPANSION HAS EXTENDED, IN PARTICULAR TO COMMUNISTS,
UNPRECEDENTED IMMUNITIES.  FN12  UNLESS WE ARE TO HOLD OUR GOVERNMENT
CAPTIVE IN A JUDGEMADE VERBAL TRAP, WE MUST APPROACH THE PROBLEM OF A
WELL-ORGANIZED, NATION-WIDE CONSPIRACY, SUCH AS I HAVE DESCRIBED, AS
REALISTICALLY AS OUR PREDECESSORS FACED THE TRIVIALITIES THAT WERE
BEING PROSECUTED UNTIL THEY WERE CHECKED WITH A RULE OF REASON. 

I THINK REASON IS LACKING FOR APPLYING THAT TEST TO THIS CASE. 

IF WE MUST DECIDE THAT THIS ACT AND ITS APPLICATION ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL ONLY IF WE ARE CONVINCED THAT PETITIONER'S CONDUCT
CREATES A "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" OF VIOLENT OVERTHROW, WE MUST
APPRAISE IMPONDERABLES, INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL PHENOMENA
WHICH BAFFLE THE BEST INFORMED FOREIGN OFFICES AND OUR MOST EXPERIENCED
POLITICIANS.  WE WOULD HAVE TO FORESEE AND PREDICT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA, OPPORTUNITIES FOR INFILTRATION, WHETHER, AND
WHEN, A TIME WILL COME THAT THEY CONSIDER PROPITIOUS FOR ACTION, AND
WHETHER AND HOW FAST OUR EXISTING GOVERNMENT WILL DETERIORATE.  AND WE
WOULD HAVE TO SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER AN APPROACHING COMMUNIST COUP
WOULD NOT BE ANTICIPATED BY A NATIONALISTIC FASCIST MOVEMENT.  NO
DOCTRINE CAN BE SOUND WHOSE APPLICATION REQUIRES US TO MAKE A PROPHECY
OF THAT SORT IN THE GUISE OF A LEGAL DECISION.  THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
SIMPLY IS NOT ADEQUATE TO A TRIAL OF SUCH FAR-FLUNG ISSUES.  THE
ANSWERS GIVEN WOULD REFLECT OUR OWN POLITICAL PREDILECTIONS AND NOTHING
MORE. 

THE AUTHORS OF THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST NEVER APPLIED IT TO
A CASE LIKE THIS, NOR WOULD I.  IF APPLIED AS IT IS PROPOSED HERE, IT
MEANS THAT THE COMMUNIST PLOTTING IS PROTECTED DURING ITS PERIOD OF
INCUBATION; ITS PRELIMINARY STAGES OF ORGANIZATION AND PREPARATION ARE
IMMUNE FROM THE LAW; THE GOVERNMENT CAN MOVE ONLY AFTER IMMINENT ACTION
IS MANIFEST, WHEN IT WOULD, OF COURSE, BE TOO LATE. 

                           III. 

THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IS DUE TO THE
INDIVIDUAL ACTING WITHOUT CONSPIRACY.  BUT EVEN AN INDIVIDUAL CANNOT
CLAIM THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS HIM IN ADVOCATING OR TEACHING
OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE.  I SHOULD SUPPOSE NO ONE
WOULD DOUBT THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER TO MAKE SUCH ATTEMPTED OVERTHROW A
CRIME.  BUT THE CONTENTION IS THAT ONE HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
WORK UP A PUBLIC DESIRE AND WILL TO DO WHAT IT IS A CRIME TO ATTEMPT. 
I THINK DIRECT INCITEMENT BY SPEECH OR WRITING CAN BE MADE A CRIME, AND
I THINK THERE CAN BE A CONVICTION WITHOUT ALSO PROVING THAT THE ODDS
FAVORED ITS SUCCESS BY 99 TO 1, OR SOME OTHER EXTREMELY HIGH RATIO. 

THE NAMES OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS CANNOT BE
ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH A DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL DISABILITY.  AFTER THE
SCHENCK CASE, IN WHICH THEY SET FORTH THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
TEST, THEY JOINED IN THESE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPOKEN FOR A
UNANIMOUS COURT: 

"  ...  (THE) FIRST AMENDMENT WHILE PROHIBITING LEGISLATION AGAINST
FREE SPEECH AS SUCH CANNOT HAVE BEEN, AND OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT, INTENDED
TO GIVE IMMUNITY FOR EVERY POSSIBLE USE OF LANGUAGE.  ROBERTSON V.
BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 281.  WE VENTURE TO BELIEVE THAT NEITHER
HAMILTON NOR MADISON, NOR ANY OTHER COMPETENT PERSON THEN OR LATER,
EVER SUPPOSED THAT TO MAKE CRIMINAL THE COUNSELLING OF A MURDER WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS WOULD BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH FREE SPEECH."  FROHWERK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 204, 206. 

THE SAME DOCTRINE WAS EARLIER STATED IN FOX V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S.
273, 277, AND THAT CASE WAS RECENTLY AND WITH APPROVAL CITED IN GIBONEY
V. EMPIRE STORAGE & ICE CO., 336 U.S. 490, 502. 

AS APTLY STATED BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN MASSES PUBLISHING CO. V.
PATTEN, 244 F. 535, 540:  "ONE MAY NOT COUNSEL OR ADVISE OTHERS TO
VIOLATE THE LAW AS IT STANDS.  WORDS ARE NOT ONLY THE KEYS OF
PERSUASION, BUT THE TRIGGERS OF ACTION, AND THOSE WHICH HAVE NO PURPORT
BUT TO COUNSEL THE VIOLATION OF LAW CANNOT BY ANY LATITUDE OF
INTERPRETATION BE A PART OF THAT PUBLIC OPINION WHICH IS THE FINAL
SOURCE OF GOVERNMENT IN A DEMOCRATIC STATE." 

OF COURSE, IT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO DISTINGUISH TEACHING OR ADVOCACY
IN THE SENSE OF INCITEMENT FROM TEACHING OR ADVOCACY IN THE SENSE OF
EXPOSITION OR EXPLANATION.  IT IS A QUESTION OF FACT IN EACH CASE. 

IV. 

WHAT REALLY IS UNDER REVIEW HERE IS A CONVICTION OF CONSPIRACY, AFTER
A TRIAL FOR CONSPIRACY, ON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING CONSPIRACY, BROUGHT
UNDER A STATUTE OUTLAWING CONSPIRACY.  WITH DUE RESPECT TO MY
COLLEAGUES, THEY SEEM TO ME TO DISCUSS ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN EXCEPT
THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY.  ONE OF THE DISSENTING OPINIONS EVEN APPEARS TO
CHIDE ME FOR "INVOKING THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY."  AS THAT IS THE CASE
BEFORE US, IT MAY BE MORE AMAZING THAT ITS REVERSAL CAN BE PROPOSED
WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY. 

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MAKE CONSPIRACY A CIVIL RIGHT.  THE COURT
HAS NEVER BEFORE DONE SO AND I THINK IT SHOULD NOT DO SO NOW. 
CONSPIRACIES OF LABOR UNIONS, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, AND NEWS AGENCIES
HAVE BEEN CONDEMNED, ALTHOUGH ACCOMPLISHED, EVIDENCED AND CARRIED OUT,
LIKE THE CONSPIRACY HERE, CHIEFLY BY LETTER-WRITING, MEETINGS, SPEECHES
AND ORGANIZATION.  INDEED, THIS COURT SEEMS, PARTICULARLY IN CASES
WHERE THE CONSPIRACY HAS ECONOMIC ENDS, TO BE APPLYING ITS DOCTRINES
WITH INCREASING SEVERITY.  WHILE I CONSIDER CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY A
DRAGNET DEVICE CAPABLE OF PERVERSION INTO AN INSTRUMENT OF INJUSTICE IN
THE HANDS OF A PARTISAN OR COMPLACENT JUDICIARY, IT HAS AN ESTABLISHED
PLACE IN OUR SYSTEM OF LAW, AND NO REASON APPEARS FOR APPLYING IT ONLY
TO CONCERTED ACTION CLAIMED TO DISTURB INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
WITHHOLDING IT FROM THOSE CLAIMED TO UNDERMINE OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT. 
FN13 

THE BASIC RATIONALE OF THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY IS THAT A CONSPIRACY MAY
BE AN EVIL IN ITSELF, INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY OTHER EVIL IT SEEKS TO
ACCOMPLISH.  THUS, WE RECENTLY HELD IN PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328
U.S. 640, 643-644, "IT HAS BEEN LONG AND CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED BY THE
COURT THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE AND A CONSPIRACY
TO COMMIT IT ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT OFFENSES.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS
TO SEPARATE THE TWO AND TO AFFIX TO EACH A DIFFERENT PENALTY IS WELL
ESTABLISHED.  ...  AND THE PLEA OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS NO DEFENSE TO A
CONVICTION FOR BOTH OFFENSES.  ...  " 

SO FAR DOES THIS DOCTRINE REACH THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT CONGRESS
MAY MAKE IT A CRIME TO CONSPIRE WITH OTHERS TO DO WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL
MAY LAWFULLY DO ON HIS OWN.  THIS PRINCIPLE IS ILLUSTRATED IN
CONSPIRACIES THAT VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS AS SUSTAINED AND APPLIED
BY THIS COURT.  ALTHOUGH ONE MAY RAISE THE PRICES OF HIS OWN PRODUCTS,
AND MANY, ACTING WITHOUT CONCERT, MAY DO SO, THE MOMENT THEY CONSPIRE
TO THAT END THEY ARE PUNISHABLE.  THE SAME PRINCIPLE IS APPLIED TO
ORGANIZED LABOR.  ANY WORKMAN MAY QUIT HIS WORK FOR ANY REASON, BUT
CONCERTED ACTIONS TO THE SAME END ARE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES FORBIDDEN. 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, 61 STAT. 136, SEC. 8(B), 29
U.S.C. SEC. 158(B). 

THE REASONS UNDERLYING THE DOCTRINE THAT CONSPIRACY MAY BE A
SUBSTANTIVE EVIL IN ITSELF, APART FROM ANY EVIL IT MAY THREATEN,
ATTEMPT, OR ACCOMPLISH, ARE PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE TO CONSPIRATORIAL
COMMUNISM. 

"THE REASON FOR FINDING CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CASE OF A COMBINATION
TO EFFECT AN UNLAWFUL END OR TO USE UNLAWFUL MEANS, WHERE NONE WOULD
EXIST, EVEN THOUGH THE ACT CONTEMPLATED WERE ACTUALLY COMMITTED BY AN
INDIVIDUAL, IS THAT A COMBINATION OF PERSONS TO COMMIT A WRONG, EITHER
AS AN END OR AS A MEANS TO AN END, IS SO MUCH MORE DANGEROUS, BECAUSE
OF ITS INCREASED POWER TO DO WRONG, BECAUSE IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO
GUARD AGAINST AND PREVENT THE EVIL DESIGNS OF A GROUP OF PERSONS THAN
OF A SINGLE PERSON, AND BECAUSE OF THE TERROR WHICH FEAR OF SUCH A
COMBINATION TENDS TO CREATE IN THE MINDS OF PEOPLE."  FN14 

THERE IS LAMENTATION IN THE DISSENTS ABOUT THE INJUSTICE OF
CONVICTION IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME OVERT ACT.  OF COURSE, THERE HAS BEEN
NO GENERAL UPRISING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, BUT THE RECORD IS REPLETE
WITH ACTS TO CARRY OUT THE CONSPIRACY ALLEGED, ACTS SUCH AS ALWAYS ARE
HELD SUFFICIENT TO CONSUMMATE THE CRIME WHERE THE STATUTE REQUIRES AN
OVERT ACT. 

BUT THE SHORTER ANSWER IS THAT NO OVERT ACT IS OR NEED BE REQUIRED. 
THE COURT, IN ANTITRUST CASES, EARLY UPHELD THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
ADOPT THE ANCIENT COMMON LAW THAT MAKES CONSPIRACY ITSELF A CRIME. 
THROUGH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, IT SAID:  "COMING NEXT TO THE OBJECTION
THAT NO OVERT ACT IS LAID, THE ANSWER IS THAT THE SHERMAN ACT PUNISHES
THE CONSPIRACIES AT WHICH IT IS AIMED ON THE COMMON LAW FOOTING - THAT
IS TO SAY, IT DOES NOT MAKE THE DOING OF ANY ACT OTHER THAN THE ACT OF
CONSPIRING A CONDITION OF LIABILITY."  NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S.
373, 378.  REITERATED, UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S.
150, 252.  IT IS NOT TO BE SUPPOSED THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
PROTECT THE NATION'S EXISTENCE IS MORE LIMITED THAN ITS POWER TO
PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

ALSO, IT IS URGED THAT SINCE THE CONVICTION IS FOR CONSPIRACY TO
TEACH AND ADVOCATE, AND TO ORGANIZE THE COMMUNIST PARTY TO TEACH AND
ADVOCATE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS VIOLATED, BECAUSE FREEDOMS OF SPEECH
AND PRESS PROTECT TEACHING AND ADVOCACY REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS TAUGHT OR
ADVOCATED.  I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT THAT TO BE THE LAW. 

I DO NOT SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS COULD PUNISH CONSPIRACY TO ADVOCATE
SOMETHING, THE DOING OF WHICH IT MAY NOT PUNISH.  ADVOCACY OR
EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COMMUNAL PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, OR ANY
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY UNASSOCIATED WITH ADVOCACY OF ITS IMPOSITION BY
FORCE OR SEIZURE OF GOVERNMENT BY UNLAWFUL MEANS COULD NOT BE REACHED
THROUGH CONSPIRACY PROSECUTION.  BUT IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN TO PUT DOWN
FORCE OR VIOLENCE, IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN TO PUNISH ITS TEACHING OR
ADVOCACY, AND THE END BEING PUNISHABLE, THERE IS NO DOUBT OF THE POWER
TO PUNISH CONSPIRACY FOR THE PURPOSE. 

THE DEFENSE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR PRESS HAS OFTEN BEEN RAISED IN
CONSPIRACY CASES, BECAUSE, WHETHER COMMITTED BY COMMUNISTS, BY
BUSINESSMEN, OR BY COMMON CRIMINALS, IT USUALLY CONSISTS OF WORDS
WRITTEN OR SPOKEN, EVIDENCED BY LETTERS, CONVERSATIONS, SPEECHES OR
DOCUMENTS.  COMMUNICATION IS THE ESSENCE OF EVERY CONSPIRACY, FOR ONLY
BY IT CAN COMMON PURPOSE AND CONCERT OF ACTION BE BROUGHT ABOUT OR BE
PROVED.  HOWEVER, WHEN LABOR UNIONS RAISED THE DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH
AGAINST A CONSPIRACY CHARGE, WE UNANIMOUSLY SAID: 

"IT RARELY HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM FOR
SPEECH AND PRESS EXTENDS ITS IMMUNITY TO SPEECH OR WRITING USED AS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF A VALID CRIMINAL STATUTE.  WE
REJECT THE CONTENTION NOW.  ... 

.         .         .         .         . 

"  ...  IT IS TRUE THAT THE AGREEMENTS AND COURSE OF CONDUCT HERE
WERE AS IN MOST INSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT THROUGH SPEAKING OR WRITING. 
BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN DEEMED AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR
PRESS TO MAKE A COURSE OF CONDUCT ILLEGAL MERELY BECAUSE THE CONDUCT
WAS IN PART INITIATED, EVIDENCED, OR CARRIED OUT BY MEANS OF LANGUAGE,
EITHER SPOKEN, WRITTEN, OR PRINTED.  ...  SUCH AN EXPANSIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF SPEECH AND PRESS
WOULD MAKE IT PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE EVER TO ENFORCE LAWS AGAINST
AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AS WELL AS MANY OTHER AGREEMENTS AND
CONSPIRACIES DEEMED INJURIOUS TO SOCIETY."  GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE &
ICE CO., 336 U.S. 490, 498, 502. 

A CONTENTION BY THE PRESS ITSELF, IN A CONSPIRACY CASE, THAT IT WAS
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST, WAS
CURTLY REBUFFED BY THIS COURT, SAYING:  "NOR IS A PUBLISHER WHO ENGAGES
IN BUSINESS PRACTICES MADE UNLAWFUL BY THE SHERMAN ACT ENTITLED TO A
PARTIAL IMMUNITY BY REASON OF THE 'CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER' DOCTRINE
...  FORMULATED AS IT WAS TO PROTECT LIBERTY OF THOUGHT AND OF
EXPRESSION, IT WOULD DEGRADE THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER DOCTRINE TO
FASHION FROM IT A SHIELD FOR BUSINESS PUBLISHERS WHO ENGAGE IN BUSINESS
PRACTICES CONDEMNED BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  ...  "  ASSOCIATED PRESS V.
UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 7.  I SHOULD THINK IT AT LEAST AS
"DEGRADING" TO FASHION OF IT A SHIELD FOR CONSPIRATORS WHOSE ULTIMATE
PURPOSE IS TO CAPTURE OR OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT. 

IN CONSPIRACY CASES THE COURT NOT ONLY HAS DISPENSED WITH PROOF OF
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER BUT EVEN OF POWER TO CREATE A DANGER:  "IT
LONG HAS BEEN SETTLED, HOWEVER, THAT A 'CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS
A DIFFERENT OFFENSE FROM THE CRIME THAT IS THE OBJECT OF THE
CONSPIRACY.'  ... PETITIONERS, FOR EXAMPLE, MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED
HERE OF A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE WITHOUT EVER HAVING ACQUIRED THE
POWER TO CARRY OUT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY  ...  "  AMERICAN
TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 789. 

HAVING HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY ALONE IS A CRIME AND ITS CONSUMMATION
IS ANOTHER, IT WOULD BE WEIRD LEGAL REASONING TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS
COULD PUNISH THE ONE ONLY IF THERE WAS "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" OF
THE SECOND.  THIS WOULD COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE TWO CRIMES IN
ORDER TO CONVICT FOR ONE.    WHEN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WERE
WRITTEN, THE CHIEF FORCES RECOGNIZED AS ANTAGONISTS IN THE STRUGGLE
BETWEEN AUTHORITY AND LIBERTY WERE THE GOVERNMENT ON THE ONE HAND AND
THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN ON THE OTHER.  IT WAS THOUGHT THAT IF THE STATE
COULD BE KEPT IN ITS PLACE THE INDIVIDUAL COULD TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF. 

IN MORE RECENT TIMES THESE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLICATED BY THE
INTERVENTION BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE CITIZEN OF PERMANENTLY
ORGANIZED, WELL-FINANCED, SEMISECRET AND HIGHLY DISCIPLINED POLITICAL
ORGANIZATIONS.  TOTALITARIAN GROUPS HERE AND ABROAD PERFECTED THE
TECHNIQUE OF CREATING PRIVATE PARAMILITARY ORGANIZATIONS TO COERCE BOTH
THE PUBLIC GOVERNMENT AND ITS CITIZENS.  THESE ORGANIZATIONS ASSERT AS
AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES
OF INDIVIDUALS AND AT THE SAME TIME EXERCISE OVER THEIR FOLLOWERS MUCH
OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH THEY DENY TO THE GOVERNMENT.  THE COMMUNIST
PARTY REALISTICALLY IS A STATE WITHIN A STATE, AN AUTHORITARIAN
DICTATORSHIP WITHIN A REPUBLIC.  IT DEMANDS THESE FREEDOMS, NOT FOR ITS
MEMBERS, BUT FOR THE ORGANIZED PARTY.  IT DENIES TO ITS OWN MEMBERS AT
THE SAME TIME THE FREEDOM TO DISSENT, TO DEBATE, TO DEVIATE FROM THE
PARTY LINE, AND ENFORCES ITS AUTHORITARIAN RULE BY CRUDE PURGES, IF
NOTHING MORE VIOLENT. 

THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY HAS BEEN THE CHIEF MEANS AT THE GOVERNMENT'S
DISPOSAL TO DEAL WITH THE GROWING PROBLEMS CREATED BY SUCH
ORGANIZATIONS.  I HAPPEN TO THINK IT IS AN AWKWARD AND INEPT REMEDY,
BUT I FIND NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR TAKING THIS WEAPON FROM THE
GOVERNMENT.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO "GANG UP" ON THE
GOVERNMENT. 

WHILE I THINK THERE WAS POWER IN CONGRESS TO ENACT THIS STATUTE AND
THAT, AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, IT CANNOT BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
FN15  I ADD THAT I HAVE LITTLE FAITH IN THE LONG-RANGE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THIS CONVICTION TO STOP THE RISE OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.  COMMUNISM
WILL NOT GO TO JAIL WITH THESE COMMUNISTS.  NO DECISION BY THIS COURT
CAN FORESTALL REVOLUTION WHENEVER THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT FAILS TO
COMMAND THE RESPECT AND LOYALTY OF THE PEOPLE AND SUFFICIENT DISTRESS
AND DISCONTENT IS ALLOWED TO GROW UP AMONG THE MASSES.  MANY FAILURES
BY FALLEN GOVERNMENTS ATTEST THAT NO GOVERNMENT CAN LONG PREVENT
REVOLUTION BY OUTLAWRY.  FN16  CORRUPTION, INEPTITUDE, INFLATION,
OPPRESSIVE TAXATION, MILITARIZATION, INJUSTICE, AND LOSS OF LEADERSHIP
CAPABLE OF INTELLECTUAL INITIATIVE IN DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN AFFAIRS ARE
ALLIES ON WHICH THE COMMUNISTS COUNT TO BRING OPPORTUNITY KNOCKING TO
THEIR DOOR.  SOMETIMES I THINK THEY MAY BE MISTAKEN.  BUT THE
COMMUNISTS ARE NOT BUILDING JUST FOR TODAY - THE REST OF US MIGHT
PROFIT BY THEIR EXAMPLE. 

FN1  THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN SUMMARY OF ITS CHARGE IS:  "THE INDICTMENT
CHARGED THAT FROM APRIL 1, 1945, TO THE DATE OF THE INDICTMENT
PETITIONERS UNLAWFULLY, WILFULLY, AND KNOWINGLY CONSPIRED WITH EACH
OTHER AND WITH OTHER PERSONS UNKNOWN TO THE GRAND JURY (1) TO ORGANIZE
AS THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A SOCIETY, GROUP
AND ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS WHO TEACH AND ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW AND
DESTRUCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE, AND (2) KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY TO ADVOCATE AND TEACH THE DUTY
AND NECESSITY OF OVERTHROWING AND DESTROYING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT
CONSPIRACY TO TAKE SUCH ACTION IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 OF THE ACT
(18 U.S.C. 10, 11(1946 ED.))." 

FN2  THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THIS ACT BEFORE US WAS MODELED AFTER THE NEW
YORK ACT OF 1909, SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT IN GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268
U.S. 652.  THAT, IN TURN, AS THE COURT POINTED OUT, FOLLOWED AN EARLIER
NEW YORK ACT OF 1902.  SHORTLY AFTER THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
MCKINLEY BY AN ANARCHIST, CONGRESS ADOPTED THE SAME CONCEPTS IN THE
IMMIGRATION ACT OF MARCH 3, 1903.  32 STAT. 1213, SEC. 2.  SOME GERMS
OF THE SAME CONCEPT CAN BE FOUND IN SOME RECONSTRUCTION LEGISLATION,
SUCH AS THE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1871, 17 STAT. 13.  THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF
1917, 40 STAT. 217, TIT. 1, SEC. 3, WHICH GAVE RISE TO A SERIES OF
CIVIL-RIGHTS DECISIONS, APPLIED ONLY DURING WAR AND DEFINED AS CRIMINAL
"FALSE STATEMENTS WITH INTENT" TO INTERFERE WITH OUR WAR EFFORT OR
CAUSE INSUBORDINATION IN THE ARMED FORCES OR OBSTRUCT RECRUITING. 
HOWEVER, A WAVE OF "CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM STATUTES" WERE ENACTED BY THE
STATES.  THEY WERE GENERALLY UPHELD, WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S.
357, AND PROSECUTIONS UNDER THEM WERE ACTIVE FROM 1919 TO 1924.  IN
CALIFORNIA ALONE, 531 INDICTMENTS WERE RETURNED AND 164 PERSONS
CONVICTED.  4 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 582, 583.  THE SMITH ACT FOLLOWED
CLOSELY THE TERMINOLOGY DESIGNED TO INCRIMINATE THE METHODS OF
TERRORISTIC ANARCHISM. 

FN3  ELEMENTARY TEXTS AMPLIFY THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THESE
MOVEMENTS WHICH MUST BE GREATLY OVERSIMPLIFIED IN THIS OPINION.  SEE
ANARCHISM, 2 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 46; NIHILISM, 11 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI.
377. 

FN4  SPIES V. ILLINOIS, 122 ILL. 1, 12 N.E. 865, 17 N.E. 898. 

FN5  PROF. BEARD DEMONSTRATES THIS ANTITHESIS BY QUOTING THE RUSSIAN
ANARCHIST LEADER BAKUNIN, AS FOLLOWS: 

"'MARX IS AN AUTHORITARIAN AND CENTRALIZING COMMUNIST.  HE WISHES
WHAT WE WISH:  THE COMPLETE TRIUMPH OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EQUALITY,
HOWEVER, WITHIN THE STATE AND THROUGH THE POWER OF THE STATE, THROUGH
THE DICTATORSHIP OF A VERY STRONG AND, SO TO SPEAK, DESPOTIC
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, THAT IS, BY THE NEGATION OF LIBERTY.  HIS
ECONOMIC IDEAL IS THE STATE AS THE SOLE OWNER OF LAND AND CAPITAL,
TILLING THE SOIL BY MEANS OF AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS, UNDER THE
MANAGEMENT OF ITS ENGINEERS, AND DIRECTING THROUGH THE AGENCY OF
CAPITAL ALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ASSOCIATIONS. 

"'WE DEMAND THE SAME TRIUMPH OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EQUALITY THROUGH
THE ABOLITION OF THE STATE AND EVERYTHING CALLED JURIDICAL RIGHT, WHICH
IS ACCORDING TO OUR VIEW THE PERMANENT NEGATION OF HUMAN RIGHT.  WE
WISH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF SOCIETY AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITY
OF MANKIND NOT FROM ABOVE DOWNWARD THROUGH AUTHORITY, THROUGH
SOCIALISTIC OFFICIALS, ENGINEERS AND PUBLIC TECHNICIANS, BUT FROM BELOW
UPWARD THROUGH THE VOLUNTARY FEDERATION OF LABOR ASSOCIATIONS OF ALL
KINDS EMANCIPATED ENTIRELY FROM THE YOKE OF THE STATE.'"  BEARD,
INDIVIDUALISM AND CAPITALISM, 1 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 145, 158. 

FN6  FOR METHODS AND OBJECTS OF INFILTRATION OF LABOR UNIONS, SEE
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 422. 

FN7  THE CZAR'S GOVERNMENT, IN FEBRUARY 1917, LITERALLY GAVE UP,
ALMOST WITHOUT VIOLENCE, TO THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE IT WAS
READY TO FALL APART FROM ITS CORRUPTION, INEPTITUDE, SUPERSTITION,
OPPRESSION AND DEFEAT.  THE REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH
THIS AND REGARDED IT AS A BOURGEOISIE TRIUMPH.  LENIN WAS AN EXILE IN
SWITZERLAND, TROTSKY IN THE UNITED STATES, AND STALIN WAS IN SIBERIA. 
THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO CONTINUE THE WAR AGAINST
GERMANY, BUT IT, TOO, WAS UNABLE TO SOLVE INTERNAL PROBLEMS AND ITS
GALICIAN CAMPAIGN FAILED WITH HEAVY LOSSES.  BY OCTOBER, ITS PRESTIGE
AND INFLUENCE SANK SO LOW THAT IT COULD NOT CONTINUE.  MEANWHILE, LENIN
AND TROTSKY HAD RETURNED AND CONSOLIDATED THE BOLSHEVIK POSITION AROUND
THE SOVIETS, OR TRADE UNIONS.  THEY SIMPLY TOOK OVER POWER IN AN ALMOST
BLOODLESS REVOLUTION BETWEEN OCTOBER 25 AND NOVEMBER 7, 1917.  THAT
LENIN AND TROTSKY REPRESENTED ONLY A MINORITY WAS DEMONSTRATED IN
NOVEMBER ELECTIONS, IN WHICH THE BOLSHEVIKS SECURED LESS THAN A QUARTER
OF THE SEATS.  THEN BEGAN THE SERIES OF OPPORTUNISTIC MOVEMENTS TO
ENTRENCH THEMSELVES IN POWER.  FACED BY INVASION OF THE ALLIES, BY
COUNTERREVOLUTION, AND THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF LENIN, TERRORISM
WAS RESORTED TO ON A LARGE SCALE AND ALL THE DEVICES OF THE CZAR'S
POLICE STATE WERE REESTABLISHED.  SEE 1 CARR, THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
1917-1923, 99-110, AND MOORE, SOVIET POLITICS - THE DILEMMA OF POWER,
117-139. 

FN8  DUCHACEK, THE STRATEGY OF COMMUNIST INFILTRATION:
CZECHOSLOVAKIA, 1944-1948, WORLD POLITICS, VOL. II, NO. 3(APRIL 1950),
345-372; AND THE FEBRUARY COUP IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA, ID., JULY 1950, 511
532; SEE ALSO KERTESZ, THE METHODS OF COMMUNIST CONQUEST: HUNGARY, 1944
1947, ID., OCTOBER 1950, 20-54; LASSWELL, THE STRATEGY OF SOVIET
PROPAGANDA, 24 ACAD.  POL.  SCI. PROC. 214, 221.  SEE ALSO FRIEDMAN,
THE BREAK-UP OF CZECH DEMOCRACY. 

FN9  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47.  THIS DOCTRINE HAS BEEN
ATTACKED AS ONE WHICH "ANNULS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  IT DESTROYS THE INTELLECTUAL BASIS OF OUR PLAN OF SELF
GOVERNMENT."  MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF
GOVERNMENT, 29.  IT HAS BEEN PRAISED:  "THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH RECEIVED FOR THE FIRST TIME AN AUTHORITATIVE JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION IN ACCORD WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION."  CHAFEE, FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES, 82.  IN
EITHER EVENT, IT IS THE ONLY ORIGINAL JUDICIAL THOUGHT ON THE SUBJECT,
ALL LATER CASES HAVING MADE ONLY EXTENSIONS OF ITS APPLICATION.  ALL
AGREE THAT IT MEANS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, BUT NO TWO SEEM TO AGREE
ON WHAT IT IS.  SEE CONCURRING OPINION, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, KOVACS
V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77, 89. 

FN10  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274
U.S. 357.  HOLMES' COMMENT ON THE FORMER, IN HIS LETTERS TO SIR
FREDERICK POLLOCK OF JUNE 2 AND 18, 1925, AS "A CASE IN WHICH
CONSCIENCE AND JUDGMENT ARE A LITTLE IN DOUBT," AND DESCRIPTION OF HIS
DISSENT AS ONE "IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHTS OF AN ANARCHIST (SO-CALLED) TO
TALK DROOL IN FAVOR OF THE PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP" SHOW THE TENTATIVE
NATURE OF HIS TEST, EVEN AS APPLIED TO A TRIVIAL CASE.  HOLMES-POLLOCK
LETTERS (HOWE ED. 1946). 

FN11  SO CHARACTERIZED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN SCHAEFER V. UNITED
STATES, 251 U.S. 466, 482. 

FN12  RECENT CASES HAVE PUSHED THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER"
DOCTRINE TO GREATER EXTREMES.  WHILE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SAID ONLY
THAT THE EVIL TO BE FEARED MUST BE "IMMINENT" AND "RELATIVELY SERIOUS,"
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 376 AND 377, MORE RECENTLY IT WAS
REQUIRED "THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL MUST BE EXTREMELY SERIOUS AND THE
DEGREE OF IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH BEFORE UTTERANCES CAN BE PUNISHED." 
BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 263. 

SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, OVERRULED EARLIER
HOLDINGS THAT THE COURTS COULD TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THE COMMUNIST
PARTY DOES ADVOCATE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE. 
THIS COURT REVIEWED MUCH OF THE BASIC COMMUNIST LITERATURE THAT IS
BEFORE US NOW, AND HELD THAT IT WAS WITHIN "THE AREA OF ALLOWABLE
THOUGHT," ID., AT 139, THAT IT DOES NOT SHOW LACK OF ATTACHMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, AND THAT SUCCESS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY WOULD NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN THE END OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.  THE COURT
DECLARED FURTHER THAT "A TENABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE FOREGOING IS THAT
THE PARTY IN 1927 DESIRED TO ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSE BY PEACEFUL AND
DEMOCRATIC MEANS, AND AS A THEORETICAL MATTER JUSTIFIED THE USE OF
FORCE AND VIOLENCE ONLY AS A METHOD OF PREVENTING AN ATTEMPTED FORCIBLE
COUNTER-OVERTHROW ONCE THE PARTY HAD OBTAINED CONTROL IN A PEACEFUL
MANNER, OR AS A METHOD OF LAST RESORT TO ENFORCE THE MAJORITY WILL IF
AT SOME INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME BECAUSE OF PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES
CONSTITUTIONAL OR PEACEFUL CHANNELS WERE NO LONGER OPEN."  ID., AT
157.  MOREOVER, THE COURT CONSIDERED THAT THIS "MERE DOCTRINAL
JUSTIFICATION OR PREDICTION OF THE USE OF FORCE UNDER HYPOTHETICAL
CONDITIONS AT SOME INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME - PREDICTION THAT IS NOT
CALCULATED OR INTENDED TO BE PRESENTLY ACTED UPON,  ...  " IBID., WAS
WITHIN THE REALM OF FREE SPEECH.  A DISSENT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE,
FOR HIMSELF AND JUSTICES ROBERTS AND FRANKFURTER, CHALLENGED THESE
NAIVE CONCLUSIONS, AS THEY DID AGAIN IN BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135,
IN WHICH THE COURT AGAIN SET ASIDE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPORTATION
ORDER.  HERE MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITHOUT WHOM THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
A MAJORITY FOR THE DECISION, SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF IN A CONCURRING
OPINION, PRONOUNCED THE WHOLE DEPORTATION STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS
APPLIED TO COMMUNISTS, UNDER THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST,"
BECAUSE, "NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED TO SHOW THAT EITHER
BRIDGES OR THE COMMUNIST PARTY SERIOUSLY AND IMMINENTLY THREATENS TO
UPROOT THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE."  326 U.S. AT 165. 

FN13  THESE DANGERS WERE MORE FULLY SET OUT IN KRULEWITCH V. UNITED
STATES, 336 U.S. 440, 445. 

FN14  MILLER ON CRIMINAL LAW, 110.  SIMILAR REASONS HAVE BEEN
REITERATED BY THIS COURT.  UNITED STATES V. RABINOWICH, 238 U.S. 78,
88; PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, 643-644. 

FN15  THE DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT SO FAR IN THIS CASE OF ALL
THE DOUBTS AND CONFUSIONS AFFORDED BY ATTEMPTS TO APPLY THE "CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER" DOCTRINE.  WHILE I THINK IT HAS NO PROPER APPLICATION
TO THE CASE, THESE EFFORTS HAVE BEEN IN RESPONSE TO THEIR OWN
CONTENTIONS AND FAVORED RATHER THAN PREJUDICED THEM.  THERE IS NO CALL
FOR REVERSAL ON ACCOUNT OF IT. 

FN16  THE PATHETICALLY INEFFECTIVE EFFORTS OF FREE EUROPEAN STATES TO
OVERCOME FEEBLENESS OF THE EXECUTIVE AND DECOMPOSITION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT BY LEGAL PROSCRIPTIONS ARE REVIEWED
IN LOEWENSTEIN, LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OF POLITICAL EXTREMISM IN EUROPEAN
DEMOCRACIES, 38 COL. L. REV. 591, 725(1938).  THE NAZI PARTY SEIZURE OF
POWER IN GERMANY OCCURRED WHILE BOTH IT AND ITS COMMUNIST COUNTERPART
WERE UNDER SENTENCE OF ILLEGALITY FROM THE COURTS OF THE WEIMAR
REPUBLIC.  THE GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE STRUCK DIRECTLY AT THE DISCIPLINARY
SYSTEM OF TOTALITARIAN PARTIES.  IT PROVIDED:    "THE PARTICIPATION IN
AN ORGANIZATION THE EXISTENCE, CONSTITUTION, OR PURPOSES OF WHICH ARE
TO BE KEPT SECRET FROM THE GOVERNMENT, OR IN WHICH OBEDIENCE TO UNKNOWN
SUPERIORS OR UNCONDITIONAL OBEDIENCE TO KNOWN SUPERIORS IS PLEDGED, IS
PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT UP TO SIX MONTHS FOR THE MEMBERS AND FROM
ONE MONTH TO ONE YEAR FOR THE FOUNDERS AND OFFICERS.  PUBLIC OFFICIALS
MAY BE DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE FOR A PERIOD OF FROM
ONE TO FIVE YEARS."  2 NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION (GPO 1946) 11. 
THE CZAR'S GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA FELL WHILE THE COMMUNIST LEADERS WERE
IN EXILE.  SEE N. 7.  INSTANCES OF SIMILAR FAILURES COULD BE MULTIPLIED
INDEFINITELY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

HERE AGAIN, AS IN BREARD V. ALEXANDRIA, POST, P. 622, DECIDED THIS
DAY, MY BASIC DISAGREEMENT WITH THE COURT IS NOT AS TO HOW WE SHOULD
EXPLAIN OR RECONCILE WHAT WAS SAID IN PRIOR DECISIONS BUT SPRINGS FROM
A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT
WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE TO STATE MY POSITION AT LENGTH. 

AT THE OUTSET I WANT TO EMPHASIZE WHAT THE CRIME INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE IS, AND WHAT IT IS NOT.  THESE PETITIONERS WERE NOT CHARGED WITH
AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY WERE NOT CHARGED WITH
OVERT ACTS OF ANY KIND DESIGNED TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY WERE
NOT EVEN CHARGED WITH SAYING ANYTHING OR WRITING ANYTHING DESIGNED TO
OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.  THE CHARGE WAS THAT THEY AGREED TO ASSEMBLE
AND TO TALK AND PUBLISH CERTAIN IDEAS AT A LATER DATE:  THE INDICTMENT
IS THAT THEY CONSPIRED TO ORGANIZE THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND TO USE
SPEECH OR NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS IN THE FUTURE TO TEACH AND
ADVOCATE THE FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT.  NO MATTER HOW IT IS
WORDED, THIS IS A VIRULENT FORM OF PRIOR CENSORSHIP OF SPEECH AND
PRESS, WHICH I BELIEVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT FORBIDS.  I WOULD HOLD SEC.
3 OF THE SMITH ACT AUTHORIZING THIS PRIOR RESTRAINT UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON
ITS FACE AND AS APPLIED. 

BUT LET US ASSUME, CONTRARY TO ALL CONSTITUTIONAL IDEAS OF FAIR
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THAT PETITIONERS ALTHOUGH NOT INDICTED FOR THE
CRIME OF ACTUAL ADVOCACY, MAY BE PUNISHED FOR IT.  EVEN ON THIS RADICAL
ASSUMPTION, THE OTHER OPINIONS IN THIS CASE SHOW THAT THE ONLY WAY TO
AFFIRM THESE CONVICTIONS IS TO REPUDIATE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THE
ESTABLISHED "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" RULE.  THIS THE COURT DOES IN A
WAY WHICH GREATLY RESTRICTS THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  THE OPINIONS FOR AFFIRMANCE INDICATE THAT THE CHIEF REASON
FOR JETTISONING THE RULE IS THE EXPRESSED FEAR THAT ADVOCACY OF
COMMUNIST DOCTRINE ENDANGERS THE SAFETY OF THE REPUBLIC.  UNDOUBTEDLY,
A GOVERNMENTAL POLICY OF UNFETTERED COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS DOES ENTAIL
DANGERS.  TO THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION, HOWEVER, THE BENEFITS DERIVED
FROM FREE EXPRESSION WERE WORTH THE RISK.  THEY EMBODIED THIS
PHILOSOPHY IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S COMMAND THAT "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE
NO LAW  ...  ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS  ...  "
I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS THE KEYSTONE OF OUR
GOVERNMENT, THAT THE FREEDOMS IT GUARANTEES PROVIDE THE BEST INSURANCE
AGAINST DESTRUCTION OF ALL FREEDOM.  AT LEAST AS TO SPEECH IN THE REALM
OF PUBLIC MATTERS, I BELIEVE THAT THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST
DOES NOT "MARK THE FURTHERMOST CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF PROTECTED
EXPRESSION" BUT DOES "NO MORE THAN RECOGNIZE A MINIMUM COMPULSION OF
THE BILL OF RIGHTS."  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 263. 

SO LONG AS THIS COURT EXERCISES THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
LEGISLATION, I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PERMITS US TO
SUSTAIN LAWS SUPPRESSING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS ON THE BASIS OF
CONGRESS' OR OUR OWN NOTIONS OF MERE "REASONABLENESS."  SUCH A DOCTRINE
WATERS DOWN THE FIRST AMENDMENT SO THAT IT AMOUNTS TO LITTLE MORE THAN
AN ADMONITION TO CONGRESS.  THE AMENDMENT AS SO CONSTRUED IS NOT LIKELY
TO PROTECT ANY BUT THOSE "SAFE" OR ORTHODOX VIEWS WHICH RARELY NEED ITS
PROTECTION.  I MUST ALSO EXPRESS MY OBJECTION TO THE HOLDING BECAUSE,
AS MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' DISSENT SHOWS, IT SANCTIONS THE DETERMINATION
OF A CRUCIAL ISSUE OF FACT BY THE JUDGE RATHER THAN BY THE JURY.  NOR
CAN I LET THIS OPPORTUNITY PASS WITHOUT EXPRESSING MY OBJECTION TO THE
SEVERELY LIMITED GRANT OF CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE WHICH PRECLUDED
CONSIDERATION HERE OF AT LEAST TWO OTHER REASONS FOR REVERSING THESE
CONVICTIONS:  (1) THE RECORD SHOWS A DISCRIMINATORY SELECTION OF THE
JURY PANEL WHICH PREVENTED TRIAL BEFORE A REPRESENTATIVE CROSS-SECTION
OF THE COMMUNITY; (2) THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ONE MEMBER OF THE TRIAL
JURY WAS VIOLENTLY HOSTILE TO PETITIONERS BEFORE AND DURING THE TRIAL. 

PUBLIC OPINION BEING WHAT IT NOW IS, FEW WILL PROTEST THE CONVICTION
OF THESE COMMUNIST PETITIONERS.  THERE IS HOPE, HOWEVER, THAT IN CALMER
TIMES, WHEN PRESENT PRESSURES, PASSIONS AND FEARS SUBSIDE, THIS OR SOME
LATER COURT WILL RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT LIBERTIES TO THE HIGH
PREFERRED PLACE WHERE THEY BELONG IN A FREE SOCIETY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

IF THIS WERE A CASE WHERE THOSE WHO CLAIMED PROTECTION UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT WERE TEACHING THE TECHNIQUES OF SABOTAGE, THE
ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT, THE FILCHING OF DOCUMENTS FROM PUBLIC
FILES, THE PLANTING OF BOMBS, THE ART OF STREET WARFARE, AND THE LIKE,
I WOULD HAVE NO DOUBTS.  THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK IS NOT ABSOLUTE; THE
TEACHING OF METHODS OF TERROR AND OTHER SEDITIOUS CONDUCT SHOULD BE
BEYOND THE PALE ALONG WITH OBSCENITY AND IMMORALITY.  THIS CASE WAS
ARGUED AS IF THOSE WERE THE FACTS.  THE ARGUMENT IMPORTED MUCH
SEDITIOUS CONDUCT INTO THE RECORD.  THAT IS EASY AND IT HAS POPULAR
APPEAL, FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF COMMUNISTS IN PLOTTING AND SCHEMING
AGAINST THE FREE WORLD ARE COMMON KNOWLEDGE.  BUT THE FACT IS THAT NO
SUCH EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL.  THERE IS A STATUTE WHICH
MAKES A SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY UNLAWFUL.  FN1  PETITIONERS, HOWEVER, WERE
NOT CHARGED WITH A "CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW" THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY WERE
CHARGED WITH A CONSPIRACY TO FORM A PARTY AND GROUPS AND ASSEMBLIES OF
PEOPLE WHO TEACH AND ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW OF OUR GOVERNMENT BY FORCE
OR VIOLENCE AND WITH A CONSPIRACY TO ADVOCATE AND TEACH ITS OVERTHROW
BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  FN2  IT MAY WELL BE THAT INDOCTRINATION IN THE
TECHNIQUES OF TERROR TO DESTROY THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE INDICTABLE
UNDER EITHER STATUTE.  BUT THE TEACHING WHICH IS CONDEMNED HERE IS OF A
DIFFERENT CHARACTER. 

SO FAR AS THE PRESENT RECORD IS CONCERNED, WHAT PETITIONERS DID WAS
TO ORGANIZE PEOPLE TO TEACH AND THEMSELVES TEACH THE MARXIST-LENINIST
DOCTRINE CONTAINED CHIEFLY IN FOUR BOOKS:  FN3  STALIN, FOUNDATIONS OF
LENINISM (1924); MARX AND ENGELS, MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
(1848); LENIN, THE STATE AND REVOLUTION (1917); HISTORY OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION (B.)(1939). 

THOSE BOOKS ARE TO SOVIET COMMUNISM WHAT MEIN KAMPF WAS TO NAZISM. 
IF THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD, THE UGLINESS OF COMMUNISM IS REVEALED, ITS
DECEIT AND CUNNING ARE EXPOSED, THE NATURE OF ITS ACTIVITIES BECOMES
APPARENT, AND THE CHANCES OF ITS SUCCESS LESS LIKELY.  THAT IS NOT, OF
COURSE, THE REASON WHY PETITIONERS CHOSE THESE BOOKS FOR THEIR
CLASSROOMS.  THEY ARE FERVENT COMMUNISTS TO WHOM THESE VOLUMES ARE
GOSPEL.  THEY PREACHED THE CREED WITH THE HOPE THAT SOME DAY IT WOULD
BE ACTED UPON. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT DOES NOT OUTLAW THESE TEXTS NOR CONDEMN THEM
TO THE FIRE, AS THE COMMUNISTS DO LITERATURE OFFENSIVE TO THEIR CREED. 
BUT IF THE BOOKS THEMSELVES ARE NOT OUTLAWED, IF THEY CAN LAWFULLY
REMAIN ON LIBRARY SHELVES, BY WHAT REASONING DOES THEIR USE IN A
CLASSROOM BECOME A CRIME?  IT WOULD NOT BE A CRIME UNDER THE ACT TO
INTRODUCE THESE BOOKS TO A CLASS, THOUGH THAT WOULD BE TEACHING WHAT
THE CREED OF VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT IS.  THE ACT, AS
CONSTRUED, REQUIRES THE ELEMENT OF INTENT - THAT THOSE WHO TEACH THE
CREED BELIEVE IN IT.  THE CRIME THEN DEPENDS NOT ON WHAT IS TAUGHT BUT
ON WHO THE TEACHER IS.  THAT IS TO MAKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH TURN NOT ON
WHAT IS SAID, BUT ON THE INTENT WITH WHICH IT IS SAID.  ONCE WE START
DOWN THAT ROAD WE ENTER TERRITORY DANGEROUS TO THE LIBERTIES OF EVERY
CITIZEN. 

THERE WAS A TIME IN ENGLAND WHEN THE CONCEPT OF CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON
FLOURISHED.  MEN WERE PUNISHED NOT FOR RAISING A HAND AGAINST THE KING
BUT FOR THINKING MURDEROUS THOUGHTS ABOUT HIM.  THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION WERE ALIVE TO THAT ABUSE AND TOOK STEPS TO SEE THAT THE
PRACTICE WOULD NOT FLOURISH HERE.  TREASON WAS DEFINED TO REQUIRE OVERT
ACTS - THE EVOLUTION OF A PLOT AGAINST THE COUNTRY INTO AN ACTUAL
PROJECT.  THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT ONE OF TREASON.  BUT THE ANALOGY IS
CLOSE WHEN THE ILLEGALITY IS MADE TO TURN ON INTENT, NOT ON THE NATURE
OF THE ACT.  WE THEN START PROBING MEN'S MINDS FOR MOTIVE AND PURPOSE;
THEY BECOME ENTANGLED IN THE LAW NOT FOR WHAT THEY DID BUT FOR WHAT
THEY THOUGHT; THEY GET CONVICTED NOT FOR WHAT THEY SAID BUT FOR THE
PURPOSE WITH WHICH THEY SAID IT. 

INTENT, OF COURSE, OFTEN MAKES THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW.  AN ACT
OTHERWISE EXCUSABLE OR CARRYING MINOR PENALTIES MAY GROW TO AN
ABHORRENT THING IF THE EVIL INTENT IS PRESENT.  WE DEAL HERE, HOWEVER,
NOT WITH ORDINARY ACTS BUT WITH SPEECH, TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS
GIVEN A SPECIAL SANCTION. 

THE VICE OF TREATING SPEECH AS THE EQUIVALENT OF OVERT ACTS OF A
TREASONABLE OR SEDITIOUS CHARACTER IS EMPHASIZED BY A CONCURRING
OPINION, WHICH BY INVOKING THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY MAKES SPEECH DO
SERVICE FOR DEEDS WHICH ARE DANGEROUS TO SOCIETY.  THE DOCTRINE OF
CONSPIRACY HAS SERVED DIVERS AND OPPRESSIVE PURPOSES AND IN ITS BROAD
REACH CAN BE MADE TO DO GREAT EVIL.  BUT NEVER UNTIL TODAY HAS ANYONE
SERIOUSLY THOUGHT THAT THE ANCIENT LAW OF CONSPIRACY COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE USED TO TURN SPEECH INTO SEDITIOUS CONDUCT.  YET
THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IS SUGGESTED.  I REPEAT THAT WE DEAL HERE WITH
SPEECH ALONE, NOT WITH SPEECH PLUS ACTS OF SABOTAGE OR UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT.  NOT A SINGLE SEDITIOUS ACT IS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  TO
MAKE A LAWFUL SPEECH UNLAWFUL BECAUSE TWO MEN CONCEIVE IT IS TO RAISE
THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY TO APPALLING PROPORTIONS.  THAT COURSE IS TO MAKE
A RADICAL BREAK WITH THE PAST AND TO VIOLATE ONE OF THE CARDINAL
PRINCIPLES OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME. 

FREE SPEECH HAS OCCUPIED AN EXALTED POSITION BECAUSE OF THE HIGH
SERVICE IT HAS GIVEN OUR SOCIETY.  ITS PROTECTION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
VERY EXISTENCE OF A DEMOCRACY.  THE AIRING OF IDEAS RELEASES PRESSURES
WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT BECOME DESTRUCTIVE.  WHEN IDEAS COMPETE IN THE
MARKET FOR ACCEPTANCE, FULL AND FREE DISCUSSION EXPOSES THE FALSE AND
THEY GAIN FEW ADHERENTS.  FULL AND FREE DISCUSSION EVEN OF IDEAS WE
HATE ENCOURAGES THE TESTING OF OUR OWN PREJUDICES AND PRECONCEPTIONS. 
FULL AND FREE DISCUSSION KEEPS A SOCIETY FROM BECOMING STAGNANT AND
UNPREPARED FOR THE STRESSES AND STRAINS THAT WORK TO TEAR ALL
CIVILIZATIONS APART. 

FULL AND FREE DISCUSSION HAS INDEED BEEN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF OUR
FAITH.  WE HAVE FOUNDED OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM ON IT.  IT HAS BEEN THE
SAFEGUARD OF EVERY RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, ECONOMIC, AND
RACIAL GROUP AMONGST US.  WE HAVE COUNTED ON IT TO KEEP US FROM
EMBRACING WHAT IS CHEAP AND FALSE; WE HAVE TRUSTED THE COMMON SENSE OF
OUR PEOPLE TO CHOOSE THE DOCTRINE TRUE TO OUR GENIUS AND TO REJECT THE
REST.  THIS HAS BEEN THE ONE SINGLE OUTSTANDING TENET THAT HAS MADE OUR
INSTITUTIONS THE SYMBOL OF FREEDOM AND EQUALITY.  WE HAVE DEEMED IT
MORE COSTLY TO LIBERTY TO SUPPRESS A DESPISED MINORITY THAN TO LET THEM
VENT THEIR SPLEEN.  WE HAVE ABOVE ALL ELSE FEARED THE POLITICAL
CENSOR.  WE HAVE WANTED A LAND WHERE OUR PEOPLE CAN BE EXPOSED TO ALL
THE DIVERSE CREEDS AND CULTURES OF THE WORLD. 

THERE COMES A TIME WHEN EVEN SPEECH LOSES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY.  SPEECH INNOCUOUS ONE YEAR MAY AT ANOTHER TIME FAN SUCH
DESTRUCTIVE FLAMES THAT IT MUST BE HALTED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE
SAFETY OF THE REPUBLIC.  THAT IS THE MEANING OF THE CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER TEST.  WHEN CONDITIONS ARE SO CRITICAL THAT THERE WILL BE NO
TIME TO AVOID THE EVIL THAT THE SPEECH THREATENS, IT IS TIME TO CALL A
HALT.  OTHERWISE, FREE SPEECH WHICH IS THE STRENGTH OF THE NATION WILL
BE THE CAUSE OF ITS DESTRUCTION. 

YET FREE SPEECH IS THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION.  THE RESTRAINT TO BE
CONSTITUTIONAL MUST BE BASED ON MORE THAN FEAR, ON MORE THAN PASSIONATE
OPPOSITION AGAINST THE SPEECH, ON MORE THAN A REVOLTED DISLIKE FOR ITS
CONTENTS.  THERE MUST BE SOME IMMEDIATE INJURY TO SOCIETY THAT IS
LIKELY IF SPEECH IS ALLOWED.  THE CLASSIC STATEMENT OF THESE CONDITIONS
WAS MADE BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN HIS CONCURRING OPINION IN WHITNEY
V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 376-377, 

"FEAR OF SERIOUS INJURY CANNOT ALONE JUSTIFY SUPPRESSION OF FREE
SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.  MEN FEARED WITCHES AND BURNT WOMEN.  IT IS THE
FUNCTION OF SPEECH TO FREE MEN FROM THE BONDAGE OF IRRATIONAL FEARS. 
TO JUSTIFY SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH THERE MUST BE REASONABLE GROUND
TO FEAR THAT SERIOUS EVIL WILL RESULT IF FREE SPEECH IS PRACTICED. 
THERE MUST BE REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT THE DANGER APPREHENDED
IS IMMINENT.  THERE MUST BE REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT THE EVIL
TO BE PREVENTED IS A SERIOUS ONE.  EVERY DENUNCIATION OF EXISTING LAW
TENDS IN SOME MEASURE TO INCREASE THE PROBABILITY THAT THERE WILL BE
VIOLATION OF IT.  CONDONATION OF A BREACH ENHANCES THE PROBABILITY. 
EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAL ADD TO THE PROBABILITY.  PROPAGATION OF THE
CRIMINAL STATE OF MIND BY TEACHING SYNDICALISM INCREASES IT.  ADVOCACY
OF LAW-BREAKING HEIGHTENS IT STILL FURTHER.  BUT EVEN ADVOCACY OF
VIOLATION, HOWEVER REPREHENSIBLE MORALLY, IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR
DENYING FREE SPEECH WHERE THE ADVOCACY FALLS SHORT OF INCITEMENT AND
THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE ADVOCACY WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY
ACTED ON.  THE WIDE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCACY AND INCITEMENT, BETWEEN
PREPARATION AND ATTEMPT, BETWEEN ASSEMBLING AND CONSPIRACY, MUST BE
BORNE IN MIND.  IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER IT MUST BE SHOWN EITHER THAT IMMEDIATE SERIOUS VIOLENCE WAS TO
BE EXPECTED OR WAS ADVOCATED, OR THAT THE PAST CONDUCT FURNISHED REASON
TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH ADVOCACY WAS THEN CONTEMPLATED.    "THOSE WHO WON
OUR INDEPENDENCE BY REVOLUTION WERE NOT COWARDS.  THEY DID NOT FEAR
POLITICAL CHANGE.  THEY DID NOT EXALT ORDER AT THE COST OF LIBERTY.  TO
COURAGEOUS, SELF-RELIANT MEN, WITH CONFIDENCE IN THE POWER OF FREE AND
FEARLESS REASONING APPLIED THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF POPULAR GOVERNMENT,
NO DANGER FLOWING FROM SPEECH CAN BE DEEMED CLEAR AND PRESENT, UNLESS
THE INCIDENCE OF THE EVIL APPREHENDED IS SO IMMINENT THAT IT MAY BEFALL
BEFORE THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR FULL DISCUSSION.  IF THERE BE TIME TO
EXPOSE THROUGH DISCUSSION THE FALSEHOOD AND FALLACIES, TO AVERT THE
EVIL BY THE PROCESSES OF EDUCATION, THE REMEDY TO BE APPLIED IS MORE
SPEECH, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE." 

I HAD ASSUMED THAT THE QUESTION OF THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER,
BEING SO CRITICAL AN ISSUE IN THE CASE, WOULD BE A MATTER FOR
SUBMISSION TO THE JURY.  IT WAS SQUARELY HELD IN PIERCE V. UNITED
STATES, 252 U.S. 239, 244, TO BE A JURY QUESTION.  MR. JUSTICE PITNEY,
SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, SAID, "WHETHER THE STATEMENT CONTAINED IN THE
PAMPHLET HAD A NATURAL TENDENCY TO PRODUCE THE FORBIDDEN CONSEQUENCES,
AS ALLEGED, WAS A QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED NOT UPON DEMURRER BUT BY
THE JURY AT THE TRIAL."  THAT IS THE ONLY TIME THE COURT HAS PASSED ON
THE ISSUE.  NONE OF OUR OTHER DECISIONS IS CONTRARY.  NOTHING SAID IN
ANY OF THE NONJURY CASES HAS DETRACTED FROM THAT RULING.  FN4  THE
STATEMENT IN PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, STATES THE LAW AS IT HAS
BEEN AND AS IT SHOULD BE.  THE COURT, I THINK, ERRS WHEN IT TREATS THE
QUESTION AS ONE OF LAW. 

YET, WHETHER THE QUESTION IS ONE FOR THE COURT OR THE JURY, THERE
SHOULD BE EVIDENCE OF RECORD ON THE ISSUE.  THIS RECORD, HOWEVER,
CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER SHOWING THAT THE ACTS CHARGED, VIZ.,
THE TEACHING OF THE SOVIET THEORY OF REVOLUTION WITH THE HOPE THAT IT
WILL BE REALIZED, HAVE CREATED ANY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE
NATION.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, RULES TO THE CONTRARY.  IT SAYS, "THE
FORMATION BY PETITIONERS OF SUCH A HIGHLY ORGANIZED CONSPIRACY, WITH
RIGIDLY DISCIPLINED MEMBERS SUBJECT TO CALL WHEN THE LEADERS, THESE
PETITIONERS, FELT THAT THE TIME HAD COME FOR ACTION, COUPLED WITH THE
INFLAMMABLE NATURE OF WORLD CONDITIONS, SIMILAR UPRISINGS IN OTHER
COUNTRIES, AND THE TOUCH-AND-GO NATURE OF OUR RELATIONS WITH COUNTRIES
WITH WHOM PETITIONERS WERE IN THE VERY LEAST IDEOLOGICALLY ATTUNED,
CONVINCE US THAT THEIR CONVICTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED ON THIS SCORE." 

THAT RULING IS IN MY VIEW NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE ISSUE IN THE CASE. 
WE MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT THE SPEECH OF PETITIONERS IS OUTLAWED BECAUSE
SOVIET RUSSIA AND HER RED ARMY ARE A THREAT TO WORLD PEACE. 

THE NATURE OF COMMUNISM AS A FORCE ON THE WORLD SCENE WOULD, OF
COURSE, BE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF
PETITIONERS' ADVOCACY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  BUT THE PRIMARY
CONSIDERATION IS THE STRENGTH AND TACTICAL POSITION OF PETITIONERS AND
THEIR CONVERTS IN THIS COUNTRY.  ON THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD.  IF WE ARE TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE THREAT OF COMMUNISTS
WITHIN THE NATION, IT SHOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT TO CONCLUDE THAT AS A
POLITICAL PARTY THEY ARE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE.  COMMUNISTS IN THIS
COUNTRY HAVE NEVER MADE A RESPECTABLE OR SERIOUS SHOWING IN ANY
ELECTION.  I WOULD DOUBT THAT THERE IS A VILLAGE, LET ALONE A CITY OR
COUNTY OR STATE, WHICH THE COMMUNISTS COULD CARRY.  COMMUNISM IN THE
WORLD SCENE IS NO BOGEYMAN; BUT COMMUNISM AS A POLITICAL FACTION OR
PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY PLAINLY IS.  COMMUNISM HAS BEEN SO THOROUGHLY
EXPOSED IN THIS COUNTRY THAT IT HAS BEEN CRIPPLED AS A POLITICAL
FORCE.  FREE SPEECH HAS DESTROYED IT AS AN EFFECTIVE POLITICAL PARTY. 
IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THOSE WHO WENT UP AND DOWN THIS COUNTRY
PREACHING THE DOCTRINE OF REVOLUTION WHICH PETITIONERS ESPOUSE WOULD
HAVE ANY SUCCESS.  IN DAYS OF TROUBLE AND CONFUSION, WHEN BREAD LINES
WERE LONG, WHEN THE UNEMPLOYED WALKED THE STREETS, WHEN PEOPLE WERE
STARVING, THE ADVOCATES OF A SHORT-CUT BY REVOLUTION MIGHT HAVE A
CHANCE TO GAIN ADHERENTS.  BUT TODAY THERE ARE NO SUCH CONDITIONS.  THE
COUNTRY IS NOT IN DESPAIR; THE PEOPLE KNOW SOVIET COMMUNISM; THE
DOCTRINE OF SOVIET REVOLUTION IS EXPOSED IN ALL OF ITS UGLINESS AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT NONE OF IT. 

HOW IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THIS
ADVOCACY WILL SUCCEED IS, THEREFORE, A MYSTERY.  SOME NATIONS LESS
RESILIENT THAN THE UNITED STATES, WHERE ILLITERACY IS HIGH AND WHERE
DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS ARE ONLY BUDDING, MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE DRASTIC
STEPS AND JAIL THESE MEN FOR MERELY SPEAKING THEIR CREED.  BUT IN
AMERICA THEY ARE MISERABLE MERCHANTS OF UNWANTED IDEAS; THEIR WARES
REMAIN UNSOLD.  THE FACT THAT THEIR IDEAS ARE ABHORRENT DOES NOT MAKE
THEM POWERFUL. 

THE POLITICAL IMPOTENCE OF THE COMMUNISTS IN THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT,
OF COURSE, DISPOSE OF THE PROBLEM.  THEIR NUMBERS; THEIR POSITIONS IN
INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT; THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY HAVE IN FACT
INFILTRATED THE POLICE, THE ARMED SERVICES, TRANSPORTATION,
STEVEDORING, POWER PLANTS, MUNITIONS WORKS, AND OTHER CRITICAL PLACES -
THESE FACTS ALL BEAR ON THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEIR ADVOCACY OF THE
SOVIET THEORY OF REVOLUTION WILL ENDANGER THE REPUBLIC.  BUT THE RECORD
IS SILENT ON THESE FACTS.  IF WE ARE TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF
JUDICIAL NOTICE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SAY THAT THE COMMUNISTS IN
THIS COUNTRY ARE SO POTENT OR SO STRATEGICALLY DEPLOYED THAT THEY MUST
BE SUPPRESSED FOR THEIR SPEECH.  I COULD NOT SO HOLD UNLESS I WERE
WILLING TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ACTIVITIES IN RECENT YEARS OF COMMITTEES
OF CONGRESS, OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OF LABOR UNIONS, OF STATE
LEGISLATURES, AND OF LOYALTY BOARDS WERE SO FUTILE AS TO LEAVE THE
COUNTRY ON THE EDGE OF GRAVE PERIL.  TO BELIEVE THAT PETITIONERS AND
THEIR FOLLOWING ARE PLACED IN SUCH CRITICAL POSITIONS AS TO ENDANGER
THE NATION IS TO BELIEVE THE INCREDIBLE.  IT IS SAFE TO SAY THAT THE
FOLLOWERS OF THE CREED OF SOVIET COMMUNISM ARE KNOWN TO THE F.B.I.;
THAT IN CASE OF WAR WITH RUSSIA THEY WILL BE PICKED UP OVERNIGHT AS
WERE ALL PROSPECTIVE SABOTEURS AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORLD WAR II;
THAT THE INVISIBLE ARMY OF PETITIONERS IS THE BEST KNOWN, THE MOST
BESET, AND THE LEAST THRIVING OF ANY FIFTH COLUMN IN HISTORY.  ONLY
THOSE HELD BY FEAR AND PANIC COULD THINK OTHERWISE. 

THIS IS MY VIEW IF WE ARE TO ACT ON THE BASIS OF JUDICIAL NOTICE. 
BUT THE MERE STATEMENT OF THE OPPOSING VIEWS INDICATES HOW IMPORTANT IT
IS THAT WE KNOW THE FACTS BEFORE WE ACT.  NEITHER PREJUDICE NOR HATE
NOR SENSELESS FEAR SHOULD BE THE BASIS OF THIS SOLEMN ACT.  FREE SPEECH
- THE GLORY OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT - SHOULD NOT BE SACRIFICED ON
ANYTHING LESS THAN PLAIN AND OBJECTIVE PROOF OF DANGER THAT THE EVIL
ADVOCATED IS IMMINENT.  ON THIS RECORD NO ONE CAN SAY THAT PETITIONERS
AND THEIR CONVERTS ARE IN SUCH A STRATEGIC POSITION AS TO HAVE EVEN THE
SLIGHTEST CHANCE OF ACHIEVING THEIR AIMS. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH."  THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES NO
EXCEPTION.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT THE NATION NEED HOLD ITS
HAND UNTIL IT IS IN SUCH WEAKENED CONDITION THAT THERE IS NO TIME TO
PROTECT ITSELF FROM INCITEMENT TO REVOLUTION.  SEDITIOUS CONDUCT CAN
ALWAYS BE PUNISHED.  BUT THE COMMAND OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS SO CLEAR
THAT WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW CONGRESS TO CALL A HALT TO FREE SPEECH EXCEPT
IN THE EXTREME CASE OF PERIL FROM THE SPEECH ITSELF.  THE FIRST
AMENDMENT MAKES CONFIDENCE IN THE COMMON SENSE OF OUR PEOPLE AND IN
THEIR MATURITY OF JUDGMENT THE GREAT POSTULATE OF OUR DEMOCRACY.  ITS
PHILOSOPHY IS THAT VIOLENCE IS RARELY, IF EVER, STOPPED BY DENYING
CIVIL LIBERTIES TO THOSE ADVOCATING RESORT TO FORCE.  THE FIRST
AMENDMENT REFLECTS THE PHILOSOPHY OF JEFFERSON "THAT IT IS TIME ENOUGH
FOR THE RIGHTFUL PURPOSES OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT, FOR ITS OFFICERS TO
INTERFERE WHEN PRINCIPLES BREAK OUT INTO OVERT ACTS AGAINST PEACE AND
GOOD ORDER."  FN5  THE POLITICAL CENSOR HAS NO PLACE IN OUR PUBLIC
DEBATES.  UNLESS AND UNTIL EXTREME AND NECESSITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES ARE
SHOWN, OUR AIM SHOULD BE TO KEEP SPEECH UNFETTERED AND TO ALLOW THE
PROCESSES OF LAW TO BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE PROVOCATEURS AMONG US MOVE
FROM SPEECH TO ACTION. 

VISHINSKY WROTE IN 1938 IN THE LAW OF THE SOVIET STATE, "IN OUR
STATE, NATURALLY, THERE IS AND CAN BE NO PLACE FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
PRESS, AND SO ON FOR THE FOES OF SOCIALISM." 

OUR CONCERN SHOULD BE THAT WE ACCEPT NO SUCH STANDARD FOR THE UNITED
STATES.  OUR FAITH SHOULD BE THAT OUR PEOPLE WILL NEVER GIVE SUPPORT TO
THESE ADVOCATES OF REVOLUTION, SO LONG AS WE REMAIN LOYAL TO THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. SEC. 2384 PROVIDES:  "IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS IN ANY
STATE OR TERRITORY, OR IN ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, CONSPIRE TO OVERTHROW, PUT DOWN, OR TO DESTROY BY FORCE
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO LEVY WAR AGAINST THEM, OR TO
OPPOSE BY FORCE THE AUTHORITY THEREOF, OR BY FORCE TO PREVENT, HINDER,
OR DELAY THE EXECUTION OF ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, OR BY FORCE TO
SEIZE, TAKE, OR POSSESS ANY PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES CONTRARY TO
THE AUTHORITY THEREOF, THEY SHALL EACH BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN SIX YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN2 54 STAT. 671, 18 U.S.C. SECS. 10, 11. 

FN3  OTHER BOOKS TAUGHT WERE STALIN, PROBLEMS OF LENINISM, STRATEGY
AND TACTICS OF WORLD COMMUNISM (H.R. DOC. NO. 619, 80TH CONG., 2D
SESS.), AND PROGRAM OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL. 

FN4  THE CASES WHICH REACHED THE COURT ARE ANALYZED IN THE APPENDIX
ATTACHED TO THIS OPINION, POST, P. 591. 

FN5  12 HENING'S STAT. (VIRGINIA 1823), C. 34, P. 84.  WHIPPLE, OUR
ANCIENT LIBERTIES (1927), P. 95, STATES:  "THIS IDEA THAT THE LIMIT ON
FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR PRESS SHOULD BE SET ONLY BY AN ACTUAL OVERT ACT
WAS NOT NEW.  IT HAD BEEN ASSERTED BY A LONG LINE OF DISTINGUISHED
THINKERS INCLUDING JOHN LOCKE, MONTESQUIEU IN HIS THE SPIRIT OF THE
LAWS ('WORDS DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OVERT ACT'), THE REV. PHILLIP
FURNEAUX, JAMES MADISON, AND THOMAS JEFFERSON." 

             APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. 

THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS FIRST AMENDMENT CASES BEFORE THE COURT
RAISING THE ISSUE OF CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER SINCE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES
FIRST FORMULATED THE TEST IN SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47,
52.  MOST OF THEM, HOWEVER, HAVE NOT INVOLVED JURY TRIALS. 

THE CASES WHICH MAY BE DEEMED AT ALL RELEVANT TO OUR PROBLEM CAN BE
CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

CONVICTIONS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT (NON-JURY):  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283
U.S. 697; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323
U.S. 516; PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331; CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S.
367. 

CONVICTIONS BY STATE COURTS SITTING WITHOUT JURIES, GENERALLY FOR
VIOLATIONS OF LOCAL ORDINANCES:  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444;
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S.
296; MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S. 501; TUCKER V. TEXAS, 326 U.S. 517;
WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507; SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558;
KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77; KUNZ V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 290; FEINER
V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 315. 

INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF STATE OR LOCAL LAWS (NON-JURY):
GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S.
496; MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586; WEST
VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS (NON-JURY):  BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S.
135; SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118; AMERICAN
COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382. 

CASES TRIED BEFORE JURIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAWS DIRECTED
AGAINST ADVOCACY OF ANARCHY, CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM, ETC.:  GILBERT V.
MINNESOTA, 254 U.S. 325; GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652; WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357; FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380; STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353; HERNDON V.
LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242; TAYLOR V. MISSISSIPPI, 319 U.S. 583; OR FOR MINOR
LOCAL OFFENSES:  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568; TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1; NIEMOTKO
V. MARYLAND, 340 U.S. 268. 

FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS BEFORE JURIES UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917
FOLLOWING WORLD WAR I: SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47; FROHWERK
V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 204; DEBS V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 211;
ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616; SCHAEFER V. UNITED STATES, 251
U.S. 466; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S. 239.  PIERCE V. UNITED
STATES RULED THAT THE QUESTION OF CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER WAS FOR THE
JURY.  IN THE OTHER CASES IN THIS GROUP THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ISSUE
WAS FOR THE COURT OR THE JURY WAS NOT RAISED OR PASSED UPON. 

FEDERAL PROSECUTION BEFORE A JURY UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917
FOLLOWING WORLD WAR II: HARTZEL V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 680.  THE
JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ON CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER IN TERMS DRAWN FROM THE
LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P.
52.  THE COURT REVERSED THE CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE HAD NOT
BEEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY. 
..END :


















TIMKEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 593 


NO. 352.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 1951.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.  - 83 F.SUPP. 
284, MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


IN A CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST APPELLANT, A
DOMESTIC CORPORATION, TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT APPELLANT HAD COMBINED AND CONSPIRED WITH A
BRITISH CORPORATION AND A FRENCH CORPORATION, IN EACH OF WHICH IT HAD A
FINANCIAL INTEREST, TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND THAT UNDER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THEM THE CORPORATIONS HAD ALLOCATED
TRADE TERRITORIES AMONG THEMSELVES; FIXED PRICES ON PRODUCTS OF ONE
SOLD IN THE TERRITORY OF THE OTHERS; COOPERATED TO PROTECT EACH OTHER'S
MARKETS AND TO ELIMINATE OUTSIDE COMPETITION; AND PARTICIPATED IN
CARTELS TO RESTRICT IMPORTS TO, AND EXPORTS FROM, THE UNITED STATES. 
THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT APPELLANT HAD VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT AS
CHARGED, AND ENTERED A COMPREHENSIVE DECREE DESIGNED TO BAR FUTURE
VIOLATIONS.  HELD: 

1.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S MATERIAL FINDINGS OF FACT ARE NOT "CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS," AND ARE ACCEPTED HERE.  FED. RULES CIV. PROC., 52(A).  PP.
596-597. 

2.  THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIES WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 52(A) RELATIVE TO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW.  P. 597, N. 7. 

3.  AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LEGALLY SEPARATE PERSONS AND COMPANIES TO
SUPPRESS COMPETITION AMONG THEMSELVES CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY
CHARACTERIZING THE PROJECT AS A "JOINT VENTURE."  PP. 597-598. 

(A)  AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR AN AGGREGATION OF TRADE RESTRAINTS SUCH
AS THOSE EXISTING IN THIS CASE ARE PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, WHETHER OR
NOT INCIDENTAL TO A "JOINT VENTURE."  P. 598. 

(B)  COMMON OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF THE CONTRACTING CORPORATIONS DOES
NOT LIBERATE THEM FROM THE IMPACT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  P. 598. 

4.  NOR CAN THE RESTRAINTS BE JUSTIFIED AS REASONABLE STEPS TAKEN TO
IMPLEMENT A VALID TRADEMARK LICENSING SYSTEM, SINCE THE TRADEMARK
PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS WERE SECONDARY TO THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF
ALLOCATING TRADE TERRITORY, AND SINCE THE AGREEMENTS PROVIDED FOR
CONTROL OF THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS WHETHER
CARRYING THE TRADEMARK OR NOT.  PP. 598-599. 

(A)  A TRADEMARK CANNOT LAWFULLY BE USED AS A DEVICE FOR VIOLATING
THE SHERMAN ACT, AND ITS USE THEREFOR IS PENALIZED BY THE TRADE MARK
ACT OF 1946.  P. 599. 

5.  THE SUGGESTION THAT WHAT APPELLANT HAS DONE IS REASONABLE IN VIEW
OF CURRENT FOREIGN TRADE CONDITIONS, AND THAT THEREFORE THE SHERMAN ACT
SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED IN THIS CASE, IS REJECTED.  P. 599. 

6.  THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ENJOINED CONTINUATION
OR REPETITION OF THE CONDUCT WHICH IT FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL.  P. 600. 

7.  THE RELIEF WHICH A DISTRICT COURT MAY GRANT IN A SHERMAN ACT CASE
NEED NOT BE CONFINED TO THE NARROW LIMITS OF THE PROVEN VIOLATION.  P.
600. 

8.  THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED APPELLANT TO DIVEST
ITSELF OF ITS STOCKHOLDINGS AND ALL OTHER FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN THE
BRITISH AND FRENCH CORPORATIONS, AND THE DECREE IS MODIFIED SO AS TO
ELIMINATE PROVISIONS DIRECTED TO THAT END.  PP. 600-601. 

TIMKEN ROLLER BEARING CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

IN A CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST APPELLANT, TO
RESTRAIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND THAT APPELLANT HAD VIOLATED THE ACT AND A DECREE OF INJUNCTION
WAS ENTERED.  83 F.SUPP.  284.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, THE
DECREE IS MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED, P. 601. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS CIVIL ACTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT  FN1  BY APPELLANT, TIMKEN ROLLER BEARING
CO., AN OHIO CORPORATION.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT APPELLANT, IN
VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 3 OF THE ACT,  FN2  COMBINED, CONSPIRED AND
ACTED WITH BRITISH TIMKEN, LTD. (BRITISH TIMKEN), AND SOCIETE ANONYME
FRANCAISE TIMKEN (FRENCH TIMKEN) TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE BY ELIMINATING COMPETITION IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF
ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS IN THE MARKETS OF THE WORLD.  AFTER A TRIAL OF
MORE THAN A MONTH THE DISTRICT COURT MADE DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT
WHICH MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

AS EARLY AS 1909 APPELLANT AND BRITISH TIMKEN'S PREDECESSOR HAD MADE
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR A TERRITORIAL DIVISION OF THE
WORLD MARKETS FOR ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.  THESE ARRANGEMENTS WERE
SOMEWHAT MODIFIED AND EXTENDED IN 1920, 1924 AND 1925.  AGAIN IN 1927
THE AGREEMENTS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY RENEWED IN CONNECTION WITH A
TRANSACTION BY WHICH APPELLANT AND ONE DEWAR, AN ENGLISH BUSINESSMAN,
COOPERATED IN PURCHASING ALL THE STOCK OF BRITISH TIMKEN.  LATER SOME
BRITISH TIMKEN STOCK WAS SOLD TO THE PUBLIC WITH THE RESULT THAT
APPELLANT NOW HOLDS ABOUT 30% OF THE OUTSTANDING SHARES WHILE DEWAR
OWNS ABOUT 24%.  FN3  IN 1928 APPELLANT AND DEWAR ORGANIZED FRENCH
TIMKEN AND SINCE THAT DATE HAVE TOGETHER OWNED ALL THE STOCK IN THE
FRENCH COMPANY.  BEGINNING IN THAT YEAR, APPELLANT, BRITISH TIMKEN AND
FRENCH TIMKEN HAVE CONTINUOUSLY KEPT OPERATIVE "BUSINESS AGREEMENTS"
REGULATING THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS BY THE
THREE COMPANIES AND PROVIDING FOR THE USE BY THE BRITISH AND FRENCH
CORPORATIONS OF THE TRADEMARK "TIMKEN."  FN4  UNDER THESE AGREEMENTS
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES HAVE (1) ALLOCATED TRADE TERRITORIES AMONG
THEMSELVES; (2) FIXED PRICES ON PRODUCTS OF ONE SOLD IN THE TERRITORY
OF THE OTHERS; (3) COOPERATED TO PROTECT EACH OTHER'S MARKETS AND TO
ELIMINATE OUTSIDE COMPETITION; AND (4) PARTICIPATED IN CARTELS TO
RESTRICT IMPORTS TO, AND EXPORTS FROM, THE UNITED STATES. 

ON THESE FINDINGS, THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT APPELLANT HAD
VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT AS CHARGED, AND ENTERED A COMPREHENSIVE DECREE
DESIGNED TO BAR FUTURE VIOLATIONS.  83 F.SUPP.  284.  THE CASE IS
BEFORE US ON APPELLANT'S DIRECT APPEAL UNDER 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29. 

ALTHOUGH APPELLANT HAS INDISCRIMINATELY CHALLENGED THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OVER 200 SEPARATE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR,
THE REAL GROUNDS RELIED ON FOR REVERSAL ARE ONLY A FEW IN NUMBER.  FN5
IN THE FIRST PLACE, APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT MOST OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S MATERIAL FINDINGS OF FACT ARE WITHOUT EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT, THAT
THEY "IGNORE OR FAIL PROPERLY TO EVALUATE" EVIDENCE SUPPORTING
APPELLANT'S POSITION, AND THAT IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT TO REFUSE TO
MAKE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS.  FOR THE MOST PART, THIS SHOTGUN APPROACH IS
ACTUALLY ONLY A DISPUTE AS TO THE PROPER INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM
THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; FN6  IN EFFECT, IT IS AN INVITATION FOR US
TO TRY THE CASE DE NOVO.  THIS COURT MUST DECLINE SUCH AN INVITATION
JUST AS IT DOES WHEN THE GOVERNMENT MAKES THE SAME REQUEST.  UNITED
STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 338 U.S. 338.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIAL
JUDGE AFTER A PATIENT HEARING CAREFULLY ANALYZED THE EVIDENCE IN AN
OPINION PREPARED WITH OBVIOUS CARE.  FN7  APPELLANT'S LENGTHY BRIEF HAS
FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN MAKING ANY CRUCIAL, OR EVEN
IMPORTANT, ULTIMATE OR SUBSIDIARY FINDING.  SINCE WE CANNOT SAY THE
FINDINGS ARE "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS," WE ACCEPT THEM.  FED. RULES CIV.
PROC., 52(A). 

APPELLANT NEXT CONTENDS THAT THE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE SO CLEARLY
REVEALED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS CAN BE JUSTIFIED AS
"REASONABLE," AND THEREFORE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
BECAUSE THEY ARE "ANCILLARY" TO ALLEGEDLY "LEGAL MAIN TRANSACTIONS,"
NAMELY, (1) A "JOINT VENTURE" BETWEEN APPELLANT AND DEWAR, AND (2) AN
EXERCISE OF APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO LICENSE THE TRADEMARK "TIMKEN." 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE "JOINT VENTURE" CONTENTION.  THAT THE TRADE
RESTRAINTS WERE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO AN OTHERWISE LEGITIMATE "JOINT
VENTURE" IS, TO SAY THE LEAST, DOUBTFUL.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT
THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS INTO WHICH
APPELLANT, BRITISH TIMKEN AND FRENCH TIMKEN ENTERED WAS TO AVOID ALL
COMPETITION EITHER AMONG THEMSELVES OR WITH OTHERS.  REGARDLESS OF
THIS, HOWEVER, APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT MUST BE REJECTED.  OUR PRIOR
DECISIONS PLAINLY ESTABLISH THAT AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR AN
AGGREGATION OF TRADE RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THOSE EXISTING IN THIS CASE ARE
ILLEGAL UNDER THE ACT.  KIEFER-STEWART CO. V. SEAGRAM & SONS, 340 U.S.
211, 213; UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 223-224
AND NOTE 59; UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 63 F.SUPP.  513,
AFFIRMED, 332 U.S. 319; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S.
106, 180-184; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 15.  SEE
ALSO UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, 439-445. 
THE FACT THAT THERE IS COMMON OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF THE CONTRACTING
CORPORATIONS DOES NOT LIBERATE THEM FROM THE IMPACT OF THE ANTITRUST
LAWS.  E.G., KEIFER-STEWART CO. V. SEAGRAM & SONS, SUPRA AT 215.  NOR
DO WE FIND ANY SUPPORT IN REASON OR AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LEGALLY SEPARATE PERSONS AND COMPANIES TO SUPPRESS
COMPETITION AMONG THEMSELVES AND OTHERS CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY LABELING
THE PROJECT A "JOINT VENTURE."  PERHAPS EVERY AGREEMENT AND COMBINATION
TO RESTRAIN TRADE COULD BE SO LABELED. 

NOR CAN THE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE BE JUSTIFIED AS REASONABLE STEPS
TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT A VALID TRADEMARK LICENSING SYSTEM, EVEN IF WE
ASSUME WITH APPELLANT THAT IT IS THE OWNER OF THE TRADEMARK "TIMKEN" IN
THE TRADE AREAS ALLOCATED TO THE BRITISH AND FRENCH CORPORATIONS. 
APPELLANT'S PREMISE THAT THE TRADE RESTRAINTS ARE ONLY INCIDENTAL TO
THE TRADEMARK CONTRACTS IS REFUTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT
THE "TRADE MARK PROVISIONS (IN THE AGREEMENTS) WERE SUBSIDIARY AND
SECONDARY TO THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF ALLOCATING TRADE TERRITORIES." 
FURTHERMORE, WHILE A TRADEMARK MERELY AFFORDS PROTECTION TO A NAME, THE
AGREEMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE WENT FAR BEYOND PROTECTION OF THE NAME
"TIMKEN" AND PROVIDED FOR CONTROL OF THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF
ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS WHETHER CARRYING THE MARK OR NOT.  A TRADEMARK
CANNOT BE LEGALLY USED AS A DEVICE FOR SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION.  INDEED,
THE TRADE MARK ACT OF 1946 ITSELF PENALIZES USE OF A MARK "TO VIOLATE
THE ANTITRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN8 

WE ALSO REJECT THE SUGGESTION THAT THE SHERMAN ACT SHOULD NOT BE
ENFORCED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE WHAT APPELLANT HAS DONE IS REASONABLE IN
VIEW OF CURRENT FOREIGN TRADE CONDITIONS.  THE ARGUMENT IN THIS REGARD
SEEMS TO BE THAT TARIFFS, QUOTA RESTRICTIONS AND THE LIKE ARE NOW SUCH
THAT THE EXPORT AND IMPORT OF ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS CAN NO LONGER BE
EXPECTED AS A PRACTICAL MATTER; THAT APPELLANT CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY SELL
ITS AMERICAN-MADE GOODS ABROAD; AND THAT THE ONLY WAY IT CAN PROFIT
FROM BUSINESS IN ENGLAND, FRANCE AND OTHER COUNTRIES IS THROUGH THE
OWNERSHIP OF STOCK IN COMPANIES ORGANIZED AND MANUFACTURING THERE. 
THIS POSITION IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS IN THE SHERMAN ACT
AGAINST RESTRAINTS OF FOREIGN TRADE ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION, AND
REFLECT THE POLICY, THAT EXPORT AND IMPORT TRADE IN COMMODITIES IS BOTH
POSSIBLE AND DESIRABLE.  THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE WHOLLY
INCONSISTENT WITH APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT AMERICAN BUSINESS MUST BE
LEFT FREE TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERNATIONAL CARTELS, THAT FREE FOREIGN
COMMERCE IN GOODS MUST BE SACRIFICED IN ORDER TO FOSTER EXPORT OF
AMERICAN DOLLARS FOR INVESTMENT IN FOREIGN FACTORIES WHICH SELL
ABROAD.  ACCEPTANCE OF APPELLANT'S VIEW WOULD MAKE THE SHERMAN ACT A
DEAD LETTER INSOFAR AS IT PROHIBITS CONTRACTS AND CONSPIRACIES IN
RESTRAINT OF FOREIGN TRADE.  IF SUCH A DRASTIC CHANGE IS TO BE MADE IN
THE STATUTE, CONGRESS IS THE ONE TO DO IT. 

FINALLY, APPELLANT ATTACKS THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE AS BEING TOO
BROAD IN SCOPE.  THE DECREE ENJOINS CONTINUATION OR REPETITION OF THE
CONDUCT FOUND ILLEGAL.  THIS IS CLEARLY CORRECT.  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 461.  IT ALSO CONTAINS CERTAIN OTHER
RESTRAINING PROVISIONS WHICH WERE WITHIN THE COURT'S DISCRETION BECAUSE
"RELIEF, TO BE EFFECTIVE, MUST GO BEYOND THE NARROW LIMITS OF THE
PROVEN VIOLATION."  UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 340 U.S.
76, 90.  THE MOST VIGOROUS OBJECTION, HOWEVER, IS MADE TO THOSE
PORTIONS OF THE DECREE RELATING TO DIVESTITURE OF APPELLANT'S
STOCKHOLDINGS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN BRITISH AND FRENCH
TIMKEN. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MINTON AND I BELIEVE THAT THE DECREE
PROPERLY ORDERED DIVESTITURE.  OUR VIEWS ON THIS POINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
APPELLANT'S INTERESTS IN THE BRITISH AND FRENCH COMPANIES WERE OBTAINED
AS PART OF A PLAN TO PROMOTE THE ILLEGAL TRADE RESTRAINTS.  IF NOT
SEVERED, THE INTERCOMPANY RELATIONSHIPS WILL PROVIDE IN THE FUTURE, AS
THEY HAVE IN THE PAST, THE TEMPTATION AND MEANS TO ENGAGE IN THE
PROHIBITED CONDUCT.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS ALONE SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO
SUPPORT THE DIVESTITURE ORDER.  UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES,
INC., 334 U.S. 131, 152-153; UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332
U.S. 319, 363.  BUT THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL.  THE DECREE
SHOULD NOT BE OVERTURNED UNLESS WE CAN SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION.  ABSENT DIVESTITURE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE
WHERE OTHER PARTS OF THE DECREE FORBIDDING TRADE RESTRAINTS WOULD ADD
MUCH TO WHAT THE SHERMAN ACT BY ITSELF ALREADY PROHIBITS.  FN9  AND
OBVIOUSLY THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SUPPRESS FURTHER SHERMAN ACT
VIOLATIONS IS TO END THE INTERCORPORATE RELATIONSHIP WHICH HAS BEEN THE
CORE OF THE CONSPIRACY.  FOR THESE REASONS, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR.
JUSTICE MINTON AND I CANNOT SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN ORDERING DIVESTITURE.  FN10 

NEVERTHELESS, A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT, FOR REASONS SET FORTH IN
OTHER OPINIONS FILED IN THIS CASE, BELIEVE THAT DIVESTITURE SHOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN ORDERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THEREFORE, IT BECOMES
NECESSARY TO STRIKE FROM THE DECREE SECS. VIII, IVB, AND THE PHRASE "OR
B" IN SEC. IVC.  AS SO MODIFIED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1-4. 

FN2  THESE SECTIONS DECLARE ILLEGAL ALL CONTRACTS, COMBINATIONS OR
CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES AND
TERRITORIES OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS. 

FN3  DEWAR DIED WHILE THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE WAS PENDING.  SEE NOTE
10, INFRA. 

FN4  THE MOST RECENT OF THESE AGREEMENTS, WHICH WAS TO HAVE GOVERNED
THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES UNTIL 1965, IS DATED NOVEMBER 28, 1938. 

FN5  APPELLANT ORIGINALLY ATTACKED THE DECISION BELOW IN 206
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR, INCLUDING 69 ALLEGED ERRORS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT, 26 IN ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND 62 BASED ON
THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO MAKE NEW AND ADDITIONAL FINDINGS.  (LATER
APPELLANT ABANDONED 5 OF THE ASSIGNMENTS.)  THESE ASSIGNMENTS ARE
UNDULY REPETITIOUS, SOME ARE FRIVOLOUS, AND THE EXCESSIVE NUMBER
OBSCURES THE ACTUAL GROUNDS ON WHICH APPELLANT RELIES FOR REVERSAL.  AS
THE GOVERNMENT POINTED OUT IN ITS MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, OUR
PRIOR CASES JUSTIFY DISMISSAL IN SUCH SITUATIONS.  SEE LOCAL 167 V.
UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 296; PHILLIPS & COLBY CONSTRUCTION CO. V.
SEYMOUR, 91 U.S. 646, 648.  WE DO NOT TAKE THAT ACTION, HOWEVER, SINCE
APPELLANT IN ITS BRIEF OPPOSING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION HAS
SUFFICIENTLY SPELLED OUT THE FEW REAL OBJECTIONS IT RAISES HERE. 

FN6  THIS IS WELL ILLUSTRATED BY THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE
"SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT" WHICH APPEARS IN THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF:  "THE
EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS DEMONSTRATING CONDUCT OF
AN INTENTIONAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE BY THE THREE TIMKEN COMPANIES FROM
1928 ON IS JUST AS RECONCILABLE WITH THE CONDUCT OF A LEGAL JOINT
ADVENTURE AS WITH THE CONDUCT OF A COMBINATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUPPRESSING COMPETITION AND CONTROLLING WORLD TRADE IN TAPERED ROLLER
BEARINGS, AND THEREFORE THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION TO THE CONTRARY
IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS."  BRIEF FOR APPELLANT, PP. 78-79. 

FN7  APPELLANT CLAIMS THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FAILED TO COMPLY WITH RULE 52(A) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  WE THINK THAT THE OPINION BELOW MEETS ALL
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULE.    FN8  60 STAT. 427, 439, SEC. 33(B)(7),
15 U.S.C. SECS. 1051, 1115(B)(7).  THE REASON FOR THE PENALTY PROVISION
WAS THAT "TRADE-MARKS HAVE BEEN MISUSED.  ...  HAVE BEEN USED IN
CONNECTION WITH CARTEL AGREEMENTS."  92 CONG. REC. 7872. 

FN9  WE WOULD REJECT THE ARGUMENT THAT DIVESTITURE IS UNWISE IN LIGHT
OF CURRENT FOREIGN TRADE CONDITIONS FOR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME REASONS
WE REJECTED IT IN CONNECTION WITH APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS
NO VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

FN10  DEWAR DIED WHILE THIS APPEAL WAS PENDING.  WERE IT NOT FOR THE
PRESENT LITIGATION, APPELLANT, UNDER THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN IT AND
DEWAR, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PURCHASE DEWAR'S INTEREST IN BRITISH TIMKEN
(WHICH WOULD GIVE APPELLANT A 54% STOCK INTEREST IN THAT CORPORATION);
APPELLANT ALSO HAS A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL AS TO DEWAR'S 50% STOCK
INTEREST IN FRENCH TIMKEN (WHICH, IF EXERCISED, WOULD GIVE APPELLANT
100% OWNERSHIP OF THAT COMPANY).  APPELLANT MOVED IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TO REOPEN THE RECORD TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF THESE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
CAUSED BY DEWAR'S DEATH AND FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF THE DIVESTITURE
PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTION.  MR.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MINTON AND I WOULD HOLD THAT THIS RULING
WAS WITHIN ITS DISCRETION. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, CONCURRING. 

IT SEEMS TO ME THERE CAN BE NO VALID OBJECTION TO THAT PART OF THE
OPINION WHICH APPROVES THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE
TIMKEN ROLLER BEARING COMPANY HAS VIOLATED SECS. 1 AND 3 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  IT MAY SEEM STRANGE TO HAVE A CONSPIRACY FOR THE DIVISION OF
TERRITORY FOR MARKETING BETWEEN ONE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER IN WHICH IT
HAS A LARGE OR EVEN A MAJOR INTEREST, BUT ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD
OPEN WIDE THE DOORS FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT AT HOME AND IN
FOREIGN FIELDS.  MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE OPINION IS BASED ON THE
SUGGESTED REQUIREMENT THAT AMERICAN TIMKEN DIVEST ITSELF OF ALL
INTEREST IN BRITISH TIMKEN AND FRENCH TIMKEN AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH
VIII OF THE DECREE SET OUT BELOW.  FN1  MY REASONS FOR THIS
DISAGREEMENT FOLLOW. 

THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING COURTS TO
EMPLOY THE HARSH REMEDY OF DIVESTITURE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS TO RESTRAIN
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FINES AND IMPRISONMENT MAY FOLLOW
CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1, AND DIVESTITURE OF PROPERTY HAS
BEEN USED IN DECREES, NOT AS PUNISHMENT, BUT TO ASSURE EFFECTIVE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS AGAINST RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  FN2 

SINCE DIVESTITURE IS A REMEDY TO RESTORE COMPETITION AND NOT TO
PUNISH THOSE WHO RESTRAIN TRADE, IT IS NOT TO BE USED INDISCRIMINATELY,
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TYPE OF VIOLATION OR WHETHER OTHER EFFECTIVE
METHODS, LESS HARSH, ARE AVAILABLE.  THAT JUDICIAL RESTRAINT SHOULD
FOLLOW SUCH LINES IS EXEMPLIFIED BY OUR RECENT RULINGS IN UNITED STATES
V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319, WHERE WE APPROVED DIVESTITURE OF
SOME PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE CONSPIRATORS AND DENIED IT AS TO
OTHERS, PP. 348-353.  WHILE THE DECREE HERE DOES NOT CALL FOR
CONFISCATION, IT DOES CALL FOR DIVESTITURE.  I THINK THAT REQUIREMENT
IS UNNECESSARY.  FN3 

IN THIS CASE THE PROHIBITED PLAN GREW OUT OF THE EFFORT TO IMPLEMENT
A PATENT MONOPOLY.  THE DIFFICULTIES OF CULTIVATING A FOREIGN MARKET
FOR OUR MANUFACTURED GOODS OBVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO CREATION OF THE
BRITISH AND FRENCH COMPANIES SO AS TO ENJOY A RIGHT OF DISTRIBUTION
INTO AREAS WHERE OTHERWISE RESTRICTIONS, BECAUSE OF TARIFFS, QUOTAS AND
EXCHANGE, MIGHT BE EXPECTED.  WE FAIL TO SEE SUCH PROPENSITY TOWARD
RESTRAINT OF TRADE AS IS EVIDENCED IN THE CRESCENT CASE. 

WHAT WE HAVE IS AN AMERICAN CORPORATION, DOMINANT IN THE FIELD OF
TAPERED ROLLER BEARINGS, PRODUCING BETWEEN 70 AND 80 PERCENT OF THE
AMERICAN OUTPUT.  IN 1947 ITS GROSS SALES WERE OVER $77,000,000.  THIS
IS A DISTINCTIVE TYPE OF BEARING, COMPETING SUCCESSFULLY FOR ADOPTION
BY INDUSTRY WITH OTHER ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.  TIMKEN PRODUCES ABOUT
25% OF ALL UNITED STATES ANTIFRICTION BEARINGS.  AS THERE WERE NO
FINDINGS OF FACTS TENDING TO SHOW VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT
OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH FORMAL AGREEMENTS FOR PARTITION OF TERRITORY, WE
ASSUME APPELLANT'S CONDUCT WAS OTHERWISE LAWFUL. 

IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS, OF COURSE, NO OCCASION FOR THE
LOWER COURT TO ORDER ANY SPLITTING UP OF A CONSOLIDATED ENTITY.  CF.
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106.  THERE HAS BEEN NO EFFORT TO CREATE
NUMEROUS SMALLER COMPANIES OUT OF TIMKEN SO THAT THERE WILL BE NO
DOMINANT INDIVIDUAL IN THE TAPERED ROLLER BEARING FIELD.  THE AMERICAN
COMPANY HAD HAD A NORMAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.  ITS RELATIONS WITH
ENGLISH AND FRENCH TIMKEN WERE CLOSE AND AMERICAN TIMKEN HAD STOCK AND
CONTRACTS FOR FURTHER STOCK IN BOTH FOREIGN COMPANIES OF VALUE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF ITS FOREIGN BUSINESS.  SUCH BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD
NOT BE DESTROYED UNLESS NECESSARY TO DO AWAY WITH THE PROHIBITED EVIL. 

AN INJUNCTION WAS ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO PROHIBIT THE
CONTINUATION OF THE OBJECTIONABLE CONTRACTS.  VIOLATION OF THAT
INJUNCTION WOULD THREATEN THE APPELLANT AND ITS OFFICERS WITH CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  UNITED STATES V. GOLDMAN, 277 U.S. 229, AND HILL V.
WEINER, 300 U.S. 105.  THE PAUCITY OF CASES DEALING WITH CONTEMPT OF
SHERMAN ACT INJUNCTIONS IS, I THINK, AN INDICATION OF HOW CAREFULLY THE
DECREES ARE OBEYED.  THE INJUNCTION IS A FAR STRONGER SANCTION AGAINST
FURTHER VIOLATION THAN THE SHERMAN ACT ALONE.  ONCE IN POSSESSION OF
FACTS SHOWING VIOLATION, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD OBTAIN A QUICK AND
SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF THE VIOLATOR.  FURTHERMORE THIS CASE REMAINS ON
THE DOCKET FOR THE PURPOSE OF "ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE" AND
"PUNISHMENT OF VIOLATIONS."  THIS PROVISION SHOULD LEAVE POWER IN THE
COURT TO ENFORCE DIVESTITURE, IF THE INJUNCTION ALONE FAILS.  PROMPT
AND FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED. 

THIS COURT IS HESITANT, ALWAYS, TO INTERFERE WITH THE SCOPE OF THE
TRIAL COURT'S DECREE.  FN4 HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE
TO INDICATE MY DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUIREMENT OF DIVESTITURE AND TO
SUGGEST A DIRECTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT THAT PROVISIONS LEADING TO
THAT RESULT BE ELIMINATED FROM THE DECREE.  SUCH REMAND WOULD ALSO GIVE
OPPORTUNITY FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CHANGES NECESSARY IN THE DECREE
BECAUSE OF THE REMAND AND THE DEATH OF MR. DEWAR. 

IN MY VIEW SUCH AN ORDER SHOULD BE ENTERED. 

FN1  "VIII.  A. WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS JUDGMENT,
DEFENDANT SHALL DIVEST ITSELF OF ALL STOCK HOLDINGS AND OTHER FINANCIAL
INTERESTS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, IN BRITISH TIMKEN AND FRENCH TIMKEN. 
WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THIS JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT SHALL PRESENT
TO THE COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL A PLAN FOR SUCH DIVESTITURE. 

"B.  DEFENDANT IS HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED, FROM THE DATE OF
THIS JUDGMENT, FROM: 

"1.  ACQUIRING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN (BY
PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF ASSETS OR SECURITIES, OR THROUGH THE
EXERCISE OF ANY OPTION, OR OTHERWISE), OR ANY CONTROL OVER, BRITISH
TIMKEN OR FRENCH TIMKEN, OR ANY SUBSIDIARY, SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGN
THEREOF; 

"2.  EXERCISING ANY INFLUENCE OR CONTROL OVER THE PRODUCTION, SALES
OR OTHER BUSINESS POLICIES OF BRITISH TIMKEN OR FRENCH TIMKEN, OR ANY
SUBSIDIARY, SUCCESSOR, ASSIGN, AGENT, SALES REPRESENTATIVE, OR
DISTRIBUTOR THEREOF; 

"3.  CAUSING, AUTHORIZING OR KNOWINGLY PERMITTING ANY OFFICER,
DIRECTOR, OR EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO SERVE AS AN
OFFICER, DIRECTOR, OR EMPLOYEE OF BRITISH TIMKEN OR FRENCH TIMKEN OR OF
ANY SUBSIDIARY, SUCCESSOR, ASSIGN, AGENT, SALES REPRESENTATIVE, OR
DISTRIBUTOR THEREOF." 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 189;
UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, 334 U.S. 131, 166(THIRD); 85
F.SUPP.  881, 895, AFFIRMED SUB NOM. UNITED STATES V. LOEW'S, INC., 339
U.S. 974; UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 91 F.SUPP.  333,
392(ALUMINUM LIMITED) AT 418-419. 

FN3  CF. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 413 ET
SEQ. 

FN4  SEE UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 340 U.S. 76, 89. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE FORCE OF THE REASONING AGAINST DIVESTITURE IN THIS CASE FORTIFIES
THE DOUBTS WHICH I FELT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION AT THE CLOSE OF
ARGUMENT AND PERSUADES ME TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF, IN SUBSTANCE, WITH THE
DISSENTING VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON.  EVEN "CARTEL" IS
NOT A TALISMANIC WORD, SO AS TO DISPLACE THE RULE OF REASON BY WHICH
BREACHES OF THE SHERMAN LAW ARE DETERMINED.  NOR IS "DIVISION OF
TERRITORY" SO SELF-OPERATING A CATEGORY OF SHERMAN LAW VIOLATIONS AS TO
DISPENSE WITH ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT ON PAPER
IS A GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION OF TERRITORY. 

WHILE AMERICAN BANANA CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S. 347,
PRESENTED A WHOLLY DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS FROM THOSE BEFORE US, THE
DECISION IN THAT CASE DOES POINT TO THE FACT THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
FOREIGN TRADE MAY ALTER THE INCIDENCE OF WHAT IN THE SETTING OF
DOMESTIC COMMERCE WOULD BE A CLEAR CASE OF UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF
TRADE. 

OF COURSE, IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO FORMULATE ECONOMIC POLICY AS
TO FOREIGN COMMERCE.  BUT THE CONDITIONS CONTROLLING FOREIGN COMMERCE
MAY BE RELEVANT HERE.  WHEN AS A MATTER OF COLD FACT THE LEGAL,
FINANCIAL, AND GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES DENY OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPORTATION
FROM THIS COUNTRY AND IMPORTATION INTO IT, ARRANGEMENTS THAT AFFORD
SUCH OPPORTUNITIES TO AMERICAN ENTERPRISE MAY NOT FALL UNDER THE BAN OF
A FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHERMAN LAW BECAUSE COMPARABLE ARRANGEMENTS
REGARDING DOMESTIC COMMERCE COME WITHIN ITS CONDEMNATION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I DOUBT THAT IT SHOULD BE REGARDED AS AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF
TRADE FOR AN AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CONCERN TO ORGANIZE FOREIGN
SUBSIDIARIES, EACH LIMITED TO SERVING A PARTICULAR MARKET AREA.  IF SO,
IT SEEMS TO PRECLUDE THE ONLY PRACTICAL MEANS OF REACHING FOREIGN
MARKETS BY MANY AMERICAN INDUSTRIES. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE HERE CONCERNS A SEVERELY TECHNICAL APPLICATION
TO FOREIGN COMMERCE OF THE CONCEPT OF CONSPIRACY.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT
IF TIMKEN HAD, WITHIN ITS OWN CORPORATE ORGANIZATION, SET UP SEPARATE
DEPARTMENTS TO OPERATE PLANTS IN FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN, AS WELL AS
IN THE UNITED STATES, "THAT WOULD NOT BE A CONSPIRACY.  YOU MUST HAVE
TWO ENTITIES TO HAVE A CONSPIRACY."  FN1  THUS, ALTHOUGH A SINGLE
AMERICAN PRODUCER, OF COURSE, WOULD NOT COMPETE WITH ITSELF, EITHER
ABROAD OR AT HOME, AND COULD DETERMINE PRICES AND ALLOT TERRITORIES
WITH THE SAME EFFECT AS HERE, THAT WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF THE ACT,
BECAUSE A CORPORATION CANNOT CONSPIRE WITH ITSELF.  GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVELY THE QUESTION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  "YOUR THEORY
IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A SEPARATE CORPORATION, THAT MAKES THE
DIFFERENCE?"  FN2  THUS, THE COURT APPLIES THE WELL-ESTABLISHED
CONSPIRACY DOCTRINE THAT WHAT IT WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL FOR TIMKEN TO DO
ALONE MAY BE ILLEGAL AS A CONSPIRACY WHEN DONE BY TWO LEGALLY SEPARATE
PERSONS.  THE DOCTRINE NOW APPLIED TO FOREIGN COMMERCE IS THAT FOREIGN
SUBSIDIARIES ORGANIZED BY AN AMERICAN CORPORATION ARE "SEPARATE
PERSONS," AND ANY ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THEM AND THE PARENT CORPORATION
TO DO THAT WHICH IS LEGAL FOR THE PARENT ALONE IS AN UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY.  I THINK THAT RESULT PLACES TOO MUCH WEIGHT ON LABELS. 

BUT IF WE APPLY THE MOST STRICT CONSPIRACY DOCTRINE, WE STILL HAVE
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ARRANGEMENT IS AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR A METHOD AND MEANS OF CARRYING ON COMPETITION IN TRADE. 
TIMKEN DID NOT SIT DOWN WITH COMPETITORS AND DIVIDE AN EXISTING MARKET
BETWEEN THEM.  IT HAS AT ALL TIMES, IN ALL PLACES, HAD POWERFUL
RIVALS.  IT WAS NOT EFFECTIVELY MEETING THEIR COMPETITION IN FOREIGN
MARKETS, AND SO IT JOINED OTHERS IN CREATING A BRITISH SUBSIDIARY TO GO
AFTER BUSINESS BEST REACHABLE THROUGH SUCH A CONCERN AND A FRENCH ONE
TO EXPLOIT FRENCH MARKETS.  OF COURSE, IN DOING SO, IT ALLOTTED
APPROPRIATE TERRITORY TO EACH AND NONE WAS TO ENTER INTO COMPETITION
WITH THE OTHER OR WITH THE PARENT.  SINCE MANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
PROHIBIT OR HANDICAP AMERICAN CORPORATIONS FROM OWNING PLANTS, ENTERING
INTO CONTRACTS, OR ENGAGING IN BUSINESS DIRECTLY, THIS SEEMS THE ONLY
PRACTICAL WAY OF WAGING COMPETITION IN THOSE AREAS. 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GOVERNMENT, ADOPTED BY THE COURT, IS THAT
TIMKEN'S CONDUCT IS CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE SOLELY BECAUSE THE
VENTURE MADE USE OF SUBSIDIARIES.  IT IS FORBIDDEN THUS TO DEAL WITH
AND UTILIZE SUBSIDIARIES TO EXPLOIT FOREIGN TERRITORIES, BECAUSE
"PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS MUST ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF
MAINTAINING SEPARATE CORPORATE ENTITIES,"  FN3  AND THAT CONSEQUENCE IS
CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE.  BUT NOT ALL AGREEMENTS ARE CONSPIRACIES
AND NOT ALL RESTRAINTS OF TRADE ARE UNLAWFUL.  IN A WORLD OF TARIFFS,
TRADE BARRIERS, EMPIRE OR DOMESTIC PREFERENCES, AND VARIOUS FORMS OF
PAROCHIALISM FROM WHICH WE ARE BY NO MEANS FREE, I THINK A RULE THAT IT
IS RESTRAINT OF TRADE TO ENTER A FOREIGN MARKET THROUGH A SEPARATE
SUBSIDIARY OF LIMITED SCOPE IS VIRTUALLY TO FORECLOSE FOREIGN COMMERCE
OF MANY KINDS.  IT IS ONE THING FOR COMPETITORS OR A PARENT AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES TO DIVIDE THE UNITED STATES DOMESTIC MARKET WHICH IS AN
ECONOMIC AND LEGAL UNIT; IT IS ANOTHER FOR AN INDUSTRY TO RECOGNIZE
THAT FOREIGN MARKETS CONSIST OF MANY LEGAL AND ECONOMIC UNITS AND TO GO
AFTER EACH THROUGH SEPARATE MEANS.  I THINK THIS DECISION WILL RESTRAIN
MORE TRADE THAN IT WILL MAKE FREE.    FN1  ARGUMENT OF GOVERNMENT
COUNSEL REPORTED 19 L.W. 3291 ET SEQ. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.    FN3  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.
..END :







HUGHES V. FETTER, 341 U.S. 609 


NO. 355.  ARGUED MARCH 1-2, 1951.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.  - 257 WIS.
35, 42 N.W.2D 452, REVERSED. 


APPELLANT ADMINISTRATOR BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A WISCONSIN STATE COURT
TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF A DECEDENT WHO WAS FATALLY INJURED
IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IN ILLINOIS.  THE COMPLAINT WAS BASED ON THE
ILLINOIS WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE, AND NAMED AS DEFENDANTS THE ALLEGEDLY
NEGLIGENT DRIVER AND AN INSURANCE COMPANY.  APPELLANT, THE DECEDENT,
AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT WERE RESIDENTS OF WISCONSIN; APPELLANT HAD
BEEN APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR UNDER WISCONSIN LAWS; AND THE INSURANCE
COMPANY WAS A WISCONSIN CORPORATION.  THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT, PURSUANT TO A WISCONSIN STATUTE WHICH CREATES A RIGHT OF
ACTION ONLY FOR DEATHS CAUSED IN THAT STATE, AND WHICH ESTABLISHES A
LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST WISCONSIN COURTS ENTERTAINING SUITS BROUGHT
UNDER THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTS OF OTHER STATES.  HELD:  THE STATUTORY
POLICY OF WISCONSIN WHICH EXCLUDES FROM ITS COURTS THIS ILLINOIS CAUSE
OF ACTION IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 610-614. 

(A)  THE ILLINOIS STATUTE IS A "PUBLIC ACT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE
GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS  ...  OF EVERY OTHER STATE."  P.
611. 

(B)  WISCONSIN CANNOT ESCAPE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE
THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES VALIDLY CREATED UNDER THE LAWS OF OTHER STATES BY
THE SIMPLE DEVICE OF REMOVING JURISDICTION FROM COURTS OTHERWISE
COMPETENT.  P. 611. 

(C)  WISCONSIN'S POLICY AGAINST ENTERTAINING SUITS UNDER THE WRONGFUL
DEATH ACTS OF OTHER STATES MUST GIVE WAY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, TO THE STRONG UNIFYING PRINCIPLE EMBODIED IN THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE LOOKING TOWARD MAXIMUM ENFORCEMENT IN EACH STATE OF THE
OBLIGATIONS OR RIGHTS CREATED OR RECOGNIZED BY THE STATUTES OF SISTER
STATES.  PP. 611-613. 

(D)  ASSUMING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS MIGHT UNDER
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY A FORUM STATE IN REFUSING TO ACCORD FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT TO ACTS OF SISTER STATES, THE WISCONSIN STATUTORY
POLICY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICATION OF THAT DOCTRINE, SINCE
THIS CASE IS NOT ONE WHICH LACKS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH WISCONSIN. 
PP. 612-613. 

HUGHES, ADMINISTRATOR, V. FETTER ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

APPELLANT'S ACTION IN A WISCONSIN COURT, TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR A
WRONGFUL DEATH ARISING OUT OF AN ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED IN ILLINOIS,
WAS DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF A WISCONSIN STATUTE.  THE
STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  257 WIS. 35, 42 N.W.2D 452.  ON APPEAL
TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 614. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BASING HIS COMPLAINT ON THE ILLINOIS WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE,  FN1
APPELLANT ADMINISTRATOR BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE WISCONSIN STATE
COURT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF HAROLD HUGHES, WHO WAS
FATALLY INJURED IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IN ILLINOIS.  THE ALLEGEDLY
NEGLIGENT DRIVER AND AN INSURANCE COMPANY WERE NAMED AS DEFENDANTS.  ON
THEIR MOTION THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT "DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT ON THE MERITS."  IT HELD THAT A WISCONSIN STATUTE, WHICH
CREATES A RIGHT OF ACTION ONLY FOR DEATHS CAUSED IN THAT STATE,
ESTABLISHES A LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST WISCONSIN'S ENTERTAINING
SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTS OF OTHER STATES.  FN2  THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTENTION THAT
THE LOCAL STATUTE SO CONSTRUED VIOLATED THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE OF ART. IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN3  THE CASE IS
PROPERLY HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257. 

WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE THE NARROW QUESTION WHETHER WISCONSIN,
OVER THE OBJECTION RAISED, CAN CLOSE THE DOORS OF ITS COURTS TO THE
CAUSE OF ACTION CREATED BY THE ILLINOIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACT.  FN4  PRIOR
DECISIONS HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THE ILLINOIS STATUTE IS A "PUBLIC ACT"
WITHIN THE PROVISION OF ART. IV, SEC. 1 THAT "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS  ...  OF EVERY OTHER
STATE."  FN5  IT IS ALSO SETTLED THAT WISCONSIN CANNOT ESCAPE THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES VALIDLY
CREATED UNDER THE LAWS OF OTHER STATES BY THE SIMPLE DEVICE OF REMOVING
JURISDICTION FROM COURTS OTHERWISE COMPETENT.  FN6 WE HAVE RECOGNIZED,
HOWEVER, THAT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY COMPEL A
FORUM STATE TO SUBORDINATE ITS OWN STATUTORY POLICY TO A CONFLICTING
PUBLIC ACT OF ANOTHER STATE; RATHER, IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO CHOOSE IN
EACH CASE BETWEEN THE COMPETING PUBLIC POLICIES INVOLVED.  FN7  THE
CLASH OF INTERESTS IN CASES OF THIS TYPE HAS USUALLY BEEN DESCRIBED AS
A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PUBLIC POLICIES OF TWO OR MORE STATES.  FN8  THE
MORE BASIC CONFLICT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, HOWEVER, IS AS
FOLLOWS:  ON THE ONE HAND IS THE STRONG UNIFYING PRINCIPLE EMBODIED IN
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE LOOKING TOWARD MAXIMUM ENFORCEMENT IN
EACH STATE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OR RIGHTS CREATED OR RECOGNIZED BY THE
STATUTES OF SISTER STATES; FN9  ON THE OTHER HAND IS THE POLICY OF
WISCONSIN, AS INTERPRETED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT, AGAINST PERMITTING
WISCONSIN COURTS TO ENTERTAIN THIS WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION.  FN10 

WE HOLD THAT WISCONSIN'S POLICY MUST GIVE WAY.  THAT STATE HAS NO
REAL FEELING OF ANTAGONISM AGAINST WRONGFUL DEATH SUITS IN GENERAL. 
FN11  TO THE CONTRARY, A FORUM IS REGULARLY PROVIDED FOR CASES OF THIS
NATURE, THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE EXTENDING ONLY SO FAR AS TO BAR ACTIONS
FOR DEATH NOT CAUSED LOCALLY.  FN12  THE WISCONSIN POLICY, MOREOVER,
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICATION OF THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS
DOCTRINE, WHATEVER EFFECT THAT DOCTRINE MIGHT BE GIVEN IF ITS USE
RESULTED IN DENYING ENFORCEMENT TO PUBLIC ACTS OF OTHER STATES.  EVEN
IF WE ASSUME THAT WISCONSIN COULD REFUSE, BY REASON OF PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES, TO HEAR FOREIGN CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH NONRESIDENTS WERE
PARTIES,  FN13  THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT ONE LACKING A CLOSE
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE.  FOR NOT ONLY WERE APPELLANT, THE DECEDENT
AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT ALL RESIDENTS OF WISCONSIN, BUT ALSO
APPELLANT WAS APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR AND THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT WAS
CREATED UNDER WISCONSIN LAWS.  WE ALSO THINK IT RELEVANT, ALTHOUGH NOT
CRUCIAL HERE, THAT WISCONSIN MAY WELL BE THE ONLY JURISDICTION IN WHICH
SERVICE COULD BE HAD AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER ON THE INSURANCE COMPANY
DEFENDANT.  FN14  AND WHILE IN THE PRESENT CASE JURISDICTION OVER THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT APPARENTLY COULD BE HAD IN ILLINOIS BY SUBSTITUTED
SERVICE,  FN15  IN OTHER CASES WISCONSIN'S EXCLUSIONARY STATUTE MIGHT
AMOUNT TO A DEPRIVATION OF ALL OPPORTUNITY TO ENFORCE VALID DEATH
CLAIMS CREATED BY ANOTHER STATE. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONCLUDE THAT WISCONSIN'S STATUTORY
POLICY WHICH EXCLUDES THIS ILLINOIS CAUSE OF ACTION IS FORBIDDEN BY THE
NATIONAL POLICY OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  FN16  THE
JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
WISCONSIN FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED
AND REMANDED. 

FN1  SMITH-HURD'S ILL. ANN. STAT., 1936, C. 70, SECS. 1, 2. 

FN2  WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC. 331.03.  THIS SECTION CONTAINS LANGUAGE
TYPICALLY FOUND IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTS BUT CONCLUDES AS FOLLOWS:
"PROVIDED, THAT SUCH ACTION SHALL BE BROUGHT FOR A DEATH CAUSED IN THIS
STATE." 

FN3  257 WIS. 35, 42 N.W.2D 452. 

FN4  THE PARTIES CONCEDE, AS THEY MUST, THAT IF THE SAME CAUSE OF
ACTION HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN REDUCED TO JUDGMENT, THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE WOULD COMPEL THE COURTS OF WISCONSIN TO ENTERTAIN AN
ACTION TO ENFORCE IT.  KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, 252 U.S. 411. 

FN5  E.G., BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, 644; BRADFORD ELEC. 
CO. V. CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, 154-155; JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. YATES,
299 U.S. 178, 183. 

FN6  E.G., BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, 642-643; CONVERSE V.
HAMILTON, 224 U.S. 243, 260-261; CF. KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, 252 U.S.
411, 415; ANGEL V. BULLINGTON, 330 U.S. 183, 188.  THE RELIANCE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN ON CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 207
U.S. 142, WAS MISPLACED.  THAT CASE DOES NOT HOLD THAT ONE STATE,
CONSISTENTLY WITH ART. IV, SEC. 1, CAN EXCLUDE FROM ITS COURTS CAUSES
OF ACTION CREATED BY ANOTHER STATE FOR, AS POINTED OUT IN BRODERICK V.
ROSNER, SUPRA AT 642, N. 3, IN CHAMBERS "NO CLAIM WAS MADE UNDER THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE." 

FN7  E.G., PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201, 210-211;
PACIFIC INS. CO. V. COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493, 502; ALASKA PACKERS ASSN.
V. COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 532, 547. 

FN8  SEE, E.G., ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 532, 547
550. 

FN9  THIS CLAUSE "ALTERED THE STATUS OF THE SEVERAL STATES AS
INDEPENDENT FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTIES, EACH FREE TO IGNORE RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS CREATED UNDER THE LAWS OR ESTABLISHED BY THE JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS OF THE OTHERS, BY MAKING EACH AN INTEGRAL PART OF A SINGLE
NATION  ...  "  MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 439.  SEE
ALSO MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 276-277; ORDER OF
TRAVELERS V. WOLFE, 331 U.S. 586. 

FN10  THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT ONE WHERE WISCONSIN, HAVING ENTERTAINED
APPELLANT'S LAWSUIT, CHOSE TO APPLY ITS OWN INSTEAD OF ILLINOIS'
STATUTE TO MEASURE THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS INVOLVED.  THIS DISTINGUISHES
THE PRESENT CASE FROM THOSE WHERE WE HAVE SAID THAT "PRIMA FACIE EVERY
STATE IS ENTITLED TO ENFORCE IN ITS OWN COURTS ITS OWN STATUTES,
LAWFULLY ENACTED."  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 532,
547; SEE ALSO, WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 295-296. 

FN11  IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTS OF WISCONSIN AND
ILLINOIS CONTAIN DIFFERENT PROVISIONS IN REGARD TO SUCH MATTERS AS
MAXIMUM RECOVERY AND DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUIT.  SUCH
DIFFERENCES, HOWEVER, ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED UNIMPORTANT.  SEE CASES
COLLECTED 77 A.L.R. 1311, 1317-1324. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN13  SEE BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, 643; COMPARE ANGLO
AMERICAN PROVISION CO. V. DAVIS CO., 191 U.S. 373, WITH KENNEY V.
SUPREME LODGE, 252 U.S. 411. 

FN14  CF. TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. GEORGE, 233 U.S. 354, 359-360. 

FN15  SMITH-HURD'S ILL. ANN. STAT., 1950, C. 95 1/2, SEC. 23. 

FN16  IN CERTAIN PREVIOUS CASES, E.G., PACIFIC INS. CO. V.
COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493, 502; ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMMISSION, 294
U.S. 532, 547, THIS COURT SUGGESTED THAT UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE A FORUM STATE MIGHT MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN STATUTES
AND JUDGMENTS OF SISTER STATES BECAUSE OF CONGRESS' FAILURE TO
PRESCRIBE THE EXTRA-STATE EFFECT TO BE ACCORDED PUBLIC ACTS. 
SUBSEQUENT TO THESE DECISIONS THE JUDICIAL CODE WAS REVISED SO AS TO
PROVIDE:  "SUCH ACTS (OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ANY STATE)  ...  AND
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS  ...  SHALL HAVE THE SAME FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN
EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES  ...  AS THEY HAVE  ...  IN THE
COURTS OF SUCH STATE  ...  FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN."  28 U.S.C. (1946
ED., SUPP. III) SEC. 1738.  IN DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL, HOWEVER, WE
HAVE FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO RELY ON ANY CHANGES ACCOMPLISHED BY THE
JUDICIAL CODE REVISION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON,
AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THIS IS AN ACTION BROUGHT IN THE WISCONSIN STATE COURTS TO RECOVER
FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF HAROLD G. HUGHES.  HUGHES WAS KILLED IN AN
AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IN ILLINOIS.  AN ILLINOIS STATUTE PROVIDES THAT AN
ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR A WRONGFUL DEATH OCCURRING
IN THAT STATE.  SMITH-HURD'S ILL. ANN. STAT., 1936, C. 70, SECS. 1, 2. 
A WISCONSIN STATUTE PROVIDES THAT AN ACTION MAY NOT BE BROUGHT IN THE
COURTS OF THAT STATE FOR A WRONGFUL DEATH OCCURRING OUTSIDE WISCONSIN. 
WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC. 331.03.  THE WISCONSIN COURTS, OBEYING THE
COMMAND OF THE WISCONSIN STATUTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION.  I CANNOT AGREE
THAT THE WISCONSIN STATUTE, SO APPLIED, IS CONTRARY TO ART. IV, SEC. 1
OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:  "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE
GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE." 

THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE WAS DERIVED FROM A SIMILAR PROVISION
IN THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.  ART. 4, SEC. 3.  THE ONLY CLUE TO
ITS MEANING IN THE AVAILABLE RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
IS A NOTATION IN MADISON'S DEBATES THAT "MR. WILSON & DOCR.  JOHNSON
(WHO BECAME MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO WHICH THE PROVISION WAS
REFERRED) SUPPOSED THE MEANING TO BE THAT JUDGMENTS IN ONE STATE SHOULD
BE THE GROUND OF ACTIONS IN OTHER STATES, & THAT ACTS OF THE
LEGISLATURES SHOULD BE INCLUDED, FOR THE SAKE OF ACTS OF INSOLVENCY &C
."  II FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, 447.  THIS
COURT HAS, WITH GOOD REASON, GONE FAR IN REQUIRING THAT THE COURTS OF A
STATE RESPECT JUDGMENTS ENTERED BY COURTS OF OTHER STATES.  FAUNTLEROY
V. LUM, 210 U.S. 230; KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, 252 U.S. 411; MILWAUKEE
COUNTY V. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268; CF. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V.
HUNT, 320 U.S. 430.  BUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH A STATE MUST RECOGNIZE AND
ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF ACTION CREATED BY OTHER STATES IS NOT SO CLEAR. 

1.  IN THE FIELD OF COMMERCIAL LAW - WHERE CERTAINTY IS OF HIGH
IMPORTANCE - WE HAVE OFTEN IMPOSED A RATHER RIGID RULE THAT A STATE
MUST DEFER TO THE LAW OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION, OR TO THE LAW OF
THE PLACE OF CONTRACT.  THUS, IN BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, WE
HELD THAT NEW JERSEY COULD NOT CLOSE ITS COURTS TO SUITS WHICH INVOLVED
STOCKHOLDER LIABILITY ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW YORK.  WE HAD
ALREADY SAID, IN CONVERSE V. HAMILTON, 224 U.S. 243, 260, THAT SUCH
LIABILITY WAS "PECULIARLY WITHIN THE REGULATORY POWER" OF THE STATE OF
INCORPORATION; "SO MUCH SO THAT NO OTHER STATE PROPERLY CAN BE SAID TO
HAVE ANY PUBLIC POLICY THEREON."  IN JOHN HANCOCK INSURANCE CO. V.
YATES, 299 U.S. 178, WE HELD THAT THE GEORGIA COURTS HAD TO GIVE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT TO A NEW YORK PAROLE EVIDENCE STATUTE WHICH PREVENTED
RECOVERY ON AN INSURANCE CONTRACT MADE IN NEW YORK.  IN BOTH THESE
CASES, THE COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, EMPHASIZED
THAT IT WAS THE PARTICULAR RELATIONSHIP INVOLVED WHICH MADE THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE APPLICABLE. 

IN PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201, THE COURT FOUND THAT
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DID NOT REQUIRE THE COURTS OF THE
FORUM TO ENFORCE, AGAINST LOCAL POLICYHOLDERS, ASSESSMENTS VALID UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION OF A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. 
IN $ GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313 U.S. 498, WE DECIDED THAT THE FORUM MAY
DECLINE TO ENFORCE AN INSURANCE POLICY IN FAVOR OF BENEFICIARIES WHO
HAVE NO INSURABLE INTEREST UNDER LOCAL LAW.  ORDER OF TRAVELERS V.
WOLFE, 331 U.S. 586, SEEMS TO HAVE MADE IT CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THESE
DECISIONS DID NOT REPRESENT A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THE EARLIER
CASES.  WE HELD IN THE WOLFE CASE THAT THE FORUM WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A LAW OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION ALLOWING A
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY TO LIMIT THE DURATION OF ITS LIABILITY.  IT
IS NOT MERELY A BIT OF RHETORIC TO CAUTION AGAINST IMPOSING ON THE
COURTS OF THE FORUM A "STATE OF VASSALAGE."  HAWKINS V. BARNEY'S
LESSEE, 5 PET. 457, 467, QUOTED IN ORDER OF TRAVELERS V. WOLFE, SUPRA,
AT 627(DISSENTING OPINION).  BUT THIS CONSIDERATION OF AUTONOMY IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE ADVANTAGES TO BE OBTAINED FROM A DEGREE OF
CERTAINTY IN CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL LAW.    2.  IN CASES INVOLVING
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, THERE IS ALSO A PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE THAT MAKES CERTAINTY OF RESULT
DESIRABLE.  THE POSSIBLE INTEREST OF THE FORUM IN PROTECTING THE
WORKMAN, HOWEVER, HAS MADE THIS COURT RELUCTANT TO IMPOSE RIGID RULES. 
IN BRADFORD ELECTRIC CO. V. CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN
NEW HAMPSHIRE TO RECOVER FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE
OCCURRING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.  WE HELD, IN AN OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, THAT THE COURT SITTING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE WOULD HAVE TO DISMISS
THE ACTION BECAUSE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION WAS AN EXCLUSIVE REMEDY UNDER
THE LAWS OF VERMONT, WHERE THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WAS MADE, WHERE
THE EMPLOYMENT WAS USUALLY CARRIED ON, AND WHERE BOTH THE EMPLOYER AND
THE EMPLOYEE WERE DOMICILED.  MR. JUSTICE STONE CONCURRED ON THE GROUND
THAT THE NEW HAMPSHIRE COURTS WOULD APPLY THE VERMONT LAW ON PRINCIPLES
OF COMITY.  HE THOUGHT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE "SHOULD BE
INTERPRETED AS LEAVING THE COURTS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FREE, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES NOW PRESENTED, EITHER TO APPLY OR REFUSE TO APPLY THE LAW
OF VERMONT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE POLICY AND LAW."  286 U.S. AT 164-165. 

IN ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 532, WE HELD THAT
CALIFORNIA - WHERE THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WAS ENTERED INTO - WAS
FREE TO APPLY THE TERMS OF ITS OWN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTE TO AN
EMPLOYEE INJURED IN ALASKA, ALTHOUGH AN ALASKA STATUTE PURPORTED TO
GIVE AN EXCLUSIVE REMEDY TO PERSONS INJURED THERE.  IN PACIFIC
INSURANCE CO. V. COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493, WE HELD THAT THE CALIFORNIA
COURTS NEED NOT GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
PROVISIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTE,
ALTHOUGH MASSACHUSETTS WAS THE PLACE OF CONTRACT AND THE USUAL PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, WHO WROTE THE OPINIONS IN THE LATTER TWO CASES,
SPECIFICALLY LIMITED THE CLAPPER DECISION:  "THE CLAPPER CASE CANNOT BE
SAID TO HAVE DECIDED MORE THAN THAT A STATE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE STATE, WHICH BY ITS TERMS PROVIDES
COMPENSATION FOR THE EMPLOYEE IF HE IS INJURED IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT WHILE TEMPORARILY IN ANOTHER STATE, WILL BE GIVEN FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT IN THE LATTER WHEN NOT OBNOXIOUS TO ITS POLICY."  306 U.S.
AT 504. 

3.  IN THE TORT ACTION BEFORE US, THERE IS LITTLE REASON TO IMPOSE A
"STATE OF VASSALAGE" ON THE FORUM.  THE LIABILITY HERE IMPOSED DOES NOT
REST ON A PRE-EXISTING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND
DEFENDANT.  THERE IS CONSEQUENTLY NO NEED FOR FIXED RULES WHICH WOULD
ENABLE PARTIES, AT THE TIME THEY ENTER INTO A TRANSACTION, TO PREDICT
ITS CONSEQUENCES. 

THE COURT, IN THE CLAPPER CASE, STRESSED THAT NEW HAMPSHIRE HAD
OPENED ITS COURTS TO THE ACTION, BUT HAD REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE A
SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSE.  INDEED, THE COURT INDICATED THAT A STATE MAY BE
FREE TO CLOSE ITS COURTS TO SUITS BASED ON THE TORT LIABILITY CREATED
BY THE STATUTES OF OTHER STATES:  "IT IS TRUE THAT THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ENFORCEMENT OF EVERY RIGHT CONFERRED
BY A STATUTE OF ANOTHER STATE.  THERE IS ROOM FOR SOME PLAY OF
CONFLICTING POLICIES.  THUS, A PLAINTIFF SUING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ON A
STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING IN VERMONT MIGHT BE DENIED RELIEF
BECAUSE THE FORUM FAILS TO PROVIDE A COURT WITH JURISDICTION OF THE
CONTROVERSY; SEE CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 207 U.S. 142,
148, 149; COMPARE DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377
...  A STATE MAY, ON OCCASION, DECLINE TO ENFORCE A FOREIGN CAUSE OF
ACTION.  IN SO DOING, IT MERELY DENIES A REMEDY, LEAVING UNIMPAIRED THE
PLAINTIFF'S SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, SO THAT HE IS FREE TO ENFORCE IT
ELSEWHERE."  286 U.S. AT 160. 

THIS COURT SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT REQUIRE THAT THE FORUM DENY ITS OWN
LAW AND FOLLOW THE TORT LAW OF ANOTHER STATE WHERE THERE IS A
REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE FORUM TO CLOSE ITS COURTS TO THE FOREIGN CAUSE
OF ACTION.  THE DECISION OF WISCONSIN TO OPEN ITS COURTS TO ACTIONS FOR
WRONGFUL DEATHS WITHIN THE STATE BUT CLOSE THEM TO ACTIONS FOR DEATHS
OUTSIDE THE STATE MAY NOT SATISFY EVERYONE'S NOTION OF WISE POLICY. 
SEE LOUCKS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 224 N.Y. 99, 120 N.E. 198(1918).  BUT
IT IS NEITHER NOVEL NOR WITHOUT REASON.  COMPARE THE SIMILAR ILLINOIS
STATUTE WHICH WAS BEFORE THIS COURT IN KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, SUPRA.
WISCONSIN MAY BE WILLING TO GRANT A RIGHT OF ACTION WHERE WITNESSES
WILL BE AVAILABLE IN WISCONSIN AND THE COURTS ARE ACQUAINTED WITH A
DETAILED LOCAL STATUTE AND CASES CONSTRUING IT.  IT MAY NOT WISH TO
SUBJECT RESIDENTS TO SUIT WHERE OUT-OF-STATE WITNESSES WILL BE
DIFFICULT TO BRING BEFORE THE COURT, AND WHERE THE COURT WILL BE FACED
WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF APPLYING A COMPLEX FOREIGN STATUTE - PERHAPS
INCONSISTENT WITH THAT OF WISCONSIN ON IMPORTANT ISSUES - OR FITTING
THE STATUTE TO THE WISCONSIN PATTERN.  THE LEGISLATURE MAY WELL FEEL
THAT IT IS BETTER TO ALLOW THE COURTS OF THE STATE WHERE THE ACCIDENT
OCCURRED TO CONSTRUE AND APPLY ITS OWN STATUTE, AND THAT THE
EXCEPTIONAL CASE WHERE THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE SERVED IN THE STATE
WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED DOES NOT WARRANT A GENERAL STATUTE ALLOWING
SUIT IN THE WISCONSIN COURTS.  THE VARIOUS WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTES ARE
INCONSISTENT ON SUCH ISSUES AS BENEFICIARIES, THE PARTY WHO MAY BRING
SUIT, LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AND THE MEASURE
OF DAMAGES.  SEE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION TO STUDY THE METHOD
OF ASSESSING DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR DEATH (MASS. SEN. NO. 430, DEC. 31,
1942) 21 ET SEQ.; NOTE, 1950 WIS. L. REV. 354, 360, 363.  THE MEASURE
OF DAMAGES AND THE RELATION OF WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS TO ACTIONS FOR
INJURY SURVIVING DEATH HAVE RAISED EXTREMELY COMPLICATED PROBLEMS, EVEN
FOR A COURT APPLYING THE FAMILIAR STATUTE OF ITS OWN STATE.  SEE NOTE,
91 U. OF PA. L. REV. 68(1942); OPPENHEIM, THE SURVIVAL OF TORT ACTIONS
AND THE ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH - A SURVEY AND A PROPOSAL, 16 TULANE
L. REV. 386(1942).  THESE DIVERSITIES REASONABLY SUGGEST APPLICATION BY
LOCAL JUDGES VERSED IN THEM.  COMPARE BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S.
315; ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 341 U.S. 341. 

NO CLAIM IS MADE THAT WISCONSIN HAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE
CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES AND THUS VIOLATED ART. IV, SEC. 2 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  COMPARE DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S.
377.  NOR IS A CLAIM MADE THAT THE LACK OF A FORUM IN WISCONSIN
DEPRIVES THE PLAINTIFF OF DUE PROCESS.  COMPARE BRINKERHOFF-FARIS CO.
V. HILL, 281 U.S. 673; MISSOURI V. LEWIS, 101 U.S. 22, 30.  NOR IS IT
ARGUED THAT WISCONSIN IS FLOUTING A FEDERAL STATUTE.  COMPARE ATLANTIC
COAST LINE R. CO. V. BURNETTE, 239 U.S. 199, 201.  THE ONLY QUESTION
BEFORE US IS HOW FAR THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE UNDERCUTS THE
PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, MADE EXPLICIT BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT, TO
LEAVE THE CONDUCT OF DOMESTIC AFFAIRS TO THE STATES.  FEW INTERESTS ARE
OF MORE DOMINANT LOCAL CONCERN THAN MATTERS GOVERNING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF LAW.  THIS VITAL INTEREST OF THE STATES SHOULD NOT BE
SACRIFICED IN THE INTEREST OF A MERELY LITERAL READING OF THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE. 

THERE IS NO SUPPORT, EITHER IN REASON OR IN THE CASES, FOR HOLDING
THAT THIS COURT IS TO MAKE A DE NOVO CHOICE BETWEEN THE POLICIES
UNDERLYING THE LAWS OF WISCONSIN AND ILLINOIS.  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE PROVIDED A "WRITER'S INKHORN" SO THAT
THIS COURT MIGHT SEPARATE RIGHT FROM WRONG.  "PRIMA FACIE EVERY STATE
IS ENTITLED TO ENFORCE IN ITS OWN COURTS ITS OWN STATUTES, LAWFULLY
ENACTED.  ONE WHO CHALLENGES THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE FORCE GIVEN TO
A CONFLICTING STATUTE OF ANOTHER STATE BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE, ASSUMES THE BURDEN OF SHOWING, UPON SOME RATIONAL BASIS, THAT
OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS INVOLVED THOSE OF THE FOREIGN STATE ARE
SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF THE FORUM."  MR. JUSTICE STONE, IN ALASKA PACKERS
ASSN. V. COMMISSION, SUPRA, AT 547-548.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE
DECEDENT, THE PLAINTIFF, AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT WERE RESIDENTS OF
WISCONSIN.  THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT WAS CREATED UNDER WISCONSIN LAW. 
THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE WISCONSIN COURTS.  NO REASON IS APPARENT -
AND NONE IS VOUCHSAFED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT - WHY THE INTEREST
OF ILLINOIS IS SO GREAT THAT IT CAN FORCE THE COURTS OF WISCONSIN TO
GRANT RELIEF IN DEFIANCE OF THEIR OWN LAW. 

FINALLY, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT HERE IN THE
POLICIES UNDERLYING THE STATUTE OF WISCONSIN AND THAT OF ILLINOIS.  THE
ILLINOIS WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE HAS A PROVISO THAT "NO ACTION SHALL BE
BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED IN THIS STATE TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR A DEATH
OCCURRING OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE WHERE A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR SUCH DEATH
EXISTS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE PLACE WHERE SUCH DEATH OCCURRED AND
SERVICE OF PROCESS IN SUCH SUIT MAY BE HAD UPON THE DEFENDANT IN SUCH
PLACE."  SMITH-HURD'S ILL. ANN. STAT., 1936, C. 70, SEC. 2.  THE
OPINION OF THE COURT CONCEDES THAT "JURISDICTION OVER THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANT APPARENTLY COULD BE HAD IN ILLINOIS BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE." 
SMITH-HURD'S ILL. ANN. STAT., 1950, C. 95 1/2, SEC. 23.  THUS, IN THE
CONVERSE OF THE CASE AT BAR - IF HUGHES HAD BEEN KILLED IN WISCONSIN
AND SUIT HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN ILLINOIS - THE ILLINOIS COURTS WOULD
APPARENTLY HAVE DISMISSED THE SUIT.  THERE IS NO NEED TO BE "MORE ROMAN
THAN THE ROMANS."* 

*COMPARE FREUND, CHIEF JUSTICE STONE AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 59
HARV. L. REV. 1210, 1220(1946). 
..END :



















BREARD V. ALEXANDRIA, 341 U.S. 622 


NO. 399.  ARGUED MARCH 7-8, 1951.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.  - 217 LA.
820, 47 SO.2D 553, AFFIRMED. 


A SO-CALLED "GREEN RIVER ORDINANCE" OF A MUNICIPALITY FORBIDS THE
PRACTICE OF GOING IN AND UPON PRIVATE RESIDENCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SOLICITING ORDERS FOR THE SALE OF GOODS, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT OF THE
OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS.  APPELLANT, REPRESENTING A FOREIGN CORPORATION,
WAS ENGAGED IN DOOR-TO-DOOR SOLICITING OF SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR NATIONALLY
KNOWN MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS.  SUBSCRIPTIONS WERE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A
CARD SENT FROM THE HOME OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION AND THE PUBLICATIONS
WERE DELIVERED BY THE PUBLISHERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH THE
MAILS.  APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE SOLELY
BECAUSE HE HAD NOT OBTAINED THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE OWNERS OR
OCCUPANTS OF THE RESIDENCES HE SOLICITED.  HELD: 

1.  THE ORDINANCE IS NOT INVALID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 629-633. 

(A)  THE ORDINANCE CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS PROHIBITORY OF APPELLANT'S
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS OF OBTAINING SUBSCRIPTIONS TO PERIODICALS ONLY IN
THE LIMITED SENSE OF SUBSCRIPTIONS BY HOUSE-TO-HOUSE CANVASS WITHOUT
INVITATION.  IT LEAVES OPEN THE USUAL METHODS OF SOLICITATION - BY
RADIO, PERIODICALS, MAIL AND LOCAL AGENCIES.  PP. 631-632. 

(B)  THE CONSTITUTION'S PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS DOES NOT RENDER
A STATE OR CITY IMPOTENT TO GUARD ITS CITIZENS AGAINST THE ANNOYANCES
OF LIFE BECAUSE THE REGULATION MAY RESTRICT THE MANNER OF DOING A
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS.  PP. 632-633. 

2.  THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT SO BURDEN OR IMPEDE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS
TO VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 633
641. 

(A)  THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE BUSINESS
AND IS A VALID LOCAL REGULATION OF SOLICITATION.  HOOD & SONS V. DU
MOND, 336 U.S. 525, AND DEAN MILK CO. V. MADISON, 340 U.S. 349,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 633-641. 

(B)  APPELLANT, AS A PUBLISHERS' REPRESENTATIVE OR IN HIS OWN RIGHT
AS A DOOR-TO-DOOR CANVASSER, IS NO MORE FREE TO VIOLATE LOCAL
REGULATIONS TO PROTECT PRIVACY THAN ARE OTHER SOLICITORS.  PP. 637
641. 

(C)  WHEN THERE IS A REASONABLE BASIS FOR LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THE
SOCIAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE ECONOMIC, WELFARE OF A COMMUNITY, IT
IS NOT FOR THIS COURT BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO DENY THE
EXERCISE LOCALLY OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE STATE.  PP. 640-641. 

3.  THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS
GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  PP. 641-645. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT PERIODICALS ARE SOLD DOES NOT PUT THEM BEYOND THE
PROTECTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  PP. 641-642. 

(B)  THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS ARE
NOT ABSOLUTES.  P. 642. 

(C)  MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141; MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S.
501; AND TUCKER V. TEXAS, 326 U.S. 517, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 642-644. 

(D)  IT WOULD BE A MISUSE OF THE GREAT GUARANTIES OF FREE SPEECH AND
FREE PRESS TO USE THEM TO FORCE A COMMUNITY TO ADMIT THE SOLICITORS OF
PUBLICATIONS TO THE HOME PREMISES OF ITS RESIDENTS.  P. 645. 

BREARD V. ALEXANDRIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. 

APPELLANT'S CONVICTION OF A VIOLATION OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE,
CHALLENGED AS VIOLATIVE OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  217 LA. 820, 47 SO.2D 553. 
ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 645. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT HERE, JACK H. BREARD, A REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
KEYSTONE READERS SERVICE, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, WAS
ARRESTED WHILE GOING FROM DOOR TO DOOR IN THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA,
LOUISIANA, SOLICITING SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR NATIONALLY KNOWN MAGAZINES. 
THE ARREST WAS SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD VIOLATED AN ORDINANCE
BECAUSE HE HAD NOT OBTAINED THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE OWNERS OF THE
RESIDENCES SOLICITED.  BREARD, A RESIDENT OF TEXAS, WAS IN CHARGE OF A
CREW OF SOLICITORS WHO GO FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE IN THE VARIOUS CITIES AND
TOWNS IN THE AREA UNDER BREARD'S MANAGEMENT AND SOLICIT SUBSCRIPTIONS
FOR NATIONALLY KNOWN MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS, INCLUDING AMONG OTHERS
THE SATURDAY EVENING POST, LADIES' HOME JOURNAL, COUNTRY GENTLEMAN,
HOLIDAY, NEWSWEEK, AMERICAN HOME, COSMOPOLITAN, ESQUIRE, PIC, PARENTS,
TODAY'S WOMAN AND TRUE.  THESE SOLICITORS SPEND ONLY A FEW DAYS IN EACH
CITY, DEPENDING UPON ITS SIZE.  KEYSTONE SENDS A CARD FROM ITS HOME
OFFICE TO THE NEW SUBSCRIBERS ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE SUBSCRIPTION
AND THEREAFTER THE PERIODICAL IS FORWARDED TO THE SUBSCRIBER BY THE
PUBLISHER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH THE MAILS. 

THE ORDINANCE UNDER WHICH THE ARREST WAS MADE, SO FAR AS IS HERE
PERTINENT, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 1.  BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA,
LOUISIANA, IN LEGAL SESSION CONVENED THAT THE PRACTICE OF GOING IN AND
UPON PRIVATE RESIDENCES IN THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA BY
SOLICITORS, PEDDLERS, HAWKERS, ITINERANT MERCHANTS OR TRANSIENT VENDORS
OF MERCHANDISE NOT HAVING BEEN REQUESTED OR INVITED SO TO DO BY THE
OWNER OR OWNERS, OCCUPANT OR OCCUPANTS OF SAID PRIVATE RESIDENCES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SOLICITING ORDERS FOR THE SALE OF GOODS, WARES AND
MERCHANDISE AND/OR DISPOSING OF AND/OR PEDDLING OR HAWKING THE SAME IS
DECLARED TO BE A NUISANCE AND PUNISHABLE AS SUCH NUISANCE AS A
MISDEMEANOR." 

IT, OR ONE OF SIMILAR IMPORT, HAS BEEN ON THE STATUTE BOOKS OF
ALEXANDRIA FOR MANY YEARS.  IT IS STIPULATED THAT: 

"SUCH ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AMONG OTHER REASONS,
BECAUSE SOME HOUSEHOLDERS COMPLAINED TO THOSE IN AUTHORITY THAT IN SOME
INSTANCES, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, SOLICITORS WERE UNDESIRABLE OR
DISCOURTEOUS, AND SOME HOUSEHOLDERS COMPLAINED THAT, WHETHER A
SOLICITOR WAS COURTEOUS OR NOT, THEY DID NOT DESIRE ANY UNINVITED
INTRUSION INTO THE PRIVACY OF THEIR HOME." 

THE PROTECTIVE PURPOSES OF THE ORDINANCE WERE UNDERSCORED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA IN ITS OPINION.  217 LA. 820, AT 825-828, 47
SO.2D 553, AT 555. 

AT APPELLANTHS TRIAL FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, THERE WAS A
MOTION TO QUASH ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION;
THAT IT VIOLATES THE FEDERAL COMMERCE CLAUSE; AND THAT IT VIOLATES THE
GUARANTEES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE
PRESS, MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  APPELLANT'S MOTION TO QUASH WAS
OVERRULED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND HE WAS FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED TO
PAY A $25 FINE OR SERVE 30 DAYS IN JAIL.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
LOUISIANA AFFIRMED APPELLANTHS CONVICTION AND EXPRESSLY REJECTED THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.  217 LA. 820, 47 SO.2D 553.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257; JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S.
413. 

ALL DECLARE FOR LIBERTY AND PROCEED TO DISAGREE AMONG THEMSELVES AS
TO ITS TRUE MEANING.  THERE IS EQUAL UNANIMITY THAT OPPORTUNISTS, FOR
PRIVATE GAIN, CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO ARM THEMSELVES WITH AN ACCEPTABLE
PRINCIPLE, SUCH AS THAT OF A RIGHT TO WORK, A PRIVILEGE TO ENGAGE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR A FREE PRESS, AND PROCEED TO USE IT AS AN IRON
STANDARD TO SMOOTH THEIR PATH BY CRUSHING THE LIVING RIGHTS OF OTHERS
TO PRIVACY AND REPOSE.  THIS CASE CALLS FOR AN ADJUSTMENT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR LIVING CONDITIONS
OF THE TIME AND PLACE.  EVERYONE CANNOT HAVE HIS OWN WAY AND EACH MUST
YIELD SOMETHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF ALL. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE KNOCKER ON THE FRONT DOOR IS TREATED AS AN
INVITATION OR LICENSE TO ATTEMPT AN ENTRY, JUSTIFYING INGRESS TO THE
HOME BY SOLICITORS, HAWKERS AND PEDDLERS FOR ALL KINDS OF SALABLE
ARTICLES.  FN1  WHEN SUCH VISITORS ARE BARRED FROM PREMISES BY NOTICE
OR ORDER, HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT TRESPASSES HAVE BEEN PUNISHED.  FN2  DOOR
TO-DOOR CANVASSING HAS FLOURISHED INCREASINGLY IN RECENT YEARS WITH THE
READY MARKET FURNISHED BY THE RAPID CONCENTRATION OF HOUSING.  THE
INFREQUENT AND STILL WELCOME SOLICITOR TO THE RURAL HOME BECAME TO SOME
A RECURRING NUISANCE IN TOWNS WHEN THE VISITS WERE MULTIPLIED.  FN3
UNWANTED KNOCKS ON THE DOOR BY DAY OR NIGHT ARE A NUISANCE, OR WORSE,
TO PEACE AND QUIET.  THE LOCAL RETAIL MERCHANT, TOO, HAS NOT BEEN
UNMINDFUL OF THE EFFECTIVE COMPETITION FURNISHED BY HOUSE-TO-HOUSE
SELLING IN MANY LINES.  AS A MATTER OF BUSINESS FAIRNESS, IT MAY BE
THOUGHT NOT REALLY SPORTING TO CORNER THE QUARRY IN HIS HOME AND
THROUGH HIS OPEN DOOR PUT PRESSURE ON THE PROSPECT TO PURCHASE.  AS THE
EXIGENCIES OF TRADE ARE NOT ORDINARILY EXPECTED TO HAVE A HIGHER RATING
CONSTITUTIONALLY THAN THE TRANQUILLITY OF THE FIRESIDE, RESPONSIBLE
MUNICIPAL OFFICERS HAVE SOUGHT A WAY TO CURB THE ANNOYANCES WHILE
PRESERVING COMPLETE FREEDOM FOR DESIRABLE VISITORS TO THE HOMES.  THE
IDEA OF BARRING CLASSIFIED SALESMEN FROM HOMES BY MEANS OF NOTICES
POSTED BY INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDERS WAS REJECTED EARLY AS LESS PRACTICAL
THAN AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SOLICITORS.  FN4 

THE TOWN OF GREEN RIVER, WYOMING, UNDERTOOK IN 1931 TO REMEDY BY
ORDINANCE THE IRRITATING INCIDENTS OF HOUSE-TO-HOUSE CANVASSING FOR
SALES.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT ORDINANCE, SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL, IS
THE SAME AS THAT OF ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA.  FN5  THE GREEN RIVER
ORDINANCE WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE TENTH
CIRCUIT IN 1933 AGAINST AN ATTACK BY A NONRESIDENT CORPORATION, A
SOLICITOR OF ORDERS, THROUGH A BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION TO PROHIBIT ITS
ENFORCEMENT, ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS OF INTERFERENCE WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW, AND DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  TOWN OF GREEN
RIVER V. FULLER BRUSH CO., 65 F. ID 112.  NO REVIEW OF THAT DECISION
WAS SOUGHT.  AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BRUSH COMPANY CHALLENGED THE SAME
ORDINANCE AGAIN IN THE COURTS OF WYOMING IN 1936 ON A PROSECUTION BY
THE TOWN FOR THE MISDEMEANOR OF VIOLATING ITS TERMS.  ON THIS ATTACK
CERTAIN PURELY STATE GROUNDS WERE RELIED UPON, WHICH WE NEED NOT
NOTICE, AND THE CHARGES OF VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WERE
REPEATED.  THE ORDINANCE WAS HELD VALID BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
WYOMING.  TOWN OF GREEN RIVER V. BUNGER, 50 WYO. 52, 58 P.2D 456.  FN6 

DUE PROCESS.  - ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, APPELLANT URGED PARTICULARLY
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF SUCH UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS AS THE GREEN RIVER ORDINANCE
PLACED ON "THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ONE OF THE COMMON OCCUPATIONS OF
LIFE," CITING, INTER ALIA, NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262,
278, AND ADAMS V. TANNER, 244 U.S. 590.  HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE
ALLEGED PROHIBITION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE GUISE OF A POLICE
REGULATION.  FN7 

HERE THIS COURT DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
QUESTION.  300 U.S. 638.  FOR AN ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
ORDINANCE DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE OF ITS UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT ON
THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN A LEGITIMATE OCCUPATION, THIS COURT CITED THREE
CASES:  GUNDLING V. CHICAGO, 177 U.S. 183; FN8  WESTERN TURF
ASSOCIATION V. GREENBERG, 204 U.S. 359; FN9  AND WILLIAMS V. ARKANSAS,
217 U.S. 79.  FN10 

THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT SINCE THIS GREEN RIVER CASE HAVE NOT GIVEN
ANY GROUND TO ARGUE THAT THE POLICE POWER OF A STATE OVER SOLICITING
HAS CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES UNDER THE DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLE EMBODIED
IN THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM TO CARRY ON AN INOFFENSIVE TRADE OR
BUSINESS.  DECISIONS SUCH AS LIEBMANN AND TANNER, SUPRA, INVALIDATING
LEGISLATIVE ACTION, ARE HARDLY IN POINT HERE.  THE FORMER REQUIRED A
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO MANUFACTURE ICE, AND THE
LATTER PROHIBITED EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES FROM RECEIVING REMUNERATION FOR
THEIR SERVICES.  THE GREEN RIVER ORDINANCE CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS
PROHIBITORY OF APPELLANT'S LEGITIMATE BUSINESS OF OBTAINING
SUBSCRIPTIONS TO PERIODICALS ONLY IN THE LIMITED SENSE OF FORBIDDING
SOLICITATION OF SUBSCRIPTIONS BY HOUSE-TO-HOUSE CANVASS WITHOUT
INVITATION.  ALL REGULATORY LEGISLATION IS PROHIBITORY IN THAT SENSE. 
THE USUAL METHODS OF SOLICITATION - RADIO, PERIODICALS, MAIL, LOCAL
AGENCIES - ARE OPEN.  FN11  FURTHERMORE, NEITHER CASE IS IN AS STRONG A
POSITION TODAY AS IT WAS WHEN BUNGER APPEALED.  SEE OLSEN V. NEBRASKA,
313 U.S. 236, 243 ET SEQ., AND LINCOLN UNION V. NORTHWESTERN CO., 335
U.S. 525, 535. 

THE CONSTITUTION'S PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS DOES NOT MAKE A
STATE OR A CITY IMPOTENT TO GUARD ITS CITIZENS AGAINST THE ANNOYANCES
OF LIFE BECAUSE THE REGULATION MAY RESTRICT THE MANNER OF DOING A
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS.  FN12  THE QUESTION OF A MAN'S RIGHT TO CARRY ON
WITH PROPRIETY A STANDARD METHOD OF SELLING IS PRESENTED HERE IN ITS
MOST APPEALING FORM - AN ASSERTION BY A DOOR-TO-DOOR SOLICITOR THAT THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PERMIT A STATE
OR ITS SUBDIVISIONS TO DEPRIVE A SPECIALIST IN DOOR-TO-DOOR SELLING OF
HIS MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD.  BUT PUTTING ASIDE THE ARGUMENT THAT AFTER ALL
IT IS THE COMMERCE, I.E., SALES OF PERIODICALS, AND NOT THE METHODS,
THAT IS PETITIONER'S BUSINESS, WE THINK THAT EVEN A LEGITIMATE
OCCUPATION MAY BE RESTRICTED OR PROHIBITED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  SEE
THE DISSENT IN NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262, 280, 303. 
THE PROBLEM IS LEGISLATIVE WHERE THERE ARE REASONABLE BASES FOR
LEGISLATIVE ACTION.  FN13  WE HOLD THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT INVALID
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

COMMERCE CLAUSE.  - NOR DID THIS COURT IN BUNGER CONSIDER THE GREEN
RIVER ORDINANCE INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS AN UNREASONABLE
BURDEN UPON OR AN INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN14  AS
AGAINST THE CASES CITED IN BUNGERHS BEHALF, THIS COURT RELIED UPON
ASBELL V. KANSAS, 209 U.S. 251, 254, 255(ALLOWING KANSAS TO HAVE ITS
OWN INSPECTION FOR CATTLE IMPORTED INTO THE STATE, EXCEPT FOR IMMEDIATE
SLAUGHTER); SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 525(ALLOWING A STATE TO
REGULATE THE SALE AND REQUIRE A FORMULA FOR STOCK FEEDS); HARTFORD
INDEMNITY CO. V. ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155, 158(UPHOLDING AN ILLINOIS
STATUTE REQUIRING COMMISSION MERCHANTS TO KEEP RECORD OF OUT-OF-STATE
CONSIGNMENTS AND OBTAIN A LICENSE AND GIVE A BOND).  FN15 

APPELLANT DOES NOT, OF COURSE, ARGUE THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBIDS
ALL LOCAL REGULATION OF SOLICITATION FOR INTERSTATE BUSINESS. 

"UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, THERE NECESSARILY REMAINS TO THE
STATES, UNTIL CONGRESS ACTS, A WIDE RANGE FOR THE PERMISSIBLE EXERCISE
OF POWER APPROPRIATE TO THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ALTHOUGH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE AFFECTED.  ...  STATES ARE THUS ENABLED TO
DEAL WITH LOCAL EXIGENCIES AND TO EXERT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT WITH
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AN ESSENTIAL PROTECTIVE POWER."  FN16 

SUCH STATE POWER HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED.  FN17  APPELLANT ARGUES
THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE "BECAUSE THE PRACTICAL
OPERATION OF THE ORDINANCE, AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, IMPOSES AN UNDUE AND DISCRIMINATORY BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN EFFECT IS TANTAMOUNT TO A PROHIBITION OF
SUCH COMMERCE."  THE ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE HOUSEHOLDER'S CONSENT IS
SAID TO BE TOO COSTLY AND THE RESULTS NEGLIGIBLE.  THE EXTENT OF THIS
INTERSTATE BUSINESS, AS STIPULATED, IS LARGE.  FN18  APPELLANT ASSERTS
THAT GREEN RIVER V. BUNGER, SUPRA, IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE COMMERCE
ISSUE, ALTHOUGH THE POINT WAS MADE AND MET, BECAUSE THE EFFECT OF THE
ORDINANCE AT THAT DATE, 1936, UPON COMMERCE WAS "INCIDENTAL"  FN19  AND
BECAUSE IT WAS DECIDED "BEFORE THE WIDESPREAD ENACTMENT OF GREEN RIVER
ORDINANCES AND BEFORE THEIR ACTUAL AND CUMULATIVE EFFECT UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COULD POSSIBLY BE FORECAST."  IT IS URGED THAT OUR
RECENT CASES OF HOOD & SONS V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525, AND DEAN MILK CO.
V. CITY OF MADISON, 340 U.S. 349, DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS COURT WILL NOT
PERMIT LOCAL INTERESTS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE
COMPETITION BY CURTAILING INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  FN20 

IT WAS PARTLY BECAUSE THE REGULATION IN DEAN MILK CO. DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT IT WAS STRUCK DOWN.    "IN THUS
ERECTING AN ECONOMIC BARRIER PROTECTING A MAJOR LOCAL INDUSTRY AGAINST
COMPETITION FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, MADISON PLAINLY DISCRIMINATES
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS IT CANNOT DO, EVEN IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS UNQUESTIONED POWER TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ITS
PEOPLE, IF REASONABLE NONDISCRIMINATORY ALTERNATIVES, ADEQUATE TO
CONSERVE LEGITIMATE LOCAL INTERESTS, ARE AVAILABLE."  ID. AT 354. 

NOR DOES THE CLAUSE AS TO ALTERNATIVES APPLY TO THE ALEXANDRIA
ORDINANCE.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF KNOCKS ON THE LOCAL DOOR.  IT IS
ONLY BY REGULATING THAT KNOCK THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE HOME MAY BE
PROTECTED BY PUBLIC AS DISTINCT FROM PRIVATE ACTION.  FN21  LIKEWISE IN
HOOD & SONS V. DU MOND IT WAS THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE
DEALERS THAT INVALIDATED THE ORDER REFUSING A LICENSE TO BUY MILK TO AN
OUT-OF-STATE DISTRIBUTOR.  FN22  WHERE NO DISCRIMINATION EXISTED, IN A
SOMEWHAT SIMILAR SITUATION, WE UPHELD THE STATE REGULATION AS A
PERMISSIBLE BURDEN ON COMMERCE.  FN23  SEE IN ACCORD, PANHANDLE EASTERN
PIPE LINE CO. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM'N, 341 U.S. 329, 336. 

WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE TO PUBLISHERS OF OUR MANY PERIODICALS OF
THE HOUSE-TO-HOUSE METHOD OF SELLING BY SOLICITATION.  AS A MATTER OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HOWEVER, THEY IN THEIR BUSINESS OPERATIONS ARE IN
NO DIFFERENT POSITION SO FAR AS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS CONCERNED THAN
THE SELLERS OF OTHER WARES.  FN24  APPELLANT, AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE
OR IN HIS OWN RIGHT AS A DOOR-TO-DOOR CANVASSER, IS NO MORE FREE TO
VIOLATE LOCAL REGULATIONS TO PROTECT PRIVACY THAN ARE OTHER
SOLICITORS.  AS WE SAID ABOVE, THE USUAL METHODS OF SEEKING BUSINESS
ARE LEFT OPEN BY THE ORDINANCE.  THAT SUCH METHODS DO NOT PRODUCE AS
MUCH BUSINESS AS HOUSE-TO-HOUSE CANVASSING IS, CONSTITUTIONALLY,
IMMATERIAL AND A MATTER FOR ADJUSTMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IN THE
ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  CF. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN,
328 U.S. 408.  TAXATION THAT THREATENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITH
PROHIBITION OR DISCRIMINATION IS BAD, NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S.
416, 434, BUT REGULATION THAT LEAVES OUT-OF-STATE SELLERS ON THE SAME
BASIS AS LOCAL SELLERS CANNOT BE INVALID FOR THAT REASON. 

WHILE TAXATION AND LICENSING OF HAWKING OR PEDDLING, DEFINED AS
SELLING AND DELIVERING IN THE STATE, HAS LONG BEEN THOUGHT TO SHOW NO
VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SOLICITATION OF ORDERS WITH
SUBSEQUENT INTERSTATE SHIPMENT HAS BEEN IMMUNE FROM SUCH AN EXACTION. 
FN25  THESE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THIS COURT AS EMBODYING A
PROTECTION OF COMMERCE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION MADE MOST APPARENT BY
FIXED-SUM LICENSES REGARDLESS OF SALES.  FN26  WHERE THE LEGISLATION IS
NOT AN ADDED FINANCIAL BURDEN UPON SALES IN COMMERCE OR AN EXACTION FOR
THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT A REGULATION OF LOCAL
MATTERS, DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS APPLY. 

WE THINK ALEXANDRIA'S ORDINANCE FALLS IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF
REGULATION.  THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN DOOR-TO
DOOR SOLICITING CANNOT BE GAINSAID.  TO SOLICITORS SO ENGAGED,
ORDINANCES SUCH AS THIS COMPEL THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW TECHNIQUE OF
APPROACH TO PROSPECTS.  THEIR LOCAL RETAIL COMPETITORS GAIN ADVANTAGES
FROM THE LOCATION OF THEIR STORES AND INVESTMENTS IN THEIR STOCK BUT
THE SOLICITOR RETAINS HIS FLEXIBILITY OF MOVEMENT AND FREEDOM FROM
HEAVY INVESTMENT. 

THE GENERAL USE OF THE GREEN RIVER TYPE OF ORDINANCE SHOWS ITS
ADAPTATION TO THE NEEDS OF THE MANY COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ENACTED IT.
WE ARE NOT WILLING EVEN TO APPRAISE THE SUGGESTION, UNSUPPORTED IN THE
RECORD, THAT SUCH WIDE USE SPRINGS PREDOMINANTLY FROM THE SELFISH
INFLUENCE OF LOCAL MERCHANTS. 

EVEN BEFORE THIS COURT'S DECISION IN MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S.
141, HOLDING INVALID, WHEN APPLIED TO A PERSON DISTRIBUTING LEAFLETS
ADVERTISING A RELIGIOUS MEETING, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STRUTHERS,
OHIO, FORBIDDING THE SUMMONING OF THE OCCUPANTS OF A RESIDENCE TO THE
DOOR, OUR LESS EXTREME CASES HAD CREATED COMMENT.  SEE CHAFEE, FREE
SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES (1941), 406.  FN27 

TO THE CITY COUNCIL FALLS THE DUTY OF PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS AGAINST
THE PRACTICES DEEMED SUBVERSIVE OF PRIVACY AND OF QUIET.  A HOUSEHOLDER
DEPENDS FOR PROTECTION ON HIS CITY BOARD RATHER THAN CHURLISHLY
GUARDING HIS ENTRANCES WITH ORDERS FORBIDDING THE ENTRANCE OF
SOLICITORS.  A SIGN WOULD HAVE TO BE A SMALL BILLBOARD TO MAKE THE
DIFFERENTIATIONS BETWEEN THE WELCOME AND UNWELCOME THAT CAN BE WRITTEN
IN AN ORDINANCE ONCE CHEAPLY FOR ALL HOMES. 

"THE POLICE POWER OF A STATE EXTENDS BEYOND HEALTH, MORALS AND
SAFETY, AND COMPREHENDS THE DUTY, WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, TO
PROTECT THE WELL-BEING AND TRANQUILITY OF A COMMUNITY."  FN28 

WHEN THERE IS A REASONABLE BASIS FOR LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THE
SOCIAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE ECONOMIC, WELFARE OF A COMMUNITY, IT
IS NOT FOR THIS COURT BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO DENY THE
EXERCISE LOCALLY OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF LOUISIANA.  FN29  CHANGING
LIVING CONDITIONS OR VARIATIONS IN THE EXPERIENCES OR HABITS OF
DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES MAY WELL CALL FOR DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE
REGULATIONS AS TO METHODS AND MANNERS OF DOING BUSINESS.  POWERS OF
MUNICIPALITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY THE STATES.  THEIR JUDGMENT OF
LOCAL NEEDS IS MADE FROM A MORE INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CONDITIONS
THAN THAT OF ANY OTHER LEGISLATIVE BODY.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THIS
ORDINANCE OF ALEXANDRIA SO BURDENS OR IMPEDES INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO
EXCEED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THAT CITY. 

FIRST AMENDMENT.  - FINALLY WE COME TO A POINT NOT HERETOFORE URGED
IN THIS COURT AS A GROUND FOR THE INVALIDATION OF A GREEN RIVER
ORDINANCE.  THIS IS THAT SUCH AN ORDINANCE IS AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS.  ONLY THE PRESS OR ORAL ADVOCATES OF IDEAS
COULD URGE THIS POINT.  IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE SOLICITORS FOR GADGETS
OR BRUSHES.  THE POINT IS NOT THAT THE PRESS IS FREE OF THE ORDINARY
RESTRAINTS AND REGULATIONS OF THE MODERN STATE, SUCH AS TAXATION OR
LABOR REGULATION, REFERRED TO ABOVE AT N. 24, BUT, AS STATED IN
APPELLANT'S BRIEF, "BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE PLACES AN ARBITRARY,
UNREASONABLE AND UNDUE BURDEN UPON A WELL ESTABLISHED AND ESSENTIAL
METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION AND CIRCULATION OF LAWFUL MAGAZINES AND
PERIODICALS AND, IN EFFECT, IS TANTAMOUNT TO A PROHIBITION OF THE
UTILIZATION OF SUCH METHOD."  REGULATION NECESSARILY HAS ELEMENTS OF
PROHIBITION.  THUS THE ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT THE MONEYMAKING ACTIVITIES
OF THE SOLICITOR ENTITLE HIM TO GO "IN OR UPON PRIVATE RESIDENCES" AT
WILL, BUT THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF PERIODICALS THROUGH DOOR-TO-DOOR
CANVASSING IS ENTITLED TO FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION.  FN30  THIS KIND
OF DISTRIBUTION IS SAID TO BE PROTECTED BECAUSE THE MERE FACT THAT
MONEY IS MADE OUT OF THE DISTRIBUTION DOES NOT BAR THE PUBLICATIONS
FROM FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION.  FN31  WE AGREE THAT THE FACT THAT
PERIODICALS ARE SOLD DOES NOT PUT THEM BEYOND THE PROTECTION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  FN32  THE SELLING, HOWEVER, BRINGS INTO THE
TRANSACTION A COMMERCIAL FEATURE. 

THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN TREATED AS
ABSOLUTES.  FN33  FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR PRESS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE CAN
TALK OR DISTRIBUTE WHERE, WHEN AND HOW ONE CHOOSES.  RIGHTS OTHER THAN
THOSE OF THE ADVOCATES ARE INVOLVED.  BY ADJUSTMENT OF RIGHTS, WE CAN
HAVE BOTH FULL LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION AND AN ORDERLY LIFE. 

THE CASE THAT COMES NEAREST TO SUPPORTING APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS
MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141.  THERE A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
FORBIDDING ANYONE SUMMONING THE OCCUPANTS OF A RESIDENCE TO THE DOOR TO
RECEIVE ADVERTISEMENTS WAS HELD INVALID AS APPLIED TO THE FREE
DISTRIBUTION OF DODGERS "ADVERTISING A RELIGIOUS MEETING."  ATTENTION
WAS DIRECTED IN N. 1 OF THAT CASE TO THE FACT THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS
NOT AIMED "SOLELY AT COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING."  IT WAS SAID: 

"THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT CONTROL ANYTHING BUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF
LITERATURE, AND IN THAT RESPECT IT SUBSTITUTES THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COMMUNITY FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDER."  PP. 143
144. 

THE DECISION TO RELEASE THE DISTRIBUTOR WAS BECAUSE: 

"FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION TO EVERY CITIZEN WHEREVER HE
DESIRES TO RECEIVE IT IS SO CLEARLY VITAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF A FREE
SOCIETY THAT, PUTTING ASIDE REASONABLE POLICE AND HEALTH REGULATIONS OF
TIME AND MANNER OF DISTRIBUTION, IT MUST BE FULLY PRESERVED."  PP. 146
147. 

THERE WAS DISSENT EVEN TO THIS CAREFULLY PHRASED APPLICATION OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  AS NO ELEMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL
ENTERED INTO THIS FREE SOLICITATION AND THE OPINION WAS NARROWLY
LIMITED TO THE PRECISE FACT OF THE FREE DISTRIBUTION OF AN INVITATION
TO RELIGIOUS SERVICES, WE FEEL THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THIS CASE. 

IN MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S. 501, AND TUCKER V. TEXAS, 326 U.S. 517,
FN34  A STATE WAS HELD BY THIS COURT UNABLE TO PUNISH FOR TRESPASS,
AFTER NOTICE UNDER A STATE CRIMINAL STATUTE, CERTAIN DISTRIBUTORS OF
PRINTED MATTER, MORE RELIGIOUS THAN COMMERCIAL.  THE STATUTE WAS HELD
INVALID UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  IN THE MARSH CASE
IT WAS A PRIVATE CORPORATION, IN THE TUCKER CASE THE UNITED STATES,
THAT OWNED THE PROPERTY USED AS PERMISSIVE PASSWAYS IN COMPANY AND
GOVERNMENT-OWNED TOWNS.  IN NEITHER CASE WAS THERE DEDICATION TO PUBLIC
USE BUT IT SEEMS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE PERMISSIVE USE OF THE WAYS WAS
CONSIDERED EQUAL TO SUCH DEDICATION.  SUCH PROTECTION WAS NOT EXTENDED
TO COLPORTEURS OFFENDING AGAINST SIMILAR STATE TRESPASS LAWS BY
DISTRIBUTING, AFTER NOTICE TO DESIST, LIKE PUBLICATIONS TO THE TENANTS
IN A PRIVATE APARTMENT HOUSE.  HALL V. COMMONWEALTH, 188 VA. 72, 49
S.E.2D 369, APPEAL, AFTER CONVICTION, ON THE GROUND OF DENIAL OF FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS, DISMISSED ON MOTION OF APPELLEE TO DISMISS BECAUSE OF
LACK OF SUBSTANCE IN THE QUESTION, 335 U.S. 875, 912; SEE N. 2, SUPRA. 

SINCE IT IS NOT PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS BUT THE LOCAL AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE PROHIBITED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
FROM ABRIDGING FREE SPEECH OR PRESS, HALL V. VIRGINIA DOES NOT RULE A
CONVICTION FOR TRESPASS AFTER NOTICE BY ORDINANCE.  HOWEVER, IF AS WE
HAVE SHOWN ABOVE, P. 640, A CITY COUNCIL MAY SPEAK FOR THE CITIZENS ON
MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE POLICE POWER, WE WOULD HAVE IN THE PRESENT
PROSECUTION THE TIME-HONORED OFFENSE OF TRESPASS ON PRIVATE GROUNDS
AFTER NOTICE.  THUS THE MARSH AND TUCKER CASES ARE NOT APPLICABLE
HERE. 

THIS MAKES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ALEXANDRIA'S ORDINANCE TURN UPON
A BALANCING OF THE CONVENIENCES BETWEEN SOME HOUSEHOLDERS' DESIRE FOR
PRIVACY AND THE PUBLISHER'S RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE PUBLICATIONS IN THE
PRECISE WAY THAT THOSE SOLICITING FOR HIM THINK BRINGS THE BEST
RESULTS.  THE ISSUE BRINGS INTO COLLISION THE RIGHTS OF THE HOSPITABLE
HOUSEWIFE, PEERING ON MONDAY MORNING AROUND HER CHAINED DOOR, WITH
THOSE OF MR. BREARD'S COURTEOUS, WELL-TRAINED BUT POSSIBLY PERSISTENT
SOLICITOR, OFFERING A BARGAIN ON CULTURE AND INFORMATION THROUGH A
JOINT SUBSCRIPTION TO THE SATURDAY EVENING POST, PIC AND TODAY'S
WOMAN.  BEHIND THE HOUSEWIFE ARE MANY HOUSEWIVES AND HOME-OWNERS IN THE
TOWNS WHERE GREEN RIVER ORDINANCES OFFER THEIR AID.  BEHIND MR. BREARD
ARE "KEYSTONE" WITH AN ANNUAL BUSINESS OF $5,000,000 IN SUBSCRIPTIONS
AND THE PERIODICALS WITH THEIR USE OF HOUSE-TO-HOUSE CANVASSING TO
SECURE SUBSCRIBERS FOR THEIR VALUABLE PUBLICATIONS, TOGETHER WITH OTHER
HOUSEWIVES WHO DESIRE SOLICITORS TO OFFER THEM THE OPPORTUNITY AND
REMIND AND HELP THEM, AT THEIR DOORS, TO SUBSCRIBE FOR PUBLICATIONS. 

SUBSCRIPTIONS MAY BE MADE BY ANYONE INTERESTED IN RECEIVING THE
MAGAZINES WITHOUT THE ANNOYANCES OF HOUSE-TO-HOUSE CANVASSING.  WE
THINK THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE FOUND THESE METHODS OF SALE OBNOXIOUS
MAY CONTROL THEM BY ORDINANCE.  IT WOULD BE, IT SEEMS TO US, A MISUSE
OF THE GREAT GUARANTEES OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS TO USE THOSE
GUARANTEES TO FORCE A COMMUNITY TO ADMIT THE SOLICITORS OF PUBLICATIONS
TO THE HOME PREMISES OF ITS RESIDENTS.  WE SEE NO ABRIDGMENT OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THIS ORDINANCE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1 RESTATEMENT, TORTS, SEC. 167; COOLEY ON TORTS (4TH ED.)  SEC. 
248. 

FN2  HALL V. COMMONWEALTH, 188 VA. 72, 49 S.E.2D 369, APPEAL
DISMISSED, 335 U.S. 875; STATUTES COLLECTED, MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319
U.S. 141, 147, N. 10. 

FN3  "WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE PRACTICE EXISTED IN THE TOWN AS THE
FIRST SECTION STATES, AND THAT IT HAD BECOME ANNOYING AND DISTURBING
AND OBJECTIONABLE TO AT LEAST SOME OF THE CITIZENS.  WE THINK LIKE
PRACTICES HAVE BECOME SO GENERAL AND COMMON AS TO BE OF JUDICIAL
KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT THE FREQUENT RINGING OF DOORBELLS OF PRIVATE
RESIDENCES BY ITINERANT VENDORS AND SOLICITORS IS IN FACT A NUISANCE TO
THE OCCUPANTS OF HOMES.  IT IS NOT APPELLEE AND ITS SOLICITORS AND
THEIR METHODS ALONE THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT MANY OTHERS AS WELL WHO SEEK IN
THE SAME WAY TO DISPOSE OF THEIR WARES.  ONE FOLLOWS ANOTHER UNTIL THE
RINGING DOORBELLS DISTURB THE QUIETUDE OF THE HOME AND BECOME A
CONSTANT ANNOYANCE."  TOWN OF GREEN RIVER V. FULLER BRUSH CO., 65 F.2D
112, 114.    FN4  TOWN OF GREEN RIVER V. BUNGER, 50 WYO. 52, 70, 58
P.2D 456, 462; CF. REAL SILK HOSIERY MILLS V. CITY OF RICHMOND, 298 F.
126. 

FN5  THE ORDINANCE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION, SEC. 3, DOES NOT APPLY TO
"THE SALE, OR SOLICITING OF ORDERS FOR THE SALE, OF MILK, DAIRY
PRODUCTS, VEGETABLES, POULTRY, EGGS AND OTHER FARM AND GARDEN PRODUCE
...  "  APPELLANT MAKES NO POINT AGAINST THE PRESENT ORDINANCE ON THE
GROUND OF INVALID CLASSIFICATION.  CF. TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141;
WILLIAMS V. ARKANSAS, 217 U.S. 79, 90. 

FN6  THE VALIDITY OF GREEN RIVER ORDINANCES HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED
IN A NUMBER OF STATE COURTS.  FIVE STATES - COLORADO, LOUISIANA (IN
CASES PREVIOUS TO THE INSTANT ONE), NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, AND WYOMING -
HAVE UPHELD THE ORDINANCE, AGAINST OBJECTIONS THAT IT WAS BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THE POLICE POWER, DEPRIVED VENDORS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW, DEPRIVED THEM OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS,
AND INFRINGED UPON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS.  MCCORMICK V. CITY OF MONTROSE, 105 COLO. 493, 99 P.2D 969;
SHREVEPORT V. CUNNINGHAM, 190 LA. 481, 182 SO. 649; ALEXANDRIA V.
JONES, 216 LA. 923, 45 SO.2D 79; GREEN V. GALLUP, 46 N.M. 71, 120 P.2D
619; PEOPLE V. BOHNKE, 287 N.Y. 154, 38 N.E.2D 478; GREEN RIVER V.
BUNGER, 50 WYO. 52, 58 P.2D 456. 

ELEVEN STATES, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE HELD SUCH ORDINANCES INVALID. 
ALL OF THESE STATES ACTED IN PART AT LEAST ON NONFEDERAL GROUNDS, AND
THE ONLY FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THREE
STATES, WAS THAT BASED ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  NO STATE COURT, IN
VOIDING THE ORDINANCE, HAS REACHED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE FIRST
AMENDMENT ISSUES URGED HERE.  THE PRINCIPAL GROUNDS RELIED ON HAVE BEEN
THAT THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT AMOUNTED AT MOST ONLY TO A PRIVATE NUISANCE
AND NOT A PUBLIC ONE; THAT THERE WAS NO SHOWING OF INJURY TO PUBLIC
HEALTH OR SAFETY BY THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT; THAT THERE WAS A VESTED
RIGHT IN A LAWFUL OCCUPATION, SO THAT IT WAS SUBJECT ONLY TO REGULATION
BUT NOT TO PROHIBITION; AND THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS BEYOND THE DELEGATED
POWERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY.  PRIOR V. WHITE, 132 FLA. 1, 180 SO.
347(NOT MORE THAN A PRIVATE NUISANCE); CLAY V. MATHEWS, 185 GA. 279,
194 S.E. 172(AFFIRMING WITHOUT OPINION BY AN EVENLY DIVIDED COURT);
DEBERRY V. LAGRANGE, 62 GA. APP. 74, 8 S.E.2D 146(NOT A NUISANCE;
INVADES AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO THE OCCUPATION OF SOLICITING); OSCEOLA
V. BLAIR, 231 IOWA 770, 2 N.W.2D 83(NOT A NUISANCE, DEPRIVES PERSONS OF
A PROPERTY RIGHT IN THEIR OCCUPATION); MT. STERLING V. DONALDSON BAKING
CO., 287 KY. 781, 155 S.W.2D 237(NOT A PUBLIC NUISANCE, BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THE MUNICIPAL POLICE POWER); JEWEL TEA CO. V. BEL AIR, 172 MD.
536, 192 A. 417(NOT A NUISANCE, NOT WITHIN DELEGATED POWERS OF
MUNICIPALITY); JEWEL TEA CO. V. GENEVA, 137 NEB. 768, 291 N.W. 664(NOT
A PUBLIC NUISANCE, ARBITRARY, VIOLATES DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, CITING JAY
BURNS BAKING CO. V. BRYAN, 264 U.S. 504); N.J. GOOD HUMOR, INC. V.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 124 N.J.L. 162, 11 A.2D 113(NOT A VALID POLICE
REGULATION, BEYOND POWERS OF MUNICIPALITY); MCALESTER V. GRAND UNION
TEA CO., 186 OKLA. 487, 98 P.2D 924(ONLY A PRIVATE NUISANCE);
ORANGEBURG V. FARMER, 181 S.C. 143, 186 S.E. 783(UNREASONABLE,
PROHIBITS A LAWFUL OCCUPATION, IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL DUE
PROCESS, ENACTED WITH IMPROPER MOTIVE); EX PARTE FAULKNER, 143 TEX. CR.
R. 272, 158 S.W.2D 525(BEYOND THE POWERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY); WHITE V.
CULPEPER, 172 VA. 630, 1 S.E.2D 269(NOT A PUBLIC NUISANCE). 

THE ORDINANCES IN THE BEL AIR AND CULPEPER CASES CONTAINED
DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS NOT INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE.  IT SHOULD
BE NOTED ALSO THAT WHILE NEW YORK UPHELD THE ORDINANCE IN BOHNKE,
SUPRA, AS APPLIED TO DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS TRACTS, THAT CASE WAS
DECIDED BEFORE THIS COURT'S DECISION IN MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S.
141.  ENFORCEMENT OF GREEN RIVER ORDINANCES HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN
ENJOINED AS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES SECT, IN DONLEY
V. COLORADO SPRINGS, 40 F.SUPP.  15, AND ZIMMERMAN V. LONDON (OHIO), 38
F.SUPP.  582. 

FN7  HE CITED:  REAL SILK HOSIERY MILLS V. PORTLAND, 268 U.S. 325; DI
SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34; INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG,
217 U.S. 91; ROGERS V. ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 401; ROBBINS V. SHELBY TAXING
DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489; BALDWIN V. SEELIG, INC., 294 U.S. 511; STEWART
V. MICHIGAN, 232 U.S. 665. 

FN8  AN ORDINANCE FORBIDDING THE SALE OF CIGARETTES WITHOUT A LICENSE
WAS UPHELD. 

"REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE PURSUIT OF A LAWFUL TRADE OR BUSINESS ARE
OF VERY FREQUENT OCCURRENCE IN THE VARIOUS CITIES OF THE COUNTRY, AND
WHAT SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL BE AND TO WHAT PARTICULAR TRADE, BUSINESS
OR OCCUPATION THEY SHALL APPLY, ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE STATE TO
DETERMINE, AND THEIR DETERMINATION COMES WITHIN THE PROPER EXERCISE OF
THE POLICE POWER BY THE STATE, AND UNLESS THE REGULATIONS ARE SO
UTTERLY UNREASONABLE AND EXTRAVAGANT IN THEIR NATURE AND PURPOSE THAT
THE PROPERTY AND PERSONAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN ARE UNNECESSARILY, AND
IN A MANNER WHOLLY ARBITRARY, INTERFERED WITH OR DESTROYED WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, THEY DO NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE POWER OF THE STATE TO
PASS, AND THEY FORM NO SUBJECT FOR FEDERAL INTERFERENCE."  177 U.S. AT
188. 

FN9  A STATUTE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO REFUSE A PURCHASER OF A TICKET
ADMISSION TO A PLACE OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT EXCEPT IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO DRUNKENNESS AND VICE, WAS UPHELD. 

"DOES THE STATUTE DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF ANY PROPERTY RIGHT WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW?  WE ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE. 
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, FAMILIAR TO ALL, AND WHICH NEED NOT BE CITED,
RECOGNIZE THE POSSESSION, BY EACH STATE, OF POWERS NEVER SURRENDERED TO
THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT; WHICH POWERS THE STATE, EXCEPT AS RESTRAINED BY
ITS OWN CONSTITUTION OR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY
EXERT NOT ONLY FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH, THE PUBLIC MORALS AND THE PUBLIC
SAFETY, BUT FOR THE GENERAL OR COMMON GOOD, FOR THE WELL-BEING, COMFORT
AND GOOD ORDER OF THE PEOPLE."  204 U.S. AT 363. 

"SUCH A REGULATION, IN ITSELF JUST, IS LIKEWISE PROMOTIVE OF PEACE
AND GOOD ORDER AMONG THOSE WHO ATTEND PLACES OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT OR
AMUSEMENT."  ID. AT 364. 

FN10  THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF A STATUTE OF ARKANSAS WERE UPHELD: 

"SEC. 1.  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON OR PERSONS, EXCEPT
AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED IN SECTION 2 OF THIS ACT, TO DRUM OR SOLICIT
BUSINESS OR PATRONAGE FOR ANY HOTEL, LODGING HOUSE, EATING HOUSE, BATH
HOUSE, PHYSICIAN, MASSEUR, SURGEON, OR OTHER MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, ON
THE TRAIN, CARS, OR DEPOTS OF ANY RAILROAD OR COMMON CARRIER OPERATING
OR RUNNING WITHIN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 

     .         .         .      .         . 

"'SEC. 2.  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY RAILROAD OR COMMON
CARRIER OPERATING A LINE WITHIN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS KNOWINGLY TO
PERMIT ITS TRAINS, CARS OR DEPOTS WITHIN THE STATE TO BE USED BY ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS FOR DRUMMING OR SOLICITING BUSINESS OR PATRONAGE FOR
ANY HOTEL, LODGING HOUSE, EATING HOUSE, BATH HOUSE, PHYSICIAN, MASSEUR,
SURGEON, OR OTHER MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, OR DRUMMING OR SOLICITING FOR
ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WHATSOEVER; ...  '"  217 U.S. 86. 

THIS COURT QUOTED THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS AS SAYING: 

"'DRUMMERS WHO SWARM THROUGH THE TRAINS SOLICITING FOR PHYSICIANS,
BATH HOUSES, HOTELS, ETC., MAKE EXISTENCE A BURDEN TO THOSE WHO ARE
SUBJECTED TO THEIR REPEATED SOLICITATIONS.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE
TRAVELER MAY TURN A DEAF EAR TO THESE IMPORTUNITIES, BUT THIS DOES NOT
RENDER IT ANY THE LESS UNPLEASANT AND ANNOYING.  THE DRUMMER MAY KEEP
WITHIN THE LAW AGAINST DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND STILL RENDER HIMSELF A
SOURCE OF ANNOYANCE TO TRAVELERS BY HIS MUCH BESEECHING TO BE ALLOWED
TO LEAD THE WAY TO A DOCTOR OR A HOTEL.'"  ID. 89. 

FN11  BUT CF. JENSEN, BURDENING INTERSTATE DIRECT SELLING, 12 ROCKY
MT. L. REV. 257, 275:  "TO DISCLAIM THIS ECONOMIC EFFECT OF UPHOLDING
THE ORDINANCE AND TO SUGGEST OTHER METHODS OF MERCHANDISING TO DIRECT
SELLING BUSINESSES SHORT OF LOCAL RETAILING, AS WAS DONE BY THE TENTH
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (65 F.2D 112), SHOWS A WOEFUL LACK OF
KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS OF DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER MERCHANDISING." 

FN12  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 523: 

"UNDER OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT THE USE OF PROPERTY AND THE MAKING OF
CONTRACTS ARE NORMALLY MATTERS OF PRIVATE AND NOT OF PUBLIC CONCERN. 
THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT BOTH SHALL BE FREE OF GOVERNMENTAL
INTERFERENCE.  BUT NEITHER PROPERTY RIGHTS NOR CONTRACT RIGHTS ARE
ABSOLUTE; FOR GOVERNMENT CANNOT EXIST IF THE CITIZEN MAY AT WILL USE
HIS PROPERTY TO THE DETRIMENT OF HIS FELLOWS, OR EXERCISE HIS FREEDOM
OF CONTRACT TO WORK THEM HARM.  EQUALLY FUNDAMENTAL WITH THE PRIVATE
RIGHT IS THAT OF THE PUBLIC TO REGULATE IT IN THE COMMON INTEREST." 
RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY V. NEW YORK, 336 U.S. 106; DANIEL V. FAMILY
SECURITY LIFE INS. CO., 336 U.S. 220. 

FN13  ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 454-455; HENNEFORD V.
SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 586. 

FN14  CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 8. 

FN15  THE CASES CITED FOR BUNGER MAY BE EASILY DISTINGUISHED.  THE
CASES OF THE SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, ROGERS V. ARKANSAS, 227
U.S. 401, AND STEWART V. MICHIGAN, 232 U.S. 665, RELATE TO TAXES UPON
OR LICENSES TO DO AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF REAL
SILK HOSIERY MILLS V. PORTLAND, 268 U.S. 325.  THERE IS, HOWEVER, IN
THIS LATTER CASE A STATEMENT THAT SHOULD BE NOTICED:  "NOR CAN WE
ACCEPT THE THEORY THAT AN EXPRESSED PURPOSE TO PREVENT POSSIBLE FRAUDS
IS ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY LEGISLATION WHICH REALLY INTERFERES WITH THE FREE
FLOW OF LEGITIMATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE SHAFER V. FARMERS GRAIN
CO., 268 U.S. 189."  P. 336.  THAT SHOULD BE READ AS A COMMENT ON AN
ORDINANCE REQUIRING A LICENSE AND A BOND TO CARRY ON INTERSTATE
BUSINESS.  CF. PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 361. 

THE STATUTE HELD INVALID IN THE INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CASE, 217 U.S.
91, WAS ONE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE A LICENSE TO TRANSACT INTERSTATE
BUSINESS.  BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, HELD INVALID A STATE LAW
PROHIBITING THE SALE OF MILK IMPORTED FROM ANOTHER STATE UNLESS THE
PRICE PAID IN THE SELLING STATE REACHED THE MINIMUM PRICE REQUIREMENT
OF SELLERS IN THE REGULATING STATE.  THE DI SANTO CASE, 273 U.S. 34,
HOLDING INVALID AS A DIRECT BURDEN ON COMMERCE A STATE LAW REQUIRING
STEAMSHIP AGENTS TO PROCURE A LICENSE, CAN NO LONGER BE CITED AS
AUTHORITY FOR SUCH A RULING.  CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109,
115. 

NONE OF THESE CASES REACH THE PROBLEM HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION OF
LOCAL REGULATION OF SOLICITORHS CONDUCT. 

FN16  KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 9-10. 

FN17  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299; EMERT V. MISSOURI,
156 U.S. 296; AUSTIN V. TENNESSEE, 179 U.S. 343; MINNESOTA RATE CASES,
230 U.S. 352, 402, 408; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303
U.S. 177, 187; CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109; PARKER V. BROWN,
317 U.S. 341, 359, 362; TOOMER V. WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385, 394; PANHANDLE
EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. MICHIGAN PUB. SERV. COMM'N, 341 U.S. 329. 

"AS HAS BEEN SO OFTEN STATED BUT NEVERTHELESS SEEMS TO REQUIRE
CONSTANT REPETITION, NOT ALL BURDENS UPON COMMERCE, BUT ONLY UNDUE OR
DISCRIMINATORY ONES, ARE FORBIDDEN.  FOR, THOUGH 'INTERSTATE BUSINESS
MUST PAY ITS WAY,' A STATE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE CANNOT
PUT A BARRIER AROUND ITS BORDERS TO BAR OUT TRADE FROM OTHER STATES AND
THUS BRING TO NAUGHT THE GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE OF THE FATHERS IN
GIVING TO CONGRESS THE POWER 'TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS, AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES  ...  '  NOR MAY THE PROHIBITION
BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE GUISE OF TAXATION WHICH PRODUCES THE EXCLUDING
OR DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT."  NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416, 425
426. 

AND CF. NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359, WHERE THE
MAINTENANCE OF RETAIL STORES WITHIN A STATE BY A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN
DIRECT MAIL SELLING WAS HELD TO PERMIT THE STATE TO TAX SUCH SALES TO
ITS RESIDENTS, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THE CORPORATION'S AGENTS WITHIN THE
STATE HAD ANY CONNECTION WITH THE SALES. 

FN18  "THE SOLICITATION OF SUBSCRIPTIONS IN THE FIELD REGULARLY
ACCOUNTS FOR FROM 50% TO 60% OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION
CIRCULATION OF NATIONALLY-DISTRIBUTED MAGAZINES WHICH SUBMIT VERIFIED
CIRCULATION REPORTS TO THE AUDIT BUREAU OF CIRCULATIONS  ...  DURING
THE PERIOD FROM 1925 TO DATE, THE AVERAGE CIRCULATION PER ISSUE OF SUCH
MAGAZINES ATTRIBUTABLE TO FIELD SUBSCRIPTION SOLICITATION,  ...  HAS
AMOUNTED TO MORE THAN 30% OF THE TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL CIRCULATION PER
ISSUE  ...  "  THE TOTAL SUBSCRIPTION VALUE OBTAINED BY KEYSTONE
READERS SERVICE, APPELLANT'S EMPLOYER, IN 1948 WAS $5,319,423.40. 
THERE IS A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS, A TRADE
ORGANIZATION WHOSE MEMBERS PUBLISH SOME 400 NATIONALLY DISTRIBUTED
MAGAZINES WITH A COMBINED CIRCULATION OF 140 MILLION COPIES.  THIS
ASSOCIATION SPONSORS AND MAINTAINS A CENTRAL REGISTRY PLAN TO WHICH
AGENCIES LIKE KEYSTONE, SOLICITING SUBSCRIPTIONS, BELONG. 

FN19  "INCIDENTAL" AS A TEST HAS NOT CONTINUED AS A USEFUL MANNER FOR
DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF LOCAL REGULATION OF MATTERS AFFECTING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

"SUCH REGULATIONS BY THE STATE ARE TO BE SUSTAINED, NOT BECAUSE THEY
ARE 'INDIRECT' RATHER THAN 'DIRECT,'  ...  NOT BECAUSE THEY CONTROL
INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES IN SUCH A MANNER AS ONLY TO AFFECT THE COMMERCE
RATHER THAN TO COMMAND ITS OPERATIONS.  BUT THEY ARE TO BE UPHELD
BECAUSE UPON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES IT APPEARS THAT THE MATTER IS ONE WHICH MAY APPROPRIATELY
BE REGULATED IN THE INTEREST OF THE SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF
LOCAL COMMUNITIES, AND WHICH, BECAUSE OF ITS LOCAL CHARACTER, AND THE
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED, MAY NEVER BE ADEQUATELY DEALT WITH BY
CONGRESS."  PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 362-363.    FN20  SO FAR AS
THIS ARGUMENT SEEKS TO BLAME THE PASSAGE OF THE ORDINANCE ON LOCAL
RETAILERS, WE DISREGARD IT.  SUCH ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO
LEGISLATORS, NOT TO COURTS.  ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 455. 
SEE P. 639, INFRA. 

FN21  340 U.S. AT 354-355: 

"IF THE CITY OF MADISON PREFERS TO RELY UPON ITS OWN OFFICIALS FOR
INSPECTION OF DISTANT MILK SOURCES, SUCH INSPECTION IS READILY OPEN TO
IT WITHOUT HARDSHIP FOR IT COULD CHARGE THE ACTUAL AND REASONABLE COST
OF SUCH INSPECTION TO THE IMPORTING PRODUCERS AND PROCESSORS."    FN22
336 U.S. 525, 531-532, 533: 

"IT (THE OPINION IN BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511) RECOGNIZED, AS
DO WE, BROAD POWER IN THE STATE TO PROTECT ITS INHABITANTS AGAINST
PERILS TO HEALTH OR SAFETY, FRAUDULENT TRADERS AND HIGHWAY HAZARDS,
EVEN BY USE OF MEASURES WHICH BEAR ADVERSELY UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
BUT IT LAID REPEATED EMPHASIS UPON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATE MAY NOT
PROMOTE ITS OWN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES BY CURTAILMENT OR BURDENING OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER OF THE STATE TO SHELTER ITS
PEOPLE FROM MENACES TO THEIR HEALTH OR SAFETY AND FROM FRAUD, EVEN WHEN
THOSE DANGERS EMANATE FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND ITS LACK OF POWER
TO RETARD, BURDEN OR CONSTRICT THE FLOW OF SUCH COMMERCE FOR THEIR
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, IS ONE DEEPLY ROOTED IN BOTH OUR HISTORY AND OUR
LAW." 

FN23  MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346. 

FN24 GIRAGI V. MOORE, 301 U.S. 670, 48 ARIZ. 33, 58 P.2D 1249, 49
ARIZ. 74, 64 P.2D 819; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103,
132-133; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 7. 

FN25  EMERT V. MISSOURI, 156 U.S. 296; SEE COMMONWEALTH V. OBER, 12
CUSH.  (MASS.)  493; CRENSHAW V. ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 389, 399-400;
ROGERS V. ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 401; CASKEY BAKING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 313
U.S. 117, 119. 

FN26  MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, 55-57; NIPPERT V.
RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416, 421-425. 

FN27  "HOUSE TO HOUSE CANVASSING RAISES MORE SERIOUS PROBLEMS.  OF
ALL THE METHODS OF SPREADING UNPOPULAR IDEAS, THIS SEEMS THE LEAST
ENTITLED TO EXTENSIVE PROTECTION.  THE POSSIBILITIES OF PERSUASION ARE
SLIGHT COMPARED WITH THE CERTAINTIES OF ANNOYANCE.  GREAT AS IS THE
VALUE OF EXPOSING CITIZENS TO NOVEL VIEWS, HOME IS ONE PLACE WHERE A
MAN OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO SHUT HIMSELF UP IN HIS OWN IDEAS IF HE
DESIRES.  THERE HE SHOULD BE FREE NOT ONLY FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES BUT ALSO FROM HEARING UNINVITED STRANGERS EXPOUND
DISTASTEFUL DOCTRINES.  A DOORBELL CANNOT BE DISREGARDED LIKE A
HANDBILL.  IT TAKES SEVERAL MINUTES TO ASCERTAIN THE PURPOSE OF A
PROPAGANDIST AND AT LEAST SEVERAL MORE TO GET RID OF HIM.  ...
MOREOVER, HOSPITABLE HOUSEWIVES DISLIKE TO LEAVE A VISITOR ON A WINDY
DOORSTEP WHILE HE EXPLAINS HIS ERRAND, YET ONCE HE IS INSIDE THE HOUSE
ROBBERY OR WORSE MAY HAPPEN.  SO PEDDLERS OF IDEAS AND SALESMEN OF
SALVATION IN ODD BRANDS SEEM TO CALL FOR REGULATION AS MUCH AS THE
REGULAR RUN OF COMMERCIAL CANVASSERS.  ... FREEDOM OF THE HOME IS AS
IMPORTANT AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  I CANNOT HELP WONDERING WHETHER THE
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE QUITE AWARE OF THE EFFECT OF
ORGANIZED FRONT-DOOR INTRUSIONS UPON PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SHELTERED FROM
ZEALOTS AND IMPOSTORS BY A STAFF OF SERVANTS OR THE LOCKED ENTRANCE OF
AN APARTMENT HOUSE." 

FN28  KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77, 83. 

FN29  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 154:
"BUT BY THEIR VERY NATURE SUCH INQUIRIES, WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT IS DRAWN IN QUESTION, MUST BE RESTRICTED TO THE ISSUE WHETHER
ANY STATE OF FACTS EITHER KNOWN OR WHICH COULD REASONABLY BE ASSUMED
AFFORDS SUPPORT FOR IT.  HERE THE DEMURRER CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF
THE STATUTE ON ITS FACE AND IT IS EVIDENT FROM ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS
PRESENTED TO CONGRESS, AND THOSE OF WHICH WE MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE,
THAT THE QUESTION IS AT LEAST DEBATABLE WHETHER COMMERCE IN FILLED MILK
SHOULD BE LEFT UNREGULATED, OR IN SOME MEASURE RESTRICTED, OR WHOLLY
PROHIBITED.  AS THAT DECISION WAS FOR CONGRESS, NEITHER THE FINDING OF
A COURT ARRIVED AT BY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE, NOR THE VERDICT OF A JURY
CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR IT." 

SEE JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S.
69, 79; HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316. 

FN30  CF. MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141, 146; LOVELL V. CITY OF
GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 452. 

FN31  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 531. 

FN32  CF. KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77, 88, N. 14; CONCURRENCE AT
90.  SEE N. 24, SUPRA. 

FN33  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 304; COX V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568;
MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 109-110; PRINCE V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158, 166; SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558, 561;
FEINER V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 315.  SEE THE COLLECTION OF CASES IN
NIEMOTKO V. MARYLAND, 340 U.S. 268, AT P. 276 FF. 

FN34  THESE CASES CALLED FORTH NUMEROUS NOTES, E.G., 46 COL. L. REV.
457; 34 GEO. L.J. 244; 44 MICH. L. REV. 848. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

THE ORDINANCE BEFORE US MAKES CRIMINAL THE HITHERTO LEGITIMATE
BUSINESS PRACTICE OF SOLICITING MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS FROM DOOR TO
DOOR WITHOUT PRIOR INVITATION OF THE HOMEOWNER.  LOOKING ONLY TO THE
FACE OF THAT ORDINANCE, THE COURT SUSTAINS IT AS AGAINST OBJECTIONS
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  I DISSENT AND WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW WITHOUT
REACHING ALL OF THE ISSUES RAISED, FOR, IN MY OPINION, THE ORDINANCE
CONSTITUTES AN UNDUE AND DISCRIMINATORY BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT BECAUSE THE "ORDINANCE FALLS IN THE
CLASSIFICATION OF REGULATION," THE CITY COUNCIL IS FREE TO BURDEN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ANTE, P. 638.  IN MY VIEW, THE ORDINANCE IS A
FLAT PROHIBITION OF SOLICITATION.  THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT
RECOGNIZED THIS FACT WHEN IT CHARACTERIZED THE ORDINANCE AS "PROVIDING)
FOR A BLANKET PROHIBITION OF SOLICITATION WITHOUT INVITATION, SAVE FOR
FOOD VENDORS, WHO ARE SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT."  217 LA. AT 828, 47 SO.2D
AT 556.  UNLIKE THIS COURT, THE STATE COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THE
PROHIBITORY CHARACTER OF THE ORDINANCE IN REJECTING APPELLANT'S CLAIM
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF ITS OPINION: 

"THE ORDINANCE IMPOSES NO TAX, NO LICENSE.  IT IS A PROHIBITION OF AN
ACTIVITY ON LOCAL TERRITORY, INVOLVING THE PROBLEMATICAL SALE OF A
COMMODITY ORIGINATING IN ANOTHER STATE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTED
THROUGH THE UNITED STATES MAILS.  IT IMPOSES NO BURDEN ON THE
DISTRIBUTION ITSELF, NOR ON THE MANUFACTURE OF THE COMMODITY, NOR ON
ANY PHASE OF THE TRANSPORTATION FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER OF THAT
COMMODITY."  217 LA. AT 829, 47 SO.2D AT 556. 

AT LEAST SINCE THE DECISION IN ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING
DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489, 497(1887), THIS COURT HAS REGARDED THE PROCESS
OF SOLICITING ORDERS FOR GOODS TO BE SHIPPED ACROSS STATE LINES AS
BEING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS MUCH AS THE TRANSPORTATION ITSELF.  UNDER
THE LINE OF CASES FOLLOWING THIS PRINCIPLE, REEXAMINED AND REAFFIRMED
IN NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416(1946), THE PROCESS OF SOLICITATION
FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAXES, LICENSES OR
BONDING REQUIREMENTS THAT IN THEIR PRACTICAL OPERATION DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST OR UNDULY BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COURT DOES NOT TODAY
PURPORT TO OVERRULE THIS LINE OF DECISIONS.  AND IT ACKNOWLEDGES, AS IT
MUST, THAT THE COURT HAS SHARPLY DISTINGUISHED THE PROCESS OF
SOLICITATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS FROM THE ESSENTIALLY LOCAL
RETAILING OPERATIONS OF HAWKING AND PEDDLING.  SEE WAGNER V. COVINGTON,
251 U.S. 95, 103-104(1919), AND CASES CITED THEREIN.  NOR DOES THE
OPINION DISPUTE THAT THIS ORDINANCE HAS A SEVERE ECONOMIC IMPACT UPON
THE SUBSTANTIAL INTERSTATE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT'S EMPLOYER, AS WELL AS
THE ENTIRE MAGAZINE INDUSTRY WHICH DERIVES 50% TO 60% OF ITS ANNUAL
SUBSCRIPTION CIRCULATION FROM THE VERY TYPE OF SOLICITATION PROHIBITED
BY THIS ORDINANCE.  I DISAGREE WITH THE COURT IN ITS HOLDING THAT AN
ORDINANCE IMPOSING A "BLANKET PROHIBITION" CAN BE SUSTAINED UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AS MERE REGULATION. 

CONGRESS IS GIVEN THE POWER "TO REGULATE COMMERCE  ...  AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES."  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 3.  THE DOCTRINE OF
COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299(1851), PERMITS A STATE TO
EXERCISE ITS POLICE POWERS IN A MANNER IMPINGING UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ONLY WHERE THE SUBJECT OF REGULATION IS ESSENTIALLY LOCAL AND
THEN ONLY WHEN THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OR UNDUE BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS IS AN APPROACH GROUNDED IN THE PRACTICAL, AN
APPROACH WHICH IMPOSES UPON THIS COURT THE "DUTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE STATUTE (OR ORDINANCE) UNDER ATTACK, WHATEVER ITS NAME MAY BE, WILL
IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION WORK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454, 455-456(1940).  THAT
THIS ORDINANCE, ON ITS FACE, PROFESSES TO PROTECT THE HOME DOES NOT
RELIEVE US OF OUR DUTY TO WEIGH THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE ORDINANCE
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  LACK OF DISCRIMINATION ON ITS FACE HAS NOT
HERETOFORE BEEN REGARDED AS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN AN ORDINANCE WITHOUT
INQUIRY INTO ITS PRACTICAL EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  E.G.,
DEAN MILK CO. V. MADISON, 340 U.S. 349, 354(1951)(PROHIBITION AGAINST
SALE OF MILK PASTEURIZED MORE THAN FIVE MILES FROM CITY); REAL SILK
HOSIERY MILLS V. PORTLAND, 268 U.S. 325, 336(1925)(REQUIREMENT THAT
SOLICITORS FILE BOND); MINNESOTA V. BARBER, 136 U.S. 313(1890)(STATUTE
REQUIRING INSPECTION OF MEAT WITHIN STATE). 

IN PASSING UPON OTHER ORDINANCES AFFECTING SOLICITORS, THIS COURT HAS
NOT HESITATED IN NOTING THE ECONOMIC FACT THAT "THE 'REAL COMPETITORS'
OF (SOLICITORS) ARE, AMONG OTHERS, THE LOCAL RETAIL MERCHANTS." 
NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, SUPRA, AT 433, CITING BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL,
SUPRA.  SEE ALSO ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, SUPRA, AT
498.  THE COURT ACKNOWLEDGES "EFFECTIVE COMPETITION" BETWEEN SOLICITORS
AND THE LOCAL RETAIL MERCHANTS, ANTE, P. 627, BUT IS DELIBERATE IN ITS
REFUSAL TO APPRAISE THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS ORDINANCE AS A
DETERRENT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ANTE, P. 639.  I THINK IT PLAIN THAT
A "BLANKET PROHIBITION" UPON APPELLANT'S SOLICITATION DISCRIMINATES
AGAINST AND UNDULY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN FAVORING LOCAL RETAIL
MERCHANTS.  "WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS SO INTENDED, THOSE ARE ITS NECESSARY
EFFECTS."  NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, SUPRA, AT 434.  THE FACT THAT THIS
ORDINANCE EXEMPTS SOLICITATION BY THE ESSENTIALLY LOCAL PURVEYORS OF
FARM PRODUCTS SHOWS THAT LOCAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS ARE RELIEVED OF THE
BURDENSOME EFFECTS OF THE ORDINANCE.  NO ONE DOUBTS THAT PROTECTION OF
THE HOME IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF LEGISLATION, BUT THAT END CAN BE SERVED
WITHOUT PROHIBITING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  OUR PRIOR DECISIONS CANNOT BE
AVOIDED BY LIMITING THEIR AUTHORITY TO THE LIMITED CATEGORIES OF TAX
AND LICENSE.  ON THE CONTRARY, WE MUST GUARD AGAINST STATE ACTION
WHICH, "IN ANY FORM OR UNDER ANY GUISE, DIRECTLY BURDENS) THE
PROSECUTION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS."  BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511,
522(1935), CITING INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217 U.S. 91,
112(1910).  SEE ALSO HOOD & SONS V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525(1949).  I
CANNOT AGREE THAT THIS COURT SHOULD DEFER TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF
ALEXANDRIA AS THOUGH WE HAD BEFORE US AN ACT OF CONGRESS REGULATING
COMMERCE.  SEE ANTE, P. 640.  "(THIS) COURT, AND NOT THE STATE
LEGISLATURE (OR THE CITY COUNCIL), IS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THE
FINAL ARBITER OF THE COMPETING DEMANDS OF STATE (OR LOCAL) AND NATIONAL
INTERESTS."  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 769(1945). 

THE COURT RELIES UPON BUNGER V. GREEN RIVER, 300 U.S. 638(1937),
WHERE THE CONVICTION OF A FULLER BRUSH MAN WAS SUSTAINED UNDER AN
ORDINANCE AKIN TO THE ONE BEFORE US.  THE ORDER WAS ENTERED WITHOUT
ARGUMENT, WITHOUT OPINION AND WITH CITATION OF THE THREE CASES
DISCUSSED BY THE COURT, ANTE, AT P. 633, EACH OF WHICH CASES SUSTAINED
AS "INCIDENTAL" TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE STATE ACTION REGULATING LOCAL
INSPECTION AND FEEDING OF CATTLE, AND THE SALE OF PRODUCE* . 

*IT IS PASSING STRANGE THAT, AFTER RELYING ON THREE CASES GROUNDED
SOLELY ON "INCIDENTAL" AS A TEST OF VALIDITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE,
THE COURT SHOULD ITSELF STATE THAT SUCH A TEST "HAS NOT CONTINUED AS A
USEFUL MANNER FOR DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF LOCAL REGULATION OF
MATTERS AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  ANTE, P. 635, N. 19. 

I WOULD APPLY TO THIS CASE THE PRINCIPLES SO RECENTLY ANNOUNCED IN
DEAN MILK CO. V. MADISON, 340 U.S. 349(1951).  IN THE COURSE OF ITS
DISCUSSION OF OUR DEAN MILK DECISION, THE COURT REMARKS THAT IN THE
INSTANT CASE "INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF KNOCKS ON THE LOCAL DOOR." 
ANTE, P. 636.  AS I READ THE PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, THAT FACT,
FAR FROM JUSTIFYING AVOIDANCE OF DEAN MILK, BUTTRESSES MY CONCLUSION
THAT THE ORDINANCE CANNOT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BE
APPLIED TO APPELLANT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, DISSENTING. 

ON MAY 3, 1943, THIS COURT HELD THAT CITIES AND STATES COULD NOT
ENFORCE LAWS WHICH IMPOSE FLAT TAXES ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOOR-TO-DOOR
SALES OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE, JONES V. OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 103; MURDOCK
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, OR WHICH MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR PERSONS TO
GO FROM HOME TO HOME KNOCKING ON DOORS AND RINGING DOORBELLS TO INVITE
OCCUPANTS TO RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL OR OTHER KINDS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS. 
MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141.  OVER STRONG DISSENTS, THESE LAWS
WERE HELD TO INVADE LIBERTY OF SPEECH, PRESS AND RELIGION IN VIOLATION
OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  TODAY A NEW MAJORITY ADOPTS
THE POSITION OF THE FORMER DISSENTERS AND SUSTAINS A CITY ORDINANCE
FORBIDDING DOOR-TO-DOOR SOLICITATION OF SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE SATURDAY
EVENING POST, NEWSWEEK AND OTHER MAGAZINES.  SINCE THIS DECISION CANNOT
BE RECONCILED WITH THE JONES, MURDOCK AND MARTIN V. STRUTHERS CASES, IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT GOOD JUDICIAL PRACTICE CALLS FOR THEIR FORTHRIGHT
OVERRULING.  BUT WHETHER THIS IS DONE OR NOT, IT SHOULD BE PLAIN THAT
MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT AS NOW CONSTITUTED STEMS
BASICALLY FROM A DIFFERENT CONCEPT OF THE REACH OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS RATHER THAN FROM ANY DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO
WHAT FORMER CASES HAVE HELD.    TODAY'S DECISION MARKS A REVITALIZATION
OF THE JUDICIAL VIEWS WHICH PREVAILED BEFORE THIS COURT EMBRACED THE
PHILOSOPHY THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES A PREFERRED STATUS TO THE
LIBERTIES IT PROTECTS.  I ADHERE TO THAT PREFERRED POSITION
PHILOSOPHY.  IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS
NATION CANNOT SURVIVE EVEN A LITTLE GOVERNMENTAL HOBBLING OF RELIGIOUS
OR POLITICAL IDEAS, WHETHER THEY BE COMMUNICATED ORALLY OR THROUGH THE
PRESS. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTUARY FOR THE PRESS MUST NECESSARILY INCLUDE
LIBERTY TO PUBLISH AND CIRCULATE.  IN VIEW OF OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM, IT
MUST ALSO INCLUDE FREEDOM TO SOLICIT PAYING SUBSCRIBERS.  OF COURSE
HOMEOWNERS CAN IF THEY WISH FORBID NEWSBOYS, REPORTERS OR MAGAZINE
SOLICITORS TO RING THEIR DOORBELLS.  BUT WHEN THE HOMEOWNER HIMSELF HAS
NOT DONE THIS, I BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT, INTERPRETED WITH DUE
REGARD FOR THE FREEDOMS IT GUARANTEES, BARS LAWS LIKE THE PRESENT
ORDINANCE WHICH PUNISH PERSONS WHO PEACEFULLY GO FROM DOOR TO DOOR AS
AGENTS OF THE PRESS* . 

*OF COURSE I BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENT ORDINANCE COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED TO A "MERCHANT" WHO GOES FROM DOOR TO DOOR
"SELLING POTS."  COMPARE MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141, 144 WITH
VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN, 316 U.S. 52. 
..END :













COLLINS V. HARDYMAN, 341 U.S. 651 


NO. 217.  ARGUED JANUARY 8-9, 1951.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.  - 183 F.2D
308, REVERSED. 


A COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 47(3)
ALLEGED THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WERE MEMBERS OF A POLITICAL CLUB WHICH
PLANNED A MEETING TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE MARSHALL PLAN;
THAT DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR RIGHTS AS
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO EQUAL
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; THAT, IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY, DEFENDANTS PROCEEDED TO PLAINTIFFS'
MEETING PLACE AND, BY THREATS AND VIOLENCE, BROKE UP THE MEETING, THUS
INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHT OF PLAINTIFFS TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES; AND THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT INTERFERE OR
CONSPIRE TO INTERFERE WITH MEETINGS OF OTHER GROUPS WITH WHOSE OPINIONS
DEFENDANTS AGREED.  THERE WAS NO AVERMENT THAT DEFENDANTS WERE STATE
OFFICERS OR ACTED UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW.  HELD:  THE COMPLAINT DID
NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 47(3).  PP. 652-663. 

(A)  ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED SHOW THAT
DEFENDANTS DEPRIVED PLAINTIFFS "OF HAVING AND EXERCISING" A FEDERAL
RIGHT, THE FACTS ALLEGED DID NOT SHOW THAT THE CONSPIRACY WAS "FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING (THEM) OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR OF
EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAWS"; AND THEREFORE, IN THIS
CASE, A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 47(3) WAS NOT STATED.  PP.
660-663. 

(B)  SECTION 47(3) DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO REACH A CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE
ONE OF RIGHTS, UNLESS IT IS A DEPRIVATION OF EQUALITY, OF "EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAW" OR OF "EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE
LAW."  PP. 660-661. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS BROKE UP PLAINTIFFS' MEETING BUT
DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE MEETINGS OF THOSE WHO SHARED DEFENDANTS'
VIEWS IS NOT INEQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW UNLESS THERE IS SOME
MANIPULATION OF THE LAW OR ITS AGENCIES TO GIVE SANCTION OR SANCTUARY
FOR DOING SO.  P. 661. 

(D)  ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS' RIGHTS WERE INVADED, DISREGARDED AND
LAWLESSLY VIOLATED, NEITHER THEIR RIGHTS NOR THEIR EQUALITY OF RIGHTS
UNDER THE LAW HAVE BEEN, OR WERE INTENDED TO BE, DENIED OR IMPAIRED. 
PP. 661-662. 

COLLINS ET AL. V. HARDYMAN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY RESPONDENTS AGAINST PETITIONERS TO RECOVER
DAMAGES UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 47(3), THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT.  80 F.SUPP.  501.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  183 F.2D
308.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 809.  REVERSED, P. 663. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CONTROVERSY ARISES UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 47(3), WHICH PROVIDES
CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CERTAIN CONSPIRACIES.  FN1  A MOTION TO DISMISS THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT RAISES THE ISSUE OF ITS SUFFICIENCY AND, OF COURSE,
REQUIRES US TO ACCEPT ITS WELL-PLEADED FACTS AS THE HYPOTHESIS FOR
DECISION. 

ITS ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS ARE THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA, AND MEMBERS OR OFFICERS OF A
VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION OR POLITICAL CLUB ORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES,
PETITIONING THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, AND
ENGAGING IN PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR THE DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL PUBLIC
ISSUES.  IT PLANNED A PUBLIC MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 14, 1947, ON THE
SUBJECT, "THE COMINFORM AND THE MARSHALL PLAN," AT WHICH IT WAS
INTENDED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OPPOSING SAID MARSHALL PLAN, TO BE
FORWARDED, BY WAY OF A PETITION FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, TO
APPROPRIATE FEDERAL OFFICIALS. 

THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED AS BEING WITHIN THE ACT IS THAT DEFENDANTS,
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEETING AND ITS PURPOSES, ENTERED INTO AN
AGREEMENT TO DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFFS, "AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE
RIGHTS PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING AND
COMMUNICATING UPON NATIONAL PUBLIC ISSUES  ...  "  AND FURTHER, "TO
DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFFS AS WELL AS THE MEMBERS OF SAID CLUB, AS CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES, OF EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  THIS IS AMPLIFIED BY ALLEGATIONS THAT
DEFENDANTS KNEW OF MANY PUBLIC MEETINGS IN THE LOCALITY, AT WHICH
RESOLUTIONS WERE ADOPTED BY GROUPS WITH WHOSE OPINIONS DEFENDANTS
AGREED, AND WITH WHICH DEFENDANTS DID NOT INTERFERE OR CONSPIRE TO
INTERFERE.  "WITH RESPECT TO THE MEETING AFORESAID ON NOVEMBER 14,
1947, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO INTERFERE WITH SAID MEETING
FOR THE REASON THAT THE DEFENDANTS OPPOSED THE VIEWS OF THE PLAINTIFFS
...  " 

IN THE EFFORT TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE STATUTE, THE PLEADER ALSO
ALLEGED THAT DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED "TO GO IN DISGUISE UPON THE HIGHWAYS"
AND THAT THEY DID IN FACT GO IN DISGUISE "CONSISTING OF THE UNLAWFUL
AND UNAUTHORIZED WEARING OF CAPS OF THE AMERICAN LEGION."  THE DISTRICT
COURT DISPOSED OF THIS PART OF THE COMPLAINT BY HOLDING THAT WEARING
SUCH HEADGEAR DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE DISGUISE OR CONCEALMENT OF
IDENTITY CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT.  PLAINTIFFS THEREUPON ABANDONED THAT
PART OF THE COMPLAINT AND DO NOT HERE RELY UPON IT TO SUPPORT THEIR
CLAIMS. 

THE COMPLAINT THEN SEPARATELY SETS OUT THE OVERT ACTS OF INJURY AND
DAMAGE RELIED UPON TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  TO CARRY OUT
THE CONSPIRACY, IT IS ALLEGED, DEFENDANTS PROCEEDED TO THE MEETING
PLACE AND, BY FORCE AND THREATS OF FORCE, DID ASSAULT AND INTIMIDATE
PLAINTIFFS AND THOSE PRESENT AT THE MEETING AND THEREBY BROKE UP THE
MEETING, THUS INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFFS TO PETITION
THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.  BOTH COMPENSATORY AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE DEMANDED. 

IT IS AVERRED THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES UNDER THE STATUTE CITED
AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  BUT APPARENTLY THE
DRAFTSMAN WAS SCRUPULOUSLY CAUTIOUS NOT TO ALLEGE THAT IT AROSE UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, OR THAT DEFENDANTS HAD CONSPIRED TO DEPRIVE
PLAINTIFFS OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THAT AMENDMENT, THUS SEEKING TO AVOID
THE EFFECT OF EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
CASES. 

THE COMPLAINT MAKES NO CLAIM THAT THE CONSPIRACY OR THE OVERT ACTS
INVOLVED ANY ACTION BY STATE OFFICIALS, OR THAT DEFENDANTS EVEN
PRETENDED TO ACT UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW.  IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT
DEFENDANTS HAD OR CLAIMED ANY PROTECTION OR IMMUNITY FROM THE LAW OF
THE STATE, OR THAT THEY IN FACT ENJOYED SUCH BECAUSE OF ANY ACT OR
OMISSION BY STATE AUTHORITIES.  INDEED, THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE
ACTS ALLEGED ARE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO
DISTURBANCE OF THE PEACE, ASSAULT, AND TRESPASS, AND ARE ALSO CIVILLY
ACTIONABLE.  FN2 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE HELD THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT AND CANNOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY AFFORD REDRESS FOR INVASIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE
HANDS OF INDIVIDUALS, BUT CAN ONLY BE APPLIED TO INJURIES TO CIVIL
RIGHTS BY PERSONS ACTING PURSUANT TO OR UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW.  FN3
IN REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD OTHERWISE, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING. 
FN4  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, IN LOVE V. CHANDLER,
124 F.2D 785, HAS RULED IN ACCORD WITH THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND THE
DISSENTING COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE HERE.  FN5  TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT,
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN6 

THIS STATUTORY PROVISION HAS LONG BEEN DORMANT.  IT WAS INTRODUCED
INTO THE FEDERAL STATUTES BY THE ACT OF APRIL 20, 1871, ENTITLED, "AN
ACT TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."  FN7  THE
ACT WAS AMONG THE LAST OF THE RECONSTRUCTION LEGISLATION TO BE BASED ON
THE "CONQUERED PROVINCE" THEORY WHICH PREVAILED IN CONGRESS FOR A
PERIOD FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR.  THIS STATUTE, WITHOUT SEPARABILITY
PROVISIONS, ESTABLISHED THE CIVIL LIABILITY WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE
CONCERNED AS WELL AS OTHER CIVIL LIABILITIES, TOGETHER WITH PARALLEL
CRIMINAL LIABILITIES.  IT ALSO PROVIDED THAT UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS AND
CONSPIRACIES NAMED IN THE ACT MIGHT BE DEEMED REBELLIONS, AND
AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO EMPLOY THE MILITIA TO SUPPRESS THEM.  THE
PRESIDENT WAS ALSO AUTHORIZED TO SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.  IT PROHIBITED ANY PERSON FROM BEING A FEDERAL GRAND OR
PETIT JUROR IN ANY CASE ARISING UNDER THE ACT UNLESS HE TOOK AND
SUBSCRIBED AN OATH IN OPEN COURT "THAT HE HAS NEVER, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, COUNSELLED, ADVISED, OR VOLUNTARILY AIDED ANY SUCH
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY."  HEAVY PENALTIES AND LIABILITIES WERE LAID
UPON ANY PERSON WHO, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH CONSPIRACIES, AIDED THEM OR
FAILED TO DO WHAT HE COULD TO SUPPRESS THEM. 

THE ACT, POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE KU KLUX ACT, WAS PASSED BY A PARTISAN
VOTE IN A HIGHLY INFLAMED ATMOSPHERE.  IT WAS PRECEDED BY SPIRITED
DEBATE WHICH POINTED OUT ITS GRAVE CHARACTER AND SUSCEPTIBILITY TO
ABUSE, AND ITS DEFECTS WERE SOON REALIZED WHEN ITS EXECUTION BROUGHT
ABOUT A SEVERE REACTION.  FN8 

THE PROVISION ESTABLISHING CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES IN LANGUAGE
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT USED TO DESCRIBE CIVIL CONSPIRACIES CAME TO
JUDGMENT IN UNITED STATES V. HARRIS, 106 U.S. 629.  FN9  IT WAS HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THIS DECISION WAS IN HARMONY WITH THAT OF OTHER
IMPORTANT DECISIONS DURING THAT PERIOD  FN10  BY A COURT, EVERY MEMBER
OF WHICH HAD BEEN APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT LINCOLN, GRANT, HAYES,
GARFIELD OR ARTHUR - ALL INDOCTRINATED IN THE CAUSE WHICH PRODUCED THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BUT CONVINCED THAT IT WAS NOT TO BE USED TO
CENTRALIZE POWER SO AS TO UPSET THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

WHILE WE HAVE NOT BEEN IN AGREEMENT AS TO THE INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION OF SOME OF THE POST-CIVIL WAR LEGISLATION,  FN11  THE COURT
RECENTLY UNANIMOUSLY DECLARED, THROUGH THE CHIEF JUSTICE: 

"SINCE THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S.
3(1883), THE PRINCIPLE HAS BECOME FIRMLY EMBEDDED IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW THAT THE ACTION INHIBITED BY THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS ONLY SUCH ACTION AS MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE THAT OF THE
STATES.  THAT AMENDMENT ERECTS NO SHIELD AGAINST MERELY PRIVATE
CONDUCT, HOWEVER DISCRIMINATORY OR WRONGFUL."  FN12 

AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING, HAS QUOTED WITH APPROVAL FROM
THE CRUIKSHANK CASE, "'THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS A STATE FROM
DENYING TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS; BUT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT, ANY MORE THAN THE ONE WHICH
PRECEDES IT ...  ADD ANYTHING TO THE RIGHTS WHICH ONE CITIZEN HAS UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ANOTHER.'  92 U.S. AT PP. 554-555."  AND "'THE
ONLY OBLIGATION RESTING UPON THE UNITED STATES IS TO SEE THAT THE
STATES DO NOT DENY THE RIGHT.  THIS THE AMENDMENT GUARANTEES, BUT NO
MORE.  THE POWER OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THIS GUARANTY.'"  HE SUMMED UP:  "THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST STATE ACTION, NOT AGAINST
WRONGS DONE BY INDIVIDUALS.  ...  "  FN13 

IT IS APPARENT THAT, IF THIS COMPLAINT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
ACT, IT RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE THAT, IN
THE LIGHT OF HISTORY, ARE NOT WITHOUT DIFFICULTY.  THESE WOULD INCLUDE
ISSUES AS TO CONGRESSIONAL POWER UNDER AND APART FROM THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, THE RESERVED POWER OF THE STATES, THE CONTENT OF RIGHTS
DERIVED FROM NATIONAL AS DISTINGUISHED FROM STATE CITIZENSHIP, AND THE
QUESTION OF SEPARABILITY OF THE ACT IN ITS APPLICATION TO THOSE TWO
CLASSES OF RIGHTS.  THE LATTER QUESTION WAS LONG AGO DECIDED ADVERSELY
TO THE PLAINTIFFS.  BALDWIN V. FRANKS, 120 U.S. 678.  BEFORE WE EMBARK
UPON SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL INQUIRY, IT IS NECESSARY TO SATISFY
OURSELVES THAT THE ATTEMPT TO ALLEGE A CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL. 

THE SECTION UNDER WHICH THIS ACTION IS BROUGHT FALLS INTO TWO
DIVISIONS.  THE FOREPART DEFINES CONSPIRACIES THAT MAY BECOME THE BASIS
OF LIABILITY, AND THE LATTER PORTION DEFINES OVERT ACTS NECESSARY TO
CONSUMMATE THE CONSPIRACY AS AN ACTIONABLE WRONG.  WHILE A MERE
UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT OR CONSPIRACY MAY BE MADE A FEDERAL CRIME, AS IT WAS
AT COMMON LAW,  FN14  THIS STATUTE DOES NOT MAKE THE MERE AGREEMENT OR
UNDERSTANDING FOR CONCERTED ACTION WHICH CONSTITUTES THE FORBIDDEN
CONSPIRACY AN ACTIONABLE WRONG UNLESS IT MATURES INTO SOME ACTION THAT
INFLICTS INJURY.  THAT, WE THINK, IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SECOND
DIVISION OF THE SECTION. 

THE PROVISION WITH REFERENCE TO THE OVERT ACT WILL BEAR REPEATING,
WITH EMPHASIS SUPPLIED:  " ...  (IN) ANY CASE OF CONSPIRACY SET FORTH
IN THIS SECTION, IF ONE OR MORE PERSONS ENGAGED THEREIN DO, OR CAUSE TO
BE DONE, ANY ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECT OF SUCH CONSPIRACY,
WHEREBY ANOTHER IS INJURED IN HIS PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR DEPRIVED OF
HAVING AND EXERCISING ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE PARTY SO INJURED OR DEPRIVED MAY HAVE AN ACTION FOR THE
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES  ...  " 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE DICTUM IN UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S.
542, 552, WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE FACTS PLEADED SHOW THAT
DEFENDANTS DID DEPRIVE PLAINTIFFS "OF HAVING AND EXERCISING" A FEDERAL
RIGHT WHICH, PROVIDED THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENGAGED IN A "CONSPIRACY SET
FORTH IN THIS SECTION," WOULD BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE ACT. 

THE "CONSPIRACY" REQUIRED IS DIFFERENTLY STATED FROM THE REQUIRED
OVERT ACT AND WE THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS NOT ACCIDENTAL BUT
SIGNIFICANT.  ITS ESSENTIALS, WITH EMPHASIS SUPPLIED, ARE THAT TWO OR
MORE PERSONS MUST CONSPIRE (1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING ANY PERSON
OR CLASS OF PERSONS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR OF EQUAL
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAW; OR (2) FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PREVENTING OR HINDERING THE CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES FROM GIVING OR
SECURING TO ALL PERSONS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; OR (3) TO
PREVENT BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, OR THREAT, ANY CITIZEN ENTITLED TO VOTE
FROM GIVING HIS SUPPORT OR ADVOCACY IN A LEGAL MANNER TOWARD ELECTION
OF AN ELECTOR FOR PRESIDENT OR A MEMBER OF CONGRESS; OR (4) TO INJURE
ANY CITIZEN IN PERSON OR PROPERTY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SUPPORT OR
ADVOCACY.  THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT ANY ALLEGATION BRINGS THIS CASE
WITHIN THE PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE NUMBERED (2), (3), AND (4), SO WE
MAY ELIMINATE ANY CONSIDERATION OF THOSE CATEGORIES.  THE COMPLAINT IS
WITHIN THE STATUTE ONLY IF IT ALLEGES A CONSPIRACY OF THE FIRST
DESCRIBED CLASS.  IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS PART OF THE ACT DEFINES
CONSPIRACIES OF A VERY LIMITED CHARACTER.  THEY MUST, WE REPEAT, BE
"FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING ...  OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS,
OR OF EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAWS." 

PASSING THE ARGUMENT, FULLY DEVELOPED IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, THAT
AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS NOT IN OFFICE CANNOT DEPRIVE
ANYBODY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THOUGH THEY MAY INVADE OR VIOLATE
THOSE RIGHTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS STATUTE DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO REACH A
CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE ONE OF RIGHTS, UNLESS IT IS A DEPRIVATION OF
EQUALITY, OF "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW," OR OF "EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAW."  THAT ACCORDS WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO
PUT THE LATELY FREED NEGRO ON AN EQUAL FOOTING BEFORE THE LAW WITH HIS
FORMER MASTER.  THE ACT APPARENTLY DEEMED THAT ADEQUATE AND WENT NO
FURTHER.    WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS NOT A CONSPIRACY TO AFFECT IN ANY WAY
THESE PLAINTIFFS' EQUALITY OF PROTECTION BY THE LAW, OR THEIR EQUALITY
OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAW.  THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST
ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANTS WERE CONSCIOUS OF OR TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE
LAW, OR WERE ENDEAVORING TO OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE WITH IT.  THE ONLY
INEQUALITY SUGGESTED IS THAT THE DEFENDANTS BROKE UP PLAINTIFFS'
MEETING AND DID NOT BREAK UP MEETINGS OF OTHERS WITH WHOSE SENTIMENTS
THEY AGREED.  TO BE SURE, THIS IS NOT EQUAL INJURY, BUT IT IS NO MORE A
DEPRIVATION OF "EQUAL PROTECTION" OR OF "EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES" THAN IT WOULD BE FOR ONE TO ASSAULT ONE NEIGHBOR WITHOUT
ASSAULTING THEM ALL, OR TO LIBEL SOME PERSONS WITHOUT MENTION OF
OTHERS.  SUCH PRIVATE DISCRIMINATION IS NOT INEQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
UNLESS THERE IS SOME MANIPULATION OF THE LAW OR ITS AGENCIES TO GIVE
SANCTION OR SANCTUARY FOR DOING SO.  PLAINTIFFS' RIGHTS WERE CERTAINLY
INVADED, DISREGARDED AND LAWLESSLY VIOLATED, BUT NEITHER THEIR RIGHTS
NOR THEIR EQUALITY OF RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW HAVE BEEN, OR WERE INTENDED
TO BE, DENIED OR IMPAIRED.  THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS AND TO
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS REMAIN UNTOUCHED AND EQUAL TO THE RIGHTS OF
EVERY OTHER CALIFORNIAN, AND MAY BE VINDICATED IN THE SAME WAY AND WITH
THE SAME EFFECT AS THOSE OF ANY OTHER CITIZEN WHO SUFFERS VIOLENCE AT
THE HANDS OF A MOB. 

WE DO NOT SAY THAT NO CONSPIRACY BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS COULD BE OF
SUCH MAGNITUDE AND EFFECT AS TO WORK A DEPRIVATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS, OR OF EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER LAWS.  INDEED,
THE POST-CIVIL WAR KU KLUX KLAN, AGAINST WHICH THIS ACT WAS FASHIONED,
MAY HAVE, OR MAY REASONABLY HAVE BEEN THOUGHT TO HAVE, DONE SO.  IT IS
ESTIMATED TO HAVE HAD A MEMBERSHIP OF AROUND 550,000, AND THUS TO HAVE
INCLUDED "NEARLY THE ENTIRE ADULT MALE WHITE POPULATION OF THE SOUTH." 
FN15  IT MAY WELL BE THAT A CONSPIRACY, SO FAR-FLUNG AND EMBRACING SUCH
NUMBERS, WITH A PURPOSE TO DOMINATE AND SET AT NAUGHT THE "CARPETBAG"
AND "SCALAWAG" GOVERNMENTS OF THE DAY, WAS ABLE EFFECTIVELY TO DEPRIVE
NEGROES OF THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS AND TO CLOSE ALL AVENUES OF REDRESS OR
VINDICATION, IN VIEW OF THE THEN DISPARITY OF POSITION, EDUCATION AND
OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN THEM AND THOSE WHO MADE UP THE KU KLUX KLAN.  WE DO
NOT KNOW.  BUT HERE NOTHING OF THAT SORT APPEARS.  WE HAVE A CASE OF A
LAWLESS POLITICAL BRAWL, PRECIPITATED BY A HANDFUL OF WHITE CITIZENS
AGAINST OTHER WHITE CITIZENS.  CALIFORNIA COURTS ARE OPEN TO PLAINTIFFS
AND ITS LAWS OFFER REDRESS FOR THEIR INJURY AND VINDICATION FOR THEIR
RIGHTS. 

WE SAY NOTHING OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE SUCH CIVIL
ACTIONS AS RESPONDENTS HAVE COMMENCED OR OTHERWISE TO REDRESS SUCH
GRIEVANCES AS THEY ASSERT.  WE THINK THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT, IN THE
NARROW CLASS OF CONSPIRACIES DEFINED BY THIS STATUTE, INCLUDED THE
CONSPIRACY CHARGED HERE.  WE THEREFORE REACH NO CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS.  THE FACTS ALLEGED FALL SHORT OF A CONSPIRACY TO ALTER,
IMPAIR OR DENY EQUALITY OF RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, THOUGH THEY DO SHOW A
LAWLESS INVASION OF RIGHTS FOR WHICH THERE ARE REMEDIES IN THE LAW OF
CALIFORNIA.  IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO COMPETE WITH CONGRESS OR
ATTEMPT TO REPLACE IT AS THE NATION'S LAW-MAKING BODY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  17 STAT. 13, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 47(3) READS: 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS IN ANY STATE OR TERRITORY CONSPIRE OR GO IN
DISGUISE ON THE HIGHWAY OR ON THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEPRIVING, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF
PERSONS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR OF EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAWS; OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING OR
HINDERING THE CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY FROM
GIVING OR SECURING TO ALL PERSONS WITHIN SUCH STATE OR TERRITORY THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; OR IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE TO
PREVENT BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, OR THREAT, ANY CITIZEN WHO IS LAWFULLY
ENTITLED TO VOTE, FROM GIVING HIS SUPPORT OR ADVOCACY IN A LEGAL
MANNER, TOWARD OR IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION OF ANY LAWFULLY QUALIFIED
PERSON AS AN ELECTOR FOR PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT, OR AS A MEMBER OF
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; OR TO INJURE ANY CITIZEN IN PERSON OR
PROPERTY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SUPPORT OR ADVOCACY; IN ANY CASE OF
CONSPIRACY SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION, IF ONE OR MORE PERSONS ENGAGED
THEREIN DO, OR CAUSE TO BE DONE, ANY ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECT
OF SUCH CONSPIRACY, WHEREBY ANOTHER IS INJURED IN HIS PERSON OR
PROPERTY, OR DEPRIVED OF HAVING AND EXERCISING ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE
OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE PARTY SO INJURED OR DEPRIVED MAY
HAVE AN ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES, OCCASIONED BY SUCH INJURY
OR DEPRIVATION, AGAINST ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE CONSPIRATORS." 

THIS PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER PARAGRAPHS OF
THE SAME SECTION, AND NOTE SHOULD ALSO BE TAKEN OF 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43,
WHICH READS: 

"EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION,
CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE
SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER PERSON WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR
IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE
PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER
PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS." 

FN2  THE OPINION OF DISTRICT JUDGE YANKWICH FOR THIS CITES IN HIS
NOTES, 80 F.SUPP.  501, 510: 

"39.  CAL. PENAL CODE, SECTION 415(DISTURBANCE OF THE PEACE OF
NEIGHBORHOOD OR PERSON); SECTION 403(DISTURBANCE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS) 

"40.  CAL. PENAL CODE, SECTION 602(J)(ILLEGAL ENTRY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF INJURING PROPERTY OR PROPERTY RIGHTS OR INTERFERING OR OBSTRUCTING
LAWFUL BUSINESS OF ANOTHER). 

"41.  CAL. PENAL CODE, SECTIONS 240, 241(ASSAULT); SECTIONS 242,
243(BATTERY).  AMONG THE CORRESPONDING CIVIL SECTIONS RELATING TO CIVIL
REMEDIES ARE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, SECTION 43(GUARANTEE AGAINST
PERSONAL BODILY HARM OR RESTRAINT); GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION
241(DEFINING AS CITIZENS ALL PERSONS BORN OR RESIDING WITHIN THE
STATE); CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 338(3)(SECTION
338(2))(ACTION FOR TRESPASS TO REAL PROPERTY MAY BE BROUGHT WITHIN
THREE YEARS); SECTION 340(3)(ACTION FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY MAY BE
BROUGHT WITHIN ONE YEAR).  AND FOR THE STATE CIVIL RIGHTS PROVISIONS,
SEE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, SECTIONS 51-54." 

FN3  80 F.SUPP.  501. 

FN4  183 F.2D 308. 

FN5  OTHER RECENT CASES INVOLVING THE STATUTE ARE VILES V. SYMES, 129
F.2D 828; ROBESON V. FANELLI, 94 F.SUPP.  62; AND FERRER V. FRONTON
EXHIBITION CO., 188 F.2D 954. 

FN6  340 U.S. 809. 

FN7  17 STAT. 13. 

FN8  THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ACT, THE NATURE OF THE DEBATES WHICH
PRECEDED ITS PASSAGE, AND THE REACTION IT PRODUCED ARE SET FORTH IN
BOWERS, THE TRAGIC ERA, 340-348. 

FN9  R.S. SEC. 5519, UNDER WHICH THE PROSECUTION WAS BROUGHT,
PROVIDED: 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS IN ANY STATE OR TERRITORY CONSPIRE, OR GO IN
DISGUISE ON THE HIGHWAY OR ON THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEPRIVING, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF
PERSONS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR OF EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAWS; OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING OR
HINDERING THE CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY FROM
GIVING OR SECURING TO ALL PERSONS WITHIN SUCH STATE OR TERRITORY THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; EACH OF SUCH PERSONS SHALL BE PUNISHED BY
A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED NOR MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT, WITH OR WITHOUT HARD LABOR, NOT LESS THAN
SIX MONTHS NOR MORE THAN SIX YEARS, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT." 

FN10  SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36; UNITED STATES V. REESE, 92
U.S. 214; UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542; CIVIL RIGHTS CASES,
109 U.S. 3. 

FN11  SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91. 

FN12  SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1, 13. 

FN13  UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 341 U.S. 70, 92. 

FN14  NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 378; UNITED STATES V.
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 252. 

FN15  8 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 606, 607. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR COMPLAINT HAVE FAILED TO
STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER R.S. SEC. 1980(3), 8 U.S.C. SEC. 47(3). 

THE RIGHT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IS THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.  THIS RIGHT IS
EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THIS COURT HAS SAID
THAT "THE VERY IDEA OF A GOVERNMENT, REPUBLICAN IN FORM, IMPLIES A
RIGHT ON THE PART OF ITS CITIZENS TO MEET PEACEABLY FOR CONSULTATION IN
RESPECT TO PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND TO PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES."  UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 552, AND SEE IN
RE QUARLES AND BUTLER, 158 U.S. 532, 535.  THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHT IN
THIS CASE IS NOT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT
PETITIONERS "KNOWINGLY" DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE "MANY PUBLIC
MEETINGS" WHOSE OBJECTIVES THEY AGREED WITH, BUT THAT THEY DID CONSPIRE
TO BREAK UP RESPONDENTS' MEETING BECAUSE PETITIONERS WERE OPPOSED TO
RESPONDENTS' VIEWS, WHICH WERE EXPECTED TO BE THERE EXPRESSED.  SUCH
CONDUCT DOES NOT DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THE SPECIFIC CONSPIRACIES WHICH
THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO REACH. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE REFUTES THE SUGGESTION THAT ACTION UNDER
COLOR OF STATE LAW IS A NECESSARY INGREDIENT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION
WHICH IT RECOGNIZES.  R.S. SEC. 1980(3) SPEAKS OF "TWO OR MORE PERSONS
IN ANY STATE OR TERRITORY" CONSPIRING.  THAT CLAUSE IS NOT LIMITED TO
STATE OFFICIALS.  STILL MORE OBVIOUSLY, WHERE THE SECTION SPEAKS OF
PERSONS GOING "IN DISGUISE ON THE HIGHWAY  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEPRIVING  ...  ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF PERSONS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS," IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT LIMIT ITS REFERENCE TO ACTIONS OF
THAT KIND BY STATE OFFICIALS.  WHEN CONGRESS, AT THIS PERIOD, DID
INTEND TO LIMIT COMPARABLE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION TO ACTION UNDER
COLOR OF STATE LAW, IT SAID SO IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS.  IN FACT, R.S.
SEC. 1980(3) ORIGINALLY WAS SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 20, 1871, AND
SEC. 1 OF THAT SAME ACT SAID "THAT ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY
LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE OF ANY STATE,
SHALL SUBJECT  ...  ANY PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
STATES TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES
SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL  ...  BE LIABLE
TO THE PARTY INJURED  ...."  17 STAT. 13. 

CONGRESS CERTAINLY HAS THE POWER TO CREATE A FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION
IN FAVOR OF PERSONS INJURED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS THROUGH THE
ABRIDGMENT OF FEDERALLY CREATED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT CONGRESS HAS DONE JUST THIS IN R.S. SEC. 1980(3).  THIS IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
THAT AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE RESPECTIVE STATES FROM MAKING LAWS
ABRIDGING THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
OR DENYING TO ANY PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  CASES HOLDING THAT THOSE CLAUSES ARE DIRECTED
ONLY AT STATE ACTION ARE NOT AUTHORITY FOR THE CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS
MAY NOT PASS LAWS SUPPORTING RIGHTS WHICH EXIST APART FROM THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :









LABOR BOARD V. RICE MILLING CO., 341 U.S. 665 


NO. 313.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 1951.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.  - 183 F.2D
21, REVERSED. 


ALTHOUGH THE UNION HERE INVOLVED WAS NOT CERTIFIED OR RECOGNIZED AS
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF A CERTAIN MILL ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ITS AGENTS PICKETED THE MILL WITH THE OBJECT OF
SECURING RECOGNITION OF THE UNION AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MILL'S EMPLOYEES.  IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
PICKETING, THE AGENTS SOUGHT TO INFLUENCE TWO MEN IN CHARGE OF A TRUCK
OF A NEUTRAL CUSTOMER TO REFUSE, IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, TO
GO TO THE MILL FOR AN ORDER OF GOODS; AND THEY THREW ROCKS AT THE TRUCK
WHEN IT PROCEEDED TO THE MILL BY A DETOUR.  HELD:  SUCH ACTION DID NOT
VIOLATE THE "SECONDARY BOYCOTT" PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8(B)(4) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947.  PP. 666-674. 

(A)  THE UNION'S PICKETING AND ITS ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE MEN ON THE
TRUCK DID NOT AMOUNT TO SUCH AN INDUCEMENT OR ENCOURAGEMENT TO
"CONCERTED" ACTIVITIES AS THE SECTION PROSCRIBES.  PP. 670-671. 

(B)  IT IS THE OBJECT OF UNION ENCOURAGEMENT THAT IS PROSCRIBED BY
SEC. 8(B)(4), RATHER THAN THE MEANS ADOPTED TO MAKE IT FELT; AND
VIOLENCE ON THE PICKET LINE IS NOT MATERIAL IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE
COMPLAINT WAS NOT BASED UPON THAT VIOLENCE AS SUCH AND DID NOT RELY
UPON SEC. 8(B)(1)(A).  P. 672. 

(C)  CONGRESS DID NOT SEEK BY SEC. 8(B)(4) TO INTERFERE WITH ORDINARY
STRIKES.  PP. 672-673. 

(D)  BY SEC. 13, CONGRESS HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT SEC. 8(B)(4), AND
ALL OTHER PARTS OF THE ACT WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT BE READ SO AS TO
INTERFERE WITH, IMPEDE OR DIMINISH A UNION'S TRADITIONAL RIGHT TO
STRIKE, MAY BE SO READ ONLY IF SUCH INTERFERENCE, IMPEDIMENT OR
DIMINUTION IS "SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR" IN THE ACT.  P. 673. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. INTERNATIONAL RICE MILLING CO., INC.
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DISMISSED A COMPLAINT OF AN
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(B)(4) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947.  84 N.L.R.B.
360.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL AND REMANDED THE
CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  183 F.2D 21.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 902.  REVERSED, P. 674. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER A UNION VIOLATED SEC. 8(B)(4) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151, AS
AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, FN1  UNDER THE
FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:  ALTHOUGH NOT CERTIFIED OR RECOGNIZED AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF A CERTAIN MILL ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE AGENTS OF THE UNION PICKETED THE MILL WITH THE OBJECT OF
SECURING RECOGNITION OF THE UNION AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MILL EMPLOYEES.  IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
PICKETING, THE AGENTS SOUGHT TO INFLUENCE, OR IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE THEY "ENCOURAGED," TWO MEN IN CHARGE OF A TRUCK OF A NEUTRAL
CUSTOMER OF THE MILL TO REFUSE, IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, TO
GO TO THE MILL FOR AN ORDER OF GOODS.  FOR THE REASONS HEREINAFTER
STATED, WE HOLD THAT SUCH CONDUCT DID NOT VIOLATE SEC. 8(B)(4). 

THIS CASE WAS HEARD HERE WITH NO. 393, LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING
TRADES COUNCIL, POST, P. 675; NO. 108, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS V. LABOR BOARD, POST, P. 694; AND NO. 85, LOCAL 74,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS V. LABOR BOARD, POST, P. 707.  ITS
FACTS, HOWEVER, DISTINGUISH IT FROM THOSE CASES. 

THIS REVIEW IS CONFINED TO THE SINGLE INCIDENT DESCRIBED IN THE
COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 201, A.F.L.,
HEREIN CALLED THE UNION.  THE COMPLAINT ORIGINALLY WAS BASED UPON FOUR
CHARGES MADE AGAINST THE UNION BY SEVERAL RICE MILLS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE NEAR THE CENTER OF THE LOUISIANA RICE INDUSTRY. 
THE MILLS INCLUDED THE INTERNATIONAL RICE MILLING COMPANY, INC., WHICH
GIVES ITS NAME TO THIS PROCEEDING, AND THE KAPLAN RICE MILLS, INC., A
LOUISIANA CORPORATION, WHICH OPERATED THE MILL AT KAPLAN, LOUISIANA,
WHERE THE INCIDENT NOW BEFORE US OCCURRED.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT
THE UNION OR ITS AGENTS, BY THEIR CONDUCT TOWARD TWO EMPLOYEES OF A
NEUTRAL CUSTOMER OF THE KAPLAN RICE MILLS, ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(B)(4).  THE BOARD, WITH ONE MEMBER NOT
PARTICIPATING, ADOPTED THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF ITS TRIAL
EXAMINER AS TO THE FACTS BUT DISAGREED WITH HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT
THOSE FACTS CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) OR (B).  THE
BOARD DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BUT ATTACHED THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S
INTERMEDIATE REPORT TO ITS DECISION.  84 N.L.R.B. 360.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  183 F.2D 21.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED AND BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING
VIEWS OF SEVERAL CIRCUITS AS TO THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(4).  340 U.S.
902.  FN2 

THE FINDINGS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD SHOW THAT THE INCIDENT BEFORE US
OCCURRED AT THE UNION'S PICKET LINE NEAR THE KAPLAN MILL IN OCTOBER,
1947.  THE PICKETS GENERALLY CARRIED SIGNS, ONE BEING "THIS JOB IS
UNFAIR TO" THE UNION.  THE GOAL OF THE PICKETS WAS RECOGNITION OF THE
UNION AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MILL
EMPLOYEES, BUT NONE OF THOSE EMPLOYEES TOOK PART IN THE PICKETING. 
LATE ONE AFTERNOON TWO EMPLOYEES OF THE SALES AND SERVICE HOUSE, WHICH
WAS A CUSTOMER OF THE MILL, CAME IN A TRUCK TO THE KAPLAN MILL TO
OBTAIN RICE OR BRAN FOR THEIR EMPLOYER.  THE UNION HAD NO GRIEVANCE
AGAINST THE CUSTOMER AND THE LATTER WAS A NEUTRAL IN THE DISPUTE
BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE MILL.  THE PICKETS FORMED A LINE ACROSS THE
ROAD AND WALKED TOWARD THE TRUCK.  WHEN THE TRUCK STOPPED, THE PICKETS
TOLD ITS OCCUPANTS THERE WAS A STRIKE ON AND THAT THE TRUCK WOULD HAVE
TO GO BACK.  THOSE ON THE TRUCK AGREED, WENT BACK TO THE HIGHWAY AND
STOPPED.  THERE ONE GOT OUT AND WENT TO THE MILL ACROSS THE STREET.  AT
THAT TIME A VICE PRESIDENT OF THE KAPLAN MILL CAME OUT AND ASKED
WHETHER THE TRUCK WAS ON ITS WAY TO THE MILL AND WHETHER ITS OCCUPANTS
WANTED TO GET THE ORDER THEY CAME FOR.  THE MAN ON THE TRUCK EXPLAINED
THAT HE WAS NOT THE DRIVER AND THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO SEE THE DRIVER. 
ON THE DRIVER'S RETURN, THE TRUCK PROCEEDED, WITH THE VICE PRESIDENT,
TO THE MILL BY A SHORT DETOUR.  THE PICKETS RAN TOWARD THE TRUCK AND
THREW STONES AT IT.  THE TRUCK ENTERED THE MILL, BUT THE FINDINGS DO
NOT DISCLOSE WHETHER THE ARTICLES SOUGHT THERE WERE OBTAINED.  THE
BOARD ADOPTED THE FINDING THAT "THE STOPPING OF THE SALES HOUSE TRUCK
DRIVERS AND THE USE OF FORCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE STOPPAGE WERE
WITHIN THE 'SCOPE OF THE EMPLOYMENT' OF THE PICKETS AS AGENTS OF THE
RESPONDENT (UNION) AND THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
RESPONDENT."  84 N.L.R.B. 360, 372. 

THE MOST THAT CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM THE FOREGOING, TO ESTABLISH A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(B)(4), IS THAT THE UNION, IN THE COURSE OF
PICKETING THE KAPLAN MILL, DID ENCOURAGE TWO EMPLOYEES OF A NEUTRAL
CUSTOMER TO TURN BACK FROM AN INTENDED TRIP TO THE MILL AND THUS TO
REFUSE, IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, TO TRANSPORT ARTICLES OR
PERFORM CERTAIN SERVICES FOR THEIR EMPLOYER.  WE MAY ASSUME, WITHOUT
THE NECESSITY OF ADOPTING THE BOARD'S FINDINGS TO THAT EFFECT, THAT THE
OBJECTS OF SUCH CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE UNION AND ITS AGENTS WERE
(1) TO FORCE KAPLAN'S CUSTOMER TO CEASE HANDLING, TRANSPORTING OR
OTHERWISE DEALING IN PRODUCTS OF THE MILL OR TO CEASE DOING BUSINESS
WITH KAPLAN, AT THAT TIME AND PLACE, AND (2) TO ADD TO THE PRESSURE ON
KAPLAN TO RECOGNIZE THE UNION AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
MILL EMPLOYEES. 

A SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO THIS CLAIMED VIOLATION OF THE SECTION IS THAT
THE UNION'S PICKETING AND ITS ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE MEN ON THE TRUCK DID
NOT AMOUNT TO SUCH AN INDUCEMENT OR ENCOURAGEMENT TO "CONCERTED"
ACTIVITY AS THE SECTION PROSCRIBES.  WHILE EACH CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED
IN THE LIGHT OF ITS SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, YET THE APPLICABLE
PROSCRIPTIONS OF SEC. 8(B)(4) ARE EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO THE INDUCEMENT
OR ENCOURAGEMENT OF CONCERTED CONDUCT BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE NEUTRAL
EMPLOYER.  FN3  THAT LANGUAGE CONTEMPLATES INDUCEMENT OR ENCOURAGEMENT
TO SOME CONCERT OF ACTION GREATER THAN IS EVIDENCED BY THE PICKETS'
REQUEST TO A DRIVER OF A SINGLE TRUCK TO DISCONTINUE A PENDING TRIP TO
A PICKETED MILL.  THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT BY THE UNION TO INDUCE ANY
ACTION BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE NEUTRAL CUSTOMER WHICH WOULD BE MORE
WIDESPREAD THAN THAT ALREADY DESCRIBED.  THERE WERE NO INDUCEMENTS OR
ENCOURAGEMENTS APPLIED ELSEWHERE THAN ON THE PICKET LINE.  THE
LIMITATION OF THE COMPLAINT TO AN INCIDENT IN THE GEOGRAPHICALLY
RESTRICTED AREA NEAR THE MILL IS SIGNIFICANT, ALTHOUGH NOT NECESSARILY
CONCLUSIVE.  THE PICKETING WAS DIRECTED AT THE KAPLAN EMPLOYEES AND AT
THEIR EMPLOYER IN A MANNER TRADITIONAL IN LABOR DISPUTES.  CLEARLY,
THAT, IN ITSELF, WAS NOT PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 8(B)(4).  INSOFAR AS THE
UNION'S EFFORTS WERE DIRECTED BEYOND THAT AND TOWARD THE EMPLOYEES OF
ANYONE OTHER THAN KAPLAN, THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE UNION SOUGHT
CONCERTED CONDUCT BY SUCH OTHER EMPLOYEES.  SUCH EFFORTS ALSO FALL
SHORT OF THE PROSCRIPTIONS IN SEC. 8(B)(4).  IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE,
WE NEED NOT DETERMINE THE SPECIFIC OBJECTS TOWARD WHICH A UNION'S
ENCOURAGEMENT OF CONCERTED CONDUCT MUST BE DIRECTED IN ORDER TO AMOUNT
TO AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OR (B) OF SEC.
8(B)(4).  A UNION'S INDUCEMENTS OR ENCOURAGEMENTS REACHING INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES OF NEUTRAL EMPLOYERS ONLY AS THEY HAPPEN TO APPROACH THE
PICKETED PLACE OF BUSINESS GENERALLY ARE NOT AIMED AT CONCERTED, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM INDIVIDUAL, CONDUCT BY SUCH EMPLOYEES.  GENERALLY,
THEREFORE, SUCH ACTIONS DO NOT COME WITHIN THE PROSCRIPTION OF SEC.
8(B)(4), AND THEY DO NOT HERE. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE VIOLENCE ON THE PICKET LINE IS NOT MATERIAL. 
THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT BASED UPON THAT VIOLENCE, AS SUCH.  TO REACH IT,
THE COMPLAINT MORE PROPERLY WOULD HAVE RELIED UPON SEC. 8(B)(1)(A)  FN4
OR WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED ITSELF TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.  THE SUBSTITUTION
OF VIOLENT COERCION IN PLACE OF PEACEFUL PERSUASION WOULD NOT IN ITSELF
BRING THE COMPLAINED-OF CONDUCT INTO CONFLICT WITH SEC. 8(B)(4).  IT IS
THE OBJECT OF UNION ENCOURAGEMENT THAT IS PROSCRIBED BY THAT SECTION,
RATHER THAN THE MEANS ADOPTED TO MAKE IT FELT.  FN5 

THAT CONGRESS DID NOT SEEK, BY SEC. 8(B)(4), TO INTERFERE WITH THE
ORDINARY STRIKE HAS BEEN INDICATED RECENTLY BY THIS COURT.  FN6  THIS
IS EMPHASIZED IN SEC. 13 AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOTHING IN THIS ACT, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR HEREIN,
SHALL BE CONSTRUED SO AS EITHER TO INTERFERE WITH OR IMPEDE OR DIMINISH
IN ANY WAY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE, OR TO AFFECT THE LIMITATIONS OR
QUALIFICATIONS ON THAT RIGHT."  61 STAT. 151, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III)
SEC. 163. 

BY SEC. 13, CONGRESS HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT SEC. 8(B)(4), AND ALL
OTHER PARTS OF THE ACT WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT BE READ SO AS TO INTERFERE
WITH, IMPEDE OR DIMINISH THE UNION'S TRADITIONAL RIGHT TO STRIKE, MAY
BE SO READ ONLY IF SUCH INTERFERENCE, IMPEDIMENT OR DIMINUTION IS
"SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR" IN THE ACT.  FN7  NO SUCH SPECIFIC
PROVISION IN SEC. 8(B)(4) REACHES THE INCIDENT HERE.  THE MATERIAL
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUPPORTS THIS VIEW.  FN8 

ON THE SINGLE ISSUE BEFORE US, WE SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF THE BOARD AND
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ACCORDINGLY, IS REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  8.  ... 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR ITS AGENTS - 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(4)  TO ENGAGE IN, OR TO INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY
EMPLOYER TO ENGAGE IN, A STRIKE OR A CONCERTED REFUSAL IN THE COURSE OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT TO USE, MANUFACTURE, PROCESS, TRANSPORT, OR OTHERWISE
HANDLE OR WORK ON ANY GOODS, ARTICLES, MATERIALS, OR COMMODITIES OR TO
PERFORM ANY SERVICES, WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF IS:  (A) FORCING OR
REQUIRING ANY EMPLOYER OR SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON TO JOIN ANY LABOR OR
EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION OR ANY EMPLOYER OR OTHER PERSON TO CEASE USING,
SELLING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, OR OTHERWISE DEALING IN THE PRODUCTS
OF ANY OTHER PRODUCER, PROCESSOR, OR MANUFACTURER, OR TO CEASE DOING
BUSINESS WITH ANY OTHER PERSON; (B) FORCING OR REQUIRING ANY OTHER
EMPLOYER TO RECOGNIZE OR BARGAIN WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYEES UNLESS SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN
CERTIFIED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 9; (C) FORCING OR REQUIRING ANY EMPLOYER TO RECOGNIZE OR
BARGAIN WITH A PARTICULAR LABOR ORGANIZATION AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
HIS EMPLOYEES IF ANOTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN CERTIFIED AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9; (D)
FORCING OR REQUIRING ANY EMPLOYER TO ASSIGN PARTICULAR WORK TO
EMPLOYEES IN A PARTICULAR LABOR ORGANIZATION OR IN A PARTICULAR TRADE,
CRAFT, OR CLASS RATHER THAN TO EMPLOYEES IN ANOTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR IN ANOTHER TRADE, CRAFT, OR CLASS, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYER IS FAILING
TO CONFORM TO AN ORDER OR CERTIFICATION OF THE BOARD DETERMINING THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR EMPLOYEES PERFORMING SUCH WORK:
PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUBSECTION (B) SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO MAKE UNLAWFUL A REFUSAL BY ANY PERSON TO ENTER UPON THE
PREMISES OF ANY EMPLOYER (OTHER THAN HIS OWN EMPLOYER), IF THE
EMPLOYEES OF SUCH EMPLOYER ARE ENGAGED IN A STRIKE RATIFIED OR APPROVED
BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES WHOM SUCH EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO
RECOGNIZE UNDER THIS ACT; ...."  61 STAT. 140-142, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP.
III) SEC. 158(B)(4). 

THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, TOGETHER WITH THOSE OF SEC. 303, 61 STAT. 158,
29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 187, HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO BY CONGRESS AND
THE COURTS AS THE "SECONDARY BOYCOTT SECTIONS" OF THE ACT. 

FN2  WHILE THE COMPLAINT CHARGED NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ON THE PART
OF THE UNION IN ITS RELATIONS WITH EMPLOYEES OF THE KAPLAN MILL, IT DID
CHARGE THAT THE UNION ALSO VIOLATED SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) BY ITS CONDUCT IN
INDUCING AND ENCOURAGING EMPLOYEES OF TWO NEUTRAL RAILROADS TO ENGAGE
IN A CONCERTED REFUSAL, IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, TO TRANSPORT
OR OTHERWISE HANDLE ARTICLES SHIPPED TO OR FROM SOME OF THE RESPECTIVE
MILLS, INCLUDING THE KAPLAN MILL.  NOT ONLY DID THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF
CONCERTED ACTION WHICH WAS ALLEGED IN THAT CHARGE DIFFER SUBSTANTIALLY
FROM THE CONDUCT WHICH IS BEFORE US BUT THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WERE NOT EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8(B)(4).  84 N.L.R.B. 360.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD TO THE CONTRARY
AND REMANDED THE CHARGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  183 F.2D 21, 24-26. 
THE BOARD, HOWEVER, DOES NOT SEEK A REVIEW OF THAT ORDER.    FN3  IT IS
NOT CHARGED HERE THAT THE UNION OR ITS AGENTS THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN A
STRIKE OR CONCERTED ACTIVITY FOR AN OBJECT PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 8(B)(4). 

FN4  "SEC.  8.  ... 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR ITS AGENTS - 

"(1)  TO RESTRAIN OR COERCE (A) EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7: ...  "  61 STAT. 140-141, 29 U.S.C.
(SUPP. III) SEC. 158(B)(1)(A). 

"SEC. 7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN OTHER
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION, AND SHALL ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM
ANY OR ALL OF SUCH ACTIVITIES  ...  " 61 STAT. 140, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP.
III) SEC. 157. 

FN5  "  ...  THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT DECLARED IT TO BE AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A UNION TO INDUCE OR ENGAGE IN A STRIKE OR
CONCERTED REFUSAL TO WORK WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF IS ANY OF CERTAIN
ENUMERATED ONES.  SEC. 8(B)(4)  ...  WHILE THE FEDERAL BOARD IS
EMPOWERED TO FORBID A STRIKE, WHEN AND BECAUSE ITS PURPOSE IS ONE THAT
THE FEDERAL ACT MADE ILLEGAL, IT HAS BEEN GIVEN NO POWER TO FORBID ONE
BECAUSE ITS METHOD IS ILLEGAL - EVEN IF THE ILLEGALITY WERE TO CONSIST
OF ACTUAL OR THREATENED VIOLENCE TO PERSONS OR DESTRUCTION OF
PROPERTY."  INTERNATIONAL UNION V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 336 U.S. 245, 253. 

FN6  IN THIS ACT "CONGRESS SAFEGUARDED THE EXERCISE BY EMPLOYEES OF
'CONCERTED ACTIVITIES' AND EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO STRIKE." 
INTERNATIONAL UNION V. O'BRIEN, 339 U.S. 454, 457; SEE ALSO,
AMALGAMATED ASSN. OF EMPLOYEES V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 340 U.S. 383, 389,
404; UNITED ELECTRICAL & MACHINE WORKERS, 85 N.L.R.B. 417, 418; OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, 84 N.L.R.B. 315, 318-320. 

FN7  SEE ALSO, THE PROTECTION GIVEN TO THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, NOTE 4, SUPRA.  AS TO BOTH
SECS. 13 AND 7, SEE INTERNATIONAL UNION V. WISCONSIN BOARD, SUPRA, AT
258-264. 

THE CHARACTER OF THE PROBLEM OF RECONCILIATION OF THE RIGHT TO STRIKE
WITH THE LIMITATIONS EXPRESSED IN SEC. 8(B)(4) IS NOT UNLIKE THAT WHICH
CONFRONTED THE COURT IN ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. LOCAL UNION NO. 3, 325
U.S. 797, 806: 

"THE RESULT OF ALL THIS IS THAT WE HAVE TWO DECLARED CONGRESSIONAL
POLICIES WHICH IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO RECONCILE.  THE ONE
SEEKS TO PRESERVE A COMPETITIVE BUSINESS ECONOMY; THE OTHER TO PRESERVE
THE RIGHTS OF LABOR TO ORGANIZE TO BETTER ITS CONDITIONS THROUGH THE
AGENCY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  WE MUST DETERMINE HERE HOW FAR
CONGRESS INTENDED ACTIVITIES UNDER ONE OF THESE POLICIES TO NEUTRALIZE
THE RESULTS ENVISIONED BY THE OTHER." 

FN8  SENATOR TAFT, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE, AND FLOOR MANAGER FOR THE BILL IN THE SENATE, SAID:
"SO FAR AS THE BILL IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE THEORY THAT
THERE IS A RIGHT TO STRIKE AND THAT LABOR PEACE MUST BE BASED ON FREE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  WE HAVE DONE NOTHING TO OUTLAW STRIKES FOR
BASIC WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS AFTER PROPER OPPORTUNITY FOR
MEDIATION."  93 CONG. REC. 3835.  SIMILAR STATEMENTS BY SENATOR TAFT
APPEAR AT 93 CONG. REC. 3838, 4198, 4867, 6446, 7537.  SEVERAL OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE EXPRESSED LIKE VIEWS:  SENATOR ELLENDER AT 93
CONG. REC. 4131-4132; SENATOR BALL AT 4834, 4838, 7529-7530; SENATOR
AIKEN AT 4860; AND SENATOR MORSE AT 4864, 4871-4873. 

SEE ALSO, "THE PRIMARY STRIKE FOR RECOGNITION (WITHOUT A BOARD
CERTIFICATION) IS NOT PROSCRIBED."  S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. (PT. 1) 22, AND SEE H.R. REP. NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 43. 

IN DISCUSSING THE EFFECT OF SEC. 8(B)(4), AND IN SHOWING ITS
APPLICATION ONLY TO CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE, SENATOR TAFT SAID FURTHER: 

"THE SENATOR WILL FIND A GREAT MANY DECISIONS  ...  WHICH HOLD THAT
UNDER THE COMMON LAW A SECONDARY BOYCOTT IS UNLAWFUL.  ...  UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, IT BECAME IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP A
SECONDARY BOYCOTT OR ANY OTHER KIND OF A STRIKE, NO MATTER HOW UNLAWFUL
IT MAY HAVE BEEN AT COMMON LAW.  ALL THIS PROVISION OF THE BILL (SEC.
8(B)(4)) DOES IS TO REVERSE THE EFFECT OF THE LAW AS TO SECONDARY
BOYCOTTS."  93 CONG. REC. 4198. 
..END :



















LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BLDG. COUNCIL, 341 U.S. 675 


NO. 393.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 1951.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.  - 87 U.S.
APP. D.C. 293, 186 F.2D 326, REVERSED. 


1.  A DECISION OF A DISTRICT COURT IN A PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 10(L) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, THAT THE
ACTIVITIES COMPLAINED OF DID NOT AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WERE
THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD, WAS NOT RES
JUDICATA OF THAT ISSUE IN A PROCEEDING ON THE MERITS UNDER SEC. 10(E)
AND (F).  PP. 681-683. 

2.  A SUBCONTRACTOR ENGAGED BY A GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO DO THE
ELECTRICAL WORK ON A BUILDING BEING CONSTRUCTED PURCHASED $86,560 OF
RAW MATERIALS DURING THE YEAR, $55,745 OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED OUTSIDE
THE STATE.  IT PERFORMED NO SERVICES OUTSIDE THE STATE BUT SHIPPED
$5,000 OF ITS PRODUCTS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  IT HAD EXPENDED $315 FOR
LABOR AND $350 FOR MATERIALS ON THE PROJECT WHEN ITS SERVICES WERE
TERMINATED BECAUSE OF A STRIKE.  BOTH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE STRIKE AFFECTED
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HELD:  THIS CONCLUSION IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 683
685. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT THE INSTANT BUILDING, AFTER ITS COMPLETION, MIGHT
BE USED ONLY FOR LOCAL PURPOSES DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT ITS
CONSTRUCTION, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS LATER USE, AFFECTED INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  P. 684. 

(B)  THE MAXIM DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX DID NOT REQUIRE THE BOARD TO
REFUSE TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF THE INSTANT CASE.  P. 685. 

3.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND THAT, BY ENGAGING IN A
STRIKE AN OBJECT OF WHICH WAS TO FORCE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ON A
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO TERMINATE ITS CONTRACT WITH A SUBCONTRACTOR
EMPLOYING NONUNION LABOR ON THE PROJECT, RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATION
COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8(B)(4)(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947.  HELD:  THIS FINDING IS SUSTAINED. 
LABOR BOARD V. RICE MILLING CO., ANTE, P. 665, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 685
692. 

(A)  IT WAS AN OBJECT OF THE STRIKE TO FORCE THE CONTRACTOR TO
TERMINATE THE CONTRACT OF THE ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR.  PP. 687-689. 

(B)  A STRIKE WITH SUCH AN OBJECT IS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A), EVEN THOUGH THAT MAY NOT BE THE SOLE
OBJECT.  PP. 689-690. 

(C)  SECTION 8(C) SAFEGUARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS NO SIGNIFICANT
APPLICATION TO THE PICKET'S PLACARD IN THIS CASE AND DOES NOT IMMUNIZE
RESPONDENT'S ACTION AGAINST THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SEC.
8(B)(4)(A).  SEE ELECTRICAL WORKERS V. LABOR BOARD, POST, P. 694.  PP.
690-691. 

(D)  THE BOARD'S FINDINGS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS FIELD ARE
CONCLUSIVE WHEN SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD AS A
WHOLE; AND THE BOARD'S INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE ACT IN
DOUBTFUL SITUATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO WEIGHT.  PP. 691-692. 

(E)  AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, THE VIEWS OF THE BOARD CONFORM WITH THE
DUAL CONGRESSIONAL OBJECTIVE OF PRESERVING THE RIGHT OF LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS TO BRING PRESSURE TO BEAR ON OFFENDING EMPLOYERS IN
PRIMARY LABOR DISPUTES AND OF SHIELDING UNOFFENDING EMPLOYERS AND
OTHERS FROM PRESSURES IN CONTROVERSIES NOT THEIR OWN.  P. 692. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND RESPONDENTS GUILTY OF AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947, AND ORDERED IT TO CEASE AND DESIST.  82 N.L.R.B.
1195.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED ENFORCEMENT.  87 U.S. APP. D.C. 293,
186 F.2D 326.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 902.  REVERSED,
P. 692. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER A LABOR ORGANIZATION COMMITTED
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151, AS
AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947,  FN1  BY ENGAGING
IN A STRIKE, AN OBJECT OF WHICH WAS TO FORCE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ON
A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO TERMINATE ITS CONTRACT WITH A CERTAIN
SUBCONTRACTOR ON THAT PROJECT.  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, WE
HOLD THAT SUCH AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WAS COMMITTED. 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1947, DOOSE & LINTNER WAS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN DENVER, COLORADO.  IT
AWARDED A SUBCONTRACT FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ON THE BUILDING, IN AN
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $2,300, TO GOULD & PREISNER, A FIRM WHICH FOR 20
YEARS HAD EMPLOYED NONUNION WORKMEN ON CONSTRUCTION WORK IN THAT CITY. 
THE LATTER'S EMPLOYEES PROVED TO BE THE ONLY NONUNION WORKMEN ON THE
PROJECT.  THOSE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND OF THE OTHER
SUBCONTRACTORS WERE MEMBERS OF UNIONS AFFILIATED WITH THE RESPONDENT
DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL (HERE CALLED THE
COUNCIL).  IN NOVEMBER A REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF THOSE UNIONS TOLD
GOULD THAT HE DID NOT SEE HOW THE JOB COULD PROGRESS WITH GOULD'S
NONUNION MEN ON IT.  GOULD INSISTED THAT THEY WOULD COMPLETE THE
ELECTRICAL WORK UNLESS BODILY PUT OFF.  THE REPRESENTATIVE REPLIED THAT
THE SITUATION WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR BOTH GOULD & PREISNER AND DOOSE &
LINTNER. 

JANUARY 8, 1948, THE COUNCIL'S BOARD OF BUSINESS AGENTS INSTRUCTED
THE COUNCIL'S REPRESENTATIVE "TO PLACE A PICKET ON THE JOB STATING THAT
THE JOB WAS UNFAIR" TO IT.  FN2  IN KEEPING WITH THE COUNCIL'S
PRACTICE,  FN3  EACH AFFILIATE WAS NOTIFIED OF THAT DECISION.  THAT
NOTICE WAS A SIGNAL IN THE NATURE OF AN ORDER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE
AFFILIATED UNIONS TO LEAVE THE JOB AND REMAIN AWAY UNTIL OTHERWISE
ORDERED.  REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COUNCIL AND EACH OF THE RESPONDENT
UNIONS VISITED THE PROJECT AND REMINDED THE CONTRACTOR THAT GOULD &
PREISNER EMPLOYED NONUNION WORKMEN AND SAID THAT UNION MEN COULD NOT
WORK ON THE JOB WITH NONUNION MEN.  THEY FURTHER ADVISED THAT IF GOULD
& PREISNER'S MEN DID WORK ON THE JOB, THE COUNCIL AND ITS AFFILIATES
WOULD PUT A PICKET ON IT TO NOTIFY THEIR MEMBERS THAT NONUNION MEN WERE
WORKING ON IT AND THAT THE JOB WAS UNFAIR.  ALL PARTIES STOOD THEIR
GROUND. 

JANUARY 9, THE COUNCIL POSTED A PICKET AT THE PROJECT CARRYING A
PLACARD STATING "THIS JOB UNFAIR TO DENVER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL."  FN4  HE WAS PAID BY THE COUNCIL AND HIS PICKETING
CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 9 THROUGH JANUARY 22.  DURING THAT TIME THE ONLY
PERSONS WHO REPORTED FOR WORK WERE THE NONUNION ELECTRICIANS OF GOULD &
PREISNER.  JANUARY 22, BEFORE GOULD & PREISNER HAD COMPLETED ITS
SUBCONTRACT, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTIFIED IT TO GET OFF THE JOB SO
THAT DOOSE & LINTNER COULD CONTINUE WITH THE PROJECT.  JANUARY 23, THE
COUNCIL REMOVED ITS PICKET AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE UNION EMPLOYEES
RESUMED WORK ON THE PROJECT.  GOULD & PREISNER PROTESTED THIS TREATMENT
BUT ITS WORKMEN WERE DENIED ENTRANCE TO THE JOB. 

ON CHARGES FILED BY GOULD & PREISNER, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ISSUED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE
AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND THE RESPONDENT UNIONS.  FN5  IT ALLEGED THAT
THEY HAD ENGAGED IN A STRIKE OR HAD CAUSED STRIKE ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON
THE PROJECT BY EMPLOYEES OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND OF OTHER
SUBCONTRACTORS, AN OBJECT OF WHICH WAS TO FORCE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
TO CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH GOULD & PREISNER ON THAT PROJECT. 

BETWEEN THE BOARD'S RECEIPT OF THE CHARGES AND THE FILING OF THE
COMPLAINT BASED UPON THEM, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD
PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLORADO FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  FN6  THAT PETITION WAS DISMISSED ON
THE JURISDICTIONAL GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITIES COMPLAINED OF DID NOT
AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SPERRY V. DENVER BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL,
77 F.SUPP.  321.  SUCH ACTION WILL BE DISCUSSED LATER UNDER THE HEADING
OF RES JUDICATA.  HEARINGS WERE HELD BY THE BOARD'S TRIAL EXAMINER ON
THE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT.  THE BOARD ADOPTED ITS EXAMINER'S
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WITH MINOR ADDITIONS AND
MODIFICATIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL.  IT ATTACHED THE EXAMINER'S
INTERMEDIATE REPORT TO ITS DECISION AND ORDERED RESPONDENTS TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM ENGAGING IN THE ACTIVITIES CHARGED.  82 N.L.R.B. 1195. 
RESPONDENTS PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FOR A REVIEW UNDER SEC. 10(F).  FN7  THE
BOARD ANSWERED AND ASKED FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  THAT COURT
HELD, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, THAT THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF
AFFECTED INTERSTATE COMMERCE SUFFICIENTLY TO GIVE THE BOARD
JURISDICTION OVER IT, BUT THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE BOARD AND SAID:  "CONVINCED THAT THE ACTION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE IS PRIMARY AND NOT SECONDARY WE ARE OBLIGED TO REFUSE TO
ENFORCE THE ORDER BASED ON SEC. 8(B)(4)(A)."  87 U.S. APP. D.C. 293,
304, 186 F.2D 326, 337.  THE BOARD CLAIMED A CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT
CONCLUSION AND THE REASONING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT IN NO. 108, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS V.
LABOR BOARD, 181 F.2D 34, AND OF THAT FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN NO. 85,
LABOR BOARD V. LOCAL 74, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 181 F.2D
126.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN EACH CASE, 340 U.S. 902-903, AND ALL
WERE ARGUED WITH NO. 313, LABOR BOARD V. INTERNATIONAL RICE MILLING
CO., ANTE, P. 665.  FN8  IN ANOTHER COMPANION CASE, NO. 387, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS V. LABOR BOARD, DECIDED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, 184 F.2D 60, CERTIORARI HAS BEEN DENIED
THIS DAY, POST, P. 947. 

I. RES JUDICATA.  - RESPONDENTS NOT ONLY ATTACK THE JURISDICTION OF
THE BOARD ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIONS COMPLAINED OF DID NOT AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT THEY CONTEND THAT THE DECISION RENDERED ON
THAT POINT BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO IN SPERRY
V. DENVER BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, SUPRA, HAS MADE THE ISSUE RES
JUDICATA.  FN9  WE DO NOT AGREE.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT HAVE
BEFORE IT THE RECORD ON THE MERITS.  IT PROCEEDED UNDER SEC. 10(L) FN10
WHICH IS DESIGNED TO ASSIST A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGES
BEFORE THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT.  IF THE OFFICER OR REGIONAL ATTORNEY
TO WHOM THE MATTER IS REFERRED HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A
CHARGE IS TRUE AND THAT A COMPLAINT SHOULD ISSUE, THE STATUTE SAYS THAT
HE SHALL PETITION AN APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
PENDING THE FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE BOARD.  SUCH PROCEEDING IS
INDEPENDENT OF THAT ON THE MERITS UNDER SEC. 10(A)-(D).  THERE IS A
SEPARATE PROVISION FOR SECURING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AFTER THE FILING OF
THE COMPLAINT.  SEC. 10(J).  COURT REVIEW IS AUTHORIZED IN SEC. 10(E)
AND (F).  AS HELD BY THE BOARD, 82 N.L.R.B. AT 1203-1204, AND THE COURT
BELOW, 87 U.S. APP. D.C. AT 297, 299, 186 F.2D AT 330, 332, THE VERY
SCHEME OF THE STATUTE ACCORDINGLY CONTEMPLATES THAT A DECISION ON
JURISDICTION MADE IN THE INDEPENDENT PRELIMINARY PROCEEDING FOR
INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF, UNDER SEC. 10(L), SHALL NOT FORECLOSE A
PROCEEDING ON THE MERITS SUCH AS IS NOW BEFORE US.  FN11 

II.  EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  - THE ACTIVITIES COMPLAINED OF
MUST AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER TO BRING THEM WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD.  FN12  THE BOARD HERE FOUND THAT THEIR
EFFECT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN ITS JURISDICTION AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS WAS SATISFIED.  WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REVERSING THAT
CONCLUSION. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT, IN 1947, GOULD & PREISNER PURCHASED $86,560.30
OF RAW MATERIALS, OF WHICH $55,745.25, OR ABOUT 65%, WERE PURCHASED
OUTSIDE OF COLORADO.  ALSO, MOST OF THE MERCHANDISE IT PURCHASED IN
COLORADO HAD BEEN PRODUCED OUTSIDE OF THAT STATE.  WHILE GOULD &
PREISNER PERFORMED NO SERVICES OUTSIDE OF COLORADO, IT SHIPPED $5,000
OF ITS PRODUCTS OUTSIDE OF THAT STATE.  UP TO THE TIME WHEN ITS
SERVICES WERE DISCONTINUED ON THE INSTANT PROJECT, IT HAD EXPENDED ON
IT ABOUT $315 FOR LABOR AND ABOUT $350 FOR MATERIALS.  ON A 65% BASIS,
$225 OF THOSE MATERIALS WOULD BE FROM OUT OF THE STATE.  THE BOARD
ADOPTED ITS EXAMINER'S FINDING THAT ANY WIDESPREAD APPLICATION OF THE
PRACTICES HERE CHARGED MIGHT WELL RESULT IN SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASING
THE INFLUX OF MATERIALS INTO COLORADO FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE AND IT
RECOGNIZED THAT GOULD & PREISNER'S ANNUAL PURCHASE OF OVER $55,000 OF
SUCH MATERIALS WAS NOT NEGLIGIBLE. 

THE BOARD ALSO ADOPTED THE FINDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES COMPLAINED OF
HAD A CLOSE, INTIMATE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO TRADE, TRAFFIC AND
COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES AND THAT THEY TENDED TO LEAD, AND HAD LED, TO
LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE.  THE FACT THAT THE INSTANT BUILDING, AFTER ITS COMPLETION,
MIGHT BE USED ONLY FOR LOCAL PURPOSES DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT ITS
CONSTRUCTION, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS LATER USE, AFFECTED INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

EVEN WHEN THE EFFECT OF ACTIVITIES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE BOARD TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF A COMPLAINT, THE
BOARD SOMETIMES PROPERLY DECLINES TO DO SO, STATING THAT THE POLICIES
OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE EFFECTUATED BY ITS ASSERTION OF JURISDICTION IN
THAT CASE.  HERE, HOWEVER, THE BOARD NOT ONLY UPHELD THE FILING OF THE
COMPLAINT BUT IT SUSTAINED THE CHARGES MADE IN IT. 

THE SAME JURISDICTIONAL LANGUAGE AS THAT NOW IN EFFECT APPEARED IN
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF 1935  FN13  AND THIS COURT SAID OF
IT IN THAT CONNECTION: 

"EXAMINING THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSE AND OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT MUST BE APPLIED WE CAN PERCEIVE NO BASIS FOR
INFERRING ANY INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO MAKE THE OPERATION OF THE ACT
DEPEND ON ANY PARTICULAR VOLUME OF COMMERCE AFFECTED MORE THAN THAT TO
WHICH COURTS WOULD APPLY THE MAXIM DE MINIMIS."  LABOR BOARD V.
FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 607; SEE ALSO, LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN
STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1. 

THE MAXIM DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX DOES NOT REQUIRE THE BOARD TO
REFUSE TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF THE INSTANT CASE.  FN14 

III.  THE SECONDARY BOYCOTT.  - WE NOW REACH THE MERITS.  THEY
REQUIRE A STUDY OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE STRIKE AND A DETERMINATION
WHETHER THE STRIKE CAME WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE STATED IN SEC. 8(B)(4)(A). 

THE LANGUAGE OF THAT SECTION WHICH IS HERE ESSENTIAL IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION
... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(4) TO ENGAGE IN  ...  A STRIKE  ...  WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF IS:
(A) FORCING OR REQUIRING ...  ANY EMPLOYER OR OTHER PERSON  ...  TO
CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH ANY OTHER PERSON; ...  "  61 STAT. 141, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 158(B)(4)(A). 

WHILE SEC. 8(B)(4) DOES NOT EXPRESSLY MENTION "PRIMARY" OR
"SECONDARY" DISPUTES, STRIKES OR BOYCOTTS, THAT SECTION OFTEN IS
REFERRED TO IN THE ACT'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS ONE OF THE ACT'S
"SECONDARY BOYCOTT SECTIONS."  THE OTHER IS SEC. 303, 61 STAT. 158, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 187, WHICH USES THE SAME LANGUAGE IN DEFINING
THE BASIS FOR PRIVATE ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY THESE PROSCRIBED
ACTIVITIES. 

SENATOR TAFT, WHO WAS THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL IN THE SENATE AND WAS
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE IN
CHARGE OF THE BILL, SAID, IN DISCUSSING THIS SECTION: 

"  ...  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, IT BECAME
IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP A SECONDARY BOYCOTT OR ANY OTHER KIND OF A STRIKE,
NO MATTER HOW UNLAWFUL IT MAY HAVE BEEN AT COMMON LAW.  ALL THIS
PROVISION OF THE BILL DOES IS TO REVERSE THE EFFECT OF THE LAW AS TO
SECONDARY BOYCOTTS.  IT HAS BEEN SET FORTH THAT THERE ARE GOOD
SECONDARY BOYCOTTS AND BAD SECONDARY BOYCOTTS.  OUR COMMITTEE HEARD
EVIDENCE FOR WEEKS AND NEVER SUCCEEDED IN HAVING ANYONE TELL US ANY
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF SECONDARY BOYCOTTS.  SO WE HAVE
SO BROADENED THE PROVISION DEALING WITH SECONDARY BOYCOTTS AS TO MAKE
THEM AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE."  93 CONG. REC. 4198. 

THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SAID: 

"UNDER CLAUSE (A)(OF SEC. 8(B)(4)) STRIKES OR BOYCOTTS, OR ATTEMPTS
TO INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE SUCH ACTION, WERE MADE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IF
THE PURPOSE WAS TO FORCE AN EMPLOYER OR OTHER PERSON TO CEASE USING,
SELLING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, OR OTHERWISE DEALING IN THE PRODUCTS
OF ANOTHER, OR TO CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH ANY OTHER PERSON.  THUS IT
WAS MADE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A UNION TO ENGAGE IN A STRIKE
AGAINST EMPLOYER A FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORCING THAT EMPLOYER TO CEASE
DOING BUSINESS WITH EMPLOYER B. SIMILARLY IT WOULD NOT BE LAWFUL FOR A
UNION TO BOYCOTT EMPLOYER A BECAUSE EMPLOYER A USES OR OTHERWISE DEALS
IN THE GOODS OF, OR DOES BUSINESS WITH, EMPLOYER B."  H.R. REP. NO.
510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 43.  FN15    AT THE SAME TIME THAT SECS. 7
AND 13  FN16  SAFEGUARD COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, CONCERTED ACTIVITIES AND
STRIKES BETWEEN THE PRIMARY PARTIES TO A LABOR DISPUTE, SEC. 8(B)(4)
RESTRICTS A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS AGENTS IN THE USE OF ECONOMIC
PRESSURE WHERE AN OBJECT OF IT IS TO FORCE AN EMPLOYER OR OTHER PERSON
TO BOYCOTT SOMEONE ELSE. 

A. WE MUST FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER THE STRIKE IN THIS CASE HAD A
PROSCRIBED OBJECT.  THE CONDUCT WHICH THE BOARD HERE CONDEMNED IS
READILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT WHICH IT DECLINED TO CONDEMN IN THE
RICE MILLING CASE, ANTE, P. 665.  THERE THE ACCUSED UNION SOUGHT MERELY
TO OBTAIN ITS OWN RECOGNITION BY THE OPERATOR OF A MILL, AND THE
UNION'S PICKETS NEAR THE MILL SOUGHT TO INFLUENCE TWO EMPLOYEES OF A
CUSTOMER OF THE MILL NOT TO CROSS THE PICKET LINE.  IN THAT CASE WE
SUPPORTED THE BOARD IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT SUCH CONDUCT WAS NO MORE
THAN WAS TRADITIONAL AND PERMISSIBLE IN A PRIMARY STRIKE.  THE UNION
DID NOT ENGAGE IN A STRIKE AGAINST THE CUSTOMER.  IT DID NOT ENCOURAGE
CONCERTED ACTION BY THE CUSTOMER'S EMPLOYEES TO FORCE THE CUSTOMER TO
BOYCOTT THE MILL.  IT DID NOT COMMIT ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 8(B)(4). 

IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS A LONG-STANDING LABOR
DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND GOULD & PREISNER DUE TO THE LATTER'S
PRACTICE OF EMPLOYING NONUNION WORKMEN ON CONSTRUCTION JOBS IN DENVER. 
THE RESPONDENT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS CONTEND THAT THEY ENGAGED IN A
PRIMARY DISPUTE WITH DOOSE & LINTNER ALONE, AND THAT THEY SOUGHT SIMPLY
TO FORCE DOOSE & LINTNER TO MAKE THE PROJECT AN ALL-UNION JOB.  IF
THERE HAD BEEN NO CONTRACT BETWEEN DOOSE & LINTNER AND GOULD & PREISNER
THERE MIGHT BE SUBSTANCE IN THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE DISPUTE INVOLVED
NO BOYCOTT.  IF, FOR EXAMPLE, DOOSE & LINTNER HAD BEEN DOING ALL THE
ELECTRICAL WORK ON THIS PROJECT THROUGH ITS OWN NONUNION EMPLOYEES, IT
COULD HAVE REPLACED THEM WITH UNION MEN AND THUS DISPOSED OF THE
DISPUTE.  HOWEVER, THE EXISTENCE OF THE GOULD & PREISNER SUBCONTRACT
PRESENTED A MATERIALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION.  THE NONUNION EMPLOYEES
WERE EMPLOYEES OF GOULD & PREISNER.  THE ONLY WAY THAT RESPONDENTS
COULD ATTAIN THEIR PURPOSE WAS TO FORCE GOULD & PREISNER ITSELF OFF THE
JOB.  THIS, IN TURN, COULD BE DONE ONLY THROUGH DOOSE & LINTNER'S
TERMINATION OF GOULD & PREISNER'S SUBCONTRACT.  THE RESULT IS THAT THE
COUNCIL'S STRIKE, IN ORDER TO ATTAIN ITS ULTIMATE PURPOSE, MUST HAVE
INCLUDED AMONG ITS OBJECTS THAT OF FORCING DOOSE & LINTNER TO TERMINATE
THAT SUBCONTRACT.  ON THAT POINT, THE BOARD ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING
FINDING: 

"THAT AN OBJECT, IF NOT THE ONLY OBJECT, OF WHAT TRANSPIRED WITH
RESPECT TO  ...  DOOSE & LINTNER WAS TO FORCE OR REQUIRE THEM TO CEASE
DOING BUSINESS WITH GOULD & PREISNER SEEMS SCARCELY OPEN TO QUESTION,
IN VIEW OF ALL OF THE FACTS.  AND IT IS CLEAR AT LEAST AS TO DOOSE &
LINTNER, THAT THAT PURPOSE WAS ACHIEVED."  82 N.L.R.B. AT 1212.  FN17 

WE ACCEPT THIS CRUCIAL FINDING.  IT WAS AN OBJECT OF THE STRIKE TO
FORCE THE CONTRACTOR TO TERMINATE GOULD & PREISNER'S SUBCONTRACT. 

B. WE HOLD ALSO THAT A STRIKE WITH SUCH AN OBJECT WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A). 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO FIND THAT THE SOLE OBJECT OF THE STRIKE WAS
THAT OF FORCING THE CONTRACTOR TO TERMINATE THE SUBCONTRACTOR'S
CONTRACT.  THIS IS EMPHASIZED IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
WORKERS UNION, 178 F.2D 584, 586. 

WE AGREE WITH THE BOARD ALSO IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE FACT THAT THE
CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR WERE ENGAGED ON THE SAME CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT, AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAD SOME SUPERVISION OVER THE
SUBCONTRACTOR'S WORK, DID NOT ELIMINATE THE STATUS OF EACH AS AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR MAKE THE EMPLOYEES OF ONE THE EMPLOYEES OF
THE OTHER.  THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
IS TOO WELL ESTABLISHED IN THE LAW TO BE OVERRIDDEN WITHOUT CLEAR
LANGUAGE DOING SO.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOOSE
& LINTNER AND GOULD & PREISNER WAS ONE OF "DOING BUSINESS" AND WE FIND
NO ADEQUATE REASON FOR UPSETTING THAT CONCLUSION.  FN19 

FINALLY, SEC. 8(C)  FN20  SAFEGUARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS NO
SIGNIFICANT APPLICATION TO THE PICKET'S PLACARD IN THIS CASE.  SECTION
8(C) DOES NOT APPLY TO A MERE SIGNAL BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION TO ITS
MEMBERS, OR TO THE MEMBERS OF ITS AFFILIATES, TO ENGAGE IN AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE SUCH AS A STRIKE PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 8(B)(4)(A).  THAT
THE PLACARD WAS MERELY SUCH A SIGNAL, TANTAMOUNT TO A DIRECTION TO
STRIKE, WAS FOUND BY THE BOARD. 

"  ...  THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE TURN UPON ACTS BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
WHICH ARE TANTAMOUNT TO DIRECTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THEIR MEMBERS TO
ENGAGE IN STRIKE ACTION.  THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY SECTION 8(C) OF
THE ACT TO THE EXPRESSION OF 'ANY VIEWS, ARGUMENT OR OPINION' DOES NOT
PERTAIN WHERE, AS HERE, THE ISSUES RAISED UNDER SECTION 8(B)(4)(A) TURN
ON OFFICIAL DIRECTIONS OR INSTRUCTIONS TO A UNION'S OWN MEMBERS."  82
N.L.R.B. AT 1213.  FN21 

THE FURTHER CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 8(C) DOES NOT IMMUNIZE ACTION
AGAINST THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED
IN OTHER CASES.  SEE NO. 108, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS V. LABOR BOARD, POST, P. 694.  FN22 

NOT ONLY ARE THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD CONCLUSIVE WITH RESPECT TO
QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS FIELD WHEN SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
ON THE RECORD AS A WHOLE,  FN23  BUT THE BOARD'S INTERPRETATION OF THE
ACT AND THE BOARD'S APPLICATION OF IT IN DOUBTFUL SITUATIONS ARE
ENTITLED TO WEIGHT.  IN THE VIEWS OF THE BOARD AS APPLIED TO THIS CASE
WE FIND CONFORMITY WITH THE DUAL CONGRESSIONAL OBJECTIVES OF PRESERVING
THE RIGHT OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO BRING PRESSURE TO BEAR ON OFFENDING
EMPLOYERS IN PRIMARY LABOR DISPUTES AND OF SHIELDING UNOFFENDING
EMPLOYERS AND OTHERS FROM PRESSURES IN CONTROVERSIES NOT THEIR OWN. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CONDUCT OF RESPONDENTS
CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8(B)(4)(A).  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY IS
REVERSED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR PROCEDURE NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "SEC.  8.  ... 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR ITS AGENTS - 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(4)  TO ENGAGE IN, OR TO INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY
EMPLOYER TO ENGAGE IN, A STRIKE OR A CONCERTED REFUSAL IN THE COURSE OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT TO USE, MANUFACTURE, PROCESS, TRANSPORT, OR OTHERWISE
HANDLE OR WORK ON ANY GOODS, ARTICLES, MATERIALS, OR COMMODITIES OR TO
PERFORM ANY SERVICES, WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF IS: (A) FORCING OR
REQUIRING ANY EMPLOYER OR SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON TO JOIN ANY LABOR OR
EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION OR ANY EMPLOYER OR OTHER PERSON TO CEASE USING,
SELLING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, OR OTHERWISE DEALING IN THE PRODUCTS
OF ANY OTHER PRODUCER, PROCESSOR, OR MANUFACTURER, OR TO CEASE DOING
BUSINESS WITH ANY OTHER PERSON; ...  " 61 STAT. 140-141, 29 U.S.C.
(SUPP. III) SEC. 158(B)(4)(A). 

FN2  DENVER BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, 82 N.L.R.B. 1195, 1210. 

FN3  THE COUNCIL'S BY-LAWS PROVIDED IN PART:

                             "ARTICLE I-B 

"SECTION 1.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THIS COUNCIL TO STAND FOR
ABSOLUTE CLOSED SHOP CONDITIONS ON ALL JOBS IN THE CITY OF DENVER AND
JURISDICTIONAL SURROUNDINGS.... 

"SECTION 2.  THE BOARD OF BUSINESS AGENTS  ...  SHALL HAVE THE POWER
TO DECLARE A JOB UNFAIR AND REMOVE ALL MEN FROM THE JOB.  THEY SHALL
ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO PLACE THE MEN BACK ON THE JOB WHEN SATISFACTORY
ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. 

"SECTION 3.  ANY CRAFT REFUSING TO LEAVE A JOB WHICH HAS BEEN
DECLARED UNFAIR OR RETURNING TO THE JOB BEFORE BEING ORDERED BACK BY
THE COUNCIL OR ITS BOARD OF AGENTS SHALL BE TRIED, AND IF FOUND GUILTY,
SHALL BE FINED THE SUM OF $25.00. 

"SECTION 4.  REFUSAL OF ANY ORGANIZATION TO PAY SAID FINE SHALL BE
FOLLOWED BY EXPULSION FROM THIS COUNCIL.  AN ORGANIZATION SO EXPELLED
SHALL PAY SAID FINE AND ONE COMPLETE BACK QUARTER DUES AND PER CAPITA
BEFORE BEING REINSTATED. 

                      "ARTICLE XI-B 

"SECTION 1.  STRIKES MUST BE CALLED BY THE COUNCIL OR THE BOARD OF
AGENTS IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE I-B, SECTIONS 1-2.  WHEN STRIKES ARE
CALLED THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE FULL JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME, AND ANY
CONTRACTOR, WHO WORKS ON A STRUCK JOB, OR EMPLOYS NON-UNION MEN TO WORK
ON A STRUCK JOB, SHALL BE DECLARED UNFAIR AND ALL UNION MEN SHALL BE
CALLED OFF FROM HIS WORK OR SHOP. 

"SECTION 2.  THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER
TO ORDER ALL STRIKES WHEN INSTRUCTED TO DO SO BY THE COUNCIL OR BOARD
OF AGENTS.  ...  ALL EMPLOYEES ON A STRUCK JOB SHALL LEAVE THE SAME
WHEN ORDERED TO DO SO BY THE COUNCIL AGENT AND REMAIN AWAY FROM THE
SAME UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A SETTLEMENT IS MADE, OR OTHERWISE ORDERED." 
82 N.L.R.B. AT 1214-1215. 

FN4  82 N.L.R.B. AT 1211. 

FN5  ORIGINALLY THE COMPLAINT WAS DIRECTED ALSO AGAINST ANOTHER UNION
AND INCLUDED INCIDENTS AT TWO OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN DENVER ON
WHICH GOULD & PREISNER HAD SUBCONTRACTED TO DO ELECTRICAL WORK.  THE
TRIAL EXAMINER RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST
ORDER BASED UPON ONE OF THOSE INCIDENTS, BUT THE BOARD DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT AS TO ALL CONDUCT EXCEPT THAT ON THE PROJECT BEFORE US. 

FN6  UNDER SEC. 10(L), 61 STAT. 149-150, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
160(L). 

FN7  61 STAT. 148-149, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 160(F). 

FN8  FOR A COLLECTION AND REVIEW OF THE BOARD AND LOWER COURT CASES
DEALING WITH THESE AND RELATED ISSUES UNDER SEC. 8(B)(4), SEE DENNIS,
THE BOYCOTT UNDER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, N.Y.U. THIRD ANNUAL CONFERENCE
ON LABOR (1950) 367-460. 

FN9  AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THAT PROCEEDING WAS
DISMISSED BY THE BOARD WITH THAT COURT'S CONSENT. 

FN10  "(L)  WHENEVER IT IS CHARGED THAT ANY PERSON HAS ENGAGED IN AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH (4)(A), (B), OR
(C) OF SECTION 8(B), THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF SUCH CHARGE SHALL
BE MADE FORTHWITH AND GIVEN PRIORITY OVER ALL OTHER CASES EXCEPT CASES
OF LIKE CHARACTER IN THE OFFICE WHERE IT IS FILED OR TO WHICH IT IS
REFERRED.  IF, AFTER SUCH INVESTIGATION, THE OFFICER OR REGIONAL
ATTORNEY TO WHOM THE MATTER MAY BE REFERRED HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO
BELIEVE SUCH CHARGE IS TRUE AND THAT A COMPLAINT SHOULD ISSUE, HE
SHALL, ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, PETITION ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES (INCLUDING THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) WITHIN ANY DISTRICT WHERE THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE IN QUESTION HAS OCCURRED, IS ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED, OR
WHEREIN SUCH PERSON RESIDES OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS, FOR APPROPRIATE
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PENDING THE FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE BOARD WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH MATTER.  UPON THE FILING OF ANY SUCH PETITION THE
DISTRICT COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO GRANT SUCH INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AS IT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER,
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW:  ...  "  61 STAT. 149, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 160(L). 

FN11  SEE ALSO, LABOR BOARD V. LOCAL 74, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS, 181 F.2D 126, AFF'D IN NO. 85, POST, P. 707; DENVER
BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, 82 N.L.R.B. 93. 

FN12  "SEC.  10.  (A)  THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED  ...  TO PREVENT ANY
PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (LISTED IN SECTION 8)
AFFECTING COMMERCE.  ...  "  61 STAT. 146, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
160(A). 

"SEC. 2.  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT - 

     .         .         .        .         . 

"(6)  THE TERM 'COMMERCE' MEANS TRADE, TRAFFIC, COMMERCE,
TRANSPORTATION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES  ... 

"(7)  THE TERM 'AFFECTING COMMERCE' MEANS IN COMMERCE, OR BURDENING
OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, OR HAVING LED OR
TENDING TO LEAD TO A LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR
THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE.  ...  "  61 STAT. 137-138, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP.
III) SEC. 152(6)(7). 

FN13  49 STAT. 450, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 152(6) AND (7). 

FN14  "  ...  CONGRESS GAVE THE BOARD AUTHORITY TO PREVENT PRACTICES
'TENDING TO LEAD TO A LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE
OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE.'  ...  CONGRESS THEREFORE LEFT IT TO THE
BOARD TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER PROSCRIBED PRACTICES WOULD IN PARTICULAR
SITUATIONS ADVERSELY AFFECT COMMERCE WHEN JUDGED BY THE FULL REACH OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS.  WHETHER OR NO PRACTICES MAY BE
DEEMED BY CONGRESS TO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT TO BE
DETERMINED BY CONFINING JUDGMENT TO THE QUANTITATIVE EFFECT OF THE
ACTIVITIES IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE BOARD.  APPROPRIATE FOR JUDGMENT IS
THE FACT THAT THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION IS REPRESENTATIVE OF MANY OTHERS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, THE TOTAL INCIDENCE OF WHICH IF LEFT UNCHECKED
MAY WELL BECOME FAR-REACHING IN ITS HARM TO COMMERCE."  POLISH ALLIANCE
V. LABOR BOARD, 322 U.S. 643, 648.  SEE ALSO, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS V. SPERRY, 170 F.2D 863, 867-868. 

FOR THE CURRENT PRACTICE SEE MIMEOGRAPH RELEASE OF NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, DATED OCTOBER 6, 1950, ENTITLED "N.L.R.B. CLARIFIES
AND DEFINES AREAS IN WHICH IT WILL AND WILL NOT EXERCISE
JURISDICTION."  SEE ALSO, HOTEL ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS, 92 N.L.R.B. 1388,
27 LRR MAN.  1243.    FN15  SEE ALSO, HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE ON S. 55 AND S.J. RES. 22, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 14, 568, 688, 983, 1614, 1814, 1838; S. REP. NO. 105,
80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (PT. 1) 3, 22, 54, (PT. 2) 19; 93 CONG. REC.
4844, 4845, 4858. 

FN16  61 STAT. 140, 151, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 157, 163. 

FN17  THE BOARD FURTHER STATED: 

"2.  THE TRIAL EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE COUNCIL AND THE OTHER THREE
RESPONDENTS, BY PICKETING DOOSE & LINTNER'S  ...  PROJECT AS ALLEGED IN
THE COMPLAINT AND THEREBY CAUSING MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNIONS AFFILIATED
WITH THE COUNCIL TO QUIT WORK ON THAT PROJECT, WITH AN OBJECT OF
FORCING DOOSE & LINTNER TO CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH GOULD & PREISNER,
ENGAGED IN STRIKE ACTION IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(B)(4)(A).  WE FIND
MERIT IN THE RESPONDENTS' EXCEPTIONS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO CARPENTERS
(NOT INVOLVED HERE), AND OTHERWISE AGREE IN SUBSTANCE WITH THE TRIAL'S
EXAMINER'S FINDING."  82 N.L.R.B. AT 1196. 

FN18  SENATOR TAFT, SPONSOR OF THE BILL, STATED IN HIS SUPPLEMENTARY
ANALYSIS OF IT AS PASSED: "SECTION 8(B)(4), RELATING TO ILLEGAL STRIKES
AND BOYCOTTS, WAS AMENDED IN CONFERENCE BY STRIKING OUT THE WORDS 'FOR
THE PURPOSE OF' AND INSERTING THE CLAUSE 'WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF
IS.'"  93 CONG. REC. 6859. 

FN19  SEE NOTE 17, SUPRA, AND SEE ALSO: 

"WHAT THE ISSUE REALLY BOILS DOWN TO IS THIS:  DOES SECTION
8(B)(4)(A) APPLY TO NORMAL BUSINESS DEALINGS BETWEEN A CONTRACTOR AND
SUBCONTRACTOR, BOTH ENGAGED IN THE SAME GENERAL BUSINESS, WHERE BOYCOTT
PRESSURE IS APPLIED AGAINST THE SUBCONTRACTOR IN AID OF A DISPUTE WITH
THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR?  CLEARLY IT DOES UNDER THE WORDING OF THE
STATUTE."  METAL POLISHERS UNION, 86 N.L.R.B. 1243, 1252. 

AND SEE LABOR BOARD V. WINE, LIQUOR & DISTILLERY WORKERS UNION, 178
F.2D 584. 

FN20  "THE EXPRESSING OF ANY VIEWS, ARGUMENT, OR OPINION, OR THE
DISSEMINATION THEREOF, WHETHER IN WRITTEN, PRINTED, GRAPHIC, OR VISUAL
FORM, SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE OR BE EVIDENCE OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, IF SUCH EXPRESSION CONTAINS NO
THREAT OF REPRISAL OR FORCE OR PROMISE OF BENEFIT."  61 STAT. 142, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 158(C). 

FN21  "THIS STRIKE ACTION, OF WHICH THE PICKETING WAS AN INTEGRAL AND
INSEPARABLE PART, HAD THE PLANNED AND EXPECTED EFFECT OF DENYING THE
SERVICES OF ALL UNION WORKMEN TO DOOSE & LINTNER WHILE THEY CONTINUED
TO UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF GOULD & PREISNER.  YET AS SOON AS THE
ILLEGAL OBJECTIVE OF THE RESPONDENTS' STRIKE ACTION HAD BEEN ACHIEVED,
THE PICKET, THE SIGNAL TO UNION WORKMEN THAT A STRIKE WAS IN PROGRESS,
WAS REMOVED.  THEREUPON UNION WORKMEN WERE AGAIN AVAILABLE TO DOOSE &
LINTNER.  THUS THE JOINT ENTERPRISE OF THE RESPONDENTS WAS ACCOMPLISHED
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK AND INTENT OF THE COUNCIL'S BYLAWS BUT IN
VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(B)(4)(A) OF THE ACT."  82 N.L.R.B. AT 1216.  AND
SEE REFERENCE TO THIS FINDING BY THE SAME TRIAL EXAMINER IN
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, 82 N.L.R.B. 1028,
1046, N. 55. 

FN22  "WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT SECTION 8(B)(4)(A) PROHIBITS
PEACEFUL PICKETING, AS WELL AS OTHER PEACEFUL MEANS OF INDUCEMENT AND
ENCOURAGEMENT, IN FURTHERANCE OF AN OBJECTIVE PROSCRIBED THEREIN AND
THAT SECTION 8(C) DOES NOT IMMUNIZE SUCH CONDUCT."  UNITED BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS, 81 N.L.R.B. 802, 815; SEE ALSO, PP. 807-816; ENFORCEMENT
ORDER ISSUED IN LABOR BOARD V. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 184
F.2D 60, CERTIORARI DENIED THIS DAY AS NO. 387, POST, P. 947.  SEE
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS V. SPERRY, 170 F.2D 863, 868-869;
PRINTING SPECIALTIES UNION, 82 N.L.R.B. 271, 290; BRICKLAYERS UNION, 82
N.L.R.B. 228; LOCAL 1796, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 82 N.L.R.B.
211. 

FN23  UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 340 U.S. 474; LABOR
BOARD V. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO., 340 U.S. 498. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE EMPLOYMENT OF UNION AND NONUNION MEN ON THE SAME JOB IS A BASIC
PROTEST IN TRADE UNION HISTORY.  THAT WAS THE PROTEST HERE.  THE UNION
WAS NOT OUT TO DESTROY THE CONTRACTOR BECAUSE OF HIS ANTIUNION
ATTITUDE.  THE UNION WAS NOT PURSUING THE CONTRACTOR TO OTHER JOBS. 
ALL THE UNION ASKED WAS THAT UNION MEN NOT BE COMPELLED TO WORK
ALONGSIDE NONUNION MEN ON THE SAME JOB.  AS JUDGE RIFKIND STATED IN AN
ANALOGOUS CASE, "THE UNION WAS NOT EXTENDING ITS ACTIVITY TO A FRONT
REMOTE FROM THE IMMEDIATE DISPUTE BUT TO ONE INTIMATELY AND INDEED
INEXTRICABLY UNITED TO IT."  FN1 

THE PICKETING WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE BEEN LEGAL IF THERE HAD BEEN NO
SUBCONTRACTOR INVOLVED - IF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR HAD PUT NONUNION MEN
ON THE JOB.  THE PRESENCE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR DOES NOT ALTER ONE WHIT
THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION; THE PROTEST OF THE UNION IS PRECISELY
THE SAME.  IN EACH THE UNION WAS TRYING TO PROTECT THE JOB ON WHICH
UNION MEN WERE EMPLOYED.  IF THAT IS FORBIDDEN, THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT
MAKES THE RIGHT TO STRIKE, GUARANTEED BY SEC. 13, DEPENDENT ON
FORTUITOUS BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS THAT HAVE NO SIGNIFICANCE SO FAR AS
THE EVILS OF THE SECONDARY BOYCOTT ARE CONCERNED.  I WOULD GIVE SCOPE
TO BOTH SEC. 8(B)(4) AND SEC. 13 BY READING THE RESTRICTIONS OF SEC.
8(B)(4) TO REACH THE CASE WHERE AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE SPREADS FROM THE
JOB TO ANOTHER FRONT.  FN2 

FN1  DOUDS V. METROPOLITAN FEDERATION, 75 F.SUPP.  672, 677. 

FN2  SEE THE OPINION OF JUDGE FAHY BELOW, 87 U.S. APP. D.C. 293, 186
F.2D 326; AND THE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CLARK, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD V. LABOR BOARD, 181 F.2D 34, 40. 
..END :



ELECTRICAL WORKERS V. LABOR BOARD, 341 U.S. 694 


NO. 108.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26-27, 1951.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.  - 181
F.2D 34, AFFIRMED. 


BY PEACEFUL PICKETING, THE AGENT OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION INDUCED UNION
EMPLOYEES OF A CARPENTRY SUBCONTRACTOR ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO
ENGAGE IN A STRIKE IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  AN OBJECT OF
SUCH INDUCEMENT WAS TO FORCE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO TERMINATE ITS
CONTRACT WITH THE ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR, WHO WAS EMPLOYING NONUNION
WORKMEN.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND THAT THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION AND ITS AGENT (PETITIONERS HERE) HAD COMMITTED AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT,
1947, AND ORDERED THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST.  HELD: THIS FINDING AND THE
ORDER ARE SUSTAINED.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING TRADES
COUNCIL, ANTE, P. 675.  PP. 695-706. 

1.  THE ACTIONS COMPLAINED OF HAD SUFFICIENT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO SUSTAIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD.  P. 699. 

2.  THE FINDINGS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PICKETING WAS DIRECTED AT THE
UNION EMPLOYEES OF THE CARPENTRY SUBCONTRACTOR TO INDUCE THEM TO STRIKE
AND THUS FORCE THE CARPENTRY SUBCONTRACTOR TO FORCE THE GENERAL
CONTRACTOR TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT OF THE ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR. 
PP. 699-700. 

3.  IT WAS SUFFICIENT THAT AN OBJECTIVE, ALTHOUGH NOT NECESSARILY THE
ONLY OBJECTIVE, OF THE PICKETING WAS TO FORCE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO
TERMINATE THE CONTRACT OF THE ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR.  P. 700. 

4.  SECTION 8(C) DOES NOT IMMUNIZE PEACEFUL PICKETING WHICH INDUCES A
SECONDARY BOYCOTT MADE UNLAWFUL BY SEC. 8(B)(4).  PP. 700-705. 

5.  THE PROHIBITION OF INDUCEMENT OR ENCOURAGEMENT OF SECONDARY
PRESSURE BY SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) CARRIES NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABRIDGMENT OF
FREE SPEECH.  P. 705. 

6.  THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE BOARD IN THIS CASE PROPERLY ENJOINED
PETITIONERS FROM EXERTING THIS PRESSURE UPON THE ELECTRICAL
SUBCONTRACTOR THROUGH OTHER EMPLOYERS, AS WELL AS THROUGH THE GENERAL
CONTRACTOR AND THE CARPENTRY SUBCONTRACTOR.  PP. 705-706. 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS ET AL. V. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND THAT PETITIONERS HAD
COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8(B)(4)(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, AND ORDERED THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST. 
82 N.L.R.B. 1028.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED ENFORCEMENT.  181 F.2D
34.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 902.  AFFIRMED, P. 706. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO NO. 393, LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING
TRADES COUNCIL (THE DENVER CASE), ANTE, P. 675, AND NO. 85, LOCAL 74,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS V. LABOR BOARD (THE CHATTANOOGA CASE),
POST, P. 707. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS
AGENT COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8(B)(4)(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 151, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947,  FN1
WHEN, BY PEACEFUL PICKETING, THE AGENT INDUCED EMPLOYEES OF A
SUBCONTRACTOR ON A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO ENGAGE IN A STRIKE IN THE
COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, WHERE AN OBJECT OF SUCH INDUCEMENT WAS TO
FORCE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO TERMINATE ITS CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER
SUBCONTRACTOR.  FOR THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WAS COMMITTED. 

IN DECEMBER, 1947, THE GIORGI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP
(HERE CALLED GIORGI), HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PORT
CHESTER, NEW YORK, CONTRACTED TO BUILD A PRIVATE DWELLING IN GREENWICH,
CONNECTICUT.  THE CONTRACT PRICE WAS $15,200.  GIORGI DID PART OF THE
WORK WITH ITS OWN EMPLOYEES BUT SUBCONTRACTED THE ELECTRICAL WORK TO
SAMUEL LANGER AND THE CARPENTRY WORK TO NICHOLAS DELTORTO, THE
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS OF EACH OF WHOM WAS ALSO AT PORT CHESTER. 
LANGER'S SUBCONTRACT WAS FOR $325. 

LANGER IN THE PAST HAD EMPLOYED UNION MEN BUT, PRIOR TO THIS PROJECT,
HAD BECOME INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE WITH PETITIONER, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 501, A.F. OF L., HERE CALLED
THE ELECTRICIANS UNION, BECAUSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT OF NONUNION MEN.  BY
THE MIDDLE OF APRIL, 1948, LANGER'S TWO ELECTRICIANS, NEITHER OF WHOM
WAS A MEMBER OF THE ELECTRICIANS UNION, HAD COMPLETED THE ROUGHING IN
OF THE ELECTRICAL WORK WHICH WAS NECESSARY BEFORE THE WALLS OF THE
HOUSE COULD BE COMPLETED.  AT THAT POINT, ON TWO DAYS WHEN NO EMPLOYEES
OF LANGER WERE PRESENT ON THE PROJECT, BUT BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF
LANGER'S SUBCONTRACT, WILLIAM PATTERSON, THE OTHER PETITIONER HEREIN,
VISITED THE PROJECT IN HIS CAPACITY OF AGENT AND BUSINESS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ELECTRICIANS UNION.  THE ONLY WORKMEN THEN
PRESENT WERE DELTORTO AND HIS TWO CARPENTERS, EACH OF WHOM WAS A MEMBER
OF LOCAL 543, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA,
A.F. OF L., HERE CALLED THE CARPENTERS UNION.  PATTERSON INFORMED
DELTORTO AND ONE OR BOTH OF HIS WORKMEN THAT THE ELECTRICAL WORK ON THE
JOB WAS BEING DONE BY NONUNION MEN.  DELTORTO AND HIS MEN EXPRESSED
IGNORANCE OF THAT FACT, BUT PATTERSON, ON THE SECOND DAY OF HIS VISITS,
REPEATED THE STATEMENT AND PROCEEDED TO PICKET THE PREMISES HIMSELF,
CARRYING A PLACARD WHICH READ "THIS JOB IS UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR:
I.B.E.W. 501 A.F.L."  DELTORTO AND HIS MEN THEREUPON STOPPED WORK AND
LEFT THE PROJECT.  DELTORTO PROMPTLY TELEPHONED GIORGI, THE GENERAL
CONTRACTOR, THAT HIS CARPENTERS HAD WALKED OFF THE JOB BECAUSE THE
ELECTRICAL DELEGATE HAD PICKETED IT.  PATTERSON ALSO TELEPHONED GIORGI
SAYING THAT LANGER WAS "UNFAIR" AND THAT GIORGI WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE
LANGER WITH A UNION CONTRACTOR IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE JOB.  HE ADDED
THAT IF GIORGI DID NOT REPLACE LANGER, HE WOULD NOT RECEIVE ANY SKILLED
TRADES TO FINISH THE REST OF THE WORK. 

NO COMMUNICATION WAS HAD WITH LANGER BY EITHER OF PETITIONERS.  THE
NEXT DAY, GIORGI RECITED THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO LANGER AND THE LATTER
RELEASED GIORGI FROM THE ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACT, SAYING THAT HE WOULD
STEP ASIDE SO THAT A UNION SUBCONTRACTOR COULD TAKE OVER.  HE DID NO
FURTHER WORK ON THE PROJECT.  GIORGI INFORMED DELTORTO THAT THE TROUBLE
HAD BEEN STRAIGHTENED OUT, AND THE LATTER'S CARPENTERS RETURNED TO THE
PROJECT. 

ON A CHARGE FILED BY LANGER, BASED UPON THESE EVENTS, THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ISSUED A COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE ELECTRICIANS UNION AND PATTERSON.  IT ALLEGED THAT THEY HAD
INDUCED AND ENCOURAGED THE EMPLOYEES OF DELTORTO TO ENGAGE IN A STRIKE
OR A CONCERTED REFUSAL IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT TO PERFORM
SERVICES FOR HIM, AN OBJECT THEREOF BEING TO FORCE OR REQUIRE GIORGI TO
CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH LANGER IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A).  FN2 

WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PRESENT PETITIONERS, A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS
ISSUED AGAINST THEM BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(1).  FN3 THE
COMPLAINT WAS REFERRED TO THE SAME TRIAL EXAMINER WHO HEARD THE DENVER
CASE, ANTE, P. 675.  HE DISTINGUISHED THE ACTION OF PETITIONERS FROM
THAT WHICH HE HAD FOUND IN THE DENVER CASE TO CONSTITUTE A STRIKE
SIGNAL, AND RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT
PETITIONERS' ACTION HERE WAS PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC. 8(C), DESPITE THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A).  THE BOARD, WITH TWO MEMBERS DISSENTING,
UPHELD ITS JURISDICTION OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST A CLAIM THAT THE
ACTIONS COMPLAINED OF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD SO HOLDING THEN AFFIRMED THE RULINGS WHICH
THE EXAMINER HAD MADE DURING THE HEARINGS, ADOPTED CERTAIN OF HIS
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ATTACHED HIS INTERMEDIATE
REPORT TO ITS DECISION, BUT DECLINED TO FOLLOW HIS RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  THE BOARD EXPRESSLY HELD THAT SEC. 8(C) DID NOT
IMMUNIZE PETITIONERS' CONDUCT FROM THE PROSCRIPTIONS OF SEC.
8(B)(4)(A).  82 N.L.R.B. 1028.  IT ORDERED PETITIONERS TO - 

"CEASE AND DESIST FROM INDUCING OR ENCOURAGING THE EMPLOYEES OF
NICHOLAS DELTORTO OR ANY EMPLOYER, BY PICKETING OR RELATED CONDUCT, TO
ENGAGE IN A STRIKE OR A CONCERTED REFUSAL IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT TO PERFORM ANY SERVICES, WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF IS TO FORCE
OR REQUIRE GIORGI CONSTRUCTION CO. OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYER OR PERSON TO
CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH SAMUEL LANGER."  ID., AT 1030. 

PETITIONERS ASKED THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, UNDER SEC.
10(F),  FN4  TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THAT ORDER.  THE BOARD ANSWERED
AND ASKED ENFORCEMENT OF IT.  WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, THE COURT
BELOW ORDERED ENFORCEMENT.  181 F.2D 34.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340
U.S. 902.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, ANTE, P.
675. 

1.  PETITIONERS CONTEST THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD ON THE GROUND
OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EFFECT OF THE ACTIONS COMPLAINED OF UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE FACTS, WHICH WERE FOUND IN DETAIL IN THE
INTERMEDIATE REPORT, APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND UPHELD BY THE COURT
BELOW, ARE IN OUR OPINION SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THAT JURISDICTION ON
THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE DENVER CASE, ANTE, P. 675.  IN ADDITION, THE
CONTRACTOR AND BOTH SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD THEIR
PRINCIPAL PLACES OF BUSINESS IN NEW YORK.  THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ON THIS PROJECT IN CONNECTICUT ACCORDINGLY
EMPHASIZES THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS WHICH
THEY HERE SUPPLIED. 

2.  THE SECONDARY CHARACTER OF THE ACTIVITIES HERE COMPLAINED OF AND
THEIR OBJECTIVES ALSO COME WITHIN THE PATTERN OF THE DENVER CASE.  IN
THE INSTANT CASE, A LABOR DISPUTE HAD BEEN PENDING FOR SOME TIME
BETWEEN LANGER AND THE ELECTRICIANS UNION, BUT NO DEMANDS WERE MADE
UPON HIM DIRECTLY BY EITHER OF PETITIONERS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
PROJECT.  THERE ARE NO FINDINGS THAT THE PICKETING WAS AIMED AT LANGER
TO FORCE HIM TO EMPLOY UNION WORKMEN ON THIS JOB.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
FINDINGS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PICKETING WAS DIRECTED AT DELTORTO'S
EMPLOYEES TO INDUCE THEM TO STRIKE AND THUS FORCE DELTORTO, THE
CARPENTRY SUBCONTRACTOR, TO FORCE GIORGI, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, TO
TERMINATE LANGER'S ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACT. 

3.  THE DENVER CASE ALSO COVERS THE POINT THAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT THAT
AN OBJECTIVE OF THE PICKETING, ALTHOUGH NOT NECESSARILY THE ONLY
OBJECTIVE OF THE PICKETING, WAS TO FORCE GIORGI TO TERMINATE LANGER'S
UNCOMPLETED CONTRACT AND THUS CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH HIM ON THE
PROJECT. 

4.  THE PRINCIPAL FEATURE OF THE INSTANT CASE, NOT SQUARELY COVERED
BY THE DENVER CASE, IS THAT THERE IS NO FINDING HERE THAT THE PICKETING
AND OTHER ACTIVITIES OF PETITIONERS WERE MERE SIGNALS IN STARTING AND
STOPPING A STRIKE IN ACCORDANCE WITH BY-LAWS OR OTHER CONTROLLING
PRACTICES OF THE ELECTRICIANS AND CARPENTERS UNIONS.  THE COMPLAINT
HERE IS NOT THAT PETITIONERS, LIKE THE TRADES COUNCIL IN THE DENVER
CASE, THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN OR CALLED A STRIKE OF DELTORTO'S CARPENTERS
IN ORDER TO FORCE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH
THE ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR.  HERE THE COMPLAINT IS THAT PETITIONERS,
BY PEACEFUL PICKETING, RATHER THAN BY PREARRANGED SIGNAL, INDUCED OR
ENCOURAGED THE EMPLOYEES OF DELTORTO TO STRIKE (OR TO ENGAGE IN A
CONCERTED REFUSAL TO PERFORM ANY SERVICES FOR DELTORTO) IN THE COURSE
OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT TO FORCE GIORGI, THE CONTRACTOR, TO CEASE DOING
BUSINESS WITH LANGER, THE ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR. 

WHILE IN THE DENVER CASE WE HAVE HELD THAT SEC. 8(C)  FN5  HAD NO
APPLICATION TO A STRIKE SIGNAL, THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT
ENTER INTO THE DECISION HERE.  THE QUESTION HERE IS WHAT EFFECT, IF
ANY, SHALL BE GIVEN TO SEC. 8(C) IN ITS APPLICATION TO PEACEFUL
PICKETING CONDUCTED BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR ITS AGENTS MERELY AS AN
INDUCEMENT OR ENCOURAGEMENT OF EMPLOYEES TO ENGAGE IN A SECONDARY
BOYCOTT.  PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT SEC. 8(C) IMMUNIZES PEACEFUL
PICKETING, EVEN THOUGH THE PICKETING INDUCES A SECONDARY BOYCOTT MADE
UNLAWFUL BY SEC. 8(B)(4).  THE BOARD REACHED THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION
AND THE COURT BELOW APPROVED THE BOARD'S ORDER AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS
OF THIS CASE WHICH IT RECOGNIZED AS AMOUNTING TO "BARE INSTIGATION" OF
THE SECONDARY BOYCOTT.  FN6  WE AGREE WITH THE BOARD. 

A. TO EXEMPT PEACEFUL PICKETING FROM THE CONDEMNATION OF SEC.
8(B)(4)(A) AS A MEANS OF BRINGING ABOUT A SECONDARY BOYCOTT IS CONTRARY
TO THE LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE OF THAT SECTION.  THE WORDS "INDUCE OR
ENCOURAGE" ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE IN THEM EVERY FORM OF INFLUENCE
AND PERSUASION.  FN7  THERE IS NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO JUSTIFY AN
INTERPRETATION THAT CONGRESS BY THOSE TERMS HAS LIMITED ITS
PROSCRIPTION OF SECONDARY BOYCOTTING TO CASES WHERE THE MEANS OF
INDUCEMENT OR ENCOURAGEMENT AMOUNT TO A "THREAT OF REPRISAL OR FORCE OR
PROMISE OF BENEFIT."  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD GIVE MORE
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE MEANS USED THAN TO THE END SOUGHT.  IF SUCH WERE
THE CASE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN LITTLE NEED FOR SEC. 8(B)(4) DEFINING
THE PROSCRIBED OBJECTIVES, BECAUSE THE USE OF "RESTRAINT AND COERCION"
FOR ANY PURPOSE WAS PROHIBITED IN THIS WHOLE FIELD BY SEC. 8(B)(1)(A). 

"INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE" APPEAR IN LIKE CONTEXT IN SEC. 303.  THE
ACTION PROSCRIBED BY THE TERMS OF SEC. 8(B)(4) IS MADE IN SEC. 303 THE
BASIS FOR THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES IN A CIVIL ACTION.  BECAUSE SEC. 8(C)
IS IN TERMS LIMITED TO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDINGS AND SEC. 303
REFERS ONLY TO CIVIL ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES,  FN8  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT
SEC. 8(C) DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ACTION UNDER SEC. 303.  THAT SECTION
DOES NOT MENTION UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES THROUGH WHICH ALONE THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8(C) CAN BECOME APPLICABLE.  IF SEC. 8(C) WERE GIVEN
THE EFFECT WHICH PETITIONERS URGE, IT WOULD LIMIT SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) SO AS
TO GIVE THE WORDS "INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE" A MEANING IN THAT SECTION
DIFFERENT THAN THEY HAVE IN SEC. 303.  WE THINK THAT THE WORDS ARE
ENTITLED TO THE SAME MEANING IN SECS. 8(B)(4) AND 303. 

B. THE INTENDED BREADTH OF THE WORDS "INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE" IN SEC.
8(B)(4)(A) IS EMPHASIZED BY THEIR CONTRAST WITH THE RESTRICTED PHRASES
USED IN OTHER PARTS OF SEC. 8(B).  FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE DESCRIBED IN SEC. 8(B)(1) IS ONE "TO RESTRAIN OR COERCE"
EMPLOYEES; IN SEC. 8(B)(2) IT IS TO "CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CAUSE AN
EMPLOYER"; IN SEC. 8(B)(5) IT IS TO "REQUIRE OF EMPLOYEES"; AND IN SEC.
8(B)(6) IT IS TO "CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CAUSE AN EMPLOYER."  THE SCOPE OF
"INDUCE" AND ESPECIALLY OF "ENCOURAGE" GOES BEYOND EACH OF THEM. 

C. TO EXEMPT PEACEFUL PICKETING FROM THE REACH OF SEC. 8(B)(4) WOULD
BE TO OPEN THE DOOR TO THE CUSTOMARY MEANS OF ENLISTING THE SUPPORT OF
EMPLOYEES TO BRING ECONOMIC PRESSURE TO BEAR ON THEIR EMPLOYER.  THE
BOARD QUICKLY RECOGNIZED THAT TO DO SO WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
PURPOSE OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A).  IT SAID "TO FIND THAT PEACEFUL PICKETING
WAS NOT THEREBY PROSCRIBED WOULD BE TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS AN
INCONGRUOUS INTENT TO PERMIT, THROUGH INDIRECTION, THE ACCOMPLISHMENT
OF AN OBJECTIVE WHICH IT FORBADE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED DIRECTLY."  UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 81 N.L.R.B. 802, 811.  ALSO -    "IT WAS THE
OBJECTIVE OF THE UNIONS' SECONDARY ACTIVITIES  ...  AND NOT THE QUALITY
OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT OBJECTIVE, WHICH WAS THE
DOMINANT FACTOR MOTIVATING CONGRESS IN ENACTING THAT PROVISION.  ...
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO CONSTRUE SECTION 8(B)(4)(A) AS QUALIFIED BY
AMOUNT TO IMPUTING TO CONGRESS AN UNREALISTIC APPROACH TO THE
PROBLEM."  ID., AT 812. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DOES NOT SUSTAIN A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO
OUTLAW SECONDARY BOYCOTTS UNDER SEC. 8(B)(4) AND YET IN EFFECT TO
SANCTION THEM UNDER SEC. 8(C).    D. WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT
CONGRESS THOUGHT THAT THE KIND OF PICKETING AND RELATED CONDUCT WHICH
WAS USED IN THIS CASE TO INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE A STRIKE FOR AN UNLAWFUL
OBJECT WAS ANY LESS OBJECTIONABLE THAN ENGAGING DIRECTLY IN THAT
STRIKE.  THE COURT BELOW, AFTER FINDING THAT THERE WAS "BARE
INSTIGATION" HERE RATHER THAN AN APPEAL TO REASON BY "THE EXPRESSING OF
ANY VIEWS, ARGUMENT, OR OPINION," TRACED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
DOCTRINE THAT HE WHO PROVOKES OR INSTIGATES A WRONG MAKES HIMSELF A
PARTY TO IT.  THAT COURT THEN REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS "HIGHLY
UNLIKELY THAT BY SEC. 8(C) CONGRESS MEANT TO ABOLISH A DOCTRINE, SO
DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN OUR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW."  181 F.2D AT 39. 

E. THE REMEDIAL FUNCTION OF SEC. 8(C) IS TO PROTECT NONCOERCIVE
SPEECH BY EMPLOYER AND LABOR ORGANIZATION ALIKE IN FURTHERANCE OF A
LAWFUL OBJECT.  IT SERVES THAT PURPOSE ADEQUATELY WITHOUT EXTENDING ITS
PROTECTION TO SPEECH OR PICKETING IN FURTHERANCE OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES SUCH AS ARE DEFINED IN SEC. 8(B)(4).  THE GENERAL TERMS OF
SEC. 8(C) APPROPRIATELY GIVE WAY TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SEC.
8(B)(4). 

5.  THE PROHIBITION OF INDUCEMENT OR ENCOURAGEMENT OF SECONDARY
PRESSURE BY SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) CARRIES NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABRIDGMENT OF
FREE SPEECH.  THE INDUCEMENT OR ENCOURAGEMENT IN THE INSTANT CASE TOOK
THE FORM OF PICKETING FOLLOWED BY A TELEPHONE CALL EMPHASIZING ITS
PURPOSE.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) IS HERE QUESTIONED
ONLY AS TO ITS POSSIBLE RELATION TO THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH GUARANTEED BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY SEVERAL
COURTS OF APPEALS.  FN9  THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL CONDEMNED BY CONGRESS IN
SEC. 8(B)(4) IS THE SECONDARY BOYCOTT AND WE RECENTLY HAVE RECOGNIZED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF STATES TO PROSCRIBE PICKETING IN
FURTHERANCE OF COMPARABLY UNLAWFUL OBJECTIVES.  FN10  THERE IS NO
REASON WHY CONGRESS MAY NOT DO LIKEWISE. 

6.  PETITIONERS OBJECT TO THE BREADTH OF THE BOARD'S ORDER AS STATED
IN 82 N.L.R.B. AT 1030, SUPRA, PP. 698-699.  THEY CONTEND THAT ITS
LANGUAGE PROHIBITS INDUCEMENT NOT ONLY OF EMPLOYEES OF DELTORTO BUT
ALSO THE INDUCEMENT OF EMPLOYEES OF ANY OTHER EMPLOYER TO STRIKE, WHERE
AN OBJECT THEREOF IS TO FORCE GIORGI OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYER OR PERSON TO
CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH LANGER.  TO CONFINE THE ORDER SOLELY TO
SECONDARY PRESSURE THROUGH GIORGI OR DELTORTO WOULD LEAVE LANGER AND
OTHER EMPLOYERS WHO DO BUSINESS WITH HIM EXPOSED TO THE SAME TYPE OF
PRESSURE THROUGH OTHER COMPARABLE CHANNELS.  THE ORDER PROPERLY ENJOINS
PETITIONERS FROM EXERTING THIS PRESSURE UPON LANGER, THROUGH OTHER
EMPLOYERS, AS WELL AS THROUGH GIORGI AND DELTORTO.  WE MAY WELL APPLY
HERE THE PRINCIPLE STATED IN INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES,
332 U.S. 392, 400:  "WHEN THE PURPOSE TO RESTRAIN TRADE APPEARS FROM A
CLEAR VIOLATION OF LAW, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ALL OF THE UNTRAVELED
ROADS TO THAT END BE LEFT OPEN AND THAT ONLY THE WORN ONE BE CLOSED." 
AND SEE UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 340 U.S. 76, 90. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  61 STAT. 140-141, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 158(B)(4)(A).  FOR
TEXT SEE LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, ANTE, P. 677,
NOTE 1. 

FN2  THE COMPLAINT REFERRED ORIGINALLY NOT ONLY TO THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE HERE CONSIDERED BUT ALSO TO COERCION IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(B)(1)(A), AND TO THREATS OF ACTION ADDRESSED TO OTHER EMPLOYERS. 
THOSE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED BY THE BOARD AND ARE NOT BEFORE US. 

FN3  61 STAT. 149-150, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 160(L).  FOR TEXT
SEE LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, ANTE, P. 682, NOTE
10. 

FN4  61 STAT. 148-149, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 160(F). 

FN5  "THE EXPRESSING OF ANY VIEWS, ARGUMENT, OR OPINION, OR THE
DISSEMINATION THEREOF, WHETHER IN WRITTEN, PRINTED, GRAPHIC, OR VISUAL
FORM, SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE OR BE EVIDENCE OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, IF SUCH EXPRESSION CONTAINS NO
THREAT OF REPRISAL OR FORCE OR PROMISE OF BENEFIT."  61 STAT. 142, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 158(C). 

FN6  THIS ISSUE IS EXTENSIVELY REVIEWED AND DETERMINED IN FAVOR OF
THE VIEW THAT SEC. 8(C) DOES NOT IMMUNIZE OTHERWISE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE AGAINST SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) IN UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS,
81 N.L.R.B. 802, 807-816.  IN AFFIRMING THAT CONCLUSION THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SAID: 

"THEY ESTABLISHED A PICKET AT THE BUILDING PROJECT OF KLASSEN.  AND
THEY PLACED KLASSEN ON A SO-CALLED BLACKLIST AND GAVE WIDE CIRCULATION
OF THE FACT AMONG THOSE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE BUILDING
INDUSTRY, ALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPELLING KLASSEN TO CEASE DOING
BUSINESS WITH WADSWORTH.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OR
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 8(C) WHICH INDICATES PERSUASIVELY A
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO CREATE AN ASYLUM OF IMMUNITY FROM THE
PROSCRIPTION OF SECTION 8(B)(4)(A) FOR ACTS AND CONDUCT OF THAT KIND." 
LABOR BOARD V. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 184 F.2D 60, 62. 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED IN THIS COURT AND ACTION ON THE
PETITION WAS WITHHELD PENDING DECISION OF THE INSTANT CASES.  THE
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS FILED A BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE HEARINGS OF THESE CASES AND THE PETITION OF
CERTIORARI IS THIS DAY BEING DENIED, POST, P. 947.  SEE ALSO, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS V. SPERRY, 170 F.2D 863, 868-869; PRINTING
SPECIALTIES UNION, 82 N.L.R.B. 271; BRICKLAYERS UNION, 82 N.L.R.B. 228;
LOCAL 1796, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 82 N.L.R.B. 211; DENNIS,
THE BOYCOTT UNDER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, N.Y.U. THIRD ANNUAL CONFERENCE
ON LABOR (1950), 367, 382-386. 

FN7  INDUCE:  "1.  TO LEAD ON; TO INFLUENCE; TO PREVAIL ON; TO MOVE
BY PERSUASION OR INFLUENCE." 

ENCOURAGE:  "1.  TO GIVE COURAGE TO; TO INSPIRE WITH COURAGE, SPIRIT,
OR HOPE; TO RAISE THE CONFIDENCE OF; TO ANIMATE; HEARTEN; ... 

"2.  TO EMBOLDEN, INCITE, OR INDUCE AS BY INSPIRATION,
RECOMMENDATION, ETC.; HENCE, TO ADVISE; ... 

"3.  TO GIVE HELP OR PATRONAGE TO, AS AN INDUSTRY; TO FOSTER; ...  "
WEBSTER'S NEW INT'L DICT., UNABRIDGED (2D ED. 1945). 

FN8  "SEC.  303.  (A)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
LABOR ORGANIZATION TO ENGAGE IN, OR TO INDUCE OR ENCOURAGE THE
EMPLOYEES OF ANY EMPLOYER TO ENGAGE IN, A STRIKE OR A CONCERTED REFUSAL
IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT TO USE, MANUFACTURE, PROCESS,
TRANSPORT, OR OTHERWISE HANDLE OR WORK ON ANY GOODS, ARTICLES,
MATERIALS, OR COMMODITIES OR TO PERFORM ANY SERVICES, WHERE AN OBJECT
THEREOF IS - 

"(1)  FORCING OR REQUIRING ANY EMPLOYER OR SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON TO
JOIN ANY LABOR OR EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION OR ANY EMPLOYER OR OTHER PERSON
TO CEASE USING, SELLING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, OR OTHERWISE DEALING
IN THE PRODUCTS OF ANY OTHER PRODUCER, PROCESSOR, OR MANUFACTURER, OR
TO CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH ANY OTHER PERSON; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  WHOEVER SHALL BE INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY REASON
OF ANY VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (A) MAY SUE THEREFOR IN ANY DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
ANY OTHER COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES, AND SHALL RECOVER
THE DAMAGES BY HIM SUSTAINED AND THE COST OF THE SUIT."  61 STAT. 158
159, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 187. 

FN9  SEE LABOR BOARD V. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 184 F.2D
60, 62, CERTIORARI DENIED THIS DAY AS NO. 387, POST, P. 947; LABOR
BOARD V. LOCAL 74, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 181 F.2D 126, 132,
AFF'D AS NO. 85, POST, P. 707; LABOR BOARD V. WINE, LIQUOR & DISTILLERY
WORKERS UNION, 178 F.2D 584, 587-588; PRINTING SPECIALTIES UNION V. LE
BARON, 171 F.2D 331, 334-335; UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS V.
SPERRY, 170 F.2D 863, 868-869.  SEE ALSO, AS TO SEC. 8(B)(4)(C), DOUDS
V. LOCAL 1250, 170 F.2D 700, 701. 

FN10  SEE BUILDING SERVICE UNION V. GAZZAM, 339 U.S. 532;
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS V. HANKE, 339 U.S. 470; HUGHES
V. SUPERIOR COURT, 339 U.S. 460; GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE CO., 336
U.S. 490. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON WOULD
REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :



















CARPENTERS UNION V. LABOR BOARD, 341 U.S. 707 


NO. 85.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.  - 181 F.2D
126, AFFIRMED. 


ON THE DAY BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
ACT, 1947, AMENDING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, A UNION ORDERED
ITS MEMBERS, WHO WERE WORKING ON A DWELLING RENOVATION PROJECT, TO
STRIKE.  THEY DID SO, AND THE STRIKE CONTINUED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE AMENDMENT.  ONE OF THE OBJECTS WAS TO FORCE THE OWNER OF THE
DWELLING TO CANCEL A CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WALL AND FLOOR
COVERINGS BY A MERCHANT USING NONUNION WORKMEN IN THEIR INSTALLATION. 
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND THAT THE UNION AND ITS AGENT
(PETITIONERS HERE) HAD ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) OF THE ACT AND ORDERED THEM TO CEASE AND
DESIST.  HELD:  ITS FINDING AND ORDER ARE SUSTAINED.  PP. 708-715. 

1.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE ACTIONS COMPLAINED OF HAD
SUFFICIENT EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO SUSTAIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION.  P. 712. 

2.  SECTION 8(C) IS NOT APPLICABLE.  PP. 712-713. 

3.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ACTION COMPLAINED OF
WAS TO FORCE THE OWNER OF THE DWELLING TO CANCEL THE MERCHANT'S
CONTRACT; AND IT DOES NOT IMMUNIZE SUCH ACTION FROM SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) TO
SHOW THAT ANOTHER OBJECT WAS TO ENFORCE A RULE OF THE UNION THAT ITS
MEMBERS SHOULD NOT WORK ON A PROJECT ON WHICH NONUNION MEN WERE
EMPLOYED.  P. 713. 

4.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE STRIKE HAD ITS ORIGIN BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDED ACT, SINCE IT WAS PROLONGED AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE, FOR THE SAME OBJECTIVE.  PP. 713-714. 

5.  THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED MOOT BY THE COMPLETION OF THE
RENOVATION PROJECT.  P. 715. 

LOCAL 74, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, A.F.
OF L., ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND THAT PETITIONERS HAD
COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8(B)(4)(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, AND ORDERED THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST. 
80 N.L.R.B. 533.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED ENFORCEMENT.  181 F.2D
126.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 902.  AFFIRMED, P. 715. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO NO. 393, LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING
TRADES COUNCIL (THE DENVER CASE), ANTE, P. 675, AND NO. 108,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS V. LABOR BOARD (THE
GREENWICH CASE), ANTE, P. 694. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IS WHETHER, UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES,
A UNION ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8(B)(4)(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 151, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947:  FN1
ON THE DAY BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT AMENDMENT, THE UNION
ORDERED ITS MEMBERS, WHO WERE WORKING ON A DWELLING RENOVATION PROJECT,
TO ENGAGE IN A STRIKE, WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF WAS TO FORCE THE OWNER
OF THE DWELLING TO CANCEL A CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WALL AND
FLOOR COVERINGS; AND THEN FOR SEVERAL DAYS, ON AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE AMENDMENT, THE STRIKE WAS CONTINUED UNDER THE SAME
CONDITIONS WHICH CREATED IT AND FOR THE SAME OBJECTIVE.  FOR THE
REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WAS
ENGAGED IN ON AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT. 

FOR SOME YEARS BEFORE MARCH, 1947, IRA A. WATSON COMPANY, A RHODE
ISLAND CORPORATION (HERE CALLED WATSON'S), OPERATED A GENERAL RETAIL
STORE IN CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, INCLUDING A DEPARTMENT FOR THE SALE
AND INSTALLATION OF WALL AND FLOOR COVERINGS.  SINCE THAT TIME WATSON'S
HAS OPERATED A SPECIALTY STORE DEVOTED TO THOSE ACTIVITIES.  AT ABOUT
THE SAME TIME, LOCAL 74, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
OF AMERICA, A.F. OF L. (HERE CALLED THE UNION), AND ITS BUSINESS AGENT,
JACK HENDERSON (RESPECTIVELY THE PETITIONERS IN THE INSTANT CASE),
ASKED WATSON'S TO ENTER INTO A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION
RECOGNIZING IT AS THE BARGAINING AGENT OF WATSON'S INSTALLATION
EMPLOYEES.  NONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES WERE MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND
WATSON'S DECLINED TO ENTER THE AGREEMENT.  THEREUPON, FROM THE LATTER
PART OF MARCH UNTIL ABOUT AUGUST 28, 1947, PETITIONERS MAINTAINED A
PICKET IN FRONT OF WATSON'S STORE CARRYING A PLACARD.  THIS ANNOUNCED,
OVER THE NAME OF THE UNION, THAT WATSON'S WAS "UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED
LABOR" OR LATER "THIS STORE EMPLOYS NON-UNION LABOR."  WATSON'S
SOMETIMES SOLD WALL OR FLOOR COVERINGS WITHOUT INSTALLING THEM AND, AT
OTHER TIMES, IT INSISTED UPON INSTALLING SUCH COVERINGS AS A CONDITION
OF THEIR SALE.  WHEN THE INSTALLATIONS WERE MADE BY WATSON'S, THE WORK
WAS DONE BY NONUNION MEN. 

AUGUST 7, 1947, GEORGE D. STANLEY, WHO OWNED A DWELLING NEAR
CHATTANOOGA, CONTRACTED WITH D. F. PARKER TO IMPROVE AND RENOVATE IT.
PARKER WAS TO FURNISH AND SUPERVISE THE WORKMEN AND SELECT THE
MATERIALS.  STANLEY WAS TO PAY THE WAGES OF THE WORKMEN, THE COST OF
THE MATERIALS, AND A TEN PER CENT COMMISSION TO PARKER ON BOTH.  PARKER
WAS A MEMBER OF THE UNION AND HE HIRED UNION MEMBERS TO DO THE
CARPENTRY WORK.  IF THE WALL AND FLOOR COVERINGS DESIRED BY STANLEY HAD
BEEN AVAILABLE IN CHATTANOOGA ELSEWHERE THAN AT WATSON'S, PARKER WOULD
HAVE PURCHASED THEM FROM SUCH SOURCE AND WOULD HAVE EMPLOYED UNION MEN
TO INSTALL THEM.  HOWEVER, NEITHER PARKER NOR STANLEY COULD FIND SUCH
COVERINGS IN CHATTANOOGA EXCEPT AT WATSON'S AND WATSON'S INSISTED ON
INSTALLING THEM AS A CONDITION OF THEIR SALE.  ALTHOUGH KNOWING THAT
WATSON'S WOULD USE NONUNION MEN TO MAKE THE INSTALLATIONS, STANLEY,
WITH PARKER'S IMPLIED CONSENT, CONTRACTED WITH WATSON'S FOR THE
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF THE COVERINGS.  WATSON'S BEGAN ITS
INSTALLATION SUNDAY, AUGUST 17, WHEN THERE WERE NO OTHER WORKMEN
PRESENT.  MONDAY AND TUESDAY, APPARENTLY WITH PARKER'S APPROVAL, THE
INSTALLATION CONTINUED DURING REGULAR WORKING HOURS.  WEDNESDAY, TWO OF
THE UNION CARPENTERS STOPPED WORK FOR HALF AN HOUR BECAUSE OF THE
PRESENCE ON THE JOB OF THE NONUNION INSTALLATION WORKERS.  PARKER,
HOWEVER, INDUCED THE CARPENTERS TO RESUME WORK.  THIS SITUATION CAME TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE UNION AND, ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, HENDERSON CAME
TO THE PROJECT AND TOLD THE FOUR UNION CARPENTERS WHO WERE WORKING
THERE THAT THEY COULD NOT CONTINUE TO WORK WITH NONUNION MEN OR WHERE
NONUNION MEN WERE EMPLOYED.  AT THAT HOUR, NONE OF WATSON'S MEN WERE
PRESENT BUT THE INSTALLATION OF COVERINGS CONTRACTED FOR BY STANLEY
WITH WATSON'S HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED.  THE UNION MEN FINISHED THEIR
DAY'S WORK BUT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS THUS ISSUED BY
PETITIONERS, DID NOT RETURN ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS.  WATSON'S MEN
RETURNED AND COMPLETED THEIR WORK BY AUGUST 28, AND THE ENTIRE
RENOVATION WAS FINISHED BY THE END OF AUGUST.  THE UNFINISHED CARPENTRY
WORK WAS DONE BY TWO OF THE FOUR UNION MEN WHO HAD BEEN ON THE JOB AND
WHO RETURNED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF PETITIONERS.  ON
AUGUST 22, 1947, SEC. 8(B)(4)(A) TOOK EFFECT.  FN2 

WATSON'S PROMPTLY FILED A CHARGE WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD BASED UPON THE CONTINUANCE OF THE ABOVE STRIKE BY PETITIONERS ON
AND AFTER AUGUST 22.  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ISSUED A COMPLAINT CHARGING
THE UNION AND HENDERSON WITH ENGAGING IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AS
DEFINED IN SEC. 8(B)(4)(A).  FN3  PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(1),  FN4  THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  THIS RELIEF WAS
DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF TOOK PLACE BEFORE
AUGUST 22 AND WAS AT THAT TIME LAWFUL.  74 F.SUPP.  499. 

AFTER HEARINGS BEFORE AN EXAMINER, THE BOARD, WITH ONE MEMBER
DISSENTING, AFFIRMED THE RULINGS OF ITS EXAMINER, ATTACHED HIS
INTERMEDIATE REPORT TO ITS DECISION, 80 N.L.R.B. 533, 540, AND ADOPTED
HIS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ADDITIONS AND
MODIFICATIONS.  IT ORDERED THE UNION AND HENDERSON TO - 

"CEASE AND DESIST FROM ENGAGING IN OR INDUCING THE MEMBERS OF LOCAL
74 TO ENGAGE IN A STRIKE OR A CONCERTED REFUSAL IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT TO PERFORM SERVICES FOR ANY EMPLOYER, WHERE AN OBJECT
THEREOF IS TO REQUIRE ANY EMPLOYER OR OTHER PERSON TO CEASE DOING
BUSINESS WITH IRA A. WATSON, DOING BUSINESS AS WATSON'S SPECIALTY
STORE."  ID., AT 539. 

THE DISSENT WAS ON THE GROUND THAT THE EFFECT OF THE ACTIONS
COMPLAINED OF UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS SO REMOTE AND INSUBSTANTIAL
AND THE CONTROVERSY WAS SO LOCAL IN CHARACTER THAT IT WAS UNDESIRABLE
FOR THE BOARD TO EXERCISE FEDERAL POWER IN RELATION TO IT.  ID., AT
540.  ON A REVIEW UNDER SEC. 10(E),  FN5  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT ORDERED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  181 F.2D 126.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 902.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING
TRADES COUNCIL, ANTE, AT P. 681. 

1.  PETITIONERS CONTEST THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD ON THE GROUND
OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EFFECT OF THE ACTIONS COMPLAINED OF UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE FINDINGS IN THE INTERMEDIATE
REPORT, ADOPTED BY THE BOARD AND ACCEPTED BY THE COURT BELOW, ARE
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION.  DENVER CASE, ANTE, AT
PP. 683-685.  FROM MARCH TO SEPTEMBER, 1947, WATSON'S PURCHASED ABOUT
$93,000 WORTH OF GOODS.  THIRTY-THREE PERCENT WAS SHIPPED TO IT IN
INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THIRTY PERCENT MORE HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE
OF TENNESSEE.  WATSON'S SALES AND INSTALLATION JOBS CAME TO ABOUT
$100,000 OF WHICH EIGHT PERCENT REPRESENTED SALES AND INSTALLATIONS
OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  THE BOARD ALSO REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT
WATSON'S OPERATED A SYSTEM OF 26 OR 27 RETAIL STORES IN SEVEN DIFFERENT
STATES, OF WHICH THE CHATTANOOGA STORE APPARENTLY WAS AN INTEGRAL
PART. 

2.  THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT AGAINST THE PICKETING AT WATSON'S STORE
FROM MARCH TO AUGUST 28, 1947.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. INTERNATIONAL RICE
MILLING CO., ANTE, P. 665.  THE COMPLAINT WAS DIRECTED AGAINST
PETITIONERS' EXTENSION OF THEIR ACTIVITIES TO THE STANLEY PROJECT BY
THERE ORDERING A STRIKE, OR CONCERTED CESSATION OF WORK, ON THE PART OF
STANLEY'S UNION CARPENTERS  FN6 WITH AN OBJECT OF FORCING STANLEY TO
CANCEL HIS INSTALLATION CONTRACT WITH WATSON'S.  SECTION 8(C) FN7  IS
NOT APPLICABLE.  THIS STRIKE WAS ORDERED BY HENDERSON IN PERSON.  THE
UNION AND HE BOTH ENGAGED IN AND ORDERED THE STRIKE.  THE CARPENTERS AS
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES ARE NOT CHARGED WITH AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 
THE CHARGE IS CONFINED TO THE ACTIONS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS
AGENT IN ENGAGING IN, ORDERING AND CONTINUING A STRIKE FOR A PROSCRIBED
OBJECT AFTER CONGRESS HAD MADE SUCH CONDUCT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 

3.  AS DETERMINED IN THE DENVER CASE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT ONE OF THE
OBJECTS OF THE ACTION COMPLAINED OF WAS TO FORCE STANLEY TO CANCEL
WATSON'S CONTRACT.  IT DOES NOT IMMUNIZE SUCH ACTION FROM SEC.
8(B)(4)(A) TO SHOW THAT IT ALSO HAD AS AN OBJECT THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
RULE OF THE UNION THAT ITS MEMBERS SHOULD NOT WORK ON A PROJECT ON
WHICH NONUNION MEN WERE EMPLOYED.  FN8  THE STATUTE DID NOT REQUIRE THE
INDIVIDUAL CARPENTERS TO REMAIN ON THIS JOB.  IT DID, HOWEVER, MAKE IT
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR THE UNION OR ITS AGENT TO ENGAGE IN A
STRIKE, AS THEY DID HERE, WHEN AN OBJECT OF DOING SO WAS TO FORCE THE
PROJECT OWNER TO CANCEL HIS INSTALLATION CONTRACT WITH WATSON'S. 

4.  EVEN ASSUMING THAT, IF PETITIONERS HAD ENGAGED IN SUCH A STRIKE
OR HAD INDUCED THE UNION CARPENTERS TO TAKE PART IN IT ON AND AFTER
AUGUST 22, 1947, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER THE
NEW AMENDMENT, PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THEIR ACTIONS ALL TOOK PLACE
BEFORE AUGUST 22, AND THAT THEY DID NOTHING ON OR AFTER THAT DATE WHICH
IS PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 8(B)(4)(A).  FN9  THE ANSWER TURNS ON WHAT
ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE ON AND AFTER AUGUST 22.  AS TO THAT THE BOARD
CONCLUDED: 

"NOR IS IT MATERIAL  ...  THAT THE LABOR DISPUTE HAD ITS ORIGIN
BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDED ACT, FOR WE ARE CONVINCED THAT
IT WAS CONTINUED AND PROLONGED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE BY THE VERY
SAME FACTORS WHICH ORIGINALLY CREATED IT AND FOR THE SAME ORIGINAL
OBJECTIVE WHICH, AS FOUND ABOVE, SECTION 8(B)(4)(A) DECLARES UNLAWFUL. 
THUS, AT MATERIAL TIMES BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
AMENDMENTS  ...  (2) THE RESPONDENTS' (HERE PETITIONERS) STRIKE ORDER,
WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS NEVER RESCINDED, WAS OUTSTANDING AND EFFECTIVELY
PREVENTED THE CARPENTERS FROM OFFICIALLY WORKING ON THE JOB AS LONG AS
WATSON'S MEN WERE ALSO WORKING; ...  "  80 N.L.R.B. AT 537-538.  FN10 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW IN SUSTAINING THAT CONCLUSION.  FN11 

5.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE REMAINING QUESTIONS RAISED BY PETITIONERS,
BASES ON CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHER GROUNDS, AND HAVE RESOLVED THEM IN
FAVOR OF SUSTAINING THE BOARD AND THE COURT BELOW.  THIS CASE HAS NOT
BEEN RENDERED MOOT BY THE COMPLETION OF THE RENOVATION PROJECT.  THE
COMPLAINT WAS AGAINST PETITIONERS' USE OF SECONDARY PRESSURE UPON
WATSON'S IN A MANNER PROSCRIBED BY THE STATUTE.  THE USE OF SUCH
PRESSURE ON THIS RENOVATION PROJECT WAS MERELY A SAMPLE OF WHAT MIGHT
BE REPEATED ELSEWHERE IF NOT PROHIBITED.  THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE
BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND WATSON'S HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN
RESOLVED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  61 STAT. 140-141, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 158(B)(4)(A).  FOR
TEXT SEE LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, ANTE, P. 677,
NOTE 1. 

FN2  THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, WAS ENACTED INTO LAW
JUNE 23, 1947, BUT TITLE I, CONTAINING SEC. 8(B)(4)(A), TOOK EFFECT 60
DAYS LATER.  61 STAT. 152, 162, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III), NOTE FOLLOWING
SEC. 151. 

FN3  THE COMPLAINT ORIGINALLY ALSO CHARGED VIOLATIONS OF SEC.
8(B)(1)(A) BUT THE BOARD DISMISSED THOSE ALLEGATIONS AND THEY ARE NOT
BEFORE US. 

FN4 61 STAT. 149-150, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 160(L).  FOR TEXT
SEE LABOR BOARD V. DENVER BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, ANTE, P. 682, NOTE
10. 

FN5  61 STAT. 147-148, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 160(E). 

FN6  THE EXAMINER EXPRESSED DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE CARPENTERS WERE
EMPLOYEES OF PARKER OR OF STANLEY BUT DECIDED TO ASSUME THAT THEY WERE
EMPLOYEES OF STANLEY.  80 N.L.R.B. AT 544, N. 12. 

FN7  61 STAT. 142, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 158(C).  FOR TEXT SEE
THE DENVER CASE, ANTE, P. 690, NOTE 20. 

FN8  THE EXAMINER FOUND THAT HENDERSON TESTIFIED CREDIBLY THAT THIS
RULE APPLIED WHETHER OR NOT THE NONUNION MEN WERE PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT
THE MOMENT.  IT WAS ENOUGH THAT NONUNION MEN WERE EMPLOYED ON THE
PROJECT.  HENDERSON, THEREFORE, APPLIED THE RULE HERE BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH
WATSON'S MEN WERE ABSENT FROM THE PROJECT ON AUGUST 21, 1947, WATSON'S
INSTALLATION CONTRACT WAS NOT YET COMPLETE, AND IT WAS CLEAR THAT ITS
COMPLETION WOULD MEAN THE RETURN OF NONUNION MEN TO THE PROJECT. 
HENDERSON TESTIFIED ALSO THAT THE RULE APPLIED EVEN TO THE EMPLOYMENT
OF NONUNION LABOR WHICH DID NOT COME UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF LOCAL
74.  80 N.L.R.B. AT 546, 553, N. 33.    FN9  IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR AN
INJUNCTION UNDER SEC. 10(L) THE DISTRICT COURT SO HELD.  ITS DECISION,
HOWEVER, WAS BASED UPON THE AFFIDAVITS BEFORE IT RATHER THAN UPON THE
RECORD BEFORE THE BOARD, AND ITS CONCLUSION DID NOT BIND THE BOARD IN
THE PROCEEDING ON THE MERITS.  74 F.SUPP.  499, AND SEE LABOR BOARD V.
DENVER BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, ANTE, PP. 681-683. 

FN10  PETITIONERS GAIN NOTHING FROM SEC. 102:  "NO PROVISION OF THIS
TITLE (WHICH INCLUDES SEC. 8(B)(4)(A)) SHALL BE DEEMED TO MAKE AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ANY ACT WHICH WAS PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT (JUNE 23, 1947) WHICH DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PRIOR THERETO  ...  "  61 STAT. 152, 29 U.S.C.
(SUPP. III), NOTE FOLLOWING SEC. 158. 

FN11  FOR A COMPARABLE RESULT RELATING TO A LABOR DISPUTE WHICH
COMMENCED BEFORE THE TAKING EFFECT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
OF 1935, SEE JEFFERY-DE WITT INSULATOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 91 F.2D
134. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ARE OF
THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :



GARNER V. LOS ANGELES BOARD, 341 U.S. 716 


NO. 453.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1951.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951.  - 98 CAL.
APP.2D 493, 220 P.2D 958, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FORBID A MUNICIPALITY TO REQUIRE
ITS EMPLOYEES TO EXECUTE AFFIDAVITS DISCLOSING WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE
OR EVER HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE COMMUNIST
POLITICAL ASSOCIATION.  P. 720. 

2.  IN 1941, THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE AMENDED THE CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES SO AS TO PROVIDE, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT NO PERSON
SHALL HOLD OR RETAIN OR BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANY PUBLIC OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT
IN THE SERVICE OF THE CITY (1) WHO ADVISES, ADVOCATES OR TEACHES THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR
BELONGS TO AN ORGANIZATION WHICH DOES SO, OR (2) WHO, WITHIN THE FIVE
YEARS PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE, HAD SO ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT
OR HAD BELONGED TO AN ORGANIZATION WHICH DID SO.  IN 1948, THE CITY
PASSED AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING EACH OF ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES TO
TAKE AN OATH THAT HE HAS NOT WITHIN THE FIVE YEARS PRECEDING THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE, DOES NOT NOW, AND WILL NOT WHILE IN
THE SERVICE OF THE CITY, ADVISE, ADVOCATE OR TEACH THE OVERTHROW BY
FORCE, VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS, OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OR BELONG TO AN ORGANIZATION WHICH DOES SO OR HAS DONE SO
WITHIN SUCH FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.  HELD:  THE ORDINANCE IS NOT A BILL OF
ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAW, NOR, AS HERE CONSTRUED, DOES IT VIOLATE
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 720-724. 

(A)  THE CHARTER AMENDMENT IS VALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO
THE EXTENT THAT IT BARS FROM THE CITY'S PUBLIC SERVICE PERSONS WHO,
SINCE ITS ADOPTION IN 1941, ADVISE, ADVOCATE OR TEACH THE VIOLENT
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OR WHO ARE OR BECOME AFFILIATED WITH ANY
GROUP DOING SO, SINCE THE PROVISIONS THUS OPERATING PROSPECTIVELY ARE A
REASONABLE REGULATION TO PROTECT THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE.  THE QUESTION
OF ITS VALIDITY INSOFAR AS IT PURPORTED TO APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY FOR A
FIVE-YEAR PERIOD PRIOR TO ITS EFFECTIVE DATE IS NOT HERE INVOLVED.  PP.
720-721. 

(B)  THE ORDINANCE CLEARLY IS NOT EX POST FACTO, SINCE THE ACTIVITY
COVERED BY THE OATH HAD BEEN PROSCRIBED BY THE CHARTER IN THE SAME
TERMS, FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, AND TO THE SAME EFFECT OVER SEVEN YEARS
BEFORE, AND TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE OATH.  P.
721. 

(C)  THE ORDINANCE IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER, SINCE NO PUNISHMENT IS
IMPOSED BY A GENERAL REGULATION WHICH MERELY PROVIDES STANDARDS OF
QUALIFICATION AND ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT.  LOVETT V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 303, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 722-723. 

(D)  IT IS ASSUMED HERE THAT THE OATH WILL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS
AFFECTING ADVERSELY PERSONS WHO DURING THEIR AFFILIATION WITH A
PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION WERE INNOCENT OF ITS PURPOSE, OR THOSE WHO
SEVERED THEIR RELATIONS WITH ANY SUCH ORGANIZATION WHEN ITS CHARACTER
BECAME APPARENT, OR THOSE WHO WERE AFFILIATED WITH ORGANIZATIONS WHICH
WERE NOT ENGAGED IN PROSCRIBED ACTIVITIES AT THE TIME OF THEIR
AFFILIATION; AND THAT, IF THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE OATH IS CORRECT,
THE CITY WILL GIVE THOSE PETITIONERS WHO HERETOFORE REFUSED TO TAKE THE
OATH AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE IT AS INTERPRETED AND RESUME THEIR
EMPLOYMENT.  AS THUS CONSTRUED, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE OATH DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 723
724. 

GARNER ET AL. V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF LOS ANGELES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT. 

IN A SUIT BY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES OF A CITY FOR REINSTATEMENT AND
UNPAID SALARIES, THE STATE COURT DENIED RELIEF.  98 CAL. APP.2D 493,
220 P.2D 958.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 941.  AFFIRMED,
P. 724. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1941 THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE AMENDED THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  NO PERSON SHALL HOLD OR RETAIN OR BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANY PUBLIC
OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT IN THE SERVICE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, IN ANY
OFFICE OR DEPARTMENT THEREOF, EITHER ELECTIVE OR APPOINTIVE, WHO HAS
WITHIN FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION
ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT, OR WHO MAY, AFTER THIS SECTION BECOMES
EFFECTIVE (APRIL 28, 1941), ADVISE, ADVOCATE OR TEACH, OR WHO IS NOW OR
HAS BEEN WITHIN FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY GROUP, SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION,
ORGANIZATION OR PARTY WHICH ADVISES, ADVOCATES OR TEACHES, OR HAS,
WITHIN SAID PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS, ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA OR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 

"IN SO FAR AS THIS SECTION MAY BE HELD BY ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION NOT TO BE SELF-EXECUTING, THE CITY COUNCIL IS HEREBY GIVEN
POWER AND AUTHORITY TO ADOPT APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EFFECTUATING THE OBJECTS HEREOF."  CAL. STAT. 1941, C. 67. 

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY THUS CONFERRED, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IN
1948 PASSED ORDINANCE NO. 94,004, REQUIRING EVERY PERSON WHO HELD AN
OFFICE OR POSITION IN THE SERVICE OF THE CITY TO TAKE AN OATH PRIOR TO
JANUARY 6, 1949.  IN RELEVANT PART THE OATH WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"I FURTHER SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I DO NOT ADVISE, ADVOCATE OR TEACH,
AND HAVE NOT WITHIN THE PERIOD BEGINNING FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE MAKING OF THIS OATH OR
AFFIRMATION, ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT, THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE,
VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS, OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA OR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THAT I AM NOT NOW
AND HAVE NOT, WITHIN SAID PERIOD, BEEN OR BECOME A MEMBER OF OR
AFFILIATED WITH ANY GROUP, SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZATION OR PARTY
WHICH ADVISES, ADVOCATES OR TEACHES, OR HAS, WITHIN SAID PERIOD,
ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT, THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE, VIOLENCE OR OTHER
UNLAWFUL MEANS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  I FURTHER SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL NOT,
WHILE I AM IN THE SERVICE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ADVISE, ADVOCATE
OR TEACH, OR BE OR BECOME A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY GROUP,
ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, ORGANIZATION OR PARTY WHICH ADVISES, ADVOCATES OR
TEACHES, OR HAS WITHIN SAID PERIOD, ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT, THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE, VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS, OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ...  " 

THE ORDINANCE ALSO REQUIRED EVERY EMPLOYEE TO EXECUTE AN AFFIDAVIT
"STATING WHETHER OR NOT HE IS OR EVER WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR OF THE COMMUNIST POLITICAL
ASSOCIATION, AND IF HE IS OR WAS SUCH A MEMBER, STATING THE DATES WHEN
HE BECAME, AND THE PERIODS DURING WHICH HE WAS, SUCH A MEMBER  ...  " 

ON THE FINAL DATE FOR FILING OF THE OATH AND AFFIDAVIT PETITIONERS
WERE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.  PETITIONERS
PACIFICO AND SCHWARTZ TOOK THE OATH BUT REFUSED TO EXECUTE THE
AFFIDAVIT.  THE REMAINING FIFTEEN PETITIONERS REFUSED TO DO EITHER. 
ALL WERE DISCHARGED FOR SUCH CAUSE, AFTER ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, AS OF
JANUARY 6, 1949.  IN THIS ACTION THEY SUE FOR REINSTATEMENT AND UNPAID
SALARIES.  THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DENIED RELIEF.  98 CAL. APP.2D
493, 220 P.2D 958(1950).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 941(1951). 

PETITIONERS ATTACK THE ORDINANCE AS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISION OF
ART. I, SEC. 10 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THAT "NO STATE SHALL  ...
PASS ANY BILL OF ATTAINDER, (OR) EX POST FACTO LAW  ...  " THEY ALSO
CONTEND THAT THE ORDINANCE DEPRIVES THEM OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY AND OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. 

PETITIONERS HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE OATH AND AFFIDAVIT PROVISIONS OF
THE ORDINANCE PRESENT SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND STAND
OR FALL TOGETHER.  WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT SEPARATE DISPOSITION IS
INDICATED. 

1.  THE AFFIDAVIT RAISES THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN TO REQUIRE THAT ITS EMPLOYEES DISCLOSE THEIR
PAST OR PRESENT MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE COMMUNIST
POLITICAL ASSOCIATION.  NOT BEFORE US IS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CITY
MAY DETERMINE THAT AN EMPLOYEE'S DISCLOSURE OF SUCH POLITICAL
AFFILIATION JUSTIFIES HIS DISCHARGE. 

WE THINK THAT A MUNICIPAL EMPLOYER IS NOT DISABLED BECAUSE IT IS AN
AGENCY OF THE STATE FROM INQUIRING OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS TO MATTERS THAT
MAY PROVE RELEVANT TO THEIR FITNESS AND SUITABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC
SERVICE.  PAST CONDUCT MAY WELL RELATE TO PRESENT FITNESS; PAST LOYALTY
MAY HAVE A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO PRESENT AND FUTURE TRUST.  BOTH
ARE COMMONLY INQUIRED INTO IN DETERMINING FITNESS FOR BOTH HIGH AND LOW
POSITIONS IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND ARE NOT LESS RELEVANT IN PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT.  THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT IS VALID. 

2.  IN OUR VIEW THE VALIDITY OF THE OATH TURNS UPON THE NATURE OF THE
CHARTER AMENDMENT (1941) AND THE RELATION OF THE ORDINANCE (1948) TO
THIS AMENDMENT.  IMMATERIAL HERE IS ANY OPINION WE MIGHT HAVE AS TO THE
CHARTER PROVISION INSOFAR AS IT PURPORTED TO APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY FOR
A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD PRIOR TO ITS EFFECTIVE DATE.  WE ASSUME THAT UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THE CHARTER AMENDMENT IS VALID TO THE EXTENT
THAT IT BARS FROM THE CITY'S PUBLIC SERVICE PERSONS WHO, SUBSEQUENT TO
ITS ADOPTION IN 1941, ADVISE, ADVOCATE, OR TEACH THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW
OF THE GOVERNMENT OR WHO ARE OR BECOME AFFILIATED WITH ANY GROUP DOING
SO.  THE PROVISIONS OPERATING THUS PROSPECTIVELY WERE A REASONABLE
REGULATION TO PROTECT THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE BY ESTABLISHING AN
EMPLOYMENT QUALIFICATION OF LOYALTY TO THE STATE AND THE UNITED
STATES.  CF. GERENDE V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS, 341 U.S.
56(1951).  LIKEWISE, AS A REGULATION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES, THE AMENDMENT WAS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE
INTEGRITY AND COMPETENCY OF THE SERVICE.  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT
CONGRESS MAY REASONABLY RESTRICT THE POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF FEDERAL
CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR SUCH A PURPOSE, UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V.
MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, 102-103(1947), AND A STATE IS NOT WITHOUT POWER
TO DO AS MUCH. 

THE CHARTER AMENDMENT DEFINED STANDARDS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR EMPLOYEES
AND SPECIFICALLY DENIED CITY EMPLOYMENT TO THOSE PERSONS WHO THEREAFTER
SHOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THESE STANDARDS.  WHILE THE AMENDMENT DEPRIVED
NO ONE OF EMPLOYMENT WITH OR WITHOUT TRIAL, YET FROM ITS EFFECTIVE DATE
IT TERMINATED ANY PRIVILEGE TO WORK FOR THE CITY IN THE CASE OF PERSONS
WHO THEREAFTER ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY PROSCRIBED. 

THE ORDINANCE PROVIDED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT.  THE OATH IMPOSED BY THE ORDINANCE
PROSCRIBED TO EMPLOYEES ACTIVITY WHICH HAD BEEN DENIED THEM IN
IDENTICAL TERMS AND WITH IDENTICAL SANCTIONS IN THE CHARTER PROVISION
EFFECTIVE IN 1941.  THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD PROVIDED BY THE OATH EXTENDED
BACK ONLY TO 1943. 

THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE EX POST FACTO IF IT IMPOSED PUNISHMENT FOR
PAST CONDUCT LAWFUL AT THE TIME IT WAS ENGAGED IN.  PASSING FOR THE
MOMENT THE QUESTION WHETHER SEPARATION OF PETITIONERS FROM THEIR
EMPLOYMENT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS PUNISHMENT, THE ORDINANCE CLEARLY IS
NOT EX POST FACTO.  THE ACTIVITY COVERED BY THE OATH HAD BEEN
PROSCRIBED BY THE CHARTER IN THE SAME TERMS, FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, AND
TO THE SAME EFFECT OVER SEVEN YEARS BEFORE, AND TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE
PERIOD EMBRACED IN THE OATH.  NOT THE LAW BUT THE FACT WAS POSTERIOR. 

BILLS OF ATTAINDER ARE "LEGISLATIVE ACTS  ...  THAT APPLY EITHER TO
NAMED INDIVIDUALS OR TO EASILY ASCERTAINABLE MEMBERS OF A GROUP IN SUCH
A WAY AS TO INFLICT PUNISHMENT ON THEM WITHOUT A JUDICIAL TRIAL  ...  "
UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303, 315(1946).  PUNISHMENT IS A
PREREQUISITE.  SEE CONCURRING OPINION IN LOVETT, SUPRA, AT 318, 324. 
WHETHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION CURTAILING A PRIVILEGE PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED
AMOUNTS TO PUNISHMENT DEPENDS UPON "THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING AND THE
CAUSES OF THE DEPRIVATION."  CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277,
320(1867).  WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT PUNISHMENT IS IMPOSED BY A
GENERAL REGULATION WHICH MERELY PROVIDES STANDARDS OF QUALIFICATION AND
ELIGIBILITY FOR EMPLOYMENT. 

CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277(1867), AND EX PARTE GARLAND, 4
WALL.  333(1867), THE LEADING CASES IN THIS COURT APPLYING THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST BILLS OF ATTAINDER, RECOGNIZED THAT
THE GUARANTEES AGAINST SUCH LEGISLATION WERE NOT INTENDED TO PRECLUDE
LEGISLATIVE DEFINITION OF STANDARDS OF QUALIFICATION FOR PUBLIC OR
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT.  CAREFULLY DISTINGUISHING AN INSTANCE OF
LEGISLATIVE "INFLICTION OF PUNISHMENT" FROM THE EXERCISE OF "THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS," THE COURT SAID IN GARLAND'S
CASE:  "THE LEGISLATURE MAY UNDOUBTEDLY PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS FOR
THE OFFICE, TO WHICH HE MUST CONFORM, AS IT MAY, WHERE IT HAS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION, PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PURSUIT OF ANY OF THE
ORDINARY AVOCATIONS OF LIFE."  4 WALL.  AT 379-380.  SEE ALSO, CUMMINGS
V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, AT 318-319.  THIS DOCTRINE WAS REAFFIRMED IN DENT
V. WEST VIRGINIA, 129 U.S. 114(1889), IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE FIELD, WHO
HAD WRITTEN THE CUMMINGS AND GARLAND OPINIONS, WROTE FOR A UNANIMOUS
COURT UPHOLDING A STATUTE ELEVATING STANDARDS OF QUALIFICATION TO
PRACTICE MEDICINE.  AND IN HAWKER V. NEW YORK, 170 U.S. 189(1898), THE
COURT UPHELD A STATUTE FORBIDDING THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE BY ANY
PERSON WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY.  BOTH DENT AND HAWKER
DISTINGUISHED THE CUMMINGS AND GARLAND CASES AS INAPPLICABLE WHEN THE
LEGISLATURE ESTABLISHES REASONABLE QUALIFICATIONS FOR A VOCATIONAL
PURSUIT WITH THE NECESSARY EFFECT OF DISQUALIFYING SOME PERSONS
PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN IT. 

PETITIONERS RELY HEAVILY UPON UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S.
303(1946), IN WHICH A LEGISLATIVE ACT EFFECTIVELY SEPARATING CERTAIN
PUBLIC SERVANTS FROM THEIR POSITIONS WAS HELD TO BE A BILL OF
ATTAINDER.  UNLIKE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER AND ORDINANCE UNDER
WHICH PETITIONERS WERE REMOVED, THE STATUTE IN THE LOVETT CASE DID NOT
DECLARE GENERAL AND PROSPECTIVELY OPERATIVE STANDARDS OF QUALIFICATION
AND ELIGIBILITY FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT.  RATHER, BY ITS TERMS IT
PROHIBITED ANY FURTHER PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO NAMED INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, VIEWED AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE
BACKGROUND, THE STATUTE WAS HELD TO HAVE IMPOSED PENALTIES WITHOUT
JUDICIAL TRIAL. 

NOR ARE WE IMPRESSED BY THE CONTENTION THAT THE OATH DENIES DUE
PROCESS BECAUSE ITS NEGATION IS NOT LIMITED TO AFFILIATIONS WITH
ORGANIZATIONS KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE TO BE IN THE PROSCRIBED CLASS.  WE
HAVE NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THE OATH IS OR WILL BE CONSTRUED BY THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES OR BY CALIFORNIA COURTS AS AFFECTING ADVERSELY
THOSE PERSONS WHO DURING THEIR AFFILIATION WITH A PROSCRIBED
ORGANIZATION WERE INNOCENT OF ITS PURPOSE, OR THOSE WHO SEVERED THEIR
RELATIONS WITH ANY SUCH ORGANIZATION WHEN ITS CHARACTER BECAME
APPARENT, OR THOSE WHO WERE AFFILIATED WITH ORGANIZATIONS WHICH AT ONE
TIME OR ANOTHER DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE ORDINANCE WERE ENGAGED
IN PROSCRIBED ACTIVITY BUT NOT AT THE TIME OF AFFIANT'S AFFILIATION* .
WE ASSUME THAT SCIENTER IS IMPLICIT IN EACH CLAUSE OF THE OATH.  AS THE
CITY HAS DONE NOTHING TO NEGATIVE THIS INTERPRETATION, WE TAKE FOR
GRANTED THAT THE ORDINANCE WILL BE SO READ TO AVOID RAISING DIFFICULT
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS WHICH ANY OTHER APPLICATION WOULD PRESENT.  FOX
V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273, 277(1915).  IT APPEARS FROM CORRESPONDENCE
OF RECORD BETWEEN THE CITY AND PETITIONERS THAT ALTHOUGH THE CITY
WELCOMED INQUIRY AS TO ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE OATH, THE INTERPRETATION
UPON WHICH WE HAVE PROCEEDED MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXPLICITLY CALLED TO THE
ATTENTION OF PETITIONERS BEFORE THEIR REFUSAL.  WE ASSUME THAT, IF OUR
INTERPRETATION OF THE OATH IS CORRECT, THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES WILL
GIVE THOSE PETITIONERS WHO HERETOFORE REFUSED TO TAKE THE OATH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE IT AS INTERPRETED AND RESUME THEIR EMPLOYMENT. 

*IN INTERPRETING LOCAL LEGISLATION PROSCRIBING AFFILIATION WITH
DEFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAS GONE
BEYOND THE LITERAL TEXT OF A STATUTE SO AS TO REQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE ORGANIZATION, AS OF THE TIME OF AFFILIATION, BY THE
PERSON WHOSE AFFILIATION IS IN QUESTION.  IN PEOPLE V. STEELIK, 187
CAL. 361, 203 P. 78(1921), THE COURT UPHELD A CONVICTION UNDER THE
CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM ACT OF 1919 WHICH MADE ONE GUILTY OF A FELONY WHO
"IS" A MEMBER OF ANY ONE OF A CERTAIN CLASS OF PROSCRIBED
ORGANIZATIONS.  THE INDICTMENT IN RELEVANT PART ALLEGED THAT DEFENDANTS
"ARE AND EACH OF THEM IS" A MEMBER OF A PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION.  THE
COURT INTERPRETED THE STATUTE AS DEFINING AND THE INDICTMENT AS
CHARGING "THE OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM IN THAT HE KNOWINGLY
BELONGED" TO A PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION.  187 CAL. AT 376, 203 P. AT
84.    THE JUDGMENT AS TO PACIFICO AND SCHWARTZ IS AFFIRMED.  THE
JUDGMENT AS TO THE REMAINING PETITIONERS IS AFFIRMED ON THE BASIS OF
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE WHICH WE HAVE FELT JUSTIFIED IN
ASSUMING.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. 

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT.  CITY, STATE
AND NATION ARE NOT CONFINED TO MAKING PROVISIONS APPROPRIATE FOR
SECURING COMPETENT PROFESSIONAL DISCHARGE OF THE FUNCTIONS PERTAINING
TO DIVERSE GOVERNMENTAL JOBS.  THEY MAY ALSO ASSURE THEMSELVES OF
FIDELITY TO THE VERY PRESUPPOSITIONS OF OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT ON THE
PART OF THOSE WHO SEEK TO SERVE IT.  NO UNIT OF GOVERNMENT CAN BE
DENIED THE RIGHT TO KEEP OUT OF ITS EMPLOY THOSE WHO SEEK TO OVERTHROW
THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE, OR ARE KNOWINGLY MEMBERS OF AN
ORGANIZATION ENGAGED IN SUCH ENDEAVOR.  SEE GERENDE V. BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS, 341 U.S. 56. 

BUT IT DOES NOT AT ALL FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, A CITY OR A STATE MAY RESORT TO
ANY SCHEME FOR KEEPING PEOPLE OUT OF SUCH EMPLOYMENT.  LAW CANNOT REACH
EVERY DISCRIMINATION IN PRACTICE.  BUT DOUBTLESS UNREASONABLE
DISCRIMINATIONS, IF AVOWED IN FORMAL LAW, WOULD NOT SURVIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE.  SURELY, A GOVERNMENT COULD NOT EXCLUDE FROM
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT MEMBERS OF A MINORITY GROUP MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE
ODIOUS TO THE MAJORITY, NOR RESTRICT SUCH EMPLOYMENT, SAY, TO
NATIVEBORN CITIZENS.  TO DESCRIBE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AS A PRIVILEGE DOES
NOT MEET THE PROBLEM. 

THIS LINE OF REASONING GIVES THE DIRECTION, I BELIEVE, FOR DEALING
WITH THE ISSUES BEFORE US.  A MUNICIPALITY LIKE LOS ANGELES OUGHT TO BE
ALLOWED ADEQUATE SCOPE IN SEEKING TO ELICIT INFORMATION ABOUT ITS
EMPLOYEES AND FROM THEM.  IT WOULD GIVE TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AN
UNWARRANTED POWER OF INTRUSION INTO LOCAL AFFAIRS TO HOLD THAT A CITY
MAY NOT REQUIRE ITS EMPLOYEES TO DISCLOSE WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE COMMUNIST POLITICAL ASSOCIATION. 
IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR TIME, SUCH MEMBERSHIP IS SUFFICIENTLY RELEVANT TO
EFFECTIVE AND DEPENDABLE GOVERNMENT, AND TO THE CONFIDENCE OF THE
ELECTORATE IN ITS GOVERNMENT.  I THINK THE PRECISE MADISON WOULD HAVE
BEEN SURPRISED EVEN TO HEAR IT SUGGESTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS
AFFIDAVIT WAS AN "ATTAINDER" UNDER ART. I, SEC. 10, OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  FOR REASONS OUTLINED IN THE CONCURRING OPINION IN UNITED
STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303, 318, I CANNOT SO REGARD IT.  THIS KIND
OF INQUIRY INTO POLITICAL AFFILIATION MAY IN THE LONG RUN DO MORE HARM
THAN GOOD.  BUT THE TWO EMPLOYEES WHO WERE DISMISSED SOLELY BECAUSE
THEY REFUSED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT STATING WHETHER OR WHEN THEY HAD BEEN
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE COMMUNIST POLITICAL ASSOCIATION
CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY APPEAL TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

A VERY DIFFERENT ISSUE IS PRESENTED BY THE FIFTEEN EMPLOYEES WHO WERE
DISCHARGED BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO TAKE THIS OATH: 

"I  ...  DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM)  ...  THAT I  ...  HAVE NOT,
WITHIN SAID PERIOD (FROM DECEMBER 6, 1943), BEEN OR BECOME A MEMBER OF
OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY GROUP, SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZATION OR
PARTY WHICH ADVISES, ADVOCATES OR TEACHES, OR HAS, WITHIN SAID PERIOD,
ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT, THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE, VIOLENCE OR OTHER
UNLAWFUL MEANS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA." 

THE VALIDITY OF AN OATH MUST BE JUDGED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WILL
BE TAKEN CONSCIENTIOUSLY.  THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT ASK THE EMPLOYEE TO
SWEAR THAT HE "KNOWINGLY" OR "TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE" HAD NO
PROSCRIBED AFFILIATION.  CERTAINTY IS IMPLIED IN THE DISAVOWAL
EXACTED.  THE OATH THUS EXCLUDES FROM CITY EMPLOYMENT ALL PERSONS WHO
ARE NOT CERTAIN THAT EVERY ORGANIZATION TO WHICH THEY BELONGED OR WITH
WHICH THEY WERE AFFILIATED (WITH ALL THE UNCERTAINTIES OF THE MEANING
OF "AFFILIATED") AT ANY TIME SINCE 1943 HAS NOT SINCE THAT DATE
ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW BY "UNLAWFUL MEANS" OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 

THE VICE IN THIS OATH IS THAT IT IS NOT LIMITED TO AFFILIATION WITH
ORGANIZATIONS KNOWN AT THE TIME TO HAVE ADVOCATED OVERTHROW OF
GOVERNMENT.  WE HAVE HERE A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION FROM THAT RECENTLY
BEFORE US IN GERENDE V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 341 U.S. 56.  THERE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND ASSURED THIS COURT THAT HE WOULD ADVISE
THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT AS THE OATH REQUIRED BY STATE LAW
FROM A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE, AN AFFIRMATION THAT HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN
THE ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE AND THAT
HE IS NOT KNOWINGLY A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION ENGAGED IN SUCH AN
ATTEMPT.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT GIVE THIS ASSURANCE AS A MATTER
OF PERSONAL RELAXATION OF A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.  HE WAS ABLE TO GIVE IT
ON THE BASIS OF THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND, THE HIGHEST COURT OF THAT STATE, HAD PLACED UPON THE
LEGISLATION.  NO SUCH ASSURANCE WAS REMOTELY SUGGESTED ON BEHALF OF LOS
ANGELES.  NATURALLY NOT.  NOTHING IN THE DECISIONS UNDER REVIEW WOULD
WARRANT SUCH RESTRICTED INTERPRETATION OF THE ASSAILED ORDINANCE* .  TO
FIND SCIENTER IMPLIED IN A CRIMINAL STATUTE IS THE OBVIOUS WAY OF
READING SUCH A STATUTE, FOR GUILTY KNOWLEDGE IS THE NORMAL INGREDIENT
OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.  THE ORDINANCE BEFORE US EXACTS AN OATH AS
A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT; IT DOES NOT DEFINE A CRIME.  IT IS CERTAINLY
NOT OPEN TO THIS COURT TO REWRITE THE OATH REQUIRED BY LOS ANGELES OF
ITS EMPLOYEES, AFTER THE OATH AS WRITTEN HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE
CALIFORNIA COURTS. 

*NOTHING IN THE DECISION OR OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA IN PEOPLE V. STEELIK, 187 CAL. 361, 203 P. 78, INDICATES
THAT THE COURTS OF CALIFORNIA WOULD AT THEIR OWN INSTANCE READ INTO THE
LOS ANGELES OATH A LIMITATION WHICH IS NOT THERE EXPRESSED.  IN THE
STEELIK CASE THE COURT WAS CONSIDERING A STATUTE WHICH PROVIDED THAT
"ANY PERSON WHO  ...  (ORGANIZES) OF ASSISTS IN ORGANIZING, OR IS OR
KNOWINGLY BECOMES A MEMBER OF, ANY ORGANIZATION" TEACHING CRIMINAL
SYNDICALISM IS GUILTY OF A FELONY.  CAL. STAT. 1919, C. 188, SEC. 2. 
THE COURT HELD ONLY THAT THE WORD "KNOWINGLY" QUALIFIED THE WORD "IS"
IN ADDITION TO THE WORD "BECOMES." 

IF THIS ORDINANCE IS SUSTAINED, SANCTION IS GIVEN TO LIKE OATHS FOR
EVERY GOVERNMENTAL UNIT IN THE UNITED STATES.  NOT ONLY DOES THE OATH
MAKE AN IRRATIONAL DEMAND.  IT IS BOUND TO OPERATE AS A REAL DETERRENT
TO PEOPLE CONTEMPLATING EVEN INNOCENT ASSOCIATIONS.  HOW CAN ANYONE BE
SURE THAT AN ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH HE AFFILIATES WILL NOT AT SOME
TIME IN THE FUTURE BE FOUND BY A STATE OR NATIONAL OFFICIAL TO ADVOCATE
OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT BY "UNLAWFUL MEANS"?  ALL BUT THE HARDIEST MAY
WELL HESITATE TO JOIN ORGANIZATIONS IF THEY KNOW THAT BY SUCH A
PROSCRIPTION THEY WILL BE PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED FROM PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT.  THESE ARE CONSIDERATIONS THAT CUT DEEP INTO THE TRADITIONS
OF OUR PEOPLE.  GREGARIOUSNESS AND FRIENDLINESS ARE AMONG THE MOST
CHARACTERISTIC OF AMERICAN ATTITUDES.  THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY THEY HAVE
BEEN MANIFESTED IN "JOINING."  SEE ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, SR.,
BIOGRAPHY OF A NATION OF JOINERS, PUBLISHED IN 50 AMERICAN HISTORICAL
REVIEW 1, REPRINTED IN SCHLESINGER, PATHS TO THE PRESENT, 23. 

GIVING FULL SCOPE TO THE SELECTIVE PROCESSES OPEN TO OUR
MUNICIPALITIES AND STATES IN SECURING COMPETENT AND RELIABLE
FUNCTIONARIES FREE FROM ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POLITICAL AUTHORITY, I
DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS CONSONANT WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR MEN
TO BE ASKED, ON PAIN OF GIVING UP PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, TO SWEAR TO
SOMETHING THEY CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO KNOW.  SUCH A DEMAND IS AT WAR
WITH INDIVIDUAL INTEGRITY; IT CAN NO MORE BE JUSTIFIED THAN THE INQUIRY
INTO BELIEF WHICH MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND I DEEMED
INVALID IN AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382. 

THE NEEDS OF SECURITY DO NOT REQUIRE SUCH CURBS ON WHAT MAY WELL BE
INNOCUOUS FEELINGS AND ASSOCIATIONS.  SUCH CURBS ARE INDEED SELF
DEFEATING.  THEY ARE NOT MERELY UNJUSTIFIABLE RESTRAINTS ON
INDIVIDUALS.  THEY ARE NOT MERELY PRODUCTIVE OF AN ATMOSPHERE OF
REPRESSION UNCONGENIAL TO THE SPIRITUAL VITALITY OF A DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY.  THE INHIBITIONS WHICH THEY ENGENDER ARE HOSTILE TO THE BEST
CONDITIONS FOR SECURING A HIGH-MINDED AND HIGH-SPIRITED PUBLIC
SERVICE. 

IT IS NOT FOR US TO WRITE THE OATH THAT LOS ANGELES MAY EXACT.  AND
SO AS TO THE FIFTEEN EMPLOYEES I THINK THE CASE SHOULD GO BACK TO THE
STATE COURT, WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT THESE PETITIONERS BE REINSTATED
UNLESS THEY REFUSE TO TAKE AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION WITHIN THE SCOPE
INDICATED IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN PART. 

                   I. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT UNDER OUR DECISIONS THE OATH IS VALID.  UNITED
STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303; EX PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333;
CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277.  THE OATH IS SO FRAMED AS TO
OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY AS A PERPETUAL BAR TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO HELD
CERTAIN VIEWS AT ANY TIME SINCE A DATE FIVE YEARS PRECEDING THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE.  IT LEAVES NO ROOM FOR A CHANGE OF
HEART.  IT CALLS FOR MORE THAN A PROFESSION OF PRESENT LOYALTY OR
PROMISE OF FUTURE ATTACHMENT.  IT IS NOT LIMITED IN RETROSPECT TO ANY
PERIOD MEASURED BY REASONABLE RELATION TO THE PRESENT.  IN TIME THIS
ORDINANCE WILL AMOUNT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF AN OATH THAT THE AFFIANT
HAS NEVER DONE ANY OF THE PROSCRIBED ACTS.  CF. GERENDE V. BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, 341 U.S. 56; AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN, V. DOUDS, 339
U.S. 382, 413-414. 

THE OATH IS NOT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT IT REACHES BACK ONLY TO
DECEMBER 6, 1943, AND THAT CITY EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN FORBIDDEN SINCE
APRIL 28, 1941, UNDER SEC. 432 OF THE LOS ANGELES CHARTER, TO ADVISE,
TEACH OR ADVOCATE THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT.  SEE THE
LOVETT, GARLAND AND CUMMINGS CASES, SUPRA.

             II. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AS TO
PETITIONERS PACIFICO AND SCHWARTZ.  THEY EXECUTED THE OATH BUT REFUSED
TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT CALLING FOR INFORMATION AS TO THEIR PAST OR
PRESENT MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE COMMUNIST POLITICAL
ASSOCIATION.  SUCH REFUSAL DOES NOT NOW PRESENT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS THE CITY TO DISCHARGE THEM FROM MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYMENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS.  WE HAVE
BEFORE US ONLY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES MAY BE
REQUIRED TO GIVE TO THEIR EMPLOYER FACTUAL INFORMATION WHICH IS
RELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION OF THEIR PRESENT LOYALTY AND SUITABILITY
FOR PUBLIC SERVICE.  SUCH LOYALTY AND SUITABILITY IS NO LESS MATERIAL
IN CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT AS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES THAN IN CANDIDATES
FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, GERENDE V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SUPRA, OR UNION
OFFICERS, AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS BUT WISH
TO EMPHASIZE TWO OBJECTIONS TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT: 

1.  OUR PER CURIAM OPINION IN GERENDE V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 341
U.S. 56, IN NO WAY STANDS FOR THE PRINCIPLE FOR WHICH THE COURT CITES
IT TODAY.  IN GERENDE, WE UPHELD A MARYLAND LAW THAT HAD BEEN
INTERPRETED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THAT STATE TO REQUIRE ONLY AN OATH
THAT A CANDIDATE "IS NOT A PERSON WHO IS ENGAGED 'IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
IN THE ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE,' AND
THAT HE IS NOT KNOWINGLY A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION ENGAGED IN SUCH AN
ATTEMPT."  THE OATH AND AFFIDAVIT IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT
SO LIMITED. 

2.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT CREATES CONSIDERABLE DOUBT AS TO THE
CONTINUED VITALITY OF THREE OF OUR PAST DECISIONS:  CUMMINGS V.
MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277; EX PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333; UNITED STATES
V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303.  TO THIS EXTENT IT WEAKENS ONE MORE OF THE
CONSTITUTION'S GREAT GUARANTEES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.  SEE, E.G.,
DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 494, AND BREARD V. ALEXANDRIA, ANTE,
P. 622, DECIDED THIS DAY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS, DISSENTING. 

PETITIONERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.  IN 1948 THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
PASSED ORDINANCE NO. 94,004 WHICH REQUIRES EACH OF ITS EMPLOYEES TO
SUBSCRIBE TO AN OATH OF LOYALTY WHICH INCLUDED, INTER ALIA, AN
AFFIRMATION THAT HE DOES NOT ADVISE, ADVOCATE, OR TEACH, AND HAS NOT
WITHIN THE FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE
"ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT, THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE, VIOLENCE OR
OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS, OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA," AND THAT HE IS NOT AND HAS NOT WITHIN
THAT PERIOD BEEN "A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY GROUP, SOCIETY,
ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZATION OR PARTY WHICH ADVISES, ADVOCATES OR TEACHES,
OR HAS, WITHIN SAID PERIOD, ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT, THE OVERTHROW
BY FORCE, VIOLENCE OR OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA." 

THE ORDINANCE ALSO REQUIRES EACH EMPLOYEE TO EXECUTE AN AFFIDAVIT
STATING "WHETHER OR NOT HE IS OR EVER WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR OF THE COMMUNIST POLITICAL
ASSOCIATION, AND IF HE IS OR WAS SUCH A MEMBER, STATING THE DATES WHEN
HE BECAME, AND THE PERIODS DURING WHICH HE WAS, SUCH A MEMBER."    THE
ORDINANCE WAS PASSED TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 432 OF THE
CHARTER OF LOS ANGELES (CAL. STAT. 1941, C. 67, P. 3409) WHICH
PROVIDES, INTER ALIA, THAT NO PERSON WHO HAS WITHIN FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO
THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 432 ADVISED, ADVOCATED OR TAUGHT THE OVERTHROW BY
FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF
CALIFORNIA, OR WHO DURING THAT TIME HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED
WITH ANY GROUP OR PARTY WHICH HAS ADVISED, ADVOCATED, OR TAUGHT THAT
DOCTRINE, SHALL HOLD OR RETAIN OR BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANY EMPLOYMENT IN THE
SERVICE OF THE CITY.  THUS THE ORDINANCE AND SEC. 432 OF THE CHARTER
READ TOGETHER MAKE PLAIN THAT PRIOR ADVOCACY OR MEMBERSHIP IS WITHOUT
MORE A DISQUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT.  BOTH THE OATH AND THE
AFFIDAVIT ARE METHODS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THAT POLICY. 

FIFTEEN OF THE PETITIONERS REFUSED TO SIGN EITHER THE OATH OR THE
AFFIDAVIT.  TWO TOOK THE OATH BUT REFUSED TO SIGN THE AFFIDAVIT.  ALL
SEVENTEEN WERE DISCHARGED - THE SOLE GROUND BEING THEIR REFUSAL TO SIGN
THE AFFIDAVIT OR TO SIGN AND TO TAKE THE OATH, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
THEY HAD AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, WHICH AFFORDED THEM NO RELIEF.  THIS
SUIT WAS THEREUPON INSTITUTED IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT, CLAIMING
REINSTATEMENT AND UNPAID SALARIES.  RELIEF WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL, 98 CAL. APP.2D 493, 220 P.2D 958; AND A HEARING WAS
DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT, THREE JUSTICES DISSENTING.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

THE CASE IS GOVERNED BY CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277, AND EX
PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333, WHICH STRUCK DOWN TEST OATHS ADOPTED AT
THE CLOSE OF THE CIVIL WAR.  THE CUMMINGS CASE INVOLVED PROVISIONS OF
THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION REQUIRING PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND CERTAIN
CLASSES OF PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE, INCLUDING CLERGYMEN, TO TAKE AN OATH
THAT, INTER ALIA, THEY HAD NEVER BEEN "IN ARMED HOSTILITY" TO THE
UNITED STATES; THAT THEY HAD NEVER "BY ACT OR WORD" MANIFESTED THEIR
"ADHERENCE TO THE CAUSE" OF ENEMIES OF THE COUNTRY OR THEIR "DESIRE"
FOR THE TRIUMPH OF ITS ENEMIES; THAT THEY HAD NEVER "KNOWINGLY AND
WILLINGLY HARBORED, AIDED, OR COUNTENANCED" AN ENEMY; THAT THEY HAD
NEVER BEEN A "MEMBER OF, OR CONNECTED WITH, ANY ORDER, SOCIETY, OR
ORGANIZATION INIMICAL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES" OR
ENGAGED "IN GUERILLA WARFARE" AGAINST ITS INHABITANTS; THAT THEY HAD
NEVER LEFT MISSOURI "FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING ENROLMENT FOR OR DRAFT
INTO THE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES" OR BECOME ENROLLED AS A
SOUTHERN SYMPATHIZER. 

THE GARLAND CASE INVOLVED CERTAIN ACTS OF CONGRESS REQUIRING PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND ATTORNEYS PRACTICING BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURTS TO TAKE AN
OATH THAT THEY HAD "VOLUNTARILY GIVEN NO AID, COUNTENANCE, COUNSEL, OR
ENCOURAGEMENT TO PERSONS ENGAGED IN ARMED HOSTILITY" AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES AND THAT THEY HAD "NEITHER SOUGHT NOR ACCEPTED, NOR ATTEMPTED TO
EXERCISE THE FUNCTIONS OF ANY OFFICE WHATEVER, UNDER ANY AUTHORITY OR
PRETENDED AUTHORITY IN HOSTILITY TO THE UNITED STATES."  THE COURT
AMENDED ITS RULES OF ADMISSION TO REQUIRE THIS OATH. 

CUMMINGS, A CATHOLIC PRIEST, WAS INDICTED AND CONVICTED FOR TEACHING
AND PREACHING WITHOUT HAVING FIRST TAKEN THE OATH. 

GARLAND, A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE COURT, HAD SERVED IN THE
CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT, FOR WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED A PARDON FROM THE
PRESIDENT CONDITIONED ON HIS TAKING THE CUSTOMARY OATH OF LOYALTY.  HE
APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE COURT WITHOUT TAKING THE
NEW OATH. 

ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS ANY STATE TO "PASS ANY
BILL OF ATTAINDER" OR ANY "EX POST FACTO LAW."  ARTICLE I, SEC. 9
CURTAILS THE POWER OF CONGRESS BY PROVIDING THAT "NO BILL OF ATTAINDER
OR EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED."  THE COURT RULED THAT THE TEST
OATHS IN THE CUMMINGS AND GARLAND CASES WERE BILLS OF ATTAINDER AND EX
POST FACTO LAWS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION.  "A BILL OF
ATTAINDER," WROTE MR. JUSTICE FIELD FOR THE COURT, "IS A LEGISLATIVE
ACT WHICH INFLICTS PUNISHMENT WITHOUT A JUDICIAL TRIAL."  FN1  CUMMINGS
V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, P. 323; AND SEE UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S.
303, 317, 318.  THE COURT HELD THAT DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO FOLLOW
ONE'S PROFESSION IS PUNISHMENT.  A BILL OF ATTAINDER, THOUGH GENERALLY
DIRECTED AGAINST NAMED INDIVIDUALS, MAY BE DIRECTED AGAINST A WHOLE
CLASS.  BILLS OF ATTAINDER USUALLY DECLARED THE GUILT; HERE THEY
ASSUMED THE GUILT AND ADJUDGED THE PUNISHMENT CONDITIONALLY, I.E., THEY
DEPRIVED THE PARTIES OF THEIR RIGHT TO PREACH AND TO PRACTICE LAW
UNLESS THE PRESUMPTION WERE REMOVED BY THE EXPURGATORY OATH.  THAT WAS
HELD TO BE AS MUCH A BILL OF ATTAINDER AS IF THE GUILT HAD BEEN
IRREVOCABLY PRONOUNCED.  THE LAWS WERE ALSO HELD TO BE EX POST FACTO
SINCE THEY IMPOSED A PENALTY FOR AN ACT NOT SO PUNISHABLE AT THE TIME
IT WAS COMMITTED. 

THERE ARE, OF COURSE, DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE
CUMMINGS AND GARLAND CASES.  THOSE CONDEMNED BY THE LOS ANGELES
ORDINANCE ARE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES; THOSE CONDEMNED IN THE OTHERS WERE
PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE.  HERE THE PAST CONDUCT FOR WHICH PUNISHMENT IS
EXACTED IS SINGLE - ADVOCACY WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS OF THE
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  IN THE OTHER CASES
THE ACTS FOR WHICH CUMMINGS AND GARLAND STOOD CONDEMNED COVERED A WIDER
RANGE AND INVOLVED SOME CONDUCT WHICH MIGHT BE VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN. 
BUT THOSE DIFFERENCES, SEIZED ON HERE IN HOSTILITY TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT.  DEPRIVATION OF A
MAN'S MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD BY REASON OF PAST CONDUCT, NOT SUBJECT TO
THIS PENALTY WHEN COMMITTED, IS PUNISHMENT WHETHER HE IS A PROFESSIONAL
MAN, A DAY LABORER WHO WORKS FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY, OR A GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE.  THE DEPRIVATION IS NONETHELESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHETHER IT
BE FOR ONE SINGLE PAST ACT OR A SERIES OF PAST ACTS.  THE DEGREE OF
PARTICULARITY WITH WHICH THE PAST ACT IS DEFINED IS NOT THE CRITERION. 
WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH THE PROBLEM OF VAGUENESS IN CRIMINAL
STATUTES.  NO AMOUNT OF CERTAINTY WOULD HAVE CURED THE LAWS IN THE
CUMMINGS AND GARLAND CASES.  THEY WERE STRICKEN DOWN BECAUSE OF THE
MODE IN WHICH PUNISHMENT WAS INFLICTED. 

PETITIONERS WERE DISQUALIFIED FROM OFFICE NOT FOR WHAT THEY ARE
TODAY, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY PROGRAM THEY CURRENTLY ESPOUSE (CF. GERENDE
V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 341 U.S. 56), NOT BECAUSE OF STANDARDS RELATED
TO FITNESS FOR THE OFFICE (CF. DENT V. WEST VIRGINIA, 129 U.S. 114;
HAWKER V. NEW YORK, 170 U.S. 189), BUT FOR WHAT THEY ONCE ADVOCATED. 
THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIVELIHOOD BY LEGISLATIVE ACT, NOT BY
JUDICIAL PROCESSES.  WE PUT THE CASE IN THE ASPECT MOST INVIDIOUS TO
PETITIONERS.  WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY ADVOCATED THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT APPEAR.  BUT HERE, AS IN THE CUMMINGS CASE, THE
VICE IS IN THE PRESUMPTION OF GUILT WHICH CAN ONLY BE REMOVED BY THE
EXPURGATORY OATH.  THAT PUNISHMENT, ALBEIT CONDITIONAL, VIOLATES HERE
AS IT DID IN THE CUMMINGS CASE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST
BILLS OF ATTAINDER.  WHETHER THE ORDINANCE ALSO AMOUNTS TO AN EX POST
FACTO LAW IS A QUESTION WE DO NOT REACH. 

FN1  MR. JUSTICE FIELD CONTINUED:  "IF THE PUNISHMENT BE LESS THAN
DEATH, THE ACT IS TERMED A BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES.  WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION, BILLS OF ATTAINDER INCLUDE BILLS OF PAINS
AND PENALTIES.  IN THESE CASES THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, IN ADDITION TO ITS
LEGITIMATE FUNCTIONS, EXERCISES THE POWERS AND OFFICE OF JUDGE; IT
ASSUMES, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE TEXT-BOOKS, JUDICIAL MAGISTRACY; IT
PRONOUNCES UPON THE GUILT OF THE PARTY, WITHOUT ANY OF THE FORMS OR
SAFEGUARDS OF TRIAL; IT DETERMINES THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOFS
PRODUCED, WHETHER CONFORMABLE TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE OR OTHERWISE;
AND IT FIXES THE DEGREE OF PUNISHMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OWN
NOTIONS OF THE ENORMITY OF THE OFFENCE."  4 WALL.  P. 323. 

IN ADDITION TO THE HISTORY OF BILLS OF ATTAINDER IN ENGLAND, THE
DRAFTSMEN OF THE CONSTITUTION HAD BEFORE THEM RECENT EXAMPLES OF SUCH
LEGISLATION BY THE REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENTS OF THE STATES. 
LEGISLATIVE ACTION AGAINST PERSONS OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED LOYALIST
SYMPATHIES INCLUDED OUTRIGHT ATTAINT OF TREASON OR SUBVERSION (E.G.,
GEORGIA, ACT OF MARCH 1, 1778; PENNSYLVANIA LAWS 1778, C. 49; NEW YORK
LAWS 1779, THIRD SESSION, C. 25); PROSCRIPTION AND BANISHMENT (E.G.,
MASSACHUSETTS, ACT OF SEPT. 1778, CHARTERS AND GEN. LAWS, C. 48; NEW
HAMPSHIRE LAWS 1778, FOURTH SESSION, C. 9); CONFISCATION (E.G.,
DELAWARE LAWS 1778, C. 29B; NEW JERSEY, ACT OF DEC. 11, 1778, LAWS, P.
40); AS WELL AS NUMEROUS TEST OATHS INVOLVING, AMONG OTHER PENALTIES,
DISQUALIFICATION FROM HOLDING OFFICE OR PRACTICING CERTAIN
PROFESSIONS.  SEE LAWS COLLECTED IN VAN TYNE, THE LOYALISTS IN THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION, APP. BC; AND GENERALLY, THOMPSON, ANTILOYALIST
LEGISLATION DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 3 ILL. L. REV. 81, 147. 
..END :






















LAND V. DOLLAR, 341 U.S. 737 


DECIDED JUNE 4, 1951. 


IN THESE RELATED PROCEEDINGS, THIS COURT (1) GRANTS CERTIORARI IN NOS.
697 AND 702; (2) DENIES A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER STAYING THE COURT
OF APPEALS' CONTEMPT ORDER; (3) CONTINUES ON THE DOCKET A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN NO. 353; AND (4) REJECTS
THE SUGGESTION THAT THE COURT DEFER ADJOURNMENT AND HEAR ARGUMENT
WITHIN A MATTER OF WEEKS.  PP. 737-740. 

LAND ET AL. V. DOLLAR ET AL* . 

*NO. 353, LAND ET AL. V. DOLLAR ET AL., ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF CERTIORARI; NO. 697, LAND ET
AL. V. DOLLAR ET AL., AND NO. 702, IN RE KILLION, ON PETITIONS FOR
WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT; NO. - , SAWYER ET AL. V. DOLLAR ET AL.,
AND NO. - , IN RE KILLION, ON MOTION TO VACATE STAY OF CONTEMPT ORDER. 

PER CURIAM. 

(1)  NOS. 697 AND 702 ARE BEFORE THE COURT ON PETITIONS FOR
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW, FIRST, AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REQUIRING THAT CHARLES SAWYER ENDORSE CERTAIN
STOCK CERTIFICATES AS "UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, BY CHARLES
SAWYER, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE," AND, SECOND, A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ENJOINING
NAMED PETITIONERS FROM: 

"PROPOSING, SEEKING OR ADVOCATING ANY STEP IN ANY PROCEEDING, WHETHER
IN SAID SUIT ENTITLED UNITED STATES V. R. STANLEY DOLLAR, ET AL., OR IN
ANY OTHER PROCEEDING, INCONSISTENT WITH STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH AND
OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDERS HERETOFORE ENTERED BY THIS COURT IN THIS
CAUSE. 

"AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT SAID PERSONS ARE AND EACH OF THEM IS
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT FROM
COMPLYING WITH, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF, OR UTILIZING, OR SEEKING TO COMPLY
WITH, UTILIZE OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SAID TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ISSUED BY
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION, IN SAID CAUSE ENTITLED UNITED STATES V.
R. STANLEY DOLLAR, ET AL., OR ANY ORDER OF SIMILAR TENOR WHICH MAY
HEREAFTER BE ENTERED BY SAID COURT OR ANY OTHER COURT." 

THE TWO ORDERS ARE BEFORE THE COURT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN NOS. 697
AND 702.  CERTIORARI IS GRANTED IN THESE CASES. 

(2)  SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE ABOVE RESTRAINING ORDER, THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FOUND NAMED
PETITIONERS TO BE IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF ITS PRIOR DECREES BY REASON OF,
INTER ALIA, THEIR ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH OBTAINING THE TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES IN ITS SUIT IN THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, REFERRED TO IN THE RESTRAINING ORDER.  THE
ORDER OF CONTEMPT HAS BEEN STAYED PENDING DISPOSITION OF NOS. 697 AND
702 AS WELL AS THE FORTHCOMING PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI DIRECTED TO THE
CONTEMPT ORDER.  MOTION OF RESPONDENTS TO VACATE THE STAY IS DENIED. 

(3)  NO ACTION IS TAKEN AT THIS TIME ON PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN NO.
353.  THE MOTION IS CONTINUED ON THE DOCKET SO THAT THERE MAY BE NO
QUESTION AS TO THIS COURT'S CONTROL OVER NO. 353 FOR WHATEVER ACTION
MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE. 

(4)  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THIS COURT DELAY THE NORMAL ENDING OF
THE OCTOBER TERM, 1950, AND HEAR ARGUMENT WITHIN A MATTER OF WEEKS.  NO
MOTION FOR ADVANCEMENT HAS BEEN FILED. 

WE AGREE THAT EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSITION OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THIS
LENGTHY PROCEEDING IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE.  BUT OUR DESIRE FOR EXPEDITION
MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST THE DANGER TO ORDERLY PRESENTATION OF IMPORTANT
ISSUES INHERENT IN HASTY BRIEFING AND ARGUMENT.  AND THIS IS
PARTICULARLY SO WHEN IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WE HEAR ARGUMENT NOT ONLY IN
NOS. 697 AND 702 NOW BEFORE US, BUT ALSO IN THE CASES TO COME TO US
FROM THE ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT IN WHICH PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI ARE
TO BE FILED. 

THERE IS A FURTHER CONSIDERATION MILITATING AGAINST PREMATURE
DISPOSITION OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED.  THERE IS NOW PENDING IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AN
ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES FOR ADJUDICATION OF ITS CLAIM OF
TITLE IN THE SAME SHARES OF STOCK AS THOSE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT
CASES.  WE HAVE HERETOFORE HELD THAT JUDGMENTS ENTERED IN THE INSTANT
CASES WOULD NOT BE RES JUDICATA AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  LAND V.
DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731, 736, 737, 739(1947).  APPEALS HAVE BEEN TAKEN
FROM THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ISSUED IN THAT SUIT ON BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES AND WITH WHICH MUCH OF THE PRESENT PHASE OF THIS
LITIGATION IS CONCERNED.  WE ARE ADVISED THAT ON MAY 31, 1951, THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HEARD ARGUMENT ON A MOTION TO
STAY THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL FROM THE ORDER GRANTING
THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND HAS TAKEN THAT MOTION UNDER ADVISEMENT. 
ON JUNE 1, 1951, THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA BEGAN ITS HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' (RESPONDENTS IN THIS COURT)
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE SUGGESTION THAT
HEARING ARGUMENT IN A MATTER OF WEEKS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE APPLICATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DOES NOT JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

SEPARATE MEMORANDUM OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE, AS A RULE, FOR REASONS INDICATED IN MY
MEMORANDUM IN MARYLAND V. BALTIMORE RADIO SHOW, 338 U.S. 912, TO SET
FORTH THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MOVE THE COURT IN GRANTING OR DENYING A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  AND SINCE AN UNEXPLAINED ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE ON SUCH ACTION IS TOO OFTEN APT TO BE EQUIVOCAL, IT HAS
BEEN MY UNBROKEN PRACTICE NOT TO NOTE MY VOTE ON THE DISPOSITION OF
SUCH PETITIONS.  HOWEVER, THE PETITION NOW BEFORE THE COURT IS THE
LATEST STAGE IN A LONG PROCESS.  IN DIFFERENT PHASES IT HAS BEEN HERE
THREE TIMES.  BECAUSE OUR ACTION MAY BE MISLEADING, UNLESS VIEWED IN
ITS SETTING, A PLAIN NARRATIVE OF THE COURSE OF THIS LITIGATION IN ITS
BEARING ON THIS PETITION IS, I BELIEVE, DESIRABLE. 

1.  WHAT IS ULTIMATELY IN ISSUE IS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE DOLLAR
STEAMSHIP LINES.  AS A RESULT OF TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE LINES AND THE
UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, WHICH WE NEED NOT HERE RELATE, 92%
OF THE STOCK OF THE CORPORATION WAS IN 1945 LISTED IN THE NAME OF THE
MARITIME COMMISSION AND VOTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THAT BODY.  ON NOVEMBER
6 OF THAT YEAR, THE FORMER DOLLAR STOCKHOLDERS (HEREAFTER CALLED THE
DOLLARS) BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, ALLEGING
THAT THE STOCK WAS UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD AND DEMANDING ITS RETURN.  THE
ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
AND FOR FOUR AND ONE-HALF YEARS WOUND ITS WAY THROUGH THE COURT OF
APPEALS TO THIS COURT, BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT, AND ONCE AGAIN TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 28, 154 F.2D 307; 330 U.S.
731; 82 F.SUPP.  919; 87 U.S. APP. D.C. 214, 184 F.2D 245.  AT EVERY
STAGE, THE COMMISSIONERS WERE REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEYS FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHO ASSERTED AS GROUND FOR DISMISSAL THAT THE
ACTION WAS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO WHICH CONSENT HAD NOT
BEEN GIVEN.  OUR DECISION, 330 U.S. 731, HELD THAT, IF THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE COMPLAINT WERE TRUE, THE ACTION WAS NOT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, BUT RATHER AGAINST THE COMMISSIONERS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITIES.  THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED ON THE MERITS THAT THE FACTS
WERE NOT AS THEY HAD BEEN ALLEGED.  82 F.SUPP.  919.  BUT ON JULY 17,
1950, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  IT HELD THAT THE STOCK OF THE
CORPORATION WAS UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION,
AND THAT, SINCE TITLE TO IT HAD NEVER VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES, THE
SUIT WAS NOT AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN.  87 U.S. APP. D.C. 214, 184 F.2D
245.  WE REFUSED TO REVIEW THIS DECISION.  340 U.S. 884.  LATER, WE
REFUSED TO RECONSIDER OUR REFUSAL.  340 U.S. 948. 

2.  THE UPSHOT OF THE LITIGATION AT THIS POINT WAS THAT THE DOLLARS
HAD OBTAINED A FINAL JUDGMENT THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
MARITIME COMMISSION WERE UNLAWFULLY WITHHOLDING THE STOCK OF THE
CORPORATION, AND THAT, AS AGAINST THE COMMISSIONERS, THE DOLLARS WERE
ENTITLED TO IT.  TO CARRY OUT THE JUDGMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED
AN ORDER ON MANDATE ON DECEMBER 11, 1950.  THAT ORDER STATED IN PART
THAT 

"TITLE TO THE SHARES IN QUESTION IS IN THE PLAINTIFFS (DOLLARS),
SINCE THEY WERE NEVER LEGALLY DIVESTED OF THE SAME, AND THE ASSERTED
TITLE OF ALL OTHERS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION TO THE CONTRARY
(IS) NULL AND VOID  ...  "  97 F.SUPP.  59. 

3.  THE MEMBERS OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION TOOK AN APPEAL FROM THIS
ORDER.  THEY URGED THAT IT WAS TOO BROAD, IN THAT IT PURPORTED TO BIND,
NOT ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, BUT ALSO THE UNITED
STATES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REMANDED THE CAUSE WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
ENTER A NARROWER ORDER, THE TERMS OF WHICH IT PRESCRIBED.  THE
SUBSTANCE OF THOSE TERMS IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(PLAINTIFFS)(DOLLARS) ARE ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF THE SHARES AS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS, AND THE DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED AND DIRECTED TO
DELIVER FORTHWITH TO THE PLAINTIFFS THE SAID SHARES.  THE POSSESSION TO
WHICH PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED IS AN EFFECTIVE POSSESSION OF THE
SHARES.  IN SO FAR AS SUCH RIGHT REQUIRES ACTION ON THE PART OF
DEFENDANTS IN ADDITION TO PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF THE CERTIFICATES, SUCH
ACTION IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN.  PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED UNDER
THIS JUDGMENT TO ALL RIGHTS BELONGING TO POSSESSORS OF THE SHARES."  88
U.S. APP. D.C. - , - , 188 F.2D 629, 631. 

IN FURTHER EXPLANATION OF ITS ORDER THE COURT STATED: 

"THE DISTRICT COURT IS DIRECTED TO ENFORCE OBEDIENCE TO ITS ORDER, AS
HEREIN MODIFIED, WHETHER EFFECTIVE PROCESS IS AGAINST THE PRESENT NAMED
DEFENDANTS OR IS AGAINST ANOTHER OFFICIAL, OR OTHER OFFICIALS, AGAINST
WHOM THE ORDER MIGHT BE LAWFULLY ENFORCED IF HE OR THEY WERE A PARTY OR
PARTIES TO THE SUIT. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE NOW HAS CUSTODY OR POSSESSION OF THE
SHARES, HE OBVIOUSLY ACQUIRED SUCH CUSTODY OR POSSESSION SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF THIS ACTION, INDEED SINCE THE ORDER OF JUNE 11,
1947(PROHIBITING TRANSFER OF THE STOCK PENDENTE LITE).  OBEDIENCE TO
THE ORDER ABOUT TO BE ENTERED PURSUANT TO THIS OPINION IS, THEREFORE,
ENFORCEABLE AGAINST HIM, AND HE IS LIABLE UNDER RULE 71, SUPRA, TO THE
SAME PROCESS FOR ENFORCING OBEDIENCE TO THAT ORDER AS IF HE WERE A
PARTY."  88 U.S. APP. D.C. - , - , 188 F.2D 629, 632. 

4.  WE WERE ASKED TO GRANT CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THIS ORDER FOR
ENFORCEMENT.  ON MARCH 12, 1951, WE REFUSED.  340 U.S. 948.  IT WAS AT
THIS POINT THAT WE REFUSED TO RECONSIDER OUR REFUSAL TO REVIEW THE
DECISION ON THE MERITS. 

5.  ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WENT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT
COURT ENTERED TWO ORDERS ON MARCH 16.  THE FIRST WAS IN THE TERMS
PRESCRIBED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE SECOND WAS DESIGNED TO ENFORCE
THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, WHO, UNDER A
PRESIDENTIAL REORGANIZATION PLAN, HAD SUCCEEDED THE MARITIME COMMISSION
AS CUSTODIAN OF THE STOCK SHORTLY BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS ENTERED
ITS DECISION ON THE MERITS.  THIS ORDER DIRECTED THE SECRETARY TO
ENDORSE THE STOCK CERTIFICATES IN HIS POSSESSION IN BLANK, BY WRITING
ON THEM THE WORDS, "UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, BY CHARLES
SAWYER, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE."  IT REQUIRED FURTHER THAT HE DELIVER
THE STOCK TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DOLLARS, AND THAT HE INSTRUCT THE
CORPORATION TO MAKE THE TRANSFERS OF RECORD.  IN THE EVENT THAT THE
SECRETARY FAILED TO ENDORSE THE STOCK BEFORE DELIVERY OR TO ISSUE THE
INSTRUCTIONS PRIOR TO MARCH 17, THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
DIRECTED TO PERFORM THESE ACTS IN HIS PLACE.  97 F.SUPP.  60. 

6.  MEANWHILE, A NEW PROCEEDING GOT UNDER WAY.  ON MARCH 12, THE DAY
WE DENIED CERTIORARI TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MODIFYING
THE ORDER ON MANDATE, THE GOVERNMENT FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION.  IN
THIS ACTION, THE UNITED STATES WAS NAMED AS PLAINTIFF, AND SOUGHT
RELIEF BY INJUNCTION, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND DAMAGES AGAINST THE
DOLLAR SHAREHOLDERS, THE CORPORATION, AND THE TRANSFER AGENTS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STOCK.  THE CLAIM URGED WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
AS THAT WHICH GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR MEMBERS OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION
HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY ADVANCED IN THE LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA WHICH CULMINATED IN THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS. 

7.  ON MARCH 19, THE GOVERNMENT MOVED FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN
THIS CALIFORNIA LITIGATION.  IT REQUESTED THAT THE DOLLARS BE
RESTRAINED FROM "EXERCISING OR ATTEMPTING TO EXERCISE ANY RIGHTS OR
PRIVILEGES AS THE OWNERS" OF THE STOCK, FROM MAKING DEMANDS UPON THE
CORPORATION THAT NEW CERTIFICATES BE ISSUED IN THEIR NAME, AND FROM
TRANSFERRING THE STOCK CERTIFICATES IN THEIR POSSESSION.  THE
GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED ITS MOTION BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESENT CHAIRMAN
OF THE FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD.  ON THE BASIS OF A REPORT OF THE
MARITIME COMMISSION TO THE CONGRESS ON APRIL 10, 1939, WHICH REFERRED
TO THE DOLLAR MANAGEMENT AS "SHOCKINGLY INCOMPETENT" AND CHARGED IT
WITH DRAWING EXCESSIVE SALARIES FROM THE CORPORATION AND WITH
"(FAILURE) TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SERVICE FROM THE WEST COAST TO THE
ORIENT," THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT "(SHOULD) INEFFICIENT MANAGEMENT
REPLACE THE EXISTING MANAGEMENT" OF THE CORPORATION, "GRAVE DANGER
EXISTS THAT THIS IMPORTANT UNIT OF THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE MAY
DETERIORATE AS IT DID BEFORE WHEN UNDER THE CONTROL OF PLAINTIFFS IN
THE CASE OF R. STANLEY DOLLAR ET AL. V. EMORY S. LAND ET AL."  ON APRIL
6 THE DISTRICT JUDGE ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD ISSUE A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER.  SEE 97 F.SUPP.  50.    8.  THAT ORDER, DATED APRIL
11, IS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THIS COURT THAT, IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO PENDING THE DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT AS TO
WHETHER PLAINTIFF ON THE ONE HAND, OR THE (DOLLARS) ...  ON THE OTHER
HAND, ARE THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF SAID STOCK, THE (DOLLARS)  ...  BE AND
THEY HEREBY ARE, ENJOINED PENDING THE ENTRY OFFICIAL JUDGMENT IN THIS
ACTION, FROM EXERCISING OR ATTEMPTING TO EXERCISE ANY RIGHTS OR
PRIVILEGES AS OWNERS OF STOCK CERTIFICATES  ...  , AND FROM MAKING ANY
DEMANDS UPON (THE CORPORATION OR ITS AGENTS)  ...  THAT NEW
CERTIFICATES REPRESENTING SAID SHARES OF STOCK  ...  BE ISSUED TO (THE
DOLLARS)  ...  , OR THAT SAID (DOLLARS) BE REGISTERED AS THE OWNERS OF
THE SHARES OF STOCK REPRESENTED BY SAID CERTIFICATES  ...  , AND FROM
PLEDGING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSING OF SAID STOCK
CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARES OF STOCK REPRESENTED THEREBY, AND 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THIS COURT THAT (THE CORPORATION AND ITS
AGENTS)  ...  BE, AND THEY HEREBY ARE, RESTRAINED, PENDING THE ENTRY OF
FINAL JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION, FROM ISSUING ANY NEW CERTIFICATES OF
STOCK OF (THE CORPORATION) REPRESENTING SAID SHARES TO (THE DOLLARS)
...  , FROM REGISTERING OR RECORDING (THE DOLLARS)  ...  AS OWNERS OF
ANY OF THE SHARES OF STOCK  ...  , AND FROM IN ANY WAY RECOGNIZING SAID
(DOLLARS)  ...  , AS THE LAWFUL OWNERS OF SAID SHARES OF STOCK OR SAID
CERTIFICATES." 

9.  WHILE THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKING PLACE IN CALIFORNIA, APPEALS
WERE TAKEN TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
FROM THE TWO ORDERS ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA ON MARCH 16.  THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE
MARITIME COMMISSION URGED AS GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL THAT THE LOWER COURT
HAD MISCONSTRUED THE MANDATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND HAD
JEOPARDIZED THE UNITED STATES' CLAIM OF TITLE BY GIVING THE DOLLARS
POWER TO TRANSFER THE STOCK TO A BONA FIDE PURCHASER FOR VALUE.  THEY
DID NOT ASSERT AS GROUNDS FOR REVERSING THE ORDERS THAT THE DOLLARS
WERE LIKELY SO TO MISMANAGE THE CORPORATION THAT ASSETS TO WHICH THE
UNITED STATES MIGHT ULTIMATELY BE ENTITLED WOULD BE WASTED.  ON APRIL 4
THE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEALS, WITHOUT OPINION.  AT THE SAME TIME IT
TOOK UNDER ADVISEMENT A MOTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS ON THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

10.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED ON THE MOTION TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS BY
ORDERS DATED APRIL 10, FOR REASONS INDICATED IN A STATEMENT READ IN
OPEN COURT ON APRIL 6 AND AN OPINION FILED ON APRIL 11, 1951.  88 U.S.
APP. D.C. - , 190 F.2D 366. 

(A)  IT ISSUED AN ORDER REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL, AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
OF THE CORPORATION TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN
CONTEMPT FOR DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDERS OF THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.  IT BASED THIS ORDER IN PART ON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE
RESPONDENTS "REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE CERTIFICATES AND REFUSED TO
INSTRUCT THE TRANSFER AGENT TO TRANSFER THE SHARES" AS DIRECTED BY THE
COURT.  INSTEAD, RESPONDENTS "EXECUTED PROXIES IN THEIR OWN NAMES AFTER
THE DECREE OF THIS COURT WAS KNOWN TO THEM," AND "WARNED, IN WRITING,
THE TRANSFER AGENT OF THE CORPORATION NOT TO TRANSFER THE SHARES OF
STOCK."  IN PART, THE ORDER WAS BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THAT
RESPONDENTS "SOUGHT AND OBTAINED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DOLLAR INTERESTS, RESTRAINING THEM
FROM ATTEMPTING TO SECURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE OF THIS COURT." 
88 U.S. APP. D.C. AT - , 190 F.2D AT 374.  THE PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH
THIS ORDER HAS LED ARE NOT BEFORE US ON THIS PETITION. 

(B)  THE COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED A RESTRAINING ORDER ALSO DIRECTED TO
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, AND OFFICERS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE CORPORATION.  IT RECITED THAT THESE
RESPONDENTS "CAUSED TO BE INSTITUTED" THE CALIFORNIA SUIT, AND THAT "IN
SAID ACTION SAID RESPONDENTS HAVE SOUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED
STATES RELIEF WHICH IS CONTRARY TO, INCONSISTENT WITH, AND IN
NULLIFICATION OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS AND ORDERS" IN THE CASE.  IT
STATED AT THE HEARING ON THE ORDER THAT IT WAS NOT DECIDING "WHETHER
THE UNITED STATES MIGHT SEEK ANCILLARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN ANY OTHER
RESPECT; THAT IS, IN ANY RESPECT SAVE ONLY THE DEFEAT AND NULLIFICATION
OF A JUDGMENT ALREADY FINALLY ENTERED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION."  IT ORDERED THAT THE RESPONDENTS, THEIR AGENTS,
ATTORNEYS, AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT WITH ANY OF THEM 

"BE AND THEY HEREBY ARE ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER
OF THIS COURT FROM PROPOSING, SEEKING OR ADVOCATING ANY STEP IN ANY
PROCEEDING, WHETHER IN SAID SUIT ENTITLED UNITED STATES V. R. STANLEY
DOLLAR, ET AL., OR IN ANY OTHER PROCEEDING, INCONSISTENT WITH STRICT
COMPLIANCE WITH AND OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDERS HERETOFORE ENTERED BY THIS
COURT IN THIS CAUSE. 

"AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT SAID PERSONS ARE AND EACH OF THEM IS
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT FROM
COMPLYING WITH, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF, OR UTILIZING, OR SEEKING TO COMPLY
WITH, UTILIZE OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SAID TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ISSUED BY
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION, IN SAID CAUSE ENTITLED UNITED STATES V.
R. STANLEY DOLLAR, ET AL., OR ANY ORDER OF SIMILAR TENOR WHICH MAY
HEREAFTER BE ENTERED BY SAID COURT OR ANY OTHER COURT." 

WE HAVE BEFORE US FOR REVIEW ON THIS PETITION (1) THE ORDER OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT DISMISSING
APPEALS FROM THE ORDERS ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON MARCH 16
DIRECTING THAT THE STOCK BE DELIVERED TO THE DOLLARS; (2) THE
RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ON APRIL 10. 

THREE OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING THIS LITIGATION ARE ALSO NOW BEFORE
THE COURT.  THEY ARE REFERRED TO IN A PER CURIAM OPINION.  THIS
MEMORANDUM DOES NOT ADDRESS ITSELF TO THEM. 

BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. 

RESPONDENTS ASK THE FULL COURT TO VACATE A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
GRANTED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE.  I REGRET THAT I CANNOT ACQUIESCE IN
SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF THE MOTION, FOR I THINK THE CIRCUMSTANCES
REQUIRE THE COURT TO SET IT DOWN FOR PROMPT ARGUMENT AND ACT ONLY AFTER
HEARING BOTH SIDES. 

THIS COURT EXAMINED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
DOLLAR INTERESTS WERE ENTITLED TO THE STOCK IN QUESTION AND DECIDED
THAT IT DID NOT MERIT FURTHER REVIEW.  87 U.S. APP. D.C. 214, 184 F.2D
245.  CERTIORARI DENIED, 340 U.S. 884.  THE COURTS BELOW PROPERLY
UNDERSTOOD THAT WE THEN REGARDED THAT LITIGATION AS ENDED AND THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ITS MANDATE.  WHEN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WAS
WITHHELD, THE MANDATE WAS MODIFIED TO ORDER OFFICIALS TO DELIVER UP
"EFFECTIVE POSSESSION" OF THE STOCK.  CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT FROM THIS
ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND WE WERE ALSO AGAIN ASKED TO REVIEW THE MERITS. 
WE DENIED BOTH.  340 U.S. 948.  TO DATE, "EFFECTIVE POSSESSION" HAS NOT
BEEN DELIVERED. 

WE MAY HAVE BEEN RIGHT OR WE MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG IN THESE REPEATED
DENIALS OF REVIEW.  BUT WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS NOW DONE IS TRY
TO EFFECTUATE A JUDGMENT THAT WE, BY REFUSAL TO REVIEW, IN EFFECT HAVE
CONFIRMED. 

DENIAL BY THE FULL COURT OF THIS MOTION FIXES IT AS THE COURT'S
POLICY TO SUSPEND ENFORCEMENT INDEFINITELY, CERTAINLY SO LONG AS ANY
PHASE OF THIS MATTER IS PENDING HERE.  SUCCESSIVE STAYS WILL ISSUE AS
OF COURSE UNTIL WE DECIDE THIS AND PERHAPS ALSO THE CASE RECENTLY
COMMENCED IN CALIFORNIA.  NO ONE KNOWS FOR HOW LONG THIS WILL
CONTINUE.  MY PREDICTION WOULD BE IN TERMS OF YEARS RATHER THAN
MONTHS. 

CERTAINLY BOTH THE APPEARANCE AND SUBSTANCE OF JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT
THE PARTIES BE HEARD BEFORE THE COURT DENIES RESPONDENTS, FOR AN
INDEFINITE PERIOD, THE BENEFITS OF THE JUDGMENT THEY HAVE WON.  WE
SHOULD NOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT MANAGEMENT OF THIS SHIPPING CONCERN
IS KEPT OUT OF THE HANDS OF THOSE WHOM YEARS OF LITIGATION HAVE
ADJUDGED TO BE ITS OWNERS, AND NO PROTECTION BY BOND, CONDITION OF THE
ORDER, OR OTHERWISE IS PROVIDED FOR THEM DURING SUCH TIME AS IT IS KEPT
IN THE HANDS ADJUDGED TO HAVE IT ILLEGALLY. 

THIS COURT, NOW ASKED TO VACATE THE STAY ORDER, DENIES THE MOTION
WITHOUT HEARING EITHER OF THE PARTIES.  THIS MATTER HAS BECOME ONE OF
CONSIDERABLE DELICACY AND I SHOULD NOT, IN EFFECT, APPROVE AN
INDEFINITE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT HEARING ALL THE ARGUMENT AND
INFORMATION THAT EITHER PARTY CAN OFFER.  I DO NOT THINK DENIAL WITHOUT
HEARING IS PRUDENT JUDICIAL ACTION.  NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST COULD
SUFFER FROM A HEARING AND WE WOULD SURELY BE BETTER INFORMED AS A
RESULT OF IT. 

EVEN IF THE PARTIES THEMSELVES ARE NOT STRICTLY ENTITLED TO OR DO NOT
WANT TO ARGUE THIS MOTION, I SHOULD REQUIRE THEM TO DO SO, FOR HEARINGS
ARE MORE IMPORTANT HERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COURT, AS A PROTECTION
AGAINST UNWISE DECISION, THAN FOR BENEFIT OF THE PARTIES.  IT IS THE
COURT THAT IS NOW ON TRIAL.  WHEN THE SHOE OF CONTEMPT WAS ON THE OTHER
FOOT, WE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE GOVERNMENT'S DEMAND FOR COMPLETE
SUBMISSION TO COURT DECREES, EVEN BEFORE THEY WERE SUSTAINED BY THIS
COURT AND THOUGH THEIR VALIDITY WAS REASONABLY IN DOUBT.  ON THIS BASIS
A HEAVY FINE WAS LEVIED AGAINST THE UNITED MINE WORKERS.  UNITED STATES
V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258.  SEE ALSO MCCOMB V. JACKSONVILLE
PAPER CO., 336 U.S. 187. 

THE SPECTACLE OF THIS COURT STALLING THE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS OF LOWER
COURTS WHILE THERE IS OUTSTANDING A JUDGMENT THAT SOME OF THE NATION'S
HIGH OFFICIALS ARE GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IS NOT WHOLESOME.  THE
EVIL INFLUENCE OF SUCH AN EXAMPLE WILL BE INCREASED BY DELAY.  THIS
COURT SHOULD EXERCISE UTMOST CARE LEST IT APPEAR TO BE INDIFFERENT TO A
CLAIM OF OFFICIAL DISOBEDIENCE. 

MOREOVER, WE OWE SOMETHING IN THIS MATTER TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
THAT COURT HELD SEVERAL HEARINGS, CONSIDERED EVERY PHASE OF THIS CASE
IN CAREFUL AND EXHAUSTIVE OPINIONS, AND MADE DETAILED FINDINGS OF
FACT.  IT EMBARKED ON THIS EFFORT AT ENFORCEMENT ONLY AFTER THIS COURT
HAD REFUSED TO REVIEW THE BASIC ORDERS.  THEY WERE CLEARLY JUSTIFIED IN
BELIEVING THAT WE EXPECTED THE ORDER TO BE ENFORCED.  SURELY WE DO NOT
WANT TO CONFIRM MR. DOOLEY'S OBSERVATION TO THE EFFECT THAT AN APPEAL
IS AN OCCASION FOR ONE COURT TO SHOW ITS CONTEMPT FOR ANOTHER. 

BEING OUTVOTED AS TO THE STAY, HOWEVER, I THINK IT IS OWING TO THE
COURT ITSELF, TO THE COURTS BELOW, AND TO BOTH LITIGANTS, TO HEAR AND
DECIDE THE CONTROVERSIAL ORDERS WITHOUT DELAY.  ANY DENIAL OF THIS
MOTION OR CONTINUANCE OF THE STAY SHOULD BE CONDITIONED UPON A
SHORTENING OF THE TIME OF ALL PARTIES AND AN ARGUMENT OF THE CASES ON
THE MERITS WITHIN TWO WEEKS, DEFERRING THE COURT'S ADJOURNMENT UNTIL
THE CONTROVERSY IS FINALLY CLEARED UP.  IF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
WRONG, WE SHOULD PROMPTLY VINDICATE THE OFFICIALS INVOLVED.  IF THAT
COURT IS RIGHT, WE SHOULD NOT WAVER IN UPHOLDING ITS HAND. 

I WITHHOLD MY ASSENT FROM THE PER CURIAM OPINION OF TODAY. 
..END :






RADIO CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 412 


NO. 565.  ARGUED MARCH 26-27, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 28, 1951.  - 95
F.SUPP.  660, AFFIRMED. 


AFTER EXTENSIVE HEARINGS ON, AND DEMONSTRATIONS OF, THREE DIFFERENT
METHODS OF COLOR TELEVISION TRANSMISSION, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER WHICH, IN EFFECT, PERMITS USE OF THE METHOD
OF COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM (CBS) AND EXCLUDES USE OF OTHERS.  THIS
ORDER WAS BASED UPON FINDINGS THAT THE CBS METHOD WAS THE BEST
PRESENTLY AVAILABLE AND HAD REACHED A STATE OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH
JUSTIFIED ITS ACCEPTANCE TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS, THOUGH COLOR
TELECASTS BY THE CBS METHOD COULD NOT BE RECEIVED EITHER IN COLOR OR IN
BLACK AND WHITE ON THE MILLIONS OF EXISTING BLACK AND WHITE RECEIVERS
WITHOUT COSTLY ADAPTATIONS.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSION DECLINED TO
REOPEN THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE REQUEST OF RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA
(RCA), WHICH CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE GREAT ADVANCES TOWARD A METHOD OF
COLOR TELEVISION TRANSMISSION WHICH COULD BE RECEIVED IN BLACK AND
WHITE ON EXISTING BLACK AND WHITE RECEIVERS WITHOUT ANY ADAPTATION. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT BY RCA TO ENJOIN AND SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  HELD: 

1.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT FAIL TO REVIEW THE RECORD AS A WHOLE
IN DETERMINING THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  PP. 414-416. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT MISAPPREHEND OR MISAPPLY THE PROPER
JUDICIAL STANDARD IN HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS NOT
ARBITRARY OR AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS A MATTER OF LAW.  PP. 416
420. 

(A)  VIEWING THE RECORD AS A WHOLE, THE COMMISSION DID NOT ERR AS A
MATTER OF LAW IN CONCLUDING THAT THE CBS COLOR METHOD HAD REACHED A
STATE OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH JUSTIFIED ITS ACCEPTANCE TO THE EXCLUSION OF
OTHERS.  PP. 416-419. 

(B)  THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION, AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE ON ALL
SIDES, THAT THE CBS METHOD WILL PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH COLOR
TELEVISION OF GOOD QUALITY AND THAT TELEVISION VIEWERS SHOULD BE GIVEN
AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE IT IF THEY SO DESIRE, WAS NOT CAPRICIOUS. 
PP. 419-420. 

(C)  COURTS SHOULD NOT OVERRULE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION MERELY
BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH ITS WISDOM.  P. 420. 

3.  WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE REOPENED ITS PROCEEDINGS TO
PERMIT RCA TO OFFER PROOF OF NEW DISCOVERIES FOR ITS METHOD WAS A
QUESTION WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION; AND THAT DISCRETION
WAS NOT ABUSED.  PP. 420-421. 

RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION. 

A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PRESCRIBING STANDARDS FOR COLOR TELEVISION
TRANSMISSION.  95 F.SUPP.  660.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER
28 U.S.C. SECS. 1253 AND 2101(B), AFFIRMED, P. 421. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA (RCA) AND TWO OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES
BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN AND SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PRESCRIBING
STANDARDS FOR TRANSMISSION OF COLOR TELEVISION.  FN1  THE EFFECT OF THE
CHALLENGED ORDER WAS TO REJECT A COLOR SYSTEM PROPOSED BY RCA AND TO
ACCEPT ONE PROPOSED BY THE COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM (CBS).  FN2
THE BASIS OF RCA'S COMPLAINT WAS THAT THE ORDER HAD BEEN ENTERED
ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY, WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE, AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND CONTRARY TO LAW.  AFTER
HEARING AND ORAL ARGUMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SUSTAINING THE COMMISSION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  FN3  RCA AND THE
OTHER PLAINTIFFS TOOK THIS DIRECT APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253 AND
SEC. 2101(B). 

AT THE OUTSET WE ARE FACED WITH RCA'S CONTENTION THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT FAILED TO REVIEW THE RECORD AS A WHOLE IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; IT IS URGED
THAT FOR THIS REASON WE SHOULD SUMMARILY REVERSE AND REMAND THE CASE
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THAT COURT.  IF RCA'S PREMISE WERE
CORRECT, THE COURSE WHICH IT SUGGESTS MIGHT BE WHOLLY APPROPRIATE.  FOR
AS POINTED OUT RECENTLY, IN CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF SUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER THIS COURT MUST AND DOES
RELY LARGELY ON A FIRST REVIEWING COURT'S CONCLUSION.  UNIVERSAL CAMERA
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 340 U.S. 474.  THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, NEED
NOT BE RETURNED FOR FURTHER SCRUTINY BELOW BECAUSE WE ARE CONVINCED
THAT THE REVIEW ALREADY AFFORDED DID NOT FALL SHORT OF THAT WHICH IS
REQUIRED.  THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT FOR THREE DAYS AND
DELIBERATED FOR ABOUT FIVE WEEKS BEFORE HANDING DOWN ITS DECISION. 
BOTH THE MAJORITY AND DISSENTING OPINIONS SHOW A FAMILIARITY WITH RCA'S
BASIC CONTENTION (AND THE MINOR ONES AS WELL) THAT COULD HAVE COME ONLY
FROM CAREFUL STUDY OF THE RECORD AS A WHOLE.  TO BE SURE, THERE WAS A
CASUAL STATEMENT IN THE MAJORITY OPINION SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE
INTERPRETATION THAT THE COURT IN REACHING THE DECISION MADE AN
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD LESS COMPLETE THAN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.  FN4
FAIRLY CONSTRUED, HOWEVER, THE REMARK, WHILE PERHAPS UNFORTUNATE, IS
ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THAT CONSCIENTIOUS REVIEW WHICH WE ARE
SATISFIED WAS GIVEN THIS RECORD BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE THEREFORE
PASS TO THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

ALL PARTIES AGREE, AS THEY MUST, THAT GIVEN A JUSTIFIABLE FACT
SITUATION, THE COMMISSION HAS POWER UNDER 47 U.S.C. SEC. 303(C), (E),
(F), (G)  FN5  TO DO PRECISELY WHAT IT DID IN THIS CASE, NAMELY, TO
PROMULGATE STANDARDS FOR TRANSMISSION OF COLOR TELEVISION THAT RESULT
IN REJECTING ALL BUT ONE OF THE SEVERAL PROPOSED SYSTEMS.  MOREOVER, IT
CANNOT BE CONTENDED SERIOUSLY THAT THE COMMISSION IN TAKING SUCH A
COURSE WAS WITHOUT EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT FOR ITS REFUSAL TO ADOPT THE RCA
SYSTEM AT THIS TIME.  FN6  THE REAL ARGUMENT, ADVANCED AT GREAT LENGTH
AND IN MANY DIFFERENT FORMS, BOILS DOWN TO THIS:  VIEWING THE RECORD AS
A WHOLE, THE COMMISSION AS A MATTER OF LAW ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE
CBS COLOR SYSTEM HAD REACHED A STATE OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH JUSTIFIED ITS
ACCEPTANCE TO THE EXCLUSION OF RCA'S AND THAT OF OTHERS.  CONSEQUENTLY,
BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT COURT AND HERE, RCA'S MAIN ATTEMPT
HAS BEEN TO PERSUADE THAT NO SYSTEM HAS YET BEEN PROVEN WORTHY OF
ACCEPTANCE FOR PUBLIC USE, THAT COMMERCIAL COLOR BROADCASTING MUST BE
POSTPONED AWAITING INVENTIONS THAT WILL ACHIEVE MORE NEARLY PERFECT
RESULTS. 

WE SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO REJECT THIS POSITION AND HOLD
VALID THE CHALLENGED ORDER, BUTTRESSED AS IT IS BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S
APPROVAL.  TO EXPLAIN OUR CONCLUSION IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REPEAT THE
DETAILED STATEMENT OF FACTS MADE IN THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY OPINIONS
OF THE COMMISSION AND DISTRICT COURT.  FN7  NOR, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES,
IS IT NECESSARY TO ATTEMPT A TRANSLATION OF THE TECHNICAL TERMS
INVENTED TO CARRY MEANINGS IN THE RAPIDLY GROWING TELEVISION INDUSTRY. 
IT WILL SUFFICE TO GIVE THE FOLLOWING BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE BACKGROUND
OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND WHAT WAS FOUND: 

STANDARDS FOR BLACK AND WHITE TELEVISION TRANSMISSION WERE FIRST
PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION IN 1941.  RCA'S COMPLAINT ALLEGES, AND
ALL APPARENTLY AGREE, THAT "THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENT (BLACK AND
WHITE) SERVICE, THE IMPROVEMENTS AND REDUCTIONS IN PRICE TO THE PUBLIC
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, THE INCREDIBLE EXPANSION OF THE INDUSTRY AS A
WHOLE, ARE ALL DUE TO THE FACT THAT MANUFACTURERS COULD BUILD UPON A
SINGLE SET OF LONG-RANGE HIGH-QUALITY STANDARDS."  FN8  FROM 1941 UNTIL
NOW THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN CONSIDERATION OF PLANS AND
PROPOSALS LOOKING TOWARD PROMULGATION OF A SINGLE SET OF COLOR
STANDARDS.  FN9  CBS APPARENTLY MADE QUICKER PROGRESS IN DEVELOPING AN
ACCEPTABLE SYSTEM THAN DID OTHERS.  FN10  IT WAS SOON ATTACKED,
HOWEVER, ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS UTILIZING OLD KNOWLEDGE HIGHLY
USEFUL IN THE REALM OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND MECHANICAL PRACTICES
BUT INCONGRUOUS IN THE NEW FIELDS OF ELECTRONICS OCCUPIED BY
TELEVISION.  THIS IS STILL THE CORE OF THE OBJECTION TO THE CBS SYSTEM,
TOGETHER WITH THE OBJECTION THAT EXISTING RECEIVING SETS ARE NOT
CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY CAN, WITHOUT CONSIDERABLE
ADJUSTMENTS, RECEIVE CBS COLOR BROADCASTS EITHER IN COLOR OR BLACK AND
WHITE.  THE FACT THAT ADJUSTMENTS ARE REQUIRED BEFORE A CBS COLOR
BROADCAST CAN BE RECEIVED IN BLACK AND WHITE ON EXISTING SETS MAKES
THIS SYSTEM "INCOMPATIBLE" WITH THE MILLIONS OF TELEVISION RECEIVERS
NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC. 

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT A "COMPATIBLE" COLOR TELEVISION SYSTEM WOULD
BE DESIRABLE.  RECOGNITION OF THIS FACT SEEMS TO BE THE CONTROLLING
REASON WHY THE COMMISSION DID NOT LONG AGO APPROVE THE "INCOMPATIBLE"
CBS SYSTEM.  IN THE PAST, IT HAS POSTPONED ADOPTION OF STANDARDS WITH
THE HOPE THAT A SATISFACTORY "COMPATIBLE" COLOR TELEVISION SYSTEM WOULD
BE DEVELOPED.  BUT THIS TIME, IN LIGHT OF PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE, THE
COMMISSION THOUGHT THAT FURTHER DELAY IN MAKING COLOR AVAILABLE WAS TOO
HIGH A PRICE TO PAY FOR POSSIBLE "COMPATIBILITY" IN THE FUTURE, DESPITE
RCA'S CLAIM THAT IT WAS ON THE VERGE OF DISCOVERING AN ACCEPTABLE
"COMPATIBLE" SYSTEM. 

THE COMMISSION'S SPECIAL FAMILIARITY WITH THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN
ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR COLOR TELEVISION IS AMPLY ATTESTED BY THE
RECORD.  IT HAS DETERMINED AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE ON ALL SIDES THAT THE
CBS SYSTEM WILL PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH COLOR OF GOOD QUALITY AND THAT
TELEVISION VIEWERS SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE IT IF THEY
SO DESIRE.  FN11  THIS DETERMINATION CERTAINLY CANNOT BE HELD
CAPRICIOUS.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE CHOICE BETWEEN ADOPTING STANDARDS NOW
OR AT A LATER DATE WAS NOT FREE FROM DIFFICULTIES.  MOREOVER, THE
WISDOM OF THE DECISION MADE CAN BE CONTESTED AS IS SHOWN IN THE
DISSENTING OPINIONS OF TWO COMMISSIONERS.  BUT COURTS SHOULD NOT
OVERRULE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION MERELY BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH
ITS WISDOM.  FN12  WE CANNOT SAY THE DISTRICT COURT MISAPPREHENDED OR
MISAPPLIED THE PROPER JUDICIAL STANDARD IN HOLDING THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS
A MATTER OF LAW.  FN13 

WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE REOPENED ITS PROCEEDINGS TO PERMIT
RCA TO OFFER PROOF OF NEW DISCOVERIES FOR ITS SYSTEM WAS A QUESTION
WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION WHICH WE FIND WAS NOT ABUSED. 
FN14  WE HAVE CONSIDERED OTHER MINOR CONTENTIONS MADE BY RCA BUT ARE
SATISFIED WITH THE WAY THE DISTRICT COURT DISPOSED OF THEM. 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE SUBSIDIARIES ARE THE NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. AND RCA
VICTOR DISTRIBUTING CORP. LATER, OTHER PARTIES WERE PERMITTED OVER THE
COMMISSION'S OBJECTION TO INTERVENE IN SUPPORT OF RCA'S POSITION.  THE
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM (CBS) INTERVENED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT. 

FN2  THE ORDER ALSO REJECTED A SYSTEM PROPOSED BY COLOR TELEVISION,
INC., WHICH IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS LITIGATION. 

FN3  95 F.SUPP.  660(N.D. ILL.). 

FN4  "AFTER LISTENING TO MANY HOURS OF ORAL ARGUMENT BY ABLE COUNSEL
REPRESENTING THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, WE FORMED SOME RATHER DEFINITE
IMPRESSIONS RELATIVE TO THE MERITS OF THE ORDER, AS WELL AS THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION UPON WHICH IT RESTS.  AND OUR READING
AND STUDY OF THE NUMEROUS AND VOLUMINOUS BRIEFS WITH WHICH WE HAVE BEEN
FAVORED HAVE NOT ALTERED OR REMOVED THOSE IMPRESSIONS.  ALSO, IN
STUDYING THE CASE, WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FREE OUR MINDS OF THE
QUESTION AS TO WHY WE SHOULD DEVOTE THE TIME AND ENERGY WHICH THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE MERITS, REALIZING AS WE MUST THAT THE
CONTROVERSY CAN ONLY BE FINALLY TERMINATED BY A DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE ANY DECISION WE MAKE IS APPEALABLE TO THAT
COURT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND WE WERE INFORMED DURING ORAL ARGUMENT,
IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, THAT WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT BE EXPECTED, THAT IS,
THAT THE AGGRIEVED PARTY OR PARTIES WILL IMMEDIATELY APPEAL.  IN OTHER
WORDS, THIS IS LITTLE MORE THAN A PRACTICE SESSION WHERE THE PARTIES
PREPARE AND TEST THEIR AMMUNITION FOR THE BIG BATTLE AHEAD."  95
F.SUPP.  AT 664. 

FN5  47 U.S.C. SEC. 303:  "  ...  (THE) COMMISSION  ...  AS PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY REQUIRES, SHALL - 

     . .         .         .         . 

"(C)  ASSIGN BANDS OF FREQUENCIES TO THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF STATIONS,
AND ASSIGN FREQUENCIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL STATION AND DETERMINE THE
POWER WHICH EACH STATION SHALL USE AND THE TIME DURING WHICH IT MAY
OPERATE; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(E) REGULATE THE KIND OF APPARATUS TO BE USED WITH RESPECT TO ITS
EXTERNAL EFFECTS AND THE PURITY AND SHARPNESS OF THE EMISSIONS FROM
EACH STATION AND FROM THE APPARATUS THEREIN; 

"(F)  MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LAW AS IT MAY DEEM
NECESSARY TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE BETWEEN STATIONS AND TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER  ... 

"(G)  STUDY NEW USES FOR RADIO, PROVIDE FOR EXPERIMENTAL USES OF
FREQUENCIES, AND GENERALLY ENCOURAGE THE LARGER AND MORE EFFECTIVE USE
OF RADIO IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST." 

FN6  THE COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY BELIEVED THAT CBS HAD THE BEST SYSTEM
PRESENTLY AVAILABLE, ALTHOUGH TWO COMMISSIONERS DISSENTED ON OTHER
GROUNDS.  THE RELATIVE MERITS AND DEMERITS OF THE RCA AND CBS SYSTEMS
WERE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

"(THE) RCA SYSTEM (IS) DEFICIENT IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS: 

"(A)  THE COLOR FIDELITY OF THE RCA PICTURE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. 

"(B)  THE TEXTURE OF THE COLOR PICTURE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. 

"(C)  THE RECEIVING EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY THE RCA SYSTEM IS
EXCEEDINGLY COMPLEX. 

"(D)  THE EQUIPMENT UTILIZED AT THE STATION IS EXCEEDINGLY COMPLEX. 

"(E)  THE RCA COLOR SYSTEM IS MUCH MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO CERTAIN KINDS
OF INTERFERENCE THAN THE PRESENT MONOCHROME SYSTEM OR THE CBS SYSTEM. 

"(F)  THERE IS NOT ADEQUATE ASSURANCE IN THE RECORD THAT RCA COLOR
PICTURES CAN BE TRANSMITTED OVER THE 2.7 MEGACYCLE COAXIAL CABLE
FACILITIES. 

"(G)  THE RCA SYSTEM HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL FIELD
TESTING. 

     .   .         .         .         . 

"(THE) CBS SYSTEM PRODUCES A COLOR PICTURE THAT IS MOST SATISFACTORY
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TEXTURE, COLOR FIDELITY AND CONTRAST.   ...
(RECEIVERS) AND STATION EQUIPMENT ARE SIMPLE TO OPERATE AND  ...
RECEIVERS WHEN PRODUCED ON A MASS MARKETING BASIS SHOULD BE WITHIN THE
ECONOMIC REACH OF THE GREAT MASS OF PURCHASING PUBLIC.   ...  (EVEN)
WITH PRESENT EQUIPMENT THE CBS SYSTEM CAN PRODUCE COLOR PICTURES OF
SUFFICIENT BRIGHTNESS WITHOUT OBJECTIONABLE FLICKER TO BE ADEQUATE FOR
HOME USE AND  ...  THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING LONG PERSISTENCE PHOSPHORS
SHOWS THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC METHOD AVAILABLE FOR STILL FURTHER
INCREASING BRIGHTNESS WITH NO OBJECTIONABLE FLICKER.  FINALLY,  ...
WHILE THE CBS SYSTEM HAS LESS GEOMETRIC RESOLUTION THAN THE PRESENT
MONOCHROME SYSTEM THE ADDITION OF COLOR TO THE PICTURE MORE THAN
OUTWEIGHS THE LOSS IN GEOMETRIC RESOLUTION SO FAR AS APPARENT
DEFINITION IS CONCERNED."  SECOND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION, OCTOBER 10,
1950, 1 PIKE & FISCHER RADIO REG. (P. & F.), $* 91:26, PP. 91:441-442. 

FN7  THE FACTS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION APPEAR IN TWO REPORTS ON COLOR
TELEVISION ISSUES.  FIRST REPORT OF THE COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 1, 1950,
1 P. & F. $* 91:24, P. 91:261; SECOND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION, OCTOBER
10, 1950, 1 P. & F. $* 91:26, P. 91:441.  THE DISTRICT COURT DESCRIBED
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:  "THE HEARING,
PARTICIPATED IN BY ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, COMMENCED SEPTEMBER
26, 1949 AND ENDED MAY 26, 1950.  IN ALL, FIFTY-THREE DIFFERENT
WITNESSES WERE HEARD AND 265 EXHIBITS RECEIVED.  THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
HEARING COVERS 9717 PAGES.  DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1949 TO
FEBRUARY 6, 1950, EXTENSIVE FIELD TESTS WERE MADE OF THE THREE SYSTEMS
(RCA, CBS, COLOR TELEVISION, INC.) PROPOSED.  PROGRESS REPORTS
CONCERNING THESE TESTS WERE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION BY THE THREE
PROPONENTS DURING DECEMBER 1949 AND JANUARY 1950.  COMPARATIVE
DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE THREE PROPOSED SYSTEMS WERE MADE ON DIFFERENT
DATES UNTIL MAY 17, 1950."  95 F.SUPP.  AT 665.    FN9  SEE THE
PARTICULARLY INTERESTING HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF THESE EFFORTS IN
COMMISSIONER JONES' DISSENT TO THE FIRST REPORT OF THE COMMISSION,
SEPTEMBER 1, 1950, 1 P. & F. $* 91:24, PP. 91:346-447.  HIS VIEW WAS
THAT COLOR TELEVISION STANDARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED LONG
BEFORE THEY WERE. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN12  NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190, 224. 

FN13  UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 340 U.S. 474, 490-491. 

FN14  SEE UNITED STATES V. PIERCE AUTO LINES, 327 U.S. 515, 534-535. 
WITH RESPECT TO REOPENING THE RECORD, THE COMMISSION SAID IN PART:  "
...  (A) NEW TELEVISION SYSTEM IS NOT ENTITLED TO A HEARING OR A
REOPENING OF A HEARING SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF A PAPER PRESENTATION.  IN
THE RADIO FIELD MANY THEORETICAL SYSTEMS EXIST AND CAN BE DESCRIBED ON
PAPER BUT IT IS A LONG STEP FROM THIS PROCESS TO SUCCESSFUL OPERATION. 
THERE CAN BE NO ASSURANCE THAT A SYSTEM IS GOING TO WORK UNTIL THE
APPARATUS HAS BEEN BUILT AND HAS BEEN TESTED.  NONE OF THE NEW SYSTEMS
OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SYSTEMS MEET THESE TESTS SO AS TO WARRANT REOPENING
OF THE HEARING.  ... 

"THE COMMISSION DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER ROOM FOR
EXPERIMENTATION.  ...  MANY OF THE RESULTS OF SUCH EXPERIMENTATION CAN
UNDOUBTEDLY BE ADDED WITHOUT AFFECTING EXISTING RECEIVERS.  AS TO
OTHERS SOME OBSOLESCENCE OF EXISTING RECEIVERS MAY BE INVOLVED IF THE
CHANGES ARE ADOPTED.  IN THE INTEREST OF STABILITY THIS LATTER TYPE OF
CHANGE WILL NOT BE ADOPTED UNLESS THE IMPROVEMENT IS SUBSTANTIAL IN
NATURE, WHEN COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT OF DISLOCATION INVOLVED.  BUT WHEN
SUCH AN IMPROVEMENT DOES COME ALONG, THE COMMISSION CANNOT REFUSE TO
CONSIDER IT MERELY BECAUSE THE OWNERS OF EXISTING RECEIVERS MIGHT BE
COMPELLED TO SPEND ADDITIONAL MONEY TO CONTINUE RECEIVING PROGRAMS. 

"  ...  (ANY) IMPROVEMENT THAT RESULTS FROM THE EXPERIMENTATION MIGHT
FACE THE PROBLEM OF BEING INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRESENT MONOCHROME
SYSTEM OR THE COLOR SYSTEM WE ARE ADOPTING TODAY.  IN THAT EVENT, THE
NEW COLOR SYSTEM OR OTHER IMPROVEMENT WILL HAVE TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN
OF SHOWING THAT THE IMPROVEMENT WHICH RESULTS IS SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO
BE WORTH WHILE WHEN COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT OF DISLOCATION INVOLVED TO
RECEIVERS THEN IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC."  SECOND REPORT OF THE
COMMISSION, OCTOBER 10, 1950, 1 P. & F. $* 91:26, PP. 91:445-446. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DUBITANTE. 

SINCE I AM NOT ALONE IN ENTERTAINING DOUBTS ABOUT THIS CASE THEY HAD
BETTER BE STATED.  THE ULTIMATE ISSUE IS THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT IN
REVIEWING AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ADOPTED
OCTOBER 10, 1950, WHEREBY IT PROMULGATED STANDARDS FOR THE TRANSMISSION
OF COLOR TELEVISION.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE STANDARDS LIES IN THE
SANCTION OF A SYSTEM OF "INCOMPATIBLE" COLOR TELEVISION, THAT IS, A
SYSTEM REQUIRING A CHANGE IN EXISTING RECEIVERS FOR THE RECEPTION OF
BLACK AND WHITE AS WELL AS COLORED PICTURES.  THE SYSTEM SANCTIONED BY
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WILL REQUIRE THE ADDITION OF AN APPOPRIATE
GADGET TO THE MILLIONS OF OUTSTANDING RECEIVING SETS AT A VARIOUSLY
ESTIMATED, BUT IN ANY EVENT SUBSTANTIAL, COST.  FROM THE POINT OF VIEW
OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IT IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE TO HAVE A COLOR
TELEVISION SYSTEM THAT IS COMPATIBLE.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
SANCTIONING AN INCOMPATIBLE SYSTEM IS BASED NOT ON THE SCIENTIFIC
UNATTAINABILITY OF A COMPATIBLE SYSTEM, NOR EVEN ON A FORECAST THAT ITS
FEASIBILITY IS REMOTE.  IT RESTS ON THE DETERMINATION THAT INASMUCH AS
COMPATIBILITY HAS NOT YET BEEN ACHIEVED, WHILE A WORKABLE INCOMPATIBLE
SYSTEM HAS PROVEN ITSELF, SUCH A SYSTEM, HOWEVER INTRINSICALLY
UNSATISFACTORY, OUGHT NO LONGER TO BE WITHHELD FROM THE PUBLIC. 

AFTER HEARINGS ON THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSALS WERE CLOSED, THE RADIO
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, PERSISTENT PROMOTER OF A COMPATIBLE SYSTEM,
SUGGESTED TO THE COMMISSION FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE PROGRESS MADE
AFTER THE COMMISSION HAD TAKEN THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT IN MAY,
1950.  TO BE SURE, THIS PROFFER OF RELEVANT INFORMATION CONCERNING
PROGRESS TOWARD THE DESIRED GOAL WAS MADE BY AN INTERESTED PARTY.  BUT
WITHIN THE COMMISSION ITSELF THE NEED FOR FURTHER LIGHT WAS URGED IN
VIEW OF THE RAPID DEVELOPMENT THAT HAD BEEN MADE SINCE THE COMMISSION'S
HEARINGS GOT UNDER WAY.  THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY WAS THUS PUT BY
COMMISSION HENNOCK:  "IT IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE TO THE FUTURE OF
TELEVISION THAT WE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO GAIN THE TIME NECESSARY FOR
FURTHER EXPERIMENTATION LEADING TO THE PERFECTION OF A COMPATIBLE COLOR
TELEVISION SYSTEM."  THE COMMISSION DID NOT RULE OUT REASONABLE HOPE
FOR THE EARLY ATTAINMENT OF COMPATIBILITY.  INDEED, IT GAVE GROUND FOR
BELIEVING THAT SUCCESS OF EXPERIMENTATION TO THAT END IS IMMINENT.  BUT
IT SHUT OFF FURTHER INQUIRY INTO DEVELOPMENTS IT RECOGNIZED HAD GROWN
APACE BECAUSE IN ITS "SOUND DISCRETION" IT CONCLUDED THAT "A DELAY IN
REACHING A DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THE ADOPTION OF STANDARDS FOR
COLOR TELEVISION SERVICE  ...  WOULD NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO THE ORDERLY
AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPATCH OF THE COMMISSION'S BUSINESS AND WOULD NOT
BEST SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE  ...  " 

THE REAL QUESTION, AS I HAVE INDICATED, IS WHETHER THIS DETERMINATION
OF THE COMMISSION, CONSIDERING ITS NATURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES, IS
BEYOND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY. 

I AM NO FRIEND OF JUDICIAL INTRUSION INTO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS.  I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT
THAT WOULD CRAMP THE BROAD POWERS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 
SEE NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190.  I HAVE
NO DOUBT THAT IF CONGRESS CHOSE TO WITHDRAW ALL COURT REVIEW FROM THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS IT WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONALLY FREE TO DO SO.  SEE
STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288, 312.  AND I DEEM IT ESSENTIAL TO THE
VITALITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THAT, EVEN WHEN SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE COMMISSION BE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE ITS POWERS
UNHAMPERED BY THE RESTRICTIVE PROCEDURES APPROPRIATE FOR LITIGATION IN
THE COURTS.  SEE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. NATIONAL BROADCASTING
CO., 319 U.S. 239, 248.  BUT SO LONG AS THE CONGRESS HAS DEEMED IT
RIGHT TO SUBJECT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW BY THIS COURT,
THE DUTY OF ANALYZING THE ESSENTIAL ISSUES OF AN ORDER CANNOT BE
ESCAPED BY TOO EASY RELIANCE ON THE CONCLUSIONS OF A DISTRICT COURT OR
ON THE INDISPUTABLE FORMULA THAT AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE
COMMISSION IS NOT TO BE DISPLACED BY A CONTRARY EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. 

WHAT MAY BE AN OBVIOUS MATTER OF JUDGMENT FOR THE COMMISSION IN ONE
SITUATION MAY SO PROFOUNDLY AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ANOTHER AS
NOT TO BE A MERE EXERCISE OF CONVENTIONAL DISCRETION.  DETERMINATIONS
BY THE COMMISSION ARE NOT ABSTRACT DETERMINATIONS.  WE ARE NOT HERE
CALLED UPON TO PASS ON THE ABSTRACT QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSION MAY
REFUSE TO RECONSIDER A PROBLEM BEFORE IT ALTHOUGH ENLIGHTENING NEW
EVIDENCE IS PROMISED.  WE ARE FACED WITH A PARTICULAR ORDER OF GREAT
SIGNIFICANCE.  IT IS NOT THE EFFECT OF THIS ORDER UPON COMMERCIAL
RIVALRIES THAT GIVES IT MOMENT.  THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WAS NOT
DESIGNED AS A CODE FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF CONFLICTING PRIVATE
INTERESTS.  IT IS THE FACT THAT THE ORDER ORIGINATES COLOR TELEVISION,
WITH FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

THE ASSUMPTION UNDERLYING OUR SYSTEM OF REGULATION IS THAT THE
NATIONAL INTEREST WILL BE FURTHERED BY THE FULLEST POSSIBLE USE OF
COMPETITION.  AT SOME POINT, OF COURSE, THE COMMISSION MUST FIX
STANDARDS LIMITING COMPETITION.  BUT ONCE THOSE STANDARDS ARE FIXED,
THE INCENTIVE FOR IMPROVEMENT IS RELAXED.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE MONEY
SPENT BY THE PUBLIC TO ADAPT AND CONVERT THE MILLIONS OF SETS NOW IN
USE MAY WELL MAKE THE COMMISSION RELUCTANT TO SANCTION NEW AND BETTER
STANDARDS FOR COLOR PICTURES IF THOSE STANDARDS WOULD OUTMODE RECEIVING
SETS ADAPTED TO THE SYSTEM ALREADY IN USE.  AND EVEN IF THE COMMISSION
IS WILLING TO ADOPT A SECOND, INCONSISTENT SET OF COLOR TELEVISION
STANDARDS SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, THE RESULT WILL BE ECONOMIC WASTE ON
A VAST SCALE. 

AND ALL TO WHAT END?  AND FOR WHAT OVERRIDING GAIN?  OF COURSE THE
COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE MILLENNIUM.  OF COURSE IT DOES
NOT HAVE TO WITHHOLD COLOR PICTURES FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
INDEFINITELY BECAUSE IMPROVEMENTS IN COLOR TRANSMISSION WILL STEADILY
BE PERFECTED.  THAT IS NOT WHAT IS INVOLVED HERE.  WHAT THE COMMISSION
HERE DECIDED IS THAT IT COULD NOT WAIT, OR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC COULD
NOT WAIT, A LITTLE WHILE LONGER, WITH EVERY PROSPECT OF A DEVELOPMENT
WHICH, WHEN IT DOES COME, CONCEDEDLY WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
MORE THAN THE INCOMPATIBLE SYSTEM NOW AUTHORIZED.  SURELY WHAT
CONSTITUTES THE PUBLIC INTEREST ON AN ISSUE LIKE THIS IS NOT ONE OF
THOSE EXPERT MATTERS AS TO WHICH COURTS SHOULD PROPERLY BOW TO THE
COMMISSION'S EXPERTNESS.  IN ANY EVENT, NOTHING WAS SUBMITTED TO US ON
ARGUMENT, NOR DO I FIND ANYTHING IN THE COMMISSION'S BRIEF OF 150
PAGES, WHICH GIVES ANY HINT AS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT BROOKS NO
DELAY IN GETTING COLOR TELEVISION EVEN THOUGH THE METHOD BY WHICH IT
WILL GET IT IS INTRINSICALLY UNDESIRABLE, INEVITABLY LIMITS THE
POSSIBILITIES OF AN IMPROVED SYSTEM OR, IN ANY EVENT, LEADS TO
POTENTIAL GREAT ECONOMIC WASTE.  THE ONLY BASIS FOR THIS HASTE IS THAT
THE DESIRED BETTER METHOD HAS NOT YET PROVED ITSELF AND IN VIEW OF PAST
FAILURES THERE IS NO GREAT ASSURANCE OF EARLY SUCCESS.  AND SO, SINCE A
SYSTEM OF COLOR TELEVISION, THOUGH WITH OBVIOUS DISADVANTAGES, IS
AVAILABLE, THE REQUISITE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH MUST CONTROL THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORIZATION IS ESTABLISHED.  I DO NOT AGREE. 

ONE OF THE MORE IMPORTANT SOURCES OF THE RETARDATION OR REGRESSION OF
CIVILIZATION IS MAN'S TENDENCY TO USE NEW INVENTIONS INDISCRIMINATELY
OR TOO HURRIEDLY WITHOUT ADEQUATE REFLECTION OF LONG-RANGE
CONSEQUENCES.  NO DOUBT THE RADIO ENLARGES MAN'S HORIZON.  BUT BY
MAKING HIM A CAPTIVE LISTENER IT MAY MAKE FOR SPIRITUAL
IMPOVERISHMENT.  INDISCRIMINATE USE OF THE RADIO DENIES HIM THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFLECTION AND FOR SATISFYING THOSE NEEDS OF
WITHDRAWAL OF WHICH SILENT PRAYER IS ONLY ONE MANIFESTATION.  IT IS AN
UNCRITICAL ASSUMPTION THAT EVERY FORM OF REPORTING OR COMMUNICATION IS
EQUALLY ADAPTABLE TO EVERY SITUATION.  THUS, THERE MAY BE A MODE OF
WHAT IS CALLED REPORTING WHICH MAY DEFEAT THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE. 

DOUBTLESS, TELEVISION MAY FIND A PLACE AMONG THE DEVICES OF
EDUCATION; BUT MUCH LONG-HEADED THOUGHT AND PATIENT EXPERIMENTATION ARE
DEMANDED LEST UNCRITICAL USE MAY LEAD TO HASTY JETTISONING OF HARD-WON
GAINS OF CIVILIZATION.  THE RATIONAL PROCESS OF TRIAL AND ERROR IMPLIES
A WARY USE OF NOVELTY AND A CRITICAL ADOPTION OF CHANGE.  WHEN A
COLLEGE HEAD CAN SERIOUSLY SUGGEST, NOT BY WAY OF IRONY, THAT SOON
THERE WILL BE NO NEED OF PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO READ - THAT ILLITERACY
WILL BE THE SAVING OF WASTEFUL LABOR - ONE GETS AN IDEA OF THE
POSSIBILITIES OF THE NEW BARBARISM PARADING AS SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS. 

MAN FORGETS AT TERRIBLE COST THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH AN EVENT
IS PLACED MAY POWERFULLY DETERMINE ITS EFFECT.  DISCLOSURE CONVEYED BY
THE LIMITATIONS AND POWER OF THE CAMERA DOES NOT CONVEY THE SAME THINGS
TO THE MIND AS DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE LIMITATIONS AND POWER OF PEN OR
VOICE.  THE RANGE OF PRESENTATION, THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISTORTION,
THE IMPACT ON REASON, THE EFFECT ON THE LOOKER-ON AS AGAINST THE READER
HEARER, VARY; AND THE DIFFERENCES MAY BE VITAL.  JUDGMENT MAY BE
CONFUSED INSTEAD OF ENLIGHTENED.  FEELING MAY BE AGITATED, NOT GUIDED;
REASON DEFLECTED, NOT ENLISTED.  REASON - THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS -
HAS ITS OWN REQUIREMENTS, MET BY ONE METHOD AND FRUSTRATED BY ANOTHER*
. 

*"BROADCASTING AS AN INFLUENCE ON MEN'S MINDS HAS GREAT
POSSIBILITIES, EITHER OF GOOD OR EVIL.  THE GOOD IS THAT IF
BROADCASTING CAN FIND A SERIOUS AUDIENCE IT IS AN UNRIVALLED MEANS OF
BRINGING VITAL ISSUES TO WIDER UNDERSTANDING.  THE EVIL IS THAT
BROADCASTING IS CAPABLE OF INCREASING PERHAPS THE MOST SERIOUS OF ALL
DANGERS WHICH THREATEN DEMOCRACY AND FREE INSTITUTIONS TODAY - THE
DANGER OF PASSIVITY - OF ACCEPTANCE BY MASSES OF ORDERS GIVEN TO THEM
AND OF THINGS SAID TO THEM.  BROADCASTING HAS IN ITSELF A TENDENCY TO
ENCOURAGE PASSIVITY, FOR LISTENING AS SUCH, IF ONE DOES NO MORE, IS A
PASSIVE OCCUPATION.  TELEVISION MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE THIS DANGER OF
PASSIVITY IN EVEN STRONGER FORM."  REPORT OF THE BROADCASTING
COMMITTEE, 1949(CMD.  8116, 1951) 75. 

WHAT EVIL WOULD BE ENCOURAGED, WHAT GOOD RETARDED BY DELAY?  BY
HASTE, WOULD MORALITY BE ENHANCED, INSIGHT DEEPENED, AND JUDGMENT
ENLIGHTENED?  IS IT EVEN ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO GIVE GOVERNMENTAL
SANCTION TO COLOR TELEVISION AT THE FIRST PRACTICABLE MOMENT, OR WILL
IT NOT IN FACT SERVE AS AN ADDED DRAIN ON RAW MATERIALS FOR WHICH THE
NATIONAL SECURITY HAS MORE EXIGENT NEEDS? 

FINALLY, WE ARE TOLD THAT THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION AS TO THE
LIKELY PROSPECT OF EARLY ATTAINMENT OF COMPATIBILITY IS A MATTER WITHIN
ITS COMPETENCE AND NOT SUBJECT TO COURT REVIEW.  BUT PROPHECY OF
TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY IS HARDLY IN THE DOMAIN OF EXPERTNESS SO LONG
AS SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL BARRIERS DO NOT MAKE THE PROSPECT
FANCIFUL.  IN ANY EVENT, THIS COURT IS NOT WITHOUT EXPERIENCE IN
UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF SUCH COMPLICATED ISSUES.  WE HAVE HAD
OCCASION BEFORE TO CONSIDER COMPLEX SCIENTIFIC MATTERS.  TELEPHONE
CASES, 126 U.S. 1; MCCORMICK V. GRAHAM'S ADM'R, 129 U.S. 1(HARVESTER);
CORONA CO. V. DOVAN CORP., 276 U.S. 358(IMPROVEMENT IN VULCANIZATION OF
RUBBER); DEFOREST RADIO CO. V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 283 U.S. 664(HIGH
VACUUM DISCHARGE TUBE); RADIO CORPORATION V. RADIO ENGINEERING
LABORATORIES, 293 U.S. 1(AUDION OSCILLATOR); MARCONI WIRELESS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 1(WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY IMPROVEMENT); AND
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO. V. GLOBE OIL & RFG.  CO., 322 U.S. 471(OIL
CRACKING PROCESS).    EXPERIENCE HAS MADE IT AXIOMATIC TO ESCHEW
DOGMATISM IN PREDICTING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS IN
THE REALMS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.  ESPECIALLY WHEN THE INCENTIVE IS
GREAT, INVENTION CAN RAPIDLY UPSET PREVAILING OPINIONS OF FEASIBILITY. 
ONE MAY EVEN GENERALIZE THAT ONCE THE DEADLOCK IN A PARTICULAR FIELD OF
INQUIRY IS BROKEN PROGRESS BECOMES RAPID.  THUS, THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY
DEVELOPED APACE AFTER A BOTTLENECK HAD BEEN BROKEN IN THE CHEMISTRY OF
RUBBERS.  ONCE THE EFFICACY OF SULFANILAMIDE WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED,
COMPETENT INVESTIGATORS WERE AT WORK EXPERIMENTING WITH THOUSANDS OF
COMPOUNDS, AND NEW AND BETTER ANTIBIOTICS BECAME AVAILABLE IN A
CONTINUOUS STREAM.  A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE RAPID CHANGE OF OPINION THAT
OFTEN OCCURS IN JUDGMENT OF FEASIBILITY IS FURNISHED BY THE CYCLOTRON. 
ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO DISTINGUISHED NUCLEAR PHYSICISTS PROCLAIMED THE
LIMITS ON THE ENERGY TO WHICH PARTICLES COULD BE ACCELERATED BY THE USE
OF A CYCLOTRON.  IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT 12,000,000-VOLT PROTONS WERE THE
MAXIMUM OBTAINABLE.  WITHIN A YEAR THE LIMITATIONS PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED
WERE CHALLENGED.  AT THE PRESENT TIME THERE ARE, I BELIEVE, IN
OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES AT LEAST FOUR CYCLOTRONS WHICH
ACCELERATE PROTONS TO ENERGIES OF ABOUT 400,000,000 VOLTS.  ONE NEED
NOT HAVE THE INSIGHT OF A GREAT SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATOR, NOR THE
RASHNESS OF THE UNTUTORED, TO BE CONFIDENT THAT THE PROGNOSTICATIONS
NOW MADE IN REGARD TO THE FEASIBILITY OF A "COMPATIBLE" COLOR
TELEVISION SYSTEM WILL BE FALSIFIED IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. 
..END :




STANDARD OIL CO. V. NEW JERSEY, 341 U.S. 428 


NO. 384.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 28, 1951.  - 5 N.J. 281,
74 A.2D 565, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE NEW JERSEY ESCHEAT ACT, PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED IN A
STATE COURT TO ESCHEAT TO THE STATE CERTAIN PERSONAL PROPERTY,
INCLUDING UNCLAIMED SHARES OF APPELLANT CORPORATION'S STOCK AND
UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.  PERSONAL SERVICE WAS MADE ON APPELLANT, AND
NOTICE IDENTIFYING THE PROPERTY AND THE LAST-KNOWN OWNERS WAS GIVEN BY
PUBLICATION.  APPELLANT IS A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION BUT HAS NO OFFICE
OR PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE STATE EXCEPT A STATUTORY REGISTERED
OFFICE.  IT HAS NO TANGIBLE PROPERTY IN THE STATE EXCEPT ITS STOCK AND
TRANSFER BOOKS.  THE STOCK WAS ISSUED AND THE DIVIDENDS HELD IN OTHER
STATES; AND THE LAST-KNOWN ADDRESSES OF THE OWNERS WERE CHIEFLY IN
OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  OVER APPELLANT'S OBJECTION TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, IT WAS
DECREED THAT THE UNCLAIMED STOCK AND DIVIDENDS HAD ESCHEATED TO THE
STATE.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 429-443. 

1. THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEW JERSEY, AND WHICH WAS GIVEN, WAS ADEQUATE TO BIND
INTERESTED PERSONS.  PP. 432-435. 

2.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS IN
VIOLATION OF ART. I, SEC. 10, $* 1, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP.
435-436. 

3. REGARDLESS OF THEORIES AS TO THEIR SITUS, STOCK CERTIFICATES AND
UNDELIVERED DIVIDENDS MAY BE ABANDONED PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE
DISPOSITION OF THE DOMICILIARY STATE OF THE CORPORATION WHEN THE
WHEREABOUTS OF THE OWNERS ARE UNKNOWN FOR SUCH LENGTHS OF TIME, AND
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AS PERMIT A DECLARATION OF ABANDONMENT.  PP.
437-442. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT APPELLANT IS A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, AMENABLE TO
PROCESS THROUGH ITS DESIGNATED AGENT AT ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN NEW
JERSEY, GAVE NEW JERSEY POWER TO SEIZE THE RES HERE INVOLVED - I.E.,
THE "DEBTS OR DEMANDS DUE TO THE ESCHEATED ESTATE."  PP. 438-439. 

(B)  NO MATTER WHERE APPELLANT'S ASSETS MAY BE, SINCE IT IS ITS
OBLIGATION TO PAY TO THE ESCHEATED ESTATE THAT IS TAKEN, PERSONAL
SERVICE ON APPELLANT EFFECTS A SEIZURE OF THAT OBLIGATION.  P. 439. 

(C)  SINCE CHOSES IN ACTION HAVE NO TANGIBLE EXISTENCE, CONTROL OVER
THEM CAN ONLY ARISE FROM CONTROL OVER THE PERSONS WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS
ARE THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.  PP. 439-440. 

(D)  SINCE THE NEW JERSEY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF APPELLANT BY
PERSONAL SERVICE AND OF THE OWNERS OF THE STOCK AND DIVIDENDS THROUGH
NOTICE OR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION, NEW JERSEY HAD POWER TO ACT ON THEIR
RIGHTS RESPECTING THESE CHOSES IN ACTION WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS. 
PP. 440-441. 

4.  UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, THE DEBTS AND DEMANDS AGAINST APPELLANT REPRESENTED BY
THE STOCK AND DIVIDENDS CANNOT BE TAKEN FROM APPELLANT BY ANOTHER STATE
WHEN THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN FROM APPELLANT BY A VALID JUDGMENT OF
NEW JERSEY.  PP. 442-443. 

STANDARD OIL CO. V. NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY. 

A NEW JERSEY COURT DECREED ESCHEAT TO THE STATE OF CERTAIN UNCLAIMED
STOCK OF APPELLANT AND OF UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.  2 N.J. SUPER.  442, 64
A.2D 386; 5 N.J. SUPER.  460, 68 A.2D 499.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
JERSEY AFFIRMED.  5 N.J. 281, 74 A.2D 565.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 443. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, APPEALS FROM A
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY INSOFAR AS IT DECLARES
ESCHEATED TO THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY UNPAID DIVIDENDS DECLARED UPON THE
STOCK OF STANDARD OIL, AND TWELVE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE
COMPANY.  THE NEW JERSEY ESCHEAT ACT READS IN PART: 

"IF ANY PERSON, WHO, AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, HAS BEEN OR SHALL HAVE
BEEN, THE OWNER OF ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THIS STATE, AND SHALL
HAVE DIED, OR SHALL DIE, INTESTATE, WITHOUT HEIRS OR KNOWN KINDRED,
CAPABLE OF INHERITING THE SAME, AND WITHOUT LEAVING A SURVIVING SPOUSE,
SUCH PERSONAL PROPERTY, OF WHATSOEVER NATURE THE SAME MAY BE, SHALL
ESCHEAT TO THE STATE." 

"WHENEVER THE OWNER, BENEFICIAL OWNER, OR PERSON ENTITLED TO ANY
PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THIS STATE, HAS BEEN OR SHALL BE AND REMAIN
UNKNOWN FOR THE PERIOD OF FOURTEEN SUCCESSIVE YEARS, OR WHENEVER THE
WHEREABOUTS OF SUCH OWNER, BENEFICIAL OWNER OR PERSON, HAS BEEN OR
SHALL BE AND REMAIN UNKNOWN FOR THE PERIOD OF FOURTEEN SUCCESSIVE
YEARS, OR WHENEVER ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY WHEREVER SITUATE HAS BEEN OR
SHALL BE AND REMAIN UNCLAIMED FOR THE PERIOD OF FOURTEEN SUCCESSIVE
YEARS, THEN, IN ANY SUCH EVENT, SUCH PERSONAL PROPERTY SHALL ESCHEAT TO
THE STATE."  N.J. REV. STAT. (CUM. SUPP. 1945-1947) 2:53-16, 2:53-17. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT, A PETITION IN
THE NAME OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY FOR A DECREE ESCHEATING CERTAIN
PERSONAL PROPERTY,  FN1  INCLUDING THE PROPERTY IN ISSUE HERE, WAS
FILED IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY. 
THE PETITION ALLEGED THAT APPELLANT HAD IN ITS CUSTODY OR POSSESSION
PROPERTY WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO ESCHEAT UNDER THE ACT FOR EACH OF THE
ALTERNATIVE REASONS LISTED IN THE ABOVE PROVISIONS:  THE OWNERS OF THE
PROPERTY HAD DIED INTESTATE WITHOUT LEAVING ANYONE CAPABLE OF TAKING
THE PROPERTY; THE OWNERS HAD BEEN UNKNOWN FOR FOURTEEN SUCCESSIVE
YEARS; THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE OWNERS HAD BEEN UNKNOWN FOR FOURTEEN
SUCCESSIVE YEARS; THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN UNCLAIMED FOR FOURTEEN
SUCCESSIVE YEARS. 

THE APPELLANT ANSWERED THE PETITION AND, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING,
THE CHANCERY DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ENTERED A FINAL JUDGMENT
ORDERING ESCHEAT OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY.  2 N.J. SUPER.  442, 64 A.2D
386; 5 N.J. SUPER.  460, 68 A.2D 499.  THIS JUDGMENT WAS MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY.  5 N.J. 281,
74 A.2D 565. 

STANDARD OIL, APPEALING FROM THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
JERSEY, CLAIMS THAT THE NEW JERSEY ESCHEAT ACT AND THE JUDGMENT
THEREUNDER DEPRIVED THE COMPANY OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DEPRIVATION IS ALLEGED TO ARISE FROM THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT OF
ESCHEAT DOES NOT PROTECT STANDARD OIL FROM LATER LIABILITY TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS WHOSE CLAIMS TO STOCK AND DIVIDENDS ARE ESCHEATED,
BECAUSE: (1) BOTH THE NOTICE TO THE CLAIMANTS OF THE PROPERTY
PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE AND THE NOTICE ACTUALLY PUBLISHED WERE SO
INADEQUATE THAT CLAIMANTS WERE AFFORDED NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
LEARN OF THE ESCHEAT PROCEEDING AND OF ITS EFFECT ON THEIR CLAIMS, OR
TO APPEAR AND PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS; (2) THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACTS
OF THE PERSONS WHOSE PROPERTY WAS ESCHEATED WAS IMPAIRED BY THE STATUTE
AND JUDGMENT THEREUNDER IN VIOLATION OF ART. I, SEC. 10, P1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; (3) THE NEW JERSEY COURTS WERE
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT SINCE NEITHER THE SHARES OF
STOCK NOR THE DIVIDENDS HAD A SITUS IN NEW JERSEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESCHEAT, NOR WERE EITHER LAWFULLY SEIZED IN THE ESCHEAT PROCEEDINGS. 
FN2 

NOTICE. - APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF ESCHEAT DEPRIVES
THE VARIOUS CLAIMANTS AGAINST STANDARD OIL OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT
ADEQUATE NOTICE, AND SINCE THE CLAIMANTS MAY THEREFORE SUE APPELLANT
LATER AND RECOVER ON THESE CLAIMS, THIS STATUTE AND JUDGMENT DEPRIVE
APPELLANT OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  FN3 

THE STATUTE, N.J. REV. STAT. (CUM. SUPP. 1945-1947) 2:53-21,
PROVIDES: 

"A NOTICE CONTAINING A SUMMARY OF THE ORDER DESIGNATING THE TIME AND
PLACE OF HEARING, AS APPROVED BY THE COURT SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN A
MANNER DIRECTED BY THE COURT AND SHALL ALSO BE PUBLISHED ONCE A WEEK
FOR THREE SUCCESSIVE WEEKS IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION
DESIGNATED BY THE COURT; ...  " 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY AUTHORITATIVELY CONSTRUED THIS TO
REQUIRE "THAT THE NOTICE SHALL IDENTIFY THE PROPERTY OF WHICH ESCHEAT
IS SOUGHT AND THE LAST KNOWN OWNER."  5 N.J. AT 307, 74 A.2D AT 577. 
FN4  THE PUBLISHED NOTICE IN THIS CASE CORRESPONDED WITH THIS
CONSTRUCTION.  IT DESCRIBED THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE
COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF N.J. REV. STAT. 2:53-21,
AND CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE PETITION WAS ONE FOR ESCHEAT. 

THIS CASE DIFFERS FROM WUCHTER V. PIZZUTTI, 276 U.S. 13, RELIED ON BY
APPELLANT, SINCE IT IS NOT HERE ATTEMPTED TO VALIDATE A DEFECTIVE
STATUTORY PROVISION FOR NOTICE BY RECOURSE TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
NOTICE WHICH, ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED BY STATUTE, WAS IN FACT GIVEN. 
HERE IT IS THE STATUTE ITSELF, AS INTERPRETED BY THE STATE COURT, WHICH
REQUIRES WHAT WE THINK IS ADEQUATE NOTICE. 

IN SECURITY SAVINGS BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 263 U.S. 282, A CASE
INVOLVING STATUTORY ESCHEAT OF THE BANK DEPOSITS PRESUMED ABANDONED,
WHERE NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY IS KNOWN BY BANK OFFICIALS, BECAUSE
UNUSED AND UNCLAIMED FOR TWENTY YEARS, IT WAS SIMILARLY CONTENDED THE
BANK WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE DEPOSITORS WOULD NOT BE BOUND BY
THE JUDGMENT OF ESCHEAT.  P. 286.  THIS COURT SAID:  "(THE) ESSENTIALS
OF JURISDICTION OVER THE DEPOSITS ARE THAT THERE BE SEIZURE OF THE RES
AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE SUIT; AND REASONABLE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY
TO BE HEARD."  P. 287.  THE PROCEDURAL PROVISION MADE THE DEPOSITORS
AFFECTED PARTIES AND REQUIRED PUBLICATION IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY, ONLY,
OF THE SUMMONS WITH NO REQUIREMENT OF THE DEPOSITORS' ADDRESSES. 
DELIVERY OF A COPY OF THE SUMMONS ON THE BANK WAS COMMANDED.  IT WAS
HELD, P. 287, THAT THE PERSONAL SERVICE ON THE BANK EFFECTED SEIZURE OF
THE DEPOSIT AND THE PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMONS WAS EFFECTIVE AS SIMILAR
PUBLICATION WOULD BE IN LITIGATION INVOLVING UNKNOWN PERSONS WITH
POSSIBLE CLAIMS TO PROPERTY.  CF. ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT,
321 U.S. 233, 243. 

IN MULLANE V. CENTRAL HANOVER TRUST CO., 339 U.S. 306, IN A
PROCEEDING TO SETTLE TRUSTS WITH NUMEROUS PARTIES AS POSSIBLE
BENEFICIARIES WHOSE NAMES AND INTERESTS WERE UNKNOWN TO THE TRUSTEE, WE
COMMENTED ON THE SUBJECT OF NOTICE: 

"THIS COURT HAS NOT HESITATED TO APPROVE OF RESORT TO PUBLICATION AS
A CUSTOMARY SUBSTITUTE IN ANOTHER CLASS OF CASES WHERE IT IS NOT
REASONABLY POSSIBLE OR PRACTICABLE TO GIVE MORE ADEQUATE WARNING."  P.
317. 

WE HELD THAT: 

"ACCORDINGLY WE OVERRULE APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS TO
PUBLISHED NOTICE INSOFAR AS THEY ARE URGED ON BEHALF OF ANY
BENEFICIARIES WHOSE INTERESTS OR ADDRESSES ARE UNKNOWN TO THE
TRUSTEE."  P. 318. 

THE SOUND REASONS STATED IN THE FOREGOING CASES FOR DEEMING THE
NOTICES THERE GIVEN ADEQUATE TO BIND INTERESTED PERSONS IN THE
RESPECTIVE PROCEEDINGS, LEAD US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NOTICE BY
PUBLICATION IN THIS CASE WAS ADEQUATE.  IF THE STATE HAS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF LOOKING AFTER ABANDONED PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ITS
SOVEREIGN POWER, THESE PUBLICATIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO AFFECT THE OWNER'S
RIGHTS. 

IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT.  - APPELLANT ATTACKS THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW
JERSEY ESCHEAT STATUTE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IMPAIRS THE CONTRACT
RIGHTS OF THE OWNERS OF THE DIVIDENDS AND STOCK CERTIFICATES IN
VIOLATION OF ART. I, SEC. 10, P1, OF THE CONSTITUTION:  "NO STATE SHALL
...  PASS ANY  ...  LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS  ...  "
THIS NEW JERSEY LAW WAS ENACTED TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE TO TAKE
POSSESSION OF "PERSONAL PROPERTY" WHENEVER THE OWNER ENTITLED TO THAT
"PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN (NEW JERSEY)  ...  SHALL BE AND REMAIN
UNKNOWN" OR HIS "WHEREABOUTS" REMAIN UNKNOWN OR THE PROPERTY REMAINS
"UNCLAIMED" FOR FOURTEEN SUCCESSIVE YEARS.  N.J. REV. STAT. (CUM. SUPP.
1945-1947) 2:53-15 AND 17.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER A STATE
POSSESSES INHERENT POWER FOR SUCH LEGISLATION AS TO PERSONALTY AS THE
SUCCESSOR TO A PREROGATIVE OF ROYAL SOVEREIGNTY.  FN5 

AS A BROAD PRINCIPLE OF JURISPRUDENCE RATHER THAN AS A RESULT OF THE
EVOLUTION OF LEGAL RULES, IT IS CLEAR THAT A STATE, SUBJECT TO
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, MAY USE ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER TO DISPOSE OF
PROPERTY WITHIN ITS REACH, BELONGING TO UNKNOWN PERSONS.  FN6  SUCH
PROPERTY THUS ESCAPES SEIZURE BY WOULD-BE POSSESSORS AND IS USED FOR
THE GENERAL GOOD RATHER THAN FOR THE CHANCE ENRICHMENT OF PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS.  NORMALLY THE OBLIGOR OR HOLDER AND THE
OBLIGEE OR OWNER OF ABANDONED PROPERTY WOULD, AS HERE, HAVE NO
CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THEMSELVES FOR ITS DISPOSITION IN CASE
OF THE OWNER'S FAILURE TO MAKE CLAIM.  AS THE DISPOSITION OF ABANDONED
PROPERTY IS A FUNCTION OF THE STATE, NO IMPLIED CONTRACT ARISES BETWEEN
OBLIGOR AND OBLIGEE TO DETERMINE THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH PROPERTY. 
CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT BY NEW JERSEY'S
STATUTE, ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE CREATION OF THE OBLIGATIONS HERE
UNDER EXAMINATION, BUT ONLY THE EXERCISE OF A REGULATORY POWER OVER
ABANDONED PROPERTY.  FN7 

SITUS OF PROPERTY.  - APPELLANT ARGUES THAT THE ESCHEAT TO NEW JERSEY
OF THE STOCK AND THE DIVIDENDS DENIES IT DUE PROCESS BECAUSE SUCH
PROPERTY HAS NO SITUS IN NEW JERSEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESCHEAT.  FN8
APPELLANT ALSO CONTENDS THAT IT HAS NEITHER CUSTODY NOR POSSESSION OF
THESE DEBTS OR DEMANDS DUE FROM IT TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS AND THEREFORE
THEY CANNOT BE SEIZED.  SINCE THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE SEIZED OR
ESCHEATED, THE CORPORATION WOULD REMAIN LIABLE TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS, AND
TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENT TO THE STATE DENIES DUE PROCESS. 

APPELLANT HAS NO TANGIBLE PROPERTY IN NEW JERSEY EXCEPT ITS STOCK AND
TRANSFER BOOKS, KEPT AT ITS REGISTERED OFFICE, LOCATED IN THE OFFICE OF
AN INDIVIDUAL, AT FLEMINGTON, NEW JERSEY.  APPELLANT POINTS OUT THAT IN
THE SECURITY SAVINGS BANK CASE, 263 U.S. AT 285, AND THE ANDERSON
NATIONAL BANK CASE, 321 U.S. AT 241, THE CONTRACTS OF DEPOSIT WERE MADE
IN THE RESPECTIVE STATES BY BANKS DOING BUSINESS THEREIN.  A LIKE
SITUATION DOES NOT EXIST HERE, AS THE STOCK WAS ISSUED AND THE
DIVIDENDS WERE HELD IN OTHER STATES.  FURTHER IT IS SAID THAT THE BANK
DEPOSIT CASES DID NOT DEAL WITH ESCHEAT STATUTES, BUT RATHER, LIKE THE
MOORE CASE, WITH CONSERVATION STATUTES. 

IT WAS NOT SOLELY THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTS FOR BANK DEPOSITS WERE
MADE IN CALIFORNIA AND KENTUCKY THAT GAVE THOSE STATES POWER OVER THE
ABANDONED DEPOSITS.  HAD THE CONTRACT BEEN ONE OF BAILMENT BETWEEN TWO
INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS OF THOSE STATES WHO HAD SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED TO
ANOTHER STATE, THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF THE CONTRACT WOULD NOT HAVE
CONTROLLED, THOUGH ITS LAWS MIGHT HAVE.  THE CONTROLLING FACT WAS THAT
THE BANKS AND THE DEPOSITORS COULD BE SERVED WITH PROCESS, EITHER
PERSONALLY OR BY PUBLICATION, TO DETERMINE RIGHTS IN THIS CHOSE IN
ACTION.  FN9 

APPELLANT IS A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, AMENABLE TO PROCESS THROUGH
ITS DESIGNATED AGENT AT ITS REGISTERED OFFICE.  N.J. REV. STAT. (CUM.
SUPP. 1945-1947) 14:4-1, 14:4-2.  CF. STATE V. GARFORD TRUCKING, INC.,
4 N.J. 346, 72 A.2D 851.  THIS GAVE NEW JERSEY POWER TO SEIZE THE RES
HERE INVOLVED, TO WIT, THE "DEBTS OR DEMANDS DUE TO THE ESCHEATED
ESTATE."  AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS IMMEDIATE ESCHEAT IS NOT
SIGNIFICANT.  ESCHEAT IS PERMITTED AGAINST PERSONS WHOSE ADDRESSES OR
EXISTENCE IS UNKNOWN.  FN10  THE TAKING-OVER IN THE BANK DEPOSIT CASES
FORESHADOWED ESCHEAT.  SEE THE MALONE CASE, 221 U.S. AT 664, THE
SECURITY SAVINGS BANK CASE, 263 U.S. AT 283 AND 290, THE ANDERSON
NATIONAL BANK CASE, 321 U.S. AT 241. 

NO MATTER WHERE THE APPELLANT'S ASSETS MAY BE, SINCE IT IS ITS
OBLIGATION TO PAY TO THE ESCHEATED ESTATE THAT IS TAKEN, PERSONAL
SERVICE ON APPELLANT EFFECTS A SEIZURE OF THAT OBLIGATION IN JUST THE
SAME WAY THAT SERVICE ON A BANK IS SEIZURE OF THE DEPOSIT AS SHOWN IN
THE NOTICE SUBDIVISION OF THIS OPINION, SUPRA, P. 432.  THAT POWER TO
SEIZE THE DEBT BY JURISDICTION OVER THE DEBTOR PROVIDES NOT ONLY THE
BASIS FOR NOTICE TO THE ABSENT OWNER BUT ALSO FOR TAKING OVER THE DEBT
FROM THE DEBTOR.  SECURITY SAVINGS BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, AT 287. 
IT IS TRUE THAT FICTION PLAYS A PART IN THE JURISPRUDENTIAL CONCEPT OF
CONTROL OVER INTANGIBLES.  THERE IS NO FICTION, HOWEVER, IN THE FACT
THAT CHOSES IN ACTION, STOCK CERTIFICATES AND DIVIDENDS HELD BY THE
CORPORATION, ARE PROPERTY.  WHETHER SUCH PROPERTY HAS ITS SITUS WITH
THE OBLIGOR OR THE OBLIGEE OR FOR SOME PURPOSES WITH BOTH HAS GIVEN
RISE TO DIVERSE VIEWS IN THIS COURT.  FN11   WE SEE NO REASON TO DOUBT
THAT, WHERE THE DEBTOR AND CREDITOR ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A
COURT, THAT COURT HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DEAL WITH THE DEBT. 
SINCE CHOSES IN ACTION HAVE NO SPATIAL OR TANGIBLE EXISTENCE, CONTROL
OVER THEM CAN "ONLY ARISE FROM CONTROL OR POWER OVER THE PERSONS WHOSE
RELATIONSHIPS ARE THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS."  ESTIN V.
ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541, 548.  FN12  SITUS OF AN INTANGIBLE IS FICTIONAL
BUT CONTROL OVER PARTIES WHOSE JUDICIALLY COERCED ACTION CAN MAKE
EFFECTIVE RIGHTS CREATED BY THE CHOSE IN ACTION ENABLES THE COURT WITH
SUCH CONTROL TO DISPOSE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES TO THE
INTANGIBLE.  FN13  SINCE SUCH POWER EXISTS THROUGH THE STATE'S
JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES WHOSE DEALINGS HAVE CREATED THE CHOSE IN
ACTION, WE NEED NOT RELY ON THE CONCEPT THAT THE ASSET REPRESENTED BY
THE CERTIFICATE OR DIVIDEND IS WHERE THE OBLIGOR IS FOUND.  FN14  THE
RIGHTS OF THE OWNERS OF THE STOCK AND DIVIDENDS COME WITHIN THE REACH
OF THE COURT BY THE NOTICE, I.E., SERVICE BY PUBLICATION; THE RIGHTS OF
THE APPELLANT BY PERSONAL SERVICE.  THAT POWER ENABLES THE ESCHEATING
STATE TO COMPEL THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATES OR PAYMENT OF THE
DIVIDENDS.  COMPARE GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. SUTHERLAND, 273 U.S. 182,
193.  FN15  THIS GIVES NEW JERSEY JURISDICTION TO ACT.  THAT ACTION, OF
COURSE, MUST BE IN ACCORD WITH THE BOUNDARIES ON LEGISLATION SET BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE STATE MAY INCLUDE DEPOSITS
IN BANKS DOING BUSINESS IN THE PARTICULAR STATE, THOUGH INCORPORATED BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 21 ET SEQ. ANDERSON NATIONAL
BANK V. LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233.  SUCH A DEPOSIT "IS A PART OF THE MASS
OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE WHOSE TRANSFER AND DEVOLUTION IS SUBJECT
TO (THE SAME) STATE CONTROL," P. 248, AS WOULD BE "TANGIBLE PROPERTY." 
SECURITY SAVINGS BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, P. 285.  MONEYS OWED BY
FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES, DOING BUSINESS IN A STATE, ON LIFE
POLICIES ISSUED ON THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS OF THAT STATE AND REMAINING
UNCLAIMED FOR AN ADEQUATE PERIOD, ARE SUBJECT TO THE STATE'S
DISPOSITION.  CONNECTICUT INS. CO. V. MOORE, 333 U.S. 541. 

WE THINK THAT STOCK CERTIFICATES AND UNDELIVERED DIVIDENDS THEREON
MAY ALSO BE ABANDONED PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE
DOMICILIARY STATE OF THE CORPORATION WHEN THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE OWNERS
ARE UNKNOWN FOR SUCH LENGTHS OF TIME, AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AS
PERMIT THE DECLARATION OF ABANDONMENT.  FN16  THAT RULE IS APPLICABLE
HERE. 

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  - FINALLY, WE SHALL DEAL WITH APPELLANT'S
OBJECTION THAT THIS STATUTORY ESCHEAT TAKES ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PROTECT IT FROM CLAIMS BY THE OWNERS.  THE
ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE NEW JERSEY ESCHEAT
STATUTE IS INADEQUATE IN THAT N.J. REV. STAT. (CUM. SUPP. 1945-1947)
2:53-23.1  FN17  IS NO PROTECTION BEYOND THE STATE AGAINST OWNERS OF
THE ESCHEATED SHARES OR AGAINST ESCHEAT OR CONSERVATION ACTIONS BY
OTHER STATES AGAINST STANDARD OIL OF NEW JERSEY FOR THE SAME DEBTS OR
DEMANDS DUE FROM STANDARD TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  FN18  THE JUDGMENT, AS
MODIFIED, CALLS FOR THE REISSUE OF THE ABANDONED CERTIFICATES TO NEW
JERSEY AND FOR THE PAYMENT TO THAT STATE OF THE UNPAID DIVIDENDS. 

WE HAVE INDICATED ABOVE THAT WE CONSIDER THE NOTICE TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A VALID JUDGMENT AGAINST THEIR RIGHTS
AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE COMPANY.  THE RES IS THE DEBT AND THE SAME RULE
APPLIES AS WITH TANGIBLE PROPERTY.  FN19  THE DEBTS OR DEMANDS
REPRESENTED BY THE STOCK AND DIVIDENDS HAVING BEEN TAKEN FROM THE
APPELLANT COMPANY BY A VALID JUDGMENT OF NEW JERSEY, THE SAME DEBTS OR
DEMANDS AGAINST APPELLANT CANNOT BE TAKEN BY ANOTHER STATE.  THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE BARS ANY SUCH DOUBLE ESCHEAT.  CF. BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO. V. HOSTETTER, 240 U.S. 620, 624, AND CASES CITED,
PARTICULARLY HARRIS V. BALK, 198 U.S. 215, 226. 

DISSENTS SUGGEST THAT STATES MAY ENACT ONLY CUSTODIAL STATUTES UNTIL
THIS COURT SETTLES ANY CONTROVERSY THAT MAY ARISE BETWEEN STATES OVER
RIGHTS TO ABANDONED CHOSES IN ACTION.  THE DETAILS OF THE METHOD OF
BRINGING OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES BEFORE THIS COURT FOR
SELECTION OF THE APPROPRIATE SOVEREIGNTY TO RECEIVE THE ABANDONED
PROPERTY ARE NOT ELABORATED UPON.  THE CLAIM OF NO OTHER STATE TO THIS
PROPERTY IS BEFORE US AND, OF COURSE, DETERMINATION OF ANY RIGHT OF A
CLAIMANT STATE AGAINST NEW JERSEY FOR THE PROPERTY ESCHEATED BY NEW
JERSEY MUST AWAIT PRESENTATION HERE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1 THE ESCHEAT ACT DEFINES THE TERM "PERSONAL PROPERTY" TO INCLUDE
"MONEYS, NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, CHOSES IN ACTION, INTEREST, DEBTS OR
DEMANDS DUE TO THE ESCHEATED ESTATE, STOCKS, BONDS, DEPOSITS,
MACHINERY, FARM CROPS, LIVE STOCK, FIXTURES, AND EVERY OTHER KIND OF
TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE PROPERTY AND THE ACCRETIONS THEREON."  N.J. REV.
STAT. (CUM. SUPP. 1945-1947) 2:53-15. 

FN2  IN ADDITION TO THE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK AND THE DIVIDENDS, THE
PERSONAL PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF APPELLANT, WHICH THE CHANCERY
DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT HELD TO BE ESCHEATED, INCLUDED UNPAID
WAGES OF FORMER EMPLOYEES, MONEY WITHHELD FROM WAGES OF FORMER
EMPLOYEES FOR PURCHASE OF LIBERTY BONDS, MONEYS REPRESENTING THE
AMOUNTS OF UNPRESENTED COMMERCIAL CHECKS ISSUED BY APPELLANT, AND
MONEYS REPRESENTING UNPRESENTED COUPONS ON A DEBENTURE ISSUE.  BUT THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY HELD THAT THE ESCHEAT ACT DID NOT APPLY TO
DEBTS OR DEMANDS DUE THE ESCHEATED ESTATE THAT HAD BEEN "EXTINGUISHED,
EITHER BY SATISFACTION OR BY THE BAR OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS." 
STATE V. STANDARD OIL CO., 5 N.J. 281, 293, 74 A.2D 565, 570.  MONEYS
REPRESENTING UNPAID WAGES AND UNPRESENTED CHECKS AND COUPONS WERE
AFFECTED BY THIS RULING.  THE NEW JERSEY RULE IS THAT THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATION BARS THE RIGHT AS WELL AS THE REMEDY.  ID. AT 292 ET SEQ.,
74 A.2D AT 570 ET SEQ. CF. CHASE SECURITIES CORP. V. DONALDSON, 325
U.S. 304, 311, CONSIDERING CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115 U.S. 620.  THE NEW
JERSEY SUPREME COURT ALSO HELD THAT MINOR CLAIMS THAT WERE NOT LISTED
IN THE NOTICE OF THE CHANCERY DIVISION'S PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT
ESCHEATED.  5 N.J. 281, 310, 74 A.2D 565, 579.  CONSEQUENTLY, APPELLANT
COMPLAINS ONLY OF THE ESCHEAT OF TWELVE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF AN
AGGREGATE PAR VALUE OF $300, AND OF UNPAID DIVIDENDS. 

OF COURSE, NEW JERSEY'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE ESCHEAT STATUTES IS
BINDING ON THIS COURT EXCEPT WHERE MATTERS OF FEDERAL LAW ARE
INVOLVED.  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 317; UNITED STATES V.
BURNISON, 339 U.S. 87, 89. 

FN3  THE ESCHEAT STATUTE MAKES THE DECREE A FULL RELEASE OF LIABILITY
IN ANY JURISDICTION IN WHICH IT IS EFFECTIVE BUT NEW JERSEY MAKES NO
GUARANTEE TO PROTECT APPELLANT AGAINST SUCH CLAIMS.  N.J. REV. STAT.
(CUM. SUPP. 1945-1947) 2:53-23.1. 

FN4  THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE THAT
THE ADDRESS OF THE LAST KNOWN OWNER BE INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, BUT THE
NOTICE WHICH IT APPROVED DID, IN FACT, CONTAIN THE LAST KNOWN
ADDRESSES, AND ALSO DESCRIBED THE VALUE AND CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY
WHICH WAS TO BE ESCHEATED.  THE NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED ONCE A WEEK FOR
THREE SUCCESSIVE WEEKS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. 
N.J. REV. STAT. (CUM. SUPP. 1945-1947) 2:53-21. 

FN5  THE RIGHT OF THE KING AT COMMON LAW TO TAKE POSSESSION, IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, OF ABANDONED CHATTELS IS CLEAR.  VII HOLDSWORTH,
HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW (2D ED.), 495.  E.G., TREASURE TROVE, ATTORNEY
GENERAL V. TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM, (1903) 2 CH. 598.  THIS
DOCTRINE OF BONA VACANTIA CAME TO INCLUDE CHOSES IN ACTION, X
HOLDSWORTH, SUPRA, 350, SUCH AS CERTIFICATES OF STOCK IN CORPORATIONS,
VII HOLDSWORTH, SUPRA, 515 ET SEQ.; AMES, DISSEISIN OF CHATTELS, 3
SELECT ESSAYS IN ANGLO-AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY 541, 558.  THUS THE KING
POSSESSED AS BONA VACANTIA THE RIGHT TO DIVIDENDS ON A CLAIM OF A
DISSOLVED CORPORATION IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AGAINST THE
CORPORATION'S DEBTOR.  THIS WAS HELD IN 1898 ON THE THEORY THAT THE
CORPORATION WAS "EXTINCT WITHOUT SUCCESSOR OR REPRESENTATIVE."  IN RE
HIGGINSON & DEAN, (1899) 1 Q.B. 325, 330.  SEE GRANT ON CORPORATIONS
(1854 ED.)  303-304.  WRIGHT, J., SAID, (1899) 1 Q.B. 329:  "THE COURTS
WILL NOT ALLOW A PERSON WHO HAS OBTAINED TITLE OR POSSESSION AS A MERE
TRUSTEE OF CHATTELS TO SET UP UNCONSCIENTIOUSLY ANY BENEFICIAL TITLE BY
OCCUPANCY, POSSESSION, OR OTHERWISE."  THUS THE CROWN TOOK THE PLACE OF
THE EXTINCT CREDITOR.  CF. ENEVER, BONA VACANTIA UNDER THE LAW OF
ENGLAND (1927), 55. 

SEE PARTICULARLY, IN RE MELROSE AVE., 234 N.Y. 48, 53, 136 N.E. 235,
237. 

CUNNACK V. EDWARDS, (1896) 2 CH. 679, DEALT WITH A SOCIETY TREATED AS
A LEGAL UNIT.  THE MEMBERS HAD ASSOCIATED THEMSELVES TO PROVIDE
ANNUITIES FOR THEIR WIDOWS.  AFTER THE DEATH OF ALL THE ASSOCIATES AND
THEIR WIDOWS, $*1250 SURPLUS REMAINED.  AS IT WAS NOT A CHARITY BUT
RATHER A BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT UNDER WHICH ALL OBLIGEES HAD RECEIVED
PAYMENT IN FULL, THE COURT HELD THAT NEITHER THE CY-PRES DOCTRINE NOR
THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESULTING TRUST APPLIED, AND AS LORD HALSBURY PUT
IT:  "THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE REMAINING IS THAT WHICH I ADOPT,
NAMELY, THAT THESE FUNDS ARE BONA VACANTIA, AND BELONG TO THE CROWN IN
THAT CHARACTER." 

FN6  CUNNIUS V. READING SCHOOL DISTRICT, 198 U.S. 458, 469.  COMPARE
MORMON CHURCH V. UNITED STATES, 136 U.S. 1, 47.  SEE 3 SCOTT, LAW OF
TRUSTS (1939), SEC. 411.4. 

FN7  SECURITY SAVINGS BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 263 U.S. 282, 285;
CONNECTICUT INS. CO. V. MOORE, 333 U.S. 541, 545-548; PROVIDENT SAVINGS
INSTITUTION V. MALONE, 221 U.S. 660, 663, 665-666. 

FN8  EACH CLASSIFIED LIST OF DEBTS OR DEMANDS DUE TO THE ESCHEATED
ESTATES BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY INCLUDES AS THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESSES
OF THE HOLDERS OF SAID CLAIMS CHIEFLY POINTS OUTSIDE NEW JERSEY.  THE
METHODS OF PAYMENT OF THE DIFFERENT CLAIMS HAVE VARIED.  FOR EXAMPLE,
DIVIDENDS HAVE BEEN PAID FROM BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN NEW YORK
BANKS BY APPELLANT EITHER IN ITS OWN NAME OR THAT OF ITS TRANSFER
AGENT.  AS WE THINK THESE BUSINESS PRACTICES ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT IN
DETERMINING APPELLANT'S LIABILITY FOR THESE ESCHEATS, THEY WILL NOT BE
FURTHER DISCUSSED. 

FN9  THIS IS LIKE THE CREDITOR'S ABILITY TO GARNISHEE THE DEBTOR OF
HIS DEBTOR, WHEREVER THE GARNISHEED DEBTOR MAY BE.  HARRIS V. BALK, 198
U.S. 215; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. DEER, 200 U.S. 176;
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. HOSTETTER, 240 U.S. 620.  CF. CARPENTER, 31
HARV. L. REV. 905, BUT SEE BEALE, 27 HARV. L. REV. 107.  WHATEVER MAY
BE PROFESSOR BEALE'S VIEW OF GARNISHMENT, HE AGREES WITH THE THEORY OF
CONTROL RELIED UPON HEREIN. 

"THE TRUE DOCTRINE WOULD SEEM TO BE THAT A DEBT HAS IN FACT NO SITUS
ANYWHERE; NOT MERELY BECAUSE IT IS INTANGIBLE BUT BECAUSE AS A MERE
FORCED RELATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IT HAS NO REAL EXISTENCE ANYWHERE. 
LIKE OTHER SUCH RELATIONS IT MAY, OF COURSE, BE CONTROLLED BY THE LAW,
AND BY THE COURTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF THE LAW; BUT THE CONTROL MUST BE
OBTAINED BY MAKING USE OF THE RELATION.  IN ORDER TO CONTROL THE
RELATION THE COURT MUST HAVE THE POWER TO CONTROL BOTH PARTIES TO IT.
ANY COURT WHICH HAS BOTH DEBTOR AND CREDITOR MAY COMPEL A RELEASE FROM
THE CREDITOR AND AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE ACTION OF THE CREDITOR.  IN OTHER
WORDS IF A DEBT IS TO BE LEGALLY ASSIGNED OR DISCHARGED IT REQUIRES THE
ACTION OF BOTH PARTIES AND ESPECIALLY THE CREDITOR, AND THE COURT WHICH
HAS TO APPLY SUCH A PROCESS MUST DO SO THROUGH ITS CONTROL OVER BOTH
PARTIES."  27 HARV. L. REV. AT 115-116. 

FN10  CHRISTIANSON V. KING COUNTY, 239 U.S. 356, 368; HAMILTON V.
BROWN, 161 U.S. 256, 268. 

FN11  BLACKSTONE V. MILLER, 188 U.S. 189, OVERRULED BY FARMERS LOAN &
TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204, 209.  THE LATTER CASE LED TO A
LIKE DECISION IN FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312, WHICH WAS
IN TURN OVERRULED BY STATE TAX COMM'N V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, 181. 
SEE TREICHLER V. WISCONSIN, 338 U.S. 251, 256. 

FN12  CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, 365-366:  "SUCH RIGHTS ARE
BUT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONS, NATURAL OR CORPORATE, WHICH THE LAW
RECOGNIZES BY ATTACHING TO THEM CERTAIN SANCTIONS ENFORCEABLE IN
COURTS.  THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT OVER THEM AND THE PROTECTION WHICH IT
GIVES THEM CANNOT BE EXERTED THROUGH CONTROL OF A PHYSICAL THING.  THEY
CAN BE MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY THROUGH CONTROL OVER AND PROTECTION AFFORDED
TO THOSE PERSONS WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS ARE THE ORIGIN OF THE RIGHTS." 

SEE A LIKE RULING IN DIRECTION DER DISCONTO-GESELLSCHAFT V. UNITED
STATES STEEL CORP., 300 F. 741, 746, AND 267 U.S. 22, 28. 

FN13  WHEN TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES WAS RULED BY FARMERS LOAN & TRUST
CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204, TO THE EFFECT THAT STATES COULD NOT TAX
INTANGIBLES BELONGING TO NONRESIDENTS THOUGH OWED BY RESIDENTS,
WASHINGTON HELD THAT A WASHINGTON BANK DEPOSIT, BELONGING TO THE ESTATE
OF A KNOWN NONRESIDENT DECEDENT WITHOUT HEIRS, COULD NOT ESCHEAT TO
WASHINGTON.  "(THE) SITUS OF THIS PROPERTY WAS AT THE DOMICILE OF ITS
OWNER, AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT PROPERTY WITHIN THIS STATE AT THE TIME
OF HIS DEATH AND NOT SUBJECT TO ESCHEAT UNDER OUR STATUTE."  IN RE
LYONS' ESTATE, 175 WASH. 115, 123, 26 P.2D 615, 618.  A CONTRARY VIEW
WAS TAKEN IN IN RE RAPOPORT'S ESTATE, 317 MICH. 291, 26 N.W.2D 777. 
THERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE MICHIGAN BANK DEPOSIT OF A NONRESIDENT
DECEDENT WITHOUT HEIRS PASSED TO MICHIGAN ON THE THEORY THAT THE
MICHIGAN ESCHEAT STATUTE OVERRULED THE MICHIGAN DOCTRINE OF THE
DOMICILIARY SITUS OF INTANGIBLES. 

FN14 2 BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 309.1:  "THE PICTURE OF BONA
VACANTIA IS THAT OF MOVABLES WITHOUT AN OWNER BEING TAKEN BY THE
OFFICERS OF THE STATE.  IN REALITY, THE MONEY WHICH (IS) REPRESENTED BY
THE BANK DEPOSIT WAS WHERE THE BANK WAS WHEN IT WAS PROVED TO BE
WITHOUT AN OWNER."  AN OBLIGOR ON A CHOSE IN ACTION, A BANK ESPECIALLY,
DOES NOT ALWAYS HAVE TANGIBLE ASSETS TO REPRESENT THE LIABILITY. 
FN15  THE FACT THAT NEW ,-ERSEY HAS ADOPTED THE UNIFORM STOCK TRANSFER
ACT WITH ITS PROVISIONS FOR THE TRANSFER OF SHARES AND THE REPLACEMENT
OF LOST CERTIFICATES IS, WE THINK, WITHOUT A BEARING ON THE PROBLEM OF
POWER TO ESCHEAT.  N.J. REV. STAT. (CUM. SUPP. 1945-1947) 14:8-27 AND
14:8-43.  WHILE THOSE SECTIONS PROVIDE FOR TRANSFER OF STOCK
CERTIFICATES ONLY BY DELIVERY AND THE ISSUE OF NEW CERTIFICATES ONLY
AFTER NOTICE BY PUBLICATION OR OTHERWISE AND UPON SECURITY, THEY WERE
APPARENTLY TREATED BY NEW JERSEY AS INAPPLICABLE TO THE PROBLEM OF
ESCHEAT.  SEE STATE V. STANDARD OIL CO., 5 N.J. 281, 307, 74 A.2D 565,
577.  NEW JERSEY MAY CONSIDER THAT ESCHEAT IS A PROCEEDING OF THE SAME
GENERAL CHARACTER AS MATTERS OF INTERNAL CORPORATE MANAGEMENT RESERVED
IN ITS DECISION IN ELGART V. MINTZ, 123 N.J. EQ. 404, 414-415, 197 A.
747, 753, AN ATTACHMENT CASE.  THE PURPOSE OF THE UNIFORM STOCK
TRANSFER ACT WAS TO PROVIDE A SYSTEM FOR TRANSFER OF STOCK THAT STATES
MIGHT FOLLOW TO SIMPLIFY TRANSACTIONS THAT TOUCHED OTHER STATES.  SEE
FOR EXAMPLE THE COMPLICATIONS OVER ATTACHMENTS IN MILLS V. JACOBS, 333
PA. 231, 4 A.2D 152.  AS THE UNIFORM STOCK TRANSFER ACT WAS NOT
SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AT SHARES WITH UNKNOWN OWNERS, NEW JERSEY MAY
TREAT SUCH SHARES IN ITS CORPORATIONS DIFFERENTLY FROM LOST SHARES. 

FN16  CF. VII HOLDSWORTH, HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW (2D ED.), 515. 

FN17  2:53-23.1:  "OPERATION AND EFFECT IN DECREE - 

"ANY DECREE ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE ACT TO WHICH THIS ACT IS A
SUPPLEMENT, SHALL AUTOMATICALLY OPERATE AS A FULL, ABSOLUTE AND
UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE AND DISCHARGE OF THE PERSON HAVING SUCH PROPERTY
IN POSSESSION OR CUSTODY FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIM, DEMAND, OR LIABILITY
TO ANY PERSON WHATEVER OTHER THAN THE STATE TREASURER WITH RESPECT TO
SUCH PROPERTY, AND SUCH DECREE MAY BE PLEADED AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO ANY
ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST SUCH PERSON WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PROPERTY BY ANY
PERSON OTHER THAN THE STATE TREASURER." 

FN18  WE LAY ASIDE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE
ESCHEATED CERTIFICATES HAD LEGALLY BEEN TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PARTIES BY
THE OWNERS PRIOR TO PUBLICATION IN THIS ACTION.  " ...  I THINK THAT
THE RISK  ...  IS NOT SERIOUS ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY A REFUSAL TO ADJUST THE
DIFFERENCES ACTUALLY PRESENTED."  DIRECTION DER DISCONTO-GESELLSCHAFT
V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 300 F. 741, 743; 267 U.S. 22, 29. 

FN19  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714; HAMILTON V. BROWN, 161 U.S. 256;
PENNINGTON V. FOURTH NATIONAL BANK, 243 U.S. 269.  SEE N. 9, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURT AFFIRMS THE JUDGMENT OF ESCHEAT ON
THE GROUND THAT NEW JERSEY MAY CONDITION THE GRANTING OF A CORPORATE
CHARTER ON PAYMENT TO THE STATE OF DIVIDENDS UNCLAIMED AFTER 14 YEARS. 
INDEED, THE COURT SPECIFICALLY BARS THE POSSIBILITY OF DOUBLE ESCHEAT,
WHICH WOULD LOGICALLY RESULT FROM SUCH A HOLDING.  AS I UNDERSTAND IT,
THE DECISION MUST REST UPON NEW JERSEY'S POWER OVER INTERESTS WHICH IN
A TERRITORIAL SENSE ARE ASSUMED TO BE WITHIN ITS CONTROL.  THE
FOUNDATION OF THIS POWER IS USUALLY CONVEYED BY THE CONCEPT OF SITUS. 
AS TO THIS GROUND OF DECISION I MUST DISSENT.  IN CONNECTICUT LIFE INS.
CO. V. MOORE, 333 U.S. 541, THIS COURT SUSTAINED A NEW YORK STATUTE
ALLOWING ESCHEAT OF THE UNCLAIMED PROCEEDS OF INSURANCE POLICIES ON THE
BASIS OF THE INSURED'S RESIDENCE IN THE STATE AT THE TIME OF THE
DELIVERY OF THE POLICY.  ON THAT BASIS, THE STATE WHERE THE LAST KNOWN
OWNER WAS DOMICILED CERTAINLY HAS A BETTER CLAIM TO ABANDONED STOCK
THAN A STATE IN WHICH IT HAPPENS THAT THE CORPORATION IS SUBJECT TO
PROCESS. 

IF PERCHANCE ONE IS TO INFER FROM THE OPINION THAT THE UNCLAIMED
DIVIDENDS DEPOSITED WITH THE GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK ARE
ALSO ESCHEATABLE BY NEW YORK AND THAT NEW YORK, HAD SHE ANTICIPATED NEW
JERSEY, COULD HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL THE POTENTIALITIES OF ESCHEAT IN THE
UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS, THERE IS AN ADDED REASON FOR DISSENT.  THE
CONSTITUTION OUGHT NOT TO BE PLACED IN AN UNSEEMLY LIGHT BY SUGGESTING
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES DEPEND ON, AND ARE
TERMINATED BY, A RACE OF DILIGENCE.  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT EXPRESSES
APPROPRIATE CONDEMNATION OF SUCH UNSEEMLY CONDUCT AND ACCIDENTAL
SOLUTION OF COMPETING INTERESTS.  IT IS ONE THING FOR A STATE TO TAKE
CUSTODY OF ABANDONED PROPERTY AS TRUSTEE, LEAVING OPEN FOR SUBSEQUENT
DETERMINATION WHAT STATE HAS A CONTROLLING INTEREST JUSTIFYING
ESCHEAT.  BUT IF A STATE WISHES TO ASSERT ITS RIGHT TO ESCHEAT PROPERTY
WHICH BY ITS VERY NATURE IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN ITS CONTROL, OTHER
INTERESTED STATES SHOULD BE PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION.  THE RIGHT TO
RESORT TO THIS COURT FOR ADJUSTMENT OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS AMONG
SEVERAL STATES HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE CONSTITUTION TO AVOID CRUDE
REMEDIES OF SELF-HELP IN THE SETTLEMENT OF INTERSTATE CONTROVERSIES. 
SEE TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THERE ARE SEVERAL STATES WITH POSSIBLE CLAIMS TO THE ESCHEAT OF
INTANGIBLES.  THE STATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE OBLIGOR; THE STATE
WHERE THE LAST KNOWN OWNER WAS DOMICILED (SEE CONNECTICUT INS. CO. V.
MOORE, 333 U.S. 541); THE STATE WHERE LATER ON THE TRUE RESIDENCE OF
THE OWNER WAS PROVED TO BE; THE STATE OF HIS LAST KNOWN DOMICILE; THE
STATE WHERE THE OBLIGOR HAS ITS MAIN PLACE OF BUSINESS; IN CASE OF
INSURANCE OR TRUST PROPERTY, THE STATE OF RESIDENCE (OR DOMICILE) OF
THE BENEFICIARY.  THERE MAY BE STILL OTHER STATES WITH CLAIMS OF AN
EQUAL OR GREATER DIGNITY TO THESE.  IN THIS CASE WE HAVE HEARD FROM
ONLY ONE - THE STATE OF INCORPORATION. 

I THINK ANY OF SEVERAL STATES, INCLUDING THE STATE OF INCORPORATION,
MIGHT CONSTITUTIONALLY ENACT A CUSTODIAL STATUTE UNDER WHICH IT
UNDERTOOK TO HOLD THE ESCHEATED INTANGIBLES PENDING DETERMINATION BY
THIS COURT OF THE CLAIMS OF COMPETING STATES.  NEW JERSEY HAS NOT DONE
THAT.  NEW JERSEY UNDERTAKES TO APPROPRIATE TO HER EXCLUSIVE USE (AFTER
A SHORT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN) THIS VAST AMOUNT OF WEALTH. 
HENCE, I DISSENT. 
..END :









ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 446 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 28, 1951.  - 182 F.2D 349,
REVERSED. 


AFTER "TRANSFERS" OF ASSETS OF GERMAN NATIONALS HAD BEEN FORBIDDEN BY
EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 8785 AND 8389, ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT PURSUANT
TO SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, PETITIONERS, AMERICAN
HOLDERS OF CLAIMS AGAINST GERMAN BANKS, LEVIED ATTACHMENTS ON THE
DEBTORS' ACCOUNTS IN A NEW YORK BANK AND PROSECUTED THE CLAIMS TO
JUDGMENTS IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN ISSUED VESTING ORDERS VESTING IN HIMSELF THE RIGHT, TITLE AND
INTEREST OF THE DEBTORS IN THE ACCOUNTS.  DUE TO THE OUTSTANDING
ATTACHMENT LEVIES, THE NEW YORK BANK REFUSED TO RELEASE THE ACCOUNTS;
AND THE CUSTODIAN SUED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT THAT PETITIONERS "OBTAINED NO LIEN OR OTHER INTEREST IN" THE
ATTACHED ACCOUNTS AND THAT THE CUSTODIAN WAS ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF
THE FUNDS IN THE ACCOUNTS.  HELD: THE CUSTODIAN WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE
RELIEF SOUGHT.  PP. 447-449, 464. 

1. UNDER NEW YORK LAW, PETITIONERS HAVE JUDGMENTS, SECURED BY
ATTACHMENTS ON BALANCES OWNED BY GERMAN ALIENS, GOOD AS AGAINST THE
DEBTORS, BUT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LICENSING BEFORE THEY CAN BE SATISFIED
BY TRANSFER OF TITLE OR POSSESSION.  PP. 449-452. 

2.  THE ATTACHMENT LEVIES IN THIS CASE ARE NOT NULLITIES AS AGAINST
THE RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE GERMAN BANKS.  PP. 452-459. 

(A)  ATTACHMENTS SUCH AS THESE HAVE BEEN TREATED AS VALID BY
CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, AND ARE NOT TO BE DEEMED INVALID BY
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF GENERAL RULING NO. 12 SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNATING AN ATTACHMENT LEVY AS A "TRANSFER" PROHIBITED BY EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 8389.  PP. 452-459. 

3. THE ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS PURSUED IN THIS CASE ARE NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL PROGRAM FOR CONTROL OF ALIEN PROPERTY,
SINCE THEY DO NOT PURPORT TO CONTROL THE CUSTODIAN IN THE EXERCISE OF
THE FEDERAL LICENSING POWER OR IN HIS POWER TO VEST THE RES FOR
PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATION.  PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 459-463. 

4.  AS AGAINST THE GERMAN DEBTORS, THE ATTACHMENTS AND THE JUDGMENTS
THEY SECURE ARE VALID UNDER NEW YORK LAW; AND THEY CANNOT BE CANCELLED
OR ANNULLED UNDER A VESTING ORDER BY WHICH THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN
TAKES OVER ONLY THE RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF THOSE DEBTORS IN THE
ACCOUNTS.  PP. 463-464. 

ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN. 

NO. 298.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 314, MCCARTHY V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SAME COURT. 

IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS AGAINST PETITIONERS BY THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  82
F.SUPP.  740.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  182 F.2D 349.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 882.  REVERSED, P. 464. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON DECEMBER 11, 1941, PETITIONER ZITTMAN, HOLDER OF CLAIMS AGAINST
THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK AND THE DEUTSCHE GOLDDISKONTBANK, CAUSED
ATTACHMENT WARRANTS TO BE ISSUED BY THE APPROPRIATE NEW YORK COURT AND
LEVIED ON ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE DEBTORS IN NEW YORK CITY WITH THE
CHASE NATIONAL BANK.  ON JANUARY 21, 1942, PETITIONER MCCARTHY, HOLDER
OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE REICHSBANK, ALSO ATTACHED ITS ACCOUNTS WITH THE
CHASE BANK.  BOTH ATTACHMENTS WERE FOLLOWED BY STATE COURT ACTIONS
WHICH WERE PURSUED TO DEFAULT JUDGMENTS.  THE JUDGMENTS REMAIN
UNSATISFIED BECAUSE THE ATTACHED FUNDS WERE AND ARE "FROZEN" BY FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOREIGN FUNDS CONTROLS.  THE NEW YORK COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY
EXTENDED THE NINETY-DAY LIMITATION PROVIDED FOR THE SHERIFF TO REDUCE
THE ACCOUNTS TO HIS POSSESSION OR COMMENCE AN ACTION TO DO SO,  FN1  SO
THAT THE ATTACHMENTS, LIKE THE JUDGMENTS, ARE OUTSTANDING. 

THE ACCOUNTS WERE FROZEN JUNE 14, 1941, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785,
FN2  WHICH EXTENDED TO ASSETS OF GERMAN NATIONALS FREEZING CONTROLS
INITIATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389,  FN3  ISSUED APRIL 10, 1940, BY
THE PRESIDENT, PURSUANT TO THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM BY SEC. 5(B) OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  FN4  THE GENERAL EFFECT OF THE BASIC ORDER
WAS TO FORBID "TRANSACTIONS" IN THE ASSETS OF BLOCKED NATIONALS,
INCLUDING ALL "TRANSFERS" OF SUCH FUNDS.  FN5  IN OCTOBER, 1946, MORE
THAN FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AFTER THE LEVY OF THESE ATTACHMENTS, THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN ISSUED VESTING ORDERS, WHICH VESTED "THAT
CERTAIN DEBT OR OTHER OBLIGATION OWING TO" THE GERMAN BANK "AND ANY AND
ALL RIGHTS TO DEMAND, ENFORCE AND COLLECT THE SAME."  THE CHASE BANK
NOTIFIED THE CUSTODIAN THAT, DUE TO THE OUTSTANDING ATTACHMENT LEVIES,
IT COULD NOT RELEASE THE ACCOUNTS.  FN6  SOME SIXTEEN MONTHS LATER, THE
CUSTODIAN PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE PETITIONERS
"OBTAINED NO LIEN OR OTHER INTEREST IN" THE ATTACHED ACCOUNTS AND THAT
HE WAS ENTITLED TO TAKE THE ENTIRE BALANCES.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED THE RELIEF SOUGHT,  FN7  AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, PER CURIAM, SOLELY ON THE AUTHORITY OF
PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472.  FN8  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN9  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ATTACHMENT LEVIES WERE "TRANSFERS" FORBIDDEN BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389. 

              I. RIGHTS OF THE JUDGMENT CREDITORS UNDER

                            NEW YORK LAW. 

IN THE NEW YORK COURTS, PETITIONERS INVOKED ONE OF SEVERAL
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES WHICH, FROM TIME OUT OF MIND, NEW YORK HAS
EXTENDED TO ITS CITIZENS AGAINST THEIR NON-RESIDENT DEBTORS.  THESE, IN
APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY TAKE THE FORM OF RECEIVERSHIP  FN10  OR
ATTACHMENT.  FN11  WHILE THESE TWO REMEDIES DIFFER IN NATURE AND
INCIDENTS, THEY ARE ALIKE IN BEING AVAILABLE AT THE COMMENCEMENT OR
DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN ACTION, ARE NOT INDEPENDENT BUT AUXILIARY IN
CHARACTER, AND ARE NOT DESIGNED FINALLY TO ADJUDGE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS
BUT TO SECURE SUCH JUDGMENT AS MAY BE RENDERED.  AS EMPLOYED IN THIS
CASE, ATTACHMENT ALSO WAS THE SOLE BASIS OF JURISDICTION. 

THE ATTACHMENT LEVY ON BANK BALANCES IS PERFECTED BY SERVICE OF A
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT ON THE BANKING INSTITUTION,
FN12  WHICH IS REQUIRED TO CERTIFY TO THE SHERIFF MAKING THE LEVY THE
BALANCE DUE TO THE DEFENDANT.  FN13  THE LEVY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
SHERIFF TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF ANY PROPERTY, NOR DOES IT
REQUIRE ANY TRANSFER OF TITLE.  THE EFFECT IS PRESCRIBED:  "ANY SUCH
PERSON SO SERVED WITH A CERTIFIED COPY OF A WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT IS
FORBIDDEN TO MAKE OR SUFFER, ANY TRANSFER OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF, OR
INTERFERE WITH, ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN SO LEVIED UPON,
...  OR SELL, ASSIGN OR TRANSFER ANY RIGHT SO LEVIED UPON, TO ANY
PERSON, OR PERSONS, OTHER THAN THE SHERIFF SERVING THE SAID WARRANT
UNTIL NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH SERVICE, EXCEPT UPON DIRECTION
OF THE SHERIFF OR PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE COURT."  FN14  THE
ACCOUNT ATTACHED MUST, ON THE SHERIFF'S DEMAND, BE PAID OVER TO HIM
WITHIN NINETY DAYS, UNLESS, AS HERE, THE TIME HAS BEEN EXTENDED BY
ORDER OF COURT, AND THE SHERIFF IS AUTHORIZED TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION
WITHIN THAT TIME TO RECOVER AMOUNTS WITHHELD.  FN15 

THESE CREDITORS PROSECUTED THEIR ACTIONS TO JUDGMENTS WHICH COULD BE
SATISFIED ONLY FROM ATTACHED PROPERTY AND BY ISSUANCE OF EXECUTIONS. 
FN16  AN ATTACHMENT MERGES IN AN EXECUTION WHEN ISSUED, BUT IT IS NOT
ANNULLED UNTIL THE JUDGMENT IS PAID AND REMAINS IN FORCE TO KEEP ALIVE
THE LIEN ON THE PROPERTY.  CASTRIOTIS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 229 N.Y.
74, 79, 127 N.E. 900, 902(1920). 

EXECUTION, IF ISSUED, WOULD REQUIRE A TRANSFER OF CREDIT AND OF
FUNDS, BUT THIS STEP HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN AND, IT IS ADMITTED, CANNOT BE
TAKEN IN THESE CASES WITHOUT A FEDERAL LICENSE.  WHILE REQUIREMENT OF A
FEDERAL LICENSE CREATES SOMETHING OF A CONTINGENCY AS TO SATISFACTION
OF THE JUDGMENTS, AS MATTER OF NEW YORK LAW THIS DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE
JUDGMENT OF ITS VALIDITY OR THE ATTACHMENT OF ITS LIEN.  COMMISSION FOR
POLISH RELIEF V. BANCA NATIONALA A RUMANIEI, 288 N.Y. 332, 338, 43
N.E.2D 345, 347(1942). 

ALTHOUGH THE PROVISIONAL REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT, AS USED IN THIS CASE,
HAS SERVED TO PROVIDE THE BASIS OF JURISDICTION AND HAS CREATED A LIEN
TO SECURE SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT HAS NEITHER
ATTEMPTED NOR ACCOMPLISHED ANY TRANSFER OF POSSESSION, FOR THESE
ATTACHMENTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED FOR OVER NINE YEARS, AND THE ACCOUNTS
ARE STILL WHERE THEY WERE BEFORE THE ATTACHMENTS WERE LEVIED.  THAT
THERE HAS BEEN NO TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE FUNDS BY THE PROCEEDINGS TO
DATE ALSO IS CLEAR.  IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTORS CHOSE TO SATISFY THE
JUDGMENTS BY OTHER MEANS, OR TO SUBSTITUTE AN UNDERTAKING FOR THE
PROPERTY ATTACHED, THEY COULD DO SO, AND THE ACCOUNTS WOULD BE FREED OF
THE LIEN.  FN17 

UNDER STATE LAW, THE POSITION OF THESE JUDGMENT CREDITORS IS THAT
THEY HAVE JUDGMENTS, SECURED BY ATTACHMENTS ON BALANCES OWNED BY GERMAN
ALIENS, GOOD AS AGAINST THE DEBTORS, BUT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LICENSING
BEFORE THEY CAN BE SATISFIED BY TRANSFER OF TITLE OR POSSESSION.  THE
CUSTODIAN CLAIMS, IN A COLLATERAL ATTACK, THAT FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD
PRONOUNCE THEM WHOLLY VOID AND OF NO EFFECT. 

II.  EFFECT OF FEDERAL FOREIGN FUNDS CONTROL ON

                   ATTACHMENT. 

THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE PRESENT ACTION, RELIES HEAVILY ON GENERAL
RULING NO. 12 UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, ISSUED APRIL 21, 1942,
SOME THREE TO FIVE MONTHS AFTER THESE ATTACHMENTS WERE LEVIED, AND
ALMOST TWO YEARS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WHICH IT
PURPORTS TO INTERPRET.  FN18  THEN, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN ATTACHMENT
LEVY WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AS A PROHIBITED "TRANSFER."  THE
GOVERNMENT ASKS THAT IT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT SUCH ATTACHMENTS AS
HERE MADE AND BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THESE ATTACHMENTS MADE BEFORE
ITS PROMULGATION.  WHETHER AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY COULD THUS LUMP ALL
ATTACHMENTS AS PROHIBITED "TRANSFERS," WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE NATURE
OF THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED OR STEPS TAKEN UNDER THE VARIOUS STATE LAWS
PROVIDING FOR ATTACHMENTS, PRESENTS A QUESTION WHICH WE NEED NOT DECIDE
HERE.  SOME ATTACHMENTS MAY WELL BE TRANSFERS, AND THUS PROHIBITED.  WE
DEAL HERE ONLY WITH AN ATTACHMENT UNDER NEW YORK LAW RELATING
SPECIFICALLY TO BANK ACCOUNTS. 

THIS GENERAL RULING, AS THUS INTERPRETED TO FORBID THESE ATTACHMENTS,
WOULD BE NOT ONLY RETROACTIVE BUT INCONSISTENT AND IRRECONCILABLE WITH
THE CONTENTIONS MADE ONE DAY AFTER ITS ISSUANCE BY BOTH THE TREASURY
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  THESE
DEPARTMENTS FILED A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE, DATED APRIL 22, 1942, IN THE
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS IN COMMISSION FOR POLISH RELIEF V. BANCA
NATIONALA A RUMANIEI, SUPRA.  THE CASE INVOLVED AN ATTACHMENT,
IDENTICAL IN STATE LAW CHARACTER WITH THOSE HERE, OF BANK BALANCES IN
NEW YORK OF THE NATIONAL BANK OF RUMANIA, WHICH HAD BEEN FROZEN BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER PRIOR TO LEVY.  THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF WAS SUBSCRIBED
BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY AND AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, BOTH MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK BAR, PRESUMABLY FAMILIAR WITH THE
PECULIARITIES OF THE NEW YORK LAW OF ATTACHMENT OF BANK ACCOUNTS.  IT
SPECIFICALLY CALLED ATTENTION TO GENERAL RULING NO. 12, AND, REFERRING
TO THE CLAIM OF INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE ATTACHMENT AND THE FEDERAL
FREEZING PROGRAM, IT DECLARED:  "THIS IS THE FIRST OCCASION IN WHICH A
COURT OF LAST RESORT IN THIS COUNTRY HAS BEEN CALLED UPON TO MEET THIS
ISSUE  ...  "  FN19  IT WENT ON TO ADVISE THE COURT OF APPEALS
DEFINITELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY AS TO THE RIGHTS OF NEW YORK COURTS TO
PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF THE ATTACHMENT THERE INVOLVED.  IN VIEW OF THE
CUSTODIAN'S PRESENT CONTENTIONS, IT MERITS EXTENSIVE CONSIDERATION. 

THE NEW YORK COURTS WERE ADVISED OF FIVE PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAM:  "1.  PROTECTING PROPERTY OF PERSONS IN OCCUPIED
COUNTRIES"; "2.  PREVENTING THE AXIS, NOW OUR ENEMY, FROM ACQUIRING ANY
BENEFIT FROM THESE BLOCKED ASSETS"; "3.  FACILITATING THE USE OF
BLOCKED ASSETS IN THE UNITED NATIONS WAR EFFORT AND PROTECTING AMERICAN
BANKS AND BUSINESS INSTITUTIONS"; "4.  PROTECTING AMERICAN CREDITORS";
"5.  FOREIGN RELATIONS, INCLUDING POST-WAR NEGOTIATIONS AND
SETTLEMENTS."  FN20 

TO ACCOMPLISH THESE PURPOSES IN RELATION TO OVER SEVEN BILLION
DOLLARS OF BLOCKED FOREIGN ASSETS, IT WAS SAID THAT "  ...  THE
TREASURY HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF LITIGATION, PARTICULARLY
ATTACHMENT ACTIONS, AS AFFECTING BLOCKED ASSETS,"  FN21  AND THE
POSITION OF THE TREASURY WAS REPRESENTED AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  THE TREASURY DID NOT WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERLY
CONSIDERATION OF CASES BY THE COURTS, INCLUDING ATTACHMENT ACTIONS, AND
AT THE SAME TIME IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAM THAT THE
RESULTS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF FREEZING CONTROL AS THOSE
ARISING OR RECOGNIZED THROUGH VOLUNTARY ACTION OF THE PARTIES. 

"INDEED THE TREASURY REGARDS THE COURTS AS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO
DECIDE DISPUTED CLAIMS AND SUGGESTED TO PARTIES THAT THEY ADJUDICATE
SUCH CLAIMS BEFORE APPLYING FOR A LICENSE TO PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF
FUNDS.  THE JUDGMENT WAS THEN REGARDED BY THE TREASURY AS THE
EQUIVALENT OF A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT ORDER WITHOUT THE CREATION OR
TRANSFER OF ANY VESTED INTEREST, AND A LICENSE WAS ISSUED OR DENIED ON
THE SAME PRINCIPLES OF POLICY AS THOSE GOVERNING VOLUNTARY TRANSFERS OF
BLOCKED ASSETS. 

"THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT DID NOT FEEL THAT IT COULD FINALLY PASS ON
AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO TRANSFER BLOCKED ASSETS WHERE THE FACTS
WERE DISPUTED OR LIABILITY DENIED.  THE TREASURY FELT THAT IT WAS NOT
PRACTICAL TO PASS ON THE FREEZING CONTROL QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN SUCH
APPLICATIONS UNTIL THERE WAS AT LEAST A DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS BY A
COURT OF LAW.  ...  "  FN22 

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS ASSERTION OF COMPLETE DISCRETION TO GRANT OR
WITHHOLD APPROVAL OF ULTIMATE TRANSFERS, THE GOVERNMENT ADVISED THE
COURT OF APPEALS THAT, "SO FAR AS FOREIGN FUNDS CONTROL IS CONCERNED
THERE CAN BE AN ATTACHABLE INTEREST UNDER NEW YORK LAW WITH RESPECT TO
THE BLOCKED ASSETS.  ...  "  FN23  IN LANGUAGE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE
BEFORE US NOW, IT SAID: 

"THE NATIONAL BANK OF RUMANIA HAS PROPERTY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION. 
IT HAS NOT BEEN DIVESTED OF ALL ITS PROPERTY RIGHTS.  IN FACT, ITS
INTERESTS TODAY IN THE BLOCKED ASSETS ARE PERHAPS BY FAR THE MOST
VALUABLE OF ALL THE INTERESTS IN SUCH ASSETS.  THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT
BEEN CONFISCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE NATIONAL BANK OF RUMANIA IS
PROHIBITED FROM EXERCISING POWERS AND PRIVILEGES WHICH PRIOR TO THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER IT COULD EXERCISE.  ...  (THE) RIGHT OF THE OWNER OF A
BLOCKED ACCOUNT TO APPLY FOR A LICENSE TO MAKE PAYMENT OUT OF SUCH AN
ACCOUNT IS A MOST SUBSTANTIAL ONE, AND THAT LAWFUL PAYMENT CAN BE MADE
IF A LICENSE IS GRANTED."  FN24 

AND THE GOVERNMENT CONTINUED: 

"AN ATTACHMENT ACTION AGAINST A NATIONAL'S BLOCKED ACCOUNT IS AN
ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN AN UNLICENSED ASSIGNMENT OF THE NATIONAL'S INTEREST
IN THE BLOCKED ACCOUNT - NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS. 

"IN THIS SENSE, THE ATTACHMENT ACTION MIGHT BE REGARDED AS A LEVY
UPON THE NATIONALS CONTINGENT POWER (I.E. CONTINGENT UPON TREASURY
AUTHORIZATION) TO TRANSFER ALL HIS INTEREST IN THE BLOCKED ACCOUNT TO
A; ANY JUDGMENT IN THE ATTACHMENT ACTION RESULTING IN GIVING A A
CONTINGENT INTEREST IN THE ACCOUNT EQUIVALENT TO WHAT HE WOULD HAVE
OBTAINED BY VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT.    "THE VALUE OF SUCH AN INTEREST IS
OF COURSE PROBLEMATICAL.  WHETHER IT IS WORTHLESS OR WORTH FULL VALUE
WILL DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE TRANSFER SOUGHT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES IN ADMINISTERING FREEZING CONTROL. 

"UNDER THIS ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE NATURE OF ANY ATTACHMENT ACTION
AGAINST A BLOCKED ACCOUNT MUST BE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE PURPOSES OF
FREEZING CONTROL, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT AN ATTACHMENT ACTION OF THIS
NATURE MIGHT WELL BE ALLOWED IN THE NEW YORK COURTS.  FN25 

 .         .         .         .         .    "THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS ANXIOUS TO KEEP TO A MINIMUM INTERFERENCE WITH THE NORMAL
RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS AND THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE CASES, CONSISTENT WITH THE MOST EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF TOTAL WAR.  APPLIED TO THE INSTANT CASE, THIS MEANS THAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE ITS HANDS UNFETTERED IN USING FREEZING
CONTROL, RECOGNIZING THAT IT IS DESIRABLE THAT PRIVATE LITIGANTS BE
ABLE TO ATTACH SOME INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO BLOCKED ASSETS IN ORDER TO
CLARIFY THEIR RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES. 

"THIS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN THIS BRIEF.  THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVES THAT
THE INTERESTS OF PRIVATE LITIGANTS IN STATE COURTS CAN BE SERVED
WITHOUT INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREEZING CONTROL PROGRAM.  HOWEVER, THE
INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT IS PARAMOUNT TO THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE
LITIGANTS IN THIS FIELD AND SHOULD THIS COURT BE OF THE VIEW THAT UNDER
THE NEW YORK LAW THERE CANNOT BE A VALID ATTACHMENT OF THE LIMITED
INTERESTS HEREIN SUGGESTED, THEN THE GOVERNMENT MUST RELUCTANTLY TAKE
THE POSITION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE
FREEZING CONTROL, THERE CAN BE NO ATTACHABLE INTEREST UNDER NEW YORK
LAW WITH RESPECT TO BLOCKED ASSETS."  FN26 

AS THE GOVERNMENT POINTED OUT IN THE POLISH RELIEF CASE, THE
CUSTODIAN IS CHARGED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WITH PRESERVING AND
DISTRIBUTING BLOCKED ASSETS FOR THE BENEFIT OF AMERICAN CREDITORS.  FEW
CLAIMS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO SOME QUESTION, AND THE TREASURY DOES NOT PAY
QUESTIONABLE CLAIMS.  FOR THOSE CLAIMS TO BE SETTLED SO THAT THEY CAN
PROPERLY BE PAID OUT OF BLOCKED ASSETS THEY MUST BE ADJUDICATED VALID
BY SOME COURT OF LAW.  BECAUSE THE DEBTOR RARELY IS AMENABLE TO
PERSONAL SERVICE, ANY ACTION MUST BE IN THE NATURE OF A QUASI-IN-REM
ACTION PRECEDED BY AN ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  IF, AS THE CUSTODIAN NOW
CONTENDS, THE FREEZING PROGRAM PUTS ALL ASSETS OF AN ALIEN DEBTOR
BEYOND THE REACH OF AN ATTACHMENT, IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT
THERE CAN BE NO ADJUDICATIONS OF THE VALIDITY OF AMERICAN CLAIMS AND
CONSEQUENTLY THE CLAIMS, NOT BEING SETTLED, WOULD NOT BE SATISFIED BY
THE TREASURY.  THE LOGICAL END OF THAT COURSE WOULD BE COMPLETE
FRUSTRATION OF A LARGE PART OF THE FREEZING PROGRAM.  WE CANNOT BELIEVE
THAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDED THE PROGRAM TO REACH SUCH A SELF-GENERATED
STALEMATE. 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS TOOK THE POSITION URGED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  IT HELD THAT THE INTEREST OF THE DEBTOR, ALTHOUGH SUBJECT
TO THE LICENSING CONTINGENCY, WAS SUFFICIENT AS MATTER OF STATE LAW TO
RENDER THE LEVY VALID AND SUFFICIENT AS A BASIS OF JURISDICTION TO
DECIDE ANY ISSUES BETWEEN THE ATTACHING CREDITOR AND THE FOREIGN
DEBTOR.  AT THE SAME TIME, IT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ANY TRANSFER OF THE
ATTACHED FUNDS TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT COULD ONLY BE HAD IF AND WHEN
THE PROPER LICENSE HAD BEEN SECURED.  COMMISSION FOR POLISH RELIEF V.
BANCA NATIONALA A RUMANIEI, SUPRA. 

WHAT THE NEW YORK COURTS HAVE DONE HERE IS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT URGED IN THE POLISH RELIEF CASE.  INDEED, IN THAT
CASE, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY HAD EXPRESSLY DENIED THE
APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR A LICENSE FOR HIS ATTACHMENT.  IN
SPITE OF THAT, HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT URGED THAT THE ATTACHMENT WAS
AUTHORIZED BY SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE: 

"FROM THE VERY INCEPTION OF FREEZING CONTROL, LITIGANTS, PRIOR TO
COMMENCING ATTACHMENT ACTIONS AGAINST FUNDS BELONGING TO BLOCKED
NATIONALS, HAVE REQUESTED THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO LICENSE A
TRANSFER TO THE SHERIFF BY ATTACHMENT.  IN ALL THOSE CASES, RUNNING
INTO THE HUNDREDS, THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN A CONSISTENT
POSITION.  THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAS AUTHORIZED THE BRINGING OF AN
ATTACHMENT ACTION.  HOWEVER, THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAS NOT LICENSED A
TRANSFER OF THE BLOCKED FUNDS TO THE SHERIFF PRIOR TO JUDGMENT."  FN27 

THE FOREGOING IS CONFIRMED IN THIS CASE BY A STIPULATION THAT
CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE TREATED ATTACHMENTS SUCH AS WE HAVE
HERE AS PERMISSIBLE AND VALID AT THE TIME THEY WERE LEVIED.  FN28 

THE CUSTODIAN NOW ASKS THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DECLARE THE STATE COURT
ATTACHMENTS NULLITIES.  HIS REQUEST HERE IS NOT MERELY THAT HE IS
ENTITLED TO TAKE AND ADMINISTER THE FUND, BUT THAT THE ATTACHMENTS ARE
NOT EFFECTIVE AS AGAINST THE RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST OF THE GERMAN
BANKS.  HIS REQUEST IS IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE ADMITTED ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE AND THE POSITION URGED UPON THE NEW YORK COURTS IN THE POLISH
RELIEF CASE.  HE PREDICATES THAT REVERSAL OF POSITION, AND SO FAR HAS
BEEN SUSTAINED IN IT, UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN PROPPER V.
CLARK, SUPRA, TO WHICH WE ACCORDINGLY TURN. 

III. 

THE ESSENCE OF THE CUSTODIAN'S ARGUMENT THAT PROPPER V. CLARK
REQUIRES INVALIDATION OF THESE ATTACHMENTS, AS STATED IN HIS BRIEF, IS
THAT: 

"  ...  (IT) IS LITTLE SHORT OF ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT, WHILE
CREDITORS OF AN ENEMY NATIONAL ARE PRECLUDED FROM REACHING HIS BLOCKED
PROPERTY IN THE ABSENCE OF A LICENSE WHERE THEY PROCEED BY THE
PROVISIONAL REMEDY OF RECEIVERSHIP, THE OPPOSITE RESULT WILL BE
PERMITTED WHERE THEY FOLLOW THE PROVISIONAL REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT." 
FN29 

THE ANSWER TO THIS SUGGESTED ABSURDITY IS THAT A DISTINCTION IN NEW
YORK LAW, ALL IMPORTANT HERE, HAS ELUDED THE CUSTODIAN.  THE RECEIVER
IN PROPPER WAS NOT A RECEIVER APPOINTED AS A PROVISIONAL REMEDY BUT WAS
A SPECIAL STATUTORY RECEIVER WHICH STATE LAW PURPORTED TO VEST WITH
BOTH TITLE AND RIGHT TO POSSESSION, WHICH, IN CASE OF BLOCKED ASSETS OF
A FOREIGN CORPORATE DEBTOR, WOULD OBVIOUSLY DEFEAT THE SCHEME OF
FEDERAL CONTROLS.  AS OUR OPINION NOTES, 337 U.S. AT P. 475, PROPPER'S
CLAIM, ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE CUSTODIAN, WAS INITIATED BY A TEMPORARY
RECEIVER, LATER MADE PERMANENT, APPOINTED BY A NEW YORK STATE COURT
PURSUANT TO SEC. 977-B OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, WHICH IS
ENTITLED, "RECEIVERS TO LIQUIDATE LOCAL ASSETS OF FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS."  THAT IS A SPECIAL PROCEEDING ADDED TO NEW YORK PRACTICE
BY THE 1936 LEGISLATURE, FN30  AND PROVIDES FOR APPOINTMENT OF A
LIQUIDATING RECEIVER OF ASSETS WITHIN THE STATE OWNED BY A FOREIGN
CORPORATION WHICH HAS BEEN DISSOLVED, LIQUIDATED, OR NATIONALIZED, OR
WHICH, VOLUNTARILY OR OTHERWISE, HAS CEASED TO DO BUSINESS.  FN31  UPON
APPLICATION BY A CREDITOR OF SUCH A CORPORATION, THE COURT APPOINTS A
TEMPORARY RECEIVER.  FN32  TITLE TO ALL SUCH ASSETS VESTS IN HIM UPON
APPOINTMENT,  FN33  AND THE STATUTE REQUIRES AND EMPOWERS HIM TO
"REDUCE TO HIS POSSESSION ANY AND ALL ASSETS, CREDITS, CHOSES IN ACTION
AND PROPERTY" FOUND IN THE STATE.  FN34  IF IT IS ESTABLISHED ON TRIAL
THAT THE CORPORATION HAS BEEN DISSOLVED OR NATIONALIZED OR THAT ITS
CHARTER HAS BEEN ANNULLED OR THAT IT HAS CEASED, FOR ANY REASON, TO DO
BUSINESS, THE RECEIVERSHIP IS MADE PERMANENT  FN35  AND NOTICE IS GIVEN
TO ALL CREDITORS TO PROVE THEIR CLAIMS.  FN36  THOSE ALLOWED, THE
RECEIVER PAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTORY PRIORITIES.  FN37  ANY
SURPLUS IS PAID TO STOCKHOLDERS OF THE CORPORATION OR, IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT, TO A RECEIVER OR LIQUIDATOR, IF ANY, APPOINTED
IN THE DOMICILE OF THE CORPORATION OR ELSEWHERE.  FN38 

THIS SPECIAL PROCEEDING, WHICH HAS NOTHING BUT NAME IN COMMON WITH
THE TRADITIONAL PROVISIONAL REMEDY OF RECEIVERSHIP,  FN39  WAS
INTRODUCED TO PROTECT RESIDENT CREDITORS AND SHAREHOLDERS AGAINST
CONFISCATORY DECREES BY FOREIGN NATIONS.  AS ONE COURT HAS SAID: 

"THIS SECTION BECAME EFFECTIVE ON THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 1936, AND
MARKS A DISTINCT CHANGE IN THE POLICY OF THIS STATE WITH RESPECT TO THE
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY SITUATED HERE BUT WHICH BELONGS TO A FOREIGN
CORPORATION THAT HAS CEASED TO DO BUSINESS FOR ANY REASON, OR HAS BEEN
DISSOLVED, LIQUIDATED, OR NATIONALIZED. 

"THE PURPOSE OF THIS STATUTE, CLEARLY, IS TO ADMINISTER THE
DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH ASSETS IN THIS STATE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SCHEME
OF DISTRIBUTION PROMULGATED IN ANY OTHER STATE INCLUSIVE OF THE
DOMICILE OF THE FOREIGN CORPORATION.  ...  "  OLINER V. AMERICAN
ORIENTAL BANKING CORP., 252 APP. DIV. 212, 297 N.Y. SUPP. 432(1937)
AFF'D 277 N.Y. 588, 13 N.E.2D 783(1938).  SEE ALSO MOSCOW FIRE INS. CO.
V. BANK OF NEW YORK & TRUST CO., 161 MISC. 903, 924, 294 N.Y. SUPP.
648, 676(1937). 

SUCH WAS THE POSITION OF THE RECEIVER WHOSE CLAIMS WE REJECTED IN
PROPPER V. CLARK.  THE COURTS OF NEW YORK HAD THEMSELVES RECOGNIZED
THAT THE PROPPER RECEIVERSHIP CONFLICTED IN PRINCIPLE WITH FEDERAL
FUNDS CONTROL AND HAD POINTED OUT THAT IN PRACTICE IT MIGHT WELL DEFEAT
THE FEDERAL POLICY.  IT WAS SAID, "THE PRINCIPLE IS WELL SETTLED THAT
WAR SUSPENDS THE RIGHT OF NON-RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMIES TO PROSECUTE
ACTIONS IN OUR COURTS  ...  AND IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE PLAINTIFF
HERE (PROPPER), ALTHOUGH HIMSELF NEITHER AN ENEMY NOR AN ALIEN NOR A
NON-RESIDENT, IS SEEKING TO ENFORCE A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH, AT LEAST
UNTIL HIS APPOINTMENT, EXISTED, IF AT ALL, IN FAVOR OF A NON-RESIDENT
ALIEN WHICH IS ALSO AN ENEMY AS THE TERM 'ENEMY' IS DEFINED IN THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  ...  HIS RIGHT TO RECOVER MUST REST UPON
THE RIGHTS OF SUCH NON-RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMY, AND WHILE SECTION 977-B OF
THE CIVIL PRACTICE ACT PURPORTS TO VEST A RECEIVER APPOINTED THEREUNDER
WITH TITLE TO CLAIMS EXISTING IN FAVOR OF THE FOREIGN CORPORATION IT
ALSO IS POSSIBLE THAT UNDER THAT SECTION SOME PROCEEDS OF A RECOVERY
HEREIN ULTIMATELY MAY BENEFIT NON-RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMIES ...  "
PROPPER V. BUCK, 178 MISC. 76, 78, 33 N.Y.S.2D 11, 13(1942). 

BUT, AS THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE THAT DECISION SO UNEQUIVOCALLY URGED
UPON THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PURSUED
IN THESE CASES HAVE NO SUCH CONSEQUENCES.  NOTHING IN THESE STATE COURT
PROCEEDINGS HAVE PURPORTED TO FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL
FREEZING PROGRAM.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE EFFECT OF THE STATE'S ACTION,
LIKE THAT OF THE FEDERAL, WAS TO FREEZE THESE FUNDS, TO PREVENT THEIR
WITHDRAWAL OR TRANSFER TO USE OF THE GERMAN NATIONALS.  THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT THESE ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD IN ANY MANNER
BENEFIT THE ENEMY.  THE SOLE BENEFICIARIES ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS WHOSE
LIENS ARE NOT DERIVED FROM THE ENEMY BUT ARE ADVERSE TO ANY ENEMY
INTERESTS.  AND, IF NO FEDERAL FREEZE ORDERS WERE IN EXISTENCE, THESE
STATE PROCEEDINGS WOULD TIE UP ENEMY PROPERTY AND REDUCE THE AMOUNTS
AVAILABLE FOR ENEMY DISPOSITION.  WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S
ASSURANCE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE POLISH RELIEF CASE THAT THESE
PROCEEDINGS, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT PURPORT TO CONTROL
THE CUSTODIAN IN THE EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL LICENSING POWER, OR IN THE
POWER TO VEST THE RES IF HE SEES FIT TO DO SO FOR ADMINISTRATION, ARE
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE FREEZING PROGRAM AND WE THINK THEY WERE NOT
INVALIDATED OR CONSIDERED IN PROPPER V. CLARK, SUPRA.  THE LATTER
DECISION IS NOT AUTHORITY FOR THE JUDGMENT ASKED AND OBTAINED BY THE
CUSTODIAN HERE. 

                       IV.  THE VESTING ORDER. 

THE CUSTODIAN IN THIS CASE HAS ONLY SOUGHT TO VEST IN HIMSELF THE
"RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST" OF THE GERMAN BANKS.  AS WE UNDERSTAND IT,
HE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IF THE INTERESTS ACQUIRED BY THE ATTACHMENTS ARE
VALID AS AGAINST THE GERMAN BANKS HE IS NOT, UNDER THE VESTING ORDERS
INVOLVED, AS HE HAS CHOSEN TO PHRASE THEM, ENTITLED TO THE ATTACHED
FUNDS, BUT HE TAKES THE POSITION THAT NO VALID RIGHTS AGAINST THE
GERMAN DEBTORS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ATTACHMENTS BECAUSE PROHIBITED BY
THE FREEZING PROGRAM.  FN40  HE HAS, IN SHORT, PUT HIMSELF IN THE SHOES
OF THE GERMAN BANKS.  AS AGAINST THE GERMAN DEBTORS, THE ATTACHMENTS
AND THE JUDGMENTS THEY SECURE ARE VALID UNDER NEW YORK LAW, AND CANNOT
BE CANCELLED OR ANNULLED UNDER A VESTING ORDER BY WHICH THE CUSTODIAN
TAKES OVER ONLY THE RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST OF THOSE DEBTORS IN THE
ACCOUNTS.  BUT, OF COURSE, AS AGAINST THE CUSTODIAN, EXERCISING THE
PARAMOUNT POWER OF THE UNITED STATES, THEY DO NOT CONTROL OR LIMIT THE
FEDERAL POLICY OF DEALING WITH ALIEN PROPERTY AND DO NOT PREVENT A RES
VESTING, AS SUSTAINED IN THE COMPANION CASES, IF THE CUSTODIAN SEES FIT
TO TAKE OVER THE ENTIRE FUND FOR ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE ACT.  IN SUCH
CASE, ALL FEDERAL QUESTIONS AS TO RECOGNITION BY THE CUSTODIAN OF THE
STATE LAW LIEN, OR PRIORITY OF PAYMENT, ARE RESERVED FOR DECISION IF
AND WHEN PRESENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT. 

THIS RESULT, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, IN NO WAY IMPAIRS FEDERAL CONTROL
OVER ALIEN PROPERTY, SINCE THE PETITIONERS ADMIT THAT THEY CANNOT
SECURE PAYMENT FROM THE ATTACHED FROZEN FUNDS WITHOUT A LICENSE FROM
THE CUSTODIAN.  THE CASE IS, THEREFORE, MORE NEARLY LIKE LYON V.
SINGER, 339 U.S. 841, 842, WHERE THIS COURT SAID:  "WE ACCEPT THE NEW
YORK COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW THESE CLAIMS AROSE
FROM TRANSACTIONS IN NEW YORK AND WERE ENTITLED TO A PREFERENCE.  SINCE
THE NEW YORK COURT CONDITIONED ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAIMS UPON LICENSING
BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, FEDERAL CONTROL OVER ALIEN PROPERTY
REMAINS UNDIMINISHED." 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED.    FN1  AS PROVIDED FOR
IN N.Y. CIV. PRAC.  ACT SEC. 922. 

FN2  3 CFR, 1943 CUM. SUPP., 948, 6 FED. REG. 2897. 

FN3  3 CFR, 1943 CUM. SUPP., 645, 5 FED. REG. 1400. 

FN4  40 STAT. 411, 415, AS AMENDED BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY 7,
1940, 54 STAT. 179, AND FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, SEC. 301, 55
STAT. 839. 

FN5  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES: 

"SECTION 1.  ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TRANSACTIONS ARE PROHIBITED, EXCEPT
AS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY BY MEANS OF
REGULATIONS, RULINGS, INSTRUCTIONS, LICENSES, OR OTHERWISE, IF  ...
SUCH TRANSACTIONS INVOLVE PROPERTY IN WHICH ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY
DESIGNATED IN THIS ORDER, OR ANY NATIONAL THEREOF, HAS AT ANY TIME ON
OR SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDER HAD ANY INTEREST OF ANY
NATURE WHATSOEVER, DIRECT OR INDIRECT: 

"A.  ALL TRANSFERS OF CREDIT BETWEEN ANY BANKING INSTITUTIONS WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES  ...  ; 

"B.  ALL PAYMENTS BY OR TO ANY BANKING INSTITUTION WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"E.  ALL TRANSFERS, WITHDRAWALS OR EXPORTATIONS OF, OR DEALINGS IN,
ANY EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS OR EVIDENCES OF OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY BY
ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES; AND 

"F.  ANY TRANSACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OR WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF
EVADING OR AVOIDING THE FOREGOING PROHIBITIONS." 

FN6  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS SINCE SUCCEEDED TO THE FUNCTIONS AND
POWERS OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, BUT, FOR CONVENIENCE, THE
RESPONDENT INTEREST WILL BE REFERRED TO THROUGHOUT AS THE CUSTODIAN. 

FN7  82 F.SUPP.  740. 

FN8  182 F.2D 349. 

FN9  340 U.S. 882. 

FN10  N.Y. CIV. PRAC.  ACT SECS. 974-977. 

FN11  ID. SECS. 902-973. 

FN12  ID. SEC. 917(2). 

FN13  ID. SEC. 918. 

FN14  ID. SEC. 917(2). 

FN15  ID. SEC. 922(1). 

FN16  ID. SEC. 520. 

FN17  ID. SECS. 952, 953. 

FN18  GENERAL RULING NO. 12 UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, 31 CFR,
1943 CUM. SUPP., 8849, APRIL 21, 1942, DEFINED A PROHIBITED "TRANSFER"
AS "  ...  ANY ACTUAL OR PURPORTED ACT OR TRANSACTION ...  THE PURPOSE,
INTENT, OR EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO CREATE, SURRENDER, RELEASE, TRANSFER,
OR ALTER, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY RIGHT, REMEDY, POWER, PRIVILEGE,
OR INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPERTY AND WITHOUT LIMITATION UPON
THE FOREGOING SHALL INCLUDE  ...  THE CREATION OR TRANSFER OF ANY LIEN;
THE ISSUANCE, DOCKETING, FILING, OR THE LEVY OF OR UNDER ANY JUDGMENT,
DECREE, ATTACHMENT, EXECUTION, OR OTHER JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS OR ORDER, OR THE SERVICE OF ANY GARNISHMENT  ...  " 

FN19  BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE, P. 2, COMMISSION
FOR POLISH RELIEF V. BANCA NATIONALA A RUMANIEI, 288 N.Y. 332, 43
N.E.2D 345(1942). 

FN20  ID. AT PP. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13. 

FN21  ID. AT P. 14. 

FN22  ID. AT PP. 14-15. 

FN23  ID. AT P. 42. 

FN24  ID. AT P. 50. 

FN25  ID. AT P. 52. 

FN26  ID. AT P. 53. 

FN27  ID. AT P. 39. 

FN28  THE STIPULATION OF FACTS STATES: 

     .         .         .         .      . 

"5.  FROM THE INCEPTION OF 'FREEZING' CONTROLS, ALL LITIGANTS WHO,
PRIOR TO COMMENCING ATTACHMENT ACTIONS AGAINST FUNDS BELONGING TO
BLOCKED NATIONALS, HAD REQUESTED THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO
LICENSE AN ATTACHMENT, OR LEVY, RECEIVED FROM THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT A
RESPONSE OF THE FOLLOWING NATURE: 

"UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, AS AMENDED, AND THE REGULATIONS
ISSUED THEREUNDER, NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO LIMIT THE BRINGING OF SUITS IN
THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY OF THE STATES.  HOWEVER,
SHOULD YOU SECURE A JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE OF THE PARTIES REFERRED TO IN
YOUR LETTER, WHICH IS A COUNTRY COVERED BY THE ORDER, OR A NATIONAL
THEREOF, A LICENSE WOULD HAVE TO BE SECURED BEFORE PAYMENT COULD BE
MADE FROM ACCOUNTS IN BANKING INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IN
THE NAME OF SUCH COUNTRY OR NATIONAL. 

"6.  FROM THE INCEPTION OF 'FREEZING' CONTROLS, THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY IN ADMINISTERING THE 'FREEZING' CONTROL PROGRAM ADOPTED THE
POSITION, IN RESPONSE TO NUMEROUS REQUESTS MADE OF HIM, THAT THE
BRINGING OF AN ACTION, THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT THEREIN,
AND THE LEVY THEREUNDER UPON BLOCKED PROPERTY FOUND WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHICH ISSUED THE WARRANT WERE NOT FORBIDDEN
BUT THAT A LICENSE WAS REQUIRED TO BE SECURED BEFORE PAYMENT COULD BE
MADE FROM THE BLOCKED ACCOUNT TO SATISFY ANY JUDGMENT RECOVERED IN SUCH
ACTION. 

"7.  ...  A LICENSE TO INSTITUTE THE ACTION AND LEVY THE ATTACHMENT
WAS IN FACT NOT REQUIRED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT." 

FN29  BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT, PP. 16-17. 

FN30  L. 1936, C. 917. 

FN31  N.Y. CIV. PRAC.  ACT SEC. 977-B (1). 

FN32  ID. SEC. 977-B (4). 

FN33  ID. SEC. 977-B (19). 

FN34  ID. SEC. 977-B (4). 

FN35  ID. SEC. 977-B (10). 

FN36  ID. SEC. 977-B (11). 

FN37  ID. SEC. 977-B (16). 

FN38  IBID. 

FN39  ID. SECS. 974-977.  A RECEIVER APPOINTED AS A PROVISIONAL
REMEDY IS NOT AN AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE OF EITHER PARTY, BUT HOLDS THE
PROPERTY DURING THE LITIGATION PENDING FINAL JUDGMENT.  WEEKS V. WEEKS,
106 N.Y. 626, 631, 13 N.E. 96, 98(1887); PEOPLE EX REL. ATTORNEY
GENERAL V. SECURITY LIFE INS. CO., 79 N.Y. 267, 270(1879).  "THE
RECEIVER ACQUIRES NO TITLE, BUT ONLY THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION AS THE
OFFICER OF THE COURT.  THE TITLE REMAINS IN THOSE IN WHOM IT WAS VESTED
WHEN THE APPOINTMENT WAS MADE."  STOKES V. HOFFMAN HOUSE, 167 N.Y. 554,
559-560, 60 N.E. 667, 669(1901), QUOTING KEENEY V. HOME INS. CO., 71
N.Y. 396, 401, 27 AM. REP. 60, 63(1877).  SEE ALSO CARMODY'S MANUAL OF
NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE (CARR, FINN, SAXE, 1946 ED.)  SEC.  609. 

FN40  BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT, P. 27. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT SINCE IT PLACES CONTROL OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST PHASE OF THE CONTROVERSY IN THE LICENSING POWER OF THE
CUSTODIAN.  PAYMENT OF CLAIMS REQUIRES A LICENSE.  FN1 A LICENSE, OF
COURSE, MAY BE REFUSED WHEN PAYMENT WOULD ACCRUE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ENEMY.  BUT THE POLICY OF THE ACT IS IN NO WAY
SUBVERTED BY RECOGNITION OF A LIEN WHICH CAN RIPEN INTO A PRIORITY ONLY
IF PAYMENT WOULD HAVE NO SUCH EFFECT.  DENIAL OF THE LIEN COULD BE MADE
ONLY IF THE ACT CALLED FOR AN EQUALITY OF DISTRIBUTION AMONG CLAIMANTS,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR INNOCENCE OR GUILT.  I CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE ACT
WHICH WARRANTS LEVELING THE GOOD FAITH LIEN CLAIMANT TO THE UNSECURED
STATUS OF THE OTHERS.  FN2 

FN1  SEE SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 40 STAT. 411,
415, AS AMENDED, 54 STAT. 179, 55 STAT. 839, AND 8 CFR, C. II, PART
511. 

FN2  THE PRIORITY OF DEBT CLAIMS CONTAINED IN SEC. 34(G), 60 STAT.
925, 928, DOES NOT PURPORT TO DEAL WITH CREDITORS PREFERRED BY REASON
OF A LIEN LAWFULLY ACQUIRED IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS, CONCURRING IN
PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. 

THE COURT FAILS TO DECIDE THE ONLY QUESTION OF IMPORTANCE PRESENTED
BY THIS CASE.  THIS QUESTION IS WHETHER A STATE ATTACHMENT, OBTAINED ON
ASSETS PREVIOUSLY BLOCKED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785, GIVES THE
ATTACHING CREDITOR ANY RIGHT IN THOSE ASSETS THAT DISPLACES THE POWER
OF THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SUCH DISPOSITION OR USE OF THE ASSETS AS IT
MAY ULTIMATELY DETERMINE IS FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION AND ITS
CITIZENS.  THE COURT DEFERS ALL QUESTIONS AS TO "RECOGNITION BY THE
CUSTODIAN OF THE STATE LAW LIEN, OR PRIORITY OF PAYMENT" FOR LATER
DECISION.  UNDER TODAY'S DECISION THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN VESTS
THE ACCOUNT IN QUESTION WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT POWER HE HAS OVER ITS
HANDLING OR DISPOSITION.  SUCH UNCERTAINTY WILL HAMPER ADMINISTRATION
AND BE AN OPEN INVITATION TO THE OWNERS OF BLOCKED ASSETS TO SELL THEIR
INTERESTS IN THE BLOCKED PROPERTY, AS THE CUSTODIAN PHRASES IT, "TO
FRIENDLY SPECULATORS WILLING TO BUY AT A DISCOUNT AND TO AWAIT PAYMENT
ON THE ULTIMATE DAY OF UNBLOCKING." 

THE CUSTODIAN SOUGHT A DETERMINATION OF THIS TROUBLESOME QUESTION. 
HIS PETITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT ASKED THAT COURT TO DECLARE THAT 

"RESPONDENTS ZITTMAN AND MCCARTHY, AND MCCLOSKEY, AS SHERIFF,
OBTAINED NO LIEN OR OTHER INTEREST IN THE 'REICHSBANK-DIREKTORIUM' OR
THE DEUTSCHE GOLDDISKONTBANK ACCOUNTS, OR THE FUNDS REPRESENTED
THEREBY, AND THAT BY VIRTUE OF VESTING ORDERS NOS. 7792 AND 7870 THE
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE ENTIRE BALANCES REMAINING IN THE
'REICHSBANK-DIREKTORIUM' AND DEUTSCHE GOLDDISKONTBANK ACCOUNTS ON THE
BOOKS OF THE RESPONDENT CHASE NATIONAL BANK, TOGETHER WITH ALL ACCRUED
DIVIDENDS AND ACCUMULATIONS." 

THE DECREE SUSTAINED THAT REQUEST ON THE AUTHORITY OF PROPPER V.
CLARK, 337 U.S. 472.  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE PRAYER REFERRED TO
LIENS OR OTHER INTERESTS IN THE ACCOUNTS AND ASKED THAT THE BALANCES BE
TURNED OVER.  THE COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE TURN
OVER REQUEST BUT ALSO SEEKS A DECLARATION "THAT NO VALID RIGHTS AGAINST
THE GERMAN DEBTORS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ATTACHMENTS BECAUSE PROHIBITED
BY THE FREEZING PROGRAM." 

WHILE SUCH CONSTRUCTION OF THE PETITION IS POSSIBLE, I READ IT TO
SEEK A RATHER DIFFERENT DECISION.  THE CUSTODIAN'S COMPLAINT PRAYED A
RULING THAT THE ATTACHING CREDITORS OBTAINED NO LIEN OR OTHER INTEREST
IN THE ACCOUNTS THAT COULD DETERMINE HIS ACTION IN ADMINISTERING OR
DISTRIBUTING THE FUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF CONGRESS. 
THIS IS MADE CLEAR BY THE STATEMENTS EXCERPTED FROM THE CUSTODIAN'S
BRIEF IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  IT IS SUBSTANTIATED BY UNITED STATES
TREASURY DEPARTMENT GENERAL RULING NO. 12, UPON WHICH THE CUSTODIAN
RELIES.  FN2 

IF THE COURT HAS ANY DOUBT THAT ANYTHING ELSE WAS MEANT BY THE
COMPLAINT OR DECREE, THE PROPER COURSE WOULD BE TO INSERT IN THE DECREE
A MODIFYING PROVISO TO THE EFFECT THAT "NO LIEN OR OTHER INTEREST,
EXCEPT AS BETWEEN THE DEBTOR AND CREDITOR, WAS OBTAINED BY THE
ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT."  SEE LYON V. SINGER, 339
U.S. 841. 

IN MY JUDGMENT A VALID STATE ATTACHMENT, OBTAINED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
BLOCKING ORDER, IS GOOD AS BETWEEN AN ALIEN AND HIS CREDITORS.  I AM
ALSO SURE THAT SUCH AN ATTACHMENT HAS NO COMPELLING POWER UPON THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN HIS ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT. 

PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472, 482-486, SO HOLDS.  IT WAS LIKE THE
PRESENT CASE - A SUIT BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, AFTER A VESTING
ORDER, TO GET POSSESSION OF THE BLOCKED CREDITS.  IN PROPPER V. CLARK,
AS IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS A CLAIM THAT AN INTEREST HAD PASSED TO A
THIRD PARTY, PROPPER, AS PERMANENT RECEIVER BY JUDICIAL DECREE ENTERED
BETWEEN THE BLOCKING AND VESTING ORDERS.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE GROUP
OF CASES IN LYON V. SINGER, 339 U.S. 841, TO WEAKEN THE HOLDING IN THE
PROPPER CASE.  THE TRANSACTIONS IN THOSE LATER CASES LIKEWISE TOOK
PLACE AFTER A FEDERAL BLOCKING ORDER AND BEFORE A VESTING ORDER BY THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAD DECIDED
THAT THE CLAIMANTS HAD PREFERRED CLAIMS UNDER NEW YORK LAW AGAINST THE
ASSETS OF THE ALIEN.  WE RECOGNIZED THOSE CLAIMS SINCE THEY WERE
CONDITIONED UPON LICENSING BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, BUT WE
DISTINCTLY SAID THAT THE RULING IN PROPPER V. CLARK WAS NOT AFFECTED
BECAUSE IN THE PROPPER CASE "THE LIQUIDATOR CLAIMED TITLE TO FROZEN
ASSETS ADVERSELY TO THE CUSTODIAN, AND SOUGHT TO DENY THE CUSTODIAN'S
PARAMOUNT POWER TO VEST THE ALIEN PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES." 
THEREFORE THE CLEAR RULE OF THE PROPPER CASE THAT THE CUSTODIAN VESTS
AND ADMINISTERS ENTIRELY FREE FROM EFFECTIVE INTERFERENCE OVER ANY
RIGHTS OR TITLE SECURED BY THE ATTACHMENT STANDS UNIMPAIRED.  IN SUCH A
SITUATION IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME THAT THERE CAN BE ANY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A TITLE ACQUIRED BY A RECEIVER, SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE
CUSTODIAN AS LICENSOR, AND THE LIEN ACQUIRED BY THE ATTACHING CREDITOR,
SUBJECT TO THE SAME LICENSE LIMITATION.  THE COURT'S DISTINCTION
BETWEEN PROPPER V. CLARK AND THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE
RESULT HERE. 

I DISAGREE, TOO, WITH THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE BRIEF FILED
BY THE GOVERNMENT IN COMMISSION FOR POLISH RELIEF V. BANCA NATIONALA A
RUMANIEI, 288 N.Y. 332, 43 N.E.2D 345.  THE CASE HOLDS ONLY THAT THE
ATTACHMENT IS GOOD BETWEEN THE DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.  IT DOES NOT HOLD
IT GOOD AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT NOR DID THE GOVERNMENT BRIEF, AS I READ
IT, SO CONCEDE.  THE BRIEF MERELY APPROVED SUITS BETWEEN LITIGANTS TO
SETTLE THOSE LITIGANTS' PERSONAL RIGHTS, NOT TO GET TRANSFERS OF OR
LIENS ON FROZEN ASSETS EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE CUSTODIAN.  THAT IS
LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL RULING NO. 12(4), NOTE 2, SUPRA.  THIS
IS CLEAR FROM THE BRIEF, EXCERPTS FROM WHICH APPEAR BELOW.  FN3 

AS THE COURT DOES NOT AGREE WITH ME ON THE PROPRIETY OF MAKING A
DETERMINATION AT THE PRESENT TIME AS ABOVE SUGGESTED AND HAS LEFT OPEN
FOR FUTURE LITIGATION "ALL FEDERAL QUESTIONS AS TO RECOGNITION BY THE
CUSTODIAN OF THE STATE LAW LIEN, OR PRIORITY OF PAYMENT," I FORBEAR
FROM EXPRESSING MY VIEWS AT LENGTH UNTIL THIS ISSUE IS PRESENTED. 

AS INDICATED ABOVE, I THINK WE SHOULD MODIFY THE JUDGMENT ENTERED
BELOW BY SOME SUCH INSERTION AS I HAVE HERETOFORE SUGGESTED ON PP. 467
468, AND AS SO MODIFIED AFFIRM THAT DECREE. 

FN1  "PETITIONERS COULD NOT THEREAFTER ACQUIRE A PROPERTY INTEREST IN
THE BLOCKED ACCOUNTS WHICH COULD PREVAIL AGAINST A SUBSEQUENT VESTING
BY THE CUSTODIAN."  RESP.  BRIEF, P. 9. 

"PETITIONERS STRESS THAT NOTHING IN THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OR
IN THE FREEZING REGULATIONS PROHIBITS THE BRINGING OF SUITS AGAINST
ENEMY NATIONALS IN TIME OF WAR.  THIS IS CORRECT.  INDEED, THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT IN ADMINISTERING THE CONTROLS TOOK THE POSITION FROM THE
OUTSET THAT PARTIES WERE FREE TO SEEK ADJUDICATIONS OF THEIR RIGHTS VIS
A-VIS BLOCKED NATIONALS."  ID. P. 13.    "RESPONDENT DOES NOT CONTEND
THAT THE ATTACHMENTS WERE ABSOUTELY VOID OR THAT THEY WERE ILLEGAL.  HE
AGREES THAT FREEZING DID NOT PURPORT TO PROHIBIT THE RESORT TO JUDICIAL
PROCESS.  HE STATES SIMPLY THAT TRANSFERS IN BLOCKED PROPERTY WERE
PROSCRIBED AND THAT THE JUDICIAL HAND WAS STAYED TO THAT EXTENT.  NOT
ATTACHMENTS, BUT TRANSFERS, WERE CONTROLLED.  THAT MEANS THAT A FIXED
OR ABSOLUTE LIEN (AS DISTINGUISHED FROM 'A POTENTIAL RIGHT OR A
CONTINGENT LIEN') COULD NOT BE CREATED WITHOUT A RELEASE OF THE
PROPERTY FROM FEDERAL CONTROL.  SINCE THE PERFECTING OF A FIXED LIEN IS
CHARACTERISTICALLY SUBJECT TO NUMEROUS CONTINGENCIES UNDER STATE LAW,
E.G., THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR, IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR
THAT THE IMPOSITION OF A FURTHER CONDITION BY OPERATION OF FEDERAL LAW
THE PROCUREMENT OF A LICENSE - IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH PROCEEDINGS BY
WAY OF ATTACHMENT. 

"IN EFFECT, THEN, THE TREASURY SAID THIS: - BLOCKED PROPERTY IS
SUBJECT TO A FEDERAL INJUNCTION AGAINST TRANSFER.  THIS DOES NOT
PREVENT A STATE COURT FROM ISSUING A WRIT WHICH ALSO DIRECTS THE HOLDER
OF THE BLOCKED PROPERTY TO KEEP IT INTACT.  AND IF THE STATE COURT, IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, REGARDS ITS OWN PROCESS AS OFFERING A SUFFICIENT
PROMISE OF CONTROL TO WARRANT AN EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION, THERE IS
NO OBJECTION TO ITS DECLARING THE RIGHTS OF A SUITOR AS AGAINST THE
OWNER OF THE BLOCKED PROPERTY.  BUT THE STATE COURT'S POWER TO CONFER A
PROPRIETARY INTEREST UPON THE SUITOR NECESSARILY AWAITS A LIFTING OF
THE FEDERAL INJUNCTION."  ID. PP. 49-50. 

FN2  "(D)  ANY TRANSFER AFFECTED BY THE ORDER AND/OR THIS GENERAL
RULING AND INVOLVED IN, OR ARISING OUT OF, ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING IN
ANY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES SHALL, SO FAR AS AFFECTED BY THE
ORDER AND/OR THIS GENERAL RULING, BE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING FOR THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION OR PROCEEDING THE
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES THEREIN LITIGATED; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO
ATTACHMENT, JUDGMENT, DECREE, LIEN, EXECUTION, GARNISHMENT, OR OTHER
JUDICIAL PROCESS SHALL CONFER OR CREATE A GREATER RIGHT, POWER, OR
PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO, OR INTEREST IN, ANY PROPERTY IN A BLOCKED
ACCOUNT THAN THE OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY COULD CREATE OR CONFER BY
VOLUNTARY ACT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE LICENSE."  7 FED.
REG. 2991. 

FN3  "ALMOST FROM THE OUTSET OF FREEZING CONTROL THE TREASURY HAS HAD
TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF LITIGATION, PARTICULARLY ATTACHMENT
ACTIONS, AS AFFECTING BLOCKED ASSETS.  AS WILL BE MORE FULLY DEVELOPED
LATER IN THIS BRIEF, THE TREASURY DID NOT WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE
ORDERLY CONSIDERATION OF CASES BY THE COURTS, INCLUDING ATTACHMENT
ACTIONS, AND AT THE SAME TIME IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
PROGRAM THAT THE RESULTS OF COURT PROCEEDINGS BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF FREEZING CONTROL AS
THOSE ARISING OR RECOGNIZED THROUGH VOLUNTARY ACTION OF THE PARTIES. 

"INDEED THE TREASURY REGARDS THE COURTS AS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO
DECIDE DISPUTED CLAIMS AND SUGGESTED TO PARTIES THAT THEY ADJUDICATE
SUCH CLAIMS BEFORE APPLYING FOR A LICENSE TO PERMIT THE TRANSFER OF
FUNDS.  THE JUDGMENT WAS THEN REGARDED BY THE TREASURY AS THE
EQUIVALENT OF A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT ORDER WITHOUT THE CREATION OR
TRANSFER OF ANY VESTED INTEREST, AND A LICENSE WAS ISSUED OR DENIED ON
THE SAME PRINCIPLES OF POLICY AS THOSE GOVERNING VOLUNTARY TRANSFERS OF
BLOCKED ASSETS."  P. 14. 

"THE JUDICIAL PROCEDURE IS GENERALLY GEARED TO DEAL ONLY WITH THE
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING.  THE JUDICIAL
PROCEDURE IS NOT THE MOST APPROPRIATE FIELD TO DETERMINE THE GREAT
POLITICAL QUESTIONS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MAGNITUDE THAT WILL
INHERE IN THE ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF FOREIGN-OWNED PROPERTY IN THIS
COUNTRY AND IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF GROUPS OF AMERICAN
AND FOREIGN CREDITORS.  THESE GREAT PROBLEMS OF NATIONAL POLICY CAN BE
HANDLED ADEQUATELY ONLY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE DETERMINATION
OF SUCH NATIONAL POLICIES SHOULD NOT BE FORCED BY JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN
PARTICULAR CASES DETERMINING THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES
TO THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE QUESTIONS ARE POLITICAL AND FOR THE EXECUTIVE,
NOT THE JUDICIARY.  THEY ARE FEDERAL, NOT STATE.  THEY CALL FOR UNIFORM
TREATMENT WITH REFERENCE TO LARGE NATIONAL POLICIES, NOT FOR DISPARATE
LOCAL TREATMENT TO ACCORD WITH LOCAL POLICIES.  MOREOVER CONGRESS AND
THE EXECUTIVE HAVE SET UP MACHINERY TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS, A
MACHINERY DESIGNED TO RELATE THE SOLUTION TO THE WHOLE WAR EFFORT AND
THE INEVITABLE POSTWAR PROBLEMS."  P. 12. 

"FREEZING CONTROL IN PROTECTING BLOCKED ASSETS OF OVERRUN COUNTRIES
AND THEIR NATIONALS HAD AS A FURTHER PURPOSE THE DESIRE TO MAKE SUCH
ASSETS AVAILABLE, AT LEAST IN PART, IN THE WAR EFFORT AGAINST THE
AXIS.  NEEDLESS TO SAY, IF THERE CAN BE UNLICENSED TRANSFERS OF TITLE
TO BLOCKED PROPERTY, THE TRUE OWNERS OF SUCH BLOCKED PROPERTY MAY BE
PREVENTED FROM USING THE PROPERTY IN THE WAR EFFORT.  ...  "  PP. 9
10. 

"'BLOCKED DOLLARS' ARE STILL VALUABLE DOLLARS.  WITH A LICENSE THEY
ARE 'FREE DOLLARS.'  MORE THAN EIGHTY GENERAL LICENSES AND 400,000
SPECIAL LICENSES HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER THE FREEZING CONTROL,
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF BLOCKED DOLLARS FOR STATED PURPOSES.  MOREOVER,
'HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL IN THE HUMAN BREAST.'  THERE ARE ALWAYS THOSE WHO
ARE WILLING TO WAIT FOR THE DAY WHEN THE WAR IS OVER WITH THE
EXPECTATION THAT THE FREEZING CONTROL WILL BE LIFTED."  P. 8. 
..END :









ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 471 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 28, 1951.  - 182 F.2D 349,
AFFIRMED. 


AFTER "TRANSFERS" OF ASSETS OF GERMAN NATIONALS HAD BEEN FORBIDDEN BY
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT,
PETITIONERS, AMERICAN HOLDERS OF CLAIMS AGAINST A GERMAN BANK, LEVIED
ATTACHMENTS ON ACCOUNTS OF THE DEBTOR IN A NEW YORK BANK AND PROSECUTED
THE CLAIMS TO JUDGMENTS IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS.  THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN SERVED ON THE NEW YORK BANK VESTING ORDERS AND ALSO A
"TURNOVER DIRECTIVE" REQUIRING THAT ALL FUNDS IN THE ACCOUNTS BE TURNED
OVER TO HIM "TO BE HELD, ADMINISTERED AND ACCOUNTED FOR AS PROVIDED BY
LAW."  IN AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, THE CUSTODIAN SOUGHT
A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT HE IS "ENTITLED TO POSSESSION" OF THE FUNDS
IN THE ACCOUNTS.  HELD:  THE CUSTODIAN IS ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF THE
FUNDS AND TO ADMINISTER THEM.  ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH, ANTE, P. 446,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 472-474. 

(A)  THE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF THE FUNDS IN THIS CASE DOES NOT
OPERATE TO DEPRIVE ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS OF RIGHTS, BUT TAKES OVER THE
ESTATE FOR ADMINISTRATION.  PP. 473-474. 

(B)  ALL QUESTIONS AS TO THE PETITIONERS' CLAIMS, JUDGMENTS, OR
PRIORITIES ARE RESERVED FOR DECISION IN THE PROCEEDINGS PRESCRIBED BY
THE ACT.  P. 474. 

ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN. 

NO. 299.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 315, MCCARTHY V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SAME COURT. 

IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS AGAINST PETITIONERS BY THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  82
F.SUPP.  740.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  182 F.2D 349.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 882.  AFFIRMED, P. 474. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE COMPANION CASES TO NOS. 298 AND 314, ANTE, P. 446.  HERE,
THE PETITIONERS ATTACHED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK WITH
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK.  THE ATTACHMENTS WERE LEVIED AT
THE SAME TIME AS THOSE LEVIED ON THE CHASE BANK ACCOUNTS, AND WERE ALSO
FOLLOWED BY STATE COURT ACTIONS AGAINST THE REICHSBANK, CULMINATING IN
DEFAULT JUDGMENTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S FREEZING PROGRAM.  THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN SERVED ON
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK VESTING ORDERS SIMILAR TO THOSE SERVED ON THE
CHASE BANK IN NOS. 298 AND 314.  BUT HE ALSO SERVED ON THE FEDERAL
RESERVE BANK A "TURNOVER DIRECTIVE" DESCRIBING THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY
WHICH HE REQUIRED TO BE "TURNED OVER TO THE UNDERSIGNED TO BE HELD,
ADMINISTERED AND ACCOUNTED FOR AS PROVIDED BY LAW," AND CALLING
ATTENTION TO THE PROTECTION WHICH SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT GIVES FOR COMPLIANCE.  NO SUCH DIRECTIVE WAS SERVED ON THE
CHASE BANK IN THE COMPANION CASES.  THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK REFUSED TO
RELEASE TO HIM THE PORTION OF THE ACCOUNTS THAT HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO
THE ATTACHMENT LEVIES.  THE CUSTODIAN HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS
BELOW, AS HE WAS IN NOS. 298 AND 314, ON THE BASIS OF PROPPER V. CLARK,
337 U.S. 472.  FN1 

ALL THAT WE HAVE SAID IN SUBDIVISIONS NUMBERED I, II, AND III IN NOS.
298 AND 314, RESPECTING THE NATURE OF THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED UNDER NEW
YORK LAW BY AN ATTACHING CREDITOR, AND THE POSITION OCCUPIED BY THOSE
RIGHTS CONSISTENT WITH THE FREEZING PROGRAM, IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO
THE ATTACHMENTS HERE INVOLVED.  THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE
CASES AND THEIR COMPANIONS IS IN THE VESTING ORDERS ISSUED BY THE
CUSTODIAN AND THE NATURE OF THE JUDGMENT HE HAS SOUGHT IN EACH.  THE
ONLY ORDER ISSUED TO THE CHASE BANK WAS A "RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST"
VESTING ORDER, WHICH, AS WE UNDERSTAND THE CUSTODIAN TO CONCEDE, PUT
HIM IN THE PLACE OF THE GERMAN BANKS AND LEFT OPEN TO JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION WHETHER ANY VALID INTERESTS AS AGAINST ANYONE WERE
CREATED BY THE ATTACHMENTS.  IN THE LITIGATION INVOLVING THE CHASE
BANK, THE CUSTODIAN SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE FREEZING
PROGRAM PRECLUDED ATTACHING CREDITORS FROM OBTAINING ANY INTEREST IN
THE BLOCKED PROPERTY GOOD AS AGAINST THE DEBTORS. 

IN THESE CASES THE CUSTODIAN PURSUED A DIFFERENT COURSE, NOT ONLY IN
THAT HE SERVED ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK A "TURNOVER DIRECTIVE," BUT
ALSO IN THAT THE RELIEF ASKED IN THIS CASE OMITS ANY REQUEST FOR A
DECLARATION THAT THE ATTACHMENTS ARE INVALID.  HE ASKS A DECREE ONLY
THAT THE CUSTODIAN IS "ENTITLED TO POSSESSION" OF THE ACCOUNTS IN THEIR
ENTIRETY.  IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE ACTIONS INVOLVING THE CHASE BANK THE
CUSTODIAN STEPPED INTO THE SHOES OF THE GERMAN BANKS AND SOUGHT TO FREE
THEIR TITLES OF THE STATE LIENS; HERE HE SEEKS TO STEP INTO THE SHOES
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AS POSSESSOR OF THE CREDITS AND FUNDS,
LEAVING UNADJUDICATED THE EFFECT OF SUCH SUBSTITUTION OF CUSTODY UPON
THE ATTACHING CREDITORS' RIGHTS. 

WHILE THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE FUNDS ARE TO BE "HELD, ADMINISTERED
AND ACCOUNTED FOR" AUTHORIZES THE VESTING OF SUCH FOREIGN-OWNED
PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODIAN AND ITS ADMINISTRATION "IN THE INTEREST OF
AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES,"  FN2  IT IS NOT A
CONFISCATION MEASURE, BUT A LIQUIDATION MEASURE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
AMERICAN CREDITORS.  IT PROVIDES FOR THE FILING AND PROVING OF CLAIMS
AND STATES THAT THE FUNDS "SHALL BE EQUITABLY APPLIED" FOR THE PAYMENT
OF DEBTS.  FN3  IF THE CUSTODIAN DISALLOWS A CLAIM, OR IF HE DISALLOWS
A CLAIM OF PRIORITY WHERE CLAIMS EXCEED ASSETS, THE CLAIMANT MAY SEEK
RELIEF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  FN4  THE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF THESE FUNDS DOES NOT
PURPORT TO WORK ANY AUTOMATIC DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS OF ANY CLASS OF
CREDITORS, BUT TAKES OVER THE ESTATE FOR ADMINISTRATION. 

IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE DECIDE, AND DECIDE ONLY, THAT THE
CUSTODIAN HAS POWER TO POSSESS HIMSELF OF THESE FUNDS AND TO ADMINISTER
THEM.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FEDERAL
PROGRAM.  THE CONSEQUENCES, IF ANY, THAT FLOW FROM THE SUBSTITUTION OF
THE CUSTODIAN IN PLACE OF THE BANK AS HOLDER OF THE FUNDS, UPON RIGHTS
DERIVED FROM VALID STATE COURT JUDGMENTS SECURED BY ATTACHMENT, ARE NOT
RIPE FOR DETERMINATION.  THEY MAY NEVER COME INTO CONTROVERSY.  ALL
QUESTIONS AS TO THE PETITIONERS' CLAIMS, JUDGMENTS, OR PRIORITIES ARE
RESERVED FOR DECISION IN THE PROCEEDINGS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE. 

THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO TAKE AND ADMINISTER THE FUND IS
PARAMOUNT.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST, THEREFORE, AFFIRMED. 

FN1  82 F.SUPP.  740; 182 F.2D 349. 

FN2  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917, 40 STAT. 411, AS AMENDED,
SEC. 5(B)(1), 55 STAT. 839. 

FN3  SEC. 34(A), 60 STAT. 925. 

FN4  ID. SEC. 34(E), (F). 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :









MCCLOSKEY V. MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 475 


NO. 324.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 28, 1951.  - 182 F.2D
349, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


PETITIONER IS THE SHERIFF WHO LEVIED THE ATTACHMENTS AGAINST ACCOUNTS
OF GERMAN NATIONALS "FROZEN" UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 8785 AND 8389,
WHICH WERE INVOLVED IN THE TWO PRECEDING DECISIONS (ZITTMAN V. MCGRATH,
ANTE, PP. 446, 471).  HIS CLAIM FOR HIS FEES WAS DENIED BY THE COURTS
BELOW INCIDENTALLY TO THEIR DENIAL OF THE RIGHTS ASSERTED BY THE
ATTACHING CREDITORS.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED INSOFAR AS THE
FEES OF THE SHERIFF RELATE TO THE ACCOUNTS TO WHICH THE CUSTODIAN WAS
HELD NOT ENTITLED TO POSSESSION, AND AFFIRMED INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE TO
THE ACCOUNTS TO WHICH THE CUSTODIAN WAS HELD ENTITLED TO POSSESSION -
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO CERTAIN RIGHTS OF THE SHERIFF AS INDICATED IN THE
OPINION.  PP. 475-478. 

MCCLOSKEY, SHERIFF, V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S CLAIM TO HIS FEES AS SHERIFF WERE DENIED BY THE COURTS
BELOW INCIDENTALLY TO THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHTS ASSERTED BY THE
ATTACHING CREDITORS.  82 F.SUPP.  740; 182 F.2D 349.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 882.  REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN
PART, P. 478. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS A DEPENDENT COMPANION TO THE FOUR PRECEDING CASES, NOS.
298 AND 314, ANTE, P. 446, AND NOS. 299 AND 315, ANTE, P. 471.  THE
PETITIONER IS THE SHERIFF WHO LEVIED THE ATTACHMENTS INVOLVED IN THOSE
CASES.  HE WAS IMPLEADED BY THE CUSTODIAN AS A PARTY DEFENDANT, AND HIS
AMENDED ANSWER, AFTER ADOPTING THE POSITION OF HIS CO-DEFENDANTS AND
URGING DISMISSAL OF THE CUSTODIAN'S PETITION, AS AN ALTERNATIVE ASKED:
"THAT IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ATTACHED BY THE SHERIFF PURSUANT TO THE
ZITTMAN AND MCCARTHY ATTACHMENTS, ANY DECREE TO BE ENTERED THEREON
SHOULD PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF THE SHERIFF'S STATUTORY POUNDAGE FEES
ARISING FROM SAID ATTACHMENTS  ...  "  HIS CLAIM WAS DENIED BY THE
COURTS BELOW INCIDENTALLY TO THEIR DENIAL OF THE RIGHTS ASSERTED BY THE
ATTACHING CREDITORS.  THE DISTRICT COURT SAID ONLY:  "BECAUSE THE
ATTACHMENTS BY THE SHERIFF DID NOT TRANSFER ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR
INTEREST IN THE BLOCKED PROPERTY, HIS APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT OF HIS
FEES BY THE CUSTODIAN MUST BE DENIED."  FN1  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, PER CURIAM, ON THE GROUND STATED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN2 

THE PRECISE STATUS OF THE SHERIFF'S CLAIMS UNDER NEW YORK LAW, IF
THEY HAVE BEEN SETTLED, IS NOT MADE CLEAR TO US BY THE RECORD, AND,
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE CANNOT PRESUME TO SAY, NOR
COULD THE DISTRICT COURT, WHAT THE NEW YORK COURTS WOULD ALLOW TO THE
SHERIFF.  FN3  NOR CAN WE ASCERTAIN FROM THE RECORD THE EXTENT TO WHICH
HIS FEES HAVE BEEN OR MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE JUDGMENTS DEALT WITH IN
THE PRECEDING CASES.  THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
ALLOWED OR FIXED BY THE JUDGE WHO ISSUED THE ATTACHMENT WARRANTS. 
ALTHOUGH THE SHERIFF HAS NEVER HAD THE ATTACHED FUNDS IN HIS
POSSESSION, THERE IS AUTHORITY THAT SUCH LACK OF PHYSICAL POSSESSION
DOES NOT DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO POUNDAGE N4.  FURTHERMORE, THE
UNCERTAIN VALUES OF THE LEVIES MADE, IN VIEW OF THEIR NATURE AS DEFINED
IN COMMISSION FOR POLISH RELIEF V. BANCA NATIONALA A RUMANIEI, 288 N.Y.
332, 43 N.E.2D 345(1942), AND THE INABILITY OF THE SHERIFF TO SEIZE THE
ATTACHED FUNDS, MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF THE SHERIFF'S FEES A MATTER
FOR THE APPROPRIATE NEW YORK STATE COURT.  ALSO, WHETHER THOSE FEES
CONSTITUTE SEPARATE CLAIMS OR ARE TAXABLE COSTS WHICH BECOME PART OF
THE JUDGMENTS TO WHICH THEY RELATE IS FOR STATE COURT DETERMINATION. 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT, IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, THE PROPER FEES OF THE
SHERIFF SHOULD BE TREATED BY FEDERAL LAW IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE
ATTACHMENTS AND JUDGMENTS TO WHICH THEY APPERTAIN.  THEREFORE, INSOFAR
AS THE ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE CHASE BANK WERE CONCERNED, THE CUSTODIAN
WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION THAT THE SHERIFF'S FEES DID NOT
CONSTITUTE A VALID CLAIM.  THE CUSTODIAN SOUGHT NO SUCH DECLARATION
WHERE THE ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK WERE CONCERNED, BUT
ONLY ASSERTED THAT THE SHERIFF'S CLAIMS COULD NOT DEFEAT HIS RIGHT OF
POSSESSION.  TO PRESERVE THE PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OVER THE FROZEN FUNDS, WE HOLD THEY COULD NOT.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED INSOFAR AS THE FEES OF THE SHERIFF RELATE TO
THE ATTACHMENTS OF THE ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE CHASE BANK AND AFFIRMED
INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE TO THE ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK. 

THIS, HOWEVER, IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE SHERIFF TO
HAVE THE NEW YORK COURTS DETERMINE THE STATE LAW STATUS OF HIS FEES,
AND, IN THE CASE OF THE ATTACHMENTS OF THE ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE CHASE
BANK, TO HAVE THEM, AS FIXED, INCLUDED IN THE JUDGMENTS OR OTHERWISE
GIVEN THE SAME POSITION AS SUCH JUDGMENTS.  AND NO PREJUDICE IS
INTENDED TO HIS RIGHTS, IN THE CASE OF THE ATTACHMENTS OF THE ACCOUNTS
HELD BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, TO PRESENT HIS FEE CLAIMS, AS SETTLED
BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, TO THE CUSTODIAN IN THE SAME MANNER AND SUBJECT
TO THE SAME PROCEDURES AS THE JUDGMENT CREDITORS IN NOS. 299 AND 315. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  82 F.SUPP.  740, 742-743. 

FN2  182 F.2D 349. 

FN3  THE JUDGMENT CREDITORS WERE ENTITLED TO COSTS OF COURSE WHEN
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED IN THEIR FAVOR.  N.Y. CIV. PRAC.  ACT SEC.
1470(11).  THEY WERE ENTITLED TO INCLUDE IN THEIR BILLS OF COSTS, AND
HENCE IN THEIR JUDGMENTS, NECESSARY DISBURSEMENTS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE
CERTAIN SHERIFF'S FEES.  ID. SEC. 1518.  FOR EACH ATTACHMENT LEVY MADE,
THE SHERIFF IS ENTITLED TO A SPECIFIED AMOUNT " ...  AND, ALSO, SUCH
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR HIS TROUBLE AND EXPENSES IN TAKING
POSSESSION OF AND PRESERVING THE PROPERTY AS THE JUDGE ISSUING THE
WARRANT  ...  " ALLOWS.  ID. SEC. 1558(2).  THERE ARE ALSO OTHER FEES
FOR INVENTORY, MILEAGE, AND POUNDAGE UPON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
ATTACHED.  IBID.  IF EXECUTION IS ISSUED, ADDITIONAL FEES ACCRUE, AND A
SCHEDULE OF PERCENTAGES "FOR COLLECTING MONEY BY VIRTUE OF AN
EXECUTION, A WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT, OR AN ATTACHMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF
MONEY IN AN ACTION OR A SPECIAL PROCEEDING  ...  " IS PROVIDED.  ID.
SEC. 1558(7).  WHERE "THE WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT IS VACATED OR SET ASIDE
BY ORDER OF THE COURT," THE SHERIFF IS ENTITLED TO POUNDAGE AND TO SUCH
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR TAKING AND PRESERVING THE PROPERTY AS THE
JUDGE WHO ISSUED THE WARRANT MAY ALLOW, AND THE COURT OR JUDGE MAY
ISSUE AN ORDER "REQUIRING THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE ATTACHMENT IS
ISSUED TO PAY THE SAME TO THE SHERIFF."  ID. SEC. 1558(18). 

FN4  DISTILLERS FACTORS CORP. V. COUNTRY DISTILLERS PRODUCTS, 81
N.Y.S.2D 857, 859. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :















HOFFMAN V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 479 


NO. 513.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 28, 1951.  - 185 F.2D
617, REVERSED. 


1.  CLAIMING THAT ANSWERS MIGHT TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM OF A FEDERAL
OFFENSE, PETITIONER REFUSED TO ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS ASKED HIM BY A
SPECIAL FEDERAL GRAND JURY MAKING A COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF
VIOLATIONS OF NUMEROUS FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES AND CONSPIRACIES TO
VIOLATE THEM.  HE HAD BEEN PUBLICLY CHARGED WITH BEING KNOWN AS AN
UNDERWORLD CHARACTER AND A RACKETEER WITH A 20-YEAR POLICE RECORD,
INCLUDING A PRISON SENTENCE ON A NARCOTICS CHARGE.  THE QUESTIONS HE
REFUSED TO ANSWER PERTAINED TO THE NATURE OF HIS PRESENT OCCUPATION AND
HIS CONTACTS AND CONNECTIONS WITH, AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE WHEREABOUTS OF,
A FUGITIVE WITNESS SOUGHT BY THE SAME GRAND JURY AND FOR WHOM A BENCH
WARRANT HAD BEEN REQUESTED.  THE JUDGE WHO HAD IMPANELED THE GRAND JURY
AND WAS FAMILIAR WITH THESE CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND NO REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL
DANGER OF INCRIMINATION TO PETITIONER AND ORDERED HIM TO ANSWER. 
PETITIONER STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT OBEY THE ORDER, AND HE WAS
CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  HELD: THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED.  PP.
480-490. 

(A)  THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO ANSWERS THAT WOULD IN THEMSELVES SUPPORT
A CONVICTION UNDER A FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE BUT ALSO TO THOSE WHICH
WOULD FURNISH A LINK IN THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE NEEDED TO PROSECUTE THE
CLAIMANT FOR A FEDERAL CRIME.  BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159.  P.
486. 

(B)  TO SUSTAIN THE PRIVILEGE, IT NEED ONLY BE EVIDENT FROM THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE QUESTION, IN THE SETTING IN WHICH IT IS ASKED, THAT
A RESPONSIVE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OR AN EXPLANATION OF WHY IT CANNOT
BE ANSWERED MIGHT BE DANGEROUS BECAUSE INJURIOUS DISCLOSURE COULD
RESULT.  PP. 486-487. 

(C)  IN THIS CASE, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE CHIEF
OCCUPATION OF SOME PERSONS INVOLVES EVASION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS
AND THAT TRUTHFUL ANSWERS BY PETITIONER TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO THE
NATURE OF HIS BUSINESS MIGHT HAVE DISCLOSED THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN SUCH
PROSCRIBED ACTIVITY.  PP. 487-488. 

(D)  ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO HIS CONTACTS AND CONNECTIONS WITH
THE FUGITIVE WITNESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WHEREABOUTS AT THE TIME MIGHT
HAVE EXPOSED PETITIONER TO PERIL OF PROSECUTION FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES
RANGING FROM OBSTRUCTION TO CONSPIRACY.  P. 488. 

2.  TWO WEEKS AFTER HIS CONVICTION OF CONTEMPT AND DENIAL OF BAIL
PENDING APPEAL, PETITIONER FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A PAPER
CAPTIONED "PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ALLOWANCE OF BAIL PENDING
APPEAL," ACCOMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT AND EXHIBITS EXPLAINING HIS
REFUSAL TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND PRESENTING FACTS TO JUSTIFY HIS
FEAR THAT ANSWERS WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM.  THESE PAPERS WERE
FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AS A SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL; BUT
THAT COURT STRUCK THEM FROM THE RECORD AND AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION. 
HELD:  THE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS, SINCE IT WAS ACTUALLY DIRECTED TO THE POWER OF THE
COMMITTING COURT TO DISCHARGE THE CONTEMNOR FOR GOOD CAUSE - A POWER
WHICH COURTS SHOULD BE SOLICITOUS TO INVOKE WHEN IMPORTANT
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS ARE RENEWED.  PP. 489-490. 

HOFFMAN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT FOR
REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND JURY.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  185 F.2D 617.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340
U.S. 946.  REVERSED, P. 490. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR REFUSING TO
OBEY A FEDERAL COURT ORDER REQUIRING HIM TO ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS
ASKED IN A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION.  HE RAISES HERE IMPORTANT ISSUES
AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, CLAIMED TO JUSTIFY HIS REFUSAL. 

A SPECIAL FEDERAL GRAND JURY WAS CONVENED AT PHILADELPHIA ON
SEPTEMBER 14, 1950, TO INVESTIGATE FRAUDS UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
INCLUDING VIOLATIONS OF THE CUSTOMS, NARCOTICS AND INTERNAL REVENUE
LIQUOR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT, PERJURY,
BRIBERY, AND OTHER FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ALL
SUCH OFFENSES.  IN RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA PETITIONER APPEARED TO TESTIFY
ON THE DAY THE GRAND JURY WAS EMPANELED, AND WAS EXAMINED ON OCTOBER
3.  THE PERTINENT INTERROGATION, IN WHICH HE REFUSED TO ANSWER,
FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  WHAT DO YOU DO NOW, MR. HOFFMAN? 

"A.  I REFUSE TO ANSWER. 

"Q.  HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE SAME UNDERTAKING SINCE THE FIRST OF THE
YEAR? 

"A.  I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. 

"Q.  HAVE YOU BEEN DOING THE SAME THING YOU ARE DOING NOW SINCE THE
FIRST OF THE YEAR? 

"A.  I REFUSE TO ANSWER. 

"Q.  DO YOU KNOW MR. WILLIAM WEISBERG? 

"A.  I DO. 

"Q.  HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN HIM? 

"A.  PRACTICALLY TWENTY YEARS, I GUESS. 

"Q.  WHEN DID YOU LAST SEE HIM? 

"A.  I REFUSE TO ANSWER. 

"Q.  HAVE YOU SEEN HIM THIS WEEK? 

"A.  I REFUSE TO ANSWER. 

"Q.  DO YOU KNOW THAT A SUBPOENA HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR MR. WEISBERG? 

"A.  I HEARD ABOUT IT IN COURT. 

"Q.  HAVE YOU TALKED WITH HIM ON THE TELEPHONE THIS WEEK? 

"A.  I REFUSE TO ANSWER. 

"Q.  DO YOU KNOW WHERE MR. WILLIAM WEISBERG IS NOW? 

"A.  I REFUSE TO ANSWER."  IT WAS STIPULATED THAT PETITIONER DECLINED
TO ANSWER ON THE GROUND THAT HIS ANSWERS MIGHT TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM
OF A FEDERAL OFFENSE. 

PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
WHICH FOUND NO REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OF INCRIMINATION TO
PETITIONER AND ORDERED HIM TO RETURN TO THE GRAND JURY AND ANSWER. 
PETITIONER STATED IN OPEN COURT THAT HE WOULD NOT OBEY THE ORDER, AND
ON OCTOBER 5 WAS ADJUDGED IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND SENTENCED TO FIVE
MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 401; FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE 42(A). 

PETITIONER APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT,
WHERE THE RECORD WAS DOCKETED ON OCTOBER 11.  AFTER DENIAL BY THE
DISTRICT COURT OF HIS REQUEST FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL, PETITIONER ON
OCTOBER 20 FILED IN THAT COURT A "PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ALLOWANCE OF BAIL PENDING APPEAL," ALLEGING THAT "ON THE BASIS OF THE
FACTS CONTAINED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, ATTACHED ...  , HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN
HIS REFUSAL TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS AFORESAID, OR, IN ANY EVENT,
THAT THERE IS SO SUBSTANTIAL A QUESTION INVOLVED THAT YOUR PETITIONER
SHOULD BE RELEASED ON BAIL ...  "  IN THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT
PETITIONER ASSERTED THAT 

"HE ASSUMED WHEN HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED BEFORE
THE GRAND JURY, THAT BOTH IT AND THE COURT WERE COGNIZANT OF, AND TOOK
INTO CONSIDERATION, THE FACTS ON WHICH HE BASED HIS REFUSALS TO
ANSWER. 

"HE HAS SINCE BEEN ADVISED, AFTER HIS COMMITMENT, THAT THE COURT DID
NOT CONSIDER ANY OF SAID FACTS UPON WHICH HE RELIED AND, ON THE
CONTRARY, THE COURT CONSIDERED ONLY THE BARE RECORD (OF THE QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS AS SET OUT ABOVE). 

"IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND PARTICULARLY IN AID OF A PROPER
DETERMINATION OF THE ABOVE PETITION, HE SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING IN
SUPPORT OF HIS POSITION THAT HE GENUINELY FEARED TO ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED: 

"(A)  THIS INVESTIGATION WAS STATED, IN THE CHARGE OF THE COURT TO
THE GRAND JURY, TO COVER 'THE GAMUT OF ALL CRIMES COVERED BY FEDERAL
STATUTE.'  ... 

"(B)  AFFIANT HAS BEEN PUBLICLY CHARGED WITH BEING A KNOWN UNDERWORLD
CHARACTER, AND A RACKETEER WITH A TWENTY YEAR POLICE RECORD, INCLUDING
A PRISON SENTENCE ON A NARCOTICS CHARGE.  ... 

"(C)  AFFIANT, WHILE WAITING TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, WAS
PHOTOGRAPHED WITH ONE JOSEPH N. BRANSKY, HEAD OF THE PHILADELPHIA
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF NARCOTICS.  ... 

"(D)  AFFIANT WAS QUESTIONED CONCERNING THE WHEREABOUTS OF A WITNESS
WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA AND FOR WHOM A BENCH WARRANT
WAS SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT PROSECUTOR.  ... 

"ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE PUBLIC FACTS AS WELL AS THE FACTS WITHIN
HIS OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, AFFIANT AVERS THAT HE HAD A REAL FEAR THAT
THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE GRAND JURY WOULD INCRIMINATE
HIM OF A FEDERAL OFFENSE." 

INCLUDED AS APPENDICES TO THE AFFIDAVIT WERE CLIPPINGS FROM LOCAL
NEWSPAPERS, OF DATES CURRENT WITH THE GRANDJURY PROCEEDING, REPORTING
THE FACTS ASSERTED IN THE AFFIDAVIT.  ON OCTOBER 23 THE DISTRICT COURT
ALLOWED BAIL.  ON THE FOLLOWING DAY THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ALLOWANCE OF BAIL, INCLUDING AFFIDAVIT AND APPENDICES, WAS FILED IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS AS A SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD ON APPEAL.  THE GOVERNMENT
MOVED TO STRIKE THIS MATTER ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT PROPERLY PART
OF THE APPEAL RECORD. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED THE MOTION TO STRIKE AND AFFIRMED THE
CONVICTION.  185 F.2D 617(1950).  WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTIONS
REGARDING WEISBERG, THE COURT HELD UNANIMOUSLY THAT "THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN POSSIBLE ADMISSIONS IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS  ... AND THE
PROSCRIPTION OF (PERTINENT FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES (18 U.S.C. SECS.
371, 1501)) WOULD NEED TO BE MUCH CLOSER FOR US TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE
WAS REAL DANGER IN ANSWERING."  AS TO THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING
PETITIONER'S BUSINESS, THE COURT OBSERVED THAT "IT IS NOW QUITE
APPARENT THAT THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE SHOWN BEYOND QUESTION THAT THE
DANGER WAS NOT FANCIFUL."  IN THE COURT'S VIEW THE DATA SUBMITTED IN
THE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD "WOULD RATHER CLEARLY BE ADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH
CIRCUMSTANTIALLY THE LIKELIHOOD THAT APPELLANT'S ASSERTION OF FEAR OF
INCRIMINATION WAS NOT MERE CONTUMACY."  BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS
CONCLUDED, AGAIN UNANIMOUSLY, THAT THE INFORMATION OFFERED IN SUPPORT
OF THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF BAIL "WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT
WHEN IT FOUND APPELLANT IN CONTEMPT, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
NOW."  THUS LIMITED TO THE RECORD ORIGINALLY FILED, THE MAJORITY OF THE
COURT WAS OF THE OPINION, WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS QUESTIONS, THAT
"THE WITNESS HERE FAILED TO GIVE THE JUDGE ANY INFORMATION WHICH WOULD
ALLOW THE LATTER TO RULE INTELLIGENTLY ON THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE FOR
THE WITNESS SIMPLY REFUSED TO SAY ANYTHING AND GAVE NO FACTS TO SHOW
WHY HE REFUSED TO SAY ANYTHING."  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED, CONCLUDING THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT KNEW THAT "THE SETTING OF THE CONTROVERSY" WAS "A
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OF RACKETEERING AND FEDERAL CRIME IN THE
VICINITY" AND "SHOULD HAVE ADVERTED TO THE FACT OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE
THAT THERE EXISTS A CLASS OF PERSONS WHO LIVE BY ACTIVITY PROHIBITED BY
FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS AND THAT SOME OF THESE PERSONS WOULD BE SUMMONED
AS WITNESSES IN THIS GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION." 

PETITIONER UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT REHEARING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS,
URGING REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO PERMIT RECONSIDERATION OF THE
CONVICTION ON THE BASIS OF DATA IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 946(1951). 

THIS IS ANOTHER OF FIVE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT DURING THE
PRESENT TERM IN EACH OF WHICH THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
HAS BEEN ASSERTED IN THE COURSE OF FEDERAL GRAND-JURY INVESTIGATIONS* .
A NUMBER OF SIMILAR CASES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED RECENTLY BY THE LOWER
COURTS.  THE SIGNAL INCREASE IN SUCH LITIGATION EMPHASIZES THE
CONTINUING NECESSITY THAT PROSECUTORS AND COURTS ALIKE BE "ALERT TO
REPRESS" ANY ABUSES OF THE INVESTIGATORY POWER INVOKED, BEARING IN MIND
THAT WHILE GRAND JURIES "MAY PROCEED, EITHER UPON THEIR OWN KNOWLEDGE
OR UPON THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, TO INQUIRE  ...  WHETHER A CRIME
COGNIZABLE BY THE COURT HAS BEEN COMMITTED," HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S.
43, 65(1906), YET "THE MOST VALUABLE FUNCTION OF THE GRAND JURY  ...
(HAS BEEN) NOT ONLY TO EXAMINE INTO THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES, BUT TO
STAND BETWEEN THE PROSECUTOR AND THE ACCUSED," ID. AT 59.  ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIALS TAKING THE INITIATIVE IN GRAND-JURY PROCEEDINGS AND COURTS
CHARGED WITH THEIR SUPERINTENDENCE SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO THE
CONSIDERATIONS MAKING FOR WISE EXERCISE OF SUCH INVESTIGATORY POWER,
NOT ONLY WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES MAY BE INVOLVED BUT ALSO WHERE THE
NONCOERCIVE ASSISTANCE OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES MAY RENDER IT
UNNECESSARY TO INVOKE THE COMPULSIVE PROCESS OF THE GRAND JURY. 

*(PATRICIA) BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159(1950); (IRVING) BLAU
V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 332(1951); ROGERS V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S.
367(1951); UNITED STATES V. GREENBERG, 187 F.2D 35(C.A. 3D CIR. 1951),
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI PENDING.  (SEE POST, P. 944.) 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DECLARES IN PART THAT "NO PERSON  ...  SHALL BE
COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF."  THIS
GUARANTEE AGAINST TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION, LIKE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS, "WAS ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IN THE
CONVICTION THAT TOO HIGH A PRICE MAY BE PAID EVEN FOR THE UNHAMPERED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AND THAT, IN ITS ATTAINMENT, OTHER
SOCIAL OBJECTS OF A FREE SOCIETY SHOULD NOT BE SACRIFICED."  FELDMAN V.
UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 487, 489(1944).  THIS PROVISION OF THE
AMENDMENT MUST BE ACCORDED LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHT
IT WAS INTENDED TO SECURE.  COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547,
562(1892); ARNDSTEIN V. MCCARTHY, 254 U.S. 71, 72-73(1920). 

THE PRIVILEGE AFFORDED NOT ONLY EXTENDS TO ANSWERS THAT WOULD IN
THEMSELVES SUPPORT A CONVICTION UNDER A FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE BUT
LIKEWISE EMBRACES THOSE WHICH WOULD FURNISH A LINK IN THE CHAIN OF
EVIDENCE NEEDED TO PROSECUTE THE CLAIMANT FOR A FEDERAL CRIME. 
(PATRICIA) BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159(1950).  BUT THIS
PROTECTION MUST BE CONFINED TO INSTANCES WHERE THE WITNESS HAS
REASONABLE CAUSE TO APPREHEND DANGER FROM A DIRECT ANSWER.  MASON V.
UNITED STATES, 244 U.S. 362, 365(1917), AND CASES CITED.  THE WITNESS
IS NOT EXONERATED FROM ANSWERING MERELY BECAUSE HE DECLARES THAT IN SO
DOING HE WOULD INCRIMINATE HIMSELF - HIS SAY-SO DOES NOT OF ITSELF
ESTABLISH THE HAZARD OF INCRIMINATION.  IT IS FOR THE COURT TO SAY
WHETHER HIS SILENCE IS JUSTIFIED, ROGERS V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S.
367(1951), AND TO REQUIRE HIM TO ANSWER IF "IT CLEARLY APPEARS TO THE
COURT THAT HE IS MISTAKEN."  TEMPLE V. COMMONWEALTH, 75 VA. 892,
899(1881).  HOWEVER, IF THE WITNESS, UPON INTERPOSING HIS CLAIM, WERE
REQUIRED TO PROVE THE HAZARD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH A CLAIM IS USUALLY
REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED IN COURT, HE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO SURRENDER
THE VERY PROTECTION WHICH THE PRIVILEGE IS DESIGNED TO GUARANTEE.  TO
SUSTAIN THE PRIVILEGE, IT NEED ONLY BE EVIDENT FROM THE IMPLICATIONS OF
THE QUESTION, IN THE SETTING IN WHICH IT IS ASKED, THAT A RESPONSIVE
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OR AN EXPLANATION OF WHY IT CANNOT BE ANSWERED
MIGHT BE DANGEROUS BECAUSE INJURIOUS DISCLOSURE COULD RESULT.  THE
TRIAL JUDGE IN APPRAISING THE CLAIM "MUST BE GOVERNED AS MUCH BY HIS
PERSONAL PERCEPTION OF THE PECULIARITIES OF THE CASE AS BY THE FACTS
ACTUALLY IN EVIDENCE."  SEE TAFT, J., IN EX PARTE IRVINE, 74 F. 954,
960(C.C.S.D. OHIO, 1896). 

WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE
CONSIDERED IN RULING UPON PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE?  THIS IS THE
BACKGROUND AS INDICATED BY THE RECORD: 

THE JUDGE WHO RULED ON THE PRIVILEGE HAD HIMSELF IMPANELED THE
SPECIAL GRAND JURY TO INVESTIGATE "RACKETS" IN THE DISTRICT.  HE HAD
EXPLAINED TO THE JURY THAT "THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE HAS COME INTO
THIS DISTRICT TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION  ...  (THAT) WILL RUN THE
GAMUT OF ALL CRIMES COVERED BY FEDERAL STATUTE."  "IF RACKETS INFEST OR
ENCRUST OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT," HE INSTRUCTED, "JUST AS ANY BLIGHT
ATTACKS ANY OTHER GROWTH, IT WITHERS AND DIES.  ...  "  SUBPOENAS HAD
ISSUED FOR SOME TWENTY WITNESSES, BUT ONLY ELEVEN HAD BEEN SERVED; AS
THE PROSECUTOR PUT IT, HE WAS "HAVING TROUBLE FINDING SOME BIG SHOTS." 
SEVERAL OF THOSE WHO DID APPEAR AND WERE CALLED INTO THE GRAND-JURY
ROOM BEFORE PETITIONER HAD REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS UNTIL ORDERED TO
DO SO BY THE COURT.  THE PROSECUTOR HAD REQUESTED BENCH WARRANTS FOR
EIGHT OF THE NINE WHO HAD NOT APPEARED THE FIRST DAY OF THE SESSION,
ONE OF WHOM WAS WILLIAM WEISBERG.  PETITIONER HAD ADMITTED HAVING KNOWN
WEISBERG FOR ABOUT TWENTY YEARS.  IN ADDITION, COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
HAD ADVISED THE COURT THAT "IT HAS BEEN BROADLY PUBLISHED THAT
(PETITIONER) HAS A POLICE RECORD."    THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED,
IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS QUESTIONS, THAT THE CHIEF OCCUPATION OF
SOME PERSONS INVOLVES EVASION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, AND THAT
TRUTHFUL ANSWERS BY PETITIONER TO THESE QUESTIONS MIGHT HAVE DISCLOSED
THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN SUCH PROSCRIBED ACTIVITY. 

ALSO, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED, IN CONSIDERING THE WEISBERG
QUESTIONS, THAT ONE PERSON WITH A POLICE RECORD SUMMONED TO TESTIFY
BEFORE A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATING THE RACKETS MIGHT BE HIDING OR
HELPING TO HIDE ANOTHER PERSON OF QUESTIONABLE REPUTE SOUGHT AS A
WITNESS.  TO BE SURE, THE GOVERNMENT MAY INQUIRE OF WITNESSES BEFORE
THE GRAND JURY AS TO THE WHEREABOUTS OF UNLOCATED WITNESSES; ORDINARILY
THE ANSWERS TO SUCH QUESTIONS ARE HARMLESS IF NOT FRUITLESS.  BUT OF
THE SEVEN QUESTIONS RELATING TO WEISBERG (OF WHICH THREE WERE
ANSWERED), THREE WERE DESIGNED TO DRAW INFORMATION AS TO PETITIONER'S
CONTACTS AND CONNECTION WITH THE FUGITIVE WITNESS; AND THE FINAL
QUESTION, PERHAPS AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE PROSECUTOR, INQUIRED OF
WEISBERG'S WHEREABOUTS AT THE TIME.  ALL OF THEM COULD EASILY HAVE
REQUIRED ANSWERS THAT WOULD FORGE LINKS IN A CHAIN OF FACTS IMPERILING
PETITIONER WITH CONVICTION OF A FEDERAL CRIME.  THE THREE QUESTIONS, IF
ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVELY, WOULD ESTABLISH CONTACTS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND
WEISBERG DURING THE CRUCIAL PERIOD WHEN THE LATTER WAS ELUDING THE
GRAND JURY; AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE INQUIRIES THE LAST QUESTION
MIGHT WELL HAVE CALLED FOR DISCLOSURE THAT WEISBERG WAS HIDING AWAY ON
PETITIONER'S PREMISES OR WITH HIS ASSISTANCE.  PETITIONER COULD
REASONABLY HAVE SENSED THE PERIL OF PROSECUTION FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES
RANGING FROM OBSTRUCTION TO CONSPIRACY. 

IN THIS SETTING IT WAS NOT "PERFECTLY CLEAR, FROM A CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE, THAT THE WITNESS IS
MISTAKEN, AND THAT THE (ANSWERS) CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE SUCH TENDENCY" TO
INCRIMINATE.  TEMPLE V. COMMONWEALTH, 75 VA. 892, 898(1881), CITED WITH
APPROVAL IN COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, 579-580(1892).  SEE
ALSO, ARNDSTEIN V. MCCARTHY, 254 U.S. 71(1920). 

THIS CONCLUSION IS BUTTRESSED BY THE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD.  IT SHOWED
THAT PETITIONER HAD A TWENTY-YEAR POLICE RECORD AND HAD BEEN PUBLICLY
LABELED AN "UNDERWORLD CHARACTER AND RACKETEER"; THAT THE SENATE CRIME
INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE HAD PLACED HIS NAME ON A LIST OF "KNOWN
GANGSTERS" FROM THE PHILADELPHIA AREA WHO HAD MADE MIAMI BEACH THEIR
HEADQUARTERS; THAT PHILADELPHIA POLICE OFFICIALS HAD DESCRIBED HIM AS
"THE KING OF THE SHORE RACKETS WHO LIVES BY THE GUN"; THAT HE HAD
SERVED A SENTENCE ON A NARCOTICS CHARGE; AND THAT HIS PREVIOUS
CONVICTION WAS DRAMATIZED BY A PICTURE APPEARING IN THE LOCAL PRESS
WHILE HE WAS WAITING TO TESTIFY, IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS PHOTOGRAPHED
WITH THE HEAD OF THE PHILADELPHIA OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
NARCOTICS IN AN ACCUSING POSE. 

IT APPEARS THAT THE PETITION WHICH COMPRISED THE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD,
THOUGH CAPTIONED A "PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ALLOWANCE OF BAIL
PENDING APPEAL," WAS BY ITS TERMS AN APPLICATION TO THE DISTRICT COURT
TO VACATE THE CONTEMPT ORDER ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, AND
ALTERNATIVELY A SECOND MOTION FOR BAIL.  CLEARLY THIS PETITION, FILED
BUT TWO WEEKS AFTER THE CONTEMPT ORDER, WAS DIRECTED TO THE POWER OF
THE COMMITTING COURT TO DISCHARGE THE CONTEMNOR FOR GOOD CAUSE - A
POWER WHICH COURTS SHOULD BE SOLICITOUS TO INVOKE WHEN IMPORTANT
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS ARE RENEWED.  CF. GOULED V. UNITED STATES,
255 U.S. 298(1921).  THE ENDS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE DISCHARGE OF ONE
HAVING SUCH A RIGHT WHENEVER FACTS APPEAR SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.  ACCORDINGLY THE SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD SHOULD HAVE
BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE JUDGMENTS BELOW.  IF THIS
RESULT ADDS TO THE BURDEN OF DILIGENCE AND EFFICIENCY RESTING ON
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES, ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD SERIOUSLY
COMPROMISE AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY.  "THE IMMEDIATE AND
POTENTIAL EVILS OF COMPULSORY SELF-DISCLOSURE TRANSCEND ANY
DIFFICULTIES THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE MAY IMPOSE ON SOCIETY
IN THE DETECTION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIME."  UNITED STATES V. WHITE,
322 U.S. 694, 698(1944).  PERTINENT HERE IS THE OBSERVATION OF MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS FOR THIS COURT IN MCCARTHY V. ARNDSTEIN, 266 U.S. 34,
42(1924):  "IF CONGRESS SHOULD HEREAFTER CONCLUDE THAT A FULL
DISCLOSURE  ...  BY THE WITNESSES IS OF GREATER IMPORTANCE THAN THE
POSSIBILITY OF PUNISHING THEM FOR SOME CRIME IN THE PAST, IT CAN, AS IN
OTHER CASES, CONFER THE POWER OF UNRESTRICTED EXAMINATION BY PROVIDING
COMPLETE IMMUNITY."  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENTS.  HE AGREES WITH THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY
JUDGES GOODRICH AND KALODNER AS EXPRESSED IN THE OPINION BELOW. 
..END :









HAMMERSTEIN V. SUPERIOR COURT, 341 U.S. 491 


NO. 421.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1951.  - CAUSE CONTINUED MARCH 26, 1951.  -
DISMISSED MAY 28, 1951.  - WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 919,
DISMISSED. 


1.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAVING BASED ITS DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI ON PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT'S
DEFAULT JUDGMENT, THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
PROCEEDINGS ARISING FROM THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT.  P. 492. 

2.  THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL'S DENIAL OF A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION IN THIS CASE BEING RESTED ON ITS DECISION OF A FEDERAL
QUESTION AND NOT UPON AN INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND, THIS COURT HAS
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THAT JUDGMENT.  P. 492. 

3.  SINCE PETITIONER COULD HAVE OBTAINED REVIEW OF THE FINAL
ADJUDICATION OF THE MERITS OF THIS CASE BY APPEALING FROM THE DEFAULT
JUDGMENT, AND SINCE THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA APPARENTLY
REFRAINED FROM TAKING ACTION BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THAT REMEDY,
THIS COURT DEEMS IT ADVISABLE NOT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETIONARY
JURISDICTION AND DISMISSES THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED.  PP. 492-493. 

HAMMERSTEIN V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, OF CALIFORNIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFTER ARGUMENT, WE CONTINUED THIS CAUSE TO ENABLE THE PETITIONER TO
APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OR OTHER EXPRESSION FROM THE APPROPRIATE
CALIFORNIA COURTS TO SHOW WHETHER THE JUDGMENTS RESTED ON ADEQUATE AND
INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS OR WHETHER DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION
WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED.  340 U.S. 622(1951).  SUCH
EXPRESSIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. 

THE SUPREME COURT HAS INFORMED US THAT ITS REFUSAL TO GRANT A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI FROM THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT WAS
BASED UPON PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO UTILIZE THE PROPER CHANNEL OF
REVIEW, NAMELY, HIS FAILURE TO APPEAL FROM THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT. 
INASMUCH AS OUR JURISDICTION TO REVIEW STATE COURT JUDGMENTS EXTENDS
ONLY TO FINAL JUDGMENTS RENDERED "BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE IN
WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD," 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257, WE HAVE NO
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING FROM THE DEFAULT
JUDGMENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL HAS INFORMED US THAT THE DECISION OF THE
FEDERAL QUESTION WAS ESSENTIAL TO ITS DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR
WRIT OF PROHIBITION, AND THAT ITS JUDGMENT DID NOT REST UPON AN
INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND.  THE EXPRESSION WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IS ALSO SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE INTERPRETATION THAT
ITS DENIAL OF A HEARING FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL WAS BASED UPON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE
FORCE OF THAT STATEMENT SINCE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE JUDGMENT PROPERLY
BEFORE US IS THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, WHICH DID DECIDE THE
FEDERAL QUESTION.  SEE AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. LEVEE, 263 U.S.
19, 20-21(1923).  WE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT JUDGMENT.  RESCUE ARMY
V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, 565-568(1947); BANDINI CO. V.
SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8(1931), AND CASES CITED AT 14. 

THE PRESENCE OF JURISDICTION UPON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
DOES NOT, OF COURSE, DETERMINE THE EXERCISE OF THAT JURISDICTION, FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT IS DISCRETIONARY.  IN THIS CASE PETITIONER
COULD HAVE OBTAINED REVIEW OF THE FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE MERITS BY
APPEALING FROM THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS
APPARENTLY REFRAINED FROM TAKING ACTION BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF
THAT REMEDY.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE THINK IT ADVISABLE NOT TO
EXERCISE OUR JURISDICTION.  THE WRIT IS THEREFORE DISMISSED AS
IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  CF. LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS, 337 U.S. 935(1949);
PHYLE V. DUFFY, 334 U.S. 431(1948); HEDGEBETH V. NORTH CAROLINA, 334
U.S. 806(1948).  WRIT DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR.
JUSTICE CLARK DISSENT. 
..END :



















ALABAMA COMM'N V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 341 U.S. 341 


NO. 395.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27-28, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1951.  - 91
F.SUPP.  980, REVERSED. 


APPELLEE APPLIED TO THE ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR A PERMIT
TO DISCONTINUE CERTAIN LOCAL INTRASTATE TRAINS, ON THE GROUND THAT THEY
WERE OPERATING AT A LOSS.  AFTER A HEARING, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
THERE WAS PUBLIC NEED FOR THE SERVICE AND ENTERED AN ORDER DENYING THE
PERMIT.  WITHOUT APPLYING TO A STATE COURT FOR THE ADEQUATE JUDICIAL
REVIEW TO WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT UNDER STATE LAW,
APPELLEE SUED IN A FEDERAL COURT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  IT ALLEGED THAT ITS ENFORCEMENT WOULD RESULT IN
IRREPARABLE INJURY, EITHER THROUGH OPERATING LOSSES RESULTING FROM
COMPLIANCE OR THROUGH SEVERE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.  HELD:  ASSUMING
THAT THE FEDERAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION, SUCH JURISDICTION SHOULD NOT
BE EXERCISED IN THIS CASE AS A MATTER OF SOUND EQUITABLE DISCRETION. 
PP. 342-351. 

(A)  THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THESE TRAINS CANNOT
BE RESOLVED ALONE BY REFERENCE TO APPELLEE'S LOSS IN THEIR OPERATION
BUT DEPEND MORE UPON THE PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL FACTOR OF PUBLIC NEED FOR
THE SERVICE RENDERED.  P. 347. 

(B)  SINCE ADEQUATE STATE-COURT REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
BASED ON PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL FACTORS IS AVAILABLE TO APPELLEE,
INTERVENTION OF A FEDERAL COURT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF
FEDERAL RIGHTS.  P. 349. 

(C)  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, UNDER THE USUAL RULE OF COMITY GOVERNING
THE EXERCISE OF EQUITABLE JURISDICTION BY FEDERAL COURTS IN MATTERS
AFFECTING THE DOMESTIC POLICIES OF THE STATES, APPELLEE SHOULD BE LEFT
TO PURSUE THROUGH THE STATE COURTS WHATEVER RIGHTS IT MAY HAVE.  P.
350. 

ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL. V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF ALABAMA. 

IN A SUIT BY A RAILROAD, A THREE-JUDGE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION.  91 F.SUPP.  980.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1253, REVERSED, P. 351. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLEE, BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE MEMBERS OF THE ALABAMA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, APPELLANTS,
FROM ENFORCING LAWS OF ALABAMA PROHIBITING DISCONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN
RAILROAD PASSENGER SERVICE.  APPELLEE'S ALABAMA INTRASTATE SERVICE IS
GOVERNED BY A STATUTE PROHIBITING ABANDONMENT OF "ANY PORTION OF ITS
SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC  ...  UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE SHALL FIRST HAVE
BEEN FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO ABANDON SERVICE AND OBTAINED
FROM THE COMMISSION A PERMIT ALLOWING SUCH ABANDONMENT."  ALA. CODE,
1940, TIT. 48, SEC. 106.  FN1  SEVERE PENALTIES ARE PRESCRIBED FOR
WILFUL VIOLATION OF REGULATORY STATUTES OR ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION BY
UTILITIES OR THEIR EMPLOYEES.  ID. SECS. 399, 400, 405. 

APPELLEE OPERATES A RAILROAD SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE SOUTH.  THIS CASE,
HOWEVER, INVOLVES ONLY THAT ALABAMA INTRASTATE PASSENGER SERVICE
FURNISHED BY TRAINS NOS. 7 AND 8 OPERATED DAILY BETWEEN TUSCUMBIA,
ALABAMA, AND CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 145
MILES MAINLY WITHIN ALABAMA.  ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1948, APPELLEE APPLIED
TO THE ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR PERMISSION TO DISCONTINUE
TRAINS NOS. 7 AND 8, ALLEGING THAT PUBLIC USE OF THE SERVICE HAD SO
DECLINED THAT REVENUES FELL FAR SHORT OF MEETING DIRECT OPERATING
EXPENSES.  AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE AT HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA, ONE OF THE
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY THE TRAINS, THE COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER ON
APRIL 3, 1950, DENYING PERMISSION TO DISCONTINUE ON THE GROUNDS THAT
THERE EXISTS A PUBLIC NEED FOR THE SERVICE AND THAT APPELLEE HAD NOT
ATTEMPTED TO REDUCE LOSSES THROUGH ADOPTION OF MORE ECONOMICAL
OPERATING METHODS. 

INSTEAD OF PURSUING ITS RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE STATE COURTS,  FN2
APPELLEE FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ALLEGING
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND THAT REQUIRING CONTINUED OPERATION OF
TRAINS NOS. 7 AND 8 AT AN OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS AMOUNTED TO A CONFISCATION
OF ITS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WAS PRAYED TO PROTECT APPELLEE
FROM IRREPARABLE LOSS, FLOWING ON THE ONE HAND FROM OPERATING LOSSES IN
COMPLYING WITH ALABAMA LAW OR, ON THE OTHER, FROM SEVERE PENALTIES FOR
DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE IN THE FACE OF THAT LAW.  A THREE-JUDGE COURT
FN3  HEARD EVIDENCE, MADE ITS OWN FINDINGS OF FACT AND ENTERED
JUDGMENT HOLDING THE COMMISSION ORDER VOID AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINING
APPELLANTS FROM TAKING ANY STEPS TO ENFORCE EITHER THE COMMISSION ORDER
OR THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF THE ALABAMA CODE IN RELATION TO THE
DISCONTINUANCE OF TRAINS NOS. 7 AND 8.  FN4  91 F.SUPP.  980 (1950). 
THE CASE IS PROPERLY HERE ON APPEAL, 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 1253. 

FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE IS GROUNDED UPON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP AS WELL AS THE ALLEGATION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION.  EXERCISE
OF THAT JURISDICTION DOES NOT INVOLVE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE STATUTE
SO ILL-DEFINED THAT A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD HOLD THE CASE PENDING A
DEFINITIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT STATUTE IN THE STATE COURTS, E.G.,
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496(1941);
SHIPMAN V. DUPRE, 339 U.S. 321(1950).  WE ALSO PUT TO ONE SIDE THOSE
CASES IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE ITSELF IS DRAWN
INTO QUESTION, E.G., TOOMER V. WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385(1948).  FOR IN
THIS CASE APPELLEE ATTACKS A STATE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ISSUED UNDER A
VALID REGULATORY STATUTE DESIGNED TO ASSURE THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE
INTRASTATE SERVICE BY UTILITIES OPERATING WITHIN ALABAMA.  FN5 

APPELLEE TAKES THE POSITION, ADOPTED BY THE COURT BELOW, THAT
WHENEVER A PLAINTIFF CAN SHOW IRREPARABLE LOSS CAUSED BY AN ALLEGEDLY
INVALID STATE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE
STATE COURTS THE PRESENCE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OR A FEDERAL
QUESTION OPENS THE FEDERAL COURTS TO LITIGATION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF
THAT ORDER, AT LEAST SO LONG AS NO ACTION INVOLVING THE SAME SUBJECT
MATTER IS ACTUALLY PENDING IN THE STATE COURTS.  BUT, IT BY NO MEANS
FOLLOWS FROM THE FACT OF DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION THAT SUCH
JURISDICTION MUST BE EXERCISED IN THIS CASE.  FN6  AS FRAMED BY THE
COURT IN BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315, 318(1943), THE QUESTION
BEFORE US IS: 

"ASSUMING THAT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION, SHOULD
IT, AS A MATTER OF SOUND EQUITABLE DISCRETION, HAVE DECLINED TO
EXERCISE THAT JURISDICTION HERE?" 

IN ASSESSING THE PROPRIETY OF EQUITABLE RELIEF, A REVIEW OF THE
REGULATORY PROBLEM INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS APPROPRIATE. 

APPELLEE CONDUCTS AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS OVER THE SAME TRACKS AND BY
MEANS OF THE SAME TRAINS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND SUCH INTERSTATE
ACTIVITIES ARE REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
49 U.S.C. SECS. 1 ET SEQ. BUT, IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD THAT THIS
INTERBLENDING OF THE INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE OPERATIONS DOES NOT
DEPRIVE THE STATES OF THEIR PRIMARY AUTHORITY OVER INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION SUPPLEMENTING
THAT AUTHORITY.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352(1913).  AND
CONGRESS HAS SINCE PROVIDED: 

"THAT NOTHING IN (THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT) SHALL IMPAIR OR AFFECT
THE RIGHT OF A STATE, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER, TO REQUIRE
JUST AND REASONABLE FREIGHT AND PASSENGER SERVICE FOR INTRASTATE
BUSINESS, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS SUCH REQUIREMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY
LAWFUL ORDER OF THE (INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION)."  49 U.S.C. SEC.
1(17)(A).  FN7 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT REGULATION OF INTRASTATE RAILROAD SERVICE IS
"PRIMARILY THE CONCERN OF THE STATE."  NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES,
325 U.S. 507, 511(1945)(RATES); PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S.
79(1939)(DISCONTINUANCE OF LOCAL SERVICE). 

STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCIES HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE
CHRONIC DEFICIT ARISING OUT OF PASSENGER TRAIN OPERATIONS AS A THREAT
TO THE FINANCIAL SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN RAILROADS AND HAVE
RECOMMENDED DRASTIC ACTION TO MINIMIZE THE DEFICIT, INCLUDING THE
DISCONTINUANCE OF UNPATRONIZED AND UNPROFITABLE SERVICE.  FN8  HOWEVER,
OUR CONCERN IN THIS CASE IS LIMITED TO THE PROPRIETY OF A FEDERAL COURT
INJUNCTION ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE REGULATORY ORDER.  FN9 

THE COURT BELOW JUSTIFIED THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION WITH A
FINDING THAT CONTINUED OPERATION OF TRAINS NOS. 7 AND 8 WOULD RESULT IN
CONFISCATION OF APPELLEE'S PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN PURSUING THE THRESHOLD INQUIRY
WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE, WE
FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER ISSUES RELATING TO THE MERITS OF
APPELLEE'S CASE, ISSUES WHICH APPELLANTS DID NOT SEE FIT TO RAISE IN
THIS COURT EITHER IN THEIR STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION OR IN THEIR
BRIEFS.  WE DO NOTE THAT IN PASSING UPON SIMILAR CONTENTIONS IN THE
PAST, THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT REVIEW OF AN ORDER REQUIRING
PERFORMANCE OF A PARTICULAR UTILITY SERVICE, EVEN AT A PECUNIARY LOSS,
IS SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATIONS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE INVOLVED WHEN
THE RETURN ON THE ENTIRE INTRASTATE OPERATIONS OF A UTILITY IS DRAWN
INTO QUESTION.  ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA
CORPORATION COMMISSION, 206 U.S. 1, 24-27(1907).  THE PROBLEMS RAISED
BY THE DISCONTINUANCE OF TRAINS NOS. 7 AND 8 CANNOT BE RESOLVED ALONE
BY REFERENCE TO APPELLEE'S LOSS IN THEIR OPERATION BUT DEPEND MORE UPON
THE PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL FACTOR OF PUBLIC NEED FOR THE SERVICE
RENDERED.  CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
WEST VIRGINIA, 242 U.S. 603, 608(1917). 

THE ALABAMA COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING HELD IN THE AREA SERVED,
FOUND A PUBLIC NEED FOR THE SERVICE.  THE COURT BELOW, HEARING EVIDENCE
DE NOVO, FOUND THAT NO PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS IN VIEW OF THE INCREASED
USE AND AVAILABILITY OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION.  WE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO
RESOLVE THESE INCONSISTENT FINDINGS OF FACT.  WE TAKE NOTE, HOWEVER, OF
THE FACT THAT A FEDERAL COURT HAS BEEN ASKED TO INTERVENE IN RESOLVING
THE ESSENTIALLY LOCAL PROBLEM OF BALANCING THE LOSS TO THE RAILROAD
FROM CONTINUED OPERATION OF TRAINS NOS. 7 AND 8 WITH THE PUBLIC NEED
FOR THAT SERVICE IN TUSCUMBIA, DECATUR, HUNTSVILLE, SCOTTSBORO, AND THE
OTHER ALABAMA COMMUNITIES DIRECTLY AFFECTED. 

NOT ONLY HAS ALABAMA ESTABLISHED ITS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO
PASS UPON A PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE, BUT IT HAS ALSO PROVIDED FOR APPEAL FROM ANY FINAL ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY AS A MATTER OF
RIGHT.  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 48, SEC. 79.  THAT COURT, AFTER A HEARING
ON THE RECORD CERTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION, IS EMPOWERED TO SET ASIDE
ANY COMMISSION ORDER FOUND TO BE CONTRARY TO THE SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE OR ERRONEOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW, ID. SEC. 82, AND ITS
DECISION MAY BE APPEALED TO THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT.  ID. SEC. 90. 
STATUTORY APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF
THE REGULATORY PROCESS UNDER THE ALABAMA CODE.  APPEALS, CONCENTRATED
IN ONE CIRCUIT COURT, ARE "SUPERVISORY IN CHARACTER."  AVERY FREIGHT
LINES, INC. V. WHITE, 245 ALA. 618, 622-623, 18 SO.2D 394, 398(1944). 
THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HAS HELD THAT IT WILL REVIEW AN ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION AS IF APPEALED DIRECTLY TO IT, ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION V. NUNIS, 252 ALA. 30, 34, 39 SO.2D 409, 412(1949), AND THAT
JUDICIAL REVIEW CALLS FOR AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO BOTH LAW AND
FACTS WHEN A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IS ASSERTED.  ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION V. SOUTHERN BELL TEL. & TEL. CO., 253 ALA. 1, 11-12, 42
SO.2D 655, 662(1949). 

THE FACT THAT REVIEW IN THE ALABAMA COURTS IS LIMITED TO THE RECORD
TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION PRESENTS NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY. 
WASHINGTON EX REL. OREGON R. & N. CO. V. FAIRCHILD, 224 U.S.
510(1912).  AND, WHATEVER THE SCOPE OF REVIEW OF COMMISSION FINDINGS
WHEN AN ALLEGED DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS IN ISSUE, IT IS NOW
SETTLED THAT A UTILITY HAS NO RIGHT TO RELITIGATE FACTUAL QUESTIONS ON
THE GROUND THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED.  NEW YORK V. UNITED
STATES, 331 U.S. 284, 334-336(1947); RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V.
ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 311 U.S. 570, 576(1941).  APPELLEE COMPLAINS
OF IRREPARABLE INJURY RESULTING FROM THE COMMISSION ORDER PENDING
JUDICIAL REVIEW, BUT HAS NOT INVOKED THE PROTECTIVE POWERS OF THE
ALABAMA COURTS TO DIRECT THE STAY OR SUPERSEDEAS OF A COMMISSION ORDER
PENDING APPEAL.  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 48, SECS. 81, 84.  FN10
APPELLEE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE ALABAMA PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF
COMMISSION ORDERS IS IN ANY WAY INADEQUATE TO PRESERVE FOR ULTIMATE
REVIEW IN THIS COURT ANY FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARISING OUT OF SUCH ORDERS. 

AS ADEQUATE STATE COURT REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BASED UPON
PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL FACTORS IS AVAILABLE TO APPELLEE,  FN11
INTERVENTION OF A FEDERAL COURT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF
FEDERAL RIGHTS.  EQUITABLE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED ONLY WHEN THE DISTRICT
COURT, IN ITS SOUND DISCRETION EXERCISED WITH THE "SCRUPULOUS REGARD
FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS WHICH SHOULD AT ALL
TIMES ACTUATE THE FEDERAL COURTS,"  FN12  IS CONVINCED THAT THE
ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT CANNOT BE PRESERVED EXCEPT BY GRANTING THE
"EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF AN INJUNCTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS."  FN13
CONSIDERING THAT "(FEW) PUBLIC INTERESTS HAVE A HIGHER CLAIM UPON THE
DISCRETION OF A FEDERAL CHANCELLOR THAN THE AVOIDANCE OF NEEDLESS
FRICTION WITH STATE POLICIES,"  FN14  THE USUAL RULE OF COMITY MUST
GOVERN THE EXERCISE OF EQUITABLE JURISDICTION BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN
THIS CASE.  WHATEVER RIGHTS APPELLEE MAY HAVE ARE TO BE PURSUED THROUGH
THE STATE COURTS.  BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315(1943); RAILROAD
COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 311 U.S. 570,
577(1941); RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 310
U.S. 573, AS AMENDED, 311 U.S. 614, 615(1940). 

THE JOHNSON ACT, 48 STAT. 775(1934), NOW 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
1342, DOES NOT AFFECT THE RESULT IN THIS CASE.  THAT ACT DEPRIVED
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF
CERTAIN STATE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AFFECTING PUBLIC UTILITY RATES
WHERE "A PLAIN, SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD IN THE COURTS OF
SUCH STATE."  AS THE ORDER OF THE ALABAMA SERVICE COMMISSION INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE IS NOT ONE AFFECTING APPELLEE'S RATES, THE JOHNSON ACT IS
NOT APPLICABLE.  WE HAVE ASSUMED THROUGHOUT THIS OPINION THAT THE COURT
BELOW HAD JURISDICTION, SUPRA, P. 345, BUT HOLD THAT JURISDICTION
SHOULD NOT BE EXERCISED IN THIS CASE AS A MATTER OF SOUND EQUITABLE
DISCRETION.  AS THIS COURT HELD IN GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V.
HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, 297-298(1943):    "THIS WITHHOLDING OF
EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF BY COURTS HAVING AUTHORITY TO GIVE IT IS NOT A
DENIAL OF THE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL
COURTS  ...  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS BUT A RECOGNITION  ...  THAT A
FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY  ...  SHOULD STAY ITS HAND IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WHEN IT REASONABLY APPEARS THAT PRIVATE INTERESTS WILL NOT
SUFFER  ... 

"IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY SHOULD
EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWER TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD RELIEF SO AS TO
AVOID NEEDLESS OBSTRUCTION OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY OF THE STATES." 
FN15    FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
IS REVERSED. 

FN1  UPON THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO DISCONTINUE,
THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR NOTIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS,
PUBLICATION OF NOTICE IN THE AREA AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE IN SERVICE,
AND A HEARING BY THE COMMISSION.  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 48, SEC. 107. 
"THE COMMISSION, AS IT DEEMS TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, MAY
GRANT IN PART OR IN WHOLE, OR MAY REFUSE SUCH APPLICATIONS,  ...  "
ID. SEC. 108. 

FN2  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 48, SECS. 79 ET SEQ. 

FN3  UNDER 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 2281, ONLY A DISTRICT COURT OF
THREE JUDGES MAY ISSUE AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING ENFORCEMENT OF "ANY
STATE STATUTE BY RESTRAINING THE ACTION OF ANY OFFICER OF SUCH STATE IN
THE ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE OR OF AN ORDER MADE BY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR COMMISSION ACTING UNDER STATE STATUTES  ...  "
THE WORD "STATUTE" COMPREHENDS ALL STATE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS,
INCLUDING THOSE EXPRESSED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS.  AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582, 591-593(1946); OKLAHOMA
NATURAL GAS CO. V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S. 290, 292(1923). 

FN4  APPELLANTS CONTEND FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS COURT THAT A SUIT
TO RESTRAIN STATE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LAWS
IS, IN EFFECT, A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE PROHIBITED BY THE ELEVENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE CONTENTION IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE MANY CASES
PRIOR TO AND FOLLOWING EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123(1908), IN WHICH
THIS COURT HAS GRANTED SUCH RELIEF OVER THE SAME OBJECTION. 

FN5  THE ALABAMA STATUTE REQUIRING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FROM THE
ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BEFORE DISCONTINUING TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE WAS UPHELD BY THIS COURT IN ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO R. CO. V.
ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 279 U.S. 560(1929).  THE STATUTE WAS
RECENTLY CONSTRUED AND APPLIED BY THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT IN ALABAMA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 253 ALA. 559,
45 SO.2D 449(1950). 

FN6  GULF OIL CORP. V. GILBERT, 330 U.S. 501, 504-505(1947); GREAT
LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, 297(1943); ATLAS LIFE
INS. CO. V. W.I. SOUTHERN, INC., 306 U.S. 563, 570(1939); CANADA
MALTING CO., LTD. V. PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, LTD., 285 U.S. 413, 422
423(1932). 

FN7  APPELLEE SEEKS TO DISCONTINUE ONLY TWO OF SEVERAL PASSENGER
TRAINS SERVING THE SAME COMMUNITIES.  THIS IS A PROPOSED PARTIAL
DISCONTINUANCE AND NOT AN ABANDONMENT OVER WHICH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION IS GIVEN EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY UNDER 49 U.S.C. SECS.
1(18-20).  COLORADO V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 153(1926).  THE I.C.C.
HAS HELD THAT IT HAS NO AUTHORITY UNDER 49 U.S.C. SECS. 1(18-20) TO
AUTHORIZE A PARTIAL DISCONTINUANCE AS SUCH OF INTRASTATE PASSENGER
SERVICE.  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO., 94 I.C.C. 691(1925); NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO., 254 I.C.C. 745, 765(1944). 

FN8  SEE 64TH ANNUAL REPORT, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (1950) 5
6; 63D ANNUAL REPORT, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (1949) 4-5;
INCREASED FREIGHT RATES, 1948, 276 I.C.C. 9, 32-40(1949); PROCEEDINGS,
61ST ANNUAL CONVENTION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES
COMMISSIONERS (1949) 378-382, 410-414. 

FN9  AS THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER
49 U.S.C. SEC. 13(4) HAS NOT BEEN INVOKED FOR DECISION AS TO WHETHER
THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS INTRASTATE SERVICE CONSTITUTES AN UNDUE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WE CANNOT, IN THIS
PROCEEDING, CONSIDER ANY IMPACT THE ORDER OF THE ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WESTERN & ATLANTIC R.
CO. V. GEORGIA PUB. SERV. COMM'N, 267 U.S. 493(1925), AND CASES CITED
THEREIN. 

FN10  COMPARE PACIFIC TEL. & TEL. CO. V. KUYKENDALL, 265 U.S.
196(1924), WHERE SUPERSEDEAS WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT
FEDERAL RIGHTS, AND OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S.
290(1923), WHERE SUPERSEDEAS WAS SOUGHT BUT DENIED BY THE STATE COURT. 

FN11  COMPARE SUCH CASES AS BACON V. RUTLAND R. CO., 232 U.S.
134(1914), WHERE STATE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURES PLUS REVIEW IN THIS
COURT WERE THOUGHT TO BE INADEQUATE.  THIS INADEQUACY DERIVED FROM THE
RATIONALE THAT THE FEDERAL RIGHT OF A UTILITY TO BE PROTECTED FROM
CONFISCATION OF ITS PROPERTY DEPENDED UPON "PURE MATTERS OF FACT" TO
THE EXTENT THAT A DE NOVO HEARING OF SUCH FACTS IN A FEDERAL COURT WAS
ESSENTIAL TO THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  PRENTIS V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 211 U.S. 210, 228(1908).  SEE LILIENTHAL,
THE FEDERAL COURTS AND STATE REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 43 HARV.
L. REV. 379, 424(1930).  THE DECISIONS IN RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 311 U.S. 570, 576(1941), AND NEW YORK V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, HOLDING THAT DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE
RELITIGATION OF FACTUAL MATTERS DETERMINED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY,
ELIMINATED THE PREMISE UPON WHICH EQUITABLE RELIEF IN BACON RESTED. 

FN12  MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525(1932).  SEE PENNSYLVANIA
V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185(1935). 

FN13  RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 310
U.S. 573, AS AMENDED, 311 U.S. 614, 615(1940). 

FN14  RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496,
500(1941). 

FN15  IN MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228, 237(1943), THE COURT
SUSTAINED THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A FEDERAL COURT IN A CASE
INVOLVING MATTERS OF STATE LAW, BUT ONLY WHERE DECISION "DOES NOT
REQUIRE THE FEDERAL COURT TO DETERMINE OR SHAPE STATE POLICY GOVERNING
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES" AND "ENTAILS NO INTERFERENCE WITH SUCH
AGENCIES OR WITH THE STATE COURTS."  THE ABSENCE OF A LEGAL REMEDY IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS DOES NOT OF ITSELF JUSTIFY THE GRANTING OF EQUITABLE
RELIEF IN SUCH CASES.  ATLAS LIFE INS. CO. V. W.I. SOUTHERN, INC., 306
U.S. 563, 569-570(1939). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, CONCURRING
IN THE RESULT. 

THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY ASKED LEAVE OF THE ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION TO TAKE OFF TWO OF ITS PASSENGER TRAINS.  THE COMMISSION,
DEEMING THE SERVICE OF THESE RUNS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMUNITIES SERVED,
DENIED LEAVE.  THE RAILWAY THEREAFTER APPLIED TO THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. 
THE BILL ASKING FOR THIS INJUNCTION WAS BASED ON A CLAIM UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
BILL AND THE PROOF UNDER IT FAILED TO ESTABLISH A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM
UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  UNDER FAMILIAR, WELL-ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLES THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE BILL.  THE
COURT LIKEWISE DIRECTS THE DISTRICT COURT TO DISMISS THE BILL.  BUT IT
CHOOSES TO DO SO BY A LINE OF ARGUMENT IN PLAIN DISREGARD OF
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.  AGAINST THAT I AM COMPELLED TO PROTEST. 

ALABAMA HAS THE CONVENTIONAL FEATURE OF RAILROAD REGULATORY
LEGISLATION REQUIRING LEAVE OF THE STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FOR
THE DISCONTINUANCE OF TRAINS.  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 48, SEC. 106.  THE
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY ASKED PERMISSION TO DISCONTINUE THE TWO TRAINS
ON THE GROUND THAT, AS SEGREGATED ITEMS OF ITS TOTAL BUSINESS IN
ALABAMA, THESE TRAINS WERE OPERATING AT A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS.  THE
COMMISSION REFUSED PERMISSION AFTER A FULL HEARING, AND NO QUESTION OF
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS BEFORE US. 

SOUTHERN BROUGHT ITS TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
ALABAMA.  THE CASE WAS HEARD BY A THREE-JUDGE COURT, AS REQUIRED BY 28
U.S.C. SEC. 2281, AND A PERMANENT INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED.  A DIRECT
APPEAL TO THIS COURT LIES FROM SUCH A DECISION.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253. 

IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION VIOLATED THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT RELIED
CHIEFLY UPON THE FACT THAT THE OPERATION OF THE TWO TRAINS INVOLVED A
SUBSTANTIAL LOSS.  IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED, HOWEVER, THAT A
REQUIREMENT THAT A PARTICULAR SERVICE BE RENDERED AT A LOSS DOES NOT
MAKE SUCH A SERVICE CONFISCATORY AND THEREBY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING
OF PROPERTY.  ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO. V. GILL, 156 U.S. 649, 665-666;
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA COMM'N, 206 U.S. 1;
MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 262, 278; CHESAPEAKE & O.R.
CO. V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N, 242 U.S. 603; PUGET SOUND TRACTION CO. V.
REYNOLDS, 244 U.S. 574; FORT SMITH LIGHT & TRACTION CO. V. BOURLAND,
267 U.S. 330; SEE NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S.
585, 600. 

UNLIKE A DEPARTMENT STORE OR A GROCERY, A RAILROAD CANNOT OF ITS OWN
FREE WILL DISCONTINUE A PARTICULAR SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE AN
ITEM OF ITS BUSINESS HAS BECOME UNPROFITABLE.  "ONE OF THE DUTIES OF A
RAILROAD COMPANY DOING BUSINESS AS A COMMON CARRIER IS THAT OF
PROVIDING REASONABLY ADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR SERVING THE PUBLIC.  THIS
DUTY ARISES OUT OF THE ACCEPTANCE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE POWERS AND
PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY THE STATE AND ENDURES SO LONG AS THEY ARE
RETAINED.  IT REPRESENTS A PART OF WHAT THE COMPANY UNDERTAKES TO DO IN
RETURN FOR THEM, AND ITS PERFORMANCE CANNOT BE AVOIDED MERELY BECAUSE
IT WILL BE ATTENDED BY SOME PECUNIARY LOSS."  CHESAPEAKE & O.R. CO. V.
PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N, SUPRA, AT 607. 

IT IS TRUE THAT WE HAVE, ON RARE OCCASION, FOUND AN ORDER REQUIRING
SERVICE SO ARBITRARY AS TO CONSTITUTE CONFISCATION.  THUS, IN NORTHERN
PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, SUPRA, THE STATE WAS ATTEMPTING TO
FORCE RAILROADS TO SUBSIDIZE PRODUCTION OF A PARTICULAR COMMODITY.  IN
MISSISSIPPI COMM'N V. MOBILE & O.R. CO., 244 U.S. 388, THE COURT
CONCLUDED:  "LOOKING TO THE EXTENT AND PRODUCTIVENESS OF THE BUSINESS
OF THE COMPANY AS A WHOLE, THE SMALL TRAVELING POPULATION TO BE SERVED,
THE CHARACTER AND LARGE EXPENSE OF THE SERVICE REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER,
AND TO THE SERIOUS FINANCIAL CONDITIONS CONFRONTING THE CARRIER, WITH
THE PUBLIC LOSS AND INCONVENIENCE WHICH ITS FINANCIAL FAILURE WOULD
ENTAIL, WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT IN CONCLUDING THAT THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN IT
WAS ISSUED WAS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE  ...  "  ID. AT 396. 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE TRAINS INVOLVED, NOS. 7 AND 8, ARE LOCAL
PASSENGER TRAINS OPERATED BETWEEN SHEFFIELD-TUSCUMBIA, ALABAMA, AND
CHATTANOOGA.  SOUTHERN OPERATES FOUR OTHER TRAINS BETWEEN THESE
POINTS.  NOS. 45 AND 46 DO NOT STOP AT ALL STATIONS AND OPERATE ON A
SCHEDULE INCONVENIENT TO THE PUBLIC HERE CONCERNED.  THE STATE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE SCHEDULES OF NOS. 35 AND 36 "ARE NOT
COMPARABLE TO" THOSE OF TRAINS 7 AND 8 AND DO NOT AFFORD THE SAME
CONVENIENCE. 

IT APPEARS THAT THE OPERATION OF TRAINS 7 AND 8 RESULTED IN A LOSS OF
$8,527.24 PER MONTH DURING THE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 28,
1949.  DURING THE FIVE-MONTH PERIOD ENDING JULY 31, 1949, THE LOSS
AMOUNTED TO $10,738.51 PER MONTH.  BUT THE RAILROAD MADE NO CLAIM THAT
IT IS OPERATING AT A LOSS, OR FAILING TO RECEIVE A FAIR RETURN, EITHER
ON ITS TOTAL INVESTMENT OR UPON ITS INVESTMENT WITHIN THE STATE OF
ALABAMA.  THE RECORD CONTAINS ONLY THE SKETCHIEST FINDINGS CONCERNING
THE OPERATION OF THE RAILROAD IN ITS ENTIRETY.  BUT IT DOES APPEAR
THAT, ALTHOUGH SOUTHERN HAS OPERATED ITS PASSENGER BUSINESS AT A LOSS
ASIDE FROM THE WAR YEARS, IT HAS EARNED A SUBSTANTIAL NET OPERATING
INCOME UPON BOTH ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS AND ITS SERVICE WITHIN THE STATE
OF ALABAMA.  FN1  THIS LITIGATION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ALMOST
EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE OPERATIONS OF TRAINS 7 AND 8.  NO SHOWING WHATEVER
WAS MADE THAT BY THE LOSS INCURRED IN RUNNING THESE TRAINS SOUTHERN WAS
DEPRIVED OF THAT PROTECTION FOR ITS INVESTMENT IN ALABAMA WHICH ALONE
CAN BE MADE THE BASIS OF A CLAIM UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE LACK OF MERIT IN THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE IS SO
CLEAR THAT IT CALLS FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT. 

INSTEAD, AS WE HAVE STATED, THIS COURT RESTS ITS DECISION ON A GROUND
THAT REQUIRES IT TO OVERTURN A LONG COURSE OF DECISIONS AND, IN EFFECT,
TO REPEAL AN ACT OF CONGRESS DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURTS.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ASSERTING A CLAIM UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE COURT ADMITS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT.  28 U.S.C. SECS. 1331, 1332.  IT IS SAID,
HOWEVER, THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MUST DECLINE TO EXERCISE THIS
JURISDICTION BECAUSE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN HAD
IN THE STATE COURTS. 

IN 1875, CONGRESS FOR THE FIRST TIME (BARRING THE ABORTIVE ACT OF
1801) OPENED THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CLAIMS BASED ON A RIGHT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, 18
STAT. 470.  FN2  THERETOFORE SUCH CLAIMS HAD TO BE PURSUED IN THE STATE
COURTS AND BROUGHT TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION
UNDER SEC. 25 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 73, 85.  IN REAGAN
V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362, 391, WE REJECTED THE
ARGUMENT THAT SUIT COULD NOT BE BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO
RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE AGENCY ORDER.  THE COURT HAS
CONSISTENTLY HELD TO THE VIEW THAT IT CANNOT OVERRULE THE DETERMINATION
OF CONGRESS AS TO WHETHER FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED
JURISDICTION, CONCURRENT WITH THE STATE COURTS, EVEN WHERE THE
PLAINTIFF SEEKS TO RESTRAIN ACTION OF A STATE AGENCY.  SMYTH V. AMES,
169 U.S. 466, 516; WILLCOX V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S. 19, 40;
BACON V. RUTLAND R. CO., 232 U.S. 134, 137; DETROIT & MACKINAC R. CO.
V. MICHIGAN COMM'N, 235 U.S. 402; OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. RUSSELL,
261 U.S. 290, 293; PRENDERGAST V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., 262 U.S. 43,
47; PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. KUYKENDALL, 265 U.S. 196, 201;
RAILROAD & WAREHOUSE COMM'N OF MINNESOTA V. DULUTH ST. R. CO., 273 U.S.
625, 628; SEE PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 211 U.S. 210,
228.    THESE CASES CAN BE OVERRULED.  THEY CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AWAY. 
THE THEORY OF THE CASES NOW DISCARDED WAS CLEARLY STATED IN WILLCOX V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., SUPRA, DECIDED THE SAME TERM AS THE PRENTIS CASE:
"THAT THE CASE MAY BE ONE OF LOCAL INTEREST ONLY IS ENTIRELY
IMMATERIAL, SO LONG AS THE PARTIES ARE CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES OR
A QUESTION IS INVOLVED WHICH BY LAW BRINGS THE CASE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT.  THE RIGHT OF A PARTY PLAINTIFF TO
CHOOSE A FEDERAL COURT WHERE THERE IS A CHOICE CANNOT BE PROPERLY
DENIED."  212 U.S. AT 40.  WHAT THE COURT TODAY HOLDS IS THAT IF A
PLAINTIFF CAN BE SENT TO A STATE COURT TO CHALLENGE AN AGENCY ORDER
THERE IS NO FEDERAL COURT AVAILABLE TO HIM.  FN3  SINCE THE BODY OF
DECISIONS WHICH HOLD THE CONTRARY IS THUS TO BE DISCARDED, THEY OUGHT
NOT TO BE LEFT AS DERELICTS ON THE WATERS OF THE LAW. 

IN CONGRESS, A PROLONGED DEBATE HAS ENSUED OVER THE WISDOM OF THE
BROAD GRANTS OF POWER MADE TO THE FEDERAL COURTS OF ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION - POWER WHICH MAY BE INVOKED AGAINST STATE REGULATION OF
ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE.  BILL AFTER BILL HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO PREVENT THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS FROM INTERFERING WITH SUCH STATE ACTION.  FINALLY,
IN 1910, BY A PROVISION IN THE MANN-ELKINS ACT, CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT
AN ACTION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE ACTION OF A
STATE OFFICER ACTING UNDER A STATUTE ALLEGED TO VIOLATE THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION BE HEARD BY A COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WITH A RIGHT OF
DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT.  ACT OF JUNE 18, 1910, SEC. 17, 36
STAT. 539, 557.  IN 1913, THIS PROCEDURE WAS EXTENDED TO APPLICATIONS
FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER OF
A STATE BOARD OR COMMISSION.  ACT OF MARCH 4, 1913, 37 STAT. 1013.  BY
THE SAME STATUTE, A STATE WAS EMPOWERED TO KEEP LITIGATION CONCERNING
THE VALIDITY OF STATE AGENCY REGULATION IN ITS OWN COURTS IF IT WAS
WILLING TO STAY THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.  FN4  IN 1925, THE PROVISION
FOR A THREE-JUDGE COURT AND DIRECT APPEAL WAS EXTENDED TO A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.  ACT OF FEB. 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 938. 

CONGRESS, FULLY AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, WAS STILL NOT SATISFIED WITH
THE JURISDICTION IT HAD LEFT TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS. 
ACCORDINGLY, IN 1934, IT PASSED THE JOHNSON ACT WHICH WITHDREW THEIR
JURISDICTION OVER SUITS TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE RATE ORDERS,
PROVIDING THAT A REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS.  ACT OF MAY
14, 1934, 48 STAT. 775.  THIS RESTRICTION ON A DISTRICT COURT IS NOT
HERE APPLICABLE, FOR THE ORDER IN CONTROVERSY IS NOT A RATE ORDER.  IN
1937, CONGRESS FURTHER LIMITED FEDERAL JURISDICTION BY PROVIDING THAT A
DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE TAX STATUTE
WHERE A REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS.  ACT OF AUG. 21,
1937, 50 STAT. 738. 

PLAINLY WE ARE CONCERNED WITH A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN
CONTINUOUSLY BEFORE CONGRESS AND WITH WHICH IT HAS DEALT BY EXPLICIT
AND DETAILED LEGISLATION.  CONGRESS FIRST MADE A BROAD GRANT OF
JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS AS TO ALL CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER
FEDERAL CLAIMS.  EXPERIENCE GAVE RISE TO DISSATISFACTION WITH THIS
GRANT AND CONGRESS BEGAN TO HEDGE AND LIMIT THE POWER.  IT REQUIRED
THAT THE CASE BE HEARD BY THREE JUDGES, THAT A SPEEDY APPEAL BE
AVAILABLE, AND THAT THE STATE COURTS COULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
IF THEY WOULD STAY THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.  IT WITHDREW JURISDICTION
TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STATUTES AND ORDERS IN THE TWO FIELDS
WHERE THE GREATEST DISSATISFACTION WITH FEDERAL JURISDICTION EXISTED -
RATE ORDERS AND TAXATION - SO LONG AS A STATE REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE. 
BUT CONGRESS DID NOT TAKE AWAY THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO
DECIDE A CASE LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US.  INSTEAD, IT RECOGNIZED BY THE
WORDING OF SEC. 17 OF THE MANN-ELKINS ACT AND LATER LEGISLATION THAT IT
HAD GIVEN A RIGHT TO RESORT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THAT SUCH POWER
WAS AN OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION, NOT TO BE DENIED BECAUSE AS A MATTER OF
POLICY IT MIGHT BE MORE DESIRABLE TO RAISE SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS
IN A STATE COURT. 

THE COURT REJECTS THE GUIDANCE OF THESE AMENDATORY ACTS, ALL PLACING
SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS UPON THE EXERCISE OF DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION
IN CASES AFFECTING LOCAL REGULATION.  INSTEAD, THE COURT NOW LIMITS THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS AS THOUGH CONGRESS HAD AMENDED SEC.
1331 OF TITLE 28 TO READ: 

"THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF ALL CIVIL
ACTIONS WHEREIN THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS THE SUM OR VALUE OF
$3,000, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS, AND ARISES UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, LAWS OR TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES, PROVIDED THAT THE
DISTRICT COURTS SHALL NOT EXERCISE THIS JURISDICTION WHERE A SUIT
INVOLVES A CHALLENGE TO AN ORDER OF A STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION." 

IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COURT'S DECISION TO COAT
IT WITH THE SUGAR OF EQUITY MAXIMS.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THERE IS NO
WARRANT IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT FOR SAYING THAT THE PLAINTIFF
HAS AN "ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW" MERELY BECAUSE HE MAY BRING SUIT IN THE
STATE COURTS.  AN "ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW," AS A BAR TO EQUITABLE
RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, REFERS TO A REMEDY ON THE LAW SIDE OF
FEDERAL COURTS.  PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC. V. COMMISSION, 304 U.S.
209, 217; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN INS. ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 69; HENRIETTA
MILLS V. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, 281 U.S. 121, 126; RISTY V. CHICAGO, R.I. &
PAC. R. CO., 270 U.S. 378, 388.  AN EQUITY COURT MAY DECLINE TO GIVE
RELIEF BY INJUNCTION IF THE PLAINTIFF WOULD BE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED
BY MONEY DAMAGES, HIS "REMEDY AT LAW."  ARMOUR & CO. V. DALLAS, 255
U.S. 280, HARRISONVILLE V. DICKEY CLAY CO., 289 U.S. 334.  BUT IT IS
NOT SUGGESTED THAT THIS SUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE LAW
SIDE OF THE FEDERAL COURT. 

AN EQUITY COURT MAY ALSO DECLINE TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION IF THE
INTEREST OF THE PLAINTIFF IS RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT WHEN COMPARED TO
SOME OVERWHELMING PUBLIC INTEREST.  SEE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
DISSENTING, IN TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 354, 374.  SEE ALSO
VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552.  AN EQUITY
COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS BROAD POWERS, MAY ALSO DECLINE TO GIVE
RELIEF IF THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAKE IT DESIRABLE FOR
THE COURT TO STAY ITS HAND OR DECLINE TO INTERFERE.  THUS,
TRADITIONALLY, AN EQUITY COURT WILL BE RELUCTANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CORP.,
312 U.S. 45.  IT SHOULD AVOID DECISION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
WHEN CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE STATUTE IN THE STATE COURTS MAY MAKE SUCH
A DECISION UNNECESSARY.  RAILROAD COMM'N V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496. 
IT MAY DECLINE TO CONSIDER A CASE WHICH INVOLVES A SPECIALIZED ASPECT
OF A COMPLICATED SYSTEM OF LOCAL LAW OUTSIDE THE NORMAL COMPETENCE OF A
FEDERAL COURT.  BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315, 332 ET SEQ. IN
THAT CASE, THE MAJORITY FOUND THAT THE TECHNICALITIES OF OIL REGULATION
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENT, UNIFORM REVIEW MADE IT PROPER FOR THE
DISTRICT COURT TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS EQUITY JURISDICTION.  AGAIN,
AN EQUITY COURT, LIKE A COURT OF LAW FOR THAT MATTER, OUGHT NOT TO HEAR
A CASE BEFORE THE PLAINTIFF HAS EXHAUSTED ALL AVAILABLE NONJUDICIAL
LEGAL REMEDIES.  PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., SUPRA. 

HERE THE PLAINTIFF HAS EXHAUSTED ITS NONJUDICIAL REMEDIES.  AVERY
FREIGHT LINES, INC. V. PERSONS, 250 ALA. 40, 32 S.2D 886(1947). 
CONCEDEDLY THERE IS NO STATE STATUTE TO CONSTRUE.  THERE IS NO
CONSIDERATION WHICH SHOULD MAKE A COURT OF EQUITY, AS A MATTER OF
DISCRETION, DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN A BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION.  NOR DOES
THE SITUATION IN THIS SUIT INVOLVE A SPECIALIZED FIELD OF STATE LAW IN
WHICH OUT-OF-STATE FEDERAL JUDGES ARE NOT AT HOME.  ON THE CONTRARY,
THE CLAIM THAT IS MADE HERE IS WITHIN THE EASY GRASP OF FEDERAL JUDGES,
AND CERTAINLY WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THREE JUDGES BRED IN ALABAMA
LAW, WITH WIDE EXPERIENCE IN ITS ADMINISTRATION.  THE ONLY REASON FOR
DECLINING TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT IS THAT IT MAY WELL BE MORE DESIRABLE
AS A MATTER OF STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONS FOR THE ORDER OF A STATE AGENCY
TO BE REVIEWED ORIGINALLY IN THE STATE LOWER COURT AND NOT TO BE
CHALLENGED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN A FEDERAL COURT.  IT IS NOT FOR ME
TO QUARREL WITH THE WISDOM OF SUCH A POLICY.  BUT CONGRESS, IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO DEFINE THE JURISDICTION OF THE
INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS, HAS DECIDED OTHERWISE. 

EQUITY BY ITS VERY NATURE DENIES RELIEF IF, ON BALANCE OF
CONSIDERATIONS OF CONVENIENCE RELEVANT TO EQUITY, IT WOULD BE
INEQUITABLE TO GRANT THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF AN INJUNCTION. 
FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE ALWAYS ACTED ON THIS EQUITABLE DOCTRINE. 
BUT IT WAS NEVER A DOCTRINE OF EQUITY THAT A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD
EXERCISE ITS JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO DISMISS A SUIT MERELY BECAUSE A
STATE COURT COULD ENTERTAIN IT. 

THIS IS SO BECAUSE DISCRETION BASED SOLELY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF A
REMEDY IN THE STATE COURTS WOULD FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES REPEAL THE
ACT OF 1875.  THIS ACT GAVE TO THE FEDERAL COURTS A JURISDICTION NOT
THERETOFORE POSSESSED SO THAT A STATE COULD NOT TIE UP A LITIGANT
MAKING SUCH A CLAIM BY REQUIRING THAT HE BRING SUIT FOR REDRESS IN ITS
OWN COURTS.  THAT JURISDICTION WAS PRECISELY THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO LOCAL ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE VAST
LIMITATIONS PLACED UPON STATE ACTION BY THE CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS.  AND
PRECISELY BECAUSE OF OBJECTIONS TO THE CHOICE OF COURTS GIVEN
PLAINTIFFS BY THE ACT OF 1875, CONGRESS, BY PIECEMEAL RESTRICTIVE
LEGISLATION, DID REQUIRE THAT SOME FEDERAL CLAIMS AGAINST LOCAL
REGULATORY ACTION BE LITIGATED ORIGINALLY IN STATE COURTS AND FROM
THERE BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW. 

BY ONE FELL SWOOP THE COURT NOW FINDS THAT CONGRESS INDULGED IN
NEEDLESS LEGISLATION IN THE ACTS OF 1910, 1913, 1925, 1934 AND 1937. 
BY THESE MEASURES, CONGRESS, SO THE COURT NOW DECIDES, GAVE NOT ONLY
NEEDLESS BUT INADEQUATE RELIEF, SINCE IT NOW APPEARS THAT THE FEDERAL
COURTS HAVE INHERENT POWER TO STERILIZE THE ACT OF 1875 AGAINST ALL
PROCEEDINGS CHALLENGING LOCAL REGULATION.  FOR IF THIS DECISION MEANS
ANYTHING BEYOND DISPOSING OF THIS PARTICULAR LITIGATION IT MEANS THAT
HEREAFTER NO FEDERAL COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN A SUIT AGAINST ANY ACTION
OF A STATE AGENCY.  FOR EVERY STATE MUST AFFORD JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ITS
COURTS OF A CLAIM UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IF SUCH CLAIM WOULD GIVE
A FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH JUDICIAL REVIEW
IN THE STATE COURTS, STATE ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF OHIO VALLEY CO.
V. BEN AVON BOROUGH, 253 U.S. 287, WOULD BE NUGATORY BECAUSE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

I REGRET MY INABILITY TO MAKE CLEAR TO THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT
THAT ITS OPINION IS IN FLAGRANT CONTRADICTION WITH THE UNBROKEN COURSE
OF DECISIONS IN THIS COURT FOR SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS. 

FN1  THE RECORD CONTAINS NO ALLEGATIONS OR FINDINGS ON THE VALUE OF
THE RAILROAD'S PROPERTY AND NO PARTICULARS CONCERNING ITS ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM.  FINDING 23 INDICATES THAT THE RAILROAD HAS HAD THE FOLLOWING
YEARLY "NET OPERATING INCOME" FROM ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS: 

1931-1941(AVERAGE) ........  $16,232,045 

1942-1945(AVERAGE) ........   35,561,045 

1946-1948(AVERAGE) ........   23,278,299 

FINDING 24 INDICATES THAT THE RAILROAD HAS HAD THE FOLLOWING YEARLY
"NET OPERATING INCOME" FROM ITS SERVICE WITHIN ALABAMA: 

1936-1941(AVERAGE) .........  $1,508,282 

1942-1945(AVERAGE) ......... 4,220,203 

1946-1948(AVERAGE) .........   2,598,459 

FN2  JURISDICTION OVER CASES WHERE THERE IS DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
WAS CONFERRED BY SEC. 11 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789.  1 STAT. 73,
78.  IN MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228, WE HELD THAT IN AN
EQUITY CASE THE DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS
JURISDICTION MERELY BECAUSE MATTERS OF STATE LAW WERE INVOLVED. 

FN3  WE ARE TOLD BY THE COURT:  "COMPARE SUCH CASES AS BACON V.
RUTLAND R. CO., 232 U.S. 134(1914), WHERE STATE JUDICIAL REVIEW
PROCEDURES PLUS REVIEW IN THIS COURT WERE THOUGHT TO BE INADEQUATE." 
THERE IS NOT THE SHADOW OF A HINT IN THE BACON CASE TO WARRANT SUCH AN
EXPLANATION OF IT.  NO SUCH THING WAS "THOUGHT" BEFORE TODAY'S
DECISION.  THE BACON CASE IS MERELY AN INSTANCE OF WHAT UNTIL TODAY WAS
THE SETTLED DOCTRINE THAT A RAILROAD COMPANY HAD THE CHOICE OF GOING
EITHER INTO THE STATE COURT OR INTO THE FEDERAL COURT TO PRESS A
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE "INADEQUACY" OF STATE JUDICIAL REVIEW, BY
WHICH THE BACON CASE IS NOW SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED, "DERIVED FROM THE
RATIONALE THAT THE FEDERAL RIGHT OF A UTILITY TO BE PROTECTED FROM
CONFISCATION OF ITS PROPERTY DEPENDED UPON 'PURE MATTERS OF FACT' TO
THE EXTENT THAT A DE NOVO HEARING OF SUCH FACTS IN A FEDERAL COURT WAS
ESSENTIAL TO THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  PRENTIS V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 211 U.S. 210, 228(1908)." 

I REGRET THE NECESSITY FOR SAYING AGAIN THAT THERE IS NO WARRANT
WHATEVER FOR THIS STATEMENT.  IT CANNOT BE FOUND AT THE PLACE CITED IN
THE PRENTIS OPINION.  THAT MERELY REPEATS THE DOCTRINE OF THE NUMEROUS
CASES AFTER THE ACT OF 1875 THAT A PLAINTIFF HAS A CHOICE OF STATE OR
FEDERAL COURT WHERE A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM IS MADE:  "ALL THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WE REPEAT, DEPEND UPON WHAT THE FACTS ARE FOUND
TO BE.  THEY ARE NOT TO BE FORBIDDEN TO TRY THOSE FACTS BEFORE A COURT
OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING IF OTHERWISE COMPETENT.  'A STATE CANNOT TIE UP A
CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE, HAVING PROPERTY WITHIN ITS TERRITORY INVADED
BY UNAUTHORIZED ACTS OF ITS OWN OFFICERS, TO SUITS FOR REDRESS IN ITS
OWN COURTS.'  REAGAN V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362, 391;
SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466, 517.  SEE MCNEILL V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.,
202 U.S. 543; EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, 165."  211 U.S. AT 228. 
FN4  "IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IF BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING OF SUCH
APPLICATION A SUIT SHALL HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN A COURT OF THE STATE
HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF UNDER THE LAWS OF SUCH STATE, TO ENFORCE
SUCH STATUTE OR ORDER, ACCOMPANIED BY A STAY IN SUCH STATE COURT OF
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SUCH STATUTE OR ORDER PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF
SUCH SUIT BY SUCH STATE COURT, ALL PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN THE EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE OR ORDER SHALL
BE STAYED PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF SUCH SUIT IN THE COURTS OF
THE STATE."  37 STAT. 1014.  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2284(5). 

ALABAMA DID NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF THIS MEANS FOR TAKING THE LITIGATION
FROM THE FEDERAL COURT. 
..END :








ALABAMA COMM'N V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 341 U.S. 363 


NO. 146.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27-28, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1951.  - 88
F.SUPP.  441, REVERSED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N V.
SOUTHERN R. CO., ANTE, P. 341. 

ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL. V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF ALABAMA. 

IN A SUIT BY A RAILROAD, A THREE-JUDGE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION.  88 F.SUPP.  441.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1253, REVERSED, P. 366. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE WAS ARGUED WITH NO. 395, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE, P. 341,
AND BRINGS THE SAME PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING ARISES OUT OF APPELLEE'S EFFORTS TO DISCONTINUE
OPERATION OF PASSENGER TRAINS NOS. 11 AND 16 OPERATED DAILY BETWEEN
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, AND COLUMBUS, MISSISSIPPI, A DISTANCE OF
APPROXIMATELY 120 MILES MAINLY WITHIN ALABAMA.  ALLEGING THAT THE
TRAINS ARE LITTLE USED AND PRODUCE REVENUES FAR BELOW THEIR DIRECT
OPERATING EXPENSES, APPELLEE APPLIED TO THE ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1948, FOR THE PERMISSION TO DISCONTINUE
REQUIRED BY ALABAMA LAW. 

OVER A YEAR LATER, AND BEFORE ANY ACTION ON THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN
TAKEN BY THE ALABAMA COMMISSION, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ORDERED A REDUCTION IN THE INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE OPERATION OF COAL
BURNING PASSENGER LOCOMOTIVES TO PREVENT UNDUE DEPLETION OF COAL
RESERVES DURING A NATIONAL COAL STRIKE.  IN RESPONSE TO THE I.C.C.
ORDER, APPELLEE DISCONTINUED SERVICE ON A NUMBER OF ITS TRAINS,
INCLUDING TRAINS NOS. 11 AND 16.  WHEN THE I.C.C. ORDER WAS RESCINDED,
OTHER TRAINS WERE RESTORED TO OPERATION BUT APPELLEE REFUSED TO RESTORE
THE FINANCIALLY COSTLY OPERATION OF TRAINS NOS. 11 AND 16, AT LEAST
UNTIL THE ALABAMA COMMISSION GRANTED A HEARING UPON ITS APPLICATION FOR
PERMANENT DISCONTINUANCE.  AN IMPASSE DEVELOPED AND THE ALABAMA
COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER IN WHICH IT REFUSED TO HEAR EVIDENCE
PROFFERED BY APPELLEE, THREATENED TO DELAY ANY HEARING ON THE
APPLICATION UNTIL APPELLEE RESTORED THE TRAINS, FOUND APPELLEE IN
CONTEMPT OF THE COMMISSION AND CALLED APPELLEE'S ATTENTION TO A
PROVISION OF THE ALABAMA CODE PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF
AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  ON DECEMBER 6, 1949, THE DAY AFTER ENTRY
OF THIS ORDER, APPELLEE FILED ITS COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
ALLEGING THAT REQUIRING CONTINUED OPERATION OF TRAINS 11 AND 16 WOULD
CONFISCATE ITS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT PRAYED FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
APPELLANTS FROM ENFORCING THOSE LAWS OF ALABAMA, INCLUDING PENALTY
PROVISIONS, WHICH PREVENTED APPELLEE FROM DISCONTINUING THOSE TRAINS. 
A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED. 

IN THE COURT BELOW AND IN THIS COURT, APPELLANTS HAVE ARGUED THAT A
FEDERAL COURT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH A STATE'S IMPOSITION OF
PENALTIES TO PUNISH DEFIANT DISREGARD OF ITS REGULATORY LAWS.  BEAL V.
MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CORP., 312 U.S. 45, 51(1941); WADLEY SOUTHERN R.
CO. V. GEORGIA, 235 U.S. 651, 662(1915).  COMPARE WESTERN & ATLANTIC R.
CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 267 U.S. 493, 496(1925). 
APPELLEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, EMPHASIZES THE COMMISSION'S DELAY IN
PASSING UPON ITS APPLICATION TO DISCONTINUE THE FINANCIALLY BURDENSOME
SERVICE AS BEING SO LONG-CONTINUED AND UNREASONABLE AS TO PERMIT THE
INTERVENTION OF A FEDERAL COURT BEFORE A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION. 
SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., 270 U.S. 587(1926). 

THOUGH THESE ARGUMENTS WERE RELEVANT WHEN THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER WAS ISSUED, WE ARE CALLED UPON TO REVIEW ONLY THE FINAL DECREE,
CF. SHAFFER V. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, 44(1920), AND DO NOT FIND IT
NECESSARY TO PASS UPON SUCH CONTENTIONS IN VIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENTS OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT BELOW. 
THE COMMISSION DID HOLD A HEARING ON DECEMBER 8, 1949, IN FAYETTE,
ALABAMA, ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY THE DISCONTINUANCE OF
SERVICE, AND, ON JANUARY 9, 1950, ENTERED AN ORDER DENYING PERMISSION
TO DISCONTINUE OPERATION OF TRAINS NOS. 11 AND 16 ON THE GROUNDS THAT A
PUBLIC NEED EXISTS FOR THE SERVICE AND THAT APPELLEE HAD NOT MADE A
SUFFICIENT EFFORT TO REDUCE LOSSES THROUGH ADOPTION OF MORE ECONOMICAL
OPERATING METHODS.  THE PLEADINGS IN THE COURT BELOW WERE AMENDED IN
LIGHT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF JANUARY 9, 1950, AND THE FINAL
JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT WAS BASED UPON A
FINDING THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THAT ORDER WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  88 F.SUPP.  441(1950). 

APPELLEE CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF THE ALABAMA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, BUT DID NOT INVOKE THE ADEQUATE STATE REMEDY
PROVIDED FOR REVIEW OF SUCH ORDERS.  THEREFORE, AS THIS CASE COMES TO
US, IT IS GOVERNED BY OUR DECISION IN NO. 395, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE,
P. 341.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR IN THE RESULT
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THEIR OPINION IN NO. 395, ALABAMA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N V. SOUTHERN R. CO., ANTE, P. 351. 
..END :






















TENNEY V. BRANDHOVE, 341 U.S. 367 


NO. 338.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1951.  - 183 F.2D
121, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT SUED PETITIONERS IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR DAMAGES
UNDER 8 U.S.C. SECS. 43 AND 47(3), ALLEGING THAT, IN CONNECTION WITH AN
INVESTIGATION BY A COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, HE HAD BEEN
DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PETITIONERS
ARE THE COMMITTEE AND THE MEMBERS THEREOF, ALL OF WHOM ARE MEMBERS OF
THE LEGISLATURE.  HELD: FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, IT
APPEARS THAT PETITIONERS WERE ACTING IN A FIELD WHERE LEGISLATORS
TRADITIONALLY HAVE POWER TO ACT; AND 8 U.S.C. SECS. 43 AND 47(3) DO NOT
CREATE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SUCH CONDUCT.  PP. 369-379. 

(A)  THE PRIVILEGE OF LEGISLATORS TO BE FREE FROM ARREST OR CIVIL
PROCESS FOR WHAT THEY DO OR SAY IN LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN
CAREFULLY PRESERVED IN THE FORMATION OF OUR STATE AND NATIONAL
GOVERNMENTS.  PP. 372-375. 

(B)  BY 8 U.S.C. SECS. 43 AND 47(3), CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO LIMIT
THIS PRIVILEGE BY SUBJECTING LEGISLATORS TO CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS
DONE WITHIN THE SPHERE OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY.  P. 376. 

(C)  THE PRIVILEGE IS NOT DESTROYED BY A CLAIM THAT THE MOTIVES OF
THE LEGISLATORS WERE IMPROPER.  P. 377. 

(D)  IN ORDER TO FIND THAT A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION
HAS EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF LEGISLATIVE POWER, IT MUST BE OBVIOUS THAT
THERE WAS A USURPATION OF FUNCTIONS EXCLUSIVELY VESTED IN THE JUDICIARY
OR THE EXECUTIVE.  P. 378. 

(E)  LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE DESERVES GREATER RESPECT IN A CASE IN
WHICH THE DEFENDANTS ARE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE THAN WHERE AN
OFFICIAL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE LEGISLATURE IS SUED OR WHERE THE
LEGISLATURE SEEKS THE AFFIRMATIVE AID OF THE COURTS TO ASSERT A
PRIVILEGE.  P. 379. 

TENNEY ET AL. V. BRANDHOVE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONERS UNDER 8 U.S.C.
SECS. 43 AND 47(3), THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  183 F.2D 121.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 903.  REVERSED, P. 379. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WILLIAM BRANDHOVE BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, ALLEGING THAT HE HAD
BEEN DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE
DEFENDANTS ARE JACK B. TENNEY AND OTHER MEMBERS OF A COMMITTEE OF THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, THE SENATE FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON UN
AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS THE TENNEY COMMITTEE.  ALSO
NAMED AS DEFENDANTS ARE THE COMMITTEE AND ELMER E. ROBINSON, MAYOR OF
SAN FRANCISCO. 

THE ACTION IS BASED ON SECS. 43 AND 47(3) OF TITLE 8 OF THE UNITED
STATES CODE.  THESE SECTIONS DERIVE FROM ONE OF THE STATUTES, PASSED IN
1871, AIMED AT ENFORCING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ACT OF APRIL 20,
1871, C. 22, SECS. 1, 2, 17 STAT. 13.  SECTION 43 PROVIDES: 

"EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION,
CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE
SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER PERSON WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR
IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE
PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER
PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS."  R.S. SEC. 1979, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43. 

WHO MAY CONSPIRE TO DEPRIVE ANOTHER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AS
THEREIN DEFINED.  FN1 

REDUCED TO ITS LEGAL ESSENTIALS, THE COMPLAINT SHOWS THESE FACTS. 
THE TENNEY COMMITTEE WAS CONSTITUTED BY A RESOLUTION OF THE CALIFORNIA
SENATE ON JUNE 20, 1947.  ON JANUARY 28, 1949, BRANDHOVE CIRCULATED A
PETITION AMONG MEMBERS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE.  HE ALLEGES THAT IT
WAS CIRCULATED IN ORDER TO PERSUADE THE LEGISLATURE NOT TO APPROPRIATE
FURTHER FUNDS FOR THE COMMITTEE.  THE PETITION CHARGED THAT THE
COMMITTEE HAD USED BRANDHOVE AS A TOOL IN ORDER "TO SMEAR CONGRESSMAN
FRANCK R. HAVENNER AS A 'RED' WHEN HE WAS A CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OF SAN
FRANCISCO IN 1947; AND THAT THE REPUBLICAN MACHINE IN SAN FRANCISCO AND
THE CAMPAIGN MANAGEMENT OF ELMER E. ROBINSON, FRANCK HAVENNER'S
OPPONENT, CONSPIRED WITH THE TENNEY COMMITTEE TO THIS END."  IN VIEW OF
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS PETITION AND EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN BY
BRANDHOVE, THE COMMITTEE ASKED LOCAL PROSECUTING OFFICIALS TO INSTITUTE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM.  THE COMMITTEE ALSO SUMMONED
BRANDHOVE TO APPEAR BEFORE THEM AT A HEARING HELD ON JANUARY 29. 
TESTIMONY WAS THERE TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO, ALLEGEDLY A
MEMBER OF THE CONSPIRACY.  THE PLAINTIFF APPEARED WITH COUNSEL, BUT
REFUSED TO GIVE TESTIMONY.  FOR THIS, HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR CONTEMPT IN
THE STATE COURTS.  UPON THE JURY'S FAILURE TO RETURN A VERDICT THIS
PROSECUTION WAS DROPPED.  AFTER BRANDHOVE REFUSED TO TESTIFY, THE
CHAIRMAN QUOTED TESTIMONY GIVEN BY BRANDHOVE AT PRIOR HEARINGS.  THE
CHAIRMAN ALSO READ INTO THE RECORD A STATEMENT CONCERNING AN ALLEGED
CRIMINAL RECORD OF BRANDHOVE, A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DENYING THE TRUTH OF
HIS CHARGES, AND A DENIAL BY THE COMMITTEE'S COUNSEL - WHO WAS ABSENT -
THAT BRANDHOVE'S CHARGES WERE TRUE. 

BRANDHOVE ALLEGES THAT THE JANUARY 29 HEARING "WAS NOT HELD FOR A
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE," BUT WAS DESIGNED "TO INTIMIDATE AND SILENCE
PLAINTIFF AND DETER AND PREVENT HIM FROM EFFECTIVELY EXERCISING HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND TO PETITION THE LEGISLATURE
FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, AND ALSO TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND OF THE ENJOYMENT OF
EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE LAW, AND SO DID INTIMIDATE, SILENCE, DETER, AND PREVENT AND DEPRIVE
PLAINTIFF."  DAMAGES OF $10,000 WERE ASKED "FOR LEGAL COUNSEL,
TRAVELING, HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS, AND OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING AND
NECESSARY TO HIS DEFENSE" IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF THE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS.  THE PLAINTIFF ALSO ASKED FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES. 

THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT OPINION BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COMMITTEE AND ITS
MEMBERS.  183 F.2D 121.  FN2  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE
IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE RAISED CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS AND
THE POWER OF STATE LEGISLATURES.  340 U.S. 903. 

WE ARE AGAIN FACED WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION LEGISLATION WHICH CAUSED
THE COURT SUCH CONCERN IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, AND IN
THE WILLIAMS CASES DECIDED THIS TERM, ANTE, PP. 70, 97.  BUT THIS TIME
WE DO NOT HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH FAR-REACHING QUESTIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY OR EVEN OF CONSTRUCTION.  WE THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE LEGISLATION ON WHICH THIS ACTION IS FOUNDED DOES NOT IMPOSE
LIABILITY ON THE FACTS BEFORE US, ONCE THEY ARE RELATED TO THE
PRESUPPOSITIONS OF OUR POLITICAL HISTORY. 

THE PRIVILEGE OF LEGISLATORS TO BE FREE FROM ARREST OR CIVIL PROCESS
FOR WHAT THEY DO OR SAY IN LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS HAS TAPROOTS IN THE
PARLIAMENTARY STRUGGLES OF THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES.  AS
PARLIAMENT ACHIEVED INCREASING INDEPENDENCE FROM THE CROWN, ITS
STATEMENT OF THE PRIVILEGE GREW STRONGER.  IN 1523, SIR THOMAS MORE
COULD MAKE ONLY A TENTATIVE CLAIM.  ROPER, LIFE OF SIR THOMAS MORE, IN
MORE'S UTOPIA (ADAMS ED.)  10.  IN 1668, AFTER A LONG AND BITTER
STRUGGLE, PARLIAMENT FINALLY LAID THE GHOST OF CHARLES I, WHO HAD
PROSECUTED SIR JOHN ELLIOT AND OTHERS FOR "SEDITIOUS" SPEECHES IN
PARLIAMENT.  PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SIR JOHN ELLIOT, 3 HOW.  ST. TR., 294,
332.  IN 1689, THE BILL OF RIGHTS DECLARED IN UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE:
"THAT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND DEBATES OR PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT,
OUGHT NOT TO BE IMPEACHED OR QUESTIONED IN ANY COURT OR PLACE OUT OF
PARLIAMENT."  1 WM. & MARY, SESS. 2, C. II.  SEE STOCKDALE V. HANSARD,
9 AD. & EL. 1, 113-114(1839). 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ACTION IN THE LEGISLATURE WAS TAKEN AS A MATTER
OF COURSE BY THOSE WHO SEVERED THE COLONIES FROM THE CROWN AND FOUNDED
OUR NATION.  IT WAS DEEMED SO ESSENTIAL FOR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
PEOPLE THAT IT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND LATER
INTO THE CONSTITUTION.  ARTICLE V OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION IS
QUITE CLOSE TO THE ENGLISH BILL OF RIGHTS:  "FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
DEBATE IN CONGRESS SHALL NOT BE IMPEACHED OR QUESTIONED IN ANY COURT OR
PLACE OUT OF CONGRESS  ...  "  ARTICLE I, SEC. 6, OF THE CONSTITUTION
PROVIDES:  " ...  FOR ANY SPEECH OR DEBATE IN EITHER HOUSE, (THE
SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES) SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED IN ANY OTHER
PLACE." 

THE REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE IS CLEAR.  IT WAS WELL SUMMARIZED BY
JAMES WILSON, AN INFLUENTIAL MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE OF DETAIL WHICH
WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROVISION IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  "IN
ORDER TO ENABLE AND ENCOURAGE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PUBLIC TO
DISCHARGE HIS PUBLIC TRUST WITH FIRMNESS AND SUCCESS, IT IS
INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY, THAT HE SHOULD ENJOY THE FULLEST LIBERTY OF
SPEECH, AND THAT HE SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM THE RESENTMENT OF EVERY
ONE, HOWEVER POWERFUL, TO WHOM THE EXERCISE OF THAT LIBERTY MAY
OCCASION OFFENCE."  II WORKS OF JAMES WILSON (ANDREWS ED. 1896) 38. 
SEE THE STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE IN THE REPORT FROM
THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS (HOUSE OF COMMONS,
1939) XIV. 

THE PROVISION IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WAS A REFLECTION OF
POLITICAL PRINCIPLES ALREADY FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN THE STATES.  THREE
STATE CONSTITUTIONS ADOPTED BEFORE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED THE PRIVILEGE.  THE MARYLAND DECLARATION OF
RIGHTS, NOV. 3, 1776, PROVIDED:  "THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND DEBATES
OR PROCEEDINGS, IN THE LEGISLATURE, OUGHT NOT TO BE IMPEACHED IN ANY
OTHER COURT OR JUDICATURE."  ART. VIII.  THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION
OF 1780 PROVIDED:  "THE FREEDOM OF DELIBERATION, SPEECH AND DEBATE, IN
EITHER HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE, IS SO ESSENTIAL TO THE RIGHTS OF THE
PEOPLE, THAT IT CANNOT BE THE FOUNDATION OF ANY ACCUSATION OR
PROSECUTION, ACTION, OR COMPLAINT, IN ANY OTHER COURT OR PLACE
WHATSOEVER."  PART THE FIRST, ART. XXI.  CHIEF JUSTICE PARSONS GAVE THE
FOLLOWING GLOSS TO THIS PROVISION IN COFFIN V. COFFIN, 4 MASS. 1,
27(1808): 

"THESE PRIVILEGES ARE THUS SECURED, NOT WITH THE INTENTION OF
PROTECTING THE MEMBERS AGAINST PROSECUTIONS FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT, BUT
TO SUPPORT THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, BY ENABLING THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
TO EXECUTE THE FUNCTIONS OF THEIR OFFICE WITHOUT FEAR OF PROSECUTIONS,
CIVIL OR CRIMINAL.  I THEREFORE THINK THAT THE ARTICLE OUGHT NOT TO BE
CONSTRUED STRICTLY, BUT LIBERALLY, THAT THE FULL DESIGN OF IT MAY BE
ANSWERED.  I WILL NOT CONFINE IT TO DELIVERING AN OPINION, UTTERING A
SPEECH, OR HARANGUING IN DEBATE; BUT WILL EXTEND IT TO THE GIVING OF A
VOTE, TO THE MAKING OF A WRITTEN REPORT, AND TO EVERY OTHER ACT
RESULTING FROM THE NATURE, AND IN THE EXECUTION, OF THE OFFICE; AND I
WOULD DEFINE THE ARTICLE AS SECURING TO EVERY MEMBER EXEMPTION FROM
PROSECUTION, FOR EVERY THING SAID OR DONE BY HIM, AS A REPRESENTATIVE,
IN THE EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THAT OFFICE, WITHOUT INQUIRING
WHETHER THE EXERCISE WAS REGULAR ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE HOUSE,
OR IRREGULAR AND AGAINST THEIR RULES." 

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSTITUTION OF 1784 PROVIDED:  "THE FREEDOM OF
DELIBERATION, SPEECH, AND DEBATE, IN EITHER HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE,
IS SO ESSENTIAL TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, THAT IT CANNOT BE THE
FOUNDATION OF ANY ACTION, COMPLAINT, OR PROSECUTION, IN ANY OTHER COURT
OR PLACE WHATSOEVER."  PART I, ART. XXX.  FN3 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM WAS SO CAREFULLY PROTECTED
BY CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMERS AT A TIME WHEN EVEN JEFFERSON EXPRESSED FEAR
OF LEGISLATIVE EXCESS.  FN4  FOR THE LOYALIST EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIARY
HAD BEEN DEPOSED, AND THE LEGISLATURE WAS SUPREME IN MOST STATES DURING
AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION.  "THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT IS EVERY WHERE
EXTENDING THE SPHERE OF ITS ACTIVITY, AND DRAWING ALL POWER INTO ITS
IMPETUOUS VORTEX."  MADISON, THE FEDERALIST, NO. XLVIII. 

AS OTHER STATES JOINED THE UNION OR REVISED THEIR CONSTITUTIONS, THEY
TOOK GREAT CARE TO PRESERVE THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE LEGISLATURE MUST BE
FREE TO SPEAK AND ACT WITHOUT FEAR OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY. 
FORTY-ONE OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES NOW HAVE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN
THEIR CONSTITUTIONS PROTECTING THE PRIVILEGE.  FN5 

DID CONGRESS BY THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF ITS 1871 STATUTE MEAN TO
OVERTURN THE TRADITION OF LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM ACHIEVED IN ENGLAND BY
CIVIL WAR AND CAREFULLY PRESERVED IN THE FORMATION OF STATE AND
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS HERE?  DID IT MEAN TO SUBJECT LEGISLATORS TO CIVIL
LIABILITY FOR ACTS DONE WITHIN THE SPHERE OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY?  LET
US ASSUME, MERELY FOR THE MOMENT, THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO LIMIT THE FREEDOM OF STATE LEGISLATORS ACTING WITHIN THEIR
TRADITIONAL SPHERE.  THAT WOULD BE A BIG ASSUMPTION.  BUT WE WOULD HAVE
TO MAKE AN EVEN RASHER ASSUMPTION TO FIND THAT CONGRESS THOUGHT IT HAD
EXERCISED THE POWER.  THESE ARE DIFFICULTIES WE CANNOT HURDLE.  THE
LIMITS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE 1871 STATUTE - NOW SECS. 43 AND 47(3) OF
TITLE 8 - WERE NOT SPELLED OUT IN DEBATE.  WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT
CONGRESS - ITSELF A STAUNCH ADVOCATE OF LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM - WOULD
IMPINGE ON A TRADITION SO WELL GROUNDED IN HISTORY AND REASON BY COVERT
INCLUSION IN THE GENERAL LANGUAGE BEFORE US. 

WE COME THEN TO THE QUESTION WHETHER FROM THE PLEADINGS IT APPEARS
THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE ACTING IN THE SPHERE OF LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE
ACTIVITY.  LEGISLATURES MAY NOT OF COURSE ACQUIRE POWER BY AN
UNWARRANTED EXTENSION OF PRIVILEGE.  THE HOUSE OF COMMONS' CLAIM OF
POWER TO ESTABLISH THE LIMITS OF ITS PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN LITTLE MORE
THAN A PRETENSE SINCE ASHBY V. WHITE, 2 LD. RAYM.  938, 3 ID. 320. 
THIS COURT HAS NOT HESITATED TO SUSTAIN THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS WHEN IT FOUND CONGRESS WAS ACTING OUTSIDE ITS LEGISLATIVE
ROLE.  KILBOURN V. THOMPSON, 103 U.S. 168; MARSHALL V. GORDON, 243 U.S.
521; COMPARE MCGRAIN V. DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S. 135, 176. 

THE CLAIM OF AN UNWORTHY PURPOSE DOES NOT DESTROY THE PRIVILEGE. 
LEGISLATORS ARE IMMUNE FROM DETERRENTS TO THE UNINHIBITED DISCHARGE OF
THEIR LEGISLATIVE DUTY, NOT FOR THEIR PRIVATE INDULGENCE BUT FOR THE
PUBLIC GOOD.  ONE MUST NOT EXPECT UNCOMMON COURAGE EVEN IN
LEGISLATORS.  THE PRIVILEGE WOULD BE OF LITTLE VALUE IF THEY COULD BE
SUBJECTED TO THE COST AND INCONVENIENCE AND DISTRACTIONS OF A TRIAL
UPON A CONCLUSION OF THE PLEADER, OR TO THE HAZARD OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THEM BASED UPON A JURY'S SPECULATION AS TO MOTIVES.  THE
HOLDING OF THIS COURT IN FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87, 130, THAT IT
WAS NOT CONSONANT WITH OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT FOR A COURT TO INQUIRE
INTO THE MOTIVES OF LEGISLATORS, HAS REMAINED UNQUESTIONED.  SEE CASES
CITED IN ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 455.    INVESTIGATIONS,
WHETHER BY STANDING OR SPECIAL COMMITTEES, ARE AN ESTABLISHED PART OF
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT N6.  LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN CHARGED
WITH LOSING SIGHT OF THEIR DUTY OF DISINTERESTEDNESS.  IN TIMES OF
POLITICAL PASSION, DISHONEST OR VINDICTIVE MOTIVES ARE READILY
ATTRIBUTED TO LEGISLATIVE CONDUCT AND AS READILY BELIEVED.  FN7  COURTS
ARE NOT THE PLACE FOR SUCH CONTROVERSIES.  SELF-DISCIPLINE AND THE
VOTERS MUST BE THE ULTIMATE RELIANCE FOR DISCOURAGING OR CORRECTING
SUCH ABUSES.  THE COURTS SHOULD NOT GO BEYOND THE NARROW CONFINES OF
DETERMINING THAT A COMMITTEE'S INQUIRY MAY FAIRLY BE DEEMED WITHIN ITS
PROVINCE.  TO FIND THAT A COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION HAS EXCEEDED THE
BOUNDS OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IT MUST BE OBVIOUS THAT THERE WAS A
USURPATION OF FUNCTIONS EXCLUSIVELY VESTED IN THE JUDICIARY OR THE
EXECUTIVE.  THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT PRESENT SUCH A SITUATION. 
BRANDHOVE INDICATED THAT EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN BY HIM TO THE
COMMITTEE WAS FALSE, AND HE RAISED SERIOUS CHARGES CONCERNING THE WORK
OF A COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING A PROBLEM WITHIN LEGISLATIVE CONCERN.  THE
COMMITTEE WAS ENTITLED TO ASSERT A RIGHT TO CALL THE PLAINTIFF BEFORE
IT AND EXAMINE HIM. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS IS A CASE IN WHICH THE DEFENDANTS ARE
MEMBERS OF A LEGISLATURE.  LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE IN SUCH A CASE
DESERVES GREATER RESPECT THAN WHERE AN OFFICIAL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE
LEGISLATURE IS SUED OR THE LEGISLATURE SEEKS THE AFFIRMATIVE AID OF THE
COURTS TO ASSERT A PRIVILEGE.  IN KILBOURN V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, THIS
COURT ALLOWED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS, BUT FOUND THAT
ONE COULD NOT BE ENTERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. 

WE HAVE ONLY CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF THE PRIVILEGE AS APPLIED TO THE
FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE.  AS MR. JUSTICE MILLER SAID IN THE KILBOURN
CASE:  "IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE HERE THAT THERE MAY NOT BE THINGS
DONE, IN THE ONE HOUSE OR THE OTHER, OF AN EXTRAORDINARY CHARACTER, FOR
WHICH THE MEMBERS WHO TAKE PART IN THE ACT MAY BE HELD LEGALLY
RESPONSIBLE."  103 U.S. AT 204.  WE CONCLUDE ONLY THAT HERE THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS AND THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE WERE ACTING IN A
FIELD WHERE LEGISLATORS TRADITIONALLY HAVE POWER TO ACT, AND THAT THE
STATUTE OF 1871 DOES NOT CREATE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SUCH CONDUCT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  R.S. SEC. 1980(PAR.  THIRD), 8 U.S.C. SEC. 47(3): 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS IN ANY STATE OR TERRITORY CONSPIRE, OR GO IN
DISGUISE ON THE HIGHWAY OR ON THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEPRIVING, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY PERSON OR CLASS OF
PERSONS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR OF EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAWS; OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING OR
HINDERING THE CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY FROM
GIVING OR SECURING TO ALL PERSONS WITHIN SUCH STATE OR TERRITORY THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; OR IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE TO
PREVENT BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, OR THREAT, ANY CITIZEN WHO IS LAWFULLY
ENTITLED TO VOTE, FROM GIVING HIS SUPPORT OR ADVOCACY IN A LEGAL
MANNER, TOWARD OR IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION OF ANY LAWFULLY QUALIFIED
PERSON AS AN ELECTOR FOR PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT, OR AS A MEMBER OF
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES; OR TO INJURE ANY CITIZEN IN PERSON OR
PROPERTY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SUPPORT OR ADVOCACY; IN ANY CASE OF
CONSPIRACY SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION, IF ONE OR MORE PERSONS ENGAGED
THEREIN DO, OR CAUSE TO BE DONE, ANY ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECT
OF SUCH CONSPIRACY, WHEREBY ANOTHER IS INJURED IN HIS PERSON OR
PROPERTY, OR DEPRIVED OF HAVING AND EXERCISING ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE
OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE PARTY SO INJURED OR DEPRIVED MAY
HAVE AN ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES, OCCASIONED BY SUCH INJURY
OR DEPRIVATION, AGAINST ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE CONSPIRATORS." 

FN2  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL AS TO ROBINSON ON
THE GROUND THAT HE WAS NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW AND THAT THE
COMPLAINT DID NOT SHOW HIM TO BE A MEMBER OF A CONSPIRACY.  WE HAVE
DENIED A PETITION TO REVIEW THIS DECISION.  341 U.S. 936. 

FN3  IN TWO STATE CONSTITUTIONS OF 1776, THE PRIVILEGE WAS PROTECTED
BY GENERAL PROVISIONS PRESERVING ENGLISH LAW.  SEE S.C. CONST., 1776,
ART. VII; N.J. CONST., 1776, ART. XXII.  COMPARE N.C. CONST., 1776,
SEC. XLV. 

THREE OTHER OF THE ORIGINAL STATES MADE SPECIFIC PROVISION TO PROTECT
LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WAS
ADOPTED.  SEE PA. CONST., 1790, ART. I, SEC. 17; GA. CONST., 1789, ART.
I, SEC. 14; DEL. CONST., 1792, ART. II, SEC. 11.  CONNECTICUT AND RHODE
ISLAND SO PROVIDED IN THE FIRST CONSTITUTIONS ENACTED TO REPLACE THEIR
UNCODIFIED ORGANIC LAW.  CONN. CONST., 1818, ART. THIRD, SEC. 10; R.I.
CONST., 1842, ART. IV, SEC. 5. 

IN NEW YORK, THE BILL OF RIGHTS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE ON JANUARY
26, 1787, PROVIDED:  "THAT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEBATES, AND
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, SHALL NOT BE IMPEACHED OR
QUESTIONED IN ANY COURT OR PLACE OUT OF THE SENATE OR ASSEMBLY."  IN
VIRGINIA, AS WELL AS IN THE OTHER COLONIES, THE ASSEMBLIES HAD BUILT UP
A STRONG TRADITION OF LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE LONG BEFORE THE
REVOLUTION.  SEE CLARKE, PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE IN THE AMERICAN
COLONIES (1943), PASSIM, ESPECIALLY 70 AND 93 ET SEQ. 

FN4  SEE JEFFERSON, NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA (3D AM. ED. 1801),
174-175.  THE NOTES WERE WRITTEN IN 1781.  SEE ALSO, A LETTER FROM
JEFFERSON TO MADISON, MARCH 15, 1789, TO BE PUBLISHED IN A FORTHCOMING
VOLUME OF THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (BOYD ED.):  "THE TYRANNY OF
THE LEGISLATURES IS THE MOST FORMIDABLE DREAD AT PRESENT, AND WILL BE
FOR LONG YEARS."  AS TO THE POLITICAL CURRENTS AT THE TIME THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS WERE FORMULATED, SEE
CORWIN, THE PROGRESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY BETWEEN THE DECLARATION
OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE MEETING OF THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION, 30 AM.
HIST. REV. 511(1925). 

FN5  ALA. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 56; ARIZ. CONST., ART. IV, 2, SEC. 7;
ARK. CONST., ART. V, SEC. 15; COLO. CONST., ART. V, SEC. 16; CONN.
CONST., ART. THIRD, SEC. 10; DEL. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 13; GA. CONST.,
ART. III, SEC. VII, PAR. III; IDAHO CONST., ART. III, SEC. 7; ILL.
CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 14; IND. CONST., ART. 4, SEC. 8; KAN. CONST.,
ART. 2, SEC. 22; KY. CONST., SEC. 43; LA. CONST., ART. III, SEC. 13;
ME. CONST., ART. IV, PT. THIRD, SEC. 8; MD. D.R. 10, CONST., ART. III,
SEC. 18; MASS. CONST., PT. FIRST, ART. 21; MICH. CONST., ART. V, SEC.
8; MINN. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 8; MO. CONST., ART. III, SEC. 19; MONT.
CONST., ART. V, SEC. 15; NEB. CONST., ART. III, SEC. 26; N.H. CONST.,
PT. FIRST, ART. 30TH; N.J. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. IV, PAR. 8; N.M.
CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 13; N.Y. CONST., ART. III, SEC. 11; N.D. CONST.,
ART. II, SEC. 42; OHIO CONST., ART. II, SEC. 12; OKLA. CONST., ART. V,
SEC. 22; ORE.  CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 9; PA. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 15;
R.I. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 5; S.D. CONST., ART. III, SEC. 11; TENN.
CONST., ART. II, SEC. 13; TEX. CONST., ART. III, SEC. 21; UTAH CONST.,
ART. VI, SEC. 8; VT. CONST., C. I, ART. 14TH; VA. CONST., ART. IV, SEC.
48; WASH. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 17; W. VA. CONST., ART. VI, SEC. 17;
WIS. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 16; WYO. CONST., ART. 3, SEC. 16. 

COMPARE IOWA CONST., ART. III, SEC. 10; N.C. CONST., ART. II, SEC.
17(RIGHT OF LEGISLATOR TO PROTEST ACTION OF LEGISLATURE).  SEE ALSO,
CAL. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 11; IOWA CONST., ART. III, SEC. 11; MISS. 
CONST., ART. 4, SEC. 48; NEV. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 11; S.C. CONST.,
ART. III, SEC. 14(FREEDOM FROM ARREST).  ONLY THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION
HAS NO PROVISION CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE. 

FN6  SEE WILSON, CONGRESSIONAL GOVERNMENT (1885), 303:  "IT IS THE
PROPER DUTY OF A REPRESENTATIVE BODY TO LOOK DILIGENTLY INTO EVERY
AFFAIR OF GOVERNMENT AND TO TALK MUCH ABOUT WHAT IT SEES.  IT IS MEANT
TO BE THE EYES AND THE VOICE, AND TO EMBODY THE WISDOM AND WILL OF ITS
CONSTITUENTS.  UNLESS CONGRESS HAVE AND USE EVERY MEANS OF ACQUAINTING
ITSELF WITH THE ACTS AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENTS
OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE COUNTRY MUST BE HELPLESS TO LEARN HOW IT IS
BEING SERVED; AND UNLESS CONGRESS BOTH SCRUTINIZE THESE THINGS AND SIFT
THEM BY EVERY FORM OF DISCUSSION, THE COUNTRY MUST REMAIN IN
EMBARRASSING, CRIPPLING IGNORANCE OF THE VERY AFFAIRS WHICH IT IS MOST
IMPORTANT THAT IT SHOULD UNDERSTAND AND DIRECT.  THE INFORMING FUNCTION
OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE PREFERRED EVEN TO ITS LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION." 

FN7  SEE DILLIARD, CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS:  THE ROLE OF THE
PRESS, 18 U. OF CHI.  L. REV. 585. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES  FN1  WERE NOT
INTENDED TO MAKE LEGISLATORS PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO A WITNESS
INJURED BY A COMMITTEE EXERCISING LEGISLATIVE POWER.  THIS RESULT IS
REACHED BY REFERENCE TO THE LONG-STANDING AND WISE TRADITION THAT
LEGISLATORS ARE IMMUNE FROM LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR INTRA
LEGISLATIVE STATEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES.  THE COURT'S OPINION ALSO POINTS
OUT THAT KILBOURN V. THOMPSON, 103 U.S. 168, HELD LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY
TO HAVE SOME LIMITS.  AND TODAY'S DECISION INDICATES THAT THERE IS A
POINT AT WHICH A LEGISLATOR'S CONDUCT SO FAR EXCEEDS THE BOUNDS OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER THAT HE MAY BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE IN A SUIT
BROUGHT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.  I SUBSTANTIALLY AGREE WITH THE
COURT'S REASONING AND ITS CONCLUSION.  BUT SINCE THIS IS A DIFFICULT
CASE FOR ME, I THINK IT IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE WHAT WE DO NOT DECIDE. 

IT IS NOT HELD THAT THE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS COEXTENSIVE
WITH THE PERSONAL IMMUNITY OF THE LEGISLATORS.  THAT IS TO SAY, THE
HOLDING THAT THE CHAIRMAN AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS COMMITTEE CANNOT
BE SUED IN THIS CASE IS NOT A HOLDING THAT THEIR ALLEGED PERSECUTION OF
BRANDHOVE IS LEGAL CONDUCT.  INDEED, AS I UNDERSTAND THE DECISION,
THERE IS STILL MUCH ROOM FOR CHALLENGE TO THE COMMITTEE ACTION.  THUS,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN ANY PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE TENNEY COMMITTEE TO
FINE OR IMPRISON BRANDHOVE ON PERJURY, CONTEMPT OR OTHER CHARGES, HE
WOULD CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF ON THE GROUND THAT THE
RESOLUTION CREATING THE COMMITTEE OR THE COMMITTEE'S ACTIONS UNDER IT
WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID. 

IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO OBSERVE THAT THE
RESOLUTION CREATING THE COMMITTEE IS SO BROADLY DRAWN THAT GRAVE DOUBTS
ARE RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE COMMITTEE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY EXERCISE
ALL THE POWERS PURPORTEDLY BESTOWED ON IT.  FN2  IN PART, THE
RESOLUTION DIRECTS THE COMMITTEE 

"TO ASCERTAIN  ...  ALL FACTS RELATING TO THE ACTIVITIES OF PERSONS
AND GROUPS KNOWN OR SUSPECTED TO BE DOMINATED OR CONTROLLED BY A
FOREIGN POWER, AND WHO OWE ALLEGIANCE THERETO BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS,
RACIAL, POLITICAL, IDEOLOGICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL, OR OTHER TIES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE INFLUENCE UPON ALL SUCH PERSONS AND GROUPS OF
EDUCATION, ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES, SOCIAL POSITIONS, FRATERNAL AND
CASUAL ASSOCIATIONS, LIVING STANDARDS, RACE, RELIGION, POLITICAL,
ANCESTRY AND THE ACTIVITIES OF PAID PROVOCATION  ...  "  CAL. SENATE
RESOLUTION 75, JUNE 20, 1947. 

OF COURSE THE COURT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SANCTION A LEGISLATIVE
INQUISITION OF THE TYPE APPARENTLY AUTHORIZED BY THIS RESOLUTION. 

UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS TRUE THAT LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES, BORN TO DEFEND
THE LIBERTY OF THE PEOPLE, HAVE AT TIMES VIOLATED THEIR SACRED TRUSTS
AND BECOME THE INSTRUMENTS OF OPPRESSION.  MANY SPECIFIC INSTANCES
COULD BE CITED BUT PERHAPS THE MOST RECENT SPECTACULAR ILLUSTRATION IS
THE USE OF A COMMITTEE OF THE ARGENTINE CONGRESS AS THE INSTRUMENT TO
STRANGLE THE INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER LA PRENSA BECAUSE OF THE VIEWS IT
ESPOUSED.  FN3  IN LIGHT OF THIS ARGENTINE EXPERIENCE, IT DOES NOT SEEM
INAPPROPRIATE TO POINT OUT THAT THE RIGHT OF EVERY PERSON IN THIS
COUNTRY TO HAVE HIS SAY, HOWEVER UNORTHODOX OR UNPOPULAR HE OR HIS
OPINIONS MAY BE, IS GUARANTEED BY THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
THAT PROTECTS THE FREE PRESS.  THOSE WHO CHERISH FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
HERE WOULD DO WELL TO REMEMBER THAT THIS FREEDOM CANNOT LONG SURVIVE
THE LEGISLATIVE SNUFFING OUT OF FREEDOM TO BELIEVE AND FREEDOM TO
SPEAK. 

FN1  8 U.S.C. SECS. 43, 47(3). 

FN2  SEE JUDGE EDGERTON DISSENTING IN BARSKY V. UNITED STATES, 83
U.S. APP. D.C. 127, 138, 167 F.2D 241, 252; JUDGE CHARLES E. CLARK
DISSENTING IN UNITED STATES V. JOSEPHSON, 165 F.2D 82, 93. 

FN3  N.Y. TIMES, MAR. 16, 1951, P. 1, COL. 2; N.Y. TIMES, MAR. 17,
1951, P. 1, COL. 2.  THE SITUATION WAS GRAPHICALLY DESCRIBED IN AN
EDITORIAL APPEARING IN LA NACION OF BUENOS AIRES ON MARCH 18, 1951:
"BUT NO ONE COULD HAVE IMAGINED UNTIL THIS MOMENT THAT CONGRESS,
PROPERLY INVESTED WITH IMPLICIT POWERS OF INVESTIGATION, COULD DECREE
INTERVENTIONS OF THIS NATURE INTENDED TO CARRY OUT ACTS WHICH, UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCE, COME WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE LEGISLATURE.  IN THE
PRESENT CASE THIS ALTERATION OF FUNCTIONS IS OF UNUSUAL IMPORTANCE
BECAUSE IT AFFECTS AN INVIOLABLE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE.  IF CONGRESS
CANNOT DICTATE 'LAWS RESTRICTIVE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS' (ART. 23,
ARGENTINE CONSTITUTION), WHICH WOULD BE THE ONLY POSSIBLE STEP WITHIN
ITS SPECIFIC FUNCTION, HOW COULD IT TAKE POSSESSION OF NEWSPAPERS,
HINDER THEIR ACTIVITY AND DECIDE THEIR FATE, ALL THESE BEING ACTS
WHEREBY THE EXERCISE OF THAT SAME FREEDOM IS RENDERED IMPRACTICABLE? 
IF SUCH A STATE OF THINGS IS PERMITTED AND BECOMES GENERALIZED, THEN IT
MEANS THAT THE REPETITION OF THESE ACTS WHENEVER IT IS DEEMED SUITABLE
IN VIEW OF CONFLICTING OPINIONS, WOULD CAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE TO BE UTTERLY DISREGARDED.  ...  LAST YEAR THE ACTIVITIES OF
AN INVESTIGATING CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION (THE COMMITTEE ON ANTI
ARGENTINE ACTIVITIES), APPOINTED FOR ANOTHER CONCRETE PURPOSE, SERVED
TO BRING ABOUT THE CLOSURE OF UP TO 49 NEWSPAPERS IN ONE DAY.  ...  "
SEE GENERALLY, EDITOR & PUBLISHER, MAR. 24, 1951, P. 5.    MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT AS A STATEMENT OF GENERAL
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE LIABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES AND
MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURES.  BUT I DO NOT AGREE THAT ALL ABUSES OF
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES ARE SOLELY FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BODY TO POLICE. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION - THE
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  THE CHARGE SEEMS STRAINED AND DIFFICULT TO
SUSTAIN; BUT IT IS THAT A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE BROUGHT THE WEIGHT OF
ITS AUTHORITY DOWN ON RESPONDENT FOR EXERCISING HIS RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH.  REPRISAL FOR SPEAKING IS AS MUCH AN ABRIDGMENT AS A PRIOR
RESTRAINT.  IF A COMMITTEE DEPARTS SO FAR FROM ITS DOMAIN TO DEPRIVE A
CITIZEN OF A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, I CAN THINK OF NO
REASON WHY IT SHOULD BE IMMUNE.  YET THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE
LIABILITY SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED ON PETITIONERS UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43. 
FN1 

IT IS SPEECH AND DEBATE IN THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT WHICH OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME MAKES PRIVILEGED.  INCLUDED, OF COURSE, ARE THE
ACTIONS OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES THAT ARE AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT
HEARINGS OR MAKE INVESTIGATIONS SO AS TO LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR
LEGISLATIVE ACTION.  BUT WE ARE APPARENTLY HOLDING TODAY THAT THE
ACTIONS OF THOSE COMMITTEES HAVE NO LIMITS IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.  MAY
THEY DEPART WITH IMPUNITY FROM THEIR LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS, SIT AS
KANGAROO COURTS, AND TRY MEN FOR THEIR LOYALTY AND THEIR POLITICAL
BELIEFS?  MAY THEY SUBSTITUTE TRIAL BEFORE COMMITTEES FOR TRIAL BEFORE
JURIES?  MAY THEY SIT AS A BOARD OF CENSORS OVER INDUSTRY, PREPARE
THEIR BLACKLISTS OF CITIZENS, AND ISSUE PRONOUNCEMENTS AS DEVASTATING
AS ANY BILL OF ATTAINDER? 

NO OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIAL HAS COMPLETE IMMUNITY FOR HIS ACTIONS.  EVEN
A POLICEMAN WHO EXACTS A CONFESSION BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE CAN BE HELD
CRIMINALLY LIABLE UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, AS WE RULED ONLY THE
OTHER DAY IN WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 97.  YET NOW WE HOLD
THAT NO MATTER THE EXTREMES TO WHICH A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MAY GO IT
IS NOT ANSWERABLE TO AN INJURED PARTY UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS
LEGISLATION.  THAT RESULT IS THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF OUR RULING
SINCE THE TEST OF THE STATUTE, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, IS WHETHER A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS BEEN IMPAIRED, NOT WHETHER THE DOMAIN OF THE
COMMITTEE WAS TRADITIONAL.  IT IS ONE THING TO GIVE GREAT LEEWAY TO THE
LEGISLATIVE RIGHT OF SPEECH, DEBATE, AND INVESTIGATION.  BUT WHEN A
COMMITTEE PERVERTS ITS POWER, BRINGS DOWN ON AN INDIVIDUAL THE WHOLE
WEIGHT OF GOVERNMENT FOR AN ILLEGAL OR CORRUPT PURPOSE, THE REASON FOR
THE IMMUNITY ENDS.  IT WAS INDEED THE PURPOSE OF THIS CIVIL RIGHTS
LEGISLATION TO SECURE FEDERAL RIGHTS AGAINST INVASION BY OFFICERS AND
AGENTS OF THE STATES.  I SEE NO REASON WHY ANY OFFICER OF GOVERNMENT
SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE CONSTITUTION FROM WHICH ALL RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES OF AN OFFICE OBTAIN. 

FN1  "EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR
CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER
PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN
EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS." 
..END :



SCHWEGMANN BROS. V. CALVERT CORP., 341 U.S. 384 


ARGUED APRIL 9-10, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1951.  - 184 F.2D 11,
REVERSED. 


THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT EXEMPTS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT
"CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBING MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE RESALE" OF
SPECIFIED COMMODITIES WHEN "CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS OF THAT DESCRIPTION
ARE LAWFUL AS APPLIED TO INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS" UNDER LOCAL LAW. 
RESPONDENTS, DISTRIBUTORS OF GIN AND WHISKEY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
HAVE CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS WITH LOUISIANA RETAILERS FIXING MINIMUM
RETAIL PRICES FOR RESPONDENTS' PRODUCTS.  LOUISIANA LAW AUTHORIZES
ENFORCEMENT OF PRICE FIXING NOT ONLY AGAINST PARTIES TO A "CONTRACT"
BUT ALSO AGAINST NONSIGNERS.  PETITIONER, A RETAILER IN NEW ORLEANS,
REFUSED TO SIGN A PRICE-FIXING CONTRACT WITH RESPONDENTS AND SOLD
RESPONDENTS' PRODUCTS AT CUT-RATE PRICES.  HELD:  RESPONDENTS WERE NOT
ENTITLED BY REASON OF THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM
SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS AT LESS THAN THE MINIMUM PRICES FIXED BY THEIR
SCHEDULES.  PP. 385-395. 

(A)  PRICE FIXING IS UNLAWFUL PER SE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 386. 

(B)  THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT EXEMPTS "CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS
PRESCRIBING MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE RESALE" OF THE ARTICLES PURCHASED,
NOT "CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS" RESPECTING THE PRACTICES OF
NONCONTRACTING COMPETITORS OF THE CONTRACTING RETAILERS.  PP. 387-390. 

(C)  THE HISTORY OF THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT SUPPORTS THE CONSTRUCTION
HERE GIVEN IT. PP. 390-395. 

SCHWEGMANN BROTHERS ET AL. V. CALVERT DISTILLERS CORP. 

NO. 442.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 443, SCHWEGMANN BROTHERS ET AL. V. SEAGRAM
DISTILLERS CORP., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED PETITIONER FROM ALLEGED UNLAWFUL PRICE
CUTTING.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  184 F.2D 11.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 928.  REVERSED, P. 395. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, MARYLAND AND DELAWARE CORPORATIONS, ARE DISTRIBUTORS OF
GIN AND WHISKEY.  THEY SELL THEIR PRODUCTS TO WHOLESALERS IN LOUISIANA,
WHO IN TURN SELL TO RETAILERS.  RESPONDENTS HAVE A PRICE-FIXING SCHEME
WHEREBY THEY TRY TO MAINTAIN UNIFORM RETAIL PRICES FOR THEIR PRODUCTS. 
THEY ENDEAVOR TO MAKE RETAILERS SIGN PRICE-FIXING CONTRACTS UNDER WHICH
THE BUYERS PROMISE TO SELL AT NOT LESS THAN THE PRICES STATED IN
RESPONDENTS' SCHEDULES.  THEY HAVE INDEED SUCCEEDED IN GETTING OVER ONE
HUNDRED LOUISIANA RETAILERS TO SIGN THESE AGREEMENTS.  PETITIONER, A
RETAILER IN NEW ORLEANS, REFUSED TO AGREE TO THE PRICE-FIXING SCHEME
AND SOLD RESPONDENTS' PRODUCTS AT A CUT-RATE PRICE.  RESPONDENTS
THEREUPON BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY REASON OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM SELLING THE PRODUCTS
AT LESS THAN THE MINIMUM PRICES FIXED BY THEIR SCHEDULES. 

IT IS CLEAR FROM OUR DECISIONS UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT (26 STAT. 209)
THAT THIS INTERSTATE MARKETING ARRANGEMENT WOULD BE ILLEGAL, THAT IT
WOULD BE ENJOINED, THAT IT WOULD DRAW CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES, AND
THAT NO COURT WOULD ENFORCE IT.  FIXING MINIMUM PRICES, LIKE OTHER
TYPES OF PRICE FIXING, IS ILLEGAL PER SE.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY
VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150; KIEFER-STEWART CO. V. SEAGRAM & SONS, 340
U.S. 211.  RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE WAS INDEED STRUCK DOWN IN DR. MILES
MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S. 373.  THE FACT THAT A STATE
AUTHORIZES THE PRICE FIXING DOES NOT, OF COURSE, GIVE IMMUNITY TO THE
SCHEME, ABSENT APPROVAL BY CONGRESS. 

RESPONDENTS, HOWEVER, SEEK TO FIND LEGALITY FOR THIS MARKETING
ARRANGEMENT IN THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT ENACTED IN 1937 AS AN AMENDMENT
TO SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  50 STAT. 693, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  THAT
AMENDMENT PROVIDES IN MATERIAL PART THAT "NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED
SHALL RENDER ILLEGAL, CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBING MINIMUM
PRICES FOR THE RESALE" OF SPECIFIED COMMODITIES WHEN "CONTRACTS OR
AGREEMENTS OF THAT DESCRIPTION ARE LAWFUL AS APPLIED TO INTRASTATE
TRANSACTIONS" UNDER LOCAL LAW.  FN1 

LOUISIANA HAS SUCH A LAW.  LA. GEN. STAT., SECS. 9809.1 ET SEQ. IT
PERMITS A "CONTRACT" FOR THE SALE OR RESALE OF A COMMODITY TO PROVIDE
THAT THE BUYER WILL NOT RESELL "EXCEPT AT THE PRICE STIPULATED BY THE
VENDOR."  THE LOUISIANA STATUTE GOES FURTHER.  IT NOT ONLY ALLOWS A
DISTRIBUTOR AND RETAILER TO MAKE A "CONTRACT" FIXING THE RESALE PRICE;
BUT ONCE THERE IS A PRICE-FIXING "CONTRACT," KNOWN TO A SELLER, WITH
ANY RETAILER IN THE STATE, IT ALSO CONDEMNS AS UNFAIR COMPETITION A
SALE AT LESS THAN THE PRICE STIPULATED EVEN THOUGH THE SELLER IS NOT A
PARTY TO THE "CONTRACT."  FN2  IN OTHER WORDS, THE LOUISIANA STATUTE
ENFORCES PRICE FIXING NOT ONLY AGAINST PARTIES TO A "CONTRACT" BUT ALSO
AGAINST NONSIGNERS.  SO FAR AS LOUISIANA LAW IS CONCERNED, PRICE FIXING
CAN BE ENFORCED AGAINST ALL RETAILERS ONCE ANY SINGLE RETAILER AGREES
WITH A DISTRIBUTOR ON THE RESALE PRICE.  AND THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE
MILLER-TYDINGS ACT PERMITS THE SAME RANGE OF PRICE FIXING. 

THE ARGUMENT IS PHRASED AS FOLLOWS:  THE PRESENT ACTION IS OUTLAWED
BY THE SHERMAN ACT - THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT APART - ONLY IF IT IS A
CONTRACT, COMBINATION, OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  BUT IF A
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT IS THE VICE, THEN BY THE TERMS OF THE MILLER
TYDINGS ACT THAT CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT IS IMMUNIZED, PROVIDED IT IS
IMMUNIZED BY STATE LAW.  THE SAME IS TRUE IF THE VICE IS A CONSPIRACY,
SINCE A CONSPIRACY PRESUPPOSES AN AGREEMENT.  THAT WAS IN ESSENCE THE
VIEW OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED VOTE A
JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING PETITIONER FROM PRICE CUTTING. 
184 F.2D 11. 

THE ARGUMENT AT FIRST BLUSH HAS APPEAL.  BUT WE THINK IT OFFENDS THE
STATUTORY SCHEME. 

WE NOTE TO BEGIN WITH THAT THERE ARE CRITICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
LOUISIANA'S LAW AND THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT.  THE LATTER EXEMPTS ONLY
"CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBING MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE RESALE." 
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LOUISIANA LAW SANCTIONS THE FIXING OF MAXIMUM AS
WELL AS MINIMUM PRICES, FOR IT EXEMPTS ANY PROVISION THAT THE BUYER
WILL NOT RESELL "EXCEPT AT THE PRICE STIPULATED BY THE VENDOR."  WE
START THEN WITH A FEDERAL ACT WHICH DOES NOT, AS RESPONDENTS SUGGEST,
TURN OVER TO THE STATES THE HANDLING OF THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF RESALE
PRICE MAINTENANCE ON THIS TYPE OF COMMODITY.  WHAT IS GRANTED IS A
LIMITED IMMUNITY - A LIMITATION THAT IS FURTHER EMPHASIZED BY THE
INCLUSION IN THE STATE LAW AND THE EXCLUSION FROM THE FEDERAL LAW OF
THE NONSIGNER PROVISION.  THE OMISSION OF THE NONSIGNER PROVISION FROM
THE FEDERAL LAW IS FATAL TO RESPONDENTS' POSITION UNLESS WE ARE TO
PERFORM A DISTINCT LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY READING INTO THE ACT A
PROVISION THAT WAS METICULOUSLY OMITTED FROM IT. 

A REFUSAL TO READ THE NONSIGNER PROVISION INTO THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT
MAKES SENSE IF WE ARE TO TAKE THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE IN THEIR NORMAL
AND CUSTOMARY MEANING.  THE ACT SANCTIONS ONLY "CONTRACTS OR
AGREEMENTS."  IF A DISTRIBUTOR AND ONE OR MORE RETAILERS WANT TO AGREE,
COMBINE, OR CONSPIRE TO FIX A MINIMUM PRICE, THEY CAN DO SO IF STATE
LAW PERMITS.  THEIR CONTRACT, COMBINATION, OR CONSPIRACY - HITHERTO
ILLEGAL - IS MADE LAWFUL.  THEY CAN FIX MINIMUM PRICES PURSUANT TO
THEIR CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT WITH IMPUNITY.  WHEN THEY SEEK, HOWEVER, TO
IMPOSE PRICE FIXING ON PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT CONTRACTED OR AGREED TO THE
SCHEME, THE SITUATION IS VASTLY DIFFERENT.  THAT IS NOT PRICE FIXING BY
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT; THAT IS PRICE FIXING BY COMPULSION.  THAT IS NOT
FOLLOWING THE PATH OF CONSENSUAL AGREEMENT; THAT IS RESORT TO
COERCION. 

MUCH ARGUMENT IS MADE TO IMPORT INTO THE CONTRACTS WHICH RESPONDENTS
MAKE WITH RETAILERS A PROVISION THAT THE PARTIES MAY FORCE NONSIGNERS
INTO LINE.  IT IS SAID THAT STATE LAW ATTACHES THAT CONDITION TO EVERY
SUCH CONTRACT AND THAT THEREFORE THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT EXEMPTS IT FROM
THE SHERMAN ACT.  SUCH A CONDITION, IF IMPLIED, CREATES AN AGREEMENT
RESPECTING NOT SALES MADE UNDER THE CONTRACT BUT OTHER SALES.  YET ALL
THAT ARE EXEMPTED BY THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT ARE "CONTRACTS OR
AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBING MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE RESALE" OF THE ARTICLES
PURCHASED, NOT "CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS" RESPECTING THE PRACTICES OF
NONCONTRACTING COMPETITORS OF THE CONTRACTING RETAILERS. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT
EXPRESSLY CONTINUES THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT AGAINST
"HORIZONTAL" PRICE FIXING BY THOSE IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER AT
THE SAME FUNCTIONAL LEVEL.  FN3 THEREFORE, WHEN A STATE COMPELS
RETAILERS TO FOLLOW A PARALLEL PRICE POLICY, IT DEMANDS PRIVATE CONDUCT
WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT FORBIDS.  SEE PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341,
350.  ELIMINATION OF PRICE COMPETITION AT THE RETAIL LEVEL MAY, OF
COURSE, LAWFULLY RESULT IF A DISTRIBUTOR SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATES
INDIVIDUAL "VERTICAL" AGREEMENTS WITH ALL HIS RETAILERS.  BUT WHEN
RETAILERS ARE FORCED TO ABANDON PRICE COMPETITION, THEY ARE DRIVEN INTO
A COMPACT IN VIOLATION OF THE SPIRIT OF THE PROVISO WHICH FORBIDS
"HORIZONTAL" PRICE FIXING.  A REAL SANCTION CAN BE GIVEN THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE PROVISO ONLY IF THE PRICE MAINTENANCE POWER GRANTED
A DISTRIBUTOR IS LIMITED TO VOLUNTARY ENGAGEMENTS.  OTHERWISE, THE
EXCEPTION SWALLOWS THE PROVISO AND DESTROYS ITS PRACTICAL
EFFECTIVENESS. 

THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION WOULD HAVE A VAST AND DEVASTATING EFFECT ON
SHERMAN ACT POLICIES.  IF IT WERE ADOPTED, ONCE A DISTRIBUTOR EXECUTED
A CONTRACT WITH A SINGLE RETAILER SETTING THE MINIMUM RESALE PRICE FOR
A COMMODITY IN THE STATE, ALL OTHER RETAILERS COULD BE FORCED INTO
LINE.  HAD CONGRESS DESIRED TO ELIMINATE THE CONSENSUAL ELEMENT FROM
THE ARRANGEMENT AND TO PERMIT BLANKETING A STATE WITH RESALE PRICE
FIXING IF ONLY ONE RETAILER WANTED IT, WE FEEL THAT DIFFERENT MEASURES
WOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED - EITHER A NONSIGNER PROVISION WOULD HAVE BEEN
INCLUDED OR RESALE PRICE FIXING WOULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED WITHOUT
MORE.  CERTAINLY THE WORDS USED CONNOTE A VOLUNTARY SCHEME.  CONTRACTS
OR AGREEMENTS CONVEY THE IDEA OF A COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENT, NOT A
PROGRAM WHEREBY RECALCITRANTS ARE DRAGGED IN BY THE HEELS AND COMPELLED
TO SUBMIT TO PRICE FIXING. 

THE HISTORY OF THE ACT SUPPORTS THIS CONSTRUCTION.  THE EFFORTS TO
OVERRIDE THE RULE OF DR. MILES MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., SUPRA,
WERE LONG AND PERSISTENT.  MANY BILLS HAD BEEN INTRODUCED ON THIS
SUBJECT BEFORE SENATOR TYDINGS INTRODUCED HIS.  THUS IN 1929, IN THE
SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS, THE CAPPER-KELLY FAIR TRADE BILL WAS OFFERED. 
FN4  IT HAD NO NONSIGNER PROVISION.  IT MERELY PERMITTED RESALE PRICE
MAINTENANCE AS RESPECTS SPECIFIED CLASSES OF COMMODITIES BY DECLARING
THAT NO SUCH "CONTRACT RELATING TO THE SALE OR RESALE" SHALL BE
UNLAWFUL.  AS STATED IN THE HOUSE REPORT, THAT BILL MERELY LEGALIZED AN
AGREEMENT "THAT THE VENDEE WILL NOT RESELL THE COMMODITY SPECIFIED IN
THE CONTRACT EXCEPT AT A STIPULATED PRICE."  FN5  THAT BILL BECAME THE
MODEL FOR THE CALIFORNIA ACT PASSED IN 1931 - THE FIRST STATE ACT
PERMITTING RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE.  FN6  THE CALIFORNIA ACT CONTAINED
NO NONSIGNER CLAUSE.  NEITHER DID THE CAPPER-KELLY BILL THAT WAS
INTRODUCED IN THE SEVENTY-SECOND CONGRESS.  FN7  SO FAR AS MATERIAL
HERE IT WAS IDENTICAL WITH ITS PREDECESSOR. 

THE CAPPER-KELLY BILL DID NOT PASS.  AND BY THE TIME THE NEXT BILL
WAS INTRODUCED - THREE YEARS LATER - THE CALIFORNIA ACT HAD BEEN
CHANGED BY THE ADDITION OF THE NONSIGNER PROVISION.  FN8  THAT WAS IN
1933.  YET WHEN IN 1936 SENATOR TYDINGS INTRODUCED HIS FIRST BILL IN
THE SEVENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS  FN9  HE FOLLOWED SUBSTANTIALLY THE CAPPER
KELLY BILLS AND WROTE NO NONSIGNER PROVISION INTO IT.  HIS BILL MERELY
LEGALIZED "CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBING MINIMUM PRICES OR OTHER
CONDITIONS FOR THE RESALE" OF A COMMODITY.  BY THIS DATE SEVERAL
ADDITIONAL STATES HAD RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE LAWS WITH NONSIGNER
PROVISIONS.  FN10  EVEN THOUGH THE STATE LAWS WERE THE MODELS FOR THE
FEDERAL BILLS, THE NONSIGNER PROVISION WAS NEVER ADDED.  THAT WAS TRUE
OF THE BILL INTRODUCED IN THE SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS AS WELL AS THE
SUBSEQUENT ONE.  THEY ALL FOLLOWED IN THIS RESPECT THE PATTERN OF THE
CAPPER-KELLY BILL AS IT APPEARED BEFORE THE FIRST NONSIGNER PROVISION
WAS WRITTEN INTO STATE LAW.  THE "CONTRACT" CONCEPT UTILIZED BY CAPPER
KELLY BEFORE THERE WAS A NONSIGNER PROVISION IN STATE LAW WAS THUS
CONTINUED EVEN AFTER THE NONSIGNER PROVISION APPEARED.  THE INFERENCE,
THEREFORE, IS STRONG THAT THERE WAS CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE FIRST
TYDINGS BILL AND THE PRECEDING CAPPER-KELLY BILLS.  THE TYDINGS BILLS
BUILT ON THE SAME FOUNDATION; THEY WERE NO MORE CONCERNED WITH
NONSIGNER PROVISIONS THAN WERE THEIR PREDECESSORS.  IN VIEW OF THIS
HISTORY WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT, IF THE DRAFTSMAN INTENDED THAT THE
NONSIGNING RETAILER WAS TO BE COERCED, IT WAS STRANGE INDEED THAT HE
OMITTED THE ONE CLEAR PROVISION THAT WOULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT
RESULT. 

AN ARGUMENT IS MADE FROM THE REPORTS AND DEBATES TO THE EFFECT THAT
"CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS" NEVERTHELESS INCLUDES THE NONSIGNER
PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW.  THE SENATE REPORT ON THE FIRST TYDINGS BILL,
AFTER STATING THAT THE CALIFORNIA LAW AUTHORIZED A DISTRIBUTOR "TO MAKE
A CONTRACT THAT THE PURCHASER WILL NOT RESELL" EXCEPT AT THE STIPULATED
PRICE, SAID THAT THE PROPOSED FEDERAL LAW "DOES NO MORE THAN TO REMOVE
FEDERAL OBSTACLES TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS WHICH THE STATES
THEMSELVES HAVE DECLARED LAWFUL."  FN11  THE SENATE REPORT ON THE
SECOND TYDINGS BILL, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE SEVENTY-FIFTH
CONGRESS, DID LITTLE MORE THAN REPRINT THE EARLIER REPORT.  FN12  THE
HOUSE REPORT, HEAVILY RELIED ON HERE, GAVE A MORE EXTENDED ANALYSIS. 
FN13 

THE HOUSE REPORT REFERRED TO THE STATE FAIR TRADE ACTS AS AUTHORIZING
THE MAINTENANCE OF RESALE PRICES BY CONTRACT AND AS PROVIDING THAT
"THIRD PARTIES WITH NOTICE ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF SUCH A CONTRACT
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE PARTIES TO IT"; AND THE REPORT ALSO
STATED THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT WAS TO PERMIT THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
THE STATES HAVING SUCH ACTS TO OPERATE WITH RESPECT TO INTERSTATE
CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF GOODS.  FN14  THIS REPORT IS THE STRONGEST
STATEMENT FOR RESPONDENTS' POSITION WHICH IS FOUND IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.  THE BILL WHICH THAT REPORT ENDORSED, HOWEVER, DID NOT PASS. 
THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE LAW WAS ATTACHED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS A RIDER TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVENUE
BILL.  IN THAT FORM IT WAS DEBATED AND PASSED. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE HOUSE REPORT QUOTED ABOVE  FN15  WAS REFERRED TO
WHEN THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE REVENUE MEASURE WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE. 
FN16  AND ONE CONGRESSMAN IN THE DEBATE SAID THAT THE NONSIGNER
PROVISION OF STATE LAWS WAS VALIDATED BY THE FEDERAL LAW.    BUT WE DO
NOT TAKE THESE REMARKS AT FACE VALUE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE HOUSE
REPORT, WHILE REFERRING TO THE NONSIGNER PROVISION WHEN DESCRIBING A
TYPICAL STATE FAIR TRADE ACT, IS SO DRAFTED THAT THE VOLUNTARY CONTRACT
IS THE CORE OF THE ARGUMENT FOR THE BILL.  HENCE, THE GENERAL STATEMENT
IN THE REPORT STATES THAT THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT WAS "TO PERMIT
THE PUBLIC POLICY OF STATES HAVING 'FAIR TRADE ACTS' TO OPERATE WITH
RESPECT TO INTERSTATE CONTRACTS FOR THE RESALE OF GOODS"; AND THE FAIR
TRADE ACTS ARE REFERRED TO AS LEGALIZING "THE MAINTENANCE, BY CONTRACT,
OF RESALE PRICES OF BRANDED OR TRADE-MARKED GOODS."  FN17 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE REMARKS RELIED ON WERE NOT ONLY ABOUT A BILL
ON WHICH NO VOTE WAS TAKEN; THEY WERE ABOUT A BILL WHICH SANCTIONED
"CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS" PRESCRIBING NOT ONLY "MINIMUM PRICES" BUT
"OTHER CONDITIONS" AS WELL.  THE WORDS "OTHER CONDITIONS" WERE DROPPED
FROM THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS MADE TO THE REVENUE BILL.  WHY THEY WERE
DELETED DOES NOT APPEAR.  IT IS SAID THAT THEY HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE
PRESENT PROBLEM, SINCE WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH "MINIMUM PRICES" NOT
WITH "OTHER CONDITIONS."  BUT THAT ANSWER DOES NOT QUITE HOLD.  THE
QUESTION IS THE AMOUNT OF STATE LAW EMBRACED IN THE WORDS "CONTRACTS OR
AGREEMENTS."  IT MIGHT WELL BE ARGUED THAT ONE OF THE "CONDITIONS"
ATTACHING TO A CONTRACT FIXING A MINIMUM PRICE WOULD BE THE LIABILITY
OF A NONSIGNER.  WE DO NO MORE THAN STIR THE DOUBT, FOR THE DOUBT ALONE
IS ENOUGH TO MAKE US SKEPTICAL OF THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF THE OLD
REPORT AS APPLIED TO A NEW AND DIFFERENT BILL. 

WE LOOK FOR MORE DEFINITE CLUES; AND WE FIND THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
MADE ON THE FLOOR BY SENATOR TYDINGS: "WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT DO?  IT
PERMITS A MAN WHO MANUFACTURES AN ARTICLE TO STATE THE MINIMUM RESALE
PRICE OF THE ARTICLE IN A CONTRACT WITH THE MAN WHO BUYS IT FOR
ULTIMATE RESALE TO THE PUBLIC  ...  "  FN18  NOT ONCE DID SENATOR
TYDINGS REFER TO THE NONSIGNER PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW.  NOT ONCE DID
HE SUGGEST THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD AFFECT ANYONE BUT THE RETAILER WHO
SIGNS THE CONTRACT.  WE SEARCH THE WORDS OF THE SPONSORS FOR A CLEAR
INDICATION THAT COERCIVE AS WELL AS VOLUNTARY SCHEMES OR ARRANGEMENTS
ARE PERMISSIBLE.  WE FIND NONE.  FN19  WHAT WE DO FIND IS THE
EXPRESSION OF FEAR IN THE MINORITY REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE THAT
THE NONSIGNER PROVISIONS OF THE STATE LAWS WOULD BE MADE EFFECTIVE IF
THE LAW PASSED.  FN20  THESE FEARS WERE PRESENTED IN THE SENATE DEBATE
BY SENATOR KING IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT.  FN21  BUT THE SENATE
REPORT EMPHASIZES THE "PERMISSIVE" NATURE OF THE STATE LAWS,  FN22  NOT
ONCE POINTING TO THEIR COERCIVE FEATURES. 

THE FEARS AND DOUBTS OF THE OPPOSITION ARE NO AUTHORITATIVE GUIDE TO
THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATION.  IT IS THE SPONSORS THAT WE LOOK TO
WHEN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTORY WORDS IS IN DOUBT.  AND WHEN WE READ
WHAT THE SPONSORS WROTE AND SAID ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, WE CANNOT FIND
THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS WERE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE NOT ONLY A CONTRACT
TO FIX RETAIL PRICES BUT A CLUB AS WELL.  THE WORDS THEY USED -
"CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS" - SUGGEST JUST THE CONTRARY. 

IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT IT WAS THE STATE LAWS THAT THE FEDERAL
LAW WAS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE.  FEDERAL REGULATION WAS TO GIVE WAY TO
STATE REGULATION.  WHEN STATE REGULATION PROVIDED FOR RESALE PRICE
MAINTENANCE BY BOTH THOSE WHO CONTRACTED AND THOSE WHO DID NOT, AND THE
FEDERAL REGULATION WAS RELAXED ONLY AS RESPECTS "CONTRACTS OR
AGREEMENTS," THE INFERENCE IS STRONG THAT CONGRESS LEFT THE
NONCONTRACTING GROUP TO BE GOVERNED BY PREEXISTING LAW.  IN OTHER
WORDS, SINCE CONGRESS WAS WRITING A LAW TO MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS OF
STATE LAW, IT WOULD SEEM THAT IF THE NONSIGNER PROVISION AS WELL AS THE
"CONTRACT" PROVISION OF STATE LAW WERE TO BE WRITTEN INTO FEDERAL LAW,
THE PATTERN OF THE LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. 

WE COULD CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS CARVED OUT THE VAST EXCEPTION FROM
THE SHERMAN ACT NOW CLAIMED ONLY IF WE WERE WILLING TO ASSUME THAT IT
TOOK A DEVIOUS ROUTE AND YET FAILED TO MAKE ITS PURPOSE PLAIN. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE IS ALLOWED ONLY AS RESPECTS COMMODITIES
WHICH BEAR, OR THE LABEL OR CONTAINER OF WHICH BEAR, THE TRADE MARK,
BRAND, OR NAME OF THE PRODUCER OR DISTRIBUTOR AND WHICH ARE IN FREE AND
OPEN COMPETITION WITH COMMODITIES OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS PRODUCED OR
DISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS.  EXCLUDED ARE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS,
BETWEEN PRODUCERS, BETWEEN WHOLESALERS, BETWEEN BROKERS, BETWEEN
FACTORS, BETWEEN RETAILERS OR BETWEEN PERSONS, FIRMS OR CORPORATIONS IN
COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER. 

FN2  THE NONSIGNER CLAUSE IN THE LOUISIANA ACT READS AS FOLLOWS:
"WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY ADVERTISING, OFFERING FOR SALE OR SELLING ANY
COMMODITY AT LESS THAN THE PRICE STIPULATED IN ANY CONTRACT ENTERED
INTO PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 1(SEC.  9809.1) OF THIS ACT,
WHETHER THE PERSON SO ADVERTISING, OFFERING FOR SALE OR SELLING IS OR
IS NOT A PARTY TO SUCH CONTRACT, IS UNFAIR COMPETITION AND IS
ACTIONABLE AT THE SUIT OF ANY PERSON DAMAGED THEREBY." 

FN3  "PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE PRECEDING PROVISO SHALL NOT MAKE
LAWFUL ANY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OR
MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM RESALE PRICES ON ANY COMMODITY HEREIN INVOLVED,
BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS, OR BETWEEN PRODUCERS, OR BETWEEN WHOLESALERS,
...  OR BETWEEN RETAILERS, OR BETWEEN PERSONS, FIRMS, OR CORPORATIONS
IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER."  15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN4  S. 240, 71ST CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 11, 71ST CONG., 1ST SESS.
SEE H.R. REP. NO. 536, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN5  H.R. REP. NO. 536, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS. 2. 

FN6 CAL. STAT., 1931, C. 278.  THE CALIFORNIA ACT WAS SOMETIMES KNOWN
AS "THE JUNIOR CAPPER-KELLY."  SEE GRETHER, PRICE CONTROL UNDER FAIR
TRADE LEGISLATION (1939), P. 54. 

FN7  S. 97, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 11, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN8  CAL. STAT., 1933, C. 260:  THE CALIFORNIA LAW IS NOW FOUND IN
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE, PT. 2, C. 3, SEC. 16904. 

FN9  S. 3822, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., 80 CONG. REC. 1007. 

FN10  SEE ILL. LAWS 1935, P. 1436; IOWA LAWS 1935, C. 106; MD. LAWS
1935, C. 212, SEC. 2; N.J. LAWS 1935, C. 58, SEC. 2; N.Y. LAWS 1935, C.
976, SEC. 2; ORE.  LAWS 1935, C. 295, SEC. 2; PA. LAWS 1935, NO. 115,
SEC. 2; WASH. LAWS 1935, C. 177, SEC. 4; WIS. LAWS 1935, C. 52. 

FN11  S. REP. NO. 2053, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2. 

FN12  S. REP. NO. 257, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN13  H.R. REP. NO. 382, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN14  ID., P. 2. 

FN15 ID. 

FN16  SEE, E.G., THE STATEMENT OF REP. DIRKSEN, A HOUSE CONFEREE, IN
81 CONG. REC. 8138. 

FN17  H.R. REP. NO. 382, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2. 

FN18  81 CONG. REC. 7495. 

FN19  H.R. REP. NO. 1413, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 10(THE CONFERENCE
REPORT OF THE HOUSE) MERELY STATED:  "THIS AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ANTITRUST LAWS UNDER WHICH CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
STIPULATING MINIMUM RESALE PRICES OF CERTAIN COMMODITIES, AND WHICH ARE
SIMILAR TO CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS WHICH ARE LAWFUL AS APPLIED TO
INTRASTATE COMMERCE, ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS BEING ILLEGAL UNDER THE
ANTITRUST LAWS." 

FN20  S. REP. NO. 879, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN21  81 CONG. REC. 7491.  AND SEE S. REP. NO. 879, PART 2, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN22  S. REP. NO. 879, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 6. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE MINTON JOINS, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S JUDGMENT AND WITH ITS OPINION INSOFAR AS IT
RESTS UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT.  BUT IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT THERE IS EITHER NECESSITY OR PROPRIETY IN GOING BACK OF IT
INTO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

RESORT TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS ONLY JUSTIFIED WHERE THE FACE OF THE
ACT IS INESCAPABLY AMBIGUOUS, AND THEN I THINK WE SHOULD NOT GO BEYOND
COMMITTEE REPORTS, WHICH PRESUMABLY ARE WELL CONSIDERED AND CAREFULLY
PREPARED.  I CANNOT DENY THAT I HAVE SOMETIMES OFFENDED AGAINST THAT
RULE.  BUT TO SELECT CASUAL STATEMENTS FROM FLOOR DEBATES, NOT ALWAYS
DISTINGUISHED FOR CANDOR OR ACCURACY, AS A BASIS FOR MAKING UP OUR
MINDS WHAT LAW CONGRESS INTENDED TO ENACT IS TO SUBSTITUTE OURSELVES
FOR THE CONGRESS IN ONE OF ITS IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS.  THE RULES OF THE
HOUSE AND SENATE, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, REQUIRE THREE
READINGS OF AN ACT IN EACH HOUSE BEFORE FINAL ENACTMENT.  THAT IS
INTENDED, I TAKE IT, TO MAKE SURE THAT EACH HOUSE KNOWS WHAT IT IS
PASSING AND PASSES WHAT IT WANTS, AND THAT WHAT IS ENACTED WAS FORMALLY
REDUCED TO WRITING.  IT IS THE BUSINESS OF CONGRESS TO SUM UP ITS OWN
DEBATES IN ITS LEGISLATION.  MOREOVER, IT IS ONLY THE WORDS OF THE BILL
THAT HAVE PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL, WHERE THAT APPROVAL IS GIVEN.  IT IS
NOT TO BE SUPPOSED THAT, IN SIGNING A BILL, THE PRESIDENT ENDORSES THE
WHOLE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.  FOR US TO UNDERTAKE TO RECONSTRUCT AN
ENACTMENT FROM LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS MERELY TO INVOLVE THE COURT IN
POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES WHICH ARE QUITE PROPER IN THE ENACTMENT OF A
BILL BUT SHOULD HAVE NO PLACE IN ITS INTERPRETATION. 

MOREOVER, THERE ARE PRACTICAL REASONS WHY WE SHOULD ACCEPT WHENEVER
POSSIBLE THE MEANING WHICH AN ENACTMENT REVEALS ON ITS FACE.  LAWS ARE
INTENDED FOR ALL OF OUR PEOPLE TO LIVE BY; AND THE PEOPLE GO TO LAW
OFFICES TO LEARN WHAT THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THOSE LAWS ARE.  HERE IS A
CONTROVERSY WHICH AFFECTS EVERY LITTLE MERCHANT IN MANY STATES.  ASIDE
FROM A FEW OFFICES IN THE LARGER CITIES, THE MATERIALS OF LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LAWYER WHO CAN AFFORD NEITHER THE COST
OF ACQUISITION, THE COST OF HOUSING, OR THE COST OF REPEATEDLY
EXAMINING THE WHOLE CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY.  MOREOVER, IF HE COULD, HE
WOULD NOT KNOW ANY WAY OF ANTICIPATING WHAT WOULD IMPRESS ENOUGH
MEMBERS OF THE COURT TO BE CONTROLLING.  TO ACCEPT LEGISLATIVE DEBATES
TO MODIFY STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS TO MAKE THE LAW INACCESSIBLE TO A
LARGE PART OF THE COUNTRY. 

BY AND LARGE, I THINK OUR FUNCTION WAS WELL STATED BY MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES:  "WE DO NOT INQUIRE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE MEANT; WE ASK ONLY
WHAT THE STATUTE MEANS."  HOLMES, COLLECTED LEGAL PAPERS, 207.  SEE
ALSO SOON HING V. CROWLEY, 113 U.S. 703, 710-711.  AND I CAN THINK OF
NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT IS UNEDIFYING AND
UNILLUMINATING THAN THAT OF THE ACT BEFORE US. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

IN 1890, CONGRESS PASSED THE SHERMAN LAW, WHICH DECLARED ILLEGAL
"(EVERY) CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR
CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS."  ACT OF JULY 2, 1890, SEC. 1, 26 STAT. 209,
15 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  IN 1937, CONGRESS PASSED THE MILLER-TYDINGS
AMENDMENT.  THIS EXCEPTED FROM THE SHERMAN LAW "CONTRACTS OR
AGREEMENTS" PRESCRIBING MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE RESALE OF TRADE-MARKED
COMMODITIES WHERE SUCH CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS WERE VALID UNDER STATE
STATUTE OR POLICY.  ACT OF AUG. 17, 1937, TITLE VIII, 50 STAT. 673,
693, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  IT WOULD APPEAR THAT, INSOFAR AS THE SHERMAN
LAW MADE MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM RESALE PRICES ILLEGAL, THE MILLER
TYDINGS AMENDMENT MADE IT LEGAL TO THE EXTENT THAT STATE LAW LEGALIZED
IT.  "CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS" IMMUNIZED BY THE MILLER-TYDINGS
AMENDMENT SURELY CANNOT HAVE A NARROWER SCOPE THAN "CONTRACT,
COMBINATION  ... OR CONSPIRACY" IN THE SHERMAN LAW.  THE MILLER-TYDINGS
AMENDMENT IS AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  THE CATEGORY
OF CONTRACT CANNOT BE GIVEN DIFFERENT CONTENT IN THE VERY SAME SECTION
OF THE SAME ACT, AND EVERY COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IMPLIES AN
AGREEMENT. 

THE SETTING OF THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT AND ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY REMOVE ANY LINGERING DOUBTS.  THE DEPRESSION FOLLOWING 1929
GAVE IMPETUS TO THE MOVEMENT FOR LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE
FIXING OF MINIMUM RESALE PRICES.  IN 1931, CALIFORNIA PASSED A STATUTE
ALLOWING A MANUFACTURER TO ESTABLISH RESALE PRICES BINDING ONLY UPON
RETAILERS WHO VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH HIM.  THIS
PROVED COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE, AND IN 1933 CALIFORNIA AMENDED HER
STATUTE TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH A CONTRACT ESTABLISHED A MINIMUM PRICE
BINDING UPON ANY PERSON WHO HAD NOTICE OF THE CONTRACT.  GRETHER,
EXPERIENCE IN CALIFORNIA WITH FAIR TRADE LEGISLATION RESTRICTING PRICE
CUTTING, 24 CALIF. L. REV. 640, 644(1936).  THIS AMENDMENT WAS THE SO
CALLED "NON-SIGNER" CLAUSE WHICH, IN EFFECT, ALLOWED A MANUFACTURER OR
WHOLESALER TO FIX A MINIMUM RESALE PRICE FOR HIS PRODUCT.  EVERY "FAIR
TRADE" LAW THEREAFTER PASSED BY ANY STATE CONTAINED THIS "NONSIGNER"
CLAUSE.  BY THE CLOSE OF 1936, 14 STATES HAD PASSED SUCH LAWS.  IN
1937, 28 MORE STATES PASSED THEM.  TODAY, 45 OUT OF 48 STATES HAVE
"FAIR TRADE" LAWS.  SEE REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ON
RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE XXVII (DEC. 13, 1945). 

A SUBSTANTIAL OBSTACLE REMAINED IN THE PATH OF THE "FAIR TRADE"
MOVEMENT.  IN 1911, WE HAD DECIDED DR. MILES MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS
CO., 220 U.S. 373.  THERE, IN A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST A "NON-SIGNER," WE
HELD THAT AN AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN RESALE PRICES WAS A "CONTRACT  ...
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE" WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THE SHERMAN LAW.  TO
REMOVE THIS BLOCK, THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED.  IT IS
SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THEREBY CONGRESS MEANT ONLY TO REMOVE THE BAR OF
THE SHERMAN LAW FROM AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE MANUFACTURER AND RETAILER,
THAT CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN TO MAKE VALID THE "NON-SIGNER" CLAUSE WHICH
FORMED AN INTEGRAL PART OF EACH OF THE 42 STATE STATUTES IN EFFECT WHEN
THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED. 

THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT WAS PASSED AS A RIDER TO A REVENUE BILL
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE SENATE COMMITTEE WHICH ATTACHED THE
RIDER REFERRED THE SENATE TO S. REP. NO. 2053, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.
FN1  THE HOUSE CONFERENCE REPORT (H.R. REP. NO. 1413, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.), CONTAINS ONLY FIVE LINES CONCERNING THE RIDER.  BUT THE RIDER
WAS NOT A NEW MEASURE.  IT CAME AS NO SURPRISE TO THE HOUSE, WHICH
ALREADY HAD BEFORE IT PRACTICALLY THE SAME LANGUAGE IN THE MILLER BILL,
REPORTED FAVORABLY BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.  H.R. REP. NO.
382, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE, THEREFORE, HAD
BEFORE THEM REPORTS DEALING WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MILLER-TYDINGS
AMENDMENT.  THESE REPORTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, AND I ATTACH THEM AS
APPENDICES TO THIS OPINION, POST, P. 402.  EVERY STATE ACT REFERRED TO
IN THESE REPORTS CONTAINED A "NONSIGNER" PROVISION.  I CANNOT SEE HOW,
IN VIEW OF THESE REPORTS, WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS MEANT THE
"NONSIGNER" PROVISIONS TO BE INVALID UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW - UNLESS,
THAT IS, WE ARE TO DEPART FROM THE RESPECT WE HAVE ACCORDED
AUTHORITATIVE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN SCORES OF CASES DURING THE LAST
DECADE.  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF CHURCH, 335
U.S. 632, 687, APPENDIX A. IN MANY OF THESE CASES THE PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS WAS FAR LESS CLEARLY REVEALED THAN HERE.  FN2  IT HAS NEVER
BEEN QUESTIONED IN THIS COURT THAT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AS WELL AS
STATEMENTS BY THOSE IN CHARGE OF A BILL OR OF A REPORT, ARE
AUTHORITATIVE ELUCIDATIONS OF THE SCOPE OF A MEASURE. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WE GO TO THE WORDS OF THE SPONSORS OF THE MILLER
TYDINGS AMENDMENT.  WE HAVE DONE SO.  THEIR WORDS CONFIRM THE PLAIN
MEANING OF THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS. 
SENATOR TYDINGS MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:  "WHAT WE HAVE ATTEMPTED
TO DO IS WHAT 42 STATES HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN ON THEIR STATUTE BOOKS. 
IT IS SIMPLY TO BACK UP THOSE ACTS, THAT IS ALL; TO HAVE A CODE OF FAIR
TRADE PRACTICES WRITTEN NOT BY A NATIONAL BOARD SUCH AS THE N.R.A. BUT
BY EACH STATE, SO THAT THE PEOPLE MAY GO TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND
CORRECT IMMEDIATELY ANY ABUSES THAT MAY DEVELOP."  81 CONG. REC. 7496. 

REPRESENTATIVE DIRKSEN MADE A STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE AS A MEMBER OF
ITS CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.  HE REFERRED TO THE CASE OF OLD DEARBORN CO.
V. SEAGRAM CORP., 299 U.S. 183, IN WHICH THIS COURT HAD HELD THAT THE
"NONSIGNER" PROVISION OF THE ILLINOIS "FAIR TRADE" STATUTE DID NOT
VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  MR. DIRKSEN CONTINUED:  "A QUESTION
THEN AROSE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE MAINTENANCE OF SUCH RESALE PRICES
UNDER A STATE FAIR TRADE ACT MIGHT NOT BE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ANTI-TRUST LAW OF 1890 INSOFAR AS THESE TRANSACTIONS SPRANG FROM A
CONTRACT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS QUESTION WAS PRESENTED TO THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THERE DETERMINED BY THE REPORTING OF THE
MILLER BILL.  IT WAS ESSENTIALLY NOTHING MORE THAN AN ENABLING ACT
WHICH PLACED THE STAMP OF APPROVAL UPON PRICE MAINTENANCE TRANSACTIONS
UNDER STATE ACTS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SHERMAN ACT OF 1890."  81 CONG.
REC. 8138. 

EVERY ONE OF THE 42 STATE ACTS WHICH THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT WAS
TO "BACK UP" - THE ACTS ON WHICH THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT WAS TO
PLACE A "STAMP OF APPROVAL" - CONTAINED A "NON-SIGNER" PROVISION.  AS
DEMONSTRATED BY EXPERIENCE IN CALIFORNIA, THE STATE ACTS WOULD HAVE
BEEN FUTILE WITHOUT THE "NON-SIGNER" CLAUSE.  THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT
THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT DOES NOT COVER THESE "NON-SIGNER"
PROVISIONS.  NOT ONLY IS THE VIEW OF THE COURT CONTRARY TO THE WORDS OF
THE STATUTE AND TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  IT IS ALSO IN CONFLICT
WITH THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT BY THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,  FN3  BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FN4  AND
BY PRACTICALLY ALL PERSONS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE "FAIR TRADE"
LAWS.  FN5  THE "FAIR TRADE" LAWS MAY WELL BE UNSOUND AS A MATTER OF
ECONOMICS.  PERHAPS CONGRESS SHOULD NOT PASS AN IMPORTANT MEASURE
DEALING WITH AN EXTRANEOUS SUBJECT AS A RIDER TO A REVENUE BILL, WITH
THE COERCIVE INFLUENCE IT EXERTS IN AVOIDING A VETO; PERHAPS IT SHOULD
RESTRICT LEGISLATION TO A SINGLE RELEVANT SUBJECT, AS REQUIRED BY THE
CONSTITUTIONS OF THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES.  THESE ARE MATTERS BEYOND
THE COURT'S CONCERN.  WHERE BOTH THE WORDS OF A STATUTE AND ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CLEARLY INDICATE THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS, IT SHOULD
BE RESPECTED.  WE SHOULD NOT SUBSTITUTE OUR OWN NOTION OF WHAT CONGRESS
SHOULD HAVE DONE. 

           APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

              HOUSE REPORT NO. 382, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, TO WHOM WAS REFERRED THE BILL (H.R.
1611) TO AMEND THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PROTECT TRADE AND COMMERCE
AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES," APPROVED JULY 2, 1890,
AFTER CONSIDERATION, REPORT THE SAME FAVORABLY TO THE HOUSE WITH AN
AMENDMENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT AS AMENDED THE BILL DO PASS. 

THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:  STRIKE OUT ALL AFTER THE
ENACTING CLAUSE AND INSERT IN LIEU THEREOF THE FOLLOWING: 

THAT SECTION 1 OF THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PROTECT TRADE AND
COMMERCE AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES," APPROVED JULY 2,
1890(U.S. CODE, TITLE 15, SEC. 1), BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 1.  EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL.  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MAKE ANY SUCH CONTRACT OR ENGAGE IN
ANY SUCH COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT
EXCEEDING $5,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH
SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  NOTHING HEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL RENDER ILLEGAL, CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBING
MINIMUM PRICES OR OTHER CONDITIONS FOR THE RESALE OF A COMMODITY WHICH
BEARS, OR THE LABEL OR CONTAINER OF WHICH BEARS, THE TRADE MARK, BRAND,
OR NAME OF THE PRODUCER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF SUCH COMMODITY AND WHICH IS
IN FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION WITH COMMODITIES OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS
PRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS, WHEN SUCH CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS
ARE LAWFUL AS APPLIED TO INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS, UNDER ANY STATUTE,
LAW, OR PUBLIC POLICY NOW OR HEREAFTER IN EFFECT IN ANY STATE,
TERRITORY, OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN WHICH SUCH RESALE IS MADE, OR
TO WHICH THE COMMODITY IS TO BE TRANSPORTED FOR SUCH RESALE, AND THE
MAKING OF SUCH CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS SHALL NOT BE AN UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION UNDER SECTION 5, AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED, OF THE ACT
ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO CREATE A FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, TO DEFINE ITS
POWERS AND DUTIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' APPROVED SEPTEMBER 26,
1914(U.S. CODE, TITLE 15, SEC. 45)." 

GENERAL STATEMENT 

THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS TO PERMIT THE
PUBLIC POLICY OF STATES HAVING "FAIR TRADE ACTS" TO OPERATE WITH
RESPECT TO INTERSTATE CONTRACTS FOR THE RESALE OF GOODS WITHIN THOSE
STATES.  THE FAIR-TRADE ACTS REFERRED TO LEGALIZE THE MAINTENANCE, BY
CONTRACT, OF RESALE PRICES OF BRANDED OR TRADE-MARKED GOODS WHICH ARE
IN FREE COMPETITION WITH OTHER GOODS OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS. 

TO ACCOMPLISH THIS END, THE REPORTED BILL AMENDS SECTION 1 OF THE
SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT WHICH DECLARES EVERY CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE ILLEGAL.  THE AMENDMENT ADDS A SENTENCE TO THE SECTION, IN THE
NATURE OF A LIMITATION, TO THE EFFECT, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT NOTHING
THEREIN CONTAINED SHALL RENDER ILLEGAL CONTRACTS PRESCRIBING MINIMUM
PRICES OR OTHER CONDITIONS FOR RESALE OF BRANDED OR TRADE-MARKED GOODS
WHEN SUCH CONTRACTS ARE LAWFUL AS TO INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS UNDER THE
STATE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE RESALE IS TO BE MADE; AND THAT THE
MAKING OF SUCH CONTRACTS SHALL NOT BE AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION
UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT. 

IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN DR. MILES MEDICAL CO.
V. PARK & SONS CO. (220 U.S. 373), AND OTHER CASES, IT IS DOUBTFUL, AT
LEAST, THAT SUCH CONTRACTS ARE NOW VALID IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

                  STATE FAIR TRADE ACTS 

STATE FAIR TRADE ACTS TYPICALLY PROVIDE, FIRST, THAT CONTRACTS MAY
LAWFULLY BE MADE WHICH PROVIDE FOR MAINTENANCE BY CONTRACT OF RESALE
PRICES OF BRANDED OR TRADE-MARKED COMPETITIVE GOODS.  SECOND, THAT
THIRD PARTIES WITH NOTICE ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF SUCH A CONTRACT
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE PARTIES TO IT. 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE ILLINOIS ACT, RECENTLY HELD
CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF OLD DEARBORN
DISTRIBUTING CO. V. SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS CORPORATION (DECIDED DEC. 7,
1936) READ AS FOLLOWS: 

WHICH BEARS, OR THE LABEL OR CONTENT OF WHICH BEARS, THE TRADE MARK,
BRAND, OR NAME OF THE PRODUCER OR OWNER OF SUCH COMMODITY AND WHICH IS
IN FAIR AND OPEN COMPETITION WITH COMMODITIES OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS
PRODUCED BY OTHERS SHALL BE DEEMED IN VIOLATION OF ANY LAW OF THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS BY REASON OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS WHICH MAY BE
CONTAINED IN SUCH CONTRACT: 

(1)  THAT THE BUYER WILL NOT RESELL SUCH COMMODITY EXCEPT AT THE
PRICE STIPULATED BY THE VENDOR. 

(2)  THAT THE PRODUCER OR VENDEE OF A COMMODITY REQUIRE UPON THE SALE
OF SUCH COMMODITY TO ANOTHER THAT SUCH PURCHASER AGREE THAT HE WILL
NOT, IN TURN, RESELL EXCEPT AT THE PRICE STIPULATED BY SUCH PRODUCER OR
VENDEE. 

SUCH PROVISIONS IN ANY CONTRACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONTAIN OR IMPLY
CONDITIONS THAT SUCH COMMODITY MAY BE RESOLD WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SUCH
AGREEMENT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: 

(1)  IN CLOSING OUT THE OWNER'S STOCK FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISCONTINUING DELIVERY OF ANY SUCH COMMODITY:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
SUCH STOCK IS FIRST OFFERED TO THE MANUFACTURER OF SUCH STOCK AT THE
ORIGINAL INVOICE PRICE, AT LEAST TEN (10) DAYS BEFORE SUCH STOCK SHALL
BE OFFERED FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC. 

(2)  WHEN THE GOODS ARE DAMAGED OR DETERIORATED IN QUALITY, AND
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC THEREOF. 

(3)  BY ANY OFFICER ACTING UNDER THE ORDERS OF ANY COURT. 

SEC. 2.  WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY ADVERTISING, OFFERING FOR SALE, OR
SELLING ANY COMMODITY AT LESS THAN THE PRICE STIPULATED IN ANY CONTRACT
ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 OF THIS ACT,
WHETHER THE PERSON SO ADVERTISING, OFFERING FOR SALE, OR SELLING IS OR
IS NOT A PARTY TO SUCH CONTRACT, IS UNFAIR COMPETITION AND IS
ACTIONABLE AT THE SUIT OF ANY PERSON DAMAGED THEREBY. 

THE FOLLOWING STATES, THE COMMITTEE IS ADVISED, HAVE ADOPTED FAIR
TRADE ACTS:  CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON, OREGON, MONTANA, WYOMING, ARIZONA,
NEW MEXICO, UTAH, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA,
ARKANSAS, IOWA, WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE, INDIANA,
OHIO, GEORGIA, VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA, PENNSYLVANIA, MARYLAND, NEW
YORK, NEW JERSEY, AND RHODE ISLAND. 

THE COMMITTEE IS ADVISED THAT IN ADDITION ONE HOUSE OF EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING STATES HAVE PASSED A FAIR TRADE BILL:  SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH
CAROLINA, IDAHO, COLORADO, AND OKLAHOMA. 

THE COMMITTEE IS FURTHER ADVISED THAT BILLS ARE PENDING IN THE
LEGISLATURES OF NEVADA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, TEXAS, MISSISSIPPI,
DELAWARE, MISSOURI, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND
MAINE; AND THAT ONLY ONE STATE, VERMONT, HAS DEFINITELY REJECTED
LEGISLATION OF THIS CHARACTER. 

                     ECONOMIC ASPECTS 

THE ANTICIPATED ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE LEGISLATION HERE PROPOSED
WERE PRESENTED BOTH BY PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE BILL IN THE
HEARINGS HELD BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY IN
CHARGE OF THE BILL.  ON THE ONE HAND IT IS URGED THAT PREDATORY PRICE
CUTTING IS A WEAPON OF MONOPOLISTIC LARGE DISTRIBUTORS TO CRUSH SMALL
BUSINESSMEN.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS CONTENDED THAT PRICE-MAINTENANCE
LEGISLATION TENDS UNDULY TO ENHANCE THE PRICE OF GOODS TO THE
CONSUMER.  TO THIS ARGUMENT IT IS ANSWERED THAT THE FREE PLAY OF
COMPETITION BETWEEN PRODUCTS OF DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS OF THE SAME
GENERAL CLASS WILL PREVENT SUCH A RESULT. 

HOWEVER, IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE, THOSE ARGUMENTS ARE MORE
PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES CONSIDERING THE ENACTMENT
OF FAIR TRADE ACTS.  IT IS THE LEGISLATURE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THE
PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE.  THIS LEGISLATION MERELY SEEKS TO HELP
EFFECTUATE A PUBLIC POLICY SO FIXED IN A STATE.  IT HAS NO APPLICATION
TO ANY STATE WHICH DOES NOT SEE FIT TO ENACT A FAIR TRADE ACT. 

IN THIS CONNECTION THE COMMITTEE INVITES ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING
PARAGRAPH OF THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT, HERETOFORE REFERRED TO,
UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ILLINOIS ACT, THE COURT SPEAKING
THROUGH MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND: 

THERE IS A GREAT BODY OF FACT AND OPINION TENDING TO SHOW THAT PRICE
CUTTING BY RETAIL DEALERS IS NOT ONLY INJURIOUS TO THE GOODWILL AND
BUSINESS OF THE PRODUCER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF IDENTIFIED GOODS, BUT
INJURIOUS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS WELL.  THE EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT
IS VOLUMINOUS; BUT IT WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE TO REVIEW THE
EVIDENCE OR TO ENLARGE FURTHER UPON THE SUBJECT.  TRUE, THERE IS
EVIDENCE, OPINION, AND ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY; BUT IT DOES NOT
CONCERN US TO DETERMINE WHERE THE WEIGHT LIES.  WE NEED SAY NO MORE
THAN THAT THE QUESTION MAY BE REGARDED AS FAIRLY OPEN TO DIFFERENCES OF
OPINION.  THE LEGISLATION HERE IN QUESTION PROCEEDS UPON THE FORMER AND
NOT THE LATTER VIEW; AND THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION IN THAT RESPECT,
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DISCLOSED, IS CONCLUSIVE SO FAR AS THIS COURT
IS CONCERNED.  WHERE THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE FACTS ESTABLISH IS A
FAIRLY DEBATABLE ONE WE ACCEPT AND CARRY INTO EFFECT THE OPINION OF THE
LEGISLATURE.  RADICE V. NEW YORK (264 U.S. 292, 294); ZAHN V. BOARD OF
PUBLIC WORKS (274 U.S. 325, 328, AND CASES CITED). 
EFFECTUATION OF STATE PUBLIC POLICY 

YOUR COMMITTEE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT SOUND PUBLIC POLICY ON THE
PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LIES IN THE DIRECTION OF LENDING
ASSISTANCE TO THE STATES TO EFFECTUATE THEIR OWN PUBLIC POLICY WITH
REGARD TO THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS.  IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS
ESPECIALLY TRUE WHERE SUCH ASSISTANCE, AS IN THIS INSTANCE, CONSISTS OF
REMOVING A HANDICAP RESULTING FROM THE SURRENDER OF THE POWER OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY THE STATES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

     .         .         .         .         .

             SENATE REPORT NO. 2053, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HAVING HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION THE
BILL (S. 3822) TO AMEND THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PROTECT TRADE AND
COMMERCE AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES," APPROVED JULY 2,
1890, REPORT THE SAME BACK WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BILL DO
PASS. 

IN 1933 A LAW WAS ENACTED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING A
MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCER OF A COMMODITY WHICH BEARS HIS TRADE MARK,
BRAND, OR NAME, AND WHICH IS SOLD IN FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION WITH
COMMODITIES OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS PRODUCED BY OTHERS, TO MAKE A
CONTRACT THAT THE PURCHASER WILL NOT RESELL SUCH COMMODITY EXCEPT AT
THE PRICE STIPULATED BY THE MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCER. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE CALIFORNIA ACT, AS EXPRESSED IN ITS TITLE, WAS TO
PROTECT TRADE-MARK OWNERS, DISTRIBUTORS, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC AGAINST
INJURIOUS AND UNECONOMIC PRACTICES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF ARTICLES OF
STANDARD QUALITY UNDER A TRADE MARK, BRAND, OR NAME, AND THE PARTICULAR
PRACTICE AGAINST WHICH IT WAS DIRECTED WAS THE SO-CALLED "LOSS-LEADER
SELLING." 

SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE CALIFORNIA ACT SIMILAR LEGISLATION HAS BEEN
ENACTED IN 12 OTHER STATES, NAMELY, NEW YORK, ILLINOIS, PENNSYLVANIA,
NEW JERSEY, OREGON, WASHINGTON, WISCONSIN, IOWA, MARYLAND, OHIO,
VIRGINIA, AND RHODE ISLAND (THE LAST THREE SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF
THE PROPOSED BILL). 

IN STILL OTHER STATES CONTRACTS STIPULATING MINIMUM RESALE PRICES ARE
VALID AT COMMON LAW. 

IN THE STATES WHERE SUCH CONTRACTS ARE LAWFUL IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT
LOSS-LEADER SELLING OF IDENTIFIED MERCHANDISE SOLD UNDER COMPETITIVE
CONDITIONS OPERATES AS A FRAUD ON THE CONSUMER DESTROYS THE PRODUCER'S
GOODWILL IN HIS TRADE MARK, AND IS USED BY THE LARGE MERCHANT TO
ELIMINATE HIS SMALL INDEPENDENT COMPETITOR. 

IN RECOMMENDING THE PASSAGE OF S. 3822 THE COMMITTEE, WHILE FULLY
RECOGNIZING THE EVILS OF LOSS-LEADER SELLING, IS NOT REQUIRED TO
DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEVICE ADOPTED BY THE STATES TO
ELIMINATE THE SAME. 

IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THIS TYPE OF SELLING UNQUESTIONABLY HAS HAD A
DISASTROUS EFFECT UPON THE SMALL INDEPENDENT RETAILER, THEREBY TENDING
TO CREATE MONOPOLY, AND THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF STATES HAVE FOUND THAT
ITS EVIL EFFECTS CAN BE MITIGATED, IF NOT ELIMINATED, BY LEGALIZING
CONTRACTS STIPULATING MINIMUM RESALE PRICES. 

THE CONGRESS IS NOT CALLED UPON TO PASS UPON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
REMEDY, BUT IT SHOULD NOT PUT OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF EFFORTS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL STATES TO MAKE THE REMEDY EFFECTIVE. 

THOUGH THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION ON THE SUBJECT, IT IS
BELIEVED THAT CONTRACTS STIPULATING MINIMUM RESALE PRICES, EVEN WHEN
THEY ARE MADE OR ARE TO BE PERFORMED IN A STATE WHERE SUCH CONTRACTS
ARE LAWFUL, MAY VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT WHENEVER THE GOODS SOLD UNDER
THE CONTRACT MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

CONSEQUENTLY, MANY MANUFACTURERS NOT DOMICILED IN THE STATE OF THE
VENDEE ARE UNWILLING TO RUN THE RISK OF VIOLATING THE FEDERAL LAW, AND
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STATE FAIR-TRADE LAWS IS THEREBY SERIOUSLY
IMPAIRED. 

S. 3822 REMOVES THE DOUBT AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SHERMAN ACT
BY EXPRESSLY LEGALIZING SUCH CONTRACTS WHERE LEGAL UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE WHERE MADE OR WHERE THEY ARE TO BE PERFORMED. 

MOREOVER, THE PROPOSED BILL DECLARES SUCH CONTRACTS SHALL NOT BE AN
UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION LAW. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL, IN DESCRIBING THE CLASS OF COMMODITIES TO
WHICH IT IS APPLICABLE, FOLLOWS CLOSELY THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATE ACTS,
AND THE SCOPE OF THE BILL IS THEREFORE CAREFULLY LIMITED TO COMMODITIES
"IN FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION WITH COMMODITIES OF THE SAME GENERAL
CLASS PRODUCED BY OTHERS." 

THE STATE ACTS ARE IN NO SENSE GENERAL PRICE-FIXING ACTS.  THEY
MERELY AUTHORIZE A MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR
THE MAINTENANCE OF HIS PRICE, BUT THEY DO NOT COMPEL HIM TO DO SO.  IN
OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE MERELY PERMISSIVE. 

THEY DO NOT AUTHORIZE HORIZONTAL CONTRACTS, THAT IS TO SAY, CONTRACTS
OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS, BETWEEN PRODUCERS, OR BETWEEN
WHOLESALERS, OR BETWEEN RETAILERS AS TO THE SALE OR RESALE PRICE OF ANY
COMMODITY. 

THEY APPLY ONLY TO COMMODITIES WHICH ARE IN FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION
WITH COMMODITIES OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS PRODUCED BY OTHERS, AND THEY
THEREFORE DO NOT IN ANY SENSE RESTRAIN TRADE OR COMPETITION.  IN FACT,
THEY LEGALIZE A DEVICE WHICH IS INTENDED TO INCREASE COMPETITION AND
PREVENT MONOPOLY. 

BUT MOST IMPORTANT, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE CONGRESS, THE PROPOSED
BILL MERELY PERMITS THE INDIVIDUAL STATES TO FUNCTION, WITHOUT FEDERAL
RESTRAINT, WITHIN THEIR PROPER SPHERE, AND DOES NOT COMMIT THE CONGRESS
TO A NATIONAL POLICY ON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE STATE LAWS. 

IN OTHER WORDS, THE BILL DOES NO MORE THAN TO REMOVE FEDERAL
OBSTACLES TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS WHICH THE STATES THEMSELVES
HAVE DECLARED LAWFUL. 

FN1  THE SENATE REPORT ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVENUE BILL, S.
REP. NO. 879, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., QUOTED S. REP. NO. 2053, 74TH
CONG., 2D SESS.  SEE S. REP. NO. 257, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., WHICH ALSO
QUOTES THE TEXT OF THE EARLIER REPORT. 

FN2  THE INTRICATE VERBAL ARGUMENTS USED TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S
DECISION DO NOT AFFECT THE CLARITY OF THE STATUTE AND ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.  (1) IT IS SAID THAT THE PROVISO TO THE MILLER-TYDINGS
AMENDMENT MAKES IT INAPPLICABLE TO "NON-SIGNER" CLAUSES IN STATE ACTS. 
BUT THE PROVISO ONLY MADE EXPLICIT THAT THE AMENDMENT APPLIED ONLY TO
VERTICAL AGREEMENTS AND DID NOT MAKE LEGAL HORIZONTAL AGREEMENTS, FOR
EXAMPLE, THOSE BETWEEN RETAILERS OR BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS.  SEE
STATEMENTS OF SENATOR TYDINGS, 81 CONG. REC. 7487, 7496.  THE WORDING
OF THE PROVISO, IN FACT, FOLLOWS CLOSELY A STATEMENT OF WHAT THE SENATE
COMMITTEE THOUGHT WAS IMPLICIT IN THE STATE ACTS.  SEE S. REP. NO.
2053, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2.  (2) THE FACT THAT THE 1931 CALIFORNIA
STATUTE USED WORDING SIMILAR TO THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT AND WAS
LATER AMENDED TO REFER TO NONSIGNERS IS BESIDE THE MARK.  THE WORDS OF
THE 1933 AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE MAKE CLEAR THAT IT WAS
NOT, LIKE THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT, DESIGNED TO REMOVE THE BAR OF
AN ANTITRUST ACT.  IT WAS ENACTED TO GIVE AN AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO
RECOVER FROM NONSIGNERS, SOMETHING THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT DOES
NOT PURPORT TO DO.  IN SUCH A STATUTE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE REFERRING TO
NONSIGNERS WOULD OF COURSE HAVE TO BE USED.  (3) IT IS SAID THAT H.R.
REP. NO. 382, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., REFERS TO A BILL CONTAINING THE
PHRASE "OTHER CONDITIONS."  THE WORDS "OTHER CONDITIONS," WHEN USED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A PHRASE REFERRING TO MINIMUM PRICES, COULD SCARCELY
MEAN ANYTHING EXCEPT "CONDITIONS OTHER THAN MINIMUM PRICES."  WE ARE
HERE CONCERNED WITH MINIMUM PRICES.  (4) "PERMISSIVE" WAS USED IN THE
SENATE REPORT NOT TO REFER TO RETAILERS BUT TO MANUFACTURERS.  "(THE
STATE ACTS) MERELY AUTHORIZE A MANUFACTURER OR PRODUCER TO ENTER INTO
CONTRACTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF HIS PRICE, BUT THEY DO NOT COMPEL HIM
TO DO SO.  IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE MERELY PERMISSIVE."  S. REP. NO.
2053, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2. 

FN3  SEE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, S. DOC. NO. 58, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 2
3.  SEE ALSO REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ON RESALE PRICE
MAINTENANCE LXII (DEC. 13, 1945). 

FN4  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPEARS TO HAVE INSTITUTED NO
PROSECUTIONS BECAUSE OF ENFORCEMENT OF "FAIR TRADE" ACTS AGAINST
NONSIGNERS.  THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO PLAYED AN IMPORTANT
PART IN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS CALLED FOR REPEAL OF THE
MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT MADE LEGAL THE NONSIGNER PROVISIONS
OF THE STATE "FAIR TRADE" ACTS.  STATEMENT OF MR. THURMAN ARNOLD,
T.N.E.C. HEARINGS, PP. 18162-18165. 

FN5  THE CONTENTION THAT THE "NON-SIGNER" PROVISIONS ARE NOT WITHIN
THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN ONLY TWO
REPORTED CASES SINCE THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED IN 1937.  CALAMIA V.
GOLDSMITH BROS., INC., 299 N.Y. 636 AND 795, 87 N.E.2D 50 AND 687;
PEPSODENT CO. V. KRAUSS CO., 56 F.SUPP.  922.  IN BOTH, THE ARGUMENT
WAS REJECTED. 
..END :




















LABOR BOARD V. HIGHLAND PARK CO., 341 U.S. 322 


NO. 425.  ARGUED APRIL 23, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 14, 1951.  - 184 F.2D
98, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS (C.I.O.)  IS A "NATIONAL
OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 9(H) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT; AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD COULD NOT PROCEED
AGAINST AN EMPLOYER AT THE INSTANCE OF A UNION AFFILIATED WITH C.I.O.
WHEN THE OFFICERS OF C.I.O. HAD NOT FILED THE NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVITS
REQUIRED BY THAT SECTION, ALTHOUGH THE AFFILIATED UNION'S OWN OFFICERS
HAD FILED SUCH AFFIDAVITS.  PP. 323-325. 

2.  WHEN A COURT OF APPEALS IS PETITIONED TO DECREE ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO
BARGAIN WITH A UNION AND THE FACTS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 9(H)
ARE NOT IN DISPUTE, THE EMPLOYER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
THE LEGAL QUESTION WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 9(H). 
PP. 325-326. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HIGHLAND PARK MANUFACTURING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH A UNION
AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS BECAUSE THE
OFFICERS OF THE LATTER HAD NOT FILED THE NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVITS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 9(H) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED
BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 61 STAT. 146, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP.
III) SEC. 159(H), 184 F.2D 98.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340
U.S. 927.  AFFIRMED, P. 326. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ENTERTAINED A COMPLAINT BY THE
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA AGAINST RESPONDENT, HIGHLAND PARK
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AND ORDERED RESPONDENT TO BARGAIN WITH THAT
UNION.  AT ALL TIMES RELEVANT TO THE PROCEEDINGS, THE TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND,
WHILE THE TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OFFICERS HAD FILED THE NON-COMMUNIST
AFFIDAVITS PURSUANT TO STATUTE, THE OFFICERS OF THE C.I.O. AT THAT TIME
HAD NOT.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT "NO INVESTIGATION SHALL BE MADE BY
THE BOARD  ...  , NO PETITION UNDER SUBSECTION (E)(1) OF THIS SECTION
SHALL BE ENTERTAINED, AND NO COMPLAINT SHALL BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO A
CHARGE MADE BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 160
OF THIS TITLE, UNLESS THERE IS ON FILE WITH THE BOARD AN AFFIDAVIT
EXECUTED  ...  BY EACH OFFICER OF SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION AND THE
OFFICERS OF ANY NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WHICH
IT IS AN AFFILIATE OR CONSTITUENT UNIT THAT HE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY (ETC.)."  SEC. 9(H) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 61 STAT. 146, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 159(H).  THE ORDER WAS CHALLENGED UPON THE
GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE FAILURE OF THE C.I.O. OFFICERS TO FILE
NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVITS DISABLED ITS AFFILIATE, THE TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION, AND THE BOARD COULD NOT ENTERTAIN THEIR COMPLAINT AND ENTER THE
ORDER. 

THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE BOARD HAD RULED THAT THE BOARD COULD NOT
ENTERTAIN A COMPLAINT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES; BUT THE BOARD, WITH
ONE MEMBER DISSENTING, OVERRULED HIM, FOR REASONS STATED IN MATTER OF
NORTHERN VIRGINIA BROADCASTERS, 75 N.L.R.B. 11.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION AS THE
BOARD IN WEST TEXAS UTILITIES CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 87 U.S. APP. D.C.
179, 184 F.2D 233.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT IN THIS
CASE, 184 F.2D 98, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, IN
LABOR BOARD V. POSTEX COTTON MILLS, 181 F.2D 919, ARRIVED AT A CONTRARY
RESULT, HOLDING THAT THE BOARD COULD NOT ENTERTAIN THE COMPLAINT.  THE
CONFLICTING RESULTS ARE EACH SO WELL-CONSIDERED AND SO THOROUGHLY
DOCUMENTED IN OPINIONS ALREADY APPEARING IN THE BOOKS THAT LITTLE COULD
BE ADDED TO EITHER.  WE AGRRE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE FOURTH AND
FIFTH CIRCUITS. 

THE DEFINITION OF "LABOR UNION" IN THE STATUTE CONCEDEDLY INCLUDES
THE C.I.O.  IT IS FURTHER CONCEDED THAT THE PHRASE "LABOR ORGANIZATION
NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL IN SCOPE" AS FOUND IN SEC. 10(C) REFERS TO
THE A.F. OF L. AND C.I.O.  BUT IT IS CLAIMED THAT WHEN THE ADJECTIVES
"NATIONAL" OR "INTERNATIONAL" ARE ALONE ADDED, THEY EXCLUDE THE C.I.O.,
BECAUSE IT IS REGARDED IN LABOR CIRCLES AS A FEDERATION RATHER THAN A
NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL UNION.  WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE USE OF
GEOGRAPHIC TERMS TO REACH NATION-WIDE OR MORE THAN NATION-WIDE UNIONS
DOES NOT EXCLUDE THOSE OF SOME PARTICULAR TECHNICAL STRUCTURE.  THE
C.I.O., BEING ADMITTEDLY A LABOR UNION AND ONE OF NATION-WIDE
JURISDICTION, OPERATION AND INFLUENCE, IS CERTAINLY IN THE SPEECH OF
PEOPLE A NATIONAL UNION, WHATEVER ITS INTERNAL COMPOSITION.  IF
CONGRESS INTENDED GEOGRAPHIC ADJECTIVES TO HAVE A STRUCTURAL
CONNOTATION OR TO HAVE OTHER THAN THEIR ORDINARILY ACCEPTED MEANING, IT
WOULD AND SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM A SPECIAL MEANING BY DEFINITION. 

THE LANGUAGE IN ITS ORDINARILY ACCEPTED SENSE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT, WHICH WE HAVE DEFINED AT LENGTH IN
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382.  AS THE COURTS OF
APPEALS FOR BOTH THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CIRCUITS HAVE SAID, THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE WAS TO "WHOLLY ERADICATE AND BAR FROM LEADERSHIP
IN THE AMERICAN LABOR MOVEMENT, AT EACH AND EVERY LEVEL, ADHERENTS TO
THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND BELIEVERS IN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL OVERTHROW OF
OUR GOVERNMENT."  181 F.2D 919, 920; 184 F.2D 98, 101.  IT WOULD
REQUIRE MUCH CLEARER LANGUAGE OF EXEMPTION TO JUSTIFY HOLDING THAT THE
VERY TOP LEVELS OF INFLUENCE AND ACTUAL POWER IN THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN
THIS COUNTRY WERE UNTOUCHED WHILE ONLY THE LOWER LEVELS WERE AFFECTED. 

THE FURTHER CONTENTION IS ADVANCED BY THE BOARD THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT A PETITIONING LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS
COMPLIED WITH THE ACT IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AT THE INSTANCE
OF AN EMPLOYER IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.  IF THERE WERE
DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE C.I.O. HAD FILED THE REQUIRED AFFIDAVITS OR
WHETHER DOCUMENTS FILED MET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND THE BOARD
HAD RESOLVED THAT QUESTION IN FAVOR OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, A
DIFFERENT QUESTION WOULD BE PRESENTED.  BUT HERE THERE IS NO QUESTION
OF FACT.  WHILE THE C.I.O. OFFICERS HAVE SINCE FILED THE AFFIDAVITS,
THEY WERE NOT ON FILE AT ANY TIME RELEVANT TO THIS PROCEEDING. 

IT WOULD BE STRANGE INDEED IF THE COURTS WERE COMPELLED TO ENFORCE
WITHOUT INQUIRY AN ORDER WHICH COULD ONLY RESULT FROM PROCEEDINGS THAT,
UNDER THE ADMITTED FACTS, THE BOARD WAS FORBIDDEN TO CONDUCT.  THE
BOARD IS A STATUTORY AGENCY, AND, WHEN IT IS FORBIDDEN TO INVESTIGATE
OR ENTERTAIN COMPLAINTS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, ITS FINAL ORDER COULD
HARDLY BE VALID.  WE THINK THE CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT AND THAT AN
ISSUE OF LAW OF THIS KIND, WHICH GOES TO THE HEART OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE PROCEEDINGS ON WHICH THE ORDER IS BASED, IS OPEN TO INQUIRY BY THE
COURTS WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO LEND THEIR ENFORCEMENT POWERS TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

CONGRESS, OF COURSE, COULD HAVE EXACTED AFFIDAVITS OF NONMEMBERSHIP
IN COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS FROM THE OFFICERS OF ALL LOCAL UNIONS, OF
ALL NATIONALS AND INTERNATIONALS OF WHICH LOCALS ARE CONSTITUENTS, AND
OF ALL THE FEDERATED ORGANIZATIONS - I.E., THE C.I.O. AND THE A.F. OF
L. - OF WHICH NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE MEMBERS.  TO
CARRY OUT SUCH A PURPOSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN EXPLICIT.  IT COULD ALSO
HAVE USED SOME COLLOQUIALLY ALL-EMBRACING TERM SUCH AS THE PHRASE
"NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL IN SCOPE" WHICH IT IN FACT DID EMPLOY IN
SEC. 10(C) OF THE ACT.  CONGRESS DID NOT CHOOSE TO EXPRESS ITS WILL IN
EITHER OF THESE UNEQUIVOCAL FORMS.  INSTEAD IT USED THE PHRASE
"NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION." 

THE FACT THAT THE PHRASE "NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZATION" CONSISTS OF ORDINARY ENGLISH WORDS, WHICH TO THE ORDINARY
EAR MAY CARRY A MEANING DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH THEY CARRY IN THE
DOMAIN OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DOES NOT DESTROY OUR DUTY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THEY DO HAVE A TECHNICAL MEANING WHEN USED IN REGARD TO MATTERS
OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.  SEE THE DECISION, PER HOLMES, J., IN BOSTON
SAND CO. V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 41, 48.  THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT IS
NOT AN ABSTRACT DOCUMENT TO BE CONSTRUED WITH ONLY THE AID OF A
STANDARD DICTIONARY.  ITS SPONSORS WERE FAMILIAR WITH LABOR
ORGANIZATION AND LABOR PROBLEMS AND IT WAS DOUBTLESS DRAWN BY
SPECIALISTS IN LABOR RELATIONS.  IF THEY USED TERMS HAVING A SPECIAL
MEANING WITHIN THE FIELD, SUCH WORDS OF ART, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY
INDICATIONS, MUST BE GIVEN THAT MEANING. 

THE BEST SOURCE FOR US IN DETERMINING WHETHER A TERM USED IN THE
FIELD OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS HAS A TECHNICAL CONNOTATION IS THE BODY
TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS COMMITTED THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATUTE. 
CERTAINLY, IF THERE IS NO REASONABLE GROUND FOR REJECTING THE
DETERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ITS VIEW SHOULD
NOT BE REJECTED.  WE ARE ADVISED BY THE BOARD THAT "NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION" IS A TERM OF ART REFERRING TO THE
AUTONOMOUS NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF WORKERS WHICH IN
FEDERATION CONSTITUTE THE C.I.O. AND THE A.F. OF L. "WE ARE FAMILIAR
WITH NO USE OF THE TERM 'NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION'
WHICH INCLUDES PARENT FEDERATIONS SUCH AS THE AFL OR THE CIO WITHIN ITS
MEANING.  ON THE CONTRARY, EVERY DEFINITION OR DESCRIPTION OF THE
STRUCTURE OF THESE TWO FEDERATIONS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE AFL AND
THE CIO ARE DIFFERENT FROM 'NATIONAL' OR 'INTERNATIONAL' LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS."  NORTHERN VIRGINIA BROADCASTERS, INC., 75 N.L.R.B. 11,
13.  NOTHING CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION HAS PUT IN QUESTION THIS
AUTHORITATIVE FINDING BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  WE OUGHT
NOT, THEREFORE, TO REJECT IT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I SEE NO ANSWER TO THE ANALYSIS OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IF
OBJECTIVITY IS OUR STANDARD AND IF THE EXPERTISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES IS TO CONTINUE AS OUR GUIDE.  IN SITUATIONS NO MORE DIFFICULT
THAN THIS WE HAVE TAKEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTORY
WORDS.  UNTIL TODAY THE TEST HAS BEEN NOT WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION
WOULD BE OUR OWN IF WE SAT AS THE BOARD, BUT WHETHER IT HAS A
REASONABLE BASIS IN CUSTOM, PRACTICE, OR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  SEE GRAY
V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402; LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S.
111. 

OF COURSE THE C.I.O. IS AT TIMES A "NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  THE BOARD SO HELD IN
AMERICAN OPTICAL CO., 81 N.L.R.B. 453.  IN THAT CASE THE PETITIONING
LABOR ORGANIZATION WAS AN "ORGANIZING COMMITTEE" OF THE C.I.O. OVER
WHICH THE C.I.O. HAD CONTROL COMPARABLE TO THE POWER A "NATIONAL OR
INTERNATIONAL" UNION EXERCISES OVER ITS CONSTITUENT UNIONS.  THE SAME
WOULD BE TRUE OF LOCAL UNIONS DIRECTLY CHARTERED BY THE C.I.O.  IF ONE
OF THOSE UNIONS HAD FILED THE COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT, THEN THE
C.I.O. WOULD HAVE TO FILE THE AFFIDAVITS, SINCE IT WOULD BE IN THE
RELATION OF A "NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION" TO THAT
DISPUTE.  A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS THAT RELATION TO A DISPUTE HAS
THE POWER AND CONTROL AT WHICH THE AFFIDAVIT PROVISION IS AIMED.  IF WE
TOOK, AS WE CUSTOMARILY DO, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
WORDS CONGRESS USED, WE WOULD HOLD THAT THE C.I.O. MUST FILE THE
AFFIDAVITS ONLY WHEN IN THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE BOARD IT STANDS, AS IT
SOMETIMES DOES, IN THE POSITION OF "NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZATION" - TO USE THE PARLANCE OF THE TRADE.  BUT THAT IS A
DIFFERENT CASE FROM THE ONE BEFORE US.
..END :






















PANHANDLE CO. V. MICHIGAN COMM'N, 341 U.S. 329 


NO. 486.  ARGUED APRIL 23, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 14, 1951.  - 328 MICH.
650, 44 N.W.2D 324, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS BY PIPE LINE
FROM OTHER STATES INTO MICHIGAN, AND IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  APPELLEE GAS
COMPANY IS A MICHIGAN PUBLIC UTILITY WHICH DISTRIBUTES NATURAL GAS,
OBTAINED ENTIRELY FROM APPELLANT, TO DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN THE DETROIT AREA; AND A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF
ITS REVENUES IS DERIVED FROM SALES TO LARGE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS. 
APPELLANT SEEKS TO MAKE DIRECT SALES OF NATURAL GAS TO LARGE INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMERS IN MICHIGAN, AND IN ITS OPERATIONS WOULD USE STREETS AND
ALLEYS IN THE DETROIT AREA.  HELD:  AN ORDER OF THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION REQUIRING APPELLANT TO OBTAIN FROM THAT COMMISSION A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BEFORE SELLING NATURAL
GAS DIRECT TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN A MUNICIPALITY ALREADY SERVED BY
A PUBLIC UTILITY IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE NATURAL GAS ACT OR THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 330-337. 

(A)  THE SALE TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS AS PROPOSED BY APPELLANT IS
CLEARLY INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO
LOCAL CONSUMERS BY ONE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS "ESSENTIALLY
LOCAL" IN ASPECT AND IS SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION.  P. 333. 

(B)  THE NATURAL GAS ACT APPLIES ONLY TO SUCH SALES OF GAS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS ARE FOR RESALE, AND DOES NOT APPLY TO SALES MADE
DIRECT TO CONSUMERS, THE LATTER BEING LEFT TO STATE REGULATION.  P.
334. 

(C)  THERE ARE IN THIS CASE NO CONFLICTING CLAIMS BETWEEN STATE AND
FEDERAL REGULATION.  P. 336. 

(D)  TO REQUIRE APPELLANT TO SECURE A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BEFORE IT MAY ENTER A MUNICIPALITY ALREADY
SERVED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY IS REGULATION, NOT ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION. 
HOOD & SONS V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 336-337. 

PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER ISSUED AGAINST APPELLANT BY THE MICHIGAN
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  328
MICH. 650, 44 N.W.2D 324.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 337. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE MICHIGAN
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REQUIRING APPELLANT TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE
OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BEFORE SELLING NATURAL GAS DIRECT
TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN A MUNICIPALITY ALREADY SERVED BY A PUBLIC
UTILITY. 

APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS BY PIPE
LINE FROM FIELDS IN TEXAS, OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS INTO AREAS WHICH INCLUDE
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.  APPELLANT IS A "NATURAL-GAS COMPANY" WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, 52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 717 ET
SEQ., AND SUBJECT THEREUNDER TO REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION.  APPELLEE MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY IS A PUBLIC
UTILITY OF MICHIGAN WHICH UNDER APPROPRIATE AUTHORIZATION DISTRIBUTES
GAS TO DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN AND AROUND
DETROIT.  CONSOLIDATED OBTAINS ITS ENTIRE SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS FOR
DISTRIBUTION IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT FROM APPELLANT. 

IN 1945 APPELLANT PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED A PROGRAM OF SECURING LARGE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS FOR THE DIRECT SALE OF NATURAL GAS IN MICHIGAN. 
IN DETROIT IT OFFERED TO PAY THE CITY FOR THE RIGHT TO LAY AND OPERATE
ITS PIPE LINE ALONG THE STREETS AND ALLEYS DIRECTLY TO LARGE INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS.  IN OCTOBER OF THAT YEAR APPELLANT SUCCEEDED IN SECURING A
LARGE DIRECT-SALE CONTRACT WITH THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY FOR GAS AT ITS
DEARBORN PLANT, LOCATED IN THE DETROIT DISTRICT.  FORD WAS ALREADY
PURCHASING SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITIES OF GAS FOR INDUSTRIAL USE AT THE
DEARBORN PLANT FROM CONSOLIDATED. 

BELIEVING ITS INTERESTS AND THOSE OF ITS CUSTOMERS WERE PREJUDICED BY
APPELLANT'S PROGRAM, PARTICULARLY THE FORD CONTRACT, CONSOLIDATED FILED
A COMPLAINT WITH THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.  APPELLANT
APPEARED TO CONTEST THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION OVER SUCH
SALES.  AFTER HEARING, THE COMMISSION ORDERED APPELLANT TO - 

"CEASE AND DESIST FROM MAKING DIRECT SALES AND DELIVERIES OF NATURAL
GAS TO INDUSTRIES WITHIN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, LOCATED WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES ALREADY BEING SERVED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY, UNTIL SUCH
TIME AS IT SHALL HAVE FIRST OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THIS COMMISSION TO PERFORM SUCH
SERVICES."  FN1  APPELLANT OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF INGHAM COUNTY, MICHIGAN.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT HELD THAT THE ORDER WAS A PROHIBITION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THEREFORE INVALID.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, THREE
JUDGES DISSENTING, REVERSED THE CIRCUIT COURT AND AFFIRMED THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  328 MICH. 650, 44 N.W.2D 324.  THAT COURT REJECTED
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WAS AN ABSOLUTE DENIAL OF
THE RIGHT OF APPELLANT TO SELL NATURAL GAS IN MICHIGAN DIRECT TO
CONSUMERS.  SINCE APPELLANT WAS FREE TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AS TO SUCH SALES, THE ORDER WAS CONSTRUED AS DENYING THE
RIGHT OF APPELLANT TO SELL DIRECT WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING SUCH
CERTIFICATE.  THE COURT HELD THIS REQUIREMENT TO BE WITHIN THE STATE'S
REGULATORY AUTHORITY DESPITE THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF THE SALES. 
THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES THE CORRECTNESS OF THAT DECISION. 

THE SALE TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS AS PROPOSED BY APPELLANT IS CLEARLY
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PANHANDLE PIPE LINE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N
OF INDIANA, 332 U.S. 507, 513; PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. COMMISSION, 252
U.S. 23, 28.  BUT THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO LOCAL CONSUMERS
MADE BY ONE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS "ESSENTIALLY LOCAL" IN
ASPECT AND IS SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL
REGULATION, STATE REGULATION IS REQUIRED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. COMMISSION, SUPRA, AT 31.  SEE ALSO OPINION OF
CARDOZO, J., IN PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. COMMISSION, 225 N.Y. 397, 122
N.E. 260.  THESE PRINCIPLES APPLY TO DIRECT SALES FOR INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMPTION AS WELL AS TO SALES FOR DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL USES. 
PANHANDLE-INDIANA, SUPRA, AT 514, 519-520. 

THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED SALES ARE
PRIMARILY OF LOCAL INTEREST.  THEY EMPHASIZE THE NEED FOR LOCAL
REGULATION AND THE WISDOM OF THE PRINCIPLES JUST DISCUSSED.  TO
ACCOMMODATE ITS OPERATIONS, APPELLANT PROPOSES TO USE THE STREETS AND
ALLEYS OF DETROIT AND ENVIRONS.  A LOCAL UTILITY ALREADY OPERATING IN
THE SAME AREA, CONSOLIDATED, RECEIVES ITS ENTIRE SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS
FROM APPELLANT.  A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF CONSOLIDATED'S REVENUES IS
DERIVED FROM SALES TO LARGE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS.  APPELLANT IGNORED
REQUESTS OF CONSOLIDATED FOR ADDITIONAL GAS TO MEET THE INCREASED WANTS
OF ITS INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS.  INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING TO MEET INCREASED
NEEDS THROUGH CONSOLIDATED, APPELLANT LAUNCHED A PROGRAM TO SECURE FOR
ITSELF LARGE INDUSTRIAL ACCOUNTS FROM CUSTOMERS, SOME OF WHOM WERE
ALREADY BEING SERVED BY CONSOLIDATED.  IN CONNECTION WITH THE FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE TAP LINE BY WHICH APPELLANT
PROPOSED TO SERVE FORD DIRECTLY WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY PARALLEL TO AND
ONLY A SHORT DISTANCE FROM THE EXISTING TAP LINE BY WHICH CONSOLIDATED
NOW SERVES FORD. 

THUS, NOT ONLY WOULD THERE BE TWO UTILITIES USING LOCAL FACILITIES TO
ACCOMMODATE THEIR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, BUT THEY WOULD BE SEEKING TO
SERVE THE SAME INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS.  APPELLANT ASSERTS A RIGHT TO
COMPETE FOR THE CREAM OF THE VOLUME BUSINESS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
LOCAL PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY.  WERE APPELLANT SUCCESSFUL IN
THIS VENTURE, IT WOULD NO DOUBT BE REFLECTED ADVERSELY IN
CONSOLIDATED'S OVER-ALL COSTS OF SERVICE AND ITS RATES TO CUSTOMERS
WHOSE ONLY SOURCE OF SUPPLY IS CONSOLIDATED.  THIS CLEARLY PRESENTS A
SITUATION OF "ESSENTIALLY LOCAL" CONCERN AND OF VITAL INTEREST TO THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN. 

OF COURSE, WHEN CONGRESS ACTS IN THIS FIELD IT IS SUPREME.  IT HAS
ACTED.  SECTION 1(B) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, SUPRA, PROVIDES AS
FOLLOWS: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY
OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH
DISTRIBUTION OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS." 

BY THIS ACT CONGRESS OCCUPIED ONLY A PART OF THE FIELD.  AS TO SALES,
ONLY THE SALE OF GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE WAS COVERED. 
DIRECT SALES FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE WERE DESIGNEDLY LEFT TO STATE
REGULATION.  PANHANDLE-INDIANA, 332 U.S. AT 516-518.  SPEAKING FURTHER
OF THE DIVISION OF REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
NATURAL GAS, THIS COURT SAID IN THE SAME CASE: 

"IT WOULD BE AN EXCEEDINGLY INCONGRUOUS RESULT IF A STATUTE SO
MOTIVATED, DESIGNED AND SHAPED TO BRING ABOUT MORE EFFECTIVE
REGULATION, AND PARTICULARLY MORE EFFECTIVE STATE REGULATION, WERE
CONSTRUED IN THE TEETH OF THOSE OBJECTS, AND THE IMPORT OF ITS WORDING
AS WELL, TO CUT DOWN REGULATORY POWER AND TO DO SO IN A MANNER MAKING
THE STATES LESS CAPABLE OF REGULATION THAN BEFORE THE STATUTE'S
ADOPTION.  YET THIS, IN EFFECT, IS WHAT APPELLANT ASKS US TO DO.  FOR
THE ESSENCE OF ITS POSITION, APART FROM STANDING DIRECTLY ON THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, IS THAT CONGRESS BY ENACTING THE NATURAL GAS ACT HAS
'OCCUPIED THE FIELD,' I.E., THE ENTIRE FIELD OPEN TO FEDERAL
REGULATION, AND THUS HAS RELIEVED ITS DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES OF ANY
SUBORDINATION TO STATE CONTROL. 

"THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS THE FACT.  CONGRESS, IT IS TRUE, OCCUPIED A
FIELD.  BUT IT WAS METICULOUS TO TAKE IN ONLY TERRITORY WHICH THIS
COURT HAD HELD THE STATES COULD NOT REACH.  THAT AREA DID NOT INCLUDE
DIRECT CONSUMER SALES, WHETHER FOR INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER USES.  THOSE
SALES HAD BEEN REGULATED BY THE STATES AND THE REGULATION HAD BEEN
REPEATEDLY SUSTAINED.  IN NO INSTANCE REACHING THIS COURT HAD IT BEEN
STRICKEN DOWN. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE NATURAL GAS ACT CREATED AN ARTICULATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM BASED
ON A CLEAR RECOGNITION OF THE RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES.  IT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE
INEFFECTIVE REGULATION AT EITHER LEVEL.  WE HAVE EMPHASIZED REPEATEDLY
THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO CREATE A COMPREHENSIVE AND EFFECTIVE REGULATORY
SCHEME, COMPLEMENTARY IN ITS OPERATION TO THOSE OF THE STATES AND IN NO
MANNER USURPING THEIR AUTHORITY.  ...  AND, AS WAS POINTED OUT IN POWER
COMM'N V. HOPE GAS CO., (320 U.S. 591) AT 610, 'THE PRIMARY AIM OF THIS
LEGISLATION WAS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AGAINST EXPLOITATION AT THE HANDS
OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES.'  THE SCHEME WAS ONE OF COOPERATIVE ACTION
BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES.  IT COULD ACCOMPLISH NEITHER THAT
PROTECTIVE AIM NOR THE COMPREHENSIVE AND EFFECTIVE DUAL REGULATION
CONGRESS HAD IN MIND, IF THOSE COMPANIES COULD DIVERT AT WILL ALL OR
THE CREAM OF THEIR BUSINESS TO UNREGULATED INDUSTRIAL USES."  332 U.S.
AT 519, 520-521. 

THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF "DUAL REGULATION" MIGHT HAVE SOME OVERLAPS OR
CONFLICTS BUT NO SUCH EXIGENCIES APPEAR HERE.  THERE ARE NO OPPOSING
DIRECTIVES AND HENCE NO NECESSITY FOR US TO RESOLVE ANY CONFLICTING
CLAIMS AS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATION. 

APPELLANT CONCEDES, AS IT MUST, THAT DIRECT SALES BY IT TO INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMERS ARE SUBJECT TO STATE RATE REGULATION UNDER THE PANHANDLE
INDIANA DECISION.  IT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THAT DECISION DOES NOT
COMPREHEND ITS PROBLEM, REASONING THAT THE JURISDICTION HERE ASSERTED
BY THE MICHIGAN COMMISSION IS THE POWER TO PROHIBIT INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IN NATURAL GAS. 

ALTHOUGH THE END RESULT MIGHT BE PROHIBITION OF PARTICULAR DIRECT
SALES, TO REQUIRE APPELLANT TO SECURE A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BEFORE IT MAY ENTER A MUNICIPALITY ALREADY
SERVED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY IS REGULATION, NOT ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION. 
THERE IS NO INTIMATION THAT APPELLANT CANNOT DELIVER AND SELL AVAILABLE
GAS TO CONSOLIDATED FOR RESALE TO CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE ADDITIONAL GAS
REQUIREMENTS.  IT IS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR
MICHIGAN TO REQUIRE APPELLANT TO ROUTE ITS SALES OF GAS THROUGH THE
EXISTING CERTIFICATED UTILITY WHERE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY WOULD NOT BE SERVED BY DIRECT SALES.  THAT THERE IS NEITHER
DISCRIMINATION NOR PROHIBITION HERE SAVES THIS REGULATION FROM THE RULE
OF SUCH CASES AS HOOD & SONS V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525, RELIED ON BY
APPELLANT, WHERE A STATE WAS SAID TO HAVE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY PROHIBITING IT BECAUSE IT WOULD SUBJECT LOCAL
BUSINESS TO COMPETITION.  AND THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE MICHIGAN
COMMISSION ACTED DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN INTERSTATE OR
INTRASTATE AGENCY DESIRING TO OPERATE IN A LOCALITY ALREADY SERVED BY A
UTILITY.  FN2  SEE CITIES SERVICE CO. V. PEERLESS CO., 340 U.S. 179,
188. 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IT IS FREE FROM STATE REGULATION OR FREE TO MANAGE ESSENTIALLY
LOCAL ASPECTS OF ITS BUSINESS AS IT PLEASES.  THE COURSE OF THIS
COURT'S DECISIONS RECOGNIZES NO SUCH LICENSE.  SEE CITIES SERVICE CASE,
SUPRA; PANHANDLE-INDIANA CASE, SUPRA; PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V.
COMMISSION, 252 U.S. 23.  SUCH A COURSE WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH THE
EFFECTIVE DUAL REGULATION CONGRESS INTENDED, AND WOULD PERMIT APPELLANT
TO PREJUDICE SUBSTANTIAL LOCAL INTERESTS.  THIS IS NOT COMPELLED BY THE
NATURAL GAS ACT OR THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COMMISSION ACTED UNDER AUTHORITY OF MICH. COMP. LAWS, 1948,
SEC. 460.502, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 2.  NO PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL HEREAFTER BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION OR
OPERATION OF ANY PUBLIC UTILITY PLANT OR SYSTEM THEREOF NOR SHALL IT
RENDER ANY SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSACTING OR CARRYING ON A
LOCAL BUSINESS EITHER DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY, BY SERVING ANY OTHER
UTILITY OR AGENCY SO ENGAGED IN SUCH LOCAL BUSINESS, IN ANY
MUNICIPALITY IN THIS STATE WHERE ANY OTHER UTILITY OR AGENCY IS THEN
ENGAGED IN SUCH LOCAL BUSINESS AND RENDERING THE SAME SORT OF SERVICE,
OR WHERE SUCH MUNICIPALITY IS RECEIVING SERVICE OF THE SAME SORT, UNTIL
SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL FIRST OBTAIN FROM THE COMMISSION A
CERTIFICATE THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRES OR WILL
REQUIRE SUCH CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, SERVICE, OR EXTENSION." 

OTHER RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE MICHIGAN STATUTE PROVIDE: 

"SEC. 3.  BEFORE ANY SUCH CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
SHALL ISSUE, THE APPLICANT THEREFOR SHALL FILE A PETITION WITH THE
COMMISSION STATING THE NAME OF THE MUNICIPALITY OR MUNICIPALITIES WHICH
IT DESIRES TO SERVE AND THE KIND OF SERVICE WHICH IT PROPOSES TO
RENDER, AND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SECURED THE NECESSARY CONSENT OR
FRANCHISE FROM SUCH MUNICIPALITY OR MUNICIPALITIES AUTHORIZING IT TO
TRANSACT A LOCAL BUSINESS."  SEC. 460.503.    "SEC. 5.  IN DETERMINING
THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY THE COMMISSION SHALL
TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SERVICE BEING RENDERED BY THE UTILITY THEN
SERVING SUCH TERRITORY, THE INVESTMENT IN SUCH UTILITY, THE BENEFIT, IF
ANY, TO THE PUBLIC IN THE MATTER OF RATES AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS
SHALL BE PROPER AND EQUITABLE IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRES THE APPLYING UTILITY TO SERVE THE
TERRITORY.  ...  "  SEC. 460.505.    FN2  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, DISSENTING. 

PANHANDLE SEEKS TO SELL NATURAL GAS FROM ITS FIELDS IN TEXAS,
OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS DIRECTLY TO THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY AT ITS DEARBORN
PLANT IN MICHIGAN.  CONCEDEDLY THIS IS THE CLEAREST KIND OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WE HAVE NOT HERE IN CONTROVERSY PANHANDLE'S DESIRE TO LAY
PIPES IN THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF MICHIGAN AND THE POWER OF MICHIGAN TO
MAKE EXACTIONS FOR SUCH PRIVILEGES SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT OFFEND THE
DOCTRINE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS.  MICHIGAN HERE IS ASSERTING A
WHOLLY DIFFERENT CLAIM.  THE STATE CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO SAY WHETHER AN
OUT-OF-STATE SELLER MAY BE PERMITTED TO COMPETE WITH MICHIGAN
DISTRIBUTORS IN THE SALE OF NATURAL GAS TO MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMERS.  MICHIGAN SAYS THAT IT MAY DETERMINE THAT THE LOCAL MARKET
IS SATURATED AND THAT, SINCE THE ENTRY OF AN OUT-OF-STATE DISTRIBUTOR
MAY DISADVANTAGE OR DISRUPT THE LOCAL MARKET, IT MAY DENY HIM LEAVE TO
MAKE SUCH SALES. 

THE RIGHT HERE ASSERTED BY MICHIGAN TO PROHIBIT PANHANDLE FROM
FURNISHING GAS DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS HAS, SINCE 1938, BY VIRTUE OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT, BEEN LODGED IN THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  WE ARE
ADVISED BY THE COMMISSION THAT IT HAS EXERCISED IN MULTITUDINOUS
INSTANCES AUTHORITY OVER TRANSPORTATION FOR DIRECT SALE TO CONSUMERS. 
"IT IS, OF COURSE, TRUE," ADDS THE COMMISSION, "THAT A STATE
CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING AN INTERSTATE SALE TO AN INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER
WOULD BE MEANINGLESS IF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION CAN DENY A CERTIFICATE
FOR THE NECESSARY TRANSPORTATION FACILITY, AND VICE VERSA."  IF THIS
MEANS ANYTHING IT MEANS THAT THE CONTROL WHICH MICHIGAN HERE CLAIMS IS
WITHIN THE EFFECTIVE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION MAY DENY A CERTIFICATE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF
GAS BY PANHANDLE TO THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT
MICHIGAN WOULD RELY UPON IN WITHHOLDING A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY TO PANHANDLE TO SELL ITS GAS TO FORD.  QUESTIONS OF
CONSERVATION, OF MARKET STABILITY, OF CUT-THROAT COMPETITION AND THE
LIKE WOULD BE RELEVANT FACTORS IN ONE CASE AS WELL AS IN THE OTHER. 
THE COMMISSION IS CLEAR THAT THE POWER OF MICHIGAN IS SUBORDINATE TO
ITS AUTHORITY, SO THAT MICHIGAN COULD NOT FRUSTRATE THE COMMISSION'S
AUTHORITY IN GRANTING OR DENYING TO PANHANDLE THE RIGHT TO ENTER
MICHIGAN FOR DIRECT SALE TO CONSUMERS. 

THE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE COMMISSION'S POSITION IS THAT,
SINCE PANHANDLE NEEDS THE COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATE FOR THE PHYSICAL
TRANSPORTATION OF THE GAS TO FORD, IT CANNOT IN ANY EVENT MAKE SUCH
SALE TO FORD PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE.  HOWSOEVER THIS
BE, THE COURT HAS PLACED THE CASE IN A DIFFERENT FOCUS.  IT IS
SUGGESTED THAT UNTIL THERE IS AN ACTUAL CLASH BETWEEN AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION AND THE ORDER NOW ASSAILED THERE IS A VACUUM WHICH MICHIGAN
MAY ENTER.  NO DOUBT CONGRESS COULD GIVE THE STATES AUTHORITY OVER SUCH
A FIELD OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND DENY IT TO THE COMMISSION OR GIVE IT
TO THE STATES UNTIL SUPPLANTED BY COMMISSION ACTION.  IT HAS DONE
NEITHER.  THE PROBLEM THEREFORE REMAINS WHAT IT WAS UNDER THE LAW OF
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT. 

THE PROBLEM DOES NOT DISAPPEAR BY INVOKING A SOLVING PHRASE,
"REGULATION, NOT ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION."  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE SOUGHT TO
PUT AN END TO THE ECONOMIC AUTARCHY OF THE STATES.  IT IS NOT FOR
MICHIGAN TO DETERMINE WHAT COMPETITION SHE WILL OR WILL NOT ALLOW FROM
WITHOUT, SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO HER RIGHT TO PROTECT THOSE STATE
INTERESTS WHICH ARE IMPLIED BY THE NOW THREADBARE PHRASE THAT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MUST ALSO PAY ITS WAY, OR TO PROTECT LOCAL
INTERESTS THAT ONLY INCIDENTALLY OR INSIGNIFICANTLY TOUCH INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  E.G., UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202. 

IF THERE WERE NO CONSTITUTION WITH A COMMERCE CLAUSE, EACH STATE
COULD SHUT OUT THE PRODUCTS OF OTHER STATES OR ADMIT THEM ON
CONDITIONS.  UNDER THE CONSTITUTION SUCH COMMERCE BELONGS NOT TO THE
STATES BUT TO CONGRESS.  IT IS NOT FOR THE STATES, IN PURSUIT OF LOCAL
STATE POLICIES, TO DECIDE WHAT PRODUCTS FROM WITHOUT MAY CROSS STATE
BOUNDARIES OR ADMIT THEM ON CONDITION THAT THEY SATISFY LOCAL ECONOMIC
POLICY.  IF AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL POLICY STATES ARE TO HAVE SUCH
POWER, CONGRESS MUST GIVE IT TO THEM, AS IT DID IN THE CASE OF LIQUOR,
PRISON-MADE GOODS, AND INSURANCE.  SEE ACT OF AUG. 8, 1890, 26 STAT.
313, 27 U.S.C. SEC. 121; ACT OF JULY 24, 1935, 49 STAT. 494; ACT OF
AUG. 10, 1939, 53 STAT. 1391, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1606(A); ACT OF MAR. 9,
1945, 59 STAT. 34, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1012(B). 

AGAINST THE INHERENT RIGHT OF A STATE TO KEEP OUT EXCEPT BY ITS LEAVE
THE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES FROM OTHER STATES, THE DECISIONS IN BUCK V.
KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S. 307, AND BUSH CO. V. MALOY, 267 U.S. 317, SEEM TO
ME DECISIVE. 

WHAT MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, SPEAKING FOR THE ENTIRE COURT, EXCEPTING
ONLY MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, SAID IN THE BUCK CASE DEFINES THE
SITUATION HERE.  THERE, AS HERE, THE COURT WAS CONFRONTED WITH A STATE
STATUTE REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  THE
REGULATION RELATED TO PASSENGER AND FREIGHT BUSSES.  THERE WAS NO
OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION, BUT OF COURSE SUCH A SYSTEM OF CERTIFICATION IS
BASED ON THE DUTY OF DENYING ACCESS TO THE MARKET IF THE COMMUNITY IS
ALREADY ADEQUATELY SERVED.  SUCH A SCHEME "DETERMINES WHETHER THE
PROHIBITION SHALL BE APPLIED BY RESORT, THROUGH STATE OFFICIALS, TO A
TEST WHICH IS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF FEDERAL ACTION - THE
EXISTENCE OF ADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR CONDUCTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
...  THUS, THE PROVISION OF THE WASHINGTON STATUTE IS A REGULATION, NOT
OF THE USE OF ITS OWN HIGHWAYS, BUT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ITS EFFECT
UPON SUCH COMMERCE IS NOT MERELY TO BURDEN BUT TO OBSTRUCT IT.  SUCH
STATE ACTION IS FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE."  267 U.S. AT 316. 

IT IS EASY TO MOCK OR MINIMIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF "FREE TRADE AMONG
THE STATES," BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC., 294 U.S. 511, 526, WHICH
IS THE SIGNIFICANCE GIVEN TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BY A CENTURY AND A
HALF OF ADJUDICATION IN THIS COURT.  WITH ALL DOUBTS AS TO WHAT LESSONS
HISTORY TEACHES, FEW SEEM CLEARER THAN THE BENEFICIAL CONSEQUENCES
WHICH HAVE FLOWED FROM THIS CONCEPTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  IT IS
TRUE OF THIS PRINCIPLE, AS OF OTHERS, THAT THE PRINCIPLE IS NOT TO BE
REDUCED TO THE APPEAL OF THE PARTICULAR INSTANCE IN WHICH IT IS
INVOKED. 
..END :

















JORDAN V. DE GEORGE, 341 U.S. 223 


NO. 348.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 7, 1951.  - 183 F.2D 768,
REVERSED. 


CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OF TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS
IS A "CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 19(A)
OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A), WHICH REQUIRES
THE DEPORTATION OF ANY ALIEN WHO IS SENTENCED MORE THAN ONCE TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR OR MORE BECAUSE OF CONVICTION IN THIS COUNTRY
OF ANY SUCH CRIME.  PP. 223-232. 

(A)  CRIMES IN WHICH FRAUD IS AN INGREDIENT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN REGARDED
AS INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.  PP. 227-229, 232. 

(B)  THE PHRASE "CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE" DOES NOT LACK
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE STANDARDS TO JUSTIFY THIS DEPORTATION PROCEEDING;
AND THE STATUTE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR VAGUENESS.  PP. 229-232. 

JORDAN, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION, V. DE
GEORGE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF A
DEPORTATION ORDER, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  183 F.2D 768.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 890.  REVERSED, P. 232. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS ONLY ONE QUESTION:  WHETHER CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
THE UNITED STATES OF TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS IS A "CRIME INVOLVING
MORAL TURPITUDE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION
ACT OF 1917.  FN1 

RESPONDENT, A NATIVE AND CITIZEN OF ITALY, HAS LIVED CONTINUOUSLY IN
THE UNITED STATES SINCE HE ENTERED THIS COUNTRY IN 1921.  FN2  IN 1937,
RESPONDENT WAS INDICTED UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88 FN3 FOR CONSPIRING WITH
SEVEN OTHER DEFENDANTS TO VIOLATE TWELVE SECTIONS OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  THE INDICTMENT SPECIFICALLY CHARGED HIM WITH POSSESSING
WHISKEY AND ALCOHOL "WITH INTENT TO SELL IT IN FRAUD OF LAW AND EVADE
THE TAX THEREON."  HE WAS FURTHER ACCUSED OF REMOVING AND CONCEALING
LIQUOR "WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OF THE TAX THEREON." 
FN4  AFTER PLEADING GUILTY, RESPONDENT WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT IN
A FEDERAL PENITENTIARY FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR AND ONE DAY. 

RESPONDENT SERVED HIS SENTENCE UNDER THIS CONVICTION, AND WAS
RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.  LESS THAN A YEAR LATER, HE RETURNED TO HIS
FORMER ACTIVITIES AND IN DECEMBER 1939, HE WAS INDICTED AGAIN WITH
EIGHT OTHER DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATING THE SAME FEDERAL STATUTES.  HE WAS
CHARGED WITH CONSPIRING TO "UNLAWFULLY, KNOWINGLY, AND WILLFULLY
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OF TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS."  FN5  AFTER
BEING TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY IN 1941, HE WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT
FOR TWO YEARS. 

WHILE SERVING HIS SENTENCE UNDER THIS SECOND CONVICTION, DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC. 19(A) OF
THE IMMIGRATION ACT WHICH PROVIDES: 

"  ...  ANY ALIEN  ...  WHO IS HEREAFTER SENTENCED MORE THAN ONCE TO
SUCH A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT (ONE YEAR OR MORE) BECAUSE OF CONVICTION IN
THIS COUNTRY OF ANY CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, COMMITTED AT ANY
TIME AFTER ENTRY  ...  SHALL, UPON THE WARRANT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED.  ...  "  FN6 

AFTER CONTINUED HEARINGS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AND BY THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS, RESPONDENT WAS ORDERED TO BE DEPORTED IN JANUARY
1946, ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD TWICE BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO
TERMS OF ONE YEAR OR MORE OF CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.  FN7
DEPORTATION WAS DEFERRED FROM TIME TO TIME AT RESPONDENT'S REQUEST
UNTIL 1949, WHEN THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION MOVED TO EXECUTE THE WARRANT OF DEPORTATION. 

RESPONDENT THEN SOUGHT HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, CLAIMING
THAT THE DEPORTATION ORDER WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE CRIMES OF WHICH HE
HAD BEEN CONVICTED DID NOT INVOLVE MORAL TURPITUDE.  THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD A HEARING, AND DISMISSED THE PETITION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND ORDERED THAT THE
RESPONDENT BE DISCHARGED.  183 F.2D 768(1950).  THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATED THAT "CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE," AS THOSE WORDS WERE
USED IN THE IMMIGRATION ACT, "WERE INTENDED TO INCLUDE ONLY CRIMES OF
VIOLENCE, OR CRIMES WHICH ARE COMMONLY THOUGHT OF AS INVOLVING
BASENESS, VILENESS OR DEPRAVITY.  SUCH A CLASSIFICATION DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE CRIME OF EVADING THE PAYMENT OF TAX ON LIQUOR, NOR OF
CONSPIRING TO EVADE THAT TAX."  183 F.2D AT 772.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
TO REVIEW THE DECISION, 340 U.S. 890(1950), AS CONFLICTING WITH
DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS IN OTHER CIRCUITS. 

THIS COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE BEFORE US "TO
AUTHORIZE DEPORTATION ONLY WHERE AN ALIEN HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE AND HAVING BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, ONCE
AGAIN COMMITS A CRIME OF THAT NATURE AND IS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR
IT."  FONG HAW TAN V. PHELAN, 333 U.S. 6, 9-10(1948).  RESPONDENT HAS
ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS BEEN CONVICTED OF THE SAME CRIME, CONSPIRACY
TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OF TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS.  THEREFORE,
OUR INQUIRY IN THIS CASE IS NARROWED TO DETERMINING WHETHER THIS
PARTICULAR OFFENSE INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE.  WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN
OTHER OFFENSES INVOLVE MORAL TURPITUDE IS IRRELEVANT AND BESIDE THE
POINT. 

THE TERM "MORAL TURPITUDE" HAS DEEP ROOTS IN THE LAW.  THE PRESENCE
OF MORAL TURPITUDE HAS BEEN USED AS A TEST IN A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS,
INCLUDING LEGISLATION GOVERNING THE DISBARMENT OF ATTORNEYS  FN8  AND
THE REVOCATION OF MEDICAL LICENSES.  FN9  MORAL TURPITUDE ALSO HAS
FOUND JUDICIAL EMPLOYMENT AS A CRITERION IN DISQUALIFYING AND
IMPEACHING WITNESSES,  FN10  IN DETERMINING THE MEASURE OF CONTRIBUTION
BETWEEN JOINT TORT-FEASORS,  FN11  AND IN DECIDING WHETHER CERTAIN
LANGUAGE IS SLANDEROUS.  FN12 

IN DECIDING THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT, WE LOOK TO THE MANNER IN WHICH
THE TERM "MORAL TURPITUDE" HAS BEEN APPLIED BY JUDICIAL DECISION. 
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT A CRIME IN
WHICH FRAUD IS AN INGREDIENT INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE.  IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPECIFIC SECTION OF THE STATUTE BEFORE US, A COURT
OF APPEALS HAS STATED THAT FRAUD HAS ORDINARILY BEEN THE TEST TO
DETERMINE WHETHER CRIMES NOT OF THE GRAVEST CHARACTER INVOLVE MORAL
TURPITUDE.  UNITED STATES EX REL. BERLANDI V. REIMER, 113 F.2D
429(1940). 

IN EVERY DEPORTATION CASE WHERE FRAUD HAS BEEN PROVED, FEDERAL COURTS
HAVE HELD THAT THE CRIME IN ISSUE INVOLVED MORAL TURPITUDE.  THIS HAS
BEEN TRUE IN A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS INVOLVING FRAUDULENT CONDUCT:
OBTAINING GOODS UNDER FRAUDULENT PRETENSES, BERMANN V. REIMER, 123 F.2D
331(1941); CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD BY DECEIT AND FALSEHOOD, MERCER V.
LENCE, 96 F.2D 122(1938); FORGERY WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD, UNITED STATES
EX REL. POPOFF V. REIMER, 79 F.2D 513(1935); USING THE MAILS TO
DEFRAUD, PONZI V. WARD, 7 F.SUPP.  736(1934); EXECUTION OF CHATTEL
MORTGAGE WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD, UNITED STATES EX REL. MILLARD V.
TUTTLE, 46 F.2D 342(1930); CONCEALING ASSETS IN BANKRUPTCY, UNITED
STATES EX REL. MEDICH V. BURMASTER, 24 F.2D 57(1928); ISSUING CHECKS
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD, UNITED STATES EX REL. PORTADA V. DAY, 16 F.2D
328(1926).  IN THE STATE COURTS, CRIMES INVOLVING FRAUD HAVE
UNIVERSALLY BEEN HELD TO INVOLVE MORAL TURPITUDE.  FN13 

MOREOVER, THERE HAVE BEEN TWO OTHER DECISIONS BY COURTS OF APPEALS
PRIOR TO THE DECISION NOW UNDER REVIEW ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
PARTICULAR OFFENSE BEFORE US IN THIS CASE INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT.  IN UNITED
STATES EX REL. BERLANDI V. REIMER, 113 F.2D 429(1940), AND MAITA V.
HAFF, 116 F.2D 337(1940), COURTS OF APPEALS SPECIFICALLY DECIDED THAT
THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS BY
POSSESSING AND CONCEALING DISTILLED SPIRITS WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES OF TAXES INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE.  FURTHERMORE, IN
GUARNERI V. KESSLER, 98 F.2D 580(1938), A COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT
THE CRIME OF SMUGGLING ALCOHOL INTO THE UNITED STATES WITH INTENT TO
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE. 

IN VIEW OF THESE DECISIONS, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT FRAUD HAS
CONSISTENTLY BEEN REGARDED AS SUCH A CONTAMINATING COMPONENT IN ANY
CRIME THAT AMERICAN COURTS HAVE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, INCLUDED SUCH
CRIMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF MORAL TURPITUDE.  IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR,
UNDER AN UNBROKEN COURSE OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS, THAT THE CRIME OF
CONSPIRING TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IS A "CRIME INVOLVING MORAL
TURPITUDE." 

BUT IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE PHRASE "CRIME INVOLVING MORAL
TURPITUDE" LACKS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE STANDARDS TO JUSTIFY THIS
DEPORTATION PROCEEDING AND THAT THE STATUTE BEFORE US IS THEREFORE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR VAGUENESS.  UNDER THIS VIEW, NO CRIME, HOWEVER
GRAVE, COULD BE REGARDED AS FALLING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM
"MORAL TURPITUDE."  THE QUESTION OF VAGUENESS WAS NOT RAISED BY THE
PARTIES NOR ARGUED BEFORE THIS COURT. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE PHRASE HAS BEEN PART OF THE IMMIGRATION
LAWS FOR MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS.  FN14  AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE PHRASE
"CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE" HAS ALSO BEEN USED FOR MANY YEARS AS
A CRITERION IN A VARIETY OF OTHER STATUTES.  NO CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED
HOLDING THAT THE PHRASE IS VAGUE, NOR ARE WE ABLE TO FIND ANY TRACE OF
JUDICIAL EXPRESSION WHICH HINTS THAT THE PHRASE IS SO MEANINGLESS AS TO
BE A DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS. 

FURTHERMORE, THIS COURT HAS ITSELF CONSTRUED THE PHRASE "CRIME
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE."  IN UNITED STATES EX REL. VOLPE V. SMITH,
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, 289 U.S. 422(1933), THE COURT INTERPRETED THE
SAME SECTION OF THE IMMIGRATION STATUTE NOW BEFORE US.  THERE, AN ALIEN
HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF COUNTERFEITING GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS WITH INTENT
TO DEFRAUD, AND ONE QUESTION OF THE CASE WAS WHETHER THE CRIME OF
COUNTERFEITING INVOLVED MORAL TURPITUDE.  THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED BY
THE PARTIES AND DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEFS.  THE COURT TREATED THE
QUESTION WITHOUT HESITATION, STATING THAT THE CRIME OF COUNTERFEITING
OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WAS "PLAINLY A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL
TURPITUDE."  289 U.S. AT 423. 

THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF THE "VOID FOR VAGUENESS" DOCTRINE IS TO WARN
INDIVIDUALS OF THE CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR CONDUCT.  WILLIAMS V.
UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 97, DECIDED APRIL 23, 1951; SCREWS V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 91, 103-104(1945).  THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY STATED
THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES WHICH FAIL TO GIVE DUE NOTICE THAT AN ACT HAS
BEEN MADE CRIMINAL BEFORE IT IS DONE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATIONS
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451(1939);
UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81(1921).  IT SHOULD BE
EMPHASIZED THAT THIS STATUTE DOES NOT DECLARE CERTAIN CONDUCT TO BE
CRIMINAL.  ITS FUNCTION IS TO APPRISE ALIENS OF THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH
FOLLOW AFTER CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF THE REQUISITE TWO CRIMES. 

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL STATUTE, WE SHALL
NEVERTHELESS EXAMINE THE APPLICATION OF THE VAGUENESS DOCTRINE TO THIS
CASE.  WE DO THIS IN VIEW OF THE GRAVE NATURE OF DEPORTATION.  THE
COURT HAS STATED THAT "DEPORTATION IS A DRASTIC MEASURE AND AT TIMES
THE EQUIVALENT OF BANISHMENT OR EXILE  ...  IT IS THE FORFEITURE FOR
MISCONDUCT OF A RESIDENCE IN THIS COUNTRY.  SUCH A FORFEITURE IS A
PENALTY."  FONG HAW TAN V. PHELAN, SUPRA, AT 10.  WE SHALL, THEREFORE,
TEST THIS STATUTE UNDER THE ESTABLISHED CRITERIA OF THE "VOID FOR
VAGUENESS" DOCTRINE. 

WE HAVE SEVERAL TIMES HELD THAT DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING WHETHER
CERTAIN MARGINAL OFFENSES ARE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE UNDER
ATTACK AS VAGUE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY RENDER A STATUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR INDEFINITENESS.  UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH, 280
U.S. 396, 399(1930).  IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS OF SPECIFICITY ARE NOT
REQUIRED.  FN15  UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1(1947).  THE TEST
IS WHETHER THE LANGUAGE CONVEYS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE WARNING AS TO THE
PROSCRIBED CONDUCT WHEN MEASURED BY COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND
PRACTICES.  CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385(1926). 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THIS TEST HAS BEEN SATISFIED HERE.  WHATEVER ELSE
THE PHRASE "CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE" MAY MEAN IN PERIPHERAL
CASES, THE DECIDED CASES MAKE IT PLAIN THAT CRIMES IN WHICH FRAUD WAS
AN INGREDIENT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN REGARDED AS INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE. 
WE HAVE RECENTLY STATED THAT DOUBT AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF A STANDARD IN
LESS OBVIOUS CASES DOES NOT RENDER THAT STANDARD UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR
VAGUENESS.  SEE WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  BUT THERE IS NO SUCH
DOUBT PRESENT IN THIS CASE.  FRAUD IS THE TOUCHSTONE BY WHICH THIS CASE
SHOULD BE JUDGED.  THE PHRASE "CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE" HAS
WITHOUT EXCEPTION BEEN CONSTRUED TO EMBRACE FRAUDULENT CONDUCT.  WE
THEREFORE DECIDE THAT CONGRESS SUFFICIENTLY FOREWARNED RESPONDENT THAT
THE STATUTORY CONSEQUENCE OF TWICE CONSPIRING TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES IS DEPORTATION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  39 STAT. 889, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A). 

FN2  LESS THAN THREE YEARS AFTER ENTERING THE UNITED STATES,
RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED FOR TRANSPORTING LIQUOR AND SENTENCED TO A
TERM IN THE REFORMATORY.  IN 1931, HE WAS CONVICTED AND FINED FOR
TRANSFERRING LICENSE PLATES. 

FN3  35 STAT. 1096, NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 371: 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE EITHER TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN ANY MANNER OR FOR
ANY PURPOSE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PARTIES DO ANY ACT TO EFFECT THE
OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH OF THE PARTIES TO SUCH CONSPIRACY SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS,
OR BOTH." 

FN4  THESE CHARGES WERE BASED UPON 26 U.S.C. (1934 ED.)  SECS. 
1155(F), 1440 AND 1441. 

FN5  THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT RESPONDENT WAS A LARGE-SCALE
VIOLATOR ENGAGED IN A SIZABLE BUSINESS.  THE SECOND INDICTMENT ALONE
CHARGED HIM WITH POSSESSING 4,675 GALLONS OF ALCOHOL AND AN
UNDETERMINED QUANTITY OF DISTILLED SPIRITS.  AT THE RATE OF $2.25 A
GALLON THEN IN EFFECT, THE TAX ON THE ALCOHOL ALONE WOULD HAVE BEEN
OVER $10,000.    FN6  39 STAT. 889, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A). 

FN7  SECTION 19(A) FURTHER PROVIDES:  "  ...  THE PROVISION OF THIS
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE SHALL NOT APPLY TO ONE WHO HAS BEEN PARDONED,
NOR SHALL SUCH DEPORTATION BE MADE OR DIRECTED IF THE COURT, OR JUDGE
THEREOF, SENTENCING SUCH ALIEN FOR SUCH CRIME SHALL, AT THE TIME OF
IMPOSING JUDGMENT OR PASSING SENTENCE OR WITHIN THIRTY DAYS THEREAFTER,
DUE NOTICE HAVING FIRST BEEN GIVEN TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE,
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT SUCH ALIEN SHALL NOT
BE DEPORTED IN PURSUANCE OF THIS CHAPTER  ...  " 39 STAT. 889, AS
AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A).  THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT
RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PARDONED, NOR THAT THE SENTENCING JUDGE RECOMMENDED
THAT HE NOT BE DEPORTED, NOR THAT RESPONDENT REQUESTED THAT SUCH
RECOMMENDATION BE MADE. 

FN8  IN RE KIRBY, 10 S.D. 322, 73 N.W. 92, 39 L.R.A. 856(1897). 
BARTOS V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 19 F.2D 722(1927); SEE BRADWAY,
MORAL TURPITUDE AS THE CRITERION OF OFFENSES THAT JUSTIFY DISBARMENT,
24 CAL. L. REV. 9-27. 

FN9  FORT V. BRINKLEY, 87 ARK. 400, 404, 112 S.W. 1084, 1085(1908). 
"IT SEEMS CLEARLY DEDUCIBLE FROM THE ABOVE CITED AUTHORITIES THAT THE
WORDS 'MORAL TURPITUDE' HAD A POSITIVE AND FIXED MEANING AT COMMON LAW
...  " 

FN10  3 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.), 540; CASES ARE COLLECTED AT 40
A.L.R. 1049, AND 71 A.L.R. 219. 

FN11  FIDELITY & CAS. CO. V. CHRISTENSON, 183 MINN. 182, 236 N.W.
618(1931). 

FN12  BAXTER V. MOHR, 37 MISC. 833, 76 N.Y.S. 982(1902). 

FN13  STATE DECISIONS HAVE HELD THAT THE FOLLOWING CRIMES INVOLVE
MORAL TURPITUDE:  PASSING A CHECK WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD, BANCROFT V.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF REGISTERED DENTISTS OF OKLAHOMA, 202 OKLA. 108,
210 P.2D 666(1949); USING THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD, NEIBLING V. TERRY, 352
MO. 396, 177 S.W.2D 502(1944), IN RE COMYNS, 132 WASH. 391, 232 P.
269(1925); OBTAINING MONEY AND PROPERTY BY FALSE AND FRAUDULENT
PRETENSES, IN RE NEEDHAM, 364 ILL. 65, 4 N.E.2D 19(1936); POSSESSING
COUNTERFEIT MONEY WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD, FORT V. BRINKLEY, 87 ARK.
400, 112 S.W. 1084(1908).  ONE STATE COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT
THE WILFUL EVASION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES CONSTITUTES MORAL
TURPITUDE.  LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSN. V. STEINER, 204 LA. 1073, 16
SO.2D 843(1944). 

FN14  THE TERM "MORAL TURPITUDE" FIRST APPEARED IN THE ACT OF MARCH
3, 1891, 26 STAT. 1084, WHICH DIRECTED THE EXCLUSION OF "PERSONS WHO
HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR OTHER INFAMOUS CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE."  SIMILAR LANGUAGE WAS REENACTED IN THE
STATUTES OF 1903 AND 1907.  SEC. 2, ACT OF MARCH 3, 1903, 32 STAT.
1213; SEC. 2, ACT OF FEB. 20, 1907, 34 STAT. 898.  IT HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED THAT THE FACT THAT THIS PHRASE HAS BEEN USED IN THE
IMMIGRATION LAWS FOR OVER SIXTY YEARS HAS NO WEIGHT IN UPHOLDING ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY.  OF COURSE, THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A STATUTE FOR OVER
SIXTY YEARS DOES NOT PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK.  WE
HAVE RECENTLY HELD AN EQUALLY ANCIENT STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR
VAGUENESS.  WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507(1948).  THERE, A STATUTE,
WHICH EMPLOYED VAGUE TERMINOLOGY WHOLLY LACKING IN COMMON LAW
BACKGROUND OR INTERPRETATION, WAS AIMED AT LIMITING RIGHTS OF FREE
SPEECH.  EVEN IN THE WINTERS CASE, HOWEVER, SEVERAL DISSENTING MEMBERS
OF THIS COURT WERE OF THE VIEW THAT THE VENERABILITY OF THE STATUTE WAS
AN ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED IN DECIDING THE QUESTION OF VAGUENESS. 

FN15  THE PHRASE "CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE" PRESENTS NO
GREATER UNCERTAINTY OR DIFFICULTY THAN LANGUAGE FOUND IN MANY OTHER
STATUTES REPEATEDLY SANCTIONED BY THE COURT.  THE SHERMAN ACT PROVIDES
THE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLE, "RESTRAINT OF TRADE" AS CONSTRUED TO MEAN
"UNREASONABLE OR UNDUE RESTRAINT OF TRADE," NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229
U.S. 373(1913).  COMPARE OTHER STATUTORY LANGUAGE WHICH HAS SURVIVED
ATTACK UNDER THE VAGUENESS DOCTRINE IN THIS COURT:  "IN EXCESS OF THE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED BY SUCH LICENSEE TO PERFORM ACTUAL
SERVICES," UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1(1947); "ANY OFFENSIVE,
DERISIVE OR ANNOYING WORD," CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S.
568(1942); "CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE," GORIN
V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 19(1941); "PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY,"
MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT, 309 U.S. 270(1940); "WILFULLY OVERVALUES
ANY SECURITY," KAY V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 1(1938); "FAIR AND OPEN
COMPETITION," OLD DEARBORN CO. V. SEAGRAM CORP., 299 U.S. 183(1936);
"REASONABLE VARIATIONS SHALL BE PERMITTED," UNITED STATES V. SHREVEPORT
GRAIN & ELEVATOR CO., 287 U.S. 77(1932); "UNREASONABLE WASTE OF NATURAL
GAS," BANDINI PETROLEUM CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8(1931);
"POLITICAL PURPOSES," UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH, 280 U.S. 396(1930);
"RANGE USUALLY OCCUPIED BY ANY CATTLE GROWER," OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO,
246 U.S. 343(1918). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

RESPONDENT, BECAUSE HE IS AN ALIEN, AND BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN TWICE
CONVICTED OF CRIMES THE COURT HOLDS INVOLVE "MORAL TURPITUDE," IS
PUNISHED WITH A LIFE SENTENCE OF BANISHMENT IN ADDITION TO THE
PUNISHMENT WHICH A CITIZEN WOULD SUFFER FOR THE IDENTICAL ACTS.  MR.
JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND I CANNOT AGREE, BECAUSE WE
BELIEVE THE PHRASE "CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE," AS FOUND IN THE
IMMIGRATION ACT,  FN1  HAS NO SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE MEANING TO BE A
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD FOR DEPORTATION. 

RESPONDENT MIGRATED TO THIS COUNTRY FROM HIS NATIVE ITALY IN 1921 AT
THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN.  HERE HE HAS LIVED TWENTY-NINE YEARS, IS MARRIED
TO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, AND HIS SON, CITIZEN BY BIRTH, IS NOW A
UNIVERSITY STUDENT.  IN MAY, 1938, HE PLEADED GUILTY TO A CHARGE OF
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE  FN2  AND WAS SENTENCED
TO IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR AND ONE DAY.  ON JUNE 6, 1941, HE WAS
CONVICTED OF A SECOND VIOLATION AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO
YEARS.  DURING THE DECADE SINCE, HE HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED OR CHARGED
WITH ANY LAW VIOLATION.  WHILE STILL IN PRISON, HOWEVER, DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED AGAINST HIM, RESULTING IN 1946, IN A
WARRANT FOR ARREST AND DEPORTATION. 

BY HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, DE GEORGE CHALLENGED THE DEPORTATION
ORDER UPON THE GROUND THAT HIS IS NOT A CRIME "INVOLVING MORAL
TURPITUDE."  THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT IT DID AND DISMISSED THE WRIT. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT THOUGHT IT DID NOT AND
REVERSED.  FN3 THERE IS A CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUITS.  FN4 

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS, AND WHAT THE COURT CANNOT GIVE, IS A BASIC
DEFINITION OF "MORAL TURPITUDE" TO GUIDE ADMINISTRATORS AND LOWER
COURTS. 

THE UNCERTAINTIES OF THIS STATUTE DO NOT ORIGINATE IN CONTRARIETY OF
JUDICIAL OPINION.  CONGRESS KNOWINGLY CONCEIVED IT IN CONFUSION. 
DURING THE HEARINGS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, OUT OF WHICH
EVENTUALLY CAME THE ACT OF 1917 IN CONTROVERSY, CLEAR WARNING OF ITS
DEFICIENCIES WAS SOUNDED AND NEVER DENIED. 

"MR. SABATH.  ...  (YOU) KNOW THAT A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED.  NO ONE CAN REALLY SAY WHAT IS MEANT BY SAYING A
CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.  UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, LARCENY IS
CONSIDERED A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE - THAT IS, STEALING.  WE
HAVE LAWS IN SOME STATES UNDER WHICH PICKING OUT A CHUNK OF COAL ON A
RAILROAD TRACK IS CONSIDERED LARCENY OR STEALING.  IN SOME STATES IT IS
CONSIDERED A FELONY.  SOME STATES HOLD THAT EVERY FELONY IS A CRIME
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.  IN SOME PLACES THE STEALING OF A WATERMELON
OR A CHICKEN IS LARCENY.  IN SOME STATES THE AMOUNT IS NOT STATED.  OF
COURSE, IF THE LARCENY IS OF AN ARTICLE, OR A THING WHICH IS LESS THAN
$20 IN VALUE, IT IS A MISDEMEANOR IN SOME STATES, BUT IN OTHER STATES
THERE IS NO DISTINCTION.  FN5  " 

DESPITE THIS NOTICE, CONGRESS DID NOT SEE FIT TO STATE WHAT MEANING
IT ATTRIBUTES TO THE PHRASE "CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE."  IT IS
NOT ONE WHICH HAS SETTLED SIGNIFICANCE FROM BEING WORDS OF ART IN THE
PROFESSION.  IF WE GO TO THE DICTIONARIES, THE LAST RESORT OF THE
BAFFLED JUDGE, WE LEARN LITTLE EXCEPT THAT THE EXPRESSION IS REDUNDANT,
FOR TURPITUDE ALONE MEANS MORAL WICKEDNESS OR DEPRAVITY N6 AND MORAL
TURPITUDE SEEMS TO MEAN LITTLE MORE THAN MORALLY IMMORAL.  FN7  THE
GOVERNMENT CONFESSES THAT IT IS "A TERM THAT IS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED,"
AND SAYS:  "THE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF MORAL TURPITUDE PROVIDE NO EXACT
TEST BY WHICH WE CAN CLASSIFY THE SPECIFIC OFFENSES HERE INVOLVED." 

EXCEPT FOR THE COURT'S OPINION, THERE APPEARS TO BE UNIVERSAL
RECOGNITION THAT WE HAVE HERE AN UNDEFINED AND UNDEFINABLE STANDARD. 
THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE PHRASE IS AMBIGUOUS AND HAVE PROPOSED A
VARIETY OF TESTS TO REDUCE THE ABSTRACT PROVISION OF THIS STATUTE TO
SOME CONCRETE MEANING. 

IT IS PROPOSED BY RESPONDENT, WITH STRONG SUPPORT IN LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, THAT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND ONLY CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.  FN8  IF
THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT THIS CONSTRUCTION, THE STATUTE BECOMES
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE, AND, OF COURSE, WOULD NOT REACH THE CRIMES OF
THE RESPONDENT. 

THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME AS A TEST AND SAYS
THE STATUTE IS ONE BY WHICH IT IS "SOUGHT TO REACH THE CONFIRMED
CRIMINAL, WHOSE CRIMINALITY HAS BEEN REVEALED IN TWO SERIOUS PENAL
OFFENSES."  BUT WE CANNOT, AND THE COURT DOES NOT, TAKE SERIOUSNESS AS
A TEST OF TURPITUDE.  ALL OFFENSES DENOUNCED BY CONGRESS, PROSECUTED BY
THE EXECUTIVE, AND CONVICTED BY THE COURTS, MUST BE DEEMED IN SOME
DEGREE "SERIOUS" OR LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE A FRIVOLOUS ENTERPRISE. 
HOWEVER, USE OF QUALIFYING WORDS MUST MEAN THAT NOT ALL STATUTORY
OFFENSES ARE SUBJECT TO THE TAINT OF TURPITUDE.  THE HIGHER DEGREES OF
CRIMINAL GRAVITY ARE COMMONLY CLASSIFIED AS FELONIES, THE LOWER ONES AS
MISDEMEANORS.  IF THE ACT CONTEMPLATED THAT REPETITION OF ANY SERIOUS
CRIME WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR DEPORTATION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLE AND
INTELLIGIBLE TO HAVE MENTIONED FELONIES.  BUT THE LANGUAGE USED
INDICATES THAT THERE ARE FELONIES WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED AND PERHAPS
THAT SOME MISDEMEANORS ARE.  WE CANNOT SEE THAT SERIOUSNESS AFFORDS ANY
STANDARD OF GUIDANCE. 

RESPONDENT SUGGESTS HERE, AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS ON OTHER OCCASIONS
TAKEN THE POSITION, THAT THE TRADITIONAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMES
MALA PROHIBITA AND THOSE MALA IN SE WILL AFFORD A KEY FOR THE
INCLUSIONS AND EXCLUSIONS OF THIS STATUTE.  FN9  BUT WE CANNOT OVERLOOK
THAT WHAT CRIMES BELONG IN WHICH CATEGORY HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF
CONTROVERSY FOR YEARS.  FN10  THIS CLASSIFICATION COMES TO US FROM
COMMON LAW, WHICH IN ITS EARLY HISTORY FREELY BLENDED RELIGIOUS
CONCEPTIONS OF SIN WITH LEGAL CONCEPTIONS OF CRIME.  THIS STATUTE SEEMS
TO REVERT TO THAT PRACTICE. 

THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, OFFERS THE MALA PROHIBITA, MALA IN SE
DOCTRINE HERE IN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERBIAGE FOR DETERMINING THE NATURE
OF THESE CRIMES.  IT SAYS: "ESSENTIALLY, THEY MUST BE MEASURED AGAINST
THE MORAL STANDARDS THAT PREVAIL IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE VIOLATIONS ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED ESSENTIALLY IMMORAL." 

CAN WE ACCEPT "THE MORAL STANDARDS THAT PREVAIL IN CONTEMPORARY
SOCIETY" AS A SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE STANDARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT?  THIS IS A LARGE COUNTRY AND ACTS THAT ARE REGARDED AS CRIMINAL IN
SOME STATES ARE LAWFUL IN OTHERS.  WE SUSPECT THAT MORAL STANDARDS
WHICH PREVAIL AS TO POSSESSION OR SALE OF LIQUOR THAT HAS EVADED TAX
MAY NOT BE UNIFORM IN ALL PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, NOR IN ALL LEVELS OF
"CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY."  HOW SHOULD WE ASCERTAIN THE MORAL SENTIMENTS
OF MASSES OF PERSONS ON ANY BETTER BASIS THAN A GUESS?  FN11 

THE COURT SEEMS NO MORE CONVINCED THAN ARE WE BY THE GOVERNMENT'S
ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE THESE NEBULOUS ABSTRACTIONS TO A CONCRETE WORKING
RULE, BUT TO SUSTAIN THIS PARTICULAR DEPORTATION IT IMPROVISES ANOTHER
WHICH FAILS TO CONVINCE US.  ITS THESIS IS (1) THAT THE STATUTE IS
SIXTY YEARS OLD, (2) THAT STATE COURTS HAVE USED THE SAME CONCEPT FOR
VARIOUS PURPOSES, AND (3) THAT FRAUD IMPORTS TURPITUDE INTO ANY
OFFENSE. 

1.  IT IS SOMETHING LESS THAN ACCURATE TO IMPLY THAT IN ANY SENSE
RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE THIS PHRASE HAS BEEN "PART OF THE IMMIGRATION
LAWS FOR MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS."  FN12 

BUT, IN ANY EVENT, VENERABILITY OF A VAGUE PHRASE MAY BE AN ARGUMENT
FOR ITS VALIDITY WHEN THE PASSING YEARS HAVE BY ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE
OR JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION SERVED TO MAKE IT CLEAR AS A WORD OF LEGAL
ART. TO BE SURE, THE PHRASE IN ITS PRESENT CONTEXT HAS BEEN ON THE
STATUTE BOOKS SINCE 1917.  IT HAS NEVER BEFORE BEEN IN ISSUE BEFORE
THIS COURT.  RELIANCE TODAY ON UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 289 U.S. 422, IS
UNWARRANTED.  THERE THE COURT ASSUMED WITHOUT ANALYSIS OR DISCUSSION A
PROPOSITION NOT SERIOUSLY RELIED ON.  THERE HAVE, HOWEVER, BEEN
SOMETHING LIKE FIFTY CASES IN LOWER COURTS WHICH APPLIED THIS PHRASE. 
NO ONE CAN READ THIS BODY OF OPINIONS AND FEEL THAT ITS APPLICATION
REPRESENTS A SATISFYING, RATIONAL PROCESS.  IF ANY CONSISTENT PATTERN
OF APPLICATION OR CONSENSUS OF MEANING COULD BE DISTILLED FROM JUDICIAL
DECISION, NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR THE COURT SPELLS IT OUT. 
IRRATIONALITY IS INHERENT IN THE TASK OF TRANSLATING THE RELIGIOUS AND
ETHICAL CONNOTATIONS OF THE PHRASE INTO LEGAL DECISIONS.  THE LOWER
COURT CASES SEEM TO REST, AS WE FEEL THIS COURT'S DECISION DOES, UPON
THE MORAL REACTIONS OF PARTICULAR JUDGES TO PARTICULAR OFFENSES.  WHAT
IS STRIKING ABOUT THE OPINIONS IN THESE "MORAL TURPITUDE" CASES IS THE
WEARISOME REPETITION OF CLICHES ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE "MORAL TURPITUDE,"
USUALLY A QUOTATION FROM BOUVIER.  BUT THE GUIDING LINE SEEMS TO HAVE
NO RELATION TO THE RESULT REACHED.  THE CHIEF IMPRESSION FROM THE CASES
IS THE CAPRICE OF THE JUDGMENTS.  FN13  HOW MANY ALIENS HAVE BEEN
DEPORTED WHO WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HAD SOME OTHER JUDGE HEARD THEIR
CASES, AND VICE VERSA, WE MAY ONLY GUESS.  THAT IS NOT GOVERNMENT BY
LAW.    2.  THE USE OF THE PHRASE BY STATE COURTS FOR VARIOUS CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS AFFORDS NO TEACHING FOR FEDERAL COURTS.  THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS NO COMMON-LAW CRIMES AND THE JUDGES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO
DEFINE CRIMES BY DECISION, FOR THEY REST SOLELY IN STATUTE.  FN14  NOR
ARE WE PERSUADED THAT THE STATE COURTS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DIVEST THE
PHRASE OF ITS INHERENT AMBIGUITIES AND VAGUENESS.    3.  THE COURT
CONCLUDES THAT FRAUD IS "A CONTAMINATING COMPONENT IN ANY CRIME" AND
IMPORTS "MORAL TURPITUDE."  THE FRAUD INVOLVED HERE IS NONPAYMENT OF A
TAX.  THE ALIEN POSSESSED AND APPARENTLY TRAFFICKED IN LIQUOR WITHOUT
PAYING THE GOVERNMENT ITS TAX.  THAT, OF COURSE, IS A FRAUD ON THE
REVENUES.  BUT THOSE WHO DEPLORE THE TRAFFIC REGARD IT AS MUCH AN
EXHIBITION OF MORAL TURPITUDE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SHARE ITS REVENUES
AS FOR RESPONDENTS TO WITHHOLD THEM.  THOSE OTHERS WHO ENJOY THE
TRAFFIC ARE NOT NOTABLE FOR SCRUPLES AS TO WHETHER LIQUOR HAS A LAW
ABIDING PEDIGREE.  SO FAR AS THIS OFFENSE IS CONCERNED WITH WHISKEY, IT
IS NOT PARTICULARLY UN-AMERICAN, AND WE SEE NO REASON TO STRAIN TO MAKE
THE PENALTY FOR THE SAME ACT SO MUCH MORE SEVERE IN THE CASE OF AN
ALIEN "BOOTLEGGER" THAN IT IS IN THE CASE OF A NATIVE "MOONSHINER."  I
HAVE NEVER DISCOVERED THAT DISREGARD OF THE NATION'S LIQUOR TAXES
EXCLUDED A CITIZEN FROM OUR BEST SOCIETY AND I SEE NO REASON WHY IT
SHOULD BANISH AN ALIEN FROM OUR WORST. 

BUT IT IS SAID HE HAS CHEATED THE REVENUES AND THE TOTAL IS COMPUTED
IN HIGH FIGURES.  IF "MORAL TURPITUDE" DEPENDS ON THE AMOUNT INVOLVED,
RESPONDENT IS PROBABLY ENTITLED TO A PLACE IN ITS HIGHER BRACKETS. 
WHETHER BY POPULAR TEST THE MAGNITUDE OF THE FRAUD WOULD BE AN
EXTENUATING OR AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, WE DO NOT KNOW.  WE WOULD
SUPPOSE THE BASIC MORALITY OF A FRAUD ON THE REVENUES WOULD BE THE SAME
FOR PETTY AS FOR GREAT CHEATS.  BUT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY KEEN
SENTIMENT OF REVULSION AGAINST ONE WHO IS A LITTLE NIGGARDLY ON A
CUSTOMS DECLARATION OR WHO EVADES A SALES TAX, A LOCAL CIGARETTE TAX,
OR FAILS TO KEEP HIS ACCOUNT SQUARE WITH A PARKING METER.  BUT PERHAPS
WHAT SHOCKS IS NOT THE OFFENSE SO MUCH AS A CONVICTION. 

WE SHOULD NOT FORGET THAT CRIMINALITY IS ONE THING - A MATTER OF LAW
AND THAT MORALITY, ETHICS AND RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS ARE ANOTHER.  THEIR
RELATIONS HAVE PUZZLED THE BEST OF MEN.  ASSASSINATION, FOR EXAMPLE,
WHOSE CRIMINALITY NO ONE DOUBTS, HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF SERIOUS DEBATE
AS TO ITS MORALITY.  FN15  THIS DOES NOT MAKE CRIME LESS CRIMINAL, BUT
IT SHOWS ON WHAT TREACHEROUS GROUNDS WE TREAD WHEN WE UNDERTAKE TO
TRANSLATE ETHICAL CONCEPTS INTO LEGAL ONES, CASE BY CASE.  WE USUALLY
END UP BY CONDEMNING ALL THAT WE PERSONALLY DISAPPROVE AND FOR NO
BETTER REASON THAN THAT WE DISAPPROVE IT.  IN FACT, WHAT BETTER REASON
IS THERE?  UNIFORMITY AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW CAN COME ONLY
FROM A STATUTORY DEFINITION OF FAIRLY STABLE AND CONFINED BOUNDS. 

A DIFFERENT QUESTION MIGHT BE BEFORE US HAD CONGRESS INDICATED THAT
THE DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS THAT A CRIME
INVOLVES "MORAL TURPITUDE" SHOULD BE GIVEN THE WEIGHT USUALLY
ATTRIBUTED TO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE,
NOR HAVE THE COURTS SO INTERPRETED THE STATUTE.  IN THE FIFTY-ODD CASES
EXAMINED, NO WEIGHT WAS ATTACHED TO THE DECISION OF THAT QUESTION BY
THE BOARD, THE COURT IN EACH CASE MAKING ITS OWN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS
AND CONCLUSION.  APPARENTLY, CONGRESS EXPECTED THE COURTS TO DETERMINE
THE VARIOUS CRIMES INCLUDABLE IN THIS VAGUE PHRASE.  FN16  WE THINK
THAT NOT A JUDICIAL FUNCTION. 

A RESIDENT ALIEN IS ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  FN17  WE HAVE
SAID THAT DEPORTATION IS EQUIVALENT TO BANISHMENT OR EXILE.  FN18
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS TECHNICALLY ARE NOT CRIMINAL; BUT PRACTICALLY
THEY ARE FOR THEY EXTEND THE CRIMINAL PROCESS OF SENTENCING TO INCLUDE
ON THE SAME CONVICTIONS AN ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT OF DEPORTATION.  IF
RESPONDENT WERE A CITIZEN, HIS AGGREGATE SENTENCES OF THREE YEARS AND A
DAY WOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED LONG SINCE AND HIS PUNISHMENT ENDED.  BUT
BECAUSE OF HIS ALIENAGE, HE IS ABOUT TO BEGIN A LIFE SENTENCE OF EXILE
FROM WHAT HAS BECOME HOME, OF SEPARATION FROM HIS ESTABLISHED MEANS OF
LIVELIHOOD FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.  THIS IS A
SAVAGE PENALTY AND WE BELIEVE DUE PROCESS OF LAW REQUIRES STANDARDS FOR
IMPOSING IT AS DEFINITE AND CERTAIN AS THOSE FOR CONVICTION OF CRIME. 

STRANGELY ENOUGH, THE COURT DOES NOT EVEN PAY THE TRIBUTE OF A
CITATION TO ITS RECENT DECISION IN MUSSER V. UTAH, 333 U.S. 95, WHERE A
MAJORITY JOINED IN VACATING AND REMANDING A DECISION WHICH HAD
SUSTAINED CONVICTIONS UNDER A UTAH STATUTE WHICH MADE CRIMINAL A
CONSPIRACY "TO COMMIT ACTS INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC MORALS."  WE SAID OF
THAT STATUTE:  "STANDING BY ITSELF, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE WARRANT FOR
CONVICTION FOR AGREEMENT TO DO ALMOST ANY ACT WHICH A JUDGE AND JURY
MIGHT FIND AT THE MOMENT CONTRARY TO HIS OR ITS NOTIONS OF WHAT WAS
GOOD FOR HEALTH, MORALS, TRADE, COMMERCE, JUSTICE OR ORDER."  333 U.S.
AT 97.  FOR MY PART, I AM UNABLE TO RATIONALIZE WHY "ACTS INJURIOUS TO
PUBLIC MORALS" IS VAGUE IF "MORAL TURPITUDE" IS NOT.  AND ON REMAND,
THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH SAID:  "WE ARE  ...  UNABLE TO PLACE A
CONSTRUCTION ON THESE WORDS WHICH LIMITS THEIR MEANING BEYOND THEIR
GENERAL MEANING."  STATE V. MUSSER,  - UTAH - , - , 223 P.2D 193,
194(OCT.  20, 1950). 

IN WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507, THE COURT DIRECTLY STRUCK DOWN
FOR INDEFINITENESS A STATUTE SIXTY YEARS ON THE STATUTE BOOKS OF NEW
YORK AND INDIRECTLY LIKE STATUTES LONG ON THE BOOKS OF HALF THE STATES
OF THE UNION.  FN19  THE NEW YORK STATUTE MADE A PERSON GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR WHO IN ANY WAY DISTRIBUTES "ANY BOOK, PAMPHLET, MAGAZINE,
NEWSPAPER OR OTHER PRINTED PAPER DEVOTED TO THE PUBLICATION, AND
PRINCIPALLY MADE UP OF CRIMINAL NEWS, POLICE REPORTS, OR ACCOUNTS OF
CRIMINAL DEEDS, OR PICTURES, OR STORIES OF DEEDS OF BLOODSHED, LUST OR
CRIME; ...  " 333 U.S. AT 508.  THAT STATUTE WAS CERTAINLY NO MORE
VAGUE THAN THE ONE BEFORE US NOW AND HAD NOT CAUSED EVEN A FRACTION OF
THE JUDICIAL CONFLICT THAT "MORAL TURPITUDE" HAS. 

IN WINTERS V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, THE COURT RESTED HEAVILY ON CONNALLY
V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385, IN WHICH THIS COURT FOUND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL INDEFINITENESS IN A STATUTE CALLING FOR "THE CURRENT
RATE OF PER DIEM WAGES IN THE LOCALITY" WHERE CONTRACTORS WERE DOING
GOVERNMENT WORK.  (THE SANCTION OF THE STATUTE WAS A RELATIVELY SMALL
MONEY FINE, OR A MAXIMUM OF SIX MONTHS, THOUGH OF COURSE A CORPORATE
VIOLATOR COULD ONLY BE SUBJECTED TO THE FINE.)  THE TEST BY WHICH
VAGUENESS WAS TO BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE CONNALLY CASE WAS THAT
LEGISLATION USES TERMS "SO VAGUE THAT MEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST
NECESSARILY GUESS AT ITS MEANING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION  ...
"  269 U.S. AT 391.  IT WOULD SEEM TO BE DIFFICULT TO FIND A MORE
STRIKING INSTANCE THAN WE HAVE HERE OF SUCH A PHRASE SINCE IT REQUIRES
EVEN JUDGES TO GUESS AND PERMITS THEM TO DIFFER. 

WE DO NOT DISAGREE WITH A POLICY OF EXTREME RELUCTANCE TO ADJUDGE A
CONGRESSIONAL ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT WE DO NOT HERE QUESTION THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEFINE DEPORTABLE CONDUCT.  WE ONLY QUESTION THE
POWER OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS AND COURTS TO DECREE DEPORTATION UNTIL
CONGRESS HAS GIVEN AN INTELLIGIBLE DEFINITION OF DEPORTABLE CONDUCT. 

FN1  SECTION 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, 39
STAT. 889, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A). 

FN2  53 STAT. 401, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 3321. 

FN3  183 F.2D 768. 

FN4  UNITED STATES EX REL. BERLANDI V. REIMER, 113 F.2D 429(C.A.2D
CIR.) AND MAITA V. HAFF, 116 F.2D 337(C.A.9TH CIR.) HOLD THIS CRIME
INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE.  CF. GUARNERI V. KESSLER, 98 F.2D 580(C.A.5TH
CIR.), CERT. DENIED, 305 U.S. 648. 

FN5  HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 10384, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8. 

FN6  BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY DEFINES TURPITUDE AS:  "(INHERENT)
BASENESS OR VILENESS OF PRINCIPLE OR ACTION; SHAMEFUL WICKEDNESS;
DEPRAVITY."  AN EXAMPLE OF ITS USE ALONE TO SIGNIFY IMMORALITY MAY BE
TAKEN FROM MACAULAY, WHOSE MOST BITTER CRITICS WOULD ADMIT HE WAS A
MASTER OF THE ENGLISH WORD.  "(THE) ARTISTS CORRUPTED THE SPECTATORS,
AND THE SPECTATORS THE ARTISTS, TILL THE TURPITUDE OF THE DRAMA BECAME
SUCH AS MUST ASTONISH ALL WHO ARE NOT AWARE THAT EXTREME RELAXATION IS
THE NATURAL EFFECT OF EXTREME RESTRAINT."  HISTORY OF ENGLAND, VOL. I
(1849 ED.), P. 374. 

FN7  BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, RAWLES THIRD REVISION, DEFINES "MORAL
TURPITUDE" AS "AN ACT OF BASENESS, VILENESS OR DEPRAVITY IN THE PRIVATE
AND SOCIAL DUTIES WHICH A MAN OWES TO HIS FELLOW MEN OR TO SOCIETY IN
GENERAL, CONTRARY TO THE ACCEPTED AND CUSTOMARY RULE OF RIGHT AND DUTY
BETWEEN MAN AND MAN." 

FN8  "MR. WOODS.  ...  I WOULD MAKE PROVISIONS TO GET RID OF AN ALIEN
IN THIS COUNTRY WHO COMES HERE AND COMMITS FELONIES AND BURGLARIES,
HOLDS YOU UP ON THE STREETS, AND COMMITS CRIMES AGAINST OUR DAUGHTERS,
BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT THAT KIND OF ALIEN HERE, AND THEY HAVE NO RIGHT
TO BE HERE.  ...  THE RULE IS THAT IF WE GET A MAN IN THIS COUNTRY WHO
HAS NOT BECOME A CITIZEN, WHO KNOCKS DOWN PEOPLE IN THE STREET, WHO
MURDERS OR WHO ATTEMPTS TO MURDER PEOPLE, WHO BURGLARIZES OUR HOUSES
WITH BLACKJACK AND REVOLVER, WHO ATTACKS OUR WOMEN IN THE CITY, THOSE
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE HERE  ...  "  HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 10384, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
14.  MR. WOODS WAS NOT AN ORDINARY WITNESS.  AS THE THEN POLICE
COMMISSIONER OF NEW YORK CITY, HIS TESTIMONY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MOST
INFLUENTIAL IN THIS PROVISION OF THE 1917 ACT. 

FN9  IN VOLUME II OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS UNDER IMMIGRATION AND
NATIONALITY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, P. 141, THERE IS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION BY THE DEPARTMENT THEN HAVING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  IN AN OPINION ON A DEPORTATION PROCEEDING
DECIDED BY THE BOARD JUNE 26, 1944, AND APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL JULY 12, 1944, THE STATEMENT WAS QUOTED WITH APPROVAL: 

"'A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE MAY BE EITHER A FELONY OR
MISDEMEANOR, EXISTING AT COMMON LAW OR CREATED BY STATUTE, AND IS AN
ACT OR OMISSION WHICH IS MALUM IN SE AND NOT MERELY MALUM PROHIBITUM;
WHICH IS ACTUATED BY MALICE OR COMMITTED WITH KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTION
AND NOT DONE INNOCENTLY OR (WITHOUT ADVERTENCE) OR REFLECTION; WHICH IS
SO FAR CONTRARY TO THE MORAL LAW, AS INTERPRETED BY THE GENERAL MORAL
SENSE OF THE COMMUNITY, THAT THE OFFENDER IS BROUGHT TO PUBLIC
DISGRACE, IS NO LONGER GENERALLY RESPECTED, OR IS DEPRIVED OF SOCIAL
RECOGNITION BY GOOD LIVING PERSONS; BUT WHICH IS NOT THE OUTCOME MERELY
OF NATURAL PASSION, OF ANIMAL SPIRITS, OF INFIRMITY OF TEMPER, OF
WEAKNESS OF CHARACTER, OF MISTAKEN PRINCIPLES, UNACCOMPANIED BY A
VICIOUS MOTIVE OR A CORRUPT MIND.'" 

FN10  CRIMES MALA IN SE, ACCORDING TO BLACKSTONE, ARE OFFENSES
AGAINST "(THOSE) RIGHTS THEN WHICH GOD AND NATURE HAVE ESTABLISHED, AND
ARE THEREFORE CALLED NATURAL RIGHTS, SUCH AS ARE LIFE AND LIBERTY,  ...
THE WORSHIP OF GOD, THE MAINTENANCE OF CHILDREN, AND THE LIKE."  THEY
ARE "CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, THAT ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE SUPERIOR LAWS,
AND THEREFORE STYLED MALA IN SE (CRIMES IN THEMSELVES), SUCH AS MURDER,
THEFT, AND PERJURY; WHICH CONTRACT NO ADDITIONAL TURPITUDE FROM BEING
DECLARED UNLAWFUL BY THE INFERIOR LEGISLATURE."  ACCORDING TO
BLACKSTONE, CRIMES MALA PROHIBITA "ENJOIN ONLY POSITIVE DUTIES, AND
FORBID ONLY SUCH THINGS AS ARE NOT MALA IN SE  ... WITHOUT ANY
INTERMIXTURE OF MORAL GUILT."  ILLUSTRATIVE OF THIS TYPE OF CRIME ARE
"EXERCISING TRADES WITHOUT SERVING AN APPRENTICESHIP THERETO, FOR NOT
BURYING THE DEAD IN WOOLLEN, FOR NOT PERFORMING THE STATUTE-WORK ON THE
PUBLIC ROADS, AND FOR INNUMERABLE OTHER POSITIVE MISDEMEANORS.  NOW
THESE PROHIBITORY LAWS DO NOT MAKE THE TRANSGRESSION A MORAL OFFENSE,
OR SIN:  THE ONLY OBLIGATION IN CONSCIENCE IS TO SUBMIT TO THE PENALTY,
IF LEVIED."  "(AND) HIS CONSCIENCE WILL BE CLEAR, WHICH EVER SIDE OF
THE ALTERNATIVE HE THINKS PROPER TO EMBRACE."  COOLEY'S BLACKSTONE,
VOL. I (4TH ED.), PP.*  54,*  58.  OF THIS, J. W. C. URNER SAYS:  "SOME
OF THE WEAK POINTS IN THIS DOCTRINE WERE DETECTED BY AN EARLY EDITOR OF
BLACKSTONE, AND IN MODERN TIMES IT IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS QUITE
DISCREDITED."  THE MODERN APPROACH TO CRIMINAL LAW 221.  AND CF. UNITED
STATES V. BALINT, 258 U.S. 250. 

FN11  AS JUDGE LEARNED HAND PUT IT, IN ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE A
SIMILAR CONFLICT:  "EVEN THOUGH WE COULD TAKE A POLL, IT WOULD NOT BE
ENOUGH MERELY TO COUNT HEADS, WITHOUT ANY APPRAISAL OF THE VOTERS.  A
MAJORITY OF THE VOTES OF THOSE IN PRISONS AND BROTHELS, FOR INSTANCE,
OUGHT SCARCELY TO OUTWEIGH THE VOTES OF ACCREDITED CHURCHGOERS.  NOR
CAN WE SEE ANY REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THE OPINION OF CLERGYMEN WOULD BE
A MORE RELIABLE ESTIMATE THAN OUR OWN."  SCHMIDT V. UNITED STATES, 177
F.2D 450, 451(C.A.2D CIR.). 

FN12  WE ARE CONSTRUING THE ACT OF 1917 AND NOT THE EARLIER
IMMIGRATION ACTS, THOSE OF MARCH 3, 1891, 26 STAT. 1084; MARCH 3, 1903,
32 STAT. 1213; FEBRUARY 20, 1907, 34 STAT. 898.  ALL OF THESE PRIOR
STATUTES ALLOWED DEPORTATION FOR CONVICTION FOR EVERY FELONY OR CRIME,
WHICH MEANT FOR CONVICTION OF EVERY CRIME INVOLVING A SENTENCE OF NOT
LESS THAN A YEAR.  IT THEN ADDED ANOTHER DEPORTABLE CATEGORY, TO WIT,
MISDEMEANORS INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.  IN ADDITION TO ALL CRIMES
INVOLVING A SENTENCE OF A YEAR OR MORE, THE EARLIER ACTS CARVED OUT A
SMALL CATEGORY OF PETTY OFFENSES, WHEN THEY WERE OF A KIND "INVOLVING
MORAL TURPITUDE," I.E., OFFENSES EVEN THOUGH CARRYING A SMALL SENTENCE
HAVING A MANIFESTATION OF INTRINSIC BADNESS.  BUT THAT CREATES A VERY
DIFFERENT PROBLEM FROM REQUIRING US TO DISCRIMINATE AMONG ALL OFFENSES,
FELONIES AND MISDEMEANORS ON THE BASIS OF INTRINSIC BADNESS.    FN13
HOW UNGUIDING THE GUIDE "MORAL TURPITUDE" IS, IN RELATION TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT OF 1917, CAN BE SHOWN BY THREE PAIRS OF CASES: 

(1)  IN TILLINGHAST V. EDMEAD, 31 F.2D 81, THE FIRST CIRCUIT, OVER A
PUNGENT DISSENT, HELD THAT A CONVICTION FOR PETTY LARCENY BY AN
"IGNORANT COLORED GIRL" WORKING AS A DOMESTIC WAS AN OFFENSE INVOLVING
"MORAL TURPITUDE."  ON THE OTHER HAND, IN UNITED STATES V. UHL, 107
F.2D 399, THE SECOND CIRCUIT HELD THAT CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF A
JIMMY, WITH INTENT TO USE IT IN THE COMMISSION OF SOME CRIME, THE JIMMY
BEING "ADAPTED, DESIGNED AND COMMONLY USED FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIMES OF BURGLARY AND LARCENY" WAS NOT FOR AN OFFENSE INVOLVING "MORAL
TURPITUDE." 

(2)  IN UNITED STATES V. DAY, 15 F.2D 391(D.C.S.D.N.Y.), JUDGE KNOX
HELD THAT AN ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE, THOUGH BY ONE INTOXICATED,
CONSTITUTED A CRIME INVOLVING "MORAL TURPITUDE."  BUT IN UNITED STATES
V. ZIMMERMAN, 71 F.SUPP.  534(D.C.E.D. PA.), JUDGE MARIS HELD THAT JAIL
BREAKING BY A BANK ROBBER AWAITING TRIAL WAS NOT AN OFFENSE INVOLVING
"MORAL TURPITUDE." 

(3)  IN ROUSSEAU V. WEEDIN, 284 F. 565, THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT
ONE WHO WAS CONVICTED OF BEING A "JOINTIST" UNDER A WASHINGTON STATUTE
PROHIBITING "THE UNLAWFUL SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR" WAS DEPORTABLE
AS HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME INVOLVING "MORAL TURPITUDE."  WHILE IN
HAMPTON V. WONG GING, 299 F. 289, IT HELD (WITH THE SAME TWO JUDGES
SITTING IN BOTH CASES) THAT A CONVICTION UNDER THE NARCOTIC ACT WAS NOT
OF ITSELF A CRIME OF "MORAL TURPITUDE," SINCE THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW
WHETHER THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH CONVICTION WAS HAD WAS "OF SUCH AN
AGGRAVATED CHARACTER AS TO INVOLVE MORAL TURPITUDE." 

FN14  VIERECK V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 236, 241. 

FN15  JOHN STUART MILL, REFERRING TO THE MORALITY OF ASSASSINATION OF
POLITICAL USURPERS, PASSED BY EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT OF
TYRANNICIDE, AS FOLLOWS:  "I SHALL CONTENT MYSELF WITH SAYING THAT THE
SUBJECT HAS BEEN AT ALL TIMES ONE OF THE OPEN QUESTIONS OF MORALS; THAT
THE ACT OF A PRIVATE CITIZEN IN STRIKING DOWN A CRIMINAL, WHO, BY
RAISING HIMSELF ABOVE THE LAW, HAS PLACED HIMSELF BEYOND THE REACH OF
LEGAL PUNISHMENT OR CONTROL, HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED BY WHOLE NATIONS, AND
BY SOME OF THE BEST AND WISEST OF MEN, NOT A CRIME, BUT AN ACT OF
EXALTED VIRTUE; AND THAT, RIGHT OR WRONG, IT IS NOT OF THE NATURE OF
ASSASSINATION, BUT OF CIVIL WAR."  MILL, ON LIBERTY AND CONSIDERATIONS
ON REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, P. 14, N. 1. 

THE VICE OF LEAVING STATUTES THAT INFLICT PENALTIES SO VAGUE IN
DEFINITION THAT THEY THROW THE JUDGE IN EACH CASE BACK UPON HIS OWN
NOTIONS IS THE UNCONSCIOUS TENDENCY TO 

"COMPOUND FOR SINS THEY ARE INCLIN'D TO, 

BY DAMNING THOSE THEY HAVE NO MIND TO." 

BUTLER, HUDIBRAS, VOL. I (1772 ED.), 28. 

FN16  HOWEVER, A STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION MAY SUGGEST ANOTHER EXPLANATION:  "MY
RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS
DETERMINED WHAT CRIMES ARE CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE UNDER THE
FEDERAL LAW, AND IF SO, THAT WOULD CONTROL, I SHOULD THINK."  HEARINGS
BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 10384,
64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8. 

FN17  WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33. 

FN18  FONG HAW TAN V. PHELAN, 333 U.S. 6, 10. 

FN19  THE COURT'S REFERENCE TO THE DISSENT IN THE WINTERS CASE WOULD
SEEM TO MAKE QUESTIONABLE ITS PRESENT FORCE AS AN AUTHORITY. 
..END :






MONTANA-DAKOTA CO. V. PUB. SERV. CO., 341 U.S. 246 


NO. 77.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 27, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 7, 1951.  - 181 F.2D
19, AFFIRMED ON A DIFFERENT GROUND. 


PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT ARE PUBLIC UTILITY ELECTRIC COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 
FOR TEN YEARS, WHILE UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT THROUGH INTERLOCKING
DIRECTORATES AND JOINT OFFICERS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR AND RESPONDENT INTERCHANGED
ELECTRIC ENERGY, SHARED EXPENSES AND MADE A NUMBER OF INTERCOMPANY
CONTRACTS ESTABLISHING RATES AND CHARGES WHICH WERE FILED WITH AND
ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSION.  AFTER SEPARATION OF THEIR MANAGEMENT,
PETITIONER SUED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO RECOUP LOSSES ALLEGED TO
HAVE RESULTED FROM ITS PREDECESSOR PAYING RESPONDENT UNREASONABLY HIGH
CHARGES FOR WHAT RESPONDENT FURNISHED IT AND RECEIVING UNREASONABLY LOW
RATES FOR WHAT IT FURNISHED RESPONDENT.  IT ALLEGED THAT THESE RATES
AND CHARGES WERE FRAUDULENT AND UNLAWFUL AND WERE DUE TO THE
INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES, WHICH PREVENTED PROTEST TO THE COMMISSION TO
HAVE REASONABLE RATES AND CHARGES ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  THERE WAS NO DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES; AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION WAS ASSERTED
SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE AROSE UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 
HELD: 

1.  SINCE THE COMPLAINT ASSERTED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT
STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION MAINTAINABLE IN A FEDERAL COURT AND, IF SO,
WHETHER IT WAS SUSTAINED ON THE FACTS.  P. 249. 

2.  THE COMPLAINT STATED NO CAUSE OF ACTION MAINTAINABLE IN A FEDERAL
COURT.  PP. 249-255. 

(A)  UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, THE RIGHT TO A REASONABLE RATE IS
THE RIGHT TO THE RATE WHICH THE COMMISSION FILES OR FIXES; AND, EXCEPT
FOR REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS, A COURT CAN ASSUME NO RIGHT TO A
DIFFERENT RATE ON THE GROUND THAT, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, SUCH
DIFFERENT RATE IS THE ONLY REASONABLE RATE OR A MORE REASONABLE RATE. 
PP. 250-252. 

(B)  IN THE ABSENCE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE ALLEGATION OF
FRAUD RESULTING FROM THE INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIP DID NOT STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION MAINTAINABLE IN A FEDERAL COURT.  PP. 252-253. 

(C)  SINCE THE FEDERAL POWER ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO
GRANT REPARATIONS FOR UNREASONABLE RATES COLLECTED IN THE PAST, THE
DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT PROPERLY REFER THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION FOR
DETERMINATION OF THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES HERE INVOLVED.  PP.
253-254. 

3.  SINCE THE CASE INVOLVES ONLY ISSUES WHICH A FEDERAL COURT CANNOT
DECIDE AND CAN ONLY REFER TO A BODY WHICH ALSO WOULD HAVE NO
INDEPENDENT JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THEM, THE COMPLAINT MUST BE
DISMISSED.  P. 255. 

MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES CO. V. NORTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT ALLEGED TO BE FOUNDED ON THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, THE
DISTRICT COURT AWARDED PETITIONER A JUDGMENT FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED ON
PAST RATES AND CHARGES WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND TO BE
UNREASONABLE AND BASED ON FRAUD.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  181 F.2D 19. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 806.  AFFIRMED ON A DIFFERENT
GROUND, P. 255. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT ARE PUBLIC ELECTRIC UTILITIES COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR AND
RESPONDENT WERE UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT THROUGH INTERLOCKING
DIRECTORSHIPS AND JOINT OFFICERS.  DURING THAT RELATIONSHIP THE TWO
INTERCHANGED ELECTRIC ENERGY, SHARED EXPENSES, AND MADE A NUMBER OF
INTERCOMPANY CONTRACTS ESTABLISHING RATES AND CHARGES, WHICH CONTRACTS
WERE FILED WITH AND ACCEPTED BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  THESE
CONTRACT RATES AND CHARGES ARE AT THE ROOT OF THIS CONTROVERSY. 
PETITIONER CHARGES THAT, DURING THE PERIOD 1935-1945, ITS PREDECESSOR
PAID RESPONDENT UNREASONABLY HIGH PRICES FOR WHAT RESPONDENT FURNISHED
IT, AND THAT IT RECEIVED UNREASONABLY LOW RATES FOR WHAT IT PROVIDED
RESPONDENT.  THAT ADVANTAGE, IT IS ALLEGED, WAS FRAUDULENT AND UNLAWFUL
AND WAS DUE TO THE INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATE, WHICH PREVENTED PROTEST TO
THE COMMISSION TO HAVE REASONABLE RATES AND CHARGES ESTABLISHED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  FN1 

PETITIONER SUED IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AND ASSERTED
JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE "ARISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES"  FN2  AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, UNDER A
"LAW REGULATING COMMERCE," N3 SPECIFICALLY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

PETITIONER WAS SUCCESSFUL IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH FOUND THE
CONTRACTS VOID FOR FRAUD AND THE RATES AND CHARGES ESTABLISHED THEREIN
UNREASONABLE.  THE COURT ALSO DETERMINED WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN
REASONABLE RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AND GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITS CONCEPTION OF REASONABLE
CHARGES AND THE ACTUAL CHARGES, AMOUNTING TO OVER THREE-QUARTERS OF A
MILLION DOLLARS.  FN4 

THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION.  FN5 

AS FREQUENTLY HAPPENS WHERE JURISDICTION DEPENDS ON SUBJECT MATTER,
THE QUESTION WHETHER JURISDICTION EXISTS HAS BEEN CONFUSED WITH THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE JUDICIAL
CODE, IN VESTING JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, DOES NOT CREATE
CAUSES OF ACTION, BUT ONLY CONFERS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THOSE
ARISING FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH SATISFY ITS LIMITING PROVISIONS. 
PETITIONER ASSERTED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE POWER ACT.  TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THAT CLAIM IS WELL FOUNDED, THE DISTRICT COURT MUST
TAKE JURISDICTION, WHETHER ITS ULTIMATE RESOLUTION IS TO BE IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE OR THE NEGATIVE.  IF THE COMPLAINT RAISES A FEDERAL
QUESTION, THE MERE CLAIM CONFERS POWER TO DECIDE THAT IT HAS NO MERIT,
AS WELL AS TO DECIDE THAT IT HAS.  IN THE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES,
"  ...  IF THE PLAINTIFF REALLY MAKES A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM UNDER AN ACT
OF CONGRESS THERE IS JURISDICTION WHETHER THE CLAIM ULTIMATELY BE HELD
GOOD OR BAD."  THE FAIR V. KOHLER DIE CO., 228 U.S. 22, 25.  SEE ALSO
HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238, 240.  EVEN A PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS
COMPLAINT MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT TO CONFER POWER TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION
THAT IT IS OF THAT NATURE, BINDING AS RES JUDICATA ON THE PARTIES. 

PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT, IN SUBSTANCE, ALLEGES EXISTENCE OF THE
INTERLOCKING DIRECTORSHIP, CONTENDS THAT SUCH RELATIONSHIP WAS USED
FRAUDULENTLY TO DEPRIVE IT OF ITS FEDERALLY CONFERRED RIGHT TO
REASONABLE RATES AND CHARGES, AND DEMANDS REPARATIONS.  WE THINK THERE
WAS POWER IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE CLAIMS SO
GROUNDED CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION MAINTAINABLE IN FEDERAL COURT
AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT IS SUSTAINED ON THE FACTS.  WE THINK A DIRECTION
TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION WAS ERROR AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT
STAND AS A PRECEDENT. 

HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REASON UNDERLYING THE COURT OF APPEALS'
DECISION WAS THAT NO FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION WAS ESTABLISHED.  IF THIS
WAS CORRECT, WE SHOULD SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL, THOUGH ON
OTHER GROUNDS THAN THOSE STATED. 

THE PETITIONER'S PROBLEM IS TO AVOID SCYLLA WITHOUT BEING DRAWN INTO
CHARYBDIS.  IF ITS CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES FROM FRAUD AND DECEIT, IT IS
A COMMON-LAW ACTION OF WHICH A FEDERAL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION, THERE
BEING NO DIVERSITY IN CITIZENSHIP OF THESE PARTIES.  BUT IF IT ARISES
FROM BEING CHARGED RATES IN EXCESS OF THOSE PERMITTED BY THE POWER ACT,
IT IS CONFRONTED WITH THE EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF THE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE WHAT THOSE RATES ARE TO BE.  HENCE, IT IS NECESSARY TO BRING
THE CASE INTO COURT, NOT AS A FRAUD ACTION, BUT AS ONE TO ENFORCE THE
POWER ACT, USING THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD TO ESCAPE THE LIMITATIONS OF
THE POWER COMMISSION REMEDIES. 

I. 

PETITIONER IDENTIFIES AS THE SOURCE OF ITS CAUSE OF ACTION THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT'S REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLE ELECTRIC UTILITY RATES,
FN6  WHICH, IT CONTENDS, CREATES ITS LEGAL RIGHT TO RATES WHICH A COURT
MAY DEEM REASONABLE, EVEN IF DIFFERENT FROM THOSE ACCEPTED BY THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  IT IS ADMITTED, HOWEVER, THAT A UTILITY
COULD NOT INSTITUTE A SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT TO RECOVER A PORTION OF
PAST RATES WHICH IT SIMPLY ALLEGES WERE UNREASONABLE.  IT WOULD BE OUT
OF COURT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, FOR, AT ANY
TIME IN THE PAST, IT COULD HAVE APPLIED FOR AND SECURED A REVIEW AND,
PERHAPS, A REDUCTION OF THE RATES BY THE COMMISSION.  FN7 

PETITIONER GIVES ITS CASE A DIFFERENT CAST BY ALLEGING THAT BY
FRAUDULENT ABUSE OF THE INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIP ITS PREDECESSOR WAS
DEPRIVED OF ITS INDEPENDENCE AND POWER TO RESORT TO ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY. 

BUT THE PROBLEM IS WHETHER IT IS OPEN TO THE COURTS TO DETERMINE WHAT
THE REASONABLE RATES DURING THE PAST SHOULD HAVE BEEN.  THE PETITIONER,
IN CONTENDING THAT THEY ARE SO EMPOWERED, AND THE DISTRICT COURT, IN
UNDERTAKING TO EXERCISE THAT POWER, BOTH REGARD REASONABLENESS AS A
JUSTICIABLE LEGAL RIGHT RATHER THAN A CRITERION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
APPLICATION IN DETERMINING A LAWFUL RATE.  STATUTORY REASONABLENESS IS
AN ABSTRACT QUALITY REPRESENTED BY AN AREA RATHER THAN A PINPOINT.  IT
ALLOWS A SUBSTANTIAL SPREAD BETWEEN WHAT IS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE TOO
LOW AND WHAT IS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE TOO HIGH.  TO REDUCE THE ABSTRACT
CONCEPT OF REASONABLENESS TO CONCRETE EXPRESSION IN DOLLARS AND CENTS
IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION.  IT IS NOT THE DISEMBODIED
"REASONABLENESS" BUT THAT STANDARD WHEN EMBODIED IN A RATE WHICH THE
COMMISSION ACCEPTS OR DETERMINES THAT GOVERNS THE RIGHTS OF BUYER AND
SELLER.  A COURT MAY THINK A DIFFERENT LEVEL MORE REASONABLE.  BUT THE
PRESCRIPTION OF THE STATUTE IS A STANDARD FOR THE COMMISSION TO APPLY
AND, INDEPENDENTLY OF COMMISSION ACTION, CREATES NO RIGHT WHICH COURTS
MAY ENFORCE. 

PETITIONER CANNOT SEPARATE WHAT CONGRESS HAS JOINED TOGETHER.  IT
CANNOT LITIGATE IN A JUDICIAL FORUM ITS GENERAL RIGHT TO A REASONABLE
RATE, IGNORING THE QUALIFICATION THAT IT SHALL BE MADE SPECIFIC ONLY BY
EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT, IN WHICH THERE IS SOME
CONSIDERABLE ELEMENT OF DISCRETION.  IT CAN CLAIM NO RATE AS A LEGAL
RIGHT THAT IS OTHER THAN THE FILED RATE, WHETHER FIXED OR MERELY
ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSION, AND NOT EVEN A COURT CAN AUTHORIZE COMMERCE
IN THE COMMODITY ON OTHER TERMS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE RIGHT TO A REASONABLE RATE IS THE RIGHT TO THE RATE
WHICH THE COMMISSION FILES OR FIXES, AND THAT, EXCEPT FOR REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS, THE COURTS CAN ASSUME NO RIGHT TO A DIFFERENT ONE
ON THE GROUND THAT, IN ITS OPINION, IT IS THE ONLY OR THE MORE
REASONABLE ONE. 

                                 II. 

THE PETITIONER HERE CONTENDS THAT ITS CASE IS DIFFERENT BY REASON OF
ITS ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD.  THOSE, THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THEM, AND
THE FINDINGS ARE EXCEEDINGLY GENERAL, AND IT IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR
WHETHER, IN ADDITION TO THE CLAIM THAT CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD MAY BE
INFERRED FROM THE INTERCORPORATE RELATIONSHIP, SPECIFIC ACTS OF DECEIT
ARE FOUND.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN THOUGHT THAT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL FRAUD MATTERED. 

IF THE PETITIONER'S GRIEVANCE ARISES FROM ACTIVE FRAUD AND DECEIT, IT
GAINS NOTHING FROM THE FEDERAL ACT.  SUCH AN ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN
MAINTAINABLE IF NO FEDERAL POWER ACT HAD BEEN ENACTED.  BEFORE THE ACT,
PETITIONER WOULD HAVE HAD NO STATUTORY RIGHT TO A REASONABLE RATE, BUT
IT DID HAVE A COMMON-LAW RIGHT NOT TO BE DEFRAUDED INTO PAYING AN
EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE ONE.  THE FEDERAL ACT ADDS NOTHING TO FRAUD
AS AN ACTIONABLE WRONG, AND, THEREFORE, TO FIND A CAUSE OF ACTION OF
THIS CHARACTER WOULD ONLY BE TO DISMISS IT FOR WANT OF DIVERSITY. 

BUT PETITIONER'S CASE APPEARS TO HAVE RESTED MORE HEAVILY AND PERHAPS
ENTIRELY ON CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD PRESUMED FROM THE INTERCORPORATE
RELATIONSHIP.  THE ACT VESTS IN THE COMMISSION POWER TO AUTHORIZE AN
INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATE, WHICH OTHERWISE IS PROHIBITED, "UPON DUE
SHOWING  ...  THAT NEITHER PUBLIC NOR PRIVATE INTERESTS WILL BE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED THEREBY."  FN8  THE RELATIONSHIP HERE CONCERNED HAD
RECEIVED COMMISSION APPROVAL.  THE EFFECT OF THE APPROVAL IS TO EXEMPT
THE RELATIONSHIP FROM THE BAN OF THE ACT AND REMOVE FROM IT ANY
PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD THAT MIGHT BE THOUGHT TO ARISE FROM ITS MERE
EXISTENCE.  IT WOULD BE A STRANGE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES IF A RELATIONSHIP WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS
DECLARED WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE
REGARDED BY COURTS AS ENOUGH TO CREATE A PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD. 
PERHAPS, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL, SUCH RELATIONSHIP
WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE PRESUMPTION UNDER STATE LAW, BUT IT
CANNOT DO SO WHERE THE FEDERAL SUPERVISING AUTHORITY HAS EXPRESSLY
APPROVED THE ARRANGEMENT. 

WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHAT ACTION THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO TAKE IF
IT BELIEVES THAT A FRAUD HAS BEEN COMMITTED ON ITSELF, FOR IT HAS TAKEN
NO ACTION WHICH GIVES RISE TO OR AFFECTS THIS CONTROVERSY. 

                           III. 

THE ENTIRE COURT IS AGREED THAT THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT CANNOT STAND AND ALL AGREE THAT IT CANNOT ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES
THAT PLAINTIFF TENDERED TO IT.  WE DISAGREE ONLY AS TO THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THE DISABILITY.  THE MAJORITY BELIEVE THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  A MINORITY URGES THAT WE SHOULD DIRECT THE
DISTRICT COURT TO REFER ISSUES TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN SOME CASES THE COURT HAS DIRECTED LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS TO STAY THEIR HANDS PENDING REFERENCE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY
OF A SUBSIDIARY QUESTION.  SMITH V. HOBOKEN R. CO., 328 U.S. 123;
THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN R. CO., 328 U.S. 134; GENERAL AMERICAN TANK
CAR CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422.  BUT IN ALL THOSE
CASES THE PLAINTIFF BELOW CONCEDEDLY STATED A FEDERALLY COGNIZABLE
CAUSE OF ACTION, TO WHICH THE REFERRED ISSUE WAS SUBSIDIARY.  IN NO
INSTANCE HAVE WE DIRECTED A COURT TO RETAIN A CASE IN WHICH IT COULD
NOT DETERMINE A SINGLE ONE OF ITS VITAL ISSUES.  HERE THE ISSUE OF
REASONABLENESS OF THE CHARGES IS NOT ONE CLEARLY SEVERABLE FROM THE
ISSUES OF LIABILITY, FOR THE ACTS CHARGED DO NOT AMOUNT TO FRAUD UNLESS
THERE HAS BEEN AN UNREASONABLE CHARGE.  INJURY IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT
OF REMEDIABLE FRAUD.  "DECEIT AND INJURY MUST CONCUR."  ADAMS V. CLARK,
239 N.Y. 403, 410, 146 N.E. 642, 644(1925).  SEE ALSO CONNELLY V.
BARTLETT, 286 MASS. 311, 315, 190 N.E. 799, 801(1934). 

IF THE COURT IS PRESENTED WITH A CASE IT CAN DECIDE BUT SOME ISSUE IS
WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, IN AN INDEPENDENT
PROCEEDING, TO DECIDE, COMITY AND AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICT AS WELL AS
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MAKE IT PROPER TO REFER THAT ISSUE.  BUT WE KNOW
OF NO CASE WHERE THE COURT HAS ORDERED REFERENCE OF AN ISSUE WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY WOULD NOT ITSELF HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE IN
A PROCEEDING FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE FACT THAT THE CONGRESS WITHHELD
FROM THE COMMISSION POWER TO GRANT REPARATIONS  FN9  DOES NOT REQUIRE
COURTS TO ENTERTAIN PROCEEDINGS THEY CANNOT THEMSELVES DECIDE IN ORDER
INDIRECTLY TO OBTAIN COMMISSION ACTION WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT ALLOW TO
BE TAKEN DIRECTLY.  THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE POWER ACT THAT THAT
WAS CONGRESS' INTENT. 

IT IS URGED THAT THIS LEAVES PETITIONER WITHOUT A REMEDY UNDER THE
POWER ACT.  WE AGREE.  IN THAT RESPECT, PETITIONER IS NO WORSE OFF
AFTER LOSING ITS LAWSUIT THAN ITS CUSTOMERS ARE IF IT WINS.  UNLESS WE
ARE TO ASSUME THAT THIS COMPANY FAILED TO INCLUDE ITS BUYING COSTS IN
ITS SELLING RATES, WE MUST ASSUME THAT ANY UNREASONABLE AMOUNTS IT PAID
SUPPLIERS IT COLLECTED FROM CONSUMERS.  INDEED, THIS IS THE ASSUMPTION
MADE BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE HERE.  FN10  IT IS
ADMITTED THAT, IF IT RECOUPS AGAIN WHAT IT HAS ALREADY RECOUPED FROM
THE PUBLIC, THERE IS NO MACHINERY IN OR OUT OF COURT BY WHICH OTHERS
WHO HAVE PAID UNREASONABLE CHARGES TO IT CAN RECOVER.  FN11    UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONCLUDE THAT, SINCE THE CASE INVOLVES ONLY
ISSUES WHICH A FEDERAL COURT CANNOT DECIDE AND CAN ONLY REFER TO A BODY
WHICH ALSO WOULD HAVE NO INDEPENDENT JURISDICTION TO DECIDE, IT MUST
DECLINE THE CASE FORTHRIGHTLY RATHER THAN RESORT TO SUCH
IMPROVISATION. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER
HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A CAUSE OF ACTION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  41 STAT. 1063, 49 STAT. 838, 62 STAT. 275, 16 U.S.C. SECS. 791A
825R. 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1331. 

FN3  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1337. 

FN4  NOT REPORTED. 

FN5  181 F.2D 19. 

FN6  SECTION 205(A) OF THE ACT, 49 STAT. 851, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 824D
(A), STATES THAT:  "ALL RATES AND CHARGES  ...  AND ALL RULES AND
REGULATIONS AFFECTING OR PERTAINING TO SUCH RATES OR CHARGES SHALL BE
JUST AND REASONABLE, AND ANY SUCH RATE OR CHARGE THAT IS NOT JUST AND
REASONABLE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL." 

FN7  SEC. 206(A), 49 STAT. 852, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 824E (A). 

FN8  SEC. 305, 49 STAT. 856, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 825D (B). 

FN9  S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 20. 

FN10  BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AS AMICUS CURIAE, PP. 13
14. 

FN11  ID., PP. 14-17. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
REED, AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

THE PLAINTIFF, MONTANA-DAKOTA UTILITIES COMPANY, PETITIONER HERE, IS
THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SEVERAL UTILITY COMPANIES WHICH
DISTRIBUTED ELECTRIC ENERGY IN NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA.  THE DEFENDANT,
NORTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, SERVED THE REGION TO THE SOUTH OF
MONTANA-DAKOTA'S TERRITORY.  BOTH CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT SINCE ITS ENACTMENT IN 1935.  49 STAT. 847, 16 U.S.C.
SEC. 824 ET SEQ. THE CONTROVERSY ARISES OUT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
TWO ENTERPRISES PRIOR TO 1945.  THE FACTS WHICH RAISE THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE
SUIT MAY BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED. 

AFTER JANUARY 1, 1935, ALL BUT ONE OF MONTANA-DAKOTA'S DIRECTORS WERE
DIRECTORS OF NORTHWESTERN, AND ALL OF MONTANA-DAKOTA'S OFFICERS WERE
OFFICERS OF THE OTHER COMPANY.  THESE INTERLOCKING ARRANGEMENTS
RECEIVED FORMAL AUTHORIZATION BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 305(B) OF THE ACT.  16 U.S.C. SEC. 825D (B).  AT
DIFFERENT TIMES BETWEEN 1935 AND 1945 CONTRACTS WERE MADE BETWEEN THE
TWO CORPORATIONS FOR THE SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY.  ALL SUCH AGREEMENTS
HAVE TO BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION, SEC. 205(C), 16 U.S.C. SEC. 824D
(C), BUT THE LEGALITY OF RATES SO FILED IS NOT CONDITIONED UPON THE
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.  UNLESS THEY ARE CHALLENGED, EITHER BY AN
INTERESTED PARTY OR ON THE COMMISSION'S INITIATIVE, THE FILED RATES
BECOME THE LEGAL RATES.  MONTANA-DAKOTA NOW CLAIMS, IN ESSENCE, THAT
FOR A DECADE NORTHWESTERN, BY VIRTUE OF ITS CONTROL, DEPRIVED MONTANA
DAKOTA OF THE RIGHTS WHICH THAT CORPORATION ENJOYED UNDER THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT AND PREVENTED IT FROM CONTEMPORANEOUSLY ASSERTING THEM BEFORE
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  MONTANA-DAKOTA WAS PREVENTED FROM FILING
WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LAWFUL RATES BECAUSE NORTHWESTERN, AS THE
DOMINUS OF MONTANA-DAKOTA, FILED RATES FOR THAT COMPANY THAT WERE LESS
THAN THE REASONABLE RATES TO BE EXACTED UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT -
RATES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY ARM'S LENGTH DEALING BETWEEN
THE TWO COMPANIES.  HAVING SECURED FREEDOM OF ACTION AND THEREBY THE
POWER TO ASSERT ITS RIGHTS, MONTANA-DAKOTA BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA TO RECOUP
THE LOSSES WHICH IT CLAIMS WERE THUS IMPOSED ON IT. 

THE DEFENDANT MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
IN THAT IT FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER FEDERAL LAW.  THE MOTION WAS
DENIED, 73 F.SUPP.  149, AND THE CASE WENT TO TRIAL.  THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND UNFAIR DEALING IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INTERLOCKING
RELATIONSHIP AND RESULTING UNREASONABLENESS IN THE RATES, AND GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUM OF $779,958.30, PRINCIPAL AND
INTEREST. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  IT HELD THAT
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION "HAD JURISDICTION AND WAS THE PROPER
TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE" TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE
RATES AND THE BEARING OF FRAUD PRACTICED ON THE COMMISSION IN SECURING
PERMISSION FOR THE INTERLOCKING ARRANGEMENTS AND THE RESULTING
SUBVERSION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  THE COURT FOUND THAT
"THE COMMISSION CAN, NO DOUBT, CORRECT ITS OWN MISTAKES," BUT IT DID
NOT SPECIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IT DEEMED AVAILABLE.  IT
CONCLUDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE
COMPLAINT AND ORDERED IT DISMISSED.  181 F.2D 19, 23.  WE BROUGHT THE
CASE HERE SINCE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT ARE AT STAKE.  340 U.S. 806. 

THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF
VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT OR THE RULES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDERS
THEREUNDER, AND OF ALL SUITS IN EQUITY AND ACTIONS AT LAW BROUGHT TO
ENFORCE ANY LIABILITY OR DUTY CREATED BY, OR TO ENJOIN ANY VIOLATION
OF, THIS ACT OR ANY RULE, REGULATION, OR ORDER THEREUNDER."  49 STAT.
862, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 825P.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT, THEREFORE, THAT IF
THE COMPLAINT, FAIRLY CONSTRUED IN LIGHT OF THE SUCCESSFUL
DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES, SEEKS TO ENFORCE A DUTY WHICH THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT RECOGNIZES, THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ENTERTAINED THE SUIT
UNDER THE JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, REINFORCING, AS THEY
DO, THE GENERAL JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE DISTRICT
COURTS.  SEE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1911, SEC. 24 FIRST, EIGHTH, 36 STAT.
1091, 1092, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1331, 1337. 

THE FEDERAL POWER ACT DIRECTS THAT 

"ALL RATES AND CHARGES MADE, DEMANDED, OR RECEIVED BY ANY PUBLIC
UTILITY FOR OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSMISSION OR SALE OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND ALL RULES AND
REGULATIONS AFFECTING OR PERTAINING TO SUCH RATES OR CHARGES SHALL BE
JUST AND REASONABLE, AND ANY SUCH RATE OR CHARGE THAT IS NOT JUST AND
REASONABLE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL."  SEC. 205(A), 49 STAT.
851, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 824D (A). 

WE FACE AT THE OUTSET THE CONTENTION THAT THIS SECTION CONFERS ON THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO AWARD REPARATIONS FOR
UNREASONABLE RATES COLLECTED IN THE PAST.  FEDERAL RAILROAD RATE
LEGISLATION GAVE SUCH A POWER TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
ACT OF FEB. 4, 1887, SECS. 9, 16, 24 STAT. 382, 384-385, AS AMENDED, 49
U.S.C. SECS. 9, 16(1); CF. ACT OF AUG. 15, 1921, SEC. 308, 42 STAT.
165, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 209.  BUT IT WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION.  IT WAS WITHHELD DELIBERATELY.  SEE S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 20.  WHOLESALE CONSUMERS OF ELECTRIC ENERGY WERE
APPARENTLY CONSIDERED, AS A RULE, ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO GRANT PROSPECTIVE
RELIEF AND, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO ORDER REFUNDING OF SUMS
ACCUMULATED DURING THE PENDENCY OF RATE PROCEEDINGS.  SECS. 205(E),
206(A), 49 STAT. 852, 16 U.S.C. SECS. 824D (E), 824E (A).  DESPITE THE
UNQUALIFIED STATUTORY DECLARATION THAT UNREASONABLE RATES ARE UNLAWFUL,
WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND EITHER COURT OR
COMMISSION TO HAVE THE POWER TO AWARD REPARATIONS ON THE GROUND THAT A
PROPERLY FILED RATE OR CHARGE HAS IN FACT BEEN UNREASONABLY HIGH OR
LOW.  IF THAT WERE ALL THE COMPLAINT BEFORE US SHOWED, WE WOULD AGREE
THAT RECOVERY OF DAMAGES IN A CIVIL ACTION WOULD NOT BE AN APPROPRIATE
REMEDY, AND THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 

BUT THE CASE BEFORE US IS VERY DIFFERENT.  MONTANA-DAKOTA DOES NOT
ASSERT MERELY THAT THE RATES FIXED AND FILED FOR IT BY THE DEFENDANT
WERE UNREASONABLE.  MONTANA-DAKOTA CLAIMED AND INTRODUCED EVIDENCE TO
SHOW THAT SOME CONTRACTS REQUIRED BY THE ACT TO BE FILED WERE NOT FILED
AT ALL; THAT OTHERS WERE FILED MONTHS LATE; AND THAT SOME WERE NOT THE
BONA FIDE CONTRACTS OBTAINED BY ARM'S LENGTH NEGOTIATION THAT ON THEIR
FACE THEY APPEARED TO BE, BUT INSTEAD WERE "CONCEIVED AND PUT INTO
OPERATION BY THE DEFENDANT AND ITS AFORESAID DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF EXACTING LARGE CHARGES FROM (MONTANA-DAKOTA) FOR THE
PURPOSE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, OF OFFSETTING CHARGES OF (MONTANA-DAKOTA)
FOR ELECTRICAL ENERGY GENERATED IN NORTH DAKOTA AND TRANSMITTED TO AND
SOLD TO DEFENDANT FOR RESALE IN SOUTH DAKOTA."  SEE CAUSE 3, $* V OF
THE COMPLAINT.  THUS THE COMPLAINT IN SUBSTANCE ALLEGES THAT
NORTHWESTERN MISLED THE COMMISSION INTO APPROVING SCHEDULES WHICH WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED HAD NORTHWESTERN COMPLIED WITH THE OBLIGATIONS
OF FULL AND FAIR DISCLOSURE IMPOSED ON IT BY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 
WHILE THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ARTISTICALLY ALLEGE THAT DOMINATION BY
NORTHWESTERN PREVENTED MONTANA-DAKOTA FROM COMPLAINING TO THE
COMMISSION THAT THE RATES AND CHARGES WERE UNREASONABLE, THAT IS ITS
PLAIN IMPORT AND THE FACTS WERE SO FOUND AT THE TRIAL. 

WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH THE COMPLAINT INSOFAR AS IT SETS FORTH
A COMMON-LAW CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON MISUSE OF POWERS BY THE DIRECTORS
OF A CONTROLLED CORPORATION.  SUCH AN ACTION BY ITSELF OF COURSE CANNOT
BE BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  BUT THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE SAME
CIRCUMSTANCES FROM GIVING RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT HAS ITS ROOTS
IN THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  AS SUCH THE CONTROVERSY DOES FALL WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT.  THE ESSENCE OF THIS CAUSE OF ACTION
IS THAT THE FEDERAL POWER ACT IMPOSED ON NORTHWESTERN THE DUTY TO
CHARGE AND PAY REASONABLE RATES IN ITS TRANSACTIONS WITH MONTANA
DAKOTA; AND THAT WHILE UNDER THE ACT RATES APPROPRIATELY FILED ARE,
WHEN UNCHALLENGED, THE LEGAL RATES AND DEEMED TO BE REASONABLE, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE ALLEGED THE SCHEDULES AND CONTRACTS FILED WERE NOT
COMPLETE OR TIMELY OR BONA FIDE.  SINCE IT WAS COERCIVELY CONTROLLED,
MONTANA-DAKOTA COULD NEITHER FILE RATES THAT WERE TRULY REASONABLE NOR
PROTEST UNREASONABLE RATES FILED ON ITS BEHALF. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS APPARENTLY CLOSED THE DOOR OF THE DISTRICT COURT
TO THIS SUIT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT RELIEF COULD BE HAD FROM THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOR THE DAMAGE FLOWING FROM VIOLATION OF THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT.  OF COURSE A COURT WOULD NOT GRANT RELIEF, AT LEAST
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, IF AN ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY WERE
AVAILABLE.  IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO FEDERAL REGULATORY LEGISLATION THAT
"NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL RELIEF FOR A SUPPOSED OR THREATENED
INJURY UNTIL THE PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED." 
MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51.  THIS
PRINCIPLE IS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO RATE REGULATION.  TEXAS & PAC. R.
CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426; MITCHELL COAL CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247; ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 312
U.S. 195.  COMPARE GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. MERCHANTS ELEVATOR CO., 259
U.S. 285. 

BUT WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE FEDERAL POWER ACT PROVIDES ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES TO MEET THE SITUATION BEFORE US.  WE HAVE SEEN THAT THAT ACT
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO AWARD REPARATIONS TO THOSE
SUBJECTED TO UNREASONABLE RATES.  THE ACT LIKEWISE DOES NOT AFFORD TO
THE COMMISSION THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES UNDER
OTHER REGULATORY STATUTES TO AWARD DAMAGES TO THOSE INJURED BY
VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  COMPARE ACT OF FEBRUARY 4, 1887, SEC. 9, 24
STAT. 382, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 9; ACT OF AUGUST 15, 1921, SEC. 309(E), 42
STAT. 166, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 210(E).  THE POWER ACT, IT IS TRUE, DOES GIVE
THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO LOOK INTO PAST RATES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE ACT HAS BEEN VIOLATED.  SEC. 307(A), 49 STAT. 856, 16
U.S.C. SEC. 825F (A).  SEE ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. FLORIDA, 295
U.S. 301, 312.  BUT SUCH AN INQUIRY CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AWARD OF DAMAGES TO THE VICTIMS OF THE VIOLATIONS. 
AGAIN, THE COMMISSION MAY, AS THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS, HAVE POWER UNDER
THE OMNIBUS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 309 TO VACATE ITS APPROVAL OF A RATE
WHEN APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY FRAUD.  49 STAT. 858, 16 U.S.C. SEC.
825H.  BUT THIS DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO FIX RATE ORDERS
RETROSPECTIVELY.  THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH RATES ONLY "TO BE
THEREAFTER OBSERVED AND IN FORCE."  SEC. 206(A), 49 STAT. 852, 16
U.S.C. SEC. 824E (A). 

IF THE COMMISSION CAN NEITHER FIX RATES RETROSPECTIVELY NOR AWARD
DAMAGES, IT CLEARLY CAN AFFORD NO ADEQUATE REMEDY TO MONTANA-DAKOTA. 
VACATING ITS ACQUIESCENCE IN THE INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATE OR IN THE
SCHEDULES FILED BY NORTHWESTERN MIGHT PREVENT NORTHWESTERN FROM
ASSERTING THE APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL AGENCY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT
AGAINST IT UNDER STATE LAW; BUT IT WOULD NOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR
RECOVERY BY THE INJURED PARTY OR IMPOSE ANY CERTAIN LIABILITY ON THE
WRONGDOER.  WE ARE BOUND TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN
ERROR IN THINKING THAT AN ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY EXISTED AND
PRECLUDED COURTS FROM GRANTING RELIEF. 

BUT WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE INABILITY OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION TO GRANT RELIEF REQUIRES THAT COURTS BE SIMILARLY DISABLED. 
COURTS, UNLIKE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, ARE ORGANS WITH HISTORIC
ANTECEDENTS WHICH BRING WITH THEM WELL-DEFINED POWERS.  THEY DO NOT
REQUIRE EXPLICIT STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR FAMILIAR REMEDIES TO
ENFORCE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF
CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S.
515; DECKERT V. INDEPENDENCE SHARES CORP., 311 U.S. 282.  A DUTY
DECLARED BY CONGRESS DOES NOT EVAPORATE FOR WANT OF A FORMULATED
SANCTION.  WHEN CONGRESS HAS "LEFT THE MATTER AT LARGE FOR JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION," OUR FUNCTION IS TO DECIDE WHAT REMEDIES ARE APPROPRIATE
IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE AND OF THE
TRADITIONAL MODES BY WHICH COURTS COMPEL PERFORMANCE OF LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS.  SEE BOARD OF COMM'RS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343,
351.  IF CIVIL LIABILITY IS APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF A
STATUTE, COURTS ARE NOT DENIED THIS TRADITIONAL REMEDY BECAUSE IT IS
NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED.  TEXAS & PAC. R. CO. V. RIGSBY, 241 U.S.
33; STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN, 323 U.S. 210; CF. DE
LIMA V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 1. 

THAT CIVIL LIABILITY IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN THE SITUATION BEFORE
US IS ATTESTED ALIKE BY THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, BY THE FORCE OF
FAMILIAR PRINCIPLES OF LIABILITY, AND BY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN
CARRYING OUT LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES. 

THE POWER ACT IS EXPLICIT THAT ANY "RATE OR CHARGE THAT IS NOT JUST
AND REASONABLE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL."  SEC. 205(A), 49
STAT. 851, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 824D (A).  THE AIM OF CONGRESS WOULD BE
NEEDLESSLY ABORTED IF THIS "DEFINITE STATUTORY PROHIBITION OF CONDUCT"
DID NOT IMPOSE CIVIL LIABILITY IN A SITUATION NOT COVERED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES MERELY BECAUSE NO JUDICIAL RELIEF WAS
EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED.  COMPARE TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF
CLERKS, SUPRA, AT 568.  THE RIGHT OF CIVIL RECOVERY BY PERSONS
COMPELLED TO PAY UNREASONABLE OR DISCRIMINATORY RATES TO COMMON
CARRIERS IS ONE OF THE OLDEST FORMS OF RELIEF IN OUR LAW.  WESTERN
UNION TEL. CO. V. CALL PUBLISHING CO., 181 U.S. 92.  TO ENFORCE A
REMEDY FOR COLLECTION OF UNREASONABLE CHARGES IN THE SITUATION BEFORE
US, THEREFORE, WOULD RECOGNIZE DEEPLY-ROOTED LAW; TO DENY IT WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT WITH LONG-ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRACTICE.  THE EXPERIENCE
OF THE COMMISSION INDICATES THAT THE STATUTE ITSELF, BY VIRTUE OF THE
POSITIVE DUTIES IT COMMANDS, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES IS VERY LARGELY
ITS OWN SANCTION.  FN1  WANT OF EXPLICITNESS IN PROVIDING A FAMILIAR
REMEDY FOR THE RARE CASE OF DISOBEDIENCE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED A
DENIAL OF IT. 

TO LEAVE RELIEF TO THE DIVERSE AND CONFLICTING STATE LAW DEALING WITH
INTERCORPORATE RELATIONS WOULD MAKE FOR CONFLICTING LOCAL
ADMINISTRATION OF AN IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEM.  THIS COURT HAS
RECENTLY SHOWN MARKED RELUCTANCE TO LEAVE TO THE STATES DETERMINATION
OF EVEN STATE LAW QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT.  FIRST IOWA COOPERATIVE V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
328 U.S. 152.  WHAT IS INVOLVED HERE - THE FRUSTRATION, BY MISUSE OF
THE MACHINERY OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, OF THE COMMAND OF CONGRESS THAT
RATES BE REASONABLE - HAS A FEDERAL CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE.  WE DO
NOT THINK IT LIKELY THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO
RELIEF FOR THIS KIND OF TAMPERING WITH THE FEDERAL REGULATORY SCHEME
OTHER THAN THAT WHICH MIGHT BE AFFORDED BY THE CORPORATION LAW OF THE
FORTY-EIGHT STATES. 

WE COULD ATTRIBUTE SUCH A PURPOSE TO CONGRESS ONLY IF TO ALLOW CIVIL
RELIEF IN THE SITUATION BEFORE US WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE ACT, OR IMPOSE ON COURTS
ALIEN RESPONSIBILITIES OR DUTIES THEY ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO FULFILL.  NO
SUCH CONSEQUENCE IS REMOTELY INVOLVED IN UTILIZING THIS AGE-OLD
REMEDY.  THE STATUTE IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT UNLAWFUL RATES
WILL ORDINARILY BE PROMPTLY CORRECTED AT THE INITIATIVE OF INJURED
PARTIES PERMITTED TO RESORT TO THE COMMISSION FOR PROSPECTIVE RELIEF. 
SEC. 306, 49 STAT. 856, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 825E.  THAT PROCEDURE IS NOT
AVAILABLE WHEN THE WRONG ASSERTED IS THAT THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION HAS
ESTABLISHED UNLAWFUL SCHEDULES BY FRAUDULENT DOMINATION OF THE UTILITY
WITH WHICH IT TRANSACTS BUSINESS.  TO GRANT JUDICIAL RELIEF FOR SUCH A
WRONG WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE REMEDIAL PROCEDURE TO WHICH THE ACT
CONFINES CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE THEIR OWN MASTERS. 

NOR WILL IT TRANSFER TO THE COURTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECIDING
QUESTIONS WHICH SHOULD PROPERLY BE PRESENTED TO THE POWER COMMISSION. 
IN A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS WE HAVE RECENTLY EMPHASIZED THE PRINCIPLE
THAT COURTS AND AGENCIES "ARE TO BE DEEMED COLLABORATIVE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF JUSTICE."  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 313 U.S. 409,
422, 307 U.S. 183; PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79.  TO THAT END
IT IS ESTABLISHED PRACTICE THAT COURTS MAY ENTERTAIN ACTIONS BROUGHT
BEFORE THEM, BUT CALL TO THEIR AID THE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY ON QUESTIONS WITHIN ITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCE.  SEE SMITH V.
HOBOKEN R. CO., 328 U.S. 123; THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN R. CO., 328
U.S. 134; CF. UNITED STATES ALKALI ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S.
196, 210.  IN THE EL DORADO OIL WORKS LITIGATION WE HELD THAT PROPER
PROCEDURE REQUIRED THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT ON A CONTRACT
BUT TO LOOK TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR GUIDANCE AS TO
TRANSPORTATION PRACTICES INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT THE CONTRACT. 
GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S.
422, 433; EL DORADO OIL WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 12.  THE FACT
THAT THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IS NOT ITSELF AUTHORIZED TO AWARD
DAMAGES DOES NOT DISABLE IT FROM ADVISING A COURT ON QUESTIONS ON WHICH
ITS JUDGMENT IS NEEDED.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, SUPRA; ATLANTIC
COAST LINE R. CO. V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, AT 312.  WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS SHOULD NOT BE SOUGHT HERE. 

WE THINK, THEREFORE, THAT A CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IS STATED BY A COMPLAINT CHARGING A DISTRIBUTOR
OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (1) WITH BUYING
OR SELLING AT UNREASONABLE RATES, (2) WITH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, AND (3) WITH
PREVENTING OTHERS FROM RESORTING TO THE REMEDIES AFFORDED BY THAT ACT. 
IN SUCH CASES THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD STAY PROCEEDINGS AND REQUEST
DETERMINATION BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION OF MATTERS WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S SPECIAL COMPETENCE.  IT IS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S DOMAIN
TO RULE WHETHER FILED RATES SHOULD NOT, IN VIEW OF ALL RELEVANT
CIRCUMSTANCES, BE CONSIDERED "REASONABLE" RATES.  IT ALSO FALLS TO THE
COMMISSION TO DECIDE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE REASONABLE RATES.  THE
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION, BEING "ONLY A PRELIMINARY, INTERIM STEP"
TOWARDS FINAL JUDGMENT, WOULD NOT BE A REVIEWABLE ORDER UNDER SEC.
313(B) OF THE ACT, BUT WOULD BE REVIEWED ONLY AS A PART OF THE JUDGMENT
ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL
GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 618, 619. 

THE OBJECTIONS RAISED TO THIS PROCEDURE HAVE APPARENTLY NOT BEEN
CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIAL BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, THE BODY
PRIMARILY CHARGED WITH ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  FN2  WE DO NOT THINK
THEY SHOULD PREVAIL.  THE FUNCTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT SIMPLY
TO SERVE AS A FACADE BEHIND WHICH THE COMMISSION IS ENABLED TO
ACCOMPLISH INDIRECTLY WHAT IT CANNOT DO DIRECTLY.  CERTAIN ISSUES OF
FACT - THE COMPLETENESS OF DISCLOSURE, FOR INSTANCE, OR THE LOYALTIES
OF THE DIRECTORS - ARE PROPERLY FOR THE COURT.  ACTION BY THE COURT MAY
SIMILARLY BE REQUIRED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION OF THE
FUND.  SEE FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 336 U.S.
577, 181 F.2D 833.  RECOVERY BY MONTANA-DAKOTA NEED NOT BE A WINDFALL
TO THAT COMPANY.  MANY CHANGES IN COSTS CHARGED UTILITIES ARE NOT
REFLECTED IN PRICES THEY MAY COLLECT.  COMPARE ST. LOUIS & O'FALLON R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 461, 488, 505-509(MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
DISSENTING).  TO THE EXTENT THAT MONTANA-DAKOTA HAS PASSED ON ITS LOSS
TO ITS CUSTOMERS, THEY MAY BE PERMITTED RECOVERY FROM IT ON WELL
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT.  AND EVEN IF THE EFFECT OF
AWARDING RELIEF IS ULTIMATELY TO BENEFIT MONTANA-DAKOTA, IT CERTAINLY
HAS A BETTER CLAIM TO THE EXACTED FUNDS THAN NORTHWESTERN.  THE
PROCEDURE HERE OUTLINED IS NOT UNLIKE THAT WHICH THE COURT EMPLOYED IN
UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, SUPRA, WHERE A SIMILAR DEMAND WAS MADE ON THE
RESOURCEFULNESS OF LAW TO FIND A REMEDY TO MEET AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. 
SUCH A REMEDY NOT ONLY DEFEATS UNJUST ENRICHMENT AS BETWEEN PRIVATE
PARTIES.  THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF EFFECTUATING
THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

BECAUSE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT, WHILE CORRECT IN
REFUSING TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE MATTERS PECULIARLY WITHIN ITS COMPETENCE AND
REPORT ITS FINDING TO THAT COURT, WE THINK THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED
TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  WE DO NOT, OF COURSE, INTIMATE ANY OPINION AS TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FILED
RATES IN THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED LAWFUL.  NOR WOULD WE RESTRICT
ANY APPROPRIATE USE THE COMMISSION MIGHT WISH TO MAKE OF EVIDENCE
ADDUCED AT THE TRIAL. 

FN1  DATA SUPPLIED BY THE COMMISSION SHOW THAT RATE REDUCTIONS
PROPOSED BY UTILITIES INVARIABLY BECOME EFFECTIVE AS FILED.  MORE THAN
HALF OF THE RATE INCREASES LIKEWISE BECOME EFFECTIVE AUTOMATICALLY AS
FILED.  THOSE WHICH ARE SUSPENDED BY THE COMMISSION ARE AS A GENERAL
RULE WITHDRAWN, MODIFIED, OR APPROVED AFTER INFORMAL CONFERENCES
BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE COMMISSION'S STAFF. 

FN2  IN ITS BRIEF HERE THE COMMISSION URGED ADOPTION OF SUBSTANTIALLY
THE GROUND SET FORTH IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :









MOSSER V. DARROW, 341 U.S. 267 


NO. 461.  ARGUED APRIL 10-11, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 7, 1951.  - 184 F.2D
1, REVERSED. 


1.  RESPONDENT WAS APPOINTED BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AS
REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE FOR TWO COMMON-LAW TRUSTS WHOSE PRINCIPAL ASSETS
WERE SECURITIES OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES.  HE EMPLOYED TO ASSIST HIM IN
THE TRUSTEESHIP TWO PERSONS WHOSE SERVICES HE THOUGHT WERE
INDISPENSABLE, AND HE EXPRESSLY AGREED THAT THEY COULD CONTINUE TO
TRADE IN SECURITIES OF THE DEBTORS' SUBSIDIARIES.  ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT
DID NOT PERSONALLY BENEFIT, THESE EMPLOYEES TRADED EXTENSIVELY IN
SECURITIES OF THE DEBTORS' SUBSIDIARIES AND MADE SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS. 
HELD:  RESPONDENT WAS PROPERLY SURCHARGED AS TRUSTEE IN AN AMOUNT
REPRESENTING THE PROFITS WHICH THESE EMPLOYEES DERIVED FROM THEIR
TRADING IN SECURITIES OF THE DEBTORS' SUBSIDIARIES.  PP. 268-275. 

(A)  THAT WHICH THE TRUSTEE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO HE HAD NO RIGHT TO
AUTHORIZE, AND THE TRANSACTIONS WERE AS FORBIDDEN FOR BENEFIT OF OTHERS
AS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ON BEHALF OF THE TRUSTEE HIMSELF.  PP. 271
272. 

(B)  THE LIABILITY HERE IS NOT CREATED BY A FAILURE TO DETECT
DEFALCATIONS, IN WHICH CASE NEGLIGENCE MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO SURCHARGE A
TRUSTEE, BUT IS A CASE OF A WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE SETTING UP OF AN
INTEREST IN EMPLOYEES ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE TRUST.  P. 272. 

(C)  THE MOST EFFECTIVE SANCTION FOR GOOD ADMINISTRATION BY A
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE IS PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF
FORBIDDEN ACTS; AND A TRUSTEE MAY EFFECTIVELY PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST
PERSONAL LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTING AT PROMPT INTERVALS AND BY SEEKING
INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE COURT AS TO MATTERS WHICH INVOLVE DIFFICULT
QUESTIONS OF JUDGMENT.  PP. 273-275. 

2.  FROM A JUDGMENT REVERSING AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
SURCHARGING A FORMER REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE, A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
WAS FILED IN THIS COURT BY ONE WHO HAD ALREADY RESIGNED AS SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE, AND WHO WAS JOINED IN THE PETITION BY AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE. 
HELD:  THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE'S STANDING IS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY 52
STAT. 894, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 606; AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF A SUBSEQUENTLY
APPOINTED SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED.  PP. 270-271. 

(A)  SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES, UNLIKE SUCCESSORS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS, ARE
REGARDED AS TRANSFEREES OR ASSIGNEES OF ALL THE INTERESTS OF THEIR
PREDECESSORS, AND REMOVAL OF A TRUSTEE DOES NOT CAUSE ABATEMENT.  P.
271. 

MOSSER, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, ET AL. V. DARROW, FORMER TRUSTEE, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT SURCHARGING A REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE
WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  184 F.2D 1.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 928.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 275. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION HERE CONCERNS PERSONAL LIABILITY OF A
REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE WHO, ALTHOUGH MAKING NO PERSONAL PROFIT,
PERMITTED KEY EMPLOYEES TO PROFIT FROM TRADING IN SECURITIES OF THE
DEBTORS' SUBSIDIARIES.  UPON A LONG RECORD, CONTROLLING FACTS HAVE BEEN
FOUND WITH LITTLE DISAGREEMENT. 

IN 1935, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APPOINTED RESPONDENT DARROW
AS REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE FOR TWO COMMON-LAW TRUSTS.  THESE HAD
FUNCTIONED AS HOLDING COMPANIES AND THEIR PRINCIPAL ASSETS WERE THE
SECURITIES OF TWENTY-SEVEN UNDERLYING COMPANIES, EACH OF WHICH OWNED
IMPROVED REAL ESTATE AND HAD ITS OWN DEBT AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE.  BOTH
THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND THE TWO TRUSTS HAD BEEN PROMOTED BY JACOB
KULP AND MYRTLE JOHNSON, WHO THOROUGHLY KNEW THE INSIDE OF THE BUSINESS
AND WERE ACQUAINTED WITH MANY OF THE INVESTORS.  THE TANGLED FINANCIAL
HISTORY LEADING TO THE REORGANIZATION IS NOT IMPORTANT TO OUR ISSUE. 

DARROW EMPLOYED KULP AND MISS JOHNSON TO ASSIST IN HIS TRUSTEESHIP. 
THAT THEY WERE COMPETENT AND USEFUL IS UNDENIED.  KULP MANAGED THE
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES WHILE MISS JOHNSON SUPERVISED THE OFFICE, HAD
COMPLETE CHARGE OF ALL RECORDS OF INCOME, EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTIES
OF BOTH DEBTORS AND ALL UNDERLYING COMPANIES.  DARROW DECIDED UPON A
POLICY OF BUYING IN BONDS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES FOR RETIREMENT, WHERE
THEY WERE AVAILABLE AT A DISCOUNT, AND DURING HIS TRUSTEESHIP REDUCED
THE OUTSTANDING BONDS OF SUBSIDIARIES BY THIS METHOD BY ABOUT TWO AND
ONE-HALF MILLION DOLLARS.  DARROW DEPENDED UPON MISS JOHNSON'S JUDGMENT
AND ADVICE IN ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR SINKING FUND OPERATIONS, IN HIS
PURCHASE OF SECURITIES AND IN FIXING PRICES TO BE OFFERED. 

KULP AND MISS JOHNSON WERE EMPLOYED BY DARROW WITH THE EXPRESS
AGREEMENT THAT THEY COULD CONTINUE TO TRADE IN SECURITIES OF THE
DEBTORS' SUBSIDIARIES PERSONALLY AND THROUGH COLONIAL SECURITIES
CORPORATION, WHICH THEY OWNED.  WITHOUT SUCH CONSENT THEY STATED THEY
WOULD NOT HAVE REMAINED.  DARROW AND COLONIAL FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD
SHARED OFFICE FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL, WITH MISS JOHNSON IN CHARGE
BOTH OF THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE, WHICH WAS INTERESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF
BONDS, AND HER OWN COLONIAL, INTERESTED IN THE SAME THING. 

MISS JOHNSON AND KULP, DURING THEIR EMPLOYMENT BY THE TRUSTEE, TRADED
EXTENSIVELY IN BONDS OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES.  ON MANY OCCASIONS
THEY ACQUIRED BONDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ON THE SAME DAY, OR WITHIN A FEW
DAYS, TRANSFERRED THEM TO DARROW AT A PROFIT.  DARROW PAID FOR SOME
SECURITIES IN ADVANCE OF THEIR DELIVERY TO HIM AND FOR SOME EVEN BEFORE
MISS JOHNSON HAD MADE HER OWN PURCHASE OF THEM.  JOHNSON AND KULP
SOMETIMES BOUGHT FOR THEMSELVES BONDS OFFERED BY BONDHOLDERS WHO HAD
COME TO THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE TO DISPOSE OF THEM TO THE TRUSTEE.  THEY
MADE SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS THROUGH THESE TRANSACTIONS. 

IN HIS EIGHT YEARS OF TRUSTEESHIP, DARROW FILED BUT ONE ACCOUNT FOR
ONE OF THE DEBTOR-CORPORATIONS AND NONE FOR THE OTHER.  THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION INTERVENED AND DEMANDED INVESTIGATION OF HIS
CONDUCT OF THE TRUST AND THEREAFTER HE RESIGNED AND FILED HIS ACCOUNTS,
WHICH WERE MET WITH OBJECTIONS BY HIS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE.  THESE ISSUES
WERE REFERRED TO A SPECIAL MASTER, WHO HEARD A LONG CONTEST OVER THE
FOREGOING AND MANY OTHER ITEMS UNIMPORTANT HERE.  THE MASTER
RECOMMENDED A SURCHARGE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOREGOING CONDUCT.  THE
MASTER'S REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH CONCLUDED
THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
SURCHARGED THE TRUSTEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,447.46, RESERVING SOME
QUESTIONS FOR LATER CONSIDERATION.  DARROW APPEALED AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, FOR REASONS THAT
WE WILL LATER CONSIDER.  184 F.2D 1.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS CORRECT AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CANNOT
STAND. 

AT THE OUTSET WE ARE MET WITH A JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION.  RESPONDENT
CONTENDS THAT WE ARE POWERLESS TO GRANT A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTIES
BECAUSE THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS JURISDICTIONALLY
DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT IS FILED IN THE NAME OF STACY MOSSER, A RESIGNED
TRUSTEE.  IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT JOHN W. GUILD, THE OTHER NAMED
PETITIONER, IS WITHOUT STANDING TO SEEK REVIEW BECAUSE HE IS ONLY AN
INDENTURE TRUSTEE.  BOTH CONTENTIONS ARE ERRONEOUS. 

AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE'S STANDING IS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY 52 STAT.
894, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 606, WHICH PROVIDES, "THE DEBTOR, THE INDENTURE
TRUSTEES, AND ANY CREDITOR OR STOCKHOLDER OF THE DEBTOR SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT TO BE HEARD ON ALL MATTERS ARISING IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS
CHAPTER."  AND RESPONDENT, IN OPPOSING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE,
ERRONEOUSLY RELIES ON CASES INVOLVING GOVERNMENT OFFICERS.  DAVIS V.
PRESTON, 280 U.S. 406; SNYDER V. BUCK, 340 U.S. 15.  SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEES, UNLIKE SUCCESSORS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS, ARE REGARDED AS
TRANSFEREES OR ASSIGNEES OF ALL THE INTERESTS OF THEIR PREDECESSOR, AND
REMOVAL OF A TRUSTEE DOES NOT CAUSE ABATEMENT.  52 STAT. 840, 860, 11
U.S.C. SEC. 74.  WE HOLD, IN ACCORD WITH BOWDEN V. JOHNSON, 107 U.S.
251, 264, THAT SUBSTITUTION IS FULLY AUTHORIZED AND PROPER IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND ACCORDINGLY TURN TO THE MERITS. 

THIS WAS A STRICT TRUSTEESHIP, NOT ONE OF THOSE QUASITRUSTEESHIPS IN
WHICH SELF-INTEREST AND REPRESENTATIVE INTERESTS ARE COMBINED.  A
REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COURT AND IT IS NOT
CONTENDED AND WOULD NOT BE ARGUABLE THAT IF HE HAD ENGAGED FOR HIS OWN
ADVANTAGE IN THE SAME TRANSACTIONS THAT HE AUTHORIZED ON THE PART OF
HIS SUBORDINATES HE SHOULD NOT BE SURCHARGED.  EQUITY TOLERATES IN
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES NO INTEREST ADVERSE TO THE TRUST.  THIS IS NOT
BECAUSE SUCH INTERESTS ARE ALWAYS CORRUPT BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE ALWAYS
CORRUPTING.  BY ITS EXCLUSION OF THE TRUSTEE FROM ANY PERSONAL
INTEREST, IT SEEKS TO AVOID SUCH DELICATE INQUIRIES AS WE HAVE HERE
INTO THE CONDUCT OF ITS OWN APPOINTEES BY EXACTING FROM THEM
FORBEARANCE OF ALL OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVANCE SELF-INTEREST THAT MIGHT
BRING THE DISINTERESTEDNESS OF THEIR ADMINISTRATION INTO QUESTION. 

THESE STRICT PROHIBITIONS WOULD SERVE LITTLE PURPOSE IF THE TRUSTEE
WERE FREE TO AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DO WHAT HE IS FORBIDDEN.  WHILE THERE
IS NO CHARGE OF IT HERE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS WOULD OPEN UP
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVIOUS DEALINGS IN THE NAME OF OTHERS THAT THE
TRUSTEE COULD NOT CONDUCT IN HIS OWN.  THE MOTIVES OF MAN ARE TOO
COMPLEX FOR EQUITY TO SEPARATE IN THE CASE OF ITS TRUSTEES THE MOTIVE
OF ACQUIRING EFFICIENT HELP FROM MOTIVES OF FAVORING HELP, FOR ANY
REASON AT ALL OR FROM ANTICIPATION OF COUNTER-FAVORS LATER TO COME.  WE
THINK THAT WHICH THE TRUSTEE HAD NO RIGHT TO DO HE HAD NO RIGHT TO
AUTHORIZE, AND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE AS FORBIDDEN FOR BENEFIT OF
OTHERS AS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ON BEHALF OF THE TRUSTEE HIMSELF. 

IT IS ARGUED HERE, AND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE VIEW OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THAT PRINCIPLES OF NEGLIGENCE APPLIED AND THAT A TRUSTEE COULD
NOT BE SURCHARGED UNDER MANY DECISIONS UNLESS GUILTY OF "SUPINE
NEGLIGENCE."  WE SEE NO ROOM FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
NEGLIGENCE IN A CASE IN WHICH CONDUCT HAS BEEN KNOWINGLY AUTHORIZED. 
THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF A TRUSTEE BETRAYED BY THOSE HE HAD GROUNDS TO
BELIEVE WERE TRUSTWORTHY, FOR THESE EMPLOYEES DID EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS
AGREED BY THE TRUSTEE THAT THEY SHOULD DO.  THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WAS
NEGLIGENT IN NOT MAKING DETAILED INQUIRIES INTO THEIR OPERATIONS IS
UNIMPORTANT, BECAUSE HE HAD GIVEN A BLANKET AUTHORITY FOR THE
OPERATIONS.  THE LIABILITY HERE IS NOT CREATED BY A FAILURE TO DETECT
DEFALCATIONS, IN WHICH CASE NEGLIGENCE MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO SURCHARGE
THE TRUSTEE, BUT IS A CASE OF A WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE SETTING UP OF AN
INTEREST IN EMPLOYEES ADVERSE TO THAT OF THAT TRUST. 

IT IS CONTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE TRUST HAS INCURRED NO LOSS. 
INDEED, IT IS ARGUED, AND MUCH EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN TO THE EFFECT, THAT
THE BUYING PROGRAM OF DARROW AS A WHOLE WAS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE
TRUST.  OF COURSE, THESE DEALINGS IN A RISING MARKET DID NOT DIRECTLY
EXTRACT ANY AMOUNTS FROM THE TILL OF THE TRUSTEE.  BUT IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT A BUYING PROGRAM TO RETIRE AT DISCOUNT BONDS OF SUBSIDIARIES
ADVANCES MOST RAPIDLY AND ACHIEVES ITS GREATEST RESULTS WHEN THE
PURCHASE PRICES ARE LOWEST.  DARROW CONCEDEDLY RELIED ON MISS JOHNSON
IN FIXING OFFERING PRICES.  THOSE OFFERING PRICES WERE SUFFICIENTLY
ABOVE WHAT BONDHOLDERS WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT, SO THAT A MARGIN WAS
LEFT FOR MISS JOHNSON TO PROFIT.  IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY
RIGGED FOR THE PURPOSE, BUT THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF THE RESULT.  IF
PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO TRUDGE TO THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE TO DISPOSE OF
THEIR HOLDINGS FOR LESS THAN HIS OFFER, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE
ADVANTAGE OF THAT LOW PRICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRUSTEE. 
INSTEAD, IN HIS OWN OFFICE, MISS JOHNSON INTERVENED BETWEEN THE SELLER
AND THE BUYER AND MADE A PROFIT FOR HERSELF BY DOING SO. 

IN ONE OF THE LARGER TRANSACTIONS, A BLOCK OF SECURITIES WAS OFFERED
AT JUDICIAL SALE.  DARROW DID NOT BID BUT MISS JOHNSON DID.  ABOUT ONE
HALF OF THE PURCHASE PRICE SHE OBTAINED THROUGH A RESALE TO DARROW.  HE
PAID HER, IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERY, $12,447 FOR SECURITIES THAT COST HER
APPROXIMATELY $8,000, AND HIS CHECK WAS USED BY MISS JOHNSON TO MAKE
THE PAYMENT DUE UNDER HER BID.  IF DARROW'S EMPLOYEES WERE ABLE TO
PURCHASE IN THE OPEN MARKET THESE SECURITIES AT LESS THAN DARROW ON
THEIR ADVICE THEREAFTER OFFERED AND PAID, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT
THERE WAS NO INJURY TO THE ESTATE OF THE TRUST THROUGH THESE
TRANSACTIONS.  BUT EQUITY HAS SOUGHT TO LIMIT DIFFICULT AND DELICATE
FACT-FINDING TASKS CONCERNING ITS OWN TRUSTEE BY PRECLUDING SUCH
TRANSACTIONS FOR THE REASON THAT THEIR EFFECT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO
TRACE, AND THE PROHIBITION IS NOT MERELY AGAINST INJURING THE ESTATE -
IT IS AGAINST PROFITING OUT OF THE POSITION OF TRUST.  THAT THIS HAS
OCCURRED, SO FAR AS THE EMPLOYEES ARE CONCERNED, IS UNDENIED. 

IT IS ARGUED, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN IMPRESSED
BY THE ARGUMENT, THAT THIS SURCHARGE CREATES A VERY HEAVY LIABILITY
UPON A MAN WHO ENJOYED NO PERSONAL PROFIT AND MUST BE CONDONED "'SO AS
NOT TO STRIKE TERROR INTO MANKIND ACTING FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS AND
NOT FOR THEIR OWN.'"  184 F.2D 1, 8.  TRUSTEES ARE OFTEN OBLIGED TO
MAKE DIFFICULT BUSINESS JUDGMENTS, AND THE BEST THAT DISINTERESTED
JUDGMENT CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH FORESIGHT MAY BE OPEN TO SERIOUS CRITICISM
BY OBSTREPEROUS CREDITORS AIDED BY HINDSIGHT.  COURTS ARE QUITE LIKELY
TO PROTECT TRUSTEES AGAINST HEAVY LIABILITIES FOR DISINTERESTED
MISTAKES IN BUSINESS JUDGMENT.  BUT A TRUSTEESHIP IS SERIOUS BUSINESS
AND IS NOT TO BE UNDERTAKEN LIGHTLY OR SO DISCHARGED.  THE MOST
EFFECTIVE SANCTION FOR GOOD ADMINISTRATION IS PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR
THE CONSEQUENCES OF FORBIDDEN ACTS, AND THERE ARE WAYS BY WHICH A
TRUSTEE MAY EFFECTIVELY PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST PERSONAL LIABILITY. 

THE PRACTICE IS WELL ESTABLISHED BY WHICH TRUSTEES SEEK INSTRUCTIONS
FROM THE COURT, GIVEN UPON NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES,
AS TO MATTERS WHICH INVOLVE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS OF JUDGMENT.  IN THIS
PARTICULAR MATTER, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF MISS
JOHNSON AND KULP WAS INDISPENSABLE TO THE TRUSTEE.  THIS, IT IS SAID,
IS THE REASON THE TRUSTEE YIELDED TO THEIR INSISTENCE UPON THE RIGHT TO
SPECULATE IN THE SECURITIES UNDERLYING THE TRUST.  IF THEIR SERVICES
WERE SO INDISPENSABLE THAT AN ARRANGEMENT SO HIGHLY IRREGULAR WAS OF
ADVANTAGE TO THE TRUST, THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED TO THE
COURT AND THE CREDITORS CITED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
OPENLY AUTHORIZED.  INSTEAD OF THIS, THE TRUSTEE, ALTHOUGH HE DID
DISCUSS WITH JUDGE HOLLY THE EMPLOYMENT OF KULP AND MISS JOHNSON, DID
NOT DISCLOSE THE CRITICAL FACT THAT HE WAS EMPLOYING THEM ON TERMS
WHICH PERMITTED THEIR TRADING IN THE UNDERLYING SECURITIES.  INDEED, IT
APPEARS THAT HE DID NOT EVEN DISCLOSE THIS FEATURE OF THE TRANSACTION
TO HIS OWN COUNSEL.  IT IS HARDLY PROBABLE THAT A CANDID DISCLOSURE TO
CREDITORS, TO THE COURT, AND TO INTERESTED PARTIES WOULD HAVE RESULTED
IN INSTRUCTIONS TO HAVE PURSUED THIS COURSE; BUT, HAD IT BEEN
AUTHORIZED, AT LEAST THE ASSENTING CREDITORS MIGHT HAVE FOUND
THEMSELVES ESTOPPED TO QUESTION THE TRANSACTION. 

A FURTHER REMEDY OF A TRUSTEE FOR LIMITING, IF NOT AVOIDING, PERSONAL
LIABILITY IS TO ACCOUNT AT PROMPT INTERVALS, WHICH PUTS UPON OBJECTORS
THE BURDEN OF RAISING THEIR OBJECTIONS.  AND HAD THE TRUSTEE ACCOUNTED,
AS GOOD PRACTICE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED, HE UNDOUBTEDLY WOULD HAVE
DISCOVERED LONG AGO THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS OBJECTIONABLE.  IT HARDLY
LIES IN THE MOUTH OF A TRUSTEE TO ALLOW HIS LIABILITIES TO ACCUMULATE
OVER SUCH A PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN ASK THE COURT TO RELIEVE HIM OF
THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE BECOME TOO BURDENSOME.    IN FAIRNESS TO THE
TRUSTEE, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO HINT OR PROOF THAT HE HAS
BEEN CORRUPT OR THAT HE HAS ANY INTEREST, PRESENT OR FUTURE, IN THE
PROFITS HE HAS PERMITTED THESE EMPLOYEES TO MAKE.  FOR ALL THAT
APPEARS, HE WAS SINPLY MISLED INTO THINKING THESE PERSONS
INDISPENSABLE, BUT HE ENTERED INTO AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH COURTS CANNOT
SANCTION UNLESS THEY ARE TO OPEN THE DOOR TO PRACTICES WHICH WOULD
DEMORALIZE TRUSTEESHIPS AND DISCREDIT BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION.    THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE SPECIAL MASTER, DISTRICT COURT, COURT OF APPEALS AND THIS COURT
ALL SEEM TO AGREE THAT THE RESPONDENT TRUSTEE, DARROW, HAS BEEN GUILTY
OF NO ACT OF BAD FAITH.  AS A RESULT OF HIS ADMINISTRATION, LARGE
PROFITS ACCRUED TO THE ESTATE.  NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT
RESPONDENT MUST BE SURCHARGED $43,000 SOLELY BECAUSE TWO OF THE TRUST'S
EMPLOYEES PROFITED TO THAT EXTENT FROM TRADING IN TRUST SECURITIES WITH
HIS KNOWLEDGE.  THIS RULE OF TRUSTEE LIABILITY DID NOT EXIST BEFORE
TODAY, AS IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT NO STATUTE OR CASE IS CITED IN
SUPPORT OF THE COURT'S DECISION. 

DESPITE ITS NOVELTY, THERE IS MUCH TO BE SAID IN FAVOR OF SUCH A RULE
FOR CASES ARISING IN THE FUTURE.  IT SEEMS TO ME, HOWEVER, THAT THERE
IS NO REASON WHY THE RULE SHOULD BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO THIS
RESPONDENT WHEN TO DO SO IS GROSSLY UNFAIR.  ADMITTEDLY, THE MOST THAT
CAN BE SAID AGAINST RESPONDENT IS THAT HE MADE AN HONEST MISTAKE WHICH
BEFORE TODAY WOULD NOT HAVE SUBJECTED HIM TO THE HEAVY FINANCIAL
PENALTY.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF THE NEW RULE IS TO BE ANNOUNCED
BY THE COURT, I THINK IT SHOULD BE GIVEN PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION ONLY. 
SEE GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. SUNBURST OIL CO., 287 U.S. 358 AND CASES
CITED, 85 A.L.R. 262. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :














ELDER V. BRANNAN, 341 U.S. 277 


ARGUED APRIL 11, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 7, 1951.  - 87 U.S. APP. D.C. 117,
184 F.2D 219, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  PETITIONERS ARE VETERANS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE VETERANS'
PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944.  THEY WERE APPOINTED AS ATTORNEYS IN A
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT IN 1943, WHEN A CIVIL SERVICE REGULATION LIMITED
SUCH APPOINTMENTS TO THE DURATION OF THE WAR PLUS SIX MONTHS, AND
PERSONS SO APPOINTED WERE NOT TO ACQUIRE A CLASSIFIED (COMPETITIVE)
CIVIL SERVICE STATUS.  IN 1947, THROUGH A REDUCTION IN FORCE,
PETITIONERS AND OTHER ATTORNEYS IN THE DEPARTMENT WERE SEPARATED FROM
THE SERVICE, ALTHOUGH NONVETERAN ATTORNEYS WITH CLASSIFIED STATUS WERE
RETAINED.  THEY SOUGHT RELIEF IN AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
ALLEGING THAT THEIR SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE WAS UNLAWFUL.  HELD:
PETITIONERS' SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION'S RETENTION-PREFERENCE REGULATIONS; THE REGULATIONS
WERE CONSISTENT WITH SEC. 12 OF THE ACT AND WERE VALID; AND
PETITIONERS' SEPARATION FROM THE FEDERAL SERVICE WAS THEREFORE VALID. 
PP. 281-285. 

(A)  PETITIONERS DID NOT ACQUIRE A CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE STATUS
AND WERE NOT ENTITLED UNDER CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS TO RETENTION
PREFERENCE OVER ALL NONVETERANS.  P. 281. 

(B)  THE PROVISO OF SEC. 12 OF THE ACT DOES NOT GIVE TO VETERANS WITH
AN EFFICIENCY RATING OF "GOOD" OR BETTER AN ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE OVER
ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES, WITH OR WITHOUT CLASSIFIED STATUS OR ITS
EQUIVALENT.  PP. 283-285. 

(C)  THE COMMISSION'S RETENTION REGULATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SEC.
12 OF THE ACT, CAN HARDLY BE DEEMED INVALID FOR MAKING A DISTINCTION ON
THE BASIS OF TENURE WHEN THEY REFLECT A LONG-STANDING DEFINITION OF
"COMPETING" GROUPS, WHEN THEY WERE ISSUED BY THE AGENCY WHICH PROPOSED
THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE FINALLY ADOPTED, AND WHEN CONGRESS INDICATED NO
INTENT WHATSOEVER TO SUPPLY A NEW STANDARD.  P. 285. 

(D)  THE CONTENTION THAT, APART FROM SEC. 12, VETERANS WERE GIVEN AN
ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE BY SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF 1912, 37 STAT. 413, AND
THAT THE PREFERENCE SO GRANTED WAS CARRIED OVER BY THE SAVING CLAUSE IN
SEC. 18 OF THE 1944 ACT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS TO THESE TEMPORARY WAR
SERVICE EMPLOYEES.  PP. 285-286. 

(E)  SECTION 2 OF THE 1944 ACT DOES NOT, IN AND OF ITSELF, EXTEND
ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE TO VETERANS WITH LIMITED TENURE.  NO SPECIFIC
PREFERENCE RIGHTS ARE GRANTED BY THAT SECTION.  P. 286. 

2.  PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD
REHIRED SOME OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS, THAT SOME OF THOSE REHIRED HAD A
LOWER CLASSIFICATION ON THE RETENTION REGISTER THAN THAT OF
PETITIONERS, AND THAT PETITIONERS WERE THUS WRONGFULLY DENIED
PREFERENCE IN REHIRING.  THEY DID NOT ALLEGE THAT THEY HAD REQUESTED
THAT THEIR NAMES BE PLACED ON THE APPROPRIATE REEMPLOYMENT LIST, NOR
THAT THE APPOINTING OFFICER FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SPECIFIED
BY SECS. 7, 8, 15 AND PERTINENT REGULATIONS.  HELD:  THE COMPLAINT WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ACT.  PP. 286-289. 

(A)  SECTION 2 OF THE 1944 ACT GRANTS PETITIONERS NO "REINSTATEMENT
AND REEMPLOYMENT" PREFERENCE RIGHTS.  PP. 286-287. 

(B)  REINSTATEMENT OR REEMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES ARE NOT TO BE MEASURED
BY RETENTION-PREFERENCE REGULATIONS UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE ACT.  P. 287. 

(C)  PETITIONERS' RIGHTS TO PREFERENCE IN REEMPLOYMENT WERE GOVERNED
BY SEC. 15 OF THE ACT.  THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THOSE RIGHTS ONLY IF THEY
REQUESTED THAT THEIR NAMES BE PLACED ON THE APPROPRIATE REEMPLOYMENT
LIST; AND, EVEN IF THEY DID SO, THEIR PREFERENCE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED
ONLY IF THE APPOINTING OFFICER FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES
SPECIFIED BY SECS. 7, 8, 15 AND PERTINENT REGULATIONS.  P. 289. 

ELDER ET AL. V. BRANNAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 

NO. 474.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 473, BRANNAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, V. ELDER
ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE BY TWO
VETERANS, WHO SOUGHT TO BE RESTORED TO THEIR FORMER POSITIONS IN THE
DEPARTMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTION OF THE SECRETARY FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED THE
CAUSE.  87 U.S. APP. D.C. 117, 184 F.2D 219.  THIS COURT GRANTED CROSS
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 928.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN
PART, AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, P. 289. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ACTIONS INVOLVE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PRECISE SCOPE OF
RIGHTS TO EMPLOYMENT IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE GRANTED BY THE VETERANS'
PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944.  58 STAT. 387, 5 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SECS.  851
ET SEQ. THE ULTIMATE ISSUES ARE TWO:  (1) WHETHER UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE
ACT VETERANS WITH TEMPORARY WAR-SERVICE APPOINTMENTS ARE ENTITLED TO
RETENTION PREFERENCE OVER NONVETERANS WITH THE EQUIVALENT OF CLASSIFIED
CIVIL SERVICE STATUS WHEN REDUCTION-IN-FORCE DISCHARGES ARE MADE; AND
(2) WHETHER THE REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF VETERANS LAWFULLY DISCHARGED ARE
GOVERNED BY SEC. 12 RETENTION PRIORITIES OR BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT. 

WE TREAT THESE CASES TOGETHER, AS DID THE COURTS BELOW, AND SHALL
REFER TO ELDER AND FURMAN AS PETITIONERS.  PETITIONERS ARE HONORABLY
DISCHARGED VETERANS AND AS SUCH ARE CONCEDEDLY ENTITLED TO WHATEVER
BENEFITS THE ACT AFFORDS.  THEY WERE APPOINTED ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS IN
THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN JULY
AND AUGUST 1943.  AT THE TIME OF THEIR APPOINTMENTS, A CIVIL SERVICE
REGULATION WAS IN EFFECT UNDER WHICH ALL APPOINTMENTS AS ATTORNEYS WERE
TO BE LIMITED TO THE DURATION OF THE WAR PLUS SIX MONTHS, AND PERSONS
SO APPOINTED WERE NOT TO ACQUIRE A CLASSIFIED (COMPETITIVE) CIVIL
SERVICE STATUS.  ON MAY 29, 1947, PETITIONERS AND EIGHTEEN OTHER
ATTORNEYS IN THE DEPARTMENT WERE NOTIFIED THAT, BECAUSE OF A REDUCTION
IN FORCE COMPELLED BY LACK OF FUNDS, THEY WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM
SERVICE ON JUNE 30 FOLLOWING.  NONVETERAN ATTORNEYS WITH EQUIVALENT OF
CLASSIFIED STATUS WERE TO BE RETAINED.  THE SELECTION WAS MADE ON THE
BASIS OF CIVIL SERVICE RETENTION-PREFERENCE REGULATIONS - UNDER SEC. 12
- WHICH PLAINLY REQUIRED THAT NONVETERANS WITH CLASSIFIED STATUS OR ITS
EQUIVALENT BE GIVEN A HIGHER RETENTION PRIORITY THAN VETERANS WITHOUT. 

PLAINTIFFS APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION, WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND THAT
THEIR SEPARATION WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS. 
MEANWHILE, HOWEVER, THEY INSTITUTED THESE ACTIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ALLEGING FIRST THAT THEY HAD ACQUIRED A
CLASSIFIED STATUS, AND HENCE WERE ENTITLED UNDER THE REGULATIONS TO A
RETENTION PRIORITY OVER NONVETERANS; SECOND, THAT IN ANY EVENT, THE
STATUTE GAVE VETERANS AN ABSOLUTE RETENTION PRIORITY REGARDLESS OF
STATUS, AND THAT COMMISSION REGULATIONS TO THE CONTRARY WERE INVALID. 

WHILE THESE ACTIONS WERE PENDING, THE DEPARTMENT CAME INTO ADDITIONAL
FUNDS, AND SEVERAL ATTORNEYS NOT REACHED FOR SEPARATION RESIGNED
VOLUNTARILY OR TRANSFERRED.  THE DEPARTMENT THEN REHIRED NINE OF THE
ATTORNEYS PREVIOUSLY SEPARATED, THE FIRST OF WHOM TOOK OFFICE ON
OCTOBER 27, 1947.  SOME OF THE ATTORNEYS REHIRED WERE NONVETERANS WITH
A LOWER REDUCTION-IN-FORCE RETENTION PRIORITY THAN THAT POSSESSED BY
PETITIONERS AT THE TIME ALL WERE SEPARATED.  ON THIS GROUND, THE LATTER
AMENDED THEIR COMPLAINTS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT TO ALLEGE IN
ADDITION THAT THEY HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF A PREFERENTIAL RIGHT TO
"REEMPLOYMENT" OR "REINSTATEMENT."  THE SECRETARY MOVED FOR A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AND THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTION.  ON APPEAL, THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT THAT PETITIONERS' SEPARATION
FROM THE SERVICE WAS LAWFUL.  BUT IT FOUND THAT THE ALLEGATIONS
CONCERNING VIOLATION OF REEMPLOYMENT OR REINSTATEMENT RIGHTS WERE WELL
FOUNDED.  THE COURT THEREFORE REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
THAT THE SECRETARY BE GIVEN LEAVE TO DENY THE FACTS ALLEGED.  87 U.S.
APP. D.C. 117, 184 F.2D 219.  FROM THIS JUDGMENT, THE PARTIES FILED
CROSS-PETITIONS FOR REVIEW.  PETITIONERS SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT
THAT THEIR SEPARATION WAS LAWFULLY CARRIED OUT.  THE SECRETARY SOUGHT
REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT THAT PETITIONERS' ALLEGATIONS AS TO DEPRIVATION
OF REEMPLOYMENT OR REINSTATEMENT RIGHTS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER
THE STATUTE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS IMPACT OF
THESE ISSUES ON FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT POLICIES.  340 U.S. 928(1951). 

FOR REASONS OUTLINED BELOW, WE AGREE THAT PETITIONERS' SEPARATION
FROM SERVICE WAS IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE STATUTE.  WE DISAGREE WITH THE
HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE SUFFICIENT TO STATE
AN UNLAWFUL DEPRIVATION OF A PREFERENTIAL RIGHT TO REEMPLOYMENT. 

                          I. 

AS THE COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT, THERE IS NO MERIT IN
PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THEY HAD ACQUIRED A CLASSIFIED CIVIL
SERVICE STATUS AND WERE THUS ENTITLED UNDER THE REGULATIONS TO
RETENTION PREFERENCE OVER ALL NONVETERANS.  FN1  THE VALIDITY OF
PETITIONERS' DISCHARGE, THEREFORE, TURNS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE
COMMISSION'S RETENTION-PREFERENCE REGULATIONS.  5 CFR (SUPP. 1947) SEC.
20.3.  THESE REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 12 OF THE
VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 861, WHICH READS IN PART AS
FOLLOWS: 

"IN ANY REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL IN ANY CIVILIAN SERVICE OF ANY FEDERAL
AGENCY, COMPETING EMPLOYEES SHALL BE RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS WHICH SHALL GIVE DUE EFFECT TO TENURE OF
EMPLOYMENT, MILITARY PREFERENCE, LENGTH OF SERVICE, AND EFFICIENCY
RATINGS:  PROVIDED,  ...  THAT PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHOSE EFFICIENCY
RATINGS ARE 'GOOD' OR BETTER SHALL BE RETAINED IN PREFERENCE TO ALL
OTHER COMPETING EMPLOYEES AND THAT PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHOSE
EFFICIENCY RATINGS ARE BELOW 'GOOD' SHALL BE RETAINED IN PREFERENCE TO
COMPETING NONPREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE EQUAL OR LOWER EFFICIENCY
RATINGS  ...." 

THE REGULATIONS FIRST DEFINE "COMPETING" EMPLOYEES ON THE BASIS OF
TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT.  THE HIGHEST PRIORITY IS GIVEN GROUP A, WHICH
INCLUDES (1) EMPLOYEES HAVING CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE STATUS, AND (2)
THOSE HOLDING POSITIONS EXCEPTED FROM EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS AND
WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE WITHOUT TIME LIMITATION.  GROUP B, SECOND IN
RETENTION PRIORITY, INCLUDES EMPLOYEES WITHOUT CLASSIFIED STATUS OR
WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THE DURATION OF THE WAR PLUS SIX
MONTHS.  GROUP C IS COMPOSED OF EMPLOYEES APPOINTED FOR ONE YEAR OR
LESS.  THE REGULATIONS THEN CLASSIFY EMPLOYEES WITHIN EACH GROUP ON THE
BASIS OF VETERANS' PREFERENCE AND EFFICIENCY RATINGS.  SUBGROUPS A-1, B
1 AND C-1 INCLUDE EMPLOYEES WITH BOTH VETERANS' PREFERENCE AND
EFFICIENCY RATINGS OF "GOOD" OR BETTER.  SUBGROUPS A-2, B-2 AND C-2
INCLUDE THOSE WITH "GOOD" OR BETTER EFFICIENCY RATINGS BUT WITHOUT
VETERANS' PREFERENCE.  UNDER THESE REGULATIONS, PETITIONERS, AS WAR
SERVICE EMPLOYEES, WERE CLASSIFIED B-1, AND WERE SEPARATED WHILE SOME
NONVETERAN ATTORNEYS WITH AN A-2 CLASSIFICATION (PERMANENT EMPLOYEES)
WERE RETAINED.  THE SECRETARY HAD NO OTHER CHOICE, SINCE THE
REGULATIONS GROUP EMPLOYEES BY TENURE AND LIMIT THE REACH OF VETERANS'
PREFERENCE TO COMPETING EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME GROUP. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THIS FEATURE VIOLATES THE STATUTE, THAT THE
PROVISO OF SEC. 12 PLAINLY GIVES VETERANS WITH AN EFFICIENCY RATING OF
"GOOD" OR BETTER AN ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE OVER ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES, WITH
OR WITHOUT CLASSIFIED STATUS OR ITS EQUIVALENT.  BUT THE PROVISO, LIKE
THE BODY OF SEC. 12, CONTAINS THE TERM "COMPETING" EMPLOYEES, WHICH
NECESSARILY IMPLIES THAT A VETERAN'S PREFERENCE OPERATES ONLY WITHIN A
DEFINED GROUP.  AND SINCE THE STATUTE DOES NOT SUPPLY A DEFINITION, WE
MUST DETERMINE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT, AND FROM PRIOR
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS, WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S DEFINITION MAY
REASONABLY BE SAID TO "CARRY INTO FULL EFFECT THE PROVISIONS, INTENT,
AND PURPOSE (OF THE STATUTE)."  5 U.S.C. SEC. 868. 

THIS COURT MADE A SIMILAR EXAMINATION IN HILTON V. SULLIVAN, 334 U.S.
323(1948).  THE DECISION IN THAT CASE UPHELD THE RETENTION-PREFERENCE
REGULATIONS INSOFAR AS THEY GRANTED VETERANS WITH CLASSIFIED STATUS AN
ABSOLUTE PRIORITY OVER NONVETERANS OF THE SAME STATUS REGARDLESS OF
LENGTH OF SERVICE.  THE COURT STATED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF ALL PERTINENT
HISTORY "NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF (SEC. 12)  ...  CAN FAIRLY BE
REACHED."  ID. AT 336.  SINCE "LENGTH OF SERVICE" AND "TENURE OF
EMPLOYMENT" APPEAR AS PARALLEL TERMS IN THE BODY OF SEC. 12, IT CAN BE
ARGUED THAT IF THE PROVISO ELIMINATES LENGTH OF SERVICE AS A BARRIER TO
VETERANS' PREFERENCE, IT ALSO ELIMINATES TENURE.  BUT THIS IGNORES A
CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE HISTORICAL TREATMENT OF THESE TWO FACTORS. 
EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS PRIOR TO 1944 HAD
CONSISTENTLY DISREGARDED LENGTH OF SERVICE IN GIVING VETERANS
PREFERENCE OVER NONVETERANS WITH THE SAME TENURE - A FACT STRESSED IN
THE HILTON CASE.  ID. AT 336-337.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REGULATIONS
HAD JUST AS CONSISTENTLY DISTINGUISHED "COMPETING" GROUPS ON THE BASIS
OF TENURE, AND HAD CONFINED THE SCOPE OF VETERANS' PREFERENCE TO
EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME GROUP.  AS EARLY AS 1932, THE COMMISSION PROVIDED
THAT REDUCTION IN FORCE WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN INVERSE ORDER OF
TENURE, PERMANENT EMPLOYEES TO BE SEPARATED LAST.  FN2  THE RULE WAS
STILL IN FORCE AT THE TIME THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944 WAS
PASSED.  5 CFR (SUPP. 1943) SEC. 12.304. 

MOREOVER, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT IS BARREN OF ANY
INDICATION THAT THIS LONG-ESTABLISHED SEPARATION OF "COMPETING"
EMPLOYEES ON THE BASIS OF TENURE WAS TO BE BROKEN DOWN AND SUBORDINATED
TO VETERANS' PREFERENCE.  IN GENERAL, THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO "GIVE
LEGISLATIVE SANCTION TO EXISTING VETERANS' PREFERENCE" AND TO "GIVE
SOME ADDITIONAL STRENGTH" TO THAT PREFERENCE.  FN3  ADDITIONAL RIGHTS
GRANTED WERE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO THE CONGRESS' ATTENTION.  ONE
ADDITION WHICH WAS STRESSED, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS THE THIRD PROVISO OF SEC.
12, WHICH GRANTS PREFERENCE TO VETERAN EMPLOYEES OF AN AGENCY WHEN THAT
AGENCY IS REPLACED OR ANY OF ITS FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.  FN4  BUT, IN THE ONLY INTERPRETIVE DISCUSSION OF
THE PROVISO HERE INVOLVED, COMMISSIONER FLEMMING STATED THAT IT "SIMPLY
CONTINUES WHAT HAS BEEN IN PRACTICE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FEDERAL
SERVICE SINCE 1923."  FN5  MORE IMPORTANT, TWO BILLS EARLIER PROPOSED
BY VETERANS' ORGANIZATIONS WOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY GRANTED THE RIGHT
WHICH PLAINTIFFS CLAIM IN THIS CASE - ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE IN RETENTION
REGARDLESS OF TENURE.  FN6  THESE BILLS WERE REJECTED IN FAVOR OF SEC.
12 AS ENACTED, THE LANGUAGE OF WHICH WAS PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION
ITSELF.  FN7  IN SUM, THE COMMISSION'S RETENTION REGULATIONS CAN HARDLY
BE CALLED INVALID FOR MAKING A DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF TENURE WHEN
THEY REFLECT A LONG-STANDING DEFINITION OF "COMPETING" GROUPS, WHEN
THEY WERE ISSUED BY THE AGENCY WHICH PROPOSED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE
FINALLY ADOPTED, AND WHEN CONGRESS INDICATED NO INTENT WHATSOEVER TO
SUPPLY A NEW STANDARD. 

TWO FURTHER POINTS REMAIN.  PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT, APART FROM SEC.
12, VETERANS WERE GIVEN AN ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE BY SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF
1912, 37 STAT. 413, AND THAT THE PREFERENCE SO GRANTED WAS CARRIED OVER
BY THE SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 18 OF THE 1944 ACT.  5 U.S.C. SEC. 867. 
THE FLAW IN THIS ARGUMENT, AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT, IS THAT SEC.
4 BY ITS TERMS WAS CONFINED TO THE CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE.  ITS
FEATURES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY APPLIED, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDERS, WITHIN THE
UNCLASSIFIED SERVICE, BUT AS INDICATED ABOVE, TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT
VETERANS NEVER HAD RETENTION PREFERENCE OVER PERMANENT TENURE
NONVETERANS.  ALTERNATIVELY, PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT SEC. 2 OF THE
1944 ACT IN AND OF ITSELF EXTENDS ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE TO VETERANS WITH
LIMITED TENURE.  5 U.S.C. SEC. 851.  BUT IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT SEC. 2
GIVES NO SPECIFIC PREFERENCE RIGHTS AT ALL.  THE SECTION CONTAINS ONLY
A GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY, A LISTING OF PREFERRED GROUPS, AND A
SPECIFICATION OF FEDERAL POSITIONS COVERED.  IT PROVIDES THAT
"PREFERENCE SHALL BE GIVEN" IN CERTIFICATION FOR APPOINTMENT,
APPOINTMENT, REINSTATEMENT, REEMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION; IT DOES NOT
DELINEATE WHAT THAT PREFERENCE SHALL BE.  THE DETAILS ARE SPELLED OUT
IN SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS OF THE ACT, RETENTION PREFERENCE BEING GOVERNED
BY SEC. 12.  CF. HILTON V. SULLIVAN, SUPRA.  SECTION 2 WAS DESCRIBED
THROUGHOUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS MERELY "DEFINING THE GROUPS TO
WHOM PREFERENCE WAS TO BE GRANTED."  FN8 

SINCE RETENTION RIGHTS ARE GOVERNED BY SEC. 12, AND SINCE THE
REGULATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE, PETITIONERS WERE PROPERLY
SEPARATED FROM THEIR POSITIONS IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE. 

II.    THE COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFFS WERE WRONGFULLY DENIED PREFERENCE
IN REHIRING RESTS SOLELY ON THE ALLEGATION THAT THE DEPARTMENT
REEMPLOYED ATTORNEYS WITH A LOWER CLASSIFICATION ON THE RETENTION
REGISTER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THIS ALLEGATION, NOT
DENIED BY THE SECRETARY, WAS SUFFICIENT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
UNDER THE STATUTE.  IT HELD THAT SEC. 2 OF THE STATUTE GRANTED
"REINSTATEMENT AND RE-EMPLOYMENT" PREFERENCE RIGHTS, AND THAT THESE
RIGHTS WERE MEASURED BY THE RETENTION-PREFERENCE REGULATIONS UNDER SEC.
12.  87 U.S. APP. D.C. 117, 120, 184 F.2D 219, 222(C.A.D.C. CIR.
1950).  NEITHER OF THESE HOLDINGS WITHSTANDS ANALYSIS.  SECTION 2, AS
HAS BEEN INDICATED, GRANTS NO SPECIFIC RIGHTS EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT MAY
BE THOUGHT TO PRESERVE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEC. 18, ANY RIGHTS
PREVIOUSLY ARISING FROM STATUTE, EXECUTIVE ORDER OR REGULATION AND NOT
GRANTED BY THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE 1944 ACT. 

NOR ARE WE ABLE TO ACCEPT THE RULING THAT REINSTATEMENT OR
REEMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES ARE TO BE MEASURED BY RETENTION-PREFERENCE
REGULATIONS UNDER SEC. 12.  REEMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES ARE SPECIALLY
DEALT WITH ELSEWHERE IN THE ACT.  SECTION 15 PROVIDES THAT ALL
PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES WHO HAVE BEEN SEPARATED WITHOUT FAULT ON THEIR
PART MAY - AT THEIR REQUEST - HAVE THEIR NAMES PLACED ON ALL
APPROPRIATE REGISTERS OR EMPLOYMENT LISTS FOR POSITIONS FOR WHICH THEY
ARE QUALIFIED.  5 U.S.C. SEC. 864.  IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THEIR
ELIGIBILITY FOR REAPPOINTMENT IS THEN GOVERNED BY SECS. 7 AND 8 OF THE
ACT, DEALING WITH APPOINTMENTS IN GENERAL.  5 U.S.C. SECS. 856, 857. 
THE NAMES OF PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES ARE PLACED ON THE APPROPRIATE
REGISTERS OR LISTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE NUMERICAL
RATINGS, WHICH ARE AUGMENTED BY 10 POINTS IN THE CASE OF DISABLED
VETERANS, THEIR WIVES, OR UNMARRIED WIDOWS OF DECEASED VETERANS; 5
POINTS IN THE CASE OF OTHER PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES.  5 U.S.C. SEC. 852. 
THE APPOINTING OFFICER MAY PASS OVER A VETERAN IN FAVOR OF A
NONVETERAN, BUT IF HE DOES SO HE MUST FILE IN WRITING HIS REASONS
THEREFOR, AND THE COMMISSION MUST EXAMINE THOSE REASONS TO DETERMINE
THEIR SUFFICIENCY.  SECTION 15 FURTHER PROVIDES THAT NO APPOINTMENT
SHALL BE MADE FROM AN EXAMINATION REGISTER, EXCEPT OF 10-POINT
PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES, WHEN THERE ARE THREE OR MORE NAMES OF PREFERENCE
ELIGIBLES ON ANY APPROPRIATE REEMPLOYMENT LIST FOR THE POSITION TO BE
FILLED. 

THERE IS NO PERSUASIVE REASON WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 15 ARE NOT
APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.  PETITIONERS MAKE A TWOFOLD ARGUMENT TO THE
CONTRARY:  (1) THAT THEIR RIGHT WAS TO PREFERENCE IN "REINSTATEMENT"
RATHER THAN IN "REEMPLOYMENT," AND THAT "REINSTATEMENT" PREFERENCE IS
GRANTED AND GOVERNED BY SEC. 2; (2) THAT SEC. 15 APPLIES ONLY TO THE
COMPETITIVE CIVIL SERVICE, FROM WHICH ATTORNEYS WERE EXCEPTED BY
REGULATIONS TAKING EFFECT MAY 1, 1947.  12 FED. REG. 2839, 5 CFR (SUPP.
1947) SEC. 6.4.  EVEN IF VALID, THE FIRST CONTENTION IS OF NO HELP TO
PETITIONERS.  "REINSTATEMENT" - TO THE EXTENT IT HAD ANY PECULIAR
MEANING IN CIVIL SERVICE PARLANCE PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT 1944 ACT WAS
PASSED - MEANT REEMPLOYMENT OF A PERSON UPON FORMAL REQUEST OF THE
APPOINTING OFFICER.  1 FED. REG. 602, 5 CFR SECS. 9.1, 9.101(1939). 
FN9  THE PREFERENCE ACCORDED VETERANS WAS THAT THEY MIGHT BE REINSTATED
WITHOUT TIME LIMIT, WHEREAS A REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF NONVETERANS
HAD TO COME WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIODS AFTER THEIR SEPARATION.  THE TERM
WAS NOT CONFINED TO REAPPOINTMENT TO A POSITION FORMERLY HELD.  AN
INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED EMPLOYEE COULD BE REINSTATED IN ANY PART OF THE
SERVICE, AND THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR SIMILAR
REINSTATEMENT OF ANY CLASSIFIED STATUS EMPLOYEE.  THE APPARENT ANALOGUE
OF THIS TYPE OF REEMPLOYMENT IS CONTAINED IN SEC. 13 OF THE 1944 ACT,
WHICH PROVIDES THAT ANY PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE "WHO HAS RESIGNED OR WHO
HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR FURLOUGHED" MAY BE APPOINTED TO ANY POSITION FOR
WHICH HE IS ELIGIBLE "AT THE REQUEST OF ANY APPOINTING OFFICER."  5
U.S.C. SEC. 862.  PETITIONERS WOULD INTERPRET SEC. 2 AS CREATING AN
ENTIRELY NEW AND ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF PREFERENCE IN "REINSTATEMENT," NOT
DEPENDENT UPON THE REQUEST OF THE APPOINTING OFFICER.  SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION WOULD NOT ONLY STRETCH SEC. 2 BEYOND ITS APPARENT AND
INTENDED SCOPE, BUT WOULD IN EFFECT STRIKE SEC. 15 OFF THE BOOKS, SINCE
NO VETERAN WOULD EVER HAVE CAUSE TO USE THE LIMITED PREFERENCE IN
REEMPLOYMENT THERE GRANTED. 

THE SECOND CLAIM, THAT SEC. 15 COVERS REEMPLOYMENT ONLY IN POSITIONS
WITHIN THE COMPETITIVE CIVIL SERVICE, IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  THE
APPROPRIATE REGISTERS AND LISTS "FOR EVERY POSITION FOR WHICH HIS
QUALIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, AS MAINTAINED BY THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, OR AS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY ANY AGENCY OR PROJECT
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  ...  " 

PETITIONERS WERE LAWFULLY SEPARATED FROM THEIR POSITIONS IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.  THEIR RIGHTS TO PREFERENCE IN REEMPLOYMENT
WERE GOVERNED BY SEC. 15 OF THE ACT.  THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THOSE
RIGHTS ONLY IF THEY REQUESTED THAT THEIR NAMES BE PLACED ON THE
APPROPRIATE REEMPLOYMENT LIST.  THEIR COMPLAINTS CONTAIN NO ALLEGATION
THAT THEY MADE SUCH A REQUEST.  AND EVEN IF THEY DID SO, THEIR
PREFERENCE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED ONLY IF THE APPOINTING OFFICER FAILED
TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SPECIFIED BY SECS. 7, 8, 15 AND PERTINENT
REGULATIONS.  AGAIN, THERE ARE NO SUCH ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINTS. 
THE COMPLAINTS AS THEY STAND ARE FATALLY DEFECTIVE IN THESE RESPECTS,
AND UNLESS PETITIONERS ON REMAND ARE ABLE TO SUPPLY THE MISSING LINKS
IN ALLEGATIONS AND PROOF, THE SECRETARY IS ENTITLED TO A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED
IN PART, AND THE CASES ARE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  EXECUTIVE ORDER 9063, ISSUED FEBRUARY 16, 1942, AND IN EFFECT AT
ALL TIMES RELEVANT, AUTHORIZED THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TO
FORMULATE SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF PERSONNEL DURING
THE WAR, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT "(PERSONS APPOINTED SOLELY BY REASON
OF ANY SPECIAL PROCEDURES ADOPTED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THIS ORDER  ...
SHALL NOT THEREBY ACQUIRE A CLASSIFIED (COMPETITIVE) CIVIL-SERVICE
STATUS, BUT, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, MAY BE
RETAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR AND FOR SIX MONTHS THEREAFTER."  3
CFR (CUM. SUPP. 1943) 1091.  ON MARCH 16, 1942, THE BOARD OF LEGAL
EXAMINERS, FUNCTIONING UNDER THE COMMISSION, AMENDED ITS REGULATIONS TO
PROVIDE THAT ALL APPOINTMENT TO ATTORNEY POSITIONS BE EFFECTED UNDER
THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND BE LIMITED TO THE DURATION OF THE WAR PLUS
SIX MONTHS.  7 FED. REG. 2201.  SEE ALSO EXECUTIVE ORDER 9230, 7 FED.
REG. 6665, 3 CFR (CUM. SUPP. 1943) 1201, 1202.  THIS REGULATION WAS
CONTINUED IN EFFECT BY SEC. 17.1(G) OF THE BOARD'S REGULATIONS, 5 CFR
(CUM. SUPP. 1943) SEC. 17.1(G), AND SEC. 17.1(G) REMAINED IN EFFECT
WHEN, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 9358 OF JULY 1, 1943, 8 FED. REG. 9175, THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD WERE VESTED IN THE COMMISSION ITSELF.  NO
PLAUSIBLE REASON HAS BEEN OR COULD BE ADVANCED FOR HOLDING THIS
REGULATION INVALID. 

FN2  MINUTE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AUGUST 11, 1932.  SEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ACTS, RULES AND REGULATIONS (AS AMENDED TO
SEPTEMBER 15, 1934), P. 54. 

FN3  STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE STARNES, AUTHOR OF THE BILL,
HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE ON S. 1762 AND H.R.
4115, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 8-9; STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RAMSPECK,
CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE, 90 CONG. REC. 3505(1944). 

FN4  HEARINGS, SUPRA, NOTE 3 AT 9-10.  FOR A SPECIFICATION OF THIS
AND OTHER ADDITIONS TO VETERANS' RIGHTS, SEE ALSO, 90 CONG. REC. 3503;
S. REP. NO. 907, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2-4; H.R. REP. NO. 1289, 78TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 3-4. 

FN5  HEARINGS, SUPRA, NOTE 3 AT 27. 

FN6  H.R. 5101, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 5147, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN7  H.R. REP. NO. 1289, SUPRA, NOTE 4 AT 6. 

FN8  H.R. REP. NO. 1289, SUPRA, NOTE 4 AT 3; S. REP. NO. 907, SUPRA,
NOTE 4 AT 2; 90 CONG. REC. 3503. 

FN9  THE PROVISIONS OF PART 9 WERE SUPERSEDED IN PART BY THE WARTIME
SERVICE REGULATIONS ADOPTED IN 1943, SEC. 18.8 OF WHICH PROVIDED THAT
FORMER EMPLOYEES WITH AT LEAST ONE YEAR'S SERVICE "MAY BE REAPPOINTED
BY WAR SERVICE APPOINTMENT TO ANY POSITION FOR WHICH HE MEETS THE
STANDARDS," AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT VETERANS WHO WOULD HAVE STATUS
FOR REINSTATEMENT UNDER PART 9 COULD BE REEMPLOYED WITHOUT REGARD TO
LENGTH OF PRIOR SERVICE.  5 CFR (SUPP. 1943) SEC. 18.8. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. CHAMPLIN RFG. CO., 341 U.S. 290 


NO. 433.  ARGUED MARCH 8-9, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 7, 1951.  - 95 F.SUPP. 
170, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


APPELLEE OWNS AND OPERATES A PIPE LINE FROM ITS REFINERY IN OKLAHOMA
TO ITS TERMINALS IN OTHER STATES.  IT USES THE PIPE LINE SOLELY TO
CARRY ITS OWN REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.  NO OTHER PIPE LINE OR
REFINER HAS CONNECTIONS WITH APPELLEE'S LINE, AND NO OTHER REFINER HAS
EVER SHIPPED PRODUCTS THROUGH IT.  AT EACH OF ITS TERMINALS, APPELLEE
HAS STORAGE FACILITIES FROM WHICH IT MAKES DELIVERIES TO JOBBER
PURCHASERS, WHO SUPPLY THEIR OWN TRANSPORTATION THEREFROM.  AT TWO OF
ITS TERMINALS IT HAS ETHYL PLANTS WHERE IT PROCESSES 20% OF ITS
PRODUCTS.  APPELLEE PRESENTLY HANDLES 1.98% OF THE TOTAL PRODUCTS
CONSUMED IN ITS MARKETING AREA.  THERE ARE AMPLE COMMON-CARRIER PIPE
LINE FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO THESE MARKETS; AND NO REFINERY OR OTHER
PIPE-LINE COMPANY HAS REQUESTED A CONNECTION WITH APPELLEE.  IN AN
EARLIER PROCEEDING, CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S.
29, THIS COURT FOUND THAT APPELLEE WAS A "COMMON CARRIER" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 1 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND SUSTAINED A
COMMISSION ORDER UNDER SEC. 19A REQUIRING APPELLEE TO FILE VALUATION
DATA, MAPS, CHARTS, ETC. PERTAINING TO ITS OPERATIONS.  HELD: 

1.  A SUBSEQUENT ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS SUSTAINED, INSOFAR AS IT
REQUIRES APPELLEE, UNDER SEC. 20 OF THE ACT, TO FILE ANNUAL, PERIODIC
AND SPECIAL REPORTS, AND TO INSTITUTE AND MAINTAIN A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF
ACCOUNTS APPLICABLE TO PIPE LINES.  PP. 294-297. 

2.  INSOFAR AS THE ORDER REQUIRES APPELLEE, UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE ACT,
TO PUBLISH AND FILE SCHEDULES SHOWING RATES AND CHARGES FOR INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS - WHICH MIGHT FORCE
APPELLEE TO DEVOTE ITS PIPE LINE, AT LEAST PARTIALLY, TO PUBLIC USE -
IT GOES BEYOND WHAT CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED WHEN IT PASSED THE ACT; AND
IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  PP. 297-301. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF OKLAHOMA. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER REQUIRING APPELLEE
TO TAKE CERTAIN STEPS UNDER SECS. 6 AND 20 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  274 I.C.C. 409.  A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT DENIED
ENFORCEMENT.  95 F.SUPP.  170.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, P. 301. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CARRIERS" ENGAGED IN THE "TRANSPORTATION" OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITIES
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN OTHER
FOUND THAT CHAMPLIN, AS OWNER OF A PIPE LINE, WAS A "COMMON CARRIER"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1; AND ON THE RECORD THERE PRESENTED THE
COURT UPHELD AN I.C.C. ORDER UNDER SEC. 19A (A)-(E) OF THE ACT
REQUIRING THE COMPANY TO SUBMIT VALUATION DATA, MAPS, CHARTS AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO ITS OPERATIONS N2.  CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 29(1946).  THE PRESENT PROCEEDING INVOLVES A
SUBSEQUENT I.C.C. ORDER DIRECTING CHAMPLIN (1) TO FILE ANNUAL, PERIODIC
AND SPECIAL REPORTS, AND TO INSTITUTE AND MAINTAIN A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF
ACCOUNTS APPLICABLE TO PIPE LINES, BOTH UNDER SEC. 20 OF THE ACT; FN3
AND (2) TO PUBLISH AND FILE SCHEDULES SHOWING THE RATES AND CHARGES FOR
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, PURSUANT TO
SEC. 6.  FN4 

A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, WITH ONE MEMBER
DISSENTING, REFUSED TO ENFORCE THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT CHAMPLIN,
AT LEAST FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECS. 6 AND 20, IS NOT WITHIN THE CLASS OF
CARRIERS INTENDED TO BE REGULATED BY THE ACT.  IT HELD FURTHER THAT TO
IMPOSE THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 6 ON CHAMPLIN WOULD BE TO TAKE ITS
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  95
F.SUPP.  170.  THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMISSION APPEALED, 28 U.S.C.
SECS. 1253, 2101(E), 2325. 

THE FACTS HERE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IN THE EARLIER CASE. 
CHAMPLIN OWNS AND OPERATES A PIPE LINE RUNNING FROM ITS REFINERY AT
ENID, OKLAHOMA, TO TERMINALS AT HUTCHINSON, KANSAS; SUPERIOR, NEBRASKA;
AND ROCK RAPIDS, IOWA - A DISTANCE OF 516 MILES.  IT USES THE PIPE LINE
SOLELY TO CARRY ITS OWN REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, SUCH AS GASOLINE
AND KEROSENE.  NO OTHER REFINER HAS CONNECTIONS WITH THE LINE, AND NONE
HAS EVER SHIPPED PRODUCTS THROUGH IT.  THE LINE DOES NOT CONNECT WITH
ANY OTHER PIPE LINE.  CHAMPLIN HAS STORAGE FACILITIES AT EACH OF ITS
THREE TERMINALS.  JOBBERS PURCHASING CHAMPLIN PRODUCTS SUPPLY THEIR OWN
TRANSPORTATION FROM THE STORAGE TANKS TO THEIR BULK DEPOTS. 

SINCE THE FIRST CASE, THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN CHAMPLIN'S METHOD OF
QUOTING PRICES.  AT THE TIME OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDING, THE PRICE WAS
COMPUTED AS F.O.B. THE ENID REFINERY, PLUS A DIFFERENTIAL EQUAL TO THE
THROUGH RAIL RATE FROM ENID TO THE PURCHASER'S DESTINATION MINUS THE
CHARGES FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE NEAREST PIPE-LINE TERMINAL
AND THE DESTINATION.  HOWEVER, CHAMPLIN MADE FREQUENT AND SUBSTANTIAL
DEPARTURES FROM THIS FORMULA IN ORDER TO MEET COMPETITIVE PRICES AT
VARIOUS LOCATIONS.  IN MAY 1948, THE COMPANY BEGAN QUOTING PRICES AS
F.O.B. THE RESPECTIVE TERMINALS, A POLICY WHICH IS STILL IN EFFECT. 
BUT AS BEFORE, ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE SO THAT DELIVERED PRICES TO JOBBERS
WILL BE COMPETITIVE WITH THOSE OFFERED BY OTHER REFINERS. 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE AND OTHER FACTS, THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS (1)
THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT FACTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS AND THE
PRIOR CASE, AND THEREFORE CHAMPLIN IS BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
FROM RELITIGATING THE HOLDING OF THIS COURT THAT IT IS A "COMMON
CARRIER" ENGAGED IN "TRANSPORTATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1 OF
THE ACT; (2) THAT SINCE THE DEFINITION OF "COMMON CARRIER" IN SEC. 1
APPLIES TO SECS. 6 AND 20 AS WELL AS TO SEC. 19A, THE COURT'S PRIOR
HOLDING PER SE ESTABLISHES THE VALIDITY OF THE PRESENT ORDER; (3) THAT
EVEN IF ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY, THE FACTS ARE ADEQUATE UNDER THE
STATUTE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER; (4) THAT THE ALLEGED
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS FRIVOLOUS. 

CHAMPLIN CLAIMS (1) THAT FACTUAL CHANGES REMOVE THIS CASE FROM THE
REALM OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; (2) THAT THE COURT SPECIFICALLY RESERVED
THE STATUTORY ISSUE PRESENTED BY THIS CASE, NAMELY WHETHER THE I.C.C.
MAY CONVERT A PRIVATE CARRIER INTO A COMMON CARRIER FOR HIRE; AND (3)
THAT THE LOWER COURT WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ACT VIOLATES THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT IF CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE THE I.C.C.'S ORDER. 

WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT
FACTUAL CHANGES IN CHAMPLIN'S OPERATIONS SINCE THE PRIOR CASE.  THE
PRACTICE OF QUOTING PRICES F.O.B. ENID MADE IT SUPERFICIALLY MORE
OBVIOUS THAT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE BEING COLLECTED, A POINT WHICH
THE COURT BROUGHT OUT.  329 U.S. AT 34.  AND THE RECORD INDICATES THAT
THE CHANGE TO AN F.O.B. TERMINAL FORMULA RESULTED IN MINOR ALTERATIONS
IN THE PATTERN OF RELATIVE DELIVERED PRICES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS.  BUT
CHAMPLIN IS STILL TRANSPORTING, AND UNLESS IT HAS LAUNCHED ON A
CALCULATED PLAN OF BANKRUPTCY, ITS PRICES ON THE AVERAGE ARE
NECESSARILY INTENDED TO COVER TRANSPORTATION COSTS AS WELL AS OTHER
COSTS.  CHAMPLIN FURTHER POINTS OUT THAT IT HAS CONSTRUCTED ETHYL
PLANTS AT TWO OF ITS PIPE-LINE TERMINALS AND IS THERE PROCESSING SOME
20 PERCENT OF ITS PRODUCTS.  IT CLAIMS THAT THIS CHANGE MAKES THE PIPE
LINE A PART OF "MANUFACTURING" FACILITIES AND THUS BRINGS THE COMPANY
WITHIN THE UNCLE SAM RULE, WHICH EXCEPTED A CLASS OF GATHERING LINES
FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT.  PIPE LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548,
562(1914).  BUT A CHAMPLIN OFFICER TESTIFIED IN THIS CASE THAT THE
COMPANY HAS "ALWAYS DONE SOME BLENDING AND TREATING" OF ITS PRODUCTS AT
THE TERMINALS; AND 80 PERCENT OF THE PRODUCTS ARE STILL TRANSPORTED IN
THEIR FINAL FORM.  HENCE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR RECONSIDERING
THIS COURT'S REFUSAL TO "EXPAND THE ACTUAL HOLDING" OF THE UNCLE SAM
CASE TO INCLUDE CHAMPLIN, AND ITS RULING THAT CHAMPLIN WAS A "COMMON
CARRIER" AS DEFINED BY SEC. 1 OF THE ACT. 

HOWEVER, WE DISAGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE PRIOR
HOLDING DISPOSES OF ALL THE STATUTORY ISSUES IN THIS CASE.  TO BE SURE,
THE LITERAL TERMS OF THE STATUTE LEND SOME WEIGHT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
ARGUMENT.  SECTION 1(1) PROVIDES THAT "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART"
SHALL APPLY TO "COMMON CARRIERS" AS DEFINED, THE WORD "PART" REFERRING
TO SECS. 1-27 INCLUSIVE.  SECTION 19A, UNDER WHICH THE EARLIER ORDER
WAS ISSUED, APPLIES TO "EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS PART."  SECTION 20 APPLIES TO "CARRIERS," WHICH IS DEFINED IN
SUBPARAGRAPH (8) AS "COMMON (CARRIERS) SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER"; AND
SEC. 6 APPLIES TO "EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS CHAPTER."  HENCE, THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ORDERS
UNDER ANY OF THESE SECTIONS IS DETERMINED BY A DECISION THAT A COMPANY
IS A "COMMON CARRIER" UNDER SEC. 1.  THE GOVERNMENT IN EFFECT ARGUES,
HOWEVER, THAT A DECISION AS TO JURISDICTION ALSO SETTLES THE MERITS,
THAT FACTS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A SPECIFIC VALUATION ORDER UNDER SEC.
19A ARE ALSO ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT AN ORDER UNDER SECS. 6 AND 20.  BUT
THIS IS THE VERY CONCLUSION WHICH THIS COURT NECESSARILY REJECTED IN
CHAMPLIN I. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS CHAMPLIN WHICH ARGUED THAT AN
INTERPRETATION ENCOMPASSING IT WITHIN SEC. 1 WOULD CONVERT A PRIVATE
PIPE LINE INTO A PUBLIC UTILITY AND REQUIRE IT TO BECOME A COMMON
CARRIER IN FACT.  BUT THE COURT STATED THAT "OUR CONCLUSION RESTS ON NO
SUCH BASIS AND AFFORDS NO SUCH IMPLICATION.  ...  THE CONTENTION  ...
IS TOO PREMATURE AND HYPOTHETICAL TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION  ...  "  329
U.S. AT 35.  IN HOLDING MERELY THAT CHAMPLIN COULD BE REQUIRED TO
SUBMIT INFORMATION AS A "COMMON CARRIER" UNDER THE ACT, THE COURT
PLAINLY INDICATED THAT THE APPLICATION OF MORE RIGOROUS SANCTIONS WOULD
BE RESERVED FOR TREATMENT AS AN INDEPENDENT STATUTORY ISSUE ON A PROPER
RECORD. 

THE REASONS FOR THIS APPROACH WERE SUGGESTED IN VALVOLINE OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 141, 146(1939).  COLLECTION OF INFORMATION HAS
A SIGNIFICANCE INDEPENDENT FROM THE IMPOSITION OF REGULATIONS, WHETHER
OR NOT SUCH REGULATIONS EVER COME FORTH.  VALUATION AND COST DATA FROM
COMPANIES NOT SUBJECT TO RATE MAKING MAY ADD TO THE STATISTICAL
RELIABILITY OF STANDARDS IMPOSED ON THOSE COMPANIES WHICH ARE. 
"PUBLICITY ALONE MAY GIVE EFFECTIVE REMEDY TO ABUSES, IF ANY THERE
BE."  ID. AT 146.  DISCLOSURE MAY ALTER THE FUTURE COURSE OF A COMPANY
OTHERWISE DISPOSED TO INDULGE IN ACTIVITIES WHICH THE STATUTE
CONDEMNS.  DISCLOSURE PROVIDES THE BASIS FOR PROMPT ACTION SHOULD A
FUTURE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE FULL-SCALE REGULATION APPROPRIATE. 
FINALLY, REPORTS MAY BRING TO LIGHT NEW ABUSES AND THUS PROVIDE THE
GROUND-WORK FOR FUTURE STATUTORY AMENDMENTS.  WE ASSUME THAT THE
CONGRESS WHICH PASSED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WAS WELL AWARE OF
THESE BENEFITS.  WE CONCLUDE, AS BEFORE, THAT THE CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN
TO ESCHEW THEM BY OMITTING A GENERAL PROVISION EMPOWERING THE
COMMISSION TO COLLECT PERTINENT DATA FROM ALL INTERSTATE PIPE LINES. 

THE PRIOR HOLDING, THEREFORE, SUPPORTS THAT PART OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER INVOLVING SEC. 20 OF THE ACT.  THE REQUIREMENT OF ANNUAL AND
SPECIAL REPORTS CANNOT BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM A REQUEST FOR MAPS,
CHARTS AND VALUATION DATA.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT CHAMPLIN MAINTAIN A
UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS IS SOMEWHAT MORE BURDENSOME, BUT WE THINK
ITS INDEPENDENT VALUE AS A MEASURING ROD FOR COMPANIES FULLY REGULATED
UNDER THE ACT IS CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION'S
REQUESTING SO MUCH AS IS PERTINENT. 

AT THE SAME TIME, WE FIND IT HARD TO CONCLUDE, DESPITE THE GENERALITY
OF THE STATUTORY TERMS USED, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO APPLY THE
SANCTIONS OF SEC. 6 - IMPOSING THE DUTY OF SERVING THE PUBLIC AT
REGULATED RATES - ON ALL PRIVATE PIPE LINES MERELY BECAUSE THEY CROSS
STATE LINES.  THE STATUTE CANNOT BE DIVORCED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES
EXISTING AT THE TIME IT WAS PASSED, AND FROM THE EVIL WHICH CONGRESS
SOUGHT TO CORRECT AND PREVENT.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE EVIL ARE WELL
KNOWN.  PIPE LINES WERE FEW IN NUMBER AND HEAVILY CONCENTRATED UNDER
THE CONTROL OF ONE COMPANY, STANDARD OIL.  THAT COMPANY, THROUGH THE
OWNERSHIP OF SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, HAD "MADE ITSELF MASTER OF
THE ONLY PRACTICABLE OIL TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE OIL FIELDS EAST OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN AND CARRIED MUCH THE GREATER PART OF
THE OIL BETWEEN THOSE POINTS.  ...  AVAILING ITSELF OF ITS MONOPOLY OF
THE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION (IT) REFUSED THROUGH ITS SUBORDINATES TO
CARRY ANY OIL UNLESS THE SAME WAS SOLD TO IT OR TO THEM  ...  ON TERMS
MORE OR LESS DICTATED BY ITSELF."  PIPE LINE CASES, SUPRA, AT 559. 
SMALL INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS - WHO LACKED THE RESOURCES TO CONSTRUCT
THEIR OWN LINES, OR WHOSE OUTPUT WAS SO SMALL THAT A PIPE LINE BUILT TO
CARRY THAT OUTPUT ALONE WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE - WERE IN A
DESPERATE COMPETITIVE POSITION.  THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT, FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THAT THE ACT WAS PASSED TO ELIMINATE THE
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE WHICH EXISTING OR FUTURE INTEGRATED COMPANIES
MIGHT POSSESS FROM EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF A PIPE LINE. 

THIS EVIL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REACHED BY BRINGING WITHIN THE COVERAGE
OF THE ACT ONLY THOSE PIPE LINES WHO WERE COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE IN
THE COMMON-LAW SENSE.  ATTEMPTS SO TO LIMIT THE ACT'S SCOPE WERE MADE
DURING THE COURSE OF CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES.  SENATOR LODGE, SPONSOR OF
THE PRINCIPAL AMENDMENT, RENDERED THE OBVIOUS ANSWER THAT SUCH AN
ALTERATION WOULD "ABSOLUTELY DESTROY (THE PROPOSAL)  ...  SO FAR AS ITS
EFFECTIVENESS IS CONCERNED."  40 CONG. REC. 7000(1906).  HENCE THE BILL
AS FINALLY ENACTED WAS CLEARLY INTENDED "TO BRING WITHIN ITS SCOPE PIPE
LINES THAT ALTHOUGH NOT TECHNICALLY COMMON CARRIERS YET WERE CARRYING
ALL OIL OFFERED, IF ONLY THE OFFERERS WOULD SELL AT THEIR PRICE."  PIPE
LINE CASES, SUPRA, AT 560.  AND SEE VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.  WE MAY ALSO ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT - NO SUCH FACTS
EVER HAVING BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT - THAT THE GENERALITY OF THE TERM
"ALL PIPE LINES" WAS MEANT TO IMPOSE FULL REGULATION ON INTEGRATED
PRODUCER PIPE LINES WHO EXPLOIT A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE SIMPLY BY
REFUSING TO DEAL WITH INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS HAVING NO COMPARABLY CHEAP
METHOD OF REACHING CONSUMING MARKETS.  BUT IT WOULD BE STRANGE TO
SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS, IN ADOPTING A TERM BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER ALL
COMPETITIVE IMBALANCES WHICH MIGHT ARISE, INTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION
SHOULD MAKE COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE OUT OF PRIVATE PIPE LINES WHOSE
SERVICES WERE UNUSED, UNSOUGHT AFTER, AND UNNEEDED BY INDEPENDENT
PRODUCERS, AND WHOSE PRESENCE FOSTERS COMPETITION IN MARKETS HEAVILY
BLANKETED BY LARGE "MAJORS."  SUCH A STEP WOULD AT BEST BE POINTLESS;
IT MIGHT WELL SUBVERT THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE ACT. 

YET ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE COMMISSION IS
ATTEMPTING TO DO.  UNLIKE THE CRUDE-OIL GATHERING LINES OF VALVOLINE,
WHICH CARRIED THE PRODUCTS OF OVER 3,800 INDEPENDENT OWNERS AND
OPERATORS, CHAMPLIN'S REFINED-PRODUCTS LINE CARRIES ONLY ITS OWN.  FN5
THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 6 CARRIES A NECESSARY
IMPLICATION THAT CHAMPLIN MAY NOW BE FORCED TO DEVOTE ITS PIPE LINE, AT
LEAST PARTIALLY, TO PUBLIC USE.  NEVERTHELESS, THE COMMISSION HAS NOT
ONLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THE ACT WAS PASSED TO
CORRECT, BUT HAS EITHER ASSUMED OR MADE FINDINGS TO THE CONTRARY.  IN
ADDITION TO FINDINGS PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO, THE COMMISSION STATED AS
FOLLOWS:    "ONLY ABOUT 1.98 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL GASOLINE CONSUMED IN
(CHAMPLIN'S MARKETING) AREA IS MOVED THROUGH THE PIPE LINE AND SOLD
FROM RESPONDENT'S TERMINAL STORAGE FACILITIES.  ...  THE TOTAL CAPACITY
OF THE COMMON-CARRIER LINES INTO THE NEBRASKA MARKET IS ABOUT 13 TIMES
THAT OF THE CHAMPLIN LINE AND ABOUT 10 TIMES THAT OF THE LATTER INTO
THE IOWA MARKET.  THE COMMON-CARRIER PIPE-LINE CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO
REFINERIES IN OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS AGGREGATES 172,800 BARRELS A DAY (IN
CONTRAST TO CHAMPLIN'S CAPACITY OF 9,800 BARRELS), AND RESPONDENT'S
PIPE LINE IS THE SMALLEST OF ANY COMMON-CARRIER OR PRIVATE PIPE LINE
OPERATING IN THIS TERRITORY.  APPARENTLY, COMMON-CARRIER PIPE-LINE
TRANSPORTATION IS AVAILABLE TO ANY SMALL REFINER IN THIS AREA DESIRING
SUCH TRANSPORTATION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SO FAR AS APPEARS, NO OTHER PIPE-LINE COMPANY HAS THREATENED TO
FORCE  ...  A CONNECTION (WITH CHAMPLIN'S), AND BECAUSE OF THE AMPLE
COMMON-CARRIER PIPE-LINE FACILITIES AVAILABLE, AS REVEALED BY
RESPONDENT, NO REFINERY WOULD BE LIKELY TO INTEREST ITSELF IN SUCH A
CONNECTION."  274 I.C.C. 412-413, 415(1949). 

THE COURT BELOW, IN ITS FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUDED THAT "CHAMPLIN
DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY OR ANY POWER TO ESTABLISH A MONOPOLY EITHER IN
THE TRANSPORTATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS INTO THE TRADE TERRITORY OR IN
THE SALE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS THEREIN."  IT FURTHER FOUND THAT
"CHAMPLIN ...  IS A SMALL COMPANY IN COMPARISON WITH COMPANIES WITH
WHICH IT COMPETES IN THE AREA REACHED BY ITS PIPE LINE.  ...
CHAMPLIN'S ACTS CREATE COMPETITION."  SEE ALSO CHAIRMAN SPLAWN,
DISSENTING FROM THE COMMISSION REPORT.  274 I.C.C. 416.  FN6  THE
GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO REBUILD ITS CASE BY POINTING TO SMALL REFINERS WHO
ARE CLOSER TO CHAMPLIN'S PIPE LINE THAN TO ANY OTHER, AND BY STRESSING
THE EXPENSE OF BUILDING LONG CONNECTING LINES.  BUT THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THESE REFINERS WISH TO MARKET OUTSIDE THEIR
IMMEDIATE AREA.  AND IN ANY EVENT, IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT
TO RESCUE THE COMMISSION BY MAKING FINDINGS DE NOVO WHICH THE
COMMISSION ITSELF WAS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO MAKE.  WE HOLD THAT ON
THIS RECORD THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, INSOFAR AS IT CONCERNS SEC. 6, GOES
BEYOND WHAT CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED WHEN IT PASSED THE ACT. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW WILL BE MODIFIED BY STRIKING OUT THOSE PORTIONS
SETTING ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN CAUSE NO. 29912, CHAMPLIN
REFINING COMPANY ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS, AND AS MODIFIED, IT IS
AFFIRMED.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1: 

"(1)  CARRIERS SUBJECT TO REGULATION. 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO COMMON CARRIERS
ENGAGED IN - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY, EXCEPT WATER AND
EXCEPT NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL GAS, BY PIPE LINE  ... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(3) ...  (A)  THE TERM 'COMMON CARRIER' AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER
SHALL INCLUDE ALL PIPE-LINE COMPANIES; ...  " 

FN2  49 U.S.C. SEC. 19A: 

"(A)  PHYSICAL VALUATION OF PROPERTY OF CARRIERS; CLASSIFICATION AND
INVENTORY. 

"THE COMMISSION SHALL  ...  INVESTIGATE, ASCERTAIN, AND REPORT THE
VALUE OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNED OR USED BY EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER  ... 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"(E)  ...  EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER SHALL FURNISH TO THE COMMISSION OR ITS AGENTS FROM TIME TO TIME
AND AS THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE MAPS, PROFILES, CONTRACTS, REPORTS OF
ENGINEERS, AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS  ...  " 

FN3  49 U.S.C. SEC. 20: 

"(1)  REPORTS FROM CARRIERS AND LESSORS. 

"THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE ANNUAL, PERIODICAL, OR
SPECIAL REPORTS FROM CARRIERS ... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(3)  UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS. 

"THE COMMISSION MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING
IT THE BETTER TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, PRESCRIBE A
UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS APPLICABLE TO ANY CLASS OF CARRIERS SUBJECT
THERETO  ... 

"(4)  DEPRECIATION CHARGES. 

"THE COMMISSION SHALL  ...  PRESCRIBE FOR CARRIERS THE CLASSES OF
PROPERTY FOR WHICH DEPRECIATION CHARGES MAY PROPERLY BE INCLUDED UNDER
OPERATING EXPENSES, AND THE RATE OR RATES OF DEPRECIATION WHICH SHALL
BE CHARGED  ... 

     .         .         .         . . 

"(8)  ...  THE TERM 'CARRIER' MEANS A COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THIS
CHAPTER  ...  " 

FN4  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6: 

"(1)  SCHEDULE OF RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES; FILING AND POSTING. 

"EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL
FILE WITH THE COMMISSION ...  AND PRINT AND KEEP OPEN TO PUBLIC
INSPECTION SCHEDULES SHOWING ALL THE RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES FOR
TRANSPORTATION  ...  " 

REASONABLE."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(5). 

FN5  CHAMPLIN IS SOLE OWNER OF THE STOCK OF THE CIMARRON VALLEY PIPE
LINE COMPANY, AN INTRASTATE CRUDE-OIL GATHERING SYSTEM WHICH SUPPLIES
OIL FROM BOTH ITS OWN AND OTHERS' WELLS TO THE CHAMPLIN REFINERY. 
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION BOTH IN THIS CASE AND IN CHAMPLIN I GAVE NO
CONSIDERATION, EITHER IN THE HEARINGS OR THE ORDERS, TO CHAMPLIN'S
GATHERING FACILITIES. 

IN ANY EVENT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT CHAMPLIN'S EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF
THE REFINED-PRODUCTS LINE WOULD BE OF NO CONCERN TO INDEPENDENT CRUDE
OIL PRODUCERS UNLESS THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS WERE TRUE:  (A) THAT
INDEPENDENT REFINERS WERE SHUT OUT OF GASOLINE MARKETS WHICH THEY WOULD
OTHERWISE ENTER; (B) THAT THIS REDUCED THEIR OUTPUT BELOW THE CAPACITY
OF THEIR REFINERIES; (C) THAT THIS DECREASED THEIR DEMAND FOR CRUDE
OIL, THUS REDUCING THEIR COMPETITION WITH CHAMPLIN IN THE PURCHASE OF
CRUDE, AND THUS DEPRESSING THE PRICE WHICH CRUDE-OIL PRODUCERS COULD
GET.  AS TO THE FIRST, AND CRUCIAL, ASSUMPTION, THE COMMISSION FOUND
PRECISELY TO THE CONTRARY.  SEE TEXT, INFRA. 

FN6  " ...  (THE) EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN, AND IS, NO
HOLDING OUT BY CHAMPLIN OF A COMMON-CARRIER SERVICE EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY.  NONE OF THE PRODUCTS MOVED THROUGH THE LINE HAS EVER BEEN
PURCHASED FROM ANY OTHER INTEREST.  MOREOVER, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT
THE PRODUCTS TRANSPORTED THROUGH CHAMPLIN'S PIPE LINE CONSTITUTES AN
INCONSEQUENTIAL PART OF THE TOTAL VOLUME OF PRODUCTS THAT MOVES BY PIPE
LINE TO THE CONSUMING TERRITORY SERVED BY CHAMPLIN FROM ITS STORAGE
FACILITIES. 

"REQUIRING CHAMPLIN TO COMPLY WITH OUR VALUATION ORDERS AND THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT  ...  IS ONE THING, BUT TO
REQUIRE IT TO FILE TARIFFS AND THEREBY OBLIGATE ITSELF TO TRANSPORT OIL
PRODUCTS OF OTHERS IN COMMON-CARRIER SERVICE, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ITS
OWN, IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IN 1906 WAS TO PROTECT SMALL
INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS FROM MONOPOLY POWER.  THIS REPORT CONSTRUES THAT
AMENDMENT SO AS TO CONVERT INTO A COMMON CARRIER THE PIPE LINE WHOLLY
OWNED AND COMPLETELY UTILIZED BY A RELATIVELY SMALL INDEPENDENT
COMPANY, THOUGH THE COMPANY IS WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON SUCH FACILITY  ...
IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS REFINING BUSINESS.  THIS ULTRA LITERAL
CONSTRUCTION REGARDLESS OF DIFFERING CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT
WELL HAVE THE EFFECT OF DESTROYING SMALL INDEPENDENT COMPANIES INSTEAD
OF AFFORDING THEM THE PROTECTION INTENDED BY THE AMENDMENT." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHILE JOINING THE COURT'S OPINION, WOULD
OVERRULE THE EARLIER CHAMPLIN DECISION, 329 U.S. 29, ON THE GROUND SET
FORTH IN THE DISSENT IN THAT CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON CONCUR, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. 

THE TERM "COMMON CARRIER" HAS BUT ONE MEANING IN THE ACT - THE
MEANING GIVEN IT BY SEC. 1.  THAT DEFINITION WAS HELD IN CHAMPLIN
REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 29, SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO
INCLUDE APPELLEE.  SECTION 19A WAS INVOLVED THERE AND SEC. 6 IS
INVOLVED HERE.  THAT MAY MAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE; BUT THERE
CAN BE NONE SO FAR AS THE STATUTE IS CONCERNED.  SINCE SEC. 6, LIKE
SEC. 19A, CAN REACH APPELLEE ONLY THROUGH SEC. 1, IF SEC. 1 IS BROAD
ENOUGH FOR THE ONE SECTION IT IS BROAD ENOUGH FOR THE OTHER.  AS THE
COURT IN ITS SEVERAL DECISIONS HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT IN ITS
INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE ACT AS APPLIED TO PRIVATE PIPE
LINES, I FEEL FREE TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT OF THE PIPE LINE CASES, 234
U.S. 548, 561-562, AND THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN THE DISSENT IN CHAMPLIN
REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 29, THAT PIPE LINES CARRYING
ONLY THE COMMODITIES OF THEIR OWNERS FROM THE OWNERS' REFINERIES TO THE
OWNERS' STORAGE TANKS FOR MARKETING HAVE NOT BEEN MADE BY CONGRESS
SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  CONSEQUENTLY, I AGREE THAT SEC. 1 IS NOT BROAD
ENOUGH TO BRING APPELLEE UNDER THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THEREFORE, NEITHER SEC. 6 NOR SEC. 20 APPLIES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

FROM WHATEVER ANGLE THIS CASE IS APPROACHED, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE
HOLDING OF THE COURT IS WRONG.  THE DECISION RIDES ROUGHSHOD OVER CLEAR
STATUTORY LANGUAGE MAKING THE HEPBURN ACT  FN1 APPLICABLE TO INTERSTATE
OIL-CARRYING PIPE LINES, AND MAKES IMPOSSIBLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT AS
CONGRESS INTENDED.  THE DECISION UNDERCUTS AND I THINK OVERRULES
SEVERAL PRIOR CASES WITHOUT MENTIONING THIS FACT.  AND THIS APPELLANT,
CHAMPLIN, IS EVEN GIVEN A SECOND TRIAL AND VICTORIOUS RELITIGATION OF
THE SAME ISSUES WE HAD PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED AGAINST IT.  FINALLY, THE
OPINION SUGGESTS TO ME THAT THE COURT ACCEPTS WHAT I DEEM TO BE A
FRIVOLOUS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE ACT, NAMELY THAT CONGRESS IS
WITHOUT POWER TO FORCE OIL-CARRYING INTERSTATE PIPE LINES TO SERVE AS
COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE. 

                 I. 

THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT CHAMPLIN MUST COMPLY WITH SEC. 20 OF THE
HEPBURN ACT, BUT NEED NOT COMPLY WITH SEC. 6, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH
CLEAR LANGUAGE IN THOSE SECTIONS OR WITH OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS
CONSTRUING THE SAME LANGUAGE.  SECTION 20 AUTHORIZES THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE THAT "ALL COMMON CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT"  FN2  FILE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CERTAIN ANNUAL
REPORTS; SEC. 6 COMMANDS THAT "EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT"  FN2  SHALL FILE SCHEDULES OF RATES WITH THE
COMMISSION.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY IT SHOULD BE NECESSARY TO LABOR
THE OBVIOUS - THIS LANGUAGE REQUIRES CHAMPLIN (IF IT IS A "COMMON
CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE  ...  ACT") TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 6 IF IT IS
REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 20, OR TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 20 IF IT IS
REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 6.  THE COURT HOLDS THAT CHAMPLIN IS A
"COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO" THE ACT, AND ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINS THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER TO FILE REPORTS UNDER SEC. 20.  PARADOXICALLY,
HOWEVER, IT THEN PROCEEDS TO HOLD THAT THE SAME CHAMPLIN, THOUGH
"SUBJECT TO" THE ACT, NEED NOT COMPLY WITH SEC. 6.  HOW THE COURT GIVES
THE IDENTICAL LANGUAGE IN THE TWO SECTIONS SUCH DIFFERENT MEANINGS IS
LEFT A MYSTERY.  FN4 

THE COURT MAY BE SAYING THAT SEC. 6 IS SOMETHING SUI GENERIS, THAT NO
PIPE-LINE COMPANY NEED COMPLY WITH THAT SECTION UNLESS IT IS SOMETHING
MORE THAN A "COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE  ... ACT."  FN5  WHILE THE
MEANING OF THIS "SOMETHING MORE" IS NOT MADE CLEAR, THE COURT, IN
OVERTURNING THE COMMISSION ORDER DOES SUGGEST IN PASSING THAT IT MIGHT
POSSIBLY SUSTAIN AN ORDER REQUIRING CHAMPLIN TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 6 UPON
COMMISSION FINDINGS THAT THE COMPANY EXPLOITED "A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
SIMPLY BY REFUSING TO DEAL WITH INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS HAVING NO
COMPARABLY CHEAP METHOD OF REACHING CONSUMING MARKETS" OR THAT CHAMPLIN
ENJOYED A "MONOPOLY" POSITION IN ITS AREA.  CERTAINLY NOTHING IN THE
HEPBURN ACT SHOULD ENCOURAGE SUCH JUDICIAL CREATIVENESS FOR SEC. 6
APPLIES TO "EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE  ...  ACT" IN LANGUAGE
WHICH DOES NOT LOGICALLY ADMIT OF LIMITING THE SECTION'S COVERAGE TO
CARRIERS THAT HAVE REFUSED "TO DEAL WITH INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS" OR
ACHIEVED "MONOPOLY" STATUS.  THAT SEC. 6 WOULD OR COULD BE THUS
RESTRICTED WAS NOT HINTED AT IN THE PIPE LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548(WHERE
THIS SECTION WAS INVOLVED), NOR IN VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
308 U.S. 141,  FN6  NOR IN OUR DECISION IN THE FIRST CHAMPLIN CASE,
CHAMPLIN RFG.  CO. V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 29.  FN7  IT SHOULD BE
NOTED THAT THE DISSENTING JUSTICES IN CHAMPLIN I THOUGHT THAT AN
ADDITIONAL "SOMETHING" WAS NECESSARY BEFORE THE HEPBURN ACT WAS
APPLICABLE; THEY BELIEVED THAT NONE OF THE ACT'S PROVISIONS SHOULD
APPLY TO PIPE-LINE COMPANIES UNLESS THEY WERE "COMMON CARRIERS IN
SUBSTANCE."  BUT NEITHER THOSE JUSTICES NOR ANYONE ELSE, SO FAR AS I
KNOW, HAVE EVER BEFORE SUGGESTED THAT THE COURT CAN PICK AND CHOOSE
POSSIBILITY REMAINED FOR TODAY'S MAJORITY TO DISCOVER, 46 YEARS AFTER
PASSAGE OF THE HEPBURN ACT.  FN8

                                 II. 

FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE JUDICIAL EXEMPTION OF CHAMPLIN FROM
FILING PAPERS UNDER SEC. 6, HOWEVER, IS THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT PIPE
LINE COMPANIES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR OWN
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS NEED NOT ACT AS PUBLIC CARRIERS FOR HIRE UNLESS THEY
HAVE ALREADY VOLUNTARILY BECOME "SOMETHING MORE" THAN INTERSTATE OIL
CARRYING PIPE LINES.  THE PROPER ANSWER TO THIS BASIC QUESTION IN THE
CASE TURNS ON SEC. 1 OF THE HEPBURN ACT:  "(THIS) ACT SHALL APPLY TO
ANY CORPORATION OR ANY PERSON OR PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION
OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY ...  BY MEANS OF PIPE LINES  ...  WHO SHALL
BE CONSIDERED AND HELD TO BE COMMON CARRIERS WITHIN THE MEANING AND
PURPOSE OF THIS ACT  ...  "  FN9    THAT CHAMPLIN IS A COMMON CARRIER
WITHIN THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THIS PROVISION IS SHOWN BY THE
UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE I.C.C.:  CHAMPLIN, A FULLY
INTEGRATED COMPANY, PRODUCES, REFINES, TRANSPORTS AND MARKETS PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS.  THROUGH A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY IT ALSO BUYS, GATHERS AND
TRANSPORTS TO ITS REFINERY OIL PRODUCED FROM THE WELLS OF OTHERS.  FN10
ITS TRUNK PIPE LINE EXTENDS 516 MILES ACROSS FIVE STATES FROM ITS
REFINERY AT ENID, OKLAHOMA, TO ITS TERMINAL AT ROCK RAPIDS, IOWA. 
ALTHOUGH APPLICATION OF THE ACT DOES NOT DEPEND ON A PIPE-LINE
COMPANY'S SIZE, CHAMPLIN IS BY NO MEANS A SMALL COMPANY; RATHER, IT
OCCUPIES AN IMPORTANT POSITION IN THE AREA IT SERVES.  FN11  BUT FOR
THE COURT'S HOLDING, I SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT SEC. 1 OF THE ACT ON
THE ADMITTED FACTS OBVIOUSLY REQUIRED CHAMPLIN TO SERVE AS A COMMON
CARRIER FOR THE PRODUCTS OF OTHERS. 

THAT THE HEPBURN ACT DID CONVERT CHAMPLIN INTO A PUBLIC CARRIER FOR
HIRE IS MADE EVEN CLEARER BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  THE PIPE-LINE
PROVISION WAS SPONSORED IN 1906 BY SENATOR HENRY CABOT LODGE OF
MASSACHUSETTS WHO OFFERED TO AMEND A PENDING RAILROAD BILL IN A MANNER
WHICH WOULD CONVERT INTERSTATE OIL-CARRYING PIPE LINES INTO COMMON
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE I.C.C.  FN12  THE LODGE AMENDMENT
REFLECTED DISSATISFACTION WITH MONOPOLY CONDITIONS IN THE PETROLEUM
INDUSTRY.  SUCH CONDITIONS, IT WAS THOUGHT, HAD BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT IN
THE MAIN THROUGH CONTROL OF OIL-CARRYING PIPE LINES BY LARGE INTEGRATED
COMPANIES (ESPECIALLY THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY) WHICH WERE USING THEIR
CONTROL TO EXCLUDE INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS AND REFINERS FROM THIS CHEAP
TRANSPORTATION FACILITY.  FN13  BUT THE ENSUING DEBATE LEFT NO ROOM FOR
DOUBT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT, AS ITS LANGUAGE CLEARLY
SHOWED, WAS TO DEPRIVE ANY OIL COMPANY, NOT MERELY STANDARD,  FN14  OF
POWER TO UTILIZE PIPE-LINE CONTROL TO CRUSH COMPETITION.  TO THIS END,
AS IS SHOWN BY AN APPENDIX FOLLOWING THIS OPINION, THE AMENDMENT WAS
DESIGNED TO MAKE PUBLIC OR COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE OUT OF EVERY
PRIVATE PIPE-LINE COMPANY TRANSPORTING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SENATORS WHO WERE OPPOSED CHARGED THAT THE PASSAGE OF THE
AMENDMENT WOULD DO EXACTLY THIS AGAINST THE WILL OF "PRIVATE"
CARRIERS.  LODGE AND OTHER PROPONENTS FREELY ADMITTED IT, EXPLAINING
THAT ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE.  ALL CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS TO
NARROW THE AMENDMENT TO COVER ONLY COMPANIES ALREADY ACTING LIKE COMMON
CARRIERS WERE DEFEATED.  THEREFORE IT IS STRANGE TO SAY, AS THE COURT
DOES, THAT APPLYING THE PIPE-LINE PROVISIONS SO AS TO MAKE CHAMPLIN A
COMMON CARRIER FOR HIRE WOULD "SUBVERT THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE ACT." 
STRANGER STILL IS THE COURT'S UNEXPLAINED APPREHENSION THAT REQUIRING
ALL INTERSTATE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES TO SERVE AS PUBLIC CARRIERS FOR HIRE
WOULD SOMEHOW "FOSTER" MONOPOLY. 

       III. 

THE COURT, WITHOUT MENTIONING IT, NECESSARILY OVERRULES ONE OR MORE
OF OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS CONSTRUING THE HEPBURN ACT.  IN THE PIPE LINE
CASES, SUPRA, IT WAS HELD THAT THE HEPBURN ACT CONVERTED INTO COMMON
CARRIERS FOR HIRE ALL PRIVATE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES "ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY" ACROSS STATE LINES, A
DECISION WHICH MEANT THAT ALL SUCH COMPANIES ARE BY LAW REQUIRED TO
OFFER THEIR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC.  FN15  IN THE FIRST CHAMPLIN CASE,
SUPRA, WE DETERMINED THAT THIS APPELLANT WAS SO "ENGAGED."  FN16
CONSEQUENTLY, TODAY'S DECISION ALLOWING CHAMPLIN TO REFRAIN FROM FILING
TARIFFS UNDER SEC. 6 NECESSARILY OVERRULES EITHER THE PIPE LINE CASES
OR CHAMPLIN I, OR BOTH.  IF THEY ARE TO BE OVERRULED, THE COURT SHOULD
SAY SO.  I WOULD NOT OVERRULE EITHER. 

NOR DO I UNDERSTAND HOW TODAY'S HOLDING CAN BE RECONCILED WITH
VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WHERE WE HELD THAT VALVOLINE
WAS A "COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO" THE ACT.  THE PATTERN OF OPERATIONS
OF VALVOLINE AND CHAMPLIN ARE IDENTICAL WITH TWO MINOR EXCEPTIONS:  (1)
VALVOLINE'S INTERSTATE PIPE LINES TRANSPORTED CRUDE OIL WHILE
CHAMPLIN'S TRUNK LINE TRANSPORTS GASOLINE.  THIS DIFFERENCE IS
IMMATERIAL; EVEN ASSUMING THAT "GASOLINE" IS NOT "OIL" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 1, THAT SECTION MAKES THE ACT APPLY NOT MERELY TO ANY
PIPE-LINE COMPANY CARRYING "OIL" BUT TO PIPE-LINE COMPANIES CARRYING
ANY "OTHER COMMODITY."  (2) VALVOLINE CHOSE TO OPERATE ITS GATHERING
LINES AND PURCHASE OIL FROM INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS IN ITS OWN CORPORATE
NAME WHILE CHAMPLIN CHOOSES TO OPERATE ITS GATHERING LINES AND PURCHASE
OIL IN THE NAME OF A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, HAD
NO DIFFICULTY IN THE PIPE LINE CASES IN TREATING AS A SINGLE UNIT THE
STANDARD OIL COMPANY AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED OR EVEN PARTLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARIES.  FN17 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED, MOREOVER, THAT VALVOLINE UNSUCCESSFULLY MADE THE
SAME CONTENTION THAT THE COURT NOW ACCEPTS IN ORDER TO RELIEVE CHAMPLIN
FROM ITS STATUTORY DUTIES.  THUS, VALVOLINE ATTEMPTED TO AVOID BECOMING
A COMMON CARRIER FOR HIRE BY CLAIMING THAT THE ACT APPLIED ONLY TO
COMPANIES ENJOYING A MONOPOLY POSITION IN AN AREA, A POSITION NOT HELD
BY VALVOLINE BECAUSE PUBLIC PIPE LINES FOR HIRE ADEQUATELY SERVED THE
FIELDS WHERE VALVOLINE BOUGHT ITS OIL.  FN18  THE I.C.C. REFUSED TO
ACCEPT VALVOLINE'S PROPOSED INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, AND WE
NECESSARILY DID THE SAME IN AFFIRMING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

THE COURT NEVERTHELESS SEEKS TO DISTINGUISH THE VALVOLINE CASE ON THE
GROUND THAT VALVOLINE "CARRIED THE PRODUCTS OF OVER 3,800 INDEPENDENT
OWNERS AND OPERATORS."  THE QUOTED LANGUAGE CORRECTLY STATES A FACT
ONLY IF IT IS UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THAT VALVOLINE MADE PURCHASES FROM
3,800 INDEPENDENTS AND THEN CARRIED THE PURCHASED OIL IN ITS PIPE
LINE.  THIS FACT, HOWEVER, CERTAINLY DOES NOT DISTINGUISH THE TWO
CASES.  LIKE VALVOLINE, CHAMPLIN CARRIES THE "OIL OF OTHERS" ALL THE
WAY FROM THE WELL TO THE MARKET AREA:  OVER HALF OF THE OIL AND
GASOLINE CARRIED BY CHAMPLIN IS ORIGINALLY PURCHASED AS CRUDE OIL FROM
INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS IN THE FIELD BEFORE TRANSPORTATION BEGINS.  FN19
AS NOTED ABOVE, CHAMPLIN DOES MAKE THESE PURCHASES THROUGH A WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY, RATHER THAN IN ITS OWN CORPORATE NAME, BUT THIS FACT
IS UNIMPORTANT.  FN20 

SINCE THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OPERATIONS OF
CHAMPLIN AND VALVOLINE, AND BETWEEN THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE TWO
CASES, I CONCLUDE THAT, VERBALISMS ASIDE, THE EFFECT OF TODAY'S
DECISION IS TO UNDERMINE THE VALVOLINE HOLDING.  IN THIS SITUATION I
THINK VALVOLINE SHOULD BE EXPRESSLY OVERRULED.  WHY, IN FAIRNESS,
SHOULD VALVOLINE AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED BE REQUIRED TO SERVE AS
COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE WHILE CHAMPLIN IS LEFT FREE TO CONDUCT ITS
PIPE LINES AS IT CHOOSES? 

                           IV. 

IN THE FIRST CHAMPLIN CASE WE UPHELD FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE
I.C.C., 49 VAL. REP. (I.C.C.)  463, 470, THAT APPELLANT WAS "ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION" AND WAS "A COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF"
THE ACT.  SINCE THESE QUESTIONS WERE "DISTINCTLY PUT IN ISSUE AND
DIRECTLY DETERMINED," CHAMPLIN MAY NOT DISPUTE THEM IN THIS SECOND
PROCEEDING BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES UNLESS THERE IS A DEPARTURE FROM
THE PRINCIPLES MOST RECENTLY ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES V. MUNSINGWEAR,
340 U.S. 36, 38.  YET THREE CONCURRING JUSTICES TODAY APPEAR TO TAKE
THE POSITION THAT CHAMPLIN IS NOT "ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION," AND IS
THEREFORE NOT A COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE ACT, A POSITION WHICH
THIS COURT EMPHATICALLY REJECTED IN CHAMPLIN I. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE
MAJORITY'S POSITION IS UNJUSTIFIED UNDER THE MUNSINGWEAR PRINCIPLE WHEN
THE EFFECT (AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE LANGUAGE) OF THEIR DECISION IS
CONSIDERED. 

                                  V. 

WHY SHOULD THE COURT INTERPRET THE HEPBURN ACT IN A WAY WHICH
NULLIFIES ITS PURPOSE?  I AM FORCED BY PROCESS OF ELIMINATION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE DECISION REFLECTS EITHER A HOSTILITY TO THE POLICY
OF THE ACT OR AN UNARTICULATED BELIEF THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IF
ENFORCED AS WRITTEN.  NEITHER THIS COURT NOR ANY OTHER SHOULD STRANGLE
AN ACT BECAUSE OF JUDICIAL DISAGREEMENT WITH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  IF
DESTRUCTION OF THE ACT RESULTS FROM A FEELING THAT THE CONSTITUTION
FORBIDS CONGRESS TO CONVERT PRIVATE COMPANIES INTO PUBLIC SERVANTS, I
THINK THAT THIS VIEW SHOULD BE ANNOUNCED HERE, AS IT WAS BY A MAJORITY
OF THE COURT BELOW.  PIPE-LINE COMPANIES, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE LAW,
THE BENCH, THE BAR, AND THE CONGRESS ARE ENTITLED TO NO LESS.  OF
COURSE, THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION WAS EXPRESSLY REJECTED IN
1914 IN THE PIPE LINE CASES, SUPRA:  AS TO COMPANIES WHICH, LIKE
CHAMPLIN, BUILT THEIR LINES AFTER PASSAGE OF THE ACT, JUSTICE HOLMES,
SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, DISMISSED THE CHALLENGE BRUSQUELY WITH LESS
THAN A SENTENCE, STATING MERELY THAT "THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT IT
(THE PIPE LINE PROVISION) IS VALID."  234 U.S. AT 561.  AGAIN, IN 1922,
THE COURT, RELYING ON THE PIPE LINE CASES, SUPRA, REJECTED A SOMEWHAT
SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT AS "FUTILE TO THE POINT ALMOST OF BEING
FRIVOLOUS."  PIERCE OIL CORP. V. PHOENIX RFG.  CO., 259 U.S. 125, 128. 
SURELY A CONTENTION DEEMED "ALMOST FRIVOLOUS" TWENTY-NINE YEARS AGO
SHOULD NOT NOW BE REINVIGORATED BY IMPLICATION. 

              VI. 

NO ONE CAN BE SURE THAT UNDER THE ACT AS NOW REWRITTEN BY THE COURT
THE COMMISSION CAN OR SHOULD SUCCEED IN FORCING ANY OIL COMPANY - EVEN
THOSE NOW COMPLYING WITH THE ACT - TO CARRY GASOLINE OR OIL FOR OTHERS
AS A COMMON CARRIER.  EVEN WITHOUT THE NEWLY ENGRAFTED, COURT-CREATED
HURDLES, THE PIPE-LINE PROVISIONS, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, HAVE
NEVER BEEN ENFORCED AS EFFECTIVELY AS MIGHT BE DESIRED.  FN21  PERHAPS,
THEREFORE, NO GREAT HARM WILL RESULT FROM THE COURT'S POLITE BUT SURE
FRUSTRATION OF THE HEPBURN ACT'S PURPOSE.  SOME PEOPLE IN AND FAMILIAR
WITH THE OIL INDUSTRY, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THIS ACT SHOULD BE
STRENGTHENED, NOT WEAKENED.  FN22  BE THAT AS IT MAY, I DEEM IT MY DUTY
TO VOTE TO ENFORCE THE ACT AS CONGRESS HAS PASSED IT. 

I WOULD REVERSE. 

FN1  34 STAT. 584.  THE HEPBURN ACT WAS PASSED IN 1906 AS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF 1887, 24 STAT. 379, AND MAY
NOW BE FOUND IN 49 U.S.C. SECS. 1-27.  ALL QUOTATIONS IN THE TEXT
FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE HEPBURN ACT, THIS COURT TWICE
HAVING HELD THAT SUBSEQUENT MINOR MODIFICATIONS CHANGED NEITHER THE
PURPOSE NOR THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 141, 145-146; CHAMPLIN RFG.  CO. V. UNITED STATES, 329
U.S. 29, 32, NOTE 4. 

FN2  34 STAT. 593, NOW 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE
I.C.C. MAY REQUIRE REPORTS "FROM CARRIERS" AND "  ...  THE TERM
'CARRIER' MEANS A COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER ...  " 

FN3  34 STAT. 586, NOW 49 U.S.C. SEC. 6:  "EVERY COMMON CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL FILE  ...  " 

FN4  THE MYSTERY IS NOT LESSENED BY THE COURT'S USE OF THE CONCEPT OF
THE "COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION" IN CONNECTION WITH TARIFFS.  FOR THE
DUTY OF A COMMON CARRIER TO FILE TARIFFS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ANY
"JURISDICTION" OR ANY ORDER OF THE I.C.C.  SECTION 6 UNEQUIVOCALLY
COMMANDS THAT COMMON CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE ACT "SHALL FILE."  SEE
NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN5  I AM UNABLE TO FIND ANY SUPPORT FOR THIS INTERESTING THEORY IN
THE LANGUAGE OR HISTORY OF ANY PART OF THE ACT, OR FROM ANY OTHER
SOURCE.  BUT SEE SPLAWN, COMMISSIONER, DISSENTING, 274 I.C.C. 416;
COMPARE THE OPINION OF COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, SPLAWN AND ALLDREDGE IN
THE FIRST CHAMPLIN CASE, 49 VAL. REP. (I.C.C.)  463. 

FN6  SEE PART III, INFRA. 

FN7  THE HOLDING OF THE LAST TWO CITED CASES WAS THAT VALVOLINE AND
CHAMPLIN HAD TO COMPLY WITH 49 U.S.C. SEC. 19A (A) AND (E).  SECTION
19A, LIKE SEC. 6 AND SEC. 20, APPLIES TO "EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER ...  " 

FN8  I DO NOT THINK THAT THE COURT IN CHAMPLIN I RESERVED "AS AN
INDEPENDENT STATUTORY ISSUE ON A PROPER RECORD" THE QUESTION WHETHER
CHAMPLIN COULD BE CONVERTED INTO A PUBLIC CARRIER FOR HIRE; RATHER THE
QUESTION LEFT OPEN WAS WHETHER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BARRED CONVERTING
CHAMPLIN INTO A PUBLIC CARRIER. 

OF COURSE, THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED IN CHAMPLIN I, AS IT DID IN
VALVOLINE, THAT THE ACT'S PROVISIONS SHOULD BE TREATED AS "SEPARABLE"
IN PASSING ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT
HAS NEVER INTIMATED THAT THE SECTIONS OF THE ACT AS A MATTER OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WERE "SEPARABLE."  EVEN AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE
EXEMPTING CHAMPLIN FROM SEC. 6 UNLESS IT COULD FIND SUPPORT FOR SUCH AN
EXEMPTION IN SOME STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  THE COURT HAS POINTED TO NO SUCH
EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE; I CAN FIND NONE.  MOREOVER, AS AN APPENDIX TO
THIS OPINION, INFRA, P. 315, SHOWS, SENATOR LODGE INTENDED TO MAKE "THE
PIPE LINES AND THE OIL COMPANIES SUBJECT TO ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL" UNLESS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED IN A PARTICULAR PROVISION. 

FN9  34 STAT. 584, NOW 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1:  "(1)  ...  THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO COMMON CARRIERS ENGAGED IN -  ...
(B)(THE) TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY  ...  BY PIPE LINE
...  (3)  ...  (A) THE TERM 'COMMON CARRIER' AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER
SHALL INCLUDE ALL PIPE-LINE COMPANIES; ...  "  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN10  MR. A. G. E. LEVERTON, COMPTROLLER OF THE CHAMPLIN REFINING
COMPANY, TESTIFIED:  "WE HAVE NEVER PRODUCED MORE THAN APPROXIMATELY 45
PERCENT OF THE CRUDE OIL REQUIRED BY OUR REFINERY AND HENCE HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN COMPELLED TO PURCHASE ON THE OPEN MARKET, MORE THAN HALF OF OUR
CRUDE OIL REQUIREMENTS.  ...  "    FN11  THE TOTAL COST OF CHAMPLIN'S
PIPE LINE AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1940, WAS
$3,189,028.66.  CHAMPLIN, ACCORDING TO THE I.C.C., OWNS:  (1)
APPROXIMATELY 149 OIL WELLS ON 53 LEASES IN OKLAHOMA, 45 WELLS ON 13
LEASES IN KANSAS, AND 52 WELLS ON 10 LEASES IN TEXAS; (2) APPROXIMATELY
75,000 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LEASES; (3) THE ENID REFINERY WHICH
PROCESSES APPROXIMATELY 4 1/2 MILLION BARRELS OF CRUDE OIL ANNUALLY;
(4) ALL THE STOCK OF THE CIMARRON VALLEY PIPE LINE COMPANY WHICH OWNS
AND OPERATES 450 MILES OF GATHERING LINES IN OKLAHOMA; (5) 723 TANK
CARS; (6) APPROXIMATELY 316 FILLING STATIONS AND 248 GASOLINE AND OIL
BULK PLANTS; (7) THE PRODUCTS PIPE LINE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE; (8)
TRUCKS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT USED TO PROMOTE THE PRODUCING, PURCHASING
AND REFINING OF CRUDE OIL AND THE MARKETING OF THE PRODUCTS THEREOF. 
49 VAL. REP. (I.C.C.)  463-464; 274 I.C.C. 410. 

FN12  THE "PIPE LINE PROVISION" WAS ADDED TO SEC. 1 OF THE HEPBURN
ACT AND IS THE LANGUAGE QUOTED FROM SEC. 1 IN THE TEXT ACCOMPANYING
NOTE 9, SUPRA.  THAT PROVISION IS NOW FOUND IN 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  SEE
NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN13  IMMEDIATELY BEFORE SENATOR LODGE INTRODUCED HIS AMENDMENT,
PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT TRANSMITTED TO THE CONGRESS A REPORT ON
THE TRANSPORTATION OF PETROLEUM.  40 CONG. REC. 6358.  THE REPORT
POINTED OUT THE ADVANTAGE POSSESSED BY STANDARD OIL AS A RESULT OF ITS
CONTROL OF PIPE LINES.  H.R. DOC. NO. 100, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 29, 36
37, 60-62, 398-400.  FOR THE BACKGROUND OF MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES IN
THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY AT THAT TIME, SEE GENERALLY BEARD, REGULATION OF
PIPE LINES AS COMMON CARRIERS (1941), 10-27; 2 SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION (1931), 59, 96; WHITESEL, RECENT FEDERAL REGULATION
OF THE PETROLEUM PIPE LINE AS A COMMON CARRIER, 32 CORNELL L.Q. 337,
341.  FOR HISTORY OF STANDARD OIL PRACTICES, SEE STANDARD OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL CO., 173 F.
177; TARBELL, THE HISTORY OF THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY (1925). 

CONTROL OF PIPE-LINE TRANSPORTATION IS STILL IMPORTANT TODAY.  SEE,
E.G., THE STATEMENT OF ALFRED M. LANDON:  "VERY LITTLE CRUDE OIL IS
MOVED IN ANY OTHER WAY THAN BY PIPE LINE.  THERE IS ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT
MOVED BY INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS.  THE INDEPENDENT PRODUCER THEREFORE
FINDS HIMSELF AT THE MERCY OF HIS COMPETITOR IN THE BUSINESS OF
PRODUCING OIL WHEN THAT COMPETITOR CONTROLS PRACTICALLY ONE HUNDRED PER
CENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, BECAUSE IT BECOMES SIMPLY A
QUESTION OF BOOKKEEPING AS TO THE END OF THE BUSINESS IN WHICH THIS BIG
MONOPOLY SHOWS ITS PROFIT.  IT CAN PAY LESS FOR THE OIL AND MAKE ITS
PROFIT FROM THE TRANSPORTATION.  THE INDEPENDENT REFINER IS CHOKED ALSO
BY THIS SAME MEANS - THE CONTROL OF THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES." 
HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON
H.R. 16695, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS. 59. 

FN14  AS TO THE DANGER INVOLVED IN INTERPRETING THIS ACT AS AIMED AT
A SINGLE CORPORATION, SEE MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR CO., 241 U.S.
79. 

FN15  JUSTICE HOLMES WROTE FOR THE COURT:  "THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
ARE TO APPLY TO ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL BY
MEANS OF PIPE LINES.  THE WORDS 'WHO SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND HELD TO BE
COMMON CARRIERS WITHIN THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT' OBVIOUSLY
ARE NOT INTENDED TO CUT DOWN THE GENERALITY OF THE PREVIOUS DECLARATION
TO THE MEANING THAT ONLY THOSE SHALL BE HELD COMMON CARRIERS WITHIN THE
ACT WHO WERE COMMON CARRIERS IN A TECHNICAL SENSE, BUT AN INJUNCTION
THAT THOSE IN CONTROL OF PIPE LINES AND ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION
OF OIL SHALL BE DEALT WITH AS SUCH."  234 U.S. AT 559-560. 

BOTH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE COMMERCE COURT HAD
CONSTRUED THE STATUTE AS REQUIRING ALL INTERSTATE, OIL-CARRYING PIPE
LINES TO SERVE AS COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE.  24 I.C.C. 1(1912); 204 F.
798(1913).  IT IS TRUE THAT THE COMMERCE COURT HELD THE HEPBURN ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  BUT ON APPEAL, PIPE LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548,
THIS COURT REVERSED, HOLDING THE ACT CONSTITUTIONAL:  AS TO THOSE PIPE
LINES IN EXISTENCE BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE ACT, ONE GROUND ASSIGNED BY
THE COURT WAS THAT THEY WERE ALREADY COMMON CARRIERS IN SUBSTANCE.  AS
TO PIPE LINES BUILT SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT, SEE PART V,
INFRA. 

FN16  329 U.S. AT 34.  IN THE PIPE LINE CASES, SUPRA, THE UNCLE SAM
OIL COMPANY, WHICH OPERATED ITS BUSINESS ON THE BORDER BETWEEN OKLAHOMA
AND KANSAS, WAS HELD NOT TO BE SO "ENGAGED" BECAUSE IT WAS "SIMPLY
DRAWING OIL FROM ITS OWN WELLS ACROSS A STATE LINE TO ITS OWN REFINERY
FOR ITS OWN USE, AND THAT (WAS) ALL  ...  "  234 U.S. AT 562.  THERE IS
NO UNCLE SAM PROBLEM IN THIS CASE SINCE A MAJORITY OF THE COURT TODAY
REAFFIRMS THE FORMER HOLDING THAT CHAMPLIN IS "ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION." 

FN17  BUT CF. UNITED STATES V. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO., 298 U.S. 492;
UNITED STATES V. SOUTH BUFFALO R. CO., 333 U.S. 771. 

FN18  AS TO THE FACTUAL SIMILARITY BETWEEN CHAMPLIN'S AND VALVOLINE'S
DOMINATION (OR LACK OF DOMINATION) IN THE FIELDS SERVED, COMPARE 274
I.C.C. 413("(APPARENTLY), COMMON-CARRIER PIPE-LINE TRANSPORTATION IS
AVAILABLE TO ANY SMALL REFINER IN (CHAMPLIN'S) AREA DESIRING SUCH
TRANSPORTATION") WITH 47 VAL. REP. (I.C.C.)  534, 535("(AT) LEAST ONE
COMMON-CARRIER PIPE-LINE COMPANY SERVES EACH OF THE FIELDS REACHED BY
THE VALVOLINE"). 

FN19  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA.  WHETHER CHAMPLIN BUYS FROM MORE OR LESS
THAN 3,800 INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD.  BUT
THE EXACT NUMBER CANNOT HAVE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE HERE.  SEE VALVOLINE
OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 141, 147. 

FN20  EVEN IF CHAMPLIN PRODUCED ALL THE OIL IT TRANSPORTED, THE ACT
WOULD REQUIRE ITS REGULATION BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT OF EXCLUSIVE PIPE
LINE OWNERSHIP ON CHAMPLIN'S PRICE POLICY AT THE OTHER END OF THE PIPE
LINE.  FOR ONE MAJOR PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO INSURE COMPETITION IN
THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY BY REGULATING PIPE-LINE TRANSPORTATION SO THAT
THE INDEPENDENT REFINER, THE JOBBER AND THE CONSUMER WOULD NOT BE
CHARGED EXORBITANT PRICES BY THE INTEGRATED COMPANIES.  SEE 40 CONG.
REC. 6365, 6366; NOTE, PUBLIC CONTROL OF PETROLEUM PIPE LINES, 51 YALE
L.J. 1338, 1347-1348.  IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE PRICE OF CHAMPLIN'S
GASOLINE WAS 1/8[ PER GALLON HIGHER AT SUPERIOR, KANSAS (A POINT NOT
SERVED BY ANY OTHER COMMON CARRIER PIPE LINE), THAN IT WAS AT ROCK
RAPIDS, IOWA (A POINT SERVED BY A COMMON CARRIER LINE, HENCE IN A
COMPETITIVE MARKET); ROCK RAPIDS IS 260 MILES FURTHER FROM THE ENID
REFINERY THAN IS SUPERIOR.  THE EFFECT OF SUCH CONTROL WAS POINTED OUT
LONG AGO BY THIS COURT IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S.
1, 77, AS FOLLOWS: "AS SUBSTANTIAL POWER OVER THE CRUDE PRODUCT WAS THE
INEVITABLE RESULT OF THE ABSOLUTE CONTROL WHICH EXISTED OVER THE
REFINED PRODUCT, THE MONOPOLIZATION OF THE ONE CARRIED WITH IT THE
POWER TO CONTROL THE OTHER  ...  " 

FN21  "THE MAJOR OIL COMPANIES HAVE THEIR GREATEST CONTROL IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL.  ...  THE CONTROL OF TRANSPORTATION TODAY
BY THE MAJORS APPEARS IN MANY RESPECTS TO BE JUST AS COMPLETE AND
EFFECTIVE AS WAS THE CASE OF THE STANDARD OIL TRUST."  REPORT OF THE
TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., MONOGRAPH
39(1941), P. 28.  THIS REPORT CONTAINS AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION OF
TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS IN THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY.  ID. AT 19-28.  AND
SEE KEMNITZER, REBIRTH OF MONOPOLY (1938), 78-95; WHITESEL, RECENT
FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE PETROLEUM PIPE LINE AS A COMMON CARRIER, 32
CORNELL L.Q. 337, 355-369. 

FN22  SEE, E.G., THE STATEMENT OF ALFRED M. LANDON:  "THE CRUSHING
STRENGTH OF THE OLD STANDARD OIL CO. LAY IN THE FACT THAT, OF ITS
THIRTY-ODD COMPANIES, SOME WERE PRODUCERS ONLY, SOME WERE TRANSPORTERS
ONLY, SOME WERE REFINERS ONLY, AND SOME WERE MARKETERS ONLY. 

"BUT THE MASTER MINDS THAT CONTROLLED THE OLD STANDARD OIL CO.
COORDINATED THESE THIRTY AND ODD COMPANIES INTO ONE VAST COMPANY - A
GREAT SINGLE, INTEGRATED, COORDINATED 'UNIT' THAT, AS A CORPORATE
ENTITY, DID ALL OF THESE THINGS (PRODUCING, TRANSPORTING, REFINING, AND
MARKETING) - AND ALL OF THEM WITHIN THE CORPORATE INCLUSIVENESS OF
'ONE' COMPANY. 

"THEREIN RESTED THE TERRIFIC, THE OVERPOWERING STRENGTH OF THE OLD
STANDARD OIL CO. 

"TO-DAY, FROM A CORPORATE STANDPOINT, WE HAVE THE 'EQUIVALENT,' MANY
TIMES OVER, OF THE OLD STANDARD OIL CO. ... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IT IS INEVITABLE THAT THE ONLY ESCAPE FROM MONOPOLISTIC DOMINATION
IN THE OIL INDUSTRY - AND IT IS BEING RAPIDLY ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH
MERGERS AND INTEGRATION - IS TO CLEARLY, DEFINITELY, AND EFFECTIVELY
SEGREGATE, FIRST, THE ENTIRE PIPE LINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF THE OIL
INDUSTRY FROM THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY.  THE FIRST EFFECT OF THIS
SEGREGATION WOULD BE THE SUBSTITUTION OF COMPETITION IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL FOR THE PRESENT PRACTICE WHICH, IN EACH
INDIVIDUAL CASE, IS, TO ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, A MONOPOLY."  HEARINGS
BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R.
16695, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS. 60, 61.  FOR VIEWS AGAINST THE PROPOSED
STRENGTHENING OF THE HEPBURN ACT, SEE HOUSE REPORT ON PIPE LINES, 72D
CONG., 2D SESS. (1933), EXPECIALLY SPECIAL COUNSEL SPLAWN'S
CONCLUSIONS, P. LXXVIII.  SEE ALSO KEMNITZER, REBIRTH OF MONOPOLY
(1938), 87-90; F.R. BLACK, OIL PIPE LINE DIVORCEMENT BY LITIGATION AND
LEGISLATION, 25 CORNELL L.Q. 510. 

              APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK. 

ON MAY 4, 1906, PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT TRANSMITTED TO THE
CONGRESS A REPORT DESCRIBING AND CONDEMNING VARIOUS MONOPOLISTIC
PRACTICES IN THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY.  40 CONG. REC. 6358.  SENATOR
LODGE OF MASSACHUSETTS ON THE SAME DAY INTRODUCED AN AMENDMENT TO SEC.
1 OF THE HEPBURN ACT MAKING PIPE-LINE COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL AND OTHER COMMODITIES COMMON
CARRIERS: 

"(THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO)  ANY CORPORATION OR
ANY PERSON OR PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER
COMMODITY, EXCEPT NATURAL GAS OR WATER FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES, BY MEANS
OF PIPE LINES, OR PARTLY BY PIPE LINES AND PARTLY BY RAILROAD, OR
PARTLY BY PIPE LINES AND PARTLY BY WATER, WHO SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND
HELD TO BE COMMON CARRIERS WITHIN THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT
...."  ID. AT 6361. 

SENATOR FORAKER OF OHIO IMMEDIATELY OBJECTED TO THE BROAD SCOPE OF
THE LODGE PROPOSAL:  "I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE
SENATOR'S AMENDMENT, BUT IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THE AMENDMENT OUGHT TO BE
FURTHER AMENDED, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT SHALL APPLY ONLY TO PIPE
LINES OPERATED FOR THE PUBLIC.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WOULD
COMPEL A MAN WHO HAS A PRIVATE PIPE LINE OF HIS OWN TO BECOME A COMMON
CARRIER....  I THINK SUCH A LIMITATION OUGHT TO BE PUT IN THE SENATOR'S
AMENDMENT BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT THAT IT SHALL APPLY TO ALL
PIPE LINES THAT ARE CARRYING FOR THE PUBLIC, AND NOT TO PRIVATE PIPE
LINES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL OR A SINGLE CORPORATION MAY HAVE LAID DOWN AND
PUT INTO OPERATION FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT."  ID. AT 6361. 

SENATOR NELSON IN REPLY STATED THAT FORAKER'S SUGGESTION WOULD
"PRACTICALLY NULLIFY THE PROVISION, BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF THESE PIPE
LINES CAN SAY 'WE REFUSE TO DO BUSINESS FOR THE PUBLIC.'  PRACTICALLY
THE (LODGE) AMENDMENT WOULD BE OF NO USE AT ALL."  ID. AT 6365.  AND
SENATOR LODGE ADDED:  "THE AMENDMENT SUGGESTED BY (SENATOR FORAKER) TO
THE EFFECT THAT NO PIPE LINE, UNLESS IT CARRIES FOR THE PUBLIC, SHALL
COME UNDER THIS RULE, WILL, AS (SENATOR NELSON) SAYS, ABSOLUTELY
DESTROY THE VALUE OF MY AMENDMENT."  ID. AT 6365. 

DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEBATE AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO MAKE THE LODGE
AMENDMENT APPLICABLE ONLY TO CARRIERS "FOR THE PUBLIC" OR TO
"TRANSPORTATION FOR HIRE" OR "FOR COMPENSATION," BUT IT WAS
UNSUCCESSFUL.  ID. AT 7000.  SENATOR LODGE AGAIN STATED THAT SUCH AN
AMENDMENT WOULD "ABSOLUTELY DESTROY" HIS PROPOSAL "SO FAR AS ITS
EFFECTIVENESS IS CONCERNED."  ID. AT 7000. 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT BUT THAT THE PROPONENTS KNEW AND STATED THEIR
PURPOSE.  SENATOR LODGE DECLARED: 

"THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO BRING THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL
AND OTHER COMMODITIES WITHIN THE INTERSTATE-COMMERCE LAW.  OIL IS ONE
OF THE GREATEST ARTICLES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE CARRIED IN THIS
COUNTRY, AND IT IS NOW ABSOLUTELY OUTSIDE AND BEYOND ANY GOVERNMENT
REGULATION WHATSOEVER."  ID. AT 6365.  LATER HE ADDED:  "ALL PIPE LINES
OWNED BY ANY COMPANY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES  ...  ARE MADE COMMON
CARRIERS."  ID. AT 7001.  SENATOR CLAY, SPEAKING ABOUT THE PIPE-LINE
PROVISION, OBSERVED:  "THIS BILL MAKES EVERY CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSMISSION OF OIL A COMMON CARRIER.  EVERY PRIVATE CORPORATION
TRANSMITTING ITS OWN OIL  ...  IS MADE A COMMON CARRIER BY THE LODGE
AMENDMENT  ...."  ID. AT 7009.  AND SENATOR CULBERSON SAID:  "NOTHING
IS LEFT TO THE COURTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, BUT THE STATUTE ITSELF DECLARES
THAT ANY CORPORATION, OR ANY PERSON OR PERSONS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTING
OIL BY PIPE LINES - OF COURSE, AS INTERSTATE COMMERCE - ARE COMMON
CARRIERS, AND ARE DECLARED TO BE SUCH IN THIS ACT OF CONGRESS, SUBJECT
TO THE AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT  ...."  ID. AT 7005.  SENATOR BAILEY, IN
THE FINAL DEBATE ON THE MEASURE, DESCRIBED THE LODGE PROPOSAL AS THE
"'PIPE-LINE AMENDMENT,' BY WHICH WE MEAN THE AMENDMENT THAT MAKES THE
PIPE LINES COMMON CARRIERS."  ID. AT 9647. 

THE "COMMODITIES CLAUSE" OF THE HEPBURN ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT
RAILROADS FROM OWNING BUSINESSES WHOSE SHIPMENTS THEY CARRIED.  WHEN
THAT CLAUSE WAS FIRST CONSIDERED IN THE SENATE, IT APPLIED TO "COMMON
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO" THE ACT.  SOME SENATORS REALIZED THAT THE
"COMMODITIES CLAUSE" - READ TOGETHER WITH THE LODGE AMENDMENT MAKING
EVERY PIPE-LINE COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE ACT - WOULD FORCE A DIVORCEMENT
OF PIPE LINES FROM REFINERIES.  TO AVOID THIS, THEY AGAIN SUGGESTED
THAT THE LODGE PROPOSAL BE AMENDED SO AS TO APPLY ONLY TO PIPE LINES
OPERATING FOR THE PUBLIC.  SENATOR LODGE SAID:  "WHAT I WANT TO SUGGEST
TO THE SENATOR IS THAT THIS (ORIGINAL LODGE) AMENDMENT MAKES THE PIPE
LINES AND THE OIL COMPANIES SUBJECT TO ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL. 
IF THE SENATOR THINKS THERE IS AN INJUSTICE, THE PLACE TO REMEDY IT IS
ON PAGE 5, AT THAT AMENDMENT (THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE), AND NOT AT THIS
ONE (THE LODGE AMENDMENT)."  ID. AT 7009.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
"COMMODITIES CLAUSE" FINALLY PASSED BY CONGRESS REFERRED SPECIFICALLY
TO RAILROADS.  34 STAT. 585. 
..END :














UNITED STATES V. WHEELOCK BROS., 341 U.S. 319 


ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1951.  - DECIDED MAY 7, 1951.  - 115 CT. CL. 733, 88
F.SUPP.  278, VACATED AND REMANDED. 


A PRIVATE MOTOR CARRIER SUED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER JUST
COMPENSATION FOR AN ALLEGED TEMPORARY TAKING OF ITS PROPERTY AND
BUSINESS BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9462.  WHILE
THE CASE WAS PENDING, THE MOTOR CARRIER CLAIMS COMMISSION ACT WAS
ENACTED; AND THE MOTOR CARRIER TIMELY FILED ITS CLAIM WITH THE
COMMISSION BEFORE THE COURT OF CLAIMS ENTERED JUDGMENT.  HELD:  THIS
DEPRIVED THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF JURISDICTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN THE
CASE.  PP. 319-320. 

UNITED STATES V. WHEELOCK BROS., INC. 

NO. 169.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 177, WHEELOCK BROS., INC. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO
ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

PER CURIAM. 

WHEELOCK BROS., INC., A PRIVATE MOTOR CARRIER, SUED IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO RECOVER JUST COMPENSATION FOR AN ALLEGED TEMPORARY TAKING OF
ITS PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS BY THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9462.  9 FED. REG. 10071(1944).  THE COURT OF CLAIMS ENTERED
JUDGMENT AWARDING WHEELOCK BROS., INC., JUST COMPENSATION IN AN AMOUNT
LESS THAN THAT CLAIMED.  115 CT. CL. 733, 88 F.SUPP.  278(1950).  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI ON THE PETITIONS OF BOTH PARTIES.  340 U.S.
808(1950). 

WHILE THE ACTION WAS PENDING IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, CONGRESS PASSED
THE MOTOR CARRIER CLAIMS COMMISSION ACT* , PROVIDING THAT THAT
COMMISSION "SHALL HEAR AND DETERMINE, ACCORDING TO LAW, EXISTING CLAIMS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ARISING OUT OF THE TAKING BY THE UNITED
STATES OF POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY OF THE MOTOR-CARRIER
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DESCRIBED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBERED 9462  ...
"  SECTION 2.  WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED IN THE ACT AND BEFORE ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, WHEELOCK BROS., INC., FILED ITS CLAIM
WITH THE COMMISSION. 

*62 STAT. 1222(1948), AS AMENDED, 62 STAT. 1289, 1290(1948), 63 STAT.
80(1949). 

AT THE THRESHOLD, WE ARE MET WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT OF
CLAIMS HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE.  CONGRESS, IN
SEC. 6 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER CLAIMS COMMISSION ACT, EXPRESSLY PROVIDED: 

"THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION OVER CLAIMS PRESENTED TO IT AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 2 OF THIS ACT SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE; BUT NOTHING IN
THIS ACT SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT ELECT TO PRESENT HIS
CLAIM TO THE COMMISSION FROM PURSUING ANY OTHER REMEDY AVAILABLE TO
HIM." 

WHEELOCK BROS., INC., BY FILING ITS CLAIM WITH THE COMMISSION, DID
ELECT TO PRESENT IT TO THAT TRIBUNAL.  THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION
OVER THE CLAIM BEING "EXCLUSIVE," THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE.  FOR THIS REASON, THE
JUDGMENT BELOW IS VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE CLAIM IN THAT COURT.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 
..END :











EWING V. GARDNER, 341 U.S. 321 


NO. 621.  DECIDED MAY 7, 1951.  - 185 F.2D 781, REVERSED IN PART. 


UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2412(A), COSTS MAY NOT BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE
FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR IN A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST HIM IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY, WHEN THERE IS NO EXPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE
ALLOWANCE OF SUCH COSTS. 

EWING, FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR, V. GARDNER, EXECUTOR. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY, THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDED A JUDGMENT AND ASSESSED COSTS
AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATOR.  88 F.SUPP.  315.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  185 F.2D 781.  CERTIORARI GRANTED AND JUDGMENT REVERSED,
INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE TAXATION OF COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED.  THE SOLE QUESTION
PRESENTED BY THE PETITION IS THE VALIDITY OF THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR
COSTS BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THERE BEING NO EXPRESS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF COSTS TO THE RESPONDENT, SUCH AN AWARD
OF COSTS IS PRECLUDED BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2412(A).  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE TAXATION OF COSTS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER, IS THEREFORE REVERSED. 
..END :





















UNITED STATES V. PEWEE COAL CO., 341 U.S. 114 


NO. 168.  ARGUED JANUARY 2-3, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 30, 1951.  - 115
CT. CL. 626, 88 F.SUPP.  426, AFFIRMED. 


RESPONDENT IS A COAL MINE OPERATOR WHOSE PROPERTY WAS SEIZED AND
OPERATED BY THE UNITED STATES DURING A TEMPORARY PERIOD IN 1943 TO
AVERT A NATIONWIDE STRIKE OF MINERS.  RESPONDENT SUED IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO RECOVER UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FOR THE TOTAL OPERATING
LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THAT PERIOD.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED
RESPONDENT JUDGMENT FOR ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE OPERATING LOSS (VIZ.,
INCREASED WAGE PAYMENTS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A WAR LABOR BOARD
ORDER) WHICH THE COURT FOUND WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO GOVERNMENT OPERATION
OF THE MINE.  RESPONDENT DID NOT SEEK REVIEW HERE; CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED ON THE PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT.  HELD: 

1.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS A "TAKING" OF RESPONDENT'S
PROPERTY, WHICH ENTITLED RESPONDENT TO RECOVER COMPENSATION UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 115-117. 

2.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR
THAT PORTION OF THE OPERATING LOSS WHICH IT FOUND ATTRIBUTABLE TO
GOVERNMENT OPERATION IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 117-119. 

UNITED STATES V. PEWEE COAL CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

IN A SUIT BY RESPONDENT TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR AN ALLEGED TAKING
OF ITS PROPERTY, THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT,
BUT IN LESS THAN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED.  115 CT. CL. 626, 88 F.SUPP. 
426.  ON THE PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT, THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 808.  AFFIRMED, P. 119. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN OPINION
IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON JOINED. 

RESPONDENT, PEWEE COAL CO., INC., IS A COAL MINE OPERATOR WHOSE
PROPERTY WAS ALLEGEDLY POSSESSED AND OPERATED BY THE UNITED STATES FROM
MAY 1 TO OCTOBER 12, 1943, TO AVERT A NATION-WIDE STRIKE OF MINERS. 
PEWEE BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT FN1  FOR THE TOTAL OPERATING LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING
THAT PERIOD.  AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT HELD THAT THERE
HAD BEEN A "TAKING" ENTITLING PEWEE TO COMPENSATION.  IT FOUND THE
TOTAL OPERATING LOSS TO BE $36,128.96, BUT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR ONLY
$2,241.26, THIS AMOUNT BEING THE PORTION OF THE OPERATING LOSS WHICH
THE COURT FOUND ATTRIBUTABLE TO GOVERNMENT OPERATION OF THE MINE.  115
CT. CL. 626, 88 F.SUPP.  426.  PEWEE DID NOT SEEK REVIEW HERE.  WE
GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI  FN2  IN WHICH TWO
QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED:  (1) WAS THERE SUCH A TAKING OF PEWEE'S
PROPERTY AS TO JUSTIFY COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT?  (2) IF
THERE WAS, DOES THE RECORD SUPPORT THE AWARD OF $2,241.26? 

FIRST.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT THERE WAS A "TAKING"
REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY PEWEE.  THE FACTS UPON WHICH THIS
CONCLUSION RESTS ARE SET OUT IN THE FINDINGS AND OPINION BELOW AND NEED
NOT BE REPEATED IN DETAIL HERE.  SEE 115 CT. CL. 626.  THE FOLLOWING
ARE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE GENERAL PICTURE:  ON MAY 1, 1943, THE
PRESIDENT ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDER 9340, 8 FED. REG. 5695, DIRECTING THE
SECRETARY OF INTERIOR "  ...  TO TAKE IMMEDIATE POSSESSION, SO FAR AS
MAY BE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE, OF ANY AND ALL MINES PRODUCING COAL IN
WHICH A STRIKE OR STOPPAGE HAS OCCURRED OR IS THREATENED,  ...  AND TO
OPERATE OR ARRANGE FOR THE OPERATION OF SUCH MINES  ...  "  ON THE SAME
DAY, THE SECRETARY ISSUED AN "ORDER FOR TAKING POSSESSION" OF MOST OF
THE NATION'S MINES, INCLUDING PEWEE'S.  8 FED. REG. 5767.  TO CONVINCE
THE OPERATORS, MINERS AND PUBLIC THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS TAKING
POSSESSION FOR THE BONA FIDE PURPOSE OF OPERATING THE MINES, THE
GOVERNMENT FORMALLY AND CEREMONIOUSLY PROCLAIMED THAT SUCH WAS ITS
INTENTION.  IT REQUIRED MINE OFFICIALS TO AGREE TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS
AS AGENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT; REQUIRED THE AMERICAN FLAG TO BE FLOWN AT
EVERY MINE; REQUIRED PLACARDS READING "UNITED STATES PROPERTY."  TO BE
POSTED ON THE PREMISES; AND APPEALED TO THE MINERS TO DIG COAL FOR THE
UNITED STATES AS A PUBLIC DUTY.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW
OF THE OTHER FACTS WHICH WERE FOUND, IT SHOULD NOT AND WILL NOT BE
ASSUMED THAT THE SEIZURE OF THE MINES WAS A MERE SHAM OR PRETENSE TO
ACCOMPLISH SOME UNEXPRESSED GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE INSTEAD OF BEING THE
PROCLAIMED ACTUAL TAKING OF POSSESSION AND CONTROL.  IN UNITED STATES
V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258, THERE HAD BEEN A GOVERNMENT
SEIZURE OF THE MINES UNDER PRESIDENTIAL AND SECRETARIAL ORDERS, WHICH,
INSOFAR AS HERE MATERIAL, WERE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE ISSUED
IN THE PRESENT CASE.  WE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE MINE WORKERS
THAT "THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN ADMINISTERING THE BITUMINOUS COAL MINES
(WAS) FOR THE MOST PART FICTIONAL AND FOR THE REMAINDER NOMINAL ONLY." 
FN3  WE TREATED THAT SEIZURE AS MAKING THE MINES GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES "IN AS COMPLETE A SENSE AS IF THE GOVERNMENT HELD FULL TITLE
AND OWNERSHIP."  ID., AT 284-285.  IT FOLLOWS ALMOST AS A MATTER OF
COURSE FROM OUR HOLDING IN UNITED MINE WORKERS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HERE
"TOOK" PEWEE'S PROPERTY AND BECAME ENGAGED IN THE MINING BUSINESS. 
FN4 

SECOND.  HAVING TAKEN PEWEE'S PROPERTY, THE UNITED STATES BECAME
LIABLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION.  ORDINARILY,
FAIR COMPENSATION FOR A TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
IS THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY'S USE.  SEE KIMBALL LAUNDRY CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,
323 U.S. 373.  BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER
THE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS INHERENT IN FIXING THE VALUE OF THE USE OF A
GOING CONCERN BECAUSE PEWEE NEITHER CLAIMED SUCH COMPENSATION NOR
PROVED THE AMOUNT.  IT PROCEEDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
REQUIRES THE UNITED STATES TO BEAR OPERATING LOSSES INCURRED DURING THE
PERIOD THE GOVERNMENT OPERATES PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE
PUBLIC WITHOUT THE OWNER'S CONSENT.  WE BELIEVE THAT THIS CONTENTION
EXPRESSES A CORRECT GENERAL PRINCIPLE WHICH UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE SUPPORTS THE JUDGMENT FOR $2,241.26. 

LIKE ANY PRIVATE PERSON OR CORPORATION, THE UNITED STATES NORMALLY IS
ENTITLED TO THE PROFITS FROM, AND MUST BEAR THE LOSSES OF, BUSINESS
OPERATIONS WHICH IT CONDUCTS.  WHEN A PRIVATE BUSINESS IS POSSESSED AND
OPERATED FOR PUBLIC USE, NO REASON APPEARS TO JUSTIFY IMPOSITION OF
LOSSES SUSTAINED ON THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE PROPERTY WAS SEIZED.  THIS
IS CONCEPTUALLY DISTINCT FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO PAY FAIR
COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY TAKEN, ALTHOUGH IN CASES RAISING THE ISSUE,
THE GOVERNMENT'S PROFIT AND LOSS EXPERIENCE MAY WELL BE ONE FACTOR
INVOLVED IN COMPUTING REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR A TEMPORARY TAKING. 
OF COURSE, THERE MIGHT BE AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT RECEIVE OPERATING PROFITS NOR
BEAR THE LOSSES, IN WHICH EVENT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE WOULD BE
INAPPLICABLE.  BUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT EXISTED IN
THE PRESENT CASE MAY BE DISPOSED OF QUICKLY.  PEWEE'S FAILURE TO SEEK
REVIEW HERE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE COMPANY
CONSENTED TO BEAR THE DISALLOWED AND MAJOR PORTION OF THE LOSSES
SUSTAINED DURING THE PERIOD OF GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL.  AND THERE IS NO
INDICATION THAT PEWEE EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY AGREED TO ASSUME THE LOSS
OF $2,241.26 WHICH THE COURT FOUND MAINLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO INCREASED
WAGE PAYMENTS MADE TO COMPLY WITH A WAR LABOR BOARD DECISION. 

WHERE LOSSES RESULTING FROM OPERATION OF PROPERTY TAKEN MUST BE BORNE
BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT THE LOSSES ARE CAUSED IN
WHOLE OR IN PART BY COMPLIANCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
REQUIRING ADDITIONAL WAGES TO BE PAID.  WITH OR WITHOUT A WAR LABOR
BOARD ORDER, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT INCREASED THE WAGES OF THE MINERS WHOM
IT EMPLOYED, IT THEREBY INCURRED THE EXPENSE.  MOREOVER, IT IS
IMMATERIAL THAT GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION RESULTED IN A SMALLER LOSS THAN
PEWEE WOULD HAVE SUSTAINED IF THERE HAD BEEN NO SEIZURE OF THE MINES. 
WHATEVER MIGHT HAVE BEEN PEWEE'S LOSSES HAD IT BEEN LEFT FREE TO
EXERCISE ITS OWN BUSINESS JUDGMENT, THE CRUCIAL FACT IS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT CHOSE TO INTERVENE BY TAKING POSSESSION AND OPERATING
CONTROL.  BY DOING SO, IT BECAME THE PROPRIETOR AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONTRARY ARRANGEMENTS, WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS AND SUBJECT TO THE
LIABILITIES WHICH THAT STATUS INVOLVES. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "  ...  NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE,
WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."  U.S. CONST., AMEND. V. 

FN2  340 U.S. 808. 

FN3  BRIEF FOR UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA AND JOHN L. LEWIS, P.
32, UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258. 

FN4  THE CASE OF MARION & RYE VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270
U.S. 280, IS CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS SUPPORTING ITS VIEW THAT THERE
WAS NO "TAKING" HERE.  IN THAT CASE, HOWEVER, THE COURT HAD "NO
OCCASION TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN LAW THE PRESIDENT TOOK POSSESSION AND
ASSUMED CONTROL" OF A RAILROAD.  INSTEAD, IT DEALT WITH THE PROBLEM ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS A "TAKING" AND PROCEEDED TO DECISION ON
THE FINDING THAT THE RAILROAD "WAS NOT SUBJECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
PECUNIARY LOSS."  THIS DECISION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS CONTROLLING THE
PRESENT CASE SINCE WHETHER THERE IS A "TAKING" MUST BE DETERMINED IN
LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE THAT IN THIS CASE THERE WAS A "TAKING" BY EMINENT DOMAIN THAT
REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY FOR ITS USE.  HOWEVER, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ACCEPT THE
VIEW THAT THE "TAKING" IN THIS CASE REQUIRES THE UNITED STATES TO BEAR
ALL OPERATING LOSSES DURING THE PERIOD IT CONTROLS THE PROPERTY WITHOUT
THE OWNER'S CONSENT OR AGREEMENT.  SUCH A VIEW WOULD LEAD TO DISASTROUS
CONSEQUENCES WHERE PROPERTIES NECESSARILY TAKEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
NATION HAVE A LONG RECORD OF OPERATING LOSSES, E.G., CERTAIN RAILROADS,
COAL MINES, OR TELEVISION BROADCASTING STATIONS.  THE QUESTION OF WHO
BEARS SUCH LOSSES IS NOT, I THINK, "CONCEPTUALLY DISTINCT" FROM THE
QUESTION OF JUST COMPENSATION.  LOSSES OR PROFITS ON THE TEMPORARY
OPERATION AFTER THE DECLARATION OR JUDGMENT OF TAKING ARE FACTORS TO BE
TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHAT IS JUST COMPENSATION TO
THE OWNER. 

THIS IS A TEMPORARY TAKING.  THE RELATIVELY NEW TECHNIQUE OF
TEMPORARY TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN IS A MOST USEFUL ADMINISTRATIVE
DEVICE:  MANY PROPERTIES, SUCH AS LAUNDRIES, OR COAL MINES, OR
RAILROADS, MAY BE SUBJECTED TO PUBLIC OPERATION ONLY FOR A SHORT TIME
TO MEET WAR OR EMERGENCY NEEDS, AND CAN THEN BE RETURNED TO THEIR
OWNERS.  HOWEVER, THE USE OF THE TEMPORARY TAKING HAS SPAWNED A HOST OF
DIFFICULT PROBLEMS, E.G., UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323
U.S. 373; UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. 372; KIMBALL
LAUNDRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 1, ESPECIALLY IN THE FIXING OF
THE JUST COMPENSATION.  MARKET VALUE, DESPITE ITS DIFFICULTIES,
PROVIDES A FAIRLY ACCEPTABLE TEST FOR JUST COMPENSATION WHEN THE
PROPERTY IS TAKEN ABSOLUTELY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S.
369; UNITED STATES V. JOHN J. FELIN & CO., 334 U.S. 624; UNITED STATES
V. TORONTO NAVIGATION CO., 338 U.S. 396; UNITED STATES V. COMMODITIES
TRADING CORP., 339 U.S. 121.  BUT IN THE TEMPORARY TAKING OF OPERATING
PROPERTIES, E.G., MARION & RYE VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S.
280; UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 330 U.S. 258,
MARKET VALUE IS TOO UNCERTAIN A MEASURE TO HAVE ANY PRACTICAL
SIGNIFICANCE.  THE RENTAL VALUE FOR A FULLY FUNCTIONING RAILROAD FOR AN
UNCERTAIN PERIOD IS AN UNKNOWABLE QUANTITY.  THIS LED TO A GOVERNMENT
GUARANTEE OF EARNINGS IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR, 40 STAT. 451.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO., 339 U.S. 261.  THE MOST
REASONABLE SOLUTION IS TO AWARD COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER AS DETERMINED
BY A COURT UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. 

TEMPORARY TAKINGS CAN ASSUME VARIOUS FORMS.  THERE MAY BE A TAKING IN
WHICH THE OWNERS ARE OUSTED FROM OPERATION, THEIR BUSINESS SUSPENDED,
AND THE PROPERTY DEVOTED TO NEW USES.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS
CORP., 323 U.S. 373; UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. 372;
KIMBALL LAUNDRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 1.  A SECOND KIND OF
TAKING IS WHERE, AS HERE, THE GOVERNMENT, FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OR THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE, "TAKES" THE PROPERTY IN THE SENSE OF
ASSUMING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ITS DIRECTION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR
NATIONAL PURPOSES, LEAVING THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS IN THE HANDS OF ITS
OWNERS AS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS APPOINTED TO CONDUCT ITS AFFAIRS WITH
THE ASSETS AND EQUIPMENT OF THE CONTROLLED COMPANY.  EXAMPLES ARE THE
OPERATION OF RAILROADS, MOTOR CARRIERS, OR COAL MINES.  MARION & RYE
VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 280; UNITED STATES V. UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 330 U.S. 258. 

WHEN, IN A TEMPORARY TAKING, NO AGREEMENT IS REACHED WITH THE OWNERS,
THE COURTS MUST DETERMINE WHAT PAYMENTS THE GOVERNMENT MUST MAKE. 
WHATEVER THE NATURE OF THE "TAKING," THE TEST SHOULD BE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF "JUST COMPENSATION."  HOWEVER, THERE IS
NO INFLEXIBLE REQUIREMENT THAT THE SAME INCIDENTS MUST BE USED IN EACH
APPLICATION OF THE TEST. 

SO FAR AS THE SECOND KIND OF TEMPORARY "TAKING" IS CONCERNED, THE
GOVERNMENT'S SUPERVISION OF A LOSING BUSINESS FOR A TEMPORARY EMERGENCY
OUGHT NOT TO PLACE UPON THE GOVERNMENT THE BURDEN OF THE LOSSES
INCURRED DURING THAT SUPERVISION UNLESS THE LOSSES WERE INCURRED BY
GOVERNMENTAL ACTS, E.G., IF THE BUSINESS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED
AT ALL BUT FOR THE GOVERNMENT, OR IF EXTRA LOSSES OVER WHAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN OTHERWISE SUSTAINED WERE OCCASIONED BY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. 
WHERE THE OWNER'S LOSSES ARE WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT THE
"TAKING," THE OWNER HAS SUFFERED NO LOSS OR DAMAGE FOR WHICH
COMPENSATION IS DUE.  CF. MARION & RYE VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
270 U.S. 280.  THE MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
LOSS TO THE OWNER, NOT THE LOSS OR GAIN TO THE GOVERNMENT.  BOSTON
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. BOSTON, 217 U.S. 189, 195.    HERE THE COURT OF
CLAIMS HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THESE PRINCIPLES IN A CASE OF A LOSING
OPERATION IN A TEMPORARY TAKING.  IT HAS FOUND THAT A CERTAIN SUM WAS
EXPENDED WITHOUT LEGAL OR BUSINESS NECESSITY SO TO DO.  THIS SUM WAS
THE EXTRA ALLOWANCE PAID AT THE DIRECTION OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER A
CERTAIN WAR LABOR BOARD RECOMMENDATION THAT HAD NO LEGAL SANCTION.  50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1507; E.O. 9017, 3 CFR, 1943 CUM. SUPP., 1075.  I
WOULD NOT OVERTURN ITS FINDING IN THIS CASE AND WOULD THEREFORE
AFFIRM. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CLARK
AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON CONCUR, DISSENTING.    I AGREE THAT THERE WAS A
"TAKING" OF THE MINING PROPERTY FROM MAY 1 TO OCTOBER 12, 1943, BUT I
FIND NO GROUND FOR ALLOWING THE RESPONDENT TO RECOVER THE SUM HERE
SOUGHT AS COMPENSATION FOR SUCH TAKING. 

THIS CASE IS WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE STATED IN MARION & R.V.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 280, 282, AS FOLLOWS: "(EVEN) IF THERE WAS
TECHNICALLY A TAKING, THE JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT WAS RIGHT.  NOTHING
WAS RECOVERABLE AS JUST COMPENSATION, BECAUSE NOTHING OF VALUE WAS
TAKEN FROM THE COMPANY; AND IT WAS NOT SUBJECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
PECUNIARY LOSS.  NOMINAL DAMAGES ARE NOT RECOVERABLE IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS." 

HERE THERE IS NO SHOWING BY THE COMPANY OF ANY RENTAL VALUE DUE IT AS
COMPENSATION FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION OF ITS PROPERTIES.  THERE
IS NO SHOWING THAT ANYTHING OF COMPENSABLE VALUE WAS TAKEN BY THE
GOVERNMENT FROM THE COMPANY, OR THAT THE GOVERNMENT SUBJECTED THE
COMPANY TO ANY PECUNIARY LOSS.  THE DISSENTING JUDGE IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS POINTED OUT THAT - 

"THIS EXTRA EXPENSE CONSISTED OF AN INCREASED VACATION ALLOWANCE TO
THE PLAINTIFF'S WORKMEN, AND THE REFUND TO THEM OF OCCUPATIONAL CHARGES
LIKE RENTALS ON MINE LAMPS.  THE COURT HAS NOT FOUND THAT THE PLAINTIFF
(COMPANY) COULD HAVE OPERATED ITS MINE WITHOUT MAKING THE CONCESSIONS
DIRECTED BY THE WAR LABOR BOARD, NOR HAS IT FOUND WHAT THE LOSSES TO
THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT INTERVENED AND
THE STRIKE HAD CONTINUED.  I THINK THAT THE COURT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN
AWARDING THE PLAINTIFF THE AMOUNT OF THESE EXPENDITURES WHEN IT DOES
NOT AND, I THINK, COULD NOT, FIND THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS, IN FACT,
FINANCIALLY HARMED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTS."  115 CT. CL. AT 678-679,
88 F.SUPP.  AT 431. 

ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND
ALLOW NO RECOVERY BY THE RESPONDENT. 
..END :









ANTI-FASCIST COMMITTEE V. MCGRATH, 341 U.S. 123 


ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1950.  - DECIDED APRIL 30, 1951.  - 85 U.S. APP. D.C.
255, 177 F.2D 79 - 86 U.S. APP. D.C. 287, 182 F.2D 368, REVERSED. 


PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER PART III, SEC. 3 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING, DESIGNATED THE THREE
PETITIONER ORGANIZATIONS AS COMMUNIST IN A LIST FURNISHED TO THE
LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH DETERMINATIONS OF
DISLOYALTY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD DISSEMINATED THE LIST TO
ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT.  PETITIONERS SUED FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  THEY ALLEGED THAT THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS WERE ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE OR CIVIC ACTIVITIES OR IN THE
BUSINESS OF FRATERNAL INSURANCE; ALL THREE IMPLIED AN ATTITUDE OF
COOPERATION AND HELPFULNESS, RATHER THAN ONE OF HOSTILITY OR DISLOYALTY
TOWARD THE UNITED STATES; AND TWO EXPRESSLY ALLEGED THAT THEIR
RESPECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS WERE NOT WITHIN ANY CLASSIFICATION LISTED IN
PART III, SEC. 3 OF THE ORDER.  PETITIONERS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE
ACTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE BOARD GREATLY HAMPERED THEIR
ACTIVITIES AND DEPRIVED THEM OF RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION; THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER VIOLATES THE FIRST, FIFTH,
NINTH, AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION; THAT SEC. 9A OF THE
HATCH ACT, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, IS VOID; AND THAT PETITIONERS WERE
SUFFERING IRREPARABLE INJURY AND HAD NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW.  THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS FOR FAILURE TO
STATE CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CASES ARE REMANDED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DENY THE MOTIONS THAT THE
COMPLAINTS BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF
COULD BE GRANTED.  PP. 124-125, 142. 

FOR THE OPINIONS OF THE JUSTICES CONSTITUTING THE MAJORITY OF THE
COURT, SEE: 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BURTON, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, PP. 124
142. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, PP. 142-149. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, PP. 149-174. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, PP. 174-183. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, PP. 183-187. 

FOR THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE REED, JOINED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON, SEE PP. 187-213. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
ANY OF THESE CASES. 

JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET
AL. 

NO. 8.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 7, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP,
INC. ET AL. V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.; AND NO. 71,
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS ORDER, INC. ET AL. V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE CASES ARE STATED IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BURTON, PP. 130
135.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 142. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING OPINION, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS: 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THE SAME ISSUE IS RAISED BY THE DISMISSAL OF A
COMPLAINT FOR ITS FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE
GRANTED.  THAT ISSUE IS WHETHER, IN THE FACE OF THE FACTS ALLEGED IN
THE COMPLAINT AND THEREFORE ADMITTED BY THE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HAS AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE THE
COMPLAINING ORGANIZATION IN A LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNATED BY HIM
AS COMMUNIST AND FURNISHED BY HIM TO THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD OF THE
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.  HE CLAIMS TO DERIVE AUTHORITY
TO DO THIS FROM THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS IN PART III, SEC. 3, OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT, MARCH 21, 1947:

             "PART III - RESPONSIBILITIES OF CIVIL SERVICE

    COMMISSION 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"3.  THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD SHALL CURRENTLY BE FURNISHED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THE NAME OF EACH FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC
ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, MOVEMENT, GROUP OR COMBINATION OF PERSONS
WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AFTER APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION AND
DETERMINATION, DESIGNATES AS TOTALITARIAN, FASCIST, COMMUNIST OR
SUBVERSIVE, OR AS HAVING ADOPTED A POLICY OF ADVOCATING OR APPROVING
THE COMMISSION OF ACTS OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE TO DENY OTHERS THEIR RIGHTS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR AS SEEKING TO ALTER THE
FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS. 

"A.  THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD SHALL DISSEMINATE SUCH INFORMATION TO
ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES."  3 CFR, 1947 SUPP., PP. 129, 131, 12
FED. REG. 1935, 1938. 

THE RESPECTIVE COMPLAINTS DESCRIBE THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS AS
ENGAGED IN CHARITABLE OR CIVIC ACTIVITIES OR IN THE BUSINESS OF
FRATERNAL INSURANCE.  EACH IMPLIES AN ATTITUDE OF COOPERATION AND
HELPFULNESS, RATHER THAN ONE OF HOSTILITY OR DISLOYALTY, ON THE PART OF
THE ORGANIZATION TOWARD THE UNITED STATES.  TWO OF THE COMPLAINTS DENY
EXPRESSLY THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS WITHIN ANY CLASSIFICATION SPECIFIED
IN PART III, SEC. 3, OF THE ORDER. 

FOR THE REASONS HEREINAFTER STATED, WE CONCLUDE THAT, IF THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINTS ARE TAKEN AS TRUE (AS THEY MUST BE ON THE
MOTIONS TO DISMISS), THE EXECUTIVE ORDER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FURNISH THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD WITH A LIST
CONTAINING SUCH A DESIGNATION AS HE GAVE TO EACH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS
WITHOUT OTHER JUSTIFICATION.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HIS OWN
ADMISSIONS RENDER HIS DESIGNATIONS PATENTLY ARBITRARY BECAUSE THEY ARE
CONTRARY TO THE ALLEGED AND UNCONTROVERTED FACTS CONSTITUTING THE
ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE US.  THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN
AFFORDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR ALLEGATIONS, BUT AT THIS
STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS CHOSEN NOT TO DENY
THEIR ALLEGATIONS AND HAS NOT OTHERWISE PLACED THEM IN ISSUE. 

WHATEVER MAY BE HIS AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE THESE ORGANIZATIONS AS
COMMUNIST UPON UNDISCLOSED FACTS IN HIS POSSESSION, HE HAS NOT CHOSEN
TO LIMIT HIMSELF TO THAT AUTHORIZATION.  BY HIS PRESENT PROCEDURE HE
HAS CLAIMED AUTHORITY SO TO DESIGNATE THEM UPON THE VERY FACTS ALLEGED
BY THEM IN THEIR OWN COMPLAINTS.  SELF-SERVING OR NOT, THOSE
ALLEGATIONS DO NOT STATE FACTS FROM WHICH ALONE A REASONABLE
DETERMINATION CAN BE DERIVED THAT THE ORGANIZATIONS ARE COMMUNIST.  TO
DEFEND SUCH A DESIGNATION OF THEM, ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINTS
ALONE, IS AN ASSERTION OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY SO TO DESIGNATE AN
ORGANIZATION AT THE OPTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHOUT RELIANCE
UPON EITHER DISCLOSED OR UNDISCLOSED FACTS SUPPLYING A REASONABLE BASIS
FOR THE DETERMINATION.  IT IS THAT, AND ONLY THAT OUTER LIMIT OF THE
AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT IS NOW BEFORE US. 

AT LEAST SINCE 1939, INCREASING CONCERN HAS BEEN EXPRESSED, IN AND
OUT OF CONGRESS, AS TO THE POSSIBLE PRESENCE IN THE EMPLOY OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF PERSONS DISLOYAL TO IT.  THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE
LEGISLATION, REPORTS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS CULMINATING IN EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9835.  FN1  THAT ORDER ANNOUNCED THE PRESIDENT'S EMPLOYEES
LOYALTY PROGRAM IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.  IT STATES
THAT BOTH "MAXIMUM PROTECTION MUST BE AFFORDED THE UNITED STATES
AGAINST INFILTRATION OF DISLOYAL PERSONS INTO THE RANKS OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, AND EQUAL PROTECTION FROM UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS OF
DISLOYALTY MUST BE AFFORDED THE LOYAL EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT:
...."  IT PROVIDES FOR THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD AND SETS UP A STANDARD
FOR REFUSALS OF AND REMOVALS FROM EMPLOYMENT ON GROUNDS RELATING TO
LOYALTY.  IT OUTLINES THE USE TO BE MADE IN THAT CONNECTION OF THE LIST
OF ORGANIZATIONS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  FN2  THE
ORGANIZATIONS TO BE DESIGNATED ON THAT LIST ARE NOT LIMITED TO THOSE
HAVING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN THEIR MEMBERSHIPS.  THEY MAY EVEN EXCLUDE
SUCH EMPLOYEES FROM MEMBERSHIP.  ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPACT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LIST IS BY NO MEANS LIMITED TO PERSONS WHO ARE
SUBJECT TO THE EMPLOYEES LOYALTY PROGRAM. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INCLUDED EACH OF THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS
IN THE LIST HE FURNISHED TO THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 24,
1947.  THAT LIST WAS DISSEMINATED BY THE BOARD TO ALL DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES DECEMBER 4, 1947.  13 FED. REG. 1473. 
FN3  THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGE THAT SUCH ACTION RESULTED IN NATIONWIDE
PUBLICITY AND CAUSED THE INJURIES TO THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS
WHICH ARE DETAILED LATER.  SEPTEMBER 17, 1948, DURING THE PENDENCY OF
THE INSTANT CASES BUT BEFORE ACTION UPON THE APPEALS IN ANY OF THEM,
"THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FURNISHED THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD WITH A
CONSOLIDATED LIST CONTAINING THE NAMES OF ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS
PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED BY HIM AS WITHIN EXECUTIVE ORDER 9835, SEGREGATED
ACCORDING TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 3, PART III, ON
THE BASIS OF DOMINANT CHARACTERISTICS."  FN4  HE ENUMERATED SIX
CLASSIFICATIONS AND CLASSIFIED THE THREE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS AS
"COMMUNIST."  FN5 

THE INSTANT CASES ORIGINATED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA AND COME HERE AFTER AFFIRMANCE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES AND THEIR
RELATION TO THE EMPLOYEES LOYALTY PROGRAM.  NO. 8, 339 U.S. 910; NO. 7,
339 U.S. 956; NO. 71, 340 U.S. 805. 

    NO. 8.  - THE REFUGEE COMMITTEE CASE 

THE COMPLAINANT IS THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE, AN
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION IN THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK.  IT IS
THE PETITIONER HERE.  THE DEFENDANTS IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION WERE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, TOM C. CLARK, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE LOYALTY REVIEW
BOARD.  J. HOWARD MCGRATH HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND HE AND THE MEMBERS OF THAT BOARD ARE THE RESPONDENTS HERE. 

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, BASED ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT,
SUMMARIZES THE SITUATION BEFORE US:  THE COMPLAINANT IS "A CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATION ENGAGED IN RELIEF WORK" WHICH CARRIED ON ITS RELIEF
ACTIVITIES FROM 1942 TO 1946 UNDER A LICENSE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S WAR
RELIEF CONTROL BOARD.  THEREAFTER, IT VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED ITS
PROGRAM, BUDGETS AND AUDITS FOR INSPECTION BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
VOLUNTARY FOREIGN AID OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  SINCE ITS
INCEPTION, IT HAS, THROUGH VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS, RAISED AND
DISBURSED FUNDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEES WHO ASSISTED
THE GOVERNMENT OF SPAIN AGAINST ITS OVERTHROW BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE. 
THE ORGANIZATION'S AIMS AND PURPOSES "ARE TO RAISE, ADMINISTER AND
DISTRIBUTE FUNDS FOR THE RELIEF AND REHABILITATION OF SPANISH
REPUBLICANS IN EXILE AND OTHER ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEES WHO FOUGHT IN THE
WAR AGAINST FRANCO."  FN6 

IT HAS DISBURSED $1,011,448 IN CASH, AND $217,903 IN KIND, FOR THE
RELIEF OF ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEES AND THEIR FAMILIES.  THIS RELIEF HAS
INCLUDED MONEY, FOOD, SHELTER, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, MEDICAL
TREATMENT AND SUPPLIES, AND CLOTHING TO RECIPIENTS IN 11 COUNTRIES,
INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES.  THE ACTS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD, PURPORTING TO BE TAKEN BY THEM UNDER AUTHORITY OF
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, HAVE SERIOUSLY AND IRREPARABLY IMPAIRED, AND WILL
CONTINUE TO SO IMPAIR, THE REPUTATION OF THE ORGANIZATION AND THE MORAL
SUPPORT AND GOOD WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NECESSARY FOR THE
CONTINUANCE OF ITS CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES.  UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF,
THESE ACTS HAVE CAUSED MANY CONTRIBUTORS, ESPECIALLY PRESENT AND
PROSPECTIVE CIVIL SERVANTS, TO REDUCE OR DISCONTINUE THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ORGANIZATION; MEMBERS AND PARTICIPANTS IN ITS
ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN "VILIFIED AND SUBJECTED TO PUBLIC SHAME, DISGRACE,
RIDICULE AND OBLOQUY  ...  " THEREBY INFLICTING UPON IT ECONOMIC INJURY
AND DISCOURAGING PARTICIPATION IN ITS ACTIVITIES; IT HAS BEEN HAMPERED
IN SECURING MEETING PLACES; AND MANY PEOPLE HAVE REFUSED TO TAKE PART
IN ITS FUND-RAISING ACTIVITIES. 

THIS COMPLAINT DOES NOT CONTAIN AN EXPRESS DENIAL THAT THE
COMPLAINING ORGANIZATION IS WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATIONS NAMED IN PART
III, SEC. 3, OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835.  IT DOES, HOWEVER, STATE THAT
THE ACTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD WHICH
ARE COMPLAINED OF ARE UNAUTHORIZED AND WITHOUT WARRANT IN LAW AND
AMOUNT TO A DEPRIVATION OF THE COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION; THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, ON ITS FACE AND AS
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, VIOLATES THE FIRST, FIFTH, NINTH AND TENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT SEC. 9A OF
THE HATCH ACT, 53 STAT. 1148, 5 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP.III) SEC. 118J,
INSOFAR AS IT PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTANT APPLICATION OF THE
ORDER, IS VOID.  FN7  IT ASKS FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
ALLEGING THAT THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATION IS SUFFERING IRREPARABLE
LOSS AND THAT NO ADEQUATE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO IT EXCEPT THROUGH THE
EQUITY POWERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT COURT GRANTED A MOTION TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR ITS FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH
RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED AND DENIED THE COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.  FN8  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING.  85 U.S. APP. D.C. 255, 177 F.2D 79. 

                  NO. 7.  - THE NATIONAL COUNCIL CASE 

IN THIS CASE THE COURT BELOW RELIED UPON ITS DECISION IN THE REFUGEE
COMMITTEE CASE AND REACHED THE SAME RESULT, PER CURIAM (UNREPORTED). 
EXCEPT AS INDICATED BELOW IN OUR SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ALLEGED, THIS
CASE, FOR OUR PURPOSES, IS LIKE THE FIRST.  THE COMPLAINANTS, WHO ARE
THE PETITIONERS HERE, ARE THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET
FRIENDSHIP, INC., A NEW YORK NONPROFIT MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION,
ORGANIZED IN 1943; THE DENVER COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, A
COLORADO UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION AND LOCAL AFFILIATE OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL; AND SIX INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF ONE OR THE OTHER
OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL "IS TO
STRENGTHEN FRIENDLY RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNION
OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS BY DISSEMINATING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL REGARDING THE SOVIET UNION, BY DEVELOPING CULTURAL
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PEOPLES OF THE TWO NATIONS, AND BY COMBATTING
ANTI-SOVIET PROPAGANDA DESIGNED TO DISRUPT FRIENDLY RELATIONS BETWEEN
THE PEOPLES OF THESE NATIONS AND TO DIVIDE THE UNITED NATIONS."  THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT ALL OF THE COMPLAINANTS ARE SERIOUSLY AND
IRREPARABLY INJURED IN THEIR CAPACITY TO CONDUCT THE NATIONAL COUNCIL'S
EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL AND FUND-RAISING PROGRAM, AND THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINANTS HAVE SUFFERED PERSONAL LOSSES SUCH AS THE REMOVAL OF ONE
FROM AN ASSISTANT RECTORSHIP OF A CHURCH, THE LOSS BY ANOTHER OF A
TEACHING POSITION, AND NUMEROUS CANCELLATIONS OF LECTURING AND
PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENTS.  THE COMPLAINT EXPRESSLY STATES THAT - 

"IN ALL ITS ACTIVITIES THE NATIONAL COUNCIL HAS SOUGHT TO FURTHER THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY LAWFUL, PEACEFUL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.  IT HAS NEVER IN ANY WAY ENGAGED IN ANY CONDUCT
OR ACTIVITY WHICH PROVIDES ANY BASIS FOR IT TO BE DESIGNATED AS
'TOTALITARIAN, FASCIST, COMMUNIST OR SUBVERSIVE, OR AS HAVING ADOPTED A
POLICY OF ADVOCATING OR APPROVING THE COMMISSION OF ACTS OF FORCE OR
VIOLENCE TO DENY OTHERS THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR AS SEEKING TO ALTER THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.'"                     NO. 71. 
- THE INTERNATIONAL WORKERS CASE 

THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS THE PETITIONER HERE, IS A
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, ORGANIZED IN 1930 AS A CORPORATION UNDER THE
INSURANCE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OPERATING FOR THE MUTUAL
BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES AND NOT FOR PROFIT.  IT
IS LICENSED AND OPERATES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND SEVERAL
STATES; ITS PURPOSES ARE COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF FRATERNAL BENEFIT
SOCIETIES IN GENERAL; IT OPERATES UNDER A LODGE SYSTEM AND HAS A
REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT; AT THE TIME OF THE PROMULGATION OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LIST IT HAD 185,000 MEMBERS, INCLUDING
EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND OF VARIOUS STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES; IT PROVIDED LIFE INSURANCE PROTECTION FOR ITS
MEMBERSHIP EXCEEDING $120,000,000; ITS ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT
OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ADDITION TO THOSE BEFORE
THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENTS OF THE STATES IN WHICH IT FUNCTIONS, AND, AS
A RESULT OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, "THE PURPOSES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ORDER
HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE FREE FROM ANY ILLEGAL OR IMPROPER TAINT  ...  "
FN9  AMONG THE ALLEGATIONS OF DAMAGE, MADE UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF,
THE COMPLAINT STATES THAT, SOLELY AS A RESULT OF THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS,
THERE HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED AGAINST THE ORDER AND ITS MEMBERS A
MULTIPLICITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THOSE TO RESCIND
LICENSES, FRANCHISES, OR TAX EXEMPTIONS, OR TO IMPEDE THE
NATURALIZATION OF ITS MEMBERS.  BECAUSE OF RESPONDENTS' ACTS, MANY SUCH
MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE CIVIL SERVANTS, HAVE
RESIGNED OR WITHDRAWN FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORDER, AND MANY POTENTIAL
MEMBERS HAVE DECLINED TO JOIN IT.  FN10 

THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, 88
F.SUPP.  873.  THAT JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING.  86 U.S. APP. D.C. 287, 182 F.2D 368. 

IF, UPON THE ALLEGATIONS IN ANY OF THESE COMPLAINTS, IT HAD APPEARED
THAT THE ACTS OF THE RESPONDENTS, FROM WHICH RELIEF WAS SOUGHT, WERE
AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, THE
CASE WOULD HAVE BRISTLED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.  ON THAT BASIS THE
COMPLAINT WOULD HAVE RAISED QUESTIONS AS TO THE JUSTICIABILITY AND
MERIT OF CLAIMS BASED UPON THE FIRST, FIFTH, NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS
TO THE CONSTITUTION.  IT IS OUR OBLIGATION, HOWEVER, NOT TO REACH THOSE
ISSUES UNLESS THE ALLEGATIONS BEFORE US SQUARELY PRESENT THEM.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303, 320.  CF. UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS
V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75; MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52. 

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CONTAINS NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED ATTEMPT TO CONFER
POWER ON ANYONE TO ACT ARBITRARILY OR CAPRICIOUSLY - EVEN ASSUMING A
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DO SO.  THE ORDER INCLUDES IN THE PURPOSES OF
THE PRESIDENT'S PROGRAM NOT ONLY THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AGAINST DISLOYAL EMPLOYEES BUT THE "EQUAL PROTECTION" OF LOYAL
EMPLOYEES AGAINST UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS OF DISLOYALTY.  3 CFR, 1947
SUPP., P. 129, 12 FED. REG. 1935.  THE STANDARDS STATED FOR REFUSAL OF
AND REMOVAL FROM EMPLOYMENT REQUIRE THAT "ON ALL THE EVIDENCE,
REASONABLE GROUNDS (SHALL) EXIST FOR BELIEF THAT THE PERSON INVOLVED IS
DISLOYAL  ...  "  ID., AT 132, 12 FED. REG. 1938.  OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD
BE CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THAT ORDER TO PLACE ON A LIST TO BE
DISSEMINATED UNDER THE LOYALTY PROGRAM ANY DESIGNATION OF AN
ORGANIZATION THAT WAS PATENTLY ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE
UNCONTROVERTED MATERIAL FACTS.  THE ORDER CONTAINS THE EXPRESS
REQUIREMENT THAT EACH DESIGNATION OF AN ORGANIZATION BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ON SUCH A LIST SHALL BE MADE ONLY AFTER AN "APPROPRIATE  ...
DETERMINATION" AS PRESCRIBED IN PART III, SEC. 3.  AN "APPROPRIATE"
GOVERNMENTAL "DETERMINATION" MUST BE THE RESULT OF A PROCESS OF
REASONING.  IT CANNOT BE AN ARBITRARY FIAT CONTRARY TO THE KNOWN
FACTS.  THIS IS INHERENT IN THE MEANING OF "DETERMINATION."  IT IS
IMPLICIT IN A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN.  WHERE AN ACT OF AN
OFFICIAL PLAINLY FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY, HE DOES
NOT MAKE THAT ACT LEGAL BY DOING IT AND THEN INVOKING THE DOCTRINE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION TO COVER IT. 

IT REMAINS, THEREFORE, FOR US TO DECIDE WHETHER, ON THE FACE OF THESE
COMPLAINTS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ACTING WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY IN
FURNISHING THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD WITH A DESIGNATION OF THE
COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS EITHER AS "COMMUNIST" OR AS WITHIN ANY OTHER
CLASSIFICATION OF PART III, SEC. 3, OF THE ORDER.  IN THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL AND INTERNATIONAL WORKERS CASES, THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATION
IS ALLEGED NOT ONLY TO BE A CIVIC OR INSURANCE ORGANIZATION, APPARENTLY
ABOVE REPROACH FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES,
BUT IT IS ALSO DECLARED TO BE ONE THAT IS NOT WITHIN ANY CLASSIFICATION
LISTED IN PART III, SEC. 3, OF THE ORDER.  IN THE REFUGEE COMMITTEE
CASE, THE NEGATIVE ALLEGATIONS ARE OMITTED BUT THE AFFIRMATIVE
ALLEGATIONS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMPLAINING
ORGANIZATION WITHIN ANY OF THE DESIGNATED CLASSIFICATIONS.  THE
INCLUSION OF ANY OF THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE DESIGNATED
LIST SOLELY ON THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE RESPECTIVE COMPLAINTS, WHICH
MUST BE THE BASIS FOR OUR DECISION HERE, IS THEREFORE AN ARBITRARY AND
UNAUTHORIZED ACT.  IN THE TWO CASES WHERE THE COMPLAINT SPECIFICALLY
ALLEGES THE FACTUAL ABSENCE OF ANY BASIS FOR THE DESIGNATION, AND THE
RESPONDENTS' MOTION ADMITS THAT ALLEGATION, THE DESIGNATION IS
NECESSARILY CONTRARY TO THE RECORD.  THE SITUATION IS COMPARABLE TO ONE
WHICH WOULD BE CREATED IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNDER LIKE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WERE TO DESIGNATE THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS AS A
COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION.  ACCEPTING AS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THE CHARITABLE
AND LOYAL STATUS OF THAT ORGANIZATION, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY CLAIM ASSERTED AGAINST IT, THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ITS INCLUSION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS A
"COMMUNIST" ORGANIZATION OR AS COMING WITHIN ANY OF THE OTHER
CLASSIFICATIONS NAMED IN PART III, SEC. 3, OF THE ORDER. 

SINCE WE FIND THAT THE CONDUCT ASCRIBED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY
THE COMPLAINTS IS PATENTLY ARBITRARY, THE DEFERENCE ORDINARILY DUE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO BRING HIS ALLEGED CONDUCT WITHIN THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED
BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835.  THE DOCTRINE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION NEVER HAS BEEN CARRIED SO FAR AS TO PERMIT ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION TO RUN RIOT.  IF APPLIED TO THIS CASE AND COMPOUNDED WITH
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS DRAFTED FOR HIM
BY HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE CONCLUSION WOULD REST UPON THE PREMISE
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS ATTEMPTED TO DELEGATE TO HIMSELF THE
POWER TO ACT ARBITRARILY.  WE CANNOT IMPUTE SUCH AN ATTEMPT TO THE
NATION'S HIGHEST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ANY MORE THAN WE CAN TO ITS
PRESIDENT. 

IN THUS EMPHASIZING AN OUTER LIMIT TO WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AN
AUTHORIZED DESIGNATION OF AN ORGANIZATION UNDER THE ORDER, THE INSTANT
CASES SERVE A VALUABLE PURPOSE.  THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE, MUCH LESS DIRECT, THE EXERCISE OF ANY SUCH ABSOLUTE
POWER AS WOULD PERMIT THE INCLUSION IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LIST OF A
DESIGNATION THAT IS PATENTLY ARBITRARY OR CONTRARY TO FACT.  FN11 

WHEN THE ACTS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD ARE STRIPPED OF THE PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION
CLAIMED FOR THEM BY THE RESPONDENTS, THEY STAND, ON THE FACE OF THESE
COMPLAINTS, AS UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATIONS OF ADMITTEDLY UNFOUNDED
DESIGNATIONS OF THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS AS "COMMUNIST."  THEIR
EFFECT IS TO CRIPPLE THE FUNCTIONING AND DAMAGE THE REPUTATION OF THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES AND IN THE NATION.  THE
COMPLAINTS, ON THAT BASIS, SUFFICIENTLY CHARGE THAT SUCH ACTS VIOLATE
EACH COMPLAINING ORGANIZATION'S COMMON-LAW RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM
DEFAMATION.  "A COMMUNICATION IS DEFAMATORY IF IT TENDS SO TO HARM THE
REPUTATION OF ANOTHER AS TO LOWER HIM IN THE ESTIMATION OF THE
COMMUNITY OR TO DETER THIRD PERSONS FROM ASSOCIATING OR DEALING WITH
HIM."  RESTATEMENT, TORTS, SEC. 559.  FN12 

THESE COMPLAINTS DO NOT RAISE THE QUESTION OF THE PERSONAL LIABILITY
OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR MONEY DAMAGES CAUSED BY THEIR ULTRA VIRES
ACTS.  SEE SPALDING V. VILAS, 161 U.S. 483.  THEY ASK ONLY FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF STRIKING THE NAMES OF THE DESIGNATED
ORGANIZATIONS FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PUBLISHED LIST AND, AS FAR AS
PRACTICABLE, CORRECTING THE PUBLIC RECORDS. 

THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM SUCH A PROCEEDING.  ONLY
RECENTLY, THIS COURT RECOGNIZED THAT "THE ACTION OF AN OFFICER OF THE
SOVEREIGN (BE IT HOLDING, TAKING OR OTHERWISE LEGALLY AFFECTING THE
PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY) CAN BE REGARDED AS SO 'ILLEGAL' AS TO PERMIT A
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF AGAINST THE OFFICER AS AN INDIVIDUAL  ...  IF
IT IS NOT WITHIN THE OFFICER'S STATUTORY POWERS OR, IF WITHIN THOSE
POWERS  ...  IF THE POWERS, OR THEIR EXERCISE IN THE PARTICULAR CASE,
ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VOID."  LARSON V. DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
CORP., 337 U.S. 682, 701-702.  THE SAME IS TRUE HERE, WHERE THE ACTS
COMPLAINED OF ARE BEYOND THE OFFICER'S AUTHORITY UNDER THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER.  FN13 

FINALLY, THE STANDING OF THE PETITIONERS TO BRING THESE SUITS IS
CLEAR.  FN14 THE TOUCHSTONE TO JUSTICIABILITY IS INJURY TO A LEGALLY
PROTECTED RIGHT  FN15  AND THE RIGHT OF A BONA FIDE CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATION TO CARRY ON ITS WORK, FREE FROM DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS OF
THE KIND DISCUSSED, IS SUCH A RIGHT. 

IT IS UNREALISTIC TO CONTEND THAT BECAUSE THE RESPONDENTS GAVE NO
ORDERS DIRECTLY TO THE PETITIONERS TO CHANGE THEIR COURSE OF CONDUCT,
RELIEF CANNOT BE GRANTED AGAINST WHAT THE RESPONDENTS ACTUALLY DID.  WE
LONG HAVE GRANTED RELIEF TO PARTIES WHOSE LEGAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
VIOLATED BY UNLAWFUL PUBLIC ACTION, ALTHOUGH SUCH ACTION MADE NO DIRECT
DEMANDS UPON THEM.  COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316
U.S. 407; PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510; BUCHANAN V.
WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33.  FN16  THE COMPLAINTS
HERE AMPLY ALLEGE PAST AND IMPENDING SERIOUS DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE
ACTIONS OF WHICH THE PETITIONERS COMPLAIN. 

NOTHING WE HAVE SAID PURPORTS TO ADJUDICATE THE TRUTH OF PETITIONERS'
ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY ARE NOT IN FACT COMMUNISTIC.  WE HAVE ASSUMED
THAT THE DESIGNATIONS MADE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE ARBITRARY
BECAUSE WE ARE COMPELLED TO MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION BY HIS MOTIONS TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS.  WHETHER THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS ARE IN
FACT COMMUNISTIC OR WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POSSESSES INFORMATION
FROM WHICH HE COULD REASONABLY FIND THEM TO BE SO MUST AWAIT
DETERMINATION BY THE DISTRICT COURT UPON REMAND. 

FOR THESE REASONS, WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES AND TO REMAND EACH CASE TO
THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DENY THE RESPONDENTS' MOTION
THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH
RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  E.G., SEC. 9A OF THE HATCH POLITICAL ACTIVITY ACT, AUGUST 2,
1939, 53 STAT. 1148, 5 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III) SEC. 118J; SMITH
ACT, JUNE 28, 1940, 54 STAT. 670, NOW 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III)
SECS. 2385, 2387; VOORHIS ANTI-PROPAGANDA ACT, OCTOBER 17, 1940, 54
STAT. 1201, NOW 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III) SEC. 2386; MANY
APPROPRIATION ACT RIDERS BARRING THE USE OF FUNDS TO PAY "ANY PERSON
WHO ADVOCATES, OR WHO IS A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES,
THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE OR
VIOLENCE:  ...  " SUCH AS THAT AT 55 STAT. 42; EXEC. ORDER NO. 9300,
"ESTABLISHING THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER CASES OF
SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES," FEBRUARY 5,
1943, 3 CFR, 1943 CUM. SUPP., P. 1252, 8 FED. REG. 1701; AND EXEC.
ORDER NO. 9806, "ESTABLISHING THE PRESIDENT'S TEMPORARY COMMISSION ON
EMPLOYEE LOYALTY," NOVEMBER 25, 1946, 3 CFR, 1946 SUPP., P. 183, 11
FED. REG. 13863.  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303, 308
313.  A LATER EXPRESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY APPEARS IN TITLE I
(THE SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL ACT OF 1950) OF THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT OF 1950(THE MCCARRAN ACT) OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1950, 64 STAT.
987.  THIS REQUIRES ANY "COMMUNIST-ACTION ORGANIZATION" OR "COMMUNIST
FRONT ORGANIZATION" TO REGISTER WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SEC. 7) AND
PROVIDES FOR HEARINGS BEFORE A NEWLY CREATED "SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
CONTROL BOARD" (SECS. 12, 13). 

FN2                           "PART V - STANDARDS 

"1.  THE STANDARD FOR THE REFUSAL OF EMPLOYMENT OR THE REMOVAL FROM
EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY ON GROUNDS RELATING TO
LOYALTY SHALL BE THAT, ON ALL THE EVIDENCE, REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST
FOR BELIEF THAT THE PERSON INVOLVED IS DISLOYAL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES. 

"2.  ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATIONS OF AN APPLICANT OR EMPLOYEE WHICH
MAY BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DETERMINATION OF DISLOYALTY
MAY INCLUDE ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: 

     .         .     .         .         . 

"F.  MEMBERSHIP IN, AFFILIATION WITH OR SYMPATHETIC ASSOCIATION WITH
ANY FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, MOVEMENT, GROUP OR
COMBINATION OF PERSONS, DESIGNATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS
TOTALITARIAN, FASCIST, COMMUNIST, OR SUBVERSIVE, OR AS HAVING ADOPTED A
POLICY OF ADVOCATING OR APPROVING THE COMMISSION OF ACTS OF FORCE OR
VIOLENCE TO DENY OTHER PERSONS THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR AS SEEKING TO ALTER THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS."  3 CFR, 1947 SUPP., P. 132,
12 FED. REG. 1938. 

FN3  AS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, MARCH 20, 1948, THE LIST
INCLUDES TWO GROUPS.  THE FIRST GROUP CONTAINS NONE OF THE PRESENT
COMPLAINANTS.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLAINS THAT THAT GROUP "IS
REPORTED AS HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY NAMED AS SUBVERSIVE BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND AS HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISSEMINATED AMONG
THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF
EMPLOYEE LOYALTY UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9300, ISSUED FEBRUARY 5,
1943  ...  " 13 FED. REG. 1473.  THE SECOND GROUP INCLUDES EACH OF THE
COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LISTS THIS GROUP, WITH
THE FIRST, UNDER THE GENERAL HEADING "APPENDIX A - LIST OF
ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9835."  5 CFR, 1949, C. II, PT. 210, PP. 199-201, 13 FED.
REG. 1471, 1473.  HE THEN PLACES THE SECOND GROUP UNDER THE FOLLOWING
SUBHEADING:  "UNDER PART III, SECTION 3, OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835,
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE DESIGNATED:  ...."  ID., AT
201, 13 FED. REG. 1473. 

FN4  13 FED. REG. 6137-6138.  THIS CLASSIFICATION WAS DISSEMINATED TO
ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SEPTEMBER 21, 1948, AND THE CLASSIFIED
LIST WAS PUBLISHED OCTOBER 21, 1948, AS AN AMENDMENT TO 5 CFR, 1949, C.
II, PT. 210, PP. 200-202, 203-205. 

FN5  THE SIX CLASSIFICATIONS WERE:  "TOTALITARIAN," "FASCIST,"
"COMMUNIST," "SUBVERSIVE," "ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAVE 'ADOPTED A POLICY
OF ADVOCATING OR APPROVING THE COMMISSION OF ACTS OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE
TO DENY OTHERS THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES,'" AND "ORGANIZATIONS WHICH 'SEEK TO ALTER THE FORM OF
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.'"  5 CFR,
1949, C. II, PT. 210, PP. 203-205, 13 FED. REG. 6137-6138. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALSO EXPLAINED THAT - 

"APPLYING THE ELEMENTARY RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, EACH OF
THESE CLASSIFICATIONS MUST BE TAKEN TO BE INDEPENDENT AND MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE OF THE OTHERS.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT A DESIGNATED
ORGANIZATION, BY REASON OF ORIGIN, LEADERSHIP, CONTROL, PURPOSES,
POLICIES OR ACTIVITIES, ALONE OR IN COMBINATION, MAY FALL WITHIN MORE
THAN ONE OF THE SPECIFIED CLASSIFICATIONS.  IN SUCH CASES A REASONABLE
INTERPRETATION OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WOULD SEEM TO REQUIRE THAT
DESIGNATION BE PREDICATED UPON ITS DOMINANT CHARACTERISTICS RATHER THAN
EXTENDED TO INCLUDE ALL OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS POSSIBLE ON THE BASIS OF
WHAT MAY BE SUBORDINATE ATTRIBUTES OF THE GROUP.  IN CLASSIFYING THE
DESIGNATED ORGANIZATIONS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN GUIDED BY THIS
POLICY.  ACCORDINGLY, IT SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED THAT AN ORGANIZATION'S
DOMINANT CHARACTERISTIC IS ITS ONLY CHARACTERISTIC."  ID., AT 203, 13
FED. REG. 6137. 

FN6  THE COMPLAINT ADDS THAT - 

"BEFORE THE END OF THE WAR IN EUROPE, THIS RELIEF CONSISTED OF:  (1)
THE RELEASE AND ASSISTANCE OF THOSE OF THE AFORESAID REFUGEES WHO WERE
IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN VICHY FRANCE, NORTH AFRICA AND OTHER
COUNTRIES; (2) TRANSPORTATION AND ASYLUM FOR THOSE OF THE AFORESAID
REFUGEES IN FLIGHT; (3) DIRECT RELIEF AND AID, TO THOSE OF THE
AFORESAID REFUGEES REQUIRING HELP, THROUGH THE RED CROSS AND OTHER
INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES.  AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST
REFUGEE COMMITTEE RELIEF WORK IS PRINCIPALLY DEVOTED TO AIDING THOSE
SPANISH REPUBLICAN REFUGEES, AND OTHER ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEES WHO FOUGHT
AGAINST FRANCO, LOCATED IN FRANCE AND MEXICO." 

FN7  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835 PURPORTS TO REST, IN PART, UPON THE
AUTHORITY OF SEC. 9A OF THE HATCH ACT.  3 CFR, 1947 SUPP., P. 129, 12
FED. REG. 1935. 

FN8  IN THIS CASE, UNLIKE THE OTHERS, THE COMPLAINANT ASKED THAT A
THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT BE CONVENED, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. (1946
ED.)  SEC.  380A, NOW PART OF 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III) SECS.
2281-2284.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT
WITHOUT CONVENING SUCH A COURT. 

FN9  THE COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGES IN PART IV: 

"8.  THE PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE ORDER ARE IN NO
SENSE SUBVERSIVE.  THE ORDER IS NOT AN ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING
OF PART III, SECTION 3 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, AND IT HAS NOT
ADOPTED A POLICY OF ADVOCATING OR APPROVING THE COMMISSION OF ACTS OF
FORCE OR VIOLENCE, OR TO DENY OTHER PERSONS THE RIGHTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OR AS SEEKING TO ALTER THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS, BUT ON THE CONTRARY, THE ORDER IS OPPOSED TO
THE COMMISSION OF ACTS OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE, FIGHTS AGAINST THE DENIAL
OF RIGHTS TO ANY PERSON, AND IS OPPOSED TO THE ALTERING OF OUR FORM OF
GOVERNMENT BY ANY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.  THE ORDER IS
DEDICATED TO THE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS AND TRADITIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM AND EQUALITY EMBODIED IN THE
CONSTITUTION." 

FN10  THE COMPLAINT ATTACKS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 9A OF THE
HATCH ACT BUT DOES NOT ASK FOR THE CONVENING OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT
COURT. 

IN THIS CASE, A.L. DRAYTON, AS A MEMBER OF THE ORDER AND A CIVIL
EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES, SOUGHT PERMISSION FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT TO INTERVENE UNDER RULE 24(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE AND TO HAVE ADDED AS DEFENDANTS THREE MEMBERS OF THE LOYALTY
REVIEW BOARD OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.  HIS MOTION WAS DENIED AND
HIS APPEAL FROM THAT DENIAL DISMISSED.  THE RESPONDENTS NOW ADVISE US
THAT, IN A SEPARATE PROCEEDING, HE APPEALED TO THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD
FROM A DECISION ADVERSE TO HIS LOYALTY, WITH THE RESULT THAT SUCH
DECISION HAS BEEN REVERSED AND THAT HE HAS RETURNED TO DUTY.  WHILE HE
HAS NOT WITHDRAWN HIS APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO
INTERVENE, WE FIND NO REASON TO REVIEW THE DISCRETION EXERCISED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT IN DENYING THAT MOTION.  ALLEN CALCULATORS V. NATIONAL
CASH REGISTER CO., 322 U.S. 137; SEE 4 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE (2D ED.
1950) 62-64. 

FN11  THE DESIGNATION OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS WAS NOT PRECEDED BY ANY
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.  THE ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVED NO NOTICE THAT THEY
WERE TO BE LISTED, HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THEIR OWN
BEHALF AND WERE NOT INFORMED OF THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE DESIGNATIONS
REST.  SEE CHIN YOW V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 8. 

WE HAVE NOTED THE FOLLOWING RECITALS MADE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN
DESCRIBING HIS STANDARD PROCEDURE IN THE PREPARATION OF HIS LISTS: 

"AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835 BY THE PRESIDENT, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMPILED ALL AVAILABLE DATA WITH RESPECT TO THE
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION TO BE DEALT WITH UNDER THAT ORDER.  THE
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CONCERNING
SUCH ORGANIZATIONS WERE CORRELATED.  MEMORANDA ON EACH SUCH
ORGANIZATION WERE PREPARED BY ATTORNEYS OF THE DEPARTMENT.  THE LIST OF
ORGANIZATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN HAS BEEN CERTIFIED TO THE BOARD BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF ATTORNEYS OF THE
DEPARTMENT AS REVIEWED BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, THE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEYS GENERAL, AND THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL, AND SUBSEQUENT
CAREFUL STUDY OF ALL BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL."  5 CFR, 1949, C. II, PT.
210, PP. 199-200, 13 FED. REG. 1471. 

THESE RECITALS, HOWEVER, RELATE TO THE MECHANICS USED RATHER THAN TO
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE DETERMINATION OR THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
RESPECTIVE DESIGNATIONS.  THEY FALL SHORT OF DISCLOSING THAT THERE HAS
BEEN SUCH AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AS WOULD OFFSET THE ADMISSIONS OF
THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINTS WHICH ARE INHERENT IN THE
RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS.  SEE FED. RULES CIV. PROC., 12(B) AND
56(C), AND REAGAN V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362, 401-402. 

WE HAVE TREATED THE DESIGNATION OF AN ORGANIZATION BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN HIS LIST AS INCLUDING HIS FURNISHING OF THAT LIST TO THE
LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THAT BOARD'S OBLIGATION TO
DISSEMINATE IT TO ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

FN12  AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE MEANING OF SEC. 559, THE RESTATEMENT
SUGGESTS: 

"2.  A WRITES IN A LETTER TO B THAT C IS A MEMBER OF THE KU KLUX
KLAN.  B LIVES IN A COMMUNITY IN WHICH A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE
CITIZENS REGARD THIS ORGANIZATION AS A DISCREDITABLE ONE.  A HAS
DEFAMED C." 

SEE ALSO, SPANEL V. PEGLER, 160 F.2D 619(C.A.7TH CIR.); WRIGHT V.
FARM JOURNAL, 158 F.2D 976(C.A.2D CIR.); GRANT V. READER'S DIGEST
ASSN., 151 F.2D 733(C.A.2D CIR.); MENCHER V. CHESLEY, 297 N.Y. 94, 75
N.E.2D 257; PROSSER, HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF TORTS, SEC. 91; 171 A.L.R.
709-710, NOTE. 

FN13  WE DO NOT REACH EITHER THE VALIDITY OF THE EMPLOYEES LOYALTY
PROGRAM OR THE EFFECT OF THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS IN FURNISHING AND
DISSEMINATING A COMPARABLE LIST IN ANY INSTANCE WHERE SUCH ACTS ARE
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY PURPORTEDLY GRANTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  CF.
CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 289-292; UNITED STATES V.
BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 68-78; LINDER V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 5, 17;
M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 423. 

FN14  RULE 17(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GIVES
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS THE RIGHT TO SUE IN THEIR OWN NAMES FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS EXISTING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  AND SEE RESTATEMENT, TORTS, SEC. 561(2) AND COMMENT B
THEREON.  SEE ALSO, N.Y. SOCIETY FOR SUPPRESSION OF VICE V. MCFADDEN
PUBLICATIONS, 260 N.Y. 167, 183 N.E. 284; CF. PULLMAN CO. V. LOCAL
UNION NO. 2928, 152 F.2D 493(C.A.7TH CIR.). 

FN15  UTAH FUEL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMM'N, 306 U.S. 56;
SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177; PHILADELPHIA CO. V.
STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 309
310, DOES NOT PRESCRIBE A CONTRARY COURSE.  IN THAT CASE WE HELD THAT
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDER FIXING A RATE BASE COULD NOT
BE ATTACKED BY A BILL IN EQUITY WHEN THE BASE COULD BE CHALLENGED IN
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS FIXING THE RATE.  NO COMPARABLE ALTERNATIVE
RELIEF IS AVAILABLE HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
ANY OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING AND UNDER COLOR OF THE PRESIDENT'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOUND PETITIONERS GUILTY
OF HARBORING TREASONABLE OPINIONS AND DESIGNS, OFFICIALLY BRANDED THEM
AS COMMUNISTS, AND PROMULGATED HIS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR
PARTICULAR USE AS EVIDENCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SUSPECTED OF
DISLOYALTY.  IN THE PRESENT CLIMATE OF PUBLIC OPINION IT APPEARS
CERTAIN THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MUCH PUBLICIZED FINDINGS,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR TRUTH OR FALSITY, ARE THE PRACTICAL EQUIVALENTS OF
CONFISCATION AND DEATH SENTENCES FOR ANY BLACKLISTED ORGANIZATION NOT
POSSESSING EXTRAORDINARY FINANCIAL, POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS PRESTIGE AND
INFLUENCE.  THE GOVERNMENT NOT ONLY DEFENDS THE POWER OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO PRONOUNCE SUCH DEADLY EDICTS BUT ALSO ARGUES THAT
INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS SO CONDEMNED HAVE NO STANDING TO SEEK REDRESS IN
THE COURTS, EVEN THOUGH A FAIR JUDICIAL HEARING MIGHT CONCLUSIVELY
DEMONSTRATE THEIR LOYALTY.  MY BASIC REASONS FOR REJECTING THESE AND
OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE IN SUMMARY THE FOLLOWING: 

(1)  I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE BURTON THAT PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING
TO SUE FOR THE REASON AMONG OTHERS THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO CONDUCT
THEIR ADMITTEDLY LEGITIMATE POLITICAL, CHARITABLE AND BUSINESS
OPERATIONS FREE FROM UNJUSTIFIED GOVERNMENTAL DEFAMATION.  OTHERWISE,
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS COULD ACT LAWLESSLY WITH IMPUNITY.  AND, ASSUMING
THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZE THE PROMULGATION OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LIST, I FURTHER AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE BURTON
THAT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT ATTRIBUTE TO THE PRESIDENT A PURPOSE TO VEST
IN A CABINET OFFICER THE POWER TO DESTROY POLITICAL, SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS
OR BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS BY "ARBITRARY FIAT," AND THUS THE METHODS
EMPLOYED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXCEED HIS AUTHORITY UNDER EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9835. 

(2)  ASSUMING, THOUGH I DENY, THAT THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICIALLY TO DETERMINE, LIST AND PUBLICIZE INDIVIDUALS AND
GROUPS AS TRAITORS AND PUBLIC ENEMIES, I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WOULD
BAR SUCH CONDEMNATION WITHOUT NOTICE AND A FAIR HEARING.  MY VIEWS
PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE RELEVANT HERE. 
E.G., DISSENTING OPINION IN LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160, 173; AND
SEE IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257. 

(3)  MORE FUNDAMENTALLY, HOWEVER, IN MY JUDGMENT THE EXECUTIVE HAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, WITH OR WITHOUT A HEARING, OFFICIALLY TO
PREPARE AND PUBLISH THE LISTS CHALLENGED BY PETITIONERS.  IN THE FIRST
PLACE, THE SYSTEM ADOPTED EFFECTIVELY PUNISHES MANY ORGANIZATIONS AND
THEIR MEMBERS MERELY BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS AND UTTERANCES,
AND TO THIS EXTENT SMACKS OF A MOST EVIL TYPE OF CENSORSHIP.  THIS
CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS I INTERPRET IT.  SEE
MY DISSENT IN AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382,
445.  MOREOVER, OFFICIALLY PREPARED AND PROCLAIMED GOVERNMENTAL
BLACKLISTS POSSESS ALMOST EVERY QUALITY OF BILLS OF ATTAINDER, THE USE
OF WHICH WAS FROM THE BEGINNING FORBIDDEN TO BOTH NATIONAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS.  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SECS. 9, 10.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE
CLASSIC BILL OF ATTAINDER WAS A CONDEMNATION BY THE LEGISLATURE
FOLLOWING INVESTIGATION BY THAT BODY, SEE UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328
U.S. 303, WHILE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PERFORMED THE
OFFICIAL TASKS.  BUT I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE AUTHORS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHO OUT-LAWED THE BILL OF ATTAINDER, INADVERTENTLY
ENDOWED THE EXECUTIVE WITH POWER TO ENGAGE IN THE SAME TYRANNICAL
PRACTICES THAT HAD MADE THE BILL SUCH AN ODIOUS INSTITUTION.  FN1 

THERE IS ARGUMENT THAT EXECUTIVE POWER TO ISSUE THESE PSEUDO-BILLS OF
ATTAINDER CAN BE IMPLIED FROM THE UNDOUBTED POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
HIRE AND DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES AND TO PROTECT ITSELF AGAINST TREASONABLE
INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS.  FN2  OUR BASIC LAW, HOWEVER, WISELY
WITHHELD AUTHORITY FOR RESORT TO EXECUTIVE INVESTIGATIONS,
CONDEMNATIONS AND BLACKLISTS AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR IMPOSITION OF LEGAL
TYPES OF PENALTIES BY COURTS FOLLOWING TRIAL AND CONVICTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  FN3    IN
THIS DAY WHEN PREJUDICE, HATE AND FEAR ARE CONSTANTLY INVOKED TO
JUSTIFY IRRESPONSIBLE SMEARS AND PERSECUTION OF PERSONS EVEN FAINTLY
SUSPECTED OF ENTERTAINING UNPOPULAR VIEWS, IT MAY BE FUTILE TO SUGGEST
THAT THE CAUSE OF INTERNAL SECURITY WOULD BE FOSTERED, NOT HURT, BY
FAITHFUL ADHERENCE TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF INDIVIDUAL
LIBERTY.  NEVERTHELESS, SINCE PREJUDICE MANIFESTS ITSELF IN MUCH THE
SAME WAY IN EVERY AGE AND COUNTRY AND SINCE WHAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE
CAN HAPPEN AGAIN, IT SURELY SHOULD NOT BE AMISS TO CALL ATTENTION TO
WHAT HAS OCCURRED WHEN DOMINANT GOVERNMENTAL GROUPS HAVE BEEN LEFT FREE
TO GIVE UNCONTROLLED REIN TO THEIR PREJUDICES AGAINST UNORTHODOX
MINORITIES.  AS SPECIFIC ILLUSTRATION, I AM ADDING AS AN APPENDIX
MACAULAY'S ACCOUNT OF A PARLIAMENTARY PROSCRIPTION WHICH TOOK PLACE
WHEN POPULAR PREJUDICE WAS HIGH; THIS IS ONLY ONE OUT OF MANY SIMILAR
INSTANCES THAT READILY CAN BE FOUND.  FN4  MEMORIES OF SUCH EVENTS WERE
FRESH IN THE MINDS OF THE FOUNDERS WHEN THEY FORBADE THE USE OF THE
BILL OF ATTAINDER. 

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK. 

JAMES II, THE LAST STUART KING OF ENGLAND, WAS DRIVEN FROM HIS THRONE
IN 1688 BY WILLIAM OF ORANGE.  AFTER A BRIEF SOJOURN AT SAINT GERMAINS
IN FRANCE, JAMES LANDED IN IRELAND WHERE HE WAS SUPPORTED BY THOSE
IRISH CATHOLICS WHO HAD SUFFERED GREATLY AT THE HANDS OF THE ENGLISH
PROTESTANT COLONISTS.  ONE OF HIS FIRST OFFICIAL ACTS WAS TO CALL AN
IRISH PARLIAMENT WHICH ENACTED THE BILL OF ATTAINDER DESCRIBED BY THE
HISTORIAN MACAULAY AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  (THE COMMONS) RESPECTED NO PREROGATIVE, HOWEVER ANCIENT,
HOWEVER LEGITIMATE, HOWEVER SALUTARY, IF THEY APPREHENDED THAT (JAMES
II) MIGHT USE IT TO PROTECT THE RACE WHICH THEY ABHORRED.  THEY WERE
NOT SATISFIED TILL THEY HAD EXTORTED HIS RELUCTANT CONSENT TO A
PORTENTOUS LAW, A LAW WITHOUT A PARALLEL IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILISED
COUNTRIES, THE GREAT ACT OF ATTAINDER. 

"A LIST WAS FRAMED CONTAINING BETWEEN TWO AND THREE THOUSAND NAMES. 
AT THE TOP WAS HALF THE PEERAGE OF IRELAND.  THEN CAME BARONETS,
KNIGHTS, CLERGYMEN, SQUIRES, MERCHANTS, YEOMEN, ARTISANS, WOMEN,
CHILDREN.  NO INVESTIGATION WAS MADE.  ANY MEMBER WHO WISHED TO RID
HIMSELF OF A CREDITOR, A RIVAL, A PRIVATE ENEMY, GAVE IN THE NAME TO
THE CLERK AT THE TABLE, AND IT WAS GENERALLY INSERTED WITHOUT
DISCUSSION.  THE ONLY DEBATE OF WHICH ANY ACCOUNT HAS COME DOWN TO US
RELATED TO THE EARL OF STRAFFORD.  HE HAD FRIENDS IN THE HOUSE WHO
VENTURED TO OFFER SOMETHING IN HIS FAVOUR.  BUT A FEW WORDS FROM SIMON
LUTTRELL SETTLED THE QUESTION.  'I HAVE,' HE SAID, 'HEARD THE KING SAY
SOME HARD THINGS OF THAT LORD.'  THIS WAS THOUGHT SUFFICIENT, AND THE
NAME OF STRAFFORD STANDS FIFTH IN THE LONG TABLE OF THE PROSCRIBED. 

"DAYS WERE FIXED BEFORE WHICH THOSE WHOSE NAMES WERE ON THE LIST WERE
REQUIRED TO SURRENDER THEMSELVES TO SUCH JUSTICE AS WAS THEN
ADMINISTERED TO ENGLISH PROTESTANTS IN DUBLIN.  IF A PROSCRIBED PERSON
WAS IN IRELAND, HE MUST SURRENDER HIMSELF BY THE TENTH OF AUGUST.  IF
HE HAD LEFT IRELAND SINCE THE FIFTH OF NOVEMBER 1688, HE MUST SURRENDER
HIMSELF BY THE FIRST OF SEPTEMBER.  IF HE HAD LEFT IRELAND BEFORE THE
FIFTH OF NOVEMBER 1688, HE MUST SURRENDER HIMSELF BY THE FIRST OF
OCTOBER.  IF HE FAILED TO APPEAR BY THE APPOINTED DAY, HE WAS TO BE
HANGED, DRAWN, AND QUARTERED WITHOUT A TRIAL, AND HIS PROPERTY WAS TO
BE CONFISCATED.  IT MIGHT BE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DELIVER
HIMSELF UP WITHIN THE TIME FIXED BY THE ACT.  HE MIGHT BE BEDRIDDEN. 
HE MIGHT BE IN THE WEST INDIES.  HE MIGHT BE IN PRISON.  INDEED THERE
NOTORIOUSLY WERE SUCH CASES.  AMONG THE ATTAINTED LORDS WAS MOUNTJOY. 
HE HAD BEEN INDUCED BY THE VILLANY OF TYRCONNEL TO TRUST HIMSELF AT
SAINT GERMAINS:  HE HAD BEEN THROWN INTO THE BASTILE:  HE WAS STILL
LYING THERE; AND THE IRISH PARLIAMENT WAS NOT ASHAMED TO ENACT THAT,
UNLESS HE COULD, WITHIN A FEW WEEKS, MAKE HIS ESCAPE FROM HIS CELL, AND
PRESENT HIMSELF AT DUBLIN, HE SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH. 

"AS IT WAS NOT EVEN PRETENDED THAT THERE HAD BEEN ANY INQUIRY INTO
THE GUILT OF THOSE WHO WERE THUS PROSCRIBED, AS NOT A SINGLE ONE AMONG
THEM HAD BEEN HEARD IN HIS OWN DEFENCE, AND AS IT WAS CERTAIN THAT IT
WOULD BE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANY OF THEM TO SURRENDER THEMSELVES
IN TIME, IT WAS CLEAR THAT NOTHING BUT A LARGE EXERCISE OF THE ROYAL
PREROGATIVE OF MERCY COULD PREVENT THE PERPETRATION OF INIQUITIES SO
HORRIBLE THAT NO PRECEDENT COULD BE FOUND FOR THEM EVEN IN THE
LAMENTABLE HISTORY OF THE TROUBLES OF IRELAND.  THE COMMONS THEREFORE
DETERMINED THAT THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE OF MERCY SHOULD BE LIMITED. 
SEVERAL REGULATIONS WERE DEVISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE PASSING
OF PARDONS DIFFICULT AND COSTLY:  AND FINALLY IT WAS ENACTED THAT EVERY
PARDON GRANTED BY HIS MAJESTY, AFTER THE END OF NOVEMBER 1689, TO ANY
OF THE MANY HUNDREDS OF PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH WITHOUT
A TRIAL, SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY VOID AND OF NONE EFFECT.  SIR RICHARD
NAGLE CAME IN STATE TO THE BAR OF THE LORDS AND PRESENTED THE BILL WITH
A SPEECH WORTHY OF THE OCCASION.  'MANY OF THE PERSONS HERE ATTAINTED,'
SAID HE, 'HAVE BEEN PROVED TRAITORS BY SUCH EVIDENCE AS SATISFIES US.
AS TO THE REST WE HAVE FOLLOWED COMMON FAME.' 

"WITH SUCH RECKLESS BARBARITY WAS THE LIST FRAMED THAT FANATICAL
ROYALISTS, WHO WERE, AT THAT VERY TIME, HAZARDING THEIR PROPERTY, THEIR
LIBERTY, THEIR LIVES, IN THE CAUSE OF JAMES, WERE NOT SECURE FROM
PROSCRIPTION.  THE MOST LEARNED MAN OF WHOM THE JACOBITE PARTY COULD
BOAST WAS HENRY DODWELL, CAMDENIAN PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
OXFORD.  IN THE CAUSE OF HEREDITARY MONARCHY HE SHRANK FROM NO
SACRIFICE AND FROM NO DANGER.  IT WAS ABOUT HIM THAT WILLIAM (OF
ORANGE) UTTERED THOSE MEMORABLE WORDS:  'HE HAS SET HIS HEART ON BEING
A MARTYR; AND I HAVE SET MINE ON DISAPPOINTING HIM.'  BUT JAMES WAS
MORE CRUEL TO FRIENDS THAN WILLIAM TO FOES.  DODWELL WAS A PROTESTANT:
HE HAD SOME PROPERTY IN CONNAUGHT:  THESE CRIMES WERE SUFFICIENT; AND
HE WAS SET DOWN IN THE LONG ROLL OF THOSE WHO WERE DOOMED TO THE
GALLOWS AND THE QUARTERING BLOCK. 

"THAT JAMES WOULD GIVE HIS ASSENT TO A BILL WHICH TOOK FROM HIM THE
POWER OF PARDONING, SEEMED TO MANY PERSONS IMPOSSIBLE.  ...  HE MIGHT
ALSO HAVE SEEN THAT THE RIGHT COURSE WAS THE WISE COURSE.  HAD HE, ON
THIS GREAT OCCASION, HAD THE SPIRIT TO DECLARE THAT HE WOULD NOT SHED
THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT, AND THAT, EVEN AS RESPECTED THE GUILTY, HE
WOULD NOT DIVEST HIMSELF OF THE POWER OF TEMPERING JUDGMENT WITH MERCY,
HE WOULD HAVE REGAINED MORE HEARTS IN ENGLAND THAN HE WOULD HAVE LOST
IN IRELAND.  BUT IT WAS EVER HIS FATE TO RESIST WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE
YIELDED, AND TO YIELD WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE RESISTED.  THE MOST WICKED
OF ALL LAWS RECEIVED HIS SANCTION; AND IT IS BUT A VERY SMALL
EXTENUATION OF HIS GUILT THAT HIS SANCTION WAS SOMEWHAT RELUCTANTLY
GIVEN. 

"THAT NOTHING MIGHT BE WANTING TO THE COMPLETENESS OF THIS GREAT
CRIME, EXTREME CARE WAS TAKEN TO PREVENT THE PERSONS WHO WERE ATTAINTED
FROM KNOWING THAT THEY WERE ATTAINTED, TILL THE DAY OF GRACE FIXED IN
THE ACT WAS PASSED.  THE ROLL OF NAMES WAS NOT PUBLISHED, BUT KEPT
CAREFULLY LOCKED UP IN FITTON'S CLOSET.  SOME PROTESTANTS, WHO STILL
ADHERED TO THE CAUSE OF JAMES, BUT WHO WERE ANXIOUS TO KNOW WHETHER ANY
OF THEIR FRIENDS OR RELATIONS HAD BEEN PROSCRIBED, TRIED HARD TO OBTAIN
A SIGHT OF THE LIST; BUT SOLICITATION, REMONSTRANCE, EVEN BRIBERY,
PROVED VAIN.  NOT A SINGLE COPY GOT ABROAD TILL IT WAS TOO LATE FOR ANY
OF THE THOUSANDS WHO HAD BEEN CONDEMNED WITHOUT A TRIAL TO OBTAIN A
PARDON. 

"  ...  THAT THE COLONISTS, WHEN THEY HAD WON THE VICTORY, GROSSLY
ABUSED IT, THAT THEIR LEGISLATION WAS, DURING MANY YEARS, UNJUST AND
TYRANNICAL, IS MOST TRUE.  BUT IT IS NOT LESS TRUE THAT THEY NEVER
QUITE CAME UP TO THE ATROCIOUS EXAMPLE SET BY THEIR VANQUISHED ENEMY
DURING HIS SHORT TENURE OF POWER." 

3 MACAULAY, HISTORY OF ENGLAND FROM THE ACCESSION OF JAMES THE SECOND
(LONDON, 1855), 216-220.  (FOOTNOTES APPEARING IN THE ORIGINAL HAVE
BEEN OMITTED.) 

FN1  IN NOVEMBER 1794, THERE WAS INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS A RESOLUTION
OF PUBLIC DISAPPROVAL OF CERTAIN "SELF-CREATED DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES"
THOUGHT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR STIRRING UP THE PEOPLE TO INSURRECTION. 
MADISON OPPOSED THE RESOLUTION, APPARENTLY BELIEVING THAT IF IT WERE
ENACTED IT WOULD BE A BILL OF ATTAINDER.  HIS VIEWS IN THIS REGARD ARE
REPORTED AS FOLLOWS:  "IT IS IN VAIN TO SAY THAT THIS INDISCRIMINATE
CENSURE IS NO PUNISHMENT.  IF IT FALLS ON CLASSES, OR INDIVIDUALS, IT
WILL BE A SEVERE PUNISHMENT.  ...  IS NOT THIS PROPOSITION, IF VOTED, A
VOTE OF ATTAINDER?"  4 ANNALS OF CONG. 934(1794). 

FN2  BUT COMPARE MADISON IN FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 42:  "AS TREASON MAY
BE COMMITTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES OUGHT TO BE ENABLED TO PUNISH IT.  BUT AS NEW-FANGLED AND
ARTIFICIAL TREASONS HAVE BEEN THE GREAT ENGINES BY WHICH VIOLENT
FACTIONS, THE NATURAL OFFSPRING OF FREE GOVERNMENTS, HAVE USUALLY
WREAKED THEIR ALTERNATE MALIGNITY ON EACH OTHER, THE CONVENTION HAVE,
WITH GREAT JUDGMENT, OPPOSED A BARRIER TO THIS PECULIAR DANGER, BY
INSERTING A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF THE CRIME, FIXING THE PROOF
NECESSARY FOR CONVICTION OF IT, AND RESTRAINING THE CONGRESS, EVEN IN
PUNISHING IT, FROM EXTENDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF GUILT BEYOND THE
PERSON OF ITS AUTHOR." 

FN3  ONE PURPOSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BLACKLIST UNDER EXECUTIVE
ORDER 9835 IS FOR USE AS EVIDENCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TRIED
FOR DISLOYALTY BEFORE LOYALTY BOARDS ACTING UNDER THE SAME EXECUTIVE
ORDER.  PROOF OF MEMBERSHIP IN A BLACKLISTED ORGANIZATION, OR OF
ASSOCIATION WITH ITS MEMBERS, CAN WEIGH HEAVILY AGAINST A GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE'S LOYALTY.  THUS AN EMPLOYEE MAY LOSE HIS JOB BECAUSE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SECRET AND EX PARTE ACTION.  THIS IS WELL
ILLUSTRATED IN THE CASE OF BAILEY V. RICHARDSON, 341 U.S. 918, DECIDED
TODAY BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT.  THE LOYALTY BOARD'S FINDING AGAINST
MISS BAILEY APPEARS TO HAVE RESTED IN PART ON HER SUPPOSED ASSOCIATION
WITH SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AND IN PART ON SECRET UNSWORN HEARSAY
STATEMENTS COMMUNICATED TO THE BOARD BY ANONYMOUS INFORMERS.  JUDGE
EDGERTON'S DISSENTING OPINION DEMONSTRATES HOW THE ENTIRE LOYALTY
PROGRAM GROSSLY DEPRIVES GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OF THE BENEFITS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS.  BAILEY V. RICHARDSON, 86 U.S. APP. D.C.
248, 182 F.2D 46, 66. 

FN4  THE APPENDIX IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF PERSECUTION OF PROTESTANTS BY
CATHOLICS.  FOR INSTANCES OF PERSECUTION OF CATHOLICS BY PROTESTANTS,
SEE MY DISSENTING OPINION IN AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS,
339 U.S. 382, 445, PARTICULARLY NOTES 3, 4 AND 7. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE MORE ISSUES OF LAW ARE INESCAPABLY ENTANGLED IN POLITICAL
CONTROVERSIES, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT TOUCH THE PASSIONS OF THE DAY, THE
MORE THE COURT IS UNDER DUTY TO DISPOSE OF A CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE
NARROWEST CONFINES THAT INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY PERMITS.  AND SO I
SYMPATHIZE WITH THE ENDEAVOR OF MY BROTHER BURTON TO DECIDE THESE CASES
ON A GROUND AS LIMITED AS THAT WHICH HAS COMMENDED ITSELF TO HIM. 
UNFORTUNATELY, I AM UNABLE TO READ THE PLEADINGS AS HE DOES.  THEREFORE
I MUST FACE UP TO LARGER ISSUES.  BUT IN A CASE RAISING DELICATE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IT IS PARTICULARLY INCUMBENT FIRST TO SATISFY
THE THRESHOLD INQUIRY WHETHER WE HAVE ANY BUSINESS TO DECIDE THE CASE
AT ALL.  IS THERE, IN SHORT, A LITIGANT BEFORE US WHO HAS A CLAIM
PRESENTED IN A FORM AND UNDER CONDITIONS "APPROPRIATE FOR JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION"?  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 240. 

                        I. 

LIMITATION ON "THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES" IS EXPRESSED
BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT A LITIGANT MUST HAVE "STANDING TO SUE" OR, MORE
COMPREHENSIVELY, THAT A FEDERAL COURT MAY ENTERTAIN A CONTROVERSY ONLY
IF IT IS "JUSTICIABLE."  BOTH CHARACTERIZATIONS MEAN THAT A COURT WILL
NOT DECIDE A QUESTION UNLESS THE NATURE OF THE ACTION CHALLENGED, THE
KIND OF INJURY INFLICTED, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARE
SUCH THAT JUDICIAL DETERMINATION IS CONSONANT WITH WHAT WAS, GENERALLY
SPEAKING, THE BUSINESS OF THE COLONIAL COURTS AND THE COURTS OF
WESTMINSTER WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS FRAMED.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS CAN BE INVOKED ONLY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH TO THE
EXPERT FEEL OF LAWYERS CONSTITUTE A "CASE OR CONTROVERSY."  THE SCOPE
AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE REVIEW WITH WHICH THE JUDICIARY IS ENTRUSTED
OVER EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE ACTION REQUIRE US TO OBSERVE THESE
BOUNDS FASTIDIOUSLY.  (SEE THE COURSE OF DECISIONS BEGINNING WITH
HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 DALL.  409, THROUGH PARKER V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 338
U.S. 327.)  THESE GENERALITIES HAVE HAD MYRIAD APPLICATIONS.  EACH
APPLICATION, EVEN TO A SITUATION NOT DIRECTLY PERTINENT TO WHAT IS
BEFORE US, REFLECTS CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO DECISION HERE.  I SHALL
CONFINE MY INQUIRY, HOWEVER, BY LIMITING IT TO SUITS SEEKING RELIEF
FROM GOVERNMENTAL ACTION. 

(1)  THE SIMPLEST APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF "STANDING" IS TO
SITUATIONS IN WHICH THERE IS NO REAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 
REGARD FOR THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, SEE MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, 219
U.S. 346, AND FOR THE IMPORTANCE TO CORRECT DECISION OF ADEQUATE
PRESENTATION OF ISSUES BY CLASHING INTERESTS, SEE CHICAGO & G.T.R. CO.
V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339, RESTRICTS THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
ISSUES PRESENTED IN AN ADVERSARY MANNER.  A PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE
STANDING TO SUE UNLESS HE IS "INTERESTED IN AND AFFECTED ADVERSELY BY
THE DECISION" OF WHICH HE SEEKS REVIEW.  HIS "INTEREST MUST BE OF A
PERSONAL AND NOT OF AN OFFICIAL NATURE."  BRAXTON COUNTY COURT V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 208 U.S. 192, 197; SEE ALSO MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S.
447.  THE INTEREST MUST NOT BE WHOLLY NEGLIGIBLE, AS THAT OF A TAXPAYER
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CONSIDERED TO BE, FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON,
262 U.S. 447; CF. CRAMPTON V. ZABRISKIE, 101 U.S. 601.  A LITIGANT MUST
SHOW MORE THAN THAT "HE SUFFERS IN SOME INDEFINITE WAY IN COMMON WITH
PEOPLE GENERALLY."  FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, SUPRA, AT 488.    ADVERSE
PERSONAL INTEREST, EVEN OF SUCH AN INDIRECT SORT AS ARISES FROM
COMPETITION, IS ORDINARILY SUFFICIENT TO MEET CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS
OF JUSTICIABILITY.  THE COURTS MAY THEREFORE BY STATUTE BE GIVEN
JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS BASED ON SUCH INTERESTS.  FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470; CF.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. CO., 288 U.S. 14. 

(2)  TO REQUIRE A COURT TO INTERVENE IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE,
HOWEVER, EITHER ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS OR IN THE EXERCISE OF
INHERENT EQUITABLE POWERS, SOMETHING MORE THAN ADVERSE PERSONAL
INTEREST IS NEEDED.  THIS ADDITIONAL ELEMENT IS USUALLY DEFINED IN
TERMS WHICH ASSUME THE ANSWER.  IT IS SAID THAT THE INJURY MUST BE "A
WRONG WHICH DIRECTLY RESULTS IN THE VIOLATION OF A LEGAL RIGHT." 
ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 479.  OR THAT THE CONTROVERSY
"MUST BE DEFINITE AND CONCRETE, TOUCHING THE LEGAL RELATIONS OF PARTIES
HAVING ADVERSE LEGAL INTERESTS."  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH,
SUPRA, 300 U.S. AT 240-241.  THESE TERMS HAVE MEANING ONLY WHEN
CONTAINED BY THE FACTS TO WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN APPLIED.  IN SEEKING TO
DETERMINE WHETHER IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE STANDARDS THEY REFLECT ARE
MET, THEREFORE, WE MUST GO TO THE DECISIONS.  THEY SHOW THAT THE
EXISTENCE OF "LEGAL" INJURY HAS TURNED ON THE ANSWER TO ONE OR MORE OF
THESE QUESTIONS:  (A) WILL THE ACTION CHALLENGED AT ANY TIME
SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE "LEGAL" INTERESTS OF ANY PERSON?  (B) DOES THE
ACTION CHALLENGED AFFECT THE PETITIONER WITH SUFFICIENT "DIRECTNESS"? 
(C) IS THE ACTION CHALLENGED SUFFICIENTLY "FINAL"?  SINCE EACH OF THESE
QUESTIONS ITSELF CONTAINS A WORD OF ART, WE MUST LOOK TO EXPERIENCE TO
FIND THEIR MEANING. 

(A)  WILL THE ACTION CHALLENGED AT ANY TIME SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE
"LEGAL" INTERESTS OF ANY PERSON?  A LITIGANT ORDINARILY HAS STANDING TO
CHALLENGE GOVERNMENTAL ACTION OF A SORT THAT, IF TAKEN BY A PRIVATE
PERSON, WOULD CREATE A RIGHT OF ACTION COGNIZABLE BY THE COURTS. 
UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196.  FN1  OR STANDING MAY BE BASED ON
AN INTEREST CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR A STATUTE.  E.G., PARKER V.
FLEMING, 329 U.S. 531; COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433; CF. BELL V.
HOOD, 327 U.S. 678.  BUT IF NO COMPARABLE COMMON-LAW RIGHT EXISTS AND
NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY INTEREST HAS BEEN CREATED, RELIEF
IS NOT AVAILABLE JUDICIALLY.  THUS, AT LEAST UNLESS CAPRICIOUS
DISCRIMINATION IS ASSERTED, THERE IS NO PROTECTED INTEREST IN
CONTRACTING WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  A LITIGANT THEREFORE HAS NO STANDING
TO OBJECT THAT AN OFFICIAL HAS MISINTERPRETED HIS INSTRUCTIONS IN
REQUIRING A PARTICULAR CLAUSE TO BE INCLUDED IN A CONTRACT.  PERKINS V.
LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113.  SIMILARLY, A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT IS WITHIN ITS POWERS IN DISTRIBUTING ELECTRIC POWER MAY BE
OF ENORMOUS FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCE TO A PRIVATE POWER COMPANY, BUT IT
HAS NO STANDING TO RAISE THE ISSUE.  TENNESSEE POWER CO. V. T.V.A., 306
U.S. 118; CF. ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464.  THE COMMON LAW
DOES NOT RECOGNIZE AN INTEREST IN FREEDOM FROM HONEST COMPETITION; A
COURT WILL GIVE PROTECTION FROM COMPETITION BY THE GOVERNMENT,
THEREFORE, ONLY WHEN THE CONSTITUTION OR A STATUTE CREATES SUCH A
RIGHT. 

(B)  DOES THE ACTION CHALLENGED AFFECT PETITIONER WITH SUFFICIENT
"DIRECTNESS"?  FREQUENTLY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE
LEGAL INTERESTS OF SOME PERSON, AND CAUSES ONLY A CONSEQUENTIAL
DETRIMENT TO ANOTHER.  WHETHER THE PERSON CONSEQUENTIALLY HARMED CAN
CHALLENGE THE ACTION IS SAID TO DEPEND ON THE "DIRECTNESS" OF THE
IMPACT OF THE ACTION ON HIM.  A SHIPPER HAS NO STANDING TO ATTACK A
RATE NOT APPLICABLE TO HIM BUT MERELY AFFECTING HIS PREVIOUS
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER SHIPPERS SUBJECT TO THE RATE.  HINES
TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 143, 148; SPRUNT & SON V. UNITED
STATES, 281 U.S. 249, 255, 257.  WHEN THOSE CONSEQUENTIALLY AFFECTED
MAY RESORT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CHARGED WITH THEIR PROTECTION,
COURTS ARE ESPECIALLY RELUCTANT TO GIVE THEM "STANDING" TO CLAIM
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  SEE ATLANTA V. ICKES, 308 U.S. 517; CF. ASSOCIATED
INDUSTRIES V. ICKES, 134 F.2D 694.  FN2 

BUT IT IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE THAT ONLY THE PERSON IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED
CAN CHALLENGE THE ACTION.  THE FACT THAT AN ADVANTAGEOUS RELATIONSHIP
IS TERMINABLE AT WILL DOES NOT PREVENT A LITIGANT FROM ASSERTING THAT
IMPROPER INTERFERENCE WITH IT GIVES HIM "STANDING" TO ASSERT A RIGHT OF
ACTION.  HITCHMAN COAL & COKE CO. V. MITCHELL, 245 U.S. 229.  ON THIS
PRINCIPLE AN ALIEN EMPLOYEE WAS ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE A STATE LAW
REQUIRING HIS EMPLOYER TO DISCHARGE ALL BUT A SPECIFIED PROPORTION OF
ALIEN EMPLOYEES, TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, AND A PRIVATE SCHOOL TO
ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE REQUIRING PARENTS TO SEND THEIR
CHILDREN TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S.
510.  THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER WILL BE
ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY THE PERSON DIRECTLY AFFECTED IS A RELEVANT
CONSIDERATION, COMPARE COLUMBIA SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407,
423-424, WITH SCHENLEY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 432, 435, AS
IS, PROBABLY, THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP INVOLVED.  SEE DAVIS &
FARNUM MFG. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 189 U.S. 207, 220; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239
U.S. 33, 38-39.  FN3 

(C)  IS THE ACTION CHALLENGED SUFFICIENTLY FINAL?  ALTHOUGH A
LITIGANT IS THE PERSON MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE CHALLENGED ACTION
OF THE GOVERNMENT, HE MAY NOT HAVE "STANDING" TO RAISE HIS OBJECTIONS
IN A COURT IF THE ACTION HAS NOT, AS IT WERE, COME TO REST.  FN4
COURTS DO NOT REVIEW ISSUES, ESPECIALLY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, UNTIL
THEY HAVE TO.  SEE PARKER V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, SUPRA, AND SEE
BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
297 U.S. 288, 341.  IN PART, THIS PRACTICE REFLECTS THE TRADITION THAT
COURTS, HAVING FINAL POWER, CAN EXERCISE IT MOST WISELY BY RESTRICTING
THEMSELVES TO SITUATIONS IN WHICH DECISION IS NECESSARY.  IN PART, IT
IS FOUNDED ON THE PRACTICAL WISDOM OF NOT COMING PREMATURELY OR
NEEDLESSLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATURE.  SEE
ROCHESTER TEL. CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 130-131. 
CONTROVERSIES, THEREFORE, ARE OFTEN HELD NONJUSTICIABLE "(WHERE THE
ACTION SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF FORBIDDING OR
COMPELLING CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE PERSON SEEKING TO REVIEW IT, BUT
ONLY IF SOME FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION."  ROCHESTER
TEL. CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 129; AND SEE CHICAGO & S. AIR
LINES V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 333 U.S. 103.  THERE IS NO "STANDING" TO
CHALLENGE A PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, ALTHOUGH THE
DETERMINATION ITSELF CAUSES SOME DETRIMENT TO THE LITIGANT.  UNITED
STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299; CF. EX PARTE
WILLIAMS, 277 U.S. 267.  NOR DOES THE RESERVATION OF AUTHORITY TO ACT
TO A PETITIONER'S DETRIMENT ENTITLE HIM TO CHALLENGE THE RESERVATION
WHEN IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE AUTHORITY WILL BE EXERCISED ONLY ON A
CONTINGENCY WHICH APPEARS NOT TO BE IMMINENT.  ECCLES V. PEOPLES BANK,
333 U.S. 426.  LACK OF FINALITY ALSO EXPLAINS THE DECISION IN STANDARD
SCALE CO. V. FARRELL, 249 U.S. 571.  THERE THE COURT WAS FACED BY AN
ADVISORY "SPECIFICATION" OF CHARACTERISTICS DESIRABLE IN ORDINARY
MEASURING SCALES.  THE SPECIFICATION COULD BE ENFORCED ONLY BY
INDEPENDENT LOCAL OFFICERS' WITHHOLDING THEIR APPROVAL OF THE
EQUIPMENT.  JUSTICIABILITY WAS DENIED.  FN5 

"FINALITY" IS NOT, HOWEVER, A PRINCIPLE INFLEXIBLY APPLIED.  IF THE
ULTIMATE IMPACT OF THE CHALLENGED ACTION ON THE PETITIONER IS
SUFFICIENTLY PROBABLE AND NOT TOO DISTANT, AND IF THE PROCEDURE BY
WHICH THAT ULTIMATE ACTION MAY BE QUESTIONED IS TOO ONEROUS OR
HAZARDOUS, "STANDING" IS GIVEN TO CHALLENGE THE ACTION AT A PRELIMINARY
STAGE.  TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197; SANTA FE PAC. R. CO. V.
LANE, 244 U.S. 492; SEE WAITE V. MACY, 246 U.S. 606.  IT IS WELL
SETTLED THAT EQUITY WILL ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL STATUTES FOUND
TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL "WHEN IT IS FOUND TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AS TO WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF A
COURT OF EQUITY HAS BEEN INVOKED."  E.G., PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON,
223 U.S. 605, 621.  FN6  AND IF THE DETERMINATION CHALLENGED CREATES A
STATUS WHICH ENFORCES A COURSE OF CONDUCT THROUGH PENAL SANCTIONS, A
LITIGANT NEED NOT SUBJECT HIMSELF TO THE PENALTIES TO CHALLENGE THE
DETERMINATION.  LA CROSSE TEL. CORP. V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 336 U.S. 18;
SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO R. CO., 305 U.S. 177. 

(3)  WHETHER "JUSTICIABILITY" EXISTS, THEREFORE, HAS MOST OFTEN
TURNED ON EVALUATING BOTH THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ISSUES FOR
DECISION BY COURTS AND THE HARDSHIP OF DENYING JUDICIAL RELIEF.  THIS
EXPLAINS THE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE CASES THAT "STANDING" TO
CHALLENGE OFFICIAL ACTION IS MORE APT TO EXIST WHEN THAT ACTION IS NOT
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OFFICIAL AUTHORITY THAN WHEN THE OBJECTION TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION GOES ONLY TO ITS CORRECTNESS.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 314-315; PENNSYLVANIA
R. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S. 72; EX PARTE WILLIAMS, 277 U.S. 267,
271.  FN7  THE OBJECTION TO JUDICIAL RESTRAINT OF AN UNAUTHORIZED
EXERCISE OF POWERS IS NOT WEIGHTY.  FN8

                                 II. 

THE INJURY ASSERTED IN THE CASES AT BAR DOES NOT FALL INTO ANY
FAMILIAR CATEGORY.  PETITIONER IN NO. 8, THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE
COMMITTEE, IS, ACCORDING TO ITS COMPLAINT, AN UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATION ENGAGED IN RELIEF WORK ON BEHALF OF SPANISH REPUBLICAN
REFUGEES.  SINCE ITS INCEPTION IT HAS DISTRIBUTED RELIEF TOTALING
$1,229,351; CURRENTLY IT IS COMMITTED TO REGULAR MONTHLY REMITTANCES OF
$5,400.  ITS REVENUES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS,
GARNERED LARGELY AT MEETINGS AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONS.  THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, PETITIONER IN NO. 7, IS A
NONPROFIT MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION WHOSE PURPOSE IS ALLEGED TO BE TO
STRENGTHEN FRIENDLY RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE SOVIET
UNION BY DEVELOPING CULTURAL RELATIONS "BETWEEN THE PEOPLES OF THE TWO
NATIONS" AND BY DISSEMINATING IN THIS COUNTRY EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
ABOUT RUSSIA.  IT HAS OBTAINED ITS FUNDS THROUGH PUBLIC APPEALS AND
THROUGH COLLECTIONS AT MEETINGS.  PETITIONER IN NO. 71 IS THE
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS ORDER.  ITS COMPLAINT STATES THAT IT IS A
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, COMPRISING OVER 1,800 LODGES, WITH ASSETS
TOTALING APPROXIMATELY $5,000,000.  ITS MEMBERS PAY DUES FOR THE
GENERAL EXPENSES OF THE ORDER, AND MANY OF THEM MAKE ADDITIONAL
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR LIFE, SICKNESS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE.  IN ADDITION
TO ITS INSURANCE ACTIVITIES, THE ORDER "ATTEMPTS TO ENCOURAGE THE
PRESERVATION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGES AND ARTISTIC VALUES DEVELOPED
...  BY THE PEOPLES OF THE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD AND BROUGHT
WITH THEM TO THE UNITED STATES." 

IN NOVEMBER, 1947, EACH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS WAS INCLUDED IN THE
LIST OF GROUPS DESIGNATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, THE PRESIDENT'S LOYALTY ORDER. 
THE LIST WAS DISSEMINATED TO ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  SIX MONTHS LATER, EACH WAS WITH MORE PARTICULARITY LABELED
"COMMUNIST."  EACH ALLEGES SUBSTANTIAL INJURY AS A CONSEQUENCE. 
PUBLICITY AND MEETING PLACES HAVE BECOME DIFFICULT FOR THE REFUGEE
COMMITTEE AND THE COUNCIL TO OBTAIN.  THE FEDERAL TAX EXEMPTIONS OF ALL
THREE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN REVOKED; LICENSES NECESSARY TO
SOLICITATION OF FUNDS HAVE BEEN DENIED THE REFUGEE COMMITTEE; AND THE
NEW YORK SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE HAS BEGUN PROCEEDINGS, IN WHICH A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HAS
APPEARED, FOR DISSOLUTION OF THE ORDER.  MOST IMPORTANT, EACH OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS ASSERTS THAT IT HAS LOST SUPPORTERS AND MEMBERS,
ESPECIALLY FROM PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  CLAIMING
THAT THE INJURY IS IRREPARABLE, EACH ASKS FOR RELIEF BY WAY OF A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND AN INJUNCTION. 

THE NOVELTY OF THE INJURIES DESCRIBED IN THESE PETITIONS DOES NOT
ALTER THE FACT THAT THEY PRESENT THE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH HAVE IN THE
PAST LED THIS COURT TO RECOGNIZE JUSTICIABILITY.  THEY ARE UNLIKE
CLAIMS WHICH THE COURTS HAVE HITHERTO FOUND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS.  NO LACK OF FINALITY CAN BE URGED.  DESIGNATION WORKS
AN IMMEDIATE SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO THE REPUTATIONS OF PETITIONERS.  THE
THREAT WHICH IT CARRIES FOR THOSE MEMBERS WHO ARE, OR PROPOSE TO
BECOME, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MAKES IT NOT A FINICKY OR TENUOUS CLAIM TO
OBJECT TO THE INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR OPPORTUNITIES TO RETAIN OR SECURE
SUCH EMPLOYEES AS MEMBERS.  THE MEMBERSHIP RELATION IS AS SUBSTANTIAL
AS THAT PROTECTED IN TRUAX V. RAICH AND PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS,
SUPRA. AND IT IS AT LEAST DOUBTFUL THAT THE MEMBERS COULD OR WOULD
ADEQUATELY PRESENT THE ORGANIZATIONS' OBJECTIONS TO THE DESIGNATION
PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER. 

ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORGANIZATIONS ASSERT NO INTEREST
PROTECTED IN ANALOGOUS SITUATIONS AT COMMON LAW, BY STATUTE, OR BY THE
CONSTITUTION, THEREFORE, CAN PLAUSIBLE CHALLENGE TO THEIR "STANDING"
HERE BE MADE.  BUT THE REASONS WHICH MADE AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER
INAPPROPRIATE IN PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., TENNESSEE POWER CO. V.
T.V.A., AND ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, SUPRA, ARE NOT APPOSITE HERE. 
THERE THE INJURIES WERE SUCH THAT, HAD THEY NOT BEEN INFLICTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, THEY CLEARLY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REDRESSED.  IN PERKINS V.
LUKENS STEEL CO., IT WAS NOT ASSERTED THAT THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT ACTED WAS INVALID; ONLY THE CORRECTNESS OF AN
INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE IN THE COURSE OF THE EXERCISE OF AN
ADMITTED POWER WAS CHALLENGED.  IN THE POWER CASES PROTECTION FROM
COMPETITION WAS SOUGHT; BUT THE THRUST OF THE LAW IS TO PRESERVE
COMPETITION, NOT TO GIVE PROTECTION FROM IT.  THE ACTION THERE
CHALLENGED, FURTHERMORE, WAS NOT DIRECTED AT NAMED INDIVIDUALS.  HERE,
ON THE OTHER HAND, PETITIONERS SEEK TO CHALLENGE GOVERNMENTAL ACTION
STIGMATIZING THEM INDIVIDUALLY.  THEY OBJECT, NOT TO A PARTICULAR
ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF A VALID POWER, BUT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATION AUTHORIZING THE ACTION.  THEY POINT TO TWO TYPES OF INJURY,
EACH OF A SORT WHICH, WERE IT NOT FOR PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENTAL
IMMUNITY, WOULD BE CLEARLY ACTIONABLE AT COMMON LAW. 

THIS CONTROVERSY IS THEREFORE AMENABLE TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  FN9
ITS JUSTICIABILITY DOES NOT DEPEND SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT THE ACTION
CHALLENGED IS DEFAMATORY.  NOT EVERY INJURY INFLICTED BY A DEFAMATORY
STATEMENT OF A GOVERNMENT OFFICER CAN BE REDRESSED IN COURT.  ON THE
BALANCE OF ALL CONSIDERATIONS, THE EXERCISE HERE OF JUDICIAL POWER
ACCORDS WITH TRADITIONAL CANONS FOR ACCESS TO COURTS WITHOUT INROADS ON
THE EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT. 

                                 III. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS BEFORE THE COURT. 
PETITIONERS ARE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH, ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, ARE
ENGAGED SOLELY IN CHARITABLE OR INSURANCE ACTIVITIES.  THEY HAVE BEEN
DESIGNATED "COMMUNIST" BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THIS DESIGNATION IMPOSES NO LEGAL SANCTION ON THESE ORGANIZATIONS OTHER
THAN THAT IT SERVES AS EVIDENCE IN RIDDING THE GOVERNMENT OF PERSONS
REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF DISLOYALTY.  IT WOULD BE BLINDNESS, HOWEVER,
NOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT IN THE CONDITIONS OF OUR TIME SUCH DESIGNATION
DRASTICALLY RESTRICTS THE ORGANIZATIONS, IF IT DOES NOT PROSCRIBE
THEM.  POTENTIAL MEMBERS, CONTRIBUTORS OR BENEFICIARIES OF LISTED
ORGANIZATIONS MAY WELL BE INFLUENCED BY USE OF THE DESIGNATION, FOR
INSTANCE, AS GROUND FOR REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS FOR COMMISSIONS IN
THE ARMED FORCES OR FOR PERMITS FOR MEETINGS IN THE AUDITORIUMS OF
PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECTS.  COMPARE ACT OF APRIL 3, 1948, SEC. 110(C), 62
STAT. 143, 22 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 1508(C).  YET, DESIGNATION HAS
BEEN MADE WITHOUT NOTICE, WITHOUT DISCLOSURE OF ANY REASONS JUSTIFYING
IT, WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE UNDISCLOSED EVIDENCE OR SUSPICION
ON WHICH DESIGNATION MAY HAVE BEEN BASED, AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO
ESTABLISH AFFIRMATIVELY THAT THE AIMS AND ACTS OF THE ORGANIZATION ARE
INNOCENT.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT THUS TO MAIM OR DECAPITATE, ON THE MERE
SAY-SO OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AN ORGANIZATION TO ALL OUTWARD-SEEMING
ENGAGED IN LAWFUL OBJECTIVES IS SO DEVOID OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AS TO
OFFEND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

FAIRNESS OF PROCEDURE IS "DUE PROCESS IN THE PRIMARY SENSE." 
BRINKERHOFF-FARIS CO. V. HILL, 281 U.S. 673, 681.  IT IS INGRAINED IN
OUR NATIONAL TRADITIONS AND IS DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN THEM.  IN A VARIETY
OF SITUATIONS THE COURT HAS ENFORCED THIS REQUIREMENT BY CHECKING
ATTEMPTS OF EXECUTIVES, LEGISLATURES, AND LOWER COURTS TO DISREGARD THE
DEEP-ROOTED DEMANDS OF FAIR PLAY ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
"(THIS) COURT HAS NEVER HELD, NOR MUST WE NOW BE UNDERSTOOD AS HOLDING,
THAT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, WHEN EXECUTING THE PROVISIONS OF A
STATUTE INVOLVING THE LIBERTY OF PERSONS, MAY DISREGARD THE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES THAT INHERE IN 'DUE PROCESS OF LAW' AS UNDERSTOOD AT THE
TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ONE OF THESE PRINCIPLES IS
THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY, AT
SOME TIME, TO BE HEARD  ...  " THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S.
86, 100-101.  "(BY) 'DUE PROCESS' IS MEANT ONE WHICH, FOLLOWING THE
FORMS OF LAW, IS APPROPRIATE TO THE CASE, AND JUST TO THE PARTIES TO BE
AFFECTED.  IT MUST BE PURSUED IN THE ORDINARY MODE PRESCRIBED BY THE
LAW; IT MUST BE ADAPTED TO THE END TO BE ATTAINED; AND WHEREVER IT IS
NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PARTIES, IT MUST GIVE THEM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD RESPECTING THE JUSTICE OF THE JUDGMENT
SOUGHT."  HAGAR V. RECLAMATION DISTRICT, 111 U.S. 701, 708.  "BEFORE
ITS PROPERTY CAN BE TAKEN UNDER THE EDICT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR HEARING UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL
FACTS."  SOUTHERN R. CO. V. VIRGINIA, 290 U.S. 190, 199.  "WHETHER
ACTING THROUGH ITS JUDICIARY OR THROUGH ITS LEGISLATURE, A STATE MAY
NOT DEPRIVE A PERSON OF ALL EXISTING REMEDIES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
RIGHT, WHICH THE STATE HAS NO POWER TO DESTROY, UNLESS THERE IS, OR
WAS, AFFORDED TO HIM SOME REAL OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT IT."  BRINKERHOFF
FARIS CO. V. HILL, SUPRA, 281 U.S. AT 682. 

THE REQUIREMENT OF "DUE PROCESS" IS NOT A FAIR-WEATHER OR TIMID
ASSURANCE.  IT MUST BE RESPECTED IN PERIODS OF CALM AND IN TIMES OF
TROUBLE; IT PROTECTS ALIENS AS WELL AS CITIZENS.  BUT "DUE PROCESS,"
UNLIKE SOME LEGAL RULES, IS NOT A TECHNICAL CONCEPTION WITH A FIXED
CONTENT UNRELATED TO TIME, PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCES.  EXPRESSING AS IT
DOES IN ITS ULTIMATE ANALYSIS RESPECT ENFORCED BY LAW FOR THAT FEELING
OF JUST TREATMENT WHICH HAS BEEN EVOLVED THROUGH CENTURIES OF ANGLO
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AND CIVILIZATION, "DUE PROCESS" CANNOT
BE IMPRISONED WITHIN THE TREACHEROUS LIMITS OF ANY FORMULA. 
REPRESENTING A PROFOUND ATTITUDE OF FAIRNESS BETWEEN MAN AND MAN, AND
MORE PARTICULARLY BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND GOVERNMENT, "DUE PROCESS"
IS COMPOUNDED OF HISTORY, REASON, THE PAST COURSE OF DECISIONS, AND
STOUT CONFIDENCE IN THE STRENGTH OF THE DEMOCRATIC FAITH WHICH WE
PROFESS.  DUE PROCESS IS NOT A MECHANICAL INSTRUMENT.  IT IS NOT A
YARDSTICK.  IT IS A PROCESS.  IT IS A DELICATE PROCESS OF ADJUSTMENT
INESCAPABLY INVOLVING THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT BY THOSE WHOM THE
CONSTITUTION ENTRUSTED WITH THE UNFOLDING OF THE PROCESS. 

FULLY AWARE OF THE ENORMOUS POWERS THUS GIVEN TO THE JUDICIARY AND
ESPECIALLY TO ITS SUPREME COURT, THOSE WHO FOUNDED THIS NATION PUT
THEIR TRUST IN A JUDICIARY TRULY INDEPENDENT - IN JUDGES NOT SUBJECT TO
THE FEARS OR ALLUREMENTS OF A LIMITED TENURE AND BY THE VERY NATURE OF
THEIR FUNCTION DETACHED FROM PASSING AND PARTISAN INFLUENCES. 

IT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID THAT, BARRING ONLY OCCASIONAL AND TEMPORARY
LAPSES, THIS COURT HAS NOT SOUGHT UNDULY TO CONFINE THOSE WHO HAVE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNING BY GIVING THE GREAT CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS
DOCTRINAIRE SCOPE.  THE COURT HAS RESPONDED TO THE INFINITE VARIETY AND
PERPLEXITY OF THE TASKS OF GOVERNMENT BY RECOGNIZING THAT WHAT IS
UNFAIR IN ONE SITUATION MAY BE FAIR IN ANOTHER.  COMPARE, FOR INSTANCE,
MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO., 18 HOW.  272, WITH
NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, AND SEE COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V.
WJR, 337 U.S. 265, 275.  WHETHER THE EX PARTE PROCEDURE TO WHICH THE
PETITIONERS WERE SUBJECTED DULY OBSERVED "THE RUDIMENTS OF FAIR PLAY,"
CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V. POLT, 232 U.S. 165, 168, CANNOT,
THEREFORE, BE TESTED BY MERE GENERALITIES OR SENTIMENTS ABSTRACTLY
APPEALING.  THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE INTEREST THAT HAS BEEN ADVERSELY
AFFECTED, THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS WAS DONE, THE REASONS FOR DOING IT,
THE AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROCEDURE THAT WAS FOLLOWED, THE
PROTECTION IMPLICIT IN THE OFFICE OF THE FUNCTIONARY WHOSE CONDUCT IS
CHALLENGED, THE BALANCE OF HURT COMPLAINED OF AND GOOD ACCOMPLISHED -
THESE ARE SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MUST ENTER INTO THE JUDICIAL
JUDGMENT. 

APPLYING THEM TO THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION, WE NOTE THAT PUBLICLY
DESIGNATING AN ORGANIZATION AS WITHIN THE PROSCRIBED CATEGORIES OF THE
LOYALTY ORDER DOES NOT DIRECTLY DEPRIVE ANYONE OF LIBERTY OR PROPERTY. 
WEIGHT MUST ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT SUCH DESIGNATION IS NOT MADE
BY A MINOR OFFICIAL BUT BY THE HIGHEST LAW OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
AGAIN, IT IS FAIR TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST IS HERE
TO BE WEIGHED AGAINST A CLAIM OF THE GREATEST OF ALL PUBLIC INTERESTS,
THAT OF NATIONAL SECURITY.  IN STRIKING THE BALANCE THE RELEVANT
CONSIDERATIONS MUST BE FAIRLY, WHICH MEANS COOLLY, WEIGHED WITH DUE
REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THIS COURT IS NOT EXERCISING A PRIMARY JUDGMENT
BUT IS SITTING IN JUDGMENT UPON THOSE WHO ALSO HAVE TAKEN THE OATH TO
OBSERVE THE CONSTITUTION AND WHO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING
ON GOVERNMENT. 

BUT THE SIGNIFICANCE WE ATTACH TO GENERAL PRINCIPLES MAY TURN THE
SCALE WHEN COMPETING CLAIMS APPEAL FOR SUPREMACY.  ACHIEVEMENTS OF OUR
CIVILIZATION AS PRECIOUS AS THEY WERE HARD WON WERE SUMMARIZED BY MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS WHEN HE WROTE THAT "IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR LIBERTY
INSISTENCE UPON PROCEDURAL REGULARITY HAS BEEN A LARGE FACTOR." 
BURDEAU V. MCDOWELL, 256 U.S. 465, 477(DISSENTING).  IT IS NOTEWORTHY
THAT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS CONSTITUTE THE MAJOR PORTION OF OUR BILL OF
RIGHTS.  AND SO, NO ONE NOW DOUBTS THAT IN THE CRIMINAL LAW A "PERSON'S
RIGHT TO REASONABLE NOTICE OF A CHARGE AGAINST HIM, AND AN OPPORTUNITY
TO BE HEARD IN HIS DEFENSE - A RIGHT TO HIS DAY IN COURT - ARE BASIC IN
OUR SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE."  IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257, 273.  "THE
HEARING, MOREOVER, MUST BE A REAL ONE, NOT A SHAM OR A PRETENSE." 
PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 327.  NOR IS THERE DOUBT THAT
NOTICE AND HEARING ARE PREREQUISITE TO DUE PROCESS IN CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS, E.G., COE V. ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, 237 U.S. 413.  ONLY
THE NARROWEST EXCEPTIONS, JUSTIFIED BY HISTORY BECOME PART OF THE
HABITS OF OUR PEOPLE OR BY OBVIOUS NECESSITY, ARE TOLERATED.  OWNBEY V.
MORGAN, 256 U.S. 94; ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. ENCYCLOPEDIA PRESS, 266
U.S. 285; SEE COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517, 536. 

IT IS AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND OF GUIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE MUST
VIEW THE RATHER NOVEL ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION AT HAND.  IT IS NOT TRUE
THAT THE EVILS AGAINST WHICH THE LOYALTY ORDER WAS DIRECTED ARE WHOLLY
DEVOID OF ANALOGY IN OUR OWN HISTORY.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE
NAPOLEONIC CONFLICTS, WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE SEDITION ACT OF 1798, 1
STAT. 596, READILY COME TO MIND.  BUT IT IS TRUE THAT THE EXECUTIVE
ACTION NOW UNDER SCRUTINY IS OF A SORT NOT HERETOFORE CHALLENGED IN
THIS COURT.  THAT OF ITSELF DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE EX PARTE SUMMARY
DESIGNATION PROCEDURE.  IT DOES MAKE IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ITS
VALIDITY WHEN JUDGED BY OUR WHOLE EXPERIENCE WITH THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE. 

                                 IV. 

THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY THIS COURT UPON LEGISLATION CONFERRING
ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS SHOWS CONSISTENT RESPECT FOR A REQUIREMENT OF
FAIR PROCEDURE BEFORE MEN ARE DENIED OR DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS.  FROM A
GREAT MASS OF CASES, RUNNING THE FULL GAMUT OF CONTROL OVER PROPERTY
AND LIBERTY, THERE EMERGES THE PRINCIPLE THAT STATUTES SHOULD BE
INTERPRETED, IF EXPLICIT LANGUAGE DOES NOT PRECLUDE, SO AS TO OBSERVE
DUE PROCESS IN ITS BASIC MEANING.  SEE, E.G., ANNISTON MFG. CO. V.
DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337; AMERICAN POWER CO. V. S.E.C., 329 U.S. 90, 107
108; WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33, 49.  FAIR HEARINGS HAVE
BEEN HELD ESSENTIAL FOR RATE DETERMINATIONS FN10  AND, GENERALLY, TO
DEPRIVE PERSONS OF PROPERTY.  FN11  AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY NECESSARY TO DEPORT PERSONS EVEN THOUGH THEY MAKE NO
CLAIM OF CITIZENSHIP, AND IS ACCORDED TO ALIENS SEEKING ENTRY IN THE
ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS TO THE CONTRARY.  FN12 EVEN IN THE
DISTRIBUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF BENEFITS THAT MAY BE WITHHELD, THE
OPPORTUNITY OF A HEARING IS DEEMED IMPORTANT.  FN13 

THE HIGH SOCIAL AND MORAL VALUES INHERENT IN THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD
OF A FAIR HEARING ARE ATTESTED BY THE NARROWNESS AND RARITY OF THE
INSTANCES WHEN WE HAVE SUSTAINED EXECUTIVE ACTION EVEN THOUGH IT DID
NOT OBSERVE THE CUSTOMARY STANDARDS OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.  IT IS IN
THESE INSTANCES THAT CONSTITUTIONAL COMPULSION REGARDING FAIR PROCEDURE
WAS DIRECTLY IN ISSUE.  THUS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION
CANNOT BE INVOKED TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM AUTHORIZING DISBURSEMENTS ON
THE EX PARTE DETERMINATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER THAT PRESCRIBED
CONDITIONS ARE MET.  UNITED STATES V. BABCOCK, 250 U.S. 328; CF. UNITED
STATES EX REL. DUNLAP V. BLACK, 128 U.S. 40.  THE IMPORTATION OF GOODS
IS A PRIVILEGE WHICH, IF CONGRESS CLEARLY SO DIRECTS, MAY LIKEWISE BE
CONDITIONED ON EX PARTE FINDINGS.  BUTTFIELD V. STRANAHAN, 192 U.S.
470; CF. HILTON V. MERRITT, 110 U.S. 97.  ONLY BY A CLOSE DIVISION OF
THE COURT WAS IT HELD THAT AT A TIME OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY, WHEN WAR
HAS NOT BEEN CLOSED BY FORMAL PEACE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT
REQUIRED TO GIVE A HEARING BEFORE DENYING HOSPITALITY TO AN ALIEN
DEEMED DANGEROUS TO PUBLIC SECURITY.  LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160;
UNITED STATES EX REL. KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537.  AGAIN, WHEN
DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN EXECUTION OF LEGISLATION TURN
EXCLUSIVELY ON CONSIDERATIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE ON WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE
BODY COULD ITSELF HAVE ACTED SUMMARILY, NOTICE AND HEARING MAY NOT BE
COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  BI-METALLIC CO. V. COLORADO, 239 U.S.
441.  FN14  FINALLY, SUMMARY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE MAY BE SANCTIONED
BY HISTORY OR OBVIOUS NECESSITY.  BUT THESE ARE SO RARE AS TO BE
ISOLATED INSTANCES.  MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO.,
18 HOW.  272; SPRINGER V. UNITED STATES, 102 U.S. 586; LAWTON V.
STEELE, 152 U.S. 133. 

THIS COURT IS NOT ALONE IN RECOGNIZING THAT THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD
BEFORE BEING CONDEMNED TO SUFFER GRIEVOUS LOSS OF ANY KIND, EVEN THOUGH
IT MAY NOT INVOLVE THE STIGMA AND HARDSHIPS OF A CRIMINAL CONVICTION,
IS A PRINCIPLE BASIC TO OUR SOCIETY.  REGARD FOR THIS PRINCIPLE HAS
GUIDED CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE.  CONGRESS HAS OFTEN ENTRUSTED, AS IT
MAY, PROTECTION OF INTERESTS WHICH IT HAS CREATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES RATHER THAN TO THE COURTS.  BUT RARELY HAS IT AUTHORIZED SUCH
AGENCIES TO ACT WITHOUT THOSE ESSENTIAL SAFEGUARDS FOR FAIR JUDGMENT
WHICH IN THE COURSE OF CENTURIES HAVE COME TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH DUE
PROCESS.  SEE SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S.
297; TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568, 576, 577; PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S. 72.  FN15  AND WHEN CONGRESS HAS GIVEN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY DISCRETION TO DETERMINE ITS OWN PROCEDURE, THE
AGENCY HAS RARELY CHOSEN TO DISPOSE OF THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
WITHOUT A HEARING, HOWEVER INFORMAL.  FN16    THE HEART OF THE MATTER
IS THAT DEMOCRACY IMPLIES RESPECT FOR THE ELEMENTARY RIGHTS OF MEN,
HOWEVER SUSPECT OR UNWORTHY; A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT MUST THEREFORE
PRACTICE FAIRNESS; AND FAIRNESS CAN RARELY BE OBTAINED BY SECRET, ONE
SIDED DETERMINATION OF FACTS DECISIVE OF RIGHTS.  FN17 

AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD MAY NOT SEEM VITAL WHEN AN ISSUE RELATES
ONLY TO TECHNICAL QUESTIONS SUSCEPTIBLE OF DEMONSTRABLE PROOF ON WHICH
EVIDENCE IS NOT LIKELY TO BE OVERLOOKED AND ARGUMENT ON THE MEANING AND
WORTH OF CONFLICTING AND CLOUDY DATA NOT APT TO BE HELPFUL.  BUT IN
OTHER SITUATIONS AN ADMONITION OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES BECOMES RELEVANT. 
"ONE HAS TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN ONE'S INTEREST IS KEENLY EXCITED
EVIDENCE GATHERS FROM ALL SIDES AROUND THE MAGNETIC POINT  ...  " FN18
IT SHOULD BE PARTICULARLY HEEDED AT TIMES OF AGITATION AND ANXIETY,
WHEN FEAR AND SUSPICION IMPREGNATE THE AIR WE BREATHE.  COMPARE BROWN,
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION IN ENGLISH HISTORY.  "THE PLEA THAT EVIDENCE OF
GUILT MUST BE SECRET IS ABHORRENT TO FREE MEN, BECAUSE IT PROVIDES A
CLOAK FOR THE MALEVOLENT, THE MISINFORMED, THE MEDDLESOME, AND THE
CORRUPT TO PLAY THE ROLE OF INFORMER UNDETECTED AND UNCORRECTED." 
UNITED STATES EX REL. KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537,
551(DISSENTING).  APPEARANCES IN THE DARK ARE APT TO LOOK DIFFERENT IN
THE LIGHT OF DAY. 

MAN BEING WHAT HE IS CANNOT SAFELY BE TRUSTED WITH COMPLETE IMMUNITY
FROM OUTWARD RESPONSIBILITY IN DEPRIVING OTHERS OF THEIR RIGHTS.  AT
LEAST SUCH IS THE CONVICTION UNDERLYING OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.  THAT A
CONCLUSION SATISFIES ONE'S PRIVATE CONSCIENCE DOES NOT ATTEST ITS
RELIABILITY.  THE VALIDITY AND MORAL AUTHORITY OF A CONCLUSION LARGELY
DEPEND ON THE MODE BY WHICH IT WAS REACHED.  SECRECY IS NOT CONGENIAL
TO TRUTH-SEEKING AND SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS GIVES TOO SLENDER AN ASSURANCE
OF RIGHTNESS.  NO BETTER INSTRUMENT HAS BEEN DEVISED FOR ARRIVING AT
TRUTH THAN TO GIVE A PERSON IN JEOPARDY OF SERIOUS LOSS NOTICE OF THE
CASE AGAINST HIM AND OPPORTUNITY TO MEET IT. NOR HAS A BETTER WAY BEEN
FOUND FOR GENERATING THE FEELING, SO IMPORTANT TO A POPULAR GOVERNMENT,
THAT JUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE.  FN19

                                  V. 

THE STRENGTH AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS -
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH GO TO THE VERY ETHOS OF THE SCHEME OF OUR SOCIETY
GIVE A READY ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM BEFORE US.  THAT A HEARING HAS BEEN
THOUGHT INDISPENSABLE IN SO MANY OTHER SITUATIONS, LEAVING THE CASES OF
DENIAL EXCEPTIONAL, DOES NOT OF ITSELF PROVE THAT IT MUST BE FOUND
ESSENTIAL HERE.  BUT IT DOES PLACE UPON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE BURDEN
OF SHOWING WEIGHTY REASON FOR DEPARTING IN THIS INSTANCE FROM A RULE SO
DEEPLY IMBEDDED IN HISTORY AND IN THE DEMANDS OF JUSTICE.  NOTHING IN
THE LOYALTY ORDER REQUIRES HIM TO DENY ORGANIZATIONS OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT THEIR CASE.  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, DEFINING HIS POWERS, DIRECTS
ONLY THAT DESIGNATION SHALL BE MADE "AFTER APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION
AND DETERMINATION."  THIS SURELY DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE, HOWEVER INFORMAL, WHICH WOULD INCORPORATE THE ESSENTIALS OF
DUE PROCESS.  NOTHING HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT TO INDICATE THAT
IT WILL BE IMPRACTICAL OR PREJUDICIAL TO A CONCRETE PUBLIC INTEREST TO
DISCLOSE TO ORGANIZATIONS THE NATURE OF THE CASE AGAINST THEM AND TO
PERMIT THEM TO MEET IT IF THEY CAN.  INDEED, SUCH A CONTENTION COULD
HARDLY BE MADE INASMUCH AS THE LOYALTY ORDER ITSELF REQUIRES PARTIAL
DISCLOSURE AND HEARING IN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO
IS A MEMBER OF A PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION.  WHETHER SUCH PROCEDURE
SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEE IS A DIFFERENT STORY. 
SUCH AS IT IS, IT AFFORDS EVIDENCE THAT THE WHOLLY SUMMARY PROCESS FOR
THE ORGANIZATIONS IS INADEQUATE.  FN20  AND WE HAVE CONTROLLING PROOF
THAT CONGRESS DID NOT THINK THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PROCEDURE WAS
INDISPENSABLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE MCCARRAN
ACT, PASSED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES CERTAINLY NOT MORE SERENE THAN WHEN THE
LOYALTY ORDER WAS ISSUED, GRANTS ORGANIZATIONS A FULL ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARING, SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, BEFORE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO
REGISTER AS "COMMUNIST-ACTION" OR "COMMUNIST-FRONT."  N21 

WE ARE NOT HERE DEALING WITH THE GRANT OF GOVERNMENT LARGESS.  WE
HAVE NOT BEFORE US THE MEASURED ACTION OF CONGRESS, WITH THE PAUSE THAT
IS PROPERLY ENGENDERED WHEN THE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION IS ASSAILED. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS CERTAINLY NOT IMMUNE FROM THE HISTORIC
REQUIREMENTS OF FAIRNESS MERELY BECAUSE HE ACTS, HOWEVER
CONSCIENTIOUSLY, IN THE NAME OF SECURITY.  NOR DOES HE OBTAIN IMMUNITY
ON THE GROUND THAT DESIGNATION IS NOT AN "ADJUDICATION" OR A
"REGULATION" IN THE CONVENTIONAL USE OF THOSE TERMS.  DUE PROCESS IS
NOT CONFINED IN ITS SCOPE TO THE PARTICULAR FORMS IN WHICH RIGHTS HAVE
HERETOFORE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN CURTAILED FOR WANT OF PROCEDURAL
FAIRNESS.  DUE PROCESS IS PERHAPS THE MOST MAJESTIC CONCEPT IN OUR
WHOLE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  WHILE IT CONTAINS THE GARNERED WISDOM OF
THE PAST IN ASSURING FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE, IT IS ALSO A LIVING PRINCIPLE
NOT CONFINED TO PAST INSTANCES. 

THEREFORE THE PETITIONERS DID SET FORTH CAUSES OF ACTION WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE ENTERTAINED. 

FN1  THE DECISIONS ARE COLLECTED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN LARSON
V. DOMESTIC & FOREIGN CORP., 337 U.S. 682, 705. 

FN2  A STATUTE MAY OF COURSE CONFER STANDING EVEN IN THIS SITUATION. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470;
COLUMBIA SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407; CF. YOUNGSTOWN CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 476; STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288. 

FN3  THE DAVIS & FARNUM CASE HELD THAT A SUBCONTRACTOR DID NOT HAVE
STANDING TO ENJOIN A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE WHICH PROHIBITED A
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN VIOLATION OF A RIGHT OF THE OWNER OF THE LAND
ON WHICH IT WAS TO BE BUILT.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NO
LEGAL INTEREST IN THE CONTROVERSY, SINCE HIS INTEREST WAS ONLY
"INDIRECT." 

FN4  GOVERNMENT ACTION IS "FINAL" IN THE SENSE HERE INVOLVED WHEN AT
NO FUTURE TIME WILL ITS IMPACT ON THE PETITIONER BECOME MORE
CONCLUSIVE, DEFINITE, OR SUBSTANTIAL.  "FINALITY" IS ALSO EMPLOYED IN A
DIFFERENT SENSE WITH WHICH WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED, IN REFERENCE TO
JUDICIAL ACTION NOT SUBJECT TO SUBSEQUENT REVISORY EXECUTIVE OR
LEGISLATIVE ACTION.  CF. UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA, 13 HOW.  40. 

FN5  THE COURT EXPRESSED THE DECISION IN TERMS OF THE NONLEGISLATIVE
CHARACTER OF THE SPECIFICATION.  BUT SINCE THE VALIDITY OF THE
SPECIFICATION COULD BE DETERMINED IN AN ACTION FOR INJUNCTION OR
MANDAMUS AGAINST THE LOCAL OFFICERS, THE DECISION DOES NOT ESTABLISH
THAT FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS IMMUNE FROM REVIEW BECAUSE IT IS
NOT LEGISLATIVE IN FORM. 

FN6  SEE ALSO DECISIONS TREATING AS "JUSTICIABLE" BILLS TO ENJOIN
REGULATIONS WHICH CREATE DUTIES IMMEDIATELY ENFORCEABLE BY IMPOSITION
OF PENALTIES.  ASSIGNED CAR CASES, 274 U.S. 564; UNITED STATES V.
BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 293 U.S. 454. 

FN7  IN THE LOS ANGELES CASE THE COURT THUS SUPPORTED ITS CONCLUSION
THAT THE BILL WAS NOT JUSTICIABLE UNDER GENERAL EQUITY POWERS:  "THE
INVESTIGATION WAS UNDERTAKEN IN AID OF THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OF
REGULATION.  IN CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION, AND IN MAKING THE REPORT,
THE COMMISSION PERFORMED A SERVICE SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED AND
PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.  ITS CONCLUSIONS, IF ERRONEOUS IN LAW, MAY BE
DISREGARDED.  BUT NEITHER ITS UTTERANCES, NOR ITS PROCESSES OF
REASONING, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS ACTS, ARE A SUBJECT FOR
INJUNCTION."  273 U.S. AT 314-315.  PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
261 U.S. 72, WAS A BILL TO ENJOIN THE RAILROAD LABOR BOARD FROM
PUBLISHING THAT THE PETITIONER HAD VIOLATED ITS DECISION.  DECISIONS OF
THE BOARD WERE NOT LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE; AND THE COURT THEREFORE
CONCLUDED THAT THEY VIOLATED "NO LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT OF THE
COMPLAINING COMPANY."  261 U.S. AT 85.  THE COURT CONSIDERED AT LENGTH,
HOWEVER, THE COMPANY'S ARGUMENT THAT THE BOARD HAD BEEN GIVEN NO
JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE PARTICULAR ISSUE INVOLVED.  THAT IT FOUND IT
NECESSARY TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE COMPANY ON THE MERITS
INDICATES THAT IT THOUGHT A STRONGER CASE FOR STANDING WOULD HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED HAD THE DECISION BEEN BEYOND THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY.  IN EX
PARTE WILLIAMS, 277 U.S. AT 271, THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT A LITIGANT
MAY HAVE STANDING TO ENJOIN A TAX ASSESSMENT WHEN THE CHALLENGE IS TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSMENT, ALTHOUGH THERE
WOULD BE NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IT
DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

FN8  COMPARE THE DECISIONS WHICH HOLD THAT CERTAIN EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
ARE NOT LIABLE IN SUITS FOR DAMAGES FOR ERRONEOUS OR EVEN MALICIOUS
CONDUCT IN OFFICE, SO LONG AS THEY ARE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
AUTHORITY GIVEN THEM.  SPALDING V. VILAS, 161 U.S. 483; GREGOIRE V.
BIDDLE, 177 F.2D 579. 

FN9  A DENVER AFFILIATE OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL, JOINED AS PETITIONER
IN NO. 7, HAS STANDING IDENTICAL WITH ITS PARENT.  THE INDIVIDUAL
PETITIONERS IN THAT SUIT, HOWEVER, HAVE AS OFFICERS OF THE COUNCIL AN
INTEREST WHICH IS TOO REMOTE TO JUSTIFY FINDING THE ISSUES JUSTICIABLE
AS TO THEM. 

FN10  THE REASONABLENESS OF RATES HAS OF COURSE BEEN HELD IN PART A
QUESTION FOR THE COURTS.  OHIO VALLEY CO. V. BEN AVON BOROUGH, 253 U.S.
287; CF. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 134 U.S. 418.  BUT TO
THE EXTENT THAT FINALITY IS ACCORDED TO THE DETERMINATION OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, THE COURT HAS EXACTED A HIGH STANDARD OF
PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.  OHIO BELL TEL. CO. V. COMMISSION, 301 U.S. 292,
304; SEE I.C.C. V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 227 U.S. 88; UNITED STATES V.
ABILENE & S.R. CO., 265 U.S. 274; WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. COMMISSION (NO.
1), 294 U.S. 63; RAILROAD COMM'N V. PACIFIC GAS CO., 302 U.S. 388;
MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 1; CF. UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 291 U.S. 457. 

FN11  IN SOUTHERN R. CO. V. VIRGINIA, 290 U.S. 190, THE COURT
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL A STATE OFFICER'S EX PARTE ORDER THAT A
RAILROAD INSTALL AN OVERHEAD CROSSING.  COMPARE MONONGAHELA BRIDGE CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 216 U.S. 177, IN WHICH A COMPARABLE ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF WAR, ENTERED AFTER HEARING, WAS UPHELD.  IN DECISIONS
INVOLVING LOCAL TAXATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS, THE COURT HAS REQUIRED THAT
OWNERS BE GIVEN A HEARING ON VALUATION AS WELL AS ON THE QUESTION
WHETHER THEIR PROPERTY HAS BEEN BENEFITED WHENEVER THAT DETERMINATION
HAS NOT BEEN LEGISLATIVELY MADE.  SEE, E.G., EMBREE V. KANSAS CITY ROAD
DIST., 240 U.S. 242; CF. ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337.  AND
ALTHOUGH AN INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST HAS BEEN CREATED BY AN EX PARTE
DECISION, IT MAY NOT BE DESTROYED "WITHOUT THAT CHARACTER OF NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ESSENTIAL TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  UNITED
STATES EX REL. TURNER V. FISHER, 222 U.S. 204, 208; GARFIELD V.
GOLDSBY, 211 U.S. 249.  SEE ALSO EX PARTE ROBINSON, 19 WALL.  505. 

FN12  THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86; SEE KWOCK JAN FAT V.
WHITE, 253 U.S. 454; WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33, 49; CF.
UNITED STATES EX REL. KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537.  IN LLOYD
SABAUDO SOCIETA V. ELTING, 287 U.S. 329, THE COURT HELD THAT A
STEAMSHIP COMPANY REQUIRED TO PAY A FINE TO OBTAIN PORT CLEARANCE FOR A
SHIP WHICH HAD BROUGHT A DISEASED ALIEN TO THIS COUNTRY WAS ENTITLED TO
DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS BY FAIR PROCEDURE.  THE COURT DISAPPROVED IN
PART OCEANIC NAV. CO. V. STRANAHAN, 214 U.S. 320. 

FN13  IN DISMUKE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 167, 172, THE COURT SAID
THAT "IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPELLING LANGUAGE, RESORT TO THE COURTS TO
ASSERT A RIGHT WHICH THE STATUTE CREATES WILL BE DEEMED TO BE CURTAILED
ONLY SO FAR AS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE IS GIVEN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER.  ...  IF HE IS AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF FACT HIS
DECISION MUST BE ACCEPTED UNLESS HE EXCEEDS HIS AUTHORITY BY MAKING A
DETERMINATION WHICH IS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS OR UNSUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE,  ...  OR BY FAILING TO FOLLOW A PROCEDURE WHICH SATISFIES
ELEMENTARY STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS ESSENTIAL TO THE
DUE CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDING WHICH CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED  ...  " 

FN14  THUS, NO HEARING NEED BE GRANTED ON THE QUESTION WHETHER
PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR A PUBLIC USE.  RINDGE CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 262
U.S. 700.  CF. MARTIN V. MOTT, 12 WHEAT.  19; UNITED STATES V. BUSH &
CO., 310 U.S. 371. 

FN15  CF. NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294.  IN
RECENT CUSTOMS LEGISLATION CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED A HEARING ON
OBJECTIONS TO APPRAISEMENT.  38 STAT. 187, AS AMENDED, 19 U.S.C. SEC.
1501; SEE FREUND, ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OVER PERSONS AND PROPERTY,
163.  IN NUMBERLESS OTHER SITUATIONS CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED THE
ESSENTIALS OF A HEARING.  AMONG THOSE THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS COURT
ARE REMOVAL ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, BOARD OF GOVERNORS V.
AGNEW, 329 U.S. 441; DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE HATCH ACT, OKLAHOMA V.
CIVIL SERVICE COMM'N, 330 U.S. 127; INDUCTION ORDERS UNDER THE DRAFT
LAW, ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114; MINIMUM PRICE ORDERS OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288; PRICE
CONTROL, YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414; MINIMUM WAGE
DETERMINATIONS, OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126; LABOR
RELATIONS REGULATION, LABOR BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO CO., 304 U.S. 333;
LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 47; SHIELDS V.
UTAH IDAHO R. CO., 305 U.S. 177; INLAND EMPIRE COUNCIL V. MILLIS, 325
U.S. 697.    FN16  IN 1941 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE REPORTED THAT IT "FOUND IN ITS INVESTIGATION
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FEW INSTANCES OF INDIFFERENCE ON THE PART
OF THE AGENCIES TO THE BASIC VALUES WHICH UNDERLIE A FAIR HEARING." 
THESE VALUES IT DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:  "BEFORE ADVERSE ACTION IS TO BE
TAKEN BY AN AGENCY, WHETHER IT BE DENYING PRIVILEGES TO AN APPLICANT OR
BOUNTIES TO A CLAIMANT, BEFORE A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER IS ISSUED OR
PRIVILEGES OR BOUNTIES ARE PERMANENTLY WITHDRAWN, BEFORE AN INDIVIDUAL
IS ORDERED DIRECTLY TO ALTER HIS METHOD OF BUSINESS, OR BEFORE
DISCIPLINE IS IMPOSED UPON HIM, THE INDIVIDUAL IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED
SHOULD BE APPRISED NOT ONLY OF THE CONTEMPLATED ACTION WITH SUFFICIENT
PRECISION TO PERMIT HIS PREPARATION TO RESIST, BUT, BEFORE FINAL
ACTION, HE SHOULD BE APPRISED OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONTENTIONS BROUGHT
FORWARD AGAINST HIM SO THAT HE MAY MEET THEM.  HE MUST BE OFFERED A
FORUM WHICH PROVIDES HIM WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING HIS OWN
CONTENTIONS HOME TO THOSE WHO WILL ADJUDICATE THE CONTROVERSY IN WHICH
HE IS CONCERNED.  THE FORUM ITSELF MUST BE ONE WHICH IS PREPARED TO
RECEIVE AND CONSIDER ALL THAT HE OFFERS WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE
CONTROVERSY."  FINAL REPORT, P. 62. 

THE MONOGRAPHS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMITTEE SUPPORT
THE CONCLUSION THAT BY STATUTORY DIRECTION OR ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION AGENCIES CONSISTENTLY GRANT AT LEAST MINIMUM RIGHTS OF
HEARING.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT IS ENFORCEABLE BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S RECOVERY OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND BY ITS WITHHOLDING
FURTHER CONTRACTS FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD.  ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ARE
EMPLOYED FOR ALL CONTESTED ACTION.  MONOGRAPH OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, S. DOC. NO. 186, 76TH CONG., 3D
SESS., PART 1, P. 7.  IT IS GENERALLY THE PRACTICE OF THE VETERANS'
ADMINISTRATION TO GRANT HEARINGS ON REQUEST OF CLAIMANTS.  ID., PART 2,
P. 11.  HEARINGS ARE GRANTED ON REQUEST ON APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS
FROM THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION, ID., PART 5, P. 6, AND WHEN
LICENSES GRANTED UNDER THE GRAIN STANDARDS ACT ARE SUSPENDED OR
REVOKED, ID., PART 7, P. 10.  THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
DETERMINES ADMISSIBILITY OF BANKS TO MEMBERSHIP WITHOUT GIVING THE
APPLICANT A HEARING OR FORMAL OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRADICT THE BANK
EXAMINER'S REPORT.  HOWEVER, GROUNDS FOR DISAPPROVAL ARE REPORTED TO
THE APPLICANT.  ID., PART 13, P. 15.  WAR DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS GRANT
HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS TO CONSTRUCT INSTALLATIONS IN NAVIGABLE
WATERS, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPLICATION SHOULD OR SHOULD
NOT BE GRANTED.  S. DOC. NO. 10, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PART 2, P. 7. 
A 1939 AMENDMENT TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY LAW REQUIRES HEARINGS IN THE
EVENT A CLAIMANT IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE BY
THE BUREAU OF OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE.  ID., PART 3, P. 14. 
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GRANTS HEARINGS IN ALLOCATING GRAZING
LANDS, ID., PART 7, PP. 9, 10; IN DISPOSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR MINERAL
LEASES, EXCEPT WHERE HEARING WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE, ID., AT 26;
AND IN DETERMINING QUESTIONS OF FACT NECESSARY TO ISSUING MINING
PATENTS, ID., AT 36.  HEARINGS ARE FREQUENTLY EMPLOYED IN
INVESTIGATIONS UNDER FLEXIBLE TARIFF PROCEDURES OF THE TARIFF
COMMISSION, ID., PART 14, P. 12. 

FN17  THE IMPORTANCE OF OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS RECOGNIZED AS WELL
BY THE ENGLISH COURTS.  THE LEADING CASE IS BOARD OF EDUCATION V. RICE,
(1911) A.C. 179.  LORD LOREBURN SAID IN DICTUM, "IN SUCH CASES THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION WILL HAVE TO ASCERTAIN THE LAW AND ALSO TO ASCERTAIN
THE FACTS.  I NEED NOT ADD THAT IN DOING EITHER THEY MUST ACT IN GOOD
FAITH AND FAIRLY LISTEN TO BOTH SIDES, FOR THAT IS A DUTY LYING UPON
EVERY ONE WHO DECIDES ANYTHING.  ...  THEY CAN OBTAIN INFORMATION IN
ANY WAY THEY THINK BEST, ALWAYS GIVING A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO THOSE WHO
ARE PARTIES IN THE CONTROVERSY FOR CORRECTING OR CONTRADICTING ANY
RELEVANT STATEMENT PREJUDICIAL TO THEIR VIEW."  ID., AT 182.  THIS
PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPROVED IN A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS.  SEE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT BOARD V. ARLIDGE, (1915) A.C. 120, 132-133; GENERAL MEDICAL
COUNCIL V. SPACKMAN, (1943) A.C. 627; ERRINGTON V. MINISTER OF HEALTH,
(1935) 1 K.B. 249; REX V. WESTMINSTER, (1941) 1 K.B. 53.  THE COMMITTEE
ON MINISTERS' POWERS REPORTED IN 1936 THAT WHILE IN ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION A MINISTER MAY "DEPART FROM THE USUAL FORMS OF LEGAL
PROCEDURE OR FROM THE COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE, HE OUGHT NOT TO
DEPART FROM OR OFFEND AGAINST 'NATURAL JUSTICE.'"  THREE PRINCIPLES OF
"NATURAL JUSTICE" WERE STATED TO BE THAT "A MAN MAY NOT BE A JUDGE IN
HIS OWN CAUSE," THAT "NO PARTY OUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD," AND THAT
"A PARTY IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE REASON FOR THE DECISION."  REPORT OF
COMMITTEE ON MINISTERS' POWERS, CMD.  4060, PP. 75-80. 

FN18  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES MADE THIS REMARK IN A LETTER TO MR. ARTHUR
GARFIELD HAYS IN 1928.  SEE BENT, JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, 312. 

FN19  "IN A GOVERNMENT LIKE OURS, ENTIRELY POPULAR, CARE SHOULD BE
TAKEN IN EVERY PART OF THE SYSTEM, NOT ONLY TO DO RIGHT, BUT TO SATISFY
THE COMMUNITY THAT RIGHT IS DONE."  5 THE WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF
DANIEL WEBSTER, 163.  THE SAME THOUGHT IS REFLECTED IN A RECENT OPINION
BY THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.  A WITNESS IN A CRIMINAL CASE HAD BEEN
INTERROGATED BY THE COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DEFENDANT.  QUASHING
THE CONVICTION, LORD GODDARD SAID:  "THAT IS A MATTER WHICH CANNOT
POSSIBLY BE JUSTIFIED.  I AM NOT SUGGESTING FOR ONE MOMENT THAT THE
JUSTICES HAD ANY SINISTER OR IMPROPER MOTIVE IN ACTING AS THEY DID.  IT
MAY BE THAT THEY SENT FOR THIS OFFICER IN THE INTERESTS OF THE ACCUSED;
IT MAY BE THAT THE INFORMATION WHICH THE OFFICER GAVE WAS IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE ACCUSED.  THAT DOES NOT MATTER.  TIME AND AGAIN THIS
COURT HAS SAID THAT JUSTICE MUST NOT ONLY BE DONE BUT MUST MANIFESTLY
BE SEEN TO BE DONE.  ...  "  REX V. JUSTICES OF BODMIN, (1947) 1 K.B.
321, 325. 

FN20  OTHER EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  THE
FEINBERG LAW, COMPARABLE IN PURPOSE AND IN ITS SCHEME TO THE LOYALTY
ORDER, MAKES NOTICE AND HEARING PREREQUISITE TO DESIGNATION OF
ORGANIZATIONS.  SEE THOMPSON V. WALLIN, 301 N.Y. 476, 494, 95 N.E.2D
806, 814-815. 

FN21  ACT OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1950, SECS. 13, 14, 64 STAT. 987, 998,
1001. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

WHILE I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WHICH WOULD
DISPOSE OF THE CASES ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, THE COURT HAS DECIDED THEM
ON THE CONSTITUTION.  AND SO I TURN TO THAT ASPECT OF THE CASES. 

THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTS ONE OF THE
GRAVEST ISSUES OF THIS GENERATION.  THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND OF THE
NEED FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND THE CONGRESS TO TAKE STRONG MEASURES
AGAINST ANY FIFTH COLUMN WORMING ITS WAY INTO GOVERNMENT - A FIFTH
COLUMN THAT HAS ACCESS TO VITAL INFORMATION AND THE PURPOSE TO PARALYZE
AND CONFUSE.  THE PROBLEMS OF SECURITY ARE REAL.  SO ARE THE PROBLEMS
OF FREEDOM.  THE PARAMOUNT ISSUE OF THE AGE IS TO RECONCILE THE TWO. 

IN DAYS OF GREAT TENSION WHEN FEELINGS RUN HIGH, IT IS A TEMPTATION
TO TAKE SHORT-CUTS BY BORROWING FROM THE TOTALITARIAN TECHNIQUES OF OUR
OPPONENTS.  BUT WHEN WE DO, WE SET IN MOTION A SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE OF
OUR OWN DESIGN THAT DESTROYS US FROM WITHIN.  THE PRESENT CASES,
TOGETHER WITH NO. 49, BAILEY V. RICHARDSON, POST, P. 918, AFFIRMED
TODAY BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, ARE SIMPLE ILLUSTRATIONS OF THAT
TREND. 

I DISAGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE JACKSON THAT AN ORGANIZATION - WHETHER IT
BE THESE PETITIONERS, THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE
MASONIC ORDER, OR THE BOY SCOUTS - HAS NO STANDING TO OBJECT TO BEING
LABELED "SUBVERSIVE" IN THESE EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS.  THE OPINION OF MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISPOSES OF THAT ARGUMENT.  THIS IS NOT AN INSTANCE
OF NAME CALLING BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS.  THIS IS A DETERMINATION OF STATUS
- A PROCEEDING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ORGANIZATION IS OR IS NOT
"SUBVERSIVE."  THIS DETERMINATION HAS CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE SERIOUS TO
THE CONDEMNED ORGANIZATIONS.  THOSE CONSEQUENCES FLOW IN PART, OF
COURSE, FROM PUBLIC OPINION.  BUT THEY ALSO FLOW FROM ACTIONS OF
REGULATORY AGENCIES THAT ARE MOVING IN THE WAKE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S DETERMINATION TO PENALIZE OR POLICE THESE ORGANIZATIONS.  FN1
AN ORGANIZATION BRANDED AS "SUBVERSIVE" BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
MAIMED AND CRIPPLED.  THE INJURY IS REAL, IMMEDIATE, AND INCALCULABLE. 

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FAIR TRIALS UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT NEED
NO ELABORATION.  A PARTY IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM; HE
IS ALSO ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.  THOSE
PRINCIPLES WERE, IN MY OPINION, VIOLATED HERE. 

THE CHARGE THAT THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE "SUBVERSIVE" COULD BE CLEARLY
DEFINED.  BUT HOW CAN ANYONE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER SAY
WHAT IT MEANS?  IT APPARENTLY DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN "TOTALITARIAN,"
"FASCIST" OR "COMMUNIST" BECAUSE THEY ARE SEPARATELY LISTED.  DOES IT
MEAN AN ORGANIZATION WITH SOCIALIST IDEAS?  THERE ARE SOME WHO LUMP
SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS TOGETHER.  DOES IT MEAN AN ORGANIZATION THAT
THINKS THE LOT OF SOME PEASANTS HAS BEEN IMPROVED UNDER SOVIET
AUSPICES?  DOES IT INCLUDE AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS AGAINST THE ACTION
OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN KOREA?  DOES IT EMBRACE A GROUP WHICH ON SOME
ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL POLICY ALIGNS ITSELF WITH THE SOVIET
VIEWPOINT?  DOES IT MEAN A GROUP WHICH HAS UNWITTINGLY BECOME THE TOOL
FOR SOVIET PROPAGANDA?  DOES IT MEAN ONE INTO WHOSE MEMBERSHIP SOME
COMMUNISTS HAVE INFILTRATED?  OR DOES IT DESCRIBE ONLY AN ORGANIZATION
WHICH UNDER THE GUISE OF HONORABLE ACTIVITIES SERVES AS A FRONT FOR
COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES? 

NO ONE CAN TELL FROM THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WHAT MEANING IS INTENDED. 
NO ONE CAN TELL FROM THE RECORDS OF THE CASES WHICH ONE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL APPLIED.  THE CHARGE IS FLEXIBLE; IT WILL MEAN ONE THING TO ONE
OFFICER, ANOTHER TO SOMEONE ELSE.  IT WILL BE GIVEN MEANING ACCORDING
TO THE PREDILECTIONS OF THE PROSECUTOR:  "SUBVERSIVE" TO SOME WILL BE
SYNONYMOUS WITH "RADICAL"; "SUBVERSIVE" TO OTHERS WILL BE SYNONYMOUS
WITH "COMMUNIST."  IT CAN BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THOSE WHO DEPART FROM
THE ORTHODOX PARTY LINE - TO THOSE WHOSE WORDS AND ACTIONS (THOUGH
COMPLETELY LOYAL) DO NOT CONFORM TO THE ORTHODOX VIEW ON FOREIGN OR
DOMESTIC POLICY.  THESE FLEXIBLE STANDARDS, WHICH VARY WITH THE MOOD OR
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROSECUTOR, ARE WEAPONS WHICH CAN BE MADE
AS SHARP OR AS BLUNT AS THE OCCASION REQUIRES.  SINCE THEY ARE SUBJECT
TO GRAVE ABUSE, THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN OUR SYSTEM OF LAW.  WHEN WE
EMPLOY THEM, WE PLANT WITHIN OUR BODY POLITIC THE VIRUS OF THE
TOTALITARIAN IDEOLOGY WHICH WE OPPOSE. 

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THE MEN APPLYING THE STANDARD ARE
HONORABLE AND DEVOTED MEN.  THIS IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, NOT OF MEN. 
THE POWERS BEING USED ARE THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT OVER THE REPUTATIONS
AND FORTUNES OF CITIZENS.  IN SITUATIONS FAR LESS SEVERE OR IMPORTANT
THAN THESE A PARTY IS TOLD THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM.  THUS
WHEN A DEFENDANT IS SUMMONED BEFORE A FEDERAL COURT TO ANSWER TO A
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES OR TO A DEMAND FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST HIM, THERE
MUST BE A "PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM SHOWING THAT THE PLEADER IS
ENTITLED TO RELIEF."  FN2  IF THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVEN THE MOST MINOR
CLAIM ASSERTED AGAINST A DEFENDANT, WE SHOULD REQUIRE NO LESS WHEN IT
COMES TO DETERMINATIONS THAT MAY WELL DESTROY THE GROUP AGAINST WHOM
THE CHARGE OF BEING "SUBVERSIVE" IS DIRECTED.  FN3  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
BECOMES THE MOVING PARTY AND LEVELS ITS GREAT POWERS AGAINST THE
CITIZEN, IT SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS OF FAIR DEALING AS WE
PRESCRIBE FOR OTHER LEGAL CONTESTS.  TO LET THE GOVERNMENT ADOPT SUCH
LESSER ONES AS SUITS THE CONVENIENCE OF ITS OFFICERS IS TO START DOWN
THE TOTALITARIAN PATH. 

THE TREND IN THAT DIRECTION IS ONLY EMPHASIZED BY THE FAILURE TO GIVE
NOTICE AND HEARING ON THE CHARGES IN THESE CASES AND BY THE PROCEDURE
ADOPTED IN BAILEY V. RICHARDSON, SUPRA. 

NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ARE FUNDAMENTAL TO DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  WE WOULD REVERSE THESE CASES OUT OF HAND IF THEY WERE SUITS OF A
CIVIL NATURE TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM AGAINST PETITIONERS.  NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ARE INDISPENSABLE TO A FAIR TRIAL WHETHER THE
CASE BE CRIMINAL OR CIVIL.  SEE COE V. ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, 237
U.S. 413, 424; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 327; IN RE OLIVER,
333 U.S. 257, 273.  THE GRAVITY OF THE PRESENT CHARGES IS PROOF ENOUGH
OF THE NEED FOR NOTICE AND HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OFFICIALLY
BRANDS THESE ORGANIZATIONS AS "SUBVERSIVE."  NO MORE CRITICAL
GOVERNMENTAL RULING CAN BE MADE AGAINST AN ORGANIZATION THESE DAYS.  IT
CONDEMNS WITHOUT TRIAL.  IT DESTROYS WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. 
THE CONDEMNATION MAY IN EACH CASE BE WHOLLY JUSTIFIED.  BUT GOVERNMENT
IN THIS COUNTRY CANNOT BY EDICT CONDEMN OR PLACE BEYOND THE PALE.  THE
RUDIMENTS OF JUSTICE, AS WE KNOW IT, CALL FOR NOTICE AND HEARING - AN
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND TO REBUT THE CHARGE. 

THE SYSTEM USED TO CONDEMN THESE ORGANIZATIONS IS BAD ENOUGH.  THE
EVIL IS ONLY COMPOUNDED WHEN A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS CHARGED WITH
BEING DISLOYAL.  ASSOCIATION WITH OR MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION
FOUND TO BE "SUBVERSIVE" WEIGHS HEAVILY AGAINST THE ACCUSED.  HE IS NOT
ALLOWED TO PROVE THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION IS FALSE. 
THAT CASE IS CLOSED; THAT LINE OF DEFENSE IS TAKEN AWAY.  THE TECHNIQUE
IS ONE OF GUILT BY ASSOCIATION - ONE OF THE MOST ODIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF
HISTORY.  THE FACT THAT THE TECHNIQUE OF GUILT BY ASSOCIATION WAS USED
IN THE PROSECUTIONS AT NUREMBERG  FN4  DOES NOT MAKE IT CONGENIAL TO
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME.  GUILT UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS
PERSONAL.  WHEN WE MAKE GUILT VICARIOUS WE BORROW FROM SYSTEMS ALIEN TO
OURS AND APE OUR ENEMIES.  THOSE SHORT-CUTS MAY AT TIMES SEEM TO SERVE
NOBLE AIMS; BUT WE DEPRECIATE OURSELVES BY INDULGING IN THEM.  WHEN WE
DENY EVEN THE MOST DEGRADED PERSON THE RUDIMENTS OF A FAIR TRIAL, WE
ENDANGER THE LIBERTIES OF EVERYONE.  WE SET A PATTERN OF CONDUCT THAT
IS DANGEROUSLY EXPANSIVE AND IS ADAPTABLE TO THE NEEDS OF ANY MAJORITY
BENT ON SUPPRESSING OPPOSITION OR DISSENSION.    IT IS NOT WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANCE THAT MOST OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE
PROCEDURAL.  IT IS PROCEDURE THAT SPELLS MUCH OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
RULE BY LAW AND RULE BY WHIM OR CAPRICE.  STEADFAST ADHERENCE TO STRICT
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IS OUR MAIN ASSURANCE THAT THERE WILL BE EQUAL
JUSTICE UNDER LAW.  THE CASE OF DOROTHY BAILEY IS AN EXCELLENT
ILLUSTRATION OF HOW DANGEROUS A DEPARTURE FROM OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARDS CAN BE.  SHE WAS CHARGED WITH BEING A COMMUNIST AND WITH
BEING ACTIVE IN A COMMUNIST "FRONT ORGANIZATION."  THE REVIEW BOARD
STATED THAT THE CASE AGAINST HER WAS BASED ON REPORTS, SOME OF WHICH
CAME FROM "INFORMANTS CERTIFIED TO US BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AS EXPERIENCED AND ENTIRELY RELIABLE." 

COUNSEL FOR DOROTHY BAILEY ASKED THAT THEIR NAMES BE DISCLOSED.  THAT
WAS REFUSED. 

COUNSEL FOR DOROTHY BAILEY ASKED IF THESE INFORMANTS HAD BEEN ACTIVE
IN A CERTAIN UNION.  THE CHAIRMAN REPLIED, "I HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST
KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHO THEY WERE OR HOW ACTIVE THEY HAVE BEEN IN
ANYTHING." 

COUNSEL FOR DOROTHY BAILEY ASKED IF THOSE STATEMENTS OF THE
INFORMANTS WERE UNDER OATH.  THE CHAIRMAN ANSWERED, "I DON'T THINK
SO." 

THE LOYALTY BOARD CONVICTS ON EVIDENCE WHICH IT CANNOT EVEN
APPRAISE.  THE CRITICAL EVIDENCE MAY BE THE WORD OF AN UNKNOWN WITNESS
WHO IS "A PARAGON OF VERACITY, A KNAVE, OR THE VILLAGE IDIOT."  FN5
HIS NAME, HIS REPUTATION, HIS PREJUDICES, HIS ANIMOSITIES, HIS
TRUSTWORTHINESS ARE UNKNOWN BOTH TO THE JUDGE AND TO THE ACCUSED.  THE
ACCUSED HAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT THE WITNESS LIED OR WAS
PREJUDICED OR VENAL.  WITHOUT KNOWING WHO HER ACCUSERS ARE SHE HAS NO
WAY OF DEFENDING.  SHE HAS NOTHING TO OFFER EXCEPT HER OWN WORD AND THE
CHARACTER TESTIMONY OF HER FRIENDS. 

DOROTHY BAILEY WAS NOT, TO BE SURE, FACED WITH A CRIMINAL CHARGE AND
HENCE NOT TECHNICALLY ENTITLED UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO BE
CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HER.  BUT SHE WAS ON TRIAL FOR
HER REPUTATION, HER JOB, HER PROFESSIONAL STANDING.  A DISLOYALTY TRIAL
IS THE MOST CRUCIAL EVENT IN THE LIFE OF A PUBLIC SERVANT.  IF
CONDEMNED, HE IS BRANDED FOR LIFE AS A PERSON UNWORTHY OF TRUST OR
CONFIDENCE.  TO MAKE THAT CONDEMNATION WITHOUT METICULOUS REGARD FOR
THE DECENCIES OF A FAIR TRIAL IS ABHORRENT TO FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE. 

I DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT BUT FOR THESE IRREGULARITIES THE SYSTEM
OF LOYALTY TRIALS IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  I DO NOT SEE HOW THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS DRAGNET SYSTEM OF LOYALTY TRIALS WHICH HAS
BEEN ENTRUSTED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT CAN BE
SUSTAINED.  EVERY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE MUST TAKE AN OATH OF LOYALTY. 
FN6  IF HE SWEARS FALSELY, HE COMMITS PERJURY AND CAN BE TRIED IN
COURT.  IN SUCH A TRIAL HE GETS THE FULL PROTECTION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS, INCLUDING TRIAL BY JURY AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.  I AM
INCLINED TO THE VIEW THAT WHEN A DISLOYALTY CHARGE IS SUBSTITUTED FOR
PERJURY AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD SUBSTITUTED FOR THE COURT "THE
SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS" ARE OFFENDED.  FN7 

THE PROBLEM OF SECURITY IS REAL; AND THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT BE
PARALYZED IN HANDLING IT.  THE SECURITY PROBLEM, HOWEVER, RELATES ONLY
TO THOSE SENSITIVE AREAS WHERE SECRETS ARE OR MAY BE AVAILABLE, WHERE
CRITICAL POLICIES ARE BEING FORMULATED, OR WHERE SABOTAGE CAN BE
COMMITTED.  THE DEPARTMENT HEADS MUST HAVE LEEWAY IN HANDLING THEIR
PERSONNEL PROBLEMS IN THESE SENSITIVE AREAS.  THE QUESTION IS ONE OF
THE FITNESS OR QUALIFICATIONS OF AN INDIVIDUAL FOR A PARTICULAR
POSITION.  ONE CAN BE TRANSFERRED FROM THOSE AREAS EVEN WHEN THERE IS
NO MORE THAN A SUSPICION AS TO HIS LOYALTY.  WE MEET CONSTITUTIONAL
DIFFICULTIES WHEN THE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKES TO PUNISH BY PROCLAIMING
THE DISLOYALTY OF AN EMPLOYEE AND MAKING HIM INELIGIBLE FOR ANY
GOVERNMENT POST.  THE BRITISH HAVE AVOIDED THOSE DIFFICULTIES BY
APPLYING THE LOYALTY PROCEDURE ONLY IN SENSITIVE AREAS AND IN USING IT
TO TEST THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR A PARTICULAR POST, NOT TO
CONDEMN HIM FOR ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT.  FN8  WHEN WE GO BEYOND THAT
PROCEDURE AND ADOPT THE DRAGNET SYSTEM NOW IN FORCE, WE TRENCH UPON THE
CIVIL RIGHTS OF OUR PEOPLE.  WE CONDEMN BY ADMINISTRATIVE EDICT, RATHER
THAN BY JURY TRIAL.  FN9  OF COURSE, NO ONE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO A GOVERNMENT JOB.  BUT EVERY CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
WHEN HIS GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THE PRIVILEGES OF FIRST
CLASS CITIZENSHIP. 

THE EVIL OF THESE CASES IS ONLY EMPHASIZED BY THE PROCEDURE EMPLOYED
IN DOROTHY BAILEY'S CASE.  TOGETHER THEY ILLUSTRATE HOW DEPRIVATION OF
OUR CITIZENS OF FAIR TRIALS IS SUBVERSION FROM WITHIN. 

FN1  THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE CANCELED THE TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF
CONTRIBUTIONS TO EIGHT "SUBVERSIVE" ORGANIZATIONS SHORTLY AFTER THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LIST WAS RELEASED.  THE BUREAU'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
REVOCATION INDICATED THAT THE LISTING PROVIDED THE BASIS FOR IT.
TREASURY DEPT. PRESS RELEASE NO. S-613, FEB. 4, 1948, 5 CCH 1948 FED.
TAX REP. $* 6075. 

THE NEW YORK FEINBERG LAW, DIRECTED AT ELIMINATING MEMBERS OF
SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS FROM EMPLOYMENT IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
AUTHORIZES THE BOARD OF REGENTS TO UTILIZE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LIST
IN DRAWING UP ITS OWN LIST OF SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS.  MEMBERSHIP IN
A LISTED ORGANIZATION IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF DISQUALIFICATION. 
LAWS OF NEW YORK, 1949, C. 360, $* 3022(2).  THE NEW YORK
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE RECENTLY BROUGHT AN ACTION TO DISSOLVE THE
INTERNATIONAL WORKERS ORDER, INC., PETITIONER IN NO. 71, ON THE GROUNDS
THAT IT WAS ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LIST.  MATTER OF PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK, MOTION 165, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY, DEC.
18, 1950.  (SEE 199 MISC. 941.) 

THE MARYLAND OBER LAW REQUIRES CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTIVE OR ELECTIVE
OFFICE TO CERTIFY WHETHER THEY ARE MEMBERS OF "SUBVERSIVE"
ORGANIZATIONS.  LAWS OF MARYLAND, 1949, C. 86, $*$* 10-15.  THE
COMMISSION WHICH DRAFTED THE ACT CONTEMPLATED THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S LIST WOULD BE EMPLOYED IN POLICING THESE OATHS.  REPORT OF
COMMISSION ON SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES TO GOVERNOR LANE AND THE MARYLAND
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, JANUARY, 1949, P. 43. 

FN2  RULE 8(A), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 

FN3  AS MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER POINTS OUT, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES NO
LESS.  BUT APART FROM DUE PROCESS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE IS THE
POWER OF THE COURT TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND PROCEDURE FOR
INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS AND AGENCIES.  SEE MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318
U.S. 332. 

FN4  THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL TRIED NAZI ORGANIZATIONS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THEY WERE "CRIMINAL."  ART. 9, CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL
MILITARY TRIBUNAL, NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION, VOL. 1, OFFICE OF
U.S. CHIEF COUNSEL, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE (1946) P. 6.  THAT
PROCEDURE, UNLIKE THE PRESENT ONE, PROVIDED THAT ACCUSED ORGANIZATIONS
MIGHT DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THAT CHARGE.  IBID.  BUT THE FINDING OF
GUILT AS TO AN ORGANIZATION WAS BINDING ON AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS LATER
BROUGHT TO TRIAL FOR THE CRIME OF MEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL
ORGANIZATION.  ARTICLE 10 PROVIDED:  "IN CASES WHERE A GROUP OR
ORGANIZATION IS DECLARED CRIMINAL BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE COMPETENT
NATIONAL AUTHORITY OF ANY SIGNATORY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BRING
INDIVIDUALS TO TRIAL FOR MEMBERSHIP THEREIN BEFORE NATIONAL, MILITARY
OR OCCUPATION COURTS.  IN ANY SUCH CASE THE CRIMINAL NATURE OF THE
GROUP OR ORGANIZATION IS CONSIDERED PROVED AND SHALL NOT BE
QUESTIONED."  ID. 

FN5  BARTH, THE LOYALTY OF FREE MEN (1951), P. 109. 

FN6  "THE OATH TO BE TAKEN BY ANY PERSON ELECTED OR APPOINTED TO ANY
OFFICE OF HONOR OR PROFIT EITHER IN THE CIVIL, MILITARY, OR NAVAL
SERVICE, EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
'I, AB, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND
DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT
I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR
PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE
DUTIES OF THE OFFICE ON WHICH I AM ABOUT TO ENTER.  SO HELP ME GOD.'" 
23 STAT. 22, R.S. SEC. 1757, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 16.  AND SEE ACT OF SEPT. 6,
1950, PUB. L. NO. 759, SEC. 1209, 64 STAT. 595, 764. 

FN7  SEE THE ADDRESS BY BENJAMIN V. COHEN, 96 CONG. REC. A785, A786. 

FN8  448 H.C. DEB.  1703 ET SEQ., 3418 ET SEQ. (5TH SER.  1947
1948).  THE METICULOUS CARE WITH WHICH THIS SMALL SELECT GROUP IS
HANDLED IS REFLECTED IN THE LETTER OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DATED DEC. 1,
1948, REPORTING ON THE PURGE OF COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS FROM THE CIVIL
SERVICE.  459 H.C. DEB.  830(5TH SER.  1948-1949). 

THE NUMBER OF CASES CONSIDERED BY THE END OF APRIL, 1950, WAS 86,
CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

TRANSFERRED TO NONSECRET DEPARTMENTS .............................
32 

RESIGNED .........................................................
5 

EXONERATED AND REINSTATED ........................................
19 

DISMISSED (INCLUDING ONE FASCIST) ................................
7 

RETIRED FOR HEALTH REASONS BEFORE COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONS....
1 

ON SPECIAL LEAVE, EITHER SUB JUDICE OR CONFIRMED COMMUNISTS AWAITING
TRANSFER OR DISMISSAL ...$R22

----

          86 

SEE BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES, REFERENCE DIVISION, APRIL, 1950. 

FN9  THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORTS AS OF FEBRUARY, 1951, THE
FOLLOWING STATISTICS RELATING TO ADJUDICATIONS OF LOYALTY UNDER
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835 OF MARCH 21, 1947: 

TOTAL CASES RECEIVED BY LOYALTY BOARDS...................  14,910 

LESS:  CASES WHERE EMPLOYEE LEFT THE SERVICE DURING 

INVESTIGATIONS ..........................................   1,722

                -------- 

CASES RECEIVE FOR ADJUDICATION ..........................  13,188 

LESS:  CASES WHERE EMPLOYEE THEREAFTER RESIGNED .........   1,331 

FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORTS PENDING IN LOYALTY BOARDS ...   1.060 

CASES IN DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY .........................   1,304 

CASES ADJUDICATED........................................   9,493 

ELIGIBLE DETERMINATION ..................................  8,964 

INELIGIBLE, EXCLUDING 20 CASES ON REVIEW ................     529 

DISPOSITION OF INELIGIBLES: 

DISMISSED ...............................................     307 

RESTORED AFTER APPEAL ...................................     197 

REMANDED AFTER APPEAL....................................  19 

ON APPEAL ...............................................      26 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS COURT SHOULD FLOUNDER IN WORDY
DISAGREEMENT OVER THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF PROCEDURES WHICH HAVE
ALREADY BEEN PURSUED FOR SEVERAL YEARS.  THE EXTRAVAGANCE OF SOME OF
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED AND THE INTEMPERANCE OF THEIR STATEMENT MAY CREATE
A SUSPICION THAT THE DECISION OF THE CASE DOES NOT RISE ABOVE THE
POLITICAL CONTROVERSY THAT ENGENDERED IT. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, AND THOSE FOR WHOM HE SPEAKS, WOULD RESCUE THE
LOYALTY ORDER FROM INQUIRY AS TO ITS VALIDITY BY SPELLING OUT AN
ADMISSION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT IT HAS BEEN ARBITRARILY
MISAPPLIED.  MR. JUSTICE BLACK WOULD HAVE US HOLD THAT LISTING BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ORGANIZATIONS ALLEGED TO BE SUBVERSIVE IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF A BILL OF ATTAINDER FOR TREASON AFTER THE FASHION OF
THOSE OF THE STUART KINGS, WHILE MR. JUSTICE REED CONTENDS, IN
SUBSTANCE, THAT THE DESIGNATION IS A MERE PRESS RELEASE WITHOUT LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES. 

IF THE COURT AGREED THAT AN ACCUSED EMPLOYEE COULD CHALLENGE THE
DESIGNATION, ITS EFFECT WOULD BE ONLY ADVISORY OR PRIMA FACIE; BUT AS I
POINT OUT LATER, THE COURT REFUSES SO TO LIMIT THE EFFECT OF THE
DESIGNATION.  IN VIEW OF THESE AND OTHER DIVERSIFIED OPINIONS, NONE OF
WHICH HAS ATTRACTED SUFFICIENT ADHERENTS FOR A COURT AND NONE OF WHICH
I CAN FULLY ACCEPT, I SHALL STATE RATHER THAN ARGUE MY VIEW OF THE
MATTER. 

1.  THE LOYALTY ORDER DOES AFFECT SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL RIGHTS.  - I
AGREE THAT MERE DESIGNATION AS SUBVERSIVE DEPRIVES THE ORGANIZATIONS
THEMSELVES OF NO LEGAL RIGHT OR IMMUNITY.  BY IT THEY ARE NOT
DISSOLVED, SUBJECTED TO ANY LEGAL PROSECUTION, PUNISHED, PENALIZED, OR
PROHIBITED FROM CARRYING ON ANY OF THEIR ACTIVITIES.  THEIR CLAIM OF
INJURY IS THAT THEY CANNOT ATTRACT AUDIENCES, ENLIST MEMBERS, OR OBTAIN
CONTRIBUTIONS AS READILY AS BEFORE.  THESE, HOWEVER, ARE SANCTIONS
APPLIED BY PUBLIC DISAPPROVAL, NOT BY LAW.  IT IS QUITE TRUE THAT THE
POPULAR CENSURE IS FOCUSED UPON THEM BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
CHARACTERIZATION.  BUT THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY DOES NOT EXTEND TO
ORGANIZED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS WHICH SOLICIT FUNDS OR MEMBERSHIPS OR
TO CORPORATIONS DEPENDENT UPON THE STATE FOR THEIR CHARTERS.  FN1  THE
RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO ASSEMBLE IS ONE THING; THE CLAIM THAT AN
ORGANIZATION OF SECRET UNDISCLOSED CHARACTER MAY CONDUCT PUBLIC DRIVES
FOR FUNDS OR MEMBERSHIPS IS ANOTHER.  THEY MAY BE FREE TO SOLICIT,
PROPAGANDIZE, AND HOLD MEETINGS, BUT THEY ARE NOT FREE FROM PUBLIC
CRITICISM OR EXPOSURE.  IF THE ONLY EFFECT OF THE LOYALTY ORDER WAS
THAT SUFFERED BY THE ORGANIZATIONS, I SHOULD THINK THEIR RIGHT TO
RELIEF VERY DUBIOUS. 

BUT THE REAL TARGET OF ALL THIS PROCEDURE IS THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
WHO IS A MEMBER OF, OR SYMPATHETIC TO, ONE OR MORE ACCUSED
ORGANIZATIONS.  HE NOT ONLY MAY BE DISCHARGED, BUT DISQUALIFIED FROM
EMPLOYMENT, UPON NO OTHER GROUND THAN SUCH MEMBERSHIP OR SYMPATHETIC
AFFILIATION.  AND HE CANNOT ATTACK THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S DESIGNATION IN ANY LOYALTY PROCEEDING.  FN2    ORDINARY
DISMISSALS FROM GOVERNMENT SERVICE WHICH VIOLATE NO FIXED TENURE
CONCERN ONLY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND COURTS WILL NOT REVIEW SUCH
DISCRETIONARY ACTION.  FN3  HOWEVER, THESE ARE NOT DISCRETIONARY
DISCHARGES BUT DISCHARGES PURSUANT TO AN ORDER HAVING FORCE OF LAW. 
ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY IS PUBLICLY SET UP TO COMB THE WHOLE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE  FN4  TO DISCHARGE PERSONS OR TO DECLARE THEM
INELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT UPON AN INCONTESTABLE FINDING, MADE WITHOUT
HEARING, THAT SOME ORGANIZATION IS SUBVERSIVE.  TO BE DEPRIVED NOT ONLY
OF PRESENT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT BUT OF FUTURE OPPORTUNITY FOR IT
CERTAINLY IS NO SMALL INJURY WHEN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT SO DOMINATES
THE FIELD OF OPPORTUNITY. 

THE FACT THAT ONE MAY NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO GET OR KEEP A
GOVERNMENT POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE CAN BE ADJUDGED INELIGIBLE
ILLEGALLY.  PERKINS V. ELG.  FN5 

2.  TO PROMULGATE WITH FORCE OF LAW A CONCLUSIVE FINDING OF
DISLOYALTY, WITHOUT HEARING AT SOME STAGE BEFORE SUCH FINDING BECOMES
FINAL, IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  - ON THIS SUBJECT, I AGREE
WITH THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.  THAT THE SAFEGUARD OF A
HEARING WOULD NOT DEFEAT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A LOYALTY PROGRAM IS
APPARENTLY THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS AND OF STATE LEGISLATURES, FOR, AS
HE POINTS OUT, BOTH CONGRESSIONAL AND STATE LOYALTY LEGISLATION
RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT. 

3.  THE ORGANIZATIONS MAY VINDICATE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION OF
MEMBERS' RIGHTS.  - THERE ARE TWO STAGES AT WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS COULD PROTECT INDIVIDUALS' LEGAL RIGHTS - ONE IS BEFORE AN
ORGANIZATION IS DESIGNATED AS SUBVERSIVE, THE OTHER IS WHEN THE
INDIVIDUAL, BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP, IS ACCUSED OF DISLOYALTY.  EITHER
CHOICE MIGHT BE A PERMISSIBLE SOLUTION OF A DIFFICULT PROBLEM INHERENT
IN SUCH AN EXTENSIVE PROGRAM.  BUT AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT TODAY,
ERRONEOUSLY, I THINK REJECTS THE CLAIM THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS HEARING
RIGHTS.  FN6  I AM UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE PROCESS BY WHICH THOSE WHO
THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DESIGNATION IS NO MORE THAN A PRESS
RELEASE CAN FORECLOSE ATTACK UPON IT IN THE EMPLOYEES' CASE.  ALSO
BEYOND MY UNDERSTANDING IS HOW A COURT WHOSE COLLECTIVE OPINION IS THAT
THE DESIGNATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL INQUIRY CAN AT THE SAME TIME
SAY THAT A DISCHARGE BASED AT LEAST IN PART ON THEM IS NOT. 

BY THE PROCEDURES OF THIS LOYALTY ORDER, BOTH GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS
MAY BE LABELED DISLOYAL AND SUBVERSIVE.  THE COURT GRANTS JUDICIAL
REVIEW AND RELIEF TO THE GROUP WHILE REFUSING IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL.  SO
FAR AS I RECALL, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THIS COURT HAS HELD RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS SUBORDINATE AND INFERIOR TO THOSE OF ORGANIZED GROUPS.  I
THINK THAT IS AN INVERTED VIEW OF THE LAW - IT IS JUSTICE TURNED BOTTOM
SIDE UP. 

I HAVE BELIEVED THAT A CORPORATION CAN MAINTAIN AN ACTION TO PROTECT
RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, E.G., WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. GLANDER, 337 U.S.
562, 574.  THE ONLY PRACTICAL JUDICIAL POLICY WHEN PEOPLE POOL THEIR
CAPITAL, THEIR INTERESTS, OR THEIR ACTIVITIES UNDER A NAME AND FORM
THAT WILL IDENTIFY COLLECTIVE INTERESTS, OFTEN IS TO PERMIT THE
ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION IN A SINGLE CASE TO VINDICATE THE INTERESTS
OF ALL. 

THIS PROCEDURE IS APPROPRIATE HERE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS LUMPED
ALL THE MEMBERS' INTERESTS IN THE ORGANIZATION SO THAT CONDEMNATION OF
THE ONE WILL REACH ALL.  THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS THAT EACH
OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS IS SO IDENTICAL WITH ITS MEMBERS THAT THE
SUBVERSIVE PURPOSE AND INTENTS OF THE ONE MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO AND MADE
CONCLUSIVE UPON THE OTHER.  HAVING ADOPTED THIS PROCEDURE IN THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, I THINK THE GOVERNMENT CAN HARDLY ASK THE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT TO DENY THE STANDING OF THE ORGANIZATIONS TO
VINDICATE ITS MEMBERS' RIGHTS. 

UNLESS A HEARING IS PROVIDED IN WHICH THE ORGANIZATION CAN PRESENT
EVIDENCE AS TO ITS CHARACTER, A PRESUMPTION OF DISLOYALTY IS ENTERED
AGAINST ITS EVERY MEMBER-EMPLOYEE, AND BECAUSE OF IT, HE MAY BE BRANDED
DISLOYAL, DISCHARGED, AND RENDERED INELIGIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE. 
I WOULD REVERSE THE DECISIONS FOR LACK OF DUE PROCESS IN DENYING A
HEARING AT ANY STAGE. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. MORTON SALT CO., 338 U.S. 632, 652. 

FN2  "BOARDS  ...  SHOULD NOT ENTER UPON ANY EVIDENTIAL INVESTIGATION
OF THE NATURE OF ANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S LIST, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTACKING, CONTRADICTING, OR
MODIFYING THE CONTROLLING CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN
SUCH LIST.  ...  (THE) BOARD SHOULD PERMIT NO EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT
BEFORE IT ON THE POINT."  LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD, MEMORANDUM NO. 2, MARCH
9, 1948. 

FN3  EBERLEIN V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 82; KEIM V. UNITED STATES,
177 U.S. 290. 

THIS IS TRUE, ALTHOUGH REASONS STATED ARE ALLEGED TO BE FALSE OR THE
OFFICER TAKING THE ACTION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE ACTED IN A BIASED,
PREJUDICIAL AND UNFAIR MANNER.  GOLDING V. UNITED STATES, 78 CT. CL.
682, 685; CERT. DENIED, 292 U.S. 643. 

FN4  "A TOTAL OF 3,166 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE QUIT OR HAVE BEEN
DISCHARGED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S LOYALTY PROGRAM SINCE IT BEGAN
MARCH 21, 1947, THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD REPORTED TODAY. 

"OF THESE, 294 ACTUALLY WERE DISCHARGED FOR DISLOYALTY.  THE
REMAINDER, 2,872, QUIT WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION AND MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT
HAVE BEEN FOUND DISLOYAL."  NEW YORK TIMES, JANUARY 16, 1951. 

FN5  307 U.S. 325, 349.  THAT WAS AN ACTION TO MANDAMUS THE SECRETARY
OF STATE TO ISSUE A PASSPORT, TO WHICH IT WAS CONCEDED MISS ELG HAD NO
LEGAL RIGHT, ITS ISSUANCE BEING WHOLLY WITHIN EXECUTIVE DISCRETION
WHICH THE COURTS WOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO CONTROL.  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES
POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THAT ITS DENIAL TO MISS ELG WAS NOT GROUNDED IN
THE SECRETARY'S GENERAL DISCRETION BUT "SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT SHE
HAD LOST HER NATIVE BORN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP."  FINDING THAT GROUND
UNTENABLE, THIS COURT DIRECTED ITS DECREE AGAINST THE SECRETARY.  THE
SECRETARY MIGHT SAY SHE WOULD GET NO PASSPORT, BUT HE COULD NOT, FOR
UNJUSTIFIABLE REASONS, SAY SHE WAS INELIGIBLE FOR ONE. 

FN6  BAILEY V. RICHARDSON, 341 U.S. 918. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON
JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE THREE ORGANIZATIONS NAMED IN THE CAPTION, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN
OTHER GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS, FILED SUITS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRIMARILY TO HAVE DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, MARCH 21, 1947, 12 FED. REG.
1935, AS APPLIED AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS.  ACTING UNDER PART III,
SEC. 3 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, NOTE 3, INFRA, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, ON NOVEMBER 24, 1947, TRANSMITTED THE REQUIRED LIST OF
ORGANIZATIONS TO THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD.  THIS LIST INCLUDED THE
THREE ABOVE-NAMED ORGANIZATIONS.  THE BOARD PROMPTLY DISSEMINATED THE
INFORMATION TO ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.  IT WAS PUBLISHED AS
APPENDIX A TO TITLE 5, ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL, CFR SEC.
210.11(B)(6).  13 FED. REG. 1471.  LATER, SEPTEMBER 17, 1948, THE THREE
ORGANIZATIONS WERE DESIGNATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS "COMMUNIST." 
13 FED. REG. 6135.  THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITIONERS WAS TO HAVE THE
NAMES OF THE ORGANIZATIONS DELETED FROM THE ALLEGEDLY
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED LISTS BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS HARM TO THEIR
ACTIVITIES BY REASON OF THEIR DESIGNATION. 

THE LIST WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS A
PART OF THE PLAN OF THE PRESIDENT, BROADLY SET FORTH IN EXECUTIVE ORDER
NO. 9835, TO FURNISH MAXIMUM PROTECTION "AGAINST INFILTRATION OF
DISLOYAL PERSONS INTO THE RANKS OF (GOVERNMENT) EMPLOYEES, AND EQUAL
PROTECTION FROM UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS OF DISLOYALTY" FOR THE LOYAL
EMPLOYEES.  12 FED. REG. 1935.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835 CAME AFTER
LONG CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEMS OF POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO THE GOVERNMENT
FROM DISLOYALTY AMONG ITS EMPLOYEES.  92 CONG. REC. 9601.  SEE THE
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S TEMPORARY COMMISSION ON EMPLOYEE LOYALTY
(APPOINTED 1946), P. 23: 

"THE PRESENCE WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY DISLOYAL OR SUBVERSIVE
PERSONS, OR THE ATTEMPT BY ANY SUCH PERSONS TO OBTAIN GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYMENT, PRESENTS A PROBLEM OF SUCH IMPORTANCE THAT IT MUST BE DEALT
WITH VIGOROUSLY AND EFFECTIVELY." 

A LIST OF SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9300, 3
CFR, 1943 CUM. SUPP., 1252, WAS LIKEWISE DISSEMINATED TO GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES.  13 FED. REG. 1473.  GREAT BRITAIN (SEE NOTE 31, INFRA),
AUSTRALIA (ACT OF OCTOBER 20, 1950), NEW ZEALAND (DEYNZER V. CAMPBELL,
(1950) N.Z.L.R. 790; 37TH REP., PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, NEW ZEALAND,
1949, P. 14; 38TH REP., PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, NEW ZEALAND, 1950, P.
12), AND THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (ACT NO. 44 OF 1950) HAVE TAKEN
LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS TO CONTROL DISLOYALTY AMONG
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  SEE THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION (CANADA)
APPOINTED UNDER ORDER IN COUNCIL, P.C. 411, FEBRUARY 5, 1946.  THE
METHOD OF DEALING WITH COMMUNISM AND COMMUNISTS ADOPTED BY THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA WAS HELD BEYOND THE POWERS OF THAT
GOVERNMENT.  AUSTRALIAN COMMUNIST PARTY V. COMMONWEALTH, DECISION OF
FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 1951, 83 C.L.R. 1. 

THE PROCEDURE FOR DESIGNATING THESE PETITIONERS AS COMMUNISTS MAY BE
SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, PART III, WAS ISSUED
BY THE PRESIDENT AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE, "IN THE INTEREST OF THE INTERNAL
MANAGEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT" AND UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT OF 1883,
22 STAT. 403, AS AMENDED, AND SEC. 9A OF THE HATCH ACT, 5 U.S.C. (SUPP.
II) SEC. 118J.  THE FORMER ACTS GIVE GENERAL REGULATORY POWERS OVER THE
EMPLOYMENT AND DISCHARGE OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL; THE LATTER IS MORE
SPECIFIC.  FN1  THESE PRESENT CASES DO NOT INVOLVE THE REMOVAL OF ANY
EMPLOYEE.  THE ORDER REQUIRED INVESTIGATION OF THE LOYALTY OF
APPLICANTS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT AND SIMILAR INVESTIGATION OF
PRESENT EMPLOYEES.  TO ASSURE UNIFORMITY AND FAIRNESS THROUGHOUT THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE INVESTIGATION OF EMPLOYEES, A LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD
WAS CREATED TO REVIEW LOYALTY CASES FROM ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY,
DISSEMINATE INFORMATION PERTINENT TO EMPLOYEE LOYALTY PROGRAMS, AND
ADVISE THE HEADS THEREOF.  STANDARDS WERE PROVIDED FOR EMPLOYMENT AND
DISCHARGE.  SO FAR AS PERTINENT TO THE OBJECTIONS OF PETITIONER TO
INCLUSION ON THE LIST OF SUBVERSIVE AND COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS, THEY
APPEAR IN NOTE 3 AND IN THE NOTE BELOW.  FN2  IT WAS APPARENTLY TO
AVOID THE NECESSITY OF CONTINUOUS REEXAMINATION BY ALL GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIZATIONS
SUSPECTED OF AIMS INIMICAL TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT PROVISION WAS MADE IN
THE ORDER FOR EXAMINATION AND DESIGNATION OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.  12 FED. REG. 1938, PART III, SEC. 3.  FN3 IT WAS
UNDER THIS PLAN THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MADE HIS DESIGNATIONS. 

THE DESIGNATIONS MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE USE OF THE LOYALTY REVIEW
BOARD AND THE DEPARTMENTAL OR AGENCY LOYALTY BOARDS, THE RESULT OF THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INTO THE CHARACTER OF
ORGANIZATIONS THAT MIGHT FALL UNDER SUSPICION AS TOTALITARIAN, FASCIST,
COMMUNIST OR SUBVERSIVE.  THE LIST DOES NOT FURNISH A BASIS FOR ANY
COURT ACTION AGAINST THE ORGANIZATIONS SO DESIGNATED.  IT OF COURSE
MIGHT FOLLOW FROM DISCOVERY OF FACTS BY THE INVESTIGATION THAT CRIMINAL
OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE BEGUN TO ENFORCE AN APPLICABLE CRIMINAL
STATUTE OR TO CANCEL THE FRANCHISE OR SOME LICENSE OF A LISTED
ORGANIZATION.  IN SUCH A PROCEEDING, HOWEVER, THE ACCUSED ORGANIZATION
WOULD HAVE THE USUAL PROTECTIONS OF ANY DEFENDANT.  THE LIST IS
EVIDENCE ONLY OF THE CHARACTER OF THE LISTED ORGANIZATIONS IN
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LOYALTY BOARDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER "REASONABLE"
GROUNDS EXIST FOR BELIEF "THAT THE EMPLOYEE UNDER CONSIDERATION" IS
DISLOYAL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA.
THE NAMES WERE PLACED ON THE LIST BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AFTER
INVESTIGATION.  IF LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE, AS CARRIED OUT BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT A SINGLE INVESTIGATION AS TO THE
CHARACTER OF AN ORGANIZATION IS PREFERABLE TO ONE BY EACH OF THE MORE
THAN A HUNDRED AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT THAT ARE CATALOGUED IN THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION MANUAL.  TO REQUIRE A DETERMINATION AS
TO EACH ORGANIZATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OF EACH EMPLOYEE
INVESTIGATED FOR DISLOYALTY WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.  THE EMPLOYEE'S
ASSOCIATION WITH A LISTED ORGANIZATION DOES NOT, UNDER THE ORDER,
ESTABLISH, EVEN PRIMA FACIE, REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEF IN THE
EMPLOYEE'S DISLOYALTY.  FN4 

NONE OF THE COMPLAINTS DENY THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MADE AN
"INVESTIGATION" OF THE ORGANIZATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY
WERE TOTALITARIAN, FASCIST, COMMUNIST OR SUBVERSIVE AS REQUIRED BY PART
III, SEC. 3, OR THAT HE HAD MATERIAL INFORMATION CONCERNING DISLOYAL
ACTIVITIES ON THEIR PART.  THE COUNCIL CAME THE NEAREST TO SUCH AN
ALLEGATION IN THE QUOTED EXCERPTS FROM THEIR COMPLAINT IN NOTE 10, BUT
WE READ THEM AS NO MORE THAN ALLEGATIONS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BECAUSE
"INVESTIGATION" WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING IS NOT "APPROPRIATE." 
CERTAINLY THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATION OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FAILED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER.  WE THEREFORE ASSUME THAT
THE DESIGNATION WAS MADE AFTER APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION AND
DETERMINATION.  FN5 

NO OBJECTION IS OR COULD REASONABLY BE MADE IN THE RECORDS OR BRIEFS
TO AN EXAMINATION BY THE GOVERNMENT INTO THE LOYALTY OF ITS EMPLOYEES. 
ALTHOUGH THE FOUNDERS OF THIS REPUBLIC REBELLED AGAINST THEIR
ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND AND WON OUR FREEDOM, THE CREATION OF
OUR OWN CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT ENDOWED THAT NEW GOVERNMENT, THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WITH THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO PROTECT ITS
EXISTENCE AGAINST ANY FORCE THAT SEEKS ITS OVERTHROW OR CHANGES IN ITS
STRUCTURE BY OTHER THAN CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS.  TOLERANT AS WE ARE OF
ALL POLITICAL EFFORTS BY ARGUMENT OR PERSUASION TO CHANGE THE BASIS OF
OUR SOCIAL, ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL LIFE, THE LINE IS DRAWN SHARPLY AND
CLEARLY AT ANY ACT OR INCITEMENT TO ACT IN VIOLATION OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES.  SURELY THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT AWAIT AN
EMPLOYEE'S CONVICTION OF A CRIME INVOLVING DISLOYALTY BEFORE SEPARATING
HIM FROM PUBLIC SERVICE.  GOVERNMENTS CANNOT BE INDIFFERENT TO
MANIFESTATIONS OF SUBVERSION.  AS SOON AS THESE ARE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH
REASONABLY TO CAUSE CONCERN AS TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF ACTION, THE DUTY TO
PROTECT THE STATE COMPELS THE EXERTION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER.  NOT TO
MOVE WOULD BRAND A GOVERNMENT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAKNESS OF WILL.  THE
DETERMINATION OF THE TIME FOR ACTION RESTS WITH THE EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATIVE ARMS.  AN OBJECTION TO CONSIDERATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S
SYMPATHETIC ASSOCIATION WITH AN ADMITTED TOTALITARIAN, FASCIST,
COMMUNIST OR SUBVERSIVE GROUP, AS BEARING UPON THE PROPRIETY OF HIS
RETENTION OR EMPLOYMENT AS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE NO BETTER
STANDING.  THE ORDER GIVES CONCLUSIVE INDICATION OF THE TYPE OF
ORGANIZATION THAT IS MEANT BY THE FOUR WORD-LABELS.  FN6  FOLLOWING
THEM IN PART III, SEC. 3, 12 FED. REG. 1938, ARE THE WORDS, "OR AS
HAVING ADOPTED A POLICY OF ADVOCATING OR APPROVING THE COMMISSION OF
ACTS OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE TO DENY OTHERS THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR AS SEEKING TO ALTER THE FORM OF
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS."  BRACKETED
WITH MEMBERSHIP IN LISTED ORGANIZATIONS (EXEC. ORDER NO. 9835, PART V)
AS ACTIVITIES FOR CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING AN EMPLOYEE'S LOYALTY
ARE THOSE LISTED BELOW.  THESE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT DEFINE THE TYPE
OF ORGANIZATION SUBJECT TO DESIGNATION.  FN7  OF COURSE, THE ORDER
MEANS THAT A COMMUNIST OR SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATION IS OF THE SAME
GENERAL CHARACTER AS ONE THAT SEEKS TO ALTER OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT BY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS, 13 FED. REG. 6137, TO WIT BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE. 

PROCEDURE UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE "PROOF" IN THE
SENSE OF A COURT PROCEEDING THAT THESE COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS TEACH OR
INCITE TO FORCE AND VIOLENCE TO OBTAIN THEIR OBJECTIVES.  FN8  WHAT IS
REQUIRED BY THE ORDER IS AN EXAMINATION AND DETERMINATION BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE "COMMUNIST."  THE
DESCRIPTION "COMMUNIST" IS ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF INQUIRY AND
LISTING.  NO SUCH PRECISION OF DEFINITION IS NECESSARY AS A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION MIGHT REQUIRE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION,
272 U.S. 1, 14.  COMMUNISM IS WELL UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN A GROUP SEEKING
TO OVERTHROW BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE GOVERNMENTS SUCH AS OURS AND TO
ESTABLISH A NEW GOVERNMENT BASED ON PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND DIRECTION OF
PRODUCTIVE PROPERTY.  UNDOUBTEDLY, THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO
CONCLUDE THAT ACCEPTED HISTORY TEACHES THAT REVOLUTION BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS END IS A TENET OF COMMUNISTS.  FN9  NO MORE
IS NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY AN ORGANIZATION'S DESIGNATION AS COMMUNIST. 

AS A BASIS FOR PETITIONERS' ATTACK ON THE LIST, THE REFUGEE COMMITTEE
SET FORTH FACTS IN ITS COMPLAINT TO SHOW ITS CHARITABLE CHARACTER. 
THESE INDICATE ACTIVITIES AND EXPENDITURES IN AID OF THE SPANISH
REPUBLICANS IN FLIGHT FROM THEIR HOMELAND.  THE INTERNATIONAL WORKERS
ORDER SETS FORTH FACTS TO SHOW THAT IT WAS A DULY ORGANIZED FRATERNAL
BENEFIT SOCIETY UNDER NEW YORK LAW, FURNISHING SICKNESS AND DEATH
BENEFITS AS WELL AS LIFE INSURANCE PROTECTION TO ITS MEMBERS.  IT
STATES OTHER WORTHY OBJECTIVES IN WHICH IT IS ENGAGED AND ASSERTS IT IS
NOT AN ORGANIZATION SUCH AS ARE REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER, PART III,
SEC. 3, SUPRA.  THE COUNCIL, TOO, SETS OUT ITS PURPOSE TO PROMOTE
AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP BY MEANS OF EDUCATION AND INFORMATION.  IT
ASSERTS: 

"IN ALL ITS ACTIVITIES THE NATIONAL COUNCIL HAS SOUGHT TO FURTHER THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY LAWFUL, PEACEFUL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS." 

THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION IN THE ORDER OR RULES FOR NOTICE TO
SUSPECTED ORGANIZATIONS, FOR HEARINGS WITH PRIVILEGE TO THE
ORGANIZATIONS TO CONFRONT WITNESSES, CROSS-EXAMINE, PRODUCE EVIDENCE
AND HAVE REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL OR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE CONCLUSION
REACHED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS URGED BY THE PETITIONERS, AS A
PROCEDURE SO FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR AND RESTRICTIVE OF PERSONAL FREEDOMS
AS TO VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  NO OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR PETITIONERS TO OFFER PROOF OF THE LEGALITY OF
THEIR PURPOSES OR TO DISPROVE CHARGES OF SUBVERSIVE OPERATIONS.  THIS
IS THE REAL GRAVAMEN OF EACH COMPLAINT, THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE
DETERMINATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS SOUGHT.  FN10 

TO THESE COMPLAINTS, THE GOVERNMENT FILED MOTIONS TO DISMISS BECAUSE
OF FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED.  THE
MOTIONS WERE GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED. 

ADMISSIONS BY MOTIONS TO DISMISS.  - IT IS HELD IN MR. JUSTICE
BURTON'S OPINION THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED. 
IT IS SAID: 

"THE INCLUSION OF ANY OF THE COMPLAINING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE
DESIGNATED LIST SOLELY ON THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE RESPECTIVE
COMPLAINTS, WHICH MUST BE THE BASIS FOR OUR DECISION HERE, IS THEREFORE
AN ARBITRARY AND UNAUTHORIZED ACT.  IN THE TWO CASES WHERE THE
COMPLAINT SPECIFICALLY ALLEGES THE FACTUAL ABSENCE OF ANY BASIS FOR THE
DESIGNATION, AND THE RESPONDENTS' MOTION ADMITS THAT ALLEGATION, THE
DESIGNATION IS NECESSARILY CONTRARY TO THE RECORD."  P. 137. 

I UNDERSTAND MR. JUSTICE BURTON'S OPINION TO HOLD THAT AS A MOTION TO
STRIKE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION ADMITS ALL WELL-PLEADED
FACTS RESPONDENTS' MOTION ADMITS SUCH ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AS
THAT QUOTED IN THE THIRD PRECEDING PARAGRAPH FROM THE COUNCIL'S
COMPLAINT AND THE ASSERTIONS THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT "TOTALITARIAN,
FASCIST, COMMUNIST OR SUBVERSIVE."  SUCH STATEMENTS, HOWEVER, APPEAR TO
ME TO BE ONLY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS TO THE EFFECT OF FACTS STATED, OR
EMPTY ASSERTIONS OR CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT WELL-PLEADED FACTS TO SUSTAIN
THEM.  FN11  WHERE THE ISSUE IS THE PERMISSIBILITY OF DESIGNATION
WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING, A MOTION TO STRIKE DOES NOT ADMIT AN
ALLEGATION OF "ARBITRARY" ACTION OR THAT "ALL ITS ACTIVITIES (ARE)  ...
CONSTITUTIONAL."  THESE COMPLAINTS MAY NOT BE DECIDED UPON ANY SUCH
POSTURE IN PLEADING.  PETITIONERS' CHARGE, THAT THEIR "DESIGNATION"
VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, REMAINS THE ISSUE. 

STANDING TO SUE.  - A QUESTION IS RAISED BY THE UNITED STATES AS TO
PETITIONERS' STANDING TO MAINTAIN THESE ACTIONS.  IT SEEMS UNNECESSARY
TO ANALYZE THAT PROBLEM IN THIS DISSENT.  IF THERE SHOULD BE A
DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED BY
PETITIONERS' DESIGNATION UNDER PART III, SEC. 3, OF THE ORDER, IT WOULD
SEEM THEY WOULD HAVE STANDING TO SEEK REDRESS.  THE "STANDING" TURNS ON
THE EXISTENCE OF THE FEDERAL RIGHT.  FN12  DOES PETITIONERS'
DESIGNATION ABRIDGE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT?  DO
PETITIONERS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE A HEARING BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DESIGNATES THEM AS A SUBVERSIVE OR COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION FOR THE
PURPOSES OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835? 

FIRST AMENDMENT.  - PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THEIR INCLUDSION ON THE
DISLOYAL LIST HAS ABRIDGED THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, SINCE LISTENERS OR
READERS ARE MORE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN FOR THEIR SPEECHES AND
PUBLICATIONS, AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THEIR WORK ARE MORE HESITANT TO
BECOME ASSOCIATES.  THE REFUGEE COMMITTEE BRIEF ADDS THAT "THOUGHT" IS
ALSO ABRIDGED.  A CONCURRING OPINION ACCEPTS THESE ARGUMENTS TO THE
POINT OF CONCLUDING THAT THE PUBLICATION OF THE LISTS "WITH OR WITHOUT
A HEARING" VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

THIS COURT, THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, HAS MAINTAINED THE PROTECTION OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS A MAJOR SAFEGUARD TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A FREE
REPUBLIC.  THIS NATION HAS NEVER SUFFERED FROM AN ENFORCED CONFORMITY
OF EXPRESSION OR A LIMITATION OF CRITICISM.  BUT NEITHER ARE WE
COMPELLED TO ENDURE ESPIONAGE AND SEDITION.  WIDE AS ARE THE FREEDOMS
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THIS COURT HAS NEVER HESITATED TO DENY THE
INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO USE THE PRIVILEGES FOR THE OVERTURN OF LAW AND
ORDER.  REASONABLE RESTRAINTS FOR THE FAIR PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
AGAINST INCITEMENT TO SEDITION CANNOT PROPERLY BE SAID TO BE
"UNDEMOCRATIC" OR CONTRARY TO THE GUARANTEES OF FREE SPEECH.  OTHERWISE
THE GUARANTEE OF CIVIL RIGHTS WOULD BE A MOCKERY N13.  EVEN WHEN THIS
COURT SPOKE OUT MOST STRONGLY AGAINST PREVIOUS RESTRAINTS, IT WAS
CAREFUL TO RECOGNIZE THAT "THE SECURITY OF THE COMMUNITY LIFE MAY BE
PROTECTED AGAINST INCITEMENTS TO ACTS OF VIOLENCE AND THE OVERTHROW BY
FORCE OF ORDERLY GOVERNMENT."  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 716. 

RECOGNIZING THAT THE DESIGNATION, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, OF PETITIONER
ORGANIZATIONS AS COMMUNIST IMPAIRS THEIR ABILITY TO CARRY FORWARD
SUCCESSFULLY WHATEVER LEGITIMATE OBJECTS THEY SEEK TO ACCOMPLISH, WE DO
NOT ACCEPT THEIR ARGUMENT THAT SUCH INTERFERENCE IS AN ABRIDGMENT OF
FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES.  FN14  THEY ARE IN THE POSITION OF EVERY
PROPONENT OF UNPOPULAR VIEWS.  HERESY INDUCES STRONG EXPRESSIONS OF
OPPOSITION.  SO LONG AS PETITIONERS ARE PERMITTED TO VOICE THEIR
POLITICAL IDEAS, FREE FROM SUGGESTIONS FOR THE OPPORTUNE USE OF FORCE
TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC AIMS, IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND
HOW ANY ADVOCATE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION CAN ASSERT THAT THEIR RIGHT
HAS BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABRIDGED.  AS NOTHING IN THE ORDERS OR
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THIS LIST LIMITS THE TEACHINGS OR SUPPORT OF
THESE ORGANIZATIONS, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY RIGHT OF THEIRS UNDER
THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS ABRIDGED BY PUBLICATION OF THE LIST. 

DUE PROCESS.  - THIS POINT BRINGS US FACE TO FACE WITH THE ARGUMENT
THAT WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS RIGHT OR WRONG IN LISTING THESE
ORGANIZATIONS, HIS DESIGNATION CANNOT STAND BECAUSE A FINAL DECISION OF
INELIGIBILITY FOR EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING RISES TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT.  IF STANDARDS FOR DEFINITION OF
ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDABLE ON THE LIST ARE NECESSARY, THE ORDER FURNISHES
ADEQUATE TESTS AS APPEARS FROM THE TEXT PRECEDING NOTES 2 AND 7 ABOVE
AND THE STANDARDS SET OUT IN THOSE NOTES.  COMPARE CASES CITED, NOTE 6,
SUPRA. 

DOES DUE PROCESS REQUIRE NOTICE AND HEARING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE INVESTIGATION UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, PART III, SEC. 3,
NOTE 3, SUPRA, PRELIMINARY TO LISTING?  AS A STANDARD FOR DUE PROCESS
ONE CANNOT DO BETTER THAN TO ACCEPT AS A MEASURE THAT NO ONE MAY BE
DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT SUCH REASONABLE NOTICE AND
HEARING AS FAIRNESS REQUIRES.  THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING
OF THE OPINIONS UPON DUE PROCESS CITED IN THE CONCURRING OPINIONS.  WE
ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTFULNESS OF THE EXTENT OF
PARTICIPATION IN THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT MIGHT BE CLAIMED BY
PETITIONERS N15.  THEY WERE GIVEN NO CHANCE TO TAKE PART.  THEIR CLAIM
IS THAT THE LISTING RESULTED IN A DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY OR PROPERTY
CONTRARY TO THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  FN16 

THE CONTENTION CAN BE ANSWERED SUMMARILY BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO
DEPRIVATION OF ANY PROPERTY OR LIBERTY OF ANY LISTED ORGANIZATION BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DESIGNATION.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE LISTING
IS HURTFUL TO THEIR PRESTIGE, REPUTATION AND EARNING POWER.  IT MAY BE
SUCH AN INJURY AS WOULD ENTITLE ORGANIZATIONS TO DAMAGES IN A TORT
ACTION AGAINST PERSONS NOT PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE.  SEE SPALDING V.
VILAS, 161 U.S. 483; GLASS V. ICKES, 73 APP. D.C. 3, 117 F.2D 273. 
THIS DESIGNATION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANY BUSINESS OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS, SUBJECT THEM TO ANY PUNISHMENT OR DEPRIVE THEM OF
LIBERTY OF SPEECH OR OTHER FREEDOM.  THE CASES RELIED UPON IN THE
BRIEFS AND OPINIONS OF THE MAJORITY AS REQUIRING NOTICE AND HEARING
BEFORE VALID ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS ARE WHERE
COMPLAINANT WILL LOSE SOME PROPERTY OR ENFORCEABLE CIVIL OR STATUTORY
RIGHT BY THE ACTION TAKEN OR PROPOSED.  FN17  "(A) MERE ABSTRACT
DECLARATION" BY AN ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING THE CHARACTER OF AN
ORGANIZATION, WITHOUT THE EFFECT OF FORBIDDING OR COMPELLING CONDUCT ON
THE PART OF COMPLAINANT, OUGHT NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
INTERFERENCE.  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S.
125, 129, 143.  THAT IS, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE NOTICE AND HEARING. 

THESE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ORDERED TO DO ANYTHING AND ARE NOT PUNISHED
FOR ANYTHING.  THEIR POSITION MAY BE ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF PERSONS
UNDER GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION.  SUCH PERSONS HAVE NO RIGHT TO NOTICE
BY AND HEARING BEFORE A GRAND JURY; ONLY A RIGHT TO DEFEND THE CHARGE
AT TRIAL.  FN18  PROPERTY MAY BE TAKEN FOR GOVERNMENT USE WITHOUT
NOTICE OR HEARING BY A MERE DECLARATION OF TAKING BY THE AUTHORIZED
OFFICIAL.  NO COURT HAS DOUBTED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH SUMMARY
ACTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WHEN JUST COMPENSATION MUST BE PAID
ULTIMATELY N19.  PERSONS MAY BE BARRED FROM CERTAIN POSITIONS MERELY
BECAUSE OF THEIR ASSOCIATIONS.  FN20 

TO ALLOW PETITIONERS ENTRY INTO THE INVESTIGATION WOULD AMOUNT TO
INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXECUTIVE'S DISCRETION, CONTRARY TO THE ORDINARY
OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  LONG AGO MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY IN DECATUR
V. PAULDING, 14 PET. 497, STATED THE RULE AND THE REASON AGAINST
JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXECUTIVE DISCRETION:    "THE HEAD OF AN
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
VARIOUS AND IMPORTANT CONCERNS OF HIS OFFICE, IS CONTINUALLY REQUIRED
TO EXERCISE JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION.  ... 

"IF A SUIT SHOULD COME BEFORE THIS COURT, WHICH INVOLVED THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ANY OF THESE LAWS, THE COURT CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE
BOUND TO ADOPT THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT. 

AND IF THEY SUPPOSED HIS DECISION TO BE WRONG, THEY WOULD, OF COURSE,
SO PRONOUNCE THEIR JUDGMENT.  BUT THEIR JUDGMENT UPON THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A LAW MUST BE GIVEN IN A CASE IN WHICH THEY HAVE JURISDICTION, AND
IN WHICH IT IS THEIR DUTY TO INTERPRET THE ACT OF CONGRESS, IN ORDER TO
ASCERTAIN THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN THE CAUSE BEFORE THEM."  P.
515. 

"THE INTERFERENCE OF THE COURTS WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ORDINARY
DUTIES OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, WOULD BE
PRODUCTIVE OF NOTHING BUT MISCHIEF; AND WE ARE QUITE SATISFIED THAT
SUCH A POWER WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE GIVEN TO THEM."  P. 516. 

THAT RULE STILL STANDS.  LARSON V. DOMESTIC & FOREIGN CORP., 337 U.S.
682, 704.  FN21  THIS COURT APPLIED IT RECENTLY IN CHICAGO & SOUTHERN
AIR LINES, INC. V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 333 U.S. 103, AS TO FOREIGN
POLICY DECISIONS OF THE PRESIDENT CONCERNING OVERSEAS AIRLINE
LICENSES.  FN22  IN LOUISIANA V. MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627, THE STATE SOUGHT
TO ENJOIN AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FIXING THE CUSTOMS
RATE ON SUGAR AS "ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNJUST" AND IRREPARABLY
INJURIOUS TO THE STATE.  THE COURT REFUSED THE STATE PERMISSION TO FILE
THE SUIT AS IN REALITY A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, SAYING AN
OFFICER MAY BE COMPELLED TO ACT MINISTERIALLY. 

"BUT IF THE MATTER IN RESPECT TO WHICH THE ACTION OF THE OFFICIAL IS
SOUGHT, IS ONE IN WHICH THE EXERCISE OF EITHER JUDGMENT OR DISCRETION
IS REQUIRED, THE COURTS WILL REFUSE TO SUBSTITUTE THEIR JUDGMENT OR
DISCRETION FOR THAT OF THE OFFICIAL ENTRUSTED BY LAW WITH ITS
EXECUTION.  INTERFERENCE IN SUCH A CASE WOULD BE TO INTERFERE WITH THE
ORDINARY FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT."  P. 633. 

IT SEEMS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS TO SUGGEST THAT "LISTING" DETERMINES ANY
"GUILT" OR "PUNISHMENT" FOR THE ORGANIZATIONS OR HAS ANY FINALITY IN
DETERMINING THE LOYALTY OF MEMBERS.  THE PRESIDENT AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL POINTED THIS OUT.  FN23  IT IS WRITTEN INTO THE CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS, 5 CFR SEC. 210.11(B)(6), NOTE 4, SUPRA.  THE STANDARD FOR
DISCHARGE EMPHASIZES THE MEANING.  SEE NOTES 2 AND 7, SUPRA. 

BEFORE STATING OUR CONCLUSIONS A COMMENT SHOULD BE MADE AS TO THE
INTRODUCTION BY THE CONCURRING OPINIONS OF A DISCUSSION OF THE RIGHTS
OF A MEMBER OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS.  IT IS SUGGESTED BY ONE CONCURRENCE
THAT AS THE "GOVERNMENT PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS THAT EACH OF THESE
ASSOCIATIONS IS SO IDENTICAL WITH ITS MEMBERS THAT THE SUBVERSIVE
PURPOSE AND INTENTS OF THE ONE MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO AND MADE CONCLUSIVE
UPON THE OTHER," THE ORGANIZATION MUST BE PERMITTED TO VINDICATE THE
MEMBERS' RIGHTS OR DUE PROCESS IS NOT SATISFIED.  ANOTHER CONCURRENCE
STATES "AN EMPLOYEE MAY LOSE HIS JOB BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
SECRET AND EX PARTE ACTION."  BOTH CONCURRENCES INDICATE, IT SEEMS TO
ME, THAT AS A MEMBER OF PETITIONER ORGANIZATIONS IS DENIED DUE PROCESS
BY THE EFFECT OF LISTING THE ORGANIZATIONS, THE ORGANIZATION IS
LIKEWISE DENIED DUE PROCESS IN THE LISTING.  WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE
LOGIC OF THE CONCURRENCES, AND WAIVING INQUIRY AS TO THE STANDING OF A
CORPORATION OR UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF A
MEMBER TO EMPLOYMENT, WE THINK THE SUGGESTIONS AS TO LACK OF DUE
PROCESS ARE BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS PREMISE.  EMPLOYEES GENERALLY, UNDER
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, WHETHER OR NOT MEMBERS OF LISTED
ORGANIZATIONS, WITHOUT SPECIAL STATUTORY PROTECTION SUCH AS PERMANENT
EMPLOYEES UNDER THE COMPETITIVE AND CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE LAWS AND
REGULATIONS OR PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES UNDER THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT
OF 1944, 58 STAT. 387, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 851, 5 CFR, PARTS 9 AND 22, AND
PART 2, SEC. 2.104, ARE SUBJECT TO SUMMARY REMOVAL BY THE APPOINTING
OFFICERS.  FN24  LISTING OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE
MEMBERS' RIGHTS TO HOLD GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.  IT IS ONLY ONE PIECE OF
EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION.  FN25  THAT MERE MEMBERSHIP IN LISTED
ORGANIZATIONS DOES NOT NORMALLY BRING ABOUT FINDINGS OF DISLOYALTY IS
GRAPHICALLY SHOWN BY A REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE LOYALTY
PROGRAM.  FN26  THE PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEES SUSPECTED OF
DISLOYALTY FOLLOWS THE ROUTINE PRESCRIBED FOR THE REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEES
ON OTHER GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL.  EMPLOYEES UNDER INVESTIGATION HAVE
NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION, CROSS-EXAMINATION AND QUASI
JUDICIAL HEARING.  37 STAT. 555, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 652.  NORMAL
REMOVAL PROCEDURE FUNCTIONS FOR PERMANENT EMPLOYEES ABOUT IN THIS WAY. 
THE EMPLOYING AGENCY MAY REMOVE FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE,
INCLUDING GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF AN APPLICANT.  5 CFR, 1947
SUPP., SEC. 9.101.  FN27  REMOVAL REQUIRES NOTICE AND CHARGES.  FN28
BEFORE THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARDS SIMILAR PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED.  FN29
WHERE INITIAL CONSIDERATION INDICATES A REMOVAL OF AN INCUMBENT FOR
DISLOYALTY MAY BE WARRANTED, NOTICE IS PROVIDED FOR.  FN30  THUS, THERE
IS SCRUPULOUS CARE TAKEN TO SEE THAT AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS FALLEN UNDER
SUSPICION HAS NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS
ACTIONS.  THE EMPLOYEE HAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO DISPROVE THE
CHARACTERIZATION PLACED UPON THE LISTED ORGANIZATION BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE PRACTICAL REASONS STATED FOLLOWING NOTE 2, SUPRA.  THE
EMPLOYEE DOES HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS ASSOCIATION WITH
THAT ORGANIZATION.  THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES FOR THE EMPLOYEE NO MORE
THAN THIS FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS QUESTIONED ACTIVITIES.  SUCH
PROCEDURE IS QUITE SIMILAR TO THAT FOLLOWED IN GREAT BRITAIN IN THE
REMOVAL OR TRANSFER OF CIVIL SERVANTS FROM POSITIONS "VITAL TO THE
SECURITY OF THE STATE."  THE PRIME MINISTER ASSUMED THE AUTHORITY TO
DESIGNATE MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR "OTHER FORMS OF
CONTINUING ASSOCIATION" THEREWITH AS SUFFICIENT TO BAR EMPLOYMENT IN
SENSITIVE AREAS.  FN31 

CONCLUSION. - IN OUR JUDGMENT ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THESE
DESIGNATIONS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO PERMIT A COURT'S INTERFERENCE OR TO
DENY DUE PROCESS.  THAT CONCLUSION HOLDS GOOD ALSO WHEN WE ASSUME THE
ORGANIZATIONS MAY PRESENT THEIR MEMBERS' GRIEVANCES OVER DISCHARGE AS A
PART OF THE ORGANIZATION'S CASE.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING GRANTED AN
EMPLOYEE FACING DISCHARGE IS A STATUTORY MODIFICATION OF THE EMPLOYING
AGENT'S FORMER AUTHORITY TO DISCHARGE SUMMARILY.  SUCH ACT OF GRACE
DOES NOT CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  DUE PROCESS IS CALLED FOR IN
DETERMINATIONS AFFECTING RIGHTS. 

WHAT PETITIONERS SEEK IS A RULING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT
DESIGNATE ORGANIZATIONS AS COMMUNIST FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHERING
INVESTIGATIONS INTO EMPLOYEES' LOYALTY BY THE EMPLOYING AGENCIES
WITHOUT GIVING THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE AND MEET
THE INFORMATION ON WHICH THE LIST IS BASED.  ONE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT
POSITION.  THERE IS A NATURAL HESITATION AGAINST ANY ACTION THAT MAY
DAMAGE ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION THROUGH AN ERROR THAT NOTICE AND
HEARING MIGHT CORRECT.  SUCH ATTITUDE OF TOLERANCE IS REFLECTED IN SEC.
13 OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, 64 STAT. 987, 998.  A
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, HOWEVER,
DOES NOT MEAN THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT.  FN32 

THE EXECUTIVE HAS AUTHORITY TO GATHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
LOYALTY OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES HAVE POWER TO
INVESTIGATE MATTERS OF LEGISLATIVE INTEREST.  A PUBLIC STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE CONCLUSIONS ON INFORMATION THAT LATER MAY BE FOUND
ERRONEOUS MAY DAMAGE THOSE INVESTIGATED BUT IT IS NOT A CIVIL JUDGMENT
OR A CRIMINAL CONVICTION.  DUE PROCESS DOES NOT APPLY.  QUESTIONS OF
PROPRIETY OF POLITICAL ACTION ARE NOT FOR THE COURTS.  INFORMATION THAT
AN EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATES WITH OR BELONGS TO ORGANIZATIONS CONSIDERED
COMMUNISTIC MAY BE DEEMED BY THE EXECUTIVE A SOUND REASON FOR MAKING
INQUIRIES INTO THE DESIRABILITY OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF THAT EMPLOYEE. 
THAT IS NOT "GUILT BY ASSOCIATION."  IT IS A WARNING TO INVESTIGATE THE
CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS OPPORTUNITY FOR HARM. 

WHILE WE MUST BE ON GUARD AGAINST BEING MOVED TO CONCLUSIONS ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTION, LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE, BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MOMENT, UNDOUBTEDLY VARYING CONDITIONS CALL FOR
DIFFERENCES IN PROCEDURE.  DUE PROCESS REQUIRES APPRAISAL IN THE LIGHT
OF CONDITIONS CONFRONTING THE EXECUTIVE DURING THE CONTINUATION OF THE
CHALLENGED ACTION.  FN33  POWER LIES IN THE EXECUTIVE TO GUARD THE
NATION FROM ESPIONAGE, SUBVERSION AND SEDITION BY EXAMINING INTO THE
LOYALTY OF EMPLOYEES, AND DUE PROCESS IN SUCH INVESTIGATION DEPENDS
UPON THE PARTICULAR EXERCISE OF THAT POWER IN PARTICULAR CONDITIONS. 
FN34  IN INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE THE PURPOSES OF SUSPECTED
ORGANIZATIONS, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE FREE TO PROCEED WITHOUT NOTICE
OR HEARING.  PETITIONERS WILL HAVE PROTECTION WHEN STEPS ARE TAKEN TO
PUNISH OR ENJOIN THEIR ACTIVITIES.  WHERE NOTICE AND SUCH
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AS THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PRESCRIBES
PRECEDE PUNISHMENT, INJUNCTION OR DISCHARGE, PETITIONERS AND THEIR
MEMBERS' RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS ARE PROTECTED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  5 U.S.C. (SUPP. II) SEC. 118J: 

"(1)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON EMPLOYED IN ANY CAPACITY BY
ANY AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHOSE COMPENSATION, OR ANY PART
THEREOF, IS PAID FROM FUNDS AUTHORIZED OR APPROPRIATED BY ANY ACT OF
CONGRESS, TO HAVE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR ORGANIZATION
WHICH ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES. 

"(2)  ANY PERSON VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE POSITION OR OFFICE HELD BY HIM, AND
THEREAFTER NO PART OF THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS FOR
SUCH POSITION OR OFFICE SHALL BE USED TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF SUCH
PERSONS." 

FN2  SEE 12 FED. REG. 1938, 5 CFR SEC. 210.11(A): 

"(A)  STANDARD.  THE STANDARD FOR THE REFUSAL OF EMPLOYMENT OR THE
REMOVAL FROM EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY ON GROUNDS
RELATING TO LOYALTY SHALL BE THAT, ON ALL THE EVIDENCE, REASONABLE
GROUNDS EXIST FOR BELIEF THAT THE PERSON INVOLVED IS DISLOYAL TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE PANEL SHALL REACH ITS DECISION ON
CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPLETE FILE, ARGUMENTS, BRIEF AND TESTIMONY
PRESENTED TO IT. 

"(B)  ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATIONS.  AMONG THE ACTIVITIES AND
ASSOCIATIONS OF AN APPLICANT OR EMPLOYEE WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE DETERMINATION OF DISLOYALTY MAY BE ONE OR MORE OF
THE FOLLOWING: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(6)  MEMBERSHIP IN, AFFILIATION WITH OR SYMPATHETIC ASSOCIATION WITH
ANY FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, MOVEMENT, GROUP OR
COMBINATION OF PERSONS, DESIGNATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS
TOTALITARIAN, FASCIST, COMMUNIST, OR SUBVERSIVE, OR AS HAVING ADOPTED A
POLICY OF ADVOCATING OR APPROVING THE COMMISSION OF ACTS OF FORCE OR
VIOLENCE TO DENY OTHER PERSONS THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR AS SEEKING TO ALTER THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS." 

FN3  "3.  THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD SHALL CURRENTLY BE FURNISHED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THE NAME OF EACH FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC
ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, MOVEMENT, GROUP OR COMBINATION OF PERSONS
WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AFTER APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION AND
DETERMINATION, DESIGNATES AS TOTALITARIAN, FASCIST, COMMUNIST OR
SUBVERSIVE, OR AS HAVING ADOPTED A POLICY OF ADVOCATING OR APPROVING
THE COMMISSION OF ACTS OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE TO DENY OTHERS THEIR RIGHTS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR AS SEEKING TO ALTER THE
FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS. 

"A.  THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD SHALL DISSEMINATE SUCH INFORMATION TO
ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES." 

FN4  5 CFR SEC. 210.11(B)(6): 

"SUCH MEMBERSHIP, AFFILIATION OR SYMPATHETIC ASSOCIATION IS SIMPLY
ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE HELPFUL IN ARRIVING AT A
CONCLUSION AS TO THE ACTION WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN IN A PARTICULAR CASE. 
...  " 

SEE 5 CFR SEC. 200.1. 

FN5  13 FED. REG. 1471: 

"AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835 BY THE PRESIDENT, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMPILED ALL AVAILABLE DATA WITH RESPECT TO THE
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION TO BE DEALT WITH UNDER THAT ORDER.  THE
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CONCERNING
SUCH ORGANIZATIONS WERE CORRELATED.  MEMORANDA ON EACH SUCH
ORGANIZATION WERE PREPARED BY ATTORNEYS OF THE DEPARTMENT.  THE LIST OF
ORGANIZATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN HAS BEEN CERTIFIED TO THE BOARD BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF ATTORNEYS OF THE
DEPARTMENT AS REVIEWED BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, THE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEYS GENERAL, AND THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL, AND SUBSEQUENT
CAREFUL STUDY OF ALL BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL." 

CF. UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1, 14; LEWIS V.
UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 63, 73. 

FN6  CF. NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 377; N.Y. CENTRAL
SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 24; UNITED STATES V.
PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1. 

FN7  5 CFR SEC. 210.11(B): 

"(1)  SABOTAGE, ESPIONAGE, OR ATTEMPTS OR PREPARATIONS THEREFOR, OR
KNOWINGLY ASSOCIATING WITH SPIES OR SABOTEURS;    "(2)  TREASON OR
SEDITION OR ADVOCACY THEREOF; 

"(3)  ADVOCACY OF REVOLUTION OR FORCE OR VIOLENCE TO ALTER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; 

"(4)  INTENTIONAL, UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE TO ANY PERSON UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY INDICATE DISLOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES, OF
DOCUMENTS OR INFORMATION OF A CONFIDENTIAL OR NON-PUBLIC CHARACTER
OBTAINED BY THE PERSON MAKING THE DISCLOSURE AS A RESULT OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR PRIOR TO HIS
EMPLOYMENT; 

"(5)  PERFORMING OR ATTEMPTING TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES, OR OTHERWISE
ACTING, SO AS TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ANOTHER GOVERNMENT IN
PREFERENCE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES; ...  "  SEE ALSO N.
2, SUPRA. 

FN8  IN SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, 148, 158, A
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE OF COMMUNIST THEORY UPON THE USE OF FORCE AND
VIOLENCE PRESENTED IN THAT RECORD LED THIS COURT TO HOLD THAT THE
EVIDENCE CONCERNING COMMUNIST TEACHING UPON FORCE AND VIOLENCE WAS NOT
SO "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL AND CONVINCING" AS TO JUSTIFY DEPORTATION OF
THAT DEFENDANT.  WE REFUSED SPECIFICALLY TO PASS UPON THE ATTITUDE OF
COMMUNISM TOWARD FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  320 U.S. AT 148, 158. 

FN9  THE RUSSIAN IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT FELL QUICKLY IN FEBRUARY 1917,
BECAUSE ITS POWER HAD BEEN SAPPED BY BUREAUCRATIC RAPACITY AND WAR
LOSSES AS WELL AS BY COMMUNIST REVOLUTIONARY DOCTRINES.  EVEN UNDER
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN MORE THAN A THOUSAND
CASUALTIES IN ST. PETERSBURG.  I TROTSKY, HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN
REVOLUTION, 141. 

THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICES OF COMMUNISM CLEARLY ENOUGH TEACH THE USE
OF FORCE AGAINST AN EXISTING NONCOMMUNIST GOVERNMENT TO JUSTIFY AN
OFFICIAL OF OUR GOVERNMENT TAKING STEPS TO PROTECT GOVERNMENTAL
PERSONNEL BY SCREENING INDIVIDUALS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ACCEPT
FORCE AND VIOLENCE AS A POLITICAL WEAPON.  FROM THE LAST PARAGRAPHS OF
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO TO THE SEIZURE OF THE LAST SATELLITE, FORCE AND
VIOLENCE APPEARS AS A COMMUNIST METHOD FOR GAINING CONTROL.  LENIN,
COLLECTED WORKS (1930), VOL. XVIII, PP. 279-280; TROTSKY, OP. CIT.,
106, 120, 144, 151; LENIN, THE STATE AND REVOLUTION, AUGUST, 1917,
FOREIGN LANGUAGES PUBLISHING HOUSE, MOSCOW (1949), 28, 30, 33. 
TRANSLATIONS FURNISHED ME INDICATE THE SAME ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF
STALIN.  COLLECTED WORKS, VOL. I, PP. 131-137, 185-205, 241-246; VOL.
III, PP. 367-370.  AND SEE LEITES, THE OPERATIONAL CODE OF THE
POLITBURO (1950), C. XIII, "VIOLENCE." 

SEE SEC. 2 OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, 64 STAT. 987. 

FN10  IN THE REFUGEE COMMITTEE COMPLAINT UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
DESIGNATION WAS PREDICATED UPON REPUGNANCY: 

"1)  IT IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS A
DEPRIVATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF THE PRESS, AND OF ASSEMBLY AND
ASSOCIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

"2)  ...  AS A DEPRIVATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF
THE UNITED STATES RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE
NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS. 

"3)  ...  AS A DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT." 

IN THE COUNCIL CASE, IT WAS PREDICATED UPON A LACK OF "ANY ADVANCE
NOTICE" AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ACTING "WITHOUT MAKING 'AN
APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINATION,' AS REQUIRED" BY THE
ORDER.  IT WAS SAID: 

"THE AFORESAID ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN ARBITRARY,
CAPRICIOUS, CONTRARY TO LAW, IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY RIGHT AND
AUTHORITY.  SUCH ACTIONS HAVE VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS
GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND
ARE CONTRARY TO THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS." 

THE SAME GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPEAR IN NO. 71, INTERNATIONAL WORKERS ORDER,
INC. 

FN11  NORTZ V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 317, 324; PIERCE OIL CORP. V.
CITY OF HOPE, 248 U.S. 498; STRAUS V. FOXWORTH, 231 U.S. 162, 168. 

FN12  BELL V. HOOD, 327 U.S. 678, 681, 684; LARSON V. DOMESTIC &
FOREIGN CORP., 337 U.S. 682, 690. 

FN13  UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, 95, AND CASES
CITED; AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382, 394-399;
FEINER V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 315, 320-321. 

FN14  THE FAIRNESS OF THAT DESIGNATION IS CONSIDERED UNDER THE NEXT
POINT. 

FN15 PERHAPS THEY WOULD INSIST NOT ONLY ON NOTICE THAT AN
INVESTIGATION IS TO BE HAD BUT ON AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AND TO
HAVE COUNSEL, TO CROSS-EXAMINE, TO OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF
EVIDENCE, TO ARGUE AND TO HAVE JUDICIAL REVIEW.  CF. HIATT V. COMPAGNA,
178 F.2D 42, AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 340 U.S. 880.  AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST LISTING COULD HAVE DELAYED ADMINISTRATION UNTIL
TODAY. 

THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR A HEARING EXPLAINS THE STATEMENT IN
MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 1, 14, THAT "IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL CHARACTER THE LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF
THE CITIZEN SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE RUDIMENTARY REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR
PLAY.  THESE DEMAND 'A FAIR AND OPEN HEARING,'  - ESSENTIAL ALIKE TO
THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION AND TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE VALUE AND SOUNDNESS OF THIS
IMPORTANT GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS.  SUCH A HEARING HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS
AN 'INEXORABLE SAFEGUARD.'"  THIS HEARING WAS A RATE DETERMINATION
PROCEEDING. 

SEE THE STATEMENT IN THE FIRST MORGAN CASE, 298 U.S. 468, 480:  "THAT
DUTY IS WIDELY DIFFERENT FROM ORDINARY EXECUTIVE ACTION.  IT IS A DUTY
WHICH CARRIES WITH IT FUNDAMENTAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.  THERE MUST
BE A FULL HEARING.  THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT
PERTINENT AND NECESSARY FINDINGS OF FACT." 

NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS TO A HEARING EXIST IN AN ALIEN SEEKING
ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.  UNITED STATES EX REL. KNAUFF V.
SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537, 544; EKIU V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 651. 
TO THE EXTENT THAT NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, REQUIRES A
HEARING, IT IS ON THE ISSUE OF ALIENAGE, AND NOT OF ADMISSIBILITY. 

FN16  OF COURSE, NOTICE TO PETITIONERS THAT AN INVESTIGATION WAS TO
BE HAD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY HAD SEDITIOUS PURPOSES WOULD BE
USELESS WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.  THAT IS THE
EFFECT OF PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT. 

FN17  FOR EXAMPLE, SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO R. CO., 305 U.S. 177,
INTERPRETED A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR DETERMINATION BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION OF THE SUBJECTION OF THE RAILROAD TO THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT TO NECESSITATE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, "THE HEARING OF
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT."  WE HELD, P. 183, THAT EQUITY HAD COGNIZANCE OF
AN OBJECTION TO THE PROCEEDING, AS "ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS," P. 185,
BECAUSE FAILURE TO POST A PRESCRIBED NOTICE IS PUNISHABLE AS A CRIME. 
A "RIGHT" WAS ASSERTED. 

RELIANCE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 227
U.S. 88, IS MISPLACED.  THE STATUTE GAVE A RIGHT TO A FULL HEARING, P.
91. 

UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303, 316, PROTECTED AN EMPLOYEE
AGAINST WHAT THIS COURT HELD WAS LEGISLATIVE DECREE OF EXCLUSION FROM
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT TRIAL. 

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407, 418,
DEPENDS UPON THIS COURT'S RULING THAT THE REGULATION THERE SUBJECTED TO
ATTACK REQUIRED THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO REJECT
APPLICATIONS AND CANCEL OUTSTANDING LICENSES "ON THE GROUNDS SPECIFIED
IN THE REGULATIONS WITHOUT MORE." 

FN18  DUKE V. UNITED STATES, 90 F.2D 840; UNITED STATES V. CENTRAL
SUPPLY ASSN., 34 F.SUPP.  241. 

FN19  46 STAT. 1421, 40 U.S.C.A. SEC. 258(A), AND ANNOTATIONS; CATLIN
V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 229, 231. 

FN20  E.G., UNDERWRITERS FROM BANK EMPLOYMENT OR DIRECTION.  48 STAT.
194, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 709, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 78. 

FN21  THIS COURT HAS DECLARED THE COURTS CANNOT SUPERVISE
DEPARTMENTAL ACTION IN DISCHARGE FOR INEFFICIENT RATING, KEIM V. UNITED
STATES, 177 U.S. 290, OR ENJOIN LEASES OF PUBLIC LANDS WHERE NO
CONTRACT RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, CHAPMAN V. SHERIDAN-WYOMING CO., 338 U.S.
621, 625.  CF. WORK V. RIVES, 267 U.S. 175. 

FN22  IT SAID, P. 111:  "IT WOULD BE INTOLERABLE THAT COURTS, WITHOUT
THE RELEVANT INFORMATION, SHOULD REVIEW AND PERHAPS NULLIFY ACTIONS OF
THE EXECUTIVE TAKEN ON INFORMATION PROPERLY HELD SECRET.  NOR CAN
COURTS SIT IN CAMERA IN ORDER TO BE TAKEN INTO EXECUTIVE CONFIDENCES. 
BUT EVEN IF COURTS COULD REQUIRE FULL DISCLOSURE, THE VERY NATURE OF
EXECUTIVE DECISIONS AS TO FOREIGN POLICY IS POLITICAL, NOT JUDICIAL. 
SUCH DECISIONS ARE WHOLLY CONFIDED BY OUR CONSTITUTION TO THE POLITICAL
DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE." 

AND ADDED, PP. 112-113: 

"UNTIL THE DECISION OF THE BOARD HAS PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL, IT GRANTS
NO PRIVILEGE AND DENIES NO RIGHT.  IT CAN GIVE NOTHING AND CAN TAKE
NOTHING AWAY FROM THE APPLICANT OR A COMPETITOR.  IT MAY BE A STEP
WHICH IF ERRONEOUS WILL MATURE INTO A PREJUDICIAL RESULT, AS AN ORDER
FIXING VALUATIONS IN A RATE PROCEEDING MAY FORESHOW AND COMPEL A
PREJUDICIAL RATE ORDER.  BUT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ARE NOT REVIEWABLE
UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY IMPOSE AN OBLIGATION, DENY A RIGHT OR FIX SOME
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP AS A CONSUMMATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS." 

FN23  5 CFR, APP. A, P. 200, 13 FED. REG. 1471-1473: 

"IN CONNECTION WITH THE DESIGNATION OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS POINTED OUT, AS THE PRESIDENT HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY,
THAT IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT MANY PERSONS BELONGING TO SUCH
ORGANIZATIONS MAY BE LOYAL TO THE UNITED STATES; THAT MEMBERSHIP IN,
AFFILIATION WITH, OR SYMPATHETIC ASSOCIATION WITH, ANY ORGANIZATION
DESIGNATED IS SIMPLY ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE
HELPFUL IN ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION AS TO THE ACTION WHICH IS TO BE
TAKEN IN A PARTICULAR CASE.  'GUILT BY ASSOCIATION' HAS NEVER BEEN ONE
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE.  WE MUST BE SATISFIED
THAT REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST FOR CONCLUDING THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS
DISLOYAL.  THAT MUST BE THE GUIDE." 

FN24  KEIM V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 290; UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V.
MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, 102.  CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES BY
STATUTE SHALL HAVE NOTICE OF THE CHARGES IN WRITING AND THE PRIVILEGE
OF FILING AN ANSWER WITH AFFIDAVITS.  THE STATUTE ADDS, "NO EXAMINATION
OF WITNESSES NOR ANY TRIAL OR HEARING SHALL BE REQUIRED EXCEPT IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OR
SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY."  37 STAT. 555, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 652. 
AND CF. EXECUTIVE ORDER DATED JULY 27, 1897, AMENDING CIVIL SERVICE
RULE II, IN 18TH REPORT OF THE U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AT 282. 

FN25  5 CFR SEC. 220.2(A)(6).  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN26  "A TOTAL OF 3,166 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE QUIT OR HAVE BEEN
DISCHARGED UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S LOYALTY PROGRAM SINCE IT BEGAN
MARCH 21, 1947, THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD REPORTED TODAY. 

"OF THESE, 294 ACTUALLY WERE DISCHARGED FOR DISLOYALTY.  THE
REMAINDER, 2,872, QUIT WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION AND MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT
HAVE BEEN FOUND DISLOYAL. 

"THE LOYALTY FIGURES COVER ALL 2,000,000 OR MORE GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, PLUS THE ADDITIONAL THOUSANDS HIRED SINCE THE PROGRAM WAS
BEGUN IN THE SPRING OF 1947. 

"THE REGULAR MONTHLY LOYALTY REPORT SHOWED THAT LOYALTY BOARDS OF THE
VARIOUS FEDERAL AGENCIES HAD RECEIVED 13,842 REPORTS FROM THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OTHER INVESTIGATING AGENCIES SINCE MARCH
21, 1947.  THIS MEANT INVESTIGATORS FOUND SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE PERSONS
THAT RAISED A QUESTION ABOUT THEIR LOYALTY. 

"OF THE CASES RULED ON BY LOYALTY BOARDS, 8,371 WERE FOUND LOYAL AND
522 DISLOYAL.  OF THE 522, 294 WERE DISCHARGED, 186 WON THEIR JOBS BACK
ON APPEAL AND FORTY-TWO ARE STILL AWAITING DECISIONS."  NEW YORK TIMES,
JANUARY 16, 1951. 

SEE ALSO N. 9 OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' CONCURRENCE. 

FN27  DISQUALIFICATION GROUNDS ARE IN 5 CFR SEC. 2.104(A): 

"(A)  AN APPLICANT MAY BE DENIED EXAMINATION AND AN ELIGIBLE MAY BE
DENIED APPOINTMENT FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 

"(1)  DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT FOR DELINQUENCY OR MISCONDUCT. 

"(2)  PHYSICAL OR MENTAL UNFITNESS FOR THE POSITION FOR WHICH
APPLIED. 

"(3)  CRIMINAL, INFAMOUS, DISHONEST, IMMORAL, OR NOTORIOUSLY
DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT. 

"(4)  INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS OR DECEPTION OR FRAUD IN
EXAMINATION OR APPOINTMENT. 

"(5)  REFUSAL TO FURNISH TESTIMONY AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 5.3 OF THIS
CHAPTER. 

"(6)  HABITUAL USE OF INTOXICATING BEVERAGES TO EXCESS. 

"(7)  ON ALL THE EVIDENCE, REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST FOR BELIEF THAT
THE PERSON INVOLVED IS DISLOYAL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

"(8) ANY LEGAL OR OTHER DISQUALIFICATION WHICH MAKES THE APPLICANT
UNFIT FOR THE SERVICE." 

PARAGRAPH (7) IS NEW.  CF. 12 FED. REG. 1938. 

FN28  5 CFR SEC. 9.102(1): 

"NO EMPLOYEE, VETERAN OR NONVETERAN, SHALL BE SEPARATED, SUSPENDED,
OR DEMOTED EXCEPT FOR SUCH CAUSE AS WILL PROMOTE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
SERVICE AND FOR REASONS GIVEN IN WRITING.  THE AGENCY SHALL NOTIFY THE
EMPLOYEE IN WRITING OF THE ACTION PROPOSED TO BE TAKEN.  THIS NOTICE
SHALL SET FORTH, SPECIFICALLY AND IN DETAIL, THE CHARGES PREFERRED
AGAINST HIM.  THE EMPLOYEE SHALL BE ALLOWED A REASONABLE TIME FOR
FILING A WRITTEN ANSWER TO SUCH CHARGES AND FURNISHING AFFIDAVITS IN
SUPPORT OF HIS ANSWER.  HE SHALL NOT, HOWEVER, BE ENTITLED TO AN
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, NOR SHALL ANY TRIAL OR HEARING BE REQUIRED
EXCEPT IN THE DISCRETION OF THE AGENCY."    SEE PART 22 FOR APPEALS
UNDER VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944. 

FN29  5 CFR, PART 220. 

FN30  5 CFR SEC. 220.2(F) AND (G). 

"(G)  ...  THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED REMOVAL ACTION REQUIRED IN
PARAGRAPH (F) OF THIS SECTION SHALL STATE TO THE EMPLOYEE:    "(1)  THE
CHARGES AGAINST HIM IN FACTUAL DETAIL, SETTING FORTH WITH PARTICULARITY
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO THE CHARGES SO FAR AS SECURITY
CONSIDERATIONS WILL PERMIT, IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE EMPLOYEE TO SUBMIT
HIS ANSWER, DEFENSE OR EXPLANATION. 

"(2)  HIS RIGHT TO ANSWER THE CHARGES IN WRITING, UNDER OATH OR
AFFIRMATION, WITHIN A SPECIFIED REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, NOT LESS
THAN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT BY THE
EMPLOYEE OF THE NOTICE. 

"(3)  HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON THE CHARGES
BEFORE A LOYALTY BOARD IN THE AGENCY, UPON HIS REQUEST. 

"(4)  HIS RIGHT TO APPEAR BEFORE SUCH BOARD PERSONALLY, TO BE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS OWN CHOOSING, AND TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE IN HIS BEHALF." 

ID., SEC. 220.3(D): 

"(D)  PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.  BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
APPLICANT OR EMPLOYEE MAY INTRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE AS THE BOARD MAY DEEM
PROPER IN THE PARTICULAR CASE. 

"THE BOARD SHALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT
OR EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE BEEN HANDICAPPED IN HIS DEFENSE BY THE NON
DISCLOSURE TO HIM OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION OR BY THE LACK OF
OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE PERSONS CONSTITUTING SUCH SOURCES OF
INFORMATION." 

FN31  THE PRIME MINISTER FIRST DESCRIBED THIS PROGRAM IN A STATEMENT
IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 15, 1948, 448 H.C. DEB.  1703 FF., AND
IN FURTHER DETAIL ON MARCH 25, ID. AT 3418 FF.  THE STANDARDS FOR THE
PROGRAM ARE SET FORTH AT 451 H.C. DEB., WRITTEN ANSWERS, P. 118, IN THE
FORM OF INSTRUCTIONS TO THREE "ADVISERS ON COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS IN
THE CIVIL SERVICE," RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS DESIGNATED TO PERFORM A
FUNCTION ESSENTIALLY PARALLEL TO THAT OF THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD
HERE: 

"1.  THE GOVERNMENT HAVE STATED THAT NO ONE WHO IS BELIEVED TO BE:
 

"(I)  EITHER A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR OF A FASCIST
ORGANISATION; OR 

"(II)  ASSOCIATED WITH EITHER THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR A FASCIST
ORGANISATION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO RAISE LEGITIMATE DOUBTS ABOUT HIS
RELIABILITY; 

IS TO BE EMPLOYED IN CONNECTION WITH WORK THE NATURE OF WHICH IS
VITAL TO THE SECURITY OF THE STATE. 

"2.  YOU HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO ADVISE MINISTERS, IN ANY CASES
REFERRED TO YOU, WHETHER IN YOUR OPINION THEIR PRIMA FACIE RULING THAT
A CIVIL SERVANT COMES UNDER (I) OR (II) ABOVE IS OR IS NOT
SUBSTANTIATED.  THE DECISION ON WHAT EMPLOYMENT IS TO BE REGARDED AS
INVOLVING 'CONNECTION WITH WORK THE NATURE OF WHICH IS VITAL TO THE
SECURITY OF THE STATE' IS ONE NOT FOR YOU BUT FOR MINISTERS IN CHARGE
OF DEPARTMENTS. 

"3.  YOUR FUNCTIONS DO NOT EXTEND BEYOND ADVISING THE MINISTER WHETHER
THE PRIMA FACIE CASE HAS OR HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED.  YOU ARE NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE ACTION WHICH HE MAY DECIDE TO TAKE IN RELATION TO
THE MATTER." 

THE PRIME MINISTER STATED THAT THE CIVIL SERVANT CONCERNED WOULD BE
INFORMED AS SPECIFICALLY AS POSSIBLE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, BUT
THAT "IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE - AND EVERYONE WILL REALISE THAT IT IS -
THAT WE SHOULD GIVE IN DETAIL EXACTLY THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.  IF
WE DO THAT, WE DESTROY ANYTHING LIKE AN EFFECTIVE SECURITY SERVICE." 
ID., VOL. 448, AT 3423.  HE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPEAR PERSONALLY IN
RESPONSE TO CHARGES.  ID. AT 3425. 

WHILE THE PROGRAM IS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO EFFECT THE TRANSFER OF
UNRELIABLE CIVIL SERVANTS TO JOBS NOT VITAL TO THE SECURITY OF THE
STATE (UNLESS THEIR TECHNICAL TRAINING FITS THEM ONLY FOR SECURITY
JOBS), NEVERTHELESS IT HAS APPARENTLY BEEN EXTENDED TO COVER ALL JOBS
IN CERTAIN AGENCIES, SUCH AS THE AIR MINISTRY HEADQUARTERS.  ID., VOL.
452, AT 940-941. 

THE PRIME MINISTER DID NOT ANSWER DIRECTLY QUESTIONS AS TO THE SCOPE
OF THE ORDER IN RELATION TO "THE TELEPHONE SERVICE AND KEY TELEPHONE
EXCHANGES," ID., VOL. 448, AT 1705, OR "MEMBERS OF THE SERVICES WHO ARE
ENGAGED IN DEALING WITH SECRET PROCESSES."  ID. AT 1706. 

FN32  CF. STANDARD COMPUTING SCALE CO. V. FARRELL, 249 U.S. 571. 

FN33  HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 93, 100. 

FN34  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 426,
442. 
..END :



BOWMAN DAIRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 214 


NO. 435.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 30, 1951.  - 185 F.2D
159, JUDGMENT VACATED. 


BEFORE TRIAL ON AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, DEFENDANTS OBTAINED UNDER RULE 16 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE AN ORDER REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE FOR INSPECTION
ALL DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTS OBTAINED FROM DEFENDANTS AND OBTAINED BY
SEIZURE OR PROCESS FROM OTHERS.  THE GOVERNMENT COMPLIED WITH THAT
ORDER.  DEFENDANTS ALSO MOVED, UNDER RULE 17(C), FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING
COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION FOR
INSPECTION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND OBJECTS OBTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT
BY MEANS OTHER THAN SEIZURE OR PROCESS AND WHICH (A) HAD BEEN PRESENTED
TO THE GRAND JURY, OR (B) WERE TO BE OFFERED AS EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL,
OR "(C) ARE RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGATIONS OR CHARGES CONTAINED IN SAID
INDICTMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY MIGHT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT
TO THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS."  FOR REFUSAL TO
COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, RESPONDENT, A GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY WHO HAD
POSSESSION OF THE SUBPOENAED MATERIALS, WAS FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT. 
HELD: 

1.  UNDER RULE 17(C), ANY DOCUMENT OR OTHER MATERIAL WHICH HAS BEEN
OBTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY SOLICITATION OR VOLUNTARILY FROM THIRD
PERSONS, AND WHICH IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, IS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENA. 
PP. 218-221. 

(A)  IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT MATERIALS THUS SUBPOENAED BE ACTUALLY
USED IN EVIDENCE, BUT ONLY THAT A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT BE MADE TO OBTAIN
EVIDENCE; AND THE COURT MAY CONTROL THE USE OF RULE 17(C) TO THAT END
BY ITS POWER TO RULE ON MOTIONS TO QUASH OR MODIFY.  PP. 219-220. 

(B)  WHERE SUCH MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED, THE COURT
SHOULD BE SOLICITOUS TO PROTECT AGAINST DISCLOSURES OF THE IDENTITY OF
INFORMANTS AND THE METHOD, MANNER AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
ACQUISITION OF THE MATERIALS.  P. 221. 

2.  CLAUSE (C) OF THE SUBPOENA IS INVALID, BEING NOT INTENDED TO
PRODUCE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS BUT BEING MERELY "A FISHING EXPEDITION TO
SEE WHAT MAY TURN UP."  P. 221. 

3.  THE SUBPOENA BEING PART GOOD AND PART BAD, RESPONDENT MAY NOT BE
HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH IT.  P. 221. 

BOWMAN DAIRY CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

UPON REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT FINDING A GOVERNMENT
ATTORNEY GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  185 F.2D 159.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 919.  JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT, P. 222. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED FOR A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  FN1  BEFORE THE CASE WAS SET FOR TRIAL, EACH PETITIONER FILED A
MOTION UNDER RULE 16 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE  FN2
FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE UNITED STATES TO PRODUCE FOR INSPECTION ALL
BOOKS, PAPERS, DOCUMENTS, OR OBJECTS OBTAINED FROM PETITIONERS AND
OBTAINED BY SEIZURE OR PROCESS FROM OTHERS.  AN AGREED ORDER WAS
ENTERED BY THE COURT AND THE GOVERNMENT FULLY COMPLIED THEREWITH.  THE
VALIDITY OF THIS ORDER IS NOT IN QUESTION. 

PETITIONERS ALSO MOVED UNDER RULE 17(C) FN3  FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING
THE GOVERNMENT AT A TIME AND PLACE TO BE SPECIFIED THEREIN TO PRODUCE
FOR INSPECTION CERTAIN OTHER BOOKS, PAPERS, DOCUMENTS AND OBJECTS
OBTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY MEANS OTHER THAN SEIZURE OR PROCESS. 
PETITIONERS FILED AND SERVED ON THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS A SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM, THE PERTINENT PART OF WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ALL DOCUMENTS, BOOKS, PAPERS AND OBJECTS (EXCEPT MEMORANDA PREPARED
BY GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, AND DOCUMENTS OR PAPERS SOLICITED BY OR
VOLUNTEERED TO GOVERNMENT COUNSEL WHICH CONSIST OF NARRATIVE STATEMENTS
OF PERSONS OR MEMORANDA OF INTERVIEWS), OBTAINED BY GOVERNMENT COUNSEL,
IN ANY MANNER OTHER THAN BY SEIZURE OR PROCESS, (A) IN THE COURSE OF
THE INVESTIGATION BY GRAND JURY NO. 8949 WHICH RESULTED IN THE RETURN
OF THE INDICTMENT HEREIN, AND (B) IN THE COURSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
PREPARATION FOR THE TRIAL OF THIS CAUSE, IF SUCH BOOKS, PAPERS,
DOCUMENTS AND OBJECTS, (A) HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY; OR
(B) ARE TO BE OFFERED AS EVIDENCE ON THE TRIAL OF THE DEFENDANTS, OR
ANY OF THEM, UNDER SAID INDICTMENT; OR (C) ARE RELEVANT TO THE
ALLEGATIONS OR CHARGES CONTAINED IN SAID INDICTMENT, WHETHER OR NOT
THEY MIGHT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE
OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS  ...  " 

A HEARING WAS HELD AND THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER DIRECTING THE
GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE FOR PETITIONERS' INSPECTION THE MATERIALS
DESIGNATED IN THE SUBPOENA. 

THEREAFTER THE GOVERNMENT MOVED TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA AND TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER, CONTENDING THAT THE ACCESS OF A DEFENDANT IN A
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING TO MATERIALS IN CUSTODY OF GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS IS
LIMITED TO RIGHTS GRANTED BY RULE 16 AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
ERRED IN ORDERING PRODUCTION OF THE SUBPOENAED MATERIALS.  THIS MOTION
WAS DENIED.  RESPONDENT HOTCHKISS, ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS TO
WHOM THE SUBPOENA WAS ADDRESSED, HAD POSSESSION OF THE MATERIALS CALLED
FOR, BUT REFUSED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THEM.  AFTER A HEARING, THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD HIM IN CONTEMPT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 185 F.2D
159.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCOPE OF
RULE 17(C) IN FEDERAL PRACTICE.  340 U.S. 919. 

DURING THE HEARING ON PETITIONERS' MOTIONS FOR AN ORDER UNDER RULE
17(C), RESPONDENT HOTCHKISS, ACTING FOR THE GOVERNMENT, HAD OFFERED TO
PRODUCE, AND TO ENTER INTO A STIPULATION THEREFOR, ALL DOCUMENTS OF
EVIDENTIARY CHARACTER, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED OTHER
THAN BY SEIZURE OR PROCESS, I.E., DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN THE WORK PRODUCT
OF THE GOVERNMENT, SOLICITED AND VOLUNTEERED NARRATIVE STATEMENTS, AND
MEMORANDA OF INTERVIEWS.  HOWEVER, THIS OFFER DID NOT INCLUDE DOCUMENTS
FURNISHED THE GOVERNMENT BY VOLUNTARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS. 

THE SUBPOENA WAS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ANY DOCUMENTS AND OTHER
MATERIALS THAT HAD BEEN FURNISHED THE GOVERNMENT BY VOLUNTARY
INFORMANTS AND WHICH DID NOT "CONSIST OF NARRATIVE STATEMENTS OF
PERSONS OR MEMORANDA OF INTERVIEWS."  THE GOVERNMENT'S CHIEF OBJECTION
TO THE SUBPOENA, AS STATED TO THE COURT BY RESPONDENT HOTCHKISS, WAS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"MR. HOTCHKISS:  THERE IS ONLY ONE OBJECTION - BASIC OBJECTION WHICH
I WOULD MAKE TO THE FORM WHICH IS PROPOSED:  THIS LANGUAGE IN THIS
SUBPOENA OR PROPOSED SUBPOENA, AS I CONSTRUE IT DOES NOT PROTECT THOSE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS WHO HAVE PROVIDED THE GOVERNMENT WITH
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL WHICH THE GOVERNMENT FEELS ON THE BASIS OF VERY
WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES FOLLOWED BY THE COURTS ARE NORMALLY
PROTECTED FROM THE VIEW OF LITIGANTS." 

IT APPEARS FROM RESPONDENT'S COLLOQUY WITH THE COURT THAT THE
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL WHICH HE WOULD EXCEPT FROM THE SUBPOENA CONSISTED
OF "DOCUMENTS FURNISHED THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT PROCESS OR SEIZURE BY
VOLUNTARY INFORMANTS." 

IT WAS INTENDED BY THE RULES TO GIVE SOME MEASURE OF DISCOVERY.  RULE
16 WAS ADOPTED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IT GAVE DISCOVERY AS TO DOCUMENTS AND
OTHER MATERIALS OTHERWISE BEYOND THE REACH OF THE DEFENDANT WHICH, AS
IN THE INSTANT CASE, MIGHT BE NUMEROUS AND DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY.  THE
RULE WAS TO APPLY NOT ONLY TO DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS BELONGING
TO THE DEFENDANT, BUT ALSO TO THOSE BELONGING TO OTHERS WHICH HAD BEEN
OBTAINED BY SEIZURE OR PROCESS.  THIS WAS A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT HAD
THERETOFORE BEEN ALLOWED IN CRIMINAL CASES.  FN4 

RULE 16 DEALS WITH DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS THAT ARE IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE GOVERNMENT AND PROVIDES HOW THEY MAY BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT FOR HIS INFORMATION.  IN THE INTEREST OF
ORDERLY PROCEDURE IN THE HANDLING OF BOOKS, PAPERS, DOCUMENTS AND
OBJECTS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCUMULATED IN THE COURSE OF
AN INVESTIGATION AND SUBPOENAED FOR USE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AND ON
THE TRIAL, IT WAS PROVIDED BY RULE 16 THAT THE COURT COULD ORDER SUCH
MATERIALS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OR
PHOTOGRAPHING.  IN THAT WAY, THE CONTROL AND POSSESSION OF THE
GOVERNMENT IS NOT DISTURBED.  RULE 16 PROVIDES THE ONLY WAY THE
DEFENDANT CAN REACH SUCH MATERIALS SO AS TO INFORM HIMSELF. 

BUT IF SUCH MATERIALS OR ANY PART OF THEM ARE NOT PUT IN EVIDENCE BY
THE GOVERNMENT, THE DEFENDANT MAY SUBPOENA THEM UNDER RULE 17(C) AND
USE THEM HIMSELF.  IT WOULD BE STRANGE INDEED IF THE DEFENDANT
DISCOVERED SOME EVIDENCE BY THE USE OF RULE 16 WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS
NOT GOING TO INTRODUCE AND YET COULD NOT REQUIRE ITS PRODUCTION BY RULE
17(C).  THERE MAY BE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS IN THE POSSESSION OF
THE GOVERNMENT NOT SUBJECT TO RULE 16.  NO GOOD REASON APPEARS TO US
WHY THEY MAY NOT BE REACHED BY SUBPOENA UNDER RULE 17(C) AS LONG AS
THEY ARE EVIDENTIARY.  THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE MATERIALS THUS
SUBPOENAED MUST ACTUALLY BE USED IN EVIDENCE.  IT IS ONLY REQUIRED THAT
A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT BE MADE TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE.  THE COURT MAY CONTROL
THE USE OF RULE 17(C) TO THAT END BY ITS POWER TO RULE ON MOTIONS TO
QUASH OR MODIFY.  FN5 

IT WAS NOT INTENDED BY RULE 16 TO GIVE A LIMITED RIGHT OF DISCOVERY,
AND THEN BY RULE 17 TO GIVE A RIGHT OF DISCOVERY IN THE BROADEST
TERMS.  RULE 17 PROVIDED FOR THE USUAL SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM AND
DUCES TECUM, WHICH MAY BE ISSUED BY THE CLERK, WITH THE PROVISION THAT
THE COURT MAY DIRECT THE MATERIALS DESIGNATED IN THE SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM TO BE PRODUCED AT A SPECIFIED TIME AND PLACE FOR INSPECTION BY
THE DEFENDANT.  RULE 17(C) WAS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
MEANS OF DISCOVERY.  ITS CHIEF INNOVATION WAS TO EXPEDITE THE TRIAL BY
PROVIDING A TIME AND PLACE BEFORE TRIAL FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE
SUBPOENAED MATERIALS.  UNITED STATES V. MARYLAND & VIRGINIA MILK
PRODUCERS ASSN., 9 F.R.D. 509.  HOWEVER, THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE RULE
ARE NOT TO BE IGNORED.  THEY MUST BE GIVEN THEIR ORDINARY MEANING TO
CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A MORE LIBERAL POLICY FOR THE
PRODUCTION, INSPECTION AND USE OF MATERIALS AT THE TRIAL.  THERE WAS NO
INTENTION TO EXCLUDE FROM THE REACH OF PROCESS OF THE DEFENDANT ANY
MATERIAL THAT HAD BEEN USED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY OR COULD BE USED AT
THE TRIAL.  IN SHORT, ANY DOCUMENT OR OTHER MATERIALS, ADMISSIBLE AS
EVIDENCE, OBTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY SOLICITATION OR VOLUNTARILY
FROM THIRD PERSONS IS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENA.  IT WAS MATERIAL OF THIS
CHARACTER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS UNWILLING TO STIPULATE TO PRODUCE OR
TO PRODUCE IN OBEDIENCE TO THE SUBPOENA.  SUCH MATERIALS WERE SUBJECT
TO THE SUBPOENA.  WHERE THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT SUCH MATERIALS OUGHT
TO BE PRODUCED, IT SHOULD, OF COURSE, BE SOLICITOUS TO PROTECT AGAINST
DISCLOSURES OF THE IDENTITY OF INFORMANTS, AND THE METHOD, MANNER AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ACQUISITION OF THE MATERIALS. 

CLAUSE (C), WHICH IS THE LAST CLAUSE IN THE SUBPOENA, READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"ARE RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGATIONS OR CHARGES CONTAINED IN SAID
INDICTMENT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY MIGHT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT
TO THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS  ...  " 

THIS IS A CATCH-ALL PROVISION, NOT INTENDED TO PRODUCE EVIDENTIARY
MATERIALS BUT IS MERELY A FISHING EXPEDITION TO SEE WHAT MAY TURN UP.
THE CLAUSE IS THEREFORE INVALID. 

THE SUBPOENA CALLS FOR MATERIALS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO
PRODUCE AND FOR MATERIALS IT IS NOT BOUND TO PRODUCE.  THE DISTRICT
COURT SAID:  "GIVE US ALL."  THE GOVERNMENT REPLIED:  "WE WILL GIVE YOU
NOTHING."  BOTH WERE WRONG.  THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PRODUCE THE
EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS CALLED FOR BY THE SUBPOENA.  IT NEED NOT PRODUCE
ANYTHING UNDER CLAUSE (C). 

ONE SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT UNDER A SUBPOENA THAT IS PART GOOD
AND PART BAD.  THE BURDEN IS ON THE COURT TO SEE THAT THE SUBPOENA IS
GOOD IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IT IS NOT UPON THE PERSON WHO FACES PUNISHMENT
TO CULL THE GOOD FROM THE BAD. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN2  "RULE 16.  DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION. 

"UPON MOTION OF A DEFENDANT AT ANY TIME AFTER THE FILING OF THE
INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION, THE COURT MAY ORDER THE ATTORNEY FOR THE
GOVERNMENT TO PERMIT THE DEFENDANT TO INSPECT AND COPY OR PHOTOGRAPH
DESIGNATED BOOKS, PAPERS, DOCUMENTS OR TANGIBLE OBJECTS, OBTAINED FROM
OR BELONGING TO THE DEFENDANT OR OBTAINED FROM OTHERS BY SEIZURE OR BY
PROCESS, UPON A SHOWING THAT THE ITEMS SOUGHT MAY BE MATERIAL TO THE
PREPARATION OF HIS DEFENSE AND THAT THE REQUEST IS REASONABLE.  THE
ORDER SHALL SPECIFY THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF MAKING THE INSPECTION
AND OF TAKING THE COPIES OR PHOTOGRAPHS AND MAY PRESCRIBE SUCH TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AS ARE JUST." 

FN3  "RULE 17.  SUBPOENA. 

"(A)  FOR ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES; FORM; ISSUANCE.  A SUBPOENA SHALL
BE ISSUED BY THE CLERK ...  AND SHALL COMMAND EACH PERSON TO WHOM IT IS
DIRECTED TO ATTEND AND GIVE TESTIMONY AT THE TIME AND PLACE SPECIFIED
THEREIN.  THE CLERK SHALL ISSUE A SUBPOENA, SIGNED AND SEALED BUT
OTHERWISE IN BLANK TO A PARTY REQUESTING IT, WHO SHALL FILL IN THE
BLANKS BEFORE IT IS SERVED. 

     .         .         .         .    . 

"(C)  FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND OF OBJECTS.  A
SUBPOENA MAY ALSO COMMAND THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE
THE BOOKS, PAPERS, DOCUMENTS OR OTHER OBJECTS DESIGNATED THEREIN.  THE
COURT ON MOTION MADE PROMPTLY MAY QUASH OR MODIFY THE SUBPOENA IF
COMPLIANCE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE OR OPPORESSIVE.  THE COURT MAY DIRECT
THAT BOOKS, PAPERS, DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTS DESIGNATED IN THE SUBPOENA BE
PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT AT A TIME PRIOR TO THE TRIAL OR PRIOR TO THE
TIME WHEN THEY ARE TO BE OFFERED IN EVIDENCE AND MAY UPON THEIR
PRODUCTION PERMIT THE BOOKS, PAPERS, DOCUMENTS OR OBJECTS OR PORTIONS
THEREOF TO BE INSPECTED BY THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS." 

FN4  SEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S NOTE TO RULE 16, 18 U.S.C., P. 1969. 

FN5  "WE ALSO FIND IN THE SAME RULE, UNDER (C), A PROVISION FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR OBJECTS - THE FAMILIAR SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM - AND IF THE PERSON UPON WHOM THE SUBPOENA IS SERVED THINKS
IT IS BROAD OR UNREASONABLE OR OPPRESSIVE HE MAY APPLY TO THE COURT TO
QUASH THE SUBPOENA.  FURTHERMORE, WHILE NORMALLY UNDER A SUBPOENA THE
BOOKS AND OTHER THINGS CALLED FOR WOULD MERELY BE BROUGHT INTO COURT AT
THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, LET US SAY IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEY ARE TO BE
OFFERED IN EVIDENCE, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THIS RULE THAT THE COURT
MAY, IN THE PROPER CASE, DIRECT THAT THEY BE BROUGHT INTO COURT IN
ADVANCE OF THE TIME THAT THEY ARE OFFERED IN EVIDENCE, SO THAT THEY MAY
THEN BE INSPECTED IN ADVANCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COURSE OF ENABLING THE
PARTY TO SEE WHETHER HE CAN USE IT OR WHETHER HE WANTS TO USE IT." 
STATEMENT OF MR. G. AARON YOUNGQUIST, MEMBER OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTE ON
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS, VOL. VI, 1946), PP. 167-168. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK WOULD AFFIRM THE DISTRICT COURT.    MR. JUSTICE
CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 341 U.S. 58 


NO. 134.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1951.  - 93
F.SUPP.  922, REVERSED. 


IN A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF WHAT IS NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 242,
ARISING OUT OF THE ALLEGED BEATING OF PERSONS TO COERCE CONFESSIONS,
AND FOR CONSPIRACY AGAINST FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF WHAT IS NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 241, APPELLEE WILLIAMS
WAS CONVICTED AND THE OTHER THREE APPELLEES WERE ACQUITTED OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, AND THE JURY WAS UNABLE TO AGREE ON A VERDICT ON
THE CONSPIRACY COUNTS.  APPELLEES WERE REINDICTED FOR THE CONSPIRACY
AND WERE CONVICTED; BUT, ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND
ORDERED THE INDICTMENT QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 241 DOES NOT
EMBRACE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  AN INDICTMENT OF APPELLEES UNDER
18 U.S.C. SEC. 1621 FOR PERJURY IN THE FIRST TRIAL, CHARGING WILLIAMS
WITH FALSELY TESTIFYING THAT HE HAD NOT BEATEN THE VICTIMS, AND
CHARGING THE OTHER APPELLEES WITH FALSELY TESTIFYING THAT THEY HAD NOT
SEEN WILLIAMS BEATING THE VICTIMS, WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  HELD: 

1.  THE CONVICTION OF WILLIAMS ON THE CHARGE OF BEATING THE VICTIMS
DID NOT BAR, AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY, HIS PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY IN
TESTIFYING FALSELY THAT HE HAD NOT BEATEN THEM.  P. 62. 

2.  THAT THE OTHER APPELLEES HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE OF AIDING AND ABETTING WILLIAMS IN ABUSING THE VICTIMS DID NOT
BAR, ON THE GROUND OF RES JUDICATA, THEIR SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION FOR
PERJURY IN TESTIFYING THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN WILLIAMS BEATING THEM. 
SEALFON V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 575, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 63-65. 

3.  TESTIFYING FALSELY IN THE FIRST TRIAL ON THE CONSPIRACY CHARGES
CONSTITUTED PERJURY UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1621, EVEN THOUGH ON APPEAL IT
WAS DETERMINED THAT THE LATER INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY WAS DEFECTIVE. 
PP. 65-69. 

(A)  IN THE TRIAL OF THE FIRST CONSPIRACY CHARGES THE DISTRICT COURT
HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER (AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A
FEDERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE) AND OF THE PARTIES, AND THEREFORE WAS A
"COMPETENT TRIBUNAL" WITHIN THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PERJURY STATUTE. 
PP. 65-66. 

(B)  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT ULTIMATELY IT IS DETERMINED ON APPEAL THAT
THE INDICTMENT IS DEFECTIVE DOES NOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE
TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE THE CASE PRESENTED BY THE INDICTMENT.  P. 66. 

(C)  WHERE THE COURT IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE ALLEGED PERJURY
OCCURRED HAD JURISDICTION TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS IN THOSE
PROCEEDINGS, DEFECTS DEVELOPED DEHORS THE RECORD OR IN THE PROCEDURE,
SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE ANY JUDGMENT ON REVIEW, DO NOT BAR A
CONVICTION FOR PERJURY.  PP. 67-69. 

UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN INDICTMENT OF APPELLEES FOR PERJURY
UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1621.  93 F.SUPP.  922.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS
COURT UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731, REVERSED, P. 69. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES APPEALS FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA DISMISSING AN INDICTMENT
AGAINST THE APPELLEES HERE.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731.  THAT INDICTMENT, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 1621, CHARGED EACH APPELLEE WITH THE CRIME OF PERJURY WHILE
TESTIFYING IN A PRIOR CRIMINAL TRIAL.  THE FORMER TRIAL WAS ON CHARGES
OF USING "THIRD DEGREE" METHODS TO FORCE CONFESSIONS FROM PRISONERS. 

IN THAT PRIOR TRIAL, SIX DEFENDANTS - THE FOUR APPELLEES AND TWO
OTHERS NOT HERE INVOLVED - WERE PROSECUTED UNDER AN INDICTMENT, FOUR
COUNTS OF WHICH CHARGED THEM, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  51, NOW 18
U.S.C. SEC. 241, WITH CONSPIRING "TO INJURE, OPPRESS, THREATEN, AND
INTIMIDATE STATES) IN THE FREE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES SECURED  ...  AND PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
...  "  FN1 

THE OTHER FOUR COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 
52, NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 242, CHARGED THAT WILLIAMS, BOMBACI, FORD, AND
ANOTHER NOT HERE INVOLVED, AS POLICE OFFICERS ACTING UNDER STATE LAWS,
COMMITTED SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES BY SUBJECTING FOUR PERSONS TO DEPRIVATION
OF CERTAIN "OF THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED  ...  AND
PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,"  FN2  AND THAT YUHAS AND
ANOTHER WILFULLY AIDED AND ABETTED IN THE COMMISSION OF THESE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES. 

IN THE PRIOR TRIAL, DURING WHICH THIS INDICTMENT CHARGES PERJURY WAS
COMMITTED, WILLIAMS WAS FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSES.  HIS CONVICTION IS AFFIRMED TODAY.  SEE NO. 365, WILLIAMS V.
UNITED STATES, POST, P. 97.  THE JURY FOUND BOMBACI AND FORD NOT GUILTY
OF THESE OFFENSES AND YUHAS NOT GUILTY OF AIDING AND ABETTING IN THE
COMMISSION OF THESE OFFENSES.  HOWEVER, THE JURY WAS UNABLE TO AGREE ON
A VERDICT AS TO THE FOUR COUNTS WHICH CHARGED CONSPIRACY.  LATER A NEW
INDICTMENT WAS PRESENTED WHICH FRAMED ONCE AGAIN THE CONSPIRACY
CHARGES, AND THIS TIME THE APPELLEES IN THIS CASE WERE FOUND GUILTY. 
THE PERJURY CHARGES NOW BEFORE US ARE NOT BASED ON THE PROCEEDINGS IN
THE SECOND CONSPIRACY TRIAL.  ON APPEAL FROM THE CONVICTION IN THE
SECOND TRIAL, AND BEFORE THE TRIAL FOR PERJURY, THE COURT OF APPEALS
QUASHED THE CONSPIRACY INDICTMENT AND REVERSED.  SO FAR AS HERE
IMPORTANT, THE BASIS FOR THE REVERSAL WAS THAT SEC. 241 DID NOT APPLY
TO THE GENERAL RIGHTS EXTENDED TO ALL PERSONS BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  179 F.2D 644, 648.  THIS COURT, TODAY, AFFIRMS THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  NO. 26, UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, DECIDED TODAY, POST, P.
70. 

IN DISMISSING THE INDICTMENT IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE US, THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD, 93 F.SUPP.  922, THAT SINCE WILLIAMS HAD BEEN CONVICTED IN
THE FIRST TRIAL OF THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS BASED UPON HIS BEATING
CERTAIN VICTIMS, TO CONVICT WILLIAMS OF PERJURY FOR TESTIFYING THAT HE
HAD NOT BEATEN THE VICTIMS - WHICH IS THE GIST OF THE PERJURY
INDICTMENT AGAINST WILLIAMS - WOULD CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FURTHER REASONED THAT THE JURY'S FINDING THAT
YUHAS, FORD AND BOMBACI HAD NOT BEEN GUILTY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES
IN THE FIRST TRIAL, WAS A DETERMINATION OF THEIR INNOCENCE "WHETHER AS
PRINCIPALS OR ACCESSORIES," AND THEREFORE NONE OF THE THREE COULD BE
FOUND GUILTY OF THE CHARGE MADE BY THE PERJURY INDICTMENT: TESTIFYING
FALSELY THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN OR OBSERVED WILLIAMS BEATING THE
VICTIMS. 

FINALLY, THE DISTRICT COURT REASONED THAT SINCE THE LATER INDICTMENT
WHICH REPEATED THE CONSPIRACY CHARGES HAD BEEN QUASHED ON APPEAL, THERE
WAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY THE DEFENDANTS ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNTS IN
THE FIRST CRIMINAL TRIAL, AND THEREFORE THE PERJURY COUNTS BASED ON THE
CONSPIRACY COUNTS IN THE PRIOR CASE WERE BAD. 

THE UNITED STATES IN ITS APPEAL URGES THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED
IN ALL THREE GROUNDS FOR QUASHING THE PERJURY INDICTMENT.  THE FEDERAL
PERJURY STATUTE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1621, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHOEVER, HAVING TAKEN AN OATH BEFORE A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL, OFFICER,
OR PERSON, IN ANY CASE IN WHICH A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZES
AN OATH TO BE ADMINISTERED, THAT HE WILL TESTIFY, DECLARE, DEPOSE, OR
CERTIFY TRULY, OR THAT ANY WRITTEN TESTIMONY, DECLARATION, DEPOSITION,
OR CERTIFICATE BY HIM SUBSCRIBED, IS TRUE, WILLFULLY AND CONTRARY TO
SUCH OATH STATES OR SUBSCRIBES ANY MATERIAL MATTER WHICH HE DOES NOT
BELIEVE TO BE TRUE, IS GUILTY OF PERJURY, AND SHALL, EXCEPT AS
OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY LAW, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $2,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH." 

ITS TERMS COVER PARTIES AS WELL AS OTHER WITNESSES.  IF ANY INCIDENT
OR JUDGMENT OF A FORMER TRIAL BARS A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY UNDER SEC.
1621, THAT EFFECT MUST BE IMPORTED INTO THE PERJURY TRIAL BY A LEGAL
RULE DISTINCT FROM THE STATUTE. 

I. FORMER JEOPARDY.  - THE CONVICTION OF WILLIAMS, AT A FORMER TRIAL,
FOR BEATING CERTAIN VICTIMS IS NOT FORMER OR DOUBLE JEOPARDY. 
OBVIOUSLY PERJURY AT A FORMER TRIAL IS NOT THE SAME OFFENSE AS THE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE, UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 242, OF DEPRIVING A PERSON OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.  "IT IS ONLY AN IDENTITY OF
OFFENSES WHICH IS FATAL."  PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640,
644, AND CASES CITED.  THE TRIAL COURT DOES NOT CITE ANY AUTHORITY FOR
A CONTRARY POSITION, AND APPELLEES CONCEDE THAT THE GROUND FOR
DISMISSAL CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  IT WOULD BE NO SERVICE TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TO ENLARGE THE CONCEPTION OF FORMER JEOPARDY
TO AFFORD A DEFENDANT IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY WHILE
GIVING TESTIMONY IN HIS OWN DEFENSE.  APPELLEES' BRIEF TREATS WILLIAMS'
CONVICTION AS GROUNDS FOR ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. 

II.  RES JUDICATA.  - THOUGH FORMER JEOPARDY BY TRIAL FOR THE
SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES IS NOT AVAILABLE AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THIS PERJURY
INDICTMENT, IT COULD BE THAT ACQUITTAL ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CHARGES WOULD
OPERATE "TO CONCLUDE THOSE MATTERS IN ISSUE WHICH THE VERDICT
DETERMINED THOUGH THE OFFENSES BE DIFFERENT."  SEALFON V. UNITED
STATES, 332 U.S. 575, 578. 

PETITIONER IN THE SEALFON CASE WAS ACQUITTED OF A CONSPIRACY CHARGE
OF DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OF
CONSERVING AND RATIONING SUGAR.  ONE ITEM OF EVIDENCE WAS A LETTER TO
AN ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR SAID TO FURNISH A BASIS FOR GETTING SUGAR
ILLEGALLY.  ON ANOTHER INDICTMENT FOR UTTERING FALSE INVOICES FOR THE
SAME SUGAR INVOLVED IN THE CONSPIRACY, SEALFON MOVED TO QUASH ON THE
GROUND OF RES JUDICATA.  THE MOTION WAS DENIED AND SEALFON WAS
CONVICTED.  THE TEST OF THE SOUNDNESS OF THE MOTION WAS WHETHER THE
"VERDICT IN THE CONSPIRACY TRIAL WAS A DETERMINATION FAVORABLE TO
PETITIONER OF THE FACTS ESSENTIAL TO CONVICTION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE."  P. 578.  WE THOUGHT THE ACQUITTAL OF CONSPIRACY DETERMINED
THAT SEALFON DID NOT CONSPIRE WITH GREENBERG, THE ONLY ALLEGED CO
CONSPIRATOR.  ADMITTEDLY SEALFON WROTE A CERTAIN LETTER.  "AS WE READ
THE RECORDS OF THE TWO TRIALS, PETITIONER COULD BE CONVICTED OF EITHER
OFFENSE ONLY ON PROOF THAT HE WROTE THE LETTER PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT
WITH GREENBERG."  P. 580.  THE CORE OF THE TWO CASES WAS THE SAME.  AS
THE FIRST TRIAL CLEARED HIM OF SENDING THE LETTER PURSUANT TO A CORRUPT
AGREEMENT, THAT FACT WAS RES JUDICATA.  A LIKE BASIS FOR RES JUDICATA
DOES NOT EXIST HERE. 

FORD AND BOMBACI WERE ACQUITTED IN THE FORMER TRIAL ON ALL COUNTS
CHARGING SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES.  YUHAS WAS CHARGED AND ACQUITTED OF AIDING
AND ABETTING.  WE SHALL ASSUME WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT FORD AND
BOMBACI WERE ACQUITTED ALSO OF THAT CHARGE.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 2(A).  IN
ESSENCE THE FIRST PROSECUTION WAS FOR ARREST AND ABUSE THROUGH BEATINGS
BY POLICE OFFICERS WILLIAMS, FORD AND BOMBACI, ACTING UNDER THE LAWS OF
FLORIDA, WITH YUHAS AIDING AND ABETTING.  THE PERJURY CHARGED IN THIS
PRESENT INDICTMENT, ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED AT THAT FORMER TRIAL IN WHICH
ALL EXCEPT WILLIAMS WERE ACQUITTED OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, IS THAT
THE THREE ACQUITTED MEN TESTIFIED FALSELY THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN
WILLIAMS ABUSE THE PRISONER.  THE TRIAL COURT THOUGHT THAT "WHETHER
THEY HAD SEEN OR OBSERVED WILLIAMS BEAT THE VICTIMS WAS A PART AND
PARCEL OF THE CHARGE AGAINST THEM IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS" OF ABUSE
AND AIDING AND ABETTING THE ABUSE.  EHRLICH V. UNITED STATES, 145 F.2D
693, WAS CITED.  FN3  93 F.SUPP.  922. 

WE DO NOT THINK THE FACTS BRING ANY OF THESE DEFENDANTS WITHIN THE
PROTECTION OF RES JUDICATA, AS RECENTLY EXPOUNDED IN SEALFON.  AIDING
AND ABETTING MEANS TO ASSIST THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME.  FN4  THE
SUBSTANTIVE FORMER CHARGE AGAINST APPELLEES HERE WAS ABUSE OF A
PRISONER BY POLICE OFFICERS UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW.  AN ACQUITTAL OF
SUCH A CRIME OR OF AIDING AND ABETTING WAS CERTAINLY NOT A
DETERMINATION THAT FORD, BOMBACI OR YUHAS DID NOT SEE WILLIAMS
ASSAULTING THE PRISONERS. 

III.  THE COUNTS IN THIS INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGE THAT PERJURY WAS
COMMITTED IN THE FIRST CONSPIRACY TRIAL RELY ON THE SAME FACTS TO PROVE
THE PERJURY AS ARE DETAILED ABOVE TO SUPPORT THE COUNTS OF THE
INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGE PERJURY IN THE TRIAL OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
COUNTS.  THE TRIAL COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE DISMISSED THE COUNTS FOR
PERJURY COMMITTED IN THE FIRST TRIAL OF THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE FOR A
DIFFERENT REASON THAN IT GAVE FOR DISMISSAL OF THE OTHER PERJURY
COUNTS.  IN THE FIRST TRIAL NO VERDICT WAS REACHED BY THE JURY ON THE
CONSPIRACY COUNTS.  THE TRIAL COURT IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, RELYING UPON
THE DETERMINATION OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN THE SECOND CONSPIRACY TRIAL,
WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 179 F.2D 644(NOW AFFIRMED HERE, NO. 26,
UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, POST, P. 70, DECIDED TODAY), RULED THAT THE
FORMER CONSPIRACY INDICTMENT DID NOT STATE AN OFFENSE, AND CONSEQUENTLY
PERJURY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.  THE COURT SAID IT REACHED THIS
CONCLUSION BECAUSE THE COURT THAT TRIED THE CONSPIRACY INDICTMENT HAD
"NO JURISDICTION."  EVIDENTLY, THE TRIAL COURT WAS LED TO THIS
CONCLUSION BY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PERJURY STATUTE, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
1621, THAT THERE MUST BE A "COMPETENT TRIBUNAL" BEFORE A FALSE
STATEMENT IS PERJURIOUS. 

THE CHARGE IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNTS THAT THE APPELLEES, POLICE
OFFICERS AND OTHERS, CONSPIRED TO ABUSE A PRISONER IN THEIR HANDS WAS
BASED ON 18 U.S.C. SEC. 241.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF
OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 3231. 
FN5  HENCE, IT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER, TO WIT, AN
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE, AND, OF COURSE, OF
THE PERSONS CHARGED.  THIS MADE THE TRIAL TAKE PLACE BEFORE "A
COMPETENT TRIBUNAL":  A COURT AUTHORIZED TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE
INDICTMENT.  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT ULTIMATELY IT IS DETERMINED ON
APPEAL THAT THE INDICTMENT IS DEFECTIVE DOES NOT AFFECT THE
JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE THE CASE PRESENTED BY THE
INDICTMENT. 

THIS WAS HELD AS TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING IN BELL V. HOOD, 327 U.S.
678.  IN THAT CASE, A SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR DAMAGES
AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICERS FOR VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS TO DUE
PROCESS IN ARREST AND FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
UNDER THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS WAS HELD TO GIVE THE DISTRICT
COURT JURISDICTION SUFFICIENT TO CALL FOR JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS, EVEN
THOUGH THAT JUDGMENT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE
A CAUSE OF ACTION.  P. 682.  "JURISDICTION IS THE POWER TO DECIDE A
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, AND INCLUDES QUESTIONS OF LAW AS WELL AS OF
FACT."  BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291, 305.  EVEN THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE PROCEEDING IS
BROUGHT DOES NOT OUST A COURT OF JURISDICTION.  CHICOT COUNTY DISTRICT
V. BAXTER STATE BANK, 308 U.S. 371, 376.  SEE ALSO STOLL V. GOTTLIEB,
305 U.S. 165; M'CORMICK V. SULLIVANT, 10 WHEAT.  192. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN ESSENTIAL FACTS THAT MUST EXIST TO
GIVE ANY POWER TO A COURT.  NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R. CO., 147
U.S. 165, 173.  AS THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE FACTS ARE SO PLAINLY
NECESSARY, E.G. PROCESS, EXAMPLES OF DECISIONS ARE RARE.  ABSENCE OF
SUCH FACTS MAKES THE PROCEEDINGS A NULLITY.  SUCH A CASE WAS KALB V.
FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433.  WE THERE HELD THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY POWER OVER BANKRUPTCY, HAD OUSTED STATE
COURTS OF ALL INDEPENDENT POWER OVER FARMER BANKRUPTS.  THEREFORE ANY
SUBSEQUENT ORDERS IN THE STATE COURTS WERE VOID.  PP. 440-444.  IN A
CRIMINAL CASE WE HAVE SAID THAT A PERSON CONVICTED BY A COURT WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OVER THE PLACE OF THE CRIME COULD BE RELEASED FROM
RESTRAINT BY HABEAS CORPUS WHERE THERE WERE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
SUCH AS A CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 27.  THE KIND OF JUDICIAL
CONTROVERSIES PRESENTED FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE CASES CITED ABOVE IN
THIS PARAGRAPH WERE NOT COGNIZABLE BY THE RESPECTIVE COURTS.  IT IS
ABSENCE OF SUCH BASIC FACTS OF JURISDICTION THAT HAS LED COURTS TO SAY
THAT FALSE TESTIMONY IN THE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT PUNISHABLE AS PERJURY. 
WHERE PERJURY CHARGES ARISE FROM ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS BY THE
DEFENDANT IN FORMER TRIALS, WHETHER IN THAT FORMER TRIAL HE WAS ALSO A
DEFENDANT OR ONLY A WITNESS, THE SAME DISTINCTIONS APPEAR.  WHERE THE
COURT OF THE FIRST TRIAL HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THE KIND OF JUDICIAL
CONTROVERSIES PRESENTED FOR ADJUDICATION, A NUMBER OF COURTS HAVE HELD
THAT FALSE TESTIMONY IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT PUNISHABLE AS
PERJURY.  FN6  SO IN A CASE WHERE THE COURT HAD GENERAL JURISDICTION OF
THE KIND OF PROSECUTION, LARCENY LESS THAN FELONY, BUT NOT OF THE
PARTICULAR PROCEEDING, LARCENY AS A FELONY, THERE WAS NO PERJURY. 
JOHNSON V. STATE, 58 GA. 397.  BUT WHERE THE COURT IN THE TRIAL WHERE
THE ALLEGED PERJURY OCCURRED HAD JURISDICTION TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE
MERITS IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS, DEFECTS DEVELOPED DEHORS THE RECORD  FN7
OR IN THE PROCEDURE, SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE ANY JUDGMENT ON REVIEW,
FN8  DO NOT MAKE A SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION FOR PERJURY IN THE FORMER
TRIAL IMPOSSIBLE. 

ONE CAN FIND INCONSISTENT AND INDEED CONFLICTING RULINGS AMONG THE
CASES, EVEN FROM THE SAME JURISDICTIONS, PERHAPS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
USE OF THE WORD "JURISDICTION" IN THE HETEROGENEOUS SITUATIONS THAT
OCCUR.  THE LINE IS NARROW AND OFTEN WAVERING BETWEEN ERRORS IN THE
PROCEEDINGS AND LACK OF JURISDICTION.  WHARTON, CRIMINAL LAW (12TH
ED.), SEC. 1538.  HERE, HOWEVER, WE HAVE A FEDERAL STATUTE ENACTED IN
AN EFFORT TO KEEP THE COURSE OF JUSTICE FREE FROM THE POLLUTION OF
PERJURY.  WE HAVE A COURT EMPOWERED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CRIME OF
PERJURY AND DECIDE THE ISSUES UNDER THAT STATUTE.  THE EFFECT OF THE
ALLEGED FALSE TESTIMONY COULD NOT RESULT IN A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN
THIS CASE BUT THE FEDERAL STATUTE AGAINST PERJURY IS NOT DIRECTED SO
MUCH AT ITS EFFECTS AS AT ITS PERPETRATION; AT THE PROBABLE WRONG DONE
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY FALSE TESTIMONY.  THAT STATUTE HAS LED
FEDERAL COURTS TO UPHOLD CHARGES OF PERJURY DESPITE ARGUMENTS THAT THE
FEDERAL COURT AT THE TRIAL AFFECTED BY THE PERJURY COULD NOT ENTER A
VALID JUDGMENT DUE TO LACK OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION,  FN9  OR DUE TO
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE OUT OF WHICH THE PERJURY
PROCEEDINGS AROSE.  FN10 

WHERE A FEDERAL COURT HAS POWER, AS HERE, TO PROCEED TO A
DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS, THAT IS JURISDICTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 
THE DISTRICT COURT HAS SUCH JURISDICTION N11.  THOUGH THE TRIAL COURT
OR AN APPELLATE COURT MAY CONCLUDE THAT THE STATUTE IS WHOLLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OR THAT THE FACTS STATED IN THE INDICTMENT DO NOT
CONSTITUTE A CRIME OR ARE NOT PROVEN, IT HAS PROCEEDED WITH
JURISDICTION AND FALSE TESTIMONY BEFORE IT UNDER OATH IS PERJURY. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE INDICTMENT SPECIFIED THE FOLLOWING "RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES": 

"  ...  THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON
WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE
NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THE RIGHT
AND PRIVILEGE TO BE IMMUNE, WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF PERSONS ACTING
UNDER COLOR OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FROM ILLEGAL ASSAULT
AND BATTERY BY ANY PERSON EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY OF SAID STATE, AND
THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO BE TRIED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND IF FOUND
GUILTY TO BE SENTENCED AND PUNISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA; ...  " 

FN2  THE SPECIFIC "RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES" ARE THE SAME AS THOSE
LISTED IN NOTE 1. 

FN3  IN THE EHRLICH CASE AN ACQUITTAL OF A CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF THE
PRICE CONTROL ACT, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 901 ET SEQ., BY COLLECTING MORE
THAN THE SALE BILLS FOR MEAT SHOWED WAS HELD TO BAR A PERJURY CHARGE
THAT EHRLICH HAD SWORN FALSELY THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT FOR
ANY SALE AT A PRICE IN EXCESS OF THAT SHOWN ON THE SALES SLIPS.  IT WAS
HELD THAT THE PLEA IN BAR OF THE SECOND PROSECUTION WAS GOOD ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ALLEGEDLY PERJURIOUS WORDS WERE THE BASIS OF THE FORMER
CRIME CHARGED AND THEREFORE THE ACQUITTAL BARRED THE PERJURY
PROSECUTION. 

A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES ARE CITED IN APPELLEES' BRIEF.  THEY SUPPORT
THE RULE THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON FACTS ESSENTIAL TO CONVICTION ON THE
SUBSEQUENT CHARGE BARS A LATER PROSECUTION.  NONE DEAL WITH THE
SITUATION OF WILLIAMS WHO WAS CONVICTED ON THE PRIOR TRIAL OF ABUSE
UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 242.  HE CAN, OF COURSE, CLAIM NO BAR AGAINST
PROSECUTION ON A THEORY OF ESTOPPEL SINCE THE FACTS IN THE FORMER
TRIAL, IF APPLICABLE TO THE SUBSEQUENT ONE, WERE FOUND AGAINST HIM. 
THE CASES ARE:  UNITED STATES V. DE ANGELO, 138 F.2D 466; UNITED STATES
V. BUTLER, 38 F. 498; CHITWOOD V. UNITED STATES, 178 F. 442; ALLEN V.
UNITED STATES, 194 F. 664; YOUNGBLOOD V. UNITED STATES, 266 F. 795;
KUSKULIS V. UNITED STATES, 37 F.2D 241. 

FN4  TO BE PRESENT AT A CRIME IS NOT EVIDENCE OF GUILT AS AN AIDER OR
ABETTOR.  HICKS V. UNITED STATES, 150 U.S. 442, 447, 450.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. DI RE, 332 U.S. 581, 587; 12 A.L.R. 279.  THE INSTRUCTIONS AT
THE TRIAL OF THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES FOLLOWED THIS RULE.  E.G., "I CAN'T
MAKE IT TOO EMPHATIC TO YOU, GENTLEMEN, THAT MERE PRESENCE WHEN A CRIME
IS COMMITTED IS, OF COURSE, NOT SUFFICIENT TO RENDER ONE GUILTY AS
AIDER OR ABETTOR." 

FN5  "THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION, EXCLUSIVE OF THE COURTS OF THE STATES, OF ALL OFFENSES
AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"NOTHING IN THIS TITLE SHALL BE HELD TO TAKE AWAY OR IMPAIR THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES UNDER THE LAWS
THEREOF." 

FN6  E.G., COLLINS V. STATE, 78 ALA. 433; PAINE'S CASE, YEL.  111, 80
ENG. REP. 76(1792). 

FN7  82 A.L.R. 1138. 

FN8  82 A.L.R. 1137. 

FN9  WEST V. UNITED STATES, 258 F. 413, 416. 

FN10  BOEHM V. UNITED STATES, 123 F.2D 791, 809.  CF. KAY V. UNITED
STATES, 303 U.S. 1, 6; HOWAT V. KANSAS, 258 U.S. 181, 186, 189; BLAIR
V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 273; UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS,
330 U.S. 258, 289-295. 

FN11  THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 241 HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY UPHELD.  E.G.,
UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383, 386; LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 144
U.S. 263, 293; EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651, 667. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENT. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 341 U.S. 70 


NO. 26.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1951.  - 179 F.2D
644, AFFIRMED. 


AFTER ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN CONVICTED AND THE OTHERS
ACQUITTED OF SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES UNDER WHAT IS NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 242
I.E., BEATING OR AIDING AND ABETTING THE BEATING OF CERTAIN SUSPECTS
UNTIL THEY CONFESSED TO A THEFT - THEY WERE CONVICTED IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR A VIOLATION OF WHAT IS NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 241.  THE
INDICTMENT AROSE OUT OF THE SAME FACTS AND ALLEGED THAT, "ACTING UNDER
THE LAWS OF  ...  FLORIDA," THEY "CONSPIRED TO INJURE  ...  A CITIZEN
OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN THE FREE EXERCISE
AND ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO HIM AND PROTECTED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THEIR
CONVICTION ON THIS CONSPIRACY INDICTMENT.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.  P. 82. 

(A)  MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SEC.
241 ONLY COVERS CONDUCT WHICH INTERFERES WITH RIGHTS ARISING FROM THE
SUBSTANTIVE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THAT INCLUDING AN
ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTED UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW IN AN
INDICTMENT UNDER SEC. 241 DOES NOT EXTEND THE PROTECTION OF THE SECTION
TO RIGHTS WHICH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MERELY GUARANTEES AGAINST
ABRIDGMENT BY THE STATES.  PP. 71-82. 

(B)  MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURRED IN THE RESULT ON THE GROUND THAT
TRIAL UNDER THIS CONSPIRACY INDICTMENT WAS BARRED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF
RES JUDICATA.  PP. 85-86. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE BURTON
AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK, DISSENTED.  P. 87. 

UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

A CONVICTION OF RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATION OF WHAT IS NOW 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 241 WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  179 F.2D 644.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 849.  AFFIRMED, P. 82. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON JOINED. 

IN 1947 A FLORIDA CORPORATION EMPLOYED A DETECTIVE AGENCY TO
INVESTIGATE THEFTS OF ITS PROPERTY.  THE INQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY ONE
WILLIAMS, THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY, AND AMONG THE PARTICIPANTS WERE TWO
OF HIS EMPLOYEES AND A MEMBER OF THE MIAMI POLICE FORCE DETAILED TO
ASSIST IN THE INVESTIGATION.  CERTAIN OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES FELL
UNDER SUSPICION; AND WILLIAMS AND HIS COLLABORATORS, WITHOUT ARRESTING
THE SUSPECTS, TOOK THEM ONE BY ONE TO A SHACK ON THE COMPANY'S
PREMISES.  THERE THE INVESTIGATORS SUBJECTED THEM TO THE FAMILIAR
"THIRD-DEGREE" WHICH, AFTER BLOWS, KICKS, THREATS, AND PROLONGED
EXPOSURE TO A BRILLIANT LIGHT, YIELDED "CONFESSIONS." 

WILLIAMS AND THE OTHER THREE WERE THEREUPON INDICTED FOR VIOLATION OF
SECS. 19 AND 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE UNITED STATES.  18 U.S.C.
(1946 ED.)  SECS.  51 AND 52, NOW 18 U.S.C. SECS. 241 AND 242. 
WILLIAMS WAS CONVICTED UNDER SEC. 20, THE INDICTMENT ALLEGING THAT HE
"WILFULLY, UNDER COLOR OF THE LAWS, STATUTES, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS
AND CUSTOMS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA  ... SUBJECTED  ...  AN INHABITANT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES SECURED TO HIM AND PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
...  "  THIS CONVICTION IS REVIEWED IN NO. 365, POST, P. 97, ALSO
DECIDED THIS DAY.  THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WERE ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES
UNDER SEC. 20, AND AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS A MISTRIAL WAS DECLARED UNDER
SEC. 19.  THIS OUTCOME OF THE INDICTMENT UNDER SECS. 19 AND 20 WAS
FOLLOWED BY A NEW INDICTMENT AGAINST THE FOUR DEFENDANTS UNDER SEC.
19.  THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT "ACTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA" THE DEFENDANTS "CONSPIRED TO INJURE  ...  A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN THE FREE EXERCISE AND
ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO HIM AND PROTECTED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT  ...  "  THIS TIME ALL THE DEFENDANTS WERE
CONVICTED; BUT ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
REVERSED.  IT HELD THAT IN THE CONSPIRACY PROVISION OF SEC. 19 "THE
CONGRESS HAD IN MIND THE FEDERAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES WHICH APPERTAIN
TO CITIZENS AS SUCH AND NOT THE GENERAL RIGHTS EXTENDED TO ALL PERSONS
BY THE CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  179 F.2D 644, 648.  IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT A BROADER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 19
WOULD RENDER IT VOID FOR INDEFINITENESS, AND THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN
THE JUDGE'S CHARGE AS WELL AS IN THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR
ACQUITTAL OF THREE OF THE DEFENDANTS.  TOGETHER WITH NOS. 134 AND 365
OF THIS TERM, THE OTHER TWO CASES GROWING OUT OF THE SAME AFFAIR, WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION ARE RAISED.  340 U.S. 849. 

THE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS NEED
NOT BE CONSIDERED, FOR WE AGREE THAT SEC. 241(TO USE THE CURRENT
DESIGNATION FOR WHAT WAS SEC. 19 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE) DOES NOT REACH
THE CONDUCT LAID AS AN OFFENSE IN THE PROSECUTION HERE.  THIS IS NOT
BECAUSE WE DENY THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENFORCE BY APPROPRIATE
CRIMINAL SANCTION EVERY RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; NOR IS IT BECAUSE WE FULLY ACCEPT THE COURSE
OF REASONING OF THE COURT BELOW.  WE BASE OUR DECISION ON THE HISTORY
OF SEC. 241, ITS TEXT AND CONTEXT, THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK IN WHICH IT
STANDS, ITS PRACTICAL AND JUDICIAL APPLICATION - CONTROLLING ELEMENTS
IN CONSTRUING A FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROVISION THAT AFFECTS THE WISE
ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND NATIONAL CONTROL OF
ESSENTIALLY LOCAL AFFAIRS.  THE ELEMENTS ALL CONVERGE IN ONE
DIRECTION.  THEY LEAD US TO HOLD THAT SEC. 241 ONLY COVERS CONDUCT
WHICH INTERFERES WITH RIGHTS ARISING FROM THE SUBSTANTIVE POWERS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS SEC. 241 ORIGINATED AS SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF MAY
31, 1870, 16 STAT. 140.  THAT STATUTE WAS ENTITLED "AN ACT TO ENFORCE
THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE IN THE SEVERAL
STATES OF THIS UNION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."  IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS
CHIEF END OF ASSURING THE RIGHT OF NEGROES TO VOTE, IT PROVIDED IN
SECS. 2 AND 3 THAT IT SHOULD BE A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY "PERSON OR
OFFICER" WRONGFULLY TO FAIL IN A DUTY IMPOSED ON HIM BY STATE LAW TO
PERFORM OR PERMIT PERFORMANCE OF ACTS NECESSARY TO REGISTERING OR
VOTING.  IN SEC. 4 INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTIONS BY PRIVATE PERSONS WAS
MADE A SIMILAR OFFENSE.  IN THE COURSE OF PASSAGE THROUGH CONGRESS
SEVERAL SECTIONS WERE ADDED WHICH HAD A LARGER PURPOSE.  ONE OF THEM,
SEC. 17, WAS DERIVED FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 14 STAT. 27,
AND WAS DESIGNED TO "SECURE TO ALL PERSONS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS."  FN1  IT IMPOSED IMPRISONMENT UP TO ONE YEAR AND A FINE UP TO
ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ON 

"ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, OR CUSTOM, SHALL SUBJECT, OR CAUSE TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY
INHABITANT OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHT
SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE LAST PRECEDING SECTION OF THIS ACT, OR TO
DIFFERENT PUNISHMENT, PAINS, OR PENALTIES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PERSON
BEING AN ALIEN, OR BY REASON OF HIS COLOR OR RACE, THAN IS PRESCRIBED
FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF CITIZENS  ...  "  16 STAT. 140, 144.  THROUGH
SUCCESSIVE REVISIONS IT HAS BECOME SEC. 242, THE APPLICATION OF WHICH
TO THE FACTS BEFORE US IS CONSIDERED IN NO. 365, POST, P. 97. 

ANOTHER OF THE BROADER PROVISIONS IS THE SECTION WHICH IS OUR
IMMEDIATE CONCERN.  THIS WAS ITS ORIGINAL FORM: 

"SEC. 6.  AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, THAT IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS
SHALL BAND OR CONSPIRE TOGETHER, OR GO IN DISGUISE UPON THE PUBLIC
HIGHWAY, OR UPON THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER, WITH INTENT TO VIOLATE ANY
PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR TO INJURE, OPPRESS, THREATEN, OR INTIMIDATE
ANY CITIZEN WITH INTENT TO PREVENT OR HINDER HIS FREE EXERCISE AND
ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE GRANTED OR SECURED TO HIM BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR BECAUSE OF HIS HAVING
EXERCISED THE SAME, SUCH PERSONS SHALL BE HELD GUILTY OF FELONY, AND,
ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE FINED OR IMPRISONED, OR BOTH, AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT, - THE FINE NOT TO EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS, AND THE IMPRISONMENT NOT TO EXCEED TEN YEARS, - AND SHALL,
MOREOVER, BE THEREAFTER INELIGIBLE TO, AND DISABLED FROM HOLDING, ANY
OFFICE OR PLACE OF HONOR, PROFIT, OR TRUST CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION
OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  16 STAT. 140, 141. 

THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS OF THE RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD WERE NOT
CONDUCIVE TO THE ENACTMENT OF CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND COHERENT
LEGISLATION.  STRONG POST-WAR FEELING CAUSED INADEQUATE DELIBERATION
AND LED TO LOOSE AND CARELESS PHRASING OF LAWS RELATING TO THE NEW
POLITICAL ISSUES.  THE SECTIONS BEFORE US ARE NO EXCEPTION.  ALTHOUGH
ENACTED TOGETHER, THEY WERE PROPOSED BY DIFFERENT SPONSORS AND HASTILY
ADOPTED.  THEY RECEIVED LITTLE ATTENTION IN DEBATE.  WHILE THE
DISCUSSION OF THE BILL AS A WHOLE FILLS ABOUT 100 PAGES OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, ONLY TWO OR THREE RELATED TO SEC. 6, AND THESE ARE
IN GOOD PART A RECORD OF COMPLAINT THAT THE SECTION WAS INADEQUATELY
CONSIDERED OR UNDERSTOOD.  FN2 

NEVERTHELESS SOME CONCLUSIONS ARE WARRANTED.  THE FIRST IS THAT
INTERFERENCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS BY STATE OFFICERS WAS DEALT WITH FULLY
BY SEC. 17 OF THE ACT.  THREE YEARS BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT CONGRESS HAD
PASSED THE FIRST GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE.  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867,
SEC. 30, 14 STAT. 484; R.S. SEC. 5440; NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 371.  THIS
PROVISION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEC. 17, REACHED CONSPIRACIES UNDER
COLOR OF STATE LAW TO DEPRIVE PERSONS OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  NO OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT OF 1870 WAS
NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

THE SECOND CONCLUSION IS THAT IF LANGUAGE IS TO CARRY ANY MEANING AT
ALL IT MUST BE CLEAR THAT THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF SEC. 6, UNLIKE SEC.
17, WAS TO REACH PRIVATE ACTION RATHER THAN OFFICERS OF A STATE ACTING
UNDER ITS AUTHORITY.  MEN WHO "GO IN DISGUISE UPON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY,
OR UPON THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER" ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE ACTING IN
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES.  THE HISTORY OF THE TIMES - THE LAWLESS ACTIVITIES
OF PRIVATE BANDS, OF WHICH THE KLAN WAS THE MOST CONSPICUOUS - EXPLAINS
WHY CONGRESS DEALT WITH BOTH STATE DISREGARD OF THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITIONS AND PRIVATE LAWLESSNESS.  FN3  THE SPONSOR OF SEC. 6 IN
THE SENATE MADE EXPLICIT THAT THE PURPOSE OF HIS AMENDMENT WAS TO
CONTROL PRIVATE CONDUCT.  FN4 

THESE TWO CONCLUSIONS STRONGLY SUGGEST A THIRD:  THAT THE RIGHTS
WHICH SEC. 6 PROTECTS ARE THOSE WHICH CONGRESS CAN BEYOND DOUBT
CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURE AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. 
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THIS CATEGORY INCLUDES
RIGHTS WHICH ARISE FROM THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO VOTE IN CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTIONS, FOR INSTANCE, MAY OBVIOUSLY BE PROTECTED BY CONGRESS FROM
INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS FROM STATE INTERFERENCE.  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110
U.S. 651.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE
CATEGORY OF RIGHTS WHICH CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECT FROM
INTERFERENCE BY PRIVATE PERSONS EXCLUDES THOSE RIGHTS WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION MERELY GUARANTEES FROM INTERFERENCE BY A STATE.  THUS WE
HELD THAT AN INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST IN RECEIVING A FAIR TRIAL IN STATE
COURTS CANNOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY VINDICATED BY FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF
PRIVATE PERSONS.  UNITED STATES V. POWELL, 212 U.S. 564; ACCORD, HODGES
V. UNITED STATES, 203 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. WHEELER, 254 U.S. 281. 
THE DISTINCTION WHICH THESE DECISIONS DRAW BETWEEN RIGHTS THAT FLOW
FROM THE SUBSTANTIVE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND MAY CLEARLY
BE PROTECTED FROM PRIVATE INTERFERENCE, AND INTERESTS WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTEES FROM INTERFERENCE BY STATES, IS A FAMILIAR
ONE IN AMERICAN LAW.  SEE, E.G., STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA, 100 U.S.
303, 310. 

TO CONSTRUE SEC. 6 SO AS TO PROTECT INTERESTS NOT ARISING FROM THE
RELATIONSHIP OF THE INDIVIDUAL WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT ONLY
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE STATES, WOULD
MAKE ITS SCOPE DUPLICATE THE COVERAGE OF SEC. 17 AND THE GENERAL
CONSPIRACY CLAUSE.  THAT THIS IS NOT IN FACT WHAT CONGRESS DESIRED IS
CONFIRMED BY FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE.  FULL
ALLOWANCE FOR HASTY DRAFTSMANSHIP CANNOT OBSCURE CLEAR INDICATIONS FROM
THE TEXT THAT THE CATEGORY OF INTERESTS PROTECTED BY SEC. 6 DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE RIGHTS AGAINST STATE ACTION SECURED BY SEC. 17. 

THUS, WHEN CONGRESS WISHED TO PROTECT FROM STATE ACTION INTERESTS
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT DESCRIBED THEM IN SEC. 17 AS
RIGHTS "SECURED OR PROTECTED" BY THE CONSTITUTION.  BUT IN SEC. 6 THE
NARROWER PHRASE "GRANTED OR SECURED" IS USED TO DEFINE THE INTERESTS
PROTECTED FROM INTERFERENCE BY INDIVIDUALS.  WHEN CONGRESS WANTED TO
REACH ACTION BY STATE OFFICERS, THE EXPLICIT REFERENCE IN SEC. 17 TO
"COLOR" OF STATE LAW DEMONSTRATES THAT CONGRESS KNEW HOW TO MAKE THIS
PURPOSE KNOWN.  SIMILARLY, REFERENCE IN SECS. 2 AND 3 TO "PERSONS OR
OFFICERS" INDICATES THAT CONGRESS WAS ABLE EXPLICITLY TO DRAFT A
ALIKE.  IN CONTRAST, SEC. 6 WAS MADE APPLICABLE SIMPLY TO "PERSONS." 
NOTHING IN ITS TERMS INDICATES THAT COLOR OF STATE LAW WAS TO BE
RELEVANT TO PROSECUTION UNDER IT.  FN5 

TO FIND THIS SIGNIFICANCE IN THE TEXT OF THE ACT OF 1870 IS NOT TO
GIVE UNDUE WEIGHT TO DIFFERENCES IN PHRASEOLOGY APPEARING IN THE
STATUTE.  FOR THE TEXT OF THESE SECTIONS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY
CONGRESS NOT ONCE BUT FIVE TIMES.  SOME MINOR CHANGES OF PHRASEOLOGY
WERE MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE SUCCESSIVE REVISIONS.  BUT NEITHER THE
REVISED STATUTES OF 1874-1878, NOR THE CRIMINAL CODE OF 1909, NOR THE
1926 CODIFICATION IN THE U.S.C.  NOR THE 1948 REVISION OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, INDICATES EITHER IN TEXT OR REVISER'S COMMENTARY ANY CHANGE IN
SUBSTANCE.  THE CONTINUITY OF MEANING IS INDICATED IN THE APPENDIX TO
THIS OPINION, POST, P. 83. 

IN THREE OF THE REVISIONS, FURTHERMORE, CONGRESS HAD BEFORE IT A
CONSISTENT COURSE OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT INDICATING THAT SEC. 6 -
NOW SEC. 241 - WAS IN PRACTICE INTERPRETED ONLY TO PROTECT RIGHTS
ARISING FROM THE EXISTENCE AND POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE
PATTERN WAS ESTABLISHED BY UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542. 
THE DEFENDANTS WERE INDICTED FOR CONSPIRING TO DEPRIVE SOME NEGRO
CITIZENS OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THIS COURT AFFIRMED
THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ARRESTING JUDGMENT ENTERED ON A
VERDICT OF GUILTY.  IT FOUND THAT COUNTS ALLEGING INTERFERENCE WITH
RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FIRST, SECOND, FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENTS WERE OB-ECTIONABLE BECAUSE THE RIGHTS ASSERTED WERE NOT
"GRANTED OR SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  92 U.S. AT 551.  THE PATTERN SET BY
THIS CASE HAS NEVER BEEN DEPARTED FROM.    EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S.
651, WAS THE FIRST OF SEVEN DECISIONS IN WHICH THE COURT HELD OR
ASSUMED THAT THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS WAS PROTECTED BY
THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT WAS A RIGHT "GRANTED OR SECURED" BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238
U.S. 347; UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383; AND UNITED STATES V.
SAYLOR, 322 U.S. 385, HELD THAT INTERFERENCE BY PRIVATE PERSONS WITH
THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN GENERAL ELECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IS AN
OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 241; IN UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, THE
STATUTE WAS FOUND APPLICABLE TO THE LOUISIANA SYSTEM OF PRIMARY
ELECTIONS FOR CONGRESS.  FN6 

IN UNITED STATES V. WADDELL, 112 U.S. 76, INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT
TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM UNDER THE HOMESTEAD ACTS BROUGHT THE OFFENDER
WITHIN SEC. 241.  THE RIGHT DID NOT PERTAIN TO UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP; BUT SINCE IT WAS "WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON THE ACT OF
CONGRESS," OBSTRUCTING ITS EXERCISE CAME "WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
STATUTE AND OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO MAKE SUCH
STATUTE."  112 U.S. AT 79, 80.  SIMILARLY, THE COURT HAS HELD THAT
ASSAULT UPON A CITIZEN IN THE CUSTODY OF A UNITED STATES MARSHAL IS A
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263.  AND
SO, A CITIZEN MAY NOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO INFORM ON VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL LAWS.  IN RE QUARLES, 158 U.S. 532; MOTES V. UNITED STATES, 178
U.S. 458. 

CONTRARIWISE, WE HAVE HELD THAT CONSPIRACIES TO FORCE CITIZENS TO
GIVE UP THEIR JOBS OR COMPEL THEM TO MOVE OUT OF A STATE ARE NOT WITHIN
THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE.  HODGES V. UNITED STATES, 203 U.S. 1; UNITED
STATES V. WHEELER, 254 U.S. 281.  AND IN UNITED STATES V. POWELL, 212
U.S. 564, WE HELD THAT PARTICIPANTS IN A MOB WHICH SEIZED A NEGRO FROM
THE CUSTODY OF THE LOCAL SHERIFF AND LYNCHED HIM WERE NOT INDICTABLE
UNDER SEC. 241.  FN7 

IN NONE OF THESE DECISIONS WAS THE PRECISE ISSUE BEFORE US DECIDED,
FOR IN NONE WAS IT ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTED UNDER COLOR OF
STATE LAW.  BUT THE VALIDITY OF A CONVICTION UNDER SEC. 241 DEPENDS ON
THE SCOPE OF THAT SECTION, WHICH CANNOT BE EXPANDED BY THE DRAFTSMAN OF
AN INDICTMENT.  THE USES TO WHICH A STATUTE HAS BEEN PUT ARE STRONG
EVIDENCE OF THE ENDS IT WAS INTENDED TO SERVE.  IN THIS INSTANCE THE
DECISIONS BUTTRESS WHAT COMMON SENSE AND A SPONTANEOUS READING OF THE
STATUTE INDEPENDENTLY MAKE CLEAR, AND GIVE ADDED SIGNIFICANCE TO
REPEATED REENACTMENT WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.  FN8  ALL THE EVIDENCE
POINTS TO THE SAME CONCLUSION: THAT SEC. 241 APPLIES ONLY TO
INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHTS WHICH ARISE FROM THE RELATION OF THE VICTIM
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND NOT TO INTERFERENCE BY STATE OFFICERS
WITH RIGHTS WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MERELY GUARANTEES FROM
ABRIDGMENT BY THE STATES. 

TO REJECT THIS EVIDENCE AND HOLD THE INDICTMENT VALID UNDER SEC. 241
NOT ONLY INVOLVES A NEW, DISTORTING CONSTRUCTION OF AN OLD STATUTE.  IT
ALSO MAKES FOR REDUNDANCY AND CONFUSION AND RAISES SOME NEEDLESS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS.  FOR IF WE ASSUME THAT A CONSPIRACY SUCH AS
THAT DESCRIBED HERE IS UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW, IT CAN BE REACHED
UNDER SEC. 242 AND THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE.  INDEED, THE
DEFENDANTS BEFORE US WERE INDICTED AND TRIED FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 242;
THE CONVICTION OF ONE OF THEM UNDER THAT SECTION IS BEFORE US IN NO.
365, POST, P. 97.  UNLIKE SEC. 242, THE SECTION NOW BEFORE US IS NOT
QUALIFIED BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE ACTED
"WILLFULLY," AND THE VERY SPECIALIZED CONTENT ATTRIBUTED TO THAT WORD
WAS FOUND ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAINING SEC. 242 IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES,
325 U.S. 91.  NOR DOES THE DEFINED CRIME HAVE AS AN INGREDIENT THAT THE
CONSPIRACY BE UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW.  CRIMINAL STATUTES SHOULD BE
GIVEN THE MEANING THEIR LANGUAGE MOST OBVIOUSLY INVITES.  THEIR SCOPE
SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO CONDUCT NOT CLEARLY WITHIN THEIR TERMS. 

WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT INCLUDING AN ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANTS
ACTED UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW IN AN INDICTMENT UNDER SEC. 241 DOES NOT
EXTEND THE PROTECTION OF THE SECTION TO RIGHTS WHICH THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION MERELY GUARANTEES AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE STATES.  SINCE
UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE THE INDICTMENT MUST FALL, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE THE REMARKS OF SENATOR STEWART AT THE TIME HE PROPOSED THE
AMENDMENT, CONG. GLOBE, 41ST CONG., 2D SESS. 3480(1870). 

FN2  SECTIONS 2, 3, AND 4 APPEARED IN THE BILL AS IT WAS FIRST
INTRODUCED INTO THE SENATE.  CONG. GLOBE, 41ST CONG., 2D SESS.
3480(1870).  SECTION 17 WAS PROPOSED BY SENATOR STEWART AT THE OUTSET
OF THE DEBATE.  IBID.  SECTION 6 WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROPOSED BY SENATOR
POOL.  ID., 3612. 

THE DEBATE OF THE SENATE, WHICH CONSIDERED THE ACT AS IN COMMITTEE OF
THE WHOLE, IS FOUND BETWEEN PP. 3479 AND 3808 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
GLOBE.  ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN THE
ACT ARE THESE REMARKS OF SENATOR CASSERLY: 

"ONE OF THE WORST PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AS IT PASSED THIS BODY AND
AS IT WENT TO THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, WAS A PROVISION WHICH
ESCAPED THE NOTICE OF NEARLY EVERY ONE OF THE MINORITY OF THIS BODY,
AND I VERILY BELIEVE OF A VERY CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF THE MAJORITY OF
THE SENATORS IN THIS BODY.  I REFER TO THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH WERE
TAKEN OUT OF A BILL FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMANT. 

"NOW, IS IT A FIT THING THAT LEGISLATION OF THAT IMPORTANCE SHOULD GO
THROUGH THE AMERICAN CONGRESS UNKNOWN TO THOSE MEMBERS WHO HAD TAKEN
THE GREATEST INTEREST IN INFORMING THEMSELVES, AS WELL AS TO THAT LARGE
BODY OF OTHER MEMBERS WHOSE RIGHT IT WAS TO KNOW UPON WHAT THEY WERE
VOTING?  ...  I SHALL NOT UNDERTAKE TO SHOW HOW FAR THE COURSE OF THE
MAJORITY, IN FORCING THE SENATE BILL THROUGH TO A FINAL VOTE AT A
MIDNIGHT SESSION OF UNUSUAL DURATION, WITHOUT THE LEAST PUBLIC DEMAND
OR EXIGENCY FOR SUCH A PROCEEDING, CONTRIBUTED TO SUCH A RESULT; HOW
FAR IT CONTRIBUTED TO THE MAKING, TO THE ENACTING INTO A LAW OF
PROVISIONS WHICH WERE NOT SUPPOSED OR UNDERSTOOD BY A CONSIDERABLE
PORTION OF THE BODY TO BE IN THE BILL THAT WAS BEFORE IT."  ID., 3759. 
SEE ALSO THE REMARKS OF SENATORS THURMAN AND STEWART, ID., 3672, 3808. 
THE HOUSE DEVOTED VERY LITTLE ATTENTION TO THE ACT.  SEE ID., 1812,
3503, 3853, 3871. 

FN3  THE DEPTH OF FEELING WHICH THE LAWLESSNESS OF THE PERIOD EVOKED
IS REFLECTED IN THE LETTER OF CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS RUFFIN TO HIS SON,
JULY 8, 1869.  SEE 4 HAMILTON, THE PAPERS OF THOMAS RUFFIN, 225. 

FN4  IN INTRODUCING THE PROVISIONS SENATOR POOL SAID, 

"THERE ARE, MR. PRESIDENT, VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH THE RIGHT SECURED BY
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT MAY BE ABRIDGED BY CITIZENS IN A STATE.  IF A
STATE SHOULD UNDERTAKE BY POSITIVE ENACTMENT, AS I HAVE SAID, TO
ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE, THE COURTS OF THE COUNTRY WOULD PREVENT
IT; AND I FIND THAT IN SECTION TWO OF THE BILL WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED
AS A SUBSTITUTE BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE PROVISION IS
MADE FOR CASES WHERE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH REGISTRATION OR OFFICERS
CHARGED WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES AND WITH MAKING THE PROPER ENTRIES
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, SHALL REFUSE THE RIGHT TO REGISTER OR TO PAY
TAXES TO A CITIZEN.  ...  BUT, SIR, INDIVIDUALS MAY PREVENT THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE; INDIVIDUALS MAY PREVENT THE
ENJOYMENT OF OTHER RIGHTS WHICH ARE CONFERRED UPON THE CITIZEN BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS TRESPASS UPON THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY
THE FIFTEENTH.  NOT ONLY CITIZENS, BUT ORGANIZATIONS OF CITIZENS,
CONSPIRACIES, MAY BE AND ARE, AS WE ARE TOLD, IN SOME OF THE STATES
FORMED FOR THAT PURPOSE."  ID., 3611. 

THE ONLY OTHER PERTINENT REMARKS OF THE SENATOR ARE THESE: 

"I BELIEVE THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS THE RIGHT, AND THAT IT IS AN
INCUMBENT DUTY UPON IT, TO GO INTO THE STATES TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF
THE CITIZENS AGAINST ALL WHO ATTEMPT TO INFRINGE UPON THOSE RIGHTS WHEN
THEY ARE RECOGNIZED AND SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COUNTRY. 
... 

"MR. PRESIDENT, THE LIBERTY OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
PREROGATIVES, THE RIGHTS, AND THE IMMUNITIES OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,
SHOULD NOT BE AND CANNOT BE SAFELY LEFT TO THE MERE CAPRICE OF STATES
EITHER IN THE PASSAGE OF LAWS OR IN THE WITHHOLDING OF THAT PROTECTION
WHICH ANY EMERGENCY MAY REQUIRE.  IF A STATE BY OMISSION NEGLECTS TO
GIVE TO EVERY CITIZEN WITHIN ITS BORDERS A FREE, FAIR, AND FULL
EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF HIS RIGHTS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT TO GO INTO THE STATE, AND BY ITS STRONG ARM TO SEE
THAT HE DOES HAVE THE FULL AND FREE ENJOYMENT OF THOSE RIGHTS."  ID.,
3613. 

IN BOTH THESE PASSAGES THE SENATOR STATES CLEARLY THAT HIS PROPOSALS
ARE INTENDED TO BE APPLICABLE TO PRIVATE PERSONS.  IN NEITHER DOES HE
INDICATE DISTINCTLY THE NATURE OF THE RIGHTS WHICH SEC. 6 IS TO
PROTECT.  THE PHRASE "RIGHTS WHICH ARE CONFERRED UPON THE CITIZEN BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT" DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFER TO INTERESTS
GUARANTEED BY THE AMENDMENT AGAINST STATE ACTION.  IT MAY BE RELEVANT
ONLY TO THE NEW FEDERAL RIGHTS CREATED BY THE AMENDMENT THROUGH
CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP ON PERSONS NOT PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED TO IT. 

FN5  THE POSITION OF SEC. 6 IN THE STATUTE AS WELL AS ITS PHRASEOLOGY
INDICATES THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A COMPANION TO SEC. 17, AND TO
PUNISH CONSPIRACIES WHEREVER THAT SECTION PROHIBITED THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE.  IT IS LIKEWISE CLEAR THAT SEC. 6 WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 17 TO PRIVATE PERSONS IN THE SENSE THAT SEC. 4
SUPPLEMENTS SECS. 2 AND 3.  THE LOCATION OF SEC. 6 IN THE STATUTE TO
THE CONTRARY CONFIRMS THAT ITS PURPOSE AND COVERAGE ARE DISTINCT FROM
THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. 

FN6  THE TWO OTHER DECISIONS INVOLVING ELECTIONS FOUND THE
INDICTMENTS WANTING BECAUSE WHAT WAS CHARGED WAS NOT DEEMED TO
CONSTITUTE AN EFFECTIVE INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF A VOTER'S
FEDERAL FRANCHISE.  UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476; UNITED
STATES V. BATHGATE, 246 U.S. 220. 

FN7  BALDWIN V. FRANKS, 120 U.S. 678, HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY TO DRIVE
ALIENS FROM THEIR HOMES IS NOT AN OFFENSE UNDER THE STATUTE, SINCE IT
IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO INTERFERENCE WITH CITIZENS.  IN THREE OTHER
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THE SECTION WAS INVOLVED, BUT NO QUESTION
PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES NOW BEFORE US WAS DECIDED.  UNITED STATES V.
MASON, 213 U.S. 115; O'SULLIVAN V. FELIX, 233 U.S. 318; PENNSYLVANIA
SYSTEM FEDERATION V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 267 U.S. 203. 

FN8  IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT COUNT 1 OF THE INDICTMENT IN SCREWS V.
UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, LAID A CHARGE UNDER SEC. 51(NOW SEC. 241)
SIMILAR TO THE INDICTMENT NOW HERE FOR REVIEW.  THERE WAS A DEMURRER TO
THAT INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 51 DID NOT AFFORD A LEGAL BASIS
FOR SUCH A CHARGE.  THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SUPPORT
COUNT 1 WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE ARGUMENT THE GOVERNMENT NOW MAKES IN THIS
CASE.  THE DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED AND THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CHALLENGE
THE DISTRICT COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 51, ALTHOUGH THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT OF 1907, 34 STAT. 1246, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  682,
NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3731, ENABLED THE GOVERNMENT TO SECURE REVIEW OF
THAT CONSTRUCTION HERE. 

IN A FEW EARLY CASES THIS SECTION WAS APPLIED IN LOWER COURTS TO
RIGHTS NOT ARISING FROM THE RELATION OF THE VICTIM TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. HALL, 26 FED. CAS. 79; UNITED STATES
V. MALL, 26 FED. CAS. 1147; EX PARTE RIGGINS, 134 F. 404.  SINCE IN
NONE OF THESE DECISIONS WAS IT ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTED UNDER
COLOR OF STATE LAW, EACH IS PLAINLY INCONSISTENT WITH SUBSEQUENT
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  THEY ALSO RUN COUNTER EVEN TO THE ARGUMENTS
ADDUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONVICTION HERE. 

(APPENDIX TO OPINION OF FRANKFURTER OMITTED) 

(FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT, SEE
POST, P. 85.) 

(FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED, MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK, SEE POST, P. 87.) 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 

THIS IS ONE OF THREE PROSECUTIONS OF RESPONDENTS WILLIAMS, FORD,
BOMBACI AND PERRY ARISING OUT OF THEIR ALLEGED CONDUCT IN BRUTALLY
COERCING CONFESSIONS FROM CERTAIN PERSONS SUSPECTED OF THEFT.  THE
FIRST PROSECUTION WAS UNDER AN INDICTMENT CHARGING RESPONDENTS AND TWO
OTHER DEFENDANTS NOT NOW BEFORE US WITH VIOLATION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE AND CONSPIRACY SECTIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.  18 U.S.C.
(1946 ED.)  SECS.  51, 52, NOW 18 U.S.C. SECS. 241, 242.  THAT TRIAL
RESULTED IN CONVICTION OF RESPONDENT WILLIAMS AND ACQUITTAL OF THE
OTHER FIVE ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS; A MISTRIAL WAS DECLARED AS TO ALL
DEFENDANTS ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNTS.  FN1 SHORTLY THEREAFTER TWO NEW
INDICTMENTS WERE RETURNED:  ONE AGAIN CHARGED THE SIX DEFENDANTS WITH
THE SAME CONSPIRACY; THE OTHER CHARGED FOUR OF THEM WITH HAVING
COMMITTED PERJURY DURING THEIR FIRST TRIAL.  FN2  ON THE SECOND TRIAL
FOR CONSPIRACY ALL WERE CONVICTED AND IT IS THESE CONVICTIONS OF
RESPONDENTS THAT WE REVIEW IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

I AM CONVINCED FROM THE RECORDS BEFORE US THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES
JUDICATA SHOULD HAVE BARRED THE GOVERNMENT FROM TRYING RESPONDENTS ON
THIS SECOND INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY.  IN THE FIRST TRIAL THE JUDGE
INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO CONVICT ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS ALL DEFENDANTS
WHO EITHER COMMITTED THAT CRIME OR AIDED, ABETTED, ASSISTED, COUNSELED,
ENCOURAGED, COMMANDED, INDUCED, PROCURED OR INCITED ANY OTHER PERSON TO
DO SO.  ACQUITTAL OF THE FIVE DEFENDANTS WAS, THEREFORE, A FINAL
DETERMINATION THAT THEY HAD DONE NONE OF THESE THINGS, OR, IN EFFECT,
THAT THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE ITSELF.  THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA OF COURSE PRECLUDES A
RELITIGATION OF THE SAME FACTUAL ISSUES IN ANY SUBSEQUENT TRIAL. 
SEALFON V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 575.  THIS BEING TRUE, THE BROAD
SCOPE OF THE FACTS FOUND ADVERSELY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE FIRST TRIAL
BARRED A CONVICTION OF THE FIVE DEFENDANTS UPON THE SECOND TRIAL
BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY CONSPIRED EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE
UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THEIR HAVING PARTICIPATED IN
SOME WAY IN THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE CONSPIRACY
CONVICTIONS CANNOT STAND AS TO RESPONDENTS FORD, BOMBACI AND PERRY,
THESE THREE BEING AMONG THOSE PREVIOUSLY FOUND NOT GUILTY OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE CHARGE.    NOR SHOULD THE CONSPIRACY CONVICTION OF
RESPONDENT WILLIAMS STAND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE INDICTMENT
DID NOT ALLEGE AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT HE CONSPIRED
WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN THE FIVE NAMED DEFENDANTS.  AS A RESULT, WHEN
THE GOVERNMENT WAS PRECLUDED BY RES JUDICATA FROM PROVING THE GUILT OF
ANY OF WILLIAMS' ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS, THE BASIS OF THE CONSPIRACY
CHARGE AS TO WILLIAMS WAS NECESSARILY REMOVED SINCE ONE PERSON
OBVIOUSLY CANNOT CONSPIRE WITH HIMSELF.  CF. MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA,
291 U.S. 82, 93; FEDER V. UNITED STATES, 257 F. 694; SEE ALSO THE CASES
COLLECTED IN 72 A.L.R. 1180, 1186-1187; 97 A.L.R. 1312, 1313, 1316
1317. 

BECAUSE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, I BELIEVE THE CONSPIRACY
CONVICTIONS OF RESPONDENTS MUST FAIL, I FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  51, NOW 18 U.S.C. (1946
ED., SUPP. III) SEC. 241, AS APPLIED, IS TOO VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN IN
SCOPE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

FN1  WILLIAMS' CONVICTION ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS IS REVIEWED IN
WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 97, DECIDED TODAY. 

FN2  THE INDICTMENT CHARGING RESPONDENTS WILLIAMS, FORD AND BOMBACI
(AND ONE DEFENDANT NOT BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT CASE) WITH PERJURY IS
REVIEWED TODAY IN UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 341 U.S. 58.  RESPONDENTS
HAVE CLAIMED THAT BECAUSE OF THE PENDING PERJURY CHARGES THE DEFENDANTS
REFRAINED FROM TESTIFYING IN THE PRESENT TRIAL FOR CONSPIRACY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE BURTON,
AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

242, ARE COMPANION SECTIONS DESIGNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF GREAT RIGHTS
WON AFTER THE NATION'S MOST CRITICAL INTERNAL CONFLICT.  SECTION 19
COVERS CONSPIRACIES; SEC. 20, SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  SECTION 19
PROTECTS THE "CITIZEN"; SEC. 20 THE "INHABITANT."  THE SANCTION OF SEC.
19 EXTENDS TO "ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED" TO THE CITIZEN "BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES"; THE SANCTION OF SEC. 20 TO
"ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN1 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, 119,
WROTE THAT IN SPITE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN WORDING OF SECS. 19 AND 20
THERE ARE "NO DIFFERENCES IN THE BASIC RIGHTS GUARDED.  EACH PROTECTS
IN A DIFFERENT WAY THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO INDIVIDUALS BY
THE CONSTITUTION."  ONE WOULD INDEED HAVE TO STRAIN HARD AT WORDS TO
FIND ANY DIFFERENCE OF SUBSTANCE BETWEEN "ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE
SECURED" BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES (SEC. 19) AND
"ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES" (SEC. 20).  IF SEC. 20
EMBRACES A BROADER RANGE OF RIGHTS THAN SEC. 19, IT MUST BE BECAUSE IT
INCLUDES "IMMUNITIES" AS WELL AS "RIGHTS" AND "PRIVILEGES" AND
"PROTECTS" THEM AS WELL AS "SECURES" THEM.  WHEN NO MAJOR DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN SECS. 19 AND 20 IS APPARENT FROM THE WORDS THEMSELVES, IT IS
STRANGE TO HEAR IT SAID THAT THOUGH SEC. 20 EXTENDS TO RIGHTS
GUARANTEED AGAINST STATE ACTION BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SEC. 19 IS
LIMITED TO RIGHTS WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN SECURE AGAINST
INVASION BY PRIVATE PERSONS.  THE DIVISION OF POWERS BETWEEN STATE AND
NATION IS SO INHERENT IN OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND SO WELL
ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY THAT IF CONGRESS HAD DESIRED TO DRAW
A DISTINCTION ALONG THAT LINE, IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT IT WOULD NOT
HAVE MADE ITS PURPOSE CLEAR IN THE LANGUAGE USED.  FN2 

IT IS TRUE THAT SECS. 19 AND 20 HAVE DIFFERENT ORIGINS.  SECTION 20
CAME INTO THE LAW AS SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 7, 1866, 14 STAT. 27,
WHILE SEC. 19 FIRST APPEARED AS SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, 16
STAT. 141.  WE REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF SEC. 20 IN SCREWS V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 91, 98-100.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MAKES PLAIN THAT
SEC. 20 WAS AN ANTIDISCRIMINATION MEASURE DESIGNED TO PROTECT NEGROES
IN THEIR NEWLY WON RIGHTS.  IT WAS ENACTED BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT BECAME EFFECTIVE.  BUT AFTER THAT DATE IT WAS REENACTED AS
SEC. 17 OF THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, 16 STAT. 144; AND IN 1874 THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST "THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR
IMMUNITIES, SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES" WAS INTRODUCED.  R.S. SEC. 5510.  FROM THIS HISTORY
THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT, AS WE STATED IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
P. 100, THAT SEC. 20 IS "ONE OF THE SANCTIONS TO THE GREAT RIGHTS WHICH
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO SECURE."  IF THAT BE TRUE - IF
"RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES" AS USED IN SEC. 20 ARE NOT
RESTRICTED TO RIGHTS WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN SECURE AGAINST
INTERFERENCE BY PRIVATE PERSONS - IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY
"ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES," AS USED IN SEC. 19, IS SO RESTRICTED. 

IT IS TRUE THAT A PART OF THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 19(WHICH, AS I HAVE
SAID, ORIGINATED AS SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, 16 STAT. 141)
WAS TO GIVE SANCTION TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE WHICH WAS GUARANTEED BY THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, RECENTLY ADOPTED.  THAT IS MADE PLAIN FROM THE
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES.  CONG. GLOBE, PT. 4, 41ST CONG., 2D SESS., PP.
3607 ET SEQ. YET THE RIGHTS WHICH SEC. 19 PROTECTED WERE NOT CONFINED
TO VOTING RIGHTS; AND ONE WHO READS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FINDS NO
TRACE OF A SUGGESTION THAT THE BROADENING OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 19 TO
INCLUDE "ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED" BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES WAS AIMED ONLY AT THOSE RIGHTS "SECURED" BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGAINST INVASION BY PRIVATE PERSONS. 

THE DISTINCTION NOW URGED HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY STUDENTS OF THE
PERIOD.  THUS FLACK, IN ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (1908), P.
223, WROTE, "THE BILL AS PASSED BY THE HOUSES WAS SIGNED BY THE
PRESIDENT MAY 31, 1870, AND SO BECAME A LAW, AND WAS, THEREFORE, THE
FIRST LAW FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENTS."  AND SEE MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IN HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S.
496, 510.  IF THE DRASTIC RESTRICTION NOW PROPOSED FOR SEC. 19 HAD BEEN
PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL SCHEME FOR THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT SOME TRACE OF THE PURPOSE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
LEFT IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  WHAT WE FIND POINTS INDEED THE OTHER
WAY.  SENATOR POOL OF NORTH CAROLINA, WHO INTRODUCED THE SECTION FROM
WHICH SEC. 19 EVOLVED, INDICATED THAT IT WAS HIS PURPOSE TO EXTEND THE
PROTECTION OF THE NEW PROVISION TO THE FOURTEENTH AS WELL AS TO THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN3  IT HAS, INDEED, LONG BEEN ASSUMED THAT SEC.
19 HAD A COVERAGE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
THUS IN UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383, 387, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES
OBSERVED THAT SEC. 19 "DEALT WITH FEDERAL RIGHTS AND WITH ALL FEDERAL
RIGHTS." 

THERE IS NO DECISION, PRIOR TO THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS
CASE, WHICH IS OPPOSED TO THAT VIEW.  FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAVE
SOMETIMES BEEN ASSERTED UNDER SEC. 19 AND DENIED BY THE COURT.  THAT
WAS TRUE IN UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542.  BUT THE DENIAL
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST STATE ACTION, NOT AGAINST
WRONGS DONE BY INDIVIDUALS.  SEE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3;
SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1.  THE CRUIKSHANK CASE, LIKE OTHERS,  FN4
INVOLVED WRONGFUL ACTION BY INDIVIDUALS WHO DID NOT ACT FOR A STATE
NOR UNDER COLOR OF STATE AUTHORITY.  AS THE COURT IN THE CRUIKSHANK
CASE SAID, "THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS A STATE FROM DENYING TO
ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS;
BUT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT, ANY MORE THAN THE ONE WHICH PRECEDES IT
...  ADD ANY THING TO THE RIGHTS WHICH ONE CITIZEN HAS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AGAINST ANOTHER."  92 U.S. AT PP. 554-555.  THERE IS
IMPLICIT IN THIS HOLDING, AS MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE OBSERVED IN THE
SCREWS CASE, SUPRA, P. 125, NOTE 22, THAT WRONGFUL ACTION BY STATE
OFFICIALS WOULD BRING THE CASE WITHIN SEC. 19.  FOR THE COURT IN THE
CRUIKSHANK CASE STATED, "THE ONLY OBLIGATION RESTING UPON THE UNITED
STATES IS TO SEE THAT THE STATES DO NOT DENY THE RIGHT.  THIS THE
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES, BUT NO MORE.  THE POWER OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS GUARANTY." 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. HALL, 26 FED. CAS. 79;
UNITED STATES V. MALL, 26 FED. CAS. 1147; EX PARTE RIGGINS, 134 F. 404,
WRIT DISMISSED, 199 U.S. 547.  THOSE ATTEMPTS WHICH FAILED DID SO NOT
BECAUSE SEC. 19 WAS CONSTRUED TO HAVE TOO NARROW A SCOPE, BUT BECAUSE
THE ACTION COMPLAINED OF WAS INDIVIDUAL ACTION, NOT STATE ACTION.  SEE,
E.G., UNITED STATES V. POWELL, 151 F. 648, AFF'D, 212 U.S. 564; POWE V.
UNITED STATES, 109 F.2D 147. 

WHILE IT IS TRUE, AS MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE STATED IN THE SCREWS CASE,
THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECS. 19 AND 20 SO FAR AS THE
"BASIC RIGHTS GUARDED" ARE CONCERNED, THE COVERAGE OF THE TWO SECTIONS
IS NOT COTERMINOUS.  THE DIFFERENCE IS NOT MERELY IN THE FACT THAT SEC.
19 COVERS CONSPIRACIES AND SEC. 20 SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  SECTION 20
EXTENDS ONLY TO THOSE WHO ACT "UNDER COLOR" OF LAW, WHILE SEC. 19
REACHES "TWO OR MORE PERSONS" WHO CONSPIRE TO INJURE ANY CITIZEN IN THE
ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION,
ETC.  THE REACH OF SEC. 20 OVER DEPRIVATIONS OF RIGHTS PROTECTED FROM
INVASION BY PRIVATE PERSONS IS THEREFORE IN THIS ONE RESPECT LESS THAN
THAT OF SEC. 19.  BUT THAT IS NO COMFORT TO RESPONDENTS IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  IT CERTAINLY CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT STATE OFFICERS, OR THOSE
ACTING UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW, WHO CONSPIRE TO WRING CONFESSIONS FROM
AN ACCUSED BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, ARE INCLUDED IN "TWO OR MORE PERSONS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 19.  AS WE HOLD IN NO. 365, WILLIAMS V.
UNITED STATES, POST, P. 97, DECIDED THIS DAY, SUCH AN ACT DEPRIVES THE
ACCUSED OF THE KIND OF TRIAL WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
GUARANTEES.  HE IS THEREFORE DENIED THE ENJOYMENT OF THAT RIGHT, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 19. 

IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WE RELIEVED SEC. 20 OF THE RISK OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BY REASON OF VAGUENESS.  WE HELD THAT "A
REQUIREMENT OF A SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF A FEDERAL RIGHT
MADE DEFINITE BY DECISION OR OTHER RULE OF LAW SAVES THE ACT FROM ANY
CHARGE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ON THE GROUNDS OF VAGUENESS."  325 U.S.
AT P. 103.  THE SAME ANALYSIS DOES LIKE SERVICE HERE, AS EVIDENCED BOTH
BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 19 AND THE CHARGE TO THE JURY IN THIS
CASE. 

A CONSPIRACY BY DEFINITION IS A CRIMINAL AGREEMENT FOR A SPECIFIC
VENTURE.  IT IS "A PARTNERSHIP IN CRIME."  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY
VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 253.  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN
FROHWERK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 204, 209, AN "INTENT TO ACCOMPLISH
AN OBJECT CANNOT BE ALLEGED MORE CLEARLY THAN BY STATING THAT PARTIES
CONSPIRED TO ACCOMPLISH IT."  THE TRIAL COURT IN ITS CHARGE TO THE JURY
FOLLOWED THE RULING IN THE SCREWS CASE AND GAVE PRECISE APPLICATION TO
THIS CONCEPT IN AVOIDANCE OF ANY CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC.
19 ON THE GROUNDS OF VAGUENESS.  THE COURT, AFTER EXPLAINING TO THE
JURY WHAT RIGHTS, ENUMERATED IN THE INDICTMENT, WERE GUARANTEED UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, GAVE NUMEROUS CHARGES ON THE ELEMENT OF
INTENT.  THE FOLLOWING IS TYPICAL: 

"IN ORDER TO CONVICT UNDER THIS INDICTMENT, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE
JURY TO FIND THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD IN MIND THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF
DEPRIVING THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES OF THOSE RIGHTS GUARANTEED THEM
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, WHICH ARE ENUMERATED IN THE INDICTMENT, WHILE ACTING UNDER
COLOR OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. 

"THE PROOF, IF ANY, OF A GENERAL INTENT TO DO THE COMPLAINING
WITNESSES A WRONG IS NOT SUFFICIENT, BUT A SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEPRIVE
THEM OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, AS THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, IF
ANY, IS A BURDEN THE LAW CASTS UPON THE GOVERNMENT.  IN CONSIDERING
WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD SUCH SPECIFIC INTENT, YOU MAY TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE AS IT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED." 

IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND CHARGE TO THE JURY IN THE
INSTANT CASE, IT WOULD BE INCONGRUOUS TO STRIKE SEC. 19 DOWN ON THE
GROUNDS OF VAGUENESS AND YET SUSTAIN SEC. 20 AS WE DID IN THE SCREWS
CASE. 

THE DEFENSE OF RES JUDICATA IS BASED ON THE ACQUITTAL OF FIVE OF THE
RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 20 - THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE.  IT IS
ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FIVE CONSPIRED EXCEPT INSOFAR
AS THE UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THEIR HAVING
PARTICIPATED IN SOME WAY IN THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME.  IT IS FURTHER
ARGUED THAT ACQUITTAL ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS WAS A DETERMINATION
THAT THE FIVE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE.  THE CONCLUSION THEREFORE IS THAT THEIR CONVICTION OF THE
CONSPIRACY ENTAILED A RELITIGATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
SEALFON V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 575, OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES INVOLVED
IN THE PRIOR TRIAL.    THE ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, IS TOO FACILE FOR THE
FACTS. 

FIRST.  THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME WAS ONE OF AIDING AND ABETTING.  THAT
OFFENSE HAS "A BROADER APPLICATION" THAN CONSPIRACY.  "IT MAKES A
DEFENDANT A PRINCIPAL WHEN HE CONSCIOUSLY SHARES IN ANY CRIMINAL ACT
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A CONSPIRACY."  NYE & NISSEN V. UNITED STATES,
336 U.S. 613, 620.  RESPONDENTS MAY HAVE CONSPIRED TO DO THE ACT
WITHOUT ACTUALLY AIDING IN ITS COMMISSION.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE CRIMES
ARE DIFFERENT. 

SECOND.  IN THE SEALFON CASE THE JURY'S ACQUITTAL OF THE FIRST
OFFENSE NECESSARILY CONSTITUTED A REJECTION OF THE ONLY EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AT THE SECOND TRIAL AND UPON WHICH CONVICTION OF THE RECORD
OFFENSE DEPENDED.  THAT WAS NOT TRUE HERE.  THE ACQUITTALS ON THE
SUBSTANTIVE CHARGES BY NO MEANS ESTABLISHED THAT THE JURY REJECTED ALL
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE ACQUITTALS OF
THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED NO GIVING OF ACTUAL AID TO WILLIAMS WHEN HE OBTAINED THE
CONFESSIONS BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  THE EVIDENCE, THOUGH INSUFFICIENT
TO SHOW THAT THE FIVE PARTICIPATED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT,
COULD NONETHELESS MAKE OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR THAT THEY WERE MEMBERS OF
THE CONSPIRACY THAT CONCEIVED IT. 

THE LINKS THAT TIED RESPONDENTS TO THE CONSPIRACY ARE THEREFORE NOT
NECESSARILY THOSE THAT THE JURY REJECTED IN THE EARLIER TRIAL. 
ACCORDINGLY THE RULE OF SEALFON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, HAS NO
APPLICATION. 

FN1  SECTION 19 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  51,
PROVIDED:  "IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE TO INJURE, OPPRESS,
THREATEN, OR INTIMIDATE ANY CITIZEN IN THE FREE EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT
OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR BECAUSE OF HIS HAVING SO EXERCISED THE SAME, OR
IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS GO IN DISGUISE ON THE HIGHWAY, OR ON THE
PREMISES OF ANOTHER, WITH INTENT TO PREVENT OR HINDER HIS FREE EXERCISE
OR ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SO SECURED, THEY SHALL BE FINED
NOT MORE THAN $5,000 AND IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS, AND SHALL,
MOREOVER, BE THEREAFTER INELIGIBLE TO ANY OFFICE, OR PLACE OF HONOR,
PROFIT, OR TRUST CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

PROVIDED:  "WHOEVER, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, OR CUSTOM, WILLFULLY SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED,
ANY INHABITANT OF ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT TO THE DEPRIVATION
OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DIFFERENT
PUNISHMENTS, PAINS, OR PENALTIES, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INHABITANT BEING
AN ALIEN, OR BY REASON OF HIS COLOR, OR RACE, THAN ARE PRESCRIBED FOR
THE PUNISHMENT OF CITIZENS, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 

FN2  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE, SEC. 30 OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867, 14 STAT. 484, ENACTED THREE YEARS BEFORE SEC.
19, WAS ADEQUATE TO REACH CONSPIRACIES UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW TO
DEPRIVE PERSONS OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THAT THEREFORE THE
INCLUSION OF SUCH RIGHTS IN SEC. 19 WAS NOT NECESSARY BEARS LITTLE
WEIGHT.  THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED CARRIED A
PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN $1,000 AND NOT MORE THAN $10,000 AND
IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 2 YEARS.  SECTION 19 HAS FROM THE BEGINNING
CARRIED A MORE SEVERE PENALTY - NOT MORE THAN $5,000 AND IMPRISONMENT
NOT TO EXCEED 10 YEARS.  MOREOVER, SEC. 19 AT THE TIME OF ITS ENACTMENT
CARRIED A FURTHER PENALTY:  THE PERSONS CONVICTED WERE DISABLED FROM
HOLDING "ANY OFFICE OR PLACE OF HONOR, PROFIT, OR TRUST CREATED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, SEC.
6, 16 STAT. 141.  THE PENALTY OF THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE HAS
ONLY RECENTLY BEEN INCREASED.  SEE 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III) SEC.
371, REVISER'S NOTE. 

FN3  AFTER DISCUSSING THE THIRTEENTH, FOURTEENTH, AND FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENTS HE SAID, "I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A PERFECT RIGHT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT ONLY UNDER THESE THREE
AMENDMENTS, BUT UNDER THE GENERAL SCOPE AND FEATURES AND SPIRIT OF THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF, TO GO INTO ANY OF THESE STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROTECTING AND SECURING LIBERTY.  I ADMIT THAT WHEN YOU GO THERE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING LIBERTY, YOU CAN GO ONLY UNDER DELEGATED
POWERS IN EXPRESS TERMS; BUT TO GO INTO THE STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SECURING AND PROTECTING THE LIBERTY OF THE CITIZEN AND THE RIGHTS AND
IMMUNITIES OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPIRIT AND
WHOLE OBJECT OF THE FORMATION OF THE UNION AND THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT. 

"THERE ARE, MR. PRESIDENT, VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH THE RIGHT SECURED BY
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT MAY BE ABRIDGED BY CITIZENS IN A STATE.  ...  I
BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE OF THE SENATE BILL IS SUFFICIENTLY LARGE AND
COMPREHENSIVE TO EMBRACE ANY OTHER CLASS OF OFFICERS THAT MIGHT BE
CHARGED WITH ANY ACT THAT WAS NECESSARY TO ENABLE A CITIZEN TO PERFORM
ANY PREREQUISITE TO VOTING.  BUT, SIR, INDIVIDUALS MAY PREVENT THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE; INDIVIDUALS MAY PREVENT THE
ENJOYMENT OF OTHER RIGHTS WHICH ARE CONFERRED UPON THE CITIZEN BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS TRESPASS UPON THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY
THE FIFTEENTH.  NOT ONLY CITIZENS, BUT ORGANIZATIONS OF CITIZENS,
CONSPIRACIES, MAY BE AND ARE, AS WE ARE TOLD, IN SOME OF THE STATES
FORMED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  I SEE IN THE FOURTH SECTION OF THE SENATE
BILL A PROVISION FOR CASES WHERE CITIZENS BY THREATS, INTIMIDATION,
BRIBERY, OR OTHERWISE PREVENT, DELAY, OR HINDER THE EXERCISE OF THIS
RIGHT; BUT THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT STRIKES AT ORGANIZATIONS OF
INDIVIDUALS, AT CONSPIRACIES FOR THAT PURPOSE.  ... 

     .         .         . .         . 

"THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO GO INTO THE
STATES AND ENFORCE THE FOURTEENTH AND THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS IS, IN
MY JUDGMENT, PERFECTLY CLEAR, BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION THAT SHALL
BEAR UPON INDIVIDUALS.  I CANNOT SEE THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION TO BE RESORTED TO EXCEPT AS APPLICABLE TO
INDIVIDUALS WHO VIOLATE OR ATTEMPT TO VIOLATE THESE PROVISIONS. 
CERTAINLY WE CANNOT LEGISLATE HERE AGAINST STATES.  AS I SAID A FEW
MOMENTS AGO, IT IS UPON INDIVIDUALS THAT WE MUST PRESS OUR
LEGISLATION.  IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER THOSE INDIVIDUALS BE OFFICERS OR
WHETHER THEY ARE ACTING UPON THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY; WHETHER THEY ARE
ACTING SINGLY OR IN ORGANIZATIONS.  IF THERE IS TO BE APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATION AT ALL, IT MUST BE THAT WHICH APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"MR. PRESIDENT, THE LIBERTY OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
PREROGATIVES, THE RIGHTS, AND THE IMMUNITIES OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,
SHOULD NOT BE AND CANNOT BE SAFELY LEFT TO THE MERE CAPRICE OF STATES
EITHER IN THE PASSAGE OF LAWS OR IN THE WITHHOLDING OF THAT PROTECTION
WHICH ANY EMERGENCY MAY REQUIRE.  IF A STATE BY OMISSION NEGLECTS TO
GIVE TO EVERY CITIZEN WITHIN ITS BORDERS A FREE, FAIR, AND FULL
EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF HIS RIGHTS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT TO GO INTO THE STATE, AND BY ITS STRONG ARM TO SEE
THAT HE DOES HAVE THE FULL AND FREE ENJOYMENT OF THOSE RIGHTS."  CONG.
GLOBE, 41ST CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 3611, 3613. 

FN4  SEE HODGES V. UNITED STATES, 203 U.S. 1, 14; UNITED STATES V.
POWELL, 151 F. 648, AFF'D, 212 U.S. 564; UNITED STATES V. WHEELER, 254
U.S. 281, 298. 
..END :












WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 97 


NO. 365.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1951.  - 179 F.2D
656, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER WHO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, BY USE OF
FORCE AND VIOLENCE, OBTAINS A CONFESSION FROM A PERSON SUSPECTED OF
CRIME MAY BE PROSECUTED UNDER WHAT IS NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 242, WHICH
MAKES IT AN OFFENSE FOR ANY PERSON, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, WILLFULLY TO
SUBJECT ANY INHABITANT OF ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT TO THE
DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR
PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 98
104. 

2.  PETITIONER, A PRIVATE DETECTIVE WHO HELD A SPECIAL POLICE
OFFICER'S CARD ISSUED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLA., AND HAD TAKEN AN OATH
AND QUALIFIED AS A SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER, WAS EMPLOYED BY A BUSINESS
CORPORATION TO ASCERTAIN THE IDENTITY OF THIEVES WHO HAD BEEN STEALING
ITS PROPERTY.  SHOWING HIS BADGE AND ACCOMPANIED BY A REGULAR
POLICEMAN, HE BEAT CERTAIN SUSPECTS AND THEREBY OBTAINED CONFESSIONS. 
HELD:  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, PETITIONER WAS ACTING "UNDER COLOR"
OF LAW WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 242, OR AT LEAST THE JURY COULD
PROPERLY SO FIND.  PP. 99-100. 

3.  AS APPLIED, UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, TO THE DENIAL OF RIGHTS
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SEC. 242 IS
NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS.  PP. 100-102. 

4.  WHERE POLICE TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS, SEIZE VICTIMS,
AND BEAT THEM UNTIL THEY CONFESS, THEY DEPRIVE THE VICTIMS OF RIGHTS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 101. 

5.  IN VIEW OF THE TERMS OF THE INDICTMENT, AS INTERPRETED BY THE
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY ISSUE OF VAGUENESS
OF SEC. 242, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, IS PRESENT IN THIS CASE.  PP.
102-104. 

WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF WHAT IS NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC.
242.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  179 F.2D 656.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 850.  AFFIRMED, P. 104. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER A SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER WHO IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY SUBJECTS A PERSON SUSPECTED OF CRIME TO FORCE AND
VIOLENCE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A CONFESSION MAY BE PROSECUTED UNDER SEC.
20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  52, NOW 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 242. 


"WHOEVER, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR
CUSTOM, WILLFULLY SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY INHABITANT
OF ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ...  SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 

THE FACTS ARE THESE:  THE LINDSLEY LUMBER CO. SUFFERED NUMEROUS
THEFTS AND HIRED PETITIONER, WHO OPERATED A DETECTIVE AGENCY, TO
ASCERTAIN THE IDENTITY OF THE THIEVES.  PETITIONER HELD A SPECIAL
POLICE OFFICER'S CARD ISSUED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND HAD
TAKEN AN OATH AND QUALIFIED AS A SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER.  PETITIONER
AND OTHERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE DAYS TOOK FOUR MEN TO A PAINT SHACK
ON THE COMPANY'S PREMISES AND USED BRUTAL METHODS TO OBTAIN A
CONFESSION FROM EACH OF THEM.  A RUBBER HOSE, A PISTOL, A BLUNT
INSTRUMENT, A SASH CORD AND OTHER IMPLEMENTS WERE USED IN THE PROJECT. 
ONE MAN WAS FORCED TO LOOK AT A BRIGHT LIGHT FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES; WHEN
HE WAS BLINDED, HE WAS REPEATEDLY HIT WITH A RUBBER HOSE AND A SASH
CORD AND FINALLY KNOCKED TO THE FLOOR.  ANOTHER WAS KNOCKED FROM A
CHAIR AND HIT IN THE STOMACH AGAIN AND AGAIN.  HE WAS PUT BACK IN THE
CHAIR AND THE PROCEDURE WAS REPEATED.  ONE WAS BACKED AGAINST THE WALL
AND JAMMED IN THE CHEST WITH A CLUB.  EACH WAS BEATEN, THREATENED, AND
UNMERCIFULLY PUNISHED FOR SEVERAL HOURS UNTIL HE CONFESSED.  ONE FORD,
A POLICEMAN, WAS SENT BY HIS SUPERIOR TO LEND AUTHORITY TO THE
PROCEEDINGS.  AND PETITIONER, WHO COMMITTED THE ASSAULTS, WENT ABOUT
FLASHING HIS BADGE. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT PETITIONER ACTING
UNDER COLOR OF LAW USED FORCE TO MAKE EACH VICTIM CONFESS TO HIS GUILT
AND IMPLICATE OTHERS, AND THAT THE VICTIMS WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO BE
TRIED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND IF FOUND GUILTY TO BE SENTENCED AND
PUNISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE.  PETITIONER WAS
FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY UNDER INSTRUCTIONS WHICH CONFORMED WITH THE
RULINGS OF THE COURT IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  179 F.2D 656.  THE CASE, WHICH IS A
COMPANION TO NO. 26, UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, ANTE, P. 70, AND NO.
134, UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, ANTE, P. 58, DECIDED THIS DAY, IS HERE
ON CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 850. 

WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT PETITIONER WAS ACTING "UNDER COLOR" OF LAW
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 20, OR AT LEAST THAT THE JURY COULD PROPERLY
SO FIND.  WE INTERPRETED THIS PHRASE OF SEC. 20 IN UNITED STATES V.
CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 326, "MISUSE OF POWER, POSSESSED BY VIRTUE OF
STATE LAW AND MADE POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE THE WRONGDOER IS CLOTHED WITH
THE AUTHORITY OF STATE LAW, IS ACTION TAKEN 'UNDER COLOR OF' STATE
LAW."  AND SEE SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 107-111.  IT IS COMMON
PRACTICE, AS WE NOTED IN LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CO., 331 U.S.
416, 429, FOR PRIVATE GUARDS OR DETECTIVES TO BE VESTED WITH
POLICEMEN'S POWERS.  WE KNOW FROM THE RECORD THAT THAT IS THE POLICY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA.  MOREOVER, THIS WAS AN INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED UNDER
THE AEGIS OF THE STATE, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT A REGULAR POLICE
OFFICER WAS DETAILED TO ATTEND IT.  WE NEED GO NO FURTHER TO CONCLUDE
THAT THE LOWER COURT, TO WHOM WE GIVE DEFERENCE ON LOCAL LAW MATTERS,
SEE GARDNER V. NEW JERSEY, 329 U.S. 565, 583, WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING
THAT PETITIONER WAS NO MERE INTERLOPER BUT HAD A SEMBLANCE OF
POLICEMAN'S POWER FROM FLORIDA.  THERE WAS, THEREFORE, EVIDENCE THAT HE
ACTED UNDER AUTHORITY OF FLORIDA LAW; AND THE MANNER OF HIS CONDUCT OF
THE INTERROGATIONS MAKES CLEAR THAT HE WAS ASSERTING THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED HIM AND NOT ACTING IN THE ROLE OF A PRIVATE PERSON.  IN ANY
EVENT, THE CHARGE TO THE JURY DREW THE LINE BETWEEN OFFICIAL AND
UNOFFICIAL CONDUCT WHICH WE EXPLORED IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
111, AND GAVE PETITIONER ALL OF THE PROTECTION WHICH "COLOR OF" LAW AS
USED IN SEC. 20 OFFERS. 

THE MAIN CONTENTION IS THAT THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 20 SO AS TO
SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR OBTAINING A CONFESSION BY USE OF FORCE AND
VIOLENCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE ARGUMENT IS THE ONE THAT A CLEAR
MAJORITY OF THE COURT REJECTED IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, AND RUNS AS
FOLLOWS: 

CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST HAVE AN ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT OR
THEY FALL FOR VAGUENESS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255
U.S. 81; WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507.  SECTION 20, IT IS ARGUED,
LACKS THE NECESSARY SPECIFICITY WHEN RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE INVOLVED.  WE ARE POINTED TO THE
COURSE OF DECISIONS BY THIS COURT UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS PROOF
OF THE VAGUE AND FLUID STANDARD FOR "RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES
SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION" AS USED IN SEC. 20.  WE ARE
REFERRED TO DECISIONS WHERE WE HAVE BEEN CLOSELY DIVIDED ON WHETHER
STATE ACTION VIOLATED DUE PROCESS.  MORE SPECIFICALLY WE ARE CITED MANY
INSTANCES WHERE THE COURT HAS BEEN CONSPICUOUSLY IN DISAGREEMENT ON THE
ILLEGAL CHARACTER OF CONFESSIONS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  IF THE
COURT CANNOT AGREE AS TO WHAT CONFESSIONS VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, HOW CAN ONE WHO RISKS CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR HIS ACTS BE
SURE OF THE STANDARD?  THUS IT IS SOUGHT TO SHOW THAT POLICE OFFICERS
SUCH AS PETITIONER WALK ON GROUND FAR TOO TREACHEROUS FOR CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY. 

MANY CRIMINAL STATUTES MIGHT BE EXTENDED TO CIRCUMSTANCES SO EXTREME
AS TO MAKE THEIR APPLICATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  CONVERSELY, AS WE HELD
IN SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, A CLOSE CONSTRUCTION WILL OFTEN SAVE AN ACT
FROM VAGUENESS THAT IS FATAL.  THE PRESENT CASE IS AS GOOD AN
ILLUSTRATION AS ANY.  IT IS AS PLAIN AS A PIKESTAFF THAT THE PRESENT
CONFESSIONS WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE WHATEVER THE SCHOOL OF
THOUGHT CONCERNING THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 
THIS IS THE CLASSIC USE OF FORCE TO MAKE A MAN TESTIFY AGAINST
HIMSELF.  THE RESULT IS AS PLAIN AS IF THE RACK, THE WHEEL, AND THE
THUMB SCREW - THE ANCIENT METHODS OF SECURING EVIDENCE BY TORTURE
(BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278, 285-286; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309
U.S. 227, 237) - WERE USED TO COMPEL THE CONFESSION.  SOME DAY THE
APPLICATION OF SEC. 20 TO LESS OBVIOUS METHODS OF COERCION MAY BE
PRESENTED AND DOUBTS AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE STANDARD OF GUILT MAY BE
PRESENTED.  THERE MAY BE A SIMILAR DOUBT WHEN AN OFFICER IS TRIED UNDER
SEC. 20 FOR BEATING A MAN TO DEATH.  THAT WAS A DOUBT STIRRED IN THE
SCREWS CASE; AND IT WAS THE REASON WE HELD THAT THE PURPOSE MUST BE
PLAIN, THE DEPRIVATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WILLFUL.  BUT WHERE
POLICE TAKE MATTERS IN THEIR OWN HANDS, SEIZE VICTIMS, BEAT AND POUND
THEM UNTIL THEY CONFESS, THERE CANNOT BE THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT THAT THE
POLICE HAVE DEPRIVED THE VICTIM OF A RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  IT
IS THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE TRIED BY A LEGALLY CONSTITUTED COURT,
NOT BY A KANGAROO COURT.  HENCE WHEN OFFICERS WRING CONFESSIONS FROM
THE ACCUSED BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, THEY VIOLATE SOME OF THE MOST
FUNDAMENTAL, BASIC, AND WELL-ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHICH
EVERY CITIZEN ENJOYS.  PETITIONER AND HIS ASSOCIATES ACTED WILLFULLY
AND PURPOSELY; THEIR AIM WAS PRECISELY TO DENY THE PROTECTION THAT THE
CONSTITUTION AFFORDS* .  IT WAS AN ARROGANT AND BRUTAL DEPRIVATION OF
RIGHTS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY GUARANTEES.  SECTION 20
WOULD BE DENIED THE HIGH SERVICE FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED IF RIGHTS SO
PALPABLY PLAIN WERE DENIED ITS PROTECTION.  ONLY CASUISTRY COULD MAKE
VAGUE AND NEBULOUS WHAT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME MAKES SO CLEAR AND
SPECIFIC. 

*THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED IN PART ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE:  "THE LAW
DENIES TO ANYONE ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION OR CUSTOM THE RIGHT TO TRY A PERSON BY ORDEAL; THAT IS, FOR
THE OFFICER HIMSELF TO INFLICT SUCH PUNISHMENT UPON THE PERSON AS HE
THINKS THE PERSON SHOULD RECEIVE.  NOW IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS
REQUISITE OF WILLFUL INTENT WAS PRESENT IN THIS CASE AS TO THESE
COUNTS, YOU GENTLEMEN ARE ENTITLED TO CONSIDER ALL THE ATTENDANT
CIRCUMSTANCES; THE MALICE, IF ANY, OF THE DEFENDANTS TOWARD THESE MEN;
THE WEAPON USED IN THE ASSAULT, IF ANY; AND THE CHARACTER AND DURATION
OF THE INVESTIGATION, IF ANY, OF THE ASSAULT, IF ANY, AND THE TIME AND
MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS CARRIED OUT.  ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
MAY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE
DEFENDANTS WERE WILLFUL AND FOR THE DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL PURPOSE OF
DEPRIVING THESE MEN OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE TRIED BY A
JURY JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE." 

AN EFFORT, HOWEVER, IS MADE TO FREE WILLIAMS BY AN EXTREMELY
TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICTMENT AND CHARGE, SO AS TO CONDEMN
THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 20 ON THE GROUNDS OF VAGUENESS. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT PETITIONERS DEPRIVED DESIGNATED PERSONS
OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES SECURED TO THEM BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
THESE DEPRIVATIONS WERE DEFINED IN THE INDICTMENT TO INCLUDE "ILLEGAL"
ASSAULT AND BATTERY.  BUT THE MEANING OF THESE RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE INDICTMENT WAS PLAIN, VIZ. IMMUNITY FROM THE USE OF FORCE AND
VIOLENCE TO OBTAIN A CONFESSION.  THUS COUNT 2 OF THE INDICTMENT
CHARGES THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF ONE PURNELL WERE
VIOLATED IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS: 

"  ...  THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO BE SECURE IN HIS PERSON
WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE
NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THE RIGHT
AND PRIVILEGE TO BE IMMUNE, WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF PERSONS ACTING
UNDER COLOR OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FROM ILLEGAL ASSAULT
AND BATTERY BY ANY PERSON EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY OF SAID STATE, AND
THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO BE TRIED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND IF FOUND
GUILTY TO BE SENTENCED AND PUNISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA; THAT IS TO SAY, ON OR ABOUT THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH,
1947, THE DEFENDANTS ARRESTED AND DETAINED AND CAUSED TO BE ARRESTED
AND DETAINED THE SAID FRANK J. PURNELL, JR., AND BROUGHT AND CAUSED HIM
TO BE BROUGHT TO AND INTO A CERTAIN BUILDING SOMETIMES CALLED A SHACK
ON THE PREMISES OF THE LINDSLEY LUMBER CO., AT OR NEAR 3810 N.W. 17TH
AVENUE, IN SAID CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND DID THERE DETAIN THE SAID
FRANK J. PURNELL, JR., AND WHILE HE WAS SO DETAINED THE DEFENDANTS DID
THEN AND THERE ILLEGALLY STRIKE, BRUISE, BATTER, BEAT, ASSAULT AND
TORTURE THE SAID FRANK J. PURNELL, JR., IN ORDER ILLEGALLY TO COERCE
AND FORCE THE SAID FRANK J. PURNELL, JR., TO MAKE AN ADMISSION AND
CONFESSION OF HIS GUILT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALLEGED THEFT OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY, ALLEGED TO BE THE PROPERTY OF SAID LINDSLEY LUMBER
CO., AND IN ORDER ILLEGALLY TO COERCE AND FORCE THE SAID FRANK J.
PURNELL, JR., TO NAME AND ACCUSE OTHER PERSONS AS PARTICIPANTS IN
ALLEGED THEFTS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, ALLEGED TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE
SAID LINDSLEY LUMBER CO., AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSING ILLEGAL
SUMMARY PUNISHMENT UPON THE SAID FRANK J. PURNELL, JR." 

THE TRIAL JUDGE IN HIS CHARGE TO THE JURY SUMMARIZED COUNT 2 AS
MEANING THAT THE DEFENDANTS BEAT PURNELL "FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORCING
HIM TO MAKE A CONFESSION AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSING ILLEGAL
SUMMARY PUNISHMENT UPON HIM."  HE FURTHER MADE CLEAR THAT THE
DEFENDANTS WERE "NOT HERE ON TRIAL FOR A VIOLATION OF ANY LAW OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA FOR ASSAULT" NOR "FOR ASSAULT UNDER ANY LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES."  THERE CANNOT BE THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT FROM THE READING
OF THE INDICTMENT AND CHARGE AS A WHOLE THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE
CHARGED WITH AND TRIED FOR ONE OF THE MOST BRUTAL DEPRIVATIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT CAN BE IMAGINED.  IT THEREFORE STRAINS AT
TECHNICALITIES TO SAY THAT ANY ISSUE OF VAGUENESS OF SEC. 20 AS
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IS PRESENT IN THE CASE.  OUR CONCERN IS TO SEE
THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE, NOT TO SEARCH THE RECORD FOR POSSIBLE
ERRORS WHICH WILL DEFEAT THE GREAT PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING SEC.
20.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON,
DISSENTING. 

EXPERIENCE IN THE EFFORT TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF SCREWS V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 91, LEADS MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TO DISSENT FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN DISSENT
IN THAT CASE. 
..END :











CALIFORNIA AUTO. ASSN. V. MALONEY, 341 U.S. 105 


NO. 310.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1951.  - 96 CAL.
APP.2D 876, 216 P.2D 882, AFFIRMED. 


THE CALIFORNIA COMPULSORY ASSIGNED RISK LAW REQUIRES ALL INSURERS
TRANSACTING LIABILITY INSURANCE IN THE STATE TO PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN
FOR THE EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT AMONG THEM OF THOSE APPLICANTS FOR
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE WHO ARE IN GOOD FAITH ENTITLED TO SUCH
INSURANCE (TO ENABLE THEM TO RETAIN DRIVERS' LICENSES) BUT ARE UNABLE
TO PROCURE IT THROUGH ORDINARY METHODS.  UNINSURABLE RISKS ARE EXCLUDED
FROM THE PLAN, POLICIES ISSUED MAY BE LIMITED TO COVERAGES OF $5,000
$10,000, AND PREMIUMS COMMENSURATE WITH ABNORMAL RISKS MAY BE CHARGED. 
APPELLANT IS AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION ENGAGED IN WRITING
RECIPROCAL LIABILITY INSURANCE SOLELY FOR MEMBERS OF AN AUTOMOBILE CLUB
HAVING A SELECTED MEMBERSHIP, AND THE PLAN WOULD REQUIRE IT TO WRITE
INSURANCE FOR NONMEMBERS OF THE CLUB WHO ARE POOR RISKS.  HELD:  AS
APPLIED TO APPELLANT, THE STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 106-111. 

CALIFORNIA STATE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION INTER-INSURANCE BUREAU V.
MALONEY, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT. 

A CALIFORNIA COURT SUSTAINED THE CALIFORNIA COMPULSORY ASSIGNED RISK
LAW, CAL. STAT. 1947, C. 39, P. 525, AS AMENDED, AGAINST A CLAIM THAT
IT VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  96
CAL. APP.2D 876, 216 P.2D 882.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P.
111. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT IS AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION WHICH THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL ANALOGIZES TO A MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION. 
THE DETAILS OF ITS ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION ARE NOT IMPORTANT HERE. 
IT IS SUPERVISED BY THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF CALIFORNIA, LIKE
OTHER INSURANCE COMPANIES DOING A LIABILITY INSURANCE BUSINESS.  IT WAS
FORMED TO WRITE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE TO A SELECT GROUP OF MEMBERS AT A
LOWER COST THAN THE THEN PREVAILING RATE.  A CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRING
PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FROM CERTAIN PEOPLE BEFORE ISSUING
THEM A LICENSE TO DRIVE A CAR, PROVIDES THAT A PERSON WHO DOES NOT PAY
A JUDGMENT OF $100 OR MORE ARISING OUT OF AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT HAS
HIS DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENDED, AND THE SUSPENSION CAN BE LIFTED ONLY
BY PAYING THE JUDGMENT AND ESTABLISHING HIS ABILITY TO PAY CLAIMS
ARISING FROM FUTURE ACCIDENTS.  THAT ABILITY TO PAY MAY BE ESTABLISHED
BY PROOF THAT THE PERSON IS INSURED, BY POSTING A SURETY BOND, OR BY
DEPOSIT OF $11,000 IN CASH.  CAL. VEHICLE CODE, 1943, SECS. 410, 414. 
ANOTHER LAW REQUIRES OPERATORS OF TRUCKS FOR HIRE TO SUPPLY SUCH
EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE THEY MAY GET PERMITS TO
OPERATE TRUCKS.  CAL. STAT. 1935, C. 312. 

ONE RESULT OF THESE LAWS WAS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LARGE NUMBER
OF DRIVERS - CLASSIFIED AS POOR RISKS BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND
NOT POSSESSING ENOUGH RESOURCES TO GET A SURETY BOND OR TO MAKE THE
CASH DEPOSIT - TO RECEIVE DRIVERS' LICENSES TO OPERATE MOTOR VEHICLES. 
SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WERE POOR RISKS, OTHERS WERE NOT.  MANY HARDSHIP
CASES DEVELOPED AMONG PEOPLE WHO WERE DEPENDENT ON THE USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS FOR A LIVING.  THERE WAS A PROPOSAL THAT CALIFORNIA GO INTO
THE INSURANCE BUSINESS AND INSURE THESE AND OTHER RISKS.  THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES COUNTERED BY ADOPTING A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNED RISK PLAN UNDER
WHICH ALL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA
UNDERTOOK TO INSURE SOME, THOUGH NOT ALL, OF THE GROUPS UNABLE TO
OBTAIN INSURANCE.  THIS PLAN, APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA'S INSURANCE
DEPARTMENT, PROVIDED FOR THE ALLOCATION OF APPLICANTS TO THE
SUBSCRIBING INSURERS IN PROPORTION TO THE AMOUNT OF AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE WRITTEN BY EACH IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. 

THE VOLUNTARY PLAN DID NOT REACH ALL APPLICANTS.  MOREOVER, APPELLANT
WITHDREW FROM IT, CAUSING THE OTHER INSURERS TO BE RELUCTANT TO
CONTINUE IT.  THEREUPON THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED THE COMPULSORY ASSIGNED
RISK LAW.  CAL. STAT. 1947, C. 39, P. 525, AS AMENDED, C. 1205.  IT
PROVIDES THAT THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER SHALL APPROVE "A REASONABLE
PLAN FOR THE EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT" AMONG INSURERS OF APPLICANTS FOR
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE "WHO ARE IN GOOD FAITH  FN1  ENTITLED TO BUT ARE
UNABLE TO PROCURE SUCH INSURANCE THROUGH ORDINARY METHODS."  CAL. INS.
CODE, 1947, SEC. 11620.  IT IS MANDATORY ON ALL INSURERS TO SUBSCRIBE
TO THE PLAN.  ID. SECS. 11625, 11626. 

THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER WAS OBJECTIONABLE TO APPELLANT,
WHO REFUSED TO SUBSCRIBE TO IT.  THE COMMISSIONER, ACTING PURSUANT TO
AUTHORITY GRANTED HIM, SUSPENDED APPELLANT'S PERMIT TO TRANSACT
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE IN CALIFORNIA.  APPELLANT CONTESTED THE
SUSPENSION IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
SUSTAINED THE ACT AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT IT VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  96 CAL. APP.2D 876, 216 P.2D 882. 
A PETITION FOR HEARING WAS DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

APPELLANT ASSAILS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
IT COMMANDS INSURERS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS AND TO INCUR LIABILITIES
AGAINST THEIR WILL; IT FORCES ON INSURERS CONTRACTS THAT HAVE ABNORMAL
RISKS AND FROM WHICH FINANCIAL LOSS MAY BE EXPECTED; IT REQUIRES
APPELLANT TO ALTER ITS TYPE OF BUSINESS FROM A COOPERATIVE WITH A
SELECT MEMBERSHIP TO A VENTURE INSURING MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. 

APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS PRESSES MICHIGAN COMMISSION
V. DUKE, 266 U.S. 570, AND FROST TRUCKING CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 271
U.S. 583, ON US.  THOSE CASES HELD THAT PRIVATE CARRIERS BY MOTOR
VEHICLE COULD NOT CONSISTENTLY WITH DUE PROCESS BE CONVERTED INTO
PUBLIC CARRIERS BY LEGISLATIVE FIAT NOR BE ALLOWED TO USE THE PUBLIC
HIGHWAYS ONLY ON CONDITION THAT THEY BECOME COMMON CARRIERS.  WE PUT
THOSE CASES TO ONE SIDE.  TO BE SURE, APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO INSURE
MEMBERS OF A DIFFERENT GROUP THAN THE SELECT ONE IT VOLUNTARILY
UNDERTOOK TO SERVE.  BUT THERE ARE IMPORTANT RESTRICTIONS ON THE
FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS INCIDENT TO THE BROADENED UNDERTAKING.  WE WERE
ADVISED ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PREMIUMS CHARGEABLE CAN BE
COMMENSURATE WITH THE GREATER RISKS OF THE NEW BUSINESS.  CONFISCATION
IS THEREFORE NOT A FACTOR IN THE CASE.  MOREOVER, THE CALIFORNIA
STATUTE PROVIDES FOR AN EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE ASSIGNED RISKS
AMONG ALL INSURERS, NOT THAT APPELLANT SERVE ALL COMERS.  FURTHERMORE,
UNINSURABLE RISKS ARE ELIMINATED FROM THE PLAN; AND POLICIES ISSUED MAY
PROVIDE LIMITED COVERAGE OF $5,000-$10,000. 

THE CASE IN ITS BROADEST REACH IS ONE IN WHICH THE STATE REQUIRES IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST EACH MEMBER OF A BUSINESS TO ASSUME A PRO RATA
SHARE OF A BURDEN WHICH MODERN CONDITIONS HAVE MADE INCIDENT TO THE
BUSINESS.  IT IS THEREFORE NOT UNLIKE NOBLE STATE BANK V. HASKELL, 219
U.S. 104, WHICH SUSTAINED A STATE LAW ASSESSING EACH STATE BANK FOR THE
CREATION OF A DEPOSITORS' GUARANTY FUND.  WHAT WAS THERE SAID ABOUT THE
POLICE POWER - THAT IT "EXTENDS TO ALL THE GREAT PUBLIC NEEDS" AND MAY
BE UTILIZED IN AID OF WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT DEEMS NECESSARY TO
THE PUBLIC WELFARE (P. 111) - IS PECULIARLY APT WHEN THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE IS INVOLVED - A BUSINESS TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS LONG HAD
A "SPECIAL RELATION."  FN2  SEE OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 65, 66. 
HERE, AS IN THE BANKING FIELD, THE POWER OF THE STATE IS BROAD ENOUGH
TO TAKE OVER THE WHOLE BUSINESS, LEAVING NO PART FOR PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE.  MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219; OSBORN V.
OZLIN, SUPRA, P. 66.  THE STATE MAY THEREFORE HOLD ITS HAND ON
CONDITION THAT LOCAL NEEDS BE SERVICED BY THE BUSINESS.  OSBORN V.
OZLIN, SUPRA, WAS SUCH A CASE; IT SUSTAINED ON THAT THEORY VIRGINIA'S
LAW REQUIRING VIRGINIA RESIDENTS TO HAVE A SHARE IN WRITING CASUALTY
AND SURETY RISKS IN VIRGINIA.  THE PRINCIPLE OF OSBORN V. OZLIN NOW
PRESSES FOR RECOGNITION IN A SITUATION AS ACUTE AS ANY WITH WHICH THE
STATES HAVE HAD TO DEAL.  HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS WITH THEIR TRAIN OF
PROPERTY AND PERSONAL INJURIES ARE NOTORIOUSLY IMPORTANT PROBLEMS IN
EVERY COMMUNITY.  CLEARING THE HIGHWAYS OF IRRESPONSIBLE DRIVERS,
DEVISING WAYS AND MEANS FOR MAKING SURE THAT COMPENSATION IS AWARDED
THE INNOCENT VICTIMS, AND YET MANAGING A SCHEME WHICH LEAVES THE
HIGHWAYS OPEN FOR THE LIVELIHOOD OF THE DESERVING ARE PROBLEMS THAT
HAVE TAXED THE INGENUITY OF LAW MAKERS AND ADMINISTRATORS. 

WHETHER CALIFORNIA'S PROGRAM IS WISE OR UNWISE IS NOT OUR CONCERN. 
SEE OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313 U.S. 236; LINCOLN UNION V. NORTHWESTERN CO.,
335 U.S. 525.  THE PROBLEM IS A LOCAL ONE ON WHICH VIEWS WILL VARY.  WE
CANNOT SAY CALIFORNIA WENT BEYOND PERMISSIBLE LIMITS WHEN IT MADE THE
LIABILITY INSURANCE BUSINESS ACCEPT INSURABLE RISKS WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES
BARRED FROM INSURANCE AND HENCE FROM THE HIGHWAYS.  APPELLANT'S
BUSINESS MAY OF COURSE BE LESS PROSPEROUS AS A RESULT OF THE
REGULATION.  THAT DIMINUTION IN VALUE, HOWEVER, HAS NEVER MOUNTED TO
THE DIGNITY OF A TAKING IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  SEE NOBLE STATE
BANK V. HASKELL, SUPRA, P. 110; BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135, 155. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  UNDER THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER, CAL. ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE, 1947, TIT. 10, SECS. 2400-2498, THERE ARE SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF
PEOPLE EXCLUDED.  THOSE EXCLUDED COVER A WIDE RANGE.  THE FOLLOWING ARE
ILLUSTRATIVE:  THOSE CONVICTED MORE THAN ONCE, WITHIN THREE YEARS OF
APPLICATION, OF MANSLAUGHTER OR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE RESULTING FROM
OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE; THOSE CONVICTED MORE THAN TWICE, IN THE SAME
THREE-YEAR PERIOD, OF DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED OR UNDER THE INFLUENCE
OF LIQUOR; THOSE ADDICTED TO USE OF DRUGS.  SEC. 2431. 

FN2  STATE REGULATION OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS HAS BEEN UPHELD IN A
WIDE VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT THE LAW VIOLATED
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:  SEE HOOPER V.
CALIFORNIA, 155 U.S. 648, REQUIREMENT OF LICENSE AND BOND; ORIENT
INSURANCE CO. V. DAGGS, 172 U.S. 557, FIXING RECOVERY AT INSURED VALUE;
NUTTING V. MASSACHUSETTS, 183 U.S. 553, LICENSE AND DEPOSIT OF
SECURITY; CARROLL V. GREENWICH INSURANCE CO., 199 U.S. 401, PROHIBITION
OF COMBINATIONS OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COMPANIES; NORTHWESTERN LIFE INS.
CO. V. RIGGS, 203 U.S. 243, LIMITATION OF DEFENSES; WHITFIELD V. AETNA
LIFE INS. CO., 205 U.S. 489, SAME; GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. HALE,
219 U.S. 307, STATUTORY PENALTY AGAINST RATE-FIXING COMBINATIONS;
GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. LEWIS, 233 U.S. 389, RATE REGULATIONS;
MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
ACT; LA TOURETTE V. MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465, LICENSING OF BROKERS;
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. V. WANBERG, 260 U.S. 71, LIMITING THE TIME
FOR REJECTION OF HAIL INSURANCE POLICIES; MERCHANTS MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INS. CO. V. SMART, 267 U.S. 126, REGULATION OF LIABILITY UNDER
INDEMNITY POLICIES; AETNA INSURANCE CO. V. HYDE, 275 U.S. 440, RATE
REGULATIONS; O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 282 U.S. 251,
REGULATION OF AGENTS' COMMISSIONS; HARDWARE DEALERS MUTUAL FIRE INS.
CO. V. GLIDDEN CO., 284 U.S. 151, PRESCRIBING COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
PROVISIONS; LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. V. MCCRAY, 291 U.S. 566,
ADDITIONAL RECOVERY FOR FAILURE TO PAY ON DEMAND; OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310
U.S. 53, REQUIRING PARTICIPATION BY RESIDENT AGENTS; HOOPESTON CANNING
CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313, REGULATION OF RECIPROCAL INSURANCE
ASSOCIATIONS; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. V. DUEL, 324 U.S.
154, RESERVE REQUIREMENTS; ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, 328 U.S. 440,
LICENSING OF BROKERS; DANIEL V. FAMILY SECURITY LIFE INS. CO., 336 U.S.
220, SEPARATION OF LIFE INSURANCE AND UNDERTAKING BUSINESSES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK WOULD DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE FRIVOLOUS. 
..END :








WOODWARD V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 112 


NO. 476.  ARGUED APRIL 11, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1951.  - 185 F.2D
134, REVERSED. 


A BROTHER BY ADOPTION IS A PERMISSIBLE BENEFICIARY UNDER SEC. 602(G)
OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF 1940.  PP. 112-113. 

WOODWARD V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE
THE PROCEEDS OF A NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY TAKEN OUT BY
EVELYN HAIZLIP, A MEMBER OF THE WOMEN'S ARMY CORPS.  BEFORE INSURED'S
DEATH IN 1945, PETITIONER, DESCRIBED BY INSURED AS HER "BROTHER," HAD
BEEN DESIGNATED AS BENEFICIARY.  THE HUSBAND OF THE INSURED WAS
INTERPLEADED AS A CONFLICTING CLAIMANT.  IF PETITIONER, WHO WAS
INSURED'S BROTHER BY VIRTUE OF AN ADOPTION DECREE, IS NOT WITHIN THE
PERMISSIBLE CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES UNDER SEC. 602(G) OF THE NATIONAL
SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF 1940* , THE HUSBAND IS ENTITLED TO THE
PROCEEDS IN THIS CASE. 

*"THE INSURANCE SHALL BE PAYABLE ONLY TO A WIDOW, WIDOWER, CHILD  ...
, PARENT, BROTHER OR SISTER OF THE INSURED.  THE INSURED SHALL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE THE BENEFICIARY OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE
INSURANCE, BUT ONLY WITHIN THE CLASSES HEREIN PROVIDED,  ...  "  54
STAT. 1008, 1010, AS AMENDED, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 802(G). 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH HAD HELD THAT
AN ADOPTED BROTHER WAS NOT A PERMISSIBLE BENEFICIARY UNDER SEC.
602(G).  185 F.2D 134(C.A.8TH CIR. 1950).  SEE ALSO THE PRIOR OPINION
OF THAT COURT IN THIS PROCEEDING, 167 F.2D 774(C.A.8TH CIR. 1948).  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT HAD REACHED A DIRECTLY CONTRARY
CONCLUSION UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  CARPENTER V. UNITED STATES,
168 F.2D 369(C.A. 3D CIR. 1948).  OUR GRANT OF CERTIORARI WAS LIMITED
TO THE QUESTION WHETHER A BROTHER BY ADOPTION IS WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE
CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES UNDER SEC. 602(G) OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE
INSURANCE ACT OF 1940.  340 U.S. 929(1951). 

WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ACT, ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND RELATED
STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND HAVE CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS INFERENCES DRAWN
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS BY COUNSEL.  THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS
THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSED ITSELF IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION BEFORE
US.  IN RESOLVING THE CONFLICT OF DECISIONS, WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER
THE WORD "BROTHER," AS USED IN THIS FEDERAL STATUTE, RESTRICTS THE
POLICYHOLDER'S CHOICE OF BENEFICIARIES TO BROTHERS OF THE BLOOD.  WE
ARE PERSUADED BY THE POLICY AGAINST DRAWING SUCH A DISTINCTION IN THE
FAMILY RELATIONSHIP.  CONTEMPORANEOUS LEGAL TREATMENT OF ADOPTED
CHILDREN AS THOUGH BORN INTO THE FAMILY IS A MANIFESTATION OF THAT
POLICY.  SEE CARPENTER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; MCDONALD V. UNITED
STATES, 91 F.SUPP.  163(D.C.D. MASS. 1950).  CONSEQUENTLY, WE HOLD THAT
A BROTHER BY ADOPTION IS A PERMISSIBLE BENEFICIARY UNDER SEC. 602(G) OF
THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF 1940.  REVERSED. 
..END :
















GERENDE V. ELECTION BOARD, 341 U.S. 56 


NO. 577.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 12, 1951.  - MD. - , 78
A.2D 660, AFFIRMED. 


A DECISION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF MARYLAND UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF
A MARYLAND LAW, CONSTRUED AS REQUIRING THAT, IN ORDER FOR A CANDIDATE
FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN THAT STATE TO OBTAIN A PLACE ON THE BALLOT, HE
MUST MAKE OATH THAT HE IS NOT ENGAGED "IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN THE
ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE," AND THAT HE
IS NOT KNOWINGLY A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION ENGAGED IN SUCH AN
ATTEMPT, IS HERE AFFIRMED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT AN AFFIDAVIT IN
THOSE TERMS FULLY SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT.  PP. 56-57. 

GERENDE V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS OF BALTIMORE. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO DENY THE APPELLANT A PLACE
ON THE BALLOT FOR A MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE CITY OF BALTIMORE ON THE
GROUND THAT SHE HAS REFUSED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT REQUIRED BY STATE
LAW.  MD. LAWS 1949, C. 86, SEC. 15.   - MD. - , 78 A.2D 660.  THE
SCOPE OF THE STATE LAW WAS PASSED ON IN SHUB V. SIMPSON, - MD. - , 76
A.2D 332.  WE READ THIS DECISION TO HOLD THAT TO OBTAIN A PLACE ON A
MARYLAND BALLOT A CANDIDATE NEED ONLY MAKE OATH THAT HE IS NOT A PERSON
WHO IS ENGAGED "IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN THE ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE," AND THAT HE IS NOT KNOWINGLY A MEMBER
OF AN ORGANIZATION ENGAGED IN SUCH AN ATTEMPT.   - MD. AT - , 76 A.2D
AT 338.  AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND DECLARED THAT HE WOULD ADVISE THE PROPER AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT
AN AFFIDAVIT IN THESE TERMS AS SATISFYING IN FULL THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING,
THE JUDGMENT OF THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. ALLIED OIL CORP., 341 U.S. 1 


NO. 364.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1951.  - 183 F.2D
453, REVERSED. 


1.  IN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 205(E) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM SELLERS WHO
SOLD COMMODITIES AT OVERCEILING PRICES, WHICH ACTIONS WERE PENDING WHEN
PRICE CONTROLS WERE TERMINATED, THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
(RATHER THAN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SUCCESSOR) AS THE PARTY PLAINTIFF WAS
AUTHORIZED BY EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 9841 AND 9842.  PP. 2-4. 

2.  SUCH AUTHORIZATION WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT.  PP. 4
5. 

UNITED STATES V. ALLIED OIL CORP. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE ACTIONS IN THESE CASES AS
ABATED WERE AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  183 F.2D 453.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 895.  REVERSED, P. 5. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AMENDED, AUTHORIZED THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
TO INSTITUTE DAMAGE ACTIONS AGAINST SELLERS OF COMMODITIES WHO CHARGED
MORE THAN PRESCRIBED CEILING PRICES.  FN1 PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, THE
CONSOLIDATED CASES NOW BEFORE US WERE BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY
THE ADMINISTRATOR IN HIS OWN NAME "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED
STATES," AND WERE PROPERLY PENDING THERE ON APRIL 23, 1947.  FN2  ON
THAT DAY THE PRESIDENT, IN CONNECTION WITH THE TERMINATION OF PRICE
CONTROLS, PROMULGATED EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 9841 AND 9842:  FN3  NO.
9841, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TRANSFERRED VARIOUS PRICE ADMINISTRATION
FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE; NO. 9842, SO FAR AS HERE
MATERIAL, AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT CERTAIN SEC.
205(E) LITIGATION "IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHERWISE AS
PERMITTED BY LAW  ...  "  IN VIEW OF THESE ORDERS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
PROMPTLY MOVED TO SUBSTITUTE THE UNITED STATES AS PARTY PLAINTIFF IN
THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS.  ALTHOUGH THE DISTRICT JUDGE GRANTED THE
MOTION, HE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTS IN 1950 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE
HAD BEEN AN IMPROPER SUBSTITUTION BECAUSE THE SUITS COULD NOT BE
MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN4  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  183 F.2D 453.  IT HELD THAT THE PRESIDENT IN HIS EXECUTIVE
ORDERS DID NOT INTEND TO AUTHORIZE CONDUCT OF SEC. 205(E) ACTIONS IN
THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES.  A BELIEF THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD NO
POWER TO DO SO LED THE COURT TO THIS CONCLUSION.  TO RESOLVE THE
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION AND THOSE FROM OTHER CIRCUITS,  FN5  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 895. 

WE HOLD THAT IT WAS ERROR TO CONSTRUE THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AS NOT
ALLOWING MAINTENANCE OF THESE SUITS IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES. 
IT IS TRUE THAT ORDER NO. 9841 WHICH TRANSFERRED VARIOUS OPA FUNCTIONS
TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE EMPOWERED THE SECRETARY TO "INSTITUTE,
MAINTAIN, OR DEFEND IN HIS OWN NAME CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT  ...
, RELATING TO THE MATTERS TRANSFERRED TO HIM, INCLUDING ANY SUCH
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TRANSFER  ...."  FN6
BUT THIS PROVISION DEMONSTRATES NO PURPOSE TO VEST EXCLUSIVE POWER IN
THE SECRETARY TO MAINTAIN ALL SEC. 205(E) ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.  BY ITS
EXPRESS TERMS IT IS MADE SUBJECT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 9842  FN7  WHICH
DIRECTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO "COORDINATE, CONDUCT, INITIATE,
MAINTAIN OR DEFEND" LITIGATION AGAINST VIOLATORS OF PRICE CONTROL "IN
THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHERWISE AS PERMITTED BY LAW  ...  "
FN8  ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE CONSTRUED THE TWO ORDERS
TOGETHER AS AUTHORIZING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CARRY ON SEC. 205(E)
ENFORCEMENT CASES AND TO DO SO IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS AND OTHER COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE TAKEN THE
SAME VIEW.  FN9  WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH A READING OF THE ORDERS IS THE
MOST REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED. 

THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THESE CASES THEREFORE WAS
PROPER UNLESS, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT, THE PRESIDENT LACKED
POWER TO AUTHORIZE IT. THE VIEW BELOW WAS THAT SEC. 205(E) OF THE PRICE
CONTROL ACT PERMITTED ENFORCEMENT SUITS TO BE BROUGHT ONLY IN THE NAME
OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, OR, WHEN THE BULK OF HIS DUTIES WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, IN THE NAME OF THE LATTER. 
SUCH A CONCLUSION, HOWEVER, IS CERTAINLY NOT COMPELLED BY THE SECTION
WHICH PROVIDES MERELY FOR THE BRINGING OF ACTIONS BY "THE ADMINISTRATOR
...  ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION
BUT THAT THE PRESIDENT AS A STEP IN THE WINDING-UP PROCESS HAD POWER TO
TRANSFER ANY OR ALL OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATION FUNCTIONS TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.  FLEMING V. MOHAWK CO., 331 U.S. 111, 113-119. 
ACCORDINGLY, EXECUTIVE ORDER 9842 COULD LAWFULLY DELEGATE THE CONTROL
AND DIRECTION OF THE PRESENT ACTIONS TO THAT OFFICIAL.  MOREOVER,
NOTHING IN SEC. 205(E) PREVENTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO IS
CUSTOMARILY CHARGED WITH REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERESTS IN
COURT, FROM FOLLOWING HIS NORMAL PROCEDURE OF MAINTAINING ENFORCEMENT
SUITS IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES ITSELF.  FN10  NO UNFAIRNESS TO
THE DEFENDANTS WILL RESULT.  REGARDLESS OF CAPTIONS, THE ISSUES IN
THESE CASES COULD NOT CHANGE AND THE REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST PLAINTIFF
HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME.  CF. UNITED STATES V. REMUND, 330 U.S. 539,
542-543.  THE HANDLING OF THIS LITIGATION IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED
STATES IS A FAIR AND ORDERLY METHOD FOR CARRYING OUT THE CONGRESSIONAL
MANDATE TO WIND UP THE OPA AFFAIRS.  THESE CASES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED.  FN11  REVERSED. 

FN1  56 STAT. 33, AS AMENDED, 58 STAT. 640, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
925(E):  "IF  ...  THE BUYER EITHER FAILS TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION  ...
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION OR
IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY REASON TO BRING THE ACTION, THE ADMINISTRATOR
MAY INSTITUTE SUCH ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  " 

FN2  ACTUALLY, ONE OF THESE SIX CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS WAS INSTITUTED
"FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES" IN THE NAME OF PHILIP B.
FLEMING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY CONTROLS AFTER HE HAD
BECOME THE SUCCESSOR TO THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR.  ON APRIL 23, 1947,
ALL SIX SUITS WERE PROPERLY PENDING IN FLEMING'S NAME.  SEE FLEMING V.
MOHAWK CO., 331 U.S. 111, 113-119.  THE MANNER IN WHICH HE BECAME THE
SUCCESSOR OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR IS DETAILED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN ITS OPINION BELOW.  UNITED STATES V. ALLIED OIL CORP., 183
F.2D 453. 

FN3  12 FED. REG. 2645, 2646. 

FN4  THE RULING WAS THAT THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE WAS THE REAL PARTY
IN-INTEREST PLAINTIFF AND THAT THE ACTIONS HAD ABATED FOR FAILURE TO
SUBSTITUTE THE SECRETARY WITHIN SIX MONTHS AS REQUIRED BY RULE 25(D),
FED. RULES CIV. PROC. 

FN5 FLEMING V. GOODWIN, 165 F.2D 334; UNITED STATES V. KOIKE, 164
F.2D 155; NORTHWESTERN LBR.  & SHINGLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 170 F.2D
692. 

FN6  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9841, SEC. 402 PROVIDES:  "FUNCTIONS UNDER
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, TRANSFERRED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE AUTHORITY ON
THE PART OF EACH OFFICER TO WHOM SUCH FUNCTIONS ARE TRANSFERRED
HEREUNDER TO INSTITUTE, MAINTAIN, OR DEFEND IN HIS OWN NAME CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT (INCLUDING THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS),
RELATING TO THE MATTERS TRANSFERRED TO HIM, INCLUDING ANY SUCH
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF ANY SUCH
FUNCTION UNDER THIS ORDER.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ENTITLED 'CONDUCT OF
CERTAIN LITIGATION ARISING UNDER WARTIME LEGISLATION,' (ORDER NO. 9842)
ISSUED ON THE DATE OF THIS ORDER  ...  " 

FN7  SEE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9841, SEC. 402, NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN8  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9842 PROVIDES:  "1.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED, IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHERWISE
AS PERMITTED BY LAW, TO COORDINATE, CONDUCT, INITIATE, MAINTAIN OR
DEFEND: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  LITIGATION AGAINST VIOLATORS OF REGULATIONS, SCHEDULES OR
ORDERS RELATING TO MAXIMUM PRICES PERTAINING TO ANY COMMODITY WHICH HAS
BEEN REMOVED FROM PRICE CONTROL  ... " 

PRICE CONTROLS HAD BEEN LIFTED ON THE COMMODITIES INVOLVED IN THE
PRESENT ACTIONS PRIOR TO THE PROMULGATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 9841
AND 9842. 

FN9  HAL-MAR DRESS CO. V. CLARK, 165 F.2D 222, AND CASES CITED NOTE
5, SUPRA. 

FN10  CF. UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19, 27-28; UNITED
STATES V. SAN JACINTO TIN CO., 125 U.S. 273, 279. 

FN11  RESPONDENTS HAVE CONTENDED IN THEIR BRIEF THAT BY VIRTUE OF 28
U.S.C. SEC. 2105 THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THESE
ACTIONS AS ABATED WERE NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW.  THIS CONTENTION IS
UNTENABLE IN VIEW OF THE RECENT DECISION IN SNYDER V. BUCK, 340 U.S.
15, 21-22. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














AMERICAN FIRE & CAS. CO. V. FINN, 341 U.S. 6 


NO. 252.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1950.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1951.  - 181 F.2D
845, REVERSED. 


IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN A TEXAS COURT BY A RESIDENT OF THAT STATE TO
RECOVER FOR A LOSS BY FIRE, THE COMPLAINT NAMED AS DEFENDANTS TWO
FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES (ONE OF WHICH IS THE PETITIONER HERE) AND A
RESIDENT AGENT OF THE COMPANIES.  THE SINGLE WRONG FOR WHICH RELIEF WAS
SOUGHT WAS THE FAILURE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LOSS, AND THE THREE
DEFENDANTS WERE JOINED BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHO WAS LIABLE. 
AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, PETITIONER REMOVED THE CASE TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT, WHICH RENDERED JUDGMENT AGAINST PETITIONER AND ABSOLVED
THE OTHER DEFENDANTS.  PETITIONER THEREAFTER MOVED TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE STATE COURT.  HELD: 

1.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE,
SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT STATED; AND, UNDER
28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(C), THERE WAS NO RIGHT OF REMOVAL OF THE CASE FROM
THE STATE COURT TO THE FEDERAL COURT.  PP. 9-16. 

(A)  IN ADOPTING THE "SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLAIM OR CAUSE OF
ACTION" TEST FOR REMOVABILITY, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(C)(1948), CONGRESS
INTENDED TO AVOID THE DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED IN DETERMINING THE
MEANING OF THE FORMER PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 71 AND TO LIMIT
REMOVAL FROM STATE COURTS.  PP. 9-10. 

(B)  A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY IS NO LONGER AN ADEQUATE GROUND FOR
REMOVAL UNLESS IT ALSO CONSTITUTES A "SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLAIM OR
CAUSE OF ACTION."  PP. 11-12. 

(C)  THE PHRASE "CAUSE OF ACTION," AS USED IN SEC. 1441, MUST BE
GIVEN A MEANING WHICH WILL ACCOMPLISH THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE OF
LIMITING AND SIMPLIFYING REMOVAL.  PP. 12-13. 

(D)  WHERE A PLAINTIFF SEEKS RELIEF FOR A SINGLE WRONG, ARISING FROM
AN INTERLOCKED SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS, THERE IS NO "SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION" UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(C). 
PP. 13-14. 

2.  BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF A CITIZEN OF TEXAS ON EACH SIDE, THE
DISTRICT COURT WOULD NOT HAVE HAD ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS SUIT,
EITHER AS STATED IN THE COMPLAINT OR IN THE POSTURE OF THE CASE AT THE
TIME OF JUDGMENT.  THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT MUST
BE VACATED.  PP. 16-19. 

(A)  TO PERMIT A FEDERAL TRIAL COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN A CASE
REMOVED WITHOUT RIGHT FROM A STATE COURT WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT COULD
NOT HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT, EVEN IN ITS POSTURE AT THE
TIME OF JUDGMENT, WOULD BY THE ACT OF THE PARTIES WORK A WRONGFUL
EXTENSION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND GIVE DISTRICT COURTS POWER THAT
CONGRESS HAS DENIED THEM.  PP. 17-18. 

AMERICAN FIRE & CASUALTY CO. V. FINN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT REMOVED BY PETITIONER FROM A STATE COURT, THE DISTRICT
COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST PETITIONER.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL
OF PETITIONER'S SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE
CASE TO THE STATE COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  181 F.2D
845.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 849.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 19. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE PROCEEDINGS PRESENT FOR DETERMINATION THE PROPER FEDERAL RULE
TO BE FOLLOWED ON A MOTION BY A DEFENDANT TO VACATE A UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, OBTAINED BY A PLAINTIFF AFTER REMOVAL FROM A
STATE COURT BY DEFENDANT, AND TO REMAND THE SUIT TO THE STATE COURT. 
PETITIONER, THE MOVANT, URGES THAT 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441 DID NOT PERMIT
THIS REMOVAL AND THEREFORE THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
TO RENDER THE JUDGMENT WHICH RESPONDENT, THE PLAINTIFF BELOW, SEEKS TO
RETAIN.  THE ISSUE AROSE IN THIS WAY: 

PETITIONER, THE AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, A FLORIDA
CORPORATION, AND ITS CODEFENDANT, THE INDIANA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, AN INDIANA CORPORATION, REMOVED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
28 U.S.C. SEC. 1446, A SUIT BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT FINN IN A TEXAS STATE
COURT AGAINST THE TWO CORPORATIONS AND AN INDIVIDUAL, REISS, LOCAL
AGENT OF BOTH CORPORATIONS AND A RESIDENT OF TEXAS.  THE SUIT WAS FOR A
FIRE LOSS ON TEXAS PROPERTY SUFFERED BY RESPONDENT, A RESIDENT OF
TEXAS.  RESPONDENT TRIED TO HAVE THE CASE REMANDED BEFORE TRIAL BUT WAS
UNSUCCESSFUL.  AFTER SPECIAL ISSUES WERE FOUND BY THE JURY, JUDGMENT
WAS ENTERED AGAINST PETITIONER FOR THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE CLAIMED AND
COSTS, AND IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DENIED THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  181 F.2D 845.  THE LATTER COURT CONCLUDED THERE WERE CAUSES
OF ACTION AGAINST THE FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES "SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT" FROM THAT STATED AGAINST THE RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL.  SINCE
THE CAUSES AGAINST THE COMPANIES WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVABLE IF SUED ON
ALONE, THE ENTIRE SUIT WAS REMOVABLE.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(C).  THAT
RULING REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE CHANGES CONCERNING REMOVAL MADE BY
SEC. 1441(C), WHICH SUPERSEDED 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  71.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS SAID: 

"THE DIFFERENCE, IF ANY, BETWEEN SEPARABLE CONTROVERSIES UNDER THE
OLD STATUTE AND SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLAIMS UNDER THE NEW ONE IS IN
DEGREE, NOT IN KIND.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TWO
CONCEPTS, BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ATTEMPT IT IN A CASE LIKE THIS,
WHICH WOULD BE REMOVABLE UNDER EITHER STATUTE."  181 F.2D 846. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE RULING ON THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT
REQUIRES A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE SUIT CONTAINED SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER SEC. 1441(C), AND, IF THE CONCLUSION
IS THAT IT DID NOT, A RULING ON THE EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT AFTER A
REMOVAL WITHOUT RIGHT, INITIATED BY THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE JUDGMENT
WAS ULTIMATELY RENDERED.  AS PROMPT, ECONOMICAL AND SOUND
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DEPENDS TO A LARGE DEGREE UPON DEFINITE AND
FINALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IMPORTANT AREAS OF LITIGATION,
SUCH AS THE RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS OF FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 849.  SEE ALSO MAYFLOWER INDUSTRIES V.
THOR CORPORATION, 184 F.2D 537; BENTLEY V. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL
CEMENTING CO., 174 F.2D 788. 

                              I. 

THE REMOVAL TOOK PLACE AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE REVISION OF THE LAWS RELATING TO JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.  62 STAT.
992.  THE FORMER PROVISION GOVERNING REMOVAL, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.) 
SEC.  71, READ: 

"AND WHEN IN ANY SUIT MENTIONED IN THIS SECTION THERE SHALL BE A
CONTROVERSY WHICH IS WHOLLY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, AND
WHICH CAN BE FULLY DETERMINED AS BETWEEN THEM, THEN EITHER ONE OR MORE
OF THE DEFENDANTS ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN SUCH CONTROVERSY MAY REMOVE
SAID SUIT INTO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PROPER
DISTRICT." 

THE NEW SECTION, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(C), STATES: 

"(C)  WHENEVER A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION,
WHICH WOULD BE REMOVABLE IF SUED UPON ALONE, IS JOINED WITH ONE OR MORE
OTHERWISE NON-REMOVABLE CLAIMS OR CAUSES OF ACTION, THE ENTIRE CASE MAY
BE REMOVED AND THE DISTRICT COURT MAY DETERMINE ALL ISSUES THEREIN, OR,
IN ITS DISCRETION, MAY REMAND ALL MATTERS NOT OTHERWISE WITHIN ITS
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION." 

ONE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN ADOPTING THE "SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT
CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION" TEST FOR REMOVABILITY BY SEC. 1441(C) OF THE
1948 REVISION IN LIEU OF THE PROVISION FOR REMOVAL OF 28 U.S.C. (1946
ED.)  SEC.  71, WAS BY SIMPLIFICATION TO AVOID THE DIFFICULTIES
EXPERIENCED IN DETERMINING THE MEANING OF THAT PROVISION.  FN1  ANOTHER
AND IMPORTANT PURPOSE WAS TO LIMIT REMOVAL FROM STATE COURTS.  FN2
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES AND FULLY DETERMINABLE BETWEEN THEM.  SUCH
A CONTROVERSY WAS SAID TO BE "SEPARABLE."  THE DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN
OLD SEC. 71 SHOW PLAINLY IN THE MAJORITY AND CONCURRING OPINIONS IN
PULLMAN CO. V. JENKINS, 305 U.S. 534, 542.  SEE NOTE, 41 HARV. L. REV.
1048.  OFTEN PLAINTIFFS IN STATE ACTIONS JOINED OTHER STATE RESIDENTS
AS DEFENDANTS WITH OUT-OF-STATE DEFENDANTS SO THAT REMOVABLE
CONTROVERSIES WHOLLY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES WOULD NOT BE
PLEADED.  THE EFFORT FREQUENTLY FAILED, SEE PULLMAN CO. V. JENKINS, AT
538, AND REMOVAL WAS ALLOWED.  OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE MEANING AND
EFFECT OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(C) SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT IN THE LIGHT OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION.  CF. PULLMAN CO. V. JENKINS, SUPRA, AT
547; PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 250. 

THE CONGRESS, IN THE REVISION, CARRIED OUT ITS PURPOSE TO ABRIDGE THE
RIGHT OF REMOVAL.  FN3 UNDER THE FORMER PROVISION, 28 U.S.C. (1946
ED.)  SEC.  71, SEPARABLE CONTROVERSIES AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE
SUIT.  "CONTROVERSY" HAD LONG BEEN ASSOCIATED IN LEGAL THINKING WITH
"CASE."  IT COVERED ALL DISPUTES THAT MIGHT COME BEFORE FEDERAL COURTS
FOR ADJUDICATION.  IN SEC. 71 THE REMOVABLE "CONTROVERSY" WAS
INTERPRETED AS ANY POSSIBLE SEPARATE SUIT THAT A LITIGANT MIGHT
PROPERLY BRING IN A FEDERAL COURT SO LONG AS IT WAS WHOLLY BETWEEN
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES.  SO, BEFORE THE REVISION, WHEN A SUIT IN
A STATE COURT HAD SUCH A SEPARABLE FEDERALLY COGNIZABLE CONTROVERSY,
THE ENTIRE SUIT MIGHT BE REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL COURT.  FN4 

A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY IS NO LONGER AN ADEQUATE GROUND FOR REMOVAL
UNLESS IT ALSO CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLAIM OR CAUSE OF
ACTION.  COMPARE BARNEY V. LATHAM, 103 U.S. 205, 212, WITH THE REVISED
SEC. 1441.  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL NOW UNDER SEC. 1441(C) ONLY
WHEN THERE IS A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION.  FN5
OF COURSE, "SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION" RESTRICTS REMOVAL MORE THAN
"SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY."  IN A SUIT COVERING MULTIPLE PARTIES OR ISSUES
BASED ON A SINGLE CLAIM, THERE MAY BE ONLY ONE CAUSE OF ACTION AND YET
BE SEPARABLE CONTROVERSIES.  FN6  THE ADDITION OF THE WORD
"INDEPENDENT" GIVES EMPHASIS TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION TO REQUIRE MORE
COMPLETE DISASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE FEDERALLY COGNIZABLE PROCEEDINGS
AND THOSE COGNIZABLE ONLY IN STATE COURTS BEFORE ALLOWING REMOVAL. 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RESTRICTIVE POLICY OF CONGRESS AGAINST
REMOVAL DEPENDS UPON THE MEANING ASCRIBED TO "SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT
...  CAUSE OF ACTION."  SEC. 1441.  ALTHOUGH "CONTROVERSY" AND "CAUSE
OF ACTION" ARE TREATED AS SYNONYMOUS BY THE COURTS IN SITUATIONS WHERE
THE PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS ARE ABSENT,  FN7  HERE IT IS OBVIOUS
DIFFERENT CONCEPTS ARE INVOLVED.  FN8  WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL THAT THE
PHRASE "CAUSE OF ACTION" HAS MANY MEANINGS.  FN9  TO ACCOMPLISH ITS
PURPOSE OF LIMITING AND SIMPLIFYING REMOVAL, CONGRESS USED THE PHRASE
"CAUSE OF ACTION" IN AN ACCEPTED MEANING TO OBTAIN THAT RESULT.  BY
INTERPRETATION WE SHOULD NOT DEFEAT THAT PURPOSE. 

IN A SUIT TURNING ON THE MEANING OF "CAUSE OF ACTION," THIS COURT
ANNOUNCED AN ACCEPTED DESCRIPTION.  BALTIMORE S.S. CO. V. PHILLIPS, 274
U.S. 316.  FN10  THIS COURT SAID, P. 321: 

"UPON PRINCIPLE, IT IS PERFECTLY PLAIN THAT THE RESPONDENT SUFFERED
BUT ONE ACTIONABLE WRONG AND WAS ENTITLED TO BUT ONE RECOVERY, WHETHER
HIS INJURY WAS DUE TO ONE OR THE OTHER OF SEVERAL DISTINCT ACTS OF
ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OR TO A COMBINATION OF SOME OR ALL OF THEM.  IN
EITHER VIEW, THERE WOULD BE BUT A SINGLE WRONGFUL INVASION OF A SINGLE
PRIMARY RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFF, NAMELY, THE RIGHT OF BODILY SAFETY,
WHETHER THE ACTS CONSTITUTING SUCH INVASION WERE ONE OR MANY, SIMPLE OR
COMPLEX. 

"A CAUSE OF ACTION DOES NOT CONSIST OF FACTS, BUT OF THE UNLAWFUL
VIOLATION OF A RIGHT WHICH THE FACTS SHOW." 

SEE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 443.  FN11
CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS HISTORY OF "SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY," THE BROAD
MEANING OF "CAUSE OF ACTION," AND THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IN THE
REVISION RESULTING IN 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(C), WE CONCLUDE THAT WHERE
THERE IS A SINGLE WRONG TO PLAINTIFF, FOR WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT,
ARISING FROM AN INTERLOCKED SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS, THERE IS NO
SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SEC. 1441(C). 
FN12 

IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION WE LOOK TO THE PLAINTIFF'S PLEADING,
WHICH CONTROLS.  PULLMAN CO. V. JENKINS, 305 U.S. 534, 538.  FN13  THE
SINGLE WRONG FOR WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT IS THE FAILURE TO PAY
COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS ON THE PROPERTY.  LIABILITY LAY AMONG THREE
PARTIES, BUT IT WAS UNCERTAIN WHICH ONE WAS RESPONSIBLE.  THEREFORE,
ALL WERE JOINED AS DEFENDANTS IN ONE PETITION.  FIRST, FACTS WERE
STATED THAT MADE THE PETITIONER, AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY,
LIABLE.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE COMPANY, THROUGH ITS AGENT REISS,
INSURED THE PROPERTY DESTROYED FOR THE AMOUNT CLAIMED, THAT REISS GAVE
PLAINTIFF CREDIT FOR THE PREMIUM, CONTROLLED HER INSURANCE, AGREED TO
KEEP THE PROPERTY INSURED AT ALL TIMES.  SHE FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE
COMPANY ISSUED THE POLICY BUT REISS RETAINED THE DOCUMENT IN HIS
POSSESSION AND REFUSED TO DELIVER IT AFTER THE FIRE.  THEN FOLLOWED A
PRAYER FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COMPANY. 

THE NEXT PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT STATED, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN
OBLIGATION BY THE INDIANA LUMBERMENS INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY THE SAME
LOSS.  THE POLICY WITH LUMBERMENS WAS ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT, AND
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING REISS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE FIRST PORTION WERE
MADE.  A SECOND PRAYER WAS ADDED FOR RECOVERY AGAINST LUMBERMENS. 

THE LAST PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT, ALTERNATIVE TO BOTH THE PRECEDING,
ALLEGED THAT REISS, AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND INDIANA
LUMBERMENS INSURANCE COMPANY WERE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE
LOSS.  REISS WAS SAID TO BE PLAINTIFF'S INSURANCE BROKER, RESPONSIBLE
FOR KEEPING HER HOUSE INSURED.  PLAINTIFF ALLEGED REISS INSURED HER
PROPERTY WITH LUMBERMENS AND NEVER NOTIFIED HER OF ANY CANCELLATION OR
EXPIRATION.  REISS WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE AGREED LATER TO INSURE HER
PROPERTY WITH AMERICAN, TO HAVE PROMISED AFTER THE FIRE TO DELIVER THE
POLICY, TO HAVE FAILED TO MAKE THE PROMISED DELIVERY.  SHE CLAIMED THAT
REISS WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR "ANYTHING THAT RESULTS IN THE DEFEAT OF HER
RECOVERY ON EITHER ONE OF SAID POLICIES" AND THAT HE WAS "THE DIRECT
CAUSE OF THE CONDITION, OF SAID INSURANCE, AND THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF
ALL OF PLAINTIFF'S TROUBLES AND CONFUSION."  THE PLEADER THEN
ASSERTED: 

"THAT SUCH ACTS AND CONDUCT ON THE PART OF SAID JOE REISS AS AGENT
FOR THE SAID TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES, RENDERS SAID JOE REISS, AGENT,
THE JOE REISS INSURANCE AGENCY AND THE AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA, AND THE INDIANA LUMBERMENS
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES THAT PLAINTIFF HAS
SUFFERED BY REASON OF SAID FIRE IN THE AMOUNT OF FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS." 

THE PETITION CONCLUDED WITH A PRAYER FOR JOINT AND SEVERAL JUDGMENT
AGAINST ALL THREE DEFENDANTS, BASED ON THE THIRD SET OF ALLEGATIONS. 

THE PAST HISTORY OF REMOVAL OF "SEPARABLE" CONTROVERSIES, THE EFFORT
OF CONGRESS TO CREATE A SURER TEST, AND THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO
RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL LEADS US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SEPARATE
AND INDEPENDENT CAUSES OF ACTION ARE NOT STATED.  THE FACTS IN EACH
PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT INVOLVE REISS, THE DAMAGE COMES FROM A SINGLE
INCIDENT.  THE ALLEGATIONS IN WHICH REISS IS A DEFENDANT INVOLVE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AS DO THE ALLEGATIONS IN
THE FIRST PORTION OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FOREIGN INSURANCE
COMPANIES.  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AS SEC. 1441(C) REQUIRES.  THEREFORE, WE CONCLUDE
THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO REMOVAL. 

                                 II. 

THERE ARE CASES WHICH UPHOLD JUDGMENTS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS EVEN
THOUGH THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO REMOVAL.  FN14  IN THOSE CASES THE FEDERAL
TRIAL COURT WOULD HAVE HAD ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE CONTROVERSY HAD
IT BEEN BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN THE POSTURE IT HAD AT THE TIME
OF THE ACTUAL TRIAL OF THE CAUSE OR OF THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT.  THAT
IS, IF THE LITIGATION HAD BEEN INITIATED IN THE FEDERAL COURT ON THE
ISSUES AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT COMPRISED THE CASE AT THE TIME OF
TRIAL OR JUDGMENT, THE FEDERAL COURT WOULD HAVE HAD COGNIZANCE OF THE
CASE.  THIS CIRCUMSTANCE WAS RELIED UPON AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE
HOLDINGS.  FN15  THE DEFENDANT WHO HAD REMOVED THE ACTION WAS HELD TO
BE ESTOPPED FROM PROTESTING THAT THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO REMOVAL.  SINCE
THE FEDERAL COURT COULD HAVE HAD JURISDICTION ORIGINALLY, THE ESTOPPEL
DID NOT ENDOW IT WITH A JURISDICTION IT COULD NOT POSSESS.    IN THIS
CASE, HOWEVER, THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD NOT HAVE HAD ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT, AS FIRST STATED IN THE COMPLAINT, BECAUSE OF
THE PRESENCE ON EACH SIDE OF A CITIZEN OF TEXAS.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1332. 
THE POSTURE OF THIS CASE EVEN AT THE TIME OF JUDGMENT ALSO BARRED
FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  A TEXAS CITIZEN WAS AND REMAINED A PARTY
DEFENDANT.  THE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT, AFTER DECREEING RECOVERY AGAINST
AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY ON THE JURY'S VERDICT, ADDED, OVER
AMERICAN'S OBJECTION, 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT THE PLAINTIFF TAKE
NOTHING AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS, INDIANA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY AND JOE REISS, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS THE JOE REISS
INSURANCE AGENCY, AND THAT SUCH DEFENDANTS GO HENCE WITHOUT DAY WITH
THEIR COSTS." 

BY THIS DECREE THE MERITS OF THE LITIGATION AGAINST REISS WERE
FINALLY ADJUDICATED.  FN16  THE REQUEST OF RESPONDENT TO DISMISS REISS
AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT ACTED UPON BY THE TRIAL COURT. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IS CAREFULLY GUARDED AGAINST
EXPANSION BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OR BY PRIOR ACTION OR CONSENT OF
THE PARTIES.  FN17  TO PERMIT A FEDERAL TRIAL COURT TO ENTER A JUDGMENT
IN A CASE REMOVED WITHOUT RIGHT FROM A STATE COURT WHERE THE FEDERAL
COURT COULD NOT HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT EVEN IN THE
POSTURE IT HAD AT THE TIME OF JUDGMENT, WOULD BY THE ACT OF THE PARTIES
WORK A WRONGFUL EXTENSION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND GIVE DISTRICT
COURTS POWER THE CONGRESS HAS DENIED THEM. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT
ENTERED AND, IF NO FURTHER STEPS ARE TAKEN BY ANY PARTY TO AFFECT ITS
JURISDICTION,  FN18  TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS
COUNTY, TEXAS, WITH COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER.  TENNESSEE V. UNION &
PLANTERS' BANK, 152 U.S. 454, 464.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEE REVISER'S NOTES WITH H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., APRIL 25, 1947, TO ACCOMPANY THE REVISION BILL, H.R. 3214. 
(U.S.C., CONG. SERV., FOR TITLE 28, 1948, PP. 1697, 1699, 1855.)  THE
REVISER'S NOTE IS REPRINTED AT 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441.  SEE UNITED STATES
V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, 337 U.S. 78, 81. 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441, REVISER'S NOTE: 

"SUBSECTION (C) PERMITS THE REMOVAL OF A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION BUT
NOT OF A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY UNLESS IT CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.  IN THIS RESPECT IT WILL SOMEWHAT
DECREASE THE VOLUME OF FEDERAL LITIGATION." 

CONGRESS HAD ENACTED OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON REMOVAL IN SPECIAL ACTS
SUCH AS THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.) 
SEC.  71; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1445. 

FN3  CARE WAS TAKEN TO MAINTAIN OPPORTUNITY FOR STATE TRIAL OF NON
FEDERAL MATTERS. 

28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441, REVISER'S NOTE: 

"RULES 18, 20, AND 23 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PERMIT
THE MOST LIBERAL JOINDER OF PARTIES, CLAIMS, AND REMEDIES IN CIVIL
ACTIONS.  THEREFORE THERE WILL BE NO PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTY OCCASIONED
BY THE REMOVAL OF THE ENTIRE ACTION.  CONVERSELY, IF THE COURT SO
DESIRES, IT MAY REMAND TO THE STATE COURT ALL NONREMOVABLE MATTERS." 
SEE MCFADDEN V. GRACE LINE, 82 F.SUPP.  494. 

FN4  BARNEY V. LATHAM, 103 U.S. 205, IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION.  THIS
COURT HELD THAT THERE WERE SEPARABLE CONTROVERSIES IN A STATE COURT
SUIT AGAINST A LOCAL CORPORATION AND NONRESIDENT INDIVIDUALS FOR AN
ACCOUNTING ON LAND SALES.  ONE GROUP OF SALES WAS BY THE NONRESIDENTS
BEFORE CONVEYANCE TO THE CORPORATION; THE OTHER BY THE CORPORATION
AFTER CONVEYANCE. 

SEE ALSO PULLMAN CO. V. JENKINS, 305 U.S. 534.  THERE A SUIT WAS
INSTITUTED IN A CALIFORNIA COURT FOR DAMAGES FOR A CONDUCTOR'S DEATH
CAUSED BY A DRUNKEN PULLMAN PASSENGER.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE
PASSENGER (A CALIFORNIAN), THE RAILROAD (A KENTUCKY CORPORATION,
ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT FOR LETTING THE PASSENGER PASS ITS GATES), THE
PULLMAN COMPANY (AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION), AND ITS PORTER (A
CALIFORNIAN), THE LATTER TWO ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT FOR LETTING THE
PASSENGER ON THE PULLMAN.  HAD THE PORTER NOT BEEN A CALIFORNIAN, THE
PULLMAN COMPANY COULD HAVE REMOVED ON THE GROUND OF A SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSY BECAUSE NO FACTS WERE ALLEGED AS TO OTHER DEFENDANTS'
NEGLIGENCE UPON WHICH ITS LIABILITY COULD BE PREDICATED.  P. 539. 
"(ALL) PERSONS INTERESTED IN A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY MUST BE ABLE TO
REMOVE."  DISCUSSED IN MOORE'S COMMENTARY ON THE U.S. JUDICIAL CODE, P.
247. 

FN5  WE THINK THE "CLAIM" SET OUT IN A PETITION STATES THE FACTS UPON
WHICH THE "CAUSE OF ACTION" RESTS.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVAL, THE
WORDS COVER THE SAME ALLEGATIONS. 

SINCE THE PULLMAN CASE AND THE BARNEY CASE DO NOT CONTAIN SEPARATE
AND INDEPENDENT CAUSES OF ACTION, THEY WOULD NOT NOW BE REMOVABLE UNDER
28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN7  E.G., TOLBERT V. JACKSON, 99 F.2D 513, 514(A VALUABLE CASE); DES
MOINES ELEVATOR & GRAIN CO. V. UNDERWRITERS' GRAIN ASSN., 63 F.2D 103;
NICHOLS V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO., 195 F. 913. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288 U.S. 62, 67-69;
BEMIS BRO. BAG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 28, 33; HURN V. OURSLER,
289 U.S. 238, 247. 

FN10  THERE A SAILOR FILED A LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY AND RECOVERED FOR
NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE TO WORK, IN FAILING TO
USE REASONABLE CARE TO AVOID STRIKING LIBELLANT, FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS,
INCOMPETENCY OF OFFICERS AND FAILURE TO INSTRUCT PLAINTIFF, AN
INEXPERIENCED SAILOR, IN HIS DUTIES.  LATER HE SOUGHT FURTHER DAMAGES
FOR THE SAME ACCIDENT, FOR NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE
OPERATION OF THE VESSEL.  RECOVERY WAS DENIED IN THE SECOND SUIT ON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION AS THE FIRST. 

FN11  IN CHASE SECURITIES CORP. V. DONALDSON, 325 U.S. 304, 311, WE
ACCEPTED A LIKE STATE RULE: "THE STATE COURTS SEEM TO HAVE TREATED THE
COMPLAINT AS SETTING UP SEVERAL BASES FOR A SINGLE COMMON-LAW CAUSE OF
ACTION IN TORT WHICH HAD BEEN REMANDED FOR RETRIAL AT THE TIME THE NEW
STATUTE WAS ENACTED.  WE MUST REGARD IT IN THAT SAME LIGHT."  SO IN
HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238, 246: "THE BILL ALLEGES THE VIOLATION OF
A SINGLE RIGHT, NAMELY, THE RIGHT TO PROTECTION OF THE COPYRIGHTED
PLAY.  AND IT IS THIS VIOLATION WHICH CONSTITUTES THE CAUSE OF ACTION. 
INDEED, THE CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION SO PRECISELY
REST UPON IDENTICAL FACTS AS TO BE LITTLE MORE THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF
DIFFERENT EPITHETS TO CHARACTERIZE THE SAME GROUP OF CIRCUMSTANCES. 
THE PRIMARY RELIEF SOUGHT IS AN INJUNCTION TO PUT AN END TO AN
ESSENTIALLY SINGLE WRONG, HOWEVER DIFFERENTLY CHARACTERIZED, NOT TO
ENJOIN DISTINCT WRONGS CONSTITUTING THE BASIS FOR INDEPENDENT CAUSES OF
ACTION."  SEE BEHRENS V. SKELLY, 173 F.2D 715, 719; COPE V. ANDERSON,
331 U.S. 461, 466. 

FN12  SEE A DISCUSSION OF CAUSE OF ACTION IN CODE PLEADING.  CLARK ON
CODE PLEADING (2D ED.), 137 ET SEQ. 

FN13  MOORE'S COMMENTARY ON THE U.S. JUDICIAL CODE, SUPRA, PP. 251
252:  "BUT WHERE THE PLAINTIFF JOINS TWO OR MORE DEFENDANTS TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR ONE INJURY, AND EVEN THOUGH HE CHARGES THEM WITH JOINT AND
SEVERAL LIABILITY OR ONLY SEVERAL LIABILITY, OR CHARGES THEM WITH
LIABILITY IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THERE IS NO JOINDER OF SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT CAUSES OF ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1441(C).  AT
MOST A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY IS PRESENTED WHERE SEVERAL OR ALTERNATIVE
LIABILITY IS ALLEGED, AND IS NO LONGER THE BASIS FOR REMOVAL."  COMPARE
THE OPINION IN BENTLEY V. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO., 81
F.SUPP.  323, WITH THE REVERSING OPINION IN 174 F.2D 788. 

FN14 BAGGS V. MARTIN, 179 U.S. 206; TOLEDO, ST. L. & W.R. CO. V.
PERENCHIO, 205 F. 472; HANDLEY-MACK CO. V. GODCHAUX SUGAR CO., 2 F.2D
435; BAILEY V. TEXAS CO., 47 F.2D 153. 

FN15  E.G., IN BAGGS V. MARTIN, 179 U.S. 206, THE FEDERAL COURT HAD
JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE RECEIVER AND IT WAS
NOT A PROCEEDING WHEREIN "MERE CONSENT, OR EVEN VOLUNTARY ACTION BY THE
PARTIES,  ...  (CONFERRED) JURISDICTION UPON A COURT WHICH WOULD NOT
HAVE POSSESSED IT WITHOUT SUCH CONSENT OR ACTION."  P. 209. 

FN16  SEE BURTON-LINGO CO. V. LAY, 142 S.W.2D 448; SPANN BROTHERS
AUTO SUPPLY CO. V. MILES, 135 S.W.2D 1016, 1017. 

FN17  PEOPLE'S BANK V. CALHOUN, 102 U.S. 256, 260-261:  "IT NEEDS NO
CITATION OF AUTHORITIES TO SHOW THAT THE MERE CONSENT OF PARTIES CANNOT
CONFER UPON A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND
DECIDE A CASE.  IF THIS WERE ONCE CONCEDED, THE FEDERAL COURTS WOULD
BECOME THE COMMON RESORT OF PERSONS WHO HAVE NO RIGHT, EITHER UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TO LITIGATE IN THOSE
COURTS." 

MANSFIELD, C. & L.M.R. CO. V. SWAN, 111 U.S. 379, 383, QUOTING WITH
APPROVAL AN EXCERPT FROM THE DISSENT IN THE DRED SCOTT CASE: 

"IT IS TRUE  ...  AS A GENERAL RULE, THAT THE COURT WILL NOT ALLOW A
PARTY TO RELY ON ANYTHING AS CAUSE FOR REVERSING A JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS
FOR HIS ADVANTAGE.  IN THIS, WE FOLLOW AN ANCIENT RULE OF THE COMMON
LAW.  BUT SO CAREFUL WAS THAT LAW OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE COURSE OF
ITS COURTS, THAT IT MADE AN EXCEPTION OUT OF THAT GENERAL RULE, AND
ALLOWED A PARTY TO ASSIGN FOR ERROR THAT WHICH WAS FOR HIS ADVANTAGE,
IF IT WERE A DEPARTURE BY THE COURT ITSELF FROM ITS SETTLED COURSE OF
PROCEDURE." 

ALSO SEE, E.G., WABASH R. CO. V. BARBOUR, 73 F. 513, 516; CAPRON V.
VAN NOORDEN, 2 CRANCH 126. 

FN18  ISSUES NOT RAISED IN THE RECORDS OR BRIEFS ARE NOT PASSED UPON,
SUCH AS THE PROPRIETY OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ALLOWING, AFTER VACATION
OF JUDGMENT, A MOTION TO DISMISS REISS, THE RESIDENT DEFENDANT; OR THE
ASSOCIATED PROBLEM:  WHETHER, IF SUCH A DISMISSAL IS ALLOWED, A NEW
JUDGMENT CAN BE ENTERED ON THE OLD VERDICT WITHOUT A NEW TRIAL.  THESE
QUESTIONS AND LIKE MATTERS ARE FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT.  SEE, E.G., DOLLAR S.S. LINES V. MERZ, 68 F.2D 594;
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION V. DONNELLY GARMENT CO.,
121 F.2D 561. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I THINK PETITIONER, HAVING ASKED FOR AND OBTAINED THE REMOVAL OF THE
CASE TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, AND HAVING LOST ITS CASE IN THAT
COURT, IS NOW ESTOPPED FROM HAVING IT REMANDED TO THE STATE COURT. 

MERE IRREGULARITY IN THE REMOVAL MAY BE WAIVED WHERE THE SUIT MIGHT
ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  BAGGS V.
MARTIN, 179 U.S. 206.  FN1  THAT WAS A SUIT AGAINST A RECEIVER WHICH
COULD HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  IT WAS REMOVED THERE
BY THE RECEIVER AND JUDGMENT RENDERED AGAINST HIM.  THE COURT DID NOT
STOP TO INQUIRE WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A COMPLIANCE WITH THE REMOVAL
PROVISIONS, HOLDING THAT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT DID NOT LIE IN
THE MOUTH OF THE RECEIVER TO DENY THE JURISDICTION HE HAD SOUGHT.  AND
SEE TOLEDO, ST. L. & W.R. CO. V. PERENCHIO, 205 F. 472; HANDLEY-MACK
CO. V. GODCHAUX SUGAR CO., 2 F.2D 435, 437; BAILEY V. TEXAS CO., 47
F.2D 153, 155. 

THE SUIT AGAINST PETITIONER COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ORIGINALLY IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, SINCE THERE WAS DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND
THE CLAIM UNDER THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS OVER $3,000.  THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT MAY
NOT, OF COURSE, BE WAIVED.  BUT A DIFFERENT PROVISION OF THE STATUTE IS
INVOLVED HERE.  IT IS SEC. 1441(C) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE WHICH READS: 

"WHENEVER A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION, WHICH
WOULD BE REMOVABLE IF SUED UPON ALONE, IS JOINED WITH ONE OR MORE
OTHERWISE NON-REMOVABLE CLAIMS OR CAUSES OF ACTION, THE ENTIRE CASE MAY
BE REMOVED AND THE DISTRICT COURT MAY DETERMINE ALL ISSUES THEREIN, OR,
IN ITS DISCRETION, MAY REMAND ALL MATTERS NOT OTHERWISE WITHIN ITS
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1441(C). 

THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE SUIT AGAINST REISS, THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT,
COULD NOT BE REMOVED SINCE BOTH HE AND THE PLAINTIFF WERE RESIDENTS OF
TEXAS, AND THAT THE SUITS AGAINST THE TWO NONRESIDENT CORPORATIONS
COULD NOT BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE CLAIM ASSERTED AGAINST THEM WAS NOT
"SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT." 

BUT THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED HERE WAS RENDERED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT ONLY AGAINST PETITIONER WHO COULD HAVE BEEN SUED THERE
ORIGINALLY  FN2  AND WHO INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  AS THE COURT OBSERVED IN THE CLOSELY ANALOGOUS CASE OF BAILEY
V. TEXAS CO., SUPRA, P. 155, "THE RESULTING SITUATION IS EQUIVALENT TO
INITIATING AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT
APPEARS."  FN3  I THINK IT IS ABUSIVE OF THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE WHEN
THE CHALLENGE NOW MADE IS RAISED TO THE DIGNITY OF A JURISDICTIONAL
QUESTION.  ANY REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 1441(C) THAT WAS NOT MET IN THIS
CASE ROSE TO NO LEVEL HIGHER THAN AN IRREGULARITY, SO FAR AS PETITIONER
IS CONCERNED.  BOTH REISS AND THE OTHER NONRESIDENT DEFENDANT HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED FROM THE CASE.  THE ONLY JUDGMENT BEFORE THE COURT IS ONE
WHICH SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.  PETITIONER
THE ONE WHO INVOKED FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND AS A RESULT SUFFERED THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS JUDGMENT - SHOULD NOT NOW BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN. 
BAGGS V. MARTIN, SUPRA, SHOULD GOVERN THIS CASE.    FN1  AS NOTED IN
BAILEY V. TEXAS CO., 47 F.2D 153, 155, BAGGS V. MARTIN DISPLACES THE
VIEW EARLIER EXPRESSED BY THE COURT IN TORRENCE V. SHEDD, 144 U.S. 527,
AND MARTIN V. SNYDER, 148 U.S. 663. 

FN2  WE HAVE HERE NO JOINT LIABILITY BETWEEN A NONRESIDENT DEFENDANT
AND A RESIDENT DEFENDANT, AS WAS THE SITUATION IN CHICAGO, B. & Q.R.
CO. V. WILLARD, 220 U.S. 413, 418.  AND SEE ALABAMA SOUTHERN R. CO. V.
THOMPSON, 200 U.S. 206; RUPP V. WHEELING & L.E.R. CO., 121 F. 825.  THE
REMEDY SOUGHT AGAINST REISS WAS ALTERNATIVE TO THE REMEDY SOUGHT
AGAINST PETITIONER. 

FN3  IN THAT CASE THE PARTIES WHO COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE
DISTRICT COURT BY REMOVAL WERE AFTER REMOVAL DISMISSED OUT OF THE CASE
AND JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO COULD HAVE BEEN SUED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 
..END :





















DYER V. SIMS, 341 U.S. 22 


NO. 147.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1950.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1951.  - 134 W.
VA. - , 58 S.E.2D 766, REVERSED. 


WITH THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, WEST VIRGINIA AND SEVEN OTHER STATES ENTERED INTO A
COMPACT TO CONTROL POLLUTION IN THE OHIO RIVER SYSTEM.  THEY CREATED A
COMMISSION CONSISTING OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH OF THE EIGHT STATES
AND THE UNITED STATES, AND AGREED TO DELEGATE CERTAIN POWERS TO IT AND
TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR ITS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.  THE WEST
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE APPROVED THE COMPACT AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS TO
DEFRAY WEST VIRGINIA'S SHARE OF THE EXPENSES.  IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING
TO COMPEL THE STATE AUDITOR TO ISSUE A WARRANT FOR PAYMENT OF THESE
EXPENSES, THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED RELIEF.  IT FOUND THAT THE
STATE LEGISLATION CONSTITUTED AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER AND VIOLATED THE DEBT LIMITATION PROVISION OF ART. X, SEC. 4 OF
THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  HELD: 

1.  THIS COURT HAS FINAL POWER TO PASS UPON THE MEANING AND VALIDITY
OF COMPACTS BETWEEN STATES.  P. 28. 

2.  AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN STATES BY THOSE WHO ALONE HAVE
POLITICAL AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR A STATE CANNOT BE NULLIFIED
UNILATERALLY, OR GIVEN FINAL MEANING BY ANY ORGAN OF ONE OF THE
CONTRACTING STATES.  P. 28. 

3.  THIS COURT IS FREE TO EXAMINE DETERMINATIONS OF LAW BY STATE
COURTS WHERE AN INTERSTATE COMPACT BRINGS IN ISSUE THE RIGHTS OF OTHER
STATES AND THE UNITED STATES.  KENTUCKY V. INDIANA, 281 U.S. 163;
HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA CO., 304 U.S. 92.  PP. 28-30. 

4.  THE FACT THAT THE QUESTIONS AS TO THE COMPACT ARE BEFORE THIS
COURT ON A WRIT OF CERTIORARI RATHER THAN BY WAY OF AN ORIGINAL ACTION
BROUGHT BY A STATE DOES NOT AFFECT THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO DECIDE
THOSE QUESTIONS.  P. 30. 

5.  WEST VIRGINIA HAD AUTHORITY UNDER HER CONSTITUTION TO ENTER INTO
A COMPACT WHICH INVOLVES ONLY SUCH DELEGATION OF POWER TO AN INTERSTATE
AGENCY AS THE OHIO RIVER COMPACT PRESENTS.  PP. 30-32. 

6.  THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATE UNDER THE COMPACT IS NOT IN CONFLICT
WITH THE DEBT LIMITATION PROVISION OF ART. X, SEC. 4 OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION.  P. 32. 

WEST VIRGINIA EX REL. DYER ET AL. V. SIMS, STATE AUDITOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA. 

IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING, THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST
VIRGINIA HELD THAT STATE LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE STATE'S
PARTICIPATION IN A COMPACT WITH OTHER STATES VIOLATED THE STATE
CONSTITUTION.  134 W. VA. - , 58 S.E.2D 766.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 807.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 32. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AFTER EXTENDED NEGOTIATIONS EIGHT STATES ENTERED INTO A COMPACT TO
CONTROL POLLUTION IN THE OHIO RIVER SYSTEM.  SEE OHIO RIVER VALLEY
WATER SANITATION COMPACT, 54 STAT. 752.  ILLINOIS, INDIANA, KENTUCKY,
NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA AND WEST VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED
THAT THEY WERE FACED WITH ONE OF THE PROBLEMS OF GOVERNMENT THAT ARE
DEFINED BY NATURAL RATHER THAN POLITICAL BOUNDARIES.  ACCORDINGLY, THEY
PLEDGED THEMSELVES TO COOPERATE IN MAINTAINING WATERS IN THE OHIO RIVER
BASIN IN A SANITARY CONDITION THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISM OF
THE OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER SANITATION COMMISSION, CONSISTING OF THREE
MEMBERS FROM EACH STATE AND THREE REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES. 

THE HEART OF THE COMPACT IS ARTICLE VI.  THIS PROVIDES THAT SEWAGE
DISCHARGED INTO BOUNDARY STREAMS OR STREAMS FLOWING FROM ONE STATE INTO
ANOTHER "SHALL BE SO TREATED, WITHIN A TIME REASONABLE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NECESSARY WORKS, AS TO PROVIDE FOR SUBSTANTIALLY
COMPLETE REMOVAL OF SETTLEABLE SOLIDS, AND THE REMOVAL OF NOT LESS THAN
FORTY-FIVE PER CENT (45%) OF THE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS; PROVIDED THAT,
IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR TO PRESERVE THE WATERS FOR
OTHER LEGITIMATE PURPOSES,  ...  IN SPECIFIC INSTANCES SUCH HIGHER
DEGREE OF TREATMENT SHALL BE USED AS MAY BE DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY
BY THE COMMISSION AFTER INVESTIGATION, DUE NOTICE AND HEARING." 
INDUSTRIAL WASTES ARE TO BE TREATED "TO SUCH DEGREE AS MAY BE
DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE COMMISSION AFTER INVESTIGATION, DUE
NOTICE AND HEARING."  SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES DISCHARGED INTO
STREAMS LOCATED WHOLLY WITHIN ONE STATE ARE TO BE TREATED "TO THAT
EXTENT, IF ANY, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN SUCH WATERS IN A
SANITARY AND SATISFACTORY CONDITION AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE CONDITION OF
THE WATERS OF THE INTERSTATE STREAM IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THE CONFLUENCE." 

ARTICLE IX PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION MAY, AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING, ISSUE ORDERS FOR COMPLIANCE ENFORCEABLE IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL COURTS.  IT FURTHER PROVIDES:  "NO SUCH ORDER SHALL GO INTO
EFFECT UNLESS AND UNTIL IT RECEIVES THE ASSENT OF AT LEAST A MAJORITY
OF THE COMMISSIONERS FROM EACH OF NOT LESS THAN A MAJORITY OF THE
SIGNATORY STATES; AND NO SUCH ORDER UPON A MUNICIPALITY, CORPORATION,
PERSON OR ENTITY IN ANY STATE SHALL GO INTO EFFECT UNLESS AND UNTIL IT
RECEIVES THE ASSENT OF NOT LESS THAN A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS
FROM SUCH STATE." 

BY ARTICLE X THE STATES ALSO AGREE "TO APPROPRIATE FOR THE SALARIES,
OFFICE AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, THEIR PROPER PROPORTION OF
THE ANNUAL BUDGET AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION AND APPROVED BY THE
GOVERNORS OF THE SIGNATORY STATES  ...  " 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY AROSE BECAUSE OF CONFLICTING VIEWS BETWEEN
OFFICIALS OF WEST VIRGINIA REGARDING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WEST
VIRGINIA UNDER THE COMPACT. 

THE LEGISLATURE OF THAT STATE RATIFIED AND APPROVED THE COMPACT ON
MARCH 11, 1939.  W. VA. ACTS 1939, C. 38.  CONGRESS GAVE ITS CONSENT ON
JULY 11, 1940, 54 STAT. 752, AND UPON ADOPTION BY ALL THE SIGNATORY
STATES THE COMPACT WAS FORMALLY EXECUTED BY THE GOVERNOR OF WEST
VIRGINIA ON JUNE 30, 1948.  AT ITS 1949 SESSION THE WEST VIRGINIA
LEGISLATURE APPROPRIATED $12,250 AS THE STATE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE
EXPENSES OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1949. 
W. VA. ACTS 1949, C. 9, ITEM 93.  RESPONDENT SIMS, THE AUDITOR OF THE
STATE, REFUSED TO ISSUE A WARRANT UPON ITS TREASURY FOR PAYMENT OF THIS
APPROPRIATION.  TO COMPEL HIM TO ISSUE IT, THE WEST VIRGINIA
COMMISSIONERS TO THE COMPACT COMMISSION AND THE MEMBERS OF THE WEST
VIRGINIA STATE WATER COMMISSION INSTITUTED THIS ORIGINAL MANDAMUS
PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA.  THE COURT
DENIED RELIEF ON THE MERITS, 134 W. VA. - , 58 S.E.2D 766, AND WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 340 U.S. 807, BECAUSE QUESTIONS OF OBVIOUSLY
IMPORTANT PUBLIC INTEREST ARE RAISED. 

THE WEST VIRGINIA COURT FOUND THAT THE "SOLE QUESTION" BEFORE IT WAS
THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT OF 1939 APPROVING WEST VIRGINIA'S ADHERENCE TO
THE COMPACT.  IT FOUND THAT ACT INVALID IN THAT (1) THE COMPACT WAS
DEEMED TO DELEGATE WEST VIRGINIA'S POLICE POWER TO OTHER STATES AND TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND (2) IT WAS DEEMED TO BIND FUTURE
LEGISLATURES TO MAKE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE CONTINUED ACTIVITIES OF THE
SANITATION COMMISSION AND THUS TO VIOLATE ART. X, SEC. 4 OF THE WEST
VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION. 

BRIEFS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER STATES, AS
AMICI, INVITE THE COURT TO CONSIDER FAR-REACHING ISSUES RELATING TO THE
COMPACT CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  ART. 1, SEC. 10, CL.
3.  THE UNITED STATES URGES THAT THE COMPACT BE SO READ AS TO ALLOW ANY
SIGNATORY STATE TO WITHDRAW FROM ITS OBLIGATIONS AT ANY TIME. 
PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, INDIANA, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY AND NEW YORK CONTEND
THAT THE COMPACT CLAUSE PRECLUDES ANY STATE FROM LIMITING ITS POWER TO
ENTER INTO A COMPACT TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONSENTED.  WE MUST NOT BE
TEMPTED BY THESE INVITING VISTAS.  WE NEED NOT GO BEYOND THE ISSUES ON
WHICH THE WEST VIRGINIA COURT FOUND THE COMPACT NOT BINDING ON THAT
STATE.  THAT THESE ARE ISSUES WHICH GIVE THIS COURT JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257, NEEDS NO
DISCUSSION AFTER DELAWARE RIVER COMM'N V. COLBURN, 310 U.S. 419, 427. 

CONTROL OF POLLUTION IN INTERSTATE STREAMS MIGHT, ON OCCASION, BE AN
APPROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR NATIONAL LEGISLATION.  COMPARE OKLAHOMA V.
ATKINSON CO., 313 U.S. 508.  BUT, WITH PRESCIENCE, THE FRAMERS LEFT THE
STATES FREE TO SETTLE REGIONAL CONTROVERSIES IN DIVERSE WAYS.  SOLUTION
OF THE PROBLEM UNDERLYING THIS CASE MAY BE ATTEMPTED DIRECTLY BY THE
AFFECTED STATES THROUGH CONTENTIOUS LITIGATION BEFORE THIS COURT. 
MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, 180 U.S. 208, 200 U.S. 496; NEW YORK V. NEW
JERSEY, 256 U.S. 296.  ADJUDICATION HERE OF CONFLICTING STATE INTERESTS
AFFECTING STREAM POLLUTION DOES NOT REST UPON THE LAW OF A PARTICULAR
STATE.  THIS COURT DECIDES SUCH CONTROVERSIES ACCORDING TO "PRINCIPLES
IT MUST HAVE POWER TO DECLARE."  MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA, 200 U.S.
AT 519.  BUT THE DELICACY OF INTERSTATE RELATIONSHIPS AND THE INHERENT
LIMITATIONS UPON THIS COURT'S ABILITY TO DEAL WITH MULTIFARIOUS LOCAL
PROBLEMS HAVE NATURALLY LED TO EXACTING STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION AND HAVE INHIBITED THE FORMULATION OF A CODE FOR DEALING
WITH SUCH CONTROVERSIES.  AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES PUT IT:  "BEFORE THIS
COURT OUGHT TO INTERVENE THE CASE SHOULD BE OF SERIOUS MAGNITUDE,
CLEARLY AND FULLY PROVED, AND THE PRINCIPLE TO BE APPLIED SHOULD BE ONE
WHICH THE COURT IS PREPARED DELIBERATELY TO MAINTAIN AGAINST ALL
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE OTHER SIDE."  MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA, 200
U.S. AT 521. 

INDEED, SO AWKWARD AND UNSATISFACTORY IS THE AVAILABLE LITIGIOUS
SOLUTION FOR THESE PROBLEMS THAT THIS COURT DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO
EMPHASIZE THE PRACTICAL CONSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVE PROVIDED BY THE
COMPACT CLAUSE.  EXPERIENCE LED US TO SUGGEST THAT A PROBLEM SUCH AS
THAT INVOLVED HERE IS "MORE LIKELY TO BE WISELY SOLVED BY COOPERATIVE
STUDY AND BY CONFERENCE AND MUTUAL CONCESSION ON THE PART OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATES SO VITALLY INTERESTED IN IT THAN BY
PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT HOWEVER CONSTITUTED."  NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY,
SUPRA, AT 313.  THE SUGGESTION HAS HAD FRUITFUL RESPONSE. 

THE GROWING INTERDEPENDENCE OF REGIONAL INTERESTS, CALLING FOR
REGIONAL ADJUSTMENTS, HAS BROUGHT EXTENSIVE USE OF COMPACTS.  A COMPACT
IS MORE THAN A SUPPLE DEVICE FOR DEALING WITH INTERESTS CONFINED WITHIN
A REGION.  THAT IT IS ALSO A MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING THE NATIONAL
INTEREST IS WELL ILLUSTRATED IN THE COMPACT NOW UNDER REVIEW.  NOT ONLY
WAS CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT REQUIRED, AS FOR ALL COMPACTS; DIRECT
PARTICIPATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS PROVIDED IN THE PRESIDENT'S
APPOINTMENT OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMPACT COMMISSION.  ART. IV; ART.
XI, SEC. 3. 

BUT A COMPACT IS AFTER ALL A LEGAL DOCUMENT.  THOUGH THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS DRAFTING ARE LIKELY TO ASSURE GREAT CARE AND
DELIBERATION, ALL AVOIDANCE OF DISPUTES AS TO SCOPE AND MEANING IS NOT
WITHIN HUMAN GIFT.  JUST AS THIS COURT HAS POWER TO SETTLE DISPUTES
BETWEEN STATES WHERE THERE IS NO COMPACT, IT MUST HAVE FINAL POWER TO
PASS UPON THE MEANING AND VALIDITY OF COMPACTS.  IT REQUIRES NO
ELABORATE ARGUMENT TO REJECT THE SUGGESTION THAT AN AGREEMENT SOLEMNLY
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN STATES BY THOSE WHO ALONE HAVE POLITICAL AUTHORITY
TO SPEAK FOR A STATE CAN BE UNILATERALLY NULLIFIED, OR GIVEN FINAL
MEANING BY AN ORGAN OF ONE OF THE CONTRACTING STATES.  A STATE CANNOT
BE ITS OWN ULTIMATE JUDGE IN A CONTROVERSY WITH A SISTER STATE.  TO
DETERMINE THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF OBLIGATIONS AS BETWEEN STATES,
WHETHER THEY ARISE THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE MEANS OF COMPACT OR THE
"FEDERAL COMMON LAW" GOVERNING INTERSTATE CONTROVERSIES (HINDERLIDER V.
LA PLATA CO., 304 U.S. 92, 110), IS THE FUNCTION AND DUTY OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE NATION.  OF COURSE EVERY DEFERENCE WILL BE SHOWN
TO WHAT THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE DEEMS TO BE THE LAW AND POLICY OF
ITS STATE, PARTICULARLY WHEN RECONDITE OR UNIQUE FEATURES OF LOCAL LAW
ARE URGED.  DEFERENCE IS ONE THING; SUBMISSION TO A STATE'S OWN
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER IT HAS UNDERTAKEN AN OBLIGATION, WHAT THAT
OBLIGATION IS, AND WHETHER IT CONFLICTS WITH A DISABILITY OF THE STATE
TO UNDERTAKE IT IS QUITE ANOTHER. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA IS, FOR
EXCLUSIVELY STATE PURPOSES, THE ULTIMATE TRIBUNAL IN CONSTRUING THE
MEANING OF HER CONSTITUTION.  TWO PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT MAKE
CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT WE ARE FREE TO EXAMINE DETERMINATIONS OF LAW BY
STATE COURTS IN THE LIMITED FIELD WHERE A COMPACT BRINGS IN ISSUE THE
RIGHTS OF OTHER STATES AND THE UNITED STATES. 

KENTUCKY V. INDIANA, 281 U.S. 163, DEALT WITH A COMPACT TO BUILD A
BRIDGE ACROSS THE OHIO RIVER.  IN AN ORIGINAL ACTION BROUGHT BEFORE
THIS COURT, INDIANA DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT SHE SHOULD NOT BE
COMPELLED TO PERFORM UNTIL THE INDIANA COURTS DECIDED, IN A PENDING
CASE, WHETHER HER OFFICIALS HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO THE
COMPACT.  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT,
DISMISSED THE ARGUMENT:  "WHERE THE STATES THEMSELVES ARE BEFORE THIS
COURT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THEM, NEITHER CAN
DETERMINE THEIR RIGHTS INTER SESE, AND THIS COURT MUST PASS UPON EVERY
QUESTION ESSENTIAL TO SUCH A DETERMINATION, ALTHOUGH LOCAL LEGISLATION
AND QUESTIONS OF STATE AUTHORIZATION MAY BE INVOLVED.  VIRGINIA V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 11 WALL.  39, 56; 220 U.S. 1, 28.  A DECISION IN THE PRESENT
INSTANCE BY THE STATE COURT WOULD NOT DETERMINE THE CONTROVERSY HERE." 
281 U.S. AT 176-177. 

IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION THE CHIEF JUSTICE COULD HARDLY AVOID
ANALOGIZING THE SITUATION TO THAT WHERE A QUESTION IS RAISED WHETHER A
STATE HAS IMPAIRED THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT.  "IT HAS FREQUENTLY
BEEN HELD THAT WHEN A QUESTION IS SUITABLY RAISED WHETHER THE LAW OF A
STATE HAS IMPAIRED THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT, IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, THIS COURT MUST DETERMINE FOR ITSELF WHETHER
A CONTRACT EXISTS, WHAT ARE ITS OBLIGATIONS, AND WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN
IMPAIRED BY THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE.  WHILE THIS COURT ALWAYS
EXAMINES WITH APPROPRIATE RESPECT THE DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS BEARING
UPON SUCH QUESTIONS, SUCH DECISIONS DO NOT DETRACT FROM THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS COURT IN REACHING ITS OWN CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE
CONTRACT, ITS OBLIGATIONS AND IMPAIRMENT, FOR OTHERWISE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY COULD NOT PROPERLY BE ENFORCED.  LARSON V.
SOUTH DAKOTA, 278 U.S. 429, 433, AND CASES THERE CITED."  281 U.S. AT
176.  AND SEE INDIANA EX REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, 303 U.S. 95, 100. 

HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA CO., SUPRA, IS THE SECOND OF THESE CASES.  IT
ALSO MAKES CLEAR, IF AUTHORITY BE NEEDED, THAT THE FACT THE COMPACT
QUESTIONS REACH US ON A WRIT OF CERTIORARI RATHER THAN BY WAY OF AN
ORIGINAL ACTION BROUGHT BY A STATE DOES NOT AFFECT THE POWER OF THIS
COURT.  IN THE HINDERLIDER CASE, AN ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN THE COLORADO
COURTS TO ENJOIN PERFORMANCE OF A COMPACT BETWEEN COLORADO AND NEW
MEXICO CONCERNING WATER RIGHTS IN THE LA PLATA RIVER.  THE STATE COURT
HELD THAT THE COMPACT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT AFFECTED APPROPRIATION
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE COLORADO STATE CONSTITUTION.  101 COLO. 73, 70
P.2D 849; SEE ALSO 93 COLO. 128, 25 P.2D 187.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
LIKEWISE SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, HELD THAT THE RELATIVE CLAIMS
OF NEW MEXICO AND COLORADO CITIZENS COULD BE DETERMINED BY COMPACT AND
REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT.    THE ISSUE IN THE
HINDERLIDER CASE WAS WHETHER THE COLORADO LEGISLATURE HAD AUTHORITY,
UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION, TO ENTER INTO A COMPACT WHICH AFFECTED
THE WATER RIGHTS OF HER CITIZENS.  THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE
WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE HAD AUTHORITY, UNDER HER CONSTITUTION, TO
ENTER INTO A COMPACT WHICH INVOLVES DELEGATION OF POWER TO AN
INTERSTATE AGENCY AND AN AGREEMENT TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF THE AGENCY. 

THAT A LEGISLATURE MAY DELEGATE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY THE POWER
TO MAKE RULES AND DECIDE PARTICULAR CASES IS ONE OF THE AXIOMS OF
MODERN GOVERNMENT.  THE WEST VIRGINIA COURT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE
GENERAL PROPOSITION BUT OBJECTS TO THE DELEGATION HERE INVOLVED BECAUSE
IT IS TO A BODY OUTSIDE THE STATE AND BECAUSE ITS LEGISLATURE MAY NOT
BE FREE, AT ANY TIME, TO WITHDRAW THE POWER DELEGATED.  WE ARE NOT HERE
CONCERNED, AND SO NEED NOT DEAL, WITH SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN A STATE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRING THAT THE STATE SETTLE ITS PROBLEMS WITH OTHER
STATES WITHOUT DELEGATING POWER TO AN INTERSTATE AGENCY.  WHAT IS
INVOLVED IS THE CONVENTIONAL GRANT OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  WE FIND
NOTHING IN THAT TO INDICATE THAT WEST VIRGINIA MAY NOT SOLVE A PROBLEM
SUCH AS THE CONTROL OF RIVER POLLUTION BY COMPACT AND BY THE
DELEGATION, IF SUCH IT BE, NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE SUCH SOLUTION BY
COMPACT.  IF THIS COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
WERE TO ENTER A DECREE REQUIRING WEST VIRGINIA TO ABATE POLLUTION OF
INTERSTATE STREAMS, THAT DECREE WOULD BIND THE STATE.  THE WEST
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE NO PART IN DETERMINING THE STATE'S
OBLIGATION.  THE STATE LEGISLATURE COULD NOT ALTER IT; IT COULD NOT
DISREGARD IT, AS WEST VIRGINIA ON ANOTHER OCCASION SO CREDITABLY
RECOGNIZED.  THE OBLIGATION WOULD BE FIXED BY THIS COURT ON THE BASIS
OF A MASTER'S REPORT.  HERE, THE STATE HAS BOUND ITSELF TO CONTROL
POLLUTION BY THE MORE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH OTHER
STATES.  THE COMPACT INVOLVES A REASONABLE AND CAREFULLY LIMITED
DELEGATION OF POWER TO AN INTERSTATE AGENCY.  NOTHING IN ITS
CONSTITUTION SUGGESTS THAT, IN DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM DEALT WITH BY
THE COMPACT, WEST VIRGINIA MUST WAIT FOR THE ANSWER TO BE DICTATED BY
THIS COURT AFTER HARASSING AND UNSATISFACTORY LITIGATION. 

WHAT MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SAID OF THE COLORADO COURT DECISION IN
HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA CO., SUPRA, APPLIES TO THE DECISION OF THE WEST
VIRGINIA COURT:  "IT IGNORES THE HISTORY AND ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT OF
THE TWO MEANS PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR ADJUSTING INTERSTATE
CONTROVERSIES.  THE COMPACT - THE LEGISLATIVE MEANS - ADAPTS TO OUR
UNION OF SOVEREIGN STATES THE AGE-OLD TREATY-MAKING POWER OF
INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATIONS.  ADJUSTMENT BY COMPACT WITHOUT A
JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS HAD BEEN
PRACTICED IN THE COLONIES, WAS PRACTICED BY THE STATES BEFORE THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND HAD BEEN EXTENSIVELY PRACTICED IN THE
UNITED STATES FOR NEARLY HALF A CENTURY BEFORE THIS COURT FIRST APPLIED
THE JUDICIAL MEANS IN SETTLING THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE IN RHODE ISLAND V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 12 PET. 657, 723-25."  304 U.S. AT 104. 

THE STATE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE COMPACT IS IN CONFLICT WITH ART.
X, SEC. 4, OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND FOR THAT REASON IS NOT BINDING
ON WEST VIRGINIA.  THIS SECTION PROVIDES: 

"NO DEBT SHALL BE CONTRACTED BY THIS STATE, EXCEPT TO MEET CASUAL
DEFICITS IN THE REVENUE, TO REDEEM A PREVIOUS LIABILITY OF THE STATE,
TO SUPPRESS INSURRECTION, REPEL INVASION, OR DEFEND THE STATE IN TIME
OF WAR; BUT THE PAYMENT OF ANY LIABILITY, OTHER THAN THAT FOR THE
ORDINARY EXPENSES OF THE STATE, SHALL BE EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED OVER A
PERIOD OF AT LEAST TWENTY YEARS." 

THE COMPACT WAS EVIDENTLY DRAWN WITH GREAT CARE TO MEET THE PROBLEM
OF DEBT LIMITATION IN LIGHT OF THIS SECTION AND SIMILAR RESTRICTIVE
PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF OTHER STATES.  ALTHOUGH, UNDER ART.
X OF THE COMPACT, THE STATES AGREE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, THE ANNUAL BUDGET MUST BE APPROVED BY THE
GOVERNORS OF THE SIGNATORY STATES.  IN ADDITION, ARTICLE V PROVIDES:
"THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT INCUR ANY OBLIGATIONS OF ANY KIND PRIOR TO
THE MAKING OF APPROPRIATIONS ADEQUATE TO MEET THE SAME; NOR SHALL THE
COMMISSION PLEDGE THE CREDIT OF ANY OF THE SIGNATORY STATES, EXCEPT BY
AND WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF."  IN VIEW OF THESE
PROVISIONS, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATE UNDER THE
COMPACT IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ART. X, SEC. 4 OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BUT DISAGREE WITH THE ASSERTION
OF POWER BY THIS COURT TO INTERPRET THE MEANING OF THE WEST VIRGINIA
CONSTITUTION.  THIS COURT MUST ACCEPT THE STATE COURT'S INTERPRETATION
OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTION UNLESS IT IS PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE
INTERPRETATION IS A PALPABLE EVASION TO AVOID A FEDERAL RULE.  FN1 

THERE IS NO PROBLEM CONCERNING THE BINDING EFFECT UPON THIS COURT OF
STATE COURT INTERPRETATION OF STATE LAW, UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE SUCH
AS THERE IS UNDER THE CLAUSE AGAINST IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF
CONTRACTS.  FN2  UNDER THE LATTER CLAUSE, THIS COURT, IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE SUBSEQUENT STATE LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL OR
STATUTORY, IMPAIRS THE FEDERAL PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF
CONTRACTS, HAS ASSERTED POWER TO CONSTRUE FOR ITSELF THE DISPUTED
AGREEMENT, TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS A CONTRACT, AND TO INTERPRET THE
SUBSEQUENT STATE STATUTE TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IMPAIRS THAT CONTRACT. 
FN3  EVEN THEN WE ACCEPT STATE COURT CONCLUSIONS UNLESS "MANIFESTLY
WRONG."  FN4  EXAMINATION HERE, UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE, IS TO
ENFORCE THE FEDERAL PROVISION AGAINST IMPAIRMENT AND IS MADE ONLY TO
DECIDE WHETHER UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE THERE IS A CONTRACT AND
WHETHER IT IS IMPAIRED.  FN5  THIS COURT THUS ADJUDGES WHETHER STATE
ACTION HAS VIOLATED THE FEDERAL CONTRACT CLAUSE.  IT DOES NOT DECIDE
THE MEANING OF A STATE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO A STATE APPROPRIATION. 

UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE, HOWEVER, THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARE THE
EXECUTION, VALIDITY AND MEANING OF FEDERALLY APPROVED STATE COMPACTS. 
FN6  THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF THE COMPACT CONTROLS OVER A
STATE'S APPLICATION OF ITS OWN LAW THROUGH THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND NOT
BY ANY IMPLIED FEDERAL POWER TO CONSTRUE STATE LAW. 

WEST VIRGINIA ADJUDGES HER EXECUTION OF THE COMPACT IS INVALID AS A
DELEGATION OF STATE POLICE POWER AND AS A CREATION OF DEBT BEYOND HER
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS.  SINCE THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED THE COMPACT FOR
ADJUSTING INTERSTATE RELATIONS, COMPACTS MAY BE ENFORCED DESPITE
OTHERWISE VALID STATE RESTRICTIONS ON STATE ACTION. 

THIS, I THINK, WAS THE BASIS OF OUR HOLDING IN HINDERLIDER V. LA
PLATA CO., 304 U.S. 92.  THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO HELD THAT
COMPACT INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS AN EXECUTIVE ABANDONMENT BY COLORADO OF
A CITIZEN'S PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED WATER RIGHTS, PP. 104 AND 108.  BUT WE
CONCLUDED: 

"WHETHER THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATER OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM BE
MADE BY COMPACT BETWEEN THE UPPER AND LOWER STATES WITH THE CONSENT OF
CONGRESS OR BY A DECREE OF THIS COURT, THE APPORTIONMENT IS BINDING
UPON THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE AND ALL WATER CLAIMANTS, EVEN WHERE THE
STATE HAD GRANTED THE WATER RIGHTS BEFORE IT ENTERED INTO THE
COMPACT."  P. 106. 

FOR THAT CONCLUSION RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON RHODE ISLAND V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 12 PET. 657, 725, WHERE THIS COURT, SPEAKING OF
COMPACTS, SAID: 

"BY THIS SURRENDER OF THE POWER, WHICH BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION WAS VESTED IN EVERY STATE, OF SETTLING THESE CONTESTED
BOUNDARIES, AS IN THE PLENITUDE OF THEIR SOVEREIGNTY THEY MIGHT; THEY
COULD SETTLE THEM NEITHER BY WAR, OR IN PEACE, BY TREATY, COMPACT OR
AGREEMENT, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE NEW LEGISLATIVE POWER WHICH
THE STATES BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY THEIR RESPECTIVE AND SEVERAL
GRANTS IN CONVENTIONS OF THE PEOPLE.  IF CONGRESS CONSENTED, THEN THE
STATES WERE IN THIS RESPECT RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL INHERENT
SOVEREIGNTY; SUCH CONSENT BEING THE SOLE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, WHEN GIVEN, LEFT THE STATES AS THEY WERE BEFORE ...
WHEREBY THEIR COMPACTS BECAME OF BINDING FORCE, AND FINALLY SETTLED THE
BOUNDARY BETWEEN THEM; OPERATING WITH THE SAME EFFECT AS A TREATY
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN POWERS." 

I WOULD UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF THE COMPACT AND REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF
WEST VIRGINIA REFUSING MANDAMUS, WITH DIRECTION TO THAT COURT TO ENTER
A JUDGMENT NOT INCONSISTENT WITH AN OPINION BASED UPON THE SUPREMACY
CLAUSE. 

FN1  UNION PAC. R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 248 U.S. 67. 

FN2  U.S. CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 10. 

FN3  APPLEBY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 271 U.S. 364, 380; KING MFG. CO. V.
AUGUSTA, 277 U.S. 100, 114; COOMBES V. GETZ, 285 U.S. 434, 441. 

FN4  HALE V. STATE BOARD, 302 U.S. 95, 101. 

FN5  COOLIDGE V. LONG, 282 U.S. 582, 597. 

FN6  DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMM'N V. COLBURN, 310 U.S.
419, 428, WHERE IT IS SAID, "HENCE WE ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THE LANGUAGE
OF THE COMPACT."  AND SEE THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THAT OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICIALS INDUCED SISTER STATES TO CONTRACT WITH HER
AND CONGRESS TO CONSENT TO THE COMPACT.  SHE NOW ATTEMPTS TO READ
HERSELF OUT OF THIS INTERSTATE COMPACT BY READING INTO HER CONSTITUTION
A LIMITATION UPON THE POWERS OF HER GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO
CONTRACT. 

WEST VIRGINIA, FOR INTERNAL AFFAIRS, IS FREE TO INTERPRET HER OWN
CONSTITUTION AS SHE WILL.  BUT IF THE COMPACT SYSTEM IS TO HAVE
VITALITY AND INTEGRITY, SHE MAY NOT RAISE AN ISSUE OF ULTRA VIRES,
DECIDE IT, AND RELEASE HERSELF FROM AN INTERSTATE OBLIGATION.  THE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES WHICH FLOW FROM THE FORMAL PARTICIPATION IN A
COMPACT CONSENTED TO BY CONGRESS IS A FEDERAL QUESTION FOR THIS COURT. 

WEST VIRGINIA POINTS TO NO PROVISION OF HER CONSTITUTION WHICH WE CAN
SAY WAS CLEAR NOTICE OR FAIR WARNING TO CONGRESS OR OTHER STATES OF ANY
DEFECT IN HER AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO THIS COMPACT.  IT IS A POWER
INHERENT IN SOVEREIGNTY LIMITED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT CONGRESSIONAL
CONSENT IS REQUIRED.  RHODE ISLAND V. MASSACHUSETTS, 12 PET. 657, 725;
POOLE V. FLEEGER, 11 PET. 185, 209.  WHATEVER SHE NOW SAYS HER
CONSTITUTION MEANS, SHE MAY NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY THAT INTERPRETATION
TO PLACE AN UNFORESEEABLE CONSTRUCTION UPON WHAT THE OTHER STATES TO
THIS COMPACT WERE ENTITLED TO BELIEVE WAS A FULLY AUTHORIZED ACT. 

ESTOPPEL IS NOT OFTEN TO BE INVOKED AGAINST A GOVERNMENT.  BUT WEST
VIRGINIA ASSUMED A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION WITH EQUALS BY PERMISSION OF
ANOTHER GOVERNMENT THAT IS SOVEREIGN IN THE FIELD.  AFTER CONGRESS AND
SISTER STATES HAD BEEN INDUCED TO ALTER THEIR POSITIONS AND BIND
THEMSELVES TO TERMS OF A COVENANT, WEST VIRGINIA SHOULD BE ESTOPPED
FROM REPUDIATING HER ACT.  FOR THIS REASON, I CONSIDER THAT WHATEVER
INTERPRETATION SHE MAY PUT ON THE GENERALITIES OF HER CONSTITUTION, SHE
IS BOUND BY THE COMPACT, AND ON THAT BASIS I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :










ROBERTSON V. CHAMBERS, 341 U.S. 37 


NO. 295.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1951.  - 87 U.S.
APP. D.C. 91, 183 F.2D 144, REVERSED. 


UPON REVIEW UNDER SEC. 302(A) OF THE SERVICEMEN'S READJUSTMENT ACT OF
1944 OF A DECISION OF THE ARMY RETIRING BOARD DISCHARGING AN OFFICER
FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY WITHOUT PAY, THE ARMY DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD
MAY CONSIDER, AS PART OF THE OFFICER'S "SERVICE RECORDS," MEDICAL
REPORTS OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION ON THE OFFICER'S SUBSEQUENT
MEDICAL HISTORY, WHICH RECORDS HAD BEEN TRANSMITTED TO THE ARMY AND
INCORPORATED IN ITS FILES.  PP. 37-40. 

ROBERTSON, PRESIDENT OF THE ARMY REVIEW BOARD, V. CHAMBERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  REVERSED, P. 40. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, A FORMER CAPTAIN IN THE ARMY, WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED
FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY AND WITHOUT RETIREMENT PAY, AS THE RESULT OF A
DECISION BY AN ARMY RETIRING BOARD.  RESPONDENT APPLIED TO THE ARMY
DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD FOR REVIEW OF THAT ACTION.  THE REVIEW BOARD
HELD THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RETIREMENT PAY.  RESPONDENT,
HAVING REQUESTED A REHEARING, WAS ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE RECORD ON
WHICH THE REHEARING WOULD BE BASED.  HE DISCOVERED THAT THE RECORD
CONTAINED CERTAIN MEDICAL REPORTS OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION
CONCERNING HIS CONDITION.  RESPONDENT REQUESTED THE REVIEW BOARD TO
REMOVE THOSE REPORTS FROM THE RECORD.  THE REVIEW BOARD REFUSED. 
RESPONDENT THEREUPON INSTITUTED THIS MANDAMUS PROCEEDING SEEKING A
MANDATORY INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE REVIEW BOARD TO
EXCLUDE THOSE REPORTS FROM THE RECORD.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  87 U.S. APP. D.C. 91,
183 F.2D 144.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 889. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION RELATES TO THE PROVISION IN SEC. 302(A) OF THE
SERVICEMEN'S READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 287, 59 STAT. 623, 38
U.S.C. SEC. 693I (A), WHICH DESCRIBES THE SCOPE OF REVIEW BY THE REVIEW
BOARD AS FOLLOWS:  "SUCH REVIEW SHALL BE BASED UPON ALL AVAILABLE
SERVICE RECORDS RELATING TO THE OFFICER REQUESTING SUCH REVIEW, AND
SUCH OTHER EVIDENCE AS MAY BE PRESENTED BY SUCH OFFICER."  RESPONDENT
CONTENDS THAT THE TERM "SERVICE RECORDS" MEANS THE RECORD OF THE
SERVICE WHICH THE MILITARY MAN HAS RENDERED FROM THE TIME OF HIS ENTRY
INTO THE SERVICE UNTIL HIS DISCHARGE.  THAT WAS THE VIEW OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS.  WE, HOWEVER, THINK OTHERWISE. 

BY, OR VESTED IN, THE BOARD WHOSE FINDINGS AND DECISION ARE BEING
REVIEWED."  THAT BOARD IS THE RETIRING BOARD WHICH R.S. SEC. 1248, 10
U.S.C. SEC. 963, SAYS MAY "INQUIRE INTO AND DETERMINE THE FACTS
TOUCHING THE NATURE AND OCCASION OF THE DISABILITY OF ANY OFFICER WHO
APPEARS TO BE INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE, AND
SHALL HAVE SUCH POWERS OF A COURT-MARTIAL AND OF A COURT OF INQUIRY AS
MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE." 

THESE POWERS OF THE RETIRING BOARD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A WIDE REACH, SO
THAT THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE DISABILITY MAY BE ASCERTAINED.  THEIR
BROAD CHARACTER WILL NOT, OF COURSE, OVERRIDE THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF
SEC. 302(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE "REVIEW SHALL BE BASED UPON ALL
AVAILABLE SERVICE RECORDS," ETC.  BUT THE NATURE OF THE POWERS GRANTED
UNDER R.S. SEC. 1248 HAS RELEVANCE TO THE ARGUMENTS PRESSED ON US FOR
AND AGAINST READING "SERVICE RECORDS" NARROWLY. 

THE POWERS GRANTED THE RETIRING BOARD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE
REGULATIONS IN A LIBERAL FASHION, NOT IN A NARROW AND STIFLING WAY. 
THUS THE ADJUTANT GENERAL IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE BOARD WITH THE
"ORIGINALS OR CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE COMPLETE MEDICAL HISTORY, AND OF
ALL OTHER OFFICIAL RECORDS AFFECTING THE HEALTH AND PHYSICAL CONDITION
OF THE OFFICER."  FN1  THE ORAL EXAMINATION OF THE OFFICER IS GRANTED
FOR THE PURPOSE "OF MAKING FULL DISCOVERY OF ALL FACTS AS TO HIS
CONDITION."  FN2  THESE HEARINGS ARE NOT CONTESTS; THEY ARE INQUIRIES
CONCERNING DISABILITY.  THE PURPOSE IS TO GET AT THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER.  FN3 

THE MEDICAL HISTORY FOLLOWING THE RETIREMENT WILL OFTEN BE OF GREAT
IMPORTANCE TO THE REVIEW BOARD, SINCE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH
GOVERNS REVIEW IS A LONG ONE.  REQUESTS FOR REVIEW MAY BE MADE WITHIN
15 YEARS AFTER THE RETIREMENT OR AFTER JUNE 22, 1944, WHICHEVER IS THE
LATER.  SEC. 302(B).  MEDICAL HISTORY MAY THEREFORE BE HIGHLY PERTINENT
TO THE INQUIRY.  PLAINLY THE OFFICER IS GRANTED AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.
302(A) TO INTRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE; AND IT IS CERTAIN HE WILL DO SO IF
IT IS FAVORABLE.  WE HESITATE AT A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH
FORECLOSES THE ARMY FROM CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE WHEN IT IS
UNFAVORABLE.  FN4  YET THAT WOULD BE THE RESULT IF WE CONSTRUED
"SERVICE RECORDS" NARROWLY.  WE THINK IT WOULD BE MORE IN HARMONY WITH
THE NATURE OF THE PROCEDURE, THE PURPOSE OF THE INQUIRY, AND THE POWERS
GRANTED THE REVIEW BOARD TO CONSTRUE "SERVICE RECORDS" BROADLY ENOUGH
TO INCLUDE THESE MEDICAL REPORTS. 

THE REPORTS IN ISSUE WERE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT REPORTS TRANSMITTED TO
THE ARMY AND INCORPORATED IN THAT DEPARTMENT'S FILES.  THEY THEREFORE
BECAME A PART OF THE RECORD OF THE OFFICER PERTAINING TO HIS SERVICE. 
WE CONCLUDE THAT THEY ARE "SERVICE RECORDS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
302(A).  REVERSED. 

FN1  ARMY REG. 605-250, MAR. 28, 1944, PAR. 3A. 

FN2  ID. AT PAR. 21. 

FN3  THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD HAVE
INCORPORATED THIS BROAD CONSTRUCTION OF THE POWERS GRANTED.  THUS THE
ADJUTANT GENERAL IS TO PROVIDE THAT BOARD WITH "ALL AVAILABLE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND/OR OTHER RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE HEALTH
AND PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE APPLICANT."  32 CFR SEC.
581.1(A)(2)(III).  AND SEE NOTE 4, INFRA. 

FN4  THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED TO GOVERN DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD
PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT RESTRICTED THE INQUIRY BY SUCH A CRAMPED
CONSTRUCTION.  THEY AUTHORIZE THE BOARD "TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
BEARING ON THE CAUSES AND SERVICE-CONNECTION OF (THE DISABILITY)"
WITHOUT LIMITATION.  32 CFR SEC. 581.1(A)(1)(III).  INDEED THEY EMPOWER
THE BOARD TO MAKE ITS OWN PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF THE RETIRED OFFICER
AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING.  32 CFR SEC. 581.1(B)(2)(V). 
..END :























MOSER V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 41 


NO. 301.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1951.  - 182 F.2D
734, REVERSED. 


THE TREATY OF 1850 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND SWITZERLAND PROVIDES
THAT CITIZENS OF ONE COUNTRY RESIDING IN THE OTHER "SHALL BE FREE FROM
PERSONAL MILITARY SERVICE."  SECTION 3(A) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, PROVIDED FOR THE EXEMPTION OF NEUTRAL
ALIENS FROM SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES,
WITH THE PROVISO THAT ONE WHO CLAIMED EXEMPTION SHOULD THEREAFTER BE
BARRED FROM BECOMING A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  PETITIONER, A
SWISS NATIONAL, APPLIED FOR AND OBTAINED EXEMPTION FROM SERVICE IN THE
LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.  HELD:  UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED IN THE OPINION, HE WAS NOT DEBARRED FROM UNITED
STATES CITIZENSHIP.  PP. 42-47. 

(A)  AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE ACT IMPOSED A VALID CONDITION ON
PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FROM MILITARY SERVICE.  PP. 45-46. 

(B)  PETITIONER DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVE HIS RIGHTS
TO CITIZENSHIP.  CONSIDERING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,
ELEMENTARY FAIRNESS WOULD REQUIRE NOTHING LESS THAN AN INTELLIGENT
WAIVER TO DEBAR PETITIONER FROM CITIZENSHIP.  PP. 46-47. 

MOSER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT ADMITTING PETITIONER TO CITIZENSHIP,
85 F.SUPP.  683, WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  182 F.2D 734. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 910.  REVERSED, P. 47. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A NATIVE OF SWITZERLAND, WAS ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP BY
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ON JULY 21, 1949.  FN1  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, FN2  HOLDING
THAT PETITIONER WAS DEBARRED FROM CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE HE HAD CLAIMED
EXEMPTION FROM MILITARY SERVICE AS A NEUTRAL ALIEN DURING WORLD WAR II.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF TREATY AND STATUTE UPON
THE PRIVILEGE OF ALIENS TO ACQUIRE CITIZENSHIP ARE INVOLVED, AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN3 

PETITIONER FIRST ENTERED THE UNITED STATES IN 1937.  AFTER A TRIP TO
SWITZERLAND IN 1940 FOR SERVICE IN THE SWISS ARMY, IN WHICH HE HELD A
COMMISSION, HE RETURNED TO THIS COUNTRY AND MARRIED A UNITED STATES
CITIZEN.  HE AND HIS WIFE HAVE THREE CHILDREN, ALL BORN HERE. 

ARTICLE II OF THE TREATY OF 1850  FN4  BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
SWITZERLAND PROVIDES THAT 

"THE CITIZENS OF ONE OF THE TWO COUNTRIES, RESIDING OR ESTABLISHED IN
THE OTHER, SHALL BE FREE FROM PERSONAL MILITARY SERVICE ...  " 

PETITIONER REGISTERED UNDER SELECTIVE SERVICE IN 1940 AND WAS
CLASSIFIED III-A, BASED ON DEPENDENCY.  WHEN, ON JANUARY 11, 1944, HIS
LOCAL BOARD IN NEW YORK CITY RECLASSIFIED HIM I-A, AVAILABLE FOR
SERVICE, HE SOUGHT THE AID OF THE LEGATION OF SWITZERLAND IN SECURING
HIS DEFERMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREATY OF 1850.  AT THAT TIME SEC.
3(A) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED,
FN5  PROVIDED FOR THE EXEMPTION OF NEUTRAL ALIENS FROM MILITARY
SERVICE, WITH THE PROVISO THAT ONE WHO CLAIMED EXEMPTION SHOULD
THEREAFTER BE DEBARRED FROM BECOMING A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. 
PETITIONER, HOWEVER, ADVISED THE LOCAL BOARD THAT HE HAD TAKEN STEPS
WITH THE SWISS LEGATION "TO BE RELEASED UNCONDITIONALLY" FROM SERVICE
UNDER THE TREATY. 

UPON RECEIVING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE, THE SWISS
LEGATION IN WASHINGTON REQUESTED THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE THAT HE BE
GIVEN AN "UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE" FROM LIABILITY FOR SERVICE, "IN
CONFORMITY WITH" THE TREATY.  THE DEPARTMENT REFERRED THE REQUEST TO
THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, WHICH REPLIED THAT THE LOCAL BOARD HAD
BEEN INSTRUCTED TO INFORM PETITIONER THAT HE MIGHT OBTAIN A REVISED
FORM 301 FROM THE SWISS LEGATION TO BE USED IN CLAIMING EXEMPTION. 
SELECTIVE SERVICE HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON DID SO INSTRUCT THE
DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE FOR NEW YORK CITY.  ON FEBRUARY 18, 1944,
THE SWISS LEGATION WROTE PETITIONER THAT IT HAD REQUESTED THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO EXEMPT HIM "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
ART. II, OF THE TREATY ...  "  THE LETTER CONTINUED: 

"WE ARE FORWARDING TO YOU, HEREWITH, TWO COPIES OF DSS FORM 301,
REVISED, WHICH KINDLY EXECUTE AND FILE IMMEDIATELY WITH YOUR LOCAL
BOARD.  THIS ACTION ON YOUR PART IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE
EXEMPTION PROCEDURE; YOUR LOCAL BOARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SELECTIVE
SERVICE REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED, WILL THEN CLASSIFY YOU IN CLASS IV-C. 

"PLEASE NOTE THAT, THROUGH FILING OF DSS FORM 301, REVISED, YOU WILL
NOT WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO APPLY FOR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP PAPERS.  THE
FINAL DECISION REGARDING YOUR NATURALIZATION WILL REMAIN SOLELY WITH
THE COMPETENT NATURALIZATION COURTS." 

THE LEGATION'S EMPHASIS IN REFERRING TO "FORM 301, REVISED" IS NOT
WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  THE PERTINENT REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE
PRESIDENT  FN6  PROVIDED THAT TO CLAIM EXEMPTION AN ALIEN SHOULD FILE
WITH HIS LOCAL BOARD FORM 301, WHICH BECAME KNOWN AS DSS 301,
"APPLICATION BY ALIEN FOR RELIEF FROM MILITARY SERVICE."  ABOVE THE
SIGNATURE LINE ON THIS FORM THERE APPEARED THE STATEMENT, IN OBVIOUS
REFERENCE TO THE PROVISO OF SEC. 3(A):  "I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MAKING
OF THIS APPLICATION TO BE RELIEVED FROM SUCH LIABILITY WILL DEBAR ME
FROM BECOMING A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES."  BUT SHORTLY AFTER SEC.
3(A) OF THE ACT WAS AMENDED TO THE CONTENT WITH WHICH WE HERE DEAL,
FN7  THE SWISS LEGATION HAD PROTESTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE THAT
IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TREATY RIGHTS OF SWISS CITIZENS.  AND THE
DEPARTMENT HAD HASTENED TO ASSURE THE LEGATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD
NO INTENTION OF ABROGATING TREATY RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES OF SWISS
NATIONALS.  THE STATE DEPARTMENT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH SELECTIVE SERVICE
HEADQUARTERS AND THE SWISS LEGATION, HAD THEN NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT UPON
A REVISED FORM 301 WHICH OMITTED THE WAIVER QUOTED ABOVE AND STATED
SIMPLY:  "I HEREBY APPLY FOR RELIEF FROM LIABILITY FOR TRAINING AND
SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES."  A FOOTNOTE
OF THE REVISED FORM QUOTED PERTINENT PARTS OF SEC. 3(A). 

IT WAS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PETITIONER SIGNED A REVISED
FORM 301 ON FEBRUARY 26, 1944, AND WAS CLASSIFIED IV-C BY HIS LOCAL
BOARD.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS ACCEPTED, AS DO WE, THE FINDING OF THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT PETITIONER SIGNED THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION
BELIEVING THAT HE WAS NOT THEREBY PRECLUDED FROM CITIZENSHIP, AND THAT
HAD HE KNOWN CLAIMING EXEMPTION WOULD DEBAR HIM FROM CITIZENSHIP, HE
WOULD NOT HAVE CLAIMED IT, BUT WOULD HAVE ELECTED TO SERVE IN THE ARMED
FORCES. 

IS PETITIONER DEBARRED FROM CITIZENSHIP BY REASON OF THE CLAIMED
EXEMPTION? 

THE TREATY OF 1850 WITH SWITZERLAND WAS IN FULL FORCE IN 1940 WHEN
THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT WAS PASSED.  STANDING ALONE, THE
TREATY PROVIDED FOR EXEMPTION OF SWISS CITIZENS FROM MILITARY SERVICE
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IF THAT WERE ALL, PETITIONER WOULD HAVE BEEN
ENTITLED TO UNQUALIFIED EXEMPTION.  SECTION 3(A) OF THE ACT, WHILE
RECOGNIZING THE IMMUNITY OF CITIZENS OF NEUTRAL COUNTRIES FROM SERVICE
IN OUR ARMED FORCES,  FN8  IMPOSED THE CONDITION THAT NEUTRAL ALIENS
RESIDING HERE WHO CLAIMED SUCH IMMUNITY WOULD BE DEBARRED FROM
CITIZENSHIP.  THAT THE STATUTE UNQUESTIONABLY IMPOSED A CONDITION ON
EXEMPTION NOT FOUND IN THE TREATY DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE INCONSISTENT. 
NOT DOUBTING THAT A TREATY MAY BE MODIFIED BY A SUBSEQUENT ACT OF
CONGRESS, FN9  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO INVOKE SUCH AUTHORITY HERE, FOR
WE FIND IN THIS CONGRESSIONALLY IMPOSED LIMITATION ON CITIZENSHIP
NOTHING INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
TREATY.  THE TREATY MAKES NO PROVISION RESPECTING CITIZENSHIP.  ON THE
CONTRARY, IT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT THE PRIVILEGES GUARANTEED BY EACH
COUNTRY TO RESIDENT CITIZENS OF THE OTHER "SHALL NOT EXTEND TO THE
EXERCISE OF POLITICAL RIGHTS."  FN10  THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR AND
LIMITATIONS ON THE ACQUISITION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP ARE A
POLITICAL MATTER  FN11  WHICH THE TREATY DID NOT PRESUME TO COVER. 

THUS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE STATUTE IMPOSED A VALID CONDITION ON
THE CLAIM OF A NEUTRAL ALIEN FOR EXEMPTION; PETITIONER HAD A CHOICE OF
EXEMPTION AND NO CITIZENSHIP, OR NO EXEMPTION AND CITIZENSHIP. 

BUT AS WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, BEFORE PETITIONER SIGNED THE
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION, HE HAD ASSERTED A RIGHT TO EXEMPTION WITHOUT
DEBARMENT FROM CITIZENSHIP.  IN RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMS OF PETITIONER
AND OTHERS, AND IN APPARENT ACQUIESCENCE, OUR DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAD
ARRANGED FOR A REVISED PROCEDURE IN CLAIMING EXEMPTION.  THE EXPRESS
WAIVER OF CITIZENSHIP HAD BEEN DELETED.  PETITIONER HAD SOUGHT
INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE FROM THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY TO WHICH HE COULD
TURN, AND WAS ADVISED TO SIGN REVISED FORM 301.  HE WAS LED TO BELIEVE
THAT HE WOULD NOT THEREBY LOSE HIS RIGHTS TO CITIZENSHIP.  IF HE HAD
KNOWN OTHERWISE HE WOULD NOT HAVE CLAIMED EXEMPTION.  IN JUSTIFIABLE
RELIANCE ON THIS ADVICE HE SIGNED THE PAPERS SENT TO HIM BY THE
LEGATION. 

WE DO NOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THE REVISED FORM 301 CONTAINED A
FOOTNOTE REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY PROVISION, AND THAT THE LEGATION
WROTE PETITIONER, "YOU WILL NOT WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO APPLY FOR AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP PAPERS."  THE FOOTNOTE MIGHT HAVE GIVEN PAUSE TO A TRAINED
LAWYER.  A LAWYER MIGHT HAVE SPECULATED ON THE POSSIBLE INNUENDOES IN
THE USE OF THE PHRASE "RIGHT TO APPLY," AS OPPOSED TO "RIGHT TO
OBTAIN."  BUT THESE ARE MINOR DISTRACTIONS IN A TOTAL SETTING WHICH
UNDERSTANDABLY LULLED THIS PETITIONER INTO MISCONCEPTION OF THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF APPLYING FOR EXEMPTION. 

NOR DID PETITIONER SIGN ONE THING AND CLAIM ANOTHER, AS IN SAVORGNAN
V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 491.  SINCE THE REVISED FORM 301 CONTAINED
NO WAIVER, WHAT HE SIGNED WAS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE BELIEVED
AND CLAIMED. 

THERE IS NO NEED TO EVALULATE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE BASIS OF ANY
ESTOPPEL OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THE POWER OF THE SWISS LEGATION TO BIND
THE UNITED STATES BY ITS ADVICE TO PETITIONER.  PETITIONER DID NOT
KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVE HIS RIGHTS TO CITIZENSHIP.  IN FACT,
BECAUSE OF THE MISLEADING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, HE NEVER HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT ELECTION BETWEEN THE DIAMETRICALLY
OPPOSED COURSES REQUIRED AS A MATTER OF STRICT LAW.  CONSIDERING ALL
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE THINK THAT TO BAR PETITIONER, NOTHING
LESS THAN AN INTELLIGENT WAIVER IS REQUIRED BY ELEMENTARY FAIRNESS. 
JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189, 197.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD
BE TO ENTRAP PETITIONER. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  85 F.SUPP.  683. 

FN2  182 F.2D 734. 

FN3  340 U.S. 910. 

FN4  11 STAT. 587, 589. 

FN5  SECTION 3(A) OF THE ACT, 54 STAT. 885, AS AMENDED, 55 STAT. 845,
50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 303(A), PROVIDED IN PART: 

"EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, EVERY MALE CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND EVERY OTHER MALE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED
STATES  ...  SHALL BE LIABLE FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR
NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES:  PROVIDED, THAT ANY CITIZEN OR
SUBJECT OF A NEUTRAL COUNTRY SHALL BE RELIEVED FROM LIABILITY FOR
TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THIS ACT IF, PRIOR TO HIS INDUCTION INTO THE
LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, HE HAS MADE APPLICATION TO BE RELIEVED FROM SUCH
LIABILITY IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT, BUT ANY PERSON WHO MAKES SUCH
APPLICATION SHALL THEREAFTER BE DEBARRED FROM BECOMING A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES  ...  " 

FN6  32 CFR, 1943 CUM. SUPP., SEC. 622.43. 

FN7  SEE 55 STAT. 845; NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN8  4 MOORE INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST 52-53, 61. 

FN9  CLARK V. ALLEN, 331 U.S. 503, 508-509; PIGEON RIVER CO. V. COX,
291 U.S. 138, 160; HEAD MONEY CASES, 112 U.S. 580, 597-599.  CF. COOK
V. UNITED STATES, 228 U.S. 102, 120. 

FN10  11 STAT. 587, 588. 

FN11  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 4; UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH,
283 U.S. 605, 615; UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644, 649;
ZARTARIAN V. BILLINGS, 204 U.S. 170, 175. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AGREE WITH THE COURT'S
DECISION AND OPINION THAT MOSER DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHTS OF
CITIZENSHIP.  QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE TREATY OF 1850 AND
THE BEARING OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1940 ON THE TREATY ARE
THEREFORE NOT REACHED AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. TILLAMOOKS, 341 U.S. 48 


NO. 281.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1951.  - 115 CT. CL.
463, 87 F.SUPP.  938, REVERSED. 


IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH RESPONDENTS WERE
ENTITLED AFTER THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. ALCEA
BAND OF TILLAMOOKS, 329 U.S. 40, THE COURT OF CLAIMS ENTERED JUDGMENT
FOR THE VALUE OF THE LANDS AS OF 1855 PLUS INTEREST FROM THAT DATE. 
HELD:  THE AWARD OF INTEREST WAS ERRONEOUS, SINCE RECOVERY WAS NOT
GROUNDED ON A TAKING UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE RELEVANT STATUTE
CONTAINS NO PROVISION EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZING AN AWARD OF INTEREST.  PP.
48-49. 

UNITED STATES V. ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE FACTS LEADING TO THIS CONTROVERSY ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN UNITED
STATES V. ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS, 329 U.S. 40(1946), WHERE THIS COURT
AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT CERTAIN NAMED INDIAN
TRIBES "ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER" COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF
ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1855.  THE AMOUNT OF
RECOVERY WAS RESERVED EXPRESSLY FOR THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE
BEFORE THE COURT IN THIS CASE.  AFTER THE AFFIRMANCE, THE COURT OF
CLAIMS HEARD EVIDENCE ON THE AMOUNT OF RECOVERY AND ENTERED A JUDGMENT
FOR THE VALUE OF THE LANDS AS OF 1855 PLUS INTEREST FROM THAT DATE. 
115 CT. CL. 463, 87 F.SUPP.  938.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE
QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE AWARD OF INTEREST.  340 U.S. 873(1950). 

IT IS THE "TRADITIONAL RULE" THAT INTEREST ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES CANNOT BE RECOVERED IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS
PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY IN THE RELEVANT STATUTE OR CONTRACT.  28
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 2516(A).  UNITED STATES V. THAYER-WEST POINT
HOTEL CO., 329 U.S. 585, 588(1947), AND CASES CITED THEREIN.  THIS RULE
PRECLUDES AN AWARD OF INTEREST EVEN THOUGH A STATUTE SHOULD DIRECT AN
AWARD OF "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR A PARTICULAR TAKING.  UNITED STATES V.
GOLTRA, 312 U.S. 203(1941).  THE ONLY EXCEPTION ARISES WHEN THE TAKING
ENTITLES THE CLAIMANT TO JUST COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
ONLY IN SUCH CASES DOES THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION INCLUDE INTEREST. 
SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299(1923); UNITED
STATES V. THAYER-WEST POINT HOTEL CO., SUPRA. 

LOOKING TO THE FORMER OPINIONS IN THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT NONE OF
THEM EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT RECOVERY WAS GROUNDED ON A TAKING UNDER
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  AND, SINCE THE APPLICABLE JURISDICTIONAL ACT, 49
STAT. 801(1935), CONTAINS NO PROVISION AUTHORIZING AN AWARD OF
INTEREST, SUCH AWARD MUST BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















SHEPHERD V. FLORIDA, 341 U.S. 50 


NO. 420.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1951.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1951.  - 46 SO.2D
880, REVERSED. 


A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF
THE PETITIONERS FOR RAPE, AGAINST A CLAIM OF DENIAL OF RIGHTS UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IS HERE REVERSED ON THE AUTHORITY OF CASSELL V.
TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282. 

SHEPHERD ET AL. V. FLORIDA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED.  CASSELL V. TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS, CONCURRING
IN THE RESULT. 

ON THE 16TH OF JULY, 1949, A SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD WHITE GIRL IN LAKE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, REPORTED THAT SHE HAD BEEN RAPED, AT THE POINT OF A
PISTOL, BY FOUR NEGROES.  SIX DAYS LATER PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED AND,
BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 1, WERE TRIED FOR THE OFFENSE, CONVICTED WITHOUT
RECOMMENDATION OF MERCY, AND SENTENCED TO DEATH.  FN1  THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA, IN REVIEWING EVIDENCE OF GUILT, SAID, "AS WE STUDY
THE TESTIMONY, THE ONLY QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS WHICH SET OF
WITNESSES WOULD THE JURY BELIEVE, THAT IS, THE STATE'S WITNESSES OR THE
TESTIMONY AS GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANTS."  FN2 

BUT PREJUDICIAL INFLUENCES OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM, BECOMING ALL TOO
TYPICAL OF A HIGHLY PUBLICIZED TRIAL, WERE BROUGHT TO BEAR ON THIS JURY
WITH SUCH FORCE THAT THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT THESE
DEFENDANTS WERE PREJUDGED AS GUILTY AND THE TRIAL WAS BUT A LEGAL
GESTURE TO REGISTER A VERDICT ALREADY DICTATED BY THE PRESS AND THE
PUBLIC OPINION WHICH IT GENERATED. 

NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHED AS A FACT, AND ATTRIBUTED THE INFORMATION TO THE
SHERIFF, THAT THESE DEFENDANTS HAD CONFESSED.  NO ONE, INCLUDING THE
SHERIFF, REPUDIATED THE STORY.  FN3  WITNESSES AND PERSONS CALLED AS
JURORS SAID THEY HAD READ OR HEARD OF THIS STATEMENT.  HOWEVER, NO
CONFESSION WAS OFFERED AT THE TRIAL.  THE ONLY RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS
FOR ITS NONPRODUCTION IN COURT ARE THAT THE STORY WAS FALSE OR THAT THE
CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MADE IT INADMISSIBLE
OR ITS USE INEXPEDIENT.  FN4 

IF THE PROSECUTOR IN THE COURTROOM HAD TOLD THE JURY THAT THE ACCUSED
HAD CONFESSED BUT DID NOT OFFER TO PROVE THE CONFESSION, THE COURT
WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE DECLARED A MISTRIAL AND CITED THE ATTORNEY FOR
CONTEMPT.  IF A CONFESSION HAD BEEN OFFERED IN COURT, THE DEFENDANT
WOULD HAVE HAD THE RIGHT TO BE CONFRONTED BY THE PERSONS WHO CLAIMED TO
HAVE WITNESSED IT, TO CROSS-EXAMINE THEM, AND TO CONTRADICT THEIR
TESTIMONY.  IF THE COURT HAD ALLOWED AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION TO BE
PLACED BEFORE THE JURY, WE WOULD NOT HESITATE TO CONSIDER IT A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND REVERSE.  WHEN SUCH EVENTS TAKE PLACE IN THE
COURTROOM, DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL CAN MEET THEM WITH EVIDENCE, ARGUMENTS,
AND REQUESTS FOR INSTRUCTIONS, AND CAN AT LEAST PRESERVE HIS OBJECTIONS
ON THE RECORD. 

BUT NEITHER COUNSEL NOR COURT CAN CONTROL THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE
IF UNPROVEN, AND PROBABLY UNPROVABLE, "CONFESSIONS" ARE PUT BEFORE THE
JURY BY NEWSPAPERS AND RADIO.  RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT TO BE CONFRONTED
BY WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE THEM ARE THEREBY
CIRCUMVENTED.  IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE A MORE PREJUDICIAL INFLUENCE THAN
A PRESS RELEASE BY THE OFFICER OF THE COURT CHARGED WITH DEFENDANTS'
CUSTODY STATING THAT THEY HAD CONFESSED, AND HERE JUST SUCH A
STATEMENT, UNSWORN TO, UNSEEN, UNCROSS-EXAMINED AND UNCONTRADICTED, WAS
CONVEYED BY THE PRESS TO THE JURY. 

THIS COURT HAS RECENTLY GONE A LONG WAY TO DISABLE A TRIAL JUDGE FROM
DEALING WITH PRESS INTERFERENCE WITH THE TRIAL PROCESS, CRAIG V.
HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367; PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331; BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, THOUGH IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT NONE OF THESE
CASES INVOLVED A TRIAL BY JURY.  AND THE COURT, BY STRICT CONSTRUCTION
OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, HAS HELD NOT TO BE CONTEMPTUOUS ANY KIND OF
INTERFERENCE UNLESS IT TAKES PLACE IN THE IMMEDIATE PRESENCE OF THE
COURT, NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, THE LAST PLACE WHERE A WELL
CALCULATED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WOULD BE ATTEMPTED.  NO DOUBT THIS
TRIAL JUDGE FELT HELPLESS TO GIVE THE ACCUSED ANY REAL PROTECTION
AGAINST THIS OUT-OF-COURT CAMPAIGN TO CONVICT.  BUT IF FREEDOMS OF
PRESS ARE SO ABUSED AS TO MAKE FAIR TRIAL IN THE LOCALITY IMPOSSIBLE,
THE JUDICIAL PROCESS MUST BE PROTECTED BY REMOVING THE TRIAL TO A FORUM
BEYOND ITS PROBABLE INFLUENCE.  NEWSPAPERS, IN THE ENJOYMENT OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, MAY NOT DEPRIVE ACCUSED PERSONS OF THEIR RIGHT
TO FAIR TRIAL.  THESE CONVICTIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY SUCH EVENTS, DO NOT
MEET ANY CIVILIZED CONCEPTION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THAT ALONE IS
SUFFICIENT, TO MY MIND, TO WARRANT REVERSAL. 

BUT THAT IS NOT ALL.  OF COURSE, SUCH A CRIME STIRRED DEEP FEELING
AND WAS EXPLOITED TO THE LIMIT BY THE PRESS.  THESE DEFENDANTS WERE
FIRST TAKEN TO THE COUNTY JAIL OF LAKE COUNTY.  A MOB GATHERED AND
DEMANDED THAT DEFENDANTS BE TURNED OVER TO IT.  BY ORDER OF COURT, THEY
WERE QUICKLY TRANSFERRED FOR SAFEKEEPING TO THE STATE PRISON, WHERE
THEY REMAINED UNTIL ABOUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE TRIAL.  MEANWHILE, A MOB
BURNED THE HOME OF DEFENDANT SHEPHERD'S FATHER AND MOTHER AND TWO OTHER
NEGRO HOUSES.  NEGROES WERE REMOVED FROM THE COMMUNITY TO PREVENT THEIR
BEING LYNCHED.  THE NATIONAL GUARD WAS CALLED OUT ON JULY 17 AND 18
AND, ON JULY 19, THE 116TH FIELD ARTILLERY WAS SUMMONED FROM TAMPA. 
THE NEGROES OF THE COMMUNITY ABANDONED THEIR HOMES AND FLED. 

EVERY DETAIL OF THESE PASSION-AROUSING EVENTS WAS REPORTED BY THE
PRESS UNDER SUCH HEADLINES AS, "NIGHT RIDERS BURN LAKE NEGRO HOMES" AND
"FLAMES FROM NEGRO HOMES LIGHT NIGHT SKY IN LAKE COUNTY."  THESE AND
MANY OTHER ARTICLES WERE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL, INCLUDING A CARTOON
PUBLISHED AT THE TIME OF THE GRAND JURY, PICTURING FOUR ELECTRIC CHAIRS
AND HEADED, "NO COMPROMISE - SUPREME PENALTY." 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS MADE TWO MOTIONS, ONE TO DEFER THE TRIAL UNTIL
THE PASSION HAD DIED OUT AND THE OTHER FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE.  THESE
WERE DENIED.  THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, IN AFFIRMING THE
CONVICTION, OBSERVED THAT "THE INFLAMED PUBLIC SENTIMENT WAS AGAINST
THE CRIME WITH WHICH THE APPELLANTS WERE CHARGED RATHER THAN
DEFENDANTS' RACE."  FN5  SUCH AN ESTIMATE SEEMS MORE CHARITABLE THAN
REALISTIC, AND I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE PREJUDICE HAD SUBSIDED AT THE
TIME OF TRIAL. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE, ANXIOUS TO ASSURE AS FAIR A TRIAL AS POSSIBLE UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS EVIDENTLY CONCERNED ABOUT VIOLENCE AT THE
TRIAL.  HE PROMULGATED SPECIAL RULES WHICH LIMITED THE NUMBER OF
VISITORS TO THOSE THAT COULD BE SEATED, ALLOWED NO ONE TO STAND OR
LOITER IN HALLWAYS, STAIRWAYS, AND PARTS OF THE COURTHOUSE FOR THIRTY
MINUTES BEFORE COURT CONVENED AND AFTER IT RECESSED, CLOSED THE
ELAVATORS EXCEPT TO OFFICERS OF THE COURT OR INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM THE
SHERIFF GAVE SPECIAL PERMIT, REQUIRED EACH PERSON ENTERING THE
COURTROOM TO SUBMIT TO SEARCH, PROHIBITED ANY PERSON FROM TAKING A
"VALISE, SATCHEL, BAG, BASKET, BOTTLE, JAR, JUG, BUCKET, PACKAGE,
BUNDLE, OR OTHER SUCH ITEM" TO THE COURTROOM FLOOR OF THE COURTHOUSE,
ALLOWED CRUTCHES, CANES AND WALKING STICKS ONLY AFTER INSPECTION BY THE
SHERIFF SHOWED THEM TO BE NECESSARY AIDS, PROHIBITED DEMONSTRATIONS OF
ANY NATURE AND MADE VARIOUS OTHER REGULATIONS, ALL OF WHICH THE SHERIFF
WAS CHARGED TO ENFORCE AND TO THAT END WAS AUTHORIZED TO EMPLOY SUCH
NUMBER OF DEPUTIES AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY.  SUCH PRECAUTIONS, HOWEVER
COMMENDABLE, SHOW THE REACTION THAT THE ATMOSPHERE WHICH PERMEATED THE
TRIAL CREATED IN THE MIND OF THE TRIAL JUDGE. 

THE SITUATION PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD IS NOT DIFFERENT, IN
ESSENTIALS, FROM THAT WHICH WAS FOUND A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN MOORE
V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR THE COURT TO
REVERSE THESE CONVICTIONS UPON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE METHOD OF JURY
SELECTION DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE NEGRO RACE, IS TO STRESS THE
TRIVIAL AND IGNORE THE IMPORTANT.  WHILE THIS RECORD DISCLOSES
DISCRIMINATION WHICH UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT BE PREJUDICIAL,
THIS TRIAL TOOK PLACE UNDER CONDITIONS AND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY EVENTS
WHICH WOULD DENY DEFENDANTS A FAIR TRIAL BEFORE ANY KIND OF JURY.  I DO
NOT SEE, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, HOW ANY NEGRO ON THE JURY WOULD HAVE
DARED TO CAUSE A DISAGREEMENT OR ACQUITTAL.  THE ONLY CHANCE THESE
NEGROES HAD OF ACQUITTAL WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE COURAGE AND DECENCY OF
SOME STURDY AND FORTHRIGHT WHITE PERSON OF SUFFICIENT STANDING TO FACE
AND LIVE DOWN THE ODIUM AMONG HIS WHITE NEIGHBORS THAT SUCH A VOTE, IF
REQUIRED, WOULD HAVE BROUGHT.  TO ME, THE TECHNICAL QUESTION OF
DISCRIMINATION IN THE JURY SELECTION HAS ONLY THEORETICAL IMPORTANCE. 
THE CASE PRESENTS ONE OF THE BEST EXAMPLES OF ONE OF THE WORST MENACES
TO AMERICAN JUSTICE.  IT IS ON THAT GROUND THAT I WOULD REVERSE. 

FN1  A RECOMMENDATION OF MERCY WAS MADE AS TO DEFENDANT CHARLES
GREENLEE, A MINOR, AND HE DOES NOT APPEAL.  THE FOURTH SUSPECT, ERNEST
THOMAS, WAS KILLED RESISTING ARREST. 

FN2  46 SO.2D 880, 885. 

FN3  AN EDITOR, EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF A STATEMENT IN AN ARTICLE IN
HIS PAPER THAT ALL THREE NEGROES HAD CONFESSED, SAID: "(THE)
INFORMATION IS BASED ON ARTICLES IN THE VARIOUS DAILY PAPERS, AND
PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS I HAD WITH PEOPLE GENERALLY.  ...  (IF) ARTICLES
APPEAR IN THOSE PAPERS THAT HAVE STOOD THE TEST TWO OR THREE DAYS
WITHOUT DENIAL OR CORRECTION, BASED ON MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE AS AN
EDITOR, I ASSUME THEM TO BE TRUE.  THE ARTICLE YOU CALLED MY ATTENTION
TO APPEARED TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION IN A NUMBER OF DAILY PAPERS
AND WAS NOT DENIED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE DAYS.  I DON'T THINK THEY WERE
EVER DENIED." 

FN4  THE DEFENSE OFFERED, AND THE COURT REJECTED AS COMPLETELY
IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, EVIDENCE OF BRUTAL, INHUMAN BEATINGS OF
DEFENDANTS BY STATE OFFICERS IN WHOSE CUSTODY THEY WERE HELD. 

FN5  46 SO.2D AT 883. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. LEWIS, 340 U.S. 590 


NO. 347.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1951.  - 117 CT.
CL. 336, 91 F.SUPP.  1017, REVERSED. 


IN HIS 1944 INCOME TAX RETURN, RESPONDENT REPORTED $22,000 RECEIVED
THAT YEAR AS AN EMPLOYEE'S BONUS, WHICH HE CLAIMED IN GOOD FAITH AND
USED UNCONDITIONALLY AS HIS OWN.  IN SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION, IT WAS
DECIDED THAT THE BONUS HAD BEEN COMPUTED IMPROPERLY; AND, UNDER
COMPULSION OF A JUDGMENT, RESPONDENT RETURNED $11,000 TO HIS EMPLOYER
IN 1946.  HE THEN SUED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR REFUND OF AN ALLEGED
OVERPAYMENT OF HIS 1944 INCOME TAX.  HELD:  UNDER THE "CLAIM OF RIGHT"
DOCTRINE ANNOUNCED IN NORTH AMERICAN OIL V. BURNET, 286 U.S. 417, THE
ENTIRE $22,000 WAS INCOME IN 1944, AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO
RECOMPUTE HIS 1944 TAX.  PP. 590-592. 

UNITED STATES V. LEWIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED,
P. 592. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT LEWIS BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS SEEKING A
REFUND OF AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF HIS 1944 INCOME TAX.  THE FACTS
FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE:  IN HIS 1944 INCOME TAX RETURN,
RESPONDENT REPORTED ABOUT $22,000 WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED THAT YEAR AS AN
EMPLOYEE'S BONUS.  AS A RESULT OF SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION IN A STATE
COURT, HOWEVER, IT WAS DECIDED THAT RESPONDENT'S BONUS HAD BEEN
IMPROPERLY COMPUTED; UNDER COMPULSION OF THE STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT HE
RETURNED APPROXIMATELY $11,000 TO HIS EMPLOYER.  UNTIL PAYMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT IN 1946, RESPONDENT HAD AT ALL TIMES CLAIMED AND USED THE FULL
$22,000 UNCONDITIONALLY AS HIS OWN, IN THE GOOD FAITH THOUGH "MISTAKEN"
BELIEF THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE WHOLE BONUS. 

ON THE FOREGOING FACTS THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION IS THAT RESPONDENT'S
1944 TAX SHOULD NOT BE RECOMPUTED, BUT THAT RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE
DEDUCTED THE $11,000 AS A LOSS IN HIS 1946 TAX RETURN.  SEE G.C.M.
16730, XV-1 CUM. BULL.  179(1936).  THE COURT OF CLAIMS, HOWEVER,
RELYING ON ITS OWN CASE, GREENWALD V. UNITED STATES, 102 CT. CL. 272,
57 F.SUPP.  569, HELD THAT THE EXCESS BONUS RECEIVED "UNDER A MISTAKE
OF FACT" WAS NOT INCOME IN 1944 AND ORDERED A REFUND BASED ON A
RECALCULATION OF THAT YEAR'S TAX.  117 CT. CL. 336, 91 F.SUPP.  1017. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 903, BECAUSE THIS HOLDING CONFLICTED
WITH MANY DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS, SEE, E.G., HABERKORN V.
UNITED STATES, 173 F.2D 587, AND WITH PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN NORTH
AMERICAN OIL V. BURNET, 286 U.S. 417. 

IN THE NORTH AMERICAN OIL CASE WE SAID:  "IF A TAXPAYER RECEIVES
EARNINGS UNDER A CLAIM OF RIGHT AND WITHOUT RESTRICTION AS TO ITS
DISPOSITION, HE HAS RECEIVED INCOME WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO RETURN,
EVEN THOUGH IT MAY STILL BE CLAIMED THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RETAIN
THE MONEY, AND EVEN THOUGH HE MAY STILL BE ADJUDGED LIABLE TO RESTORE
ITS EQUIVALENT."  286 U.S. AT 424.  NOTHING IN THIS LANGUAGE PERMITS AN
EXCEPTION MERELY BECAUSE A TAXPAYER IS "MISTAKEN" AS TO THE VALIDITY OF
HIS CLAIM.  NOR HAS THE "CLAIM OF RIGHT" DOCTRINE BEEN IMPAIRED, AS THE
COURT OF CLAIMS STATED, BY FREULER V. HELVERING, 291 U.S. 35, OR
COMMISSIONER V. WILCOX, 327 U.S. 404.  THE FREULER CASE INVOLVED AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AND ITS
HOLDING IS INAPPLICABLE HERE.  291 U.S. AT 43.  AND IN COMMISSIONER V.
WILCOX, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT RECEIPTS FROM EMBEZZLEMENT DID NOT
CONSTITUTE INCOME, DISTINGUISHING NORTH AMERICAN OIL ON THE GROUND THAT
AN EMBEZZLER ASSERTS NO "BONA FIDE LEGAL OR EQUITABLE CLAIM."  327 U.S.
AT 408. 

INCOME TAXES MUST BE PAID ON INCOME RECEIVED (OR ACCRUED) DURING AN
ANNUAL ACCOUNTING PERIOD.  CF. I.R.C., SECS. 41, 42; AND SEE BURNET V.
SANFORD & BROOKS CO., 282 U.S. 359, 363.  THE "CLAIM OF RIGHT"
INTERPRETATION OF THE TAX LAWS HAS LONG BEEN USED TO GIVE FINALITY TO
THAT PERIOD, AND IS NOW DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM.  SEE
CASES COLLECTED IN 2 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, SEC.
12.103.  WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE COURT SHOULD DEPART FROM THIS WELL
SETTLED INTERPRETATION MERELY BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN AN ADVANTAGE OR
DISADVANTAGE TO A TAXPAYER.* REVERSED. 

*IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT IT WOULD BE MORE "EQUITABLE" TO REOPEN
RESPONDENT'S 1944 TAX RETURN.  WHILE THE SUGGESTION MIGHT WORK TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THIS TAXPAYER, IT COULD NOT BE ADOPTED AS A GENERAL
SOLUTION BECAUSE, IN MANY CASES, THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
WOULD PRECLUDE RECOVERY.  I.R.C., SEC. 322(B). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS NOT WHETHER THE BONUS HAD TO BE INCLUDED
IN 1944 INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX.  PLAINLY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED IT AS OF RIGHT.  SOME YEARS LATER,
HOWEVER, IT WAS JUDICIALLY DETERMINED THAT HE HAD NO CLAIM TO THE
BONUS.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HE MAY THEN GET BACK THE TAX WHICH HE
PAID ON THE MONEY. 

MANY INEQUITIES ARE INHERENT IN THE INCOME TAX.  WE MULTIPLY THEM
NEEDLESSLY BY NICE DISTINCTIONS WHICH HAVE NO PLACE IN THE PRACTICAL
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.  IF THE REFUND WERE ALLOWED, THE INTEGRITY
OF THE TAXABLE YEAR WOULD NOT BE VIOLATED.  THE TAX WOULD BE PAID WHEN
DUE; BUT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN THE
UNCONSCIONABLE POSITION THAT IT CAN KEEP THE TAX AFTER IT IS SHOWN THAT
PAYMENT WAS MADE ON MONEY WHICH WAS NOT INCOME TO THE TAXPAYER. 
..END :


















62 CASES OF JAM V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 593 


NO. 363.  ARGUED MARCH 5-6, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1951.  - 183 F.2D
1014, REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 304 OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, AS
AMENDED, THE GOVERNMENT FILED A LIBEL TO CONDEMN 62 CASES OF A PRODUCT
WHICH CLOSELY RESEMBLED FRUIT JAM IN APPEARANCE AND TASTE, CLAIMING
THAT IT WAS "MISBRANDED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 403(G).  THE
PRODUCT DID NOT MEET THE STANDARDS FOR FRUIT JAM PRESCRIBED IN THE
REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER SEC. 401 AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN SEC.
403(G); BUT IT WAS WHOLESOME AND FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, WAS PLAINLY
LABELED AS "IMITATION" IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 403(C), AND WAS SOLD AS
"IMITATION JAM," WITHOUT ANY EFFORT TO MISREPRESENT IT AS GENUINE FRUIT
JAM.  HELD:  IT WAS NOT "MISBRANDED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 403. 
FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR V. QUAKER OATS CO., 318 U.S. 218,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 593-601. 

62 CASES OF JAM ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

ON A LIBEL BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST CERTAIN FOOD PRODUCTS UNDER
SEC. 304 OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THAT THEY WERE NOT "MISBRANDED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
403.  87 F.SUPP.  735.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  183 F.2D 1014. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 890.  REVERSED, P. 601. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT AUTHORIZES THE UNITED STATES
TO BRING A LIBEL AGAINST ANY ARTICLE OF FOOD WHICH IS "MISBRANDED" WHEN
USING THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1938, SEC.
304, 52 STAT. 1040, 1044, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 334.  THE ACT DEFINES
"MISBRANDED" IN THE ELEVEN PARAGRAPHS OF SEC. 403.  52 STAT. 1047-1048,
21 U.S.C. SEC. 343.  THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS RAISED BY TWO APPARENTLY
CONFLICTING PARAGRAPHS. 

ONE OF THEM, SUBSECTION (C), COMES FROM THE ORIGINAL PURE FOOD AND
DRUGS ACT OF 1906.  ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906; 34 STAT. 768, 770-771, SEC.
8(FIRST PARAGRAPH CONCERNING "FOOD," AND SECOND PROVISO).  IT DIRECTS
THAT A FOOD SHALL BE DEEMED "MISBRANDED" IF IT "IS AN IMITATION OF
ANOTHER FOOD, UNLESS ITS LABEL BEARS, IN TYPE OF UNIFORM SIZE AND
PROMINENCE, THE WORD 'IMITATION' AND, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, THE NAME
OF THE FOOD IMITATED."  THE OTHER, SUBSECTION (G), WAS ADDED BY THE
ENLARGEMENT OF THE STATUTE IN 1938.  IT CONDEMNS AS "MISBRANDED" A
PRODUCT WHICH "PURPORTS TO BE OR IS REPRESENTED AS A FOOD," THE
INGREDIENTS OF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS STANDARDIZED, IF THE PRODUCT
DOES NOT CONFORM IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAS AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE STANDARDS WHEN IN HIS
JUDGMENT "SUCH ACTION WILL PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR DEALING IN THE
INTEREST OF CONSUMERS."  SEC. 401, 52 STAT. 1046, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 341. 

THE PROCEEDING BEFORE US WAS COMMENCED IN 1949 IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO.  BY IT THE UNITED STATES SEEKS TO
CONDEMN 62 CASES OF "DELICIOUS BRAND IMITATION JAM," MANUFACTURED IN
COLORADO AND SHIPPED TO NEW MEXICO.  THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT THIS
PRODUCT "PURPORTS" TO BE FRUIT JAM, A FOOD FOR WHICH THE FEDERAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR HAS PROMULGATED A "DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF
IDENTITY."  THE REGULATION SPECIFIES THAT A FRUIT JAM MUST CONTAIN "NOT
LESS THAN 45 PARTS BY WEIGHT" OF THE FRUIT INGREDIENT.  21 C.F.R. (1949
ED.)  SEC.  29.0.  THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION IS COMPOSED OF 55% SUGAR,
25% FRUIT, 20% PECTIN, AND SMALL AMOUNTS OF CITRIC ACID AND SODA. 
THESE SPECIFICATIONS SHOW THAT PECTIN, A GELATINIZED SOLUTION
CONSISTING LARGELY OF WATER, HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR A SUBSTANTIAL
PROPORTION OF THE FRUIT REQUIRED.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE
PRODUCT IS THEREFORE TO BE DEEMED "MISBRANDED" UNDER SEC. 403(G). 

ON THE BASIS OF STIPULATED TESTIMONY THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOUND THAT
ALTHOUGH THE PRODUCT SEIZED DID NOT MEET THE PRESCRIBED STANDARDS FOR
FRUIT JAM, IT WAS "WHOLESOME" AND "IN EVERY WAY FIT FOR HUMAN
CONSUMPTION."  IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE THE APPEARANCE AND TASTE OF
STANDARDIZED JAM, AND TO BE USED AS A LESS EXPENSIVE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE
STANDARD PRODUCT.  IN SOME INSTANCES, PRODUCTS SIMILAR TO THOSE SEIZED
WERE SOLD AT RETAIL TO THE PUBLIC IN RESPONSE TO TELEPHONE ORDERS FOR
JAMS, AND WERE SERVED TO PATRONS OF RESTAURANTS, RANCHES AND SIMILAR
ESTABLISHMENTS, WHO HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN THE QUALITY OF WHAT
THEY RECEIVED.  BUT THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF MISREPRESENTATION.  THE
JUDGE FOUND THAT THE LABELS ON THE SEIZED JARS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY
ACCURATE; AND HE CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE PRODUCT PURPORTED TO BE ONLY
AN IMITATION FRUIT PRESERVE AND COMPLIED IN ALL RESPECTS WITH
SUBSECTION (C) OF SEC. 403 OF THE ACT, IT COULD NOT BE DEEMED
"MISBRANDED."  87 F.SUPP.  735. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING,
REVERSED THIS JUDGMENT.  183 F.2D 1014.  IT HELD THAT SINCE THE PRODUCT
SEIZED CLOSELY RESEMBLED FRUIT JAM IN APPEARANCE AND TASTE, AND WAS
USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE STANDARDIZED FOOD, IT "PURPORTED" TO BE
FRUIT JAM, AND MUST BE DEEMED "MISBRANDED" NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT WAS
DULY LABELED AN "IMITATION."  THE COURT THEREFORE REMANDED THE CAUSE
WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER A JUDGMENT FOR CONDEMNATION.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 890, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT. 

1.  BY THE ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 768, AS SUCCESSIVELY STRENGTHENED,
CONGRESS EXERTED ITS POWER TO KEEP IMPURE AND ADULTERATED FOODS AND
DRUGS OUT OF THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE.  THE PURPOSES OF THIS
LEGISLATION, WE HAVE SAID, "TOUCH PHASES OF THE LIVES AND HEALTH OF
PEOPLE WHICH, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF MODERN INDUSTRIALISM, ARE LARGELY
BEYOND SELF-PROTECTION.  REGARD FOR THESE PURPOSES SHOULD INFUSE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEGISLATION IF IT IS TO BE TREATED AS A WORKING
INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND NOT MERELY AS A COLLECTION OF ENGLISH
WORDS."  UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277, 280.  THIS IS THE
ATTITUDE WITH WHICH WE SHOULD APPROACH THE PROBLEM OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION NOW PRESENTED.  BUT OUR PROBLEM IS TO CONSTRUE WHAT
CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN.  AFTER ALL, CONGRESS EXPRESSES ITS PURPOSE BY
WORDS.  IT IS FOR US TO ASCERTAIN - NEITHER TO ADD NOR TO SUBTRACT,
NEITHER TO DELETE NOR TO DISTORT. 

2.  MISBRANDING WAS ONE OF THE CHIEF EVILS CONGRESS SOUGHT TO STOP. 
IT WAS BOTH WITHIN THE RIGHT AND THE WISDOM OF CONGRESS NOT TO TRUST TO
THE COLLOQUIAL OR THE DICTIONARY MEANING OF MISBRANDING, BUT TO WRITE
ITS OWN.  CONCEDEDLY WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH MISBRANDING IN ITS
CRUDE MANIFESTATIONS, WHAT WOULD COLLOQUIALLY BE DEEMED A FALSE
REPRESENTATION.  COMPARE SEC. 403(A), (B), (D), 52 STAT. 1047, 21
U.S.C. SEC. 343(A), (B), (D).  OUR CONCERN IS WHETHER THE ARTICLE OF
FOOD SOLD AS "DELICIOUS BRAND IMITATION JAM" IS "DEEMED TO BE
MISBRANDED" ACCORDING TO SEC. 403(C) AND (G) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,
AND COSMETIC ACT OF 1938. 

3.  THE CONTROLLING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 304.  (A)(AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 24, 1948, 62 STAT. 582)
ANY ARTICLE OF FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC THAT IS ADULTERATED OR
MISBRANDED WHEN INTRODUCED INTO OR WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
WHILE HELD FOR SALE (WHETHER OR NOT THE FIRST SALE) AFTER SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE,  ...  SHALL BE LIABLE TO BE PROCEEDED AGAINST
WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, ON LIBEL OF
INFORMATION AND CONDEMNED IN ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF WHICH THE ARTICLE IS FOUND:  ... 

     .         .    .         .         . 

"SEC. 401.  WHENEVER IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE (ADMINISTRATOR) SUCH
ACTION WILL PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR DEALING IN THE INTEREST OF
CONSUMERS, HE SHALL PROMULGATE REGULATIONS FIXING AND ESTABLISHING FOR
ANY FOOD, UNDER ITS COMMON OR USUAL NAME SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, A
REASONABLE DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF IDENTITY, A REASONABLE STANDARD
OF QUALITY, AND/OR REASONABLE STANDARDS OF FILL OF CONTAINER:  ...  IN
PRESCRIBING A DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF IDENTITY FOR ANY FOOD OR CLASS
OF FOOD IN WHICH OPTIONAL INGREDIENTS ARE PERMITTED, THE
(ADMINISTRATOR) SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING HONESTY AND FAIR
DEALING IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS, DESIGNATE THE OPTIONAL
INGREDIENTS WHICH SHALL BE NAMED ON THE LABEL.  ... 

.         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 403.  A FOOD SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE MISBRANDED 

     .         .      .         .         . 

"(C)  IF IT IS AN IMITATION OF ANOTHER FOOD, UNLESS ITS LABEL BEARS,
IN TYPE OF UNIFORM SIZE AND PROMINENCE, THE WORD 'IMITATION' AND,
IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, THE NAME OF THE FOOD IMITATED. 

     .         . .         .         . 

"(G)  IF IT PURPORTS TO BE OR IS REPRESENTED AS A FOOD FOR WHICH A
DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF IDENTITY HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED BY REGULATIONS
AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 401, UNLESS (1) IT CONFORMS TO SUCH DEFINITION
AND STANDARD, AND (2) ITS LABEL BEARS THE NAME OF THE FOOD SPECIFIED IN
THE DEFINITION AND STANDARD, AND, INSOFAR AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY SUCH
REGULATIONS, THE COMMON NAMES OF OPTIONAL INGREDIENTS (OTHER THAN
SPICES, FLAVORING, AND COLORING) PRESENT IN SUCH FOOD." 

4.  BY SECS. 401 AND 403(G), CONGRESS VESTED IN THE ADMINISTRATOR THE
FAR-REACHING POWER OF FIXING FOR ANY SPECIES OF FOOD "A REASONABLE
DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF IDENTITY."  IN FEDERAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATOR V. QUAKER OATS CO., 318 U.S. 218, WE HELD THAT THIS MEANS
THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY, BY REGULATION, FIX THE INGREDIENTS OF ANY
FOOD, AND THAT THEREAFTER A COMMODITY CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH "PURPORTS TO BE OR IS REPRESENTED AS" THE
FOOD WHICH HAS BEEN THUS DEFINED UNLESS IT IS COMPOSED OF THE REQUIRED
INGREDIENTS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD PRESCRIBED THE INGREDIENTS OF TWO
DIFFERENT SPECIES OF FOOD - "FARINA" AND "ENRICHED FARINA."  THE FORMER
WAS AN EXCLUSIVELY MILLED WHEAT PRODUCT; THE LATTER INCLUDED CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL INGREDIENTS, ONE OF WHICH OPTIONALLY COULD BE VITAMIN D. THE
QUAKER OATS COMPANY MARKETED A PRODUCT IT CALLED "QUAKER FARINA WHEAT
CEREAL ENRICHED WITH VITAMIN D," WHICH DID NOT CONFORM TO EITHER
STANDARD.  BECAUSE IT CONTAINED AN ADDITIONAL VITAMIN IT WAS NOT
"FARINA"; BECAUSE IT LACKED CERTAIN OF THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS IT
COULD NOT BE CALLED "ENRICHED FARINA."  IT WAS CONCEDEDLY A WHOLESOME
PRODUCT, ACCURATELY LABELED; BUT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATIONS
IT COULD NOT BE SOLD.  WE SUSTAINED THE REGULATIONS, HOLDING THAT
CONGRESS HAD CONSTITUTIONALLY EMPOWERED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DEFINE A
FOOD AND HAD THEREBY PRECLUDED MANUFACTURERS - OR COURTS - FROM
DETERMINING FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER SOME OTHER INGREDIENTS WOULD NOT
PRODUCE AS NUTRITIOUS A PRODUCT.  "THE STATUTORY PURPOSE TO FIX A
DEFINITION OF IDENTITY OF AN ARTICLE OF FOOD SOLD UNDER ITS COMMON OR
USUAL NAME WOULD BE DEFEATED IF PRODUCERS WERE FREE TO ADD INGREDIENTS,
HOWEVER WHOLESOME, WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN THE DEFINITION."  318 U.S. AT
232. 

5.  OUR DECISION IN THE QUAKER OATS CASE DOES NOT TOUCH THE PROBLEM
NOW BEFORE US.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS CONCEDED THAT ALTHOUGH THE QUAKER
PRODUCT DID NOT HAVE THE STANDARD INGREDIENTS, IT "PURPORTED" TO BE A
STANDARDIZED FOOD.  WE DID NOT THERE CONSIDER THE LEGALITY OF MARKETING
PROPERLY LABELED "IMITATION FARINA."  THAT WOULD BE THE COMPARABLE
QUESTION TO THE ONE NOW HERE. 

ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, NOTHING CAN BE
LEGALLY "JAM" AFTER THE ADMINISTRATOR PROMULGATED HIS REGULATION IN
1940, 5 FED. REG. 3554, 21 C.F.R. SEC. 29.0, UNLESS IT CONTAINS THE
SPECIFIED INGREDIENTS IN PRESCRIBED PROPORTION.  HENCE THE PRODUCT IN
CONTROVERSY IS NOT "JAM."  IT CANNOT LAWFULLY BE LABELED "JAM" AND
INTRODUCED INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FOR TO DO SO WOULD "REPRESENT" AS
A STANDARDIZED FOOD A PRODUCT WHICH DOES NOT MEET PRESCRIBED
SPECIFICATIONS. 

BUT THE PRODUCT WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED IS SOLD AS "IMITATION
JAM."  IMITATION FOODS ARE DEALT WITH IN SEC. 403(C) OF THE ACT.  IN
THAT SECTION CONGRESS DID NOT GIVE AN ESOTERIC MEANING TO "IMITATION." 
IT LEFT IT TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF ORDINARY ENGLISH SPEECH.  AND IT
DIRECTED THAT A PRODUCT SHOULD BE DEEMED "MISBRANDED" IF IT IMITATED
ANOTHER FOOD "UNLESS ITS LABEL BEARS, IN TYPE OF UNIFORM SIZE AND
PROMINENCE, THE WORD 'IMITATION' AND, IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, THE NAME
OF THE FOOD IMITATED." 

IN ORDINARY SPEECH THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PRODUCT WHICH THE
UNITED STATES HERE SEEKS TO CONDEMN IS AN "IMITATION" JAM.  IT LOOKS
AND TASTES LIKE JAM; IT IS UNEQUIVOCALLY LABELED "IMITATION JAM."  THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ARGUE THAT ITS LABEL IN ANY WAY FALLS SHORT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 403(C).  ITS DISTRIBUTION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WOULD THEREFORE CLEARLY SEEM TO BE AUTHORIZED BY THAT SECTION.  WE
COULD HOLD IT TO BE "MISBRANDED" ONLY IF WE HELD THAT A PRACTICE
CONGRESS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 403(C) CONGRESS IMPLIEDLY PROHIBITED BY
SEC. 403(G). 

WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION SO TO DISTORT THE ORDINARY MEANING OF THE
STATUTE.  NOTHING IN THE TEXT OR HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION POINTS TO
SUCH A READING OF WHAT CONGRESS WROTE.  IN SEC. 403(G) CONGRESS USED
THE WORDS "PURPORT" AND "REPRESENT" - TERMS SUGGESTING THE IDEA OF
COUNTERFEIT.  BUT THE NAME "IMITATION JAM" AT ONCE CONNOTES PRECISELY
WHAT THE PRODUCT IS:  A DIFFERENT, AN INFERIOR PRESERVE, NOT MEETING
THE DEFINED SPECIFICATIONS.  SECTION 403(G) WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC FROM INFERIOR FOODS RESEMBLING STANDARD PRODUCTS BUT MARKETED
UNDER DISTINCTIVE NAMES.  SEE S. REP. NO. 361, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8
11.  CONGRESS MAY WELL HAVE SUPPOSED THAT SIMILAR CONFUSION WOULD NOT
RESULT FROM THE MARKETING OF A PRODUCT CANDIDLY AND FLAGRANTLY LABELED
AS AN "IMITATION" FOOD.  A PRODUCT SO LABELED IS DESCRIBED WITH PRECISE
ACCURACY.  IT NEITHER CONVEYS ANY AMBIGUITY NOR EMANATES ANY UNTRUE
INNUENDO, AS WAS THE CASE WITH THE "BRED SPRED" CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS
IN ITS DELIBERATION ON SEC. 403(G).  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2139, 75TH
CONG., 3D SESS. 5; HOUSE HEARINGS ON H.R. 6906, 8805, 8941 AND S. 5,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 46-47.  IT PURPORTS AND IS REPRESENTED TO BE ONLY
WHAT IT IS - AN IMITATION.  IT DOES NOT PURPORT NOR REPRESENT TO BE
WHAT IT IS NOT - THE ADMINISTRATOR'S GENUINE "JAM."    IN OUR ANXIETY
TO EFFECTUATE THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC, WE
MUST TAKE CARE NOT TO EXTEND THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE BEYOND THE POINT
WHERE CONGRESS INDICATED IT WOULD STOP.  THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE US
HOLD THAT WHEN THE ADMINISTRATOR STANDARDIZES THE INGREDIENTS OF A
FOOD, NO IMITATION OF THAT FOOD CAN BE MARKETED WHICH CONTAINS AN
INGREDIENT OF THE ORIGINAL AND SERVES A SIMILAR PURPOSE.  IF CONGRESS
WISHES TO SAY THAT NOTHING SHALL BE MARKETED IN LIKENESS TO A FOOD AS
DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, THOUGH IT IS ACCURATELY LABELED, ENTIRELY
WHOLESOME, AND PERHAPS MORE WITHIN THE REACH OF THE MEAGER PURSE, OUR
DECISIONS INDICATE THAT CONGRESS MAY WELL DO SO.  BUT CONGRESS HAS NOT
SAID SO.  IT INDICATED THE CONTRARY.  INDEED, THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION CONCEDEDLY IS CONTRARY TO WHAT HE NOW
CONTENDS.  WE MUST ASSUME HIS PRESENT MISCONCEPTION RESULTS FROM A
MISREADING OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE QUAKER OATS CASE.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT MAY BE SOUND BY LEGISLATIVE
STANDARDS.  BUT THE LEGAL STANDARDS WHICH GOVERN US MAKE THE PROCESS OF
REACHING THAT RESULT TORTUOUS TO SAY THE LEAST.  WE MUST SAY THAT
PETITIONER'S "JAM" PURPORTS TO BE "JAM" WHEN WE READ SEC. 403(G) AND
PURPORTS TO BE NOT "JAM" BUT ANOTHER FOOD WHEN WE READ SEC. 403(C). 
YET IF PETITIONER'S PRODUCT DID NOT PURPORT TO BE "JAM" PETITIONER
WOULD HAVE NO CLAIM TO PRESS AND THE GOVERNMENT NO OBJECTION TO RAISE. 

..END :



















SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE V. O'CONNOR, 340 U.S. 602 


NO. 132.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 29-30, 1950.  - REARGUED JANUARY 10, 1951.  -
DECIDED MARCH 26, 1951.  - 181 F.2D 150, REVERSED. 


1.  CONNECTICUT IMPOSES UPON THE FRANCHISES OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, A TAX COMPUTED AT
A NONDISCRIMINATORY RATE ON THAT PART OF THE CORPORATION'S NET INCOME
WHICH IS REASONABLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE
STATE.  THE TAX IS NOT LEVIED AS COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS OR COLLECTED IN LIEU OF AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX.  IT IS NOT
A FEE FOR INSPECTION OR A TAX ON SALES OR USE.  HELD:  AS APPLIED TO A
FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH WAS ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE
TRUCKING, THE TAX WAS INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 603-610. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT, IF SOME INTRASTATE COMMERCE WERE INVOLVED OR IF
AN APPROPRIATE TAX WERE IMPOSED AS COMPENSATION FOR THE CORPORATION'S
USE OF THE HIGHWAYS, THE SAME SUM OF MONEY AS IS AT ISSUE HERE MIGHT BE
LAWFULLY COLLECTED FROM THE CORPORATION, CANNOT SUSTAIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE TAX.  PP. 607-608. 

(B)  WHETHER A STATE MAY VALIDLY MAKE INTERSTATE COMMERCE PAY ITS WAY
DEPENDS FIRST OF ALL UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANNEL THROUGH WHICH IT
ATTEMPTS TO DO SO.  P. 608. 

(C)  AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURTS, THIS IS A TAX SOLELY ON THE
FRANCHISE OF PETITIONER TO DO A BUSINESS WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY
INTERSTATE; AND SUCH A TAX CONTRAVENES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, NO MATTER
HOW FAIRLY IT IS APPORTIONED TO BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE STATE.  PP.
608-610. 

2.  THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THIS CASE IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE ADEQUACY OF A REMEDY
IN THE STATE COURTS, AND IT DID NOT LOSE THAT JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF
THE LATER CLARIFICATION OF THE PROCEDURE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE. 
P. 605. 

SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, INC. V. O'CONNOR, TAX COMMISSIONER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION, PP. 603-605.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, P. 610. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING ATTACKS, UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE VALIDITY OF A STATE TAX IMPOSED
UPON THE FRANCHISE OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE WHEN (1) THE BUSINESS CONSISTS SOLELY OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND (2) THE TAX IS COMPUTED AT A NONDISCRIMINATORY
RATE ON THAT PART OF THE CORPORATION'S NET INCOME WHICH IS REASONABLY
ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE.  FOR THE
REASONS HEREINAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THIS APPLICATION OF THE TAX
INVALID. 

PETITIONER, SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, INC., IS A MISSOURI CORPORATION
ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE TRUCKING.  IT INSTITUTED THIS ACTION
IN 1942 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
CONNECTICUT AGAINST THE TAX COMMISSIONER OF THAT STATE.  IT SOUGHT TO
ENJOIN COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTIES TOTALING $7,795.50,
WHICH HAD BEEN LEVIED AGAINST IT, FOR VARIOUS PERIODS BETWEEN JUNE 1,
1935, AND DECEMBER 31, 1940, UNDER THE CONNECTICUT CORPORATION BUSINESS
TAX ACT OF 1935 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.  FN1  IT ASKED ALSO FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO ITS LIABILITY, IF ANY, UNDER THAT ACT.  IT
CLAIMED THAT THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO IT AND THAT,
IF IT DID, SUCH APPLICATION VIOLATED BOTH THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION
AND THE COMMERCE AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.  FINALLY, IT ALLEGED THAT IT HAD NO PLAIN, SPEEDY AND
EFFICIENT REMEDY AT LAW OR IN EQUITY IN THE STATE COURTS  FN2  AND THAT
THE COLLECTION OF THE TAXES AND PENALTIES BY THE MEANS PROVIDED IN THE
STATUTE WOULD CAUSE IT IRREPARABLE INJURY.  THE DISTRICT COURT TOOK
JURISDICTION, HELD THAT THE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO PETITIONER AND GRANTED
THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT.  47 F.SUPP.  671.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED.  139 F.2D 809.  IT HELD
THAT THE TAX DID APPLY TO PETITIONER AND WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 720, BUT, AFTER HEARING, REMANDED THE
CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO RETAIN THE BILL PENDING
THE DETERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO BE BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURT IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE OPINION RENDERED, 323 U.S. 101. 

PETITIONER THEREUPON SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN THE SUPERIOR
COURT FOR HARTFORD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT.  THE SUPERIOR COURT HELD THAT
THE TAX WAS APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER BUT INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  15 CONN. SUPP. 205.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE STATE
OF CONNECTICUT LIKEWISE HELD THAT PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT TO THE TAX BUT
IT DECLINED TO PASS ON THE EFFECT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  135 CONN.
37, 70, 61 A.2D 89, 105.  ON A MOTION ASKING IT TO DISSOLVE ITS
ORIGINAL INJUNCTION, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO DO
SO.  88 F.SUPP.  711.  IT REVIEWED THE RECENT DECISIONS AND HELD THAT,
APPLYING THE ACT TO PETITIONER, AS REQUIRED BY THE INTERPRETATION OF IT
BY THE STATE COURTS, SUCH APPLICATION VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT, ACTING THROUGH THE SAME MAJORITY AS ON THE PREVIOUS OCCASION,
REVERSED.  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE AND BY THE JUDGE WHO HAD DISSENTED ON THE FORMER APPEAL.  181
F.2D 150.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF
THE ISSUE AND THE APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND
PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT.  340 U.S. 806.  THE CASE WAS ARGUED
TWICE AT THIS TERM. 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE ADEQUACY OF A
REMEDY IN THE STATE COURTS, AND IT DID NOT LOSE THAT JURISDICTION BY
VIRTUE OF THE LATER CLARIFICATION OF THE PROCEDURE IN THE COURTS OF
CONNECTICUT.  AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. V. STEWART, 300 U.S. 203; DAWSON
V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 255 U.S. 288. 

THE VITAL ISSUE WHICH REMAINS IS WHETHER THE APPLICATION OF THE TAX
TO PETITIONER VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  WE COME TO THAT ISSUE NOW WITH THE BENEFIT OF A
STATEMENT FROM THE STATE COURT OF FINAL JURISDICTION SHOWING EXACTLY
WHAT IT IS THAT THE STATE HAS SOUGHT TO TAX.  THE ALL-IMPORTANT
"OPERATING INCIDENCE" OF THE TAX IS THUS MADE CLEAR.  FN3  AFTER FULL
CONSIDERATION AND WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT ITS STATEMENT WOULD BE MADE THE
BASIS OF DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE TAX UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THAT COURT SAID: 

"THE TAX IS THEN A TAX OR EXCISE UPON THE FRANCHISE OF CORPORATIONS
FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON OR DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE,
WHETHER THEY BE DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN.  STANLEY WORKS V. HACKETT, 122
CONN. 547, 551, 190 A. 743.  NET EARNINGS ARE USED MERELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY EACH CORPORATION, A
MEASURE WHICH, BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RATE CHARGED, WAS INTENDED TO
IMPOSE UPON EACH CORPORATION A SHARE OF THE GENERAL TAX BURDEN AS
NEARLY AS POSSIBLE EQUIVALENT TO THAT BORNE BY OTHER WEALTH IN THE
STATE.  AS REGARDS A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT
THE STATE, THE INTENTION WAS, BY THE USE OF A RATHER COMPLICATED
FORMULA, TO MEASURE THE TAX BY DETERMINING AS FAIRLY AS POSSIBLE THE
PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF ITS BUSINESS DONE IN THIS STATE.  THERE IS NO
GROUND UPON WHICH THE TAX CAN BE SAID TO REST UPON THE USE OF HIGHWAYS
BY MOTOR TRUCKS  ...  "  135 CONN. AT 56-57, 61 A.2D AT 98-99. 

THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX IS UPON NO INTRASTATE COMMERCE ACTIVITIES
BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE.  PETITIONER IS ENGAGED ONLY IN INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN ILLINOIS.  IT IS
AUTHORIZED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO DO CERTAIN
INTERSTATE TRUCKING AND BY THE CONNECTICUT PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
TO DO PART OF SUCH INTERSTATE TRUCKING IN CONNECTICUT.  PETITIONER HAS
FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF CONNECTICUT A CERTIFICATE OF ITS
INCORPORATION IN MISSOURI, HAS DESIGNATED AN AGENT IN CONNECTICUT FOR
SERVICE OF PROCESS AND HAS PAID THE STATE FEE REQUIRED IN THAT
CONNECTION.  IT HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT TO
DO INTRASTATE TRUCKING AND DOES NOT ENGAGE IN IT.  SEE TERMINAL TAXICAB
CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 241 U.S. 252, 253-254. 

PETITIONER'S BUSINESS IS THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BY
MOTOR TRUCK BETWEEN EAST AND WEST.  WHEN A FULL TRUCKLOAD IS TO BE
SHIPPED TO OR FROM ANY CUSTOMER IN CONNECTICUT, PETITIONER'S OVER-THE
ROAD TRUCKS GO DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS.  IN THE
CASE OF LESS-THAN-TRUCKLOAD SHIPMENTS, PICKUP TRUCKS OPERATED BY
PETITIONER GATHER THE FREIGHT FROM CUSTOMERS FOR ASSEMBLY INTO FULL
TRUCKLOADS AT EITHER OF TWO TERMINALS MAINTAINED WITHIN THE STATE. 
"THE PICKUP TRUCKS MERELY ACT AS A PART OF THE INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF THE FREIGHT."  135 CONN. AT 44, 61 A.2D AT 93. 

THE TAX DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE
COMMERCE.  NEITHER THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX NOR ITS COMPUTATION NEED BE
CONSIDERED BY US IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE.  THE OBJECTION
TO ITS VALIDITY DOES NOT REST ON A CLAIM THAT IT PLACES AN UNDULY HEAVY
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN RETURN FOR PROTECTION GIVEN BY THE
STATE.  THE TAX IS NOT LEVIED AS COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF HIGHWAYS
FN4  OR COLLECTED IN LIEU OF AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX.  FN5  THOSE
BASES OF TAXATION HAVE BEEN DISCLAIMED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
TAXING STATE.  IT IS NOT A FEE FOR AN INSPECTION OR A TAX ON SALES OR
USE.  IT IS A "TAX OR EXCISE" PLACED UNEQUIVOCALLY UPON THE
CORPORATION'S FRANCHISE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON EXCLUSIVELY
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IN THE STATE.  IT SERVES NO PURPOSE FOR THE
STATE TAX COMMISSIONER TO SUGGEST THAT, IF THERE WERE SOME INTRASTATE
COMMERCE INVOLVED OR IF AN APPROPRIATE TAX WERE IMPOSED AS COMPENSATION
FOR PETITIONER'S USE OF THE HIGHWAYS, THE SAME SUM OF MONEY AS IS AT
ISSUE HERE MIGHT BE COLLECTED LAWFULLY FROM PETITIONER.  EVEN THOUGH
THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE MIGHT BE THE SAME, THE
QUESTION WHETHER A STATE MAY VALIDLY MAKE INTERSTATE COMMERCE PAY ITS
WAY DEPENDS FIRST OF ALL UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANNEL THROUGH WHICH
IT ATTEMPTS TO DO SO. FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249; MCLEOD V.
DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327. 

TAXING POWER IS INHERENT IN SOVEREIGN STATES, YET THE STATES OF THE
UNITED STATES HAVE DIVIDED THEIR TAXING POWER BETWEEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THEMSELVES.  THEY DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES THE
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO TAX THE PRIVILEGE TO ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WHEN THEY GAVE CONGRESS THE POWER "TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS, AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES  ... "  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC.
8, CL. 3.  WHILE THE REACH OF THE RESERVED TAXING POWER OF A STATE IS
GREAT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS
MAKES IT ESSENTIAL THAT NO STATE BE PERMITTED TO EXERCISE, WITHOUT
AUTHORITY FROM CONGRESS, THOSE FUNCTIONS WHICH IT HAS DELEGATED
EXCLUSIVELY TO CONGRESS.  ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS BASIC SEPARATION OF
POWERS IS THE INABILITY OF THE STATES TO TAX THE AGENCIES THROUGH WHICH
THE UNITED STATES EXERCISES ITS SOVEREIGN POWERS.  SEE M'CULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 425-437; BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419,
445-449; MAYO V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 441. 

THE ANSWER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR BY THE COURTS OF
CONNECTICUT.  IT IS NOT A MATTER OF LABELS.  THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX
PROVIDES THE ANSWER.  THE COURTS OF CONNECTICUT HAVE HELD THAT THE TAX
BEFORE US ATTACHES SOLELY TO THE FRANCHISE OF PETITIONER TO DO
INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THE STATE IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM IMPOSING TAXES
UPON OTHER ACTIVITIES OR ASPECTS OF THIS BUSINESS WHICH, UNLIKE THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS, ARE SUBJECT TO THE SOVEREIGN
POWER OF THE STATE.  THOSE TAXES MAY BE IMPOSED ALTHOUGH THEIR PAYMENT
MAY COME OUT OF THE FUNDS DERIVED FROM PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE
BUSINESS, PROVIDED THE TAXES ARE SO IMPOSED THAT THEIR BURDEN WILL BE
REASONABLY RELATED TO THE POWERS OF THE STATE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY. 

THIS COURT HERETOFORE HAS STRUCK DOWN, UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE,
STATE TAXES UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON A BUSINESS THAT WAS
EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY OF
SUCH A TAX PERSISTS NO MATTER HOW FAIRLY IT IS APPORTIONED TO BUSINESS
DONE WITHIN THE STATE.  ALPHA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 268
U.S. 203(MEASURED BY PERCENTAGES OF "CORPORATE EXCESS" AND NET INCOME);
OZARK PIPE LINE CORP. V. MONIER, 266 U.S. 555(MEASURED BY PERCENTAGE OF
CAPITAL STOCK AND SURPLUS).  SEE INTERSTATE PIPE LINE CO. V. STONE, 337
U.S. 662, 669, ET SEQ. (DISSENTING OPINION WHICH DISCUSSES THE ISSUE ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ACTIVITIES WERE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE); JOSEPH
V. CARTER & WEEKES CO., 330 U.S. 422; FREEMAN V. HEWIT, SUPRA.  FN6 

OUR CONCLUSION IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT, WHERE A
TAXPAYER IS ENGAGED BOTH IN INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE, A STATE
MAY TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON INTRASTATE BUSINESS AND, WITHIN
REASONABLE LIMITS,  FN7  MAY COMPUTE THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE BY
APPLYING THE TAX RATE TO A FAIR PROPORTION OF THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS
DONE WITHIN THE STATE, INCLUDING BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE. 
INTERSTATE PIPE LINE CO. V. STONE, SUPRA; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO.
V. EVATT, 329 U.S. 416; ATLANTIC LUMBER CO. V. COMM'R OF CORPORATIONS
AND TAXATION, 298 U.S. 553.  THE SAME IS TRUE WHERE THE TAXPAYER'S
BUSINESS ACTIVITY IS LOCAL IN NATURE, SUCH AS THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE SAME STATE, ALTHOUGH INCLUDING
INTERSTATE TRAVEL, CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES V. MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653, OR
THE PUBLICATION OF A NEWSPAPER, WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250.  SEE ALSO, MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S.
80. 

IN THIS FIELD THERE IS NOT ONLY REASON BUT LONG-ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT
FOR KEEPING THE FEDERAL PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FREE FROM STATE TAXATION.  TO DO SO GIVES LATERAL SUPPORT TO
ONE OF THE CORNERSTONES OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - M'CULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH REVERSED THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  418C.  IMPOSITION OF TAX.  EVERY MUTUAL SAVINGS BANK,
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AND BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION DOING
BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, AND EVERY OTHER CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION
CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THIS STATE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH
CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION HAS ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT, COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF AN INCOME TAX (WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE)  ...  SHALL PAY, ANNUALLY, A TAX OR
EXCISE UPON ITS FRANCHISE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON OR DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, SUCH TAX TO BE MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE NET
INCOME AS HEREIN DEFINED RECEIVED BY SUCH CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION
FROM BUSINESS TRANSACTED WITHIN THE STATE DURING THE INCOME YEAR AND TO
BE ASSESSED AT THE RATE OF TWO PER CENT; ...."  CONN. GEN. STAT. CUM.
SUPP. 1935.    THIS SECTION WAS AMENDED IN 1937 BY INSERTING IN THE
FIRST ITALICIZED CLAUSE, AFTER THE WORDS "EVERY OTHER CORPORATION OR
ASSOCIATION CARRYING ON," THE WORDS "OR HAVING THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON." 
CONN. GEN. STAT. CUM. SUPP. 1939, SEC. 354E.  OUR CONCLUSION IS THE
SAME AS TO THE ASSESSMENTS LEVIED BEFORE AND THOSE LEVIED AFTER THE
AMENDMENT. 

THE CURRENT REVISION OF THE STATUTE, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED, APPEARS
IN CONN. GEN. STAT., 1949, SECS. 1896-1921. 

FN2  "  ...  NO (UNITED STATES) DISTRICT COURT SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION OF ANY SUIT TO ENJOIN, SUSPEND, OR RESTRAIN THE
ASSESSMENT, LEVY, OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX IMPOSED BY OR PURSUANT TO
THE LAWS OF ANY STATE WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY
BE HAD AT LAW OR IN EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE."  50 STAT. 738,
28 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  41(1).  SEE 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III)
SEC. 1341. 

FN3  WISCONSIN V. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444. 

FN4  SEE CAPITOL GREYHOUND LINES V. BRICE, 339 U.S. 542; AERO TRANSIT
CO. V. BOARD OF COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495; INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V.
BLODGETT, 276 U.S. 245(CONN.  EXCISE TAX ON THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS). 
CF. MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S. 80; MCCARROLL V. DIXIE LINES,
309 U.S. 176. 

FN5  SEE INTERSTATE PIPE LINE CO. V. STONE, 337 U.S. 662, 679; CUDAHY
PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450; OLD DOMINION S.S. CO. V.
VIRGINIA, 198 U.S. 299; POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. ADAMS, 155 U.S.
688. 

FN6  THE DECISION IN MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. BEELER, 315 U.S. 649, UPHELD
A TENNESSEE TAX ON EARNINGS OF THE TAXPAYER WITHIN THAT STATE WHERE THE
EARNINGS WERE DERIVED FROM THE INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION OF GAS BY THE
TAXPAYER IN A JOINT ENTERPRISE WITH THE MEMPHIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY. 
ANY SUGGESTION IN THAT OPINION AS TO THE POSSIBLE VALIDITY OF SUCH A
TAX IF APPLIED TO EARNINGS DERIVED WHOLLY FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE. 

FN7  SEE INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. EVATT, 329 U.S. 416; BUTLER
BROS. V. MCCOLGAN, 315 U.S. 501; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V. WOOD
PRESERVING CORP., 313 U.S. 62; FORD MOTOR CO. V. BEAUCHAMP, 308 U.S.
331; CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77; HANS
REES' SONS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 283 U.S. 123; UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V.
CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT ASSUMES, AND I THINK IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED, THAT
THE TAX UNDER CHALLENGE IS NONDISCRIMINATORY, FAIRLY APPORTIONED AND
NOT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HENCE, IF APPELLANT HAD
BEEN ENGAGED IN AN IOTA OF ACTIVITY WHICH THE COURT WOULD BE WILLING TO
CALL "INTRASTATE," CONNECTICUT COULD HAVE APPLIED ITS TAX TO THE
COMPANY'S INTERSTATE BUSINESS IN THE PRECISE FORM WHICH IT NOW SEEKS TO
EMPLOY - A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN CONNECTICUT
MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATE, EVEN
THOUGH DERIVED FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

BUT SOLELY BECAUSE SPECTOR ENGAGES IN WHAT THE COURT CALLS
"EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE" BUSINESS, A DIFFERENT STANDARD IS APPLIED. 
THE COURT DOES NOT ASK WHETHER THE STATE IS MERELY ASKING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO PAY ITS WAY, OR WHETHER THE STATE IN FACT PROVIDES
PROTECTION AND SERVICES FOR WHICH SUCH COMMERCE MAY FAIRLY BE CHARGED. 
NOR IS THE COURT CONCERNED WHETHER THE TAX PUTS INTERSTATE BUSINESS AT
A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE OR IS LIKELY TO DO SO.  INSTEAD, THE TAX IS
DECLARED INVALID SIMPLY BECAUSE THE STATE HAS VERBALLY CHARACTERIZED IT
AS A LEVY ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  THE
COURT CONCEDES, OR AT LEAST APPEARS TO CONCEDE, THAT IF THE CONNECTICUT
LEGISLATURE OR HIGHEST COURT HAD DESCRIBED THE TAX AS ONE FOR THE USE
OF HIGHWAYS OR IN LIEU OF AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX, SPECTOR WOULD
HAVE HAD TO PAY THE SAME AMOUNT, CALCULATED IN THE SAME WAY, AS IS
SOUGHT TO BE COLLECTED HERE.  IN ACKNOWLEDGING THIS, THE COURT'S OWN
OPINION TOTALLY REFUTES ITS PROTESTATION THAT THE STANDARD EMPLOYED TO
STRIKE DOWN CONNECTICUT'S TAX IS MORE THAN A MATTER OF LABELS.  SPECTOR
REMAINS FREE - AS IT HAS SINCE THE TAX LAW WAS ADOPTED IN 1935 - FROM
PAYING ANY SHARE OF THE STATE'S EXPENSES, AND ITS TAX-FREE STATUS
CONTINUES UNTIL CONNECTICUT RENAMES OR RESHUFFLES ITS TAX. 

NEITHER SUCH A STANDARD NOR SUCH A RESULT PERSUADES ME.  I AGREE WITH
THE WELL-REASONED OPINIONS OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE CASES UPHOLDING
FAIRLY APPORTIONED TAXES ON MIXED INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE BUSINESS,
AND RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT OF STATES TO MAKE INTERSTATE COMMERCE PAY ITS
WAY, HAVE ENFEEBLED - AND JUSTIFIABLY SO - THE PRECEDENTS WHICH TODAY'S
DECISION RESTORES TO FULL VIGOR.  IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST, THIS
SEEMED TO BE QUITE CLEAR.  IN MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. BEELER, 315
U.S. 649(1942), A TAX WAS UPHELD AS BEING REASONABLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO
INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES.  BUT CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, SPEAKING FOR A
UNANIMOUS COURT, WENT FURTHER TO STATE: 

"IN ANY CASE, EVEN IF TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS WERE WHOLLY INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, A NONDISCRIMINATORY TAX BY TENNESSEE UPON THE NET INCOME OF A
FOREIGN CORPORATION HAVING A COMMERCIAL DOMICILE THERE ...  OR UPON NET
INCOME DERIVED FROM WITHIN THE STATE  ...  IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE  ...  "  ID. AT 656. 

IN LIGHT OF THE APPARENT NEED FOR CLEARING UP THE TANGLED UNDERBRUSH
OF PAST CASES, IT APPEARS THAT THIS VIEW WAS DELIVERED ADVISEDLY.  NOR
DO I UNDERSTAND IT TO HAVE BEEN UPSET BY FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S.
249(1946), OR JOSEPH V. CARTER & WEEKES CO., 330 U.S. 422(1947).  THE
FORMER INVOLVED A GROSS-RECEIPTS TAX CAPABLE OF DUPLICATION BY ANOTHER
STATE; THE LATTER INVOLVED A GROSSRECEIPTS TAX RATHER THAN A NET-INCOME
TAX; AND THE OPINION IN EACH CASE WAS WRITTEN BY A MEMBER OF THE COURT
WHO JOINED IN THE BEELER DECISION. 

BUT IN ANY EVENT, I WOULD CONFINE THOSE DECISIONS TO THEIR "SPECIAL
FACTS."  FREEMAN V. HEWIT, SUPRA, AT 252.  THE CONNECTICUT TAX MEETS
EVERY PRACTICAL TEST OF FAIRNESS AND PROPRIETY ENUNCIATED IN CASES
UPHOLDING PRIVILEGE TAXES ON CORPORATIONS DOING A MIXED INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THESE CASES SHOULD GOVERN HERE, FOR THERE IS NO
APPARENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN "EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE" BUSINESS AND A
"MIXED" BUSINESS WHICH WOULD WARRANT DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL REGARD. 
THERE IS NOTHING SPIRITUAL ABOUT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS RARELY
DEVOID OF SIGNIFICANT CONTACTS WITH THE SEVERAL STATES.  HENCE, THIS
COURT HAS LONG TREATED THE PROBLEMS IN THIS FIELD WITH A FLEXIBILITY
WHICH THE COMPETING DEMANDS OF FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTAL SPHERES
HAVE REQUIRED.  IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL ACTION, THIS COURT HAS BEEN
QUICK TO RECOGNIZE LEGITIMATE LOCAL INTERESTS AND UPHOLD STATE
REGULATIONS OF ACTIVITIES WHICH ADMITTEDLY FORM A PART OF, OR IMPINGE
ON, INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE, E.G., SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177(1938).  THE SAME APPROACH IS HARDLY
FOREIGN TO THE FIELD OF STATE TAXES: 

"  ...  (WHEN) ACCOMMODATION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL
INTERESTS, MANUFACTURE WITHIN A STATE, THOUGH DESTINED FOR SHIPMENT
OUTSIDE, IS NOT A SEAMLESS WEB SO AS TO PREVENT A STATE FROM GIVING THE
MANUFACTURING PART DETACHED RELEVANCE FOR PURPOSES OF LOCAL TAXATION." 
FREEMAN V. HEWIT, SUPRA, AT 255. 

A SIMILAR RECOGNITION OF FACTS IS NO LESS SUITED TO THIS CASE. 
SPECTOR QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE ON JUNE 11, 1934, BY
FILING THE NECESSARY PAPERS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  IT LEASES AND
UTILIZES TERMINALS IN CONNECTICUT.  IT EMPLOYS TWENTY-SEVEN FULL-TIME
WORKERS IN CONNECTICUT, THE PAYROLL AT NEW BRITAIN AMOUNTING TO $1,200
PER WEEK.  IT OWNS PICKUP TRUCKS WHICH ARE REGISTERED IN ITS NAME WITH
THE STATE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT AND WHICH PLY THE STREETS OF
CONNECTICUT CITIES.  IT USES HEAVY TRUCKS WHICH GRIND OVER CONNECTICUT
HIGHWAYS.  AS POINTED OUT BY THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS,
ITS LEASEHOLDS 

"  ...  WERE THE MEANS ADOPTED BY IT FOR THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF
ITS BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, AND NO DOUBT THEY WERE OF MATERIAL SERVICE
IN PRODUCING THE LARGE PROPORTION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS WHICH IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONNECTICUT."  SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, INC. V. WALSH,
135 CONN. 37, 50, 61 A.2D 89, 96(1948).  TO BE SURE, THE COMPANY DOES
NOT MAKE INTRASTATE DELIVERIES.  BUT IF IT DID, ITS ACTIVITIES WOULD
DIFFER ONLY IN THAT ITS TRUCKS MIGHT USE DIFFERENT STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
AND MAKE DIFFERENT STOPS; THE PROTECTION AND SERVICES RENDERED BY THE
STATE WOULD BE THE SAME.  THE LOCAL ASPECTS OF SPECTOR'S BUSINESS, EVEN
THOUGH IT MIGHT TECHNICALLY BE "EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE," ARE EASILY AS
SUBSTANTIAL AS THOSE WHICH THIS COURT RECENTLY FOUND ADEQUATE TO UPHOLD
PARTS OF THE ILLINOIS OCCUPATION TAX, NORTON CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, 340 U.S. 534(1951).  THEY ARE AT LEAST AS EXTENSIVE AS THOSE
WHICH VALIDATED A "PRIVILEGE" TAX IN MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. STONE,
335 U.S. 80(1948). 

IT HAS TAKEN EIGHT YEARS AND EIGHT COURTS TO BRING THIS BATTERED
LITIGATION TO AN END.  THE TAXES INVOLVED GO BACK THIRTEEN YEARS.  IT
IS THEREFORE NO ANSWER TO CONNECTICUT AND SOME THIRTY OTHER STATES WHO
HAVE SIMILAR TAX MEASURES THAT THEY CAN NOW COLLECT THE SAME REVENUES
BY ENACTING LAWS MORE FELICITOUSLY DRAFTED.  BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO
USE THE RIGHT TAG, CONNECTICUT CANNOT COLLECT FROM SPECTOR FOR THE
YEARS 1937 TO DATE, AND IT AND OTHER STATES MAY WELL HAVE PAST
COLLECTIONS TAKEN AWAY AND TURNED INTO TAXPAYER BONANZAS BY SUITS FOR
REFUND NOT BARRED BY THE RESPECTIVE STATUTES OF LIMITATION. 

NOR CAN THE STATES BE ENTIRELY CERTAIN THAT STATUTES RECAST IN THE
LIGHT OF THIS DECISION WILL BE IMMUNE FROM LATER CONSTITUTIONAL
ATTACK.  IT IS AT LEAST DOUBTFUL THAT THIS STATUTE IS THE ONLY KIND OF
MEASURE WHICH THE COURT MIGHT THINK WOULD IMPOSE A TAX "ON THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS."  BUT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE
COURT HAS PROMULGATED A SURE GUIDE FOR STATES TO FOLLOW IN FUTURE
ENACTMENTS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE WARRANT FOR
CLOAKING A PURELY VERBAL STANDARD WITH CONSTITUTIONAL DIGNITY. 
"EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE COMMERCE" RECEIVES ADEQUATE PROTECTION WHEN
STATE LEVIES ARE FAIRLY APPORTIONED AND NONDISCRIMINATORY.  SEE OPINION
OF JUSTICE RUTLEDGE IN INTERSTATE OIL PIPE LINE CO. V. STONE, 337 U.S.
662(1949).  THE "PROTECTION" BESTOWED BY TODAY'S DECISION IS NEITHER
SUBSTANTIAL NOR DESERVED. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE FAIRNESS OF CONNECTICUT'S APPORTIONMENT FORMULA
HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  I WOULD
AFFIRM ITS JUDGMENT. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. MOORE, 340 U.S. 616 


NO. 344.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28 AND MARCH 1, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 26,
1951.  - 182 F.2D 332, REVERSED. 


1.  IN AN ACTION BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE HOUSING AND RENT ACT
OF 1947, AS AMENDED, A LANDLORD MAY BE ORDERED UNDER SEC. 206(B) TO
MAKE RESTITUTION OF OVERCEILING RENTALS, EVEN THOUGH A PROHIBITORY
INJUNCTION BE NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA WAS
DECONTROLLED AFTER THE VIOLATIONS BUT BEFORE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  PP. 617
620. 

(A)  AN ORDER FOR RESTITUTION IN THIS ACTION WAS PERMISSIBLE UNDER
THE "OTHER ORDER" PROVISION OF SEC. 206(B).  PORTER V. WARNER HOLDING
CO., 328 U.S. 395.  PP. 619-620. 

2.  THE TERMINATION OF RENT CONTROL IN THE DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA DID
NOT END THE LEGAL EFFECT OF SECS. 205 AND 206(UNDER WHICH THIS ACTION
WAS BROUGHT), IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 204(F) FOR THE SURVIVAL
OF RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES INCURRED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE ACT
ON EITHER THE DATE SPECIFIED BY CONGRESS IN THE ACT OR SUCH DATE AS THE
PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS MIGHT LATER DETERMINE.  PP. 620-621. 

3.  THE TRIAL OF THIS PROCEEDING AS AN ACTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF
DID NOT DENY RESPONDENTS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL,
BECAUSE NO DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL WAS MADE AS REQUIRED BY RULE 38 OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND, SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS,
ANY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WAS WAIVED.  P. 621. 

UNITED STATES V. MOORE ET UX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION, PP. 617-618.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, P. 621. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BRINGS THIS ACTION UNDER THE HOUSING AND RENT ACT
OF 1947, AS AMENDED,  FN1 TO OBTAIN DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT
AND RESTITUTION OF OVERCEILING RENTALS COLLECTED.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER UNDER SEC. 206(B) OF THE ACT A LANDLORD MAY BE ORDERED TO MAKE
RESTITUTION OF OVERCEILING RENTALS WHERE A PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION IS
NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA WAS DECONTROLLED AFTER THE
VIOLATIONS BUT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT SUIT. 

RESPONDENTS ARE LANDLORDS OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN DALLAS,
TEXAS.  BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 1947, AND MAY 31, 1949, THEY DEMANDED AND
RECEIVED RENTS IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED BY THE APPLICABLE MAXIMUM
RENT REGULATION  FN2  ISSUED UNDER THE ACT.  THIS ACTION WAS BEGUN IN
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON JUNE 29, 1949, PURSUANT TO SECS. 205  FN3
AND 206(B)  FN4  OF THE ACT.  THE COMPLAINT BY ITS TERMS SOUGHT A
PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION, RESTITUTION OF ALL OVERCHARGES, AND STATUTORY
DAMAGES.  RESPONDENTS MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT ON JUNE 23,
1949, SIX DAYS PRIOR TO FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, THE HOUSING EXPEDITER,
PURSUANT TO ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY OF DALLAS UNDER SEC. 204(J) (3) OF
THE ACT, TERMINATED RENT CONTROL IN THAT CITY; THAT THIS ACT OF THE
EXPEDITER TERMINATED AS TO DALLAS ALL PROVISIONS OF TITLE II OF THE ACT
INCLUDING THE REMEDIAL PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH THIS SUIT IS BROUGHT; AND
THAT NO SAVING CLAUSE WAS APPLICABLE.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
MOTION.  RESPONDENTS DID NOT DEMAND A JURY.  A TRIAL TO THE COURT
CONCLUDED IN A JUDGMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT, ALLOWING STATUTORY DAMAGES
OF $50 FOR A WILFUL VIOLATION AND ORDERING RESTITUTION TO THE TENANT OF
ALL OVERCHARGES RECEIVED.  ON APPEAL BY RESPONDENTS THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  182 F.2D 332(1950).  IT HELD
THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT OF ACTION SOLELY FOR STATUTORY DAMAGES
UNDER SEC. 205 AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL ON THIS ISSUE.  A DISMISSAL
WAS DIRECTED INSOFAR AS THE COMPLAINT SEEKS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
RESTITUTION.  THE GOVERNMENT, ASSERTING CONFLICT WITH PORTER V. WARNER
HOLDING CO., 328 U.S. 395(1946), PETITIONED FOR REVIEW HERE ONLY OF THE
COURT'S DENIAL OF RESTITUTION.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S.
890(1950).  FN5 

THE COURT OF APPEALS RECOGNIZED THAT RESTITUTION OF OVERCEILING
RENTALS MAY BE ORDERED AS ANCILLARY TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST
VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT OR REGULATIONS.  HOWEVER, AS PETITIONER CONCEDED
THAT IT HAS NO RIGHT TO AN INJUNCTION WHEN RENT CONTROL HAS BEEN
LAWFULLY TERMINATED, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT "THERE REMAINED NO
PROCEEDING OF WHICH EQUITY WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO WHICH RESTITUTION
COULD BE ADJUNCTIVE" AND THAT RESTITUTION "WAS NEITHER APPROPRIATE NOR
ISSUABLE."  182 F.2D AT 336. 

PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE REMEDY OF RESTITUTION,
INDEPENDENTLY OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, UNDER SEC. 206(B) OF THE ACT.  THIS
THERE IS AN ACTUAL OR THREATENED VIOLATION OF THE ACT OR ANY
REGULATION, "THE UNITED STATES MAY MAKE APPLICATION TO ANY  ...  COURT
OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION FOR AN ORDER ENJOINING SUCH ACTS OR
PRACTICES, OR FOR AN ORDER ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH PROVISION,
AND UPON A SHOWING THAT SUCH PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE
IN ANY SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION,
RESTRAINING ORDER, OR OTHER ORDER SHALL BE GRANTED WITHOUT BOND."  IT
IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE ITALICIZED LANGUAGE AUTHORIZES THE
RELIEF SOUGHT. 

BOTH PARTIES RELY, AS DID THE COURT OF APPEALS, ON THE DECISION OF
THIS COURT IN PORTER V. WARNER HOLDING CO., SUPRA, WHICH CONSTRUED SEC.
205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942.  THIS PROVISION WAS
THE SOURCE OF SEC. 206(B) OF THE 1947 ACT, AND THE TWO SECTIONS ARE FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES IDENTICAL.  THE COMPLAINT IN THE WARNER CASE SOUGHT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST VIOLATIONS AND RESTITUTION OF OVERCHARGES. 
THE LOWER COURTS ALLOWED THE INJUNCTION BUT DENIED RESTITUTION.  THIS
COURT REVERSED, CONCLUDING THAT AN ORDER OF RESTITUTION WAS A PROPER
"OTHER ORDER."  THIS INTERPRETATION WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO AUTHORIZE WHATEVER ORDER WITHIN THE INHERENT
EQUITABLE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT MAY BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE AND
NECESSARY TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT.  THE COURT SAID THAT THE
ATTEMPT TO CATALOGUE THE INFINITE FORMS AND VARIATIONS WHICH SUCH
ORDERS MIGHT TAKE.  ...  IN FRAMING SUCH REMEDIES  ...  COURTS MUST ACT
PRIMARILY TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT
AND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHILE GIVING NECESSARY RESPECT TO
THE PRIVATE INTERESTS INVOLVED.  THE INHERENT EQUITABLE JURISDICTION
WHICH IS THUS CALLED INTO PLAY CLEARLY AUTHORIZES A COURT, IN ITS
DISCRETION, TO DECREE RESTITUTION OF EXCESSIVE CHARGES IN ORDER TO GIVE
EFFECT TO THE POLICY OF CONGRESS."  328 U.S. AT 400.  THUS AN EQUITABLE
DECREE OF RESTITUTION WOULD BE WITHIN THE SECTION IF IT WAS REASONABLY
APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT AND
EFFECTUATE ITS PURPOSES. 

ADHERING TO THE BROAD GROUND OF INTERPRETATION OF THE "OTHER ORDERS"
PROVISION ADOPTED IN THE WARNER CASE, WE THINK THE ORDER FOR
RESTITUTION ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS ACTION WAS
PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC. 206(B).  SUCH A DECREE CLEARLY ENFORCES
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT AND REGULATIONS FOR THE PERIOD IN WHICH
RESPONDENTS DEMANDED AND RECEIVED EXCESS RENTALS.  IF THE PROVISION IN
SEC. 206(B) FOR ORDERS ENFORCING COMPLIANCE HAD BEEN INTENDED MERELY TO
INSURE SUBSEQUENT OBEDIENCE TO RENT REGULATIONS WHILE IN EFFECT IN A
DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARY TO AUTHORIZE ORDERS
FOR OTHER THAN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SINCE THE LATTER REMEDY IS WHOLLY
ADEQUATE TO SECURE PROSPECTIVE COMPLIANCE.  SEE EBELING V. WOODS, 175
F.2D 242, 244(C.A.8TH CIR. 1949).  FN6 

TWO CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS REQUIRE BRIEF CONSIDERATION. 
IT IS ARGUED THAT TERMINATION OF RENT CONTROL IN RESPONDENTS' DEFENSE
RENTAL AREA ENDED THE LEGAL EFFECT OF SECS. 205 AND 206 UNDER WHICH THE
ACTION WAS INSTITUTED.  RESPONDENTS RELY HERE UPON THE LITERAL
PROVISION OF SEC. 204(J)(3) THAT "THE HOUSING EXPEDITER SHALL TERMINATE
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE" UPON THE TAKING OF APPROPRIATE ACTION BY
THE CITY.  WE THINK A SUFFICIENT ANSWER IS SEC. 204(F), SET OUT IN THE
MARGIN; FN7  IT PROVIDES FOR THE SURVIVAL OF RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES
INCURRED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE TITLE ON EITHER THE DATE
SPECIFIED BY CONGRESS IN THE ACT OR SUCH DATE AS THE PRESIDENT OR
CONGRESS MIGHT LATER DETERMINE. 

RESPONDENTS ALSO CONTEND THAT THE TRIAL OF THIS PROCEEDING AS AN
ACTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF DENIED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY
TRIAL.  NO DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL WAS MADE AS REQUIRED BY RULE 38 OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND, SO FAR AS THIS RECORD SHOWS,
ANY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WAS WAIVED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ON RESPONDENTS' APPEAL MUST BE
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  61 STAT. 193, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. III) SEC. 1881
ET SEQ. 

FN2  CONTROLLED HOUSING RENT REGULATION, AS AMENDED, 12 FED. REG.
4331; 13 FED. REG. 1861; 14 FED. REG. 1571. 

FN3  61 STAT. 199, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. III) SEC. 1895. 

FN4  61 STAT. 199, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. III) SEC.
1896(B). 

FN5  ON CROSS-APPEAL BY PETITIONER FROM THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER
ALLOWING STATUTORY DAMAGES FOR LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE ESTABLISHED
OVERCHARGES, THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED PETITIONER'S CONTENTION. 
182 F.2D 336(C.A.5TH CIR. 1950).  RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT CHALLENGED THIS
DECISION HERE. 

FN6 IT HAS UNIFORMLY BEEN THE VIEW OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS THAT
RESTITUTION OF OVERCHARGES MAY BE ORDERED UNDER SEC. 206(B) OF THE 1947
ACT AND LIKE PROVISIONS, WHETHER OR NOT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS SOUGHT OR
IS PERMISSIBLE AT THE TIME OF THE ORDER.  WOODS V. WAYNE, 177 F.2D
559(C.A.4TH CIR. 1949); CREEDON V. RANDOLPH, 165 F.2D 918(C.A.5TH CIR.
1948); JACKSON V. WOODS, 182 F.2D 338(C.A.5TH CIR. 1950); BOWLES V.
SKAGGS, 151 F.2D 817(C.A.6TH CIR. 1945); WARNER HOLDING CO. V. CREEDON,
166 F.2D 119(C.A.8TH CIR. 1948); EBELING V. WOODS, 175 F.2D 242(C.A.8TH
CIR. 1949); WOODS V. RICHMAN, 174 F.2D 614(C.A.9TH CIR. 1949); WOODS V.
GOCHNOUR, 177 F.2D 964(C.A.9TH CIR. 1949); EMERY V. UNITED STATES, 186
F.2D 900(C.A.9TH CIR. 1951); UNITED STATES V. MASHBURN, 85 F.SUPP. 
968(W.D. ARK. 1949); UNITED STATES V. COWEN'S ESTATE, 91 F.SUPP. 
331(D. MASS. 1950); SEE WOODS V. WOLFE, 182 F.2D 516, 518-519(C.A. 3D
CIR. 1950).  ONLY THE COURT BELOW IN THIS PROCEEDING HAS CONCLUDED THAT
RESTITUTION MUST BE DENIED IN SUCH CASES BECAUSE AN INJUNCTION COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED.  COMPARE EBELING
V. WOODS, SUPRA, AND WOODS V. RICHMAN, SUPRA, WITH MILLER V. UNITED
STATES, 186 F.2D 937(C.A.5TH CIR. 1951). 

FN7  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE SHALL CEASE TO BE IN EFFECT AT THE
CLOSE OF JUNE 30, 1950, OR UPON THE DATE OF A PROCLAMATION BY THE
PRESIDENT OR UPON THE DATE SPECIFIED IN A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION BY THE
TWO HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS, DECLARING THAT THE FURTHER CONTINUANCE OF
THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THIS TITLE IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE
EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY, WHICHEVER DATE IS THE EARLIER; EXCEPT THAT
AS TO RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES INCURRED PRIOR TO SUCH TERMINATION DATE,
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE AND REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND REQUIREMENTS
THEREUNDER SHALL BE TREATED AS STILL REMAINING IN FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF SUSTAINING ANY PROPER SUIT OR ACTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH RIGHT
OR LIABILITY."  63 STAT. 24, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. III) SEC. 1894(F). 
THE SECTION HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN AMENDED IN MINOR RESPECTS. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT
ON THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  182 F.2D 332. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER WOULD AFFIRM THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :

















HAMMERSTEIN V. SUPERIOR COURT, 340 U.S. 622 


NO. 421.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1951.  - CONTINUED MARCH 26, 1951. 


THIS CAUSE IS CONTINUED FOR SUCH PERIOD AS WILL ENABLE COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER, WITH ALL CONVENIENT SPEED, TO APPLY TO THE APPROPRIATE
CALIFORNIA COURTS FOR CERTIFICATE OR OTHER EXPRESSION, TO SHOW WHETHER
THE JUDGMENTS HEREIN REST ON ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS OR
WHETHER DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENTS
RENDERED.  PP. 622-623. 

HAMMERSTEIN V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AND TO THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS CASE THE RESPONDENT REGGIE HAMMERSTEIN, BY HER MOTHER AND
GUARDIAN, COMMENCED A PATERNITY ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  PETITIONER ENTERED A SPECIAL APPEARANCE
IN THAT COURT, ALLEGING THAT IT HAD NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER HIM,
AS HE WAS A NEW YORK RESIDENT.  HE MOVED TO QUASH THE SERVICE UPON HIM
IN NEW YORK ON THE GROUNDS THAT ANY JUDGMENT OBTAINED AGAINST HIM IN
THIS PROCEEDING WOULD DEPRIVE HIM OF DUE PROCESS.  THE MOTION TO QUASH
WAS DENIED.  THE SUPERIOR COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT. 

PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT, PETITIONER FILED A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF PROHIBITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL.  THIS PETITION WAS
DENIED WITHOUT OPINION.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DENIED HIS
APPLICATION FOR A HEARING.  AFTER JUDGMENT, PETITIONER FILED IN THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW
THE SUPERIOR COURT PROCEEDINGS.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DENIED
THIS PETITION WITHOUT OPINION.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 340 U.S.
919(1951). 

THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS, PETITIONER PRESERVED HIS FEDERAL
QUESTIONS, BUT SINCE NEITHER OF THE DECISIONS BELOW WAS ACCOMPANIED BY
AN OPINION, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA COURTS FOUND IT
NECESSARY TO DECIDE ANY FEDERAL QUESTION.  IF THEIR JUDGMENTS REST UPON
AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, WE, OF COURSE, WILL NOT REVIEW THOSE
JUDGMENTS.  IF THE DENIALS OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW WERE
BASED UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE MERITS OF HIS FEDERAL CLAIM, THE CASE
WILL BE RIPE FOR OUR ADJUDICATION.  IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, WE THINK IT
ADVISABLE THAT WE ADHERE TO THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN HERB V. PITCAIRN,
324 U.S. 117(1945). 

WE WILL CONTINUE THE CAUSE FOR SUCH PERIOD AS WILL ENABLE COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER, WITH ALL CONVENIENT SPEED, TO APPLY TO THE APPROPRIATE
CALIFORNIA COURTS FOR CERTIFICATE OR OTHER EXPRESSION, TO SHOW WHETHER
THE JUDGMENTS HEREIN REST ON ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS OR
WHETHER DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENTS
RENDERED.  CF. LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS, 334 U.S. 804(1948); INDIANA EX REL.
ANDERSON V. BRAND, 303 U.S. 95(1938).  CAUSE CONTINUED. 
..END :



















JOHNSON V. MUELBERGER, 340 U.S. 581 


NO. 296.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1951.  - DECIDED MARCH 12, 1951.  - 301 N.Y.
13, 92 N.E.2D 44, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A DIVORCE PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN FLORIDA BY THE SECOND WIFE OF A
NEW YORK RESIDENT, WHEREIN HE ANSWERED ON THE MERITS AND HAD FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST (BUT DID NOT CONTEST) THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES,
THE COURT GRANTED A DECREE OF DIVORCE, ALTHOUGH THE WIFE HAD NOT
COMPLIED WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL 90-DAY RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT OF
FLORIDA.  HE MARRIED AGAIN, AND AFTER HIS DEATH HIS THIRD WIFE ELECTED,
UNDER NEW YORK LAW, TO TAKE THE STATUTORY ONE-THIRD SHARE OF HIS
ESTATE.  THIS WAS CONTESTED IN NEW YORK BY A DAUGHTER OF HIS FIRST
MARRIAGE (SOLE LEGATEE UNDER HIS WILL), WHO CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF
THE FLORIDA DIVORCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAD NOT COMPLIED
WITH THE 90-DAY RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT.  HELD:  THE DAUGHTER COULD NOT
HAVE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE FLORIDA DECREE IN THE COURTS OF
THAT STATE, AND THEREFORE SHE WAS PRECLUDED BY THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FROM COLLATERALLY ATTACKING
IT IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK.  PP. 582-589. 

2.  WHEN A DECREE OF DIVORCE CANNOT BE ATTACKED ON JURISDICTIONAL
GROUNDS BY PARTIES WHO WERE ACTUALLY BEFORE THE COURT, OR BY THEIR
PRIVIES, OR BY STRANGERS, IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE
DECREE WAS RENDERED, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE PRECLUDES THEIR
ATTACKING IT IN THE COURTS OF A SISTER STATE.  P. 589. 

JOHNSON V. MUELBERGER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

AN ORDER OF THE NEW YORK SURROGATE'S COURT SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF
AN ELECTION BY PETITIONER TO TAKE AS SURVIVING SPOUSE THE STATUTORY
SHARE OF A DECEDENT'S ESTATE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION,
275 APP. DIV. 848.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS.  301 N.Y. 13, 92 N.E.2D 44.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
340 U.S. 874.  REVERSED, P. 589. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RIGHT OF A DAUGHTER TO ATTACK IN NEW YORK THE VALIDITY OF HER
DECEASED FATHER'S FLORIDA DIVORCE IS BEFORE US.  SHE WAS HIS LEGATEE. 
THE DIVORCE WAS GRANTED IN FLORIDA AFTER THE FATHER APPEARED THERE AND
CONTESTED THE MERITS.  THE ISSUE TURNS ON THE EFFECT IN NEW YORK UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

ELEANOR JOHNSON MUELBERGER, RESPONDENT, IS THE CHILD OF DECEDENT E.
BRUCE JOHNSON'S FIRST MARRIAGE.  AFTER THE DEATH OF JOHNSON'S FIRST
WIFE IN 1939, HE MARRIED ONE MADOLINE HAM, AND THEY ESTABLISHED THEIR
RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK.  IN AUGUST 1942, MADOLINE OBTAINED A DIVORCE
FROM HIM IN A FLORIDA PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE UNDISPUTED FACTS AS
DEVELOPED IN THE NEW YORK SURROGATE'S HEARING SHOW THAT SHE DID NOT
COMPLY WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL NINETY-DAY RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT.  FN1
THE NEW YORK SURROGATE FOUND THAT 

"IN THE FLORIDA COURT, THE DECEDENT APPEARED BY ATTORNEY AND
INTERPOSED AN ANSWER DENYING THE WRONGFUL ACTS BUT NOT QUESTIONING THE
ALLEGATIONS AS TO RESIDENCE IN FLORIDA.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT
TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN BY THE FLORIDA COURT AND THE DIVORCE GRANTED
MADOLINE JOHNSON.  BOTH PARTIES HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES IN THAT COURT AND THE DECREE IS NOT SUBJECT TO
ATTACK ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT DOMICILED IN FLORIDA." 

IN 1944 MR. JOHNSON ENTERED INTO A MARRIAGE, HIS THIRD, WITH
PETITIONER, GENEVIEVE JOHNSON, AND IN 1945 HE DIED, LEAVING A WILL IN
WHICH HE GAVE HIS ENTIRE ESTATE TO HIS DAUGHTER, ELEANOR.  AFTER
PROBATE OF THE WILL, THE THIRD WIFE FILED NOTICE OF HER ELECTION TO
TAKE THE STATUTORY ONE-THIRD SHARE OF THE ESTATE, UNDER SEC. 18 OF THE
NEW YORK DECEDENT ESTATE LAW.  THIS ELECTION WAS CONTESTED BY
RESPONDENT DAUGHTER, AND A TRIAL WAS HAD BEFORE THE SURROGATE, WHO
DETERMINED THAT SHE COULD NOT ATTACK THE THIRD WIFE'S STATUS AS
SURVIVING SPOUSE, ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGED INVALIDITY OF MADOLINE'S
DIVORCE, BECAUSE THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN A CONTESTED ONE, AND
"(SINCE) THE DECREE IS VALID AND FINAL IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IT IS
NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE COURTS OF THIS STATE." 

THE APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMED THE SURROGATE'S DECREE PER CURIAM,
275 APP. DIV. 848, BUT THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  301
N.Y. 13, 92 N.E.2D 44.  THE REMITTITUR REMANDED THE CASE TO THE
SURROGATE "FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH" THE OPINION
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  BUT IN LIGHT OF THE RECORD BEFORE US WE
ASSUME THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF FLORIDA FOR A RESIDENCE OF 90 DAYS AS A
JURISDICTIONAL BASIS FOR A FLORIDA DIVORCE IS NO LONGER OPEN AS AN
ISSUE UPON RETURN OF THESE PROCEEDINGS TO THE SURROGATE'S COURT. 
ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW IS A FINAL DECREE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE FLORIDA JUDGMENT FINDING
JURISDICTION TO DECREE THE DIVORCE BOUND ONLY THE PARTIES THEMSELVES. 
THIS FOLLOWED FROM THEIR PREVIOUS OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.  AS THE COURT READ THE FLORIDA CASES TO ALLOW
ELEANOR TO ATTACK THE DECREE COLLATERALLY IN FLORIDA, IT DECIDED SHE
SHOULD BE EQUALLY FREE TO DO SO IN NEW YORK.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REACHED THIS DECISION AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE.  BECAUSE THE CASE INVOLVES IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE ADJUSTMENT
OF THE DOMESTIC-RELATIONS LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 874. 

THE CLAUSE AND THE STATUTE PRESCRIBING THE EFFECT IN OTHER STATES OF
JUDGMENTS OF SISTER STATES ARE SET OUT BELOW.  FN2  THIS STATUTORY
PROVISION HAS REMAINED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME SINCE 1790.  1 STAT.
122.  THERE IS SUBSTANTIALLY NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO EXPLAIN THE
PURPOSE AND MEANING OF THE CLAUSE AND OF THE STATUTE.  FN3  FROM
JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE WITH AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CLAUSE, THERE HAS
EMERGED THE SUCCINCT CONCLUSION THAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED IT TO HELP
WELD THE INDEPENDENT STATES INTO A NATION BY GIVING JUDGMENTS WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE RENDERING STATE THE SAME FAITH AND CREDIT IN
SISTER STATES AS THEY HAVE IN THE STATE OF THE ORIGINAL FORUM.  FN4
THE FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN IS NOT TO BE NIGGARDLY BUT GENEROUS, FULL. 
FN5  "(LOCAL) POLICY MUST AT TIMES BE REQUIRED TO GIVE WAY, SUCH 'IS
PART OF THE PRICE OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.'"  FN6 

THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE PROMOTES UNIFICATION, NOT
CENTRALIZATION.  IT LEAVES EACH STATE WITH POWER OVER ITS OWN COURTS
BUT BINDS LITIGANTS, WHEREVER THEY MAY BE IN THE NATION, BY PRIOR
ORDERS OF OTHER COURTS WITH JURISDICTION N7.  "ONE TRIAL OF AN ISSUE IS
ENOUGH.  'THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA APPLY TO QUESTIONS OF
JURISDICTION AS WELL AS TO OTHER ISSUES,' AS WELL TO JURISDICTION OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER AS OF THE PARTIES."  FN8  THE FEDERAL PURPOSE OF THE
CLAUSE MAKES THIS COURT, FOR BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS,  FN9  THE
"FINAL ARBITER WHEN THE QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO WHAT IS A PERMISSIBLE
LIMITATION ON THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE."  FN10 

IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE RECENTLY RESTATED THE
CONTROLLING EFFECT OF THE CLAUSE ON STATE PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO
DIVORCE DECREES IN OTHER STATES.  IN DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, WE
HELD THAT A VIRGINIA DECREE OF DIVORCE, GRANTED A HUSBAND WHO HAD
ACQUIRED LOCAL DOMICILE AFTER HE HAD OBTAINED A DECREE OF SEPARATION IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE MARITAL DOMICILE, MUST BE GIVEN EFFECT IN
THE DISTRICT.  THE WIFE HAD ENTERED HER APPEARANCE IN THE VIRGINIA
COURT AND WAS HELD BOUND BY ITS FINDINGS OF JURISDICTION, AFTER
CONTEST.  IN TWO CASES, WILLIAMS I AND II, 317 U.S. 287, AND 325 U.S.
226, WE HELD THAT DOMICILE OF ONE PARTY TO A DIVORCE CREATES AN
ADEQUATE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE TO JUSTIFY ITS EXERCISE OF POWER
OVER THE MARITAL RELATION, 317 U.S. AT 298; 325 U.S. AT 235.  THE LATER
WILLIAMS CASE LEFT A SISTER STATE FREE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS
DOMICILE OF ONE PARTY IN AN "EX PARTE" PROCEEDING SO AS TO GIVE THE
COURT JURISDICTION TO ENTER A DECREE.  325 U.S. AT 230, N. 6, 237,
DISSENT 277; ESENWEIN V. COMMONWEALTH, 325 U.S. 279, 281.  CF. RICE V.
RICE, 336 U.S. 674. 

THREE YEARS LATER A QUESTION UNDECIDED IN WILLIAMS II WAS ANSWERED. 
IN SHERRER V. SHERRER, 334 U.S. 343, A FLORIDA DIVORCE, WHERE BOTH
PARTIES APPEARED PERSONALLY OR BY COUNSEL, WAS HELD BY MASSACHUSETTS
NOT TO BE ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH OR CREDIT IN THAT STATE BECAUSE BOTH
PARTIES LACKED FLORIDA DOMICILE.  FN11  320 MASS. 351, 358, 69 N.E.2D
801, 805.  WE REVERSED, SAYING: 

"WE BELIEVE THAT THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE DAVIS CASE AND
THOSE IN RELATED SITUATIONS ARE CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF THE RESULT TO BE
REACHED HERE.  THOSE CASES STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BAR A DEFENDANT FROM COLLATERALLY
ATTACKING A DIVORCE DECREE ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS IN THE COURTS OF A
SISTER STATE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN PARTICIPATION BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN ACCORDED FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES, AND WHERE THE DECREE
IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO SUCH COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE
WHICH RENDERED THE DECREE."  PP. 351-352.  AND CF. PP. 355-356.  FN12
COE V. COE, 334 U.S. 378; CF. ESTIN V. ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541. 

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FOREGOING THAT, UNDER OUR DECISIONS, A STATE BY
VIRTUE OF THE CLAUSE MUST GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO AN OUT-OF-STATE
DIVORCE BY BARRING EITHER PARTY TO THAT DIVORCE WHO HAS BEEN PERSONALLY
SERVED OR WHO HAS ENTERED A PERSONAL APPEARANCE FROM COLLATERALLY
ATTACKING THE DECREE.  SUCH AN ATTACK IS BARRED WHERE THE PARTY
ATTACKING WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO MAKE A COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE
COURTS OF THE GRANTING STATE.  THIS RULE THE COURT OF APPEALS
RECOGNIZED.  301 N.Y. 13, 17, 92 N.E.2D 44, 46.  IT DETERMINED,
HOWEVER, THAT A "STRANGER TO THE DIVORCE ACTION," AS THE DAUGHTER WAS
HELD TO BE IN NEW YORK, MAY COLLATERALLY ATTACK HER FATHER'S FLORIDA
DIVORCE IN NEW YORK IF SHE COULD HAVE ATTACKED IT IN FLORIDA. 

NO FLORIDA CASE HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION HOLDING THAT A CHILD MAY
CONTEST IN FLORIDA ITS PARENT'S DIVORCE WHERE THE PARENT WAS BARRED
FROM CONTESTING, AS HERE, BY RES JUDICATA.  STATE EX REL. WILLYS V.
CHILLINGWORTH, 124 FLA. 274, 168 SO. 249, ON WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF NEW YORK RELIED, DOES NOT SO HOLD.  THAT CASE WAS A SUGGESTION FOR A
WRIT OF PROHIBITION FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TO PROHIBIT A
LOWER COURT OF RECORD FROM PROCEEDING ON A COMPLAINT FILED BY WILLYS'
DAUGHTER THAT HER STEPMOTHER'S DIVORCE FROM A FORMER HUSBAND WAS
FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED.  THEREFORE, IT WAS ALLEGED, HER STEPMOTHER'S
MARRIAGE TO WILLYS WAS VOID AND THE STEPMOTHER HAD NO RIGHT OR INTEREST
AS WIDOW IN WILLYS' ESTATE.  THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION WAS GRANTED
BECAUSE OF IMPROPER VENUE OF THE COMPLAINT.  THE TWO OPINIONS INTIMATED
THAT A DAUGHTER, AS HEIR, COULD REPRESENT A DECEASED FATHER IN AN
ATTACK ON A STEPMOTHER'S FORMER DIVORCE.  FN13 NEITHER OF THE OPINIONS
NOR ANY OF THE FLORIDA CASES CITED COVER ANY SITUATION WHERE THE
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA WAS OR MIGHT BE APPLIED.  THAT IS, NEITHER
WILLYS NOR HIS DAUGHTER WAS A PARTY TO THE STEPMOTHER'S DIVORCE
PROCEEDINGS.  IF THE LAWS OF FLORIDA SHOULD BE THAT A SURVIVING CHILD
IS IN PRIVITY WITH ITS PARENT AS TO THAT PARENT'S ESTATE, SURELY THE
FLORIDA DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA WOULD APPLY TO THE CHILD'S COLLATERAL
ATTACK AS IT WOULD TO THE FATHER'S.  FN14  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND,
FLORIDA HOLDS, AS NEW YORK DOES IN THIS CASE, THAT THE CHILD OF A
FORMER MARRIAGE IS A STRANGER TO THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS,  FN15  LATE
OPINIONS OF FLORIDA INDICATE THAT THE CHILD WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO
ATTACK THE DIVORCE, SINCE THE CHILD HAD A MERE EXPECTANCY AT THE TIME
OF THE DIVORCE. 

IN DEMARIGNY V. DEMARIGNY, 43 SO.2D 442, A SECOND WIFE SOUGHT TO HAVE
THE DIVORCE DECREE OF THE FIRST MARRIAGE DECLARED INVALID.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA HELD THAT THE PUTATIVE WIFE, BEING A STRANGER, WITHOUT
THEN EXISTING INTEREST, TO THE DIVORCE DECREE, COULD NOT IMPEACH IT.
IT QUOTED WITH APPROVAL 1 FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS (5TH ED.)  636, SEC.
319: 

"IT IS ONLY THOSE STRANGERS WHO, IF THE JUDGMENT WERE GIVEN FULL
CREDIT AND EFFECT, WOULD BE PREJUDICED IN REGARD TO SOME PRE-EXISTING
RIGHT, THAT ARE PERMITTED TO IMPEACH THE JUDGMENT.  BEING NEITHER
PARTIES TO THE ACTION, NOR ENTITLED TO MANAGE THE CAUSE NOR APPEAL FROM
THE JUDGMENT, THEY ARE BY LAW ALLOWED TO IMPEACH IT WHENEVER IT IS
ATTEMPTED TO BE ENFORCED AGAINST THEM SO AS TO AFFECT RIGHTS OR
INTERESTS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO ITS RENDITION."  P. 447. 

SEE ALSO GAYLORD V. GAYLORD, 45 SO.2D 507.  THE DEMARIGNY CASE ALSO
REFUSED TO PERMIT THE PUTATIVE WIFE TO REPRESENT THE STATE IN AN EFFORT
TO REDRESS AN ALLEGED FRAUD ON THE COURT. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT FLORIDA WOULD NOT PERMIT MRS. MUELBERGER TO ATTACK
THE FLORIDA DECREE OF DIVORCE BETWEEN HER FATHER AND HIS SECOND WIFE AS
BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE RENDERING COURT.  IN THAT CASE NEW YORK
CANNOT PERMIT SUCH AN ATTACK BY REASON OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE.  WHEN A DIVORCE CANNOT BE ATTACKED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION BY
PARTIES ACTUALLY BEFORE THE COURT OR STRANGERS IN THE RENDERING STATE,
IT CANNOT BE ATTACKED BY THEM ANYWHERE IN THE UNION.  THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE FORBIDS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE THE COMPLAINANT MUST HAVE RESIDED
NINETY DAYS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA BEFORE THE FILING OF THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT."  FLA. STAT. ANN., 1943, SEC. 65.02.  THIS HAS BEEN
CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE RESIDENCE FOR THE NINETY DAYS IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE FILING DATE.  CURLEY V. CURLEY, 144 FLA. 728, 198 SO.
584.  MADOLINE ARRIVED IN FLORIDA FROM NEW YORK IN JUNE, AND FILED A
BILL OF COMPLAINT ON JULY 29. 

FN2  U.S. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 1: 

"SECTION.  1.  FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO
THE PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER
STATE.  AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN
WHICH SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE
EFFECT THEREOF." 

28 U.S.C. SEC. 1738: 

"SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR COPIES THEREOF, SO
AUTHENTICATED, SHALL HAVE THE SAME FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN EVERY COURT
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS AS THEY
HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE, TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN." 

FN3  JACKSON, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT - THE LAWYER'S CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, 45 COL. L. REV. 1. 

FN4  SHERRER V. SHERRER, 334 U.S. 343, 355, AND CASES CITED; WILLIAMS
V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 301, 303; RILEY V. NEW YORK TRUST CO.,
315 U.S. 343, 348-349.    FN5  DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, 40. 

FN6  SHERRER V. SHERRER, SUPRA, 355. 

FN7  DAVIS V. DAVIS, SUPRA, 41. 

FN8 TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66, 78. 

FN9  MILLS V. DURYEE, 7 CRANCH 481, 485. 

FN10  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA I, SUPRA, 302. 

FN11  THIS WAS A PROCEEDING WHERE THE FORMER HUSBAND SOUGHT
PERMISSION, UNDER MASS. GEN. LAWS (TER.  ED.), C. 209, SEC. 36, TO
CONVEY REAL ESTATE AS IF HE WERE SOLE, BECAUSE LIVING APART FROM HIS
WIFE FOR JUSTIFIABLE CAUSES. 

FN12  THE DISSENT HIGHLIGHTS THE RULING:  "BUT THE REAL QUESTION HERE
IS WHETHER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE CAN BE USED AS A LIMITATION
ON THE POWER OF A STATE OVER ITS CITIZENS WHO DO NOT CHANGE THEIR
DOMICILE, WHO DO NOT REMOVE TO ANOTHER STATE, BUT WHO LEAVE THE STATE
ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO ESCAPE THE RIGORS OF ITS LAWS, OBTAIN A DIVORCE,
AND THEN SCURRY BACK.  TO HOLD THAT THIS MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE
CONTRAVENES THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS TO SAY THAT THAT STATE
HAS SO SLIGHT A CONCERN IN THE CONTINUANCE OR TERMINATION OF THE
MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS OF ITS DOMICILIARIES THAT ITS INTEREST MAY BE
FORECLOSED BY AN ARRANGED LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN WHICH IT
WAS NOT REPRESENTED."  PP. 362-363. 

FN13  124 FLA. AT 278, 168 SO. AT 251: 

"THE RULE IS SETTLED IN THIS STATE THAT RESPONDENT BEING HEIR TO HER
FATHER'S ESTATE HAS A RIGHT TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF HIS MARRIAGE TO
PETITIONER.  RAWLINS V. RAWLINS (18 FLA. 345), AND KUEHMSTED V.
TURNWALL (103 FLA. 1180, 138 SO. 775), SUPRA."  THIS OBSERVATION WAS
NOT DIRECTED AT CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE RES JUDICATA COULD BIND THE
PARENT. 

FN14  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE FLORIDA CASES TO CAUSE US TO QUESTION
THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL RULE THAT RES JUDICATA APPLIES BETWEEN
PARTIES BOTH OF WHOM APPEARED IN PRIOR LITIGATION.  SEE SHERRER V.
SHERRER, 334 U.S. 343, 349, N. 11. 

FN15  SEE NOTE, STANDING OF CHILDREN TO ATTACK THEIR PARENTS' DIVORCE
DECREE, 50 COL. L. REV. 833. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTS, SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS GIVEN
IN THE OPINION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, 301 N.Y. 13, 92 N.E.2D
44, IN LIGHT OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY HIM IN SHERRER V. SHERRER AND
COE V. COE, 334 U.S. 343, 356. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






ROGERS V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 367 


NO. 20.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 179
F.2D 559, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SUBPOENA, PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND JURY AND
TESTIFIED WITHOUT OBJECTION THAT SHE HAD BEEN TREASURER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF DENVER, HAD BEEN IN POSSESSION OF ITS RECORDS, AND
HAD TURNED THEM OVER TO ANOTHER PERSON; BUT SHE REFUSED TO IDENTIFY THE
PERSON TO WHOM SHE HAD DELIVERED THE RECORDS, GIVING AS HER ONLY REASON
HER WISH NOT TO SUBJECT ANOTHER PERSON TO WHAT SHE WAS GOING THROUGH. 
SHE WAS COMMITTED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE MARSHAL UNTIL THE NEXT DAY AND
ADVISED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  ON THE NEXT DAY, HER COUNSEL INFORMED
THE COURT THAT, ON HIS ADVICE, PETITIONER WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION TO
PURGE HERSELF OF CONTEMPT.  UPON HER REAPPEARANCE BEFORE THE GRAND
JURY, SHE AGAIN REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.  BROUGHT BACK INTO
COURT AND CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT, SHE THEN, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ASSERTED
HER PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  HER CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WAS
OVERRULED AND SHE WAS CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT.  HELD:  THE CONVICTION IS
SUSTAINED.  PP. 368-375. 

(A)  SINCE THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS SOLELY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE WITNESS, PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL REFUSAL TO ANSWER COULD
NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY A DESIRE TO PROTECT ANOTHER FROM PUNISHMENT, MUCH
LESS TO PROTECT ANOTHER FROM INTERROGATION BY A GRAND JURY.  P. 371. 

(B)  BOOKS AND RECORDS KEPT IN A REPRESENTATIVE, RATHER THAN A
PERSONAL, CAPACITY CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF THE PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, EVEN THOUGH PRODUCTION OF THEM MIGHT TEND
TO INCRIMINATE THEIR KEEPER PERSONALLY.  PP. 371-372. 

(C)  HAVING FREELY ANSWERED SELF-INCRIMINATING QUESTIONS RELATING TO
HER CONNECTION WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY, PETITIONER COULD NOT REFUSE TO
ANSWER FURTHER QUESTIONS WHICH WOULD NOT SUBJECT HER TO A REAL DANGER
OF FURTHER INCRIMINATION.  PP. 372-375. 

(D)  QUESTIONS RELATING TO ACTIVITIES IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY ARE
INCRIMINATING, BOTH AS TO A VIOLATION OF THE SMITH ACT AND AS TO A
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THAT ACT, BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159. 
P. 375. 

ROGERS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT FOR
REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ASKED BY A FEDERAL GRAND JURY.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  179 F.2D 559.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
339 U.S. 956.  AFFIRMED, P. 375. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ARISES OUT OF AN INVESTIGATION BY THE REGULARLY CONVENED
GRAND JURY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLORADO.  THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF DENVER WERE
SOUGHT AS NECESSARY TO THAT INQUIRY AND WERE THE SUBJECT OF QUESTIONING
BY THE GRAND JURY.  IN SEPTEMBER, 1948, PETITIONER, IN RESPONSE TO A
SUBPOENA, APPEARED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.  SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE HELD
THE POSITION OF TREASURER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF DENVER UNTIL
JANUARY, 1948, AND THAT, BY VIRTUE OF HER OFFICE, SHE HAD BEEN IN
POSSESSION OF MEMBERSHIP LISTS AND DUES RECORDS OF THE PARTY. 
PETITIONER DENIED HAVING POSSESSION OF THE RECORDS AND TESTIFIED THAT
SHE HAD TURNED THEM OVER TO ANOTHER.  BUT SHE REFUSED TO IDENTIFY THE
PERSON TO WHOM SHE HAD GIVEN THE PARTY'S BOOKS, STATING TO THE COURT AS
HER ONLY REASON:  "I DON'T FEEL THAT I SHOULD SUBJECT A PERSON OR
PERSONS TO THE SAME THING THAT I'M GOING THROUGH."  FN1  THE COURT
THEREUPON COMMITTED PETITIONER TO THE CUSTODY OF THE MARSHAL UNTIL TEN
O'CLOCK THE NEXT MORNING, EXPRESSLY ADVISING PETITIONER OF HER RIGHT TO
CONSULT WITH COUNSEL.  FN2 

THE NEXT DAY, COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER INFORMED THE COURT THAT HE HAD
READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR DAY'S PROCEEDINGS AND THAT, UPON HIS
ADVICE, PETITIONER WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTIONS TO PURGE HERSELF OF
CONTEMPT.  FN3  HOWEVER, UPON REAPPEARING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY,
PETITIONER AGAIN REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.  THE FOLLOWING DAY SHE
WAS AGAIN BROUGHT INTO COURT.  CALLED BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE
IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE HAD HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN ANOTHER CASE, PETITIONER REPEATED HER
REFUSAL TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, ASSERTING THIS TIME THE PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION N4.  AFTER RULING THAT HER REFUSAL WAS NOT
PRIVILEGED, THE DISTRICT JUDGE IMPOSED A SENTENCE OF FOUR MONTHS FOR
CONTEMPT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 179
F.2D 559(1950), AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 339 U.S. 956(1950). 

IF PETITIONER DESIRED THE PROTECTION OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION, SHE WAS REQUIRED TO CLAIM IT.  UNITED STATES V. MONIA,
317 U.S. 424, 427(1943).  THE PRIVILEGE "IS DEEMED WAIVED UNLESS
INVOKED."  UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, 284 U.S. 141, 148(1931).  FN5
FURTHERMORE, THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ARE EXPLICIT IN HOLDING THAT
THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION "IS SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE WITNESS,"  FN6  AND "IS PURELY A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE OF THE
WITNESS."  FN7  PETITIONER EXPRESSLY PLACED HER ORIGINAL DECLINATION TO
ANSWER ON AN UNTENABLE GROUND, SINCE A REFUSAL TO ANSWER CANNOT BE
JUSTIFIED BY A DESIRE TO PROTECT OTHERS FROM PUNISHMENT,  FN8  MUCH
LESS TO PROTECT ANOTHER FROM INTERROGATION BY A GRAND JURY. 
PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS PURE
AFTERTHOUGHT.  ALTHOUGH THE CLAIM WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF HER SECOND
REFUSAL TO ANSWER IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT, IT CAME ONLY AFTER SHE
HAD VOLUNTARILY TESTIFIED TO HER STATUS AS AN OFFICER OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY OF DENVER.  TO UPHOLD A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE IN THIS CASE WOULD
OPEN THE WAY TO DISTORTION OF FACTS BY PERMITTING A WITNESS TO SELECT
ANY STOPPING PLACE IN THE TESTIMONY. 

THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, EVEN IF CLAIMED AT THE TIME
THE QUESTION AS TO THE NAME OF THE PERSON TO WHOM PETITIONER TURNED
OVER THE PARTY RECORDS WAS ASKED, WOULD NOT JUSTIFY HER REFUSAL TO
ANSWER.  AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER, WE NOTE THAT PETITIONER HAD NO
PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO THE BOOKS OF THE PARTY, WHETHER IT BE A
CORPORATION  FN9  OR AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION.  FN10  BOOKS AND
RECORDS KEPT "IN A REPRESENTATIVE RATHER THAN IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY
CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF THE PERSONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION, EVEN THOUGH PRODUCTION OF THE PAPERS MIGHT TEND TO
INCRIMINATE (THEIR KEEPER) PERSONALLY."  UNITED STATES V. WHITE, 322
U.S. 694, 699(1944).  FN11  SINCE PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE
CANNOT BE ASSERTED IN RELATION TO THE BOOKS AND RECORDS SOUGHT BY THE
GRAND JURY, THE ONLY CLAIM FOR REVERSAL OF HER CONVICTION RESTS ON THE
GROUND THAT MERE DISCLOSURE OF THE NAME OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE BOOKS
TENDS TO INCRIMINATE. 

IN PATRICIA BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159(1950), WE HELD THAT
QUESTIONS AS TO CONNECTIONS WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY ARE SUBJECT TO THE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AS CALLING FOR DISCLOSURE OF FACTS
TENDING TO CRIMINATE UNDER THE SMITH ACT.  FN12  BUT PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION STANDS ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FOOTING, FOR SHE HAD FREELY
DESCRIBED HER MEMBERSHIP, ACTIVITIES AND OFFICE IN THE PARTY.  SINCE
THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION PRESUPPOSES A REAL DANGER OF
LEGAL DETRIMENT ARISING FROM THE DISCLOSURE, PETITIONER CANNOT INVOKE
THE PRIVILEGE WHERE RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN ISSUE HERE
WOULD NOT FURTHER INCRIMINATE HER.  DISCLOSURE OF A FACT WAIVES THE
PRIVILEGE AS TO DETAILS.  AS THIS COURT STATED IN BROWN V. WALKER, 161
U.S. 591, 597(1896): 

"THUS, IF THE WITNESS HIMSELF ELECTS TO WAIVE HIS PRIVILEGE, AS HE
MAY DOUBTLESS DO, SINCE THE PRIVILEGE IS FOR HIS PROTECTION AND NOT FOR
THAT OF OTHER PARTIES, AND DISCLOSES HIS CRIMINAL CONNECTIONS, HE IS
NOT PERMITTED TO STOP, BUT MUST GO ON AND MAKE A FULL DISCLOSURE." 
FN13 

FOLLOWING THIS RULE, FEDERAL COURTS HAVE UNIFORMLY HELD THAT, WHERE
CRIMINATING FACTS HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARILY REVEALED, THE PRIVILEGE CANNOT
BE INVOKED TO AVOID DISCLOSURE OF THE DETAILS.  FN14 THE DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT IN ARNDSTEIN V. MCCARTHY, 254 U.S. 71(1920), AND MCCARTHY V.
ARNDSTEIN, 262 U.S. 355(1923), FURTHER SUPPORT THE CONVICTION IN THIS
CASE FOR, IN SUSTAINING THE PRIVILEGE ON EACH APPEAL, THE COURT
STRESSED THE ABSENCE OF ANY PREVIOUS "ADMISSION OF GUILT OR
INCRIMINATING FACTS,"  FN15  AND RELIED PARTICULARLY UPON BROWN V.
WALKER, SUPRA, AND FOSTER V. PEOPLE, 18 MICH. 266(1869).  THE HOLDING
OF THE MICHIGAN COURT IS ENTIRELY APPOSITE HERE: 

"(WHERE) A WITNESS HAS VOLUNTARILY ANSWERED AS TO MATERIALLY
CRIMINATING FACTS, IT IS HELD WITH UNIFORMITY THAT HE CANNOT THEN STOP
SHORT AND REFUSE FURTHER EXPLANATION, BUT MUST DISCLOSE FULLY WHAT HE
HAS ATTEMPTED TO RELATE."  18 MICH. AT 276.  FN16 

REQUIRING FULL DISCLOSURE OF DETAILS AFTER A WITNESS FREELY TESTIFIES
AS TO A CRIMINATING FACT DOES NOT REST UPON A FURTHER "WAIVER" OF THE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  ADMITTEDLY, PETITIONER HAD
ALREADY "WAIVED" HER PRIVILEGE OF SILENCE WHEN SHE FREELY ANSWERED
CRIMINATING QUESTIONS RELATING TO HER CONNECTION WITH THE COMMUNIST
PARTY.  BUT WHEN PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE NAME OF THE PERSON
TO WHOM SHE TURNED OVER PARTY RECORDS, THE COURT WAS REQUIRED TO
DETERMINE, AS IT MUST WHENEVER THE PRIVILEGE IS CLAIMED, WHETHER THE
QUESTION PRESENTED A REASONABLE DANGER OF FURTHER CRIMINATION IN LIGHT
OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING ANY PREVIOUS DISCLOSURES.  AS TO
EACH QUESTION TO WHICH A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE IS DIRECTED, THE COURT MUST
DETERMINE WHETHER THE ANSWER TO THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION WOULD SUBJECT
THE WITNESS TO A "REAL DANGER" OF FURTHER CRIMINATION.  FN17  AFTER
PETITIONER'S ADMISSION THAT SHE HELD THE OFFICE OF TREASURER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF DENVER, DISCLOSURE OF ACQUAINTANCE WITH HER
SUCCESSOR PRESENTS NO MORE THAN A "MERE IMAGINARY POSSIBILITY"  FN18
OF INCREASING THE DANGER OF PROSECUTION.  FN19 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND IN THIS COURT HAS
BEEN THAT, CONCEDING HER PRIOR VOLUNTARY CRIMINATION AS TO ONE ELEMENT
OF PROOF OF A SMITH ACT VIOLATION, DISCLOSURE OF THE NAME OF THE
RECIPIENT OF THE PARTY RECORDS WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE AS TO THE
DIFFERENT CRIME OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE SMITH ACT.  OUR OPINION IN
PATRICIA BLAU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 161, EXPLICITLY REJECTS
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT FOR REVERSAL HERE IN ITS HOLDING THAT QUESTIONS
RELATING TO ACTIVITIES IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY ARE CRIMINATING BOTH AS
TO "VIOLATION OF (OR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE) THE SMITH ACT."  OF COURSE,
AT LEAST TWO PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO CONSTITUTE A CONSPIRACY, BUT THE
IDENTITY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CONSPIRACY IS NOT NEEDED, INASMUCH
AS ONE PERSON CAN BE CONVICTED OF CONSPIRING WITH PERSONS WHOSE NAMES
ARE UNKNOWN.  FN20  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TRANSCRIPT, P. 39(SEPTEMBER 21, 1948): 

"THE COURT:  NOW, WHAT IS THE QUESTION? 

"MR. GOLDSCHEIN:  WHO HAS THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY OF DENVER NOW.  WHO DID MRS. ROGERS GIVE THOSE BOOKS UP TO AS SHE
SAYS SHE GAVE THEM UP IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. 

"THE COURT:  DO YOU CARE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, MADAM? 

"MRS. ROGERS:  I DO NOT. 

"THE COURT:  WHAT? 

"MRS. ROGERS:  I DO NOT, AND THAT'S WHAT I TOLD THEM. 

"THE COURT:  WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER? 

"MRS. ROGERS:  I DON'T FEEL THAT I SHOULD SUBJECT A PERSON OR PERSONS
TO THE SAME THING THAT I'M GOING THROUGH. 

"THE COURT:  IT IS THE ORDER OR FINDING OF THE COURT THAT YOU SHOULD
ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.  NOW, WILL YOU DO THAT? 

"MRS. ROGERS:  NO." 

FN2  TRANSCRIPT, P. 40(SEPTEMBER 21, 1948): 

"THE COURT:  YOU WILL BE DETAINED UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING UNTIL TEN
O'CLOCK.  IN THE MEANTIME, YOU MAY CONSULT COUNSEL AND HAVE A HEARING
TOMORROW MORNING AT TEN O'CLOCK ON YOUR REASONS FOR REFUSAL TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS. 

"MRS. ROGERS:  I CAN CONSULT COUNSEL BETWEEN NOW AND THEN? 

"THE COURT:  YES, BUT YOU WILL BE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MARSHAL ALL
THE TIME.  GET YOUR COUNSEL AND BRING HIM OVER HERE IF YOU WANT TO, BUT
YOU WILL HAVE TO BE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MARSHAL AND SPEND THE NIGHT
IN JAIL, I'M AFRAID." 

FN3  TRANSCRIPT, PP. 43, 49(SEPTEMBER 22, 1948): 

"MR. MENIN (AFTER ENTERING HIS APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER):
IN REGARD TO THE WITNESS ROGERS, I'VE READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT HAS
TRANSPIRED IN COURT HERE YESTERDAY; AND I BELIEVE THAT UPON MY ADVICE
SHE WILL ANSWER QUESTIONS WHICH WERE PROPOUNDED TO HER. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"MR. MENIN:  AS TO THE WITNESS JANE ROGERS, I THINK SHE WILL PURGE
HERSELF OF HER CONTEMPT BY ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. 

"THE COURT:  IN THE CASE OF THE WITNESS ROGERS, THEN, THE ORDER OF
THE COURT IS THAT SHE RETURN TO THE GRAND JURY ROOM AND IF SHE PURGES
HERSELF OF CONTEMPT, THEN UPON BRINGING THE MATTER BACK TO THE COURT,
SHE WILL BE DISCHARGED.  IN THE MEANTIME, SHE WILL REMAIN IN CUSTODY." 

FN4  "NO PERSON  ...  SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A
WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF ...  "  U.S. CONST., AMEND. V. THE PROCEEDINGS
LEADING TO THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE BY PETITIONER APPEAR AT TRANSCRIPT,
PP. 77-78(SEPTEMBER 23, 1948): 

"THE COURT:  ...  MADAM, DO YOU STILL PERSIST IN NOT ANSWERING THESE
QUESTIONS? 

"MRS. ROGERS:  WELL, ON THE BASIS OF MR. MENIN'S STATEMENTS THIS
MORNING - 

"THE COURT:  WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION YES OR NO? 

"MRS. ROGERS:  WELL, I THINK THAT'S RATHER UNDEMOCRATIC(.)  I'M A
VERY HONEST PERSON.  WOULD YOU MIND LETTING ME CONSIDER - 

"THE COURT:  MAKE ANY STATEMENT YOU WISH. 

"MRS. ROGERS:  WELL, AS I SAID BEFORE, I'M A VERY HONEST PERSON AND
I'M NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE TRICKS OF LEGAL PROCEDURE, BUT I UNDERSTAND
FROM THE READING OF THESE CASES THIS MORNING THAT I AM - AND I DO HAVE
A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, ON THE BASIS THAT THEY
WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE ME, AND YOU READ IT YOURSELF, THAT I HAVE A
RIGHT TO DECIDE THAT. 

"THE COURT:  YOU HAVE NOT THE RIGHT TO SAY. 

"MRS. ROGERS:  ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU READ, I DO.  I STAND ON THAT. 

"THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  IF YOU WILL MAKE NO CHANGES, IT IS THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THE COURT YOU BE CONFINED TO THE CUSTODY OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR FOUR MONTHS.  CALL THE NEXT CASE." 

FN5  CITING VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, 273 U.S. 103,
113(1927).  SEE SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 137, 147(1949);
CORWIN, THE SUPREME COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE SELF-INCRIMINATION
CLAUSE, 29 MICH. L. REV. 1, 198-199(1930). 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, 284 U.S. 141, 148(1931). 

FN7  HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 69(1906).  MCALISTER V. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 90, 91(1906). 

FN8  BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591, 609(1896); HALE V. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 43, 69-70(1906). 

FN9  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361(1911); WHEELER V. UNITED
STATES, 226 U.S. 478(1913); GRANT V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 74(1913);
ESSGEE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 262 U.S. 151(1923). 

FN10  BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 134(1928); UNITED STATES V.
WHITE, 322 U.S. 694(1944).  CF. UNITED STATES V. FLEISCHMAN, 339 U.S.
349, 358(1950). 

FN11  SEE ALSO THE CASES CITED IN NOTES 7 AND 8, SUPRA.  THE
PRIVILEGE DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE BOOKS OF AN ORGANIZATION, WHETHER OR
NOT THE BOOKS IN QUESTION ARE "REQUIRED RECORDS" OF THE TYPE CONSIDERED
IN SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 1(1948).    FN12  MEMBERSHIP IN
THE COMMUNIST PARTY WAS NOT, OF ITSELF, A CRIME AT THE TIME THE
QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE WERE ASKED.  AND CONGRESS HAS SINCE EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED, IN THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT OF 1950, ACT OF SEPT. 23, 1950,
64 STAT. 987, 992, SEC. 4(F), THAT "NEITHER THE HOLDING OF OFFICE NOR
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION BY ANY PERSON SHALL CONSTITUTE
PER SE A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (A) OR SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION
OR OF ANY OTHER CRIMINAL STATUTE."  WE, OF COURSE, EXPRESS NO OPINION
AS TO THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS LEGISLATION UPON THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY
THESE CASES. 

FN13  QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN POWERS V. UNITED STATES, 223 U.S. 303,
314(1912).    FN14  UNITED STATES V. ST. PIERRE, 132 F.2D 837(C.A.2D
CIR., 1942); BUCKEYE POWDER CO. V. HAZARD POWDER CO., 205 F. 827,
829(D.C. CONN., 1913). 

FN15  262 U.S. AT 359.  THE ARNDSTEIN APPEALS, LIKE THE PRESENT CASE,
AROSE OUT OF AN INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.  THE COURT RESERVED, AS WE DO
HERE, THE PROBLEMS ARISING OUT OF A POSSIBLE ABUSE OF THE PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS.  COMPARE STATE
COURT DECISIONS COLLECTED IN 147 A.L.R. 255(1943). 

FN16  VIII WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (1940), SEC. 2276, QUOTES FROM FOSTER V.
PEOPLE, 18 MICH. 266(1869), AS AUTHORITATIVE AND SUMMARIZES THE LAW AS
FOLLOWS: 

"THE CASE OF THE ORDINARY WITNESS CAN HARDLY PRESENT ANY DOUBT.  HE
MAY WAIVE HIS PRIVILEGE; THIS IS CONCEDED.  HE WAIVES IT BY EXERCISING
HIS OPTION OF ANSWERING; THIS IS CONCEDED.  THUS THE ONLY INQUIRY CAN
BE WHETHER, BY ANSWERING AS TO FACT X, HE WAIVED IT FOR FACT Y. IF THE
TWO ARE RELATED FACTS, PARTS OF A WHOLE FACT FORMING A SINGLE RELEVANT
TOPIC, THEN HIS WAIVER AS TO A PART IS A WAIVER AS TO THE REMAINING
PARTS; BECAUSE THE PRIVILEGE EXISTS FOR THE SAKE OF THE CRIMINATING
FACT AS A WHOLE." 

FN17  HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 131, 144(1913).  BROWN V.
WALKER, 161 U.S. 591, 600(1896). 

FN18  MASON V. UNITED STATES, 244 U.S. 362, 366(1917). 

FN19  UNITED STATES V. ST. PIERRE, 132 F.2D 837(C.A.2D CIR., 1942),
PRESENTED A CLOSER QUESTION SINCE THE "DETAIL" WHICH ST. PIERRE WAS
REQUIRED TO DIVULGE WOULD IDENTIFY A PERSON WITHOUT WHOSE TESTIMONY ST.
PIERRE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME.  WE, OF COURSE, DO NOT
HERE PASS UPON THE PRECISE FACTUAL QUESTION THERE DECIDED BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS. 

FN20  BROWNE V. UNITED STATES, 145 F. 1, 13(C.A.2D CIR., 1905);
DONEGAN V. UNITED STATES, 287 F. 641, 648(C.A.2D CIR., 1922); POMERANTZ
V. UNITED STATES, 51 F.2D 911, 913(C.A. 3D CIR., 1931); GROVE V. UNITED
STATES, 3 F.2D 965, 967(C.A.4TH CIR., 1925); MCDONALD V. UNITED STATES,
9 F.2D 506, 507(C.A.8TH CIR., 1925); ROSENTHAL V. UNITED STATES, 45
F.2D 1000, 1003(C.A.8TH CIR., 1930); DIDENTI V. UNITED STATES, 44 F.2D
537, 538(C.A.9TH CIR., 1930).  SEE ALSO FEDER V. UNITED STATES, 257 F.
694, 697(C.A.2D CIR., 1919); WORTHINGTON V. UNITED STATES, 64 F.2D 936,
939(C.A.7TH CIR., 1933). 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

SOME PEOPLE ARE HOSTILE TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROVISION
UNEQUIVOCALLY COMMANDING THAT NO UNITED STATES OFFICIAL SHALL COMPEL A
PERSON TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.  THEY CONSIDER THE PROVISION AS
AN OUTMODED RELIC OF PAST FEARS GENERATED BY ANCIENT INQUISITORIAL
PRACTICES THAT COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAPPEN HERE.  FOR THIS REASON THE
PRIVILEGE TO BE SILENT IS SOMETIMES ACCEPTED AS BEING MORE OR LESS OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL NUISANCE WHICH THE COURTS SHOULD ABATE WHENEVER AND
HOWEVER POSSIBLE.  SUCH AN END COULD BE ACHIEVED BY TWO OBVIOUS
JUDICIAL TECHNIQUES:  (1) NARROW CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCOPE OF THE
PRIVILEGE; (2) BROAD CONSTRUCTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF "WAIVER."  ANY
ATTEMPT TO USE THE FIRST OF THESE METHODS, HOWEVER, RUNS AFOUL OF
APPROXIMATELY 150 YEARS OF PRECEDENT.  SEE PATRICIA BLAU V. UNITED
STATES, 340 U.S. 159, AND CASES THERE CITED.  THIS COURT HAS ALMOST
ALWAYS CONSTRUED THE AMENDMENT BROADLY  FN1  ON THE VIEW THAT
COMPELLING A PERSON TO CONVICT HIMSELF OF CRIME IS "CONTRARY TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF A FREE GOVERNMENT" AND "ABHORRENT TO THE INSTINCTS OF AN
AMERICAN"; THAT WHILE SUCH A COERCIVE PRACTICE "MAY SUIT THE PURPOSES
OF DESPOTIC POWER  ...  IT CANNOT ABIDE THE PURE ATMOSPHERE OF
POLITICAL LIBERTY AND PERSONAL FREEDOM."  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116
U.S. 616, 632; BUT CF. UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, 284 U.S. 141. 

THE DOCTRINE OF WAIVER SEEMS TO BE A MORE PALATABLE BUT EQUALLY
EFFECTIVE DEVICE FOR WHITTLING AWAY THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE
PRIVILEGE, ALTHOUGH I THINK TODAY'S APPLICATION OF THAT DOCTRINE CANNOT
BE SUPPORTED BY OUR PAST DECISIONS.  OF COURSE, IT HAS NEVER BEEN
DOUBTED THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT COULD BE INTENTIONALLY RELINQUISHED
AND THAT SUCH AN INTENTION MIGHT BE FOUND FROM A "COURSE OF CONDUCT." 
SHEPARD V. BARRON, 194 U.S. 553, 568.  BUT WE HAVE SAID THAT INTENTION
TO WAIVE THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS NOT "LIGHTLY TO BE
INFERRED" AND THAT VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN EVIDENCE WILL NOT SUPPORT A
FINDING OF WAIVER.  SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 137, 150, RELYING
ON JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 464, AND CASES THERE CITED.  IN THE
CASE OF THIS PETITIONER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE INTENDED TO GIVE
UP HER PRIVILEGE OF SILENCE CONCERNING THE PERSONS IN POSSESSION OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY RECORDS.  TO THE CONTRARY, THE RECORD - AS SET OUT IN
THE COURT'S OPINION - SHOWS SHE INTENDED TO AVOID ANSWERING THE
QUESTION ON WHATEVER GROUND MIGHT BE AVAILABLE AND ASSERTED THE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AT THE FIRST MOMENT SHE BECAME
AWARE OF ITS EXISTENCE.  FN2  THIS FACT AND THE CASES WHICH MAKE IT
CRUCIAL ARE IGNORED IN THE DECISION TODAY. 

APPARENTLY, THE COURT'S HOLDING IS THAT AT SOME UNCERTAIN POINT IN
PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY, REGARDLESS OF HER INTENTION, ADMISSION OF
ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY AUTOMATICALLY EFFECTED A "WAIVER"
OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AS TO ALL RELATED QUESTIONS.  FN3  TO
ADOPT SUCH A RULE FOR THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, WHEN
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS MUST BE KNOWINGLY WAIVED, RELEGATES THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PRIVILEGE TO A SECOND-RATE POSITION.  MOREOVER,
TODAY'S HOLDING CREATES THIS DILEMMA FOR WITNESSES:  ON THE ONE HAND,
THEY RISK IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT BY ASSERTING THE PRIVILEGE
PREMATURELY; ON THE OTHER, THEY MIGHT LOSE THE PRIVILEGE IF THEY ANSWER
A SINGLE QUESTION.  THE COURT'S VIEW MAKES THE PROTECTION DEPEND ON
TIMING SO REFINED THAT LAWYERS, LET ALONE LAYMEN, WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY
IN KNOWING WHEN TO CLAIM IT.  FN4  IN THIS VERY CASE, IT NEVER OCCURRED
TO THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT PETITIONER WAIVED ANYTHING.  FN5  AND EVEN IF
VOLUNTARY TESTIMONY CAN UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WORK A WAIVER, IT DID
NOT DO SO HERE BECAUSE WHAT PETITIONER STATED TO THE GRAND JURY
"STANDING ALONE DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN ADMISSION OF GUILT OR FURNISH
CLEAR PROOF OF CRIME  ...  "  ARNDSTEIN V. MCCARTHY, 254 U.S. 71, 72. 
FN6 

FURTHERMORE, UNLIKE THE COURT, I BELIEVE THAT THE QUESTION WHICH
PETITIONER REFUSED TO ANSWER DID CALL FOR ADDITIONAL INCRIMINATING
INFORMATION.  SHE WAS ASKED THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM SHE HAD
TURNED OVER THE COMMUNIST PARTY BOOKS AND RECORDS.  HER ANSWER WOULD
NOT ONLY HAVE BEEN RELEVANT IN ANY FUTURE PROSECUTION OF PETITIONER FOR
VIOLATION OF THE SMITH ACT BUT ALSO HER CONVICTION MIGHT DEPEND ON
TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES SHE WAS THUS ASKED TO IDENTIFY.  FOR THESE
REASONS THE QUESTION SOUGHT A DISCLOSURE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
INCRIMINATING TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE.  CERTAINLY NO ONE CAN SAY THAT THE
ANSWER "(COULD NOT) POSSIBLY BE USED AS A BASIS FOR, OR IN AID OF, A
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST THE WITNESS  ...  "  BROWN V. WALKER, 161
U.S. 591, 597.  FN7 

THE RECORDS IN THIS AND IN THE COMPANION CASES  FN8  REVEAL A
FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES OF PETITIONER AND
OTHERS CALLED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.  THE SPECIAL UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY IN CHARGE MADE UNWARRANTED ASSURANCES THAT MIGHT WELL HAVE
MISLED WITNESSES UNABLE TO MATCH LEGAL WITS WITH HIM INTO MAKING SELF
INCRIMINATING ADMISSIONS.  FN9  ALTHOUGH PETITIONER HAD BEEN ALLOWED ON
A PREVIOUS DAY TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL, AT THE TIME SHE WAS BROUGHT
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FINAL CONSIDERATION OF HER CASE THE JUDGE
ARBITRARILY REFUSED TO PERMIT COUNSEL TO SPEAK IN HER BEHALF, SUMMARILY
COMMANDING THE ATTORNEY TO SIT DOWN, AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER
SENTENCED PETITIONER TO FOUR MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT.  FN10  IN CONVICTING
HER, THE DISTRICT JUDGE NEITHER HELD NOR INTIMATED THAT THE PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION HAD BEEN WAIVED.  FN11  HIS ERRONEOUS BELIEF
WAS THAT INTIMATE ASSOCIATION WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY WAS NOT AN
INCRIMINATING FACT.  THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH THE COURT NOW DESCRIBES
PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AS AN "AFTERTHOUGHT," IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THE REAL "AFTERTHOUGHT" IN THIS CASE IS THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE
JUDGMENT BELOW ON A "WAIVER" OR EQUIVALENT THEORY.  MORE IMPORTANT,
HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT TODAY'S EXPANSION OF THE "WAIVER" DOCTRINE
IMPROPERLY LIMITS ONE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S GREAT SAFEGUARDS.  FN12 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION. 

FN1  "THIS PROVISION (AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION) MUST HAVE A BROAD
CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHT WHICH IT WAS INTENDED TO SECURE." 
COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, 562. 

FN2  WHILE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FAILURE SPECIFICALLY TO INVOKE THE
PRIVILEGE PRIOR TO FINAL JUDGMENT CONSTITUTED A WAIVER, UNITED STATES
EX REL. VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, 273 U.S. 103, 113;
UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, 284 U.S. 141, 148, SUCH CASES ARE NOT
CONTROLLING HERE.  BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED AGAINST THIS
PETITIONER, SHE ASSERTED THE PRIVILEGE NOT TO INCRIMINATE HERSELF UNDER
FEDERAL LAW, AND WAS SENTENCED FOR STANDING ON THIS GROUND.  SEE
APPENDIX FOLLOWING THIS OPINION, P. 381. 

FN3  THE COURT'S RELIANCE ON BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591, AS
INDICATING THAT THE PRIVILEGE CAN BE WAIVED UNINTENTIONALLY IS
MISPLACED.  FOR IN THE BROWN CASE, IT WAS SAID THAT "IF THE WITNESS
HIMSELF ELECTS TO WAIVE HIS PRIVILEGE,  ...  HE IS NOT PERMITTED TO
STOP, BUT MUST GO ON AND MAKE A FULL DISCLOSURE."  ID., AT 597. 

FN4  THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE
COURT ARE MADE APPARENT BY A READING OF THE OPINIONS IN UNITED STATES
V. ST. PIERRE, 132 F.2D 837. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 11 AND ACCOMPANYING TEXT, INFRA. 

FN6  TODAY'S OPINION SEEKS TO DERIVE A LOOSER TEST FROM CERTAIN
NEGATIVE LANGUAGE IN THE SUBSEQUENT CASE OF MCCARTHY V. ARNDSTEIN, 262
U.S. 355, 359, WHERE IT WAS SAID THAT IF "THE PREVIOUS DISCLOSURE BY AN
ORDINARY WITNESS IS NOT AN ACTUAL ADMISSION OF GUILT OR INCRIMINATING
FACTS, HE IS NOT DEPRIVED OF THE PRIVILEGE OF STOPPING SHORT  ...  "
IN THAT VERY CASE, HOWEVER, THE COURT QUOTED WITH APPROVAL THE MINIMUM
RULE IT HAD PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED.  ID., AT 358.  MOREOVER, IN STATING
THE REASON WHY ARNDSTEIN HAD NOT WAIVED HIS PRIVILEGE, THE COURT SAID:
"AND SINCE WE FIND THAT NONE OF THE ANSWERS WHICH HAD BEEN VOLUNTARILY
GIVEN BY ARNDSTEIN, EITHER BY WAY OF DENIALS OR PARTIAL DISCLOSURES,
AMOUNTED TO AN ADMISSION OR SHOWING OF GUILT, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT HE
WAS ENTITLED TO DECLINE TO ANSWER FURTHER QUESTIONS WHEN SO TO DO MIGHT
TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM."  ID., AT 359-360. 

IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE MICHIGAN CASE OF FOSTER V. PEOPLE, 18
MICH. 266, WAS ADOPTED AS THE FEDERAL RULE BY THIS COURT IN MCCARTHY V.
ARNDSTEIN, SUPRA, AT 359.  ALTHOUGH THE FOSTER CASE WAS THERE CITED, NO
ACCEPTANCE WAS INTENDED OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE MICHIGAN DECISION WHICH
A MAJORITY QUOTES TODAY.  THAT THE COURT WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THIS
QUOTATION IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT IT PLACED RELIANCE ON AN ENGLISH
CASE, REGINA V. GARBETT, 2 C. & K. 474, 495, WHICH WAS SUMMARIZED AS
HOLDING THE FOLLOWING:  "(IT) MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE RIGHT OF A
WITNESS TO PROTECTION FROM INCRIMINATING HIMSELF THAT HE HAS ALREADY
ANSWERED IN PART, HE BEING 'ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE AT ANY
STAGE OF THE INQUIRY.'"  MCCARTHY V. ARNDSTEIN, SUPRA, AT 359. 

FN7  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S HOLDING TO RELY ON THE STATEMENT
IN THE OPINION THAT "PETITIONER HAD NO PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO THE
BOOKS OF THE PARTY  ...  "  THIS STATEMENT OF COURSE IS NOT RELEVANT IN
THE PRESENT CASE WHERE THERE IS NO ISSUE OF COMPELLING PETITIONER TO
TURN OVER UNPRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS IN HER POSSESSION.  BUT IF THE COURT
DOES INTEND TO SUGGEST THAT A WITNESS IS NOT PRIVILEGED IN REFUSING TO
ANSWER INCRIMINATING QUESTIONS MERELY BECAUSE THOSE QUESTIONS RELATE TO
UNPRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS, THEN I MUST POINT OUT THAT THE DECISION IN THIS
CASE IS ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT WITH OUR RECENT UNANIMOUS DECISION IN
PATRICIA BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159, NOTE 1. 

FN8  PATRICIA BLAU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; IRVING BLAU V. UNITED
STATES, 340 U.S. 332. 

FN9  ALTHOUGH THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE CONVICTIONS OF MOST OF
THE WITNESSES CALLED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, IT MADE THE FOLLOWING
COMMENT CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF THE SPECIAL UNITED STATES ATTORNEY:
"(HIS) STOCK STATEMENT TO THE WITNESS THAT SHE WAS NOT UNDER
INVESTIGATION AND THAT THE GRAND JURY WAS NOT PROCEEDING AGAINST HER,
WAS NOT WARRANTED.  IT WAS NOT FOR HIM TO SAY WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE
GRAND JURY'S INVESTIGATION WAS; NEITHER WAS HIS STATEMENT A SUBSTITUTE
FOR HER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION."  ROGERS V. UNITED STATES, 179 F.2D
559, 563.  OTHER "IRREGULARITIES" IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW WERE ALSO
POINTED OUT.  ID., AT 561.  CONDUCT OF THE SAME PROSECUTOR DURING A
SIMILAR GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IN LOS ANGELES WAS CRITICIZED BY
JUDGES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN ALEXANDER V. UNITED STATES, 181 F.2D
480.  THERE IT WAS SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY "PURSUED THE SAME
TACTICS TENDING TO PUT THE WITNESS OFF HIS GUARD  ...  "  ID., AT 482. 
FN10  THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW IS SET
OUT IN THE APPENDIX, POST, P. 381. 

FN11  THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S SOLE REFERENCE TO "WAIVER" WAS NOT MADE IN
THE CASE OF PETITIONER.  IN ADDRESSING ONE OF THE OTHER WITNESSES,
HOWEVER, THE JUDGE SAID, "OF COURSE, ANYTHING YOU TESTIFY TO, UNLESS
YOU SIGNED A WAIVER, CAN'T BE USED AGAINST YOU IN ANY TRIAL HEREAFTER. 
THAT'S THE LAW, ISN'T IT?"  THE CONVICTION OF THIS WITNESS, NANCY
WERTHEIMER, WAS THE ONLY ONE REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  ROGERS
V. UNITED STATES, 179 F.2D 559.    FN12  FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE
ABUSES WHICH LED TO THE INCORPORATION OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, SEE PITTMAN, THE COLONIAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN
AMERICA, 21 VA. L. REV. 763. 

              APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK. 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT THE TIME THE
JUDGMENT NOW UNDER REVIEW WAS ENTERED: 

"THE COURT:...  WHAT IS THE NEXT CASE?  CAN WE DISPOSE OF THESE
LADIES NOW? 

"MR. GOLDSCHEIN (SPECIAL UNITED STATES ATTORNEY):  MRS. JANE ROGERS. 

"THE COURT:  IS SHE HERE? 

"MR. GOLDSCHEIN:  SHE IS HERE, YES, SIR.  NOW, MAY IT PLEASE YOUR
HONOR - 

"THE COURT:  STEP OVER HERE, MADAM.  WHAT IS THE STATUS OF HER CASE? 

"MR. GOLDSCHIEN:  MRS. ROGERS REFUSES TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
PROPOUNDED TO HER IN THE GRAND JURY ROOM.  SHE WAS BROUGHT BACK ON
YESTERDAY, BUT SAYS THAT SHE WILL ANSWER ONE QUESTION BUT WILL NOT
ANSWER ANY OTHERS, AND WAS ADVISED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR HER
TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED EXCEPT THOSE WHICH WOULD INCRIMINATE
HER FOR THE VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL OFFENSE, AND SHE SAYS SHE WON'T
ANSWER ANY. 

"THE COURT:  IS THAT YOUR POSITION, MADAM? 

"MR. MENIN (COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER):  I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A
MISUNDERSTANDING. 

"THE COURT:  JUST A MINUTE.  WILL YOU PLEASE BE SEATED, MR. MENIN? 
PLEASE BE SEATED. 

"MR. MENIN:  WELL, I REPRESENT THIS LADY. 

"THE COURT:  JUST A MOMENT.  PLEASE BE SEATED. 

"MR. MENIN:  VERY WELL. 

"THE COURT:  I'LL HEAR YOU IN DUE COURSE(.)  MADAM, DO YOU STILL
PERSIST IN NOT ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS? 

"MRS. ROGERS:  WELL, ON THE BASIS OF MR. MENIN'S STATEMENTS THIS
MORNING - 

"THE COURT:  WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION YES OR NO? 

"MRS. ROGERS:  WELL, I THINK THAT'S RATHER UNDEMOCRATIC(.)  I'M A
VERY HONEST PERSON.  WOULD YOU MIND LETTING ME CONSIDER - 

"THE COURT:  MAKE ANY STATEMENT YOU WISH. 

"MRS. ROGERS:  WELL, AS I SAID BEFORE, I'M A VERY HONEST PERSON AND
I'M NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE TRICKS OF LEGAL PROCEDURE, BUT I UNDERSTAND
FROM THE READING OF THESE CASES THIS MORNING THAT I AM - AND I DO HAVE
A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, ON THE BASIS THAT THEY
WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE ME, AND YOU READ IT YOURSELF, THAT I HAVE A
RIGHT TO DECIDE THAT. 

"THE COURT:  YOU HAVE NOT THE RIGHT TO SAY. 

"MRS. ROGERS:  ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU READ, I DO.  I STAND ON THAT. 

"THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  IF YOU WILL MAKE NO CHANGES, IT IS THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THE COURT YOU BE CONFINED TO THE CUSTODY OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR FOUR MONTHS.  CALL THE NEXT CASE."  TRANSCRIPT
OF RECORD, PP. 76-78(SEPTEMBER 23, 1948). 
..END :























BUS EMPLOYEES V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 340 U.S. 383 


ARGUED JANUARY 9-10, 1951.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 257 WIS. 43,
42 N.W.2D 471 - 258 WIS. 1, 44 N.W.2D 547, REVERSED. 


THE WISCONSIN PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI-STRIKE LAW, WHICH MAKES IT A
MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY GROUP OF PUBLIC UTILITY EMPLOYEES TO ENGAGE IN A
STRIKE WHICH WOULD CAUSE AN INTERRUPTION OF AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC-UTILITY
SERVICE, AS APPLIED IN THESE CASES, CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947,
AND IS INVALID UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
PP. 385-399. 

1.  BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO
STRIKE, CONGRESS OCCUPIED THIS FIELD AND CLOSED IT TO STATE REGULATION;
AND ANY CONCURRENT STATE REGULATION OF PEACEFUL STRIKES FOR HIGHER
WAGES IS INVALID.  AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. O'BRIEN, 339 U.S. 454.  PP.
389-390. 

2.  THE FEDERAL ACT APPLIES TO A PRIVATELY-OWNED PUBLIC UTILITY WHOSE
BUSINESS AND ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED ON WHOLLY WITHIN A SINGLE STATE. 
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197.  PP. 391-393. 

3.  THE RESULT FINDS FURTHER SUPPORT IN THE 1947 AMENDMENTS, WHEREBY
CONGRESS PROVIDED SPECIAL PROCEDURES TO DEAL WITH STRIKES WHICH MIGHT
CREATE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES.  PP. 393-396. 

4.  THE QUESTIONS OF POLICY RAISED HERE ARE FOR LEGISLATIVE
DETERMINATION AND HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY CONGRESS ADVERSELY TO
RESPONDENTS.  THIS COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JUDICIAL FUNCTION,
MUST TAKE THE COMPREHENSIVE AND VALID FEDERAL LEGISLATION AS ENACTED
AND DECLARE INVALID STATE REGULATION WHICH IMPINGES ON THAT
LEGISLATION.  PP. 397-398. 

5.  AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, THE WISCONSIN ACT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT
WITH THE FEDERAL ACT AND THEREFORE IS INVALID UNDER THE SUPREMACY
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 398-399. 

AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY & MOTOR COACH
EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, DIVISION 998, ET AL. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD. 

NO. 329.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 438, UNITED GAS, COKE & CHEMICAL WORKERS OF
AMERICA, C.I.O., ET AL. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, ALSO
ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE CASES ARE STATED IN THE SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS OF THE
OPINION.  THE JUDGMENTS BELOW ARE REVERSED, P. 399. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THESE CASES, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LABOR LEGISLATION OF THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN KNOWN AS THE PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI-STRIKE LAW,  FN1
HAS BEEN DRAWN IN QUESTION. 

PETITIONERS IN NO. 329 ARE THE UNION AND ITS OFFICERS WHO REPRESENT
THE EMPLOYEES OF THE MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND TRANSPORT COMPANY
OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, FOR COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING PURPOSES.  FN2 FOR
MANY YEARS, THE TRANSIT WORKERS ENTERED INTO COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS WITH THE TRANSIT COMPANY WITHOUT RESORTING TO STRIKE.  IN
1948, HOWEVER, THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WAS TERMINATED WHEN THE PARTIES
WERE UNABLE TO AGREE ON WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS AND THE
TRANSIT WORKERS' UNION CALLED A STRIKE TO ENFORCE UNION DEMANDS.  THE
RESPONDENT WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD SECURED IMMEDIATELY AN
EX PARTE ORDER FROM A STATE CIRCUIT COURT RESTRAINING THE STRIKE AND,
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT ORDER, THE UNION POSTPONED ITS STRIKE. 
THEREAFTER, THE SAME CIRCUIT COURT ENTERED A JUDGMENT UNDER WHICH
PETITIONERS ARE "PERPETUALLY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED FROM CALLING A
STRIKE  ...  WHICH WOULD CAUSE AN INTERRUPTION OF THE PASSENGER SERVICE
OF THE (TRANSIT COMPANY)."  THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT, 257 WIS. 43, 42 N.W.2D 471(1950), AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
340 U.S. 874(1950), TO REVIEW THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS DECIDED BELOW. 

PETITIONERS IN NO. 438 ARE THE UNION AND ITS OFFICERS WHO REPRESENT
EMPLOYEES OF THE MILWAUKEE GAS LIGHT COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARY, THE
MILWAUKEE SOLVAY COKE COMPANY, BOTH OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, PURSUANT
TO A CERTIFICATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  FN3  IN
1949, THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND THE GAS COMPANY
WAS TERMINATED AND, UPON FAILURE OF FURTHER BARGAINING AND CONCILIATION
TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE, A STRIKE WAS CALLED AND THE GAS WORKERS LEFT
THEIR JOBS.  RESPONDENT WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD OBTAINED
FORTHWITH AN EX PARTE RESTRAINING ORDER FROM A STATE CIRCUIT COURT
REQUIRING THAT PETITIONERS "ABSOLUTELY DESIST AND REFRAIN FROM CALLING
A STRIKE (OR) GOING OUT ON STRIKE  ...  WHICH WOULD CAUSE AN
INTERRUPTION OF THE SERVICE OF THE (GAS COMPANY)" AND ORDERING
PETITIONERS TO "TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO NOTIFY ALL EMPLOYES CALLED OUT
ON STRIKE TO RESUME SERVICE FORTHWITH."  ALTHOUGH THE STRIKE WAS
SETTLED SOON THEREAFTER, THE CIRCUIT COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONERS HAD
NOT OBEYED THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND ENTERED A JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT,
IMPOSING FINES OF $250 UPON EACH PETITIONER.  THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT AFFIRMED THAT JUDGMENT, 258 WIS. 1, 44 N.W.2D 547(1950), AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 903(1950), SINCE THIS CASE RAISES THE SAME
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS AS THOSE BEFORE THE COURT IN NO. 329. 

THE INJUNCTIONS WERE ISSUED IN EACH CASE UPON THE COMPLAINT OF THE
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, CHARGED BY STATUTE WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI-STRIKE LAW.  THAT ACT VESTS IN
THE STATE CIRCUIT COURTS JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT,
WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC. 111.63, THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION INVOLVED IN
THESE CASES PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY GROUP OF EMPLOYES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY
EMPLOYER ACTING IN CONCERT TO CALL A STRIKE OR TO GO OUT ON STRIKE, OR
TO CAUSE ANY WORK STOPPAGE OR SLOWDOWN WHICH WOULD CAUSE AN
INTERRUPTION OF AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE; IT ALSO SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
PUBLIC UTILITY EMPLOYER TO LOCK OUT HIS EMPLOYES WHEN SUCH ACTION WOULD
CAUSE AN INTERRUPTION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICE; AND IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL
FOR ANY PERSON OR PERSONS TO INSTIGATE, TO INDUCE, TO CONSPIRE WITH, OR
TO ENCOURAGE ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS TO ENGAGE IN ANY STRIKE OR
LOCKOUT OR SLOWDOWN OR WORK STOPPAGE WHICH WOULD CAUSE AN INTERRUPTION
OF AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE.  ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION BY ANY MEMBER
OF A GROUP OF EMPLOYES ACTING IN CONCERT OR BY ANY EMPLOYER OR BY ANY
OFFICER OF AN EMPLOYER ACTING FOR SUCH EMPLOYER, OR BY ANY OTHER
INDIVIDUAL, SHALL CONSTITUTE A MISDEMEANOR."  WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC.
111.62.  FN4  THIS PROVISION IS PART OF A STATUTORY PATTERN DESIGNED TO
BECOME EFFECTIVE WHENEVER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RESULTS IN AN "IMPASSE
AND STALEMATE" LIKELY TO CAUSE INTERRUPTION OF THE SUPPLY OF AN
"ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE," WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC. 111.50, THAT
SERVICE INCLUDING WATER, HEAT, GAS, ELECTRIC POWER, PUBLIC PASSENGER
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS.  ID., SEC. 111.51.  WHENEVER SUCH AN
"IMPASSE" OCCURS, THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD IS EMPOWERED
TO APPOINT A CONCILIATOR TO MEET WITH THE PARTIES IN AN EFFORT TO
SETTLE THE DISPUTE.  ID., SEC. 111.54.  IN THE EVENT OF A FAILURE OF
CONCILIATION, THE BOARD IS DIRECTED TO SELECT ARBITRATORS WHO SHALL
"HEAR AND DETERMINE" THE DISPUTE.  ID., SEC. 111.55.  THE ACT
ESTABLISHES STANDARDS TO GOVERN THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATORS, ID.,
SECS. 111.57-111.58, AND PROVIDES THAT THE ORDER OF THE ARBITRATORS
SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING UPON THE PARTIES, ID., SEC. 111.59, SUBJECT
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, ID., SEC. 111.60.  IN SUMMARY, THE ACT SUBSTITUTES
ARBITRATION UPON ORDER OF THE BOARD FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHENEVER
AN IMPASSE IS REACHED IN THE BARGAINING PROCESS.  AND, TO INSURE
CONFORMITY WITH THE STATUTORY SCHEME, WISCONSIN DENIES TO UTILITY
EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO STRIKE. 

IN UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI-STRIKE
ACT, THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF UTILITY
SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE PLENARY POWER WHICH A STATE IS
ACCUSTOMED TO EXERCISE OVER SUCH ENTERPRISES.  PETITIONERS' CLAIM THAT
THE WISCONSIN LAW CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (ART. I, SEC. 8) WAS OVERRULED, AS
WERE PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS THAT THE WISCONSIN ACT VIOLATES THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE THIRTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  RESPONDENTS CONTROVERT EACH OF THESE CONTENTIONS AND, APART
FROM THE QUESTIONS OF RES JUDICATA DISCUSSED IN NO. 302, DECIDED THIS
DAY, POST, P. 411, RAISE NO OTHER GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENTS
BELOW.  WE DEAL ONLY WITH THE QUESTION OF CONFLICTING FEDERAL
LEGISLATION AS WE HAVE FOUND THAT ISSUE DISPOSITIVE OF BOTH CASES. 

FIRST.  WE HAVE RECENTLY EXAMINED THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS
REGULATED PEACEFUL STRIKES FOR HIGHER WAGES IN INDUSTRIES AFFECTING
COMMERCE.  AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. O'BRIEN, 339 U.S. 454(1950).  WE NOTED
THAT CONGRESS, IN SEC. 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF 1935,
FN5  AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947,  FN6
EXPRESSLY SAFEGUARDED FOR EMPLOYEES IN SUCH INDUSTRIES THE "RIGHT  ...
TO ENGAGE IN  ...  CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION,"  FN7  "E.G., TO
STRIKE."  FN8 WE ALSO LISTED THE QUALIFICATIONS AND REGULATIONS WHICH
CONGRESS ITSELF HAS IMPOSED UPON ITS GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO STRIKE,
INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS THAT NOTICE BE GIVEN PRIOR TO ANY STRIKE UPON
TERMINATION OF A CONTRACT,  FN9  PROHIBITIONS ON STRIKES FOR CERTAIN
OBJECTIVES DECLARED UNLAWFUL BY CONGRESS N10, AND SPECIAL PROCEDURES
FOR CERTAIN STRIKES WHICH MIGHT CREATE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES.  FN11
UPON REVIEW OF THESE FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS, WE HELD, 339 U.S.
AT 457: 

"NONE OF THESE SECTIONS CAN BE READ AS PERMITTING CONCURRENT STATE
REGULATION OF PEACEFUL STRIKES FOR HIGHER WAGES.  CONGRESS OCCUPIED
THIS FIELD AND CLOSED IT TO STATE REGULATION.  PLANKINTON PACKING CO.
V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 338 U.S. 953(1950); LA CROSSE TELEPHONE CORP. V.
WISCONSIN BOARD, 336 U.S. 18(1949); BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK
LABOR BOARD, 330 U.S. 767(1947); HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538(1945)." 
FN12 

SECOND.  THE WISCONSIN COURT SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH AUTOMOBILE WORKERS
V. O'BRIEN, SUPRA, ON THE GROUND THAT THE INDUSTRY TO WHICH MICHIGAN
APPLIED ITS NOTICE AND STRIKE-VOTE PROVISIONS WAS A NATIONAL
MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION RATHER THAN A LOCAL PUBLIC UTILITY. 
CONGRESS DREW NO SUCH DISTINCTION BUT, INSTEAD, SAW FIT TO REGULATE
LABOR RELATIONS TO THE FULL EXTENT OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601,
607(1939).  EVER SINCE THE QUESTION WAS FULLY ARGUED AND DECIDED IN
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197(1938), IT HAS BEEN
CLEAR THAT FEDERAL LABOR LEGISLATION, ENCOMPASSING AS IT DOES ALL
INDUSTRIES "AFFECTING COMMERCE," APPLIES TO A PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLIC
UTILITY WHOSE BUSINESS AND ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED ON WHOLLY WITHIN A
SINGLE STATE.  THE COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE UNIFORMLY HELD ENTERPRISES
SIMILAR TO AND NO MORE IMPORTANT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN THE
MILWAUKEE GAS AND TRANSIT COMPANIES BEFORE US IN THESE CASES SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL LABOR LAW.  FN13  NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND NATIONAL MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATIONS HAS BEEN
DRAWN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT,  FN14  AND, WHEN
SEPARATE TREATMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES WAS URGED UPON CONGRESS IN
1947, THE SUGGESTED DIFFERENTIATION WAS EXPRESSLY REJECTED.  FN15
CREATION OF A SPECIAL CLASSIFICATION FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES IS FOR
CONGRESS, NOT FOR THIS COURT. 

THIRD.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, IN 1947 CONGRESS ENACTED SPECIAL PROCEDURES
TO DEAL WITH STRIKES WHICH MIGHT CREATE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES.  FN16
RESPONDENTS RELY UPON THAT ACTION AS SHOWING A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO
CARVE OUT A SEPARATE FIELD OF "EMERGENCY" LABOR DISPUTES AND, POINTING
TO THE FACT THAT CONGRESS ACTED ONLY IN RESPECT TO "NATIONAL
EMERGENCIES," RESPONDENTS ASK US TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS INTENDED, BY
SILENCE, TO LEAVE THE STATES FREE TO REGULATE "LOCAL EMERGENCY"
DISPUTES.  HOWEVER, THE WISCONSIN ACT BEFORE US IS NOT "EMERGENCY"
LEGISLATION BUT A COMPREHENSIVE CODE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF LABOR
DISPUTES BETWEEN PUBLIC-UTILITY EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES N17.  FAR FROM
BEING LIMITED TO "LOCAL EMERGENCIES," THE ACT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO
DISPUTES NATIONAL IN SCOPE, FN18  AND APPLICATION OF THE ACT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THE EXISTENCE OF AN "EMERGENCY."  FN19  IN ANY EVENT,
CONGRESSIONAL IMPOSITION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON PETITIONERS' RIGHT
TO STRIKE, FAR FROM SUPPORTING THE WISCONSIN ACT, SHOWS THAT CONGRESS
HAS CLOSED TO STATE REGULATION THE FIELD OF PEACEFUL STRIKES IN
INDUSTRIES AFFECTING COMMERCE.  AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. O'BRIEN, SUPRA,
AT 457.  AND WHERE, AS HERE, THE STATE SEEKS TO DENY ENTIRELY A
FEDERALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT WHICH CONGRESS ITSELF RESTRICTED ONLY TO A
LIMITED EXTENT IN CASE OF NATIONAL EMERGENCIES, HOWEVER SERIOUS, IT IS
MANIFEST THAT THE STATE LEGISLATION IS IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW. 

LIKE THE MAJORITY STRIKE-VOTE PROVISION CONSIDERED IN O'BRIEN, A
PROPOSAL THAT THE RIGHT TO STRIKE BE DENIED, TOGETHER WITH THE
SUBSTITUTION OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION IN CASES OF "PUBLIC
EMERGENCIES," LOCAL OR NATIONAL, WAS BEFORE CONGRESS IN 1947.  FN20
THIS PROPOSAL, CLOSELY RESEMBLING THE PATTERN OF THE WISCONSIN ACT, WAS
REJECTED BY CONGRESS AS BEING INCONSISTENT WITH ITS POLICY IN RESPECT
TO ENTERPRISES COVERED BY THE FEDERAL ACT, AND NOT BECAUSE OF ANY
DESIRE TO LEAVE THE STATES FREE TO ADOPT IT. FN21  MICHIGAN, IN
O'BRIEN, SOUGHT TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND NOW
WISCONSIN SEEKS TO ABROGATE THAT RIGHT ALTOGETHER INSOFAR AS
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.  FN22  SUCH STATE LEGISLATION MUST YIELD AS
CONFLICTING WITH THE EXERCISE OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED LABOR RIGHTS. 

FOURTH.  MUCH OF THE ARGUMENT GENERATED BY THESE CASES HAS BEEN
CONSIDERABLY BROADER THAN THE LEGAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 

THE UTILITY COMPANIES, THE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND OTHER STATES AS
AMICI STRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF GAS AND TRANSIT SERVICE TO THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY AND URGE THAT PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL PROBLEMS ARE BEST LEFT TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY FOR SOLUTION.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
PETITIONERS AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AS AMICUS, ARGUE
THAT PROHIBITION OF STRIKES WITH RELIANCE UPON COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
FOR ULTIMATE SOLUTION OF LABOR DISPUTES DESTROYS THE FREE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING DECLARED BY CONGRESS TO BE THE BULWARK OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
POLICY.  THIS, IT IS SAID, LEADS TO MORE LABOR UNREST AND DISRUPTION OF
SERVICE THAN IS NOW EXPERIENCED UNDER A SYSTEM OF FREE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ACCOMPANIED BY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE.  THE VERY NATURE OF THE
DEBATABLE POLICY QUESTIONS RAISED BY THESE CONTENTIONS CONVINCES US
THAT THEY CANNOT PROPERLY BE RESOLVED BY THE COURT.  IN OUR VIEW, THESE
QUESTIONS ARE FOR LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION AND HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY
CONGRESS ADVERSELY TO RESPONDENTS. 

WHEN IT AMENDED THE FEDERAL ACT IN 1947, CONGRESS WAS NOT ONLY
COGNIZANT OF THE POLICY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ARGUED BEFORE US IN
THESE CASES, BUT IT WAS ALSO WELL AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS IN BALANCING
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIPS WHICH ITS 1935 LEGISLATION HAD RAISED.  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1947 ACT REFERS TO THE DECISION OF THIS
COURT IN BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK LABOR BOARD, 330 U.S.
767(1947), AND, IN ITS HANDLING OF THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY THAT CASE,
CONGRESS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT KNEW HOW TO CEDE JURISDICTION TO THE
STATES.  FN23  CONGRESS KNEW FULL WELL THAT ITS LABOR LEGISLATION
"PREEMPTS THE FIELD THAT THE ACT COVERS INSOFAR AS COMMERCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED"  FN24  AND DEMONSTRATED ITS ABILITY TO
SPELL OUT WITH PARTICULARITY THOSE AREAS IN WHICH IT DESIRED STATE
REGULATION TO BE OPERATIVE.  FN25  THIS COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
JUDICIAL FUNCTION, MUST TAKE THE COMPREHENSIVE AND VALID FEDERAL
LEGISLATION AS ENACTED AND DECLARE INVALID STATE REGULATION WHICH
IMPINGES ON THAT LEGISLATION. 

FIFTH.  IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO STATE THAT THE WISCONSIN ACT, IN
FORBIDDING PEACEFUL STRIKES FOR HIGHER WAGES IN INDUSTRIES COVERED BY
THE FEDERAL ACT, HAS FORBIDDEN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS PROTECTED BY SEC.
7 OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  IN ADDITION, IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO VISUALIZE
SITUATIONS IN WHICH APPLICATION OF THE WISCONSIN ACT WOULD WORK AT
CROSS-PURPOSES WITH OTHER POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL ACT.  BUT WE CONTENT
OURSELVES WITH CITATION OF EXAMPLES OF DIRECT CONFLICT FOUND IN THE
RECORDS BEFORE US.  IN THE CASE OF THE TRANSIT WORKERS, THE UNION
AGREED TO CONTINUE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AFTER THE STRIKE BECAME
IMMINENT, WHEREAS THE COMPANY INSISTED UPON INVOCATION OF THE
COMPULSORY ARBITRATION FEATURES OF THE WISCONSIN ACT.  THAT ACT
REQUIRES THAT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTINUE UNTIL AN "IMPASSE" IS
REACHED, WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC. 111.52, WHEREAS THE FEDERAL ACT
REQUIRES THAT BOTH EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY,  FN26 EVEN THOUGH A STRIKE MAY ACTUALLY BE IN PROGRESS. 
LABOR BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO., 304 U.S. 333, 345(1938). 
FURTHER, THE TRANSIT COMPANY WAS ABLE TO AVOID ENTIRELY ANY
DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN UNION DEMANDS WHEN THE ARBITRATORS, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC. 111.58, RULED THAT THE MATTER OF
ASSIGNING OF WORKERS TO CERTAIN SHIFTS "INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHT OF THE
MEPLOYER TO MANAGE HIS BUSINESS."  YET SIMILAR PROBLEMS OF WORK
SCHEDULING AND SHIFT ASSIGNMENT HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE APPROPRIATE
SUBJECTS FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT AS
ADMINISTERED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  SEE WOODSIDE
COTTON MILLS CO., 21 N.L.R.B. 42, 54-55(1940); AMERICAN NATIONAL INS.
CO., 89 N.L.R.B. 185(1950), AND CASES CITED THEREIN. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF 1935 AND THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, PASSED BY CONGRESS PURSUANT TO ITS POWERS UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND UNDER ART. VI OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  HAVING FOUND THAT THE WISCONSIN PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI
STRIKE LAW CONFLICTS WITH THAT FEDERAL LEGISLATION, THE JUDGMENTS
ENFORCING THE WISCONSIN ACT CANNOT STAND.  REVERSED. 

FN1  WIS. STAT., 1949, SECS. 111.50 ET SEQ. 

FN2  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS EXERCISED JURISDICTION
OVER THE TRANSIT COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES IN CONDUCTING A SO-CALLED
UNION SHOP ELECTION PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(E)(1) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 159(E)(1).  THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS PRESENTLY INVESTIGATING A CHARGE
FILED BY THE TRANSIT WORKERS' UNION IN RESPECT TO AN ALLEGED UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN RESPECT TO THE
CONTROVERSY OUT OF WHICH THIS CASE AROSE. 

FN3  MILWAUKEE GAS LIGHT CO., 50 N.L.R.B. 809, AS AMENDED, 52
N.L.R.B. 1213(1943).  THE N.L.R.B. HAS ALSO CONDUCTED A UNION SHOP
ELECTION UNDER SEC. 9(E)(1) OF THE FEDERAL ACT, SUPRA, NOTE 2, IN
RESPECT TO THE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES OF THE GAS COMPANY.  AND A UNION
COMPLAINT THAT THE GAS COMPANY COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN
RESPECT TO THE DISPUTE OUT OF WHICH THIS PROCEEDING AROSE HAS BEEN
FILED WITH THE N.L.R.B. 

FN4 UNDER WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC. 111.64, THE FOLLOWING IS APPLICABLE
TO THE ABOVE PROVISION: 

"NOTHING IN THIS SUBCHAPTER SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE ANY
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYE TO RENDER LABOR OR SERVICE WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, OR
TO MAKE ILLEGAL THE QUITTING OF HIS LABOR OR SERVICE OR THE WITHDRAWAL
FROM HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT UNLESS DONE IN CONCERT OR AGREEMENT WITH
OTHERS.  NO COURT SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE ANY PROCESS TO COMPEL AN
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYE TO RENDER LABOR OR SERVICE OR TO REMAIN AT HIS PLACE
OF EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT HIS CONSENT.  IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS SUBCHAPTER
ONLY TO FORBID EMPLOYES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EMPLOYER TO ENGAGE IN A
STRIKE OR TO ENGAGE IN A WORK SLOWDOWN OR STOPPAGE IN CONCERT, AND TO
FORBID A PUBLIC UTILITY EMPLOYER TO LOCK OUT HIS EMPLOYES, WHERE SUCH
ACTS WOULD CAUSE AN INTERRUPTION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICE." 

WE HAVE BEFORE US, THEN, A STATUTE AIMED ONLY AT "CONCERTED"
ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITY EMPLOYEES. 

FN5  49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN6  61 STAT. 136, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 141 ET SEQ. 

FN7  SECTION 7 OF BOTH ACTS, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 157.  SEE
ALSO SECS. 2(3) AND 13, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 152(3), 163; S.
REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8-9(1935); HOUSE CONF. REP. NO.
510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 38(1947). 

IN THE "DECLARATION OF POLICY" OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT
OF 1947, CONGRESS STATED: 

"IT IS THE PURPOSE AND POLICY OF THIS ACT, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE
FULL FLOW OF COMMERCE, TO PRESCRIBE THE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS OF BOTH
EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS IN THEIR RELATIONS AFFECTING COMMERCE  ...  "
29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 141(B). 

THE "FINDINGS AND POLICIES" OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
PROVIDES, INTER ALIA: 

"IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO
ELIMINATE THE CAUSES OF CERTAIN SUBSTANTIAL OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE
FLOW OF COMMERCE AND TO MITIGATE AND ELIMINATE THESE OBSTRUCTIONS WHEN
THEY HAVE OCCURRED BY ENCOURAGING THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND BY PROTECTING THE EXERCISE BY WORKERS OF FULL
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION, AND DESIGNATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR
PROTECTION."  49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 151. 

FN8  H.R. REP. NO. 245, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 26(1947). 

FN9  SECTION 8(D) OF THE 1947 ACT, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
158(D).  PETITIONERS IN BOTH CASES HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS BEFORE STRIKE ACTION WAS TAKEN. 

FN10  SECTION 8(B)(4) OF THE 1947 ACT, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
158(B)(4).  SEE ALSO SECS. 10(J) AND 10(1), 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS.
160(J), 160(1), EMPOWERING AND DIRECTING THE N.L.R.B. TO OBTAIN
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST SUCH UNLAWFUL STRIKES. 

FN11  SECTIONS 206-210 OF THE 1947 ACT, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS.
176-180. 

FN12  OUR DECISION IN O'BRIEN, SUPRA, FOLLOWED SHORTLY AFTER OUR
REVERSAL, PER CURIAM, IN PLANKINTON PACKING CO., SUPRA, WHERE THE
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD HAD, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
STATE SUPREME COURT, ORDERED REINSTATEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE DISCHARGED
BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO JOIN A UNION, EVEN THOUGH HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS
NOT COVERED BY A UNION SHOP OR SIMILAR CONTRACT.  SECTION 7 OF THE
LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT NOT ONLY GUARANTEES THE RIGHT OF SELF
ORGANIZATION AND THE RIGHT TO STRIKE, BUT ALSO GUARANTEES TO INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES THE "RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM ANY OR ALL OF SUCH ACTIVITIES," AT
LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF A UNION SHOP OR SIMILAR CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT
APPLICABLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL.  SINCE THE N.L. R.B. WAS GIVEN
JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES, IT WAS CLEAR THAT
THE FEDERAL ACT HAD OCCUPIED THIS FIELD TO THE EXCLUSION OF STATE
REGULATION.  PLANKINTON AND O'BRIEN BOTH SHOW THAT STATES MAY NOT
REGULATE IN RESPECT TO RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY CONGRESS IN SEC. 7. 

FN13  E.G., LABOR BOARD V. BALTIMORE TRANSIT CO., 140 F.2D 51, 53
54(C.A.4TH CIR., 1944)(LOCAL TRANSIT COMPANY); PUEBLO GAS & FUEL CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 118 F.2D 304, 305-306(C.A. 10TH CIR., 1941)(LOCAL GAS
COMPANY); LABOR BOARD V. WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC CO., 120 F.2D
455, 456-457(C.A. 1ST CIR., 1941); LABOR BOARD V. GULF PUBLIC SERVICE
CO., 116 F.2D 852, 854(C.A.5TH CIR., 1941); CONSUMERS POWER CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 113 F.2D 38, 39-41(C.A.6TH CIR., 1940); SOUTHERN COLORADO
POWER CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 111 F.2D 539, 541-543(C.A. 10TH CIR.,
1940)(LOCAL POWER COMPANIES).  SEE ALSO VIRGINIA ELEC.  & POWER CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 115 F.2D 414, 415-416(C.A.4TH CIR., 1940), UPHELD ON THE
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IN LABOR BOARD V. VIRGINIA ELEC.  & POWER CO.,
314 U.S. 469, 476(1941). 

THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL LABOR LAWS TO LOCAL
UTILITIES IS RARELY LITIGATED TODAY.  THE MILWAUKEE GAS LIGHT COMPANY,
EMPLOYER IN NO. 438, CONCEDED BEFORE THE N.L.R.B. THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  50 N.L.R.B. 809,
810(1943). 

IN 1947, IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THE COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL ACT BE
LIMITED SO AS TO EXCLUDE UTILITIES AND OTHER ENTERPRISES WHOSE
PRODUCTIVE EFFORT DID NOT EXTEND ACROSS STATE LINES.  H.R. 1095, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 2(B).  CONGRESS DID NOT ADOPT ANY SUCH
LIMITATION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, BUT,
INSTEAD, AMENDED THAT ACT WITH FULL APPRECIATION OF THE EXTENT OF ITS
COVERAGE.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 245, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 40, 44(1947);
S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 26(1947); H.R. CONF. REP. NO.
510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 60(1947). 

FN14  THE N.L.R.B. HAS SPECIFICALLY REJECTED THE SUGGESTION THAT IN
GRANTING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE OR IN THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL
ACT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THERE BE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC
UTILITY EMPLOYEES AND THOSE OTHERWISE EMPLOYED.  EL PASO ELECTRIC CO.,
13 N.L.R.B. 213, 240(1939), ENFORCED IN EL PASO ELECTRIC CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 119 F.2D 581(C.A.5TH CIR., 1941). 

IN A RECENT STATEMENT OF POLICY, THE N.L.R.B. DECLARED THAT, IN VIEW
OF THE "IMPORTANT IMPACT ON COMMERCE," JURISDICTION WILL BE EXERCISED
IN "ALL CASES" INVOLVING THE TYPE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES BEFORE US IN
THESE CASES.  LOCAL TRANSIT LINES, 91 N.L.R.B. 623, 26 LRR MAN. 
1547(1950). 

FN15  93 CONG. REC. 3835(1947), STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAFT, QUOTED IN
NOTE 21, INFRA.  THE CASE BILL, H.R. 4908, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1946),
PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS DURING THE SESSION IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE ENACTMENT OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947,
PROPOSED SPECIAL TECHNIQUES, INCLUDING A TEMPORARY DENIAL OF THE RIGHT
TO STRIKE, IN CONNECTION WITH "LABOR DISPUTES) AFFECTING COMMERCE,
INVOLVING A PUBLIC UTILITY WHOSE RATES ARE FIXED BY SOME GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY."  SEC. 6(A).  IN HIS VETO MESSAGE, THE PRESIDENT CRITICIZED THE
SPECIAL TREATMENT ACCORDED TO PUBLIC UTILITIES, 92 CONG. REC. 6674,
6676, (1946).  CONGRESS DID NOT OVERRIDE THE VETO AND, WHILE SUCH
SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES WAS AGAIN PROPOSED IN 1947, NOTE
16, INFRA, NO SUCH DISTINCTION IS FOUND IN THE 1947 LEGISLATION AS
FINALLY ENACTED BY CONGRESS. 

FN16  SECTIONS 206-210 OF THE 1947 ACT, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS.
176-180.  THESE SO-CALLED NATIONAL EMERGENCY PROVISIONS CALL FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF A BOARD OF INQUIRY TO REPORT THE FACTS OF THE DISPUTE,
FOLLOWED BY A VOTE OF THE EMPLOYEES ON WHETHER TO STRIKE.  AN
INJUNCTION TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO FOR A LIMITED PERIOD PENDING THE
EXHAUSTION OF THESE REMEDIES IS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT. 

THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, H.R.
3020, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., CONTAINED A BROADER PROVISION CALLING FOR
A TEMPORARY PROHIBITION ON STRIKES WHENEVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN AN
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICE WAS THREATENED, DURING WHICH TIME AN ADVISORY
SETTLEMENT BOARD WOULD RECOMMEND SPECIFIC TERMS FOR SETTLEMENT.  A
SIMILAR PLAN WAS PROPOSED ON A TEMPORARY BASIS IN H.R. 2861, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., AND APPROVED BY H.R. REP. NO. 235, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. (1947).  THIS PLAN WAS REJECTED IN FAVOR OF THE SENATE VERSION
WHICH PERMITTED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STRIKES ONLY WHEN THE
"NATIONAL HEALTH OR SAFETY" WAS IMPERILED AND THEN ONLY WHILE A BOARD
OF INQUIRY SIFTED THE FACTS WITHOUT MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.  H.R. CONF.
REP. NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 63-64(1947). 

FN17  THE WISCONSIN ACT APPLIES GENERALLY TO "LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN
PUBLIC UTILITY EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYES WHICH CAUSE OR THREATEN TO
CAUSE AN INTERRUPTION IN THE SUPPLY OF AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITY
SERVICE."  WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC. 111.50. 

FN18  COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O., DIV. 23, AND
WISCONSIN TELEPHONE CO., WIS. E.R.B. DECISION NO. 2358-C (1950),
(ARBITRATORS APPOINTED TO DETERMINE THE WISCONSIN PHASE OF THE NATIONAL
TELEPHONE STRIKE THREATENED IN THE SPRING OF 1950). 

FN19  FAR FROM BEING LEGISLATION AIMED AT "EMERGENCIES," THE
WISCONSIN ACT HAS BEEN INVOKED TO AVERT A THREATENED STRIKE OF CLERICAL
WORKERS OF A UTILITY.  WISCONSIN TELEPHONE CLERICAL UNION AND WISCONSIN
TELEPHONE CO., WIS. E.R.B. CASE NO. 2273 PU-9(1949).  SEE WISCONSIN
TELEPHONE CO. V. WISCONSIN E.R.B., 253 WIS. 584, 34 N.W.2D 844(1948),
WHERE THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO SET ASIDE THE BOARD ORDER
APPOINTING A CONCILIATOR IN THE SAME PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND THAT THE
ORDER WAS NOT APPEALABLE. 

FN20 H.R. 17; H.R. 34; H.R. 68; H.R. 75; H.R. 76, ALL OF THE 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.  IN ADDITION TO GRANTING FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO BAN
STRIKES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, SEC. 6(A) OF EACH ACT WOULD HAVE
PERMITTED THE OPERATION OF STATE ANTI-STRIKE LEGISLATION.  THIS
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL IS DISCUSSED BY REPRESENTATIVE CASE IN 93 CONG.
REC. A1007-A1009(1947). 

SEE ALSO THE OTHER PROPOSALS BEFORE THE SAME SESSION OF CONGRESS TO
DENY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE IN SPECIFIED INSTANCES.  H.R. 90 AND H.R.
1095, BOTH OF THE 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.    FN21  THE REASONING BEHIND
THE CONGRESSIONAL REJECTION OF ANY PROPOSALS SIMILAR TO THE WISCONSIN
ACT WAS STATED BY SENATOR TAFT AS FOLLOWS, 93 CONG. REC. 3835
3836(1947): 

"BASICALLY, I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEE FEELS, ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY,
THAT THE SOLUTION OF OUR LABOR PROBLEMS MUST REST ON A FREE ECONOMY AND
ON FREE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE BILL IS CERTAINLY BASED UPON THAT
PROPOSITION.  THAT MEANS THAT WE RECOGNIZE FREEDOM TO STRIKE WHEN THE
QUESTION INVOLVED IS THE IMPROVEMENT OF WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING
CONDITIONS, WHEN A CONTRACT HAS EXPIRED AND NEITHER SIDE IS BOUND BY A
CONTRACT.  WE RECOGNIZE THAT RIGHT IN SPITE OF THE INCONVENIENCE, AND
IN SOME CASES PERHAPS DANGER, TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH
MAY RESULT FROM THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHT.  IN THE LONG RUN, I DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THAT RIGHT WILL BE ABUSED.  IN THE PAST FEW DISPUTES
FINALLY REACHED THE POINT WHERE THERE WAS A DIRECT THREAT TO AND
DEFIANCE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RIGHT TO STRIKE CAN BE
MODIFIED.  I THINK IT CAN BE MODIFIED IN CASES WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE THE
BASIC QUESTION OF WAGES, PRICES, AND WORKING CONDITIONS.  BUT IF WE
IMPOSE COMPULSORY ARBITRATION, OR IF WE GIVE THE GOVERNMENT POWER TO
FIX WAGES AT WHICH MEN MUST WORK FOR ANOTHER YEAR OR FOR TWO YEARS TO
COME, I DO NOT SEE HOW IN THE END WE CAN ESCAPE A COLLECTIVE ECONOMY. 
IF WE GIVE THE GOVERNMENT POWER TO FIX WAGES, I DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN
TAKE FROM THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO FIX PRICES; AND IF THE GOVERNMENT
FIXES WAGES AND PRICES, WE SOON REACH THE POINT WHERE ALL INDUSTRY IS
UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL, AND FINALLY THERE IS A COMPLETE SOCIALIZATION
OF OUR ECONOMY. 

"I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT SO FAR AS POSSIBLE WE SHOULD AVOID ANY
SYSTEM WHICH ATTEMPTS TO GIVE TO THE GOVERNMENT THIS POWER FINALLY TO
FIX THE WAGES OF ANY MAN.  CAN WE DO SO CONSTITUTIONALLY?  CAN WE SAY
TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, 'YOU MUST WORK AT WAGES FIXED
BY THE GOVERNMENT'?  I THINK IT IS A LONG STEP FROM FREEDOM AND A LONG
STEP FROM A FREE ECONOMY TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT SUCH A RIGHT. 

"IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WE MIGHT DO SO IN THE CASE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES;
AND I SUPPOSE THE ARGUMENT IS STRONGER THERE, BECAUSE WE FIX THE RATES
OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND WE MIGHT, I SUPPOSE, FIX THE WAGES OF PUBLIC
UTILITY WORKERS.  YET WE HAVE HESITATED TO EMBARK EVEN ON THAT COURSE,
BECAUSE IF WE ONCE BEGIN A PROCESS OF THE GOVERNMENT FIXING WAGES, IT
MUST END IN MORE AND MORE WAGE FIXING AND FINALLY GOVERNMENT PRICE
FIXING.  IT MAY BE A POPULAR THING TO DO.  TODAY PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK
THAT ALL THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO DO IS TO FORBID STRIKES, FIX WAGES,
AND COMPEL MEN TO CONTINUE WORKING, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE HUMAN
AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. 

"IF WE BEGIN WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES, IT WILL BE SAID THAT COAL AND
STEEL ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS PUBLIC UTILITIES.  I DO NOT KNOW WHERE
WE COULD DRAW THE LINE.  SO FAR AS THE BILL IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE
PROCEEDED ON THE THEORY THAT THERE IS A RIGHT TO STRIKE AND THAT LABOR
PEACE MUST BE BASED ON FREE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  WE HAVE DONE
NOTHING TO OUTLAW STRIKES FOR BASIC WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING
CONDITIONS AFTER PROPER OPPORTUNITY FOR MEDIATION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"WE DID NOT FEEL THAT WE SHOULD PUT INTO THE LAW, AS A PART OF THE
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING MACHINERY, AN ULTIMATE RESORT TO COMPULSORY
ARBITRATION, OR TO SEIZURE, OR TO ANY OTHER ACTION.  WE FEEL THAT IT
WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  IF
SUCH A REMEDY IS AVAILABLE AS A ROUTINE REMEDY, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE
PRESSURE TO RESORT TO IT BY WHICHEVER PARTY THINKS IT WILL RECEIVE
BETTER TREATMENT THROUGH SUCH A PROCESS THAN IT WOULD RECEIVE IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND IT WILL BACK OUT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 
IT WILL NOT MAKE A BONA-FIDE ATTEMPT TO SETTLE IF IT THINKS IT WILL
RECEIVE A BETTER DEAL UNDER THE FINAL ARBITRATION WHICH MAY BE
PROVIDED." 

SEE ALSO S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 13-14, 28(1947). 

FN22  CONGRESS DEMONSTRATED ITS ABILITY TO DENY IN EXPRESS TERMS THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE WHEN IT SO DESIRED.  SEE SEC. 305 OF THE 1947 ACT, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 188, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE
UNITED STATES OR ITS AGENCIES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY STRIKE. 

FN23  SECTION 10(A) OF THE 1947 ACT, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
160(A).  A PROVISO OF SEC. 10(A) AUTHORIZES CESSION OF JURISDICTION TO
THE STATES ONLY WHERE THE STATE LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION.  THIS INSURES THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR POLICY WILL NOT BE
THWARTED EVEN IN THE PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL ENTERPRISES TO WHICH THE
PROVISO APPLIES.  S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 26(1947).  SEE
ALSO MINORITY VIEWS TO SAME REPORT, ID., PT. 2, 38, AGREEING AS TO THIS
FEATURE OF THE LEGISLATION. 

FN24  H.R. REP. NO. 245, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 44(1947). 

FN25  SEE SECS. 8(D), 14(B), 202(C) AND 203(B), 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III)
SECS. 158(D), 164(B), 172(C), AND 173(B), IN ADDITION TO SEC. 10(A) OF
THE 1947 ACT FOR EXAMPLES OF CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AS TO THE ROLE
THAT STATES WERE TO PLAY IN THE AREA OF LABOR REGULATION COVERED BY THE
FEDERAL ACT.  AND SECS. 2(2) AND 2(3) OF THE FEDERAL ACT, 29 U.S.C.
(SUPP. III) SECS. 152(2), 152(3), SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE FROM ITS
OPERATION THE EMPLOYEES OF "ANY STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
THEREOF." 

FN26  SECS. 8(A)(5) AND 8(B)(3); 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS.
158(A)(5), 158(B)(3). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

WISCONSIN HAS PROVIDED THAT LABOR DISPUTES IN PUBLIC UTILITIES SHALL
BE RESOLVED BY CONCILIATION OR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION IF: 

(1)  AFTER EXERTING "EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO SETTLE LABOR
DISPUTES" BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, THE PARTIES HAVE REACHED A "STATE
OF IMPASSE AND STALEMATE," AND 

(2)  THE LABOR DISPUTE, IF NOT SETTLED, IS "LIKELY TO CAUSE
INTERRUPTION OF THE SUPPLY OF AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE." 
WIS. STAT., 1949, SECS. 111.50-111.65.  FN1 

IN THE CASES BEFORE US, THE STATUTE HAS BEEN APPLIED TO PREVENT A
HALT IN SERVICE BY TWO UTILITY COMPANIES.  FN2  ONE FURNISHES HEATING
AND ILLUMINATING GAS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
MILWAUKEE.  THE OTHER PROVIDES BUS AND STREETCAR TRANSPORTATION IN THE
SAME AREA.  BOTH THESE COMPANIES GIVE UTILITY SERVICE ONLY WITHIN THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN BUT HAVE BEEN FOUND SUBJECT TO THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT
BECAUSE THEIR ACTIVITIES "AFFECT COMMERCE."  COMPARE CONSOLIDATED
EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197; LA CROSSE TELEPHONE CORP. V.
WISCONSIN BOARD, 336 U.S. 18.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE WISCONSIN
STATUTE, SO APPLIED, CONFLICTS WITH THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, 61 STAT. 136,
29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 141 ET SEQ. 

A CLAIM OF CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL LABOR LEGISLATION
PRESENTS A FAMILIAR PROBLEM.  ON EIGHT OCCASIONS THIS COURT HAS
CONSIDERED WHETHER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, OR ITS PREDECESSOR, THE WAGNER
ACT, 49 STAT. 449, SO COLLIDED WITH STATE LAW AS TO DISPLACE IT.  WE
HAVE SUSTAINED STATE LAWS WHICH DEALT WITH MASS PICKETING AND
INTERMITTENT WORK STOPPAGES.  ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN BOARD,
315 U.S. 740; INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V.
WISCONSIN BOARD, 336 U.S. 245.  WE HAVE ALSO UPHELD A STATE LAW WHICH
REQUIRED A TWO-THIRDS VOTE FOR A MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE IN
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS.  ALGOMA PLYWOOD CO. V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 336 U.S.
301. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE FOUND IN FIVE CASES THAT THE STATE LAW
COULD NOT CONSISTENTLY STAND WITH THE FEDERAL LAW.  IN HILL V. FLORIDA,
325 U.S. 538, THE STATE WAS FOUND TO HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE FREEDOM
IN SELECTING BARGAINING AGENTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL ACT.  IN
BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK BOARD, 330 U.S. 767, THE STATE
RECOGNIZED A FOREMEN'S UNION CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED POLICY OF THE
NATIONAL BOARD.  IN LA CROSSE TELEPHONE CORP. V. WISCONSIN BOARD,
SUPRA, A CONFLICT WAS FOUND IN THE BARGAINING UNITS DETERMINED UNDER
THE STATE AND FEDERAL ACTS.  IN PLANKINTON PACKING CO. V. WISCONSIN
BOARD, 338 U.S. 953, A STATE SUPERIMPOSED UPON FEDERAL OUTLAWRY OF
CONDUCT AS AN "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE" ITS OWN FINDING OF UNFAIRNESS. 
IN INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. O'BRIEN, 339
U.S. 454, A STATE ACT COVERING ALL INDUSTRY PERMITTED STRIKES AT A
DIFFERENT TIME THAN THE FEDERAL ACT AND REQUIRED, UNLIKE FEDERAL LAW, A
MAJORITY AUTHORIZATION FOR ANY STRIKE.  ALSO, THESE PROVISIONS WERE
APPLIED TO ONLY THAT PORTION OF A BARGAINING UNIT, ALREADY DETERMINED
UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT, LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. 

"THE PRINCIPLE IS THOROUGHLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE EXERCISE BY THE
STATE OF ITS POLICE POWER, WHICH WOULD BE VALID IF NOT SUPERSEDED BY
FEDERAL ACTION, IS SUPERSEDED ONLY WHERE THE REPUGNANCE OR CONFLICT IS
SO 'DIRECT AND POSITIVE' THAT THE TWO ACTS CANNOT 'BE RECONCILED OR
CONSISTENTLY STAND TOGETHER.'"  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN KELLY V.
WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10.  IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DECISIONS JUST
CANVASSED THAT THE STATES ARE NOT PRECLUDED FROM ENACTING LAWS ON LABOR
RELATIONS MERELY BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS - TO USE THE CONVENTIONAL PHRASE
ENTERED THE FIELD.  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE BOUNDARIES WITHIN
WHICH A STATE MAY ACT ARE DETERMINED BY THE TERRAIN AND NOT BY ABSTRACT
PROJECTION.  EMPHASIS IN THE OPINIONS HAS VARIED, BUT THE GUIDING
PRINCIPLE IS STILL THAT SET OUT IN THE FIRST IN THE SERIES OF
IMMEDIATELY RELEVANT CASES:  WHETHER "THE STATE SYSTEM OF REGULATION,
AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED HERE, CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE FEDERAL ACT
AND ...  THE TWO AS FOCUSED IN THIS CASE CAN CONSISTENTLY STAND
TOGETHER  ...  "  ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN BOARD, SUPRA, AT
751.  THE ADJUSTMENT THUS CALLED FOR BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL
INTERESTS IS NOT ATTAINED BY RELIANCE ON UNCRITICAL GENERALITIES OR
RHETORICAL PHRASES UNNOURISHED BY THE PARTICULARITIES OF SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS. 

AT THE OUTSET IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT DOES NOT,
IN SPECIFIC TERMS, DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF LOCAL STRIKES IN PUBLIC
UTILITIES EVEN THOUGH SUCH STRIKES, AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
MAY BE BROUGHT UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL.  CONGRESS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
SPECIAL PROVISION FOR SETTLING PUBLIC-UTILITY DISPUTES UNDER FEDERAL
LAW.  SEE STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAFT, 93 CONG. REC. 3835.  SO FAR AS THE
STATUTE AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATE, HOWEVER, CONGRESS DECIDED
NO MORE THAN THAT IT DID NOT WISH TO SUBJECT LOCAL UTILITIES TO THE
CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  DUE REGARD FOR BASIC ELEMENTS IN
OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM MAKES IT APPROPRIATE THAT CONGRESS BE EXPLICIT IF IT
DESIRES TO REMOVE FROM THE ORBIT OF STATE REGULATION MATTERS OF SUCH
INTIMATE CONCERN TO A LOCALITY AS THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF SERVICES
ON WHICH THE DECENT LIFE OF A MODERN COMMUNITY RESTS. 

THE REAL ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATION
SO CONFLICTS WITH THE SPECIFIC TERMS OR THE POLICY FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE THAT THE TWO CANNOT STAND
TOGETHER.  WE ARE FIRST MET WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT
CONCERNING THE "RIGHT" TO STRIKE.  SECTION 7 PROVIDES:  "EMPLOYEES
SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT  ...  TO ENGAGE IN OTHER CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION,
...  "  SECTION 13 PROVIDES:  "NOTHING IN THIS ACT, EXCEPT AS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, SHALL BE CONSTRUED SO AS EITHER TO
INTERFERE WITH OR IMPEDE OR DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE, OR
TO AFFECT THE LIMITATIONS OR QUALIFICATIONS ON THAT RIGHT."  THE WORD
"RIGHT" IS "ONE OF THE MOST DECEPTIVE OF PITFALLS."  MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES, IN AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO. V. FEDERAL BANK, 256 U.S. 350,
358.  WE HAVE SEVERAL TIMES REJECTED AN INVITATION TO DECIDE CASES UPON
THE BASIS OF AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO STRIKE.  IN INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. WISCONSIN BOARD, SUPRA, WE FOUND THERE WAS
NO "RIGHT" TO STRIKE IN VIOLATION OF A STATE LAW CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT
INTERMITTENT WORK STOPPAGES.  IN SOUTHERN STEAMSHIP CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
316 U.S. 31, WE FOUND THERE WAS NO "RIGHT" TO STRIKE IN VIOLATION OF A
FEDERAL MUTINY STATUTE.  IN TWO OTHER CASES WE HELD THAT EMPLOYEES WHO
STRIKE IN VIOLATION OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT OR ENGAGE IN "SIT-DOWN"
STRIKES ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  LABOR BOARD V.
SANDS MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332; LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP.(, 306 U.S.
240.  MAY THE "RIGHT" TO STRIKE BE ALSO LIMITED BY AN OTHERWISE VALID
STATE STATUTE AIMED AT PREVENTING A BREAKDOWN OF PUBLIC-UTILITY
SERVICE? 

"PUBLIC UTILITY EMPLOYER" IS DEFINED IN THE WISCONSIN ACT TO MEAN AN
EMPLOYER "ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FURNISHING WATER, LIGHT, HEAT,
GAS, ELECTRIC POWER, PUBLIC PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION OR COMMUNICATION
...  "  SEC. 111.51.  LABOR RELATIONS IN SUCH UTILITIES HAVE
TRADITIONALLY BEEN SUBJECTED TO REGULATION IN A WAY THAT THOSE IN OTHER
INDUSTRIES HAVE NOT.  SEE WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 349.  COMPARE
CONSPIRACY, AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY ACT, 38 & 39 VICT., C. 86, PAR.
4(1875).  THE RANGE OF CONTROL OVER BUSINESS GENERALLY HAS BEEN GREATLY
EXTENDED BY MODERN LAW.  BUT THE HISTORIC AMENABILITY TO LEGAL CONTROL
OF PUBLIC CALLINGS IS ROOTED DEEP.  SEE WOLFF PACKING CO. V. COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, 262 U.S. 522, 543.  A STOPPAGE IN UTILITY SERVICE
SO CLEARLY INVOLVES THE NEEDS OF A COMMUNITY AS TO EVOKE INSTINCTIVELY
THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT.  THIS COURT SHOULD NOT IGNORE HISTORY AND
ECONOMIC FACTS IN CONSTRUING FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT COMES WITHIN THE
AREA OF INTERACTING STATE AND FEDERAL CONTROL.  TO DERIVE FROM THE
GENERAL LANGUAGE OF THE FEDERAL ACT A "RIGHT" TO STRIKE IN VIOLATION OF
A STATE LAW REGULATING PUBLIC UTILITIES IS TO STRIP FROM WORDS THE
LIMITS INHERENT IN THEIR CONTEXT.    AN ATTEMPT BY A STATE TO IMPOSE
UPON INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE A DRASTIC LIMITATION UPON THE RIGHT TO STRIKE
WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL LAW.  COMPARE UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS
V. O'BRIEN, SUPRA. AND EVEN AS TO EMERGENCY DISPUTES - THOSE INVOLVING
THE OBVIOUS PUBLIC SERVICES - IT MAY BE URGED THAT THE PROSPECT OF
SETTLEMENT BY ARBITRATION MAY TEND TO MAKE ONE OR BOTH PARTIES
RELUCTANT TO REACH AN AGREEMENT BY BARGAINING.  SEE KENNEDY, THE
HANDLING OF EMERGENCY DISPUTES, PROCEEDINGS OF SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RESEARCH ASSN. 14, 21-22(1949). 

BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF HANDS-OFF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS NO MORE
ABSOLUTE THAN THE RIGHT TO STRIKE.  THE "NATIONAL EMERGENCY" PROVISIONS
IN THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT ARE AN AFFIRMATIVE INDICATION THAT THE FORCE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MAY BE LIMITED IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.  TITLE II
OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT PROVIDES FOR SPECIAL MEDIATION PROCEDURES, A
COOLING-OFF PERIOD, AND BALLOT BY EMPLOYEES ON THE FINAL OFFER OF THE
EMPLOYER, IN ORDER TO PREVENT A STRIKE OR LOCKOUT IN "AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY OR A SUBSTANTIAL PART THEREOF" IF NECESSARY TO AVOID PERIL TO
"THE NATIONAL HEALTH OR SAFETY."  SEC. 206.  AND CONGRESS APPARENTLY
EXPECTED THAT ADDITIONAL LAWS WOULD BE ENACTED IF NECESSARY.  FN3  THE
"NATIONAL EMERGENCY" PROVISIONS WERE AIMED AT STRIKES OF NATION-WIDE
SIGNIFICANCE.  THEY HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN EIGHT DISPUTES FROM 1947 TO
1950:  TWICE IN INDUSTRY-WIDE OR COAST-WIDE MARITIME NEGOTIATIONS;
THREE TIMES IN INDUSTRY-WIDE BITUMINOUS-COAL NEGOTIATIONS; AND IN
DISPUTES ARISING IN THE MEAT-PACKING INDUSTRY, THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE
INDUSTRY, AND THE ATOMIC-ENERGY INSTALLATION AT OAK RIDGE.  U.S. DEPT.
OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, FEDERAL FACT-FINDING BOARDS AND
BOARDS OF INQUIRY (1950) 2. 

TITLE II WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTES INVOLVED
IN THE CASES BEFORE US ONLY IF THEY WERE A PART OF A NATION-WIDE
UTILITY DISPUTE CREATING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY BUT THE CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE PROBLEM OF MEETING NATION-WIDE EMERGENCIES
AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR EMERGENCIES OTHER THAN THOSE AFFECTING
THE NATION AS A WHOLE DO NOT IMPLY PARALYSIS OF STATE POLICE POWER. 
RATHER, THEY IMPLY THAT THE STATES RETAIN THE POWER TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IN EMERGENCIES ECONOMICALLY AND PRACTICALLY CONFINED
WITHIN A STATE.  IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS THE DESIRE
TO LEAVE STATES HELPLESS IN MEETING LOCAL SITUATIONS WHEN CONGRESS
RESTRICTED NATIONAL INTERVENTION TO NATIONAL EMERGENCIES. 

ONLY ONE OTHER OF THE PETITIONERS' ARGUMENTS RAISES A SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTION OF CONFLICT.  FN5 SECTION 111.58 OF THE WISCONSIN ACT
PROHIBITS THE ARBITRATOR FROM MAKING AN AWARD "WHICH WOULD INFRINGE
UPON THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO MANAGE HIS BUSINESS."  IN NO. 330,
POST, P. 416, THE WISCONSIN COURT AFFIRMED THE BOARD'S ORDER REFUSING
TO MAKE AN AWARD DEALING WITH THE COMPOSITION OF SHIFTS.  IT IS ARGUED
THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE WISCONSIN STATUTE BRINGS IT IN CONFLICT
WITH THE BOARD POSITION THAT PARTIES MUST BARGAIN ON SUCH AN ISSUE. 
SEE AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., 89 N.L.R.B. 185; WOODSIDE COTTON
MILLS, 21 N.L.R.B. 42, 54-55.  THE TERM IN THE WISCONSIN STATUTE DEALS
NOT WITH THE SCOPE OF BARGAINING, BUT WITH THE POWER OF AN ARBITRATOR
TO MAKE AN AWARD AFTER BARGAINING HAS FAILED.  THE STATE LAW DOES
NOTHING TO RELIEVE THE EMPLOYER OF HIS DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER THE
FEDERAL ACT, NOR IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT THE DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER
THE STATE ACT DIFFERS FROM THAT UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT. 

WHETHER THE STATE CHOSE WISELY IN ADOPTING ARBITRATION RATHER THAN
TAKING NO MEASURE OR TAKING A MORE FORCEFUL MEASURE TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE.  SEIZURE OR MARTIAL LAW OR
OTHER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY THE STATE MIGHT BE JUST AS DELETERIOUS TO
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS ENFORCED ARBITRATION, APART FROM RAISING OTHER
CONTENTIOUS ISSUES.  IF THERE IS LEGISLATIVE CHOICE IT IS NOT FOR US TO
DEMAND THAT WHAT IS CHOSEN SHOULD COMMEND ITSELF TO OUR PRIVATE NOTIONS
OF WISE POLICY.  AS TO STRIKES CREATING A NATION-WIDE EMERGENCY, THE
PROVISIONS OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT INDICATE THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MAY TO SOME EXTENT BE SUBORDINATED TO THE
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.  I FIND NO INDICATION IN THE STATUTE THAT THE
STATES ARE NOT EQUALLY FREE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN STATE
EMERGENCIES. 

THE CLAIM THAT THE WISCONSIN STATUTE VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS FOR ME DEFINITIVELY ANSWERED THIRTY
YEARS AGO BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS: 

"BECAUSE I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT BOTH THE COMMON LAW OF A
STATE AND A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES (THE CLAYTON ACT) DECLARE THE
RIGHT OF INDUSTRIAL COMBATANTS TO PUSH THEIR STRUGGLE TO THE LIMITS OF
THE JUSTIFICATION OF SELF-INTEREST, I DO NOT WISH TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS
ATTACHING ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OR MORAL SANCTION TO THAT RIGHT.  ALL
RIGHTS ARE DERIVED FROM THE PURPOSES OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THEY
EXIST; ABOVE ALL RIGHTS RISES DUTY TO THE COMMUNITY.  THE CONDITIONS
DEVELOPED IN INDUSTRY MAY BE SUCH THAT THOSE ENGAGED IN IT CANNOT
CONTINUE THEIR STRUGGLE WITHOUT DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY.  BUT IT IS NOT
FOR JUDGES TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH CONDITIONS EXIST, NOR IS IT THEIR
FUNCTION TO SET THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE CONTEST AND TO DECLARE THE
DUTIES WHICH THE NEW SITUATION DEMANDS.  THIS IS THE FUNCTION OF THE
LEGISLATURE WHICH, WHILE LIMITING INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP RIGHTS OF
AGGRESSION AND DEFENSE, MAY SUBSTITUTE PROCESSES OF JUSTICE FOR THE
MORE PRIMITIVE METHOD OF TRIAL BY COMBAT."  DUPLEX CO. V. DEERING, 254
U.S. 443, 488(DISSENTING). 

FN1  SECTION 111.50 STATES THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE IN THE FOLLOWING
TERMS: 

"IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THIS STATE THAT IT
IS NECESSARY AND ESSENTIAL IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO FACILITATE THE
PROMPT, PEACEFUL AND JUST SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN PUBLIC
UTILITY EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYES WHICH CAUSE OR THREATEN TO CAUSE
AN INTERRUPTION IN THE SUPPLY OF AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE TO
THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE AND TO THAT END TO ENCOURAGE THE MAKING AND
MAINTAINING OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING WAGES, HOURS AND OTHER CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BETWEEN PUBLIC UTILITY
EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYES, AND TO PROVIDE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES FOR
LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN PUBLIC UTILITY EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYES IN
CASES WHERE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS HAS REACHED AN IMPASSE
AND STALEMATE AND AS A RESULT THEREOF THE PARTIES ARE UNABLE TO EFFECT
SUCH SETTLEMENT AND WHICH LABOR DISPUTES, IF NOT SETTLED, ARE LIKELY TO
CAUSE INTERRUPTION OF THE SUPPLY OF AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITY
SERVICE.  THE INTERRUPTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE RESULTS IN DAMAGE
AND INJURY TO THE PUBLIC WHOLLY APART FROM THE EFFECT UPON THE PARTIES
IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED AND CREATES AN EMERGENCY JUSTIFYING ACTION WHICH
ADEQUATELY PROTECTS THE GENERAL WELFARE." 

"PUBLIC UTILITY EMPLOYER" IS DEFINED AS ANY EMPLOYER "ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF FURNISHING WATER, LIGHT, HEAT, GAS, ELECTRIC POWER, PUBLIC
PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION OR COMMUNICATION  ...  " SEC. 111.51. 

COLLECTIVELY.  IF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FAILS, THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR
A CONCILIATION PROCEDURE.  SEC. 111.54.  IF THE CONCILIATOR IS UNABLE
TO EFFECT A SETTLEMENT WITHIN 15 DAYS, THE DISPUTE IS SUBMITTED TO
ARBITRATION.  SEC. 111.55.  EXISTING WAGES, HOURS, AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT ARE TO BE MAINTAINED DURING CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION. 
SEC. 111.56. 

STANDARDS FOR THE ARBITRATOR ARE SET FORTH IN THE STATUTE, SEC.
111.57, AND HE IS FORBIDDEN TO MAKE AN AWARD WHICH "WOULD INFRINGE UPON
THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO MANAGE HIS BUSINESS" OR "WOULD INTERFERE
WITH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE UNION."  SEC. 111.58.  THE
ARBITRATOR'S AWARD BECOMES BINDING ON THE PARTIES "TOGETHER WITH SUCH
AGREEMENTS AS THE PARTIES MAY THEMSELVES HAVE REACHED."  SEC. 111.59. 
IT MAY BE CHANGED BY "MUTUAL CONSENT OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES," SEC.
111.59, AND IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  SEC. 111.60. 

THE STATUTE MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY GROUP OF PUBLIC-UTILITY
EMPLOYEES "ACTING IN CONCERT" TO CALL A STRIKE OR GO OUT ON STRIKE OR
CAUSE A WORK STOPPAGE OR SLOWDOWN WHICH WOULD CAUSE AN INTERRUPTION OF
AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE.  THE STATUTE ALSO MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR A PUBLIC
UTILITY EMPLOYER TO LOCK OUT HIS EMPLOYEES IF SUCH ACTION WOULD CAUSE
AN INTERRUPTION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICE.  SEC. 111.62.  SUCH UNLAWFUL
ACTION ON THE PART OF EITHER EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYEES MAY BE ENJOINED IN
AN ACTION INSTITUTED BY THE STATE BOARD.  SEC. 111.63.  SECTION 111.64
MAKES CLEAR THAT ONLY A CONCERTED REFUSAL TO WORK IS MADE UNLAWFUL, AND
PROVIDES THAT NO COURT SHALL ISSUE PROCESS "TO COMPEL AN INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYE TO RENDER LABOR OR SERVICE OR TO REMAIN AT HIS PLACE OF
EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT HIS CONSENT." 

FN2  THE SITUATION BEFORE US INVOLVES SOLELY THE INTERRUPTION IN
ESSENTIAL SERVICES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY.  ANY ATTEMPT BY WISCONSIN TO
APPLY ITS ARBITRAL SCHEME TO A LABOR DISPUTE THAT DOES NOT CLEARLY
INVOLVE SUCH AN ESSENTIAL UTILITY OPERATION IS NOT NOW IN ISSUE.  THIS
MAKES IT UNNECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE WISCONSIN LAW MIGHT
BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO A STRIKE OF CLERICAL EMPLOYEES SUCH AS
THAT INVOLVED IN WISCONSIN TELEPHONE CO. V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 253 WIS.
584, 34 N.W.2D 844.  IN THAT CASE THE WISCONSIN COURT DID NOT UPHOLD
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO THE PARTICULAR DISPUTE.  IT HELD ONLY
THAT THE STATE BOARD'S ACTION IN APPOINTING A CONCILIATOR WAS A
PRELIMINARY ORDER AND HENCE, UNDER PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,
NOT REVIEWABLE. 

FN3  SEE S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 15:  "IN MOST
INSTANCES THE FORCE OF PUBLIC OPINION SHOULD MAKE ITSELF SUFFICIENTLY
FELT IN (THE) 80-DAY PERIOD (DURING WHICH THE STRIKE IS ENJOINED) TO
BRING ABOUT A PEACEFUL TERMINATION OF THE CONTROVERSY.  SHOULD THIS
EXPECTATION FAIL, THE BILL PROVIDES FOR THE PRESIDENT LAYING THE MATTER
BEFORE CONGRESS FOR WHATEVER LEGISLATION SEEMS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE NATION IN THE CRISIS."  THE REFERENCE IS
TO SEC. 210 OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF THE
INJUNCTION IS DISCHARGED, "THE PRESIDENT SHALL SUBMIT TO THE CONGRESS A
FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF INQUIRY AND THE BALLOT TAKEN BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, TOGETHER WITH SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS AS HE MAY SEE
FIT TO MAKE FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION." 

FN4  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PROVISIONS WERE NOT
MEANT TO COVER LOCAL STRIKES SUCH AS THOSE INVOLVED IN THE CASES NOW
BEFORE US.  SEE S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 14: "WHILE THE
COMMITTEE IS OF THE OPINION THAT IN MOST LABOR DISPUTES THE ROLE OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO MEDIATION, WE RECOGNIZE THAT
THE REPERCUSSIONS FROM STOPPAGES IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES ARE OCCASIONALLY
SO GRAVE THAT THE NATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IS IMPERILED.  AN EXAMPLE
IS THE RECENT COAL STRIKE IN WHICH DEFIANCE OF THE PRESIDENT BY THE
UNITED MINE WORKERS UNION COMPELLED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO RESORT TO
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THE COURTS.  THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT ONLY IN
NATIONAL EMERGENCIES OF THIS CHARACTER SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BE
ARMED WITH SUCH POWER." 

THERE MIGHT OF COURSE BE A CONFLICT IF THE WISCONSIN ACT WERE HELD
APPLICABLE BY HER COURTS TO A THREATENED STRIKE WHICH WAS ONLY A PART
OF A NATION-WIDE UTILITY DISPUTE TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE II
HAD BEEN APPLIED.  BUT OUR TASK IS TO DECIDE THE CASE BEFORE US AND NOT
TO CONJURE UP DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY NEVER ARISE.  SEE ALLEN-BRADLEY
LOCAL V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 746. 

THE WISCONSIN STATUTE IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE
II OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT CREATING A MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION
SERVICE.  THE FEDERAL ACT TAKES ACCOUNT OF STATE MEDIATION FACILITIES,
AND THE FEDERAL OFFICIALS ARE DIRECTED "TO AVOID ATTEMPTING TO MEDIATE
DISPUTES WHICH WOULD HAVE ONLY A MINOR EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IF
STATE OR OTHER CONCILIATION SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES." 
SEC. 203(B). 

FN5  A FURTHER ARGUMENT IS BASED UPON SEC. 111.56 OF THE WISCONSIN
ACT WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE STATUS QUO AS TO TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT BE
MAINTAINED DURING CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.  THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT
REQUIRES THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE TERMS OF AN EXISTING CONTRACT FOR ONLY
60 DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF TERMINATION HAS BEEN GIVEN OR UNTIL THE
EXPIRATION DATE OF THE CONTRACT, WHICHEVER IS LATER.  SEC. 8(D)(4). 
THE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION OF THE WISCONSIN ACT IS IMPOSED IN ORDER TO
ASSURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM AND PRESENTS NO
PROBLEM OF CONFLICT IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE TWO STATUTES.  THE ONLY
OBJECTIONS TO THE STATUS QUO PROVISIONS ARE THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL ACT AND ANY SYSTEM OF COMPULSORY
ARBITRATION.  THESE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE TEXT. 

TWO ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS ARE BASED UPON HYPOTHETICAL CONFLICTS NOT
RAISED BY THE PRESENT CASES.  SECTION 111.52 OF THE WISCONSIN ACT
REQUIRES THAT THE PARTIES "EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT" IN ORDER TO
SETTLE THE LABOR DISPUTE.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT THIS LANGUAGE MAY BE
CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE PARTIES TO MAKE CONCESSIONS DURING THE
BARGAINING PROCESS - SOMETHING WHICH SEC. 8(D) OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT
SAYS THEY DO NOT HAVE TO DO.  THE SECOND ARGUMENT IS THAT, FROM SEC.
111.57 OF THE WISCONSIN ACT, IT APPEARS THAT ARBITRATION MIGHT BE
REQUIRED WHERE NEGOTIATIONS WERE UNDERWAY TO AMEND AN EXISTING
CONTRACT.  UNDER SEC. 8(D) OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, THERE IS NO DUTY TO
BARGAIN CONCERNING AMENDMENT OF A CONTRACT STILL IN EFFECT. IT IS A
SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO THESE CONTENTIONS TO NOTE THE BROAD SEPARABILITY
PROVISION IN SEC. 111.65 OF THE WISCONSIN ACT, AND REPEAT WHAT WE SAID
IN ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 746:  "WE DEAL
... NOT WITH THE THEORETICAL DISPUTES BUT WITH CONCRETE AND SPECIFIC
ISSUES RAISED BY ACTUAL CASES.  ...  NOR WILL WE ASSUME IN ADVANCE THAT
A STATE WILL SO CONSTRUE ITS LAW AS TO BRING IT INTO CONFLICT WITH THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR AN ACT OF CONGRESS." 
..END :























ST. JOHN V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 340 U.S. 411 


NO. 302.  ARGUED JANUARY 9-10, 1951.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 90
F.SUPP.  347, JUDGMENT VACATED. 


APPELLANTS SUED IN A WISCONSIN STATE COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
THAT THE WISCONSIN PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI-STRIKE LAW CONTRAVENED THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND WAS INVALID AS IN
CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LABOR LEGISLATION.  THE STATE TRIAL COURT DECIDED
AGAINST APPELLANTS ON ALL ISSUES.  ON APPEAL, THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT AFFIRMED, BUT ON THE GROUND THAT A DECISION ON THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WOULD BE PREMATURE IN THE ABSENCE OF A
CONCRETE FACTUAL RECORD.  APPELLANTS DID NOT PETITION THIS COURT FOR
CERTIORARI.  SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN A STRIKE WAS IN PROGRESS, APPELLANTS
SUED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
HOLDING THE WISCONSIN ACT INVALID AS IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LABOR
LEGISLATION.  THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE SUIT WAS BARRED
BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.  IN ANOTHER SUIT INVOLVING THE SAME
PARTIES AND PRESENTING THE SAME ISSUES, HOWEVER, THE STATE SUPREME
COURT SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE WISCONSIN ACT; AND ITS
JUDGMENT IS THIS DAY REVERSED BY THIS COURT, ANTE, P. 383.  HELD: 

1.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW AS TO RES
JUDICATA IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WAS ERRONEOUS.  P. 414. 

2.  THIS COURT HAVING DECLARED THE WISCONSIN LAW TO BE INVALID UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, ANTE, P. 383, A FEDERAL COURT JUDGMENT
RESTRAINING ITS ENFORCEMENT AS PRAYED IN THIS SUIT IS NEITHER NECESSARY
NOR APPROPRIATE.  PP. 414-415. 

ST. JOHN ET AL. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF WISCONSIN. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS VACATED AND
CAUSE REMANDED, P. 415. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CASE ARE THE SAME GAS WORKERS' UNION, MANY OF THE
SAME OFFICERS OF THAT UNION, THE SAME GAS COMPANIES AND THE WISCONSIN
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD INVOLVED IN NO. 438, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE,
P. 383.  THE INSTANT PROCEEDING BEGAN WHEN, AT THE TIME OF THE STRIKE
DESCRIBED IN NO. 438, APPELLANT GAS WORKERS FILED SUIT IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD AND THE
GAS COMPANY FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO THE END THAT THE
WISCONSIN PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI-STRIKE LAW BE ADJUDGED INVALID FOR THE
REASONS SUCCESSFULLY ADVANCED IN NO. 438. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, CONVENED UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC.
2281, DID NOT REACH THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, BUT RELIED ON PRINCIPLES OF
RES JUDICATA, HOLDING THAT A PRIOR STATE COURT JUDGMENT TO WHICH
APPELLANTS WERE PARTY CONCLUSIVELY BARRED THEM FROM RAISING ANY ISSUES
PERTAINING TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE WISCONSIN ACT.  IN THAT
PRIOR STATE COURT ACTION, BROUGHT TO TEST THE STATUTE BEFORE ANY STRIKE
HAD BEEN THREATENED, APPELLANTS SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE
WISCONSIN ACT CONTRAVENED THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERAL DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE AND WAS IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LABOR LEGISLATION. 
EXCEPT FOR THE QUESTION OF UNDUE DELEGATION OF POWER UNDER THE STATE
CONSTITUTION, THE ISSUES SOUGHT TO BE RAISED IN THE STATE DECLARATORY
PROCEEDING WERE THE SAME AS THOSE RAISED IN NO. 438, ANTE, P. 383, AND
IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDING.  IN THE PRIOR STATE COURT ACTION, THE
CIRCUIT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLANTS ON THE MERITS ON ALL
ISSUES.  ON APPEAL, THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED, BUT REACHED
THE MERITS ONLY IN RESPECT TO THE DELEGATION-OF-POWER ISSUE.  AS TO THE
ISSUES COMMON TO THAT CASE, THE INSTANT CASE AND NO. 438, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A DECISION ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
PRESENTED WOULD BE PREMATURE IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONCRETE FACTUAL
RECORD, AND THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE
ABSTRACT OR AS HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS.  UNITED GAS, COKE & CHEMICAL
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 18, C.I.O. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
BOARD, 255 WIS. 154, 38 N.W.2D 692(1949).  CERTIORARI TO THAT DECISION
WAS NOT SOUGHT IN THIS COURT, APPELLANTS CONTENDING THAT SUCH A STEP
WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE IN VIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE STATE GROUNDS
SUPPORTING THE WISCONSIN COURT'S REFUSAL TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES
PRESENTED. 

FOLLOWING THIS ABORTIVE ATTEMPT TO SECURE A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE
FEDERAL QUESTIONS, THERE OCCURRED A STRIKE AND A STATE CIRCUIT COURT
ISSUED A RESTRAINING ORDER, AS DESCRIBED IN THE OPINION IN NO. 438,
ANTE, P. 383.  IN THE RESULTING CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, BEFORE US IN NO.
438, APPELLANTS ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE WISCONSIN ACT, RAISING THE
DUE PROCESS AND COMMERCE CLAUSE QUESTIONS.  APPELLEES URGED IN THAT
CASE, AS THEY DO IN THIS CASE, THAT THE PRIOR STATE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT PROCEEDING BARRED APPELLANTS' FURTHER ATTACK UPON THE ACT
UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.  APPELLEES REASON THAT SINCE THE
STATE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGMENT IN THE PRIOR ACTION WENT AGAINST
APPELLANTS ON THE MERITS AND SINCE THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ORDERED
THAT JUDGMENT "AFFIRMED" THE JUDGMENT BARRED FURTHER ATTACK ON THE
STATUTE BY APPELLANTS WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT MIGHT HAVE SAID IN ITS OPINION.  THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
ADOPTED THIS LINE OF REASONING AS TO RES JUDICATA AND HELD, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, THAT APPELLANTS ARE BARRED FROM ATTACKING THE WISCONSIN
PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI-STRIKE LAW.  90 F.SUPP.  347(1950).  THE CASE IS
PROPERLY HERE ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253. 

WE NEED NOT LINGER OVER THE PROPRIETY OF INVOKING THE DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA IN THIS TYPE OF CASE, FOR WE HAVE A DIRECT HOLDING OF THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT TO SHOW US THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW AS TO RES JUDICATA IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE WAS ERRONEOUS.  THE STATE CIRCUIT COURT, IN THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT IN NO. 438, ADOPTED THE SAME THEORY OF
RES JUDICATA AS DID THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT THEORY WAS URGED UPON THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ON APPEAL.  YET THE HIGHEST STATE COURT DID NOT
HESITATE IN REACHING AND DECIDING ON THE MERITS THE VERY ISSUES WHICH
THE STATE CIRCUIT COURT IN THAT CASE AND THE DISTRICT COURT BELOW HELD
COULD NOT BE RAISED BY APPELLANTS.  WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
BOARD V. MILWAUKEE GAS LIGHT CO., 258 WIS. 1, 44 N.W.2D 547(1950). 
THIS IS THE DECISION WHICH WE REVERSED THIS DAY IN NO. 438, ANTE, P.
383.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT BELOW BARRING APPELLANTS FROM ATTACKING THE VALIDITY OF THE
WISCONSIN PUBLIC UTILITY ANTI-STRIKE LAW BE VACATED. 

BUT THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED
TO A FEDERAL COURT JUDGMENT RESTRAINING ENFORCEMENT OF THE WISCONSIN
ACT AS PRAYED.  APPELLANTS SEEK ONLY INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE.  IN VIEW OF TODAY'S DECISIONS IN NOS. 329 AND
438, ANTE, P. 383, THE LATTER CASE INVOLVING THE VERY PARTIES TO THIS
ACTION, "WE FIND NO GROUND FOR SUPPOSING THAT THE INTERVENTION OF A
FEDERAL COURT, IN ORDER TO SECURE (APPELLANTS') CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
WILL BE EITHER NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE."  DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, 319
U.S. 157, 165(1943).  FOR THIS REASON, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS VACATED
AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE BURTON, AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON
AGREE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT WAS NOT RES JUDICATA, BUT
INSOFAR AS VACATING THE JUDGMENT BELOW DERIVES FROM THE DECISIONS IN
NOS. 329 AND 438 THEY DISSENT FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THEIR
DISSENTING OPINION, ANTE, P. 399. 
..END :








BUS EMPLOYEES V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 340 U.S. 416 


NO. 330.  ARGUED JANUARY 9-10, 1951.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  -
257 WIS. 53, 42 N.W.2D 477, JUDGMENT VACATED. 


THIS IS A PROCEEDING TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF A WISCONSIN STATE COURT
SUSTAINING AN ARBITRATORS' AWARD UNDER THE WISCONSIN PUBLIC UTILITY
ANTI-STRIKE LAW.  THE AWARD WAS FOR ONE YEAR ONLY AND THAT TIME HAS
ELAPSED.  HELD: 

1.  THERE BEING NO SUBJECT MATTER UPON WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
COURT CAN OPERATE, THE CAUSE IS MOOT.  PP. 417-418. 

2.  WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THE WISCONSIN COURTS TO
DECIDE QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE WHERE A CASE HAS BECOME MOOT, THIS COURT
IS WITHOUT POWER TO DECIDE MOOT QUESTIONS.  P. 418. 

AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY & MOTOR COACH
EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, DIVISION 998, ET AL. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  JUDGMENT BELOW VACATED AND CAUSE
REMANDED, P. 418. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CASE ARE THE SAME TRANSIT WORKERS, THE SAME
TRANSIT COMPANY, AND THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD BEFORE
THE COURT IN NO. 329, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE, P. 383.  THIS ACTION
ARISES OUT OF THE SAME THREATENED STRIKE DISCUSSED IN THAT CASE.  AFTER
A RESTRAINING ORDER HAD LED TO POSTPONEMENT OF THE STRIKE, THE
WISCONSIN BOARD APPOINTED ARBITRATORS TO "HEAR AND DETERMINE" THE
DISPUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE WISCONSIN PUBLIC UTILITY
ANTI-STRIKE LAW.  WIS. STAT., 1949, SEC. 111.55.  UPON THE FILING OF
THE ARBITRATORS' AWARD, PETITIONERS FILED AN ACTION IN A STATE CIRCUIT
COURT TO REVIEW THAT AWARD.  ID., SEC. 111.60.  THAT COURT AFFIRMED THE
AWARD AND THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED, 257 WIS. 53, 42 N.W.2D
477(1950).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE TOGETHER WITH NO. 329,
340 U.S. 874(1950). 

IN THE COURTS BELOW AND IN THIS COURT, PETITIONERS ATTACK THE
ARBITRATION AWARD ON THE SAME GROUNDS URGED AGAINST THE WISCONSIN ACT
AS A WHOLE IN NO. 329, AND, IN ADDITION, RAISE ISSUES PECULIAR TO THE
ARBITRATION PHASE OF THAT ACT.  BUT WE DO NOT REACH THESE ISSUES SINCE
IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS CASE HAS BECOME MOOT* . 

*IT HAS ALSO BEEN ARGUED THAT NO. 329 AND NO. 438 ARE MOOT BY REASON
OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE IMMEDIATE DISPUTE WHICH LED TO THE STRIKE
ACTION IN EACH CASE.  THE INJUNCTION BEFORE US IN NO. 329 IS
"PERPETUAL" BY ITS TERMS SO THAT THE ACTION DOES NOT BECOME MOOT EVEN
THOUGH THE DECREE BE OBEYED.  J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S.
332, 334(1944); FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. GOOD-YEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.,
304 U.S. 257, 260(1938), AND CASES CITED THEREIN.  AS TO NO. 438, THE
JUDGMENT BELOW IMPOSES FINES UPON PETITIONERS.  NO QUESTION OF MOOTNESS
CAN BE RAISED SO LONG AS ENFORCEMENT OF THAT JUDGMENT IS SOUGHT. 

THE ARBITRATION AWARD BECAME EFFECTIVE ON APRIL 11, 1949.  UNDER THE
WISCONSIN ACT, THAT AWARD "SHALL CONTINUE EFFECTIVE FOR ONE YEAR FROM
THAT DATE," UNLESS SOONER TERMINATED BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.  WIS.
STAT., 1949, SEC. 111.59.  WE ARE INFORMED THAT THIS AWARD WAS
SUPERSEDED BY AGREEMENT, AND, IN ANY EVENT, THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD HAS
ELAPSED.  THERE BEING NO SUBJECT MATTER UPON WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
COURT CAN OPERATE, THE CAUSE IS MOOT. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE WISCONSIN COURTS HAVE ADOPTED A PRACTICE OF
DECIDING QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE EVEN THOUGH THE CASE HAS BECOME MOOT,
AND WE ARE URGED TO FOLLOW THAT SAME PRACTICE.  BUT WHATEVER THE
PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN COURTS, "A FEDERAL COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO
DECIDE MOOT QUESTIONS OR TO GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS WHICH CANNOT AFFECT
THE RIGHTS OF THE LITIGANTS IN THE CASE BEFORE IT.  UNITED STATES V.
ALASKA S.S. CO., 253 U.S. 113, 115-16, AND CASES CITED; UNITED STATES
V. HAMBURG-AMERICAN CO., 239 U.S. 466, 475-77."  ST. PIERRE V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 41, 42(1943). 

IT APPEARING THAT THE CAUSE HAS BECOME MOOT, THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN IS VACATED WITHOUT COSTS AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED FOR SUCH PROCEEDINGS AS BY THAT COURT MAY BE DEEMED
APPROPRIATE.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. ROCK ISLAND CO., 340 U.S. 419 


NO. 25.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 90
F.SUPP.  516, REVERSED. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED A RAILROAD'S MOTOR
CARRIER AFFILIATE TO ACQUIRE TWO OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS.  THE FIRST
ACQUISITION WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 213(NOW SEC. 5)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY WAS ISSUED UNDER SEC. 207.  THE CERTIFICATE CONTAINED THE
CONDITION THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT IMPOSE SUCH FURTHER RESTRICTIONS AS
MAY BE NECESSARY TO INSURE THAT THE SERVICE SHOULD BE AUXILIARY OR
SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE TRAIN SERVICE OF THE RAILROAD.  THE SECOND
ACQUISITION WAS APPROVED UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE ACT BY A REPORT AND ORDER
WHICH DID NOT CONTAIN THIS CONDITION, BUT NO CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY HAD BEEN ISSUED UNDER SEC. 207.  HELD:  THE COMMISSION
HAD POWER, IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING NOT UNDER SEC. 212, TO MODIFY THE
CERTIFICATE COVERING OPERATIONS UNDER THE FIRST ACQUISITION, AND TO
IMPOSE LIKE CONDITIONS ON THE CERTIFICATE TO BE GRANTED IN RESPECT OF
THE SECOND ACQUISITION, SO AS TO CONFINE THE MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS
TO SERVICE AUXILIARY TO, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF, RAIL SERVICE.  PP. 422
436, 444-448. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION HAS POWER AT THE TIME OF ITS APPROVAL OF AN
APPLICATION TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY TO BE GRANTED BY CERTIFICATES OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE OPERATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS, WHETHER
THE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED ON AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 207 OR
AFTER ACQUISITION UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P.
430. 

(B)  AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE, IF THE COMMISSION
REASONABLY DEEMS THE RESTRICTION USEFUL IN PROTECTING COMPETITION, OR
FOR OTHER STATUTORY PURPOSES, THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE A RAILROAD
AFFILIATED MOTOR CARRIER TO PERFORM ONLY THOSE SERVICES THAT ARE
AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE RAIL SERVICE.  PP. 430-431. 

(C)  THE RESTRICTION OF A RAILROAD MOTOR-CARRIER AFFILIATE TO
OPERATIONS WHICH ARE AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO RAIL SERVICE IS A
LOGICAL METHOD TO INSURE THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO
TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES - RAIL AND MOTOR - AS COORDINATE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECLARATION OF POLICY IN THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT OF 1935 AND WITH THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  P.
431. 

(D)  SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR SUCH RESTRICTION IS FOUND IN
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVISO IN SEC. 213(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT
OF 1935 AND SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED IN 1940. 
PP. 431, 436. 

(E)  SINCE COMPETITION, PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE
INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF RAILS AND MOTORS, AND USE OF MOTOR SERVICE BY
RAILROADS IN THEIR OPERATIONS, ARE THE BASIS FOR ALLOWING ACQUISITIONS
OF MOTOR ROUTES BY RAILROADS UNDER THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY,
IT IS CONSONANT WITH THAT POLICY TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE FURTHER
LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO INSURE THAT THE SERVICE
REMAIN AUXILIARY OR SUPPLEMENTAL.  PP. 434-435. 

(F)  SUCH RESERVATION OF POWER IN THE COMMISSION TO MODIFY THE
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT OFFEND AGAINST THE PROVISION OF SEC. 212 THAT A
CERTIFICATE "SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL SUSPENDED OR TERMINATED"
UNDER THAT SECTION.  P. 435. 

(G)  THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
THAT THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION BE
RETAINED, OR OF SEC. 5 THAT ACQUISITION OF MOTOR ROUTES BY RAILROADS
SHALL REQUIRE SPECIAL FINDINGS AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL
CONDITIONS, IS NOT OVERRIDDEN BY THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SECS. 208,
216(C) AND 217(A).  PP. 435-436. 

2.  THE COMMISSION ORDERED THAT THE CERTIFICATE COVERING THE FIRST
ACQUISITION BE MODIFIED SO THAT FUTURE OPERATIONS THEREUNDER WOULD BE
SUBJECT IN SUBSTANCE TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) THE SERVICE OF
THE MOTOR CARRIER SHALL BE LIMITED TO SERVICE WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO, OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF, TRAIN SERVICE OF THE RAILROAD; (2) THE MOTOR CARRIER
SHALL NOT RENDER ANY SERVICE TO OR FROM ANY POINT NOT ON A RAIL LINE OF
THE RAILROAD; (3) NO SHIPMENTS SHALL BE TRANSPORTED BY THE MOTOR
CARRIER BETWEEN ANY OF THE DESIGNATED "KEY POINTS," OR THROUGH, OR TO,
OR FROM, MORE THAN ONE OF SAID POINTS; (4) ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE
MOTOR CARRIER AND THE RAILROAD SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE
COMMISSION; (5) THE COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE SUCH FURTHER CONDITIONS AS IT
MAY FIND TO BE NECESSARY TO INSURE THAT THE SERVICE SHALL BE AUXILIARY
OR SUPPLEMENTAL TO RAIL SERVICE.  HELD:  THE NEW CONDITIONS ARE WITHIN
THE LIMITS COVERED BY THE RESERVATION OF POWER IN THE CERTIFICATE TO
IMPOSE SUCH FURTHER LIMITATIONS AS MIGHT BE FOUND NECESSARY "TO INSURE
THAT THE SERVICE SHALL BE AUXILIARY OR SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE TRAIN
SERVICE" OF THE RAILROAD.  PP. 436-444. 

(A)  SUCH ADDED CONDITIONS ARE NOT CHANGES IN OR REVOCATIONS OF A
CERTIFICATE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BUT A CARRYING OUT OF THE RESERVATION
IN THE CERTIFICATE.  UNITED STATES V. SEATRAIN LINES, 329 U.S. 424,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 442-443. 

(B)  THE MEANING OF AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL IS NOT LIMITED BY THE
COMMISSION'S PRACTICE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME, BUT EMBRACES SUCH
REQUIREMENTS AS MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO FALL WITHIN THE MEANING WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAS GIVEN TO THE TERMS.  P. 443. 

3.  THE COMMISSION HAD THE POWER ALSO TO PLACE IN THE CERTIFICATE TO
BE ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SECOND ACQUISITION THE MODIFIED
CONDITIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE COVERING THE FIRST ACQUISITION, SINCE THE
ORDER APPROVING THE SECOND ACQUISITION WAS NOT A FINAL ORDER.  PP. 444
448. 

(A)  THE CERTIFICATE IS THE FINAL ACT OR ORDER THAT VALIDATES THE
OPERATION, AND UNTIL ITS FORM AND CONTENTS ARE FIXED BY DELIVERY TO THE
APPLICANT, THE POWER TO FRAME IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTORY
DIRECTIONS PERSISTS.  P. 448. 

4.  IN VIEW OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND SEC. 5 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, APPROVAL OF THE ACQUISITION OF A MOTOR CARRIER
BY A RAILROAD MAY BE CONDITIONED BY THE COMMISSION ON THE PURCHASER'S
WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT A NARROWER CERTIFICATE THAN THAT POSSESSED BY THE
SELLER.  PP. 448-449. 

5.  BY THE COMMISSION'S MODIFICATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
RAILROAD'S MOTOR-CARRIER AFFILIATE, TO INSURE THAT ITS OPERATIONS WOULD
BE AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO RAIL SERVICE, THE MOTOR CARRIER WAS
NOT DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 449. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  90
F.SUPP.  516.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 449. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

QUESTIONS OF THE POWER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO
TIGHTEN THE RESTRICTIONS ON OPERATIONS OF A RAILROAD'S MOTOR-CARRIER
AFFILIATE ARE RAISED BY THIS APPEAL.  IN THE COMMISSION'S VIEW THE
OPERATIONS MUST BE MODIFIED IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM TRULY AUXILIARY TO OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE RAIL SERVICE.  THEY ARE CONDUCTED (1) UNDER A
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED IN 1941 UNDER SEC. 207
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND (2) UNDER AN ORDER OF 1944
APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF ANOTHER MOTOR CARRIER.  THE CERTIFICATE
CONTAINS THE CONDITION THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT IMPOSE OTHER TERMS TO
RESTRICT THE HOLDER'S OPERATION TO SERVICE WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF RAIL SERVICE.  THE ORDER CONTAINS NEITHER THIS
CONDITION NOR ANY OTHER RELATING TO THE SPECIFIC OPERATING RIGHTS OF
THE CARRIER. 

THE ISSUES INVOLVE A BASIC POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE THE
OPERATIONS OF MOTOR CARRIERS AFFILIATED WITH RAILROADS SO AS TO ASSURE
THAT AT ALL TIMES THE MOTOR OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONSONANT WITH THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, 54 STAT. 899.  THE COMMISSION HAS
DECIDED THAT THAT POLICY REQUIRES THE MOTOR OPERATIONS OF RAILROADS AND
THEIR AFFILIATES TO BE AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF TRAIN SERVICE. 
THIS RAISES QUESTIONS AS TO HOW THE PLANNED AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL
SERVICE IS TO BE ACHIEVED.  DIFFERENCES ALSO EXIST AS TO WHAT PHASES OF
MOTOR-CARRIER OPERATIONS ARE AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF RAIL OR
TRAIN SERVICE. 

THE ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT COMPANY, A WHOLLY-OWNED CORPORATE
SUBSIDIARY OF THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND
ITS PREDECESSORS, IS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTING PROPERTY IN INTER- AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE, EXCLUSIVELY,
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, ALONG THE RAIL LINES OF ITS PARENT
CORPORATION IN ARKANSAS, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI,
NEBRASKA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS AND KANSAS.  MANY OF TRANSIT'S OPERATIONS
ALONGSIDE ITS PARENT ARE IN DIFFERENT LOCALITIES AND UNDER OTHER I.C.C.
AUTHORITIES THAN THE CERTIFICATE AND ORDER HERE INVOLVED. 

THIS APPEAL DEALS WITH ADDITIONAL OPERATING RESTRICTIONS PLACED
SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMISSION'S FORMAL APPROVAL OF TRANSIT'S PURCHASE
AND OPERATION, UPON TWO OF TRANSIT'S ACQUISITIONS.  THE FIRST IS A
SEGMENT OF THE SO-CALLED WHITE LINE PURCHASE.  THE LINE WAS IN PROCESS
OF PERFECTING ITS "GRANDFATHER RIGHTS" UNDER SEC. 206(A), MOTOR CARRIER
ACT, AT THE TIME OF APPELLEES' AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE.  THE ORDER
DIRECTING ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE TO ROCK ISLAND RECOGNIZED THIS. 
THIS PURCHASE WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER SEC. 213, MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935,
49 STAT. 555, APRIL 1, 1938, DOCKET NO. MC-F-445; REPORTED 5 M.C.C.
451, 15 M.C.C. 763.  THE SEGMENTS OF THE WHITE LINE PURCHASE HERE
INVOLVED ARE THOSE BETWEEN DES MOINES, IOWA, AND OMAHA, NEBRASKA, AND
DES MOINES, IOWA, AND SILVIS, ILLINOIS, INCLUDED IN TRANSIT'S
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED IN NO. MC 29130,
DECEMBER 3, 1941.  THAT CERTIFICATE HAD ONLY THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS
IN ANY WAY APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTROVERSY: 

"SERVICE IS AUTHORIZED TO AND FROM THE INTERMEDIATE POINTS ON THE
ABOVE-SPECIFIED ROUTES WHICH ARE ALSO STATIONS ON THE LINES OF THE
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. 

     .         .         .         .    . 

"THE OPERATIONS AUTHORIZED ON THE ABOVE-SPECIFIED ROUTES ARE SUBJECT
TO SUCH FURTHER LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS AS WE MAY
FIND IT NECESSARY TO IMPOSE OR MAKE IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THE SERVICE
SHALL BE AUXILIARY OR SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE TRAIN SERVICE OF THE
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AND SHALL NOT UNDULY
RESTRAIN COMPETITION." 

THE SECOND ACQUISITION IS THE SO-CALLED FREDERICKSON PURCHASE,
AUTHORIZED NOVEMBER 28, 1944, DOCKET NO. MC-F-2327, UNDER SEC. 5,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 905, BY WHICH TRANSIT ACQUIRED, FROM
THE HOLDERS OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, A ROUTE
BETWEEN ATLANTIC, IOWA, AND OMAHA, NEBRASKA.  NEITHER THE REPORT NOR
THE ORDER CONTAINED PROVISIONS ALIKE OR AKIN TO THESE JUST QUOTED FROM
THE WHITE LINE CERTIFICATE.  NO ORDER FOR A CERTIFICATE HAS YET BEEN
ENTERED AND NO CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED. 

THE ROUTES HERE INVOLVED ARE A MAJOR PART OF THE ROCK ISLAND'S TRUCK
ROUTE BETWEEN CHICAGO AND OMAHA.  THE EASTERN END OF THAT ROUTE FROM
SILVIS, ILLINOIS, TO CHICAGO IS OPERATED UNDER OTHER I.C.C. AUTHORITY. 

TRANSIT HAS BEEN OPERATING THE ABOVE ROUTES SINCE THEIR RESPECTIVE
DATES.  UNDER THOSE AUTHORITIES, TRANSIT STATES IT HAS ENGAGED IN
TRUCKING SERVICE AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A) A COORDINATED RAIL-SERVICE, AT RAIL RATES AUXILIARY TO THE
EXISTING SERVICE OF APPELLEE'S AFFILIATED RAILROAD; (B) A MOTOR SERVICE
IN SUBSTITUTION OF RAIL SERVICE, AT RAIL RATES; AND (C) A MOTOR COMMON
CARRIER SERVICE AT RATES AND TARIFFS OBSERVED AND APPLIED BY APPELLEE'S
PREDECESSORS, AS MODIFIED FROM TIME TO TIME." 

ON FEBRUARY 5, 1945, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED REOPENING OF THE DOCKETS
TO GIVE RECONSIDERATION TO THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE AND ORDER, 

"SOLELY TO DETERMINE (A) THE CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY
APPEAR NECESSARY, WHICH SHOULD BE IMPOSED TO INSURE THAT THE MOTOR
CARRIER SERVICE PERFORMED BY THE ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT COMPANY IS
LIMITED TO THAT WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF, RAIL
SERVICE, AND (B) THE CONDITION, IF ANY APPEARS NECESSARY, WHICH SHOULD
BE IMPOSED SO AS TO MAKE THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE ROCK ISLAND MOTOR
TRANSIT COMPANY SUBJECT TO SUCH FURTHER CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS AS
THE COMMISSION MAY FIND NECESSARY TO IMPOSE IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THE
SERVICE SHALL BE AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF, RAIL SERVICE." 

AT THE END OF THAT RECONSIDERATION, AN ORDER WAS ENTERED TO MODIFY
THE WHITE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE AND THE FREDERICKSON ORDER IN THE
FOLLOWING RESPECTS: 

"1.  THE SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED BY THE ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT
COMPANY SHALL BE LIMITED TO SERVICE WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO, OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF, TRAIN SERVICE OF THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE RAILROAD. 

"2.  THE ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT COMPANY SHALL NOT RENDER ANY
SERVICE TO OR FROM ANY POINT NOT A STATION ON A RAIL LINE OF THE
RAILROAD. 

"3.  NO SHIPMENTS SHALL BE TRANSPORTED BY THE ROCK ISLAND MOTOR
TRANSIT COMPANY BETWEEN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING POINTS, OR THROUGH, OR TO,
OR FROM, MORE THAN ONE OF SAID POINTS:  OMAHA, NEBR., DES MOINES, IOWA,
AND COLLECTIVELY DAVENPORT AND BETTENDORF, IOWA, AND ROCK ISLAND,
MOLINE, AND EAST MOLINE, ILL. 

"4.  ALL CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE ROCK ISLAND MOTOR
TRANSIT COMPANY AND THE RAILROAD SHALL BE REPORTED TO US AND SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO REVISION, IF AND AS WE FIND IT TO BE NECESSARY, IN ORDER
THAT SUCH ARRANGEMENTS SHALL BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE PARTIES. 

"5.  SUCH FURTHER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AS WE, IN THE FUTURE, FIND IT
NECESSARY TO IMPOSE IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THE SERVICE SHALL BE
AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF, TRAIN SERVICE."  ROCK ISLAND MOTOR
TRANSIT CO., 55 M.C.C. 567, 597-598, AFFIRMING 40 M.C.C. 457. 

IT IS FROM THOSE MODIFICATIONS THAT TRANSIT SOUGHT RELIEF THROUGH
SECS. 1336 AND 2325 OF 28 U.S.C. FROM A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT. 
THE RELIEF WAS GRANTED AND THE ORDERS WERE ANNULLED AND THEIR
ENFORCEMENT ENJOINED.  90 F.SUPP.  516.  THE UNITED STATES AND THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION APPEALED UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253.  WE
NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION. 

TRANSIT'S OBJECTION TO THE ORDER MODIFYING THE PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH
IT OPERATES THESE ROUTES MAY BE GENERALIZED AS A CONTENTION THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER CHANGES OR REVOKES A PART OF TRANSIT'S OPERATING
AUTHORITY, PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION, WITHOUT ANY FAILURE BY
TRANSIT TO COMPLY WITH ANY TERM, CONDITION OR LIMITATION OF THE
COMMISSION AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH TRANSIT FUNCTIONS.  CHANGES OR
REVOCATIONS MAY ONLY BE MADE UNDER SEC. 212(A) OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, FOR SUCH FAILURES.  FN1 

THE COMMISSION, ON THE OTHER HAND, TAKES THE POSITION THAT THERE IS
NO CHANGE IN OR REVOCATION OF ITS AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE AS A MOTOR
COMMON CARRIER.  IT LOOKS UPON THE CERTIFICATE FOR THE WHITE LINE ROUTE
AND THE ORDER FOR THE FREDERICKSON PURCHASE AS BEING CONTROLLED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND TRANSIT'S APPLICATIONS FOR PURCHASE
APPROVAL.  THE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS THE DECLARATION OF POLICY, SEC.
202(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, ENACTED AT THE INCEPTION OF FEDERAL
REGULATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS IN 1935, 49 STAT. 543, AS DIRECTING IT TO
PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  IT FINDS SUPPORT FOR THIS VIEW IN THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY SET OUT IN THE 1940 AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 899, DECLARING THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE
ADMINISTERED SO AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF
RAIL, MOTOR AND WATER TRANSPORTATION.  FN2  IT TREATS SEC. 213 OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 AND PRESENT SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT AS AUTHORIZING MERGERS, CONSOLIDATIONS AND ACQUISITIONS BETWEEN
RAIL AND MOTOR CARRIERS ONLY WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  FN3
ALTHOUGH SEC. 207, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, HAS NO CLAUSE REQUIRING SPECIAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR RAILROADS TO RECEIVE MOTOR-CARRIER OPERATING RIGHTS,
SUCH AS APPEARS IN THE PROVISO IN FORMER SEC. 213 AND PRESENT SEC. 5,
THE COMMISSION APPLIES THE RULES OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
SO AS TO READ THE PROVISO INTO SEC. 207 IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE
INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF MOTOR-CARRIER SERVICE.  FN4 

THE TRIAL COURT ACCEPTED TRANSIT'S ARGUMENT.  90 F.SUPP.  AT 519. 
THE COURT FOUND THE UNDISPUTED FACT TO BE THAT THE COMMISSION, IN THIS
MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, WAS NOT ACTING UNDER SEC. 212 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AUTHORIZING CHANGES OR REVOCATIONS IN
OPERATING AUTHORITY, BUT UNDER CLAIMED POWER SUBSEQUENTLY TO IMPOSE
CONDITIONS TO INSURE THAT THE OPERATIONS WOULD BE AUXILIARY TO, OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF, RAIL SERVICE; THAT TRANSIT'S OPERATIONS WERE AT ALL
TIMES AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO RAIL SERVICE WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S DEFINITION OF THAT SERVICE WHEN THE ACQUISITIONS WERE
APPROVED, AND COULD NOT BE CHANGED OR REVOKED EXCEPT UNDER SEC. 212;
THAT SUCH RESTRICTIONS AS WERE PROPOSED WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE FULL
MOTOR COMMON-CARRIER RIGHTS OF TRANSIT'S PREDECESSORS GUARANTEED TO
THEM BY THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE," SEC. 206, AND TRANSFERRED TO TRANSIT
BY A PURCHASE APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

A GLANCE AT THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS, SUPRA, PP. 425-426, SHOWS THE
PRACTICAL DISADVANTAGES TO TRANSIT.  IT CANNOT CARRY ON A GENERAL ALL
MOTOR OPERATION ON ITS OWN BILLINGS OR UNDER MOTOR RATES, JOINT OR
LOCAL.  FN5  IT CANNOT HAUL THROUGH MOTOR TRAFFIC AT RAIL TARIFFS
BETWEEN THE "KEY POINTS," OMAHA, DES MOINES AND THE BETTENDORF-ROCK
ISLAND-MOLINE CENTER.  FURTHERMORE, TRANSIT RESTS UNDER THE THREAT OF
POSSIBLE FUTURE RESTRICTIONS AS NEED MAY BE SHOWN FOR THEIR APPLICATION
TO HOLD ITS OPERATIONS, UNDER CHANGING CONDITIONS, TO THOSE THEN
REASONABLY DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE NEEDED TO KEEP TRANSIT'S
MOTOR SERVICE AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO ITS PARENT'S RAIL SERVICE. 
TRANSIT ALLEGES THAT THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD BAR IT FROM PARTICIPATION
IN TRAFFIC ON THE AFFECTED ROUTES THAT NOW PRODUCE A GROSS REVENUE OF
MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.  AS DAMAGE TO TRANSIT, IF THE
COMMISSION ORDER IS ENFORCED, WAS ADMITTED, PROOF OF THE AMOUNT WAS
DISPENSED WITH. 

WITH THE SITUATION AS ABOVE STATED IN MIND, WE TAKE UP THE QUESTION
OF THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN THIS CASE. 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  - THE COMMISSION HAS POWER AT THE TIME OF ITS
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY TO BE GRANTED BY
CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE OPERATION OF MOTOR
CARRIERS, WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED ON AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION
UNDER SEC. 207 OR AFTER ACQUISITION UNDER SEC. 213 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT, SEC. 5(2) INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  SECTION 206 REQUIRES A
CERTIFICATE.  SECTION 207 GIVES DISCRETION TO THE COMMISSION ACCORDING
TO THE STATUTORY STANDARDS OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO AUTHORIZE A
PART OR ALL OF THE REQUESTED OPERATIONS.  THE SERVICE MUST BE PERFORMED
ACCORDING TO THE "REQUIREMENTS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS OF THE
COMMISSION." 

THE PRACTICE OF THE COMMISSION FROM THE BEGINNING OF MOTOR-CARRIER
REGULATION HAS BEEN TO RESTRICT MOTOR-CARRIER OPERATIONS BOTH
GEOGRAPHICALLY  FN6  AND FUNCTIONALLY.  FN7  THE SAME WAS TRUE OF
RAILROAD MOTOR-CARRIER AFFILIATES.  WE THINK THAT AT THE TIME OF
ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IF THE COMMISSION REASONABLY DEEMS THE
RESTRICTION USEFUL IN PROTECTING COMPETITION, OR FOR OTHER STATUTORY
PURPOSES, THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE THE RAILROAD-AFFILIATED MOTOR
CARRIER TO PERFORM ONLY THOSE SERVICES THAT ARE AUXILIARY AND
SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE RAIL SERVICE.  THAT THE RAILROADS MADE USE OF MOTOR
CARRIAGE PRIMARILY IN SUCH FASHION WAS KNOWN TO THE CONGRESS BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF ANY REGULATORY LEGISLATION IN THE FIELD.  FN8  SUCH A
RESTRICTION IS A LOGICAL METHOD TO INSURE THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT OF
THE TWO TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES - RAILS AND MOTORS - AS COORDINATE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECLARATION OF POLICY,
SEC. 202(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 543, LATER
INCORPORATED INTO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, PREFIXED TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 899.  SPECIFIC STATUTORY
AUTHORITY IS FOUND IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVISO IN SEC. 213(A) OF
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 AND SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
AS AMENDED IN 1940, QUOTED IN NOTE 3, SUPRA. RAILROAD OPERATIONS AS
MOTOR CARRIERS ARE FORBIDDEN BY THAT ACQUISITION SECTION EXCEPT TO
ENABLE A RAILROAD "TO USE SERVICE BY MOTOR VEHICLE TO PUBLIC ADVANTAGE
IN ITS OPERATIONS."  FN9 

A SPATE OF CASES CAN BE CITED TO SUPPORT THE PRACTICE, SOME OF WHICH
WERE SPECIFICALLY CALLED TO CONGRESS' ATTENTION PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT
OF THE 1940 ACT.  FN10  WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS
GRANTING CERTIFICATES WHEN IT DEEMED THE PROPOSED RAILROAD MOTOR
CARRIER AFFILIATES WOULD OPERATE AS AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF
RAILROAD SERVICE, CONGRESS REENACTED SEC. 213 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT
IN SEC. 5(2) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  SUCH LIMITATION WAS IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, FOR OTHERWISE THE
RESOURCES OF RAILROADS MIGHT SOON MAKE OVER-THE-ROAD TRUCK COMPETITION
IMPOSSIBLE, AS UNREGULATED TRUCK TRANSPORT, IT WAS FEARED, MIGHT HAVE
CRIPPLED SOME RAILROADS.  MOTOR TRANSPORTATION THEN WOULD BE AN ADJUNCT
TO RAIL TRANSPORTATION, AND HOPED-FOR ADVANCEMENTS IN LAND
TRANSPORTATION FROM SUPERVISED COMPETITION BETWEEN MOTORS AND RAILS
WOULD NOT MATERIALIZE.  THE CONTROL OF THE BULK OF RAIL AND MOTOR
TRANSPORTATION WOULD BE CONCENTRATED IN ONE TYPE OF OPERATION. 
COMPLETE RAIL DOMINATION WAS NOT ENVISAGED AS A WAY TO PRESERVE THE
INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH FORM OF TRANSPORTATION.  FN11 

AS INDICATED ABOVE IN THE TEXT JUST PRECEDING NOTE 4, THE COMMISSION
READS INTO SEC. 207 THE SAME REQUIREMENT.  THUS A CONSISTENT ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE USE OF MOTORS BY RAILROADS IS MAINTAINED.  IT ALSO RELIES ON
ITS UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
POLICY "TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH,"
RAIL, MOTOR, AND WATER; AND ITS RELIANCE ON THAT POLICY IS FURTHER
JUSTIFIED BY THE WHITTINGTON AMENDMENT STATING THAT "ALL THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW TO CARRYING
OUT THE ABOVE DECLARATION OF POLICY."  54 STAT. 899. 

BUT POWER IN THE COMMISSION, BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OR
APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION, TO LIMIT RAILROAD MOTOR OPERATIONS SO AS TO
MAKE THEM AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO RAIL SERVICE DOES NOT
NECESSARILY IMPLY POWER TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS DESIGNED TO BRING
ABOUT THE DESIRED COORDINATION, AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE.  THE
PARENT RAILROAD MAY HAVE ACQUIRED OR DEVELOPED ITS MOTOR AFFILIATE IN
RELIANCE ON THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE CERTIFICATE.  SO FAR AS THE
PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THERE IS A PROVISION, QUOTED ABOVE, PP. 423
424, MAKING THE CERTIFICATE FOR THE WHITE LINE OPERATION SUBJECT TO
FURTHER LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS OR MODIFICATIONS THE COMMISSION MIGHT
FIND NECESSARY TO INSURE A CONTINUANCE OF AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATION AND TO AVOID UNDUE RESTRAINT ON COMPETITION.  IT WAS A CLAUSE
LIKE THIS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. PARKER, 326 U.S. 60,
THAT OCCASIONED THE COMMENT THAT "IF THE COMMISSION LATER DETERMINES
THAT THE BALANCE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY SHIFTS THROUGH
COMPETITION OR OTHERWISE, SO THAT INJURY TO THE PUBLIC FROM IMPAIRMENT
OF THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION EXCEEDS THE
ADVANTAGE TO THE PUBLIC OF EFFICIENT RAIL TRANSPORTATION, THE
COMMISSION MAY CORRECT THE TENDENCY BY RESTORATION OF THE RAIL MOVEMENT
REQUIREMENT OR OTHERWISE."  ID. AT 71-72.  AS THE ISSUE IN THE PARKER
CASE WAS THE RIGHT TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES TO RAILWAY SUBSIDIARIES WHEN
EXISTING OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR CARRIAGE MIGHT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED, NO
DETERMINATION WAS MADE THERE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SUCH A RESERVATION
WAS VALID.  ITS EFFECT ON THE PRESENT ISSUES COMES FROM THE RULING
THERE MADE THAT THE COMMISSION HAD POWER TO BALANCE THE PUBLIC
INTERESTS IN THE DIFFERENT METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION SO AS TO PRESERVE
THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH, EVEN THOUGH ITS ACTION MIGHT BRING
SOME DISADVANTAGE TO ONE SYSTEM OR THE OTHER.  THIS DUTY WAS SAID TO
HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE COMMISSION BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
POLICY.  ID. AT P. 66. 

WHEN COMPETITION, PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INHERENT
ADVANTAGES OF RAILS AND MOTORS, AND USE OF MOTOR SERVICE BY RAILROADS
IN THEIR OPERATIONS ARE THE BASIS, AS THEY ARE (SEE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY, 54 STAT. 899 AND SEC. 5(2)(B)), FOR ALLOWING
ACQUISITIONS OF MOTOR ROUTES BY RAILROADS, WE THINK IT CONSONANT WITH
THAT POLICY TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE FURTHER LIMITATIONS,
RESTRICTIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO INSURE THAT THE SERVICE REMAIN
AUXILIARY OR SUPPLEMENTAL.  CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE EXPECTED THE
COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE ONCE AND FOR ALL THE PROVISIONS
ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED BALANCE.  SUCH A RESERVATION, OF
COURSE, DOES NOT PROVIDE UNFETTERED POWER IN THE COMMISSION TO CHANGE
THE CERTIFICATE AT WILL.  THAT WOULD VIOLATE SEC. 212, ALLOWING
SUSPENSION, CHANGE OR REVOCATION ONLY FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS'
WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT OR LAWFUL ORDERS OR REGULATIONS
OF THE COMMISSION.  THE RESERVATION BY ITS TERMS DOES NOT OFFEND
AGAINST THE PROVISION OF SEC. 212 THAT A CERTIFICATE "SHALL REMAIN IN
EFFECT UNTIL SUSPENDED OR TERMINATED," AS SEC. 212 PROVIDES.  THE
COMMISSION ASSERTS THE MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CERTIFICATE.  THE RESERVATION WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE CHANGES IN OPERATION
OR SERVICE UNCONNECTED WITH THE PLAN OF COORDINATED OPERATION; AND
INDEED TRANSIT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY
AND AT LARGE.  WHAT THE RESERVATION DOES ALLOW ARE CHANGES TO INSURE
THAT THE OPERATIONS WILL CONTINUE AS AUXILIARY OR SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE
TRAIN SERVICE. 

THE CONSOLIDATION SECTION, SEC. 5(2), PERMITS A RAILROAD TO PURCHASE
A MOTOR CARRIER ONLY "WITH THE APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE
COMMISSION."  THAT APPROVAL IS CONTINGENT UPON A FINDING OF PUBLIC
ADVANTAGE AND LACK OF UNDUE RESTRAINT ON COMPETITION.  THEN APPROVAL IS
TO BE MADE "UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND WITH THE MODIFICATIONS,
SO FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE." 

WE NOTE THE DIRECTIONS OF SEC. 208 AS TO THE CERTIFICATE, REQUIRING
THAT IT "SHALL SPECIFY THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED" AND THAT "THERE
SHALL, AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE AND FROM TIME TO TIME THEREAFTER, BE
ATTACHED TO THE EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY THE CERTIFICATE
SUCH REASONABLE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS AS THE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY MAY  ... REQUIRE."  WE NOTE ALSO SECS. 216(C)
AND 217(A) WITH THEIR PROVISIONS ALLOWING COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR TO
ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES WITH OTHER CARRIERS, MOTOR OR
OTHERWISE.  SECTIONS 208, 216(C) AND 217(A) WITH THEIR GENERAL
PROVISIONS DO NOT IN OUR OPINION OVERRIDE THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY THAT THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF ALL
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION BE RETAINED, OR OF SEC. 5 THAT ACQUISITION OF
MOTOR ROUTES BY RAILROADS SHALL REQUIRE THE ABOVE SPECIAL FINDINGS AND
MAY BE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS.  SECTION 208 DOES NOT SEEM TO
CONFLICT WITH SEC. 5(B), AND SEC. 216(C) IS BASED ON VOLUNTARY ACTION. 
AND WE NEED NOT PAUSE OVER THE CONTENTION THAT LIMITATIONS PLACED UPON
RAIL-OWNED MOTOR CARRIERS TRANSFORM THEM FROM COMMON INTO CONTRACT
CARRIERS UNDER THE DEFINITIONS IN SEC. 203. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO OF SEC. 5(2)(B), WE HOLD, GIVES THE
COMMISSION POWER TO ENFORCE THE RESERVATION IN THE CERTIFICATE SET OUT
ON PP. 423-424, SUPRA.  WE TURN THEN TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FIVE
DIRECTED MODIFICATIONS OF THE CERTIFICATE, PP. 425-426, SUPRA, FAIRLY
MAY BE SAID TO BE OF A CHARACTER AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF TRAIN
SERVICE AND NOT SUCH A CHANGE OR REVOCATION IN PART AS IS CONTEMPLATED
BY THE PROCEDURE OF SEC. 212, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY OR
REGULATORY PROVISIONS. 

AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL.  - THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT SETS OUT
ONLY GENERALLY REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET BY RAILROAD APPLICANTS FOR
MOTOR-CARRIER CERTIFICATES.  IN ACQUISITION CASES UNDER SEC. 5(2) THE
CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE ISSUED WITHOUT THE STATUTORY FINDINGS
DISCUSSED ABOVE THAT THE PROPOSED MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION WILL BE IN
THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" AND THAT THE RAILROAD CAN USE THE MOTOR SERVICE
"TO PUBLIC ADVANTAGE IN ITS OPERATIONS."  FN12 

THE WORDS "AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF"  FN13  ARE NOT TAKEN FROM
THE ACT.  THERE IS NO SUCH SPECIFIC LIMITATION FOR RAILROAD OPERATION
OF MOTOR CARRIERS.  THEIR CONNOTATION IS TO BE GATHERED FROM THE
CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE
CERTIFICATE, PP. 423-424, SUPRA, USED THE PHRASE TO AVOID UNDUE
RESTRAINT ON COMPETITION.  THAT HAS BEEN ITS USE FROM THE BEGINNING. 
THE ONLY COMPETITION AT WHICH THE LIMITATION WAS DIRECTED WAS FULL
RAILROAD COMPETITION WITH OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR CARRIERS.  APPELLEES URGE
THAT THE MEANING OF THE WORDS IS LIMITED BY ITS APPLICATION THROUGH THE
RESTRICTIONS ON THE CERTIFICATES AT THE TIME IT WAS ISSUED, DECEMBER 3,
1941. 

APPELLEES ASSERT THAT UNDER THEIR CERTIFICATE THEY COULD AND DID
TRANSPORT AT EITHER RAIL OR TRUCK BILLING AND RATES, WITH NO
RESTRICTION OF MOVEMENT ALONG THE ROUTE.  THE AUXILIARY AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIREMENT, THEY ARGUE, IS ADEQUATELY COMPLIED WITH BY
RESTRICTING THE SERVICE TO POINTS "WHICH ARE ALSO STATIONS ON THE LINES
OF THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY."  THE
COMMISSION, APPELLEES CONTEND, WAS FUNCTIONING WITH THIS GEOGRAPHICAL
CONCEPT OF AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL IN MIND WHEN, IN 1941,
RESERVATION WAS MADE IN TRANSIT'S CERTIFICATE.  TO SUPPORT THIS
ASSERTION, APPELLEES CALL ATTENTION TO THE CASE IN WHICH THE PHRASE
"AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY" WAS FIRST APPLIED TO AUTHORIZE MOTOR
SERVICE OF RAILROAD AFFILIATES, PENNSYLVANIA TRUCK LINES, INC. - BARKER
MOTOR FREIGHT, 1 M.C.C. 101 AT 113, OCTOBER 8, 1936.  FN14  LATER, IN 5
M.C.C. 9, MARCH 6, 1937, THE FORM WAS CHANGED AS SHOWN BELOW.  FN15
THAT THIS AUTHORIZATION PERMITTED GENERAL MOTOR-CARRIER SERVICE ALONG
THE RAIL LINES, APPELLEE STATES, IS SHOWN BY PENNSYLVANIA TRUCK LINES,
INC., EXTENSION - LEBANON, OHIO, 47 M.C.C. 837, DECIDED JANUARY 6,
1948.  FN16  SEE ALSO, SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY - VALLEY MOTOR LINES,
INC., 39 M.C.C. 441, 447.  FN17 

THE COMMISSION ASSERTS THAT THE MEANING OF "AUXILIARY AND
SUPPLEMENTAL" AS USED IN THE BARKER PURCHASE AND THEREAFTER WAS NOT
GEOGRAPHICAL.  THIS, IT SAYS, IS SHOWN BY THE EXPLANATION IN 5 M.C.C.
AT P. 11, A LATER BARKER REPORT AND ORDER.  FN18 IN 1943, AFTER THE
CERTIFICATE HERE IN QUESTION WAS ISSUED, THE COMMISSION DEFINED
"AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL" IN THE TEXAS & PACIFIC MOTOR TRANSPORT
COMPANY APPLICATION, 41 M.C.C. 721.  FN19  THE COMMISSION NOTES THAT
THE VALLEY CASE, SUPRA, CAME AFTER TEXAS & PACIFIC, AND NOW CONSIDERS
IT DISAPPROVED BY A SUBSEQUENT DENIAL OF RECONSIDERATION OF TEXAS &
PACIFIC.  55 M.C.C. 567, 584-585.  THE QUESTION HAS EVIDENTLY PRODUCED
A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN THE COMMISSION.  FN20 

APPELLEES CHARGED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD TIGHTENED ITS "CONCEPT OF
WHAT IS AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF, RAIL SERVICE."  55 M.C.C.
567, 583.  THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT ASSUMPTION AND
THEREFORE DID NOT DISCUSS THE NECESSITY OF PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 212 IN
CHANGING OR PARTIALLY REVOKING THE CERTIFICATE.  IT HELD: 

"WE CONCLUDE THAT APPROVAL OF THE ACQUISITION BY TRANSIT WAS SOLELY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING TRANSIT TO PERFORM A SERVICE AUXILIARY TO
AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF RAIL SERVICE; THAT SUCH INTENT OR PURPOSE WAS
ADEQUATELY EVIDENCED BY THE REPORT OF DIVISION 5 INCLUDING THE
RESERVATION OF A RIGHT SPECIFICALLY TO RESTRICT IF NEED SHOULD BE
FOUND; THAT TRANSIT HAS NO CAUSE FOR ANY COMPLAINT THAT IT WAS MISLED
TO ITS PREJUDICE AND THAT OUR CONCEPT AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL
DECISION HEREIN, AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES SERVICE AUXILIARY TO OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF RAIL SERVICE, THOUGH NOW DESCRIBED IN GREATER DETAIL,
HAS NOT BEEN REVISED TO TRANSIT'S PREJUDICE; AND THAT THERE IS NO
ELEMENT OF UNFAIRNESS IN OUR EXERCISE NOW OF ANY AUTHORITY WHICH WE
HAVE TO RESTRICT FUTURE OPERATIONS."  55 M.C.C. 567, 585. 

IT IS TO BE NOTED ALSO THAT THE EXAMINER'S REPORT ON THE WHITE LINE
PURCHASE IN 1938 RECOMMENDED "THAT NO TRUCK SERVICE SHALL BE CONDUCTED
AT OTHER THAN RAIL RATES."  ON OBJECTION BY APPELLEE THIS REQUIREMENT
WAS ELIMINATED.  5 M.C.C. 451, 458; 55 M.C.C. 567, 576 FF.; 90 F.SUPP. 
516, 518.  FURTHERMORE, THE COMMISSION REQUIRED THE APPELLEE TO FILE
TARIFFS FOR TRUCK RATES AND TRUCK BILLING WITH THE COMMISSION.  90
F.SUPP.  516, 518.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW AS
FOLLOWS: 

"3.  PRIOR TO AND AT THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL OF THE WHITE LINE
TRANSACTION AND THE ISSUANCE IN SAID PROCEEDING OF PLAINTIFF'S
CERTIFICATE, AND AT THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE
FREDERICKSON CERTIFICATE, THE TERM, 'AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF
TRAIN SERVICE' DID NOT PROHIBIT THE RENDITION OF ALL-MOTOR SERVICE
DIRECTLY FOR THE SHIPPING PUBLIC AT ALL-MOTOR RATES IN ADDITION TO
SERVICE AT RAIL RATES IN SUBSTITUTION FOR AND IN LIEU OF THE RAIL
SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF'S AFFILIATED RAILROAD."    WHAT WAS IN THE
COMMISSION'S MIND AS TO THE MEANING OF AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL AT
THE TIME IT ISSUED ITS CERTIFICATE, WE CANNOT BE SURE.  AT PRESENT A
MOTOR SERVICE IS AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO RAIL SERVICE, IN THE
COMMISSION'S VIEW, WHEN THE RAILROAD-AFFILIATED MOTOR CARRIER IN A
SUBORDINATE CAPACITY AIDS THE RAILROAD IN ITS RAIL OPERATIONS BY
ENABLING THE RAILROAD TO GIVE BETTER SERVICE OR OPERATE MORE CHEAPLY
RATHER THAN INDEPENDENTLY COMPETING WITH OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS. 
UNDOUBTEDLY THE COMMISSION HAS NOT CONSISTENTLY REQUIRED EACH RAIL
AFFILIATED MOTOR CARRIER TO FOREGO MOTOR BILLINGS OR TARIFFS.  KEY
POINTS TO BREAK TRAFFIC ARE RELATIVELY NEW.  28 M.C.C. 5.  RAIL
AFFILIATES HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO LEAVE THE LINE OF THE RAILROAD TO
SERVE COMMUNITIES WITHOUT OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  FN21  THOSE
DIVERGENCES, HOWEVER, ARE AN EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETIONARY AND
SUPERVISORY POWER WITH WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENDOWED THE COMMISSION.  IT
IS BECAUSE CONGRESS COULD NOT DEAL WITH THE MULTITUDINOUS AND VARIABLE
SITUATIONS THAT ARISE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO ADJUST
SERVICES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  SEC. 208.  THE
COMMISSION HAS CONTINUALLY EVIDENCED, AS INDICATED ABOVE, BY OPINION
AND CERTIFICATION ITS INTENTION TO HAVE RAIL-OWNED MOTOR CARRIERS SERVE
IN AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL CAPACITY TO THE RAILROADS. 

APPELLEES URGE THAT THE NEW CONDITIONS MARK A NEW COMMISSION POLICY;
THAT IT IS SUCH A CHANGE IN THE CERTIFICATE AS WAS CONDEMNED IN THE
CASE OF WATER CARRIERS BY UNITED STATES V. SEATRAIN LINES, 329 U.S.
424, 428.  WITHOUT RELYING UPON THE STATUTORY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
COMMISSION POWER OVER MOTOR AND WATER CARRIERS, PP. 429-432, WE BELIEVE
THAT CASE IS INAPPLICABLE TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN SEATRAIN A
CERTIFICATE WAS GRANTED TO CARRY "COMMODITIES GENERALLY."  FOR THE
COMMISSION THEN TO MODIFY THIS TO "IN RAILROAD CARS ONLY" OR "EXCEPT IN
RAILROAD CARS" WOULD LIMIT THE FREIGHT AUTHORIZED TO BE CARRIED BY THE
CERTIFICATE.  TRANSIT'S CERTIFICATE, ON THE OTHER HAND, REQUIRED
SERVICE AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO RAILS, AND THE MODIFICATION WAS
NOT A CHANGE OF POLICY AS TO THAT BUT AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT TO
INSURE COORDINATED SERVICE.  THE NEW CONDITIONS, PP. 425-426, SUPRA,
ARE OF A CHARACTER THAT AIDS RAIL OPERATION AND MINIMIZES COMPETITION
WITH OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR CARRIERS.  SUCH ADDED CONDITIONS ARE NOT
CHANGES IN OR REVOCATIONS OF A CERTIFICATE IN WHOLE OR IN PART BUT A
CARRYING OUT OF THE RESERVATION IN THE CERTIFICATE. 

THE COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSED ITS POLICY TO LIMIT RAIL AFFILIATES TO
SERVICES IN AID OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION BY THE PHRASE, PERHAPS TOO
SUMMARY, AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL.  THOUGH THE PHRASE IS DIFFICULT TO
DEFINE PRECISELY, ITS GENERAL CONTENT IS SET OUT IN TEXAS & PACIFIC
MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. APPLICATION, 41 M.C.C. 721, 726, QUOTED N. 19,
SUPRA.  WHILE THE PRACTICE OF THE COMMISSION HAS VARIED IN THE
CONDITIONS IMPOSED, THE PURPOSE TO HAVE RAIL-CONNECTED MOTOR CARRIERS
ACT IN COORDINATION WITH TRAIN SERVICE HAS NOT.  CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE. 
DIFFERENT CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO
MAINTAIN THE BALANCE BETWEEN RAIL AND MOTOR CARRIAGE.  WE DO NOT THINK
THE MEANING OF AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL IS LIMITED TO THE
COMMISSION'S PRACTICE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME.  SO LONG AS IT MAY FAIRLY
BE SAID THAT THE PRACTICE REQUIRED FROM THE MOTOR CARRIER FALLS WITHIN
THE MEANING THE COMMISSION HAS GIVEN TO AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL, THE
CONDITION IS VALID. 

SUCH RESTRICTIONS HAMPER RAILROAD COMPANIES IN THE USE OF THEIR
PHYSICAL FACILITIES - STATIONS, TERMINALS, WAREHOUSES - THEIR PERSONNEL
AND THEIR CAPITAL IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION
ENTERPRISES TO ENCOMPASS ALL OR AS MUCH OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION AS THE
ROADS MAY DESIRE.  THE ANNOUNCED TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF CONGRESS DID
NOT PERMIT SUCH DEVELOPMENT.  FN22 WE HOLD THAT THE NEW CONDITIONS ARE
WITHIN THE LIMITS COVERED BY THE RESERVATION OF POWER TO IMPOSE SUCH
FURTHER LIMITATIONS AS MIGHT BE FOUND NECESSARY "TO INSURE THAT THE
SERVICE SHALL BE AUXILIARY OR SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE TRAIN SERVICE" OF
THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. 

FREDERICKSON PURCHASE.  - THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AT THE BEGINNING OF
THIS OPINION SHOWS THE FREDERICKSONS POSSESSED CERTIFICATES ISSUED
UNDER THE PROVISO OF SEC. 206, THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  TRANSIT
AGREED TO PURCHASE THESE RIGHTS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
COMMISSION.  THIS APPROVAL WAS GIVEN BY A REPORT AND ORDER.  THE ORDER
APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF THE "OPERATING RIGHTS AND PROPERTY  ...
SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE FINDINGS IN SAID
REPORT."  THE FINDINGS COMPLIED WITH SEC. 5(2)(A) AND (B) OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT.  THEY STATED, "THE ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT
COMPANY WILL BE ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE COVERING THE PREVIOUSLY
DESCRIBED PORTION OF RIGHTS GRANTED IN NOS. MC-530 AND MC-530(SUB-NO.
1), WHICH RIGHTS ARE HEREIN AUTHORIZED TO BE UNIFIED WITH RIGHTS
OTHERWISE CONFIRMED IN THE ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT COMPANY, WITH
DUPLICATIONS ELIMINATED; ...  "  THE WORDS "PREVIOUSLY-DESCRIBED
PORTION OF RIGHTS GRANTED" COVER THE FREDERICKSON CERTIFICATES AS "A
MOTOR-VEHICLE COMMON CARRIER OF GENERAL COMMODITIES OVER REGULAR ROUTES
BETWEEN" NAMED POINTS.  THE FREDERICKSON CERTIFICATES ALSO COVERED
IRREGULAR ROUTES FOR CERTAIN COMMODITIES.  THESE LATTER RIGHTS WERE NOT
PURCHASED.  THE RIGHTS PURCHASED WERE OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR-CARRIER
RIGHTS.  NEITHER THOSE CERTIFICATES NOR THE REPORT OR ORDER ON THE
PURCHASE APPLICATION CONTAINED ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY LIMITING THE
OPERATIONS TO SERVICE AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE ROCK ISLAND
TRAIN SERVICE.  THERE WAS A FINDING, IN THE WORDS OF THE PROVISO TO
SEC. 5(2)(B), THAT THE PURCHASE "WILL ENABLE THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND
AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY  ...  TO USE SERVICE BY MOTOR VEHICLE TO
PUBLIC ADVANTAGE IN ITS OPERATIONS."  THE TRANSACTION WAS CONSUMMATED
IN JANUARY 1945, OVER SIX YEARS AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE WHITE LINE
PURCHASE AND OVER THREE YEARS AFTER THE ISSUE OF THAT ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE, HEREINBEFORE DISCUSSED. 

THE BASIC QUESTION POSED AS TO THIS PURCHASE IS SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE
WHITE LINE PURCHASE.  HAS THE COMMISSION POWER TO PLACE IN THE
FREDERICKSON CERTIFICATES THE MODIFICATIONS ORDERED FOR THE WHITE LINE
CERTIFICATE?  WE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY DETERMINING THAT THE ORDER
APPROVING THE PURCHASE HAS NOT THE FINALITY OF A CERTIFICATE BUT IS
RATHER ONLY A TENTATIVE APPROACH TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PURCHASE
SUBJECT TO CHANGES IN CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.  THE POWER TO ISSUE
THE CERTIFICATE WITH THE WHITE LINE MODIFIED CONDITIONS FOLLOWS, A
PRIORI, FROM WHAT WE HAVE SAID IN THE FOREGOING DIVISION OF THIS
DECISION.  THIS LEAVES UNANSWERED THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO MODIFY A RAILROAD-AFFILIATED MOTOR CARRIER'S CERTIFICATE
SO AS TO MAKE ITS OPERATION AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE RAIL
SERVICE, WHEN NO RESERVATION FOR OR RESTRICTION TO THAT EFFECT HAS BEEN
PLACED IN THE ORDER DIRECTING THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE OR THE
CERTIFICATE ITSELF.  IF ANY SUCH PROCEDURE SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE
COMMISSION, THAT ANSWER SHOULD AWAIT A FULLY DEVELOPED STATEMENT AND
ARGUMENT BY THE INTERESTS AFFECTED.  OUR REASONS FOR HOLDING THAT THE
COMMISSION MAY VALIDLY INSERT THE PROPOSED LIMITATIONS IN THE
CERTIFICATE FOLLOW. 

CLOSINGS OF LOANS AND PURCHASES INVOLVE NICE TIMING ADJUSTMENTS.  THE
TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY IS FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPLEXITIES OF CLOSINGS
INVOLVING CLEARANCES OR IMPOSITIONS OF PRIOR AND UNDERLYING MORTGAGES
AND PARTITION OF OBLIGATIONS AMONG SYNDICATES OF LENDERS OR PURCHASERS,
FROM RAIL SYSTEM MORTGAGES TO SECURE VARIOUS CLASSES OF OBLIGEES IN
REORGANIZATIONS TO SIMPLE BORROWINGS FOR TRUSTEED EQUIPMENT.  IT
UNDERSTANDS THE BUSINESS RISKS OF PURCHASE OR SALE AHEAD OF FINAL
COMMITMENT BY A SEPARATE ENTITY.  A REQUEST FOR A STATEMENT OF THE
TERMS OF THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WOULD
DOUBTLESS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE COMMISSION.  IF NOT, THE
CLOSING WITH FREDERICKSON COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY ESCROW OR OTHERWISE
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE. 

TRANSIT HAD HAD EXPERIENCE WITH THE PROBLEMS OF CO-ORDINATION BETWEEN
RAIL AND MOTOR SERVICE.  FN23  IN THIS APPLICATION IT OBJECTED TO A
LIMITATION ON FREIGHT OF IMMEDIATELY PRIOR OR IMMEDIATELY SUBSEQUENT
RAIL CARRIAGE.  THE LIMITATION WAS NOT PUT IN THE REPORT AS A
CONDITION.  WHILE THE REPORT STRESSED THE RAIL OPERATING ADVANTAGES OF
THE USE OF TRUCKS, IT DID NOT DEAL WITH THE TERMS AUXILIARY AND
SUPPLEMENTAL.  IF THE PROBLEM OF LIMITATION OF THE CERTIFICATE TO MOTOR
SERVICE IN RAIL OPERATION OCCURRED TO THE APPLICANT OR THE COMMISSION,
PRECEDENTS FROM THE BARKER CASE TO THE WHITE LINE APPLICATION WOULD
HAVE INDICATED AN INCLUSION IN THE CERTIFICATE OF A LIMITATION OF
AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF RAIL SERVICE. 

TRANSIT MAINTAINS THAT THE ORDER IS FINAL; THAT THE RESULT IS THE
SAME AS THOUGH THE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL WERE
WRITTEN INTO THE OPERATING CERTIFICATE AS DIRECTED BY THE STATUTE. 
SEC. 208.  "THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION," ARGUES TRANSIT, REFLECT
"FINALITY OF ACTION."  FN24  NEITHER OF THE LATTER TWO CASES IN THE
NOTE BEAR IN ANY WAY ON THE PRESENT POINT.  IN BOTH, CERTIFICATES HAD
BEEN ISSUED AND THE COMMISSION SAID, IN SO MANY WORDS, THE CERTIFICATES
ARE FINAL.  IN THE SMITH BROS. CASE, IT ADDED: 

"WE MAY ISSUE DECISION UPON DECISION, AND ORDER UPON ORDER, ON AN
APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE SO LONG AS SUFFICIENT REASON THEREFOR
APPEARS AND UNTIL ALL CONTROVERSY IS DETERMINED, BUT ONCE A
CERTIFICATE, DULY AND REGULARLY ISSUED, BECOMES EFFECTIVE, OUR
AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE IT IS EXPRESSLY MARKED OFF AND LIMITED.  ALL THE
ANTECEDENT DECISIONS AND ORDERS ARE ESSENTIALLY PROCEDURAL IN
CHARACTER, AND MAY BE SET ASIDE, MODIFIED, OR VACATED, BUT THE
CERTIFICATE MARKS THE END OF THE PROCEEDING, JUST AS THE ENTRY OF A
FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE MARKS THE END OF A COURT PROCEEDING."  P.
472. 

WHAT SLIGHT BEARING SEATRAIN HAS WEIGHS ON THE SIDE OF THE
INTERLOCUTORY CHARACTER OF THE APPROVAL ORDER.  THE SENTENCE REFERRED
TO READS: 

"BUT, AS THE COMMISSION HAS SAID AS TO MOTOR CARRIER CERTIFICATES,
WHILE THE PROCEDURAL 'ORDERS' ANTECEDENT TO A WATER CARRIER CERTIFICATE
CAN BE MODIFIED FROM TIME TO TIME, THE CERTIFICATE MARKS THE END OF
THAT PROCEEDING."  P. 432. 

AS UNDER THE STATUTE, SECS. 206, 207, 208, MOTOR CARRIERS MUST HAVE
CERTIFICATES AUTHORIZING THEIR OPERATIONS, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
CERTIFICATE IS THE FINAL ACT OR ORDER THAT VALIDATES THE OPERATION. 
UNTIL ITS FORM AND CONTENT ARE FIXED BY DELIVERY TO THE APPLICANT, THE
POWER TO FRAME IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTORY DIRECTIONS PERSISTS. 

IT MAY BE SAID THAT, AS THE ORDER PERMITTED TRANSIT TO PURCHASE THE
FREDERICKSON "OPERATING RIGHTS," IT MUST HAVE FREEDOM TO USE ALL THE
SELLER'S MOTOR-CARRIER PRIVILEGES; THAT THE ABSENCE OF A RESERVATION
DEFEATS COMMISSION POWER TO INSERT "AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL"
RESTRICTIONS IN THE CERTIFICATE.  SINCE WE HOLD THE ORDER OF APPROVAL
IS NOT THE FINAL ORDER, WE REJECT THE PREMISE. 

OTHER OBJECTIONS.  - A NUMBER OF OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE ORDERS WERE PRESENTED BY APPELLEES AND CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. 
WE COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THOSE WE THINK MERIT NOTICE.  "GRANDFATHER
RIGHTS" UNDER SEC. 206 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT WERE THE BASIS OF THE
WHITE AND FREDERICKSON APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY.  TRANSIT ACQUIRED THE SELLERS' RIGHTS TO CERTIFICATES. 
APPELLEES CONTEND THAT AS THE SELLERS WERE ENTITLED TO BROADER
OPERATING RIGHTS THAN ARE ALLOWED THE PURCHASER UNDER THE MODIFIED
CERTIFICATE, THE RIGHT TO "SUBSTANTIAL PARITY BETWEEN FUTURE OPERATIONS
AND PRIOR BONA FIDE OPERATIONS" GUARANTEED BY SEC. 206 IS INFRINGED BY
LIMITING THE MOTOR SERVICE TO THAT AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO RAIL
SERVICE.  FN25  A RAILROAD PURCHASER DOES NOT NECESSARILY RECEIVE ALL
RIGHTS A CERTIFICATE HOLDER POSSESSES.  BECAUSE OF THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND SEC. 5, MAKING A RAILROAD'S PURCHASE SUBJECT
TO CONDITIONS, AS HEREINBEFORE DESCRIBED, APPROVAL MAY BE CONDITIONED
BY THE COMMISSION ON THE RAILROAD PURCHASER'S WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT A
NARROWER CERTIFICATE THAN THAT POSSESSED BY THE SELLER. 

FINALLY, THE APPELLEE ASSERTS THAT ITS CERTIFICATE IS PROPERTY AKIN
TO A FRANCHISE; THAT IT HAS INVESTED LARGE SUMS IN THE ACQUISITION AND
EQUIPMENT OF ITS ROUTES AND SERVICE, AND THAT WHAT IT ALLEGES IS
REVOCATION DEPRIVES IT OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  WE
THINK THAT OUR PREVIOUS HOLDING IN THIS DECISION THAT TRANSIT TOOK ITS
CERTIFICATE AND OBTAINED APPROVAL OF ITS ACQUISITIONS TO OPERATE IN THE
AID OF THE RAILROAD, AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL THERETO, MAKES IT
OBVIOUS THAT TRANSIT HAD NOTHING OF WHICH IT WAS DEPRIVED BY THE
CONTESTED ORDER. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE
PROCEEDING IS REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 212(A), 49 STAT. 555, 52 STAT. 1238, 54 STAT. 924: 

"CERTIFICATES, PERMITS, AND LICENSES SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE
SPECIFIED THEREIN, AND SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL SUSPENDED OR
TERMINATED AS HEREIN PROVIDED.  ANY SUCH CERTIFICATE, PERMIT, OR
LICENSE MAY, UPON APPLICATION OF THE HOLDER THEREOF, IN THE DISCRETION
OF THE COMMISSION, BE AMENDED OR REVOKED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR MAY
UPON COMPLAINT, OR ON THE COMMISSION'S OWN INITIATIVE, AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING, BE SUSPENDED, CHANGED, OR REVOKED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR
WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS PART, OR WITH ANY
LAWFUL ORDER, RULE, OR REGULATION OF THE COMMISSION PROMULGATED
THEREUNDER, OR WITH ANY TERM, CONDITION, OR LIMITATION OF SUCH
CERTIFICATE, PERMIT, OR LICENSE:  ...  "    FN2  40 M.C.C. 457, 473: 

"IT IS OUR OPINION, ORIGINALLY INDICATED IN THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN
CASE AND CONFIRMED BY NEARLY A DECADE OF EXPERIENCE IN MOTOR-CARRIER
REGULATIONS, THAT THE PRESERVATION OF THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF MOTOR
CARRIER SERVICE AND OF HEALTHY COMPETITION BETWEEN RAILROADS AND MOTOR
CARRIERS AND THE PROMOTION OF ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE BY ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND OF SOUND CONDITIONS IN THE
TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE SEVERAL CARRIERS, IN SHORT THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PURPOSES FORMING THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
POLICY, REQUIRE THAT, EXCEPT WHERE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAIL, EVERY
GRANT TO A RAILROAD OR TO A RAILROAD AFFILIATE OF AUTHORITY TO OPERATE
AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE OR TO ACQUIRE SUCH AUTHORITY BY
PURCHASE OR OTHERWISE SHOULD BE SO CONDITIONED AS DEFINITELY TO LIMIT
THE FUTURE SERVICE BY MOTOR VEHICLE TO THAT WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO, OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF, TRAIN SERVICE." 

FN3  SEC. 213(A), 49 STAT. 556: 

"PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF A CARRIER OTHER THAN A MOTOR CARRIER IS
AN APPLICANT, OR ANY PERSON WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY SUCH A CARRIER OTHER
THAN A MOTOR CARRIER OR AFFILIATED THEREWITH WITHIN THE MEANING OF
UNLESS IT FINDS THAT THE TRANSACTION PROPOSED WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BY ENABLING SUCH CARRIER OTHER THAN A MOTOR CARRIER TO USE
SERVICE BY MOTOR VEHICLE TO PUBLIC ADVANTAGE IN ITS OPERATIONS AND WILL
NOT UNDULY RESTRAIN COMPETITION." 

THIS PROVISO REMAINS IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SEC. 5(2)(B). 
54 STAT. 906. 

FN4  "WE APPRECIATE, OF COURSE, THAT SECTION 207, UNLIKE SECTION 5,
DOES NOT REQUIRE OF A RAILROAD, UNDERTAKING TO PROVE THAT PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE A MOTOR SERVICE WHICH IT PROPOSES,
ANY GREATER MEASURE OF PROOF THAN IS REQUIRED OF ANY OTHER APPLICANT. 
BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS AS EASY FOR ONE APPLICANT, AS FOR
ANOTHER, TO PROVE NEED FOR A PROPOSED SERVICE OR THAT THIS COMMISSION
CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION BY A RAILROAD FOR AUTHORITY TO PERFORM AN
ALL-MOTOR SERVICE, NOT IN AID OF ITS RAIL SERVICE BUT IN COMPETITION
THEREWITH AND WITH OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS, CAN IGNORE THE CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT SUCH APPLICANT IS A RAILROAD WHOSE OPERATION AS PROPOSED WOULD
ORDINARILY BE (INCONSISTENT) WITH THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  IN OTHER WORDS, A RAILROAD APPLICANT
FOR AUTHORITY TO OPERATE AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE, THOUGH
REQUIRED TO DO NO MORE THAN PROVE, AS ANY OTHER APPLICANT, THAT ITS
SERVICE IS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, HAS A SPECIAL
BURDEN, NOT BY REASON OF ANY ATTITUDE OR ACTION ON OUR PART, BUT BY
REASON OF THE VERY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT IS A RAILROAD.  WHERE IT FAILS
TO SHOW SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES NEGATIVING ANY DISADVANTAGE TO THE PUBLIC
FROM THIS FACT, A GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO SUPPLY MOTOR SERVICE OTHER THAN
SERVICE AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF TRAIN SERVICE IS NOT
JUSTIFIED."  ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO., 40 M.C.C. 457, 471, 473
474; CF. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN TRANSPORT CO., 10 M.C.C. 221, 237. 

FN5  APPELLEES DEDUCE THESE LIMITATIONS FROM THE NEW CONDITION (1),
P. 425, SUPRA.  AS THE COMMISSION DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE STATEMENT, AND
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSION SO TREATS SUCH CONDITIONS, WE
ACCEPT THAT INTERPRETATION.  55 M.C.C. 567, 581 FF.  SEE 41 M.C.C. 721,
726; TEXT AT N. 19, INFRA. 

FN6  SEC. 207:  "PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH CERTIFICATE SHALL BE
ISSUED TO ANY COMMON CARRIER OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR
OPERATIONS OVER OTHER THAN A REGULAR ROUTE OR ROUTES, AND BETWEEN FIXED
TERMINI, EXCEPT AS SUCH CARRIERS MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN SPECIAL
OR CHARTER OPERATIONS." 

FN7  CRESCENT EXPRESS LINES V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 401. 

FN8  MOTOR BUS AND MOTOR TRUCK OPERATION, 140 I.C.C. 685, 721, 745,
749; COORDINATION OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION, 182 I.C.C. 263, 336 FF.; AND
SEE REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION ON THE
REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES OTHER THAN RAILROADS, S. DOC. NO.
152, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 15 FF., 35.  REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR
OF TRANSPORTATION ON TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION, H.R. DOC. NO. 89, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 6. 

FN9  PROVISO TO SEC. 5.  SEE COMMISSIONER EASTMAN, HEARINGS BEFORE
SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UNITED STATES
SENATE, ON S. 3606, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 23: 

"THE REASON FOR THAT PROVISO WAS THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THIS ACT WAS
UNDER CONSIDERATION BY YOUR COMMITTEE, THERE WAS A FEELING ON THE PART
OF MANY THAT RAILROADS, FOR EXAMPLE, OUGHT NOT BE PERMITTED TO ACQUIRE
MOTOR CARRIERS AT ALL.  IT WAS POINTED OUT, IN OPPOSITION TO THAT VIEW,
THAT THERE WERE MANY CASES WHERE RAILROADS COULD USE MOTOR VEHICLES TO
GREAT ADVANTAGE IN THEIR OPERATIONS, IN SUBSTITUTION FOR RAIL SERVICE,
AS MANY OF THEM ARE NOW DOING.  MANY RAILROAD MEN, FOR EXAMPLE, FEEL
THAT THE OPERATION OF WAY TRAINS HAS BECOME OBSOLETE; THAT THE MOTOR
VEHICLE CAN HANDLE SUCH TRAFFIC BETWEEN SMALL STATIONS MUCH MORE
ECONOMICALLY AND CONVENIENTLY THAN CAN BE DONE BY A WAY TRAIN; AND THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ARE BEING USED IN THAT WAY BY MANY RAILROADS.  THE SAME
IS TRUE OF MANY TERMINAL OPERATIONS.  THE MOTOR VEHICLE IS A MUCH MORE
FLEXIBLE UNIT THAN A LOCOMOTIVE SWITCHING CARS, AND IT CAN BE USED TO
GREAT ADVANTAGE AND WITH GREAT ECONOMY IN MANY RAILROAD OPERATIONS." 

AND SEE STATEMENTS OF SEN. WHEELER, 79 CONG. REC. 5655, AND REP.
SADOWSKI, 79 CONG. REC. 12206.  CF. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
PARKER, 326 U.S. 60.  SEE ALSO SEC. 212(B). 

FN10  E.G., KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN TRANSPORT CO., 10 M.C.C. 221, 53D
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION 107, NOVEMBER 1,
1939; PENNSYLVANIA TRUCK LINES, INC., 5 M.C.C. 9, 51ST ANNUAL REPORT 68
69.  THE COMMISSION, IN APPENDIX B TO ITS BRIEF IN NOS. 38 AND 39,
UNITED STATES V. TEXAS & PACIFIC MOTOR TRANSPORT CO., DECIDED TODAY,
POST, PAGE 450, HAS COLLECTED 120 CASES, BEGINNING IN 1936 WITH VOL. 1
OF THE MOTOR CARRIER REPORTS, DEALING WITH THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES
TO MOTOR SUBSIDIARIES OF RAIL CARRIERS.  THE GREAT BULK OF THESE CASES
MAKES SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD. 

FN11  SEE MECK AND BOGUE, FEDERAL REGULATION OF MOTOR CARRIER
UNIFICATION, 50 YALE L.J. 1376, 1408 FF.  THE COMMISSION'S VIEW IS
EVIDENCED IN PENNSYLVANIA TRUCK LINES, INC., 1 M.C.C. 101, 111: 

"WHILE WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE RAILROAD COULD, WITH THE RESOURCES AT
ITS COMMAND, EXPAND AND IMPROVE THE PARTNERSHIP SERVICE AND THAT, SO
FAR AS NUMBERS ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS NOW AN AMPLE SUPPLY OF
INDEPENDENT OPERATORS IN THE TERRITORY FOR THE FURNISHING OF
COMPETITIVE SERVICE, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT THE WAY TO MAINTAIN FOR
THE FUTURE HEALTHFUL COMPETITION BETWEEN RAIL AND TRUCK SERVICE IS TO
GIVE THE RAILROADS FREE OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO THE KIND OF TRUCK
SERVICE WHICH IS STRICTLY COMPETITIVE WITH, RATHER THAN AUXILIARY TO,
THEIR RAIL OPERATIONS.  THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 213, ABOVE QUOTED, IS
EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE. 
TRUCK SERVICE WOULD NOT, IN OUR JUDGMENT, HAVE DEVELOPED TO THE
EXTRAORDINARY EXTENT TO WHICH IT HAS DEVELOPED IF IT HAD BEEN UNDER
RAILROAD CONTROL.  IMPROVEMENT IN THE PARTICULAR SERVICE NOW FURNISHED
BY THE PARTNERSHIP MIGHT FLOW FROM CONTROL BY THE RAILROAD, BUT THE
QUESTION INVOLVED IS BROADER THAN THAT AND CONCERNS THE FUTURE OF TRUCK
SERVICE GENERALLY.  THE FINANCIAL AND SOLICITING RESOURCES OF THE
RAILROADS COULD EASILY BE SO USED IN THIS FIELD THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF
INDEPENDENT SERVICE WOULD BE GREATLY HAMPERED AND RESTRICTED, AND WITH
ULTIMATE DISADVANTAGE TO THE PUBLIC." 

FN12  IN ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS UNDER SEC. 207, THE FACT THAT THE
APPLICANT IS A RAILROAD BRINGS UP OTHER QUESTIONS OF TRANSPORTATION
POLICY.  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN13  THE VARIANT "AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTARY TO" APPEARS TO BE
USED INTERCHANGEABLY WITH "AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF." 

FN14 "2.  THAT THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED BY THE BARKER MOTOR
FREIGHT, INCORPORATED, IN THE EVENT THE PERTINENT APPLICATIONS NOW
PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ARE SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY US, BE
CONFINED TO SERVICE AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY TO THAT PERFORMED BY
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY IN ITS RAIL OPERATIONS AND IN
TERRITORY PARALLEL AND ADJACENT TO ITS RAIL LINES." 

FN15  "PROVIDED, HOWEVER, (1) THAT OPERATIONS UNDER THE AUTHORITY
HEREIN GRANTED SHALL BE CONFINED BETWEEN THE POINTS AND OVER THE ROUTES
DESCRIBED IN THE APPENDIX, (2) THAT THE AUTHORITY HEREIN GRANTED SHALL
NOT BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE THE RIGHT OF RENDERING SERVICE FROM OR TO,
OR THE INTERCHANGING OF TRAFFIC AT, ANY POINT OTHER THAN A STATION OF
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, ...  " 5 M.C.C. AT 15. 

FN16  "UNDER THE BARKER CERTIFICATE APPLICANT PERFORMS TWO DISTINCT
TYPES OF SERVICE; (1) SUBSTITUTED SERVICE FOR THE RAILROAD, AND (2)
INDEPENDENT MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  THE LATTER
SERVICE INVOLVES THE TRANSPORTATION OF GENERAL COMMODITIES, IN ANY
QUANTITY, UNDER MOTOR CARRIER BILLS OF LADING AND TARIFFS AND AT MOTOR
CARRIER RATES.  ...  SUBSTITUTED SERVICE WAS BEING PERFORMED BY
APPLICANT AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING IN JANUARY, 1945, OVER SEVERAL
ROUTES MOST OF WHICH RADIATE OUT OF PITTSBURGH AND COLUMBUS. 
INDEPENDENT SERVICE ALSO WAS BEING PERFORMED AT THAT TIME ONLY OVER
REGULAR ROUTES EXTENDING PRINCIPALLY BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING POINTS:  ...
APPLICANT HAS ITS OWN AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES WHO DEAL WITH THE
SHIPPERS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE INDEPENDENT SERVICE.  IN JANUARY
1945, 200 UNITS OF EQUIPMENT WERE BEING USED IN INDEPENDENT SERVICE AND
500 IN SUBSTITUTED SERVICE." 

FN17  "THE ONLY DEFINITE RESTRICTION ON THE OPERATING AUTHORITY WHICH
WAS IMPOSED IN THE BARKER CASE AND LATER CASES HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO
CONFINE THE MOTOR-CARRIER OPERATIONS ACQUIRED TO THE TERRITORY OF THE
RAILROAD THROUGH LIMITING THE RIGHTS SO AS TO AUTHORIZE SERVICE ONLY AT
STATIONS ON THE RAILROAD.  ALTHOUGH, AT TIMES, A CONDITION FORMERLY WAS
SOMETIMES INCLUDED IN ACQUISITION CASES TO THE EFFECT THAT SERVICE TO
BE RENDERED SHOULD BE 'AUXILIARY AND SUPPLEMENTARY' TO THE RAILROAD'S
SERVICE, THERE HAS BEEN NO INDICATION IN THE REPORTS THAT SUCH
CONDITION WAS INTENDED TO PROHIBIT RENDITION OF ALL MOTOR-CARRIER
SERVICE DIRECTLY FOR THE SHIPPING PUBLIC UNDER THE OPERATING RIGHTS IN
ADDITION TO, IN SUBSTITUTION FOR, AND IN LIEU OF, THE PARENT RAILROAD'S
SERVICE, OR TO RESTRICT THE OPERATION SOLELY TO ONE IN COMBINATION WITH
THE RAILROAD'S OPERATION; NOR IS IT OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT HAS BEEN
SO CONSTRUED BY THE CARRIERS." 

FN18  "THE SCOPE OF THE OPERATIONS PROPOSED TO BE RETAINED IS BROADER
THAN INTENDED BY THE CONDITIONS WE STATED IN OUR PRIOR REPORT.  HENCE,
IT WILL BE OF ADVANTAGE TO THE PARTIES IN THIS AND LATER PROCEEDINGS IF
WE HERE AMPLIFY THE MEANING OF THOSE CONDITIONS.  APPROVED OPERATIONS
ARE THOSE WHICH ARE AUXILIARY OR SUPPLEMENTARY TO TRAIL SERVICE. 
EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER INDICATED, NONAPPROVED OPERATIONS ARE THOSE WHICH
OTHERWISE COMPETE WITH THE RAILROAD ITSELF, THOSE WHICH COMPETE WITH AN
ESTABLISHED MOTOR CARRIER, OR WHICH INVADE TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE A
TERRITORY ALREADY ADEQUATELY SERVED BY ANOTHER RAIL CARRIER. 

"APPROVED OPERATIONS ARE BEST ILLUSTRATED BY THE SUBSTITUTION OF
TRUCKS FOR PEDDLER OR WAY-FREIGHT SERVICE IN WHAT IS COMMONLY CALLED
'STATION-TO-STATION' SERVICE." 

FN19  "CONDITION 1(SAME AS CONDITION 1, P. 425, SUPRA) LIMITS THE
CHARACTER OF SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED BY THE PETITIONER TO THAT WHICH IS
AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE RAIL SERVICE OF THE RAILWAY.  IT
LIMITS THE SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED BY TRUCK TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
THE RAIL TRAFFIC OF THE RAILWAY.  IT PERMITS THE PUBLIC TO RECEIVE AN
IMPROVED RAIL SERVICE THROUGH THE USE OF TRUCKS INSTEAD OF TRAINS AS A
MEANS OF FULFILLING THE RAILWAY'S UNDERTAKING TO TRANSPORT. 
PETITIONER'S STATUS AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE IS NOT
DEPENDENT UPON ITS HAVING DIRECT DEALINGS WITH THE SHIPPING PUBLIC. 
WILLETT CO. OF INDIANA, INC., EXTENSION - ILL., IND., AND KY., 21
M.C.C. 405.  ITS SERVICE IS NECESSARILY LIMITED TO POINTS SERVED BY THE
RAILWAY, HENCE CONDITION 2.  CONDITION 1 PERMITS ALL-MOTOR MOVEMENTS IN
THE HANDLING OF RAIL TRAFFIC AT RAILROAD RATES AND ON RAILROAD BILLS OF
LADING.  TO AND FROM CERTAIN POINTS ON SEGMENTS OF THE RAIL LINES, THE
IMPROVED SERVICE WAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PERFORMING THE MOVEMENTS
PARTLY BY TRAIN AND PARTLY BY MOTOR VEHICLE, AN AUXILIARY OR
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE COORDINATED WITH THE TRAIN SERVICE, HENCE
CONDITION 3.  SINCE PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATES LIMIT THE SERVICE TO BE
PERFORMED TO THAT WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE RAIL
SERVICE OF THE RAILWAY, IT IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN OPERATIONS
UNCONNECTED WITH THE RAIL SERVICE AND, ACCORDINGLY, MAY NOT PROPERLY BE
A PARTY TO TARIFFS CONTAINING ALL-MOTOR OR JOINT RATES, NOR PARTICIPATE
IN A DIRECTORY PROVIDING FOR THE SUBSTITUTION OF TRAIN SERVICE FOR
MOTOR-VEHICLE SERVICE AT ITS OPTION.  TO THE EXTENT PETITIONER IS
PERFORMING OR PARTICIPATING IN ALL-MOTOR MOVEMENTS ON THE BILLS OF
LADING OF A MOTOR CARRIER AND AT ALL-MOTOR RATES, IT IS PERFORMING A
MOTOR SERVICE IN COMPETITION WITH THE RAIL SERVICE AND THE SERVICE OF
EXISTING MOTOR CARRIERS; AND, TO THE EXTENT IT IS SUBSTITUTING RAIL
SERVICE FOR MOTOR-VEHICLE SERVICE, THE RAIL SERVICE IS AUXILIARY TO OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE MOTOR-VEHICLE SERVICE RATHER THAN THE MOTOR-VEHICLE
SERVICE BEING AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF RAIL SERVICE."  P. 726. 

FN20  SEE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN TRANSPORT CO., 28 M.C.C. 5, 24; ROCK
ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO. EXTENSION, ELDON, IOWA, 33 M.C.C. 349, 361;
ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO. - PURCHASE - WHITE LINE, 40 M.C.C. 457,
478.    "AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION IN THE
BARKER CASE TO SHORTLY BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT,
1940, THE PRINCIPLES THERE RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED, CONTROLLED THE
DISPOSITION OF PRACTICALLY EVERY RAIL-MOTOR ACQUISITION CASE.  HOWEVER,
BEGINNING WITH FRISCO TRANSP.  CO. - PURCHASE - REDDISH, 35 M.C.C. 132,
AND CONTINUING UNTIL QUITE RECENTLY, THE PRACTICE OF SPECIFICALLY
RESERVING THE RIGHT LATER TO IMPOSE SUCH RESTRICTIONS AS MIGHT BE
NECESSARY TO INSURE THAT FUTURE OPERATIONS UNDER THE ACQUIRED AUTHORITY
SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE RENDITION OF SERVICE AUXILIARY TO, OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF, TRAIN SERVICE WAS NOT FOLLOWED.  WITH SUCH DEPARTURE
FROM THE FORMER PRACTICE THERE ALSO APPEARS TO HAVE DEVELOPED A
TENDENCY IN RAIL-MOTOR ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS TO TREAT THE BARKER CASE
RESTRICTIONS AS GEOGRAPHICAL OR TERRITORIAL ONLY IN THEIR INTENT RATHER
THAN AS SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE SERVICE WHICH
MIGHT BE RENDERED BY A RAILROAD OR ITS AFFILIATE UNDER ANY ACQUIRED
RIGHT."  40 M.C.C. AT 469. 

FN21  ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO. EXTENSION - WELLMAN, IOWA, 31
M.C.C. 643.  SEE 55 M.C.C. 567, 584. 

FN22  AND CF. NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD, TRANSPORTATION AND
NATIONAL POLICY (1942), H.R. DOC. 883, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 155,
156: 

"IN THE PRESENT HIGHLY DYNAMIC STATE OF THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY,
IT WOULD BE NATIONAL FOLLY TO PLACE THE AGENCIES IN ANY KIND OF STRAIT
JACKET.  EACH MODE NEEDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GROW AND CHANGE WITH THE
TIMES.  NO DRASTIC MOVE TO ALLOCATE TRAFFIC ARBITRARILY OR TO ACHIEVE A
SIMILAR END BY INDIRECT MEANS SHOULD BE PERMITTED PRIVATE CONCERNS OR
FORCED UPON THEM BY GOVERNMENT.  THE PUBLIC HAS STRUGGLED LONG AND
TAXED ITSELF HEAVILY TO DEVELOP THE NEWER AGENCIES AND TO REVIVE THE
OLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF WEAKENING THE MONOPOLISTIC POSITION ONCE
OCCUPIED BY THE RAILROADS AND OF IMPROVING AND EXPANDING THE SERVICES
OFFERED TO USERS.  IT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE IF PUBLIC POLICY OR PRIVATE
PRACTICE WERE NOW EMPLOYED TO HALT AND REVERSE THIS TREND, AND THUS TO
TURN BACK THE HANDS OF THE TRANSPORTATION CLOCK TO AN EARLIER TIME." 

FN23  "CERTAIN OF TRANSIT'S PRESENT FREIGHT OPERATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO
THE LIMITATION THAT SERVICE SHALL BE SOLELY THAT WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO
AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE TRAIN SERVICE OF THE RAILROAD, AND EITHER THAT
FREIGHT SO HANDLED SHALL HAVE AN IMMEDIATELY PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT RAIL
HAUL BY THE RAILROAD, OR THAT IT SHALL NOT BE TRANSPORTED FROM, TO, OR
BETWEEN MORE THAN ONE OF SPECIFIED KEY POINTS.  HOWEVER, ITS ROUTE
BETWEEN ATLANTIC AND OMAHA, NEBR., OVER U.S. HIGHWAY 6, SERVING ALL
POINTS WHICH ARE STATIONS ON THE RAILROAD, IS PART OF A ROUTE TO AND
FROM CHICAGO, ILL., VIA DES MOINES, ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY
GRANTED IN ROCK ISLAND M. TRANSIT CO. - PURCHASE - WHITE LINE M. FRT.,
5 M.C.C. 451, AND IS NOT SO RESTRICTED."  CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PAC.
R. CO. - PURCHASE - J. H. FREDERICKSON, ETC., 39 M.C.C. 824(NO PRINTED
REPORT). 

FN24  UNITED STATES V. SEATRAIN LINES, 329 U.S. 424; BOULEVARD
TRANSIT LINES V. UNITED STATES, 77 F.SUPP.  594, 595; SMITH BROS.,
REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE, 33 M.C.C. 465, 472. 

FN25  THE PHRASE IS DERIVED FROM ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 315
U.S. 15, 22, FOLLOWED IN UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS
CORP., 315 U.S. 475, 481. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR.
JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT AND WOULD AFFIRM THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION. 
THEY ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION PARTIALLY REVOKED THE
CERTIFICATES INVOLVED IN A MANNER NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. TEXAS & PAC. CO., 340 U.S. 450 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 7-8, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 87 F.SUPP. 
107, REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 213(NOW SEC. 5) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PROVIDING
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF OPERATING RIGHTS FROM OTHER CARRIERS, AND UNDER
SEC. 207, PROVIDING FOR NEW OPERATIONS, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAD ISSUED CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO A
MOTOR CARRIER AFFILIATE OF A RAILROAD.  IN EACH OF THE CERTIFICATES,
THE COMMISSION RESERVED THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE FURTHER RESTRICTIONS TO
CONFINE THE MOTOR CARRIER'S OPERATIONS TO SERVICE "AUXILIARY TO, OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF, RAIL SERVICE."  HELD:  THE COMMISSION HAD POWER, IN
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS, TO MODIFY THE CERTIFICATES SO AS IN SUBSTANCE
TO BAR THE MOTOR CARRIER FROM ISSUING ITS OWN BILLS OF LADING OR
PERFORMING ALL-MOTOR SERVICE UNDER ALL-MOTOR LOCAL RATES OR ALL-MOTOR
JOINT RATES WITH CONNECTING MOTOR CARRIERS, FROM SUBSTITUTING RAIL
SERVICE FOR MOTOR SERVICE, AND FROM PARTICIPATING IN MOTOR-CARRIER
TARIFFS.  UNITED STATES V. ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO., ANTE, P.
419.  PP. 451-458. 

1.  THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN THUS MODIFYING THE CERTIFICATES
WAS NOT INVALID AS IN CONFLICT WITH SEC. 216 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT
OF 1940; NOR INVALID AS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE REVOCATION PROCEDURE
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 212 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT; NOR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS CONFISCATORY.  PP. 457-458. 

2.  IN A CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO A MOTOR-CARRIER AFFILIATE OF A
RAILROAD, THE COMMISSION MAY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE FURTHER
RESTRICTIONS TO CONFINE THE MOTOR CARRIER'S OPERATIONS TO SERVICE WHICH
IS AUXILIARY TO, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF, RAIL SERVICE, WHETHER THE
CERTIFICATE BE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 207 FOR A NEW OPERATION OR IN
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECS. 5 AND 213.  PP. 458-459. 

3.  THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE.  PP. 459-460. 

4.  IN THE HEARING BY THE COMMISSION, THE MOTOR CARRIER WAS NOT
DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  PP. 460-461. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. TEXAS & PACIFIC MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. 

NO. 38.  APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 39, REGULAR COMMON CARRIER CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN
TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. V. TEXAS & PACIFIC MOTOR TRANSPORT CO.,
ALSO ON APPEAL TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN A PROCEEDING TO SET ASIDE TWO ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDERS AND
ENTERED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  87 F.SUPP.  107.  THE UNITED STATES
AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (NO. 38) AND AN INTERVENOR (NO.
39) APPEALED.  REVERSED, P. 461. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE APPEALS, BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND BY THE
INTERVENOR, REGULAR COMMON CARRIER CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN TRUCKING
ASSOCIATIONS, INC., FROM THE JUDGMENT OF A THREE-JUDGE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT SETTING ASIDE TWO ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
AND ENTERING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, RAISE QUESTIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE
DISCUSSED IN NO. 25, UNITED STATES V. ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO.,
ANTE, P. 419, DECIDED TODAY.  THE QUESTIONS RELATE TO THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO BAN SERVICE PRACTICES THERETOFORE PERMITTED UNDER
CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO A
COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  THE COMMISSION ACTED UNDER AUTHORITY
RESERVED IN THE CERTIFICATE TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS TO INSURE
THAT THE MOTOR CARRIER'S OPERATIONS WILL BE AUXILIARY TO OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE OPERATIONS OF ITS PARENT COMMON CARRIER BY RAIL. 

THE TEXAS AND PACIFIC MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARY OF THE TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY, OPERATING A SYSTEM OF
REGULAR ROUTES FOR THE CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT, FROM NEW ORLEANS TO EL
PASO, TEXAS, AND LOVINGTON, NEW MEXICO, ROUGHLY PARALLELING THE LINES
OF THE RAILWAY AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  TRANSPORT WAS ORGANIZED IN 1929
TO PROVIDE A LOCAL PICK-UP AND DELIVERY SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH RAIL
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN POINTS ON THE LINES OF THE RAILWAY.  ITS FIRST
OVER-THE-ROAD COMMON-CARRIER OPERATION, BETWEEN MONAHANS, TEXAS, AND
LOVINGTON, NEW MEXICO, WAS INAUGURATED JUST BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935.  IT EXTENDED ITS OPERATIONS BY
OBTAINING CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE
COMMISSION, BOTH UNDER SEC. 213 OF THE 1935 ACT, NOW SEC. 5 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PROVIDING FOR ACQUISITION OF ESTABLISHED
RIGHTS BY PURCHASE FROM OTHER CARRIERS ("GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS); AND
UNDER SEC. 207 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PROVIDING FOR NEW
OPERATIONS. 

BETWEEN JULY 1939 AND NOVEMBER 1942, THE COMMISSION ISSUED SIXTEEN
CERTIFICATES TO TRANSPORT, COVERING VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF ITS PRESENTLY
OPERATING ROUTES.  FN1  IN ALL THE CERTIFICATES THE COMMISSION RESERVED
THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE FURTHER RESTRICTIONS IN ORDER TO CONFINE
TRANSPORT'S OPERATION TO SERVICE "AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF,
RAIL SERVICE."  THIS CONDITION WAS EXPRESSED IN EITHER ONE OF THE TWO
FORMS SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN2  IN ADDITION, EACH CERTIFICATE
CONTAINED ONE OR MORE, USUALLY MORE, FURTHER CONDITIONS:  (1) THAT THE
SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED WAS TO BE "AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF"
THE RAIL SERVICE.  FN3  (2) THAT ONLY RAILWAY STATION POINTS WERE TO BE
SERVED.  FN4  (3) EITHER THAT (A) ALL SHIPMENTS SHOULD BE MADE ON A
THROUGH RAIL BILL OF LADING, INCLUDING A PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT RAIL
MOVEMENT; FN5  OR (B) THAT NO SHIPMENTS SHOULD BE MADE BETWEEN CERTAIN
"KEY POINTS" ON THE RAIL LINE, OR THROUGH MORE THAN ONE OF THEM.  FN6
AND (4) THAT THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN TRANSPORT AND RAILWAY
BE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY THE COMMISSION.  FN7 

THE IRREGULAR INCIDENCE OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE CERTIFICATES MAY
BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE SEGMENTARY FASHION IN WHICH TRANSPORT BUILT UP
ITS SYSTEM OF ROUTES, OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL YEARS.  THEY WERE NOT
RECONSIDERED AS A GROUP BY THE COMMISSION UNTIL 1943, WHEN, IN RESPONSE
TO A PETITION BY TRANSPORT, TO DETERMINE WHAT MODIFICATION SHOULD BE
MADE IN ITS CERTIFICATE NO. MC-50544(SUB-NO. 11), PARTICULARLY IN
REGARD TO SERVICE FOR FREIGHT BETWEEN EL PASO AND SIERRA BLANCA, TEXAS,
FOR THE TEXAS AND NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD COMPANY, IT REOPENED NINE OF THE
CERTIFICATE PROCEEDINGS TO CONSIDER WHETHER TRANSPORT COULD JOIN WITH
OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS IN RATES, SOME OF WHICH PROVIDED FOR SUBSTITUTING
RAIL SERVICE FOR MOTOR SERVICE.  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT 

"SINCE PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATES LIMIT THE SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED TO
THAT WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE RAIL SERVICE OF THE
RAILWAY (IN SOME THE LIMITATION WAS BY RESERVATION), IT IS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN OPERATIONS UNCONNECTED WITH THE RAIL SERVICE
AND, ACCORDINGLY, MAY NOT PROPERLY BE A PARTY TO TARIFFS CONTAINING ALL
MOTOR OR JOINT RATES, NOR PARTICIPATE IN A DIRECTORY PROVIDING FOR THE
SUBSTITUTION OF TRAIN SERVICE FOR MOTOR-VEHICLE SERVICE AT ITS OPTION. 

TO THE EXTENT PETITIONER IS PERFORMING OR PARTICIPATING IN ALL-MOTOR
MOVEMENTS ON THE BILLS OF LADING OF A MOTOR CARRIER AND AT ALL-MOTOR
RATES, IT IS PERFORMING A MOTOR SERVICE IN COMPETITION WITH THE RAIL
SERVICE AND THE SERVICE OF EXISTING MOTOR CARRIERS; AND, TO THE EXTENT
IT IS SUBSTITUTING RAIL SERVICE FOR MOTOR-VEHICLE SERVICE, THE RAIL
SERVICE IS AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE MOTOR-VEHICLE SERVICE
RATHER THAN THE MOTOR-VEHICLE SERVICE BEING AUXILIARY TO OR
SUPPLEMENTAL OF RAIL SERVICE."  FN8 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT ISSUE ANY AFFIRMATIVE ORDER, BUT DIRECTED
TRANSPORT TO MODIFY ITS SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS, WITHIN
A REASONABLE TIME. 

TRANSPORT AND RAILWAY THEN PETITIONED JOINTLY FOR RECONSIDERATION, OR
FOR FURTHER HEARINGS, INCLUDING HEARINGS ON CERTAIN OTHER CERTIFICATES;
AND, ALTHOUGH THE TWO PETITIONERS LATER ATTEMPTED TO WITHDRAW THEIR
PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT PERMISSION TO FILE A JOINT TARIFF HAD BEEN
GRANTED, THE COMMISSION NEVERTHELESS ORDERED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BE
REOPENED IN ALL SIXTEEN CERTIFICATES, AND THREE TEMPORARY AUTHORITIES,
"SOLELY TO DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULD BE
MADE IN THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE OUTSTANDING CERTIFICATES OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY  ...  " 

AFTER A HEARING AT WHICH TRANSPORT AND RAILWAY APPEARED, BUT REFUSED
TO INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE, AND AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE EXAMINER'S
REPORT, THE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 22, 1948, ORDERED THAT ALL SIXTEEN
CERTIFICATES BE MODIFIED TO INCLUDE UNIFORMLY THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FIVE
CONDITIONS SET OUT ABOVE, SPECIFICALLY AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  THE SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED BY APPLICANT SHALL BE LIMITED TO
SERVICE WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF, THE TRAIN SERVICE OF
THE TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, THE WEATHERFORD, MINERAL WELLS
AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, OR TEXAS-NEW MEXICO RAILWAY COMPANY,
AND, BETWEEN EL PASO AND SIERRA BLANCA, TEX., THE TRAIN SERVICE OF
TEXAS AND NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD COMPANY, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
RAILWAYS. 

"2.  APPLICANT SHALL NOT RENDER ANY SERVICE TO OR FROM ANY POINT NOT
A STATION ON A RAIL LINE OF THE RAILWAYS. 

"3.  NO SHIPMENTS SHALL BE TRANSPORTED BY APPLICANT BETWEEN ANY OF
THE FOLLOWING POINTS, OR THROUGH, OR TO, OR FROM, MORE THAN ONE OF SAID
POINTS:  NEW ORLEANS, ALEXANDRIA, AND SHREVEPORT, LA., TEXARKANA, TEX.
ARK., FORT WORTH-DALLAS, (CONSIDERED AS ONE), ABILENE, MONAHANS, AND EL
PASO, TEX. 

"4.  ALL CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN APPLICANT AND THE RAILWAYS
SHALL BE REPORTED TO US AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVISION IF AND AS WE
FIND IT TO BE NECESSARY, IN ORDER THAT SUCH ARRANGEMENTS SHALL BE FAIR
AND EQUITABLE TO THE PARTIES. 

"5.  SUCH FURTHER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AS IN THE FUTURE WE MAY FIND
NECESSARY TO IMPOSE IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THE SERVICE SHALL BE
AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF, THE TRAIN SERVICE OF THE RAILWAYS." 
FN9 

THE EFFECT ON APPELLEE WAS TO BAR IT FROM ISSUING ITS OWN BILLS OF
LADING OR PERFORMING ALL-MOTOR SERVICE UNDER ALL-MOTOR LOCAL RATES OR
ALL-MOTOR JOINT RATES WITH CONNECTING MOTOR CARRIERS, OR SUBSTITUTING
RAIL SERVICE FOR MOTOR SERVICE, AND IT COULD NOT BE A PARTY TO SUCH
TARIFFS.  FN10  PRIOR TO THESE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLEE HAD ISSUED ITS
OWN BILLS OF LADING AND PARTICIPATED IN MOTOR-CARRIER TARIFFS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE VALUE OF THE CERTIFICATES, $65,000, WOULD BE
DESTROYED AND $240,000 ANNUAL REVENUE LOST. 

A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS ORDER, AND FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
BEFORE THE ENTIRE COMMISSION, WAS DENIED ON MAY 9, 1949.  TRANSPORT
THEREUPON BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, SEEKING TO
SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS OF JANUARY 22, 1948, AND MAY 9, 1949,
AND TO ENJOIN THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  IN THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS THE
REGULAR COMMON CARRIER CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS
INTERVENED ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION.  AFTER HEARING, THE DISTRICT
COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ENTERED A
JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS, AND PERMANENTLY
ENJOINING IT FROM IMPOSING ANY CONDITION ON TRANSPORT'S CERTIFICATES
"IN SUCH MANNER AS WILL PROHIBIT PETITIONER FROM: 

"A.  FILING, PUBLISHING AND MAINTAINING COMMON CARRIER MOTOR RATES AS
PROVIDED BY STATUTE IN THE CASE OF COMMON CARRIER MOTOR CARRIERS
GENERALLY; 

"B.  INTERCHANGING TRAFFIC WITH OTHER COMMON CARRIER MOTOR CARRIERS
ON JOINT MOTOR RATES; 

"C.  ISSUING ITS OWN BILLS OF LADING AND TENDERING ITS SERVICE TO THE
PUBLIC GENERALLY ON ITS OWN CONTRACTS OF SHIPMENT; 

"D.  TRANSPORTING TRAFFIC TO, THROUGH, FROM OR BETWEEN ANY SO-CALLED
'KEY POINTS' ON THAT PART OF ITS ROUTE COVERED BY INTERSTATE
CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, TO WHICH NO 'KEY
POINT' RESTRICTION ATTACHED ON ISSUANCE OF SUCH CERTIFICATES, 

OR IN SUCH MANNER AS WILL RESTRICT PETITIONER TO SHIP ON RAIL RATES
OR ON RAILROAD BILLS OF LADING." 

FROM THIS JUDGMENT THE COMMISSION AND THE INTERVENOR, COMMON CARRIER
CONFERENCE, APPEAL HERE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, 87 F.SUPP.  107, 112, REASONED THAT THE
OPERATIONS OF TRANSPORT WERE AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL WAYS AUXILIARY TO
AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE RAIL OPERATIONS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE
RESTRICTED AS ATTEMPTED.  THE CONNOTATION OF AUXILIARY AND
SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE TRIAL COURT WAS ONLY A RESTRICTION LIMITING
SERVICE TO RAIL POINTS.  WITHOUT DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH THE
RESERVATION TO IMPOSE FURTHER CONDITIONS RESTRICTING THE MOTOR
CARRIER'S SERVICE TO COORDINATED RAIL SERVICE, THE DISTRICT COURT
DECIDED THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER RESTRICTING THE SERVICE COULD NOT
BE VALID IN VIEW OF SEC. 216, TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 49 STAT. 558,
54 STAT. 924.  THAT SECTION ALLOWS MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS TO ESTABLISH
THROUGH ROUTES, JOINT RATES, PRACTICES AND DIVISION OF CHARGES WITH
OTHER CARRIERS BY MOTOR, RAIL OR WATER.  FN11  IT HELD, TOO, THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION WAS IN ESSENCE A REVOCATION IN PART OF A
CERTIFICATE AND UNLAWFUL EXCEPT UNDER CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY SEC.
212, 49 STAT. 555, 54 STAT. 924, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE
CONFISCATORY. 

TRANSPORT HERE SUPPORTS THE SOUNDNESS OF THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE
THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT FOR ITS INJUNCTION AND SUPPLEMENTS THEM BY
CONTENTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE AND THAT TRANSPORT WAS NOT ACCORDED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AT THE
HEARING OF OCTOBER 17, 1944, 47 M.C.C. 753, 755.  IN VIEW OF OUR
DECISION OF TODAY UPHOLDING THE COMMISSION IN NO. 25, UNITED STATES V.
ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO., ANTE, P. 419, ALL REASONS FOR AFFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT BELOW MAY BE PROMPTLY REJECTED. 

SO FAR AS THE ABOVE ISSUES RELIED UPON BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ITS
INJUNCTION ARE CONCERNED, THEY SEEM TO HAVE BEEN RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF
THE GOVERNMENT BY OUR OPINION IN THE ROCK ISLAND CASE.  THIS PROCEEDING
INVOLVES CERTIFICATES FOR NEW ROUTES UNDER SEC. 207.  NO SUCH
CERTIFICATES OR APPLICATIONS WERE IN THAT CASE.  THE OPINION, HOWEVER,
CONSIDERED THE COMMISSION'S PRACTICE IN SEC. 207 PROCEEDINGS AND STATED
THAT IT WAS THE SAME AS IN SECS. 5 AND 213 ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS.  WE
NOW HOLD THAT THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS JUSTIFY THE RESERVATION IN ISSUE
HERE.  SEE N. 2, SUPRA. 

TRANSPORT'S POSITION THAT THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS WITHOUT SUPPORT
IN THE EVIDENCE IS BASED ON THE THEORY THAT AS EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN IN
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS THAT RESULTED IN THE NECESSARY FINDINGS UNDER
SECS. 213 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND 5 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1940 FOR CERTIFICATES TO RAILROAD MOTOR CARRIER AFFILIATES, CHANGES IN
PRACTICES CANNOT NOW BE MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THE FORMERLY
PERMITTED PRACTICES HAD BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
DID UNDULY RESTRAIN COMPETITION.  AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.
V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 77, 86, AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 91.  FN12 

THE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE CASE REQUIRED A FULL HEARING AND THE
PRIVILEGE OF INTRODUCING TESTIMONY BEFORE THE ROAD'S RATES WERE SET
ASIDE AS UNREASONABLE.  THE COMMISSION WAS TAKING THE POSITION THAT THE
HEPBURN ACT ALLOWED IT TO SET ASIDE RATES AFTER A "HEARING" WITHOUT
EVIDENCE.  THE AMERICAN TRUCKING CASE DEALT WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A
SERIES OF CERTIFICATES BY THE COMMISSION TO A RAILROAD-AFFILIATED MOTOR
CARRIER AFTER REFUSAL TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF THE FLOW OF TRUCK TRAFFIC
BETWEEN VARIOUS LOCALITIES ALONG THE PARENT RAILROAD, AND OF THE EFFECT
OF THE EXISTING AND PROSPECTIVE RAILROAD-AFFILIATED MOTOR CARRIERS ON
THE OVER-THE-ROAD CARRIERS.  ON APPEAL FROM AN AFFIRMANCE BY A DISTRICT
COURT, WE REVERSED THE COMMISSION.    THIS SITUATION, HOWEVER, DIFFERS
FROM THOSE REFERRED TO BY TRANSPORT IN THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REOPENED
THE PROCEEDINGS, AFTER THEY WERE STARTED BY TRANSPORT FOR AN
INTERPRETATION OF ITS RIGHT TO FILE AND MAINTAIN A MOTOR COMMON-CARRIER
TARIFF.  HEARINGS WERE HAD IN 1942 AT DALLAS, AT WHICH APPELLEE'S
WITNESSES GAVE TESTIMONY AS TO THE FREIGHT INTERCHANGE BETWEEN APPELLEE
AND OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS AND THE EXISTENCE OF TARIFFS, ETC.  AFTER THE
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION REFERRED TO ON PP. 454-455, TRANSPORT AND THE
TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY PETITIONED FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE
COMMISSION, SETTING OUT THE FACTS OF THEIR CURRENT OPERATIONS, AND
ADDRESSING THEMSELVES PARTICULARLY TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE PRIOR OR
SUBSEQUENT RAIL-HAUL CONDITION.  THEREAFTER THE PROCEEDINGS WERE
REOPENED TO DETERMINE WHAT CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS SHOULD BE MADE. 
ANOTHER HEARING WAS HELD, OCTOBER 17, 1944, AND REPORT MADE.  AT THAT
HEARING TRANSPORT APPEARED BUT REFUSED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE.  THE
EXAMINER EXAMINED AN OFFICIAL OF TRANSPORT AS TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT
OF TRANSPORT'S OPERATIONS.  THIS EVIDENCE DEVELOPED THE FACT THAT
TRANSPORT OPERATED BOTH ON MOTOR-CARRIER AND RAIL RATES UNDER ITS OWN
BILLS OF LADING IN FULL COMPETITION WITH OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS.  THUS
THERE APPEARS IN THE RECORD ADEQUATE EVIDENCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
TRANSPORT'S OPERATIONS. 

UPON THE DUE-PROCESS POINT WE APPROVE THE RULING OF THE COMMISSION. 
IT FOLLOWS: 

"APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE NOTICE SETTING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR FURTHER
HEARING DID NOT INFORM IT OR THE OTHER PARTIES OF THE NATURE OF THE
ISSUES TO BE MET, OR GIVE THEM SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE TO MEET THE
ISSUES; AND THAT THE HEARING, IN VIEW OF THE REQUEST FOR ITS
CANCELLATION, WAS IN THE NATURE OF AN EX PARTE PROCEEDING.  WE ARE NOT
IMPRESSED WITH APPLICANT'S ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS UNABLE TO FORESEE THE
ISSUES.  THE NOTICE IN QUESTION STATED THAT THE FURTHER HEARING WAS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE MADE IN THE
CONDITIONS, AND THUS PLACED THE CONDITIONS THEMSELVES IN ISSUE.  ONE OF
THESE IS CONDITION 5 OR 5A, WHICH IN ITSELF WAS ADEQUATE NOTICE TO
APPLICANT AND THE OTHER PARTIES THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE FURTHER
HEARING WOULD BE TO DETERMINE, AS PROVIDED FOR IN THAT CONDITION,
WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO CHANGE OR MODIFY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OR
TO ADD OTHERS SO AS EFFECTIVELY TO RESTRICT APPLICANT'S OPERATIONS TO
SERVICE WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF RAIL SERVICE. 
APPLICANT WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF PRESENTING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
NO NEED EXISTS FOR A CHANGE IN ITS PRESENT CONDITIONS; HOWEVER, NOT
ONLY DID IT CHOOSE NOT TO OFFER SUCH EVIDENCE, BUT IT OBJECTED TO THE
RECEIPT OF ANY EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT THERETO.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
THE EXAMINER PROPERLY DENIED ITS MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THE FURTHER
HEARING AND TO WITHDRAW ITS WITNESS, AND PROPERLY OVERRULED ITS
OBJECTION TO THE ADDUCTION OF TESTIMONY THROUGH SUCH WITNESS."  FN13 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE
PROCEEDINGS REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SIXTEEN PROCEEDINGS ARE COVERED BY I.C.C. DOCKET NUMBER MC
50544, AND VARIOUS SUBNUMBERS, SET OUT IN APPENDIX A TO TEXAS & PACIFIC
MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 47 M.C.C. 753, 764. 
TRANSPORT WAS ALSO OPERATING UNDER CERTAIN TEMPORARY AUTHORITIES, NOS.
MC-50544(SUB-NOS.  21-TA, 24-TA, AND 30-TA), WHICH EXPIRED BEFORE THE
ISSUANCE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE. 

FN2  "5.  SUCH FURTHER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AS WE, IN THE FUTURE, MAY
FIND IT NECESSARY TO IMPOSE IN ORDER TO RESTRICT APPLICANT'S OPERATION
TO SERVICE WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF, RAIL SERVICE. 

"5A.  THE AUTHORITY HEREIN GRANTED SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SUCH FURTHER
LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS AS THE COMMISSION MAY HEREAFTER FIND IT
NECESSARY TO IMPOSE IN ORDER TO RESTRICT APPLICANT'S OPERATION TO
SERVICE WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF, TRAIN SERVICE OF THE
RAILWAY, AND IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THE SERVICE RENDERED SHALL NOT
UNDULY RESTRAIN COMPETITION."  47 M.C.C. 753, 766. 

FN3  "1.  THE SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED BY APPLICANT SHALL BE LIMITED
TO SERVICE WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL .OF, RAIL SERVICE OF
THE TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY, OR IN CERTAIN CASES OF ITS SUBSIDIARY
RAIL LINES, (OR OF TEXAS-NEW MEXICO RAILWAY COMPANY) HEREIN CALLED THE
RAILWAY."  IBID. 

FN4  "2.  APPLICANT SHALL NOT SERVE, OR INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC AT ANY
POINT NOT A STATION ON A RAIL LINE OF THE RAILWAY."  IBID. 

FN5  "3.  SHIPMENTS TRANSPORTED BY APPLICANT SHALL BE LIMITED TO
THOSE WHICH IT RECEIVES FROM OR DELIVERS TO THE RAILWAY UNDER A THROUGH
BILL OF LADING COVERING, IN ADDITION TO MOVEMENT BY APPLICANT, A PRIOR
OR SUBSEQUENT MOVEMENT BY RAIL. 

"3A.  SHIPMENTS TRANSPORTED BY APPLICANT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THOSE
WHICH IT RECEIVES FROM OR DELIVERS TO THE RAILWAY UNDER A THROUGH BILL
OF LADING COVERING IN ADDITION TO MOVEMENT BY APPLICANT, A PRIOR OR
SUBSEQUENT MOVEMENT BY RAIL, AND THOSE WHICH IT TRANSPORTS AS PARTS OF
THROUGH SHIPMENTS PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO MOVEMENT BY RAIL UNDER
APPROPRIATE TRANSIT RULES."  IBID. 

FN6  "3B.  NO SHIPMENTS SHALL BE TRANSPORTED BY APPLICANT AS A COMMON
CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE BETWEEN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING POINTS OR
THROUGH, OR TO, OR FROM MORE THAN ONE OF SAID POINTS:  FORT WORTH,
TEX., AND TEXARKANA, TEX.-ARK. 

"3C.  NO SHIPMENTS SHALL BE TRANSPORTED BY APPLICANT BETWEEN ANY OF
THE FOLLOWING POINTS OR THROUGH, OR TO, OR FROM MORE THAN ONE OF SAID
POINTS:  EL PASO AND PECOS, TEX."  IBID. 

FN7  "4.  ALL CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN APPLICANT AND THE
RAILWAY SHALL BE REPORTED TO US AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVISION, IF
AND AS WE FIND IT TO BE NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT SUCH ARRANGEMENTS SHALL
BE FAIR AND SUITABLE TO THE PARTIES."  IBID. 

FN8  41 M.C.C. 721, 726. 

FN9  47 M.C.C. 753, 763-764. 

FN10  47 M.C.C. 753, 754, AND RULES 30, 107(A) AND 107(B) OF SUPP.
NO. 5 TO I.C.C. TARIFF CIRCULAR NO. 20.  SEE 41 M.C.C. 721, 726,
EXCERPTED AT NOTE 19, NO. 25, UNITED STATES V. ROCK ISLAND MOTOR
TRANSIT CO., DECIDED TODAY, ANTE, P. 419. 

FN11 "THUS, WHILE THE COMMISSION MIGHT PRESCRIBE THE POINTS TO BE
SERVED, IT COULD NOT FORBID THE PARTICIPATION IN JOINT RATES AND
THROUGH ROUTES FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT SUCH A PROVISION WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE WORDING OF SEC. 216 OF THE ACT."  87 F.SUPP. 
107, 112. 

FN12  SEVERAL COMMISSION DECISIONS ON THE GENERAL NECESSITY OF
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RULINGS ARE ADDED.  GREYHOUND CORPORATION -
CONTROL, 50 M.C.C. 237, 242; SCANNELL - CONTROL, 50 M.C.C. 535, 541; C.
& D. MOTOR DELIVERY COMPANY - PURCHASE - HUBERT C. ELLIOTT, 38 M.C.C.
547, 553; JOINT N.E. MOTOR CARRIER ASSN., INC. V. ROSE AND WELLOFF, 43
M.C.C. 487, 488.  NONE BEAR ON SUCH A SITUATION AS THIS.  THEY RELATE
TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE ISSUE OR TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATES AND
REVOCATION. 

FN13  47 M.C.C. 753, 756. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR.
JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT. 
..END :











TOUHY V. RAGEN, 340 U.S. 462 


NO. 83.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 27-28, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  -
180 F.2D 321, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORDER NO. 3229, ISSUED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER 5 U.S.C. SEC. 22, A SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REFUSED, IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING BY A STATE
PRISONER, TO OBEY A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM REQUIRING HIM TO PRODUCE
PAPERS OF THE DEPARTMENT IN HIS POSSESSION.  HELD:  ORDER NO. 3229 IS
VALID AND THE SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL PROPERLY REFUSED TO PRODUCE THE
PAPERS.  PP. 463-468. 

2.  THE TRIAL COURT NOT HAVING QUESTIONED THE SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL ON
HIS WILLINGNESS TO SUBMIT THE MATERIAL "TO THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION
AS TO ITS MATERIALITY TO THE CASE" AND WHETHER IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED,
THE ISSUE OF HOW FAR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD OR DID WAIVE ANY
CLAIMED PRIVILEGE AGAINST DISCLOSURE IS HERE IMMATERIAL.  P. 468. 

3.  ORDER NO. 3229 WAS A VALID EXERCISE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
HIS AUTHORITY UNDER 5 U.S.C. SEC. 22 TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH LAW FOR "THE CUSTODY, USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE
RECORDS, PAPERS AND PROPERTY APPERTAINING TO" THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.  BOSKE V. COMINGORE, 177 U.S. 459.  PP. 468-470. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. TOUHY V. RAGEN, WARDEN, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING BY A STATE PRISONER, THE DISTRICT COURT
ADJUDGED A SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GUILTY OF
CONTEMPT FOR REFUSAL TO PRODUCE PAPERS REQUIRED BY A SUBPOENA* IDUCES
TECUM.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  180 F.2D 321.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 806.  AFFIRMED, P. 470. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING BRINGS HERE THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT OF A
SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TO REFUSE TO OBEY A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ORDERING PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
OF THE DEPARTMENT IN HIS POSSESSION.  THE REFUSAL WAS BASED UPON A
REGULATION N1 ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER 5 U.S.C. SEC. 22. 
FN2 

PETITIONER, ROGER TOUHY, AN INMATE OF THE ILLINOIS STATE
PENITENTIARY, INSTITUTED A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AGAINST THE
WARDEN, ALLEGING HE WAS RESTRAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  IN THE COURSE OF THAT PROCEEDING A
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON GEORGE R. MCSWAIN, THE
AGENT IN CHARGE OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AT CHICAGO,
REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS WHICH, PETITIONER TOUHY
CLAIMS, CONTAINED EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS BROUGHT
ABOUT BY FRAUD.  FN3  AT THE HEARING THAT CONSIDERED THE DUTY OF
SUBMISSION OF THE SUBPOENAED PAPERS, THE U.S. ATTORNEY MADE
REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT AND TO OPPOSING COUNSEL AS TO HOW FAR THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS WILLING FOR HIS SUBORDINATES TO GO IN THE
PRODUCTION OF THE SUBPOENAED PAPERS.  THE SUGGESTIONS WERE NOT
ACCEPTED.  MR. MCSWAIN WAS THEN PLACED UPON THE WITNESS STAND AND
ORDERED TO BRING IN THE PAPERS.  HE PERSONALLY DECLINED TO PRODUCE THE
RECORDS IN THESE WORDS: 

"I MUST RESPECTFULLY ADVISE THE COURT THAT UNDER INSTRUCTIONS TO ME
BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT I MUST RESPECTFULLY DECLINE TO PRODUCE
THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEPARTMENT RULE NO. 3229."  FN4 

THEREUPON, THE JUDGE FOUND MR. MCSWAIN GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT IN
REFUSING TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE SUBPOENA AND
SENTENCED HIM TO BE COMMITTED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE UNTIL HE OBEYED THE
ORDER OF THE COURT OR WAS DISCHARGED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORDER NO. 3229 WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE AND 

"CONFERS UPON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THE PRIVILEGE OF REFUSING TO
PRODUCE UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN A WAIVER OF SUCH PRIVILEGE."  180 F.2D
321 AT 327. 

THE COURT THEN CONSIDERED WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVILEGE OF
NONDISCLOSURE WAS WAIVED.  IT QUOTED FROM SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 TO ORDER NO.
3229 THIS LANGUAGE: 

"IF QUESTIONED, THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHOULD STATE THAT THE
MATERIAL IS AT HAND AND CAN BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION
AS TO ITS MATERIALITY TO THE CASE AND WHETHER IN THE BEST PUBLIC
INTERESTS THE INFORMATION SHOULD BE DISCLOSED.  THE RECORDS SHOULD BE
KEPT IN THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR SOME SIMILAR PLACE OF
SAFEKEEPING NEAR THE COURT ROOM.  UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE
NAME OF ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT BE DIVULGED."  180 F.2D AT 328. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID THAT "THIS LANGUAGE CONTEMPLATES SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE MATERIAL CALLED FOR MUST BE SUBMITTED 'TO THE
COURT FOR DETERMINATION AS TO ITS MATERIALITY TO THE CASE AND WHETHER
IN THE BEST PUBLIC INTERESTS THE INFORMATION SHOULD BE DISCLOSED.'" 
THE COURT FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH LIMITED DISCLOSURE WAS REQUESTED
BUT THAT MR. MCSWAIN WAS CALLED UPON "TO PRODUCE ALL DOCUMENTS AND
MATERIAL CALLED FOR IN THE SUBPOENA WITHOUT LIMITATION AND THAT AT NO
TIME WAS HE QUESTIONED" AS TO HIS WILLINGNESS TO SUBMIT THE PAPERS FOR
DETERMINATION AS TO MATERIALITY AND BEST PUBLIC INTERESTS. 
CONSEQUENTLY, HE WAS NOT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT UNLESS THE LAW REQUIRED THE
WITNESS TO MAKE UNLIMITED PRODUCTION.  THE COURT THOUGHT THAT, SINCE
THIS LAST WOULD MEAN THERE WAS NO PRIVILEGE IN THE DEPARTMENT TO REFUSE
PRODUCTION, SUCH A HOLDING SHOULD NOT BE MADE.  IT SAID: 

"SUBMISSION COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO THE EXTENT THE PRIVILEGE
HAD BEEN WAIVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FOR THE PURPOSE AND IN THE
SPECIFIC MANNER DESIGNATED."  180 F.2D AT 328. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 340 U.S. 806, TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORDER NO. 3229.  AMONG THE QUESTIONS DULY
PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS WHETHER IT IS PERMISSIBLE
FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO MAKE A CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION NOT TO
PRODUCE RECORDS AND WHETHER HIS SUBORDINATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ORDER MAY LAWFULLY DECLINE TO PRODUCE THEM IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM. 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY, HOWEVER, TO CONSIDER THE ULTIMATE REACH OF
THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REFUSE TO PRODUCE AT A COURT'S
ORDER THE GOVERNMENT PAPERS IN HIS POSSESSION, FOR THE CASE AS WE
UNDERSTAND IT RAISES NO QUESTION AS TO THE POWER OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HIMSELF TO MAKE SUCH A REFUSAL.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NOT
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.  IT IS TRUE THAT HIS SUBORDINATE, MR. MCSWAIN,
ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INSTRUCTIONS AND A
DEPARTMENT ORDER.  BUT WE LIMIT OUR EXAMINATION TO WHAT THIS RECORD
SHOWS, TO WIT, A REFUSAL BY A SUBORDINATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TO SUBMIT PAPERS TO THE COURT IN RESPONSE TO ITS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUBORDINATE IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING SUCH
SUBMISSION BY HIS SUPERIOR THROUGH ORDER NO. 3229.  FN5  THE VALIDITY
OF THE SUPERIOR'S ACTION IS IN ISSUE ONLY INSOFAR AS WE MUST DETERMINE
WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN VALIDLY WITHDRAW FROM HIS SUBORDINATES
THE POWER TO RELEASE DEPARTMENT PAPERS.  NOR ARE WE HERE CONCERNED WITH
THE EFFECT OF A REFUSAL TO PRODUCE IN A PROSECUTION BY THE UNITED
STATES FN6  OR WITH THE RIGHT OF A CUSTODIAN OF GOVERNMENT PAPERS TO
REFUSE TO PRODUCE THEM ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE STATE SECRETS  FN7
OR THAT THEY WOULD DISCLOSE THE NAMES OF INFORMANTS.  FN8 

WE THINK THAT ORDER NO. 3229 IS VALID AND THAT MR. MCSWAIN IN THIS
CASE PROPERLY REFUSED TO PRODUCE THESE PAPERS.  WE AGREE WITH THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT SINCE MR. MCSWAIN WAS NOT
QUESTIONED ON HIS WILLINGNESS TO SUBMIT THE MATERIAL "TO THE COURT FOR
DETERMINATION AS TO ITS MATERIALITY TO THE CASE" AND WHETHER IT SHOULD
BE DISCLOSED, THE ISSUE OF HOW FAR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD OR DID
WAIVE ANY CLAIMED PRIVILEGE AGAINST DISCLOSURE IS NOT MATERIAL IN THIS
CASE. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORDER NO. 3229, NOTE 1, SUPRA, WAS PROMULGATED
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF 5 U.S.C. SEC. 22.  THAT STATUTE APPEARS IN ITS
PRESENT FORM IN REVISED STATUTES SEC. 161, AND CONSOLIDATES SEVERAL
OLDER STATUTES RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS.  SEE, E.G., 16 STAT.
163.  WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THE VARIETY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE
FILES OF ANY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF HARM FROM
UNRESTRICTED DISCLOSURE IN COURT, THE USEFULNESS, INDEED THE NECESSITY,
OF CENTRALIZING DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM WILL
BE WILLINGLY OBEYED OR CHALLENGED IS OBVIOUS.  HENCE, IT WAS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GIVEN
HIM BY 5 U.S.C. SEC. 22, TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
LAW FOR "THE CUSTODY, USE, AND PRESERVATION OF THE RECORDS, PAPERS, AND
PROPERTY APPERTAINING TO" THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO PROMULGATE
ORDER 3229. 

PETITIONER CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF THE ISSUE OF THE ORDER UNDER A
LEGAL DOCTRINE WHICH MAKES THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT RATHER THAN A COURT
THE DETERMINATOR OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE.  IN SUPPORT OF HIS
ARGUMENT THAT THE EXECUTIVE SHOULD NOT INVADE THE JUDICIAL SPHERE,
PETITIONER CITES WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.), SEC. 2379, AND MARBURY V.
MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137.  BUT UNDER THIS RECORD WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY
WITH THE VALIDITY OF ORDER NO. 3229.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S EXERCISE OF A DETERMINATIVE POWER AS TO WHETHER OR
ON WHAT CONDITIONS OR SUBJECT TO WHAT DISADVANTAGES TO THE GOVERNMENT
HE MAY REFUSE TO PRODUCE GOVERNMENT PAPERS UNDER HIS CHARGE MUST AWAIT
A FACTUAL SITUATION THAT REQUIRES A RULING.  FN9  WE THINK ORDER NO.
3229 IS CONSISTENT WITH LAW.  THIS CASE IS RULED BY BOSKE V. COMINGORE,
177 U.S. 459.  FN10 

THAT CASE CONCERNED A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE ADJUDGED IN
CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO FILE WITH HIS DEPOSITION COPIES OF A
DISTILLER'S REPORTS IN HIS POSSESSION AS A SUBORDINATE OFFICER OF THE
TREASURY.  THE INFORMATION WAS NEEDED IN LITIGATION IN A STATE COURT TO
COLLECT A STATE TAX.  THE REGULATION UPON WHICH THE COLLECTOR RELIED
FOR HIS REFUSAL WAS OF THE SAME GENERAL CHARACTER AS ORDER NO. 3229. 
FN11  AFTER REFERRING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THE ENACTMENT
OF R.S. SEC. 161, THE BASIS, AS 5 U.S.C. SEC. 22, FOR THE REGULATION
NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION, THIS COURT REACHED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
REGULATION CENTRALIZING IN THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY THE DISCRETION
TO SUBMIT RECORDS VOLUNTARILY TO THE COURTS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH LAW,
P. 469.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE SECRETARY'S RESERVATION FOR HIS OWN
DETERMINATION OF ALL MATTERS OF THAT CHARACTER WAS LAWFUL. 

WE SEE NO MATERIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THAT CASE AND THIS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ORDER NO. 3229, FILED MAY 2, 1946, 11 FED.
REG. 4920, READS: 

"PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME BY R.S. 161 U.S. CODE, TITLE 5,

"ALL OFFICIAL FILES, DOCUMENTS, RECORDS AND INFORMATION IN THE
OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, INCLUDING THE SEVERAL OFFICES OF
UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES
MARSHALS, AND FEDERAL PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS, OR IN THE
CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, ARE TO BE REGARDED AS CONFIDENTIAL.  NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
MAY PERMIT THE DISCLOSURE OR USE OF THE SAME FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN
FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES, EXCEPT IN THE DISCRETION OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR AN
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTING FOR HIM. 

"WHENEVER A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM IS SERVED TO PRODUCE ANY OF SUCH
FILES, DOCUMENTS, RECORDS OR INFORMATION, THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE ON
WHOM SUCH SUBPOENA IS SERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY DIRECTED BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WILL APPEAR IN COURT IN ANSWER THERETO AND
RESPECTFULLY DECLINE TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS SPECIFIED THERE IN, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF SUCH RECORDS IS PROHIBITED BY THIS
REGULATION." 

SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 TO THAT ORDER, DATED JUNE 6, 1947, PROVIDES IN
PART: 

"TO ALL UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

           "PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED UPON RECEIVING A SUBPOENA

                       DUCES TECUM 

"WHENEVER AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS SERVED WITH A
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO PRODUCE ANY OFFICIAL FILES, DOCUMENTS, RECORDS
OR INFORMATION HE SHOULD AT ONCE INFORM HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER OF THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE SUBPOENA AND ASK FOR INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.  IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIRCUMSTANCES OR
CONDITIONS MAKE IT NECESSARY TO DECLINE IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC
POLICY TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION, THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE ON WHOM THE
SUBPOENA IS SERVED WILL APPEAR IN COURT IN ANSWER THERETO AND
COURTEOUSLY STATE TO THE COURT THAT HE HAS CONSULTED THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND IS ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN REFUSING TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS.  ... 

     .         .     .         .         . 

"  ...  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO BRING THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS INTO THE
COURT ROOM AND ON THE WITNESS STAND WHEN IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA BY SUBMITTING THE
REGULATION OF THE DEPARTMENT (ORDER NO. 3229) AND EXPLAINING THAT HE IS
NOT PERMITTED TO SHOW THE FILES.  IF QUESTIONED, THE OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE SHOULD STATE THAT THE MATERIAL IS AT HAND AND CAN BE SUBMITTED
TO THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION AS TO ITS MATERIALITY TO THE CASE AND
WHETHER IN THE BEST PUBLIC INTERESTS THE INFORMATION SHOULD BE
DISCLOSED.  THE RECORDS SHOULD BE KEPT IN THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE OR SOME SIMILAR PLACE OF SAFE-KEEPING NEAR THE COURT ROOM. 
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE NAME OF ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT BE
DIVULGED." 

FN2  "THE HEAD OF EACH DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE
REGULATIONS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LAW, FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF HIS
DEPARTMENT, THE CONDUCT OF ITS OFFICERS AND CLERKS, THE DISTRIBUTION
AND PERFORMANCE OF ITS BUSINESS, AND THE CUSTODY, USE, AND PRESERVATION
OF THE RECORDS, PAPERS, AND PROPERTY APPERTAINING TO IT." 

FN3  THE SUBPOENA WAS ALSO ADDRESSED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THERE
IS NO CONTENTION, HOWEVER, THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS PERSONALLY
SERVED WITH THE SUBPOENA; NOR DID HE APPEAR.  SEE FED. RULES CIV.
PROC., 45. 

FN4  WE TAKE THIS ANSWER TO REFER TO BOTH THE ORIGINAL DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE ORDER NO. 3229 AND THE SUPPLEMENT. 

FN5  ALTHOUGH IN THIS RECORD THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT THE U.S.
ATTORNEY WAS WILLING TO SUBMIT THE PAPERS TO THE JUDGE ALONE FOR HIS
DETERMINATION AS TO THEIR MATERIALITY, THE JUDGE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE
PAPERS FOR EXAMINATION ON THAT BASIS.  THERE IS ALSO IN THE RECORD
INDICATION THAT THE U.S. ATTORNEY THOUGHT OF SUBMITTING THE PAPERS TO
THE COURT AND OPPOSING COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS BUT CHANGED HIS MIND.  FOR
OUR CONCLUSION NONE OF THESE FACTS ARE MATERIAL, AS THE FINAL ORDER
ADJUDGING MR. MCSWAIN GUILTY OF CONTEMPT WAS BASED, AS ABOVE INDICATED,
ON A REFUSAL BY MR. MCSWAIN TO PRODUCE, AS INSTRUCTED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 3229. 

FN6  CF. UNITED STATES V. ANDOLSCHEK, 142 F.2D 503. 

FN7  SEE WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.), SEC. 2378. 

FN8  SEE WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.), SEC. 2374. 

FN9  RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF LOS ANGELES, 331 U.S. 549. 
FOR RELATIVELY RECENT CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM UNDERLYING
GOVERNMENTAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST PRODUCING EVIDENCE, COMPARE DUNCAN V.
CAMMELL, LAIRD & CO., (1942) A.C. 624, WITH ROBINSON V. STATE OF SOUTH
AUSTRALIA, (1931) A.C. 704. 

FN10  THAT CASE HAS BEEN GENERALLY FOLLOWED.  SEE, E.G., EX PARTE
SACKETT, 74 F.2D 922; IN RE VALECIA CONDENSED MILK CO., 240 F. 310;
HARWOOD V. MCMURTRY, 22 F.SUPP.  572; STEGALL V. THURMAN, 175 F. 813;
WALLING V. COMET CARRIERS, INC., 3 F.R.D. 442, 443. 

FN11  THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS WILL SHOW THE SIMILARITY: 

"WHENEVER SUCH SUBPOENAS SHALL HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THEM, THEY WILL
APPEAR IN COURT IN ANSWER THERETO AND RESPECTFULLY DECLINE TO PRODUCE
THE RECORDS CALLED FOR, ON THE GROUND OF BEING PROHIBITED THEREFROM BY
THE REGULATIONS OF THIS DEPARTMENT.  ...  IN ALL CASES WHERE COPIES OF
DOCUMENTS OR RECORDS ARE DESIRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF PARTIES TO A SUIT,
WHETHER IN A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OTHER, SUCH COPIES SHALL
BE FURNISHED TO THE COURT ONLY AND ON A RULE OF THE COURT UPON THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY REQUESTING THE SAME.  WHENEVER SUCH RULE OF
THE COURT SHALL HAVE BEEN OBTAINED COLLECTORS ARE DIRECTED TO CAREFULLY
PREPARE A COPY OF THE RECORD OR DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE INFORMATION
CALLED FOR AND SEND IT TO THIS OFFICE, WHEREUPON IT WILL BE TRANSMITTED
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY WITH A REQUEST FOR ITS AUTHENTICATION,
UNDER THE SEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND TRANSMISSION TO THE JUDGE OF THE
COURT CALLING FOR IT, UNLESS IT SHOULD BE FOUND THAT CIRCUMSTANCES OR
CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH MAKES IT NECESSARY TO DECLINE, IN THE INTEREST
OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE, TO FURNISH SUCH A COPY.'"  177 U.S. 461. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS ARE OF THE OPINION THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

ISSUES OF FAR-REACHING IMPORTANCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DEEMED TO BE
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ARE NOW EXPRESSLY LEFT UNDECIDED.  BUT THEY ARE
QUESTIONS THAT LIE NEAR THE JUDICIAL HORIZON.  TO AVOID FUTURE
MISUNDERSTANDING, I DEEM IT IMPORTANT TO STATE MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
OPINION OF THE COURT - WHAT IT DECIDES AND WHAT IT LEAVES WHOLLY OPEN -
ON THE BASIS OF WHICH I CONCUR IN IT. 

"THIS CASE," THE COURT HOLDS, "IS RULED" BY BOSKE V. COMINGORE, 177
U.S. 459.  I AGREE.  BOSKE V. COMINGORE DECIDED THAT THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY WAS AUTHORIZED, AS A MATTER OF INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION IN
HIS DEPARTMENT, TO REQUIRE THAT HIS SUBORDINATES DECLINE TO PRODUCE
TREASURY RECORDS IN THEIR POSSESSION.  IN THE CASE BEFORE US PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS DECLINED BY
VIRTUE OF AN ORDER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INSTRUCTING HIS SUBORDINATES
NOT TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO MAKE SUCH A REGULATION FOR THE INTERNAL CONDUCT OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS NOT LESS THAN THE POWER OF THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY TO PROMULGATE THE ORDER UPHELD IN BOSKE V. COMINGORE,
SUPRA. 

BUT IN HOLDING THAT THAT DECISION RULES THIS, THE CONTEXT OF THE
EARLIER DECISION AND THE QUALIFICATIONS WHICH THAT CONTEXT IMPLIES
BECOME IMPORTANT.  THE REGULATION IN BOSKE V. COMINGORE PROVIDED:  (1)
THAT COLLECTORS SHOULD UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSE TAX REPORTS OR
PRODUCE THEM IN COURT, AND (2) THAT REPORTS COULD BE OBTAINED ONLY "ON
A RULE OF THE COURT UPON THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY."  177 U.S. AT
460-461.  THE REGULATION ALSO STATED THAT THE REPORTS WOULD BE
DISCLOSED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY "UNLESS IT SHOULD BE FOUND
THAT CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH MAKES IT NECESSARY TO
DECLINE, IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE, TO FURNISH SUCH A
COPY."  IBID.  THIS PORTION OF THE REGULATION WAS NOT IN ISSUE,
HOWEVER, FOR THE COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE FAILURE OF THE COLLECTOR TO
PRODUCE, NOT THE FAILURE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  THIS IS
EMPHASIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTION THAT: 

"(IF) THE REPORTS THEMSELVES WERE TO BE USED THIS COULD BE SECURED BY
A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO THE HEAD OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OR
SOMEONE UNDER HIS DIRECTION, WHO WOULD PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL PAPERS
THEMSELVES IN COURT FOR INTRODUCTION AS EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL OF THE
CAUSE."  BRIEF FOR APPELLEE, P. 49, BOSKE V. COMINGORE, SUPRA. 

AND THE DECISION WAS STRICTLY CONFINED TO THE NARROW ISSUE BEFORE THE
COURT.  IT IS EPITOMIZED IN THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH OF THE BOSKE
OPINION: 

"IN OUR OPINION THE SECRETARY, UNDER THE REGULATIONS AS TO THE
CUSTODY, USE AND PRESERVATION OF THE RECORDS, PAPERS AND PROPERTY
APPERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS OF HIS DEPARTMENT, MAY TAKE FROM A
SUBORDINATE, SUCH AS A COLLECTOR, ALL DISCRETION AS TO PERMITTING THE
RECORDS IN HIS CUSTODY TO BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN THE
COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE, AND RESERVE FOR HIS OWN DETERMINATION ALL
MATTERS OF THAT CHARACTER."  177 U.S. AT 470. 

THERE IS NOT A HINT IN THE BOSKE OPINION THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN SHUT
OFF AN APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL DEMAND FOR SUCH PAPERS. 

I WHOLLY AGREE WITH WHAT IS NOW DECIDED INSOFAR AS IT FINDS THAT
WHETHER, WHEN AND HOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIMSELF CAN BE GRANTED AN
IMMUNITY FROM THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN DOCUMENTS
WITHIN HIS POSSESSION THAT ARE RELEVANT TO A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING ARE
MATTERS NOT HERE FOR ADJUDICATION.  THEREFORE, NOT ONE OF THESE
QUESTIONS IS IMPLIEDLY AFFECTED BY THE VERY NARROW RULING ON WHICH THE
PRESENT DECISION RESTS.  SPECIFICALLY, THE DECISION AND OPINION IN THIS
CASE CANNOT AFFORD A BASIS FOR A FUTURE SUGGESTION THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CAN FORBID EVERY SUBORDINATE WHO IS CAPABLE OF BEING SERVED BY
PROCESS FROM PRODUCING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND LATER CONTEST A
REQUIREMENT UPON HIM TO PRODUCE ON THE GROUND THAT PROCEDURALLY HE
CANNOT BE REACHED.  IN JOINING THE COURT'S OPINION I ASSUME THE
CONTRARY - THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN BE REACHED BY LEGAL PROCESS. 

THOUGH HE MAY BE SO REACHED, WHAT DISCLOSURES HE MAY BE COMPELLED TO
MAKE IS ANOTHER MATTER.  IT WILL OF COURSE BE OPEN TO HIM TO RAISE
THOSE ISSUES OF PRIVILEGE FROM TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION WHICH THE COURT
RIGHTLY HOLDS ARE NOT BEFORE US NOW.  BUT UNLESS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
AMENABILITY TO PROCESS IS IMPLIEDLY RECOGNIZED WE SHOULD CANDIDLY FACE
THE ISSUE OF THE IMMUNITY PERTAINING TO THE INFORMATION WHICH IS HERE
SOUGHT.  TO HOLD NOW THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS EMPOWERED TO FORBID
HIS SUBORDINATES, THOUGH WITHIN A COURT'S JURISDICTION, TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND TO HOLD LATER THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIMSELF CANNOT IN
ANY EVENT BE PROCEDURALLY REACHED WOULD BE TO APPLY A FOX-HUNTING
THEORY OF JUSTICE THAT OUGHT TO MAKE BENTHAM'S SKELETON RATTLE. 
..END :




















UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V. LABOR BD., 340 U.S. 474 


NO. 40.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 6-7, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 179
F.2D 749, VACATED AND REMANDED. 


THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED PETITIONER TO REINSTATE
WITH BACK PAY AN EMPLOYEE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE HE GAVE
CERTAIN TESTIMONY IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE REASON FOR HIS DISCHARGE WAS
CONFLICTING; AND THE BOARD OVERRULED ITS EXAMINER'S FINDINGS OF FACT
AND HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BE DISMISSED.  IN DECREEING
ENFORCEMENT, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF
FACT WERE "SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED
AS A WHOLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED IN 1947.  THIS HOLDING WAS BASED PARTLY ON
THE VIEW (1) THAT THE 1947 AMENDMENTS HAD NOT BROADENED THE SCOPE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND (2) THAT THE BOARD'S REJECTION OF ITS EXAMINER'S
FINDINGS OF FACT WAS WITHOUT RELEVANCE IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE
BOARD'S FINDINGS WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  HELD: 

1.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THE STANDARD OF PROOF
REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, TO SUPPORT A
DECISION OF THE LABOR BOARD ON JUDICIAL REVIEW IS THE SAME AS THAT TO
BE EXACTED BY COURTS REVIEWING EVERY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION SUBJECT TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  PP. 477-487. 

2.  IN AMENDING SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT SO AS
TO REQUIRE THAT, ON JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF FACT MUST
BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE "ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A
WHOLE," CONGRESS MADE IT CLEAR THAT A REVIEWING COURT IS NOT BARRED
FROM SETTING ASIDE A BOARD DECISION WHEN IT CANNOT CONSCIENTIOUSLY FIND
THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT DECISION IS SUBSTANTIAL, WHEN VIEWED
IN THE LIGHT THAT THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY FURNISHES, INCLUDING THE
BODY OF EVIDENCE OPPOSED TO THE BOARD'S VIEW.  PP. 487-488. 

3.  WHEN READ IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT,
1947, REQUIRE THE COURTS TO ASSUME MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
REASONABLENESS AND FAIRNESS OF LABOR BOARD DECISIONS THAN SOME COURTS
HAVE SHOWN IN THE PAST.  PP. 488-490. 

4.  WHETHER ON THE RECORD AS A WHOLE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT AGENCY FINDINGS IS A QUESTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS PLACED IN THE
KEEPING OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS.  THIS COURT WILL INTERVENE ONLY IN
WHAT OUGHT TO BE THE RARE INSTANCE WHEN THE STANDARD APPEARS TO HAVE
BEEN MISAPPREHENDED OR GROSSLY MISAPPLIED.  P. 491. 

5.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT WAS BARRED FROM
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE REPORT OF THE EXAMINER ON QUESTIONS OF FACT
INSOFAR AS THAT REPORT WAS REJECTED BY THE BOARD.  PP. 491-497. 

(A)  A TRIAL EXAMINER'S FINDINGS ARE NOT AS UNASSAILABLE AS A
MASTER'S AND MAY BE REVERSED BY THE BOARD EVEN WHEN NOT CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS.  P. 492. 

(B)  A REVIEWING COURT NEED NOT GIVE A TRIAL EXAMINER'S FINDINGS MORE
WEIGHT THAN IN REASON AND IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE THEY
DESERVE; BUT THEY SHOULD BE ACCORDED THE RELEVANCE THAT THEY REASONABLY
COMMAND IN ANSWERING THE COMPREHENSIVE QUESTION WHETHER THE EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING THE BOARD'S ORDER IS SUBSTANTIAL.  PP. 496-497. 

6.  THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH IS LEFT FREE
TO GRANT OR DENY ENFORCEMENT AS IT THINKS THE PRINCIPLES EXPRESSED IN
THE OPINION OF THIS COURT DICTATE.  P. 497. 

UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DECREED ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING PETITIONER TO REINSTATE AN EMPLOYEE
WITH BACK PAY AND TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ANY
EMPLOYEE WHO FILES CHARGES OR GIVES TESTIMONY UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  179 F.2D 749.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S.
962.  JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED, P. 497. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ESSENTIAL ISSUE RAISED BY THIS CASE AND ITS COMPANION, LABOR
BOARD V. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO., POST, P. 498, IS THE EFFECT OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND THE LEGISLATION COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS
THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT ON THE DUTY OF COURTS OF APPEALS WHEN CALLED UPON
TO REVIEW ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT GRANTED ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ORDER DIRECTING, IN THE MAIN, THAT PETITIONER REINSTATE WITH BACK PAY
AN EMPLOYEE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE HE GAVE TESTIMONY
UNDER THE WAGNER ACT AND CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
ANY EMPLOYEE WHO FILES CHARGES OR GIVES TESTIMONY UNDER THAT ACT.  THE
COURT BELOW, JUDGE SWAN DISSENTING, DECREED FULL ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER.  179 F.2D 749.  BECAUSE THE VIEWS OF THAT COURT REGARDING THE
EFFECT OF THE NEW LEGISLATION ON THE RELATION BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE
COURTS OF APPEALS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDERS CONFLICTED
WITH THOSE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT  FN1 WE
BROUGHT BOTH CASES HERE.  339 U.S. 951 AND 339 U.S. 962.  THE CLASH OF
OPINION OBVIOUSLY REQUIRED SETTLEMENT BY THIS COURT. 

                                  I. 

WANT OF CERTAINTY IN JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LABOR BOARD DECISIONS PARTLY
REFLECTS THE INTRACTABILITY OF ANY FORMULA TO FURNISH DEFINITENESS OF
CONTENT FOR ALL THE IMPALPABLE FACTORS INVOLVED IN JUDICIAL REVIEW. 
BUT IN PART DOUBTS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE REVIEWING POWER AND
UNCERTAINTIES IN ITS APPLICATION DERIVE FROM HISTORY, AND TO THAT
EXTENT AN ELUCIDATION OF THIS HISTORY MAY CLEAR THEM AWAY. 

THE WAGNER ACT PROVIDED:  "THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS,
IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  ACT OF JULY 5, 1935,
SEC. 10(E), 49 STAT. 449, 454, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(E).  THIS COURT READ
"EVIDENCE" TO MEAN "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE," WASHINGTON, V. & M. COACH
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 142, AND WE SAID THAT "(SUBSTANTIAL)
EVIDENCE IS MORE THAN A MERE SCINTILLA.  IT MEANS SUCH RELEVANT
EVIDENCE AS A REASONABLE MIND MIGHT ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A
CONCLUSION."  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197,
229.  ACCORDINGLY, IT "MUST DO MORE THAN CREATE A SUSPICION OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THE FACT TO BE ESTABLISHED.  ...  IT MUST BE ENOUGH TO
JUSTIFY, IF THE TRIAL WERE TO A JURY, A REFUSAL TO DIRECT A VERDICT
WHEN THE CONCLUSION SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN FROM IT IS ONE OF FACT FOR THE
JURY."  LABOR BOARD V. COLUMBIAN ENAMELING & STAMPING CO., 306 U.S.
292, 300. 

THE VERY SMOOTHNESS OF THE "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" FORMULA AS THE
STANDARD FOR REVIEWING THE EVIDENTIARY VALIDITY OF THE BOARD'S FINDINGS
ESTABLISHED ITS CURRENCY.  BUT THE INEVITABLY VARIANT APPLICATIONS OF
THE STANDARD TO CONFLICTING EVIDENCE SOON BROUGHT CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS
AND IN DUE COURSE BRED CRITICISM.  EVEN THOUGH THE WHOLE RECORD MAY
HAVE BEEN CANVASSED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EVIDENTIARY
FOUNDATION OF A DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD WAS "SUBSTANTIAL," THE
PHRASING OF THIS COURT'S PROCESS OF REVIEW READILY LENT ITSELF TO THE
NOTION THAT IT WAS ENOUGH THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE BOARD'S
RESULT WAS "SUBSTANTIAL" WHEN CONSIDERED BY ITSELF.  IT IS FAIR TO SAY
THAT BY IMPERCEPTIBLE STEPS REGARD FOR THE FACT-FINDING FUNCTION OF THE
BOARD LED TO THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WAGNER ACT
WERE MET WHEN THE REVIEWING COURT COULD FIND IN THE RECORD EVIDENCE
WHICH, WHEN VIEWED IN ISOLATION, SUBSTANTIATED THE BOARD'S FINDINGS. 
COMPARE LABOR BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP., 309 U.S. 206; LABOR
BOARD V. BRADFORD DYEING ASSN., 310 U.S. 318; AND SEE LABOR BOARD V.
NEVADA CONSOLIDATED COPPER CORP., 316 U.S. 105.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY
THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COURT WAS CONSCIOUSLY GUIDED BY THIS VIEW OR
THAT THE COURT EVER EXPLICITLY AVOWED THIS PRACTICE AS DOCTRINE.  WHAT
MATTERS IS THAT THE BELIEF JUSTIFIABLY AROSE THAT THE COURT HAD SO
CONSTRUED THE OBLIGATION TO REVIEW.  FN2 

CRITICISM OF SO CONTRACTED A REVIEWING POWER REINFORCED
DISSATISFACTION FELT IN VARIOUS QUARTERS WITH THE BOARD'S
ADMINISTRATION OF THE WAGNER ACT IN THE YEARS PRECEDING THE WAR.  THE
SCHEME OF THE ACT WAS ATTACKED AS AN INHERENTLY UNFAIR FUSION OF THE
FUNCTIONS OF PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE.  FN3 ACCUSATIONS OF PARTISAN BIAS
WERE NOT WANTING.  FN4  THE "IRRESPONSIBLE ADMISSION AND WEIGHING OF
HEARSAY, OPINION, AND EMOTIONAL SPECULATION IN PLACE OF FACTUAL
EVIDENCE" WAS SAID TO BE A "SERIOUS MENACE."  FN5  NO DOUBT SOME,
PERHAPS EVEN MUCH, OF THE CRITICISM WAS BASELESS AND SOME SURELY WAS
RECKLESS.  FN6  WHAT IS HERE RELEVANT, HOWEVER, IS THE CLIMATE OF
OPINION THEREBY GENERATED AND ITS EFFECT ON CONGRESS.  PROTESTS AGAINST
"SHOCKING INJUSTICES" N7 AND INTIMATIONS OF JUDICIAL "ABDICATION"  FN8
WITH WHICH SOME COURTS GRANTED ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDERS
STIMULATED PRESSURES FOR LEGISLATIVE RELIEF FROM ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE
EXCESSES. 

THE STRENGTH OF THESE PRESSURES WAS REFLECTED IN THE PASSAGE IN 1940
OF THE WALTER-LOGAN BILL.  IT WAS VETOED BY PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT, PARTLY
BECAUSE IT IMPOSED UNDULY RIGID LIMITATIONS ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS, AND PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE ACTUAL
OPERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THEN BEING CONDUCTED BY AN
EXPERIENCED COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL N9.  IT IS
WORTH NOTING THAT DESPITE ITS AIM TO TIGHTEN CONTROL OVER
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS OF FACT, THE WALTER-LOGAN BILL CONTENTED
ITSELF WITH THE CONVENTIONAL FORMULA THAT AN AGENCY'S DECISION COULD BE
SET ASIDE IF "THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE."  FN10 

THE FINAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE WAS SUBMITTED IN
JANUARY, 1941.  THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT "(DISSATISFACTION) WITH THE
EXISTING STANDARDS AS TO THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW DERIVES LARGELY
FROM DISSATISFACTION WITH THE FACT-FINDING PROCEDURES NOW EMPLOYED BY
THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES."  FN11  DEPARTURE FROM THE "SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE" TEST, IT THOUGHT, WOULD EITHER CREATE UNNECESSARY UNCERTAINTY
OR TRANSFER TO COURTS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ASCERTAINING AND ASSAYING
MATTERS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHICH LIES OUTSIDE JUDICIAL COMPETENCE. 
ACCORDINGLY, IT RECOMMENDED AGAINST LEGISLATION EMBODYING A GENERAL
SCHEME OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  FN12 

THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE REGISTERED A DISSENT.  THEIR VIEW WAS
THAT THE "PRESENT SYSTEM OR LACK OF SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW" LED TO
INCONSISTENCY AND UNCERTAINTY.  THEY REPORTED THAT UNDER A "PREVALENT"
INTERPRETATION OF THE "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" RULE "IF WHAT IS CALLED
'SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE' IS FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT, THE COURTS ARE SAID TO BE OBLIGED TO SUSTAIN THE
DECISION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO HOW HEAVILY THE COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE
MAY PREPONDERATE - UNLESS INDEED THE STAGE OF ARBITRARY DECISION IS
REACHED.  UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION, THE COURTS NEED TO READ ONLY ONE
SIDE OF THE CASE AND, IF THEY FIND ANY EVIDENCE THERE, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS TO BE SUSTAINED AND THE RECORD TO THE CONTRARY
IS TO BE IGNORED."  FN13  THEIR VIEW LED THEM TO RECOMMEND THAT
CONGRESS ENACT PRINCIPLES OF REVIEW APPLICABLE TO ALL AGENCIES NOT
EXCEPTED BY UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS.  ONE OF THESE PRINCIPLES WAS
EXPRESSED BY THE FORMULA THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW COULD EXTEND TO
"FINDINGS, INFERENCES, OR CONCLUSIONS OF FACT UNSUPPORTED, UPON THE
WHOLE RECORD, BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE."  FN14  SO FAR AS THE HISTORY OF
THIS MOVEMENT FOR ENLARGED REVIEW REVEALS, THE PHRASE "UPON THE WHOLE
RECORD" MAKES ITS FIRST APPEARANCE IN THIS RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MINORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE.  THIS EVIDENCE OF THE
CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PHRASE AND THE CRITICISM OUT OF WHICH IT
AROSE IS IMPORTANT, FOR THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS FORMULA FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW FOUND ITS WAY INTO THE STATUTE BOOKS WHEN CONGRESS WITH
UNQUESTIONING - WE MIGHT EVEN SAY UNCRITICAL - UNANIMITY ENACTED THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  FN15 

ONE IS TEMPTED TO SAY "UNCRITICAL" BECAUSE THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THAT ACT HARDLY SPEAKS WITH THAT CLARITY OF PURPOSE WHICH CONGRESS
SUPPOSEDLY FURNISHES COURTS IN ORDER TO ENABLE THEM TO ENFORCE ITS TRUE
WILL.  ON THE ONE HAND, THE SPONSORS OF THE LEGISLATION INDICATED THAT
THEY WERE REAFFIRMING THE PREVAILING "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" TEST.  FN16
BUT WITH EQUAL CLARITY THEY EXPRESSED DISAPPROVAL OF THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE COURTS WERE APPLYING THEIR OWN STANDARD.  THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS OF BOTH HOUSES REFER TO THE PRACTICE OF AGENCIES TO RELY UPON
"SUSPICION, SURMISE, IMPLICATIONS, OR PLAINLY INCREDIBLE EVIDENCE," AND
INDICATE THAT COURTS ARE TO EXACT HIGHER STANDARDS "IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT" AND ON CONSIDERATION OF "THE WHOLE
RECORD."  FN17 

SIMILAR DISSATISFACTION WITH TOO RESTRICTED APPLICATION OF THE
"SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" TEST IS REFLECTED IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT.  FN18  THE BILL AS REPORTED TO THE HOUSE PROVIDED
THAT THE "FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE
UNLESS IT IS MADE TO APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT EITHER (1)
THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE, OR (2) THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE."  FN19  THE BILL LEFT THE HOUSE WITH THIS
PROVISION.  EARLY COMMITTEE PRINTS IN THE SENATE PROVIDED FOR REVIEW BY
"WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE" OR "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS" STANDARDS.  FN20  BUT,
AS THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT RELATES, "IT WAS FINALLY DECIDED TO
CONFORM THE STATUTE TO THE CORRESPONDING SECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT WHERE THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TEST PREVAILS.  IN ORDER
TO CLARIFY ANY AMBIGUITY IN THAT STATUTE, HOWEVER, THE COMMITTEE
INSERTED THE WORDS 'QUESTIONS OF FACT, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE  ...  '"  FN21 

THIS PHRASEOLOGY WAS ADOPTED BY THE SENATE.  THE HOUSE CONFEREES
AGREED.  THEY REPORTED TO THE HOUSE:  "IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE COURTS'
REVIEWING POWER WILL BE ADEQUATE TO PRECLUDE SUCH DECISIONS AS THOSE IN
N.L.R.B. V. NEVADA CONSOL.  COPPER CORP. (316 U.S. 105) AND IN THE
WILSON, COLUMBIA PRODUCTS, UNION PACIFIC STAGES, HEARST, REPUBLIC
AVIATION, AND LE TOURNEAU, ETC. CASES, SUPRA, WITHOUT UNDULY BURDENING
THE COURTS."  FN22  THE SENATE VERSION BECAME THE LAW. 

IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT IN ALL THIS CONGRESS EXPRESSED A MOOD.  AND IT
EXPRESSED ITS MOOD NOT MERELY BY ORATORY BUT BY LEGISLATION.  AS
LEGISLATION THAT MOOD MUST BE RESPECTED, EVEN THOUGH IT CAN ONLY SERVE
AS A STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT AND NOT AS A BODY OF RIGID RULES ASSURING
SAMENESS OF APPLICATION.  ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH BROAD STANDARDS IMPLIES
SUBTLETY OF MIND AND SOLIDITY OF JUDGMENT.  BUT IT IS NOT FOR US TO
QUESTION THAT CONGRESS MAY ASSUME SUCH QUALITIES IN THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY. 

FROM THE LEGISLATIVE STORY WE HAVE SUMMARIZED, TWO CONCRETE
CONCLUSIONS DO EMERGE.  ONE IS THE IDENTITY OF AIM OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT REGARDING THE
PROOF WITH WHICH THE LABOR BOARD MUST SUPPORT A DECISION.  THE OTHER IS
THAT NOW CONGRESS HAS LEFT NO ROOM FOR DOUBT AS TO THE KIND OF SCRUTINY
WHICH A COURT OF APPEALS MUST GIVE THE RECORD BEFORE THE BOARD TO
SATISFY ITSELF THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER RESTS ON ADEQUATE PROOF. 

IT WOULD BE MISCHIEVOUS WORD-PLAYING TO FIND THAT THE SCOPE OF REVIEW
UNDER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM THAT UNDER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  THE SENATE COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED THE
REVIEW CLAUSE OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT EXPRESSLY INDICATED THAT THE TWO
STANDARDS WERE TO CONFORM IN THIS REGARD, AND THE WORDING OF THE TWO
ACTS IS FOR PURPOSES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IDENTICAL.  AND SO WE
HOLD THAT THE STANDARD OF PROOF SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED OF THE LABOR
BOARD BY THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT IS THE SAME AS THAT TO BE EXACTED BY
COURTS REVIEWING EVERY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION SUBJECT TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. 

WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS EVER PERMISSIBLE FOR COURTS TO DETERMINE THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A LABOR BOARD DECISION MERELY ON
THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE WHICH IN AND OF ITSELF JUSTIFIED IT, WITHOUT
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE OR EVIDENCE FROM WHICH
CONFLICTING INFERENCES COULD BE DRAWN, THE NEW LEGISLATION DEFINITIVELY
PRECLUDES SUCH A THEORY OF REVIEW AND BARS ITS PRACTICE.  THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF EVIDENCE MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHATEVER IN THE
RECORD FAIRLY DETRACTS FROM ITS WEIGHT.  THIS IS CLEARLY THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT IN BOTH STATUTES THAT COURTS CONSIDER
THE WHOLE RECORD.  COMMITTEE REPORTS AND THE ADOPTION IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF THE MINORITY VIEWS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S COMMITTEE DEMONSTRATE THAT TO ENJOIN SUCH A DUTY ON THE
REVIEWING COURT WAS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PURPOSES OF THE MOVEMENT WHICH
EVENTUATED IN THAT ENACTMENT.    TO BE SURE, THE REQUIREMENT FOR
CANVASSING "THE WHOLE RECORD" IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN SUBSTANTIALITY DOES
NOT FURNISH A CALCULUS OF VALUE BY WHICH A REVIEWING COURT CAN ASSESS
THE EVIDENCE.  NOR WAS IT INTENDED TO NEGATIVE THE FUNCTION OF THE
LABOR BOARD AS ONE OF THOSE AGENCIES PRESUMABLY EQUIPPED OR INFORMED BY
EXPERIENCE TO DEAL WITH A SPECIALIZED FIELD OF KNOWLEDGE, WHOSE
FINDINGS WITHIN THAT FIELD CARRY THE AUTHORITY OF AN EXPERTNESS WHICH
COURTS DO NOT POSSESS AND THEREFORE MUST RESPECT.  NOR DOES IT MEAN
THAT EVEN AS TO MATTERS NOT REQUIRING EXPERTISE A COURT MAY DISPLACE
THE BOARD'S CHOICE BETWEEN TWO FAIRLY CONFLICTING VIEWS, EVEN THOUGH
THE COURT WOULD JUSTIFIABLY HAVE MADE A DIFFERENT CHOICE HAD THE MATTER
BEEN BEFORE IT DE NOVO.  CONGRESS HAS MERELY MADE IT CLEAR THAT A
REVIEWING COURT IS NOT BARRED FROM SETTING ASIDE A BOARD DECISION WHEN
IT CANNOT CONSCIENTIOUSLY FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THAT
DECISION IS SUBSTANTIAL, WHEN VIEWED IN THE LIGHT THAT THE RECORD IN
ITS ENTIRETY FURNISHES, INCLUDING THE BODY OF EVIDENCE OPPOSED TO THE
BOARD'S VIEW. 

THERE REMAINS, THEN, THE QUESTION WHETHER ENACTMENT OF THESE TWO
STATUTES HAS ALTERED THE SCOPE OF REVIEW OTHER THAN TO REQUIRE THAT
SUBSTANTIALITY BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THAT THE RECORD
RELEVANTLY PRESENTS.  A FORMULA FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION MAY AFFORD GROUNDS FOR CERTITUDE BUT CANNOT ASSURE CERTAINTY OF
APPLICATION.  SOME SCOPE FOR JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN APPLYING THE
FORMULA CAN BE AVOIDED ONLY BY FALSIFYING THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF JUDGING
OR BY USING THE FORMULA AS AN INSTRUMENT OF FUTILE CASUISTRY.  IT
CANNOT BE TOO OFTEN REPEATED THAT JUDGES ARE NOT AUTOMATA.  THE
ULTIMATE RELIANCE FOR THE FAIR OPERATION OF ANY STANDARD IS A JUDICIARY
OF HIGH COMPETENCE AND CHARACTER AND THE CONSTANT PLAY OF AN INFORMED
PROFESSIONAL CRITIQUE UPON ITS WORK. 

SINCE THE PRECISE WAY IN WHICH COURTS INTERFERE WITH AGENCY FINDINGS
CANNOT BE IMPRISONED WITHIN ANY FORM OF WORDS, NEW FORMULAS ATTEMPTING
TO REPHRASE THE OLD ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE MORE HELPFUL THAN THE OLD. 
THERE ARE NO TALISMANIC WORDS THAT CAN AVOID THE PROCESS OF JUDGMENT. 
THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT WE CANNOT ESCAPE, IN RELATION TO THIS PROBLEM,
THE USE OF UNDEFINED DEFINING TERMS. 

WHATEVER CHANGES WERE MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND TAFT
HARTLEY ACTS ARE CLEARLY WITHIN THIS AREA WHERE PRECISE DEFINITION IS
IMPOSSIBLE.  RETENTION OF THE FAMILIAR "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE"
TERMINOLOGY INDICATES THAT NO DRASTIC REVERSAL OF ATTITUDE WAS
INTENDED. 

BUT A STANDARD LEAVING AN UNAVOIDABLE MARGIN FOR INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT
DOES NOT LEAVE THE JUDICIAL JUDGMENT AT LARGE EVEN THOUGH THE PHRASING
OF THE STANDARD DOES NOT WHOLLY FENCE IT IN.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF THESE ACTS DEMONSTRATES A PURPOSE TO IMPOSE ON COURTS A
RESPONSIBILITY WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED.  OF COURSE IT IS A
STATUTE AND NOT A COMMITTEE REPORT WHICH WE ARE INTERPRETING.  BUT THE
FAIR INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE IS OFTEN "THE ART OF PROLIFERATING A
PURPOSE," BROOKLYN NATIONAL CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 157 F.2D 450, 451,
REVEALED MORE BY THE DEMONSTRABLE FORCES THAT PRODUCED IT THAN BY ITS
PRECISE PHRASING.  THE ADOPTION IN THESE STATUTES OF THE JUDICIALLY
CONSTRUCTED "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" TEST WAS A RESPONSE TO PRESSURES FOR
STRICTER AND MORE UNIFORM PRACTICE, NOT A REFLECTION OF APPROVAL OF ALL
EXISTING PRACTICES.  TO FIND THE CHANGE SO ELUSIVE THAT IT CANNOT BE
PRECISELY DEFINED DOES NOT MEAN IT MAY BE IGNORED.  WE SHOULD FAIL IN
OUR DUTY TO EFFECTUATE THE WILL OF CONGRESS IF WE DENIED RECOGNITION TO
EXPRESSED CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE FINALITY ACCORDED TO LABOR
BOARD FINDINGS BY SOME DECISIONS OF THIS AND LOWER COURTS, OR EVEN OF
THE ATMOSPHERE WHICH MAY HAVE FAVORED THOSE DECISIONS. 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND THE
TAFT-HARTLEY ACT DIRECT THAT COURTS MUST NOW ASSUME MORE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE REASONABLENESS AND FAIRNESS OF LABOR BOARD DECISIONS THAN SOME
COURTS HAVE SHOWN IN THE PAST.  REVIEWING COURTS MUST BE INFLUENCED BY
A FEELING THAT THEY ARE NOT TO ABDICATE THE CONVENTIONAL JUDICIAL
FUNCTION.  CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED ON THEM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ASSURING
THAT THE BOARD KEEPS WITHIN REASONABLE GROUNDS.  THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS
NOT LESS REAL BECAUSE IT IS LIMITED TO ENFORCING THE REQUIREMENT THAT
EVIDENCE APPEAR SUBSTANTIAL WHEN VIEWED, ON THE RECORD AS A WHOLE, BY
COURTS INVESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY AND ENJOYING THE PRESTIGE OF THE
COURTS OF APPEALS.  THE BOARD'S FINDINGS ARE ENTITLED TO RESPECT; BUT
THEY MUST NONETHELESS BE SET ASIDE WHEN THE RECORD BEFORE A COURT OF
APPEALS CLEARLY PRECLUDES THE BOARD'S DECISION FROM BEING JUSTIFIED BY
A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE WORTH OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES OR ITS
INFORMED JUDGMENT ON MATTERS WITHIN ITS SPECIAL COMPETENCE OR BOTH. 

FROM THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT ENACTMENT OF THESE STATUTES DOES NOT
REQUIRE EVERY COURT OF APPEALS TO ALTER ITS PRACTICE.  SOME - PERHAPS A
MAJORITY - HAVE ALWAYS APPLIED THE ATTITUDE REFLECTED IN THIS
LEGISLATION.  TO EXPLORE WHETHER A PARTICULAR COURT SHOULD OR SHOULD
NOT ALTER ITS PRACTICE WOULD ONLY DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE APPLICATION
OF THE STANDARD NOW PRESCRIBED TO A FUTILE INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF
THE TEST FORMERLY USED BY A PARTICULAR COURT. 

OUR POWER TO REVIEW THE CORRECTNESS OF APPLICATION OF THE PRESENT
STANDARD OUGHT SELDOM TO BE CALLED INTO ACTION.  WHETHER ON THE RECORD
AS A WHOLE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AGENCY FINDINGS IS
A QUESTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS PLACED IN THE KEEPING OF THE COURTS OF
APPEALS.  THIS COURT WILL INTERVENE ONLY IN WHAT OUGHT TO BE THE RARE
INSTANCE WHEN THE STANDARD APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MISAPPREHENDED OR
GROSSLY MISAPPLIED. 

                           II. 

OUR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE SCOPE OF
REVIEW OF LABOR BOARD DECISIONS IS UNALTERED BY RECENT LEGISLATION DOES
NOT OF ITSELF, AS WE HAVE NOTED, REQUIRE REVERSAL OF ITS DECISION.  THE
COURT MAY HAVE APPLIED A STANDARD OF REVIEW WHICH SATISFIES THE PRESENT
CONGRESSIONAL REQUIREMENT. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS ASSAILED ON TWO GROUNDS.  IT
IS SAID (1) THAT THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT WAS BARRED FROM
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE REPORT OF THE EXAMINER ON QUESTIONS OF FACT
INSOFAR AS THAT REPORT WAS REJECTED BY THE BOARD, AND (2) THAT THE
BOARD'S ORDER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD
CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, EVEN APART FROM THE VALIDITY OF THE COURT'S
REFUSAL TO CONSIDER THE REJECTED PORTIONS OF THE EXAMINER'S REPORT. 

THE LATTER CONTENTION IS EASILY MET.  IT IS TRUE THAT TWO OF THE
EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE COURT BELOW WERE AMONG THOSE DISAPPROVED BY
CONGRESS.  FN23  BUT THIS DISAPPROVAL, WE HAVE SEEN, MAY WELL HAVE BEEN
CAUSED BY UNINTENDED INTIMATIONS OF JUDICIAL PHRASING.  AND IN ANY
EVENT, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE COURT'S OPINION IN THIS CASE THAT IT IN
FACT DID CONSIDER THE "RECORD AS A WHOLE," AND DID NOT DEEM ITSELF
MERELY THE JUDICIAL ECHO OF THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION.  THE TESTIMONY OF
THE COMPANY'S WITNESSES WAS INCONSISTENT, AND THERE WAS CLEAR EVIDENCE
THAT THE COMPLAINING EMPLOYEE HAD BEEN DISCHARGED BY AN OFFICER WHO WAS
AT ONE TIME INFLUENCED AGAINST HIM BECAUSE OF HIS APPEARANCE AT THE
BOARD HEARING.  ON SUCH A RECORD WE COULD NOT SAY THAT IT WOULD BE
ERROR TO GRANT ENFORCEMENT. 

THE FIRST CONTENTION, HOWEVER, RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS TO WHICH WE
NOW TURN. 

                                 III. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DEEMED ITSELF BOUND BY THE BOARD'S REJECTION OF
THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS BECAUSE THE COURT CONSIDERED THESE FINDINGS NOT
"AS UNASSAILABLE AS A MASTER'S."  FN24  179 F.2D AT 752.  THEY ARE
NOT.  SECTION 10(C) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT PROVIDES THAT
"IF UPON THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN THE BOARD SHALL BE OF
THE OPINION THAT ANY PERSON NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT HAS ENGAGED IN OR IS
ENGAGING IN ANY SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THEN THE BOARD SHALL STATE
ITS FINDINGS OF FACT  ...  "  61 STAT. 147, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
160(C).  THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DECISION THUS PLACED ON THE BOARD IS
WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE NOTION THAT IT HAS POWER TO REVERSE AN
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS ONLY WHEN THEY ARE "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS."  SUCH A
LIMITATION WOULD MAKE SO DRASTIC A DEPARTURE FROM PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE THAT EXPLICITNESS WOULD BE REQUIRED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED FROM THIS PREMISE "THAT, ALTHOUGH THE
BOARD WOULD BE WRONG IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING HIS FINDINGS, IT IS
PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A COURT, UPON REVIEW OF THOSE FINDINGS WHICH
THE BOARD ITSELF SUBSTITUTES, TO CONSIDER THE BOARD'S REVERSAL AS A
FACTOR IN THE COURT'S OWN DECISION.  THIS WE SAY, BECAUSE WE CANNOT
FIND ANY MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN DOING THAT AND TREATING SUCH A REVERSAL
AS ERROR, WHENEVER IT WOULD BE SUCH, IF DONE BY A JUDGE TO A MASTER IN
EQUITY."  179 F.2D AT 753.  MUCH AS WE RESPECT THE LOGICAL ACUMEN OF
THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WE DO NOT FIND OURSELVES
PINIONED BETWEEN THE HORNS OF HIS DILEMMA. 

WE ARE AWARE THAT TO GIVE THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS LESS FINALITY THAN
A MASTER'S AND YET ENTITLE THEM TO CONSIDERATION IN STRIKING THE
ACCOUNT, IS TO INTRODUCE ANOTHER AND AN UNRULY FACTOR INTO THE
JUDGMATICAL PROCESS OF REVIEW.  BUT WE OUGHT NOT TO FASHION AN
EXCLUSIONARY RULE MERELY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF IMPONDERABLES TO BE
CONSIDERED BY REVIEWING COURTS. 

THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT PROVIDES THAT "THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD WITH
RESPECT TO QUESTIONS OF FACT IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON
THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  61 STAT. 148,
29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 160(E).  SURELY AN EXAMINER'S REPORT IS AS
MUCH A PART OF THE RECORD AS THE COMPLAINT OR THE TESTIMONY.  ACCORDING
TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, "ALL DECISIONS (INCLUDING INITIAL,
RECOMMENDED, OR TENTATIVE DECISIONS) SHALL BECOME A PART OF THE RECORD
...  " SEC. 8(B), 60 STAT. 242, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1007(B).  WE FOUND THAT
THIS ACT'S PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW HAS THE SAME MEANING AS THAT
IN THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT.  THE SIMILARITY OF THE TWO STATUTES IN
LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE DEFINITION OF "RECORD"
FOUND IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT BE CONSTRUED TO BE APPLICABLE
AS WELL TO THE TERM "RECORD" AS USED IN THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT. 

IT IS THEREFORE DIFFICULT TO ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTES DIRECTS A REVIEWING COURT TO DETERMINE THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD INCLUDING THE EXAMINER'S
REPORT.  THE CONCLUSION IS CONFIRMED BY THE INDICATIONS IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT ENHANCEMENT OF THE STATUS AND FUNCTION OF THE
TRIAL EXAMINER WAS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PURPOSES OF THE MOVEMENT FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM. 

THIS AIM WAS SET FORTH BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE: 

"IN GENERAL, THE RELATIONSHIP UPON APPEAL BETWEEN THE HEARING
COMMISSIONER AND THE AGENCY OUGHT TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT TO BE THAT
OF TRIAL COURT TO APPELLATE COURT.  CONCLUSIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, LAW,
AND POLICY SHOULD, OF COURSE, BE OPEN TO FULL REVIEW.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, ON MATTERS WHICH THE HEARING COMMISSIONER, HAVING HEARD THE
EVIDENCE AND SEEN THE WITNESSES, IS BEST QUALIFIED TO DECIDE, THE
AGENCY SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO DISTURB HIS FINDINGS UNLESS ERROR IS
CLEARLY SHOWN."  FN25 

APPARENTLY IT WAS THE COMMITTEE'S OPINION THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS
SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGATORY.  FOR THE BILL WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE FINAL
REPORT REQUIRED ONLY THAT HEARING OFFICERS MAKE AN INITIAL DECISION
WHICH WOULD BECOME FINAL IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER AGENCY ACTION, AND
THAT AGENCIES WHICH DIFFERED ON THE FACTS FROM THEIR EXAMINERS GIVE
REASONS AND RECORD CITATIONS SUPPORTING THEIR CONCLUSION.  FN26  THIS
PROPOSAL WAS FURTHER MODERATED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  IT
PERMITS AGENCIES TO USE EXAMINERS TO RECORD TESTIMONY BUT NOT TO
EVALUATE IT, AND CONTAINS THE RATHER OBSCURE PROVISION THAT AN AGENCY
WHICH REVIEWS AN EXAMINER'S REPORT HAS "ALL THE POWERS WHICH IT WOULD
HAVE IN MAKING THE INITIAL DECISION."  FN27 

BUT THIS REFUSAL TO MAKE MANDATORY THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A REPUDIATION
OF THEM.  NOTHING IN THE STATUTES SUGGESTS THAT THE LABOR BOARD SHOULD
NOT BE INFLUENCED BY THE EXAMINER'S OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE
WITNESSES HE HEARS AND SEES AND THE BOARD DOES NOT.  NOTHING SUGGESTS
THAT REVIEWING COURTS SHOULD NOT GIVE TO THE EXAMINER'S REPORT SUCH
PROBATIVE FORCE AS IT INTRINSICALLY COMMANDS.  TO THE CONTRARY, SEC. 11
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT CONTAINS DETAILED PROVISIONS
DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN HIGH STANDARDS OF INDEPENDENCE AND COMPETENCE IN
EXAMINERS.  SECTION 10(C) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT
REQUIRES THAT EXAMINERS "SHALL ISSUE  ...  A PROPOSED REPORT, TOGETHER
WITH A RECOMMENDED ORDER."  BOTH STATUTES THUS EVINCE A PURPOSE TO
INCREASE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLE OF EXAMINERS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS.  HIGH STANDARDS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION COUNSEL THAT WE
ATTRIBUTE TO THE LABOR BOARD'S EXAMINERS BOTH DUE REGARD FOR THE
RESPONSIBILITY WHICH CONGRESS IMPOSES ON THEM AND THE COMPETENCE TO
DISCHARGE IT.  FN28 

THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE SPONSORS OF THE
LEGISLATION THOUGHT THE STATUTES GAVE SIGNIFICANCE TO THE FINDINGS OF
EXAMINERS.  THUS, THE SENATE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT EXPLAINED IN ITS REPORT THAT EXAMINERS'
DECISIONS "WOULD BE OF CONSEQUENCE, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE EXTENT THAT
MATERIAL FACTS IN ANY CASE DEPEND ON THE DETERMINATION OF CREDIBILITY
OF WITNESSES AS SHOWN BY THEIR DEMEANOR OR CONDUCT AT THE HEARING." 
FN29  THE HOUSE REPORT REFLECTS THE SAME ATTITUDE; FN30  AND THE SENATE
COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT LIKEWISE INDICATES REGARD FOR
THE RESPONSIBILITY DEVOLVING ON THE EXAMINER.  FN31    WE DO NOT
REQUIRE THAT THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS BE GIVEN MORE WEIGHT THAN IN
REASON AND IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE THEY DESERVE.  THE
"SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" STANDARD IS NOT MODIFIED IN ANY WAY WHEN THE
BOARD AND ITS EXAMINER DISAGREE.  WE INTEND ONLY TO RECOGNIZE THAT
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A CONCLUSION MAY BE LESS SUBSTANTIAL WHEN AN
IMPARTIAL, EXPERIENCED EXAMINER WHO HAS OBSERVED THE WITNESSES AND
LIVED WITH THE CASE HAS DRAWN CONCLUSIONS DIFFERENT FROM THE BOARD'S
THAN WHEN HE HAS REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION.  THE FINDINGS OF THE
EXAMINER ARE TO BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE CONSISTENCY AND INHERENT
PROBABILITY OF TESTIMONY.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HIS REPORT, OF COURSE,
DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE IMPORTANCE OF CREDIBILITY IN THE PARTICULAR
CASE.  TO GIVE IT THIS SIGNIFICANCE DOES NOT SEEM TO US MATERIALLY MORE
DIFFICULT THAN TO HEED THE OTHER FACTORS WHICH IN SUM DETERMINE WHETHER
EVIDENCE IS "SUBSTANTIAL." 

THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THE LAW MOVES IS OFTEN A GUIDE FOR DECISION OF
PARTICULAR CASES, AND HERE IT SERVES TO CONFIRM OUR CONCLUSION. 
HOWEVER HALTING ITS PROGRESS, THE TREND IN LITIGATION IS TOWARD A
RATIONAL INQUIRY INTO TRUTH, IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERS EVERYTHING
"LOGICALLY PROBATIVE OF SOME MATTER REQUIRING TO BE PROVED."  THAYER, A
PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON EVIDENCE, 530; FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S.
371.  THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT ASSUMPTIONS OF FACT WHICH ARE
DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, UNITED STATES V. PROVIDENT TRUST CO., 291 U.S. 272,
EVEN WHEN AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES, SWIFT & CO. V. HOCKING VALLEY R.
CO., 243 U.S. 281.  MACHINERY FOR DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN
STRENGTHENED; THE BOUNDARIES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE HAVE BEEN SLOWLY BUT
PERCEPTIBLY ENLARGED.  IT WOULD REVERSE THIS PROCESS FOR COURTS TO DENY
EXAMINERS' FINDINGS THE PROBATIVE FORCE THEY WOULD HAVE IN THE CONDUCT
OF AFFAIRS OUTSIDE A COURTROOM. 

WE THEREFORE REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  ON
RECONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD IT SHOULD ACCORD THE FINDINGS OF THE
TRIAL EXAMINER THE RELEVANCE THAT THEY REASONABLY COMMAND IN ANSWERING
THE COMPREHENSIVE QUESTION WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE BOARD'S
ORDER IS SUBSTANTIAL.  BUT THE COURT NEED NOT LIMIT ITS REEXAMINATION
OF THE CASE TO THE EFFECT OF THAT REPORT ON ITS DECISION.  WE LEAVE IT
FREE TO GRANT OR DENY ENFORCEMENT AS IT THINKS THE PRINCIPLES EXPRESSED
IN THIS OPINION DICTATE.  JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 

FN1  LABOR BOARD V. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO., 180 F.2D 731, AFFIRMED,
POST, P. 498.  THE COURTS OF APPEALS OF FIVE CIRCUITS HAVE AGREED WITH
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT THAT NO MATERIAL CHANGE WAS
MADE IN THE REVIEWING POWER.  EASTERN COAL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 176
F.2D 131, 134-136(C.A.4TH CIR.); LABOR BOARD V. LA SALLE STEEL CO., 178
F.2D 829, 833-834(C.A.7TH CIR.); LABOR BOARD V. MINNESOTA MINING & MFG.
CO., 179 F.2D 323, 325-326(C.A.8TH CIR.); LABOR BOARD V. CONTINENTAL
OIL CO., 179 F.2D 552, 555(C.A. 10TH CIR.); LABOR BOARD V. BOOKER, 180
F.2D 727, 729(C.A.5TH CIR.); BUT SEE LABOR BOARD V. CAROLINE MILLS,
INC., 167 F.2D 212, 213(C.A.5TH CIR.). 

FN2  SEE THE TESTIMONY OF DEAN STASON BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY IN 1941.  HEARINGS ON S. 674, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 1355-1360. 

FN3  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE REMARKS OF LAIRD BELL, THEN CHAIRMAN OF
THE COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OF THE CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION,
WRITING IN 1940 IN THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL.  26 A.B. A.J.
552. 

FN4  SEE GALL, THE CURRENT LABOR PROBLEM:  THE VIEW OF INDUSTRY, 27
IOWA L. REV. 381, 382. 

FN5  THIS CHARGE WAS MADE BY THE MAJORITY OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE HOUSE APPOINTED IN 1939 TO INVESTIGATE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD.  H.R. REP. NO. 1902, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. 76. 

FN6  PROFESSOR GELLHORN AND MR. LINFIELD REACHED THE CONCLUSION IN
1939 AFTER AN EXTENDED INVESTIGATION THAT "THE DENUNCIATIONS FIND NO
SUPPORT IN FACT."  GELLHORN AND LINFIELD, POLITICS AND LABOR RELATIONS,
39 COL. L. REV. 339, 394.  SEE ALSO MILLIS AND BROWN, FROM THE WAGNER
ACT TO TAFT-HARTLEY, 66-75. 

FN7  WILSON & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 126 F.2D 114, 117. 

FN8  IN LABOR BOARD V. STANDARD OIL CO., 138 F.2D 885, 887, JUDGE
LEARNED HAND SAID, "WE UNDERSTAND THE LAW TO BE THAT THE DECISION OF
THE BOARD UPON THAT ISSUE IS FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES NOT OPEN TO US
AT ALL; CERTAINLY NOT AFTER WE HAVE ONCE DECIDED THAT THERE WAS
'SUBSTANTIAL' EVIDENCE THAT THE 'DISESTABLISHED' UNION WAS IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDED BY A PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS A 'DOMINATED' UNION.  ... 

"(WE) RECOGNIZE HOW MOMENTOUS MAY BE SUCH AN ABDICATION OF ANY POWER
OF REVIEW  ...  " 

FN9  86 CONG. REC. 13942-13943, REPRINTED AS H.R. DOC. NO. 986, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS. 

FN10  S. 915, H.R. 6324, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 5(A). 

FN11  FINAL REPORT, 92. 

FN12  REFERRING TO PROPOSALS TO ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF REVIEW TO PERMIT
INQUIRY WHETHER THE FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE, THE MAJORITY SAID: 

"ASSUMING THAT SUCH A CHANGE MAY BE DESIRABLE WITH RESPECT TO SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS, THERE IS SERIOUS OBJECTION TO ITS
ADOPTION FOR GENERAL APPLICATION. 

"IN THE FIRST PLACE THERE IS THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH CHANGE, IF ANY,
THE AMENDMENT WOULD PRODUCE.  THE RESPECT THAT COURTS HAVE FOR THE
JUDGMENTS OF SPECIALIZED TRIBUNALS WHICH HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE
PROBLEMS AND THE EVIDENCE CANNOT BE LEGISLATED AWAY.  THE LINE BETWEEN
'SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE' AND 'WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE' IS NOT EASILY DRAWN -
PARTICULARLY WHEN THE COURT IS CONFINED TO A WRITTEN RECORD, HAS A
LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, AND HAS NO OPPORTUNITY FURTHER TO QUESTION
WITNESSES ON TESTIMONY WHICH SEEMS HAZY OR LEAVES SOME LINGERING DOUBTS
UNANSWERED.  'SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE' MAY WELL BE EQUIVALENT TO THE
'WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE' WHEN A TRIBUNAL IN WHICH ONE HAS CONFIDENCE AND
WHICH HAD GREATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACCURATE DETERMINATION HAS ALREADY
SO DECIDED. 

"IN THE SECOND PLACE THE WISDOM OF A GENERAL CHANGE TO REVIEW OF THE
'WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE' IS QUESTIONABLE.  IF THE CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE THE
COURTS TO DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY WHICH WAY THE EVIDENCE PREPONDERATES,
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS WOULD BE TURNED INTO LITTLE MORE THAN MEDIA
FOR TRANSMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE TO THE COURTS.  IT WOULD DESTROY THE
VALUES OF ADJUDICATION OF FACT BY EXPERTS OR SPECIALISTS IN THE FIELD
INVOLVED.  IT WOULD DIVIDE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATIONS."  FINAL REPORT, 91-92. 

FN13  ID., 210-211. 

FN14  THE MINORITY ENUMERATED FOUR "EXISTING DEFICIENCIES" IN
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THESE WERE (1) "THE HAPHAZARD, UNCERTAIN, AND
VARIABLE RESULTS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM OR LACK OF SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW," (2) THE INTERPRETATION PERMITTING SUBSTANTIALITY TO BE
DETERMINED WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, (3) THE
FAILURE OF EXISTING FORMULAS "TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE VARIOUS TYPES OF FACT DETERMINATIONS," AND (4) THE PRACTICE OF
DETERMINING STANDARDS OF REVIEW BY "CASE-TO-CASE PROCEDURE OF THE
COURTS."  THEY RECOMMENDED THAT 

"UNTIL CONGRESS FINDS IT PRACTICABLE TO EXAMINE INTO THE SITUATION OF
PARTICULAR AGENCIES, IT SHOULD PROVIDE MORE DEFINITELY BY GENERAL
LEGISLATION FOR BOTH THE AVAILABILITY AND SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN
ORDER TO REDUCE UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY.  AS THE COMMITTEE
RECOGNIZES IN ITS REPORT, THERE ARE SEVERAL PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW - INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION, PROCEDURE, AND THE SUPPORT OF FINDINGS OF FACT BY
ADEQUATE EVIDENCE.  THE LAST OF THESE SHOULD, OBVIOUSLY WE THINK, MEAN
SUPPORT OF ALL FINDINGS OF FACT, INCLUDING INFERENCES AND CONCLUSION OF
FACT, UPON THE WHOLE RECORD.  SUCH A LEGISLATIVE PROVISION SHOULD,
HOWEVER, BE QUALIFIED BY A DIRECTION TO THE COURTS TO RESPECT THE
EXPERIENCE, TECHNICAL COMPETENCE, SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE, AND
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OF EACH AGENCY.  WE HAVE FRAMED SUCH A
PROVISION IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS STATEMENT."  ID., 210-212. 

THE TEXT OF THE RECOMMENDED PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(E)  SCOPE OF REVIEW.  - AS TO THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
DECISIONS IN ANY CASE, THE REVIEWING COURT, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF
THE REVIEW PROCEEDING, SHALL CONSIDER AND DECIDE SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO
ITS DECISION AND WHERE RAISED BY THE PARTIES, ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS
OF:  (1) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, POWER, PRIVILEGE, OR IMMUNITY; (2) THE
STATUTORY AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION OF THE AGENCY; (3) THE LAWFULNESS
AND ADEQUACY OF PROCEDURE; (4) FINDINGS, INFERENCES, OR CONCLUSIONS OF
FACT UNSUPPORTED, UPON THE WHOLE RECORD, BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AND
(5) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OTHERWISE ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT UPON SUCH REVIEW DUE WEIGHT SHALL BE ACCORDED THE
EXPERIENCE, TECHNICAL COMPETENCE, SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE, AND
LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF THE AGENCY INVOLVED AS WELL AS THE DISCRETIONARY
AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON IT."  ID., 246-247. 

FN15  60 STAT. 237, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1001 ET SEQ. THE FORM FINALLY
ADOPTED READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 10.  EXCEPT SO FAR AS (1) STATUTES PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW OR
(2) AGENCY ACTION IS BY LAW COMMITTED TO AGENCY DISCRETION - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(E)  SCOPE OF REVIEW.  - SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO DECISION AND WHERE
PRESENTED THE REVIEWING COURT SHALL DECIDE ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS OF
LAW, INTERPRET CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AND DETERMINE
THE MEANING OR APPLICABILITY OF THE TERMS OF ANY AGENCY ACTION.  IT
SHALL (A) COMPEL AGENCY ACTION UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD OR UNREASONABLY
DELAYED; AND (B) HOLD UNLAWFUL AND SET ASIDE AGENCY ACTION, FINDINGS,
AND CONCLUSIONS FOUND TO BE (1) ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, OR OTHERWISE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; (2) CONTRARY TO
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, POWER, PRIVILEGE, OR IMMUNITY; (3) IN EXCESS OF
STATUTORY JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY, OR LIMITATIONS, OR SHORT OF
STATUTORY RIGHT; (4) WITHOUT OBSERVANCE OF PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY LAW;
(5) UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ANY CASE SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 7 AND 8 OR OTHERWISE REVIEWED ON THE RECORD OF
AN AGENCY HEARING PROVIDED BY STATUTE; OR (6) UNWARRANTED BY THE FACTS
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FACTS ARE SUBJECT TO TRIAL DE NOVO BY THE
REVIEWING COURT.  IN MAKING THE FOREGOING DETERMINATIONS THE COURT
SHALL REVIEW THE WHOLE RECORD OR SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS MAY BE CITED
BY ANY PARTY, AND DUE ACCOUNT SHALL BE TAKEN OF THE RULE OF PREJUDICIAL
ERROR."  60 STAT. 243-244, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1009(E). 

IN THE FORM IN WHICH THE BILL WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED TO CONGRESS,
CLAUSE (B)(5) READ, "UNSUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, MATERIAL, AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UPON THE WHOLE AGENCY RECORD AS REVIEWED BY THE
COURT IN ANY CASE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 7 AND 8." 
H.R. 1203, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., QUOTED IN S. DOC. NO. 248, 79TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 155, 160.  REFERENCES TO COMPETENCY AND MATERIALITY OF
EVIDENCE WERE DELETED AND THE FINAL SENTENCE ADDED BY THE SENATE
COMMITTEE.  S. REP. NO. 752, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 28; S. DOC. NO. 248,
SUPRA, 39-40, 214.  NO REASON WAS GIVEN FOR THE DELETION. 

FN16  A STATEMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL APPENDED TO THE SENATE
REPORT EXPLAINED THAT THE BILL "IS INTENDED TO EMBODY THE LAW AS
DECLARED, FOR EXAMPLE, IN CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD (305 U.S. 197)."  SECTION 10(E) OF APPENDIX B TO S.
REP. NO. 752, SUPRA, REPRINTED IN S. DOC. NO. 248, SUPRA, 230.  MR.
MCFARLAND, THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO
THE SAME EFFECT.  ID., 85-86. 

FN17  THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION FROM THE REPORT OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE INDICATES THE POSITION OF THE SPONSORS.  "THE 'SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE' RULE SET FORTH IN SECTION 10(E) IS EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT.  AS
A MATTER OF LANGUAGE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WOULD SEEM TO BE AN ADEQUATE
EXPRESSION OF LAW.  THE DIFFICULTY COMES ABOUT IN THE PRACTICE OF
AGENCIES TO RELY UPON (AND OF COURTS TO TACITLY APPROVE) SOMETHING LESS
- TO RELY UPON SUSPICION, SURMISE, IMPLICATIONS, OR PLAINLY INCREDIBLE
EVIDENCE.  IT WILL BE THE DUTY OF THE COURTS TO DETERMINE IN THE FINAL
ANALYSIS AND IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, WHETHER ON
THE WHOLE RECORD THE EVIDENCE IN A GIVEN INSTANCE IS SUFFICIENTLY
SUBSTANTIAL TO SUPPORT A FINDING, CONCLUSION, OR OTHER AGENCY ACTION AS
A MATTER OF LAW.  IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, HOWEVER, IT WILL BE THE
FUNCTION OF THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
UPON WHICH IT ACTS - AND THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF ITS PUBLIC DUTIES
WILL REQUIRE IT TO UNDERTAKE THIS INQUIRY IN A CAREFUL AND
DISPASSIONATE MANNER.  SHOULD THESE OBJECTIVES OF THE BILL AS WORDED
FAIL, SUPPLEMENTAL LEGISLATION WILL BE REQUIRED."  S. REP. NO. 752,
SUPRA, 30-31.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT IS TO SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
EFFECT.  H.R. REP. NO. 1980, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 45.  THE REPORTS ARE
REPRINTED IN S. DOC. NO. 248, SUPRA, 216-217, 279. 

SEE ALSO THE RESPONSE OF SENATOR MCCARRAN IN DEBATE, TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE BILL CHANGED THE "RULE" THAT COURTS WERE "POWERLESS TO
INTERFERE" WHEN THERE "WAS NO PROBATIVE EVIDENCE."  ID., 322.  AND SEE
THE COMMENT OF CONGRESSMAN SPRINGER, A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, ID., 376. 

FN18  61 STAT. 136, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 141 ET SEQ. 

FN19  H.R. 3020, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 10(E), REPRINTED IN 1
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, P.
71. 

FN20  THE HISTORY OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE SENATE PROVISION WAS GIVEN
BY SENATOR MORSE.  93 CONG. REC. 5108, REPRINTED IN 2 LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY 1504-1505.  THE PRINTS WERE NOT APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE. 
FN21  S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 26-27, REPRINTED IN 1
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 432-433.  THE COMMITTEE DID NOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE
AMBIGUITY MIGHT BE; AND IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE PHRASE IT ITALICIZED
IS INDISTINGUISHABLE IN CONTENT FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 10(E) OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT THAT "THE COURT SHALL REVIEW THE WHOLE
RECORD OR SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS MAY BE CITED BY ANY PARTY  ...  " 

SENATOR TAFT GAVE THIS EXPLANATION TO THE SENATE OF THE MEANING OF
THE SECTION:  "IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE EVIDENCE MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL; IN
THE SECOND PLACE, IT MUST STILL LOOK SUBSTANTIAL WHEN VIEWED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD.  THAT DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS SAYING THAT A
DECISION CAN BE REVERSED ON THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.  IT DOES NOT GO
QUITE SO FAR AS THE POWER GIVEN TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REVIEW
A DISTRICT-COURT DECISION, BUT IT GOES A GREAT DEAL FURTHER THAN THE
PRESENT LAW, AND GIVES THE COURT GREATER OPPORTUNITY TO REVERSE AN
OBVIOUSLY UNJUST DECISION ON THE PART OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD."  93 CONG. REC. 3839, REPRINTED IN 2 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1014. 

FN22  H.R. REP. NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 56, REPRINTED IN 1
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 560.  IN LABOR BOARD V. NEVADA CONSOLIDATED COPPER
CORP., 316 U.S. 105, 107, WE REVERSED A JUDGMENT REFUSING TO ENFORCE A
BOARD ORDER BECAUSE "UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE BOARD ARE WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE."  THE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT FINDINGS OF FACT IS
NOT INVOLVED IN THE THREE OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT TO WHICH
REFERENCE WAS MADE.  LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, INC., 322 U.S.
111; REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. LABOR BOARD AND LABOR BOARD V. LE
TOURNEAU CO., 324 U.S. 793.  THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE COURT OFFERS A
PROBABLE EXPLANATION FOR INCLUDING TWO OF THE DECISIONS OF COURTS OF
APPEALS.  IN WILSON & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 126 F.2D 114, 117, THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT SUSTAINED A FINDING THAT THE
EMPLOYER DOMINATED A COMPANY UNION AFTER STATING THAT IT HAD
"RECOGNIZED (OR TRIED TO) THAT FINDINGS MUST BE SUSTAINED, EVEN WHEN
THEY ARE CONTRARY TO THE GREAT WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AND WE HAVE
IGNORED, OR AT LEAST ENDEAVORED TO IGNORE, THE SHOCKING INJUSTICES
WHICH SUCH FINDINGS, OPPOSED TO THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE, PRODUCE."  LABOR BOARD V. COLUMBIA PRODUCTS CORP., 141 F.2D
687, 688, IS A PER CURIAM DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT SUSTAINING A FINDING OF DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE.  THE
COURT SAID OF THE BOARD'S DECISION ON A QUESTION OF FACT, "THOUGH IT
MAY STRAIN OUR CREDULITY, IF IT DOES NOT QUITE BREAK IT DOWN, WE MUST
ACCEPT IT  ...  "  THE REASON FOR DISAPPROVAL OF LABOR BOARD V. UNION
PACIFIC STAGES, 99 F.2D 153, IS NOT APPARENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT THERE ENFORCED THE PORTION OF THE BOARD'S ORDER
DIRECTING THE COMPANY TO DISAVOW A POLICY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
UNION MEMBERS, ON THE GROUND THAT THERE APPEARED "TO BE EVIDENCE,
ALTHOUGH DISPUTED," THAT SOME COMPANY OFFICIALS HAD DISCOURAGED
EMPLOYEES FROM JOINING.  99 F.2D AT 179.  THE BULK OF THE LENGTHY
OPINION, HOWEVER, IS DEVOTED TO A DISCUSSION OF THE FACTS TO SUPPORT
THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF DISCRIMINATORY
DISCHARGES SHOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. 

FN23  LABOR BOARD V. STANDARD OIL CO., 138 F.2D 885; LABOR BOARD V.
COLUMBIA PRODUCTS CORP., 141 F.2D 687.  SEE NOTES 8 AND 22, SUPRA. 

FN24  RULE 53(E)(2), FED. RULES CIV. PROC., GIVES FINALITY TO THE
FINDINGS OF A MASTER UNLESS THEY ARE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 

THE COURT'S RULING EXCLUDING FROM CONSIDERATION DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE BOARD AND THE EXAMINER WAS IN APPARENT CONFLICT WITH THE VIEWS OF
THREE OTHER CIRCUITS.  LABOR BOARD V. OHIO CALCIUM CO., 133 F.2D 721,
724(C.A.6TH CIR.); A.E. STALEY MFG. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 117 F.2D 868,
878(C.A.7TH CIR.); WILSON & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 123 F.2D 411,
418(C.A.8TH CIR.); CF. INTERNATIONAL ASSN. OF MACHINISTS V. LABOR
BOARD, 71 APP. D.C. 175, 180, 110 F.2D 29, 34(C.A.D.C. CIR.). 

FN25  FINAL REPORT, 51. 

FN26  SECS. 308(1) AND 309(2) OF THE PROPOSED BILL, QUOTED IN FINAL
REPORT, 200, 201. 

FN27  SEC. 8(A), 60 STAT. 242, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1007(A).  THE QUOTED
PROVISION DID NOT APPEAR IN THE BILL IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT WAS
INTRODUCED INTO THE SENATE.  S. 7, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 7.  IT
WAS ADDED BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.  THE COMMITTEE PUBLISHED
ITS REASONS FOR MODIFYING THE EARLIER DRAFT, BUT GAVE NO EXPLANATION
FOR THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE.  SEE S. DOC. NO. 248, SUPRA, 32-33.  IT IS
LIKELY THAT THE SENTENCE WAS INTENDED TO EMBODY A CLAUSE IN THE DRAFT
PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE, WHICH PROVIDED THAT ON
REVIEW OF A CASE DECIDED INITIALLY BY AN EXAMINER AN AGENCY SHOULD HAVE
JURISDICTION TO REMAND OR TO "AFFIRM, REVERSE, MODIFY, OR SET ASIDE IN
WHOLE OR IN PART THE DECISION OF THE HEARING COMMISSIONER, OR ITSELF TO
MAKE ANY FINDING WHICH IN ITS JUDGMENT IS PROPER UPON THE RECORD." 
SEC. 309(2), FINAL REPORT, 201.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS RECOMMENDATION
WAS INCLUDED IN BILLS INTRODUCED INTO THE HOUSE.  H.R. 184, 79TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., SEC. 309(2), AND H.R. 339, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 7(C),
BOTH QUOTED IN S. DOC. NO. 248, SUPRA, 138, 143. 

FN28  SALARIES OF TRIAL EXAMINERS RANGE FROM $7,600 TO $10,750 PER
YEAR.  SEE APPENDIX TO THE BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1952, P. 47. 

FN29  S. REP. NO. 752, SUPRA, 24, REPRODUCED IN S. DOC. NO. 248,
SUPRA, 210. 

FN30  H.R. REP. NO. 1980, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 38-39, REPRINTED IN S.
DOC. NO. 248, SUPRA, 272-273.  THE HOUSE REPORT ADDED THAT "IN A BROAD
SENSE THE AGENCIES' REVIEWING POWERS ARE TO BE COMPARED WITH THAT OF
COURTS UNDER SECTION 10(E) OF THE BILL."  THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE
OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR THIS STATEMENT. 

FN31  S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 9, QUOTED IN 1
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, P.
415. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR WITH PARTS I AND II
OF THIS OPINION BUT AS TO PART III AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT
BELOW, 179 F.2D 749, 753. 
..END :







LABOR BOARD V. PITTSBURGH S.S. CO., 340 U.S. 498 


NO. 42.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 180
F.2D 731, AFFIRMED. 


PRIOR TO 1947, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED RESPONDENT
TO REINSTATE A DISMISSED EMPLOYEE AND TO TERMINATE WHAT WERE FOUND TO
BE COERCIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY LABOR PRACTICES.  AFTER 1947, THE COURT
OF APPEALS MADE A PAINSTAKING REVIEW OF THE RECORD AND UNANIMOUSLY
CONCLUDED THAT THE INFERENCES ON WHICH THE BOARD'S FINDINGS WERE BASED
WERE SO OVERBORNE BY EVIDENCE CALLING FOR CONTRARY INFERENCES THAT THE
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD COULD NOT, "ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE,"
BE DEEMED SUPPORTED BY "SUBSTANTIAL" EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947.  ACCORDINGLY IT DENIED ENFORCEMENT OF
THE BOARD'S ORDER.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 499
503. 

1.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY
THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, BROADENED THE SCOPE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S ORDERS BEYOND THAT REQUIRED BY THE
ORIGINAL NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, ANTE, P. 474.  P. 500. 

2.  THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S REVIEWING POWER WAS GOVERNED BY THE
LEGISLATION IN FORCE AT THE TIME THE POWER WAS EXERCISED, EVEN THOUGH
THE BOARD'S ORDER ANTEDATED SUCH LEGISLATION.  P. 500. 

3.  CONGRESS HAS CHARGED THE COURTS OF APPEALS AND NOT THIS COURT
WITH THE NORMAL AND PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR GRANTING OR DENYING
ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR BOARD ORDERS.  P. 502. 

4.  IN REVIEWING A DECISION OF A COURT OF APPEALS ON THE QUESTION
WHETHER AN ORDER OF THE BOARD IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON
THE RECORD AS A WHOLE, THIS COURT OUGHT TO DO NO MORE THAN DECIDE
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS MADE A FAIR ASSESSMENT OF THE RECORD
ON THE ISSUE OF SUBSTANTIALITY.  PP. 502-503. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD TO BE UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, AND DENIED
ENFORCEMENT.  180 F.2D 731.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S.
951.  AFFIRMED, P. 503. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE BECAUSE ON AN IMPORTANT PHASE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IT WAS IN CONFLICT
WITH UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 179 F.2D 749, JUST DECIDED,
ANTE, P. 474.  OUR DECISION IN THAT CASE CONTROLS THIS.  SINCE THE
COURT BELOW APPLIED WHAT WE HAVE FOUND TO BE THE REQUISITE STANDARD IN
REVIEWING AN ORDER OF THE LABOR BOARD, THERE REMAINS ONLY THE
CONTENTION THAT IN ANY EVENT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COURT
BELOW TO FIND THE BOARD'S ORDER TO BE UNSUPPORTED "BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE."  THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT
DOES NOT CALL FOR EXTENDED DISCUSSION. 

THE CASE IS BEFORE US FOR THE SECOND TIME.  IT ARISES FROM THE
PETITION OF THE PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP COMPANY TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE
BOARD, ENTERED AUGUST 13, 1946, DIRECTING IT TO REINSTATE A DISMISSED
EMPLOYEE AND TO TERMINATE WHAT WERE FOUND TO BE COERCIVE AND
DISCRIMINATORY LABOR PRACTICES.  69 N.L.R.B. 1395.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS ORIGINALLY DENIED ENFORCEMENT ON ITS FINDING THAT THE ORDER WAS
VITIATED BY AN UNDERLYING BIAS ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER.  167
F.2D 126.  ON CERTIORARI, WE REJECTED THE COURT OF APPEALS' CONCLUSION
THAT RESOLUTION OF EVERY CONTROVERTED FACT IN FAVOR OF THE BOARD
ESTABLISHED INVALIDATING BIAS ON THE EXAMINER'S PART.  WE ALSO FOUND
THAT THE RECORD DISCLOSED "EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH UNDER THE WAGNER
ACT."  337 U.S. 656, 661.  THAT CONCLUSION, IT IS PROPER TO SAY, WAS
REACHED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT UNDER THE WAGNER ACT SUBSTANTIALITY WAS
SATISFIED IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE BOARD'S
CONCLUSIONS.  BUT WE REMANDED THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
CONSIDER THE EFFECT ON ITS REVIEWING DUTY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE AND THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACTS, BOTH HAVING COME INTO FORCE
BETWEEN THE BOARD'S ORDER AND THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS HAS NOW HELD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR OWN VIEW, THAT THE
SCOPE OF REVIEW HAD BEEN EXTENDED "BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WAGNER ACT," 180 F.2D 731, 736, AND THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEW
REQUIREMENTS THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE DISENTITLED ENFORCEMENT
OF THE ORDER. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES, WE THINK RIGHTLY, THAT THE SCOPE OF THE
COURT'S REVIEWING POWER WAS GOVERNED BY THE LEGISLATION IN FORCE AT THE
TIME THAT POWER WAS EXERCISED EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD'S ORDER ANTEDATED
SUCH LEGISLATION.  SEE UNITED STATES V. HOOE, 3 CRANCH 73, 79, AND
COMPARE EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 7 WALL.  506. 

THE ACTS CLAIMED TO CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES TOOK PLACE
DURING THE CAMPAIGN OF THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION TO ORGANIZE THE
UNLICENSED EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT'S 73 VESSELS, PLYING ON THE
GREAT LAKES, DURING THE WINTER AND SPRING OF 1944.  THE BOARD ADOPTED
THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF ITS TRIAL EXAMINER AND HELD THAT THE
RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED FOR SEVERAL MONTHS PRECEDING THE ELECTION IN A
DELIBERATE COURSE OF ANTIUNION CONDUCT, THEREBY INTERFERING WITH THE
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE WAGNER ACT. 

THIS CONCLUSION WAS BASED IN PART ON THE DISCHARGE OF A SEAMAN WHO
WAS ONE OF THE UNION ORGANIZERS.  THE BOARD DISBELIEVED SOME OF THE
TESTIMONY JUSTIFYING DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF INCOMPETENCE AND OTHER
EVIDENCE IT DEEMED SO INSUBSTANTIAL THAT IT DREW THE "PLAIN INFERENCE"
THAT THE DISCHARGE WAS "FOR REASONS ASIDE FROM THE MANNER IN WHICH HE
PERFORMED HIS WORK."  69 N.L.R.B. AT 1420.  THE BOARD ALSO RELIED ON
THE TESTIMONY OF UNION ORGANIZERS, PARTLY CORROBORATED, THAT OFFICERS
OF SOME OF THE RESPONDENT'S SHIPS HAD EXPRESSED HOSTILITY TO THE UNION,
IN CONVERSATION WITH MEMBERS OF CREWS OR IN THEIR PRESENCE.  EVIDENCE
OF RESPONDENT'S INTENT TO COERCE EMPLOYEES WAS ALSO FOUND IN TWO
LETTERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE STEAMSHIP COMPANY CIRCULATED AMONG THE
CREWS.  EACH ASSURED THAT UNION MEMBERSHIP WOULD NOT AFFECT AN
EMPLOYEE'S POSITION IN THE COMPANY.  BUT AN OFFICER OF THE UNION
TESTIFIED THAT SOME OF THE POLICIES ATTRIBUTED TO THE UNION IN THE
LETTERS WERE INACCURATE AND THE BOARD FOUND THAT THESE LETTERS,
ALTHOUGH "NOT UNLAWFUL PER SE  ...  CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRAL AND
INSEPARABLE PART OF THE RESPONDENT'S OTHERWISE ILLEGAL COURSE OF
CONDUCT AND WHEN SO VIEWED THEY ASSUME A COERCIVE CHARACTER WHICH IS
NOT PRIVILEGED BY THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH."  69 N.L.R.B. AT 1396* . 

*SINCE WE DO NOT DISTURB THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT
THESE LETTERS ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UNDER THE WAGNER ACT, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF
SEC. 8(C) OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT.  61 STAT. 142, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III)
SEC. 158(C).  THIS SECTION PROVIDES THAT EXPRESSION OF VIEWS, ARGUMENT
OR OPINION SHALL NOT BE EVIDENCE OF AN UNFAIR PRACTICE. 

SINCE THE COURT BELOW HAD ORIGINALLY FOUND THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS
VITIATED BY THE EXAMINER'S BIAS, WE MUST TAKE CARE THAT THE COURT HAS
NOT BEEN INFLUENCED BY THAT FEELING, HOWEVER UNCONSCIOUSLY, ON
RECONSIDERING THE RECORD NOW LEGALLY FREED FROM SUCH IMPUTATION. 
CONSIDERATION OF THE OPINION BELOW IN LIGHT OF A CAREFUL READING OF THE
ENTIRE RECORD CONVINCES US THAT THE MOMENTUM OF ITS PRIOR DECISION DID
NOT ENTER INTO THE DECISION NOW UNDER REVIEW.  THE OPINION WAS WRITTEN
BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE, AND THE COURT WAS DIFFERENTLY CONSTITUTED.  THE
NEW MEMBER WAS A JUDGE WELL VERSED IN MATTERS OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
AND NOT LIKELY TO BE UNSYMPATHETIC WITH SUCH FINDINGS AS WERE HERE MADE
BY THE BOARD.  THE COURT PAINSTAKINGLY REVIEWED THE RECORD AND
UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE INFERENCES ON WHICH THE BOARD'S FINDINGS
WERE BASED WERE SO OVERBORNE BY EVIDENCE CALLING FOR CONTRARY
INFERENCES THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD COULD NOT, ON THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE WHOLE RECORD, BE DEEMED TO BE SUPPORTED BY
"SUBSTANTIAL" EVIDENCE. 

WERE WE CALLED UPON TO PASS ON THE BOARD'S CONCLUSIONS IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE OR TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE REVIEW BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS, WE MIGHT WELL SUPPORT THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION AND REJECT THAT
OF THE COURT BELOW.  BUT CONGRESS HAS CHARGED THE COURTS OF APPEALS AND
NOT THIS COURT WITH THE NORMAL AND PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR GRANTING
OR DENYING ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR BOARD ORDERS.  "THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT (OF APPEALS) SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND ITS JUDGMENT AND DECREE SHALL
BE FINAL, EXCEPT THAT THE SAME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW  ...  BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPON WRIT OF CERTIORARI  ...  "
TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, SEC. 10(E), 61 STAT. 148, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
160(E).  CERTIORARI IS GRANTED ONLY "IN CASES INVOLVING PRINCIPLES THE
SETTLEMENT OF WHICH IS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM THAT OF THE PARTIES, AND IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A REAL AND
EMBARRASSING CONFLICT OF OPINION AND AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEAL."  LAYNE & BOWLER CORP. V. WESTERN WELL WORKS, 261
U.S. 387, 393; REVISED RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
RULE 38(5).  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS THAT SHOULD LEAD US TO LEAVE
UNDISTURBED, BY DENYING CERTIORARI, DECISIONS OF COURTS OF APPEALS
INVOLVING SOLELY A FAIR ASSESSMENT OF A RECORD ON THE ISSUE OF
UNSUBSTANTIALITY, OUGHT TO LEAD US TO DO NO MORE THAN DECIDE THAT THERE
WAS SUCH A FAIR ASSESSMENT WHEN THE CASE IS HERE, AS THIS IS, ON OTHER
LEGAL ISSUES. 

THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO REVIEW A CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE NOR TO REVERSE
A COURT OF APPEALS BECAUSE WERE WE IN ITS PLACE WE WOULD FIND THE
RECORD TILTING ONE WAY RATHER THAN THE OTHER, THOUGH FAIR-MINDED JUDGES
COULD FIND IT TILTING EITHER WAY.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO INVITE REVIEW BY
THIS COURT OF DECISIONS TURNING SOLELY ON EVALUATION OF TESTIMONY WHERE
ON A CONSCIENTIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD A COURT OF
APPEALS UNDER THE NEW DISPENSATION FINDS THE BOARD'S ORDER
UNSUBSTANTIATED.  IN SUCH SITUATIONS WE SHOULD "ADHERE TO THE USUAL
RULE OF NONINTERFERENCE WHERE CONCLUSIONS OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
DEPEND ON APPRECIATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ADMIT OF DIFFERENT
INTERPRETATIONS."  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 274
U.S. 543, 544.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :



O'LEARY V. BROWN-PACIFIC-MAXON, 340 U.S. 504 


NO. 267.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 182
F.2D 772, REVERSED. 


A CONTRACTOR, ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR THE NAVY ON THE ISLAND
OF GUAM, MAINTAINED FOR ITS EMPLOYEES A RECREATION CENTER ADJOINING A
CHANNEL SO DANGEROUS THAT SWIMMING WAS FORBIDDEN AND SIGNS TO THAT
EFFECT WERE ERECTED.  AFTER SPENDING THE AFTERNOON AT THE CENTER, AN
EMPLOYEE WAS DROWNED WHILE ATTEMPTING TO SWIM THE CHANNEL IN ORDER TO
RESCUE TWO MEN IN DISTRESS.  UNDER THE LONG-SHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, EXTENDED TO THIS EMPLOYEE BY THE DEFENSE
BASES ACT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOUND AS A "FACT" THAT THE
EMPLOYEE'S DEATH AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND
AWARDED A DEATH BENEFIT TO HIS MOTHER.  HELD:  THE AWARD IS SUSTAINED. 
PP. 505-509. 

1.  SUCH A RESCUE ATTEMPT IS NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUDED FROM THE
COVERAGE OF THE ACT.  PP. 506-507. 

2.  UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S
FINDINGS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED UNLESS THEY ARE UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE.  UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP.
V. LABOR BOARD, ANTE, P. 474.  PP. 507-508. 

3.  THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S
FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYEE ACTED REASONABLY IN ATTEMPTING THE RESCUE AND
THAT HIS DEATH MAY FAIRLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE RISKS OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT.  PP. 508-509. 

O'LEARY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FOURTEENTH COMPENSATION DISTRICT, V.
BROWN-PACIFIC-MAXON, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD UNDER THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT OF MARCH 4, 1927,
44 STAT. 1424, AS AMENDED, 33 U.S.C. SECS. 901 ET SEQ. THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  182 F.2D 772.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340
U.S. 849.  REVERSED, P. 509. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO REVIEW AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION
UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.  ACT OF
MARCH 4, 1927, 44 STAT. 1424, AS AMENDED, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET SEQ.
THE AWARD WAS MADE ON A CLAIM ARISING FROM THE ACCIDENTAL DEATH OF AN
EMPLOYEE OF BROWN-PACIFIC-MAXON, INC., A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR
OPERATING ON THE ISLAND OF GUAM.  BROWN-PACIFIC MAINTAINED FOR ITS
EMPLOYEES A RECREATION CENTER NEAR THE SHORELINE, ALONG WHICH RAN A
CHANNEL SO DANGEROUS FOR SWIMMERS THAT ITS USE WAS FORBIDDEN AND SIGNS
TO THAT EFFECT ERECTED.  JOHN VALAK, THE EMPLOYEE, SPENT THE AFTERNOON
AT THE CENTER, AND WAS WAITING FOR HIS EMPLOYER'S BUS TO TAKE HIM FROM
THE AREA WHEN HE SAW OR HEARD TWO MEN, STANDING ON THE REEFS BEYOND THE
CHANNEL, SIGNALING FOR HELP.  FOLLOWED BY NEARLY TWENTY OTHERS, HE
PLUNGED IN TO EFFECT A RESCUE.  IN ATTEMPTING TO SWIM THE CHANNEL TO
REACH THE TWO MEN HE WAS DROWNED. 

A CLAIM WAS FILED BY HIS DEPENDENT MOTHER, BASED ON THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT AND ON AN ACT OF AUGUST 16, 1941, EXTENDING THE
COMPENSATION PROVISIONS TO CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT IN OVERSEAS POSSESSIONS. 
55 STAT. 622, 56 STAT. 1035, AS AMENDED, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1651.  IN DUE
COURSE OF THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOUND AS A
"FACT" THAT "AT THE TIME OF HIS DROWNING AND DEATH THE DECEASED WAS
USING THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES SPONSORED AND MADE AVAILABLE BY THE
EMPLOYER FOR THE USE OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND SUCH PARTICIPATION BY THE
DECEASED WAS AN INCIDENT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT HIS DROWNING AND
DEATH AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF SAID EMPLOYMENT ...  "
ACCORDINGLY, HE AWARDED A DEATH BENEFIT OF $9.38 PER WEEK.  BROWN
PACIFIC AND ITS INSURANCE CARRIER THEREUPON PETITIONED THE DISTRICT
COURT UNDER SEC. 21 OF THE ACT TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD.  THAT COURT
DENIED THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT "THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
... TO SUSTAIN THE COMPENSATION ORDER."  ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  IT CONCLUDED THAT "THE LETHAL
CURRENTS WERE NOT A PART OF THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES SUPPLIED BY THE
EMPLOYER AND THE SWIMMING IN THEM FOR THE RESCUE OF THE UNKNOWN MAN WAS
NOT RECREATION.  IT WAS AN ACT ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED FROM ANY USE FOR
WHICH THE RECREATIONAL CAMP WAS PROVIDED AND NOT IN THE COURSE OF
VALAK'S EMPLOYMENT."  182 F.2D 772, 773.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 340
U.S. 849, BECAUSE THE CASE BROUGHT INTO QUESTION JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
AWARDS UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT IN LIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT. 

THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT AUTHORIZES PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION FOR "ACCIDENTAL INJURY OR DEATH ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT."  SEC. 2(2), 44 STAT. 1425, 33 U.S.C. SEC.
902(2).  AS WE READ ITS OPINION THE COURT OF APPEALS ENTERTAINED THE
VIEW THAT THIS STANDARD PRECLUDED AN AWARD FOR INJURIES INCURRED IN AN
ATTEMPT TO RESCUE PERSONS NOT KNOWN TO BE IN THE EMPLOYER'S SERVICE,
UNDERTAKEN IN FORBIDDEN WATERS OUTSIDE THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES.  WE
THINK THIS IS TOO RESTRICTED AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT.  WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION IS NOT CONFINED BY COMMON-LAW CONCEPTIONS OF SCOPE OF
EMPLOYMENT.  CARDILLO V. LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO., 330 U.S. 469, 481;
MATTER OF WATERS V. TAYLOR CO., 218 N.Y. 248, 251, 112 N.E. 727, 728. 
THE TEST OF RECOVERY IS NOT A CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN THE NATURE OF
EMPLOYMENT OF THE INJURED PERSON AND THE ACCIDENT.  THOM V. SINCLAIR,
(1917) A.C. 127, 142.  NOR IS IT NECESSARY THAT THE EMPLOYEE BE ENGAGED
AT THE TIME OF THE UNJURY IN ACTIVITY OF BENEFIT TO HIS EMPLOYER.  ALL
THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE "OBLIGATIONS OR CONDITIONS" OF EMPLOYMENT
CREATE THE "ZONE OF SPECIAL DANGER" OUT OF WHICH THE INJURY AROSE. 
IBID.  A REASONABLE RESCUE ATTEMPT, LIKE PURSUIT IN AID OF AN OFFICER
MAKING AN ARREST, MAY BE "ONE OF THE RISKS OF THE EMPLOYMENT, AN
INCIDENT OF THE SERVICE, FORESEEABLE, IF NOT FORESEEN, AND SO COVERED
BY THE STATUTE."  MATTER OF BABINGTON V. YELLOW TAXI CORP., 250 N.Y.
14, 17, 164 N.E. 726, 727; PUTTKAMMER V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 371 ILL.
497, 21 N.E.2D 575.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE NOT CASES "WHERE
AN EMPLOYEE, EVEN WITH THE LAUDABLE PURPOSE OF HELPING ANOTHER, MIGHT
GO SO FAR FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT AND BECOME SO THOROUGHLY DISCONNECTED
FROM THE SERVICE OF HIS EMPLOYER THAT IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY UNREASONABLE
TO SAY THAT INJURIES SUFFERED BY HIM AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF
HIS EMPLOYMENT."  MATTER OF WATERS V. TAYLOR CO., 218 N.Y. AT 252, 112
N.E. AT 728.  WE HOLD ONLY THAT RESCUE ATTEMPTS SUCH AS THAT BEFORE US
ARE NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT AS THE KIND
OF CONDUCT THAT EMPLOYEES ENGAGE IN AS FROLICS OF THEIR OWN. 

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TREATED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PARTICULAR
RESCUE ATTEMPT DESCRIBED BY THE EVIDENCE WAS ONE OF THE CLASS COVERED
BY THE ACT AS A QUESTION OF "FACT."  DOING SO ONLY SERVES TO ILLUSTRATE
ONCE MORE THE VARIETY OF ASCERTAINMENTS COVERED BY THE BLANKET TERM
"FACT."  HERE OF COURSE IT DOES NOT CONNOTE A SIMPLE, EXTERNAL,
PHYSICAL EVENT AS TO WHICH THERE IS CONFLICTING TESTIMONY.  THE
CONCLUSION CONCERNS A COMBINATION OF HAPPENINGS AND THE INFERENCES
DRAWN FROM THEM.  IN PART AT LEAST, THE INFERENCES PRESUPPOSE
APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING THE SIMPLE, EXTERNAL FACTS.  YET THE
STANDARDS ARE NOT SO SEVERABLE FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF INDUSTRY NOR OF
SUCH A NATURE AS TO BE PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE FOR INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL
ASCERTAINMENT AS "QUESTIONS OF LAW." 

BOTH SIDES CONCEDED THAT THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUCH
FINDINGS OF FACT IS GOVERNED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  ACT
OF JUNE 11, 1946, 60 STAT. 237, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1001 ET SEQ. THE
STANDARD, THEREFORE, IS THAT DISCUSSED IN UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V.
LABOR BOARD, ANTE, P. 474.  IT IS SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED BY SAYING THAT
THE FINDINGS ARE TO BE ACCEPTED UNLESS THEY ARE UNSUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE.  THE DISTRICT
COURT RECOGNIZED THIS STANDARD. 

WHEN THIS COURT DETERMINES THAT A COURT OF APPEALS HAS APPLIED AN
INCORRECT PRINCIPLE OF LAW, WISE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION NORMALLY
COUNSELS REMAND OF THE CAUSE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH INSTRUCTIONS
TO RECONSIDER THE RECORD.  COMPARE UNIVERSAL CAMERA CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, SUPRA.  IN THIS INSTANCE, HOWEVER, WE HAVE A SLIM RECORD AND THE
RELEVANT STANDARD IS NOT DIFFICULT TO APPLY; AND WE THINK THE
LITIGATION HAD BETTER TERMINATE NOW.  ACCORDINGLY WE HAVE OURSELVES
EXAMINED THE RECORD TO ASSESS THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. 

WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S
FINDING.  THE PERTINENT EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY THE WRITTEN
STATEMENTS OF FOUR PERSONS AND THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS.  IT IS, ON
THE WHOLE, CONSISTENT AND CREDIBLE.  FROM IT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
COULD RATIONALLY INFER THAT VALAK ACTED REASONABLY IN ATTEMPTING THE
RESCUE, AND THAT HIS DEATH MAY FAIRLY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RISKS OF
THE EMPLOYMENT.  WE DO NOT MEAN THAT THE EVIDENCE COMPELLED THIS
INFERENCE; WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT HAD THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DECIDED
AGAINST THE CLAIMANT, A COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN DISTURBING
HIS CONCLUSION.  WE HOLD ONLY THAT ON THIS RECORD THE DECISION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT THE AWARD SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

LIABILITY ACCRUES IN THE INSTANT CASE ONLY IF THE DEATH AROSE OUT OF
AND IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT.  THIS IS A STATUTORY PROVISION
COMMON TO ALL WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.  THERE MUST BE MORE THAN
DEATH AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER.  THERE MUST BE
SOME CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE EMPLOYMENT.  NOT IN ANY
COMMON-LAW SENSE OF CAUSAL CONNECTION BUT IN THE COMMON-SENSE,
EVERYDAY, REALISTIC VIEW.  THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KNEW THAT, SO HE
FOUND AS A FACT THAT "AT THE TIME OF HIS DROWNING AND DEATH THE
DECEASED WAS USING THE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES SPONSORED AND MADE
AVAILABLE BY THE EMPLOYER FOR THE USE OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND SUCH
PARTICIPATION BY THE DECEASED WAS AN INCIDENT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT  ...  "
THIS FINDING IS FALSE AND HAS NO SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE OR INFERENCE TO
SUPPORT IT. 

I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS COURT CAN SAY THIS IS A FACT BASED
UPON EVIDENCE.  IT IS UNDISPUTED UPON THIS RECORD THAT THE DECEASED, AT
THE TIME HE MET HIS DEATH, WAS OUTSIDE THE RECREATIONAL AREA IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF A VOLUNTARY ACT OF ATTEMPTED RESCUE OF SOMEONE UNKNOWN
TO THE RECORD.  THERE CAN BE NO INFERENCE OF LIABILITY HERE UNLESS
LIABILITY FOLLOWS FROM THE MERE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. 
THE ATTEMPT TO RESCUE WAS AN ISOLATED, VOLUNTARY ACT OF BRAVERY OF THE
DECEASED IN NO MANNER ARISING OUT OF OR IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT.  THE ONLY RELATION HIS EMPLOYMENT HAD WITH THE ATTEMPTED
RESCUE AND THE FOLLOWING DEATH WAS THAT HIS EMPLOYMENT PUT HIM ON THE
ISLAND OF GUAM. 

I SUPPOSE THE WAY TO AVOID WHAT WE SAID TODAY IN UNIVERSAL CAMERA
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, ANTE, P. 474, IS TO FIND FACTS WHERE THERE ARE NO
FACTS, ON THE WHOLE RECORD OR ANY PIECE OF IT.  IT SOUNDS A BIT HOLLOW
TO ME FOR THE COURT, AS IT DOES, TO QUOTE FROM THE NEW YORK CASE OF
MATTER OF WATERS V. TAYLOR CO., 218 N.Y. 248, 252, 112 N.E. 727, 728,
"WHERE AN EMPLOYEE, EVEN WITH THE LAUDABLE PURPOSE OF HELPING ANOTHER,
MIGHT GO SO FAR FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT AND BECOME SO THOROUGHLY
DISCONNECTED FROM THE SERVICE OF HIS EMPLOYER THAT IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY
UNREASONABLE TO SAY THAT INJURIES SUFFERED BY HIM AROSE OUT OF AND IN
THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT."  THIS WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT WE ARE
LEAVING SOME PLACE FOR VOLUNTARY ACTS OF THE EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE THE
COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT BE LIABLE. 
THERE SURELY ARE SUCH AREAS, BUT THIS CASE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THEM. 
THE EMPLOYER IS LIABLE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE HE IS AN EMPLOYER. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :






















CANTON R. CO. V. ROGAN, 340 U.S. 511 


NO. 96.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 28-29, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  -
MD. - , 73 A.2D 12, AFFIRMED. 


MARYLAND IMPOSES ON RAILROADS A FRANCHISE TAX, MEASURED BY GROSS
RECEIPTS, APPORTIONED TO THE LENGTH OF THEIR LINES WITHIN THE STATE. 
APPELLANT RAILROAD OPERATES, WHOLLY IN BALTIMORE, A MARINE TERMINAL AND
RAIL LINES CONNECTING THE TERMINAL WITH TRUNK-LINE RAILROADS.  ITS
OPERATING REVENUES ARE DERIVED FROM SWITCHING FREIGHT CARS; STORAGE
PENDING FORWARDING; WHARFAGE; WEIGHING LOADED FREIGHT CARS; AND RENTALS
PAID BY A STEVEDORING COMPANY FOR THE USE OF A CRANE.  HELD: 

1.  THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE, ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2, OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IS NOT VIOLATED BY THE INCLUSION, IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS BY
WHICH THE TAX IS MEASURED, OF REVENUES DERIVED BY APPELLANT FROM ITS
HANDLING OF GOODS MOVING IN FOREIGN TRADE.  PP. 512-515. 

(A)  THE TAX IN THIS CASE IS NOT ON THE GOODS BUT ON THE HANDLING OF
THEM AT THE PORT.  PP. 513-515. 

(B)  SINCE APPELLANT MERELY RENTS A CRANE FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING
AND DOES NOT ITSELF DO THE STEVEDORING, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE
WHETHER LOADING FOR EXPORT AND UNLOADING FOR IMPORT ARE IMMUNE FROM TAX
UNDER THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE.  P. 515. 

(C)  ANY ACTIVITY MORE REMOTE THAN LOADING FOR EXPORT AND UNLOADING
FOR IMPORT DOES NOT COMMENCE THE MOVEMENT OF THE COMMODITIES ABROAD NOR
END THEIR ARRIVAL, AND THEREFORE IS NOT A PART OF THE EXPORT OR IMPORT
PROCESS.  P. 515. 

2.  THE TAX IS NOT INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SINCE THE STATE
MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSE A NONDISCRIMINATORY TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS
FROM INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO MILEAGE WITHIN
THE STATE.  GREYHOUND LINES V. MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653.  PP. 515-516. 

CANTON RAILROAD CO. V. ROGAN ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF MARYLAND. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. 

A STATE FRANCHISE TAX ASSESSED AGAINST APPELLANT WAS SUSTAINED BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT AGAINST A CHALLENGE THAT IT WAS INVALID UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.   - MD. - , 73 A.2D 12.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 516. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATE OF MARYLAND IMPOSES ON STEAM RAILROAD COMPANIES A FRANCHISE
TAX, MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS, APPORTIONED TO THE LENGTH OF THEIR
LINES WITHIN THE STATE.  FN1  APPELLANT CANTON RAILROAD COMPANY, A
MARYLAND CORPORATION, CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX UNDER THE
IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2,
INSOFAR AS THE GROSS INCOME BY WHICH THE TAX IS MEASURED INCLUDES
REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE HANDLING OF GOODS MOVING IN FOREIGN TRADE. 

CANTON IS A COMMON CARRIER OF FREIGHT OPERATING ENTIRELY WITHIN THE
CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.  IT MAINTAINS A MARINE TERMINAL IN THE
PORT OF BALTIMORE AND RAILROAD LINES CONNECTING THIS TERMINAL WITH THE
LINES OF MAJOR TRUNK-LINE RAILROADS.  ITS OPERATING REVENUES ARE
DERIVED FROM SERVICES WHICH FALL INTO THE FOLLOWING CLASSIFICATIONS: 

SWITCHING FREIGHT CARS FROM THE PIERS TO THE LINES OF CONNECTING
RAILROADS. 

STORAGE PENDING FORWARDING, FOR WHICH A CHARGE IS MADE FOR EACH DAY
BEYOND A FREE PERIOD. 

WHARFAGE, OR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING CANTON'S PIERS FOR THE TRANSFER
OF CARGO TO LIGHTERS OR TO TRUCKS. 

WEIGHING OF LOADED FREIGHT CARS. 

FURNISHING A CRANE FOR USE IN UNLOADING VESSELS.  THIS CRANE IS
OPERATED BY A STEVEDORING COMPANY, WHICH PAYS CANTON A SET CHARGE PER
TON FOR THE "CRANE PRIVILEGE." 

A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF THE FREIGHT MOVED TO AND FROM THE PORT
CONSISTS OF EXPORTS FROM AND IMPORTS INTO THE UNITED STATES.  IN ITS
REPORT TO THE STATE TAX COMMISSION FOR 1946, CANTON SHOWED GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM ITS RAILROAD BUSINESS IN MARYLAND OF $1,588,744.48, OF
WHICH IT CLAIMED $705,957.21 TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BECAUSE DERIVED
FROM OPERATIONS IN FOREIGN COMMERCE.  AFTER A HEARING, THE COMMISSION
REJECTED CANTON'S CONTENTION THAT A PART OF ITS GROSS RECEIPTS WAS
CONSTITUTIONALLY EXEMPT FROM THE TAX, ASSESSED ITS GROSS RECEIPTS AT
THE HIGHER FIGURE, AND IMPOSED A TAX OF $39,092.34.  THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BOTH BY THE BALTIMORE CIRCUIT COURT AND BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, TWO JUDGES DISSENTING.   - MD. - , 73 A.2D 12. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL. 

THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS IN ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2 THAT "NO STATE
SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES
ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR
EXECUTING IT'S INSPECTION LAWS  ...  "  THE MARYLAND COURT HELD THAT
THE TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION; AND WE
AGREE. 

IF THIS WERE A TAX ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPORT AND EXPORT, WE WOULD
HAVE THE KIND OF PROBLEM PRESENTED IN SPALDING & BROS. V. EDWARDS, 262
U.S. 66; RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329 U.S. 69; HOOVEN &
ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652; AND JOY OIL CO. V. STATE TAX
COMM'N, 337 U.S. 286.  BUT THE PRESENT TAX IS NOT ON THE ARTICLES OF
IMPORT AND EXPORT; NOR IS IT THE EQUIVALENT OF A DIRECT TAX ON THE
ARTICLES, AS WAS HELD TO BE TRUE OF STAMP TAXES ON FOREIGN BILLS OF
LADING (FAIRBANK V. UNITED STATES, 181 U.S. 283), STAMP TAXES ON
CHARTER PARTIES IN FOREIGN COMMERCE (UNITED STATES V. HVOSLEF, 237 U.S.
1); AND STAMP TAXES ON POLICIES INSURING EXPORTS AGAINST MARITIME
RISKS.  THAMES & MERSEY INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 237 U.S. 19.  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE LATTER CASES INDICATE THAT THE PROHIBITION OF THE IMPORT
EXPORT CLAUSE AGAINST TAXES ON IMPORTS AND EXPORTS INVOLVES MORE THAN
AN EXEMPTION FROM TAXES LAID UPON THE GOODS THEMSELVES.  MOREOVER, CREW
LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292, FOLLOWING THE REASONING OF
BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419, 444-445, GAVE LIKE IMMUNITY TO THE
BUSINESS OF SELLING GOODS IN FOREIGN COMMERCE WHEN GROSS RECEIPTS WERE
TAXED.  CF. ANGLO-CHILEAN CORP. V. ALABAMA, 288 U.S. 218.  THOUGH
APPELLANT IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE IMPORT-EXPORT BUSINESS, IT CLAIMS THAT
ITS HANDLING OF GOODS, WHICH ARE DESTINED FOR EXPORT OR WHICH ARRIVE AS
IMPORTS, IS PART OF THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION AND IMPORTATION.  IN
SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENT IT REFERS TO LANGUAGE IN SPALDING & BROS. V.
EDWARDS, SUPRA, AND RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, SUPRA, RELATIVE
TO WHEN THE EXPORT PROCESS STARTS; AND IT ARGUES THAT, IF THE BASEBALLS
AND THE BASEBALL BATS IN SPALDING  FN2  AND THE OIL IN RICHFIELD WERE
IMMUNE FROM THE SALES TAXES BECAUSE THOSE COMMODITIES HAD BEEN
COMMITTED TO EXPORTATION, THE SAME IMMUNITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED HERE
SINCE THE GOODS HANDLED BY APPELLANT WERE SIMILARLY COMMITTED.  THE
DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TAX IS NOT ON THE GOODS BUT
ON THE HANDLING OF THEM AT THE PORT.  AN ARTICLE MAY BE AN EXPORT AND
IMMUNE FROM A TAX LONG BEFORE OR LONG AFTER IT REACHES THE PORT.  BUT
WHEN THE TAX IS ON ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH THE EXPORT OR IMPORT THE
RANGE OF IMMUNITY CANNOT BE SO WIDE. 

TO EXPORT MEANS TO CARRY OR SEND ABROAD; TO IMPORT MEANS TO BRING
INTO THE COUNTRY.  THOSE ACTS BEGIN AND END AT WATER'S EDGE.  THE
BROADER DEFINITION WHICH APPELLANT TENDERS DISTORTS THE ORDINARY
MEANING OF THE TERMS.  IT WOULD LEAD BACK TO EVERY FOREST, MINE, AND
FACTORY IN THE LAND AND CREATE A ZONE OF TAX IMMUNITY NEVER BEFORE
IMAGINED.  FOR IF THE HANDLING OF THE GOODS AT THE PORT WERE PART OF
THE EXPORT PROCESS, SO WOULD HAULING THEM TO OR FROM DISTANT POINTS OR
PERHAPS MINING THEM OR MANUFACTURING THEM.  THE PHASE OF THE PROCESS
WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE SO LONG AS THE GOODS WERE IN FACT COMMITTED TO
EXPORT OR HAD ARRIVED AS IMPORTS. 

APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT LOADING AND UNLOADING ARE A PART OF ITS
ACTIVITIES.  BUT CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD INDICATES THAT IT
MERELY RENTS A CRANE FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING AND DOES NOT ITSELF DO
THE STEVEDORING WORK.  HENCE WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER LOADING FOR
EXPORT AND UNLOADING FOR IMPORT ARE IMMUNE FROM TAX BY REASON OF THE
IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE.  CF. JOSEPH V. CARTER & WEEKES CO., 330 U.S.
422. 

WE DO CONCLUDE, HOWEVER, THAT ANY ACTIVITY MORE REMOTE THAN THAT DOES
NOT COMMENCE THE MOVEMENT OF THE COMMODITIES ABROAD NOR END THEIR
ARRIVAL AND THEREFORE IS NOT A PART OF THE EXPORT OR IMPORT PROCESS. 

THE OBJECTION TO MARYLAND'S TAX ON THE GROUND THAT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS INVOLVED IS NOT WELL TAKEN.  IT IS SETTLED THAT A
NONDISCRIMINATORY GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON AN INTERSTATE ENTERPRISE MAY BE
SUSTAINED IF FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO THE BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE TAXING
STATE (SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 255)
AND NOT REACHING ANY ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BEYOND THE BORDERS OF THE
STATE.  WHERE TRANSPORTATION IS CONCERNED, AN APPORTIONMENT ACCORDING
TO THE MILEAGE WITHIN THE STATE FN3  IS AN APPROVED METHOD.  GREYHOUND
LINES V. MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653, 663.  AFFIRMED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS, RESERVING
JUDGMENT $*. 

$*  (THIS OPINION APPLIES ALSO TO NO. 205, WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO. V.
ROGAN, POST, P. 520.) 

IN THIS CASE, I RESERVE JUDGMENT IN THE BELIEF THAT TODAY'S DECISION
OF THE COURT MAY BE FOUND, UPON CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS NOT BRIEFED OR
ARGUED, TO BE UNTENABLE. 

ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FEDERAL POLICIES, ESTABLISHED BY THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF, IS THAT "NO PREFERENCE SHALL BE GIVEN BY ANY
REGULATION OF COMMERCE OR REVENUE TO THE PORTS OF ONE STATE OVER THOSE
OF ANOTHER  ...  "  ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 6.  THIS POLICY IS FURTHER
IMPLEMENTED BY A REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES
BE UNIFORM (ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 1), AND BY A PROHIBITION OF ANY FEDERAL
TAX OR DUTY ON ARTICLES EXPORTED FROM A STATE (ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 5). 
BUT THIS POLICY OF EQUALITY OF ACCESS TO THE HIGH SEAS CAN ALSO BE
UPSET BY THE STATES.  HENCE THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS ANY STATE, WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, TO LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR
EXPORTS, EXCEPT TO PAY THE COST OF INSPECTION LAWS.  ART. I, SEC. 10,
CL. 2. 

THIS DETAILED CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN ABOUT EXPORTS AND IMPORTS IS A
MANIFESTATION OF A REALISTIC RECOGNITION THAT A STATE OR CITY WITH A
SAFE HARBOR SITS AT A GATEWAY WITH NOT ONLY AN INEVITABLE NATURAL
ADVANTAGE, BUT ALSO A STRATEGIC ONE WHICH MAY BE EXPLOITED IF NOT
RESTRAINED.  POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF WEALTHY AND POPULOUS PORT AREAS WAS
FEARED IN THE MAKING OF FEDERAL LAW, HENCE THE RESTRICTIONS ON
CONGRESS.  THE DISPOSITION OF CITIES AND STATES TO EXPLOIT THEIR
LOCATION ASTRIDE THE NATION'S PORTALS ALSO WAS FEARED, HENCE THE
RESTRICTION ON THE STATES. 

IF THE ROADS TO THE PORTS MAY BE OBSTRUCTED WITH LOCAL REGULATION AND
TAXES, INLAND PRODUCERS MAY BE MADE TO PAY TRIBUTE TO THE SEABOARD FOR
THE PRIVILEGE OF EXPORTATION, AND THE LONGER THE ROAD TO PORT, THE MORE
LOCALITIES THAT MAY LAY BURDENS ON THE PASSING TRAFFIC.  THE EVIDENT
POLICY OF THE CONSTITUTION IS TO AVOID THESE BURDENS AND MAINTAIN FREE
AND EQUAL ACCESS TO FOREIGN PORTS FOR THE INLAND AREAS.  IF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY CAN BE AVOIDED BY SHIFTING THE TAX FROM THE
EXPORTED ARTICLE ITSELF TO SOME INCIDENT SUCH AS CARRIAGE, UNAVOIDABLE
IN THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION, THEN THE POLICY IS A PRACTICAL NULLITY. 
I THINK PROHIBITION OF A TAX ON EXPORTS AND IMPORTS GOES BEYOND
EXEMPTING SPECIFIC ARTICLES FROM DIRECT AD VALOREM DUTIES - IT
PROHIBITS TAXING EXPORTS AND IMPORTS AS A PROCESS. 

THIS IS A MATTER OF GIVING THE INLAND FARMS AND FACTORIES A FAIR
ACCESS TO THE SEA WHICH WILL ENABLE THEM TO COMPETE IN FOREIGN
COMMERCE, AS WELL AS TO MAKE IMPORTS AS EQUALLY AVAILABLE AS POSSIBLE,
REGARDLESS OF DISTANCE FROM PORT.  OCEAN RATES TO A GIVEN FOREIGN PORT
ARE THE SAME FROM ALL ATLANTIC PORTS, SO THAT ANY DIFFERENCES IN THE
COSTS OF REACHING THE COAST FROM THE INLAND CANNOT BE OFFSET AND
REPRESENT NET DIFFERENCES IN THE COSTS OF REACHING FOREIGN MARKETS. 

CONGRESS, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THIS COURT, AND
AMERICAN RAIL AND MOTOR CARRIERS HAVE ALL CONCURRED IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF RATE STRUCTURES ON THE PREMISE THAT EXPORTS ARE TO BE RECOGNIZED AS
SUCH FROM THE TIME THEY ARE DELIVERED TO THE CARRIER FOR EXPORT AND NOT
MERELY WHEN THEY REACH THE WATER'S EDGE.  THERE IS A WEALTH OF
STATUTORY MATERIAL RELATING TO THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR EXPORT BY
RAILROADS, MOTOR CARRIERS, AND SHIPPING COMPANIES* .  RAILROADS HAVE
ESTABLISHED LAWFUL TARIFFS FOR EXPORT GOODS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN FOR
LIKE GOODS DESTINED FOR LOCAL MARKETS.  TEXAS & P.R. CO. V. I.C.C., 162
U.S. 197; TEXAS & P.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 627.  IN THE
LATTER CASE, THIS COURT RECOGNIZED THAT EXPORT AND IMPORT SHIPMENTS,
ALTHOUGH NOT MADE ON THROUGH BILLS, MIGHT LAWFULLY BE TRANSPORTED AT
RATES BELOW THOSE CHARGED FOR DOMESTIC TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE SAME
POINTS.  ID., AT 636.  THE DIFFERENTIAL, I BELIEVE, IS SOMETIMES AS
MUCH AS FIFTY PERCENT OF THE LOCAL TARIFF OVER THE SAME ROUTE.  OF
COURSE, IF THE EXPORT CHARACTER OF THE GOODS IS NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED
UNTIL THEY ARE READY TO BOARD OR HAVE BOARDED SHIP, THIS IS A RANK
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LOCAL SHIPPERS QUITE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. 

*AS DEMONSTRATIVE THAT CONGRESS IS VITALLY CONCERNED ABOUT EXPORTS
AND IMPORTS, SEE 15 U.S.C. SEC. 173, RESPECTING THE ANNUAL REPORT ON
STATISTICS OF COMMERCE REQUIRED OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF
FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE, IN WHICH HE MUST OUTLINE THE "KINDS,
QUANTITIES, AND VALUES" OF ALL ARTICLES EXPORTED OR IMPORTED, SHOWING
THE EXPORTS TO AND IMPORTS FROM EACH FOREIGN COUNTRY AND THEIR VALUES,
THE EXPORTS BEING REQUIRED TO BE BROKEN DOWN INTO THOSE MANUFACTURED IN
THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR VALUE, AND THOSE MANUFACTURED IN OTHER
COUNTRIES AND THEIR VALUE. 

ALSO, ALTHOUGH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO CARRIERS
ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE INSOFAR AS THEIR CARRIAGE BEYOND THE LIMITS
OF THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 902(I)(3); 49 C.F.R.
SEC. 141.67, THEIR STATE-SIDE ACTIVITIES HAVE RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE
ATTENTION.  CHAPTER 12, PART III OF THE ACT, RELATING TO WATER
CARRIERS, DEFINES "COMMON CARRIER BY WATER" AS "ANY PERSON WHICH HOLDS
ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION BY
WATER IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY
...."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 902(D).  SECTION 905(B) OF THE SAME TITLE STATES:
"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER TO ESTABLISH
REASONABLE THROUGH ROUTES  ...  WITH COMMON CARRIERS BY RAILROAD ...
AND JUST AND REASONABLE RATES  ...  APPLICABLE THERETO  ...  COMMON
CARRIERS BY WATER MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE THROUGH ROUTES AND RATES
...  WITH COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  ...  " AND SEC. 905(C)
PROVIDES THAT, "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER TO
...  GIVE ...  ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO
ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, PORT,  ... TERRITORY, OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC
...  "    FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN IS EVIDENCED IN 49 U.S.C. SEC.
906(A):  "EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER SHALL FILE WITH THE COMMISSION,
AND PRINT, AND KEEP OPEN TO PUBLIC INSPECTION TARIFFS SHOWING ALL
RATES, FARES, CHARGES, CLASSIFICATIONS, RULES, REGULATIONS, AND
PRACTICES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE OF
PASSENGERS AND PROPERTY BETWEEN PLACES ON ITS OWN ROUTE, AND BETWEEN
SUCH PLACES AND PLACES ON THE ROUTE OF ANY OTHER SUCH CARRIER OR ON THE
ROUTE OF ANY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD OR BY MOTOR VEHICLE, WHEN A
THROUGH ROUTE AND JOINT RATE SHALL HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED.  ...  "  SEE
ALSO 49 U.S.C. SEC. 6, PAR. (12), PROVIDING:  "IF ANY COMMON CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER AND CHAPTERS 8 AND 12 OF THIS TITLE ENTERS INTO
ARRANGEMENTS WITH ANY WATER CARRIER OPERATING FROM A PORT IN THE UNITED
STATES TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY  ...  FOR THE HANDLING OF THROUGH BUSINESS
BETWEEN INTERIOR POINTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND SUCH FOREIGN COUNTRY,
THE COMMISSION MAY BY ORDER REQUIRE SUCH COMMON CARRIER TO ENTER INTO
SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS WITH ANY OR ALL OTHER LINES OF STEAMSHIPS
OPERATING FROM SAID PORT TO THE SAME FOREIGN COUNTRY." 

THE EVER-PRESENT CONCERN WITH THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES WOULD
APPEAR A STRONG INDICATION THAT THE CONGRESS REGARDS GOODS AS IN EXPORT
FROM THE TIME THEY ARE FIRST CONSIGNED TO A CARRIER FOR A FOREIGN
DESTINATION, NOT FROM THE TIME THEY REACH THE SHIP ON WHICH THEY ARE TO
BE CARRIED. 

WHAT MARYLAND HAS DONE, IF THESE GOODS WHILE IN TRANSIT DO CONSTITUTE
EXPORTS, IS TO TAX GROSS PROCEEDS OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING,
NOT MERELY THE PROFITS THEREFROM.  THIS ADDS DIRECTLY TO THE COST OF
THEIR REACHING SHIP-SIDE, AND THE GREATER DISTANCE THEY TRAVEL, THE
GREATER POSSIBLE ACCUMULATION OF TAX BURDEN.  CLEARLY, THIS IS AN
OBSTRUCTION IN THE PATH OF THE FEDERAL POLICY. 

HOWEVER, THE EFFECT OF THE FEDERAL POLICY ON THE VALIDITY OF THE
MARYLAND TAX WAS NOT ADVANCED IN THE COURTS BELOW NOR HERE BY RAILROAD
COUNSEL, SO I DO NOT WISH TO EXPRESS A FINAL VIEW ON THE MATTER.  BUT I
SUSPECT TODAY'S DECISION WILL CAUSE MISCHIEF IN QUARTERS WE HAVE NOT
CONSIDERED. 

FN1  MD. ANN. CODE (1943 SUPP.), ART. 81, SECS. 94 1/2 AND 95. 

FN2  THIS CASE INVOLVED A FEDERAL TAX EQUIVALENT TO 3 PER CENT OF THE
PRICE "UPON ALL TENNIS RACKETS, GOLF CLUBS, BASEBALL BATS," ETC.  ACT
OF OCT. 3, 1917, SEC. 600(F), 40 STAT. 300, 316.  IT PRESENTED, AS DID
THE FAIRBANK, HVOSLEF, AND THAMES & MERSEY INS. CO. CASES, A QUESTION
UNDER ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROVIDES, "NO
TAX OR DUTY SHALL BE LAID ON ARTICLES EXPORTED FROM ANY STATE." 

FN3  THE TAX REQUIRED OF APPELLANT IS "UPON SUCH PROPORTION OF ITS
GROSS EARNINGS AS THE LENGTH OF ITS LINE IN THIS STATE BEARS TO THE
WHOLE LENGTH OF ITS LINE."  SEC. 95(B), SUPRA, NOTE 1. 
..END :




















WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO. V. ROGAN, 340 U.S. 520 


NO. 205.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 28-29, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  -
MD. - , 73 A.2D 12, AFFIRMED. 


A MARYLAND FRANCHISE TAX ON RAILROADS, MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS
APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO MILEAGE WITHIN THE STATE, WAS CHALLENGED AS
INVALID UNDER THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE, ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2, OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS BY WHICH
THE TAX IS MEASURED INCLUDE REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE TRANSPORTATION OF
GOODS MOVING IN FOREIGN TRADE.  HELD:  THE TAX IS SUSTAINED.  CANTON R.
CO. V. ROGAN, ANTE, P. 511.  PP. 520-522. 

WESTERN MARYLAND RAILWAY CO. V. ROGAN ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE STATE
TAX COMMISSION OF MARYLAND. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. 

A STATE FRANCHISE TAX ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT WAS SUSTAINED BY
THE STATE SUPREME COURT AGAINST A CHALLENGE THAT IT WAS INVALID UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.   - MD. - , 73 A.2D 12.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 522. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO CANTON R. CO. V. ROGAN, ANTE, P. 511. 
THIS APPELLANT LIKEWISE CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY UNDER ART. I, SEC. 10,
CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE MARYLAND FRANCHISE
TAX* TO THE EXTENT THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS BY WHICH THE TAX IS MEASURED
INCLUDE REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS MOVING IN
FOREIGN TRADE. 

*MD. ANN. CODE (1943 SUPP.), ART. 81, SECS. 94 1/2 AND 95. 

WESTERN MARYLAND RAILWAY COMPANY IS AN INTERSTATE COMMON CARRIER BY
RAIL WITH LINES IN MARYLAND, WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA.  IT
OPERATES SEVERAL PIERS IN THE PORT OF BALTIMORE FOR HANDLING CARGOES OF
COAL, ORES AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE, AS WELL AS A GRAIN ELEVATOR.  A
SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF WESTERN MARYLAND'S FREIGHT TRAFFIC FROM AND
TO THESE FACILITIES CONSISTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS IMPORTED
INTO OR TO BE EXPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES. 

THE PRESENT CASE CONCERNS THE TAXABLE YEARS 1945 AND 1946.  FOR 1945
WESTERN MARYLAND REPORTED GROSS RECEIPTS OF $33,156,236.74, OF WHICH
THE STATE TAX COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY FORMULA,
APPORTIONED $13,219,822.62 TO MARYLAND.  FOR 1946 THE AMOUNTS WERE
$30,844,132.74 AND $12,322,817.41 RESPECTIVELY.  IN SUBSEQUENT AMENDED
RETURNS WESTERN MARYLAND EXCLUDED FROM TAXABLE RECEIPTS THE SUMS OF
$2,505,322.58 FOR 1945 AND $5,405,559.44 FOR 1946.  IT CLAIMED THAT
THESE AMOUNTS REPRESENTED REVENUES FROM THE TRANSPORTATION OVER ITS
LINES OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS AND WERE THEREFORE BEYOND THE STATE'S
POWER TO TAX.  AFTER A HEARING, THE COMMISSION REJECTED THIS
CONTENTION.  ITS ASSESSMENT WAS SUSTAINED, AND THE CASE IS HERE ON
APPEAL. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID IN CANTON R. CO. V. ROGAN, SUPRA, IS DISPOSITIVE OF
THIS CASE.  THE PRESENT FACTS ILLUSTRATE HOW WIDE A ZONE OF TAX
IMMUNITY WOULD BE CREATED IF THE CONTRARY HOLDING WERE MADE IN THE
CANTON R. CO. CASE.  THERE WE WERE DEALING WITH THE HANDLING OF EXPORTS
AND IMPORTS WITHIN A PORT.  HERE WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION OF EXPORTS AND
IMPORTS TO AND FROM THE PORT.  IF MARYLAND WERE REQUIRED TO GRANT TAX
IMMUNITY TO THE SERVICES INVOLVED IN GETTING THE EXPORTS TO THE PORT
AND THE IMPORTS TO THEIR DESTINATION, SO WOULD ANY OTHER STATE.  THE
ULTIMATE IMPACT OF SUCH A HOLDING IS DIFFICULT TO MEASURE, SINCE
MANIFOLD SERVICES ARE INVOLVED IN THE MOVEMENT OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
WITHIN THE COUNTRY.  PROBLEMS OF THIS NATURE, LIKE MANY PROBLEMS IN THE
LAW, INVOLVE THE DRAWING OF LINES.  SO FAR AS TAXES ON ACTIVITIES
CONNECTED WITH BRINGING EXPORTS TO OR IMPORTS FROM THE SHIP ARE
CONCERNED, WE THINK THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN AT THE WATER'S EDGE. 
WHETHER LOADING AND UNLOADING WOULD BE EXEMPT IS A QUESTION WE
RESERVE.  AFFIRMED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

(FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER, RESERVING JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE AND IN NO. 96, CANTON R.
CO. V. ROGAN, SEE ANTE, P. 511.) 
..END :

















WARREN V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 523 


NO. 87.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 1951.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 179
F.2D 919, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER, A MESSMAN ON A SHIP OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES, WENT
ASHORE ON LEAVE WHILE THE VESSEL WAS AT NAPLES.  HE AND TWO OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE CREW DID SOME SIGHTSEEING, DRANK A BOTTLE OF WINE
TOGETHER, AND THEN SPENT AN HOUR AND A HALF AT A DANCE HALL.  A ROOM
ADJOINING THE DANCE HALL AND OVERLOOKING THE SEA HAD FRENCH DOORS
OPENING ONTO AN UNPROTECTED LEDGE.  PETITIONER STEPPED ONTO THE LEDGE,
GRASPED AN IRON ROD WHICH SEEMED TO BE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING, AND
LEANED FORWARD TO TAKE A LOOK.  THE IRON ROD BROKE OFF AND PETITIONER
LOST HIS BALANCE, FELL, AND BROKE HIS LEG.  HELD:  PETITIONER WAS
ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE. 
PP. 524-530. 

1.  THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS, WHICH THE
SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY CONVENTION, ART. 2, PAR. 2, PERMITS TO BE MADE BY
"NATIONAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS," ARE OPERATIVE BY VIRTUE OF THE GENERAL
MARITIME LAW AND NO ACT OF CONGRESS IS NECESSARY TO GIVE THEM FORCE. 
PP. 525-526. 

(A)  AS USED IN ART. 2, PAR. 2 OF THE CONVENTION, THE TERM "NATIONAL
LAWS OR REGULATIONS" INCLUDES THE RULES OF COURT DECISIONS AS WELL AS
LEGISLATIVE ACTS.  PP. 526-528. 

(B)  BOTH PARAGRAPH 1 AND PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION
STATE THE STANDARD OF LIABILITY WHICH LEGISLATIVE AND DECISIONAL LAW
DEFINE IN PARTICULARITY.  PP. 527-528. 

2.  PETITIONER'S INJURY WAS NOT DUE TO HIS "WILFUL ACT, DEFAULT OR
MISBEHAVIOUR," WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART. 2, PAR. 2(B) OF THE
CONVENTION, AND RECOVERY WAS NOT BARRED THEREBY.  PP. 528-529. 

3.  PETITIONER'S INJURY OCCURRED "IN THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP," WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THAT TERM AS USED IN ART. 2, PAR. 2(A) OF THE
CONVENTION.  PP. 529-530. 

WARREN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY PETITIONER FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE, THE DISTRICT COURT
AWARDED MAINTENANCE.  75 F.SUPP.  210, 76 F.SUPP.  735.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS DISALLOWED IT.  179 F.2D 919.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
340 U.S. 806.  REVERSED, P. 530. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SEEKS IN THIS SUIT MAINTENANCE AND CURE FROM THE UNITED
STATES, AS OWNER OF S.S. ANNA HOWARD SHAW.  PETITIONER WAS A MESSMAN
WHO WENT ASHORE ON LEAVE WHILE THE VESSEL WAS AT NAPLES IN 1944.  HE
AND TWO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CREW FIRST DID SOME SIGHTSEEING.  THEN THE
THREE OF THEM DRANK ONE BOTTLE OF WINE AND WENT TO A DANCE HALL, WHERE
THEY STAYED AN HOUR AND A HALF, DANCING.  THERE WAS A ROOM ADJOINING
THE DANCE HALL THAT OVERLOOKED THE OCEAN.  FRENCH DOORS OPENED ONTO AN
UNPROTECTED LEDGE WHICH EXTENDED OUT FROM THE BUILDING A FEW FEET. 
PETITIONER STEPPED TO WITHIN 6 INCHES OF THE EDGE AND LEANED OVER TO
TAKE A LOOK.  AS HE DID SO, HE TOOK HOLD OF AN IRON ROD WHICH SEEMED TO
BE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING.  THE ROD CAME OFF AND PETITIONER LOST HIS
BALANCE AND FELL, BREAKING A LEG. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDED MAINTENANCE.  FN1  75 F.SUPP.  210, 76
F.SUPP.  735.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DISALLOWED IT.  179 F.2D 919.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

THE SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY CONVENTION, PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT
SEPT. 29, 1939, 54 STAT. 1693, PROVIDES IN ART. 2: 

"1.  THE SHIPOWNER SHALL BE LIABLE IN RESPECT OF - 

"(A)  SICKNESS AND INJURY OCCURRING BETWEEN THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE
ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT FOR REPORTING FOR DUTY AND THE TERMINATION OF THE
ENGAGEMENT; 

"(B)  DEATH RESULTING FROM SUCH SICKNESS OR INJURY. 

"2.  PROVIDED THAT NATIONAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS MAY MAKE EXCEPTIONS
IN RESPECT OF: 

"(A)  INJURY INCURRED OTHERWISE THAN IN THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP; 

"(B)  INJURY OR SICKNESS DUE TO THE WILFUL ACT, DEFAULT OR
MISBEHAVIOUR OF THE SICK, INJURED OR DECEASED PERSON; 

"(C)  SICKNESS OR INFIRMITY INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED WHEN THE
ENGAGEMENT IS ENTERED INTO." 

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS TWOFOLD.  HE MAINTAINS FIRST THAT UNDER
PARAGRAPH 1 A SHIPOWNER'S DUTY TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE AND CURE IS
ABSOLUTE AND THAT THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 2 ARE NOT
OPERATIVE UNTIL A STATUTE IS ENACTED WHICH PUTS THEM IN FORCE.  HE
ARGUES IN THE SECOND PLACE THAT, EVEN IF PARAGRAPH 2 IS OPERATIVE
WITHOUT AN ACT OF CONGRESS, HIS CONDUCT WAS NOT DUE TO A "WILFUL ACT,
DEFAULT OR MISBEHAVIOUR" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT PARAGRAPH.  AN
AMICUS CURIAE ARGUES THAT THE INJURY WAS NOT RECEIVED "IN THE SERVICE
OF THE SHIP" WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH 2(A) OF ART. 2. 

THERE IS SUPPORT FOR PETITIONER'S FIRST POINT IN THE CONCURRING
OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE STONE IN WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP. V. JONES,
318 U.S. 724, 738.  FN2  BUT WE THINK THE PREFERRED VIEW IS OPPOSED. 
OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE EXCEPTIONS PERMITTED BY PARAGRAPH 2 ARE
OPERATIVE BY VIRTUE OF THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW AND THAT NO ACT OF
CONGRESS IS NECESSARY TO GIVE THEM FORCE. 

THE LANGUAGE OF PARAGRAPH 2, IN ITS ORDINARY RANGE OF MEANING, EASILY
PERMITS THAT CONSTRUCTION.  IT IS "NATIONAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS" WHICH
MAY MAKE EXCEPTIONS.  THE TERM LAW IN OUR JURISPRUDENCE USUALLY
INCLUDES THE RULES OF COURT DECISIONS AS WELL AS LEGISLATIVE ACTS. 
THAT WAS HELD IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, TO BE TRUE OF
THE PHRASE "THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES" AS USED IN THE FIRST
JUDICIARY ACT.  1 STAT. 73, SEC. 34.  NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY A MORE
RESTRICTED MEANING SHOULD BE GIVEN "NATIONAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS."  THE
PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION WOULD NOT BE SERVED BY THE NARROW MEANING. 
THIS CONVENTION WAS A PRODUCT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION
N3.  ITS PURPOSE WAS TO PROVIDE AN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF REGULATION
OF THE SHIPOWNER'S LIABILITY.  THAT INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM WAS AIMED AT
PROVIDING A REASONABLE AVERAGE WHICH COULD BE APPLIED IN ANY COUNTRY. 
FN4  WE FIND NO SUGGESTION THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO ADOPT A MORE STRICT
STANDARD OF LIABILITY THAN THAT WHICH OUR MARITIME LAW PROVIDES.  THE
AIM INDEED WAS NOT TO CHANGE MATERIALLY AMERICAN STANDARDS BUT TO
EQUALIZE OPERATING COSTS BY RAISING THE STANDARDS OF MEMBER NATIONS TO
THE AMERICAN LEVEL.  FN5  IF THE CONVENTION WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE
ABSOLUTE THE LIABILITY OF THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY UNTIL AND UNLESS EACH
MEMBER NATION BY LEGISLATIVE ACT REDUCED IT, WE CAN HARDLY BELIEVE SOME
PLAIN INDICATION OF THE PURPOSE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE.  MUCH OF THIS
BODY OF MARITIME LAW HAD DEVELOPED THROUGH THE CENTURIES IN JUDICIAL
DECISIONS.  TO REJECT THAT BODY OF LAW AND START ANEW WITH A COMPLETE
CODE WOULD BE A NOVEL AND DRASTIC STEP.  UNDER OUR CONSTRUCTION THE
CONVENTION PROVIDES A REASONABLE AVERAGE FOR INTERNATIONAL
APPLICATION.  THE DEFINITION OF THE EXCEPTIONS ITSELF HELPS PROVIDE THE
AVERAGE, LEAVING THE CREATION OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO ANY SOURCE OF LAW
WHICH THE MEMBER NATIONS RECOGNIZE.  THAT VIEW SERVES THE PURPOSE OF
THE CONVENTION AND CONFORMS TO THE NORMAL MEANING OF THE WORDS USED. 
OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT BOTH PARAGRAPH 1 AND PARAGRAPH 2 OF ART. 2 STATE
THE STANDARD OF LIABILITY WHICH LEGISLATIVE AND DECISIONAL LAW DEFINE
IN PARTICULARITY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT PETITIONER'S DEGREE OF FAULT DID NOT BAR
A RECOVERY FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT
OTHERWISE.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE INJURY WAS "DUE TO THE WILFUL
ACT, DEFAULT OR MISBEHAVIOUR" OF PETITIONER WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART.
2, PARAGRAPH 2(B) OF THE CONVENTION.  THE STANDARD PRESCRIBED IS NOT
NEGLIGENCE BUT WILFUL MISBEHAVIOR.  IN THE MARITIME LAW IT HAS LONG
BEEN HELD THAT WHILE FAULT OF THE SEAMAN WILL FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO
MAINTENANCE AND CURE, IT MUST BE "SOME POSITIVELY VICIOUS CONDUCT -
SUCH AS GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS."  THE
CHANDOS, 6 SAWY.  544, 549-550; THE CITY OF CARLISLE, 39 F. 807, 813;
THE BEN FLINT, 1 BISS.  562, 566.  AND SEE REED V. CANFIELD, 1 SUMN. 
195, 206.  IN AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724, 731, WE STATED
THE RULE AS FOLLOWS:  "CONCEPTIONS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, THE
FELLOWSERVANT DOCTRINE, AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK HAVE NO PLACE IN THE
LIABILITY OR DEFENSE AGAINST IT.  ONLY SOME WILFUL MISBEHAVIOR OR
DELIBERATE ACT OF INDISCRETION SUFFICES TO DEPRIVE THE SEAMAN OF HIS
PROTECTION." 

THE EXCEPTION WHICH SOME CASES HAVE MADE FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM
INTOXICATION (SEE AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., SUPRA, P. 731, NOTES 11
AND 12) HAS NO PLACE IN THIS CASE.  AS THE DISTRICT JUDGE RULED, THE
AMOUNT OF WINE CONSUMED HARDLY PERMITS A FINDING OF INTOXICATION. 
PETITIONER WAS PLAINLY NEGLIGENT.  YET WE WOULD HAVE TO STRAIN TO FIND
THE ELEMENT OF WILFULNESS OR ITS EQUIVALENT.  HE SOUGHT TO USE SOME
CARE WHEN HE LOOKED DOWN FROM THE SMALL BALCONY, AS EVIDENCED BY HIS
SEIZURE OF THE IRON BAR FOR A HANDHOLD.  HIS CONDUCT DID NOT MEASURE UP
TO A STANDARD OF DUE CARE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  BUT WE AGREE WITH
THE DISTRICT COURT THAT IT WAS NOT WILFUL MISBEHAVIOR WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONVENTION. 

FINALLY IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE INJURY DID NOT OCCUR "IN THE SERVICE
OF THE SHIP," AS THAT TERM IS USED IN PARAGRAPH 2(A) OF ART. 2 OF THE
CONVENTION.  WE HELD IN AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., SUPRA, THAT
MAINTENANCE AND CURE EXTENDS TO INJURIES OCCURRING WHILE THE SEAMAN IS
DEPARTING ON OR RETURNING FROM SHORE LEAVE THOUGH HE HAS AT THE TIME NO
DUTY TO PERFORM FOR THE SHIP.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF
THAT CASE SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO INJURIES RECEIVED DURING THE
DIVERSIONS OF THE SEAMAN AFTER HE HAS REACHED THE SHORE.  MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN THE AGUILAR CASE, STATED THE
REASONS FOR EXTENDING MAINTENANCE AND CURE TO SHORE LEAVE CASES AS
FOLLOWS (PP. 733-734): 

"TO RELIEVE THE SHIPOWNER OF HIS OBLIGATION IN THE CASE OF INJURIES
INCURRED ON SHORE LEAVE WOULD CAST UPON THE SEAMAN HAZARDS ENCOUNTERED
ONLY BY REASON OF THE VOYAGE.  THE ASSUMPTION IS HARDLY SOUND THAT THE
NORMAL USES AND PURPOSES OF SHORE LEAVE ARE 'EXCLUSIVELY PERSONAL' AND
HAVE NO RELATION TO THE VESSEL'S BUSINESS.  MEN CANNOT LIVE FOR LONG
COOPED UP ABOARD SHIP, WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR
EFFICIENCY, IF NOT ALSO SERIOUS DANGER TO DISCIPLINE.  RELAXATION
BEYOND THE CONFINES OF THE SHIP IS NECESSARY IF THE WORK IS TO GO ON,
MORE SO THAT IT MAY MOVE SMOOTHLY.  NO MASTER WOULD TAKE A CREW TO SEA
IF HE COULD NOT GRANT SHORE LEAVE, AND NO CREW WOULD BE TAKEN IF IT
COULD NEVER OBTAIN IT.  ...  IN SHORT, SHORE LEAVE IS AN ELEMENTAL
NECESSITY IN THE SAILING OF SHIPS, A PART OF THE BUSINESS AS OLD AS THE
ART, NOT MERELY A PERSONAL DIVERSION. 

"THE VOYAGE CREATES NOT ONLY THE NEED FOR RELAXATION ASHORE, BUT THE
NECESSITY THAT IT BE SATISFIED IN DISTANT AND UNFAMILIAR PORTS.  IF, IN
THOSE SURROUNDINGS, THE SEAMAN, WITHOUT DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT,
CONTRACTS DISEASE OR INCURS INJURY, IT IS BECAUSE OF THE VOYAGE, THE
SHIPOWNER'S BUSINESS.  THAT BUSINESS HAS SEPARATED HIM FROM HIS USUAL
PLACES OF ASSOCIATION.  BY ADDING THIS SEPARATION TO THE RESTRICTIONS
OF LIVING AS WELL AS WORKING ABOARD, IT FORGES DUAL AND UNIQUE
COMPULSIONS FOR SEEKING RELIEF WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND.  IN SUM, IT IS
THE SHIP'S BUSINESS WHICH SUBJECTS THE SEAMAN TO THE RISKS ATTENDING
HOURS OF RELAXATION IN STRANGE SURROUNDINGS.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS BUT
REASONABLE THAT THE BUSINESS EXTEND THE SAME PROTECTIONS AGAINST INJURY
FROM THEM AS IT GIVES FOR OTHER RISKS OF THE EMPLOYMENT." 

THIS REASONING IS AS APPLICABLE TO INJURIES RECEIVED DURING THE
PERIOD OF RELAXATION WHILE ON SHORE AS IT IS TO THOSE RECEIVED WHILE
REACHING IT.  TO RESTRICT THE LIABILITY ALONG THE LINES SUGGESTED WOULD
BE TO WHITTLE IT DOWN "BY RESTRICTIVE AND ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTIONS" AS
ATTEMPTED IN THE AGUILAR CASE.  WE REPEAT WHAT WE SAID THERE, "IF
LEEWAY IS TO BE GIVEN IN EITHER DIRECTION, ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
BROUGHT THE LIABILITY INTO BEING DICTATE IT SHOULD BE IN THE SAILOR'S
BEHALF."  318 U.S. AT 735.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PETITIONER SUED THE UNITED STATES AS OWNER AND AMERICAN SOUTH
AFRICAN LINE, INC. AS THE GENERAL AGENT AND OPERATOR.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE LIBEL AS TO THE UNITED STATES AND HELD THE GENERAL
AGENT LIABLE UNDER HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707.  DURING
THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BY THE GENERAL AGENT AND THE CROSS-APPEAL BY
PETITIONER, FINK V. SHEPARD S.S. CO., 337 U.S. 810, WAS DECIDED. 
ACCORDINGLY THE DECREE AGAINST THE GENERAL AGENT WAS REVERSED AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED THE CASE ON THE MERITS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES. 

FN2  CHIEF JUSTICE STONE RELIED ON THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF
STATE TO THE PRESIDENT ON THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING THE
CONVENTION.  THE SECRETARY SAID IN PART:  "MANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CONVENTION ARE CONSIDERED TO BE SELF-EXECUTING, AND THERE WOULD
APPEAR TO BE NO NEED TO REPEAT VERBATIM THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONVENTION
IN A STATUTE TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE.  SOME OF THE ARTICLES OF THE
CONVENTION, HOWEVER, AFTER STATING THE GENERAL RULE, PROVIDE THAT
NATIONAL LAWS MAY MAKE SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS THERETO.  IF THIS
GOVERNMENT IS TO BE EXCEPTED FROM CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
OR ALTERATIONS IN OUR PRESENT PRACTICE, IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO
AFFIRMATIVELY BY STATUTE."  H.R. REP. NO. 1328, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
6. 

THE SECRETARY HAD THE FOLLOWING TO SAY ABOUT ARTICLE 2:  "SECTION 4
FOLLOWS THE EXCEPTIONS IN ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION WHICH SETS FORTH
THE RISKS COVERED IN THE ENTIRE CONVENTION.  ... PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE
2 OF THE CONVENTION WAS NOT INCORPORATED IN THE BILL BECAUSE OF THE
BELIEF (1) THAT IT IS SELF-EXECUTING IN THAT IT ESTABLISHES LIABILITY,
ALTHOUGH NO DEFINITE AMOUNT IS PROVIDED; AND (2) THAT IT WILL NOT BE
HELD BY THE COURTS TO CONFLICT WITH PRESENT LAW IN THIS COUNTRY."  ID.,
P. 6. 

THE IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION WAS PASSED BY THE HOUSE, 84 CONG. REC.
10540, BUT NOT BY THE SENATE.  SEE HEARINGS, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, U.S. SENATE, ON H.R. 6881, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.;
S. DOC. 113, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 87 CONG. REC. 7434. 

FN3  SEE FRIED, RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE
INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION, 41 AM. POL.  SCI.  REV. 963; DILLON,
INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONVENTIONS (1942); SHOTWELL, THE ORIGINS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION (1934). 

THE UNITED STATES BECAME A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZATION ON AUGUST 20, 1934.  SEE U.S. TREATIES, TREATY SERIES, NO.
874. 

FN4  SEE INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE, PROCEEDINGS, THIRTEENTH
SESS. (1929), 131. 

FN5  THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE RECOMMENDING RATIFICATION
OF THE CONVENTION EMPHASIZED THAT THE TREATY (1) WOULD NOT MATERIALLY
CHANGE AMERICAN LEGAL STANDARDS AND (2) WOULD RAISE STANDARDS OF MEMBER
NATIONS TO THE AMERICAN LEVEL AND THUS EQUALIZE OPERATING COSTS.  S.
EXEC. REP. 8, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 3. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK DISSENT ON THE GROUND THAT
THE INJURIES WERE NOT SUSTAINED IN THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP.  AGUILAR V.
STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724, HELD A SEAMAN TO BE IN THE SHIP'S
SERVICE WHILE GOING TO OR FROM THE SHIP OVER PREMISES AT WHICH THE SHIP
DOCKED, EVEN IF THE PURPOSE OF BEING ASHORE WAS LEAVE FROM DUTY.  THE
ROUTE OF ACCESS WAS NOT THE CHOICE OF THE SEAMAN, AND ACCESS TO THE
SHIP WAS HELD ESSENTIAL TO THE SHIP'S SERVICE.  BUT THE CHOICE OF
PLACES OF REFRESHMENT AND VARIETIES OF ENTERTAINMENT ARE THE SAILOR'S
OWN.  UNLESS HIS EMPLOYMENT IS A POLICY OF ACCIDENT INSURANCE WHILE ON
LEAVE, RECOVERY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THIS CASE.  THAT MIGHT BE A WISE
RULE OF LAW BUT WE THINK IT ONE THAT SHOULD DEPEND ON LEGISLATION. 
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE BECAUSE IT INVOLVED CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY CONVENTION, 54 STAT. 1693.  AS TO THAT, I AGREE
WITH THE COURT THAT THE CONVENTION DOES NOT AFFORD ANY BASIS FOR
LIBELLANT'S CLAIM.  ASSUMING THAT ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION IS SELF
EXECUTING, A MATTER WHICH I DO NOT NOW HAVE TO DECIDE, THE EXCEPTIONS
PERMITTED BY PARAGRAPH 2 OF THAT ARTICLE ARE OPERATIVE BY VIRTUE OF THE
GENERAL MARITIME LAW.  BUT I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD REVERSE
THE COURT OF APPEALS ON ITS APPLICATION OF THE PROPER STANDARD TO THE
FACTS. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE GAVE THIS DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED: 

"LIBELLANT WAS A MESSMAN ABOARD THE S.S. 'ANNA HOWARD SHAW.'  ON
OCTOBER 30, 1944, WHILE THE VESSEL WAS IN THE BAY OF NAPLES, ITALY,
LIBELLANT LEFT ON SHORE LEAVE.  IN COMPANY WITH THE SHIP'S CARPENTER
AND ANOTHER MESSMAN, HE WENT SIGHTSEEING.  THEY CAME TO THE WATERFRONT
TOWN OF BAGNOLI (REFERRED TO BY LIBELLANT AS MAGNOLIA).  THE GROUP
STOPPED AT VARIOUS STORES AND AT ONE SUCH PLACE THEY BOUGHT A SMALL
BOTTLE OF WINE WHICH THEY DIVIDED AMONG THEM.  ABOUT THREE MILES DOWN
THE SHORE FROM WHERE THEY HAD LANDED FROM A MOTOR LIFEBOAT, THEY
STOPPED AT A DANCE HALL AND STAYED AN HOUR AND A HALF OR SO.  LIBELLANT
SAYS HE WAS DANCING MOST OF THE TIME, AND DRANK ONLY ONE ADDITIONAL
GLASS OF WINE. 

"AFTER A TIME LIBELLANT ENTERED ANOTHER ROOM AND APPROACHED A LARGE
WINDOW OVERLOOKING THE SEA, AND HE SAYS THE SIGHT OF THE WAVES BREAKING
UPON THE ROCKS SOME THIRTY-FIVE FEET BELOW INTRIGUED HIM.  THE FRENCH
DOORS OF THIS WINDOW EXTENDED TO THE LEVEL OF THE FLOOR AND HE OBSERVED
A SORT OF WHOLLY UNPROTECTED LEDGE OR BALCONY, WHICH EXTENDED OUT FROM
THE BUILDING SOME TWO AND A HALF OR THREE FEET.  THERE WAS NO RAILING
OF ANY SORT AND THE SLIGHTEST MISSTEP OR UNSTEADINESS WAS ALMOST SURE
TO PRECIPITATE LIBELLANT.  IN ANY EVENT, IT WAS A PERILOUS UNDERTAKING
TO GO OUT UPON THIS BALCONY AND ONE EVEN MORE PERILOUS TO LEAN OVER THE
EDGE TO GET A BETTER VIEW OF THE ROCKS AND WAVES IMMEDIATELY BELOW. 
BUT THIS IS WHAT LIBELLANT DID.  WHEN HE CAME TO A POSITION WHERE THE
TOES OF HIS SHOES WERE SIX INCHES FROM THE EDGE, HE LEANED OVER, AT THE
SAME TIME TAKING HOLD OF A ROD ABOUT ONE-HALF INCH IN CIRCUMFERENCE,
WHICH WAS APPARENTLY AFFIXED TO THE BUILDING TO HIS RIGHT.  HE MERELY
TOOK A CASUAL GLANCE AT THIS ROD AND MAKES NO CLAIM TO HAVE DONE MORE. 
IT LOOKED LIKE A 'LIGHTNING ARRESTER OR SOMETHING OF THAT TYPE.' 
WHETHER THE FASTENINGS SUCH AS THEY WERE HAD BEEN WEAKENED BY BOMBS AND
SHELL FIRE, WHICH HAD OTHERWISE MARKED THE BUILDINGS IN THE VICINITY TO
SOME EXTENT, DOES NOT APPEAR.  NOR DOES THE TESTIMONY DISCLOSE THE
PURPOSE WHICH THIS ROD SERVED.  AS HE GRASPED IT, AND LEANED OVER THE
EDGE, THE ROD CAME OFF AND LIBELLANT LOST HIS BALANCE AND FELL.  A
SIMILAR LEDGE OR BALCONY ON ONE OF THE WINDOWS BELOW BROKE HIS FALL OR
HE WOULD HAVE SUSTAINED INJURIES FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN A BROKEN LEG. 
THIS FALL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ARE THE BASIS FOR HIS SUIT FOR
MAINTENANCE AND CURE."  75 F.SUPP.  210, 213. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT LIBELLANT HAD NOT ACTED "IN
RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SAFETY."  75 F.SUPP.  AT 216.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED.  IT THOUGHT THAT 

"IN THE CASE AT BAR, THE RISK OF SERIOUS INJURY OR EVEN DEATH IF THE
SEAMAN SHOULD FALL OVER THE CLIFF, WAS OBVIOUS; AND THE REQUISITE
DEGREE OF CARE CORRESPONDINGLY HIGHER.  IN THE FACE OF EVIDENT DANGER,
THE CARE WHICH WARREN TOOK WAS VERY SLIGHT - A MERE CASUAL GLANCE AT
THE ROD WHICH HE THOUGHT TO BE A 'LIGHTNING ARRESTER OR SOMETHING OF
THAT TYPE.'  WE THINK THAT A MAN WHO ACTS AS HE DID UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
OF DANGER DOES NOT SHOW EVEN A MINIMAL DEGREE OF REGARD FOR THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACT.  UNLESS HIS SHIP IS TO BE AN INSURER OF HIS
SAFETY, HE CANNOT RECOVER AGAINST HER."  179 F.2D 919, 922. 

I DO NOT THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
LIBELLANT'S CONDUCT WAS A "DELIBERATE ACT OF INDISCRETION," AGUILAR V.
STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724, 731, SHOULD BE DISTURBED. 
..END :






NORTON CO. V. DEPT. OF REVENUE, 340 U.S. 534 


NO. 133.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 405
ILL. 314, 90 N.E.2D 737, JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED. 


UNDER THE ILLINOIS RETAILERS' OCCUPATION TAX ACT OF JUNE 28, 1933,
ILLINOIS LEVIED A TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM ALL SALES TO PERSONS
IN ILLINOIS BY PETITIONER, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION WITH ITS FACTORY
AND HEAD OFFICE IN MASSACHUSETTS AND A BRANCH OFFICE IN CHICAGO.  AT
PETITIONER'S HEAD OFFICE ARE ITS GENERAL MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNTING, AND
CREDIT OFFICES, WHERE IT ACCEPTS ALL DIRECT MAIL ORDERS AND ORDERS
FORWARDED BY ITS CHICAGO OFFICE.  THE CHICAGO OFFICE MAKES LOCAL SALES
AT RETAIL FROM A LIMITED INVENTORY CARRIED THERE, RECEIVES ORDERS AND
FORWARDS THEM TO THE HEAD OFFICE FOR ACTION THERE, AND ACTS AS AN
INTERMEDIARY TO REDUCE FREIGHT CHARGES ON GOODS SHIPPED FROM THE HEAD
OFFICE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS FOUND THAT THE PRESENCE OF
PETITIONER'S LOCAL RETAIL OUTLET, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
WAS SUFFICIENT TO ATTRIBUTE ALL INCOME DERIVED FROM ILLINOIS SALES TO
THAT OUTLET AND RENDER IT TAXABLE.  HELD:  THE TAX IS SUSTAINED ON ALL
SALES TO ILLINOIS CUSTOMERS, EXCEPT ON ORDERS SENT DIRECTLY BY THE
CUSTOMERS TO THE HEAD OFFICE AND SHIPPED DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMERS FROM
THE HEAD OFFICE.  PP. 535-539. 

1.  WHEN A FOREIGN CORPORATION HAS GONE INTO A STATE TO DO LOCAL
BUSINESS BY STATE PERMISSION AND HAS SUBMITTED ITSELF TO THE TAXING
POWER OF THE STATE, IT CAN AVOID TAXATION ON SOME SALES TO PERSONS IN
THAT STATE ONLY BY SUSTAINING THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT PARTICULAR
TRANSACTIONS ARE DISASSOCIATED FROM THE LOCAL BUSINESS AND INTERSTATE
IN NATURE.  P. 537. 

2. BY SUBMITTING ITSELF TO THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE, IT LIKEWISE
SUBMITS ITSELF TO THE STATE'S JUDICIAL POWER TO CONSTRUE AND APPLY ITS
TAX LAWS, INSOFAR AS IT KEEPS WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS.  P. 538. 

3.  IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE ILLINOIS
COURT ATTRIBUTING TO PETITIONER'S CHICAGO BRANCH INCOME FROM ALL SALES
THAT UTILIZED IT EITHER IN RECEIVING THE ORDERS OR DISTRIBUTING THE
GOODS WAS WITHIN THE REALM OF PERMISSIBLE JUDGMENT.  PP. 538-539. 

4.  THE ONLY TRANSACTIONS HERE INVOLVED THAT ARE SO CLEARLY
INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER THAT THE STATE COULD NOT REASONABLY ATTRIBUTE
THEIR PROCEEDS TO THE LOCAL BUSINESS ARE ORDERS SENT DIRECTLY TO ITS
HEAD OFFICE BY THE CUSTOMERS AND SHIPPED DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMERS FROM
THE HEAD OFFICE; AND SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS TAX.  P.
539. 

NORTON COMPANY V. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS SUSTAINED A STATE TAX ON THE GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM ALL SALES BY PETITIONER TO PERSONS IN ILLINOIS.  405 ILL.
314, 90 N.E.2D 737.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 807. 
JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED, P. 539. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, MANUFACTURES AND SELLS
ABRASIVE MACHINES AND SUPPLIES.  UNDER CONSENT FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS TO DO BUSINESS THEREIN, IT OPERATES A BRANCH OFFICE AND
WAREHOUSE IN CHICAGO FROM WHICH IT MAKES LOCAL SALES AT RETAIL.  THESE
SALES ADMITTEDLY SUBJECT IT TO AN ILLINOIS OCCUPATION TAX "UPON PERSONS
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AT RETAIL
IN THIS STATE."  THE BASE FOR COMPUTATION OF THE TAX IS GROSS
RECEIPTS.  ILL. REV. STAT., 1949, C. 120, SEC. 441. 

NOT ALL OF PETITIONER'S SALES TO ILLINOIS CUSTOMERS ARE OVER-THE
COUNTER, BUT THE STATE HAS COLLECTED, UNDER PROTEST, THE TAX ON THE
ENTIRE GROSS INCOME OF THIS COMPANY FROM SALES TO ITS INHABITANTS.  THE
STATUTE SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS "BUSINESS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AS
REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE HAS
EXCEEDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RANGE OF ITS TAXING POWER BY TAXING ALL OF
PETITIONER'S ILLINOIS DERIVED INCOME. 

IN WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, PETITIONER MANUFACTURES SOME 225,000
ITEMS, 18,000 OF WHICH IT USUALLY CARRIES IN STOCK.  THERE ARE ITS
GENERAL MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNTING, AND CREDIT OFFICES, WHERE IT ACCEPTS OR
REJECTS ALL DIRECT MAIL ORDERS AND ORDERS FORWARDED BY ITS CHICAGO
OFFICE.  IF AN ORDER CALLS FOR SPECIALLY BUILT MACHINES, IT IS THERE
STUDIED AND ACCEPTED OR REJECTED.  ORDERS ARE FILLED BY SHIPMENT F.O.B.
WORCESTER EITHER DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMER OR VIA THE CHICAGO OFFICE. 

THE CHICAGO PLACE OF BUSINESS PERFORMS SEVERAL FUNCTIONS.  IT CARRIES
AN INVENTORY OF ABOUT 3,000 MOST FREQUENTLY PURCHASED ITEMS.  FROM
THESE IT SERVES CASH CUSTOMERS AND THOSE WHOSE CREDIT THE HOME OFFICE
HAS APPROVED, BY CONSUMMATING DIRECT SALES.  INCOME FROM THESE SALES
PETITIONER ADMITS TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY TAXABLE.  BUT THIS OFFICE ALSO
PERFORMS USEFUL FUNCTIONS FOR OTHER CLASSES OF CUSTOMERS.  FOR THOSE OF
NO ESTABLISHED CREDIT, THOSE WHO ORDER ITEMS NOT IN LOCAL STOCK, AND
THOSE WHO WANT SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, IT RECEIVES THEIR ORDER AND FORWARDS
IT TO THE HOME OFFICE FOR ACTION THERE.  FOR MANY OF THESE ILLINOIS
CUSTOMERS IT ALSO ACTS AS AN INTERMEDIARY TO REDUCE FREIGHT CHARGES. 
WORCESTER PACKAGES AND MARKS EACH CUSTOMER'S GOODS BUT ACCUMULATES THEM
UNTIL A CARLOAD LOT CAN BE CONSIGNED TO THE CHICAGO OFFICE.  CHICAGO
BREAKS THE CARLOAD AND RECONSIGNS THE SEPARATE ORDERS IN THEIR ORIGINAL
PACKAGE TO CUSTOMERS.  THE CHICAGO OFFICE THUS INTERVENES BETWEEN
VENDOR AND ILLINOIS VENDEES AND PERFORMS SERVICE HELPFUL TO
PETITIONER'S COMPETITION FOR THAT TRADE IN ALL ILLINOIS SALES EXCEPT
WHEN THE BUYER ORDERS DIRECTLY FROM WORCESTER, AND THE GOODS ARE
SHIPPED FROM THERE DIRECTLY TO THE BUYER. 

THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS DEALING WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT REITERATED ITS FORMER HOLDINGS "THAT THERE
COULD BE NO TAX ON SOLICITATION OF ORDERS ONLY" IN THE STATE.  FN1  BUT
NO SOLICITORS WORK THE TERRITORY OUT OF EITHER THE HOME OFFICE OR THE
CHICAGO BRANCH, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER WILL SUPPLY ENGINEERING AND
TECHNICAL ADVICE.  THE ILLINOIS COURT HELD THAT THE PRESENCE OF
PETITIONER'S LOCAL RETAIL OUTLET, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
WAS SUFFICIENT TO ATTRIBUTE ALL INCOME DERIVED FROM ILLINOIS SALES TO
THAT OUTLET AND RENDER IT ALL TAXABLE. 

WHERE A CORPORATION CHOOSES TO STAY AT HOME IN ALL RESPECTS EXCEPT TO
SEND ABROAD ADVERTISING OR DRUMMERS TO SOLICIT ORDERS WHICH ARE SENT
DIRECTLY TO THE HOME OFFICE FOR ACCEPTANCE, FILLING, AND DELIVERY BACK
TO THE BUYER, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE STATE OF THE BUYER HAS NO LOCAL
GRIP ON THE SELLER.  UNLESS SOME LOCAL INCIDENT OCCURS SUFFICIENT TO
BRING THE TRANSACTION WITHIN ITS TAXING POWER, THE VENDOR IS NOT
TAXABLE.  MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327.  OF COURSE, A STATE
IMPOSING A SALES OR USE TAX CAN MORE EASILY MEET THIS BURDEN, BECAUSE
THE IMPACT OF THOSE TAXES IS ON THE LOCAL BUYER OR USER.  CASES
INVOLVING THEM ARE NOT CONTROLLING HERE, FOR THIS TAX FALLS ON THE
VENDOR.  FN2 

BUT WHEN, AS HERE, THE CORPORATION HAS GONE INTO THE STATE TO DO
LOCAL BUSINESS BY STATE PERMISSION AND HAS SUBMITTED ITSELF TO THE
TAXING POWER OF THE STATE, IT CAN AVOID TAXATION ON SOME ILLINOIS SALES
ONLY BY SHOWING THAT PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS ARE DISSOCIATED FROM THE
LOCAL BUSINESS AND INTERSTATE IN NATURE.  THE GENERAL RULE, APPLICABLE
HERE, IS THAT A TAXPAYER CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM A TAX HAS THE BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING HIS EXEMPTION.  FN3 

THIS BURDEN IS NEVER MET MERELY BY SHOWING A FAIR DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION WHICH AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER MIGHT BE DECIDED DIFFERENTLY.  THIS
CORPORATION, BY SUBMITTING ITSELF TO THE TAXING POWER OF ILLINOIS,
LIKEWISE SUBMITTED ITSELF TO ITS JUDICIAL POWER TO CONSTRUE AND APPLY
ITS TAXING STATUTE INSOFAR AS IT KEEPS WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS. 
OF COURSE, IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASES, WE HAVE POWER TO EXAMINE THE WHOLE
RECORD TO ARRIVE AT AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INVADED, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE
WILL RE-EXAMINE, AS A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, FINDINGS OF FACT
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  FN4 

THIS CORPORATION HAS SO MINGLED TAXABLE BUSINESS WITH THAT WHICH IT
CONTENDS IS NOT TAXABLE THAT IT REQUIRES ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL
JUDGMENT TO SEPARATE THE TWO.  WE CONCLUDE THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL
THE EVIDENCE, THE JUDGMENT ATTRIBUTING TO THE CHICAGO BRANCH INCOME
FROM ALL SALES THAT UTILIZED IT EITHER IN RECEIVING THE ORDERS OR
DISTRIBUTING THE GOODS WAS WITHIN THE REALM OF PERMISSIBLE JUDGMENT. 
PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH SERVICES AS WERE RENDERED BY
THE CHICAGO OFFICE WERE NOT DECISIVE FACTORS IN ESTABLISHING AND
HOLDING THIS MARKET.  ON THIS RECORD, NO OTHER SOURCE OF THE CUSTOMER
RELATIONSHIP IS SHOWN. 

THIS CORPORATION COULD HAVE APPROACHED THE ILLINOIS MARKET THROUGH
SOLICITORS ONLY AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE IMMUNITY OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS SET OUT IN THE DILWORTH CASE.  BUT, FROM A
COMPETITIVE POINT OF VIEW, THAT SYSTEM HAS DISADVANTAGES.  THE TRADE
MAY VIEW THE SELLER AS REMOTE AND INACCESSIBLE.  HE CANNOT BE REACHED
WITH PROCESS OF LOCAL COURTS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR FOR SERVICE IF
THE GOODS ARE DEFECTIVE OR IN NEED OF REPLACEMENT.  PETITIONER ELECTED
TO LOCALIZE ITSELF IN THE ILLINOIS MARKET WITH THE ADVANTAGES OF A
RETAIL OUTLET IN THE STATE, TO KEEP CLOSE TO THE TRADE, TO SUPPLY
LOCALLY MANY ITEMS AND TAKE ORDERS FOR OTHERS, AND TO REDUCE FREIGHT
COSTS TO LOCAL CONSUMERS.  ALTHOUGH THE CONCERN DOES NOT, BY ENGAGING
IN BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, LOSE ITS RIGHT TO DO INTERSTATE BUSINESS
WITH TAX IMMUNITY, COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEGRAPH CO., 294 U.S.
384, IT CANNOT CHANNEL BUSINESS THROUGH A LOCAL OUTLET TO GAIN THE
ADVANTAGE OF A LOCAL BUSINESS AND ALSO HOLD THE IMMUNITIES OF AN
INTERSTATE BUSINESS. 

THE ONLY ITEMS THAT ARE SO CLEARLY INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER THAT THE
STATE COULD NOT REASONABLY ATTRIBUTE THEIR PROCEEDS TO THE LOCAL
BUSINESS ARE ORDERS SENT DIRECTLY TO WORCESTER BY THE CUSTOMER AND
SHIPPED DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMER FROM WORCESTER.  INCOME FROM THOSE WE
THINK WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THIS TAX. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  405 ILL. 314, 320, 90 N.E.2D 737, 741. 

FN2  CF. NELSON V. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 312 U.S. 373; NELSON V.
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO.,
309 U.S. 33; MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., SUPRA. 

FN3  COMPANIA GENERAL V. COLLECTOR, 279 U.S. 306, 310; NEW YORK EX
REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 316. 

FN4  MERCHANTS' NATIONAL BANK V. RICHMOND, 256 U.S. 635, 638; CARLSON
V. CURTISS, 234 U.S. 103, 106. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING IN PART. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS WITH THE COURT'S OPINION AND JUDGMENT EXCEPT
AS IT PERMITS ILLINOIS TO USE AS A BASE FOR THE TAX COMPUTATION
PETITIONER'S SALES, CONSUMMATED IN MASSACHUSETTS BY THE ACCEPTANCE OF
ORDERS FORWARDED TO PETITIONER THERE BY ITS ILLINOIS BRANCH OFFICE,
FILLED IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND SHIPPED FROM MASSACHUSETTS DIRECTLY, AND
NOT BY TRANSHIPMENT THROUGH THE ILLINOIS BRANCH, TO THE BUYER.  IN
THOSE SALES TITLE PASSES TO BUYER IN MASSACHUSETTS.  ILLINOIS CONCEDES
IN ITS BRIEF THE ABOVE FACTS AS TO THIS CLASS OF SALES.  FROM THOSE
FACTS I CONCLUDE THAT, NOTHING ELSE APPEARING, THE SHIPMENT WAS AT THE
BUYER'S COST AND RISK. 

THE ILLINOIS STATUTE RECOGNIZES THAT INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS NOT TO BE
TAXED.  THE TRANSACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE INTERSTATE BUSINESS. 

THE PULL TO PERMIT EACH STATE TO MEASURE ITS TAX BY GROSS RECEIPTS
FROM ALL SALES WITH SOME SLIGHT RELATION TO THE TAXING STATE IS
STRONG.  THE CONSTITUTION, HOWEVER, PUTS THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN THE HANDS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  WE HAVE GONE FAR IN
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW A STATE TO COLLECT TAX
MONEY, BUT IN VIEW OF THE DELEGATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
POWER OVER COMMERCE CARRIED ON IN MORE THAN ONE STATE, WE SHOULD
PRESERVE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF FROM TAXES LEVIED ON IT DIRECTLY OR
ON THE UNAPPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS OF THAT COMMERCE.  GREYHOUND LINES
V. MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653; JOSEPH V. CARTER & WEEKES STEVEDORING CO., 330
U.S. 422; INTERSTATE PIPE LINE CO. V. STONE, DISSENT, 337 U.S. 662,
676. 

OUR CLOSEST APPROACH TO THE TAX ON THE ABOVE INTERSTATE BUSINESS WAS
THE TAX ON DUGRENIER, INC., IN MCGOLDRICK V. FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO.,
309 U.S. 70, 77.  DESPITE MARKED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE DUGRENIER
TRANSACTIONS AND ALL OTHERS CONSIDERED IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE
CO., 309 U.S. 33, WITHOUT ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF THOSE DIFFERENCES
AND IN RELIANCE UPON THE FACT THAT "POSSESSION" WAS TRANSFERRED IN NEW
YORK FROM THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY TO THE BUYER, WE UPHELD THE TAX. 
IF BY THE LANGUAGE USED IT WAS MEANT TO SAY THAT THE SELLER DELIVERED
THE GOODS TO THE BUYER, THE TRANSACTIONS WERE, AS WE SAID, "CONTROLLED"
BY BERWIND-WHITE. 

A FEW YEARS LATER, HOWEVER, IN MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327,
AN OPINION IN WHICH THE WRITER OF THE DUGRENIER OPINION, CHIEF JUSTICE
STONE, JOINED, WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT A TAX CANNOT BE COLLECTED BY THE
BUYER'S STATE ON ORDERS SOLICITED IN ONE STATE, ACCEPTED IN ANOTHER,
AND SHIPPED AT THE PURCHASER'S RISK.  THAT LATER CLARIFYING HOLDING
SEEMS TO ME TO STATE THE TRUE RULE APPLICABLE HERE.  I CAN SEE NO
DIFFERENCE, CONSTITUTIONALLY, BETWEEN SOLICITATION BY SALESMEN IN A
BRANCH OFFICE OR ON THE ROAD.  SUCH SALES, CONSUMMATED BY DIRECT
SHIPMENT TO ILLINOIS BUYERS FROM OUT OF THE STATE ARE INTERSTATE
BUSINESS AND FREE OF THE TAX ILLINOIS HAS LEVIED.  SO FAR AS THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HOLDS THOSE TRANSACTIONS TAXABLE, IT SHOULD
BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I BELIEVE THE RESPONDENT REASONABLY ATTRIBUTED ALL OF THE PROCEEDS OF
PETITIONER'S SALES IN ILLINOIS TO THE COMPANY'S LOCAL ACTIVITIES.  I
THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT THAT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SHIPMENTS SENT DIRECTLY TO ILLINOIS CUSTOMERS ON ORDERS
SENT DIRECTLY TO WORCESTER WERE SUBJECT TO THE TAX. 

AS THE COURT POINTS OUT, PETITIONER CAN AVOID TAXATION ON ITS DIRECT
SALES ONLY "BY SHOWING THAT ...  (THEY) ARE DISSOCIATED FROM THE LOCAL
BUSINESS AND (ARE) INTERSTATE IN NATURE.  THE GENERAL RULE, APPLICABLE
HERE, IS THAT A TAXPAYER CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM A TAX HAS THE BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING HIS EXEMPTION."  PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO MEET THIS
BURDEN.  IN FACT ILLINOIS HAS SHOWN THAT PETITIONER'S CHICAGO OFFICE IS
ITS ONLY SOURCE OF CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP IN ILLINOIS; THAT THE CHICAGO
OFFICE PROVIDES THE SOLE MEANS THROUGH WHICH PETITIONER CAN BE REACHED
WITH PROCESS BY ILLINOIS COURTS IN THE EVENT A CUSTOMER IS AGGRIEVED;
THAT THE LOCAL OFFICE AFFORDS SERVICE TO MACHINES AFTER SALE, AS WELL
AS REPLACEMENT OF MACHINES WHICH ARE DEFECTIVE; THAT IT STANDS READY TO
RECEIVE COMPLAINTS AND TO OFFER ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ADVICE; AND
THAT THESE MULTITUDINOUS ACTIVITIES GIVE TO PETITIONER A LOCAL
CHARACTER WHICH IS MOST HELPFUL IN ALL ITS ILLINOIS OPERATIONS.  SURELY
THE COURT'S CONCLUSION, THAT "PETITIONER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH
SERVICES AS WERE RENDERED BY THE CHICAGO OFFICE WERE NOT DECISIVE
FACTORS IN ESTABLISHING AND HOLDING THIS MARKET," APPLIES WITH EQUAL
VALIDITY TO THE DIRECT SALES. 

IN MAINTAINING A LOCAL ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH MAGNITUDE, PETITIONER
HAS ADOPTED THE LABEL OF A HOME-TOWN MERCHANT.  AFTER IT HAS RECEIVED
THE MANIFOLD ADVANTAGES OF THAT LABEL, WE SHOULD NOT GIVE OUR SANCTION
TO ITS CLAIM MADE AT TAXPAYING TIME THAT WITH RESPECT TO DIRECT SALES
IT IS ONLY AN ITINERANT DRUMMER.  FOR THE FOREGOING AND OTHER REASONS
WHICH NEED NOT BE STATED, I WOULD AFFIRM IN ITS ENTIRETY THE JUDGMENT
BELOW.    MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS
OPINION. 
..END :














UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 340 U.S. 543 


ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 181 F.2D 967,
AFFIRMED.  - 87 U.S. APP. D.C. - , 183 F.2D 825, REVERSED. 


THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT EMPOWERS A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TO
REQUIRE THE UNITED STATES TO BE IMPLEADED AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT
AND TO ANSWER THE CLAIM OF A JOINT TORT-FEASOR FOR CONTRIBUTION AS IF
THE UNITED STATES WERE A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL.  PP. 544-557. 

1.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONSENTED TO BE SUED FOR CONTRIBUTION CLAIMED
BY A JOINT TORT-FEASOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES.  PP. 546
552. 

2.  THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT CARRIES THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT TO
BE SUED FOR CONTRIBUTION CLAIMED BY A JOINT TORT-FEASOR, NOT ONLY IN A
SEPARATE PROCEEDING BUT ALSO AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.  PP. 552-557. 

3.  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT THE ACT
REQUIRES CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO BE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY,
WHEREAS THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PRESERVES TO PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS THEIR RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY ON SUCH CLAIMS IN A FEDERAL
COURT.  PP. 555-557. 

UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO. 

NO. 218.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 204, CAPITAL TRANSIT CO. V. UNITED STATES, ON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE CASES ARE STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 218 IS
AFFIRMED AND THAT IN NO. 204 IS REVERSED, P. 557. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT  FN1
EMPOWERS A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TO REQUIRE THE UNITED STATES TO
BE IMPLEADED AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT AND TO ANSWER THE CLAIM OF A
JOINT TORT-FEASOR FOR CONTRIBUTION AS IF THE UNITED STATES WERE A
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL.  FOR THE REASONS HEREINAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT
IT DOES. 

                    NO. 218 - YELLOW CAB CASE. 

DECEMBER 1, 1946, IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, FOUR PASSENGERS IN A
TAXICAB WERE INJURED BY A COLLISION BETWEEN THE CAB AND A UNITED STATES
MAIL TRUCK.  CLAIMING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CHARGING NEGLIGENCE
ON THE PART OF THE CAB DRIVER, THEY SUED HIS EMPLOYER, THE YELLOW CAB
COMPANY, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.  BY LEAVE OF COURT, THE
COMPANY IMPLEADED THE UNITED STATES AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT AND
CHARGED THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE MAIL TRUCK DRIVER MADE THE UNITED
STATES LIABLE FOR ALL OR PART OF THE PASSENGERS' CLAIMS AGAINST THE
COMPANY.  THE UNITED STATES MOVED FOR ITS DISMISSAL AS A THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT DOES NOT
AUTHORIZE SUITS AGAINST IT ON DERIVATIVE CLAIMS.  THE MOTIONS WERE
DENIED.  THE COURT TRIED THE CASES TOGETHER, WITHOUT A JURY, AND
RENDERED JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE COMPANY TOTALING $7,800, BUT IN FAVOR OF
THE COMPANY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR ONE-HALF OF THE SEVERAL
AMOUNTS AWARDED THE PASSENGERS.  MOTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS AGAINST IT WERE DENIED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THOSE DENIALS.  HOWEY V. YELLOW CAB CO., 181
F.2D 967.  ON PETITION OF THE UNITED STATES, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
AFTER THE CAPITAL TRANSIT CASE, INFRA, HAD BEEN DECIDED THE OTHER WAY. 
340 U.S. 809. 

                  NO. 204 - CAPITAL TRANSIT CASE. 

AUGUST 4, 1947, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A PASSENGER ON A
STREETCAR WAS INJURED BY A COLLISION BETWEEN IT AND A JEEP OPERATED BY
A UNITED STATES SOLDIER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS DUTIES.  THE
PASSENGER, CHARGING NEGLIGENCE, SUED THE CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  BY LEAVE OF COURT, THE
COMPANY IMPLEADED THE UNITED STATES AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT,
CHARGING THAT THE SOLDIER'S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE OR A CONTRIBUTING
CAUSE OF THE COLLISION AND ASKING JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
FOR A CONTRIBUTABLE PORTION OF ANY SUM WHICH MIGHT BE AWARDED AGAINST
THE COMPANY IN FAVOR OF THE PASSENGER.  IN RESPONSE TO MOTIONS BY THE
UNITED STATES, THE COURT ENTERED A FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE THIRD
PARTY COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM UPON
WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  STRADLEY V.
CAPITAL TRANSIT CO., 87 F.SUPP.  94.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  87 U.S. APP. D.C. - , 183 F.2D
825.  IT REVIEWED THE OPINION IN HOWEY V. YELLOW CAB, SUPRA, AND
DISAGREED WITH IT.  SEE ALSO, SAPPINGTON V. BARRETT, 86 U.S. APP. D.C.
334, 182 F.2D 102.  ON PETITION OF THE COMPANY, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT OF DECISIONS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN
THE APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT.  340 U.S. 808. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONSENTED TO BE SUED FOR

           CONTRIBUTION. 

IN THE YELLOW CAB CASE THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT UNDER THE LAW
OF PENNSYLVANIA A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE LIABLE TO HIS JOINT TORT
FEASOR FOR CONTRIBUTION,  FN2  AND THAT THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, HAD CONSENTED TO BE SUED AND WOULD BE LIABLE,
UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME
EXTENT.  IN THE CAPITAL TRANSIT CASE, WHILE THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT
THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT BE IMPLEADED AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, IT
REFRAINED FROM DECIDING WHETHER, IN A SEPARATE ACTION, THE COMPANY
MIGHT ENFORCE A RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 
ACCORDINGLY, ALTHOUGH THE COURT AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE THIRD
PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, IT DID SO WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A SEPARATE ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION BY THE JOINT
TORT-FEASOR.  87 U.S. APP. D.C. AT - , 183 F.2D AT 830.  FN3 

THE GOVERNMENT NOW CONTENDS, IN BOTH CASES, THAT IT HAS NOT CONSENTED
TO BE SUED FOR CONTRIBUTION CLAIMED BY A JOINT TORT-FEASOR, EVEN IN A
SEPARATE ACTION.  WE THEREFORE DISCUSS THAT ISSUE FIRST. 

THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT WAIVES THE GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY FROM
SUIT IN SWEEPING LANGUAGE.  FN4  IT UNQUESTIONABLY WAIVES IT IN FAVOR
OF AN INJURED PERSON.  IT DOES THE SAME FOR AN INSURER WHOSE CLAIM HAS
BEEN SUBROGATED TO HIS.  UNITED STATES V. AETNA SURETY CO., 338 U.S.
366.  THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE ACT ALSO COVERS CLAIMS FOR
CONTRIBUTION WHICH WOULD BE DUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT IF THE GOVERNMENT
WERE A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL. 

ON ITS FACE THE ACT AMPLY COVERS SUCH CONSENT.  SECTION 410(A) WAIVES
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT ON - 

"ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, FOR MONEY ONLY, ACCRUING ON AND
AFTER JANUARY 1, 1945, ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY OR
ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENT OR
WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION OF ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT WHILE ACTING
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
THE UNITED STATES, IF A PRIVATE PERSON, WOULD BE LIABLE TO THE CLAIMANT
FOR SUCH DAMAGE, LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF
THE PLACE WHERE THE ACT OR OMISSION OCCURRED.  SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE, THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE LIABLE IN RESPECT
OF SUCH CLAIMS TO THE SAME CLAIMANTS, IN THE SAME MANNER, AND TO THE
SAME EXTENT AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES, EXCEPT
THAT THE UNITED STATES SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INTEREST PRIOR TO
JUDGMENT, OR FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES...."  60 STAT. 844, 28 U.S.C. (1946
ED.)  SEC.  931(A). 

THE WORDS "ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES  ...  ON ACCOUNT OF
PERSONAL INJURY" ARE BROAD WORDS IN COMMON USAGE.  THEY ARE NOT WORDS
OF ART. SECTION 421 LISTS 12 CLASSES OF CLAIMS TO WHICH THE WAIVER
SHALL NOT APPLY, BUT CLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION ARE NOT SO LISTED.  FN5 

THIS ACT DOES NOT SUBJECT THE GOVERNMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY UNRECOGNIZED
TYPE OF OBLIGATION.  THROUGH HUNDREDS OF PRIVATE RELIEF ACTS, EACH
CONGRESS FOR MANY YEARS HAS RECOGNIZED THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO
PAY CLAIMS ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY OR ON ACCOUNT OF
PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT OR WRONGFUL ACTS OF
EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS ACT MERELY SUBSTITUTES THE DISTRICT
COURTS FOR CONGRESS AS THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY AND AMOUNT
OF THE CLAIMS.  IT SUGGESTS NO REASON FOR READING INTO IT FINE
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN VARIOUS TYPES OF SUCH CLAIMS. 

DESPITE THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS REVIEWED
ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN AN ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT ITS SCOPE.  MOST OF
THAT HISTORY RELATES TO PERIODS PRIOR TO THE 2D SESSION OF THE 79TH
CONGRESS AT WHICH THE ACT WAS PASSED.  AFTER MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF
CONSIDERATION, THE SUBJECT WAS THEN PRESENTED TO CONGRESS IN A NEW
ASPECT.  FN6  THE BILL BECAME TITLE IV OF THE LEGISLATIVE
REORGANIZATION BILL OF 1946 AT A MOMENT WHEN THE OVERWHELMING PURPOSE
OF CONGRESS WAS TO MAKE CHANGES OF PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD ENABLE IT TO
DEVOTE MORE TIME TO MAJOR PUBLIC ISSUES.  FN7  THE REPORTS AT THAT
SESSION OMITTED PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WHICH TENDED TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE
OF THE TORT CLAIMS BILL.  THE PROCEEDINGS EMPHASIZED THE BENEFITS TO BE
DERIVED FROM RELIEVING CONGRESS OF THE PRESSURE OF PRIVATE CLAIMS. 
RECOGNIZING SUCH A CLEARLY DEFINED BREADTH OF PURPOSE FOR THE BILL AS A
WHOLE, AND THE GENERAL TREND TOWARD INCREASING THE SCOPE OF THE WAIVER
BY THE UNITED STATES OF ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, IT IS
INCONSISTENT TO WHITTLE IT DOWN BY REFINEMENTS.  FN8 

OF COURSE THERE IS NO IMMUNITY FROM SUIT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO COLLECT
CLAIMS FOR CONTRIBUTION DUE IT FROM ITS JOINT TORT-FEASORS.  THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THIS RIGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT NOT
ONLY IN A SEPARATE ACTION BUT BY IMPLEADING THE JOINT TORT-FEASOR AS A
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.  SEE 3 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE (2D ED. 1948)
507, ET SEQ. IT IS FAIR THAT THIS SHOULD WORK BOTH WAYS.  HOWEVER, IF
THE ACT IS INTERPRETED AS NOW URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT WOULD MEAN
THAT IF AN INJURED PARTY RECOVERED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THE
GOVERNMENT THEN COULD SUE ITS JOINT TORT-FEASOR FOR THE LATTER'S
CONTRIBUTORY SHARE OF THE DAMAGES (LOCAL SUBSTANTIVE LAW PERMITTING). 
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE INJURED PARTY RECOVERED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
PRIVATE TORT-FEASOR, IT WOULD MEAN THAT (DESPITE LOCAL SUBSTANTIVE LAW
FAVORING CONTRIBUTORY LIABILITY) THAT INDIVIDUAL COULD NOT SUE THE
GOVERNMENT FOR THE LATTER'S CONTRIBUTORY SHARE OF THE SAME DAMAGES. 
PRESUMABLY, THE CLAIMANT WOULD BE RELEGATED TO A PRIVATE BILL FOR
LEGISLATIVE RELIEF.  SUCH A RESULT SHOULD NOT BE READ INTO THIS ACT
WITHOUT A CLEARER STATEMENT OF IT THAN APPEARS HERE. 

WE FIND, THEREFORE, THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONSENTED TO BE SUED FOR
CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES - AT LEAST IN A
SEPARATE ACTION.  THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT
MAY BE IMPLEADED AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT. 

            THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONSENTED TO BE IMPLEADED AS

A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT IN AN ACTION FOR

CONTRIBUTION DUE A JOINT TORT-FEASOR. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT, EVEN IF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT
CARRIES THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT TO BE SUED IN A SEPARATE ACTION FOR
CONTRIBUTION DUE A JOINT TORT-FEASOR, IT DOES NOT CARRY CONSENT TO BE
IMPLEADED AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT TO MEET SUCH A CLAIM. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE NATURE OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF JOINT
TORT-FEASORS TO REQUIRE SUCH A PROCEDURAL DISTINCTION, NOR DOES THE ACT
STATE SUCH A REQUIREMENT.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE ACT EXPRESSLY MAKES THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE APPLICABLE,  FN9  AND RULE 14 PROVIDES
FOR THIRD-PARTY PRACTICE.  FN10 

THIS BRINGS THE INSTANT CASES WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE APPROVED IN UNITED
STATES V. AETNA SURETY CO., 338 U.S. 366, 383: 

"IN ARGUMENT BEFORE A NUMBER OF DISTRICT COURTS AND COURTS OF
APPEALS, THE GOVERNMENT RELIED UPON THE DOCTRINE THAT STATUTES WAIVING
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  WE THINK THAT THE
CONGRESSIONAL ATTITUDE IN PASSING THE TORT CLAIMS ACT IS MORE
ACCURATELY REFLECTED BY JUDGE CARDOZO'S STATEMENT IN ANDERSON V. HAYES
CONSTRUCTION CO., 243 N.Y. 140, 147, 153 N.E. 28, 29-30:  'THE
EXEMPTION OF THE SOVEREIGN FROM SUIT INVOLVES HARDSHIP ENOUGH WHERE
CONSENT HAS BEEN WITHHELD.  WE ARE NOT TO ADD TO ITS RIGOR BY
REFINEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION WHERE CONSENT HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED.'" 

ONCE WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT COVERS AN
ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION DUE A TORT-FEASOR, WE SHOULD NOT, BY REFINEMENT
OF CONSTRUCTION, LIMIT THAT CONSENT TO CASES WHERE THE PROCEDURE IS BY
SEPARATE ACTION AND DENY IT WHERE THE SAME RELIEF IS SOUGHT IN A THIRD
PARTY ACTION.  AS APPLIED TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK, JUDGE CARDOZO SAID
IN LANGUAGE WHICH IS APT HERE: "NO SENSIBLE REASON CAN BE IMAGINED WHY
THE STATE, HAVING CONSENTED TO BE SUED, SHOULD THUS PARALYZE THE
REMEDY."  243 N.Y. AT 147, 153 N.E. AT 29.  "A SENSE OF JUSTICE HAS
BROUGHT A PROGRESSIVE RELAXATION BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS OF THE RIGOR
OF THE IMMUNITY RULE.  AS REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTS ATTEMPT TO
AMELIORATE INEQUALITIES AS NECESSITIES WILL PERMIT, PREROGATIVES OF THE
GOVERNMENT YIELD TO THE NEEDS OF THE CITIZEN.  ...  WHEN AUTHORITY IS
GIVEN, IT IS LIBERALLY CONSTRUED."  UNITED STATES V. SHAW, 309 U.S.
495, 501. 

THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT DIFFICULT PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS MAY ARISE
IN OTHER CASES IF A WAIVER OF IMMUNITY IS HELD TO EXIST IN THESE
CASES.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE ACT REQUIRES CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
TO BE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY AND, ALTHOUGH A JURY WAS NOT INSISTED UPON
IN THE INSTANT CASES, THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
PRESERVES TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS THEIR RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY ON SUCH
CLAIMS IN A FEDERAL COURT.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE ACT IS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO PERMIT TWO SUCH DIFFERENT MODES OF TRIAL TO
ARISE IN THE SAME CASE. 

SUCH DIFFICULTIES ARE NOT INSURMOUNTABLE.  FN11  IF, FOR EXAMPLE, A
JURY HAD BEEN DEMANDED IN THE YELLOW CAB CASE, THE DECISION OF JURY AND
NONJURY ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED IN A MANNER COMPARABLE TO THAT
USED WHEN ISSUES OF LAW ARE TRIED TO A JURY AND ISSUES OF AN EQUITABLE
NATURE IN THE SAME CASE ARE TRIED BY THE COURT ALONE.  FN12  IF SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES HAD DEMONSTRATED THE INADVISABILITY, IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, OF IMPLEADING THE UNITED STATES AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT,
THE LEAVE OF COURT REQUIRED BY RULE 14 COULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.  FN13
IF, AT A LATER STAGE, THE SITUATION HAD CALLED FOR A SEPARATION OF THE
CLAIMS, THE COURT COULD HAVE ORDERED THEIR SEPARATE TRIAL.  FED. RULES
CIV. PROC., 42(B).  THE AVAILABILITY OF THIRD-PARTY PROCEDURE IS
INTENDED TO FACILITATE, NOT TO PRECLUDE, THE TRIAL OF MULTIPLE CLAIMS
WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD BE TRIABLE ONLY IN SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS.  THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND
FOR SO LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE ACT AS TO PRECLUDE ITS APPLICATION TO
ALL CASES OF CONTRIBUTION OR EVEN TO ALL CASES OF CONTRIBUTION ARISING
UNDER THIRD-PARTY PRACTICE.  IF THE ACT DEVELOPS UNANTICIPATED
COMPLICATIONS, CONGRESS CAN THEN MEET THEM TO SUCH EXTENT AS IT MAY
DESIRE TO FIT THE DEMONSTRATED NEEDS. 

WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT CARRIES THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT TO BE SUED FOR CONTRIBUTION NOT ONLY IN A SEPARATE
PROCEEDING BUT ALSO AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT. 

THE YELLOW CAB CASE IS AFFIRMED.  THE CAPITAL TRANSIT CASE IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  NO. 218, AFFIRMED.  NO. 204, REVERSED
AND REMANDED. 

FN1  TITLE IV OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946, 60 STAT.
812, 842-847, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SECS.  921-946.  UNDER THE REVISION
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, 62 STAT. 869, ET
SEQ., THESE PROVISIONS NOW APPEAR, WITH SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS, IN 28
U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III) SECS. 1291, 1346(B), 1402(B), 1504, 2110,
2401(B), 2402, 2411, 2412 AND 2671-2680. 

FN2  PA. LAWS 1939, NO. 376; PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., TIT. 12, SEC.
2081(CUM.  POCKET PART 1949); AND SEE GOLDMAN V. MITCHELL-FLETCHER CO.,
292 PA. 354, 141 A. 231; FISHER V. DIEHL, 156 PA. SUPER.  476, 482, 40
A.2D 912, 916.  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SEE KNELL V. FELTMAN, 85
U.S. APP. D.C. 22, 174 F.2D 662; GEORGE'S RADIO V. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO.,
75 U.S. APP. D.C. 187, 126 F.2D 219.  NO QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES AS THE LAW UNDER WHICH THE
LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS TO BE DETERMINED IF ITS IMMUNITY FROM
SUIT HAS BEEN WAIVED. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT WENT FURTHER.  IT STATED THAT IT FOUND
"NOTHING WITHIN THE LETTER OF THE STATUTE CONSTITUTING A WAIVER OF
IMMUNITY IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR
CONTRIBUTION IN ACTIONS IN TORT."  87 F.SUPP.  AT 95. 

FN4  "SEC.  410.  (A)  SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE, THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT WHEREIN THE PLAINTIFF IS
RESIDENT OR WHEREIN THE ACT OR OMISSION COMPLAINED OF OCCURRED  ...
SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR,
DETERMINE, AND RENDER JUDGMENT ON ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,
FOR MONEY ONLY, ACCRUING ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1945, ON ACCOUNT OF
DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY OR ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH
CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENT OR WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION OF ANY EMPLOYEE OF
THE GOVERNMENT WHILE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICE OR
EMPLOYMENT, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE UNITED STATES, IF A PRIVATE
PERSON, WOULD BE LIABLE TO THE CLAIMANT FOR SUCH DAMAGE, LOSS, INJURY,
OR DEATH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ACT OR
OMISSION OCCURRED.  SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE, THE UNITED
STATES SHALL BE LIABLE IN RESPECT OF SUCH CLAIMS TO THE SAME CLAIMANTS,
IN THE SAME MANNER, AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES, EXCEPT THAT THE UNITED STATES SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE FOR INTEREST PRIOR TO JUDGMENT, OR FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.  COSTS
SHALL BE ALLOWED IN ALL COURTS TO THE SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS IF THE UNITED STATES WERE A PRIVATE LITIGANT, EXCEPT THAT
SUCH COSTS SHALL NOT INCLUDE ATTORNEYS' FEES.  ...  "  60 STAT. 843
844, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  931(A). 

A PROVISO AS TO DEATH CASES, INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION BY 61 STAT.
722, AS OF AUGUST 2, 1946, IS NOT MATERIAL HERE. 

EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WERE REPEALED AND
THEIR SUBSTANCE, MATERIAL HERE, WAS LARGELY REENACTED IN 28 U.S.C.
(1946 ED., SUPP. III) SECS. 1346(B), 1402(B), 2402 AND 2674.  WE RELY
ON THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORIGINAL ACT AND READ THE REVISED
LANGUAGE AS CARRYING IT OUT.  INSOFAR AS THE CHANGES ARE MATERIAL HERE,
THE REVISER'S NOTE MERELY STATED THAT "MINOR CHANGES WERE MADE IN
PHRASEOLOGY."  H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. A123. 
FURTHERMORE, THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF IN THE INSTANT CASES OCCURRED
BEFORE THE REVISED CODE BECAME EFFECTIVE AND THE PARTIES TREAT THE
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AS APPLICABLE.  "ANY RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES NOW
EXISTING UNDER SUCH (REPEALED) SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF SHALL NOT BE
AFFECTED BY THIS REPEAL."  62 STAT. 992, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948. 

FN5  "WHERE A STATUTE CONTAINS A CLEAR AND SWEEPING WAIVER OF
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT ON ALL CLAIMS WITH CERTAIN WELL DEFINED EXCEPTIONS,
RESORT TO THAT RULE (OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION) CANNOT BE HAD IN ORDER TO
ENLARGE THE EXCEPTIONS."  EMPLOYERS' FIRE INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
167 F.2D 655, 657.  SEE ALSO, OLD COLONY INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 168
F.2D 931, 933. 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FAILURE TO LIST A CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION AS
EXCEPTED FROM THE WAIVER IS EMPHASIZED BY SUCH EXCEPTIONS AS THE
FOLLOWING: 

"(A)  ANY CLAIM BASED UPON AN ACT OR OMISSION OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
GOVERNMENT, EXERCISING DUE CARE, IN THE EXECUTION OF A STATUTE OR
REGULATION, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH STATUTE OR REGULATION BE VALID  ... 

     .       .         .         .         . 

"(H)  ANY CLAIM ARISING OUT OF ASSAULT, BATTERY, FALSE IMPRISONMENT,
FALSE ARREST, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, ABUSE OF PROCESS, LIBEL, SLANDER,
MISREPRESENTATION, DECEIT, OR INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT RIGHTS.  ...
"  60 STAT. 845, 846, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  943(A) AND (H), SEE
28 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III) SEC. 2680(A) AND (H). 

FN6  THE ONLY ACT PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED IN THIS FIELD WAS THE SMALL TORT
CLAIMS ACT OF DECEMBER 28, 1922.  IT MERELY AUTHORIZED HEADS OF
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENTS TO GIVE SUMMARY
RELIEF ON "ANY CLAIM ACCRUING AFTER APRIL 6, 1917, ON ACCOUNT OF
DAMAGES TO OR LOSS OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE
CLAIM DOES NOT EXCEED $1,000, CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OFFICER
OR EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT.  ...  "  42 STAT. 1066, 31 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  215;
SEE 60 STAT. 843, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  921, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.,
SUPP. III) SEC. 2672. 

MANY BILLS TO ENLARGE THE WAIVER OF IMMUNITY WERE INTRODUCED BUT NOT
PASSED.  SEE BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 49, 51; GOTTLIEB, THE
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT - A STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 35 GEO. L.J. 1
8(1946-1947). 

FN7  THE SPECIAL SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS,
WHICH REPORTED THE BILL, REFERRED TO THIS TITLE IV AS FOLLOWS:  "IT IS
COMPLEMENTARY TO THE PROVISION IN TITLE I BANNING PRIVATE BILLS AND
RESOLUTIONS IN CONGRESS, LEAVING CLAIMANTS TO THEIR REMEDY UNDER THIS
TITLE."  S. REP. NO. 1400(ON S. 2177), 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 29.  THAT
PROVISION WAS:

                         "PRIVATE BILLS BANNED 

"SEC. 131.  NO PRIVATE BILL OR RESOLUTION (INCLUDING SO-CALLED
OMNIBUS CLAIMS OR PENSION BILLS), AND NO AMENDMENT TO ANY BILL OR
RESOLUTION, AUTHORIZING OR DIRECTING (1) THE PAYMENT OF MONEY FOR
PROPERTY DAMAGES, FOR PERSONAL INJURIES OR DEATH FOR WHICH SUIT MAY BE
INSTITUTED UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, OR FOR A PENSION (OTHER
THAN TO CARRY OUT A PROVISION OF LAW OR TREATY STIPULATION); (2) THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE ACROSS A NAVIGABLE STREAM; OR (3) THE
CORRECTION OF A MILITARY OR NAVAL RECORD, SHALL BE RECEIVED OR
CONSIDERED IN EITHER THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES."  60
STAT. 831. 

FN8  THE BROAD LINES OF THE TREND IN WAIVING THE IMMUNITY OF THE
UNITED STATES FROM SUIT APPEAR FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT OF FEB. 24,
1855, 10 STAT. 612, SEE 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III) SEC. 171, ET
SEQ.; TUCKER ACT OF MAR. 3, 1887, 24 STAT. 505, SEE 28 U.S.C. (1946
ED., SUPP. III) SEC. 1491, ET SEQ.; PATENT INFRINGEMENT ACT OF JUNE 25,
1910, 36 STAT. 851, AS AMENDED, 35 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  68; SUITS
IN ADMIRALTY ACT OF MAR. 9, 1920, 41 STAT. 525, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C.
(1946 ED.)  SEC.  741, ET SEQ.; SMALL TORT CLAIMS ACT OF DEC. 28, 1922,
42 STAT. 1066, SEE 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. III) SEC. 2672; PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT OF MAR. 3, 1925, AS AMENDED, 43 STAT. 1112, 46 U.S.C. (1946
ED.)  SEC.  781, ET SEQ. SEE ALSO, SHUMATE, TORT CLAIMS AGAINST STATE
GOVERNMENTS, 9 LAW AND CONTEMP.  PROB.  (1942) 242; CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE STATES, VOL. VIII, SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
AGAINST THE STATES, PUBLISHED BY THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
(1950). 

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE EARLIER LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS
PARTICULAR BILL LOSE FORCE BY THEIR OMISSION FROM THE 1946 REPORT AND
DISCUSSION.  HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING COMMENT MADE IN 1942 BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, THEN IN CHARGE OF THE BILL, IS OF SOME
SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE REASON THAT IT RELATES TO THE EFFECT OF THE
OMISSION OF A CERTAIN PROVISION, AND THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO REFER
AGAIN TO THAT OMISSION IN 1946: 

"SECTION 403 OF THE SENATE BILL PROVIDED FOR PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY
OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WAS A JOINT TORTFEASOR
WITH SOMEONE ELSE.  THIS PROVISION IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE RECOMMENDED
BILL AND IN CASES INVOLVING JOINT TORT-FEASORS THE RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL LAW." 
H.R. REP. NO. 2245, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 12. 

THIS RECOGNIZES THAT WITH THE PROVISION FOR PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY
ELIMINATED, AS IS STILL THE CASE, THE IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WAIVED IN RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHTS
AND LIABILITIES IN CASES INVOLVING JOINT TORT-FEASORS. 

IN THE SAME REPORT, AT PAGE 9, THE COMMITTEE MADE STATEMENTS WHICH
ARE RELIED UPON BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ARGUMENT, AS ASSIMILATING THE
PROPOSED JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT
CLAIMS ACT TO THEIR EXISTING JURISDICTION UNDER THE TUCKER ACT.  BASED
ON SUCH ASSIMILATION, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT BE
JOINED AS A DEFENDANT UNDER THE NEW ACT BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE SO
JOINED UNDER THE TUCKER ACT.  THESE STATEMENTS WERE REPEATED IN THE
REPORT OF THE SAME COMMITTEE IN 1945.  H.R. REP. NO. 1287(ON H.R. 181),
79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 5.  THE STATEMENTS, HOWEVER, WERE ENTIRELY
OMITTED FROM EVEN THE SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURE WHEN IN 1946 IT
WAS INCORPORATED IN THE REORGANIZATION BILL AND THE REPORT ON IT WAS
MADE BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS.  S. REP.
NO. 1400(ON S. 2177), 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 29-34.  THE OMITTED COMMENTS
RELATED TO THE JOINDER OF THE UNITED STATES AS A CO-DEFENDANT, RATHER
THAN AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.  WE NOTE ALSO THAT THE TORT CLAIMS ACT
SUBSTANTIALLY BROADENS THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS AS
COMPARED TO THAT PROVIDED BY THE TUCKER ACT.  UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT
THEIR JURISDICTION IS UNLIMITED IN AMOUNT INSTEAD OF BEING RESTRICTED
TO CLAIMS NOT EXCEEDING $10,000; IT IS EXCLUSIVE OF, RATHER THAN
CONCURRENT WITH, THAT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, AND THE DISTRICT COURT
PROCEDURE IS EXPRESSLY MADE SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE RATHER THAN TO THE TUCKER ACT. 

FN9 "SEC.  411.  IN ACTIONS UNDER THIS PART (SUITS ON TORT CLAIMS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES), THE FORMS OF PROCESS, WRITS, PLEADINGS, AND
MOTIONS, AND THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE RULES PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF JUNE
19, 1934(48 STAT. 1064)(FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE); AND THE SAME
PROVISIONS FOR COUNTERCLAIM AND SET-OFF, FOR INTEREST UPON JUDGMENTS,
AND FOR PAYMENT OF JUDGMENTS, SHALL BE APPLICABLE AS IN CASES BROUGHT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS UNDER THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887(24
STAT. 505)(TUCKER ACT)."  60 STAT. 844, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 
932. 

THE ABOVE REFERENCES TO THE SPECIFIC INSTANCES IN WHICH THE TUCKER
ACT PROCEDURE IS TO CONTROL UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT EMPHASIZE
THE APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE UNDER ALL OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IN THE REVISION OF TITLE 28, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THIS
PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT SHALL APPLY TO ALL CIVIL
ACTIONS."  S. REP. NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 12, AS TO AMENDMENT
NO. 61. 

FN10            "RULE 14.  THIRD-PARTY PRACTICE. 

"(A)  WHEN DEFENDANT MAY BRING IN THIRD PARTY.  BEFORE THE SERVICE OF
HIS ANSWER A DEFENDANT MAY MOVE EX PARTE OR, AFTER THE SERVICE OF HIS
ANSWER, ON NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF, FOR LEAVE AS A THIRD-PARTY
PLAINTIFF TO SERVE A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT UPON A PERSON NOT A PARTY TO
THE ACTION WHO IS OR MAY BE LIABLE TO HIM FOR ALL OR PART OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AGAINST HIM.  IF THE MOTION IS GRANTED AND THE
SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ARE SERVED, THE PERSON SO SERVED, HEREINAFTER
CALLED THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, SHALL MAKE HIS DEFENSES TO THE THIRD
PARTY PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AS PROVIDED IN RULE 12  ...  THE THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANT MAY ASSERT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF ANY DEFENSES WHICH THE THIRD
PARTY PLAINTIFF HAS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM.  ...  "  (THE AMENDMENTS
WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE MARCH 19, 1948, AND ARE INCLUDED HERE, MADE NO
CHANGES THAT ARE MATERIAL IN THE INSTANT CASES.) 

RULE 20 SIMILARLY PROVIDES FOR THE PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF PARTIES. 

FN11  SEE ENGLEHARDT V. UNITED STATES, 69 F.SUPP.  451(D.C. MD.);
NEWSUM V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 79 F.SUPP.  225(D.C.S.D.N.Y.)(THIRD
PARTY PRACTICE); MARYLAND V. MANOR REAL ESTATE & TRUST CO., 83 F.SUPP. 
91(D.C. MD.), REV'D IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS, 176 F.2D 414; RIVERS V.
BAUER, 79 F.SUPP.  403(D.C.E.D. PA.), AFF'D, 175 F.2D 774; AND BULLOCK
V. UNITED STATES, 72 F.SUPP.  445(D.C.N.J.); ALSO 3 MOORE'S FEDERAL
PRACTICE (2D ED. 1948) 2737-2738; HULEN, SUITS ON TORT CLAIMS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, 7 F.R.D. (1948) 699-700; AND NOTE, JOINDER OF THE
GOVERNMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, 59 YALE L.J. 1515
1521(1950).  CONTRA:  PRECHTL V. UNITED STATES, 84 F.SUPP. 
889(D.C.W.D.N.Y.); DONOVAN V. MCKENNA, 80 F.SUPP.  690(D.C. MASS.);
UARTE V. UNITED STATES, 7 F.R.D. 705(D.C.S.D. CALIF.), AFF'D ON OTHER
GROUNDS, 175 F.2D 110; DRUMMOND V. UNITED STATES, 78 F.SUPP. 
730(D.C.E.D. VA.).    FN12  SEE RYAN DISTRIBUTING CORP. V. CALEY, 51
F.SUPP.  377(D.C.E.D. PA.)(IN PATENT LITIGATION, CLAIM OF DAMAGES FOR
INFRINGEMENT WAS TRIED BY JURY AND PETITION FOR INJUNCTION WAS PASSED
ON BY THE COURT); FORD V. WILSON & CO., 30 F.SUPP.  163(D.C.
CONN.)(LEGAL ISSUES TO JURY, EQUITY ISSUES TO THE COURT); MUNKACSY V.
WARNER BROS. PICTURES, 2 F.R.D. 380(D.C.E.D.N.Y.)(LIBEL ISSUE BY JURY;
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS WHERE JURY WAS NOT DEMANDED WAS TRIED BY THE
COURT); MEALY V. FIDELITY NATIONAL BANK, 2 F.R.D. 339(D.C.E.D.N.Y.)(TWO
CAUSES OF ACTION TRIED BY COURT AND THIRD BY JURY); ELKINS V. NOBEL, 1
F.R.D. 357(D.C.E.D.N.Y.)(ONE CAUSE OF ACTION TRIED BY COURT AND THREE
BY JURY).  SEE ALSO, FED. RULES CIV. PROC., 38(C), 39 AND 42. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT. 
..END :










EMICH MOTORS V. GENERAL MOTORS, 340 U.S. 558 


NO. 209.  ARGUED JANUARY 3-4, 1951.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 181
F.2D 70, MODIFIED. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT TO RECOVER TREBLE
DAMAGES FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED BY REASON OF A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT
OF TRADE, PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED UNDER SEC. 5 TO INTRODUCE A PRIOR
CRIMINAL JUDGMENT BASED ON A CONVICTION OF DEFENDANTS FOR THE SAME
CONSPIRACY, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE ALL MATTERS OF FACT AND
LAW NECESSARILY DECIDED BY THE CONVICTION AND THE VERDICT ON WHICH IT
WAS BASED.  PP. 566-569. 

2.  WHERE THE CRIMINAL JUDGMENT RESTS ON A GENERAL VERDICT OF THE
JURY, WHAT WAS DECIDED BY THAT JUDGMENT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL
JUDGE HEARING THE TREBLE DAMAGE SUIT, UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE
RECORD, INCLUDING THE PLEADINGS, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, THE
INSTRUCTIONS UNDER WHICH THE JURY ARRIVED AT ITS VERDICT, AND ANY
OPINIONS OF THE COURT.  P. 569. 

3.  THE CRIMINAL JUDGMENT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WAS PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE OF A GENERAL CONSPIRACY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MONOPOLIZING THE
FINANCING OF GENERAL MOTORS CARS, AND ALSO OF THE EFFECTUATION OF THAT
CONSPIRACY BY COERCING GENERAL MOTORS DEALERS TO USE ITS SUBSIDIARY
FINANCE COMPANY'S SERVICES.  PP. 570-571. 

4.  IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THEIR PRIMA FACIE CASE, IT THEREFORE WAS
ONLY NECESSARY FOR PLAINTIFFS TO INTRODUCE, IN ADDITION TO THE CRIMINAL
JUDGMENT, EVIDENCE OF THE IMPACT OF THE CONSPIRACY ON THEM AND EVIDENCE
OF ANY RESULTING DAMAGES.  P. 571. 

5.  WHAT ISSUES WERE DECIDED BY THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS A QUESTION
OF LAW ON WHICH THE JUDGE MUST INSTRUCT THE JURY.  HE SHOULD (1)
EXAMINE THE RECORD TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES DECIDED BY THAT JUDGMENT;
(2) IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY RECONSTRUCT THAT CASE IN THE MANNER
AND TO THE EXTENT HE DEEMS NECESSARY TO ACQUAINT THE JURY FULLY WITH
THE ISSUES DETERMINED THEREIN; AND (3) EXPLAIN THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF
THE FORMER JUDGMENT ON THE CASE AT TRIAL.  PP. 571-572. 

EMICH MOTORS CORP. ET AL. V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS TO
MODIFY ITS JUDGMENT, P. 572. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT  FN1  TO
RECOVER TREBLE DAMAGES FOR INJURIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED BY
REASON OF A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, SEC. 1..  FN2  PLAINTIFFS, PETITIONERS HERE, ARE EMICH
MOTORS CORPORATION, A FORMER DEALER IN CHEVROLET CARS, AND ITS RELATED
FINANCE COMPANY, U.S. ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION.  RESPONDENTS ARE GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY FINANCE COMPANY,
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION (GMAC). 

PRIOR TO THIS ACTION RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN CONVICTED IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA ON AN INDICTMENT
CHARGING THEM, AND CERTAIN OF THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS WHO WERE
ACQUITTED, WITH A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE IN
GENERAL MOTORS CARS.  AT TRIAL IN THE INSTANT CASE PETITIONERS WERE
PERMITTED TO INTRODUCE THE ANTECEDENT CRIMINAL INDICTMENT, VERDICT AND
JUDGMENT AS EVIDENCE UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, WHICH PROVIDES IN
PART THAT 

"A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE RENDERED IN ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR
IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO THE EFFECT THAT A DEFENDANT
HAS VIOLATED SAID LAWS SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST SUCH
DEFENDANT IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY ANY OTHER PARTY AGAINST
SUCH DEFENDANT UNDER SAID LAWS AS TO ALL MATTERS RESPECTING WHICH SAID
JUDGMENT OR DECREE WOULD BE AN ESTOPPEL AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES THERETO
... "  FN3 

A JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT PARTLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
THE USE IT PERMITTED THE JURY TO MAKE OF EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THE
PRIOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  181 F.2D 70(1950).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
LIMITING REVIEW TO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AS TO THE SCOPE OF SEC. 5 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT.  340 U.S. 808(1950), REHEARING DENIED 340 U.S. 894(1950). 

              I. 

THE RELEVANT FACTS AS TO THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST RESPONDENTS
MAY BE STATED BRIEFLY.  THE CHARGE OF THE INDICTMENT WAS SUMMARIZED ON
APPEAL AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  PARAGRAPH 34 CHARGES  ...  A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN UNDULY
THE INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE IN GENERAL MOTORS AUTOMOBILES. 
PARAGRAPH 35 STATES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS TO
MONOPOLIZE AND CONTROL THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING THE TRADE AND COMMERCE
IN NEW AND USED GENERAL MOTORS AUTOMOBILES.  PARAGRAPH 70 ALLEGES THAT
DEALERS HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE DEFENDANTS' COERCIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO
SAVE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS IN THEIR BUSINESSES, PARAGRAPH 71 STATES
THAT THE EFFECT OF THE CONSPIRACY HAS BEEN TO RESTRAIN AND BURDEN
UNREASONABLY THE INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE IN GENERAL MOTORS
AUTOMOBILES, AND PARAGRAPH 72 IS A RESTATEMENT OF PARAGRAPH 34. 

"THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT EMBRACED WITHIN THE ILLEGAL CONCERT OF ACTION
IS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS 36 TO 67 OF THE INDICTMENT  ...  :  (1)
REQUIRING DEALERS TO PROMISE TO USE GMAC EXCLUSIVELY AS A CONDITION TO
OBTAINING A FRANCHISE FOR THE SALE, TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY OF
AUTOMOBILES; (2) MAKING CONTRACTS FOR SHORT PERIODS AND CANCELLABLE
WITHOUT CAUSE, CANCELING OR THREATENING TO CANCEL SUCH CONTRACTS UNLESS
GMAC FACILITIES ARE USED; (3) DISCRIMINATING AGAINST DEALERS NOT USING
GMAC BY REFUSING TO DELIVER CARS WHEN ORDERED, DELAYING SHIPMENT AND
SHIPPING CARS OF DIFFERENT NUMBER, MODEL, COLOR AND STYLE; (4)
COMPELLING DEALERS TO DISCLOSE HOW THEY FINANCE THEIR WHOLESALE
PURCHASES AND RETAIL SALES, EXAMINING AND INSPECTING DEALERS' BOOKS AND
ACCOUNTS IN ORDER TO PROCURE THIS INFORMATION, AND REQUIRING DEALERS TO
JUSTIFY THEIR USING OTHER FINANCING MEDIA; (5) GIVING SPECIAL FAVORS TO
DEALERS USING THE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL FACILITIES OF GMAC; (6) GRANTING
SPECIAL FAVORS TO GMAC WHICH ARE DENIED TO OTHER DISCOUNT COMPANIES;
(7) GIVING DEALERS A REBATE FROM THE GMAC FINANCE CHARGE PAID BY THE
RETAIL PURCHASER, IN ORDER TO INDUCE USE OF GMAC FINANCING FACILITIES;
AND (8) COMPELLING DEALERS TO REFRAIN FROM USING OTHER FINANCE
COMPANIES BY ALL OTHER NECESSARY, APPROPRIATE OR EFFECTIVE MEANS."  FN4
THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT NEED NOT PROVE ALL OF SOME TWENTY-SIX ACTS ALLEGED IN THE
INDICTMENT AS THE MEANS OF EFFECTING THE CONSPIRACY.  THE JURY RENDERED
A GENERAL VERDICT FINDING THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS GUILTY AND
ACQUITTING ALL INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS.  MAXIMUM FINES WERE ASSESSED
AGAINST EACH OF THE CORPORATIONS.  THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 121 F.2D 376(1941). 
THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 618(1941), REHEARING DENIED 314
U.S. 710(1941). 

AMONG THE ALMOST 50 DEALERS AND FORMER DEALERS WHOSE TESTIMONY THE
GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION WAS FRED EMICH, WHO OWNED
OR CONTROLLED THE CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE PETITIONERS HERE.  ON THE
CRIMINAL APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS THUS REVIEWED HIS TESTIMONY: 

"FRED EMICH WAS A CHEVROLET DEALER AT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, FROM 1932 TO
1936 AND HE OWNED HIS OWN FINANCE COMPANY TO FACILITATE HIS PURCHASES
AND SALES, A COURSE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT WHICH DISPLEASED GMAC.  HE
RECEIVED UNORDERED CARS AND TRUCKS IN 1933, AND THE CITY MANAGER OF
CHEVROLET INFORMED HIM THAT SHIPMENT OF UNORDERED CARS WOULD CEASE AS
SOON AS HE WOULD GIVE SOME OF HIS TIME SALES FINANCE PAPER TO GMAC.  HE
GAVE GMAC AROUND 10% OF HIS BUSINESS IN 1934 AND BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH
THE VISITS OF GMAC AND CHEVROLET REPRESENTATIVES.  THE ZONE MANAGER
WARNED HIM AT THE 1935 CONTRACT RENEWAL MEETING TO THE EFFECT THAT IF
HE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE AS A CHEVROLET DEALER HE HAD BETTER USE GMAC AT
LEAST 50%.  AGAIN HE EXPERIENCED DIFFICULTIES WITH CHEVROLET.  THIS
TIME CARS OF WRONG COLORS AND MODELS WERE SHIPPED TO HIM AND UNORDERED
ACCESSORIES IN GREAT QUANTITIES WERE FORCED UPON HIM.  IN ADDITION HE
WAS REQUIRED TO SEND BLANK CHECKS TO THE FACTORY BEFORE CARS WERE
SHIPPED TO HIM.  HE WAS TOLD BY THE GMAC REPRESENTATIVE THAT THESE
PROBLEMS WOULD DISAPPEAR IF HE USED GMAC.  IN 1936 EMICH WAS GIVEN HIS
'LAST WARNING,' THE ZONE MANAGER TELLING HIM THAT HE WAS GOING TO MAKE
AN EXAMPLE OF EMICH FOR HIS FAILURE TO USE GMAC.  NOT LONG THEREAFTER
EMICH WAS CANCELLED AS A DEALER, AND HE APPEALED TO THE PRESIDENT OF
GENERAL MOTORS WHERE HE PLEADED THAT IN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS HE HAD
DONE A GROSS BUSINESS OF AROUND $3,000,000.  THE PRESIDENT OF GENERAL
MOTORS TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD BEEN CANCELLED BECAUSE HE DID NOT USE GMAC,
THAT IT WAS THE POLICY OF THE CORPORATION TO REQUIRE DEALERS TO USE
GMAC, AND THAT IF EMICH WOULD NOT AGREE TO USE GMAC IT WOULD BE USELESS
FOR THE PRESIDENT OF GENERAL MOTORS TO DISCUSS HIS REINSTATEMENT  ...
"  FN5

                          II. 

IN THEIR COMPLAINT PETITIONERS ALLEGE THAT RESPONDENTS UNLAWFULLY
CONSPIRED IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE IN GENERAL MOTORS CARS; THAT
THE CONSPIRACY SO ALLEGED IS THE SAME AS THAT CHARGED AGAINST
RESPONDENTS AND OF WHICH THEY WERE CONVICTED IN THE ANTECEDENT CRIMINAL
ACTION, A COPY OF THE INDICTMENT THEREIN BEING ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT;
THAT PURSUANT TO THIS CONSPIRACY RESPONDENTS INJURED PETITIONERS'
BUSINESSES BY ONE OR MORE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTS SET FORTH IN SAID
INDICTMENT, MORE PARTICULARLY BY TERMINATING OR CANCELLING OR
THREATENING TO TERMINATE OR CANCEL THE DEALER FRANCHISE CONTRACTS OF
EMICH MOTORS, WHICH HAD FINANCED THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF CARS THROUGH
U.S. ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION RATHER THAN THROUGH GMAC.  RESPONDENTS DENY
ANY CONSPIRACY; THEY ADMIT CANCELLATION OF THE FRANCHISES BUT ASSERT
THAT SUCH ACTION WAS JUSTIFIED BY EMICH MOTORS' FAILURE TO PERFORM
CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS THEREUNDER, AS WELL AS ITS PERSISTENCE IN A COURSE
OF CONDUCT INIMICAL TO THE INTEREST OF GENERAL MOTORS IN PROMOTING THE
SALE OF CHEVROLET CARS. 

IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THEIR PRIMA FACIE CASE UNDER SEC. 5,
PETITIONERS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE THE SIX-VOLUME RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND
EXHIBITS IN THE CRIMINAL CASE.  THE COURT HELD IT INADMISSIBLE AS
EVIDENCE FOR THE JURY, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT IMPORTANT HERE. 
HOWEVER, OVER RESPONDENTS' OBJECTION, THE COURT ADMITTED, AS EXHIBITS
TO GO TO THE JURY, THE INDICTMENT, VERDICT AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
IN THE CRIMINAL CASE. 

IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS THE TRIAL JUDGE SUMMARIZED THE CRIMINAL
INDICTMENT, THE COMPLAINT OF PETITIONERS, AND RESPONDENTS' ANSWER.  HE
THEN INSTRUCTED THAT THE 

"  ...  JUDGMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS  ...  IS ADMITTED AS
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT (RESPONDENTS) DID
ENTER INTO AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS
...  IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT  ...  " 

AFTER EXPLAINING THE TERM "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE," THE COURT THEN
SUMMARIZED SEC. 5 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AND CHARGED THAT 

"  ...  IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ALL OF THE
ACTS ALLEGED IN THE SEPARATE SECTIONS OF THE INDICTMENT.  ...  NOR IS
IT NECESSARY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS TO PROVE ALL THE ACTS CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT FOR YOU TO FIND THAT THE CONSPIRACY ALLEGED DID EXIST. 

"THE JUDGMENT IN THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS
CASE, PURSUANT TO THE LAW TO WHICH I HAVE JUST REFERRED, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE PLAINTIFF MAKING A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST THE
DEFENDANTS AS TO ONE OF THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE AND ONLY AND SOLELY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING, DESCRIBING, AND LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE
JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT WHICH WAS ENTERED IN THAT CASE, NAMELY, THE
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 

"THE BURDEN IS ON THE PLAINTIFFS OF ESTABLISHING BY A PREPONDERANCE
OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE INJURED BY THE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO OR
IN THE COURSE OF A CONSPIRACY AND IN ORDER TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE
CANCELLATION OF THE CHEVROLET FRANCHISES THEY MUST PROVE BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE CRIMINAL JUDGMENT THAT THE
DEFENDANTS ENTERED INTO A CONSPIRACY TO COMPEL THE USE OF GENERAL
MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION BY AGREEING AMONG THEMSELVES, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, TO CANCEL DEALERS WHO FAILED OR REFUSED TO USE GENERAL MOTORS
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION TO A SATISFACTORY EXTENT AND THAT THE FRANCHISE
OF EMICH MOTORS CORPORATION WAS CANCELLED BY REASON OF AND PURSUANT TO
SAID CONSPIRACY AND NOT BECAUSE OF THE THINGS ALLEGED BY DEFENDANTS AS
THE REASONS FOR SUCH CANCELLATION, AND TO RECOVER ANY DAMAGES FOR THE
FAILURE OF DEFENDANTS TO DELIVER ANY CHEVROLET AUTOMOBILES, PLAINTIFFS
MUST ESTABLISH THAT DEFENDANTS AS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY AGREED AMONG
THEMSELVES TO WITHHOLD OR DELAY DELIVERY OF AUTOMOBILES TO DEALERS WHO
REFUSED OR FAILED TO USE THE SERVICES OF GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION TO A SATISFACTORY EXTENT AND THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTIVELY
FAILED TO DELIVER OR DELAYED SHIPMENTS OF CARS TO PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT
TO AND AS A PART OF SAID ALLEGED CONSPIRACY." 

THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONERS WHICH RESULTED IN
JUDGMENTS FOR $1,236,000 TREBLE DAMAGES.  THE COURT ASSESSED
$257,358.10 AS COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT UNDER SEC. 5 THE CRIMINAL
JUDGMENT WAS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE "THAT DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN GUILTY OF A
CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN DEALERS' INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE IN
GENERAL MOTORS CARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MONOPOLIZING THE FINANCING
ESSENTIAL TO THE MOVEMENT OF THOSE CARS."  181 F.2D AT 75.  IT APPROVED
THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING AS TO THE INADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE OF THE
ENTIRE RECORD OF THE CRIMINAL CASE, BUT CRITICIZED THE USE OF THE
INDICTMENT AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE COMPLAINT, AS WELL AS CERTAIN
REFERENCES TO THE INDICTMENT IN THE OPENING STATEMENT AND CLOSING
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONERS' COUNSEL TO THE JURY.  IT HELD THAT SERIOUS
ERROR WAS COMMITTED WHEN THE INDICTMENT WAS SENT TO THE JURY AS AN
EXHIBIT AND THE TRIAL COURT "TOLD THE JURY THAT IT COULD LOOK TO IT
(THE INDICTMENT) TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANS AND THE ACTS COMMITTED IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY  ...  "  THE COURT OBSERVED THAT "IT WAS
UNNECESSARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE  ...  ANY OF THE ACTS OR MEANS,
EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING VENUE, IN ORDER FOR THE JURY IN
THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING TO FIND DEFENDANTS GUILTY," AND THAT "SUCH ACTS
AND MEANS ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS ESTABLISHED BY THE FINDING OF
GUILT."  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE USE OF THE INDICTMENT AS EVIDENCE WAS
AGGRAVATED BY THE INSTRUCTION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE LAST QUOTED AND
ITALICIZED IN PART, SUPRA, P. 565. 

                          III. 

THE ISSUE WE MUST DETERMINE, AS DEFINED IN OUR ORDER GRANTING REVIEW,
IS "WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONSTRUING SEC. 5 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT  ...  AS NOT PERMITTING:  (A) THE ADMISSION IN THE INSTANT
CASE OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE ANTECEDENT CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST
RESPONDENTS, NOR (B) THE JUDGMENT THEREIN TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE THAT
THE CONSPIRACY OF WHICH RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN CONVICTED OCCASIONED EMICH
MOTORS' CANCELLATION."    IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 5 IN
THIS CASE WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH FIVE DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS.  THE
BROADEST CONSTRUCTION IS URGED BY PETITIONERS WHO CONTEND THAT THE
CRIMINAL JUDGMENT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT EMICH MOTORS' FRANCHISES
WERE CANCELLED PURSUANT TO THE UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY, AND THAT THE ENTIRE
RECORD IN THE CRIMINAL CASE SHOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN THIS ACTION.  THE
VIEW OF THE TRIAL JUDGE DIFFERS ONLY IN THAT HE WOULD NOT PERMIT THE
RECORD IN THE CRIMINAL CASE, BEYOND THE INDICTMENT, VERDICT AND
JUDGMENT, TO GO TO THE JURY.  THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE TAKES
A MORE CONTRACTED POSITION, URGING IN ITS BRIEF THAT THE JUDGMENT IS
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND ALSO OF THE PERFORMANCE OF
SUCH ACTS IN ACCOMPLISHING IT AS THE JURY IN THE CRIMINAL CASE, IN
RENDERING A VERDICT OF GUILTY, NECESSARILY FOUND TO HAVE OCCURRED, THE
LATTER TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THE TREBLE-DAMAGE SUIT
FROM THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE CRIMINAL CASE.  IN ITS VIEW THE TRIAL
COURT UNDER APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS MAY SUBMIT THE CRIMINAL PLEADINGS
TO THE JURY IN ORDER TO ASSIST IT IN UNDERSTANDING THE CHARGE AS TO
WHAT WAS DETERMINED BY THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
CONSTRUES THE SECTION STILL MORE NARROWLY, HOLDING THE JUDGMENT PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE ONLY OF CONSPIRACY BY RESPONDENTS.  IT CONCLUDES THAT
NONE OF THE RECORD IN THE CRIMINAL CASE SHOULD BE EXHIBITED TO THE
JURY, ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL JUDGE MAY EXAMINE IT "AS AN AID IN DETERMINING
OR DEFINING THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE EARLIER CASE  ...  "  181 F.2D
AT 76.  FINALLY, RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE INDICTMENT CHARGED A
SINGLE CONSPIRACY TO PERFORM SOME TWENTY-SIX DIFFERENT ACTS; THAT SINCE
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT OFFER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ALL OF THE ACTS AND
WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE ONLY ONE OF THEM, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE UPON A GENERAL
VERDICT OF GUILTY TO DETERMINE ON WHICH OF THE VARIOUS ACTS THE JURY
BASED ITS VERDICT; THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE JUDGMENT HAS NO RELEVANCE
HERE. 

               IV. 

RECOMMENDATION BY PRESIDENT WILSON THAT CONGRESS "AGREE IN GIVING
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS  ...  THE RIGHT TO FOUND THEIR (ANTITRUST) SUITS
FOR REDRESS UPON THE FACTS AND JUDGMENTS PROVED AND ENTERED IN SUITS BY
THE GOVERNMENT WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS  ...  SUED THE COMBINATIONS
COMPLAINED OF AND WON ITS SUIT  ...  "  51 CONG. REC. 1964. 
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS AND DEBATES ON THE PROPOSAL WHICH ULTIMATELY
BECAME SEC. 5 REFLECT A PURPOSE TO MINIMIZE THE BURDENS OF LITIGATION
FOR INJURED PRIVATE SUITORS BY MAKING AVAILABLE TO THEM ALL MATTERS
PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ANTITRUST ACTIONS.  SEE
H.R. REP. NO. 627, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 14; S. REP. NO. 698, 63D CONG.,
2D SESS. 45; 51 CONG. REC. 9270, 9490, 13851.  THE INTENDED APPLICATION
AND EXTENT OF SUCH EVIDENTIARY BENEFITS IS NOT REVEALED BY LEGISLATIVE
MATERIALS, EXCEPT THAT THEY SHOULD FOLLOW EQUALLY FROM PRIOR CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS AND EQUITY PROCEEDINGS BY THE GOVERNMENT.  BY ITS TERMS,
HOWEVER, SEC. 5 MAKES A PRIOR FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE IN FAVOR OF THE
UNITED STATES AVAILABLE TO A PRIVATE SUITOR AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
"ALL MATTERS RESPECTING WHICH" THE JUDGMENT "WOULD BE AN ESTOPPEL"
BETWEEN THE DEFENDANTS AND THE UNITED STATES.  WE THINK THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO CONFER, SUBJECT ONLY TO A DEFENDANT'S ENJOYMENT OF ITS DAY
IN COURT AGAINST A NEW PARTY, AS LARGE AN ADVANTAGE AS THE ESTOPPEL
DOCTRINE WOULD AFFORD HAD THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT SUIT. 

THE EVIDENTIARY USE WHICH MAY BE MADE UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE PRIOR
CONVICTION OF RESPONDENTS IS THUS TO BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO THE
GENERAL DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL.  AS THIS COURT HAS OBSERVED, THAT
"PRINCIPLE IS AS APPLICABLE TO THE DECISIONS OF CRIMINAL COURTS AS TO
THOSE OF CIVIL JURISDICTION."  FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309,
334(1915); SEALFON V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 575, 578(1948).  IT IS
WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTION MAY WORK AN ESTOPPEL
IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT IN A SUBSEQUENT CIVIL PROCEEDING.  UNITED
STATES V. GREATER NEW YORK LIVE POULTRY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 53 F.2D
518(S.D.N.Y. 1931), AFFIRMED SUB NOM. LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291
U.S. 293(1934); FARLEY V. PATTERSON, 166 APP. DIV. 358, 152 N.Y. SUPP.
59(1915); SEE STATE V. ADAMS, 72 VT. 253, 47 A. 779(1900); 2 FREEMAN,
JUDGMENTS (5TH ED. 1925), SEC. 657.  SUCH ESTOPPEL EXTENDS ONLY TO
QUESTIONS "DISTINCTLY PUT IN ISSUE AND DIRECTLY DETERMINED" IN THE
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  SEE FRANK V. MANGUM, SUPRA, AT 334; UNITED
STATES V. MEYERSON, 24 F.2D 855, 856(S.D.N.Y. 1928).  IN THE CASE OF A
CRIMINAL CONVICTION BASED ON A JURY VERDICT OF GUILTY, ISSUES WHICH
WERE ESSENTIAL TO THE VERDICT MUST BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN
DETERMINED BY THE JUDGMENT.  CF. COMMONWEALTH V. EVANS, 101 MASS.
25(1869).  ACCORDINGLY, WE THINK PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO INTRODUCE
THE PRIOR JUDGMENT TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE ALL MATTERS OF FACT AND LAW
NECESSARILY DECIDED BY THE CONVICTION AND THE VERDICT ON WHICH IT WAS
BASED. 

THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM, OF COURSE, IS TO DETERMINE WHAT MATTERS WERE
ADJUDICATED IN THE ANTECEDENT SUIT.  A GENERAL VERDICT OF THE JURY OR
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WITHOUT SPECIAL FINDINGS DOES NOT INDICATE WHICH
OF THE MEANS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN USED IN
EFFECTUATING THE CONSPIRACY.  AND SINCE ALL OF THE ACTS CHARGED NEED
NOT BE PROVED FOR CONVICTION, UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO.,
310 U.S. 150(1940), SUCH A VERDICT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT DEFENDANTS
USED ALL OF THE MEANS CHARGED OR ANY PARTICULAR ONE.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHAT WAS DECIDED BY THE CRIMINAL JUDGMENT MUST BE
DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE HEARING THE TREBLEDAMAGE SUIT, UPON AN
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, INCLUDING THE PLEADINGS, THE EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED, THE INSTRUCTIONS UNDER WHICH THE JURY ARRIVED AT ITS
VERDICT, AND ANY OPINIONS OF THE COURTS.  SEALFON V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; CF. OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 256 U.S. 70(1921).  FN6 

IN THE CRIMINAL CASE IT WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS' UNDISTURBED
DETERMINATION, WHICH WE ACCEPT HERE, THAT THE JURY VERDICT WAS FIRMLY
ROOTED IN A FINDING OF COERCIVE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS
TOWARD GENERAL MOTORS DEALERS TO FORCE THE USE OF GMAC FACILITIES. 
THAT COURT, IN COMMENTING ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, SAID THAT
"THE JURY FINDING OF COERCION IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  THE
COERCIVE PRACTICES WERE MANY AND VARIED  ...  AND DIRECTLY AIMED TO
COMPEL DEALER-PURCHASERS TO USE GMAC IN FINANCING THE WHOLESALE
PURCHASE AND RETAIL SALE OF GENERAL MOTORS CARS.  ...  UNDOUBTEDLY THE
JURY WAS WARRANTED IN ATTACHING THE COERCION LABEL TO THE ACTION THUS
ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANTS."  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 121
F.2D 376, 397(C.A.7TH CIR. 1941).  THE SAME CONCLUSION WAS REACHED BY
THIS COURT IN FORD MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 303(1948),
WHERE IT WAS REQUIRED FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS
NECESSARILY FOUND BY THE JURY VERDICT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS AND GMAC.  FN7 

WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF OPINION THAT THE CRIMINAL JUDGMENT WAS PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MONOPOLIZING THE FINANCING OF GENERAL MOTORS CARS, AND ALSO OF ITS
EFFECTUATION BY COERCING GENERAL MOTORS DEALERS TO USE GMAC.  TO
ESTABLISH THEIR PRIMA FACIE CASE IT THEREFORE WAS NECESSARY FOR
PETITIONERS ONLY TO INTRODUCE, IN ADDITION TO THE CRIMINAL JUDGMENT,
EVIDENCE OF THE IMPACT OF THE CONSPIRACY ON THEM, SUCH AS THE
CANCELLATION OF THEIR FRANCHISES AND THE PURPOSE OF GENERAL MOTORS IN
CANCELLING THEM, AND EVIDENCE OF ANY RESULTING DAMAGES.  FN8  FROM THIS
IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR WHEN IT HELD THAT THE
JUDGMENT WAS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE ONLY OF A CONSPIRACY BY RESPONDENTS. 

WHAT ISSUES WERE DECIDED BY THE FORMER GOVERNMENT LITIGATION IS, OF
COURSE, A QUESTION OF LAW AS TO WHICH THE COURT MUST INSTRUCT THE
JURY.  IT IS THE TASK OF THE TRIAL JUDGE TO MAKE CLEAR TO THE JURY THE
ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN THE PRIOR SUIT,
AND TO LIMIT TO THOSE ISSUES THE EFFECT OF THAT JUDGMENT AS EVIDENCE IN
THE PRESENT ACTION.  AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH EXPLANATION SHOULD
BE MADE, NO MECHANICAL RULE CAN BE LAID DOWN TO CONTROL THE TRIAL
JUDGE, WHO MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.  HE
MUST BE FREE TO EXERCISE "A WELL-ESTABLISHED RANGE OF JUDICIAL
DISCRETION."  NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338, 342(1939).  HE IS
NOT PRECLUDED FROM RESORTING TO SUCH PORTIONS OF THE RECORD, INCLUDING
THE PLEADINGS AND JUDGMENT, IN THE ANTECEDENT CASE AS HE MAY FIND
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO USE IN PRESENTING TO THE JURY A CLEAR
PICTURE OF THE ISSUES DECIDED THERE AND RELEVANT TO THE CASE ON TRIAL. 
CF. EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO MATERIAL CO., 295 F. 98,
101(C.A.5TH CIR. 1923), AFFIRMED 273 U.S. 359(1927).  A SIMILAR
DISCRETION MUST BE EXERCISED IN APPROVING THE ATTACHMENT OF A COPY OF
THE INDICTMENT AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE COMPLAINT. 

IN SUMMARY THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD (1) EXAMINE THE RECORD OF THE
ANTECEDENT CASE TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES DECIDED BY THE JUDGMENT; (2) IN
HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY RECONSTRUCT THAT CASE IN THE MANNER AND TO
THE EXTENT HE DEEMS NECESSARY TO ACQUAINT THE JURY FULLY WITH THE
ISSUES DETERMINED THEREIN; AND (3) EXPLAIN THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE
FORMER JUDGMENT ON THE CASE AT TRIAL.  THE COURT MAY, IN THE INTEREST
OF CLARITY, SO INFORM THE JURY AT THE TIME THE JUDGMENT IN THE PRIOR
ACTION IS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE; OR HE MAY SO INSTRUCT AT A LATER TIME
IF, IN HIS DISCRETION, THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED. 

THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS TO
MODIFY ITS JUDGMENT TO CONFORM WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 15. 

FN2  26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN3  38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 16. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 121 F.2D 376, 383(C.A.7TH
CIR. 1941). 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 121 F.2D 376, 396(C.A.7TH
CIR. 1941). 

FN6  SEE ALSO MCLAREN, THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AS APPLIED TO THE
TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES, 10 WASH. L. REV. 198, 200(1935). 

FN7  IN THE FORD CASE IT WAS STATED THAT THE "PLAIN EFFECT" OF THE
INSTRUCTIONS IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS AND GMAC WAS
"TO DRAW A LINE BETWEEN SUCH PRACTICES AS CANCELLATION OF A DEALER'S
CONTRACT, OR REFUSAL TO RENEW IT, OR DISCRIMINATION IN THE SHIPMENT OF
AUTOMOBILES, AS A MEANS OF INFLUENCING DEALERS TO USE GMAC, ALL OF
WHICH FALL WITHIN THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF 'COERCION,' AND OTHER
PRACTICES FOR WHICH 'PERSUASION,' 'EXPOSITION' OR 'ARGUMENT' ARE FAIR
CHARACTERIZATIONS.  ...  THE TRIAL JUDGE USED THE WORD 'COERCION' TO
SUMMARIZE PRACTICES WHICH, IF THE JURY FOUND THEM TO EXIST, WOULD CALL
FOR A VERDICT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS.  HE USED THE WORDS 'PERSUASION,'
'EXPOSITION' AND 'ARGUMENT' TO DESCRIBE CONDUCT WHICH, IN COMMON USAGE,
IS NOT 'COERCION' AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT SUPPORT SUCH A VERDICT. 
NOTHING IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE JUDGE'S CHARGE ERASES OR BLURS THIS
LINE OF DISTINCTION."  335 U.S. AT 316-319.  RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE
INSTRUCTIONS ARE SET FORTH AT P. 316, N. 3. 

FN8 IN DECIDING THAT UNDER SEC. 5 THE CRIMINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST
RESPONDENTS MAY BE ADMITTED AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE ONLY OF THE FACT OF
CONSPIRACY AND OF THE USE OF COERCIVE METHODS IN CARRYING IT OUT, WE DO
NOT INTEND TO PRECLUDE ITS ADMISSION FOR SUCH OTHER PURPOSES, APART
FROM SEC. 5, AS THE GENERAL LAW OF EVIDENCE MAY PERMIT.  PETITIONERS
CONTEND THAT THE JUDGMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY AS EVIDENCE OF
RESPONDENTS' INTENTION IN CANCELLING THE EMICHS' FRANCHISES.  CF.
WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED. 1940), SECS. 302-304; AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES, 76 U.S. APP. D.C. 70, 87-89, 130 F.2D
233, 250-252(C.A.D.C. CIR. 1942), AFFIRMED 317 U.S. 519(1943).  WHETHER
THIS CONTENTION IS CORRECT AND, IF SO, WHETHER SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD
ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE AN ILLEGAL MOTIVE ARE QUESTIONS BEYOND THE SCOPE
OF OUR PRESENT REVIEW. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















MOORE V. CHESAPEAKE & O.R. CO., 340 U.S. 573 


NO. 318.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1951.  - REARGUED JANUARY 10, 1951.  -
DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1951.  - 184 F.2D 176, AFFIRMED. 


IN THIS ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO RECOVER
FOR THE DEATH OF A BRAKEMAN, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE
PART OF THE RAILROAD, AND THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY SUSTAINED THE
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  PP. 573-578. 

MOORE, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED,
P. 578. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION, BROUGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT  FN1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA ON BEHALF OF A SURVIVING WIDOW AND CHILDREN, CHARGED
NEGLIGENCE AGAINST RESPONDENT RAILROAD IN THE DEATH OF PETITIONER'S
DECEDENT, WHO WAS ACTING IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AS A BRAKEMAN
FOR RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.  THE CASE WAS TRIED BEFORE A
JURY.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, RESPONDENT MOVED FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT
SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT RESERVED DECISION,
PURSUANT TO RULE 50 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND
SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY, WHICH RETURNED A VERDICT FOR
PETITIONER.  RESPONDENT THEN RENEWED ITS CONTENTION BY MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, WHICH WAS SUSTAINED, AND THE
ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON THE MERITS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 184 F.2D 176, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY HAD BEEN INVADED BY THE
ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  340 U.S. 874. 

ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1948, PETITIONER'S DECEDENT WAS EMPLOYED BY
RESPONDENT AS A BRAKEMAN IN RESPONDENT'S SWITCHING YARDS AT RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA.  THE DAY WAS FAIR.  AT ABOUT 3:50 P.M., THE CREW WITH WHICH
DECEDENT WAS WORKING UNDERTOOK ITS FIRST CAR MOVEMENT OF THE DAY.  AN
ENGINE AND TENDER WERE HEADED INTO TRACK 12 AND THE FRONT END OF THE
ENGINE WAS COUPLED ONTO 33 LOADED FREIGHT CARS WHICH WERE TO BE MOVED
OUT INITIALLY UPON THE STRAIGHT TRACK REFERRED TO AS THE LADDER TRACK. 
THE SWITCH AT THE JUNCTION OF TRACK 12 AND THE LADDER TRACK WAS
PROPERLY ALIGNED FOR THE TRAIN TO PASS ONTO THE LADDER TRACK.  WHO
ALIGNED THE SWITCH DOES NOT APPEAR. 

DECEDENT GAVE THE SIGNAL FOR THE ENGINE TO BACK OUT OF TRACK 12 WITH
THE CARS.  IT MOVED OUT IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH THE REAR OF THE
TENDER AS THE FRONT OF THE MOVING TRAIN.  DECEDENT WAS STANDING ON A
FOOTBOARD AT THE REAR OF THE TENDER, HIS BACK TO THE TENDER; THE OUTER
EDGE OF THE FOOTBOARD WAS ABOUT TEN INCHES IN FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF
THE TENDER AND ABOUT A FOOT ABOVE THE RAIL.  THE ENGINEER WAS IN HIS
SEAT ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE TRAIN AS THE FOOTBOARD ON WHICH DECEDENT
WAS STANDING.  THE ENGINEER WAS TURNED IN THE SEAT AND LEANING OUT THE
SIDE CAB WINDOW, LOOKING IN THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THE TRAIN WAS
MOVING.  DECEDENT'S DUTY AS HE RODE ON THE FOOTBOARD WAS TO GIVE
SIGNALS TO THE ENGINEER, WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE COULD AT ALL TIMES SEE
THE EDGE OF THE ARM AND SHOULDER OF DECEDENT.  TO BE THUS SEEN AND IN A
POSITION TO GIVE SIGNALS, DECEDENT HAD TO EXTEND OUTWARD BEYOND THE
EDGE OF THE TENDER, SUPPORTING HIMSELF PARTLY BY A HANDRAIL, OTHERWISE
THE TENDER, THE TOP OF WHICH WAS EIGHT FEET SEVEN INCHES ABOVE THE
FOOTBOARD, WOULD HAVE OBSTRUCTED THE ENGINEER'S VIEW OF HIM
ALTOGETHER. 

THE ENGINEER TESTIFIED THAT AS THE TRAIN APPROACHED SWITCH 12 AT
ABOUT FIVE MILES AN HOUR, HAVING MOVED TEN OR TWELVE CAR LENGTHS, HE
SAW DECEDENT SLUMP AS IF HIS KNEES HAD GIVEN WAY, THEN RIGHT HIMSELF,
THEN TUMBLE FORWARD IN A SOMERSAULT TOWARD THE OUTSIDE OF THE TRACK. 
THE ENGINEER TESTIFIED THAT HE THEN MADE AN EMERGENCY STOP IN AN
UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORT TO AVOID INJURING DECEDENT.  THE TRAIN RAN THE
LENGTH OF THE TENDER AND ENGINE AND ABOUT A CAR LENGTH AND A HALF
BEFORE IT STOPPED AT A POINT ABOUT AN ENGINE OR CAR LENGTH PAST THE
SWITCH ON THE LADDER TRACK.  DECEDENT DIED IMMEDIATELY OF THE INJURIES
RECEIVED. 

TO RECOVER UNDER THE ACT, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON PETITIONER TO PROVE
NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENT WHICH CAUSED THE FATAL ACCIDENT.  TENNANT V.
PEORIA & P.U.R. CO., 321 U.S. 29, 32.  THE NEGLIGENCE SHE ALLEGED WAS
THAT RESPONDENT'S ENGINEER MADE A SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED STOP WITHOUT
WARNING, "THEREBY CAUSING DECEDENT TO BE THROWN FROM A POSITION OF
SAFETY ON THE REAR OF THE TENDER" INTO THE PATH OF THE TRAIN. 

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ONLY ONE STOP OF THE TRAIN WAS MADE AND THAT A
SUDDEN STOP WITHOUT WARNING.  THE ENGINEER WAS THE ONLY WITNESS TO THE
ACCIDENT AND WAS CALLED TO TESTIFY BY PETITIONER.  HE TESTIFIED THAT HE
SAW DECEDENT FALL FROM THE TENDER AND THAT HE MADE AN EMERGENCY STOP IN
AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID INJURING HIM.  HE TESTIFIED THAT HE RECEIVED NO
SIGNAL TO STOP AND HAD NO REASON TO STOP UNTIL HE SAW DECEDENT FALL. 
WHEN HIS ATTENTION WAS DIRECTED TO THE POINT, THE ENGINEER NEVER
WAVERED IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT DECEDENT WAS CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS VIEW AND
IN A POSITION TO GIVE SIGNALS UP TO THE TIME HE WAS SEEN TO FALL AND
THE EMERGENCY STOP WAS MADE. 

PETITIONER ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF THIS BY POINTING TO
STATEMENTS OF THE ENGINEER WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTRADICT HIS TESTIMONY
THAT DECEDENT WAS CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS VIEW.  PETITIONER RELIES ON
TESTIMONY AND MEASUREMENTS OF AN EXPERT WITNESS, AND UPON THE FACT THAT
THE JURY WAS PERMITTED TO VIEW THE ENGINE AND TENDER, TO SUPPORT THE
ALLEGED CONTRADICTION.  AS A CONSEQUENCE, IT IS ASSERTED, THE JURY WAS
ENTITLED TO DISBELIEVE THE ENGINEER'S VERSION OF THE ACCIDENT AND TO
ACCEPT PETITIONER'S. 

TRUE, IT IS THE JURY'S FUNCTION TO CREDIT OR DISCREDIT ALL OR PART OF
THE TESTIMONY.  BUT DISBELIEF OF THE ENGINEER'S TESTIMONY WOULD NOT
SUPPLY A WANT OF PROOF.  BUNT V. SIERRA BUTTE GOLD MNG.  CO., 138 U.S.
483, 485.  NOR WOULD THE POSSIBILITY ALONE THAT THE JURY MIGHT
DISBELIEVE THE ENGINEER'S VERSION MAKE THE CASE SUBMISSIBLE TO IT. 

THE BURDEN WAS UPON PETITIONER TO PROVE THAT DECEDENT FELL AFTER THE
TRAIN STOPPED WITHOUT WARNING, WHICH WAS THE ACT OF NEGLIGENCE SHE
CHARGED.  HER EVIDENCE SHOWED HE FELL BEFORE THE TRAIN STOPPED.  THE
ONLY EVIDENCE WHICH PETITIONER CAN GLEAN FROM THIS RECORD TO SUPPORT
HER CHARGE IS THE ENGINEER'S TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS NO ONE AROUND THE
SWITCH AS THE TRAIN APPROACHED IT, AND THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER
"THEY" INTENDED TO TAKE ALL OF THE 33 CARS OUT OF THE SWITCH AT ONE
TIME, OR TO STOP AND CUT OFF SOME OF THEM.  FN2  FROM THIS IT IS SAID A
JURY MIGHT REASONABLY INFER THAT THE ENGINEER DECIDED TO MAKE AND DID
MAKE AN EMERGENCY STOP WHICH THREW DECEDENT FROM THE TENDER.  HOWEVER,
THE ENGINEER'S TESTIMONY, APPEARING AT THE VERY SAME PAGE OF THE
TRANSCRIPT AS THE STATEMENT RELIED ON, WAS THAT HE WORKED BY SIGNALS;
THAT HE HAD RECEIVED NO SIGNAL TO STOP OR DO ANYTHING; THAT IN THE
EVENT HE DID NOT RECEIVE A SIGNAL HE WOULD "(KEEP) PULLING THE CARS ON
BACK" UNTIL HE RECEIVED A SIGNAL, UNTIL HE "CLEARED THE SWITCH" -
"(PROBABLY) BEYOND."  FN3  WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE ISOLATED PORTION OF
THE ENGINEER'S TESTIMONY RELIED ON BY PETITIONER PERMITS AN INFERENCE
OF NEGLIGENCE WHEN PLACED IN ITS SETTING OF UNCONTRADICTED AND
UNEQUIVOCAL TESTIMONY TOTALLY AT VARIANCE WITH SUCH AN INFERENCE. 

HENCE, ALL THE EVIDENCE SHOWS IS THAT DECEDENT FELL BEFORE THE TRAIN
STOPPED.  IF ONE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE ENGINEER'S TESTIMONY THAT HE
STOPPED AFTER - INDEED, BECAUSE OF - THE FALL, THEN THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE AS TO WHEN DECEDENT FELL.  THERE WOULD STILL BE A FAILURE OF
PROOF. 

TO SUSTAIN PETITIONER, ONE WOULD HAVE TO INFER FROM NO EVIDENCE AT
ALL THAT THE TRAIN STOPPED WHERE AND WHEN IT DID FOR NO PURPOSE AT ALL,
CONTRARY TO ALL GOOD RAILROADING PRACTICE, PRIOR TO THE TIME DECEDENT
FELL, AND THEN INFER THAT DECEDENT FELL BECAUSE THE TRAIN STOPPED. 
THIS WOULD BE SPECULATION RUN RIOT.  SPECULATION CANNOT SUPPLY THE
PLACE OF PROOF.  GALLOWAY V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 372, 395. 

SINCE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT PROPERLY
SUSTAINED THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  THE
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 51 ET SEQ. 

FN2  "Q.  WERE YOU GOING TO TAKE ALL OF THOSE THIRTY-EIGHT CARS OUT
AT ONE TIME THROUGH THAT SWITCH? 

"A.  I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.  I WORK BY SIGNALS.  I DON'T KNOW
WHETHER THEY INTENDED TO PUT THEM ALL OUT AND SWITCH THEM OR TO STOP
AND CUT PART OF THEM OFF."  R. 30. 

FN3  SUPRA, N. 2; 

"Q.  HAD YOU RECEIVED ANY SIGNAL AT THAT TIME TO STOP OR TO DO
ANYTHING - CUT OFF ANY OF THE CARS? 

"A.  NO, SIR, I HAD NOT. 

"Q.  WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO DO IN THE EVENT YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY
FURTHER SIGNALS EITHER FROM THE CONDUCTOR OR FROM MR. MOORE OR FROM
ANYBODY ELSE? 

"A.  KEEP PULLING THE CARS ON BACK UNTIL I RECEIVED A SIGNAL. 

"Q.  AND UNTIL YOU CLEARED THE SWITCH, UNTIL YOU CLEARED NO. 12
SWITCH? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  YOU KEEP - 

"A.  PROBABLY BEYOND. 

"Q.  YOU KEEP ON GOING? 

"A.  YES."  R. 30. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER WOULD DISMISS THIS WRIT AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED, FOR REASONS SET FORTH BY HIM IN CARTER V. ATLANTA & ST.
ANDREWS BAY R. CO., 338 U.S. 430, 437.  SEE AFFOLDER V. N.Y., C. & ST.
L.R. CO., 339 U.S. 96, 101. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER'S HUSBAND, WHILE
PERFORMING HIS DUTIES AS A RAILROAD BRAKEMAN, WAS THROWN FROM A
FOOTBOARD AT THE BACK OF A TENDER AND KILLED AS A RESULT OF A SUDDEN
AND UNEXPECTED STOP MADE BY THE ENGINEER.  THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS, IF
PROVED, SUPPORTED THE JURY'S FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE IS NOT AND COULD NOT
BE DENIED.  I HAVE NO DOUBT BUT THAT THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE WAS
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SUCH A FINDING AND THE VERDICT FOR PETITIONER: 

DECEDENT WAS AN EXPERIENCED BRAKEMAN WITH RESPONDENT RAILROAD, HAVING
SERVED IN THAT CAPACITY FOR ABOUT SEVEN YEARS.  ON THE DAY OF THE
ACCIDENT, HIS DUTY REQUIRED HIM TO RIDE THE FOOTBOARD ON THE REAR OF A
TENDER WHICH WAS BEING MOVED BACKWARDS BY AN ENGINE COUPLED TO 33
LOADED FREIGHT CARS.  THE ENGINEER TESTIFIED THAT HE SUDDENLY THREW THE
ENGINE INTO REVERSE AND MADE AN EMERGENCY STOP WITHOUT WARNING. 
DECEDENT'S BADLY BROKEN AND MUTILATED BODY WAS FOUND LYING BESIDE THE
TRACK.  HE HAD DIED AS A RESULT OF HIS INJURIES. 

UNLESS WE ARE TO REQUIRE THE ELEMENT OF PROXIMATE CAUSE TO BE PROVED
BY EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY, A REASONABLE JURY CERTAINLY COULD INFER FROM
THE FOREGOING FACTS THAT THE SUDDEN STOPPING OF THE ENGINE THREW THE
DECEDENT TO HIS DEATH.  YET THE COURT APPARENTLY IGNORES THIS STRONG
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY RELYING UPON THE ENGINEER'S TESTIMONY THAT
HE MADE THE SUDDEN STOP AFTER HE SAW THE DECEDENT "SOMERSAULT" OFF THE
TENDER.  OF COURSE, HAD THE JURY BELIEVED BOTH THAT THE ENGINEER
STOPPED THE TRAIN ABRUPTLY AND THAT HE DID SO AT THE TIME HE SAID HE
DID, IT WOULD HAVE FOUND FOR RESPONDENT.  BUT AS THE COURT CONCEDES,
THE JURY WAS NOT COMPELLED WHOLLY TO ACCEPT OR WHOLLY TO REJECT THE
ENGINEER'S VERSION.  IT WAS ENTITLED TO CREDIT PART OF HIS TESTIMONY
AND DISCREDIT THE BALANCE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE WERE NOTICEABLE
INCONSISTENCIES, IMPROBABILITIES AND SELF-INTEREST IN THE ENGINEER'S
STORY AS TO HOW AND WHEN THE FALL OCCURRED.  IF THE JURY REJECTED THE
STATEMENT THAT DECEDENT FELL BEFORE THE ENGINE STOPPED, IT COULD FIND
FOR PETITIONER ON THE BASIS OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY
SET OUT. 

THE TECHNIQUE USED TODAY IN DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF HER VERDICT IS TO
FRAME THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF "WHEN DID THE DECEDENT FALL?"  AND THEN TO
HOLD THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROOF BECAUSE SHE
INTRODUCED NO EYE-WITNESS EVIDENCE ON THIS POINT* .  SUCH A MYOPIC VIEW
LOSES SIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH THE TIME AND CAUSE OF
THE FALL CAN BE INFERRED.  WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS IS THAT PETITIONER
TRIED THE CASE ON A THEORY THAT DECEDENT'S FALL RESULTED FROM A SUDDEN
STOPPING OF THE ENGINE, WHILE RESPONDENT ASSERTED THE THEORY THAT THE
FALL WAS DUE TO A HEART ATTACK.  ALTHOUGH THERE WAS SOME SHOWING THAT
DECEDENT HAD BEEN AFFLICTED WITH HEART TROUBLE IN THE PAST, RESPONDENT
FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE BODY WHEN FOUND GAVE
INDICATIONS OF HEART DISEASE.  THE JURY THEREFORE QUITE REASONABLY
REJECTED RESPONDENT'S THEORY FOR LACK OF PROOF.  JUST AS REASONABLY, IT
ACCEPTED THE PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE AS PROVING THE ALLEGATIONS OF HER
COMPLAINT.  IN MY OPINION, THE TAKING OF THIS VERDICT FROM PETITIONER
IS A TOTALLY UNWARRANTED SUBSTITUTION OF A COURT'S VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
FOR THAT OF A JURY. 

*THE COURT ALSO APPEARS TO BELIEVE THAT PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE PROVED
THE ENGINEER'S PURPOSE IN STOPPING THE TRAIN SO SUDDENLY.  BUT WHATEVER
WAS THE ENGINEER'S PURPOSE, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN THIS
CASE IF HER HUSBAND'S DEATH WAS CAUSED BY THE SUDDEN, UNEXPECTED STOP. 

I WOULD REVERSE. 
..END :


















NIEMOTKO V. MARYLAND, 340 U.S. 268 


ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1951.  - MD. - , 71 A.2D
9, REVERSED. 


APPELLANTS' APPLICATIONS TO A CITY COUNCIL FOR PERMITS TO USE A CITY
PARK FOR BIBLE TALKS WERE DENIED, FOR NO APPARENT REASON EXCEPT THE
COUNCIL'S DISLIKE FOR APPELLANTS AND DISAGREEMENT WITH THEIR VIEWS. 
FOR ATTEMPTING TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS AND MAKE SPEECHES IN THE PARK
WITHOUT PERMITS, THEY WERE CONVICTED ON CHARGES OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT,
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF DISORDER, THREAT OF VIOLENCE OR RIOT,
AND THEY HAD CONDUCTED THEMSELVES IN A MANNER BEYOND REPROACH.  THERE
WAS NO ORDINANCE PROHIBITING OR REGULATING THE USE OF THE PARK AND
THERE WERE NO ESTABLISHED STANDARDS FOR THE GRANTING OF PERMITS; BUT
PERMITS CUSTOMARILY HAD BEEN GRANTED FOR SIMILAR PURPOSES, INCLUDING
MEETINGS OF RELIGIOUS AND FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS.  HELD:  APPELLANTS
WERE DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, IN THE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND RELIGION, CONTRARY TO THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. 
PP. 269-273. 

(A)  THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, IN THE EXERCISE OF
THOSE FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND RELIGION PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, HAS A FIRMER FOUNDATION THAN THE WHIMS OR
PERSONAL OPINIONS OF A LOCAL GOVERNING BODY.  P. 272. 

(B)  A CONTENTION THAT STATE AND CITY OFFICIALS SHOULD HAVE THE POWER
TO EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS GROUPS, AS SUCH, FROM THE USE OF PUBLIC PARKS WAS
NO JUSTIFICATION WHEN PERMITS HAD ALWAYS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE USE OF THE
PARK BY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.  PP. 272-273. 

(C) A CONTENTION THAT THE PARK WAS DESIGNATED AS A SANCTUARY FOR
PEACE AND QUIET WAS NO JUSTIFICATION WHEN ITS USE FOR PATRIOTIC
CELEBRATIONS BY FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS WAS PERMITTED.  P. 273. 

(D)  THE LACK OF STANDARDS IN THE LICENSE-ISSUING "PRACTICE" RENDERS
THAT "PRACTICE" A PRIOR RESTRAINT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AND THE COMPLETELY ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY REFUSAL TO
GRANT THE PERMITS WAS A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION.  P. 273. 

(E)  SINCE THE CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE LACK OF PERMITS WHICH
WERE DENIED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, THE CONVICTIONS CANNOT STAND.  P. 273. 

NIEMOTKO V. MARYLAND. 

NO. 17.  APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND*
. 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 18, KELLEY V. MARYLAND, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE
SAME COURT. 

FOR ATTEMPTS TO HOLD RELIGIOUS MEETINGS IN A PUBLIC PARK WITHOUT
PERMITS, APPELLANTS WERE CONVICTED OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT UNDER FLACK'S
MD. ANN. CODE, 1939(1947 SUPP.), ART. 27, SEC. 131.  THE MARYLAND COURT
OF APPEALS DECLINED TO REVIEW THEIR CONVICTIONS.   - MD. - , 71 A.2D
9.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 273. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS ARE TWO MEMBERS OF THE RELIGIOUS GROUP KNOWN AS JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES.  AT THE INVITATION OF LOCAL CORELIGIONISTS, THEY SCHEDULED
BIBLE TALKS IN THE PUBLIC PARK OF THE CITY OF HAVRE DE GRACE,
MARYLAND.  ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO ORDINANCE PROHIBITING OR REGULATING THE
USE OF THIS PARK, IT HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM FOR ORGANIZATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS DESIRING TO USE IT FOR MEETINGS AND CELEBRATIONS OF VARIOUS
KINDS TO OBTAIN PERMITS FROM THE PARK COMMISSIONER.  IN CONFORMITY WITH
THIS PRACTICE, THE GROUP REQUESTED PERMISSION OF THE PARK COMMISSIONER
FOR USE OF THE PARK ON FOUR CONSECUTIVE SUNDAYS IN JUNE AND JULY,
1949.  THIS PERMISSION WAS REFUSED. 

HAVING BEEN INFORMED THAT AN ELKS' FLAG DAY CEREMONY WAS SCHEDULED
FOR THE FIRST SUNDAY, THE APPLICANTS DID NOT PURSUE THEIR REQUEST FOR
THE USE OF THE PARK FOR THAT PARTICULAR DAY, BUT, INSTEAD, FILED A
WRITTEN REQUEST WITH THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE SUNDAYS. 
THIS REQUEST WAS FILED AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE MAYOR, IT APPEARING
THAT UNDER THE CUSTOM OF THE MUNICIPALITY THERE IS A RIGHT OF APPEAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL FROM THE ACTION OF THE PARK COMMISSIONER.  THE COUNCIL
HELD A HEARING AT WHICH THE REQUEST WAS CONSIDERED.  AT THIS HEARING
THE APPLICANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEY APPEARED.  THE REQUEST WAS DENIED. 

BECAUSE THEY WERE AWAITING THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL ON THEIR
APPLICATION, THE APPLICANTS TOOK NO FURTHER STEPS ON THE SECOND SUNDAY,
BUT, AFTER THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST, THEY PROCEEDED TO HOLD THEIR
MEETING ON THE THIRD SUNDAY.  NO SOONER HAD APPELLANT NIEMOTKO OPENED
THE MEETING AND COMMENCED DELIVERING HIS DISCOURSE, THAN THE POLICE,
WHO HAD BEEN ORDERED TO THE PARK BY THE MAYOR, ARRESTED HIM.  AT THE
MEETING HELD IN THE PARK ON THE FOURTH AND FOLLOWING SUNDAY, APPELLANT
KELLEY WAS ARRESTED BEFORE HE BEGAN HIS LECTURE. 

APPELLANTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT TO TRIAL BEFORE A JURY ON A
CHARGE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT UNDER THE MARYLAND DISORDERLY CONDUCT
STATUTE.  FLACK'S MD. ANN. CODE, 1939(1947 CUM. SUPP.), ART. 27, SEC.
131.  THEY WERE CONVICTED AND EACH FINED $25 AND COSTS.  UNDER THE
RATHER UNIQUE MARYLAND PROCEDURE, THE JURY IS THE JUDGE OF THE LAW AS
WELL AS THE FACTS.  MD. CONST., ART. XV, SEC. 5; SEE OPINION BELOW,  -
MD. - ,  - , 71 A.2D 9, 11.  THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS NORMALLY NO
APPELLATE REVIEW OF ANY QUESTION DEPENDENT ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE.  RELYING ON THIS MARYLAND RULE, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECLINED
TO REVIEW THE CASE UNDER ITS NORMAL APPELLATE POWER, AND FURTHER
DECLINED TO TAKE THE CASE ON CERTIORARI, STATING THAT THE ISSUES WERE
NOT "MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST" WHICH MADE IT DESIRABLE TO REVIEW. 
BEING OF OPINION THAT THE CASE PRESENTED SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES, WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION, THE APPEAL BEING PROPERLY HERE
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

IN CASES IN WHICH THERE IS A CLAIM OF DENIAL OF RIGHTS UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND BY THE CONCLUSIONS OF
LOWER COURTS, BUT WILL REEXAMINE THE EVIDENTIARY BASIS ON WHICH THOSE
CONCLUSIONS ARE FOUNDED.  SEE FEINER V. NEW YORK, DECIDED THIS DAY,
POST, P. 315.  A BRIEF RECITAL OF THE FACTS AS THEY WERE ADDUCED AT
THIS TRIAL WILL SUFFICE TO SHOW WHY THESE CONVICTIONS CANNOT STAND.  AT
THE TIME OF THE ARREST OF EACH OF THESE APPELLANTS, THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE OF DISORDER, THREATS OF VIOLENCE OR RIOT.  THERE WAS NO
INDICATION THAT THE APPELLANTS CONDUCTED THEMSELVES IN A MANNER WHICH
COULD BE CONSIDERED AS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC PEACE OR ORDER.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THERE WAS POSITIVE TESTIMONY BY THE POLICE THAT EACH OF
THE APPELLANTS HAD CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN A MANNER BEYOND REPROACH.  IT
IS QUITE APPARENT THAT ANY DISORDERLY CONDUCT WHICH THE JURY FOUND MUST
HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE FACT THAT APPELLANTS WERE USING THE PARK WITHOUT
A PERMIT, ALTHOUGH, AS WE HAVE INDICATED ABOVE, THERE IS NO STATUTE OR
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING OR REGULATING THE USE OF THE PARK WITHOUT A
PERMIT. 

THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES EXAMINED THE LICENSING SYSTEMS BY WHICH
LOCAL BODIES REGULATE THE USE OF THEIR PARKS AND PUBLIC PLACES.  SEE
KUNZ V. NEW YORK, DECIDED THIS DAY, POST, P. 290.  SEE ALSO SAIA V. NEW
YORK, 334 U.S. 558(1948); HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496(1939); LOVELL
V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444(1938).  IN THOSE CASES THIS COURT CONDEMNED
STATUTES AND ORDINANCES WHICH REQUIRED THAT PERMITS BE OBTAINED FROM
LOCAL OFFICIALS AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF PUBLIC PLACES, ON THE
GROUNDS THAT A LICENSE REQUIREMENT CONSTITUTED A PRIOR RESTRAINT ON
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND RELIGION, AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF NARROWLY
DRAWN, REASONABLE AND DEFINITE STANDARDS FOR THE OFFICIALS TO FOLLOW,
MUST BE INVALID.  SEE KUNZ V. NEW YORK, POST, P. 290.  IN THE INSTANT
CASE WE ARE MET WITH NO ORDINANCE OR STATUTE REGULATING OR PROHIBITING
THE USE OF THE PARK; ALL THAT IS HERE IS AN AMORPHOUS "PRACTICE,"
WHEREBY ALL AUTHORITY TO GRANT PERMITS FOR THE USE OF THE PARK IS IN
THE PARK COMMISSIONER AND THE CITY COUNCIL.  NO STANDARDS APPEAR
ANYWHERE; NO NARROWLY DRAWN LIMITATIONS; NO CIRCUMSCRIBING OF THIS
ABSOLUTE POWER; NO SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY TO BE SERVED. 
IT IS CLEAR THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THE INVALIDITY OF SUCH
LIMITLESS DISCRETION MUST BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE. 

THIS CASE POINTS UP WITH UTMOST CLARITY THE WISDOM OF THIS DOCTRINE. 
FOR THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE, WHICH THOSE EARLIER DECISIONS
FEARED, HAS OCCURRED HERE.  INDEED, RARELY HAS ANY CASE BEEN BEFORE
THIS COURT WHICH SHOWS SO CLEARLY AN UNWARRANTED DISCRIMINATION IN A
REFUSAL TO ISSUE SUCH A LICENSE.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HELD
A HEARING AT WHICH IT CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION.  BUT WE HAVE SEARCHED
THE RECORD IN VAIN TO DISCOVER ANY VALID BASIS FOR THE REFUSAL.  IN
FACT, THE MAYOR TESTIFIED THAT THE PERMIT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN
GRANTED IF, AT THE HEARING, THE APPLICANTS HAD NOT STARTED TO "BERATE"
THE PARK COMMISSIONER FOR HIS REFUSAL TO ISSUE THE PERMIT.  THE ONLY
QUESTIONS ASKED OF THE WITNESSES AT THE HEARING PERTAINED TO THEIR
ALLEGED REFUSAL TO SALUTE THE FLAG, THEIR VIEWS ON THE BIBLE, AND OTHER
ISSUES IRRELEVANT TO UNENCUMBERED USE OF THE PUBLIC PARKS.  THE
CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT THE USE OF THE PARK WAS DENIED BECAUSE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S DISLIKE FOR OR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE WITNESSES OR
THEIR VIEWS.  THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, IN THE
EXERCISE OF THOSE FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND RELIGION PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, HAS A FIRMER FOUNDATION THAN THE WHIMS
OR PERSONAL OPINIONS OF A LOCAL GOVERNING BODY. 

IN THIS COURT, IT IS ARGUED THAT STATE AND CITY OFFICIALS SHOULD HAVE
THE POWER TO EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS GROUPS, AS SUCH, FROM THE USE OF THE
PUBLIC PARKS.  BUT THAT IS NOT THIS CASE.  FOR WHATEVER FORCE THIS
CONTENTION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE IS LOST IN THE LIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY OF
THE MAYOR AT THE TRIAL THAT WITHIN HIS MEMORY PERMITS HAD ALWAYS BEEN
ISSUED FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND SUNDAY-SCHOOL PICNICS.  WE MIGHT
ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE ATTEMPT TO DESIGNATE THE PARK AS A SANCTUARY
FOR PEACE AND QUIET NOT ONLY DOES NOT DEFEAT THESE APPELLANTS, WHOSE
OWN CONDUCT CREATED NO DISTURBANCE, BUT THIS POSITION IS ALSO MORE THAN
SLIGHTLY INCONSISTENT, SINCE, ON THE FIRST SUNDAY HERE INVOLVED, THE
PARK WAS THE SITUS FOR THE FLAG DAY CEREMONY OF THE ORDER OF ELKS. 

IT THUS BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE LACK OF STANDARDS IN THE LICENSE
ISSUING "PRACTICE" RENDERS THAT "PRACTICE" A PRIOR RESTRAINT IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT THE COMPLETELY
ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY REFUSAL TO GRANT THE PERMITS WAS A DENIAL
OF EQUAL PROTECTION.  INASMUCH AS THE BASIS OF THE CONVICTIONS WAS THE
LACK OF THE PERMITS, AND THAT LACK WAS, IN TURN, DUE TO THE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS DISCUSSED, THE CONVICTIONS MUST FALL. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT* . 

*(IN THIS CASE, NO. 50, KUNZ V. NEW YORK, POST, P. 290, AND NO. 93,
FEINER V. NEW YORK, POST, P. 315.) 

THE ISSUES IN THESE CASES CONCERN LIVING LAW IN SOME OF ITS MOST
DELICATE ASPECTS.  TO SMOTHER DIFFERENCES OF EMPHASIS AND NUANCE WILL
NOT HELP ITS WISE DEVELOPMENT.  WHEN THE WAY A RESULT IS REACHED MAY BE
IMPORTANT TO RESULTS HEREAFTER TO BE REACHED, LAW IS BEST RESPECTED BY
INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION OF OPINION. 

THESE CASES PRESENT THREE VARIATIONS UPON A THEME OF GREAT
IMPORTANCE.  LEGISLATURES, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, AND THE COURTS HAVE FOR
YEARS GRAPPLED WITH CLAIMS OF THE RIGHT TO DISSEMINATE IDEAS IN PUBLIC
PLACES AS AGAINST CLAIMS OF AN EFFECTIVE POWER IN GOVERNMENT TO KEEP
THE PEACE AND TO PROTECT OTHER INTERESTS OF A CIVILIZED COMMUNITY. 
THESE CASES ARE OF SPECIAL INTEREST BECAUSE THEY SHOW THE ATTEMPTS OF
THREE COMMUNITIES TO MEET THE PROBLEM IN THREE DIFFERENT WAYS.  IT
WILL, I BELIEVE, FURTHER ANALYSIS TO USE THE THREE SITUATIONS AS CROSS
LIGHTS ON ONE ANOTHER. 

                          I. 

1.  NOS. 17 AND 18.  - HAVRE DE GRACE, MARYLAND, SOUGHT TO SOLVE THIS
TANGLED PROBLEM BY PERMITTING ITS PARK COMMISSIONER AND CITY COUNCIL TO
ACT AS CENSORS.  THE CITY ALLOWED USE OF ITS PARK FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS,
INCLUDING THOSE OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS, BUT BY CUSTOM A PERMIT WAS
REQUIRED.  IN THIS CASE, THE CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONED THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WHO HAD REQUESTED A LICENSE,
ABOUT THEIR VIEWS ON SALUTING THE FLAG, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, SERVICE IN
THE ARMED FORCES, AND OTHER MATTERS IN NO WAY RELATED TO PUBLIC ORDER
OR PUBLIC CONVENIENCE IN USE OF THE PARK.  THE MAYOR TESTIFIED THAT HE
SUPPOSED THE PERMIT WAS DENIED "BECAUSE OF MATTERS THAT WERE BROUGHT
OUT AT (THE) MEETING."  WHEN NIEMOTKO AND KELLEY, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,
ATTEMPTED TO SPEAK, THEY WERE ARRESTED FOR DISTURBING THE PEACE.  THERE
WAS NO DISTURBANCE OF THE PEACE AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY WERE ARRESTED
ONLY FOR WANT OF A PERMIT. 

2.  NO. 50.  - NEW YORK CITY SET UP A LICENSING SYSTEM TO CONTROL THE
USE OF ITS STREETS AND PARKS FOR PUBLIC RELIGIOUS SERVICES.  THE NEW
YORK COURT OF APPEALS CONSTRUED THE CITY'S ORDINANCE SO AS TO SANCTION
THE RIGHT OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER TO REVOKE OR REFUSE A LICENSE FOR
STREET-PREACHING IF HE FOUND THE PERSON WAS LIKELY TO "RIDICULE" OR
"DENOUNCE" RELIGION.  IN 1946, AFTER HEARINGS BEFORE A FOURTH DEPUTY
POLICE COMMISSIONER, KUNZ'S LICENSE WAS REVOKED BECAUSE HE HAD
"RIDICULED" AND "DENOUNCED" RELIGION WHILE SPEAKING IN ONE OF NEW
YORK'S CROWDED CENTERS, AND IT WAS THOUGHT LIKELY THAT HE WOULD
CONTINUE TO DO SO.  IN 1947 AND 1948 HE WAS REFUSED A LICENSE ON THE
SOLE GROUND OF THE DETERMINATION MADE IN 1946.  IN SEPTEMBER OF 1948 HE
WAS ARRESTED FOR SPEAKING AT COLUMBUS CIRCLE WITHOUT A LICENSE. 

3.  NO. 93.  - SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, DID NOT SET UP A LICENSING SYSTEM
BUT RELIED ON A STATUTE WHICH IS IN SUBSTANCE AN ENACTMENT OF THE
COMMON-LAW OFFENSE OF BREACH OF THE PEACE.  FEINER, THE DEFENDANT, MADE
A SPEECH NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH MCBRIDE AND HARRISON STREETS IN
SYRACUSE.  HE SPOKE FROM A BOX LOCATED ON THE PARKING BETWEEN THE
SIDEWALK AND THE STREET, AND MADE USE OF SOUND AMPLIFIERS ATTACHED TO
AN AUTOMOBILE.  A CROWD OF 75 TO 80 PERSONS GATHERED AROUND HIM, AND
SEVERAL PEDESTRIANS HAD TO GO INTO THE HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO PASS BY.
TWO POLICEMEN OBSERVED THE MEETING.  IN THE COURSE OF HIS SPEECH,
FEINER REFERRED TO THE MAYOR OF SYRACUSE AS A "CHAMPAGNE-SIPPING BUM,"
TO THE PRESIDENT AS A "BUM," AND TO THE AMERICAN LEGION AS "NAZI
GESTAPO AGENTS."  FEINER ALSO INDICATED IN AN EXCITED MANNER THAT
NEGROES DID NOT HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND SHOULD RISE UP IN ARMS.  HIS
AUDIENCE INCLUDED A NUMBER OF NEGROES. 

ONE MAN INDICATED THAT IF THE POLICE DID NOT GET THE SPEAKER OFF THE
STAND, HE WOULD DO IT HIMSELF.  THE CROWD, WHICH CONSISTED OF BOTH
THOSE WHO OPPOSED AND THOSE WHO SUPPORTED THE SPEAKER, WAS RESTLESS. 
THERE WAS NOT YET A DISTURBANCE BUT, IN THE WORDS OF THE ARRESTING
OFFICER WHOSE STORY WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, HE "STEPPED IN TO
PREVENT IT FROM RESULTING IN A FIGHT.  AFTER ALL THERE WAS ANGRY
MUTTERING AND PUSHING."  HAVING IGNORED TWO REQUESTS TO STOP SPEAKING,
FEINER WAS ARRESTED. 

                                 II. 

ADJUSTMENT OF THE INEVITABLE CONFLICT BETWEEN FREE SPEECH AND OTHER
INTERESTS IS A PROBLEM AS PERSISTENT AS IT IS PERPLEXING.  IT IS
IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS COURT CAN ONLY HOPE TO SET LIMITS
AND POINT THE WAY.  IT FALLS TO THE LOT OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS TO FIND PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS WITHIN THE FRAME
OF OUR DECISIONS.  THERE ARE NOW SO MANY OF THESE DECISIONS, ARRIVED AT
BY THE AD HOC PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION, THAT IT IS DESIRABLE TO MAKE A
CRUISE OF THE TIMBER.    IN TREATING THE PRECISE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY
THE THREE SITUATIONS BEFORE US - HOW TO RECONCILE THE INTEREST IN
ALLOWING FREE EXPRESSION OF IDEAS IN PUBLIC PLACES WITH THE PROTECTION
OF THE PUBLIC PEACE AND OF THE PRIMARY USES OF STREETS AND PARKS - WE
SHOULD FIRST SET TO ONE SIDE DECISIONS WHICH ARE APT TO MISLEAD RATHER
THAN ASSIST.  CONTEMPT CASES AND CONVICTIONS UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL
STATUTES AIMED AT PLACING A GENERAL LIMITATION UPON WHAT MAY BE SAID OR
WRITTEN, BRING ADDITIONAL FACTORS INTO THE EQUATION.  CASES LIKE NEAR
V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, AND GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297
U.S. 233, ARE ROOTED IN HISTORIC EXPERIENCE REGARDING PRIOR RESTRAINTS
ON PUBLICATION.  THEY GIVE RECOGNITION TO THE ROLE OF THE PRESS IN A
DEMOCRACY, A CONSIDERATION NOT IMMEDIATELY PERTINENT.  THE PICKETING
CASES ARE LOGICALLY RELEVANT SINCE THEY USUALLY INVOLVE, IN PART,
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION IN PUBLIC PLACES.  BUT HERE ALSO ENTER
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL INTERESTS OUTSIDE THE SITUATIONS BEFORE US.  SEE
HUGHES V. SUPERIOR COURT, 339 U.S. 460, 464-465. 

THE CASES MORE EXCLUSIVELY CONCERNED WITH RESTRICTIONS UPON
EXPRESSION IN ITS DIVERS FORMS IN PUBLIC PLACES HAVE ANSWERED PROBLEMS
VARYING GREATLY IN CONTENT AND DIFFICULTY. 

1.  THE EASIEST CASES HAVE BEEN THOSE IN WHICH THE ONLY INTEREST
OPPOSING FREE COMMUNICATION WAS THAT OF KEEPING THE STREETS OF THE
COMMUNITY CLEAN.  THIS COULD SCARCELY JUSTIFY PROHIBITING THE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION BY HANDBILLS OR CENSORING THEIR CONTENTS. 
IN LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING A PERMIT TO
DISTRIBUTE PAMPHLETS WAS HELD INVALID WHERE THE LICENSING STANDARD WAS
"NOT LIMITED TO WAYS WHICH MIGHT BE REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER OR AS INVOLVING DISORDERLY CONDUCT, THE
MOLESTATION OF THE INHABITANTS, OR THE MISUSE OR LITTERING OF THE
STREETS."  ID., AT 451.  IN HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, A PORTION OF
THE ORDINANCE DECLARED INVALID PROHIBITED THE DISTRIBUTION OF
PAMPHLETS.  IN SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, THREE OF THE FOUR
ORDINANCES DECLARED INVALID BY THE COURT PROHIBITED THE DISTRIBUTION OF
PAMPHLETS.  IN JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413, THE COURT AGAIN DECLARED
INVALID A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE DISTRIBUTION OF ALL
HANDBILLS. 

2.  IN A GROUP OF RELATED CASES, REGULATION OF SOLICITATION HAS BEEN
THE ISSUE.  HERE THE OPPOSING INTEREST IS MORE SUBSTANTIAL - PROTECTION
OF THE PUBLIC FROM FRAUD AND FROM CRIMINALS WHO USE SOLICITATION AS A
DEVICE TO ENTER HOMES.  THE FOURTH ORDINANCE CONSIDERED IN SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, SUPRA, ALLOWED THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO REFUSE A PERMIT IF HE
FOUND, IN HIS DISCRETION, THAT THE CANVASSER WAS NOT OF GOOD CHARACTER
OR WAS CANVASSING FOR A PROJECT NOT FREE FROM FRAUD.  THE ORDINANCE WAS
FOUND INVALID BECAUSE THE OFFICER WHO COULD, IN HIS DISCRETION, MAKE
THE DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING "GOOD CHARACTER" AND "PROJECT NOT FREE
FROM FRAUD" IN EFFECT HELD THE POWER OF CENSORSHIP.  IN CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, CONVICTION WAS, IN PART, UNDER A STATE
STATUTE REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR RELIGIOUS SOLICITATION.  THE STATUTE WAS
DECLARED INVALID BECAUSE THE LICENSING OFFICIAL COULD DETERMINE WHAT
CAUSES WERE RELIGIOUS, ALLOWING A "CENSORSHIP OF RELIGION."  ID., AT
305.  AGAIN, IN LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418, AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING
A PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR, WHO WAS TO ISSUE THE PERMIT ONLY IF HE DEEMED
IT "PROPER OR ADVISABLE," WAS DECLARED INVALID AS CREATING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE CENSORSHIP.  THE COURT HAS ALSO DENIED THE RIGHT OF
THOSE IN CONTROL OF A COMPANY TOWN OR GOVERNMENT HOUSING PROJECT TO
PROHIBIT SOLICITATION BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326
U.S. 501; TUCKER V. TEXAS, 326 U.S. 517.  IN THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323
U.S. 516, THE SOLICITATION WAS IN THE INTEREST OF LABOR RATHER THAN
RELIGION.  THERE A STATE STATUTE REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF LABOR
ORGANIZERS WAS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN INVOKED TO ENJOIN A SPEECH
IN A PUBLIC HALL.  THE INTEREST OF THE STATE IN PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS
THROUGH THE REGULATION OF VOCATIONS WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
THE STATUTE. 

3.  WHETHER THE SALE OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
CAN BE SUBJECTED TO NONDISCRIMINATORY TAXES ON SOLICITATION HAS
INTRODUCED ANOTHER OPPOSING INTEREST - THE RIGHT OF THE COMMUNITY TO
RAISE FUNDS FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT.  IN JONES V. OPELIKA,
319 U.S. 103, VACATING 316 U.S. 584, AND IN MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
319 U.S. 105, THE COURT HELD THAT IMPOSITION OF THE TAX UPON ITINERANTS
WAS IMPROPER.  IN FOLLETT V. MCCORMICK, 321 U.S. 573, THE COURT WENT
FURTHER TO HOLD UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE IMPOSITION OF A FLAT TAX ON BOOK
AGENTS UPON A RESIDENT WHO MADE HIS LIVING SELLING RELIGIOUS BOOKS. 

4. MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141, REPRESENTS ANOTHER SITUATION. 
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STRUTHERS, OHIO, FORBADE KNOCKING ON THE
DOOR OR RINGING THE DOORBELL OF A RESIDENCE IN ORDER TO DELIVER A
HANDBILL.  PREVENTION OF CRIME AND ASSURING PRIVACY IN AN INDUSTRIAL
COMMUNITY WHERE MANY WORKED ON NIGHT SHIFTS, AND HAD TO OBTAIN THEIR
SLEEP DURING THE DAY, WERE HELD INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE ORDINANCE
IN THE CASE OF HANDBILLS DISTRIBUTED ON BEHALF OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. 

5.  IN CONTRAST TO THESE DECISIONS, THE COURT HELD IN PRINCE V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158, THAT THE APPLICATION TO JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES OF A STATE STATUTE PROVIDING THAT NO BOY UNDER 12 OR GIRL
UNDER 18 SHOULD SELL PERIODICALS ON THE STREET WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. 
CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY FROM REGULATION OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES WERE
SUBORDINATED TO THE INTEREST OF THE STATE IN PROTECTING ITS CHILDREN. 

6.  CONTROL OF SPEECHES MADE IN STREETS AND PARKS DRAWS ON STILL
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS - PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC PEACE AND OF THE
PRIMARY USES OF TRAVEL AND RECREATION FOR WHICH STREETS AND PARKS
EXIST. 

(A)  THE PIONEER CASE CONCERNING SPEAKING IN PARKS AND STREETS IS
DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43, IN WHICH THIS COURT ADOPTED THE
REASONING OF THE OPINION BELOW WRITTEN BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, WHILE ON
THE MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.  COMMONWEALTH V. DAVIS, 162
MASS. 510, 39 N.E. 113.  THE BOSTON ORDINANCE WHICH WAS UPHELD REQUIRED
A PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR FOR ANY PERSON TO "MAKE ANY PUBLIC ADDRESS,
DISCHARGE ANY CANNON OR FIREARM, EXPOSE FOR SALE ANY GOODS, ...  " ON
PUBLIC GROUNDS.  THIS COURT RESPECTED THE FINDING THAT THE ORDINANCE
WAS NOT DIRECTED AGAINST FREE SPEECH BUT WAS INTENDED AS "A PROPER
REGULATION OF THE USE OF PUBLIC GROUNDS."  162 MASS. AT 512, 39 N.E. AT
113. 

AN ATTEMPT TO DERIVE FROM DICTA IN THE DAVIS CASE THE RIGHT OF A CITY
TO EXERCISE ANY POWER OVER ITS PARKS, HOWEVER ARBITRARY OR
DISCRIMINATORY, WAS REJECTED IN HAGUE V. C.I.O., SUPRA.  THE ORDINANCE
PRESENTED IN THE HAGUE CASE REQUIRED A PERMIT FOR MEETINGS ON PUBLIC
GROUND, THE PERMIT TO BE REFUSED BY THE LICENSING OFFICIAL ONLY "FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING RIOTS, DISTURBANCES OR DISORDERLY
ASSEMBLAGE."  ID., AT 502.  THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HOWEVER, LEFT NO
DOUBT THAT THE LICENSING POWER HAD BEEN MADE AN "INSTRUMENT OF
ARBITRARY SUPPRESSION OF FREE EXPRESSION OF VIEWS ON NATIONAL
AFFAIRS."  ID., AT 516.  AND THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE ORDINANCE IN
THE STATE COURTS GAVE THE LICENSING OFFICIALS WIDE DISCRETION.  SEE
THOMAS V. CASEY, 121 N.J.L. 185, 1 A.2D 866.  THE HOLDING OF THE HAGUE
CASE WAS NOT THAT A CITY COULD NOT SUBJECT THE USE OF ITS STREETS AND
PARKS TO REASONABLE REGULATION.  THE HOLDING WAS THAT THE LICENSING
OFFICIALS COULD NOT BE GIVEN POWER ARBITRARILY TO SUPPRESS FREE
EXPRESSION, NO MATTER UNDER WHAT COVER OF LAW THEY PURPORTED TO ACT. 

COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DENY LOCALITIES THE POWER TO DEVISE A
LICENSING SYSTEM IF THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE LICENSING
OFFICIALS IS APPROPRIATELY CONFINED.  A STATUTE REQUIRING A PERMIT AND
LICENSE FEE FOR PARADES HAD BEEN NARROWLY CONSTRUED BY THE STATE
COURTS.  THE LICENSE COULD BE REFUSED ONLY FOR "CONSIDERATIONS OF TIME,
PLACE AND MANNER SO AS TO CONSERVE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE," AND THE
LICENSE FEE WAS "TO MEET THE EXPENSE INCIDENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ACT AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER IN THE MATTER
LICENSED."  ID., AT 575-576, 577.  THE LICENSING SYSTEM WAS SUSTAINED
EVEN THOUGH THE TAX, RANGING FROM A NOMINAL AMOUNT TO $300, WAS
DETERMINED BY THE LICENSING OFFICIALS ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. 

(B)  TWO CASES HAVE INVOLVED THE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS INCIDENT
TO THE USE OF SOUND TRUCKS.  IN SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558, THE
ORDINANCE REQUIRED A LICENSE FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE FOR USE OF SOUND
AMPLIFICATION DEVICES IN PUBLIC PLACES.  THE ORDINANCE WAS CONSTRUED
NOT TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED IN PASSING UPON A LICENSE
APPLICATION.  IN THE PARTICULAR CASE, A LICENSE TO USE A SOUND TRUCK IN
A SMALL CITY PARK HAD BEEN DENIED BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE NOISE
WHICH RESULTED WHEN SOUND AMPLIFIERS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED IN THE
PARK.  THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THE LICENSE HAD BEEN REFUSED
BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT OF THE SPEECHES.  NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT HELD
THE ORDINANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IN KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77, PART
OF THE COURT CONSTRUED THE ORDINANCE AS ALLOWING CONVICTION FOR
OPERATION OF ANY SOUND TRUCK EMITTING "LOUD AND RAUCOUS" NOISES, AND
PART CONSTRUED THE ORDINANCE TO BAN ALL SOUND TRUCKS.  THE LIMITS OF
THE DECISION OF THE COURT UPHOLDING THE ORDINANCE ARE THEREFORE NOT
CLEAR, BUT THE RESULT IN ANY EVENT DOES NOT LEAVE THE SAIA DECISION
INTACT. 

(C)  ON A FEW OCCASIONS THE COURT HAS HAD TO PASS ON A LIMITATION
UPON SPEECH BY A SANCTION IMPOSED AFTER THE EVENT RATHER THAN BY A
LICENSING STATUTE.  IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, ONE OF THE
CONVICTIONS WAS FOR COMMON-LAW BREACH OF THE PEACE.  THE PROBLEM WAS
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT BY REFERENCE TO SCHENCK V. UNITED
STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52, IN VIEW OF THE INQUIRY WHETHER, ON THE FACTS
OF THE CASE, THERE WAS "SUCH CLEAR AND PRESENT MENACE TO PUBLIC PEACE
AND ORDER AS TO RENDER HIM LIABLE TO CONVICTION OF THE COMMON LAW
OFFENSE IN QUESTION."  310 U.S. AT 311. 

IN CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, A STATE STATUTE HAD
ENACTED THE COMMON-LAW DOCTRINE OF "FIGHTING WORDS":  "NO PERSON SHALL
ADDRESS ANY OFFENSIVE, DERISIVE OR ANNOYING WORD TO ANY OTHER PERSON
WHO IS LAWFULLY IN ANY STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACE, NOR CALL HIM BY
ANY OFFENSIVE OR DERISIVE NAME  ...  "  THE STATE COURTS HAD PREVIOUSLY
HELD THE STATUTE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE USE IN A PUBLIC PLACE OF WORDS
DIRECTLY TENDING TO CAUSE A BREACH OF THE PEACE BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM
THE REMARK WAS ADDRESSED.  THE CONVICTION OF A STREET SPEAKER WHO
CALLED A POLICEMAN A "DAMNED RACKETEER" AND "DAMNED FASCIST" WAS
UPHELD. 

7.  ONE OTHER CASE SHOULD BE NOTED, ALTHOUGH IT INVOLVED A CONVICTION
FOR BREACH OF PEACE IN A PRIVATE BUILDING RATHER THAN IN A PUBLIC
PLACE.  IN TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1, THE HOLDING OF THE COURT
WAS ON AN ABSTRACT PROPOSITION OF LAW, UNRELATED TO THE FACTS IN THE
CASE.  A CONVICTION WAS OVERTURNED BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD INSTRUCTED THE
JURY THAT "BREACH OF THE PEACE" INCLUDED SPEECH WHICH "STIRS THE PUBLIC
TO ANGER, INVITES DISPUTE, BRINGS ABOUT A CONDITION OF UNREST, OR
CREATES A DISTURBANCE  ...  "  THE HOLDING APPARENTLY WAS THAT BREACH
OF THE PEACE MAY NOT BE DEFINED IN SUCH BROAD TERMS, CERTAINLY AS TO
SPEECH IN A PRIVATE HALL. 

THE RESULTS IN THESE MULTIFARIOUS CASES HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED IN
LANGUAGE LOOKING IN TWO DIRECTIONS.  WHILE THE COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THE
IMPORTANCE OF "FREE SPEECH," IT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT "FREE SPEECH" IS
NOT IN ITSELF A TOUCHSTONE.  THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT UNMINDFUL OF OTHER
IMPORTANT INTERESTS, SUCH AS PUBLIC ORDER, IF INTERFERENCE WITH FREE
EXPRESSION OF IDEAS IS NOT FOUND TO BE THE OVERBALANCING
CONSIDERATION.  MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PHRASING OF THE OPINIONS ARE
THE QUESTIONS ON WHICH THE DECISIONS APPEAR TO HAVE TURNED. 

(1)  WHAT IS THE INTEREST DEEMED TO REQUIRE THE REGULATION OF
SPEECH?  THE STATE CANNOT OF COURSE FORBID PUBLIC PROSELYTING OR
RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT MERELY BECAUSE PUBLIC OFFICIALS DISAPPROVE THE
SPEAKER'S VIEWS.  IT MUST ACT IN PATENT GOOD FAITH TO MAINTAIN THE
PUBLIC PEACE, TO ASSURE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STREETS FOR THEIR
PRIMARY PURPOSES OF PASSENGER AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, OR FOR EQUALLY
INDISPENSABLE ENDS OF MODERN COMMUNITY LIFE. 

(2)  WHAT IS THE METHOD USED TO ACHIEVE SUCH ENDS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
WHICH PUBLIC SPEECH IS CONSTRAINED OR BARRED?  A LICENSING STANDARD
WHICH GIVES AN OFFICIAL AUTHORITY TO CENSOR THE CONTENT OF A SPEECH
DIFFERS TOTO CAELO FROM ONE LIMITED BY ITS TERMS, OR BY
NONDISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE, TO CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE
LIKE.  AGAIN, A SANCTION APPLIED AFTER THE EVENT ASSURES CONSIDERATION
OF THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF A SITUATION.  THE NET OF CONTROL
MUST NOT BE CAST TOO BROADLY. 

(3)  WHAT MODE OF SPEECH IS REGULATED?  A SOUND TRUCK MAY BE FOUND TO
AFFECT THE PUBLIC PEACE AS NORMAL SPEECH DOES NOT.  A MAN WHO IS
CALLING NAMES OR USING THE KIND OF LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD REASONABLY STIR
ANOTHER TO VIOLENCE DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME CLAIM TO PROTECTION AS ONE
WHOSE SPEECH IS AN APPEAL TO REASON. 

(4)  WHERE DOES THE SPEAKING WHICH IS REGULATED TAKE PLACE?  NOT ONLY
THE GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS - STREETS, PARKS, PRIVATE BUILDINGS - ARE
RELEVANT.  THE LOCATION AND SIZE OF A PARK; ITS CUSTOMARY USE FOR THE
RECREATIONAL, ESTHETIC AND CONTEMPLATIVE NEEDS OF A COMMUNITY; THE
FACILITIES, OTHER THAN A PARK OR STREET CORNER, READILY AVAILABLE IN A
COMMUNITY FOR AIRING VIEWS, ARE ALL PERTINENT CONSIDERATIONS IN
ASSESSING THE LIMITATIONS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PUTS ON STATE POWER
IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION.  FN1
III. 

DUE REGARD FOR THE INTERESTS THAT WERE ADJUSTED IN THE DECISIONS JUST
CANVASSED AFFORDS GUIDANCE FOR DECIDING THE CASES BEFORE US. 

1.  IN THE NIEMOTKO CASE, NEITHER DANGER TO THE PUBLIC PEACE, NOR
CONSIDERATION OF TIME AND CONVENIENCE TO THE PUBLIC, APPEARS TO HAVE
ENTERED INTO DENIAL OF THE PERMIT.  RUMORS THAT THERE WOULD BE VIOLENCE
BY THOSE OPPOSED TO THE MEETING APPEARED ONLY AFTER THE COUNCIL MADE
ITS DECISION, AND IN FACT NEVER MATERIALIZED.  THE CITY ALLOWED OTHER
RELIGIOUS GROUPS TO USE THE PARK.  TO ALLOW EXPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS
VIEWS BY SOME AND DENY THE SAME PRIVILEGE TO OTHERS MERELY BECAUSE THEY
OR THEIR VIEWS ARE UNPOPULAR, EVEN DEEPLY SO, IS A DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAW FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

2.  THE KUNZ CASE PRESENTS A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION.  WE MUST BE
MINDFUL OF THE ENORMOUS DIFFICULTIES CONFRONTING THOSE CHARGED WITH THE
TASK OF ENABLING THE POLYGLOT MILLIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO LIVE
IN PEACE AND TOLERANCE.  STREET-PREACHING IN COLUMBUS CIRCLE IS DONE IN
A MILIEU QUITE DIFFERENT FROM PREACHING ON A NEW ENGLAND VILLAGE
GREEN.  AGAIN, RELIGIOUS POLEMIC DOES NOT TOUCH THE MERELY
RATIOCINATIVE NATURE OF MAN, AND THE UGLY FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD
OF THIS CASE SHOW THAT KUNZ WAS NOT RELUCTANT TO OFFEND THE DEEPEST
RELIGIOUS FEELINGS OF FREQUENTERS OF COLUMBUS CIRCLE.  ESPECIALLY IN
SUCH SITUATIONS, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS ABSTRACT VIEWS
FOR THE INFORMED JUDGMENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONFIRMED BY LOCAL
COURTS. 

I CANNOT MAKE TOO EXPLICIT MY CONVICTION THAT THE CITY OF NEW YORK IS
NOT RESTRAINED BY ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
FROM PROTECTING COMPLETELY THE COMMUNITY'S INTERESTS IN RELATION TO ITS
STREETS.  BUT IF A MUNICIPALITY CONDITIONS HOLDING STREET MEETINGS ON
THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT BY THE POLICE, THE BASIS WHICH GUIDES
LICENSING OFFICIALS IN GRANTING OR DENYING A PERMIT MUST NOT GIVE THEM
A FREE HAND, OR A HAND EFFECTIVELY FREE WHEN THE ACTUALITIES OF POLICE
ADMINISTRATION ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO
FORMULATE WITH PARTICULARITY THE TERMS OF A PERMIT SYSTEM WHICH WOULD
SATISFY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  NO DOUBT, FINDING A WANT OF SUCH
STANDARDS PRESUPPOSES SOME CONCEPTION OF WHAT IS NECESSARY TO MEET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT WE DRAW FROM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BUT
MANY A DECISION OF THIS COURT RESTS ON SOME INARTICULATE MAJOR PREMISE
AND IS NONE THE WORSE FOR IT.  A STANDARD MAY BE FOUND INADEQUATE
WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF EXPLICIT DELINEATION OF THE STANDARDS THAT
WOULD BE ADEQUATE, JUST AS DOGGEREL MAY BE FELT NOT TO BE POETRY
WITHOUT THE NEED OF WRITING AN ESSAY ON WHAT POETRY IS. 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OVER THE RIGHT TO SPEAK MUST BE BASED ON
APPROPRIATE STANDARDS, WHETHER THE SPEAKING BE DONE INDOORS OR OUT-OF
DOORS.  THE VICE TO BE GUARDED AGAINST IS ARBITRARY ACTION BY
OFFICIALS.  THE FACT THAT IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE AN ACTION APPEARS
NOT ARBITRARY DOES NOT SAVE THE VALIDITY OF THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH
THE ACTION WAS TAKEN. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, KUNZ WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR WHAT HE SAID ON THE
NIGHT OF ARREST, NOR BECAUSE AT THAT TIME HE WAS DISTURBING THE PEACE
OR INTERFERING WITH TRAFFIC.  HE WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE HE SPOKE WITHOUT
A LICENSE, AND THE LICENSE WAS REFUSED BECAUSE THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
THOUGHT IT LIKELY ON THE BASIS OF PAST PERFORMANCE THAT KUNZ WOULD
OUTRAGE THE RELIGIOUS SENSIBILITIES OF OTHERS.  IF SUCH HAD BEEN THE
SUPPORTABLE FINDING ON THE BASIS OF FAIR STANDARDS IN SAFEGUARDING
PEACE IN ONE OF THE MOST POPULOUS CENTERS OF NEW YORK CITY, THIS COURT
WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN UPSETTING IT.  IT WOULD NOT BE CENSORSHIP IN
ADVANCE.  BUT HERE THE STANDARDS ARE DEFINED NEITHER BY LANGUAGE NOR BY
SETTLED CONSTRUCTION TO PRECLUDE DISCRIMINATORY OR ARBITRARY ACTION BY
OFFICIALS.  THE ORDINANCE, AS JUDICIALLY CONSTRUED, PROVIDES THAT
ANYONE WHO, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE LICENSING OFFICIALS, WOULD
"RIDICULE" OR "DENOUNCE" RELIGION CREATES SUCH A DANGER OF PUBLIC
DISTURBANCE THAT HE CANNOT SPEAK IN ANY PARK OR STREET IN THE CITY OF
NEW YORK.  SUCH A STANDARD, CONSIDERING THE INFORMAL PROCEDURE UNDER
WHICH IT IS APPLIED, TOO READILY PERMITS CENSORSHIP OF RELIGION BY THE
LICENSING AUTHORITIES.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296.  THE
SITUATION HERE DISCLOSED IS NOT, TO REITERATE, BEYOND CONTROL ON THE
BASIS OF REGULATION APPROPRIATELY DIRECTED TO THE EVIL.  FN2 

3.  FEINER WAS CONVICTED UNDER NEW YORK PENAL LAW, SEC. 722, WHICH
PROVIDES: 

"ANY PERSON WHO WITH INTENT TO PROVOKE A BREACH OF THE PEACE, OR
WHEREBY A BREACH OF THE PEACE MAY BE OCCASIONED, COMMITS ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING ACTS SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF
DISORDERLY CONDUCT: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"2.  ACTS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ANNOY, DISTURB, INTERFERE WITH,
OBSTRUCT, OR BE OFFENSIVE TO OTHERS; ...  " 

A STATE COURT CANNOT OF COURSE PRECLUDE REVIEW OF DUE PROCESS
QUESTIONS MERELY BY PHRASING ITS OPINION IN TERMS OF AN ULTIMATE
STANDARD WHICH IN ITSELF SATISFIES DUE PROCESS.  WATTS V. INDIANA, 338
U.S. 49, 50; BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 665, 670-671;
NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 589-590.  COMPARE APPLEBY V. CITY OF
NEW YORK, 271 U.S. 364, 379-380.  BUT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT RE-EXAMINE
DETERMINATIONS OF THE STATE COURTS ON "THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE USUALLY
TERMED ISSUES OF FACT."  WATTS V. INDIANA, SUPRA, AT 50.  AND IT SHOULD
NOT OVERTURN A FAIR APPRAISAL OF FACTS MADE BY STATE COURTS IN THE
LIGHT OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CONDITIONS. 

HERE, FEINER FORCED PEDESTRIANS TO WALK IN THE STREET BY COLLECTING A
CROWD ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK, HE ATTRACTED ADDITIONAL ATTENTION BY
USING SOUND AMPLIFIERS, HE INDULGED IN NAME-CALLING, HE TOLD PART OF
HIS AUDIENCE THAT IT SHOULD RISE UP IN ARMS.  IN THE CROWD OF 75 TO 80
PERSONS, THERE WAS ANGRY MUTTERING AND PUSHING.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN ORDER TO PREVENT A DISTURBANCE OF THE PEACE, AN
OFFICER ASKED FEINER TO STOP SPEAKING.  WHEN HE HAD TWICE IGNORED THE
REQUEST, FEINER WAS ARRESTED.  THE TRIAL JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT "THE
OFFICERS WERE FULLY JUSTIFIED IN FEELING THAT A SITUATION WAS
DEVELOPING WHICH COULD VERY, VERY EASILY RESULT IN A SERIOUS
DISORDER."  HIS VIEW WAS SUSTAINED BY AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT
AND BY A UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  300 N.Y.
391, 91 N.E.2D 316.  THE ESTIMATE OF A PARTICULAR LOCAL SITUATION THUS
COMES HERE WITH THE MOMENTUM OF THE WEIGHTIEST JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF
NEW YORK. 

THIS COURT HAS OFTEN EMPHASIZED THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR AUTHORITY
OVER STATE COURT DECISIONS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE MUST NOT BE CONSTRUED
IN AN ABSTRACT AND DOCTRINAIRE WAY BY DISREGARDING LOCAL CONDITIONS. 
IN CONSIDERING THE DEGREE OF RESPECT TO BE GIVEN FINDINGS BY THE
HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE IN CASES INVOLVING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THE
COURSE OF DECISIONS BY THAT COURT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 
PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE AREA OF DUE PROCESS COLLOQUIALLY CALLED "CIVIL
LIBERTIES," IT IS IMPORTANT WHETHER SUCH A COURSE OF DECISIONS REFLECTS
A CAVALIER ATTITUDE TOWARD CIVIL LIBERTIES OR REAL REGARD FOR THEM. 
ONLY UNFAMILIARITY WITH ITS DECISIONS AND THE OUTLOOK OF ITS JUDGES
COULD GENERATE A NOTION THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK IS
INHOSPITABLE TO CLAIMS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES OR IS WANTING IN RESPECT FOR
THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THEM.  IT IS PERTINENT, THEREFORE,
TO NOTE THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK COURT ACCEPTED THE FINDING
THAT FEINER WAS STOPPED NOT BECAUSE THE LISTENERS OR POLICE OFFICERS
DISAGREED WITH HIS VIEWS BUT BECAUSE THESE OFFICERS WERE HONESTLY
CONCERNED WITH PREVENTING A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  THIS UNANIMITY IS ALL
THE MORE PERSUASIVE SINCE THREE MEMBERS OF THE COURT HAD DISSENTED,
ONLY THREE MONTHS EARLIER, IN FAVOR OF KUNZ, A MAN WHOSE VITUPERATIVE
UTTERANCES MUST HAVE BEEN HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO THEM. 

AS WAS SAID IN HAGUE V. C.I.O., SUPRA, UNCONTROLLED OFFICIAL
SUPPRESSION OF THE SPEAKER "CANNOT BE MADE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DUTY TO
MAINTAIN ORDER."  307 U.S. AT 516.  WHERE CONDUCT IS WITHIN THE
ALLOWABLE LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH, THE POLICE ARE PEACE OFFICERS FOR THE
SPEAKER AS WELL AS FOR HIS HEARERS.  BUT THE POWER EFFECTIVELY TO
PRESERVE ORDER CANNOT BE DISPLACED BY GIVING A SPEAKER COMPLETE
IMMUNITY.  HERE, THERE WERE TWO POLICE OFFICERS PRESENT FOR 20
MINUTES.  THEY INTERFERED ONLY WHEN THEY APPREHENDED IMMINENCE OF
VIOLENCE.  IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE THAT, IN ACTING TO
PRESERVE ORDER, THE POLICE MUST PROCEED AGAINST THE CROWD, WHATEVER ITS
SIZE AND TEMPER, AND NOT AGAINST THE SPEAKER. 

IT IS TRUE THAT BREACH-OF-PEACE STATUTES, LIKE MOST TOOLS OF
GOVERNMENT, MAY BE MISUSED.  ENFORCEMENT OF THESE STATUTES CALLS FOR
PUBLIC TOLERANCE AND INTELLIGENT POLICE ADMINISTRATION.  THESE, IN THE
LONG RUN, MUST GIVE SUBSTANCE TO WHATEVER THIS COURT MAY SAY ABOUT FREE
SPEECH.  BUT THE POSSIBILITY OF MISUSE IS NOT ALONE A SUFFICIENT REASON
TO DENY NEW YORK THE POWER HERE ASSERTED OR SO LIMIT IT BY
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION AS TO DENY ITS PRACTICAL EXERCISE. 

FN1  IN M'ARA V. MAGISTRATES OF EDINBURGH, 1913 S.C. 1059, A STREET
ORATOR WHO WAS ARRESTED FOR SPEAKING WITHOUT A LICENSE IN THE STREETS
OF EDINBURGH, CONTRARY TO THE MAGISTRATES' PROCLAMATION, CHALLENGED THE
ARREST.  THE COURT OF SESSION AFFIRMED A HOLDING THAT MAGISTRATES HAD
NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE PROCLAMATION BECAUSE THE ACT OF 1606 GRANTING
THEM AUTHORITY WAS IN DESUETUDE.  HOWEVER, IN HIS JUDGMENT, LORD
DUNEDIN, ONE OF THE MOST TRENCHANT MINDS IN MODERN ANGLO-AMERICAN
JUDICIAL HISTORY, DEALT WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE
RIGHT TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC PLACES.  ALTHOUGH HE WAS APPLYING SCOTS LAW,
NOT A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, LORD DUNEDIN'S REMARKS ARE APPOSITE HERE: 

"NOW THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH UNDOUBTEDLY EXISTS, AND THE RIGHT OF
FREE SPEECH IS TO PROMULGATE YOUR OPINIONS BY SPEECH SO LONG AS YOU DO
NOT UTTER WHAT IS TREASONABLE OR LIBELLOUS, OR MAKE YOURSELF OBNOXIOUS
TO THE STATUTES THAT DEAL WITH BLASPHEMY AND OBSCENITY.  BUT THE RIGHT
OF FREE SPEECH IS A PERFECTLY SEPARATE THING FROM THE QUESTION OF THE
PLACE WHERE THAT RIGHT IS TO BE EXERCISED.  YOU MAY SAY WHAT YOU LIKE
PROVIDED IT IS NOT OBNOXIOUS IN THE WAYS I HAVE INDICATED, BUT THAT
DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU MAY SAY IT ANYWHERE. 

"I AM NOT GOING TO DEAL WITH WHAT MAY BE THE CASE IN OPEN SPACES OR
PUBLIC PLACES.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT NO GENERAL PRONOUNCEMENT UPON THAT
SUBJECT COULD BE MADE, BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE ONE OFTEN
SPEAKS OF OPEN SPACES OR OF PUBLIC PLACES, THE TRUTH IS THAT OPEN
SPACES AND PUBLIC PLACES DIFFER VERY MUCH IN THEIR CHARACTER, AND
BEFORE YOU COULD SAY WHETHER A CERTAIN THING COULD BE DONE IN A CERTAIN
PLACE YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE PARTICULAR PLACE.  FOR
EXAMPLE, THERE MAY BE CERTAIN PLACES WHICH ARE DEDICATED TO CERTAIN
USES, ...  AND THINGS THAT OTHERWISE WERE LAWFUL MIGHT BE RESTRAINED IF
THEY INTERFERED WITH THE PURPOSES OF THAT DEDICATION.  EACH OF THOSE
CASES MUST BE DEALT WITH WHEN IT ARISES.  HERE WE ARE DEALING WITH A
STREET PROPER, BECAUSE THIS PLACE AT THE MOUND IS JUST ONE OF THE
STREETS OF THE CITY.  IT IS A THOROUGHFARE, ALTHOUGH, PROBABLY, NOT A
VERY MUCH USED THOROUGHFARE AT THAT PARTICULAR CORNER.  IN SUCH A PLACE
THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST RIGHT IN ANYONE TO HOLD A MEETING AS SUCH. 
...  "  ID. AT 1073-1074. 

FN2  THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT THE ORDINANCE WHICH GAVE RISE TO
KUNZ'S CONVICTION HAS BEEN BEFORE THE COURT.  THAT FACT IS RELEVANT
HOWEVER ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPRECIATING THAT THE CONTEXT IN WHICH
AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE COURT CONSIDERED THE ORDINANCE
THE FIRST TIME ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE CONDITIONS UNDERLYING THE
PRESENT APPEAL.  THE FIRST TIME THE COURT HAD TO CONSIDER THE ORDINANCE
WAS ON AN APPEAL FROM PEOPLE V. SMITH, 263 N.Y. 255, 188 N.E. 745.  IN
THAT CASE THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED A CONVICTION FOR
EXPOUNDING ATHEISM IN THE STREET WITHOUT A PERMIT.  THE APPEAL TO THIS
COURT WAS BASED SOLELY ON THE ARGUMENT THAT REGULATION OF SPEAKERS ON
RELIGION WITHOUT REGULATING OTHER SPEAKERS WAS AN UNREASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION.  RESPONDING TO THIS ISSUE, THE COURT SUMMARILY
DISMISSED THE APPEAL, 292 U.S. 606, CITING THREE CASES:  PATSONE V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138, 144; SILVER V. SILVER, 280 U.S. 117, 123;
AND SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 396.  ALL THREE CONCERN THE
PROBLEM OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION AND IN NO WISE BEAR ON THE ISSUE
NOW BEFORE US.  THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE SMITH CASE AND
THE KUNZ CASE IS STRIKINGLY MANIFESTED BY THE FACT THAT THE CONVICTION
OF SMITH WAS AFFIRMED BY A UNANIMOUS COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK,
WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
NARROWEST DIVISION IN THAT COURT. 

IT MUST ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE SMITH CASE WAS DISPOSED OF IN
1934, BEFORE THE SERIES OF DECISIONS BEGINNING WITH LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
303 U.S. 444, ALLOWING MUCH LESS SCOPE TO LOCAL OFFICIALS IN THE
CONTROL OF PUBLIC UTTERANCES THAN HAD THERETOFORE BEEN TAKEN FOR
GRANTED.  COMPARE THE LANGUAGE OF DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43,
AS WELL AS THE ATMOSPHERE WHICH IT GENERATED.  SO FAR AS THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO THE CITY OF NEW YORK ARE CONCERNED, IT IS
PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ALL THREE DISSENTING JUDGES BELOW ARE RESIDENTS
OF NEW YORK CITY, WHEREAS NOT ONE OF THE FOUR CONSTITUTING THE MAJORITY
IS A DENIZEN OF THAT CITY.  THE THREE NEW YORK CITY DISSENTING JUDGES
ARE PRESUMABLY AS ALIVE TO THE NEED FOR SECURING PEACE AMONG THE
VARIOUS RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS IN NEW YORK, AND TO THE OPPORTUNITY
OF ACHIEVING IT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, AS ONE WHO HAS ONLY A
VISITOR'S ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE TOLERANT AND GENIAL COMMUNAL LIFE OF
NEW YORK CITY. 
..END :







KUNZ V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 290 


NO. 50.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1951.  - 300
N.Y. 273, 90 N.E.2D 455, REVERSED. 


1.  A CITY ORDINANCE WHICH PRESCRIBES NO APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND GIVES AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL
DISCRETIONARY POWER TO CONTROL IN ADVANCE THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO
SPEAK ON RELIGIOUS MATTERS ON THE CITY STREETS IS INVALID UNDER THE
FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  PP. 290-295. 

2.  IN 1946, APPELLANT OBTAINED FROM THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER A
PERMIT TO HOLD RELIGIOUS MEETINGS ON THE STREETS OF NEW YORK CITY
DURING THAT YEAR ONLY.  IT WAS REVOKED ON EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD
RIDICULED AND DENOUNCED OTHER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, IN VIOLATION OF A
CRIMINAL PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER WHICH THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED. 
THE ORDINANCE CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR REVOCATION OF SUCH PERMITS AND
NO STANDARD TO GUIDE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS IN GRANTING OR DENYING
PERMITS.  IN 1948, APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR A SIMILAR PERMIT WAS
DENIED AND HE WAS CONVICTED FOR HOLDING A RELIGIOUS MEETING ON THE
STREETS WITHOUT A PERMIT.  HELD:  THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED.  PP. 290
295. 

KUNZ V. NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED FOR HOLDING A RELIGIOUS MEETING ON THE CITY
STREETS WITHOUT A PERMIT IN VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF N.Y.
CITY, C. 18, SEC. 435-7.0.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED. 
300 N.Y. 273, 90 N.E.2D 455.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P.
295. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NEW YORK CITY HAS ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE WHICH MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO
HOLD PUBLIC WORSHIP MEETINGS ON THE STREETS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A
PERMIT FROM THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER N1.  APPELLANT, CARL JACOB
KUNZ, WAS CONVICTED AND FINED $10 FOR VIOLATING THIS ORDINANCE BY
HOLDING A RELIGIOUS MEETING WITHOUT A PERMIT.  THE CONVICTION WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE PART OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS, AND BY
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, THREE JUDGES DISSENTING, 300 N.Y. 273,
90 N.E.2D 455(1950).  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL, IT HAVING BEEN URGED
THAT THE ORDINANCE IS INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

APPELLANT IS AN ORDAINED BAPTIST MINISTER WHO SPEAKS UNDER THE
AUSPICES OF THE "OUTDOOR GOSPEL WORK," OF WHICH HE IS THE DIRECTOR.  HE
HAS BEEN PREACHING FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS, AND STATES THAT IT IS HIS
CONVICTION AND DUTY TO "GO OUT ON THE HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS AND PREACH
THE WORD OF GOD."  IN 1946, HE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED A PERMIT UNDER
THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION, THERE BEING NO QUESTION THAT APPELLANT COMES
WITHIN THE CLASSES OF PERSONS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PERMITS UNDER THE
ORDINANCE.  FN2  THIS PERMIT, LIKE ALL OTHERS, WAS GOOD ONLY FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH ISSUED.  IN NOVEMBER, 1946, HIS PERMIT WAS
REVOKED AFTER A HEARING BY THE POLICE COMMISSIONER.  THE REVOCATION WAS
BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD RIDICULED AND DENOUNCED OTHER RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS IN HIS MEETINGS. 

ALTHOUGH THE PENALTIES OF THE ORDINANCE APPLY TO ANYONE WHO "RIDICULES
AND DENOUNCES OTHER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS," THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT SPECIFY
THIS AS A GROUND FOR PERMIT REVOCATION.  INDEED, THERE IS NO MENTION IN
THE ORDINANCE OF ANY POWER OF REVOCATION.  HOWEVER, APPELLANT DID NOT
SEEK JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS,
AND ANY QUESTION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF THE REVOCATION IS NOT BEFORE US
IN THIS CASE.  IN ANY EVENT, THE REVOCATION AFFECTED APPELLANT'S RIGHTS
TO SPEAK IN 1946 ONLY.  APPELLANT APPLIED FOR ANOTHER PERMIT IN 1947,
AND AGAIN IN 1948, BUT WAS NOTIFIED EACH TIME THAT HIS APPLICATION WAS
"DISAPPROVED," WITH NO REASON FOR THE DISAPPROVAL BEING GIVEN.  ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 1948, APPELLANT WAS ARRESTED FOR SPEAKING AT COLUMBUS
CIRCLE IN NEW YORK CITY WITHOUT A PERMIT.  IT IS FROM THE CONVICTION
WHICH RESULTED THAT THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN. 

APPELLANT'S CONVICTION WAS THUS BASED UPON HIS FAILURE TO POSSESS A
PERMIT FOR 1948.  WE ARE HERE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE PROPRIETY OF THE
ACTION OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER IN REFUSING TO ISSUE THAT PERMIT. 
DISAPPROVAL OF THE 1948 PERMIT APPLICATION BY THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE NEW YORK COURTS ON THE GROUND THAT A PERMIT HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN REVOKED "FOR GOOD REASONS."  FN3  IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT
THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ORDINANCE OF REASONS FOR WHICH SUCH A PERMIT
APPLICATION CAN BE REFUSED.  THIS INTERPRETATION ALLOWS THE POLICE
COMMISSIONER, AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, TO EXERCISE DISCRETION IN
DENYING SUBSEQUENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS ON THE BASIS OF HIS
INTERPRETATION, AT THAT TIME, OF WHAT IS DEEMED TO BE CONDUCT CONDEMNED
BY THE ORDINANCE.  WE HAVE HERE, THEN, AN ORDINANCE WHICH GIVES AN
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DISCRETIONARY POWER TO CONTROL IN ADVANCE THE
RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO SPEAK ON RELIGIOUS MATTERS ON THE STREETS OF NEW
YORK.  AS SUCH, THE ORDINANCE IS CLEARLY INVALID AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT
ON THE EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 

IN CONSIDERING THE RIGHT OF A MUNICIPALITY TO CONTROL THE USE OF
PUBLIC STREETS FOR THE EXPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS VIEWS, WE START WITH THE
WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS THAT "WHEREVER THE TITLE OF STREETS AND
PARKS MAY REST, THEY HAVE IMMEMORIALLY BEEN HELD IN TRUST FOR THE USE
OF THE PUBLIC AND, TIME OUT OF MIND, HAVE BEEN USED FOR PURPOSES OF
ASSEMBLY, COMMUNICATING THOUGHTS BETWEEN CITIZENS, AND DISCUSSING
PUBLIC QUESTIONS."  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 515(1939).  ALTHOUGH
THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT A STATUTE MAY BE ENACTED WHICH PREVENTS
SERIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH NORMAL USAGE OF STREETS AND PARKS, COX V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569(1941), WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY CONDEMNED LICENSING
SYSTEMS WHICH VEST IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DISCRETION TO GRANT OR
WITHHOLD A PERMIT UPON BROAD CRITERIA UNRELATED TO PROPER REGULATION OF
PUBLIC PLACES.  IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296(1940), THIS
COURT HELD INVALID AN ORDINANCE WHICH REQUIRED A LICENSE FOR SOLICITING
MONEY FOR RELIGIOUS CAUSES.  SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS SAID:  "BUT TO CONDITION THE SOLICITATION OF AID FOR
THE PERPETUATION OF RELIGIOUS VIEWS OR SYSTEMS UPON A LICENSE, THE
GRANT OF WHICH RESTS IN THE EXERCISE OF A DETERMINATION BY STATE
AUTHORITY AS TO WHAT IS A RELIGIOUS CAUSE, IS TO LAY A FORBIDDEN BURDEN
UPON THE EXERCISE OF LIBERTY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION."  310 U.S.
AT 307.  TO THE SAME EFFECT ARE LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444(1938);
HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496(1939); LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S.
418(1943).  IN SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558(1948), WE REAFFIRMED THE
INVALIDITY OF SUCH PRIOR RESTRAINTS UPON THE RIGHT TO SPEAK:  "WE HOLD
THAT SEC. 3 OF THIS ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, FOR IT
ESTABLISHES A PREVIOUS RESTRAINT ON THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH IS PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AGAINST STATE ACTION.  TO USE A LOUD-SPEAKER OR AMPLIFIER ONE
HAS TO GET A PERMIT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE.  THERE ARE NO STANDARDS
PRESCRIBED FOR THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION."  334 U.S. AT 559-560. 

THE COURT BELOW HAS MISTAKENLY DERIVED SUPPORT FOR ITS CONCLUSION
FROM THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT THE TRIAL THAT APPELLANT'S RELIGIOUS
MEETINGS HAD, IN THE PAST, CAUSED SOME DISORDER.  THERE ARE APPROPRIATE
PUBLIC REMEDIES TO PROTECT THE PEACE AND ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY IF
APPELLANT'S SPEECHES SHOULD RESULT IN DISORDER OR VIOLENCE.  "IN THE
PRESENT CASE, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO INQUIRE AS TO THE PERMISSIBLE
SCOPE OF SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT."  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697,
715(1931).  WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE PROPRIETY OF PUNITIVE
REMEDIES WHICH THE NEW YORK AUTHORITIES MAY UTILIZE.  WE ARE HERE
CONCERNED WITH SUPPRESSION - NOT PUNISHMENT.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY
THAT NEW YORK CANNOT VEST RESTRAINING CONTROL OVER THE RIGHT TO SPEAK
ON RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WHERE THERE ARE NO
APPROPRIATE STANDARDS TO GUIDE HIS ACTION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 435-7.0 OF CHAPTER 18 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"A.  PUBLIC WORSHIP.  - IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO BE
CONCERNED OR INSTRUMENTAL IN COLLECTING OR PROMOTING ANY ASSEMBLAGE OF
PERSONS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP OR EXHORTATION, OR TO RIDICULE OR DENOUNCE
ANY FORM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF, SERVICE OR REVERENCE, OR TO PREACH OR
EXPOUND ATHEISM OR AGNOSTICISM, OR UNDER ANY PRETENSE THEREFOR, IN ANY
STREET.  A CLERGYMAN OR MINISTER OF ANY DENOMINATION, HOWEVER, OR ANY
PERSON RESPONSIBLE TO OR REGULARLY ASSOCIATED WITH ANY CHURCH OR
INCORPORATED MISSIONARY SOCIETY, OR ANY LAY-PREACHER, OR LAY-READER MAY
CONDUCT RELIGIOUS SERVICES, OR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF A DULY
INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES
OF ATHEISM OR AGNOSTICISM MAY PREACH OR EXPOUND SUCH CAUSE, IN ANY
PUBLIC PLACE OR PLACES SPECIFIED IN A PERMIT THEREFOR WHICH MAY BE
GRANTED AND ISSUED BY THE POLICE COMMISSIONER.  THIS SECTION SHALL NOT
BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT ANY CONGREGATION OF THE BAPTIST DENOMINATION
FROM ASSEMBLING IN A PROPER PLACE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING THE
RITES OF BAPTISM, ACCORDING TO THE CEREMONIES OF THAT CHURCH. 

"B.  INTERFERENCE WITH STREET SERVICES.  - IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR
ANY PERSON TO DISTURB, MOLEST OR INTERRUPT ANY CLERGYMAN, MINISTER,
MISSIONARY, LAY-PREACHER OR LAY-READER, WHO SHALL BE CONDUCTING
RELIGIOUS SERVICES BY AUTHORITY OF A PERMIT, ISSUED HEREUNDER, OR ANY
MINISTER OR PEOPLE WHO SHALL BE PERFORMING THE RITE OF BAPTISM AS
PERMITTED HEREIN, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON COMMIT ANY RIOT OR DISORDER IN
ANY SUCH ASSEMBLY. 

"C.  VIOLATIONS.  - ANY PERSON WHO SHALL VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF
THIS SECTION, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF
NOT MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS, OR IMPRISONMENT FOR THIRTY DAYS, OR
BOTH." 

THIS ORDINANCE WAS PREVIOUSLY CHALLENGED IN PEOPLE V. SMITH, 263 N.Y.
255, 188 N.E. 745, APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
QUESTION, SMITH V. NEW YORK, 292 U.S. 606(1934).  SMITH, WHO HAD NOT
APPLIED FOR A PERMIT UNDER THE ORDINANCE, ARGUED THAT THE REGULATION OF
RELIGIOUS SPEAKERS ALONE CONSTITUTED AN UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION. 
NONE OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL WERE PRESENTED IN
THE PREVIOUS CASE. 

FN2  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAS CONSTRUED THE ORDINANCE TO
REQUIRE THAT ALL INITIAL REQUESTS FOR PERMITS BY ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
MUST BE GRANTED.  300 N.Y. AT 276, 90 N.E.2D AT 456. 

FN3  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS SAID:  "THE COMMISSIONER HAD NO
REASON TO ASSUME, AND NO PROMISE WAS MADE, THAT DEFENDANT WANTED A NEW
PERMIT FOR ANY USES DIFFERENT FROM THE DISORDERLY ONES HE HAD BEEN
GUILTY OF BEFORE."  300 N.Y. AT 278, 90 N.E.2D AT 457. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

(FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT, SEE
ANTE, P. 273. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

ESSENTIAL FREEDOMS ARE TODAY THREATENED FROM WITHOUT AND WITHIN.  IT
MAY BECOME DIFFICULT TO PRESERVE HERE WHAT A LARGE PART OF THE WORLD
HAS LOST - THE RIGHT TO SPEAK, EVEN TEMPERATELY, ON MATTERS VITAL TO
SPIRIT AND BODY.  IN SUCH A SETTING, TO BLANKET HATEFUL AND HATE
STIRRING ATTACKS ON RACES AND FAITHS UNDER THE PROTECTIONS FOR FREEDOM
OF SPEECH MAY BE A NOBLE INNOVATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MAY BE A
QUIXOTIC TILT AT WINDMILLS WHICH BELITTLES GREAT PRINCIPLES OF
LIBERTY.  ONLY TIME CAN TELL.  BUT I INCLINE TO THE LATTER VIEW AND
CANNOT ASSENT TO THE DECISION. 

                                  I. 

TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE MUST FIRST LOCATE THE POINT AT WHICH
RIGHTS ASSERTED BY KUNZ CONFLICT WITH POWERS ASSERTED BY THE ORGANIZED
COMMUNITY.  NEW YORK CITY HAS PLACED NO LIMITATION UPON ANY SPEECH KUNZ
MAY CHOOSE TO MAKE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE A PERMIT TO
HOLD RELIGIOUS MEETINGS IN ITS STREETS.  THE ORDINANCE, NEITHER BY ITS
TERMS NOR AS IT HAS BEEN APPLIED, PROHIBITED KUNZ,  FN1  EVEN IN STREET
MEETINGS, FROM PREACHING HIS OWN RELIGION OR MAKING ANY TEMPERATE
CRITICISM OR REFUTATION OF OTHER RELIGIONS; INDEED, FOR THE YEAR 1946,
HE WAS GIVEN A GENERAL PERMIT TO DO SO.  HIS MEETINGS, HOWEVER, BROUGHT
"A FLOOD OF COMPLAINTS" TO CITY AUTHORITIES THAT HE WAS ENGAGING IN
SCURRILOUS ATTACKS ON CATHOLICS AND JEWS.  ON NOTICE, HE WAS GIVEN A
HEARING AT WHICH EIGHTEEN COMPLAINANTS APPEARED.  THE COMMISSIONER
REVOKED HIS PERMIT AND APPLICATIONS FOR 1947 AND 1948 WERE REFUSED. 
FOR A TIME HE WENT ON HOLDING MEETINGS WITHOUT A PERMIT IN COLUMBUS
CIRCLE, WHERE IN SEPTEMBER, 1948, HE WAS ARRESTED FOR VIOLATION OF THE
ORDINANCE.  HE WAS CONVICTED AND FINED TEN DOLLARS. 

AT THESE MEETINGS, KUNZ PREACHED, AMONG MANY OTHER THINGS OF LIKE
TENOR, THAT "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MAKES MERCHANDISE OUT OF SOULS," THAT
CATHOLICISM IS "A RELIGION OF THE DEVIL," AND THAT THE POPE IS "THE
ANTI-CHRIST."  THE JEWS HE DENOUNCED AS "CHRIST-KILLERS," AND HE SAID
OF THEM, "ALL THE GARBAGE THAT DIDN'T BELIEVE IN CHRIST SHOULD HAVE
BEEN BURNT IN THE INCINERATORS.  IT'S A SHAME THEY ALL WEREN'T." 

THESE UTTERANCES, AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT, STIRRED STRIFE AND THREATENED
VIOLENCE.  TESTIFYING IN HIS OWN BEHALF, KUNZ STATED THAT HE "BECAME
ACQUAINTED WITH" ONE OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES, WHOM HE THOUGHT TO
BE A JEW, "WHEN HE HAPPENED TO SOCK ONE OF MY CHRISTIAN BOYS IN THE
PUSS."  KUNZ HIMSELF COMPLAINED TO THE AUTHORITIES, CHARGING A WOMAN
INTERRUPTER WITH DISORDERLY CONDUCT.  HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT WHEN AN
OFFICER IS NOT PRESENT AT HIS MEETINGS "I HAVE TROUBLE THEN," BUT "WITH
AN OFFICER, NO TROUBLE." 

THE CONTENTION WHICH KUNZ BRINGS HERE AND WHICH THIS COURT SUSTAINS
IS THAT SUCH SPEECHES ON THE STREETS ARE WITHIN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
FREEDOM AND THEREFORE NEW YORK CITY HAS NO POWER TO REQUIRE A PERMIT. 
HE DOES NOT DENY THAT THIS HAS BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE HIS LINE OF
TALK.  FN2  HE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A
PERMIT; HE ATTACKS THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF CONTROL OF STREET MEETINGS AND
SAYS THE CONSTITUTION GIVES HIM PERMISSION TO SPEAK AND HE NEEDS NONE
FROM THE CITY. 

                                 II. 

THE SPEECHES WHICH KUNZ HAS MADE AND WHICH HE ASSERTS HE HAS A RIGHT
TO MAKE IN THE FUTURE WERE PROPERLY HELD BY THE COURTS BELOW TO BE OUT
OF BOUNDS FOR A STREET MEETING AND NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED. 
THIS COURT, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, MAKES A CONTRARY ASSUMPTION WHICH IS
BASIC TO ITS WHOLE OPINION.  IT SAYS NEW YORK HAS GIVEN "AN
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL DISCRETIONARY POWER TO CONTROL IN ADVANCE THE
RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO SPEAK ON RELIGIOUS MATTERS ON THE STREETS." 
AGAIN, IT SAYS THAT "PRIOR RESTRAINT ON THE EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS" INVALIDATES THE ORDINANCE.  THIS SEEMS TO TAKE THE LAST STEP
FIRST, ASSUMING AS A PREMISE WHAT IS IN QUESTION.  OF COURSE, IF KUNZ
IS ONLY EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THEN NEW YORK CAN NEITHER
RESTRAIN NOR PUNISH HIM.  BUT I DOUBT THAT THE COURT'S ASSUMPTION WILL
SURVIVE ANALYSIS.    THIS COURT TODAY INITIATES THE DOCTRINE THAT
LANGUAGE SUCH AS THIS, IN THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE STREET MEETING, IS
IMMUNE FROM PRIOR MUNICIPAL CONTROL.  WE WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT
QUESTION IF NEW YORK HAD PRESUMED TO SAY THAT KUNZ COULD NOT SPEAK HIS
PIECE IN HIS OWN PULPIT OR HALL.  BUT IT HAS UNDERTAKEN TO RESTRAIN HIM
ONLY IF HE CHOOSES TO SPEAK AT STREET MEETINGS.  THERE IS A WORLD OF
DIFFERENCE.  THE STREET PREACHER TAKES ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE'S PRESENCE
ON THE STREETS TO IMPOSE HIS MESSAGE UPON WHAT, IN A SENSE, IS A
CAPTIVE AUDIENCE.  A MEETING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IS MADE UP OF AN
AUDIENCE THAT HAS VOLUNTEERED TO LISTEN.  THE QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS
NOT WHETHER NEW YORK COULD, IF IT TRIED, SILENCE KUNZ, BUT WHETHER IT
MUST PLACE ITS STREETS AT HIS SERVICE TO HURL INSULTS AT THE PASSER
BY. 

WHAT MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN SCHENCK V.
UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52, HAS BECOME AN AXIOM:  "THE MOST
STRINGENT PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH WOULD NOT PROTECT A MAN IN FALSELY
SHOUTING FIRE IN A THEATRE AND CAUSING A PANIC."  THIS CONCEPT WAS
APPLIED IN ONE OF ITS FEW UNANIMOUS DECISIONS IN RECENT YEARS, WHEN,
THROUGH MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, THE COURT SAID:  "THERE ARE CERTAIN WELL
DEFINED AND NARROWLY LIMITED CLASSES OF SPEECH, THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO RAISE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
PROBLEM.  THESE INCLUDE THE LEWD AND OBSCENE, THE PROFANE, THE
LIBELOUS, AND THE INSULTING OR 'FIGHTING' WORDS - THOSE WHICH BY THEIR
VERY UTTERANCE INFLICT INJURY OR TEND TO INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF
THE PEACE...."  CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572. 

THERE HELD TO BE "INSULTING OR 'FIGHTING' WORDS" WERE CALLING ONE A
"GOD DAMNED RACKETEER" AND A "DAMNED FASCIST."  EQUALLY INCITING AND
MORE CLEARLY "FIGHTING WORDS," WHEN THROWN AT CATHOLICS AND JEWS WHO
ARE RIGHTFULLY ON THE STREETS OF NEW YORK, ARE STATEMENTS THAT "THE
POPE IS THE ANTI-CHRIST" AND THE JEWS ARE "CHRIST-KILLERS."  THESE
TERSE EPITHETS COME DOWN TO OUR GENERATION WEIGHTED WITH HATREDS
ACCUMULATED THROUGH CENTURIES OF BLOODSHED.  THEY ARE RECOGNIZED WORDS
OF ART IN THE PROFESSION OF DEFAMATION.  THEY ARE NOT THE KIND OF
INSULT THAT MEN BANDY AND LAUGH OFF WHEN THE SPIRITS ARE HIGH AND THE
FLAGONS ARE LOW.  THEY ARE NOT IN THAT CLASS OF EPITHETS WHOSE LITERAL
STING WILL BE DRAWN IF THE SPEAKER SMILES WHEN HE USES THEM.  THEY ARE
ALWAYS, AND IN EVERY CONTEXT, INSULTS WHICH DO NOT SPRING FROM REASON
AND CAN BE ANSWERED BY NONE.  THEIR HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS WITH
VIOLENCE ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD, BOTH BY THOSE WHO HURL AND THOSE WHO ARE
STRUCK BY THESE MISSILES.  JEWS, MANY OF WHOSE FAMILIES PERISHED IN
EXTERMINATION FURNACES OF DACHAU AND AUSCHWITZ, ARE MORE THAN TOLERANT
IF THEY PASS OFF LIGHTLY THE SUGGESTION THAT UNBELIEVERS IN CHRIST
SHOULD ALL HAVE BEEN BURNED.  OF COURSE, PEOPLE MIGHT PASS THIS SPEAKER
BY AS A MENTAL CASE, AND SO THEY MIGHT FILE OUT OF A THEATRE IN GOOD
ORDER AT THE CRY OF "FIRE."  BUT IN BOTH CASES THERE IS GENUINE
LIKELIHOOD THAT SOMEONE WILL GET HURT. 

THIS COURT'S PRIOR DECISIONS, AS WELL AS ITS DECISIONS TODAY, WILL BE
SEARCHED IN VAIN FOR CLEAR STANDARDS BY WHICH IT DOES, OR LOWER COURTS
SHOULD, DISTINGUISH LEGITIMATE SPEAKING FROM THAT ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE
OUTSIDE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  ONE REASON FOR THIS ABSENCE IS
THAT THIS COURT HAS HAD LITTLE EXPERIENCE IN DECIDING CONTROVERSIES
OVER CITY CONTROL OF STREET MEETINGS.  AS LATE AS 1922, THIS COURT
DECLARED, "  ...  NEITHER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NOR ANY OTHER
PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IMPOSES UPON THE
STATES ANY RESTRICTIONS ABOUT 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH'  ...  "  PRUDENTIAL
INSURANCE CO. V. CHEEK, 259 U.S. 530, 543.  BUT WITH THE EXPANDED
AUTHORITY RECENTLY ASSUMED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WE MUST, UNLESS WE ARE TO REVIEW A MULTITUDE OF
POLICE-COURT CASES, DECLARE STANDARDS BY WHICH THEY MAY BE DECIDED
BELOW. 

WHAT EVIDENCES THAT A STREET SPEECH IS SO PROVOCATIVE, INSULTING OR
INCITING AS TO BE OUTSIDE OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM COMMUNITY
INTERFERENCE?  IS IT DETERMINED BY THE ACTUAL REACTION OF THE HEARERS? 
OR IS IT A JUDICIAL APPRAISAL OF THE INHERENT QUALITY OF THE LANGUAGE
USED?  OR BOTH? 

I UNDERSTAND, THOUGH DISAGREE WITH, THE MINORITY IN THE FEINER CASE,
WHO, SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, WOULD REQUIRE NO STANDARDS SINCE THEY
RECOGNIZE NO LIMITS AT ALL, CONSIDERING THAT SOME RIOTING IS THE PRICE
OF FREE SPEECH AND THAT THE CITY MUST ALLOW ALL SPEECH AND PAY THE
PRICE.  BUT EVERY JURISTIC OR PHILOSOPHIC AUTHORITY RECOGNIZED IN THIS
FIELD ADMITS THAT THERE ARE SOME SPEECHES ONE IS NOT FREE TO MAKE.  FN3
THE PROBLEM, ON WHICH THEY DISAGREE, IS HOW AND WHERE TO DRAW THE
LINE. 

IT IS PECULIAR THAT TODAY'S OPINION MAKES NO REFERENCE TO THE "CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST WHICH FOR YEARS HAS PLAYED SOME PART IN FREE
SPEECH CASES.  CF. AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S.
382, 393.  IF NEW YORK HAS BENEFIT OF THE RULE AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES
ANNOUNCED IT, SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 52, IT WOULD MEAN
THAT IT COULD PUNISH OR PREVENT SPEECH IF "THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER THAT THEY WILL BRING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS" THAT
THE CITY HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT, AMONG WHICH I SHOULD SUPPOSE WE WOULD
LIST STREET FIGHTING OR RIOTS.  AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, THE PROOF IN
THIS CASE LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT KUNZ'S WORDS, IN THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
STREETS, HAVE AND WILL RESULT IN THAT, UNLESS A POLICE ESCORT ATTENDS
TO AWE THE HEARERS INTO SUBMISSION. 

A HOSTILE RECEPTION OF HIS SUBJECT CERTAINLY DOES NOT ALONE DESTROY
ONE'S RIGHT TO SPEAK.  A TEMPERATE AND REASONED CRITICISM OF ROMAN
CATHOLICISM OR JUDAISM MIGHT, AND PROBABLY WOULD, CAUSE SOME RESENTMENT
AND PROTEST.  BUT IN A FREE SOCIETY ALL SECTS AND FACTIONS, AS THE
PRICE OF THEIR OWN FREEDOM TO PREACH THEIR VIEWS, MUST SUFFER THAT
FREEDOM IN OTHERS.  TOLERANCE OF UNWELCOME, UNORTHODOX IDEAS OR
INFORMATION IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED POLICY NOT TO BE DEFEATED
BY PERSONS WHO WOULD BREAK UP MEETINGS THEY DO NOT RELISH. 

BUT EMERGENCIES MAY ARISE ON STREETS WHICH WOULD BECOME CATASTROPHES
IF THERE WAS NOT IMMEDIATE POLICE ACTION.  THE CROWD WHICH SHOULD BE
TOLERANT MAY BE PREJUDICED AND ANGRY OR MALICIOUS.  IF THE SITUATION
THREATENS TO GET OUT OF HAND FOR THE FORCE PRESENT, I THINK THE POLICE
MAY REQUIRE THE SPEAKER, EVEN IF WITHIN HIS RIGHTS, TO YIELD HIS RIGHT
TEMPORARILY TO THE GREATER INTEREST OF PEACE.  OF COURSE, THE THREAT
MUST BE JUDGED IN GOOD FAITH TO BE REAL, IMMEDIATE AND SERIOUS.  BUT
SILENCING A SPEAKER BY AUTHORITIES AS A MEASURE OF MOB CONTROL IS LIKE
DYNAMITING A HOUSE TO STOP THE SPREAD OF A CONFLAGRATION.  IT MAY BE
JUSTIFIED BY THE OVERWHELMING COMMUNITY INTEREST THAT FLAMES NOT BE FED
AS COMPARED WITH THE LITTLE INTEREST TO BE SERVED BY CONTINUING TO FEED
THEM.  BUT THIS KIND OF DISORDER DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK
EXCEPT FOR THE EMERGENCY AND, SINCE THE SPEAKER WAS WITHIN HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SPEAK, IT COULD NOT BE GROUNDS FOR REVOKING OR
REFUSING HIM A PERMIT OR CONVICTING HIM OF ANY OFFENSE BECAUSE OF HIS
UTTERANCE.  IF HE RESISTED AN OFFICER'S REASONABLE DEMAND TO CEASE, HE
MIGHT INCUR PENALTIES. 

AND SO THE MATTER EVENTUALLY COMES DOWN TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
"WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF SUCH A NATURE"
THAT WE CAN SAY A REASONABLE MAN WOULD ANTICIPATE THE EVIL RESULT.  IN
THIS CASE THE COURT DOES NOT JUSTIFY, EXCUSE, OR DENY THE INCITING AND
PROVOCATIVE CHARACTER OF THE LANGUAGE, AND IT DOES NOT, AND ON THIS
RECORD COULD NOT, DENY THAT WHEN KUNZ SPEAKS HE POSES A "CLEAR AND
PRESENT" DANGER TO PEACE AND ORDER.  WHY, THEN, DOES NEW YORK HAVE TO
PUT UP WITH IT? 

IT IS WELL TO BE VIGILANT TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF KUNZ TO SPEAK, BUT
IS HE TO BE SOLE JUDGE AS TO HOW FAR HE WILL CARRY VERBAL ATTACKS IN
THE PUBLIC STREETS?  IS OFFICIAL ACTION THE ONLY SOURCE OF INTERFERENCE
WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM?  DOES THE JEW, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE THE BENEFIT OF
THESE FREEDOMS WHEN, LAWFULLY GOING ABOUT, HE AND HIS CHILDREN ARE
POINTED OUT AS "CHRIST-KILLERS" TO GATHERINGS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY BY A
RELIGIOUS SECTARIAN SPONSORED BY A POLICE BODYGUARD? 

WE SHOULD WEIGH THE VALUE OF INSULTING SPEECH AGAINST ITS
POTENTIALITY FOR HARM.  IS THE COURT, WHEN DECLARING KUNZ HAS THE RIGHT
HE ASSERTS, SERVING THE GREAT END FOR WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT
STANDS? 

THE PURPOSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF SPEECH IS TO FOSTER
PEACEFUL INTERCHANGE OF ALL MANNER OF THOUGHTS, INFORMATION AND IDEAS. 
ITS POLICY IS ROOTED IN FAITH IN THE FORCE OF REASON.  THIS COURT
WISELY HAS SAID, "RESORT TO EPITHETS OR PERSONAL ABUSE IS NOT IN ANY
PROPER SENSE COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION OR OPINION SAFEGUARDED BY THE
CONSTITUTION."  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 309-310.  "IT
HAS BEEN WELL OBSERVED THAT SUCH UTTERANCES ARE NO ESSENTIAL PART OF
ANY EXPOSITION OF IDEAS, AND ARE OF SUCH SLIGHT SOCIAL VALUE AS A STEP
TO TRUTH THAT ANY BENEFIT THAT MAY BE DERIVED FROM THEM IS CLEARLY
OUTWEIGHED BY THE SOCIAL INTEREST IN ORDER AND MORALITY."  SO SAID WE
ALL IN CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA, AT 572.  IT WOULD BE
INTERESTING IF THE COURT WOULD EXPOSE ITS REASONS FOR THINKING THAT
KUNZ'S WORDS ARE OF MORE SOCIAL VALUE THAN THOSE OF CHAPLINSKY. 

      III. 

IT IS WORTHWHILE TO NOTE THAT THE JUDICIAL TECHNIQUE BY WHICH THIS
COURT STRIKES DOWN THE ORDINANCE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT EMPLOYED
BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH SUSTAINED IT.  THE CONTRARY
RESULTS APPEAR TO BE LARGELY DUE TO THIS DISSIMILARITY. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT TREAT THE ORDINANCE AS EXISTING IN A
VACUUM BUT CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS OF THE CONTROVERSY.  WHILE IT
CONSTRUED THE ORDINANCE "AS REQUIRING THE COMMISSIONER TO GIVE AN
ANNUAL PERMIT FOR STREET PREACHING, TO ANYONE WHO, LIKE DEFENDANT, IS A
MINISTER OF RELIGION," 300 N.Y. 273, 276, 90 N.E.2D 455, 456, IT HELD
ON THE FACTS THAT WHEN, AS HERE, THE APPLICANT "CLAIMS A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO INCITE RIOTS, AND A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE SERVICES OF
POLICEMEN TO QUELL THOSE RIOTS," THEN A PERMIT NEED NOT BE ISSUED.  ID.
AT 278, 90 N.E.2D AT 457. 

THIS COURT, HOWEVER, REFUSES TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION KUNZ'S "PAST"
CONDUCT OR THAT HIS MEETINGS HAVE "CAUSED SOME DISORDER."  NOR DOES IT
DENY THAT DISORDERS WILL PROBABLY OCCUR AGAIN.  IT COMES CLOSE TO
RENDERING AN ADVISORY OPINION WHEN IT STRIKES DOWN THIS ORDINANCE
WITHOUT EVALUATING THE FACTUAL SITUATION WHICH HAS CAUSED IT TO COME
UNDER JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.  IF IT WERE NOT FOR THESE CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE SPEECHES BY KUNZ, THIS ORDINANCE WOULD NOT BE BEFORE US, YET IT IS
SAID THAT WE CAN HOLD IT INVALID WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
EITHER WHAT HE HAS DONE OR WHAT HE ASSERTS A RIGHT TO DO. 

IT MAY HAPPEN THAT A STATUTE WILL DISCLOSE BY ITS VERY LANGUAGE THAT
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE OF CONSTRUCTION IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  SUCH IS THE CASE WHERE IT AIMS TO CONTROL MATTERS
PATENTLY NOT A PROPER SUBJECT OF THE POLICE POWER.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
303 U.S. 444, 451.  CF. HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558.  USUALLY,
HOWEVER, THE ONLY PROPER APPROACH TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION BOTH THE
FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE STATE HAS PLACED ON
THE CHALLENGED LAW.  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 708; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 303; KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77; TERMINIELLO
V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1.  AND IN THE ABSENCE OF FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF
WHICH THE STATUTE MAY BE CONSTRUED, WE HAVE SAID THE PROPER PROCEDURE
IS NOT TO PASS ON WHETHER IT CONFLICTS WITH FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 
UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1.  THAT THE APPROACH WILL
DETERMINE THE RESULT IS INDICATED BY COMPARISON OF THE SAIA CASE, IN
WHICH AN ORDINANCE WAS HELD VOID ON ITS FACE, WITH THE KOVACS CASE, IN
WHICH A SIMILAR ORDINANCE, WHEN TESTED AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, WAS
HELD VALID.  THE VITAL DIFFERENCE, AS THIS CASE DEMONSTRATES, IS THAT
IT IS VERY EASY TO READ A STATUTE TO PERMIT SOME HYPOTHETICAL VIOLATION
OF CIVIL RIGHTS BUT DIFFICULT TO DRAFT ONE WHICH WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO
THE SAME INFIRMITY. 

THIS COURT HAS NOT APPLIED, AND, I VENTURE TO PREDICT, WILL NOT
APPLY, TO FEDERAL STATUTES THE STANDARD THAT THEY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IF IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED.  WE
SHOULD BEGIN CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE BY DECIDING WHETHER THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REPEAT HIS VITUPERATIVE STREET SPEECHES IS WITHIN KUNZ'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND HERE HE MUST WIN ON THE STRENGTH OF HIS OWN
RIGHT.  FN4

IV. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS A CITY FROM
CONTROL OF ITS STREETS BY A PERMIT SYSTEM WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT
DANGERS TO PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER.  I AM PERSUADED THAT IT DOES NOT DO
SO, PROVIDED, OF COURSE, THAT THE CITY DOES NOT SO DISCRIMINATE AS TO
DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW OR UNDERTAKE A CENSORSHIP OF
UTTERANCES THAT ARE NOT SO DEFAMATORY, INSULTING, INCITING, OR
PROVOCATIVE AS TO BE REASONABLY LIKELY TO CAUSE DISORDER AND VIOLENCE. 

THE COURT DOES NOT HOLD THAT NEW YORK HAS ABUSED THE PERMIT SYSTEM BY
DISCRIMINATION OR ACTUAL CENSORSHIP, NOR DOES IT DENY THE ABUSES ON
KUNZ'S PART.  BUT NEITHER, SAYS THE COURT, MATTERS, HOLDING THAT ANY
PRIOR RESTRAINT IS BAD, REGARDLESS OF HOW FAIRLY ADMINISTERED OR WHAT
ABUSES IT SEEKS TO PREVENT.    IT STRIKES RATHER BLINDLY AT PERMIT
SYSTEMS WHICH INDIRECTLY MAY AFFECT FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS.  CITIES
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY HAVE ADOPTED PERMIT REQUIREMENTS TO CONTROL
PRIVATE ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC STREETS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  FN5  THE
UNIVERSALITY OF THIS TYPE OF REGULATION DEMONSTRATES A NEED AND
INDICATES WIDESPREAD OPINION IN THE PROFESSION THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARILY INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS.  IS
EVERYBODY OUT OF STEP BUT THIS COURT? 

UNTIL RECENTLY THIS CUSTOM OF MUNICIPALITIES WAS REGARDED BY THIS
COURT AS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.  IT APPROVED THIS IDENTICAL
ORDINANCE IN SMITH V. NEW YORK, 292 U.S. 606.  FN6  THIS DECISION IS
NOW OVERRULED.  ALTHOUGH THE ORDINANCE WAS THEN ATTACKED AS A DENIAL OF
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW FOR FAILURE TO PRESCRIBE A REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION, I CANNOT ATTRIBUTE TO THAT DECISION AS NARROW AN
INTERPRETATION AS THE COURT.  WOULD THIS COURT SUSTAIN AN ORDINANCE AS
PROVIDING A REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IF THE PURPOSE OF THE
CLASSIFICATION WAS VOID ON ITS FACE? 

IN THE CHAPLINSKY CASE, PREVENTION AS WELL AS PUNISHMENT OF "LIMITED
CLASSES OF SPEECH  ... HAVE NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO RAISE ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES POINTED OUT IN THE SCHENCK
CASE THAT THE CONSTITUTION WOULD NOT PROTECT ONE FROM AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST UTTERING WORDS THAT LEAD TO RIOT.  IN COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312
U.S. 569, 577-578, CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT,
DISTINGUISHED THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE FOR A PARADE OR PROCESSION
FROM OTHER CASES NOW RELIED ON BY THIS COURT.  HE FOUND REQUIREMENT OF
A PERMIT THERE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OBSERVED THAT SUCH AUTHORITY "HAS
NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH CIVIL LIBERTIES BUT RATHER AS
ONE OF THE MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING THE GOOD ORDER UPON WHICH THEY
ULTIMATELY DEPEND."  ID., AT 574.  THE CONCEPT OF CIVIL LIBERTY WITHOUT
ORDER IS THE CONTRIBUTION OF LATER-DAY JURISTS. 

THE COURT, AS AUTHORITY FOR STRIPPING NEW YORK CITY OF CONTROL OF
STREET MEETINGS, RESURRECTS SAIA V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, WHICH I, LIKE SOME
WHO NOW RELY ON IT, HAD SUPPOSED WAS GIVEN DECENT BURIAL BY KOVACS V.
COOPER, SUPRA.  MUST NEW YORK, IF IT IS TO AVOID CHAOS IN ITS STREETS,
RESORT TO THE SWEEPING PROHIBITIONS SANCTIONED IN KOVACS, INSTEAD OF
THE MILDER RESTRAINTS OF THIS PERMIT SYSTEM?  COMPELLING A CHOICE
BETWEEN ALLOWING ALL MEETINGS OR NO MEETINGS IS A DUBIOUS SERVICE TO
CIVIL LIBERTIES. 

OF COURSE, AS TO THE PRESS, THERE ARE THE BEST OF REASONS AGAINST ANY
LICENSING OR PRIOR RESTRAINT.  DECISIONS SUCH AS NEAR V. MINNESOTA,
SUPRA, HOLD ANY LICENSING OR PRIOR RESTRAINT OF THE PRESS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND I HEARTILY AGREE.  BUT PRECEDENTS FROM THAT FIELD
CANNOT REASONABLY BE TRANSPOSED TO THE STREET-MEETING FIELD.  THE
IMPACT OF PUBLISHING ON PUBLIC ORDER HAS NO SIMILARITY WITH THAT OF A
STREET MEETING.  PUBLISHING DOES NOT MAKE PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC
PROPERTY.  IT REACHES ONLY THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO READ, AND, IN THAT WAY,
IS ANALOGOUS TO A MEETING HELD IN A HALL WHERE THOSE WHO COME DO SO BY
CHOICE.  WRITTEN WORDS ARE LESS APT TO INCITE OR PROVOKE TO MASS ACTION
THAN SPOKEN WORDS, SPEECH BEING THE PRIMITIVE AND DIRECT COMMUNICATION
WITH THE EMOTIONS.  FEW ARE THE RIOTS CAUSED BY PUBLICATION ALONE, FEW
ARE THE MOBS THAT HAVE NOT HAD THEIR IMMEDIATE ORIGIN IN HARANGUE.  THE
VULNERABILITY OF VARIOUS FORMS OF COMMUNICATION TO COMMUNITY CONTROL
MUST BE PROPORTIONED TO THEIR IMPACT UPON OTHER COMMUNITY INTERESTS. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A PERMIT FOR A STREET MEETING COULD BE REQUIRED
IF THE ORDINANCE WOULD PRESCRIBE PRECISE STANDARDS FOR ITS GRANT OR
DENIAL.  THIS DEFECT, IF SUCH IT BE, WAS JUST AS APPARENT WHEN, IN THE
SMITH CASE, THIS COURT UPHELD THE ORDINANCE AS IT IS TODAY.  THE CHANGE
MUST BE FOUND IN THE COURT, NOT IN THE ORDINANCE. 

AND WHAT, IN TERMS OF ITS PHILOSOPHY OF DECISION, IS THIS CHANGE?  IT
IS TO REQUIRE MORE SEVERE AND EXACTING STANDARDS OF STATE AND LOCAL
STATUTES THAN OF FEDERAL STATUTES.  AS THIS CASE EXEMPLIFIES, LOCAL
ACTS ARE STRUCK DOWN, NOT BECAUSE IN PRACTICAL APPLICATION THEY HAVE
ACTUALLY INVADED ANYONE'S PROTECTED FREEDOMS, BUT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT
SET UP STANDARDS WHICH WOULD MAKE SUCH INVASION IMPOSSIBLE.  HOWEVER,
WITH FEDERAL STATUTES, WE SAY THEY MUST STAND UNLESS THEY REQUIRE, OR
IN APPLICATION ARE SHOWN ACTUALLY TO HAVE RESULTED IN, AN INVASION OF A
PROTECTED FREEDOM.  FN7 

OF COURSE, STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ARE ALWAYS DESIRABLE,
AND THE MORE EXACT THE BETTER.  BUT I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS COURT CAN
CONDEMN MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES FOR NOT SETTING FORTH COMPREHENSIVE FIRST
AMENDMENT STANDARDS.  THIS COURT NEVER HAS ANNOUNCED WHAT THOSE
STANDARDS MUST BE, IT DOES NOT NOW SAY WHAT THEY ARE, AND IT IS NOT
CLEAR THAT ANY MAJORITY COULD AGREE ON THEM.  IN NO FIELD ARE THERE
MORE NUMEROUS INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS AMONG THE JUSTICES.  THE COURT AS AN
INSTITUTION NOT INFREQUENTLY DISAGREES WITH ITS FORMER SELF OR RELIES
ON DISTINCTIONS THAT ARE NOT VERY SUBSTANTIAL.  COMPARE JONES V.
OPELIKA OF 1942, 316 U.S. 584, WITH JONES V. OPELIKA OF 1943, 319 U.S.
103; MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS OF 1940, 310 U.S. 586, WITH
BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE OF 1943, 319 U.S. 624; SAIA V. NEW YORK
OF 1948, SUPRA, WITH KOVACS V. COOPER OF 1949, SUPRA.  IT SEEMS
HYPERCRITICAL TO STRIKE DOWN LOCAL LAWS ON THEIR FACES FOR WANT OF
STANDARDS WHEN WE HAVE NO STANDARDS.  FN8  AND I DO NOT FIND IT
REQUIRED BY EXISTING AUTHORITY.  I THINK THAT WHERE SPEECH IS OUTSIDE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY THE LOCAL COMMUNITY OR THE STATE IS LEFT A
LARGE MEASURE OF DISCRETION AS TO THE MEANS FOR DEALING WITH IT.

                                  V. 

IF THE COURT IS DECIDING THAT THE PERMIT SYSTEM FOR STREET MEETINGS
IS SO UNREASONABLE AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IT WOULD SEEM
APPROPRIATE TO POINT OUT RESPECTS IN WHICH IT IS UNREASONABLE.  THIS I
AM UNABLE TO LEARN, FROM THIS OR ANY FORMER DECISION.  THE COURT HOLDS,
HOWEVER, THAT KUNZ MUST NOT BE REQUIRED TO GET PERMISSION, THE CITY
MUST SIT BY UNTIL SOME INCIDENT, PERHAPS A SANGUINARY ONE, OCCURS AND
THEN THERE ARE UNSPECIFIED "APPROPRIATE PUBLIC REMEDIES."  WE MAY
ASSUME REFERENCE IS TO THE PROCEDURE OF THE FEINER CASE WHICH, WITH ONE
THIRD OF THE COURT DISSENTING, IS UPHELD.  FN9  THIS INVITES COMPARISON
OF THE MERITS OF THE TWO METHODS BOTH AS TO IMPACT ON CIVIL LIBERTIES
AND AS TO ACHIEVING THE ENDS OF PUBLIC ORDER. 

CITY OFFICIALS STOPPED THE MEETINGS OF BOTH FEINER AND KUNZ.  THE
PROCESS BY WHICH FEINER WAS STOPPED WAS THE ORDER OF PATROLMEN, PUT
INTO IMMEDIATE EFFECT WITHOUT HEARING.  FEINER MAY HAVE BELIEVED THERE
WOULD BE NO INTERFERENCE BUT KUNZ WAS DULY WARNED BY REFUSAL OF A
PERMIT.  HE WAS ADVISED OF CHARGES, GIVEN A HEARING, CONFRONTED BY
WITNESSES, AND AFFORDED A CHANCE TO DENY THE CHARGES OR TO CONFESS THEM
AND OFFER TO AMEND HIS WAYS.  THE DECISION OF REVOCATION WAS MADE BY A
DETACHED AND RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL AND KUNZ COULD HAVE
HAD THE DECISION REVIEWED IN COURT. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT IS TO ENABLE THOSE WHO FEEL A CALL TO
PROSELYTIZE TO DO SO BY STREET MEETINGS.  THE MEANS IS TO SET UP A
PRIVATE RIGHT TO SPEAK IN THE CITY STREETS WITHOUT ASKING PERMISSION. 
FN10  OF COURSE, IF KUNZ MAY SPEAK WITHOUT A PERMIT, SO MAY ANYONE
ELSE.  IF HE MAY SPEAK WHENEVER AND WHEREVER HE MAY ELECT, I KNOW OF NO
WAY IN WHICH THE CITY CAN SILENCE THE HECKLER, THE INTERRUPTER, THE
DISSENTER, THE RIVALS WITH MISSIONARY FERVOR, WHO HAVE AN EQUAL RIGHT
AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE TO LIFT THEIR VOICES.  AND, OF COURSE, IF
THE CITY MAY NOT STOP KUNZ FROM UTTERING INSULTING AND "FIGHTING"
WORDS, NEITHER CAN IT STOP HIS ADVERSARIES, AND THE DISCUSSION
DEGENERATES TO A NAME-CALLING CONTEST WITHOUT SOCIAL VALUE AND, HUMAN
NATURE BEING WHAT IT IS, TO A FIGHT OR PERHAPS A RIOT.  THE END OF THE
COURT'S METHOD IS CHAOS. 

BUT IF THE COURT CONCEIVES, AS FEINER INDICATES, THAT UPON UTTERING
INSULTING, PROVOCATIVE OR INCITING WORDS THE POLICEMAN ON THE BEAT MAY
STOP THE MEETING, THEN ITS ASSURANCE OF FREE SPEECH IN THIS DECISION IS
"A PROMISE TO THE EAR TO BE BROKEN TO THE HOPE," IF THE PATROLMAN ON
THE BEAT HAPPENS TO HAVE PREJUDICES OF HIS OWN. 

TURNING THEN TO THE PERMIT SYSTEM AS APPLIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS,
WHOSE CONSTRUCTION BINDS US, WE FIND THAT ISSUANCE THE FIRST TIME IS
REQUIRED.  DENIAL IS WARRANTED ONLY IN SUCH UNUSUAL CASES AS WHERE AN
APPLICANT HAS HAD A PERMIT WHICH HAS BEEN REVOKED FOR CAUSE AND HE
ASSERTS THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE THE CONDUCT WHICH WAS CAUSE FOR
REVOCATION.  IF ANYTHING LESS THAN A REASONABLE CERTAINTY OF DISORDER
WAS SHOWN, DENIAL OF A PERMIT WOULD BE IMPROPER.  THE PROCEDURE BY
WHICH THAT DECISION IS REACHED COMMENDS ITSELF TO THE ORDERLY MIND -
COMPLAINTS ARE FILED, WITNESSES ARE HEARD, OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE
IS GIVEN, AND DECISION IS REACHED BY WHAT WE MUST ASSUME TO BE AN
IMPARTIAL AND REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, AND, IF HE DENIES THE
PERMIT, THE APPLICANT MAY CARRY HIS CAUSE TO THE COURTS.  HE MAY THUS
HAVE A CIVIL TEST OF HIS RIGHTS WITHOUT THE PERSONAL HUMILIATION OF
BEING ARRESTED AS PRESENTING A MENACE TO PUBLIC ORDER.  IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THIS PROCEDURE BETTER PROTECTS FREEDOM OF SPEECH THAN TO LET
EVERYONE SPEAK WITHOUT LEAVE, BUT SUBJECT TO SURVEILLANCE AND TO BEING
ORDERED TO STOP IN THE DISCRETION OF THE POLICE. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A PERMIT IS A SOURCE OF SECURITY AND PROTECTION
FOR THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE GREAT NUMBER WHO ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
THEM.  IT INFORMS THE POLICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE ONE INTENDS TO
SPEAK, WHICH ALLOWS NECESSARY STEPS TO INSURE HIM A PLACE TO SPEAK
WHERE OVERZEALOUS POLICE OFFICERS WILL NOT ORDER EVERYONE WHO STOPS TO
LISTEN TO MOVE ON, AND TO HAVE OFFICERS PRESENT TO INSURE AN ORDERLY
MEETING.  MOREOVER, DISORDER IS LESS LIKELY, FOR THE SPEAKER KNOWS THAT
IF HE PROVOKES DISORDER HIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED, AND THE OBJECTOR MAY
BE TOLD THAT HE HAS A REMEDY BY FILING A COMPLAINT AND DOES NOT NEED TO
TAKE THE LAW IN HIS OWN HANDS.  KUNZ WAS NOT ARRESTED IN 1946, WHEN HIS
SPEECHES CAUSED SERIOUS OBJECTIONS, NOR WAS HE SET UPON BY THE CROWD. 
INSTEAD, THEY DID THE ORDERLY THING AND MADE COMPLAINTS WHICH RESULTED
IN THE REVOCATION OF HIS PERMIT.  THIS IS THE METHOD THAT THE COURT
FRUSTRATES TODAY. 

OF COURSE, EMERGENCIES MAY ARISE EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT THE PERMIT
SYSTEM.  A SPEAKER WITH A PERMIT MAY GO BEYOND BOUNDS AND INCITE
VIOLENCE, OR A MOB MAY UNDERTAKE TO BREAK UP AN AUTHORIZED AND PROPERLY
CONDUCTED MEETING.  IN EITHER CASE, THE POLICEMAN ON THE SPOT MUST MAKE
THE JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT MEASURES WILL MOST LIKELY AVOID VIOLENT
DISORDERS.  BUT THESE EMERGENCIES SEEM LESS LIKELY TO OCCUR WITH THE
PERMIT SYSTEM THAN IF EVERY MAN AND HIS ADVERSARY TAKE THE LAW IN THEIR
OWN HANDS. 

THE LAW OF NEW YORK DOES NOT SEGREGATE, ACCORDING TO THEIR DIVERSE
NATIONALITIES, RACES, RELIGIONS, OR POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS, THE VAST
HORDES OF PEOPLE LIVING IN ITS NARROW CONFINES.  EVERY INDIVIDUAL IN
THIS FRIGHTENING AGGREGATION IS LEGALLY FREE TO LIVE, TO LABOR, TO
TRAVEL, WHEN AND WHERE HE CHOOSES.  IN STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES, ALL
RACES AND NATIONALITIES AND ALL SORTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEN WALK,
LINGER AND MINGLE.  IS IT NOT REASONABLE THAT THE CITY PROTECT THE
DIGNITY OF THESE PERSONS AGAINST FANATICS WHO TAKE POSSESSION OF ITS
STREETS TO HURL INTO ITS CROWDS DEFAMATORY EPITHETS THAT HURT LIKE
ROCKS? 

IF ANY TWO SUBJECTS ARE INTRINSICALLY INCENDIARY AND DIVISIVE, THEY
ARE RACE AND RELIGION.  RACIAL FEARS AND HATREDS HAVE BEEN AT THE ROOT
OF THE MOST TERRIBLE RIOTS THAT HAVE DISGRACED AMERICAN CIVILIZATION. 
THEY ARE UGLY POSSIBILITIES THAT OVERHANG EVERY GREAT AMERICAN CITY. 
THE "CONSECRATED HATREDS OF SECT" ACCOUNT FOR MORE THAN A FEW OF THE
WORLD'S BLOODY DISORDERS.  THESE ARE THE EXPLOSIVES WHICH THE COURT
SAYS KUNZ MAY PLAY WITH IN THE PUBLIC STREETS, AND THE COMMUNITY MUST
NOT ONLY TOLERATE BUT AID HIM.  I FIND NO SUCH DOCTRINE IN THE
CONSTITUTION. 

IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A PURPOSE TO SUPPRESS SPEECH,
EXCEPT TO KEEP IT IN BOUNDS THAT WILL NOT UPSET GOOD ORDER.  IF THERE
ARE ABUSES OF CENSORSHIP OR DISCRIMINATION IN ADMINISTERING THE
ORDINANCE, AS WELL THERE MAY BE, THEY ARE NOT PROVED IN THIS CASE. 
THIS COURT SHOULD BE PARTICULARLY SURE OF ITS GROUND BEFORE IT STRIKES
DOWN, IN A TIME LIKE THIS, THE GOING, PRACTICAL SYSTEM BY WHICH NEW
YORK HAS SOUGHT TO CONTROL ITS STREET-MEETING PROBLEM. 

ADDRESSING HIMSELF TO THE SUBJECT, "AUTHORITY AND THE INDIVIDUAL,"
ONE OF THE KEENEST PHILOSOPHERS OF OUR TIME OBSERVES:  "THE PROBLEM,
LIKE ALL THOSE WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED, IS ONE OF BALANCE; TOO
LITTLE LIBERTY BRINGS STAGNATION, AND TOO MUCH BRINGS CHAOS."  FN11
PERHAPS IT IS THE FEVER OF OUR TIMES THAT INCLINES THE COURT TODAY TO
FAVOR CHAOS.  MY HOPE IS THAT FEW WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LICENSE
GRANTED BY TODAY'S DECISION.  BUT LIFE TEACHES ONE TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN HOPE AND FAITH. 

FN1  KUNZ IS WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF PERSONS TO WHOM SUCH
PERMITS MAY ISSUE.  HENCE, WE HAVE HERE NO CHALLENGE BASED ON ITS
EXCLUSIONS.  IF AN EXCLUDED PERSON MADE APPROPRIATE CHALLENGE ON EQUAL
PROTECTION GROUNDS, I SHOULD VERY MUCH DOUBT IF THE ORDINANCE COULD BE
SUSTAINED.  SEE, HOWEVER, RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY V. NEW YORK, 336 U.S.
106, WHICH SUSTAINS THE POWER OF NEW YORK CITY TO CLASSIFY PRINTED
COMMUNICATIONS IT WILL PERMIT ON ITS STREETS ON A BASIS THAT SEEMS MORE
REMOTE FROM ANY TRAFFIC EFFECT THAN A STREET MEETING. 

FN2  "Q.  IT IS YOUR RELIGIOUS CONVICTION THAT THIS IS THE WAY YOU
ARE TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION?    "A.  YES.  I FEEL THIS WAY, THAT THE
HOLY BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.  AND WHETHER THE HOLY BIBLE, THE WORD OF
GOD, RIDICULES OR DENOUNCES ANY MAN'S RELIGION, I AM GOING TO PREACH
IT.  I FEEL I HAVE A PERFECT RIGHT." 

IF THERE WERE OTHERWISE ANY DOUBT THAT KUNZ PROPOSES TO RESUME THESE
ATTACKS, IT SHOULD BE DISPELLED BY THE LETTERS HE HAS ADDRESSED TO
MEMBERS OF THIS COURT ASSERTING HIS RIGHT TO DO SO AND ASSAILING, ON
RELIGIOUS GROUNDS, JUDGES WHO DECIDED HIS CASE BELOW. 

FN3  ONE OF THESE LATTER IS PROF. MEIKLEJOHN, WHO WOULD GO SO FAR AS
TO DISCARD THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" FORMULA, AT LEAST AS A
RESTRICTION ON POLITICAL DISCUSSION, WHICH HE SAYS "  ... STANDS ON THE
RECORD OF THE COURT AS A PECULIARLY INEPT AND UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO
FORMULATE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRINCIPLE OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH." 
MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF-GOVERNMENT, P. 50. 
BUT EVEN HE DOES NOT SUPPORT UNLIMITED SPEECH.  HE SAYS, "  ...  NO ONE
CAN DOUBT THAT, IN ANY WELL-GOVERNED SOCIETY, THE LEGISLATURE HAS BOTH
THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FORMS OF SPEECH.  LIBELLOUS
ASSERTIONS MAY BE, AND MUST BE, FORBIDDEN AND PUNISHED.  SO TOO MUST
SLANDER.  WORDS WHICH INCITE MEN TO CRIME ARE THEMSELVES CRIMINAL AND
MUST BE DEALT WITH AS SUCH.  SEDITION AND TREASON MAY BE EXPRESSED BY
SPEECH OR WRITING.  AND, IN THOSE CASES, DECISIVE REPRESSIVE ACTION BY
THE GOVERNMENT IS IMPERATIVE FOR THE SAKE OF THE GENERAL WELFARE.  ALL
THESE NECESSITIES THAT SPEECH BE LIMITED ARE RECOGNIZED AND PROVIDED
FOR UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  ..."  ID., AT 18. 

FN4  BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING, IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 347. 

FN5  NEW YORK, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS FOUND A PERMIT SYSTEM THE PRACTICAL
MEANS OF CONTROLLING MEETINGS IN ITS PARKS.  THIS COURT, AS PRESENTLY
CONSTITUTED, ONLY LAST TERM DISMISSED AN ATTACK ON THE PARK PERMIT
SYSTEM "FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION," JUSTICES BLACK AND
DOUGLAS DISSENTING.  HASS V. NEW YORK, 338 U.S. 803.  NEW YORK ALSO HAS
USED THE REQUIREMENT OF A PERMIT FOR ASSEMBLAGES WHICH MASK THEIR FACES
TO SUPPRESS THE KU KLUX KLAN, WITHOUT STOPPING HARMLESS MASQUERADE
BALLS AND THE LIKE.  PENAL LAW SEC. 710.  THE PERMIT SYSTEM IS USED IN
MANY OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE CONCEIVABLE CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE INVOLVED. 

FN6  THE ISSUE WAS DRAWN FOR THEM WITH CLARITY BY CHIEF JUDGE POUND
IN PEOPLE V. SMITH, 263 N.Y. 255, 188 N.E. 745.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
UNANIMOUSLY SAID:  "'IT IS TOO WELL SETTLED BY JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN
BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS THAT A MUNICIPALITY MAY PASS AN
ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS UPON THE PUBLIC
STREETS WITHOUT A PERMIT THEREFOR TO REQUIRE DISCUSSION.  ...  '  THIS
ORDINANCE IS NOT AIMED AGAINST FREE SPEECH.  IT IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE STREET MAY BE USED.  ...  THE PASSION, RANCOR AND
MALICE SOMETIMES AROUSED BY SECTARIAN RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES AND
ATTACKS ON RELIGION SEEM TO JUSTIFY ESPECIAL SUPERVISION OVER THOSE WHO
WOULD CONDUCT SUCH MEETINGS ON THE PUBLIC STREETS."  263 N.Y. AT 257,
188 N.E. AT 745.  AND THIS COURT HELD THAT HOLDING PRESENTED NO
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, SUPRA. 

FN8  IT SEEMS FAIR TO CONTRAST THE PRECISION WHICH THE COURT IMPOSES
ON MUNICIPALITIES WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE RECENT ACT
"RELATING TO THE POLICING OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  63 STAT. 616.  THAT MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO
"MAKE ANY HARANGUE OR ORATION, OR UTTER LOUD, THREATENING, OR ABUSIVE
LANGUAGE IN THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING OR GROUNDS."  SEC. 5.  IT
FORBIDS DISPLAY OF ANY "FLAG, BANNER, OR DEVICE DESIGNED OR ADAPTED TO
BRING INTO PUBLIC NOTICE ANY PARTY, ORGANIZATION, OR MOVEMENT."  SEC.
6.  COMPARE WITH THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88.  MOREOVER, IT
AUTHORIZES THE MARSHAL TO "PRESCRIBE SUCH REGULATIONS, APPROVED BY THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY FOR THE
ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING AND GROUNDS AND OF
PERSONS AND PROPERTY THEREIN, AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF SUITABLE ORDER
AND DECORUM WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING AND GROUNDS."  SEC. 7. 
VIOLATION OF THESE PROVISIONS OR REGULATIONS IS AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. 

AUTHORIZED CEREMONIES" WITHIN THE BUILDING OR GROUNDS, THE MARSHAL "MAY
SUSPEND FOR SUCH OCCASIONS SO MUCH OF THE PROHIBITIONS," INCLUDING
THOSE ABOVE, "AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE OCCASION, BUT ONLY IF
RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS SHALL HAVE BEEN APPOINTED, AND ARRANGEMENTS
DETERMINED WHICH ARE ADEQUATE, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE MARSHAL, FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF SUITABLE ORDER AND DECORUM IN THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR
THE PROTECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING AND GROUNDS AND OF PERSONS
AND PROPERTY THEREIN." 

HERE IS EXALTED ARTISTRY IN DECLARING CRIME WITHOUT DEFINITIVE AND
AUTHORIZING PERMITS WITHOUT STANDARDS FOR USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR
SPEAKING.  OF COURSE, THE STATUTE WOULD NOT BE REPORTED BY THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEES WITHOUT AT LEAST INFORMAL APPROVAL OF THE
JUSTICES.  THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE STANDARDS SET UP FOR CITIES AND
THOSE FOR OURSELVES SUGGESTS THAT OUR THEORIZING MAY BE IMPOSING
BURDENS UPON MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE IMPOSSIBLE OR AT LEAST
IMPRACTICAL TO COMPLY WITH. 

FN9  I JOIN IN FEINER V. NEW YORK, POST, P. 315.  WHEN IN A COLORED
NEIGHBORHOOD FEINER URGED THE COLORED PEOPLE TO RISE UP IN ARMS AND
FIGHT, HE WAS USING WORDS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN "RHETORICAL," BUT IT WAS
THE RHETORIC OF VIOLENCE.  OF COURSE, WE CANNOT TELL, FROM A COLD
RECORD, WHETHER THE ACTION TAKEN WAS THE WISEST WAY OF DEALING WITH THE
SITUATION.  BUT SOME LATITUDE FOR HONEST JUDGMENT MUST BE LEFT TO THE
LOCALITY.  IT IS A STARTLING PROPOSITION TO ME THAT SERIOUS PUBLIC
UTTERANCE WHICH ADVISES, ENCOURAGES, OR INCITES TO A CRIME MAY NOT BE
MADE A CRIME BECAUSE WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  AS MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN FROHWERK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S.
204, 206, SAID: 

"  ...  THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHILE PROHIBITING LEGISLATION AGAINST
FREE SPEECH AS SUCH CANNOT HAVE BEEN, AND OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT, INTENDED
TO GIVE IMMUNITY FOR EVERY POSSIBLE USE OF LANGUAGE.  ROBERTSON V.
BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 281.  WE VENTURE TO BELIEVE THAT NEITHER
HAMILTON NOR MADISON, NOR ANY OTHER COMPETENT PERSON THEN OR LATER,
EVER SUPPOSED THAT TO MAKE CRIMINAL THE COUNSELLING OF A MURDER WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS WOULD BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH FREE SPEECH." 

HOWEVER, THE CASE OF NIEMOTKO V. MARYLAND, ANTE, P. 268, ILLUSTRATES
THE DANGER OF ABUSE OF THE PERMIT SYSTEM WHICH THE COURT SHOULD BE
ALERT TO PREVENT.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THOSE APPLICANTS WERE,
EVER HAD BEEN, OR THREATENED TO BE, DISORDERLY OR ABUSIVE IN SPEECH OR
MANNER, OR THAT THEIR SPEAKING WOULD BE LIKELY TO INCITE OR PROVOKE ANY
DISORDER.  THE DENIAL OF PERMISSION FOR THE MEETING WAS CHARGED AND
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DUE TO APPLICANTS' RELIGIOUS BELIEF THAT THEY
SHOULD NOT SALUTE ANY FLAG, WHICH THEY MAY NOT BE COMPELLED TO DO, AND
THEIR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS TO BEARING ARMS IN WAR, WHICH CONGRESS
HAS ACCEPTED AS A VALID EXCUSE FROM COMBAT DUTY.  IN THE COURTS OF
MARYLAND, THIS DENIAL, SO BASED, WAS CONCLUSIVE AGAINST THE RIGHT TO
SPEAK.  THIS WAS USE OF THE PERMIT SYSTEM FOR CENSORSHIP, AND THE
CONVICTIONS CANNOT STAND. 

FN10  DO WE SO QUICKLY FORGET THAT ONE OF THE CHIEF REASONS FOR
PROHIBITING USE OF "RELEASED TIME" OF SCHOOL STUDENTS FOR RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION WAS THAT THE CONSTITUTION WILL NOT SUFFER TAX-SUPPORTED
PROPERTY TO BE USED TO PROPAGATE RELIGION?  ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM
V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203.  HOW CAN THE COURT NOW ORDER USE
OF TAX-SUPPORTED PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE?  IN OTHER WORDS, CAN THE
FIRST AMENDMENT TODAY MEAN A CITY CANNOT STOP WHAT YESTERDAY IT MEANT
NO CITY COULD ALLOW? 

FN11  RUSSELL, AUTHORITY AND THE INDIVIDUAL, 25. 
..END :















FEINER V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 315 


NO. 93.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1951.  - 300
N.Y. 391, 91 N.E.2D 316, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER MADE AN INFLAMMATORY SPEECH TO A MIXED CROWD OF 75 OR 80
NEGROES AND WHITE PEOPLE ON A CITY STREET.  HE MADE DEROGATORY REMARKS
ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMAN, THE AMERICAN LEGION, AND LOCAL POLITICAL
OFFICIALS; ENDEAVORED TO AROUSE THE NEGROES AGAINST THE WHITES; AND
URGED THAT NEGROES RISE UP IN ARMS AND FIGHT FOR EQUAL RIGHTS.  THE
CROWD, WHICH BLOCKED THE SIDEWALK AND OVERFLOWED INTO THE STREET,
BECAME RESTLESS; ITS FEELINGS FOR AND AGAINST THE SPEAKER WERE RISING;
AND THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE THREAT OF VIOLENCE.  AFTER OBSERVING THE
SITUATION FOR SOME TIME WITHOUT INTERFERENCE, POLICE OFFICERS, IN ORDER
TO PREVENT A FIGHT, THRICE REQUESTED PETITIONER TO GET OFF THE BOX AND
STOP SPEAKING.  AFTER HIS THIRD REFUSAL, AND AFTER HE HAD BEEN SPEAKING
OVER 30 MINUTES, THEY ARRESTED HIM, AND HE WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING
SEC. 722 OF THE PENAL CODE OF NEW YORK, WHICH, IN EFFECT, FORBIDS
INCITEMENT OF A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY
TWO NEW YORK COURTS ON REVIEW.  HELD:  THE CONVICTION IS SUSTAINED
AGAINST A CLAIM THAT IT VIOLATED PETITIONER'S RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH
UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  PP. 316-321. 

(A)  PETITIONER WAS NEITHER ARRESTED NOR CONVICTED FOR THE MAKING OR
THE CONTENT OF HIS SPEECH BUT FOR THE REACTION WHICH IT ACTUALLY
ENGENDERED.  PP. 319-320. 

(B)  THE POLICE CANNOT BE USED AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF UNPOPULAR VIEWS; BUT, WHEN A SPEAKER PASSES THE BOUNDS OF ARGUMENT
OR PERSUASION AND UNDERTAKES INCITEMENT TO RIOT, THE POLICE ARE NOT
POWERLESS TO PREVENT A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  P. 321. 

FEINER V. NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE OPINION.  THE
DECISION BELOW IS AFFIRMED, P. 321. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF THE OFFENSE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT, A
MISDEMEANOR UNDER THE NEW YORK PENAL LAWS, IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL
SESSIONS OF THE CITY OF SYRACUSE AND WAS SENTENCED TO THIRTY DAYS IN
THE COUNTY PENITENTIARY.  THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE ONONDAGA
COUNTY COURT AND THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, 300 N.Y. 391, 91 N.E.2D
316(1950).  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI, 339 U.S. 962(1950),
PETITIONER HAVING CLAIMED THAT THE CONVICTION IS IN VIOLATION OF HIS
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

IN THE REVIEW OF STATE DECISIONS WHERE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE
DRAWN IN QUESTION, WE OF COURSE MAKE AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE TO
ASCERTAIN INDEPENDENTLY WHETHER THE RIGHT HAS BEEN VIOLATED.  HERE, THE
TRIAL JUDGE, WHO HEARD THE CASE WITHOUT A JURY, RENDERED AN ORAL
DECISION AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, SETTING FORTH HIS DETERMINATION OF
THE FACTS UPON WHICH HE FOUND THE PETITIONER GUILTY.  HIS DECISION
INDICATED GENERALLY THAT HE BELIEVED THE STATE'S WITNESSES, AND HIS
SUMMATION OF THE TESTIMONY WAS USED BY THE TWO NEW YORK COURTS ON
REVIEW IN STATING THE FACTS.  OUR APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS IS, THEREFORE,
BASED UPON THE UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND, WHERE CONTROVERSY EXISTS, UPON
THAT TESTIMONY WHICH THE TRIAL JUDGE DID REASONABLY CONCLUDE TO BE
TRUE. 

ON THE EVENING OF MARCH 8, 1949, PETITIONER IRVING FEINER WAS
ADDRESSING AN OPEN-AIR MEETING AT THE CORNER OF SOUTH MCBRIDE AND
HARRISON STREETS IN THE CITY OF SYRACUSE.  AT APPROXIMATELY 6:30 P.M.,
THE POLICE RECEIVED A TELEPHONE COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE MEETING, AND
TWO OFFICERS WERE DETAILED TO INVESTIGATE.  ONE OF THESE OFFICERS WENT
TO THE SCENE IMMEDIATELY, THE OTHER ARRIVING SOME TWELVE MINUTES
LATER.  THEY FOUND A CROWD OF ABOUT SEVENTY-FIVE OR EIGHTY PEOPLE, BOTH
NEGRO AND WHITE, FILLING THE SIDEWALK AND SPREADING OUT INTO THE
STREET.  PETITIONER, STANDING ON A LARGE WOODEN BOX ON THE SIDEWALK,
WAS ADDRESSING THE CROWD THROUGH A LOUD-SPEAKER SYSTEM ATTACHED TO AN
AUTOMOBILE.  ALTHOUGH THE PURPOSE OF HIS SPEECH WAS TO URGE HIS
LISTENERS TO ATTEND A MEETING TO BE HELD THAT NIGHT IN THE SYRACUSE
HOTEL, IN ITS COURSE HE WAS MAKING DEROGATORY REMARKS CONCERNING
PRESIDENT TRUMAN, THE AMERICAN LEGION, THE MAYOR OF SYRACUSE, AND OTHER
LOCAL POLITICAL OFFICIALS. 

THE POLICE OFFICERS MADE NO EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH PETITIONER'S
SPEECH, BUT WERE FIRST CONCERNED WITH THE EFFECT OF THE CROWD ON BOTH
PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.  THEY OBSERVED THE SITUATION FROM THE
OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, NOTING THAT SOME PEDESTRIANS WERE FORCED
TO WALK IN THE STREET TO AVOID THE CROWD.  SINCE TRAFFIC WAS PASSING AT
THE TIME, THE OFFICERS ATTEMPTED TO GET THE PEOPLE LISTENING TO
PETITIONER BACK ON THE SIDEWALK.  THE CROWD WAS RESTLESS AND THERE WAS
SOME PUSHING, SHOVING AND MILLING AROUND.  ONE OF THE OFFICERS
TELEPHONED THE POLICE STATION FROM A NEARBY STORE, AND THEN BOTH
POLICEMEN CROSSED THE STREET AND MINGLED WITH THE CROWD WITHOUT ANY
INTENTION OF ARRESTING THE SPEAKER. 

AT THIS TIME, PETITIONER WAS SPEAKING IN A "LOUD, HIGH-PITCHED
VOICE."  HE GAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT HE WAS ENDEAVORING TO AROUSE THE
NEGRO PEOPLE AGAINST THE WHITES, URGING THAT THEY RISE UP IN ARMS AND
FIGHT FOR EQUAL RIGHTS.  THE STATEMENTS BEFORE SUCH A MIXED AUDIENCE
"STIRRED UP A LITTLE EXCITEMENT."  SOME OF THE ONLOOKERS MADE REMARKS
TO THE POLICE ABOUT THEIR INABILITY TO HANDLE THE CROWD AND AT LEAST
ONE THREATENED VIOLENCE IF THE POLICE DID NOT ACT.  THERE WERE OTHERS
WHO APPEARED TO BE FAVORING PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS.  BECAUSE OF THE
FEELING THAT EXISTED IN THE CROWD BOTH FOR AND AGAINST THE SPEAKER, THE
OFFICERS FINALLY "STEPPED IN TO PREVENT IT FROM RESULTING IN A FIGHT." 
ONE OF THE OFFICERS APPROACHED THE PETITIONER, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ARRESTING HIM, BUT TO GET HIM TO BREAK UP THE CROWD.  HE ASKED
PETITIONER TO GET DOWN OFF THE BOX, BUT THE LATTER REFUSED TO ACCEDE TO
HIS REQUEST AND CONTINUED TALKING.  THE OFFICER WAITED FOR A MINUTE AND
THEN DEMANDED THAT HE CEASE TALKING.  ALTHOUGH THE OFFICER HAD THUS
TWICE REQUESTED PETITIONER TO STOP OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL MINUTES,
PETITIONER NOT ONLY IGNORED HIM BUT CONTINUED TALKING.  DURING ALL THIS
TIME, THE CROWD WAS PRESSING CLOSER AROUND PETITIONER AND THE OFFICER. 
FINALLY, THE OFFICER TOLD PETITIONER HE WAS UNDER ARREST AND ORDERED
HIM TO GET DOWN FROM THE BOX, REACHING UP TO GRAB HIM.  PETITIONER
STEPPED DOWN, ANNOUNCING OVER THE MICROPHONE THAT "THE LAW HAS ARRIVED,
AND I SUPPOSE THEY WILL TAKE OVER NOW."  IN ALL, THE OFFICER HAD ASKED
PETITIONER TO GET DOWN OFF THE BOX THREE TIMES OVER A SPACE OF FOUR OR
FIVE MINUTES.  PETITIONER HAD BEEN SPEAKING FOR OVER A HALF HOUR. 

ON THESE FACTS, PETITIONER WAS SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF
SEC. 722 OF THE PENAL LAW OF NEW YORK, THE PERTINENT PART OF WHICH IS
SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  THE BILL OF PARTICULARS, DEMANDED BY
PETITIONER AND FURNISHED BY THE STATE, GAVE IN DETAIL THE FACTS UPON
WHICH THE PROSECUTION RELIED TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE OF DISORDERLY
CONDUCT.  PARAGRAPH C IS PARTICULARLY PERTINENT HERE:  "BY IGNORING AND
REFUSING TO HEED AND OBEY REASONABLE POLICE ORDERS ISSUED AT THE TIME
AND PLACE MENTIONED IN THE INFORMATION TO REGULATE AND CONTROL SAID
CROWD AND TO PREVENT A BREACH OR BREACHES OF THE PEACE AND TO PREVENT
INJURY TO PEDESTRIANS ATTEMPTING TO USE SAID WALK, AND BEING FORCED
INTO THE HIGHWAY ADJACENT TO THE PLACE IN QUESTION, AND PREVENT INJURY
TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY." 

WE ARE NOT FACED HERE WITH BLIND CONDONATION BY A STATE COURT OF
ARBITRARY POLICE ACTION.  PETITIONER WAS ACCORDED A FULL, FAIR TRIAL. 
THE TRIAL JUDGE HEARD TESTIMONY SUPPORTING AND CONTRADICTING THE
JUDGMENT OF THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT A CLEAR DANGER OF DISORDER WAS
THREATENED.  AFTER WEIGHING THIS CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE, THE TRIAL
JUDGE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS WERE JUSTIFIED IN
TAKING ACTION TO PREVENT A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  THE EXERCISE OF THE
POLICE OFFICERS' PROPER DISCRETIONARY POWER TO PREVENT A BREACH OF THE
PEACE WAS THUS APPROVED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND LATER BY TWO COURTS ON
REVIEW.  FN2  THE COURTS BELOW RECOGNIZED PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO HOLD A
STREET MEETING AT THIS LOCALITY, TO MAKE USE OF LOUD-SPEAKING EQUIPMENT
IN GIVING HIS SPEECH, AND TO MAKE DEROGATORY REMARKS CONCERNING PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND THE AMERICAN LEGION.  THEY FOUND THAT THE OFFICERS IN
MAKING THE ARREST WERE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY A PROPER CONCERN FOR THE
PRESERVATION OF ORDER AND PROTECTION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND THAT
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHICH COULD LEND COLOR TO A CLAIM THAT THE ACTS
OF THE POLICE WERE A COVER FOR SUPPRESSION OF PETITIONER'S VIEWS AND
OPINIONS.  PETITIONER WAS THUS NEITHER ARRESTED NOR CONVICTED FOR THE
MAKING OR THE CONTENT OF HIS SPEECH.  RATHER, IT WAS THE REACTION WHICH
IT ACTUALLY ENGENDERED. 

THE LANGUAGE OF CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296(1940), IS
APPROPRIATE HERE.  "THE OFFENSE KNOWN AS BREACH OF THE PEACE EMBRACES A
GREAT VARIETY OF CONDUCT DESTROYING OR MENACING PUBLIC ORDER AND
TRANQUILITY.  IT INCLUDES NOT ONLY VIOLENT ACTS BUT ACTS AND WORDS
LIKELY TO PRODUCE VIOLENCE IN OTHERS.  NO ONE WOULD HAVE THE HARDIHOOD
TO SUGGEST THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH SANCTIONS INCITEMENT
TO RIOT OR THAT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CONNOTES THE PRIVILEGE TO EXHORT
OTHERS TO PHYSICAL ATTACK UPON THOSE BELONGING TO ANOTHER SECT.  WHEN
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF RIOT, DISORDER, INTERFERENCE WITH TRAFFIC
UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, OR OTHER IMMEDIATE THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY,
PEACE, OR ORDER, APPEARS, THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PREVENT OR PUNISH
IS OBVIOUS."  310 U.S. AT 308.  THE FINDINGS OF THE NEW YORK COURTS AS
TO THE CONDITION OF THE CROWD AND THE REFUSAL OF PETITIONER TO OBEY THE
POLICE REQUESTS, SUPPORTED AS THEY ARE BY THE RECORD OF THIS CASE, ARE
PERSUASIVE THAT THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER FOR VIOLATION OF PUBLIC
PEACE, ORDER AND AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF PROPER STATE
POLICE ACTION.  THIS COURT RESPECTS, AS IT MUST, THE INTEREST OF THE
COMMUNITY IN MAINTAINING PEACE AND ORDER ON ITS STREETS.  SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160(1939); KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77,
82(1949).  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE PRESERVATION OF THAT INTEREST HERE
ENCROACHES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THIS PETITIONER. 

WE ARE WELL AWARE THAT THE ORDINARY MURMURINGS AND OBJECTIONS OF A
HOSTILE AUDIENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SILENCE A SPEAKER, AND ARE ALSO
MINDFUL OF THE POSSIBLE DANGER OF GIVING OVERZEALOUS POLICE OFFICIALS
COMPLETE DISCRETION TO BREAK UP OTHERWISE LAWFUL PUBLIC MEETINGS.  "A
STATE MAY NOT UNDULY SUPPRESS FREE COMMUNICATION OF VIEWS, RELIGIOUS OR
OTHER, UNDER THE GUISE OF CONSERVING DESIRABLE CONDITIONS."  CANTWELL
V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 308.  BUT WE ARE NOT FACED HERE WITH SUCH A
SITUATION.  IT IS ONE THING TO SAY THAT THE POLICE CANNOT BE USED AS AN
INSTRUMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNPOPULAR VIEWS, AND ANOTHER TO SAY
THAT, WHEN AS HERE THE SPEAKER PASSES THE BOUNDS OF ARGUMENT OR
PERSUASION AND UNDERTAKES INCITEMENT TO RIOT, THEY ARE POWERLESS TO
PREVENT A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  NOR IN THIS CASE CAN WE CONDEMN THE
CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THREE NEW YORK COURTS APPROVING THE MEANS WHICH
THE POLICE, FACED WITH A CRISIS, USED IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR POWER
AND DUTY TO PRESERVE PEACE AND ORDER.  THE FINDINGS OF THE STATE COURTS
AS TO THE EXISTING SITUATION AND THE IMMINENCE OF GREATER DISORDER
COUPLED WITH PETITIONER'S DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS
CONVINCE US THAT WE SHOULD NOT REVERSE THIS CONVICTION IN THE NAME OF
FREE SPEECH.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 722.  "ANY PERSON WHO WITH INTENT TO PROVOKE A BREACH OF
THE PEACE, OR WHEREBY A BREACH OF THE PEACE MAY BE OCCASIONED, COMMITS
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE COMMITTED THE OFFENSE
OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT: 

"1.  USES OFFENSIVE, DISORDERLY, THREATENING, ABUSIVE OR INSULTING
LANGUAGE, CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOR; 

"2.  ACTS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ANNOY, DISTURB, INTERFERE WITH,
OBSTRUCT, OR BE OFFENSIVE TO OTHERS; 

"3.  CONGREGATES WITH OTHERS ON A PUBLIC STREET AND REFUSES TO MOVE
ON WHEN ORDERED BY THE POLICE; ...  " 

FN2  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS SAID:  "AN IMMINENT DANGER OF A
BREACH OF THE PEACE, OF A DISTURBANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER, PERHAPS EVEN OF
RIOT, WAS THREATENED.  ...  THE DEFENDANT, AS INDICATED ABOVE,
DISRUPTED PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON THE SIDEWALK AND STREET,
AND, WITH INTENT TO PROVOKE A BREACH OF THE PEACE AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OF
THE CONSEQUENCES, SO INFLAMED AND AGITATED A MIXED AUDIENCE OF
SYMPATHIZERS AND OPPONENTS THAT, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE POLICE OFFICERS
PRESENT, A CLEAR DANGER OF DISORDER AND VIOLENCE WAS THREATENED. 
DEFENDANT THEN DELIBERATELY REFUSED TO ACCEDE TO THE REASONABLE REQUEST
OF THE OFFICER, MADE WITHIN THE LAWFUL SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY, THAT THE
DEFENDANT DESIST IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC WELFARE AND SAFETY."  300
N.Y. 391, 400, 402, 91 N.E.2D 316, 319, 321. 

(FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT,
SEE ANTE, P. 273.) 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE RECORD BEFORE US CONVINCES ME THAT PETITIONER, A YOUNG COLLEGE
STUDENT, HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO THE PENITENTIARY FOR THE UNPOPULAR VIEWS
HE EXPRESSED  FN1  ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST WHILE LAWFULLY MAKING
A STREET-CORNER SPEECH IN SYRACUSE, NEW YORK.  FN2  TODAY'S DECISION,
HOWEVER, INDICATES THAT WE MUST BLIND OURSELVES TO THIS FACT BECAUSE
THE TRIAL JUDGE FULLY ACCEPTED THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES ON ALL IMPORTANT POINTS.  FN3  MANY TIMES IN THE PAST THIS
COURT HAS SAID THAT DESPITE FINDINGS BELOW, WE WILL EXAMINE THE
EVIDENCE FOR OURSELVES TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS
HAVE BEEN DENIED; OTHERWISE REVIEW HERE WOULD FAIL OF ITS PURPOSE IN
SAFEGUARDING CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES.  FN4  EVEN A PARTIAL
ABANDONMENT OF THIS RULE MARKS A DARK DAY FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN OUR
NATION. 

BUT STILL MORE HAS BEEN LOST TODAY.  EVEN ACCEPTING EVERY "FINDING OF
FACT" BELOW, I THINK THIS CONVICTION MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE FREE SPEECH
GUARANTEES OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  THE END RESULT OF
THE AFFIRMANCE HERE IS TO APPROVE A SIMPLE AND READILY AVAILABLE
TECHNIQUE BY WHICH CITIES AND STATES CAN WITH IMPUNITY SUBJECT ALL
SPEECHES, POLITICAL OR OTHERWISE, ON STREETS OR ELSEWHERE, TO THE
SUPERVISION AND CENSORSHIP OF THE LOCAL POLICE.  I WILL HAVE NO PART OR
PARCEL IN THIS HOLDING WHICH I VIEW AS A LONG STEP TOWARD TOTALITARIAN
AUTHORITY. 

CONSIDERING ONLY THE EVIDENCE WHICH THE STATE COURTS APPEAR TO HAVE
ACCEPTED, THE PERTINENT "FACTS" ARE:  SYRACUSE CITY AUTHORITIES GRANTED
A PERMIT FOR O. JOHN ROGGE, A FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO
SPEAK IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDING ON MARCH 8, 1948 ON THE SUBJECT OF
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND CIVIL LIBERTIES.  ON MARCH 8TH, HOWEVER, THE
AUTHORITIES CANCELLED THE PERMIT.  THE YOUNG PROGRESSIVES UNDER WHOSE
AUSPICES THE MEETING WAS SCHEDULED THEN ARRANGED FOR MR. ROGGE TO SPEAK
AT THE HOTEL SYRACUSE.  THE GATHERING ON THE STREET WHERE PETITIONER
SPOKE WAS HELD TO PROTEST THE CANCELLATION AND TO PUBLICIZE THE MEETING
AT THE HOTEL.  IN THIS CONNECTION, PETITIONER USED DEROGATORY BUT NOT
PROFANE LANGUAGE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CITY AUTHORITIES, PRESIDENT
TRUMAN AND THE AMERICAN LEGION.  AFTER HEARING SOME OF THESE REMARKS, A
POLICEMAN, WHO HAD BEEN SENT TO THE MEETING BY HIS SUPERIORS, REPORTED
TO POLICE HEADQUARTERS BY TELEPHONE.  TO WHOM HE REPORTED OR WHAT WAS
SAID DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD, BUT AFTER RETURNING FROM THE CALL,
HE AND ANOTHER POLICEMAN STARTED THROUGH THE CROWD TOWARD PETITIONER. 
BOTH OFFICERS SWORE THEY DID NOT INTEND TO MAKE AN ARREST WHEN THEY
STARTED, AND THE TRIAL COURT ACCEPTED THEIR STATEMENTS.  THEY ALSO
SAID, AND THE COURT BELIEVED, THAT THEY HEARD AND SAW "ANGRY
MUTTERINGS," "PUSHING," "SHOVING AND MILLING AROUND" AND
"RESTLESSNESS."  PETITIONER SPOKE IN A "LOUD, HIGH PITCHED VOICE."  HE
SAID THAT COLORED PEOPLE "DON'T HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND THEY SHOULD RISE
UP IN ARMS AND FIGHT FOR THEM."  FN5  ONE MAN WHO HEARD THIS TOLD THE
OFFICERS THAT IF THEY DID NOT TAKE THAT "S  ...  O  ...  B ...  " OFF
THE BOX, HE WOULD.  THE OFFICERS THEN APPROACHED PETITIONER FOR THE
FIRST TIME.  ONE OF THEM FIRST "ASKED" PETITIONER TO GET OFF THE BOX,
BUT PETITIONER CONTINUED URGING HIS AUDIENCE TO ATTEND ROGGE'S SPEECH. 
THE OFFICER NEXT "TOLD" PETITIONER TO GET DOWN, BUT HE DID NOT.  THE
OFFICER FINALLY "DEMANDED" THAT PETITIONER GET DOWN, TELLING HIM HE WAS
UNDER ARREST.  PETITIONER THEN TOLD THE CROWD THAT "THE LAW HAD ARRIVED
AND WOULD TAKE OVER" AND ASKED WHY HE WAS ARRESTED.  THE OFFICER FIRST
REPLIED THAT THE CHARGE WAS "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY" BUT LATER CHANGED THE
GROUND TO "DISORDERLY CONDUCT."  FN6 

THE COURT'S OPINION APPARENTLY RESTS ON THIS REASONING:  THE
POLICEMAN, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED, COULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE
THAT SERIOUS FIGHTING OR EVEN RIOT WAS IMMINENT; THEREFORE HE COULD
STOP PETITIONER'S SPEECH TO PREVENT A BREACH OF PEACE; ACCORDINGLY, IT
WAS "DISORDERLY CONDUCT" FOR PETITIONER TO CONTINUE SPEAKING IN
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE OFFICER'S REQUEST.  AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A
DANGEROUS SITUATION ON THE STREET CORNER, IT SEEMS FAR-FETCHED TO
SUGGEST THAT THE "FACTS" SHOW ANY IMMINENT THREAT OF RIOT OR
UNCONTROLLABLE DISORDER.  FN7  IT IS NEITHER UNUSUAL NOR UNEXPECTED
THAT SOME PEOPLE AT PUBLIC STREET MEETINGS MUTTER, MILL ABOUT, PUSH,
SHOVE, OR DISAGREE, EVEN VIOLENTLY, WITH THE SPEAKER.  INDEED, IT IS
RARE WHERE CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS ARE DISCUSSED THAT AN OUTDOOR CROWD
DOES NOT DO SOME OR ALL OF THESE THINGS.  NOR DOES ONE ISOLATED THREAT
TO ASSAULT THE SPEAKER FOREBODE DISORDER.  ESPECIALLY SHOULD THE DANGER
BE DISCOUNTED WHERE, AS HERE, THE PERSON THREATENING WAS A MAN WHOSE
WIFE AND TWO SMALL CHILDREN ACCOMPANIED HIM AND WHO, SO FAR AS THE
RECORD SHOWS, WAS NEVER CLOSE ENOUGH TO PETITIONER TO CARRY OUT THE
THREAT. 

MOREOVER, ASSUMING THAT THE "FACTS" DID INDICATE A CRITICAL
SITUATION, I REJECT THE IMPLICATION OF THE COURT'S OPINION THAT THE
POLICE HAD NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO TALK.  THE POLICE OF COURSE HAVE POWER TO PREVENT BREACHES OF THE
PEACE.  BUT IF, IN THE NAME OF PRESERVING ORDER, THEY EVER CAN
INTERFERE WITH A LAWFUL PUBLIC SPEAKER, THEY FIRST MUST MAKE ALL
REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PROTECT HIM.  FN8  HERE THE POLICEMEN DID NOT
EVEN PRETEND TO TRY TO PROTECT PETITIONER.  ACCORDING TO THE OFFICERS'
TESTIMONY, THE CROWD WAS RESTLESS BUT THERE IS NO SHOWING OF ANY
ATTEMPT TO QUIET IT; PEDESTRIANS WERE FORCED TO WALK INTO THE STREET,
BUT THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO CLEAR A PATH ON THE SIDEWALK; ONE PERSON
THREATENED TO ASSAULT PETITIONER BUT THE OFFICERS DID NOTHING TO
DISCOURAGE THIS WHEN EVEN A WORD MIGHT HAVE SUFFICED.  THEIR DUTY WAS
TO PROTECT PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO TALK, EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF ARRESTING
THE MAN WHO THREATENED TO INTERFERE.  FN9  INSTEAD, THEY SHIRKED THAT
DUTY AND ACTED ONLY TO SUPPRESS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK. 

FINALLY, I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE COURT'S STATEMENT THAT PETITIONER'S
DISREGARD OF THE POLICEMAN'S UNEXPLAINED REQUEST AMOUNTED TO SUCH
"DELIBERATE DEFIANCE" AS WOULD JUSTIFY AN ARREST OR CONVICTION FOR
DISORDERLY CONDUCT.  ON THE CONTRARY, I THINK THAT THE POLICEMAN'S
ACTION WAS A "DELIBERATE DEFIANCE" OF ORDINARY OFFICIAL DUTY AS WELL AS
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  FOR AT LEAST WHERE TIME
ALLOWS, COURTESY AND EXPLANATION OF COMMANDS ARE BASIC ELEMENTS OF GOOD
OFFICIAL CONDUCT IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.  HERE PETITIONER WAS "ASKED"
THEN "TOLD" THEN "COMMANDED" TO STOP SPEAKING, BUT A MAN MAKING A
LAWFUL ADDRESS IS CERTAINLY NOT REQUIRED TO BE SILENT MERELY BECAUSE AN
OFFICER DIRECTS IT.  PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO KNOW WHY HE SHOULD
CEASE DOING A LAWFUL ACT.  NOT ONCE WAS HE TOLD.  I UNDERSTAND THAT
PEOPLE IN AUTHORITARIAN COUNTRIES MUST OBEY ARBITRARY ORDERS.  I HAD
HOPED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH DUTY IN THE UNITED STATES. 

IN MY JUDGMENT, TODAY'S HOLDING MEANS THAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER,
MINORITY SPEAKERS CAN BE SILENCED IN ANY CITY.  HEREAFTER, DESPITE THE
FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, THE POLICEMAN'S CLUB CAN TAKE HEAVY
TOLL OF A CURRENT ADMINISTRATION'S PUBLIC CRITICS.  FN10  CRITICISM OF
PUBLIC OFFICIALS WILL BE TOO DANGEROUS FOR ALL BUT THE MOST
COURAGEOUS.  FN11  THIS IS TRUE REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT IN TWO
OTHER CASES DECIDED THIS DAY, KUNZ V. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 290; NIEMOTKO
V. MARYLAND, 340 U.S. 268, A MAJORITY, IN OBEDIENCE TO PAST DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT, PROVIDES A THEORETICAL SAFEGUARD FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 
FOR WHATEVER IS THOUGHT TO BE GUARANTEED IN KUNZ AND NIEMOTKO IS TAKEN
AWAY BY WHAT IS DONE HERE.  THE THREE CASES READ TOGETHER MEAN THAT
WHILE PREVIOUS RESTRAINTS PROBABLY CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON AN UNPOPULAR
SPEAKER, THE POLICE HAVE DISCRETION TO SILENCE HIM AS SOON AS THE
CUSTOMARY HOSTILITY TO HIS VIEWS DEVELOPS. 

IN THIS CASE I WOULD REVERSE THE CONVICTION, THEREBY ADHERING TO THE
GREAT PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AS ANNOUNCED
FOR THIS COURT IN 1940 BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

"IN THE REALM OF RELIGIOUS FAITH, AND IN THAT OF POLITICAL BELIEF,
SHARP DIFFERENCES ARISE.  IN BOTH FIELDS THE TENETS OF ONE MAN MAY SEEM
THE RANKEST ERROR TO HIS NEIGHBOR.  TO PERSUADE OTHERS TO HIS OWN POINT
OF VIEW, THE PLEADER, AS WE KNOW, AT TIMES, RESORTS TO EXAGGERATION, TO
VILIFICATION OF MEN WHO HAVE BEEN, OR ARE, PROMINENT IN CHURCH OR
STATE, AND EVEN TO FALSE STATEMENT.  BUT THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION HAVE
ORDAINED IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY, THAT, IN SPITE OF THE PROBABILITY OF
EXCESSES AND ABUSES, THESE LIBERTIES ARE, IN THE LONG VIEW, ESSENTIAL
TO ENLIGHTENED OPINION AND RIGHT CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE CITIZENS OF
A DEMOCRACY."  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 310. 

I REGRET MY INABILITY TO PERSUADE THE COURT NOT TO RETREAT FROM THIS
PRINCIPLE. 

FN1  THE TRIAL JUDGE FRAMED THE QUESTION FOR DECISION AS FOLLOWS:
"THE QUESTION HERE, IS WHAT WAS SAID AND WHAT WAS DONE?  AND IT DOESN'T
MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHETHER WHATEVER WAS SAID, WAS SAID WITH A LOUD
SPEAKER OR NOT.  THERE ARE ACTS AND CONDUCT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN ENGAGE IN
WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A CROWD GATHERED AROUND WHICH WOULD
JUSTIFY A CHARGE OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT.  THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DID THIS
DEFENDANT SAY AND DO AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME AND THE COURT MUST
DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE FACTS, CONCERNING WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID OR
SAID, ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE."  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN
THE RECORD THAT PETITIONER "DID" ANYTHING OTHER THAN (1) SPEAK AND (2)
CONTINUE FOR A SHORT TIME TO INVITE PEOPLE TO A PUBLIC MEETING AFTER A
POLICEMAN HAD REQUESTED HIM TO STOP SPEAKING. 

FN2  THERE WAS NO CHARGE THAT ANY CITY OR STATE LAW PROHIBITED SUCH A
MEETING AT THE PLACE OR TIME IT WAS HELD.  EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT IT WAS
CUSTOMARY TO HOLD PUBLIC GATHERINGS ON THAT SAME CORNER EVERY FRIDAY
NIGHT, AND THE TRIAL JUDGE WHO CONVICTED PETITIONER ADMITTED THAT HE
UNDERSTOOD THE MEETING WAS A LAWFUL ONE.  NOR DID THE JUDGE TREAT THE
LAWFUL MEETING AS UNLAWFUL BECAUSE A CROWD CONGREGATED ON THE
SIDEWALK.  CONSEQUENTLY, ANY DISCUSSION OF DISRUPTED PEDESTRIAN AND
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, WHILE SUGGESTIVE COLORATION, IS IMMATERIAL UNDER THE
CHARGE AND CONVICTION HERE. 

IT IS IMPLIED IN A CONCURRING OPINION THAT THE USE OF SOUND
AMPLIFIERS IN SOME WAY CAUSED THE MEETING TO BECOME LESS LAWFUL.  THIS
FACT, HOWEVER, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER.  IN
SENTENCING HIM THE TRIAL COURT SAID:  "YOU HAD A PERFECT RIGHT TO
APPEAR THERE AND TO USE THAT IMPLEMENT, THE LOUD SPEAKER.  YOU HAD A
RIGHT TO HAVE IT IN THE STREET."  SEE ALSO NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  THE TRIAL COURT MADE NO FINDINGS OF FACT AS SUCH.  A DECISION
WAS RENDERED FROM THE BENCH IN WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE TRIAL
JUDGE EXPRESSED SOME VIEWS ON THE EVIDENCE.  SEE NOTE 11, INFRA. 

FN4  IN NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, THE EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER
NEGROES HAD BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THE SELECTION OF GRAND JURIES
WAS CONFLICTING.  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, WRITING FOR THE COURT, SAID AT
PAGES 589-590: "THE QUESTION IS OF THE APPLICATION OF THIS ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLE (EQUAL PROTECTION) TO THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD. 
THAT THE QUESTION IS ONE OF FACT DOES NOT RELIEVE US OF THE DUTY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER IN TRUTH A FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN DENIED.  WHEN A
FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN SPECIALLY SET UP AND CLAIMED IN A STATE COURT,
IT IS OUR PROVINCE TO INQUIRE NOT MERELY WHETHER IT WAS DENIED IN
EXPRESS TERMS BUT ALSO WHETHER IT WAS DENIED IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT. 
IF THIS REQUIRES AN EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE, THAT EXAMINATION MUST BE
MADE.  OTHERWISE, REVIEW BY THIS COURT WOULD FAIL OF ITS PURPOSE IN
SAFEGUARDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THUS, WHENEVER A CONCLUSION OF LAW
OF A STATE COURT AS TO A FEDERAL RIGHT AND FINDINGS OF FACT ARE SO
INTERMINGLED THAT THE LATTER CONTROL THE FORMER, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON
US TO ANALYZE THE FACTS IN ORDER THAT THE APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE FEDERAL RIGHT MAY BE ASSURED."  THIS SAME RULE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED
IN THE FOLLOWING CASES AS WELL AS IN NUMEROUS OTHERS: TRUAX V.
CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 324; HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S.
652, 659; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 228; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA,
306 U.S. 354, 358; PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, 335; PATTON V.
MISSISSIPPI, 332 U.S. 463, 466; CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367, 373;
OYAMA V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633, 636; POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS, 322 U.S.
4, 13; FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 261, 272; AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S.
398, 401; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO. V. ALBERS COMM'N CO., 223 U.S.
573, 591; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. HARTFORD, 273 U.S. 548, 552; FISKE V.
KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380, 385; GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. WASHINGTON, 300
U.S. 154, 165-167.  THIS COURT HAS USED VARYING PHRASEOLOGY IN STATING
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WOULD REVIEW STATE COURT FINDINGS OF
FACT, BUT IT HAS NOT HESITATED TO MAKE SUCH REVIEW WHEN NECESSARY TO
PROTECT A FEDERAL RIGHT.  COMPARE GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. WASHINGTON,
SUPRA, WITH TAYLOR V. MISSISSIPPI, 319 U.S. 583, 585-586. 

FN5  I AM ACCEPTING THIS ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES
RATHER CONCLUSIVELY THAT PETITIONER DID NOT USE THE PHRASE "IN ARMS" IN
THE MANNER TESTIFIED TO BY THE OFFICERS.  RELIABLE WITNESSES SWORE THAT
PETITIONER'S STATEMENT WAS THAT HIS LISTENERS "COULD RISE UP AND FIGHT
FOR THEIR RIGHTS BY GOING ARM IN ARM TO THE HOTEL SYRACUSE, BLACK AND
WHITE ALIKE, TO HEAR JOHN ROGGE."  THE TESTIMONY OF NEITHER OF THE TWO
OFFICERS CONTAINED THE PHRASE "IN ARMS" WHEN THEY FIRST TESTIFIED ON
THIS SUBJECT; THEY ADDED IT ONLY AFTER COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION WAS
PERMITTED BY THE COURT, OVER PETITIONER'S OBJECTION, TO PROPOUND
LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS.  IN ANY EVENT, THE STATEMENT ASCRIBED
TO PETITIONER BY THE OFFICERS SEEMS CLEARLY RHETORICAL WHEN READ IN
CONTEXT. 

FN6  "A CHARGE OF USING LANGUAGE LIKELY TO CAUSE A BREACH OF THE
PEACE IS A CONVENIENT CATCHALL TO HOLD UNPOPULAR SOAPBOX ORATORS." 
CHAFEE, FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES, 524.  THE RELATED CHARGE OF
CONDUCTING A "DISORDERLY HOUSE" HAS ALSO BEEN USED TO SUPPRESS AND
PUNISH MINORITY VIEWS.  FOR EXAMPLE, AN ENGLISH STATUTE OF 1799
CLASSIFIED AS DISORDERLY HOUSES CERTAIN UNLICENSED PLACES ("HOUSE,
ROOM, FIELD, OR OTHER PLACE") IN WHICH "ANY LECTURE OR DISCOURSE SHALL
BE PUBLICKLY DELIVERED, OR ANY PUBLICK DEBATE SHALL BE HAD ON ANY
SUBJECT  ...  " OR WHICH WAS USED "FOR THE PURPOSE OF READING BOOKS,
PAMPHLETS, NEWSPAPERS, OR OTHER PUBLICATIONS  ...  "  39 GEO. III, C.
79, SEC. 15. 

FN7  THE BELIEF OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE SITUATION
ON THE STREET CORNER WAS CRITICAL IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND
ACCORDINGLY SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN MUCH WEIGHT HERE.  TWO ILLUSTRATIONS
WILL SUFFICE:  THE COURT OF APPEALS RELIED UPON A SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF
ONE POLICEMAN THAT HE INTERFERED WITH FEINER AT A TIME WHEN THE CROWD
WAS "GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE THEY WOULD BE UNRULY."  BUT THIS
TESTIMONY WAS SO PATENTLY INADMISSIBLE THAT IT WAS EXCLUDED BY THE
TRIAL JUDGE IN ONE OF THE RARE INSTANCES WHERE THE DEFENDANT RECEIVED A
FAVORABLE RULING.  SECONDLY, THE COURT OF APPEALS STATED THAT AFTER
FEINER HAD BEEN WARNED BY THE POLICE, HE CONTINUED TO "BLARE OUT HIS
PROVOCATIVE UTTERANCES OVER LOUD SPEAKERS TO A MILLING, RESTLESS THRONG
...  "  I AM UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THIS
STATEMENT UNLESS THE UNSWORN ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY ARE ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE.  THE PRINCIPAL PROSECUTION WITNESS
TESTIFIED THAT AFTER HE ASKED FEINER TO GET DOWN FROM THE BOX, FEINER
MERELY "KEPT TELLING (THE AUDIENCE) TO GO TO THE SYRACUSE HOTEL AND
HEAR JOHN ROGGE."  AND THIS SAME WITNESS EVEN ANSWERED "NO" TO THE
HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE QUESTION WHICH IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED, "DID HE SAY
ANYTHING MORE ABOUT ARMING AND FIGHTING AT THAT TIME?"    FN8  CF.
HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1;
SELLERS V. JOHNSON, 163 F.2D 877; SEE ALSO, SUMMARY OF BRIEF FOR
COMMITTEE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AS
AMICUS CURIAE, HAGUE V. C.I.O., SUPRA, REPRINTED AT 307 U.S. 678-682. 

FN9  IN SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, WE HELD THAT A PURPOSE TO
PREVENT LITTERING OF THE STREETS WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY AN
ORDINANCE WHICH PROHIBITED A PERSON LAWFULLY ON THE STREET FROM HANDING
LITERATURE TO ONE WILLING TO RECEIVE IT.  WE SAID AT PAGE 162, "THERE
ARE OBVIOUS METHODS OF PREVENTING LITTERING.  AMONGST THESE IS THE
PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WHO ACTUALLY THROW PAPERS ON THE STREETS."  IN THE
PRESENT CASE AS WELL, THE THREAT OF ONE PERSON TO ASSAULT A SPEAKER
DOES NOT JUSTIFY SUPPRESSION OF THE SPEECH.  THERE ARE OBVIOUS
AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PRESERVING PUBLIC ORDER.  ONE OF THESE
IS TO ARREST THE PERSON WHO THREATENS AN ASSAULT.  CF. DEAN MILK CO. V.
MADISON, 340 U.S. 349, DECIDED TODAY, IN WHICH THE COURT INVALIDATES A
MUNICIPAL HEALTH ORDINANCE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAUSE OF A
BELIEF THAT THE CITY COULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ITS PURPOSES BY REASONABLY
ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVES.  THE COURT CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE LESS ALERT TO
PROTECT FREEDOM OF SPEECH THAN IT IS TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF TRADE. 

FN10  TODAY THE COURT CHARACTERIZES PETITIONER'S SPEECH AS ONE
DESIGNED TO INCITE RIOT AND APPROVES SUPPRESSION OF HIS VIEWS.  THERE
IS AN ALARMING SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE POWER THUS POSSESSED BY THE
SYRACUSE (OR ANY OTHER) POLICE AND THAT POSSESSED BY ENGLISH OFFICIALS
UNDER AN ACT PASSED BY PARLIAMENT IN 1795.  IN THAT YEAR JUSTICES OF
THE PEACE WERE AUTHORIZED TO ARREST PERSONS WHO SPOKE IN A MANNER WHICH
COULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS "INCITING AND STIRRING UP THE PEOPLE TO
HATRED OR CONTEMPT  ...  " OF THE KING OR THE GOVERNMENT.  36 GEO. III,
C. 8, SEC. 7.  THIS STATUTE "WAS MANIFESTLY INTENDED TO PUT AN END FOR
EVER TO ALL POPULAR DISCUSSIONS EITHER ON POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS
MATTERS."  1 BUCKLE, HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND (2D LONDON
ED.)  350. 

FN11  THAT PETITIONER AND THE PHILOSOPHY HE ESPOUSED WERE OBJECTS OF
LOCAL ANTAGONISM APPEARS CLEARLY FROM THE PRINTED RECORD IN THIS CASE. 
EVEN THE TRIAL JUDGE IN HIS DECISION MADE NO ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL HIS
CONTEMPT FOR PETITIONER'S VIEWS.  HE SEEMED OUTRAGED BY PETITIONER'S
CRITICISM OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND THE AMERICAN LEGION.  MOREOVER, THE
JUDGE GRATUITOUSLY EXPRESSED DISAPPROVAL OF O. JOHN ROGGE BY QUOTING
DEROGATORY STATEMENTS CONCERNING MR. ROGGE WHICH HAD APPEARED IN THE
SYRACUSE PRESS.  THE COURT APPROVED THE VIEW THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH
SHOULD BE DENIED THOSE WHO PIT "CLASS AGAINST CLASS  ...  AND RELIGION
AGAINST RELIGION."  AND AFTER ANNOUNCING ITS DECISION, THE COURT
PERSISTENTLY REFUSED TO GRANT BAIL PENDING SENTENCE. 

ALTHOUGH IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR ME TO REACH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
THE TRIAL BELOW MET PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS STANDARDS, I CANNOT AGREE
WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT THAT "PETITIONER WAS ACCORDED A FULL,
FAIR TRIAL." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MINTON CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

FEINER, A UNIVERSITY STUDENT, MADE A SPEECH ON A STREET CORNER IN
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, ON MARCH 8, 1949.  THE PURPOSE OF THE SPEECH WAS TO
PUBLICIZE A MEETING OF THE YOUNG PROGRESSIVES OF AMERICA TO BE HELD
THAT EVENING.  A PERMIT AUTHORIZING THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN A PUBLIC
SCHOOL AUDITORIUM HAD BEEN REVOKED AND THE MEETING SHIFTED TO A LOCAL
HOTEL. 

FEINER DELIVERED HIS SPEECH IN A SMALL SHOPPING AREA IN A
PREDOMINANTLY COLORED RESIDENTIAL SECTION OF SYRACUSE.  HE STOOD ON A
LARGE BOX AND SPOKE OVER LOUDSPEAKERS MOUNTED ON A CAR.  HIS AUDIENCE
WAS COMPOSED OF ABOUT 75 PEOPLE, COLORED AND WHITE.  A FEW MINUTES
AFTER HE STARTED TWO POLICE OFFICERS ARRIVED. 

THE SPEECH WAS MAINLY DEVOTED TO PUBLICIZING THE EVENING'S MEETING
AND PROTESTING THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT.  IT ALSO TOUCHED ON
VARIOUS PUBLIC ISSUES.  THE FOLLOWING ARE THE ONLY EXCERPTS REVEALED BY
THE RECORD: 

"MAYOR COSTELLO (OF SYRACUSE) IS A CHAMPAGNE-SIPPING BUM; HE DOES NOT
SPEAK FOR THE NEGRO PEOPLE." 

"THE 15TH WARD IS RUN BY CORRUPT POLITICIANS, AND THERE ARE HORSE
ROOMS OPERATING THERE." 

"PRESIDENT TRUMAN IS A BUM." 

"MAYOR O'DWYER IS A BUM." 

"THE AMERICAN LEGION IS A NAZI GESTAPO." 

"THE NEGROES DON'T HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS; THEY SHOULD RISE UP IN ARMS AND
FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS." 

THERE WAS SOME PUSHING AND SHOVING IN THE CROWD AND SOME ANGRY
MUTTERING.  THAT IS THE TESTIMONY OF THE POLICE.  BUT THERE WERE NO
FIGHTS AND NO "DISORDER" EVEN BY THE STANDARDS OF THE POLICE.  THERE
WAS NOT EVEN ANY HECKLING OF THE SPEAKER. 

BUT AFTER FEINER HAD BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT 20 MINUTES A MAN SAID TO THE
POLICE OFFICERS, "IF YOU DON'T GET THAT SON OF A BITCH OFF, I WILL GO
OVER AND GET HIM OFF THERE MYSELF."  IT WAS THEN THAT THE POLICE
ORDERED FEINER TO STOP SPEAKING; WHEN HE REFUSED, THEY ARRESTED HIM. 

PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES AND PUBLIC SPEECH OCCUPY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN
AMERICAN LIFE.  ONE HIGH FUNCTION OF THE POLICE IS TO PROTECT THESE
LAWFUL GATHERINGS SO THAT THE SPEAKERS MAY EXERCISE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  WHEN UNPOPULAR CAUSES ARE SPONSORED FROM THE
PUBLIC PLATFORM, THERE WILL COMMONLY BE MUTTERINGS AND UNREST AND
HECKLING FROM THE CROWD.  WHEN A SPEAKER MOUNTS A PLATFORM IT IS NOT
UNUSUAL TO FIND HIM RESORTING TO EXAGGERATION, TO VILIFICATION OF IDEAS
AND MEN, TO THE MAKING OF FALSE CHARGES.  BUT THOSE EXTRAVAGANCES, AS
WE EMPHASIZED IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, DO NOT JUSTIFY
PENALIZING THE SPEAKER BY DEPRIVING HIM OF THE PLATFORM OR BY PUNISHING
HIM FOR HIS CONDUCT. 

A SPEAKER MAY NOT, OF COURSE, INCITE A RIOT ANY MORE THAN HE MAY
INCITE A BREACH OF THE PEACE BY THE USE OF "FIGHTING WORDS."  SEE
CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568.  BUT THIS RECORD SHOWS NO
SUCH EXTREMES.  IT SHOWS AN UNSYMPATHETIC AUDIENCE AND THE THREAT OF
ONE MAN TO HAUL THE SPEAKER FROM THE STAGE.  IT IS AGAINST THAT KIND OF
THREAT THAT SPEAKERS NEED POLICE PROTECTION.  IF THEY DO NOT RECEIVE IT
AND INSTEAD THE POLICE THROW THEIR WEIGHT ON THE SIDE OF THOSE WHO
WOULD BREAK UP THE MEETINGS, THE POLICE BECOME THE NEW CENSORS OF
SPEECH.  POLICE CENSORSHIP HAS ALL THE VICES OF THE CENSORSHIP FROM
CITY HALLS WHICH WE HAVE REPEATEDY STRUCK DOWN.  SEE LOVELL V. CITY OF
GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, SUPRA; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105; SAIA V. NEW
YORK, 334 U.S. 558. 
..END :
























BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 332 


NO. 21.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1951.  - 179
F.2D 559, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER, A WITNESS BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND JURY IN RESPONSE TO A
SUMMONS, DECLINED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS CONCERNING ACTIVITIES AND RECORDS
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN COLORADO, CLAIMING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  ASSERTING HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST
DISCLOSING CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE, HE
ALSO REFUSED TO REVEAL THE WHEREABOUTS OF HIS WIFE, WHO WAS WANTED BY
THE GRAND JURY AS A WITNESS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME INVESTIGATION. 
IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT HE OBTAINED HIS KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WIFE'S
WHEREABOUTS BY COMMUNICATION FROM HER.  THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED
BOTH CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND SENTENCED PETITIONER TO IMPRISONMENT FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT.  HELD: 

1.  FAILURE TO SUSTAIN PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION WAS ERROR.  BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159.  P.
333. 

2.  PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO RELY ON HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST
DISCLOSING CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE BECAUSE
THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE
COMMUNICATIONS WERE CONFIDENTIAL.  PP. 333-334. 

BLAU V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SENTENCED PETITIONER TO IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT
OF COURT, FOR REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND
JURY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  179 F.2D 559.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 956.  REVERSED, P. 334. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS SUMMONED TO APPEAR BEFORE A FEDERAL DISTRICT GRAND
JURY IN DENVER, COLORADO.  BOTH BEFORE THAT BODY AND BEFORE THE
DISTRICT JUDGE WHERE HE WAS LATER TAKEN, PETITIONER DECLINED TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES AND RECORDS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
OF COLORADO, CLAIMING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST
SELFINCRIMINATION.  HE ALSO REFUSED TO REVEAL THE WHEREABOUTS OF HIS
WIFE, WHO WAS WANTED BY THE GRAND JURY AS A WITNESS IN CONNECTION WITH
THE SAME INVESTIGATION.  AS TO THIS REFUSAL TO TESTIFY, PETITIONER
ASSERTED HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST DISCLOSING CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS
BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE OVERRULED BOTH CLAIMS OF
PRIVILEGE AND SENTENCED PETITIONER TO SIX MONTHS IN PRISON FOR CONTEMPT
OF COURT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  179
F.2D 559. 

FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN OUR RECENT OPINION IN PATRICIA BLAU V.
UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159, WE HOLD IT WAS ERROR TO FAIL TO SUSTAIN
THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. 

THIS LEAVES FOR CONSIDERATION THE VALIDITY OF THE SENTENCE INSOFAR AS
IT RESTS ON THE FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO DISCLOSE THE WHEREABOUTS OF
HIS WIFE.  IN WOLFLE V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 7, THIS COURT
RECOGNIZED THAT A CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE
WAS PRIVILEGED.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT PETITIONER
OBTAINED HIS KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHERE HIS WIFE WAS BY COMMUNICATION FROM
HER.  NEVERTHELESS, THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT HE SHOULD BE DENIED THE
BENEFIT OF THE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE HE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE
INFORMATION WAS PRIVATELY CONVEYED.  THIS CONTENTION IGNORES THE RULE
THAT MARITAL COMMUNICATIONS ARE PRESUMPTIVELY CONFIDENTIAL.  WOLFLE V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 14; WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, SEC. 2336.  THE
GOVERNMENT MADE NO EFFORT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION.  IN THIS CASE,
MOREOVER, THE COMMUNICATION TO PETITIONER WAS OF THE KIND LIKELY TO BE
CONFIDENTIAL.  PETITIONER'S WIFE, ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KNEW
THAT SHE AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS WERE "WANTED" AS WITNESSES BY THE GRAND
JURY BUT SHE "HID OUT, APPARENTLY SO THAT THE PROCESS  ...  COULD NOT
BE SERVED UPON HER."  FN1  SEVERAL OF THE WITNESSES WHO APPEARED WERE
PUT IN JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SEEMS
HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT MRS. BLAU SECRETLY TOLD HER HUSBAND WHERE SHE
COULD BE FOUND.  PETITIONER'S REFUSAL TO BETRAY HIS WIFE'S TRUST
THEREFORE WAS BOTH UNDERSTANDABLE AND LAWFUL.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT HE
WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM HIS PRIVILEGE.  FN2  REVERSED. 

FN1  PETITIONER'S WIFE, WHEN APPREHENDED, WAS SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR'S
IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT, PATRICIA BLAU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
ALTHOUGH OTHER WITNESSES WHO REFUSED TO TESTIFY RECEIVED SHORTER
SENTENCES.  IN SENTENCING MRS. BLAU, THE JUDGE STATED:  "I HAVEN'T MUCH
SYMPATHY FOR THIS LADY BECAUSE, AS I SAID, SHE DEFIED THE COURT BY
AVOIDING THE PROCESS OF THE COURT WHEN SHE KNEW VERY WELL THAT SHE WAS
WANTED HERE, AND YET SHE HID OUT, APPARENTLY SO THAT THE PROCESS OF
THIS COURT COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON HER." 

FN2  IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE, IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SINGLE CONVICTION FOR
CONTEMPT (WHICH WAS BASED ON THE REFUSAL TO GIVE INCRIMINATING
TESTIMONY AND ON THE REFUSAL TO REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL MARITAL
COMMUNICATION) WOULD BE VALID IF PETITIONER WERE ENTITLED TO CLAIM ONE,
BUT NOT BOTH, OF THE PRIVILEGES. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

IF A COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE IS MADE UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL, IT IS NOT
PRIVILEGED.  WOLFLE V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 7, 14. 

WHERE THE PRIVILEGE SUPPRESSES RELEVANT TESTIMONY, AS IT DID HERE, IT
SHOULD "BE ALLOWED ONLY WHEN IT IS PLAIN THAT MARITAL CONFIDENCE CAN
NOT OTHERWISE REASONABLY BE PRESERVED."  ID., AT 17. 

UNLESS THE WIFE IS IN CONCEALMENT, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE
CASE HERE, THE DISCLOSURE OF HER WHEREABOUTS TO THE HUSBAND IS
OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL AND THEREFORE IS NOT
PRIVILEGED.  NOT EVERY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE IS
BLESSED WITH THE PRIVILEGE.  THE GENERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE IS
COMPETENCY.  INCOMPETENCY IS THE EXCEPTION, AND TO BRING ONE WITHIN THE
EXCEPTION, ONE MUST COME WITHIN THE REASON FOR THE EXCEPTION.  THE
REASON HERE IS PROTECTION OF MARITAL CONFIDENCE, NOT MERELY OF
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SPOUSES.  IT SEEMS TO ME CLEAR THAT ALL THAT IS
SHOWN HERE IS COMMUNICATION.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CONFIDENCE ARE
ABSENT; WHAT ALL MAY KNOW IS CERTAINLY NOT CONFIDENTIAL. 

FOR REFUSAL TO DIVULGE HIS WIFE'S WHEREABOUTS, PETITIONER WAS IN
CONTEMPT.  SINCE THE SENTENCE HE RECEIVED WAS SUCH AS HE MIGHT HAVE
RECEIVED FOR THAT SINGLE ACT OF CONTEMPT, HIS CONVICTION IS VALID.  CF.
PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, 641, N. 1; HIRABAYASHI V.
UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 85.  IF PETITIONER CONCEIVED HIS SENTENCE
TO BE ILLEGAL, HE WOULD NOT BE WITHOUT REMEDY, FOR HE MIGHT SEEK A
REDUCTION THEREOF ON REMAND OF THIS CASE UNDER RULE 35 OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  I INTIMATE NOTHING AS TO THAT ISSUE. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE CONVICTION. 
..END :









NIAGARA HUDSON CORP. V. LEVENTRITT, 340 U.S. 336 


ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1951.  - 179 F.2D 615,
REVERSED. 


THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION APPROVED A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION AS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF
THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, ALTHOUGH THE PLAN MADE
NO PROVISION FOR PARTICIPATION OF OUTSTANDING STOCK OPTION WARRANTS
RELATING TO COMMON STOCK OF THE COMPANY TO BE REORGANIZED.  THE
WARRANTS REPRESENTED OPTIONS TO PURCHASE, AT ANY TIME, FOR A SPECIFIED
PRICE, SHARES OF THE COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
THERE WAS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION, WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE,
THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF THE COMMON STOCK WOULD EXCEED THE EXERCISE
PRICE OF THE WARRANTS, AND THAT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOGNIZING ANY PRESENT
VALUE IN THE WARRANTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMON STOCK.  HELD:  THE
DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ORDERED ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN.  PP. 338-348. 

1.  THE FACT THAT THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR NO PARTICIPATION BY THE
OUTSTANDING WARRANTS DESPITE THEIR CONCEDED, BUT LOW, MARKET VALUE DOES
NOT PRECLUDE THE COMMISSION, AS A MATTER OF LAW, FROM CONCLUDING THAT
THE PLAN IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11(E) OF
THE ACT WHEN INFORMED ESTIMATES OF FUTURE EARNINGS INDICATE THAT THEY
HAVE NO INVESTMENT VALUE.  PP. 340-348. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE OPTIONS IN THE WARRANTS WERE EXERCISABLE "AT
ANY TIME (WITHOUT LIMIT)" AND THUS HAD A "PERPETUAL FEATURE" DID NOT
REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSION, AS A MATTER OF LAW, RECOGNIZE SOME PRESENT
VALUE IN THE WARRANTS.  PP. 344-345. 

3.  THE FACT THAT A PURCHASER MAY BE WILLING TO PAY A NOMINAL PRICE
FOR A WARRANT WHICH HAS NO INVESTMENT VALUE, ON THE MERE CHANCE THAT IT
MAY BE SALEABLE IN A RISING MARKET, IS NOT AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR
ALLOWING A VALUE TO THE WARRANTS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMON STOCK,
IN A REORGANIZATION UNDER THE ACT.  PP. 345-346. 

4.  IN DETERMINING THE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF COMPENSATION TO BE
ALLOWED HOLDERS OF WARRANTS, THE COMMISSION IS NOT BOUND AS A MATTER OF
LAW, ANY MORE THAN IN THE CASE OF OTHER SECURITIES, TO LIMIT ITSELF
PRECISELY TO THE VALUES WHICH THE MARKET RECOGNIZES.  P. 346. 

5.  THE INFORMED JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION, RATHER THAN THAT OF THE
MARKET, IS THE APPROPRIATE GUIDE TO FAIRNESS AND EQUITY UNDER THE ACT;
AND THAT INFORMED JUDGMENT LOOKS FOR INVESTMENT VALUES ON A GOING
CONCERN BASIS MEASURED PRIMARILY BY THE COMMISSION'S ESTIMATE OF
EARNINGS WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.  PP. 346-347. 

6.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION, THE COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF A PLAN IS AS LAWFUL AND BINDING WHEN IT RECOGNIZES A VALUE
OF ZERO FOR A SECURITY AS WHEN IT SELECTS ANY OTHER FIGURE.  P. 347. 

7.  IN THIS CASE THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF THAT THE WARRANTS ARE
WHOLLY WORTHLESS AND WITHOUT ANY MARKET VALUE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE
COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT THAT THE PLAN IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" THOUGH
DENYING THEM PARTICIPATION.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE COMMISSION, WITHIN
ITS DISCRETION, HAS GIVEN THE WARRANTS CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, AND,
UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE
WARRANTS, HAS FOUND THE PLAN TO BE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT.  P. 347. 

NIAGARA HUDSON POWER CORP. V. LEVENTRITT. 

NO. 211.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 212, SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V.
LEVENTRITT, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED ENFORCED A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION APPROVED
BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935.  86 F.SUPP.  697.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THAT PART OF THE ORDER RELATING TO STOCK OPTION WARRANTS, AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  179
F.2D 615.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 809.  REVERSED, P.
348. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION IS "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 1935,  FN1  ALTHOUGH THE PLAN MAKES NO PROVISION FOR THE
PARTICIPATION OF OUTSTANDING STOCK OPTION WARRANTS RELATING TO THE
COMMON STOCK OF THE COMPANY TO BE REORGANIZED.  THE BASIS FOR THE
COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION IS THAT IT CANNOT FIND THAT THERE IS A
REASONABLE EXPECTATION, WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THAT THE MARKET
PRICE OF THE COMMON STOCK WILL EXCEED THE EXERCISE PRICE OF THE
WARRANTS AND THAT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
INCLUDING THE MARKET FOR THE WARRANTS, THE COMMISSION CANNOT FIND
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOGNIZING ANY PRESENT VALUE IN THE WARRANTS AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE COMMON STOCK.  FOR THE REASONS HEREINAFTER STATED, WE
SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION. 

THE NIAGARA HUDSON POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER IN NO. 211, IS A
REGISTERED PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY, INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS
OF NEW YORK, WHOSE DISSOLUTION IS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE
REORGANIZATION.  FN2  IT HAS OUTSTANDING NOTES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$20,000,000; 378,875 SHARES OF FIRST PREFERRED STOCK, OF $100 PAR
VALUE; 105,930 SHARES OF SECOND PREFERRED STOCK, OF $100 PAR VALUE;
9,580,988 1/2 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, OF $1 PAR VALUE; AND CLASS B
STOCK OPTION WARRANTS.  THE WARRANTS REPRESENT OPTIONS TO PURCHASE, AT
ANY TIME, UP TO 497,191 3/6 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, EACH WARRANT
ENTITLING THE HOLDER TO SUBSCRIBE TO 1 1/6 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK UPON
PAYMENT OF $50, WHICH IS AT THE RATE OF APPROXIMATELY $42.86 PER
SHARE.  FN3 

THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION INCLUDES A DISSOLUTION PLAN WHICH IS
CONDITIONED UPON THE CONSUMMATION OF A CONSOLIDATION PLAN, NOW
CONSUMMATED.  THE COMMISSION FOUND BOTH PLANS TO BE "NECESSARY TO
EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(B)(2) OF THE ACT (SEC. 15
U.S.C. SEC. 79K (B)(2)) AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED
THEREBY  ...  "  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASES NO. 9270, PP. 1, 57; NO.
9295, P. 2.  OVER AN OBJECTION MADE BY THE RESPONDENT, M. VICTOR
LEVENTRITT, AS A WARRANT HOLDER, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK APPROVED THE PLANS AND ORDERED THEM
ENFORCED.  86 F.SUPP.  697.  ON APPEAL BY THE RESPONDENT, THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED THAT PART OF THE ORDER WHICH
RELATES TO THE WARRANTS, AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  179 F.2D 615.  A REHEARING WAS DENIED, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
THEREAFTER REACHED A SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRARY RESULT IN IN RE
COMMONWEALTH & SOUTHERN CORP., 184 F.2D 81.  BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING
NATURE OF THE DECISIONS IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE ISSUE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT,
WE GRANTED THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED SEPARATELY BY THE COMPANY
IN NO. 211 AND THE COMMISSION IN NO. 212.  340 U.S. 809. 

AT EVERY STAGE OF THIS PROCEEDING OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN AFFORDED THE
HOLDERS OF THE WARRANTS TO PRESENT THEIR CLAIMS AND THEY HAVE BEEN
FULLY PRESENTED.  RESPONDENT HAS NOT, HOWEVER, BROUGHT UP THE RECORD
WHICH WAS MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND CANNOT QUESTION THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AS
TO THE INTRINSIC OR INVESTMENT VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK OR AS TO THAT
OF THE WARRANTS BASED ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEIR EXERCISE WITHIN THE
FORESEEABLE FUTURE.  FN4  THE APPEAL ATTACKS THE AUTHORITY OF THE
COMMISSION, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO CONCLUDE THAT, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND BY IT, THE DISSOLUTION PLAN IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11(E) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE PLAN PROVIDES
FOR NO PARTICIPATION BY THE OUTSTANDING WARRANTS DESPITE THEIR
CONCEDED, BUT LOW, MARKET VALUE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THAT
ATTACK AND SAID:  "WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE
'SUBSTANTIAL' OR INSUBSTANTIAL TO SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT THESE
'WARRANTS' WERE WHOLLY WORTHLESS."  179 F.2D AT 618. 

THE COMMISSION'S ANSWER TO THE ATTACK IS THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 11(E) OF THIS ACT, IT HAS DISCRETION TO APPROVE A PLAN AS "FAIR
AND EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED BY SUCH PLAN," WITHOUT PROVIDING
FOR THE PARTICIPATION OF THE HOLDERS OF ANY SECURITY THAT HAS NO
RECOGNIZABLE INTRINSIC OR INVESTMENT VALUE, ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE A
MARKET VALUE WHICH THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS TOO SMALL "AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER" TO BE RECOGNIZED.  THE COMMISSION STATED ITS CONCLUSIONS IN ITS
ORIGINAL ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

           "5.  FAIRNESS TO THE HOLDERS OF THE CLASS B STOCK

                   OPTION WARRANTS OF NIAGARA HUDSON 

"UNDER THE PLANS, NO PROVISION IS MADE FOR PARTICIPATION OF THE CLASS
B STOCK OPTION WARRANTS OF NIAGARA HUDSON AND ALL RIGHTS REPRESENTED BY
SUCH WARRANTS WILL TERMINATE UPON THE DISSOLUTION OF THAT COMPANY. 

"THE OPTION WARRANTS ENTITLE THEIR HOLDERS TO PURCHASE AT ANY TIME
497,191 3/6 SHARES OF NIAGARA HUDSON COMMON STOCK, EACH WARRANT
ENTITLING THE HOLDER TO 1 1/6 SHARES UPON PAYMENT OF $50.  THIS IS
EQUIVALENT TO AN EXERCISE PRICE OF $42.86 FOR ONE SHARE.  SINCE 1932,
THE NIAGARA HUDSON OR PREDECESSOR COMPANY COMMON STOCK HAS NEVER SOLD
AT A PRICE HIGHER THAN 18 1/4 AND HAS SOLD AS LOW AS 7/8.  DURING THE
SAME PERIOD, THE OPTION WARRANTS HAVE NEVER SOLD HIGHER THAN 5 AND HAVE
BEEN AS LOW AS 1/8.  (APPENDIX F ATTACHED TO THE COMMISSION'S OPINION
SHOWS THAT IN 1943 THEY DROPPED FURTHER TO 1/16, AND IN 1941 AND 1942
TO 1/32.)  IN 1948, THE PRICES FOR THE OPTION WARRANTS RANGED FROM A
HIGH OF 1 TO A LOW OF 1/8, AND IN 1949, FROM A HIGH OF 1/4 TO A LOW OF
1/8. 

"IN CONSIDERING THE PARTICIPATION TO WHICH OPTION WARRANT HOLDERS MAY
BE ENTITLED, THE TEST IS BASICALLY THE SAME AS THAT APPLIED WITH
RESPECT TO THE OTHER TYPES OF SECURITIES, THAT IS, WHAT VALUE, IF ANY,
IS BEING GIVEN UP BY THE SURRENDER OF THE RIGHTS ATTACHING TO THAT
SECURITY.  THE PRICE OF $42.86, WHICH A HOLDER OF AN OPTION WARRANT
WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR ONE SHARE OF NIAGARA HUDSON COMMON STOCK, IS MORE
THAN 30 TIMES THE ESTIMATE WE HAVE USED OF $1.39 AS FORESEEABLE
EARNINGS WHICH WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THAT STOCK ON THE BASIS OF
PRESENT INVESTMENT IF NIAGARA HUDSON WERE TO CONTINUE.  THAT PRICE IS
ABOUT 3.5 TIMES THE RECENT HIGH MARKET PRICES FOR THE NIAGARA HUDSON
COMMON STOCK OF AROUND 12 PER SHARE. 

"IF WE WERE TO ASSUME THAT NIAGARA HUDSON WERE TO CONTINUE AND ITS
COMMON STOCK WERE TO SELL IN THE FUTURE AT A RATIO OF 15 TIMES
CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS, WHICH WOULD APPEAR TO BE A VERY LIBERAL
ASSUMPTION, IT WOULD REQUIRE PER SHARE EARNINGS OF $2.86 TO RESULT IN A
PRICE OF $42.86 PER SHARE.  SUCH EARNINGS WOULD REPRESENT AN INCREASE
OF 106% OVER THE APPROXIMATELY $1.39 OF EARNINGS WHICH WE HAVE FOUND
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PRESENT INVESTMENT.  ON THE BASIS OF THE MORE
LIKELY ASSUMPTION THAT THE PRICE-EARNINGS RATIO AT WHICH THE NIAGARA
HUDSON COMMON STOCK WOULD SELL WOULD BE SOMETHING LESS THAN 15 TIMES,
AN EVEN GREATER INCREASE IN EARNINGS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ATTAIN A PER
SHARE PRICE OF $42.86. 

"UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANNOT FIND THAT THERE IS A
REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF NIAGARA HUDSON'S COMMON
STOCK WOULD EXCEED THE EXERCISE PRICE OF THE OPTION WARRANTS WITHIN THE
FORESEEABLE FUTURE.  ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT SUCH OPTION WARRANTS
HAVE NO RECOGNIZABLE VALUE  FN59  AND THAT THE PLANS SATISFY THE
STANDARD OF FAIRNESS AND EQUITY WITH RESPECT TO SUCH OPTION WARRANTS IN
EXCLUDING THEM FROM ANY PARTICIPATION IN THE REORGANIZATION OF NIAGARA
HUDSON."  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 9270, PP. 46-47. 

IN ITS FOREGOING STATEMENT THE COMMISSION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
POSITION IT HAS TAKEN AS TO THE PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK.  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED IN SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMM'N V. CENTRAL-ILLINOIS CORP., 338 U.S. 96, AND IN OTIS & CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N, 323 U.S. 624, IT HAS ESTIMATED FUTURE
EARNINGS AS A GUIDE FOR ITS DETERMINATION OF THE INTRINSIC AND
INVESTMENT VALUE OF THOSE STOCKS.  IT HAS SATISFIED ITSELF THAT THE
HOLDERS OF THEM WILL RECEIVE, IN CASH OR SECURITIES, AN EQUITABLE
EQUIVALENT OF THAT VALUE.  THE COMMISSION'S COMPARABLE DUTY IN RELATION
TO THE WARRANTS IS FIRST TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY REFLECT
THE VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK UPON WHICH THEY HAVE AN OPTION.  IF, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK CLOSELY APPROACHES THE
EXERCISE PRICE STATED IN THE WARRANTS, OR IF THERE IS GROUND FOR A
REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT THE TWO MAY COINCIDE WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE, THEN THE WARRANTS WOULD HAVE AN INTRINSIC AND INVESTMENT VALUE
DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE COMMON STOCK.  UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE
ASSUME NO PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WOULD BE FAIR OR EQUITABLE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 11(E) OF THE ACT THAT DID NOT RECOGNIZE THAT VALUE AND
PROVIDE AN EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT FOR IT.  FN5 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK IS LESS
THAN $15 PER SHARE AND THERE IS NO GROUND FOR A REASONABLE EXPECTATION
THAT, WITHIN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THE VALUE WILL EXCEED $15 PER
SHARE, THEN AN OPTION TO BUY IT AT, FOR EXAMPLE, $1,000 PER SHARE
OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE WORTHLESS IF THE MEASURE OF ITS VALUE DEPENDS ONLY
UPON ITS CONVERTIBILITY INTO COMMON STOCK.  WITH SUCH FACTS, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE COMMISSION COULD JUSTIFY EITHER THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE WARRANTS OR ANY COMPENSATION FOR THEM AT THE EXPENSE
OF THE EXISTING COMMON STOCK.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXAMPLE LAST
GIVEN AND THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IS MERELY ONE OF DEGREE.  WHERE THE
LINE IS TO BE DRAWN IS A MATTER FOR THE EXPERT JUDGMENT OF THE
COMMISSION.  THE LIMITS OF ITS DISCRETION ARE ALSO NARROWED HERE BY THE
FACT THAT THE FUTURE EARNINGS OF A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY ARE LIMITED
BY LAW TO A CONSERVATIVE RATE OF RETURN UPON A GOVERNMENTALLY
ASCERTAINED RATE BASE. 

RESPONDENT'S OBJECTION IN THIS CASE IS NOT PRIMARILY TO THE
COMMISSION'S COMPUTATION OF THE INVESTMENT VALUE OF THE WARRANTS
INSOFAR AS THAT VALUE IS BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEIR
EXERCISE PRICE AND THE VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK.  HIS CLAIM IS RATHER
THAT THE COMMISSION MUST, AS A MATTER OF LAW, GIVE GREATER RECOGNITION
THAN IT HAS TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE WARRANTS THEMSELVES.  HE
CONTENDS THAT THE WARRANTS HAVE A VALUABLE "PERPETUAL FEATURE" BECAUSE
THE OPTIONS IN THE WARRANTS MAY BE EXERCISED "AT ANY TIME (WITHOUT
LIMIT)."  FROM THIS PREMISE HE REASONS THAT THE COMMISSION, AS A MATTER
OF LAW, MUST RECOGNIZE SOME PRESENT VALUE IN THE WARRANTS BECAUSE OF
THE INFINITE POSSIBILITIES WHICH INHERE IN ANY OPTION THAT REACHES INTO
THE INFINITE FUTURE.  HIS PREMISE IS PARTIALLY FALSE BECAUSE THE OPTION
IN THE WARRANTS DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE LIFE OF THE COMMON STOCK AND
THERE IS NO GUARANTY OF THE LENGTH OF THAT LIFE.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE "PERPETUAL FEATURE" OF THE OPTION DOES AFFORD GROUND FOR
ANTICIPATING ITS SURVIVAL BEYOND THE SHORT PERIOD WHICH LIMITS ORDINARY
ESTIMATES OF INVESTMENT VALUES.  IT REACHES BEYOND THE FORESEEABLE INTO
THE UNEXPECTED AND THE UNPREDICTABLE. 

THE VALUE OF THIS "PERPETUAL FEATURE" MAY BE CALLED THE PREMIUM VALUE
OF THE WARRANTS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THEIR INVESTMENT VALUE.  IT TAKES
INTO ACCOUNT SUCH POSSIBILITIES AS THAT OF A RUNAWAY INFLATION, AN
UNPRECEDENTED ACCUMULATION OF UNDISTRIBUTED SURPLUS EARNINGS, AN
UNLIKELY LIBERALIZATION OF STANDARDS OF PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION, A
SURPRISE DISCOVERY OF OIL ON COMPANY PROPERTY, ETC.  THESE ARE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH A BUYER OF "PERPETUAL" WARRANTS ON THE OPEN MARKET
MIGHT CONSIDER AS A BASIS FOR SPECULATION IN THEM.  FURTHERMORE,
BECAUSE WARRANTS ARE AMONG THE LOWEST PRICED OF ALL SECURITIES AND
BECAUSE THEIR MARKET PRICE TENDS TO FLUCTUATE WITH THE MARKET PRICE OF
THE STOCK TO WHICH THEY ARE RELATED, THEY PERMIT SPECULATION ON MARKET
TRENDS WITH A MINIMUM INVESTMENT.  FN6  A PURCHASER THUS MAY BE WILLING
TO PAY A NOMINAL PRICE FOR A WARRANT WHICH HAS NO INVESTMENT VALUE, ON
THE MERE CHANCE THAT IT MAY BE SALEABLE IN A RISING MARKET.  FN7 THIS,
HOWEVER, DOES NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE REASON FOR ALLOWING A VALUE TO
THE WARRANTS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMON STOCK, IN A REORGANIZATION
UNDER THIS ACT. 

THIS REORGANIZATION OF A REGISTERED PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY IS
ONE BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.  THE COMPANY IS
SUBJECTED TO IT BY ITS STATUS AS A PUBLIC UTILITY AND BY ITS
REGISTRATION AS A HOLDING COMPANY UNDER THE ACT.  IN DETERMINING THE
FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF COMPENSATION TO BE ALLOWED HOLDERS OF WARRANTS,
THE COMMISSION IS NOT BOUND AS A MATTER OF LAW, ANY MORE THAN IN THE
CASE OF OTHER SECURITIES, TO LIMIT ITSELF PRECISELY TO THE VALUES WHICH
THE MARKET RECOGNIZES.  THE INFORMED JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION, RATHER
THAN THAT OF THE MARKET, HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE ACT AS THE
APPROPRIATE GUIDE TO FAIRNESS AND EQUITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ACT.  UNDER THE STANDARDS APPROVED BY THIS COURT, THAT INFORMED
JUDGMENT LOOKS FOR INVESTMENT VALUES ON A GOING-CONCERN BASIS MEASURED
PRIMARILY BY THE COMMISSION'S ESTIMATES OF EARNINGS WITHIN THE
FORESEEABLE FUTURE.  IN THE OTIS CASE, SUPRA, THIS COURT ACCEPTED THE
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PARTICIPATION BY COMMON STOCK IN A
REORGANIZATION UNDER THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY TO
BE REORGANIZED WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE CHARTER LIQUIDATION
PREFERENCE OF THE PREFERRED STOCK.  THIS COURT THERE ACCEPTED THE
COMMISSION'S ESTIMATE THAT IN APPROXIMATELY 15 YEARS THE CORPORATION'S
EARNINGS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO PAY DIVIDENDS ON THE COMMON STOCK.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, IN THE CENTRAL-ILLINOIS CASE, SUPRA, WE EXPRESSLY
REJECTED THE "COLLOQUIAL EQUITY" APPROACH OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH
PLACED SPECIAL EMPHASIS UPON MARKET HISTORY. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION, THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL
OF A PLAN IS AS LAWFUL AND BINDING WHEN IT RECOGNIZES A VALUE OF ZERO
FOR A SECURITY AS WHEN IT SELECTS ANY OTHER FIGURE.  THE CASH ALLOWANCE
IT GIVES TO ONE SECURITY IT MUST TAKE FROM ANOTHER.  IN EACH CASE, IT
MUST DETERMINE THE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF THE PLAN TO ALL WHO ARE
AFFECTED.  WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE THE ACT
DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF THAT THE WARRANTS ARE WHOLLY WORTHLESS AND
WITHOUT ALL MARKET VALUE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT
THAT THE PLAN IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE WHEN IT DENIES PARTICIPATION TO
THEM.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE COMMISSION, WITHIN ITS DISCRETION, HAS
GIVEN THE WARRANTS CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND THAT UNDER ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THEIR MARKET VALUE, HAS FOUND THE PLAN TO BE
FAIR AND EQUITABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT.  MOREOVER,
WE FIND NO LACK OF AUTHORITY IN ANALOGOUS FIELDS OF REORGANIZATION FOR
SUSTAINING THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT A CLASS OF SECURITIES MAY GO
UNRECOGNIZED IN A REORGANIZATION WHEN INFORMED ESTIMATES OF FUTURE
EARNINGS INDICATE THAT THEY HAVE NO INVESTMENT VALUE.  FN8 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ACCORDINGLY, IS REVERSED AND
THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  11.  (A)  ... 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION  ..." 

     .         .         .         .      . 

"(2)  TO REQUIRE BY ORDER, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING,
THAT EACH REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY, AND EACH SUBSIDIARY COMPANY
THEREOF, SHALL TAKE SUCH STEPS AS THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND NECESSARY
TO ENSURE THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ANY
COMPANY IN THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM DOES NOT UNDULY OR UNNECESSARILY
COMPLICATE THE STRUCTURE, OR UNFAIRLY OR INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE VOTING
POWER AMONG SECURITY HOLDERS, OF SUCH HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM.  ... 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(E)  IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS OR ORDER AS THE
COMMISSION MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR
FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS, ANY REGISTERED HOLDING
COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF A REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY MAY,
AT ANY TIME AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936, SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE COMMISSION FOR
THE DIVESTMENT OF CONTROL, SECURITIES, OR OTHER ASSETS, OR FOR OTHER
ACTION BY SUCH COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENABLING SUCH COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF TO
COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B).  IF, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND SUCH PLAN, AS
SUBMITTED OR AS MODIFIED, NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTION (B) AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED BY SUCH
PLAN, THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE AN ORDER APPROVING SUCH PLAN; AND THE
COMMISSION, AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMPANY, MAY APPLY TO A COURT, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (F) OF SECTION 18, TO
ENFORCE AND CARRY OUT THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF SUCH PLAN...."  49
STAT. 820, 821, 822, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79K (B) AND (E). 

FN2  FOR A SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SINCE 1942 UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2)
OF THE ACT, RELATING TO THE NIAGARA HUDSON SYSTEM, AND AT FIRST
RELATING TO 26 CORPORATE ENTITIES, SEE NIAGARA HUDSON POWER CORP.,
HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 9270, PP. 7-8. 

FN3  IT APPEARS FROM THE WARRANT CERTIFICATES THAT THE HOLDER OF EACH
"IS ENTITLED TO PURCHASE AT ANY TIME (WITHOUT LIMIT)" SHARES OF COMMON
STOCK AT THE PRICE STATED.  IT ALSO APPEARS FROM THE CERTIFICATES THAT
THE WARRANTS ARE A SECOND GENERATION OF WARRANTS, HAVING BEEN ISSUED IN
EXCHANGE FOR WARRANTS OF TWO PREDECESSOR CORPORATIONS "FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PRESERVING AND CONTINUING, AS NEARLY AS MAY BE, THE RIGHTS OF THE
HOLDERS OF SAID OPTION WARRANTS, EXISTING AT THE DATE OF CONSOLIDATION,
ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE TERMS." 

FN4  SUCH FINDINGS "ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REEXAMINATION BY THE COURT
UNLESS THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR WERE NOT
ARRIVED AT 'IN ACCORDANCE WITH LEGAL STANDARDS.'"  SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMM'N V. CENTRAL-ILLINOIS CORP., 338 U.S. 96, 126. 

FN59  "WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE HOLDERS OF THE OPTION WARRANTS HAVE A
RIGHT TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK AT ANY TIME, AND THAT THIS PERPETUAL
FEATURE HAS SOME PRESENT VALUE NO MATTER HOW REMOTE OR SPECULATIVE THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT MIGHT BE.  THE VALUE TO BE ACCORDED THAT RIGHT,
HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, IS SO SMALL THAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER WE WOULD
NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN RECOGNIZING IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF A SECTION 11
REORGANIZATION.  CF. ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CORPORATION,  -  S.E.C. -
(1949), HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 8889." 

FN5  IN IN RE ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CORP., HOLDING COMPANY ACT
RELEASE NO. 8889, AFF'D 176 F.2D 687, THE COMMISSION APPROVED A PLAN
ALLOCATING SHARES OF COMMON STOCK TO THE WARRANT HOLDERS AT A RATIO OF
ONE SHARE OF STOCK FOR THREE WARRANTS, IN RECOGNITION OF ESTIMATED
EARNINGS WHICH INDICATED THE VALUE OF THE STOCK IN THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE AS BETWEEN $25 AND $30 PER SHARE, WHEREAS THE EXERCISE PRICE FOR
IT STATED IN THE WARRANTS WAS $25 PER SHARE. 

FN6  SEE 1 DEWING, THE FINANCIAL POLICY OF CORPORATIONS (4TH ED.
1941), 254; GRAHAM & DODD, SECURITY ANALYSIS (1934), 258-259, 548-550;
HOAGLAND, CORPORATION FINANCE (2D ED. 1938), 177. 

FN7  WHAT A TRADER IS WILLING TO PAY FOR A WARRANT IS DETERMINED BY
HIS OWN ESTIMATE OF THE "PROSPECTS OF CHANGE."  GRAHAM & DODD, SECURITY
ANALYSIS (1934), 547.  "THE PRIVILEGE (CONFERRED BY A WARRANT UPON ITS
HOLDER) CONSTITUTES A CALL UPON THE FUTURE PROSPERITY OF THE COMPANY,
AND ITS VALUE WILL DEPEND UPON THE HOPE THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF THE
STOCK WILL RISE ABOVE THE STIPULATED SUBSCRIPTION PRICE BEFORE THE
RIGHT EXPIRES."  GUTHMANN & DOUGALL, CORPORATE FINANCIAL POLICY (2D ED.
1948), 145. 

BERLE & MEANS, IN THE MODERN CORPORATION AND PRIVATE PROPERTY (1932),
STRESS THE DIFFICULTY OF FIXING A VALUE FOR WARRANTS.  "(THEY) MAINTAIN
MARKET VALUES, WHICH TO THE UNINITIATED SEEM INEXPLICABLE."  P. 183. 
MARKET QUOTATIONS FOR WARRANTS HAVE LED "CERTAIN OBSERVERS IN THE NEW
YORK MARKET TO SUGGEST THAT THE REAL RESULT OF AN OPTION WARRANT IS TO
CREATE A PURE GAMBLING COUNTER  ...  ."  P. 184.  "(AT) THE TIME WHEN
THE STOCK PURCHASE WARRANTS ARE ISSUED, PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE
PERPETUAL, IT IS ALMOST BEYOND HUMAN WISDOM TO SET ANY FAIR PRICE ON
SUCH OPTIONS."  IBID.  TO THE SAME EFFECT, SEE GRAHAM & DODD, PP. 568
570. 

FN8  IN GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. &
P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, THE COURT APPROVED A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION
UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 49 STAT. 911, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205,
IN WHICH PREFERRED AND COMMON SHAREHOLDERS WERE WIPED OUT BECAUSE THEIR
EQUITY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY EARNINGS PROSPECTS.  AND IN REORGANIZATIONS
UNDER FORMER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 48 STAT. 912, "THE
CRITERION OF EARNING CAPACITY IS THE ESSENTIAL ONE  ...  ." 
CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 526.  SEE 6
COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED. 1947), 3849-3859. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS, DISSENTING. 

I WOULD HAVE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION TAKE ANOTHER
LOOK, FOR THE REASONS INDICATED IN JUDGE LEARNED HAND'S OPINION BELOW,
179 F.2D 615. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :









DEAN MILK CO. V. MADISON, 340 U.S. 349 


NO. 258.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1951.  - 257
WIS. 308, 43 N.W.2D 480, REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDINANCE OF A WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITY FORBIDS THE SALE OF MILK
IN THE CITY AS PASTEURIZED UNLESS IT HAS BEEN PASTEURIZED AND BOTTLED
AT AN APPROVED PASTEURIZATION PLANT WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE CENTER OF
THE CITY.  APPELLANT, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION ENGAGED IN GATHERING AND
DISTRIBUTING MILK FROM FARMS IN ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN, WAS DENIED A
LICENSE TO SELL ITS PRODUCTS WITHIN THE CITY SOLELY BECAUSE ITS
PASTEURIZATION PLANTS WERE MORE THAN FIVE MILES AWAY.  HELD: THE
ORDINANCE UNJUSTIFIABLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN
VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 350
357. 

(A)  EVEN IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS UNQUESTIONED POWER TO PROTECT THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ITS PEOPLE, A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT ERECT AN
ECONOMIC BARRIER PROTECTING A MAJOR LOCAL INDUSTRY AGAINST COMPETITION
FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, IF REASONABLE NONDISCRIMINATORY ALTERNATIVES,
ADEQUATE TO CONSERVE LEGITIMATE LOCAL INTERESTS, ARE AVAILABLE.  P.
354. 

(B)  IN VIEW OF THE REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVES WHICH ARE
AVAILABLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE OF
THE MUNICIPALITY, THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE
INHERENT IN THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PP. 354-356. 

2.  A SECOND PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION FORBIDS THE SALE
OF MILK, OR THE IMPORTATION, RECEIPT OR STORAGE OF MILK FOR SALE,
WITHIN THE CITY EXCEPT FROM A SOURCE OF SUPPLY POSSESSING A PERMIT
ISSUED AFTER INSPECTION BY CITY OFFICIALS; AND EXPRESSLY RELIEVES THE
CITY OFFICIALS FROM ANY DUTY TO INSPECT FARMS LOCATED BEYOND TWENTY
FIVE MILES FROM THE CITY.  APPELLANT'S ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THIS PROVISION WAS DISMISSED BY THE STATE COURT FOR WANT OF
A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  HELD:  AS TO THE ISSUE THUS PRESENTED, THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT.  PP. 350-351, 356
357. 

DEAN MILK CO. V. CITY OF MADISON ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

AN ORDINANCE OF A WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITY REGULATING THE SALE OF MILK
WAS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, OVER APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS
TO ITS VALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  257 WIS. 308, 43
N.W.2D 480.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 357. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF TWO SECTIONS OF
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MADISON, WISCONSIN, REGULATING THE SALE OF
MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY'S JURISDICTION.  ONE
UNLESS IT HAS BEEN PROCESSED AND BOTTLED AT AN APPROVED PASTEURIZATION
PLANT WITHIN A RADIUS OF FIVE MILES FROM THE CENTRAL SQUARE OF
MADISON.  FN1  ANOTHER SECTION, WHICH PROHIBITS THE SALE OF MILK, OR
THE IMPORTATION, RECEIPT OR STORAGE OF MILK FOR SALE, IN MADISON UNLESS
FROM A SOURCE OF SUPPLY POSSESSING A PERMIT ISSUED AFTER INSPECTION BY
MADISON OFFICIALS, IS ATTACKED INSOFAR AS IT EXPRESSLY RELIEVES
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES FROM ANY DUTY TO INSPECT FARMS LOCATED BEYOND
TWENTY-FIVE MILES FROM THE CENTER OF THE CITY.  FN2 

APPELLANT IS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION ENGAGED IN DISTRIBUTING MILK AND
MILK PRODUCTS IN ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN.  IT CONTENDED BELOW, AS IT
DOES HERE, THAT BOTH THE FIVE-MILE LIMIT ON PASTEURIZATION PLANTS AND
THE TWENTY-FIVE-MILE LIMIT ON SOURCES OF MILK VIOLATE THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN UPHELD THE FIVE-MILE LIMIT ON
PASTEURIZATION.  FN3  AS TO THE TWENTY-FIVE-MILE LIMITATION THE COURT
ORDERED THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. 
257 WIS. 308, 43 N.W.2D 480(1950).  THIS APPEAL, CONTESTING BOTH
RULINGS, INVOKES THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1257(2). 

THE CITY OF MADISON IS THE COUNTY SEAT OF DANE COUNTY.  WITHIN THE
COUNTY ARE SOME 5,600 DAIRY FARMS WITH TOTAL RAW MILK PRODUCTION IN
EXCESS OF 600,000,000 POUNDS ANNUALLY AND MORE THAN TEN TIMES THE
REQUIREMENTS OF MADISON.  ASIDE FROM THE MILK SUPPLIED TO MADISON,
FLUID MILK PRODUCED IN THE COUNTY MOVES IN LARGE QUANTITIES TO CHICAGO
AND MORE DISTANT CONSUMING AREAS, AND THE REMAINDER IS USED IN MAKING
CHEESE, BUTTER AND OTHER PRODUCTS.  AT THE TIME OF TRIAL THE MADISON
MILKSHED WAS NOT OF "GRADE A" QUALITY BY THE STANDARDS RECOMMENDED BY
THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, AND NO MILK LABELED "GRADE A"
WAS DISTRIBUTED IN MADISON. 

THE AREA DEFINED BY THE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO MILK SOURCES
ENCOMPASSES PRACTICALLY ALL OF DANE COUNTY AND INCLUDES SOME 500 FARMS
WHICH SUPPLY MILK FOR MADISON.  WITHIN THE FIVE-MILE AREA FOR
PASTEURIZATION ARE PLANTS OF FIVE PROCESSORS, ONLY THREE OF WHICH ARE
ENGAGED IN THE GENERAL WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE IN MADISON. 
INSPECTION OF THESE FARMS AND PLANTS IS SCHEDULED ONCE EVERY THIRTY
DAYS AND IS PERFORMED BY TWO MUNICIPAL INSPECTORS, ONE OF WHOM IS FULL
TIME.  THE COURTS BELOW FOUND THAT THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION PROMOTES
CONVENIENT, ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT PLANT INSPECTION. 

APPELLANT PURCHASES AND GATHERS MILK FROM APPROXIMATELY 950 FARMS IN
NORTHERN ILLINOIS AND SOUTHERN WISCONSIN, NONE BEING WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE
MILES OF MADISON.  ITS PASTEURIZATION PLANTS ARE LOCATED AT CHEMUNG AND
HUNTLEY, ILLINOIS, ABOUT 65 AND 85 MILES RESPECTIVELY FROM MADISON. 
APPELLANT WAS DENIED A LICENSE TO SELL ITS PRODUCTS WITHIN MADISON
SOLELY BECAUSE ITS PASTEURIZATION PLANTS WERE MORE THAN FIVE MILES
AWAY. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE MILK WHICH APPELLANT SEEKS TO SELL IN MADISON
IS SUPPLIED FROM FARMS AND PROCESSED IN PLANTS LICENSED AND INSPECTED
BY PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES OF CHICAGO, AND IS LABELED "GRADE A" UNDER
THE CHICAGO ORDINANCE WHICH ADOPTS THE RATING STANDARDS RECOMMENDED BY
THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.  BOTH THE CHICAGO AND MADISON
ORDINANCES, THOUGH NOT THE SECTIONS OF THE LATTER HERE IN ISSUE, ARE
LARGELY PATTERNED AFTER THE MODEL MILK ORDINANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE.  HOWEVER, MADISON CONTENDS AND WE ASSUME THAT IN SOME
PARTICULARS ITS ORDINANCE IS MORE RIGOROUS THAN THAT OF CHICAGO. 

UPON THESE FACTS WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE ONLY THE ISSUE
RAISED UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, FOR WE AGREE WITH APPELLANT THAT THE
ORDINANCE IMPOSES AN UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THIS IS NOT AN INSTANCE IN WHICH AN ENACTMENT FALLS BECAUSE OF
FEDERAL LEGISLATION WHICH, AS A PROPER EXERCISE OF PARAMOUNT NATIONAL
POWER OVER COMMERCE, EXCLUDES MEASURES WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE WITHIN
THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATES.  SEE CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 12
13(1939).  THERE IS NO PERTINENT NATIONAL REGULATION BY THE CONGRESS,
AND STATUTES ENACTED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INDICATE THAT
CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THE APPROPRIATENESS OF LOCAL REGULATION OF THE
SALE OF FLUID MILK.  D.C. CODE, 1940, SECS. 33-301 ET SEQ. IT IS NOT
CONTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE REGULATION BEFORE
US. 

NOR CAN THERE BE OBJECTION TO THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF THIS ENACTMENT. 
WE ASSUME THAT DIFFICULTIES IN SANITARY REGULATION OF MILK AND MILK
PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN REMOTE AREAS MAY PRESENT A SITUATION IN WHICH
"UPON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT
APPEARS THAT THE MATTER IS ONE WHICH MAY APPROPRIATELY BE REGULATED IN
THE INTEREST OF THE SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
... "  PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 362-363(1943); SEE H. P. HOOD &
SONS V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525, 531-532(1949).  WE ALSO ASSUME THAT
SINCE CONGRESS HAS NOT SPOKEN TO THE CONTRARY, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
THE ORDINANCE LIES WITHIN THE SPHERE OF STATE REGULATION EVEN THOUGH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE AFFECTED.  MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG
FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346(1939); SEE BALDWIN V. SEELIG, INC., 294
U.S. 511, 524(1935). 

BUT THIS REGULATION, LIKE THE PROVISION INVALIDATED IN BALDWIN V.
SEELIG, INC., SUPRA, IN PRACTICAL EFFECT EXCLUDES FROM DISTRIBUTION IN
MADISON WHOLESOME MILK PRODUCED AND PASTEURIZED IN ILLINOIS.  "THE
IMPORTER  ...  MAY KEEP HIS MILK OR DRINK IT, BUT SELL IT HE MAY NOT." 
ID., AT 521.  IN THUS ERECTING AN ECONOMIC BARRIER PROTECTING A MAJOR
LOCAL INDUSTRY AGAINST COMPETITION FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, MADISON
PLAINLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN4  THIS IT CANNOT
DO, EVEN IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS UNQUESTIONED POWER TO PROTECT THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ITS PEOPLE, IF REASONABLE NONDISCRIMINATORY
ALTERNATIVES, ADEQUATE TO CONSERVE LEGITIMATE LOCAL INTERESTS, ARE
AVAILABLE.  CF. BALDWIN V. SEELIG, INC., SUPRA, AT 524; MINNESOTA V.
BARBER, 136 U.S. 313, 328(1890).  A DIFFERENT VIEW, THAT THE ORDINANCE
IS VALID SIMPLY BECAUSE IT PROFESSES TO BE A HEALTH MEASURE, WOULD MEAN
THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF ITSELF IMPOSES NO LIMITATIONS ON STATE
ACTION OTHER THAN THOSE LAID DOWN BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, SAVE FOR
THE RARE INSTANCE WHERE A STATE ARTLESSLY DISCLOSES AN AVOWED PURPOSE
TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE GOODS.  CF. H. P. HOOD & SONS V. DU
MOND, SUPRA.  OUR ISSUE THEN IS WHETHER THE DISCRIMINATION INHERENT IN
THE MADISON ORDINANCE CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE CHARACTER OF THE
LOCAL INTERESTS AND THE AVAILABLE METHODS OF PROTECTING THEM.  CF.
UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 211(1944). 

IT APPEARS THAT REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE. 
IF THE CITY OF MADISON PREFERS TO RELY UPON ITS OWN OFFICIALS FOR
INSPECTION OF DISTANT MILK SOURCES, SUCH INSPECTION IS READILY OPEN TO
IT WITHOUT HARDSHIP FOR IT COULD CHARGE THE ACTUAL AND REASONABLE COST
OF SUCH INSPECTION TO THE IMPORTING PRODUCERS AND PROCESSORS.  CF.
SPROUT V. CITY OF SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 169(1928); SEE MILLER V.
WILLIAMS, 12 F.SUPP.  236, 242, 244(D. MD. 1935).  MOREOVER, APPELLEE
HEALTH COMMISSIONER OF MADISON TESTIFIED THAT AS PROPONENT OF THE LOCAL
MILK ORDINANCE HE HAD SUBMITTED THE PROVISIONS HERE IN CONTROVERSY AND
AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL BASED ON SEC. 11 OF THE MODEL MILK ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDED BY THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.  THE MODEL
PROVISION IMPOSES NO GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATION ON LOCATION OF MILK
SOURCES AND PROCESSING PLANTS BUT EXCLUDES FROM THE MUNICIPALITY MILK
NOT PRODUCED AND PASTEURIZED CONFORMABLY TO STANDARDS AS HIGH AS THOSE
ENFORCED BY THE RECEIVING CITY.  FN5  IN IMPLEMENTING SUCH AN
ORDINANCE, THE IMPORTING CITY OBTAINS MILK RATINGS BASED ON UNIFORM
STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHED BY HEALTH AUTHORITIES IN THE JURISDICTION
WHERE PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING OCCUR.  THE RECEIVING CITY MAY
DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF ENFORCEMENT OF SANITARY STANDARDS IN THE
EXPORTING AREA BY VERIFYING THE ACCURACY OF SAFETY RATINGS OF SPECIFIC
PLANTS OR OF THE MILKSHED IN THE DISTANT JURISDICTION THROUGH THE
UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, WHICH ROUTINELY AND ON REQUEST
SPOT CHECKS THE LOCAL RATINGS.  THE COMMISSIONER TESTIFIED THAT MADISON
CONSUMERS "WOULD BE SAFEGUARDED ADEQUATELY" UNDER EITHER PROPOSAL AND
THAT HE HAD EXPRESSED NO PREFERENCE.  THE MILK SANITARIAN OF THE
WISCONSIN STATE BOARD OF HEALTH TESTIFIED THAT THE STATE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THE ADOPTION OF A PROVISION BASED ON THE MODEL
ORDINANCE.  BOTH OFFICIALS AGREED THAT A LOCAL HEALTH OFFICER WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THE EVALUATION BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
OF ENFORCEMENT CONDITIONS IN REMOTE PRODUCING AREAS. 

TO PERMIT MADISON TO ADOPT A REGULATION NOT ESSENTIAL FOR THE
PROTECTION OF LOCAL HEALTH INTERESTS AND PLACING A DISCRIMINATORY
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD INVITE A MULTIPLICATION OF
PREFERENTIAL TRADE AREAS DESTRUCTIVE OF THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENTED, THE
REGULATION MUST YIELD TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT "ONE STATE IN ITS DEALINGS
WITH ANOTHER MAY NOT PLACE ITSELF IN A POSITION OF ECONOMIC
ISOLATION."  BALDWIN V. SEELIG, INC., SUPRA, AT 527. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE CONCLUDE THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SUSTAINING THE
FIVE-MILE PROVISION AS TO PASTEURIZATION MUST BE REVERSED. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN THOUGHT IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON
THE VALIDITY OF THE TWENTY-FIVE-MILE LIMITATION, APPARENTLY IN PART FOR
THE REASON THAT THIS ISSUE WAS MADE ACADEMIC BY ITS DECISION UPHOLDING
THE FIVE-MILE SECTION.  IN VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSION AS TO THE LATTER
PROVISION, A DETERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTION AS TO THE OTHER
JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MADISON, 1949, SEC. 7.21
PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION TO
SELL, OFFER FOR SALE OR HAVE IN HIS OR ITS POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO
SELL OR DELIVER IN THE CITY OF MADISON, ANY MILK, CREAM OR MILK
PRODUCTS AS PASTEURIZED UNLESS THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN PASTEURIZED AND
BOTTLED IN THE MANNER HEREIN PROVIDED WITHIN A RADIUS OF FIVE MILES
FROM THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE CITY OF MADISON OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
CAPITOL SQUARE, AT A PLANT HOUSING THE MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND
FACILITIES, ALL OF WHICH SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH." 

FN2  ID., SEC. 7.11, PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO BRING INTO OR RECEIVE INTO
THE CITY OF MADISON, WISCONSIN, OR ITS POLICE JURISDICTION, FOR SALE,
OR TO SELL, OR OFFER FOR SALE THEREIN, OR TO HAVE IN STORAGE WHERE MILK
OR MILK PRODUCTS ARE SOLD OR SERVED, ANY MILK OR MILK PRODUCT AS
DEFINED IN THIS ORDINANCE FROM A SOURCE NOT POSSESSING A PERMIT FROM
THE HEALTH COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF MADISON, WISCONSIN. 

"ONLY A PERSON WHO COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE AND RETAIN SUCH A PERMIT. 

"ON THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT WITH THE HEALTH
COMMISSIONER, HE SHALL CAUSE THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY NAMED THEREIN TO BE
INSPECTED AND SHALL CAUSE ALL OTHER NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND
INVESTIGATIONS TO BE MADE.  THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SHALL NOT
BE OBLIGATED TO INSPECT AND ISSUE PERMITS TO FARMS LOCATED BEYOND
TWENTY-FIVE (25) MILES FROM THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE CITY OF MADISON
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CAPITOL SQUARE.  ...  " 

FN3  IN UPHOLDING SEC. 7.21, NOTE 1, SUPRA, THE COURT RELIED UPON THE
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED BY IT IN DYER V. CITY COUNCIL OF BELOIT, 250 WIS.
613, 27 N.W.2D 733(1947), JUDGMENT VACATED, 333 U.S. 825(1948). 

FN4  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT WISCONSIN MILK FROM OUTSIDE THE MADISON
AREA IS SUBJECTED TO THE SAME PROSCRIPTION AS THAT MOVING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  CF. BRIMMER V. REBMAN, 138 U.S. 78, 82-83(1891). 

FN5  SECTION 11 OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE MILK
ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED IN 1939 PROVIDES: 

"MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS FROM POINTS BEYOND THE LIMITS OF ROUTINE
INSPECTION OF THE CITY OF ............ MAY NOT BE SOLD IN THE CITY OF
............, OR ITS POLICE JURISDICTION, UNLESS PRODUCED AND/OR
PASTEURIZED UNDER PROVISIONS EQUIVALENT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
ORDINANCE; PROVIDED THAT THE HEALTH OFFICER SHALL SATISFY HIMSELF THAT
THE HEALTH OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PRODUCTION AND
PROCESSING IS PROPERLY ENFORCING SUCH PROVISIONS."    THE FOLLOWING
COMMENT ON THIS SECTION IS CONTAINED IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE MILK
CODE: 

"IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE HEALTH OFFICER APPROVE MILK OR MILK
PRODUCTS FROM DISTANT POINTS WITHOUT HIS INSPECTION IF THEY ARE
PRODUCED AND PROCESSED UNDER REGULATIONS EQUIVALENT TO THOSE OF THIS
ORDINANCE, AND IF THE MILK OR MILK PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN AWARDED BY THE
STATE CONTROL AGENCY A RATING OF 90 PERCENT OR MORE ON THE BASIS OF THE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE RATING METHOD."  FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY, PUBLIC
HEALTH BULLETIN NO. 220(1939), 145. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON CONCUR, DISSENTING.    TODAY'S HOLDING INVALIDATES SEC. 7.21 OF
THE MADISON, WISCONSIN, ORDINANCE ON THE FOLLOWING REASONING:  (1) THE
A DISCRIMINATORY BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE; (3) SUCH A BURDEN
CANNOT BE IMPOSED WHERE, AS HERE, THERE ARE REASONABLE,
NONDISCRIMINATORY AND ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE.  I DISAGREE WITH
THE COURT'S PREMISES, REASONING, AND JUDGMENT. 

(1)  THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT EXCLUDE WHOLESOME MILK COMING FROM
ILLINOIS OR ANYWHERE ELSE.  IT DOES REQUIRE THAT ALL MILK SOLD IN
MADISON MUST BE PASTEURIZED WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE CENTER OF THE
CITY.  BUT THERE WAS NO FINDING IN THE STATE COURTS, NOR EVIDENCE TO
JUSTIFY A FINDING THERE OR HERE, THAT APPELLANT, DEAN MILK COMPANY, IS
UNABLE TO HAVE ITS MILK PASTEURIZED WITHIN THE DEFINED GEOGRAPHICAL
AREA.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, DEAN CAN
EASILY COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE WHENEVER IT WANTS TO.  THEREFORE,
DEAN'S PERSONAL PREFERENCE TO PASTEURIZE IN ILLINOIS, NOT THE
ORDINANCE, KEEPS DEAN'S MILK OUT OF MADISON. 

(2)  CHARACTERIZATION OF SEC. 7.21 AS A "DISCRIMINATORY BURDEN" ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS MERELY A STATEMENT OF THE COURT'S RESULT, WHICH
I THINK INCORRECT.  THE SECTION DOES PROHIBIT THE SALE OF MILK IN
MADISON BY INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE PRODUCERS WHO PREFER TO PASTEURIZE
OVER FIVE MILES DISTANT FROM THE CITY.  BUT BOTH STATE COURTS BELOW
FOUND THAT SEC. 7.21 REPRESENTS A GOOD-FAITH ATTEMPT TO SAFEGUARD
PUBLIC HEALTH BY MAKING ADEQUATE SANITATION INSPECTIONS POSSIBLE. 
WHILE WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THESE FINDINGS, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COURT
TO OVERTURN THEM.  THEREFORE, THE FACT THAT SEC. 7.21, LIKE ALL HEALTH
REGULATIONS, IMPOSES SOME BURDEN ON TRADE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT
"DISCRIMINATES" AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

(3)  THIS HEALTH REGULATION SHOULD NOT BE INVALIDATED MERELY BECAUSE
THE COURT BELIEVES THAT ALTERNATIVE MILK-INSPECTION METHODS MIGHT
INSURE THE CLEANLINESS AND HEALTHFULNESS OF DEAN'S ILLINOIS MILK.  I
FIND IT DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN WHY THE COURT USES THE "REASONABLE
ALTERNATIVE" CONCEPT TO PROTECT TRADE WHEN TODAY IT REFUSES TO APPLY
THE SAME PRINCIPLE TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  FEINER V. NEW YORK,
340 U.S. 315.  FOR WHILE THE "REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE" CONCEPT HAS BEEN
INVOKED TO PROTECT FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, E.G., SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
308 U.S. 147, 162, IT HAS NOT HERETOFORE BEEN CONSIDERED AN APPROPRIATE
WEAPON FOR STRIKING DOWN LOCAL HEALTH LAWS.  SINCE THE DAYS OF CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL, FEDERAL COURTS HAVE LEFT STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES
FREE TO PASS BONA FIDE HEALTH REGULATIONS SUBJECT ONLY "TO THE
PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS IF IT DECIDES TO ASSUME CONTROL  ...  "
THE MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 406; GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9
WHEAT.  1, 203, 204; MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346, 349-350; AND SEE
BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 524.  THIS ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL POLICY
OF REFUSING TO INVALIDATE GENUINE LOCAL HEALTH LAWS UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE HAS BEEN APPROVINGLY NOTED EVEN IN OUR RECENT OPINIONS MEASURING
STATE REGULATION BY STRINGENT STANDARDS.  SEE, E.G., HOOD & SONS V. DU
MOND, 336 U.S. 525, 531-532.  NO CASE IS CITED, AND I HAVE FOUND NONE,
IN WHICH A BONA FIDE HEALTH LAW WAS STRUCK DOWN ON THE GROUND THAT SOME
OTHER METHOD OF SAFEGUARDING HEALTH WOULD BE AS GOOD AS, OR BETTER
THAN, THE ONE THE COURT WAS CALLED ON TO REVIEW.  IN MY VIEW, TO USE
THIS GROUND NOW ELEVATES THE RIGHT TO TRAFFIC IN COMMERCE FOR PROFIT
ABOVE THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE TO GUARD THE PURITY OF THEIR DAILY DIET
OF MILK. 

IF, HOWEVER, THE PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED TODAY IS TO BE FOLLOWED, THE
COURT SHOULD NOT STRIKE DOWN LOCAL HEALTH REGULATIONS UNLESS SATISFIED
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE SUBSTITUTES IT PROPOSES WOULD NOT
LOWER HEALTH STANDARDS.  I DO NOT THINK THAT THE COURT CAN SO SATISFY
ITSELF ON THE BASIS OF ITS JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE.  AND THE EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD LEADS ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUBSTITUTE HEALTH MEASURES
SUGGESTED BY THE COURT DO NOT INSURE MILK AS SAFE AS THE MADISON
ORDINANCE REQUIRES. 

ONE OF THE COURT'S PROPOSALS IS THAT MADISON REQUIRE MILK PROCESSORS
TO PAY REASONABLE INSPECTION FEES AT THE MILK SUPPLY "SOURCES." 
EXPERIENCE SHOWS, HOWEVER, THAT THE FEE METHOD GIVES RISE TO PROLONGED
LITIGATION OVER THE CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF THE CHARGES.  E.G.,
SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163; CAPITOL GREYHOUND LINES V. BRICE,
339 U.S. 542.  TO THROW LOCAL MILK REGULATION INTO SUCH A QUAGMIRE OF
UNCERTAINTY JEOPARDIZES THE ADMIRABLE MILK-INSPECTION SYSTEMS IN FORCE
IN MANY MUNICIPALITIES.  MOREOVER, NOTHING IN THE RECORD BEFORE US
INDICATES THAT THE FEE SYSTEM MIGHT NOT BE AS COSTLY TO DEAN AS HAVING
ITS MILK PASTEURIZED IN MADISON.  SURELY THE COURT IS NOT RESOLVING
THIS QUESTION BY DRAWING ON ITS "JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE" TO SUPPLY
INFORMATION AS TO COMPARATIVE COSTS, CONVENIENCE, OR EFFECTIVENESS. 

THE COURT'S SECOND PROPOSAL IS THAT MADISON ADOPT SEC. 11 OF THE
"MODEL MILK ORDINANCE."  THE STATE COURTS MADE NO FINDINGS AS TO THE
RELATIVE MERITS OF THIS INSPECTION ORDINANCE AND THE ONE CHOSEN BY
MADISON.  THE EVIDENCE INDICATES TO ME THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE MADISON
LAW WOULD ASSURE A MORE HEALTHFUL QUALITY OF MILK THAN THAT WHICH IS
ENTITLED TO USE THE LABEL OF "GRADE A" UNDER THE MODEL ORDINANCE. 
INDEED, THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF PUBLIC HEALTH, WHICH DRAFTED THE
MODEL ORDINANCE, SUGGESTS THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE "MINIMUM" STANDARDS
ONLY.  THE MODEL ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR CONTINUOUS
INVESTIGATION OF ALL PASTEURIZATION PLANTS AS DOES SEC. 7.21 OF THE
MADISON ORDINANCE.  UNDER SEC. 11, MOREOVER, MADISON WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO DEPEND ON THE CHICAGO INSPECTION SYSTEM SINCE DEAN'S PLANTS, AND THE
FARMS SUPPLYING THEM WITH RAW MILK, ARE LOCATED IN THE CHICAGO
MILKSHED.  BUT THERE IS DIRECT AND POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT
MILK PRODUCED UNDER CHICAGO STANDARDS DID NOT MEET THE MADISON
REQUIREMENTS. 

FURTHERMORE, THE MODEL ORDINANCE WOULD FORCE THE MADISON HEALTH
AUTHORITIES TO RELY ON "SPOT CHECKS" BY THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER CHICAGO ENFORCED ITS MILK REGULATIONS. 
THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THESE "SPOT CHECKS" ARE BASED ON RANDOM
INSPECTION OF FARMS AND PASTEURIZATION PLANTS:  THE UNITED STATES
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE RATES THE TEN THOUSAND OR MORE DAIRY FARMS IN THE
CHICAGO MILKSHED BY A SAMPLING OF NO MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED FARMS.  THE
SAME SAMPLING TECHNIQUE IS EMPLOYED TO INSPECT PASTEURIZATION PLANTS. 
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT NEITHER THE FARMS SUPPLYING DEAN WITH MILK NOR
DEAN'S PASTEURIZATION PLANTS WERE NECESSARILY INSPECTED IN THE LAST
"SPOT CHECK" OF THE CHICAGO MILKSHED MADE TWO YEARS BEFORE THE PRESENT
CASE WAS TRIED. 

FROM WHAT THIS RECORD SHOWS, AND FROM WHAT IT FAILS TO SHOW, I DO NOT
THINK THAT EITHER OF THE ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED BY THE COURT WOULD
ASSURE THE PEOPLE OF MADISON AS PURE A SUPPLY OF MILK AS THEY RECEIVE
UNDER THEIR OWN ORDINANCE.  ON THIS RECORD I WOULD UPHOLD THE MADISON
LAW.  AT THE VERY LEAST, HOWEVER, I WOULD NOT INVALIDATE IT WITHOUT
GIVING THE PARTIES A CHANCE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND GET FINDINGS ON THE
ULTIMATE ISSUES THE COURT THINKS CRUCIAL - NAMELY, THE RELATIVE MERITS
OF THE MADISON ORDINANCE AND THE ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED BY THE COURT
TODAY. 
..END :



LABOR BOARD V. GULLETT GIN CO., 340 U.S. 361 


NO. 122.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 29, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1951.  - 179
F.2D 499, REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY
THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, THE BOARD DID NOT EXCEED ITS
POWER OR ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO DEDUCT SUMS PAID TO
EMPLOYEES AS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BY A STATE AGENCY WHEN THE BOARD
FOUND THAT THEY WERE DISCHARGED IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT AND ORDERED
THEIR REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK PAY.  PP. 362-366. 

(A)  SINCE NO CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO COLLATERAL LOSSES IN ORDERING
REIMBURSEMENT OF WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR LOST
EARNINGS, NO CONSIDERATION NEED BE GIVEN TO COLLATERAL BENEFITS WHICH
THEY MAY HAVE RECEIVED.  P. 364. 

(B)  UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PAYMENTS MADE BY A STATE OUT OF FUNDS
DERIVED FROM TAXATION ARE COLLATERAL BENEFITS, SINCE THEY WERE NOT MADE
TO DISCHARGE ANY LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION OF THE EMPLOYER BUT TO CARRY
OUT A POLICY OF SOCIAL BETTERMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE STATE. 
PP. 364-365. 

(C) A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT, UNDER THE
STATE LAW, THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PAYMENTS INCIDENTALLY AFFECT
ADVERSELY THE EMPLOYER'S EXPERIENCE-RATING RECORD AND PREVENT HIM FROM
QUALIFYING FOR A LOWER TAX RATE.  P. 365. 

(D)  THE CONCLUSION HERE REACHED IS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT THE
BOARD HAD FOR MANY YEARS BEEN FOLLOWING THE PRACTICE OF DISALLOWING
DEDUCTIONS FOR COLLATERAL BENEFITS SUCH AS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION,
AND CONGRESS DID NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGE IN THAT PRACTICE WHEN IT
AMENDED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN 1947.  PP. 365-366. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. GULLETT GIN CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED,
P. 366. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD MUST DEDUCT FROM BACK-PAY AWARDS TO DISCRIMINATORILY DISCHARGED
EMPLOYEES SUMS PAID TO THEM AS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BY A STATE
AGENCY. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT RESPONDENT GULLETT GIN COMPANY HAD DISCHARGED
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS
AMENDED, 61 STAT. 136, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 141 ET SEQ., AND
ORDERED THEIR REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK PAY.  ALTHOUGH THE ORDER PROVIDED
FOR DEDUCTION OF THE EMPLOYEES' NET EARNINGS AND WILLFUL LOSSES OF
WAGES, IF ANY, THE BOARD REFUSED TO DEDUCT CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE BY THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA AS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HELD SUCH PAYMENTS MUST BE DEDUCTED, AND MODIFIED
THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY.  179 F.2D 499.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ACT.  340 U.S. 806. 

IN ISSUING THE CHALLENGED ORDER THE BOARD ACTED UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF
THE ACT, 61 STAT. 147, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 160(C), WHICH
PROVIDES THAT UPON FINDING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THE BOARD SHALL
ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER REQUIRING THE GUILTY PARTY "TO TAKE SUCH
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT
BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT  ...  " 

TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT THE BOARD HAS BROAD BUT NOT
UNLIMITED DISCRETION.  REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7,
11.  "(THE POWER TO COMMAND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REMEDIAL, NOT
PUNITIVE."  ID., AT 12.  WE MUST NOT, HOWEVER, BE MORE MINDFUL OF THE
LIMITS OF THE BOARD'S DISCRETION THAN WE ARE OF OUR OWN LIMITED
FUNCTION IN REVIEWING BOARD ORDERS.  IN AN OPINION DEALING WITH A
RELATED MATTER THE COURT CAUTIONED: 

"THERE IS AN AREA PLAINLY COVERED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT AND AN
AREA NO LESS PLAINLY WITHOUT IT.  BUT IN THE NATURE OF THINGS CONGRESS
COULD NOT CATALOGUE ALL THE DEVICES AND STRATAGEMS FOR CIRCUMVENTING
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  NOR COULD IT DEFINE THE WHOLE GAMUT OF
REMEDIES TO EFFECTUATE THESE POLICIES IN AN INFINITE VARIETY OF
SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.  CONGRESS MET THESE DIFFICULTIES BY LEAVING THE
ADAPTATION OF MEANS TO END TO THE EMPIRIC PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATION. 
THE EXERCISE OF THE PROCESS WAS COMMITTED TO THE BOARD, SUBJECT TO
LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.  BECAUSE THE RELATION OF REMEDY TO POLICY IS
PECULIARLY A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCE, COURTS MUST NOT
ENTER THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF THE BOARD'S DISCRETION AND MUST GUARD
AGAINST THE DANGER OF SLIDING UNCONSCIOUSLY FROM THE NARROW CONFINES OF
LAW INTO THE MORE SPACIOUS DOMAIN OF POLICY."  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V.
LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194. 

IN EFFECTUATING THE POLICIES OF THE ACT, THE BOARD CLEARLY MAY AWARD
BACK PAY TO DISCRIMINATORILY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES.  THIS MEANS THAT
EMPLOYEES MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR EARNINGS LOST BY REASON OF THE WRONGFUL
DISCHARGE, FROM WHICH SHOULD BE DEDUCTED NET EARNINGS OF EMPLOYEES FROM
OTHER EMPLOYMENT DURING THE BACK-PAY PERIOD, REPUBLIC STEEL CASE,
SUPRA, AND ALSO SUMS WHICH THEY FAILED WITHOUT EXCUSE TO EARN, PHELPS
DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 197-198. 

IN MARSHALL FIELD & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 318 U.S. 253, THIS COURT HELD
THAT THE BENEFITS RECEIVED BY EMPLOYEES UNDER A STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT WERE PLAINLY NOT EARNINGS WHICH, UNDER THE BOARD'S
ORDER IN THAT CASE, COULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE BACK PAY AWARDED.  THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THE BOARD HAD THE POWER TO MAKE SUCH AN ORDER WAS
NOT REACHED FOR THE REASON THAT THE QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO
THE BOARD AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, 49 STAT. 454, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(E).  THE QUESTION IS HERE ON THIS
RECORD, AND WE HOLD THAT THE BOARD HAD THE POWER TO ENTER THE ORDER IN
THIS CASE REFUSING TO DEDUCT THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PAYMENTS
FROM BACK PAY, AND THAT IN SO DOING THE BOARD DID NOT ABUSE ITS
DISCRETION. 

SUCH ACTION MAY REASONABLY BE CONSIDERED TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES
OF THE ACT.  TO DECLINE TO DEDUCT STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
BENEFITS IN COMPUTING BACK PAY IS NOT TO MAKE THE EMPLOYEES MORE THAN
WHOLE, AS CONTENDED BY RESPONDENT.  SINCE NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN
GIVEN OR SHOULD BE GIVEN TO COLLATERAL LOSSES IN FRAMING AN ORDER TO
REIMBURSE EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR LOST EARNINGS, MANIFESTLY NO
CONSIDERATION NEED BE GIVEN TO COLLATERAL BENEFITS WHICH EMPLOYEES MAY
HAVE RECEIVED. 

BUT RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE BENEFITS PAID FROM THE LOUISIANA
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND WERE NOT COLLATERAL BUT DIRECT
BENEFITS.  WITH THIS THEORY WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE.  PAYMENTS OF
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION WERE NOT MADE TO THE EMPLOYEES BY RESPONDENT
BUT BY THE STATE OUT OF STATE FUNDS DERIVED FROM TAXATION.  TRUE, THESE
TAXES WERE PAID BY EMPLOYERS, AND THUS TO SOME EXTENT RESPONDENT HELPED
TO CREATE THE FUND.  HOWEVER, THE PAYMENTS TO THE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT
MADE TO DISCHARGE ANY LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION OF RESPONDENT, BUT TO
CARRY OUT A POLICY OF SOCIAL BETTERMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE
STATE.  SEE DART'S LA. GEN. STAT., 1939, SEC. 4434.1; IN RE
CASSARETAKIS, 289 N.Y. 119, 126, 44 N.E.2D 391, 394-395, AFF'D SUB NOM.
STANDARD DREDGING CO. V. MURPHY, 319 U.S. 306; UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION COMMISSION V. COLLINS, 182 VA. 426, 438, 29 S.E.2D 388,
393.  WE THINK THESE FACTS PLAINLY SHOW THE BENEFITS TO BE COLLATERAL. 
IT IS THUS APPARENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT FAILURE TO TAKE
THEM INTO ACCOUNT IN ORDERING BACK PAY DOES NOT MAKE THE EMPLOYEES MORE
THAN "WHOLE" AS THAT PHRASE HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED.  FN1 

FINALLY, RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER IMPOSES UPON IT A
PENALTY WHICH IS BEYOND THE REMEDIAL POWERS OF THE BOARD BECAUSE, TO
THE EXTENT THAT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS WERE PAID TO ITS
DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES, OPERATION OF THE EXPERIENCE-RATING RECORD FORMULA
UNDER THE LOUISIANA ACT, DART'S LA. GEN. STAT., 1939(CUM.  SUPP.  1949)
SECS. 4434.1 ET SEQ., WILL PREVENT RESPONDENT FROM QUALIFYING FOR A
LOWER TAX RATE.  WE DOUBT THAT THE VALIDITY OF A BACK-PAY ORDER OUGHT
TO HINGE ON THE MYRIAD PROVISIONS OF STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAWS.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 122-124. 
HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE LOUISIANA LAW HAS THE CONSEQUENCE STATED BY
RESPONDENT, WHICH WE ASSUME ARGUENDO, THIS CONSEQUENCE DOES NOT TAKE
THE ORDER WITHOUT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD TO ENTER.  WE DEEM THE
DESCRIBED INJURY TO BE MERELY AN INCIDENTAL EFFECT OF AN ORDER WHICH IN
OTHER RESPECTS EFFECTUATES THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  IT SHOULD
BE EMPHASIZED THAT ANY FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO QUALIFY FOR A LOWER TAX
RATE WOULD NOT BE PRIMARILY THE RESULT OF FEDERAL BUT OF STATE LAW,
DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE A PUBLIC POLICY WITH WHICH IT IS NOT THE BOARD'S
FUNCTION TO CONCERN ITSELF.  REPUBLIC STEEL CASE, SUPRA. 

OUR HOLDING IS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT WHEN CONGRESS AMENDED THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN 1947, THE BOARD HAD FOR MANY YEARS BEEN
FOLLOWING THE PRACTICE OF DISALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR COLLATERAL BENEFITS
SUCH AS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.  FN2  DURING THIS PERIOD THE BOARD'S
PRACTICE HAD BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE COURTS IN ONLY TWO CASES, AND
IN BOTH THE BOARD'S POSITION WAS SUSTAINED.  LABOR BOARD V. MARSHALL
FIELD & CO., 129 F.2D 169; LABOR BOARD V. BRASHEAR FREIGHT LINES, 127
F.2D 198.  IN THE COURSE OF ADOPTING THE 1947 AMENDMENTS CONGRESS
CONSIDERED IN GREAT DETAIL THE PROVISIONS OF THE EARLIER LEGISLATION AS
THEY HAD BEEN APPLIED BY THE BOARD.  FN3 UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT
IS A FAIR ASSUMPTION THAT BY REENACTING WITHOUT PERTINENT MODIFICATION
THE PROVISION WITH WHICH WE HERE DEAL, CONGRESS ACCEPTED THE
CONSTRUCTION PLACED THEREON BY THE BOARD AND APPROVED BY THE COURTS. 
SEE HELVERING V. REYNOLDS CO., 306 U.S. 110, 114-115; BREWSTER V. GAGE,
280 U.S. 327, 337; NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PROD.  CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288
U.S. 294, 313-315. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER WITHOUT THE OBJECTIONABLE MODIFICATION.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  WE NOTE THAT SOME STATES PERMIT RECOUPMENT OF BENEFITS PAID
DURING A PERIOD FOR WHICH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SUBSEQUENTLY AWARDS BACK PAY.  E.G., IN RE SKUTNIK, 268 APP. DIV. 357,
51 N.Y.S.2D 711.  RECOUPMENT IN SUCH SITUATIONS IS A MATTER BETWEEN THE
STATE AND THE EMPLOYEES. 

FN2  3 N.L.R.B. ANN. REP. 202, N. 11(1938); 4 N.L.R.B. ANN. REP. 100,
N. 25(1939); 11 N.L.R.B. ANN. REP. 50(1946). 

FN3  AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THIS MAY BE FOUND IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS
ACCOMPANYING THE BILLS WHICH WERE THE BASIS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE 1947
ACT.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 245, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 105,
80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :










STANDARD OIL CO. V. TRADE COMM'N, 340 U.S. 231 


NO. 1.  ARGUED JANUARY 9-10, 1950.  - REARGUED OCTOBER 9, 1950.  -
DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1951.  - 173 F.2D 210, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 2(B) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(B), PETITIONER WAS JUSTIFIED IN SELLING
GASOLINE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO FOUR COMPARATIVELY LARGE "JOBBER"
CUSTOMERS IN DETROIT AT 1 1/2 CENTS PER GALLON LESS THAN IT SOLD LIKE
GASOLINE TO MANY COMPARATIVELY SMALL SERVICE STATION CUSTOMERS IN THE
SAME AREA, IF THE LOWER PRICE TO THE "JOBBERS" WAS MADE TO RETAIN EACH
OF THEM AS A CUSTOMER AND IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET A LAWFUL AND EQUALLY
LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR - EVEN THOUGH THE EFFECT OF SUCH PRICE
DISCRIMINATION WAS TO INJURE, DESTROY OR PREVENT COMPETITION.  PP. 233
251. 

(A)  THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT RESTRICTED THE
SCOPE OF THE DEFENSE NOW PROVIDED BY SEC. 2(B) TO A PRICE REDUCTION
MADE TO MEET IN GOOD FAITH A LAWFUL AND EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR; BUT THEY DID NOT DEPRIVE THIS DEFENSE OF ITS CHARACTER AS
AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE NOR CONDITION IT UPON THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESULTING
INJURY TO COMPETITION.  PP. 240-251. 

(B)  THIS CONCLUSION IS CONSISTENT WITH CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 324 U.S. 726, AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
STALEY MFG. CO., 324 U.S. 746.  PP. 243-246. 

(C)  THERE HAS BEEN A WIDESPREAD UNDERSTANDING THAT, UNDER THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, IT IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO A CHARGE OF PRICE
DISCRIMINATION FOR THE SELLER TO SHOW THAT ITS PRICE DIFFERENTIAL HAS
BEEN MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET A LAWFUL AND EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR; AND THIS COURT SEES NO REASON TO DEPART NOW FROM THAT
INTERPRETATION.  PP. 246-250. 

(D)  CONGRESS DID NOT SEEK BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT EITHER TO
ABOLISH COMPETITION OR SO RADICALLY TO CURTAIL IT THAT A SELLER WOULD
HAVE NO SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST A PRICE RAID BY A
COMPETITOR.  P. 249. 

(E)  IN A CASE WHERE A SELLER SUSTAINS THE BURDEN OF PROOF PLACED
UPON IT TO ESTABLISH ITS DEFENSE UNDER SEC. 2(B), THIS COURT FINDS NO
REASON TO DESTROY THAT DEFENSE INDIRECTLY, MERELY BECAUSE IT ALSO
APPEARS THAT THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE SELLER'S PRICE REDUCTIONS MAY
DERIVE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FROM THEM OR MAY, IN THE NATURAL COURSE
OF EVENTS, REDUCE THEIR OWN RESALE PRICES TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.  P. 250. 

(F)  THIS COURT REJECTS A CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(B)
WHICH WOULD MAKE THE DEFENSE AFFORDED THEREBY DEPENDENT UPON THE
CONCLUSION WHICH THE COMMISSION MIGHT REACH IN WEIGHING THE POTENTIALLY
INJURIOUS EFFECT OF A SELLER'S PRICE REDUCTION UPON COMPETITION AT ALL
LOWER LEVELS AGAINST ITS BENEFICIAL EFFECT IN PERMITTING THE SELLER TO
MEET COMPETITION AT ITS OWN LEVEL.  P. 251. 

2.  PETITIONER OBTAINS GASOLINE FROM FIELDS IN KANSAS, OKLAHOMA,
TEXAS AND WYOMING, REFINES IT IN INDIANA, AND DISTRIBUTES IT IN 14
MIDDLE WESTERN STATES.  GASOLINE SOLD BY IT IN THE DETROIT AREA IS
CARRIED BY TANKERS ON THE GREAT LAKES FROM INDIANA TO PETITIONER'S
MARINE TERMINAL AT RIVER ROUGE, MICH.  ENOUGH IS ACCUMULATED THERE
DURING EACH NAVIGATION SEASON SO THAT A WINTER'S SUPPLY IS AVAILABLE
FROM THE TERMINAL.  IT REMAINS THERE OR IN NEARBY BULK STORAGE STATIONS
FOR VARYING PERIODS.  WHILE THERE, THE GASOLINE IS OWNED BY PETITIONER
AND EN ROUTE FROM ITS REFINERY IN INDIANA TO ITS MARKET IN MICHIGAN. 
ALTHOUGH THE GASOLINE IS NOT BROUGHT TO RIVER ROUGE PURSUANT TO ORDERS
ALREADY TAKEN, THE DEMANDS OF THE MICHIGAN TERRITORY ARE FAIRLY
CONSTANT, AND THE DEMANDS OF PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS CAN BE ESTIMATED
ACCURATELY.  GASOLINE SOLD TO CUSTOMERS IN DETROIT IS TAKEN FROM THAT
AT THE TERMINAL.  HELD:  SUCH SALES ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 12, 13, AND ARE NOT DEPRIVED OF
THEIR INTERSTATE CHARACTER BY SUCH TEMPORARY STORAGE OF THE GASOLINE IN
THE DETROIT AREA.  PP. 236-238. 

3.  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS TO CHALLENGE
THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER, UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED BY
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13, TO SELL GASOLINE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO FOUR COMPARATIVELY LARGE "JOBBER" CUSTOMERS IN
DETROIT AT 1 1/2 CENTS PER GALLON LESS THAN IT SOLD LIKE GASOLINE TO
MANY COMPARATIVELY SMALL SERVICE STATION CUSTOMERS IN THE SAME AREA. 
PETITIONER PRESENTED EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE THAT ITS LOWER PRICE TO
EACH "JOBBER" WAS MADE IN ORDER TO RETAIN THAT "JOBBER" AS A CUSTOMER
AND IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF ONE OR MORE
COMPETITORS.  THE COMMISSION HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT SUCH EVIDENCE
WAS NOT MATERIAL, AND IT MADE NO FINDING OF FACT ON THIS QUESTION.  IT
FOUND THAT THE EFFECT OF SUCH PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WAS TO INJURE,
DESTROY AND PREVENT COMPETITION; AND IT ORDERED PETITIONER TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM MAKING SUCH A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL.  HELD:  THE COMMISSION
SHOULD HAVE MADE A FINDING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S PRICE
REDUCTION WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(B) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(B).  PP. 233
251. 

STANDARD OIL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ORDERED PETITIONER TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM SELLING GASOLINE TO FOUR COMPARATIVELY LARGE "JOBBER" CUSTOMERS IN
DETROIT AT A LOWER PRICE THAN IT SOLD LIKE GASOLINE TO MANY
COMPARATIVELY SMALLER SERVICE STATION CUSTOMERS IN THE SAME AREA.  43
F.T.C. 56.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER WITH
A SLIGHT MODIFICATION.  173 F.2D 210.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
338 U.S. 865.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 251. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CHALLENGED THE RIGHT OF THE
STANDARD OIL COMPANY, UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT,  FN1  TO SELL
GASOLINE TO FOUR COMPARATIVELY LARGE "JOBBER" CUSTOMERS IN DETROIT AT A
LESS PRICE PER GALLON THAN IT SOLD LIKE GASOLINE TO MANY COMPARATIVELY
SMALL SERVICE STATION CUSTOMERS IN THE SAME AREA.  THE COMPANY'S
DEFENSES WERE THAT (1) THE SALES INVOLVED WERE NOT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND (2) ITS LOWER PRICE TO THE JOBBERS WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE
MADE TO RETAIN THEM AS CUSTOMERS AND IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY
LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.  FN2  THE COMMISSION, WITH ONE MEMBER
DISSENTING, ORDERED THE COMPANY TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM MAKING SUCH A
PRICE DIFFERENTIAL.  43 F.T.C. 56.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SLIGHTLY
MODIFIED THE ORDER AND REQUIRED ITS ENFORCEMENT AS MODIFIED.  173 F.2D
210.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON PETITION OF THE COMPANY BECAUSE THE CASE
PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT WHICH HAS NOT
BEEN SETTLED BY THIS COURT.  338 U.S. 865.  THE CASE WAS ARGUED AT OUR
OCTOBER TERM, 1949, AND REARGUED AT THIS TERM.  339 U.S. 975. 

FOR THE REASONS HEREINAFTER STATED, WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW
THAT THE SALES WERE MADE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT WE AGREE WITH
PETITIONER THAT, UNDER THE ACT, THE LOWER PRICE TO THE JOBBERS WAS
JUSTIFIED IF IT WAS MADE TO RETAIN EACH OF THEM AS A CUSTOMER AND IN
GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR. 

                              I. FACTS. 

RESERVING FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION THE FACTS DETERMINING THE ISSUE
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE OTHER MATERIAL FACTS ARE SUMMARIZED HERE ON
THE BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS.  THE SALES DESCRIBED ARE THOSE
OF RED CROWN GASOLINE BECAUSE THOSE SALES RAISE ALL OF THE MATERIAL
ISSUES AND CONSTITUTE ABOUT 90% OF PETITIONER'S SALES IN THE DETROIT
AREA. 

SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, JUNE 19, 1936,
PETITIONER HAS SOLD ITS RED CROWN GASOLINE TO ITS "JOBBER" CUSTOMERS AT
ITS TANK-CAR PRICES.  THOSE PRICES HAVE BEEN 1 1/2[ PER GALLON LESS
THAN ITS TANK-WAGON PRICES TO SERVICE STATION CUSTOMERS FOR IDENTICAL
GASOLINE IN THE SAME AREA.  IN PRACTICE, THE SERVICE STATIONS HAVE
RESOLD THE GASOLINE AT THE PREVAILING RETAIL SERVICE STATION PRICES. 
FN3  EACH OF PETITIONER'S SO-CALLED "JOBBER" CUSTOMERS HAS BEEN FREE TO
RESELL ITS GASOLINE AT RETAIL OR WHOLESALE.  EACH, AT SOME TIME, HAS
RESOLD SOME OF IT AT RETAIL.  ONE NOW RESELLS IT ONLY AT RETAIL.  THE
OTHERS NOW RESELL IT LARGELY AT WHOLESALE.  AS TO RESALE PRICES, TWO OF
THE "JOBBERS" HAVE RESOLD THEIR GASOLINE ONLY AT THE PREVAILING
WHOLESALE OR RETAIL RATES.  THE OTHER TWO, HOWEVER, HAVE REFLECTED, IN
VARYING DEGREES, PETITIONER'S REDUCTIONS IN THE COST OF THE GASOLINE TO
THEM BY REDUCING THEIR RESALE PRICES OF THAT GASOLINE BELOW THE
PREVAILING RATES.  THE EFFECT OF THESE REDUCTIONS HAS THUS REACHED
COMPETING RETAIL SERVICE STATIONS IN PART THROUGH RETAIL STATIONS
OPERATED BY THE "JOBBERS" AND IN PART THROUGH RETAIL STATIONS WHICH
PURCHASED GASOLINE FROM THE "JOBBERS" AT LESS THAN THE PREVAILING TANK
WAGON PRICES.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT SUCH REDUCED RESALE PRICES
"HAVE RESULTED IN INJURING, DESTROYING, AND PREVENTING COMPETITION
BETWEEN SAID FAVORED DEALERS AND RETAIL DEALERS IN RESPONDENT'S
(PETITIONER'S) GASOLINE AND OTHER MAJOR BRANDS OF GASOLINE  ...  "  41
F.T.C. 263, 283.  THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE "JOBBERS"
ARE THAT EACH (1) MAINTAINS SUFFICIENT BULK STORAGE TO TAKE DELIVERY OF
GASOLINE IN TANK-CAR QUANTITIES (OF 8,000 TO 12,000 GALLONS) RATHER
THAN IN TANK-WAGON QUANTITIES (OF 700 TO 800 GALLONS) AS IS CUSTOMARY
FOR SERVICE STATIONS; (2) OWNS AND OPERATES TANK WAGONS AND OTHER
FACILITIES FOR DELIVERY OF GASOLINE TO SERVICE STATIONS; (3) HAS AN
ESTABLISHED BUSINESS SUFFICIENT TO INSURE PURCHASES OF FROM ONE TO TWO
MILLION GALLONS A YEAR; AND (4) HAS ADEQUATE CREDIT RESPONSIBILITY. 
FN4  WHILE THE COST OF PETITIONER'S SALES AND DELIVERIES OF GASOLINE TO
EACH OF THESE FOUR "JOBBERS" IS NO DOUBT LESS, PER GALLON, THAN THE
COST OF ITS SALES AND DELIVERIES OF LIKE GASOLINE TO ITS SERVICE
STATION CUSTOMERS IN THE SAME AREA, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT SUCH
DIFFERENCE ACCOUNTS FOR THE ENTIRE REDUCTION IN PRICE MADE BY
PETITIONER TO THESE "JOBBERS," AND WE PROCEED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT
DOES NOT ENTIRELY ACCOUNT FOR THAT DIFFERENCE. 

PETITIONER PLACED ITS RELIANCE UPON EVIDENCE OFFERED TO SHOW THAT ITS
LOWER PRICE TO EACH JOBBER WAS MADE IN ORDER TO RETAIN THAT JOBBER AS A
CUSTOMER AND IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OFFERED BY ONE
OR MORE COMPETITORS.  THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, TREATED SUCH EVIDENCE AS
NOT RELEVANT. 

           II.  THE SALES WERE MADE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IN ORDER FOR THE SALES HERE INVOLVED TO COME UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT,
AS AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, THEY MUST HAVE BEEN MADE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN5  THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT BELOW AGREE
THAT THE SALES WERE SO MADE.  41 F.T.C. 263, 271, 173 F.2D 210, 213
214. 

FACTS DETERMINING THIS WERE FOUND BY THE COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
PETITIONER IS AN INDIANA CORPORATION, WHOSE PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS IN
CHICAGO.  ITS GASOLINE IS OBTAINED FROM FIELDS IN KANSAS, OKLAHOMA,
TEXAS AND WYOMING.  ITS REFINING PLANT IS AT WHITING, INDIANA.  IT
DISTRIBUTES ITS PRODUCTS IN 14 MIDDLE WESTERN STATES, INCLUDING
MICHIGAN.  THE GASOLINE SOLD BY IT IN THE DETROIT, MICHIGAN, AREA, AND
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, IS CARRIED FOR PETITIONER BY TANKERS ON THE
GREAT LAKES FROM INDIANA TO PETITIONER'S MARINE TERMINAL AT RIVER
ROUGE, MICHIGAN.  ENOUGH GASOLINE IS ACCUMULATED THERE DURING EACH
NAVIGATION SEASON SO THAT A WINTER'S SUPPLY IS AVAILABLE FROM THE
TERMINAL.  THE GASOLINE REMAINS FOR VARYING PERIODS AT THE TERMINAL OR
IN NEARBY BULK STORAGE STATIONS, AND WHILE THERE IT IS UNDER THE
OWNERSHIP OF PETITIONER AND EN ROUTE FROM PETITIONER'S REFINERY IN
INDIANA TO ITS MARKET IN MICHIGAN.  "ALTHOUGH THE GASOLINE WAS NOT
BROUGHT TO RIVER ROUGE PURSUANT TO ORDERS ALREADY TAKEN, THE DEMANDS OF
THE MICHIGAN TERRITORY WERE FAIRLY CONSTANT, AND THE PETITIONER'S
CUSTOMERS' DEMANDS COULD BE ACCURATELY ESTIMATED, SO THE FLOW OF THE
STREAM OF COMMERCE KEPT SURGING FROM WHITING TO DETROIT."  173 F.2D AT
213-214.  GASOLINE DELIVERED TO CUSTOMERS IN DETROIT, UPON INDIVIDUAL
ORDERS FOR IT, IS TAKEN FROM THE GASOLINE AT THE TERMINAL IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE EN ROUTE FOR DELIVERY IN THAT AREA.  SUCH SALES ARE WELL
WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  ANY OTHER
CONCLUSION WOULD FALL SHORT OF THE RECOGNIZED PURPOSE OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT TO REACH THE OPERATIONS OF LARGE INTERSTATE BUSINESSES IN
COMPETITION WITH SMALL LOCAL CONCERNS.  SUCH TEMPORARY STORAGE OF THE
GASOLINE AS OCCURS WITHIN THE DETROIT AREA DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE
GASOLINE OF ITS INTERSTATE CHARACTER.  STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S.
495.  COMPARE WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564, 570,
WITH ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. STANDARD OIL CO., 275 U.S. 257,
268.  FN6

           III.  THERE SHOULD BE A FINDING AS TO WHETHER OR

             NOT PETITIONER'S PRICE REDUCTION WAS MADE IN

                  GOOD FAITH TO MEET A LAWFUL EQUALLY

                      LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR. 

PETITIONER PRESENTED EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE THAT ITS TANK-CAR
PRICE WAS MADE TO EACH "JOBBER" IN ORDER TO RETAIN THAT "JOBBER" AS A
CUSTOMER AND IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET A LAWFUL AND EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR.  PETITIONER SOUGHT TO SHOW THAT IT SUCCEEDED IN RETAINING
THESE CUSTOMERS, ALTHOUGH THE TANK-CAR PRICE WHICH IT OFFERED THEM
MERELY APPROACHED OR MATCHED, AND DID NOT UNDERCUT, THE LOWER PRICES
OFFERED THEM BY SEVERAL COMPETITORS OF PETITIONER.  THE TRIAL EXAMINER
MADE FINDINGS ON THE POINT  FN7  BUT THE COMMISSION DECLINED TO DO SO,
SAYING: 

"BASED ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE THE COMMISSION CONCLUDES AS A MATTER
OF LAW THAT IT IS NOT MATERIAL WHETHER THE DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE
GRANTED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE SAID FOUR DEALERS WERE MADE TO MEET
EQUALLY LOW PRICES OF COMPETITORS.  THE COMMISSION FURTHER CONCLUDES AS
A MATTER OF LAW THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE ALLEGED COMPETITIVE PRICES WERE IN FACT AVAILABLE OR
INVOLVED GASOLINE OF LIKE GRADE OR QUALITY OR OF EQUAL PUBLIC
ACCEPTANCE.  ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO FIND THE
FACTS REGARDING THOSE MATTERS BECAUSE, EVEN THOUGH THE LOWER PRICES IN
QUESTION MAY HAVE BEEN MADE BY RESPONDENT IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET THE
LOWER PRICES OF COMPETITORS, THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DEFENSE IN THE
FACE OF AFFIRMATIVE PROOF THAT THE EFFECT OF THE DISCRIMINATION WAS TO
INJURE, DESTROY AND PREVENT COMPETITION WITH THE RETAIL STATIONS
OPERATED BY THE SAID NAMED DEALERS AND WITH STATIONS OPERATED BY THEIR
RETAILER-CUSTOMERS."  41 F.T.C. 263, 281-282. 

THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED THE COMMISSION'S POSITION.  FN8 

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT, BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT BY
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN MATERIAL AND, IF
ACCEPTED, WOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO THE CHARGE OF
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION.  AT THAT TIME THE MATERIAL PROVISIONS OF SEC.
2 WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 2.  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE, IN THE COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES
...  WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY
LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF
COMMERCE:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE BETWEEN PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES ON ACCOUNT OF
DIFFERENCES IN THE GRADE, QUALITY, OR QUANTITY OF THE COMMODITY SOLD,
OR THAT MAKES ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF SELLING
OR TRANSPORTATION, OR DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT
COMMUNITIES MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION:  AND PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT PERSONS ENGAGED IN
SELLING GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE IN COMMERCE FROM SELECTING THEIR
OWN CUSTOMERS IN BONA FIDE TRANSACTIONS AND NOT IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE."  38 STAT. 730-731, 15 U.S.C. (1934 ED.)  SEC.  13. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT DEPRIVED THOSE FACTS OF THEIR PREVIOUSLY
RECOGNIZED EFFECTIVENESS AS A DEFENSE.  THE MATERIAL PROVISIONS OF SEC.
2, AS AMENDED, ARE QUOTED BELOW, SHOWING IN ITALICS THOSE CLAUSES WHICH
BEAR UPON THE PROVISO BEFORE US.  THE MODIFIED PROVISIONS ARE
DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE NEWLY CREATED SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B).  THESE
MUST BE READ TOGETHER AND IN RELATION TO THE PROVISIONS THEY
SUPERSEDE.  THE ORIGINAL PHRASE "THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL
PREVENT" IS STILL USED TO INTRODUCE EACH OF THE DEFENSES.  THE DEFENSE
RELATING TO THE MEETING OF THE PRICE OF A COMPETITOR APPEARS ONLY IN
SUBSECTION (B).  THERE IT IS APPLIED TO DISCRIMINATIONS IN SERVICES OR
FACILITIES AS WELL AS TO DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE, WHICH ALONE ARE
EXPRESSLY CONDEMNED IN SUBSECTION (A).  IN ITS OPINION IN THE INSTANT
CASE, THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THAT IT IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO A
CHARGE OF PRICE DISCRIMINATION FOR A SELLER TO PROVE, UNDER SEC. 2(A),
THAT ITS PRICE DIFFERENTIAL MAKES ONLY DUE ALLOWANCES FOR DIFFERENCES
IN COST OR FOR PRICE CHANGES MADE IN RESPONSE TO CHANGING MARKET
CONDITIONS.  41 F.T.C. AT 283.  EACH OF THESE THREE DEFENSES IS
INTRODUCED BY THE SAME PHRASE "NOTHING  ...  SHALL PREVENT," AND ALL
ARE EMBRACED IN THE SAME WORD "JUSTIFICATION" IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF
SEC. 2(B).  IT IS NATURAL, THEREFORE, TO CONCLUDE THAT EACH OF THESE
DEFENSES IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME EFFECT, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER
THERE ALSO APPEARS AN AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL INJURY
TO COMPETITION AT THE SAME OR A LOWER LEVEL TRACEABLE TO THE PRICE
DIFFERENTIAL MADE BY THE SELLER.  THE COMMISSION SAYS, HOWEVER, THAT
THE PROVISO IN SEC. 2(B) AS TO A SELLER MEETING IN GOOD FAITH A LOWER
COMPETITIVE PRICE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE IF AN INJURY TO
COMPETITION MAY RESULT FROM SUCH PRICE REDUCTION.  WE FIND NO BASIS FOR
SUCH A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DEFENSES IN SEC. 2(A) AND (B). 

THE DEFENSE IN SUBSECTION (B), NOW BEFORE US, IS LIMITED TO A PRICE
REDUCTION MADE TO MEET IN GOOD FAITH AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR.  IT THUS ELIMINATES CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES WHICH AROSE UNDER
THE ORIGINAL CLAYTON ACT.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT OMITS REFERENCE TO
DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE "IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES  ...  "
AND IT THUS RESTRICTS THE PROVISO TO PRICE DIFFERENTIALS OCCURRING IN
ACTUAL COMPETITION.  IT ALSO EXCLUDES REDUCTIONS WHICH UNDERCUT THE
"LOWER PRICE" OF A COMPETITOR.  NONE OF THESE CHANGES, HOWEVER, CUT
INTO THE ACTUAL CORE OF THE DEFENSE.  THAT STILL CONSISTS OF THE
PROVISION THAT WHEREVER A LAWFUL LOWER PRICE OF A COMPETITOR THREATENS
TO DEPRIVE A SELLER OF A CUSTOMER, THE SELLER, TO RETAIN THAT CUSTOMER,
MAY IN GOOD FAITH MEET THAT LOWER PRICE.  ACTUAL COMPETITION, AT LEAST
IN THIS ELEMENTAL FORM, IS THUS PRESERVED.    SUBSECTIONS 2(A) AND (B),
AS AMENDED, ARE AS FOLLOWS:    "SEC. 2.  (A)  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL
FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, IN THE COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN
DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY  ...
WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN
COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF COMMERCE, OR TO
INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT COMPETITION WITH ANY PERSON WHO EITHER
GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION, OR
WITH CUSTOMERS OF EITHER OF THEM:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING HEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT DIFFERENTIALS WHICH MAKE ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR
DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR DELIVERY RESULTING
FROM THE DIFFERING METHODS OR QUANTITIES IN WHICH SUCH COMMODITIES ARE
TO SUCH PURCHASERS SOLD OR DELIVERED:   ...  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT
NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT PRICE CHANGES FROM TIME TO TIME
...  IN RESPONSE TO CHANGING CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE MARKET FOR OR THE
MARKETABILITY OF THE GOODS CONCERNED  ... 

"(B)  UPON PROOF BEING MADE, AT ANY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT UNDER THIS
FACILITIES FURNISHED, THE BURDEN OF REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS
MADE BY SHOWING JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE UPON THE PERSON CHARGED WITH A
VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, AND UNLESS JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE
AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN, THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AN ORDER
TERMINATING THE DISCRIMINATION:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT A SELLER REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS
MADE BY SHOWING THAT HIS LOWER PRICE OR THE FURNISHING OF SERVICES OR
FACILITIES TO ANY PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO
MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR, OR THE SERVICES OR
FACILITIES FURNISHED BY A COMPETITOR."  49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
13(A) AND (B). 

THIS RIGHT OF A SELLER, UNDER SEC. 2(B), TO MEET IN GOOD FAITH AN
EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR HAS BEEN CONSIDERED HERE BEFORE. 
BOTH IN CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 324 U.S.
726, AND IN FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. STALEY MFG. CO., 324 U.S. 746,
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS DEFENSE WAS REVIEWED AT LENGTH.  THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION THUS TO REVIEW IT UNDER THE THEORY NOW
CONTENDED FOR BY THE COMMISSION.  WHILE THIS COURT DID NOT SUSTAIN THE
SELLER'S DEFENSE IN EITHER CASE, IT DID UNQUESTIONABLY RECOGNIZE THE
RELEVANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THAT DEFENSE.  THE DECISION IN
EACH CASE WAS BASED UPON THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE SELLER'S EVIDENCE TO
ESTABLISH ITS DEFENSE, NOT UPON THE INADEQUACY OF ITS DEFENSE AS A
MATTER OF LAW.  FN9 

IN THE CORN PRODUCTS CASE, SUPRA, AFTER RECOGNIZING THAT THE SELLER
HAD ALLOWED DIFFERENTIALS IN PRICE IN FAVOR OF CERTAIN CUSTOMERS, THIS
COURT EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE SELLER TO SHOW THAT SUCH
DIFFERENTIALS WERE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET EQUALLY
LOW PRICES OF A COMPETITOR.  IT THEN SAID: 

"EXAMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY SATISFIES US, AS IT DID THE COURT
BELOW, THAT IT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT THE LOWER
PRICES ALLOWED TO FAVORED CUSTOMERS WERE IN FACT MADE TO MEET
COMPETITION.  HENCE PETITIONERS FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF SHOWING
THAT THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE GRANTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING
COMPETITION."  324 U.S. AT 741.  FN10 

IN THE STALEY CASE, SUPRA, MOST OF THE COURT'S OPINION IS DEVOTED TO
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF THE SELLER'S
DEFENSE UNDER SEC. 2(B).  THE DISCUSSION PROCEEDS UPON THE ASSUMPTION,
APPLICABLE HERE, THAT IF A COMPETITOR'S "LOWER PRICE" IS A LAWFUL
INDIVIDUAL PRICE OFFERED TO ANY OF THE SELLER'S CUSTOMERS, THEN THE
SELLER IS PROTECTED, UNDER SEC. 2(B), IN MAKING A COUNTEROFFER PROVIDED
THE SELLER PROVES THAT ITS COUNTEROFFER IS MADE TO MEET IN GOOD FAITH
ITS COMPETITOR'S EQUALLY LOW PRICE.  ON THE RECORD IN THE STALEY CASE,
A MAJORITY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN FACT, DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AND DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED SELLER. 
FN11  THIS COURT, ON REVIEW, REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT BUT EMPHATICALLY
RECOGNIZED THE AVAILABILITY OF THE SELLER'S DEFENSE UNDER SEC. 2(B) AND
THE OBLIGATION OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE FINDINGS UPON ISSUES MATERIAL
TO THAT DEFENSE.  IT SAID: 

"CONGRESS HAS LEFT TO THE COMMISSION THE DETERMINATION OF FACT IN
EACH CASE WHETHER THE PERSON, CHARGED WITH MAKING DISCRIMINATORY
PRICES, ACTED IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET A COMPETITOR'S EQUALLY LOW PRICES. 
THE DETERMINATION OF THIS FACT FROM THE EVIDENCE IS FOR THE
COMMISSION.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. PACIFIC STATES PAPER TRADE
ASSN., 273 U.S. 52, 63; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO.,
291 U.S. 67, 73.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT
RESPONDENTS' PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE NOT MADE TO MEET A 'LOWER'
PRICE AND CONSEQUENTLY WERE NOT IN GOOD FAITH, IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY
THE RECORD, AND WE THINK THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE
THIS PORTION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST. 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"IN APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THAT THE
STATUTE DOES NOT PLACE AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN UPON SELLERS, BUT IT
EMPHASIZED THE GOOD FAITH REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE, WHICH PLACES THE
BURDEN OF PROVING GOOD FAITH ON THE SELLER, WHO HAS MADE THE
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES.  ... 

"  ...  WE AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION THAT THE STATUTE AT LEAST
REQUIRES THE SELLER, WHO HAS KNOWINGLY DISCRIMINATED IN PRICE, TO SHOW
THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS WHICH WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PERSON
TO BELIEVE THAT THE GRANTING OF A LOWER PRICE WOULD IN FACT MEET THE
EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.  NOR WAS THE COMMISSION WRONG IN
HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS FAILED TO MEET THIS BURDEN."  324 U.S. AT 758,
759-760. 

SEE ALSO, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CEMENT INSTITUTE, 333 U.S. 683, 721
726; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 43; AND
UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 340 U.S. 76, 92.  ALL THAT
PETITIONER ASKS IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THAT ITS EVIDENCE BE CONSIDERED
AND THAT FINDINGS BE MADE BY THE COMMISSION AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF
THAT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PETITIONER'S DEFENSE UNDER SEC. 2(B). 

IN ADDITION, THERE HAS BEEN WIDESPREAD UNDERSTANDING THAT, UNDER THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, IT IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO A CHARGE OF PRICE
DISCRIMINATION FOR THE SELLER TO SHOW THAT ITS PRICE DIFFERENTIAL HAS
BEEN MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET A LAWFUL AND EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR.  THIS UNDERSTANDING IS REFLECTED IN ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS
OF MEMBERS AND COUNSEL OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.  FN12
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAVE TESTIFIED TO THE
EFFECTIVENESS AND VALUE OF THE DEFENSE UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT. 
FN13  WE SEE NO REASON TO DEPART NOW FROM THAT INTERPRETATION.  FN14 

THE HEART OF OUR NATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY LONG HAS BEEN FAITH IN THE
VALUE OF COMPETITION.  IN THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS, AS WELL AS IN
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, "CONGRESS WAS DEALING WITH COMPETITION, WHICH
IT SOUGHT TO PROTECT, AND MONOPOLY, WHICH IT SOUGHT TO PREVENT." 
STALEY MFG. CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 135 F.2D 453, 455.  WE NEED
NOT NOW RECONCILE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE ECONOMIC THEORY WHICH UNDERLIES
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT WITH THAT OF THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS. 
FN15  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT CONGRESS DID NOT SEEK BY THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT EITHER TO ABOLISH COMPETITION OR SO RADICALLY TO CURTAIL IT
THAT A SELLER WOULD HAVE NO SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST A
PRICE RAID BY A COMPETITOR.  FOR EXAMPLE, IF A LARGE CUSTOMER REQUESTS
HIS SELLER TO MEET A TEMPTINGLY LOWER PRICE OFFERED TO HIM BY ONE OF
HIS SELLER'S COMPETITORS, THE SELLER MAY WELL FIND IT ESSENTIAL, AS A
MATTER OF BUSINESS SURVIVAL, TO MEET THAT PRICE RATHER THAN TO LOSE THE
CUSTOMER.  IT MIGHT BE THAT THIS CUSTOMER IS THE SELLER'S ONLY
AVAILABLE MARKET FOR THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE SELLER'S PRODUCT, AND
THAT THE LOSS OF THIS CUSTOMER WOULD RESULT IN FORCING A MUCH HIGHER
UNIT COST AND HIGHER SALES PRICE UPON THE SELLER'S OTHER CUSTOMERS. 
THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, IN SUCH A SITUATION,
TO COMPEL THE SELLER TO CHOOSE ONLY BETWEEN RUINOUSLY CUTTING ITS
PRICES TO ALL ITS CUSTOMERS TO MATCH THE PRICE OFFERED TO ONE, OR
REFUSING TO MEET THE COMPETITION AND THEN RUINOUSLY RAISING ITS PRICES
TO ITS REMAINING CUSTOMERS TO COVER INCREASED UNIT COSTS.  THERE IS, ON
THE OTHER HAND, PLAIN LANGUAGE AND ESTABLISHED PRACTICE WHICH PERMITS A
SELLER, THROUGH SEC. 2(B), TO RETAIN A CUSTOMER BY REALISTICALLY
MEETING IN GOOD FAITH THE PRICE OFFERED TO THAT CUSTOMER, WITHOUT
NECESSARILY CHANGING THE SELLER'S PRICE TO ITS OTHER CUSTOMERS. 

IN A CASE WHERE A SELLER SUSTAINS THE BURDEN OF PROOF PLACED UPON IT
TO ESTABLISH ITS DEFENSE UNDER SEC. 2(B), WE FIND NO REASON TO DESTROY
THAT DEFENSE INDIRECTLY, MERELY BECAUSE IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE
BENEFICIARIES OF THE SELLER'S PRICE REDUCTIONS MAY DERIVE A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE FROM THEM OR MAY, IN A NATURAL COURSE OF EVENTS, REDUCE THEIR
OWN RESALE PRICES TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.  IT MUST HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO
CONGRESS THAT ANY PRICE REDUCTION TO ANY DEALER MAY ALWAYS AFFECT
COMPETITION AT THAT DEALER'S LEVEL AS WELL AS AT THE DEALER'S RESALE
LEVEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE REDUCTION TO THE DEALER IS DISCRIMINATORY. 
LIKEWISE, IT MUST HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO CONGRESS THAT ANY PRICE
REDUCTIONS INITIATED BY A SELLER'S COMPETITOR WOULD, IF NOT MET BY THE
SELLER, AFFECT COMPETITION AT THE BENEFICIARY'S LEVEL OR AMONG THE
BENEFICIARY'S CUSTOMERS JUST AS MUCH AS IF THOSE REDUCTIONS HAD BEEN
MET BY THE SELLER.  THE PROVISO IN SEC. 2(B), AS INTERPRETED BY THE
COMMISSION, WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE WHEN THERE WAS OR MIGHT BE AN INJURY
TO COMPETITION AT A RESALE LEVEL.  SO INTERPRETED, THE PROVISO WOULD
HAVE SUCH LITTLE, IF ANY, APPLICABILITY AS TO BE PRACTICALLY
MEANINGLESS.  WE MAY, THEREFORE, CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO PERMIT
THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES TO FOLLOW THE SELLER'S ACTION IN MEETING IN
GOOD FAITH A LAWFUL AND EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF ITS COMPETITOR. 

IN ITS ARGUMENT HERE, THE COMMISSION SUGGESTS THAT THERE MAY BE SOME
SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT MIGHT RECOGNIZE THE PROVISO IN SEC. 2(B) AS A
COMPLETE DEFENSE, EVEN THOUGH THE SELLER'S DIFFERENTIAL IN PRICE DID
INJURE COMPETITION.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE COMMISSION INDICATES THAT
IN EACH CASE IT MUST WEIGH THE POTENTIALLY INJURIOUS EFFECT OF A
SELLER'S PRICE REDUCTION UPON COMPETITION AT ALL LOWER LEVELS AGAINST
ITS BENEFICIAL EFFECT IN PERMITTING THE SELLER TO MEET COMPETITION AT
ITS OWN LEVEL.  IN THE ABSENCE OF MORE EXPLICIT REQUIREMENTS AND MORE
SPECIFIC STANDARDS OF COMPARISON THAN WE HAVE HERE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
SEE HOW AN INJURY TO COMPETITION AT A LEVEL BELOW THAT OF THE SELLER
CAN THUS BE BALANCED FAIRLY AGAINST A JUSTIFICATION FOR MEETING THE
COMPETITION AT THE SELLER'S LEVEL.  WE HESITATE TO ACCEPT SEC. 2(B) AS
ESTABLISHING SUCH A DUBIOUS DEFENSE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROVISO IS
READILY UNDERSTANDABLE AS SIMPLY CONTINUING IN EFFECT A DEFENSE WHICH
IS EQUALLY ABSOLUTE, BUT MORE LIMITED IN SCOPE THAN THAT WHICH EXISTED
UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ORIGINAL CLAYTON ACT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ACCORDINGLY, IS REVERSED AND
THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND IT TO
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO MAKE FINDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SPECIFICALLY UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, 49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13.  FOR THE
MATERIAL TEXT OF SEC. 2(A) AND (B) SEE PP. 242-243, INFRA. 

FN2  THE COMPANY CONTENDED BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT THE PRICE
DIFFERENTIAL ALLOWED BY IT TO THE JOBBERS MADE ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR
DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF SALE AND DELIVERY OF GASOLINE TO THEM.  IT
DID NOT, HOWEVER, PURSUE THIS DEFENSE IN THE COURT BELOW AND DOES NOT
DO SO HERE. 

FN3  ABOUT 150 OF THESE STATIONS ARE OWNED OR LEASED BY THE CUSTOMERS
INDEPENDENTLY OF PETITIONER.  THEIR OPERATORS BUY ALL OF THEIR GASOLINE
FROM PETITIONER UNDER SHORT-TERM AGREEMENTS.  THE OTHER 208 STATIONS
ARE LEASED OR SUBLEASED FROM PETITIONER FOR SHORT TERMS. 

FN4  NOT DENYING THE ESTABLISHED INDUSTRY PRACTICE OF RECOGNIZING
SUCH DEALERS AS A DISTINCTIVE GROUP FOR OPERATIONAL CONVENIENCE, THE
COMMISSION HELD THAT PETITIONER'S CLASSIFICATION OF THESE FOUR DEALERS
AS "JOBBERS" WAS ARBITRARY BECAUSE IT MADE "NO REQUIREMENT THAT SAID
JOBBERS SHOULD SELL ONLY AT WHOLESALE."  41 F.T.C. AT 273.  WE USE THE
TERM "JOBBER" IN THIS OPINION MERELY AS ONE OF CONVENIENCE AND
IDENTIFICATION, BECAUSE THE RESULT HERE IS THE SAME WHETHER THESE FOUR
DEALERS ARE WHOLESALERS OR RETAILERS. 

FN5  SECTION 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED, RELATES ONLY TO
PERSONS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, IN THE COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE  ...
WHERE EITHER OR ANY OF THE PURCHASES INVOLVED  ...  ARE IN COMMERCE
...  "  49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(A).  "COMMERCE" IS DEFINED IN
SEC. 1 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AS INCLUDING "TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES  ...  "  38 STAT. 730, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 12.    FN6  THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT CASES RELIED ON BY PETITIONER ARE NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS RESULT.  THEY HOLD THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THAT STATUTE, INTERSTATE COMMERCE CEASED ON DELIVERY TO A LOCAL
DISTRIBUTOR.  HIGGINS V. CARR BROS. CO., 317 U.S. 572; WALLING V.
JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., SUPRA.  THE SALES INVOLVED HERE, ON THE OTHER
HAND, ARE THOSE OF AN INTERSTATE PRODUCER AND REFINER TO A LOCAL
DISTRIBUTOR. 

FN7  THE TRIAL EXAMINER CONCLUDED: 

"THE RECOGNITION BY RESPONDENT (PETITIONER) OF NED'S AUTO SUPPLY
COMPANY AS A JOBBER OR WHOLESALER (WHICH CARRIED WITH IT THE TANK-CAR
PRICE FOR GASOLINE), WAS A FORCED RECOGNITION GIVEN TO RETAIN THAT
COMPANY'S BUSINESS.  NED'S COMPANY AT THE TIME OF RECOGNITION, AND EVER
SINCE, HAS POSSESSED ALL QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY RESPONDENT
(PETITIONER) FOR RECOGNITION AS A JOBBER AND THE RECOGNITION WAS GIVEN
AND HAS EVER SINCE BEEN CONTINUED IN TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES,
BELIEVED BY THEM TO BE BONA FIDE IN ALL RESPECTS  ...  "  (CONCLUSION
OF FACT 2, UNDER SEC. IX, R. 5098-5099.) 

"THE DIFFERENTIALS ON ITS BRANDED GASOLINES RESPONDENT (PETITIONER)
GRANTED NED'S AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, AT ALL TIMES SUBSEQUENT TO MARCH 7,
1938, AND STIKEMAN OIL COMPANY, CITRIN-KOLB OIL COMPANY AND THE WAYNE
COMPANY (THE FOUR JOBBERS), AT ALL TIMES SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 19, 1936,
WERE GRANTED TO MEET EQUALLY LOW PRICES OFFERED BY COMPETITORS ON
BRANDED GASOLINES OF COMPARABLE GRADE AND QUALITY."  (CONCLUSION OF
FACT, UNDER SEC. XR. 5104.) 

FN8  "NOW AS TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE DISCRIMINATORY PRICES HERE
COMPLAINED OF WERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET A LOWER PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR.  WHILE THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDING ON THIS POINT, IT
ASSUMED ITS EXISTENCE BUT HELD, CONTRARY TO THE PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION, THAT THIS WAS NOT A DEFENSE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"WE AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION THAT THE SHOWING OF THE PETITIONER THAT
IT MADE THE DISCRIMINATORY PRICE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION IS
NOT CONTROLLING IN VIEW OF THE VERY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT ITS
DISCRIMINATION WAS USED TO AFFECT AND LESSEN COMPETITION AT THE RETAIL
LEVEL."  173 F.2D AT 214, 217. 

FN9  IN CONTRAST TO THAT FACTUAL SITUATION, THE TRIAL EXAMINER FOR
THE COMMISSION IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS FOUND THE NECESSARY FACTS TO
SUSTAIN THE SELLER'S DEFENSE (SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA), AND YET THE
COMMISSION REFUSES, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO GIVE THEM CONSIDERATION. 

FN10  IN THE CORN PRODUCTS CASE, THE SAME POINT OF VIEW WAS EXPRESSED
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW:  "WE THINK THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN THIS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCE."  144 F.2D 211, 217(C.A.7TH CIR.).
THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO INDICATED THAT, TO SUSTAIN THIS DEFENSE, IT
MUST APPEAR NOT ONLY THAT THE COMPETITOR'S LOWER PRICE WAS MET IN GOOD
FAITH BUT THAT SUCH PRICE WAS LAWFUL. 

FN11  THE STALEY CASE WAS TWICE BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT.  IN 1943 THE CASE WAS REMANDED BY THAT COURT TO THE
COMMISSION FOR FINDINGS AS TO WHEREIN THE DISCRIMINATIONS OCCURRED AND
HOW THEY SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED COMPETITION AND PROMOTED MONOPOLY AND
ALSO "FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE DEFENSE 2(B)) URGED BY THE PETITIONERS,
AND FOR FINDINGS IN RELATION THERETO."  135 F.2D 453, 456.  IN 1944, A
MAJORITY OF THE COURT DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE SELLER.  144 F.2D 221. 
ONE JUDGE HELD THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS INSUFFICIENT UNDER SEC. 2(A) AND
THAT, THEREFORE, HE NEED NOT REACH THE SELLER'S DEFENSE UNDER SEC.
2(B).  HE EXPRESSLY STATED, HOWEVER, THAT HE DID NOT TAKE ISSUE WITH
THE BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SELLER'S PRICE WAS MADE IN GOOD
FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.  ID., AT 227-231. 
HIS COLLEAGUE HELD SQUARELY THAT THE SELLER'S DEFENSE OF MEETING
COMPETITION IN GOOD FAITH UNDER SEC. 2(B) HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.  ID.,
AT 221-225.  THE THIRD JUDGE FOUND AGAINST THE SELLER BOTH UNDER SEC.
2(A) AND (B).  ID., AT 225-227.  THE IMPORTANT POINT FOR US IS THAT THE
COURT OF APPEALS, AS WELL AS THIS COURT, UNANIMOUSLY RECOGNIZED IN THAT
CASE THE MATERIALITY OF THE SELLER'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS DEFENSE
UNDER SEC. 2(B), EVEN THOUGH THE "DISCRIMINATIONS 'HAVE RESULTED, AND
DO RESULT, IN SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO COMPETITION AMONG PURCHASERS  ...
'"  ID., AT 222. 

FN12  IN CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS, ISSUED BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
ORDER IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSION HAS INSERTED SAVING CLAUSES
WHICH RECOGNIZE THE PROPRIETY OF A SELLER MAKING A PRICE REDUCTION IN
GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR, EVEN THOUGH
THE SELLER'S DISCRIMINATION MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF INJURING COMPETITION
AT A LOWER LEVEL.  SEE IN RE FERRO ENAMEL CORP., 42 F.T.C. 36; IN RE
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., 31 F.T.C. 986; IN RE BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL CO.,
28 F.T.C. 186. 

SEE ALSO, THE STATEMENT FILED BY WALTER B. WOODEN, ASSISTANT CHIEF
COUNSEL, AND BY HUGH E. WHITE, EXAMINER FOR THE COMMISSION, WITH THE
TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE IN 1941: 

"THE AMENDED ACT NOW SAFEGUARDS THE RIGHT OF A SELLER TO DISCRIMINATE
IN PRICE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR,
BUT HE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THAT QUESTION.  THIS RIGHT IS
GUARANTEED BY STATUTE AND COULD NOT BE CURTAILED BY ANY MANDATE OR
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  ...  THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE AGAINST
COMPETITIVE PRICE ATTACKS IS AS VITAL IN A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY AS THE
RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE AGAINST PERSONAL ATTACK."  THE BASING POINT
PROBLEM 139(TNEC MONOGRAPH 42, 1941). 

IN REGARD TO THE COMMISSION'S POSITION ON SEC. 2(B), URGED IN THE
INSTANT CASE, ALLEN C. PHELPS, ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL AND CHIEF
OF THE EXPORT TRADE DIVISION OF THE COMMISSION, TESTIFIED BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE POLICIES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN JANUARY, 1949, THAT "THIS POSITION, IF UPHELD
IN THE COURTS, IN MY JUDGMENT WILL EFFECTIVELY AND COMPLETELY ERASE
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
ON S. 236, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 66.  SEE ALSO, PP. 274-275. 

FN13  HERBERT A. BERGSON, THEN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, TESTIFYING
FOR THE DEPARTMENT, JANUARY 25, 1949, SAID:  "THE SECTION (2(B))
PRESENTLY PERMITS SELLERS TO JUSTIFY OTHERWISE FORBIDDEN PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE LOWER PRICES TO ONE SET OF
BUYERS WERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET THE EQUALLY LOW PRICES OF A
COMPETITOR."  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON S. 236, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 77. 
SEE ALSO, REPORT ON S. 236 BY PEYTON FORD, THE ASSISTANT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  ID., AT 320.  MR. BERGSON ADDED THE FOLLOWING IN JUNE, 1949:
"WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THE COMPETITIVE PROBLEM WHICH ARISES WHEN ONE
PURCHASER OBTAINS ADVANTAGES DENIED TO OTHER PURCHASERS, WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM LIES IN DENYING TO SELLERS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SALES IN GOOD FAITH COMPETITION WITH OTHER
SELLERS."  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY ON S. 1008, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 12. 

FN14  ATTENTION HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE PROVISO.  THIS WAS CONSIDERED IN THE CORN PRODUCTS AND STALEY
CASES.  SEE ESPECIALLY, 324 U.S. AT 752-753.  WE FIND THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AT BEST, IS INCONCLUSIVE.  IT INDICATES THAT IT
WAS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO LIMIT, BUT NOT TO ABOLISH, THE ESSENCE
OF THE DEFENSE RECOGNIZED AS ABSOLUTE IN SEC. 2 OF THE ORIGINAL CLAYTON
ACT, 38 STAT. 730, WHERE A SELLER'S REDUCTION IN PRICE HAD BEEN MADE
"IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION  ...  "  FOR EXAMPLE, THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RECOGNIZES THAT THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT LIMITS THAT
DEFENSE TO PRICE DIFFERENTIALS THAT DO NOT UNDERCUT THE COMPETITOR'S
PRICE, AND THE AMENDMENTS FAIL TO PROTECT DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN PRICES
IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES WHERE THOSE PRICES ARE NOT ACTUALLY
COMPETITIVE.  THERE IS ALSO A SUGGESTION IN THE DEBATES, AS WELL AS IN
THE REMARKS OF THIS COURT IN THE STALEY CASE, SUPRA, THAT A
COMPETITOR'S LOWER PRICE, WHICH MAY BE MET BY A SELLER UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF SEC. 2(B), MUST BE A LAWFUL PRICE.  AND SEE, S. RES. 224,
70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., DIRECTING THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO
INVESTIGATE AND REPORT TO IT ON CHAIN-STORE OPERATORS AND F.T.C. FINAL
REPORT ON THE CHAIN-STORE INVESTIGATION, S. DOC. NO. 4, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

IN THE REPORT OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH DRAFTED THE CLAUSE WHICH BECAME SEC. 2(B), THERE
APPEARS THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION OF IT: 

"THIS PROVISO REPRESENTS A CONTRACTION OF AN EXEMPTION NOW CONTAINED
IN SECTION 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT WHICH PERMITS DISCRIMINATIONS WITHOUT
LIMIT WHERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED
THAT WHILE THE SELLER IS PERMITTED TO MEET LOCAL COMPETITION, IT DOES
NOT PERMIT HIM TO CUT LOCAL PRICES UNTIL HIS COMPETITOR HAS FIRST
OFFERED LOWER PRICES, AND THEN HE CAN GO NO FURTHER THAN TO MEET THOSE
PRICES.  IF HE GOES FURTHER, HE MUST DO SO LIKEWISE WITH ALL HIS OTHER
CUSTOMERS, OR MAKE HIMSELF LIABLE TO ALL OF THE PENALTIES OF THE ACT,
INCLUDING TREBLE DAMAGES.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROVISO PERMITS THE
SELLER TO MEET THE PRICE ACTUALLY PREVIOUSLY OFFERED BY A LOCAL
COMPETITOR.  IT PERMITS HIM TO GO NO FURTHER."  H.R. REP. NO. 2287,
74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 16. 

SEE ALSO, 80 CONG. REC. 6426, 6431-6436, 8229, 8235. 

SOMEWHAT CHANGING THIS EMPHASIS, THERE WAS A STATEMENT MADE BY THE
MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ACCOMPANYING THE
CONFERENCE REPORT, WHICH SAID THAT THE NEW CLAUSE WAS A "PROVISION
RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF MEETING COMPETITION, INTENDED TO OPERATE
ONLY AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION  ...  " H.R. REP. NO. 2951, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 7.  THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE CONFEREES ALSO RECEIVED PERMISSION TO PRINT IN
THE RECORD AN EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISO.  80 CONG. REC. 9418.  THIS
EXPLANATION EMPHASIZES THE SAME INTERPRETATION AS THAT PUT ON THE
PROVISO IN THE STALEY CASE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LOWER PRICE WHICH
LAWFULLY MAY BE MET BY A SELLER MUST BE A LAWFUL PRICE.  THAT
STATEMENT, HOWEVER, NEITHER JUSTIFIES DISREGARDING THE PROVISO NOR
FAILING TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT WHERE EVIDENCE IS OFFERED THAT THE
PRICES MET BY THE SELLER ARE LAWFUL PRICES AND THAT THE MEETING OF THEM
IS IN GOOD FAITH. 

FN15  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT, IN THEORY, THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT
AS A WHOLE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS.  SEE
ADELMAN, EFFECTIVE COMPETITION AND THE ANTITRUST LAWS, 61 HARV. L. REV.
1289, 1327-1350; BURNS, THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND THE REGULATION OF PRICE
COMPETITION, 4 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  301; LEARNED & ISAACS, THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN LAW:  SOME ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPECTATIONS, 15 HARV. BUS. 
REV.  137; MCALLISTER, PRICE CONTROL BY LAW IN THE UNITED STATES:  A
SURVEY, 4 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  273. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING* . 

*(JOINED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK.  SEE POST, P.
267.) 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INVESTIGATED PRACTICES OF THE STANDARD
OIL COMPANY OF INDIANA IN SELLING ITS GASOLINE IN THE DETROIT AREA AT
DIFFERENT PRICES TO COMPETING LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS, IN ALLEGED VIOLATION
OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN (ANTI-PRICE DISCRIMINATION) ACT.  STANDARD'S
DEFENSE IS NOT A DENIAL OF THAT DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE BUT A COMPLETE
JUSTIFICATION, SAID TO BE ALLOWED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, ON THE
GROUND OF TRADE NECESSITY IN ORDER TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE IN
DETROIT OF OTHER GASOLINE REFINERS.  ON CONCLUDING THAT THE PRACTICE
VIOLATED FEDERAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY SALE PRICES, THE
COMMISSION ENTERED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST STANDARD'S SALE
SYSTEM.  THE ORDER WAS ENFORCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AFTER A MINOR
MODIFICATION.  43 F.T.C. 56; 173 F.2D 210. 

THE NEED TO ALLOW SELLERS TO MEET COMPETITION IN PRICE FROM OTHER
SELLERS WHILE PROTECTING THE COMPETITORS OF THE BUYERS AGAINST THE
BUYERS' ADVANTAGES GAINED FROM THE PRICE DISCRIMINATION WAS A MAJOR
CAUSE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1936 ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  THE CLAYTON
ACT OF 1914 HAD FAILED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.  THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF
DRAFTING FIXED WORDS OF A STATUTE SO AS TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY
TO MEET THE MYRIAD SITUATIONS OF NATIONAL COMMERCE, WE THINK LED
CONGRESS IN THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT TO PUT AUTHORITY IN THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHEN A SELLER'S DISCRIMINATORY SALES
PRICE VIOLATED THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE ANTI-MONOPOLY STATUTE, SEC.
2(A), 49 STAT. 1526, AND WHEN IT WAS JUSTIFIED BY A COMPETITOR'S LEGAL
PRICE.  FN1  THE DISADVANTAGE TO BUSINESS OF THIS CHOICE WAS THAT THE
SELLER COULD NOT BE POSITIVE BEFORE THE COMMISSION ACTED AS TO
PRECISELY HOW FAR HE MIGHT GO IN PRICE DISCRIMINATION TO MEET AND BEAT
HIS COMPETITION.  THE COMMISSION ACTED ON ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE
ACT.  FN2  BELIEVING IT IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS
AND THE COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, WITH WHICH WE AGREE, WE
STATE OUR REASONS. 

THE COURT FIRST CONDEMNS THE COMMISSION'S POSITION THAT MEETING IN
GOOD FAITH A COMPETITOR'S PRICE MERELY REBUTS THE PRIMA FACIE
ESTABLISHMENT OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON FORBIDDEN DIFFERENCES IN SALES
PRICE, SO AS TO REQUIRE AN AFFIRMATIVE FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT
NEVERTHELESS THERE MAY BE ENJOINABLE INJURY UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN
ACT TO THE FAVORED BUYER'S COMPETITORS.  THE COURT THEN DECIDES THAT
GOOD FAITH IN MEETING COMPETITION WAS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE FOR PRICE
DISCRIMINATION, SAYING:    "ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROVISO IS READILY
UNDERSTANDABLE AS SIMPLY CONTINUING IN EFFECT A DEFENSE WHICH IS
EQUALLY ABSOLUTE, BUT MORE LIMITED IN SCOPE THAN THAT WHICH EXISTED
UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ORIGINAL CLAYTON ACT." 

SUCH A CONCLUSION SEEMS ERRONEOUS.  WHAT FOLLOWS IN THIS DISSENT
DEMONSTRATES, WE THINK, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SO TO AMEND THE CLAYTON
ACT THAT THE AVENUE OF ESCAPE GIVEN PRICE DISCRIMINATORS BY ITS
"MEETING COMPETITION" CLAUSE SHOULD BE NARROWED.  THE COURT'S
INTERPRETATION LEAVES WHAT THE SELLER CAN DO ALMOST AS WIDE OPEN AS
BEFORE.  SEE P. 263 ET SEQ., INFRA.  IT SEEMS CLEAR TO US THAT THE
INTERPRETATION PUT UPON THE CLAUSE OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT BY THE
COURT MEANS THAT NO REAL CHANGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
AMENDMENT. 

THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES FOSTERS THE FREE-ENTERPRISE
SYSTEM OF UNFETTERED COMPETITION AMONG PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTORS OF
GOODS AS THE ACCEPTED METHOD TO PUT THOSE GOODS INTO THE HANDS OF ALL
CONSUMERS AT THE LEAST EXPENSE.  FN3  THERE ARE, HOWEVER, STATUTORY
EXCEPTIONS TO SUCH UNLIMITED COMPETITION.  FN4  NONDISCRIMINATORY
PRICING TENDS TO WEAKEN COMPETITION IN THAT A SELLER, WHILE OTHERWISE
MAINTAINING HIS PRICES, CANNOT MEET HIS ANTAGONIST'S PRICE TO GET A
SINGLE ORDER OR CUSTOMER.  BUT CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE
GREATER ADVANTAGE WOULD ACCRUE BY FOSTERING EQUAL ACCESS TO SUPPLIES BY
COMPETING MERCHANTS OR OTHER PURCHASERS IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. 
FN5 

THE FIRST ENACTMENT TO PUT LIMITS ON DISCRIMINATORY SELLING PRICES
WAS THE CLAYTON ACT IN 1914, 38 STAT. 730, SEC. 2.  SECTION 11 ENABLED
THE COMMISSION TO USE ITS INVESTIGATORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO
HANDLE PRICE DISCRIMINATION.  SECTION 2 PROVIDED FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF
COMPETITION BY PROTECTING THE ABILITY OF BUSINESS RIVALS TO OBTAIN
COMMODITIES ON EQUAL TERMS.  THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT MOVED FURTHER
TOWARD THIS OBJECTIVE.  IN THE MARGIN APPEAR THE APPLICABLE WORDS OF
THE CLAYTON ACT FOLLOWED BY THOSE OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  PHRASED
SUMMARILY FOR THIS CASE, IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE ITALICIZED WORDS IN
THE CLAYTON ACT WERE THE SOURCE OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN ENFORCEMENT THAT
CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO AVOID BY THE ITALICIZED WORDS OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT.  FN6 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT UNLESS THE EFFECT IS GIVEN THE ROBINSON-PATMAN
AMENDMENT CONTENDED FOR BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THERE IS
LITTLE DONE TO OVERCOME THE DIFFICULTIES ARISING FROM THE "MEETING
COMPETITION" CLAUSE OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  FORMERLY "DISCRIMINATION IN
PRICE IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET
COMPETITION" WAS ALLOWED AS A COMPLETE DEFENSE.  NOW IT IS "MADE IN
GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR."  THE COURT
SAYS: 

"IT THUS ELIMINATES CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES WHICH AROSE UNDER THE
ORIGINAL CLAYTON ACT.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT OMITS REFERENCE TO
DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE 'IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES ...  '
AND IT THUS RESTRICTS THE PROVISO TO PRICE DIFFERENTIALS OCCURRING IN
ACTUAL COMPETITION.  IT ALSO EXCLUDES REDUCTIONS WHICH UNDERCUT THE
'LOWER PRICE' OF A COMPETITOR.  NONE OF THESE CHANGES, HOWEVER, CUT
INTO THE ACTUAL CORE OF THE DEFENSE.  THAT STILL CONSISTS OF THE
PROVISION THAT WHEREVER A LAWFUL LOWER PRICE OF A COMPETITOR THREATENS
TO DEPRIVE A SELLER OF A CUSTOMER, THE SELLER, TO RETAIN THAT CUSTOMER,
MAY IN GOOD FAITH MEET THAT LOWER PRICE." 

WE SEE LITTLE DIFFERENCE.  THE SELLER MAY STILL, UNDER THE COURT'S
INTERPRETATION, DISCRIMINATE IN SALES OF GOODS OF LIKE QUANTITY AND
QUALITY BETWEEN BUYERS ON OPPOSITE CORNERS, SO LONG AS ONE GETS A LOWER
DELIVERED PRICE OFFER FROM ANOTHER SELLER, NO MATTER WHERE LOCATED. 
THE "ACTUAL CORE OF THE DEFENSE" REMAINS INTACT. 

                             I. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS AND
PURPOSE OF THIS LAST ADDITION BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT TO CURBS ON
DISCRIMINATION IN TRADE, THE NARROW STATUTORY ISSUES IN THIS CASE
TURN.  THOUGH NARROW, THEY ARE IMPORTANT IF TRADE IS TO HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF CAREFUL INVESTIGATION BEFORE REGULATION, ATTAINABLE UNDER
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT BUT SO DIFFICULT WHEN ATTEMPTED BY
PROSECUTIONS IN COURTS WITH THE LIMITATIONS OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.  AS
AN AID TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 2(B), WE SET OUT APPLICABLE PARTS
OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

THE CLAYTON ACT CREATED A BROAD EXCEPTION FROM CONTROL FOR PRICES
MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION.  THIS RAISED PROBLEMS OF WHICH
CONGRESS WAS AWARE.  IN REPORTING ON A REDRAFTED VERSION OF S. 3154,
THE SENATE'S COMPANION BILL TO THE HOUSE BILL THAT BECAME THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT, THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, FEBRUARY 3, 1936,
POINTED OUT THE WEAKNESS OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT IN PERMITTING
DISCRIMINATION TO MEET COMPETITION, AND SUGGESTED A HARSH REMEDY, THE
ELIMINATION OF ITS ITALICIZED PROVISO IN NOTE 6, SUPRA, WITHOUT THE
MOLLIFYING WORDS OF SEC. 2(B) OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  FN7  IN
MARCH, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY MADE ITS REPORT ON THE BILL
THAT BECAME THE ACT.  SECTION 2(B) WAS THEN IN SUBSTANTIALLY ITS
PRESENT FORM.  THE REPORT POINTED OUT THE DRAFTSMEN'S PURPOSE TO
STRENGTHEN THE LAWS AGAINST PRICE DISCRIMINATION, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY THROUGH BROKERAGE OR OTHER ALLOWANCES, SERVICES OR
ABSORPTIONS OF COSTS.  FN8  IT COMMENTED THAT THE SUBSECTION THAT
BECAME SEC. 2(B) LET A SELLER "MEET THE PRICE ACTUALLY PREVIOUSLY
OFFERED BY A LOCAL COMPETITOR."  FN9  THE LANGUAGE USED IN REGARD TO
COMPETITION IN THE BILLS AND IN THE ACT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON A
RECOMMENDATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.  FN10  THE COMMISSION
HAD BEEN UNABLE TO RESTORE THE DESIRED COMPETITION UNDER THE CLAYTON
ACT, AND CONGRESS EVIDENTLY SOUGHT TO OPEN THE WAY FOR EFFECTIVE
ACTION.  FN11 

EVENTS IN THE COURSE OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE AND
HOUSE HAVE PERTINENCE.  THE SENATE INSERTED THE ORIGINAL INEFFECTIVE
LANGUAGE OF THE CLAYTON ACT IN ITS EXACT FORM IN THE SENATE BILL.  IN
THE SAME DRAFT IT ADOPTED AN AMENDMENT SIMILAR TO THE PROVISO
ULTIMATELY ENACTED.  80 CONG. REC. 6426, 6435.  IN THE HOUSE,
REPRESENTATIVE PATMAN EXPLAINED HIS VIEW OF THE DANGERS IN THE ORIGINAL
PROVISO.  FN12  IT WAS TAKEN OUT IN CONFERENCE N13.  THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE HOUSE MANAGERS, MR. UTTERBACK, BEFORE THE CONFERENCE REPORT WAS
AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE, RECEIVED PERMISSION TO PRINT AN EXPLANATION OF
HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROVISO.  HE EXPLAINED THAT THE PROVISO "DOES
NOT SET UP THE MEETING OF COMPETITION AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO A CHARGE OF
DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE BILL.  IT MERELY PERMITS IT TO BE SHOWN IN
EVIDENCE.   ...  IT LEAVES IT A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED IN
EACH CASE, WHETHER THE COMPETITION TO BE MET WAS SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE
DISCRIMINATION GIVEN,  ...  "  THE PERTINENT PARTS OF THE STATEMENT
APPEAR IN THE MARGIN.  FN14

                                 II. 

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.  THIS RESUME OF THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF
THE ORIGINAL SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AND THE AMENDMENTS OF THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT GIVES A BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF THIS
THAT A SELLER DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME HAS SOLD THE SAME
COMMODITIES TO VARIOUS PURCHASERS AT DIFFERENT PRICES, IS ADMITTED, AND
THE DEFENSE, THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH ARE LIKEWISE ADMITTED, IS THAT THE
DISCRIMINATION WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR.  DOES MEETING IN GOOD FAITH A COMPETITOR'S PRICE CONSTITUTE
A COMPLETE DEFENSE UNDER THE PROVISO TO SEC. 2(B)?  OR DOES THE FACT OF
GOOD FAITH REDUCTION IN PRICE TO A PURCHASER TO MEET A COMPETITOR'S
PRICE MERELY REBUT THE PRIMA FACIE ESTABLISHMENT OF DISCRIMINATION,
ARISING UNDER THE STATUTE FROM PROOF OF FORBIDDEN DIFFERENCES IN PRICE,
FN15  SO AS TO REQUIRE UNDER SEC. 2(A) AFFIRMATIVE FINDING BY THE
COMMISSION THAT THERE MAY BE INJURY TO COMPETITION?  PETITIONER ASSERTS
THAT GOOD FAITH MEETING OF A COMPETITOR'S PRICE IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE. 
THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS TAKE THE OPPOSITE POSITION,
WITH WHICH WE CONCUR. 

THIS IS OUR REASON.  THE STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AND THE INFORMATION
BEFORE CONGRESS CONCERNING THE NEED FOR STRENGTHENING THE COMPETITIVE
PRICE PROVISION OF THE CLAYTON ACT, MAKE CLEAR THAT THE EVIL DEALT WITH
BY THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(B) WAS THE EASY AVOIDANCE OF THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST PRICE DISCRIMINATION.  THE CONTROL OF THAT EVIL WAS AN
IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  THE DEBATES, THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND STATUTORY CHANGES SHOW
THIS.  THE CONFERENCE REPORT AND THE EXPLANATION BY ONE OF THE
MANAGERS, MR. UTTERBACK, ARE QUITE DEFINITIVE UPON THE POINT.  BECAUSE
OF EXPERIENCE UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT, CONGRESS REFUSED TO CONTINUE ITS
COMPETITIVE PRICE PROVISO.  YET ADOPTION OF PETITIONER'S POSITION WOULD
PERMIT A SELLER OF NATIONALLY DISTRIBUTED GOODS TO DISCRIMINATE IN
FAVOR OF LARGE CHAIN RETAILERS, FOR THE SELLER COULD GIVE TO THE LARGE
RETAILER A PRICE LOWER THAN THAT CHARGED TO SMALL RETAILERS, AND COULD
THEN COMPLETELY JUSTIFY ITS DISCRIMINATION BY SHOWING THAT THE LARGE
RETAILER HAD FIRST OBTAINED THE SAME LOW PRICE FROM A LOCAL LOW-COST
PRODUCER OF COMPETITIVE GOODS.  THIS IS THE VERY TYPE OF COMPETITION
THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT TO REMEDY.  TO PERMIT THIS WOULD NOT SEEM
CONSONANT WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT,
STRENGTHENING REGULATORY POWERS OF THE COMMISSION IN "QUANTITY" SALES,
SPECIAL ALLOWANCES AND CHANGING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. 

THE STRUCTURE AND WORDING OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN AMENDMENT TO THE
CLAYTON ACT ALSO CONDUCE TO OUR CONCLUSION.  IN THE ORIGINAL CLAYTON
ACT, SEC. 2 WAS NOT DIVIDED INTO SUBSECTIONS.  IN THAT STATUTE, SEC. 2
STATED THE BODY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE, AND THEN LISTED, IN A
SERIES OF PROVISOS, VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH DISCRIMINATIONS
IN PRICE WERE PERMISSIBLE.  THUS THE STATUTE PROVIDED THAT
DISCRIMINATIONS WERE NOT ILLEGAL IF MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN
THE GRADE OF THE COMMODITY SOLD, OR DIFFERENCES IN SELLING OR
TRANSPORTATION COSTS.  LISTED AMONG THESE ABSOLUTE JUSTIFICATIONS OF
THE CLAYTON ACT APPEARED THE PROVISION THAT "NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED
SHALL PREVENT DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE  ...  MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET
COMPETITION."  THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, HOWEVER, MADE TWO CHANGES IN
RESPECT OF THE "MEETING COMPETITION" PROVISION, ONE AS TO ITS LOCATION,
THE OTHER IN THE PHRASING.  UNLIKE THE ORIGINAL STATUTE, SEC. 2 OF THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT IS DIVIDED INTO TWO SUBSECTIONS.  THE FIRST, SEC.
2(A), RETAINED THE STATEMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE AND THE SERIES OF
PROVISOS TREATED BY THE COMMISSION AS AFFORDING FULL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR
PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS; SEC. 2(B) WAS CREATED TO DEAL WITH PROCEDURAL
PROBLEMS IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS, SPECIFICALLY TO TREAT
THE QUESTION OF BURDEN OF PROOF.  IN THE PROCESS OF THIS DIVISION, THE
"MEETING COMPETITION" PROVISION WAS SEPARATED FROM THE OTHER PROVISOS,
SET OFF FROM THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(A), AND RELEGATED TO
THE POSITION OF A PROVISO TO THE PROCEDURAL SUBSECTION, SEC. 2(B). 
UNLESS IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS CHANGE OF POSITION WAS FORTUITOUS, IT
CAN BE INFERRED THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO CURTAIL THE DEFENSE OF MEETING
COMPETITION WHEN IT BANISHED THIS PROVISO FROM THE SUBSTANTIVE DIVISION
TO THE PROCEDURAL.  IN THE SAME WAY, THE LANGUAGE CHANGES MADE BY SEC.
2(B) OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT REFLECT AN INTENT TO DIMINISH THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SWEEPING DEFENSE OFFERED BY THE CLAYTON ACT'S
"MEETING OF COMPETITION" PROVISO.  THE ORIGINAL PROVISOS IN THE CLAYTON
ACT, AND THE PROVISOS NOW APPEARING IN SEC. 2(A), ARE WORDED TO MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT NOTHING SHALL PREVENT CERTAIN PRICE PRACTICES, SUCH AS PRICE
"DIFFERENTIALS (MAKING)  ...  DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE COST
OF MANUFACTURE  ...  ," OR "PRICE CHANGES  ...  IN RESPONSE TO CHANGING
CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE MARKET FOR  ... THE GOODS CONCERNED  ...  "
BUT IN CONTRAST TO THESE PROVISIONS, THE PROVISO TO SEC. 2(B) DOES NOT
PROVIDE THAT NOTHING "SHALL PREVENT" A CERTAIN PRICE PRACTICE; IT
PROVIDES ONLY THAT "NOTHING  ...  SHALL PREVENT A SELLER REBUTTING (A)
PRIMAFACIE CASE  ...  BY SHOWING" A CERTAIN PRICE PRACTICE - MEETING A
COMPETITIVE PRICE.  THE LANGUAGE THUS SHIFTS THE FOCUS OF THE PROVISO
FROM A MATTER OF SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSE TO A MATTER OF PROOF.  CONSISTENT
WITH EACH OTHER, THESE MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT
ARE ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF CONGRESS EXPRESSED IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

THE COURT SUGGESTS THAT FORMER FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CASES DECIDED
HERE HAVE TREATED THE "MEETING COMPETITION" CLAUSE OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT AS BEING AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE, NOT MERELY A REBUTTAL OF THE
DISCRIMINATION CHARGE REQUIRING FURTHER FINDING BY THE COMMISSION. 
REFERENCE IS MADE TO CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N, 324 U.S. 726, AND FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. STALEY MFG. CO., 324
U.S. 746.  IN THE CORN PRODUCTS CASE, DEALING WITH A BASING POINT
SCHEME FOR DELIVERED PRICES, THIS COURT MERELY SAID AT P. 741: 

"THE ONLY EVIDENCE SAID TO REBUT THE PRIMA FACIE CASE MADE BY PROOF
OF THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WAS GIVEN BY WITNESSES WHO HAD NO PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRANSACTIONS, AND WAS LIMITED TO STATEMENTS OF EACH
WITNESS'S ASSUMPTION OR CONCLUSION THAT THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE
JUSTIFIED BY COMPETITION." 

AND THEN WENT ON TO USE THE LANGUAGE QUOTED AT P. 244 OF THE COURT'S
OPINION.  THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF A SUCCESSFUL
REBUTTAL.  AS AUTHORITY FOR ITS STATEMENT, WE THERE CITED THE STALEY
CASE. 

THAT CITATION INCLUDED THESE WORDS AT PP. 752-753: 

"PRIOR TO THE ROBINSON-PATMAN AMENDMENTS, SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT
PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN IT 'SHALL PREVENT' DISCRIMINATIONS
IN PRICE 'MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION.'  THE CHANGE IN
LANGUAGE OF THIS EXCEPTION WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE DEFENSE A
MATTER OF EVIDENCE IN EACH CASE, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT AS TO
WHETHER THE COMPETITION JUSTIFIED THE DISCRIMINATION.  SEE THE
CONFERENCE REPORT, H. REP. NO. 2951, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 6-7; SEE
ALSO THE STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE UTTERBACH, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
HOUSE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, 80 CONG. REC. 9418."    AFTER THAT
STATEMENT, WHICH IT SHOULD BE NOTED RELIES UPON MR. UTTERBACK'S
INTERPRETATION QUOTED AT NOTE 14 OF THIS OPINION, THE COURT IN THE
STALEY CASE GOES ON TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
STALEY ADOPTED A LOWER PRICE TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR.  AGAIN THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THIS COURT TO MEET THE
PRESENT ISSUE.  WE THINK OUR CITATION IN STALEY, QUOTED ABOVE, SHOWS
THE THEN POSITION OF THIS COURT.  FN16 

THERE ARE ARGUMENTS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE CONTRARY POSITION.  NO
DEFINITE STATEMENT APPEARS IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS THAT "MEETING
COMPETITION" IS HENCEFORTH TO BE ONLY A REBUTTAL OF A PRIMA FACIE CASE
AND NOT A FULL JUSTIFICATION FOR DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE.  THE PROVISO
OF SEC. 2(B) CAN BE READ AS HAVING THE SAME SUBSTANTIVE EFFECT AS THE
PROVISOS OF SEC. 2(A).  THE EARLIER PROVISOS ARE TREATED BY THE
COMMISSION AS COMPLETE DEFENSES.  PERHAPS THERE IS AN IMPLICATION
FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER'S POSITION IN REPRESENTATIVE PATMAN'S
OMISSION TO STATE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INTERPRETATION ON THE
FLOOR.  SEE N. 12, SUPRA. 

THE UNDERLYING CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO CURTAIL METHODS OF AVOIDING
LIMITATIONS ON PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS, HOWEVER, CONSIDERED WITH THE MORE
SPECIFIC MATTERS DISCUSSED HEREIN, SATISFIES US THAT WE SHOULD ADOPT
THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS.  FN17  WE
BELIEVE THAT GOOD FAITH MEETING OF A COMPETITOR'S PRICE ONLY REBUTS THE
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF VIOLATION ESTABLISHED BY SHOWING THE PRICE
DISCRIMINATION.  WHETHER THE PROVEN PRICE DISCRIMINATION IS OF A
CHARACTER THAT VIOLATES SEC. 2(A) THEN BECOMES A MATTER FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION ON A SHOWING THAT THERE MAY BE INJURY
TO COMPETITION. 

                                 III. 

CONCLUSION.  IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S RULING, WE WILL NOT ENLARGE THIS
DISSENT BY DISCUSSING OTHER PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE CASE.  WE HAVE SAID
ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT WE WOULD AFFIRM THE DECREE BELOW IN PRINCIPLE, EVEN
THOUGH WE SHOULD CONCLUDE SOME AMENDMENT MIGHT BE REQUIRED IN THE
WORDING OF THE ORDER. 

FN1  THE DIFFICULTIES OF ANY OTHER APPROACH ARE ILLUSTRATED BY THE
ATTEMPT OF CONGRESS TO CLARIFY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  SEE
PRESIDENT'S VETO MESSAGE ON S. 1008, 96 CONG. REC. 8721, AND CONFERENCE
REPORTS, H.R. REP. NO. 1422, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS., OCTOBER 13, 1949,
AND 2D SESS., H.R. REP. NO. 1730, MARCH 3, 1950. 

FN2  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY ON S. 1008, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS., JUNE 8 AND 14, 1949, P.
61. 

FN3  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 13; UNITED STATES
V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 333 U.S. 287, 309. 

FN4  E.G., INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SEC. 5, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 5;
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, SEC. 221, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 221; MILLER
TYDINGS ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  AND SEE MASON, THE CURRENT STATUS OF
THE MONOPOLY PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES, 62 HARV. L. REV. 1265. 

FN5  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF THE LEGISLATION, SEE ADELMAN,
EFFECTIVE COMPETITION AND THE ANTITRUST LAWS, 61 HARV. L. REV. 1289. 

FN6  CLAYTON ACT: 

"SEC. 2.  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE  ...  TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF
COMMODITIES,  ...  WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION MAY BE TO
SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY
LINE OF COMMERCE: PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT
...  DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES MADE
IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION:  ...  " 

ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT: 

"SEC. 2.  (A)  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE,  ...  TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS
OF COMMODITIES  ...  WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION MAY BE
SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY
LINE OF COMMERCE, OR TO INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT COMPETITION WITH
ANY PERSON WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH
DISCRIMINATION, OR WITH CUSTOMERS OF EITHER OF THEM:  ... 

"(B)  UPON PROOF BEING MADE, AT ANY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT UNDER THIS
FACILITIES FURNISHED, THE BURDEN OF REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS
MADE BY SHOWING JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE UPON THE PERSON CHARGED WITH A
VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, AND UNLESS JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE
AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN, THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AN ORDER
TERMINATING THE DISCRIMINATION:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT A SELLER REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS
MADE BY SHOWING THAT HIS LOWER PRICE OR THE FURNISHING OF SERVICES OR
FACILITIES TO ANY PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO
MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR, OR THE SERVICES OR
FACILITIES FURNISHED BY A COMPETITOR." 

FN7  S. REP. NO. 1502, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 4: 

"THE WEAKNESS OF PRESENT SECTION 2 LIES PRINCIPALLY IN THE FACT THAT:
(1) IT PLACES NO LIMIT UPON DIFFERENTIALS PERMISSIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF
DIFFERENCES IN QUANTITY; AND (2) IT PERMITS DISCRIMINATIONS TO MEET
COMPETITION, AND THUS TENDS TO SUBSTITUTE THE REMEDIES OF RETALIATION
FOR THOSE OF LAW, WITH DESTRUCTIVE CONSEQUENCES TO THE CENTRAL OBJECT
OF THE BILL.  LIBERTY TO MEET COMPETITION WHICH CAN BE MET ONLY BY
PRICE CUTS AT THE EXPENSE OF CUSTOMERS ELSEWHERE, IS IN ITS UNMASKED
EFFECT THE LIBERTY TO DESTROY COMPETITION BY SELLING LOCALLY BELOW
COST, A WEAPON PROGRESSIVELY THE MORE DESTRUCTIVE IN THE HANDS OF THE
MORE POWERFUL, AND MOST DEADLY TO THE COMPETITOR OF LIMITED RESOURCES,
WHATEVER HIS MERIT AND EFFICIENCY.  WHILE THE BILL AS NOW REPORTED
CLOSES THESE DANGEROUS LOOPHOLES, IT LEAVES THE FIELDS OF COMPETITION
FREE AND OPEN TO THE MOST EFFICIENT, AND THUS IN FACT PROTECTS THEM THE
MORE SECURELY AGAINST INUNDATIONS OF MERE POWER AND SIZE. 

"SPECIFIC PHRASES OF SECTION 2(A), AS NOW REPORTED, MAY BE NOTED AS
FOLLOWS: 

"ONE: 

"'  ...  WHERE EITHER OR ANY OF THE PURCHASES INVOLVED IN SUCH
DISCRIMINATION ARE IN COMMERCE ...  .' 

"SECTION 2(A) ATTACHES TO COMPETITIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN A GIVEN
SELLER AND HIS SEVERAL CUSTOMERS, AND THIS CLAUSE IS DESIGNED TO EXTEND
ITS SCOPE TO DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE
CUSTOMERS, AS WELL AS BETWEEN THOSE PURELY INTERSTATE.  DISCRIMINATIONS
IN EXCESS OF SOUND ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES INVOLVE GENERALLY AN ELEMENT OF
LOSS, WHETHER ONLY OF THE NECESSARY MINIMUM OF PROFITS OR OF ACTUAL
COSTS, THAT MUST BE RECOUPED FROM THE BUSINESS OF CUSTOMERS NOT GRANTED
THEM.  WHEN GRANTED BY A GIVEN SELLER TO HIS CUSTOMERS IN OTHER STATES,
AND DENIED TO THOSE WITHIN THE STATE, THEY INVOLVE THE USE OF THAT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE BURDEN AND INJURY OF THE LATTER.  WHEN
GRANTED TO THOSE WITHIN THE STATE AND DENIED TO THOSE BEYOND, THEY
INVOLVE CONVERSELY A DIRECTLY RESULTING BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WITH THE LATTER.  BOTH ARE WITHIN THE PROPER AND WELL-RECOGNIZED POWER
OF CONGRESS TO SUPPRESS." 

FN8 H.R. REP. NO. 2287, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 3: 

"THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS TO RESTORE, SO FAR AS
POSSIBLE, EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY IN BUSINESS BY STRENGTHENING ANTI
TRUST LAWS AND BY PROTECTING TRADE AND COMMERCE AGAINST UNFAIR TRADE
PRACTICES AND UNLAWFUL PRICE DISCRIMINATION, AND ALSO AGAINST RESTRAINT
AND MONOPOLY FOR THE BETTER PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS, WORKERS, AND
INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS, MANUFACTURERS, MERCHANTS, AND OTHER
BUSINESSMEN. 

"TO ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE, THE BILL AMENDS AND STRENGTHENS THE
CLAYTON ACT BY PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE BETWEEN PURCHASERS
WHERE SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS CANNOT BE SHOWN TO BE JUSTIFIED BY
DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR DELIVERY RESULTING
FROM DIFFERENT METHODS OR QUANTITIES IN WHICH SUCH COMMODITIES ARE TO
SUCH PURCHASERS SOLD AND DELIVERED.  IT ALSO PROHIBITS BROKERAGE
ALLOWANCES EXCEPT FOR SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED, AND ADVERTISING AND
OTHER SERVICE ALLOWANCES UNLESS SUCH ALLOWANCES OR SERVICES ARE MADE
AVAILABLE TO ALL PURCHASERS ON PROPORTIONALLY EQUAL TERMS.  IT STRIKES
AT THE BASING-POINT METHOD OF SALE, WHICH LESSENS COMPETITION AND TENDS
TO CREATE A MONOPOLY." 

FN9  ID., P. 16: 

"THIS PROVISO REPRESENTS A CONTRACTION OF AN EXEMPTION NOW CONTAINED
IN SECTION 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT WHICH PERMITS DISCRIMINATIONS WITHOUT
LIMIT WHERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED
THAT WHILE THE SELLER IS PERMITTED TO MEET LOCAL COMPETITION, IT DOES
NOT PERMIT HIM TO CUT LOCAL PRICES UNTIL HIS COMPETITOR HAS FIRST
OFFERED LOWER PRICES, AND THEN HE CAN GO NO FURTHER THAN TO MEET THOSE
PRICES.  IF HE GOES FURTHER, HE MUST DO SO LIKEWISE WITH ALL HIS OTHER
CUSTOMERS, OR MAKE HIMSELF LIABLE TO ALL OF THE PENALTIES OF THE ACT,
INCLUDING TREBLE DAMAGES.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROVISO PERMITS THE
SELLER TO MEET THE PRICE ACTUALLY PREVIOUSLY OFFERED BY A LOCAL
COMPETITOR.  IT PERMITS HIM TO GO NO FURTHER." 

FN10  FINAL REPORT ON THE CHAIN-STORE INVESTIGATION, S. DOC. NO. 4,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 96: "A SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR THE UNCERTAINTIES AND
DIFFICULTIES OF ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE TO PROHIBIT UNFAIR AND UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE AND LEAVE IT TO THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, SUBJECT
TO REVIEW BY THE COURTS, TO APPLY THAT PRINCIPLE TO PARTICULAR CASES
AND SITUATIONS.  THE SOUNDNESS OF AND EXTENT TO WHICH THE PRESENT
PROVISOS WOULD CONSTITUTE VALID DEFENSES WOULD THUS BECOME A JUDICIAL
AND NOT A LEGISLATIVE MATTER. 

"THE COMMISSION THEREFORE RECOMMENDS THAT SECTION 2 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"'IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, IN ANY
TRANSACTION IN OR AFFECTING SUCH COMMERCE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY TO DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY OR UNJUSTLY IN PRICE BETWEEN
DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES, WHICH COMMODITIES ARE SOLD FOR
USE, CONSUMPTION, OR RESALE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY TERRITORY
THEREOF OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR ANY INSULAR POSSESSION OR OTHER
PLACE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.'" 

THIS REPORT WAS UTILIZED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE DEALING WITH THE
PROPOSED ROBINSON-PATMAN LEGISLATION.  H.R. REP. NO. 2287, 74TH CONG.,
2D SESS. 3, 7. 

FN11  ID., P. 64:  "IF THE DISCRIMINATION IS 'ON ACCOUNT OF
DIFFERENCES IN THE GRADE, QUALITY, OR QUANTITY OF THE COMMODITY SOLD',
OR MAKES 'ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF SELLING OR
TRANSPORTATION', OR IS 'MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION', IT IS
NOT UNLAWFUL, EVEN THOUGH THE EFFECT 'MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN
COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF COMMERCE.' 
DISCRIMINATORY PRICE CONCESSIONS GIVEN TO PREVENT THE LOSS OF A CHAIN
STORE'S BUSINESS TO A COMPETING MANUFACTURER, TO PREVENT IT
MANUFACTURING ITS OWN GOODS, OR TO PREVENT IT FROM DISCOURAGING IN ITS
STORES THE SALE OF A GIVEN MANUFACTURER'S GOODS, MAY BE STRONGLY URGED
BY THE MANUFACTURER AS 'MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION.'"  SEE
P. 90, ID. 

ATTENTION WAS CALLED TO THIS NEED.  H.R. REP. NO. 2287, 74TH CONG.,
2D SESS. 7:  "SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION
AS IT STANDS ARE POINTED OUT IN THE (FINAL REPORT) OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ABOVE REFERRED TO, AT PAGES 63 AND FOLLOWING." 

FN12  80 CONG. REC. 8235: 

"MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS (MR. PATMAN).  A GREAT MANY OF THE INDUSTRIES IN OHIO WERE VERY
MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE PROVISO IN THE SENATE BILL, APPEARING ON PAGE 4,
AND READING AS FOLLOWS: 

"'AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT
DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT COMMODITIES MADE IN
GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION.' 

"I FIND THAT ON PAGE 9 OF THE PATMAN BILL, BEGINNING IN LINE 14,
THERE APPEAR THESE WORDS: 

"'PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT A
SELLER REBUTTING THE PRIMA FACIE CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING THAT HIS
LOWER PRICE TO ANY PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO
MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.' 

"WILL THE GENTLEMAN EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO
PROPOSALS? 

"MR. PATMAN.  IF THE SENATE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ADOPTED IT WOULD
REALLY DESTROY THE BILL.  IT WOULD PERMIT THE CORPORATE CHAINS TO GO
INTO A LOCAL MARKET, CUT THE PRICE DOWN SO LOW THAT IT WOULD DESTROY
LOCAL COMPETITORS AND MAKE UP FOR THEIR LOSSES IN OTHER PLACES WHERE
THEY HAD ALREADY DESTROYED THEIR COMPETITORS.  ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF
THE BILL IS TO GET AROUND THAT PHRASE AND PREVENT THE LARGE CORPORATE
CHAINS FROM SELLING BELOW COST IN CERTAIN LOCALITIES, THUS DESTROYING
THE INDEPENDENT MERCHANTS, AND MAKING IT UP AT OTHER PLACES WHERE THEIR
COMPETITORS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED.  I HOPE THE GENTLEMAN WILL NOT
INSIST ON THE SENATE AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE VERY DESTRUCTIVE OF
THE BILL.  THE PHRASE 'EQUALLY LOW PRICE' MEANS THE CORPORATE CHAIN
WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPETE WITH THE LOCAL MERCHANTS.  THEY MAY MEET
COMPETITION, WHICH IS ALL RIGHT, BUT THEY CANNOT CUT DOWN THE PRICE
BELOW COST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING THE LOCAL MAN. 

"MR. COOPER OF OHIO.  WHAT DOES THE GENTLEMAN'S PROVISO MEAN? 

"MR. PATMAN.  IT MEANS THEY MAY MEET COMPETITION, BUT NOT CUT DOWN
THE PRICE BELOW COST.  IT MEANS AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE BUT NOT BELOW
THAT.  IT PERMITS COMPETITION, BUT IT DOES NOT PERMIT THEM TO CUT THE
PRICE BELOW COST IN ORDER TO DESTROY THEIR COMPETITORS.  I HOPE THE
GENTLEMAN WILL NOT INSIST ON THE SENATE AMENDMENT."    BUT SEE PP. 265
AND 266, INFRA. 

FN13  H.R. REP. NO. 2951, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 6-7: 

"THE SENATE BILL CONTAINED A FURTHER PROVISO - 

"'THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE
IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET
COMPETITION.' 

"THIS LANGUAGE IS FOUND IN EXISTING LAW, AND IN THE OPINION OF THE
CONFEREES IS ONE OF THE OBSTACLES TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRESENT CLAYTON
ACT.  THE SENATE RECEDED, AND THE LANGUAGE IS STRICKEN.  A PROVISION
RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF MEETING COMPETITION, INTENDED TO OPERATE
ONLY AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, IS INCLUDED IN SUBSECTION (B) IN THE CONFERENCE TEXT AS
FOLLOWS: 

"'PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT A
SELLER REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING THAT HIS
LOWER PRICE OR THE FURNISHING OF SERVICES OR FACILITIES TO ANY
PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW
PRICE OF A COMPETITOR, OR THE SERVICES OR FACILITIES FURNISHED BY A
COMPETITOR.'" 

FN14  80 CONG. REC. 9418: 

"IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE RULE AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF, IT IS ALSO
PROVIDED THAT A SELLER MAY SHOW THAT HIS LOWER PRICE WAS MADE IN GOOD
FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR, OR THAT HIS
FURNISHING OF SERVICES OR FACILITIES WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET
THOSE FURNISHED BY A COMPETITOR.  IT IS TO BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS
DOES NOT SET UP THE MEETING OF COMPETITION AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO A
CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE BILL.  IT MERELY PERMITS IT TO BE
SHOWN IN EVIDENCE.  THIS PROVISION IS ENTIRELY PROCEDURAL.  IT DOES NOT
DETERMINE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS, LIABILITIES, AND DUTIES.  THEY ARE FIXED
IN THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.  IT LEAVES IT A QUESTION OF FACT
TO BE DETERMINED IN EACH CASE, WHETHER THE COMPETITION TO BE MET WAS
SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE DISCRIMINATION GIVEN, AS ONE LYING WITHIN THE
LIMITATIONS LAID DOWN BY THE BILL, AND WHETHER THE WAY IN WHICH THE
COMPETITION WAS MET LIES WITHIN THE LATITUDE ALLOWED BY THOSE
LIMITATIONS. 

"THIS PROCEDURAL PROVISION CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A CARTE BLANCHE
EXEMPTION TO VIOLATE THE BILL SO LONG AS A COMPETITOR CAN BE SHOWN TO
HAVE VIOLATED IT FIRST, NOR SO LONG AS THAT COMPETITION CANNOT BE MET
WITHOUT THE USE OF OPPRESSIVE DISCRIMINATIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE
OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE BILL. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"IF THIS PROVISO WERE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT THE SHOWING OF A COMPETING
OFFER AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO LIABILITY FOR DISCRIMINATION, THEN IT WOULD
NULLIFY THE ACT ENTIRELY AT THE VERY INCEPTION OF ITS ENFORCEMENT, FOR
IN NEARLY EVERY CASE MASS BUYERS RECEIVE SIMILAR DISCRIMINATIONS FROM
COMPETING SELLERS OF THE SAME PRODUCT.  ONE VIOLATION OF LAW CANNOT BE
PERMITTED TO JUSTIFY ANOTHER.  AS IN ANY CASE OF SELF-DEFENSE, WHILE
THE ATTACK AGAINST WHICH THE DEFENSE IS CLAIMED MAY BE SHOWN IN
EVIDENCE, ITS COMPETENCY AS A BAR DEPENDS ALSO UPON WHETHER IT WAS A
LEGAL OR ILLEGAL ATTACK.  A DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THIS BILL IS
IN PRACTICAL EFFECT A COMMERCIAL BRIBE TO LURE THE BUSINESS OF THE
FAVORED CUSTOMER AWAY FROM THE COMPETITOR, AND IF ONE BRIBE WERE
PERMITTED TO JUSTIFY ANOTHER THE BILL WOULD BE FUTILE TO ACHIEVE ITS
PLAINLY INTENDED PURPOSES." 

FN15  SEE N. 6, SUPRA. 

FN16  THE COURT'S OPINION IN THIS CASE REFERS, P. 244, NOTES 10 AND
11, TO THE OPINIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN
CORN PRODUCTS AND STALEY, 144 F.2D 211 AND 221.  BUT THAT COURT
REVERSED ITS POSITION IN THE OPINION BELOW, 173 F.2D 210, 216.  IT IS
FAIR TO ASSUME THAT REVERSAL WAS BECAUSE OF OUR OPINIONS IN CORN
PRODUCTS AND STALEY. 

FN17  IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO NOTE THAT THE WISDOM OF THE ENACTMENT
IS NOT FOR THE COMMISSION NOR THE COURTS IN ENFORCING THE ACT.  THE
COMMISSION RECENTLY HAS ADVISED CONGRESS THAT WHILE "ON BALANCE IT
WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO MAKE THE GOOD-FAITH MEETING OF COMPETITION A
COMPLETE DEFENSE," IT "DOES NOT STRONGLY URGE EITHER VIEW UPON THE
CONGRESS."  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 1008, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS., JUNE 8 AND 14,
1949, P. 61.  COMPARE STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 293,
311.  THIS STATEMENT CONFIRMED THE COMMISSION'S POSITION TAKEN IN THIS
CASE.  THERE WERE OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE COMMISSION WHO HAVE TAKEN THE
VIEW ADOPTED BY THE COURT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :















DOWD V. COOK, 340 U.S. 206 


NO. 66.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 28, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1951.  - 180
F.2D 212, JUDGMENT VACATED. 


IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IN 1948, THE COURT FOUND THAT IN 1931 RESPONDENT WAS
CONVICTED OF MURDER IN AN INDIANA STATE COURT, SENTENCED TO LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, AND IMMEDIATELY CONFINED IN A STATE PRISON; THAT HIS
TIMELY APPEAL WAS PREVENTED BY THE WARDEN'S SUPPRESSION OF HIS APPEAL
PAPERS PURSUANT TO PRISON RULES; THAT HE SOUGHT UNSUCCESSFULLY TO HAVE
THE STATE COURTS REVIEW HIS CONVICTION BY CORAM NOBIS IN 1937 AND BY
HABEAS CORPUS IN 1947; AND THAT IN 1946 HIS PETITION TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT FOR A DELAYED APPEAL WAS DENIED.  THE DISTRICT COURT
ORDERED RESPONDENT'S DISCHARGE, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
HELD: 

1.  THE PREVENTION OF RESPONDENT'S ORIGINAL TIMELY APPEAL BY THE
WARDEN'S SUPPRESSION OF HIS APPEAL PAPERS WAS A VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 207-208. 

2.  EVEN IF RES JUDICATA WERE APPLICABLE IN HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS, THE 1946 LITIGATION IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT RES
JUDICATA OF THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CASE.  P. 208. 

3.  RESPONDENT DID NOT "WAIVE" HIS RIGHT OF APPEAL.  PP. 208-209. 

4.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, NOTHING SHORT OF AN ACTUAL
APPELLATE DETERMINATION OF THE MERITS OF THE CONVICTION WILL CURE THE
ORIGINAL DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.  P. 209. 

5.  THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE DISTRICT COURT ARE
VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE DISTRICT
COURT TO ENTER SUCH ORDERS AS ARE APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE STATE A
REASONABLE TIME IN WHICH TO AFFORD RESPONDENT THE FULL APPELLATE REVIEW
HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BUT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF HIS APPEAL PAPERS, IN
DEFAULT WHEREOF BY THE STATE RESPONDENT SHALL BE DISCHARGED.  PP. 209
210. 

DOWD, WARDEN, V. UNITED STATES EX REL. COOK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING SEEKING RESPONDENT'S RELEASE FROM
IMPRISONMENT UNDER SENTENCE OF A STATE COURT, THE DISTRICT COURT
ORDERED RESPONDENT DISCHARGED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  180
F.2D 212.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 849.  JUDGMENTS
VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED, P. 210. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, LAWRENCE E. COOK, BROUGHT THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN 1948.  AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE,
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND AS FOLLOWS:  IN 1931 RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED
OF MURDER IN AN INDIANA COURT, SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT, AND
IMMEDIATELY CONFINED IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY.  WITHIN THE SIX-MONTH
PERIOD ALLOWED FOR APPEAL AS OF RIGHT BY INDIANA LAW, RESPONDENT
PREPARED PROPER APPEAL PAPERS.  HIS EFFORTS TO FILE THE DOCUMENTS IN
THE STATE SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, WERE FRUSTRATED BY THE WARDEN ACTING
PURSUANT TO PRISON RULES.  SUBSEQUENTLY, BUT AFTER THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD
HAD EXPIRED, THE BAN ON SENDING PAPERS FROM THE PRISON WAS LIFTED AND
RESPONDENT UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO HAVE THE STATE COURTS REVIEW HIS
CONVICTION BY CORAM NOBIS IN 1937  FN1  AND BY HABEAS CORPUS IN 1945. 
FN2  IN 1946 HIS PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA FOR A DELAYED
APPEAL WAS DENIED.  FN3  ON THESE FINDINGS, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW FOR WHICH
THE STATE PROVIDED NO REMEDY, AND ORDERED RESPONDENT'S DISCHARGE.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  180 F.2D 212. 

IN THIS COURT THE STATE ADMITS, AS IT MUST, THAT A DISCRIMINATORY
DENIAL OF THE STATUTORY RIGHT OF APPEAL IS A VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316
U.S. 255.  IT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE 1946 LITIGATION IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA ESTABLISHED THAT THE PRISON AUTHORITIES HAD
NOT PREVENTED A TIMELY APPEAL BY RESPONDENT, AND THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF
RES JUDICATA PRECLUDED A CONTRARY DETERMINATION OF THIS FACT BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  EVEN IF THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA WERE APPLICABLE IN
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, BUT CF. WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101,
105, IT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE INDIANA COURT
MADE ONLY ONE FINDING, AND THAT PERTAINED TO A MATTER NOT NOW IN
DISPUTE.  FN4 MOREOVER, SO FAR AS THE SUPPRESSION OF RESPONDENT'S
ORIGINAL APPEAL PAPERS IS CONCERNED, THE RECORD BEFORE US STRONGLY
INDICATES THAT THE FINDING ASCRIBED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN MADE. 

THE STATE ALSO CONTENDS THAT DESPITE THE DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION,
RESPONDENT IS NO LONGER ENTITLED TO RELIEF BECAUSE HE "WAIVED" HIS
RIGHT OF APPEAL.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE BAN ON SENDING PAPERS FROM
THE PRISON SUSPENDED THE STATUTORY LIMITATION ON THE TIME FOR REVIEW SO
THAT RESPONDENT COULD HAVE APPEALED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE
RESTRAINT WAS REMOVED IN 1933.  WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS VIEW.  IN 1931
INDIANA APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPARENTLY WAS CONDITIONED ON A TIMELY
FILING OF THE PROPER PAPERS.  FN5  MORE RECENTLY, THE RIGID RULE MAY
HAVE BEEN RELAXED SO AS TO PROVIDE DISCRETIONARY DELAYED APPEALS FOR
CONVICTED DEFENDANTS.  FN6  BUT WE FIND NO INDICATION EITHER THAT THERE
IS ANY TIME LIMITATION ON THE TAKING OF DELAYED APPEALS OR THAT SUCH
APPEALS WILL EVER BE HEARD AS OF RIGHT.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
RESPONDENT'S DELAYED APPEAL WAS DENIED IN 1946, APPARENTLY AS A MATTER
WITHIN THE STATE COURT'S DISCRETION.  FN7  CONSEQUENTLY, RESPONDENT HAS
NEVER HAD THE SAME REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM AS HE WOULD HAVE
HAD AS OF RIGHT IN 1931 BUT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF HIS PAPERS.  WE
THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT, WHILE THE STATE'S
"WAIVER" THEORY IS INGENIOUS, IT IS WITHOUT MERIT.  UNDER THE PECULIAR
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, NOTHING SHORT OF AN ACTUAL APPELLATE
DETERMINATION OF THE MERITS OF THE CONVICTION - ACCORDING TO THE
PROCEDURE PREVAILING IN ORDINARY CASES - WOULD CURE THE ORIGINAL DENIAL
OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION OF THE DISPOSITION TO BE MADE OF THIS
CASE.  FORTUNATELY, WE ARE NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE DILEMMA ENVISAGED BY
THE STATE OF HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN ORDERING AN ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE OF
THE PRISONER AND DENYING HIM ALL RELIEF.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAS POWER
IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING TO "DISPOSE OF THE MATTER AS LAW AND
JUSTICE REQUIRE."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2243.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
PRECLUDES INDIANA FROM KEEPING RESPONDENT IMPRISONED IF IT PERSISTS IN
DEPRIVING HIM OF THE TYPE OF APPEAL GENERALLY AFFORDED THOSE CONVICTED
OF CRIME.  ON THE OTHER HAND, JUSTICE DOES NOT REQUIRE INDIANA TO
DISCHARGE RESPONDENT IF SUCH AN APPEAL IS GRANTED AND REVEALS A TRIAL
RECORD FREE FROM ERROR.  NOW THAT THIS COURT HAS DETERMINED THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, INDIANA MAY FIND IT POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE THE
APPELLATE REVIEW TO WHICH RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED.  THE JUDGMENTS OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND THE DISTRICT COURT ARE VACATED AND THE CASE
REMANDED.  ON REMAND, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD ENTER SUCH ORDERS AS
ARE APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE STATE A REASONABLE TIME IN WHICH TO AFFORD
RESPONDENT THE FULL APPELLATE REVIEW HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BUT FOR THE
SUPPRESSION OF HIS PAPERS, FAILING WHICH HE SHALL BE DISCHARGED.  SEE
MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32, 46.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEE COOK V. STATE, 219 IND. 234, 37 N.E.2D 63; STATE EX REL.
COOK V. WICKENS, 222 IND. 383, 53 N.E.2D 630. 

FN2  STATE EX REL. COOK V. HOWARD, 223 IND. 694, 64 N.E.2D 25, CERT.
DENIED 327 U.S. 808. 

FN3  THIS ORDER IS UNREPORTED.  CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE DENIAL OF
THE PETITION FOR DELAYED APPEAL WAS SOUGHT HERE AND DENIED.  330 U.S.
841. 

FN4  THE FINDING WAS THAT "THE BASIC ALLEGATION OF SAID PETITION TO
WIT:  THAT (COOK'S) COUNSEL REFUSED, WITHOUT PAY, TO TAKE AN APPEAL IS
NOT TRUE  ...  " 

FN5  DUDLEY V. STATE, 200 IND. 398, 161 N.E. 1; FARLOW V. STATE, 196
IND. 295, 142 N.E. 849; FARRELL V. STATE, 85 IND. 221; WINSETT V.
STATE, 54 IND. 437; LICHTENFELS V. STATE, 53 IND. 161. 

FN6  THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA SUGGESTED IN 1945 THAT THIS
RESPONDENT MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE A DELAYED APPEAL.  STATE EX REL. COOK
V. HOWARD, 223 IND. 694, 64 N.E.2D 25.  CF. ALSO WARREN V. INDIANA
TELEPHONE CO., 217 IND. 93, 26 N.E.2D 399; STATE EX REL. WHITE V.
HILGEMANN, 218 IND. 572, 34 N.E.2D 129; BUT CF. JOHNS V. STATE, 227
IND. 737, 89 N.E.2D 281.  IN 1947 INDIANA ENACTED THE MORE LIBERAL RULE
INTO ITS STATUTORY LAW.  BURNS' IND. ANN. STAT., 1942 REPLACEMENT VO.
(CUM. SUPP. 1949), SEC. 9-3305. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA; CF. SWEET V. STATE, 226 IND. 566, 81 N.E.2D
679. 
..END :
























KIEFER-STEWART CO. V. SEAGRAM & SONS, 340 U.S. 211 


NO. 297.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1951.  - 182
F.2D 228, REVERSED. 


1.  AN AGREEMENT AMONG COMPETITORS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO FIX
MAXIMUM RESALE PRICES OF THEIR PRODUCTS VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT.  P.
213. 

2.  UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, A COMBINATION FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE AND
WITH THE EFFECT OF RAISING, DEPRESSING, FIXING, PEGGING, OR STABILIZING
THE PRICE OF A COMMODITY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS ILLEGAL
PER SE.  P. 213. 

3.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY
THE JURY THAT RESPONDENTS HAD CONSPIRED TO FIX MAXIMUM RESALE PRICES. 
PP. 213-214. 

4.  IN AN ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES, BROUGHT BY
A COMPLAINANT INJURED BY A CONSPIRACY OF SELLERS OF LIQUOR IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO FIX MAXIMUM RESALE PRICES, IT IS NO DEFENSE THAT
THE COMPLAINANT HAD CONSPIRED WITH OTHERS TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES FOR
LIQUOR IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  P. 214. 

5.  THE FACT THAT CORPORATIONS ARE UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL
DOES NOT RELIEVE THEM FROM LIABILITY UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS,
ESPECIALLY WHERE THEY HOLD THEMSELVES OUT AS COMPETITORS.  P. 215. 

6.  SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY SUBMITTED TO
THEM ONLY THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, IT DID NOT ERR IN
REFUSING A MORE FORMAL WITHDRAWAL OF AN ISSUE CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF
THE CLAYTON ACT, WHICH HAD BEEN CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT BUT WHICH WAS
NOT PROVED.  P. 215. 

KIEFER-STEWART CO. V. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES, THE JURY
RETURNED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER AND DAMAGES WERE AWARDED.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  182 F.2D 228.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
340 U.S. 863.  REVERSED, P. 215. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, KIEFER-STEWART COMPANY, IS AN INDIANA DRUG CONCERN
WHICH DOES A WHOLESALE LIQUOR BUSINESS.  RESPONDENTS, SEAGRAM AND
CALVERT CORPORATIONS, ARE AFFILIATED COMPANIES THAT SELL LIQUOR IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO INDIANA WHOLESALERS.  PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS
ACTION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT.  15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 15.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT RESPONDENTS
HAD AGREED OR CONSPIRED TO SELL LIQUOR ONLY TO THOSE INDIANA
WHOLESALERS WHO WOULD RESELL AT PRICES FIXED BY SEAGRAM AND CALVERT,
AND THAT THIS AGREEMENT DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A CONTINUING SUPPLY OF
LIQUOR TO ITS GREAT DAMAGE* .  ON THE TRIAL, EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED
TENDING TO SHOW THAT RESPONDENTS HAD FIXED MAXIMUM PRICES ABOVE WHICH
THE WHOLESALERS COULD NOT RESELL.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR
PETITIONER AND DAMAGES WERE AWARDED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  182 F.2D 228.  IT HELD THAT AN AGREEMENT
AMONG RESPONDENTS TO FIX MAXIMUM RESALE PRICES DID NOT VIOLATE THE
SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE SUCH PRICES PROMOTED RATHER THAN RESTRAINED
COMPETITION.  IT ALSO HELD THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT
RESPONDENTS HAD ACTED IN CONCERT.  DOUBT AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
DECISION ON QUESTIONS IMPORTANT IN ANTITRUST LITIGATION PROMPTED US TO
GRANT CERTIORARI.  340 U.S. 863. 

*PETITIONER ALSO CHARGED A VIOLATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 18, BUT THIS THEORY HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND IS NOT IMPORTANT HERE. 
SEE P. 215, INFRA. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AN AGREEMENT AMONG
COMPETITORS TO FIX MAXIMUM RESALE PRICES OF THEIR PRODUCTS DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT.  FOR SUCH AGREEMENTS, NO LESS THAN THOSE TO
FIX MINIMUM PRICES, CRIPPLE THE FREEDOM OF TRADERS AND THEREBY RESTRAIN
THEIR ABILITY TO SELL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN JUDGMENT.  WE
REAFFIRM WHAT WE SAID IN UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310
U.S. 150, 223:  "UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT A COMBINATION FORMED FOR THE
PURPOSE AND WITH THE EFFECT OF RAISING, DEPRESSING, FIXING, PEGGING, OR
STABILIZING THE PRICE OF A COMMODITY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE
IS ILLEGAL PER SE." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY THE JURY THAT RESPONDENTS HAD CONSPIRED TO FIX
MAXIMUM RESALE PRICES.  THE JURY WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE EVIDENCE TO
ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING AS FACTS:  SEAGRAM REFUSED TO SELL TO PETITIONER
AND OTHERS UNLESS THE PURCHASERS AGREED TO THE MAXIMUM RESALE PRICE
FIXED BY SEAGRAM.  CALVERT WAS AT FIRST WILLING TO SELL WITHOUT THIS
RESTRICTIVE CONDITION AND ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE FOR PETITIONER TO BUY
LARGE QUANTITIES OF CALVERT LIQUOR.  PETITIONER SUBSEQUENTLY WAS
INFORMED BY CALVERT, HOWEVER, THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS WOULD NOT BE
CARRIED OUT BECAUSE CALVERT HAD "TO GO ALONG WITH SEAGRAM."  MOREOVER,
ABOUT THIS TIME CONFERENCES WERE HELD BY OFFICIALS OF THE RESPONDENTS
CONCERNING SALES OF LIQUOR TO PETITIONER.  THEREAFTER, ON IDENTICAL
TERMS AS TO THE FIXING OF RETAIL PRICES, BOTH SEAGRAM AND CALVERT
RESUMED SALES TO OTHER INDIANA WHOLESALERS WHO AGREED TO ABIDE BY SUCH
CONDITIONS, BUT NO SHIPMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO PETITIONER. 

THE FOREGOING IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE CHALLENGED JURY FINDING
THAT RESPONDENTS HAD A UNITY OF PURPOSE OR A COMMON DESIGN AND
UNDERSTANDING WHEN THEY FORBADE THEIR PURCHASERS TO EXCEED THE FIXED
CEILINGS.  THUS, THERE IS SUPPORT FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT A CONSPIRACY
EXISTED, AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 809-810,
EVEN THOUGH, AS RESPONDENTS POINT OUT, THERE IS OTHER TESTIMONY IN THE
RECORD INDICATING THAT THE PRICE POLICIES OF SEAGRAM AND CALVERT WERE
ARRIVED AT INDEPENDENTLY. 

RESPONDENTS ALSO SEEK TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL ON OTHER
GROUNDS NOT PASSED ON BY THE COURT OF APPEALS BUT WHICH HAVE BEEN
ARGUED HERE BOTH ORALLY AND IN THE BRIEFS.  THESE GROUNDS RAISE ONLY
ISSUES OF LAW NOT CALLING FOR EXAMINATION OR APPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE AND
WE WILL CONSIDER THEM.  RESPONDENTS INTRODUCED EVIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT DESIGNED TO SHOW THAT PETITIONER HAD AGREED WITH OTHER INDIANA
WHOLESALERS TO SET MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE SALE OF LIQUOR IN VIOLATION
OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  IT IS NOW CONTENDED THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN CHARGING THE JURY THAT PETITIONER'S PART IN SUCH A CONSPIRACY, EVEN
IF PROVED, WAS NO DEFENSE TO THE PRESENT CAUSE OF ACTION.  WE HOLD THAT
THE INSTRUCTION WAS CORRECT.  SEAGRAM AND CALVERT ACTING INDIVIDUALLY
PERHAPS MIGHT HAVE REFUSED TO DEAL WITH PETITIONER OR WITH ANY OR ALL
OF THE INDIANA WHOLESALERS.  BUT THE SHERMAN ACT MAKES IT AN OFFENSE
FOR RESPONDENTS TO AGREE AMONG THEMSELVES TO STOP SELLING TO PARTICULAR
CUSTOMERS.  IF PETITIONER AND OTHERS WERE GUILTY OF INFRACTIONS OF THE
ANTITRUST LAWS, THEY COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IN APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT AGAINST THEM BY THE GOVERNMENT OR BY INJURED
PRIVATE PERSONS.  THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF PETITIONER, HOWEVER,
COULD NOT LEGALIZE THE UNLAWFUL COMBINATION BY RESPONDENTS NOR IMMUNIZE
THEM AGAINST LIABILITY TO THOSE THEY INJURED.  CF. FASHION ORIGINATORS'
GUILD V. TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457; MANDEVILLE ISLAND FARMS V.
AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO., 334 U.S. 219, 242-243. 

RESPONDENTS NEXT SUGGEST THAT THEIR STATUS AS "MERE INSTRUMENTALITIES
OF A SINGLE MANUFACTURING-MERCHANDIZING UNIT" MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THEM TO HAVE CONSPIRED IN A MANNER FORBIDDEN BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  BUT
THIS SUGGESTION RUNS COUNTER TO OUR PAST DECISIONS THAT COMMON
OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL DOES NOT LIBERATE CORPORATIONS FROM THE IMPACT OF
THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  E.G. UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S.
218.  THE RULE IS ESPECIALLY APPLICABLE WHERE, AS HERE, RESPONDENTS
HOLD THEMSELVES OUT AS COMPETITORS. 

IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO
WITHDRAW FROM THE JURY AN ISSUE AS TO RESPONDENTS' VIOLATION OF THE
CLAYTON ACT WHICH HAD BEEN CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT BUT WHICH WAS NOT
PROVED.  A FAIR READING OF THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, HOWEVER,
REVEALS THAT THE TRIAL COURT SUBMITTED TO THEM ONLY THE CAUSE OF ACTION
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  WE ARE CONVINCED FROM THIS RECORD THAT A MORE
FORMAL WITHDRAWAL OF THE CLAYTON ACT ISSUE WOULD HAVE SERVED SOLELY TO
CONFUSE. 

OTHER CONTENTIONS OF ERROR IN THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE AND IN THE
CHARGE TO THE JURY ARE SO DEVOID OF MERIT THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
DISCUSS THEM. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 
..END :







ALABAMA G.S.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 216 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 8-9, 1950.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1951.  - 88 F.SUPP. 
982, AFFIRMED. 


AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ISSUED PURSUANT TO
SEC. 307(D) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 907(D),
REQUIRED CERTAIN COMMON CARRIERS BY RAILROAD AND CERTAIN INTERSTATE
BARGE LINES TO ESTABLISH JOINT THROUGH ROUTES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PROPERTY, AND TO ESTABLISH AND APPLY TO SUCH THROUGH ROUTES JOINT RATES
BASED ON PRESCRIBED DIFFERENTIALS FROM HIGHER ALL-RAIL RATES.  THE
DIFFERENTIALS WERE ABSORBED BY THE BARGE LINES, BUT THE COMMISSION MADE
NO FINDING THAT BARGE-RAIL COSTS WERE LOWER THAN ALL-RAIL COSTS.  HELD:
THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 218-229. 

1.  A FINDING OF LESSER COST OF BARGE SERVICE IS NOT INDISPENSABLE TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  PP. 223-225. 

(A) THE BARGE-RAIL RATES BASED ON THE PRESCRIBED DIFFERENTIALS WERE
CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE COMPENSATORY WITH RESPECT TO THE
BARGE LINES.  P. 224. 

(B)  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION THAT COMPETITION BETWEEN BARGE
AND RAIL SERVICE WAS WORTH PRESERVING WAS LEGITIMATELY RESTED ON
RELEVANT FACTORS OTHER THAN LESSER COST OF SERVICE.  PP. 224-225. 

2.  THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT ITS ORDER IS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GENERAL EXPRESSIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY IS NOT THE SOLE BASIS
OF THE ORDER, SINCE THE COMMISSION GAVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO OTHER
RELEVANT FACTORS.  PP. 225-226. 

3.  THE PRESCRIPTION OF DIFFERENTIALS IN THIS PROCEEDING DOES NOT
DEPRIVE THE APPELLANT RAILROADS OF THEIR INHERENT ADVANTAGES CONTRARY
TO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  I.C.C. V. MECHLING, 330 U.S.
567, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 226-227. 

4.  THE BASIC FINDINGS ESSENTIAL TO THE STATUTORY VALIDITY OF THE
ORDER ARE SUFFICIENTLY DISCLOSED IN THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE
COMMISSION IN THIS CASE.  PP. 227-228. 

5.  THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS NOT INVALID AS GIVING A PREFERENCE
TO THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS OVER CERTAIN PORTS OF GEORGIA AND TEXAS, IN
VIOLATION OF ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 6 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, SINCE
THAT CLAUSE DOES NOT FORBID DISCRIMINATIONS AS BETWEEN PORTS, AND SINCE
WHATEVER PREFERENCE THERE IS RESULTS FROM GEOGRAPHY AND NOT FROM ANY
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION.  PP. 228-229. 

ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

NO. 45.  APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 46, GALVESTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES ET AL.; NO. 47, RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. UNITED STATES ET
AL.; AND NO. 48, SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORP. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.,
ALSO ON APPEALS TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENIED THE
INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  88 F.SUPP.  982.  ON DIRECT
APPEALS TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 229. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN NO. 45 APPELLANT COMMON CARRIERS BY RAILROAD BROUGHT THIS SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TO ENJOIN AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION ISSUED JUNE 13, 1949, IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE
COMMISSION ENTITLED RAIL AND BARGE JOINT RATES, NO. 26712 ON THE
COMMISSION'S DOCKET.  APPELLEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
INTERVENED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, AS DID
APPELLEE COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER, AMERICAN BARGE LINE COMPANY
(AMERICAN), INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS FEDERAL
BARGE LINES (FEDERAL), AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE COMPANY
(VALLEY).  A STATUTORY THREE-JUDGE COURT HEARD THE CASE AND, UPON
FINDINGS OF FACT MADE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW STATED, DENIED THE
INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  88 F.SUPP.  982.  THIS DIRECT
APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253 FOLLOWED. 

THE RAIL AND BARGE JOINT RATES PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS
INSTITUTED IN 1934 AS AN INVESTIGATION ANCILLARY TO CERTAIN FORMAL
COMPLAINTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 3(E) OF THE INLAND
WATERWAYS CORPORATION ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE DENISON ACT, 45 STAT. 980,
FN1  AND ANCILLARY TO OTHER PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE SAME SUBJECT
MATTER AS THE COMPLAINTS.  THE INVESTIGATION INSTITUTED CONCERNED THE
REASONABLENESS AND LAWFULNESS OF EXISTING THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT
RATES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES FOR APPLICATION BY COMMON
CARRIERS BY RAILROAD AND COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER OPERATING UPON THE
MISSISSIPPI AND WARRIOR RIVERS AND THEIR TRIBUTARIES; THE
REASONABLENESS OF EXISTING MINIMUM DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN ALL-RAIL RATES
AND CORRESPONDING RAIL-BARGE, BARGE-RAIL AND RAIL-BARGE-RAIL RATES; THE
NECESSITY, IF ANY, FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT BY THE RAILROAD AND WATER
CARRIERS OF ADDITIONAL THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES, RULES,
REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES; AND THE NECESSITY, IF ANY, FOR FIXING
REASONABLE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN CORRESPONDING ALL-RAIL RATES AND JOINT
RAIL AND BARGE RATES.  CONSOLIDATED FOR DISPOSITION WITH THE GENERAL
INVESTIGATION WERE THE COMPLAINTS AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE
SAME GENERAL QUESTIONS. 

HEARINGS HELD PURSUANT TO THIS INVESTIGATION OVER A PERIOD OF EIGHT
YEARS RESULTED IN A RECORD OF SOME 16,000 PAGES AND 1,500 EXHIBITS.  AN
EXAMINER SUBMITTED A REPORT, TO WHICH EXCEPTIONS AND REPLIES WERE
FILED.  AFTER ARGUMENT BEFORE THE FULL COMMISSION, IT RENDERED ITS
WRITTEN REPORT AND FINDINGS DATED JULY 7, 1948, 270 I.C.C. 591,
SUPPLEMENTED BY REPORT DATED JUNE 13, 1949, 274 I.C.C. 229, AND
PROMULGATED THE ORDER UNDER ATTACK.  THE ORDER, MADE PURSUANT TO SEC.
307(D) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940,  FN2  REQUIRED THE COMMON
CARRIERS BY RAILROAD AND WATER TO ESTABLISH THE JOINT THROUGH ROUTES
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY PRESCRIBED IN THE REPORTS, AND TO
ESTABLISH AND THEREAFTER TO MAINTAIN AND APPLY OVER THE THROUGH ROUTES
THE JOINT RATES PRESCRIBED BASED UPON CERTAIN DIFFERENTIALS FOUND IN
THE REPORTS TO BE JUSTIFIED. 

APPELLANT COMMON CARRIERS BY RAILROAD REPRESENT THE RAILROADS
REQUIRED BY THE ORDER TO ENTER INTO DIFFERENTIAL JOINT RAIL-BARGE
RATES, WHILE APPELLEE COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER ARE THE PRINCIPAL BARGE
LINES AFFECTED BY THE ORDER.  APPELLEE FEDERAL IS A CORPORATION CREATED
BY ACT OF CONGRESS, AND IS SUPERVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 
IT OPERATES BETWEEN ST. PAUL, CHICAGO, OMAHA, ST. LOUIS, NEW ORLEANS,
PORT BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, AND INTERMEDIATE PORTS VIA WATERWAYS
CONNECTING THE PORTS.  VALLEY OPERATES BETWEEN PITTSBURGH, POINTS ON
THE MONONGAHELA RIVER, CINCINNATI, ST. LOUIS AND NEW ORLEANS.  AMERICAN
OPERATES PRINCIPALLY BETWEEN PITTSBURGH AND NEW ORLEANS.  VALLEY AND
AMERICAN ARE PRIVATELY OWNED AND THEIR OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN FINANCIALLY
PROFITABLE, WHILE FEDERAL HAS INCURRED AN AVERAGE NET DEFICIT FROM
WATER-LINE OPERATIONS OF OVER $240,000 PER YEAR DURING THE PERIOD FROM
1925 TO 1947 INCLUSIVE. 

MUCH EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED EARLY IN THE INVESTIGATION BY BOTH THE
RAILROADS AND THE BARGE LINES AS TO THEIR COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION.  THE
COST SECTION OF THE COMMISSION MADE A STUDY OF RELATIVE COSTS FOR THE
PERIOD 1933-38 AND CONCLUDED THAT RAIL-BARGE OPERATING COSTS WERE
GREATER THAN ALL-RAIL OPERATING COSTS, DUE LARGELY TO THE COSTS OF
ADDED TERMINAL HANDLING OPERATIONS.  IN ITS REPORT THE COMMISSION
STATED THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY MAKING A FINDING AS TO
RELATIVE ALL-RAIL AND RAIL-BARGE COSTS IN THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE
STUDY, BECAUSE SINCE THAT PERIOD THERE HAD BEEN RADICAL CHANGES IN THE
CONDITIONS AFFECTING COST OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BY BARGE AS WELL AS
BY RAIL.  AND AFTER REVIEWING OTHER FACTORS BEARING ON COSTS OF
OPERATION, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED: 

"IN THE FACE OF THESE FACTS WE CANNOT FIND THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME
THERE ARE DEMONSTRABLE ECONOMIES IN BARGE-RAIL TRANSPORTATION ON THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, INCLUDING THE WARRIOR, WHICH
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF COST OF SERVICE WOULD JUSTIFY DIFFERENTIALS." 
270 I.C.C. AT 606. 

APPELLANTS' PRIMARY CONTENTION IS THAT THE COMMISSION COULD NOT
PRESCRIBE REASONABLE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN ALL-RAIL RATES AND JOINT
RATES IN CONNECTION WITH THE WATER CARRIERS WITHOUT PROOF OF LOWER COST
OF THE RAIL-BARGE SERVICE.  SINCE THE COMMISSION HAD NO VALID PROOF AS
TO THE RELATIVE COSTS OF THE SERVICES, APPELLANTS INSIST THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND ITS CONCLUSIONS THAT
THE DIFFERENTIALS ARE "JUSTIFIED AS REASONABLE" AND "NECESSARY AND
DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE AND ESSENTIAL FINDINGS.  THIS, IT IS CONTENDED BY APPELLANTS,
IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT, SO THAT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR US TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

THE CASE WILL PERHAPS BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD BY AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW
THE ORDER OPERATES.  ASSUME 

ILLINOIS CENTRAL LOCAL RATE NEW ORLEANS TO CAIRO, ILL..........
$1.00 

BIG FOUR LOCAL RATE, CAIRO TO CLEVELAND, OHIO..................
1.00 

ILLINOIS CENTRAL-BIG FOUR JOINT ALL-RAIL RATE, NEW ORLEANS 

TO CLEVELAND...................................................
1.60 

THE JOINT ALL-RAIL RATE OF $1.60 IS DIVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

ILLINOIS-CENTRAL, NEW ORLEANS TO CAIRO.........................
.80 

BIG FOUR, CAIRO TO CLEVELAND...................................
.80 

ASSUME A PRESCRIBED DIFFERENTIAL OF............................
.20 

DEDUCT THE DIFFERENTIAL OF $.20 FROM THE $1.60 JOINT ALL-RAIL 

RATE AND THE JOINT BARGE-RAIL RATE IS..........................
1.40 

THE $1.40 BARGE-RAIL RATE IS DIVIDED BETWEEN THE RAIL AND BARGE 

CARRIERS AS FOLLOWS: 

BIG FOUR, CAIRO TO CLEVELAND...................................
.80 

BARGE, CAIRO TO NEW ORLEANS....................................
.60 

THE LOCAL SITUATION, NEW ORLEANS TO CAIRO, THEN, IS: 

ON ILLINOIS CENTRAL: 

LOCAL ALL-RAIL RATE............................................
$1.00 

DIVISION OF $1.60 JOINT ALL-RAIL RATE..........................
.80 

ON THE BARGE LINE: 

LOCAL PORT-TO-PORT RATE........................................
.80 

DIVISION OF $1.40 BARGE-RAIL RATE..............................
.60 

ALL-RAIL RATES ARE NOT DISTURBED AND NO QUESTION OF THEIR BEING
COMPENSATORY IS RAISED.  THE DIFFERENTIALS FIXED BY THE COMMISSION ARE
APPLIED TO THE PRESENTLY-EXISTING ALL-RAIL RATES TO COMPUTE THE
PRESCRIBED JOINT RAIL-BARGE RATE.  IF AN ALL-RAIL RATE SHOULD BE
MODIFIED, THE DIFFERENTIAL WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY ATTACH TO THE NEW
ALL-RAIL RATE; THE JOINT RAIL-BARGE RATE WOULD REMAIN AS NOW PRESCRIBED
(SUBJECT TO INDEPENDENT MODIFICATION, OF COURSE).  FN3  IT IS APPARENT
THAT THE BARGE LINE ABSORBS ALL THE DIFFERENTIAL.  A RAILROAD CARRIER
ALWAYS GETS THE SAME AMOUNT FOR ITS LEG, E.G., BIG FOUR, CAIRO TO
CLEVELAND (SEE ILLUSTRATION, ABOVE), OF A JOINT MOVEMENT, WHETHER THE
JOINT MOVEMENT IS ALL-RAIL OR RAIL-BARGE.  THE RAILROAD CONNECTING WITH
THE BARGE CARRIER IN A JOINT RAIL-BARGE MOVEMENT IS, AS APPELLANTS
ADMIT, NEVER HURT.  "IT IS NOT THE RAIL LINES WITH WHICH THE BARGE
LINES CONNECT WHICH OBJECT TO THESE UNJUSTIFIED DIFFERENTIALS.  IT IS
THE RAIL LINES WITH WHICH THE BARGE LINES COMPETE," SAY APPELLANTS.  IN
SHORT, THE RAILROADS COMPLAIN OF COMPETITION. 

FIRST.  APPELLANTS' ATTACK UPON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER GIVES A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, NOT JUSTIFIED BECAUSE NOT SUPPORTED BY A FINDING
OF LESSER COST OF BARGE SERVICE, IS NOT PERSUASIVE.  ADMITTEDLY, BARGE
SERVICE IS WORTH LESS THAN RAIL SERVICE.  IT IS SLOWER, REQUIRES MORE
HANDLING AND ENTAILS MORE RISK.  A SHIPPER WILL PAY ONLY WHAT THE
SERVICE IS WORTH TO HIM.  THE SHIPPERS' EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION FOUND,
INDICATED A FAIRLY UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THE PRINCIPAL WORTH TO THEM OF
SHIPPING BY BARGE WAS THE SAVING IN TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE WHICH IT
OFFERED.  THE COMMISSION IS NOT BOUND TO REQUIRE A RATE AS HIGH FOR THE
INFERIOR AS FOR THE SUPERIOR SERVICE.  TO DO SO WOULD CERTAINLY DESTROY
THE PRINCIPAL WORTH OF THE INFERIOR SERVICE AND SEND ALL FREIGHT TO THE
RAILROADS; PRACTICALLY, THERE WOULD BE NO COMPETITION BETWEEN THE
DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. 

NEITHER THE COMMISSION NOR THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT LESSER COST OF
SERVICE IS A FINDING WITHOUT WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY NOT FIX A CHARGE,
DIVISION OF RATE, OR DIFFERENTIAL N4.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
CONSIDERATIONS JUST DISCUSSED WERE RIGHTLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE
COMMISSION.  WE MUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS
THE INTERESTS OF SHIPPERS AND CONSUMERS TO SAFEGUARD AS WELL AS THOSE
OF THE CARRIERS.  AYRSHIRE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 573, 592. 
THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE FACTORS ENTERING INTO RATE STRUCTURES,
INCLUDING COMPETITION, IS A TASK PECULIARLY FOR THE COMMISSION.  ID.,
AT 593; UNITED STATES V. PIERCE AUTO LINES, 327 U.S. 515, 535-536. 

A CARRIER MAY, IF IT DEEMS IT ADVANTAGEOUS, VOLUNTARILY ACCEPT A RATE
YIELDING A LOW RETURN.  BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S.
349, 379.  THE COMMISSION MAY PERMIT IT TO DO SO IF SATISFIED THAT THE
RATE IS COMPENSATORY, FAIR AND REASONABLE, AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
ID., AT 358.  APPELLANTS INTIMATE THAT THE RATES FIXED ARE NOT
COMPENSATORY WITH RESPECT TO THE BARGE LINES, AND THAT THE COMMISSION
KNEW THEY WERE NOT COMPENSATORY.  WE DISAGREE.  THE BARGE LINES IN THE
INSTANT PROCEEDINGS REPRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE
DIFFERENTIALS WHICH THEY HAD PROPOSED, AND WHICH WERE THOROUGHLY
EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE
RAILROADS' CRITICISMS, WERE COMPENSATORY.  FROM THE COMMISSION'S REPORT
IT APPEARS THAT IT SUBSTANTIALLY ADOPTED THE PROPOSALS OF THE BARGE
LINES.  IN ANY EVENT, IT IS NOT APPARENT FROM THE REPORT THAT THE
COMMISSION SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEEDED THESE RECOMMENDED DIFFERENTIALS OR
WAS NOT WARRANTED IN ADOPTING THEM.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DIFFERENTIALS
FIXED WERE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE COMPENSATORY.  270 I.C.C.
AT 612, 613-617.  IF THE RATES OBTAINED BY THE BARGE LINES AFTER
APPLYING THE DIFFERENTIALS ARE DEEMED TO BE LESS THAN RELEVANT COSTS, A
RATE HEARING IS THE PROPER PROCEEDING TO RECTIFY PREJUDICE FLOWING
THEREFROM. 

HERE THEN, THE BARGE LINES, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE SOLE ADVANTAGE OF
THEIR SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC, ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT LESS FOR THEIR
INFERIOR SERVICE THAN RAIL CARRIERS RECEIVE FOR SUPERIOR SERVICE. 
COMPETITION WAS ADJUDGED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE WORTH PRESERVING. 
THAT JUDGMENT WAS LEGITIMATELY RESTED ON RELEVANT FACTORS OTHER THAN
LESSER COST OF SERVICE.  THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE STATUTE MAKING
RELATIVE COSTS OF RAIL AND WATER CARRIERS THE SOLE AND CONTROLLING
CONSIDERATION IN ESTABLISHING JOINT RATES.  INDEED, THE STATUTE MAKES
NO MENTION OF SUCH COSTS AT ALL.  WE DO NOT SAY THAT RELATIVE COSTS
WHEN PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE ARE NOT A MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED,
BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ABSENCE OF THAT FACTOR IS FATAL. 

WITH RESPECT TO APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT THAT THE INFERIOR BARGE SERVICE
CANNOT BE GIVEN AT A LOWER RATE THAN THE SUPERIOR WITHOUT A FINDING
THAT THE INFERIOR COSTS LESS THAN THE SUPERIOR, WE NOTE FURTHER THAT
EVEN IF RAIL COSTS WERE NO MORE THAN BARGE COSTS IT WOULD NOT FOLLOW
THAT BARGE RATES MUST BE AS GREAT OR GREATER THAN THE RAIL RATES.  THE
RAIL RATES MAY BE TOO HIGH.  FROM THEIR ARGUMENTS, IT APPEARS TO BE THE
PURPOSE OF THE RAILROADS TO ELIMINATE THE DIFFERENTIALS, AND THUS,
COMPETITION, NOT BY REDUCING THE ALL-RAIL RATES BUT BY INCREASING THE
RAIL-BARGE RATES.  THE OBSERVATION OF JUDGE LINDLEY FOR THE DISTRICT
COURT IS PERTINENT:  "OF COURSE, IF THE RAILROADS WERE PETITIONING THE
COMMISSION FOR A REDUCTION IN ALL-RAIL RATES, PROOF OF LOWER OPERATING
COSTS MIGHT WELL WARRANT SUCH A REDUCTION, BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE
HOW THE LOWER COSTS OF THE RAILROADS, IF SATISFACTORILY PROVEN, WOULD
WARRANT AN INCREASE IN THE RATES OF A COMPETITOR."  88 F.SUPP.  982, AT
987.    SECOND.  IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY APPELLANTS THAT WITHOUT A
FINDING OR ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT BARGE COSTS ARE LOWER
THAN RAIL COSTS, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OTHER
THAN THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT ITS ORDER IS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GENERAL EXPRESSIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  IT IS APPARENT FROM
THE COMMISSION'S REPORT THAT IT GAVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO NUMEROUS
EXPRESSIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  SEE PARTICULARLY, 270 I.C.C. AT
609-613.  THIS IT WAS IN DUTY BOUND TO DO.  BUT IT IS ALSO APPARENT, AS
WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, THAT THE COMMISSION GAVE CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION TO OTHER FACTORS - FACTORS SUCH AS THE TREMENDOUS LOSS OF
TRAFFIC TO THE BARGE LINES DUE TO A LOSS OF INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC; THE
INFERIORITY OF THE BARGE SERVICE; THE SHIPPERS' TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT
THAT THEY WOULD NOT USE BARGE SERVICE UNLESS IT WERE CHEAPER TO DO SO;
THE COMPENSATORY CHARACTER OF THE DIFFERENTIALS ADOPTED; THE
WILLINGNESS OF THE BARGE LINES TO ACCEPT RATES YIELDING LOW RETURNS; AS
WELL AS THE FACT THAT ELIMINATION OF THE DIFFERENTIALS WOULD CURTAIL
COMPETITION, AND THAT THIS WOULD NEGATE SUPPORT, FINANCIAL AND
OTHERWISE, WHICH CONGRESS HAD GIVEN FEDERAL WHILE IT PIONEERED IN THE
FIELD OF BARGE TRANSPORTATION. 

THIRD.  APPELLANTS ALSO CONTEND THAT THE PRESCRIPTION OF
DIFFERENTIALS IN THIS PROCEEDING DEPRIVES THEM OF THEIR INHERENT
ADVANTAGES CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  FN5 THEY
POINT TO I.C.C. V. MECHLING, 330 U.S. 567, AS HAVING ESTABLISHED THE
PRINCIPLE THAT THE LOWER COSTS OF THE BARGE CARRIER THERE INVOLVED WAS
AN INHERENT ADVANTAGE, AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO DISCRETION TO
APPROVE A RATE STRUCTURE WHICH WOULD REDUCE SUCH ADVANTAGE.  THEY ARGUE
THAT THE "FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION" CALLED FOR BY THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY DEMANDS THAT THE RULE OF THE MECHLING CASE BE
APPLIED IMPARTIALLY TO PROTECT THE "INHERENT ADVANTAGE" OF THE RAIL
CARRIERS HERE. 

IN THE MECHLING CASE, THE COMMISSION HAD FIXED A RATE FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF WHEAT EAST BY RAIL FROM CHICAGO AT A RATE HIGHER IF
IT ARRIVED IN CHICAGO BY BARGE THAN IF BY RAIL OR LAKE.  THIS WAS A
PLAIN CASE OF DISCRIMINATION.  THERE WERE DIFFERENT RATES PROVIDED FOR
EQUAL SERVICE WITHOUT ANY SHOWING THAT ANY ADDITIONAL SERVICE WAS
RENDERED FOR THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE.  HERE THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
BARGE LINES MAY CHARGE LESS THAN THE RAILROADS FOR THE DIFFERENT
SERVICE THEY RENDER.  THERE IS NO UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION HERE AS THERE
WAS IN THE MECHLING CASE.  THE DIFFERENTIALS PROVIDING A LOWER RATE FOR
BARGE SERVICE DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN "UNJUST DISCRIMINATION" BY EXPRESS
PROVISO OF SEC. 305(C) OF THE ACT.  54 STAT. 935, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
905(C). 

THE JOINT RAIL-BARGE RATES PRESCRIBED NEITHER IGNORE NOR DESTROY THE
INHERENT ADVANTAGE OF RAIL TRAFFIC.  THE "INHERENT ADVANTAGE" OF RAIL
CARRIERS SHOWN HERE IS SUPERIORITY OF SERVICE.  THE JOINT RAIL-BARGE
RATES DO NOT FAIL TO REFLECT THIS "INHERENT ADVANTAGE" FOR THE SAME
REASON THAT A MAN WHO WISHES TO RIDE QUICKLY AND COMFORTABLY BUYS A
PULLMAN TICKET ON A FAST TRAIN INSTEAD OF A COACH SEAT ON A "MILK RUN"
TRAIN.  NO ONE WOULD CONTEND THAT FIXING A LOWER PRICE ON THE "MILK
RUN" TRAIN SEAT FAILS TO PRESERVE THE SUPERIOR ACCOMMODATIONS OFFERED
BY A PULLMAN SPACE.  EACH MODE OF TRANSPORTATION SATISFIES THE NEEDS
AND WANTS OF SOME CUSTOMERS.  IT IS FOR THE CUSTOMER TO DECIDE WHICH
MODE SATISFIES HIS CIRCUMSTANCES. 

FOURTH.  AS TO THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS THAT THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ESSENTIAL FINDINGS OF FACT, SEC. 14(1) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 14(1), DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
COMMISSION TO MAKE DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT EXCEPT IN A CASE WHERE
DAMAGES ARE AWARDED.  MANUFACTURERS R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S.
457, 487, 489-490.  THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE COMMISSION ONLY TO FILE A
WRITTEN REPORT, STATING ITS CONCLUSIONS, TOGETHER WITH ITS DECISION AND
ORDER.  THIS THE COMMISSION DID, AND THE ESSENTIAL BASIS OF ITS
JUDGMENT IS SUFFICIENTLY DISCLOSED IN ITS REPORT.  OF COURSE SEC. 14(1)
DOES NOT RELIEVE THE COMMISSION OF THE DUTY TO MAKE THE "BASIC" OR
"QUASI-JURISDICTIONAL" FINDINGS ESSENTIAL TO THE STATUTORY VALIDITY OF
AN ORDER.  FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 215; UNITED STATES
V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 293 U.S. 454, 464-465.  AND THE BASIC FINDINGS
ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF A GIVEN ORDER WILL VARY WITH THE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY INVOKED AND THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION PRESENTED.  E.G.,
UNITED STATES V. PIERCE AUTO LINES, 327 U.S. 515; NORTH CAROLINA V.
UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 507; YONKERS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 685;
UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475.  HERE THE
COMMISSION FOUND, IN CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTE INVOKED, SUPRA NOTE 2,
THAT THE DIFFERENTIALS PRESCRIBED ARE "JUSTIFIED AS REASONABLE" AND
"NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  AND "THE REPORT,
READ AS A WHOLE, SUFFICIENTLY EXPRESSES THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COMMISSION, BASED UPON SUPPORTING DATA  ...  "  UNITED STATES V.
LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70, 80.  ENOUGH HAS BEEN "PUT OF RECORD TO ENABLE
US TO PERFORM THE LIMITED TASK WHICH IS OURS."  EASTERN-CENTRAL ASSN.
V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 194, 212. 

APPELLANTS IN NOS. 46, 47, AND 48 WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN THE
DISTRICT COURT AS PARTIES PLAINTIFF.  THEY REPRESENT VARIOUS COMMERCIAL
INTERESTS ALLEGEDLY AFFECTED ADVERSELY BY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. 
THE ONLY POINTS URGED BY THESE APPELLANTS NOT ANSWERED IN NO. 45 ARE
THAT THE ORDER GIVES A PREFERENCE TO THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS OVER
CERTAIN PORTS OF GEORGIA AND TEXAS, IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AND OF ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 6 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, THIS COURT IN LOUISIANA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. TEXAS & N.O.R. CO., 284 U.S. 125, 131,
STATED: 

"THE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION INVOKED IS:  'NO PREFERENCE SHALL BE
GIVEN BY ANY REGULATION OF COMMERCE OR REVENUE TO THE PORTS OF ONE
STATE OVER THOSE OF ANOTHER; NOR SHALL VESSELS BOUND TO, OR FROM, ONE
STATE, BE OBLIGED TO ENTER, CLEAR, OR PAY DUTIES IN ANOTHER.'  THE
SPECIFIED LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS WERE SET TO PREVENT
PREFERENCE AS BETWEEN STATES IN RESPECT OF THEIR PORTS OR THE ENTRY AND
CLEARANCE OF VESSELS.  IT DOES NOT FORBID SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS AS
BETWEEN PORTS.  CONGRESS, ACTING UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, CAUSES MANY
THINGS TO BE DONE THAT GREATLY BENEFIT PARTICULAR PORTS AND WHICH
INCIDENTALLY RESULT TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF OTHER PORTS IN THE SAME OR
NEIGHBORING STATES." 

AND WE ARE CLEAR THAT WHATEVER PREFERENCE THERE IS TO NEW ORLEANS IS
THE RESULT OF GEOGRAPHY AND NOT OF ANY ACTION OF THE COMMISSION.  "THE
LAW DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EQUALIZE FORTUNE, OPPORTUNITIES OR ABILITIES." 
I.C.C. V. DIFFENBAUGH, 222 U.S. 42, 46.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  REPEALED BY TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 898, 950. 

FN2  "(D)  THE COMMISSION MAY, AND IT SHALL WHENEVER DEEMED BY IT TO
BE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AFTER FULL HEARING
UPON COMPLAINT OR UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE WITHOUT A COMPLAINT,
ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES, JOINT CLASSIFICATIONS, AND JOINT RATES,
FARES, OR CHARGES, APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR
PROPERTY BY COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER, OR BY SUCH CARRIERS AND CARRIERS
BY RAILROAD, OR THE MAXIMA OR MINIMA, OR MAXIMA AND MINIMA, TO BE
CHARGED, AND THE DIVISIONS OF SUCH RATES, FARES, OR CHARGES AS
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH
THROUGH ROUTES SHALL BE OPERATED.  IN THE CASE OF A THROUGH ROUTE,
WHERE ONE OF THE CARRIERS IS A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, THE COMMISSION
SHALL PRESCRIBE SUCH REASONABLE DIFFERENTIALS AS IT MAY FIND TO BE
JUSTIFIED BETWEEN ALL-RAIL RATES AND THE JOINT RATES IN CONNECTION WITH
SUCH COMMON CARRIER BY WATER.  ...  "  54 STAT. 898, 937, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 907(D). 

FN3  COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMISSION HAVE SO
INTERPRETED THE ORDER.  FINDING 1 OF THE COMMISSION READS:  "WE FIND
THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN IN APPENDIX A AND APPENDIX B ARE JUSTIFIED AS
REASONABLE DIFFERENTIALS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PRESENT FIRST-CLASS
ALL-RAIL RATES ...  "  270 I.C.C. AT 619.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER,
WHICH INCORPORATES THE REPORTS AND FINDINGS BY REFERENCE, REQUIRES THE
CARRIERS TO ESTABLISH AND THEREAFTER TO MAINTAIN AND APPLY "THE JOINT
RATES PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID REPORTS BASED UPON THE DIFFERENTIALS FOUND
IN THE SAID REPORTS TO BE JUSTIFIED." 

THIS APPEARS TO REQUIRE MAINTENANCE OF THE JOINT RAIL-BARGE RATES
PRESCRIBED, NOT A FIXED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALL-RAIL RATES, NO MATTER
WHAT THEY MAY BE, AND JOINT RAIL-BARGE RATES, AND WE THEREFORE ACCEPT
THE INTERPRETATION OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES. 

FN4  BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THIS COURT HAVE CONSISTENTLY REJECTED
ANY THOUGHT THAT COSTS SHOULD BE THE CONTROLLING FACTOR IN RATE
MAKING.  E.G., NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 284, 331; BALTIMORE
& O.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 349, 359; LOUISIANA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION V. TEXAS & N.O.R. CO., 284 U.S. 125, 132; CHARGES
FOR PROTECTIVE SERVICE TO PERISHABLE FREIGHT, 241 I.C.C. 503, 510-511;
PROPOSED LAKE ERIE-OHIO RIVER CANAL, 235 I.C.C. 753, 761; LIGHTERAGE
CASES, 203 I.C.C. 481, 510; WEST COAST LUMBERMEN'S ASSN. V. AKRON, C. &
Y.R. CO., 183 I.C.C. 191, 198-199; BALTIMORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. ANN
ARBOR R. CO., 159 I.C.C. 691, 696-697. 

FN5  "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
OF THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO
ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF
EACH; TO PROMOTE SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND
FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS; TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
REASONABLE CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST
DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES, OR UNFAIR OR
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; TO COOPERATE WITH THE SEVERAL STATES
AND THE DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THEREOF; AND TO ENCOURAGE FAIR WAGES
AND EQUITABLE WORKING CONDITIONS; - ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING,
COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER,
HIGHWAY, AND RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE.  ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE
ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW TO CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE
DECLARATION OF POLICY."  54 STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C. (1946 ED.), P. 5443. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE THAT THE DIFFERENTIALS ESTABLISHED UNDER SEC. 307(D) OF THE
ACT NEED NOT BE MEASURED BY THE DIFFERENCE IN COST BETWEEN RAIL AND
BARGE TRANSPORTATION.  BARGE COSTS AS COMPARED WITH RAIL COSTS ARE,
HOWEVER, A RELEVANT FACTOR FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION UNDER
SEC. 307(F)*  WHEN IT DETERMINES WHAT DIFFERENTIALS ARE REASONABLE. 
WHEN THE COMMISSION PROCEEDS TO FIX DIFFERENTIALS WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT
THE RELATIVE BARGE AND RAIL COSTS ARE, IT IS TO MY MIND EXPERIMENTING
AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY MIGHT DO, NOT PERFORMING THE INFINITELY MORE
EXACTING TASK OF THE RATE EXPERT. 

*"IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO PRESCRIBE JUST AND REASONABLE
RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES OF COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER, AND
CLASSIFICATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES RELATING THERETO, THE
COMMISSION SHALL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION, AMONG OTHER FACTORS, TO THE
EFFECT OF RATES UPON THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC BY THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS
FOR WHICH THE RATES ARE PRESCRIBED; TO THE NEED, IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT WATER TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT THE
LOWEST COST CONSISTENT WITH THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICE; AND TO THE
NEED OF REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE WATER CARRIERS, UNDER HONEST,
ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT, TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICE."  54
STAT. 938. 

THE COMMISSION PRACTICALLY CONCEDES THAT IN THIS CASE IT ADOPTS A
DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN THE STATUTORY ONE.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT ON THIS
RECORD THERE CAN BE NO ADEQUATE FINDINGS ON COSTS.  THE EVIDENCE FOR AN
EARLIER PERIOD (1933-1938) SHOWS THAT THE COST FOR JOINT RAIL-BARGE
ROUTING IS GREATER THAN FOR DIRECT ALL-RAIL ROUTING.  THE COMMISSION
REFUSED TO PURSUE THE COST STUDY INTO LATER YEARS.  THE REASON IS
APPARENT.  ONE OF THE APPELLEES IS INLAND WATERWAYS CORP. WHICH
OPERATES FEDERAL BARGE LINES.  INLAND IS A FEDERAL CORPORATION (43
STAT. 360, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 151) AND IT AND FEDERAL ARE SUBSIDIZED BY
CONGRESS.  IT IS THAT PROGRAM THAT THE COMMISSION IS SEEKING TO PROMOTE
HERE.  THAT MAY BE IMPORTANT AND DESIRABLE.  BUT THE STANDARDS WHICH
GUIDE THE COMMISSION ARE STILL FOUND IN SEC. 307(F).  COSTS HAVE SOME
RELEVANCE TO THE PROBLEM OF DIFFERENTIALS AS SEC. 307(F) MAKES CLEAR. 
CONGRESS IS ENTITLED TO DISREGARD COSTS COMPLETELY.  BUT I DO NOT THINK
THE COMMISSION IS.
..END :














BLAU V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159 


NO. 22.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1950.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1950.  - 180
F.2D 103, REVERSED. 


1.  IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO COMPEL A WITNESS WHO
OBJECTS ON THE GROUND OF SELF-INCRIMINATION TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND
JURY IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING HIS EMPLOYMENT BY THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OR INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS OPERATIONS WHEN THERE IS
IN EFFECT A STATUTE SUCH AS THE SMITH ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 2385, MAKING
IT A CRIME TO ADVOCATE, OR TO AFFILIATE WITH A GROUP WHICH ADVOCATES,
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE.  PP. 159-161. 

2.  IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED WOULD
HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT STANDING ALONE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION WHEN THEY
WOULD HAVE FURNISHED A LINK IN THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE NEEDED IN A
PROSECUTION OF THE WITNESS FOR VIOLATION OF (OR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE)
THE SMITH ACT.  P. 161. 

BLAU V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR REFUSING, ON
THE GROUND OF POSSIBLE SELF-INCRIMINATION, TO ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS
BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND JURY AND LATER BEFORE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  180 F.2D 103.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 956.  REVERSED, P. 161. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA, PETITIONER APPEARED AS A WITNESS BEFORE
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT GRAND JURY AT DENVER, COLORADO.  THERE
SHE WAS ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF
COLORADO AND HER EMPLOYMENT BY IT.  FN1  PETITIONER REFUSED TO ANSWER
THESE QUESTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ANSWERS MIGHT TEND TO
INCRIMINATE HER.  SHE WAS THEN TAKEN BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE WHERE
THE QUESTIONS WERE AGAIN PROPOUNDED AND WHERE SHE AGAIN CLAIMED HER
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND REFUSED TO
TESTIFY.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOUND PETITIONER GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF
COURT AND SENTENCED HER TO IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  180 F.2D 103.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE DECISION APPEARED TO DENY RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT N2.  THE HOLDING BELOW ALSO WAS IN CONFLICT WITH
RECENT DECISIONS OF THE FIFTH AND NINTH CIRCUITS.  ESTES V. POTTER, 183
F.2D 865; ALEXANDER V. UNITED STATES, 181 F.2D 480. 

AT THE TIME PETITIONER WAS CALLED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, THE SMITH
ACT WAS ON THE STATUTE BOOKS MAKING IT A CRIME AMONG OTHER THINGS TO
ADVOCATE KNOWINGLY THE DESIRABILITY OF OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY
FORCE OR VIOLENCE; TO ORGANIZE OR HELP TO ORGANIZE ANY SOCIETY OR GROUP
WHICH TEACHES, ADVOCATES OR ENCOURAGES SUCH OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT; TO BE OR BECOME A MEMBER OF SUCH A GROUP WITH KNOWLEDGE OF
ITS PURPOSES.  FN3  THESE PROVISIONS MADE FUTURE PROSECUTION OF
PETITIONER FAR MORE THAN "A MERE IMAGINARY POSSIBILITY  ...  "  MASON
V. UNITED STATES, 244 U.S. 362, 366; SHE REASONABLY COULD FEAR THAT
CRIMINAL CHARGES MIGHT BE BROUGHT AGAINST HER IF SHE ADMITTED
EMPLOYMENT BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS
WORKINGS.  WHETHER SUCH ADMISSIONS BY THEMSELVES WOULD SUPPORT A
CONVICTION UNDER A CRIMINAL STATUTE IS IMMATERIAL.  ANSWERS TO THE
QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE GRAND JURY WOULD HAVE FURNISHED A LINK IN THE
CHAIN OF EVIDENCE NEEDED IN A PROSECUTION OF PETITIONER FOR VIOLATION
OF (OR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE) THE SMITH ACT.  PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT HAVE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
CONSTITUTION GIVES A WITNESS THE PRIVILEGE OF REMAINING SILENT.  THE
ATTEMPT BY THE COURTS BELOW TO COMPEL PETITIONER TO TESTIFY RUNS
COUNTER TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AS IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED FROM THE
BEGINNING.  UNITED STATES V. BURR, 25 FED. CAS., CASE NO. 14,692E,
DECIDED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA; COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S.
547; BALLMANN V. FAGIN, 200 U.S. 186; ARNDSTEIN V. MCCARTHY, 254 U.S.
71; BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616; CF. UNITED STATES V. WHITE,
322 U.S. 694, 698, 699.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE GRAND JURY'S QUESTIONS WHICH PETITIONER REFUSED TO ANSWER
WERE AS FOLLOWS:  "MRS.  BLAU, DO YOU KNOW THE NAMES OF THE STATE
OFFICERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF COLORADO?"  "DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF COLORADO IS, THE TABLE OF
ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF COLORADO?"  "WERE YOU EVER
EMPLOYED BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF COLORADO?"  "MRS.  BLAU, DID YOU
EVER HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION OR CUSTODY ANY OF THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF
THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF COLORADO?"  "DID YOU TURN THE BOOKS AND RECORDS
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF COLORADO OVER TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON?"  "DO
YOU KNOW THE NAMES OF ANY PERSONS WHO MIGHT NOW HAVE THE BOOKS AND
RECORDS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF COLORADO?"  "COULD YOU DESCRIBE TO
THE GRAND JURY ANY BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF
COLORADO?" 

FN2  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES:  "NO PERSON  ...  SHALL BE
COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF  ...  "
U.S. CONST., AMEND. V. 

FN3  62 STAT. 808, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 2385. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















MCGRATH V. KRISTENSEN, 340 U.S. 162 


NO. 34.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19-20, 1950.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1950.  - 86
U.S. APP. D.C. 48, 179 F.2D 796, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A JUSTICIABLE QUESTION UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION IS
PRESENTED BY THE SUIT OF AN ALIEN FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT, IN
PASSING ON HIS APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION UNDER SEC.
19(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION OFFICIALS MUST ACT ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION.  PP. 167-169. 

(A)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION OF SEC.
19(C) THAT SUSPENSIONS OF DEPORTATION FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS FOR APPROVAL, SINCE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS GIVEN
FINAL POWER TO SUSPEND DEPORTATION FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS.  CHICAGO &
SOUTHERN AIR LINES V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 333 U.S. 103,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 167-168. 

2.  AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AGAINST A REQUESTED SUSPENSION OF
DEPORTATION UNDER SEC. 19(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT (BASED SOLELY UPON
A FINDING OF INELIGIBILITY FOR NATURALIZATION) CAN BE CHALLENGED IN A
SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BY AN ALIEN NOT IN CUSTODY.  PP. 168
171. 

(A)  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT MAKING THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DECISION ON DEPORTATION "FINAL" DOES NOT PRECLUDE
JUDICIAL REVIEW BY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF THE QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY
FOR CITIZENSHIP.  PP. 168-169. 

(B)  WHERE AN OFFICIAL'S AUTHORITY TO ACT DEPENDS UPON THE STATUS OF
THE PERSON AFFECTED, THAT STATUS, WHEN IN DISPUTE, MAY BE DETERMINED BY
A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING AFTER THE EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325.  PP.  169-171. 

3.  RESPONDENT, A DANISH CITIZEN, ENTERED THE UNITED STATES ON AUGUST
17, 1939, AS A TEMPORARY VISITOR FOR 60 DAYS.  THE OUTBREAK OF WORLD
WAR II PREVENTED HIS RETURN TO DENMARK.  SUCCESSIVE EXTENSIONS OF STAY
WERE GRANTED AND DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS BEGUN IN MAY 1940 WERE STAYED
FOR THE DURATION OF WORLD WAR II AND REOPENED IN 1946.  ON MARCH 30,
1942, HE APPLIED FOR AND OBTAINED RELIEF FROM LIABILITY FOR MILITARY
SERVICE UNDER SEC. 3(A) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940.  HELD:  RESPONDENT WAS NOT "RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 3(A) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT AND
THE REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER WHEN HE APPLIED FOR RELIEF FROM
"LIABILITY" FOR MILITARY SERVICE, AND SUCH APPLICATION DID NOT MAKE HIM
INELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION OR FOR A SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION UNDER
SEC. 19(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT.  PP. 171-176. 

MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. V. KRISTENSEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED RESPONDENT'S SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AND AN INJUNCTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  86 U.S.
APP. D.C. 48, 179 F.2D 796.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S.
956.  AFFIRMED, P. 176. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

REVIEW WAS GRANTED BY THIS COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO SUSPEND DEPORTATION OF AN ALIEN
UNDER SEC. 19(C), AS AMENDED, 62 STAT. 1206, OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF
1917,  FN1  39 STAT. 874, 889, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 101, 155(C), ON THE SOLE
GROUND THAT THE ALIEN WAS INELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION.  THE ALIEN'S
ELIGIBILITY FOR NATURALIZATION, THE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION IN THIS CASE,
DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THE ALIEN WAS "RESIDING" IN THE UNITED STATES AND
THEREFORE LIABLE FOR MILITARY SERVICE UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940, WHEN HE MADE APPLICATION TO BE RELIEVED FROM THE
LIABILITY.  SECTION 3(A) OF THAT ACT AS AMENDED, THE APPLICABLE
THEREAFTER BE DEBARRED FROM BECOMING A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES." 
FN2 

THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI ALSO COVERED A PROCEDURAL QUESTION:  WHETHER
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFUSAL ON THE GROUND STATED TO GRANT SUSPENSION
OF DEPORTATION WAS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OTHERWISE THAN BY HABEAS
CORPUS. 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE ALIEN'S COMPLAINT HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED. 
KRISTENSEN, A DANISH CITIZEN, ENTERED THE UNITED STATES ON AUGUST 17,
1939, AS A TEMPORARY VISITOR FOR SIXTY DAYS, TO ATTEND THE NEW YORK
WORLD'S FAIR AND VISIT RELATIVES.  THE OUTBREAK OF WORLD WAR II
PREVENTED HIS RETURN TO DENMARK.  SUCCESSIVE EXTENSIONS OF STAY WERE
APPLIED FOR AND GRANTED, BUT EVENTUALLY ECONOMIC NECESSITY COMPELLED
KRISTENSEN TO BECOME EMPLOYED AND THEREBY VIOLATE HIS VISITOR'S
STATUS.  THE PROCESS OF DEPORTATION ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF HIS
VISITOR'S STATUS WAS BEGUN IN MAY 1940, STAYED FOR THE DURATION OF
WORLD WAR II, AND REOPENED IN 1946.  A WARRANT OF DEPORTATION WAS
ISSUED IN 1941 BUT WAS WITHDRAWN ON JUNE 10, 1946, TO PERMIT THE ALIEN
TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION UNDER SEC. 19(C)
OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT, SUPRA, WHICH ALLOWS SUCH SUSPENSION WHEN
DEPORTATION WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS ECONOMIC DETRIMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CITIZEN WIFE OF AN ALIEN.  THIS RELIEF WAS REFUSED ON THE SOLE
GROUND OF KRISTENSEN'S ASSERTED INELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP RESULTING
FROM HIS HAVING FILED WITH HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE BOARD ON MARCH 30,
1942, AFTER REGISTRATION, AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SERVICE UNDER
SEC. 3(A) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, SUPRA.
ELIGIBILITY IS A STATUTORY PREREQUISITE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION TO SUSPEND DEPORTATION IN THIS CASE.  FN3 

RESPONDENT, NOT THEN NOR THEREAFTER IN CUSTODY, SOUGHT A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION OFFICIALS MUST, IN PASSING UPON HIS APPLICATION FOR
SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION, DECIDE ON THE BASIS THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR
NATURALIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES.  FN4  HE ALSO SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER OFFICIALS FROM EXERCISING THEIR AUTHORITY
UNDER SEC. 19(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT ON THE ASSUMPTION OF
RESPONDENT'S INELIGIBILITY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT OPINION,
APPARENTLY FOR FAILURE TO STATE A GROUND FOR RELIEF.  THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED ON THE GROUND
THAT, UNDER THE FACTS ALLEGED, KRISTENSEN COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT
TO THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940 AT THE TIME HE MADE
HIS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION, AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM WAS WITHOUT EFFECT AND
DID NOT RENDER HIM INELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION.  86 U.S. APP. D.C.
48, 179 F.2D 796.  THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, APPLIED ONLY TO ALIENS
"RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES" AND "ABSENT ANY SHOWING OF ACTS OR
DECLARATIONS INDICATING AN INTENTION TO REMAIN AT THE TIME THE FORM WAS
FILED, THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES ERRONEOUSLY CONSTRUED 'RESIDING IN
THE UNITED STATES' WHEN THEY HELD IT APPLICABLE TO AN ALIEN IN THIS
COUNTRY UNDER A TEMPORARY VISITOR'S VISA WHOSE DEPORTATION HAD BEEN
ORDERED AND THEN STAYED BECAUSE OF WAR."  FN5 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION LAWS.  THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE DECISION BELOW IS IN CONFLICT WITH THAT APPLIED IN
BENZIAN V. GODWIN, 168 F.2D 952.  AN IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL QUESTION ALSO
EXISTS IN VIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT'S INSISTENCE THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS THE
ONLY AVAILABLE JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR ALIENS IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS. 
BEFORE WE CONSIDER THESE QUESTIONS, HOWEVER, WE TURN TO A
JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEM. 

FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  - THE GOVERNMENT PROPERLY PRESENTS FOR OUR
CONSIDERATION AN ISSUE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION NOT HERETOFORE RAISED. 
THE QUAERE IS WHETHER THIS PROCEEDING INVOLVES A JUSTICIABLE QUESTION
UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN6  IT IS SAID THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION IS MERELY A RECOMMENDATION TO
CONGRESS, AND THAT FEDERAL COURTS CANNOT INTERVENE BECAUSE AT THIS
POINT A COURT ORDER DOES NOT FINALLY CONTROL THE DEPORTATION OF THE
ALIEN.  FN7  THIS ARGUMENT IS FOUNDED ON SEC. 19(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION
ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT, IF DEPORTATION IS SUSPENDED LONGER THAN SIX
MONTHS, A DETAILED REPORT MUST BE MADE TO CONGRESS, AND, IF CONGRESS
FAILS TO APPROVE THE SUSPENSION BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE SESSION
NEXT FOLLOWING THE SESSION IN WHICH THE CASE IS REPORTED, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL MUST THEREUPON PROCEED WITH THE DEPORTATION.  FN8 

WHILE SUCH A JURISDICTIONAL POINT MAY BE RAISED AT ANY TIME,  FN9  WE
DO NOT THINK THERE IS BASIS FOR THE OBJECTION HERE.  THE STATUTE GIVES
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE POWER TO SUSPEND DEPORTATION FOR A MINIMUM OF
SIX MONTHS AND UNTIL CONGRESS ACTS OR THE TIME FOR ACTION ELAPSES.  THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POWER IS FINAL FOR SUCH DEFERMENT OF DEPORTATION. 
THAT OTHER FORCES MAY COME INTO PLAY LATER WITH AUTHORITY TO TAKE OTHER
STEPS DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THAT FINALITY.  THE UNITED STATES RELIES
PARTICULARLY ON CHICAGO & SOUTHERN AIR LINES V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP.,
333 U.S. 103.  THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER HERE IS QUITE DISTINCT FROM THE
PRESIDENTIAL POWER CONCERNING OVERSEAS LICENSING IN THE CHICAGO &
SOUTHERN CASE.  THE LICENSE IN QUESTION THERE WAS INEFFECTIVE UNTIL THE
PRESIDENT ACTED.  THE DELAY HERE IS EFFECTIVE DESPITE SUBSEQUENT
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  THIS LITIGATION, WHATEVER ITS ULTIMATE EFFECT,
IS AIMED ONLY AT THE DELAY.  THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT IN THIS PROCEEDING
WOULD BE BINDING AND CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTIES IF ENTERED AND THE
QUESTION IS JUSTICIABLE. 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  - THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CHALLENGE
FINALITY FOR PURPOSE OF REVIEW.  FN10  HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT DOES
CONTEND THAT THE IMMIGRATION ACT PROVISION, SEC. 19(A), MAKING THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DECISION ON DEPORTATION "FINAL" PRECLUDES JUDICIAL
REVIEW EXCEPT BY HABEAS CORPUS OF HIS REFUSAL TO GRANT SUSPENSION OF
DEPORTATION.  THE PROCEDURAL QUESTION AS THUS NARROWED IS WHETHER AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AGAINST A REQUESTED SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION
UNDER SEC. 19(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT CAN BE CHALLENGED BY AN ALIEN
FREE FROM CUSTODY THROUGH A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR WHETHER, TO SECURE
REDRESS, HE MUST AWAIT THE TRADITIONAL REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS AFTER
HIS ARREST FOR DEPORTATION. 

THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917, 39 STAT. 889, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC.
155(A), AUTHORIZED THE DEPORTATION OF ANY ALIEN FOUND IN THE UNITED
STATES IN VIOLATION OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS, AND ALWAYS PROVIDED THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AS TO DEPORTATION "SHALL BE FINAL."  THE END OF
THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING CREATES A SITUATION WHICH IS SUBJECT TO
TEST ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE IN
CUSTODY.  FN11  WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE
APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 10 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT.
243, TO THIS PROCEEDING.  WHERE AN OFFICIAL'S AUTHORITY TO ACT DEPENDS
UPON THE STATUS OF THE PERSON AFFECTED, IN THIS CASE ELIGIBILITY FOR
CITIZENSHIP, THAT STATUS, WHEN IN DISPUTE, MAY BE DETERMINED BY A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING AFTER THE EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES.  UNDER SEC. 19(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT THE EXERCISE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S APPROPRIATE DISCRETION IN SUSPENDING DEPORTATION IS
PROHIBITED IN THE CASE OF ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP.  THE ALIEN
IS DETERMINED TO HAVE A PROSCRIBED STATUS BY THIS ADMINISTRATIVE RULING
OF INELIGIBILITY.  SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IS FINAL, THE
ALIEN CAN REMOVE THE BAR TO CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION ONLY BY A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF HIS ELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP.  THIS IS AN
ACTUAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE ALIEN AND IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS OVER THE
LEGAL RIGHT OF THE ALIEN TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SUSPENSION.  AS SUCH A
CONTROVERSY OVER FEDERAL LAWS, IT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL
COURTS, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1331, AND THE TERMS OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2201. 

IT WAS SO HELD IN PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325, WHERE A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACTION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, THEN THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF DEPORTATION OF ALIENS, THE SECRETARY OF
STATE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, TO SETTLE CITIZENSHIP
STATUS.  THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAD NOTIFIED MISS ELG, WHO WAS NOT IN
CUSTODY, THAT SHE WAS NOT A CITIZEN AND WAS ILLEGALLY REMAINING IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAD REFUSED HER A PASSPORT
"SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT SHE HAD LOST HER NATIVE BORN AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP."  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE
PROCEEDING AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF STATE BECAUSE HIS FUNCTION AS TO
PASSPORTS WAS DISCRETIONARY, BUT DECLARED AGAINST THE CONTENTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND HELD THAT MISS ELG HAD NOT LOST HER AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP.  ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AFFIRMED BOTH THE DISMISSAL OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE FROM THE
PROCEEDING AND THE HOLDING THAT MISS ELG WAS A CITIZEN, AND ALSO
DETERMINED THAT THE CASE WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT WITHIN THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACT.  PERKINS V. ELG, 69 APP. D.C. 175, 99 F.2D 408.  THE
UNITED STATES RAISED NO QUESTION ON ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AS TO
THE PROPRIETY OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION.  MISS ELG, HOWEVER,
OBTAINED CERTIORARI FROM THE DISMISSAL OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, AND THE UNITED STATES DEFENDED THE JUDGMENT OF
DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT DID NOT ADD
TO FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION BUT MERELY GAVE AN ADDITIONAL REMEDY. 
FN12  IN THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF IT WAS SAID JUDICIAL JURISDICTION WOULD
BE EXPANDED WITHOUT WARRANT "BY PERMITTING THE COURT TO SUBSTITUTE ITS
DISCRETION FOR THAT OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS IN A MATTER BELONGING
TO THE PROPER JURISDICTION OF THE LATTER."  WE REJECTED THAT CONTENTION
AND REVERSED THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THIS POINT, SAYING, 

"THE COURT BELOW, PROPERLY RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY WITH THE DEFENDANTS (AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300
U.S. 227), DECLARED MISS ELG 'TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES,' AND WE THINK THAT THE DECREE SHOULD INCLUDE THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AS WELL AS THE OTHER DEFENDANTS.  THE DECREE IN THAT
SENSE WOULD IN NO WAY INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE SECRETARY'S
DISCRETION WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF A PASSPORT BUT WOULD SIMPLY
PRECLUDE THE DENIAL OF A PASSPORT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT MISS ELG HAD
LOST HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP."  307 U.S. 349-350.  FN13 

SO HERE A DETERMINATION THAT KRISTENSEN IS NOT BARRED FROM
CITIZENSHIP BY SEC. 3(A) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940 ONLY DECLARES THAT HE HAS SUCH STATUS AS ENTITLES HIM TO
CONSIDERATION UNDER SEC. 19(C) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT.  WE THINK THAT
THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS PROPER.  FN14 

ELIGIBILITY FOR NATURALIZATION.  - UNDER SEC. 3(A) OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, KRISTENSEN WAS LIABLE FOR SERVICE IF
"RESIDING" IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  SECTION
3(A) ALSO PROVIDED THAT IF HE APPLIED "TO BE RELIEVED FROM SUCH
LIABILITY" AS A SUBJECT OF A NEUTRAL COUNTRY HE WOULD BE EXCUSED FROM
SERVICE BUT WOULD THEREAFTER BE DEBARRED FROM OUR CITIZENSHIP.  FN15 

IF KRISTENSEN WAS NOT "RESIDING" AT THE TIME OF HIS APPLICATION FOR
RELIEF, HE COULD NOT THEN HAVE HAD "SUCH LIABILITY" FOR SERVICE.  IF
THERE WAS NO "LIABILITY" FOR SERVICE, THE DISQUALIFICATION FOR
CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE PENALTY CLAUSE COULD NOT ARISE BECAUSE THE
APPLICANT HAD NOT MADE THE "APPLICATION" REFERRED TO IN THE STATUTE AS
"SUCH APPLICATION."  "SUCH APPLICATION" REFERS TO AN APPLICATION TO BE
RELIEVED FROM "SUCH LIABILITY."  AS THERE WAS NO "LIABILITY" FOR
SERVICE, HIS ACT IN APPLYING FOR RELIEF FROM A NONEXISTENT DUTY COULD
NOT CREATE THE BAR AGAINST NATURALIZATION.  BY THE TERMS OF THE
STATUTE, THAT BAR ONLY COMES INTO EXISTENCE WHEN AN ALIEN RESIDENT
LIABLE FOR SERVICE ASKS TO BE RELIEVED.    THE QUESTION, THEN, IS
WHETHER KRISTENSEN WAS "RESIDING," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940 AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER, AT
THE TIME OF HIS APPLICATION, MARCH 30, 1942.  AS WE CONCLUDE THAT HE
WAS NOT A RESIDENT UNDER THE ACT AT THE TIME OF HIS APPLICATION FOR
RELIEF FROM MILITARY SERVICE, WE DO NOT DECIDE WHETHER DENMARK WAS A
NEUTRAL COUNTRY.  NOR NEED WE DETERMINE WHETHER THE BAR AGAINST
CITIZENSHIP HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE TERMINATION OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  FN16 

THE PHRASE OF SEC. 3(A), "EVERY OTHER MALE PERSON RESIDING IN THE
UNITED STATES," WHEN USED AS IT IS, IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH "EVERY MALE
CITIZEN," FN17  FALLS SHORT OF SAYING THAT EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED
STATES IS SUBJECT TO MILITARY SERVICE.  BUT THE ACT DID NOT DEFINE WHO
WAS A "MALE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES," LIABLE FOR TRAINING
AND SERVICE AFTER DECEMBER 20, 1941.  55 STAT. 845.  FN18  SUCH
PRECISIVENESS WAS LEFT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION.  SECTION 10(A)
AND (B), 54 STAT. 893, 894, AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO PRESCRIBE RULES
AND REGULATIONS FOR THE ACT WITH POWER OF DELEGATION.  THE PRESIDENT
PRESCRIBED THE FIRST REGULATIONS ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1940, AND AUTHORIZED
THE DIRECTOR TO PRESCRIBE AMENDMENTS.  EXEC. ORDER 8545, 3 CFR, 1943
CUM. SUPP., 719, 722.  AMENDMENTS PROMULGATING THE REGULATIONS HERE
APPLICABLE WERE ISSUED, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 7, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 855. 
THEY ARE SET OUT BELOW.  FN19  UNDER THESE REGULATIONS IT WOULD SEEM
THAT KRISTENSEN, WHO NEVER DECLARED AN INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES AND WHO ENTERED THE UNITED STATES IN AUGUST 1939, WAS
NOT CLASSIFIED AS A RESIDENT NEUTRAL ALIEN UNTIL MAY 16, 1942. 
OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION FOR SEC. 611.13(B), WHICH
DECLARES THE MALE ALIEN WHO REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES AFTER MAY 16,
1942, TO BE A RESIDENT.  UNTIL THAT DATE HE WAS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS
THE NEWLY ARRIVED NONDECLARANT ALIEN WHO, UNDER THE REGULATIONS AND THE
ACT, DID NOT BECOME A RESIDENT FOR THREE MONTHS.  THE APPLICATION FOR
RELIEF FROM SERVICE WAS MADE ON MARCH 30, 1942. 

THE REGULATIONS, QUOTED ABOVE, EITHER MADE AN ALIEN IN KRISTENSEN'S
SITUATION A NONRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, BETWEEN FEBRUARY 7 AND MAY 17,
1942, OR THEY WERE NONDETERMINATIVE OF STATUS IN THAT PERIOD.  FN20  IN
THE ABSENCE OF A DETERMINATIVE REGULATION, THE MEANING OF THE WORD
"RESIDING" IN SEC. 3(A) REQUIRES EXAMINATION.  THE MEANING OF THAT
WORD, OF COURSE, DEPENDS UPON THE MEANING OF "RESIDENCE."  "RESIDENCE"
SOMETIMES EQUALS DOMICILE, AS IN VOTING.  AGAIN, AS IN TAXATION, ONE
WHO IS NOT A MERE TRANSIENT OR SOJOURNER IS A "RESIDENT."  SEC. 29.211
2, INCOME TAX REGULATIONS.  THE DEFINITION VARIES WITH THE STATUTE. 
RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS (1934), SEC. 9, COMMENTE.  SEE CARROLL V.
UNITED STATES, 133 F.2D 690, 693.  IN A NATURALIZATION CASE WHERE
ELIGIBILITY DEPENDED UPON THE REQUIRED RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES,
IT WAS HELD THAT AN ENFORCED SERVICE IN THE GERMAN ARMY 1914-1918 AND
SUBSEQUENT FOREIGN RESIDENCE UNTIL 1921 ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF MEANS AND
INABILITY TO OBTAIN A PASSPORT DID NOT BREAK THE CONTINUITY OF AMERICAN
RESIDENCE.  THE COURT THERE SAID, 

"WE SHALL NOT TRY TO DEFINE WHAT IS THE NECESSARY ATTITUDE OF MIND TO
CREATE OR RETAIN A RESIDENCE UNDER THIS STATUTE, AND HOW IT DIFFERS
FROM THE CHOICE OF A 'HOME,' WHICH IS THE TEST OF DOMICILE.  FRANKLY IT
IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER COURTS HAVE AS YET COME TO ANY AGREEMENT ON THE
QUESTION.  BUT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL UNANIMITY THAT, HOWEVER CONSTRUED
IN A STATUTE, RESIDENCE INVOLVES SOME CHOICE, AGAIN LIKE DOMICILE, AND
THAT PRESENCE ELSEWHERE THROUGH CONSTRAINT HAS NO EFFECT UPON IT." 
FN21 

WHEN WE CONSIDER THAT SEC. 3(A) WAS OBVIOUSLY INTENDED TO REQUIRE
MILITARY SERVICE FROM ALL WHO SOUGHT THE ADVANTAGES OF OUR LIFE AND THE
PROTECTION OF OUR FLAG, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE, WITHOUT REGULATIONS SO
DEFINING RESIDENCE, THAT A SOJOURN WITHIN OUR BORDERS MADE NECESSARY BY
THE CONDITIONS OF THE TIMES WAS RESIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "(C)  IN THE CASE OF ANY ALIEN  ...  WHO IS DEPORTABLE UNDER ANY
LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHO HAS PROVED GOOD MORAL CHARACTER FOR
THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY ...  (2) SUSPEND
DEPORTATION OF SUCH ALIEN IF HE IS NOT INELIGIVLE FOR NATURALIZATION OR
IF INELIGIBLE, SUCH INELIGIBILITY IS SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS RACE, IF
HE FINDS (A) THAT SUCH DEPORTATION WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS ECONOMIC
DETRIMENT TO A CITIZEN OR LEGALLY RESIDENT ALIEN WHO IS THE SPOUSE,
PARENT, OR MINOR CHILD OF SUCH DEPORTABLE ALIEN; ...  IF THE
DEPORTATION OF ANY ALIEN IS SUSPENDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
SUBSECTION FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, A COMPLETE AND DETAILED STATEMENT
OF THE FACTS AND PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THE CASE SHALL BE
REPORTED TO THE CONGRESS WITH THE REASONS FOR SUCH SUSPENSION.  THESE
REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON THE 1ST AND 15TH DAY OF EACH CALENDAR
MONTH IN WHICH CONGRESS IS IN SESSION.  IF DURING THE SESSION OF THE
CONGRESS AT WHICH A CASE IS REPORTED, OR PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE
SESSION OF THE CONGRESS NEXT FOLLOWING THE SESSION AT WHICH A CASE IS
REPORTED, THE CONGRESS PASSES A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION STATING IN
SUBSTANCE THAT IT FAVORS THE SUSPENSION OF SUCH DEPORTATION, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL CANCEL DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS.  IF PRIOR TO THE
CLOSE OF THE SESSION OF THE CONGRESS NEXT FOLLOWING THE SESSION AT
WHICH A CASE IS REPORTED, THE CONGRESS DOES NOT PASS SUCH A CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL THEREUPON DEPORT SUCH ALIEN IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW." 

FN2  SECTION 3(A) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940,
54 STAT. 885, AS AMENDED, 55 STAT. 845, PROVIDES IN PART: 

"EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, EVERY MALE CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND EVERY OTHER MALE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED
STATES  ...  SHALL BE LIABLE FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR
NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES:  PROVIDED, THAT ANY CITIZEN OR
SUBJECT OF A NEUTRAL COUNTRY SHALL BE RELIEVED FROM LIABILITY FOR
TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THIS ACT IF, PRIOR TO HIS INDUCTION INTO THE
LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, HE HAS MADE APPLICATION TO BE RELIEVED FROM SUCH
LIABILITY IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT, BUT ANY PERSON WHO MAKES SUCH
APPLICATION SHALL THEREAFTER BE DEBARRED FROM BECOMING A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES  ...  " 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN4  WHILE RESPONDENT ALLEGED THAT HIS APPLICATION FOR DEFERMENT WAS
FILED BECAUSE OF ERRONEOUS ADVICE RECEIVED FROM A MEMBER OF THE LOCAL
SELECTIVE SERVICE BOARD, IT SUFFICIENTLY, THOUGH INARTISTICALLY,
APPEARS FROM THE COMPLAINT THAT ITS TRUE GRAVAMEN IS THE
INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SERVICE TO BAR THE
ALIEN'S NATURALIZATION BECAUSE HE WAS NOT "RESIDING" IN THE UNITED
STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT AT
THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS FILED.  THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS PUT UPON THE
COMPLAINT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE UNITED
STATES IN ITS PRESENTATION HERE. 

FN5  86 U.S. APP. D.C. 48, 56, 179 F.2D 796, 804. 

FN6  FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS ACT ONLY ON CASES AND
CONTROVERSIES AND DO NOT GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS.  HAYBURN'S CASE, 2
DALL.  409; MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, 219 U.S. 346; CHICAGO & SOUTHERN
AIR LINES V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 333 U.S. 103, 113-14. 

FN7 CF. GORDON V. UNITED STATES, 117 U.S. 697, 702; UNITED STATES V.
JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 291 U.S. 386, 400-401; CHICAGO & SOUTHERN AIR
LINES V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., SUPRA. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN9  KING BRIDGE CO. V. OTOE COUNTY, 120 U.S. 225, 226; UNITED STATES
V. CORRICK, 298 U.S. 435, 440. 

FN10  WE THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFUSAL TO SUSPEND DEPORTATION
FOR THE REASON OF INELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP HAS ADMINISTRATIVE
FINALITY.  ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES ARE EXHAUSTED.  COMPARE LEVERS V.
ANDERSON, 326 U.S. 219. 

FN11  NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276; MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32,
43; WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33.  CF. GUSIK V. SCHILDER, 340
U.S. 128; ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114, 122. 

FN12  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 240; UNITED
STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463, 475; AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.
V. QUARLES, 92 F.2D 321, 324, WERE CITED. 

FN13  8 U.S.C. SEC. 903 HAS SINCE BEEN ENACTED, PROVIDING IN PART: 

"IF ANY PERSON WHO CLAIMS A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE AS A NATIONAL OF THE
UNITED STATES IS DENIED SUCH RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE BY ANY DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY, OR EXECUTIVE OFFICIAL THEREOF, UPON THE GROUND THAT HE IS NOT A
NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES, SUCH PERSON, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE IS
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ABROAD, MAY INSTITUTE AN ACTION AGAINST THE
HEAD OF SUCH DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PERSON CLAIMS A PERMANENT
RESIDENCE FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING HIM TO BE A NATIONAL OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

FN14  CF. BENZIAN V. GODWIN, 168 F.2D 952. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN16  SEE SEC. 16(B), 54 STAT. 897, AS AMENDED, 59 STAT. 166, 60
STAT. 181, 342; BENZIAN V. GODWIN, 168 F.2D 952, 956. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN18  THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE ACT REQUIRED EVERY MALE ALIEN
RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES TO REGISTER, BUT SUBJECTED ONLY ALIENS
WHO HAD DECLARED THEIR INTENTION TO BECOME CITIZENS TO LIABILITY FOR
SERVICE.  54 STAT. 885.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSTRUED THE WORDS "MALE
ALIEN RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES," THE EARLIER PHRASE DEFINING THOSE
SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION, TO INCLUDE "EVERY ALIEN  ...  WHO LIVES OR HAS
A PLACE OF RESIDENCE OR ABODE IN THE UNITED STATES, TEMPORARY OR
OTHERWISE, OR FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE TAKEN OR ESTABLISHED,  ...  " 39 OP.
ATTY. GEN. 504, 505. 

FN19  "SEC.  611.12 WHEN A NONDECLARANT ALIEN IS RESIDING IN THE
UNITED STATES.  EVERY MALE ALIEN WHO IS NOW IN OR HEREAFTER ENTERS THE
UNITED STATES WHO HAS NOT DECLARED HIS INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES, UNLESS HE IS IN ONE OF THE CATEGORIES SPECIFICALLY
EXCEPTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 611.13, IS 'A MALE PERSON RESIDING
IN THE UNITED STATES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 AND SECTION 3 OF
THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED. 

"SEC. 611.13 WHEN A NONDECLARANT ALIEN IS NOT RESIDING IN THE UNITED
STATES.  (A)  A MALE ALIEN WHO IS NOW IN OR HEREAFTER ENTERS THE UNITED
STATES WHO HAS NOT DECLARED HIS INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT 'A MALE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES'
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 OR SECTION 3 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED: 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"(6)  IF HE HAS ENTERED OR HEREAFTER ENTERS THE UNITED STATES IN A
MANNER PRESCRIBED BY ITS LAWS AND DOES NOT REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES
AFTER MAY 16, 1942, OR FOR MORE THAN 3 MONTHS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF HIS
ENTRY, WHICHEVER IS THE LATER. 

"(B)  WHEN A MALE ALIEN WHO HAS NOT DECLARED HIS INTENTION TO BECOME
A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ENTERED OR HEREAFTER ENTERS THE
UNITED STATES IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY ITS LAWS AND REMAINS IN THE
UNITED STATES AFTER MAY 16, 1942, OR FOR MORE THAN 3 MONTHS FOLLOWING
THE DATE OF HIS ENTRY, WHICHEVER IS THE LATER, HE IS 'A MALE PERSON
RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 AND
AMENDED, UNLESS HE HAS FILED AN ALIEN'S APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION
OF RESIDENCE (FORM 302) IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SEC. 911.21 AND SUCH
APPLICATION IS EITHER (1) PENDING OR (2) HAS RESULTED IN A
DETERMINATION THAT HE IS NOT 'A MALE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED
STATES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 OR SECTION 3 OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, IN EITHER OF WHICH EVENTS
HE SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS 'A MALE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED
STATES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 OR SECTION 3 OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, DURING THE PERIOD WHEN
SUCH APPLICATION IS PENDING OR DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE ALIEN'S
CERTIFICATE OF NONRESIDENCE (FORM 303) ISSUED TO HIM AS A RESULT OF THE
DETERMINATION THAT HE IS NOT 'A MALE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED
STATES' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 OR SECTION 3 OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED.  (54 STAT. 885; 50
U.S.C., SUP. 301-318, INCLUSIVE; E.O. NO. 8545, 5 F.R. 3779)" 

FN20 APPARENTLY THE REGULATIONS INTENDED TO GIVE ALIENS TIME TO
ENABLE THEM TO FILE THE ALIEN'S APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF
RESIDENCE, SEE 7 FED. REG. 2084, SEC. 611.21(B)(1), OR TO LEAVE THE
COUNTRY BEFORE THEIR STATUS AS "RESIDENTS," RESULTING IN LIABILITY FOR
MILITARY SERVICE, WAS FIXED. 

FN21  NEUBERGER V. UNITED STATES, 13 F.2D 541, 542.  CF. STADTMULLER
V. MILLER, 11 F.2D 732, 738. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS FROM THE HOLDING OF THE COURT THAT
RESPONDENT WAS NOT "RESIDING" IN THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 3(A) OF THE ACT.  SEE THE OPINION OF JUDGE FRANK IN BENZIAN V.
GODWIN, 168 F.2D 952. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT AND OPINION OF THE COURT.  BUT SINCE IT IS
CONTRARY TO AN OPINION WHICH, AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, I RENDERED IN 1940,
I OWE SOME WORD OF EXPLANATION.  39 OP. ATTY. GEN. 504.  I AM ENTITLED
TO SAY OF THAT OPINION WHAT ANY DISCRIMINATING READER MUST THINK OF IT
THAT IT WAS AS FOGGY AS THE STATUTE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS ASKED TO
INTERPRET.  IT LEFT THE DIFFICULT BORDERLINE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE
SECRETARY OF WAR UNANSWERED, COVERING ITS LACK OF PRECISION WITH
GENERALITIES WHICH, HOWEVER, GAVE OFF OVERTONES OF ASSURANCE THAT THE
ACT APPLIED TO NEARLY EVERY ALIEN FROM A NEUTRAL COUNTRY CAUGHT IN THE
UNITED STATES UNDER ALMOST ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO STAY
OVERNIGHT.    THE OPINION DID NOT AT ALL CONSIDER ASPECTS OF OUR
DIPLOMATIC HISTORY, WHICH I NOW THINK, AND SHOULD THINK I WOULD THEN
HAVE THOUGHT, OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED IN APPLYING ANY CONSCRIPTION ACT
TO ALIENS.    IN TIMES GONE BY, MANY UNITED STATES CITIZENS BY
NATURALIZATION HAVE RETURNED TO VISIT THEIR NATIVE LANDS.  THERE THEY
FREQUENTLY WERE HELD FOR MILITARY DUTY BY GOVERNMENTS WHICH REFUSED TO
RECOGNIZE A GENERAL RIGHT OF EXPATRIATION.  THE UNITED STATES
CONSISTENTLY HAS ASSERTED THE RIGHT OF ITS CITIZENS TO BE FREE FROM
SEIZURE FOR MILITARY DUTY BY REASON OF TEMPORARY AND LAWFUL PRESENCE IN
FOREIGN LANDS.  IMMUNITIES WE HAVE ASSERTED FOR OUR OWN CITIZENS WE
SHOULD NOT DENY TO THOSE OF OTHER FRIENDLY NATIONS.  NOR SHOULD WE
CONSTRUE OUR LEGISLATION TO PENALIZE OR PREJUDICE SUCH ALIENS FOR
ASSERTING A RIGHT WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY ASSERTED AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL
POLICY IN DEALING WITH OTHER NATIONS.  OF COURSE, IF AN ALIEN IS NOT A
MERE SOJOURNER BUT ACQUIRES RESIDENCE HERE IN ANY PERMANENT SENSE, HE
SUBMITS HIMSELF TO OUR LAW AND ASSUMES THE OBLIGATIONS OF A RESIDENT
TOWARD THIS COUNTRY. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT CAN BE INTERPRETED
CONSISTENTLY WITH THIS HISTORY OF OUR INTERNATIONAL CONTENTIONS.  I
THINK THE DECISION OF THE COURT TODAY DOES SO.  FAILURE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OPINION TO CONSIDER THE MATTER IN THIS LIGHT IS DIFFICULT TO
EXPLAIN IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HE PERSONALLY HAD URGED THIS HISTORY
UPON THIS COURT IN ARGUING PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325.  ITS DETAILS
MAY BE FOUND IN THE BRIEFS AND THEIR CITED SOURCES.  IT WOULD BE
CHARITABLE TO ASSUME THAT NEITHER THE NOMINAL ADDRESSEE NOR THE NOMINAL
AUTHOR OF THE OPINION READ IT.  THAT, I DO NOT DOUBT, EXPLAINS MR.
STIMSON'S ACCEPTANCE OF AN ANSWER SO INADEQUATE TO HIS QUESTIONS.  BUT
NO SUCH CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE CAN EXCUSE THE THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

PRECEDENT, HOWEVER, IS NOT LACKING FOR WAYS BY WHICH A JUDGE MAY
RECEDE FROM A PRIOR OPINION THAT HAS PROVEN UNTENABLE AND PERHAPS
MISLED OTHERS.  SEE CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, LICENSE CASES, 5 HOW.  504,
RECANTING VIEWS HE HAD PRESSED UPON THE COURT AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419.  BARON BRAMWELL
EXTRICATED HIMSELF FROM A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR EMBARRASSMENT BY SAYING,
"THE MATTER DOES NOT APPEAR TO ME NOW AS IT APPEARS TO HAVE APPEARED TO
ME THEN."  ANDREWS V. STYRAP, 26 L.T.R. (N.S.)  704, 706.  AND MR.
JUSTICE STORY, ACCOUNTING FOR HIS CONTRADICTION OF HIS OWN FORMER
OPINION, QUITE PROPERLY PUT THE MATTER:  "MY OWN ERROR, HOWEVER, CAN
FURNISH NO GROUND FOR ITS BEING ADOPTED BY THIS COURT  ...  "  UNITED
STATES V. GOODING, 12 WHEAT.  460, 478.  PERHAPS DR. JOHNSON REALLY
WENT TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER WHEN HE EXPLAINED A BLUNDER IN HIS
DICTIONARY - "IGNORANCE, SIR, IGNORANCE."  BUT AN ESCAPE LESS SELF
DEPRECIATING WAS TAKEN BY LORD WESTBURY, WHO, IT IS SAID, REBUFFED A
BARRISTER'S RELIANCE UPON AN EARLIER OPINION OF HIS LORDSHIP:  "I CAN
ONLY SAY THAT I AM AMAZED THAT A MAN OF MY INTELLIGENCE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN GUILTY OF GIVING SUCH AN OPINION."  IF THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF
GRACEFULLY AND GOOD-NATUREDLY SURRENDERING FORMER VIEWS TO A BETTER
CONSIDERED POSITION, I INVOKE THEM ALL. 
..END :




CITIES SERVICE CO. V. PEERLESS CO., 340 U.S. 179 


NO. 153.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9-10, 1950.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1950.  -
203 OKLA. 35, 220 P.2D 279, AFFIRMED. 


THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION, AFTER HEARINGS AND ON FINDINGS
MADE IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT, ISSUED AN ORDER FIXING A MINIMUM
WELLHEAD PRICE ON ALL GAS TAKEN FROM A NATURAL GAS FIELD LOCATED WITHIN
THE STATE.  A SECOND ORDER DIRECTED APPELLANT, A PRODUCER IN THIS FIELD
AND OPERATOR OF AN INTERSTATE GAS PIPE-LINE SYSTEM, TO TAKE GAS RATABLY
FROM ANOTHER PRODUCER IN THE FIELD, AT THE PRICE FIXED IN THE FIRST
ORDER.  A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE FIELD WAS SOLD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HELD:  THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE VALID
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 180
183, 185-189. 

1.  A STATE MAY ADOPT REASONABLE REGULATIONS TO PREVENT ECONOMIC AND
PHYSICAL WASTE OF NATURAL GAS.  P. 185. 

2.  PREVENTION OF WASTE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, PROTECTION OF THE
CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF OWNERS THROUGH RATABLE TAKING, AND PROTECTION OF
THE ECONOMY OF THE STATE MAY JUSTIFY LEGISLATIVE CONTROL OVER
PRODUCTION EVEN THOUGH THE USES TO WHICH PROPERTY MAY PROFITABLY BE PUT
ARE RESTRICTED.  PP. 185-186. 

3.  A PRICE-FIXING ORDER, LIKE ANY OTHER REGULATION, IS LAWFUL IF
SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO A LEGITIMATE END SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED.  P.
186. 

4.  THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
TO SUSTAIN ITS FINDING THAT EXISTING LOW FIELD PRICES FOR GAS WERE
RESULTING IN ECONOMIC WASTE AND WERE CONDUCIVE TO PHYSICAL WASTE; AND
THAT WAS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE ORDERS ISSUED.  PP. 180-183, 186. 

5.  IT IS NO CONCERN OF THIS COURT THAT OTHER REGULATORY DEVICES
MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE, OR THAT LESS EXTENSIVE MEASURES MIGHT
SUFFICE.  P. 186. 

6.  IN A FIELD OF THIS COMPLEXITY WITH SUCH DIVERSE INTERESTS
INVOLVED, THIS COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS A CLEAR NATIONAL INTEREST
SO HARMED THAT THE STATE PRICE-FIXING ORDERS HERE EMPLOYED FALL WITHIN
THE BAN OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PP. 186-188. 

7.  IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE STATE'S
UNILATERAL EFFORTS TO CONSERVE GAS WILL BE FULLY EFFECTIVE.  P. 188. 

8.  HOOD & SONS V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 188. 

9.  THERE IS BEFORE THIS COURT NO QUESTION OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
ORDERS OF THE STATE COMMISSION AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE NATURAL
GAS ACT.  PP. 188-189. 

CITIES SERVICE GAS CO. V. PEERLESS OIL & GAS CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

TWO ORDERS OF THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION, CHALLENGED AS
VIOLATIVE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WERE SUSTAINED BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT.  203 OKLA. 35, 220 P.2D 279.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 189. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS THE POWER OF A STATE TO FIX PRICES AT THE
WELLHEAD ON NATURAL GAS PRODUCED WITHIN ITS BORDERS AND SOLD
INTERSTATE.  IT ORIGINATES FROM PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE OKLAHOMA
CORPORATION COMMISSION WHICH TERMINATED WITH THE PROMULGATION OF TWO
ORDERS.  THE FIRST ORDER SET A MINIMUM WELLHEAD PRICE ON ALL GAS TAKEN
FROM THE GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD, LOCATED IN TEXAS COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.  THE
SECOND DIRECTED CITIES SERVICE, A PRODUCER IN THIS FIELD AND OPERATOR
OF AN INTERSTATE GAS PIPE-LINE SYSTEM, TO TAKE GAS RATABLY FROM
PEERLESS, ANOTHER PRODUCER IN THE SAME FIELD, AT THE PRICE INCORPORATED
IN THE FIRST ORDER.  THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA UPHELD BOTH ORDERS
AGAINST CONTENTIONS THAT THEY CONTRAVENED THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES
OF OKLAHOMA AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  203 OKLA. 35, 220 P.2D 279(1950). 
FROM THIS JUDGMENT CITIES SERVICE APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  A
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL CLAIM HAVING BEEN DULY RAISED AND NECESSARILY
DENIED BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT, WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION.  28
U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

                          I. 

THE CASE MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS.  THE HUGOTON GAS FIELD, 120
MILES LONG AND 40 MILES WIDE, LIES IN THE STATES OF TEXAS, OKLAHOMA AND
KANSAS.  THE OKLAHOMA PORTION, KNOWN AS THE GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD, HAS
APPROXIMATELY 1,062,000 PROVEN ACRES WITH SOME 300 WELLS, OF WHICH 240
ARE PRODUCING.  ABOUT 90 PERCENT OF GUYMON-HUGOTON'S PRODUCTION IS
ULTIMATELY CONSUMED OUTSIDE THE STATE.  CITIES SERVICE, OPERATOR OF A
PIPE LINE CONNECTED WITH THE FIELD, OWNS ABOUT 300,000 ACRES AND 123
WELLS.  IN ADDITION, IT HAS 94 WELLS DEDICATED TO IT BY LEASE FOR THE
LIFE OF THE FIELD AND SOME 19 WELLS UNDER TERM LEASE, GIVING IT CONTROL
OVER 236 OF THE 300 WELLS.  ASIDE FROM THE HOLDINGS OF A FEW SMALL
TRACT OWNERS AND THE ACREAGES HELD IN TRUST BY THE OKLAHOMA LAND OFFICE
- SOME 49,600 ACRES - THE ONLY RESERVES IN THE FIELD NOT OWNED BY OR
AFFILIATED WITH A PIPE LINE ARE THOSE OF HARRINGTON-MARSH WITH SOME
75,000 ACRES AND PEERLESS WITH ABOUT 100,000 ACRES.  UNDER PREVAILING
MARKET CONDITIONS, WELLHEAD PRICES RANGE FROM 3.6 TO 5 CENTS PER
THOUSAND CUBIC FEET, VARYING PRICES BEING PAID TO DIFFERENT PRODUCERS
AT THE SAME TIME.  IN CONTRAST, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE "COMMERCIAL
HEAT VALUE" OF NATURAL GAS, IN TERMS OF COMPETITIVE FUEL EQUIVALENTS,
IS IN EXCESS OF 10 CENTS PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET AT THE WELLHEAD. 

WHILE THE GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD HAS THREE PRINCIPAL PRODUCTION
HORIZONS, THEY ARE SO INTERCONNECTED AS TO MAKE IN EFFECT ONE LARGE
RESERVOIR OF GAS.  CITIES' WELLS ARE LOCATED IN AN AREA IN WHICH THE
GAS PRESSURE IS CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN THAT FOUND BENEATH THE WELLS OF
PEERLESS.  AS A RESULT, PRODUCTION FROM CITIES' WELLS WAS CAUSING
DRAINAGE FROM THE PEERLESS SECTION OF THE FIELD, AND PEERLESS WAS
LOSING GAS EVEN THOUGH ITS WELLS WERE NOT PRODUCING. 

HAVING NO PIPE-LINE OUTLET OF ITS OWN, PEERLESS OFFERED TO SELL THE
POTENTIAL OUTPUT OF ITS WELLS TO CITIES SERVICE.  CITIES REFUSED EXCEPT
ON THE CONDITION THAT PEERLESS DEDICATE ALL GAS FROM ITS ACREAGE, AT A
PRICE OF 4 CENTS PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET, FOR THE LIFE OF THE LEASES. 
DISSATISFIED WITH THE PRICE AND THE OTHER TERMS, PEERLESS REQUESTED THE
OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION (A) TO ORDER CITIES TO MAKE A
CONNECTION WITH A PEERLESS WELL AND PURCHASE THE OUTPUT OF THAT WELL
RATABLY AT A PRICE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION, AND (B) TO FIX THE PRICE TO
BE PAID BY ALL PURCHASERS OF NATURAL GAS IN THE GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD. 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE OKLAHOMA LAND OFFICE INTERVENED AS OWNER IN
TRUST OF LARGE ACREAGES IN THE FIELD.  THE LAND OFFICE ALLEGED THAT NO
FAIR, ADEQUATE PRICE FOR NATURAL GAS EXISTED IN THE FIELD; THAT
EXISTING PRICES WERE DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST AND ARBITRARY AND IF
CONTINUED WOULD DEPLETE, DESTROY AND EXHAUST THE FIELD WITHIN A FEW
YEARS.  IT JOINED PEERLESS' PRAYER FOR RELIEF.  THE COMMISSION
THEREUPON, BY WRITTEN NOTICE, INVITED ALL PRODUCERS AND PURCHASERS OF
GAS IN THE FIELD TO APPEAR AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 

THE COMMISSION HEARD TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FIELD PRICE OF
GAS HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON CONSERVATION.  WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT LOW
PRICES MAKE ENFORCEMENT OF CONSERVATION MORE DIFFICULT, RETARD
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT, AND RESULT IN ABANDONMENT OF WELLS LONG
BEFORE ALL RECOVERABLE GAS HAS BEEN EXTRACTED.  THEY ALSO TESTIFIED
THAT LOW PRICES CONTRIBUTE TO AN UNECONOMIC RATE OF DEPLETION AND
ECONOMIC WASTE OF GAS BY PROMOTING "INFERIOR" USES. 

AT THE END OF THE HEARINGS, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS
NO COMPETITIVE MARKET FOR GAS IN THE GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD, THAT THE
INTEGRATED WELL AND PIPE-LINE OWNERS WERE ABLE TO DICTATE THE PRICES
PAID TO PRODUCERS WITHOUT PIPE-LINE OUTLETS, AND THAT AS A RESULT GAS
WAS BEING TAKEN FROM THE FIELD AT A PRICE BELOW ITS ECONOMIC VALUE.  IT
FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THE TAKING OF GAS AT THE PREVAILING PRICES
RESULTED IN BOTH ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL WASTE OF GAS, LOSS TO PRODUCER
AND ROYALTY OWNERS, LOSS TO THE STATE IN GROSS PRODUCTION TAXES,
INEQUITABLE TAKING OF GAS FROM THE COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY, AND
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VARIOUS PRODUCERS IN THE FIELD.  ON THE BASIS OF
THESE FINDINGS, THE COMMISSION ISSUED THE TWO ORDERS CHALLENGED HERE. 
THE FIRST PROVIDED "THAT NO NATURAL GAS SHALL BE TAKEN OUT OF THE
PRODUCING STRUCTURES OR FORMATIONS IN THE GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD  ...  AT
A PRICE, AT THE WELLHEAD, OF LESS THAN 7[ PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET OF
NATURAL GAS MEASURED AT A PRESSURE OF 14.65 POUNDS ABSOLUTE PRESSURE
PER SQUARE INCH."  THE SECOND DIRECTED CITIES SERVICE "TO TAKE NATURAL
GAS RATABLY FROM  ...  (PEERLESS') WELL  ...  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
FORMULA FOR RATABLE TAKING PRESCRIBED IN ORDER NO. 17867 OF THIS
COMMISSION" (A PROVISION NOT UNDER ATTACK HERE), AND AT THE SAME PRICE
AND PRESSURE TERMS INDICATED IN THE GENERAL FIELD-PRICE ORDER. 

ON APPEAL TO THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT, CITIES SERVICE ATTACKED THE
ORDERS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:  (1) THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED BEYOND
ITS AUTHORITY IN THAT OKLAHOMA STATUTES DID NOT PERMIT GENERAL PRICE
FIXING OR SPECIFIC PRICE-FIXING AT A FIGURE IN EXCESS OF THE PREVAILING
MARKET PRICE, AND IN THAT THE STATUTES DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THE
PREVENTION OF ECONOMIC, AS DISTINCT FROM PHYSICAL, WASTE; (2) THAT IF
CONSTRUED TO PERMIT SUCH PRICE-FIXING, THE STATUTES AND ORDERS
THEREUNDER VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION; (3) THAT IF SO CONSTRUED,
THE STATUTES AND ORDERS VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IN THAT (A) THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
OF PHYSICAL WASTE IN THE GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD AND THE PRICE ORDER
CANNOT BE REASONABLY RELATED TO THE PREVENTION OF WASTE, (B) THE
STATUTES CONTAIN NO ADEQUATE STANDARDS GOVERNING THE COMMISSION'S PRICE
FIXING POWERS, (C) THE ORDERS ARE TOO VAGUE, (D) THE PROCEEDINGS LACKED
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, AND (E) THE SPECIFIC ORDER DISCRIMINATES
AGAINST CITIES SERVICE, AND THE GENERAL ORDER, APPLYING ONLY TO THE
GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD, DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THOSE PRODUCING OR
PURCHASING IN THAT FIELD; (4) THAT THE ORDERS VIOLATE THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, ART. I, SEC. 8, IN THAT THEY CAST AN UNDUE BURDEN ON, AND
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST, INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA REJECTED THESE CLAIMS.  IT FOUND THAT
THE OKLAHOMA STATUTES FULLY EMPOWERED THE COMMISSION TO TAKE THE ACTION
WHICH IT TOOK.  THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE, AS EARLY AS 1913, DECLARED
THAT GAS UNDERLYING LAND IS THE PROPERTY OF THE LAND OWNER OR HIS
LESSEE; THAT GAS MAY BE TAKEN FROM A COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY
PROPORTIONATELY TO THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE WELL AND THAT THE DRILLING
OF A WELL BY AN OWNER OR LESSEE SHALL BE REGARDED AS REDUCING TO
POSSESSION HIS SHARE OF THE GAS; THAT ANY PERSON TAKING GAS FROM THE
FIELD, EXCEPT IN CASES NOT HERE PERTINENT, SHALL TAKE RATABLY FROM EACH
OWNER IN PROPORTION TO HIS INTEREST AND UPON SUCH TERMS AS MAY BE
AGREED UPON; THAT IF NO AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED THEN THE PRICE AND
TERMS SHALL BE SUCH AS MAY BE FIXED BY THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AFTER
NOTICE AND HEARING.  52 OKLA. STATS. SECS. 23-25, 231-233(1941).  THESE
RATABLY FROM PEERLESS AND AT A SPECIFIC PRICE.  IN 1915, OKLAHOMA
STRENGTHENED ITS GAS CONSERVATION LAWS BY AUTHORIZING REGULATION OF
PRODUCTION OF GAS FROM A COMMON SOURCE WHEN PRODUCTION IS IN EXCESS OF
MARKET DEMAND.  52 OKLA. STATS. SECS. 239-240(1941).  THE COMMISSION
WAS AUTHORIZED TO LIMIT THE GAS TAKEN BY ANY PRODUCER TO "SUCH
PROPORTION OF THE NATURAL GAS THAT MAY BE MARKETED WITHOUT WASTE" AS
THE NATURAL FLOW OF GAS AT THE WELLS OF SUCH PRODUCER BEARS TO THE
TOTAL NATURAL FLOW OF THE COMMON SOURCE.  IN AUTHORIZING SUCH
REGULATION, THE LEGISLATURE DECLARED THAT IT ACTED "SO AS TO PREVENT
WASTE, PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC, AND OF ALL THOSE HAVING A
RIGHT TO PRODUCE THEREFROM, AND TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION
IN FAVOR OF ANY ONE SUCH COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY AS AGAINST ANOTHER." 
THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED THE 1915 ACT TO PERMIT THE GENERAL
ORDER SETTING A MINIMUM PRICE IN THE FIELD.  IT FURTHER RULED THAT
ECONOMIC WASTE WAS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE STATUTE.  FINALLY,
WITH REGARD TO STATE QUESTIONS, IT HELD THAT THE ORDERS DID NOT VIOLATE
THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION. 

THE OKLAHOMA COURT ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE STATUTES SO CONSTRUED AND
THE ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER DO NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ON
THE GROUNDS RELIED ON BY CITIES SERVICE.  WE AGREE. 

                            II. 

THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION ISSUES RAISED BY APPELLANT ARE
VIRTUALLY WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  IT IS NOW UNDENIABLE THAT A STATE MAY
ADOPT REASONABLE REGULATIONS TO PREVENT ECONOMIC AND PHYSICAL WASTE OF
NATURAL GAS.  THIS COURT HAS UPHELD NUMEROUS KINDS OF STATE LEGISLATION
DESIGNED TO CURB WASTE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TO PROTECT THE
CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF OWNERS THROUGH RATABLE TAKING, CHAMPLIN REFINING
CO. V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210(1932), OR TO PROTECT THE
ECONOMY OF THE STATE.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO.,
310 U.S. 573(1940).  THESE ENDS HAVE BEEN HELD TO JUSTIFY CONTROL OVER
PRODUCTION EVEN THOUGH THE USES TO WHICH PROPERTY MAY PROFITABLY BE PUT
ARE RESTRICTED.  WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON CO., 254 U.S. 300(1920). 

LIKE ANY OTHER REGULATION, A PRICE-FIXING ORDER IS LAWFUL IF
SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO A LEGITIMATE END SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED. 
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502(1934) AND CASES THEREIN CITED.  IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS AMPLE
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN ITS FINDING THAT EXISTING LOW FIELD PRICES WERE
RESULTING IN ECONOMIC WASTE AND CONDUCIVE TO PHYSICAL WASTE.  THAT IS A
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE ORDERS ISSUED.  IT IS NO CONCERN OF OURS THAT
OTHER REGULATORY DEVICES MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE, OR THAT LESS
EXTENSIVE MEASURES MIGHT SUFFICE.  SUCH MATTERS ARE THE PROVINCE OF THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE COMMISSION. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER ARGUMENTS RAISED BY APPELLANT CONCERNING
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND FIND THEM SIMILARLY LACKING IN
MERIT. 

                                 III. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE GIVES TO THE CONGRESS A POWER OVER INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHICH IS BOTH PARAMOUNT AND BROAD IN SCOPE.  BUT DUE REGARD
FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS HAS LONG REQUIRED THAT THIS POWER BE
TREATED AS NOT EXCLUSIVE.  COOLEY V. PORT WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299(1851). 
IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED THAT A STATE MAY REGULATE MATTERS OF LOCAL
CONCERN OVER WHICH FEDERAL AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN EXERCISED, EVEN
THOUGH THE REGULATION HAS SOME IMPACT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PARKER
V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341(1943); MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM
PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346(1939); SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL
BROS., 303 U.S. 177(1938).  THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS CONSISTENTLY
RECOGNIZED HAVE BEEN THAT THE REGULATION NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OR
PLACE AN EMBARGO ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THAT IT SAFEGUARD AN OBVIOUS
STATE INTEREST, AND THAT THE LOCAL INTEREST AT STAKE OUTWEIGH WHATEVER
NATIONAL INTEREST THERE MIGHT BE IN THE PREVENTION OF STATE
RESTRICTIONS.  NOR SHOULD WE LIGHTLY TRANSLATE THE QUIESCENCE OF
FEDERAL POWER INTO AN AFFIRMATION THAT THE NATIONAL INTEREST LIES IN
COMPLETE FREEDOM FROM REGULATION.  SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA.  COMPARE LEISY V. HARDIN, 135 U.S. 100(1890),
DECIDED PRIOR TO THE WILSON ACT, 26 STAT. 313, WITH IN RE RAHRER, 140
U.S. 545(1891), DECIDED THEREAFTER. 

THAT A LEGITIMATE LOCAL INTEREST IS AT STAKE IN THIS CASE IS CLEAR. 
A STATE IS JUSTIFIABLY CONCERNED WITH PREVENTING RAPID AND UNECONOMIC
DISSIPATION OF ONE OF ITS CHIEF NATURAL RESOURCES.  THE CONTENTION
URGED BY APPELLANT THAT A GROUP OF PRIVATE PRODUCERS AND ROYALTY OWNERS
DERIVE SUBSTANTIAL GAIN FROM THE REGULATIONS DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE
ESTABLISHED CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ORDERS AND A STATE-WIDE INTEREST IN
CONSERVATION.  CF. THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CORP., 300 U.S.
55(1937).    WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS ALSO A STRONG NATIONAL INTEREST
IN NATURAL GAS PROBLEMS.  BUT IT IS FAR FROM CLEAR THAT ON BALANCE SUCH
INTEREST IS HARMED BY THE STATE REGULATIONS UNDER ATTACK HERE. 
PRESUMABLY ALL CONSUMERS, DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL ALIKE, WANT TO OBTAIN
NATURAL GAS AS CHEAPLY AS POSSIBLE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, GROUPS
CONNECTED WITH THE PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF COMPETING FUELS
COMPLAIN OF THE COMPETITION OF CHEAP GAS.  MOREOVER, THE WELLHEAD PRICE
OF GAS IS BUT A FRACTION OF THE PRICE PAID BY DOMESTIC CONSUMERS AT THE
BURNER-TIP, SO THAT THE FIELD PRICE AS HEREIN SET MAY HAVE LITTLE OR NO
EFFECT ON THE DOMESTIC DELIVERED PRICE.  SOME INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS, WHO
GET BARGAIN RATES ON GAS FOR "INFERIOR" USES, MAY SUFFER.  BUT STRONG
ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT THE NATIONAL INTEREST LIES IN PRESERVING
THIS LIMITED RESOURCE FOR DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL USES FOR WHICH
NATURAL GAS HAS NO COMPLETELY SATISFACTORY SUBSTITUTE.  SEE GENERALLY,
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, NATURAL GAS INVESTIGATION (1948); FEDERAL
POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 657
660(1944)(DISSENTING OPINION).  INSOFAR AS CONSERVATION IS CONCERNED,
THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND THE INTEREST OF PRODUCING STATES MAY WELL
TEND TO COINCIDE.  IN ANY EVENT, IN A FIELD OF THIS COMPLEXITY WITH
SUCH DIVERSE INTERESTS INVOLVED, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS A CLEAR
NATIONAL INTEREST SO HARMED THAT THE STATE PRICE-FIXING ORDERS HERE
EMPLOYED FALL WITHIN THE BAN OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PARKER V. BROWN,
SUPRA; MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, SUPRA.  NOR IS IT
FOR US TO CONSIDER WHETHER OKLAHOMA'S UNILATERAL EFFORTS TO CONSERVE
GAS WILL BE FULLY EFFECTIVE.  SEE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA AT 190-191. 

HOOD & SONS V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525(1949), IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS RESULT.  THE HOOD CASE SPECIFICALLY EXCEPTED FROM CONSIDERATION
THE QUESTION HERE RAISED, WHETHER PRICE-FIXING WAS FORBIDDEN AS AN
UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MOREOVER, THE COURT CAREFULLY
DISTINGUISHED EISENBERG, WHICH APPROVED PRICE REGULATIONS EVEN THOUGH
APPLIED TO A PRODUCER WHOSE ENTIRE PURCHASES OF MILK WENT DIRECTLY,
WITHOUT PROCESSING, INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE VICE IN THE
REGULATION INVALIDATED BY HOOD WAS SOLELY THAT IT DENIED FACILITIES TO
A COMPANY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON THE ARTICULATED GROUND THAT SUCH
FACILITIES WOULD DIVERT MILK SUPPLIES NEEDED BY LOCAL CONSUMERS; IN
OTHER WORDS, THE REGULATION DISCRIMINATED AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THERE IS NO SUCH PROBLEM HERE.  THE PRICE REGULATION APPLIES TO ALL GAS
TAKEN FROM THE FIELD, WHETHER DESTINED FOR INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE
CONSUMERS. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT THE ORDERS CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL
AUTHORITY ASSERTED BY THE NATURAL GAS ACT, 52 STAT. 821(1938), 15
U.S.C. SECS. 717 ET SEQ. (1948).  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS NOT
PARTICIPATED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.  WHETHER THE GAS ACT AUTHORIZES THE
POWER COMMISSION TO SET FIELD PRICES ON SALES BY INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS,
OR LEAVES THAT FUNCTION TO THE STATES, IS NOT BEFORE THIS COURT. 

WE HOLD THAT ON THIS RECORD THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION
ISSUED VALID ORDERS, AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ALLEGED FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE FRIVOLOUS AND THAT THE APPEAL THEREFORE
SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 
..END :






PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 340 U.S. 190 


NO. 73.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9-10, 1950.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1950.  -
203 OKLA. 35, 220 P.2D 279, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANT IS A PRODUCER OF GAS IN AN OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS FIELD, BUT
DOES NOT PURCHASE FROM OTHER PRODUCERS IN THAT FIELD.  THE GAS WHICH IT
PRODUCES IS TRANSPORTED THROUGH ITS OWN FACILITIES TO TEXAS, WHERE IT
PROCESSES THE GAS, UTILIZES OR SELLS THE BY-PRODUCTS, AND SELLS THE
RESIDUE OF NATURAL GAS TO PIPE-LINE COMPANIES.  HELD:  ORDERS OF THE
OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION FIXING A MINIMUM WELLHEAD PRICE ON ALL
GAS TAKEN FROM THE OKLAHOMA FIELD, AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, ARE NOT
UNREASONABLY VAGUE AND ARE VALID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 191-192. 

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. V. OKLAHOMA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

THE VALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF ORDERS OF THE OKLAHOMA
CORPORATION COMMISSION FIXING A MINIMUM WELLHEAD PRICE FOR GAS TAKEN
FROM AN OKLAHOMA NATURAL-GAS FIELD WAS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE SUPREME
COURT AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT.  203 OKLA. 35, 220 P.2D 279.  ON APPEAL
TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 192. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO CITIES SERVICE GAS CO. V. PEERLESS OIL &
GAS CO., 340 U.S. 179, DECIDED THIS DATE.  APPELLANT IS A PRODUCER IN
THE GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD, OWNING LEASES ON APPROXIMATELY 183,000 ACRES,
BUT UNLIKE CITIES SERVICE IT DOES NOT PURCHASE FROM OTHER PRODUCERS IN
THIS FIELD.  IT HAS ITS OWN GATHERING SYSTEM THROUGH WHICH GAS IS
TRANSPORTED TO A CENTRAL POINT IN HANSFORD COUNTY, TEXAS.  THERE THE
GAS IS PROCESSED FOR THE EXTRACTION OF GASOLINE AND OTHER LIQUID
HYDROCARBONS.  THESE BY-PRODUCTS ARE EITHER UTILIZED OR SOLD, AND THE
RESIDUE OF NATURAL GAS IS SOLD TO PIPE-LINE COMPANIES.  APPELLANT'S
FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PEERLESS PROCEEDINGS WAS ON JANUARY 17, 1947, AFTER
THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER SETTING A MINIMUM PRICE ON ALL NATURAL GAS TAKEN
FROM THE GUYMON-HUGOTON FIELD.  PHILLIPS MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION
EITHER VACATE THE ORDER INSOFAR AS APPLICABLE TO IT, OR CLARIFY THE
APPLICATION OF THE ORDER TO GAS NOT ACTUALLY SOLD AT THE WELLHEAD.  ON
FEBRUARY 4, 1947, THE COMMISSION ISSUED ORDER NO. 19702, REFUSING TO
VACATE OR FURTHER CLARIFY ITS GENERAL MINIMUM PRICE ORDER.  THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT PHILLIPS HAD NO STANDING TO COMPLAIN OF THE
GENERAL ORDER SINCE THE COMPANY WAS CURRENTLY COMPLYING WITH IT BY
REALIZING ON THE AVERAGE, FROM SALE AND UTILIZATION OF BY-PRODUCTS AND
SALE OF GAS, THE MINIMUM PRICE SET. 

ON APPEAL, THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT CONSOLIDATED THE TWO CASES AND
WITH RESPECT TO PHILLIPS STATED: 

"OUR DISCUSSION OF THE CITIES SERVICE APPEAL IS HERE APPLICABLE.  WE
FIND NO BASIS IN THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS FOR CONDEMNING THE ORDERS APPEALED FROM
IN THEIR APPLICATION TO PHILLIPS."  203 OKLA. 35, 48, 220 P.2D 279,
292(1950).  IT IS APPARENT FROM THIS OPINION THAT THE COURT BELOW TOOK
JURISDICTION AND PASSED UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED.  WE
ASSUMED THEREFORE THAT THE COURT, NOTING THE EVIDENCE OF INJURY
CONTAINED IN THE RECORD, FOUND NO TECHNICAL DEFECTS IN THE PLEADINGS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE PHILLIPS OF STANDING TO
APPEAL.  WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL TO THIS COURT IN
ORDER TO SECURE A COMPLETE PICTURE OF THE ISSUES AT STAKE. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT ARGUE THAT THE ORDERS VIOLATE THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  IN OTHER RESPECTS, THE APPEAL PRESENTS ONLY MINOR VARIATIONS
OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY CITIES SERVICE.  PHILLIPS ARGUES THAT IT IS NOT
A PURCHASER BUT MERELY A PRODUCER; THAT UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN CITIES
SERVICE, THE ORDER AS APPLIED TO IT LACKS ANY CONNECTION WITH
CORRELATIVE RIGHTS, THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES
OR DISCRIMINATION.  THE DISTINCTION IS WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE:  THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN REALIZED PRICE AND CONSERVATION APPLIES TO ALL
PRODUCTION IN THE FIELD, WHETHER OWNERS PURCHASE FROM OTHERS OR NOT,
AND WHETHER THEY OWN PIPE LINES OR NOT.  IN A FIELD WHICH CONSTITUTES A
COMMON RESERVOIR OF GAS, THE COMMISSION MUST BE ABLE TO REGULATE THE
OPERATIONS OF ALL PRODUCERS OR THERE IS LITTLE POINT IN REGULATING
ANY. 

PHILLIPS ALSO RELIES HEAVILY ON THE CONTENTION THAT THE ORDERS ARE
UNREASONABLY VAGUE.  IN SUBSTANCE, THIS ARGUMENT IS NOTHING MORE THAN
THAT THE DETERMINATION BY AN INTEGRATED COMPANY OF PROCEEDS REALIZED
FROM GAS AT THE WELLHEAD INVOLVES COMPLICATED PROBLEMS IN COST
ACCOUNTING.  THESE PROBLEMS ARE COMMON TO A HOST OF VALID REGULATIONS. 
THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT PHILLIPS WILL BE PENALIZED FOR
REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO SOLVE THEM.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ALLEGED FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE FRIVOLOUS AND THAT THE APPEAL THEREFORE
SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 
..END :





ACKERMANN V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 193 


ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1950.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1950.  - 178 F.2D 983,
179 F.2D 236, AFFIRMED. 


IN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER, HIS WIFE AND A RELATIVE, THE
DISTRICT COURT IN 1943 ENTERED JUDGMENTS CANCELING THEIR CERTIFICATES
OF NATURALIZATION ON GROUNDS OF FRAUD.  PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE DID NOT
APPEAL; BUT THE RELATIVE APPEALED AND THE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM WAS
REVERSED.  MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AFTER RENDITION OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST
PETITIONER, HE FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE
DENATURALIZATION JUDGMENT UNDER AMENDED RULE 60(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  HE ALLEGED THAT THE DENATURALIZATION JUDGMENT WAS
ERRONEOUS; THAT HE DID NOT APPEAL BECAUSE HIS ATTORNEY ADVISED HIM THAT
HE WOULD HAVE TO SELL HIS HOME TO PAY COSTS; AND THAT A FEDERAL
OFFICER, IN WHOSE CUSTODY HE AND HIS WIFE THEN WERE AND IN WHOM HE HAD
CONFIDENCE, HAD TOLD HIM "TO HANG ON TO THEIR HOME" AND HE WOULD BE
RELEASED AT THE END OF THE WAR.  HELD:  THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY
DENIED THE MOTION.  PP. 194-202. 

1.  RELIEF ON THE GROUND OF "EXCUSABLE NEGLECT" WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO
PETITIONER UNDER RULE 60(B)(1), SINCE BY THE RULE'S TERMS A MOTION FOR
RELIEF ON THIS GROUND MUST BE MADE NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED, WHEREAS IN THIS CASE THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED MORE
THAN FOUR YEARS PREVIOUSLY.  P. 197. 

2.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE MOTION DID NOT BRING PETITIONER WITHIN RULE
60(B)(6), WHICH APPLIES IF "ANY OTHER REASON JUSTIFYING RELIEF"
EXISTS.  PP. 197-199. 

3.  KLAPPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 601, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 199
202. 

ACKERMANN V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 35.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 36, ACKERMANN V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI
TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED PETITIONERS' MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENTS
CANCELING THEIR CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  178 F.2D 983, 179 F.2D 236.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
339 U.S. 962.  AFFIRMED, P. 202. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER HANS ACKERMANN FILED A MOTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT ENTERED DECEMBER
7, 1943, IN THAT COURT CANCELLING HIS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION. 
THE MOTION WAS FILED MARCH 25, 1948, PURSUANT TO AMENDED RULE 60(B) OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE MARCH 19,
1948* .  THE UNITED STATES FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S
MOTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  178 F.2D 983.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S.
962. 

*"RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER. 

     .      .         .         .         . 

"(B)  MISTAKES; INADVERTENCE; EXCUSABLE NEGLECT; NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE; FRAUD, ETC.  ON MOTION AND UPON SUCH TERMS AS ARE JUST, THE
COURT MAY RELIEVE A PARTY OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM A FINAL
JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:  (1) MISTAKE,
INADVERTENCE, SURPRISE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT; (2) NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE WHICH BY DUE DILIGENCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN TIME
TO MOVE FOR A NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 59(B); (3) FRAUD (WHETHER HERETOFORE
DENOMINATED INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC), MISREPRESENTATION, OR OTHER
MISCONDUCT OF AN ADVERSE PARTY; (4) THE JUDGMENT IS VOID; (5) THE
JUDGMENT HAS BEEN SATISFIED, RELEASED, OR DISCHARGED, OR A PRIOR
JUDGMENT UPON WHICH IT IS BASED HAS BEEN REVERSED OR OTHERWISE VACATED,
OR IT IS NO LONGER EQUITABLE THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE PROSPECTIVE
APPLICATION; OR (6) ANY OTHER REASON JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT.  THE MOTION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME, AND FOR REASONS (1), (2), AND (3) NOT MORE THAN ONE
YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING WAS ENTERED OR TAKEN.  A
MOTION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION (B) DOES NOT AFFECT THE FINALITY OF A
JUDGMENT OR SUSPEND ITS OPERATION.  THIS RULE DOES NOT LIMIT THE POWER
OF A COURT TO ENTERTAIN AN INDEPENDENT ACTION TO RELIEVE A PARTY FROM A
JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING, OR TO GRANT RELIEF TO A DEFENDANT NOT
ACTUALLY PERSONALLY NOTIFIED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 57 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, U.S.C., TITLE 28, SEC. 118, OR TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD
UPON THE COURT.  WRITS OF CORAM NOBIS, CORAM VOBIS, AUDITA QUERELA, AND
BILLS OF REVIEW AND BILLS IN THE NATURE OF A BILL OF REVIEW, ARE
ABOLISHED, AND THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING ANY RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT
SHALL BE BY MOTION AS PRESCRIBED IN THESE RULES OR BY AN INDEPENDENT
ACTION."  FED. RULES CIV. PROC., 60(B). 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 60(B). 

PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE FRIEDA WERE NATIVES OF GERMANY.  THEY WERE
NATURALIZED IN 1938.  THEY RESIDED, AS NOW, AT TAYLOR, TEXAS, WHERE
PETITIONER AND MAX KEILBAR OWNED AND OPERATED A GERMAN LANGUAGE
NEWSPAPER.  FRIEDA ACKERMANN WROTE FOR THE PAPER.  SHE WAS A SISTER OF
KEILBAR, WHO WAS ALSO A NATIVE OF GERMANY AND WHO HAD BEEN NATURALIZED
IN 1933. 

IN 1942 COMPLAINTS WERE FILED AGAINST ALL THREE TO CANCEL THEIR
NATURALIZATION ON GROUNDS OF FRAUD.  PETITIONER AND KEILBAR WERE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND ANSWERED THE COMPLAINTS.  AFTER AN ORDER OF
CONSOLIDATION, TRIAL OF THE THREE CASES BEGAN NOVEMBER 1, 1943, AND
SEPARATE JUDGMENTS WERE ENTERED DECEMBER 7, 1943, CANCELLING AND
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS ADMITTING THEM TO CITIZENSHIP.  KEILBAR
APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND BY STIPULATION WITH THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY HIS CASE IN THAT COURT WAS REVERSED, AND THE COMPLAINT
AGAINST HIM WAS ORDERED DISMISSED.  THE ACKERMANNS DID NOT APPEAL. 

PETITIONER IN HIS MOTION HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION ALLEGES THAT HIS
"FAILURE TO APPEAL FROM SAID JUDGMENT IS EXCUSABLE" FOR THE REASON THAT
HE HAD NO MONEY OR PROPERTY OTHER THAN HIS HOME IN TAYLOR, TEXAS, OWNED
BY HIM AND HIS WIFE AND WORTH $2,500, "AND THE COSTS OF TRANSCRIBING
THE EVIDENCE AND PRINTING THE RECORD AND BRIEF ON APPEAL WERE ESTIMATED
AT NOT LESS THAN $5,000.00."  ON DECEMBER 11, 1943, PETITIONER WAS
DETAINED IN AN ALIEN DETENTION STATION AT SEAGOVILLE, TEXAS.  BEFORE
TIME FOR APPEAL HAD EXPIRED, PETITIONER WAS ADVISED BY HIS ATTORNEY
THAT HE AND HIS WIFE COULD NOT APPEAL ON AFFIDAVITS OF INABILITY TO PAY
COSTS UNTIL THEY HAD "APPROPRIATED SAID HOME TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH
COSTS TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF A SALE THEREOF"; THAT THIS
INFORMATION DISTRESSED THEM, AND THEY SOUGHT ADVICE FROM W. F. KELLEY,
"ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR ALIEN CONTROL, IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION DEPARTMENT," IN WHOSE CUSTODY PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE
WERE BEING HELD, "AND HE BEING A PERSON IN WHOM THEY HAD GREAT
CONFIDENCE"; THAT KELLEY ON BEING INFORMED OF THEIR FINANCIAL CONDITION
AND THE ADVICE OF THEIR ATTORNEY THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THEM TO
DISPOSE OF THEIR HOME IN ORDER TO APPEAL, ADVISED THEM IN SUBSTANCE TO
"HANG ON TO THEIR HOME," AND TOLD THEM FURTHER THAT THEY HAD LOST THEIR
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND WERE STATELESS, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE
RELEASED AT THE END OF THE WAR; THAT RELYING UPON KELLEY'S ADVICE, THEY
REFRAINED FROM APPEALING FROM SAID JUDGMENTS; THAT ON APRIL 29, 1944,
AFTER TIME FOR APPEAL HAD EXPIRED, THEY WERE INTERNED, AND ON JANUARY
25, 1946, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ORDERED THEM TO DEPART WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS OR BE DEPORTED.  THEY DID NOT DEPART, AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN
DEPORTED, ALTHOUGH THE ORDERS OF DEPORTATION ARE STILL OUTSTANDING. 
PETITIONER FURTHER ALLEGED THAT HE WOULD SHOW THAT THE JUDGMENT OF
DECEMBER 7, 1943, WAS UNLAWFUL AND ERRONEOUS BY PRODUCING THE RECORD IN
THE KEILBAR CASE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1948, DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION
TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF DENATURALIZATION, THE COURT STATING IN THE
ORDER THAT "THERE IS NO MERIT TO SAID MOTION." 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT PETITIONER ALLEGED IN HIS MOTION THAT HIS
FAILURE TO APPEAL WAS EXCUSABLE.  A MOTION FOR RELIEF BECAUSE OF
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT AS PROVIDED IN RULE 60(B)(1) MUST, BY THE RULE'S
TERMS, BE MADE NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED. 
THE JUDGMENT HERE SOUGHT TO BE RELIEVED FROM WAS MORE THAN FOUR YEARS
OLD.  IT IS IMMEDIATELY APPARENT THAT NO RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF
"EXCUSABLE NEGLECT" WAS AVAILABLE TO THIS PETITIONER ON THE MOTION
UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

BUT PETITIONER SEEKS TO BRING HIMSELF WITHIN RULE 60(B)(6), WHICH
APPLIES IF "ANY OTHER REASON JUSTIFYING RELIEF" IS PRESENT, AS
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN KLAPPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 601.  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGED IN THE MOTION WHICH PETITIONER ASSERTS BRING HIM
WITHIN RULE 60(B)(6) ARE THAT THE DENATURALIZATION JUDGMENT WAS
ERRONEOUS; THAT HE DID NOT APPEAL AND RAISE THAT QUESTION BECAUSE HIS
ATTORNEY ADVISED HIM HE WOULD HAVE TO SELL HIS HOME TO PAY COSTS, WHILE
KELLEY, THE ALIEN CONTROL OFFICER, IN WHOM HE ALLEGES HE HAD CONFIDENCE
AND UPON WHOSE ADVICE HE RELIED, TOLD HIM "TO HANG ON TO THEIR HOME"
AND THAT HE WOULD BE RELEASED AT THE END OF THE WAR; AND THAT THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY FAILURE TO APPEAL THE DENATURALIZATION JUDGMENT. 

WE CANNOT AGREE THAT PETITIONER HAS ALLEGED CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING
THAT HIS FAILURE TO APPEAL WAS JUSTIFIABLE.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR
PETITIONER TO ALLEGE THAT HE HAD CONFIDENCE IN KELLEY.  ON THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE MOTION BEFORE US, KELLEY WAS A STRANGER TO
PETITIONER.  IN THAT STATE OF THE PLEADINGS THERE ARE TWO REASONS WHY
PETITIONER CANNOT BE HEARD TO SAY HIS NEGLECT TO APPEAL BRINGS HIM
WITHIN THE RULE.  FIRST, ANYTHING SAID BY KELLEY COULD NOT BE USED TO
RELIEVE PETITIONER OF HIS DUTY TO TAKE LEGAL STEPS TO PROTECT HIS
INTEREST IN LITIGATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS A PARTY ADVERSE
TO HIM.  MUNRO V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 36; BURNHAM CHEMICAL CO. V.
KRUG, 81 F.SUPP.  911, 913, AFF'D PER CURIAM SUB NOM.  BURNHAM CHEMICAL
CO. V. CHAPMAN, 86 U.S. APP. D.C. 412, 181 F.2D 288.  SECONDLY,
PETITIONER HAD NO RIGHT TO REPOSE CONFIDENCE IN KELLEY, A STRANGER. 
THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF ANY FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH SHOWS THAT
KELLEY HAD ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER PETITIONER OR PRACTICED ANY FRAUD,
DECEIT, MISREPRESENTATION, OR DURESS UPON HIM.  THERE ARE NO
ALLEGATIONS OF PRIVITY OR ANY FIDUCIARY RELATIONS EXISTING BETWEEN
THEM.  INDEED, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE MOTION ALL SHOW THE CONTRARY. 
HOWEVER, PETITIONER HAD A CONFIDENTIAL ADVISER IN HIS OWN COUNSEL. 
INSTEAD OF RELYING UPON THAT CONFIDENTIAL ADVISER, HE FREELY ACCEPTED
THE ADVICE OF A STRANGER, A SOURCE UPON WHICH HE HAD NO RIGHT TO RELY. 
PETITIONER MADE A CONSIDERED CHOICE NOT TO APPEAL, APPARENTLY BECAUSE
HE DID NOT FEEL THAT AN APPEAL WOULD PROVE TO BE WORTH WHAT HE THOUGHT
WAS A REQUIRED SACRIFICE OF HIS HOME.  HIS CHOICE WAS A RISK, BUT
CALCULATED AND DELIBERATE AND SUCH AS FOLLOWS A FREE CHOICE. 
PETITIONER CANNOT BE RELIEVED OF SUCH A CHOICE BECAUSE HINDSIGHT SEEMS
TO INDICATE TO HIM THAT HIS DECISION NOT TO APPEAL WAS PROBABLY WRONG,
CONSIDERING THE OUTCOME OF THE KEILBAR CASE.  THERE MUST BE AN END TO
LITIGATION SOMEDAY, AND FREE, CALCULATED, DELIBERATE CHOICES ARE NOT TO
BE RELIEVED FROM. 

AS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE INADEQUACY OF PETITIONER'S MOTION TO BRING
HIMSELF WITHIN ANY DIVISION OF RULE 60(B) WHICH WOULD EXCUSE HIM FROM
NOT HAVING TAKEN AN APPEAL, WE CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT KEILBAR
GOT THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND IT CONTAINED ALL THE
EVIDENCE THAT WAS INTRODUCED AS TO PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE, WHO WERE
TRIED TOGETHER WITH KEILBAR.  THE ACKERMANNS AND KEILBAR WERE RELATED,
YET NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO GET INTO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND USE THE
SAME RECORD AS TO THE EVIDENCE THAT KEILBAR USED.  IT CERTAINLY WOULD
NOT HAVE TAKEN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR ONE-TENTH THEREOF FOR
PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE TO HAVE SUPPLEMENTED THE KEILBAR RECORD WITH
THAT PERTAINING TO THEMSELVES AND TO PREPARE A BRIEF, EVEN IF ALL OF IT
WERE PRINTED.  WE ARE FURTHER AWARE OF THE PRACTICE OF THE COURTS OF
APPEALS PERMITTING LITIGANTS WHO ARE POOR BUT NOT PAUPERS TO FILE
TYPEWRITTEN RECORDS AND BRIEFS AT A VERY SMALL COST TO THEM.  WITH THE
SAME COUNSEL REPRESENTING PETITIONER AS REPRESENTED HIS KINSMAN
KEILBAR, AND WITH FRIEDA ACKERMANN HAVING FUNDS SUFFICIENT TO EMPLOY
SEPARATE COUNSEL, FAILURE TO APPEAL BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF LOSING HIS
HOME IN DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF THE BRIEF AND RECORD, MAKES IT
FURTHER EVIDENT THAT RULE 60(B) HAS NO APPLICATION TO PETITIONER IN
THIS SETTING. 

THE KLAPPROTT CASE WAS A CASE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.  MR.
JUSTICE BLACK STATED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS WHY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE
KLAPPROTT CASE, THERE TAKEN AS TRUE, BROUGHT IT WITHIN RULE 60(B)(6): 

"BUT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS SET UP AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION WHICH
CANNOT FAIRLY OR LOGICALLY BE CLASSIFIED AS MERE 'NEGLECT' ON HIS
PART.  THE UNDENIED FACTS SET OUT IN THE PETITION REVEAL FAR MORE THAN
A FAILURE TO DEFEND THE DENATURALIZATION CHARGES DUE TO INADVERTENCE,
INDIFFERENCE, OR CARELESS DISREGARD OF CONSEQUENCES.  FOR BEFORE, AT
THE TIME, AND AFTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, PETITIONER WAS
HELD IN JAIL IN NEW YORK, MICHIGAN, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY THE
UNITED STATES, HIS ADVERSARY IN THE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS. 
WITHOUT FUNDS TO HIRE A LAWYER, PETITIONER WAS DEFENDED BY APPOINTED
COUNSEL IN THE CRIMINAL CASES.  THUS PETITIONER'S PRAYER TO SET ASIDE
THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT DID NOT REST ON MERE ALLEGATIONS OF 'EXCUSABLE
NEGLECT.'  THE FOREGOING ALLEGATIONS AND OTHERS IN THE PETITION TEND TO
SUPPORT PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF ANY REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DEFENSE TO THE CRIMINAL CHARGES INSTIGATED BY
OFFICERS OF THE VERY UNITED STATES AGENCY WHICH SUPPLIED THE SECONDHAND
INFORMATION UPON WHICH HIS CITIZENSHIP WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM IN HIS
ABSENCE.  THE BASIS OF HIS PETITION WAS NOT THAT HE HAD NEGLECTED TO
ACT IN HIS OWN DEFENSE, BUT THAT IN JAIL AS HE WAS, WEAKENED FROM
ILLNESS, WITHOUT A LAWYER IN THE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS OR FUNDS
TO HIRE ONE, DISTURBED AND FULLY OCCUPIED IN EFFORTS TO PROTECT HIMSELF
AGAINST THE GRAVEST CRIMINAL CHARGES, HE WAS NO MORE ABLE TO DEFEND
HIMSELF IN THE NEW JERSEY COURT THAN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD HE NEVER
RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE CHARGES."  KLAPPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S.
601, 613-614. 

BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN THE VOLUNTARY, DELIBERATE, FREE,
UNTRAMMELED CHOICE OF PETITIONER NOT TO APPEAL COMPARE WITH THE
KLAPPROTT SITUATION.  MR. JUSTICE BLACK SET FORTH IN ORDER THE
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGED BY KLAPPROTT.  WE PARAPHRASE THEM
AND GIVE THE COMPARABLE SITUATION OF ACKERMANN. 

IN THE SPRING OF 1942 KLAPPROTT WAS ILL, AND THE ILLNESS LEFT HIM
FINANCIALLY POOR AND UNABLE TO WORK.  ON MAY 12, 1942, PROCEEDINGS WERE
COMMENCED IN A NEW JERSEY DISTRICT COURT TO CANCEL HIS CITIZENSHIP.  AS
FOR ACKERMANN, WHEN HE WAS SUED HE WAS WELL, AND HAD A HOME WORTH
$2,500, ONE-HALF INTEREST IN A NEWSPAPER, AND THE MEANS TO EMPLOY
COUNSEL.    WHEN COMPLAINT WAS SERVED UPON KLAPPROTT, HE HAD NO MONEY
TO HIRE A LAWYER, AND HE WROTE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST
HIM AND A LETTER TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ASKING IT TO
REPRESENT HIM WITHOUT FEE.  ACKERMANN HAD THE MEANS TO HIRE AND DID
HIRE ABLE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOICE WHO PREPARED AND FILED AN ANSWER
FOR HIM. 

IN LESS THAN TWO MONTHS AFTER THE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED ON THE
PENNILESS, ILL KLAPPROTT, HE WAS ARRESTED FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AND TAKEN TO NEW YORK AND JAILED IN DEFAULT OF
BOND.  HIS LETTER TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION WAS TAKEN BY
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BEFORE TIME FOR HIM TO ANSWER HAD
EXPIRED, AND WAS NOT MAILED BY THAT BUREAU.  ACKERMANN WAS NEVER
INDICTED OR IN JAIL FROM THE TIME COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST HIM UNTIL
AFTER JUDGMENT, DURING ALL OF WHICH TIME HE HAD THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL
AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND ACTION. 

WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER HIS ARREST, KLAPPROTT WAS DEFAULTED IN THE
CITIZENSHIP PROCEEDINGS IN NEW JERSEY.  HE WAS STILL IN JAIL IN NEW
YORK.  NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO PROVE THE COMPLAINT IN THE
DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS, WHICH COMPLAINT WAS VERIFIED ON
INFORMATION AND BELIEF ONLY.  IN ACKERMANN'S CASE, NO DEFAULT WAS
ENTERED.  HE APPEARED IN PERSON AND BY COUNSEL AND HAD A TRIAL IN OPEN
COURT WITH ABLE COUNSEL TO DEFEND HIM.  MUCH EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED
AND A RECORD WAS MADE OF IT. 

KLAPPROTT WAS CONVICTED IN NEW YORK AND SENT TO A PENITENTIARY IN
MICHIGAN.  HE WAS LATER TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHERE
HE WAS LODGED IN JAIL AND TRIED ON ANOTHER CHARGE, LATER DISMISSED. 
THE NEW YORK CONVICTION WAS REVERSED, BUT HE HAD BEEN IN JAIL FOR ABOUT
TWO YEARS.  HE WAS THEN LODGED AT ELLIS ISLAND FOR DEPORTATION BECAUSE
HIS CITIZENSHIP HAD BEEN CANCELLED IN THE NEW JERSEY PROCEEDINGS WHERE
HE HAD BEEN DEFAULTED.  WHILE AT ELLIS ISLAND, THE MOTION TO RELIEVE
FROM THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT CANCELLING HIS CITIZENSHIP WAS PREPARED AND
FILED, DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AND
FINALLY SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT.  ACKERMANN WAS NEVER UNDER CRIMINAL
CHARGES OR DETAINED WHILE THE SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF HIS CITIZENSHIP
WAS PENDING.  DURING ALL OF THAT TIME HE WAS FREE, WELL, AND ABLE TO
DEFEND HIMSELF, AND IN THAT REGARD HAD ABLE COUNSEL REPRESENTING HIM IN
A TRIAL IN OPEN COURT.  EVEN AFTER THE JUDGMENT CANCELLING HIS
CITIZENSHIP, HE HAD COUNSEL AND FREE ACCESS TO HIM, ALTHOUGH DETAINED
BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. 

FROM A COMPARISON OF THE SITUATIONS SHOWN BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF
KLAPPROTT AND ACKERMANN, IT IS READILY APPARENT THAT THE SITUATIONS OF
THE PARTIES BORE ONLY THE SLIGHTEST RESEMBLANCE TO EACH OTHER.  THE
COMPARISON STRIKINGLY POINTS UP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NO CHOICE AND
CHOICE; IMPRISONMENT AND FREEDOM OF ACTION; NO TRIAL AND TRIAL; NO
COUNSEL AND COUNSEL; NO CHANCE FOR NEGLIGENCE AND INEXCUSABLE
NEGLIGENCE.  SUBSECTION 6 OF RULE 60(B) HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE
SITUATION OF PETITIONER.  NEITHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PETITIONER NOR
HIS EXCUSE FOR NOT APPEALING IS SO EXTRAORDINARY AS TO BRING HIM WITHIN
KLAPPROTT OR RULE 60(B)(6). 

THE MOTION FOR RELIEF WAS PROPERLY DENIED, AND THE JUDGMENT IS
AFFIRMED. 

NO. 36, FRIEDA ACKERMANN V. UNITED STATES, IS A COMPANION CASE TO NO.
35, AND IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THE DECISION IN NO. 36 SHOULD BE THE
SAME AS IN NO. 35.  THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 36 THEREFORE IS ALSO AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF AMENDED RULE 60(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NEUTRALIZES THE HUMANE SPIRIT OF THE RULE AND
THEREBY FRUSTRATES ITS PURPOSE.  THE RULE EMPOWERS COURTS TO SET ASIDE
JUDGMENTS UNDER FIVE TRADITIONAL, SPECIFIED TYPES OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN
WHICH IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE TO PERMIT A JUDGMENT TO STAND.  BUT THE
DRAFTSMEN OF THE RULE DID NOT INTEND THAT THESE SPECIFIED GROUNDS
SHOULD PREVENT THE GRANTING OF SIMILAR RELIEF IN OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE
FAIRNESS MIGHT REQUIRE IT.  ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS ADDED A BROAD SIXTH
GROUND:  "ANY OTHER REASON JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
JUDGMENT."  THE COURT NEVERTHELESS HOLDS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
PRESENT MOTIONS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE DISTRICT COURT IN
HEARING EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER JUSTICE WOULD BEST BE SERVED BY
GRANTING RELIEF FROM THE JUDGMENTS AGAINST PETITIONERS* .  BECAUSE I
DISAGREE WITH THIS INTERPRETATION OF RULE 60(B), IT BECOMES NECESSARY
TO SUMMARIZE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE MOTIONS. 

*PETITIONERS' MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF
DENATURALIZATION INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER
RULE 60(B).  CONTENDING THAT THESE MOTIONS DID "NOT STATE GROUNDS
SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT  ...  ," THE GOVERNMENT
MOVED TO DISMISS THEM.  THESE PLEADINGS THEREFORE POSED ONLY THE
QUESTION OF THE TRIAL COURT'S JURISDICTION.  WITHOUT FURTHER PLEADINGS
OR THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE, THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER WHICH STATED THAT
"THERE IS NO MERIT TO SAID (PETITIONERS')(MOTIONS) AND  ...  THE SAME
SHOULD BE DENIED."  BUT SINCE WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT AN ISSUE NOT FRAMED
BY THE PLEADINGS WAS DECIDED, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD IT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GRANT RELIEF UNDER RULE
60(B).  BUT CF. BELL V. HOOD, 327 U.S. 678, 682-683; BROWN V. WESTERN
R. CO., 338 U.S. 294. 

PETITIONERS, A HUSBAND AND WIFE WHOSE NATIVE COUNTRY WAS GERMANY,
BECAME NATURALIZED CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1938.  AFTER THE
DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST GERMANY, THE GOVERNMENT COMMENCED
PROCEEDINGS WHICH RESULTED IN THE DENATURALIZATION OF PETITIONERS AND
ALSO OF THEIR RELATIVE, KEILBAR.  UNITED STATES V. ACKERMANN, 53
F.SUPP.  611.  PETITIONERS DID NOT APPEAL FROM THESE JUDGMENTS BUT ON
MARCH 25, 1948, FILED DULY VERIFIED MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM THE
JUDGMENTS.  THE UNCONTRADICTED ALLEGATIONS OF THE MOTIONS SHOW:  WHEN
THE JUDGMENTS WERE ENTERED, NEITHER OF THE PETITIONERS HAD ANY MONEY OR
PROPERTY EXCEPT A HOME AT TAYLOR, TEXAS, WORTH NOT IN EXCESS OF
$2,500.  THEY WERE TOLD BY THEIR COUNSEL THAT THE COST OF AN APPEAL
WOULD BE $5,000; THAT TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL THEY WOULD HAVE TO SELL
THEIR HOME, CONTRIBUTE THAT $2,500 AND THEN HOPE TO HAVE THE APPEAL
TRIED OUT ON AN AFFIDAVIT OF INSOLVENCY.  BEING DISTRESSED BY REASON OF
HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SELLING THEIR HOME OR FOREGOING AN APPEAL, THE
PETITIONERS SOUGHT ADVICE FROM THE UNITED STATES OFFICIAL WHO THEN HELD
THEM IN CUSTODY, ONE W. F. KELLEY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR ALIEN
CONTROL, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
PETITIONERS HAD GREAT CONFIDENCE IN THIS OFFICER.  KELLEY ADVISED THEM
TO "HANG ON TO THEIR HOME" AND ALSO THAT THEY "WOULD BE RELEASED AT THE
END OF THE WAR."  BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIANCE ON THIS ADVICE, PETITIONERS
"REFRAINED FROM APPEALING  ...  SAID JUDGMENTS."  THEREAFTER THEIR
RELATIVE KEILBAR DID APPEAL AND THE JUDGMENT OF DENATURALIZATION
AGAINST HIM WAS REVERSED ON THE GOVERNMENT'S ADMISSION THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT IT.  KEILBAR V. UNITED STATES, 144
F.2D 866.  PETITIONERS INSISTED BOTH IN THEIR MOTIONS TO SET THE
JUDGMENTS ASIDE AND IN ARGUMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM AND
KEILBAR WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. 

IN HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THESE MOTIONS ARE NOT EVEN
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE DISTRICT COURT IN HEARING EVIDENCE, THE COURT
RELIES HEAVILY ON ITS ASSERTION THAT PETITIONERS "HAD NO RIGHT TO
REPOSE CONFIDENCE IN KELLEY" BECAUSE KELLEY WAS A "STRANGER" TO THEM. 
IN THE FIRST PLACE, RULE 60(B)'S BROAD GRANT OF POWER TO THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRICTED BY THE IMPORTATION OF THE CONCEPT OF
LEGAL "RIGHTS."  MOREOVER, FAR FROM BEING A STRANGER, KELLEY WAS THE
UNITED STATES OFFICIAL WHO HELD PETITIONERS IN CUSTODY.  ANY PERSON
HELD BY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE ABLE TO REPOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY.  THERE ARE OBVIOUS
REASONS WHY THIS SHOULD BE TRUE IN THE CASE OF THE FOREIGN BORN, LESS
FAMILIAR WITH OUR CUSTOMS THAN ARE OUR NATIVE CITIZENS. 

THE COURT ALSO RELIES ON THE FACT THAT THE MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENTS CONTAIN "NO ALLEGATIONS OF PRIVITY OR ANY FIDUCIARY RELATIONS
EXISTING" BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND KELLEY.  SURELY THE LIBERALIZING
PROVISIONS OF 60(B) SHOULD NOT BE EMASCULATED BY COMMON-LAW IDEAS OF
"PRIVITY" OR "FIDUCIARY RELATIONS."  IF RELEVANT, HOWEVER, I SHOULD
THINK THAT THE PHRASE "FIDUCIARY RELATIONS" GIVEN ITS BEST MEANING
ENCOMPASSES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND THE OFFICIAL WHO
HELD THEM IN CUSTODY. 

FINALLY, SINCE THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF PETITIONERS'
MOTIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE HEARING OF EVIDENCE BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, I THINK IT INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER WHAT
PURPORTS TO BE ITS JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE COST OF TRANSCRIPTS AND
THE ABILITY OF LITIGANTS TO FILE TYPEWRITTEN RECORDS AND BRIEFS.  THE
MOTIONS REFUTE ANY SUCH KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THESE PETITIONERS AND
I AM SATISFIED THAT NO SUCH KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE ESTABLISHED IF THE
DISTRICT COURT WERE PERMITTED TO TRY THESE CASES. 

THE RESULT OF THE COURT'S ILLIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF 60(B) IS THAT
THESE FOREIGN-BORN PEOPLE, DEPENDENT ON OUR LAWS FOR THEIR SAFETY AND
PROTECTION, ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE VERY COURT THAT HELD
(ON THE GOVERNMENT'S ADMISSION) THAT THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THEIR CO
DEFENDANT WAS UNSUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE EVIDENCE.  IT DOES NO GOOD TO
HAVE LIBERALIZING RULES LIKE 60(B) IF, AFTER THEY ARE WRITTEN, THEIR
ARTERIES ARE HARDENED BY THIS COURT'S RESORT TO ANCIENT COMMON-LAW
CONCEPTS.  I WOULD REVERSE. 
..END :



WHELCHEL V. MCDONALD, 340 U.S. 122 


NO. 109.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1950.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1950.  - 178
F.2D 760, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY WITH THE UNITED STATES ARMY IN
GERMANY, WAS CONVICTED OF RAPE BY A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL.  HE APPLIED
TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, CHALLENGING
THE LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION UNDER THE SENTENCE, ON THE GROUND THAT HE
WAS INSANE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE.  HELD:  THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THAT TRIED PETITIONER WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION BY THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE INSANITY ISSUE WAS DEALT WITH, AND HABEAS CORPUS WAS
THEREFORE NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY.  PP. 123-127. 

1.  UNDER THE LAW GOVERNING COURT-MARTIAL PROCEDURE, THERE MUST BE
AFFORDED A DEFENDANT AT SOME POINT OF TIME AN OPPORTUNITY TO TENDER THE
ISSUE OF INSANITY, AND PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED THAT OPPORTUNITY.  P.
124. 

2.  ANY ERROR THAT MAY BE COMMITTED BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES IN
EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE TENDERED IS BEYOND THE REACH OF REVIEW BY THE
CIVIL COURTS.  P. 124. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE LAW MEMBER OF THE COURT-MARTIAL WAS NOT NAMED
FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT DOES NOT ESTABLISH A GROSS
ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING OF THE AVAILABILITY OF
AN OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT.  P. 126. 

4.  THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE REVISED ARTICLES OF WAR,
WHEREBY AN ACCUSED MAY REQUEST THAT ENLISTED MEN BE INCLUDED ON THE
COURT-MARTIAL, WAS NOT YET IN EFFECT WHEN PETITIONER WAS TRIED, AND THE
FACT THAT HE WAS TRIED BY A COURT-MARTIAL COMPOSED WHOLLY OF OFFICERS
DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION WHICH GOES TO JURISDICTION.  PP. 126-127. 

5.  THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO TRIALS BY COURTS-MARTIAL OR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.  P.
127. 

WHELCHEL V. MCDONALD, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING TO SECURE PETITIONER'S RELEASE FROM
IMPRISONMENT UNDER A SENTENCE OF A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL, THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION AND REMANDED PETITIONER TO CUSTODY.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  176 F.2D 260, 178 F.2D 760.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 977.  AFFIRMED, P. 127. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY WITH THE ARMY IN GERMANY, WAS
CONVICTED BY A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL OF RAPE ON A GERMAN GIRL.  THE
SENTENCE OF DEATH, ORIGINALLY IMPOSED, WAS REDUCED TO A TERM OF YEARS. 
THIS CASE ARISES ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF PETITIONER'S DETENTION
UNDER THAT SENTENCE.  THAT COURT DENIED THE PETITION AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  178 F.2D 760.  THE MAIN POINT PRESENTED BY THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS WHETHER THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL THAT TRIED
PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION BY REASON OF THE TREATMENT OF
THE INSANITY ISSUE TENDERED BY PETITIONER.  WE HOLD THAT IT WAS NOT. 

THE CHARGES AGAINST PETITIONER WERE REFERRED TO AN INVESTIGATING
OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 70 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, 10 U.S.C.
(1946 ED.)  SEC.  1542.  THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER REPORTED THAT HE HAD
NO REASONABLE GROUND FOR BELIEVING PETITIONER WAS DERANGED.  A
NEUROPSYCHIATRIST ATTACHED TO PETITIONER'S DIVISION REPORTED, AFTER
EXAMINING PETITIONER, THAT HE WAS LEGALLY SANE.  THE DIVISION STAFF
JUDGE ADVOCATE RECOMMENDED A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL TRIAL, STATING THERE
WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE PETITIONER TO BE TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY
DERANGED.  THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY WAS NOT RAISED, HOWEVER, EITHER AT
THE PRETRIAL INVESTIGATION OR THE TRIAL ITSELF.  AFTER THE TRIAL
PETITIONER'S TRIAL COUNSEL WROTE THE DIVISION COMMANDING GENERAL
REQUESTING THAT THE CASE BE REOPENED AND PETITIONER BE GIVEN A
NEUROPSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION ON THE GROUND THAT COUNSEL HAD RECEIVED
INFORMATION THAT PETITIONER MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN AN EPILEPTIC FIT AT THE
TIME OF THE OFFENSE.  THIS REQUEST RECEIVED THE CONCURRENCE OF FIVE OF
THE SIX MEMBERS OF THE COURT-MARTIAL AND WAS ACCOMPANIED BY SIMILAR
LETTERS FROM TWO OFFICERS AND A SERGEANT OF PETITIONER'S DIVISION.  THE
RECORD WAS IN THIS CONDITION WHEN IT WAS REVIEWED BY GENERAL EISENHOWER
OF THE EUROPEAN THEATRE OF OPERATIONS, BY THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THAT
THEATRE, AND BY THE ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE IN THE HEARING BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT THAT
PETITIONER MAY HAVE BEEN EITHER INSANE OR DRUNK AT THE TIME OF THE
CRIME. 

WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE WHICH RESPONDENT PRESSES,
FOR WE THINK IT PLAIN FROM THE LAW GOVERNING COURT-MARTIAL PROCEDURE
THAT THERE MUST BE AFFORDED A DEFENDANT AT SOME POINT OF TIME AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TENDER THE ISSUE OF INSANITY.  IT IS ONLY A DENIAL OF
THAT OPPORTUNITY WHICH GOES TO THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.  THAT
OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED HERE.  ANY ERROR THAT MAY BE COMMITTED IN
EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE TENDERED IS BEYOND THE REACH OF REVIEW BY THE
CIVIL COURTS. 

THE MANUAL PRESCRIBES THE ORDINARY TEST OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY,
VIZ., WHETHER THE ACCUSED WAS ABLE TO TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG.  FN1
INSANITY IS A DEFENSE.  FN2  THE PRETRIAL PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN
ARTICLE 70 OFFERS THE ACCUSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE DEFENSE OF
INSANITY.  PETITIONER HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY.  THE MANUAL PROVIDES THAT
THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY (HERE THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE DIVISION)
"WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION WHERE IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD OR
OTHERWISE THAT THE ACCUSED MAY HAVE BEEN INSANE" AT THE TIME OF THE
CRIME, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH QUESTION WAS RAISED AT THE TRIAL.  FN3  THAT
IS ALSO A PROVISION WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE CONFIRMING AUTHORITY
N4(HERE THE GENERAL IN CHARGE OF THE EUROPEAN THEATRE OF OPERATIONS). 
THE CONFIRMING AUTHORITY HAD BEFORE IT THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENSE
COUNSEL AND THE OTHER LETTERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED TO IT.  THE
MANUAL DOES NOT REQUIRE EITHER THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY OR THE
CONFIRMING AUTHORITY TO HALT THE PROCEEDINGS, MAKE A FURTHER
INVESTIGATION, OR START OVER AGAIN.  IT ENTRUSTS THE MATTER TO THE
DISCRETION OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. 

PETITIONER HAD A FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES OF
THE INSANITY ISSUE WHICH HE TENDERS.  BY ARTICLE 53 OF THE REVISED
ARTICLES OF WAR, ACT OF JUNE 24, 1948, 62 STAT. 639, 642, 10 U.S.C.
(SUPP. III) SEC. 1525, WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1949, THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL IS AUTHORIZED "UPON APPLICATION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON,
AND UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IN HIS DISCRETION TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL" IN
ANY COURT-MARTIAL CASE ON APPLICATION WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME
LIMITS.  THAT ARTICLE BECAME EFFECTIVE AFTER THE PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS WAS FILED.  BUT WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING ON APPEAL THE COURT
OF APPEALS DELAYED FINAL ACTION WHILE PETITIONER MADE APPLICATION UNDER
ARTICLE 53.  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL REVIEWED ALL THE EVIDENCE ON
THE INSANITY ISSUE WHICH PETITIONER HAD TENDERED BOTH TO THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES AND TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING
AND CONCLUDED "I ENTERTAIN NO DOUBT THAT WHELCHEL WAS SO FAR FREE FROM
MENTAL DEFECT, DISEASE, AND DERANGEMENT AS TO BE ABLE CONCERNING THE
PARTICULAR ACTS CHARGED BOTH TO DISTINGUISH RIGHT FROM WRONG AND TO
ADHERE TO THE RIGHT  ...  " 

ANY ERROR BY THE MILITARY IN EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE ON THE QUESTION
OF INSANITY WOULD NOT GO TO JURISDICTION, THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE
COURT IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS. 

THE LAW MEMBER OF THE COURT-MARTIAL WAS NOT NAMED FROM THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT.  BUT SINCE NO SHOWING WAS MADE OF THE
AVAILABILITY OF SUCH A MEMBER, A CASE OF GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION HAS
NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.  SEE HIATT V. BROWN, 339 U.S. 103, 109-110. 

UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF THE REVISED ARTICLES OF WAR AN ACCUSED MAY NOW
REQUEST THAT ENLISTED MEN BE INCLUDED ON THE COURT-MARTIAL THAT TRIES
HIM.  FN5  THERE WAS NO SUCH PROVISION OF THE LAW WHEN PETITIONER WAS
TRIED.  FN6  BUT THE FACT THAT HE WAS TRIED BY A COURT-MARTIAL COMPOSED
WHOLLY OF OFFICERS DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION WHICH GOES TO
JURISDICTION.  PETITIONER CAN GAIN NO SUPPORT FROM THE ANALOGY OF TRIAL
BY JURY IN THE CIVIL COURTS.  THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY GUARANTEED BY
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TRIALS BY COURTS-MARTIAL OR
MILITARY COMMISSIONS.  SEE KAHN V. ANDERSON, 255 U.S. 1, 8; EX PARTE
QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, 40-41.  COURTS-MARTIAL HAVE BEEN COMPOSED OF
OFFICERS BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION N7. 
THE CONSTITUTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL, LIKE OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO
THEIR ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION (SEE KAHN V. ANDERSON, SUPRA, 6
7; SWAIM V. UNITED STATES, 165 U.S. 553, 556-559; MULLAN V. UNITED
STATES, 140 U.S. 240, 244-245; MARTIN V. MOTT, 12 WHEAT.  19, 34-35),
IS A MATTER APPROPRIATE FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PARAGRAPH 78A MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL (1928 ED.)  PROVIDES:
"A PERSON IS NOT MENTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN OFFENSE UNLESS HE WAS AT
THE TIME SO FAR FREE FROM MENTAL DEFECT, DISEASE, OR DERANGEMENT AS TO
BE ABLE CONCERNING THE PARTICULAR ACTS CHARGED BOTH TO DISTINGUISH
RIGHT FROM WRONG AND TO ADHERE TO THE RIGHT." 

FN2  PARAGRAPH 63 OF THE MANUAL PROVIDES:  "THE COURT WILL INQUIRE
INTO THE EXISTING MENTAL CONDITION OF THE ACCUSED WHENEVER AT ANY TIME
WHILE THE CASE IS BEFORE THE COURT IT APPEARS TO THE COURT FOR ANY
REASON THAT SUCH INQUIRY OUGHT TO BE MADE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 
REASONS FOR SUCH ACTION MAY INCLUDE ANYTHING THAT WOULD CAUSE A
REASONABLE MAN TO QUESTION THE ACCUSED'S MENTAL CAPACITY EITHER TO
UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OR INTELLIGENTLY TO CONDUCT OR
TO COOPERATE IN HIS DEFENSE." 

PARAGRAPH 75A PROVIDES:  "IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE ACCUSED
WAS NOT MENTALLY RESPONSIBLE, IT WILL FORTHWITH ENTER A FINDING OF NOT
GUILTY AS TO THE PROPER SPECIFICATION." 

PARAGRAPH 78A PROVIDES:  "WHERE A REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE
MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF AN ACCUSED FOR AN OFFENSE CHARGED, THE ACCUSED
CAN NOT LEGALLY BE CONVICTED OF THAT OFFENSE." 

FN3  ID. P87B. 

FN4  ID. P88. 

FN5 10 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 1475. 

FN6  AT THE TIME OF PETITIONER'S TRIAL ARTICLE 4, 10 U.S.C. (1946
ED.)  SEC.  1475, PROVIDED IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:  "ALL OFFICERS
IN THE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND OFFICERS OF THE
MARINE CORPS WHEN DETACHED FOR SERVICE WITH THE ARMY BY ORDER OF THE
PRESIDENT, SHALL BE COMPETENT TO SERVE ON COURTS-MARTIAL FOR THE TRIAL
OF ANY PERSONS WHO MAY LAWFULLY BE BROUGHT BEFORE SUCH COURTS FOR
TRIAL." 

FN7  SEE COLLECTION OF PRECEDENTS IN WINTHROP'S MILITARY LAW AND
PRECEDENTS (2D ED., REPRINT 1920):  BRITISH ARTICLES OF WAR OF 1765, P.
942; AMERICAN ARTICLES OF WAR OF 1776, P. 967; AMERICAN ARTICLES OF WAR
OF 1806, PP. 981-982. 
..END :






GUSIK V. SCHILDER, 340 U.S. 128 


NO. 110.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1950.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1950.  - 180
F.2D 662, REVERSED. 


1.  ARTICLE 53 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR GIVES THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
DISCRETION TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL IN ANY COURT-MARTIAL CASE.  HELD:  A
FEDERAL COURT SHOULD NOT ENTERTAIN A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON
BEHALF OF ONE IMPRISONED UNDER A SENTENCE OF A COURT-MARTIAL UNTIL THE
REMEDY AFFORDED BY ARTICLE 53 HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT
THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE ARTICLE AND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD EXHAUSTED THE PREVIOUSLY
EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  PP. 129-134. 

2.  ARTICLE 53 IS APPLICABLE TO WORLD WAR II COURT-MARTIAL CASES IN
WHICH APPELLATE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ARTICLE OR IN WHICH HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INSTITUTED PRIOR
TO THAT DATE.  PP. 130-132. 

3.  THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 53 THAT ALL ACTION BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL THEREUNDER SHALL BE "FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE" AND SHALL BE
"BINDING UPON ALL DEPARTMENTS, COURTS, AGENCIES, AND OFFICERS OF THE
UNITED STATES" MUST BE READ AS DESCRIBING THE TERMINAL POINT FOR
PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE COURT-MARTIAL SYSTEM AND NOT AS DEPRIVING THE
CIVIL COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BY HABEAS CORPUS THE JUDGMENTS
OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  PP. 132-133. 

4.  PETITIONER'S BELIEF THAT RESORT TO ARTICLE 53 WILL BE FUTILE
CANNOT EXCUSE HIS FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY THAT
ARTICLE.  P. 133. 

5.  THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE IN THE DISTRICT COURT HAVING ENDED BEFORE
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ARTICLE 53, AND THE QUESTION OF THE EXHAUSTION OF
THE NEW REMEDY NOT HAVING BEEN RAISED UNTIL THE CASE WAS ON APPEAL, THE
COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE HELD THE CASE PENDING RESORT TO THE NEW
REMEDY UNDER THE ARTICLE.  PP. 133-134. 

GUSIK V. SCHILDER, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING TO SECURE PETITIONER'S RELEASE FROM
IMPRISONMENT UNDER SENTENCE OF A COURT-MARTIAL, THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINED THE WRIT AND ORDERED PETITIONER RELEASED ON BOND.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  180 F.2D 662.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
339 U.S. 977.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 134. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION
BY RESPONDENT.  RESPONDENT HOLDS GUSIK PURSUANT TO A COURT-MARTIAL
JUDGMENT CONVICTING HIM OF MURDER WHILE HE WAS STATIONED IN ITALY AS A
MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY.  AFTER CONVICTION BY THE COURT
MARTIAL PETITIONER EXHAUSTED ALL HIS REMEDIES FOR REVERSAL OR
MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH THEN EXISTED UNDER THE
ARTICLES OF WAR.  WHEN HE SECURED NO RELIEF FROM THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES HE FILED THIS PETITION IN WHICH HE CHALLENGES THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT-MARTIAL BOTH UNDER THE ARTICLES OF WAR AND
THE CONSTITUTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER A HEARING, SUSTAINED THE
WRIT AND RELEASED GUSIK ON BOND.  IT FOUND THAT THE COURT-MARTIAL DID
NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, BECAUSE NO THOROUGH AND IMPARTIAL PRETRIAL
INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 70 OF THE
ARTICLES OF WAR, BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE ADVOCATE FAILED TO CALL
MATERIAL WITNESSES, AND BECAUSE GUSIK WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 180 F.2D 662. 
IT DID NOT REACH THE MERITS OF THE CASE; IT HELD THAT THERE WAS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY WHICH PETITIONER HAD NOT EXHAUSTED AND THAT THE
PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF A NEW
PETITION AFTER RESORT TO THE ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY HAD BEEN
MADE. 

THE NEW REMEDY IS ARTICLE 53 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, 62 STAT. 639, 10
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 1525.  FN1  IT GIVES THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
DISCRETION, INTER ALIA, TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL IN ANY COURT-MARTIAL
CASE.  TIME LIMITATIONS ARE SPECIFIED; AND "WITH REGARD TO CASES
INVOLVING OFFENSES COMMITTED DURING WORLD WAR II, THE APPLICATION FOR A
NEW TRIAL MAY BE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION OF THE WAR, OR
AFTER ITS FINAL DISPOSITION UPON INITIAL APPELLATE REVIEW AS HEREIN
PROVIDED, WHICHEVER IS THE LATER."  PETITIONER ARGUES THAT ARTICLE 53
IS NOT APPLICABLE TO WORLD WAR II COURT-MARTIAL CASES IN WHICH
APPELLATE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ARTICLE OR IN WHICH HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INSTITUTED PRIOR
TO THAT DATE.  THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT WOULD REQUIRE EXTENSIVE
TAILORING OF THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 53, SINCE THE NEW ARTICLE
EXPLICITLY APPLIES TO "CASES INVOLVING OFFENSES COMMITTED DURING WORLD
WAR II" WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE STAGE IN WHICH THE CASES MAY BE ON THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ARTICLE.  OUR CONCLUSION IS IN HARMONY WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE PRESIDENT, WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE THE
REGULATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 53, GAVE TO THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10020 WHICH PROMULGATED THE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL. 
FN2  THAT ORDER STATES THAT THE NEW MANUAL SHALL BE IN FORCE AND EFFECT
ON AND AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 1949, "WITH RESPECT TO ALL COURT-MARTIAL
PROCESSES TAKEN ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 1949."  A PETITION FOR A NEW
TRIAL UNDER ARTICLE 53 IS SUCH A PROCESS. 

IF ARTICLE 53 HAD BEEN IN FORCE WHEN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS
WERE INSTITUTED, THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN
ENTERTAINING THE PETITION UNLESS THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE ARTICLE HAD
FIRST BEEN EXHAUSTED.  AN ANALOGY IS A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN
THE FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE COURT.  IF
THE STATE PROCEDURE PROVIDES A REMEDY, WHICH THOUGH AVAILABLE HAS NOT
BEEN EXHAUSTED, THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL NOT INTERFERE.  THAT IS NOT
ONLY THE HOLDING OF THE COURT IN A LONG LINE OF CASES (SEE MOONEY V.
HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, 115; EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 116); IT IS
THE RULE WHICH CONGRESS RECENTLY WROTE INTO THE JUDICIAL CODE.  28
U.S.C. SEC. 2254.  THE POLICY UNDERLYING THAT RULE IS AS PERTINENT TO
THE COLLATERAL ATTACK OF MILITARY JUDGMENTS AS IT IS TO COLLATERAL
ATTACK OF JUDGMENTS RENDERED IN STATE COURTS.  IF AN AVAILABLE
PROCEDURE HAS NOT BEEN EMPLOYED TO RECTIFY THE ALLEGED ERROR WHICH THE
FEDERAL COURT IS ASKED TO CORRECT, ANY INTERFERENCE BY THE FEDERAL
COURT MAY BE WHOLLY NEEDLESS.  THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED TO POLICE THE
ERRORS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHOSE JUDGMENT IS CHALLENGED MAY BE ADEQUATE FOR
THE OCCASION.  IF IT IS, ANY FRICTION BETWEEN THE FEDERAL COURT AND THE
MILITARY OR STATE TRIBUNAL IS SAVED.  THAT POLICY IS AS WELL SERVED
WHETHER THE REMEDY WHICH IS AVAILABLE WAS EXISTENT AT THE TIME RESORT
WAS HAD TO THE FEDERAL COURTS OR WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CREATED, AS INDEED IS
IMPLICIT IN CASES FROM A STATE COURT WHOSE REVIEW WE DENIED PENDING
EXHAUSTION OF A NEWLY CREATED STATE REMEDY.  SEE WALKER V. RAGEN, 338
U.S. 833; MARKS V. RAGEN, 339 U.S. 926.  SUCH A PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION IS IN NO SENSE A SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.  IT IS MERELY A DEFERMENT OF RESORT TO THE WRIT UNTIL OTHER
CORRECTIVE PROCEDURES ARE SHOWN TO BE FUTILE. 

AN ARGUMENT IS WOVEN AROUND THE FINALITY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE 53 AS A
FOUNDATION TO A CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  THE PROVISION IS THAT
ALL ACTION BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL UNDER ARTICLE 53 SHALL BE
"FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE" AND SHALL BE "BINDING UPON ALL DEPARTMENTS,
COURTS, AGENCIES, AND OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES."  IT IS ARGUED
THAT THIS CLAUSE DEPRIVES THE COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THESE
MILITARY JUDGMENTS AND THEREFORE AMOUNTS TO A SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT. 
WE DO NOT SO READ ARTICLE 53.  CONGRESS WAS LEGISLATING AS RESPECTS
TRIBUNALS OVER WHICH THE CIVIL COURTS HAVE TRADITIONALLY EXERCISED NO
POWER OF SUPERVISION OR REVIEW.  SEE IN RE GRIMLEY, 137 U.S. 147, 150. 
THESE TRIBUNALS HAVE OPERATED IN A SELF-SUFFICIENT SYSTEM, SAVE ONLY AS
HABEAS CORPUS WAS AVAILABLE TO TEST THEIR JURISDICTION IN SPECIFIC
CASES.  WE READ THE FINALITY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE 53 AS DOING NO MORE THAN
DESCRIBING THE TERMINAL POINT FOR PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE COURT-MARTIAL
SYSTEM.  IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THE CIVIL COURTS OF THEIR
HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION, WHICH HAS BEEN EXERCISED FROM THE
BEGINNING,  FN3  THE BREAK WITH HISTORY WOULD HAVE BEEN SO MARKED THAT
WE BELIEVE THE PURPOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE PLAIN AND UNMISTAKABLE. 
THE FINALITY LANGUAGE SO ADEQUATELY SERVES THE MORE RESTRICTED PURPOSE
THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE A STRAINED CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO STIR THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE THAT IS TENDERED. 

PETITIONER SAYS THAT RESORT TO ARTICLE 53 WILL BE FUTILE.  IF IT
PROVES TO BE, NO RIGHTS HAVE BEEN SACRIFICED.  HABEAS CORPUS WILL THEN
BE AVAILABLE TO TEST ANY QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION WHICH PETITIONER MAY
OFFER. 

TRIAL OF THE CASE IN THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ENDED BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ARTICLE 53 AND THE QUESTION OF THE EXHAUSTION OF THE
NEW REMEDY WHICH THE ARTICLE AFFORDS WAS NOT RAISED UNTIL THE CASE WAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  FN4  WE CONCLUDE THAT IN THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE THE COURT OF APPEALS, INSTEAD OF REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT
AND ORDERING THE PETITION TO BE DISMISSED, SHOULD HAVE DONE WHAT THE
COURT OF APPEALS IN WHELCHEL V. MCDONALD, ANTE, P. 122, DID UNDER LIKE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND HELD THE CASE PENDING RESORT TO THE NEW REMEDY UNDER
ARTICLE 53.  IF RELIEF IS OBTAINED FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, THE
CASE WILL THEN BE REMANDED FOR DISMISSAL.  IF THE RELIEF IS NOT
OBTAINED UNDER ARTICLE 53, PETITIONER WILL NOT BE PUT TO THE TIME AND
EXPENSE OF TRYING ANEW THE CASE WHICH HE TRIED WHEN HE HAD NO RELIEF
OTHER THAN HABEAS CORPUS. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THE MAIN ISSUE TENDERED UNDER
ARTICLE 53.  BUT SINCE WE THINK A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION OF THE CASE
SHOULD BE MADE PENDING RESORT TO THE NEW REMEDY WHICH ARTICLE 53
AFFORDS, WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  ARTICLE 53 READS AS FOLLOWS:  "UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE
PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE, THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL IS AUTHORIZED, UPON
APPLICATION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON, AND UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IN HIS
DISCRETION TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL, OR TO VACATE A SENTENCE, RESTORE
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY SUCH SENTENCE, AND
SUBSTITUTE FOR A DISMISSAL, DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE, OR BAD CONDUCT
DISCHARGE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED A FORM OF DISCHARGE AUTHORIZED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCE, IN ANY COURT-MARTIAL CASE IN WHICH APPLICATION
IS MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE UPON
INITIAL APPELLATE REVIEW:  PROVIDED, THAT WITH REGARD TO CASES
INVOLVING OFFENSES COMMITTED DURING WORLD WAR II, THE APPLICATION FOR A
NEW TRIAL MAY BE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER TERMINATION OF THE WAR, OR
AFTER ITS FINAL DISPOSITION UPON INITIAL APPELLATE REVIEW AS HEREIN
PROVIDED, WHICHEVER IS THE LATER:  PROVIDED, THAT ONLY ONE SUCH
APPLICATION FOR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE ENTERTAINED WITH REGARD TO ANY ONE
CASE:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT ALL ACTION BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, AND ALL PROCEEDINGS, FINDINGS, AND
SENTENCES ON NEW TRIALS UNDER THIS ARTICLE, AS APPROVED, REVIEWED, OR
CONFIRMED UNDER ARTICLES 47, 48, 49, AND 50, AND ALL DISMISSALS AND
DISCHARGES CARRIED INTO EXECUTION PURSUANT TO SENTENCES ADJUDGED ON NEW
TRIALS AND APPROVED, REVIEWED, OR CONFIRMED, SHALL BE FINAL AND
CONCLUSIVE AND ORDERS PUBLISHING THE ACTION OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL OR THE PROCEEDINGS ON NEW TRIAL AND ALL ACTION TAKEN PURSUANT
TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS, SHALL BE BINDING UPON ALL DEPARTMENTS, COURTS,
AGENCIES, AND OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN2  13 FED. REG. 7519.  AND SEE C. 22 MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, ID.
AT 7550. 

FN3  COLLATERAL ATTACK OF A JUDGMENT OF A COURT-MARTIAL WAS EARLY
ENTERTAINED.  WISE V. WITHERS, 3 CRANCH 331, WAS AN ACTION IN TRESPASS
AGAINST ONE WHO JUSTIFIED THE TAKING AS COLLECTOR OF A FINE IMPOSED BY
A COURT-MARTIAL.  THE COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MARSHALL, C.J., HELD THAT
SINCE THE COURT-MARTIAL ACTED WITHOUT ITS JURISDICTION THE COURT AND
THE OFFICERS WERE TRESPASSERS.  AND SEE HOUSTON V. MOORE, 5 WHEAT. 
1(TRESPASS); MARTIN V. MOTT, 12 WHEAT.  19(REPLEVIN); DYNES V. HOOVER,
20 HOW.  65(ASSAULT, BATTERY, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT).  EX PARTE REED,
100 U.S. 13, ALLOWED HABEAS CORPUS TO TEST THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
MARTIAL. 

FN4  THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS FILED APRIL 27, 1948; THE
RETURN WAS FILED JUNE 17, 1948; THE PARTIES FINISHED INTRODUCING
EVIDENCE ON JANUARY 7, 1949; ARTICLE 53 BECAME EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1,
1949; THE DISTRICT COURT FILED ITS OPINION ON MARCH 31, 1949; NOTICE OF
APPEAL WAS FILED MAY 17, 1949; THE CASE WAS ARGUED IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS ON JANUARY 31, 1950. 
..END :








FERES V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 135 


ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1950.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1950.  - 177 F.2D 535
AND 178 F.2D 518, AFFIRMED - 178 F.2D 1, REVERSED. 


THE UNITED STATES IS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT FOR
INJURIES TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES SUSTAINED WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY
AND NOT ON FURLOUGH AND RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS IN THE
ARMED FORCES.  PP. 136-146. 

(A)  THE TORT CLAIMS ACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO FIT, SO FAR AS WILL
COMPORT WITH ITS WORDS, INTO THE ENTIRE STATUTORY SYSTEM OF REMEDIES
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A WORKABLE, CONSISTENT AND EQUITABLE
WHOLE.  P. 139. 

(B)  ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT WAS TO TRANSFER FROM CONGRESS TO
THE COURTS THE BURDEN OF EXAMINING TORT CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT;
AND CONGRESS WAS NOT BURDENED WITH PRIVATE BILLS ON BEHALF OF MILITARY
AND NAVAL PERSONNEL, BECAUSE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF RELIEF HAD BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE FOR THEM AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.  PP. 139-140. 

(C)  THE ACT CONFERS ON THE DISTRICT COURTS BROAD JURISDICTION OVER
"CIVIL ACTIONS ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, FOR MONEY DAMAGES";
BUT IT REMAINS FOR THE COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY CLAIM IS
RECOGNIZABLE IN LAW.  PP. 140-141. 

(D)  IT DOES NOT CREATE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION BUT MERELY ACCEPTS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT LIABILITY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD BRING PRIVATE
LIABILITY INTO EXISTENCE.  P. 141. 

(E)  THERE IS NO ANALOGOUS LIABILITY OF A "PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL"
GROWING OUT OF "LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES," WHEN THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE
WRONGED TO THE WRONGDOERS IN THESE CASES IS CONSIDERED.  PP. 141-142. 

(F)  THE PROVISION OF THE ACT MAKING "THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE
ACT OR OMISSION OCCURRED" GOVERN ANY CONSEQUENT LIABILITY IS
INCONSISTENT WITH AN INTENTION TO MAKE THE GOVERNMENT LIABLE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES, SINCE THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE GOVERNMENT
AND MEMBERS OF ITS ARMED FORCES IS "DISTINCTIVELY FEDERAL IN
CHARACTER."  PP. 142-144. 

(G)  THE FAILURE OF THE ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE
REMEDY PROVIDED THEREIN AND OTHER ESTABLISHED SYSTEMS OF COMPENSATION
FOR INJURIES OR DEATH OF THOSE IN THE ARMED SERVICES IS PERSUASIVE THAT
THE TORT CLAIMS ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE APPLICABLE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES.  PP. 144-145. 

(H)  BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 49, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 146. 

FERES, EXECUTRIX, V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 9.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 29, JEFFERSON V. UNITED STATES, ON CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, ARGUED
OCTOBER 12-13, 1950, AND NO. 31, UNITED STATES V. GRIGGS, EXECUTRIX, ON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT,
ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1950. 

THE CASES ARE STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE ORDERS GRANTING CERTIORARI
IN NOS. 9 AND 29 ARE REPORTED AT 339 U.S. 910 AND IN NO. 31 AT 339 U.S.
951.  THE DECISIONS BELOW IN NOS. 9 AND 29 ARE AFFIRMED AND THAT IN NO.
31 IS REVERSED, P. 146. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A COMMON ISSUE ARISING UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, AS TO WHICH COURTS
OF APPEALS ARE IN CONFLICT, MAKES IT APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THREE
CASES IN ONE OPINION. 

THE FERES CASE:  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN ACTION BY THE
EXECUTRIX OF FERES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER FOR DEATH
CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE.  DECEDENT PERISHED BY FIRE IN THE BARRACKS AT
PINE CAMP, NEW YORK, WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES.  NEGLIGENCE WAS ALLEGED IN QUARTERING HIM IN BARRACKS KNOWN OR
WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO BE UNSAFE BECAUSE OF A DEFECTIVE
HEATING PLANT, AND IN FAILING TO MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE FIRE WATCH.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT, AFFIRMED.  FN1 

THE JEFFERSON CASE:  PLAINTIFF, WHILE IN THE ARMY, WAS REQUIRED TO
UNDERGO AN ABDOMINAL OPERATION.  ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS LATER, IN THE
COURSE OF ANOTHER OPERATION AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS DISCHARGED, A TOWEL 30
INCHES LONG BY 18 INCHES WIDE, MARKED "MEDICAL DEPARTMENT U.S. ARMY,"
WAS DISCOVERED AND REMOVED FROM HIS STOMACH.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED
THAT IT WAS NEGLIGENTLY LEFT THERE BY THE ARMY SURGEON.  THE DISTRICT
COURT, BEING DOUBTFUL OF THE LAW, REFUSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE
GOVERNMENT'S PRETRIAL MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  FN2  AFTER
TRIAL, FINDING NEGLIGENCE AS A FACT, JUDGE CHESNUT CAREFULLY REEXAMINED
THE ISSUE OF LAW AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ACT DOES NOT CHARGE THE UNITED
STATES WITH LIABILITY IN THIS TYPE OF CASE.  FN3  THE COURT OF APPEALS,
FOURTH CIRCUIT, AFFIRMED.  FN4 

THE GRIGGS CASE:  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT OF
GRIGGS' EXECUTRIX, WHICH ALLEGED THAT WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY HE MET DEATH
BECAUSE OF NEGLIGENT AND UNSKILLFUL MEDICAL TREATMENT BY ARMY
SURGEONS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, TENTH CIRCUIT, REVERSED AND, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, HELD THAT THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE
ACT.  FN5 

THE COMMON FACT UNDERLYING THE THREE CASES IS THAT EACH CLAIMANT,
WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY AND NOT ON FURLOUGH, SUSTAINED INJURY DUE TO
NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS IN THE ARMED FORCES.  THE ONLY ISSUE OF LAW RAISED
IS WHETHER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT EXTENDS ITS REMEDY TO ONE SUSTAINING
"INCIDENT TO THE SERVICE" WHAT UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE AN
ACTIONABLE WRONG.  THIS IS THE "WHOLLY DIFFERENT CASE" RESERVED FROM
OUR DECISION IN BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 49, 52. 

THERE ARE FEW GUIDING MATERIALS FOR OUR TASK OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION.  NO COMMITTEE REPORTS OR FLOOR DEBATES DISCLOSE WHAT
EFFECT THE STATUTE WAS DESIGNED TO HAVE ON THE PROBLEM BEFORE US, OR
THAT IT EVEN WAS IN MIND.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO CONCLUSION CAN
BE ABOVE CHALLENGE, BUT IF WE MISINTERPRET THE ACT, AT LEAST CONGRESS
POSSESSES A READY REMEDY. 

WE DO NOT OVERLOOK CONSIDERATIONS PERSUASIVE OF LIABILITY IN THESE
CASES.  THE ACT DOES CONFER DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION GENERALLY OVER
CLAIMS FOR MONEY DAMAGES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED ON
NEGLIGENCE.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1346(B).  IT DOES CONTEMPLATE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT WILL SOMETIMES RESPOND FOR NEGLIGENCE OF MILITARY PERSONNEL,
FOR IT DEFINES "EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT" TO INCLUDE "MEMBERS OF THE
MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES," AND PROVIDES THAT
"'ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT', IN THE CASE OF
A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, MEANS
ACTING IN LINE OF DUTY."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2671.  ITS EXCEPTIONS MIGHT
ALSO IMPLY INCLUSION OF CLAIMS SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE.  28 U.S.C. SEC.
2680(J) EXCEPTS "ANY CLAIM ARISING OUT OF THE COMBATANT ACTIVITIES OF
THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES, OR THE COAST GUARD, DURING TIME OF WAR",
FROM WHICH IT IS SAID WE SHOULD INFER ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS ARISING FROM
NONCOMBAT ACTIVITIES IN PEACE.  SECTION 2680(K) EXCLUDES "ANY CLAIM
ARISING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY."  SIGNIFICANCE ALSO HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED
IN THESE CASES, AS IN THE BROOKS CASE, SUPRA, P. 51, TO THE FACT THAT
EIGHTEEN TORT CLAIMS BILLS WERE INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS BETWEEN 1925 AND
1935 AND ALL BUT TWO EXPRESSLY DENIED RECOVERY TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES; BUT THE BILL ENACTED AS THE PRESENT TORT CLAIMS ACT FROM ITS
INTRODUCTION MADE NO EXCEPTION.  WE ALSO ARE REMINDED THAT THE BROOKS
CASE, IN SPITE OF ITS RESERVATION OF SERVICE-CONNECTED INJURIES,
INTERPRETS THE ACT TO COVER CLAIMS NOT INCIDENTAL TO SERVICE, AND IT IS
ARGUED THAT MUCH OF ITS REASONING IS AS APT TO IMPOSE LIABILITY IN
FAVOR OF A MAN ON DUTY AS IN FAVOR OF ONE ON LEAVE.  THESE
CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS SAID, SHOULD PERSUADE US TO CAST UPON CONGRESS,
AS AUTHOR OF THE CONFUSION, THE TASK OF QUALIFYING AND CLARIFYING ITS
LANGUAGE IF THE LIABILITY HERE ASSERTED SHOULD PROVE SO DEPLETING OF
THE PUBLIC TREASURY AS THE GOVERNMENT FEARS. 

THIS ACT, HOWEVER, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO FIT, SO FAR AS WILL COMPORT
WITH ITS WORDS, INTO THE ENTIRE STATUTORY SYSTEM OF REMEDIES AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A WORKABLE, CONSISTENT AND EQUITABLE WHOLE.  THE
TORT CLAIMS ACT WAS NOT AN ISOLATED AND SPONTANEOUS FLASH OF
CONGRESSIONAL GENEROSITY.  IT MARKS THE CULMINATION OF A LONG EFFORT TO
MITIGATE UNJUST CONSEQUENCES OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.  WHILE
THE POLITICAL THEORY THAT THE KING COULD DO NO WRONG WAS REPUDIATED IN
AMERICA, A LEGAL DOCTRINE DERIVED FROM IT THAT THE CROWN IS IMMUNE FROM
ANY SUIT TO WHICH IT HAS NOT CONSENTED  FN6  WAS INVOKED ON BEHALF OF
THE REPUBLIC AND APPLIED BY OUR COURTS AS VIGOROUSLY AS IT HAD BEEN ON
BEHALF OF THE CROWN.  FN7  AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPANDED ITS
ACTIVITIES, ITS AGENTS CAUSED A MULTIPLYING NUMBER OF REMEDILESS WRONGS
- WRONGS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ACTIONABLE IF INFLICTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL
OR A CORPORATION BUT REMEDILESS SOLELY BECAUSE THEIR PERPETRATOR WAS AN
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  RELIEF WAS OFTEN SOUGHT AND
SOMETIMES GRANTED THROUGH PRIVATE BILLS IN CONGRESS, THE NUMBER OF
WHICH STEADILY INCREASED AS GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY INCREASED.  THE VOLUME
OF THESE PRIVATE BILLS, THE INADEQUACY OF CONGRESSIONAL MACHINERY FOR
DETERMINATION OF FACTS, THE IMPORTUNITIES TO WHICH CLAIMANTS SUBJECTED
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND THE CAPRICIOUS RESULTS, LED TO A STRONG DEMAND
THAT CLAIMS FOR TORT WRONGS BE SUBMITTED TO ADJUDICATION.  CONGRESS
ALREADY HAD WAIVED IMMUNITY AND MADE THE GOVERNMENT ANSWERABLE FOR
BREACHES OF ITS CONTRACTS AND CERTAIN OTHER TYPES OF CLAIMS.  FN8  AT
LAST, IN CONNECTION WITH THE REORGANIZATION ACT, IT WAIVED IMMUNITY AND
TRANSFERRED THE BURDEN OF EXAMINING TORT CLAIMS TO THE COURTS.  THE
PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO EXTEND A REMEDY TO THOSE WHO HAD BEEN
WITHOUT; IF IT INCIDENTALLY BENEFITED THOSE ALREADY WELL PROVIDED FOR,
IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL.  CONGRESS WAS SUFFERING FROM NO
PLAGUE OF PRIVATE BILLS ON THE BEHALF OF MILITARY AND NAVAL PERSONNEL,
BECAUSE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF RELIEF HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED FOR THEM
AND THEIR DEPENDENTS BY STATUTE. 

LOOKING TO THE DETAIL OF THE ACT, IT IS TRUE THAT IT PROVIDES,
BROADLY, THAT THE DISTRICT COURT "SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF
CIVIL ACTIONS ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, FOR MONEY DAMAGES
...  "  FN9  THIS CONFERS JURISDICTION TO RENDER JUDGMENT UPON ALL SUCH
CLAIMS.  BUT IT DOES NOT SAY THAT ALL CLAIMS MUST BE ALLOWED. 
JURISDICTION IS NECESSARY TO DENY A CLAIM ON ITS MERITS AS MATTER OF
LAW AS MUCH AS TO ADJUDGE THAT LIABILITY EXISTS.  WE INTERPRET THIS
LANGUAGE TO MEAN ALL ITS SAYS, BUT NO MORE.  JURISDICTION OF THE
DEFENDANT NOW EXISTS WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BEFORE;
IT REMAINS FOR COURTS, IN EXERCISE OF THEIR JURISDICTION, TO DETERMINE
WHETHER ANY CLAIM IS RECOGNIZABLE IN LAW. 

FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE ACT GOES ON TO PRESCRIBE THE TEST OF ALLOWABLE
CLAIMS, WHICH IS, "THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE LIABLE  ...  IN THE SAME
MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER LIKE
CIRCUMSTANCES  ...  ," WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE.  28
U.S.C. SEC. 2674.  IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THIS IS NOT THE CREATION OF NEW
CAUSES OF ACTION BUT ACCEPTANCE OF LIABILITY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
WOULD BRING PRIVATE LIABILITY INTO EXISTENCE.  THIS, WE THINK, EMBODIES
THE SAME IDEA THAT ITS ENGLISH EQUIVALENT ENACTED IN 1947(CORWN
PROCEEDINGS ACT 1947; 10 AND 11 GEO. VI, C. 44, P. 863) EXPRESSED,
"WHERE ANY PERSON HAS A CLAIM AGAINST THE CROWN AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT
OF THIS ACT, AND, IF THIS ACT HAD NOT BEEN PASSED, THE CLAIM MIGHT HAVE
BEEN ENFORCED, SUBJECT TO THE GRANT  ...  " OF CONSENT TO BE SUED, THE
CLAIM MAY NOW BE ENFORCED WITHOUT SPECIFIC CONSENT.  ONE OBVIOUS
SHORTCOMING IN THESE CLAIMS IS THAT PLAINTIFFS CAN POINT TO NO
LIABILITY OF A "PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL" EVEN REMOTELY ANALOGOUS TO THAT
WHICH THEY ARE ASSERTING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  WE KNOW OF NO
AMERICAN LAW WHICH EVER HAS PERMITTED A SOLDIER TO RECOVER FOR
NEGLIGENCE, AGAINST EITHER HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS OR THE GOVERNMENT HE
IS SERVING.  FN10  NOR IS THERE ANY LIABILITY "UNDER LIKE
CIRCUMSTANCES," FOR NO PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL HAS POWER TO CONSCRIPT OR
MOBILIZE A PRIVATE ARMY WITH SUCH AUTHORITIES OVER PERSONS AS THE
GOVERNMENT VESTS IN ECHELONS OF COMMAND.  THE NEAREST PARALLEL, EVEN IF
WE WERE TO TREAT "PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL" AS INCLUDING A STATE, WOULD BE
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATES AND THEIR MILITIA.  BUT IF WE
INDULGE PLAINTIFFS THE BENEFIT OF THIS COMPARISON, CLAIMANTS CITE US NO
STATE, AND WE KNOW OF NONE, WHICH HAS PERMITTED MEMBERS OF ITS MILITIA
TO MAINTAIN TORT ACTIONS FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE SERVICE, AND IN
AT LEAST ONE STATE THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN HELD TO BE THE CASE.  FN11  IT
IS TRUE THAT IF WE CONSIDER RELEVANT ONLY A PART OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
AND IGNORE THE STATUS OF BOTH THE WRONGED AND THE WRONGDOER IN THESE
CASES WE FIND ANALOGOUS PRIVATE LIABILITY.  IN THE USUAL CIVILIAN
DOCTOR AND PATIENT RELATIONSHIP, THERE IS OF COURSE A LIABILITY FOR
MALPRACTICE.  AND A LANDLORD WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE HELD LIABLE IF AN
INJURY OCCURRED TO A TENANT AS THE RESULT OF A NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED
HEATING PLANT.  BUT THE LIABILITY ASSUMED BY THE GOVERNMENT HERE IS
THAT CREATED BY "ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES," NOT THAT WHICH A FEW OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT CREATE.  WE FIND NO PARALLEL LIABILITY BEFORE, AND
WE THINK NO NEW ONE HAS BEEN CREATED BY, THIS ACT.  ITS EFFECT IS TO
WAIVE IMMUNITY FROM RECOGNIZED CAUSES OF ACTION AND WAS NOT TO VISIT
THE GOVERNMENT WITH NOVEL AND UNPRECEDENTED LIABILITIES. 

IT IS NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE AS TO WHETHER THE ACT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO SERVICE-CONNECTED INJURIES THAT IT MAKES "  ...
THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ACT OR OMISSION OCCURRED" GOVERN ANY
CONSEQUENT LIABILITY.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1346(B).  THIS PROVISION
RECOGNIZES AND ASSIMILATES INTO FEDERAL LAW THE RULES OF SUBSTANTIVE
LAW OF THE SEVERAL STATES, AMONG WHICH DIVERGENCIES ARE NOTORIOUS. 
THIS PERHAPS IS FAIR ENOUGH WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ON DUTY OR IS FREE
TO CHOOSE HIS OWN HABITAT AND THEREBY LIMIT THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH
IT WILL BE POSSIBLE FOR FEDERAL ACTIVITIES TO CAUSE HIM INJURY.  THAT
HIS TORT CLAIMS SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE LOCATION WHERE HE
HAS ELECTED TO BE IS JUST AS FAIR WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS THE GOVERNMENT
AS WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL.  BUT A SOLDIER ON ACTIVE
DUTY HAS NO SUCH CHOICE AND MUST SERVE ANY PLACE OR, UNDER MODERN
CONDITIONS, ANY NUMBER OF PLACES IN QUICK SUCCESSION IN THE FORTY-EIGHT
STATES, THE CANAL ZONE, OR ALASKA, OR HAWAII, OR ANY OTHER TERRITORY OF
THE UNITED STATES.  THAT THE GEOGRAPHY OF AN INJURY SHOULD SELECT THE
LAW TO BE APPLIED TO HIS TORT CLAIMS MAKES NO SENSE.  WE CANNOT IGNORE
THE FACT THAT MOST STATES HAVE ABOLISHED THE COMMON-LAW ACTION FOR
DAMAGES BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE AND SUPERSEDED IT WITH WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION STATUTES WHICH PROVIDE, IN MOST INSTANCES, THE SOLE BASIS
OF LIABILITY.  ABSENT THIS, OR WHERE SUCH STATUTES ARE INAPPLICABLE,
STATES HAVE DIFFERING PROVISIONS AS TO LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY AND
DIFFERENT DOCTRINES AS TO ASSUMPTION OF RISK, FELLOW-SERVANT RULES AND
CONTRIBUTORY OR COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.  IT WOULD HARDLY BE A RATIONAL
PLAN OF PROVIDING FOR THOSE DISABLED IN SERVICE BY OTHERS IN SERVICE TO
LEAVE THEM DEPENDENT UPON GEOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS OVER WHICH THEY
HAVE NO CONTROL AND TO LAWS WHICH FLUCTUATE IN EXISTENCE AND VALUE. 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND MEMBERS OF ITS ARMED
FORCES IS "DISTINCTIVELY FEDERAL IN CHARACTER," AS THIS COURT
RECOGNIZED IN UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL CO., 332 U.S. 301, WHEREIN
THE GOVERNMENT UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO RECOVER FOR LOSSES INCURRED BY
VIRTUE OF INJURIES TO A SOLDIER.  THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LEAD TO THAT
DECISION APPLY WITH EVEN GREATER FORCE TO THIS CASE:    "  ...  TO
WHATEVER EXTENT STATE LAW MAY APPLY TO GOVERN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN
SOLDIERS OR OTHERS IN THE ARMED FORCES AND PERSONS OUTSIDE THEM OR
NONFEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, THE SCOPE, NATURE, LEGAL INCIDENTS
AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE RELATION BETWEEN PERSONS IN SERVICE AND THE
GOVERNMENT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM FEDERAL SOURCES AND GOVERNED
BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  SEE TARBLE'S CASE, 13 WALL.  397; KURTZ V.
MOFFITT, 115 U.S. 487.  ...  "  PP. 305-306. 

NO FEDERAL LAW RECOGNIZES A RECOVERY SUCH AS CLAIMANTS SEEK.  THE
MILITARY PERSONNEL CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 223B (NOW SUPERSEDED BY
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2672), PERMITTED RECOVERY IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT IT
SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED CLAIMS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL "INCIDENT TO THEIR
SERVICE." 

THIS COURT, IN DECIDING CLAIMS FOR WRONGS INCIDENT TO SERVICE UNDER
THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, CANNOT ESCAPE ATTRIBUTING SOME BEARING UPON IT TO
ENACTMENTS BY CONGRESS WHICH PROVIDE SYSTEMS OF SIMPLE, CERTAIN, AND
UNIFORM COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES OR DEATH OF THOSE IN ARMED SERVICES. 
FN12  WE MIGHT SAY THAT THE CLAIMANT MAY (A) ENJOY BOTH TYPES OF
RECOVERY, OR (B) ELECT WHICH TO PURSUE, THEREBY WAIVING THE OTHER, OR
(C) PURSUE BOTH, CREDITING THE LARGER LIABILITY WITH THE PROCEEDS OF
THE SMALLER, OR (D) THAT THE COMPENSATION AND PENSION REMEDY EXCLUDES
THE TORT REMEDY.  THERE IS AS MUCH STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR ONE AS FOR
ANOTHER OF THESE CONCLUSIONS.  IF CONGRESS HAD CONTEMPLATED THAT THIS
TORT ACT WOULD BE HELD TO APPLY IN CASES OF THIS KIND, IT IS DIFFICULT
TO SEE WHY IT SHOULD HAVE OMITTED ANY PROVISION TO ADJUST THESE TWO
TYPES OF REMEDY TO EACH OTHER.  THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ADJUSTMENT IS
PERSUASIVE THAT THERE WAS NO AWARENESS THAT THE ACT MIGHT BE
INTERPRETED TO PERMIT RECOVERY FOR INJURIES INCIDENT TO MILITARY
SERVICE. 

A SOLDIER IS AT PECULIAR DISADVANTAGE IN LITIGATION.  FN13  LACK OF
TIME AND MONEY, THE DIFFICULTY IF NOT IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROCURING
WITNESSES, ARE ONLY A FEW OF THE FACTORS WORKING TO HIS DISADVANTAGE. 
AND THE FEW CASES CHARGING SUPERIOR OFFICERS OR THE GOVERNMENT WITH
NEGLECT OR MISCONDUCT WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT SINCE THE TORT CLAIMS
ACT, OF WHICH THE PRESENT ARE TYPICAL, HAVE EITHER BEEN SUITS BY WIDOWS
OR SURVIVING DEPENDENTS, OR HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AFTER THE INDIVIDUAL WAS
DISCHARGED.  FN14  THE COMPENSATION SYSTEM, WHICH NORMALLY REQUIRES NO
LITIGATION, IS NOT NEGLIGIBLE OR NIGGARDLY, AS THESE CASES
DEMONSTRATE.  THE RECOVERIES COMPARE EXTREMELY FAVORABLY WITH THOSE
PROVIDED BY MOST WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTES.  IN THE JEFFERSON
CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED ACTUAL AND PROSPECTIVE PAYMENTS BY
THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION AS DIMINUTION OF THE VERDICT.  PLAINTIFF
RECEIVED $3,645.50 TO THE DATE OF THE COURT'S COMPUTATION AND ON
ESTIMATED LIFE EXPECTANCY UNDER EXISTING LEGISLATION WOULD
PROSPECTIVELY RECEIVE $31,947 IN ADDITION.  IN THE GRIGGS CASE, THE
WIDOW, IN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD AFTER HER HUSBAND'S DEATH, RECEIVED
PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF $2,100.  IN ADDITION, SHE RECEIVED $2,695,
REPRESENTING THE SIX MONTHS' DEATH GRATUITY UNDER THE ACT OF DECEMBER
17, 1919, AS AMENDED, 41 STAT. 367, 57 STAT. 599, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 903. 
IT IS ESTIMATED THAT HER TOTAL FUTURE PENSION PAYMENTS WILL AGGREGATE
$18,000.  THUS THE WIDOW WILL RECEIVE AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $22,000
FROM GOVERNMENT GRATUITIES, WHEREAS SHE SOUGHT AND COULD SEEK UNDER
STATE LAW ONLY $15,000, THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED BY ILLINOIS FOR DEATH. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS WERE BEFORE THE COURT
IN THE BROOKS CASE AND THAT ALLOWANCE OF RECOVERY TO BROOKS REQUIRES A
SIMILAR HOLDING OF LIABILITY HERE.  THE ACTUAL HOLDING IN THE BROOKS
CASE CAN SUPPORT LIABILITY HERE ONLY BY IGNORING THE VITAL DISTINCTION
THERE STATED.  THE INJURY TO BROOKS DID NOT ARISE OUT OF OR IN THE
COURSE OF MILITARY DUTY.  BROOKS WAS ON FURLOUGH, DRIVING ALONG THE
HIGHWAY, UNDER COMPULSION OF NO ORDERS OR DUTY AND ON NO MILITARY
MISSION.  A GOVERNMENT OWNED AND OPERATED VEHICLE COLLIDED WITH HIM. 
BROOKS' FATHER, RIDING IN THE SAME CAR, RECOVERED FOR HIS INJURIES AND
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT FURTHER CONTEST THE JUDGMENT BUT CONTENDED THAT
THERE COULD BE NO LIABILITY TO THE SONS, SOLELY BECAUSE THEY WERE IN
THE ARMY.  THIS COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION, PRIMARILY BECAUSE
BROOKS' RELATIONSHIP WHILE ON LEAVE WAS NOT ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF A
SOLDIER INJURED WHILE PERFORMING DUTIES UNDER ORDERS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT
CLAIMS ACT FOR INJURIES TO SERVICEMEN WHERE THE INJURIES ARISE OUT OF
OR ARE IN THE COURSE OF ACTIVITY INCIDENT TO SERVICE.  WITHOUT
EXCEPTION, THE RELATIONSHIP OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO THE GOVERNMENT HAS
BEEN GOVERNED EXCLUSIVELY BY FEDERAL LAW.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT
CONGRESS, IN DRAFTING THIS ACT, CREATED A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION DEPENDENT
ON LOCAL LAW FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED INJURIES OR DEATH DUE TO
NEGLIGENCE.  WE CANNOT IMPUTE TO CONGRESS SUCH A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM
ESTABLISHED LAW IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENTS IN THE FERES AND JEFFERSON CASES ARE
AFFIRMED AND THAT IN THE GRIGGS CASE IS REVERSED.  NOS. 9 AND 29,
AFFIRMED.  NO. 31, REVERSED. 

FN1  177 F.2D 535. 

FN2  74 F.SUPP.  209. 

FN3  77 F.SUPP.  706. 

FN4  178 F.2D 518. 

FN5  178 F.2D 1. 

FN6  THE CROWN HAS RECENTLY SUBMITTED ITSELF TO SUIT, SEE POST, P.
141. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. MCLEMORE, 4 HOW.  286; REESIDE V. WALKER, 11
HOW.  272, 290; ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82, 96. 

FN8  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1491. 

FN9  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1346(B).  THE PROVISIONS OF THE TORT CLAIMS ACT
ARE NOW FOUND IN TITLE 28, SECS. 1291, 1346, 1402, 1504, 2110, 2401,
2402, 2411, 2412, 2671-2680.  IN RECODIFYING TITLE 28 OF THE U.S.C.
CHANGES IN LANGUAGE WERE MADE.  THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, AS ORIGINALLY
ENACTED, 60 STAT. 843, PROVIDED IN SEC. 410 THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
"SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR, DETERMINE, AND RENDER
JUDGMENT ON ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, FOR MONEY ONLY  ...." 
WE ATTRIBUTE TO THIS CHANGE OF LANGUAGE NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE OF LAW. 

FN10  CF. DINSMAN V. WILKES, 12 HOW.  390, AND WEAVER V. WARD, HOBART
135, 80 ENG. REP. 284(1616), AS TO INTENTIONAL TORTS. 

FN11  GOLDSTEIN V. NEW YORK, 281 N.Y. 396, 24 N.E.2D 97. 

FN12  48 STAT. 8(1933), AS AMENDED, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 701(1946); 48
STAT. 11(1933), AS AMENDED, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 718(1946); 55 STAT.
608(1941), 38 U.S.C. SEC. 725(1946); 57 STAT. 558(1943), AS AMENDED, 38
U.S.C. SEC. 731(1946); 62 STAT. 1219, 1220(1948), 38 U.S.C. (SUPP. III)
SECS. 740, 741(1950). 

FN13  RELIEF WAS PROVIDED IN THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF
ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1178, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 501 ET SEQ. 

FN14  BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA (DISCHARGED AT TIME OF SUIT);
SANTANA V. UNITED STATES, 175 F.2D 320(C.A. 1ST CIR.)(SUIT BY SOLE
HEIRS); OSTRANDER V. UNITED STATES, 178 F.2D 923(C.A.2D CIR.) (SUIT BY
WIDOW); SAMSON V. UNITED STATES, 79 F.SUPP.  406(D.C. S.D.N.Y.)(SUIT BY
ADMINISTRATOR); ALANSKY V. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, 77 F.SUPP.  556(D.C.D.
MONT.)(SUIT BY WIDOW AND SON). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :






A. & P. TEA CO. V. SUPERMARKET CORP., 340 U.S. 147 


NO. 32.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18-19, 1950.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1950.  - 179
F.2D 636, REVERSED. 


CLAIMS 4, 5 AND 6 OF THE TURNHAM PATENT NO. 2,242,408, FOR A CASHIER'S
COUNTER AND MOVABLE FRAME FOR "CASH AND CARRY" GROCERY STORES, HELD
INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  PP. 148-154. 

(A)  THE EXTENSION OF THE COUNTER ALONE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN
THE PATENT, UNLESS, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER OLD ELEMENTS, IT MADE UP A
NEW COMBINATION PATENTABLE AS SUCH.  PP. 149-150. 

(B)  THE MERE COMBINATION OF A NUMBER OF OLD PARTS OR ELEMENTS WHICH,
IN COMBINATION, PERFORM OR PRODUCE NO NEW OR DIFFERENT FUNCTION OR
OPERATION THAN THAT THERETOFORE PERFORMED OR PRODUCED BY THEM, IS NOT
PATENTABLE INVENTION.  P. 151. 

(C)  THIS PATENTEE HAS ADDED NOTHING TO THE TOTAL STOCK OF KNOWLEDGE,
BUT HAS MERELY BROUGHT TOGETHER SEGMENTS OF PRIOR ART AND CLAIMS THEM
IN CONGREGATION AS A MONOPOLY.  P. 153. 

(D)  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS WITHOUT INVENTION DOES NOT MAKE
PATENTABILITY.  P. 153. 

(E)  THE CONCURRENCE OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW IN HOLDING THE PATENT
CLAIMS VALID DOES NOT PRECLUDE THIS COURT FROM OVERRULING THEM, WHERE,
AS IN THIS CASE, A STANDARD OF INVENTION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN USED THAT
IS LESS EXACTING THAN THAT REQUIRED WHERE A COMBINATION IS MADE UP
ENTIRELY OF OLD COMPONENTS.  PP. 153-154. 

GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. SUPERMARKET EQUIPMENT CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN PATENT CLAIMS. 
78 F.SUPP.  388.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  179 F.2D 636.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 947.  REVERSED, P. 154. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TWO COURTS BELOW HAVE CONCURRED IN HOLDING THREE PATENT CLAIMS TO BE
VALID,  FN1  AND IT IS STIPULATED THAT, IF VALID, THEY HAVE BEEN
INFRINGED.  THE ISSUE, FOR THE RESOLUTION OF WHICH WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI,  FN2  IS WHETHER THEY APPLIED CORRECT CRITERIA OF
INVENTION.  WE HOLD THAT THEY HAVE NOT, AND THAT BY STANDARDS
APPROPRIATE FOR A COMBINATION PATENT THESE CLAIMS ARE INVALID. 

STATED WITHOUT ARTIFICE, THE CLAIMS ASSERT INVENTION OF A CASHIER'S
COUNTER EQUIPPED WITH A THREE-SIDED FRAME, OR RACK, WITH NO TOP OR
BOTTOM, WHICH, WHEN PUSHED OR PULLED, WILL MOVE GROCERIES DEPOSITED
WITHIN IT BY A CUSTOMER TO THE CHECKING CLERK AND LEAVE THEM THERE WHEN
IT IS PUSHED BACK TO REPEAT THE OPERATION.  IT IS KEPT ON THE COUNTER
BY GUIDES.  THAT THE RESULTANT DEVICE WORKS AS CLAIMED, SPEEDS THE
CUSTOMER ON HIS WAY, REDUCES CHECKING COSTS FOR THE MERCHANT, HAS BEEN
WIDELY ADOPTED AND SUCCESSFULLY USED, APPEAR BEYOND DISPUTE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT EXPLICITLY FOUND THAT EACH ELEMENT IN THIS DEVICE
WAS KNOWN TO PRIOR ART. "HOWEVER," IT FOUND, "THE CONCEPTION OF A
COUNTER WITH AN EXTENSION TO RECEIVE A BOTTOMLESS SELF-UNLOADING TRAY
WITH WHICH TO PUSH THE CONTENTS OF THE TRAY IN FRONT OF THE CASHIER WAS
A DECIDEDLY NOVEL FEATURE AND CONSTITUTES A NEW AND USEFUL
COMBINATION."  FN3 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REGARDED THIS FINDING OF INVENTION AS ONE OF
FACT, SUSTAINED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND AFFIRMED IT AS NOT CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS.  IT IDENTIFIED NO OTHER NEW OR DIFFERENT ELEMENT TO
CONSTITUTE INVENTION AND OVERCAME ITS DOUBTS BY CONSIDERATION OF THE
NEED FOR SOME SUCH DEVICE AND EVIDENCE OF COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OF THIS
ONE. 

SINCE THE COURTS BELOW PERCEIVED INVENTION ONLY IN AN EXTENSION OF
THE COUNTER, WE MUST FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE RIGHT IN SO
DOING.  WE THINK NOT.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE EXTENSION IS NOT
MENTIONED IN THE CLAIMS, EXCEPT, PERHAPS, BY A CONSTRUCTION TOO
STRAINED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CLARITY REQUIRED OF CLAIMS WHICH
DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF A PATENT MONOPOLY.  38 STAT. 958, 35 U.S.C.
SEC. 33; UNITED CARBON CO. V. BINNEY & SMITH CO., 317 U.S. 228; GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CORP., 304 U.S. 364.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, WERE
WE TO TREAT THE EXTENSION AS ADEQUATELY DISCLOSED, IT WOULD NOT AMOUNT
TO AN INVENTION.  WE NEED NOT GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT INVENTION NEVER
CAN RESIDE IN MERE CHANGE OF DIMENSIONS OF AN OLD DEVICE, BUT CERTAINLY
IT CANNOT BE FOUND IN MERE ELONGATION OF A MERCHANT'S COUNTER - A
CONTRIVANCE WHICH, TIME OUT OF MIND, HAS BEEN OF WHATEVER LENGTH SUITED
THE MERCHANT'S NEEDS.  IN THE THIRD PLACE, IF THE EXTENSION ITSELF WERE
CONCEDED TO BE A PATENTABLE IMPROVEMENT OF THE COUNTER, AND THE CLAIMS
WERE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE IT, THE PATENT WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE INVALID
FOR OVERCLAIMING THE INVENTION BY INCLUDING OLD ELEMENTS, UNLESS,
TOGETHER WITH ITS OTHER OLD ELEMENTS, THE EXTENSION MADE UP A NEW
COMBINATION PATENTABLE AS SUCH.  BASSICK MFG. CO. V. HOLLINGSHEAD CO.,
298 U.S. 415, 425; CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
283 U.S. 27.  THUS, DISALLOWING THE ONLY THING DESIGNATED BY THE TWO
COURTS AS AN INVENTION, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COMBINATION CAN
SURVIVE ON ANY OTHER BASIS.  WHAT INDICIA OF INVENTION SHOULD THE
COURTS SEEK IN A CASE WHERE NOTHING TANGIBLE IS NEW, AND INVENTION, IF
IT EXISTS AT ALL, IS ONLY IN BRINGING OLD ELEMENTS TOGETHER? 

WHILE THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED COMBINATION PATENTS,  FN4  IT NEVER
HAS VENTURED TO GIVE A PRECISE AND COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF THE TEST
TO BE APPLIED IN SUCH CASES.  THE VOLUMINOUS LITERATURE WHICH THE
SUBJECT HAS EXCITED DISCLOSES CLOSES NO SUCH TEST.  FN5  IT IS AGREED
THAT THE KEY TO PATENTABILITY OF A MECHANICAL DEVICE THAT BRINGS OLD
FACTORS INTO COOPERATION IS PRESENCE OR LACK OF INVENTION.  IN COURSE
OF TIME THE PROFESSION CAME TO EMPLOY THE TERM "COMBINATION" TO IMPLY
ITS PRESENCE AND THE TERM "AGGREGATION" TO SIGNIFY ITS ABSENCE, THUS
MAKING ANTONYMS IN LEGAL ART OF WORDS WHICH IN ORDINARY SPEECH ARE MORE
NEARLY SYNONYMS.  HOWEVER USEFUL AS WORDS OF ART TO DENOTE IN SHORT
FORM THAT AN ASSEMBLY OF UNITS HAS FAILED OR HAS MET THE EXAMINATION
FOR INVENTION, THEIR EMPLOYMENT AS TESTS TO DETERMINE INVENTION RESULTS
IN NOTHING BUT CONFUSION.  THE CONCEPT OF INVENTION IS INHERENTLY
ELUSIVE WHEN APPLIED TO COMBINATION OF OLD ELEMENTS.  THIS, TOGETHER
WITH THE IMPRECISION OF OUR LANGUAGE, HAVE COUNSELLED COURTS AND TEXT
WRITERS TO BE CAUTIOUS IN AFFIRMATIVE DEFINITIONS OR RULES ON THE
SUBJECT.  FN6 

THE NEGATIVE RULE ACCRUED FROM MANY LITIGATIONS WAS CONDENSED ABOUT
AS PRECISELY AS THE SUBJECT PERMITS IN LINCOLN ENGINEERING CO. V.
STEWART-WARNER CORP., 303 U.S. 545, 549:  "THE MERE AGGREGATION OF A
NUMBER OF OLD PARTS OR ELEMENTS WHICH, IN THE AGGREGATION, PERFORM OR
PRODUCE NO NEW OR DIFFERENT FUNCTION OR OPERATION THAN THAT THERETOFORE
PERFORMED OR PRODUCED BY THEM, IS NOT PATENTABLE INVENTION."  TO THE
SAME END IS TOLEDO PRESSED STEEL CO. V. STANDARD PARTS, INC., 307 U.S.
350, AND CUNO ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., 314 U.S.
84.  THE CONJUNCTION OR CONCERT OF KNOWN ELEMENTS MUST CONTRIBUTE
SOMETHING; ONLY WHEN THE WHOLE IN SOME WAY EXCEEDS THE SUM OF ITS PARTS
IS THE ACCUMULATION OF OLD DEVICES PATENTABLE.  ELEMENTS MAY, OF
COURSE, ESPECIALLY IN CHEMISTRY OR ELECTRONICS, TAKE ON SOME NEW
QUALITY OR FUNCTION FROM BEING BROUGHT INTO CONCERT, BUT THIS IS NOT A
USUAL RESULT OF UNITING ELEMENTS OLD IN MECHANICS.  THIS CASE IS
WANTING IN ANY UNUSUAL OR SURPRISING CONSEQUENCES FROM THE UNIFICATION
OF THE ELEMENTS HERE CONCERNED, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT
THE LOWER COURTS SCRUTINIZED THE CLAIMS IN THE LIGHT OF THIS RATHER
SEVERE TEST. 

NEITHER COURT BELOW HAS MADE ANY FINDING THAT OLD ELEMENTS WHICH MADE
UP THIS DEVICE PERFORM ANY ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT FUNCTION IN THE
COMBINATION THAN THEY PERFORM OUT OF IT.  THIS COUNTER DOES WHAT A
STORE COUNTER ALWAYS HAS DONE - IT SUPPORTS MERCHANDISE AT A CONVENIENT
HEIGHT WHILE THE CUSTOMER MAKES HIS PURCHASES AND THE MERCHANT HIS
SALES.  THE THREE-SIDED RACK WILL DRAW OR PUSH GOODS PUT WITHIN IT FROM
ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER - JUST WHAT ANY SUCH A RACK WOULD DO ON ANY SMOOTH
SURFACE - AND THE GUIDE RAILS KEEP IT FROM FALLING OR SLIDING OFF FROM
THE COUNTER, AS GUIDE RAILS HAVE EVER DONE.  TWO AND TWO HAVE BEEN
ADDED TOGETHER, AND STILL THEY MAKE ONLY FOUR. 

COURTS SHOULD SCRUTINIZE COMBINATION PATENT CLAIMS WITH A CARE
PROPORTIONED TO THE DIFFICULTY AND IMPROBABILITY OF FINDING INVENTION
IN AN ASSEMBLY OF OLD ELEMENTS.  THE FUNCTION OF A PATENT IS TO ADD TO
THE SUM OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE.  PATENTS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED WHEN, ON THE
CONTRARY, THEIR EFFECT IS TO SUBTRACT FROM FORMER RESOURCES FREELY
AVAILABLE TO SKILLED ARTISANS.  A PATENT FOR A COMBINATION WHICH ONLY
UNITES OLD ELEMENTS WITH NO CHANGE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS, SUCH
AS IS PRESENTED HERE, OBVIOUSLY WITHDRAWS WHAT ALREADY IS KNOWN INTO
THE FIELD OF ITS MONOPOLY AND DIMINISHES THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO
SKILLFUL MEN.  THIS PATENTEE HAS ADDED NOTHING TO THE TOTAL STOCK OF
KNOWLEDGE, BUT HAS MERELY BROUGHT TOGETHER SEGMENTS OF PRIOR ART AND
CLAIMS THEM IN CONGREGATION AS A MONOPOLY. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE RESPONDENT BOTH LEAN HEAVILY ON EVIDENCE
THAT THIS DEVICE FILLED A LONG-FELT WANT AND HAS ENJOYED COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS.  BUT COMMERCIAL SUCCESS WITHOUT INVENTION WILL NOT MAKE
PATENTABILITY.  TOLEDO PRESSED STEEL CO. V. STANDARD PARTS, INC.,
SUPRA.  THE COURTS BELOW CONCURRED IN FINDING THAT EVERY ELEMENT HERE
CLAIMED (EXCEPT EXTENSION OF THE COUNTER) WAS KNOWN TO PRIOR ART. WHEN,
FOR THE FIRST TIME, THOSE ELEMENTS WERE PUT TO WORK FOR THE SUPERMARKET
TYPE OF STORES, ALTHOUGH EACH PERFORMED THE SAME MECHANICAL FUNCTION
FOR THEM THAT IT HAD BEEN KNOWN TO PERFORM, THEY PRODUCED RESULTS MORE
STRIKING, PERHAPS, THAN IN ANY PREVIOUS UTILIZATION.  TO BRING THESE
DEVICES TOGETHER AND APPLY THEM TO SAVE THE TIME OF CUSTOMER AND
CHECKER WAS A GOOD IDEA, BUT SCORES OF PROGRESSIVE IDEAS IN BUSINESS
ARE NOT PATENTABLE, AND WE CONCLUDE ON THE FINDINGS BELOW THAT THIS ONE
WAS NOT. 

IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT CONCURRENCE OF TWO COURTS BELOW, IN
HOLDING THE PATENT CLAIMS VALID, CONCLUDES THIS COURT.  A RECENT
RESTATEMENT OF THE "TWO-COURT RULE" READS, "A COURT OF LAW, SUCH AS
THIS COURT IS, RATHER THAN A COURT FOR CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN FACT
FINDING, CANNOT UNDERTAKE TO REVIEW CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY TWO
COURTS BELOW IN THE ABSENCE OF A VERY OBVIOUS AND EXCEPTIONAL SHOWING
OF ERROR."  GRAVER TANK CO. V. LINDE CO., 336 U.S. 271, 275.  THE
QUESTIONS OF GENERAL IMPORTANCE CONSIDERED HERE ARE NOT CONTINGENT UPON
RESOLVING CONFLICTING TESTIMONY, FOR THE FACTS ARE LITTLE IN DISPUTE. 
WE SET ASIDE NO FINDING OF FACT AS TO INVENTION, FOR NONE HAS BEEN MADE
EXCEPT AS TO THE EXTENSION OF THE COUNTER, WHICH CANNOT STAND AS A
MATTER OF LAW.  THE DEFECT THAT WE FIND IN THIS JUDGMENT IS THAT A
STANDARD OF INVENTION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN USED THAT IS LESS EXACTING
THAN THAT REQUIRED WHERE A COMBINATION IS MADE UP ENTIRELY OF OLD
COMPONENTS.  IT IS ON THIS GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  CLAIMS 4, 5, AND 6 OF THE TURNHAM PATENT NO. 2,242,408, WHICH
ARE INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY, READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"4.  A CHECKER'S STAND INCLUDING A COUNTER OF THE CHARACTER
DESCRIBED, AN OPEN BOTTOM PUSHER FRAME THEREON, MEANS TO GUIDE SAID
FRAME IN SLIDING MOVEMENT SO THAT GOODS PLACED ON THE END OF SAID
COUNTER WITHIN SAID FRAME MAY BE PUSHED ALONG THE COUNTER IN A GROUP TO
A POSITION ADJACENT THE CHECKER BY MOVEMENT OF SAID FRAME. 

"5.  A CASHIER'S COUNTER FOR CASH AND CARRY TYPE OF GROCERY
COMPRISING A PORTION SPACED FROM THE CASHIER'S STAND AND UPON WHICH THE
MERCHANDISE MAY BE DEPOSITED AND ARRANGED, A BOTTOMLESS THREE SIDED
FRAME ON SAID PORTION AND WITHIN WHICH THE MERCHANDISE IS DEPOSITED AND
ARRANGED, MEANS WHEREBY SAID FRAME IS MOVABLE ON SAID COUNTER FROM SAID
PORTION TO A POSITION ADJACENT THE CASHIER'S STAND SO THAT THE
MERCHANDISE MAY THUS BE MOVED AS A GROUP TO A POINT WHERE IT MAY BE
CONVENIENTLY OBSERVED, COUNTED AND REGISTERED BY THE CASHIER. 

"6.  A CASHIER'S COUNTER FOR CASH AND CARRY TYPE OF GROCERY
COMPRISING A PORTION SPACED FROM THE CASHIER'S STAND AND UPON WHICH THE
MERCHANDISE MAY BE DEPOSITED AND ARRANGED, A BOTTOMLESS FRAME ON SAID
PORTION AND WITHIN WHICH THE MERCHANDISE IS DEPOSITED AND ARRANGED,
MEANS WHEREBY SAID FRAME IS MOVABLE ON SAID COUNTER FROM SAID PORTION
TO A POSITION ADJACENT THE CASHIER'S STAND SO THAT THE MERCHANDISE MAY
THUS BE MOVED AS A GROUP TO A POINT WHERE IT MAY BE CONVENIENTLY
OBSERVED, COUNTED AND REGISTERED BY THE CASHIER, SAID FRAME BEING OPEN
AT THE END ADJACENT THE CASHIER'S STAND AND READILY MOVABLE TO BE
RETURNED OVER SAID PORTION SO AS TO RECEIVE THE MERCHANDISE OF ANOTHER
CUSTOMER WHILE THE CASHIER IS OCCUPIED WITH THE PREVIOUS GROUP." 

FN2  339 U.S. 947. 

FN3  FINDING OF FACT NO. 15 OF DISTRICT JUDGE PICARD, WHOSE OPINION
APPEARS AT 78 F.SUPP.  388. 

FN4  E.G., KEYSTONE MFG. CO. V. ADAMS, 151 U.S. 139; DIAMOND RUBBER
CO. V. CONSOLIDATED TIRE CO., 220 U.S. 428. 

FN5  THE INDEX TO LEGAL PERIODICALS REVEALS NO LESS THAN SIXTY-FOUR
ARTICLES RELATING TO COMBINATION PATENTS AND THE THEORY AND PHILOSOPHY
UNDERLYING THE PATENT LAWS.  AMONG THE MANY TEXTS ARE 1 WALKER ON
PATENTS (DELLER'S ED. 1937); STEDMAN, PATENTS; TOULMIN, HANDBOOK OF
PATENTS; MERWIN, PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS; AMDUR, PATENT LAW AND
PRACTICE; AND 1 ROBERTS, PATENTABILITY AND PATENT INTERPRETATION. 

FN6  WITH RESPECT TO THE WORD "INVENTION," MR. JUSTICE BROWN SAID:
"THE TRUTH IS THE WORD CANNOT BE DEFINED IN SUCH MANNER AS TO AFFORD
ANY SUBSTANTIAL AID IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTICULAR DEVICE INVOLVES
AN EXERCISE OF THE INVENTIVE FACULTY OR NOT.  IN A GIVEN CASE WE MAY BE
ABLE TO SAY THAT THERE IS PRESENT INVENTION OF A VERY HIGH ORDER.  IN
ANOTHER WE CAN SEE THAT THERE IS LACKING THAT IMPALPABLE SOMETHING
WHICH DISTINGUISHES INVENTION FROM SIMPLE MECHANICAL SKILL.  COURTS,
ADOPTING FIXED PRINCIPLES AS A GUIDE, HAVE BY A PROCESS OF EXCLUSION
DETERMINED THAT CERTAIN VARIATIONS IN OLD DEVICES DO OR DO NOT INVOLVE
INVENTION; BUT WHETHER THE VARIATION RELIED UPON IN A PARTICULAR CASE
IS ANYTHING MORE THAN ORDINARY MECHANICAL SKILL IS A QUESTION WHICH
CANNOT BE ANSWERED BY APPLYING THE TEST OF ANY GENERAL DEFINITION." 
MCCLAIN V. ORTMAYER, 141 U.S. 419, 427. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AGREES, CONCURRING. 

IT IS WORTH EMPHASIS THAT EVERY PATENT CASE INVOLVING VALIDITY
PRESENTS A QUESTION WHICH REQUIRES REFERENCE TO A STANDARD WRITTEN INTO
THE CONSTITUTION.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CONTAINS A GRANT TO THE CONGRESS
OF THE POWER TO PERMIT PATENTS TO BE ISSUED.  BUT, UNLIKE MOST OF THE
SPECIFIC POWERS WHICH CONGRESS IS GIVEN, THAT GRANT IS QUALIFIED.  THE
CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE FREE REIN, FOR EXAMPLE, TO DECIDE THAT PATENTS
SHOULD BE EASILY OR FREELY GIVEN.  THE CONGRESS ACTS UNDER THE
RESTRAINT IMPOSED BY THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE IN ART. I, SEC. 8.  THE
PURPOSE IS "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS  ...  "
THE MEANS FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF THAT END IS THE GRANT FOR A LIMITED TIME
TO INVENTORS OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR INVENTIONS.    EVERY
PATENT IS THE GRANT OF A PRIVILEGE OF EXACTING TOLLS FROM THE PUBLIC. 
THE FRAMERS PLAINLY DID NOT WANT THOSE MONOPOLIES FREELY GRANTED.  THE
INVENTION, TO JUSTIFY A PATENT, HAD TO SERVE THE ENDS OF SCIENCE - TO
PUSH BACK THE FRONTIERS OF CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, AND THE LIKE; TO MAKE A
DISTINCTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.  THAT IS WHY THROUGH
THE YEARS THE OPINIONS OF THE COURT COMMONLY HAVE TAKEN "INVENTIVE
GENIUS" AS THE TEST* .  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT AN ARTICLE IS NEW AND
USEFUL.  THE CONSTITUTION NEVER SANCTIONED THE PATENTING OF GADGETS. 
PATENTS SERVE A HIGHER END - THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE.  AN INVENTION
NEED NOT BE AS STARTLING AS AN ATOMIC BOMB TO BE PATENTABLE.  BUT IT
HAS TO BE OF SUCH QUALITY AND DISTINCTION THAT MASTERS OF THE
SCIENTIFIC FIELD IN WHICH IT FALLS WILL RECOGNIZE IT AS AN ADVANCE. 
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY STATED IN ATLANTIC WORKS V. BRADY, 107 U.S. 192,
200, THE CONSEQUENCES OF A LOOSER STANDARD: 

"IT WAS NEVER THE OBJECT OF THOSE LAWS TO GRANT A MONOPOLY FOR EVERY
TRIFLING DEVICE, EVERY SHADOW OF A SHADE OF AN IDEA, WHICH WOULD
NATURALLY AND SPONTANEOUSLY OCCUR TO ANY SKILLED MECHANIC OR OPERATOR
IN THE ORDINARY PROGRESS OF MANUFACTURES.  SUCH AN INDISCRIMINATE
CREATION OF EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES TENDS RATHER TO OBSTRUCT THAN TO
STIMULATE INVENTION.  IT CREATES A CLASS OF SPECULATIVE SCHEMERS WHO
MAKE IT THEIR BUSINESS TO WATCH THE ADVANCING WAVE OF IMPROVEMENT, AND
GATHER ITS FOAM IN THE FORM OF PATENTED MONOPOLIES, WHICH ENABLE THEM
TO LAY A HEAVY TAX UPON THE INDUSTRY OF THE COUNTRY, WITHOUT
CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING TO THE REAL ADVANCEMENT OF THE ARTS.  IT
EMBARRASSES THE HONEST PURSUIT OF BUSINESS WITH FEARS AND APPREHENSIONS
OF CONCEALED LIENS AND UNKNOWN LIABILITIES TO LAWSUITS AND VEXATIOUS
ACCOUNTINGS FOR PROFITS MADE IN GOOD FAITH." 

*"INVENTIVE GENIUS" - MR. JUSTICE HUNT IN RECKENDORFER V. FABER, 92
U.S. 347, 357; "GENIUS OR INVENTION" - MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER IN
SMITH V. WHITMAN SADDLE CO., 148 U.S. 674, 681; "INTUITIVE GENIUS" -
MR. JUSTICE BROWN IN POTTS V. CREAGER, 155 U.S. 597, 607; "INVENTIVE
GENIUS" - MR. JUSTICE STONE IN CONCRETE APPLICANCES CO. V. GOMERY, 269
U.S. 177, 185; "INVENTIVE GENIUS" - MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IN MANTLE LAMP
CO. V. ALUMINUM PRODUCTS CO., 301 U.S. 544, 546; CUNO CORP. V.
AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., 314 U.S. 84, 91, "THE FLASH OF CREATIVE
GENIUS, NOT MERELY THE SKILL OF THE CALLING." 

THE STANDARD OF PATENTABILITY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD; AND THE
QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF A PATENT IS A QUESTION OF LAW.  MAHN V.
HARWOOD, 112 U.S. 354, 358.  THE COURT FASHIONED IN GRAVER MFG. CO. V.
LINDE CO., 336 U.S. 271, 275, A RULE FOR PATENT CASES TO THE EFFECT
THAT THIS COURT WILL NOT DISTURB A FINDING OF INVENTION MADE BY TWO
LOWER COURTS, IN ABSENCE OF A VERY OBVIOUS AND EXCEPTIONAL SHOWING OF
ERROR.  THAT RULE, IMPORTED FROM OTHER FIELDS, NEVER HAD A PLACE IN
PATENT LAW.  HAVING SERVED ITS PURPOSE IN GRAVER MFG. CO. V. LINDE CO.,
IT IS NOW IN SUBSTANCE REJECTED.  THE COURT NOW RECOGNIZES WHAT HAS
LONG BEEN APPARENT IN OUR CASES:  THAT IT IS THE "STANDARD OF
INVENTION" THAT CONTROLS.  THAT IS PRESENT IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE
VALIDITY OF A PATENT IS IN ISSUE.  IT IS THAT QUESTION WHICH THE COURT
MUST DECIDE.  NO "FINDING OF FACT" CAN BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR IT IN ANY
CASE.  THE QUESTION OF INVENTION GOES BACK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARD IN EVERY CASE.  WE SPEAK WITH FINAL AUTHORITY ON THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AS WE DO ON MANY OTHERS. 

THE ATTEMPTS THROUGH THE YEARS TO GET A BROADER, LOOSER CONCEPTION OF
PATENTS THAN THE CONSTITUTION CONTEMPLATES HAVE BEEN PERSISTENT.  THE
PATENT OFFICE, LIKE MOST ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, HAS LOOKED WITH FAVOR
ON THE OPPORTUNITY WHICH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION AFFORDS TO EXPAND
ITS OWN JURISDICTION.  AND SO IT HAS PLACED A HOST OF GADGETS UNDER THE
ARMOUR OF PATENTS - GADGETS THAT OBVIOUSLY HAVE HAD NO PLACE IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME OF ADVANCING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.  A FEW THAT
HAVE REACHED THIS COURT SHOW THE PRESSURE TO EXTEND MONOPOLY TO THE
SIMPLEST OF DEVICES: 

HOTCHKISS V. GREENWOOD, 11 HOW.  248: DOORKNOB MADE OF CLAY RATHER
THAN METAL OR WOOD, WHERE DIFFERENT SHAPED DOOR KNOBS HAD PREVIOUSLY
BEEN MADE OF CLAY. 

RUBBER-TIP PENCIL CO. V. HOWARD, 20 WALL.  498:  RUBBER CAPS PUT ON
WOOD PENCILS TO SERVE AS ERASERS. 

COLLAR CO. V. VAN DUSEN, 23 WALL.  530:  MAKING COLLARS OF PARCHMENT
PAPER WHERE LINEN PAPER AND LINEN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED. 

BROWN V. PIPER, 91 U.S. 37:  A METHOD FOR PRESERVING FISH BY FREEZING
THEM IN A CONTAINER OPERATING IN THE SAME MANNER AS AN ICE CREAM
FREEZER. 

RECKENDORFER V. FABER, 92 U.S. 347:  INSERTING A PIECE OF RUBBER IN A
SLOT IN THE END OF A WOOD PENCIL TO SERVE AS AN ERASER. 

DALTON V. JENNINGS, 93 U.S. 271:  FINE THREAD PLACED ACROSS OPEN
SQUARES IN A REGULAR HAIRNET TO KEEP HAIR IN PLACE MORE EFFECTIVELY. 

DOUBLE-POINTED TACK CO. V. TWO RIVERS MFG. CO., 109 U.S. 117:
PUTTING A METAL WASHER ON A WIRE STAPLE. 

MILLER V. FOREE, 116 U.S. 22:  A STAMP FOR IMPRESSING INITIALS IN THE
SIDE OF A PLUG OF TOBACCO. 

PRESTON V. MANARD, 116 U.S. 661:  A HOSE REEL OF LARGE DIAMETER SO
THAT WATER MAY FLOW THROUGH HOSE WHILE IT IS WOUND ON THE REEL. 

HENDY V. MINERS' IRON WORKS, 127 U.S. 370:  PUTTING ROLLERS ON A
MACHINE TO MAKE IT MOVEABLE. 

ST. GERMAIN V. BRUNSWICK, 135 U.S. 227:  REVOLVING CUE RACK. 

SHENFIELD V. NASHAWANNUCK MFG. CO., 137 U.S. 56:  USING FLAT CORD
INSTEAD OF ROUND CORD FOR THE LOOP AT THE END OF SUSPENDERS. 

FLORSHEIM V. SCHILLING, 137 U.S. 64:  PUTTING ELASTIC GUSSETS IN
CORSETS. 

CLUETT V. CLAFLIN, 140 U.S. 180:  A SHIRT BOSOM OR DICKEY SEWN ONTO
THE FRONT OF A SHIRT. 

ADAMS V. BELLAIRE STAMPING CO., 141 U.S. 539:  A LANTERN LID FASTENED
TO THE LANTERN BY A HINGE ON ONE SIDE AND A CATCH ON THE OTHER. 

PATENT CLOTHING CO. V. GLOVER, 141 U.S. 560:  BRIDGING A STRIP OF
CLOTH ACROSS THE FLY OF PANTALOONS TO REINFORCE THEM AGAINST TEARING. 

POPE MFG. CO. V. GORMULLY MFG. CO., 144 U.S. 238:  PLACING RUBBER
HAND GRIPS ON BICYCLE HANDLEBARS. 

KNAPP V. MORSS, 150 U.S. 221:  APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF THE UMBRELLA
TO A SKIRT FORM. 

MORGAN ENVELOPE CO. V. ALBANY PERFORATED WRAPPING PAPER CO., 152 U.S.
425:  AN OVAL RATHER THAN CYLINDRICAL TOILET PAPER ROLL, TO FACILITATE
TEARING OFF STRIPS. 

DUNHAM V. DENNISON MFG. CO., 154 U.S. 103: AN ENVELOPE FLAP WHICH
COULD BE FASTENED TO THE ENVELOPE IN SUCH A FASHION THAT THE ENVELOPE
COULD BE OPENED WITHOUT TEARING. 

THE PATENT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE BELONGS TO THIS LIST OF
INCREDIBLE PATENTS WHICH THE PATENT OFFICE HAS SPAWNED.  THE FACT THAT
A PATENT AS FLIMSY AND AS SPURIOUS AS THIS ONE HAS TO BE BROUGHT ALL
THE WAY TO THIS COURT TO BE DECLARED INVALID DRAMATICALLY ILLUSTRATES
HOW FAR OUR PATENT SYSTEM FREQUENTLY DEPARTS FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARDS WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO GOVERN. 
..END :






STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 54 


NOS. 27 AND 28.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 27, 1950. 
- 178 F.2D 488, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A GOVERNMENT WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY INSURING A SHIP AGAINST
"ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS" DOES NOT, AS A
MATTER OF LAW, COVER A LOSS RESULTING FROM A COLLISION OCCURRING DURING
WARTIME BETWEEN THE INSURED VESSEL AND A NAVY MINE SWEEPER ENGAGED IN
MINE SWEEPING OPERATIONS, WHERE BOTH VESSELS WERE AT FAULT.  PP. 55
61. 

(A)  TO TAKE A LOSS RESULTING FROM A COLLISION OUT OF THE CATEGORY
COVERED BY STANDARD MARINE RISK POLICIES AND BRING IT WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF A WAR RISK POLICY INSURING AGAINST "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF"
WARLIKE OPERATIONS, THE "WARLIKE OPERATION" MUST BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
OF THE COLLISION.  PP. 57-58. 

(B)  THE COURTS BELOW DID NOT ERR IN FAILING TO HOLD AS A MATTER OF
LAW THAT THE "WARLIKE OPERATION" OF MINE SWEEPING WAS THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF THE COLLISION; AND THEY PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE CASE AS
DEPENDING ON THE RESOLUTION OF FACTUAL QUESTIONS.  PP. 58-59. 

(C)  WHILE UNIFORMITY OF DECISIONS HERE AND IN ENGLAND IN THE
INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF MARINE INSURANCE CONTRACTS IS
DESIRABLE, AMERICAN COURTS ARE NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW HOUSE OF LORDS'
DECISIONS AUTOMATICALLY.  THE PRACTICE IS NO MORE THAN TO ACCORD
RESPECT TO ESTABLISHED DOCTRINES OF ENGLISH MARITIME LAW.  P. 59. 

(D)  THIS COURT CANNOT BE SURE WHAT CONCLUSION THE HOUSE OF LORDS
WOULD REACH WERE THIS CASE PRESENTED TO IT.  PP. 59-60. 

2.  SINCE THIS COURT WAS ASKED ONLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AS A MATTER
OF LAW THE PROVISION INSURING AGAINST "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF  ...
WARLIKE OPERATIONS" COVERED THE LOSS RESULTING FROM THE COLLISION HERE
INVOLVED, AND CERTIORARI WAS NOT GRANTED TO CONSIDER THE DIVERGENCE
BETWEEN THE TWO COURTS BELOW IN THEIR FINDINGS OF FACT, THIS COURT DOES
NOT REVIEW THEIR FINDINGS OF FACT.  PP. 57, 59. 

STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF A COLLISION BETWEEN
PETITIONER'S SHIP AND A NAVY MINE SWEEPER, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT THE LOSS WAS COVERED BY A GOVERNMENT POLICY OF WAR RISK
INSURANCE.  81 F.SUPP.  183.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  178 F.2D
488.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 977.  AFFIRMED, P. 61. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY
ON A POLICY OF WAR RISK INSURANCE BY WHICH IT INSURED PETITIONER'S
STEAM TANKER JOHN WORTHINGTON AGAINST "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES
OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS."  N1  STIPULATED FACTS SHOW THAT ON DECEMBER 16,
1942, THERE WAS A COLLISION BETWEEN THE WORTHINGTON AND THE YMS-12, ONE
OF THREE UNITED STATES NAVY MINE SWEEPERS CLEARING THE CHANNEL
APPROACHES TO NEW YORK HARBOR.  FN2  BOTH VESSELS WERE AT FAULT IN
FAILING "TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE RULES" OF GOOD SEAMANSHIP "UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES." 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE UNITED STATES CONCEDED THAT MINE SWEEPING
IS A "WARLIKE OPERATION" BUT URGED THAT THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO SHOW
THAT THE COLLISION WAS A "CONSEQUENCE" OF THE MINE SWEEPING WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT.  PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT THE MERE
SHOWING OF LOSS FROM COLLISION WITH THE MOVING WARSHIP ESTABLISHED
LIABILITY UNDER THE POLICY AS A MATTER OF LAW.  IT ARGUED THAT THIS WAS
THE ENGLISH RULE WHICH SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY AMERICAN COURTS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ACCEPT PETITIONER'S VIEW OF THE ENGLISH RULE. 
IT READ BOTH THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH AUTHORITIES AS CONDITIONING THE
UNDERWRITER'S LIABILITY ON PROOF OF FACTS SHOWING THAT THE "WARLIKE
OPERATION" WAS THE "PROXIMATE," "PREDOMINANT AND DETERMINING" CAUSE OF
THE LOSS.  THE COURT HELD FOR PETITIONER, FINDING AS A FACT THAT THIS
BURDEN OF PROOF HAD BEEN MET.  81 F.SUPP.  183.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  178 F.2D 488.  IT RECOGNIZED THAT SOME LANGUAGE IN CERTAIN
ENGLISH OPINIONS POSSIBLY INDICATED THAT THE FACTS RELIED ON WOULD MAKE
THE WAR UNDERWRITER LIABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW.  NEVERTHELESS, IT
REFUSED TO GO THAT FAR AND, CONTRARY TO THE DISTRICT COURT, FOUND AS A
FACT THAT PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE WARLIKE PHASE
OF THE MINE SWEEPER'S OPERATION HAD CAUSED THE COLLISION.  FN3
PETITIONER SOUGHT CERTIORARI HERE WITHOUT RELYING ON THE DIVERGENCE
BELOW IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ON THE QUESTION OF CAUSATION.  ITS GROUND
WAS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD FAILED TO HOLD FOR PETITIONER AS A
MATTER OF LAW AS THE ENGLISH CASES ALLEGEDLY REQUIRED.  WE GRANTED THE
WRIT, 339 U.S. 977, BECAUSE OF ASSERTED CONFLICT ON THIS ONE POINT WITH
GENERAL INS. CO. V. LINK, 173 F.2D 955. 

WE ARE ASKED ONLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AS A MATTER OF LAW THE
PROVISION INSURING AGAINST "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF  ...  WARLIKE
OPERATIONS" COVERED THE LOSS RESULTING FROM COLLISION BETWEEN THE
WORTHINGTON AND THE MINE SWEEPER.  OF COURSE, THE INTENTION OF THE
CONTRACTING PARTIES WOULD CONTROL THIS DECISION, BUT AS IS SO OFTEN THE
CASE, THAT INTENTION IS NOT READILY ASCERTAINABLE.  LOSSES FROM
COLLISIONS ARE PRIMA FACIE PERILS OF THE SEA COVERED BY STANDARD MARINE
RISK POLICIES.  FN4  TO TAKE SUCH A LOSS OUT OF THE MARINE POLICY AND
TO BRING IT WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE PROVISION INSURING AGAINST "ALL
CONSEQUENCES OF" WARLIKE OPERATIONS, COMMON SENSE DICTATES THAT THERE
MUST BE SOME CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WARLIKE OPERATION AND THE
COLLISION.  COURTS HAVE LONG SO HELD IN INTERPRETING WHAT WAS MEANT BY
USE OF THE PHRASE "ALL CONSEQUENCES" IN WAR RISK POLICIES.  FN5  IN
TURN, THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
PERIL INSURED AGAINST AND THE LOSS HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY LOOKING TO
THE FACTUAL SITUATION IN EACH CASE AND APPLYING THE CONCEPT OF
"PROXIMATE CAUSE."  FN6  PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE INSURANCE FIELD HAS
BEEN VARIOUSLY DEFINED.  IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT PROXIMATE CAUSE REFERRED
TO THE "CAUSE NEAREST TO THE LOSS."  FN7  AGAIN, COURTS HAVE PROPERLY
STATED THAT PROXIMATE CAUSE "DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFER TO THE CAUSE
NEAREST IN POINT OF TIME TO THE LOSS.  BUT THE TRUE MEANING OF THAT
MAXIM IS, THAT IT REFERS TO THAT CAUSE WHICH IS MOST NEARLY AND
ESSENTIALLY CONNECTED WITH THE LOSS AS ITS EFFICIENT CAUSE."  FN8 

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE MINE SWEEPING, A
WARLIKE OPERATION, WAS THE "PREDOMINANT AND DETERMINING" CAUSE OF THE
COLLISION?  AS WE READ THE RECORD, THE FACTS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE BOTH OF
THE INFERENCE THAT THE MINE-SWEEPING ACTIVITY OF THE YMS-12 HAD SOME
RELATION TO THE COLLISION AND THAT IT DID NOT.  THAT IS TO SAY,
REASONABLE TRIERS OF FACT CONSIDERING ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
COLLISION MIGHT DIFFER AS TO WHETHER THE LOSS WAS PREDOMINANTLY OR
PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY USUAL NAVIGATIONAL HAZARDS (AND THEREFORE AN
ORDINARY MARINE INSURANCE RISK) OR WHETHER IT WAS CAUSED BY
EXTRAORDINARY PERILS STEMMING FROM THE MINE SWEEPING (AND THEREFORE A
WAR INSURANCE RISK).  FN9 INDEED, THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS DID DIFFER ON THIS FACTUAL DETERMINATION.  SINCE CERTIORARI WAS
NOT GRANTED TO CONSIDER THAT DIVERGENCE IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, WE
NEED GO NO FURTHER THAN TO HOLD THAT THE COURTS BELOW PROPERLY
CONSIDERED THE CASE AS DEPENDING ON THE RESOLUTION OF FACTUAL
QUESTIONS. 

PETITIONER NEVERTHELESS CONTENDS THAT (1) WE ARE BOUND BY CERTAIN
DECISIONS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND (2) THESE OPINIONS HAVE ANNOUNCED A
RULE-OF-THUMB CONSTRUCTION OF THE PHRASE "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF  ...
WARLIKE OPERATIONS" UNDER WHICH THE FACTS IN THIS CASE RESULT IN WAR
RISK LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW.  WE CANNOT ACCEPT THESE ARGUMENTS. 
IT IS TRUE THAT WE AND OTHER AMERICAN COURTS HAVE EMPHASIZED THE
DESIRABILITY OF UNIFORMITY IN DECISIONS HERE AND IN ENGLAND IN
INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF MARINE INSURANCE CONTRACTS.  FN10
ESPECIALLY IS UNIFORMITY DESIRABLE WHERE, AS HERE, THE PARTICULAR FORM
OF WORDS EMPLOYED ORIGINATED IN ENGLAND.  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT
AMERICAN COURTS MUST FOLLOW HOUSE OF LORDS' DECISIONS AUTOMATICALLY. 
ACTUALLY OUR PRACTICE IS NO MORE THAN TO ACCORD RESPECT TO ESTABLISHED
DOCTRINES OF ENGLISH MARITIME LAW.  FN11 

THE DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN THE RIGID CONFORMITY RULE URGED BY
PETITIONER ARE OBVIOUS TO THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE SEARCH FOR STATE
DECISIONAL LAW UNDER THE ERIE-TOMPKINS DOCTRINE.  IN THIS VERY CASE,
WE, LIKE THE COURT OF APPEALS, CANNOT BE SURE WHAT CONCLUSION THE HOUSE
OF LORDS WOULD REACH WERE THIS CASE PRESENTED TO IT.  SOME OF THEIR
DECISIONS INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT
THE COLLISION WAS THE "CONSEQUENCE" OF THE WARLIKE OPERATION; FN12
OTHER CASES CANNOT EASILY BE RECONCILED WITH SUCH A RESULT.  FN13
INDEED, IN ONE DECISION, LORD WRIGHT DECLARED THAT "IN MANY CASES
RECONCILIATION IS IMPOSSIBLE.  WHAT MATTERS IS THE DECISION."  FN14 AND
EVEN IN THOSE DECISIONS IMPLYING THAT PROOF OF CERTAIN FACTS RESULTS IN
LIABILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE HOUSE OF LORDS HAS SPOKEN IN TERMS OF
FACTUAL PROXIMATE CAUSE.  FN15  THEIR MOST RECENT DECISION CONSTRUING
THE WORDS BEFORE US STATES THAT CASES APPLYING THE "QUESTION OF LAW"
TECHNIQUE SHOULD BE CAREFULLY RESTRICTED TO THEIR HOLDINGS; AND LORD
NORMAND WARNED, "THE NUMEROUS AUTHORITIES CITED CAN THEREFORE HAVE ONLY
A LIMITED BEARING ON THE PRESENT ISSUE.  ...  (THEY) WILL EASILY LEAD
TO ERROR IF IT IS ATTEMPTED TO EXTRACT FROM THEM A PRINCIPLE OF LAW TO
SOLVE WHAT IS A QUESTION OF FACT."  FN16 

THIS COURT, MOREOVER, HAS LONG EMPHASIZED THAT IN INTERPRETING
INSURANCE CONTRACTS REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO CONSIDERATIONS OF
BUSINESS AND INSURANCE PRACTICES.  FN17  THE PARTICULAR ENGLISH CASES
RELIED ON BY PETITIONER PRODUCED SUCH AN UNFAVORABLE REACTION AMONG
THAT COUNTRY'S UNDERWRITERS THAT THEY REVISED THE CLAUSE HERE INVOLVED
TO AVOID THE INJURIOUS EFFECTS OF THOSE DECISIONS.  FN18  THE TERMS OF
AMERICAN WAR RISK POLICIES HAVE ALSO BEEN ALTERED.  FN19 

THE PROXIMATE CAUSE METHOD OF DETERMINING ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE
WHETHER A LOSS WAS THE "CONSEQUENCE" OF WARLIKE OPERATIONS MAY FALL
SHORT OF ACHIEVING PERFECT RESULTS.  FOR THOSE INSURED AND THOSE
INSURING CANNOT PREDICT WITH CERTAINTY WHAT A TRIER OF FACT MIGHT
DECIDE IS THE PREDOMINANT CAUSE OF LOSS.  BUT NEITHER COULD THEY
PREDICT WITH CERTAINTY WHAT PARTICULAR STATE OF FACTS MIGHT CAUSE A
COURT TO DISCOVER LIABILITY "AS A MATTER OF LAW."  LONG EXPERIENCE WITH
THE PROXIMATE CAUSE METHOD IN AMERICAN AND ENGLISH COURTS HAS AT LEAST
PROVEN IT ADAPTABLE AND USEFUL IN MARINE AND OTHER INSURANCE CASES. 
THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ITS APPLICATION IN THIS CASE WILL
DISAPPOINT THE JUST EXPECTATIONS OF INSURER OR INSURED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE QUOTED LANGUAGE COMES FROM THE "F.C. & S. CLAUSE" ("FREE
FROM CAPTURE AND SEIZURE") AND IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN THE WAR
RISK POLICY.  WAR RISK INSURANCE IS WRITTEN IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
THE MARINE POLICY, WHICH COVERS COMMON PERILS OF THE SEA, GENERALLY
CONTAINS AN "F.C. & S. CLAUSE" ELIMINATING FROM COVERAGE CERTAIN NAMED
WAR RISKS, ONE OF WHICH IS "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE
OPERATIONS."  THE EXCEPTED RISKS ARE INSURED AGAINST EITHER BY ADDING A
RIDER TO THE ORIGINAL MARINE POLICY, OR BY BUYING COVERAGE FROM ANOTHER
UNDERWRITER - HERE THE GOVERNMENT - WHO INSURES THE PERILS EXCLUDED BY
THE "F.C. & S. CLAUSE."  THE OPINIONS BELOW SET OUT MORE FULLY THE
DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE PRESENT INSURANCE OBLIGATION RESTED.  FOR A
HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE "F.C. & S. CLAUSE" WHICH ORIGINATED
IN ENGLAND, SEE 18 HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND (2D ED. 1935) SEC. 439;
IONIDES V. UNIVERSAL MARINE INS. CO., 14 C.B. (N.S.)  259, 273(1863). 

FN2  COUNSEL DESCRIBED THE OPERATION THIS WAY:  "A MINE SWEEPING
OPERATION  ...  IS A FORMATION OF VESSELS, EACH OF WHICH STREAMS OUT
BEHIND IT A DEVICE ON A LONG CABLE WHICH, TOWED ALONG A CERTAIN
DISTANCE UNDER THE WATER, IS DESIGNED TO CUT THE CABLE OF ANY MINE AND
BRING IT TO THE SURFACE, WHERE IT CAN BE DESTROYED BY GUNFIRE AND THE
LIKE." 

FN3  WE DO NOT READ THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION AS MEANING THAT
WHEN NEGLIGENCE IS PRESENT, THE RESULTING LOSS CAN NEVER BE A WAR
RISK.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD (AND THE COURT OF APPEALS APPROVED) THAT
"'"PROXIMATE" HERE MEANS, NOT LATEST IN TIME, BUT PREDOMINANT IN
EFFICIENCY.'  '(THERE) IS NECESSARILY INVOLVED A PROCESS OF SELECTION
FROM AMONG THE CO-OPERATING CAUSES TO FIND WHAT IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
IN THE PARTICULAR CASE.'  IT IS TRUE THAT THE CAUSES OF AN EVENT ARE
ALL THE PRECEDING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH BROUGHT THE EVENT TO PASS - AND
THEY ARE MYRIAD."  81 F.SUPP.  190.  IF THE "WARLIKE OPERATION" WAS THE
"PROXIMATE CAUSE" OF THE COLLISION, THEN THE FACT THAT THE "WARLIKE
OPERATION" WAS NEGLIGENTLY CONDUCTED DOES NOT RELIEVE THE WAR RISK
UNDERWRITER OF LIABILITY.  CF. GENERAL MUT. INS. CO. V. SHERWOOD, 14
HOW.  351; 1 PHILLIPS ON INSURANCE (5TH ED. 1867) P1049. 

FN4  CASES COLLECTED, 1912 D ANN. CASES 1038, 1040; 2 ARNOULD, MARINE
INSURANCE AND AVERAGE (13TH ED., LORD CHORLEY, 1950), SEC. 827A. 

FN5  IONIDES V. UNIVERSAL MARINE INS. CO., 14 C.B. (N.S.)  259(1863);
SEE QUEEN INS. CO. V. GLOBE & RUTGERS FIRE INS. CO., 263 U.S. 487,
491.  2 ARNOULD, MARINE INSURANCE AND AVERAGE (13TH ED., LORD CHORLEY,
1950), SEC. 790. 

FN6  INSURANCE CO. V. BOON, 95 U.S. 117; 3 KENT'S COMMENTARIES (14TH
ED., GOULD, 1896) 302; CASES ARE COLLECTED IN 6 COUCH, CYCLOPEDIA OF
INSURANCE LAW, SEC. 1463. 

FN7  QUEEN INS. CO. V. GLOBE & RUTGERS FIRE INS. CO., 263 U.S. 487,
492.  CF. INSURANCE CO. V. TRANSPORTATION CO., 12 WALL.  194, 197-199. 

FN8  DOLE V. NEW ENGLAND MUT. INS. CO., 7 FED. CAS. 837, 853(C.C.
MASS. 1864) DECIDED BY MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD ON CIRCUIT.  ACCORD:
INSURANCE CO. V. BOON, 95 U.S. 117; LANASA FRUIT S.S. & IMPORTING CO.
V. UNIVERSAL INS. CO., 302 U.S. 556, 561-565; 3 KENT'S COMMENTARIES
(14TH ED., GOULD, 1896) 302, N. 1; 1 PHILLIPS ON INSURANCE (5TH ED.
1867) P1132. 

FN9  ORDINARY MARINE INSURANCE COVERS LOSSES DUE TO FORTUITOUS PERILS
OF THE SEA.  WAR RISK INSURANCE COVERS LOSSES DUE TO PERILS
SUPERIMPOSED ON USUAL MARINE PERILS BY WAR.  AS LORD WRENBURY PUT IT,
"THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE LOSS WAS OCCASIONED BY A NEW RISK ARISING
BY REASON OF WARLIKE OPERATIONS."  ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. ARD COASTERS,
LTD., (1921) 2 A.C. 141, 154. 

FN10  QUEEN INS. CO. V. GLOBE & RUTGERS FIRE INS. CO., 263 U.S. 487,
493.  SEE NEW YORK & ORIENTAL S.S. CO. V. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., 37 F.2D
461, 463.  THE DESIRE FOR UNIFORMITY IN INTERPRETATION OF THE WAR RISK
CLAUSE MAY NOW BE MORE ACADEMIC THAN REAL.  SINCE 1942, POLICIES ISSUED
IN ENGLAND AND IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE NOT CONTAINED SIMILAR
PROVISIONS IN THIS REGARD SO THAT UNIFORMITY IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE. 
COMPARE 1945 AM. MAR. CAS. 1035 WITH 1945 AM. MAR. CAS. 1036.    FN11
AETNA INS. CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 304 U.S. 430, 438. 

FN12  E.G., ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. ADELAIDE S.S. CO., (1923) A.C. 292;
BOARD OF TRADE V. HAIN S.S. CO., (1929) A.C. 534; CF. YORKSHIRE DALE
S.S. CO. V. MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT, (1942) A.C. 691. 

FN13  E.G., CLAN LINE STEAMERS, LTD. V. BOARD OF TRADE, (1929) A.C.
514; LIVERPOOL & LONDON WAR RISKS ASSN. V. OCEAN S.S. CO., (1948) A.C.
243. 

FN14  YORKSHIRE DALE S.S. CO. V. MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT, (1942)
A.C. 691, 708. 

FN15 SEE CASES CITED IN NOTE 12, SUPRA.  ENGLAND HAS ENACTED THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE TEST INTO ITS STATUTORY LAW.  MARINE INSURANCE ACT OF
1906, 6 EDW.  VII, C. 41, SEC. 55(2). 

FN16  LIVERPOOL & LONDON WAR RISKS ASSN. V. OCEAN S.S. CO., (1948)
A.C. 243, 270. 

FN17  GENERAL MUT. INS. CO. V. SHERWOOD, 14 HOW.  351, 362. 

FN18  2 ARNOULD, MARINE INSURANCE AND AVERAGE (13TH ED., LORD
CHORLEY, 1950), SEC. 905H. 

FN19  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES ARE THE UNITED STATES AND THE STANDARD OIL
COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ORDINARY INSURANCE
CASE.  IT IS BEFORE US BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT WITH THE VIEWS OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN GENERAL INSURANCE CO. OF
AMERICA V. LINK, 173 F.2D 955.  ON DECEMBER 16, 1942, THE STANDARD
TANKER WORTHINGTON COLLIDED WITH A UNITED STATES NAVY MINE SWEEPER, THE
YMS-12, ENGAGED IN SWEEPING MINES IN THE CHANNEL OUTSIDE NEW YORK
HARBOR.  IT HAS BEEN STIPULATED THAT THE COLLISION "WAS CONTRIBUTED TO
BOTH BY FAULT IN THE NAVIGATION OF SS JOHN WORTHINGTON AND FAULT IN THE
NAVIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES SHIP YMS-12, CONSISTING OF FAILURES ON
THE PART OF BOTH VESSELS TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE RULES FOR THE
PREVENTION OF COLLISIONS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOOD SEAMANSHIP UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  THE WORTHINGTON WAS UNDAMAGED, BUT UNDER ADMIRALTY
LAW STANDARD WAS LIABLE FOR HALF THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY THE MINE
SWEEPER SINCE BOTH SHIPS WERE AT FAULT.  STANDARD, AS A SELF-INSURER OF
ITS TANKER WORTHINGTON, HAD ASSUMED ALL MARINE RISKS EXCEPT THOSE
UNDERTAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES, THE CHARTERER OF THE VESSEL.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S UNDERTAKING WAS TO INSURE AGAINST "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF
HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS."  FN1 

THE UNITED STATES FILED A LIBEL AGAINST STANDARD TO RECOVER FOR ONE
HALF THE DAMAGE TO THE NAVY MINE SWEEPER.  STANDARD ANSWERED THAT THE
UNITED STATES, AS INSURER OF THE TANKER, WOULD, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE
OF THE COLLISION, HAVE TO REIMBURSE STANDARD FOR ANY LOSS IT SUSTAINED
IN THE SUIT.  FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE LIBEL UPON THIS
THEORY.  81 F.SUPP.  183.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
REVERSED, 178 F.2D 488, AND THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 339 U.S.
977, BECAUSE, AS ALREADY NOTED, THERE WAS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SECOND
AND NINTH CIRCUITS. 

IN GRANTING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, WE
BROUGHT HERE ALL THAT BY FAIR IMPLICATION IS CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION:  "IS A COLLISION BETWEEN A WAR VESSEL ENGAGED ON A WARLIKE
OPERATION AND A MERCHANT VESSEL, WITH FAULT ON THE PART OF BOTH
VESSELS, A CONSEQUENCE OF THE WARLIKE OPERATION OF THE WAR VESSEL?"  I
DO NOT THINK IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO LIMIT THE QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT
HERE BY AN ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF RELATION BETWEEN THE
PECULIAR RISKS DUE TO THE WARLIKE OPERATION AND THE LOSS.  THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE LOSS AND THE RISKS INCIDENT TO THE
WARLIKE OPERATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION DISCUSSED AT LENGTH
THE STANDARD UPON WHICH SUCH A FINDING IS BASED.  THE PETITIONER'S
SUBMISSION HERE SEEMS CLEARLY TO ADHERE TO THE GROUND ON WHICH HE
PREVAILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  IT IS TRUE THAT WHERE THE STANDARD TO
BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS IS CLEAR, WE OUGHT NOT TO BE CONCERNED OVER A
DIFFERENCE OF VIEW REGARDING THE FACTS BETWEEN THE DISTRICT COURT AND
COURT OF APPEALS.  BUT WHERE THE CLASH OF VIEWS MAY INVOLVE THE MEANING
OF THE STANDARD TO BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS, IT MAKES FOR UNCERTAINTY IF
THIS COURT FAILS TO CONSIDER THE PROBLEM FULLY.  THE "PROXIMATE CAUSE"
STANDARD OF INSURANCE LIABILITY IS, AT BEST, AN ELUSIVE CONCEPT.  IT
ACQUIRES MORE VIVID MEANING WHEN ABSTRACT DISCUSSION LEADS TO AN
APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE. 

SINCE THE ISSUE IS THE SCOPE TO BE GIVEN THE WORDS "ALL CONSEQUENCES
OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS," IT IS IMPORTANT TO PLACE THE
PHRASE IN ITS HISTORIC SETTING.  PHRASES LIKE OTHER ORGANISMS MUST BE
RELATED TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT.  IT FURTHERS CLARITY EXPLICITLY TO SET TO
ONE SIDE A GROUP OF CASES CONSTRUING AN EARLIER PHRASE WHICH AROSE IN A
DIFFERENT SETTING.  IN SEVERAL CASES THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND THIS COURT
HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER A PROVISION IN CIVIL WAR CHARTERS AND LATER
GOVERNMENT CHARTERS WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT ASSUMED THE "WAR RISK" FOR
THE VESSELS.  WHEN FIRST CALLED UPON TO CONSTRUE THE CHARTER PROVISION
"WAR RISK," THE COURT OF CLAIMS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT IT WAS NOT
DEALING WITH A STANDARD MARINE INSURANCE CLAUSE AND CONSTRUED THE WORDS
TO MEAN "ACTS OF THE PUBLIC ENEMY" OR "CASUALTIES OF WAR."  BOGERT V.
UNITED STATES, 2 CT. CL. 159, 163.  THIS RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION WAS
REITERATED IN MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 5 CT. CL. 182, 189-190, WHICH
WAS AFFIRMED IN 14 WALL.  531, AND BECAME SETTLED DOCTRINE IN THE
SUBSEQUENT CASES INVOLVING THE "WAR RISK" CHARTER TERM. 

THE CLAUSE THAT IS OUR CONCERN, "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR
WARLIKE OPERATIONS," WAS NOT DERIVED FROM THE AMERICAN "WAR RISK"
CHARTER TERM AND THEREFORE IS NOT TO DRAW ITS MEANING FROM THE CASES
CONSTRUING THAT TERM.  IT IS A CLAUSE EVOLVED BY ENGLISH MARITIME
INSURERS.  SEE THE OPINION OF LORD JUSTICE ATKIN IN BRITAIN S.S. CO. V.
THE KING, (1919) 2 K.B. 670, 692-693.  AND THE LANGUAGE HAS OFTEN BEEN
CONSTRUED IN ENGLISH COURTS.  SEE YORKSHIRE DALE S.S. CO. V. MINISTER
OF WAR TRANSPORT, (1942) A.C. 691, 703, 714, FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE
CASES BY LORD WRIGHT AND LORD PORTER.  IT IS ONLY NATURAL THAT AMERICAN
COURTS HAVE LOOKED TO THE ENGLISH CASES FOR ILLUMINATION JUST AS COURTS
LOOK TO THE DECISIONS OF ANOTHER STATE FOR AID IN DETERMINING THE
MEANING OF A STATUTE ADOPTED FROM THAT STATE.  PROVISIONS IN A STANDARD
CONTRACT FORM BECOME WORDS OF ART, AND THEIR CONTENT IS MOST DEPENDABLY
ARRIVED AT BY CONSIDERING THE ORIGIN OF THE WORDS AND THE MEANING THEY
HAVE IN PRACTICE ACQUIRED.  THESE ARE CONSIDERATIONS MAKING FOR
APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION AND DO NOT IMPLY SUBSERVIENCE TO ENGLISH
DECISIONS. 

TWO PROBLEMS ARISE IN CONSTRUING THE CLAUSE:  (1) WHAT CONSTITUTES
"HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS?"  (2) WHAT IS THE SWEEP OF THE
WORDS "ALL CONSEQUENCES?"  THE FIRST QUESTION, WHICH HAS PRESENTED
GREAT DIFFICULTIES IN CASES INVOLVING CONVOYS AND BLACKED-OUT VESSELS,
HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CASE BY A STIPULATION THAT THE MINE SWEEPER
WAS ENGAGED IN SWEEPING MINES - BEYOND DISPUTE A WARLIKE OPERATION.  A
WARLIKE OPERATION DOES NOT LOSE ITS WARLIKE CHARACTER BECAUSE IT IS
CARRIED OUT NEGLIGENTLY. 

THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER THE COLLISION WAS A
"CONSEQUENCE" OF THE WARLIKE OPERATION, OR, IN THE JARGON OF INSURANCE
CASES, WHETHER THE WARLIKE OPERATION WAS THE "PROXIMATE CAUSE" OF THE
COLLISION.  "PROXIMATE CAUSE," AS A REQUIREMENT OF LIABILITY UNDER AN
INSURANCE POLICY, IS NOT A TECHNICAL LEGAL CONCEPTION BUT A CONVENIENT
TAG FOR THE LAW'S RESPONSE TO GOOD SENSE.  IT IS SHORTHAND FOR SAYING
THAT THERE MUST BE SUCH A NEXUS BETWEEN THE POLICY TERM UNDER WHICH
INSURANCE MONEY IS CLAIMED AND THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE LOSS THAT
IT CAN BE FAIRLY DECLARED THAT THE LOSS WAS WITHIN THE RISK ASSUMED. 
THE CASE IS ONE OF "COMMON-SENSE ACCOMMODATION OF JUDGMENT TO
KALEIDOSCOPIC SITUATIONS."  GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 109,
117. 

UNLIKE OBLIGATIONS FLOWING FROM DUTIES IMPOSED UPON PEOPLE WILLY
NILLY, AN INSURANCE POLICY IS A VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING BY WHICH
OBLIGATIONS ARE VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED.  THEREFORE THE SUBTLETIES AND
SOPHISTRIES OF TORT LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE ARE NOT TO BE APPLIED IN
CONSTRUING THE COVENANTS OF A POLICY.  IT IS ONE THING FOR THE LAW TO
IMPOSE LIABILITY BY ITS OWN NOTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY, AND QUITE
ANOTHER TO CONSTRUE THE SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENTS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.  THE
LAW OF MARINE INSURANCE IS CONCERNED WITH AND REFLECTS THE
PRACTICALITIES OF COMMERCIAL DEALINGS.  THE LAW DOES NOT PLAY AN UNREAL
METAPHYSICAL GAME OF TRYING TO FIND A SINGLE ISOLATABLE FACTOR AS THE
SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO WHICH IS TO BE ATTRIBUTED A LOSS AGAINST WHICH
INSURANCE HAS BEEN BOUGHT.  AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE AND REASON SUCH
LOSSES ARE INVARIABLY THE RESULTANT OF A COMBINATION OF FACTORS.  THE
SCOPE OF THE UNDERTAKING TO COVER FOR SUCH LOSSES IS PARTLY THE LAW'S
CONFIRMATION OF THE SETTLED UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE WHOSE BUSINESS IS
SHIPPING - THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT CONTINGENCIES THE UNDERTAKING
COVERED.  IT IS PARTLY THE LAW'S ENDEAVOR, IN VIEW OF THE INEVITABLE
TREACHERIES OF LANGUAGE, TO SHIELD THE INSURER FROM LIABILITY FOR A
LOSS ON THE BASIS OF A FACTOR TOO REMOTE, AND THEREFORE TOO TENUOUS, IN
THE COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS THAT CONVERGED TOWARD THE LOSS. 

LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, DOES
THE FAILURE OF BOTH VESSELS "TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE RULES FOR THE
PREVENTION OF COLLISIONS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOOD SEAMANSHIP UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES" RELIEVE OF RESPONSIBILITY THE INSURER AGAINST ALL
CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES AND WARLIKE OPERATIONS?  IN OTHER WORDS,
DOES CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN RELATION TO A WARLIKE OPERATION
DISPLACE THE WARLIKE OPERATION AS AN EFFECTIVE FORCE IN BRINGING ABOUT
A LOSS? 

THE COLLISION OCCURRED BETWEEN 5 AND 6 A.M. ON DECEMBER 16, 1942, IN
THE SWEPT CHANNEL IN THE APPROACHES TO NEW YORK HARBOR.  THE YMS-12 WAS
PROCEEDING SEAWARD WITH HER MINE-SWEEPING GEAR STREAMED.  SHE WAS THE
STARBOARD VESSEL IN A FORMATION OF THREE MINE SWEEPERS ENGAGED IN
SWEEPING THE BUOYED CHANNEL.  IN THE WORDS OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, WHO
QUESTIONED COUNSEL CLOSELY ON THE WAY IN WHICH MINE SWEEPING WAS
CARRIED ON: 

"HERE, CONCEDEDLY, NEGLIGENCE IN NAVIGATION EXISTED ON THE PART OF
BOTH MASTERS, BUT THAT NEGLIGENCE DID NOT BREAK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION
SO AS TO PREVENT THE LOSS FROM BEING ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WARLIKE
OPERATION.  THE YMS-12 AND THE TWO ACCOMPANYING VESSELS, IN MINE
SWEEPING FORMATION, PROCEEDING WITH MINE SWEEPING GEAR STREAMED AND
TRAILING PARAVANES, PRESENTED AN UNUSUAL AND UNEXPECTED OBSTACLE TO
NAVIGATION.  YMS-105 WAS THE GUIDE SHIP OF THE FORMATION, THE YMS-12
WAS STATIONED SEVERAL HUNDRED YARDS ON THE STARBOARD BEAM OF THE YMS
105 AND THE THIRD VESSEL IN THE FORMATION, THE AMC-95, WAS ECHELON TO
THE RIGHT OF THE GUIDE SHIP, IN A POSITION APPROXIMATELY A HALF MILE
ASTERN AND MIDWAY BETWEEN THE YMS-105 AND THE YMS-12.  FROM THE TIME OF
THE ENCOUNTER UNTIL ACTUAL COLLISION THE VESSELS CONTINUED IN THEIR
MINE SWEEPING OPERATIONS WITH THEIR PARAVANES TRAILING; IN ALL HER
MANOEUVRES AND IN HER NAVIGATION THE YMS-12 WAS NECESSARILY RESTRICTED
AND IMPEDED.  THIS UNUSUAL FORMATION, OF WHICH THE YMS-12 WAS A PART,
CLOSED TO THE S. S. JOHN WORTHINGTON LANES OF NAVIGATION AFFORDING
POSSIBLE ESCAPE WHICH WOULD ORDINARILY HAVE BEEN OPEN TO HER. 

"THE NEGLIGENCE FOUND TO EXIST WAS NEGLIGENCE 'UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES' OF THE SPECIAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS EXISTING -
CONDITIONS CREATED BY THE WARLIKE OPERATION OF MINE SWEEPING."  81
F.SUPP.  183, 191. 

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS REACHED ITS DECISION BY APPLICATION OF
AN ERRONEOUS RULE OF LAW, BY THE ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF THE PROPER
RULE OF LAW, OR BY AN ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STIPULATION OF FACT
MADE BY THE PARTIES IS NOT CLEAR.  IN ANY CASE, IT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
IF THE MATTER IS VIEWED SIMPLY - ACCORDING TO THE FAIR JUDGMENT OF MEN
OF COMMERCE AND CLEAR OF BECLOUDING ABSTRACTIONS - ONE CAN HARDLY
ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE FACT THAT THE ENGLISH
COURTS HAVE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION IN SIMILAR CASES DOES NOT
WEAKEN ITS FORCE.  SEE BOARD OF TRADE V. HAIN S.S. CO., (1929) A.C.
534; ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. ADELAIDE S.S. CO., (1923) A.C. 292. 

THE GOVERNMENT MAKES A SECOND CONTENTION:  THAT ITS WAR-RISK
UNDERTAKING DID NOT EXTEND TO COLLISION LIABILITY.  SINCE THE ONLY LOSS
TO STANDARD WAS A LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO THE OTHER SHIP, THIS ARGUMENT
WOULD RELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT OF ITS LIABILITY AS INSURER.  THE
CONTENTION FINDS SUPPORT IN ADELAIDE S.S. CO. V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (THE
SECOND WARILDA), (1926) A.C. 172.  BUT SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN THE
WORDING OF THE POLICY MAKE IT PERFECTLY PLAIN THAT THE UNITED STATES
INSURED AGAINST COLLISION LIABILITY.  FN3 

FN1  THE WORTHINGTON WAS UNDER REQUISITION TIME CHARTER TO THE UNITED
STATES AT THE TIME OF COLLISION.  CLAUSE 20 OF PART II OF THE CHARTER
PROVIDED: 

"UNLESS OTHERWISE MUTUALLY ARRANGED, AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CURRENCY
OF THIS CHARTER THE CHARTERER SHALL PROVIDE AND PAY FOR OR ASSUME:  (I)
INSURANCE ON THE VESSEL, UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FULL
FORM OF STANDARD HULL WAR RISK POLICY OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION, ...  "    THE CLAUSE FURTHER PROVIDED THAT STANDARD
SHOULD ASSUME OR INSURE AGAINST ALL RISKS "(EXCEPT) AS TO RISKS OR
LIABILITIES ASSUMED, INSURED OR INDEMNIFIED AGAINST BY THE CHARTERER
(I.E. THE UNITED STATES)  ...  " 

THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED INSURANCE AGAINST RISKS ARISING FROM
HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS BY AN INVOLUTE AND SOMEWHAT ENIGMATIC
SET OF FORMS.  A BINDER OF INSURANCE ISSUED TO STANDARD BY THE UNITED
STATES PROVIDED:  "3.  THIS BINDER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE RULES,
REGULATIONS, CONDITIONS AND POLICY FORMS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  ...  "  ENDORSEMENT NO. 1 TO THE BINDER ALSO
PROVIDED:  "2.  THIS INSURANCE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL THE RULES,
REGULATIONS, CONDITIONS AND POLICY FORMS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF THE BINDER
AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE REQUISITION CHARTER PARTY
RELATIVE TO THIS VESSEL ACCEPTED BY THE ASSURED AND ANY MODIFICATIONS
OR AMENDMENTS THERETO." 

THE STANDARD WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION POLICY FORM REFERRED TO IN
THE CHARTER AND BINDER INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES: 

"F.C. & S. CLAUSE.  NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY
CONTAINED IN THE POLICY, THIS INSURANCE IS WARRANTED FREE FROM ANY
CLAIM FOR LOSS, DAMAGE, OR EXPENSE CAUSED BY OR RESULTING FROM CAPTURE,
SEIZURE, ARREST, RESTRAINT, OR DETAINMENT, OR THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF
OR OF ANY ATTEMPT THEREAT, OR ANY TAKING OF THE VESSEL, BY REQUISITION
OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER IN TIME OF PEACE OR WAR AND WHETHER LAWFUL OR
OTHERWISE; ALSO FROM ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE
OPERATIONS (WHETHER THERE BE A DECLARATION OF WAR OR NOT), PIRACY,
CIVIL WAR, REVOLUTION, REBELLION, OR INSURRECTION, OR CIVIL STRIFE
ARISING THEREFROM. 

"IF WAR RISKS ARE HEREAFTER INSURED BY ENDORSEMENT ON THE POLICY,
SUCH ENDORSEMENT SHALL SUPERSEDE THE ABOVE WARRANTY ONLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT THEIR TERMS ARE INCONSISTENT AND ONLY WHILE SUCH WAR RISK
ENDORSEMENT REMAINS IN FORCE." 

AN ENDORSEMENT TO THE POLICY FORM FURTHER PROVIDED: 

"IT IS AGREED THAT THIS INSURANCE COVERS ONLY THOSE RISKS WHICH WOULD
BE COVERED BY THE ATTACHED POLICY (INCLUDING THE COLLISION CLAUSE) IN
THE ABSENCE OF THE F.C. & S. WARRANTY CONTAINED THEREIN BUT WHICH ARE
EXCLUDED BY THAT WARRANTY." 

FN2  IN A LETTER TO STANDARD COUNSEL DATED DECEMBER 14, 1945, THE
ACTING CHIEF ADJUSTER, DIVISION OF MARITIME INSURANCE, STATED THAT "ANY
CLAIM OR SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AS OWNERS OF THE SHIP
Y.M.S.-12, IN WHICH WE MIGHT PROVE TO BE CONCERNED, WOULD BE WAIVED." 

SEE INTERDEPARTMENTAL WAIVER PROMULGATED BY WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION IN LEGAL BULLETIN W.S.A. NO. 23, PART II, DATED JANUARY
14, 1943:

                  "II.  INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CLAIMS 

"GENERALLY STATED, IT CAN BE SAID THAT ALL TYPES OF MARITIME CLAIMS
IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, SUCH AS WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, ARMY, NAVY, LEND-LEASE ADMINISTRATION, ETC.,
WHICH CLAIMS ARE IN TURN FOR OR AGAINST ANOTHER UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY, ARE TO BE WAIVED AND WILL NOT BE
ASSERTED OR PRESSED TO FINAL CONCLUSION.  ...  " 

FN3  THE CORRESPONDING INSURANCE PROVISIONS IN THE SECOND WARILDA AND
THE PRESENT CASE ARE SET FORTH BELOW:

                     WARILDA

                        (1926) A.C. AT 177-178 

"19.  THE RISKS OF WAR WHICH ARE TAKEN BY THE ADMIRALTY ARE THOSE
RISKS WHICH WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM AN ORDINARY ENGLISH POLICY OF MARINE
INSURANCE BY THE FOLLOWING, OR SIMILAR, BUT NOT MORE EXTENSIVE CLAUSE: 

"'WARRANTED FREE OF CAPTURE, SEIZURE, AND DETENTION AND THE
CONSEQUENCES THEREOF, OR OF ANY ATTEMPT THEREAT, PIRACY EXCEPTED, AND
ALSO FROM ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS WHETHER
BEFORE OR AFTER DECLARATION OF WAR.'" 

       WORTHINGTON

                           "WAR RISK CLAUSES 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IT IS AGREED THAT THIS INSURANCE COVERS ONLY THOSE RISKS WHICH WOULD
BE COVERED BY THE ATTACHED POLICY (INCLUDING THE COLLISION CLAUSE) IN
THE ABSENCE OF THE F.C. & S. WARRANTY CONTAINED THEREIN BUT WHICH ARE
EXCLUDED BY THAT WARRANTY....

                    "F.C. & S. CLAUSE 

"NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THE POLICY,
THIS INSURANCE IS WARRANTED FREE FROM ANY CLAIM FOR LOSS, DAMAGE, OR
EXPENSE CAUSED BY OR RESULTING FROM CAPTURE, SEIZURE, ARREST,
RESTRAINT, OR DETAINMENT, OR THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF OR OF ANY ATTEMPT
THEREAT, OR ANY TAKING OF THE VESSEL, BY REQUISITION OR OTHERWISE,
WHETHER IN TIME OF PEACE OR WAR AND WHETHER LAWFUL OR OTHERWISE; ALSO
FROM ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS.... 

"IF WAR RISKS ARE HEREAFTER INSURED BY ENDORSEMENT ON THE POLICY,
SUCH ENDORSEMENT SHALL SUPERSEDE THE ABOVE WARRANTY ONLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT THEIR TERMS ARE INCONSISTENT AND ONLY WHILE SUCH WAR RISK
ENDORSEMENT REMAINS IN FORCE." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

WE HAVE HERE A QUESTION NOT OF TORT LIABILITY BUT OF THE
DETERMINATION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.  THE ACCIDENTS WHICH HAD BEEN HELD
TO BE COVERED BY THIS INSURANCE CLAUSE PRIOR TO 1942, WHEN THIS
CONTRACT WAS MADE, WOULD THEREFORE SEEM TO BE THE RELIABLE STANDARDS
FOR INTERPRETATION.  BOARD OF TRADE V. HAIN S.S. CO., (1929) A.C. 534,
AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. ADELAIDE S.S. CO., (1923) A.C. 292, DEALT WITH
THIS PRECISE SITUATION AND HELD THAT WHERE A SHIP ENGAGED IN A WARLIKE
OPERATION COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER VESSEL PARTLY OR WHOLLY DUE TO FAULTY
NAVIGATION ON ITS PART THE WAR INSURER WAS LIABLE.  ADHERENCE TO
BRITISH PRECEDENTS IN THIS FIELD WAS EARLY ADMONISHED.  QUEEN INS. CO.
V. GLOBE INS. CO., 263 U.S. 487, 493.  THE RULE OF THE FOREGOING
ENGLISH CASES IS FOR ME THE MOST AUTHENTIC STANDARD FOR INTERPRETING
THE PRESENT CONTRACT.  SEE GENERAL INS. CO. V. LINK, 173 F.2D 955.  AND
NONE OF THE CASES CITED AS CASTING DOUBT ON THEIR HOLDINGS PRESENTS A
CONTRARY RESULT ON A SIMILAR SET OF FACTS. 
..END :

















LIBBY, MCNEILL & LIBBY V. U.S., 340 U.S. 71 


NO. 37.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 27, 1950.  - 115
CT. CL. 290, 87 F.SUPP.  866, AFFIRMED. 


A GOVERNMENT WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY INSURING A SHIP AGAINST "ALL
CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS" DID NOT COVER A LOSS
RESULTING FROM THE STRANDING OF THE INSURED SHIP (BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE
IN STEERING) WHILE IT WAS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTING MILITARY SUPPLIES AND
PERSONNEL BETWEEN WAR BASES, WHEN THERE WAS IN FACT NO CAUSAL
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE "WARLIKE OPERATION" AND THE STRANDING.  STANDARD
OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 54.  PP. 71-72. 

LIBBY, MCNEILL & LIBBY V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

IN A SUIT BY PETITIONER ON A GOVERNMENT POLICY OF WAR RISK INSURANCE,
THE COURT OF CLAIMS GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES.  115 CT. CL.
290, 87 F.SUPP.  866.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 977. 
AFFIRMED, P. 72. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY V.
UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 54, DECIDED THIS DAY.  HERE, AS THERE, THE
GOVERNMENT INSURED PETITIONER'S SHIP AGAINST WAR RISKS INCLUDING "ALL
CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS."  THE ORDINARY
MARINE RISKS WERE COVERED BY A LLOYD'S POLICY.  THE VESSEL, UNITED
STATES ARMY TRANSPORT DAVID W. BRANCH, STRANDED ON JANUARY 13, 1942,
WHEN AN INEXPERIENCED HELMSMAN MADE A MISTAKE IN STEERING.  THE
GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT THE BRANCH WAS ENGAGED IN THE WARLIKE OPERATION
OF TRANSPORTING MILITARY SUPPLIES AND PERSONNEL BETWEEN WAR BASES, BUT
DENIES THAT THE WARLIKE PHASES OF THE OPERATION CAUSED THE STRANDING. 
THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND AS A FACT THAT THERE WAS NO CAUSAL CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE "WARLIKE OPERATION" AND THE STRANDING, AND ACCORDINGLY GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES.  115 CT. CL. 290, 87 F.SUPP.  866. 
PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS FOR REVERSAL HERE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
AS THOSE ADVANCED IN STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  THE REASONS GIVEN FOR OUR HOLDING THERE REQUIRE
AFFIRMANCE IN THIS CASE.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN HIS DISSENT
IN STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 54,
70, DECIDED THIS DAY. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THIS IS ANOTHER MARINE INSURANCE CASE RAISING THE SAME LEGAL ISSUE AS
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 54, AND IS TO BE DECIDED IN
LIGHT OF IT.  THE FACTS OF THE CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED, FOR THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE LOSS WAS A "CONSEQUENCE" OF HOSTILITIES AND
WARLIKE ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE ANSWERED IN THE ABSTRACT. 

THE BRANCH, A COMBINATION PASSENGER AND CARGO VESSEL HAVING A GROSS
TONNAGE OF 5,544 TONS, WAS CHARTERED TO THE UNITED STATES BY HER OWNERS
ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1941.  THE OWNERS INSURED AGAINST MARINE RISKS, AND
THE GOVERNMENT INSURED AGAINST "ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES OR
WARLIKE OPERATIONS."  ON JANUARY 11, 1942, THE BRANCH DEPARTED FROM
SEATTLE FOR CERTAIN ALASKAN PORTS.  SHE WAS OPERATED BY THE ARMY AND
WAS LOADED WITH MATERIALS AND PERSONNEL DESTINED FOR WAR BASES IN
ALASKA.  THE SAILING ORDERS ISSUED BY THE ARMY TRANSPORT SERVICE
DIRECTED THE BRANCH TO FOLLOW THE INSIDE PASSAGE TO ALASKA BECAUSE
THERE WAS DANGER OF SUBMARINE ATTACK IF THE OUTSIDE ROUTE ACROSS OPEN
SEAS WERE FOLLOWED.  ON THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 13, THE BRANCH, RUNNING ON
A COURSE 350 YARDS OFF HANMER ISLAND, DIVERGED FROM THE COURSE AND
HEADED TOWARD THE ISLAND.  THE HELMSMAN, WHO WAS FOUND TO BE
INCOMPETENT, TURNED IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THAT ORDERED BY THE
PILOT WHEN THE DIVERGENCE WAS NOTICED, AND THE VESSEL RAN AGROUND ON A
PARTIALLY SUBMERGED REEF. 

HERE, AS IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE VESSEL WAS
ENGAGED IN A WARLIKE OPERATION, AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS SO CONCLUDED. 
THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RUNNING AGROUND
IS FAIRLY TO BE CONSIDERED A "CONSEQUENCE" OF THE WARLIKE ACTIVITY. 
THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT IT COULD NOT LOOK BEYOND THE FAULT OF
THE HELMSMAN ALTHOUGH IT FOUND SPECIALLY A NUMBER OF FACTS INDICATING
THAT THE COLLISION GREW OUT OF THE WARLIKE ACTIVITY OF THE VESSEL. 

(1)  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE "DEPERMING PROCESS TO WHICH THE VESSEL
WAS SUBJECTED CREATED AN UNSTABLE AND VARIABLE MAGNETIC CONDITION IN
THE VESSEL WHICH IN TURN CREATED AN UNSTABLE, VARIABLE, AND UNRELIABLE
CONDITION OF HER MAGNETIC COMPASSES WHEN REINSTALLED.  ...  IN NORMAL
CIRCUMSTANCES A VESSEL SUCH AS THE BRANCH WOULD NOT PUT TO SEA WITH THE
COMPASSES IN THAT CONDITION.  ...  (BUT) BECAUSE OF THE URGENT MILITARY
NECESSITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE PERSONNEL AND MATERIALS ON
BOARD THE VESSEL TO THE WAR BASES IN ALASKA, THE VOYAGE WAS UNDERTAKEN
NOTWITHSTANDING THE KNOWN UNRELIABLE CONDITION OF THE COMPASSES."  115
CT. CL. 290, 301, 87 F.SUPP.  866, 871.  THE COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT
THE HELMSMAN WAS STEERING "BY THE COMPASS UNDER DIRECTIONS FROM THE
PILOT" PRIOR TO THE STRANDING, AND THAT THE "INSTABILITY OF THE
STEERING COMPASS AS A RESULT OF THE DEPERMING OPERATION MAY HAVE BEEN A
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE SHIP'S DEVIATION FROM HER COURSE."  115 CT.
CL. AT 304, 305, 87 F.SUPP.  AT 873, 874. 

(2)  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE MASTER "RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE NAVY ROUTING OFFICER TO PROCEED AT HER MAXIMUM FULL AHEAD
SPEED, WHICH WAS IN EXCESS OF HER NORMAL AND USUAL PEACETIME SPEED, AND
WAS SO OPERATING AT THE TIME OF HER STRANDING."  115 CT. CL. AT 303, 87
F.SUPP.  AT 872. 

(3)  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE INSIDE PASSAGE THROUGH WHICH THE BRANCH
WAS ORDERED TO PROCEED IN ORDER TO AVOID SUBMARINES, "IS NARROW AND
TORTUOUS, CONTAINS SUBMERGED ROCKS, REEFS, AND SHOALS, AND SWIFT,
STRONG, AND UNPREDICTABLE CURRENTS."  115 CT. CL. AT 295, 87 F.SUPP. 
AT 868.  IT FOUND THAT THE INSIDE PASSAGE "IS NAVIGATIONALLY DANGEROUS,
PARTICULARLY IN THE WINTERTIME WHEN WEATHER CONDITIONS INTERFERE WITH
THE OBSERVATION OF LANDMARKS, LIGHTS, AND OTHER VISUAL AIDS, AND IT HAS
BEEN THE SCENE OF NUMEROUS VESSEL STRANDINGS AND MARINE CASUALTIES." 
115 CT. CL. AT 296, 87 F.SUPP.  AT 868. 

(4)  THE COURT FOUND:  "BECAUSE OF MANPOWER SHORTAGE DUE TO THE WAR
IT WAS DIFFICULT TO PROCURE EXPERIENCED AND COMPETENT HELMSMEN, AND FOR
THAT REASON THE HELMSMEN ON BOARD WERE INCOMPETENT AND INEXPERIENCED
AND THERE WAS A STANDING ORDER FOR THE MATE ON WATCH TO STAND ALONGSIDE
THE HELMSMAN TO WATCH HIS STEERING."  115 CT. CL. AT 305, 87 F.SUPP. 
AT 873. 

IN ITS OPINION THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF THE SHIP
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STRANDING.  IT ALSO CONSIDERED THAT SAILING
THE INSIDE PASSAGE, THE INCOMPETENT HELMSMAN, AND THE WANDERING COMPASS
WERE CONSEQUENCES OF WAR, RATHER THAN THE WARLIKE OPERATION OF THE
SHIP, SINCE CIVILIAN VESSELS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE SAME
CONDITIONS.  BUT THIS MISSES THE POINT, FOR THE COURT ITSELF FOUND THAT
THE VESSEL PUT TO SEA WITH UNRELIABLE COMPASSES ONLY "BECAUSE OF THE
URGENT MILITARY NECESSITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE PERSONNEL AND
MATERIALS ON BOARD THE VESSEL TO THE WAR BASES IN ALASKA."  115 CT. CL.
AT 301, 87 F.SUPP.  AT 871.  THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT ANY
CIVILIAN VESSEL WOULD VOLUNTARILY EMBARK ON SUCH A VOYAGE THROUGH A
TORTUOUS PASSAGE, AT HIGH SPEED, WITH UNRELIABLE COMPASSES AND
INCOMPETENT PERSONNEL.  WHERE THE CONTRIBUTING FORCES OF AN OCCURRENCE
ARE IN SUCH LARGE PART PATENTLY REFERABLE TO THE WARLIKE OPERATION OF
THE VESSEL, THE INSURER AGAINST ALL CONSEQUENCES OF HOSTILITIES AND
WARLIKE OPERATIONS SHOULD NOT BE RELIEVED OF LIABILITY BECAUSE, UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HELMSMAN WAS INCOMPETENT AND FAILED TO FOLLOW
THE ORDERS OF THE PILOT. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. GYPSUM CO., 340 U.S. 76 


NO. 30.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 27, 1950.  -
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


1.  ON THE REMAND ORDERED BY THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. UNITED
STATES GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364, OF THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF
THE SHERMAN ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE
UNITED STATES.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD ACTED
IN CONCERT TO RESTRAIN TRADE AND FIX PRICES IN THE GYPSUM BOARD
INDUSTRY IN THE EASTERN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND HAD
MONOPOLIZED THAT INDUSTRY, IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  HELD: 

(A)  THE PREVIOUS DECISION OF THIS COURT, 333 U.S. 364, JUSTIFIED A
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES ON THE ISSUE OF THE VIOLATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT, WHEN THE RECORD WAS CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
COURT'S OPINION AND DEFENDANTS' OFFER OF PROOF ON THE REMAND.  P. 82. 

(B)  TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IT WAS SUFFICIENT
TO SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANTS, CONSTITUTING ALL FORMER COMPETITORS IN AN
ENTIRE INDUSTRY, HAD ACTED IN CONCERT TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE IN AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY UNDER PATENT LICENSES IN ORDER TO ORGANIZE THE INDUSTRY AND
STABILIZE PRICES.  IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THEN OR NOW TO DECIDE WHETHER A
MERE PLURALITY OF LICENSES, EACH CONTAINING A PRICE-FIXING PROVISION,
VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 84-85. 

(C)  ON THE REMAND, THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO INTRODUCE ANY
EVIDENCE FROM WHICH ALL OR ANY OF THEM MIGHT BE FOUND NOT TO HAVE
VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT, AND THEY HAD A RIGHT TO LAY BEFORE THE COURT
FACTS THAT WERE PERTINENT TO THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE TERMS OF THE
DECREE; BUT THE TRIAL COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE THAT
WOULD NOT AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  P. 85. 

(D)  A SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNDER RULE 56 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, WAS PERMISSIBLE ON THE REMAND.  P. 86. 

(E)  UPON THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT
PROFFERED BY THE DEFENDANTS, A FINDING THAT DEFENDANTS HAD NOT VIOLATED
THE SHERMAN ACT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, IN VIEW OF THE
CONCERT OF ACTION TO FIX INDUSTRY PRICES BY THE TERMS OF THE PATENT
LICENSES.  PP. 86-87. 

(F)  THE DISTRICT COURT'S PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND SUMMARY DECREE
ARE CONSTRUED AS AN ADJUDICATION OF VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE
ACTION IN CONCERT OF THE DEFENDANTS THROUGH THE FIXED-PRICE LICENSES,
ACCEPTING AS TRUE THE UNDERLYING FACTS IN THE DEFENDANTS' PROFFER OF
PROOF; AND THAT CONCLUSION ENTITLED THE GOVERNMENT ONLY TO RELIEF BASED
ON THAT FINDING AND THE PROFFERED FACTS.  PP. 87-88. 

2.  UPON A FINDING OF CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND A MONOPOLY
IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, THE TRIAL COURT HAS THE
DUTY TO COMPEL ACTION BY THE CONSPIRATORS THAT WILL, SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE, CURE THE ILL EFFECTS OF THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT, AND ASSURE
THE PUBLIC FREEDOM FROM ITS CONTINUANCE.  P. 88. 

3.  THE RELIEF WHICH THE TRIAL COURT MAY AFFORD FROM VIOLATIONS OF
THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT LIMITED TO PROHIBITION OF THE PROVEN MEANS BY
WHICH THE EVIL WAS ACCOMPLISHED, BUT MAY RANGE BROADLY THROUGH
PRACTICES CONNECTED WITH ACTS ACTUALLY FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL; EVEN ACTS
WHICH MAY BE ENTIRELY PROPER WHEN VIEWED ALONE MAY BE PROHIBITED.  PP.
88-89. 

4.  PARTICIPANTS IN A CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT
SHOULD, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, BE DENIED FUTURE BENEFITS FROM THEIR
FORBIDDEN CONDUCT.  P. 89. 

5.  WHILE THE DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF A DECREE IN A SHERMAN ACT
CASE IS PECULIARLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TRIAL COURT, THIS COURT
MAY INTERVENE WHEN THERE ARE INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN THE DECREE. 
P. 89. 

6.  IN RESOLVING DOUBTS AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF INCLUDING IN AN ANTI
TRUST DECREE PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO RESTORE FUTURE FREEDOM OF TRADE,
THE COURTS SHOULD GIVE WEIGHT TO THE FACT OF CONVICTION AS WELL AS TO
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE ILLEGAL ACTS OCCUR.  ACTS IN
DISREGARD OF LAW CALL FOR REPRESSION BY STERNER MEASURES THAN WHERE THE
CONDUCT COULD REASONABLY HAVE BEEN THOUGHT PERMISSIBLE.  PP. 89-90. 

7.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE, HELD: 

(A)  THE DECREE'S DEFINITION OF GYPSUM BOARD IS TOO RESTRICTIVE, AND
THE WORDS "AND EMBODYING ANY OF THE INVENTIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS SET
FORTH AND CLAIMED IN ANY OF THE PATENTS" SHOULD BE STRICKEN, IF THE
DEFINITION IS USED.  P. 90. 

(B)  ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT OF SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION WAS RESTRICTED
TO THE EASTERN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE EVIDENCE APPLIED
ONLY TO THAT AREA, THE CLOSE SIMILARITY BETWEEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN EASTERN TERRITORY AND WESTERN
TERRITORY JUSTIFIES THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE OF THE
DECREE TO INCLUDE ALL INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 90. 

(C)  THE DECREE SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE ALL GYPSUM PRODUCTS
INSTEAD OF PATENTED GYPSUM BOARD ALONE.  PP. 90-91. 

(D)  THE DECREE SHOULD FORBID STANDARDIZATION OF TRADE PRACTICES
THROUGH CONCERTED AGREEMENT.  P. 91. 

(E)  THE DECREE SHOULD FORBID CONCERTED USE OF DELIVERED PRICE
SYSTEMS; BUT, IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY POSSIBILITY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL'S
MEETING OF COMPETITORS' PRICES MAY BE CONSTRUED AS A CONTEMPT OF THE
DECREE, THE PROPOSED PROVISION RELATIVE TO DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEMS
SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: "5.  AGREEING UPON ANY PLAN OF SELLING OR
QUOTING GYPSUM PRODUCTS AT PRICES CALCULATED OR DETERMINED PURSUANT TO
A DELIVERED PRICE PLAN WHICH RESULTS IN IDENTICAL PRICES OR PRICE
QUOTATIONS AT GIVEN POINTS OF SALES OR QUOTATION BY DEFENDANTS USING
SUCH PLAN;".  PP. 91-92. 

(F)  IN THIS CASE THERE SHOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT OF RECIPROCAL GRANTS
UNDER PATENTS; BUT THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY SHOULD BE REQUIRED
TO LICENSE ALL ITS PATENTS IN THE GYPSUM PRODUCTS FIELD TO ALL
APPLICANTS ON EQUAL TERMS.  PP. 93-94. 

(G)  WHETHER THE TERM FOR COMPULSORY LICENSING OF NEW PATENTS SHOULD
BE FIVE YEARS, OR A LONGER PERIOD WITH A PRIVILEGE TO THE APPELLEES TO
MOVE FOR A LIMITATION, IS IN THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
WHICH SHOULD PROVIDE FOR ITS DETERMINATION OF A REASONABLE ROYALTY
EITHER IN EACH INSTANCE OF FAILURE TO AGREE OR BY AN APPROVED FORM OR
BY ANY OTHER PLAN IN ITS DISCRETION.  P. 94. 

(H)  THE DECREE SHOULD NOT PLACE UPON THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM
COMPANY THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE REQUESTED
ROYALTY; AND THIS COURT DOES NOT NOW DECIDE WHERE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
OF VALUE LIES OR WHO HAS THE DUTY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE EVIDENCE IN
ANY PARTICULAR INSTANCE.  P. 94. 

(I)  THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED PROVISION THAT THE DECREE SHALL NOT BE
TAKEN AS PREVENTING AN "APPLICANT" (HERE CONSTRUED AS MEANING LICENSEE)
ATTACKING THE PATENT OR AS IMPORTING VALUE TO IT SHOULD BE OMITTED,
LEAVING THE PARTIES TO EXISTING RULES OF LAW.  P. 94. 

(J)  THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTED PROVISIONS FOR INSPECTION OF
LICENSEES' BOOKS AND REPORTS TO LICENSOR ARE APPROVED.  P. 95. 

(K)  THERE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DECREE A PROVISION GRANTING THE
GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO THE RECORDS AND PERSONNEL OF THE DEFENDANTS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ADVISING THE GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANTS'
COMPLIANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT.  P. 95. 

(L)  THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE V OF THE DECREE ARE ADEQUATE TO BAR
THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, WHO SIGNED THE QUESTIONED AGREEMENTS IN
THEIR CAPACITIES AS OFFICIALS OF THE COMPANIES, FROM ENGAGING IN
SIMILAR CONSPIRACIES.  P. 95. 

(M)  THIS COURT SEES NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DESCRETION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IN ASSESSING THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES 50%, RATHER
THAN 100%, OF THE COSTS TO BE TAXED IN THE PROCEEDING.  P. 95. 

UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

FROM A DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING VIOLATIONS OF
THE SHERMAN ACT, THE UNITED STATES APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT. 
ARTICLE III OF THE DECREE, FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD VIOLATED THE
SHERMAN ACT, WAS AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT.  339 U.S. 960.  THE ISSUES
LEFT FOR DETERMINATION WERE THOSE RAISED BY THE UNITED STATES UPON
OBJECTIONS TO PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 95. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING WAS FILED IN 1940 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 4.  THE COMPLAINT
CHARGED, P44, A LONG-CONTINUED CONSPIRACY BY DEFENDANTS IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE IN GYPSUM PRODUCTS AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES AND IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, AND A SIMILAR MONOPOLY, ALL IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1, 2 AND
3 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, 26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C.
SECS. 1, 2, 3.  THE DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES HERE, WERE UNITED STATES
GYPSUM CO., PATENTEE, AND VARIOUS OTHER GYPSUM BOARD MANUFACTURERS, ITS
LICENSEES, AND CERTAIN OF THEIR OFFICERS.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE
COMBINATION CARRIED OUT ITS UNLAWFUL PURPOSES AS INDICATED IN THE
EXCERPT FROM THE COMPLAINT QUOTED BELOW.  FN1  CIVIL RELIEF, THROUGH
PROHIBITORY AND MANDATORY ORDERS, WAS PRAYED IN VARIOUS APPROPRIATE
FORMS.  AFTER THE UNITED STATES CONCLUDED ITS EVIDENCE IN CHIEF AT THE
TRIAL, A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 28, GRANTED
APPELLEES' MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 41(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE ON THE GROUND THAT NO RIGHT TO RELIEF HAD BEEN SHOWN. 
ON DIRECT APPEAL, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, WE REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF
DISMISSAL, MARCH 8, 1948, UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO.,
333 U.S. 364, AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH OUR OPINION. 

ON REMAND A CONFERENCE TOOK PLACE AT THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTION. 
THE COURT ACTED UNDER PROCEDURE SIMILAR TO PRETRIAL, RULE 16, AND ITS
INHERENT POWER TO DIRECT A CASE SO AS TO AID IN ITS DISPOSITION.  AS A
RESULT OF THAT CONFERENCE, WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ANY PARTY, THE
GOVERNMENT FILED A MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 56 ON THE
GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT, AND THE
APPELLEES FILED AN OFFER OF PROOF, DIRECTED AT MATTERS AS TO WHICH
APPELLEES WERE OF THE OPINION A GENUINE ISSUE EXISTED.  A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, WITHOUT OTHER FINDINGS THAN THOSE CONTAINED IN THE DECREE,
WAS ENTERED NOVEMBER 7, 1949, ON APPELLANT'S MOTION.  FN2  BOTH
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS TOOK DIRECT APPEALS FROM THE DECREE TO THIS
COURT.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 29.  DEFENDANTS' APPEAL OBJECTED TO SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND OF THEIR RIGHT TO INTRODUCE MATERIAL EVIDENCE. 
THAT APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COURT.  339 U.S. 959.  THE REASONS
FOR OUR ACTION LAY IN THE FACT THAT OUR HOLDING IN OUR FIRST OPINION,
333 U.S. 364, JUSTIFIED A SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ON THE ISSUE
OF THE VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT WHEN THE RECORD WAS CONSIDERED IN
THE LIGHT OF OUR OPINION AND DEFENDANTS' OFFER OF PROOF ON THE REMAND. 
THIS POINT IS DISCUSSED LATER IN THIS OPINION UNDER SUBDIVISION I. 

PROBABLE JURISDICTION WAS NOTED ON THE APPEAL OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THIS IS THE CASE WE ARE NOW DISCUSSING.  FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT WE
DISMISSED DEFENDANTS' APPEAL, THIS COURT AFFIRMED ARTICLE III OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DECREE.  OUR ORDER ALSO CARRIED THE SANCTION OF AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST VIOLATION OF THE DECREE, "PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF
THIS COURT."  339 U.S. 960. 

THE ISSUES LEFT FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS APPEAL ARE THOSE RAISED BY
THE UNITED STATES IN ITS EFFORT TO HAVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT DECREE ENLARGED.  IT SEEKS TO EXTEND THE INJUNCTIONS AGAINST
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO COVER GYPSUM PRODUCTS INSTEAD OF BEING
LIMITED TO GYPSUM BOARD AS DEFINED IN THE DECREE; AND TO INCLUDE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE GENERALLY INSTEAD OF LIMITING THE TERRITORIAL SCOPE
OF THE DECREE TO THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT ALSO
SEEKS CHANGES THAT FORBID SPECIFIC PRACTICES, IN ADDITION TO PRICE
FIXING, SUCH AS STANDARDIZING PRODUCTS, CLASSIFYING CUSTOMERS, OR
ADOPTING DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEMS, ALL PURSUANT TO THE PRINCIPAL
CONSPIRACY.  IT SEEKS TO COMPEL LICENSING OF ALL PATENTS BY UNITED
STATES GYPSUM; TO EMPOWER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO INSPECT CERTAIN
RECORDS; TO EXTEND THE DECREE'S TERMS TO COVER INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS;
AND TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANTS TO PAY ALL COSTS. 

                                  I. 

PROCEDURE ON REMAND.  - IN DETERMINING THE PRESENT ISSUES, OF THE
PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY OUR REMAND.  OUR DECREE WAS A REVERSAL
OF THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE MERITS AT THE
COMPLETION OF PLAINTIFF'S, THE UNITED STATES', PRESENTATION OF ITS
EVIDENCE.  IN OUR OPINION, 333 U.S. 364, 389, WE SAID THAT 

"THE INDUSTRY-WIDE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, ENTERED INTO WITH KNOWLEDGE ON
THE PART OF LICENSOR AND LICENSEES OF THE ADHERENCE OF OTHERS, WITH THE
CONTROL OVER PRICES AND METHODS OF DISTRIBUTION THROUGH THE AGREEMENTS
AND THE BULLETINS, WERE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
CONSPIRACY." 

WE SAID THAT THE INTENTION OF UNITED STATES GYPSUM AND ITS LICENSEES
TO ACT IN CONCERT TO ATTAIN THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRACY, RESTRAINT OF
TRADE AND MONOPOLY, WAS APPARENT FROM THE FACE OF THE LICENSE
AGREEMENTS.  PP. 389, 400. 

"THE LICENSOR WAS TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES BINDING BOTH ON ITSELF AND
ITS LICENSEES; THE ROYALTY WAS TO BE MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE
VALUE OF ALL GYPSUM PRODUCTS, PATENTED OR UNPATENTED; THE LICENSE COULD
NOT BE TRANSFERRED WITHOUT THE LICENSOR'S CONSENT; THE LICENSEE OPENED
ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO THE LICENSOR; THE LICENSEE WAS PROTECTED
AGAINST COMPETITION WITH MORE FAVORABLE LICENSES AND THERE WAS A
CANCELLATION CLAUSE FOR FAILURE TO LIVE UP TO THE ARRANGEMENTS." 

WE STRESSED THE ACTING IN CONCERT AS DIFFERENTIATING THE CASE FROM
UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, DISCUSSED ON PP.
400 AND 401 OF 333 U.S., THE CONCERT OF ACTION BEING ESTABLISHED BY THE
FAVORED LICENSEE CLAUSE OF THE STANDARD LICENSE AGREEMENT.  333 U.S. AT
410.  FN3  IN UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 333 U.S. 287, DECIDED
THE SAME DAY AS THE GYPSUM CASE, THE OPINION OF THE COURT DISCUSSED THE
THEN STANDING OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC RULE AS FOLLOWS: 

"WE ARE THUS CALLED UPON TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LAWFUL
RESTRAINT ON TRADE OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY AND THE ILLEGAL RESTRAINT
PROHIBITED BROADLY BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  THAT ADJUSTMENT HAS ALREADY
REACHED THE POINT, AS THE PRECEDENTS NOW STAND, THAT A PATENTEE MAY
VALIDLY LICENSE A COMPETITOR TO MAKE AND VEND WITH A PRICE LIMITATION
UNDER THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE AND THAT THE GRANT OF PATENT RIGHTS IS
THE LIMIT OF FREEDOM FROM COMPETITION  ...  "  P. 310. 

WE ADDED, PP. 311 AND 312, THAT WHILE THE GENERAL ELECTRIC RULE
PERMITTED A PATENTEE TO FIX THE PRICE THE LICENSEE OF PATENTS MAY
CHARGE FOR THE DEVICE, SEPARATE PATENT OWNERS COULD NOT COMBINE THE
PATENTS AND THUS REACH AN AGREEMENT TO FIX THE PRICE FOR THEMSELVES AND
THEIR LICENSEES.  THERE WAS NO HOLDING IN OUR FIRST OPINION IN GYPSUM
THAT MERE MULTIPLE LICENSING VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN4  THE FACTS
AND THE LANGUAGE PLACED OUR JUDGMENT SQUARELY ON THE BASIS THAT 

"IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANTS, CONSTITUTING ALL
FORMER COMPETITORS IN AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY, HAD ACTED IN CONCERT TO
RESTRAIN COMMERCE IN AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY UNDER PATENT LICENSES IN ORDER
TO ORGANIZE THE INDUSTRY AND STABILIZE PRICES."  P. 401.  FN5 

AS APPEARS FROM THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF ITS DECREE, THE TRIAL
COURT ACTED ON THAT UNDERSTANDING OF OUR HOLDING.  SEE APPENDIX, POST,
P. 96.  IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO REACH THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER A MERE
PLURALITY OF LICENSES, EACH CONTAINING A PRICE-FIXING PROVISION,
VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY NOW. 

THE REFERENCE, 333 U.S. AT 389, TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRIMA FACIE
CASE OF CONSPIRACY BY CONSCIOUS INDUSTRY CONCERT IN PRICE FIXING WAS
DIRECTED AT THE BASIS FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE SEPARATE DECLARATIONS OF
ALLEGED CONSPIRATORS.  SECTION V, PP. 399-402, OF THE OPINION, HOWEVER,
CONTAINS OUR DETERMINATION THAT AN INDUSTRY'S CONCERTED PRICE FIXING BY
LICENSE VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT PER SE.  UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT
PICTURES, 334 U.S. 131, 143. 

OF COURSE, WHEN WE REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT THE
DEFENDANTS HAD THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE
AS TO WHY ALL OR ANY ONE OF THEM SHOULD BE FOUND NOT TO HAVE VIOLATED
THE SHERMAN ACT.  OUR REFERENCE AT 333 U.S. 402, FOOTNOTE 20, TO
GULBENKIAN V. GULBENKIAN, 147 F.2D 173, SHOWS THAT.  SEE FEDERAL
DEPOSIT INS. CORP. V. MASON, 115 F.2D 548, 552; BOWLES V. BIBERMAN
BROS., 152 F.2D 700, 705.  FURTHERMORE, EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANTS HAD NO
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE PRIMA FACIE CONCLUSION OF SHERMAN
ACT VIOLATION, THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO LAY FACTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT
WERE PERTINENT TO THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE TERMS OF THE DECREE; FOR
EXAMPLE, THE PURPOSE OF THE CONCERTED ACTION, OR THE REASON FOR MAKING
NEW PATENTS AVAILABLE TO THE LICENSEES, OR WILLINGNESS TO LICENSE ALL
APPLICANTS FOR THE PATENT PRIVILEGE.  SUCH RIGHTS, HOWEVER, DID NOT
REQUIRE THE TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE
OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  THEY DID NOT AFFECT THE POWER OF THE TRIAL
COURT TO DIRECT THE PROGRESS OF THE CASE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO AVOID A
WASTE OF TIME. 

A SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNDER RULE 56, WAS PERMISSIBLE ON REMAND.  IT WAS
ALLOWED, AS THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE
DECREE SHOWS, ON THE COURT'S UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR OPINION "HELD THAT
THE DEFENDANTS ACTED IN CONCERT TO RESTRAIN TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE
GYPSUM BOARD INDUSTRY AND MONOPOLIZED SAID TRADE AND COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES IN THAT SECTION HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE EASTERN
TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  AS HERETOFORE EXPLAINED, THAT
CONCLUSION FOLLOWED FROM OUR DECISION, IF NO EVIDENCE THAT CONTROVERTED
OUR RULING WAS OFFERED.  IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO EXAMINE BRIEFLY
THE OFFER OF EVIDENCE. 

THE OFFER CONTAINED SIXTY-TWO PARAGRAPHS OF PROPOSED EVIDENCE.  A
FULL EXPOSITION IS IMPRACTICABLE.  STRESS WAS LAID ON THE AVAILABLE
EVIDENCE TO REBUT OUR FINDING OF AN INDUSTRY PLAN TO STABILIZE PRICES. 
FN6  EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO SHOW THE LICENSES WERE FOR SETTLEMENT OF
ALLEGED INFRINGEMENTS, AND INDIVIDUAL IN CHARACTER AND WERE NOT USED AS
A SUBTERFUGE TO GAIN PRICE CONTROL.  SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD NOT AFFECT OUR
DETERMINATION, SET OUT ABOVE, THAT PRICE-FIXING LICENSES MADE IN
KNOWING CONCERT BY STANDARDIZED PRICE REQUIREMENTS VIOLATED THE SHERMAN
ACT BY THEIR VERY EXISTENCE. 

DEFENDANTS OFFERED TO PROVE THAT ROYALTIES BASED ON UNPATENTED GYPSUM
BOARD WERE COMPENSATION FOR PATENT LICENSES AND INSTALLMENT PAYMENT FOR
PRIOR INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES.  SUCH PROOF WOULD NOT AFFECT THE FACT THAT
SUCH A ROYALTY ADDED TO THE COST OF PRODUCING UNPATENTED BOARD. 

PROOF WAS OFFERED THAT COVENANTS AGAINST TRANSFER OF LICENSES, FOR
PRICE MAINTENANCE AND FOR EQUALITY OF LICENSE TERMS, AND BULLETIN
ORDERS AGAINST REBATES BY SELLING OTHER PRODUCTS AT A CHEAPER PRICE
WHEN PATENTED ARTICLES WERE SOLD, WERE TO PROTECT THE LICENSOR'S
MONOPOLY UNDER ITS LETTERS PATENT.  IT WAS OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD SURVEY COMPANY, CONSIDERED IN OUR FORMER
OPINION, 333 U.S. 364, 400, WERE TO SECURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
LICENSES; THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO ELIMINATE JOBBERS BUT ONLY A
PURPOSE TO MAINTAIN PATENT PRICES BY DISCONTINUING THE JOBBER'S
DISCOUNT.  SUCH PROOF, IN VIEW OF OUR HOLDING AS TO THE SHERMAN ACT,
WOULD NOT MAKE LEGAL CONCERTED ACTION UNDER PATENTS TO STABILIZE
PRICES.  WE PASS OVER OTHER OFFERS OF PROOF AS CLEARLY IMMATERIAL ON
THE ISSUE OF LIABILITY FOR SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION.  GOOD INTENTIONS,
PROCEEDING UNDER PLANS DESIGNED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLOITING
PATENTS, ARE NO DEFENSE AGAINST A CHARGE OF VIOLATION BY ADMITTED
CONCERTED ACTION TO FIX PRICES FOR A PRODUCER'S PRODUCTS, WHETHER OR
NOT THOSE PRODUCTS ARE VALIDLY PATENTED DEVICES.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT,
ACCEPTING THE OFFERS OF FACT AS TRUE, THERE IS ENOUGH IN THE PROFFERED
EVIDENCE TO CHANGE THE ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS FROM THE ILLEGAL TO
THE PERMISSIBLE.  A FINDING THAT THE MANUFACTURERS DID NOT VIOLATE THE
SHERMAN ACT UNDER THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT
PROFFERED BY THE DEFENDANTS BELOW WOULD BE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS IN VIEW OF
THE CONCERT OF ACTION TO FIX INDUSTRY PRICES BY THE TERMS OF THE
LICENSES.  FN7 

WE AGREE WITH A STATEMENT MADE BY COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN
ARGUMENT BELOW THAT AS A "MATTER OF FORMULATING THE DECREE" MANY FACTS
OFFERED TO BE PROVEN WOULD HAVE EFFECT UPON THE CONCLUSION OF A COURT
AS TO THE DECREE'S TERMS.  HOWEVER, WE READ THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE DECREE AND THE SUMMARY DECREE ITSELF AS AN
ADJUDICATION OF VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE ACTION IN CONCERT
OF THE DEFENDANTS THROUGH THE FIXED-PRICE LICENSES, ACCEPTING AS TRUE
THE UNDERLYING FACTS IN DEFENDANTS' PROOF BY PROFFER.  THE TRIAL JUDGES
UNDERSTOOD THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO BE, AS JUDGE STEPHENS SAID, "LIMITED
TO THAT ONE UNDISPUTED QUESTION."  JUDGE GARRETT AND JUDGE JACKSON
AGREED.  FN8  THAT CONCLUSION ENTITLED THE GOVERNMENT ONLY TO RELIEF
BASED ON THAT FINDING AND THE PROFFERED FACTS.  ON THAT BASIS WE
DISMISSED UNITED STATES GYPSUM'S APPEAL FROM THE DECREE, AND ON THAT
BASIS WE EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION TO THE DECREE. 
                    II. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DECREE.  - A TRIAL COURT
UPON A FINDING OF A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND A MONOPOLY HAS
THE DUTY TO COMPEL ACTION BY THE CONSPIRATORS THAT WILL, SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE, CURE THE ILL EFFECTS OF THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT, AND ASSURE
THE PUBLIC FREEDOM FROM ITS CONTINUANCE.  SUCH ACTION IS NOT LIMITED TO
PROHIBITION OF THE PROVEN MEANS BY WHICH THE EVIL WAS ACCOMPLISHED, BUT
MAY RANGE BROADLY THROUGH PRACTICES CONNECTED WITH ACTS ACTUALLY FOUND
TO BE ILLEGAL.  FN9  ACTS ENTIRELY PROPER WHEN VIEWED ALONE MAY BE
PROHIBITED N10.  THE CONSPIRATORS SHOULD, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, BE
DENIED FUTURE BENEFITS FROM THEIR FORBIDDEN CONDUCT. 

THE DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE DECREE TO ACCOMPLISH ITS
PURPOSE IS PECULIARLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TRIAL COURT.  ITS
OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THE RECORD AND TO APPRAISE THE NEED FOR
PROHIBITIONS OR AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS NORMALLY EXCEEDS THAT OF ANY
REVIEWING COURT.  THIS HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED BY US.  FN11
NOTWITHSTANDING OUR ADHERENCE TO TRIAL COURT RESPONSIBILITY IN THE
MOLDING OF A DECREE AS THE WISEST PRACTICE AND THE MOST PRODUCTIVE OF
GOOD RESULTS, WE HAVE NEVER TREATED THAT POWER AS ONE OF DISCRETION,
SUBJECT ONLY TO REVERSAL FOR GROSS ABUSE.  RATHER WE HAVE FELT AN
OBLIGATION TO INTERVENE IN THIS MOST SIGNIFICANT PHASE OF THE CASE WHEN
WE CONCLUDED THERE WERE INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN THE DECREE.  FN12
IN RESOLVING DOUBTS AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF INCLUDING PROVISIONS
DESIGNED TO RESTORE FUTURE FREEDOM OF TRADE, COURTS SHOULD GIVE WEIGHT
TO THE FACT OF CONVICTION AS WELL AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE
ILLEGAL ACTS OCCUR.  FN13  ACTS IN DISREGARD OF LAW CALL FOR REPRESSION
BY STERNER MEASURES THAN WHERE THE STEPS COULD REASONABLY HAVE BEEN
THOUGHT PERMISSIBLE.  WE TURN THEN TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS FOR
MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ONLY A VIOLATION
THROUGH CONCERTED INDUSTRY LICENSE AGREEMENTS HAS BEEN PROVEN, BUT
RECOGNIZING, AS IS CONCEDED BY DEFENDANTS, THAT RELIEF, TO BE
EFFECTIVE, MUST GO BEYOND THE NARROW LIMITS OF THE PROVEN VIOLATION. 

(A)  THERE IS ONE CHANGE ACCEPTABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND UNITED
STATES GYPSUM AND WHICH WE THINK DESIRABLE.  ARTICLE II, SEC. 3, OF THE
DECREE DEFINES GYPSUM BOARD AS "MADE FROM GYPSUM AND EMBODYING ANY OF
THE INVENTIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN ANY OF THE
PATENTS."  THIS IS TOO RESTRICTIVE, AND THE WORDS "AND EMBODYING ANY OF
THE INVENTIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN ANY OF THE
PATENTS" SHOULD BE STRICKEN, IF THE DEFINITION IS USED. 

(B)  THE GOVERNMENT ACCEPTS THE FINDING OF ARTICLE III OF THE DECREE
BUT OBJECTS TO ARTICLE V (2) AND (3) BECAUSE, READ TOGETHER, THEY ALLOW
AGREEMENTS THROUGH PRICE FIXING BY LICENSE BETWEEN UNITED STATES GYPSUM
AND PACIFIC COAST LICENSEES.  THE COMPLAINT OF SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION
WAS RESTRICTED TO THE EASTERN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
EVIDENCE APPLIED ONLY TO THAT AREA.  HOWEVER, THE CLOSE SIMILARITY
BETWEEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN EASTERN
TERRITORY AND WESTERN TERRITORY SEEMS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
ENLARGEMENT OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE OF THE DECREE TO INCLUDE ALL
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ARTICLE V OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED DECREE
INDICATES ONE WAY IN WHICH THIS EXTENSION COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. 

(C)  THE GOVERNMENT ASKS AN EXTENSION OF THE DECREE TO INCLUDE ALL
GYPSUM PRODUCTS INSTEAD OF PATENTED GYPSUM BOARD ALONE.  COMPARE
APPENDIX, ARTICLE V. THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, AS INDICATED ABOVE,
REQUIRED ROYALTIES ON UNPATENTED OPEN EDGE GYPSUM BOARD.  BOARD SURVEY,
THE ORGANIZATION CREATED TO ENFORCE THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, FOUND
POSSIBILITIES OF PRICE EVASION TO EXIST BY A LICENSEE'S CUTTING
PREVAILING PRICES ON OTHER COMMODITIES, SOLD IN CONJUNCTION WITH
PATENTED GYPSUM BOARD.  BULLETINS, ISSUED TO STANDARDIZE SALE
PRACTICES, CRITICIZED REBATES AS VIOLATIVE OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 
333 U.S. 364, 386.  DEFENDANTS' OFFER OF PROOF DID NOT DENY SUCH EFFORT
TO SYSTEMATIZE SALES.  THEIR EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE EFFORTS WERE TO
ENFORCE LEGITIMATE LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND WERE NOT CALCULATED STEPS IN
CONSPIRACY OR MONOPOLY.  WE THINK THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST THAT THE
DECREE'S INJUNCTIONS REACH GYPSUM PRODUCTS, AS DEFINED IN ITS PROPOSED
DECREE, IS REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED.  SEE U.S. PROPOSED DECREE,
ARTICLE II, SEC. 4, AND ARTICLE V. 

(D)  THE GOVERNMENT ASKS THAT THE DECREE FORBID STANDARDIZATION OF
TRADE PRACTICES THROUGH CONCERTED AGREEMENT.  OUR FORMER GYPSUM
OPINION, PP. 382-383, GIVES A SUMMARY OF THE METHODS ADOPTED.  ANOTHER
METHOD OF REGULATING SALES WAS BY SPECIAL PROVISION FOR CERTAIN CLASSES
OF CUSTOMERS, JOBBERS AND MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTORS.  SEE 333 U.S. AT
397 AND 399, N. 18.  WE THINK THIS WOULD JUSTIFY THE GOVERNMENT'S
REQUESTS.  ARTICLE V, SECS. 3, 4 AND 6. 

(E)  THE GOVERNMENT ASKS THE INSERTION OF ARTICLE V, SEC. 5, DIRECTED
AT AN AGREEMENT FOR CONCERTED ACTION IN SELLING OR QUOTING PRODUCTS AT
PRICES CALCULATED ACCORDING TO A DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM.  IT POINTS OUT
THAT SUCH A SYSTEM WAS SAID BY THIS COURT, 333 U.S. AT 382, TO HAVE
BEEN EMPLOYED, AND NO PROFFER OF CONTRARY PROOF HAS BEEN MADE. 

DEFENDANTS ARGUE AS FOLLOWS:  THE PRICE FOR THE PATENTED PRODUCT WAS
"THE LOWEST COMBINATION OF MILL PRICE AND RAIL FREIGHT FROM MILL TO
DESTINATION."  DEFENDANTS URGE THAT 

"THE ONLY WITNESS AT THE TRIAL WHO WAS INTERROGATED ABOUT IT SAID
THAT THE PRICING SYSTEM IN THE GYPSUM BOARD INDUSTRY WAS THE VERY
OPPOSITE OF THE BASING POINT SYSTEM; THAT THE MILL BASE PRICES WERE
EXTENDED TO ALL MILLS; AND THAT IT WAS REALLY ONLY A FREIGHT
EQUALIZATION METHOD OF PRICING WHICH RESULTED IN THE CUSTOMER ALWAYS
GETTING THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICE NO MATTER FROM WHOM HE BOUGHT." 

AND THEY SAY 

"IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE LICENSE BULLETINS, BUT LICENSOR, IN
STATING THE MINIMUM PRICE, MERELY USED THE METHOD OF PRICING AS IT THEN
EXISTED." 

FURTHER, DEFENDANTS POINT OUT 

"IF APPELLEE COMPANIES ARE TO BE QUESTIONED AS TO THEIR METHOD OF
PRICING, THEY SHOULD BE AFFORDED A FULL HEARING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF
ALL PERTINENT MATTERS BEARING UPON THEIR PRICING PRACTICES AND SHOULD
NOT BE CALLED UPON TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN A SUMMARY HEARING FOR AN
ALLEGED CONTEMPT OF COURT." 

WE THINK THE DEFENDANTS ARE UNDULY APPREHENSIVE.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
PROPOSED PROHIBITION OF DELIVERED PRICE ARRANGEMENTS IS DIRECTED AT
CONCERTED ACTION, BY AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE
MANUFACTURERS, NOT AT ANY SYSTEM OF PRICING THE INDIVIDUAL MANUFACTURER
MAY ADOPT OR ANY PRICE THAT HE MAY MAKE.  FN14  SINCE THE CONSPIRACY
FOR RESTRAINT OF TRADE WAS FURTHERED BY THIS ARRANGEMENT, USE OF SUCH A
METHOD SHOULD BE BANNED FOR THE FUTURE.  TO AVOID ANY POSSIBILITY THAT
AN INDIVIDUAL'S MEETING OF COMPETITORS' PRICES WOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A
CONTEMPT OF THE DECREE, WE THINK PROPOSED ARTICLE V, SEC. 5 SHOULD READ
AS FOLLOWS: 

"5.  AGREEING UPON ANY PLAN OF SELLING OR QUOTING GYPSUM PRODUCTS AT
PRICES CALCULATED OR DETERMINED PURSUANT TO A DELIVERED PRICE PLAN
WHICH RESULTS IN IDENTICAL PRICES OR PRICE QUOTATIONS AT GIVEN POINTS
OF SALES OR QUOTATION BY DEFENDANTS USING SUCH PLAN;" 

(F)  THE GOVERNMENT OBJECTS TO ARTICLE VI OF THE DECREE WHICH
PROVIDES, SEC. 1, FOR COMPULSORY LICENSING FOR 90 DAYS TO ANY APPLICANT
OF ALL THEN-OWNED PATENTS RELATING TO GYPSUM BOARD AT NOT TO EXCEED THE
STANDARDIZED ROYALTIES AS THERETOFORE CHARGED TO DEFENDANT LICENSEES. 
THE OBJECTION IS THAT THE LIMITED TIME MAKES THE REQUIREMENT FUTILE
EXCEPT FOR PRESENT LICENSEES.  THERE IS A COROLLARY OBJECTION TO
ARTICLE VIII BECAUSE OF PROVISIONS IN THE APPROVED LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 
PARTICULAR REFERENCE IS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO AN APPROVED PROVISION
REQUIRING THE LICENSEE TO REPORT ITS MONTHLY SALES AND PRICE WITH RIGHT
TO GYPSUM TO HAVE AN INSPECTION BY A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
APPROVED BY THE PARTIES.  THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE TO GYPSUM OF KNOWING ITS COMPETITORS' SALES AND PRICES, AND
THE DEPRESSIVE EFFECT OF SUCH INFORMATION ON A STRENUOUS SALES PROGRAM
BY THE LICENSEE. 

THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS EXPANDING THE REQUIREMENT OF LICENSING TO
INCLUDE ALL UNITED STATES GYPSUM PATENTS, OLD AND NEW, WITH A PROVISION
BY WHICH NEW PATENTS MAY BE EXCLUDED AFTER FIVE YEARS.  SEE PROPOSED
DECREE, ARTICLE VI, SEC. 6.  OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES REQUIRE ALL
LICENSEES TO RECEIVE EQUAL TREATMENT AS TO ROYALTIES, PUT THE BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING ROYALTY VALUES ON UNITED STATES GYPSUM AND ALLOW A
LICENSEE TO ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF PATENTS. 

IN UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319, 335-351, WE
RECENTLY DEALT WITH PROBLEMS OF LICENSES AND ROYALTIES AFTER A FINDING
OF SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION.  THE ARRANGEMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE
COMPANIES MANUFACTURING TITANIUM PIGMENTS IN THAT COMBINATION WERE
ADJUDGED VIOLATORS WERE AS OFFENSIVE TO THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN
ACT AS THOSE PROVEN IN THE PRESENT CASE.  DEPENDING LARGELY UPON THE
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT, WE REFUSED TO MODIFY THE DECREE.  IT
ORDERED THE ACCUSED PATENT OWNERS TO LICENSE ALL PATENTS CONTROLLED BY
THEM CONCERNING TITANIUM AND TITANIUM MANUFACTURES DURING THE
SUCCEEDING FIVE YEARS AT A REASONABLE ROYALTY TO BE FIXED BY THE
COURT.  PARAGRAPHS 4 AND 7 OF THAT DECREE, 332 U.S. AT 335-337. 

THE TERMS OF THE NATIONAL LEAD DECREE ARE SOMEWHAT LIKE THOSE THE
GOVERNMENT ASKS HERE.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE SHOULD BE NO
REQUIREMENT OF RECIPROCAL GRANTS.  332 U.S. 336. 

WE THINK THAT THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO
LICENSE ALL ITS PATENTS IN THE GYPSUM PRODUCTS FIELD TO ALL APPLICANTS
ON EQUAL TERMS.  WHETHER THE TERM FOR COMPULSORY LICENSING OF NEW
PATENTS IS TO BE FIVE YEARS, OR FOR A LONGER PERIOD WITH THE PRIVILEGE
TO THE APPELLEES TO MOVE FOR A LIMITATION FOR SUCH NEW PATENTS, AS
PROVIDED IN THE SUGGESTED DECREE, ARTICLE VI, SEC. 6, WE LEAVE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THAT COURT SHOULD PROVIDE FOR ITS DETERMINATION OF A
REASONABLE ROYALTY EITHER IN EACH INSTANCE OF FAILURE TO AGREE OR BY AN
APPROVED FORM OR BY ANY OTHER PLAN IN ITS DISCRETION. 

WE DISAPPROVE THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTION THAT THE BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE REQUESTED ROYALTY SHOULD BE
PLACED UPON GYPSUM BY THE DECREE.  WE DO NOT DECIDE WHERE THE BURDEN OF
PROOF OF VALUE LIES OR WHO HAS THE DUTY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE EVIDENCE
IN ANY PARTICULAR INSTANCE. 

WE DISAPPROVE THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTION, CONTAINED IN ARTICLE VI,
SEC. 5, THAT THE DECREE SHALL NOT BE TAKEN AS PREVENTING AN "APPLICANT"
(WE CONSTRUE THIS AS MEANING LICENSEE) ATTACKING THE PATENT OR AS
IMPORTING VALUE TO IT.  WE SEE NO OCCASION FOR THIS UNUSUAL PROVISION
AND THINK IT SHOULD BE ENTIRELY OMITTED.  FN15 

WE DIRECT THAT ARTICLE VI OF THE DECREE BE SO MODIFIED AS GENERALLY
TO CONFORM TO THE ABOVE SUGGESTIONS. 

WE APPROVE THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTED PROVISIONS FOR INSPECTION OF
LICENSEES' BOOKS AND REPORTS TO LICENSOR, SUBSTANTIALLY AS SET OUT IN
PROPOSED ARTICLE VI, SEC. 2(C). 

(G)  THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS ACCESS TO THE RECORDS AND PERSONNEL OF THE
DEFENDANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVISING ITSELF AS TO THE DEFENDANTS'
COMPLIANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT.  SEE PROPOSED ARTICLE VIII.  CONSTRUING
THE ARTICLE AS WE DID IN UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S.
707, 725, N. 6, WE THINK THE REQUEST REASONABLE.  THIS ARTICLE, OR ONE
OF SIMILAR IMPORT, SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DECREE. 

(H) WE HAVE NOTED THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTIONS IN REGARD TO THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, AVERY, KNODE, BAKER, EBSARY AND TOMKINS, AND ITS
SUGGESTION THAT ARTICLE III BE MODIFIED SO AS TO READ "DEFENDANTS" IN
THE FIRST LINE, INSTEAD OF "DEFENDANT COMPANIES."  IT IS TRUE THAT
THESE INDIVIDUALS SIGNED THE QUESTIONED AGREEMENTS, BUT THEY WERE
ACTING AS OFFICIALS AND WE THINK THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE V BAR THEM
FROM ENGAGING IN SIMILAR CONSPIRACIES. 

(I)  THE GOVERNMENT ASKS THAT ALL COSTS BE TAXED AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT COMPANIES.  ARTICLE IX, PROPOSED DECREE; ARTICLE X, DECREE
ENTERED.  WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DISCRETION OF THE
TRIAL COURT IN THIS MATTER. 

"WITH THESE GENERAL SUGGESTIONS, THE DETAILS AND FORM OF THE
INJUNCTION CAN BE MORE SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT."  FN16  ITS PROCEDURE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF A DECREE IS MORE
FLEXIBLE THAN OURS.  THE DECREE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "45.  SAID COMBINATION HAS BEEN FORMED, HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT,
AND IS BEING CARRIED OUT BY EACH OF THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES (ACTING, IN
PART, THROUGH THOSE OF THEIR OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS MADE DEFENDANTS
HEREIN) AND BY OTHER COMPANIES HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO ENGAGED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF SAID GYPSUM PRODUCTS.  SAID COMPANIES HAVE ENTERED INTO,
HAVE CARRIED OUT, AND ARE CARRYING OUT SAID COMBINATION FOR THE
PURPOSE, AND WITH THE EFFECT, OF RESTRAINING, DOMINATING, AND
CONTROLLING THE MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SAID GYPSUM PRODUCTS IN
THE EASTERN AREA BY: 

"(A)  CONCERTEDLY RAISING AND FIXING AT ARBITRARY AND NONCOMPETITIVE
LEVELS THE PRICES OF GYPSUM BOARD MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY SAID
COMPANIES IN THE EASTERN AREA;    "(B)  CONCERTEDLY STANDARDIZING
GYPSUM BOARD AND ITS METHOD OF PRODUCTION BY LIMITING THE MANUFACTURE
OF BOARD TO UNIFORM METHODS, AND BY PRODUCING ONLY UNIFORM KINDS OF
BOARD, FOR THE PURPOSE, AND WITH THE EFFECT, OF ELIMINATING COMPETITION
ARISING FROM VARIATIONS IN METHODS OF PRODUCTION AND IN KINDS OF BOARD
MANUFACTURED AND DISTRIBUTED IN THE EASTERN AREA; 

"(C)  CONCERTEDLY RAISING, MAINTAINING, AND STABILIZING THE GENERAL
LEVEL OF PRICES FOR PLASTER AND MISCELLANEOUS GYPSUM PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY SAID COMPANIES IN THE EASTERN AREA: 

"(D)  CONCERTEDLY REFRAINING FROM DISTRIBUTING GYPSYM BOARD, PLASTER,
AND MISCELLANEOUS GYPSUM PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY SAID COMPANIES
THROUGH JOBBERS IN THE EASTERN AREA, AND CONCERTEDLY REFUSING TO SELL
SAID PRODUCTS TO JOBBERS AT PRICES BELOW SAID COMPANIES' PRICES TO
DEALERS, FOR THE PURPOSE, AND WITH THE EFFECT, OF ELIMINATING
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL JOBBERS FROM THE DISTRIBUTION OF SAID GYPSUM PRODUCTS
IN THE EASTERN AREA; 

"(E)  CONCERTEDLY INDUCING AND COERCING MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTORS TO
RESELL, AT THE PRICES RAISED AND FIXED BY SAID COMPANIES AS AFORESAID,
GYPSUM BOARD PURCHASED FROM SAID COMPANIES." 

FN2  THE PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE DECREE AS ENTERED BELOW ARE SET
OUT IN AN APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION (POST, P. 96) IN PARALLEL COLUMNS
WITH PORTIONS OF THE DECREE PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS BRIEF
HERE.  THIS PROPOSAL IS MORE LIMITED THAN THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED
DECREE OFFERED IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN3  EXHIBIT A AND PARAGRAPH 4 REFERRED TO ON P. 410 CONTAIN THE
LICENSES INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION. 

FN4  THE DISSENTERS IN LINE JOINED IN THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM
OPINION, SINCE THE CONCERTED ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM CASE
WAS THOUGHT TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT, DESPITE THEIR VIEW THAT THE
MERE MULTIPLICATION OF LICENSES, AS IN LINE, "PRODUCES A REPETITION OF
THE SAME ISSUE (AS IN GENERAL ELECTRIC) RATHER THAN A DIFFERENT
ISSUE."  333 U.S. AT 354. 

FN5  GYPSUM'S PETITION FOR REHEARING SOUGHT A MODIFICATION OF THIS
POSITION.  IT ARGUED THAT "SEPARATE BUT SIMILAR LAWFUL AGREEMENTS MUST
STILL BE LAWFUL IF THE RESULT IS LAWFUL AND NO PRELIMINARY AGREEMENTS
OR UNDERSTANDINGS TO MAKE THEM COULD BE UNLAWFUL."  WE DENIED
REHEARING.  333 U.S. AT 869. 

FN6  E.G., "1.  THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY (USG), PATENTEE, AND THE OTHER DEFENDANTS
OR ANY OF THEM THAT THEY WOULD ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES IN A PLAN TO
BLANKET THE INDUSTRY UNDER PATENT LICENSES AND STABILIZE PRICES OR
ISSUE OR CAUSE TO BE ISSUED SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL LICENSES TO ALL OF
THE DEFENDANTS OR ANY NUMBER OF THEM." 

FN7  ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS, CELOTEX CORPORATION, MADE A SEPARATE
PROFFER OF PROOF, INDICATING THAT IT WAS THE PURCHASER OF A LICENSE
FROM A LICENSEE, AMERICAN GYPSUM COMPANY.  IN THE TRANSFER, CELOTEX
ASSUMED THE LICENSEE'S OBLIGATIONS TO MAINTAIN THE LICENSOR'S PRICE. 
AS CELOTEX TOOK NO OTHER PART IN THE CONSPIRACY, IT CONTENDS THAT THE
DECREE SHOULD NOT IMPOSE UPON IT ANY FURTHER RESTRICTION THAN A
PROHIBITION AGAINST PRICE MAINTENANCE.  SINCE CELOTEX ENTERED INTO THE
CONSPIRACY BY ITS PURCHASE OF THE LICENSE WITH AN AGREEMENT TO OPERATE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS, WE THINK IT SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE
DECREE LIKE THE OTHER LICENSEES. 

FN8  AT THE HEARING ON PROPER TERMS FOR THE DECREE JUDGE GARRETT
SAID, "JUDGE JACKSON AND I THOUGHT THAT, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, THAT DECREE SHOULD OF COURSE BE GRANTED
AND THAT NOTHING THAT WAS GIVEN US IN THE PROFFER OF PROOF WOULD CHANGE
THE ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THOSE MATTERS
UPON WHICH IT HAD SPECIFICALLY PASSED. 

"NOW, THAT WAS THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT." 

FN9  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 461;
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 409; INTERNATIONAL
SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392, 401. 

FN10  UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707, 724. 

FN11  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 22; CF.
INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392, 399-401.  AND
SEE UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 185. 

FN12  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 78-82; UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, 184-188; UNITED STATES V.
CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 185-187; NOTE ESPECIALLY HARTFORD
EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 409-435. 

FN13  LOCAL 167, I.B.T. V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 299; HARTFORD
EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 409. 

FN14  SEE OUR DISCUSSION IN FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CEMENT INSTITUTE,
333 U.S. 683, 727-728. 

FN15  SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S. 173;
EDWARD KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO METALLIC MFG. CO., 329 U.S. 394;
MACGREGOR V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO., 329 U.S. 402; AND CF.
SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS MFG. CO., 326 U.S. 249. 

FN16  WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526, 533. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK BELIEVES THAT ALL THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE
GOVERNMENT TO ARTICLE VI OF THE DECREE ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC FROM A CONTINUATION OF MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES BY UNITED STATES
GYPSUM. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

                              APPENDIX. 

          DISTRICT COURT DECREE OF NOVEMBER 7, 1949. 

                     PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

THIS CAUSE CAME ON FOR TRIAL BEFORE THIS COURT ON NOVEMBER 15, 1943. 
AT THE CONCLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S PRESENTATION OF THE CASE, DEFENDANTS
MOVED, PURSUANT TO RULE 41(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
FOR JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT ON ITS MERITS.  THE MOTION OF
DEFENDANTS WAS GRANTED AUGUST 6, 1946.  THE JUDGMENT SO RENDERED BY
THIS COURT WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THIS COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT (333 U.S. 364). 

FOLLOWING THE REMAND, THE PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO RULE 56 OF THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ITS
FAVOR UPON THE PLEADINGS AND ALL OF THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH THERETOFORE
HAD BEEN HAD IN THE CASE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUCH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS AS THIS COURT MIGHT DIRECT, AND DEFENDANTS, BY DIRECTION OF
THE COURT, FILED PROFFERS OF PROOF. 

ARGUMENT BY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES UPON THE MOTION OF
PLAINTIFF WAS HEARD BY THE COURT, AND AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF SUCH
ARGUMENT AND OF DEFENDANTS' PROFFERS OF PROOF, GARRETT, J. AND JACKSON,
J., CONSTITUTING A MAJORITY OF THE COURT, ANNOUNCED A RULING TO THE
EFFECT THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WOULD BE GRANTED,
AND STEPHENS, J., WHO PRESIDED DURING THE TRIAL, ANNOUNCED HIS DISSENT
FROM SUCH RULING. 

THEREAFTER COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL FOR CERTAIN OF THE
DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED FORMS OF FINAL DECREES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF
THE COURT AND ALSO SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT, THE LATTER TO BE
CONSIDERED IN THE EVENT THE COURT SHOULD DEEM IT NECESSARY TO MAKE ANY
FINDINGS OF FACT ANDDITIONAL TO THOSE ORIGINALLY FOUND BY IT AND TO
THOSE STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 

IN DUE COURSE, THE COURT HEARD ARGUMENTS RESPECTING THE PROPOSED
DECREES AND THE SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND FULL CONSIDERATION HAS
BEEN GIVEN THERETO AND TO ALL PRIOR PROCEEDINGS - ALL BEING CONSIDERED
IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT WHICH, AS UNDERSTOOD
BY THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT, HELD THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTED IN
CONCERT TO RESTRAIN TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE GYPSUM BOARD INDUSTRY AND
MONOPOLIZED SAID TRADE AND COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES IN THAT
STATES, WHICH SECTION EMBRACES ALL THE STATES OF THE UNITED STATES
WESTWARD FROM THE EASTERN COAST THEREOF TO THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS AND
INCLUDING NEW MEXICO, COLORADO, WYOMING, AND THE EASTERN HALF OF
MONTANA. 

   (THE ARTICLES OF THESE DECREES HAVE BEEN REARRANGED TO
FACILITATE

                             COMPARISON.) 

                  PROVISIONS OF

DISTRICT COURT DECREE. 

                              ARTICLE I 

THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF AND OF THE
PARTIES HERETO.  THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
DEFENDANTS UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF JULY 2, 1890, ENTITLED "AN ACT
TO PROTECT TRADE AND COMMERCE AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND
MONOPOLIES", COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, AND ACTS
AMENDATORY THEREOF AND SUPPLEMENTAL THERETO,

                              ARTICLE II 

AS USED IN THIS DECREE: 

1.  "DEFENDANT COMPANIES" SHALL MEAN ALL OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS
AND SAMUEL M. GLOYD, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF TEXAS CEMENT
PLASTER COMPANY. 

2.  THE "PATENTS" SHALL MEAN UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENT AND
APPLICATIONS FOR UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENT OWNED BY DEFENDANT UNITED
STATES GYPSUM COMPANY WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN THE PATENT LICENSES, AS
HEREINAFTER DEFINED, AND CONTINUATIONS IN WHOLE OR IN PART, RENEWALS,
REISSUES, DIVISIONS, AND EXTENSIONS THEREOF. 

3.  "GYPSUM BOARD" SHALL MEAN PLASTER BOARD OR LATH (INCLUDING
PERFORATED AND METALLIZED LATH) AND WALLBOARD (INCLUDING METALLIZED
WALLBOARD) MADE FROM GYPSUM AND EMBODYING ANY OF THE INVENTIONS OR
IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN ANY OF THE PATENTS. 

4.  "PATENT LICENSES" SHALL MEAN THE PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS WHICH
WERE IN EFFECT BETWEEN DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY AND EACH
OF THE OTHER DEFENDANT COMPANIES AT THE TIME THE COMPLAINT HEREIN WAS
FILED AND DESCRIBED IN SAID COMPLAINT AS FOLLOWS:  (LISTED TO COVER
ALL.) 

          ARTICLE III 

THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES HAVE ACTED IN CONCERT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
AND COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES IN THE EASTERN TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO FIX, MAINTAIN AND CONTROL THE PRICES OF GYPSUM BOARD
AND HAVE MONOPOLIZED TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE GYPSUM BOARD INDUSTRY IN
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT. 

                        ARTICLE IV 

EACH OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS LISTED IN ARTICLE II HEREOF IS
ADJUDGED UNLAWFUL UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID. 

                              ARTICLE V 

EACH OF THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES AND EACH OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, SUBSIDIARIES,
AND ANY PERSON ACTING OR CLAIMING TO ACT UNDER, THROUGH OR FOR THEM OR
ANY OF THEM ARE HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED FROM 

(1)  THE FURTHER PERFORMANCE OR ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THE PATENT LICENSES, INCLUDING ANY PRICE BULLETIN ISSUED
THEREUNDER; 

(2)  ENTERING INTO OR PERFORMING ANY AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING AMONG
THE DEFENDANTS OR ANY OF THEM FOR THE PURPOSE OR WITH THE EFFECT OF
CONTINUING, REVIVING OR REINSTATING ANY MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICE. 

(3)  ENTERING INTO OR PERFORMING ANY AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING AMONG
THE DEFENDANTS OR ANY OF THEM IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE IN
GYPSUM BOARD AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES IN THE EASTERN TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES BY LICENSE AGREEMENTS TO FIX, MAINTAIN OR STABILIZE
PRICES OF GYPSUM BOARD OR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE THEREOF. 

                              ARTICLE VI 

1.  DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY IS HEREBY ORDERED AND
DIRECTED TO GRANT TO EACH APPLICANT THEREFOR WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF, BUT ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT HAS THE RIGHT TO DO SO,
A NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO MAKE, USE AND VEND UNDER ANY, SOME, OR ALL
PATENTS AND PATENT APPLICATIONS NOW OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY IT RELATING
TO GYPSUM BOARD, PROVIDED THAT SUCH LICENSE AGREEMENT FIXES A ROYALTY
NOT TO EXCEED THE ROYALTY OF THE SAME ARTICLE OR PROCESS FIXED IN THE
LICENSE AGREEMENTS SET OUT IN ARTICLE II HEREOF. 

2.  DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY IS HEREBY ENJOINED AND
RESTRAINED FROM MAKING ANY SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF ANY OF SAID
PATENTS OR PATENT APPLICATIONS WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE POWER OR
AUTHORITY TO GRANT SUCH LICENSES, UNLESS IN ANY SALE, TRANSFER OR
ASSIGNMENT IT SHALL BE REQUIRED THAT THE PURCHASER, TRANSFEREE OR
ASSIGNEE SHALL OBSERVE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION. 

        ARTICLE VIII 

THE FORMS OF LICENSE AGREEMENT WHICH THE COURT HAS THIS DAY ORDERED
FILED HEREIN ARE HEREBY APPROVED; AND THE TENDER BY DEFENDANT UNITED
STATES GYPSUM COMPANY TO EACH APPLICANT FOR A LICENSE AGREEMENT
CONTAINING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICABLE FILED
FORM OR FORMS SHALL CONSTITUTE COMPLIANCE BY DEFENDANT UNITED STATES
GYPSUM COMPANY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VI.

        ARTICLE VII 

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS DECREE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ANY EFFECT
UPON THE OPERATIONS OR ACTIVITIES OF SAID DEFENDANTS WHICH ARE
AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF APRIL 10, 1918,
COMMONLY CALLED THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT, OR THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF AUGUST
17, 1937, COMMONLY CALLED THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT, OR BY ANY PRESENT OR
FUTURE ACT OF CONGRESS OR AMENDMENT THERETO; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, NOTHING
CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL IN ANY MANNER AFFECT THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE VI OF THIS DECREE. 

   ARTICLE X 

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES FOR 50% OF THE
COSTS TO BE TAXED IN THIS PROCEEDING, AND THE COSTS SO TO BE TAXED ARE
HEREBY PRORATED AGAINST THE SEVERAL DEFENDANT COMPANIES AS FOLLOWS:
(HERE FOLLOWS ALLOCATION.) 

                              ARTICLE IX 

JURISDICTION OF THIS CAUSE, AND OF THE PARTIES HERETO, IS RETAINED BY
THE COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING ANY OF THE PARTIES TO THIS
DECREE, OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION THAT MAY HEREAFTER
BECOME BOUND THEREBY IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO APPLY TO THIS COURT AT ANY
TIME FOR SUCH ORDERS, MODIFICATIONS, VACATIONS OR DIRECTIONS AS MAY BE
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE (1) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR CARRYING OUT OF
THIS DECREE, AND (2) FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THEREWITH. 
                       PROVISIONS OF

          UNITED STATES' PROPOSED

       DECREE. 

                              ARTICLE I 

THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF AND OF THE
PARTIES HERETO.  THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
DEFENDANTS UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF JULY 2, 1890, ENTITLED "AN ACT
TO PROTECT TRADE AND COMMERCE AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND
MONOPOLIES," COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, AND ACTS
AMENDATORY THEREOF AND SUPPLEMENTAL THERETO. 

                              ARTICLE II 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS JUDGMENT: 

1.  "DEFENDANT COMPANIES" SHALL MEAN ALL OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS
AND SAMUEL M. GLOYD, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF TEXAS CEMENT
PLASTER COMPANY. 

2.  "PATENTS" SHALL MEAN UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENT AND
APPLICATIONS FOR UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENT RELATING TO GYPSUM BOARD,
ITS PROCESSES, METHODS OF MANUFACTURE, OR USE, AND CONTINUATIONS IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, RENEWALS, REISSUES, DIVISIONS, AND EXTENSIONS OF ANY
SUCH PATENT OR PATENT APPLICATION. 

3.  "GYPSUM BOARD" SHALL MEAN PLASTERBOARD, LATH, WALLBOARD, SPECIAL
SURFACED BOARD, SHEATHING, LINER BOARD (INCLUDING ANY SUCH PRODUCT
WHICH IS PERFORATED OR METALLIZED) MADE FROM GYPSUM. 

4. "GYPSUM PRODUCTS" SHALL MEAN GYPSUM BOARD AS DEFINED IN THE
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, AND PLASTER, BLOCK, TILE AND KEENE'S CEMENT MADE
FROM GYPSUM. 

5.  AS USED IN ARTICLE IV, "LICENSE AGREEMENTS" SHALL MEAN THE PATENT
LICENSE AGREEMENTS WHICH WERE IN EFFECT BETWEEN DEFENDANT UNITED STATES
GYPSUM COMPANY AND EACH OF THE OTHER DEFENDANT COMPANIES AT THE TIME
THE COMPLAINT HEREIN WAS FILED AND DESCRIBED IN SAID COMPLAINT AS
FOLLOWS: (LISTED TO COVER ALL.) 

                             ARTICLE III 

THE DEFENDANTS HAVE ACTED IN CONCERT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND
COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES IN THE EASTERN TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO FIX, MAINTAIN AND CONTROL THE PRICES OF GYPSUM BOARD
AND HAVE MONOPOLIZED TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE GYPSUM BOARD INDUSTRY IN
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT. 

                              ARTICLE IV 

EACH OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS LISTED IN ARTICLE II HEREOF IS
ADJUDGED UNLAWFUL UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID. 

      ARTICLE V 

THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS,
AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, AND SUBSIDIARIES, BE AND EACH OF
THEM HEREBY IS ENJOINED FROM ENTERING INTO OR PERFORMING ANY AGREEMENT
OR UNDERSTANDING TO FIX, MAINTAIN, STABILIZE, OR MAKE UNIFORM, BY
PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS OR BY OTHER CONCERTED ACTION, THE PRICES, OR
THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF SALE OF, GYPSUM PRODUCTS SOLD OR OFFERED FOR
SALE OR RESALE IN OR AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND FROM ENGAGING
IN, PURSUANT TO SUCH AN AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING, ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING ACTS OR PRACTICES: 

1.  FIXING, MAINTAINING OR MAKING UNIFORM THE KINDS, TYPES, OR
VARIETIES OF GYPSUM PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED OR SOLD, OR THE METHODS OF
MANUFACTURING, SELLING, PACKAGING, SHIPPING, DELIVERING OR DISTRIBUTING
GYPSUM PRODUCTS; 

2.  REFRAINING FROM THE MANUFACTURE, SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF ANY
KIND, TYPE, OR VARIETY OF GYPSUM PRODUCTS OR THE METHOD OF
MANUFACTURING, SELLING, PACKAGING, SHIPPING, DELIVERING OR DISTRIBUTING
GYPSUM PRODUCTS; 

3.  AGREEING UPON OR ADHERING TO ANY BASIS FOR THE SELECTION OR
CLASSIFICATION OF PURCHASERS OF GYPSUM PRODUCTS; 

4.  REFRAINING FROM SELLING GYPSUM PRODUCTS TO ANY PURCHASER OR ANY
CLASS OF PURCHASERS; 

5.  AGREEING UPON OR ADHERING TO ANY SYSTEM OF SELLING OR QUOTING
GYPSUM PRODUCTS AT PRICES CALCULATED OR DETERMINED PURSUANT TO A BASING
POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM OR ANY OTHER PLAN OR SYSTEM WHICH RESULTS
IN IDENTICAL PRICES OR PRICE QUOTATIONS AT GIVEN POINTS OF SALE OR
QUOTATION BY DEFENDANTS USING SUCH PLAN OR SYSTEM; 

6.  POLICING, INVESTIGATING, CHECKING OR INQUIRING INTO THE PRICES,
QUANTITIES, TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF ANY OFFER TO SELL OR SALE OF GYPSUM
PRODUCTS. 

      ARTICLE VI 

1.  DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY IS HEREBY ORDERED AND
DIRECTED TO GRANT TO EACH APPLICANT THEREFOR A NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO
MAKE, USE AND VEND UNDER ANY, SOME OR ALL OF THE PATENTS NOW OR
HEREAFTER OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY IT; AND IS HEREBY ENJOINED FROM MAKING
ANY SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF ANY OF SAID PATENTS WHICH DEPRIVES IT
OF THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO GRANT SUCH LICENSES, UNLESS IT REQUIRES,
AS A CONDITION OF SUCH SALE, TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT, THAT THE
PURCHASER, TRANSFEREE OR ASSIGNEE SHALL OBSERVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF
ARTICLES VI AND VIII OF THIS JUDGMENT AND UNLESS THE PURCHASER,
TRANSFEREE OR ASSIGNEE SHALL FILE WITH THIS COURT, PRIOR TO
CONSUMMATION OF SAID TRANSACTION, AN UNDERTAKING TO BE BOUND BY SAID
ARTICLES OF THIS JUDGMENT. 

2.  DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY IS HEREBY ENJOINED FROM
INCLUDING ANY RESTRICTION OR CONDITION WHATSOEVER IN ANY LICENSE OR
SUBLICENSE GRANTED BY IT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE
EXCEPT THAT (A) THE LICENSE MAY BE NONTRANSFERABLE; (B) A REASONABLE
NON-DISCRIMINATORY ROYALTY MAY BE CHARGED, WHICH ROYALTY MAY NOT BE
IMPOSED UPON OR MEASURED BY PATENT-FREE PRODUCTS, PROCESSES OR USES;
(C) REASONABLE PROVISIONS MAY BE MADE FOR PERIODIC INSPECTION OF THE
BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE LICENSEE BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR OR ANY
PERSON ACCEPTABLE TO THE LICENSEE, WHO SHALL REPORT TO THE LICENSOR
ONLY THE AMOUNT OF THE ROYALTY DUE AND PAYABLE; (D) REASONABLE
PROVISION MAY BE MADE FOR CANCELLATION OF THE LICENSE UPON FAILURE OF
THE LICENSEE TO PAY THE ROYALTY OR TO PERMIT THE INSPECTION OF ITS
BOOKS AND RECORDS AS HEREINABOVE PROVIDED; (E) THE LICENSE MUST PROVIDE
THAT THE LICENSEE MAY CANCEL THE LICENSE AT ANY TIME AFTER ONE YEAR
FROM THE INITIAL DATE THEREOF BY GIVING 30 DAYS' NOTICE IN WRITING TO
THE LICENSOR. 

3.  UPON RECEIPT OF WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A LICENSE UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE, DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY
SHALL ADVISE THE APPLICANT IN WRITING OF THE ROYALTY WHICH IT DEEMS
REASONABLE FOR THE PATENT OR PATENTS TO WHICH THE REQUEST PERTAINS.  IF
THE PARTIES ARE UNABLE TO AGREE UPON A REASONABLE ROYALTY WITHIN 60
DAYS FROM THE DATE SUCH REQUEST FOR A LICENSE WAS RECEIVED BY UNITED
STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, THE APPLICANT THEREFOR MAY FORTHWITH APPLY TO
THIS COURT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF A REASONABLE ROYALTY, AND UNITED
STATES GYPSUM COMPANY SHALL, UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE FILING OF
SUCH APPLICATION, PROMPTLY GIVE NOTICE THEREOF TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
WHO SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD THEREON.  IN SUCH PROCEEDING, THE
BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE ON UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY TO ESTABLISH
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ROYALTY REQUESTED BY IT, AND THE REASONABLE
ROYALTY RATES, IF ANY, DETERMINED BY THE COURT SHALL APPLY TO THE
APPLICANT AND ALL OTHER LICENSEES UNDER THE SAME PATENT OR PATENTS. 
PENDING THE COMPLETION OF ANY SUCH PROCEEDING THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND VEND UNDER THE PATENTS TO WHICH HIS
APPLICATION PERTAINS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ROYALTY OR OTHER COMPENSATION
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THIS ARTICLE. 

4.  WHERE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE TO THIS COURT FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF A REASONABLE ROYALTY UNDER PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS
ARTICLE, UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY MAY APPLY TO THE COURT TO FIX AN
INTERIM ROYALTY RATE PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A
REASONABLE ROYALTY.  IF THE COURT FIXES SUCH INTERIM ROYALTY RATE,
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY SHALL THEN ISSUE AND THE APPLICANT SHALL
ACCEPT A LICENSE, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, A SUBLICENSE, PROVIDING FOR
THE PERIODIC PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES AT SUCH INTERIM RATE FROM THE DATE OF
THE FILING OF SUCH APPLICATION BY THE APPLICANT.  IF THE APPLICANT
FAILS TO ACCEPT SUCH LICENSE OR FAILS TO PAY THE INTERIM ROYALTY IN
ACCORDANCE THEREWITH, SUCH ACTION SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR THE DISMISSAL OF
HIS APPLICATION.  WHERE AN INTERIM LICENSE OR SUBLICENSE HAS BEEN
ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH, REASONABLE ROYALTY RATES, IF ANY, AS
FINALLY DETERMINED BY THE COURT SHALL BE RETROACTIVE FOR THE APPLICANT
AND FOR ALL OTHER LICENSEES UNDER THE SAME PATENT OR PATENTS WHOSE
LICENSES PROVIDE FOR A HIGHER ROYALTY RATE TO A DATE TO BE FIXED BY THE
COURT. 

5.  THIS JUDGMENT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED (A) AS PREVENTING ANY
APPLICANT FROM ATTACKING, IN THIS PROCEEDING OR IN ANY OTHER
PROCEEDING, THE VALIDITY OR SCOPE OF ANY PATENT OF DEFENDANT UNITED
STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, OR (B) AS IMPORTING ANY VALIDITY OR VALUE TO ANY
SUCH PATENT. 

6.  AT ANY TIME AFTER FIVE YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
JUDGMENT DEFENDANT UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY MAY APPLY TO THIS
COURT, AFTER NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR AN ORDER LIMITING THE
APPLICATION OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS ARTICLE TO PATENTS COMING UNDER THE
OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY PRIOR TO THE
DATE OF SUCH APPLICATION; AND THE COURT, UPON A SHOWING BY UNITED
STATES GYPSUM COMPANY THAT THE EFFECTS OF DEFENDANTS' COMBINATION HAVE
BEEN DISSIPATED AND THAT COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE GYPSUM BOARD
INDUSTRY HAVE BEEN RESTORED, SHALL GRANT SAID APPLICATION AND ENTER AN
ORDER MODIFYING PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE VI OF THIS JUDGMENT. 

                             ARTICLE VII 

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE ANY EFFECT
UPON THE OPERATIONS OR ACTIVITIES OF THE DEFENDANTS WHICH ARE
AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF APRIL 10, 1918,
COMMONLY CALLED THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT, OR THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF SUGUST
17, 1937, COMMONLY CALLED THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT, OR BY ANY PRESENT OR
FUTURE ACT OF CONGRESS OR AMENDMENT THERETO; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, NOTHING
CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL IN ANY MANNER AFFECT THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE VI OF THIS JUDGMENT. 

                             ARTICLE VIII 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS JUDGMENT, AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ANY DEFENDANT
COMPANY AND UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, SHALL BE PERMITTED, SUBJECT TO ANY
LEGALLY RECOGNIZED PRIVILEGE, ACCESS DURING THE OFFICE HOURS OF SAID
DEFENDANT TO ALL BOOKS, LEDGERS, ACCOUNTS, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDA,
AND OTHER RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OR UNDER THE CONTROL
OF SAID DEFENDANT RELATING TO ANY MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT. 
ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHALL BE
PERMITTED TO INTERVIEW OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF ANY DEFENDANT COMPANY
REGARDING ANY SUCH MATTERS, SUBJECT TO THE REASONABLE CONVENIENCE OF
SAID DEFENDANT BUT WITHOUT RESTRAINT OR INTERFERENCE FROM IT; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT.  NO
INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE MEANS PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE
DIVULGED BY ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO ANY
PERSON OTHER THAN A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH DEPARTMENT,
EXCEPT IN THE COURSE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS
A PARTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS JUDGMENT OR AS
OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW. 

           ARTICLE IX 

JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES FOR ALL COSTS TO
BE TAXED IN THIS PROCEEDING, AND THE COSTS SO TO BE TAXED ARE HEREBY
PRORATED AGAINST THE SEVERAL DEFENDANT COMPANIES AS FOLLOWS:  (HERE
FOLLOWS ALLOCATION.) 

                              ARTICLE X 

JURISDICTION OF THIS CAUSE, AND OF THE PARTIES HERETO, IS RETAINED BY
THE COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING ANY OF THE PARTIES TO THIS
JUDGMENT, OR ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION THAT MAY HEREAFTER
BECOME BOUND THEREBY IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO APPLY TO THIS COURT AT ANY
TIME FOR SUCH ORDERS, MODIFICATIONS, VACATIONS OR DIRECTIONS AS MAY BE
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE (1) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR CARRYING OUT OF
THIS JUDGMENT, AND (2) FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THEREWITH AND
THE PUNISHMENT OF VIOLATIONS THEREOF. 
..END :














HARRIS V. COMMISSIONER, 340 U.S. 106 


NO. 14.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 27, 1950.  - 178
F.2D 861, REVERSED. 


1.  PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR
SETTLEMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS, CONDITIONED ON THE ENTRY OF A
DECREE OF DIVORCE IN A SUIT THEN PENDING IN NEVADA.  THE DIVORCE COURT
APPROVED THE AGREEMENT AND ENTERED A DECREE OF DIVORCE.  BOTH THE
AGREEMENT AND THE DECREE PROVIDED THAT THE AGREEMENT SHOULD SURVIVE THE
DECREE.  A FEDERAL GIFT TAX WAS ASSESSED ON THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO THE HUSBAND EXCEEDED THAT RECEIVED
BY PETITIONER.  HELD:  THE FEDERAL GIFT TAX (26 U.S.C. SECS. 1000,
1002) WAS NOT APPLICABLE.  PP. 108-113. 

2.  PETITIONER HAVING DIED SINCE THE SUBMISSION OF THIS CASE AND AN
ADMINISTRATOR OF HER ESTATE HAVING NOT YET BEEN APPOINTED, THE JUDGMENT
OF THIS COURT IS ENTERED AS OF THE DATE THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED, IN
PURSUANCE OF THE PRACTICE OBTAINING IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.  PP. 112
113. 

HARRIS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A GIFT TAX DEFICIENCY FOR 1943
WAS EXPUNGED BY THE TAX COURT.  10 T.C. 741.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  178 F.2D 861.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO
QUESTIONS 2 AND 3 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.  339 U.S. 917.  REVERSED,
P. 113. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX AND THE FEDERAL GIFT TAX, AS HELD IN A LINE OF
CASES ENDING WITH COMMISSIONER V. WEMYSS, 324 U.S. 303, AND MERRILL V.
FAHS, 324 U.S. 308, ARE CONSTRUED IN PARI MATERIA, SINCE THE PURPOSE OF
THE GIFT TAX IS TO COMPLEMENT THE ESTATE TAX BY PREVENTING TAX-FREE
DEPLETION OF THE TRANSFEROR'S ESTATE DURING HIS LIFETIME.  BOTH THE
GIFT TAX  FN1  AND THE ESTATE TAX  FN2  EXCLUDE TRANSFERS MADE FOR "AN
ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  IN THE
ESTATE TAX THIS REQUIREMENT IS LIMITED TO DEDUCTIONS FOR CLAIMS BASED
UPON "A PROMISE OR AGREEMENT"; FN3  BUT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE
"PROMISE OR AGREEMENT" MAY NOT BE THE RELEASE OF MARITAL RIGHTS IN THE
DECEDENT'S PROPERTY.  FN4  IN THE WEMYSS AND MERRILL CASES THE QUESTION
WAS WHETHER THE GIFT TAX WAS APPLICABLE TO PREMARITAL PROPERTY
SETTLEMENTS.  IF THE STANDARDS OF THE ESTATE TAX WERE TO BE APPLIED EX
PROPRIO VIGORE IN GIFT TAX CASES, THOSE TRANSFERS WOULD BE TAXABLE
BECAUSE THERE WAS A "PROMISE OR AGREEMENT" TOUCHING MARITAL RIGHTS IN
PROPERTY.  WE SUSTAINED THE TAX, THUS GIVING "ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH" THE SAME MEANING UNDER BOTH
STATUTES INSOFAR AS PREMARITAL PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS OR AGREEMENTS ARE
CONCERNED. 

THE PRESENT CASE RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER WEMYSS AND MERRILL
REQUIRE THE IMPOSITION OF THE GIFT TAX IN THE TYPE OF POST-NUPTIAL
SETTLEMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS INVOLVED HERE. 

PETITIONER DIVORCED HER HUSBAND, REGINALD WRIGHT, IN NEVADA IN 1943. 
BOTH SHE AND HER HUSBAND HAD SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY INTERESTS.  THEY
REACHED AN UNDERSTANDING AS RESPECTS THE UNSCRAMBLING OF THOSE
INTERESTS, THE SETTLEMENT OF ALL LITIGATED CLAIMS TO THE SEPARATE
PROPERTIES, THE ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATIONS, AND THE TRANSFER OF
PROPERTIES. 

WRIGHT RECEIVED FROM PETITIONER THE CREATION OF A TRUST FOR HIS
LIFETIME OF THE INCOME FROM HER REMAINDER INTEREST IN A THEN-EXISTING
TRUST; AN ASSUMPTION BY HER OF AN INDEBTEDNESS OF HIS OF $47,650; AND
HER PROMISE TO PAY HIM $416.66 A MONTH FOR TEN YEARS. 

PETITIONER RECEIVED FROM WRIGHT 21/90 OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN
CONTROVERSY; A DISCONTINUANCE OF A PARTITION SUIT THEN PENDING; AN
INDEMNIFICATION FROM AND ASSUMPTION BY HIM OF ALL LIABILITY ON A BOND
AND MORTGAGE ON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN LONDON, ENGLAND; AND AN
INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY IN THE AGREEMENT.  IT WAS FOUND THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
TRANSFERRED TO WRIGHT EXCEEDED THAT RECEIVED BY PETITIONER BY
$107,150.  THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED A GIFT TAX ON THE THEORY THAT ANY
RIGHTS WHICH WRIGHT MIGHT HAVE GIVEN UP BY ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT
COULD NOT BE ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION. 

IF THE PARTIES HAD WITHOUT MORE GONE AHEAD AND VOLUNTARILY UNRAVELLED
THEIR BUSINESS INTERESTS ON THE BASIS OF THIS COMPROMISE, THERE WOULD
BE NO QUESTION THAT THE GIFT TAX WOULD BE PAYABLE.  FOR THERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN A "PROMISE OR AGREEMENT" THAT EFFECTED A RELINQUISHMENT OF
MARITAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY.  IT THEREFORE WOULD FALL UNDER THE BAN OF
THE PROVISION OF THE ESTATE TAX  FN5 WHICH BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION HAS
BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE GIFT TAX STATUTE. 

BUT THE PARTIES DID NOT SIMPLY UNDERTAKE A VOLUNTARY CONTRACTUAL
DIVISION OF THEIR PROPERTY INTERESTS.  THEY WERE FACED WITH THE FACT
THAT NEVADA LAW NOT ONLY AUTHORIZED BUT INSTRUCTED THE DIVORCE COURT TO
DECREE A JUST AND EQUITABLE DISPOSITION OF BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND THE
SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE PARTIES.  FN6  THE AGREEMENT RECITED THAT IT
WAS EXECUTED IN ORDER TO EFFECT A SETTLEMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTY
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES "IN THE EVENT A DIVORCE SHOULD BE DECREED"; AND
IT PROVIDED THAT THE AGREEMENT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE DIVORCE COURT
"FOR ITS APPROVAL."  IT WENT ON TO SAY, "IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THIS
AGREEMENT THAT THE SETTLEMENT HEREIN PROVIDED FOR SHALL NOT BECOME
OPERATIVE IN ANY MANNER NOR SHALL ANY OF THE RECITALS OR COVENANTS
HEREIN BECOME BINDING UPON EITHER PARTY UNLESS A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE
DIVORCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES SHALL BE ENTERED IN THE PENDING NEVADA
ACTION." 

IF THE AGREEMENT HAD STOPPED THERE AND WERE IN FACT SUBMITTED TO THE
COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE GIFT TAX WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE.  THAT
ARRANGEMENT WOULD NOT BE A "PROMISE OR AGREEMENT" IN THE STATUTORY
SENSE.  IT WOULD BE WHOLLY CONDITIONAL UPON THE ENTRY OF THE DECREE;
THE DIVORCE COURT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT ACCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ARRANGEMENT AS THE MEASURE OF THE RESPECTIVE OBLIGATIONS; IT MIGHT
INDEED ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM THEM.  THE DECREE, NOT THE ARRANGEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, WOULD FIX THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE
PARTIES.  THAT WAS THE THEORY OF COMMISSIONER V. MARESI, 156 F.2D 929,
AND WE THINK IT SOUND. 

EVEN THE COMMISSIONER CONCEDES THAT THAT RESULT WOULD BE CORRECT IN
CASE THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT WAS LITIGATED IN THE DIVORCE ACTION.  THAT
WAS WHAT HAPPENED IN COMMISSIONER V. CONVERSE, 163 F.2D 131, WHERE THE
DIVORCE COURT DECREED A LUMP-SUM AWARD IN LIEU OF MONTHLY PAYMENTS
PROVIDED BY THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT.  YET WITHOUT THE DECREE THERE
WOULD BE NO ENFORCEABLE, EXISTING AGREEMENT WHETHER THE SETTLEMENT WAS
LITIGATED OR UNLITIGATED.  BOTH REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT
BEFORE AN OBLIGATION ARISES.  THE HAPPENSTANCE THAT THE DIVORCE COURT
MIGHT APPROVE THE ENTIRE SETTLEMENT, OR MODIFY IT IN UNSUBSTANTIAL
DETAILS, OR WORK OUT MATERIAL CHANGES SEEMS TO US UNIMPORTANT.  IN EACH
CASE IT IS THE DECREE THAT CREATES THE RIGHTS AND THE DUTIES; AND A
DECREE IS NOT A "PROMISE OR AGREEMENT" IN ANY SENSE - POPULAR OR
STATUTORY. 

BUT THE PRESENT CASE IS DISTINGUISHED BY REASON OF A FURTHER
PROVISION IN THE UNDERTAKING AND IN THE DECREE.  THE FORMER PROVIDED
THAT "THE COVENANTS IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL SURVIVE ANY DECREE OF
DIVORCE WHICH MAY BE ENTERED."  AND THE DECREE STATED "IT IS ORDERED
THAT SAID AGREEMENT AND SAID TRUST AGREEMENTS FORMING A PART THEREOF
SHALL SURVIVE THIS DECREE."  THE COURT OF APPEALS TURNED THE CASE ON
THOSE PROVISIONS.  IT CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THERE WERE TWO SANCTIONS FOR
THE PAYMENTS AND TRANSFERS - CONTEMPT UNDER THE DIVORCE DECREE AND
EXECUTION UNDER THE CONTRACT - THEY WERE FOUNDED NOT ONLY ON THE DECREE
BUT UPON BOTH THE DECREE AND A "PROMISE OR AGREEMENT."  IT THEREFORE
HELD THE EXCESS OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH PETITIONER GAVE HER
HUSBAND OVER WHAT HE GAVE HER TO BE TAXABLE AS A GIFT.  178 F.2D 861. 

WE, HOWEVER, THINK THAT THE GIFT TAX STATUTE IS CONCERNED WITH THE
SOURCE OF RIGHTS, NOT WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH RIGHTS AT SOME DISTANT
TIME MAY BE ENFORCED.  REMEDIES FOR ENFORCEMENT WILL VARY FROM STATE TO
STATE.  IT IS "THE TRANSFER" OF THE PROPERTY WITH WHICH THE GIFT TAX
STATUTE IS CONCERNED,  FN7  NOT THE SANCTIONS WHICH THE LAW SUPPLIES TO
ENFORCE TRANSFERS.  IF "THE TRANSFER" OF MARITAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY IS
EFFECTED BY THE PARTIES, IT IS PURSUANT TO A "PROMISE OR AGREEMENT" IN
THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  IF "THE TRANSFER" IS EFFECTED BY COURT
DECREE, NO "PROMISE OR AGREEMENT" OF THE PARTIES IS THE OPERATIVE
FACT.  IN NO REALISTIC SENSE IS A COURT DECREE A "PROMISE OR AGREEMENT"
BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO A LITIGATION.  IF FINER, MORE LEGALISTIC LINES
ARE TO BE DRAWN, CONGRESS MUST DO IT. 

IF, AS WE HOLD, THE CASE IS FREE FROM ANY "PROMISE OR AGREEMENT"
CONCERNING MARITAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY, IT PRESENTS NO REMAINING
PROBLEMS OF DIFFICULTY.  THE TREASURY REGULATIONS  FN8 RECOGNIZE AS TAX
FREE "A SALE, EXCHANGE, OR OTHER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY MADE IN THE
ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS (A TRANSACTION WHICH IS BONA FIDE, AT ARM'S
LENGTH, AND FREE FROM ANY DONATIVE INTENT)."  THIS TRANSACTION IS NOT
"IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS" IN ANY CONVENTIONAL SENSE.  FEW
TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE EVER WOULD BE; AND THOSE UNDER
THE AEGIS OF A DIVORCE COURT ARE NOT.  BUT IF TWO PARTNERS ON
DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRM ENTERED INTO A TRANSACTION OF THIS CHARACTER OR
IF CHANCERY DID IT FOR THEM, THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO DOUBT THAT THE
UNSCRAMBLING OF THE BUSINESS INTERESTS WOULD SATISFY THE SPIRIT OF THE
REGULATIONS.  NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY HUSBAND AND WIFE SHOULD BE
UNDER A HEAVIER HANDICAP ABSENT A STATUTE WHICH BRINGS ALL MARITAL
PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS UNDER THE GIFT TAX. 

WE ARE NOW ADVISED THAT SINCE SUBMISSION OF THE CASE ON OCTOBER 16,
1950, PETITIONER HAS DIED, AND THAT IT WILL TAKE SOME WEEKS BEFORE AN
ADMINISTRATOR OF HER ESTATE CAN BE APPOINTED.  ACCORDINGLY WE ENTER OUR
JUDGMENT AS OF OCTOBER 16, 1950, IN PURSUANCE OF THE PRACTICE OBTAINING
IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE MITCHELL V. OVERMAN, 103 U.S. 62, 64-65;
MCDONALD V. MAXWELL, 274 U.S. 91, 99.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 1002 OF 26 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  PROVIDES: "WHERE PROPERTY
IS TRANSFERRED FOR LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN
MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH, THEN THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER, BE DEEMED A GIFT, AND SHALL BE
INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF GIFTS MADE DURING THE CALENDAR
YEAR." 

FN2  SECTION 812 OF 26 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  PROVIDES:  "FOR THE PURPOSE
OF THE TAX THE VALUE OF THE NET ESTATE SHALL BE DETERMINED, IN THE CASE
OF A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY DEDUCTING FROM THE
VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE -  ...  (B) EXPENSES, LOSSES, INDEBTEDNESS,
AND TAXES.  SUCH AMOUNTS -  ...  (3) FOR CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE, (4)
FOR UNPAID MORTGAGES UPON, OR ANY INDEBTEDNESS IN RESPECT TO, PROPERTY
WHERE THE VALUE OF DECEDENT'S INTEREST THEREIN, UNDIMINISHED BY SUCH
MORTGAGE OR INDEBTEDNESS, IS INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE,
... AS ARE ALLOWED BY THE LAWS OF THE JURISDICTION, WHETHER WITHIN OR
WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES, UNDER WHICH THE ESTATE IS BEING
ADMINISTERED, BUT NOT INCLUDING ANY INCOME TAXES UPON INCOME RECEIVED
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT, OR PROPERTY TAXES NOT ACCRUED BEFORE
HIS DEATH, OR ANY ESTATE, SUCCESSION, LEGACY, OR INHERITANCE TAXES. 
THE DEDUCTION HEREIN ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE,
UNPAID MORTGAGES, OR ANY INDEBTEDNESS SHALL, WHEN FOUNDED UPON A
PROMISE OR AGREEMENT, BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WERE
CONTRACTED BONA FIDE AND FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN
MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH  ....  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBCHAPTER, A
RELINQUISHMENT OR PROMISED RELINQUISHMENT OF DOWER, CURTESY, OR OF A
STATUTORY ESTATE CREATED IN LIEU OF DOWER OR CURTESY, OR OF OTHER
MARITAL RIGHTS IN THE DECEDENT'S PROPERTY OR ESTATE, SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED TO ANY EXTENT A CONSIDERATION 'IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.'" 

FN3  SEE SEC. 812(B) SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN4  IBID. 

FN5  SEE SEC. 812(B) SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN6  AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE NEVADA COMPILED LAWS (SUPP. 1931
1941) SEC. 9463 PROVIDED:  "IN GRANTING A DIVORCE, THE COURT MAY AWARD
SUCH ALIMONY TO THE WIFE AND SHALL MAKE SUCH DISPOSITION OF THE
COMMUNITY AND SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE PARTIES AS SHALL APPEAR JUST AND
EQUITABLE, HAVING REGARD TO THE RESPECTIVE MERITS OF THE PARTIES AND TO
THE CONDITION IN WHICH THEY WILL BE LEFT BY SUCH DIVORCE, AND TO THE
PARTY THROUGH WHOM THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED, AND TO THE BURDENS, IF
ANY, IMPOSED UPON IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN...." 

FN7  SECTION 1000 OF 26 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  PROVIDES:  "(A)  FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 1940 AND EACH CALENDAR YEAR THEREAFTER A TAX, COMPUTED AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 1001, SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE TRANSFER DURING
SUCH CALENDAR YEAR BY ANY INDIVIDUAL, RESIDENT OR NONRESIDENT, OF
PROPERTY BY GIFT....  (B)  THE TAX SHALL APPLY WHETHER THE TRANSFER IS
IN TRUST OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER THE GIFT IS DIRECT OR INDIRECT, AND
WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE; BUT,
IN THE CASE OF A NONRESIDENT NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL
APPLY TO A TRANSFER ONLY IF THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES." 

FN8  SECTION 86.8 OF TREAS. REG. 108 PROVIDES:  "TRANSFERS REACHED BY
THE STATUTE ARE NOT CONFINED TO THOSE ONLY WHICH, BEING WITHOUT A
VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, ACCORD WITH THE COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF GIFTS,
BUT EMBRACE AS WELL SALES, EXCHANGES, AND OTHER DISPOSITIONS OF
PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE DONOR EXCEEDS THE
VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN THEREFOR.  HOWEVER, A SALE, EXCHANGE,
OR OTHER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS
(A TRANSACTION WHICH IS BONA FIDE, AT ARM'S LENGTH, AND FREE FROM ANY
DONATIVE INTENT), WILL BE CONSIDERED AS MADE FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  A CONSIDERATION NOT REDUCIBLE
TO A MONEY VALUE, AS LOVE AND AFFECTION, PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, ETC., IS
TO BE WHOLLY DISREGARDED, AND THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
TRANSFERRED CONSTITUTES THE AMOUNT OF THE GIFT."    MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE BURTON, AND MR.
JUSTICE MINTON, DISSENTING. 

"TRANSFERRED FOR LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY
OR MONEY'S WORTH."  47 STAT. 247, NOW I.R.C., SEC. 1002, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
1002.  IN MERRILL V. FAHS, 324 U.S. 308, THE COURT HELD THAT AN
ANTENUPTIAL SETTLEMENT IS SUBJECT TO THIS TAX.  FN1  BELIEVING AS I DO
THAT THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE BEFORE US LARGELY DEPENDS ON THE
WEIGHT GIVEN TO THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH THERE PREVAILED,
RECAPITULATION OF THEM IS APPROPRIATE.  THE COURT THERE BASED ITS
RESULT ON THE CONCLUSION THAT A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY PURSUANT TO AN
ANTENUPTIAL SETTLEMENT WAS NOT MADE IN EXCHANGE FOR "AN ADEQUATE AND
FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  THIS CONCLUSION WAS
REINFORCED BY READING INTO THE GIFT TAX PROVISION THE GLOSS OF THE
INTERRELATED ESTATE TAX OF THE SAME YEAR THAT THE RELINQUISHMENT OF
"MARITAL RIGHTS  ...  SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO ANY EXTENT A
CONSIDERATION 'IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.'"  REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC.
804, 47 STAT. 280, NOW I.R.C., SEC. 812(B), 26 U.S.C. SEC. 812(B). 

THE CASE BEFORE US CONCERNS NOT AN ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, BUT WHAT
THE TAX COURT CALLED A "PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT," CONTRACTED IN
ANTICIPATION OF DIVORCE.  EACH SPOUSE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY OF
SUBSTANTIAL VALUE TO THE OTHER AND EACH AGREED "TO RELEASE COMPLETELY
THE PROPERTY OF THE OTHER FROM ALL CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THEIR
MARRIAGE."  10 T.C. 741, 743. 

UNLESS WE ARE NOW TO SAY THAT A SETTLEMENT OF PROPERTY IN WINDING UP,
AS IT WERE, A MARRIAGE, SMACKS MORE OF A BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT THAN AN
ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF "AN
ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH" WHICH WE
FOUND WANTING IN MERRILL V. FAHS, AND UNLESS WE ARE FURTHER TO OVERRULE
MERRILL V. FAHS INSOFAR AS IT JOINED THE GIFT TAX AND THE ESTATE TAX OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SO AS TO INFUSE INTO THE GIFT TAX THE
EXPLICITNESS OF THE ESTATE TAX IN PRECLUDING THE SURRENDER OF MARITAL
RIGHTS FROM BEING DEEMED TO ANY EXTENT A CONSIDERATION "IN MONEY OR
MONEY'S WORTH," WE MUST HOLD THAT A SETTLEMENT OF PROPERTY SURRENDERING
MARITAL RIGHTS IN ANTICIPATION OF DIVORCE IS NOT MADE FOR "AN ADEQUATE
AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH." 

THE SAME YEAR THAT IT ENACTED THE GIFT TAX CONGRESS AMENDED THE
ESTATE TAX BY ADDING TO THE PROVISION THAT "ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION" WAS PREREQUISITE TO DEDUCTION OF "CLAIMS AGAINST THE
ESTATE" THE PHRASE, "WHEN FOUNDED UPON A PROMISE OR AGREEMENT." 
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC. 805, 47 STAT. 280, NOW I.R.C., SEC. 812(B),
26 U.S.C. SEC. 812(B).  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS
AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED NOT TO CHANGE THE LAW BUT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE
REQUIREMENT OF CONSIDERATION DID NOT PREVENT "DEDUCTION OF LIABILITIES
IMPOSED BY LAW OR ARISING OUT OF TORTS."  H.R. REP. NO. 708, 72D CONG.,
1ST SESS. 48; S. REP. NO. 665, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. 51.  A SIMILAR
PRINCIPLE IS IMPLICIT IN THE GIFT TAX.  BY ITS STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND
AUTHORITATIVE COMMENTARIES THEREON CONGRESS DID NOT LEAVE THE INCIDENCE
OF THE GIFT TAX AT LARGE BY ENTRUSTING ITS APPLICATION TO THE PLAY OF
SUBTLETIES NECESSARY TO FINDING A "DONATIVE INTENT."  COMMISSIONER V.
WEMYSS, 324 U.S. 303, 306.  BUT WHILE BY THE GIFT TAX CONGRESS MEANT
"TO HIT ALL THE PROTEAN ARRANGEMENTS WHICH THE WIT OF MAN CAN DEVISE
THAT ARE NOT BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS" TO THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING,
COMMISSIONER V. WEMYSS, IBID., A GIFT TAX IS AN EXACTION WHICH DOES
PRESUPPOSE THE VOLUNTARY TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND NOT A TRANSFER IN
OBEDIENCE TO LAW.  IN MERRILL V. FAHS, SUPRA, AT 313, WE STATED THAT
"TO INTERPRET THE SAME PHRASES IN THE TWO TAXES CONCERNING THE SAME
SUBJECT MATTER IN DIFFERENT WAYS WHERE OBVIOUS REASONS DO NOT COMPEL
DIVERGENT TREATMENT IS TO INTRODUCE ANOTHER AND NEEDLESS COMPLEXITY
INTO THIS ALREADY IRKSOME SITUATION."  APPLICATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE
WOULD REQUIRE THE COURT TO HOLD THAT SEC. 503 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932, I.R.C., SEC. 1002, IMPOSES A TAX ON "THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY (TRANSFERRED EXCEEDS) THE VALUE OF THE
CONSIDERATION" RECEIVED ONLY WHEN THE TRANSFER IS "FOUNDED UPON A
PROMISE OR AGREEMENT."  THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT CONTEST APPLICABILITY OF
THE PRINCIPLE; AND IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE IT MAY BE ASSUMED. 
FN2  TAXPAYER CONTENDS (1) THAT THE TRANSFERS IN THE SITUATION NOW
BEFORE US WERE OR MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FOR AN "ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH," AND (2) THAT THE COMMISSIONER
IMPOSED A LIABILITY WHICH WAS NOT "FOUNDED UPON A PROMISE OR
AGREEMENT."  HER POSITION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TAX COURT, 10 T.C. 741,
BUT REJECTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  178 F.2D
861. 

1.  I WOULD ADHERE TO THE VIEWS WE EXPRESSED IN THE WEMYSS AND
MERRILL DECISIONS AS TO THE MEANING TO BE GIVEN TO THE REQUIREMENT OF
"ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION" IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE GIFT TAX
"IN ORDER TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF TAX EXEMPTIONS."  324 U.S. AT 312. 
NOR WOULD I DEPART FROM THE CONCLUSION THERE REACHED THAT THE
RELINQUISHMENT OF MARITAL RIGHTS IS NOT TO BE DEEMED "MONEY OR MONEY'S
WORTH" BECAUSE THAT DEFINITION IN THE ESTATE TAX OF 1932 IS BY
IMPLICATION TO BE READ INTO THE GIFT TAX PASSED IN THE SAME YEAR. 

2.  BUT WAS THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY HERE IN CONTROVERSY "FOUNDED
UPON A PROMISE OR AGREEMENT"?  THE ANSWER REQUIRES RECITAL OF THE
GOVERNING FACTS OF THE CASE. 

TAXPAYER SEPARATED FROM HER HUSBAND IN AUGUST, 1942, AND SHORTLY
THEREAFTER BROUGHT SUIT IN NEVADA FOR DIVORCE.  ONE WEEK PRIOR TO ENTRY
OF THE DIVORCE DECREE, SHE AND HER HUSBAND ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT
"FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES HERETO AND OF REMOVING THE SUBJECT MATTER THEREOF FROM THE
FIELD OF LITIGATION."  AFTER PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY
AND THE RELEASE OF CLAIMS, THE AGREEMENT RECITED, 

"THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL, BUT
NEVERTHELESS THE COVENANTS IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL SURVIVE ANY DECREE
OF DIVORCE WHICH MAY BE ENTERED.  IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THIS
AGREEMENT THAT THE SETTLEMENT HEREIN PROVIDED FOR SHALL NOT BECOME
OPERATIVE IN ANY MANNER NOR SHALL ANY OF THE RECITALS OR COVENANTS
HEREIN BECOME BINDING UPON EITHER PARTY UNLESS A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE
DIVORCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES SHALL BE ENTERED IN THE PENDING NEVADA
ACTION.  THE SETTLEMENT HEREIN PROVIDED SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY
EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE IN THE EVENT OF AND UPON THE ENTRY OF A DECREE
OF DIVORCE BETWEEN SAID PARTIES IN SAID PENDING NEVADA ACTION.  THE
PARTIES HERETO, HOWEVER, SHALL PROCEED AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE TO
CARRY INTO EFFECT THE COVENANTS HEREIN, WHICH IT IS PROVIDED ARE TO BE
PERFORMED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE DECREE AS
AFORESAID." 

AFTER A HEARING AT WHICH BOTH PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED, THE COURT
GRANTED THE DIVORCE.  IT FOUND THAT CERTAIN TRANSFERS FROM THE WIFE TO
THE HUSBAND WERE "IN DISCHARGE OF A LEGAL OBLIGATION WHICH, BECAUSE OF
THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN IMPOSED" ON HER; AND CONCLUDED THAT
"THE AGREEMENT AND TRUST AGREEMENTS FORMING A PART THEREOF, MADE AND
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT UNDER DATE OF FEBRUARY
27TH, 1943 IS ENTITLED TO BE APPROVED."  THE DIVORCE DECREE "APPROVED"
THE AGREEMENT, DIRECTED PERFORMANCE OF TWO OF ITS PARAGRAPHS, AND
DECLARED, 

"NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPROVAL OF SAID AGREEMENT AND THE TRUST
AGREEMENTS FORMING A PART THEREOF BY THE COURT HEREIN, IT IS ORDERED
THAT SAID AGREEMENT AND SAID TRUST AGREEMENTS FORMING A PART THEREOF
SHALL SURVIVE THIS DECREE. 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT THE DECREE HEREIN
ENTERED IS ABSOLUTE AND FINAL IN ALL RESPECTS AND THE COURT HEREIN
DIVESTS ITSELF OF ALL POWER TO AMEND OR MODIFY THE SAME IN THE FUTURE
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF BOTH OF THE PARTIES HERETO." 

THE PARTIES EXECUTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE AND THE AGREEMENT,
AND THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED THE TAX IN QUESTION ON THE AMOUNT BY
WHICH THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE WIFE TO HER HUSBAND
EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY HIM TO HER. 

3.  SUCH BEING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WAS THE TRANSFER BY CORNELIA
HARRIS "FOUNDED UPON A PROMISE OR AGREEMENT"?  THE STATUTE DOES NOT SAY
FOUNDED "SOLELY UPON A PROMISE OR AGREEMENT."  THE STATUTE DOES NOT SAY
THAT THE TAX SHOULD NOT FALL ON "PROPERTY TRANSFERRED UNDER THE TERMS
OF A JUDGMENT OR DECREE OF THE COURT."  NOR IS THE PHRASE "FOUNDED UPON
AGREEMENT" A TECHNICAL TERM HAVING A WELL-KNOWN MEANING EITHER IN LAW
OR IN LITERATURE.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE TRANSFER MADE BY THE
TAXPAYER TO HER HUSBAND WAS, WITHIN THE FAIR MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE,
"FOUNDED" UPON HER AGREEMENT WITH HER HUSBAND.  DID THE NEVADA JUDGE IN
DECREEING THE DIVORCE DESCRIBE WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE HERE WHEN HE
SAID THAT ON THE "DATE OF FEBRUARY 27, 1943, THE PLAINTIFF AND
DEFENDANT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT AND TRUST AGREEMENTS FORMING A PART
THEREOF, UNDER THE TERMS OF WHICH THE PARTIES SETTLED ALL OBLIGATIONS
ARISING OUT OF THEIR MARRIAGE"? 

THE FACT THAT THE UNDERTAKINGS DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT WOULD COME
INTO FORCE ONLY ON THE OCCURRENCE OF A CONDITION, TO WIT, THE ENTERING
OF A DECREE OF DIVORCE, IS APPARENTLY REGARDED AS DECISIVE OF
TAXABILITY.  BUT DOES THIS MAKE ANY REAL DIFFERENCE?  THE TERMS OF THAT
DECREE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT; BUT
"NEVERTHELESS THE COVENANTS IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL SURVIVE ANY DECREE
OF DIVORCE WHICH MAY BE ENTERED."  IF THE DIVORCE COURT HAD DISAPPROVED
THE AGREEMENT AND HAD NOT DECREED THE TRANSFER OF ANY PROPERTY OF THE
WIFE TO HER HUSBAND, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW TRANSFERS WHICH SHE
MADE, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE COMPULSION OF THE AGREEMENT, WOULD BE
EFFECTED BY COURT DECREE AND FOR THAT REASON NOT SUBJECT TO TAX.  THE
CONDITION ON WHICH AN AGREEMENT COMES INTO FORCE DOES NOT SUPPLANT THE
AGREEMENT ANY MORE THAN A DEED IN ESCROW CEASES TO BE A DEED WHEN IT
COMES OUT OF ESCROW.  IN THE WEMYSS AND MERRILL CASES, WOULD THE GIFTS
HAVE BEEN ANY THE LESS FOUNDED UPON AN AGREEMENT IF, AS A CONDITION TO
THE ANTENUPTIAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THOSE CASES, THE CONSENT OF THE PARENTS
OF THE FIANCEE HAD BEEN MADE A CONDITION OF THE MARRIAGE?  NOR CAN
EXCLUDING THE TRANSFERS HERE INVOLVED FROM THE GIFT TAX BE MADE TENABLE
BY RESTING DECISION ON THE NARROWER GROUND THAT TO THE EXTENT THE
DIVORCE DECREE "APPROVED" THE AGREEMENT OR EMBODIED ITS PROVISIONS SO
AS TO MAKE THEM ENFORCEABLE BY CONTEMPT THE TRANSFERS WERE NOT "FOUNDED
UPON" THE AGREEMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  FN3  IF THE
TAXPAYER HAD BEEN SUED BY HER HUSBAND FOR THE SUMS SHE WAS OBLIGATED TO
TRANSFER TO HIM COULD HE NOT HAVE BROUGHT THE SUIT ON THE CONTRACT? 
FN4  EVEN THOUGH A PROMISE FOR WHICH INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN
HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT, A CLAIM BASED UPON IT HAS BEEN HELD NOT
DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE GROSS ESTATE AND THUS MUST HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO BE
"FOUNDED UPON A PROMISE."  MARKWELL'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 112 F.2D
253.  IF A TRANSFER DOES NOT CEASE TO BE "FOUNDED UPON A PROMISE" WHEN
THE PROMISE IS MERGED INTO A JUDGMENT, IS NOT A TRANSFER PURSUANT TO AN
AGREEMENT WHICH SURVIVES A RATIFYING DECREE A FORTIORI "FOUNDED UPON"
THAT AGREEMENT? 

JUDGE LEARNED HAND'S TREATMENT OF THIS MATTER IS SO HARD-HEADED AND
CONVINCING THAT IT WOULD BE IDLE TO PARAPHRASE HIS VIEWS. 

"IN SOME JURISDICTIONS CONTRACTS, MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF A DIVORCE,
ARE HELD TO PERSIST EX PROPRIO VIGORE AFTER THE DIVORCE DECREE HAS
INCORPORATED THEIR TERMS, AND HAS ADDED ITS SANCTIONS TO THOSE
AVAILABLE IN CONTRACT.  THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IS THE LAW OF NEW YORK,
WHERE THE CONTRACT REMAINS OBLIGATORY EVEN AFTER THE COURT HAS MODIFIED
THE ALLOWANCES WHICH IT ORIGINALLY ADOPTED; AND WHERE THE PROMISES WILL
BE THEREAFTER ENFORCED BY EXECUTION AND THE LIKE.  PERHAPS, THAT IS
ALSO THE LAW OF NEVADA, WHICH THE PARTIES PROVIDED SHOULD GOVERN 'ALL
MATTERS AFFECTING THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THE RIGHTS OF
THE PARTIES.'  BE THAT AS IT MAY, IN THE CASE AT BAR, THE NEVADA DECREE
HAVING DECLARED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS 'ENTITLED TO BE APPROVED,' THAT
INCLUDED THE PROVISION THAT ITS 'COVENANTS' SHOULD 'SURVIVE' AS WELL AS
ANY OF ITS OTHER STIPULATIONS.  THUS THE PAYMENTS MADE UNDER IT WERE
'FOUNDED' AS MUCH UPON THE 'PROMISE OR AGREEMENT' AS UPON THE DECREE;
INDEED, THEY WERE 'FOUNDED' UPON BOTH; THE PARTIES CHOSE TO SUBMIT
THEMSELVES TO TWO SANCTIONS - CONTEMPT UNDER THE DIVORCE COURT AND
EXECUTION UNDER THE CONTRACT.  THE PAYMENTS WERE THEREFORE SUBJECT TO
THE GIFT TAX."  178 F.2D 861, 865. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  THE MERRILL SETTLEMENT DID NOT INVOLVE RELEASE OF SUPPORT
RIGHTS.  NOR ARE THEY INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE US, FOR THE TRANSFER
HERE SOUGHT TO BE TAXED PASSED TO THE HUSBAND FROM THE WIFE, WHO WAS
UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HIM.  WE ARE, THEREFORE, NOT CONCERNED
HERE WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S VIEW THAT "TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
TRANSFERS ARE MADE IN SATISFACTION OF SUPPORT RIGHTS THE TRANSFERS ARE
HELD TO BE FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION."  E.T. 19, 1946-2
CUM. BULL.  166.  SEE 2 PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT TAXATION, SEC.
16.15.  BUT CF. MEYER'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 110 F.2D 367; HELVERING
V. UNITED STATES TRUST CO., 111 F.2D 576. 

FN2  WE THEREFORE NEED NOT PASS ON THE SUGGESTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
BRIEF THAT THE ESTATE AND GIFT TAX PROVISIONS SHOULD NOT IN THIS
INSTANCE BE READ IN PARI MATERIA BECAUSE THE INTERPRETATION OF A PHRASE
COMMON TO THE TWO STATUTES IS NOT INVOLVED.  NOR DO WE PASS ON THE
CONTENTION THAT UNDER BOTH GIFT AND ESTATE TAXES LIABILITY IS IMPOSED
ON TRANSFERS AND CLAIMS RESULTING FROM LOSS OF MARITAL RIGHTS EVEN WHEN
NO PROMISE OR AGREEMENT IS INVOLVED.    FN3  THE GROUND ADOPTED FOR
REVERSAL OF THE COURT BELOW IS IMPORTANT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE
CASE.  ON THE BROADER GROUND APPARENTLY EMPLOYED, NO GIFT TAX IS DUE. 
BUT IF THE NARROWER BASIS BE USED, IT IS PROBABLE THAT SOME LIABILITY
SHOULD BE IMPOSED.  ONE OF THE TRANSFERS REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT -
THE WIFE'S ASSUMPTION OF A $47,650 INDEBTEDNESS OF HER HUSBAND - WAS
NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE AND THEREFORE IS PRESUMABLY
ENFORCEABLE ONLY UNDER THE CONTRACT.  IF ENFORCEABILITY UNDER THE
DECREE IS THE CRITERION, A GIFT TAX IS DUE TO THE EXTENT THIS
INDEBTEDNESS IS REFLECTED IN THE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER
TO REPRESENT THE VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO RELEASE OF MARITAL RIGHTS. 

FN4  IN NONE OF THE TWELVE JURISDICTIONS IN WHICH DECISIONS IN POINT
HAVE BEEN FOUND HAS IT BEEN HELD THAT A SUIT COULD NOT BE BROUGHT ON
THE CONTRACT IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT BEFORE US.  IN FOUR STATES
ACTIONS MAY APPARENTLY BE BROUGHT SUBSEQUENT TO DIVORCE ON PRIOR
SEPARATION AGREEMENTS WHICH ARE CONSTRUED TO CONTEMPLATE SURVIVAL EVEN
THOUGH THE DIVORCE DECREE DIRECTS DIFFERENT PAYMENTS THAN THE
AGREEMENT.  SEE SEUSS V. SCHUKAT, 358 ILL. 27, 36, 192 N.E. 668, 672;
FREEMAN V. SIEVE, 323 MASS. 652, 84 N.E.2D 16; GOLDMAN V. GOLDMAN, 282
N.Y. 296, 301, 26 N.E.2D 265, 267; HOLAHAN V. HOLAHAN, 77 N.Y.S.2D 339;
MOBLEY V. MOBLEY, 221 S.W.2D 565(TEX.  CIV.  APP.).  IN THREE STATES
SUCH SUITS MAY BE BROUGHT AT LEAST WHERE THE DECREE IS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE AGREEMENT AND DOES NOT INDICATE AN INTENTION TO TERMINATE IT.
SEE HEINSOHN V. CHANDLER, 23 DEL. CH. 114, 2 A.2D 120; COE V. COE, 71
A.2D 514(MAINE); ALLEN V. ALLEN, 196 OKLA. 36, 162 P.2D 193.  IN FIVE
OTHERS IT APPEARS THAT ACTIONS ON THE CONTRACT WILL LIE EXCEPT WHEN THE
AGREEMENT IS RECITED IN THE DECREE SO AS TO BE ENFORCEABLE BY CONTEMPT;
BUT IN NONE OF THE CASES REFUSING TO PERMIT A SUIT ON THE CONTRACT DID
THE DECREE OR THE AGREEMENT DIRECT SURVIVAL.  SEE HOUGH V. HOUGH, 26
CAL.2D 605, 160 P.2D 15; MCWILLIAMS V. MCWILLIAMS, 110 COLO. 173, 132
P.2D 966; HERTZ V. HERTZ, 136 MINN. 188, 161 N.W. 402; CORBIN V.
MATHEWS, 129 N.J. EQ. 549, 19 A.2D 633; MENDELSON V. MENDELSON, 123
OHIO ST. 11, 173 N.E. 615.  SEE LINDEY, SEPARATION AGREEMENTS AND ANTE
NUPTIAL CONTRACTS, 389-395; NOTE, CONTROL OF POST-DIVORCE LEVEL OF
SUPPORT BY PRIOR AGREEMENT, 63 HARV. L. REV. 337.  SCHACHT V. SCHACHT,
295 N.Y. 439, 68 N.E.2D 433, RELIED ON BY PETITIONER, HELD ONLY THAT A
DETERMINATION BY THE DIVORCE COURT OF THE FAIRNESS OF A SEPARATION
AGREEMENT WAS RES JUDICATA IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT TO SET THE AGREEMENT
ASIDE FOR FRAUD.  THE ISSUE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DETERMINED IN
NEVADA, WHERE THE AGREEMENT HERE INVOLVED WAS MADE AND THE DIVORCE
ENTERED. 
..END :














SNYDER V. BUCK, 340 U.S. 15 


NO. 64.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1950.  - 85
U.S. APP. D.C. 428, 179 F.2D 466, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AGAINST RESPONDENT IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY, PETITIONER OBTAINED
A JUDGMENT DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO PAY HER THE DEATH GRATUITY PROVIDED
BY 34 U.S.C. SEC. 943 FOR THE WIDOW OF A MEMBER OF THE NAVAL SERVICE. 
AFTER RESPONDENT HAD RETIRED AND HIS SUCCESSOR HAD TAKEN OFFICE, AN
APPEAL WAS TAKEN IN RESPONDENT'S NAME.  SIX MONTHS HAVING ELAPSED SINCE
RESPONDENT'S RETIREMENT WITHOUT ANY EFFORT BEING MADE TO HAVE
RESPONDENT'S SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY, THE COURT OF
APPEALS RULED THAT THE ACTION HAD ABATED; AND IT VACATED THE JUDGMENT
AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS
THE COMPLAINT.  HELD:  THIS WAS A PROPER APPLICATION OF SEC. 11(A) OF
THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, 43 STAT. 936.  PP. 16-22. 

(A)  SECTION 11(A) OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925 MADE SURVIVAL OF THE
ACTION DEPENDENT ON A TIMELY SUBSTITUTION.  P. 19. 

(B)  THIS WAS A DECLARED POLICY OF CONGRESS NOT TO BE ALTERED BY AN
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES OR BY SOME THEORY OF ESTOPPEL.  P. 19. 

(C)  THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 11(A) DID NOT TURN ON WHETHER THE
JUDGMENT RENDERED PRIOR TO THE DEATH OR RESIGNATION OF THE OFFICIAL WAS
FOR OR AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.  P. 19. 

(D)  SECTION 11(A) IS NOT LIMITED TO ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST
OFFICIALS FOR REMEDIES WHICH COULD NOT BE OBTAINED IN DIRECT SUITS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  P. 20. 

(E)  AN ACTION IS NONETHELESS PENDING WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
11(A) THOUGH AN APPEAL IS BEING SOUGHT - EVEN WHEN, AS IN THIS CASE,
THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN AFTER THE RETIREMENT OF THE OFFICIAL AND THEREFORE
WITHOUT AUTHORITY.  PP. 20-21. 

(F)  SINCE THE SUIT HAD ABATED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THERE WAS NO
WAY OF SUBSTITUTING THE SUCCESSOR ON REMAND OF THE PRESENT CASE. 
THEREFORE, VACATING THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS THE PROPER
PROCEDURE FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 21. 

2.  SINCE THE ABSENCE OF A NECESSARY PARTY AND THE STATUTORY BARRIER
TO SUBSTITUTION "INVOLVE JURISDICTION," 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2105 DID NOT
PROHIBIT THIS COURT'S REVIEW OF THE RULING BELOW ON ABATEMENT.  PP. 21
22. 

SNYDER V. BUCK, PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

NO SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES HAVING BEEN MADE UNDER SEC. 11(A) OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, 43 STAT. 936, WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER HIS
RETIREMENT, THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED A JUDGMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY.  85 U.S.
APP. D.C. 428, 179 F.2D 466.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S.
951.  AFFIRMED, P. 22. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A DEATH GRATUITY UNDER THE
ACT OF JUNE 4, 1920, 41 STAT. 824, AS AMENDED, 34 U.S.C. SEC. 943,
CLAIMING AS THE WIDOW OF A MEMBER OF THE NAVAL SERVICE.  RESPONDENT,
THE DEFENDANT IN THE SUIT, WAS PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY.  THE
RELIEF ASKED WAS MANDAMUS TO COMPEL HIM TO PAY THE WIDOW'S ALLOWANCE. 
THE DISTRICT COURT HELD FOR PETITIONER, ORDERING RESPONDENT TO PAY HER
THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWANCE.  75 F.SUPP.  902.  THAT JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED JANUARY 30, 1948.  ON MARCH 18, 1948, NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS
FILED IN THE NAME OF REAR ADMIRAL W.A. BUCK, PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE
NAVY.  ON MARCH 1, 1948, HOWEVER, BUCK HAD BEEN RETIRED AND REAR
ADMIRAL EDWIN D. FOSTER HAD SUCCEEDED HIM IN THE OFFICE. 

PROVIDED THAT "  ...  WHERE, DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN ACTION  ...
BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES  ... AND RELATING
TO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES, SUCH OFFICER
DIES, RESIGNS, OR OTHERWISE CEASES TO HOLD SUCH OFFICE, IT SHALL BE
COMPETENT FOR THE COURT WHEREIN THE ACTION, SUIT, OR PROCEEDING IS
PENDING, WHETHER THE COURT BE ONE OF FIRST INSTANCE OR AN APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, TO PERMIT THE CAUSE TO BE CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED BY OR
AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE OF SUCH OFFICER, IF WITHIN SIX MONTHS
AFTER HIS DEATH OR SEPARATION FROM THE OFFICE IT BE SATISFACTORILY
SHOWN TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR SO CONTINUING
AND MAINTAINING THE CAUSE AND OBTAINING AN ADJUDICATION OF THE
QUESTIONS INVOLVED."  FN1 

NEITHER PARTY MADE ANY EFFORT WITHIN THE SIX MONTHS PERIOD  FN2  TO
HAVE BUCK'S SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE SUBSTITUTED FOR HIM.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS THEREFORE RULED THAT THE ACTION HAD ABATED; IT THEN VACATED THE
JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS
TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  85 U.S. APP. D.C. 428, 179 F.2D 466. 

THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE MAKES NO CLAIM AGAINST BUCK PERSONALLY. 
THEREFORE WE PUT TO ONE SIDE CASES SUCH AS PATTON V. BRADY, 184 U.S.
608, DEALING WITH ACTIONS IN ASSUMPSIT AGAINST COLLECTORS FOR TAXES
ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED.  THE WRIT THAT ISSUED AGAINST BUCK RELATED TO A
DUTY ATTACHING TO THE OFFICE.  THE DUTY EXISTED SO LONG AND ONLY SO
LONG AS THE OFFICE WAS HELD.  WHEN BUCK RETIRED FROM OFFICE, HIS POWER
TO PERFORM CEASED.  HE NO LONGER HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER DEATH GRATUITY
ALLOWANCES.  MOREOVER, HIS SUCCESSOR MIGHT ON DEMAND RECOGNIZE THE
CLAIM ASSERTED AND DISCHARGE HIS DUTY.  FOR THESE REASONS IT WAS HELD
THAT IN ABSENCE OF A STATUTE AN ACTION AIMED AT COMPELLING AN OFFICIAL
TO DISCHARGE HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES ABATED WHERE THE OFFICIAL DIED OR
RETIRED FROM THE OFFICE.  FN3  SEE SECRETARY V. MCGARRAHAN, 9 WALL. 
298, 313; UNITED STATES V. BOUTWELL, 17 WALL.  604, 607-608; WARNER
VALLEY STOCK CO. V. SMITH, 165 U.S. 28, 31; UNITED STATES EX REL.
BERNARDIN V. BUTTERWORTH, 169 U.S. 600. 

CONGRESS CHANGED THE RULE.  IT PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 8,
1899, 30 STAT. 822, THAT NO ACTION BY OR AGAINST A FEDERAL OFFICER IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY OR IN RELATION TO THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL
DUTIES SHOULD ABATE BECAUSE OF HIS DEATH OR RESIGNATION; AND IT
PROVIDED A PERIOD IN WHICH SUBSTITUTION COULD BE MADE.  FN4  SEE
LECRONE V. MCADOO, 253 U.S. 217; H.R. REP. NO. 960, 55TH CONG., 2D
SESS. 

THE RULE WAS AGAIN CHANGED BY SEC. 11 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925. 
THE PROVISION THAT NO ACTION SHOULD ABATE WAS ELIMINATED.  IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT THE ACTION MIGHT BE CONTINUED AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR ON
THE REQUISITE SHOWING WITHIN THE STATED PERIOD.  THE REVISION EFFECTED
A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.  THE 1925 ACT MADE SURVIVAL OF THE ACTION
DEPENDENT ON A TIMELY SUBSTITUTION.  DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORP. V. LAWRENCE
CO., 336 U.S. 631, 637-638.  AND SEE EX PARTE LA PRADE, 289 U.S. 444,
456.  THUS, WHERE THERE WAS A FAILURE TO MOVE FOR SUBSTITUTION WITHIN
THE STATUTORY PERIOD, THE JUDGMENT BELOW WAS VACATED AND THE CAUSE WAS
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS "TO DISMISS THE CAUSE AS ABATED."  FN5  UNITED
STATES EX REL. CLAUSSEN V. CURRAN, 276 U.S. 590, 591; MATHEUS V. UNITED
STATES EX REL. CUNNINGHAM, 282 U.S. 802.  THIS WAS A DECLARED POLICY OF
CONGRESS NOT TO BE ALTERED BY AN AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES  FN6  OR BY
SOME THEORY OF ESTOPPEL.  NOR DID THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 11 TURN ON
WHETHER THE JUDGMENT RENDERED PRIOR TO THE DEATH OR RESIGNATION OF THE
OFFICIAL WAS FOR OR AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.  THE INABILITY OF ONE WHO NO
LONGER HOLDS THE OFFICE TO PERFORM ANY OF THE OFFICIAL DUTIES WOULD
INDEED ONLY BE EMPHASIZED BY THE RENDITION OF THE COERCIVE JUDGMENT. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT SEC. 11 SHOULD BE READ AS COVERING ONLY THOSE
"ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST OFFICIALS FOR REMEDIES WHICH COULD NOT BE GOT
IN A DIRECT SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES."  SUCH A READING REQUIRES
MORE THAN A TAILORING OF THE ACT; IT REQUIRES A FULL ALTERATION. 
OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  AND RELATING TO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE
DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES."  MANY ACTIONS AGAINST AN OFFICIAL
RELATING TO THE "DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES" WOULD IN SUBSTANCE
BE SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  IF THE RULE OF ABATEMENT AND
SUBSTITUTION IS TO BE ALTERED IN THE MANNER SUGGESTED, THE AMENDING
PROCESS IS AVAILABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

ACTION.  BUT AN ACTION IS NONETHELESS PENDING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
HICKS, 66 F.2D 497, 499; UNITED STATES EX REL. TRINLER V. CARUSI, 168
F.2D 1014), AS WAS IMPLICIT IN MATHEUS V. UNITED STATES EX REL.
CUNNINGHAM, SUPRA.  FOR IN THAT CASE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENIED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
WHILE THE CASE WAS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE TIME EXPIRED FOR
SUBSTITUTING THE SUCCESSOR OF THE CUSTODIAN AGAINST WHOM THE PRISONER
HAD BROUGHT THE ACTION.  YET, AS NOTED ABOVE, THE COURT APPLIED SEC.
11, VACATED THE JUDGMENTS, AND ORDERED THE PROCEEDING DISMISSED AS
ABATED. 

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT
THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN BY BUCK AFTER HIS RETIREMENT AND THEREFORE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY.  THE JUDGMENT CONCERNED THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES
FOR WHICH BUCK WAS NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE.  HENCE HE WAS NOT IN POSITION
TO OBTAIN A REVIEW OF IT.  SEE DAVIS V. PRESTON, 280 U.S. 406.  IN THE
DAVIS CASE THIS COURT DISMISSED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE
DONE NO MORE IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE DAVIS
CASE WAS A SUIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL AGENT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, IN WHICH A JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED AGAINST
HIM.  AN ACT OF CONGRESS MADE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR SUBSTITUTION IN
THOSE CASES.  FN7  THE COURT, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THIS STATUTE DID NOT
AFFECT IN ANY MANNER THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  BUT
THAT ACT PRESERVED THOSE JUDGMENTS AGAINST ABATEMENT BY REASON OF THE
DEATH OR RETIREMENT OF THE FEDERAL AGENT AND ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION AT
ANY TIME BEFORE SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT.  THEREFORE, ON REMAND OF
THE CAUSE IN THE DAVIS CASE THE SUCCESSOR FEDERAL AGENT COULD BE
SUBSTITUTED AND THE JUDGMENT ENFORCED AGAINST HIM.  ON REMAND OF THE
PRESENT CAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO WAY OF SUBSTITUTING THE SUCCESSOR, AS
THE SUIT HAD ABATED IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  VACATING THE JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS THEREFORE THE PROPER PROCEDURE. 

NOR IS THERE ANY BARRIER TO OUR REVIEW OF THIS RULING ON ABATEMENT BY
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2105 WHICH PROHIBITS A REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
OR THIS COURT FOR ERROR IN RULING UPON MATTERS IN ABATEMENT "WHICH DO
NOT INVOLVE JURISDICTION."  THE ABSENCE OF A NECESSARY PARTY AND THE
STATUTORY BARRIER TO SUBSTITUTION GO TO JURISDICTION. 

PETITIONER LOSES HER JUDGMENT AND MUST START OVER.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  RULE 19(4) OF THE RULES OF THIS COURT PROVIDES THAT IN SUCH
CASES "THE MATTER OF ABATEMENT AND SUBSTITUTION IS COVERED BY SECTION
11 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925.  UNDER THAT SECTION A SUBSTITUTION
OF THE SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE MAY BE EFFECTED ONLY WHERE A SATISFACTORY
SHOWING IS MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DEATH OR SEPARATION FROM
OFFICE." 

FN2  THIS SECTION WAS REPEALED AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, 62 STAT. 992,
1000.  IT IS ARGUED THAT, SINCE THAT DATE WAS THE DATE ON WHICH THE 6
MONTHS STATUTORY PERIOD FOR SUBSTITUTION IN THIS CASE EXPIRED AND SINCE
THE REPEALING ACT PRESERVED ANY RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES EXISTING UNDER
ANY OF THE REPEALED LAWS (ID., 992), SEC. 11 GOVERNS THIS CASE.  WE
NEED NOT REACH THE EFFECT OF THE REPEALING ACT.  FOR THE COURT OF
APPEALS DURING THE PERIOD MATERIAL TO OUR PROBLEM HAD IN FORCE ITS RULE
28(B) WHICH PROVIDED THAT ABATEMENT AND SUBSTITUTION WERE GOVERNED BY
SEC. 11 OF THE 1925 ACT. 

RULE 25(D), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOW PROVIDES:  "WHEN AN OFFICER
OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE CANAL ZONE, A
TERRITORY, AN INSULAR POSSESSION, A STATE, COUNTY, CITY, OR OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, IS A PARTY TO AN ACTION AND DURING ITS PENDENCY
DIES, RESIGNS, OR OTHERWISE CEASES TO HOLD OFFICE, THE ACTION MAY BE
CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED BY OR AGAINST HIS SUCCESSOR, IF WITHIN 6
MONTHS AFTER THE SUCCESSOR TAKES OFFICE IT IS SATISFACTORILY SHOWN TO
THE COURT THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR SO CONTINUING AND
MAINTAINING IT.  SUBSTITUTION PURSUANT TO THIS RULE MAY BE MADE WHEN IT
IS SHOWN BY SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING THAT THE SUCCESSOR OF AN OFFICER
ADOPTS OR CONTINUES OR THREATENS TO ADOPT OR CONTINUE THE ACTION OF HIS
PREDECESSOR IN ENFORCING A LAW AVERRED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  BEFORE A SUBSTITUTION IS MADE, THE
PARTY OR OFFICER TO BE AFFECTED, UNLESS EXPRESSLY ASSENTING THERETO,
SHALL BE GIVEN REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION THEREFOR AND
ACCORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT." 

FN3  AN EXCEPTION WAS A SUIT TO ENFORCE AN OBLIGATION OF THE
CORPORATION OR MUNICIPALITY TO WHICH THE OFFICE WAS ATTACHED.  SEE
THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 103 U.S. 480, 483, AS EXPLAINED IN UNITED
STATES EX REL. BERNARDIN V. BUTTERWORTH, SUPRA, P. 603, AND IN MURPHY
V. UTTER, 186 U.S. 95, 101-102. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 5, INFRA. 

FN5  UNDER THE EARLIER ACT THE PASSAGE OF THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH
SUBSTITUTION COULD BE MADE RESULTED IN THE PROCEEDING BEING "AT AN
END."  LECRONE V. MCADOO, SUPRA, P. 219.  THE PRACTICE OF THIS COURT
WAS THEREFORE TO DISMISS THE WRIT, LEAVING UNDISTURBED THE JUDGMENTS
BELOW.  LECRONE V. MCADOO, SUPRA; UNITED STATES EX REL. WATTIS V. LANE,
255 U.S. 566; PAYNE V. INDUSTRIAL BOARD, 258 U.S. 613; PAYNE V.
STEVENS, 260 U.S. 705. 

FN6  IN UNITED STATES EX REL. CLAUSSEN V. CURRAN, SUPRA, AND MATHEUS
V. UNITED STATES EX REL. CUNNINGHAM, SUPRA, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL HAD
EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS FOR THE SUCCESSOR TO BE SUBSTITUTED THOUGH THE
STATUTORY PERIOD HAD EXPIRED. 

FN7  THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1923, 42 STAT. 1443, PROVIDED IN PART:
"THAT SECTION 206 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, IS AMENDED BY ADDING
AT THE END THEREOF TWO NEW SUBDIVISIONS TO READ AS FOLLOWS:  '(H)
ACTIONS, SUITS, PROCEEDINGS, AND REPARATION CLAIMS, OF THE CHARACTER
DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (A), (C), OR (D), PROPERLY COMMENCED WITHIN
THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED, AND PENDING AT THE TIME THIS
SUBDIVISION TAKES EFFECT, SHALL NOT ABATE BY REASON OF THE DEATH,
EXPIRATION OF TERM OF OFFICE, RETIREMENT, RESIGNATION, OR REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS OR THE AGENT DESIGNATED
UNDER SUBDIVISION (A), BUT MAY (DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PREVENT THE ABATEMENT OF CERTAIN ACTIONS," APPROVED
FEBRUARY 8, 1899), BE PROSECUTED TO FINAL JUDGMENT, DECREE, OR AWARD,
SUBSTITUTING AT ANY TIME BEFORE SATISFACTION OF SUCH FINAL JUDGMENT,
DECREE, OR AWARD THE AGENT DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT THEN IN
OFFICE.'" 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

NATURAL PROFESSIONAL INTEREST IN TRYING TO DISENTANGLE THE LEGAL
SNARL PRESENTED BY THIS CASE WOULD NOT JUSTIFY ME IN ENLARGING MY
DISSENT FROM THE COURT'S VIEWS.  BUT THE STATE OF THE LAW REGARDING
LITIGATION BROUGHT FORMALLY AGAINST AN OFFICIAL BUT INTRINSICALLY
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS SO COMPOUNDED OF CONFUSION AND
ARTIFICIALITIES THAT AN ANALYSIS DIFFERING FROM THE COURT'S MAY NOT BE
FUTILE.    AT THE OUTSET IT IS DESIRABLE TO DISPEL A MISCONCEPTION
REGARDING THE LEGISLATION ON ABATEMENT OF SUITS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 
IN 1899, CONGRESS FOR THE FIRST TIME MADE PROVISION FOR THE CONTINUANCE
OF A SUIT INVOLVING OFFICIAL CONDUCT WHICH ABATED BY A SUCCESSION IN
OFFICE DURING PENDENCY OF THE SUIT.  30 STAT. 822.  BY SEC. 11 OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, CONGRESS AGAIN DEALT WITH THIS PROBLEM.  43
STAT. 936, 941.  THE COURT FINDS THAT THE PROVISION OF THE 1925 ACT
"EFFECTED A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE."  IT DOES THIS ON THE BASIS OF THE
ANALYSIS OF THE FIRST ENACTMENT MADE IN DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORP. V.
LAWRENCE WAREHOUSE CO., 336 U.S. 631, 637-638.  ACCORDING TO WHAT WAS
THERE SAID, THE ACT OF 1899 HAD A CATEGORICAL COMMAND THAT "NO ACTION
SHALL ABATE," WHICH WAS ELIMINATED IN 1925.  SO TO INTERPRET THE
RELATION BETWEEN THE 1899 AND THE 1925 PROVISIONS IS TO MISREAD
LEGISLATION BY QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT AND DISREGARDING AUTHORITATIVE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE LEGAL EFFECT UPON THE PENDENCY OF AN ACTION
DUE TO CHANGE IN THE OCCUPANCY OF AN OFFICE, A READING OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE 1899 AND 1925 ACTS CAN LEAVE NOT A SHADOW OF DOUBT AS
TO THEIR IDENTITY OF PURPOSE AND PROCEDURE FOR ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT.  THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ACTS IS A MATTER OF ENGLISH AND NOT OF LAW. 
IN BOTH, CONGRESS ASSUMED THAT A PROCEEDING BY OR AGAINST AN OFFICER OF
THE UNITED STATES IN RELATION TO HIS OFFICIAL CONDUCT WOULD ABATE
UNLESS WITHIN A TIME CERTAIN THE COURT AUTHORIZED CONTINUANCE OF THE
PROCEEDING BY OR AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE.  ONLY THE PHRASING OF
THIS RULE DIFFERS.  IN THE 1899 ACT, CONGRESS SAID THAT SUCH AN ACTION
SHALL ABATE UNLESS LEAVE IS GIVEN FOR ITS CONTINUANCE; IN THE 1925 ACT,
CONGRESS SAID THAT UNLESS LEAVE IS GIVEN FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF SUCH A
SUIT IT IS AT AN END.  TO SAY, AS WE SAID IN DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORP. V.
LAWRENCE WAREHOUSE CO., THAT THE 1899 ACT "CATEGORICALLY" PROVIDED THAT
"NO ACTION SHALL ABATE" IS A MUTILATING READING.  THE DOMINANT THOUGHT
OF AN ENACTMENT CONTROLS THE PRIMARY IMPORT OF ISOLATED WORDS.  TO FIND
THAT THE 1925 ACT "ELIMINATED" THIS PROVISION HAS SIGNIFICANCE ONLY IF
WHAT IS MEANT IS THAT CERTAIN WORDS OF THE 1899 ACT WERE "ELIMINATED"
WHILE THE THOUGHT WAS RETAINED.  THE FULL TEXTS OF THE TWO PROVISIONS,
SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN, SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.  FN1  WHAT EMERGES IS
THAT THE TWO ENACTMENTS HAVE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME FUNCTION REGARDING
THE ABATEMENT AND MECHANISM FOR SECURING SURVIVAL OF AN ACTION BY OR
AGAINST AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT
THE THOUGHT IS EXPRESSED MORE FELICITOUSLY IN THE LATER ENACTMENT, AS
WOULD BE EXPECTED FROM MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, WHO, AS IS WELL KNOWN,
WAS THE CHIEF DRAFTSMAN OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925. 

THE RANGE OF THE 1899 ACT WAS CHANGED IN 1925, WHICH MAY HAVE
STIMULATED ITS REDRAFTING.  THE CHANGE CONCERNED NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST
THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES TO PENDING SUITS WHERE THE OCCUPANCY OF AN
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES WAS INVOLVED.  THE ONLY MODIFICATION MADE
BY THE 1925 ACT, APART FROM CUTTING DOWN THE TIME FOR SUBSTITUTION TO
SIX MONTHS FROM TWELVE, WAS TO EXTEND THE ACT OF 1899 SO AS TO PERMIT
THE SUBSTITUTION OF SUCCESSORS OF STATE AND LOCAL OFFICERS AS WELL AS
THOSE OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORIES OF THE 1899 AND
1925 ENACTMENTS, CONFIRMING THE FACE OF THE LEGISLATION, DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE TWO ENACTMENTS WERE CONCEIVED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, WERE
INTENDED TO HAVE THE SAME CONSEQUENCES, AND ARE TO BE GIVEN THE SAME
SIGNIFICANCE, EXCEPTING ONLY THAT THE 1925 ACT EXTENDED THE RANGE OF
APPLICABILITY. 

THE ACT OF 1899 WAS A RESPONSE TO THIS COURT'S SUGGESTION.  SEE
UNITED STATES EX REL. BERNARDIN V. BUTTERWORTH, 169 U.S. 600, 605.  FN2
THIS WAS LIKEWISE TRUE OF THE ACT OF 1925.  SEE IRWIN V. WRIGHT, 258
U.S. 219, 223-224.  FN3  THE OPINION IN THAT CASE WAS RENDERED ON MARCH
20, 1922, BUT WHILE IT WAS IN THE BOSOM OF THE COURT, HAVING BEEN
SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 24, CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT SENT TO SENATOR CUMMINS A
RESUME OF WHAT WAS KNOWN AS THE "JUDGES' BILL," WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF
1925.  AS TO THE MATTER HERE UNDER DISCUSSION, THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID
THAT THE PROPOSED BILL "EXTENDS THE RIGHT NOW GIVEN BY STATUTE, TO
SUBSTITUTE THE SUCCESSORS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
WHERE THE LATTER HAVE DIED, RESIGNED, OR OTHERWISE VACATED THEIR
OFFICES PENDING SUIT, SO AS TO EMBRACE THE SUCCESSORS OF OFFICERS OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE CANAL ZONE, AND THE TERRITORIES AND
INSULAR POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS WELL AS OF A STATE OR
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR AGENCY THEREOF."  CONFIDENTIAL COMMITTEE PRINT
ENTITLED "JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND OF THE SUPREME
COURT," SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 67TH CONG., 2D SESS. 4.  THE
FORMULATION OF WHAT WAS THUS SUMMARIZED BY CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT IS THE
PRESENT SEC. 11, AND THAT FORMULATION WAS IN THE JUDGES' BILL FROM THE
TIME IT WAS INTRODUCED IN THE TWO HOUSES BY SENATOR CUMMINS AND
CONGRESSMAN WALSH, RESPECTIVELY, ON FEBRUARY 17, 1922.  FN4 

THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RESULT IN DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORP. V. LAWRENCE
WAREHOUSE CO., SUPRA, DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE MISCONCEIVED RELATION
INDICATED IN ITS OPINION.  BUT IT OUGHT NOT TO FORM A PART OF THE CHAIN
OF REASONING IN DISPOSING OF THIS CASE.  THEREFORE, INSOFAR AS SEC. 11
OF THE ACT OF 1925  FN5  IS RELEVANT TO OUR PRESENT PROBLEM, WE MUST
REJECT THE NOTION THAT, WHILE UNDER THE 1899 ACT SUCH AN ACTION AS
THIS, BROUGHT AGAINST PAYMASTER GENERAL BUCK, "DID NOT ABATE," THE 1925
ACT ELIMINATED THIS "COMMAND." 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  THE PETITIONER
CLAIMS TO BE THE LAWFUL WIDOW OF A NAVAL OFFICER.  SHE BROUGHT THIS
ACTION TO RECOVER A DEATH GRATUITY ALLOWANCE, AMOUNTING TO $1,365,
PAYABLE UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 4, 1920.  41 STAT. 824, AS AMENDED, 34
U.S.C. SEC. 943.  JURISDICTION WAS ALLEGED UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, 24
STAT. 505, AS AMENDED, AND OTHER STATUTES.  NOMINALLY, THE ACTION WAS
FOR MANDAMUS TO COMPEL BUCK, THE PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY, TO MAKE
PAYMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO GRANT RELIEF BY MANDAMUS, BUT,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH MODERN PRACTICE, GRANTED WHAT IT THOUGHT TO BE THE
PROPER REMEDY.  THE JUDGMENT, AFTER ENJOINING BUCK FROM PERSISTING IN
HIS REFUSAL TO MAKE PAYMENT, CONCLUDED:  "  ...  AND THE DEFENDANT IS
DIRECTED TO PAY THE PLAINTIFF THIRTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE DOLLARS
($1,365.00) WHICH IS THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO SIX MONTHS' PAY AT THE RATE
RECEIVED BY THE DECEASED AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH." 

THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON JANUARY 30, 1948.  ADMIRAL
BUCK WAS RETIRED AS PAYMASTER GENERAL ON MARCH 1.  NOTICE OF APPEAL
WAS, NEVERTHELESS, FILED IN HIS NAME BY GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS ON MARCH
18.  THE ISSUE OF ABATEMENT WAS NOT RAISED UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT
ATTORNEY CALLED THE FACT OF BUCK'S RETIREMENT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS UPON ORAL ARGUMENT, WHICH OCCURRED AFTER THE SIX-MONTH
PERIOD FOR SUBSTITUTION HAD PASSED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS
THE COMPLAINT AS ABATED. 

1.  I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THIS WAS NOT A PERSONAL ACTION
AGAINST ADMIRAL BUCK, AND THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT AGAINST HIM AS AN
INDIVIDUAL.  THAT SUITS AGAINST A COLLECTOR OF REVENUE FOR ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS ARE DEEMED PERSONAL ACTIONS
ENFORCEABLE AS SUCH AGAINST THE COLLECTOR IS AN ANOMALOUS SITUATION IN
OUR LAW WHICH CALLS FOR ABROGATION INSTEAD OF EXTENSION.  FOR THE
HISTORY OF THESE ACTIONS, SEE CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236, AND UNITED
STATES V. NUNNALLY INVESTMENT CO., 316 U.S. 258.  FN6 

2.  THE STARTING POINT, THEN, IS RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THIS
WAS A SUIT TO SECURE A MONEY CLAIM DUE FROM THE UNITED STATES, ENFORCED
AGAINST THE OFFICER WHO WAS THE EFFECTIVE CONDUIT FOR ITS PAYMENT.  IN
SHORT, THIS WAS A REPRESENTATIVE SUIT, AND THE CRUCIAL QUESTION, I
SUBMIT, IS THE REACH OF THE REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OF THE SUIT. 

THE INTRINSIC AND NOT MERELY FORMALISTIC ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS
OF COURSE ENTANGLED WITH THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM
SUITS.  IN SCORES OF CASES THIS COURT HAS HAD TO CONSIDER WHEN A SUIT,
THOUGH NOMINALLY AGAINST ONE HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE, IS IN FACT A SUIT
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND AS SUCH BARRED BY WANT OF THE SOVEREIGN'S
CONSENT TO BE SUED.  SEE LARSON V. DOMESTIC & FOREIGN COMMERCE CORP.,
337 U.S. 682, APP. 729.  THE SUBJECT, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED, IS NOT
FREE FROM CASUISTRY BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL, EVEN IF UNCONSCIOUS,
PRESSURE TO ESCAPE FROM THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WHICH -
WHATEVER ITS HISTORIC BASIS - IS HARDLY A DOCTRINE BASED UPON MORAL
CONSIDERATIONS.  THE TREND OF DEEP SENTIMENT, REFLECTED BY LEGISLATION
AND ADJUDICATION, HAS LOOKED ASKANCE AT THE DOCTRINE.  SEE KEIFER &
KEIFER V. R.F.C., 306 U.S. 381, 390-392.  IF ASTUTENESS HAS BEEN
EXERCISED TO DENY THE REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OF AN OFFICIAL IN ORDER
TO AVOID HIS IDENTIFICATION AS THE SOVEREIGN AD HOC, IT RUNS COUNTER TO
THE RATIONAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE NOT TO FIND AN OFFICIAL THE
SOVEREIGN AD HOC AND THE SUIT AGAINST HIM, IN EFFECT, A SUIT AGAINST
THE SOVEREIGN WHEN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS NOT CIRCUMSCRIBED THEREBY. 

UNDER THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT, 12 STAT. 765, AS AMENDED, THE
PLAINTIFF HERE COULD HAVE GONE TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  FN7  BY THE ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1887, 24 STAT. 505, AS AMENDED, SHE COULD HAVE BROUGHT SUIT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  WHEN THE SOVEREIGN HAS IN FACT GIVEN CONSENT
FORMALLY TO BE SUED AS SUCH ON THE VERY CLAIM AND TO ALLOW, IN THE SAME
COURT AND BY THE SAME PROCEDURE (TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY), PRECISELY THE
SAME RELIEF AS WAS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED AGAINST THE OFFICIAL IN HIS
REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY, IT WOULD NEEDLESSLY ENTHRONE FORMALITY TO DENY
THE INTRINSIC NATURE OF THE SUIT TO BE A SUIT AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN. 
AND THAT IS THIS SITUATION.  CERTAINLY THOSE CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF
DEFENDING THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES SO CONCEIVED IT.  BY
DENOMINATING ADMIRAL BUCK AS "PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY" IN HIS
NOTICE OF APPEAL, THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY RECOGNIZED THAT PAYMASTER
GENERAL BUCK WAS, AS IT WERE, MERELY AN ALIAS FOR THE UNITED STATES,
THE REAL CLIENT OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.  THE GOVERNMENT, INDEED,
HAS CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED THAT JUSTICE DOES NOT CALL FOR ABATEMENT OF
THE SUIT.  BOTH HERE AND BELOW IT HAS DISAVOWED A DESIRE FOR
ABATEMENT.  OF COURSE, IF IT WERE A FIXED RULE OF LAW THAT A SUIT SUCH
AS THIS SHOULD DIE WHEN THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT DIES, THE COURT WOULD
HAVE TO BOW TO IT, HOWEVER HARSH AND FUTILE THE RULE.  IT REQUIRED
LEGISLATION REPRESENTED BY LORD CAMPBELL'S ACT TO MAKE TORT LIABILITY
SURVIVE THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM.  BUT IT IS NOT THE CONTROLLING POLICY
OF THE LAW THAT SUCH ACTIONS DIE UPON CHANGE OF OFFICE-HOLDERS.  THE
POLICY OF THE LAW IS TO THE CONTRARY, EVEN AS TO SUITS WHICH COULD NOT
BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY.  SO ALSO, IT HAS LONG BEEN
THE POLICY OF OUR LAW TO LOOK BEHIND AN OFFICE-HOLDER NOMINALLY A PARTY
LITIGANT IN ORDER TO FIND THAT, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IT IS A
SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND THEREFORE NOT MAINTAINABLE.  JUSTICE
SHOULD BE EQUALLY OPEN-EYED IN ORDER TO FIND BEHIND THE NOMINAL
OFFICIAL DEFENDANT THE UNITED STATES AS THE REAL DEFENDANT. 

THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE SPIRIT OF THE DECISION IN THOMPSON V.
UNITED STATES, 103 U.S. 480.  TO BE SURE, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY THERE
DIFFERENTIATED HIS IDENTIFICATION OF AN OFFICER OF A MUNICIPALITY WITH
THE MUNICIPALITY FROM THE SITUATION OF AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES
BECAUSE NORMALLY THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT BE SUED.  BUT WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT DOES ALLOW ITSELF TO BE SUED FOR THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR WHICH SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM WHO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
LITIGATION IS THE UNITED STATES, THE REASON FOR THE DIFFERENTIATION
DISAPPEARS. 

THE DIFFERENTIATION REMAINS IN ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST OFFICIALS FOR
REMEDIES WHICH COULD NOT BE GOT IN A DIRECT SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  THESE ARE THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH SUBSTITUTION CANNOT COME
INTO PLAY AUTOMATICALLY AND INVOLVE RECOURSE TO THE REMEDIAL
LEGISLATION OF 1899 AND 1925 IN THEIR PRESENT FORM.  THIS GIVES AMPLE
SCOPE TO THE LEGISLATION AND AT THE SAME TIME AVOIDS TREATING
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AS TYRANNICAL COMMANDS SATISFYING NO OTHER END
EXCEPT STERILE FORMALITY. 

ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IS IN EFFECT A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND WOULD
ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL THE FORCE IT WAS INTENDED TO
HAVE AS AN EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT WHEREBY THE UNITED STATES MIGHT OBTAIN
A REVIEW OF THAT JUDGMENT.  IT WOULD BE NOTHING NOVEL IN THE OBSERVANCE
OF DECOROUS FORM BY COURTS TO NOTE AS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE NAME
OF THE PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY IS NOW FOX AND TO PROCEED WITH THE
APPEAL ON THAT BASIS.  FN8 

A FINAL QUESTION HAS TO BE FACED - A QUESTION WHICH SHOULD, IN LOGIC,
HAVE BEEN TREATED FIRST, FOR IT CONCERNS THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO
DECIDE THE CASE.  SECTION 2105 OF 28 U.S.C. PROVIDES: "THERE SHALL BE
NO REVERSAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OR A COURT OF APPEALS FOR ERROR IN
RULING UPON MATTERS IN ABATEMENT WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE JURISDICTION."  I
AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THIS STATUTE IS NOT APPLICABLE, BUT NOT ON
THE GROUND THAT LACK OF SUBSTITUTION IS A QUESTION OF "JURISDICTION." 
IN ABATEMENT, WHICH WAS MADE IN THE TRIAL COURT BEFORE ISSUE WAS JOINED
ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE.  FN9  IT CAN HAVE NO EFFECT UPON A DECISION
BY AN APPELLATE COURT THAT A SUIT HAS ABATED.    FN1  CHAPTER 121 OF
THE LAWS OF 1899, 30 STAT. 822, PROVIDED:  "  ...  THAT NO SUIT,
ACTION, OR OTHER PROCEEDING LAWFULLY COMMENCED BY OR AGAINST THE HEAD
OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR BUREAU OR OTHER OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, OR IN RELATION TO THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL
DUTIES, SHALL ABATE BY REASON OF HIS DEATH, OR THE EXPIRATION OF HIS
TERM OF OFFICE, OR HIS RETIREMENT, OR RESIGNATION, OR REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE, BUT, IN SUCH EVENT, THE COURT, ON MOTION OR SUPPLEMENTAL
PETITION FILED, AT ANY TIME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS THEREAFTER, SHOWING A
NECESSITY FOR THE SURVIVAL THEREOF TO OBTAIN A SETTLEMENT OF THE
QUESTIONS INVOLVED, MAY ALLOW THE SAME TO BE MAINTAINED BY OR AGAINST
HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE, AND THE COURT MAY MAKE SUCH ORDER AS SHALL BE
EQUITABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF COSTS." 

PROVIDED: 

"(A)  THAT WHERE, DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN ACTION, SUIT, OR OTHER
PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR THE CANAL ZONE, OR OF A TERRITORY OR AN
INSULAR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF A COUNTY, CITY, OR OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OF SUCH TERRITORY OR INSULAR POSSESSION, AND
RELATING TO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES,
SUCH OFFICER DIES, RESIGNS, OR OTHERWISE CEASES TO HOLD SUCH OFFICE, IT
SHALL BE COMPETENT FOR THE COURT WHEREIN THE ACTION, SUIT, OR
PROCEEDING IS PENDING, WHETHER THE COURT BE ONE OF FIRST INSTANCE OR AN
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, TO PERMIT THE CAUSE TO BE CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED
BY OR AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE OF SUCH OFFICER, IF WITHIN SIX
MONTHS AFTER HIS DEATH OR SEPARATION FROM THE OFFICE IT BE
SATISFACTORILY SHOWN TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR
SO CONTINUING AND MAINTAINING THE CAUSE AND OBTAINING AN ADJUDICATION
OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 

"(B)  SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS MAY BE HAD AND TAKEN WHERE AN ACTION, SUIT,
OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST AN OFFICER OF A STATE, OR OF A
COUNTY, CITY, OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OF A STATE, IS PENDING IN A
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE OFFICER'S DEATH OR
SEPARATION FROM THE OFFICE. 

"(C)  BEFORE A SUBSTITUTION UNDER THIS SECTION IS MADE, THE PARTY OR
OFFICER TO BE AFFECTED, UNLESS EXPRESSLY CONSENTING THERETO, MUST BE
GIVEN REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION THEREFOR AND ACCORDED AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY OBJECTION WHICH HE MAY HAVE." 

FN2 "IN VIEW OF THE INCONVENIENCE, OF WHICH THE PRESENT CASE IS A
STRIKING INSTANCE, OCCASIONED BY THIS STATE OF THE LAW, IT WOULD SEEM
DESIRABLE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE DIFFICULTY BY ENACTING
THAT, IN THE CASE OF SUITS AGAINST THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS ABATING BY
DEATH OR RESIGNATION, IT SHOULD BE LAWFUL FOR THE SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE
TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE CASE BY PETITION, OR SOME OTHER APPROPRIATE
METHOD." 

FN3  "IT MAY NOT BE IMPROPER TO SAY THAT IT WOULD PROMOTE JUSTICE IF
CONGRESS WERE TO ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 8, 1899, SO
AS TO PERMIT THE SUBSTITUTION OF SUCCESSORS FOR STATE OFFICERS SUING OR
SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHO CEASE TO BE OFFICERS BY RETIREMENT OR
DEATH, UPON A SUFFICIENT SHOWING IN PROPER CASES.  UNDER THE PRESENT
STATE OF THE LAW, AN IMPORTANT LITIGATION MAY BE BEGUN AND CARRIED
THROUGH TO THIS COURT AFTER MUCH EFFORT AND EXPENSE, ONLY TO END IN
DISMISSAL BECAUSE, IN THE NECESSARY TIME CONSUMED IN REACHING HERE,
STATE OFFICIALS, PARTIES TO THE ACTION, HAVE RETIRED FROM OFFICE.  IT
IS A DEFECT WHICH ONLY LEGISLATION CAN CURE."  CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT USED
IRWIN V. WRIGHT AS AN ILLUSTRATION IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON MARCH 30, 1922.  HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 10479, 67TH CONG., 2D SESS. 7. 

FN4 SEE 62 CONG. REC. 2686, 2737.  THE LANGUAGE CONCERNING ABATEMENT
WAS THE SAME IN THE BILLS INTRODUCED IN 1922(S. 3164 AND H.R. 10479,
67TH CONG., 2D SESS.), IN THE BILLS INTRODUCED BY SENATOR CUMMINS AND
CONGRESSMAN GRAHAM, RESPECTIVELY, IN 1924(S. 2060 AND H.R. 8206, 68TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.) AND IN THE STATUTE AS ENACTED, 43 STAT. 936, 941. 

I AM PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISCONCEPTION OF FINDING A
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE BETWEEN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 1899 ACT AND THE
1925 ACT BECAUSE I JOINED IN DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORP. V. LAWRENCE
WAREHOUSE CO., 336 U.S. 631.  IT IS NOT BY WAY OF EXTENUATING MY
RESPONSIBILITY THAT I DEEM IT PERTINENT TO SUGGEST THAT THE NATURE AND
VOLUME OF THE COURT'S BUSINESS PRECLUDE EXAMINATION OF ALL THE JUDICIAL
AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS OF ALL OPINIONS IN WHICH ONE CONCURS.  IN
ORDER THAT THE ENERGIES OF THE COURT MAY BE CONCENTRATED ON THOSE CASES
FOR WHICH ADJUDICATION BY THIS COURT IS INDISPENSABLE, I HAVE BEEN
INSISTENT IN MY VIEW THAT THE COURT SHOULD BE RIGOROUS IN LIMITING THE
CASES WHICH IT WILL ALLOW TO COME HERE.  THAT IT MAY SO CONTROL ITS
BUSINESS, THE CONGRESS, BY THE ACT OF 1925, GAVE THE COURT - FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES - A FREE HAND.  SEE EX PARTE PERU, 318 U.S. 578, 602
604. 

FN5  SECTION 11 OF THE 1925 JUDICIARY ACT, 43 STAT. 936, 941, WAS
REPEALED AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1948.  62 STAT. 992, 1000.  THE REPEALING
ACT, HOWEVER, PRESERVED ANY RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES EXISTING UNDER THE
LAWS REPEALED.  62 STAT. 869, 992.  SINCE THE SIX-MONTH STATUTORY
PERIOD WITHIN WHICH SUBSTITUTION CAN BE MADE EXPIRED ON SEPTEMBER 1,
1948, THE REPEAL OF SEC. 11 DOES NOT AFFECT THE CASE AT BAR.  ABATEMENT
OF ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST OFFICIALS IS NOW GOVERNED, IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS, BY RULE 25(D) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH
ALSO PROVIDES A SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR SUBSTITUTION. 

FN6  THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF COLLECTORS HAVE
NECESSITATED SPECIAL LEGISLATION.  SEE I.R.C., SEC. 3770(B), 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 3770(B), R.S. SEC. 3220, AS AMENDED (AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE
COLLECTORS), AND I.R.C., SEC. 3772(D), 26 U.S.C. SEC. 3772(D), 56 STAT.
956.  (SUITS AGAINST COLLECTORS ARE TREATED AS SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES FOR PURPOSES OF RES JUDICATA.) 

FN7  CAMPBELL V. UNITED STATES, 80 CT. CL. 836; HILL V. UNITED
STATES, 68 CT. CL. 740; MAXWELL V. UNITED STATES, 68 CT. CL. 727;
THOMSON V. UNITED STATES, 58 CT. CL. 207; PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 49
CT. CL. 703. 

FN8  DAVIS V. PRESTON, 280 U.S. 406, WAS A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OF 1908, 35 STAT. 65, BROUGHT TO RECOVER FOR
THE DEATH OF A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE OCCURRING WHILE THE RAILROAD WAS BEING
OPERATED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL.  THE COURT HELD A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI INEFFECTIVE WHEN TAKEN IN THE NAME OF AN AGENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT WHO HAD RETIRED FROM OFFICE.  A STATUTE THERE APPLICABLE,
HOWEVER, REQUIRED THAT THE UNITED STATES CONDUCT THE LITIGATION IN THE
NAME OF A SPECIAL AGENT.  41 STAT. 461.  THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT
IN THE CASE AT BAR, FOR SUIT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES ITSELF.  SINCE THIS IS TRUE, THE COURT CAN SCARCELY REFUSE TO
GIVE EFFECT TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS
IN THE NAME OF BUCK AS PAYMASTER GENERAL. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER DISCUSSED ONLY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
APPEAL, FOR THE COURT WAS FACED WITH NO PROBLEM OF ABATEMENT.  CONGRESS
HAD MADE CLEAR ITS POLICY OF PROTECTING SUITORS AGAINST THE PITFALLS OF
ABATEMENT BY PASSING THE WINSLOW ACT, 42 STAT.  1443, TO MAKE CERTAIN
THAT THE 1899 STATUTE WOULD NOT PREVENT RECOVERY FOR PERSONS INJURED OR
KILLED DURING THE GOVERNMENT OPERATION OF THE RAILROADS.  THIS STATUTE
ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF A SUCCESSOR AGENT AT "ANY TIME BEFORE
SATISFACTION OF SUCH FINAL JUDGMENT, DECREE, OR AWARD."  THE BROAD
LEGISLATIVE POLICY REFLECTED IN THE WINSLOW ACT POINTS TO A RELIANCE
UPON SUBSTANCE, RATHER THAN FORM, IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

FN9  THE PREDECESSOR SECTION, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  879, R.S.
SEC. 1011, AS AMENDED, PROVIDED: 

"THERE SHALL BE NO REVERSAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OR IN A CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS UPON A WRIT OF ERROR, FOR ERROR IN RULING ANY PLEA IN
ABATEMENT, OTHER THAN A PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, OR FOR
ANY ERROR IN FACT." 


"  ...  BUT THERE SHALL BE NO REVERSAL IN EITHER COURT (I.E., THE
CIRCUIT COURT OR SUPREME COURT) ON SUCH WRIT OF ERROR FOR ERROR IN
RULING ANY PLEA IN ABATEMENT, OTHER THAN A PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT, OR SUCH PLEA TO A PETITION OR BILL IN EQUITY, AS IS IN THE
NATURE OF A DEMURRER, OR FOR ANY ERROR IN FACT.  ...  " 

THE REVISER'S NOTE TO SEC. 2105 INDICATES THAT "MATTERS IN ABATEMENT"
WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR "PLEA IN ABATEMENT" BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN
TERMINOLOGY UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

SINCE THE DUTY SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED IN THIS ACTION ATTACHED TO THE
OFFICE OF PAYMASTER GENERAL AND RESTED UPON ADMIRAL BUCK ONLY SO LONG
AS HE HELD THE OFFICE, IT IS CLEAR THAT PETITIONER'S CLAIM IS AGAINST
BUCK IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY, NOT PERSONALLY.  AFTER HIS
RETIREMENT IT WAS NOT WITHIN HIS POWER TO COMPLY WITH THE DISTRICT
COURT'S INJUNCTION, AND THE JUDGMENT CEASED TO BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST
HIM.  FN1  CONSEQUENTLY BUCK LACKED STANDING TO OBTAIN REVIEW OF THE
JUDGMENT ON APPEAL.  FN2  THUS FAR I AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE
COURT. 

BUT I THINK THAT WHEN THE ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT CALLED TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS' ATTENTION - AFTER THIS SUIT HAD BEEN PENDING THERE
FOR MORE THAN A YEAR - THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN BY BUCK AFTER HIS
RETIREMENT AND THAT NO APPEAL HAD BEEN PERFECTED BY OR ON BEHALF OF HIS
SUCCESSOR, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON ITS OWN
MOTION.  FN3  THAT IS THE ACTION WHICH THIS COURT TOOK IN DAVIS V.
PRESTON, 280 U.S. 406(1930), WHEN REVIEW HAD BEEN ALLOWED AT THE
INSTANCE OF A FEDERAL OFFICER WHO, IT LATER APPEARED, BECAUSE OF
SEPARATION FROM OFFICE HAD NOT HAD STANDING TO PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  A UNANIMOUS COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED, STATING: 

"A MOTION IS NOW MADE BY ANDREW W. MELLON, AS FEDERAL AGENT, FOR HIS
SUBSTITUTION IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IN THE PLACE OF DAVIS.  BUT THE
MOTION MUST BE DENIED.  THE SUCCESSION IN OFFICE, AS NOW APPEARS,
OCCURRED BEFORE THERE WAS ANY EFFORT TO OBTAIN A REVIEW IN THIS COURT. 
AFTER THE SUCCESSION DAVIS WAS COMPLETELY SEPARATED FROM THE OFFICE AND
WITHOUT RIGHT TO INVOKE SUCH A REVIEW  ...  THEREFORE HIS PETITION MUST
BE DISREGARDED.  THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SUCH A REVIEW MAY BE INVOKED IS
LIMITED BY STATUTE AND THAT TIME HAS LONG SINCE EXPIRED.  TO GRANT THE
MOTION IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE TO PUT ASIDE THE STATUTORY
LIMITATION AND TO SUBJECT THE PARTY PREVAILING IN THE (COURT BELOW) TO
UNCERTAINTY AND VEXATION WHICH THE LIMITATION IS INTENDED TO PREVENT." 
ID. AT 408.  FN4 

THIS COURT NOW CONCLUDES THAT DAVIS V. PRESTON IS INAPPOSITE BECAUSE
IN THAT CASE, UNLIKE THE SITUATION BEFORE US, APPLICABLE LEGISLATION
PREVENTED ABATEMENT OF THE SUIT AGAINST DAVIS FOLLOWING HIS SEPARATION
FROM OFFICE.  BUT THE POINT MADE IN THE DAVIS CASE WAS SIMPLY THAT THE
SUCCESSION IN OFFICE HAD PRECEDED DAVIS' EFFORT TO OBTAIN REVIEW BY
THIS COURT AND PERTINENT STATUTES DID NOT ENABLE THE FORMER FEDERAL
OFFICER TO INVOKE REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT WHICH WAS OF NO LEGAL CONCERN TO
HIM.  AND IN THIS CASE SINCE AN APPEAL WAS NOT PROPERLY TAKEN WITHIN
THE TIME ALLOWED, IT DOES NOT MATTER AT THIS TIME WHETHER THE DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT COULD BE ENFORCED BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST BUCK'S SUCCESSOR,
BY SUBSTITUTION OF THE LATTER AS DEFENDANT OR BY OTHER ACTION.  FN5 

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT THAT THE FAILURE OF THE APPELLEE TO
SUBSTITUTE THE JUDGMENT DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSOR UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925 EXCUSES THE GOVERNMENT'S PRIOR FAILURE TO PERFECT
A VALID APPEAL FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE OF ITS OFFICERS.  IN
SHORT, THE COURT PLACES ON AN APPELLEE THE BURDEN OF CORRECTING HIS
ADVERSARY'S ERROR.  FROM THIS RESULT I DISSENT. 

FN1  CF. COMMISSIONERS V. SELLEW, 99 U.S. 624, 627(1879); UNITED
STATES EX REL. EMANUEL V. JAEGER, 117 F.2D 483, 488(C.A.2D CIR. 1941). 

FN2  DAVIS V. PRESTON, 280 U.S. 406(1930). 

FN3  IN RE MICHIGAN-OHIO BLDG. CORP., 117 F.2D 191(C.A.7TH CIR.
1941); UNITED PORTO RICAN SUGAR CO. V. SALDANA, 80 F.2D 13(C.A. 1ST
CIR. 1935). 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE 73(1946) WHICH PROVIDED AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  ...  WHEN AN APPEAL IS PERMITTED BY LAW FROM A DISTRICT COURT
TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE TIME WITHIN WHICH AN APPEAL MAY BE
TAKEN SHALL BE 30 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM
UNLESS A SHORTER TIME IS PROVIDED BY LAW, EXCEPT THAT IN ANY ACTION IN
WHICH THE UNITED STATES OR AN OFFICER OR AGENCY THEREOF IS A PARTY THE
TIME AS TO ALL PARTIES SHALL BE 60 DAYS FROM SUCH ENTRY, AND EXCEPT
THAT UPON A SHOWING OF EXCUSABLE NEGLECT BASED ON A FAILURE OF A PARTY
TO LEARN OF THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT THE DISTRICT COURT IN ANY ACTION
MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR APPEAL NOT EXCEEDING 30 DAYS FROM THE
EXPIRATION OF THE ORIGINAL TIME HEREIN PRESCRIBED.  ... 

"A PARTY MAY APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT BY FILING WITH THE DISTRICT COURT
A NOTICE OF APPEAL.  FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO TAKE ANY OF THE
FURTHER STEPS TO SECURE THE REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM DOES
NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE APPEAL  ... 

"(B)  ...  THE NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL SPECIFY THE PARTIES TAKING THE
APPEAL  ...  "    IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNDER FEDERAL RULE 73 TIMELY
AND PROPER NOTICE OF APPEAL GOES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, UNITED DRUG CO. V. HELVERING, 108 F.2D 637(C.A.2D CIR. 1940);
LAMB V. SHASTA OIL CO., 149 F.2D 729(C.A.5TH CIR. 1945); MARTEN V.
HESS, 176 F.2D 834(C.A.6TH CIR. 1949); TINKOFF V. WEST PUB. CO., 138
F.2D 607(C.A.7TH CIR. 1943); ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL V. MELIN, 172 F.2D
532(C.A.8TH CIR. 1949); SPENGLER V. HUGHES TOOL CO., 169 F.2D 166(C.A.
10TH CIR. 1948); WALLECK V. HUDSPETH, 128 F.2D 343(C.A. 10TH CIR.
1942); SEE MALONEY V. SPENCER, 170 F.2D 231, 233(C.A.9TH CIR. 1948);
AND THAT THIS REQUIREMENT CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH BY WAIVER OR CONSENT
OF THE PARTIES.  SEE LAMB V. SHASTA OIL CO., SUPRA, AT 730; MARTEN V.
HESS, SUPRA, AT 835; ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL V. MELIN, SUPRA, AT 533. 
COMPARE CRUMP V. HILL, 104 F.2D 36(C.A.5TH CIR. 1939) WITH PIASCIK V.
TRADER NAVIGATION CO., 178 F.2D 886(C.A.2D CIR. 1949). 

FN4  ACCORD, NUDELMAN V. GLOBE VARNISH CO., 312 U.S. 690(1941). 

FN5  IT SEEMS THAT PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT BE WITHOUT A REMEDY WHICH
WOULD GIVE LIFE TO HER JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION AGAINST A FEDERAL OFFICER WHO AT THE TIME OF JUDGMENT HAD
FULL AUTHORITY IN THE PREMISES.  IN SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V.
ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 402-403(1940), THE COURT SAID:  "THERE IS PRIVITY
BETWEEN OFFICERS OF THE SAME GOVERNMENT SO THAT A JUDGMENT IN A SUIT
BETWEEN A PARTY AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES IS RES
JUDICATA IN RELITIGATION OF THE SAME ISSUE BETWEEN THAT PARTY AND
ANOTHER OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT.  SEE TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY.
CO., 289 U.S. 620.  THE CRUCIAL POINT IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE EARLIER
LITIGATION THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES HAD AUTHORITY TO
REPRESENT ITS INTERESTS IN A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN
CONTROVERSY." 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. MUNSINGWEAR, 340 U.S. 36 


NOS. 23 AND 24.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1950. 
- 178 F.2D 204, AFFIRMED. 


THE UNITED STATES SUED RESPONDENT FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF A PRICE
FIXING REGULATION, SEEKING, IN SEPARATE COUNTS, (1) AN INJUNCTION AND
(2) TREBLE DAMAGES.  BY AGREEMENT, THE SECOND COUNT WAS HELD IN
ABEYANCE PENDING TRIAL AND FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT FOR AN
INJUNCTION.  HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT'S PRICES COMPLIED WITH THE
REGULATION, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  WHILE AN
APPEAL WAS PENDING THE COMMODITY INVOLVED WAS DECONTROLLED, AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR MOOTNESS.  THE UNITED STATES
ACQUIESCED IN THE DISMISSAL AND MADE NO MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT. 
THE DISTRICT COURT THEN DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES ON THE
GROUND THAT THE MATTER WAS RES JUDICATA.  HELD:  THE DISMISSAL IS
SUSTAINED.  PP. 37-41. 

(A)  THE ISSUES AND THE PARTIES BEING THE SAME IN BOTH SUITS, THE
DISTRICT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION BOTH OVER THE PARTIES AND THE
SUBJECT MATTER, AND ITS JUDGMENT IN THE INJUNCTION SUIT REMAINING
UNMODIFIED, THE CASE FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA. 
SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 1.  PP. 37-38. 

(B)  THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF MOOTNESS AND THE
DEPRIVATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF ANY REVIEW OF THE CASE IN THE COURT
OF APPEALS DOES NOT WARRANT AN EXCEPTION TO THE ESTABLISHED RULE, EVEN
THOUGH THE UNITED STATES HAD A STATUTORY RIGHT TO REVIEW IN THE COURT
OF APPEALS.  PP. 38-41. 

(C)  THE UNITED STATES COULD HAVE PROTECTED ITS RIGHTS BY MOVING IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND WITH A
DIRECTION TO DISMISS.  HAVING SLEPT ON ITS RIGHTS BY FAILING TO DO SO,
IT CANNOT OBTAIN RELIEF IN THIS COURT.  PP. 39-41. 

UNITED STATES V. MUNSINGWEAR, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSING AS RES JUDICATA A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES FOR VIOLATION OF
A PRICE REGULATION.  178 F.2D 204.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339
U.S. 941.  AFFIRMED, P. 41. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES FILED A COMPLAINT ON TWO COUNTS AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT, ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF A REGULATION FIXING THE MAXIMUM
PRICE OF COMMODITIES WHICH RESPONDENT SOLD.  THE FIRST COUNT PRAYED FOR
AN INJUNCTION, THE SECOND SOUGHT TREBLE DAMAGES.  BY AGREEMENT AND A
PRETRIAL ORDER, THE SECOND COUNT WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING TRIAL AND
FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION.  THE SAME PROCEDURE
WAS FOLLOWED AS RESPECTS ANOTHER SUIT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES RAISING THE
SAME ISSUES AND COVERING A LATER PERIOD.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
RESPONDENT'S PRICES COMPLIED WITH THE REGULATION.  ACCORDINGLY IT
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  63 F.SUPP.  933.  THE UNITED STATES APPEALED
FROM THAT JUDGMENT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WHILE THE APPEAL WAS
PENDING THE COMMODITY INVOLVED WAS DECONTROLLED.  RESPONDENT THEN MOVED
TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE HAD BECOME MOOT.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED THE MOTION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR
MOOTNESS.  162 F.2D 125. 

RESPONDENT THEN MOVED IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO DISMISS THE TREBLE
DAMAGE ACTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNREVERSED JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THE INJUNCTION SUIT WAS RES JUDICATA OF THOSE OTHER
ACTIONS.  THIS MOTION WAS GRANTED, THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTING THE
TREBLE DAMAGE ACTIONS TO BE DISMISSED.  ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS,
BY A DIVIDED VOTE, AFFIRMED.  178 F.2D 204. 

THE CONTROVERSY IN EACH OF THE SUITS CONCERNED THE PROPER PRICING
FORMULA APPLICABLE TO RESPONDENT'S COMMODITIES UNDER THE MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION.  THAT QUESTION WAS IN ISSUE AND DETERMINED IN THE
INJUNCTION SUIT.  THE PARTIES WERE THE SAME BOTH IN THAT SUIT AND IN
THE SUITS FOR TREBLE DAMAGES.  THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THE INJUNCTION SUIT HAD JURISDICTION BOTH OVER THE
PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER.  AND ITS JUDGMENT REMAINS UNMODIFIED. 
WE START THEN WITH A CASE WHICH FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE CLASSIC
STATEMENT OF THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 1, 48-49: 

"THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED IN NUMEROUS CASES IS THAT A RIGHT,
QUESTION OR FACT DISTINCTLY PUT IN ISSUE AND DIRECTLY DETERMINED BY A
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, AS A GROUND OF RECOVERY, CANNOT BE
DISPUTED IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES OR THEIR
PRIVIES; AND EVEN IF THE SECOND SUIT IS FOR A DIFFERENT CAUSE OF
ACTION, THE RIGHT, QUESTION OR FACT ONCE SO DETERMINED MUST, AS BETWEEN
THE SAME PARTIES OR THEIR PRIVIES, BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVELY
ESTABLISHED, SO LONG AS THE JUDGMENT IN THE FIRST SUIT REMAINS
UNMODIFIED." 

AND SEE CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, 94 U.S. 351, 352; COMMISSIONER V.
SUNNEN, 333 U.S. 591, 597-598.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD
SOLD THE COMMODITIES IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL REGULATION, HAVING
BEEN DETERMINED IN THE FIRST SUIT, IS THEREFORE LAID AT REST BY A
PRINCIPLE WHICH SEEKS TO BRING LITIGATION TO AN END AND PROMOTE
CERTAINTY IN LEGAL RELATIONS. 

THAT IS THE RESULT UNLESS THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND
OF MOOTNESS AND THE DEPRIVATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF ANY REVIEW OF
THE CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS WARRANT AN EXCEPTION TO THE
ESTABLISHED RULE. 

THE ABSENCE OF A RIGHT TO APPEAL WAS HELD IN JOHNSON CO. V. WHARTON,
152 U.S. 252, TO MAKE NO DIFFERENCE, THE DETERMINATION IN THE FIRST
SUIT BEING BINDING IN A SECOND SUIT ON A DIFFERENT CLAIM.  PETITIONER
ARGUES THAT THAT CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE HERE CONGRESS PROVIDED
AN APPEAL.  IT CONTENDS THAT IF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IS TO BE PROTECTED,
THE RIGORS OF RES JUDICATA MUST BE ALLEVIATED.  CONCEDEDLY THE JUDGMENT
IN THE FIRST SUIT WOULD BE BINDING IN THE SUBSEQUENT ONES IF AN APPEAL,
THOUGH AVAILABLE, HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN OR PERFECTED.  WILSON'S EXECUTOR
V. DEEN, 121 U.S. 525; HUBBELL V. UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 203.  BUT IT
IS SAID THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM OBTAINING THE REVIEW TO
WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS IF THERE HAD BEEN A
REVIEW.  THAT IS THE ARGUMENT.  THE HARDSHIP OF A CONTRARY RULE IS
PRESENTED.  ESTOPPEL IS URGED.  AND AUTHORITIES ARE ADVANCED TO SUPPORT
THE VIEW THAT RES JUDICATA SHOULD NOT APPLY IN THIS SITUATION.  FN1 

BUT WE SEE NO REASON FOR CREATING THE EXCEPTION.  IF THERE IS
HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE, IT WAS PREVENTABLE.  THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF
THE COURT IN DEALING WITH A CIVIL CASE FROM A COURT IN THE FEDERAL
SYSTEM WHICH HAS BECOME MOOT WHILE ON ITS WAY HERE OR PENDING OUR
DECISION ON THE MERITS IS TO REVERSE OR VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND
REMAND WITH A DIRECTION TO DISMISS.  FN2 THAT WAS SAID IN DUKE POWER
CO. V. GREENWOOD COUNTY, 299 U.S. 259, 267, TO BE "THE DUTY OF THE
APPELLATE COURT."  THAT PROCEDURE CLEARS THE PATH FOR FUTURE
RELITIGATION OF THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ELIMINATES A
JUDGMENT, REVIEW OF WHICH WAS PREVENTED THROUGH HAPPENSTANCE.  WHEN
THAT PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED, THE RIGHTS OF ALL PARTIES ARE PRESERVED;
NONE IS PREJUDICED BY A DECISION WHICH IN THE STATUTORY SCHEME WAS ONLY
PRELIMINARY. 

IN THIS CASE THE UNITED STATES MADE NO MOTION TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT.  IT ACQUIESCED IN THE DISMISSAL.  IT DID NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF
THE REMEDY IT HAD TO PRESERVE ITS RIGHTS.  DENIAL OF A MOTION TO VACATE
COULD BRING THE CASE HERE.  OUR SUPERVISORY POWER OVER THE JUDGMENTS OF
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS IS A BROAD ONE.  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2106, 62
STAT. 963; UNITED STATES V. HAMBURG-AMERICAN CO., 239 U.S. 466, 478;
WALLING V. REUTER CO., 321 U.S. 671, 676-677.  AS ALREADY INDICATED, IT
IS COMMONLY UTILIZED IN PRECISELY THIS SITUATION TO PREVENT A JUDGMENT,
UNREVIEWABLE BECAUSE OF MOOTNESS, FROM SPAWNING ANY LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES. 

THE CASE IS THEREFORE ONE WHERE THE UNITED STATES, HAVING SLEPT ON
ITS RIGHTS, NOW ASKS US TO DO WHAT BY ORDERLY PROCEDURE IT COULD HAVE
DONE FOR ITSELF.  THE CASE ILLUSTRATES NOT THE HARDSHIP OF RES JUDICATA
BUT THE NEED FOR IT IN PROVIDING TERMINAL POINTS FOR LITIGATION. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE GELPI V. TUGWELL, 123 F.2D 377; ALLEGHENY COUNTY V. MARYLAND
CASUALTY CO., 146 F.2D 633; SCOTT, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT, 56
HARV. L. REV. 1.  RESTATEMENT, JUDGMENTS, SEC. 69(2) READS AS FOLLOWS:
"WHERE A PARTY TO A JUDGMENT CANNOT OBTAIN THE DECISION OF AN APPELLATE
COURT BECAUSE THE MATTER DETERMINED AGAINST HIM IS IMMATERIAL OR MOOT,
THE JUDGMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AGAINST HIM IN A SUBSEQUENT ACTION ON A
DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION." 

FN2  THIS HAS BECOME THE STANDARD DISPOSITION IN FEDERAL CIVIL CASES:
NEW ORLEANS FLOUR INSPECTORS V. GLOVER, 161 U.S. 101, 103, MODIFYING
160 U.S. 170; UNITED STATES V. HAMBURG-AMERICAN CO., 239 U.S. 466;
BERRY V. DAVIS, 242 U.S. 468; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN-ASIATIC
STEAMSHIP CO., 242 U.S. 537; BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS V.
COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, 249 U.S. 425; COMMERCIAL
CABLE CO. V. BURLESON, 250 U.S. 360; UNITED STATES V. ALASKA STEAMSHIP
CO., 253 U.S. 113; HEITMULLER V. STOKES, 256 U.S. 359; ATHERTON MILLS
V. JOHNSTON, 259 U.S. 13; BROWNLOW V. SCHWARTZ, 261 U.S. 216;
ALEJANDRINO V. QUEZON, 271 U.S. 528; NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. TARIFF
COMMISSION, 274 U.S. 106; UNITED STATES V. ANCHOR COAL CO., 279 U.S.
812; SPRUNT & SON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 249; HARGIS V. BRADFORD,
283 U.S. 781; MAHAN V. HUME, 287 U.S. 575; RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
V. MACMILLAN, 287 U.S. 576; COYNE V. PROUTY, 289 U.S. 704; FIRST UNION
TRUST & SAVINGS BANK V. CONSUMERS CO., 290 U.S. 585; DANCIGER OIL &
REFINING CO. V. SMITH, 290 U.S. 599; O'RYAN V. MILLS NOVELTY CO., 292
U.S. 609; HAMMOND CLOCK CO. V. SCHIFF, 293 U.S. 529; BRACKEN V. S.E.C.,
299 U.S. 504; LEADER V. APEX HOSIERY CO., 302 U.S. 656; WOODRING V.
CLARKSBURG-COLUMBUS SHORT ROUTE BRIDGE CO., 302 U.S. 658; RETAIL FOOD
CLERKS & MANAGERS UNION V. UNION PREMIER FOOD STORES, 308 U.S. 526;
S.E.C. V. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., 325 U.S. 833; MONTGOMERY WARD & CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 690; BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN &
ENGINEMEN V. TOLEDO, P. & W.R. CO., 332 U.S. 748; S.E.C. V. ENGINEERS
PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 332 U.S. 788; HODGE V. TULSA COUNTY ELECTION BOARD,
335 U.S. 889; S.E.C. V. PHILADELPHIA CO., 337 U.S. 901. 

SO FAR AS FEDERAL CIVIL CASES ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE BUT FEW
EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PRACTICE IN RECENT YEARS.  SEE CANTOS V. STYER, 329
U.S. 686; UYEKI V. STYER, 329 U.S. 689; PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS CORP. V.
GRACE & CO., 332 U.S. 827; SCHENLEY DISTILLING CORP. V. ANDERSON, 333
U.S. 878. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT RES JUDICATA SHOULD NOT BE
APPLIED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE SHOWN. 
..END :














UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ, 340 U.S. 42 


NO. 81.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1950.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  THE TAX OF $100 PER OUNCE IMPOSED BY SEC. 2590 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE ON TRANSFERORS OF MARIHUANA WHO MAKE TRANSFERS TO
UNREGISTERED TRANSFEREES WITHOUT THE ORDER FORM REQUIRED BY SEC. 2591
AND WITHOUT PAYMENT BY THE TRANSFEREES OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 2590
IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER OF CONGRESS, NOTWITHSTANDING
ITS COLLATERAL REGULATORY PURPOSE AND EFFECT.  PP. 44-45. 

(A)  A TAX IS NOT INVALID MERELY BECAUSE IT REGULATES, DISCOURAGES OR
DETERS THE ACTIVITIES TAXED; NOR BECAUSE THE REVENUE OBTAINED IS
NEGLIGIBLE OR THE REVENUE PURPOSE IS SECONDARY.  P. 44. 

(B)  A TAX IS NOT INVALID MERELY BECAUSE IT AFFECTS ACTIVITIES WHICH
CONGRESS MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE REGULATE.  P. 44. 

2.  THE TAX LEVIED BY SEC. 2590(A)(2) IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE
COMMISSION OF A CRIME, AND IT MAY PROPERLY BE TREATED AS A CIVIL RATHER
THAN A CRIMINAL SANCTION.  PP. 45-46. 

(A)  THAT CONGRESS PROVIDED CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTION INDICATES
ITS INTENTION THAT THE LEVY BE TREATED AS CIVIL IN CHARACTER.  P. 45. 

(B)  THE CIVIL CHARACTER OF THE TAX OF $100 PER OUNCE IMPOSED BY SEC.
2590(A)(2) IS NOT ALTERED BY ITS SEVERITY IN RELATION TO THE TAX OF $1
PER OUNCE LEVIED BY SEC. 2590(A)(1).  PP. 45-46. 

(C)  THE IMPOSITION BY SEC. 2590(B) OF LIABILITY ON TRANSFERORS IS
REASONABLY ADAPTED TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE TAX BY TRANSFEREES OR STOP
TRANSFERS TO UNREGISTERED PERSONS, AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
SOURCE FROM WHICH THE EXPENSE OF UNEARTHING CLANDESTINE TRANSFERS CAN
BE RECOVERED.  PP. 45-46. 

UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER TAXES
ALLEGED TO BE DUE UNDER THE MARIHUANA TAX ACT, 50 STAT. 551, NOW 26
U.S.C. SEC. 2590 ET SEQ. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, ATTACKING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TAX, WAS GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  ON
DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 46. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1252, FROM DISMISSAL BY THE
DISTRICT COURT OF A SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF $8,701.65 IN TAXES AND
INTEREST ALLEGED TO BE DUE UNDER SEC. 7(A)(2) OF THE MARIHUANA TAX ACT,
50 STAT. 551, NOW SEC. 2590(A)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  26
U.S.C. SEC. 2590(A)(2).  IN THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH WAS GRANTED
WITHOUT OPINION, DEFENDANTS ATTACKED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS
SUBSECTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT LEVIED A PENALTY, NOT A TAX.  THE
VALIDITY OF THIS LEVY IS THE ISSUE HERE. 

IN ENACTING THE MARIHUANA TAX ACT, THE CONGRESS HAD TWO OBJECTIVES:
"FIRST, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN OF TAXATION WHICH WILL RAISE REVENUE
AND AT THE SAME TIME RENDER EXTREMELY DIFFICULT THE ACQUISITION OF
MARIHUANA BY PERSONS WHO DESIRE IT FOR ILLICIT USES AND, SECOND, THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADEQUATE MEANS OF PUBLICIZING DEALINGS IN MARIHUANA
IN ORDER TO TAX AND CONTROL THE TRAFFIC EFFECTIVELY."  S. REP. NO. 900,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3.  TO THE SAME EFFECT, SEE H.R. REP. NO. 792,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2. 

PURSUANT TO THESE OBJECTIVES, SEC. 3230 OF THE CODE IMPOSES A SPECIAL
TAX RANGING FROM $1 TO $24 ON "EVERY PERSON WHO IMPORTS, MANUFACTURES,
PRODUCES, COMPOUNDS, SELLS, DEALS IN, DISPENSES, PRESCRIBES,
ADMINISTERS, OR GIVES AWAY MARIHUANA."  FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATION,
SEC. 3231 REQUIRES SUCH PERSONS TO REGISTER AT THE TIME OF THE PAYMENT
OF THE TAX WITH THE COLLECTOR OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THEIR BUSINESSES
ARE LOCATED.  THE CODE THEN MAKES IT UNLAWFUL - WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS
NOT PERTINENT HERE - FOR ANY PERSON TO TRANSFER MARIHUANA EXCEPT IN
PURSUANCE OF A WRITTEN ORDER OF THE TRANSFEREE ON A BLANK FORM ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  SEC. 2591.  SECTION 2590 REQUIRES
THE TRANSFEREE AT THE TIME HE APPLIES FOR THE ORDER FORM TO PAY A TAX
ON SUCH TRANSFER OF $1 PER OUNCE OR FRACTION THEREOF IF HE HAS PAID THE
SPECIAL TAX AND REGISTERED, SEC. 2590(A)(1), OR $100 PER OUNCE OR
FRACTION THEREOF IF HE HAS NOT PAID THE SPECIAL TAX AND REGISTERED. 
SEC. 2590(A)(2).  THE TRANSFEROR IS ALSO MADE LIABLE FOR THE TAX SO
IMPOSED, IN THE EVENT THE TRANSFER IS MADE WITHOUT AN ORDER FORM AND
WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX BY THE TRANSFEREE.  SEC. 2590(B). 
DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE ARE TRANSFERORS. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SEC. 2590, BY IMPOSING A SEVERE BURDEN ON
TRANSFERS TO UNREGISTERED PERSONS, IMPLEMENTS THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE
OF RESTRICTING TRAFFIC IN MARIHUANA TO ACCEPTED INDUSTRIAL AND
MEDICINAL CHANNELS.  HENCE THE ATTACK HERE RESTS ON THE REGULATORY
CHARACTER AND PROHIBITIVE BURDEN OF THE SECTION AS WELL AS THE PENAL
NATURE OF THE IMPOSITION.  BUT DESPITE THE REGULATORY EFFECT AND THE
CLOSE RESEMBLANCE TO A PENALTY, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE LEVY IS
INVALID. 

FIRST.  IT IS BEYOND SERIOUS QUESTION THAT A TAX DOES NOT CEASE TO BE
VALID MERELY BECAUSE IT REGULATES, DISCOURAGES, OR EVEN DEFINITELY
DETERS THE ACTIVITIES TAXED.  SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506,
513-514(1937).  THE PRINCIPLE APPLIES EVEN THOUGH THE REVENUE OBTAINED
IS OBVIOUSLY NEGLIGIBLE, SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, OR THE
REVENUE PURPOSE OF THE TAX MAY BE SECONDARY, HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 276 U.S. 394(1928).  NOR DOES A TAX STATUTE NECESSARILY FALL
BECAUSE IT TOUCHES ON ACTIVITIES WHICH CONGRESS MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE
REGULATE.  AS WAS POINTED OUT IN MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40,
47(1934): 

"FROM THE BEGINNING OF OUR GOVERNMENT, THE COURTS HAVE SUSTAINED
TAXES ALTHOUGH IMPOSED WITH THE COLLATERAL INTENT OF EFFECTING ULTERIOR
ENDS WHICH, CONSIDERED APART, WERE BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF
THE LAWMAKERS TO REALIZE BY LEGISLATION DIRECTLY ADDRESSED TO THEIR
ACCOMPLISHMENT." 

THESE PRINCIPLES ARE CONTROLLING HERE.  THE TAX IN QUESTION IS A
LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER DESPITE ITS COLLATERAL
REGULATORY PURPOSE AND EFFECT. 

SECOND.  THE TAX LEVIED BY SEC. 2590(A)(2) IS NOT CONDITIONED UPON
THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME.  THE TAX IS ON THE TRANSFER OF MARIHUANA TO
A PERSON WHO HAS NOT PAID THE SPECIAL TAX AND REGISTERED.  SUCH A
TRANSFER IS NOT MADE AN UNLAWFUL ACT UNDER THE STATUTE.  LIABILITY FOR
THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX RESTS PRIMARILY WITH THE TRANSFEREE; BUT IF HE
FAILS TO PAY, THEN THE TRANSFEROR, AS HERE, BECOMES LIABLE.  IT IS THUS
THE FAILURE OF THE TRANSFEREE TO PAY THE TAX THAT GIVES RISE TO THE
LIABILITY OF THE TRANSFEROR.  SINCE HIS TAX LIABILITY DOES NOT IN
EFFECT REST ON CRIMINAL CONDUCT, THE TAX CAN BE PROPERLY CALLED A CIVIL
RATHER THAN A CRIMINAL SANCTION.  THE FACT CONGRESS PROVIDED CIVIL
PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTION INDICATES ITS INTENTION THAT THE TAX BE
TREATED AS SUCH.  HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391(1938).  MOREOVER,
THE GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING TO COLLECT THE LEVY BY A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING
WITH ITS ATTENDANT SAFEGUARDS.  COMPARE LIPKE V. LEDERER, 259 U.S.
557(1922); TOVAR V. JARECKI, 173 F.2D 449(C.A.7TH CIR. 1949). 

NOR IS THE CIVIL CHARACTER OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 2590(A)(2)
ALTERED BY ITS SEVERITY IN RELATION TO THAT ASSESSED BY SEC.
2590(A)(1).  THE DIFFERENCE HAS A RATIONAL FOUNDATION.  UNREGISTERED
PERSONS ARE NOT LIKELY TO PROCURE THE REQUIRED ORDER FORM PRIOR TO
TRANSFER OR PAY THE REQUIRED TAX.  FREE OF SANCTIONS, DEALERS WOULD BE
PRONE TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH PERSONS IN THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.  THE
IMPOSITION OF EQUALLY SEVERE TAX BURDENS ON SUCH TRANSFERORS IS
REASONABLY ADAPTED TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE TAX BY TRANSFEREES OR STOP
TRANSFERS TO UNREGISTERED PERSONS, AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
SOURCE FROM WHICH THE EXPENSE OF UNEARTHING CLANDESTINE TRANSFERS CAN
BE RECOVERED.  CF. HELVERING V. MITCHELL, SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :















U.S. V. SECURITY TR. & SAV. BK., 340 U.S. 47 


NOS. 10, 11, 12 AND 13.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER
13, 1950.  - 93 CAL. APP.2D 608, 209 P.2D 657, REVERSED. 


1.  A TAX LIEN OF THE UNITED STATES OBTAINED UNDER 26 U.S.C. SECS.
3670, 3671, 3672, HELD PRIOR IN RIGHT TO AN ATTACHMENT LIEN ON PROPERTY
IN CALIFORNIA OBTAINED UNDER CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECS.
537, 542(A), WHERE THE FEDERAL TAX LIEN WAS RECORDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
DATE OF THE ATTACHMENT LIEN BUT BEFORE THE ATTACHING CREDITOR OBTAINED
JUDGMENT.  PP. 48-51. 

2.  THE EFFECT OF A STATE-LAW LIEN IN RELATION TO A PROVISION OF
FEDERAL LAW FOR THE COLLECTION OF DEBTS OWED THE UNITED STATES IS A
FEDERAL QUESTION.  P. 49. 

3.  ALTHOUGH A STATE COURT'S CLASSIFICATION OF A LIEN AS SPECIFIC AND
PERFECTED IS ENTITLED TO WEIGHT, IT IS SUBJECT TO REEXAMINATION BY THIS
COURT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE STATE COURT ITSELF DESCRIBES THE LIEN
AS INCHOATE, THIS CLASSIFICATION IS PRACTICALLY CONCLUSIVE.  PP. 49
50. 

4.  AS DESCRIBED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF CALIFORNIA, THE ATTACHMENT
LIEN UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE IS CONTINGENT OR INCHOATE.  P. 50. 

5.  PRIORITY IN RIGHT OF FEDERAL TAX LIENS OBTAINED UNDER 26 U.S.C.
SECS. 3670, 3671, 3672, IS NOT DEFEATED BY A CONTINGENT, INCHOATE LIEN
PRIOR IN TIME.  PP. 50-51. 

6.  THE RESULT IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY THE DOCTRINE OF
RELATION BACK.  P. 50. 

UNITED STATES V. SECURITY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, EXECUTOR, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT, OF CALIFORNIA. 

IN FOUR SUITS INVOLVING PARCELS OF LAND IN CALIFORNIA, A STATE COURT
AWARDED A JUDGMENT CREDITOR PRIORITY OVER LIENS OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR TAXES.  THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED.  93 CAL. APP.2D 608,
209 P.2D 657.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE CASE.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 947.  REVERSED, P. 51. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS WHETHER A TAX LIEN OF THE UNITED
STATES IS PRIOR IN RIGHT TO AN ATTACHMENT LIEN WHERE THE FEDERAL TAX
LIEN WAS RECORDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THE ATTACHMENT LIEN BUT
PRIOR TO THE DATE THE ATTACHING CREDITOR OBTAINED JUDGMENT. 

ON OCTOBER 17, 1946, WILTON M. MORRISON SUED GEORGE AND GENELL
STYLIANO ON AN UNSECURED NOTE.  PURSUANT TO SECS. 537 AND 542 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,  FN1  MORRISON PROCURED THE
ATTACHMENT OF FOUR PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE OWNED BY THE STYLIANOS IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY.  ON APRIL 24, 1947, MORRISON OBTAINED JUDGMENT AND IT WAS
RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON MAY 2,
1947.  MEANWHILE, ON DECEMBER 3, 5, AND 10, 1946, THE UNITED STATES HAD
FILED NOTICES OF FEDERAL TAX LIENS IN THE SAME OFFICE.  FN2 

SUBSEQUENTLY, FOUR SUITS WERE BROUGHT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY INVOLVING THE FOUR PARCELS OF LAND UPON WHICH MORRISON HAD
PROCURED THE ATTACHMENT.  MORRISON AND THE UNITED STATES WERE MADE
PARTIES DEFENDANT IN EACH OF THESE SUITS.  THE FIRST SUIT WAS BROUGHT
TO QUIET TITLE TO ONE OF THE PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE.  THE STYLIANOS HAD
SOLD THIS PARCEL TO THE PLAINTIFFS OF THE SUIT, WHO PAID THE BALANCE OF
THE PURCHASE PRICE INTO COURT.  THE OTHER THREE SUITS WERE TO FORECLOSE
SEPARATE MORTGAGES ON THE OTHER THREE PARCELS.  THE SUPERIOR COURT
ORDERED THE BALANCE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE AND ANY SURPLUS REMAINING
FROM THE FORECLOSURE SALES AFTER THE MORTGAGEES RECEIVED PAYMENT IN
FULL TO BE APPLIED FIRST IN PAYMENT OF MORRISON'S JUDGMENT LIEN, AND
SECONDLY IN PAYMENT OF ANY FEDERAL TAX LIENS.  FN3 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
AFFIRMED.  93 CAL. APP.2D 608, 209 P.2D 657.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA DECLINED TO HEAR THE CASE, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339
U.S. 947.  FN4  THE FOUR CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED BELOW FOR PURPOSES OF
APPEAL, AND MORRISON'S CLAIMS OF PRIORITY WERE TREATED AS A SINGLE
ISSUE.  THEY ARE TREATED HERE IN THE SAME MANNER. 

PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE THE PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT ATTACHED AT ANY TIME
"AS SECURITY FOR THE SATISFACTION OF ANY JUDGMENT THAT MAY BE
RECOVERED."  SECTION 542A PROVIDES:  "THE LIEN OF THE ATTACHMENT ON
REAL PROPERTY ATTACHES AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE UPON THE RECORDING OF A
COPY OF THE WRIT, TOGETHER WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ATTACHED,
AND A NOTICE THAT IT IS ATTACHED WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER OF THE COUNTY
WHEREIN SAID REAL PROPERTY IS SITUATE  ....  THE ATTACHMENT WHETHER
HERETOFORE LEVIED OR HEREAFTER TO BE LEVIED SHALL BE A LIEN UPON ALL
REAL PROPERTY ATTACHED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF
LEVY UNLESS SOONER RELEASED OR DISCHARGED EITHER AS PROVIDED IN THIS
CHAPTER, OR BY DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION, OR BY THE FILING WITH THE
RECORDER OF AN ABSTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION." 

THE EFFECT OF A LIEN IN RELATION TO A PROVISION OF FEDERAL LAW FOR
THE COLLECTION OF DEBTS OWING THE UNITED STATES IS ALWAYS A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  HENCE, ALTHOUGH A STATE COURT'S CLASSIFICATION OF A LIEN AS
SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED IS ENTITLED TO WEIGHT, IT IS SUBJECT TO
REEXAMINATION BY THIS COURT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE STATE COURT
ITSELF DESCRIBES THE LIEN AS INCHOATE, THIS CLASSIFICATION IS
"PRACTICALLY CONCLUSIVE."  ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, 329 U.S. 362, 371. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAS SO DESCRIBED ITS ATTACHMENT LIEN IN
THE CASE OF PUISSEGUR V. YARBROUGH, 29 CAL.2D 409, 412, 175 P.2D 830,
831, BY STATING THAT, "THE ATTACHING CREDITOR OBTAINS ONLY A POTENTIAL
RIGHT OR A CONTINGENT LIEN  ...."  EXAMINATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATUTE SHOWS THAT THE ABOVE IS AN APT DESCRIPTION.  THE ATTACHMENT
LIEN GIVES THE ATTACHMENT CREDITOR NO RIGHT TO PROCEED AGAINST THE
PROPERTY UNLESS HE GETS A JUDGMENT WITHIN THREE YEARS OR WITHIN SUCH
EXTENSION AS THE STATUTE PROVIDES.  NUMEROUS CONTINGENCIES MIGHT ARISE
THAT WOULD PREVENT THE ATTACHMENT LIEN FROM EVER BECOMING PERFECTED BY
A JUDGMENT AWARDED AND RECORDED.  THUS THE ATTACHMENT LIEN IS
CONTINGENT OR INCHOATE - MERELY A LIS PENDENS NOTICE THAT A RIGHT TO
PERFECT A LIEN EXISTS. 

NOR CAN THE DOCTRINE OF RELATION BACK - WHICH BY PROCESS OF JUDICIAL
REASONING MERGES THE ATTACHMENT LIEN IN THE JUDGMENT AND RELATES THE
JUDGMENT LIEN BACK TO THE DATE OF ATTACHMENT - OPERATE TO DESTROY THE
REALITIES OF THE SITUATION.  WHEN THE TAX LIENS OF THE UNITED STATES
WERE RECORDED, MORRISON DID NOT HAVE A JUDGMENT LIEN.  HE HAD A MERE
"CAVEAT OF A MORE PERFECT LIEN TO COME."  NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S.
290, 294. 

THE LIENS ASSERTED BY THE UNITED STATES STEM FROM 53 STAT. 448, 449,
26 U.S.C. SECS. 3670, 3671, 3672.  SECTION 3670 PROVIDES:  "IF ANY
PERSON LIABLE TO PAY ANY TAX NEGLECTS OR REFUSES TO PAY THE SAME AFTER
DEMAND, THE AMOUNT (INCLUDING ANY INTEREST, PENALTY, ADDITIONAL AMOUNT,
OR ADDITION TO SUCH TAX, TOGETHER WITH ANY COSTS THAT MAY ACCRUE IN
ADDITION THERETO) SHALL BE A LIEN IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES UPON
ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL,
BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON."  SECTION 3671 PROVIDES THAT THE LIEN ARISES
WHEN THE ASSESSMENT LISTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE COLLECTOR UNLESS SOME
OTHER DATE IS SPECIFIED BY LAW.  SECTION 3672 PROVIDES THAT THE LIEN
SHALL NOT BE VALID AGAINST MORTGAGEES, PLEDGEES, PURCHASERS OR JUDGMENT
CREDITORS, UNTIL NOTICE THEREOF HAS BEEN FILED IN THE OFFICE PROVIDED
BY THE LAW OF THE STATE FOR SUCH FILING - IN THIS CASE, THE OFFICE OF
THE RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY. 

IN CASES INVOLVING A KINDRED MATTER, I.E., THE FEDERAL PRIORITY UNDER
R.S. SEC. 3466,  FN5  IT HAS NEVER BEEN HELD SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT THE
FEDERAL PRIORITY MERELY TO SHOW A LIEN EFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE LIENOR
AGAINST OTHERS THAN THE GOVERNMENT, BUT CONTINGENT UPON TAKING
SUBSEQUENT STEPS FOR ENFORCING IT.  ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, SUPRA, 374. 
IF THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL TAX LIEN STATUTE TO INSURE PROMPT AND
CERTAIN COLLECTION OF TAXES DUE THE UNITED STATES FROM TAX DELINQUENTS
IS TO BE FULFILLED, A SIMILAR RULE MUST PREVAIL HERE.  ACCORDINGLY, WE
HOLD THAT THE TAX LIENS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE SUPERIOR TO THE
INCHOATE ATTACHMENT LIEN OF MORRISON, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IS REVERSED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  DEERING'S CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. ANN., 1941, SECS. 537 AND 542. 

FN2  NOTICE OF A FURTHER LIEN IN THE SUM OF $412.18 WAS FILED ON
JANUARY 22, 1948, BUT AS TO THIS THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CLAIM
PRIORITY. 

FN3  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO DISCLAIMS ANY PRIORITY OVER THE MORTGAGES
FORECLOSED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. 

FN4  MORRISON DIED WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING ON APPEAL TO THE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, AND THE SECURITY TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK AS
EXECUTOR OF HIS LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT WAS SUBSTITUTED. 

FN5  R.S. SEC. 3466.  "WHENEVER ANY PERSON INDEBTED TO THE UNITED
STATES IS INSOLVENT, OR WHENEVER THE ESTATE OF ANY DECEASED DEBTOR, IN
THE HANDS OF THE EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS, IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY
ALL THE DEBTS DUE FROM THE DECEASED, THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES
SHALL BE FIRST SATISFIED; AND THE PRIORITY HEREBY ESTABLISHED SHALL
EXTEND AS WELL TO CASES IN WHICH A DEBTOR, NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT
PROPERTY TO PAY ALL HIS DEBTS, MAKES A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT THEREOF, OR
IN WHICH THE ESTATE AND EFFECTS OF AN ABSCONDING, CONCEALED, OR ABSENT
DEBTOR ARE ATTACHED BY PROCESS OF LAW, AS TO CASES IN WHICH AN ACT OF
BANKRUPTCY IS COMMITTED." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I AM PERSUADED THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO HOLD THE TAX LIEN OF THE
GOVERNMENT SUPERIOR TO THE CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT.  WHILE WE SHOULD
ACCEPT THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA AS ITS COURT HAS DECLARED IT, THE FEDERAL
QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH 26 U.S.C. SECS. 3670
72, 53 STAT. 448 AS AMENDED, 53 STAT. 882.  THE HISTORY OF THIS TAX
LIEN STATUTE INDICATES THAT ONLY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR IN THE
CONVENTIONAL SENSE IS PROTECTED. 

UNITED STATES V. SNYDER, 149 U.S. 210(1893), WAS DECIDED AT A TIME
WHEN THE FORERUNNER OF THE PRESENT STATUTE, SEC. 3186 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES AS AMENDED BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1879, PROVIDED: 

"IF ANY PERSON LIABLE TO PAY ANY TAX NEGLECTS OR REFUSES TO PAY THE
SAME AFTER DEMAND, THE AMOUNT SHALL BE A LIEN IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED
STATES FROM THE TIME WHEN THE ASSESSMENT-LIST WAS RECEIVED BY THE
COLLECTOR, EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE PROVIDED, UNTIL PAID, WITH THE
INTEREST, PENALTIES, AND COSTS THAT MAY ACCRUE IN ADDITION THERETO,
UPON ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON."  20
STAT. 327, 331. 

THE SNYDER CASE HELD, IN INTERPRETING THE ABOVE STATUTE ALONG WITH
ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THAT THE LIEN CREATED BY THAT
STATUTE WAS A VALID BINDING LIEN EVEN AGAINST A BONA FIDE PURCHASER FOR
VALUE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OR NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A LIEN. 

THEREAFTER THE STATUTE WAS AMENDED AND A PROVISO ADDED WHICH SAID:
"...  THAT SUCH LIEN SHALL NOT BE VALID AS AGAINST ANY MORTGAGEE,
PURCHASER, OR JUDGMENT CREDITOR UNTIL NOTICE OF SUCH LIEN SHALL BE
FILED BY THE COLLECTOR  ...."  IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR FILING.  37
STAT. 1016.  THE HOUSE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, H.R.
REP. NO. 1018, 62D CONG., 2D SESS. 2(1912), SAID IN PART, AFTER CITING
THE ABOVE CASE: 

"...  THE LIEN IS SO COMPREHENSIVE THAT IT COVERS ALL THE PROPERTY
AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY OF THE DELINQUENT SITUATED ANYWHERE IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND ANY PERSON TAKING TITLE TO REAL ESTATE IS SUBJECTED
TO THE IMPOSSIBLE TASK OF ASCERTAINING WHETHER ANY PERSON, WHO HAS AT
ANY TIME OWNED THE REAL ESTATE IN QUESTION, HAS BEEN DELINQUENT IN THE
PAYMENT OF THE TAXES REFERRED TO WHILE THE OWNER OF THE REAL ESTATE IN
QUESTION.  THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON UNDER THE INTERNAL-REVENUE LAW MAY
BE AT A GREAT DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THIS SECRET LIEN,
BUT THIS WILL NOT RELIEVE THE PROPERTY FROM THE LIEN." 

IN 1938, UNITED STATES V. ROSENFIELD, 26 F.SUPP.  433(D.C.E.D. MICH.,
S.D.), HELD THAT A BONA FIDE PURCHASER FOR VALUE OF SHARES OF STOCK
FROM A SELLER AGAINST WHOM NOTICE OF LIEN FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES HAD
BEEN DULY FILED PRIOR TO THE SALE, TOOK SUBJECT TO THE LIEN EVEN THOUGH
THE PURCHASER DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OR KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH LIEN.  AS A
DIRECT RESULT OF THIS DECISION, THE STATUTE WAS AGAIN AMENDED, THIS
TIME TO INCLUDE PLEDGEES AND THE EXCEPTION IN CASE OF SECURITIES AS NOW
FOUND IN 26 U.S.C. SEC. 3672(B)(1).  THE REASON FOR THIS AMENDMENT IS
DISCLOSED IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE REVENUE BILL OF
1939.  H.R. REP. NO. 855, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 26(1939).  THIS REPORT
SAYS, IN PART: 

"...  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF THE TAX LIEN
MAY CONSTITUTE NOTICE IN THE CASE OF REAL PROPERTY, IT IS INEQUITABLE
FOR THE STATUTE TO PROVIDE THAT IT CONSTITUTES NOTICE AS REGARDS
SECURITIES....  AN ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE SUCH LIENS ON RECORDED NOTICE
WOULD IN MANY CASES IMPAIR THE NEGOTIABILITY OF SECURITIES AND
SERIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS...." 

MY CONCLUSION FROM THIS HISTORY IS THAT THE STATUTE EXCLUDES FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECRET LIEN THOSE TYPES OF INTERESTS WHICH IT
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE STATUTE AND NO OTHERS. 
..END :









SOUTHERN R. CO. V. MAYFIELD, 340 U.S. 1 


ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1950.  - 359 MO. 827,
224 S.W.2D 105, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


IN EACH OF TWO SUITS BROUGHT IN A MISSOURI STATE COURT UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF
MISSOURI, THE CARRIER WAS A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND THE ACCIDENT WHICH
GAVE RISE TO THE CLAIM OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF MISSOURI.  THE STATE SUPREME
COURT DETERMINED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS COULD NOT
BAR THE SUITS; BUT IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS HOLDING WAS BASED ON
LOCAL LAW OR UPON A BELIEF THAT IT WAS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW AS
ENUNCIATED BY THIS COURT.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED, IN ORDER THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT MAY DETERMINE THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS ACCORDING TO ITS
OWN LOCAL LAW.  PP. 2-3, 5. 

(A)  NEITHER BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44, NOR MILES
V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698, LIMITED THE POWER OF A STATE
TO DENY ACCESS TO ITS COURTS TO PERSONS SEEKING RECOVERY UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IF IN SIMILAR CASES THE STATE FOR
REASONS OF LOCAL POLICY DENIES RESORT TO ITS COURTS AND ENFORCES ITS
POLICY IMPARTIALLY, SO AS NOT TO INVOLVE A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SUITS NOR AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES. 
P. 4. 

(B)  NOR IS ANY SUCH RESTRICTION IMPOSED UPON THE STATES MERELY
BECAUSE THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT EMPOWERS THEIR COURTS TO ENTERTAIN
SUITS ARISING UNDER IT.  P. 4. 

(C)  EVEN PRIOR TO SEC. 1404(A) OF THE 1948 REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE (28 U.S.C.), THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT WHICH PURPORTED "TO FORCE A DUTY" UPON THE STATE COURTS TO
ENTERTAIN OR RETAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LITIGATION "AGAINST AN
OTHERWISE VALID EXCUSE."  PP. 4-5. 

MISSOURI EX REL. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. MAYFIELD, CIRCUIT COURT
JUDGE. 

NO. 15.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 16, MISSOURI EX REL. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE
RAILWAY CO. V. MURPHY, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SAME COURT. 

IN TWO SUITS BROUGHT IN A MISSOURI STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, MOTIONS TO DISMISS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS WERE DENIED AS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT TO GRANT.  IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IN MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE
TRIAL COURT TO EXERCISE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION IN DISPOSING OF THE
MOTIONS, THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED RELIEF.  359 MO. 827, 224
S.W.2D 105.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 918.  JUDGMENT
VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED, P. 5. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE TWO CASES HAD THEIR ORIGIN IN SUITS BASED ON THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET
SEQ., BROUGHT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI. 
IT IS SUPERFLUOUS TO GIVE CONCRETE DETAILS REGARDING THE PARTIES, THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INJURIES, AND THE CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING THE
CHOICE OF FORUM.  IT SUFFICES TO STATE THAT IN BOTH CASES THE PLAINTIFF
WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF MISSOURI, THE CARRIER WAS A FOREIGN CORPORATION,
AND THE ACCIDENT WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE CLAIM OF LIABILITY FOR
NEGLIGENCE TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE MISSOURI.  IN BOTH, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM
NON CONVENIENS WAS INVOKED; IN BOTH, THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE MOTION
TO DISMISS THE SUIT ON THAT GROUND AS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT TO GRANT.  IN BOTH CASES ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IN MANDAMUS WERE
THEREUPON BEGUN IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI TO COMPEL THE TRIAL
COURT TO EXERCISE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION IN DISPOSING OF THE
MOTIONS.  AFTER ALTERNATIVE WRITS OF MANDAMUS HAD ISSUED AND THE CAUSES
HAD BEEN CONSOLIDATED FOR CONSIDERATION, THE WRITS WERE QUASHED BY A
SINGLE JUDGMENT.  359 MO. 827, 224 S.W.2D 105.  WE BROUGHT THE
PROCEEDINGS HERE FOR REVIEW, 339 U.S. 918, BECAUSE THEY INVOLVED
QUESTIONS IMPORTANT TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT BY THE COURTS OF THE STATES. 

A DECISION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE DETERMINING THAT THE
DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS CANNOT BAR AN ACTION BASED ON THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US, MAY
REST ON ONE OF THREE THEORIES.  (1) ACCORDING TO ITS OWN NOTIONS OF
PROCEDURAL POLICY, A STATE MAY REJECT, AS IT MAY ACCEPT, THE DOCTRINE
FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION BEGUN IN ITS COURTS.  IF DENIAL OF A MOTION TO
DISMISS AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IS RESTED
ON SUCH A GENERAL LOCAL PRACTICE, NO FEDERAL ISSUE COMES INTO PLAY. 
(IT IS ASSUMED OF COURSE THAT THE STATE HAS ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER
THE DEFENDANT.)(2) BY REASON OF THE PRIVILEGES-AND-IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION, A STATE MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CITIZENS OF
SISTER STATES.  ART. IV, SEC. 2.  THEREFORE MISSOURI CANNOT ALLOW SUITS
BY NON-RESIDENT MISSOURIANS FOR LIABILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT ARISING OUT OF CONDUCT OUTSIDE THAT STATE AND
DISCRIMINATORILY DENY ACCESS TO ITS COURTS TO A NON-RESIDENT WHO IS A
CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE.  BUT IF A STATE CHOOSES TO "(PREFER)
RESIDENTS IN ACCESS TO OFTEN OVERCROWDED COURTS" AND TO DENY SUCH
ACCESS TO ALL NON-RESIDENTS, WHETHER ITS OWN CITIZENS OR THOSE OF OTHER
STATES, IT IS A CHOICE WITHIN ITS OWN CONTROL.  THIS IS TRUE ALSO OF
ACTIONS FOR PERSONAL INJURIES UNDER THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 
DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377, 387.  WHETHER A
STATE MAKES SUCH A CHOICE IS, LIKE ITS ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, A QUESTION OF STATE LAW NOT OPEN TO
REVIEW HERE. 

BUT, (3), A STATE MAY REJECT THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN
SUITS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT BECAUSE IT MAY DEEM
ITSELF COMPELLED BY FEDERAL LAW TO REJECT IT.  GIVING THE OPINION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI IN THESE CASES A SCOPE MOST FAVORABLE TO
RELIANCE ON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND, DOUBT STILL REMAINS WHETHER THAT
COURT DID NOT DEEM ITSELF BOUND TO DENY THE MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL ON
THE SCORE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS BY ITS VIEW OF THE DEMANDS OF OUR
DECISIONS IN BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44, AND MILES V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698. 

BUT NEITHER OF THESE CASES LIMITED THE POWER OF A STATE TO DENY
ACCESS TO ITS COURTS TO PERSONS SEEKING RECOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IF IN SIMILAR CASES THE STATE FOR REASONS OF
LOCAL POLICY DENIES RESORT TO ITS COURTS AND ENFORCES ITS POLICY
IMPARTIALLY, SEE MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO., 292 U.S. 230, SO AS
NOT TO INVOLVE A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SUITS
AND NOT TO OFFEND AGAINST THE PRIVILEGES-AND-IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  NO SUCH RESTRICTION IS IMPOSED UPON THE STATES MERELY
BECAUSE THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT EMPOWERS THEIR COURTS TO ENTERTAIN
SUITS ARISING UNDER IT.  THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT ACT EVEN PRIOR TO
SEC. 1404(A) OF THE 1948 REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, TITLE 28,
U.S.C., FN1  WHICH PURPORTED "TO FORCE A DUTY" UPON THE STATE COURTS TO
ENTERTAIN OR RETAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LITIGATION "AGAINST AN
OTHERWISE VALID EXCUSE."  DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., SUPRA,
AT 388. 

THEREFORE, IF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI HELD AS IT DID BECAUSE IT
FELT UNDER COMPULSION OF FEDERAL LAW AS ENUNCIATED BY THIS COURT SO TO
HOLD, IT SHOULD BE RELIEVED OF THAT COMPULSION.  IT SHOULD BE FREED TO
DECIDE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN
THESE SUITS ACCORDING TO ITS OWN LOCAL LAW.  TO THAT END WE VACATE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THAT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
STATE TAX COMM'N V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511; MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA
CO., 309 U.S. 551; HERB V. PITCAIRN, 324 U.S. 117; 325 U.S. 77. 
JUDGMENT VACATED. 

FN1  SECTION 1404(A) READS, "FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES AND
WITNESSES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, A DISTRICT COURT MAY TRANSFER
ANY CIVIL ACTION TO ANY OTHER DISTRICT OR DIVISION WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT."  SEE EX PARTE COLLETT, 337 U.S. 55. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

THE MISSOURI COURT APPEARS TO HAVE ACTED UNDER THE SUPPOSED
COMPULSION OF MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698, AMONG
OTHER OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS.  THE DECIDING VOTE IN THAT CASE
RESTED, IN TURN, ONLY ON WHAT SEEMED TO BE COMPULSION OF STATUTORY
PROVISIONS AS TO VENUE.  BY AMENDMENT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A), AS
INTERPRETED IN EX PARTE COLLETT, 337 U.S. 55, CONGRESS HAS REMOVED THE
COMPULSION WHICH DETERMINED THE MILES CASE, AND THE MISSOURI COURT
SHOULD NO LONGER REGARD IT AS CONTROLLING.  A FEDERAL COURT IN MISSOURI
WOULD NOW BE FREE TO DECLINE TO HEAR THIS CASE AND COULD TRANSFER IT TO
ITS PROPER FORUM.  CERTAINLY A STATE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE
A COURT FOR TWO NONRESIDENT PARTIES TO LITIGATE A FOREIGN-BORN CAUSE OF
ACTION WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH CREATES THE CAUSE OF ACTION,
FREES ITS OWN COURTS WITHIN THAT STATE FROM MANDATORY CONSIDERATION OF
THE SAME CASE.  BECAUSE OF WHAT I WROTE IN THE MILES CASE I ADD THIS
NOTE, BUT OTHERWISE CONCUR IN THE DECISION AND OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK,
AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

IN MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698(1942), THIS COURT
DEFINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A STATE MUST ENTERTAIN IN ITS
COURTS AN F.E.L.A. ACTION BROUGHT BY A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE.  THE
COURT SAID:  "TO DENY CITIZENS FROM OTHER STATES, SUITORS UNDER
F.E.L.A., ACCESS TO ITS COURTS WOULD, IF IT PERMITTED ACCESS TO ITS OWN
CITIZENS, VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE."  ID. AT 704. 
IN THE PROCEEDING BELOW THE HIGHEST COURT OF MISSOURI FOLLOWED THIS
VIEW.  IT STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY: 

"THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DOES NOT COMPEL THE COURTS OF
THIS STATE TO HEAR CASES ARISING UNDER THAT ACT, BUT IT EMPOWERS OUR
COURTS TO DO SO. 

"SINCE MISSOURI DOES ALLOW ITS CITIZENS TO MAINTAIN FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACTIONS IN ITS COURTS,  ...  IT FOLLOWS THAT NOT
TO ALLOW CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES THE RIGHT TO FILE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY SUITS IN OUR STATE COURTS WOULD VIOLATE ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2,
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  359 MO. 827 AT 839, 224
S.W.2D 105 AT 110(1949). 

BUT THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT APPARENTLY PRESUMES THAT WHEN THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI THUS USED THE TERM "CITIZENS" IT WAS
UNMINDFUL THAT THE TERM INCLUDES ALL PERSONS DOMICILED WITHIN A STATE
REGARDLESS OF THEIR ACTUAL RESIDENCE.  I AM UNWILLING TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE COURT THOUGHT THAT ONLY ACTUAL RESIDENTS OF MISSOURI ARE CITIZENS
OF THAT STATE.  INDEED IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE COURT USED THE TERM
"CITIZENS" IN THE USUAL SENSE, MEANING TO INCLUDE MISSOURIANS
REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY RESIDE.  THAT IT DID IS SHOWN BY ITS
DISCUSSION OF THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. &
H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377(1929), WHICH UPHELD A NEW YORK STATUTE
PERMITTING DISMISSAL OF SUITS BY "NON-RESIDENTS" AGAINST FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS.  AS AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT THE NEW YORK STATUTE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES, THIS COURT IN THE
DOUGLAS CASE FOUND THE STATUTE UNOBJECTIONABLE SINCE NEW YORK COURTS IN
DEFINING "RESIDENTS" HAD INCLUDED ONLY PERSONS ACTUALLY LIVING IN NEW
YORK AND HAD INTERPRETED "NON-RESIDENTS" TO MEAN ALL PERSONS RESIDING
OUTSIDE THE STATE, WHETHER CITIZENS OF NEW YORK OR OF SOME OTHER
STATE.  THE MISSOURI COURT BELOW OBSERVED THAT MISSOURI HAD NO SUCH
STATUTE AND THAT DISMISSAL COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF ITS LOCAL
POLICY WHICH "PERMITS CITIZENS OF THIS STATE TO FILE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES IN ITS COURTS."  359 MO. AT 838, 224 S.W.2D AT 110. 

OUR DUTY IS TO UPHOLD THE DECISION BELOW IF THERE WAS A VALID GROUND
TO SUSTAIN IT.  AS THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT GROUND, WE SHOULD NOT VACATE
AND REMAND MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN STATEMENTS OF THE MISSOURI COURT MAY
INDICATE THAT IT ALSO FELT UNDER COMPULSION OF FEDERAL DECISIONS
APPLYING THE LIABILITY ACT.  THE CASES OUT OF WHICH THIS PROCEEDING
ARISES ARE NOW IN THEIR THIRD YEAR IN THE COURTS WITHOUT COMING TO
TRIAL, AND REMAND BY THIS COURT WILL UNNECESSARILY CAUSE FURTHER DELAY
AND EXPENSE IN BRINGING THEM TO FINAL ADJUDICATION.  I WOULD AFFIRM. 
..END :












FOGARTY V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 8 


NO. 6.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 1950.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1950.  - 176
F.2D 599, AFFIRMED. 


IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, HELD THAT THE CORPORATION OF WHICH
PETITIONER IS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AND WHICH HAD CONTRACTS WITH THE
NAVY DEPARTMENT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF WAR MATERIALS, DID NOT, ON OR
BEFORE AUGUST 14, 1945, FILE WITH THE NAVY DEPARTMENT A "WRITTEN
REQUEST FOR RELIEF" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3 OF THE WAR CONTRACT
HARDSHIP CLAIMS ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1946, AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED
TO RELIEF UNDER THAT ACT.  PP. 8-14. 

(A)  CONGRESS INTENDED THE TERM "WRITTEN REQUEST FOR RELIEF" TO MEAN
WRITTEN NOTICE PRESENTED PRIOR TO AUGUST 14, 1945, TO AN AGENCY WHICH
WAS AUTHORIZED TO GRANT RELIEF UNDER SEC. 201 OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS
ACT.  P. 13. 

(B)  NO PARTICULAR FORM OF NOTICE IS REQUIRED; BUT, WHATEVER THE FORM
OF NOTICE, IT MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO APPRISE THE AGENCY THAT IT WAS
BEING ASKED TO GRANT EXTRA-LEGAL RELIEF UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT
FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF WAR CONTRACTS.  P. 13. 

(C)  DOCUMENTS WHICH SOUGHT PAYMENT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, NOT RELIEF
AS A MATTER OF GRACE, WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO APPRISE THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT THAT IT WAS BEING ASKED TO ACCORD RELIEF UNDER THE FIRST WAR
POWERS ACT.  P. 14. 

FOGARTY, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE WAR CONTRACT HARDSHIP
CLAIMS ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1946, 60 STAT. 902, 41 U.S.C. SEC. 106, THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES.  80
F.SUPP.  90.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  176 F.2D 599.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  339 U.S. 909.  AFFIRMED, P. 14. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF INLAND WATERWAYS, INC.,
BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
MINNESOTA, FIFTH DIVISION, UNDER THE WAR CONTRACT HARDSHIP CLAIMS ACT,
POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE LUCAS ACT, ADOPTED AUGUST 7, 1946, 60 STAT. 902,
41 U.S.C. SEC. 106 NOTE, TO RECOVER $328,804.42 AS LOSSES ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED UNDER CERTAIN CONTRACTS WITH THE NAVY DEPARTMENT
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF WAR SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS.  ON MOTION, SUMMARY
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR THE UNITED STATES.  80 F.SUPP.  90.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  176 F.2D 599.  THE SUIT
TURNS ON THE INTERPRETATION AND MEANING TO BE ASCRIBED TO PARTS OF THE
FEDERAL STATUTE.  BECAUSE WE DEEMED RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES IMPORTANT,
ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF ASSERTED CONFLICTS OF DECISION IN THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE AMONG OTHER FEDERAL COURTS, CERTIORARI
WAS GRANTED.  339 U.S. 909. 

THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  INLAND WATERWAYS, FINANCED BY A
GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED LOAN AND ADVANCES UNDER THE CONTRACTS, ENTERED
INTO SEVERAL CONTRACTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT, DATED FROM SEPTEMBER 18, 1941, TO OCTOBER 30, 1942, FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF SUBMARINE CHASERS AND PLANE REARMING BOATS.  LITTLE
PROGRESS HAD BEEN MADE UNDER THE CONTRACTS WHEN, ON DECEMBER 18, 1942,
INLAND WATERWAYS FILED A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IN BANKRUPTCY. 
PETITIONER WAS APPOINTED TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE UNITED STATES
FILED CLAIMS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS BASED PRIMARILY ON THE UNPAID BALANCE
OF THE LOAN PLUS INTEREST, THE COST OF COMPLETING INCOMPLETE AND
DEFECTIVE WORK ON SHIPS DELIVERED UNDER THE CONTRACTS, AND DECREASED
COSTS RESULTING FROM CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 
PETITIONER FILED A COUNTERCLAIM BASED PRIMARILY ON PAYMENTS DUE FOR
PROGRESS IN CONSTRUCTION, OVERTIME WORK, CHANGES IN PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND IN WAGE RATES INVOLVING INCREASED COST TO INLAND
WATERWAYS, AND THE VALUE OF PARTIALLY COMPLETED WORK REQUISITIONED BY
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COST OF ITS PRESERVATION.  IN SUPPORT OF HIS
COUNTERCLAIM, PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT A PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION FOR REQUISITIONED PROPERTY AND A NUMBER OF INVOICES
PURPORTING TO BILL THE NAVY DEPARTMENT FOR GOODS AND SERVICES, ALL OF
WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBMITTED TO AGENCIES OF THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT.  ON FEBRUARY 20, 1945, THE GOVERNMENT AND PETITIONER
EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT COMPROMISING THESE CLAIMS UPON PAYMENT OF SOME
$16,000 BY THE UNITED STATES TO PETITIONER.  THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
EMBODIED A MUTUAL GENERAL RELEASE IN THE BROADEST OF TERMS AND WAS
APPROVED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

PETITIONER INITIATED HIS EFFORTS TO SECURE RELIEF UNDER THE LUCAS ACT
ON FEBRUARY 1, 1947, BY FILING A CLAIM WITH THE WAR CONTRACTS RELIEF
BOARD OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE SAME MATTERS WHICH HAD BEEN
THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT EFFECTED SOME TWO YEARS BEFORE
IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  THE SAME DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT
OF THE COUNTERCLAIM IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, PLUS THE COUNTERCLAIM
ITSELF, WERE RELIED ON BY PETITIONER AS SHOWING A TIMELY REQUEST FOR
RELIEF UNDER THE LUCAS ACT.  THE BOARD DENIED THE CLAIM.  THIS SUIT
FOLLOWED UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE LUCAS ACT. 

THE ONLY QUESTION DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS THAT PETITIONER
DID NOT FILE WITH THE NAVY DEPARTMENT ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 14, 1945, A
"WRITTEN REQUEST FOR RELIEF" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3 OF THE LUCAS
ACT.  WE DIRECT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THAT HOLDING. 
NEITHER THE ACT NOR THE REGULATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT THEREUNDER DEFINE
THE TERM.  PERTINENT PARTS OF THE ACT ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN. 
FN1 

SHORTLY AFTER PEARL HARBOR, CONGRESS GRANTED TO THE PRESIDENT UNDER
SEC. 201 OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 55 STAT. 838, 839, 50 U.S.C. APP.
SEC. 611, THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO MAKE AMENDMENTS
AND MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS FOR WAR SUPPLIES WITHOUT REGARD TO
CONSIDERATION IF "SUCH ACTION WOULD FACILITATE THE PROSECUTION OF THE
WAR."  THROUGHOUT THE WAR, DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT
UTILIZED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER TO
ALLEVIATE HARDSHIPS ENCOUNTERED BY WAR CONTRACTORS IN AN ECONOMY GEARED
TO ALL-OUT WAR.  AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES AUGUST 14, 1945,
HOWEVER, DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT TOOK DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THEIR
POWERS UNDER THE ACT AND REGULATIONS.  SOME CONTINUED TO EXERCISE THOSE
POWERS, WHILE OTHERS TOOK THE POSITION THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER
APPLICABLE, SINCE THE WAR WAS OVER AND CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS COULD NOT
"FACILITATE THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR."  THIS RESULTED IN A DISPARITY
OF TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS FOR THE RELIEF OF THE ACT WHOSE CLAIMS HAD
BEEN FILED BUT NOT ACTED UPON BEFORE AUGUST 14, 1945.  WHETHER SUCH A
CONTRACTOR WAS TO BE ACCORDED RELIEF UNDER THE ACT DEPENDED ON THE VIEW
THE DEPARTMENT WITH WHICH HE HAD CONTRACTED TOOK OF THE ACT.  THIS
SITUATION MOTIVATED CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  SEE S. REP. NO. 1669, 79TH
CONG., 2D SESS.,  FN2 ACCOMPANYING S. 1477, WHICH BECAME THE LUCAS
ACT. 

THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ILLUMINATES, FOR PURPOSES OF THE QUESTION AT
HAND, THE RELATION OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS AND THE LUCAS ACTS.  THE
WORDS OF THE LUCAS ACT ITSELF SHED FURTHER LIGHT ON THAT SUBJECT.  LIKE
SEC. 201 OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, THE LUCAS ACT CONTEMPLATES RELIEF
BY GRACE AND NOT IN RECOGNITION OF LEGAL RIGHTS.  IT SPEAKS IN SEC. 1
OF "EQUITABLE CLAIMS  ...  FOR LOSSES ...  IN THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH
CONTRACTS OR SUBCONTRACTS," AND IN SEC. 2, OF "FAIR AND EQUITABLE
SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS."  FURTHER, THE ACT LIMITS THE DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES WHICH MAY GRANT RELIEF TO THOSE WHICH WERE AUTHORIZED TO GRANT
RELIEF UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT.  FINALLY, IT LIMITS CLAIMS UPON
WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED TO THOSE WHICH HAD BEEN PRESENTED "ON OR
BEFORE AUGUST 14, 1945."  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THAT DATE WAS THE ONE AROUND
WHICH DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ADOPTED THE DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE FIRST
WAR POWERS ACT WHICH NECESSITATED CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS AND THE RELATION OF THE
LUCAS ACT TO THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, WE THINK CONGRESS INTENDED THE
TERM "WRITTEN REQUEST FOR RELIEF" TO MEAN WRITTEN NOTICE PRESENTED
PRIOR TO AUGUST 14, 1945, TO AN AGENCY WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED TO GRANT
RELIEF UNDER SEC. 201 OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT.  SINCE THERE IS NO
DEFINITION OF THE TERM IN THE ACT OR REGULATIONS, AND SINCE THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT DOES NOT SHOW THAT ANY SETTLED USAGE OF
THE TERM WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS, NO PARTICULAR FORM
OF NOTICE IS REQUIRED.  BUT WHATEVER THE FORM OF NOTICE, IT MUST BE
SUFFICIENT TO APPRISE THE AGENCY THAT IT WAS BEING ASKED TO GRANT EXTRA
LEGAL RELIEF UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF WAR CONTRACTS. 

PETITIONER, IN ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LUCAS
ACT WHICH WOULD ALLOW HIM TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT, HAS PLACED MUCH
RELIANCE ON EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED IN CONGRESS SUBSEQUENT TO ITS
ENACTMENT.  THE SECOND SESSION OF THE EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS PASSED H.R.
3436, WHICH WAS VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT.  96 CONG. REC. 8291, 8658,
9602.  THEREAFTER, CONGRESS PASSED S. 3906, WHICH FAILED OF ENACTMENT
OVER ANOTHER VETO OF THE PRESIDENT.  96 CONG. REC. 12911, 14652. 
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS THAT THESE BILLS AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
SHOW THAT CONGRESS HAD A DIFFERENT INTENT IN PASSING THE LUCAS ACT THAN
THAT ATTRIBUTED TO IT BY ITS ADMINISTRATORS AND SOME OF THE COURTS.  IF
THERE IS ANYTHING IN THESE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AT ODDS WITH OUR FINDING
OF THE MEANING OF SEC. 3, IT WOULD NOT SUPPLANT THE CONTEMPORANEOUS
INTENT OF THE CONGRESS WHICH ENACTED THE LUCAS ACT.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258, 281-282. 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON BY PETITIONER COME
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM "WRITTEN REQUEST FOR RELIEF."  NEITHER
THE COUNTERCLAIM IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, NOR THE PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION FOR REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, NOR THE INVOICES FOR EXTRAS,
SOUGHT RELIEF AS A MATTER OF GRACE.  THEY SOUGHT PAYMENT AS A MATTER OF
RIGHT.  THE COUNTERCLAIM DEMANDED JUDGMENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 
THE PETITION FOR REQUISITIONED PROPERTY AND THE INVOICES WERE LEGAL
CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER CONTRACT.  AS SUCH, THEY CONSTITUTED A
BASIS FOR SUIT IN COURT.  SEE, E.G., 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1346.  THAT
PETITIONER HIMSELF THOUGHT OF THEM AS JUDICIALLY COGNIZABLE CLAIMS IS
EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT HE INCLUDED THEM IN THE COUNTERCLAIM FILED
WITH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAD NO JURISDICTION TO AWARD
ANY EXTRA-LEGAL RELIEF UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT. 

NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON BY PETITIONER WAS SUFFICIENT TO
APPRISE THE NAVY DEPARTMENT THAT IT WAS BEING ASKED TO ACCORD RELIEF
UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT.  WE MUST THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE COURT
OF APPEALS THAT NO "WRITTEN REQUEST FOR RELIEF" WAS FILED, AND,
THEREFORE, THAT RECOVERY WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER UNDER THE
LUCAS ACT.  WE DO NOT REACH ALTERNATIVE QUESTIONS.  THE JUDGMENT IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 1.  "  ...  WHERE WORK, SUPPLIES, OR SERVICES HAVE BEEN
FURNISHED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 16, 1940, AND AUGUST 14, 1945, UNDER A
CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT, FOR ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT
WHICH PRIOR TO THE LATTER DATE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS
AND AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS UNDER SECTION 201 OF THE
FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 1941  ... SUCH DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ARE
HEREBY AUTHORIZED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY
THE PRESIDENT  ...  TO CONSIDER, ADJUST, AND SETTLE EQUITABLE CLAIMS
...  FOR LOSSES (NOT INCLUDING DIMINUTION OF ANTICIPATED PROFITS)
INCURRED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 16, 1940, AND AUGUST 14, 1945, WITHOUT FAULT
OR NEGLIGENCE ON THEIR PART IN THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH CONTRACTS OR
SUBCONTRACTS.  ... 

"SEC. 2.  (A)  IN ARRIVING AT A FAIR AND EQUITABLE SETTLEMENT OF 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT.  CLAIMS UNDER THIS ACT  ... 

"SEC. 3.  CLAIMS FOR LOSSES SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED UNLESS FILED WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY CONCERNED WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF
APPROVAL OF THIS ACT, AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO LOSSES WITH RESPECT TO
WHICH A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR RELIEF WAS FILED WITH SUCH DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 14, 1945  ...  " 

FN2  "THIS BILL, AS AMENDED, WOULD AFFORD FINANCIAL RELIEF TO THOSE
CONTRACTORS WHO SUFFERED LOSSES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF WAR CONTRACTS IN
THOSE CASES WHERE THE CLAIM WOULD HAVE RECEIVED FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION
UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9001 IF ACTION
HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO THE CAPITULATION OF THE
JAPANESE GOVERNMENT.  HOWEVER, UPON THE CAPITULATION, THE POSITION WAS
TAKEN BY CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVED,
THAT NO RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY WHICH THEN
EXISTED, UNLESS THE ACTION WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO INSURE CONTINUED
PRODUCTION NECESSARY TO MEET POST VJ-DAY REQUIREMENTS.  THIS WAS ON THE
BASIS THAT THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT WAS ENACTED TO AID IN THE
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE WAR AND NOT AS AN AID TO THE
CONTRACTORS.  AS A RESULT, A NUMBER OF CLAIMS WHICH WERE IN PROCESS AT
THE TIME OF THE SURRENDER OF THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT, OR WHICH HAD NOT
BEEN PRESENTED PRIOR TO SUCH TIME, WERE DENIED EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS IN
A PARTICULAR CASE WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED FAVORABLE ACTION IF SUCH ACTION
HAD BEEN TAKEN PRIOR TO SURRENDER." 
..END :





















COMMISSIONER V. KORELL, 339 U.S. 619 


NO. 384.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - 176 F.2D
152, AFFIRMED. 


IN 1944, AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER PURCHASED AT A PREMIUM PRICE OF $121
CERTAIN TAXABLE CORPORATE BONDS WITH A FACE VALUE OF $100 WHICH WERE
THEN CALLABLE AT $104.  UPON PAYMENT OF $40, EACH BOND WAS CONVERTIBLE
AT THE OPTION OF THE HOLDER INTO A SHARE OF COMMON STOCK WHICH THEN HAD
A MARKET VALUE OF $163.  HELD: UNDER SEC. 125 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE, THE TAXPAYER, IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1944, WAS ENTITLED TO
DEDUCT, AS "AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM" ON EACH BOND, THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF $121 AND THE CALL PRICE OF $104.  PP. 620
628. 

(A)  THE CALLABILITY AND CONVERTIBILITY OF THESE BONDS DID NOT REMOVE
THEM FROM THE REACH OF SEC. 125.  PP. 623-624. 

(B)  THAT THE PREMIUM MAY HAVE BEEN PAID FOR THE CONVERSION
PRIVILEGE, RATHER THAN FOR A HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST, DID NOT PREVENT
IT FROM BEING AMORTIZABLE UNDER SEC. 125.  PP. 624-628. 

(C)  THE TERM "BOND PREMIUM" IN SEC. 125 MEANS ANY EXTRA PAYMENT,
REGARDLESS OF THE REASON THEREFOR.  P. 627. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. KORELL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DISALLOWED RESPONDENT'S
DEDUCTION IN HIS INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN OF "AMORTIZABLE BOND
PREMIUM" UNDER SEC. 125 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THE TAX COURT
OVERRULED THE COMMISSIONER.  10 T.C. 1001.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  176 F.2D 152.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S.
890.  AFFIRMED, P. 628. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF A PURCHASE OF CONVERTIBLE BONDS ARE IN ISSUE
HERE.  IN AUGUST, 1944, RESPONDENT, AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER, PURCHASED
CERTAIN AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY BONDS, EACH HAVING A
FACE VALUE OF $100, AT A PREMIUM PRICE AVERAGING SLIGHTLY IN EXCESS OF
$121.  EACH BOND WAS CONVERTIBLE INTO A SHARE OF COMMON STOCK, AT THE
OPTION OF THE BONDHOLDER, UPON THE PAYMENT OF $40.  THE MARKET PRICE OF
THE STOCK WAS OVER $163 WHEN RESPONDENT MADE HIS BOND PURCHASES.  THE
BONDS WERE CALLABLE PRIOR TO MATURITY DATE ACCORDING TO A SCHEDULE
APPEARING IN THE INDENTURE; HAD THE CORPORATION GIVEN APPROPRIATE
NOTICE AT THE DATES OF RESPONDENT'S PURCHASES, THE BONDS WOULD HAVE
BEEN REDEEMED AT $104. 

IN HIS 1944 INCOME TAX RETURN, RESPONDENT CLAIMED A DEDUCTION IN
EXCESS OF $8,600 FOR AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM.  HE COMPUTED HIS
DEDUCTION ON EACH BOND AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS PURCHASE PRICE,
$121, AND THE CALL PRICE, $104.  THIS COMPUTATION IS CONCEDEDLY CORRECT
IF THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
PETITIONER HERE, REFUSED TO ALLOW ANY SUCH DEDUCTION.  HIS THEORY WAS
THAT SEC. 125 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE ESTABLISHING THE DEDUCTION
FOR "AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM" DID NOT INCLUDE PREMIUM PAID FOR THE
CONVERSION PRIVILEGE.  A CONTRARY VIEW OF THE STATUTE WAS ADOPTED BY
THE TAX COURT.  10 T.C. 1001(1948).  THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED, HOLDING
THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO THE AMORTIZATION DEDUCTION.  176 F.2D
152(1949).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 338 U.S. 890(1949), TO RESOLVE THE
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V. SHOONG, 177 F.2D 131(1949). 

PRIOR TO 1942, BOND PREMIUM WAS IRRELEVANT FOR TAX PURPOSES.  WHETHER
OR NOT THE PURCHASE PRICE EXCEEDED THE FACE VALUE OF THE BOND, THE
HOLDER CONSIDERED THE FULL PRICE AS THE BASIS FOR CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS,
AND REPORTED ALL TAXABLE INTEREST RECEIVED AS INCOME.  FN1  IN
PRESENTING ITS 1942 TAX PROPOSALS, HOWEVER, THE TREASURY ADOPTED THE
VIEW THAT EACH RECEIPT OF INTEREST IS NOT ENTIRELY INCOME BUT IS
PARTIALLY A RESTORATION OF CAPITAL.  ITS SPOKESMAN POINTED TO THE
CONSEQUENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOLDERS OF TAXABLE BONDS: THEY WERE
BEING TAXED ON A RETURN OF CAPITAL, WHILE HOLDERS OF TAX-EXEMPT BONDS
WERE NOT.  FN2  TO REMEDY THIS INEQUITY, THE TREASURY RECOMMENDED THAT
AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM BE PERMITTED IN THE CASE OF TAXABLE BONDS, AND
THAT THE BASIS FOR CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS FOR ALL BONDS HE ADJUSTED BY
THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE FOR TAXABLES AND DISALLOWABLE FOR TAX
EXEMPTS.  THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ULTIMATELY INCLUDED IN THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798, 822, AS SECS. 113 AND 125 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE. 

IS ESTABLISHED, APPLICABLE "IN THE CASE OF ANY BOND  ...,"  THAT THE
DEDUCTION FOR AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM MAY NOT BE TAKEN IF THE INTEREST
IS TAX-EXEMPT, BUT MAY BE IF THE BOND INTEREST IS TAXABLE.  TAXPAYERS
HOLDING BONDS IN THE LATTER CATEGORY MAY ELECT WHETHER OR NOT TO
AMORTIZE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES LAID DOWN IN SUBSECTION (C). 
SUBSECTION (B) DEFINES THE METHOD OF COMPUTING "THE AMOUNT OF BOND
PREMIUM, IN THE CASE OF THE HOLDER OF ANY BOND  ...."  PETITIONER URGES
THAT THIS DOES NOT DEFINE THE KIND OF BOND PREMIUM WHICH IS
AMORTIZABLE; RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THIS PROVISION ESTABLISHES A
MANDATORY COMPUTATION APPLICABLE TO ANY BOND PREMIUM.  SUBSECTION (D)
CONSISTS OF A GENERAL DEFINITION OF "BOND" AND CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS
THERETO, CHIEFLY BONDS HELD FOR SALE OR AS STOCK IN TRADE.  THAT THE
SECURITIES PURCHASED BY RESPONDENT FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL DEFINITION
AND WITHOUT THE EXCEPTIONS IS UNDISPUTED. 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE CALLABILITY AND CONVERTIBILITY OF
THESE BONDS DO NOT REMOVE THEM FROM THE REACH OF SEC. 125.  THE ROLE OF
SUCH BONDS WAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL DISCUSSION
BY AT LEAST ONE WITNESS AT THE HEARINGS.  FN4  AND THE CONGRESS
RENDERED UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR ANSWERS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, E.G.,
BY EXPRESS REFERENCE TO "EARLIER CALL DATE," SEC. 125(B)(1), AND IN
BOTH COMMITTEE REPORTS.  "THE FACT THAT A BOND IS CALLABLE OR
CONVERTIBLE INTO STOCK DOES NOT OF ITSELF PREVENT THE APPLICATION OF
THIS SECTION.  IN THE CASE OF A CALLABLE BOND, THE EARLIEST CALL DATE
WILL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, BE CONSIDERED AS THE MATURITY
DATE.  HENCE, THE TOTAL PREMIUM IS REQUIRED TO BE SPREAD OVER THE
PERIOD FROM THE DATE AS OF WHICH THE BASIS OF THE BOND IS ESTABLISHED
DOWN TO THE EARLIEST CALL DATE, RATHER THAN DOWN TO THE MATURITY DATE. 
IN THE CASE OF A CONVERTIBLE BOND, IF THE OPTION TO CONVERT THE BOND
INTO STOCK RESTS WITH THE OWNER OF THE BOND (AS IT DID IN THIS CASE),
THE BOND IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS SECTION."  FN5  THE EXPRESS
DECISION OF CONGRESS TO INCLUDE THE TYPE OF BONDS PURCHASED BY
RESPONDENT IS OF COURSE BINDING ON THE COURTS. 

PETITIONER CONCEDES THAT THE BONDS PURCHASED BY RESPONDENT ARE WITHIN
THE REACH OF SEC. 125, BUT HE URGES THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE THE
KIND OF PREMIUM WHICH CONGRESS HAD IN MIND.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS
PREMIUM WAS PAID FOR THE CONVERSION PRIVILEGE, WHEREAS CONGRESS
INTENDED TO INCLUDE ONLY THAT PREMIUM (ENTITLED "TRUE" PREMIUM BY
PETITIONER) WHICH IS PAID FOR SECURING A HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST THAN
THE MARKET AVERAGE AND FOR NOTHING ELSE.  WE REJECT THIS ARGUMENT AS
INAPPOSITE TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE STATUTE, UNSUPPORTED BY THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE NORMAL USE OF THE TERM
"BOND PREMIUM." 

AS CONGRESS WROTE THE STATUTE, THE SCOPE OF "BOND PREMIUM" IS
ADEQUATELY DENOTED BY DEFINING "BOND."  THERE WAS NO NEED FOR CONGRESS
TO QUALIFY BOTH WORDS IN ORDER TO MAKE ITS MEANING CLEAR; "PREMIUM" AS
AN ISOLATED TERM MAY NOT BE DEFINED IN THE STATUTE NOR EXPLAINED IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, BUT "PREMIUM" IS NEVER USED IN THE STATUTE APART
FROM ITS MATE "BOND."  NO ATTEMPT TO DEFINE AND DISTINGUISH THE REASONS
FOR PAYING PREMIUM MARK THE PERTINENT TREASURY REGULATIONS 111, SEC.
29.125.  THEY MIRROR THE STRUCTURE OF THE STATUTE AND ARE CONSTRUCTED
IN TERMS OF "BONDS."  AGAIN, WE NOTE THAT THE BONDS HERE INVOLVED ARE
WITHOUT QUESTION EMBRACED BY THE STATUTE. 

TO BE SURE, CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE PROCEEDED BY DEFINING "PREMIUM" (AND
"TRUE" PREMIUM) RATHER THAN, OR AS WELL AS "BOND."  BUT WE CANNOT
REJECT THE CLEAR AND PRECISE AVENUE OF EXPRESSION ACTUALLY ADOPTED BY
THE CONGRESS BECAUSE IN A PARTICULAR CASE WE MAY KNOW, IF THE BONDS ARE
DISPOSED OF PRIOR TO OUR DECISION, THAT THE PUBLIC REVENUES WOULD BE
MAXIMIZED BY ADOPTING ANOTHER STATUTORY PATH.  CONGRESS WAS LEGISLATING
FOR THE GENERALITY OF CASES.  IT NOT ONLY CREATED A NEW DEDUCTION BUT
ALSO REQUIRED THAT THE BASIS BE ADJUSTED TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEDUCTION
ALLOWABLE FOR TAXABLES AND DISALLOWABLE FOR TAX-EXEMPTS.  FN6  THE
ADJUSTMENT INCREASED THE REVENUE POTENTIAL, FOR THE LOWER BASIS
OBVIOUSLY RAISED POSSIBLE CAPITAL GAIN AND LOWERED ALLOWABLE CAPITAL
LOSS.  IN THE CASE OF TAX-EXEMPT BONDS, WHICH HAD A TOTAL PAR VALUE IN
1942 OF OVER 58.5 BILLION DOLLARS,  FN7  THERE WAS NO ALLOWABLE
DEDUCTION TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THIS NEW REVENUE POTENTIAL.  IN THE
CASE OF TAXABLE BONDS, WHETHER THE TAX PAID ON CAPITAL GAINS WILL
EXCEED THE TAX AVOIDED BY THE DEDUCTION DEPENDS IN EACH PARTICULAR
INSTANCE UPON THE UNCERTAINTIES OF MARKET FLUCTUATIONS AND TAX RATES
AND THE CLUSTER OF OTHER FACTORS WHICH INDUCES A BONDHOLDER TO ACT AND
DETERMINES HIS TAX IN GIVEN YEARS.  FN8  THESE FACTORS MAY COMBINE IN A
SPECIFIC CASE TO PRODUCE AN EFFECT UPON REVENUE WHICH TO SOME MAY
APPEAR TOO DRASTIC FOR CONGRESS TO HAVE INTENDED.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING
IN THIS RECORD TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS OR THE TREASURY ANTICIPATED
THAT THE TOTAL LONG-RUN EFFECT OF SECS. 113 AND 125 ON THE YIELD FROM
BOTH TAXABLES AND TAX-EXEMPTS WOULD BE TO DECREASE FEDERAL REVENUE. 
AND EVEN IF CONGRESS HAD EXPECTED THAT SOME LOSS OF REVENUE WOULD BE
ENTAILED, IT MIGHT HAVE DECIDED THAT MORE EQUAL TREATMENT OF TAXPAYERS
WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN POSSIBLE REVENUE LOSS; IT CANNOT BE ARGUED THAT
CONGRESS LACKED THE LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION TO HAVE REACHED SUCH A
CONCLUSION.  IF IN PRACTICE THESE SECTIONS ARE CAUSING SUCH LOSS OF
REVENUE AS TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS MAY HAVE ERRED IN ITS BALANCING OF
THE COMPETING CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED, THE AMENDMENT MUST OBVIOUSLY BE
ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS AND NOT THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE OR
THIS COURT. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FAILS TO INTIMATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
CONFINE THE DEDUCTION TO BONDS THE PREMIUM ON WHICH WAS PAID FOR A
HIGHER-THAN-MARKET INTEREST RATE.  AT MOST, PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION
OF THE LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS MAY HAVE HAD THE
BONDHOLDER WHO WAS SEEKING A HIGHER INTEREST RATE PRIMARILY IN MIND;
BUT IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT CONGRESS IN FACT LEGISLATED WITH
REFERENCE TO HIM EXCLUSIVELY.  FN9  CONGRESS, AND THE TREASURY IN
ADVISING CONGRESS, MAY WELL HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE BEST MANNER OF
AFFORDING HIM RELIEF AND CORRECTING THE INEQUITABLE TREATMENT OF
BONDHOLDERS WHOSE INTEREST RECEIPTS WERE TAXABLE, WAS TO DEFINE THE
SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENT BY REFERENCE TO TYPES OF BONDS RATHER THAN
CAUSES OF PREMIUM PAYMENT. 

AS "BOND PREMIUM" IS USED BY ACCOUNTANTS AND OTHER WRITERS IN THE
SECURITIES FIELD, IT IS ANY PAYMENT IN ADDITION TO FACE VALUE.  FN10
THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE WORDS HAVE ONLY A LIMITED SIGNIFICANCE,
ECHOING PETITIONER'S "TRUE" PREMIUM, APPLICABLE SOLELY TO THAT EXTRA
PRICE CAUSED BY THE DESIRE TO OBTAIN A HIGHER THAN AVERAGE INTEREST
YIELD.  ON THE CONTRARY, SOME AUTHORS HAVE NOTED THE VARIETY OF CAUSES
WHICH INDUCE THE PAYMENT OF BOND PREMIUM, AND THE PRACTICAL
IMPOSSIBILITY OF DISENTANGLING AND ISOLATING THEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RELATIVE EVALUATION, AS WOULD BE REQUIRED IF PETITIONER'S READING OF
THE STATUTE WERE UPHELD.  FN11  WE ADOPT THE VIEW THAT "BOND PREMIUM"
IN SEC. 125 MEANS ANY EXTRA PAYMENT, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON THEREFOR,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF TAX LAW THAT THE
ORDINARY MEANING OF TERMS IS PERSUASIVE OF THEIR STATUTORY MEANING. 
FN12 

WE CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS MADE NO DISTINCTIONS BASED UPON THE
INDUCEMENTS FOR PAYING THE PREMIUM.  CONGRESS DELIMITED THE BOND
PREMIUM IT WISHED TO MAKE AMORTIZABLE IN TERMS OF CATEGORIES OF BONDS,
AND THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT RESPONDENT PURCHASED BONDS WHICH ARE
INCLUDED WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 125.  RESPONDENT IS THEREFORE
ENTITLED TO THIS DEDUCTION AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. EDWARDS, 271 U.S. 109, 116(1926); CF.
OLD COLONY R. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 284 U.S. 552, 561(1932). 

FN2  STATEMENT OF RANDOLPH PAUL, THEN TAX ADVISER TO THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY AND SUBSEQUENTLY GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT, 1
HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON REVENUE REVISIONS
OF 1942, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 90(1942). 

FN3  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 125, TITLED "AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM,"
READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  GENERAL RULE.  IN THE CASE OF ANY BOND, AS DEFINED IN
SUBSECTION (D), THE FOLLOWING RULES SHALL APPLY TO THE AMORTIZABLE BOND
PREMIUM (DETERMINED UNDER SUBSECTION (B)) ON THE BOND FOR ANY TAXABLE
YEAR BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1941: 

"(1)  INTEREST WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY TAXABLE.  IN THE CASE OF A BOND
(OTHER THAN A BOND THE INTEREST ON WHICH IS EXCLUDIBLE FROM GROSS
INCOME), THE AMOUNT OF THE AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM FOR THE TAXABLE
YEAR SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. 

"(2)  INTEREST WHOLLY TAX-EXEMPT.  IN THE CASE OF ANY BOND THE
INTEREST ON WHICH IS EXCLUDIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME, NO DEDUCTION SHALL
BE ALLOWED FOR THE AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR. 

"(3)  ADJUSTMENT OF CREDIT IN CASE OF INTEREST PARTIALLY TAX-EXEMPT. 
IN THE CASE OF ANY BOND THE INTEREST ON WHICH IS ALLOWABLE AS A CREDIT
AGAINST NET INCOME, THE CREDIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 25(A)(1) OR (2), OR
THE AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR. 

"(FOR ADJUSTMENT TO BASIS ON ACCOUNT OF AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM, SEE

"(B)  AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM - 

"(1)  AMOUNT OF BOND PREMIUM.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARAGRAPH (2), THE
AMOUNT OF BOND PREMIUM, IN THE CASE OF THE HOLDER OF ANY BOND, SHALL BE
DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF THE BASIS (FOR DETERMINING
LOSS ON SALE OR EXCHANGE) OF SUCH BOND, AND WITH REFERENCE TO THE
AMOUNT PAYABLE ON MATURITY OR ON EARLIER CALL DATE, WITH ADJUSTMENTS
PROPER TO REFLECT UNAMORTIZED BOND PREMIUM WITH RESPECT TO THE BOND,
FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE AS OF WHICH SUBSECTION (A) BECOMES
APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE TAXPAYER WITH RESPECT TO SUCH BOND. 
"(2)  AMOUNT AMORTIZABLE.  THE AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM OF THE TAXABLE
YEAR SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND PREMIUM ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH
YEAR. 

"(3)  METHOD OF DETERMINATION.  THE DETERMINATIONS REQUIRED UNDER
PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) SHALL BE MADE - 

"(A)  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF AMORTIZING BOND PREMIUM
REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE HOLDER OF THE BOND, IF SUCH METHOD IS
REASONABLE;    "(B)  IN ALL OTHER CASES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBING REASONABLE METHODS OF AMORTIZING BOND PREMIUM, PRESCRIBED
BY THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY. 

"(C)  ELECTION ON TAXABLE AND PARTIALLY TAXABLE BONDS - 

"(1)  ELIGIBILITY TO ELECT AND BONDS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH ELECTION
PERMITTED.  THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING
CLASSES OF TAXPAYERS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF BONDS
ONLY IF THE TAXPAYER HAS ELECTED TO HAVE THIS SECTION APPLY. 

     .         .         .        .         . 

"(D)  DEFINITION OF BOND.  AS USED IN THIS SECTION, THE TERM 'BOND'
MEANS ANY BOND, DEBENTURE, NOTE, OR CERTIFICATE OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF
INDEBTEDNESS, ISSUED BY ANY CORPORATION AND BEARING INTEREST (INCLUDING
ANY LIKE OBLIGATION ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
THEREOF), WITH INTEREST COUPONS OR IN REGISTERED FORM, BUT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ANY SUCH OBLIGATION WHICH CONSTITUTES STOCK IN TRADE OF THE
TAXPAYER OR ANY SUCH OBLIGATION OF A KIND WHICH WOULD PROPERLY BE
INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY OF THE TAXPAYER IF ON HAND AT THE CLOSE OF
THE TAXABLE YEAR, OR ANY SUCH OBLIGATION HELD BY THE TAXPAYER PRIMARILY
FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS TRADE OR
BUSINESS." 

FN4  SEE STATEMENT OF ROY C. OSGOOD, 2 HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON H.R. 7378, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 1728-29(1942). 

FN5  H.R. REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 80(1942).  PRECISELY
THE SAME LANGUAGE APPEARS IN S. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.
94(1942).  U.S. TREAS. REG. 111, SEC. 29.125-5, IS OF IDENTICAL TENOR. 

FN6 INT. REV. CODE SEC. 113(B)(1) PROVIDES THAT "PROPER ADJUSTMENT IN
RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SHALL IN ALL CASES BE MADE  ...  (H) IN THE
CASE OF ANY BOND (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 125) THE INTEREST ON WHICH IS
WHOLLY EXEMPT FROM THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER, TO THE EXTENT OF
THE AMORTIZABLE BOND PREMIUM DISALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION PURSUANT TO
SUCH SECTION) TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWABLE PURSUANT TO
THE TEXT OF SEC. 125. 

FN7  OF THIS AMOUNT, 25.5 BILLION WAS WHOLLY, AND 33.0 BILLION
PARTIALLY TAX-EXEMPT.  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES
372(1948). 

FN8  IN THIS CASE, THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE HOW PETITIONER
DISPOSED OF THE BONDS.  IF FOR SOME REASON HE HAD SOLD THEM AFTER SIX
MONTHS AT A PRICE ABOVE 138, HIS CAPITAL GAIN WOULD HAVE EXCEEDED THE
DEDUCTION HE TOOK ON THE BOND PREMIUM.  THIS POSSIBILITY IS NOT MERELY
THEORETICAL, FOR THE BONDS IN FACT STOOD ABOVE 138 FOR OVER A YEAR,
STARTING IN AUGUST, 1945. 

FN9  PETITIONER CITES H.R. REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.
47(1942), AND THE STATEMENTS OF JOHN O'BRIEN, 1 HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON H.R. 7378, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 52(1942), AND
RANDOLPH PAUL, 1 HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON
REVENUE REVISION OF 1942, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 90(1942).  NONE OF THESE
CAN BE TAKEN AS A CLEAR STATEMENT EXCLUDING PREMIUM REFLECTING
FINANCIAL INDUCEMENTS OTHER THAN THE INTEREST RATE. 

FN10  E.G., "WHEN BONDS SELL AT A PRICE GREATER THAN PAR, THEY ARE
SAID TO SELL AT A PREMIUM ...."  FINANCIAL HANDBOOK 1210(3D ED. 1948);
"...  BOND PREMIUM - THE AMOUNT BY WHICH ISSUE PRICE, OR COST AT LATER
DATE, EXCEEDS MATURITY VALUE  ...."  PATON, ADVANCED ACCOUNTING
197(1941); GROSSMAN, INVESTMENT PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE 14(1939);
NOBLE, ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES 447(4TH ED. 1945).  AND SEE OLD COLONY R.
CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 284 U.S. 552, 555(1932); NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V.
EDWARDS, 271 U.S. 109, 116(1926); 4 BOGERT, TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES, SEC.
831(1935); 2 SCOTT ON TRUSTS SEC. 239.2(1939). 

FN11  SEC. E.G., 1 DEWING, FINANCIAL POLICY OF CORPORATIONS 662(4TH
ED. 1941); SALIERS AND HOLMES, BASIC ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES 509(1937);
4(PT. 1) BOGERT, TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES 319(1935); 2 SCOTT ON TRUSTS
1337(1939); WILLIAMS, ARE CONVERTIBLES NOW ATTRACTIVE?  83 MAG.  OF
WALL ST. 134(1948). 

FN12  CRANE V. COMMISSIONER, 331 U.S. 1, 6-7(1947); HELVERING V.
FLACCUS OAK LEATHER CO., 313 U.S. 247, 249(1941); HELVERING V. SAN
JOAQUIN FRUIT & INVESTMENT CO., 297 U.S. 496, 499(1936); LANG V.
COMMISSIONER, 289 U.S. 109, 111(1933); CF. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
V. PHILLIPS, 332 U.S. 168, 171(1947). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS.  HE BELIEVES THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE
DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY, THE OPINION
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V.
SHOONG, 177 F.2D 131(1949). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :







SWEATT V. PAINTER, 339 U.S. 629 


NO. 44.  ARGUED APRIL 4, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - REVERSED. 


PETITIONER WAS DENIED ADMISSION TO THE STATE-SUPPORTED UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS LAW SCHOOL, SOLELY BECAUSE HE IS A NEGRO AND STATE LAW FORBIDS
THE ADMISSION OF NEGROES TO THAT LAW SCHOOL.  HE WAS OFFERED, BUT HE
REFUSED, ENROLLMENT IN A SEPARATE LAW SCHOOL NEWLY ESTABLISHED BY THE
STATE FOR NEGROES.  THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL HAS 16 FULL-TIME
AND THREE PART-TIME PROFESSORS, 850 STUDENTS, A LIBRARY OF 65,000
VOLUMES, A LAW REVIEW, MOOT COURT FACILITIES, SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS, AN
ORDER OF THE COIF AFFILIATION, MANY DISTINGUISHED ALUMNI, AND MUCH
TRADITION AND PRESTIGE.  THE SEPARATE LAW SCHOOL FOR NEGROES HAS FIVE
FULL-TIME PROFESSORS, 23 STUDENTS, A LIBRARY OF 16,500 VOLUMES, A
PRACTICE COURT, A LEGAL AID ASSOCIATION AND ONE ALUMNUS ADMITTED TO THE
TEXAS BAR; BUT IT EXCLUDES FROM ITS STUDENT BODY MEMBERS OF RACIAL
GROUPS WHICH NUMBER 85% OF THE POPULATION OF THE STATE AND WHICH
INCLUDE MOST OF THE LAWYERS, WITNESSES, JURORS, JUDGES, AND OTHER
OFFICIALS WITH WHOM PETITIONER WOULD DEAL AS A MEMBER OF THE TEXAS
BAR.  HELD:  THE LEGAL EDUCATION OFFERED PETITIONER IS NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THAT WHICH HE WOULD RECEIVE IF ADMITTED TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL; AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT HE BE ADMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS LAW SCHOOL.  PP. 631-636. 

SWEATT V. PAINTER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. 

A TEXAS TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT A NEWLY-ESTABLISHED STATE LAW SCHOOL
FOR NEGROES OFFERED PETITIONER "PRIVILEGES, ADVANTAGES, AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE STUDY OF LAW SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THOSE
OFFERED BY THE STATE TO WHITE STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS" AND
DENIED MANDAMUS TO COMPEL HIS ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW
SCHOOL.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS AFFIRMED.  210 S.W.2D 442.  THE
TEXAS SUPREME COURT DENIED WRIT OF ERROR.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 865.  REVERSED, P. 636. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE AND MCLAURIN V. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS, POST, P. 637,
PRESENT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THIS GENERAL QUESTION:  TO WHAT EXTENT
DOES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LIMIT THE
POWER OF A STATE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT RACES IN
PROFESSIONAL AND GRADUATE EDUCATION IN A STATE UNIVERSITY?  BROADER
ISSUES HAVE BEEN URGED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, BUT WE ADHERE TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF DECIDING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE PARTICULAR CASE BEFORE THE COURT.  WE HAVE FREQUENTLY REITERATED
THAT THIS COURT WILL DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ONLY WHEN
NECESSARY TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AT HAND, AND THAT SUCH
DECISIONS WILL BE DRAWN AS NARROWLY AS POSSIBLE.  RESCUE ARMY V.
MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549(1947), AND CASES CITED THEREIN.  BECAUSE
OF THIS TRADITIONAL RELUCTANCE TO EXTEND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS
TO SITUATIONS OR FACTS WHICH ARE NOT BEFORE THE COURT, MUCH OF THE
EXCELLENT RESEARCH AND DETAILED ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THESE CASES IS
UNNECESSARY TO THEIR DISPOSITION. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, PETITIONER FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL FOR THE FEBRUARY, 1946 TERM.  HIS
APPLICATION WAS REJECTED SOLELY BECAUSE HE IS A NEGRO.  FN1  PETITIONER
THEREUPON BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR MANDAMUS AGAINST THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL
OFFICIALS, RESPONDENTS HERE, TO COMPEL HIS ADMISSION.  AT THAT TIME,
THERE WAS NO LAW SCHOOL IN TEXAS WHICH ADMITTED NEGROES. 

THE STATE TRIAL COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE ACTION OF THE STATE IN
DENYING PETITIONER THE OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN A LEGAL EDUCATION WHILE
GRANTING IT TO OTHERS DEPRIVED HIM OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT DID NOT GRANT THE
RELIEF REQUESTED, HOWEVER, BUT CONTINUED THE CASE FOR SIX MONTHS TO
ALLOW THE STATE TO SUPPLY SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL FACILITIES.  AT THE
EXPIRATION OF THE SIX MONTHS, IN DECEMBER, 1946, THE COURT DENIED THE
WRIT ON THE SHOWING THAT THE AUTHORIZED UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS HAD
ADOPTED AN ORDER CALLING FOR THE OPENING OF A LAW SCHOOL FOR NEGROES
THE FOLLOWING FEBRUARY.  WHILE PETITIONER'S APPEAL WAS PENDING, SUCH A
SCHOOL WAS MADE AVAILABLE, BUT PETITIONER REFUSED TO REGISTER THEREIN. 
THE TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SET ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT
AND ORDERED THE CAUSE "REMANDED GENERALLY TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF ANY PARTY TO
THIS SUIT." 

ON REMAND, A HEARING WAS HELD ON THE ISSUE OF THE EQUALITY OF THE
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AT THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED SCHOOL AS COMPARED WITH
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL.  FINDING THAT THE NEW SCHOOL
OFFERED PETITIONER "PRIVILEGES, ADVANTAGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE
STUDY OF LAW SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THOSE OFFERED BY THE STATE TO
WHITE STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS," THE TRIAL COURT DENIED
MANDAMUS.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS AFFIRMED.  210 S.W.2D 442(1948). 
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF ERROR WAS DENIED BY THE TEXAS
SUPREME COURT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 338 U.S. 865(1949), BECAUSE OF
THE MANIFEST IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVED. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL, FROM WHICH PETITIONER WAS
EXCLUDED, WAS STAFFED BY A FACULTY OF SIXTEEN FULL-TIME AND THREE PART
TIME PROFESSORS, SOME OF WHOM ARE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED AUTHORITIES IN
THEIR FIELD.  ITS STUDENT BODY NUMBERED 850.  THE LIBRARY CONTAINED
OVER 65,000 VOLUMES.  AMONG THE OTHER FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO THE
STUDENTS WERE A LAW REVIEW, MOOT COURT FACILITIES, SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS,
AND ORDER OF THE COIF AFFILIATION.  THE SCHOOL'S ALUMNI OCCUPY THE MOST
DISTINGUISHED POSITIONS IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF THE LAW AND IN THE
PUBLIC LIFE OF THE STATE.  IT MAY PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED ONE OF THE
NATION'S RANKING LAW SCHOOLS. 

THE LAW SCHOOL FOR NEGROES WHICH WAS TO HAVE OPENED IN FEBRUARY,
1947, WOULD HAVE HAD NO INDEPENDENT FACULTY OR LIBRARY.  THE TEACHING
WAS TO BE CARRIED ON BY FOUR MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW
SCHOOL FACULTY, WHO WERE TO MAINTAIN THEIR OFFICES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS WHILE TEACHING AT BOTH INSTITUTIONS.  FEW OF THE 10,000 VOLUMES
ORDERED FOR THE LIBRARY HAD ARRIVED; FN2  NOR WAS THERE ANY FULL-TIME
LIBRARIAN.  THE SCHOOL LACKED ACCREDITATION. 

SINCE THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE, RESPONDENTS REPORT THE OPENING OF A LAW
SCHOOL AT THE TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY FOR NEGROES.  IT IS APPARENTLY ON
THE ROAD TO FULL ACCREDITATION.  IT HAS A FACULTY OF FIVE FULL-TIME
PROFESSORS; A STUDENT BODY OF 23; A LIBRARY OF SOME 16,500 VOLUMES
SERVICED BY A FULL-TIME STAFF; A PRACTICE COURT AND LEGAL AID
ASSOCIATION; AND ONE ALUMNUS WHO HAS BECOME A MEMBER OF THE TEXAS BAR. 

WHETHER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL IS COMPARED WITH THE
ORIGINAL OR THE NEW LAW SCHOOL FOR NEGROES, WE CANNOT FIND SUBSTANTIAL
EQUALITY IN THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED WHITE AND NEGRO LAW
STUDENTS BY THE STATE.  IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF THE FACULTY, VARIETY OF
COURSES AND OPPORTUNITY FOR SPECIALIZATION, SIZE OF THE STUDENT BODY,
SCOPE OF THE LIBRARY, AVAILABILITY OF LAW REVIEW AND SIMILAR
ACTIVITIES, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL IS SUPERIOR.  WHAT IS
MORE IMPORTANT, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL POSSESSES TO A FAR
GREATER DEGREE THOSE QUALITIES WHICH ARE INCAPABLE OF OBJECTIVE
MEASUREMENT BUT WHICH MAKE FOR GREATNESS IN A LAW SCHOOL.  SUCH
QUALITIES, TO NAME BUT A FEW, INCLUDE REPUTATION OF THE FACULTY,
EXPERIENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATION, POSITION AND INFLUENCE OF THE ALUMNI,
STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY, TRADITIONS AND PRESTIGE.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO
BELIEVE THAT ONE WHO HAD A FREE CHOICE BETWEEN THESE LAW SCHOOLS WOULD
CONSIDER THE QUESTION CLOSE. 

MOREOVER, ALTHOUGH THE LAW IS A HIGHLY LEARNED PROFESSION, WE ARE
WELL AWARE THAT IT IS AN INTENSELY PRACTICAL ONE.  THE LAW SCHOOL, THE
PROVING GROUND FOR LEGAL LEARNING AND PRACTICE, CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE IN
ISOLATION FROM THE INDIVIDUALS AND INSTITUTIONS WITH WHICH THE LAW
INTERACTS.  FEW STUDENTS AND NO ONE WHO HAS PRACTICED LAW WOULD CHOOSE
TO STUDY IN AN ACADEMIC VACUUM, REMOVED FROM THE INTERPLAY OF IDEAS AND
THE EXCHANGE OF VIEWS WITH WHICH THE LAW IS CONCERNED.  THE LAW SCHOOL
TO WHICH TEXAS IS WILLING TO ADMIT PETITIONER EXCLUDES FROM ITS STUDENT
BODY MEMBERS OF THE RACIAL GROUPS WHICH NUMBER 85% OF THE POPULATION OF
THE STATE AND INCLUDE MOST OF THE LAWYERS, WITNESSES, JURORS, JUDGES
AND OTHER OFFICIALS WITH WHOM PETITIONER WILL INEVITABLY BE DEALING
WHEN HE BECOMES A MEMBER OF THE TEXAS BAR.  WITH SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL AND
SIGNIFICANT SEGMENT OF SOCIETY EXCLUDED, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE
EDUCATION OFFERED PETITIONER IS SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THAT WHICH HE
WOULD RECEIVE IF ADMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW SCHOOL. 

IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT EXCLUDING PETITIONER FROM THAT SCHOOL IS NO
DIFFERENT FROM EXCLUDING WHITE STUDENTS FROM THE NEW LAW SCHOOL.  THIS
CONTENTION OVERLOOKS REALITIES.  IT IS UNLIKELY THAT A MEMBER OF A
GROUP SO DECISIVELY IN THE MAJORITY, ATTENDING A SCHOOL WITH RICH
TRADITIONS AND PRESTIGE WHICH ONLY A HISTORY OF CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED
EXCELLENCE COULD COMMAND, WOULD CLAIM THAT THE OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED
HIM FOR LEGAL EDUCATION WERE UNEQUAL TO THOSE HELD OPEN TO PETITIONER. 
THAT SUCH A CLAIM, IF MADE, WOULD BE DISHONORED BY THE STATE, IS NO
ANSWER.  "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS NOT ACHIEVED THROUGH
INDISCRIMINATE IMPOSITION OF INEQUALITIES."  SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334
U.S. 1, 22(1948). 

IT IS FUNDAMENTAL THAT THESE CASES CONCERN RIGHTS WHICH ARE PERSONAL
AND PRESENT.  THIS COURT HAS STATED UNANIMOUSLY THAT "THE STATE MUST
PROVIDE (LEGAL EDUCATION) FOR (PETITIONER) IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND PROVIDE IT AS SOON AS
IT DOES FOR APPLICANTS OF ANY OTHER GROUP."  SIPUEL V. BOARD OF
REGENTS, 332 U.S. 631, 633(1948).  THAT CASE "DID NOT PRESENT THE ISSUE
WHETHER A STATE MIGHT NOT SATISFY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY ESTABLISHING A SEPARATE LAW SCHOOL FOR
NEGROES."  FISHER V. HURST, 333 U.S. 147, 150(1948).  IN MISSOURI EX
REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337, 351(1938), THE COURT, SPEAKING
THROUGH CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, DECLARED THAT "PETITIONER'S RIGHT WAS A
PERSONAL ONE.  IT WAS AS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND THE STATE WAS BOUND TO FURNISH HIM
WITHIN ITS BORDERS FACILITIES FOR LEGAL EDUCATION SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL
TO THOSE WHICH THE STATE THERE AFFORDED FOR PERSONS OF THE WHITE RACE,
WHETHER OR NOT OTHER NEGROES SOUGHT THE SAME OPPORTUNITY."  THESE ARE
THE ONLY CASES IN THIS COURT WHICH PRESENT THE ISSUE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF RACE DISTINCTIONS IN STATE-SUPPORTED
GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE CASES, PETITIONER MAY CLAIM HIS FULL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT:  LEGAL EDUCATION EQUIVALENT TO THAT OFFERED BY
THE STATE TO STUDENTS OF OTHER RACES.  SUCH EDUCATION IS NOT AVAILABLE
TO HIM IN A SEPARATE LAW SCHOOL AS OFFERED BY THE STATE.  WE CANNOT,
THEREFORE, AGREE WITH RESPONDENTS THAT THE DOCTRINE OF PLESSY V.
FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537(1896), REQUIRES AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
BELOW.  NOR NEED WE REACH PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT PLESSY V.
FERGUSON SHOULD BE REEXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF CONTEMPORARY KNOWLEDGE
RESPECTING THE PURPOSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE EFFECTS OF
RACIAL SEGRETATION.  SEE SUPRA, P. 631. 

WE HOLD THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
REQUIRES THAT PETITIONER BE ADMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS LAW
SCHOOL.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IT APPEARS THAT THE UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO WHITE
STUDENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE LAW.  SEE TEX. CONST., ART. VII,
SECS. 7, 14; TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. (VERNON, 1925), ARTS. 2643B (SUPP.
1949), 2719, 2900. 

FN2  "STUDENTS OF THE INTERIM SCHOOL OF LAW OF THE TEXAS STATE
UNIVERSITY FOR NEGROES (LOCATED IN AUSTIN, WHEREAS THE PERMANENT SCHOOL
WAS TO BE LOCATED AT HOUSTON) SHALL HAVE USE OF THE STATE LAW LIBRARY
IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING.  ...  "  TEX. LAWS 1947, C. 29, SEC. 11, TEX.
REV. CIV. STAT. (VERNON, 1949 SUPP.), NOTE TO ART. 2643B.  IT IS NOT
CLEAR THAT THIS PRIVILEGE WAS ANYTHING MORE THAN WAS EXTENDED TO ALL
CITIZENS OF THE STATE. 
..END :


















MCLAURIN V. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS, 339 U.S. 637 


NO. 34.  ARGUED APRIL 3-4, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - 87 F.SUPP. 
528, REVERSED. 


APPELLANT, A NEGRO CITIZEN OF OKLAHOMA POSSESSING A MASTER'S DEGREE,
WAS ADMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE STATE-SUPPORTED UNIVERSITY
OF OKLAHOMA AS A CANDIDATE FOR A DOCTORATE IN EDUCATION AND WAS
PERMITTED TO USE THE SAME CLASSROOM, LIBRARY AND CAFETERIA AS WHITE
STUDENTS.  PURSUANT TO A REQUIREMENT OF STATE LAW THAT THE INSTRUCTION
OF NEGROES IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BE "UPON A SEGREGATED
BASIS," HOWEVER, HE WAS ASSIGNED TO A SEAT IN THE CLASSROOM IN A ROW
SPECIFIED FOR NEGRO STUDENTS, WAS ASSIGNED TO A SPECIAL TABLE IN THE
LIBRARY, AND, ALTHOUGH PERMITTED TO EAT IN THE CAFETERIA AT THE SAME
TIME AS OTHER STUDENTS, WAS ASSIGNED TO A SPECIAL TABLE THERE.  HELD:
THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE HIS
EDUCATION DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS PERSONAL AND PRESENT RIGHT TO THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRECLUDES SUCH
DIFFERENCES IN TREATMENT BY THE STATE BASED UPON RACE.  PP. 638-642. 

(A)  THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON APPELLANT IMPAIR AND INHIBIT HIS
ABILITY TO STUDY, TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS AND EXCHANGE VIEWS WITH
OTHER STUDENTS, AND, IN GENERAL, TO LEARN HIS PROFESSION.  PP. 640
641. 

(B)  THAT APPELLANT MAY STILL BE SET APART BY HIS FELLOW STUDENTS AND
MAY BE IN NO BETTER POSITION WHEN THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE REMOVED IS
IRRELEVANT, FOR THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATE WHICH PROHIBIT THE INTELLECTUAL
COMMINGLING OF STUDENTS AND THE REFUSAL OF STUDENTS TO COMMINGLE WHERE
THE STATE PRESENTS NO SUCH BAR.  P. 641. 

(C)  HAVING BEEN ADMITTED TO A STATE-SUPPORTED GRADUATE SCHOOL,
APPELLANT MUST RECEIVE THE SAME TREATMENT AT THE HANDS OF THE STATE AS
STUDENTS OF OTHER RACES.  P. 642. 

MCLAURIN V. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF OKLAHOMA. 

THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW ARE STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW
IS REVERSED, P. 642. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE, WE ARE FACED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER A STATE MAY,
AFTER ADMITTING A STUDENT TO GRADUATE INSTRUCTION IN ITS STATE
UNIVERSITY, AFFORD HIM DIFFERENT TREATMENT FROM OTHER STUDENTS SOLELY
BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.  WE DECIDE ONLY THIS ISSUE; SEE SWEATT V. PAINTER,
ANTE, P. 629. 

APPELLANT IS A NEGRO CITIZEN OF OKLAHOMA.  POSSESSING A MASTER'S
DEGREE, HE APPLIED FOR ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA IN ORDER
TO PURSUE STUDIES AND COURSES LEADING TO A DOCTORATE IN EDUCATION.  AT
THAT TIME, HIS APPLICATION WAS DENIED, SOLELY BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.  THE
SCHOOL AUTHORITIES WERE REQUIRED TO EXCLUDE HIM BY THE OKLAHOMA
STATUTES, 70 OKLA. STAT. (1941) SECS. 455, 456, 457, WHICH MADE IT A
MISDEMEANOR TO MAINTAIN OR OPERATE, TEACH OR ATTEND A SCHOOL AT WHICH
BOTH WHITES AND NEGROES ARE ENROLLED OR TAUGHT.  APPELLANT FILED A
COMPLAINT REQUESTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, ALLEGING THAT THE ACTION OF THE
SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AND THE STATUTES UPON WHICH THEIR ACTION WAS BASED
WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DEPRIVED HIM OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS.  CITING OUR DECISIONS IN MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305
U.S. 337(1938), AND SIPUEL V. BOARD OF REGENTS, 332 U.S. 631(1948), A
STATUTORY THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE STATE HAD A
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO PROVIDE HIM WITH THE EDUCATION HE SOUGHT AS SOON
AS IT PROVIDED THAT EDUCATION FOR APPLICANTS OF ANY OTHER GROUP.  IT
FURTHER HELD THAT TO THE EXTENT THE OKLAHOMA STATUTES DENIED HIM
ADMISSION THEY WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.  ON THE ASSUMPTION,
HOWEVER, THAT THE STATE WOULD FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE, THE
COURT REFUSED TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION, RETAINING JURISDICTION OF THE
CAUSE WITH FULL POWER TO ISSUE ANY NECESSARY AND PROPER ORDERS TO
SECURE MCLAURIN THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  87 F.SUPP.  526. 

FOLLOWING THIS DECISION, THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE AMENDED THESE
STATUTES TO PERMIT THE ADMISSION OF NEGROES TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
LEARNING ATTENDED BY WHITE STUDENTS, IN CASES WHERE SUCH INSTITUTIONS
OFFERED COURSES NOT AVAILABLE IN THE NEGRO SCHOOLS.  THE AMENDMENT
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IN SUCH CASES THE PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION "SHALL
BE GIVEN AT SUCH COLLEGES OR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION UPON A
SEGREGATED BASIS."  FN1  APPELLANT WAS THEREUPON ADMITTED TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE SCHOOL.  IN APPARENT CONFORMITY WITH
THE AMENDMENT, HIS ADMISSION WAS MADE SUBJECT TO "SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS TO SEGREGATION AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY SHALL
CONSIDER TO AFFORD TO MR. G. W. MCLAURIN SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS ARE AFFORDED TO OTHER PERSONS SEEKING THE
SAME EDUCATION IN THE GRADUATE COLLEGE," A CONDITION WHICH DOES NOT
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN.  THUS HE WAS REQUIRED TO SIT APART AT A
DESIGNATED DESK IN AN ANTEROOM ADJOINING THE CLASSROOM; TO SIT AT A
DESIGNATED DESK ON THE MEZZANINE FLOOR OF THE LIBRARY, BUT NOT TO USE
THE DESKS IN THE REGULAR READING ROOM; AND TO SIT AT A DESIGNATED TABLE
AND TO EAT AT A DIFFERENT TIME FROM THE OTHER STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL
CAFETERIA. 

TO REMOVE THESE CONDITIONS, APPELLANT FILED A MOTION TO MODIFY THE
ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT COURT HELD THAT SUCH
TREATMENT DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND DENIED THE MOTION.  87 F.SUPP.  528.  THIS APPEAL FOLLOWED. 

IN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW AND THE
HEARING IN THIS COURT, THE TREATMENT AFFORDED APPELLANT WAS ALTERED. 
FOR SOME TIME, THE SECTION OF THE CLASSROOM IN WHICH APPELLANT SAT WAS
SURROUNDED BY A RAIL ON WHICH THERE WAS A SIGN STATING, "RESERVED FOR
COLORED," BUT THESE HAVE BEEN REMOVED.  HE IS NOW ASSIGNED TO A SEAT IN
THE CLASSROOM IN A ROW SPECIFIED FOR COLORED STUDENTS; HE IS ASSIGNED
TO A TABLE IN THE LIBRARY ON THE MAIN FLOOR; AND HE IS PERMITTED TO EAT
AT THE SAME TIME IN THE CAFETERIA AS OTHER STUDENTS, ALTHOUGH HERE
AGAIN HE IS ASSIGNED TO A SPECIAL TABLE. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE SEPARATIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATE IN THIS CASE ARE
IN FORM MERELY NOMINAL.  MCLAURIN USES THE SAME CLASSROOM, LIBRARY AND
CAFETERIA AS STUDENTS OF OTHER RACES; THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE
SEATS TO WHICH HE IS ASSIGNED IN THESE ROOMS HAVE ANY DISADVANTAGE OF
LOCATION.  HE MAY WAIT IN LINE IN THE CAFETERIA AND THERE STAND AND
TALK WITH HIS FELLOW STUDENTS, BUT WHILE HE EATS HE MUST REMAIN APART. 

THESE RESTRICTIONS WERE OBVIOUSLY IMPOSED IN ORDER TO COMPLY, AS
NEARLY AS COULD BE, WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF OKLAHOMA.  BUT
THEY SIGNIFY THAT THE STATE, IN ADMINISTERING THE FACILITIES IT AFFORDS
FOR PROFESSIONAL AND GRADUATE STUDY, SETS MCLAURIN APART FROM THE OTHER
STUDENTS.  THE RESULT IS THAT APPELLANT IS HANDICAPPED IN HIS PURSUIT
OF EFFECTIVE GRADUATE INSTRUCTION.  SUCH RESTRICTIONS IMPAIR AND
INHIBIT HIS ABILITY TO STUDY, TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS AND EXCHANGE
VIEWS WITH OTHER STUDENTS, AND, IN GENERAL, TO LEARN HIS PROFESSION. 

OUR SOCIETY GROWS INCREASINGLY COMPLEX, AND OUR NEED FOR TRAINED
LEADERS INCREASES CORRESPONDINGLY.  APPELLANT'S CASE REPRESENTS,
PERHAPS, THE EPITOME OF THAT NEED, FOR HE IS ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN AN
ADVANCED DEGREE IN EDUCATION, TO BECOME, BY DEFINITION, A LEADER AND
TRAINER OF OTHERS.  THOSE WHO WILL COME UNDER HIS GUIDANCE AND
INFLUENCE MUST BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE EDUCATION HE RECEIVES. 
THEIR OWN EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT WILL NECESSARILY SUFFER TO THE
EXTENT THAT HIS TRAINING IS UNEQUAL TO THAT OF HIS CLASSMATES.  STATE
IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS WHICH PRODUCE SUCH INEQUALITIES CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED. 

IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT APPELLANT WILL BE IN NO BETTER POSITION WHEN
THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE REMOVED, FOR HE MAY STILL BE SET APART BY HIS
FELLOW STUDENTS.  THIS WE THINK IRRELEVANT.  THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE
- A CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE - BETWEEN RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE
STATE WHICH PROHIBIT THE INTELLECTUAL COMMINGLING OF STUDENTS, AND THE
REFUSAL OF INDIVIDUALS TO COMMINGLE WHERE THE STATE PRESENTS NO SUCH
BAR.  SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1, 13-14(1948).  THE REMOVAL OF THE
STATE RESTRICTIONS WILL NOT NECESSARILY ABATE INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP
PREDILECTIONS, PREJUDICES AND CHOICES.  BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, THE
STATE WILL NOT BE DEPRIVING APPELLANT OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE
ACCEPTANCE BY HIS FELLOW STUDENTS ON HIS OWN MERITS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THIS APPELLANT IS
REQUIRED TO RECEIVE HIS EDUCATION DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS PERSONAL AND
PRESENT RIGHT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  SEE SWEATT V.
PAINTER, ANTE, P. 629.  WE HOLD THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRECLUDES DIFFERENCES IN TREATMENT BY THE STATE
BASED UPON RACE.  APPELLANT, HAVING BEEN ADMITTED TO A STATE-SUPPORTED
GRADUATE SCHOOL, MUST RECEIVE THE SAME TREATMENT AT THE HANDS OF THE
STATE AS STUDENTS OF OTHER RACES.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE AMENDMENT ADDS THE FOLLOWING PROVISO TO EACH OF THE SECTIONS
RELATING TO MIXED SCHOOLS: "PROVIDED, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
PARTICULAR DEGREE GIVEN AT STATE OWNED OR OPERATED COLLEGES OR
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF THIS STATE ESTABLISHED FOR AND/OR
USED BY THE WHITE RACE, WHERE SUCH PROGRAMS OF INSTRUCTION LEADING TO A
PARTICULAR DEGREE ARE NOT GIVEN AT COLLEGES OR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION OF THIS STATE ESTABLISHED FOR AND/OR USED BY THE COLORED
RACE; PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT SAID PROGRAMS OF INSTRUCTION LEADING TO A
PARTICULAR DEGREE SHALL BE GIVEN AT SUCH COLLEGES OR INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION UPON A SEGREGATED BASIS."  70 OKLA. STAT. ANN. (1950)
SECS. 455, 456, 457.  SEGREGATED BASIS IS DEFINED AS "CLASSROOM
INSTRUCTION GIVEN IN SEPARATE CLASSROOMS, OR AT SEPARATE TIMES."  ID.
SEC. 455. 
..END :











TRAVELERS HEALTH ASSN. V. VIRGINIA, 339 U.S. 643 


NO. 76.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1949.  - REARGUED APRIL 17, 1950.  -
DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - 188 VA. 877, 51 S.E.2D 263, AFFIRMED. 


IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE VIRGINIA "BLUE SKY LAW," THE STATE
CORPORATION COMMISSION ORDERED AN ASSOCIATION, LOCATED IN NEBRASKA AND
ENGAGED IN THE MAIL-ORDER HEALTH INSURANCE BUSINESS, AND ITS TREASURER
(APPELLANTS HERE) TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM FURTHER OFFERINGS OR SALES
OF CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE TO VIRGINIA RESIDENTS UNTIL THE
ASSOCIATION HAD COMPLIED WITH THE ACT BY FURNISHING INFORMATION AS TO
ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION, CONSENTING TO SUIT AGAINST IT BY SERVICE OF
PROCESS ON THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, AND OBTAINING A PERMIT. 
NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDING WAS SERVED ON APPELLANTS BY REGISTERED MAIL,
AS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 6 WHEN OTHER FORMS OF SERVICE ARE UNAVAILABLE. 
THEY APPEARED SPECIALLY, CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE, AND
MOVED TO QUASH THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS.  ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
VIRGINIA MEMBERS, THE ASSOCIATION FOR MANY YEARS HAD BEEN ISSUING
INSURANCE CERTIFICATES TO RESIDENTS OF VIRGINIA, AND IT HAD
APPROXIMATELY 800 MEMBERS THERE.  IT HAD CAUSED CLAIMS FOR LOSSES TO BE
INVESTIGATED, AND THE VIRGINIA COURTS WERE OPEN TO IT FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF CERTIFICATE HOLDERS.  HELD: 

1.  THE STATE HAS POWER TO ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER TO ENFORCE
AT LEAST THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ASSOCIATION CONSENT TO SUIT AGAINST
IT BY SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH.  PP. 646
647. 

2.  THE CONTACTS AND TIES OF APPELLANTS WITH VIRGINIA RESIDENTS,
TOGETHER WITH THAT STATE'S INTEREST IN FAITHFUL OBSERVANCE OF THE
CERTIFICATE OBLIGATIONS, JUSTIFY SUBJECTING APPELLANTS TO CEASE AND
DESIST PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 6.  PP. 647-648. 

3.  VIRGINIA'S SUBJECTION OF THE ASSOCIATION TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE STATE COMMISSION IN A SEC. 6 PROCEEDING IS CONSISTENT WITH FAIR
PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, AND IS NOT OFFENSIVE TO THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 649. 

4.  THE POWER OF THE STATE TO SUBJECT THE ASSOCIATION TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COMMISSION AND TO AUTHORIZE A CEASE AND
DESIST ORDER UNDER SEC. 6 IS NOT VITIATED BY THE FACT THAT BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON OUTSIDE OF THE STATE ARE AFFECTED.  P. 650. 

5.  SERVICE OF PROCESS ON APPELLANTS BY REGISTERED MAIL DID NOT
VIOLATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  PP. 650-651. 

TRAVELERS HEALTH ASSOCIATION ET AL. V. VIRGINIA EX REL. STATE
CORPORATION COMMISSION. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

AN ORDER OF THE VIRGINIA CORPORATION COMMISSION REQUIRING APPELLANTS
TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM OFFERING AND ISSUING, WITHOUT A PERMIT,
CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE TO RESIDENTS OF THE STATE, WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS.  188 VA. 877, 51 S.E.2D 263.  ON APPEAL
TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 651. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM "UNFAIRNESS, IMPOSITION OR
FRAUD" IN SALES OF CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE AND OTHER FORMS OF
SECURITIES, THE VIRGINIA "BLUE SKY LAW" REQUIRES THOSE SELLING OR
OFFERING SUCH SECURITIES TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FROM THE STATE CORPORATION
COMMISSION.  FN1  APPLICANTS FOR PERMITS MUST MEET COMPREHENSIVE
CONDITIONS:  THEY MUST, FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION
CONCERNING THEIR SOLVENCY, AND MUST AGREE THAT SUITS CAN BE FILED
AGAINST THEM IN VIRGINIA BY SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE SECRETARY OF THE
COMMONWEALTH.  FN2 

WHILE VIOLATION OF THE ACT IS A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS, SEC. 6 PROVIDES ANOTHER METHOD FOR ENFORCEMENT.  AFTER
NOTICE AND A HEARING "ON THE MERITS," THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER RESTRAINING VIOLATIONS
OF THE ACT.  THE SECTION ALSO PROVIDES FOR SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL
WHERE OTHER TYPES OF SERVICE ARE UNAVAILABLE "BECAUSE THE OFFERING IS
BY ADVERTISEMENT AND/OR SOLICITATION THROUGH PERIODICALS, MAIL,
TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, RADIO, OR OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION FROM
BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE STATE ...  "  THE HIGHEST COURT OF VIRGINIA
REJECTED CONTENTIONS THAT THIS SECTION VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS, AND THE CASE IS PROPERLY HERE ON APPEAL
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

IN THIS CASE CEASE AND DESIST PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 6 WERE
INSTITUTED BY THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION AGAINST TRAVELERS HEALTH
ASSOCIATION AND AGAINST R. E. PRATT, AS TREASURER OF THE ASSOCIATION
AND IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY.  HAVING RECEIVED NOTICE BY REGISTERED
MAIL ONLY, THEY APPEARED "SPECIALLY" FOR "THE SOLE PURPOSE OF OBJECTING
TO THE ALLEGED JURISDICTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND OF ITS
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, AND OF MOVING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH
SERVICE OF SUMMONS  ...  "  THE AGREED STIPULATION OF FACTS AND CERTAIN
EXHIBITS OFFERED BY THE STATE CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

THE APPELLANT TRAVELERS HEALTH ASSOCIATION WAS INCORPORATED IN
NEBRASKA AS A NONPROFIT MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION IN 1904.  SINCE THAT
TIME ITS ONLY OFFICE HAS BEEN LOCATED IN OMAHA, FROM WHICH IT HAS
CONDUCTED A MAILORDER HEALTH INSURANCE BUSINESS.  NEW MEMBERS PAY AN
INITIATION FEE AND OBLIGATE THEMSELVES TO PAY PERIODIC ASSESSMENTS AT
THE OMAHA OFFICE.  THE FUNDS SO COLLECTED ARE USED FOR OPERATING
EXPENSES AND SICK BENEFITS TO MEMBERS.  THE ASSOCIATION HAS NO PAID
AGENTS; ITS NEW MEMBERS ARE USUALLY OBTAINED THROUGH THE UNPAID
ACTIVITIES OF THOSE ALREADY MEMBERS, WHO ARE ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND
THE ASSOCIATION TO FRIENDS AND SUBMIT THEIR NAMES TO THE HOME OFFICE. 
THE APPELLANT PRATT IN OMAHA MAILS SOLICITATIONS TO THESE PROSPECTS. 
HE ENCLOSES BLANK APPLICATIONS WHICH, IF SIGNED AND RETURNED TO THE
HOME OFFICE WITH THE REQUIRED FEE, USUALLY RESULT IN ELECTION OF
APPLICANTS AS MEMBERS.  CERTIFICATES ARE THEN MAILED, SUBJECT TO RETURN
WITHIN 10 DAYS "IF NOT SATISFACTORY."  TRAVELERS HAS SOLICITED VIRGINIA
MEMBERS IN THIS MANNER SINCE 1904, AND HAS CAUSED MANY SICK BENEFIT
CLAIMS TO BE INVESTIGATED.  WHEN THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED, IT
HAD APPROXIMATELY 800 VIRGINIA MEMBERS. 

THE COMMISSION, HOLDING THAT THE FOREGOING FACTS SUPPORTED THE
STATE'S POWER TO ACT IN SEC. 6 PROCEEDINGS, OVERRULED APPELLANTS'
OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION AND THEIR MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE.  THE
ASSOCIATION AND ITS TREASURER WERE ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
FURTHER SOLICITATIONS OR SALES OF CERTIFICATES TO VIRGINIA RESIDENTS
"THROUGH MEDIUM OF ANY ADVERTISEMENT FROM WITHIN OR FROM WITHOUT THE
STATE, AND/OR THROUGH THE MAILS OR OTHERWISE, BY INTRA- OR INTER-STATE
COMMUNICATION,  ...  UNLESS AND UNTIL" IT OBTAINED AUTHORITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE "BLUE SKY LAW."  THIS ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
VIRGINIA COURT OF APPEALS.  188 VA. 877, 882, 51 S.E.2D 263, 271. 

APPELLANTS DO NOT QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE VIRGINIA LAW "TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT PROVIDES THAT INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE RESIDENTS OF
OTHER STATES SHALL NOT COME INTO THE STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOING
BUSINESS THERE WITHOUT FIRST SUBMITTING TO THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF
THE STATE."  AS TO SUCH STATE POWER SEE, E.G., HALL V. GEIGER-JONES
CO., 242 U.S. 539.  THEIR BASIC CONTENTION IS THAT ALL THEIR ACTIVITIES
TAKE PLACE IN NEBRASKA, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY VIRGINIA HAS NO POWER TO
REACH THEM IN CEASE AND DESIST PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE ANY PART OF ITS
REGULATORY LAW.  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THIS GENERAL DUE PROCESS
OBJECTION, FOR WE THINK THE STATE HAS POWER TO ISSUE A "CEASE AND
DESIST ORDER" ENFORCING AT LEAST THAT REGULATORY PROVISION REQUIRING
THE ASSOCIATION TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF PROCESS BY VIRGINIA CLAIMANTS ON
THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH. 

APPELLANTS' CHIEF RELIANCE FOR THE DUE PROCESS CONTENTION IS ON
MINNESOTA ASSN. V. BENN, 261 U.S. 140.  THERE A MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION
OBTAINED MEMBERS IN MONTANA BY THE SAME MAIL SOLICITATION PROCESS USED
BY TRAVELERS TO GET VIRGINIA MEMBERS.  THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED TO
MONTANA MEMBERS ALSO RESERVED THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE CLAIMS, ALTHOUGH
THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT BENN'S CLAIM HAD NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED. 
THIS COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE CONTRACTS WERE "EXECUTED AND TO BE
PERFORMED" IN MINNESOTA, THE ASSOCIATION WAS NOT "DOING BUSINESS" IN
MONTANA AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE SUED IN MONTANA COURTS UNLESS
"CONSENT" TO MONTANA SUITS COULD BE IMPLIED.  THE COURT FOUND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE
INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUCH AN IMPLICATION. 

BUT WHERE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES REACH OUT BEYOND ONE STATE AND CREATE
CONTINUING RELATIONSHIPS AND OBLIGATIONS WITH CITIZENS OF ANOTHER
STATE, COURTS NEED NOT RESORT TO A FICTIONAL "CONSENT" IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN THE JURISDICTION OF REGULATORY AGENCIES IN THE LATTER STATE. 
AND IN CONSIDERING WHAT CONSTITUTES "DOING BUSINESS" SUFFICIENTLY TO
JUSTIFY REGULATION IN THE STATE WHERE THE EFFECTS OF THE "BUSINESS" ARE
FELT, THE NARROW GROUNDS RELIED ON BY THE COURT IN THE BENN CASE CANNOT
BE DEEMED CONTROLLING. 

IN OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 62, WE RECOGNIZED THAT A STATE HAS A
LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN ALL INSURANCE POLICIES PROTECTING ITS RESIDENTS
AGAINST RISKS, AN INTEREST WHICH THE STATE CAN PROTECT EVEN THOUGH THE
"STATE ACTION MAY HAVE REPERCUSSIONS BEYOND STATE LINES  ...  "  AND IN
HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313, 316, WE REJECTED THE
CONTENTION, BASED ON THE BENN CASE AMONG OTHERS, THAT A STATE'S POWER
TO REGULATE MUST BE DETERMINED BY A "CONCEPTUALISTIC DISCUSSION OF
THEORIES OF THE PLACE OF CONTRACTING OR OF PERFORMANCE."  INSTEAD WE
ACCORDED "GREAT WEIGHT" TO THE "CONSEQUENCES" OF THE CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS IN THE STATE WHERE THE INSURED RESIDED AND THE "DEGREE OF
INTEREST" THAT STATE HAD IN SEEING THAT THOSE OBLIGATIONS WERE
FAITHFULLY CARRIED OUT.  AND IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON,
326 U.S. 310, 316, THIS COURT, AFTER REVIEWING PAST CASES, CONCLUDED:
"DUE PROCESS REQUIRES ONLY THAT IN ORDER TO SUBJECT A DEFENDANT TO A
JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM, IF HE BE NOT PRESENT WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE
FORUM, HE HAVE CERTAIN MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH IT SUCH THAT THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT DOES NOT OFFEND 'TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR
PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.'" 

MEASURED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE OSBORN, HOOPESTON AND INTERNATIONAL
SHOE CASES, THE CONTACTS AND TIES OF APPELLANTS WITH VIRGINIA
RESIDENTS, TOGETHER WITH THAT STATE'S INTEREST IN FAITHFUL OBSERVANCE
OF THE CERTIFICATE OBLIGATIONS, JUSTIFY SUBJECTING APPELLANTS TO CEASE
AND DESIST PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 6.  THE ASSOCIATION DID NOT ENGAGE IN
MERE ISOLATED OR SHORT-LIVED TRANSACTIONS.  ITS INSURANCE CERTIFICATES,
SYSTEMATICALLY AND WIDELY DELIVERED IN VIRGINIA FOLLOWING SOLICITATION
BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF VIRGINIANS, CREATE CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS
BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION AND EACH OF THE MANY CERTIFICATE HOLDERS IN THE
STATE.  APPELLANTS HAVE CAUSED CLAIMS FOR LOSSES TO BE INVESTIGATED AND
THE VIRGINIA COURTS WERE AVAILABLE TO THEM IN SEEKING TO ENFORCE
OBLIGATIONS CREATED BY THE GROUP OF CERTIFICATES.  SEE INTERNATIONAL
SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, AT 320. 

MOREOVER, IF VIRGINIA IS WITHOUT POWER TO REQUIRE THIS ASSOCIATION TO
ACCEPT SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, THE
ONLY FORUM FOR INJURED CERTIFICATE HOLDERS MIGHT BE NEBRASKA.  HEALTH
BENEFIT CLAIMS ARE SELDOM SO LARGE THAT VIRGINIA POLICYHOLDERS COULD
AFFORD THE EXPENSE AND TROUBLE OF A NEBRASKA LAW SUIT.  IN ADDITION,
SUITS ON ALLEGED LOSSES CAN BE MORE CONVENIENTLY TRIED IN VIRGINIA
WHERE WITNESSES WOULD MOST LIKELY LIVE AND WHERE CLAIMS FOR LOSSES
WOULD PRESUMABLY BE INVESTIGATED.  SUCH FACTORS HAVE BEEN GIVEN GREAT
WEIGHT IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  SEE GULF OIL
CO. V. GILBERT, 330 U.S. 501, 508.  AND PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
HAVE REFERRED TO THE UNWISDOM, UNFAIRNESS AND INJUSTICE OF PERMITTING
POLICYHOLDERS TO SEEK REDRESS ONLY IN SOME DISTANT STATE WHERE THE
INSURER IS INCORPORATED.  FN3 THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT FORBID A
STATE TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM SUCH INJUSTICE. 

THERE IS, OF COURSE, ONE METHOD BY WHICH CLAIMANTS COULD RECOVER FROM
APPELLANTS IN VIRGINIA COURTS WITHOUT THE AID OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF
PROCESS:  CERTIFICATE HOLDERS IN VIRGINIA COULD ALL BE GARNISHED TO THE
EXTENT OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THE ASSOCIATION.  SEE HURON CORP. V.
LINCOLN CO., 312 U.S. 183, 193.  WHILE SUCH AN INDIRECT PROCEDURE WOULD
UNDENIABLY BE MORE TROUBLESOME TO CLAIMANTS THAN THE PLAN ADOPTED BY
THE STATE IN ITS "BLUE SKY LAW," IT WOULD CLEARLY BE EVEN MORE
HARASSING TO THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS VIRGINIA MEMBERS.  METAPHYSICAL
CONCEPTS OF "IMPLIED CONSENT" AND "PRESENCE" IN A STATE SHOULD NOT BE
SOLIDIFIED INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER AGAINST VIRGINIA'S SIMPLE,
DIRECT AND FAIR PLAN FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE SECRETARY OF THE
COMMONWEALTH. 

WE HOLD THAT VIRGINIA'S SUBJECTION OF THIS ASSOCIATION TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THAT STATE'S CORPORATION COMMISSION IN A SEC. 6
PROCEEDING IS CONSISTENT WITH "FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE," AND
IS NOT OFFENSIVE TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 

APPELLANTS ALSO CONTEND THAT SEC. 6 AS HERE APPLIED VIOLATES DUE
PROCESS BECAUSE THE COMMISSION ORDER ATTEMPTS TO "DESTROY OR IMPAIR"
THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE CONTRACTS IN NEBRASKA WITH VIRGINIA RESIDENTS. 
INSOFAR AS THIS CONTENTION CAN BE RAISED IN A SPECIAL APPEARANCE MERELY
TO CONTEST JURISDICTION, IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE DUE PROCESS
ISSUE DISCUSSED ABOVE.  FOR REASONS JUST GIVEN, VIRGINIA HAS POWER TO
SUBJECT TRAVELERS TO THE JURISDICTION OF ITS CORPORATION COMMISSION,
AND ITS CEASE AND DESIST PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE
"CAN NOT BE ATTACKED MERELY BECAUSE THEY AFFECT BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
WHICH ARE CARRIED ON OUTSIDE THE STATE."  HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V.
CULLEN, SUPRA, 320-321.  SEE ALSO OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 62. 
THESE TWO OPINIONS MAKE CLEAR THAT ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578,
REQUIRES NO DIFFERENT RESULT. 

APPELLANTS CONCEDE THAT IN THE OSBORN AND HOOPESTON CASES WE
SUSTAINED STATE LAWS PROVIDING PROTECTIVE STANDARDS FOR POLICYHOLDERS
IN THOSE STATES, EVEN THOUGH COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE STANDARDS BY THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES COULD HAVE REPERCUSSIONS ON SIMILAR OUT-OF-STATE
CONTRACTS.  IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THOSE CASES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE
BECAUSE THEY BOTH INVOLVED COMPANIES WHICH WERE "LICENSED TO DO
BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM AND WERE ACTUALLY DOING BUSINESS
WITHIN THE STATE  ...  "  BUT WHILE HOOPESTON CANNING CO. HAD DONE
BUSINESS IN NEW YORK UNDER AN OLD LAW, IT BROUGHT THE CASE HERE TO
CHALLENGE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF A NEW LICENSING LAW WITH WHICH IT HAD
TO COMPLY IF IT WAS TO DO BUSINESS THERE IN THE FUTURE.  THUS IT WAS
SEEKING THE SAME KIND OF RELIEF THAT APPELLANTS SEEK HERE, AND FOR THE
SAME GENERAL PURPOSE.  WHAT WE THERE SAID AS TO NEW YORK'S POWER IS
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO VIRGINIA'S POWER HERE. 

IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS ON APPELLANTS BY
REGISTERED MAIL DOES NOT MEET DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.  WHAT WE HAVE
SAID ANSWERS THIS CONTENTION INSOFAR AS IT ALLEGES A LACK OF STATE
JURISDICTION BECAUSE APPELLANTS WERE SERVED OUTSIDE VIRGINIA.  IF
SERVICE BY MAIL IS CHALLENGED AS NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE
NOTICE, THE CONTENTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V.
WASHINGTON, SUPRA, 320-321.  SEE ALSO MULLANE V. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK,
339 U.S. 306. 

THE DUE PROCESS QUESTIONS WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED ARE THE ONLY
ALLEGED ERRORS RELIED ON IN APPELLANTS' BRIEF,  FN4  AND APPELLANTS'
SPECIAL APPEARANCE ONLY CHALLENGED STATE JURISDICTION AND THE SERVICE
OF PROCESS.  WE THEREFORE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DISCUSS THE SCOPE OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, OR THE METHODS BY WHICH THE STATE MIGHT ATTEMPT TO
ENFORCE IT.  FN5  AFFIRMED.    FN1  ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
VIRGINIA, 1928, C. 529, P. 1373, AS AMENDED, ACTS OF 1932, C. 236, P.
434; MICHIE'S 1942 CODE OF VIRGINIA, SEC. 3848(47) ET SEQ. 

FN2  MICHIE SEC. 3848(51), (55). 

FN3  LUMBERMEN'S INS. CO. V. MEYER, 197 U.S. 407, 418, 419; MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO. V. SPRATLEY, 172 U.S. 602, 619; CF. INTERNATIONAL SHOE
CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, 319. 

FN4  ONE FEDERAL QUESTION SUGGESTED IN THE APPELLANTS' STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION WAS THAT SEC. 6 AS INTERPRETED BY THE STATE COURT
INFRINGED FEDERAL CONTROL OF THE MAILS DELEGATED TO CONGRESS BY ART. I,
SEC. 8, CL. 7 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  BUT APPELLANTS' BRIEF
ON SUBMISSION OF THE CASE DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS QUESTION IN THE
"SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS RELIED UPON" AND DOES NOT EVEN MENTION THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE. 

FN5  FOR EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS WHICH MIGHT BE RAISED BY ATTEMPTS TO
IMPOSE PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDER, SEE STRASSHEIM V. DAILY,
221 U.S. 280, 284-285; CF. HYATT V. CORKRAN, 188 U.S. 691, 712, 719. 
SUCH STATURE MIGHT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ITS PROVISION FOR GIVING A CEASE
AND DESIST ORDER "PUBLICITY  ... TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE PRESS OR
OTHERWISE AS THE COMMISSION MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, DETERMINE TO BE
ADVISABLE FOR THE REASONABLE INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

SINCE THE FORMULA ADOPTED BY THE COURT IS ADEQUATE TO DISPOSE OF THIS
CASE, I HAVE JOINED IN THE OPINION.  BUT I FEEL THAT THE TYPE OF
PROBLEM PRESENTED REQUIRES A MORE SELECTIVE TREATMENT.  HENCE MY
SEPARATE OPINION. 

VIRGINIA'S BLUE SKY LAW  FN1  IS A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE STATE'S INVESTORS.  SECURITIES CAN BE OFFERED FOR
SALE IN THE STATE ONLY AFTER THE ISSUER OBTAINS A PERMIT.  FN2  TO GET
IT, THE APPLICANT MUST SUPPLY DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT ITS SOLVENCY,
ITS EARNING RECORD, AND THE NATURE OF THE SECURITIES.  FN3  PROMOTERS
MAY BE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY A BOND.  FN4  APPLICANTS MUST APPOINT AN
AGENT, THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF
PROCESS.  FN5  ONLY AFTER PROOF OF THEIR GOOD CHARACTER AND FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY ARE SECURITY SALESMEN LICENSED.  FN6  AFTER ISSUANCE,
THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED AGAIN TO INVESTIGATE THE
ISSUER WITH AN EYE TO POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF ITS PERMIT.  FN7 THESE ARE
THE HIGH POINTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION WHICH VIRGINIA SEEKS TO
APPLY TO APPELLANTS. 

THAT THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ESTABLISHED
BY UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533. 
ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THE POWER OF A STATE TO EXCLUDE AN INTERSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH ITS REGULATORY LAWS WERE
DISPELLED BY THE PASSAGE OF THE MCCARRAN ACT.  59 STAT. 33, 15 U.S.C.
SECS. 1011-1015.  SEE ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, 328 U.S. 440, 461, 462. 

THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS DO NOT, IN MY OPINION, PRECLUDE THE
EXTENSION OF VIRGINIA'S REGULATORY SCHEME TO APPELLANT.  I PUT TO ONE
SIDE THE CASE WHERE A POLICYHOLDER SEEKS TO SUE THE OUT-OF-STATE
COMPANY IN VIRGINIA.  HIS ABILITY TO SUE IS NOT NECESSARILY THE MEASURE
OF VIRGINIA'S POWER TO REGULATE, AS THE COURT SAID IN OLD WAYNE LIFE
ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8, 21.  IT IS THE NATURE OF THE STATE'S
ACTION THAT DETERMINES THE KIND OR DEGREE OF ACTIVITY IN THE STATE
NECESSARY FOR SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  WHAT IS
NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN A TAX OR TO MAINTAIN A SUIT BY A CREDITOR (SEE OLD
WAYNE LIFE ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, SUPRA; PROVIDENT SAVINGS ASSN. V.
KENTUCKY, 239 U.S. 103, 114-116; ISAACS, AN ANALYSIS OF DOING BUSINESS,
25 COL. L. REV. 1018, 1024) IS NOT IN MY VIEW DETERMINATIVE WHEN THE
STATE SEEKS TO REGULATE SOLICITATION WITHIN ITS BORDERS. 

BLUE SKY LAWS ARE A WELL-RECOGNIZED EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF
THE STATES.  SEE HALL V. GEIGER-JONES CO., 242 U.S. 539, 552.  THE
WILES OF THE SALESMAN HAVE BEEN MANY; THE DEVICES TO AVOID STATE
REGULATION HAVE BEEN CLEVER AND CALCULATED.  ONE OF THOSE WHO CONTESTED
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MICHIGAN BLUE SKY LAW IN MERRICK V. HALSEY
& CO., 242 U.S. 568, 573, HAD NO PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE STATE AND WAS
NOT SENDING AGENTS INTO IT.  THE HISTORY OF THE VARIOUS METHODS USED TO
EVADE STATE REGULATION IS TOO RECENT TO REQUIRE EXTENDED COMMENT. 
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE WERE EXTENSIVELY
EMPLOYED BY THOSE BEYOND THE REACH OF A STATE TO SELL SECURITIES TO ITS
CITIZENS.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 85, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. 10.  THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933(48 STAT. 74, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77A ET SEQ.) WAS
PASSED TO FILL THE GAP.  FN8 

A STATE IS HELPLESS WHEN THE OUT-OF-STATE COMPANY OPERATES BEYOND THE
BORDERS, ESTABLISHES NO OFFICE IN THE STATE, AND HAS NO AGENTS,
SALESMEN, OR SOLICITORS TO OBTAIN BUSINESS FOR IT WITHIN THE STATE. 
THEN IT IS BEYOND THE REACH OF PROCESS.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER,
THAT IS ONLY THE FORMAL ARRANGEMENT.  THE ACTUAL ARRANGEMENT SHOWS A
METHOD OF SOLICITING BUSINESS WITHIN VIRGINIA AS ACTIVE, CONTINUOUS,
AND METHODICAL AS IT WOULD BE IF REGULAR AGENTS OR SOLICITORS WERE
EMPLOYED.  CF. HOOPESTON CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313. 

PRACTICALLY ALL OF APPELLANTS' BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA ORIGINATES WITH
AND IS THE RESULT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF ITS VIRGINIA MEMBERS.  THE
RECOMMENDATION OF A MEMBER RELIEVES AN APPLICANT OF THE DUTY OF
FURNISHING ANY REFERENCE.  THOUGH THE OLD MEMBERS ARE NOT DESIGNATED AS
"AGENTS," IT "CLEARLY APPEARS," AS STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEALS, "THAT THE ASSOCIATION RELIES ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON THESE
ACTIVITIES OF ITS VIRGINIA MEMBERS TO BRING ABOUT AN EXPANSION OF ITS
VIRGINIA BUSINESS."  TRAVELERS HEALTH ASSN. V. VIRGINIA, 188 VA. 877,
887; 51 S.E.2D 263, 267.  THIS DEVICE FOR SOLICITING BUSINESS IN
VIRGINIA MAY BE UNCONVENTIONAL AND UNORTHODOX; BUT IT OPERATES
FUNCTIONALLY PRECISELY AS THOUGH APPELLANTS HAD FORMALLY DESIGNATED THE
VIRGINIA MEMBERS AS THEIR AGENTS.  THROUGH THESE PEOPLE APPELLANTS HAVE
REALISTICALLY ENTERED THE STATE, LOOKING FOR AND OBTAINING BUSINESS. 
WHETHER SUCH SOLICITATION IS ISOLATED OR CONTINUOUS, IT IS ACTIVITY
WHICH VIRGINIA CAN REGULATE.  SEE HOOPER V. CALIFORNIA, 155 U.S. 648,
658.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS MAY DEMAND MORE OR LESS  FN9
MINIMAL CONTACTS THAN ARE PRESENT HERE, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE PINCH OF
THE DECISION IS OR WHAT IT REQUIRES OF THE FOREIGN CORPORATION.  SEE
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, 316-319.  WHERE THE
CORPORATE PROJECT ENTAILS THE USE OF ONE OR MORE PEOPLE IN THE STATE
FOR THE SOLICITATION OF BUSINESS, IN MY VIEW IT DOES NO VIOLENCE TO THE
TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS TO ALLOW THE STATE TO PROVIDE
PROTECTIVE MEASURES GOVERNING THAT SOLICITATION.  THAT IS ALL THAT IS
DONE HERE. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT THIS APPEAL IS PREMATURE.  VIRGINIA HAS PLACED AN
INJUNCTION ON APPELLANTS, AN INJUNCTION WHICH MAY HAVE NUMEROUS
CONSEQUENCES, E.G., CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  THERE IS AN EXISTING
CONTROVERSY - REAL AND VITAL TO APPELLANTS. 

FN1  ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA, 1928, C. 529, P. 1373,
AS AMENDED, ACTS OF 1932, C. 236, P. 434; MICHIE'S 1942 CODE OF
VIRGINIA, SEC. 3848(47) ET SEQ. 

FN2  MICHIE SEC. 3848(47). 

FN3  MICHIE SEC. 3848(51). 

FN4  MICHIE SEC. 3848(51)(R). 

FN5  MICHIE SEC. 3848(55). 

FN6  MICHIE SEC. 3848(50)(M). 

FN7  MICHIE SEC. 3848(53). 

FN8  BY SEC. 3(A)(8) INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED BY A CORPORATION
SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION OF SPECIFIED STATE AGENCIES ARE EXEMPT FROM
THIS FEDERAL REGULATION.  SECTION 18 PROVIDES THAT THE ACT DOES NOT
AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF ANY STATE AGENCY OVER A SECURITY OR A
PERSON. 

FN9  AS MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE SAID IN FRENE V. LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO.,
77 U.S. APP. D.C. 129, 134, 134 F.2D 511, 516, "  ...  SOME CASUAL OR
EVEN SINGLE ACTS DONE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE SOVEREIGNTY MAY CONFER
POWER TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON, PROVIDED THERE IS ALSO
REASONABLE PROVISION FOR GIVING NOTICE OF THE SUIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
MINIMAL DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS." 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA INSTITUTED THE
PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ENTERED IN THE
INSTANT CASE UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE VIRGINIA SECURITIES LAW.  MICHIE'S VA.
CODE, 1942, SEC. 3848(52).  THAT SECTION PROVIDES FOR SERVICE BY
REGISTERED MAIL UPON PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS OFFERING SECURITIES
THROUGH THE MAILS OR BY OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.  AFTER HEARING,
THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE THE ORDER AND TO GIVE IT SUCH
PUBLICITY AS THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS DESIRABLE. 

IN THIS CASE NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER SEC. 15 OF THE LAW WHICH
PROVIDES THAT VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE IS A MISDEMEANOR AND PUNISHABLE
BY FINE, OR UNDER SEC. 17 WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE
UPON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  MICHIE'S
VA. CODE, 1942, SEC. 3848(61)(63).  THE COMMISSION HAS IN NO WAY
ATTEMPTED TO ENFORCE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION AGAINST
APPELLANTS.  THEREFORE APPELLANTS HAVE NOT BEEN HURT, AND THE QUESTION
OF DUE PROCESS IS NOT REACHED.  IN THE SCHEME OF THE STATUTE, PUBLICITY
APPEARS TO BE THE SOLE SANCTION OF SEC. 6.  I KNOW OF NO REASON WHY
VIRGINIA MAY NOT GO THROUGH THIS SHADOW-BOXING PERFORMANCE IN ORDER TO
PUBLICIZE THE ACTIVITIES OF APPELLANTS IN VIRGINIA AND NOTIFY ITS
CITIZENS THAT APPELLANTS HAVE NOT QUALIFIED UNDER THE SECURITIES LAW. 
THAT IS ALL THE COMMISSION SAYS THAT IT IS DOING OR HAS THE POWER TO DO
UNDER SEC. 6.  THE COMMISSION'S VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THIS PROCEEDING -
A VIEW REITERATED BY VIRGINIA IN ITS BRIEF ON THE APPEAL TO THIS COURT
WAS STATED IN ITS OPINION: 

"RESPONDENTS RELY ON THE FACT THAT THEIR CONTACTS WITH CITIZENS OF
VIRGINIA ARE BY MAIL, THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA AND
THAT THEY DO NOT ENTER VIRGINIA EITHER PERSONALLY OR BY AGENTS.  IN
SETTING UP THIS DEFENSE THEY LOSE SIGHT OF THE NATURE OF THIS ACTION. 
THEY ARE NOT CHARGED WITH DOING BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA BUT WITH OFFERING
AND ADVERTISING FOR SALE AND PROMOTING THE SALE OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS
IN VIRGINIA BY MAIL AND THE ACTION IS TO FORECLOSE THEM FROM THESE
ACTIVITIES.  WHETHER THE ACTION WILL SUFFICE TO ACTUALLY STOP THEM IS
BESIDE THE POINT.  IT WILL SUFFICE TO PUT THEM ON NOTICE OF PERTINENT
LAWS OF VIRGINIA, TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND THE STATE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE THE FACTS, AND, IF, AFTER HEARING, A CEASE
AND DESIST ORDER IS ISSUED, THE COMMISSION WILL THEN BE AUTHORIZED TO
GIVE SUCH PUBLICITY TO THE ORDER AS IT SEES FIT FOR THE 'INFORMATION
AND PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC.'" 

     .         .         .        .         . 

"NO WORD FOUND IN OR INFERENCE DERIVED FROM SECTION 6, AFORESAID, MAY
PROPERLY, IN OUR JUDGMENT, BE SAID TO IMPOSE PENALTIES UPON THE
RESPONDENTS.  ...  " 

.         .         .         .         . 

"THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF COMPULSION EXCEPT SUCH AS MAY FLOW FROM A
DREAD OF THE PUBLICITY ATTENDING SUCH AN ORDER.  IN SUCH CASES, THE
ONLY WEAPON AVAILABLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH IS TO PUBLICLY ADVISE THAT
THE SECURITIES OF THE RESPONDENT DO NOT BEAR THE STAMP OF THE STATE'S
APPROVAL AND ARE BEING PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
REGULATORY LAWS ENACTED TO PROTECT THEM.  SECTION 6, SUPRA, IMPOSES NO
PENALTIES, EXACTS NO DIRECT TOLL FROM THOSE AGAINST WHOM ITS ORDERS
PROCEED.  ...  " 

THE QUESTION OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON THE SECRETARY OF THE
COMMONWEALTH IS NOT HERE IN ANY ASPECT.  AS FAR AS APPEARS, SERVICE IN
THIS MANNER IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE VIRGINIA STATUTES EXCEPT WHERE THE
NONRESIDENT HAS OPENED AND IS CONDUCTING A PLACE OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE
STATE.  MICHIE'S VA. CODE, 1942, SEC. 3848(55A.  UP TO THIS DATE
VIRGINIA HAS NOT CLAIMED THE POWER TO REQUIRE APPELLANTS, WHO DO
BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA ONLY BY MAIL, TO APPOINT THE SECRETARY OF THE
COMMONWEALTH AS THEIR AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, NOR HAVE THE COURTS
OF VIRGINIA RENDERED JUDGMENT IN A SUIT WHERE SERVICE WAS MADE IN THAT
MANNER.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND, THEREFORE, WHAT POSSIBLE APPLICATION THE
COURT'S REFERENCE TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON THE SECRETARY OF THE
COMMONWEALTH COULD HAVE IN THIS CASE.  I WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION OF
DUE PROCESS WHEN VIRGINIA HAS ATTEMPTED TO APPLY ITS PROCESS TO
APPELLANTS IN A PROCEEDING THAT HAS CONSEQUENCES OF A NATURE WHICH
ENTITLE A PERSON TO THE PROTECTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  SEE
PARKER V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 338 U.S. 327.  I WOULD, THEREFORE,
DISMISS THE APPEAL. 

AS STATED, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE MAJORITY OPINION IS SAYING THAT
VIRGINIA HAS MORE POWER THAN IT CLAIMS IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDING. 
WHILE VIRGINIA HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO DO MORE THAN PUBLICIZE THE
ACTIVITIES OF APPELLANTS IN THE STATE, I READ THE MAJORITY OPINION TO
INTIMATE THAT UNDER THE SERVICE BY REGISTERED LETTER VIRGINIA MIGHT GO
FURTHER.  THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ISSUED CANNOT VALIDLY COMPEL
APPELLANTS TO DESIGNATE THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH AS THEIR
AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, ANY MORE THAN IT CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
CONSIDERED AS AUTOMATICALLY ACCOMPLISHING THAT RESULT.  AN IN PERSONAM
JUDGMENT CANNOT BE BASED UPON SERVICE BY REGISTERED LETTER ON A
NONRESIDENT CORPORATION OR A NATURAL PERSON, NEITHER OF WHOM HAS EVER
BEEN WITHIN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714; OLD
WAYNE LIFE ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8, 22-23.  IF THAT MAY NOT BE
DONE DIRECTLY, IT MAY NOT BE DONE INDIRECTLY.  CERTAINLY SUCH SERVICE
CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED WHERE ITS PURPOSE IS TO MAKE SUBSTITUTED SERVICE
LEGAL IN THE FUTURE.  THESE NONRESIDENTS CANNOT BE BROUGHT IN THROUGH
SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL AND COMPELLED TO DESIGNATE THE SECRETARY OF
THE COMMONWEALTH AS THEIR AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS SO THAT
THEREAFTER SERVICE MAY BE EFFECTED UPON SUCH NONRESIDENTS BY SERVING
THE SECRETARY.  SO TO HOLD WOULD ALLOW THE STATE TO PULL ITSELF UP BY
ITS OWN BOOTSTRAPS.    SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL IS SAID BY THE
MAJORITY TO BE SUFFICIENT WHERE THE CORPORATION HAS "MINIMUM CONTACTS"
WITH THE STATE OF THE FORUM.  HOW MANY "CONTACTS" A CORPORATION OR
PERSON MUST HAVE BEFORE BEING SUBJECTED TO SUIT WE ARE NOT INFORMED. 
HERE ALL OF APPELLANTS' CONTACTS WITH THE RESIDENTS OF VIRGINIA WERE BY
MAIL.  NO AGENT OF APPELLANT CORPORATION HAS ENTERED THE STATE, NOR HAS
THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANT.  THE CONTRACTS WERE MADE WHOLLY IN NEBRASKA. 
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I WOULD HOLD THAT APPELLANTS WERE NEVER
"PRESENT" IN VIRGINIA. 

"FOR THE TERMS 'PRESENT' OR 'PRESENCE' ARE USED MERELY TO SYMBOLIZE
THOSE ACTIVITIES OF THE CORPORATION'S AGENT WITHIN THE STATE WHICH
COURTS WILL DEEM TO BE SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE DEMANDS OF DUE
PROCESS."  INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, 316
317. 

AS I UNDERSTAND THE INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. CASE, THE MINIMUM CONTACTS
WHICH A CORPORATION HAS IN THE STATE MUST BE "ACTIVITIES OF THE
CORPORATION'S AGENT WITHIN THE STATE."  THERE WERE SUCH CONTACTS BY
AGENTS WITHIN THE STATE IN THAT CASE.  SERVICE WAS MADE, IN ADDITION TO
NOTICE BY REGISTERED LETTER, BY PERSONAL SERVICE WITHIN THE STATE UPON
ONE OF THOSE AGENTS.  SERVICE ON AN AGENT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION WOULD
SEEM TO ME INDISPENSABLE TO A JUDGMENT AGAINST A CORPORATION.  IT WOULD
SEEM TO BE AN A FORTIORI PROPOSITION THAT JUDGMENT COULD NOT BE
OBTAINED AGAINST A NATURAL PERSON WHO WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR PERSONAL
SERVICE. 

WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH THE POWER OF VIRGINIA TO REGULATE THE
TRANSACTION OF INSURANCE BUSINESS WITH ITS CITIZENS, AS WAS THE CASE IN
OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, AND HOOPESTON CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S.
313.  IN THE CASE AT BAR WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH HOW VIRGINIA MAY
ENFORCE SUCH POWER AS IT HAS.  NO QUESTION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF
SERVICE WAS INVOLVED IN EITHER THE OSBORN OR THE HOOPESTON CASE, BOTH
OF WHICH WERE BROUGHT AGAINST SOME OFFICER OF A STATE.  THE QUESTION IN
THOSE CASES WAS WHETHER THE STATE HAD POWER, AND NOT WHETHER, HAVING
THE POWER, IT HAD ALSO ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OF A DEFENDANT AGAINST
WHOM A JUDGMENT COULD BE RENDERED ENFORCING THAT POWER. 

I WOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO INSTRUCT VIRGINIA AS TO HOW TO PROTECT ITS
CITIZENS FROM THESE INTRUDERS FROM NEBRASKA.  BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE WE
SHOULD EVEN INTIMATE THAT JUDGMENTS IN PERSONAM MAY BE OBTAINED, BY THE
SIMPLE PROCESS OF SENDING A REGISTERED LETTER, AGAINST A CORPORATION
WHOSE AGENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE FORUM WHERE SUIT IS BROUGHT, OR
AGAINST A NATURAL PERSON WHO IS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITHIN THE
STATE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AGREEING WITH THE COURT
IN REACHING THE MERITS, ON THE MERITS JOIN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :














QUICKSALL V. MICHIGAN, 339 U.S. 660 


NO. 33.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - 322 MICH.
351, 33 N.W.2D 904, AFFIRMED. 


UPON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY OF MURDER, PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED BY A
MICHIGAN STATE COURT TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.  THE STATE HAD LONG
BEFORE ABOLISHED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  ALMOST TEN YEARS LATER,
PETITIONER MOVED TO VACATE THE SENTENCE AND FOR A NEW TRIAL, CLAIMING
THAT A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL HAD BEEN
INFRINGED AND THAT HIS PLEA OF GUILTY HAD BEEN INDUCED BY
MISREPRESENTATIONS BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND THE SHERIFF.  THE
MOTION WAS HEARD BEFORE THE SAME JUDGE WHO HAD RECEIVED HIS PLEA OF
GUILTY AND SENTENCED HIM.  THE MOTION WAS DENIED AND THE STATE SUPREME
COURT AFFIRMED.  HELD:  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, PETITIONER HAS
FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROVING SUCH A DISREGARD OF FUNDAMENTAL
FAIRNESS IN THE IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT BY THE STATE AS WOULD JUSTIFY
THIS COURT IN SETTING ASIDE THE SENTENCE AS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  PP. 661-665. 

(A)  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE FAILURE OF THE RECORD TO
SHOW THAT PETITIONER WAS OFFERED COUNSEL DOES NOT OFFEND THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  PP. 665-666. 

(B)  WHEN A CRIME SUBJECT TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT INVOLVED, EACH
CASE DEPENDS ON ITS OWN FACTS.  P. 666. 

(C)  TO INVALIDATE A PLEA OF GUILTY, A STATE PRISONER MUST ESTABLISH
THAT AN INGREDIENT OF UNFAIRNESS ACTIVELY OPERATED IN THE PROCESS THAT
RESULTED IN HIS CONFINEMENT.  P. 666. 

QUICKSALL V. MICHIGAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE A SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT
THERETOFORE IMPOSED UPON HIM, AND FOR A NEW TRIAL, WAS DENIED BY A
MICHIGAN STATE COURT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  322 MICH.
351, 33 N.W.2D 904.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 916. 
AFFIRMED, P. 666. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER IS IN CUSTODY OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN UNDER A SENTENCE OF
LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER, CONFIRMED UPON COLLATERAL
ATTACK BY A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, HERE
CHALLENGED.  HE CLAIMS THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SECURES THAT RIGHT.  THE GENERALIZATIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO SUCH A
CLAIM NO LONGER CALL FOR ELABORATION.  THEY HAVE BEEN SET FORTH IN A
SERIES OF RECENT OPINIONS.  FN1  IT IS NOW SETTLED THAT, AS TO ITS
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, A STATE'S DUTY TO PROVIDE COUNSEL,
SO FAR AS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IMPOSES IT, IS BUT ONE ASPECT
OF THE COMPREHENDING GUARANTY OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF A FAIR
HEARING ON AN ACCUSATION, INCLUDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET IT.
AND SO WE TURN TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 

BY INFORMATION FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR KALAMAZOO COUNTY,
MICHIGAN, ON JULY 16, 1937, CHARLES QUICKSALL, THE PETITIONER, WAS
CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF ONE GRACE PARKER.  SHE WAS A MARRIED WOMAN,
AND QUICKSALL WAS HER PARAMOUR.  PETITIONER HAD BEEN A HOSPITAL
PATIENT, UNDER POLICE GUARD, BETWEEN THE TIME OF MRS. PARKER'S DEATH ON
JULY 2 AND JULY 15, WHEN HE WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL JUSTICE
COURT WHERE, AFTER WAIVING EXAMINATION, HE WAS BOUND OVER FOR TRIAL. 
ON ARRAIGNMENT THE NEXT DAY BEFORE THE KALAMAZOO CIRCUIT COURT HE
PLEADED GUILTY TO THE CHARGE OF MURDER.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT AT
THE TIME OF HIS PLEA PETITIONER REQUESTED COUNSEL OR THAT APPOINTED
COUNSEL WAS OFFERED HIM.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE PLEA WERE
THUS FORMALLY STATED BY THE JUDGE WHO RECEIVED IT: 

"THE RECORD MAY SHOW THAT THIS RESPONDENT (PETITIONER) HAS JUST
OFFERED TO PLEAD GUILTY AND HAS PLEADED GUILTY TO A CHARGE OF MURDER;
THAT AFTER A FULL STATEMENT BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO NUMEROUS
QUESTIONS BY THE COURT IN OPEN COURT AND AFTER A PRIVATE INTERVIEW WITH
RESPONDENT AT CHAMBERS, IN BOTH OF WHICH HE HAS FREELY AND FRANKLY
DISCUSSED THE DETAILS OF THIS HOMICIDE AS CLAIMED BY HIM, THE COURT
BEING CLEARLY SATISFIED THAT THE PLEA OF GUILTY IS MADE FREELY,
UNDERSTANDINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY, AN ORDER HAS BEEN ENTERED ACCEPTING
SUCH PLEA OF GUILTY."  FN2 

AS REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL LAW, THE COURT THEN PROCEEDED TO INQUIRE
INTO THE DEGREE OF CRIME.  MICH. STAT. ANN. SEC. 28.550(HENDERSON
1938).  THE COURSE OF THIS INQUIRY IS SHOWN BY A SUMMARY OF WHAT
DEVELOPED.  QUICKSALL, WHO WAS FORTY-FOUR YEARS OLD AT THE TIME, HAD
BEEN MARRIED AND DIVORCED TWICE.  HE HAD SERVED PENITENTIARY TERMS IN
OHIO AND MICHIGAN.  HE HAD LIVED WITH THE PARKERS IN OHIO AND IN
KALAMAZOO, AND HE HAD BECOME "INTIMATE" WITH MRS. PARKER.  SHE AND
QUICKSALL HAD MADE AN AGREEMENT THAT IF THEY "EVER GOT CAUGHT" IN THEIR
"UNLAWFUL INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP" THEY "WOULD DIE TOGETHER."  ABOUT A
WEEK BEFORE MRS. PARKER'S DEATH ON JULY 2, PETITIONER WAS ASKED BY HER
HUSBAND TO LEAVE HIS HOUSE, BUT ON THAT DAY, AT MRS. PARKER'S REQUEST,
HE RETURNED TO SEE HER.  SHE TOLD HIM THAT HER HUSBAND HAD THREATENED
TO LEAVE AND DIVORCE HER, AND SHE ASKED QUICKSALL TO KEEP THEIR
AGREEMENT TO DIE TOGETHER.  THEREUPON SHE PRODUCED A REVOLVER, AND
PETITIONER SHOT HER AND THEN HIMSELF.  NEIGHBORS WHO REACHED THE PARKER
HOUSE SHORTLY THEREAFTER SAW MRS. PARKER, VERY NEAR DEATH, LYING ON A
BED, WITH A REVOLVER NEAR HER.  ON BEING ASKED WHO SHOT HER, SHE
REPLIED, "CHARLEY DID."  PETITIONER WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR,
UNCONSCIOUS, NEXT TO THE BED.  A DEPUTY SHERIFF WHO SEARCHED THE
PREMISES FOUND A NOTE ON THE DRESSER IN THE BEDROOM READING:  "JULY 2,
1937.  I AM DYING, GRACE AND I TOGETHER, BECAUSE WE CANNOT LIVE APART. 
CHARLES QUICKSALL." 

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS THE COURT STATED: 

"IN THIS CASE, THE RESPONDENT (PETITIONER) HAVING BEEN ARRAIGNED ON
THE INFORMATION CHARGING HIM WITH MURDER, AND HAVING PLEADED GUILTY
THERETO AND SAID PLEA OF GUILTY HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT,
AFTER AN EXHAUSTIVE INTERVIEW WITH THE RESPONDENT BOTH IN OPEN COURT
AND AT CHAMBERS, AND THE COURT HAVING PROCEEDED WITH AN EXAMINATION OF
WITNESSES TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF THE CRIME, AFTER HEARING THE
TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES HORACE COBB, JESSIE PIERCE, CORA KETTER AND
CHARLES CONNER, AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE RESPONDENT, HIMSELF, UNSWORN,
REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CRIME, AND IT APPEARING FROM THE
TESTIMONY OF SUCH WITNESSES AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT
THAT THE KILLING WAS DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED, AND UNDER THE
TESTIMONY OF THE RESPONDENT HIMSELF THAT IT WAS IN PURSUANCE OF A
SUICIDE PACT, SO-CALLED, THE COURT FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT RESPONDENT
IS GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED THAT RESPONDENT BE AND HE IS GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE." 

MICHIGAN, AS IS WELL KNOWN, HAVING LONG AGO ABOLISHED CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT, QUICKSALL WAS SENTENCED TO SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AT HARD
LABOR FOR LIFE.  MICH. STAT. ANN. SEC. 28.548(HENDERSON 1938). 

ALMOST TEN YEARS AFTER HIS SENTENCE, ON APRIL 18, 1947, THE
PETITIONER ASKED THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR KALAMAZOO COUNTY TO VACATE IT
AND TO GRANT HIM A NEW TRIAL.  HE CLAIMED THE SENTENCE HAD A
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IN THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL AND WAS PREVENTED FROM COMMUNICATING WITH COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE
WHILE HE WAS HOSPITALIZED.  HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT HIS PLEA OF GUILTY HAD
BEEN INDUCED BY MISREPRESENTATIONS ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY AND THE SHERIFF WHO, HE ASSERTED, HAD TOLD HIM THAT THE CHARGE
AGAINST HIM WAS MANSLAUGHTER FOR WHICH HIS SENTENCE WOULD BE FROM TWO
TO FIFTEEN YEARS. 

THE MOTION TO VACATE THE SENTENCE WAS HEARD BEFORE THE SAME JUDGE WHO
HAD RECEIVED HIS PLEA OF GUILTY AND SENTENCED HIM.  PETITIONER WAS
ASKED WHETHER HE DESIRED TO HAVE A LAWYER IN THIS PROCEEDING, AND HE
REPLIED THAT HE DID NOT:  "WELL, YOUR HONOR, IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO
PREPARE THE MOTION, AND I FIGURE THAT I WOULD BE JUST AS WELL QUALIFIED
TO PRESENT IT MYSELF."  IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY THE JUDGE,
PETITIONER ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW HE HAD BEEN BOUND OVER ON A MURDER
CHARGE.  HE ALSO RECALLED THAT AFTER THE JUDGE HAD INFORMED HIM THAT
HIS GUILT HAD BEEN DETERMINED TO BE OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE HE
WAS GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WHAT HE HAD TO SAY BEFORE SENTENCE
WAS IMPOSED, BUT HAD NOTHING TO SAY.  CF. CANIZIO V. NEW YORK, 327 U.S.
82.  HOWEVER, HE PROFESSED NOT TO BE ABLE TO RECALL DETAILS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF ILLNESS AT THE TIME.  A DEPUTY SHERIFF WHO HAD
GUARDED PETITIONER DURING HIS HOSPITALIZATION AFTER THE SHOOTING
TESTIFIED THAT ON THE FOLLOWING DAY PETITIONER HAD SAID TO HIM:  "HOW
LONG WILL I HAVE TO LAY HERE?  I WISH TO CHRIST IT HAD TAKEN EFFECT ON
ME LIKE IT DID ON HER.  IF I GET OVER THIS IT WILL MEAN LIFE FOR ME
ANYWAY."  NOTES MADE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY SUPPORTED THIS TESTIMONY.  THE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING WAS BY REASON OF
PARALYSIS UNAVAILABLE AS A WITNESS.  THE SHERIFF TESTIFIED THAT NEITHER
HE NOR THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, SO FAR AS HE HAD KNOWLEDGE, HAD
REFUSED PETITIONER PERMISSION TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIS FAMILY, FRIENDS,
OR A LAWYER.  PETITIONER CROSS-EXAMINED THE SHERIFF, BUT DECLINED TO
QUESTION THE DEPUTY SHERIFF. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK NO STOCK IN THE RECONSTRUCTING MEMORY OF THE
PETITIONER AND DENIED HIS MOTION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN
AFFIRMED.  322 MICH. 351, 33 N.W.2D 904.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE OUT
OF A ZEALOUS REGARD FOR DUE OBSERVANCE OF THE SAFEGUARDS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE'S PENAL CODE.  336
U.S. 916.  THE RECORD EXACTS THE HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS FAILED
TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROVING SUCH A DISREGARD OF FUNDAMENTAL
FAIRNESS IN THE IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT BY THE STATE AS ALONE WOULD
JUSTIFY THIS COURT TO INVALIDATE THE SENTENCE BY REASON OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE. 

PETITIONER MAKES NO CLAIM THAT HE DID NOT KNOW OF HIS RIGHT TO BE
ASSISTED BY COUNSEL, SEE MICH. STAT. ANN. SEC. 28.854(HENDERSON 1938),
AND IN VIEW OF HIS "INTELLIGENCE, HIS AGE, AND HIS EARLIER EXPERIENCES
IN COURT," THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN REJECTED THE NOTION THAT HE
WAS NOT AWARE OF HIS RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY.  322 MICH.
AT 355, 33 N.W.2D AT 906.  CF. GRYGER V. BURKE, 334 U.S. 728, 730. 
SINCE THE MICHIGAN COURTS DISBELIEVED PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS THAT HE
HAD NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIS FAMILY, HIS FRIENDS OR A
LAWYER, AND NO REQUEST WAS MADE BY HIM FOR LEGAL AID, THE ONLY QUESTION
IS WHETHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE FAILURE OF THE
RECORD TO SHOW THAT HE WAS OFFERED COUNSEL OFFENDS THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE. 

AT LEAST "WHEN A CRIME SUBJECT TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT INVOLVED,
EACH CASE DEPENDS ON ITS OWN FACTS."  UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, 335 U.S.
437, 441; BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 462.  TO INVALIDATE A PLEA OF
GUILTY THE PRISONER MUST ESTABLISH THAT "FOR WANT OF BENEFIT OF COUNSEL
AN INGREDIENT OF UNFAIRNESS ACTIVELY OPERATED IN THE PROCESS THAT
RESULTED IN HIS CONFINEMENT."  FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134, 137;
SEE GIBBS V. BURKE, 337 U.S. 773, 781.  HERE PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT
THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA OF GUILTY HAD BEEN MISREPRESENTED WAS
DISBELIEVED BY THE TRIBUNAL ESPECIALLY QUALIFIED TO SIT IN JUDGMENT
UPON ITS CREDIBILITY.  SEE WADE V. MAYO, 334 U.S. 672, 683-84.  IN THE
LIGHT OF WHAT EMERGED IN THIS PROCEEDING UPON A SCRUTINY OF WHAT TOOK
PLACE BEFORE THE SAME JUDGE TEN YEARS EARLIER, WHEN PETITIONER'S PLEA
OF GUILTY WAS TENDERED AND ACCEPTED, IT WOULD STULTIFY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE TO FIND THAT ANY RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER WAS INFRINGED BY THE
SENTENCE WHICH HE INCURRED.  FN3  FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA AT 138;
BUTE V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 640, 670-74.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455; CANIZIO V. NEW YORK, 327 U.S. 82;
CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173; DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN, 329 U.S.
663; FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134; GAYES V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 145;
MARINO V. RAGEN, 332 U.S. 561; BUTE V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 640; WADE V.
MAYO, 334 U.S. 672; GRYGER V. BURKE, 334 U.S. 728; TOWNSEND V. BURKE,
334 U.S. 736; UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, 335 U.S. 437; GIBBS V. BURKE, 337
U.S. 773. 

FN2  MICH. STAT. ANN. SEC. 28.1058(HENDERSON 1938) PROVIDES:
"WHENEVER ANY PERSON SHALL PLEAD GUILTY TO AN INFORMATION FILED AGAINST
HIM IN ANY COURT, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE OF SUCH COURT,
BEFORE PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT OR SENTENCE UPON SUCH PLEA, TO BECOME
SATISFIED AFTER SUCH INVESTIGATION AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY FOR THAT
PURPOSE RESPECTING THE NATURE OF THE CASE, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
SUCH PLEA, THAT SAID PLEA WAS MADE FREELY, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE
NATURE OF THE ACCUSATION, AND WITHOUT UNDUE INFLUENCE.  AND WHENEVER
SAID JUDGE SHALL HAVE REASON TO DOUBT THE TRUTH OF SUCH PLEA OF GUILTY,
IT SHALL BE HIS DUTY TO VACATE THE SAME, DIRECT A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY TO
BE ENTERED AND ORDER A TRIAL OF THE ISSUE THUS FORMED." 

FN3  ASSERTIONS NOW MADE CONCERNING IRREGULARITIES IN THE HEARING ON
THE DEGREE OF THE CRIME WERE NOT URGED BEFORE THE MICHIGAN COURTS. 
THEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVEN AS TO THEIR
SUPPOSED BEARING ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :

















SKELLY OIL CO. V. PHILLIPS CO., 339 U.S. 667 


NO. 221.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950. 


RESPONDENT OIL COMPANY HAD CONTRACTS WITH THREE PRODUCERS TO PURCHASE
GAS FOR RESALE TO A PIPELINE COMPANY WHICH HAD APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  EACH CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR TERMINATION BY
THE PRODUCER UPON NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT AT ANY TIME AFTER DECEMBER
1, 1946, "BUT BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH CERTIFICATE."  ON NOVEMBER
30, 1946, THE COMMISSION ORDERED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BE ISSUED TO THE PIPELINE COMPANY, UPON
SPECIFIED TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  THE ORDER WAS NOT MADE PUBLIC UNTIL
DECEMBER 2, 1946, ON WHICH DAY THE PRODUCERS SEVERALLY NOTIFIED
RESPONDENT OF THE TERMINATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS.  ALLEGING THAT A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, "WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SAID NATURAL GAS ACT AND SAID CONTRACTS," HAD BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE
ATTEMPT TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACTS, RESPONDENT SUED THE THREE PRODUCERS
IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT FOR A
DECLARATION THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE STILL "IN EFFECT AND BINDING UPON
THE PARTIES THERETO."  THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE
CONTRACTS HAD NOT BEEN EFFECTIVELY TERMINATED AND WERE STILL IN FULL
FORCE AND EFFECT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  HELD: 

1.  THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY AS TO WHICH THE RESPONDENT ASKED FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT ONE THAT "ARISES UNDER" THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES; AND SINCE, AS TO TWO OF THE DEFENDANT PRODUCERS, THERE
WAS NO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM SHOULD
HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  PP. 671-674. 

(A)  BY THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, CONGRESS ENLARGED THE RANGE OF
REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BUT DID NOT EXTEND THEIR
JURISDICTION.  PP. 671-672. 

(B)  WHERE THE EXISTENCE OF A FEDERAL QUESTION IS THE BASIS OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION, SUCH A FEDERAL QUESTION MUST BE PRESENTED BY THE
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM ITSELF, UNAIDED BY ALLEGATIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF
DEFENSES WHICH MIGHT BE INTERPOSED.  P. 672. 

2.  THERE BEING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE CASE OF THE THIRD
PRODUCER DEFENDANT, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT AS
TO IT.  P. 674. 

(A)  THERE BEING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THIS
DEFENDANT, AND THE VENUE BEING PROPERLY LAID IN THE STATE WHERE THE
SUIT WAS BROUGHT, THE CASE WAS PROPERLY IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  P.
674. 

(B)  THAT THE DECLARATORY REMEDY WHICH MAY BE GIVEN BY THE FEDERAL
COURT MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 674. 

3.  AS TO THE THIRD PRODUCER DEFENDANT, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED, IN ORDER THAT THE COURT
OF APPEALS, EITHER ITSELF OR BY SENDING THE CASE BACK TO THE DISTRICT
COURT, MAY FURTHER EXPLORE THE ISSUES THROUGH WAYS THAT MAY BE
APPROPRIATE.  PP. 674-679. 

SKELLY OIL CO. ET AL. V. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, THE DISTRICT
COURT DECREED THAT THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERS HAD
NOT BEEN TERMINATED AND REMAINED IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  174 F.2D 89.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338
U.S. 846.  AS TO ONE OF THE PETITIONERS, THE JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND
THE CAUSE REMANDED; AS TO THE OTHER TWO PETITIONERS, THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS THAT THE CAUSE BE DISMISSED.  P. 679. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1945, MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY SOUGHT FROM THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY,
REQUIRED BY SEC. 7(C) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, 52 STAT. 825, AS AMENDED,
15 U.S.C. SEC. 717F (C), FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A PIPE
LINE TO CARRY NATURAL GAS FROM TEXAS TO MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN.  A
PREREQUISITE FOR SUCH A CERTIFICATE IS ADEQUATE RESERVES OF GAS.  TO
OBTAIN THESE RESERVES MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY ON DECEMBER 11, 1945, WHEREBY THE LATTER
UNDERTOOK TO MAKE AVAILABLE GAS FROM THE HUGOTON GAS FIELD, SPRAWLING
OVER KANSAS, OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS, WHICH IT PRODUCED OR PURCHASED FROM
OTHERS.  PHILLIPS HAD CONTRACTED WITH PETITIONERS, SKELLY OIL COMPANY,
STANOLIND OIL AND GAS COMPANY, AND MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM COMPANY, TO
PURCHASE GAS PRODUCED BY THEM IN THE HUGOTON FIELD FOR RESALE TO
MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN.  EACH CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT "IN THE EVENT MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY SHALL FAIL TO SECURE FROM THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION ON OR BEFORE (OCTOBER 1, 1946) A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF ITS
PIPE LINE, SELLER (A PETITIONER) SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS
CONTRACT BY WRITTEN NOTICE TO BUYER (PHILLIPS) DELIVERED TO BUYER AT
ANY TIME AFTER DECEMBER 1, 1946, BUT BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH
CERTIFICATE."  THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROVISION IS AT THE CORE
OF THIS LITIGATION. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION OF
MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN, ON NOVEMBER 30, 1946, ORDERED THAT "A CERTIFICATE
OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BE AND IT IS HEREBY ISSUED TO
APPLICANT (MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN), UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS
ORDER," LISTING AMONG THE CONDITIONS THAT THERE BE NO TRANSPORTATION OR
SALE OF NATURAL GAS BY MEANS OF THE SANCTIONED FACILITIES UNTIL ALL
NECESSARY AUTHORIZATIONS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND
THE COMMUNITIES PROPOSED TO BE SERVED, THAT MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN SHOULD
HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FOR ITS
PLAN OF FINANCING, THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD FILE FOR THE APPROVAL OF
THE COMMISSION A SCHEDULE OF REASONABLE RATES, AND THAT THE SANCTIONED
FACILITIES SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF GAS TO DETROIT
AND ANN ARBOR EXCEPT WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF
PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY, WHICH HAD INTERVENED BEFORE THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, IN ITS ESTABLISHED SERVICE FOR RESALE IN
THESE AREAS, SUCH RIGHTS AND DUTIES TO BE SET FORTH IN A SUPPLEMENTAL
ORDER.  IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN SHOULD HAVE
FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE ISSUE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO NOTIFY THE
COMMISSION WHETHER THE CERTIFICATE "AS HEREIN ISSUED IS ACCEPTABLE TO
IT."  FINALLY, THE COMMISSION'S ORDER PROVIDED THAT FOR PURPOSES OF
COMPUTING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARING COULD BE
FILED, "THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE
DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE OPINIONS, OR OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REFERRED
TO HEREIN, WHICHEVER MAY BE THE LATER."  5 F.P.C. 953, 954, 956. 

NEWS OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION WAS RELEASED ON NOVEMBER 30, 1946,
BUT THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE ORDER WAS NOT MADE PUBLIC UNTIL DECEMBER
2, 1946.  PETITIONERS SEVERALLY, ON DECEMBER 2, 1946, GAVE NOTICE TO
PHILLIPS OF TERMINATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS ON THE GROUND THAT MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN HAD NOT RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY.  THEREUPON MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN AND PHILLIPS BROUGHT SUIT
AGAINST PETITIONERS IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OKLAHOMA.  ALLEGING THAT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY, "WITHIN THE MEANING OF SAID NATURAL GAS ACT AND SAID
CONTRACTS" HAD BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO PETITIONERS' ATTEMPT AT TERMINATION
OF THE CONTRACTS, THEY INVOKED THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT FOR
A DECLARATION THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE STILL "IN EFFECT AND BINDING UPON
THE PARTIES THERETO."  MOTIONS BY PETITIONERS TO HAVE MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN DROPPED AS A PARTY PLAINTIFF WERE SUSTAINED, BUT MOTIONS TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION WERE DENIED.  THE CASE
THEN WENT TO THE MERITS, AND THE DISTRICT COURT DECREED THAT THE
CONTRACTS BETWEEN PHILLIPS AND PETITIONERS HAD NOT BEEN "EFFECTIVELY
TERMINATED AND THAT EACH OF SUCH CONTRACTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND
EFFECT."  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 174 F.2D
89, AND WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 338 U.S. 846, BECAUSE IT RAISES IN
SHARP FORM THE QUESTION WHETHER A SUIT LIKE THIS "ARISES UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, LAWS OR TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES," 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1331, SO AS TO ENABLE DISTRICT COURTS TO GIVE DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER
THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT.  48 STAT. 955, AS AMENDED, NOW 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2201. 

"(THE) OPERATION OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT IS PROCEDURAL
ONLY."  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 240.  CONGRESS
ENLARGED THE RANGE OF REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BUT DID
NOT EXTEND THEIR JURISDICTION.  WHEN CONCERNED AS WE ARE WITH THE POWER
OF THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS TO ENTERTAIN LITIGATION WITHIN THE
RESTRICTED AREA TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTION AND ACTS OF CONGRESS CONFINE
THEM, "JURISDICTION" MEANS THE KINDS OF ISSUES WHICH GIVE RIGHT OF
ENTRANCE TO FEDERAL COURTS.  JURISDICTION IN THIS SENSE WAS NOT ALTERED
BY THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT.  PRIOR TO THAT ACT, A FEDERAL COURT
WOULD ENTERTAIN A SUIT ON A CONTRACT ONLY IF THE PLAINTIFF ASKED FOR AN
IMMEDIATELY ENFORCEABLE REMEDY LIKE MONEY DAMAGES OR AN INJUNCTION, BUT
SUCH RELIEF COULD ONLY BE GIVEN IF THE REQUISITES OF JURISDICTION, IN
THE SENSE OF A FEDERAL RIGHT OR DIVERSITY, PROVIDED FOUNDATION FOR
RESORT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT ALLOWED
RELIEF TO BE GIVEN BY WAY OF RECOGNIZING THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT EVEN
THOUGH NO IMMEDIATE ENFORCEMENT OF IT WAS ASKED.  BUT THE REQUIREMENTS
OF JURISDICTION - THE LIMITED SUBJECT MATTERS WHICH ALONE CONGRESS HAD
AUTHORIZED THE DISTRICT COURTS TO ADJUDICATE - WERE NOT IMPLIEDLY
REPEALED OR MODIFIED.  SEE GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V. HUFFMAN,
319 U.S. 293, 300; COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549, 551-52. 

IF PHILLIPS SOUGHT DAMAGES FROM PETITIONERS OR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
OF THEIR CONTRACTS, IT COULD NOT BRING SUIT IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT ON THE THEORY THAT IT WAS ASSERTING A FEDERAL RIGHT.  AND FOR THE
SIMPLE REASON THAT SUCH A SUIT WOULD "ARISE" UNDER THE STATE LAW
GOVERNING THE CONTRACTS.  WHATEVER FEDERAL CLAIM PHILLIPS MAY BE ABLE
TO URGE WOULD IN ANY EVENT BE INJECTED INTO THE CASE ONLY IN
ANTICIPATION OF A DEFENSE TO BE ASSERTED BY PETITIONERS.  "NOT EVERY
QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW EMERGING IN A SUIT IS PROOF THAT A FEDERAL LAW
IS THE BASIS OF THE SUIT."  GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 109,
115; COMPARE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257, WITH 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1331.  EVER SINCE
METCALF V. WATERTOWN, 128 U.S. 586, 589, IT HAS BEEN SETTLED DOCTRINE
THAT WHERE A SUIT IS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS "UPON THE SOLE
GROUND THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT DEPENDS UPON SOME QUESTION OF
A FEDERAL NATURE, IT MUST APPEAR, AT THE OUTSET, FROM THE DECLARATION
OR THE BILL OF THE PARTY SUING, THAT THE SUIT IS OF THAT CHARACTER." 
BUT "A SUGGESTION OF ONE PARTY, THAT THE OTHER WILL OR MAY SET UP A
CLAIM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, DOES NOT
MAKE THE SUIT ONE ARISING UNDER THAT CONSTITUTION OR THOSE LAWS." 
TENNESSEE V. UNION & PLANTERS' BANK, 152 U.S. 454, 464.  THE
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM ITSELF MUST PRESENT A FEDERAL QUESTION "UNAIDED BY
ANYTHING ALLEGED IN ANTICIPATION OF AVOIDANCE OF DEFENSES WHICH IT IS
THOUGHT THE DEFENDANT MAY INTERPOSE."  TAYLOR V. ANDERSON, 234 U.S. 74,
75-76; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 211 U.S. 149, 152. 

THESE DECISIONS REFLECT THE CURRENT OF JURISDICTIONAL LEGISLATION
SINCE THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, 18 STAT. 470, FIRST ENTRUSTED TO THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS WIDE JURISDICTION IN CASES "ARISING UNDER THIS
CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TREATIES."  U.S.
CONST. ART. III, SEC. 2.  "THE CHANGE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
POLICY OF THESE ACTS, MANIFEST UPON THEIR FACE, AND OFTEN RECOGNIZED BY
THIS COURT, TO CONTRACT THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS (WHICH
BECAME THE DISTRICT COURTS) OF THE UNITED STATES."  TENNESSEE V. UNION
& PLANTERS' BANK, SUPRA AT 462.  SEE ALSO ARKANSAS V. KANSAS & TEXAS
COAL CO., 183 U.S. 185, 188, AND GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA AT
112-14.  WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW RELEVANT CONGRESS HAS NARROWED THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND THIS COURT HAS
BEEN MORE CAREFUL THAN IN EARLIER DAYS IN ENFORCING THESE
JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  SEE GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA AT
113. 

TO BE OBSERVANT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS IS NOT TO INDULGE IN FORMALISM
OR STERILE TECHNICALITY.  IT WOULD TURN INTO THE FEDERAL COURTS A VAST
CURRENT OF LITIGATION INDUBITABLY ARISING UNDER STATE LAW, IN THE SENSE
THAT THE RIGHT TO BE VINDICATED WAS STATE-CREATED, IF A SUIT FOR A
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS COULD BE BROUGHT INTO THE FEDERAL COURTS MERELY
BECAUSE AN ANTICIPATED DEFENSE DERIVED FROM FEDERAL LAW.  NOT ONLY
WOULD THIS UNDULY SWELL THE VOLUME OF LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURTS
BUT IT WOULD ALSO EMBARRASS THOSE COURTS - AND THIS COURT ON POTENTIAL
REVIEW - IN THAT MATTERS OF LOCAL LAW MAY OFTEN BE INVOLVED, AND THE
DISTRICT COURTS MAY EITHER HAVE TO DECIDE DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS OF STATE
LAW OR HOLD CASES PENDING DISPOSITION OF SUCH STATE ISSUES BY STATE
COURTS.  TO SANCTION SUITS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS MERELY BECAUSE, AS IN THIS CASE,
ARTFUL PLEADING ANTICIPATES A DEFENSE BASED ON FEDERAL LAW WOULD
CONTRAVENE THE WHOLE TREND OF JURISDICTIONAL LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS,
DISREGARD THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND
DISTORT THE LIMITED PROCEDURAL PURPOSE OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACT.  SEE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW - DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS - 1941-1949,
62 HARV. L. REV. 787, 802-03(1949).  SINCE THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY AS
TO WHICH PHILLIPS ASKED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT ONE THAT
"ARISES UNDER THE  ...  LAWS  ...  OF THE UNITED STATES" AND SINCE AS
TO SKELLY AND STANOLIND JURISDICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON THE SCORE
OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE
BEEN DISMISSED. 

AS TO MAGNOLIA, A TEXAS CORPORATION, A DIFFERENT SITUATION IS
PRESENTED.  SINCE PHILLIPS WAS A DELAWARE CORPORATION, THERE IS
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  MAGNOLIA HAD QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN
OKLAHOMA AND APPOINTED AN AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PREVAILING OKLAHOMA STATUTE.  OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 18, SEC.
452(1937).  MAGNOLIA CLAIMED THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS PROCEEDING
DID NOT ARISE IN OKLAHOMA WITHIN THE MEANING OF ITS CONSENT TO BE
SUED.  THIS CONTENTION WAS REJECTED BELOW, AND WE DO NOT REEXAMINE THE
LOCAL LAW AS APPLIED BY THE LOWER COURTS.  UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF NEIRBO
CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S. 165, VENUE WAS PROPERLY
LAID IN OKLAHOMA; THAT THE DECLARATORY REMEDY WHICH MAY BE GIVEN BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS IS IMMATERIAL. 

THEREFORE, IN THE CASE OF MAGNOLIA WE MUST REACH THE MERITS.  THEY
RELATE TO TWO MATTERS:  (1) THE CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT WITH PHILLIPS
PERMITTING ITS TERMINATION AT ANY TIME AFTER DECEMBER 1, 1946, BUT
BEFORE THE "ISSUANCE" OF "A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY" BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION; AND (2) WHETHER THIS
PROVISION WAS SATISFIED BY MAGNOLIA'S NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF DECEMBER
2, 1946, DESPITE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1946.  THE
PHRASEOLOGY "CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" IN THE
CONTRACT IS IDENTIC WITH THE PHRASE IN SEC. 7(C) OF THE NATURAL GAS
ACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS EQUATED THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT WITH THAT
IN THE STATUTE AND IN EFFECT DEEMED ITS PROBLEM TO BE THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE "ISSUANCE" OF A "CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7(C).  SO
VIEWING THE MATTER, THE COURT HELD THAT THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1946,
SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CONTRACT, AND THAT THEREFORE A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY HAD BEEN ISSUED WITHIN
THE TERMINAL PERIOD OF THE CONTRACT, AND THAT ITS TERMINATION WAS NOT
TIMELY.    IT WILL BE RECALLED THAT THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1946, HAD
THREE PARTS:  (A) IT STATED THAT "A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY BE AND IT IS HEREBY ISSUED TO APPLICANT (MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN)"; (B) IT IMPOSED CERTAIN CONDITIONS UPON THE GRANT, SOME OF
WHICH WERE TO BE SET FORTH IN A SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER; AND (C) IT SAID
THAT "FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH APPLICATIONS
FOR REHEARING MAY BE FILED, THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE
DEEMED TO BE THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE OPINIONS, OR OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REFERRED TO HEREIN, WHICHEVER MAY BE THE LATER."  5
F.P.C. AT 954, 956.  THE COURSE OF REASONING BY WHICH THE COURT OF
APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1946, SATISFIED THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY CAN BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED.  IT RELIED ON THE GRAMMATICAL
ARGUMENT THAT THE COMMISSION USED THE PRESENT TENSE IN ITS ORDER AND
SUBSEQUENTLY REFERRED TO IT AS AN ORDER "ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY," E.G., 6 F.P.C. 1, 37; THE
CONDITIONAL NATURE OF THE ORDER WAS NOT DEEMED TO IMPAIR ITS EFFICACY
SINCE SEC. 7(E) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION "TO
ATTACH TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE AND TO THE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHTS GRANTED THEREUNDER SUCH REASONABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY MAY REQUIRE"; AND THE PROVISION OF THE
ORDER CONNECTING THE DATE OF THE ORDER'S ISSUANCE WITH THE TIME DEFINED
FOR SECURING A REHEARING WAS THOUGHT RELEVANT ONLY TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL
ORDER. 

WE ARE NOT PERSUADED NOW TO REST DECISION ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS WHICH LED TO ITS CONCLUSION.  WE NEED NOT LINGER LONG
ON THE MERELY GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT OF THAT COURT; IT IS GIVEN MORE
WEIGHT THAN IT CAN BEAR.  OF COURSE, THE COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHEN AN ORDER MAY FAIRLY BE DEEMED
TO HAVE BEEN "ISSUED."  SECTION 16 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "ORDERS OF
THE COMMISSION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE AND IN THE MANNER WHICH
THE COMMISSION SHALL PRESCRIBE."  BUT SURELY A CERTIFICATE CANNOT BE
SAID TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR PURPOSES OF DEFINING RIGHTS AND THE
SEEKING OF RECONSIDERATION BY AN AGGRIEVED PERSON IF ITS SUBSTANCE IS
MERELY IN THE BOSOM OF THE COMMISSION.  KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBSTANCE MUST
TO SOME EXTENT BE MADE MANIFEST.  HERE THE CONTENT OF THE ORDER OF
NOVEMBER 30, 1946, WAS NOT MADE PUBLIC UNTIL DECEMBER 2, 1946, THE DATE
OF THE TERMINATION NOTICE. 

THE COMMISSION ITSELF IN ITS RULE FOR COMPUTING REHEARING TIME
DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN "ADOPTION" OF AN ORDER AND ITS "ISSUANCE."  FN1
HOWEVER, AS A MATTER OF USAGE, THE COMMISSION HAS REFERRED TO AN ORDER
AS HAVING "ISSUED" A CERTIFICATE ON A PARTICULAR DATE WHEN IN FACT THE
DATE WAS THAT OF "ADOPTION."  SEE, E.G., ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO., 5
F.P.C. 813, 897; CF. PACIFIC GAS & ELEC.  CO., 5 F.P.C. 824, 901. 
FINALLY, THE RESTRICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE REHEARING
PROVISION OF PART C TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER FINDS NO SUPPORT ON THE
FACE OF THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1946.  THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE
THAT PART C WAS NOT TO APPLY TO THE ENTIRE ORDER FOR PURPOSES OF SEC.
19 OF THE ACT, WHICH ALLOWS A REHEARING BY A PARTY AGGRIEVED "WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER" AND MAKES SUCH REHEARING
A PREREQUISITE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  SEE F.P.C. 323. 

SINCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF "A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" MAY BE DISTRIBUTIVE IN
SCOPE, VARYING WITH THE DIFFERENT CONTEXTS IN WHICH THE QUESTION MUST
BE EXAMINED, THIS IS NOT THE OCCASION TO DECIDE THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS
HAVE A SINGLE UNIFORM CONTENT.  WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT HERE
WAS SATISFIED IS NOT A QUESTION OF FACT, THE FINDING OF WHICH BY THE
DISTRICT COURT IS TO BE RESPECTED UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT MERELY FOUND THAT THE CONTENT OF THE PIECE OF PAPER
DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1946, WAS THAT DAY AGREED UPON IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT THAT FACT WAS MADE KNOWN.  BUT THIS LEAVES
UNTOUCHED THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ACTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND
THE COURT OUGHT NOT NOW IN DARKNESS TO PRONOUNCE ON THIS QUESTION. 

WE ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO DISPOSITION OF THE CONTROVERSY ON SO
TRUNCATED A TREATMENT OF THE ISSUES THAT UNDERLIE THE RECORD. 
CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SO TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE WOULD INVOLVE
DETERMINATION OF AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM CONCERNING A REGULATORY STATUTE
WITH IMPLICATIONS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE THAT PRIVATE LITIGANTS NATURALLY
ENOUGH DO NOT WHOLLY REPRESENT AND THAT ON THESE MATTERS NEITHER THE
COURTS BELOW NOR THIS COURT HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPERIENCE AND
ILLUMINATION OF THE AGENCY ENTRUSTED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT,
FN2  THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT WE SHOULD EXERCISE
OUR DISCRETIONARY POWER IN REVIEWING CASES TO "REQUIRE SUCH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS TO BE HAD AS MAY BE JUST UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  28
U.S.C. SEC. 2106; HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14, 25.  ACCORDINGLY, WE
THINK THAT THE PROPER DISPOSITION REQUIRES THAT WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT
AS TO MAGNOLIA AND REMAND THE CASE IN ORDER THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
EITHER ITSELF OR BY SENDING THE CASE BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT CAN
FURTHER EXPLORE, THROUGH WAYS THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE, THE ISSUES WHICH
HAVE BEEN LAID BARE.  SEE KENNEDY V. SILAS MASON CO., 334 U.S. 249. 

THE IMPACT OF THE LITIGATION BOTH HERE AND BELOW WAS ON THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 7(C).  EVEN THOUGH THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT
MAY BE IDENTIC WITH THAT OF SEC. 7(C), THIS LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT
MAY HAVE A SCOPE INDEPENDENT OF THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 7(C). 
THE SAME WORDS, IN DIFFERENT SETTINGS, MAY NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. 
COMPARE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN TOWNE V. EISNER, 245 U.S. 418,
WITH HIS DISSENT IN EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 219.  PARTIES DO
NOT NECESSARILY ENDOW STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN A CONTRACT WITH THE SCOPE
OF THE STATUTE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SAME TERM MAY HAVE VARIANT
MEANINGS FOR DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS OF THE STATUTE.  SEE STANDARD OIL
CO. V. JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481, 483.  OF COURSE THE STATUTORY MEANING IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE NATURAL GAS ACT MAY NOT BE IRRELEVANT.  IN
REMANDING THE CASE WE DO NOT MEAN TO FORECLOSE THIS LINE OF INQUIRY. 
FN3 

IN RESPECT TO MAGNOLIA, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION.  AS TO SKELLY AND STANOLIND, WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT
WITH DIRECTIONS THAT THE CAUSE BE DISMISSED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  RULE 13(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
PROVIDES:  "IN COMPUTING ANY PERIOD OF TIME INVOLVING THE DATE OF THE
ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER BY THE COMMISSION, THE DAY OF ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER
SHALL BE THE DAY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MAILS OR DELIVERS COPIES
OF THE ORDER (FULL TEXT) TO THE PARTIES OR THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD,
OR MAKES SUCH COPIES PUBLIC, WHICHEVER BE THE EARLIER.  ...  THE DAY OF
ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE DAY OF ITS ADOPTION BY THE
COMMISSION."  18 C.F.R. SEC. 1.13(B).  A DEPOSITION TAKEN OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION GAVE LIGHT ON THIS POINT.  THE COMMISSION'S
PREVIOUS RULE ON REHEARING TIME IS IN 18 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 50.75. 

RULE 13(C) PROVIDES:  "ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE AS
OF THE DATES OF ISSUANCE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE
ORDERS."  18 C.F.R. SEC. 1.13(C).  THIS PROVISION MAY BE OF
SIGNIFICANCE IF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A CERTIFICATE IS AN ISSUE IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 20 OR SEC. 21 OF THE ACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
DID NOT DISCUSS THE BEARING OF THESE RULES UPON THIS CASE. 

FN2  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONDITIONS IN QUALIFYING WHAT IS
FORMALLY CALLED A "CERTIFICATE" IN THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 30, 1946, IS
PRECISELY ONE OF THOSE MATTERS UPON WHICH COMMISSION PRACTICE AND
EXPERIENCE MAY SHED HELPFUL LIGHT. 

FN3  IN ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THE DISTRICT COURT STATED:  "THE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN ON NOVEMBER
30, 1946, ALTHOUGH CONTAINING TERMS AND CONDITIONS, WAS AND IS A
CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT AND
ONE THAT IS PROVIDED FOR BY THAT ACT.  A CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTRACTS
BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, TOGETHER WITH THE CONTRACT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF AND MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN, COMPELS A CONCLUSION THAT SUCH
CERTIFICATE WAS ONE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE PARTIES AND
SATISFIED THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS." 

THE CONTEXT SUGGESTS THAT IN THE SECOND SENTENCE THE DISTRICT COURT
MAY STILL HAVE BEEN FOCUSING UPON STATUTORY MEANING. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AGREES WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS AND WOULD AFFIRM
ITS JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS,
DISSENTING IN PART. 

I CONCUR IN THAT PART OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT THAT DIRECTS DISMISSAL
OF THE CAUSE AS TO SKELLY AND STANOLIND.  I HAVE REAL DOUBTS AS TO
WHETHER THERE IS A FEDERAL QUESTION HERE AT ALL, EVEN THOUGH
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES REQUIRES AN
INTERPRETATION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE AND THE ACTION OF A FEDERAL
REGULATORY BODY.  BUT THE COURT FINDS IT UNNECESSARY TO REACH THAT
QUESTION BECAUSE IT HOLDS THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION, IF ANY, IS NOT A
PART OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AND THAT JURISDICTION DOES NOT,
THEREFORE, ATTACH.  WHILE THIS RESULT IS NOT A NECESSARY ONE, I AM NOT
PREPARED TO DISSENT FROM IT AT THIS TIME. 

BUT I AM FORCED TO DISSENT FROM THE VACATION AND REMAND OF THE CAUSE
IN RESPECT TO MAGNOLIA.  I THINK THAT, AS TO THIS PETITIONER, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  THE COURT DECIDES
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION HAD ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
TO MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY ON NOVEMBER 30, 1946, DESPITE
THE FACT THAT ON THAT DATE THE COMMISSION ADOPTED AN ORDER STATING THAT
"A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BE AND IT IS HEREBY
ISSUED TO APPLICANT, UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS ORDER,  ...
"  THIS DISREGARD FOR WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND TO BE THE
COMMISSION'S EXPRESS INTENTION IS BASED UPON TWO ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS. 
FIRST, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WHILE THE ORDER ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE WAS
"ADOPTED" ON NOVEMBER 30, IT WAS NOT "ISSUED" UNTIL DECEMBER 2. 
SECOND, IT IS SAID THAT PART C OF THE NOVEMBER 30 ORDER, WHICH
CONCERNED THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER FOR PURPOSES OF
APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARING, PRECLUDES A FINDING THAT A CERTIFICATE WAS
ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 30.  NEITHER OF THESE GROUNDS, IN MY JUDGMENT,
SUPPORTS THE COURT'S CONCLUSION. 

AS TO THE FIRST, WHICH WAS NOT ARGUED HERE NOR IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS, IT IS TRUE THAT THE COMMISSION'S RULES PROVIDE THAT AN ORDER
IS NOT TO BE DEEMED "ISSUED" UNTIL THE FULL TEXT IS MIMEOGRAPHED AND
MAILED TO THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING.  THIS USUALLY FOLLOWS WITHIN
TWO OR THREE DAYS AFTER THE ORDER IS "ADOPTED."  THE ONLY PURPOSE OF
THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER, SO FAR AS WE ARE
INFORMED, IS TO POSTPONE THE RUNNING OF THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR
APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARING UNTIL THE FULL TEXT IS AVAILABLE TO THE
PARTIES WHO HAVE STANDING TO ASK FOR REHEARING. 

BUT THE COMMISSION UNIFORMLY REFERS TO THE DATE OF ADOPTION OF THE
ORDER AS THE DATE UPON WHICH THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY WAS "ISSUED."  FN1  IT DID SO IN THIS CASE, WHEN, ON MARCH
12, 1947, IT ISSUED A SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REFERRING TO ITS "ORDER OF
NOVEMBER 30, 1946, ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY."  FURTHERMORE, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND AS A FACT THAT 

"ON NOVEMBER 30, A SATURDAY, THE COMMISSION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION MADE
AN ORDER GRANTING, WITH CONDITIONS, A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY TO THE MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY.  DURING THIS
SESSION AS THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION CAME TO AGREEMENT AS TO THE
WORDING OF THE ORDER, MR. FUQUAY, THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION,
PREPARED THE ORDER IN FULL AND EXACT TEXT.  THE SECRETARY WAS DIRECTED
BY THE COMMISSION TO RELEASE THE ORDER IMMEDIATELY." 

FOLLOWING ADJOURNMENT ON THAT DAY, THE SECRETARY SENT A TELEGRAM TO
THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING, INFORMING THEM THAT THE "COMMISSION
TODAY  ...  ADOPTED OPINION AND ORDER, IN DOCKET NO. G-669, ISSUING
CERTIFICATE, WITH CONDITIONS, TO MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE
COMPANY."  ON THE SAME DAY, RELEASES TO THE PRESS WERE MADE ANNOUNCING
THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION. 

SKELLY, STANOLIND AND MAGNOLIA WERE NOT PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING. 
IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE
CERTIFICATE IS DECEMBER 2 OR SOME LATER DATE - FOR PURPOSES OF
REHEARING UPON APPLICATION OF THE PARTIES.  BUT I THINK THERE IS NO
QUESTION THAT THE CERTIFICATE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE ORDER, WAS
ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 30.  THAT IS THE COMMISSION'S VIEW, AS INDICATED BY
ITS SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER.  THE FACT THAT IT TAKES A FEW DAYS TO GET ITS
ORDERS MIMEOGRAPHED AND THE COMMISSION HAS ADOPTED A RULE THAT, IN
FAIRNESS TO THE PARTIES, THE TIME FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT BEGIN TO RUN
UNTIL SUCH ORDERS, IN FULL TEXT, ARE AVAILABLE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE IS ALSO HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL THAT TIME. 

THE SECOND ARGUMENT REQUIRES BUT SHORT ANSWER.  PART C. PROVIDES
THAT 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR
REHEARING MAY BE FILED, THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE
DEEMED TO BE THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE OPINIONS, OR OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REFERRED TO HEREIN, WHICHEVER MAY BE THE LATER." 

THE PARAGRAPH MEANS JUST WHAT IT SAYS.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COURT
TO HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION CANNOT THUS POSTPONE THE RUNNING OF THE
TIME FOR REHEARING.  COMPUTATION OF THAT TIME, AS I HAVE INDICATED, HAS
NO NECESSARY RELATION TO THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE.    I
THINK THAT THE COMMISSION INTENDED TO AND DID ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN PIPE LINE
COMPANY ON NOVEMBER 30, 1946, WHATEVER THE DATE OF ITS ORDER, FOR
PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF TIME FOR REHEARING.  THE CRUCIAL CLAUSE OF
THE CONTRACT REFERS TO "THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH CERTIFICATE (OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY)."  BY THEIR INCLUSION OF A PROVISION
DEPENDENT UPON THE ACTION OF A FEDERAL AGENCY, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE
PARTIES INTENDED THAT THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE
TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGENCY ACTION UNDER THE STATUTES AND THE
PRACTICES OF THE COMMISSION.  THE DISTRICT COURT SO CONCLUDED  FN2.  I
CAN SEE NO REASON, THEREFORE, TO REMAND THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  IN MY VIEW, EFFECTIVE AGENCY ACTION WAS TAKEN ON NOVEMBER
30, 1946.  AS TO MAGNOLIA, I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS. 

FN1  SEE, E.G., ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO., 5 F.P.C. 813, 897;
PACIFIC GAS & ELEC.  CO., 5 F.P.C. 824, 901. 

FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT STATED AS ONE OF ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
"THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN ON
NOVEMBER 30, 1946, ALTHOUGH CONTAINING TERMS AND CONDITIONS, WAS AND IS
A CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT AND
ONE THAT IS PROVIDED FOR BY THAT ACT.  A CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTRACTS
BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS, TOGETHER WITH THE CONTRACT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF AND MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN, COMPELS A CONCLUSION THAT SUCH
CERTIFICATE WAS ONE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE PARTIES AND
SATISFIED THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS." 
..END :










SWIFT & CO. V. COMPANIA CARIBE, 339 U.S. 684 


NO. 230.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14-15, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - 175
F.2D 513, REVERSED. 


PETITIONERS BROUGHT A LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CANAL ZONE AGAINST A STEAMSHIP COMPANY ON A CLAIM ARISING UPON A
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT SUPPLEMENTED BY CHARGES OF NEGLIGENCE IN THE
NONDELIVERY OF A SEA CARGO, AND BY PROCESS OF FOREIGN ATTACHMENT
SECURED THE ATTACHMENT OF A VESSEL WHICH THE COMPANY ALLEGEDLY HAD
TRANSFERRED TO RESPONDENT IN FRAUD OF PETITIONERS' RIGHTS.  CONCLUDING
THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION IN ADMIRALTY TO INQUIRE INTO THE ALLEGED
FRAUDULENT TRANSFER, AND THAT IN ANY EVENT THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE SINCE THE TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN TWO
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, THE DISTRICT COURT
VACATED THE ATTACHMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  HELD: 

1.  THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT VACATING THE ATTACHMENT WAS
REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1291.  PP. 688
689. 

(A)  THE PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1291 FOR APPEALS TO THE COURTS
OF APPEALS ONLY FROM FINAL DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS SHOULD NOT
BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO DENY EFFECTIVE REVIEW OF A CLAIM FAIRLY SEVERABLE
FROM THE CONTEXT OF A LARGER LITIGIOUS PROCESS.  COHEN V. BENEFICIAL
INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORP., 337 U.S. 541.  PP. 688-689. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT TO
DISCHARGE ITS MARITIME JURISDICTION WAS NOT WITHOUT POWER TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE TRANSFER OF THE VESSEL WAS FRAUDULENT, AND THE POWER SHOULD
BE EXERCISED.  PP. 689-695. 

3.  IN THE POSTURE OF THE CASE IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE VACATION OF
THE ATTACHMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY PETITIONERS' FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF FRAUD, ALTHOUGH THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING
A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER WAS UPON THEM.  PP. 695-696. 

4.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER VACATING THE ATTACHMENT WAS NOT
JUSTIFIED AS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION UNDER
THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  PP. 697-698. 

(A)  IT WAS IMPROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE SHOWN TO REMIT A
UNITED STATES CITIZEN TO THE COURTS OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY WITHOUT
ASSURING THE CITIZEN THAT RESPONDENTS WOULD APPEAR IN THOSE COURTS AND
THAT SECURITY WOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL TO WHAT HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY
ATTACHMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  PP. 697-698. 

SWIFT & COMPANY PACKERS ET AL. V. COMPANIA COLOMBIANA DEL CARIBE, S.A.
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT VACATING THE ATTACHMENT OF A VESSEL IN
AN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING, 83 F.SUPP.  273, WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  175 F.2D 513.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 813. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 698. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE PROPRIETY OF AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE CANAL ZONE VACATING A FOREIGN ATTACHMENT OF A VESSEL MADE
IN A LIBEL IN PERSONAM.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE SCOPE OF ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION AND ITS
EXERCISE ARE IN ISSUE.  338 U.S. 813. 

ON MARCH 7, 1948, THE LIBEL WAS FILED AGAINST COMPANIA TRANSMARITIMA
COLOMBIANA, S.A., A COLOMBIAN CORPORATION, BY SWIFT & COMPANY PACKERS,
A NEVADA CORPORATION, CERTAIN CUBAN CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, AND A
COLOMBIAN CITIZEN.  THEY BROUGHT THE LIBEL AS OWNERS OF RICE SHIPPED
FROM ECUADOR TO CUBA.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE CARGO HAD BEEN DELIVERED
IN GOOD ORDER TO THE M/V CALI, OWNED AND OPERATED BY TRANSMARITIMA, AND
THAT THE VESSEL HAD SUNK, OR PARTIALLY SUNK, OFF THE ISLAND OF GRAND
CAYMAN WITH RESULTING NONDELIVERY OF THE CARGO.  THIS WAS SUPPLEMENTED
BY ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE.  PROCESS WAS PRAYED WITH THE FURTHER
REQUEST THAT IF THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE FOUND ITS GOODS AND
CHATTELS BE ATTACHED, PARTICULARLY A VESSEL KNOWN AS THE ALACRAN, OR
CARIBE.  THIS VESSEL WAS THEREUPON ATTACHED BY THE MARSHAL. 

ON MARCH 8, LIBELLANTS FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED LIBEL, AND ON
THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING ALLEGATIONS JOINED THE COMPANIA COLOMBIANA
DEL CARIBE, S.A., AS RESPONDENT.  ON OR SHORTLY PRIOR TO MARCH 4, THE
COMPANIA DEL CARIBE HAD BEEN ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF COLOMBIA AND
THE ALACRAN HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY TRANSMARITIMA TO DEL CARIBE IN
FRAUD OF THE RIGHTS OF LIBELLANTS.  THE LATTER COMPANY HAD BEEN
ORGANIZED BY DIRECTORS, OFFICERS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF TRANSMARITIMA, BUT
NO FUNDS HAD BEEN PAID INTO ITS TREASURY FOR THE ISSUE OF ITS STOCK,
AND THE TRANSFER OF THE ALACRAN WAS WITHOUT REAL CONSIDERATION.  DEL
CARIBE WAS "MERELY THE CREATURE OR ALTER EGO" OF TRANSMARITIMA AND
"THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO BE, AS THEY ARE, ONE AND THE SAME."  DEL
CARIBE, ON OR ABOUT MARCH 4, HAD HAD THE VESSEL'S NAME CHANGED FROM
ALACRAN TO CARIBE, AND A NEW REGISTER HAD BEEN ISSUED ACCORDINGLY.  IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, THE CLAIM WAS THAT DEL CARIBE WAS INDEBTED TO
TRANSMARITIMA FOR AT LEAST A SUBSTANTIAL PART IF NOT ALL OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE OF THE CARIBE. 

ATTACHMENT OF THE VESSEL WAS AGAIN PRAYED ON WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE
BEEN EITHER OF TWO GROUNDS: SINCE TRANSMARITIMA AND DEL CARIBE WERE
REALLY ONE AND THE SAME, IT MATTERED NOT WHICH WAS DEEMED TO BE THE
OWNER OF THE CARIBE; SINCE THE TRANSFER OF THE CARIBE TO DEL CARIBE WAS
A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER TO BE SET ASIDE, THE VESSEL WAS IN REALITY
TRANSMARITIMA'S PROPERTY AND DEL CARIBE SHOULD BE GARNISHED.  ON THE
BASIS OF THE AMENDED LIBEL ANOTHER ATTACHMENT OF THE CARIBE WAS MADE. 
FN1 

WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIBEL, LIBELLANTS SUBMITTED A LIST OF
INTERROGATORIES TO BE PROPOUNDED TO DEL CARIBE, CALCULATED TO DISCLOSE
THE TRUE STATUS OF THAT COMPANY AND OF THE TRANSFER TO IT OF THE
CARIBE.  ON MARCH 15, RESPONDENTS GAVE NOTICE THAT THEY WOULD MOVE FOR
AN ORDER DISMISSING THE LIBEL AND VACATING THE ATTACHMENT.  AN
ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT RELIED PRIMARILY ON THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS.  THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THIS MOTION ON MARCH 31.  THE
PARTIES THEN ENTERED INTO STIPULATIONS WHEREBY THE RESPONDENTS' TIME TO
ANSWER THE LIBEL AND INTERROGATORIES WAS EXTENDED TO JUNE 17.  ON JUNE
11, THEY ANSWERED, PUTTING IN ISSUE VARIOUS QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE
LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE SINKING OF THE CALI AND TO THE TRANSFER OF
THE CARIBE.  AT THE SAME TIME DEL CARIBE OBJECTED TO THE
INTERROGATORIES ON VARIOUS GROUNDS.  NO DISPOSITION OF THESE OBJECTIONS
APPEARS FROM THE RECORD. 

ON AUGUST 16, DEL CARIBE GAVE NOTICE OF A MOTION TO DISMISS THE LIBEL
AS TO IT AND VACATE THE ATTACHMENT.  VARIOUS GROUNDS WERE URGED CALLING
INTO QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, THE PROPRIETY OF ITS
EXERCISE, AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE ALLEGATIONS TO STATE A CLAIM IN THE
LIBEL.  AN ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT SET FORTH MATTERS RELATING TO THE
TRANSFER. 

ON SEPTEMBER 20, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE NONDELIVERY OF THE
CARGO WAS DUE TO THE BEACHING OF THE CALI IN JANUARY, 1948; THAT DEL
CARIBE HAD BEEN ORGANIZED IN THE LATTER PART OF FEBRUARY, 1948; AND
THAT TRANSMARITIMA HAD SOLD AND TRANSFERRED THE CARIBE TO DEL CARIBE ON
FEBRUARY 25.  FN2  FROM THESE FACTS THE DISTRICT JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT
THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION IN ADMIRALTY TO INQUIRE INTO THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE TWO RESPONDENT COMPANIES OR THE SALE OF THE CARIBE.  IN ANY
EVENT, THE COURT DECLINED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION TO LOOK INTO THE
TRANSFER SINCE IT HAD TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN TWO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND
IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE ATTACHMENT WAS ORDERED TO BE
VACATED.  WHILE LIBELLANTS SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UPON A
REHEARING, THE COURT ADHERED TO ITS ORIGINAL VIEWS.  83 F.SUPP.  273. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  IT HELD THAT JURISDICTION TO SET
ASIDE A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER BEFORE JUDGMENT ON THE MAIN CLAIM WAS AT
BEST "DOUBTFUL," THAT THERE WAS DISCRETION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION ON
PRINCIPLES OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, LIBELLANTS
AHD NOT SUSTAINED THEIR BURDEN OF PRODUCING PROOF THAT THE TRANSFER WAS
FRAUDULENT.  FN3  175 F.2D 513. 

THIS WE BELIEVE TO BE A FAIR RESUME OF AN UNCOMMONLY CONFUSED AND
OPAQUE RECORD.  IT IS ESPECIALLY HAMPERING THAT THE RECORD IS NOT
CLEARER THAN IT IS WHEN LEGAL ISSUES OF REAL COMPLEXITY ARE IN
CONTROVERSY. 

I. THERE IS A THRESHOLD QUESTION AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
BELOW TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE ORDER VACATING
THE ATTACHMENT WAS NOT A FINAL ORDER AND THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE. 

WE BELIEVE THAT THE ORDER COMES SQUARELY WITHIN THE CONSIDERATIONS OF
OUR RECENT DECISION IN COHEN V. BENEFICIAL INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORP., 337
U.S. 541.  THE LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF THE CLAIM OF THE LIBELLANTS
HAS NOT RUN ITS ENTIRE COURSE, BUT THE ORDER NOW HERE, LIKE THAT IN THE
COHEN CASE, "APPEARS TO FALL IN THAT SMALL CLASS WHICH FINALLY
DETERMINE CLAIMS OF RIGHT SEPARABLE FROM, AND COLLATERAL TO, RIGHTS
ASSERTED IN THE ACTION, TOO IMPORTANT TO BE DENIED REVIEW AND TOO
INDEPENDENT OF THE CAUSE ITSELF TO REQUIRE THAT APPELLATE CONSIDERATION
BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE WHOLE CASE IS ADJUDICATED."  337 U.S. AT 546. 
APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE ORDER DISSOLVING THE ATTACHMENT AT A LATER DATE
WOULD BE AN EMPTY RITE AFTER THE VESSEL HAD BEEN RELEASED AND THE
RESTORATION OF THE ATTACHMENT ONLY THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE.  CF. THE
PANAGHIA KATHARIOTISA, 165 F.2D 430.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE
PROVISION FOR APPEALS ONLY FROM FINAL DECISIONS IN 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1291
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO DENY EFFECTIVE REVIEW OF A CLAIM
FAIRLY SEVERABLE FROM THE CONTEXT OF A LARGER LITIGIOUS PROCESS.  SEE
COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 323, 328-29.  THE SITUATION IS
QUITE DIFFERENT WHERE AN ATTACHMENT IS UPHELD PENDING DETERMINATION OF
THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM.  SUCH WAS CUSHING V. LAIRD, 107 U.S. 69, WHICH IS
URGED ON US.  IN SUCH A SITUATION THE RIGHTS OF ALL THE PARTIES CAN BE
ADEQUATELY PROTECTED WHILE THE LITIGATION ON THE MAIN CLAIM PROCEEDS. 

II.  ON FINDING THAT THE CARIBE HAD BEEN SOLD BY TRANSMARITIMA TO DEL
CARIBE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE LIBEL, THE DISTRICT COURT DEEMED
ITSELF WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS
FRAUDULENT.  IN CONSEQUENCE IT FELT COMPELLED TO TREAT DEL CARIBE AS
THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL, AND SINCE ONLY THE PROPERTY OF TRANSMARITIMA
COULD BE VALIDLY ATTACHED THE ATTACHMENT HAD TO BE VACATED.  FN4 

THE REASONING OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS BASED ON THE VIEW THAT A
CLAIM OF FRAUD IN THE TRANSFER OF A VESSEL WAS A MATTER FOR
DETERMINATION BY A COURT OF EQUITY AND THEREFORE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.  THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF LOOSE TALK TO THIS
EFFECT IN THE REPORTS, CONCURRENT WITH TALK THAT COURTS OF ADMIRALTY
EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTION UPON EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  EVEN AS TO
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION WE MUST BE WARY OF VERBAL GENERALIZATIONS
UNRELATED TO THEIR APPLICATIONS.  NOT THE LEAST CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT OF
JUDICIAL LAW-MAKING IS THE BODY OF DOCTRINES THAT HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM
THE BRIEF WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION EXTENDING THE JUDICIAL POWER "TO
ALL CASES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION."  U.S. CONST. ART.
III, SEC. 2.  BUT IT WOULD BE BEYOND HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT EVEN OF A LONG
LINE OF JUDGES ESPECIALLY EQUIPPED FOR DEALING WITH ADMIRALTY MATTERS
TO HAVE PRODUCED A WHOLLY HARMONIOUS BODY OF ADMIRALTY LAW, OR TO HAVE
WRITTEN OPINIONS THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE LENT THEMSELVES THROUGH LARGENESS
OR LOOSENESS OF STATEMENT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THEIR ADJUDICATIONS. 

UNQUESTIONABLY A COURT OF ADMIRALTY WILL NOT ENFORCE AN INDEPENDENT
EQUITABLE CLAIM MERELY BECAUSE IT PERTAINS TO MARITIME PROPERTY.  E.G.,
THE ECLIPSE, 135 U.S. 599, 608, AND CASES CITED.  THE REASONING OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WOULD BE PERTINENT IF THE LIBELLANTS, AS CREDITORS OF
TRANSMARITIMA, HAD GONE INTO ADMIRALTY BY WAY OF A CREDITOR'S BILL TO
SET ASIDE A PRETENDED SALE OF THE CARIBE AS A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER.  BUT
THAT IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US.  LIBELLANTS WENT INTO ADMIRALTY ON A
CLAIM ARISING UPON A CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT SUPPLEMENTED BY CHARGES
OF NEGLIGENCE IN THE NONDELIVERY OF A SEA CARGO - MATTERS OBVIOUSLY
WITHIN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.  AS AN INCIDENT TO THAT CLAIM, IN ORDER
TO SECURE RESPONDENTS' APPEARANCE AND TO INSURE THE FRUITS OF A DECREE
IN LIBELLANTS' FAVOR, THEY MADE AN ATTACHMENT UNDER GENERAL ADMIRALTY
RULE 2.  FN5 THE ISSUE OF FRAUD ARISES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ATTACHMENT AS A MEANS OF EFFECTUATING A CLAIM INCONTESTABLY IN
ADMIRALTY.  TO DENY AN ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION OVER THIS
SUBSIDIARY OR DERIVATIVE ISSUE IN A LITIGATION CLEARLY MARITIME WOULD
REQUIRE AN ABSOLUTE RULE THAT ADMIRALTY IS RIGOROUSLY EXCLUDED FROM ALL
CONTACT WITH NONMARITIME TRANSACTIONS AND FROM ALL EQUITABLE RELIEF,
EVEN THOUGH SUCH NONMARITIME TRANSACTIONS COME INTO PLAY, AND SUCH
EQUITABLE RELIEF IS SOUGHT, IN THE COURSE OF ADMIRALTY'S EXERCISE OF
ITS JURISDICTION OVER A MATTER EXCLUSIVELY MARITIME.  IT WOULD BE
STRANGE INDEED THUS TO HOBBLE A LEGAL SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN SO
RESPONSIVE TO THE PRACTICALITIES OF MARITIME COMMERCE AND SO INVENTIVE
IN ADAPTING ITS JURISDICTION TO THE NEEDS OF THAT COMMERCE. 
CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN ADMIRALTY AND COMMON LAW ARE FAMILIAR LEGAL
HISTORY.  SEE MR. JUSTICE STORY'S CLASSIC OPINION IN DE LOVIO V. BOIT,
7 FED. CAS. 418, NO. 3,776, 2 GALL.  398; 4 BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY CC.
61-63(KNAUTH ED. 1940).  WE FIND NO RESTRICTION UPON ADMIRALTY BY
CHANCERY SO UNRELENTING AS TO BAR THE GRANT OF ANY EQUITABLE RELIEF
EVEN WHEN THAT RELIEF IS SUBSIDIARY TO ISSUES WHOLLY WITHIN ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NO GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT THIS
RESTRICTION WAS ACCEPTED AS A MATTER OF COURSE BY THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION SO THAT SUCH STERILIZATION OF ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION CAN
BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PRESUPPOSED BY ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

A FEW ILLUSTRATIVE CASES WILL TAKE US OUT OF THE FOG OF GENERALITIES,
FOR THE DECISIONS DEALING WITH CONCRETE SITUATIONS AFFORD A WORKING
APPROACH EVEN IF NOT A RIGID RULE. 

NONMARITIME CONTRACTS MAY BE EXAMINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY
CONSTITUTE A VALID DEFENSE, ALTHOUGH THE SAME CONTRACTS WILL NOT
SUPPORT A LIBEL OR CROSS-LIBEL FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF.  ARMOUR & CO. V.
FORT MORGAN S.S. CO., 270 U.S. 253, 258-60.  AN EQUITABLE CLAIM WHICH
DOES NOT SUPPORT A POSSESSORY SUIT MAY BE AVAILED OF AS A VALID DEFENSE
AGAINST A SIMILAR SUIT BY THE HOLDER OF LEGAL TITLE.  CHIRURG V.
KNICKERBOCKER STEAM TOWAGE CO., 174 F. 188; CF. THE DAISY, 29 F. 300;
SEE MORRISON, REMEDIAL POWERS OF THE ADMIRALTY, 43 YALE L.J. 1,
21(1933).  ADMIRALTY CANNOT ENTERTAIN A SUIT TO REFORM A RELEASE FROM
LIABILITY EXECUTED UNDER A MUTUAL MISTAKE MERELY BECAUSE IT PERTAINS TO
A MARITIME CLAIM; BUT WHEN SUCH A RELEASE IS PLEADED IN DEFENSE AGAINST
ASSERTION OF THAT CLAIM, ADMIRALTY IS NOT BARRED FROM DETERMINING
WHETHER IT WAS EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES UNDER MUTUAL MISTAKE.  RICE V.
CHARLES DREIFUS CO., 96 F.2D 80.  AND SO AS TO ACCOUNTING, "IT IS TRUE
THAT A COURT OF ADMIRALTY WILL NOT ENTERTAIN A SUIT FOR AN ACCOUNTING
AS SUCH:  AS, FOR EXAMPLE, AN ACCOUNTING BETWEEN CO-OWNERS OF A VESSEL,
OR BETWEEN MARITIME ADVENTURERS, OR BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND AGENT  ...
(CITING CASES).  NEVERTHELESS, IT HAS NEVER BEEN TRUE, WHEN AN
ACCOUNTING IS NECESSARY TO THE COMPLETE ADJUSTMENT OF RIGHTS OVER WHICH
ADMIRALTY HAS INDEPENDENT JURISDICTION, THAT IT WILL SUSPEND ITS
REMEDIES MIDWAY AND REQUIRE THE PARTIES TO RESORT TO ANOTHER COURT." 
W.E. HEDGER TRANSP.  CORP.  V. IRA S. BUSHEY & SONS, INC., 155 F.2D
321, 323, PER LEARNED HAND, J.    IN EACH OF THESE CASES A HOLDING THAT
ADMIRALTY MUST STAY ITS HANDS AS TO A MATTER INTRINSICALLY NONMARITIME
BUT "NECESSARY TO THE COMPLETE ADJUSTMENT OF RIGHTS OVER WHICH
ADMIRALTY HAS INDEPENDENT JURISDICTION" WOULD HAVE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED
THE DISCHARGE BY ADMIRALTY OF THE TASK WHICH BELONGS TO IT.  TO
RECOGNIZE THESE SUBSIDIARY POWERS OF ADMIRALTY TO DEAL JUSTLY WITH THE
CLAIMS THAT ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION IS NOT TO ENLARGE THE ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION BUT TO AVOID ITS MUTILATING RESTRICTION.  TO GENERALIZE
BEYOND THIS IS TO INVITE MISLEADING OR EMPTY ABSTRACTIONS. 

WE CAN NOW SEE THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE.  THE
PROCESS OF FOREIGN ATTACHMENT IS KNOWN OF OLD IN ADMIRALTY.  IT HAS TWO
PURPOSES:  TO SECURE A RESPONDENT'S APPEARANCE AND TO ASSURE
SATISFACTION IN CASE THE SUIT IS SUCCESSFUL.  MANRO V. ALMEIDA, 10
WHEAT.  473, 489.  WHILE THE PROCESS MAY BE UTILIZED ONLY WHEN A
RESPONDENT IS NOT FOUND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION, AN ATTACHMENT IS NOT
DISSOLVED BY THE SUBSEQUENT APPEARANCE OF RESPONDENT.  SEE BIRDSALL V.
GERMAIN CO., 227 F. 953, 955; 2 BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY SEC. 290(KNAUTH
ED. 1940).  DISPUTES OVER OWNERSHIP OF ATTACHED VESSELS ARE OF COURSE
INEVITABLE SINCE ONLY THE RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY MAY BE ATTACHED.  E.G.,
CUSHING V. LAIRD, 107 U.S. 69; CF. MCGAHERN V. KOPPERS COAL CO., 108
F.2D 652; KINGSTON DRY DOCK CO. V. LAKE CHAMPLAIN TRANSP.  CO., 31 F.2D
265.  INEVITABLY SUCH DISPUTES MAY INVOLVE TRANSACTIONS NOT THEMSELVES
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN INDEPENDENT LIBEL.  IF JURISDICTION BE WANTING
IN A COURT OF ADMIRALTY WHEN SUCH A CONTROVERSY ARISES IN THE CONTEXT
OF AN ATTACHMENT MADE IN A LIBEL OVER WHICH THE COURT INDUBITABLY HAS
JURISDICTION, A CONGENITAL DEFECT WOULD HAVE TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE
ANCIENT PROCESS OF FOREIGN ATTACHMENT.  IF COLORABLE TRANSFERS OF
PROPERTY WERE IMMUNE TO CHALLENGE IN A COURT OF ADMIRALTY WHEN A LIBEL
IN PERSONAM HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT WHERE THE RESPONDENT CANNOT
BE PERSONALLY SERVED, ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION WOULD BE SACRIFICED TO A
STERILE THEORY OF JUDICIAL SEPARATISM.  NO SUPPORT FOR SUCH A
CONCLUSION IS TO BE FOUND IN ANY DECISION OF THIS COURT OR IN THOSE OF
THE LOWER COURTS WHICH HAVE HAD SO LARGE A SHARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ADMIRALTY LAW.  THE RELEVANT RULINGS LOOK THE OTHER WAY. 

IN LEE V. THOMPSON, 15 FED. CAS. 233, NO. 8,202, 3 WOODS 167, MR.
JUSTICE BRADLEY HELD THAT AN ADMIRALTY COURT HAD POWER TO LOOK INTO AN
ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT TRANSFER WHERE THE QUESTION WAS RELEVANT TO
EXECUTION UPON A DECREE IN ADMIRALTY.  HE FULLY RECOGNIZED THAT A LIBEL
BASED SOLELY ON THE TRANSFER COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED, BUT WHERE THAT
ISSUE WAS "INCIDENTAL TO ITS GENERAL JURISDICTION, AND FOR MAINTAINING
THE SAME, IT (THE ADMIRALTY COURT) HAS PLENARY POWER TO DECIDE, AND
FREQUENTLY DOES DECIDE, CONFLICTING CLAIMS TO PROPERTY.  WITHOUT SUCH
POWER ITS JURISDICTION WOULD OFTEN BE DEFEATED."  15 FED. CAS. AT 235;
3 WOODS AT 173.  THE FORCE OF MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY'S DECISION IS SOUGHT
TO BE CUT DOWN IN THAT IT DEALT WITH EXECUTION ON A JUDGMENT AND NOT
WITH AN ATTACHMENT.  FN6  THE FACT IS, HOWEVER, THAT MR. JUSTICE
BRADLEY RELIED IN HIS REASONING ON THE PROCESS OF FOREIGN ATTACHMENT,
AND REASON REJECTS ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE JURISDICTION
OF ADMIRALTY TO INQUIRE INTO A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER IN THE TWO
SITUATIONS.  IN BOTH ADMIRALTY IS NOT SEIZED OF JURISDICTION TO CORRECT
A FRAUD SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS A FRAUD; THAT'S THE BUSINESS OF EQUITY. 
THE BASIS OF ADMIRALTY'S POWER IS TO PROTECT ITS JURISDICTION FROM
BEING THWARTED BY A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER, AND THAT APPLIES EQUALLY
WHETHER IT IS CONCERNED WITH EXECUTING ITS JUDGMENT OR AUTHORIZING AN
ATTACHMENT TO SECURE AN INDEPENDENT MARITIME CLAIM.  CF. THE NEW YORK,
113 F. 810; THE COLUMBIA, 100 F. 890(JUDGMENT IN ADMIRALTY VACATED
BECAUSE OBTAINED BY FRAUD). 

WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT WITHOUT POWER TO
LOOK INTO THE TRANSFER OF THE CARIBE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
SUIT.  BUT BECAUSE POWER EXISTS, ITS USE IS NOT INEXORABLE.  CF.
MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, 308 U.S. 1, 19.  WE WOULD BE PASSING ON
SITUATIONS NOT BEFORE US WERE WE TO ATTEMPT NOW TO DEFINE WHEN POWER
WHICH WE RECOGNIZE SHOULD BE WITHHELD.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE THE POWER SHOULD BE EXERCISED, FOR THERE ARE GOOD REASONS FOR THE
ATTACHMENT.  IF THE LIBELLANTS ARE ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL, JUDGMENT MAY
WELL AVAIL THEM NOTHING UNLESS DULY SECURED.  CF. ASIATIC PETROLEUM
CORP. V. ITALIA SOCIETA ANONIMA DI NAVIGAZIONE, 119 F.2D 610.  THE
ISSUES OF FACT ON WHICH LIBELLANTS' CLAIM OF FRAUD TURN DO NOT APPEAR
TO BE COMPLICATED AND THEY MAY BE SPEEDILY ADJUDICATED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT PRIOR TO A HEARING ON THE AFFREIGHTMENT CONTRACT. 

III.  IT IS URGED THAT, EVEN IF THERE EXISTED POWER TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS FRAUDULENT, VACATION OF THE ATTACHMENT WAS
JUSTIFIED BY LIBELLANTS' FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
FRAUD.  NO DOUBT, THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING A FRAUDULENT
TRANSFER WAS UPON LIBELLANTS.  SEE CUSHING V. LAIRD, 107 U.S. 69, 83
84.  UNDER ADMIRALTY RULE 23 OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CANAL ZONE,
FN7  THE DISTRICT JUDGE MIGHT HAVE REQUIRED LIBELLANTS TO PRESENT THEIR
PROOF IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE
RAISED RESPECTING THE FRAUDULENCE OF THE TRANSFER.  HAD LIBELLANTS THEN
FAILED TO RESPOND WITHOUT ADEQUATE REASON, THE ATTACHMENT WOULD
PROPERLY HAVE BEEN VACATED. 

RULE 23 WAS IN SUBSTANCE INVOKED BY RESPONDENTS, AS THE COURT OF
APPEALS HELD, BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT ITS
INVOCATION PUT LIBELLANTS TO THEIR PROOF THAT THE TRANSFER WAS
FRAUDULENT.  THEY HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH PROOF WAS NEEDED
BEFORE TRIAL.  NEITHER OF THE TWO MOTIONS OF RESPONDENTS TO VACATE THE
ATTACHMENT RESTED ON AN ABSENCE OF FRAUD AS A MATTER OF FACT. 
RESPONDENTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THROUGH AFFIDAVITS THAT A NEW
CORPORATION HAD BEEN FORMED AND A TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE VESSEL
EFFECTED, BUT THIS WAS ONLY TO SUPPORT THEIR CHARGES THAT THE COURT
LACKED JURISDICTION, THAT IN ANY EVENT IT SHOULD DECLINE JURISDICTION
UNDER PRINCIPLES OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, AND THAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN
THE LIBEL DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  NOR WERE LIBELLANTS PUT ON
NOTICE BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S FIRST OPINION TO PUT IN PROOF ON
REHEARING.  ITS HOLDING WAS BASED ON LACK OF JURISDICTION TO INQUIRE
INTO THE TRANSFER OR, ALTERNATIVELY, ON DISCRETION TO DECLINE ITS
EXERCISE.  QUITE CLEARLY IT DID NOT DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF FRAUD IN THE
TRANSFER.  THE OPINION DENYING REHEARING DID NOT BREAK NEW GROUND.  ON
THESE FACTS, THE ATTACHMENT COULD NOT BE VACATED FOR A FAILURE OF
LIBELLANTS TO SUPPORT THEIR CHARGE OF A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER.  FN8 

IV. THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER MAY
BE JUSTIFIED AS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION UNDER
THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  THE DOCTRINE IS OF LONG STANDING
IN ADMIRALTY, BUT THIS COURT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY HAD TO APPLY IT TO A
SUIT BROUGHT BY A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.  SUCH APPLICATION HAS BEEN
RARE EVEN IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  CF. CANADA MALTING CO. V.
PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, LTD., 285 U.S. 413; UNITED STATES MERCHANTS' &
SHIPPERS' INS. CO. V. A/S DEN NORSKE AFRIKA OG AUSTRALIE LINE, 65 F.2D
392; SEE BRAUCHER, THE INCONVENIENT FEDERAL FORUM, 60 HARV. L. REV.
908, 920-21(1947); BICKEL, FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN ADMIRALTY, 35
CORNELL L.Q. 12, 41-47(1949).  WE NEED NOT NOW DECIDE THE ABSTRACT
QUESTION WHETHER UNITED STATES ADMIRALTY COURTS MAY DECLINE
JURISDICTION OVER LIBELS BROUGHT BY UNITED STATES CITIZENS.  DISCRETION
COULD NOT SUSTAIN DECLINATION IN THIS CASE.  APPLICATION OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS PRINCIPLES TO A SUIT BY A UNITED STATES CITIZEN AGAINST A
FOREIGN RESPONDENT BRINGS INTO FORCE CONSIDERATIONS VERY DIFFERENT FROM
THOSE IN SUITS BETWEEN FOREIGNERS.  FN9  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE NO
INDICATION THAT IT RECOGNIZED SUCH CONSIDERATIONS.  ITS OPINION
INDICATES THAT IN SO FAR AS IT MAY HAVE EXERCISED DISCRETION TO DECLINE
JURISDICTION IT WAS MOVED TO DO SO BY ITS VIEW THAT SUCH JURISDICTION
DOES NOT EXIST.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, IT WAS IMPROPER UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE SHOWN TO REMIT A UNITED STATES CITIZEN TO THE COURTS
OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY WITHOUT ASSURING THE CITIZEN THAT RESPONDENTS
WOULD APPEAR IN THOSE COURTS AND THAT SECURITY WOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL TO
WHAT HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY ATTACHMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE POWER
OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO GIVE A LIBELLANT SUCH ASSURANCE IS SHOWN BY
CANADA MALTING CO. V. PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, LTD., 285 U.S. 413, 424. 
SEE ALSO THE CITY OF AGRA, 35 F.SUPP.  351.  WHILE THE DISTRICT COURT
EXERCISED DISCRETION TO VACATE ONLY THE ATTACHMENT AND NOT TO DISMISS
THE ENTIRE LIBEL, LIBELLANTS' RIGHTS WERE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED BY THEIR
LOSS OF SECURITY.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PROCEED BY ATTACHMENT
TO AFFORD SECURITY HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED.  E.G., IN RE LOUISVILLE
UNDERWRITERS, 134 U.S. 488; ASIATIC PETROLEUM CORP. V. ITALIA SOCIETA
ANONIMA DI NAVIGAZIONE, 119 F.2D 610.  LIBELLANTS' RIGHT TO MAINTAIN
THE ATTACHMENT WILL DEPEND ON THEIR ABILITY TO PROVE FRAUD IN THE
TRANSFER OF THE CARIBE UPON A HEARING.  THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT
HEARING. 

THE CASE MUST BE REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THE MARSHAL'S RETURN FAILED TO STATE THAT RESPONDENTS COULD NOT
BE FOUND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION.  CF. INTERNATIONAL GRAIN CEILING CO.
V. DILL, 13 FED. CAS. 70, NO. 7,053, 10 BEN.  92.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
PROPERLY HELD THIS TO BE A FORMAL DEFECT, EASILY CORRECTIBLE ON
REMAND. 

FN2  THE DISTRICT JUDGE ALSO FOUND THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS AND MANAGING
OFFICERS OF THE TWO RESPONDENTS WERE NOT IDENTICAL, BUT THESE FACTS
WERE IRRELEVANT TO HIS DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AND ARE TO THE
DISPOSITION MADE HERE. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT DISMISS THE GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING
AGAINST DEL CARIBE, SINCE THAT COMPANY WAS ALLEGEDLY INDEBTED TO
TRANSMARITIMA AND SOME OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CALI HAD BEEN ATTACHED
ABOARD THE CARIBE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SUGGESTED THAT THE ISSUE OF
FRAUD IN THE TRANSFER OF THE CARIBE COULD BE ADJUDICATED AS PART OF THE
GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING. 

FN4  LIBELLANTS ALSO SOUGHT TO HOLD DEL CARIBE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CALI'S CARGO OF RICE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS
MERELY THE ALTER EGO OF TRANSMARITIMA.  SUCCESS ON THIS THEORY WOULD
RENDER THE ISSUE OF FRAUDULENT TRANSFER IRRELEVANT, FOR THEN THE ASSETS
OF EITHER COMPANY COULD BE ATTACHED.  THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT OF
ADMIRALTY TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF ALTER EGO IS UNDOUBTED.  THE
WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR., 252 F. 35; LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V. W. R. GRACE &
CO., 267 F. 676; YONE SUZUKI V. CENTRAL ARGENTINE R. CO., 27 F.2D 795,
806; KINGSTON DRY DOCK CO. V. LAKE CHAMPLAIN TRANSP.  CO., 31 F.2D 265;
GARDNER V. DANTZLER LUMBER & EXPORT CO., 98 F.2D 478.  BUT IT IS
SETTLED DOCTRINE THAT, APART FROM ANY TRANSFER OF ASSETS BY
TRANSMARITIMA TO DEL CARIBE, THE LATTER COMPANY COULD NOT BE HELD
PERSONALLY LIABLE ON AN ALTER EGO THEORY, SINCE IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE
AFTER THE CALI SANK.  YONE SUZUKI V. CENTRAL ARGENTINE R. CO., SUPRA;
KINGSTON DRY DOCK CO. V. LAKE CHAMPLAIN TRANSP.  CO., SUPRA. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
TWO RESPONDENT COMPANIES HAS AN OBVIOUS RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE OF
FRAUDULENT TRANSFER. 

FN5  THE RELEVANT PORTION OF GENERAL ADMIRALTY RULE 2 IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN SUITS IN PERSONAM THE MESNE PROCESS SHALL BE BY A SIMPLE MONITION
IN THE NATURE OF A SUMMONS TO APPEAR AND ANSWER TO THE SUIT, OR BY A
SIMPLE WARRANT OF ARREST OF THE PERSON OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE NATURE
OF A CAPIAS, AS THE LIBELLANT MAY, IN HIS LIBEL OR INFORMATION PRAY FOR
OR ELECT; IN EITHER CASE WITH A CLAUSE THEREIN TO ATTACH HIS GOODS AND
CHATTELS, OR CREDITS AND EFFECTS IN THE HANDS OF THE GARNISHEES NAMED
IN THE LIBEL TO THE AMOUNT SUED FOR, IF SAID RESPONDENT SHALL NOT BE
FOUND WITHIN THE DISTRICT." 

FN6  THE COURT OF APPEALS APPARENTLY REGARDED THIS DISTINCTION AS
IMPORTANT, FOR IT HELD THAT THE ISSUES RELATING TO THE VESSEL CARIBE
MIGHT BE ADJUDICATED IN THE GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING BUT NOT IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ATTACHMENT. 

FN7  THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE 23 IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN CASE OF THE ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY  ... THE PARTY ARRESTED OR ANY
PERSON HAVING A RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN RESPECT OF THE THING ATTACHED,
MAY, UPON EVIDENCE SHOWING ANY IMPROPER PRACTICE OR A MANIFEST WANT OF
EQUITY ON THE PART OF THE LIBELLANT, HAVE AN ORDER FROM THE JUDGE
REQUIRING THE LIBELLANT TO SHOW CAUSE INSTANTER WHY THE ARREST OR
ATTACHMENT SHOULD NOT BE VACATED."  SEE 5 BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY
(WHITMAN ED. 1949) 234. 

FN8  THE EIGHT MONTHS INTERVENING BETWEEN THE FILING OF THE LIBEL AND
THE OPINION ON REHEARING WERE SPENT LARGELY ON RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS AND
TO AFFORD RESPONDENTS OPPORTUNITY TO FILE ANSWERS.  IT IS ALSO
PERTINENT THAT LIBELLANTS' INTERROGATORIES TO DEL CARIBE WERE NEVER
ANSWERED AND THE EXCEPTIONS TAKEN TO THEM NEVER PASSED ON BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THE EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN RESPONDENTS' AFFIDAVITS WAS
INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT ANY DETERMINATION OF THE FRAUD ISSUE.  OF COURSE,
IF THE COURT HAD REQUIRED LIBELLANTS TO PRESENT SUCH PROOF AS THEY HAD,
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THEM TO MOVE THAT THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE
INTERROGATORIES BE OVERRULED.  BUT, AS INDICATED, THE IMPORTANCE OF
SUCH A MOVE WAS NEVER MADE CLEAR. 

FN9  COMPARE KOSTER V. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., 330 U.S. 518,
524:  "IN ANY BALANCING OF CONVENIENCES, A REAL SHOWING OF CONVENIENCE
BY A PLAINTIFF WHO HAS SUED IN HIS HOME FORUM WILL NORMALLY OUTWEIGH
THE INCONVENIENCE THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE SHOWN."  SEE ALSO O'NEILL V.
CUNARD WHITE STAR, LTD., 160 F.2D 446.    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





















UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 339 U.S. 699 


ARGUED MARCH 27, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT, BROUGHT IN THIS COURT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA UNDER ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 2 OF THE
CONSTITUTION, HELD:  THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE
ADJUDGING AND DECLARING THE PARAMOUNT RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES AS
AGAINST LOUISIANA IN THE AREA CLAIMED BY LOUISIANA WHICH LIES UNDER THE
GULF OF MEXICO BEYOND THE LOW-WATER MARK ON THE COAST OF LOUISIANA AND
OUTSIDE OF THE INLAND WATERS, ENJOINING LOUISIANA AND ALL PERSONS
CLAIMING UNDER IT FROM CONTINUING TO TRESPASS UPON THE AREA IN
VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND REQUIRING LOUISIANA
TO ACCOUNT FOR THE MONEY DERIVED BY IT FROM THE AREA AFTER JUNE 23,
1947.  UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19.  PP. 700-706. 

(A)  TOOMER V. WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385; NEW ORLEANS V. UNITED STATES,
10 PET. 662; POLLARD'S LESSEE V. HAGAN, 3 HOW.  212, DISTINGUISHED.  P.
704. 

(B)  THE MARGINAL SEA IS A NATIONAL, NOT A STATE, CONCERN, AND
NATIONAL RIGHTS ARE PARAMOUNT IN THAT AREA.  UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA.  P. 704. 

(C)  PRIOR TO ITS ADMISSION TO THE UNION, LOUISIANA HAD NO STRONGER
CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP OF THE MARGINAL SEA THAN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN
COLONIES OR CALIFORNIA; AND LOUISIANA STANDS ON NO BETTER FOOTING THAN
CALIFORNIA, SO FAR AS THE THREE-MILE BELT IS CONCERNED.  P. 705. 

(D)  SINCE THE THREE-MILE BELT OFF THE SHORE IS IN THE DOMAIN OF THE
NATION RATHER THAN THAT OF THE SEPARATE STATES, IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI
THAT THE AREA CLAIMED BY LOUISIANA EXTENDING 24 MILES SEAWARD BEYOND
THE THREE-MILE BELT IS ALSO IN THE DOMAIN OF THE NATION RATHER THAN
THAT OF LOUISIANA.  PP. 705-706. 

2.  IN RULING ON A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE COMPLAINT IN THIS
CASE, 337 U.S. 902, THIS COURT HELD, IN EFFECT, THAT ART. III, SEC. 2,
CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, GRANTING THIS COURT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN
CASES "IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY," INCLUDES CASES BROUGHT BY THE
UNITED STATES AGAINST A STATE, NOTWITHSTANDING A CLAIM THAT THE STATES
HAVE NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  PP. 701-702. 

3.  IN RULING ON A DEMURRER AND MOTIONS FILED BY THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA, 338 U.S. 806, THIS COURT HELD, IN EFFECT, THAT IT HAD
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER; THAT
LESSEES OF OIL, GAS AND OTHER SIMILAR RIGHTS IN THE DISPUTED AREA ARE
NOT INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE CASE; AND THAT LOUISIANA WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OF THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES
OR TO A BILL OF PARTICULARS.  P. 702. 

4.  THIS BEING AN EQUITY SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION AND ACCOUNTING,
LOUISIANA WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL.  EVEN IF THE SEVENTH
AMENDMENT AND 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1872 EXTEND TO CASES UNDER THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, THEY REQUIRE JURY TRIALS ONLY IN ACTIONS AT
LAW.  P. 706. 

UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA. 

NO. 12, ORIGIANL. 

THE CASE AND THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS HEREIN ARE STATED IN THE OPINION
AT PP. 700-703.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO
THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IS REPORTED AT P. 706. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ITS SOLICITOR GENERAL
BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, INVOKING OUR
JURISDICTION UNDER ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH
PROVIDES "IN ALL CASES  ...  IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY, THE
SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION." 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS AND IS 

"THE OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE OF, OR POSSESSED OF PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN, AND
FULL DOMINION AND POWER OVER, THE LANDS, MINERALS, AND OTHER THINGS
UNDERLYING THE GULF OF MEXICO, LYING SEAWARD OF THE ORDINARY LOW-WATER
MARK ON THE COAST OF LOUISIANA AND OUTSIDE OF THE INLAND WATERS,
EXTENDING SEAWARD TWENTY-SEVEN MARINE MILES AND BOUNDED ON THE EAST AND
WEST, RESPECTIVELY, BY THE EASTERN AND WESTERN BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE
OF LOUISIANA." 

THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT LOUISIANA, CLAIMING RIGHTS IN THAT
PROPERTY ADVERSE TO THE UNITED STATES, HAS MADE LEASES UNDER HER
STATUTES TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS WHICH HAVE ENTERED UPON
SAID LANDS, DRILLED WELLS FOR THE RECOVERY OF PETROLEUM, GAS AND OTHER
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, AND PAID LOUISIANA SUBSTANTIAL SUMS OF MONEY IN
BONUSES, RENT, AND ROYALTIES, BUT THAT NEITHER LOUISIANA NOR ITS
LESSEES HAVE RECOGNIZED THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN SAID
PROPERTY. 

THE PRAYER OF THE COMPLAINT IS FOR A DECREE ADJUDGING AND DECLARING
THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES AS AGAINST LOUISIANA IN THIS AREA,
ENJOINING LOUISIANA AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER IT FROM CONTINUING
TO TRESPASS UPON THE AREA IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND REQUIRING LOUISIANA TO ACCOUNT FOR THE MONEY DERIVED BY IT
FROM THE AREA SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 23, 1947. 

LOUISIANA OPPOSED THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE COMPLAINT,
CONTENDING THAT THE STATES HAVE NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THAT UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 143 U.S. 621, WHICH HELD
THAT ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, GRANTING THIS COURT
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN CASES "IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY,"
INCLUDES CASES BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST A STATE SHOULD BE
OVERRULED.  WE HEARD ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND
THEREAFTER GRANTED IT.  337 U.S. 902, REHEARING DENIED, 337 U.S. 928. 

LOUISIANA THEN FILED A DEMURRER ASSERTING THAT THE COURT HAS NO
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES OR OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.  SHE
MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE LESSEES ARE INDISPENSABLE
PARTIES TO THE CASE; AND SHE ALSO MOVED FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
OF THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS.  THE
UNITED STATES MOVED FOR JUDGMENT.  THE DEMURRER WAS OVERRULED,
LOUISIANA'S MOTIONS DENIED, AND THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
JUDGMENT WAS DENIED, LOUISIANA BEING GIVEN 30 DAYS IN WHICH TO FILE AN
ANSWER.  338 U.S. 806. 

IN HER ANSWER LOUISIANA ADMITS THAT "THE UNITED STATES HAS PARAMOUNT
RIGHTS IN, AND FULL DOMINION AND POWER OVER, THE LANDS, MINERALS AND
OTHER THINGS UNDERLYING THE GULF OF MEXICO ADJACENT TO THE COAST OF
LOUISIANA, TO THE EXTENT OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL POWERS EXISTING UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, LAWS AND TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES," BUT ASSERTS THAT
THERE ARE NO CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS TO AUTHORIZE THE
USE OF THE BED OF THE GULF OF MEXICO FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEARCHING FOR
AND PRODUCING OIL AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES, ON WHICH THE RELIEF
SOUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES DEPENDS, SINCE THE CONGRESS HAS NOT ADOPTED
ANY LAW WHICH ASSERTS SUCH FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER THE BED OF THE GULF
OF MEXICO.  LOUISIANA THEREFORE CONTENDS THAT THERE IS NO ACTUAL
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  LOUISIANA IN HER ANSWER
DENIES THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS A FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE LANDS,
MINERALS, AND OTHER THINGS UNDERLYING THE GULF OF MEXICO.  AS
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES LOUISIANA ASSERTS THAT SHE IS THE HOLDER OF FEE
SIMPLE TITLE TO ALL THE LANDS, MINERALS, AND OTHER THINGS IN
CONTROVERSY; AND THAT SINCE SHE WAS ADMITTED INTO THE UNION IN 1812,
SHE HAS EXERCISED CONTINUOUS, UNDISTURBED AND UNCHALLENGED SOVEREIGNTY
AND POSSESSION OVER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 

LOUISIANA ALSO MOVED FOR TRIAL BY JURY.  SHE ASSERTS THAT THIS SUIT,
INVOLVING TITLE TO THE BEDS OF TIDE WATERS, IS ESSENTIALLY AN ACTION AT
LAW AND THAT THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT AND 62 STAT. 953, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1872, REQUIRE A JURY.  FN1 

THE UNITED STATES THEN MOVED FOR JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT
LOUISIANA'S ASSERTED DEFENSES WERE INSUFFICIENT IN LAW.  WE SET THE
CASE DOWN FOR ARGUMENT ON THAT MOTION. 

THE TERRITORY OUT OF WHICH LOUISIANA WAS CREATED WAS PURCHASED BY THE
UNITED STATES FROM FRANCE FOR $15,000,000 UNDER THE TREATY OF APRIL 30,
1803, 8 STAT. 200.  IN 1804 THE AREA THUS ACQUIRED WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO
TERRITORIES, ONE BEING DESIGNATED AS THE TERRITORY OF ORLEANS, 2 STAT.
283.  BY THE ENABLING ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1811, 2 STAT. 641, THE
INHABITANTS OF THE TERRITORY OF ORLEANS WERE AUTHORIZED TO FORM A
CONSTITUTION AND A STATE GOVERNMENT.  BY THE ACT OF APRIL 8, 1812, 2
STAT. 701, 703, LOUISIANA WAS ADMITTED TO THE UNION "ON AN EQUAL
FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES, IN ALL RESPECTS WHATEVER."  AND AS
RESPECTS THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, THAT ACT RECITED THAT LOUISIANA WAS
"BOUNDED BY THE SAID GULF (OF MEXICO)  ...  INCLUDING ALL ISLANDS
WITHIN THREE LEAGUES OF THE COAST."  FN2  IN 1938 LOUISIANA BY STATUTE
DECLARED ITS SOUTHERN BOUNDARY TO BE TWENTY-SEVEN MARINE MILES FROM THE
SHORE LINE.  FN3 

WE THINK UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19, CONTROLS THIS CASE
AND THAT THERE MUST BE A DECREE FOR THE COMPLAINANT. 

WE LAY ASIDE SUCH CASES AS TOOMER V. WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385, 393,
WHERE A STATE'S REGULATION OF COASTAL WATERS BELOW THE LOW-WATER MARK
COLLIDES WITH THE INTERESTS OF A PERSON NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF OR
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE QUESTION HERE IS NOT THE
POWER OF A STATE TO USE THE MARGINAL SEA OR TO REGULATE ITS USE IN
ABSENCE OF A CONFLICTING FEDERAL POLICY; IT IS THE POWER OF A STATE TO
DENY THE PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY WHICH THE UNITED STATES SEEKS TO ASSERT
OVER THE AREA IN QUESTION.  WE ALSO PUT TO ONE SIDE NEW ORLEANS V.
UNITED STATES, 10 PET. 662, HOLDING THAT TITLE TO OR DOMINION OVER
CERTAIN LOTS AND VACANT LAND ALONG THE RIVER IN THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
DID NOT PASS TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TREATY OF CESSION BUT
REMAINED IN THE CITY.  SUCH CASES, LIKE THOSE INVOLVING OWNERSHIP OF
THE LAND UNDER THE INLAND WATERS (SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, POLLARD'S LESSEE V.
HAGAN, 3 HOW.  212), ARE IRRELEVANT HERE.  AS WE POINTED OUT IN UNITED
STATES V. CALIFORNIA, THE ISSUE IN THIS CLASS OF LITIGATION DOES NOT
TURN ON TITLE OR OWNERSHIP IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE.  CALIFORNIA, LIKE
THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL COLONIES, NEVER ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP IN THE
MARGINAL SEA.  THE CLAIM TO OUR THREE-MILE BELT WAS FIRST ASSERTED BY
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  PROTECTION AND CONTROL OF THE AREA ARE INDEED
FUNCTIONS OF NATIONAL EXTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY.  332 U.S. PP. 31-34.  THE
MARGINAL SEA IS A NATIONAL, NOT A STATE CONCERN.  NATIONAL INTERESTS,
NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, NATIONAL CONCERNS ARE INVOLVED.  THE
PROBLEMS OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL DEFENSE, RELATIONS WITH OTHER POWERS,
WAR AND PEACE FOCUS THERE.  NATIONAL RIGHTS MUST THEREFORE BE PARAMOUNT
IN THAT AREA. 

THAT IS THE RATIONALE OF UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA.  IT IS FULLY
ELABORATED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THAT CASE AND DOES NOT NEED
REPETITION. 

WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE EXTENDED AND ABLE ARGUMENT OF
LOUISIANA IN ALL ITS ASPECTS AND HAVE FOUND NO REASON WHY LOUISIANA
STANDS ON A BETTER FOOTING THAN CALIFORNIA SO FAR AS THE THREE-MILE
BELT IS CONCERNED.  THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN THAT BELT IS AS GREAT OFF
THE SHORE LINE OF LOUISIANA AS IT IS OFF THE SHORE LINE OF CALIFORNIA. 
AND THERE ARE NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE PREADMISSION OR
POSTADMISSION HISTORY OF LOUISIANA THAT MAKE HER CASE STRONGER THAN
CALIFORNIA'S.  LOUISIANA PRIOR TO ADMISSION HAD NO STRONGER CLAIM TO
OWNERSHIP OF THE MARGINAL SEA THAN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN COLONIES OR
CALIFORNIA HAD.  MOREOVER, THE NATIONAL DOMINION IN THE THREE-MILE BELT
HAS NOT BEEN SACRIFICED OR CEDED AWAY IN EITHER CASE.  THE UNITED
STATES, ACTING THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO
ASSERT CLAIMS OF THIS CHARACTER AND TO INVOKE OUR JURISDICTION IN A
FEDERAL-STATE CONTROVERSY (UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, PP. 26-29), NOW
CLAIMS ITS PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN THIS DOMAIN. 

THERE IS ONE DIFFERENCE, HOWEVER, BETWEEN LOUISIANA'S CLAIM AND
CALIFORNIA'S.  THE LATTER CLAIMED RIGHTS IN THE THREE-MILE BELT. 
LOUISIANA CLAIMS RIGHTS TWENTY-FOUR MILES SEAWARD OF THE THREE-MILE
BELT.  WE NEED NOTE ONLY BRIEFLY THIS DIFFERENCE.  WE INTIMATE NO
OPINION ON THE POWER OF A STATE TO EXTEND, DEFINE, OR ESTABLISH ITS
EXTERNAL TERRITORIAL LIMITS OR ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SUCH
EXTENSION VIS A VIS PERSONS OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES OR THOSE
ACTING ON BEHALF OF OR PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY.  THE MATTER OF STATE
BOUNDARIES HAS NO BEARING ON THE PRESENT PROBLEM.  IF, AS WE HELD IN
CALIFORNIA'S CASE, THE THREE-MILE BELT IS IN THE DOMAIN OF THE NATION
RATHER THAN THAT OF THE SEPARATE STATES, IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT THE
OCEAN BEYOND THAT LIMIT ALSO IS.  THE OCEAN SEAWARD OF THE MARGINAL
BELT IS PERHAPS EVEN MORE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE
CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND WORLD COMMERCE THAN IS THE MARGINAL
SEA.  CERTAINLY IT IS NOT LESS SO.  SO FAR AS THE ISSUES PRESENTED HERE
ARE CONCERNED, LOUISIANA'S ENLARGEMENT OF HER BOUNDARY EMPHASIZES THE
STRENGTH OF THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES TO THIS PART OF THE OCEAN
AND THE RESOURCES OF THE SOIL UNDER THAT AREA, INCLUDING OIL. 

LOUISIANA'S MOTION FOR A JURY TRIAL IS DENIED.  WE NEED NOT EXAMINE
IT BEYOND NOTING THAT THIS IS AN EQUITY ACTION FOR AN INJUNCTION AND
ACCOUNTING.  THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT AND THE STATUTE,  FN4 ASSUMING THEY
EXTEND TO CASES UNDER OUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO
ACTIONS AT LAW.  SEE SHIELDS V. THOMAS, 18 HOW.  253, 262; BARTON V.
BARBOUR, 104 U.S. 126, 133-134. 

WE HOLD THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR. 
THE PARTIES, OR EITHER OF THEM, MAY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15, 1950, SUBMIT
THE FORM OF DECREE TO CARRY THIS OPINION INTO EFFECT.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES:  "IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE
THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF
TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED, AND NO FACT TRIED BY A JURY, SHALL BE
OTHERWISE RE-EXAMINED IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAN ACCORDING
TO THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW." 

28 U.S.C. SEC. 1872 PROVIDES:  "IN ALL ORIGINAL ACTIONS AT LAW IN THE
SUPREME COURT AGAINST CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, ISSUES OF FACT
SHALL BE TRIED BY A JURY." 

FN2  AND SEE DART, LOUISIANA CONSTITUTIONS (1932), P. 499. 

FN3  6 DART, LA. GEN. STATS. (1939) SECS. 9311.1-9311.4. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

(FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IN THIS CASE AND IN NO. 13,
ORIGINAL, UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, SEE POST, P. 723.) 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 339 U.S. 707 


ARGUED MARCH 28, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT, BROUGHT IN THIS COURT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST
THE STATE OF TEXAS UNDER ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION,
HELD:  THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE ADJUDGING AND
DECLARING THE PARAMOUNT RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES AS AGAINST TEXAS IN
THE AREA CLAIMED BY TEXAS WHICH LIES UNDER THE GULF OF MEXICO BEYOND
THE LOW-WATER MARK ON THE COAST OF TEXAS AND OUTSIDE THE INLAND WATERS,
ENJOINING TEXAS AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER IT FROM CONTINUING TO
TRESPASS UPON THE AREA IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND REQUIRING TEXAS TO ACCOUNT TO THE UNITED STATES FOR ALL MONEY
DERIVED BY IT FROM THE AREA AFTER JUNE 23, 1947.  PP. 709-720. 

2.  EVEN IF TEXAS HAD BOTH DOMINIUM AND IMPERIUM IN AND OVER THIS
MARGINAL BELT WHEN SHE EXISTED AS AN INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC, ANY CLAIM
THAT SHE MAY HAVE HAD TO THE MARGINAL SEA WAS RELINQUISHED TO THE
UNITED STATES WHEN TEXAS CEASED TO BE AN INDEPENDENT NATION AND WAS
ADMITTED TO THE UNION "ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE EXISTING STATES"
PURSUANT TO THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 1, 1845, 5 STAT. 797.  PP.
715-720. 

(A)  THE "EQUAL FOOTING" CLAUSE WAS DESIGNED NOT TO WIPE OUT ECONOMIC
DIVERSITIES AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES BUT TO CREATE PARITY AS RESPECTS
POLITICAL STANDING AND SOVEREIGNTY.  P. 716. 

(B)  THE "EQUAL FOOTING" CLAUSE NEGATIVES ANY IMPLIED, SPECIAL
LIMITATION OF ANY OF THE PARAMOUNT POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES IN FAVOR
OF A STATE.  P. 717. 

(C)  ALTHOUGH DOMINIUM AND IMPERIUM ARE NORMALLY SEPARABLE AND
SEPARATE, THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE SO
SUBORDINATED TO THE RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY AS TO FOLLOW SOVEREIGNTY.  P.
719. 

(D)  IF THE PROPERTY, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, LIES SEAWARD OF LOW-WATER
MARK, ITS USE, DISPOSITION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROL INVOLVE NATIONAL
INTERESTS AND NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES, THEREBY GIVING RISE TO
PARAMOUNT NATIONAL RIGHTS IN IT.  UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S.
19.  P. 719. 

(E)  THE "EQUAL FOOTING" CLAUSE PREVENTS EXTENSION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY
OF A STATE INTO THE DOMAIN OF POLITICAL AND SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES FROM WHICH THE OTHER STATES HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, JUST AS
IT PREVENTS A CONTRACTION OF SOVEREIGNTY WHICH WOULD PRODUCE INEQUALITY
AMONG THE STATES.  PP. 719-720. 

3.  THAT TEXAS IN 1941 SOUGHT TO EXTEND ITS BOUNDARY TO A LINE IN THE
GULF OF MEXICO 24 MARINE MILES BEYOND THE THREE-MILE LIMIT AND ASSERTED
OWNERSHIP OF THE BED WITHIN THAT AREA AND IN 1947 SOUGHT TO EXTEND THE
BOUNDARY TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF DO NOT REQUIRE A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, ANTE, P. 699.  P. 720. 

4.  THE MOTIONS OF TEXAS FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS AND FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER ARE DENIED, BECAUSE THERE IS NO NEED TO
TAKE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  PP. 715, 720. 

5.  IN RULING ON A MOTION BY THE UNITED STATES FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE
COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE, 337 U.S. 902, AND ON A MOTION BY TEXAS TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, 338 U.S. 806,
THIS COURT, IN EFFECT, HELD THAT IT HAD ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER
ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, EVEN THOUGH TEXAS HAD NOT
CONSENTED TO BE SUED.  PP. 709-710. 

UNITED STATES V. TEXAS. 

NO. 13, ORIGINAL. 

THE CASE AND THE EARLIER PROCEEDING HEREIN ARE STATED IN THE OPINION
AT PP. 709-712.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO
THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IS REPORTED AT P. 720. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT, LIKE ITS COMPANION, UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, ANTE, P.
699, DECIDED THIS DAY, INVOKES OUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER ART.
III, SEC. 2, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND PUTS INTO ISSUE THE
CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES TO OIL AND OTHER PRODUCTS UNDER THE
BED OF THE OCEAN BELOW LOW-WATER MARK OFF THE SHORES OF TEXAS. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS AND IS 

"THE OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE OF, OR POSSESSED OF PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN, AND
FULL DOMINION AND POWER OVER, THE LANDS, MINERALS AND OTHER THINGS
UNDERLYING THE GULF OF MEXICO, LYING SEAWARD OF THE ORDINARY LOW-WATER
MARK ON THE COAST OF TEXAS AND OUTSIDE OF THE INLAND WATERS, EXTENDING
SEAWARD TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF AND BOUNDED ON THE
EAST AND SOUTHWEST, RESPECTIVELY, BY THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE STATE
OF TEXAS AND THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO." 

THE COMPLAINT IS IN OTHER MATERIAL RESPECTS IDENTICAL WITH THAT FILED
AGAINST LOUISIANA.  THE PRAYER IS FOR A DECREE ADJUDGING AND DECLARING
THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES AS AGAINST TEXAS IN THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED
AREA, ENJOINING TEXAS AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER IT FROM CONTINUING
TO TRESPASS UPON THE AREA IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND REQUIRING TEXAS TO ACCOUNT TO THE UNITED STATES FOR ALL
MONEY DERIVED BY IT FROM THE AREA SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 23, 1947. 

TEXAS OPPOSED THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE COMPLAINT ON THE
GROUNDS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BRING THE SUIT
AND THAT THE SUIT, IF BROUGHT, SHOULD BE INSTITUTED IN A DISTRICT
COURT.  AND TEXAS, LIKE LOUISIANA, MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT
SINCE TEXAS HAD NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED, THE COURT HAD NO ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT.  AFTER ARGUMENT, WE GRANTED THE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE THE COMPLAINT.  337 U.S. 902.  TEXAS THEN MOVED TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUIT DID NOT COME WITHIN
THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  SHE ALSO MOVED FOR A MORE
DEFINITE STATEMENT OR FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME TO ANSWER.  THE UNITED STATES THEN MOVED FOR JUDGMENT.  THESE
VARIOUS MOTIONS WERE DENIED AND TEXAS WAS GRANTED THIRTY DAYS TO FILE
AN ANSWER.  338 U.S. 806. 

TEXAS IN HER ANSWER, AS LATER AMENDED, RENEWS HER OBJECTION THAT THIS
CASE IS NOT ONE OF WHICH THE COURT HAS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION; DENIES
THAT THE UNITED STATES IS OR EVER HAS BEEN THE OWNER OF THE LANDS,
MINERALS, ETC., UNDERLYING THE GULF OF MEXICO WITHIN THE DISPUTED AREA;
DENIES THAT THE UNITED STATES IS OR EVER HAS BEEN POSSESSED OF
PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN OR FULL DOMINION OVER THE LANDS, MINERALS, ETC.,
UNDERLYING THE GULF OF MEXICO WITHIN SAID AREA EXCEPT THE PARAMOUNT
POWER TO CONTROL, IMPROVE, AND REGULATE NAVIGATION WHICH UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAS OVER LANDS BENEATH ALL NAVIGABLE
WATERS AND EXCEPT THE SAME DOMINION AND PARAMOUNT POWER WHICH THE
UNITED STATES HAS OVER UPLANDS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER
PRIVATELY OR STATE OWNED; DENIES THAT THESE OR ANY OTHER PARAMOUNT
POWERS OR RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDE OWNERSHIP OR THE RIGHT TO
TAKE OR DEVELOP OR AUTHORIZE THE TAKING OR DEVELOPING OF OIL OR OTHER
MINERALS IN THE AREA IN DISPUTE WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO TEXAS; DENIES
THAT ANY PARAMOUNT POWERS OR RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDE THE
RIGHT TO CONTROL OR TO PREVENT THE TAKING OR DEVELOPING OF THESE
MINERALS BY TEXAS OR HER LESSEES EXCEPT WHEN NECESSARY IN THE EXERCISE
OF THE PARAMOUNT FEDERAL POWERS, AS RECOGNIZED BY TEXAS, AND WHEN DULY
AUTHORIZED BY APPROPRIATE ACTION OF THE CONGRESS; ADMITS THAT SHE
CLAIMS RIGHTS, TITLE, AND INTERESTS IN SAID LANDS, MINERALS, ETC., AND
SAYS THAT HER RIGHTS INCLUDE OWNERSHIP AND THE RIGHT TO TAKE, USE,
LEASE, AND DEVELOP THESE PROPERTIES; ADMITS THAT SHE HAS LEASED SOME OF
THE LANDS IN THE AREA AND RECEIVED ROYALTIES FROM THE LESSEES BUT
DENIES THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO ANY OF THEM; AND DENIES
THAT SHE HAS NO TITLE TO OR INTEREST IN ANY OF THE LANDS IN THE
DISPUTED AREA. 

AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, TEXAS ASSERTS THAT AS AN INDEPENDENT
NATION THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS HAD OPEN, ADVERSE, AND EXCLUSIVE
POSSESSION AND EXERCISED JURISDICTION AND CONTROL OVER THE LAND,
MINERALS, ETC., UNDERLYING THAT PART OF THE GULF OF MEXICO WITHIN HER
BOUNDARIES ESTABLISHED AT THREE MIRINE LEAGUES FROM SHORE BY HER FIRST
CONGRESS AND ACQUIESCED IN BY THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER MAJOR
NATIONS; THAT WHEN TEXAS WAS ANNEXED TO THE UNITED STATES THE CLAIM AND
RIGHTS OF TEXAS TO THIS LAND, MINERALS, ETC., WERE RECOGNIZED AND
PRESERVED IN TEXAS; THAT TEXAS CONTINUED AS A STATE TO HOLD OPEN,
ADVERSE AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION, JURISDICTION AND CONTROL OF THESE
LANDS, MINERALS, ETC., WITHOUT DISPUTE, CHALLENGE OR OBJECTION BY THE
UNITED STATES; THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS RECOGNIZED AND ACQUIESCED IN
THIS CLAIM AND THESE RIGHTS; THAT TEXAS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
PRESCRIPTION HAS ESTABLISHED SUCH TITLE, OWNERSHIP AND SOVEREIGN RIGHTS
IN THE AREA AS PRECLUDE THE GRANTING OF THE RELIEF PRAYED. 

AS A SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, TEXAS ALLEGES THAT THERE WAS AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS THAT UPON
ANNEXATION TEXAS WOULD NOT CEDE TO THE UNITED STATES BUT WOULD RETAIN
ALL OF THE LANDS, MINERALS, ETC., UNDERLYING THAT PART OF THE GULF OF
MEXICO WITHIN THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES OF THE REPUBLIC. 

AS A THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, TEXAS ASSERTS THAT THE UNITED STATES
ACKNOWLEDGED AND CONFIRMED THE THREE-LEAGUE BOUNDARY OF TEXAS IN THE
GULF OF MEXICO AS DECLARED, ESTABLISHED, AND MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC
OF TEXAS AND AS RETAINED BY TEXAS UNDER THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. 

TEXAS THEN MOVED FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS OF SPECIFIED AGED
PERSONS RESPECTING THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF
SUBSOIL MINERALS WITHIN THE DISPUTED AREA PRIOR TO AND SINCE THE
ANNEXATION OF TEXAS, AND THE USES TO WHICH TEXAS HAS DEVOTED PARTS OF
THE AREA AS BEARING ON HER ALLEGED PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS.  TEXAS ALSO
MOVED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND
REPORT TO THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES OPPOSED THESE MOTIONS AND IN TURN MOVED FOR
JUDGMENT ASSERTING THAT THE DEFENSES TENDERED BY TEXAS WERE
INSUFFICIENT IN LAW AND THAT NO ISSUE OF FACT HAD BEEN RAISED WHICH
COULD NOT BE RESOLVED BY JUDICIAL NOTICE.  WE SET THE CASE DOWN FOR
ARGUMENT ON THAT MOTION. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN, AND FULL DOMINION AND POWER OVER, THE MARGINAL SEA
OFF THE SHORES OF CALIFORNIA AND LOUISIANA (SEE UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA) SHOULD BE
EQUALLY CONTROLLING WHEN WE COME TO THE MARGINAL SEA OFF THE SHORES OF
TEXAS.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS, NATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES, AND NATIONAL CONCERNS WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THE
PARAMOUNT RIGHTS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN ONE CASE WOULD SEEM TO
BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN THE OTHER. 

BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE WHICH, TEXAS SAYS, REQUIRES A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  THAT DIFFERENCE IS LARGELY IN THE PREADMISSION
HISTORY OF TEXAS. 

THE SUM OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT PRIOR TO ANNEXATION TEXAS HAD BOTH
DOMINIUM (OWNERSHIP OR PROPRIETARY RIGHTS) AND IMPERIUM (GOVERNMENTAL
POWERS OF REGULATION AND CONTROL) AS RESPECTS THE LANDS, MINERALS AND
OTHER PRODUCTS UNDERLYING THE MARGINAL SEA.  IN THE CASE OF CALIFORNIA
WE FOUND THAT SHE, LIKE THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN COLONIES, NEVER HAD
DOMINIUM OVER THAT AREA.  THE FIRST CLAIM TO THE MARGINAL SEA WAS
ASSERTED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  WE HELD THAT PROTECTION AND
CONTROL OF IT WERE INDEED A FUNCTION OF NATIONAL EXTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY. 
332 U.S. 31-34.  THE STATUS OF TEXAS, IT IS SAID, IS DIFFERENT:  TEXAS,
WHEN SHE CAME INTO THE UNION, RETAINED THE DOMINIUM OVER THE MARGINAL
SEA WHICH SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED AND TRANSFERRED TO THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT ONLY HER POWERS OF SOVEREIGNTY - HER IMPERIUM - OVER THE
MARGINAL SEA. 

THIS ARGUMENT LEADS INTO SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TEXAS HISTORY. 

THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS WAS PROCLAIMED BY A CONVENTION ON MARCH 2,
1836.  FN1  THE UNITED STATES FN2  AND OTHER NATIONS N3 FORMALLY
RECOGNIZED IT.  THE CONGRESS OF TEXAS ON DECEMBER 19, 1836, PASSED AN
ACT DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE REPUBLIC.  FN4  THE SOUTHERN
BOUNDARY WAS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:  "BEGINNING AT THE MOUTH OF THE
SABINE RIVER, AND RUNNING WEST ALONG THE GULF OF MEXICO THREE LEAGUES
FROM LAND, TO THE MOUTH OF THE RIO GRANDE."  FN5  TEXAS WAS ADMITTED TO
THE UNION IN 1845 "ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES IN ALL
RESPECTS WHATEVER."  FN6  TEXAS CLAIMS THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1836
TO 1845 SHE HAD BROUGHT THIS MARGINAL BELT INTO HER TERRITORY AND
SUBJECTED IT TO HER DOMESTIC LAW WHICH RECOGNIZED OWNERSHIP IN MINERALS
UNDER COASTAL WATERS.  THIS THE UNITED STATES CONTESTS.  TEXAS ALSO
CLAIMS THAT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, AS IT HAD EVOLVED BY THE 1840'S,
THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS AS A SOVEREIGN NATION BECAME THE OWNER OF THE BED
AND SUB-SOIL OF THE MARGINAL SEA VIS-A-VIS OTHER NATIONS.  TEXAS CLAIMS
THAT THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS ACQUIRED DURING THAT PERIOD THE SAME
INTEREST IN ITS MARGINAL SEA AS THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED IN THE
MARGINAL SEA OFF CALIFORNIA WHEN IT PURCHASED FROM MEXICO IN 1848 THE
TERRITORY FROM WHICH CALIFORNIA WAS LATER FORMED.  THIS THE UNITED
STATES CONTESTS. 

THE JOINT RESOLUTION ANNEXING TEXAS  FN7  PROVIDED IN PART: 

"SAID STATE, WHEN ADMITTED INTO THE UNION, AFTER CEDING TO THE UNITED
STATES, ALL PUBLIC EDIFICES, FORTIFICATIONS, BARRACKS, PORTS AND
HARBORS, NAVY AND NAVYYARDS, DOCKS, MAGAZINES, ARMS, ARMAMENTS, AND ALL
OTHER PROPERTY AND MEANS PERTAINING TO THE PUBLIC DEFENCE BELONGING TO
SAID REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, SHALL RETAIN ALL THE PUBLIC FUNDS, DEBTS,
TAXES, AND DUES OF EVERY KIND, WHICH MAY BELONG TO OR BE DUE AND OWING
SAID REPUBLIC; AND SHALL ALSO RETAIN ALL THE VACANT AND UNAPPROPRIATED
LANDS LYING WITHIN ITS LIMITS, TO BE APPLIED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE
DEBTS AND LIABILITIES OF SAID REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, AND THE RESIDUE OF
SAID LANDS, AFTER DISCHARGING SAID DEBTS AND LIABILITIES, TO BE
DISPOSED OF AS SAID STATE MAY DIRECT; BUT IN NO EVENT ARE SAID DEBTS
AND LIABILITIES TO BECOME A CHARGE UPON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT THE INCLUSION OF FORTIFICATIONS,
BARRACKS, PORTS AND HARBORS, NAVY AND NAVYYARDS, AND DOCKS IN THE
CESSION CLAUSE OF THE RESOLUTION DEMONSTRATES AN INTENT TO CONVEY ALL
INTERESTS OF THE REPUBLIC IN THE MARGINAL SEA, SINCE MOST OF THESE
PROPERTIES LIE SIDE BY SIDE WITH, AND SHADE INTO, THE MARGINAL SEA.  IT
STRESSES THE PHRASE IN THE RESOLUTION "OTHER PROPERTY AND MEANS
PERTAINING TO THE PUBLIC DEFENCE."  IT ARGUES THAT POSSESSION BY THE
UNITED STATES IN THE LANDS UNDERLYING THE MARGINAL SEA IS A DEFENSE
NECESSITY.  TEXAS MAINTAINS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESOLUTION
BOTH BY THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO PROPERTIES
WHICH THE REPUBLIC ACTUALLY USED AT THE TIME IN THE PUBLIC DEFENSE. 

THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT THE "VACANT AND UNAPPROPRIATED LANDS"
WHICH BY THE RESOLUTION WERE RETAINED BY TEXAS DO NOT INCLUDE THE
MARGINAL BELT.  IT ARGUES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CLAUSE, THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS INCLUSION, AND THE MEANING OF THE WORDS IN TEXAS
AND FEDERAL USAGE GIVE THEM A MORE RESTRICTED MEANING.  TEXAS REPLIES
THAT SINCE THE UNITED STATES REFUSED TO ASSUME THE LIABILITIES OF THE
REPUBLIC, IT WAS TO HAVE NO CLAIM TO THE ASSETS OF THE REPUBLIC EXCEPT
THE DEFENSE PROPERTIES EXPRESSLY CEDED. 

IN THE CALIFORNIA CASE, NEITHER PARTY SUGGESTED THE NECESSITY FOR THE
INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE.  332 U.S. 24.  BUT TEXAS MAKES AN EARNEST
PLEA TO BE HEARD ON THE FACTS AS THEY BEAR ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HER
HISTORY WHICH, SHE SAYS, SETS HER APART FROM THE OTHER STATES ON THIS
ISSUE. 

THE COURT IN ORIGINAL ACTIONS, PASSING AS IT DOES ON CONTROVERSIES
BETWEEN SOVEREIGNS WHICH INVOLVE ISSUES OF HIGH PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, HAS
ALWAYS BEEN LIBERAL IN ALLOWING FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE FACTS.  UNITED
STATES V. TEXAS, 162 U.S. 1; KANSAS V. COLORADO, 185 U.S. 125, 144,
145, 147; OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 253 U.S. 465, 471.  IF THERE WERE A
DISPUTE AS TO THE MEANING OF DOCUMENTS AND THE ANSWER WAS TO BE FOUND
IN DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE, CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION, USAGE,
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIKE, INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AND A FULL
HEARING WOULD BE ESSENTIAL. 

WE CONCLUDE, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH HEARING IS REQUIRED IN THIS CASE. 
WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE "EQUAL FOOTING" CLAUSE OF THE JOINT
RESOLUTION ADMITTING TEXAS TO THE UNION DISPOSES OF THE PRESENT PHASE
OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

THE "EQUAL FOOTING" CLAUSE HAS LONG BEEN HELD TO REFER TO POLITICAL
RIGHTS AND TO SOVEREIGNTY.  SEE STEARNS V. MINNESOTA, 179 U.S. 223,
245.  IT DOES NOT, OF COURSE, INCLUDE ECONOMIC STATURE OR STANDING. 
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN EQUALITY AMONG THE STATES IN THAT SENSE.  SOME
STATES WHEN THEY ENTERED THE UNION HAD WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES TRACTS
OF LAND BELONGING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; OTHERS WERE SOVEREIGNS OF
THEIR SOIL.  SOME HAD SPECIAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
GOVERNING PROPERTY WITHIN THEIR BORDERS.  SEE STEARNS V. MINNESOTA,
SUPRA, PP. 243-245.  AREA, LOCATION, GEOLOGY, AND LATITUDE HAVE CREATED
GREAT DIVERSITY IN THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  THE
REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL FOOTING WAS DESIGNED NOT TO WIPE OUT THOSE
DIVERSITIES BUT TO CREATE PARITY AS RESPECTS POLITICAL STANDING AND
SOVEREIGNTY.    YET THE "EQUAL FOOTING" CLAUSE HAS LONG BEEN HELD TO
HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT ON CERTAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS.  THUS THE QUESTION
EARLY AROSE IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE
STATES AS TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SHORES OF NAVIGABLE WATERS AND THE
SOILS UNDER THEM.  IT WAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT TO DENY TO THE STATES,
ADMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE FORMATION OF THE UNION, OWNERSHIP OF THIS
PROPERTY WOULD DENY THEM ADMISSION ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE
ORIGINAL STATES, SINCE THE ORIGINAL STATES DID NOT GRANT THESE
PROPERTIES TO THE UNITED STATES BUT RESERVED THEM TO THEMSELVES.  SEE
POLLARD'S LESSEE V. HAGAN, 3 HOW.  212, 228-229; MUMFORD V. WARDWELL, 6
WALL.  423, 436; WEBER V. HARBOR COMM'RS, 18 WALL.  57, 65-66; KNIGHT
V. U.S. LAND ASSN., 142 U.S. 161, 183; SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152 U.S. 1,
26; UNITED STATES V. MISSION ROCK CO., 189 U.S. 391, 404.  THE THEORY
OF THESE DECISIONS WAS APTLY SUMMARIZED BY MR. JUSTICE STONE SPEAKING
FOR THE COURT IN UNITED STATES V. OREGON, 295 U.S. 1, 14 AS FOLLOWS:
FN8 

"DOMINION OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS AND PROPERTY IN THE SOIL UNDER THEM
ARE SO IDENTIFIED WITH THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF GOVERNMENT THAT A
PRESUMPTION AGAINST THEIR SEPARATION FROM SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE INDULGED,
IN CONSTRUING EITHER GRANTS BY THE SOVEREIGN OF THE LANDS TO BE HELD IN
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OR TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY ITSELF.  SEE MASSACHUSETTS
V. NEW YORK, 271 U.S. 65, 89.  FOR THAT REASON, UPON THE ADMISSION OF A
STATE TO THE UNION, THE TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS UNDERLYING
NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN THE STATES PASSES TO IT, AS INCIDENT TO THE
TRANSFER TO THE STATE OF LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY, AND IS SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
PARAMOUNT POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONTROL SUCH WATERS FOR
PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE." 

N8 THE SAME IDEA WAS EXPRESSED SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY BY MR. JUSTICE
FIELD IN WEBER V. HARBOR COMM'RS, SUPRA, PP. 65-66 AS FOLLOWS:
"ALTHOUGH THE TITLE TO THE SOIL UNDER THE TIDEWATERS OF THE BAY WAS
ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY CESSION FROM MEXICO, EQUALLY WITH THE
TITLE TO THE UPLAND, THEY HELD IT ONLY IN TRUST FOR THE FUTURE STATE. 
UPON THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA INTO THE UNION UPON EQUAL FOOTING WITH
THE ORIGINAL STATES, ABSOLUTE PROPERTY IN, AND DOMINION AND SOVEREIGNTY
OVER, ALL SOILS UNDER THE TIDEWATERS WITHIN HER LIMITS PASSED TO THE
STATE, WITH THE CONSEQUENT RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE TITLE TO ANY PART OF
SAID SOILS IN SUCH MANNER AS SHE MIGHT DEEM PROPER, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
PARAMOUNT RIGHT OF NAVIGATION OVER THE WATERS, SO FAR AS SUCH
NAVIGATION MIGHT BE REQUIRED BY THE NECESSITIES OF COMMERCE WITH
FOREIGN NATIONS OR AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, THE REGULATION OF WHICH
WAS VESTED IN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT." 

THE "EQUAL FOOTING" CLAUSE, WE HOLD, WORKS THE SAME WAY IN THE
CONVERSE SITUATION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE.  IT NEGATIVES ANY IMPLIED,
SPECIAL LIMITATION OF ANY OF THE PARAMOUNT POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES
IN FAVOR OF A STATE.  TEXAS PRIOR TO HER ADMISSION WAS A REPUBLIC.  WE
ASSUME THAT AS A REPUBLIC SHE HAD NOT ONLY FULL SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE
MARGINAL SEA BUT OWNERSHIP OF IT, OF THE LAND UNDERLYING IT, AND OF ALL
THE RICHES WHICH IT HELD.  IN OTHER WORDS, WE ASSUME THAT IT THEN HAD
THE DOMINIUM AND IMPERIUM IN AND OVER THIS BELT WHICH THE UNITED STATES
NOW CLAIMS.  WHEN TEXAS CAME INTO THE UNION, SHE CEASED TO BE AN
INDEPENDENT NATION.  SHE THEN BECAME A SISTER STATE ON AN "EQUAL
FOOTING" WITH ALL THE OTHER STATES.  THAT ACT CONCEDEDLY ENTAILED A
RELINQUISHMENT OF SOME OF HER SOVEREIGNTY.  THE UNITED STATES THEN TOOK
HER PLACE AS RESPECTS FOREIGN COMMERCE, THE WAGING OF WAR, THE MAKING
OF TREATIES, DEFENSE OF THE SHORES, AND THE LIKE.  IN EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
THE UNITED STATES BECAME THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE SPOKESMAN FOR THE
NATION.  WE HOLD THAT AS AN INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER OF THAT
SOVEREIGNTY ANY CLAIM THAT TEXAS MAY HAVE HAD TO THE MARGINAL SEA WAS
RELINQUISHED TO THE UNITED STATES. 

WE STATED THE REASONS FOR THIS IN UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA,
P. 35, AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE THREE-MILE RULE IS BUT A RECOGNITION OF THE NECESSITY THAT A
GOVERNMENT NEXT TO THE SEA MUST BE ABLE TO PROTECT ITSELF FROM DANGERS
INCIDENT TO ITS LOCATION.  IT MUST HAVE POWERS OF DOMINION AND
REGULATION IN THE INTEREST OF ITS REVENUES, ITS HEALTH, AND THE
SECURITY OF ITS PEOPLE FROM WARS WAGED ON OR TOO NEAR ITS COASTS.  AND
INSOFAR AS THE NATION ASSERTS ITS RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW,
WHATEVER OF VALUE MAY BE DISCOVERED IN THE SEAS NEXT TO ITS SHORES AND
WITHIN ITS PROTECTIVE BELT, WILL MOST NATURALLY BE APPROPRIATED FOR ITS
USE.  BUT WHATEVER ANY NATION DOES IN THE OPEN SEA, WHICH DETRACTS FROM
ITS COMMON USEFULNESS TO NATIONS, OR WHICH ANOTHER NATION MAY CHARGE
DETRACTS FROM IT, IS A QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION AMONG NATIONS AS
SUCH, AND NOT THEIR SEPARATE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS.  WHAT THIS GOVERNMENT
DOES, OR EVEN WHAT THE STATES DO, ANYWHERE IN THE OCEAN, IS A SUBJECT
UPON WHICH THE NATION MAY ENTER INTO AND ASSUME TREATY OR SIMILAR
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BELMONT, 301 U.S. 324,
331-332.  THE VERY OIL ABOUT WHICH THE STATE AND NATION HERE CONTEND
MIGHT WELL BECOME THE SUBJECT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE AND
SETTLEMENT." 

AND SO ALTHOUGH DOMINIUM AND IMPERIUM ARE NORMALLY SEPARABLE AND
SEPARATE,  FN9  THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE SO
SUBORDINATED TO THE RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY AS TO FOLLOW SOVEREIGNTY. 

IT IS SAID THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR IT - THAT THE SOVEREIGNTY
OF THE SEA CAN BE COMPLETE AND UNIMPAIRED NO MATTER IF TEXAS OWNS THE
OIL UNDERLYING IT.  YET, AS POINTED OUT IN UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA,
ONCE LOW-WATER MARK IS PASSED THE INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN IS REACHED. 
PROPERTY RIGHTS MUST THEN BE SO SUBORDINATED TO POLITICAL RIGHTS AS IN
SUBSTANCE TO COALESCE AND UNITE IN THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGN.  TODAY THE
CONTROVERSY IS OVER OIL.  TOMORROW IT MAY BE OVER SOME OTHER SUBSTANCE
OR MINERAL OR PERHAPS THE BED OF THE OCEAN ITSELF.  IF THE PROPERTY,
WHATEVER IT MAY BE, LIES SEAWARD OF LOW-WATER MARK, ITS USE,
DISPOSITION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROL INVOLVE NATIONAL INTERESTS AND
NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.  THAT IS THE SOURCE OF NATIONAL RIGHTS IN
IT.  SUCH IS THE RATIONALE OF THE CALIFORNIA DECISION, WHICH WE HAVE
APPLIED TO LOUISIANA'S CASE.  THE SAME RESULT MUST BE REACHED HERE IF
"EQUAL FOOTING" WITH THE VARIOUS STATES IS TO BE ACHIEVED.  UNLESS ANY
CLAIM OR TITLE WHICH THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS HAD TO THE MARGINAL SEA IS
SUBORDINATED TO THIS FULL PARAMOUNT POWER OF THE UNITED STATES ON
ADMISSION, THERE IS OR MAY BE IN PRACTICAL EFFECT A SUBTRACTION IN
FAVOR OF TEXAS FROM THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  YET
NEITHER THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN STATES (UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA,
SUPRA, PP. 31-32) NOR CALIFORNIA NOR LOUISIANA ENJOYS SUCH AN
ADVANTAGE.  THE "EQUAL FOOTING" CLAUSE PREVENTS EXTENSION OF THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF A STATE INTO A DOMAIN OF POLITICAL AND SOVEREIGN POWER
OF THE UNITED STATES FROM WHICH THE OTHER STATES HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED,
JUST AS IT PREVENTS A CONTRACTION OF SOVEREIGNTY (POLLARD'S LESSEE V.
HAGAN, SUPRA) WHICH WOULD PRODUCE INEQUALITY AMONG THE STATES.  FOR
EQUALITY OF STATES MEANS THAT THEY ARE NOT "LESS OR GREATER, OR
DIFFERENT IN DIGNITY OR POWER."  SEE COYLE V. SMITH, 221 U.S. 559,
566.  THERE IS NO NEED TO TAKE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT MEANING OF
"EQUAL FOOTING." 

TEXAS IN 1941 SOUGHT TO EXTEND ITS BOUNDARY TO A LINE IN THE GULF OF
MEXICO TWENTY-FOUR MARINE MILES BEYOND THE THREE-MILE LIMIT AND
ASSERTED OWNERSHIP OF THE BED WITHIN THAT AREA.  FN10  AND IN 1947 SHE
PUT THE EXTENDED BOUNDARY TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF. 
FN11  THE IRRELEVANCY OF THESE ACTS TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US HAS BEEN
ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED IN UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA.  THE OTHER
CONTENTIONS OF TEXAS NEED NOT BE DETAILED.  THEY HAVE BEEN FORECLOSED
BY UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA AND UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA. 

THE MOTIONS OF TEXAS FOR AN ORDER TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS AND FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER ARE DENIED.  THE MOTION OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR JUDGMENT IS GRANTED.  THE PARTIES, OR EITHER OF THEM, MAY
BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15, 1950, SUBMIT THE FORM OF DECREE TO CARRY THIS
OPINION INTO EFFECT.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  1 LAWS, REP. OF TEXAS, P. 6. 

FN2  SEE THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE SENATE MARCH 1, 1837(CONG. 
GLOBE, 24TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 270), THE APPROPRIATION OF A SALARY FOR
A DIPLOMATIC AGENT TO TEXAS (5 STAT. 170), AND THE CONFIRMATION OF A
CHARGE D'AFFAIRES TO THE REPUBLIC IN 1837.  5 EXEC. JOURN.  17. 

FN3  SEE 2 GAMMEL'S LAWS OF TEXAS 655, 880, 886, 889, 905 FOR
RECOGNITION BY FRANCE, GREAT BRITAIN, AND THE NETHERLANDS. 

FN4  1 LAWS, REP. OF TEXAS, P. 133. 

FN5  THE TRADITIONAL THREE-MILE MARITIME BELT IS ONE MARINE LEAGUE OR
THREE MARINE MILES IN WIDTH.  ONE MARINE LEAGUE IS 3.45 ENGLISH STATUTE
MILES. 

FN6  SEE JOINT RESOLUTION APPROVED DECEMBER 29, 1845, 9 STAT. 108. 

FN7  JOINT RESOLUTION APPROVED MARCH 1, 1845, 5 STAT. 797. 

FN9  SEE THE STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE FIELD (THEN CHIEF JUSTICE OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA) IN MOORE V. SMAW, 17 CAL. 199, 218
219. 

FN10  ACT OF MAY 16, 1941, L. TEXAS, 47TH LEG., P. 454. 

FN11  ACT OF MAY 23, 1947, L. TEXAS, 50TH LEG., P. 451. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MINTON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE BRINGS BEFORE US THE APPLICATION OF UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19, TO TEXAS.  INSOFAR AS LOUISIANA IS CONCERNED,
I SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITS SITUATION AND THAT PASSED UPON IN THE
CALIFORNIA CASE.  TEXAS, HOWEVER, PRESENTS A VARIATION WHICH REQUIRES A
DIFFERENT RESULT. 

THE CALIFORNIA CASE DETERMINES, P. 36, THAT SINCE "PARAMOUNT RIGHTS
RUN TO THE STATES IN INLAND WATERS TO THE SHOREWARD OF THE LOW WATER
MARK, THE SAME RATIONALE LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NATIONAL
INTERESTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEREFORE NATIONAL RIGHTS ARE
PARAMOUNT IN WATERS LYING TO THE SEAWARD IN THE THREE-MILE BELT."  THUS
THE COURT HELD, P. 39, THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS POWER OVER THAT
BELT, AN INCIDENT OF WHICH IS "FULL DOMINION OVER THE RESOURCES OF THE
SOIL UNDER THAT WATER AREA, INCLUDING OIL."  BUT THAT DECISION WAS
BASED ON THE PREMISE, PP. 32-34, THAT THE THREE-MILE BELT HAD NEVER
BELONGED TO CALIFORNIA.  THE CALIFORNIA CASE POINTS OUT THAT IT WAS THE
UNITED STATES WHICH HAD ACQUIRED THIS SEACOAST AREA FOR THE NATION. 
SOVEREIGNTY OVER THAT AREA PASSED FROM MEXICO TO THIS COUNTRY.  THE
COURT COMMENTED THAT SIMILAR BELTS ALONG THEIR SHORES WERE NOT OWNED BY
THE ORIGINAL SEACOAST STATES.  SINCE SOMETHING AKIN TO OWNERSHIP OF THE
SIMILAR AREA ALONG THE COASTS OF THE ORIGINAL STATES WAS THOUGHT BY THE
COURT TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED THROUGH AN ASSERTION OF FULL DOMINION BY
THE UNITED STATES TO THIS HITHERTO UNCLAIMED PORTION OF THE EARTH'S
SURFACE, IT WAS DECIDED THAT A SIMILAR RIGHT IN THE CALIFORNIA AREA WAS
OBTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE CONTRARY IS TRUE IN THE CASE OF
TEXAS.  THE COURT CONCEDES THAT, PRIOR TO THE RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION,
THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZED TEXAS OWNERSHIP OF THE THREE-LEAGUE AREA
CLAIMED BY TEXAS.  FN1 

THE COURT HOLDS IMMATERIAL THE FACT OF TEXAS' ORIGINAL OWNERSHIP OF
THIS MARGINAL SEA AREA, BECAUSE TEXAS WAS ADMITTED ON AN "EQUAL
FOOTING" WITH THE OTHER STATES BY THE RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION.  5
STAT. 797.  THE SCOPE OF THE "EQUAL FOOTING" DOCTRINE, HOWEVER, HAS
BEEN THOUGHT TO EMBRACE ONLY POLITICAL RIGHTS OR THOSE RIGHTS
CONSIDERED NECESSARY ATTRIBUTES OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY.  THUS THIS COURT
HAS HELD IN A CONSISTENT LINE OF DECISIONS THAT, SINCE THE ORIGINAL
STATES, AS AN INCIDENT OF SOVEREIGNTY, HAD OWNERSHIP AND DOMINION OVER
LANDS UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION, STATES
SUBSEQUENTLY ADMITTED MUST BE ACCORDED EQUIVALENT OWNERSHIP.  E.G.,
POLLARD'S LESSEE V. HAGAN, 3 HOW.  212; MARTIN V. WADDELL, 16 PET.
367.  BUT IT WAS AN ARTICULATED PREMISE OF THE CALIFORNIA DECISION THAT
THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL STATES NEITHER HAD ASSERTED OWNERSHIP NOR HAD
HELD DOMINION OVER THE THREE-MILE ZONE AS AN INCIDENT OF SOVEREIGNTY. 

"EQUAL FOOTING" HAS HERETOFORE BROUGHT TO A STATE THE OWNERSHIP OF
RIVER BEDS, BUT NEVER BEFORE HAS THAT PHRASE BEEN INTERPRETED TO TAKE
AWAY FROM A NEWLY ADMITTED STATE PROPERTY THAT IT HAD THERETOFORE
OWNED.  I SEE NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE
AND I THINK THE RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION LEFT THE MARGINAL SEA AREA IN
TEXAS.  THE RESOLUTION EXPRESSLY CONSENTED THAT TEXAS SHOULD RETAIN ALL
"THE VACANT AND UNAPPROPRIATED LANDS LYING WITHIN ITS LIMITS."  AN
AGREEMENT OF THIS KIND IS IN ACCORD WITH THE HOLDING OF THIS COURT THAT
ORDINARILY LANDS MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF COMPACT BETWEEN A STATE AND THE
NATION.  STEARNS V. MINNESOTA, 179 U.S. 223, 245.  THE COURT, HOWEVER,
DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT "THE VACANT AND UNAPPROPRIATED LANDS
LYING WITHIN ITS LIMITS" (AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION) INCLUDES THE LAND
UNDER THE MARGINAL SEA.  I THINK THAT IT DOES INCLUDE THOSE LANDS.  CF.
HYNES V. GRIMES PACKING CO., 337 U.S. 86, 110.  AT LEAST WE SHOULD
PERMIT EVIDENCE OF ITS MEANING. 

INSTEAD OF DECIDING THIS QUESTION OF CESSION, THE COURT RELIES UPON
THE NEED FOR THE UNITED STATES TO CONTROL THE AREA SEAWARD OF LOW WATER
BECAUSE OF ITS INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.  IT REASONS THAT FULL
DOMINION OVER THE RESOURCES FOLLOWS THIS PARAMOUNT RESPONSIBILITY, AND
IT REFERS TO THE CALIFORNIA DISCUSSION OF THE POINT.  332 U.S. AT 35. 
BUT THE ARGUMENT BASED ON INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES PREVAILED IN
THE CALIFORNIA CASE BECAUSE THE MARGINAL SEA AREA WAS STAKED OUT BY THE
UNITED STATES.  THE ARGUMENT CANNOT REASONABLY BE EXTENDED TO TEXAS
WITHOUT A HOLDING THAT TEXAS CEDED THAT AREA TO THE UNITED STATES. 
THE NECESSITY FOR THE UNITED STATES TO DEFEND THE LAND AND TO HANDLE
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS IS NOT ENOUGH TO TRANSFER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE
MARGINAL SEA FROM TEXAS TO THE UNITED STATES.  FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY IS
PARAMOUNT WITHIN NATIONAL BOUNDARIES, BUT FEDERAL OWNERSHIP DEPENDS ON
TAKING POSSESSION, AS THE CALIFORNIA CASE HOLDS; ON CONSENT, AS IN THE
CASE OF PLACES FOR FEDERAL USE; OR ON PURCHASE, AS IN THE CASE OF
ALASKA OR THE TERRITORY OF LOUISIANA.  THE NEEDS OF DEFENSE AND FOREIGN
AFFAIRS ALONE CANNOT TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF AN OCEAN BED FROM A STATE TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANY MORE THAN THEY COULD TRANSFER IRON ORE UNDER
UPLANDS FROM STATE TO FEDERAL OWNERSHIP.  NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY IS NO
GREATER IN RESPECT TO THE MARGINAL SEA THAN IT IS TOWARD EVERY OTHER
PARTICLE OF AMERICAN TERRITORY.  IN MY VIEW, TEXAS OWNED THE MARGINAL
AREA BY VIRTUE OF ITS ORIGINAL PROPRIETORSHIP; IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO
MY SATISFACTION THAT IT LOST IT BY THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION OF
ANNEXATION. 

I WOULD DENY THE UNITED STATES MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. 

FN1  SEE THE STATEMENT IN THE COURT'S OPINION AS TO THE CHAPTERS OF
TEXAS HISTORY. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER* . 

*(REPORTER'S NOTE:  THIS IS ALSO THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER IN NO. 12, ORIGINAL, UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, ANTE, P.
699.) 

TIME HAS NOT MADE THE REASONING OF UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332
U.S. 19, MORE PERSUASIVE BUT THE ISSUE THERE DECIDED IS NO LONGER OPEN
FOR ME.  IT IS RELEVANT, HOWEVER, TO NOTE THAT IN REJECTING
CALIFORNIA'S CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IN THE OFF-SHORE OIL THE COURT
CAREFULLY ABSTAINED FROM RECOGNIZING SUCH CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP BY THE
UNITED STATES.  THIS WAS EMPHASIZED WHEN THE COURT STRUCK OUT THE
PROPRIETARY CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE TERMS OF THE DECREE
PROPOSED BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE CALIFORNIA CASE* . 

*THE DECREE PROPOSED BY THE UNITED STATES READ IN PART: 

"1.  THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOW, AND HAS BEEN AT ALL TIMES
PERTINENT HERETO, POSSESSED OF PARAMOUNT RIGHTS OF PROPRIETORSHIP IN,
AND FULL DOMINION AND POWER OVER, THE LANDS, MINERALS AND OTHER THINGS
UNDERLYING THE PACIFIC OCEAN  ...  " 

THE ITALICIZED WORDS WERE OMITTED IN THE COURT'S DECREE.  332 U.S.
804, 805. 

I MUST LEAVE IT TO THOSE WHO DEEM THE REASONING OF THAT DECISION
RIGHT TO DEFINE ITS SCOPE AND APPLY IT, PARTICULARLY TO THE
HISTORICALLY VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION OF TEXAS.  AS IS MADE CLEAR IN
THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE REED, THE SUBMERGED LANDS NOW IN CONTROVERSY
WERE PART OF THE DOMAIN OF TEXAS WHEN SHE WAS ON HER OWN.  THE COURT
NOW DECIDES THAT WHEN TEXAS ENTERED THE UNION SHE LOST WHAT SHE HAD AND
THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED IT.  HOW THAT SHIFT CAME TO PASS REMAINS FOR
ME A PUZZLE. 
..END :








U.S. V. GERLACH LIVE STOCK CO., 339 U.S. 725 


ARGUED MARCH 1, 1949.  - REARGUED MARCH 29-30, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5,
1950.  - 111 CT. CL. 1, 89, 76 F.SUPP.  87, 99, AFFIRMED. 


RESPONDENTS ARE OWNERS OF SO-CALLED "UNCONTROLLED GRASS LANDS" ALONG
THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER IN CALIFORNIA WHICH DEPEND FOR WATER UPON
SEASONAL INUNDATIONS RESULTING FROM OVERFLOWS OF THE RIVER.  THE VALUE
OF THESE LANDS WILL BE IMPAIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION BY THE UNITED
STATES OF THE FRIANT DAM AND ITS DEPENDENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AS PART
OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, A GIGANTIC UNDERTAKING BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO REDISTRIBUTE THE PRINCIPAL FRESH WATER RESOURCES OF
CALIFORNIA.  WHILE THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SOME RELATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS ON NAVIGATION, ITS PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS PERTAIN TO VALUES
REALIZED FROM STORAGE AND REDISTRIBUTION OF WATER FOR POWER,
IRRIGATION, RECLAMATION, FLOOD CONTROL AND OTHER SIMILAR PURPOSES. 
CLAIMING UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW RIPARIAN RIGHTS TO THE BENEFITS FROM THE
ANNUAL INUNDATIONS OF THEIR LANDS, RESPONDENTS SUED IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT THE DAMAGE WAS
NONCOMPENSABLE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS, UNDER THE COMMERCE POWER, AS A MEASURE FOR THE CONTROL OF
NAVIGATION.  HELD:  JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF
RESPONDENTS ARE AFFIRMED.  PP. 727-756. 

1.  EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT FRIANT DAM BEARS SOME RELATION TO
CONTROL OF NAVIGATION, NEVERTHELESS CONGRESS ELECTED TO TREAT IT AS A
RECLAMATION PROJECT, TO RECOGNIZE ANY STATE-CREATED RIGHTS AND TO TAKE
THEM UNDER ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN; AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE
RECLAMATION ACT, 43 U.S.C. SECS. 371 ET SEQ., PROVIDING FOR
REIMBURSEMENT, ARE APPLICABLE TO THESE CLAIMS.  PP. 731-742. 

(A)  IN UNDERTAKING THE FRIANT PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTING THE WORK AS
CARRIED FORWARD BY THE RECLAMATION BUREAU, CONGRESS PROCEEDED ON THE
BASIS OF FULL RECOGNITION OF WATER RIGHTS HAVING VALID EXISTENCE UNDER
STATE LAW.  PP. 734-736. 

(B)  NOTWITHSTANDING ITS GENERAL DECLARATION OF PURPOSE THAT THE
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AS A WHOLE IS TO IMPROVE NAVIGATION, CONGRESS
DID NOT INTEND TO INVOKE ITS NAVIGATION SERVITUDE AS TO EACH AND EVERY
ONE OF THIS GROUP OF COORDINATED PROJECTS AND HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO
TAKE, OR AUTHORIZED THE TAKING, WITHOUT COMPENSATION, OF RIGHTS VALID
UNDER STATE LAW.  PP. 736-739. 

(C)  THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE WITH REFERENCE TO THIS PROJECT
SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT IT IS A RECLAMATION PROJECT INVOLVING RESPECT
FOR EXISTING WATER RIGHTS AND COMPENSATION TO OWNERS THEREOF.  PP. 739
742. 

2.  UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, RESPONDENTS HAD RIPARIAN RIGHTS TO PERIODIC
INUNDATIONS OF THEIR LANDS BY SEASONAL OVERFLOWS OF THE RIVER; THESE
RIGHTS ARE COMPENSABLE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW; AND THE AWARDS OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA AS MADE
APPLICABLE TO THESE CLAIMS BY CONGRESS.  PP. 742-755. 

3.  THIS COURT DECLINES TO SET ASIDE THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS THAT THE DATE FROM WHICH INTEREST IS TO BE ALLOWED IS OCTOBER
20, 1941, THE DATE OF THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL IMPOUNDMENT OF WATER, EVEN
THOUGH IT HAD NOT THEN PREVENTED BENEFITS FROM REACHING THE PROPERTY. 
P. 755. 

4.  THIS COURT ACCEPTS WITHOUT REVIEW A FINDING BY THE COURT OF
CLAIMS CONSTRUING RESERVATIONS IN DEEDS OF CERTAIN OF THE CLAIMANTS, A
QUESTION GOVERNED BY CONVEYANCING AND REAL PROPERTY LAW PECULIAR TO
THIS ONE CASE, DEPENDING ON LOCAL LAW, AND NOT OF GENERAL INTEREST, AND
ON WHICH THERE IS NO MANIFEST ERROR IN THE FINDING OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  P. 755. 

5.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED THE RIGHTS TAKEN AND FOR
WHICH IT MADE AN AWARD.  P. 756. 

UNITED STATES V. GERLACH LIVE STOCK CO. 

NO. 4.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 5, UNITED STATES V. POTTER; NO. 6, UNITED STATES
V. ERRECA; NO. 7, UNITED STATES V. JAMES J. STEVINSON (A CORPORATION);
NO. 8, UNITED STATES V. STEVINSON; AND NO. 9, UNITED STATES V. 3-H
SECURITIES CO., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS SEVERALLY AWARDED COMPENSATION TO RESPONDENTS FOR
THE TAKING BY THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION OF FRIANT
DAM, OF THEIR RIPARIAN RIGHTS TO ANNUAL INUNDATIONS OF THEIR LANDS
ALONG THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER IN CALIFORNIA.  111 CT. CL. 1, 89, 76
F.SUPP.  87, 99.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 883. 
AFFIRMED, P. 756. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO RELIEVE THE UNITED STATES FROM SIX AWARDS BY THE
COURT OF CLAIMS AS JUST COMPENSATION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS
ALONG THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER IN CALIFORNIA CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION OF
FRIANT DAM, AND ITS DEPENDENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AS PART OF THE CENTRAL
VALLEY PROJECT. 

THIS IS A GIGANTIC UNDERTAKING TO REDISTRIBUTE THE PRINCIPAL FRESH
WATER RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA.  CENTRAL VALLEY IS A VAST BASIN,
STRETCHING OVER 400 MILES ON ITS POLAR AXIS AND A HUNDRED IN WIDTH, IN
THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA.  BOUNDED BY THE SIERRA NEVADA ON THE EAST AND
BY COASTAL RANGES ON THE WEST, IT CONSISTS ACTUALLY OF TWO SEPARATE
RIVER VALLEYS WHICH MERGE IN A SINGLE PASS TO THE SEA AT THE GOLDEN
GATE.  ITS RICH ACRES, COUNTED IN THE MILLIONS, ARE DEFICIENT IN
RAINFALL AND MUST REMAIN GENERALLY ARID AND UNFRUITFUL UNLESS
ARTIFICIALLY WATERED. 

WATER RESOURCES THERE ARE, IF THEY CAN BE CAPTURED AND DISTRIBUTED
OVER THE LAND.  FROM THE HIGHLAND BARRICADE AT THE NORTH THE SACRAMENTO
RIVER FLOWS SOUTHERLY, WHILE FROM THE YOSEMITE REGION AT THE SOUTHEAST
THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER WINDS NORTHEASTERLY UNTIL THE TWO MEET AND
CONSORT IN OUTLET TO THE SEA THROUGH ESTUARIES THAT CONNECT WITH SAN
FRANCISCO BAY.  THESE DOMINATING RIVERS COLLECT TRIBUTE FROM MANY
MOUNTAIN CURRENTS, CARRY THEIR HOARDINGS PAST PARCHED PLAINS AND
THRIFTLESSLY DISSIPATE THEM IN THE PACIFIC TIDES.  WHEN IT IS SOUGHT TO
MAKE THESE STREAMS YIELD THEIR WASTING TREASURES TO THE LANDS THEY
TRAVERSE, MEN ARE CONFRONTED WITH A PARADOX OF NATURE; FOR THE
SACRAMENTO, WITH ALMOST TWICE THE WATER, IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE LEAST
LAND, WHEREAS ABOUT THREE-FIFTHS OF THE VALLEY LIES IN THE DOMAIN OF
THE LESS AFFLUENT SAN JOAQUIN. 

TO HARNESS THESE WASTING WATERS, OVERCOME THIS PERVERSITY OF NATURE
AND MAKE WATER AVAILABLE WHERE IT WOULD BE OF GREATEST SERVICE, THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROPOSED TO RE-ENGINEER ITS NATURAL WATER
DISTRIBUTION.  THIS PROJECT WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1935
AND HAS SINCE BEEN A FEDERAL ENTERPRISE.  THE PLAN, IN BROAD OUTLINE,
IS TO CAPTURE AND STORE WATERS OF BOTH RIVERS AND MANY OF THEIR
TRIBUTARIES IN THEIR HIGHLAND BASINS, IN SOME CASES TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
THE RESULTING HEAD FOR GENERATION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY.  SHASTA DAM IN
THE NORTH WILL PRODUCE POWER FOR USE THROUGHOUT MUCH OF THE STATE AND
WILL PROVIDE A GREAT RESERVOIR TO EQUALIZE SEASONAL FLOWS OF THE
SACRAMENTO.  A MORE DRAMATIC FEATURE OF THE PLAN IS THE WATER STORAGE
AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT THE OTHER END OF THE VALLEY.  THERE THE WATERS
OF THE SAN JOAQUIN WILL BE ARRESTED AT FRIANT, WHERE THEY WOULD TAKE
LEAVE OF THE MOUNTAINS, AND WILL BE DIVERTED NORTH AND SOUTH THROUGH A
SYSTEM OF CANALS AND SOLD TO IRRIGATE MORE THAN A MILLION ACRES OF
LAND, SOME AS FAR AS 160 MILES AWAY.  A COST OF REFRESHING THIS GREAT
EXPANSE OF SEMIARID LAND IS THAT, EXCEPT FOR OCCASIONAL SPILLS, ONLY A
DRY RIVER BED WILL CROSS THE PLAIN BELOW THE DAM.  HERE, HOWEVER,
SURPLUS WATERS FROM THE NORTH ARE UTILIZED, FOR THROUGH A 150-MILE
CANAL SACRAMENTO WATER IS TO BE PUMPED TO THE CULTIVATED LANDS FORMERLY
DEPENDENT ON THE SAN JOAQUIN. 

BOTH RIVERS AFFORD NAVIGATION - THE SACRAMENTO FOR A CONSIDERABLE
DISTANCE INLAND, THE SAN JOAQUIN PRACTICALLY ONLY AT TIDEWATER LEVELS. 
THE PLAN WILL HAVE NAVIGATION CONSEQUENCES, PRINCIPALLY ON THE
SACRAMENTO; BUT THE EFFECTS ON NAVIGATION ARE ECONOMICALLY
INSIGNIFICANT AS COMPARED WITH THE VALUES REALIZED FROM REDISTRIBUTION
OF WATER BENEFITS. 

SUCH A PROJECT INEVITABLY UNSETTLES MANY ADVANTAGES LONG ENJOYED IN
RELIANCE UPON THE NATURAL ORDER, AND IT IS WITH DEPRIVATION OF SUCH
BENEFITS THAT WE ARE HERE CONCERNED. 

CLAIMANTS OWN LAND PARCELS RIPARIAN TO THE SAN JOAQUIN N1.  THESE ARE
CALLED "UNCONTROLLED GRASS LANDS," TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM EITHER CROP
LANDS OR "CONTROLLED GRASS LANDS," BOTH OF WHICH HAVE LONG BEEN
IRRIGATED THROUGH CONTROLLED SYSTEMS SUPPLIED FROM THE STREAM.  NEITHER
OF THESE LATTER WILL BE INJURED BY THE DIVERSION, FOR THEY ARE TO BE
PROVIDED WITH THE REPLACEMENT WATER FROM THE SACRAMENTO. 

UNCONTROLLED GRASS LANDS INVOLVED IN THE CLAIMS ARE PARTS OF A LARGE
RIPARIAN AREA WHICH BENEFITS FROM THE NATURAL SEASONAL OVERFLOW OF THE
STREAM.  EACH YEAR, WITH PREDICTABLE REGULARITY, THE STREAM SWELLS AND
SUBMERGES AND SATURATES THESE LOW-LYING LANDS.  THEY ARE MOISTENED AND
ENRICHED BY THESE INUNDATIONS SO THAT FORAGE AND PASTURAGE THRIVE, AS
OTHERWISE THEY CAN NOT.  THE HIGH STAGE OF THE RIVER, WHILE FLUCTUATING
IN HEIGHT AND VARIABLE IN ARRIVAL, IS NOT A FLOOD IN THE SENSE OF AN
ABNORMAL AND SUDDEN DELUGE.  THE RIVER RISES AND FALLS IN RHYTHM WITH
THE CYCLE OF SEASONS, EXPANSION BEING NORMAL FOR ITS TIME AS
CURTAILMENT IS FOR OTHERS, AND BOTH ARE REPEATED WITH CONSIDERABLE
CONSTANCY OVER THE YEARS.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT CLAIMANTS'
BENEFIT COMES ONLY FROM THE VERY CREST OF THIS SEASONAL STAGE, WHICH
CREST MUST BE ELEVATED AND BORNE TO THEIR LANDS ON THE BASE OF A FULL
RIVER, NONE OF WHICH CAN BE UTILIZED FOR IRRIGATION ABOVE AND LITTLE OF
IT BELOW THEM.  THEIR CLAIM OF RIGHT IS, IN OTHER WORDS, TO ENJOY
NATURAL, SEASONAL FLUCTUATION UNHINDERED, WHICH PRESUPPOSES A PEAK FLOW
LARGELY UNUTILIZED. 

THE PROJECT PUTS AN END TO ALL THIS.  EXCEPT AT RARE INTERVALS, THERE
WILL BE NO SPILL OVER FRIANT DAM, THE BED OF THE SAN JOAQUIN ALONG
CLAIMANTS' LANDS WILL BE PARCHED, AND THEIR GRASS LANDS WILL BE
BARREN.  UNLIKE THE SUPPLY UTILIZED FOR NEARBY CROP AND "CONTROLLED"
LANDS, THE VANISHING SAN JOAQUIN INUNDATION CANNOT BE REPLACED WITH
SACRAMENTO WATER.  CLAIMANTS HAVE BEEN SEVERALLY AWARDED COMPENSATION
FOR THIS TAKING OF THEIR ANNUAL INUNDATIONS, ON THE THEORY THAT, AS
PART OF THE NATURAL FLOW, ITS CONTINUANCE IS A RIGHT ANNEXED TO THEIR
RIPARIAN PROPERTY.  111 CT. CL. 1, 89, 76 F.SUPP.  87, 99.  THE
PRINCIPAL ISSUES ARE COMMON TO THE SIX CASES IN WHICH WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 883. 

           I. NAVIGATION OR RECLAMATION PROJECT? 

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL CONTENDS THAT THIS OVERALL PROJECT, AND EACH
PART OF IT, HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, UNDER THE COMMERCE POWER,
AS A MEASURE FOR CONTROL OF NAVIGATION.  CLAIMANTS ON THE OTHER HAND
URGE THAT ALTHOUGH IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION WAS ONE OBJECTIVE OF THE
CENTRAL VALLEY UNDERTAKING AS A WHOLE, NEVERTHELESS CONSTRUCTION OF THE
FRIANT DAM AND THE CONSEQUENT TAKING OF SAN JOAQUIN WATER RIGHTS HAD NO
PURPOSE OR EFFECT EXCEPT FOR IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION.  THIS, IT IS
CLAIMED, WAS NOT ONLY THE ACTUAL, BUT THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF CONGRESS. 
ON THESE CONFLICTING ASSUMPTIONS THE PARTIES PREDICATE CONTRARY
CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION. 

IN THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1937, SEC. 2, 50 STAT.
844, 850, AND AGAIN IN THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF OCTOBER 17, 1940,
54 STAT. 1198, 1199-1200, CONGRESS SAID THAT "THE ENTIRE CENTRAL VALLEY
PROJECT  ...  IS  ...  DECLARED TO BE FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPROVING
NAVIGATION, REGULATING THE FLOW OF THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER AND THE
SACRAMENTO RIVER, CONTROLLING FLOODS, PROVIDING FOR STORAGE AND FOR THE
DELIVERY OF THE STORED WATERS THEREOF  ...  "  THE 1937 ACT ALSO
PROVIDED THAT "THE SAID DAM AND RESERVOIRS SHALL BE USED, FIRST, FOR
RIVER REGULATION, IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION, AND FLOOD CONTROL  ...  " 

BUT IT ALSO IS TRUE, AS POINTED OUT BY CLAIMANTS, THAT IN THESE ACTS
CONGRESS EXPRESSLY "REAUTHORIZED"  FN2  A PROJECT ALREADY INITIATED BY
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT, WHO, ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1935, MADE ALLOTMENT OF
FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FRIANT DAM AND CANALS UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY RELIEF APPROPRIATION ACT, 49 STAT. 115, SEC. 4, AND PROVIDED
THAT THEY "SHALL BE REIMBURSABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECLAMATION
LAWS."  FN3  A FINDING OF FEASIBILITY, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, FN4  WAS
MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON NOVEMBER 26, 1935, MAKING NO
REFERENCE TO NAVIGATION, AND HIS RECOMMENDATION OF "THE CENTRAL VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT AS A FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECT" WAS APPROVED BY THE
PRESIDENT ON DECEMBER 2, 1935. 

WHEN IT "REAUTHORIZED" THE CENTRAL VALLEY UNDERTAKING, CONGRESS IN
THE SAME ACT PROVIDED THAT "THE PROVISIONS OF THE RECLAMATION LAW,  FN5
AS AMENDED, SHALL GOVERN THE REPAYMENT OF EXPENDITURES AND THE
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DAMS, CANALS, POWER
PLANTS, PUMPING PLANTS, TRANSMISSION LINES, AND INCIDENTAL WORKS DEEMED
NECESSARY TO SAID ENTIRE PROJECT, AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR MAY
ENTER INTO REPAYMENT CONTRACTS, AND OTHER NECESSARY CONTRACTS, WITH
STATE AGENCIES, AUTHORITIES, ASSOCIATIONS, PERSONS, AND CORPORATIONS,
EITHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, INCLUDING ALL AGENCIES WITH WHICH CONTRACTS
ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE RECLAMATION LAW, AND MAY ACQUIRE BY
PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT DOMAIN, OR OTHERWISE, ALL LANDS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY,
WATER RIGHTS, AND OTHER PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSES:  ...  " 

THE CENTRAL VALLEY BASIN DEVELOPMENT ENVISIONS, IN ONE SENSE, AN
INTEGRATED UNDERTAKING, BUT ALSO AN AGGREGATE OF MANY SUBSIDIARY
PROJECTS, EACH OF WHICH IS OF FIRST MAGNITUDE.  IT CONSISTS OF THIRTY
EIGHT MAJOR DAMS AND RESERVOIRS BORDERING THE VALLEY FLOOR AND SCORES
OF SMALLER ONES IN HEADWATERS.  IT CONTEMPLATES TWENTY-EIGHT HYDROPOWER
GENERATING STATIONS.  IT INCLUDES HUNDREDS OF MILES OF MAIN CANALS,
THOUSANDS OF MILES OF LATERALS AND DRAINS, ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND
FEEDER LINES AND SUBSTATIONS, AND A VAST NETWORK OF STRUCTURES FOR THE
CONTROL AND USE OF WATER ON TWO MILLION ACRES OF LAND ALREADY
IRRIGATED, THREE MILLION ACRES OF LAND TO BE NEWLY IRRIGATED, 360,000
ACRES IN THE DELTA NEEDING PROTECTION FROM INTRUSIONS OF SALT WATER,
AND FOR MUNICIPAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PURPOSES INCLUDING CITIES, TOWNS,
DUCK CLUBS AND GAME REFUGES.  THESE PROJECTS ARE NOT ONLY WIDELY
SEPARATED GEOGRAPHICALLY, MANY OF THEM PHYSICALLY INDEPENDENT IN
OPERATION, BUT THEY ARE AUTHORIZED IN SEPARATE ACTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR
AND ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT DIFFERENT TIMES OVER A CONSIDERABLE SPAN
OF YEARS.  A FORMULA HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT BY WHICH
MULTIPLE PURPOSE DAMS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, AND DAMS AND OTHER WORKS ONLY FOR FLOOD CONTROL ARE
EXCLUSIVELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ARMY ENGINEERS.  FN6  THE ENTIRE
FRIANT AND SAN JOAQUIN PROJECTS AT ALL TIMES HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED BY
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION. 

WE CANNOT DISAGREE WITH CLAIMANTS' CONTENTION THAT IN UNDERTAKING
THESE FRIANT PROJECTS AND IMPLEMENTING THE WORK AS CARRIED FORWARD BY
THE RECLAMATION BUREAU, CONGRESS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF FULL
RECOGNITION OF WATER RIGHTS HAVING VALID EXISTENCE UNDER STATE LAW.  BY
ITS COMMAND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE RECLAMATION LAW SHOULD GOVERN
THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SEVERAL
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, CONGRESS DIRECTED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
TO PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH STATE LAWS, GIVING FULL RECOGNITION TO
EVERY RIGHT VESTED UNDER THOSE LAWS.  FN7  CF. NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 295
U.S. 40, 43; POWER CO. V. CEMENT CO., 295 U.S. 142, 164; NEBRASKA V.
WYOMING, 325 U.S. 589, 614; MASON CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S. 186.  IN
THIS RESPECT, CONGRESS' ACTION PARALLELS THAT IN FORD & SON V. LITTLE
FALLS FIBRE CO., 280 U.S. 369.  THE ORIGINAL PLAN CALLED FOR PURCHASE
OF WATER RIGHTS AND INCLUDED AN ESTIMATE OF THEIR COST.  FN8 WE ARE
ADVISED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT AT LEAST THROUGHOUT ADMINISTRATION OF
CALIFORNIA RECLAMATION PROJECTS IT HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE OF
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TO RESPECT SUCH PROPERTY RIGHTS.  SUCH HAS
SPECIFICALLY BEEN THE BUREAU'S PRACTICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRIANT
PROJECT, AND THIS HAS BEEN REPORTED TO CONGRESS N9, WHICH HAS RESPONDED
SOME NINE TIMES IN THE PAST TWELVE YEARS TO REQUESTS FOR APPROPRIATIONS
TO MEET SUCH EXPENSES.  WE THINK THIS AMOUNTS, NOT TO AUTHORIZATIONS
AND DECLARATIONS CREATING CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,
BUT TO AWARENESS AND APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  WE THINK
IT CLEAR THAT THROUGHOUT THE CONCEPTION, ENACTMENT AND SUBSEQUENT
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN, CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THE PROPERTY STATUS
OF WATER RIGHTS VESTED UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW. 

IT IS NOT TO BE DOUBTED THAT THE TOTALITY OF A PLAN SO COMPREHENSIVE
HAS SOME LEGITIMATE RELATION TO CONTROL OF INLAND NAVIGATION OR THAT
PARTICULAR COMPONENTS MAY BE DESCRIBED WITHOUT PRETENSE AS NAVIGATION
AND FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.  THIS MADE IT APPROPRIATE THAT CONGRESS
SHOULD JUSTIFY MAKING THIS UNDERTAKING A NATIONAL BURDEN BY GENERAL
REFERENCE TO ITS POWER OVER COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION.    THE GOVERNMENT
CONTENDS THAT THE OVERALL DECLARATION OF PURPOSE IS APPLICABLE TO
FRIANT DAM AND RELATED IRRIGATION FACILITIES AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF
"WHAT CONGRESS QUITE PROPERLY TREATED AS A UNIT."  ADVERTING TO UNITED
STATES V. WILLOW RIVER CO., 324 U.S. 499; UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE
PARK, 324 U.S. 386; UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S.
377; UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, THE GOVERNMENT
RELIES ON THE RULE THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPENSATE FOR DESTRUCTION
OF RIPARIAN INTERESTS OVER WHICH AT THE POINT OF CONFLICT IT HAS A
SUPERIOR NAVIGATION EASEMENT THE EXERCISE OF WHICH OCCASIONS THE
DAMAGE.  AND IRRESPECTIVE OF DIVISIBILITY OF THE ENTIRE CENTRAL VALLEY
UNDERTAKING, THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT FRIANT DAM INVOLVES A MEASURE
OF FLOOD CONTROL, AN END WHICH IS SENSIBLY RELATED TO CONTROL OF
NAVIGATION.  OKLAHOMA V. ATKINSON CO., 313 U.S. 508. 

CLAIMANTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, URGE THAT AT LEAST THE FRIANT DAM
PROJECT WAS WHOLLY UNRELATED TO NAVIGATION ENDS AND COULD NOT BE
CONTROLLED BY THE GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.  THEY
POINT OUT THAT, ALTHOUGH DEFINITIONS OF NAVIGATION HAVE BEEN EXPANDED,
UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., SUPRA, IN EVERY INSTANCE IN
WHICH THIS COURT HAS DENIED COMPENSATION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIPARIAN
RIGHTS IT HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THE FEDERAL UNDERTAKING BORE SOME
POSITIVE RELATION TO CONTROL OF NAVIGATION.  UNITED STATES V. WILLOW
RIVER CO., SUPRA, 510; UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK, SUPRA, 391;
UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., SUPRA, 423; UNITED STATES V.
CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., SUPRA, 62; AND CASES CITED.  AND, REFERRING TO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 399; UNITED STATES
V. RIVER ROUGE CO., 269 U.S. 411, AND CASES CITED, THEY OBSERVE THAT
THIS COURT HAS NEVER PERMITTED THE GOVERNMENT TO PERVERT ITS NAVIGATION
SERVITUDE INTO A RIGHT TO DESTROY RIPARIAN INTERESTS WITHOUT
REIMBURSEMENT WHERE NO NAVIGATION PURPOSE EXISTED. 

SINCE WE DO NOT AGREE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO INVOKE ITS NAVIGATION
SERVITUDE AS TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THIS GROUP OF COORDINATED
PROJECTS, WE DO NOT REACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHER ISSUES THUS
POSED.  ACCORDINGLY, WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER A GENERAL DECLARATION
OF PURPOSE IS CONTROLLING WHERE INTERFERENCE WITH NAVIGATION IS NEITHER
THE MEANS, SOUTH CAROLINA V. GEORGIA, 93 U.S. 4, NOR THE CONSEQUENCE,
UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK, SUPRA, OF ITS ADVANCEMENT ELSEWHERE. 
SIMILARLY, WE NEED NOT PONDER WHETHER, BY VIRTUE OF A HIGHLY FICTIONAL
NAVIGATION PURPOSE, THE GOVERNMENT COULD DESTROY THE FLOW OF A
NAVIGABLE STREAM AND CARRY AWAY ITS WATERS FOR SALE TO PRIVATE
INTERESTS WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO THOSE DEPRIVED OF THEM.  WE HAVE
NEVER HELD THAT OR ANYTHING LIKE IT, AND WE NEED NOT HERE PASS ON ANY
QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER; FOR WE DO NOT FIND THAT CONGRESS HAS
ATTEMPTED TO TAKE OR AUTHORIZED THE TAKING, WITHOUT COMPENSATION, OF
ANY RIGHTS VALID UNDER STATE LAW. 

ON THE CONTRARY, CONGRESS' GENERAL DIRECTION OF PURPOSE WE THINK WAS
INTENDED TO HELP MEET ANY OBJECTION TO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
UNDERTAKE THIS BIG BUNDLE OF BIG PROJECTS.  THE CUSTOM OF INVOKING THE
NAVIGATION POWER IN AUTHORIZING IMPROVEMENTS APPEARS TO HAVE HAD ITS
ORIGIN WHEN THE POWER OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENTS WAS CONTESTED AND IN DOUBT.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1936 THAT
THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, DECLARED FOR THE
FIRST TIME, AND WITHOUT DISSENT ON THIS POINT, THAT, IN CONFERRING
POWER UPON CONGRESS TO TAX "TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON
DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES," THE CONSTITUTION
DELEGATES A POWER SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THOSE LATER ENUMERATED,
AND ONE NOT RESTRICTED BY THEM, AND THAT CONGRESS HAS A SUBSTANTIVE
POWER TO TAX AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE, LIMITED ONLY BY
THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT SHALL BE EXERCISED FOR THE COMMON BENEFIT AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM SOME MERE LOCAL PURPOSE.  IF ANY DOUBT OF THIS POWER
REMAINED, IT WAS LAID TO REST THE FOLLOWING YEAR IN HELVERING V. DAVIS,
301 U.S. 619, 640.  THUS THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL
WELFARE THROUGH LARGE-SCALE PROJECTS FOR RECLAMATION, IRRIGATION, OR
OTHER INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT, IS NOW AS CLEAR AND AMPLE AS ITS POWER TO
ACCOMPLISH THE SAME RESULTS INDIRECTLY THROUGH RESORT TO STRAINED
INTERPRETATION OF THE POWER OVER NAVIGATION.  FN10  BUT IN VIEW OF THIS
BACKGROUND WE THINK THAT REFERENCE TO THE NAVIGATION POWER WAS IN
JUSTIFICATION OF FEDERAL ACTION ON THE WHOLE, NOT FOR EFFECT ON PRIVATE
RIGHTS AT EVERY LOCATION ALONG EACH COMPONENT PROJECT. 

EVEN IF WE ASSUME, WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THAT FRIANT DAM IN FACT BEARS
SOME RELATION TO CONTROL OF NAVIGATION, WE THINK NEVERTHELESS THAT
CONGRESS REALISTICALLY ELECTED TO TREAT IT AS A RECLAMATION PROJECT. 
IT WAS SO CONCEIVED AND AUTHORIZED BY THE PRESIDENT AND IT WAS SO
REPRESENTED TO CONGRESS.  WHETHER CONGRESS COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO TAKE
CLAIMANTS' RIGHTS BY THE EXERCISE OF ITS DOMINANT NAVIGATION SERVITUDE
IS IMMATERIAL.  BY DIRECTING THE SECRETARY TO PROCEED UNDER THE
RECLAMATION ACT OF 1902, CONGRESS ELECTED NOT "TO IN ANY WAY INTERFERE
WITH THE LAWS OF ANY STATE  ...  RELATING TO THE CONTROL,
APPROPRIATION, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF WATER USED IN IRRIGATION, OR ANY
VESTED RIGHT ACQUIRED THEREUNDER."  32 STAT. 388, 390. 

WE CANNOT TWIST THESE WORDS INTO AN ELECTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS
UNDER ITS NAVIGATION POWER TO TAKE SUCH WATER RIGHTS WITHOUT
COMPENSATION.  IN THE LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, WRITING FOR THE
COURT IN INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 399, 407,
CONGRESS "PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING OF A FULL RECOGNITION OF
(RIPARIANS') RIGHTS AND OF THE GOVERNMENT'S DUTY TO PAY FOR THE TAKING
THAT (IT) PURPORTED TO ACCOMPLISH."  WE CONCLUDE THAT, WHETHER REQUIRED
TO DO SO OR NOT, CONGRESS ELECTED TO RECOGNIZE ANY STATE-CREATED RIGHTS
AND TO TAKE THEM UNDER ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  FN11 

WE ARE GUIDED TO THIS CONCLUSION BY THE INTERPRETATION PLACED ON
CONGRESS' ACTS BY THE RECLAMATION BUREAU, WHICH, IN ADMINISTERING THE
PROJECT, HAS AT ALL TIMES PURSUED A COURSE IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCILE WITH
PRESENT CONTENTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  FROM THE BEGINNING, IT HAS
ACTED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ITS FRIANT UNDERTAKING WAS A RECLAMATION
PROJECT.  EVEN A CASUAL INSPECTION OF ITS COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND
REPORTS LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS WAS FAMILIAR WITH AND APPROVED
THIS INTERPRETATION.  ALTHOUGH THE SOLICITOR GENERAL CONTENDS THAT,
BECAUSE OF THE NAVIGATION PURPOSE REMOTELY INVOLVED, DEPRIVATION OF
WATER RIGHTS ALONG THE SAN JOAQUIN IS NOT COMPENSABLE, WE HAVE OBSERVED
THAT THE PLAN AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED AND AS CARRIED OUT BY THE BUREAU
INCLUDED REPLACEMENT AT GREAT EXPENSE OF ALL WATER FORMERLY USED FOR
CROPS AND "CONTROLLED GRASS LANDS" AND PURCHASE OF THAT USED ON
MARGINAL PASTURE LANDS.  FN12  IT HAS CONSISTENTLY ADVISED THE CONGRESS
THAT IT WAS PURCHASING SAN JOAQUIN WATER RIGHTS AND APPROPRIATIONS HAVE
BEEN MADE ACCORDINGLY.  FN13  MOREOVER, CONGRESS  FN14  AND THE WATER
USERS  FN15  HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT, IN PROSECUTION OF THE WORK,
EXISTING WATER RIGHTS WOULD BE RESPECTED. 

THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE HAS BEEN EXTENDED EVEN TO THE LANDS IN
QUESTION.  PURSUANT TO ITS PLAN, THE BUREAU OFFERED TO PURCHASE THE
RIGHTS OF CLAIMANTS IN NOS. 7, 8 AND 9, BUT THE PARTIES COULD NOT AGREE
ON THE PRICE.  IN ADDITION, IT ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH
MILLER & LUX, INC., PURCHASING FOR $2,450,000 RIPARIAN RIGHTS WHICH
INCLUDED SOME IDENTICAL WITH THOSE THE GOVERNMENT NOW DENIES TO EXIST. 
IN FACT IT INCLUDES THE VERY RIGHTS NOW ASSERTED BY CLAIMANTS GERLACH,
ERRECA AND POTTER, WHO OBTAINED TITLE TO THEIR RIPARIAN PROPERTIES FROM
MILLER & LUX.  BECAUSE OF CERTAIN RESERVATIONS IN THEIR GRANTS, IT WAS
POSSIBLE THAT MILLER & LUX RETAINED THE RIGHTS RIPARIAN TO THESE
PROPERTIES.  THE GOVERNMENT THEREFORE AGREED WITH MILLER & LUX THAT THE
SUM OF $511,350 SHOULD BE DEPOSITED WITH AN ESCROW AGENT.  IF FINAL
JUDGMENTS OBLIGATE THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE COMPENSATION TO MILLER &
LUX GRANTEES FOR SUCH RIPARIAN GRASS LANDS, THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE
REIMBURSED FROM THE ESCROW FUND IN AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING $9 PER
ACRE.  HOWEVER, IF FINAL JUDGMENTS DISMISS THE CLAIMS, THE ESCROWED
FUNDS GO TO MILLER & LUX.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS STRANGE TRANSACTION IS
THAT THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH NOW ASKS US TO HOLD THAT THERE ARE NO SUCH
RIPARIAN RIGHTS, HAS ALREADY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR THEM AT THE PRICE
WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS ALLOWED.  THE RESULTS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
BARGAIN ARE THAT, IF WE HOLD THERE ARE NO RIGHTS, MILLER & LUX WILL BE
PAID FOR THEM; AND, IF WE HOLD THERE ARE SUCH RIGHTS, THEY WILL BE PAID
FROM WHAT OTHERWISE GOES TO MILLER & LUX.  AS TO THESE THREE CASES, THE
GOVERNMENT IS DEFENDING AGAINST THE CLAIMS, NOT AS THE REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST, BUT BECAUSE IT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO ON BEHALF OF MILLER & LUX. 

OF COURSE, THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND BY ADMINISTRATIVE MISTAKES.  IF
THE GOVERNMENT HAD CONTRACTED TO PAY FOR RIGHTS WHICH ARE NONEXISTENT,
IT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE US FROM UPHOLDING LATER AND BETTER ADVISED
CONTENTIONS.  BUT WHEN A PROJECT HAS BEEN REGARDED BY THE HIGHEST
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITIES AS A RECLAMATION PROJECT, AND HAS BEEN CARRIED AS
SUCH FROM ITS INITIATION TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR THESE RIGHTS, AND
CONGRESS, KNOWING ITS HISTORY, HAS GIVEN THE APPROVALS THAT IT HAS, WE
THINK THERE IS NO GROUND FOR ASKING US TO HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE RECLAMATION ACT DO NOT APPLY.  WE HOLD THAT THEY DO APPLY AND WE
THEREFORE TURN, AS THAT ACT BIDS US, TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE TO
DETERMINE THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF LANDOWNER AND APPROPRIATOR. 

           II.  CLAIMANTS' RIPARIAN RIGHTS UNDER CALIFORNIA

              LAW. 

THE ADVERSARIES IN THIS CASE INVOKE RIVAL DOCTRINES OF WATER LAW
WHICH HAVE BEEN IN COMPETITION THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA LEGAL HISTORY. 
THE CLAIMS ARE EXPRESSLY BASED ON COMMON-LAW RIPARIAN-RIGHTS DOCTRINES
AS DECLARED BY CALIFORNIA COURTS.  THE UNITED STATES, ON THE OTHER
HAND, BY VIRTUE OF THE RECLAMATION ACT, STANDS IN THE POSITION OF AN
UPSTREAM APPROPRIATOR FOR A BENEFICIAL USE. 

THE GOVERNING WATER LAW OF CALIFORNIA MUST NOW BE DERIVED FROM A 1928
AMENDMENT TO ITS CONSTITUTION  FN16  WHICH COMPRESSES INTO A SINGLE
PARAGRAPH A RECONCILIATION AND MODIFICATION OF DOCTRINES EVOLVED IN
LITIGATIONS THAT HAVE VEXED ITS JUDICIARY FOR A CENTURY.  ITS TEXT
LEAVES MANY QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED, AND NEITHER IT NOR ANY
LEGISLATION OR JUDICIAL DECISION PROVIDES A DIRECT AND EXPLICIT
DETERMINATION OF THE PRESENT STATE LAW ON ISSUES BEFORE US.  BUT SINCE
THE FEDERAL LAW ADOPTS THAT OF THE STATE AS THE TEST OF FEDERAL
LIABILITY, WE MUST VENTURE A CONCLUSION AS TO PECULIARLY LOCAL LAW.  WE
CAN DO SO ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF A LONG HISTORY OF STRIFE AND DOCTRINAL
CONFLICT, WHICH CALIFORNIA SAYS MUST BE KNOWN BY EVERY JUDGE OF THESE
MATTERS, CONGER V. WEAVER, 6 CAL. 548, AND IN CONTINUITY WITH WHICH
BOTH THE CRYPTIC TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT AND THE POLICY OF FEDERAL
STATUTES BECOME MORE INTELLIGIBLE.  FN17 

UPON ACQUIRING STATEHOOD IN 1850, CALIFORNIA ADOPTED THE COMMON LAW
OF ENGLAND AS THE RULE OF DECISION IN ITS COURTS WHEN NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE FEDERAL OR STATE CONSTITUTIONS OR STATE LEGISLATION.  IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY, ENGLISH COMMON LAW INCLUDED A BODY OF
WATER DOCTRINE KNOWN AS RIPARIAN RIGHTS.  THAT ALSO WAS THE GENERAL
MEXICAN LAW, IF IT HAD ANY LINGERING AUTHORITY THERE, BUT SEE BOQUILLAS
CATTLE CO. V. CURTIS, 213 U.S. 339, 343; GUTIERRES V. ALBUQUERQUE LAND
CO., 188 U.S. 545, 556, EXCEPT FOR A PECULIAR CONCESSION TO "PUEBLOS." 
INDEED, RIPARIAN-RIGHTS DOCTRINES PREVAILED THROUGHOUT WESTERN
CIVILIZATION. 

AS LONG AGO AS THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, RUNNING WATERS, LIKE THE
AIR AND THE SEA, WERE RES COMMUNES - THINGS COMMON TO ALL AND PROPERTY
OF NONE.  SUCH WAS THE DOCTRINE SPREAD BY CIVIL-LAW COMMENTATORS AND
EMBODIED IN THE NAPOLEONIC CODE AND IN SPANISH LAW.  THIS CONCEPTION
PASSED INTO THE COMMON LAW.  FROM THESE SOURCES, BUT LARGELY FROM CIVIL
LAW SOURCES, THE INQUISITIVE AND POWERFUL MINDS OF CHANCELLOR KENT AND
MR. JUSTICE STORY DREW IN GENERATING THE BASIC DOCTRINES OF AMERICAN
WATER LAW. 

RIPARIAN RIGHTS DEVELOPED WHERE LANDS WERE AMPLY WATERED BY
RAINFALL.  THE PRIMARY NATURAL ASSET WAS LAND, AND THE RUN-OFF IN
STREAMS OR RIVERS WAS INCIDENTAL.  SINCE ACCESS TO FLOWING WATERS WAS
POSSIBLE ONLY OVER PRIVATE LANDS, ACCESS BECAME A RIGHT ANNEXED TO THE
SHORE.  THE LAW FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY WHICH REQUIRES THAT
THE CORPUS OF FLOWING WATER BECOME NO ONE'S PROPERTY AND THAT, ASIDE
FROM RATHER LIMITED USE FOR DOMESTIC AND AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY THOSE
ABOVE, EACH RIPARIAN OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE WATER FLOW DOWN TO
HIM IN ITS NATURAL VOLUME AND CHANNELS UNIMPAIRED IN QUALITY.  THE
RIPARIAN SYSTEM DOES NOT PERMIT WATER TO BE REDUCED TO POSSESSION SO AS
TO BECOME PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE CARRIED AWAY FROM THE STREAM FOR
COMMERCIAL OR NONRIPARIAN PURPOSES.  IN WORKING OUT DETAILS OF THIS
EGALITARIAN CONCEPT, THE SEVERAL STATES MADE MANY VARIATIONS, EACH
SEEKING TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ITS NATURAL
ADVANTAGES.  THESE ARE SET FORTH IN SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152 U.S. 1.  BUT
IT MAY BE SAID THAT WHEN CALIFORNIA ADOPTED IT THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHY
OF THE RIPARIAN-RIGHTS SYSTEM HAD BECOME COMMON LAW THROUGHOUT WHAT WAS
THEN THE UNITED STATES. 

THEN IN THE MOUNTAINS OF CALIFORNIA THERE DEVELOPED A COMBINATION OF
CIRCUMSTANCES UNPRECEDENTED IN THE LONG AND LITIGIOUS HISTORY OF
RUNNING WATER.  ITS EFFECTS ON WATER LAWS WERE ALSO UNPRECEDENTED. 
ALMOST AT THE TIME WHEN MEXICO CEDED CALIFORNIA, WITH OTHER
TERRITORIES, TO THE UNITED STATES, GOLD WAS DISCOVERED THERE AND A RUSH
OF HARDY, AGGRESSIVE AND VENTURESOME PIONEERS BEGAN.  IF THE HIGH LANDS
WERE TO YIELD THEIR TREASURE TO PROSPECTORS, WATER WAS ESSENTIAL TO
SEPARATE THE PRECIOUS FROM THE DROSS.  THE MINER'S NEED WAS MORE THAN A
CONVENIENCE - IT WAS A NECESSITY; AND NECESSITY KNOWS NO LAW.  BUT
CONDITIONS WERE FAVORABLE FOR NECESSITY TO MAKE LAW, AND IT DID - LAW
UNLIKE ANY THAT HAD BEEN KNOWN IN ANY PART OF THE WESTERN WORLD.    THE
ADVENTURERS WERE IN A LITTLE-INHABITED, UNSURVEYED, UNOWNED AND ALMOST
UNGOVERNED COUNTRY, THERETOFORE THOUGHT TO HAVE LITTLE VALUE.  IT HAD
BECOME PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE UNITED STATES AND MINERS REGARDED WATERS AS
WELL AS LANDS SUBJECT TO PREEMPTION.  TO BE FIRST IN POSSESSION WAS TO
BE BEST IN TITLE.  PRIORITY - OF DISCOVERY, LOCATION AND APPROPRIATION
WAS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF RIGHTS.  FORTUITOUSLY, ALONG LOWER REACHES
OF THE STREAMS THERE WERE NO RIPARIAN OWNERS TO BE INJURED AND NONE TO
CHALLENGE CUSTOMS OF THE MINERS. 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1850, CALIFORNIA WAS ADMITTED TO THE UNION AS A STATE. 
IN 1851, ITS FIRST LEGISLATURE ENACTED A CIVIL PRACTICE ACT WHICH
CONTAINED A PROVISION THAT "IN ACTIONS RESPECTING 'MINING CLAIMS,'  ...
CUSTOMS, USAGES, OR REGULATIONS, WHEN NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS STATE, SHALL GOVERN THE DECISION OF THE
ACTION."  FN18  THE CUSTOM OF APPROPRIATING WATER THUS ACQUIRED SOME
AUTHORITY, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS CONTRADICTION OF THE COMMON LAW.  A
PRACTICE THAT WAS LAW IN THE MOUNTAINS WAS CONTRARY TO THE LAW ON THE
BOOKS.  HERE WERE PROVOCATIONS TO CONTROVERSY THAT SOON CAME TO THE
NEWLY ESTABLISHED STATE COURTS. 

IN CALIFORNIA, AS EVERYWHERE, THE LAW OF FLOWING STREAMS HAS BEEN THE
PRODUCT OF CONTENTIONS BETWEEN UPPER AND LOWER LEVELS.  THUS WHEN
MATTHEW IRWIN BUILT A DAM AND CANAL ON THE UPPER SAN JOAQUIN FOR
APPROPRIATING WATER TO SUPPLY MINERS, DOWNSTREAM SETTLER ROBERT
PHILLIPS TORE IT DOWN AND ASSERTED HIS OWN RIPARIAN RIGHT TO HAVE THE
WATER DESCEND TO HIM IN ITS NATURAL VOLUME.  FACED WITH THIS ISSUE
BETWEEN CUSTOM AND DOCTRINE, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ESCAPED BY
OBSERVING THAT BOTH CLAIMS WERE LOCATED ON PUBLIC DOMAIN, AND THAT
NEITHER PARTY COULD SHOW PROPRIETORSHIP.  ACCORDINGLY, AS BETWEEN TWO
MERE SQUATTERS, PRIORITY OF APPROPRIATION ESTABLISHED THE BETTER
RIGHT.  BUT THE COURT GAVE WARNING THAT THIS APPROPRIATIVE RIGHT MIGHT
NOT PREVAIL AGAINST A DOWNSTREAM RIPARIAN WHO CLAIMED BY VIRTUE OF
PROPRIETORSHIP.  IRWIN V. PHILLIPS, 5 CAL. 140(1855). 

THE UNITED STATES, AS OWNER OF THE WHOLE PUBLIC DOMAIN, WAS SUCH A
PROPRIETOR, AND THE DECISION MADE APPROPRIATIONS VULNERABLE TO ITS
CHALLENGE.  IT ALSO LEFT THE PIONEERS IN POSITION OF TRESPASSERS.  THEY
WERE TAUGHT THAT THE TENURE OF THEIR PREEMPTIONS AND APPROPRIATIONS WAS
PRECARIOUS WHEN, IN 1858, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
INTERVENED IN PRIVATE LITIGATION TO CONTEND IN FEDERAL COURT THAT THE
LAND IN DISPUTE WAS PUBLIC, AND ASSERTED GENERALLY A RIGHT TO RESTRAIN
ALL MINING OPERATIONS UPON PUBLIC LAND.  HIS INTERVENTION WAS
SUCCESSFUL, AN INJUNCTION FORBADE WORKING THE MINE IN QUESTION, AND A
WRIT ISSUED UNDER THE HAND OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN DIRECTING MILITARY
AUTHORITIES TO REMOVE THE MINERS.  UNITED STATES V. PARROTT, 1 MCALL. 
(C.C.)  271. 

DEMANDS OF MINING AND WATER INTERESTS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
RELIEVE THEIR UNCERTAIN STATUS WERE LOUD, BUT WENT UNHEEDED AMIDST THE
PROBLEMS THAT CAME WITH CIVIL WAR.  BUT AFTER THE WAR CLOSED, THE ISSUE
WAS AGAIN PRECIPITATED BY A BILL INTRODUCED AT THE REQUEST OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO HAVE THE UNITED STATES WITHDRAW ALL MINES
FROM THE MINERS, APPRAISE AND SELL THEM, RESERVING A ROYALTY AFTER
SALE.  THIS THE SECRETARY BELIEVED WOULD YIELD A LARGE REVENUE AND THE
PUBLIC LANDS WOULD HELP PAY THE PUBLIC WAR DEBT.  HOWEVER, THE PRIVATE
INTERESTS PREVAILED.  THE ACT OF JULY 26, 1866, 14 STAT. 251, R.S. SEC.
2339, DECLARED THE MINING LANDS FREE AND OPEN TO PREEMPTION AND
INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING: 

"THAT WHENEVER, BY PRIORITY OF POSSESSION, RIGHTS TO THE USE OF WATER
FOR MINING, AGRICULTURAL, MANUFACTURING, OR OTHER PURPOSES, HAVE VESTED
AND ACCRUED, AND THE SAME ARE RECOGNIZED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE LOCAL
CUSTOMS, LAWS, AND THE DECISIONS OF COURTS, THE POSSESSORS AND OWNERS
OF SUCH VESTED RIGHTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED IN THE SAME;
AND THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DITCHES AND CANALS FOR THE
PURPOSES AFORESAID IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED AND CONFIRMED:  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT WHENEVER, AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT, ANY PERSON OR
PERSONS SHALL, IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY DITCH OR CANAL, INJURE OR
DAMAGE THE POSSESSION OF ANY SETTLER ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, THE PARTY
COMMITTING SUCH INJURY OR DAMAGE SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED
FOR SUCH INJURY OR DAMAGE."  14 STAT. 251, 253, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 661. 

THIS SECTION WAS EXPOUNDED BY MR. JUSTICE FIELD IN JENNISON V. KIRK,
98 U.S. 453, AS FORECLOSING FURTHER PROPRIETARY OBJECTION BY THE UNITED
STATES TO APPROPRIATIONS WHICH RESTED UPON LOCAL CUSTOM.  THIS COURT
REGARDED THE ACT AS "AN UNEQUIVOCAL GRANT" FOR EXISTING DIVERSIONS OF
WATER ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.  BRODER V. WATER CO., 101 U.S. 274.  THUS
CONGRESS MADE GOOD APPROPRIATIONS IN BEING AS AGAINST A LATER PATENT TO
RIPARIAN PARCELS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, AND REMOVED THE CLOUD CAST BY
ADVERSE FEDERAL CLAIMS. 

WHILE THIS WAS BEING ACCOMPLISHED, CHANGED CONDITIONS BROUGHT NEW
ADVERSARIES TO CONTEND AGAINST THE APPROPRIATORS.  THE HOMESTEAD ACT OF
1862 HAD OPENED AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO PREEMPTION AND SET UP A METHOD OF
ACQUIRING FORMAL TITLE.  12 STAT. 392.  FARMS AND RANCHES APPEARED
ALONG THE STREAMS AND WANTED THE PROTECTION THAT THE COMMON LAW WOULD
GIVE TO THEIR NATURAL FLOW.  THE ACT OF 1866, AS WE HAVE NOTED, MADE
APPROPRIATORS LIABLE FOR DAMAGE TO SETTLERS WITH WHOSE POSSESSION THEY
INTERFERED.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA DECIDED THAT A RIPARIAN
OWNER CAME INTO CERTAIN RIGHTS WHICH HE COULD ASSERT AGAINST A
SUBSEQUENT APPROPRIATOR OF THE WATERS OF THE STREAM, EVEN THOUGH HE
COULD NOT AS AGAINST A PRIOR APPROPRIATION.  CRANDALL V. WOODS, 8 CAL.
136. 

IN 1886 CAME THE DECISIVE BATTLE OF LUX V. HAGGIN, 69 CAL. 255, 10 P.
674.  HAGGIN ORGANIZED AN IRRIGATION COMPANY AND CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO
APPROPRIATE THE ENTIRE FLOW OF THE KERN RIVER FOR IRRIGATION AND TO
DESTROY ANY BENEFITS FOR RIPARIAN OWNERS DOWNSTREAM.  THE COURT HELD
THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS STILL PREVAILED IN CALIFORNIA,
THAT SUCH RIGHT ATTACHED TO RIPARIAN LAND AS SOON AS IT BECAME PRIVATE
PROPERTY AND, WHILE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS MADE PRIOR TO THAT TIME,
IT IS FREE FROM ALL HOSTILE APPROPRIATIONS THEREAFTER.  THUS CALIFORNIA
SET ITSELF APART BY ITS EFFORT TO RECONCILE THE SYSTEM OF RIPARIAN
RIGHTS WITH THE SYSTEM OF APPROPRIATION, WHEREAS OTHER ARID STATES
REJECTED THE DOCTRINE OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS FORTH-RIGHTLY AND COMPLETELY. 

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY INDUCTED NEW PARTIES INTO THE OLD STRUGGLE. 
GIGANTIC ELECTRIC POWER AND IRRIGATION PROJECTS SUCCEEDED SMALLER
OPERATIONS, AND MUNICIPALITIES SOUGHT TO BY-PASS INTERVENING
AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND GO INTO THE MOUNTAINS TO APPROPRIATE THE STREAMS
FOR CITY SUPPLY.  INCREASING DEPENDENCE OF ALL BRANCHES OF THE STATE'S
ECONOMY, BOTH RURAL AND URBAN, UPON WATER CENTERED ATTENTION UPON ITS
CONSERVATION AND MAXIMUM UTILIZATION. 

THIS OBJECTIVE SEEMED FRUSTRATED BY THE RIPARIAN-RIGHTS DOCTRINE
WHEN, IN 1926, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECIDED HERMINGHAUS V.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO., 200 CAL. 81, 252 P. 607, AND THIS
COURT, AFTER ARGUMENT, DISMISSED CERTIORARI FOR WANT OF A FEDERAL
QUESTION, 275 U.S. 486(1927).  THAT CASE INVOLVED JUST SUCH QUESTIONS
AS WE HAVE HERE.  SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON PROJECTED A LARGE STORAGE
OF SAN JOAQUIN WATERS IN THE MOUNTAINS PRIMARILY FOR POWER GENERATION. 
PLAINTIFFS' RANCH, LIKE LANDS OF CLAIMANTS, HAD ALWAYS BEEN NATURALLY
IRRIGATED BY OVERFLOW AND THUS NATURALLY WAS PRODUCTIVE PROPERTY. 
APPROPRIATION BY THE POWER COMPANY THREATENED TO IMPAIR THIS OVERFLOW
AND DESTROY THE VALUE OF THE RANCH.  THE COMPANY WAS UNWILLING TO
COMPENSATE THE DAMAGE.  THE COURT HELD THAT COMMON LAW OF RIPARIAN
RIGHTS MUST PREVAIL AGAINST THE PROPOSED UTILIZATION AND,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE ECONOMIC WASTE INVOLVED IN PLAINTIFFS' BENEFIT,
ENJOINED THE POWER PROJECT. 

THIS RULING PRECIPITATED A MOVEMENT FOR AMENDMENT OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION AND THUS BROUGHT TO A FOCUS A CONTEST THAT HAD GROWN IN
BITTERNESS AND INTENSITY THROUGHOUT THE ARID REGIONS AS BOTH
POPULATIONS AND PROPERTY VALUES MOUNTED.  THE DOCTRINE OF RIPARIAN
RIGHTS WAS CHARACTERIZED AS SOCIALISTIC.  WIEL, THEORIES OF WATER LAW,
27 HARV. L. REV. 530(1914).  THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAID THE LAW OF
APPROPRIATION WOULD RESULT IN MONOPOLY.  LUX V. HAGGIN, SUPRA, AT 309
10 P. AT 703.  IF THE UNECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF UNLIMITED RIPARIANISM
WERE REVEALED BY COURT DECISIONS, SO THE EFFECTS OF UNRESTRAINED
APPROPRIATION BECAME APPARENT WHERE THE FLOW OF RIVERS BECAME
COMPLETELY APPROPRIATED, LEAVING NO WATER FOR NEWCOMERS OR NEW
INDUSTRY.  FN19 

A JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE GAVE EXTENDED STUDY
TO THE WATER PROBLEMS OF THAT STATE AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF MANY
REMEDIES.  AMONG OTHER PROPOSALS, ONE RELEVANT TO OUR QUESTION WAS TO
REVOKE OR NULLIFY ALL COMMON-LAW PROTECTION TO RIPARIAN RIGHTS AND DO
IT RETROACTIVELY AS OF THE YEAR 1850.  FN20  THE COMMITTEE REJECTED ALL
DISPOSSESSION PROPOSALS AS CONFISCATORY.  IT REPORTED AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CONSTITUTION WHICH ATTEMPTED TO SERVE THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE
STATE BY PRESERVING AND LIMITING BOTH RIPARIAN AND APPROPRIATIVE RIGHTS
WHILE CURBING EITHER FROM BEING EXERCISED UNREASONABLY OR WASTEFULLY. 
THE AMENDMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO AND ADOPTED BY THE ELECTORS IN NOVEMBER
1928 AND NOW CONSTITUTES CALIFORNIA'S BASIC WATER LAW, TO WHICH THE
FEDERAL RECLAMATION ACT DEFERS. 

WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THIS AMENDMENT WAS WITHOUT IMPACT UPON CLAIMS
TO WATER RIGHTS SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE, FOR, AS WE HAVE SEEN, IT WAS
PROVOKED BY THEIR ASSERTION.  NEITHER CAN WE ASSUME THAT ITS EFFECT IS
TO DEPRIVE RIPARIAN OWNERS OF BENEFITS IT DECLARES TO CONTINUE OR
UNINTENTIONALLY TO STRIKE DOWN VALUES THERE WAS A STUDIED PURPOSE TO
PRESERVE.  WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH WHETHER IT CONTINUED IN CLAIMANTS
SUCH A RIGHT AS TO BE COMPENSABLE IF TAKEN.  BUT WHAT IT TOOK AWAY IS
SOME MEASURE OF WHAT IT LEFT. 

RIPARIANISM, PRESSED TO THE LIMITS OF ITS LOGIC, ENABLED ONE TO PLAY
DOG-IN-THE-MANGER.  THE SHORE PROPRIETOR COULD ENFORCE BY INJUNCTION
HIS BARE TECHNICAL RIGHT TO HAVE THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE STREAM, EVEN
IF HE WAS GETTING NO SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT FROM IT.  THIS CANINE ELEMENT
IN THE DOCTRINE IS ABOLISHED.  "THE RIGHT TO WATER OR TO THE USE OR
FLOW OF WATER IN OR FROM ANY NATURAL STREAM OR WATER COURSE IN THIS
STATE IS AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO SUCH WATER AS SHALL BE REASONABLY
REQUIRED FOR THE BENEFICIAL USE TO BE SERVED,  ...  "  THIS LIMITATION
IS NOT TRANSGRESSED BY THE AWARDS IN QUESTION WHICH ONLY COMPENSATE FOR
THE LOSS OF ACTUAL BENEFICIAL USE.  ANY HAZARD TO CLAIMANTS' RIGHTS
LURKS IN THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE:  "AND SUCH RIGHT DOES NOT AND SHALL NOT
EXTEND TO THE WASTE OR UNREASONABLE USE OR UNREASONABLE METHOD OF USE
OR UNREASONABLE METHOD OF DIVERSION OF WATER."  SINCE RIPARIAN RIGHTS
ATTACH TO, AND ONLY TO, SO MUCH OF THE FLOW OF THE SAN JOAQUIN AS MAY
BE PUT TO BENEFICIAL USE CONSISTENTLY WITH THIS CLAUSE, CLAIMANTS CAN
ENFORCE NO USE OF WASTEFUL OR UNREASONABLE CHARACTER. 

WE ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION THAT THE PRODIGAL USE,
INSEPARABLE FROM CLAIMANTS' BENEFITS, IS SUCH THAT THE RIGHTS HERE
ASSERTED MIGHT NOT BE ENFORCED BY INJUNCTION.  BUT WITHHOLDING
EQUITABLE REMEDIES, SUCH AS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, MANDATORY ORDERS OR
INJUNCTIONS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT NO RIGHT EXISTS.  THERE MAY STILL BE A
RIGHT INVASION OF WHICH WOULD CALL FOR INDEMNIFICATION.  IN FACT,
ADEQUACY OF THE LATTER REMEDY IS USUALLY GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF THE
FORMER. 

BUT THE PUBLIC WELFARE, WHICH REQUIRES CLAIMANTS TO SACRIFICE THEIR
BENEFITS TO BROADER ONES FROM A HIGHER UTILIZATION, DOES NOT
NECESSARILY REQUIRE THAT THEIR LOSS BE UNCOMPENSATED ANY MORE THAN IN
OTHER TAKINGS WHERE PRIVATE RIGHTS ARE SURRENDERED IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  THE WATERS OF WHICH CLAIMANTS ARE DEPRIVED ARE TAKEN FOR
RESALE LARGELY TO OTHER PRIVATE LAND OWNERS NOT RIPARIAN TO THE RIVER
AND TO SOME LOCATED IN A DIFFERENT WATER SHED.  THEREBY PRIVATE LANDS
WILL BE MADE MORE FRUITFUL, MORE VALUABLE, AND THEIR OPERATION MORE
PROFITABLE.  THE RECLAMATION LAWS CONTEMPLATE THAT THOSE WHO SHARE
THESE ADVANTAGES SHALL, THROUGH WATER CHARGES, REIMBURSE THE GOVERNMENT
FOR ITS OUTLAY.  THIS PROJECT ANTICIPATES RECOUPMENT OF ITS COST OVER A
FORTY-YEAR PERIOD.  FN21  NO REASON APPEARS WHY THOSE WHO GET THE
WATERS SHOULD BE SPARED FROM MAKING WHOLE THOSE FROM WHOM THEY ARE
TAKEN.  PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES APPROPRIATION; IT DOES NOT REQUIRE
EXPROPRIATION.  WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT BY THE AMENDMENT CALIFORNIA
UNINTENTIONALLY DESTROYED AND CONFISCATED A RECOGNIZED AND ADJUDICATED
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT, OR THAT IT REMAINS COMPENSABLE ALTHOUGH NO
LONGER ENFORCIBLE BY INJUNCTION.  THE RIGHT OF CLAIMANTS AT LEAST TO
COMPENSATION PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT WAS ENTIRELY CLEAR.  INSOFAR AS ANY
CALIFORNIA COURT HAS PASSED ON THE EXACT QUESTION, THE RIGHT APPEARS TO
SURVIVE.  FN22  FIVE YEARS AFTER THE AMENDMENT, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA FN23  SPECIFICALLY SUSTAINED IDENTICAL RIGHTS.  THE MADERA
IRRIGATION DISTRICT HAD BEEN ORGANIZED TO BUILD A DAM AT THE FRIANT
SITE AND TO DIVERT SAN JOAQUIN WATERS TO IRRIGATE ABOUT 170,000 ACRES. 
IT WAS SUED BY MILLER & LUX, INC., AND TWO OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AND
DECREES IN THEIR FAVOR WERE ENTERED IN 1933.  IN GENERAL, THE COURT
SUSTAINED THE MILLER & LUX RIPARIAN RIGHTS TO THE ANNUAL OVERFLOW OF
UNCONTROLLED GRASS LANDS, SOME OF WHICH NOW BELONG TO CLAIMANTS.  IT
ADJUDGED THE PROPOSED APPROPRIATION INVALID AND INEFFECTIVE AS AGAINST
THOSE RIGHTS.  IN JULY OF 1940 THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED ALL OF
MADERA'S RIGHTS, INCLUDING PENDING APPLICATIONS TO APPROPRIATE SAN
JOAQUIN WATER UNDER STATE LAW.  THESE JUDGMENTS HAD BECOME FINAL AND
WERE OUTSTANDING ADJUDICATIONS OF THE ISSUES HERE INVOLVED AGAINST A
GRANTOR OF THE UNITED STATES.  WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM THAT THE
1933 JUDGMENTS MAY BE RES JUDICATA, THEY ARE AT LEAST PERSUASIVE THAT
CLAIMANTS' RIGHTS TO THE BENEFIT HAD, IN THE OPINION OF CALIFORNIA
COURTS, SURVIVED THE AMENDMENT AND MUST BE RETIRED BY CONDEMNATION OR
ACQUISITION BEFORE THE FRIANT DIVERSION COULD BE VALID.    THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAS GIVEN NO ANSWER TO THIS SPECIFIC PROBLEM.  BUT
IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PRECEDENTS AND ITS CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS OF
COLLATERAL ISSUES, ESPECIALLY IN PEABODY V. VALLEJO, 2 CAL.2D 351, 40
P.2D 486; LODI V. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, 7 CAL.2D 316, 60
P.2D 439; HILLSIDE WATER CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 10 CAL.2D 677, 76 P.2D
681; GIN S. CHOW V. SANTA BARBARA, 217 CAL. 673, 22 P.2D 5; MERIDIAN,
LTD. V. SAN FRANCISCO, 13 CAL.2D 424, 90 P.2D 537; LOS ANGELES V.
GLENDALE, 23 CAL.2D 68, 142 P.2D 289, WE CONCLUDE THAT CLAIMANTS' RIGHT
TO COMPENSATION HAS A SOUND BASIS IN CALIFORNIA LAW.  THE RECLAMATION
AUTHORITIES WERE APPARENTLY OF THAT VIEW AS THE MILLER & LUX CONTRACT
WOULD INDICATE. 

WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE RIGHT TO INUNDATION ASSERTED HERE IS UNIQUE IN
THE HISTORY OF RIPARIAN CLAIMS.  WHERE THE THIRST OF THE LAND IS
SUPPLIED BY RAINFALL, FLOODS ARE DETRIMENTS IF NOT DISASTERS, AND TO
ABATE OVERFLOWS COULD RARELY IF EVER CAUSE DAMAGE.  BUT, AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, UNCOMMON LOCAL CONDITIONS HAVE GIVEN RISE TO THE SINGULAR
RULE OF CALIFORNIA.  THE SAME SCARCITY WHICH MAKES IT ADVANTAGEOUS TO
TAKE THESE WATERS GIVES THEM VALUE IN THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
IN WHICH THE CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED A PRIVATE RIGHT TO HAVE
NO INTERCEPTION OF THEIR FLOW EXCEPT UPON COMPENSATION. 

WE THINK THE AWARDS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE LAW
OF CALIFORNIA AS MADE APPLICABLE TO THESE CLAIMS BY CONGRESS. 

                         III.  OTHER ISSUES. 

THE GOVERNMENT ALSO ASSIGNS AS ERROR DETERMINATION OF THE DATE FROM
WHICH INTEREST IS TO BE ALLOWED.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS ADOPTED AS THE
DATE OF TAKING THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL IMPOUNDMENT OF WATER WHICH
OCCURRED ON OCTOBER 20, 1941, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD NOT THEN PREVENTED
BENEFITS FROM REACHING THE PROPERTY.  THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND MILLER & LUX CONTEMPLATED THIS AS THE DATE OF TAKING,
FOR IT PUTS THE $511,350 IN ESCROW TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST
SUITS "INITIATED PRIOR TO THE SIXTH ANNIVERSARY AFTER THE INITIAL
STORAGE OR DIVERSION."  SINCE THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF HAS ADOPTED THIS
DATE FOR THE EXPIRATION OF ITS PROTECTION BY CONTRACT, WE SEE NO REASON
WHY IT SHOULD CHALLENGE THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR USE OF THE SAME DATE
FOR ACCRUAL OF THE CLAIMS.  REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN
FIXED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, WE
DECLINE TO SET ASIDE THE FINDING ON THIS SUBJECT. 

SECOND, THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT THE COURT BELOW MISCONSTRUED
RESERVATIONS IN THE DEEDS BETWEEN THE THREE CLAIMANTS AND MILLER &
LUX.  IT IS NOT APPARENT FROM THE FACTS WE HAVE RECITED THAT THE
GOVERNMENT IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AS TO THIS QUESTION, WHICH
SEEMS TO BE IN THE NATURE OF A PRIVATE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CLAIMANTS
AND MILLER & LUX.  IN ANY EVENT, IT PRESENTS A QUESTION OF CONVEYANCING
AND REAL PROPERTY LAW PECULIAR TO THIS ONE CASE, AND DEPENDING ON LOCAL
LAW.  IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST, NOR IS THERE ANY
MANIFEST ERROR, AND WE ACCEPT, WITHOUT REVIEW, THE FINDING OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS THEREON. 

FINALLY, THE GOVERNMENT PROTESTS THAT THE COURT BELOW FAILED
ADEQUATELY TO DESCRIBE THE RIGHTS TAKEN FOR WHICH IT HAS MADE AN
AWARD.  WE THINK IN VIEW OF THE SIMPLE NATURE OF THE CLAIMS, THE
EXHAUSTIVE CHARACTER OF THE FINDINGS AND THE UNDERSTANDING THE
GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE ACQUIRED IN SEVEN YEARS OF THE LITIGATIONS, THERE
IS LITTLE PROSPECT THAT IT WILL BE GRIEVOUSLY MISLED BY DEFICIENCIES,
IF ANY, THAT MAY EXIST IN THE DESCRIPTION. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CLAIMANTS' RIGHTS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN PRIOR APPROPRIATIVE AND
OTHER RIGHTS WHICH DO NOT AFFECT THE ISSUES BEFORE US. 

FN2  "(THE) ENTIRE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA, HERETOFORE
AUTHORIZED AND ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE EMERGENCY RELIEF
APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1935(49 STAT. 115) AND THE FIRST DEFICIENCY
APPROPRIATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1936(49 STAT. 1622), IS HEREBY
REAUTHORIZED  ...  "  THE LATTER REFERENCE IS TO A $6,900,000
APPROPRIATION PRIMARILY FOR "FRIANT RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES
THEREFROM," AS A RECLAMATION PROJECT "REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE
RECLAMATION LAW."  49 STAT. 1597, 1622. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER RESOURCES OF CENTRAL VALLEY WAS INITIATED BY
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  CAL. STAT. (1933) 2643.  STUDIES WERE MADE OF
THE FEASIBILITY OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION, AND ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO
ACCOMPANYING APPROPRIATION, THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT WAS CONTAINED IN THE ACT OF AUG. 30, 1935,
49 STAT. 1028, 1038.  IN THIS ACT, ON THE REPRESENTATION OF THE CHIEF
OF ENGINEERS THAT, AS TO THE FRIANT DAM PHASE, "NO BENEFITS WOULD
ACCRUE TO NAVIGATION FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT," (HOUSE DOC. NO. 191, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS. 3; AND SEE COMM. ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, H.R., DOC. NO.
35) CONGRESS LIMITED ITS APPROVAL OF FEDERAL PARTICIPATION TO PURELY
NAVIGATION WORKS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE VALLEY, AND AUTHORIZED A
FEDERAL EXPENDITURE OF $12,000,000 IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF KENNETT DAM
ON THE SACRAMENTO.  WHEN IT "REAUTHORIZED" THE ENTIRE PROJECT, CONGRESS
PROVIDED THAT, WHEN APPROPRIATED, THIS $12,000,000 SHOULD BE EXEMPT
FROM THE REIMBURSEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE RECLAMATION LAW.  ACT OF
AUG. 26, 1937, SEC. 2, 50 STAT. 844, 850. 

FN3  THE REFERENCE IS TO THE RECLAMATION ACT OF 1902, 32 STAT. 388,
AS AMENDED, 43 U.S.C. SECS. 371 ET SEQ. 

FN4  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, SEC. 4, 36 STAT. 835, 836, PROVIDES THAT
NO IRRIGATION PROJECT CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE RECLAMATION ACT "SHALL BE
BEGUN UNLESS AND UNTIL THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND APPROVED BY THE DIRECT ORDER OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  TO THIS WAS ADDED THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE SECRETARY "SHALL HAVE MADE A FINDING IN WRITING THAT IT IS
FEASIBLE, THAT IT IS ADAPTABLE FOR ACTUAL SETTLEMENT AND FARM HOMES,
AND THAT IT WILL PROBABLY RETURN THE COST THEREOF TO THE UNITED
STATES."  ACT OF DEC. 5, 1924, SEC. 4(B), 43 STAT. 672, 702. 

FN5  SEE N. 3, SUPRA. 

FN6  LETTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMAN TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
DATED AUGUST 15, 1949, S. DOC. NO. 113, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN7  THE RECLAMATION ACT OF 1902, 32 STAT. 388, AS AMENDED, 43 U.S.C.
SECS. 371 ET SEQ., TO WHICH CONGRESS ADVERTED, APPLIES ONLY TO THE
SEVENTEEN WESTERN STATES.  SECTION 8 PROVIDES: 

"THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AFFECTING OR INTENDED
TO AFFECT OR TO IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH THE LAWS OF ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY RELATING TO THE CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION
OF WATER USED IN IRRIGATION, OR ANY VESTED RIGHT ACQUIRED THEREUNDER,
AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS ACT, SHALL PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH SUCH LAWS, AND NOTHING
HEREIN SHALL IN ANY WAY AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF ANY STATE OR OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OR OF ANY LANDOWNER, APPROPRIATOR, OR USER OF WATER IN, TO,
OR FROM ANY INTERSTATE STREAM OR THE WATERS THEREOF:  ...  " 

TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS APPLICABLE THIS CLEARLY LEAVES IT TO THE
STATE TO SAY WHAT RIGHTS OF AN APPROPRIATOR OR RIPARIAN OWNER MAY
SUBSIST ALONG WITH ANY FEDERAL RIGHT. 

FN8  "PART OF THE WATER SUPPLY IS TO BE OBTAINED BY THE PURCHASE OF
WATER NOW USED FOR THE IRRIGATION OF PASTURE LANDS AND THIS WILL RESULT
IN THE RETIREMENT FROM USE OF 250,000 ACRES OF SUBMARGINAL LAND  ...  "
FEASIBILITY REPORT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ICKES TO PRESIDENT
ROOSEVELT, NOV. 26, 1935.  INCLUDED IN THE SECRETARY'S ESTIMATED COSTS
OF THE PROJECT WAS AN ITEM OF $8,000,000 FOR "RIGHTS OF WAY, WATER
RIGHTS AND GENERAL EXPENSE."  IBID.  IN THE ACT OF AUG. 26, 1937, THE
SECRETARY WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACQUIRE "BY PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT DOMAIN,
OR OTHERWISE, ALL LANDS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WATER RIGHTS, AND OTHER
PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSES: ...  "  50 STAT. 844, 850. 

FN9  IN ADMINISTERING THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION SUBMITTED APPROPRIATION REQUESTS REGULARLY FROM 1938
THROUGH 1949.  ON EACH OCCASION, EXCEPTING FISCAL YEAR 1945, CONGRESS
WAS ADVISED THAT SAN JOAQUIN WATER RIGHTS WERE BEING PURCHASED, AND
EVERY APPROPRIATION REQUEST BUT THREE (FISCAL YEARS 1941, 1945, AND
1946) INCLUDED AN ITEM FOR SUCH WATER RIGHTS.  HEARINGS, SUBCOMM.  OF
THE HOUSE COMM. ON APPROPRIATIONS, INTERIOR DEPT., 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 281, 282(EXCEPT AS NOTED, ALL FOLLOWING REFERENCES ARE TO
HEARINGS BEFORE THIS SUBCOMMITTEE), AND SEE H.R. REP. NO. 786, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 14; HEARINGS, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 349, AND SEE H.R.
REP. NO. 1855, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 14; HEARINGS, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
421, 422, AND SEE H.R. REP. NO. 161, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 16;
HEARINGS, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. 495, AND SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1709, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS. 14; HEARINGS, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 741; HEARINGS, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 434-439; HEARINGS, PT. 1, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1174;
HEARINGS, PT. 1, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1200; HEARINGS, PT. 2, 79TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 315-317; HEARINGS, PT. 3, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 749
752; HEARINGS, PT. 3, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 1214, 1279-1280, AND SEE
HEARINGS, SUBCOMM.  OF THE SENATE COMM. ON APPROPRIATIONS, INTERIOR
DEPT., 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 921-924; 50 STAT. 564, 597; 52 STAT. 291,
324; 53 STAT. 685, 719; 55 STAT. 303, 336; 56 STAT. 506, 536; 57 STAT.
451, 476; 60 STAT. 348, 367; 61 STAT. 460, 475; 62 STAT. 1112, 1129. 

FN10  SEE FEASIBILITY REPORT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ICKES TO
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT, NOV. 26, 1935, RECOMMENDING "THE APPROVAL OF THE
CENTRAL VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AS A FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECT," AND
POINTING OUT THAT THE AREA IS SERVED BY EXCELLENT TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES, THAT MUCH OF ITS PRODUCE IS SHIPPED TO EASTERN MARKETS, AND
THAT IF DECREASING PRODUCTIVITY AS A RESULT OF ACUTE SHORTAGE OF WATER
FOR IRRIGATION NEEDS WERE TO CONTINUE, "A SHARE OF THE LOSS WILL BE
SUFFERED BY PERSONS NOT RESIDING IN THE AREAS DIRECTLY AFFECTED." 

FN11  THIS APPROACH MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANCY OF
UNITED STATES V. HOTEL CO., 329 U.S. 585; UNITED STATES V. GOLTRA, 312
U.S. 203; TILLSON V. UNITED STATES, 100 U.S. 43, ON THE QUESTION OF
CLAIMANTS' RIGHT TO INTEREST.  UNLESS WE CHOOSE TO DISTURB THESE CASES
WE COULD NOT LIMIT OURSELVES TO SAYING THAT BY INVOCATION OF THE
RECLAMATION ACT OF 1902 CONGRESS SIMPLY ASSUMED LIABILITY FOR
CLAIMANTS' WATER RIGHTS. 

FN12  SEE N. 8, SUPRA. 

FN13  SEE N. 9, SUPRA. 

FN14  "IN CONDUCTING IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS AND CONSTRUCTING AND
OPERATING PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE WEST, THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FULLY
RECOGNIZES AND RESPECTS EXISTING WATER RIGHTS ESTABLISHED UNDER STATE
LAW.  NOT ONLY IS THIS A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF THE RECLAMATION ACT
UNDER WHICH THE BUREAU OPERATES, BUT SUCH A COURSE IS THE ONLY FAIR AND
JUST METHOD OF PROCEDURE.  THIS BASIN REPORT ON THE CENTRAL VALLEY IS
PREDICATED ON SUCH A POLICY."  REPORT OF REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION II,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEC. 1, 1947, APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, JULY 29, 1948, S. DOC. NO. 113, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 39. 

FN15  AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION AND THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION II, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, REPLIED TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA: 

"THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DOES RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT EXISTING WATER
RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN INITIATED AND PERFECTED OR WHICH ARE IN THE
STATE OF BEING PERFECTED UNDER STATE LAWS.  THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO DO SO BY SECTION 8 OF THE RECLAMATION ACT OF 1902
EVER SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE RECLAMATION PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION.  THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HAS NEVER PROPOSED
MODIFICATION OF THAT REQUIREMENT OF FEDERAL LAW; AND ON THE CONTRARY,
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HAVE
CONSISTENTLY, THROUGH THE 42 YEARS SINCE THE 1902 ACT, BEEN ZEALOUS IN
MAINTAINING COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 8 OF THE 1902 ACT.  THEY ARE PROUD
OF THE HISTORIC FACT THAT THE RECLAMATION PROGRAM INCLUDES AS ONE OF
ITS BASIC TENETS THAT THE IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT IN THE WEST BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL RECLAMATION LAWS IS CARRIED
FORWARD IN CONFORMITY WITH STATE WATER LAWS.  AMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF
THE EFFECT OF THIS LAW AND POLICY OF ADMINISTRATION, IN ACTION, HAS
BEEN GIVEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT.  WATER
FILINGS MADE BY THE STATE HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY THE BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION BY ASSIGNMENT, AND VESTED WATER RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED
BY THE UNITED STATES BY PURCHASE, THE CONSIDERATIONS AMOUNTING TO
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND BEING AGREEABLE TO THE VENDORS - ALL IN
CONFORMITY WITH STATE LAWS.  FURTHER, OTHER WATER RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS
WHICH WILL OR MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE OPERATIONS OF THE PROJECT ARE
BEING ANALYZED AND APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS, GIVING FULL RECOGNITION OF
THE RIGHTS OF THE LANDOWNERS, ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING WORKED OUT." 

FN16  THAT AMENDMENT ADDED ART. XIV, SEC. 3 OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN
THIS STATE THE GENERAL WELFARE REQUIRES THAT THE WATER RESOURCES OF THE
STATE BE PUT TO BENEFICIAL USE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF WHICH THEY ARE
CAPABLE, AND THAT THE WASTE OR UNREASONABLE USE OR UNREASONABLE METHOD
OF USE OF WATER BE PREVENTED, AND THAT THE CONSERVATION OF SUCH WATERS
IS TO BE EXERCISED WITH A VIEW TO THE REASONABLE AND BENEFICIAL USE
THEREOF IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  THE
RIGHT TO WATER OR TO THE USE OR FLOW OF WATER IN OR FROM ANY NATURAL
STREAM OR WATER COURSE IN THIS STATE IS AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO SUCH
WATER AS SHALL BE REASONABLY REQUIRED FOR THE BENEFICIAL USE TO BE
SERVED, AND SUCH RIGHT DOES NOT AND SHALL NOT EXTEND TO THE WASTE OR
UNREASONABLE USE OR UNREASONABLE METHOD OF USE OR UNREASONABLE METHOD
OF DIVERSION OF WATER.  RIPARIAN RIGHTS IN A STREAM OR WATER COURSE
ATTACH TO, BUT TO NO MORE THAN SO MUCH OF THE FLOW THEREOF AS MAY BE
REQUIRED OR USED CONSISTENTLY WITH THIS SECTION, FOR THE PURPOSES FOR
WHICH SUCH LANDS ARE, OR MAY BE MADE ADAPTABLE, IN VIEW OF SUCH
REASONABLE AND BENEFICIAL USES; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS DEPRIVING ANY RIPARIAN OWNER OF THE
REASONABLE USE OF WATER OF THE STREAM TO WHICH HIS LAND IS RIPARIAN
UNDER REASONABLE METHODS OF DIVERSION AND USE, OR OF DEPRIVING ANY
APPROPRIATOR OF WATER TO WHICH HE IS LAWFULLY ENTITLED.  THIS SECTION
SHALL BE SELF-EXECUTING, AND THE LEGISLATURE MAY ALSO ENACT LAWS IN THE
FURTHERANCE OF THE POLICY IN THIS SECTION CONTAINED." 

FN17  THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF BOTH RIPARIAN AND APPROPRIATIVE
RIGHTS, THE RELEVANT LOCAL HISTORY AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
ACT OF 1866 ARE COMPREHENSIBLY SET FORTH IN 1 WIEL, WATER RIGHTS IN THE
WESTERN STATES SECS. 66 TO 264(3D ED., 1911), AND IN THE FOLLOWING
ARTICLES BY THE SAME AUTHOR:  PUBLIC POLICY IN WATER DECISIONS, 1
CALIF. L. REV. 11; COMPARATIVE WATER LAW, 6 CALIF. L. REV. 245, 342;
POLITICAL WATER RIGHTS, 10 CALIF. L. REV. 111; THEORIES OF WATER LAW,
27 HARV. L. REV. 530.  SEE ALSO POMEROY ON WATER RIGHTS, CC. 2,
3(1893); 3 FARNHAM, WATERS AND WATER RIGHTS, C. 22; TOELLE, PROSPECTIVE
EFFECT ON WESTERN WATER LAW OF PROPOSED FEDERAL MISSOURI VALLEY AND
COLUMBIA VALLEY AUTHORITIES, 20 TEMPLE L.Q. 425; WALTON, ORIGIN AND
GROWTH OF WESTERN IRRIGATION LAW, 21 ILL. L. REV. 126; BANNISTER,
FEDERAL DISPOSITION OF WATERS IN THE PRIORITY STATES, 28 HARV. L. REV.
270; LASKY, FROM PRIOR APPROPRIATION TO ECONOMIC DISTRIBUTION OF WATER
BY THE STATE - VIA IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, 1 ROCKY MT. L. REV. 161. 

FN18  CIVIL PRACTICE ACT OF APRIL 29, 1851, SEC. 621.  IN SUBSTANCE
NOW SEC. 748, CODE CIVIL PROCEDURE. 

FN19  COURT OPINIONS INDICATE THAT ALL THE WATERS OF THE SOUTH PLATTE
RIVER HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED AND THE ENTIRE NORMAL FLOW OF THE RIVER IS
INADEQUATE TO SUPPLY THE PRIORITIES FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES ALREADY
DECREED FROM IT.  COMSTOCK V. RAMSEY, 55 COLO. 244, 133 P. 1107.  THE
ENTIRE BOISE RIVER IN IDAHO HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED.  UNITED STATES V.
BURLEY, 172 F. 615.  MANY COLORADO STREAMS ARE ALREADY
OVERAPPROPRIATED.  HUMPHREYS T. CO. V. FRANK, 46 COLO. 524, 105 P.
1093.  SEE WIEL, THEORIES OF WATER LAW, 27 HARV. L. REV. 530. 

FN20  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE AMENDMENT IS SET FORTH IN WIEL,
THE PENDING WATER AMENDMENT, 16 CALIF. L. REV. 169 AND 257, AND SEE
WIEL, EUROPEANIZING THE STATE CONSTITUTION - THE WATER AND POWER
AMENDMENT, 12 CALIF. L. REV. 454; NOTE, 1 STANFORD L. REV. 172. 

FN21  THE FEASIBILITY REPORT OF SECRETARY ICKES, SUPRA, N. 8,
REFERRING TO FRIANT DAM, FRIANT-KERN CANAL AND MADERA CANAL, AMONG
OTHERS INCLUDED, SAYS, "THE NEXT DECLARATION REQUIRED IS THAT THE COST
OF CONSTRUCTION WILL PROBABLY BE RETURNED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
THIS IS INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT IT WILL BE RETURNED WITHIN FORTY YEARS
FROM THE TIME THE SECRETARY ISSUES PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WATER IS
AVAILABLE FROM THE PROJECT WORKS.  THE ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION
IS $170,000,000 AND THE ANNUAL COST, INCLUDING REPAYMENT OF ALL OTHER
CHARGES IS $7,500,000.  IT IS ESTIMATED THAT ANNUAL REVENUES FROM THE
SALE OF WATER AND OF ELECTRIC POWER WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THESE
CHARGES.  THE FAVORABLE CONDITIONS HERETOFORE RECITED JUSTIFY THE
BELIEF THAT THE PROJECT WILL RETURN ITS COST." 

FN22  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
RENDERED A DECISION ON APRIL 12, 1950, IN RANK V. KRUG, 90 F.SUPP. 
773, CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEWS WE TAKE OF THE ISSUES HERE INVOLVED. 

FN23  SACRAMENTO & SAN JOAQUIN DRAINAGE DISTRICT CO. V. SUPERIOR
COURT, 196 CAL. 414, 432, 238 P. 687, 694.  THIS IS NOT A LOCAL COURT
BUT A PART OF A SYSTEM OF STATE COURTS.  IT SEEMS TO FALL WITHIN THE
RULE OF FIDELITY TRUST CO. V. FIELD, 311 U.S. 169, AS A COURT WHOSE
DECREES ARE REGARDED AS DETERMINATION OF STATE LAW RATHER THAN WITHIN
THE RULE OF KING V. ORDER OF TRAVELERS, 333 U.S. 153. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT AND OPINION EXCEPT THAT HE
AGREES WITH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS THAT INTEREST SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. 

I THINK IT IS CLEAR UNDER OUR DECISIONS THAT RESPONDENTS ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  FOR WE
HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THERE ARE NO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE
WATERS OF A NAVIGABLE RIVER.  SEE UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER
CO., 311 U.S. 377, 424; UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK, 324 U.S. 386,
390-391; UNITED STATES V. WILLOW RIVER CO., 324 U.S. 499, 510.  THAT IS
TRUE WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF RIPARIAN OWNERS OR THE RIGHTS OF
APPROPRIATORS ARE INVOLVED.  SEE GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 166 U.S. 269;
UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690.  AS THE
APPALACHIAN POWER CASE MAKES PLAIN (311 U.S. 424, 427), THE EXISTENCE
OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE WATERS OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM ARE NOT
DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER THE UNITED STATES IS CHANGING THE FLOW OF THE
RIVER IN AID OF NAVIGATION OR FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE. 

NOR CAN RESPONDENTS' RIGHTS TO RECOVER BE FOUNDED ON THE ACTS WHICH
APPROPRIATED MONEY FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT.  THEY CREATED NO
INDEPENDENT RIGHT IN ANY CLAIMANT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THAT IS
THE TEACHING OF JUSTICE BRANDEIS' OPINION FOR THE COURT IN MITCHELL V.
UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 341, 345-46.  THE APPROPRIATION IN THAT CASE
WAS FOR, INTER ALIA, "LOSSES TO PERSONS, FIRMS, AND CORPORATIONS,
RESULTING FROM THE PROCUREMENT OF THE LAND."  IN DENYING A CLAIM FOR
THE LOSS OF A BUSINESS RESULTING FROM A TAKING OF LAND, THE COURT
SAID: 

"BY INCLUDING IN THE APPROPRIATION CLAUSE THE WORDS 'LOSSES TO
PERSONS, FIRMS, AND CORPORATIONS, RESULTING FROM THE PROCUREMENT OF THE
LAND FOR THIS PURPOSE,' CONGRESS DOUBTLESS AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF
WAR TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION LOSSES DUE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
BUSINESS, WHERE HE PURCHASED LAND UPON AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS.  BUT
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AGREEMENT, THE PLAINTIFFS
CAN COMPEL PAYMENT FOR SUCH LOSSES.  TO RECOVER, THEY MUST SHOW SOME
STATUTORY RIGHT CONFERRED." 

THE SAME IS TRUE IN THIS CASE.  FOR EXAMPLE, SEC. 2 OF THE RIVERS AND
HARBORS ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1937, 50 STAT. 844, 850, PROVIDED THAT THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR "MAY ACQUIRE BY PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT
DOMAIN, OR OTHERWISE, ALL LANDS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WATER RIGHTS, AND OTHER
PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSES."  AUTHORITY TO PAY FOR WATER
RIGHTS IS, OF COURSE, NOT TO BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN AN ASSUMPTION OF
LIABILITY TO PAY. 

CONGRESS, TO BE SURE, HAS FULL POWER TO RELINQUISH ITS IMMUNITY FROM
SUIT FOR THE TAKING.  SEE FORD & SON V. LITTLE FALLS CO., 280 U.S. 369,
377; UNITED STATES V. REALTY CO., 163 U.S. 427, 440.  AND I THINK IT
HAS DONE SO - NOT BY THE ACTS APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT BUT
BY THE RECLAMATION ACT OF 1902.  32 STAT. 388, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 371 ET
SEQ. 

THE ACT APPLIES SOLELY TO THE 17 WESTERN STATES.  IT DEALS WITH
RECLAMATION PROJECTS, AS ITS TITLE INDICATES.  THE CENTRAL VALLEY
PROJECT IS SUCH A PROJECT. 

PURCHASE ANY RIGHTS NECESSARY TO THE CARRYING OUT OF THE ACT.  FN1

"THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AFFECTING OR INTENDED
TO AFFECT OR TO IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH THE LAWS OF ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY RELATING TO THE CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION
OF WATER USED IN IRRIGATION, OR ANY VESTED RIGHT ACQUIRED THEREUNDER,
AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS ACT, SHALL PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH SUCH LAWS, AND NOTHING
HEREIN SHALL IN ANY WAY AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF ANY STATE OR OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OR OF ANY LANDOWNER, APPROPRIATOR, OR USER OF WATER IN, TO,
OR FROM ANY INTERSTATE STREAM OR THE WATERS THEREOF:  PROVIDED, THAT
THE RIGHT TO THE USE OF WATER ACQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
SHALL BE APPURTENANT TO THE LAND IRRIGATED, AND BENEFICIAL USE SHALL BE
THE BASIS, THE MEASURE, AND THE LIMIT OF THE RIGHT." 

LAWS RELATING TO IRRIGATION, IN "ANY INTERSTATE STREAM OR THE WATERS
THEREOF."  WHEN SUCH RIGHTS WILL BE DESTROYED OR INTERFERED WITH BY A
PROPOSED RECLAMATION PROJECT, AUTHORITY IS FOUND TO ACQUIRE THEM UNDER
SEC. 7.  THE CUSTOMARY METHOD OF ACQUIRING THE WATER RIGHTS IS TO FILE
A NOTICE OF APPROPRIATION PURSUANT TO STATE LAW. 

PETITIONER SEEKS TO AVOID THE FORCE OF THESE SECTIONS BY ASSERTING
THAT THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO LANDS RIPARIAN TO NAVIGABLE STREAMS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT IS NOT PARTICULARLY INSTRUCTIVE. 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORTING THE BILL SAID THAT "SECTION 8 RECOGNIZES
STATE CONTROL OVER WATERS OF NONNAVIGABLE STREAMS SUCH AS ARE USED IN
IRRIGATION."  H.R. REP. NO. 1468, 57TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 6.  THERE
IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THAT THE FRAMERS THOUGHT THE SCOPE OF
THE BILL SO NARROW.  WHEN THE ACT WAS RECOMMENDED IN 1901, PRESIDENT
THEODORE ROOSEVELT WAS CAREFUL TO SUGGEST THAT THERE SHOULD BE
PROTECTION FOR "VESTED RIGHTS" AND RESPECT FOR STATE LAWS.  35 CONG.
REC. 6677, 6775-6776.  THERE ARE STATEMENTS TO THE SAME EFFECT BY
REPRESENTATIVE MONDELL, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE (35
CONG. REC. 6678-6679) AND BY SENATOR CLARK OF WYOMING (35 CONG. REC.
2222).  THE CLAUSE IN SEC. 8 ACCORDING PROTECTION TO "ANY VESTED RIGHT
ACQUIRED" UNDER STATE LAWS WAS ADDED TO THE BILL BY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.  35 CONG. REC. 6762. 

WHETHER SEC. 8 AUTHORIZES PAYMENT FOR WATER RIGHTS RIPARIAN TO
NAVIGABLE WATERS HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY DETERMINED BY THE
COURTS.  FN2  THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED, HOWEVER, THAT ADMINISTRATION
OF THE ACT IS TO BE IN CONFORMITY TO STATE LAWS.  SEE POWER CO. V.
CEMENT CO., 295 U.S. 142, 164.  NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 325 U.S. 589,
614.  THAT WAS THE ASSUMPTION IN MASON CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S.
186, A CASE INVOLVING THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER. 

WHATEVER DOUBTS THERE MAY BE ARE FOR ME DISPELLED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE UNDER THE ACT, AS SUMMARIZED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION IN A MEMORANDUM DATED APRIL 19, 1950. 
REPORTS FROM THE SEVEN REGIONAL COUNSEL AND A REVIEW OF THE FILES IN
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE MEMORANDUM. 

THE COMMISSIONER CONCLUDED THAT IT HAS BEEN THE ALMOST INVARIABLE
PRACTICE OF THE BUREAU TO FILE NOTICES OF APPROPRIATIONS UNDER STATE
LAW WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE STREAM INVOLVED WAS NAVIGABLE OR
NONNAVIGABLE N3.  SUCH FILINGS WERE MADE PURSUANT TO STATE LAW ON WATER
RIGHTS RIPARIAN TO AT LEAST 13 NAVIGABLE OR PROBABLY NAVIGABLE RIVERS. 
THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IS TOO CLEAR TO BE CONTRADICTED BY THE
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DOCUMENTS CITED BY PETITIONER.  FN4 MOREOVER, THE
COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO RECENT PUBLIC
STATEMENTS BY DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR OFFICERS CONFIRMING THIS
PRACTICE. 

THIS COURT HAS OFTEN EMPHASIZED THAT WEIGHT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE MADE BY THE ADMINISTERING AGENCY.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, 549; LABOR
BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 130.  THIS LONG COURSE OF
PRACTICE BY THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION RESOLVES ANY DOUBTS AND
AMBIGUITIES THAT ARISE FROM THE HISTORY AND WORDING OF THE STATUTE. 

I CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS BY SEC. 8 OF THE RECLAMATION ACT AGREED TO
PAY (THOUGH NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO BY THE CONSTITUTION) FOR WATER RIGHTS
ACQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW IN NAVIGABLE AS WELL AS NONNAVIGABLE STREAMS. 
AS THE COURT HOLDS, RESPONDENTS UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW HAVE A WATER
RIGHT.  SECTION 8 THEREFORE RECOGNIZES IT AS THE BASIS FOR PAYMENT IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS FEDERAL PROJECT. 

I DO NOT THINK THE CLAIMANTS ARE ENTITLED TO INTEREST.  WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT ASSUMES A LIABILITY BY STATUTE, INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWABLE
UNLESS SPECIFIC PROVISION IS MADE FOR IT.  UNITED STATES V. GOLTRA, 312
U.S. 203, 207; UNITED STATES V. HOTEL CO., 329 U.S. 585, 588.  A
DIFFERENT RULE OBTAINS WHEN THE UNITED STATES TAKES PROPERTY PROTECTED
BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261
U.S. 299, 306.  THE PRESENT WATER RIGHTS, THOUGH NOT PROTECTED BY THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, ARE ONES WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS AGREED TO PAY FOR
UNDER SECS. 7 AND 8 OF THE RECLAMATION ACT.  SECTIONS 7 AND 8 CONTAIN
NO PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST.  THE ACT REFERS TO STATE LAW
TO DETERMINE WHETHER A WATER RIGHT EXISTS, NOT TO ASCERTAIN THE MEASURE
OF DAMAGES FOR THE TAKING. 

FN1  SECTION 7 PROVIDES:  "THAT WHERE IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO ACQUIRE ANY RIGHTS OR PROPERTY, THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO ACQUIRE THE SAME FOR
THE UNITED STATES BY PURCHASE OR BY CONDEMNATION UNDER JUDICIAL
PROCESS, AND TO PAY FROM THE RECLAMATION FUND THE SUMS WHICH MAY BE
NEEDED FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES UPON EVERY APPLICATION OF THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR, UNDER THIS ACT, TO CAUSE PROCEEDINGS TO BE COMMENCED FOR
CONDEMNATION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION AT
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE."    FN2  A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HAS RECENTLY HELD, HOWEVER, THAT
SEC. 8 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR THE PURCHASE OF WATER RIGHTS TAKEN IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT.  RANK V. KRUG, 90 F.SUPP. 
773(APRIL 12, 1950). 

FN3  THE MEMORANDUM RECORDS THE FOLLOWING DATA:  REGION 1(WASHINGTON,
IDAHO, NORTHERN OREGON, WESTERN MONTANA) REPORTED THE FILING OF
APPROPRIATIONS UNDER STATE LAW IN 12 PROJECTS INVOLVING NAVIGABLE
RIVERS.  IN REGION 2(NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, OREGON), SEC. 8 HAS BEEN
CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE RIGHTS IN NAVIGABLE AS WELL AS NONNAVIGABLE
WATERS, ALTHOUGH THE EXACT NUMBER OF FILINGS WAS NOT REVEALED. 
ALTHOUGH SOME FILINGS FOR APPROPRIATION UNDER STATE LAW HAVE BEEN MADE
IN REGION 3(SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, SOUTHERN NEVADA), THE LOWER
COLORADO RIVER PROJECTS ARE THE SINGLE EXCEPTION TO THE OTHERWISE
CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  IN REGION 4(NORTHERN NEVADA, UTAH,
WESTERN WYOMING, WESTERN COLORADO), WATER RIGHTS ON AT LEAST TWO
NAVIGABLE RIVERS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW.  NO OCCASION
HAS YET ARISEN IN REGION 5(TEXAS, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTHERN
COLORADO) MAKING NECESSARY THE ACQUISITION OF WATER RIGHTS ON NAVIGABLE
STREAMS.  IN THE ONLY INSTANCE IN REGION 6(EASTERN MONTANA, NORTHERN
WYOMING, NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA) WHERE A FEDERAL PROJECT INTERFERED
WITH PRIVATE WATER RIGHTS ON A NAVIGABLE RIVER, THE RIGHTS WERE PAID
FOR BY THE UNITED STATES.  WATER RIGHTS ON THREE APPARENTLY NAVIGABLE
RIVERS IN REGION 7(EASTERN COLORADO, SOUTHERN WYOMING, NEBRASKA,
KANSAS) WERE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE
LAWS. 

THE COMMISSIONER NOTES THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
CONCERNING THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER PROJECTS WHICH EXPLAIN THE SINGLE
EXCEPTION.  THE ACT AUTHORIZING HOOVER DAM REQUIRED THAT IT BE USED
FIRST FOR "RIVER REGULATION, IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION, AND FLOOD
CONTROL," AND ONLY THEREAFTER FOR IRRIGATION.  45 STAT. 1061. 
MOREOVER, THE COLORADO RIVER COMPACT ASSURES AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF
WATER FOR THE PROJECT.  THE COMMISSIONER POINTS OUT THAT WHILE NO
RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED ON THE LOWER COLORADO UNDER SEC. 7, "A SEARCH
OF BUREAU RECORDS FAILS TO DISCLOSE ANY INSTANCE ON THAT RIVER IN WHICH
THE BUREAU IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OF ITS PROJECTS FAILED OR REFUSED TO
RECOGNIZE OR MAKE COMPENSATION FOR WATER RIGHTS VALIDLY ESTABLISHED
UNDER STATE LAW." 

ANOTHER POSSIBLE EXCEPTION IS THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR NOT TO PURCHASE A POWER RIGHT ON THE SPOKANE RIVER ON THE
GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE RIGHT AFFECTED NAVIGABLE WATERS.  YET,
IN THE PAST, THE BUREAU INSTITUTED APPROPRIATIONS ON THAT RIVER ALSO. 

FN4  THE UNPUBLISHED MANUAL OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, PRINTED FOR
THE GUIDANCE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, SUPPORTS PETITIONER'S POSITION IN ITS
1913, 1917, AND 1927 EDITIONS, AND TO A LESSER EXTENT IN ITS 1938
EDITION.  A NEW MANUAL IS NOW IN PREPARATION.  THESE STATEMENTS MAY
HAVE BEEN BASED ON AN EARLY DECISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
(CALIFORNIA DEVELOPMENT CO., 33 L.D. 391), WHICH ALSO PROVIDES SOME
SUPPORT FOR THE PETITIONER'S POSITION.  THE COMMISSIONER OF
RECLAMATION, HOWEVER, HAS EXPLAINED THAT "DESPITE THE STATEMENT IN
EARLIER MANUALS BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA LAND DEVELOPMENT OPINION  ...
," THE BUREAU'S PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN
NAVIGABLE AND NONNAVIGABLE WATERS. 
..END :











JOHNSON V. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 


NO. 306.  ARGUED APRIL 17, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - 84 U.S.
APP. D.C. 396, 174 F.2D 961, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENTS, WHO ARE NONRESIDENT ENEMY ALIENS, WERE CAPTURED IN CHINA
BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND TRIED AND CONVICTED IN CHINA BY AN
AMERICAN MILITARY COMMISSION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR
COMMITTED IN CHINA PRIOR TO THEIR CAPTURE.  THEY WERE TRANSPORTED TO
THE AMERICAN-OCCUPIED PART OF GERMANY AND IMPRISONED THERE IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE ARMY.  AT NO TIME WERE THEY WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF ANY AMERICAN CIVIL COURT.  CLAIMING THAT THEIR TRIAL,
CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT VIOLATED ARTICLES I AND III, THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND PROVISIONS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, THEY PETITIONED THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
DIRECTED TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, AND
SEVERAL OFFICERS OF THE ARMY HAVING DIRECTIVE POWER OVER THEIR
CUSTODIAN.  HELD: 

1.  A NONRESIDENT ENEMY ALIEN HAS NO ACCESS TO OUR COURTS IN
WARTIME.  PP. 768-777. 

(A)  OUR LAW DOES NOT ABOLISH INHERENT DISTINCTIONS RECOGNIZED
THROUGHOUT THE CIVILIZED WORLD BETWEEN CITIZENS AND ALIENS, NOR BETWEEN
ALIENS OF FRIENDLY AND ENEMY ALLEGIANCE, NOR BETWEEN RESIDENT ENEMY
ALIENS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THEMSELVES TO OUR LAWS AND NONRESIDENT ENEMY
ALIENS WHO AT ALL TIMES HAVE REMAINED WITH, AND ADHERED TO, ENEMY
GOVERNMENTS.  P. 769. 

(B)  IN EXTENDING CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS TO RESIDENT
ALIENS, THIS COURT HAS BEEN CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THAT IT WAS THE
ALIENS' PRESENCE WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION THAT GAVE THE
JUDICIARY POWER TO ACT.  P. 771. 

(C)  EXECUTIVE POWER OVER ENEMY ALIENS, UNDELAYED AND UNHAMPERED BY
LITIGATION, HAS BEEN DEEMED, THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, ESSENTIAL TO
WARTIME SECURITY.  P. 774. 

(D)  A RESIDENT ENEMY ALIEN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO SUMMARY
ARREST, INTERNMENT AND DEPORTATION WHENEVER A "DECLARED WAR" EXISTS. 
COURTS WILL ENTERTAIN HIS PLEA FOR FREEDOM FROM EXECUTIVE CUSTODY ONLY
TO ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF WAR AND WHETHER HE IS AN ALIEN
ENEMY.  ONCE THESE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED, COURTS
WILL NOT INQUIRE INTO ANY OTHER ISSUE AS TO HIS INTERNMENT.  P. 775. 

(E)  A NONRESIDENT ENEMY ALIEN, ESPECIALLY ONE WHO HAS REMAINED IN
THE SERVICE OF THE ENEMY, DOES NOT HAVE EVEN THIS QUALIFIED ACCESS TO
OUR COURTS.  P. 776. 

2.  THESE NONRESIDENT ENEMY ALIENS, CAPTURED AND IMPRISONED ABROAD,
HAVE NO RIGHT TO A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN A COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.  EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1; IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 777-781. 

3.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONFER A RIGHT OF PERSONAL SECURITY OR
AN IMMUNITY FROM MILITARY TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT UPON AN ALIEN ENEMY
ENGAGED IN THE HOSTILE SERVICE OF A GOVERNMENT AT WAR WITH THE UNITED
STATES.  PP. 781-785. 

(A)  THE TERM "ANY PERSON" IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT EXTEND ITS
PROTECTION TO ALIEN ENEMIES EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD ENGAGED IN
HOSTILITIES AGAINST US.  PP. 782-783. 

(B)  THE CLAIM ASSERTED BY RESPONDENTS AND SUSTAINED BY THE COURT
BELOW WOULD, IN PRACTICAL EFFECT, AMOUNT TO A RIGHT NOT TO BE TRIED AT
ALL FOR AN OFFENSE AGAINST OUR ARMED FORCES.  P. 782. 

4.  THE PETITION IN THIS CASE ALLEGES NO FACT SHOWING LACK OF
JURISDICTION IN THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES TO ACCUSE, TRY AND CONDEMN
THESE PRISONERS OR THAT THEY ACTED IN EXCESS OF THEIR LAWFUL POWERS. 
PP. 785-790. 

(A)  THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY AUTHORITIES, DURING OR FOLLOWING
HOSTILITIES, TO PUNISH THOSE GUILTY OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR
IS LONG-ESTABLISHED.  P. 786. 

(B)  IT BEING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MILITARY COMMISSION TO TRY
THESE PRISONERS, IT WAS FOR IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LAWS OF WAR
APPLIED AND WHETHER THEY HAD BEEN VIOLATED.  PP. 786-788. 

(C)  IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIARY TO ENTERTAIN PRIVATE
LITIGATION - EVEN BY A CITIZEN - WHICH CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY, WISDOM
OR PROPRIETY OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN SENDING OUR ARMED FORCES
ABROAD OR TO ANY PARTICULAR REGION.  P. 789. 

(D)  NOTHING IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION MAKES THESE PRISONERS IMMUNE
FROM PROSECUTION OR PUNISHMENT FOR WAR CRIMES.  P. 789. 

(E)  ARTICLE 60 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, REQUIRING THAT NOTICE OF
TRIAL OF PRISONERS OF WAR BE GIVEN TO THE PROTECTING POWER, IS
INAPPLICABLE TO TRIALS FOR WAR CRIMES COMMITTED BEFORE CAPTURE.  PP.
789-790. 

(F)  ARTICLE 63 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, REQUIRING TRIAL OF
PRISONERS OF WAR "BY THE SAME COURTS AND ACCORDING TO THE SAME
PROCEDURE AS IN THE CASE OF PERSONS BELONGING TO THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE DETAINING POWER," IS LIKEWISE INAPPLICABLE TO TRIALS FOR WAR CRIMES
COMMITTED BEFORE CAPTURE.  P. 790. 

5.  SINCE THERE IS NO BASIS IN THIS CASE FOR INVOKING FEDERAL
JUDICIAL POWER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE WHERE, IF THE CASE WERE
OTHERWISE, THE PETITION SHOULD BE FILED.  PP. 790-791. 

JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. V. EISENTRAGER, ALIAS EHRHARDT,
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO INQUIRE INTO THE CONFINEMENT OF RESPONDENTS BY THE UNITED STATES
ARMY IN OCCUPIED GERMANY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  84 U.S. APP.
D.C. 396, 174 F.2D 961.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 877. 
REVERSED, P. 791. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS ONE OF JURISDICTION OF CIVIL
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES VIS-A-VIS MILITARY AUTHORITIES IN DEALING
WITH ENEMY ALIENS OVERSEAS.  THE ISSUES COME HERE IN THIS WAY: 

TWENTY-ONE GERMAN NATIONALS PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS.  THEY ALLEGED THAT,
PRIOR TO MAY 8, 1945, THEY WERE IN THE SERVICE OF GERMAN ARMED FORCES
IN CHINA.  THEY AMENDED TO ALLEGE THAT THEIR EMPLOYMENT THERE WAS BY
CIVILIAN AGENCIES OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT.  THEIR EXACT AFFILIATION IS
DISPUTED, AND, FOR OUR PURPOSES, IMMATERIAL.  ON MAY 8, 1945, THE
GERMAN HIGH COMMAND EXECUTED AN ACT OF UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,
EXPRESSLY OBLIGATING ALL FORCES UNDER GERMAN CONTROL AT ONCE TO CEASE
ACTIVE HOSTILITIES.  THESE PRISONERS HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF VIOLATING
LAWS OF WAR, BY ENGAGING IN, PERMITTING OR ORDERING CONTINUED MILITARY
ACTIVITY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AFTER SURRENDER OF GERMANY AND
BEFORE SURRENDER OF JAPAN.  THEIR HOSTILE OPERATIONS CONSISTED
PRINCIPALLY OF COLLECTING AND FURNISHING INTELLIGENCE CONCERNING
AMERICAN FORCES AND THEIR MOVEMENTS TO THE JAPANESE ARMED FORCES. 
THEY, WITH SIX OTHERS WHO WERE ACQUITTED, WERE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY
THE UNITED STATES ARMY AFTER THE JAPANESE SURRENDER AND WERE TRIED AND
CONVICTED BY A MILITARY COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY OUR COMMANDING
GENERAL AT NANKING BY DELEGATION FROM THE COMMANDING GENERAL, UNITED
STATES FORCES, CHINA THEATRE, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY
GRANTED BY THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
COMMISSION SAT IN CHINA, WITH EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT.  THE PROCEEDING WAS CONDUCTED WHOLLY UNDER AMERICAN
AUSPICES AND INVOLVED NO INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION.  AFTER
CONVICTION, THE SENTENCES WERE DULY REVIEWED AND, WITH IMMATERIAL
MODIFICATION, APPROVED BY MILITARY REVIEWING AUTHORITY. 

THE PRISONERS WERE REPATRIATED TO GERMANY TO SERVE THEIR SENTENCES. 
THEIR IMMEDIATE CUSTODIAN IS COMMANDANT OF LANDSBERG PRISON, AN
AMERICAN ARMY OFFICER UNDER THE COMMANDING GENERAL, THIRD UNITED STATES
ARMY, AND THE COMMANDING GENERAL, EUROPEAN COMMAND.  HE COULD NOT BE
REACHED BY PROCESS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.  RESPONDENTS NAMED IN THE
PETITION ARE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, CHIEF OF
STAFF OF THE ARMY, AND THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE PETITION ALLEGES, AND RESPONDENTS DENIED, THAT THE JAILER IS
SUBJECT TO THEIR DIRECTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ASSUMED, AND WE DO
LIKEWISE, THAT, WHILE PRISONERS ARE IN IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF AN
OFFICER OR OFFICERS NOT PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING, RESPONDENTS NAMED IN
THE PETITION HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO EFFECT THEIR RELEASE. 

THE PETITION PRAYS AN ORDER THAT THE PRISONERS BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COURT, THAT IT MAY INQUIRE INTO THEIR CONFINEMENT AND ORDER
THEM DISCHARGED FROM SUCH OFFENSES AND CONFINEMENT.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT
THEIR TRIAL, CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT VIOLATE ARTICLES I AND III OF
THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THERETO, AND OTHER PROVISIONS
OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND PROVISIONS OF THE
GENEVA CONVENTION GOVERNING TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR. 

A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED, TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES MADE RETURN. 
THEREUPON THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED ON AUTHORITY OF AHRENS V. CLARK,
335 U.S. 188. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND, REINSTATING THE PETITION, REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 396, 174 F.2D 961.  IT
CONCLUDED THAT ANY PERSON, INCLUDING AN ENEMY ALIEN, DEPRIVED OF HIS
LIBERTY ANYWHERE UNDER ANY PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS
ENTITLED TO THE WRIT IF HE CAN SHOW THAT EXTENSION TO HIS CASE OF ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR LIMITATIONS WOULD SHOW HIS IMPRISONMENT
ILLEGAL; THAT, ALTHOUGH NO STATUTORY JURISDICTION OF SUCH CASES IS
GIVEN, COURTS MUST BE HELD TO POSSESS IT AS PART OF THE JUDICIAL POWER
OF THE UNITED STATES; THAT WHERE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY BY AN OFFICIAL
ACT OCCURS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF ANY DISTRICT COURT,
THE PETITION WILL LIE IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH HAS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OVER OFFICIALS WHO HAVE DIRECTIVE POWER OVER THE IMMEDIATE
JAILER. 

THE OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE OF THESE HOLDINGS TO BOTH JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION AND MILITARY OPERATIONS IMPELLED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 877.  THE CASE IS BEFORE US ONLY ON ISSUES OF
LAW.  THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS MUST BE GRANTED "UNLESS IT APPEARS FROM
THE APPLICATION" THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT.  28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2243. 

WE ARE CITED TO NO INSTANCE WHERE A COURT, IN THIS OR ANY OTHER
COUNTRY WHERE THE WRIT IS KNOWN, HAS ISSUED IT ON BEHALF OF AN ALIEN
ENEMY WHO, AT NO RELEVANT TIME AND IN NO STAGE OF HIS CAPTIVITY, HAS
BEEN WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.  NOTHING IN THE TEXT OF THE
CONSTITUTION EXTENDS SUCH A RIGHT, NOR DOES ANYTHING IN OUR STATUTES. 
ABSENCE OF SUPPORT FROM LEGISLATIVE OR JURIDICAL SOURCES IS IMPLICIT IN
THE STATEMENT OF THE COURT BELOW THAT "THE ANSWERS STEM DIRECTLY FROM
FUNDAMENTALS.  THEY CANNOT BE FOUND BY CASUAL REFERENCE TO STATUTES OR
CASES."  THE BREADTH OF THE COURT'S PREMISES AND SOLUTION REQUIRES US
TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS BASIC TO ALIEN ENEMY AND KINDRED LITIGATION WHICH
FOR SOME YEARS HAVE BEEN BEATING UPON OUR DOORS.  FN1

                                  I. 

MODERN AMERICAN LAW HAS COME A LONG WAY SINCE THE TIME WHEN OUTBREAK
OF WAR MADE EVERY ENEMY NATIONAL AN OUTLAW, SUBJECT TO BOTH PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE SLAUGHTER, CRUELTY AND PLUNDER.  BUT EVEN BY THE MOST
MAGNANIMOUS VIEW, OUR LAW DOES NOT ABOLISH INHERENT DISTINCTIONS
RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT THE CIVILIZED WORLD BETWEEN CITIZENS AND ALIENS,
NOR BETWEEN ALIENS OF FRIENDLY AND OF ENEMY ALLEGIANCE,  FN2  NOR
BETWEEN RESIDENT ENEMY ALIENS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THEMSELVES TO OUR LAWS
AND NONRESIDENT ENEMY ALIENS WHO AT ALL TIMES HAVE REMAINED WITH, AND
ADHERED TO, ENEMY GOVERNMENTS. 

WITH THE CITIZEN WE ARE NOW LITTLE CONCERNED, EXCEPT TO SET HIS CASE
APART AS UNTOUCHED BY THIS DECISION AND TO TAKE MEASURE OF THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS STATUS AND THAT OF ALL CATEGORIES OF ALIENS. 
CITIZENSHIP AS A HEAD OF JURISDICTION AND A GROUND OF PROTECTION WAS
OLD WHEN PAUL INVOKED IT IN HIS APPEAL TO CAESAR.  THE YEARS HAVE NOT
DESTROYED NOR DIMINISHED THE IMPORTANCE OF CITIZENSHIP NOR HAVE THEY
SAPPED THE VITALITY OF A CITIZEN'S CLAIMS UPON HIS GOVERNMENT FOR
PROTECTION.  IF A PERSON'S CLAIM TO UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP IS DENIED
BY ANY OFFICIAL, CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED OUR COURTS TO ENTERTAIN HIS
ACTION TO DECLARE HIM TO BE A CITIZEN "REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE IS
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ABROAD."  54 STAT. 1171, 8 U.S.C. SEC.
903.  THIS COURT LONG AGO EXTENDED HABEAS CORPUS TO ONE SEEKING
ADMISSION TO THE COUNTRY TO ASSURE FAIR HEARING OF HIS CLAIMS TO
CITIZENSHIP, CHIN YOW V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 8, AND HAS SECURED
CITIZENSHIP AGAINST FORFEITURE BY INVOLUNTARY FORMAL ACTS, PERKINS V.
ELG, 307 U.S. 325.  FN3  BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION OF
PROTECTION IS CORRELATIVE WITH THE DUTY OF LOYAL SUPPORT INHERENT IN
THE CITIZEN'S ALLEGIANCE, CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED THE PRESIDENT TO EXERT
THE FULL DIPLOMATIC AND POLITICAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES ON BEHALF
OF ANY CITIZEN, BUT OF NO OTHER, IN JEOPARDY ABROAD.  WHEN ANY CITIZEN
IS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY BY ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, IT IS MADE THE
DUTY OF THE PRESIDENT TO DEMAND THE REASONS AND, IF THE DETENTION
APPEARS WRONGFUL, TO USE MEANS NOT AMOUNTING TO ACTS OF WAR TO
EFFECTUATE HIS RELEASE.  FN4  IT IS NEITHER SENTIMENTALITY NOR
CHAUVINISM TO REPEAT THAT "CITIZENSHIP IS A HIGH PRIVILEGE."  UNITED
STATES V. MANZI, 276 U.S. 463, 467. 

THE ALIEN, TO WHOM THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY
HOSPITABLE, HAS BEEN ACCORDED A GENEROUS AND ASCENDING SCALE OF RIGHTS
AS HE INCREASES HIS IDENTITY WITH OUR SOCIETY.  MERE LAWFUL PRESENCE IN
THE COUNTRY CREATES AN IMPLIED ASSURANCE OF SAFE CONDUCT AND GIVES HIM
CERTAIN RIGHTS; THEY BECOME MORE EXTENSIVE AND SECURE WHEN HE MAKES
PRELIMINARY DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN, AND THEY
EXPAND TO THOSE OF FULL CITIZENSHIP UPON NATURALIZATION.  DURING HIS
PROBATIONARY RESIDENCE, THIS COURT HAS STEADILY ENLARGED HIS RIGHT
AGAINST EXECUTIVE DEPORTATION EXCEPT UPON FULL AND FAIR HEARING.  THE
JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86; LOW WAH SUEY V. BACKUS, 225 U.S.
460; TISI V. TOD, 264 U.S. 131; UNITED STATES EX REL. VAJTAUER V.
COMM'R, 273 U.S. 103; BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135; WONG YANG SUNG V.
MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33.  AND, AT LEAST SINCE 1886, WE HAVE EXTENDED TO
THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF RESIDENT ALIENS IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTIES - SUCH AS THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356. 

BUT, IN EXTENDING CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS BEYOND THE CITIZENRY,
THE COURT HAS BEEN AT PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT IT WAS THE ALIEN'S
PRESENCE WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION THAT GAVE THE JUDICIARY
POWER TO ACT.  IN THE PIONEER CASE OF YICK WO. V. HOPKINS, THE COURT
SAID OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, "THESE PROVISIONS ARE UNIVERSAL IN
THEIR APPLICATION, TO ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION,
WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY DIFFERENCES OF RACE, OF COLOR, OR OF NATIONALITY;
...."  118 U.S. 356, 369.  AND IN THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, THE
COURT HELD ITS PROCESSES AVAILABLE TO "AN ALIEN, WHO HAS ENTERED THE
COUNTRY, AND HAS BECOME SUBJECT IN ALL RESPECTS TO ITS JURISDICTION,
AND A PART OF ITS POPULATION, ALTHOUGH ALLEGED TO BE ILLEGALLY HERE." 
189 U.S. 86, 101. 

SINCE MOST CASES INVOLVING ALIENS AFFORD THIS GROUND OF JURISDICTION,
AND THE CIVIL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS OR TRANSIENTS OF
FOREIGN NATIONALITY SO NEARLY APPROACH EQUIVALENCE TO THOSE OF
CITIZENS, COURTS IN PEACE TIME HAVE LITTLE OCCASION TO INQUIRE WHETHER
LITIGANTS BEFORE THEM ARE ALIEN OR CITIZEN. 

IT IS WAR THAT EXPOSES THE RELATIVE VULNERABILITY OF THE ALIEN'S
STATUS.  THE SECURITY AND PROTECTION ENJOYED WHILE THE NATION OF HIS
ALLEGIANCE REMAINS IN AMITY WITH THE UNITED STATES ARE GREATLY IMPAIRED
WHEN HIS NATION TAKES UP ARMS AGAINST US.  WHILE HIS LOT IS FAR MORE
HUMANE AND ENDURABLE THAN THE EXPERIENCE OF OUR CITIZENS IN SOME ENEMY
LANDS, IT IS STILL NOT A HAPPY ONE.  BUT DISABILITIES THIS COUNTRY LAYS
UPON THE ALIEN WHO BECOMES ALSO AN ENEMY ARE IMPOSED TEMPORARILY AS AN
INCIDENT OF WAR AND NOT AS AN INCIDENT OF ALIENAGE.  JUDGE CARDOZO
COMMENTED CONCERNING THIS DISTINCTION:  "MUCH OF THE OBSCURITY WHICH
SURROUNDS THE RIGHTS OF ALIENS HAS ITS ORIGIN IN THIS CONFUSION OF
DIVERSE SUBJECTS."  TECHT V. HUGHES, 229 N.Y. 222, 237, 128 N.E. 185,
189. 

AMERICAN DOCTRINE AS TO EFFECT OF WAR UPON THE STATUS OF NATIONALS OF
BELLIGERENTS TOOK PERMANENT SHAPE FOLLOWING OUR FIRST FOREIGN WAR. 
CHANCELLOR KENT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE LEADING AUTHORITIES OF HIS TIME,
DECLARED THE LAW TO BE THAT "  ...  IN WAR, THE SUBJECTS OF EACH
COUNTRY WERE ENEMIES TO EACH OTHER, AND BOUND TO REGARD AND TREAT EACH
OTHER AS SUCH."  GRISWOLD V. WADDINGTON, 16 JOHNS.  (N.Y.)  438, 480. 
IF THIS WAS EVER SOMETHING OF A FICTION, IT IS ONE VALIDATED BY THE
ACTUALITIES OF MODERN TOTAL WARFARE.  CONSCRIPTION, COMPULSORY SERVICE
AND MEASURES TO MOBILIZE EVERY HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCE AND TO
UTILIZE NATIONALS - WHEREVER THEY MAY BE - IN ARMS, INTRIGUE AND
SABOTAGE, ATTEST THE PROPHETIC REALISM OF WHAT ONCE MAY HAVE SEEMED A
DOCTRINAIRE AND ARTIFICIAL PRINCIPLE.  WITH CONFIRMATION OF RECENT
HISTORY, WE MAY REITERATE THIS COURT'S EARLIER TEACHING THAT IN WAR
"EVERY INDIVIDUAL OF THE ONE NATION MUST ACKNOWLEDGE EVERY INDIVIDUAL
OF THE OTHER NATION AS HIS OWN ENEMY - BECAUSE THE ENEMY OF HIS
COUNTRY."  THE RAPID, 8 CRANCH 155, 161.  SEE ALSO WHITE V. BURNLEY, 20
HOW.  235, 249; LAMAR V. BROWNE, 92 U.S. 187, 194.  AND THIS WITHOUT
REGARD TO HIS INDIVIDUAL SENTIMENTS OR DISPOSITION.  THE BENITO
ESTENGER, 176 U.S. 568, 571.  THE ALIEN ENEMY IS BOUND BY AN ALLEGIANCE
WHICH COMMITS HIM TO LOSE NO OPPORTUNITY TO FORWARD THE CAUSE OF OUR
ENEMY; HENCE THE UNITED STATES, ASSUMING HIM TO BE FAITHFUL TO HIS
ALLEGIANCE, REGARDS HIM AS PART OF THE ENEMY RESOURCES.  IT THEREFORE
TAKES MEASURES TO DISABLE HIM FROM COMMISSION OF HOSTILE ACTS IMPUTED
AS HIS INTENTION BECAUSE THEY ARE A DUTY TO HIS SOVEREIGN. 

THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT INVOKE THIS ENEMY ALLEGIANCE ONLY FOR ITS
OWN INTEREST, BUT RESPECTS IT ALSO WHEN TO THE ENEMY'S ADVANTAGE.  IN
WORLD WAR I OUR CONSCRIPTION ACT DID NOT SUBJECT THE ALIEN ENEMY TO
COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.  40 STAT. 885, C. XII, SEC. 4.  THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1948, 62 STAT. 604, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
454(A), EXEMPTS ALIENS WHO HAVE NOT FORMALLY DECLARED THEIR INTENTION
TO BECOME CITIZENS FROM MILITARY TRAINING, SERVICE AND REGISTRATION, IF
THEY MAKE APPLICATION, BUT IF SO RELIEVED, THEY ARE BARRED FROM
BECOMING CITIZENS.  THUS THE ALIEN ENEMY STATUS CARRIES IMPORTANT
IMMUNITIES AS WELL AS DISADVANTAGES.  THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT ASK
HIM TO VIOLATE HIS ALLEGIANCE OR TO COMMIT TREASON TOWARD HIS OWN
COUNTRY FOR THE SAKE OF OURS.  THIS ALSO IS THE DOCTRINE AND THE
PRACTICE OF OTHER STATES COMPRISING OUR WESTERN CIVILIZATION.  FN5 
THE ESSENTIAL PATTERN FOR SEASONABLE EXECUTIVE CONSTRAINT OF ENEMY
ALIENS, NOT ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL PREPOSSESSIONS FOR THEIR NATIVE
LAND BUT ON THE BASIS OF POLITICAL AND LEGAL RELATIONS TO THE ENEMY
GOVERNMENT, WAS LAID DOWN IN THE VERY EARLIEST DAYS OF THE REPUBLIC AND
HAS ENDURED TO THIS DAY.  IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF
1798.  1 STAT. 577, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21.  AND IT IS TO BE
NOTED THAT, WHILE THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS OF THAT YEAR PROVOKED A
REACTION WHICH HELPED SWEEP THE PARTY OF MR. JEFFERSON INTO POWER IN
1800, AND THOUGH HIS PARTY PROCEEDED TO UNDO WHAT WAS REGARDED AS THE
MISCHIEVOUS LEGISLATION OF THE FEDERALISTS, THIS ENACTMENT WAS NEVER
REPEALED.  FN6  EXECUTIVE POWER OVER ENEMY ALIENS, UNDELAYED AND
UNHAMPERED BY LITIGATION, HAS BEEN DEEMED, THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY,
ESSENTIAL TO WAR-TIME SECURITY.  THIS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE PRACTICES
OF THE MOST ENLIGHTENED OF NATIONS AND HAS RESULTED IN TREATMENT OF
ALIEN ENEMIES MORE CONSIDERATE THAN THAT WHICH HAS PREVAILED AMONG ANY
OF OUR ENEMIES AND SOME OF OUR ALLIES.  THIS STATUTE WAS ENACTED OR
SUFFERED TO CONTINUE BY MEN WHO HELPED FOUND THE REPUBLIC AND FORMULATE
THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AND ALTHOUGH IT OBVIOUSLY DENIES ENEMY ALIENS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS, IT SEEMS NOT THEN TO HAVE BEEN
SUPPOSED THAT A NATION'S OBLIGATIONS TO ITS FOES COULD EVER BE PUT ON A
PARITY WITH THOSE TO ITS DEFENDERS. 

THE RESIDENT ENEMY ALIEN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO SUMMARY
ARREST, INTERNMENT AND DEPORTATION WHENEVER A "DECLARED WAR" EXISTS. 
COURTS WILL ENTERTAIN HIS PLEA FOR FREEDOM FROM EXECUTIVE CUSTODY ONLY
TO ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF WAR AND WHETHER HE IS AN ALIEN
ENEMY AND SO SUBJECT TO THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT.  ONCE THESE JURISDICTIONAL
ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED, COURTS WILL NOT INQUIRE INTO ANY OTHER
ISSUE AS TO HIS INTERNMENT.  LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160.  FN7 

THE STANDING OF THE ENEMY ALIEN TO MAINTAIN ANY ACTION IN THE COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN OFTEN CHALLENGED AND SOMETIMES DENIED. 
THE GENERAL STATEMENT WAS EARLY MADE ON COMBINED AUTHORITY OF KENT AND
STORY "THAT THEY HAVE NO POWER TO SUE IN THE PUBLIC COURTS OF THE ENEMY
NATION."  GRISWOLD V. WADDINGTON, 16 JOHNS.  (N.Y.)  438, 477.  OUR
RULE OF GENEROUS ACCESS TO THE RESIDENT ENEMY ALIEN WAS FIRST LAID DOWN
BY CHANCELLOR KENT IN 1813, WHEN, SQUARELY FACED WITH THE PLEA THAT AN
ALIEN ENEMY COULD NOT SUE UPON A DEBT CONTRACTED BEFORE THE WAR OF
1812, HE REVIEWED THE AUTHORITIES TO THAT TIME AND BROADLY DECLARED
THAT "A LAWFUL RESIDENCE IMPLIES PROTECTION, AND A CAPACITY TO SUE AND
BE SUED.  A CONTRARY DOCTRINE WOULD BE REPUGNANT TO SOUND POLICY, NO
LESS THAN TO JUSTICE AND HUMANITY."  CLARKE V. MOREY, 10 JOHNS. 
(N.Y.)  70, 72.  A UNANIMOUS COURT RECENTLY CLARIFIED BOTH THE
PRIVILEGE OF ACCESS TO OUR COURTS AND THE LIMITATIONS UPON IT.  WE
SAID:  "THE ANCIENT RULE AGAINST SUITS BY RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMIES HAS
SURVIVED ONLY SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT USE OF THE COURTS TO
ACCOMPLISH A PURPOSE WHICH MIGHT HAMPER OUR OWN WAR EFFORTS OR GIVE AID
TO THE ENEMY.  THIS MAY BE TAKEN AS THE SOUND PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON
LAW TODAY."  EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69, 75. 

BUT THE NONRESIDENT ENEMY ALIEN, ESPECIALLY ONE WHO HAS REMAINED IN
THE SERVICE OF THE ENEMY, DOES NOT HAVE EVEN THIS QUALIFIED ACCESS TO
OUR COURTS, FOR HE NEITHER HAS COMPARABLE CLAIMS UPON OUR INSTITUTIONS
NOR COULD HIS USE OF THEM FAIL TO BE HELPFUL TO THE ENEMY.  OUR LAW ON
THIS SUBJECT FIRST EMERGED ABOUT 1813 WHEN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK HAD OCCASION, IN A SERIES OF CASES, TO EXAMINE THE
FOREMOST AUTHORITIES OF THE CONTINENT AND OF ENGLAND.  IT CONCLUDED THE
RULE OF THE COMMON LAW AND THE LAW OF NATIONS TO BE THAT ALIEN ENEMIES
RESIDENT IN THE COUNTRY OF THE ENEMY COULD NOT MAINTAIN AN ACTION IN
ITS COURTS DURING THE PERIOD OF HOSTILITIES.  BELL V. CHAPMAN, 10
JOHNS.  (N.Y.)  183; JACKSON V. DECKER, 11 JOHNS.  (N.Y.)  418; CLARKE
V. MOREY, 10 JOHNS.  (N.Y.)  70, 74-75.  THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT
RULE, CAPERTON V. BOWYER, 14 WALL.  216, 236; MASTERSON V. HOWARD, 18
WALL.  99, 105, AND FOLLOWED IT, EX PARTE COLONNA, 314 U.S. 510, AND IT
CONTINUES TO BE THE LAW THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY AND IN ENGLAND.  FN8

             II. 

THE FOREGOING DOMONSTRATES HOW MUCH FURTHER WE MUST GO IF WE ARE TO
INVEST THESE ENEMY ALIENS, RESIDENT, CAPTURED AND IMPRISONED ABROAD,
WITH STANDING TO DEMAND ACCESS TO OUR COURTS. 

WE ARE HERE CONFRONTED WITH A DECISION WHOSE BASIC PREMISE IS THAT
THESE PRISONERS ARE ENTITLED, AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, TO SUE IN SOME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  TO SUPPORT
THAT ASSUMPTION WE MUST HOLD THAT A PRISONER OF OUR MILITARY
AUTHORITIES IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO THE WRIT, EVEN THOUGH HE
(A) IS AN ENEMY ALIEN; (B) HAS NEVER BEEN OR RESIDED IN THE UNITED
STATES; (C) WAS CAPTURED OUTSIDE OF OUR TERRITORY AND THERE HELD IN
MILITARY CUSTODY AS A PRISONER OF WAR; (D) WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED BY A
MILITARY COMMISSION SITTING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; (E) FOR OFFENSES
AGAINST LAWS OF WAR COMMITTED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; (F) AND IS AT
ALL TIMES IMPRISONED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. 

WE HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF LITIGATION HAS BEEN
EXTENDED TO ALIENS, WHETHER FRIENDLY OR ENEMY, ONLY BECAUSE PERMITTING
THEIR PRESENCE IN THE COUNTRY IMPLIED PROTECTION.  NO SUCH BASIS CAN BE
INVOKED HERE, FOR THESE PRISONERS AT NO RELEVANT TIME WERE WITHIN ANY
TERRITORY OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS SOVEREIGN, AND THE SCENES OF
THEIR OFFENSE, THEIR CAPTURE, THEIR TRIAL AND THEIR PUNISHMENT WERE ALL
BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

ANOTHER REASON FOR A LIMITED OPENING OF OUR COURTS TO RESIDENT ALIENS
IS THAT AMONG THEM ARE MANY OF FRIENDLY PERSONAL DISPOSITION TO WHOM
THE STATUS OF ENEMY IS ONLY ONE IMPUTED BY LAW.  BUT THESE PRISONERS
WERE ACTUAL ENEMIES, ACTIVE IN THE HOSTILE SERVICE OF AN ENEMY POWER. 
THERE IS NO FICTION ABOUT THEIR ENMITY.  YET THE DECISION BELOW CONFERS
UPON THEM A RIGHT TO USE OUR COURTS, FREE EVEN OF THE LIMITATION WE
HAVE IMPOSED UPON RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMIES, TO WHOM WE DENY ANY USE OF
OUR COURTS THAT WOULD HAMPER OUR WAR EFFORT OR AID THE ENEMY. 

A BASIC CONSIDERATION IN HABEAS CORPUS PRACTICE IS THAT THE PRISONER
WILL BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT.  THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE STATUTORY
SCHEME ESTABLISHED BY THE CONGRESS N9; INDEED, IT IS INHERENT IN THE
VERY TERM "HABEAS CORPUS."  FN10  AND THOUGH PRODUCTION OF THE PRISONER
MAY BE DISPENSED WITH WHERE IT APPEARS ON THE FACE OF THE APPLICATION
THAT NO CAUSE FOR GRANTING THE WRIT EXISTS, WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312
U.S. 275, 284, WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO AND RECOGNIZED THE
GENERAL RULE.  AHRENS V. CLARK, 335 U.S. 188, 190-191.  TO GRANT THE
WRIT TO THESE PRISONERS MIGHT MEAN THAT OUR ARMY MUST TRANSPORT THEM
ACROSS THE SEAS FOR HEARING.  THIS WOULD REQUIRE ALLOCATION OF SHIPPING
SPACE, GUARDING PERSONNEL, BILLETING AND RATIONS.  IT MIGHT ALSO
REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION FOR WHATEVER WITNESSES THE PRISONERS DESIRED TO
CALL AS WELL AS TRANSPORTATION FOR THOSE NECESSARY TO DEFEND LEGALITY
OF THE SENTENCE.  THE WRIT, SINCE IT IS HELD TO BE A MATTER OF RIGHT,
WOULD BE EQUALLY AVAILABLE TO ENEMIES DURING ACTIVE HOSTILITIES AS IN
THE PRESENT TWILIGHT BETWEEN WAR AND PEACE.  SUCH TRIALS WOULD HAMPER
THE WAR EFFORT AND BRING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY.  THEY WOULD
DIMINISH THE PRESTIGE OF OUR COMMANDERS, NOT ONLY WITH ENEMIES BUT WITH
WAVERING NEUTRALS.  IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DEVISE MORE EFFECTIVE
FETTERING OF A FIELD COMMANDER THAN TO ALLOW THE VERY ENEMIES HE IS
ORDERED TO REDUCE TO SUBMISSION TO CALL HIM TO ACCOUNT IN HIS OWN CIVIL
COURTS AND DIVERT HIS EFFORTS AND ATTENTION FROM THE MILITARY OFFENSIVE
ABROAD TO THE LEGAL DEFENSIVE AT HOME.  NOR IS IT UNLIKELY THAT THE
RESULT OF SUCH ENEMY LITIGIOUSNESS WOULD BE A CONFLICT BETWEEN JUDICIAL
AND MILITARY OPINION HIGHLY COMFORTING TO ENEMIES OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

MOREOVER, WE COULD EXPECT NO RECIPROCITY FOR PLACING THE LITIGATION
WEAPON IN UNRESTRAINED ENEMY HANDS.  THE RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REFUGE FROM
MILITARY ACTION, WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO BESTOW ON THE ENEMY, CAN
PURCHASE NO EQUIVALENT FOR BENEFIT OF OUR CITIZEN SOLDIERS.  EXCEPT IN
ENGLAND, WHOSE LAW APPEARS TO BE IN HARMONY WITH THE VIEWS WE HAVE
EXPRESSED, AND OTHER ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES IN WHOSE PRACTICE NOTHING
HAS BEEN CITED TO THE CONTRARY, THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS GENERALLY
UNKNOWN. 

THE PRISONERS RELY, HOWEVER, UPON TWO DECISIONS OF THIS COURT TO GET
THEM OVER THE THRESHOLD - EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, AND IN RE
YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1.  RELIANCE ON THE QUIRIN CASE IS CLEARLY
MISTAKEN.  THOSE PRISONERS WERE IN CUSTODY IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  ONE WAS, OR CLAIMED TO BE, A CITIZEN.  THEY WERE TRIED BY A
MILITARY COMMISSION SITTING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AT A TIME WHEN
CIVIL COURTS WERE OPEN AND FUNCTIONING NORMALLY.  THEY WERE ARRESTED BY
CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND THE PROSECUTION WAS PERSONALLY DIRECTED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, A CIVILIAN PROSECUTOR, FOR ACTS COMMITTED IN THE
UNITED STATES.  THEY WAIVED ARRAIGNMENT BEFORE A CIVIL COURT AND IT WAS
CONTENDED THAT THE CIVIL COURTS THEREBY ACQUIRED JURISDICTION AND COULD
NOT BE OUSTED BY THE MILITARY.  NONE OF THE PLACES WHERE THEY WERE
ACTING, ARRESTED, TRIED OR IMPRISONED WERE, IT WAS CONTENDED, IN A ZONE
OF ACTIVE MILITARY OPERATIONS OR UNDER MARTIAL LAW OR ANY OTHER
MILITARY CONTROL, AND NO CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED TRANSFERRING THEM FROM
CIVIL TO MILITARY JURISDICTION.  NONE OF THESE GRAVE GROUNDS FOR
CHALLENGING MILITARY JURISDICTION CAN BE URGED IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE
US. 

NOR CAN THE COURT'S DECISION IN THE YAMASHITA CASE AID THE
PRISONERS.  THIS COURT REFUSED TO RECEIVE YAMASHITA'S PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  FOR HEARING AND OPINION, IT WAS CONSOLIDATED
WITH ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE REFUSAL
OF HABEAS CORPUS BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES OVER WHOSE
DECISIONS THE STATUTE THEN GAVE THIS COURT A RIGHT OF REVIEW.  28
U.S.C. SEC. 349, REPEALED BY ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, C. 646, SEC. 39, 62
STAT. 992, 1000.  BY REASON OF OUR SOVEREIGNTY AT THAT TIME OVER THESE
INSULAR POSSESSIONS, YAMASHITA STOOD MUCH AS DID QUIRIN BEFORE AMERICAN
COURTS.  YAMASHITA'S OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED ON OUR TERRITORY, HE WAS
TRIED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF OUR INSULAR COURTS AND HE WAS
IMPRISONED WITHIN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.  NONE OF THESE HEADS
OF JURISDICTION CAN BE INVOKED BY THESE PRISONERS. 

DESPITE THIS, THE DOORS OF OUR COURTS HAVE NOT BEEN SUMMARILY CLOSED
UPON THESE PRISONERS.  THREE COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED THEIR APPLICATION
AND HAVE PROVIDED THEIR COUNSEL OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE EVERY ARGUMENT
IN THEIR SUPPORT AND TO SHOW SOME REASON IN THE PETITION WHY THEY
SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE USUAL DISABILITIES OF NONRESIDENT ENEMY
ALIENS.  THIS IS THE SAME PRELIMINARY HEARING AS TO SUFFICIENCY OF
APPLICATION THAT WAS EXTENDED IN QUIRIN, SUPRA, YAMASHITA, SUPRA, AND
HIROTA V. MACARTHUR, 338 U.S. 197.  AFTER HEARING ALL CONTENTIONS THEY
HAVE SEEN FIT TO ADVANCE AND CONSIDERING EVERY CONTENTION WE CAN BASE
ON THEIR APPLICATION AND THE HOLDINGS BELOW, WE ARRIVE AT THE SAME
CONCLUSION THE COURT REACHED IN EACH OF THOSE CASES, VIZ.: THAT NO
RIGHT TO THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS APPEARS. 

    III. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DISPENSED WITH ALL REQUIREMENT OF TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION BASED ON PLACE OF RESIDENCE, CAPTIVITY, TRIAL, OFFENSE, OR
CONFINEMENT.  IT COULD NOT PREDICATE RELIEF UPON ANY INTRATERRITORIAL
CONTACT OF THESE PRISONERS WITH OUR LAWS OR INSTITUTIONS.  INSTEAD, IT
GAVE OUR CONSTITUTION AN EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION TO EMBRACE OUR
ENEMIES IN ARMS.  RIGHT TO THE WRIT, IT REASONED, IS A SUBSIDIARY
PROCEDURAL RIGHT THAT FOLLOWS FROM POSSESSION OF SUBSTANTIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THESE PRISONERS, IT CONSIDERED, ARE INVESTED
WITH A RIGHT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY BY OUR CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE MUST
HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE REMEDIAL WRIT.  THE COURT STATED THE STEPS IN ITS
OWN REASONING AS FOLLOWS:  "FIRST.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, BY ITS TERMS,
APPLIES TO 'ANY PERSON.'  SECOND.  ACTION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS VOID.  THIS IS THE ULTIMATE ESSENCE OF
THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  THIRD.  A BASIC AND INHERENT FUNCTION OF THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH OF A GOVERNMENT BUILT UPON A CONSTITUTION IS TO SET
ASIDE VOID ACTION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND SO TO RESTRICT EXECUTIVE
ACTION TO THE CONFINES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN OUR JURISPRUDENCE, NO
GOVERNMENT ACTION WHICH IS VOID UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS EXEMPT FROM
JUDICIAL POWER.  FOURTH.  THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS THE ESTABLISHED,
TIME-HONORED PROCESS IN OUR LAW FOR TESTING THE AUTHORITY OF ONE WHO
DEPRIVES ANOTHER OF HIS LIBERTY,  - 'THE BEST AND ONLY SUFFICIENT
DEFENSE OF PERSONAL FREEDOM.'  ...  "  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 396, 398-399,
174 F.2D 961, 963-964. 

THE DOCTRINE THAT THE TERM "ANY PERSON" IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
SPREADS ITS PROTECTION OVER ALIEN ENEMIES ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ENGAGED
IN HOSTILITIES AGAINST US, SHOULD BE WEIGHED IN LIGHT OF THE FULL TEXT
OF THAT AMENDMENT:    "NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL,
OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME, UNLESS ON A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A
GRAND JURY, EXCEPT IN CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR IN
THE MILITIA, WHEN IN ACTUAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER;
NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN
JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE
TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION." 

WHEN WE ANALYZE THE CLAIM PRISONERS ARE ASSERTING AND THE COURT BELOW
SUSTAINED, IT AMOUNTS TO A RIGHT NOT TO BE TRIED AT ALL FOR AN OFFENSE
AGAINST OUR ARMED FORCES.  IF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS THEM FROM
MILITARY TRIAL, THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AS CLEARLY PROHIBITS THEIR TRIAL BY
CIVIL COURTS.  THE LATTER REQUIRES IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS THAT
"THE ACCUSED" BE TRIED "BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT
WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH DISTRICT SHALL HAVE
BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW."  AND IF THE FIFTH BE HELD TO
EMBRACE THESE PRISONERS BECAUSE IT USES THE INCLUSIVE TERM "NO PERSON,"
THE SIXTH MUST, FOR IT APPLIES TO ALL "ACCUSED."  NO SUGGESTION IS
ADVANCED BY THE COURT BELOW, OR BY PRISONERS, OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
METHOD BY WHICH ANY VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR ENDANGERING THE
UNITED STATES FORCES COULD BE REACHED OR PUNISHED, IF IT WERE NOT BY A
MILITARY COMMISSION IN THE THEATRE WHERE THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS CITED NO AUTHORITY WHATEVER FOR HOLDING THAT
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CONFERS RIGHTS UPON ALL PERSONS, WHATEVER THEIR
NATIONALITY, WHEREVER THEY ARE LOCATED AND WHATEVER THEIR OFFENSES,
EXCEPT TO QUOTE EXTENSIVELY FROM A DISSENTING OPINION IN IN RE
YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, 26.  THE HOLDING OF THE COURT IN THAT CASE IS,
OF COURSE, TO THE CONTRARY. 

IF THIS AMENDMENT INVESTS ENEMY ALIENS IN UNLAWFUL HOSTILE ACTION
AGAINST US WITH IMMUNITY FROM MILITARY TRIAL, IT PUTS THEM IN A MORE
PROTECTED POSITION THAN OUR OWN SOLDIERS.  AMERICAN CITIZENS
CONSCRIPTED INTO THE MILITARY SERVICE ARE THEREBY STRIPPED OF THEIR
FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND AS MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT ARE
SUBJECT TO ITS DISCIPLINE, INCLUDING MILITARY TRIALS FOR OFFENSES
AGAINST ALIENS OR AMERICANS.  CF. HUMPHREY V. SMITH, 336 U.S. 695; WADE
V. HUNTER, 336 U.S. 684.  CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT OUR FOES WOULD
ALSO HAVE BEEN EXCEPTED, BUT FOR THE ASSUMPTION "ANY PERSON" WOULD
NEVER BE READ TO INCLUDE THOSE IN ARMS AGAINST US?  IT WOULD BE A
PARADOX INDEED IF WHAT THE AMENDMENT DENIED TO AMERICANS IT GUARANTEED
TO ENEMIES.  AND, OF COURSE, IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED THAT SUCH SHELTER IS
DUE THEM AS A MATTER OF COMITY FOR ANY RECIPROCAL RIGHTS CONFERRED BY
ENEMY GOVERNMENTS ON AMERICAN SOLDIERS.  FN11 

THE DECISION BELOW WOULD EXTEND COVERAGE OF OUR CONSTITUTION TO
NONRESIDENT ALIEN ENEMIES DENIED TO RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMIES.  THE LATTER
ARE ENTITLED ONLY TO JUDICIAL HEARING TO DETERMINE WHAT THE PETITION OF
THESE PRISONERS ADMITS:  THAT THEY ARE REALLY ALIEN ENEMIES.  WHEN THAT
APPEARS, THOSE RESIDENT HERE MAY BE DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY BY EXECUTIVE
ACTION WITHOUT HEARING.  LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160.  WHILE THIS
IS PREVENTIVE RATHER THAN PUNITIVE DETENTION, NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY
AN ALIEN ENEMY CHARGED WITH HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME SHOULD HAVE
GREATER IMMUNITIES FROM EXECUTIVE ACTION THAN ONE WHO IT IS ONLY FEARED
MIGHT AT SOME FUTURE TIME COMMIT A HOSTILE ACT. 

IF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CONFERS ITS RIGHTS ON ALL THE WORLD EXCEPT
AMERICANS ENGAGED IN DEFENDING IT, THE SAME MUST BE TRUE OF THE
COMPANION CIVIL-RIGHTS AMENDMENTS, FOR NONE OF THEM IS LIMITED BY ITS
EXPRESS TERMS, TERRITORIALLY OR AS TO PERSONS.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION
WOULD MEAN THAT DURING MILITARY OCCUPATION IRRECONCILABLE ENEMY
ELEMENTS, GUERRILLA FIGHTERS, AND "WEREWOLVES" COULD REQUIRE THE
AMERICAN JUDICIARY TO ASSURE THEM FREEDOMS OF SPEECH, PRESS, AND
ASSEMBLY AS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AS IN THE
SECOND, SECURITY AGAINST "UNREASONABLE" SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AS IN THE
FOURTH, AS WELL AS RIGHTS TO JURY TRIAL AS IN THE FIFTH AND SIXTH
AMENDMENTS. 

SUCH EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF ORGANIC LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN SO
SIGNIFICANT AN INNOVATION IN THE PRACTICE OF GOVERNMENTS THAT, IF
INTENDED OR APPREHENDED, IT COULD SCARCELY HAVE FAILED TO EXCITE
CONTEMPORARY COMMENT.  NOT ONE WORD CAN BE CITED.  NO DECISION OF THIS
COURT SUPPORTS SUCH A VIEW.  CF. DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244.  NONE
OF THE LEARNED COMMENTATORS ON OUR CONSTITUTION HAS EVEN HINTED AT IT.
THE PRACTICE OF EVERY MODERN GOVERNMENT IS OPPOSED TO IT. 

WE HOLD THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONFER A RIGHT OF PERSONAL
SECURITY OR AN IMMUNITY FROM MILITARY TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT UPON AN
ALIEN ENEMY ENGAGED IN THE HOSTILE SERVICE OF A GOVERNMENT AT WAR WITH
THE UNITED STATES. 

  IV. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN OF OPINION THAT THE
PETITION SHOWS SOME ACTION BY SOME OFFICIAL OF THE UNITED STATES IN
EXCESS OF HIS AUTHORITY WHICH CONFERS A PRIVATE RIGHT TO HAVE IT
JUDICIALLY VOIDED.  ITS SECOND AND THIRD PROPOSITIONS WERE THAT "ACTION
BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS VOID" AND
"A BASIC AND INHERENT FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH ...  IS TO SET
ASIDE VOID ACTION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS  ...  "  FOR THIS REASON IT
THOUGHT THE WRIT COULD BE GRANTED. 

THE PETITION SPECIFIES FOUR REASONS WHY CONVICTION BY THE MILITARY
COMMISSION WAS IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION:  TWO BASED ON THE GENEVA
CONVENTION OF JULY 27, 1929, 47 STAT. 2021, WITH WHICH WE DEAL LATER;
AND TWO APPARENTLY DESIGNED TO RAISE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTIONS ARE THAT "THE DETENTION OF THE PRISONERS AS
CONVICTED WAR CRIMINALS IS ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES I AND
III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
THERETO, AND OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF SAID CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES ...  , IN THAT: 

"(A)  THERE BEING NO CHARGE OF AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR BY
THE PRISONERS, THE MILITARY COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 

"(B)  IN THE ABSENCE OF HOSTILITIES, MARTIAL LAW, OR AMERICAN
MILITARY OCCUPATION OF CHINA, AND IN VIEW OF TREATIES BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND CHINA DATED FEBRUARY 4, 1943, AND MAY 4, 1943, AND
BETWEEN GERMANY AND CHINA, DATED MAY 18, 1921, THE MILITARY COMMISSION
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION." 

THE PETITION DOES NOT PARTICULARIZE, AND NEITHER DOES THE COURT
BELOW, THE SPECIFIC RESPECTS IN WHICH IT IS CLAIMED ACTS OF THE
MILITARY WERE ULTRA VIRES. 

THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY AUTHORITIES, DURING OR FOLLOWING
HOSTILITIES, TO PUNISH THOSE GUILTY OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR
IS LONG-ESTABLISHED.  BY THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES, "THE GERMAN
GOVERNMENT RECOGNISES THE RIGHT OF THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS TO
BRING BEFORE MILITARY TRIBUNALS PERSONS ACCUSED OF HAVING COMMITTED
ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR."  ARTICLE 228.  THIS
COURT HAS CHARACTERIZED AS "WELL-ESTABLISHED" THE "POWER OF THE
MILITARY TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES,
THOSE DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH SUCH FORCES, OR ENEMY BELLIGERENTS,
PRISONERS OF WAR, OR OTHERS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE LAWS OF WAR." 
DUNCAN V. KAHANAMOKA, 327 U.S. 304, 312, 313-314.  AND WE HAVE HELD IN
THE QUIRIN AND YAMASHITA CASES, SUPRA, THAT THE MILITARY COMMISSION IS
A LAWFUL TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDGE ENEMY OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR. 
FN12 

IT IS NOT FOR US TO SAY WHETHER THESE PRISONERS WERE OR WERE NOT
GUILTY OF A WAR CRIME, OR WHETHER IF WE WERE TO RETRY THE CASE WE WOULD
AGREE TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT OR THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR
MADE BY THE MILITARY COMMISSION.  THE PETITION SHOWS THAT THESE
PRISONERS WERE FORMALLY ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THE LAWS OF WAR AND FULLY
INFORMED OF PARTICULARS OF THESE CHARGES.  AS WE OBSERVED IN THE
YAMASHITA CASE, "IF THE MILITARY TRIBUNALS HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO
HEAR, DECIDE AND CONDEMN, THEIR ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW MERELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE MADE A WRONG DECISION ON DISPUTED
FACTS.  CORRECTION OF THEIR ERRORS OF DECISION IS NOT FOR THE COURTS
BUT FOR THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE ALONE AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW
THEIR DECISIONS."  327 U.S. 1, 8.  "WE CONSIDER HERE ONLY THE LAWFUL
POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO TRY THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENSE
CHARGED."  IBID. 

THAT THERE IS A BASIS IN CONVENTIONAL AND LONG-ESTABLISHED LAW BY
WHICH CONDUCT ASCRIBED TO THEM MIGHT AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION SEEMS BEYOND
QUESTION.  BREACH OF THE TERMS OF AN ACT OF SURRENDER IS NO NOVELTY
AMONG WAR CRIMES.  "THAT CAPITULATIONS MUST BE SCRUPULOUSLY ADHERED TO
IS AN OLD CUSTOMARY RULE, SINCE ENACTED BY ARTICLE 35 OF THE HAGUE
REGULATIONS.  FN13  ANY ACT CONTRARY TO A CAPITULATION WOULD CONSTITUTE
AN INTERNATIONAL DELINQUENCY IF ORDERED BY A BELLIGERENT GOVERNMENT,
AND A WAR CRIME IF COMMITTED WITHOUT SUCH ORDER.  SUCH VIOLATION MAY BE
MET BY REPRISALS OR PUNISHMENT OF THE OFFENDERS AS WAR CRIMINALS."  II
OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW 433(6TH ED. REV., LAUTERPACHT, 1944). 
VATTEL TELLS US:  "IF ANY OF THE SUBJECTS, WHETHER MILITARY MEN OR
PRIVATE CITIZENS, OFFEND AGAINST THE TRUCE  ...  THE DELINQUENTS SHOULD
BE COMPELLED TO MAKE AMPLE COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE, AND SEVERELY
PUNISHED.  ...  "  LAW OF NATIONS, BOOK III, C. XVI, SEC. 241.  AND SO
TOO, LAWRENCE, WHO SAYS, "IF  ...  THE BREACH OF THE CONDITIONS AGREED
UPON IS THE ACT OF UNAUTHORIZED INDIVIDUALS, THE SIDE THAT SUFFERS  ...
MAY DEMAND THE PUNISHMENT OF THE GUILTY PARTIES AND AN INDEMNITY FOR
ANY LOSSES IT HAS SUSTAINED."  PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (5TH
ED.)  P. 566.  IT BEING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A MILITARY
COMMISSION TO TRY THE PRISONERS, IT WAS FOR IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
LAWS OF WAR APPLIED AND WHETHER AN OFFENSE AGAINST THEM HAD BEEN
COMMITTED. 

WE CAN ONLY READ "(B)" TO MEAN EITHER THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE
MILITARY FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN CHINA AT THE TIMES IN QUESTION
WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR, IF LAWFULLY THERE, THAT THEY HAD NO RIGHT
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO SET UP A MILITARY COMMISSION ON CHINESE
TERRITORY.  BUT IT CAN HARDLY BE MEANT THAT IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO WAGE A WAR IN FOREIGN PARTS. 
AMONG POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION IS POWER TO
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, TO DECLARE WAR, TO RAISE AND SUPPORT
ARMIES, TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY, AND TO MAKE RULES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT AND REGULATION OF THE LAND AND NAVAL FORCES.  ART. I, SEC.
8, CONST.  IT ALSO GIVES POWER TO MAKE RULES CONCERNING CAPTURES ON
LAND AND WATER, IBID., WHICH THIS COURT HAS CONSTRUED AS AN INDEPENDENT
SUBSTANTIVE POWER.  BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 8 CRANCH 110, 126.  INDEED,
OUT OF SEVENTEEN SPECIFIC PARAGRAPHS OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER, EIGHT OF
THEM ARE DEVOTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO SPECIFICATION OF POWERS
CONNECTED WITH WARFARE.  THE FIRST OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT IS THAT HE SHALL BE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY
OF THE UNITED STATES.  ART. II, SEC. 2, CONST.  AND, OF COURSE, GRANT
OF WAR POWER INCLUDES ALL THAT IS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING
THESE POWERS INTO EXECUTION. 

CERTAINLY IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIARY TO ENTERTAIN
PRIVATE LITIGATION - EVEN BY A CITIZEN - WHICH CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY,
THE WISDOM, OR THE PROPRIETY OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IN SENDING OUR
ARMED FORCES ABROAD OR TO ANY PARTICULAR REGION.  CHINA APPEARS TO HAVE
FULLY CONSENTED TO THE TRIAL WITHIN HER TERRITORIES AND, IF CHINA HAD
COMPLAINT AT THE PRESENCE OF AMERICAN FORCES THERE, CHINA'S GRIEVANCE
DOES NOT BECOME THESE PRISONERS' RIGHT.  THE ISSUE TENDERED BY "(B)"
INVOLVES A CHALLENGE TO CONDUCT OF DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, FOR
WHICH THE PRESIDENT IS EXCLUSIVELY RESPONSIBLE.  UNITED STATES V.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304; CHICAGO & SOUTHERN AIR LINES V.
WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP., 333 U.S. 103. 

THESE PRISONERS DO NOT ASSERT, AND COULD NOT, THAT ANYTHING IN THE
GENEVA CONVENTION MAKES THEM IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION OR PUNISHMENT FOR
WAR CRIMES.  FN14  ARTICLE 75 THEREOF EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT A
PRISONER OF WAR MAY BE DETAINED UNTIL THE END OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND,
IF NECESSARY, UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE PUNISHMENT.  47 STAT. 2021,
2055. 

THE PETITION, HOWEVER, MAKES TWO CLAIMS IN THE NATURE OF PROCEDURAL
IRREGULARITIES SAID TO DEPRIVE THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF
JURISDICTION.  ONE IS THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS OBLIGED TO GIVE THE
PROTECTING POWER OF GERMANY NOTICE OF THE TRIAL, AS SPECIFIED IN
ARTICLE 60 OF THE CONVENTION.  THIS CLAIM THE COURT HAS TWICE
CONSIDERED AND TWICE REJECTED, HOLDING THAT SUCH NOTICE IS REQUIRED
ONLY OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES COMMITTED DURING
CAPTIVITY AND NOT IN CASE OF WAR CRIMES COMMITTED BEFORE CAPTURE.  EX
PARTE QUIRIN, SUPRA; EX PARTE YAMASHITA, SUPRA. 

THE OTHER CLAIM IS THAT THEY WERE DENIED TRIAL "BY THE SAME COURTS
AND ACCORDING TO THE SAME PROCEDURE AS IN THE CASE OF PERSONS BELONGING
TO THE ARMED FORCES OF THE DETAINING POWER," REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 63 OF
THE CONVENTION.  IT MAY BE NOTED THAT NO PREJUDICIAL DISPARITY IS
POINTED OUT AS BETWEEN THE COMMISSION THAT TRIED PRISONERS AND THOSE
THAT WOULD TRY AN OFFENDING SOLDIER OF THE AMERICAN FORCES OF LIKE
RANK.  BY A PARITY OF REASONING WITH THAT IN THE FOREGOING DECISIONS,
THIS ARTICLE ALSO REFERS TO THOSE, AND ONLY TO THOSE, PROCEEDINGS FOR
DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES DURING CAPTIVITY.  NEITHER APPLIES TO A TRIAL FOR
WAR CRIMES.    WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT THE PETITION ALLEGES ANY FACT
SHOWING LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES TO ACCUSE, TRY
AND CONDEMN THESE PRISONERS OR THAT THEY ACTED IN EXCESS OF THEIR
LAWFUL POWERS.                                        V. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THIS PETITION ON AUTHORITY OF AHRENS V.
CLARK, 335 U.S. 188.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED ONLY QUESTIONS
WHICH IT REGARDED AS RESERVED IN THAT DECISION AND IN EX PARTE ENDO,
323 U.S. 283.  THOSE CASES DEALT WITH PERSONS BOTH RESIDING AND
DETAINED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND WHOSE CAPACITY AND STANDING TO
INVOKE THE PROCESS OF FEDERAL COURTS SOMEWHERE WAS UNQUESTIONED.  THE
ISSUE WAS WHERE. 

SINCE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION WE FIND NO BASIS FOR INVOKING
FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER IN ANY DISTRICT, WE NEED NOT DEBATE AS TO WHERE,
IF THE CASE WERE OTHERWISE, THE PETITION SHOULD BE FILED. 

FOR REASONS STATED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED
AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE PETITION IS
AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FROM JANUARY 1948 TO TODAY, MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS
FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS COURT, AND APPLICATIONS TREATED BY THE COURT
AS SUCH, ON BEHALF OF OVER 200 GERMAN ENEMY ALIENS CONFINED BY AMERICAN
MILITARY AUTHORITIES ABROAD WERE FILED AND DENIED.  BRANDT V. UNITED
STATES, AND 13 COMPANION CASES, 333 U.S. 836; IN RE EICHEL (ONE
PETITION ON BEHALF OF THREE PERSONS), 333 U.S. 865; EVERETT V. TRUMAN
(ONE PETITION ON BEHALF OF 74 PERSONS), 334 U.S. 824; IN RE KRAUTWURST,
AND 11 COMPANION CASES, 334 U.S. 826; IN RE EHLEN "ET AL.," AND IN RE
GIRKE "ET AL.," 334 U.S. 836; IN RE GRONWALD "ET AL.," 334 U.S. 857; IN
RE STATTMANN, AND 3 COMPANION CASES, 335 U.S. 805; IN RE VETTER, AND 6
COMPANION CASES, 335 U.S. 841; IN RE ECKSTEIN, 335 U.S. 851; IN RE
HEIM, 335 U.S. 856; IN RE DAMMANN, AND 4 COMPANION CASES, 336 U.S. 922
923; IN RE MUHLBAUER, AND 57 COMPANION CASES, COVERING AT LEAST 80
PERSONS, 336 U.S. 964; IN RE FELSCH, 337 U.S. 953; IN RE BUERGER, 338
U.S. 884; IN RE HANS, 339 U.S. 976; IN RE SCHMIDT, 339 U.S. 976;
LAMMERS V. UNITED STATES, 339 U.S. 976.  AND SEE ALSO MILCH V. UNITED
STATES, 332 U.S. 789. 

THESE CASES AND THE VARIETY OF QUESTIONS THEY RAISED ARE ANALYZED AND
DISCUSSED BY FAIRMAN, SOME NEW PROBLEMS OF THE CONSTITUTION FOLLOWING
THE FLAG, 1 STANFORD L. REV. 587. 

FN2  "  ...  IN THE PRIMARY MEANING OF THE WORDS, AN ALIEN FRIEND IS
THE SUBJECT OF A FOREIGN STATE AT PEACE WITH THE UNITED STATES; AN
ALIEN ENEMY IS THE SUBJECT OF A FOREIGN STATE AT WAR WITH THE UNITED
STATES (1 KENT COMM., P. 55; 2 HALLECK INT. L. (REV. 1908), P. 1; HALL
INT. LAW (7TH ED.), P. 403, SEC. 126; BATY & MORGAN WAR:  ITS CONDUCT
AND LEGAL RESULTS, P. 247; 1 HALSBURY LAWS OF ENGLAND, P. 310;
SYLVESTER'S CASE, 7 MOD. 150; THE ROUMANIAN, 1915, PROB.  DIV.  26;
AFFD., 1916, 1 A.C. 124; GRISWOLD V. WADDINGTON, 16 JOHNS.  437(438),
448; WHITE V. BURNLEY, 20 HOW.  (U.S.)  235, 249; THE BENITO ESTENGER,
176 U.S. 568, 571; KERSHAW V. KELSEY, 100 MASS. 561; SO ALL THE
LEXICOGRAPHERS, AS, E.G., WEBSTER, MURRAY, ABBOTT, BLACK, BOUVIER)  ...
"  CARDOZO, J. IN TECHT V. HUGHES, 229 N.Y. 222, 229, 128 N.E. 185,
186. 

FN3  FOR CASES IN LOWER COURTS, SEE NOTE, 18 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 410. 

FN4  "WHENEVER IT IS MADE KNOWN TO THE PRESIDENT THAT ANY CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN UNJUSTLY DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY BY OR UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
PRESIDENT FORTHWITH TO DEMAND OF THAT GOVERNMENT THE REASONS OF SUCH
IMPRISONMENT; AND IF IT APPEARS TO BE WRONGFUL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, THE PRESIDENT SHALL FORTHWITH DEMAND
THE RELEASE OF SUCH CITIZEN, AND IF THE RELEASE SO DEMANDED IS
UNREASONABLY DELAYED OR REFUSED, THE PRESIDENT SHALL USE SUCH MEANS,
NOT AMOUNTING TO ACTS OF WAR, AS HE MAY THINK NECESSARY AND PROPER TO
OBTAIN OR EFFECTUATE THE RELEASE; AND ALL THE FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
RELATIVE THERETO SHALL AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE BE COMMUNICATED BY THE
PRESIDENT TO CONGRESS."  15 STAT. 224, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 903B. 

FN5  SEE DELANEY, THE ALIEN ENEMY AND THE DRAFT, 12 BROOKLYN L. REV.
91. 

FN6  "  ...  IN 1798, THE 5TH CONGRESS PASSED THREE ACTS IN RAPID
SUCCESSION, 'AN ACT CONCERNING ALIENS,' APPROVED JUNE 25, 1798(1 STAT.
570), 'AN ACT RESPECTING ALIEN ENEMIES,' APPROVED JULY 6, 1798(1 STAT.
577, 50 U.S.C.A. SEC. 21 ET SEQ.), AND 'AN ACT IN ADDITION TO THE ACT,
ENTITLED "AN ACT FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMES AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES,"' APPROVED JULY 14, 1798.  (1 STAT. 596.)  THE FIRST AND
LAST WERE THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS, VIGOROUSLY ATTACKED IN CONGRESS
AND BY THE VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT
THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO VIGOROUSLY FOUGHT THE ALIEN ACT SAW NO
OBJECTION TO THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT.  (8 ANNALS OF CONG. 2035(5TH CONG.,
1798)).  IN FACT, ALBERT GALLATIN, WHO LED THAT OPPOSITION, WAS
EMPHATIC IN DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TWO BILLS AND IN AFFIRMING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS OVER ALIEN ENEMIES AS PART OF THE
POWER TO DECLARE WAR.  (ID. AT 1980.)  JAMES MADISON WAS THE AUTHOR OF
THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS, AND IN HIS REPORT TO THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF
DELEGATES THE ENSUING YEAR AFTER THE DELUGE OF CONTROVERSY, HE
CAREFULLY AND WITH SOME TARTNESS ASSERTED A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ALIEN
MEMBERS OF A HOSTILE NATION AND ALIEN MEMBERS OF A FRIENDLY NATION,
DISAVOWED ANY RELATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS TO ALIEN ENEMIES, AND
DECLARED, 'WITH RESPECT TO ALIEN ENEMIES, NO DOUBT HAS BEEN INTIMATED
AS TO THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER THEM; THE CONSTITUTION HAVING
EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO CONGRESS THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR AGAINST ANY
NATION, AND OF COURSE TO TREAT IT AND ALL ITS MEMBERS AS ENEMIES.' 
(MADISON'S REPORT, 4 ELLIOT'S DEB.  546, 554(1800).)  THOMAS JEFFERSON
WROTE THE KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS, AND HE WAS METICULOUS IN IDENTIFYING
THE ACT UNDER ATTACK AS THE ALIEN ACT 'WHICH ASSUMES POWER OVER ALIEN
FRIENDS.'  (KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799, 4 ELLIOT'S DEB. 
540, 541.)  IT IS CERTAIN THAT IN THE WHITE LIGHT WHICH BEAT ABOUT THE
SUBJECT IN 1798, IF THERE HAD BEEN THE SLIGHTEST QUESTION IN THE MINDS
OF THE AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION OR THEIR CONTEMPORARIES CONCERNING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT, IT WOULD HAVE APPEARED. 
NONE DID. 

"THE COURTS, IN AN UNBROKEN LINE OF CASES FROM FRIES' CASE (CASE OF
FRIES, C.C.D. PA. 1799, 9 FED. CAS. AT PAGES 826, 830 ET SEQ., NO.
5,126), IN 1799 TO SCHWARZKOPF'S CASE (UNITED STATES EX REL.
SCHWARZKOPF V. UHL, 2 CIR., 1943, 137 F.2D 898) IN 1943, HAVE ASSERTED
OR ASSUMED THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT AND BASED NUMEROUS DECISIONS UPON
THE ASSUMPTION.  (BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 1814, 8 CRANCH 110, 3 L. ED.
504; DE LACEY V. UNITED STATES, 9 CIR., 1918, 249 F. 625, L.R.A. 1918E,
1011; GRAHL V. UNITED STATES, 7 CIR., 1919, 261 F. 487; LOCKINGTON'S
CASE, BRIGHTLY (PA., 1813) 269, 283; LOCKINGTON V. SMITH, C.C.D. PA.,
1817, 15 FED. CAS. PAGE 758, NO. 8,448; EX PARTE GRABER, D.C.N.D. ALA.
1918, 247 F. 882; MINOTTO V. BRADLEY, D.C.N.D. ILL. 1918, 252 F. 600;
EX PARTE FRONKLIN, D.C. MISS.  1918, 253 F. 984; EX PARTE RISSE,
D.C.S.N.Y. 1919, 257 F. 102; EX PARTE GILROY, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1919, 257 F.
110.)  THE JUDICIAL VIEW HAS BEEN WITHOUT DISSENT. 

"AT COMMON LAW 'ALIEN ENEMIES HAVE NO RIGHTS, NO PRIVILEGES, UNLESS
BY THE KING'S SPECIAL FAVOUR, DURING THE TIME OF WAR.'  (1 BLACKSTONE*
372, 373.)"  PRETTYMAN, J. IN CITIZENS PROTECTIVE LEAGUE V. CLARK, 81
U.S. APP. D.C. 116, 119-120, 155 F.2D 290, 293. 

FN7  SEE ALSO NOTES, 22 SO. CALIF. L. REV. 307; 60 HARV. L. REV. 456;
47 MICH. L. REV. 404; 17 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 578; 27 N.C.L. REV. 238; 34
CORNELL L.Q. 425.  IN THIS RESPECT OUR COURTS FOLLOW THE PRACTICE OF
THE ENGLISH COURTS.  44 AM. J. INT'L L. 382. 

FN8  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN ANNOTATIONS, 137 A.L.R. 1335, 1355; 1918B
L.R.A. 189, 191.  SEE ALSO BORCHARD, THE RIGHT OF ALIEN ENEMIES TO SUE
IN OUR COURTS, 27 YALE L.J. 104; GORDON, THE RIGHT OF ALIEN ENEMIES TO
SUE IN AMERICAN COURTS, 36 ILL. L. REV. 809, 810; BATTLE, ENEMY
LITIGANTS IN OUR COURTS, 28 VA. L. REV. 429; RYLEE, ENEMY ALIENS AS
LITIGANTS, 12 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 55, 65; NOTES, 5 U. OF DETROIT L.J.
106, 22 NEB. L. REV. 36, 30 CALIF. L. REV. 358, 54 HARV. L. REV. 350. 

FN9  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2243 PROVIDES IN PART:  "UNLESS THE APPLICATION
FOR THE WRIT AND THE RETURN PRESENT ONLY ISSUES OF LAW THE PERSON TO
WHOM THE WRIT IS DIRECTED SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE AT THE HEARING
THE BODY OF THE PERSON DETAINED." 

FN10  "HABEAS CORPUS  ...  THOU (SHALT) HAVE THE BODY (SC. IN
COURT). 

"A WRIT ISSUING OUT OF A COURT OF JUSTICE ...  REQUIRING THE BODY OF
A PERSON TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE JUDGE OR INTO THE COURT FOR THE
PURPOSE SPECIFIED IN THE WRIT; ...  REQUIRING THE BODY OF A PERSON
RESTRAINED OF LIBERTY TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE JUDGE OR INTO COURT,
THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE RESTRAINT MAY BE INVESTIGATED AND
DETERMINED."  THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1933), VOL. V, P. 2. 

FN11  "ALL MERCHANTS, IF THEY WERE NOT OPENLY PROHIBITED BEFORE,
SHALL HAVE THEIR SAFE AND SURE CONDUCT TO DEPART OUT OF ENGLAND, TO
COME INTO ENGLAND, TO TARRY IN, AND GO THROUGH ENGLAND, AS WELL BY LAND
AS BY WATER, TO BUY AND SELL WITHOUT ANY MANNER OF EVIL TOLLES BY THE
OLD AND RIGHTFUL CUSTOMS, EXCEPT IN TIME OF WAR; AND IF THEY BE OF A
LAND MAKING WAR AGAINST US, AND BE FOUND IN OUR REALM AT THE BEGINNING
OF THE WARS, THEY SHALL BE ATTACHED WITHOUT HARM OF BODY OR GOODS,
UNTIL IT BE KNOWN UNTO US, OR OUR CHIEF JUSTICE, HOW OUR MERCHANTS BE
ENTREATED WHO ARE THEN FOUND IN THE LAND MAKING WAR AGAINST US; AND IF
OUR MERCHANTS BE WELL INTREATED THERE, THEIRS SHALL BE LIKEWISE WITH
US."  C. 30 OF THE MAGNA CARTA, IN 3 THE COMPLETE STATUTES OF ENGLAND
(HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND 1929) AT P. 27. 

FN12  SEE GREEN, THE MILITARY COMMISSION, 42 AM. J. INT'L L. 832. 

FN13  ARTICLE XXXV OF CONVENTION IV SIGNED AT THE HAGUE, OCTOBER 18,
1907, 36 STAT. 2277, 2305, PROVIDES:  "CAPITULATIONS AGREED UPON
BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING PARTIES MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RULES OF
MILITARY HONOUR. 

"ONCE SETTLED, THEY MUST BE SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVED BY BOTH PARTIES." 

AND SEE VII MOORE, INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST (1906) 330:  "IF THERE IS
ONE RULE OF THE LAW OF WAR MORE CLEAR AND PEREMPTORY THAN ANOTHER, IT
IS THAT COMPACTS BETWEEN ENEMIES, SUCH AS TRUCES AND CAPITULATIONS,
SHALL BE FAITHFULLY ADHERED TO; AND THEIR NON-OBSERVANCE IS DENOUNCED
AS BEING MANIFESTLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE TRUE INTEREST AND DUTY, NOT
ONLY OF THE IMMEDIATE PARTIES, BUT OF ALL MANKIND.  MR. WEBSTER, SEC.
OF STATE, TO MR. THOMPSON, APR. 5, 1842, 6 WEBSTER'S WORKS, 438." 

FN14  WE ARE NOT HOLDING THAT THESE PRISONERS HAVE NO RIGHT WHICH THE
MILITARY AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO RESPECT.  THE UNITED STATES, BY THE
GENEVA CONVENTION OF JULY 27, 1929, 47 STAT. 2021, CONCLUDED WITH FORTY
SIX OTHER COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE GERMAN REICH, AN AGREEMENT UPON THE
TREATMENT TO BE ACCORDED CAPTIVES.  THESE PRISONERS CLAIM TO BE AND ARE
ENTITLED TO ITS PROTECTION.  IT IS, HOWEVER, THE OBVIOUS SCHEME OF THE
AGREEMENT THAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF THESE
RIGHTS IS UPON POLITICAL AND MILITARY AUTHORTIES.  RIGHTS OF ALIEN
ENEMIES ARE VINDICATED UNDER IT ONLY THROUGH PROTESTS AND INTERVENTION
OF PROTECTING POWERS AS THE RIGHTS OF OUR CITIZENS AGAINST FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS ARE VINDICATED ONLY BY PRESIDENTIAL INTERVENTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

NOT ONLY IS UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP A "HIGH PRIVILEGE," IT IS A
PRICELESS TREASURE.  FOR THAT CITIZENSHIP IS ENRICHED BEYOND PRICE BY
OUR GOAL OF EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW - EQUAL JUSTICE NOT FOR CITIZENS
ALONE, BUT FOR ALL PERSONS COMING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF OUR POWER.  THIS
IDEAL GAVE BIRTH TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR AN INDEPENDENT
JUDICIARY WITH AUTHORITY TO CHECK ABUSES OF EXECUTIVE POWER AND TO
ISSUE WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS LIBERATING PERSONS ILLEGALLY IMPRISONED. 
FN1 

THIS CASE TESTS THE POWER OF COURTS TO EXERCISE HABEAS CORPUS
JURISDICTION ON BEHALF OF ALIENS, IMPRISONED IN GERMANY, UNDER
SENTENCES IMPOSED BY THE EXECUTIVE THROUGH MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  THE
TRIAL COURT HELD THAT, BECAUSE THE PERSONS INVOLVED ARE IMPRISONED
OVERSEAS, IT HAD NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION EVEN TO CONSIDER THEIR
PETITIONS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDICIAL RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IS VESTED WITH FINAL AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE
LEGALITY OF IMPRISONMENT FOR CRIME.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 396, 174 F.2D
961.  THIS COURT NOW AFFIRMS THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL.  I AGREE
WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS AND NEED ADD LITTLE TO THE COGENT REASONS
GIVEN FOR ITS DECISION.  THE BROAD REACH OF TODAY'S OPINION, HOWEVER,
REQUIRES DISCUSSION. 

FIRST.  IN PART IV OF ITS OPINION THE COURT APPARENTLY BASES ITS
HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION ON ITS OWN
CONCLUSION THAT THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS FAILED TO SHOW FACTS
AUTHORIZING THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR.  BUT JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER THE INITIAL PLEADING
SUFFICIENTLY STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION; IF A COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF
SUBJECT MATTER AND PARTIES, IT SHOULD PROCEED TO TRY THE CASE,
BEGINNING WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE PLEADINGS.  BELL V. HOOD, 327 U.S.
678, 682-683; EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69, 71.  FN2  THEREFORE PART IV
OF THE OPINION IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT AND LENDS NO SUPPORT WHATEVER TO
THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 
MOREOVER, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PETITION SHOWED ON ITS FACE THAT
THESE PRISONERS HAD VIOLATED THE LAWS OF WAR, EVEN IF IT WERE RELEVANT,
IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT.  THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT REACH THAT
QUESTION BECAUSE IT CONCLUDED THAT THEIR IMPRISONMENT OUTSIDE ITS
DISTRICT BARRED IT EVEN FROM CONSIDERING THE PETITION; ITS DOORS WERE
"SUMMARILY CLOSED."  AND IN REVERSING, THE COURT OF APPEALS
SPECIFICALLY REJECTED REQUESTS THAT IT CONSIDER THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
PETITION, PROPERLY REMANDING THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THAT
DETERMINATION - JUST AS THIS COURT DID IN THE HOOD AND KAWATO CASES,
SUPRA. THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HERE PRESENTED NO
QUESTION EXCEPT THAT OF JURISDICTION; AND NEITHER PARTY HAS ARGUED,
ORALLY OR IN BRIEFS, THAT THIS COURT SHOULD PASS ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF
THE PETITION.  TO DECIDE THIS UNARGUED QUESTION UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES SEEMS AN UNWARRANTED AND HIGHLY IMPROPER DEVIATION FROM
ORDINARY JUDICIAL PROCEDURE.  AT THE VERY LEAST, FAIRNESS REQUIRES THAT
THE COURT HEAR ARGUMENT ON THIS POINT. 

DESPITE THESE OBJECTIONS, THE COURT NOW PROCEEDS TO FIND A "WAR
CRIME" IN THE FACT THAT AFTER GERMANY HAD SURRENDERED THESE PRISONERS
GAVE CERTAIN INFORMATION TO JAPANESE MILITARY FORCES.  I AM NOT
CONVINCED THAT THIS UNARGUED QUESTION IS CORRECTLY DECIDED.  THE
PETITION ALLEGES THAT WHEN THE INFORMATION WAS GIVEN, THE ACCUSED WERE
"UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE JAPANESE EMPIRE," IN
JAPANESE-OCCUPIED TERRITORY.  WHETHER OBEDIENCE TO COMMANDS OF THEIR
JAPANESE SUPERIORS WOULD IN ITSELF CONSTITUTE "UNLAWFUL" BELLIGERENCY
IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR IS NOT SO SIMPLE A QUESTION AS THE
COURT ASSUMES.  THE ALLEGED CIRCUMSTANCES, IF PROVEN, WOULD PLACE THESE
GERMANS IN MUCH THE SAME POSITION AS PATRIOTIC FRENCH, DUTCH, OR
NORWEGIAN SOLDIERS WHO FOUGHT ON WITH THE BRITISH AFTER THEIR HOMELANDS
OFFICIALLY SURRENDERED TO NAZI GERMANY.  THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST
INTIMATION THAT THE ACCUSED WERE SPIES, OR ENGAGED IN CRUELTY, TORTURE,
OR ANY CONDUCT OTHER THAN THAT WHICH SOLDIERS OR CIVILIANS MIGHT
PROPERLY PERFORM WHEN ENTANGLED IN THEIR COUNTRY'S WAR.  IT MUST BE
REMEMBERED THAT LEGITIMATE "ACTS OF WARFARE," HOWEVER MURDEROUS, DO NOT
JUSTIFY CRIMINAL CONVICTION.  IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, 30-31, WE
CAUTIONED THAT MILITARY TRIBUNALS CAN PUNISH ONLY "UNLAWFUL"
COMBATANTS; IT IS NO "CRIME" TO BE A SOLDIER.  SEE ALSO DOW V. JOHNSON,
100 U.S. 158, 169; FORD V. SURGET, 97 U.S. 594, 605-606.  CERTAINLY
DECISIONS BY THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCERNING
APPLICABILITY OF THAT PRINCIPLE TO THESE FACTS WOULD BE HELPFUL, AS
WOULD BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS BY THE ADVERSARY PARTIES.  IT SHOULD NOT BE
DECIDED BY THIS COURT NOW WITHOUT THAT ASSISTANCE, PARTICULARLY SINCE
FAILURE TO REMAND DEPRIVES THESE PETITIONERS OF ANY RIGHT TO MEET
ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES BY AMENDING THEIR PETITIONS. 

SECOND.  IN PARTS I, II, AND III OF ITS OPINION, THE COURT APPARENTLY
HOLDS THAT NO AMERICAN COURT CAN EVEN CONSIDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
MILITARY TRIBUNAL TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THESE PRISONERS FOR THE
ALLEGED CRIME.  EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THIS HOLDING DEPENDS ON THE
GRATUITOUS CONCLUSIONS IN PART IV (AND I CANNOT TELL HOW FAR IT DOES),
IT IS BASED ON THE FACTS THAT (1) THEY WERE ENEMY ALIENS WHO WERE
BELLIGERENTS WHEN CAPTURED, AND (2) THEY WERE CAPTURED, TRIED, AND
IMPRISONED OUTSIDE OUR REALM, NEVER HAVING BEEN IN THE UNITED STATES. 

THE CONTENTION THAT ENEMY ALIEN BELLIGERENTS HAVE NO STANDING
WHATEVER TO CONTEST CONVICTION FOR WAR CRIMES BY HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS HAS TWICE BEEN EMPHATICALLY REJECTED BY A UNANIMOUS COURT. 
IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, WE HELD THAT STATUS AS AN ENEMY ALIEN
DID NOT FORECLOSE "CONSIDERATION BY THE COURTS OF PETITIONERS'
CONTENTIONS THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTIONALLY ENACTED FORBID THEIR TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION." 
ID. AT 25.  THIS WE DID IN THE FACE OF A PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION
DENYING SUCH PRISONERS ACCESS TO OUR COURTS.  ONLY AFTER THUS UPHOLDING
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS TO CONSIDER SUCH HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS DID
WE GO ON TO DENY THOSE PARTICULAR PETITIONS UPON A FINDING THAT THE
PRISONERS HAD BEEN CONVICTED BY A MILITARY TRIBUNAL OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION FOR CONDUCT THAT WE FOUND CONSTITUTED AN ACTUAL VIOLATION
OF THE LAW OF WAR.  SIMILARLY, IN YAMASHITA V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S.
1, WE HELD THAT COURTS COULD INQUIRE WHETHER A MILITARY COMMISSION,
PROMPTLY AFTER HOSTILITIES HAD CEASED, HAD LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO TRY AND
CONDEMN A JAPANESE GENERAL CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE LAW OF WAR BEFORE
HOSTILITIES HAD CEASED.  THERE WE STATED:  "(THE) EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF
THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT, UNLESS THERE WAS SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT,
WITHDRAW FROM THE COURTS THE DUTY AND POWER TO MAKE SUCH INQUIRY INTO
THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION AS MAY BE MADE BY HABEAS CORPUS."  ID.
AT 9.  THAT WE WENT ON TO DENY THE REQUESTED WRIT, AS IN THE QUIRIN
CASE, IN NO WAY DETRACTS FROM THE CLEAR HOLDING THAT HABEAS CORPUS
JURISDICTION IS AVAILABLE EVEN TO BELLIGERENT ALIENS CONVICTED BY A
MILITARY TRIBUNAL FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED IN ACTUAL ACTS OF WARFARE. 

SINCE THE COURT EXPRESSLY DISAVOWS CONFLICT WITH THE QUIRIN OR
YAMASHITA DECISIONS, IT MUST BE RELYING NOT ON THE STATUS OF THESE
PETITIONERS AS ALIEN ENEMY BELLIGERENTS BUT RATHER ON THE FACT THAT
THEY WERE CAPTURED, TRIED AND IMPRISONED OUTSIDE OUR TERRITORY.  THE
COURT CANNOT, AND DESPITE ITS RHETORIC ON THE POINT DOES NOT, DENY THAT
IF THEY WERE IMPRISONED IN THE UNITED STATES OUR COURTS WOULD CLEARLY
HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THEIR HABEAS CORPUS COMPLAINTS.  DOES A
PRISONER'S RIGHT TO TEST LEGALITY OF A SENTENCE THEN DEPEND ON WHERE
THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO IMPRISON HIM?  CERTAINLY THE QUIRIN AND
YAMASHITA OPINIONS LEND NO SUPPORT TO THAT CONCLUSION, FOR IN UPHOLDING
JURISDICTION THEY PLACE NO RELIANCE WHATEVER ON TERRITORIAL LOCATION. 
THE COURT IS FASHIONING WHOLLY INDEFENSIBLE DOCTRINE IF IT PERMITS THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, BY DECIDING WHERE ITS PRISONERS WILL BE TRIED AND
IMPRISONED, TO DEPRIVE ALL FEDERAL COURTS OF THEIR POWER TO PROTECT
AGAINST A FEDERAL EXECUTIVE'S ILLEGAL INCARCERATIONS. 

IF THE OPINION THUS MEANS, AND IT APPARENTLY DOES, THAT THESE
PETITIONERS ARE DEPRIVED OF THE PRIVILEGE OF HABEAS CORPUS SOLELY
BECAUSE THEY WERE CONVICTED AND IMPRISONED OVERSEAS, THE COURT IS
ADOPTING A BROAD AND DANGEROUS PRINCIPLE.  THE RANGE OF THAT PRINCIPLE
IS UNDERLINED BY THE ARGUMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT BRIEF THAT HABEAS
CORPUS IS NOT EVEN AVAILABLE FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS CONVICTED AND
IMPRISONED IN GERMANY BY AMERICAN MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  WHILE THE COURT
WISELY DISCLAIMS ANY SUCH NECESSARY EFFECT FOR ITS HOLDING, REJECTION
OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT IS CERTAINLY MADE DIFFICULT BY THE LOGIC
OF TODAY'S OPINION.  CONCEIVABLY A MAJORITY MAY HEREAFTER FIND
CITIZENSHIP A SUFFICIENT SUBSTITUTE FOR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AND
THUS PERMIT COURTS TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM ILLEGAL SENTENCES.  BUT
THE COURT'S OPINION INESCAPABLY DENIES COURTS POWER TO AFFORD THE LEAST
BIT OF PROTECTION FOR ANY ALIEN WHO IS SUBJECT TO OUR OCCUPATION
GOVERNMENT ABROAD, EVEN IF HE IS NEITHER ENEMY NOR BELLIGERENT AND EVEN
AFTER PEACE IS OFFICIALLY DECLARED.  FN3 

THIRD.  IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT ACTUAL WARFARE CAN BE
CONDUCTED SUCCESSFULLY ONLY IF THOSE IN COMMAND ARE LEFT THE MOST AMPLE
INDEPENDENCE IN THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS.  OUR CONSTITUTION IS NOT SO
IMPRACTICAL OR INFLEXIBLE THAT IT UNDULY RESTRICTS SUCH NECESSARY
INDEPENDENCE.  IT WOULD BE FANTASTIC TO SUGGEST THAT ALIEN ENEMIES
COULD HAIL OUR MILITARY LEADERS INTO JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS TO ACCOUNT FOR
THEIR DAY-TO-DAY ACTIVITIES ON THE BATTLEFRONT.  ACTIVE FIGHTING FORCES
MUST BE FREE TO FIGHT WHILE HOSTILITIES ARE IN PROGRESS.  BUT THAT
UNDISPUTABLE AXIOM HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE OR THE GENERAL PROBLEM
FROM WHICH IT ARISES. 

WHEN A FOREIGN ENEMY SURRENDERS, THE SITUATION CHANGES MARKEDLY.  IF
OUR COUNTRY DECIDES TO OCCUPY CONQUERED TERRITORY EITHER TEMPORARILY OR
PERMANENTLY, IT ASSUMES THE PROBLEM OF DECIDING HOW THE SUBJUGATED
PEOPLE WILL BE RULED, WHAT LAWS WILL GOVERN, WHO WILL PROMULGATE THEM,
AND WHAT GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OF OURS WILL SEE THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY
ADMINISTERED.  THIS RESPONSIBILITY IMMEDIATELY RAISES QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THE EXTENT TO WHICH OUR DOMESTIC LAWS, CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY, ARE TRANSPLANTED ABROAD.  PROBABLY NO ONE WOULD SUGGEST, AND
CERTAINLY I WOULD NOT, THAT THIS NATION EITHER MUST OR SHOULD ATTEMPT
TO APPLY EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN
CONTROLLING TEMPORARILY OCCUPIED COUNTRIES.  BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN
THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE IN FOREIGN TERRITORIES
THAT WE OCCUPY AND GOVERN.  SEE DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244. 

THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVES A FAR NARROWER ISSUE.  SPRINGING FROM
RECOGNITION THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS COMPOSED OF THREE SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT BRANCHES, IT IS WHETHER THE JUDICIARY HAS POWER IN HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF CRIMINAL SENTENCES IMPOSED
BY THE EXECUTIVE THROUGH MILITARY TRIBUNALS IN A COUNTRY WHICH WE HAVE
OCCUPIED FOR YEARS.  THE EXTENT OF SUCH A JUDICIAL TEST OF LEGALITY
UNDER CHARGES LIKE THESE, AS WE HAVE ALREADY HELD IN THE YAMASHITA
CASE, IS OF MOST LIMITED SCOPE.  WE ASK ONLY WHETHER THE MILITARY
TRIBUNAL WAS LEGALLY CONSTITUTED AND WHETHER IT HAD JURISDICTION TO
IMPOSE PUNISHMENT FOR THE CONDUCT CHARGED.  SUCH A LIMITED HABEAS
CORPUS REVIEW IS THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES,
CIVILIAN OR SOLDIER (UNLESS THE COURT ADOPTS THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT
THAT AMERICANS IMPRISONED ABROAD HAVE LOST THEIR RIGHT TO HABEAS
CORPUS).  ANY CONTENTION THAT A SIMILARLY LIMITED USE OF HABEAS CORPUS
FOR THESE PRISONERS WOULD SOMEHOW GIVE THEM A PREFERRED POSITION IN THE
LAW CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. 

THOUGH THE SCOPE OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW OF MILITARY TRIBUNAL
SENTENCES IS NARROW, I THINK IT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO THESE
PETITIONERS AND OTHERS LIKE THEM.  WE CONTROL THAT PART OF GERMANY WE
OCCUPY.  THESE PRISONERS WERE CONVICTED BY OUR OWN MILITARY TRIBUNALS
UNDER OUR OWN ARTICLES OF WAR, YEARS AFTER HOSTILITIES HAD CEASED. 
HOWEVER ILLEGAL THEIR SENTENCES MIGHT BE, THEY CAN EXPECT NO RELIEF
FROM GERMAN COURTS OR ANY OTHER BRANCH OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT WE
PERMIT TO FUNCTION.  ONLY OUR OWN COURTS CAN INQUIRE INTO THE LEGALITY
OF THEIR IMPRISONMENT.  PERHAPS, AS SOME NATIONS BELIEVE, THERE IS
MERIT IN LEAVING THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL LAWS TO EXECUTIVE AND
MILITARY AGENCIES COMPLETELY FREE FROM JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.  OUR
CONSTITUTION HAS EMPHATICALLY EXPRESSED A CONTRARY POLICY. 

AS THE COURT POINTS OUT, PAUL WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE A ROMAN
CITIZEN WHEN HE WAS MADE THE VICTIM OF PREJUDICIAL CHARGES; THAT
PRIVILEGED STATUS AFFORDED HIM AN APPEAL TO ROME, WITH A RIGHT TO MEET
HIS "ACCUSERS FACE TO FACE."  ACTS 25:16.  BUT OTHER MARTYRIZED
DISCIPLES WERE NOT SO FORTUNATE.  OUR CONSTITUTION HAS LED PEOPLE
EVERYWHERE TO HOPE AND BELIEVE THAT WHEREVER OUR LAWS CONTROL, ALL
PEOPLE, WHETHER OUR CITIZENS OR NOT, WOULD HAVE AN EQUAL CHANCE BEFORE
THE BAR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. 

CONQUEST BY THE UNITED STATES, UNLIKE CONQUEST BY MANY OTHER NATIONS,
DOES NOT MEAN TYRANNY.  FOR OUR PEOPLE "CHOOSE TO MAINTAIN THEIR
GREATNESS BY JUSTICE RATHER THAN VIOLENCE."  FN4  OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES ARE SUCH THAT THEIR MANDATE OF EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
SHOULD BE APPLIED AS WELL WHEN WE OCCUPY LANDS ACROSS THE SEA AS WHEN
OUR FLAG FLEW ONLY OVER THIRTEEN COLONIES.  OUR NATION PROCLAIMS A
BELIEF IN THE DIGNITY OF HUMAN BEINGS AS SUCH, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR
NATIONALITY OR WHERE THEY HAPPEN TO LIVE.  HABEAS CORPUS, AS AN
INSTRUMENT TO PROTECT AGAINST ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT, IS WRITTEN INTO THE
CONSTITUTION.  ITS USE BY COURTS CANNOT IN MY JUDGMENT BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY ABRIDGED BY EXECUTIVE OR BY CONGRESS.  I WOULD HOLD
THAT OUR COURTS CAN EXERCISE IT WHENEVER ANY UNITED STATES OFFICIAL
ILLEGALLY IMPRISONS ANY PERSON IN ANY LAND WE GOVERN.  FN5  COURTS
SHOULD NOT FOR ANY REASON ABDICATE THIS, THE LOFTIEST POWER WITH WHICH
THE CONSTITUTION HAS ENDOWED THEM. 

FN1  ARTICLE I, SEC. 9, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES: 

"THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED,
UNLESS WHEN IN CASES OF REBELLION OR INVASION THE PUBLIC SAFETY MAY
REQUIRE IT." 

FN2  CASES ARE OCCASIONALLY DISMISSED WHERE THE CLAIMS ARE "WHOLLY
INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS," BELL V. HOOD, SUPRA, BUT THE VERY
COMPLEXITY OF THIS COURT'S OPINION BELIES ANY SUCH CLASSIFICATION OF
THIS PETITION. 

FN3  THE COURT INDICATES THAT NOT EVEN TODAY CAN A NONRESIDENT GERMAN
OR JAPANESE BRING EVEN A CIVIL SUIT IN AMERICAN COURTS.  WITH THIS
RESTRICTIVE PHILOSOPHY COMPARE EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69; SEE ALSO
MCKENNA V. FISK, 1 HOW.  241, 249. 

FN4  THIS GOAL FOR GOVERNMENT IS NOT NEW.  ACCORDING TO TACITUS, IT
WAS ACHIEVED BY ANOTHER PEOPLE ALMOST 2,000 YEARS AGO.  SEE 2 WORKS OF
TACITUS 326(OXFORD TRANS., NEW YORK, 1869). 

FN5  SEE THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN HIROTA V.
MACARTHUR, 338 U.S. 197, 199. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. KANSAS CITY INS. CO., 339 U.S. 799 


NO. 1.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1948.  - REARGUED MARCH 29, 1950.  - DECIDED
JUNE 5, 1950.  - 109 CT. CL. 555, 74 F.SUPP.  653, AFFIRMED. 


RESPONDENT OWNED FARM LAND IN MISSOURI ON A NONNAVIGABLE TRIBUTARY OF
A NAVIGABLE RIVER, THE LAND NOT BEING IN ANY SENSE WITHIN THE BED OF
THE RIVER.  IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION, THE UNITED STATES
CONSTRUCTED ON THE RIVER A DAM WHICH MAINTAINED THE RIVER CONTINUOUSLY
AT ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LEVEL.  AS A RESULT, THE AGRICULTURAL VALUE OF
PART OF RESPONDENT'S LAND WAS DESTROYED BY UNDERFLOWING.  HELD: 

1.  THE UNITED STATES WAS LIABLE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
AGRICULTURAL VALUE OF THE LAND ABOVE THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK OF
THE RIVER, EVEN THOUGH MAINTENANCE OF THE RIVER CONTINUOUSLY AT THAT
MARK WAS IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION.  PP. 804-808. 

(A)  THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK IS THE LIMIT OF THE BED OF THE
STREAM; AND THE NAVIGATION SERVITUDE DOES NOT EXTEND TO RESPONDENT'S
LAND BEYOND THE BED OF THE NAVIGABLE RIVER.  PP. 805-808. 

2.  THE DESTRUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL VALUE OF THE LAND WAS A
TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO
ACTUAL OVERFLOWING OF THE LAND.  PP. 809-811. 

3.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THIS CASE SUFFICIENTLY
DESCRIBE THE INTEREST TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES AND FOR WHICH AN AWARD
OF COMPENSATION WAS MADE TO RESPONDENT.  PP. 811-812. 

UNITED STATES V. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS MADE AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION TO RESPONDENT ON A
CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR A TAKING OF PROPERTY OF THE
RESPONDENT FOR PUBLIC USE.  109 CT. CL. 555, 74 F.SUPP.  653.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 810.  AFFIRMED, P. 812. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT, KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, OBTAINED JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR $22,519.60, WITH
INTEREST FROM AUGUST 8, 1938.  109 CT. CL. 555, 74 F.SUPP.  653.  THIS
SUM WAS AWARDED AS JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
AGRICULTURAL VALUE OF RESPONDENT'S FARM LAND BY THE UNITED STATES IN
ARTIFICIALLY MAINTAINING THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER IN THAT VICINITY
CONTINUOUSLY AT ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LEVEL.  THE LAND WAS NOT IN ANY
SENSE WITHIN THE BED OF THE RIVER.  IT WAS ONE AND ONE-HALF MILES FROM
THE RIVER ON A NONNAVIGABLE TRIBUTARY CREEK.  ITS SURFACE WAS A FEW
FEET ABOVE THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LEVEL OF BOTH THE RIVER AND THE
CREEK.  THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, CONTENDED THAT BECAUSE IT
MAINTAINED THE RIVER AT THIS LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION IT
NEED NOT PAY FOR THE RESULTING DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE
RESPONDENT'S LAND.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED.  334 U.S. 810.  THE CASE WAS
ARGUED AT THE 1948 TERM AND REARGUED AT THIS TERM. 

TWO PRINCIPAL ISSUES ARE PRESENTED.  THE FIRST IS WHETHER THE UNITED
STATES, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE, MAY RAISE A
NAVIGABLE STREAM TO ITS ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK AND MAINTAIN IT
CONTINUOUSLY AT THAT LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION, WITHOUT
LIABILITY FOR THE EFFECTS OF THAT CHANGE UPON PRIVATE PROPERTY BEYOND
THE BED OF THE STREAM.  IF THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT DO SO, WITHOUT
SUCH LIABILITY, WE REACH THE OTHER ISSUE:  WHETHER THE RESULTING
DESTRUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL VALUE OF THE LAND AFFECTED, WITHOUT
ACTUALLY OVERFLOWING IT, IS A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  WE DECIDE BOTH ISSUES IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT, THE FIRST IN
THE NEGATIVE, THE SECOND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

THE MATERIAL FACTS FOUND BY THE COURT BELOW INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 

RESPONDENT IS THE OWNER OF 1,710 ACRES OF FARM LAND IN MISSOURI,
HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 422.7 TO 428 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.  THE LAND
BORDERS ON DARDENNE CREEK, A NONNAVIGABLE TRIBUTARY ENTERING THE
NAVIGABLE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ONE AND ONE-HALF MILES BELOW THE FARM.  THE
AGRICULTURAL VALUE OF THE LAND HAS BEEN LARGELY DESTROYED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF LOCK AND DAM NO. 26
ON THE MISSISSIPPI AT ALTON, ILLINOIS, 25 MILES BELOW DARDENNE CREEK. 
THE UNITED STATES HAS OPERATED THIS DAM SINCE AUGUST 8, 1938, AS PART
OF A SYSTEM OF RIVER IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE A NAVIGABLE CHANNEL IN THE
MISSISSIPPI BETWEEN MINNEAPOLIS AND THE MOUTH OF THE MISSOURI.  FN1
THE EFFECT OF THE DAM HAS BEEN TO RAISE THE LEVEL OF THE MISSISSIPPI AT
THE MOUTH OF DARDENNE CREEK TO A PERMANENT STAGE OF 420.4 FEET ABOVE
SEA LEVEL.  THIS WAS ITS PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED ORDINARY HIGH-WATER
MARK. 

BEFORE THE EFFECT OF THE DAM WAS FELT, THE RESPONDENT'S LAND DRAINED
ADEQUATELY THROUGH ITS SUBSOIL AND A SIMPLE SYSTEM OF DITCHES AND PIPES
EMPTYING INTO THE CREEK.  FN2  IT WAS HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE.  WHEN,
HOWEVER, THE DAM RAISED THE RIVER AND THE CREEK TO 420.4 FEET AND
MAINTAINED THE WATER CONTINOUSLY AT THAT LEVEL, THIS DESTROYED THE
AGRICULTURAL VALUE OF THE RESPONDENT'S LAND AT SURFACE ELEVATIONS
BETWEEN 423.5 AND 425 FEET.  FN3  THE DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY THE
UNDERFLOWING OF THE LAND.  FN4  THIS UNDERSURFACE INVASION WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY AS DESTRUCTIVE AS IF THE LAND HAD BEEN SUBMERGED.  THE
WATER TABLE WAS RAISED BOTH BY THE PERCOLATION OF THE WATER WHICH ROSE
AND FELL WITH THE RIVER AND BY THE RESULTING BLOCKADE OF THE DRAINAGE
OF THE LAND'S SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATER.  FN5  THE REDUCTION OF
$22,519.60 IN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND IS NOT DISPUTED. 

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT, UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, U.S. CONST. ART.
I, SEC. 8, CL. 3, THE UNITED STATES HAS THE POWER TO IMPROVE ITS
NAVIGABLE WATERS IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION WITHOUT LIABILITY FOR
DAMAGES RESULTING TO PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE BED OF THE NAVIGABLE
STREAM. 

"THE DOMINANT POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
HELD, EXTENDS TO THE ENTIRE BED OF A STREAM, WHICH INCLUDES THE LANDS
BELOW ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK.  THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER WITHIN THESE
LIMITS IS NOT AN INVASION OF ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT IN SUCH LANDS
FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES MUST MAKE COMPENSATION.  (CITING CASES.) 
THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED RESULTS NOT FROM A TAKING OF THE RIPARIAN OWNER'S
PROPERTY IN THE STREAM BED, BUT FROM THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A POWER TO
WHICH THAT PROPERTY HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUBJECT."  UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 312 U.S. 592, 596-597.  FN6 

THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS THE LIMIT OF THE
BED OF THE STREAM.  IN UNITED STATES V. WILLOW RIVER POWER CO., 324
U.S. 499, 509, WHERE COMPENSATION WAS DENIED, THIS COURT SAID:  "HIGH
WATER MARK BOUNDS THE BED OF THE RIVER.  LANDS ABOVE IT ARE FAST LANDS
AND TO FLOOD THEM IS A TAKING FOR WHICH COMPENSATION MUST BE PAID.  BUT
THE AWARD HERE DOES NOT PURPORT TO COMPENSATE A FLOODING OF FAST LANDS
OR IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR VALUE.  LANDS BELOW THAT LEVEL ARE SUBJECT
ALWAYS TO A DOMINANT SERVITUDE IN THE INTERESTS OF NAVIGATION AND ITS
EXERCISE CALLS FOR NO COMPENSATION." 

THESE CASES POINT THE WAY TO OUR DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE.  IN
THE CHICAGO CASE, SUPRA, THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTED CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHT TO BACK THE WATERS OF THE MISSISSIPPI
OVER A RIGHT OF WAY AND AGAINST AN EMBANKMENT OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT
RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.  THE PRECISE ISSUE WAS THE
GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE DONE TO THAT EMBANKMENT BY RAISING
THE WATERS OF THE RIVER TO AND ABOVE THEIR ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK. 
THE RESPONDENTS CONTENDED THAT THE DAMAGE EVEN TO THAT PART OF THE
EMBANKMENT WHICH STOOD ON LAND WITHIN THE BED OF THE RIVER WAS
COMPENSABLE AND THE COURT OF APPEALS SO HELD.  113 F.2D 919.  THIS
COURT REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT FOR THE REASON THAT ALL LAND WITHIN THE
BED OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM IS SUBJECT TO A SERVITUDE IN FAVOR OF THE
UNITED STATES, RELIEVING IT FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES TO SUCH LAND
RESULTING FROM GOVERNMENTAL ACTION IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION.  IN
ADDITION, THIS COURT REMANDED THE CASE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE
DISPUTED CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT THREE OTHER SEGMENTS OF THEIR
EMBANKMENT WERE ON LAND WHICH WAS ABOVE THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK OF
THE RIVER AND THAT TWO OF THOSE SEGMENTS ABUTTED NOT ON THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER BUT ON A NONNAVIGABLE TRIBUTARY.  312 U.S. AT P. 599.  THE ORDER
TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION INDICATES THAT THE BASIS OF THE DECISION WAS
THAT THE NAVIGATION SERVITUDE DOES NOT EXTEND TO LAND BEYOND THE BED OF
THE NAVIGABLE RIVER. 

THE OPINION IN THE CHICAGO CASE ALSO SHEDS LIGHT UPON THE EARLIER
CASES.  IT LIMITS THE DECISIONS IN UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, 188 U.S.
445, AND UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316, SO THAT THEY DO NOT
CONFLICT WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S DOMINANT SERVITUDE WHEN IT IS APPLIED TO
THE BED OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM.  IN THE KELLY CASE, WHICH IS REPORTED
WITH THE CRESS CASE, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ON A NONNAVIGABLE
TRIBUTARY OF THE NAVIGABLE KENTUCKY RIVER.  THE GOVERNMENT'S DAM RAISED
THE WATERS OF THE RIVER WHICH, IN TURN, RAISED THOSE OF THE TRIBUTARY
ACROSS WHICH KELLY HAD BUILT A MILL DAM.  THIS COURT UPHELD THE
JUDGMENT REQUIRING THE UNITED STATES TO PAY KELLY FOR THE LOSS OF HIS
POWER HEAD AT HIS MILL WHICH RESULTED FROM THIS CHANGE IN THE LEVEL OF
THE TRIBUTARY.  SIMILARLY, IN THE CRESS CASE ITSELF, THIS COURT ASSUMED
THAT A TRIBUTARY OF THE CUMBERLAND RIVER WAS NOT NAVIGABLE.  IT THEN
ALLOWED RECOVERY FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND OF A
FORD ACROSS THE TRIBUTARY.  ALL OF THIS DESTRUCTION WAS CAUSED BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S DAM ON THE RIVER BUT WAS DONE AT POINTS BEYOND THE BED OF
THAT RIVER.  IN THE CHICAGO CASE, THIS COURT'S VIEW OF THE CRESS
DECISION WAS EXPRESSED AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHAT WAS SAID IN THE CRESS CASE MUST BE CONFINED TO THE FACTS THERE
DISCLOSED.  IN THAT CASE, THE GOVERNMENT'S IMPROVEMENT IN A NAVIGABLE
STREAM RESULTED IN THE FLOODING OF THE PLAINTIFF'S LAND IN AND ADJACENT
TO A NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM.  THE OWNERS OF THE LAND ALONG AND UNDER THE
BED OF THE (NONNAVIGABLE) STREAM WERE HELD ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR
THE DAMAGE TO THEIR LANDS.  THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED WAS NOT
DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION."  312 U.S. AT P. 597. 

THE EXTENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PARAMOUNT POWER OVER THE BED OF
NAVIGABLE STREAMS WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED IN UNITED STATES V. WILLOW
RIVER POWER CO., SUPRA.  THE RESPONDENT THERE CLAIMED COMPENSATION FOR
THE REDUCTION OF A POWER HEAD, WHICH REDUCTION WAS CAUSED BY A
GOVERNMENT DAM WHICH RAISED THE LEVEL OF THE NAVIGABLE RIVER INTO WHICH
THE RESPONDENT DROPPED THE WATER FROM ITS DAM BUILT ON A NONNAVIGABLE
TRIBUTARY.  COMPENSATION WAS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT BECAUSE THE LOSS
OF POWER TO THE RESPONDENT OCCURRED WITHIN THE BED OF THE NAVIGABLE
RIVER, SUCH LOSS WAS COVERED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S DOMINANT POWER TO
CHANGE THE RIVER'S LEVEL IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION.  THIS COURT
SAID: 

"WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CRESS CASE DOES NOT GOVERN THIS ONE AND
THAT THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR APPLYING IT, AS THE CLAIMANT ASKS, OR FOR
OVERRULING IT, AS THE GOVERNMENT INTIMATES WOULD BE DESIRABLE.   ...
IN THE FORMER CASE THE NAVIGATION INTEREST WAS HELD NOT TO BE A
DOMINANT ONE AT THE PROPERTY DAMAGED; HERE DOMINANCE OF THE NAVIGATION
INTEREST AT THE ST. CROIX (THE NAVIGABLE RIVER) IS CLEAR."  324 U.S. AT
P. 506. 

IT IS NOT THE BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE, BUT
RATHER THE SERVITUDE DERIVED FROM THAT POWER AND NARROWER IN SCOPE,
THAT FREES THE GOVERNMENT FROM LIABILITY IN THESE CASES.  WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT EXERCISES THIS SERVITUDE, IT IS EXERCISING ITS PARAMOUNT
POWER IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION, RATHER THAN TAKING THE PRIVATE
PROPERTY OF ANYONE.  THE OWNER'S USE OF PROPERTY RIPARIAN TO A
NAVIGABLE STREAM LONG HAS BEEN LIMITED BY THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO
USE THE STREAM IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION.  SEE GOULD ON WATERS, C.
IV, SECS. 86-90(1883); I FARNHAM, WATERS AND WATER RIGHTS, C. III, SEC.
29(1904).  THIS HAS APPLIED TO THE STREAM AND TO THE LAND SUBMERGED BY
THE STREAM.  THERE THUS HAS BEEN AMPLE NOTICE OVER THE YEARS THAT SUCH
PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A DOMINANT PUBLIC INTEREST.  THIS RIGHT OF THE
PUBLIC HAS CRYSTALLIZED IN TERMS OF A SERVITUDE OVER THE BED OF THE
STREAM.  THE RELEVANCE OF THE HIGH-WATER LEVEL OF THE NAVIGABLE STREAM
IS THAT IT MARKS ITS BED.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
HISTORY AND REASON OF THE RULE TO DENY COMPENSATION WHERE THE
CLAIMANT'S PRIVATE TITLE IS BURDENED WITH THIS SERVITUDE BUT TO AWARD
COMPENSATION WHERE HIS TITLE IS NOT SO BURDENED.  FN7 

THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S DESTRUCTION OF
THE AGRICULTURAL VALUE OF THE RESPONDENT'S LAND IN THIS CASE AMOUNTED
TO A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THIS CASE COMES WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE DESTRUCTION OF
PRIVATELY OWNED LAND BY FLOODING IS "A TAKING" TO THE EXTENT OF THE
DESTRUCTION CAUSED.  THE DECISIONS IN PUMPELLY V. GREEN BAY CO., 13
WALL.  166; UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS,
188 U.S. 445, AND SAME CASE, 104 F. 50, 53; UNITED STATES V. WELCH, 217
U.S. 333; AND UNITED STATES V. CRESS, SUPRA, ILLUSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THAT PRINCIPLE.  FN8  ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN LIMITED BY LATER
DECISIONS IN SOME RESPECTS, THE ABOVE CASES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND
FOLLOWED IN THIS RESPECT.  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R.
CO., SUPRA, AT PP. 597-598; FN9  UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK, 324
U.S. 386; UNITED STATES V. WILLOW RIVER POWER CO., SUPRA; AND SEE
UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328 U.S. 256. 

THE FINDINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE SHOW THAT THE LAND WAS PERMANENTLY
INVADED BY THE PERCOLATION OF THE WATERS FROM BOTH THE RIVER AND ITS
TRIBUTARY.  THE PERCOLATION RAISED THE WATER TABLE AND SOAKED THE LAND
SUFFICIENTLY TO DESTROY ITS AGRICULTURAL VALUE.  THE CONTINUOUS
PRESENCE OF THIS RAISED WATER TABLE ALSO BLOCKED THE DRAINAGE OF THE
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATER IN A MANNER WHICH HELPED TO DESTROY THE
PRODUCTIVITY OF THE LAND.  FN10  WHETHER THE PREVENTION OF THE USE OF
THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES WAS DUE TO ITS INVASION BY WATER
FROM ABOVE OR FROM BELOW, IT WAS EQUALLY EFFECTIVE.  THE DESTRUCTION OF
LAND VALUE, WITHOUT SOME ACTUAL INVASION OF THE LAND AND SOLELY BY
PREVENTING THE ESCAPE OF ITS OWN SURFACE WATER, IS NOT BEFORE US.  EVEN
SUCH A SITUATION WOULD COME WITHIN THE CRESS CASE IF IT WERE
ESTABLISHED UNDER MISSOURI LAW THAT THE OWNER OF LAND ON A NONNAVIGABLE
STREAM HAS A RIGHT TO THE UNOBSTRUCTED DRAINAGE OF THAT LAND.  FN11 
ONE POINT REMAINS.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE
COURT BELOW DO NOT PROPERLY DESCRIBE THE INTEREST TAKEN.  THAT COURT
FOUND: 

"29.  THE PRIVILEGE EXERCISED BY THE GOVERNMENT, FOR WHICH THE
PLAINTIFF IS GIVEN COMPENSATION IN THIS SUIT, IS THE PRIVILEGE OF
PERMANENTLY MAINTAINING LOCK AND DAM NO. 26 AT THEIR PRESENT HEIGHT,
AND OPERATING THEM IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO FULFILL THE PURPOSES OF THEIR
CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER PURPOSES WHICH MAY DEVELOP IN THE FUTURE AND DO
NOT GREATLY VARY FROM PRESENT PURPOSES."  109 CT. CL. AT P. 572. 

THE ABOVE STATEMENT, READ IN ITS CONTEXT, PERMITS THE UNITED STATES
TO MAINTAIN THE LEVEL OF THE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARY AT 420.4 FEET
ABOVE SEA LEVEL WITH THE EFFECT ON THE RESPONDENT'S LAND THAT HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED.  THIS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID DESCRIPTION OF THE
INTEREST TAKEN AS INDICATED IN UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328 U.S. 256,
267. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  46 STAT. 918, 927; 49 STAT. 1028, 1034.  AS TO THE SAME SYSTEM
OF IMPROVEMENT, SEE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO.,
312 U.S. 592. 

FN2  BEFORE AUGUST 8, 1938, DURING ABOUT 75% OF EACH YEAR, THE RIVER
DID NOT EXCEED A STAGE OF 419.6 FEET AT DARDENNE CREEK.  FROM 1930 TO
1937, BETWEEN JUNE 21 AND SEPTEMBER 21, IT AVERAGED 413.9 FEET.  FOR
SEVERAL MONTHS AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF A YEAR, ITS STAGE WAS 410
FEET OR LESS.  THE BED OF THE CREEK AT RESPONDENT'S FARM WAS 410 TO 413
FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.  THE WATER IN THE CREEK CREATED A STAGE OF 412 TO
416 FEET. 

FN3  ALTHOUGH, AS STATED IN THE TEXT, THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, AT 420.4
FEET, DESTROYED THE AGRICULTURAL VALUE OF CERTAIN PARTS OF THE
RESPONDENT'S LAND, IT DID NOT PERCEPTIBLY CHANGE THE VALUE OF THE
RESPONDENT'S WET LAND BELOW 423.5 FEET OR OF ITS DRY LAND ABOVE 425
FEET.  NO COMPENSATION WAS ALLOWED FOR THE 602.04 ACRES SO LOCATED. 

FN4  THE COURT BELOW MADE EXTENDED FINDINGS AS TO THE EXPECTATION OF
THE ARMY ENGINEERS THAT DAMAGES, COMPARABLE TO THOSE WHICH DID OCCUR,
WOULD RESULT TO RESPONDENT'S LAND.  THE ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED THAT THE
UNITED STATES PURCHASE THE LAND.  HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND
HARBORS, DOC. NO. 34, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. (1934), AND HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, DOC. NO. 34, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 14, 55
56(1937).  THE PROJECT WAS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS AND POWER TO CONDEMN
THE LAND WAS GIVEN TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR AUGUST 26, 1937, 50 STAT.
844, 848.  HOWEVER, THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED CORRECTLY THAT - 

"THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT, IN FACT, PURCHASE OR ACQUIRE BY EMINENT
DOMAIN A PORTION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S LAND, AS THE ARMY ENGINEERS HAD
RECOMMENDED, OR DITCH AND TILE ANOTHER PORTION, AS THEY HAD
RECOMMENDED.  IT JUST WENT AHEAD AND BUILT ITS LOCK AND DAM.  THE
PLAINTIFF STILL OWNS ITS LAND.  WE THINK THAT THE LEGISLATION QUOTED
ABOVE, WHILE IT MIGHT HAVE CONSTITUTED AN AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE SOME
OF THE PLAINTIFF'S LAND BY EMINENT DOMAIN, AND TO SPEND MONEY IN TILING
AND DITCHING ANOTHER PART OF IT, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONGRESSIONAL
WAIVER OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OR CONFESSION OF LIABILITY FOR THE
CONSEQUENCES OF BUILDING THE DAM."  109 CT. CL. AT P. 574, 74 F.SUPP. 
AT P. 654. 

SEE MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 341, 345; UNITED STATES V.
ALEXANDER, 148 U.S. 186, 188-190. 

FN5  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT - 

"16.  UNDERNEATH THE CLAY SOIL ON PLAINTIFF'S LAND, THERE IS A
STRATUM OF WATER-BEARING SAND, THE TOP ELEVATION OF WHICH VARIES FROM
412 TO 414 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL.  THE WATER IN THE SAND IS
AFFECTED BY THE RISE AND FALL OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND THE WATER
TABLE UNDER THE LAND RISES AND FALLS IN RESPONSE TO HIGH OR LOW WATER
CONDITIONS IN THE RIVER.  THE WATER LEVEL IN THE UNDERGROUND STRATA IS
ALSO AFFECTED BY RAINFALL ON THE LAND, BECAUSE THE SAND STRATUM ACTS AS
A RESERVOIR FOR WATER WHICH DRAINS VERTICALLY FROM THE SURFACE OF THE
GROUND. 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"18.  THE AVERAGE POOL ELEVATION WHICH HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AT THE
MOUTH OF DARDENNE CREEK BY OPERATION OF DAM 26 IS 420.4 FEET, AND THE
ELEVATION OF THE WATER IN DARDENNE CREEK ADJACENT TO PLAINTIFF'S FARM
HAS BEEN RAISED FROM SIX TO SEVEN FEET ABOVE THE PREVIOUS NORMAL
LEVEL.  AS A RESULT OF THE OPERATION OF THE DAM, THE SURFACE OF THE
WATER IN THE CREEK HAS BEEN RAISED SO THAT THE CREEK WATER NOW BACKS
INTO SOME OF THE OUTLET PIPES IN THE PLAINTIFF'S LEVEE, THEREBY
OBSTRUCTING AND DELAYING THE DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATER FROM PLAINTIFF'S
LAND.  IN ADDITION, BY MAINTAINING THE SURFACE OF THE WATER IN THE
CREEK TO AN ELEVATION OF 420 FEET OR MORE ABOVE SEA LEVEL, THE DRAINAGE
OF THE UNDERGROUND WATER FROM A LARGE PORTION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S FARM
HAS BEEN ALMOST ENTIRELY SHUT OFF.  PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
DAM THIS UNDERGROUND WATER DRAINED THROUGH THE SAND STRATA UNDER THE
LAND INTO THE CREEK, WHICH WAS NORMALLY ONLY 2 OR 3 FEET DEEP AT THAT
TIME. 

"19.  ...  SINCE THE DAM HAS BEEN IN OPERATION, THE CONDITIONS AND
THE PERIOD OF TIME, FORMERLY AVAILABLE FOR DRAINING THE LAND AND DRYING
THE SOIL, NO LONGER EXIST. 

"20.  AS A RESULT OF THE RIVER STAGE BEING CONTROLLED BY THE
OPERATION OF THE DAM, THE WATER TABLE UNDER PLAINTIFF'S LAND IS FROM
FOUR TO FIVE FEET HIGHER THAN IT WAS DURING THE LOW STAGES OF THE
MISSISSIPPI PRIOR TO THE ERECTION OF THE DAM.  UNDER CONTROLLED RIVER
CONDITIONS, THE WATER TABLE BENEATH PLAINTIFF'S LAND HAS BEEN RAISED TO
AN ELEVATION VARYING FROM 420.5 FEET TO 422 FEET, OR AN AVERAGE OF FROM
ONE TO TWO FEET HIGHER THAN THE CONTROLLED RIVER STAGE AT DIXON'S
LANDING.  (THE ELEVATION OF THE RIVER AT DIXON'S LANDING WAS ABOUT THE
SAME AS AT THE MOUTH OF DARDENNE CREEK.)  THE DRAINAGE OF THE
UNDERGROUND WATER FROM BENEATH A LARGE AREA OF PLAINTIFF'S LAND HAS
ALMOST CEASED.  ON SOME PORTIONS OF THE LAND, VERTICAL DRAINAGE FROM
THE SURFACE TO THE UNDERLYING SAND STRATUM HAS BEEN CUT OFF AND ON
OTHER PORTIONS IT HAS BEEN GREATLY RETARDED AS A RESULT OF THE
INCREASED HEIGHT OF THE WATER TABLE. 

"21.  THE EFFECTS OF THE OPERATION OF THE DAM BECAME APPARENT WITHIN
A SHORT TIME AFTER THE FULL POOL STAGE WAS OBTAINED ON AUGUST 8, 1938. 
AFTER A RAIN, THE SURFACE OF THE SOIL DRIED OUT MUCH MORE SLOWLY THAN
BEFORE AND THE DRAINAGE DITCHES DID NOT CARRY OFF THE WATER AS
READILY.  EXCESSIVE MOISTURE WAS RETAINED IN THE SOIL AND THE PLANTING
OF CROPS WAS DELAYED.  EVEN WHEN THE SURFACE APPEARED TO BE DRY, THE
GROUND UNDERNEATH WAS WET AND WOULD NOT SUPPORT TRACTORS AND OTHER FARM
MACHINERY, WHICH BECAME MIRED DOWN AND HAD TO CEASE OPERATIONS.  SEED
PLANTED ON SOME PORTIONS OF THE LAND FAILED TO GERMINATE AND WOULD
ROT.  IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO FOLLOW A PROPER CROP ROTATION PROGRAM. 
BECAUSE THE SOIL WAS OFTEN TOO WET FOR PLANTING SOME CROPS, IT WAS
NECESSARY TO SUBSTITUTE OTHER CROPS WHICH MATURE IN A SHORTER TIME." 
109 CT. CL. AT PP. 565-569. 

IN ITS OPINION, THE COURT OF CLAIMS CONCLUDED THAT - 

"THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOCK AND DAM NO. 26 RAISED THE LEVEL OF THE
WATER IN THE RIVER AND THE CREEK, WHEN THE POOL BEHIND THE DAM WAS
FILLED IN 1938, TO 420.4 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL, WHICH WAS
APPROXIMATELY THE ALTITUDE OF ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL BEFORE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOCK AND DAM.  WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE CONSEQUENCE
OF THIS RAISING OF THE WATER LEVEL IN THE CREEK HAS BEEN TO SHUT OFF
THE FLOW OF SOME OF THE TUBES LEADING THROUGH THE LEVEE AND THEREBY
PREVENT THE SURFACE WATER FROM DRAINING OFF SOME OF THE LAND.  A MORE
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCE, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN THAT IT HAS PREVENTED WATER IN
THE STRATA UNDERNEATH THE PLAINTIFF'S LAND FROM DRAINING AWAY, THUS
KEEPING THE UNDERGROUND WATER WITHIN ONE, TWO, OR THREE FEET FROM THE
SURFACE OF DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF'S LAND, THEREBY
IMPAIRING ITS VALUE FOR FARMING."  ID. AT P. 573, 74 F.SUPP.  AT P.
653. 

FN6  WILLINK V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 572; GREENLEAF JOHNSON LUMBER
CO. V. GARRISON, 237 U.S. 251; LEWIS BLUE POINT OYSTER CULTIVATION CO.
V. BRIGGS, 229 U.S. 82.  LOSS OF ACCESS TO A NAVIGABLE STREAM IS NOT
COMPENSABLE.  SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141; GIBSON V. UNITED
STATES, 166 U.S. 269.  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK, 324
U.S. 386.  A CHANGE IN THE FLOW OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM DOES NOT DEPRIVE
THE PRIVATE USER OF THAT STREAM, FOR POWER PURPOSES, OF A COMPENSABLE
RIGHT.  UNITED STATES V. WILLOW RIVER POWER CO., 324 U.S. 499; UNITED
STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR WATER POWER CO., 229 U.S. 53. 

FN7  THIS IS CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED IN UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST.
P. & P.R. CO., SUPRA.  THE UNITED STATES RAISED THE LEVEL OF THE
NAVIGABLE RIVER ABOVE ITS ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK.  THIS COURT THEN
DECLINED TO ALLOW COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE SEGMENT OF
THE RESPONDENT'S EMBANKMENT WHICH CONCEDEDLY WAS LOCATED ON LAND WITHIN
THE BED OF THE RIVER.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LOWER COURT AWARDED
COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE DONE TO SUCH SEGMENTS OF THE EMBANKMENT AS
CONCEDEDLY WERE ON LAND ABOVE THE BED OF THE RIVER.  NO APPEAL WAS
TAKEN FROM THAT AWARD.  FINALLY, AS TO THREE OTHER SEGMENTS WITH REGARD
TO WHICH THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ON
LAND WITHIN THE BED OF THE RIVER, THIS COURT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT TO RESOLVE THAT FACTUAL ISSUE. 

FN8  IN INTERPRETING A LIKE PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF
WISCONSIN, THIS COURT HELD THAT CONTINUOUS FLOODING AMOUNTED TO A
TAKING OF THE LAND FLOODED.  IT SAID: 

"  ...  IT REMAINS TRUE THAT WHERE REAL ESTATE IS ACTUALLY INVADED BY
SUPERINDUCED ADDITIONS OF WATER, EARTH, SAND, OR OTHER MATERIAL, OR BY
HAVING ANY ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURE PLACED ON IT, SO AS TO EFFECTUALLY
DESTROY OR IMPAIR ITS USEFULNESS, IT IS A TAKING, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE CONSTITUTION, AND THAT THIS PROPOSITION IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE
WEIGHT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN THIS COUNTRY, AND CERTAINLY NOT WITH
SOUND PRINCIPLE."  PUMPELLY V. GREEN BAY CO., SUPRA, AT P. 181. 

THE ABOVE CASE WAS QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179
U.S. 141, 154, AND IN UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, SUPRA, AT P. 469.  THE
LAST NAMED CASE INVOLVED SEEPAGE, PERCOLATION AND SOME FLOODING WHICH
TURNED THE LAND INTO A BOG. 

IN THE CRESS CASE, AFTER DISCUSSING AND APPROVING THE REASONING IN
THE GREEN BAY AND LYNAH CASES, THE COURT SAID: 

"THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE OF KIND, BUT ONLY OF DEGREE, BETWEEN A
PERMANENT CONDITION OF CONTINUAL OVERFLOW BY BACK-WATER AND A PERMANENT
LIABILITY TO INTERMITTENT BUT INEVITABLY RECURRING OVERFLOWS; AND, ON
PRINCIPLE, THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION MUST ARISE IN THE ONE CASE AS IN
THE OTHER.  IF ANY SUBSTANTIAL ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND STILL REMAINS TO
THE OWNER, IT MAY BE TREATED AS A PARTIAL INSTEAD OF A TOTAL DIVESTING
OF HIS PROPERTY IN THE LAND.  THE TAKING BY CONDEMNATION OF AN INTEREST
LESS THAN THE FEE IS FAMILIAR IN THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN."  243 U.S.
AT PP. 328-329. 

FN9  IN THE CHICAGO CASE THIS COURT OVERRULED THE LYNAH CASE, SUPRA,
INSOFAR AS IT UPHELD COMPENSATION "FOR INJURY OR DESTRUCTION OF A
RIPARIAN OWNER'S PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE BED OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM." 
312 U.S. AT P. 598.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, EXPRESSLY MENTIONED THAT CASE
AS AN AUTHORITY ON THE POINT THAT THE FLOODING OF LAND, AS THERE DONE,
AMOUNTED TO A COMPENSABLE TAKING OF IT. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN11  BASED UPON THE LAW OF KENTUCKY, UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF A
LANDOWNER ON A NONNAVIGABLE CREEK TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE
UNOBSTRUCTED FLOW OF THAT CREEK, THIS COURT ALLOWED THE LANDOWNER
COMPENSATION IN THE KELLY CASE, WHICH IS REPORTED WITH THE CRESS CASE. 
THE COURT THERE SAID: "THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE WATER FLOW AWAY FROM THE
MILL DAM UNOBSTRUCTED, EXCEPT AS IN THE COURSE OF NATURE, IS NOT A MERE
EASEMENT OR APPURTENANCE, BUT EXISTS BY THE LAW OF NATURE AS AN
INSEPARABLE PART OF THE LAND."  243 U.S. AT P. 330. 

ALTHOUGH THE COURT BELOW REACHED NO EXPRESS CONCLUSION ON THE RIGHT
OF RESPONDENT TO DRAIN ITS LAND INTO DARDENNE CREEK, THERE IS NO
INDICATION THAT SUCH DRAINAGE WAS NOT A LAWFUL INCIDENT OF THE PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP.  UNDER MISSOURI LAW, THE OWNER OF LAND BORDERING ON A
NONNAVIGABLE STREAM HAS TITLE TO THE BED OF THE STREAM TO ITS CENTER,
UNLESS THE INSTRUMENTS OF TITLE SHOW A CONTRARY INTENT.  BROWN V.
WILSON, 348 MO. 658, 665, 155 S.W.2D 176, 179.  ALSO, A DOWNSTREAM
RIPARIAN OWNER HAS NO RIGHT TO DAM THE STREAM SO AS TO CAUSE IT TO
ACCUMULATE WATER AND FLOW IT BACK ON THE LAND OF UPSTREAM RIPARIAN
OWNERS.  KEENER V. SHARP, 341 MO. 1192, 111 S.W.2D 118, AND SEE
GREISINGER V. KLINHARDT, 321 MO. 186, 193, 9 S.W.2D 978, 980-981. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE REED,
AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

WHAT RESPONDENT HERE PURPORTS TO CLAIM IS A PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE
UNFETTERED FLOW OF DARDENNE CREEK IN ITS NATURAL STATE.  BUT WHAT
RESPONDENT IN SUBSTANCE CLAIMS IS A PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE UNFETTERED
FLOW OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN ITS NATURAL STATE.  THE TWO ARE NECESSARILY
THE SAME, FOR WATER SEEKS ITS OWN LEVEL.  NO SUCH RIGHT ACCRUES TO ONE
WHO OWNS THE SHORE AND BED OF THE GREAT RIVER, UNTIL THAT RIVER IS
RAISED ABOVE HIGH-WATER MARK.  AND WE THINK THAT ONE WHO IS RIPARIAN TO
A TRIBUTARY HAS NO GREATER CLAIM UPON THE FLOW OF THE MISSISSIPPI.  FOR
THIS COURT HAS HELD IT TO BE "INCONCEIVABLE" THAT "THE RUNNING WATER IN
A GREAT NAVIGABLE STREAM IS CAPABLE OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP."  UNITED
STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 69.  IT WOULD BE
INCONGRUOUS TO DENY COMPENSATION TO OWNERS ADJACENT TO NAVIGABLE RIVERS
AND REQUIRE IT FOR OTHERS BORDERING THEIR TRIBUTARIES FOR LIKE INJURIES
CAUSED BY THE SINGLE ACT OF LIFTING THE RIVER'S MEAN LEVEL TO THE HIGH
WATER MARK.  BECAUSE WATER SEEKS ITS OWN LEVEL, RAISING THE LEVEL OF
THE RIVER NECESSARILY RAISES THAT OF THE TRIBUTARY AT THEIR CONJUNCTION
AND AS FAR UPSTREAM ON EACH AS THE EFFECTS OF THE LIFTING MAY GO.
THESE FACTS ARE EQUALLY APPARENT TO BOTH TYPES OF OWNERS.  WE THINK
THEY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED BY BOTH, AND THAT THE ONE HAS NO MORE POWER
TO OBSTRUCT OR BURDEN THE POWER OF CONGRESS IN ITS CONTROL OF THE
RIVER'S BED IN THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION THAN THE OTHER.  NEITHER HAS
ANY GREATER RIGHT TO HAVE THE RIVER FLOW IN ITS NATURAL STATE THAN THE
OTHER.    BASICALLY THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS TO LOCATE A WORKABLE
AND REASONABLE BOUNDARY BETWEEN CONGRESS' POWER TO CONTROL NAVIGATION
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS ADJACENT TO
NAVIGABLE STREAMS AND THEIR TRIBUTARIES TO COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES
FLOWING FROM THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
REQUIRE COMPENSATION FOR ALL INJURIES INFLICTED BY THE EXERCISE OF
CONGRESS' POWER.  NEITHER IS THE POWER UNLIMITED.  THE LINE THEREFORE
MUST BE DRAWN IN ACCOMMODATION OF THE TWO INTERESTS.  THIS COULD BE
DONE, AS IT WAS IN UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316, BY ALLOWING
COMPENSATION FOR ALL INJURIES INFLICTED BY ANY CHANGE IN THE NATURAL
LEVEL AND FLOW OF THE STREAM; IT CAN BE DONE, AS IN UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 312 U.S. 592 AND UNITED STATES V.
WILLOW RIVER CO., 324 U.S. 499, BY ALLOWING CHANGE IN THE NATURAL FLOW
TO THE EXTENT OF LIFTING THE MEAN LEVEL TO HIGH-WATER MARK WITHOUT
LIABILITY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL COMPENSATION; IT COULD BE DONE BY APPLYING
THE LATTER RULE TO OWNERS RIPARIAN TO THE NAVIGABLE STREAM, THE FORMER
TO THOSE RIPARIAN TO NONNAVIGABLE TRIBUTARIES. 

THERE IS NO SOUND REASON FOR TREATING THE TWO TYPES OF OWNERS
DIFFERENTLY.  CONGRESS HAS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE BY RAISING THE
LEVEL OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM TO HIGH-WATER MARK WITHOUT LIABILITY FOR
COMPENSATION TO ANY RIPARIAN OWNER.  THE EFFECT UPON THE RIPARIAN OWNER
OF THE RIVER'S TRIBUTARIES, WHETHER NAVIGABLE OR NONNAVIGABLE, IS THE
SAME AS THAT UPON THE OWNER RIPARIAN TO THE RIVER ITSELF.  SO IS THE
CONGRESSIONAL POWER AND THE DOMINANT SERVITUDE.  IN THIS VIEW NO VESTED
PRIVATE RIGHT IS GIVEN TO ANYONE, AS AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IN
THE FULL UTILIZATION AND CONTROL OF THE RIVER'S BED FOR NAVIGATION OR
IN THE FLOW OF THE STREAM WITHIN IT. IF CONGRESS ACTS BEYOND THIS
LIMIT, THEN THE AMENDMENT WILL COME INTO PLAY TO PROTECT THE
LANDOWNER'S INTEREST. 

THIS VIEW REQUIRES THE OVERRULING OF THE CRESS CASE.  BUT UNTIL
TODAY'S RULING THE CRESS CASE HAD BEEN LARGELY DESTROYED BY INTERVENING
DECISIONS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. WILLOW RIVER CO., SUPRA.  I WOULD COMPLETE THE PROCESS
AND ALLOW THE UNITED STATES THE FULL USE OF ITS DOMINANT SERVITUDE IN A
NAVIGABLE STREAM. 

I AM INDEBTED TO THE LATE MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE FOR MUCH OF THE
PHRASEOLOGY AND CONTENT OF THIS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH ALL THAT MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS SAYS IN HIS DISSENT, BUT I
WOULD FOR AN ADDITIONAL REASON REVERSE THIS CASE.  THE WATERS
INTERFERED WITH HERE WERE SURFACE AND PERCOLATING OR SUBSURFACE
WATERS.  RESPONDENT HAD ALWAYS ENJOYED THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE OF HAVING
ITS SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATER DRAIN INTO DARDENNE CREEK.  THE
RAISING OF THE WATER LEVEL IN THE MISSISSIPPI HAS INTERFERED WITH THIS
ADVANTAGE.  BUT SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATERS ARE OUTLAWS IN MISSOURI,
AS AT COMMON LAW, AND ANYONE MAY DEFEND AGAINST THEM AND INTERFERE WITH
THEIR NATURAL DRAINAGE.  FN1  NO RIGHT EXISTS UNDER MISSOURI LAW TO
HAVE SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE WATER FLOW NATURALLY ONTO ADJOINING LAND. 
LANDOWNERS MAY BUILD EMBANKMENTS, DYKES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS TO STOP
THE FLOW OF SURFACE WATER UPON THEIR LAND.  ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THAT
UNDER MISSOURI LAW A RIPARIAN OWNER MAY NOT DAM A WATERCOURSE SO THAT
IT IS OBSTRUCTED OR THE LANDS OF ANOTHER ARE FLOODED,  FN2  NO
AUTHORITY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT
THE OBSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE BY RAISING THE WATER LEVEL OF A STREAM
CONFERS A CAUSE OF ACTION.  I HAD NOT SUPPOSED THAT JUST COMPENSATION
REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR THAT WHICH A RIPARIAN OWNER MAY
FREELY DO UNDER STATE LAW.  THE GOVERNMENT, BY INTERFERING WITH THE
DRAINAGE INTO DARDENNE CREEK, IS NOT "TAKING" ANY "RIGHT" OF
RESPONDENT. 

"  ...  NOT ALL ECONOMIC INTERESTS ARE 'PROPERTY RIGHTS'; ONLY THOSE
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES ARE 'RIGHTS' WHICH HAVE THE LAW BACK OF THEM, AND
ONLY WHEN THEY ARE SO RECOGNIZED MAY COURTS COMPEL OTHERS TO FORBEAR
FROM INTERFERING WITH THEM OR TO COMPENSATE FOR THEIR INVASION." 
UNITED STATES V. WILLOW RIVER CO., 324 U.S. 499, 502. 

SINCE THE UNITED STATES MAY WITH IMPUNITY CAUSE LAND LYING WITHIN THE
BED OF THE STREAM TO BE OVERFLOWED AS A SUPERIOR RIGHT TO CONTROL
NAVIGATION, AND SINCE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHT TO THE UNHAMPERED
DRAINAGE OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE WATER, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN NO RIGHT OF RESPONDENT.  THEREFORE IT IS NOT BOUND
TO PAY COMPENSATION.  IT WOULD BE ANOMALOUS INDEED THAT WHILE THE
GOVERNMENT MAY FLOOD LANDS LYING BETWEEN HIGH- AND LOW-WATER MARKS
WITHOUT PAYING COMPENSATION, IT IS LIABLE FOR AN INTERFERENCE WITH
DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATER BY RAISING THE WATER LEVEL TO HIGH-WATER
MARK.  I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  SEE, E.G., GOLL V. RAILROAD, 271 MO. 655, 197 S.W. 244; JOHNSON
V. LEAZENBY, 202 MO. APP. 232, 216 S.W. 49; MEHONRAY V. FOSTER, 132 MO.
APP. 229, 111 S.W. 882; APPLEGATE V. FRANKLIN, 109 MO. APP. 293, 84
S.W. 347; GOTTENSTROETER V. KAPPELMANN (REPORTED AS GOTTENETROETER V.
KAPPLEMANN AND GOTTENETROETER V. KAPPLEMAN), 83 MO. APP. 290; COLLIER
V. CHICAGO & A.R. CO., 48 MO. APP. 398. 

FN2  SEE KEENER V. SHARP, 341 MO. 1192, 111 S.W.2D 118; GREISINGER V.
KLINHARDT, 321 MO. 186, 9 S.W.2D 978; WATERWORKS CO. V. JENKINS, 62 MO.
APP. 74. 
..END :









HENDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 339 U.S. 816 


NO. 25.  ARGUED APRIL 3, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - 80 F.SUPP. 
32, REVERSED. 


UNDER THE RULES OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD, DINING CARS ARE DIVIDED SO
AS TO ALLOT TEN TABLES EXCLUSIVELY TO WHITE PASSENGERS AND ONE TABLE
EXCLUSIVELY TO NEGRO PASSENGERS, AND A CURTAIN SEPARATES THE TABLE
RESERVED FOR NEGROES FROM THE OTHERS.  UNDER THESE RULES, ONLY FOUR
NEGRO PASSENGERS MAY BE SERVED AT ONE TIME AND THEN ONLY AT THE TABLE
RESERVED FOR NEGROES.  OTHER NEGROES WHO PRESENT THEMSELVES ARE
COMPELLED TO AWAIT A VACANCY AT THAT TABLE, ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE MANY
VACANCIES ELSEWHERE IN THE DINER.  THE RULES IMPOSE A LIKE DEPRIVATION
UPON WHITE PASSENGERS WHENEVER MORE THAN 40 OF THEM SEEK TO BE SERVED
AT THE SAME TIME AND THE TABLE RESERVED FOR NEGROES IS VACANT.  HELD:
THESE RULES AND PRACTICES VIOLATE SEC. 3(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, WHICH MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR A RAILROAD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE "TO
SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON  ...  TO ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER."  PP. 818-826. 

(A)  HAVING BEEN SUBJECTED TO THE RAILROAD'S EARLIER PRACTICES WHICH
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE COURT BELOW FOUND VIOLATIVE
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, APPELLANT, A NEGRO, HAS STANDING TO
CHALLENGE THE RAILROAD'S CURRENT REGULATIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY
PERMIT THE RECURRENCE OF COMPARABLE VIOLATIONS.  P. 823. 

(B)  THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATIONS BELONGS,
UNDER SEC. 3(1), TO EACH PARTICULAR PERSON.  P. 824. 

(C)  THE CURTAINS, PARTITIONS AND SIGNS EMPHASIZING THE ARTIFICIALITY
OF A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT OF PASSENGERS HOLDING IDENTICAL TICKETS
AND USING THE SAME PUBLIC DINING FACILITY VIOLATE SEC. 3(1).  P. 825. 

(D)  THE LIMITED DEMAND FOR DINING-CAR FACILITIES BY NEGRO PASSENGERS
SENGERS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE REGULATIONS.  P. 825. 

(E)  THAT THE REGULATIONS MAY IMPOSE ON WHITE PASSENGERS, IN
PROPORTION TO THEIR NUMBERS, DISADVANTAGES SIMILAR TO THOSE IMPOSED ON
NEGRO PASSENGERS DOES NOT VALIDATE THEM UNDER SEC. 3(1).  PP. 825-826. 

HENDERSON V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY APPELLANT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 269 I.C.C. 73, THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  80 F.SUPP.  32.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO
THIS COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 826. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE RULES AND PRACTICES OF THE SOUTHERN
RAILWAY COMPANY, WHICH DIVIDE EACH DINING CAR SO AS TO ALLOT TEN TABLES
EXCLUSIVELY TO WHITE PASSENGERS AND ONE TABLE EXCLUSIVELY TO NEGRO
PASSENGERS, AND WHICH CALL FOR A CURTAIN OR PARTITION BETWEEN THAT
TABLE AND THE OTHERS, VIOLATE SEC. 3(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  THAT SECTION MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR A RAILROAD IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE "TO SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON,  ...  TO ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER:  ...
"  54 STAT. 902, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 3(1).  WE HOLD THAT THOSE RULES AND
PRACTICES DO VIOLATE THE ACT. 

THIS ISSUE GROWS OUT OF AN INCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED MAY 17, 1942.  ON
THAT DATE THE APPELLANT, ELMER W. HENDERSON, A NEGRO PASSENGER, WAS
TRAVELING ON A FIRST-CLASS TICKET ON THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY FROM
WASHINGTON, D.C., TO ATLANTA, GEORGIA, EN ROUTE TO BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA,
IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
TRAIN LEFT WASHINGTON AT 2 P.M. AT ABOUT 5:30 P.M., WHILE THE TRAIN WAS
IN VIRGINIA,  FN1  THE FIRST CALL TO DINNER WAS ANNOUNCED AND HE WENT
PROMPTLY TO THE DINING CAR.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRACTICE THEN IN
EFFECT, THE TWO END TABLES NEAREST THE KITCHEN WERE CONDITIONALLY
RESERVED FOR NEGROES.  AT EACH MEAL THOSE TABLES WERE TO BE RESERVED
INITIALLY FOR NEGROES AND, WHEN OCCUPIED BY NEGROES, CURTAINS WERE TO
BE DRAWN BETWEEN THEM AND THE REST OF THE CAR.  IF THE OTHER TABLES
WERE OCCUPIED BEFORE ANY NEGRO PASSENGERS PRESENTED THEMSELVES AT THE
DINER THEN THOSE TWO TABLES ALSO WERE TO BE AVAILABLE FOR WHITE
PASSENGERS, AND NEGROES WERE NOT TO BE SEATED AT THEM WHILE IN USE BY
WHITE PASSENGERS.  FN2 WHEN THE APPELLANT REACHED THE DINER, THE END
TABLES IN QUESTION WERE PARTLY OCCUPIED BY WHITE PASSENGERS BUT AT
LEAST ONE SEAT AT THEM WAS UNOCCUPIED.  THE DINING-CAR STEWARD DECLINED
TO SEAT THE APPELLANT IN THE DINING CAR BUT OFFERED TO SERVE HIM,
WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CHARGE, AT HIS PULLMAN SEAT.  THE APPELLANT DECLINED
THAT OFFER AND THE STEWARD AGREED TO SEND HIM WORD WHEN SPACE WAS
AVAILABLE.  NO WORD WAS SENT AND THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SERVED, ALTHOUGH
HE TWICE RETURNED TO THE DINER BEFORE IT WAS DETACHED AT 9 P.M. 

IN OCTOBER, 1942, THE APPELLANT FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ALLEGING ESPECIALLY THAT THE FOREGOING CONDUCT
VIOLATED SEC. 3(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN3  DIVISION 2 OF
THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT HE HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO UNDUE AND
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE AND DISADVANTAGE, BUT THAT THE OCCURRENCE WAS A
CASUAL INCIDENT BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE BAD JUDGMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE.  THE
COMMISSION DECLINED TO ENTER AN ORDER AS TO FUTURE PRACTICES.  258
I.C.C. 413.  A THREE-JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE RAILROAD'S GENERAL
PRACTICE, AS EVIDENCED BY ITS INSTRUCTIONS OF AUGUST 6, 1942, WAS IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(1).  ACCORDINGLY, ON FEBRUARY 18, 1946, IT REMANDED
THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  63 F.SUPP.  906.  EFFECTIVE MARCH 1,
1946, THE COMPANY ANNOUNCED ITS MODIFIED RULES WHICH ARE NOW IN
EFFECT.  THEY PROVIDE FOR THE RESERVATION OF TEN TABLES, OF FOUR SEATS
EACH, EXCLUSIVELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY FOR WHITE PASSENGERS AND ONE
TABLE, OF FOUR SEATS, EXCLUSIVELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY FOR NEGRO
PASSENGERS.  BETWEEN THIS TABLE AND THE OTHERS A CURTAIN IS DRAWN
DURING EACH MEAL.  FN4 

ON REMAND, THE FULL COMMISSION, WITH TWO MEMBERS DISSENTING AND ONE
NOT PARTICIPATING, FOUND THAT THE MODIFIED RULES DO NOT VIOLATE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THAT NO ORDER FOR THE FUTURE WAS
NECESSARY.  FN5  269 I.C.C. 73.  THE APPELLANT PROMPTLY INSTITUTED THE
PRESENT PROCEEDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, CONSTITUTED OF THE SAME
THREE MEMBERS AS BEFORE, SEEKING TO HAVE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SET
ASIDE AND A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER ISSUED.  28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(28), 43
48; 49 U.S.C. SEC. 17(9); SEE ALSO, 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 1336,
1398, 2284, 2321, 2325.  WITH ONE MEMBER DISSENTING, THE COURT
SUSTAINED THE MODIFIED RULES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACCOMMODATIONS ARE
ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF NEGRO PASSENGERS AND ARE
"PROPORTIONATELY FAIR."  80 F.SUPP.  32, 39.  THE CASE IS HERE ON
DIRECT APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 1253, 2101(B).  IN THIS
COURT, THE UNITED STATES FILED A BRIEF AND ARGUED ORALLY IN SUPPORT OF
THE APPELLANT. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT HAS STANDING TO BRING THESE PROCEEDINGS. 
HE IS AN AGGRIEVED PARTY, FREE TO TRAVEL AGAIN ON THE SOUTHERN
RAILWAY.  HAVING BEEN SUBJECTED TO PRACTICES OF THE RAILROAD WHICH THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURT BELOW FOUND TO VIOLATE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, HE MAY CHALLENGE THE RAILROAD'S CURRENT REGULATIONS ON THE GROUND
THAT THEY PERMIT THE RECURRENCE OF COMPARABLE VIOLATIONS.  MITCHELL V.
UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 80, 92-93. 

THE MATERIAL LANGUAGE IN SEC. 3(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT HAS
BEEN IN THAT STATUTE SINCE ITS ADOPTION IN 1887.  24 STAT. 380.  FROM
THE BEGINNING, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS RECOGNIZED THE
APPLICATION OF THAT LANGUAGE TO DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN WHITE AND NEGRO
PASSENGERS.  COUNCILL V. WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. CO., 1 I.C.C. 339; FN6
HEARD V. GEORGIA R. CO., 1 I.C.C. 428; HEARD V. GEORGIA R. CO., 3
I.C.C. 111; EDWARDS V. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO., 12 I.C.C. 247;
COZART V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 16 I.C.C. 226; GAINES V. SEABOARD AIR LINE
R. CO., 16 I.C.C. 471; CROSBY V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO R. CO., 112
I.C.C. 239.  THAT SECTION RECENTLY WAS SO APPLIED IN MITCHELL V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA. 

THE DECISION OF THIS CASE IS LARGELY CONTROLLED BY THAT IN THE
MITCHELL CASE.  THERE A NEGRO PASSENGER HOLDING A FIRST-CLASS TICKET
WAS DENIED A PULLMAN SEAT, ALTHOUGH SUCH A SEAT WAS UNOCCUPIED AND
WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO HIM IF HE HAD BEEN WHITE.  THE RAILROAD
RULES HAD ALLOTTED A LIMITED AMOUNT OF PULLMAN SPACE, CONSISTING OF
COMPARTMENTS AND DRAWING ROOMS, TO NEGRO PASSENGERS AND, BECAUSE THAT
SPACE WAS OCCUPIED, THE COMPLAINANT WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE PULLMAN CAR
AND REQUIRED TO RIDE IN A SECOND-CLASS COACH.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE
PASSENGER THEREBY HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO AN UNREASONABLE DISADVANTAGE IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(1).  FN7 

THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN THAT CASE AND THIS IS INESCAPABLE.  THE
APPELLANT HERE WAS DENIED A SEAT IN THE DINING CAR ALTHOUGH AT LEAST
ONE SEAT WAS VACANT AND WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO HIM, UNDER THE
EXISTING RULES, IF HE HAD BEEN WHITE.  FN8  THE ISSUE BEFORE US, AS IN
THE MITCHELL CASE, IS WHETHER THE RAILROAD'S CURRENT RULES AND
PRACTICES CAUSE PASSENGERS TO BE SUBJECTED TO UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(1).  WE FIND THAT THEY
DO. 

THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATIONS BELONGS, UNDER
SEC. 3(1), TO EACH PARTICULAR PERSON.  WHERE A DINING CAR IS AVAILABLE
TO PASSENGERS HOLDING TICKETS ENTITLING THEM TO USE IT, EACH SUCH
PASSENGER IS EQUALLY ENTITLED TO ITS FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
REASONABLE REGULATIONS.  THE DENIAL OF DINING SERVICE TO ANY SUCH
PASSENGER BY THE RULES BEFORE US SUBJECTS HIM TO A PROHIBITED
DISADVANTAGE.  UNDER THE RULES, ONLY FOUR NEGRO PASSENGERS MAY BE
SERVED AT ONE TIME AND THEN ONLY AT THE TABLE RESERVED FOR NEGROES. 
OTHER NEGROES WHO PRESENT THEMSELVES ARE COMPELLED TO AWAIT A VACANCY
AT THAT TABLE, ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE MANY VACANCIES ELSEWHERE IN THE
DINER.  THE RAILROAD THUS REFUSES TO EXTEND TO THOSE PASSENGERS THE USE
OF ITS EXISTING AND UNOCCUPIED FACILITIES.  THE RULES IMPOSE A LIKE
DEPRIVATION UPON WHITE PASSENGERS WHENEVER MORE THAN 40 OF THEM SEEK TO
BE SERVED AT THE SAME TIME AND THE TABLE RESERVED FOR NEGROES IS
VACANT. 

WE NEED NOT MULTIPLY INSTANCES IN WHICH THESE RULES SANCTION
UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATIONS.  THE CURTAINS, PARTITIONS AND SIGNS
EMPHASIZE THE ARTIFICIALITY OF A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT WHICH SERVES
ONLY TO CALL ATTENTION TO A RACIAL CLASSIFICATION OF PASSENGERS HOLDING
IDENTICAL TICKETS AND USING THE SAME PUBLIC DINING FACILITY.  CF.
MCLAURIN V. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS, ANTE, P. 637, DECIDED TODAY.  THEY
VIOLATE SEC. 3(1). 

OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO NOTHING WHICH REMOVES THESE RACIAL
ALLOCATIONS FROM THE STATUTORY CONDEMNATION OF "UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE  ...  "  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE LIMITED DEMAND
FOR DINING-CAR FACILITIES BY NEGRO PASSENGERS JUSTIFIES THE
REGULATIONS.  BUT IT IS NO ANSWER TO THE PARTICULAR PASSENGER WHO IS
DENIED SERVICE AT AN UNOCCUPIED PLACE IN A DINING CAR THAT, ON THE
AVERAGE, PERSONS LIKE HIM ARE SERVED.  AS WAS POINTED OUT IN MITCHELL
V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 80, 97, "THE COMPARATIVE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC
CANNOT JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF EQUALITY OF
TREATMENT, A RIGHT SPECIFICALLY SAFEGUARDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT."  CF. MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 235
U.S. 151; MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337. 

THAT THE REGULATIONS MAY IMPOSE ON WHITE PASSENGERS, IN PROPORTION TO
THEIR NUMBERS, DISADVANTAGES SIMILAR TO THOSE IMPOSED ON NEGRO
PASSENGERS IS NOT AN ANSWER TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 3(1). 
DISCRIMINATIONS THAT OPERATE TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF TWO GROUPS ARE NOT
THE LESS TO BE CONDEMNED BECAUSE THEIR IMPACT IS BROADER THAN IF ONLY
ONE WERE AFFECTED.  CF. SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1, 22. 

SINCE SEC. 3(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT INVALIDATES THE RULES
AND PRACTICES BEFORE US, WE DO NOT REACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHER
ISSUES SUGGESTED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH DISMISSED THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THAT COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  NO RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THIS CASE UPON ANY ACTION BY ANY
STATE. 

FN2  RULE OF THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY ISSUED JULY 3, 1941, AND IN
EFFECT MAY 17, 1942:

    "DINING CAR REGULATIONS 

"MEALS SHOULD BE SERVED TO PASSENGERS OF DIFFERENT RACES AT SEPARATE
TIMES.  IF PASSENGERS OF ONE RACE DESIRE MEALS WHILE PASSENGERS OF A
DIFFERENT RACE ARE BEING SERVED IN THE DINING CAR, SUCH MEALS WILL BE
SERVED IN THE ROOM OR SEAT OCCUPIED BY THE PASSENGER WITHOUT EXTRA
CHARGE.  IF THE DINING CAR IS EQUIPPED WITH CURTAINS SO THAT IT CAN BE
DIVIDED INTO SEPARATE COMPARTMENTS, MEALS MAY BE SERVED TO PASSENGERS
OF DIFFERENT RACES AT THE SAME TIME IN THE COMPARTMENTS SET ASIDE FOR
THEM."  258 I.C.C. 413, 415, 63 F.SUPP.  906, 910. 

JOINT CIRCULAR OF THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM ISSUED AUGUST 6, 1942: 

"EFFECTIVE AT ONCE PLEASE BE GOVERNED BY THE FOLLOWING WITH RESPECT
TO THE RACE SEPARATION CURTAINS IN DINING CARS: 

"BEFORE STARTING EACH MEAL PULL THE CURTAINS TO SERVICE POSITION AND
PLACE A 'RESERVED' CARD ON EACH OF THE TWO TABLES BEHIND THE CURTAINS. 

"THESE TABLES ARE NOT TO BE USED BY WHITE PASSENGERS UNTIL ALL OTHER
SEATS IN THE CAR HAVE BEEN TAKEN.  THEN IF NO COLORED PASSENGERS
PRESENT THEMSELVES FOR MEALS, THE CURTAIN SHOULD BE PUSHED BACK, CARDS
REMOVED AND WHITE PASSENGERS SERVED AT THOSE TABLES. 

"AFTER THE TABLES ARE OCCUPIED BY WHITE PASSENGERS, THEN SHOULD
COLORED PASSENGERS PRESENT THEMSELVES THEY SHOULD BE ADVISED THAT THEY
WILL BE SERVED JUST AS SOON AS THOSE COMPARTMENTS ARE VACATED. 

"'RESERVED' CARDS ARE BEING SUPPLIED YOU."  258 I.C.C. AT P. 415, 63
F.SUPP.  AT P. 910. 

FN3  "(1)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PART TO MAKE, GIVE, OR CAUSE ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, COMPANY,
FIRM, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LOCALITY, PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY,
TRANSIT POINT, REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR
DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC, IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER; OR TO SUBJECT ANY
PARTICULAR PERSON, COMPANY, FIRM, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LOCALITY,
PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY, TRANSIT POINT, REGION, DISTRICT,
TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC TO ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER:...." 
54 STAT. 902, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 3(1). 

THE APPELLANT SOUGHT AN ORDER DIRECTING THE RAILROAD NOT ONLY TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS ALLEGED BUT ALSO TO
ESTABLISH IN THE FUTURE, FOR THE COMPLAINANT AND OTHER NEGRO INTERSTATE
PASSENGERS, EQUAL AND JUST DINING-CAR FACILITIES AND SUCH OTHER SERVICE
AND FACILITIES AS THE COMMISSION MIGHT CONSIDER REASONABLE AND JUST,
AND REQUIRING THE RAILROAD TO DISCONTINUE USING CURTAINS AROUND TABLES
RESERVED FOR NEGROES. 

THE APPELLANT SOUGHT DAMAGES, BUT THE COMMISSION FOUND NO PECUNIARY
DAMAGES AND THAT ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED FURTHER.    FN4
"TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 142.  CANCELLING INSTRUCTIONS
ON THIS SUBJECT DATED JULY 3, 1941, AND AUGUST 6, 1942. 

"SUBJECT:  SEGREGATION OF WHITE AND COLORED PASSENGERS IN DINING
CARS. 

"TO:  PASSENGER CONDUCTORS AND DINING CAR STEWARDS. 

"CONSISTENT WITH EXPERIENCE IN RESPECT TO THE RATIO BETWEEN THE
NUMBER OF WHITE AND COLORED PASSENGERS WHO ORDINARILY APPLY FOR SERVICE
IN AVAILABLE DINER SPACE, EQUAL BUT SEPARATE ACCOMMODATIONS SHALL BE
PROVIDED FOR WHITE AND COLORED PASSENGERS BY PARTITIONING DINERS AND
THE ALLOTMENT OF SPACE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES, AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1)  THAT ONE OF THE TWO TABLES AT STATION NO. 1 LOCATED TO THE LEFT
SIDE OF THE AISLE FACING THE BUFFET, SEATING FOUR PERSONS, SHALL BE
RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR COLORED PASSENGERS, AND THE OTHER TABLES IN
THE DINER SHALL BE RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR WHITE PASSENGERS. 

"(2)  BEFORE STARTING EACH MEAL, DRAW THE PARTITION CURTAIN
SEPARATING THE TABLE IN STATION NO. 1, DESCRIBED ABOVE, FROM THE TABLE
ON THAT SIDE OF THE AISLE IN STATION NO. 2, THE CURTAIN TO REMAIN SO
DRAWN FOR THE DURATION OF THE MEAL. 

"(3)  A 'RESERVED' CARD SHALL BE KEPT IN PLACE ON THE LEFT-HAND TABLE
IN STATION NO. 1, DESCRIBED ABOVE, AT ALL TIMES DURING THE MEAL EXCEPT
WHEN SUCH TABLE IS OCCUPIED AS PROVIDED IN THESE RULES. 

"(4)  THESE RULES BECOME EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1946. 

                     "R. K. MCCLAIN,

       "ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT." 

269 I.C.C. 73, 75, 80 F.SUPP.  32, 35. 

COUNSEL FOR THE RAILWAY COMPANY, AT A SUBSEQUENT HEARING, CORRECTED
THE ABOVE RULES "TO THE EXTENT OF USING THE WORD 'NEGROES' IN THE PLACE
OF 'COLORED PERSONS.'"  ALSO, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS, AND THE COMMISSION
HAS STATED, THAT "WHITE AND NEGRO SOLDIERS ARE SERVED TOGETHER, WITHOUT
DISTINCTION."  258 I.C.C. 413, 415, 63 F.SUPP.  906, 910.  THE RULES,
ACCORDINGLY, ARE TREATED AS APPLICABLE ONLY TO CIVILIAN PASSENGERS. 
THE COMPANY FURTHER SHOWED THAT IT IS NOW SUBSTITUTING A FIVE-FOOT HIGH
WOODEN PARTITION IN PLACE OF THE CURTAIN.  THE STEWARD'S OFFICE IS
BEING PLACED IN THE TABLE SPACE OPPOSITE THAT RESERVED FOR NEGRO
PASSENGERS AND A SIMILAR WOODEN PARTITION IS BEING ERECTED BETWEEN THAT
OFFICE AND THE REST OF THE CAR. 

FN5  THE COMPANY WAS PERMITTED TO INTRODUCE TWO TABULATIONS, COVERING
ABOUT TEN DAYS EACH, SHOWING THE COMPARATIVE NUMBERS OF MEALS SERVED TO
WHITE AND NEGRO PASSENGERS ON TRIPS COMPARABLE TO THE ONE WHICH THE
APPELLANT HAD TAKEN.  THESE SHOW THAT ONLY ABOUT 4% OF THE TOTAL MEALS
SERVED WERE SERVED TO NEGRO PASSENGERS WHEREAS FOUR RESERVED SEATS
EXCEED 9% OF A TOTAL SEATING CAPACITY OF 44.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
TABULATIONS ALSO SHOW THAT AT ONE MEAL 17 NEGRO PASSENGERS, AND AT EACH
OF 20 MEALS MORE THAN EIGHT NEGRO PASSENGERS, WERE SERVED.  SIMILARLY,
THE BRIEF FILED BY THE COMMISSION STATES THAT, OUT OF THE 639 SERVING
PERIODS REPORTED, ON 15 OCCASIONS MORE THAN FOUR TIMES AS MANY WHITE
PASSENGERS WERE SERVED AS THERE WERE SEATS RESERVED FOR THEM, AND, ON
541 OCCASIONS, THERE WERE TWO OR MORE ROUNDS OF SERVINGS. 

FN6  "THE WESTERN AND ATLANTIC RAILROAD COMPANY WILL BE NOTIFIED TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUBJECTING COLORED PERSONS TO UNDUE AND
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE AND DISADVANTAGE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 OF
THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE, AND FROM FURNISHING TO COLORED PERSONS
PURCHASING FIRST-CLASS TICKETS ON ITS ROAD ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH ARE NOT
EQUALLY SAFE AND COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE FURNISHED OTHER FIRST-CLASS
PASSENGERS."  1 I.C.C. AT P. 347. 

FN7  THE RULES ALSO DENIED ACCESS BY NEGROES TO THE DINING CAR AND
OBSERVATION CAR.  THE PRINCIPLES THERE ANNOUNCED APPLIED EQUALLY TO
THOSE FACILITIES. 

FN8  THAT SPECIFIC DENIAL OF SERVICE WAS CONDEMNED BY THE COMMISSION
AND THE DISTRICT COURT AS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(1).  REVIEW OF THAT
CONDEMNATION IS NOT SOUGHT HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



AUTOMATIC RADIO CO. V. HAZELTINE, 339 U.S. 827 


NO. 455.  ARGUED APRIL 5, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - 176 F.2D
799, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, A MANUFACTURER OF RADIO BROADCASTING RECEIVERS, ENTERED
INTO A LICENSING AGREEMENT WITH RESPONDENT, A RADIO RESEARCH
ORGANIZATION, WHEREBY, FOR ROYALTIES AMOUNTING TO A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF
PETITIONER'S SELLING PRICE OF COMPLETE RADIO BROADCASTING RECEIVERS,
PETITIONER OBTAINED PERMISSION TO USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ITS "HOME
PRODUCTS" ANY OR ALL OF 570 PATENTS WHICH RESPONDENT HELD AND ANY
OTHERS TO WHICH IT MIGHT ACQUIRE RIGHTS.  RESPONDENT IS NOT A
MANUFACTURER BUT DERIVES ITS INCOME FROM LICENSING ITS PATENTS; AND ITS
POLICY IS TO LICENSE ANY AND ALL RESPONSIBLE MANUFACTURERS.  UNDER THE
AGREEMENT, PETITIONER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO USE ANY OF RESPONDENT'S
PATENTS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ITS PRODUCTS; BUT IT WAS REQUIRED TO PAY
THE ROYALTY, WHETHER IT USED THEM OR NOT.  HELD: 

1.  IT IS NOT PER SE A MISUSE OF PATENTS TO REQUIRE THE LICENSEE TO
PAY ROYALTIES BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF ITS SALES, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF
THE PATENTS IS USED.  PP. 830-834. 

(A)  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NOTHING TO SUPPORT
PETITIONER'S AVERMENT THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO GRANT A LICENSE UNDER
ANY ONE OR MORE OF ITS PATENTS TO ANYONE WHO REFUSED TO TAKE A LICENSE
UNDER ALL, SINCE THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF WAS MADE UPON
INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND THE RELEVANT PORTION DID NOT COMPLY WITH
RULE 56(E) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  P. 831. 

(B)  THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THIS CASE OF A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRICT
PRODUCTION OF UNPATENTED GOODS, OR ANY GOODS, TO EFFECTUATE A
MONOPOLY.  UNITED STATES V. GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364, DISTINGUISHED. 
P. 832. 

(C)  IN THIS CASE, THE ROYALTY PROVISION DID NOT CREATE ANOTHER
MONOPOLY AND CREATED NO RESTRAINT OF COMPETITION BEYOND THE LEGITIMATE
GRANT OF THE PATENT.  P. 833. 

(D)  THE MERE ACCUMULATION OF PATENTS, NO MATTER HOW MANY, IS NOT PER
SE ILLEGAL.  P. 834. 

(E)  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THERE BEING NO INHERENT
EXTENSION OF THE MONOPOLY OF THE PATENTS, PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES
ACCORDING TO AN AGREED PERCENTAGE OF THE LICENSEE'S SALES IS NOT
UNREASONABLE.  P. 834. 

(F)  HAVING OBTAINED BY THE AGREEMENT THE PRIVILEGE OF USING ANY OR
ALL OF RESPONDENT'S PATENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS, PETITIONER CANNOT
COMPLAIN BECAUSE IT MUST PAY ROYALTIES WHETHER IT USES THE PATENTS OR
NOT.  P. 834. 

2.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INCLUSION IN THE LICENSING AGREEMENT OF
A PROVISION REQUIRING PETITIONER TO ATTACH RESTRICTIVE NOTICES TO THE
APPARATUS MANUFACTURED BY IT MADE THE AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE IS MOOT,
BECAUSE RESPONDENT HAD WAIVED COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT.  PP.
834-836. 

3.  THERE BEING NO SHOWING THAT THE LICENSING AGREEMENT OR THE
PRACTICES UNDER IT WERE A MISUSE OF PATENTS OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
POLICY, PETITIONER MAY NOT, IN THIS SUIT, CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE
LICENSED PATENTS.  P. 836. 

AUTOMATIC RADIO MANUFACTURING CO., INC. V. HAZELTINE RESEARCH, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY THE LICENSOR OF CERTAIN PATENTS, THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF A PATENT LICENSING AGREEMENT, ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND RECOVERY OF ROYALTIES, AND ENJOINED
PETITIONER FROM FAILING TO PAY ROYALTIES, TO KEEP RECORDS AND TO RENDER
REPORTS DURING THE LIFE OF THE AGREEMENT.  77 F.SUPP.  493.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  176 F.2D 799.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
338 U.S. 942.  AFFIRMED, P. 836. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BY RESPONDENT HAZELTINE RESEARCH, INC., AS ASSIGNEE OF
THE LICENSOR'S INTEREST IN A NONEXCLUSIVE PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT
COVERING A GROUP OF 570 PATENTS AND 200 APPLICATIONS, AGAINST
PETITIONER AUTOMATIC RADIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., THE LICENSEE,
TO RECOVER ROYALTIES.  THE PATENTS AND APPLICATIONS ARE RELATED TO THE
MANUFACTURE OF RADIO BROADCASTING APPARATUS.  RESPONDENT AND ITS
CORPORATE AFFILIATE AND PREDECESSOR HAVE FOR SOME TWENTY YEARS BEEN
ENGAGED IN RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, ENGINEERING DESIGN AND TESTING AND
CONSULTING SERVICES IN THE RADIO FIELD.  RESPONDENT DERIVES INCOME FROM
THE LICENSING OF ITS PATENTS, ITS POLICY BEING TO LICENSE ANY AND ALL
RESPONSIBLE MANUFACTURERS OF RADIO APPARATUS AT A ROYALTY RATE WHICH
FOR MANY YEARS HAS BEEN APPROXIMATELY ONE PERCENT.  PETITIONER
MANUFACTURES RADIO APPARATUS, PARTICULARLY RADIO BROADCASTING
RECEIVERS. 

THE LICENSE AGREEMENT IN ISSUE, WHICH APPEARS TO BE A STANDARD
HAZELTINE LICENSE, WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES IN SEPTEMBER 1942,
FOR A TERM OF TEN YEARS.  BY ITS TERMS PETITIONER ACQUIRED PERMISSION
TO USE, IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ITS "HOME" PRODUCTS, ANY OR ALL OF THE
PATENTS WHICH RESPONDENT HELD OR TO WHICH IT MIGHT ACQUIRE RIGHTS. 
PETITIONER WAS NOT, HOWEVER, OBLIGATED TO USE RESPONDENT'S PATENTS IN
THE MANUFACTURE OF ITS PRODUCTS.  FOR THIS LICENSE, PETITIONER AGREED
TO PAY RESPONDENT'S ASSIGNOR ROYALTIES BASED UPON A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF
PETITIONER'S SELLING PRICE OF COMPLETE RADIO BROADCASTING RECEIVERS,
AND IN ANY EVENT A MINIMUM OF $10,000 PER YEAR.  IT FURTHER AGREED TO
KEEP A RECORD OF ITS SALES AND TO MAKE MONTHLY REPORTS THEREOF. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RECOVER THE MINIMUM ROYALTY DUE FOR THE YEAR
ENDING AUGUST 31, 1946, FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF OTHER SUMS DUE, AND FOR
OTHER RELIEF.  PETITIONER ANSWERED AND BOTH PARTIES FILED MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTIONS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE CASE TO BE ONE APPROPRIATE FOR SUMMARY
PROCEDURE UNDER RULE 56 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND
SUSTAINED THE MOTION OF RESPONDENT FOR JUDGMENT.  THE VALIDITY OF THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT WAS UPHELD AGAINST VARIOUS CHARGES OF MISUSE OF THE
PATENTS, AND JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR THE RECOVERY OF ROYALTIES AND AN
ACCOUNTING, AND FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING PETITIONER FROM
FAILING TO PAY ROYALTIES, TO KEEP RECORDS, AND TO RENDER REPORTS DURING
THE LIFE OF THE AGREEMENT.  77 F.SUPP.  493.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING (176 F.2D 799), AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI (338 U.S. 942) IN ORDER TO CONSIDER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
CONCERNING PATENT MISUSE AND ESTOPPEL TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF
LICENSED PATENTS. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION ARE WHETHER A MISUSE OF PATENTS HAS
BEEN SHOWN, AND WHETHER PETITIONER MAY CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE
LICENSED PATENTS, IN ORDER TO AVOID ITS OBLIGATION TO PAY ROYALTIES
UNDER THE AGREEMENT. 

FIRST.  IT IS INSISTED THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE ENFORCED
BECAUSE IT IS A MISUSE OF PATENTS TO REQUIRE THE LICENSEE TO PAY
ROYALTIES BASED ON ITS SALES, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THE PATENTS ARE
USED.  PETITIONER DIRECTS OUR ATTENTION TO THE "TIE-IN" CASES.  THESE
CASES HAVE CONDEMNED SCHEMES REQUIRING THE PURCHASE OF UNPATENTED GOODS
FOR USE WITH PATENTED APPARATUS OR PROCESSES,  FN1  PROHIBITING
PRODUCTION OR SALE OF COMPETING GOODS,  FN2  AND CONDITIONING THE
GRANTING OF A LICENSE UNDER ONE PATENT UPON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANOTHER
AND DIFFERENT LICENSE.  FN3 PETITIONER APPARENTLY CONCEDES THAT THESE
CASES DO NOT, ON THEIR FACTS, CONTROL THE INSTANT SITUATION.  IT IS
OBVIOUS THAT THEY DO NOT.  THERE IS PRESENT HERE NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ANY GOODS.  HAZELTINE DOES NOT EVEN MANUFACTURE OR SELL
GOODS; IT IS ENGAGED SOLELY IN RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.  NOR IS THERE ANY
PROHIBITION AS TO THE LICENSEE'S MANUFACTURE OR SALE OF ANY TYPE OF
APPARATUS.  THE FACT THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT COVERS ONLY "HOME"
APPARATUS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LICENSEE IS PROHIBITED FROM
MANUFACTURING OR SELLING OTHER APPARATUS.  AND FINALLY, THERE IS NO
CONDITIONING OF THE LICENSE GRANT UPON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANOTHER AND
DIFFERENT LICENSE.  WE ARE AWARE THAT PETITIONER ASSERTED IN ITS
COUNTERMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT THAT HAZELTINE
REFUSED TO GRANT A LICENSE UNDER ANY ONE OR MORE OF ITS PATENTS TO
ANYONE WHO REFUSED TO TAKE A LICENSE UNDER ALL.  THIS AVERMENT WAS
ELABORATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION.  THE POINT WAS NOT PRESSED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OR HERE.  IN
ANY EVENT THERE IS NOTHING AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE
AVERMENT, SINCE THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF WAS MADE UPON
INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND THE RELEVANT PORTION, AT LEAST, DOES NOT
COMPLY WITH RULE 56(E) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  FN4 

BUT PETITIONER URGES THAT THIS CASE "IS IDENTICAL IN PRINCIPLE" WITH
THE "TIE-IN" CASES.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE LICENSING PROVISION
REQUIRING ROYALTY PAYMENTS OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE SALES OF THE
LICENSEE'S PRODUCTS CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF PATENTS BECAUSE IT TIES IN
A PAYMENT ON UNPATENTED GOODS.  PARTICULAR RELIANCE IS PLACED ON
LANGUAGE FROM UNITED STATES V. U.S. GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364, 389,
400.  FN5  THAT CASE WAS A PROSECUTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT FOR AN
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY OF GYPSUM AND ITS LICENSEES TO EXTEND THE MONOPOLY
OF CERTAIN PATENTS AND TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION BY FIXING PRICES ON
PATENTED AND UNPATENTED GYPSUM BOARD.  THE LICENSE PROVISIONS BASED
ROYALTIES ON ALL SALES OF GYPSUM BOARD, BOTH PATENTED AND UNPATENTED. 
IT WAS HELD THAT THE LICENSE PROVISIONS, TOGETHER WITH EVIDENCE OF AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY PATENTED BOARD WOULD BE SOLD, SHOWED A
CONSPIRACY TO RESTRICT THE PRODUCTION OF UNPATENTED PRODUCTS WHICH WAS
AN INVALID EXTENSION OF THE AREA OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY.  333 U.S. AT
397.  THERE IS NO INDICATION HERE OF CONSPIRACY TO RESTRICT PRODUCTION
OF UNPATENTED OR ANY GOODS TO EFFECTUATE A MONOPOLY, AND THUS THE
GYPSUM CASE DOES NOT AID PETITIONER.  THAT WHICH IS CONDEMNED AS
AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY BY THE "TIE-IN" CASES IS THE EXTENSION OF THE
MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT TO CREATE ANOTHER MONOPOLY OR RESTRAINT OF
COMPETITION - A RESTRAINT NOT COUNTENANCED BY THE PATENT GRANT.  SEE,
E.G., MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S. 661, 665
666; MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488; ETHYL GASOLINE
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 456.  THE PRINCIPLE OF THOSE
CASES CANNOT BE CONTORTED TO CIRCUMSCRIBE THE INSTANT SITUATION.  THIS
ROYALTY PROVISION DOES NOT CREATE ANOTHER MONOPOLY; IT CREATES NO
RESTRAINT OF COMPETITION BEYOND THE LEGITIMATE GRANT OF THE PATENT. 
THE RIGHT TO A PATENT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO MARKET THE USE OF THE
PATENT AT A REASONABLE RETURN.  SEE 46 STAT. 376, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 40;
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 417, 324 U.S. 570,
574. 

THE LICENSING AGREEMENT IN ISSUE WAS CHARACTERIZED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT AS ESSENTIALLY A GRANT BY HAZELTINE TO PETITIONER OF A PRIVILEGE
TO USE ANY PATENT OR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF HAZELTINE IN CONSIDERATION
OF THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES.  PAYMENT FOR THE PRIVILEGE IS REQUIRED
REGARDLESS OF USE OF THE PATENTS.  FN6  THE ROYALTY PROVISION OF THE
LICENSING AGREEMENT WAS SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS ON THE THEORY THAT IT WAS A CONVENIENT MODE OF OPERATION
DESIGNED BY THE PARTIES TO AVOID THE NECESSITY OF DETERMINING WHETHER
EACH TYPE OF PETITIONER'S PRODUCT EMBODIES ANY OF THE NUMEROUS
HAZELTINE PATENTS.  77 F.SUPP.  AT 496.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REASONED
THAT SINCE IT WOULD NOT BE UNLAWFUL TO AGREE TO PAY A FIXED SUM FOR THE
PRIVILEGE TO USE PATENTS, IT WAS NOT UNLAWFUL TO PROVIDE A VARIABLE
CONSIDERATION MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE LICENSEE'S SALES FOR THE
SAME PRIVILEGE.  176 F.2D AT 804.  NUMEROUS DISTRICT COURTS WHICH HAVE
HAD OCCASION TO PASS ON THE QUESTION HAVE REACHED THE SAME RESULT ON
SIMILAR GROUNDS,  FN7  AND WE ARE OF LIKE OPINION. 

THE MERE ACCUMULATION OF PATENTS, NO MATTER HOW MANY, IS NOT IN AND OF
ITSELF ILLEGAL.  SEE TRANSPARENT-WRAP MACHINE CORP. V. STOKES & SMITH
CO., 329 U.S. 637.  AND THIS RECORD SIMPLY DOES NOT SUPPORT INCENDIARY,
YET VAGUE, CHARGES THAT RESPONDENT USES ITS ACCUMULATION OF PATENTS
"FOR THE EXACTION OF TRIBUTE" AND COLLECTS ROYALTIES "BY MEANS OF THE
OVERPOWERING THREAT OF DISASTROUS LITIGATION."  WE CANNOT SAY THAT
PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES ACCORDING TO AN AGREED PERCENTAGE OF THE
LICENSEE'S SALES IS UNREASONABLE.  SOUND BUSINESS JUDGMENT COULD
INDICATE THAT SUCH PAYMENT REPRESENTS THE MOST CONVENIENT METHOD OF
FIXING THE BUSINESS VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY THE LICENSING
AGREEMENT.  WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL THAT CONVENIENCE CANNOT JUSTIFY AN
EXTENSION OF THE MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT.  SEE, E.G., MERCOID CORP. V.
MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S. 661, 666; B.B. CHEMICAL CO. V.
ELLIS, 314 U.S. 495, 498.  BUT AS WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, THERE IS
IN THIS ROYALTY PROVISION NO INHERENT EXTENSION OF THE MONOPOLY OF THE
PATENT.  PETITIONER CANNOT COMPLAIN BECAUSE IT MUST PAY ROYALTIES
WHETHER IT USES HAZELTINE PATENTS OR NOT.  WHAT IT ACQUIRED BY THE
AGREEMENT INTO WHICH IT ENTERED WAS THE PRIVILEGE TO USE ANY OR ALL OF
THE PATENTS AND DEVELOPMENTS AS IT DESIRED TO USE THEM.  IF IT CHOOSES
TO USE NONE OF THEM, IT HAS NEVERTHELESS CONTRACTED TO PAY FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING EXISTING PATENTS PLUS ANY DEVELOPMENTS RESULTING
FROM RESPONDENT'S CONTINUOUS RESEARCH.  WE HOLD THAT IN LICENSING THE
USE OF PATENTS TO ONE ENGAGED IN A RELATED ENTERPRISE, IT IS NOT PER SE
A MISUSE OF PATENTS TO MEASURE THE CONSIDERATION BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE
LICENSEE'S SALES. 

SECOND.  IT IS NEXT CONTENDED BY PETITIONER THAT THE LICENSE
AGREEMENTS IS UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE IT CONTAINED A PROVISION REQUIRING
THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIVE NOTICE TO BE ATTACHED TO APPARATUS
MANUFACTURED BY PETITIONER UNDER THE AGREEMENT: 

"'LICENSED BY HAZELTINE CORPORATION ONLY FOR USE IN HOMES, FOR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, AND FOR PRIVATE, NON-COMMERCIAL USE, UNDER ONE OR
MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PATENTS AND UNDER PENDING APPLICATIONS:'
FOLLOWED BY THE WORD 'PATENT' AND THE NUMBERS OF THE PATENTS WHICH ARE,
IN THE OPINION OF LICENSOR, INVOLVED IN APPARATUS OF THE TYPES LICENSED
HEREUNDER MANUFACTURED BY ONE OR MORE LICENSEES OF LICENSOR." 

RESPONDENT DID NOT SEEK TO HAVE THIS PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT
ENFORCED, AND THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT ENFORCE IT.  IT
MAY WELL HAVE BEEN A DEAD LETTER FROM THE BEGINNING, AS INDICATED BY
THE FACT THAT, AS PETITIONER AVERRED IN ITS ANSWER, IT HAS NEVER
OBSERVED THIS PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT.  THUS IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT THE
LEGALITY OF THIS PROVISION COULD BE CONTESTED, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE
ISSUE WAS PROPERLY RAISED, WHICH RESPONDENT DISPUTES.  IN ANY EVENT, IT
IS CLEAR THAT ANY ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT
IS MOOT.  AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PRESIDENT OF RESPONDENT CORPORATION
ADVISES US OF CERTAIN LETTERS WHICH WERE SENT BY RESPONDENT IN
SEPTEMBER 1945, TO EACH OF ITS LICENSEES, INCLUDING PETITIONER.  THESE
LETTERS AUTHORIZED THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE RESTRICTIVE NOTICE
PROVISION AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE MARKING 

"THIS APPARATUS IS LICENSED UNDER THE UNITED STATES PATENT RIGHTS OF
HAZELTINE CORPORATION." 

IT IS FURTHER AVERRED THAT THIS FORM OF NOTICE IS ALL THAT RESPONDENT
HAS REQUIRED OF ITS LICENSEES SINCE SEPTEMBER 1945.  SINCE THIS
PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF RESPONDENT, IT
COULD VOLUNTARILY WAIVE THE PROVISION.  WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. V.
BULLDOG ELECTRIC PRODUCTS CO., 179 F.2D 139, 145, 146.  THUS THE
QUESTION OF THE LEGALITY OF THE ORIGINAL RESTRICTIVE NOTICE PROVISION
IS NOT BEFORE US.  CF. STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163,
181-182. 

THIRD.  FINALLY, IT IS CONTENDED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE LICENSING
AGREEMENT, PETITIONER-LICENSEE MAY CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS
IT IS CHARGED WITH USING.  THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT THE LICENSEE UNDER
A PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT MAY NOT CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE
LICENSED PATENT IN A SUIT FOR ROYALTIES DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT.  UNITED
STATES V. HARVEY STEEL CO., 196 U.S. 310.  THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF THE
INVALIDITY OF PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS MAY BE INVOKED BY THE LICENSEE OF
WHAT PURPORT TO BE VALID PATENTS TO SHOW IN A SUIT FOR ROYALTIES THAT
THE PATENTS ARE INVALID.  KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO METALLIC MFG. CO.,
329 U.S. 394; MACGREGOR V. WESTINGHOUSE ELEC.  & MFG. CO., 329 U.S.
402.  THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE LICENSING AGREEMENT HERE OR THE
PRACTICES UNDER IT WERE A MISUSE OF PATENTS OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
POLICY.  THIS LIMITED LICENSE FOR "HOME" USE PRODUCTION CONTAINS
NEITHER AN EXPRESS NOR IMPLIED AGREEMENT TO REFRAIN FROM PRODUCTION FOR
"COMMERCIAL" OR ANY OTHER USE AS PART CONSIDERATION FOR THE LICENSE
GRANT.  THE KATZINGER AND MACGREGOR CASES ARE INAPPLICABLE.  THE
GENERAL RULE APPLIES, AND PETITIONER MAY NOT, IN THIS SUIT, CHALLENGE
THE VALIDITY OF THE LICENSED PATENTS.    THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392; MERCOID
CORP. V. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL CO., 320 U.S. 680; MERCOID CORP. V. MID
CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S. 661; B.B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS, 314
U.S. 495; MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488; ETHYL GASOLINE
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436; LEITCH MANUFACTURING CO. V.
BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458; INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 131; CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS
DEVELOPMENT CORP., 283 U.S. 27; UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 258 U.S. 451; MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM
MANUFACTURING CO., 243 U.S. 502. 

FN2  UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451;
NATIONAL LOCKWASHER CO. V. GARRETT CO., 137 F.2D 255; RADIO CORP. V.
LORD, 28 F.2D 257. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, 334 U.S. 131.  (COPYRIGHT
"BLOCK-BOOKING.") 

FN4  "FORM OF AFFIDAVITS; FURTHER TESTIMONY.  SUPPORTING AND OPPOSING
AFFIDAVITS SHALL BE MADE ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, SHALL SET FORTH SUCH
FACTS AS WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, AND SHALL SHOW AFFIRMATIVELY
THAT THE AFFIANT IS COMPETENT TO TESTIFY TO THE MATTERS STATED
THEREIN.  ...  " FED. RULES CIV. PROC., 56(E). 

FN5  "  ...  THE ROYALTY WAS TO BE MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE
VALUE OF ALL GYPSUM PRODUCTS, PATENTED OR UNPATENTED  ...  "  333 U.S.
AT 389.  "PATENTS GRANT NO PRIVILEGE TO THEIR OWNERS OF ORGANIZING THE
USE OF THOSE PATENTS TO MONOPOLIZE AN INDUSTRY THROUGH PRICE CONTROL,
THROUGH ROYALTIES FOR THE PATENTS DRAWN FROM PATENT-FREE INDUSTRY
PRODUCTS AND THROUGH REGULATION OF DISTRIBUTION."  333 U.S. AT 400. 

FN6  IN THIS VIEW OF THE CONTRACT WE NEED NOT CONCERN OURSELVES WITH
THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN COUNSEL AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS A
FACTUAL DISPUTE OVER THE USE OR NON-USE OF HAZELTINE PATENTS BY
PETITIONER IN ITS PRODUCTS. 

FN7  HAZELTINE RESEARCH V. ADMIRAL CORP., 87 F.SUPP.  72, 79; H-P-M
DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. WATSON-STILLMAN CO., 71 F.SUPP.  906, 912;
AMERICAN OPTICAL CO. V. NEW JERSEY OPTICAL CO., 58 F.SUPP.  601, 606;
OHIO CITIZENS TRUST CO. V. AIR-WAY ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CORP., 56
F.SUPP.  1010, 1012; CF. PYRENE MFG. CO. V. URQUHART, 69 F.SUPP.  555,
560; INTERNATIONAL CARBONIC ENGINEERING CO. V. NATURAL CARBONIC
PRODUCTS, 57 F.SUPP.  248, 251-253, AFFIRMED, 158 F.2D 285.  AT LEAST
ONE STATE COURT HAS REACHED THIS RESULT.  HAZELTINE RESEARCH V. DE WALD
RADIO CORP., 84 N.Y.S.2D 597, 603. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

WE ARE, I THINK, INCLINED TO FORGET THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
GRANT PATENTS IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THE PATENT POWER,
OF ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS, IS INDEED THE ONLY ONE WHOSE PURPOSE IS
DEFINED.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 DESCRIBES THE POWER AS ONE "TO PROMOTE THE
PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS, BY SECURING FOR LIMITED TIMES TO
AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITINGS
AND DISCOVERIES."  THIS STATEMENT OF POLICY LIMITS THE POWER ITSELF. 

THE COURT IN ITS LONG HISTORY HAS AT TIMES BEEN MORE ALIVE TO THAT
POLICY THAN AT OTHER TIMES.  DURING THE LAST THREE DECADES IT HAS BEEN
AS DEVOTED TO IT (IF NOT MORE SO) THAN AT ANY TIME IN ITS HISTORY.  I
THINK THAT WAS DUE IN LARGE MEASURE TO THE INFLUENCE OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS AND CHIEF JUSTICE STONE.  THEY WERE ALERT TO THE DANGER THAT
BUSINESS - GROWING BIGGER AND BIGGER EACH DECADE - WOULD FASTEN ITS
HOLD MORE TIGHTLY ON THE ECONOMY THROUGH THE CHEAP SPAWNING OF PATENTS
AND WOULD USE ONE MONOPOLY TO BEGET ANOTHER THROUGH THE LEVERAGE OF KEY
PATENTS.  THEY FOLLOWED IN THE EARLY TRADITION OF THOSE WHO READ THE
CONSTITUTION TO MEAN THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PATENTS COMES FIRST,
REWARD TO THE INVENTOR SECOND.  FN1 

FIRST.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DID NOT FASHION
BUT THEY MADE MORE SECURE ONE IMPORTANT RULE DESIGNED TO CURB THE USE
OF PATENTS.  IT IS AS FOLLOWS:  ONE WHO HOLDS A PATENT ON ARTICLE A MAY
NOT LICENSE THE USE OF THE PATENT ON CONDITION THAT B, AN UNPATENTED
ARTICLE, BE BOUGHT.  FN2  SUCH A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT WOULD BE AN
EXTENSION OF THE GRANT OF THE PATENT CONTRARY TO A LONG LINE OF
DECISIONS.  SEE MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 243
U.S. 502; CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27; MORTON
SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488, 491-92; UNITED STATES V.
MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 277, 278; MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT
INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S. 661, 666; UNITED STATES V. GYPSUM CO., 333
U.S. 364, 389.  FOR IT WOULD SWEEP UNDER THE PATENT AN ARTICLE THAT IS
UNPATENTED OR UNPATENTABLE.  EACH PATENT OWNER WOULD BECOME HIS OWN
PATENT OFFICE AND, BY REASON OF THE LEVERAGE OF THE PATENT, OBTAIN A
LARGER MONOPOLY OF THE MARKET THAN THE CONSTITUTION OR STATUTES
PERMIT.  FN3 

THAT IS WHAT IS DONE HERE.  HAZELTINE LICENSED AUTOMATIC RADIO TO USE
570 PATENTS AND 200 PATENT APPLICATIONS.  OF THESE AUTOMATIC USED AT
MOST 10.  AUTOMATIC RADIO WAS OBLIGATED, HOWEVER, TO PAY AS ROYALTY A
PERCENTAGE OF ITS TOTAL SALES IN CERTAIN LINES WITHOUT REGARD TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRODUCTS SOLD WERE PATENTED OR UNPATENTED.  THE
INEVITABLE RESULT IS THAT THE PATENTEE RECEIVED ROYALTIES ON UNPATENTED
PRODUCTS AS PART OF THE PRICE FOR THE USE OF THE PATENTS. 

THE PATENT OWNER HAS THEREFORE USED THE PATENTS TO BLUDGEON HIS WAY
INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH THIS LICENSEE, COLLECTING ROYALTIES ON
UNPATENTED AS WELL AS PATENTED ARTICLES. 

A PLAINER EXTENSION OF A PATENT BY UNLAWFUL MEANS WOULD BE HARD TO
IMAGINE. 

SECOND.  CHIEF JUSTICE STONE WROTE FOR THE COURT IN SOLA ELECTRIC CO.
V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S. 173, HOLDING THAT A LICENSEE IS NOT
ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE A PRICE-FIXING CLAUSE BY SHOWING THE PATENT IS
INVALID.  AND SEE KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO MFG. CO., 329 U.S. 394;
MACGREGOR V. WESTINGHOUSE CO., 329 U.S. 402.  HE ALSO WROTE FOR THE
COURT IN SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS CO., 326 U.S. 249, HOLDING THAT
ESTOPPEL DID NOT BAR THE ASSIGNOR OF A PATENT FROM DEFENDING A SUIT FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ASSIGNED PATENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ALLEGED
INFRINGING DEVICE WAS THAT OF A PRIOR-ART EXPIRED PATENT.  FN4 

THESE DECISIONS PUT THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN FREE
ENTERPRISE ABOVE REWARD TO THE PATENTEE.  THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THEY
MADE ON THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE REPRESENTED AN ALMOST COMPLETE CYCLE BACK
TO THE SALUTARY TEACHING OF POPE MFG. CO. V. GORMULLY, 144 U.S. 224,
234, THAT, "IT IS AS IMPORTANT TO THE PUBLIC THAT COMPETITION SHOULD
NOT BE REPRESSED BY WORTHLESS PATENTS, AS THAT THE PATENTEE OF A REALLY
VALUABLE INVENTION SHOULD BE PROTECTED IN HIS MONOPOLY."  TO ESTOP THE
LICENSEE FROM ATTACKING THE VALIDITY OF PATENTS IS TO FORGET THAT "IT
IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH IS DOMINANT IN THE PATENT SYSTEM." 
MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., SUPRA, AT 665. 

IT IS SAID THAT IF THE PURPOSE WAS TO ENLARGE THE MONOPOLY OF THE
PATENT - FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH PRICE FIXING - THEN ESTOPPEL WOULD NOT
BAR THE LICENSEE FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS.  BUT
WHAT WORSE ENLARGEMENT OF MONOPOLY IS THERE THAN THE ATTACHMENT OF A
PATENT TO AN UNPATENTABLE ARTICLE?  WHEN WE CONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARD, WHAT GREATER PUBLIC HARM THAN THAT IS THERE IN THE PATENT
SYSTEM? 

IT IS ONLY RIGHT AND JUST THAT THE LICENSEE BE ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE
THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS.  A GREAT POOLING OF PATENTS IS MADE; AND
WHOLE INDUSTRIES ARE KNIT TOGETHER IN THE FASHION OF THE UNHOLY
ALLIANCES REVEALED IN UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 333 U.S. 287,
AND UNITED STATES V. GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364.  ONE WHO WANTS THE USE
OF ONE PATENT MAY HAVE TO TAKE HUNDREDS.  THE WHOLE PACKAGE MAY CONTAIN
MANY PATENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FOISTED ON THE PUBLIC.  NO OTHER PERSON
THAN THE LICENSEE WILL BE INTERESTED ENOUGH TO CHALLENGE THEM.  HE
ALONE WILL BE APT TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THEIR ILLEGALITY. 

THE LICENSEE PROTECTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN EXPOSING INVALID OR
EXPIRED PATENTS AND FREEING THE PUBLIC OF THEIR TOLL.  HE SHOULD BE
ALLOWED THAT PRIVILEGE.  HE WOULD BE ALLOWED IT WERE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST CONSIDERED THE DOMINANT ONE.  RIDDING THE PUBLIC OF STALE OR
SPECIOUS PATENTS IS ONE WAY OF SERVING THE END OF THE PROGRESS OF
SCIENCE. 

WE DEPART FROM A GREAT TRADITION IN THIS FIELD (AND SEE GRAVER TANK &
MFG. CO. V. LINDE AIR PRODUCTS, 339 U.S. 605) WHEN WE AFFIRM THIS
JUDGMENT. 

FN1  SEE MR. JUSTICE STORY IN PENNOCK V. DIALOGUE, 2 PET. 1; MR.
JUSTICE DANIEL IN KENDALL V. WINSOR, 21 HOW.  322; MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL
IN WINANS V. DENMEAD, 15 HOW.  330, 344(DISSENTING OPINION). 

FN2  SEE HAMILTON, PATENTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE, T.N.E.C. MONOGRAPH
NO. 31, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 62-70. 

FN3  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN CARBICE CORP. V.
AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., SUPRA, P. 32, SAID, "IF A MONOPOLY COULD BE SO
EXPANDED, THE OWNER OF A PATENT FOR A PRODUCT MIGHT CONCEIVABLY
MONOPOLIZE THE COMMERCE IN A LARGE PART OF UNPATENTED MATERIALS USED IN
ITS MANUFACTURE.  THE OWNER OF A PATENT FOR A MACHINE MIGHT THEREBY
SECURE A PARTIAL MONOPOLY ON THE UNPATENTED SUPPLIES CONSUMED IN ITS
OPERATION.  THE OWNER OF A PATENT FOR A PROCESS MIGHT SECURE A PARTIAL
MONOPOLY ON THE UNPATENTED MATERIAL EMPLOYED IN IT.  THE OWNER OF THE
PATENT IN SUIT MIGHT CONCEIVABLY SECURE A LIMITED MONOPOLY FOR THE
SUPPLYING NOT ONLY OF SOLID CARBON DIOXIDE, BUT ALSO OF THE ICE CREAM
AND OTHER FOODS, AS WELL AS OF THE CARTONS IN WHICH THEY ARE SHIPPED. 
THE ATTEMPT TO LIMIT THE LICENSEE TO THE USE OF UNPATENTED MATERIALS
PURCHASED FROM THE LICENSOR IS COMPARABLE TO THE ATTEMPT OF A PATENTEE
TO FIX THE PRICE AT WHICH THE PATENTED ARTICLE MAY BE RESOLD." 

FN4  IN THIS CASE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE EMPHASIZED THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AT STAKE IN ALLOWING THE CHALLENGE TO THE PATENT (326 U.S. P. 256):
"BY THE FORCE OF THE PATENT LAWS NOT ONLY IS THE INVENTION OF A PATENT
DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC UPON ITS EXPIRATION, BUT THE PUBLIC THEREBY
BECOMES ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE GOOD WILL WHICH THE PATENTEE HAS BUILT
UP IN THE PATENTED ARTICLE OR PRODUCT THROUGH THE ENJOYMENT OF HIS
PATENT MONOPOLY." 
..END :




















LYON V. SINGER, 339 U.S. 841 


ARGUED APRIL 18-19, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - 299 N.Y. 113, 139,
85 N.E.2D 894, 906, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THESE SUITS TO COLLECT FROM A STATUTORY BANK LIQUIDATOR CLAIMS
ALLEGEDLY ENTITLED TO PREFERENCE UNDER NEW YORK BANKING LAW SEC. 606,
ARISING FROM TRANSACTIONS WITH A JAPANESE CORPORATION BLOCKED UNDER
EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 8389 AND 8832, THIS COURT ACCEPTS THE
DETERMINATION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS THAT, UNDER NEW YORK
LAW, THESE CLAIMS AROSE FROM TRANSACTIONS IN NEW YORK AND WERE ENTITLED
TO PREFERENCE.  PP. 842-843. 

2.  SINCE THE NEW YORK COURT CONDITIONED ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAIMS
UPON LICENSING BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, FEDERAL CONTROL OVER
ALIEN PROPERTY REMAINS UNDIMINISHED.  PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 842. 

3.  THIS COURT AGREES THAT, AT THE TIME THE NEW YORK JUDGMENTS WERE
ENTERED, NO LICENSES HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THESE CLAIMANTS; AND IT AFFIRMS
THE JUDGMENTS BELOW.  P. 843. 

LYON, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS, V. SINGER. 

NO. 512.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 527, SINGER V. YOKOHAMA SPECIE BANK, LTD. ET AL.;
NO. 513, LYON, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS, V. BANQUE MELLIE IRAN; AND NO.
528, BANQUE MELLIE IRAN V. LYON, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS, ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

PER CURIAM. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN THESE CASES TO REVIEW FEDERAL ISSUES
RESPECTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF FROZEN ALIEN PROPERTY.  339 U.S. 902. 

THE CASES AROSE FROM SUITS BROUGHT BY CLAIMANTS SINGER AND BANQUE
MELLIE IRAN TO COLLECT FROM A STATUTORY BANK LIQUIDATOR CLAIMS
ALLEGEDLY ENTITLED TO A PREFERENCE UNDER NEW YORK BANKING LAW SEC. 606,
ARISING FROM TRANSACTIONS WITH A JAPANESE CORPORATION, BLOCKED UNDER
EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 8389, 5 FED. REG. 1400; 8832, 6 FED. REG. 3715. 
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS GAVE RISE TO A
PREFERRED CLAIM IN THE LIQUIDATION BUT THAT PAYMENT BY THE LIQUIDATOR
MUST AWAIT SPECIFIC LICENSING BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OF THE
TRANSACTIONS UNDERLYING THE CLAIMS.  SINGER V. YOKOHAMA SPECIE BANK,
LTD., 293 N.Y. 542, 58 N.E.2D 726, 299 N.Y. 113, 85 N.E.2D 894; BANQUE
MELLIE IRAN V. YOKOHAMA SPECIE BANK, LTD., 299 N.Y. 139, 85 N.E.2D
906. 

THOSE OPPOSED TO THE JUDGMENTS URGE THAT, AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW,
THE FREEZING ORDER PREVENTED THE CREATION OF ANY CLAIM RECOGNIZABLE
UNDER SEC. 606 OF THE NEW YORK BANKING LAW. 

ORAL ARGUMENT AND STUDY OF THE RECORD HAVE CONVINCED US THAT THE
JUDGMENTS OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, SEC. 301, 55 STAT. 839, OR THE ABOVE
EXECUTIVE ORDERS.  WE ACCEPT THE NEW YORK COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT
UNDER NEW YORK LAW THESE CLAIMS AROSE FROM TRANSACTIONS IN NEW YORK AND
WERE ENTITLED TO A PREFERENCE.  SINCE THE NEW YORK COURT CONDITIONED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAIMS UPON LICENSING BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN, FEDERAL CONTROL OVER ALIEN PROPERTY REMAINS UNDIMINISHED. 
OUR DECISION IN PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472, DOES NOT REQUIRE A
CONTRARY CONCLUSION.  THERE THE LIQUIDATOR CLAIMED TITLE TO FROZEN
ASSETS ADVERSELY TO THE CUSTODIAN, AND SOUGHT TO DENY THE CUSTODIAN'S
PARAMOUNT POWER TO VEST THE ALIEN PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES.  NO
SUCH RESULT FOLLOWS FROM THE NEW YORK COURT'S JUDGMENTS IN THE PRESENT
CASES. 

SINCE WE FURTHER AGREE THAT, AT THE TIME THE NEW YORK JUDGMENTS WERE
ENTERED, NO LICENSES HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THESE CLAIMANTS, WE AFFIRM THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE FEDERAL
QUESTION IN NOS. 513 AND 528 HAS BEEN ELIMINATED BY THE LICENSE GRANTED
BY THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ALIEN PROPERTY, NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW
REMAINS IN THIS COURT.  THEREFORE, THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI IN THESE TWO
CASES SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 
..END :


















ROBERTS V. U.S. DISTRICT COURT, 339 U.S. 844 


NO. 2, MISC.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1950.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - MOTION
DENIED. 


1.  WHETHER ONE IS A "CITIZEN" FOR THE PURPOSE OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1915 IS A
QUESTION SOLELY OF FEDERAL LAW.  PP. 844-845. 

2. CONGRESS HAS NOT PRESCRIBED LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP FOR CONVICTION OF
CRIMES OTHER THAN DESERTION AND TREASON.  P. 845. 

3.  AN ORDER OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DENYING A MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS APPEALABLE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1291.  P. 845. 

4.  PETITIONER'S MOTION IN THIS COURT FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE DISTRICT COURT IS DENIED, BECAUSE OF THE
AMBIGUOUS STATE OF THE RECORD IN THE CASE AND THE FACT THAT DENIAL OF
THE MOTION WILL NOT PREJUDICE FURTHER APPLICATIONS BY PETITIONER FOR
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  P. 845. 

ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA ET AL. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER, WHO IS CONFINED IN A CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SOUGHT TO
FILE A PETITION IN FORMA PAUPERIS FOR A WRIT OF INJUNCTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT BELOW.  THAT COURT DENIED LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF
28 U.S.C. SEC. 1915 BECAUSE HE WAS NO LONGER A "CITIZEN" AS REQUIRED BY
THAT SECTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT REACHED THAT DECISION IN RELIANCE ON
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SEC. 2600, WHICH PROVIDES THAT ONE SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF YEARS IS DEPRIVED OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS FOR
THE PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT.  THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS IN
ERROR.  CITIZENSHIP FOR THE PURPOSE OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS PROCEEDINGS IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS IS SOLELY A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW.  CONGRESS HAS NOT
SPECIFIED CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, EXCEPT FOR DESERTION AND TREASON, AS
GROUNDS FOR LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP.  8 U.S.C. SEC. 801. 

PETITIONER THEREAFTER FILED A MOTION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE DENIAL BY A DISTRICT JUDGE OF A MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1291; SEE COHEN V.
BENEFICIAL INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORP., 337 U.S. 541(1949).  THE COURT OF
APPEALS, HOWEVER, HELD THAT IT HAD "NO POWER TO GRANT AN APPLICATION
FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL," AND DISMISSED THE PETITION. 

FINALLY, PETITIONER FILED IN THIS COURT A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  MANDAMUS IS AN
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY, AVAILABLE ONLY IN RARE CASES.  EX PARTE COLLETT,
337 U.S. 55, 72(1949), AND CASES THERE CITED.  BECAUSE OF THE AMBIGUOUS
STATE OF THIS RECORD, AND THE FACT THAT A DENIAL OF THIS MOTION WILL
NOT PREJUDICE PETITIONER IN FURTHER ATTEMPTS TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, THE MOTION MUST BE DENIED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :












OSMAN V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 846 


NO. 12.  DECIDED JUNE 5, 1950.  - AFFIRMED. 


146, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 159(H), PERTAINING TO "NON-COMMUNIST" AFFIDAVITS,
IS VALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN.
V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382.  PP. 846-847. 

OSMAN ET AL. V. DOUDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE APPELLANTS TO ENJOIN THE APPELLEE FROM
ENFORCING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9(H) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AS AMENDED, 61 STAT. 146, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 159(H), A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE MERITS.  ON DIRECT APPEAL
TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 848. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS CASE WAS HERETOFORE HELD FOR, AND PRESENTS THE SAME ISSUES
INVOLVED IN, AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION V. DOUDS, AND UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA V. LABOR BOARD, DECIDED MAY 8, 1950, 339 U.S.
382.  IN THESE CASES THE COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC.
9(H) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 136, 146, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP.
III) SECS. 141, 159(H), WHICH PROVIDES: 

"NO INVESTIGATION SHALL BE MADE BY THE (NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS)
BOARD OF ANY QUESTION AFFECTING COMMERCE CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION
OF EMPLOYEES, RAISED BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OF
THIS SECTION, NO PETITION UNDER SUBSECTION (E)(1) OF THIS SECTION SHALL
BE ENTERTAINED, AND NO COMPLAINT SHALL BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CHARGE
MADE BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 160 OF
THIS TITLE, UNLESS THERE IS ON FILE WITH THE BOARD AN AFFIDAVIT
EXECUTED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY OR WITHIN THE PRECEDING TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD
BY EACH OFFICER OF SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION AND THE OFFICERS OF ANY
NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WHICH IT IS AN
AFFILIATE OR CONSTITUENT UNIT THAT HE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY OR AFFILIATED WITH SUCH PARTY, AND THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN,
AND IS NOT A MEMBER OF OR SUPPORTS ANY ORGANIZATION THAT BELIEVES IN OR
TEACHES, THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR BY
ANY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS." 

WITH REGARD TO THAT PART OF THE SECTION WHICH IS CONCERNED WITH
MEMBERSHIP IN, OR AFFILIATION WITH, THE COMMUNIST PARTY, THE COURT
HOLDS THE REQUIREMENT TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL.  MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS
FOR REASONS STATED IN HIS DISSENT IN AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS
ASSOCIATION V. DOUDS, SUPRA. 

WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OTHER RELEVANT PARTS OF THE
VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHO WAS JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON IN THE CASES ABOVE CITED.  MR. JUSTICE
BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ADHERE TO THEIR
OPINIONS IN THOSE CASES.  MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS THE DISSENTING
OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON INSOFAR AS THEY HOLD UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE PORTION OF THE OATH
DEALING WITH BELIEFS, AND BEING OF THE VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF THE OATH
ARE NOT SEPARABLE VOTES TO REVERSE.  HE THEREFORE DOES NOT FIND IT
NECESSARY TO REACH THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE OTHER
PART OF THE OATH.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS THEREFORE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




EWING V. MYTINGER & CASSELBERRY, 339 U.S. 594 


NO. 568.  ARGUED APRIL 19-20, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1950.  - 87
F.SUPP.  650, REVERSED. 


AMENDED, PERMITS MULTIPLE SEIZURES OF MISBRANDED ARTICLES "WHEN THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE FROM FACTS FOUND, WITHOUT
HEARING,  ...  THAT THE MISBRANDED ARTICLE IS DANGEROUS TO HEALTH, OR
THAT THE LABELING OF THE MISBRANDED ARTICLE IS FRAUDULENT, OR WOULD BE
IN A MATERIAL RESPECT MISLEADING TO THE INJURY OR DAMAGE OF THE
PURCHASER OR CONSUMER."  UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDING, WITHOUT A
HEARING, OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE LABELING OF A VITAMIN
PRODUCT DISTRIBUTED BY THE APPELLEE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS
"MISLEADING TO THE INJURY OR DAMAGE OF THE PURCHASER OR CONSUMER,"
ELEVEN SEIZURES OF THE PRODUCT WERE MADE AND AS MANY LIBEL SUITS
INSTITUTED OVER A FOUR-MONTH PERIOD.  THERE WAS NO CLAIM THAT THE
PRODUCT WAS HARMFUL OR DANGEROUS TO HEALTH.  APPELLEE BROUGHT SUIT IN
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO HAVE THE MULTIPLE SEIZURE PROVISION OF
SEC. 304(A) DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TO DISMISS ALL EXCEPT THE
FIRST LIBEL SUIT.  HELD: 

1.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT THERE BE AFFORDED A HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION TO MAKE MULTIPLE SEIZURES, BUT IS SATISFIED BY THE
OPPORTUNITY WHICH THE CLAIMANT HAS FOR A FULL HEARING BEFORE THE COURT
IN THE LIBEL PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 598-600. 

(A)  IN MAKING THE FINDING HERE INVOLVED, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
WAS MERELY DETERMINING WHETHER A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING SHOULD BE
INSTITUTED, SUBJECT TO FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
PP. 598-599. 

(B)  WHERE ONLY PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE
PROCESS ARE SATISFIED IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING AND A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION AT SOME STAGE.  PP. 599-600. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE.  PP. 600-602. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE PREPARATION HERE INVOLVED IS NOT DANGEROUS TO
HEALTH DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT, SINCE THE STATUTORY SCHEME
TREATS EVERY "MISBRANDED ARTICLE" THE SAME IN THIS RESPECT - WHETHER IT
IS "DANGEROUS TO HEALTH," OR ITS LABELING IS "FRAUDULENT" OR MATERIALLY
"MISLEADING TO THE INJURY OR DAMAGE OF THE PURCHASER OR CONSUMER."  P.
601. 

4.  CONSOLIDATION OF THE LIBEL SUITS SO THAT ONE TRIAL MAY BE HAD IS
THE RELIEF AGAINST MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS AFFORDED BY THE STATUTE TO THE
CLAIMANT OF THE SEIZED GOODS.  P. 602. 

EWING, FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL. V. MYTINGER &
CASSELBERRY, INC. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE APPELLEE, THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE MULTIPLE SEIZURE PROVISION OF SEC. 304(A) OF THE
FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, AS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  87 F.SUPP. 
650.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 602. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL  FN1  FROM A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED ON APPELLEE'S APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN
ENFORCEMENT OF A PORTION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS FOR REPUGNANCE TO THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  FN2 

1044, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 334(A), AS AMENDED, 62 STAT. 582, 21 U.S.C. (SUPP.
III) SEC. 334(A), PERMITS MULTIPLE SEIZURES OF MISBRANDED ARTICLES
"WHEN THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE FROM FACTS FOUND,
WITHOUT HEARING, BY HIM OR ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE AGENCY THAT
THE MISBRANDED ARTICLE IS DANGEROUS TO HEALTH, OR THAT THE LABELING OF
THE MISBRANDED ARTICLE IS FRAUDULENT, OR WOULD BE IN A MATERIAL RESPECT
MISLEADING TO THE INJURY OR DAMAGE OF THE PURCHASER OR CONSUMER."  FN3 

APPELLEE IS THE EXCLUSIVE NATIONAL DISTRIBUTOR OF NUTRILITE FOOD
SUPPLEMENT, AN ENCAPSULATED CONCENTRATE OF ALFALFA, WATER CRESS,
PARSLEY, AND SYNTHETIC VITAMINS COMBINED IN A PACKAGE WITH MINERAL
TABLETS.  THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT THE INGREDIENTS OF THE PREPARATION ARE
HARMFUL OR DANGEROUS TO HEALTH.  THE SOLE CLAIM IS THAT THE LABELING
WAS, TO USE THE STATUTORY WORDS, "MISLEADING TO THE INJURY OR DAMAGE OF
THE PURCHASER OR CONSUMER" AND THAT THEREFORE THE PREPARATION WAS
"MISBRANDED" WHEN INTRODUCED INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THIS WAS INDEED THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING BEHIND ELEVEN SEIZURES
RESULTING IN THAT NUMBER OF LIBEL SUITS, BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND
DECEMBER, 1948.  THE MISBRANDING, IT WAS FOUND, RESULTED FROM THE
BOOKLET WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE PREPARATION.  FN4  SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE
PRESENT SUIT WAS INSTITUTED TO HAVE THE MULTIPLE SEIZURE PROVISION OF
SEC. 304(A) DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TO DISMISS ALL LIBEL CASES
EXCEPT THE FIRST ONE INSTITUTED.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
APPELLANTS HAD ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY IN VIOLATION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT IN INSTITUTING MULTIPLE LIBEL SUITS WITHOUT FIRST
AFFORDING THE APPELLEE A HEARING ON THE PROBABLE CAUSE ISSUE; THAT THE
MULTIPLE SEIZURE PROVISION OF SEC. 304(A) WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; AND THAT APPELLANTS
SHOULD BE PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM INSTITUTING ANY ACTION RAISING A
CLAIM THAT THE BOOKLET ACCOMPANYING THE PREPARATION WAS A MISBRANDING
SINCE IT WAS NOT FRAUDULENT, FALSE, OR MISLEADING.  87 F.SUPP.  650. 

FIRST.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIRED BY SEC.
304(A) IS MERELY THE STATUTORY PREREQUISITE TO THE BRINGING OF THE
LAWSUIT.  WHEN THE LIBELS ARE FILED THE OWNER HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
APPEAR AS A CLAIMANT AND TO HAVE A FULL HEARING BEFORE THE COURT.  FN5
THIS HEARING, WE CONCLUDE, SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS. 

AT TIMES A PRELIMINARY DECISION BY AN AGENCY IS A STEP IN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT NO HEARING AT
THE PRELIMINARY STAGE IS REQUIRED BY DUE PROCESS SO LONG AS THE
REQUISITE HEARING IS HELD BEFORE THE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BECOMES
EFFECTIVE.  SEE LICHTER V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 742; INLAND EMPIRE
COUNCIL V. MILLIS, 325 U.S. 697; OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312
U.S. 126. 

BUT THIS CASE DOES NOT GO AS FAR.  HERE AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY IS
MERELY DETERMINING WHETHER A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING SHOULD BE INSTITUTED. 
MOREOVER, ITS FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE, WHILE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE
TO MULTIPLE SEIZURES, HAS NO EFFECT IN AND OF ITSELF.  ALL PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT OR TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF IT MUST BE
BROUGHT BY AND IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEC. 307.  WHETHER A
SUIT WILL BE INSTITUTED DEPENDS ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, NOT ON THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  HE MAY OR MAY NOT ACCEPT THE AGENCY'S
RECOMMENDATION.  IF HE DOES, SEIZURES ARE MADE AND LIBELS ARE
INSTITUTED.  BUT THE SEIZURES AND SUITS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE DISCRETION
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

IT IS SAID THAT THESE MULTIPLE SEIZURE DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
CAN CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO A BUSINESS.  AND SO THEY CAN.  THE
IMPACT OF THE INITIATION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IS OFTEN SERIOUS. 
TAKE THE CASE OF THE GRAND JURY.  IT RETURNS AN INDICTMENT AGAINST A
MAN WITHOUT A HEARING.  IT DOES NOT DETERMINE HIS GUILT; IT ONLY
DETERMINES WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE HE IS GUILTY. 
BUT THAT DETERMINATION IS CONCLUSIVE ON THE ISSUE OF PROBABLE CAUSE. 
AS A RESULT THE DEFENDANT CAN BE ARRESTED AND HELD FOR TRIAL.  SEE
BEAVERS V. HENKEL, 194 U.S. 73, 85; EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S.
241, 250.  THE IMPACT OF AN INDICTMENT IS ON THE REPUTATION OR LIBERTY
OF A MAN.  THE SAME IS TRUE WHERE A PROSECUTOR FILES AN INFORMATION
CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.  THE HARM TO PROPERTY AND BUSINESS CAN
ALSO BE INCALCULABLE BY THE MERE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS.  YET IT
HAS NEVER BEEN HELD THAT THE HAND OF GOVERNMENT MUST BE STAYED UNTIL
THE COURTS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS
JUSTIFIED IN INSTITUTING SUIT IN THE COURTS.  DISCRETION OF ANY
OFFICIAL MAY BE ABUSED.  YET IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS
THAT THERE BE JUDICIAL INQUIRY BEFORE DISCRETION CAN BE EXERCISED.  IT
IS SUFFICIENT, WHERE ONLY PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE CONCERNED, THAT THERE IS
AT SOME STAGE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING AND A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION.  PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 596-597; BOWLES
V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 520; YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414,
442-443. 

ONE OF THE OLDEST EXAMPLES IS THE SUMMARY DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE OR HEARING FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH. 
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY CONGRESS IN THE INTERESTS OF
CONSUMER PROTECTION MAY NOT EXTEND THAT AREA OF CONTROL.  IT MAY
CONCLUDE, AS IT DID HERE, THAT PUBLIC DAMAGE MAY RESULT EVEN FROM
HARMLESS ARTICLES IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE SOLD AS PANACEAS FOR MAN'S
ILLS.  A REQUIREMENT FOR A HEARING, AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT, DOES NOT ARISE MERELY BECAUSE THE DANGER OF INJURY MAY BE MORE
APPARENT OR IMMEDIATE IN THE ONE CASE THAN IN THE OTHER.  FOR ALL WE
KNOW, THE MOST DAMAGE MAY COME FROM MISLEADING OR FRAUDULENT LABELS. 
THAT IS A DECISION FOR CONGRESS, NOT FOR US.  THE DECISION OF CONGRESS
WAS THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION TO MAKE MULTIPLE SEIZURES
SHOULD BE MADE WITHOUT A HEARING.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT DUE PROCESS
REQUIRES ONE AT THAT STAGE. 

SECOND.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE. 

THE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN AND OF ITSELF HAD NO BINDING
LEGAL CONSEQUENCE ANY MORE THAN DID THE FINAL VALUATION MADE BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R.
CO., 273 U.S. 299.  IT TOOK THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT ABOVE, TO BRING IT INTO
PLAY AGAINST APPELLEE'S BUSINESS.  JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUCH A
PRELIMINARY STEP IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IS SO UNIQUE THAT WE ARE NOT
WILLING EASILY TO INFER THAT IT EXISTS. 

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS PRELIMINARY PHASE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE DOES NOT FIT THE STATUTORY SCHEME NOR SERVE THE POLICY OF THE
ACT.  CONGRESS MADE NUMEROUS ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE
ACT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURTS.  FN6  BUT IT DID NOT PLACE THE FINDING OF
PROBABLE CAUSE UNDER SEC. 304(A) IN THAT CATEGORY.  THIS HIGHLY
SELECTIVE MANNER IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
REINFORCES THE INFERENCE THAT THE ONLY REVIEW OF THE ISSUE OF PROBABLE
CAUSE WHICH CONGRESS GRANTED WAS THE ONE PROVIDED IN THE LIBEL SUIT. 
CF. SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. BOARD, 320 U.S. 297, 305-306. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE MULTIPLE SEIZURE PROVISION IS PLAIN.  IT IS TO
ARREST THE DISTRIBUTION OF AN ARTICLE THAT IS DANGEROUS, OR WHOSE
LABELING IS FRAUDULENT OR MISLEADING, PENDING A DETERMINATION OF THE
ISSUE OF ADULTERATION OR MISBRANDING.  THE PUBLIC THEREFORE HAS A STAKE
IN THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE BEFORE US.  IF THE DISTRICT COURT CAN STEP
IN, STAY THE INSTITUTION OF SEIZURES, AND BRING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION TO A HALT UNTIL IT HEARS THE CASE, THE PUBLIC WILL BE DENIED
THE SPEEDY PROTECTION WHICH CONGRESS PROVIDED BY MULTIPLE SEIZURES.  IT
IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE VITAMIN PREPARATION IN THE PRESENT CASE
IS NOT DANGEROUS TO HEALTH.  THIS PREPARATION MAY BE RELATIVELY
INNOCUOUS.  BUT THE STATUTORY SCHEME TREATS EVERY "MISBRANDED ARTICLE"
THE SAME IN THIS RESPECT - WHETHER IT IS "DANGEROUS TO HEALTH," OR ITS
LABELING IS "FRAUDULENT," OR MATERIALLY "MISLEADING TO THE INJURY OR
DAMAGE OF THE PURCHASER OR CONSUMER."  FN7  WHAT WE DO TODAY DETERMINES
THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN ALL THE CASES IN THAT
CATEGORY.  IF THE COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE CAN HALT ALL MULTIPLE
SEIZURES BUT ONE, SO CAN THE COURT IN OTHER CASES.  THE MEANS WHICH
CONGRESS PROVIDED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AGAINST THE INJURIOUS
CONSEQUENCES OF PROTRACTED PROCEEDINGS WOULD THEN BE SERIOUSLY
IMPAIRED.  CONGRESS WEIGHED THE POTENTIAL INJURY TO THE PUBLIC FROM
MISBRANDED ARTICLES AGAINST THE INJURY TO THE PURVEYOR OF THE ARTICLE
FROM A TEMPORARY INTERFERENCE WITH ITS DISTRIBUTION AND DECIDED IN
FAVOR OF THE SPEEDY, PREVENTIVE DEVICE OF MULTIPLE SEIZURES.  WE WOULD
IMPAIR OR DESTROY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THAT DEVICE IF WE SANCTIONED THE
INTERFERENCE WHICH A GRANT OF JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD
ENTAIL.  MULTIPLE SEIZURES ARE THE MEANS OF PROTECTION AFFORDED THE
PUBLIC.  CONSOLIDATION OF ALL THE LIBEL SUITS SO THAT ONE TRIAL MAY BE
HAD  FN8  IS THE RELIEF AFFORDED THE DISTRIBUTORS OF THE ARTICLES.  FN9
REVERSED. 

FN1  62 STAT. 928, 961, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1253, 2101. 

FN2  62 STAT. 968, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 2282, 2284. 

FN3  THE PROVISION OF WHICH THE QUOTED PORTION IS A PART READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"ANY ARTICLE OF FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC THAT IS ADULTERATED
OR MISBRANDED WHEN INTRODUCED INTO OR WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
WHILE HELD FOR SALE (WHETHER OR NOT THE FIRST SALE) AFTER SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR WHICH MAY NOT, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
404 OR 505, BE INTRODUCED INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SHALL BE LIABLE TO
BE PROCEEDED AGAINST WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR AT ANY TIME
THEREAFTER, ON LIBEL OF INFORMATION AND CONDEMNED IN ANY DISTRICT COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF WHICH THE ARTICLE IS
FOUND: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO LIBEL FOR CONDEMNATION SHALL BE
INSTITUTED UNDER THIS ACT, FOR ANY ALLEGED MISBRANDING IF THERE IS
PENDING IN ANY COURT A LIBEL FOR CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT
BASED UPON THE SAME ALLEGED MISBRANDING, AND NOT MORE THAN ONE SUCH
PROCEEDING SHALL BE INSTITUTED IF NO SUCH PROCEEDING IS SO PENDING,
EXCEPT THAT SUCH LIMITATION SHALL NOT APPLY (1) WHEN SUCH MISBRANDING
HAS BEEN THE BASIS OF A PRIOR JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES,
IN A CRIMINAL, INJUNCTION, OR LIBEL FOR CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING UNDER
THIS ACT, OR (2) WHEN THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE
FROM FACTS FOUND, WITHOUT HEARING, BY HIM OR ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF
THE AGENCY THAT THE MISBRANDED ARTICLE IS DANGEROUS TO HEALTH, OR THAT
THE LABELING OF THE MISBRANDED ARTICLE IS FRAUDULENT, OR WOULD BE IN A
MATERIAL RESPECT MISLEADING TO THE INJURY OR DAMAGE OF THE PURCHASER OR
CONSUMER." 

FN4  THE BOOKLET, HOW TO GET WELL AND STAY WELL, IS USED BY SALESMEN
IN SOLICITING PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS.  A VERSION OF THE BOOKLET IN USE
IN 1947 REPRESENTED THAT NUTRILITE HAD "CURED OR GREATLY HELPED" SUCH
"COMMON AILMENTS" AS "LOW BLOOD PRESSURE, ULCERS, MENTAL DEPRESSION,
PYORRHEA, MUSCULAR TWITCHING, RICKETS, WORRY OVER SMALL THINGS,
TONSILITIS, HAY FEVER, SENSITIVENESS TO NOISE, UNDERWEIGHT, EASILY
TIRED, GAS IN STOMACH, CUTS HEAL SLOWLY, FAULTY VISION, HEADACHE,
CONSTIPATION, ANEMIA, BOILS, FLABBY TISSUES, HYSTERICAL TENDENCY,
ECZEMA, OVERWEIGHT, FAULTY MEMORY, LACK OF AMBITION, CERTAIN BONE
CONDITIONS, NERVOUSNESS, NOSEBLEED, INSOMNIA (SLEEPLESSNESS),
ALLERGIES, ASTHMA, RESTLESSNESS, BAD SKIN COLOR, POOR APPETITE,
BILIOUSNESS, NEURITIS, NIGHT BLINDNESS, MIGRAINE, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE,
SINUS TROUBLE, LACK OF CONCENTRATION, DENTAL CARIES, IRREGULAR
HEARTBEAT, COLITIS, CRAVING FOR SOUR FOODS, ARTHRITIS (RHEUMATISM),
NEURALGIA, DEAFNESS, SUBJECT TO COLDS."  THIS VERSION IS THE BASIS FOR
AN INDICTMENT NOW PENDING IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHARGING LEE S. MYTINGER AND WILLIAM S. CASSELBERRY WITH THE
MISBRANDING OF NUTRILITE IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND
COSMETIC ACT. 

AFTER A HEARING PRIOR TO THE INDICTMENT, APPELLEE REVISED THE
BOOKLET.  DIRECT CURATIVE CLAIMS WERE ELIMINATED.  BUT PAGES 41-52 OF
THE REVISED BOOKLET WERE DEVOTED TO CASE HISTORIES EXPLAINING THAT
NUTRILITE BROUGHT RELIEF FROM SUCH AILMENTS AS DIABETES,
FEEBLEMINDEDNESS, STOMACH PAINS, SNEEZING AND WEEPING.  APPELLANT
CRAWFORD, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD AND DRUGS, CONCLUDED THAT
THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE AND THAT HE DID BELIEVE THAT THIS
VERSION OF THE BOOKLET WAS MISLEADING.  ON SEPTEMBER 28 AND 30, 1948,
HE RECOMMENDED SEIZURES OF NUTRILITE SHIPMENTS.    APPELLEE THEREAFTER
ORDERED ITS SALESMEN TO REMOVE PAGES 37-58 WHICH CONTAINED THE CASE
HISTORIES.  THE PAGES WHICH REMAINED POINTED TO THE DANGERS AND
PREVALENCE OF ILLNESS, DESCRIBED THE DISCOVERY OF NUTRILITE, AND
RECOMMENDED THE BOOKLET TO THOSE WHO WANTED TO GET WELL AND STAY WELL. 
ON DECEMBER 2, 1948, APPELLANT LARRICK, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF FOODS
AND DRUGS, MADE A PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION ON THESE PAGES OF THE
BOOKLET AND RECOMMENDED SEIZURE. 

SIX NEW PAGES WERE THEREAFTER ADDED TO THE BOOKLET.  ON DECEMBER 9,
1948, APPELLANT DUNBAR, COMMISSIONER OF FOODS AND DRUGS, MADE A
PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION ON THAT VERSION OF THE BOOKLET AND
RECOMMENDED FURTHER SEIZURES. 

FN5  SEC. 304(B) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE ARTICLE SHALL BE LIABLE TO SEIZURE BY PROCESS PURSUANT TO THE
LIBEL, AND THE PROCEDURE IN CASES UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL CONFORM, AS
NEARLY AS MAY BE, TO THE PROCEDURE IN ADMIRALTY; EXCEPT THAT ON DEMAND
OF EITHER PARTY ANY ISSUE OF FACT JOINED IN ANY SUCH CASE SHALL BE
TRIED BY JURY." 

FN6  REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR REFUSING TO PERMIT AN
APPLICATION FOR A NEW DRUG TO BECOME EFFECTIVE OR SUSPENDING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF AN APPLICATION IS AUTHORIZED IN SEC. 505(H), 21 U.S.C.
SEC. 355(H).  ORDERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IN CONNECTION WITH ISSUING,
AMENDING, OR REPEALING REGULATIONS UNDER SECS. 401, 403(J), 404(A),
406(A) AND (B), 501(B), 502(D), 502(H), 504, 604 ARE EXPRESSLY MADE
REVIEWABLE BY SEC. 701(E) AND (F), 21 U.S.C. SEC. 371(E) AND (F). 

FN7  SEE SEC. 304(A) NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN8  SEC. 304(B) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"WHEN LIBEL FOR CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION,
INVOLVING THE SAME CLAIMANT AND THE SAME ISSUES OF ADULTERATION OR
MISBRANDING, ARE PENDING IN TWO OR MORE JURISDICTIONS, SUCH PENDING
PROCEEDINGS, UPON APPLICATION OF THE CLAIMANT SEASONABLY MADE TO THE
COURT OF ONE SUCH JURISDICTION, SHALL BE CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL BY
ORDER OF SUCH COURT, AND TRIED IN (1) ANY DISTRICT SELECTED BY THE
CLAIMANT WHERE ONE OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS IS PENDING; OR (2) A DISTRICT
AGREED UPON BY STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  IF NO ORDER FOR
CONSOLIDATION IS SO MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, THE CLAIMANT MAY
APPLY TO THE COURT OF ONE SUCH JURISDICTION, AND SUCH COURT (AFTER
GIVING THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR SUCH DISTRICT REASONABLE NOTICE
AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD) SHALL BY ORDER, UNLESS GOOD CAUSE TO THE
CONTRARY IS SHOWN, SPECIFY A DISTRICT OF REASONABLE PROXIMITY TO THE
CLAIMANT'S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, IN WHICH ALL SUCH PENDING
PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL AND TRIED.  SUCH ORDER OF
CONSOLIDATION SHALL NOT APPLY SO AS TO REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF ANY CASE
THE DATE FOR TRIAL OF WHICH HAS BEEN FIXED.  THE COURT GRANTING SUCH
ORDER SHALL GIVE PROMPT NOTIFICATION THEREOF TO THE OTHER COURTS HAVING
JURISDICTION OF THE CASES COVERED THEREBY." 

FN9  CONGRESS HAS GRANTED DISTRIBUTORS THROUGH THE PROVISION FOR
CONSOLIDATION OF ALL LIBEL SUITS THE MEASURE OF RELIEF WHICH COURTS AT
TIMES GRANT THROUGH A STAY OF MULTIPLE ACTIONS.  SEE LANDIS V. NORTH
AMERICAN CO., 299 U.S. 248. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

WHILE I AGREE WITH THE COURT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
ISSUES CANVASSED IN ITS OPINION, I AM UNABLE TO ANSWER MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON'S DISSENT, AND I MUST THEREFORE YIELD TO IT. 

OF COURSE CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY VEST JUDICIALLY UNREVIEWABLE
DISCRETION IN AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY TO INITIATE MULTIPLE SUITS IN ORDER
TO STOP TRAFFICKING IN PERNICIOUS DRUGS OR EVEN IN THOSE THAT ARE
HARMLESS, WHERE EFFICACY IS MISREPRESENTED.  I AGREE THAT IT HAS DONE
SO IN THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT OF 1938.  52 STAT. 1040,
21 U.S.C. SEC. 301 ET SEQ. BUT IT DOES NOT AT ALL FOLLOW THAT CONGRESS
HAS THEREBY CUT OFF THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO PROVE THAT THE
ENFORCING AGENCY HAS NOT ACTED WITHIN THE BROADEST BOUNDS OF FAIR
DISCRETION, RARE AS THE OCCASION MAY BE FOR SUCH AN ATTEMPT AND HOWEVER
IMPROBABLE ITS SUCCESS. 

SUCH I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW AND SUCH
THE BASIS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE.  UNLESS WE CAN SAY, AS I
CANNOT, THAT THE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF IT HAVE NO SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE, WE SHOULD NOT HOLD THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT. 

THE LIMITED CLAIM WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED FALLS PRECISELY
WITHIN THE QUALIFICATION LEFT OPEN BY THIS COURT IN A LEADING CASE
SUSTAINING THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO VEST UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION IN
EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.  WHEN THE COURT WAS URGED TO DENY THIS POWER OF
CONGRESS AND "EXTREME CASES" WERE PUT SHOWING "HOW RECKLESS AND
ARBITRARY MIGHT BE THE ACTION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS," THE COURT MADE
THIS ANSWER: 

"IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH SUCH CASES AS AND WHEN THEY
ARISE.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THAT THE COURTS HAVE RARELY, IF EVER, FELT
THEMSELVES SO RESTRAINED BY TECHNICAL RULES THAT THEY COULD NOT FIND
SOME REMEDY, CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW, FOR ACTS, WHETHER DONE BY
GOVERNMENT OR BY INDIVIDUAL PERSONS, THAT VIOLATED NATURAL JUSTICE OR
WERE HOSTILE TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES DEVISED FOR THE PROTECTION
OF THE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF PROPERTY."  MONONGAHELA BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 216 U.S. 177, 195. 

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, CAST ITS THOUGHT IN THE
LANGUAGE CURRENT AT THE TIME.  BUT THE THOUGHT BEHIND THE WORDS IS NOT
OUTMODED AND CONTROLS, I BELIEVE, THE CASE BEFORE US. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT DOES NOT DEAL AT ALL WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE ULTIMATE
ISSUE DECIDED BY THE COURT BELOW. 

THE TRIAL COURT OF THREE JUDGES WROTE NO OPINION BUT MADE FORTY-THREE
DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE TWENTY OF THESE PRINTED
PAGES TO REPRODUCE AND WHICH SUMMARIZE A 1,500-PAGE RECORD OF A LONG
TRIAL.  THOSE FINDINGS ARE MADE LARGELY ON UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE AND ON
EVIDENCE FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES.  THIS COURT DOES NOT CRITICIZE OR
REVERSE ANY OF THEM. 

THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE IS TO FIND THAT THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED A
MULTIPLICITY OF COURT ACTIONS, WITH SEIZURES IN WIDELY SEPARATED PARTS
OF THE COUNTRY, WITH A PURPOSE TO HARASS APPELLEE AND ITS DEALERS AND
INTENDING THAT THESE ACTIONS AND THE ATTENDANT PUBLICITY WOULD INJURE
APPELLEE'S BUSINESS BEFORE ANY OF THE ISSUES IN SUCH CASES COULD BE
TRIED.  THIS, THE COURT HELD, WAS JUSTIFIED BY NO EMERGENCY, THE
PRODUCT BEING, AT WORST, HARMLESS AND HAVING BEEN MARKETED FOR YEARS
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT. 

ASSUMING AS I DO THAT THE ACT ON ITS FACE IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
DEFECTIVE, THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER IT HAS BEEN SO MISUSED BY
REFUSAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, TOGETHER WITH SUCH IRREPARABLE
INJURY IN ANTICIPATION OF JUDICIAL HEARING, AS TO DENY APPELLEE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW OR TO AMOUNT TO AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURTS. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS SOUGHT AND RECEIVED FROM THIS COURT PROTECTION
AGAINST A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE INJURY WAS
LESS APPARENT THAN IN THIS.  LANDIS V. NORTH AMERICAN CO., 299 U.S.
248.  THE HOLDING OF THE COURT BELOW AND THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLEE
HERE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO SO APPLY THE STATUTE AS TO
BRING MULTIPLE ACTIONS DESIGNED TO DESTROY A BUSINESS BEFORE IT CAN BE
HEARD IN ITS OWN DEFENSE IS NOT FRIVOLOUS, TO SAY THE LEAST. 

I AM CONSTRAINED TO WITHHOLD ASSENT TO A DECISION THAT PASSES IN
SILENCE WHAT I THINK PRESENTS A SERIOUS ISSUE. 
..END :























GRAVER MFG. CO. V. LINDE CO., 339 U.S. 605 


NO. 2.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1950. 


1.  THIS COURT AFFIRMS THE FINDING OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW THAT, UNDER
THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, CERTAIN FLUX CLAIMS OF JONES PATENT NO.
2,043,960, FOR AN ELECTRIC WELDING PROCESS AND FOR FLUXES, OR
COMPOSITIONS, TO BE USED THEREWITH WERE INFRINGED.  PP. 606-612. 

2.  THE ESSENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IS THAT ONE MAY NOT
PRACTICE A FRAUD ON A PATENT.  P. 608. 

3.  THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IS FOUNDED ON THE THEORY THAT, IF TWO
DEVICES DO THE SAME WORK IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WAY AND ACCOMPLISH
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RESULT, THEY ARE THE SAME, EVEN THOUGH THEY
DIFFER IN NAME, FORM OR SHAPE.  PP. 608-609. 

4.  IN DETERMINING EQUIVALENTS, CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH AN INGREDIENT IS USED IN A PATENT, THE QUALITIES IT
HAS WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER INGREDIENTS, THE FUNCTIONS WHICH IT IS
INTENDED TO PERFORM, AND WHETHER PERSONS REASONABLY SKILLED IN THE ART
WOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE INTERCHANGEABILITY OF AN INGREDIENT NOT
CONTAINED IN THE PATENT WITH ONE THAT WAS.  P. 609. 

5.  A FINDING OF EQUIVALENCE IS A DETERMINATION OF FACT TO BE MADE BY
THE TRIAL COURT; AND THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED
UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  PP. 609-610. 

6.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INVOLVING A CLAIM OF A COMBINATION OF
ALKALINE EARTH METAL SILICATE AND CALCIUM FLUORIDE, THE TRIAL COURT WAS
JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT THE SUBSTITUTION IN THE ACCUSED COMPOSITION
OF MANGANESE SILICATE (WHICH IS NOT AN ALKALINE EARTH METAL SILICATE)
FOR MAGNESIUM SILICATE (WHICH IS AN ALKALINE EARTH METAL SILICATE),
WHERE THE TWO COMPOSITIONS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IN OPERATION
AND RESULT, WAS SO INSUBSTANTIAL, IN VIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE
PRIOR ART, THAT THE PATENT WAS INFRINGED UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
EQUIVALENTS.  PP. 610-612. 

GRAVER TANK & MFG. CO., INC. ET AL. V. LINDE AIR PRODUCTS CO. 

ON REHEARING. 

THE HISTORY OF THE CASE IS SUMMARIZED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE
OPINION.  ON THE ASPECT OF THE CASE INVOLVED IN THE REHEARING, THE
PRIOR DECISION OF THIS COURT IS ADHERED TO, P. 612. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

LINDE AIR PRODUCTS CO., OWNER OF THE JONES PATENT FOR AN ELECTRIC
WELDING PROCESS AND FOR FLUXES TO BE USED THEREWITH, BROUGHT AN ACTION
FOR INFRINGEMENT AGAINST LINCOLN AND THE TWO GRAVER COMPANIES.  THE
TRIAL COURT HELD FOUR FLUX CLAIMS VALID AND INFRINGED AND CERTAIN OTHER
FLUX CLAIMS AND ALL PROCESS CLAIMS INVALID.  75 U.S.P.Q. 231.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED FINDINGS OF VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT AS TO
THE FOUR FLUX CLAIMS BUT REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT AND HELD VALID THE
PROCESS CLAIMS AND THE REMAINING CONTESTED FLUX CLAIMS.  167 F.2D 531. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 810, AND REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS INSOFAR AS IT REVERSED THAT OF THE TRIAL COURT, AND
REINSTATED THE DISTRICT COURT DECREE.  336 U.S. 271.  REHEARING WAS
GRANTED, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE FOUR VALID FLUX
CLAIMS AND TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS TO
FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS CASE.  337 U.S. 910. 

AT THE OUTSET IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SINGLE ISSUE BEFORE US IS
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE FOUR FLUX CLAIMS HAVE BEEN
INFRINGED WILL BE SUSTAINED.  ANY ISSUE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THESE
CLAIMS WAS UNANIMOUSLY DETERMINED BY THE PREVIOUS DECISION IN THIS
COURT AND ATTACK ON THEIR VALIDITY CANNOT BE RENEWED NOW BY REASON OF
LIMITATION ON GRANT OF REHEARING.  THE DISCLOSURE, THE CLAIMS, AND THE
PRIOR ART HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED IN OUR FORMER OPINION AND IN
THE OPINIONS OF THE COURTS BELOW. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN ACCUSED DEVICE OR COMPOSITION INFRINGES A
VALID PATENT, RESORT MUST BE HAD IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO THE WORDS OF
THE CLAIM.  IF ACCUSED MATTER FALLS CLEARLY WITHIN THE CLAIM,
INFRINGEMENT IS MADE OUT AND THAT IS THE END OF IT. 

BUT COURTS HAVE ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT TO PERMIT IMITATION OF A
PATENTED INVENTION WHICH DOES NOT COPY EVERY LITERAL DETAIL WOULD BE TO
CONVERT THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENT GRANT INTO A HOLLOW AND USELESS
THING.  SUCH A LIMITATION WOULD LEAVE ROOM FOR - INDEED ENCOURAGE - THE
UNSCRUPULOUS COPYIST TO MAKE UNIMPORTANT AND INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGES AND
SUBSTITUTIONS IN THE PATENT WHICH, THOUGH ADDING NOTHING, WOULD BE
ENOUGH TO TAKE THE COPIED MATTER OUTSIDE THE CLAIM, AND HENCE OUTSIDE
THE REACH OF LAW.  ONE WHO SEEKS TO PIRATE AN INVENTION, LIKE ONE WHO
SEEKS TO PIRATE A COPYRIGHTED BOOK OR PLAY, MAY BE EXPECTED TO
INTRODUCE MINOR VARIATIONS TO CONCEAL AND SHELTER THE PIRACY.  OUTRIGHT
AND FORTHRIGHT DUPLICATION IS A DULL AND VERY RARE TYPE OF
INFRINGEMENT.  TO PROHIBIT NO OTHER WOULD PLACE THE INVENTOR AT THE
MERCY OF VERBALISM AND WOULD BE SUBORDINATING SUBSTANCE TO FORM.  IT
WOULD DEPRIVE HIM OF THE BENEFIT OF HIS INVENTION AND WOULD FOSTER
CONCEALMENT RATHER THAN DISCLOSURE OF INVENTIONS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE
PRIMARY PURPOSES OF THE PATENT SYSTEM. 

THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS EVOLVED IN RESPONSE TO THIS EXPERIENCE. 
THE ESSENCE OF THE DOCTRINE IS THAT ONE MAY NOT PRACTICE A FRAUD ON A
PATENT.  ORIGINATING ALMOST A CENTURY AGO IN THE CASE OF WINANS V.
DENMEAD, 15 HOW.  330, IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED BY THIS COURT
AND THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, AND CONTINUES TODAY READY AND AVAILABLE
FOR UTILIZATION WHEN THE PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ITS APPLICATION
ARISE.  "TO TEMPER UNSPARING LOGIC AND PREVENT AN INFRINGER FROM
STEALING THE BENEFIT OF AN INVENTION"  FN1  A PATENTEE MAY INVOKE THIS
DOCTRINE TO PROCEED AGAINST THE PRODUCER OF A DEVICE "IF IT PERFORMS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FUNCTION IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WAY TO OBTAIN
THE SAME RESULT."  SANITARY REFRIGERATOR CO. V. WINTERS, 280 U.S. 30,
42.  THE THEORY ON WHICH IT IS FOUNDED IS THAT "IF TWO DEVICES DO THE
SAME WORK IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WAY, AND ACCOMPLISH SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME RESULT, THEY ARE THE SAME, EVEN THOUGH THEY DIFFER IN NAME,
FORM, OR SHAPE."  MACHINE CO. V. MURPHY, 97 U.S. 120, 125.  THE
DOCTRINE OPERATES NOT ONLY IN FAVOR OF THE PATENTEE OF A PIONEER OR
PRIMARY INVENTION, BUT ALSO FOR THE PATENTEE OF A SECONDARY INVENTION
CONSISTING OF A COMBINATION OF OLD INGREDIENTS WHICH PRODUCE NEW AND
USEFUL RESULTS, IMHAEUSER V. BUERK, 101 U.S. 647, 655, ALTHOUGH THE
AREA OF EQUIVALENCE MAY VARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE CONTINENTAL
PAPER BAG CO. V. EASTERN PAPER BAG CO., 210 U.S. 405, 414-415, AND
CASES CITED; SEYMOUR V. OSBORNE, 11 WALL.  516, 556; GOULD V. REES, 15
WALL.  187, 192.  THE WHOLESOME REALISM OF THIS DOCTRINE IS NOT ALWAYS
APPLIED IN FAVOR OF A PATENTEE BUT IS SOMETIMES USED AGAINST HIM. 
THUS, WHERE A DEVICE IS SO FAR CHANGED IN PRINCIPLE FROM A PATENTED
ARTICLE THAT IT PERFORMS THE SAME OR A SIMILAR FUNCTION IN A
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT WAY, BUT NEVERTHELESS FALLS WITHIN THE LITERAL
WORDS OF THE CLAIM, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS MAY BE USED TO RESTRICT
THE CLAIM AND DEFEAT THE PATENTEE'S ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT. 
WESTINGHOUSE V. BOYDEN POWER BRAKE CO., 170 U.S. 537, 568.  IN ITS
EARLY DEVELOPMENT, THE DOCTRINE WAS USUALLY APPLIED IN CASES INVOLVING
DEVICES WHERE THERE WAS EQUIVALENCE IN MECHANICAL COMPONENTS. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, HOWEVER, THE SAME PRINCIPLES WERE ALSO APPLIED TO
COMPOSITIONS, WHERE THERE WAS EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN CHEMICAL
INGREDIENTS.  TODAY THE DOCTRINE IS APPLIED TO MECHANICAL OR CHEMICAL
EQUIVALENTS IN COMPOSITIONS OR DEVICES.  SEE DISCUSSIONS AND CASES
COLLECTED IN 3 WALKER ON PATENTS (DELLER'S ED. 1937) SECS. 489-492;
ELLIS, PATENT CLAIMS (1949) SECS. 59-60. 

WHAT CONSTITUTES EQUIVALENCY MUST BE DETERMINED AGAINST THE CONTEXT
OF THE PATENT, THE PRIOR ART, AND THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.  EQUIVALENCE, IN THE PATENT LAW, IS NOT THE PRISONER OF A FORMULA
AND IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE TO BE CONSIDERED IN A VACUUM.  IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE COMPLETE IDENTITY FOR EVERY PURPOSE AND IN EVERY RESPECT.  IN
DETERMINING EQUIVALENTS, THINGS EQUAL TO THE SAME THING MAY NOT BE
EQUAL TO EACH OTHER AND, BY THE SAME TOKEN, THINGS FOR MOST PURPOSES
DIFFERENT MAY SOMETIMES BE EQUIVALENTS.  CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO
THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH AN INGREDIENT IS USED IN A PATENT, THE QUALITIES
IT HAS WHEN COMBINED WITH THE OTHER INGREDIENTS, AND THE FUNCTION WHICH
IT IS INTENDED TO PERFORM.  AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IS WHETHER PERSONS
REASONABLY SKILLED IN THE ART WOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE
INTERCHANGEABILITY OF AN INGREDIENT NOT CONTAINED IN THE PATENT WITH
ONE THAT WAS. 

A FINDING OF EQUIVALENCE IS A DETERMINATION OF FACT.  PROOF CAN BE
MADE IN ANY FORM:  THROUGH TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS OR OTHERS VERSED IN THE
TECHNOLOGY; BY DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING TEXTS AND TREATISES; AND, OF
COURSE, BY THE DISCLOSURES OF THE PRIOR ART. LIKE ANY OTHER ISSUE OF
FACT, FINAL DETERMINATION REQUIRES A BALANCING OF CREDIBILITY,
PERSUASIVENESS AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.  IT IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE
TRIAL COURT AND THAT COURT'S DECISION, UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF
APPELLATE REVIEW, SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 
PARTICULARLY IS THIS SO IN A FIELD WHERE SO MUCH DEPENDS UPON
FAMILIARITY WITH SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS AND PRINCIPLES NOT
USUALLY CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL STOREHOUSE OF KNOWLEDGE AND
EXPERIENCE. 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WE HAVE TWO ELECTRIC WELDING COMPOSITIONS OR
FLUXES:  THE PATENTED COMPOSITION, UNIONMELT GRADE 20, AND THE ACCUSED
COMPOSITION, LINCOLNWELD 660.  THE PATENT UNDER WHICH UNIONMELT IS MADE
CLAIMS ESSENTIALLY A COMBINATION OF ALKALINE EARTH METAL SILICATE AND
CALCIUM FLUORIDE; UNIONMELT ACTUALLY CONTAINS, HOWEVER, SILICATES OF
CALCIUM AND MAGNESIUM, TWO ALKALINE EARTH METAL SILICATES. 
LINCOLNWELD'S COMPOSITION IS SIMILAR TO UNIONMELT'S, EXCEPT THAT IT
SUBSTITUTES SILICATES OF CALCIUM AND MANGANESE - THE LATTER NOT AN
ALKALINE EARTH METAL - FOR SILICATES OF CALCIUM AND MAGNESIUM.  IN ALL
OTHER RESPECTS, THE TWO COMPOSITIONS ARE ALIKE.  THE MECHANICAL METHODS
IN WHICH THESE COMPOSITIONS ARE EMPLOYED ARE SIMILAR.  THEY ARE
IDENTICAL IN OPERATION AND PRODUCE THE SAME KIND AND QUALITY OF WELD. 

THE QUESTION WHICH THUS EMERGES IS WHETHER THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE
MANGANESE WHICH IS NOT AN ALKALINE EARTH METAL FOR THE MAGNESIUM WHICH
IS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AND IN VIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
AND THE PRIOR ART, IS A CHANGE OF SUCH SUBSTANCE AS TO MAKE THE
DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS INAPPLICABLE; OR CONVERSELY, WHETHER UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE CHANGE WAS SO INSUBSTANTIAL THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S
INVOCATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS WAS JUSTIFIED. 

WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO BE ALL-INCLUSIVE, WE NOTE THE FOLLOWING
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD:  CHEMISTS FAMILIAR WITH THE TWO FLUXES
TESTIFIED THAT MANGANESE AND MAGNESIUM WERE SIMILAR IN MANY OF THEIR
REACTIONS (R. 287, 669).  THERE IS TESTIMONY BY A METALLURGIST THAT
ALKALINE EARTH METALS ARE OFTEN FOUND IN MANGANESE ORES IN THEIR
NATURAL STATE AND THAT THEY SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE IN THE FLUXES (R.
831-832); AND A CHEMIST TESTIFIED THAT "IN THE SENSE OF THE PATENT"
MANGANESE COULD BE INCLUDED AS AN ALKALINE EARTH METAL (R. 297).  MUCH
OF THIS TESTIMONY WAS CORROBORATED BY REFERENCE TO RECOGNIZED TEXTS ON
INORGANIC CHEMISTRY (R. 332).  PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, IN ADDITION,
WERE THE DISCLOSURES OF THE PRIOR ART, ALSO CONTAINED IN THE RECORD. 
THE MILLER PATENT, NO. 1,754,566 WHICH PRECEDED THE PATENT IN SUIT,
TAUGHT THE USE OF MANGANESE SILICATE IN WELDING FLUXES (R. 969, 971). 
MANGANESE WAS SIMILARLY DISCLOSED IN THE ARMOR PATENT, NO. 1,467,825,
WHICH ALSO DESCRIBED A WELDING COMPOSITION (R. 1346).  AND THE RECORD
CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND TO SHOW THAT LINCOLNWELD WAS DEVELOPED
AS THE RESULT OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH OR EXPERIMENTS. 

IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO EVEN ESSAY AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF
THIS EVIDENCE.  THIS IS THE FUNCTION OF THE TRIAL COURT.  AND, AS WE
HAVE HERETOFORE OBSERVED, "TO NO TYPE OF CASE IS THIS ...  MORE
APPROPRIATELY APPLICABLE THAN TO THE ONE BEFORE US, WHERE THE EVIDENCE
IS LARGELY THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS AS TO WHICH A TRIAL COURT MAY BE
ENLIGHTENED BY SCIENTIFIC DEMONSTRATIONS.  THIS TRIAL OCCUPIED SOME
THREE WEEKS, DURING WHICH, AS THE RECORD SHOWS, THE TRIAL JUDGE VISITED
LABORATORIES WITH COUNSEL AND EXPERTS TO OBSERVE ACTUAL DEMONSTRATIONS
OF WELDING AS TAUGHT BY THE PATENT AND OF THE WELDING ACCUSED OF
INFRINGING IT, AND OF VARIOUS STAGES OF THE PRIOR ART. HE VIEWED MOTION
PICTURES OF VARIOUS WELDING OPERATIONS AND TESTS AND HEARD MANY EXPERTS
AND OTHER WITNESSES."  336 U.S. 271, 274-275. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM THAT THE LINCOLNWELD
FLUX AND THE COMPOSITION OF THE PATENT IN SUIT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL IN OPERATION AND IN RESULT.  HE FOUND ALSO THAT LINCOLNWELD
IS IN ALL RESPECTS EQUIVALENT TO UNIONMELT FOR WELDING PURPOSES.  AND
HE CONCLUDED THAT "FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, MANGANESE SILICATE CAN
BE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTUALLY SUBSTITUTED FOR CALCIUM AND MAGNESIUM
SILICATES AS THE MAJOR CONSTITUENT OF THE WELDING COMPOSITION."  THESE
CONCLUSIONS ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD; CERTAINLY THEY ARE
NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  FN2 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A CASE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS.  THE DISCLOSURES OF THE
PRIOR ART MADE CLEAR THAT MANGANESE SILICATE WAS A USEFUL INGREDIENT IN
WELDING COMPOSITIONS.  SPECIALISTS FAMILIAR WITH THE PROBLEMS OF
WELDING COMPOSITIONS UNDERSTOOD THAT MANGANESE WAS EQUIVALENT TO AND
COULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR MAGNESIUM IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE PATENTED
FLUX AND THEIR OBSERVATIONS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LITERATURE OF
CHEMISTRY.  WITHOUT SOME EXPLANATION OR INDICATION THAT LINCOLNWELD WAS
DEVELOPED BY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH, THE TRIAL COURT COULD PROPERLY INFER
THAT THE ACCUSED FLUX IS THE RESULT OF IMITATION RATHER THAN
EXPERIMENTATION OR INVENTION.  THOUGH INFRINGEMENT WAS NOT LITERAL, THE
CHANGES WHICH AVOID LITERAL INFRINGEMENT ARE COLORABLE ONLY.  WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT RESPECTING THE
FOUR FLUX CLAIMS WAS PROPER, AND WE ADHERE TO OUR PRIOR DECISION ON
THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  L. HAND IN ROYAL TYPEWRITER CO. V. REMINGTON RAND, 168 F.2D 691,
692. 

FN2  RULE 52(A), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDES IN PART:
"FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND
DUE REGARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES." 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

I HEARTILY AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT "FRAUD" IS BAD, "PIRACY" IS
EVIL, AND "STEALING" IS REPREHENSIBLE.  BUT IN THIS CASE, WHERE
PETITIONERS ARE NOT CHARGED WITH ANY SUCH MALEVOLENCE, THESE LOFTY
PRINCIPLES DO NOT JUSTIFY THE COURT'S STERILIZATION OF ACTS OF CONGRESS
AND PRIOR DECISIONS, NONE OF WHICH ARE EVEN MENTIONED IN TODAY'S
OPINION. 

THE ONLY PATENT CLAIMS INVOLVED HERE DESCRIBE RESPONDENT'S PRODUCT AS
A FLUX "CONTAINING A MAJOR PROPORTION OF ALKALINE EARTH METAL
SILICATE."  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONERS USED A FLUX
"COMPOSED PRINCIPALLY OF MANGANESE SILICATE."  FINDING ALSO THAT
"MANGANESE IS NOT AN ALKALINE EARTH METAL," THE TRIAL COURT ADMITTED
THAT PETITIONERS' FLUX DID NOT "LITERALLY INFRINGE" RESPONDENT'S
PATENT.  NEVERTHELESS IT INVOKED THE JUDICIAL "DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS'
TO BROADEN THE CLAIM FOR "ALKALINE EARTH METALS" SO AS TO EMBRACE
"MANGANESE."  ON THE GROUND THAT "THE FACT THAT MANGANESE IS A PROPER
SUBSTITUTE  ...  IS FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE SPECIFICATION" OF
RESPONDENT'S PATENT, IT CONCLUDED THAT "NO DETERMINATION NEED BE MADE
WHETHER IT IS A KNOWN CHEMICAL FACT OUTSIDE THE TEACHINGS OF THE PATENT
THAT MANGANESE IS AN EQUIVALENT  ...  "  SINCE TODAY'S AFFIRMANCE
UNQUESTIONINGLY FOLLOWS THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, THIS COURT
NECESSARILY RELIES ON WHAT THE SPECIFICATIONS REVEALED.  FN1  IN SO
DOING, IT VIOLATES A DIRECT MANDATE OF CONGRESS WITHOUT EVEN DISCUSSING
THAT MANDATE. 

R.S. SEC. 4888, AS AMENDED, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33, PROVIDES THAT AN
APPLICANT "SHALL PARTICULARLY POINT OUT AND DISTINCTLY CLAIM THE PART,
IMPROVEMENT, OR COMBINATION WHICH HE CLAIMS AS HIS INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY."  WE HAVE HELD IN THIS VERY CASE THAT THIS STATUTE PRECLUDES
INVOKING THE SPECIFICATIONS TO ALTER A CLAIM FREE FROM AMBIGUOUS
LANGUAGE, SINCE "IT IS THE CLAIM WHICH MEASURES THE GRANT TO THE
PATENTEE."  FN2  GRAVER MFG. CO. V. LINDE CO., 336 U.S. 271, 277.  WHAT
IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CLAIMED IS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC.  SEE, E.G.,
MILLER V. BRASS CO., 104 U.S. 350, 352.  FOR THE FUNCTION OF CLAIMS
UNDER R.S. SEC. 4888, AS WE HAVE FREQUENTLY REITERATED, IS TO EXCLUDE
FROM THE PATENT MONOPOLY FIELD ALL THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CLAIMED,
WHATEVER MAY APPEAR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.  SEE, E.G., MARCONI WIRELESS
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 1, 23, AND CASES THERE CITED.  TODAY THE
COURT TACITLY REJECTS THOSE CASES.  IT DEPARTS FROM THE UNDERLYING
PRINCIPLE WHICH, AS THE COURT POINTED OUT IN WHITE V. DUNBAR, 119 U.S.
47, 51, FORBIDS TREATING A PATENT CLAIM "LIKE A NOSE OF WAX WHICH MAY
BE TURNED AND TWISTED IN ANY DIRECTION, BY MERELY REFERRING TO THE
SPECIFICATION, SO AS TO MAKE IT INCLUDE SOMETHING MORE THAN, OR
SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM, WHAT ITS WORDS EXPRESS.  ...  THE CLAIM IS A
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, PRESCRIBED FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF MAKING THE
PATENTEE DEFINE PRECISELY WHAT HIS INVENTION IS; AND IT IS UNJUST TO
THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS AN EVASION OF THE LAW, TO CONSTRUE IT IN A
MANNER DIFFERENT FROM THE PLAIN IMPORT OF ITS TERMS."  GIVING THIS
PATENTEE THE BENEFIT OF A GRANT THAT IT DID NOT PRECISELY CLAIM IS NO
LESS "UNJUST TO THE PUBLIC" AND NO LESS AN EVASION OF R.S. SEC. 4888
MERELY BECAUSE DONE IN THE NAME OF THE "DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS." 

IN SEEKING TO JUSTIFY ITS EMASCULATION OF R.S. SEC. 4888 BY PARADING
POTENTIAL HARDSHIPS WHICH LITERAL ENFORCEMENT MIGHT CONCEIVABLY IMPOSE
ON PATENTEES WHO HAD FOR SOME REASON FAILED TO CLAIM COMPLETE
PROTECTION FOR THEIR DISCOVERIES, THE COURT FAILS EVEN TO MENTION THE
PROGRAM FOR ALLEVIATION OF SUCH HARDSHIPS WHICH CONGRESS ITSELF HAS
PROVIDED.  35 U.S.C. SEC. 64 AUTHORIZES REISSUE OF PATENTS WHERE A
PATENT IS "WHOLLY OR PARTLY INOPERATIVE" DUE TO CERTAIN ERRORS ARISING
FROM "INADVERTENCE, ACCIDENT, OR MISTAKE" OF THE PATENTEE.  AND WHILE
THE SECTION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PERMIT A PATENTEE TO EXPAND HIS CLAIM,
THIS COURT HAS RELUCTANTLY INTERPRETED IT TO JUSTIFY DOING SO.  MILLER
V. BRASS CO., 104 U.S. 350, 353-354.  THAT INTERPRETATION, HOWEVER, WAS
ACCOMPANIED BY A WARNING THAT "REISSUES FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF CLAIMS
SHOULD BE THE EXCEPTION AND NOT THE RULE."  ID. AT 355.  AND CONGRESS
WAS CAREFUL TO HEDGE THE PRIVILEGE OF REISSUE BY EXACTING CONDITIONS. 
IT ALSO ENTRUSTED THE PATENT OFFICE, NOT THE COURTS, WITH INITIAL
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER EXPANSION OF A CLAIM WAS JUSTIFIED,  FN3
AND BARRED SUITS FOR RETROACTIVE INFRINGEMENT BASED ON SUCH
EXPANSION.  LIKE THE COURT'S OPINION, THIS CONGRESSIONAL PLAN
ADEQUATELY PROTECTS PATENTEES FROM "FRAUD," "PIRACY," AND "STEALING." 
UNLIKE THE COURT'S OPINION, IT ALSO PROTECTS BUSINESSMEN FROM
RETROACTIVE INFRINGEMENT SUITS AND JUDICIAL EXPANSION OF A MONOPOLY
SPHERE BEYOND THAT WHICH A PATENT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES.  THE PLAN IS
JUST, FAIR, AND REASONABLE.  IN EFFECT IT IS NULLIFIED BY THIS DECISION
UNDERCUTTING WHAT THE COURT HAS HERETOFORE RECOGNIZED AS WISE
SAFEGUARDS.  SEE MILCOR STEEL CO. V. FULLER CO., 316 U.S. 143, 148. 
ONE NEED NOT BE A PROPHET TO SUGGEST THAT TODAY'S RHAPSODY ON THE
VIRTUE OF THE "DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS" WILL, IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION
OF THE MILLER CASE, SUPRA, MAKE ENLARGEMENT OF PATENT CLAIMS THE "RULE"
RATHER THAN THE "EXCEPTION." 

WHATEVER THE MERITS OF THE "DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS" WHERE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CLAIMS OF A PATENT AND THE ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING
PRODUCT ARE DE MINIMIS, COLORABLE ONLY, AND WITHOUT SUBSTANCE, THAT
DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  FOR THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RESPONDENT'S WELDING SUBSTANCE AND PETITIONERS'
CLAIMED FLUX WERE NOT NEARLY SO SLIGHT.  THE CLAIMS RELIED UPON HERE
DID NOT INVOLVE ANY MECHANICAL STRUCTURE OR PROCESS WHERE INVENTION LAY
IN THE CONSTRUCTION OR METHOD RATHER THAN IN THE MATERIALS USED. 
RATHER THEY WERE BASED WHOLLY ON USING PARTICULAR MATERIALS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  RESPONDENT'S ASSIGNORS EXPERIMENTED WITH SEVERAL
METALLIC SILICATES, INCLUDING THAT OF MANGANESE.  ACCORDING TO THE
SPECIFICATIONS (IF THESE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED) THEY CONCLUDED THAT
WHILE SEVERAL WERE "MORE OR LESS EFFICACIOUS IN OUR PROCESS, WE PREFER
TO USE SILICATES OF THE ALKALINE EARTH METALS."  SEVERAL OF THEIR
CLAIMS WHICH THIS COURT FOUND TOO BROAD TO BE VALID ENCOMPASSED
MANGANESE SILICATE; THE ONLY CLAIMS FOUND VALID DID NOT.  YET TODAY THE
COURT DISREGARDS THAT CRUCIAL DEFICIENCY, HOLDING THOSE CLAIMS
INFRINGED BY A COMPOSITION OF WHICH 88.49% BY WEIGHT IS MANGANESE
SILICATE. 

IN VIEW OF THE INTENSE STUDY AND EXPERIMENTATION OF RESPONDENT'S
ASSIGNORS WITH MANGANESE SILICATE, IT WOULD BE FRIVOLOUS TO CONTEND
THAT FAILURE SPECIFICALLY TO INCLUDE THAT SUBSTANCE IN A PRECISE CLAIM
WAS UNINTENTIONAL.  NOR DOES RESPONDENT ATTEMPT TO GIVE THAT OR ANY
OTHER EXPLANATION FOR ITS OMISSION.  BUT THE SIMILAR USE OF MANGANESE
IN PRIOR EXPIRED PATENTS, REFERRED TO IN THE COURT'S OPINION, RAISES
FAR MORE THAN A SUSPICION THAT ITS ELIMINATION FROM THE VALID CLAIMS
STEMMED FROM FEAR THAT ITS INCLUSION BY NAME MIGHT RESULT IN DENIAL OR
SUBSEQUENT INVALIDATION OF RESPONDENT'S PATENT. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I THINK PETITIONERS HAD A RIGHT TO ACT ON
THE BELIEF THAT THIS COURT WOULD FOLLOW THE PLAIN MANDATES OF CONGRESS
THAT A PATENT'S PRECISE CLAIMS MARK ITS MONOPOLY BOUNDARIES, AND THAT
EXPANSION OF THOSE CLAIMS TO INCLUDE MANGANESE COULD BE OBTAINED ONLY
IN A STATUTORY REISSUE PROCEEDING.  THE COURT'S RULING TODAY SETS THE
STAGE FOR MORE PATENT "FRAUD" AND "PIRACY" AGAINST BUSINESS THAN COULD
BE EXPECTED FROM FAITHFUL OBSERVANCE OF THE CONGRESSIONALLY ENACTED
PLAN TO PROTECT BUSINESS AGAINST JUDICIAL EXPANSION OF PRECISE PATENT
CLAIMS.  HEREAFTER A MANUFACTURER CANNOT RELY ON WHAT THE LANGUAGE OF A
PATENT CLAIMS.  HE MUST BE ABLE, AT THE PERIL OF HEAVY INFRINGEMENT
DAMAGES, TO FORECAST HOW FAR A COURT RELATIVELY UNVERSED IN A
PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGICAL FIELD WILL EXPAND THE CLAIM'S LANGUAGE AFTER
CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF TECHNICAL EXPERTS IN THAT FIELD.  TO
BURDEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT MEN POSSESS SUCH A
PRESIENCE BODES ILL FOR THE KIND OF COMPETITIVE ECONOMY THAT IS OUR
PROFESSED GOAL. 

THE WAY SPECIFIC PROBLEMS ARE APPROACHED NATURALLY HAS MUCH TO DO
WITH THE DECISIONS REACHED.  A HOST OF PRIOR CASES, TO SOME OF WHICH I
HAVE REFERRED, HAVE TREATED THE 17-YEAR MONOPOLY AUTHORIZED BY VALID
PATENTS AS A NARROW EXCEPTION TO OUR COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. 
FOR THAT REASON, THEY HAVE EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF LEAVING
BUSINESS MEN FREE TO UTILIZE ALL KNOWLEDGE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE PRECISE
LANGUAGE OF A PATENT CLAIM.  E.G., SONTAG STORES CO. V. NUT CO., 310
U.S. 281, AND CASES THERE CITED.  IN THE SONTAG CASE MR. JUSTICE
MCREYNOLDS, SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, SAID IN PART:  "IN THE CASE
UNDER CONSIDERATION THE PATENTEE MIGHT HAVE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION
FOR THE ORIGINAL PATENT, CLAIMS BROAD ENOUGH TO EMBRACE PETITIONER'S
ACCUSED MACHINE, BUT DID NOT.  THIS 'GAVE THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND'
THAT WHATEVER WAS NOT CLAIMED 'DID NOT COME WITHIN HIS PATENT AND MIGHT
RIGHTFULLY BE MADE BY ANYONE.'"  ID. AT 293. 

THE COURT'S CONTRARY APPROACH TODAY CAUSES IT TO RETREAT FROM THIS
SOUND PRINCIPLE.  THE DAMAGES RETROACTIVELY ASSESSED AGAINST
PETITIONERS FOR WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED UNTIL TODAY ARE BUT THE INITIAL
INSTALLMENT ON THE COST OF THAT RETREAT. 

FN1  FOR THIS REASON THE TIDBITS OF EVIDENCE PAINSTAKINGLY SELECTED
FROM THE RECORD BY THIS COURT HAVE NO SIGNIFICANCE, SINCE THE TRIAL
COURT AVOWEDLY DID NOT LOOK BEYOND THE SPECIFICATIONS THEMSELVES. 

FN2  THIS COURT'S APPROVAL OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S RESORT TO
SPECIFICATIONS IS IRONIC AS WELL AS UNFORTUNATE.  IN ITS ORIGINAL
OPINION THIS COURT REJECTED RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE VERY
LANGUAGE INVOKED HERE TO SUPPORT INFRINGEMENT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO
VALIDATE A CLAIM OTHERWISE TOO BROAD TO BE UPHELD.  336 U.S. 271, 277. 

FN3  "THIS PROVISION WAS INSERTED IN THE LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RELIEVING THE COURTS FROM THE DUTY OF ASCERTAINING THE EXACT INVENTION
OF THE PATENTEE BY INFERENCE AND CONJECTURE, DERIVED FROM A LABORIOUS
EXAMINATION OF PREVIOUS INVENTIONS, AND A COMPARISON THEREOF WITH THAT
CLAIMED BY HIM.  THIS DUTY IS NOW CAST UPON THE PATENT OFFICE.  THERE
HIS CLAIM IS, OR IS SUPPOSED TO BE, EXAMINED, SCRUTINIZED, LIMITED, AND
MADE TO CONFORM TO WHAT HE IS ENTITLED TO.  IF THE OFFICE REFUSES TO
ALLOW HIM ALL THAT HE ASKS, HE HAS AN APPEAL.  BUT THE COURTS HAVE NO
RIGHT TO ENLARGE A PATENT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ITS CLAIM AS ALLOWED BY
THE PATENT OFFICE, OR THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO WHICH CONTESTED
APPLICATIONS ARE REFERRED.  WHEN THE TERMS OF A CLAIM IN A PATENT ARE
CLEAR AND DISTINCT (AS THEY ALWAYS SHOULD BE), THE PATENTEE, IN A SUIT
BROUGHT UPON THE PATENT, IS BOUND BY IT.  MERRILL V. YEOMANS, 94 U.S.
568."  KEYSTONE BRIDGE CO. V. PHOENIX IRON CO., 95 U.S. 274, 278. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT APPLIES THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN A WAY WHICH SUBVERTS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY SCHEME FOR THE GRANT AND USE OF
PATENTS. 

THE CLAIMS OF THE PATENT ARE LIMITED TO A FLUX "CONTAINING A MAJOR
PROPORTION OF ALKALINE EARTH METAL SILICATE."  MANGANESE SILICATE, THE
FLUX WHICH IS HELD TO INFRINGE, IS NOT AN ALKALINE EARTH METAL
SILICATE.  IT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE APPLICATION AND THEN EXCLUDED FROM
THE CLAIMS.  IT THEREFORE BECAME PUBLIC PROPERTY.  SEE MAHN V. HARWOOD,
112 U.S. 354, 361.  IT WAS, TO BE SURE, MENTIONED IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS.  BUT THE MEASURE OF THE GRANT IS TO BE FOUND IN THE
CLAIMS, NOT IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.  MILCOR STEEL CO. V. FULLER CO., 316
U.S. 143, 145, 146.  THE SPECIFICATIONS CAN BE USED TO LIMIT BUT NEVER
TO EXPAND THE CLAIM.  SEE MCCLAIN V. ORTMAYER, 141 U.S. 419, 424. 

THE COURT NOW ALLOWS THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS TO ERASE THOSE TIME
HONORED RULES.  MOREOVER, A DOCTRINE WHICH IS SAID TO PROTECT AGAINST
PRACTICING "A FRAUD ON A PATENT" IS USED TO EXTEND A PATENT TO A
COMPOSITION WHICH COULD NOT BE PATENTED.  FOR MANGANESE SILICATE HAD
BEEN COVERED BY PRIOR PATENTS, NOW EXPIRED.  THUS WE END WITH A STRANGE
ANOMALY:  A MONOPOLY IS OBTAINED ON AN UNPATENTED AND UNPATENTABLE
ARTICLE. 
..END :



















CAPITOL GREYHOUND LINES V. BRICE, 339 U.S. 542 


NO. 118.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1950.  - MD. - ,
64 A.2D 284, AFFIRMED. 


SUPP.) IMPOSES A TAX OF 2% OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF MOTOR VEHICLES
AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF TITLE
THERETO AND TO THE OPERATION OF THE VEHICLES OVER MARYLAND ROADS.  THIS
TAX IS APPLIED INDISCRIMINATELY TO INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMON
CARRIERS TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS OVER MARYLAND ROADS AND THE PROCEEDS
ARE USED WHOLLY FOR ROAD PURPOSES.  FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING ITS
ROADS MARYLAND ALSO CHARGES COMMON CARRIERS A MILEAGE TAX FOR EACH
PASSENGER SEAT OF 1/30 OF A CENT PER MILE TRAVELED ON MARYLAND ROADS. 
HELD: 

1.  AS APPLIED GENERALLY TO INTERSTATE CARRIERS TRANSPORTING
PASSENGERS OVER MARYLAND ROADS, THE TITLE TAX OF 2% OF FAIR MARKET
VALUE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 543-548. 

(A)  SUCH A TAX MUST BE JUDGED BY ITS RESULT, NOT BY ITS FORMULA, AND
MUST STAND UNLESS PROVEN TO BE IN EXCESS OF FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING THE ROADS.  PP. 544-547. 

(B)  THE TITLE TAX IS NOT INVALID ON THE GROUND THAT IT VARIES FOR
EACH CARRIER WITHOUT RELATION TO ROAD USE.  PP. 545-546. 

(C)  IF A NEW RULE PROHIBITING TAXES ON INTERSTATE CARRIERS MEASURED
BY VEHICLE VALUE IS TO BE DECLARED, IT SHOULD BE DECLARED BY CONGRESS,
NOT BY THIS COURT.  PP. 547-548. 

2.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE IS INSUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE TAX, AS
APPLIED TO APPELLANTS, ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAXES ACTUALLY LEVIED ARE
IN EXCESS OF A FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING MARYLAND
ROADS.  P. 548. 

CAPITOL GREYHOUND LINES ET AL. V. BRICE, COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR
VEHICLES. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF THE OPINION.  THE
JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED, P. 548. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE BASIC QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER ONE OF TWO MARYLAND TAXES
IMPOSED ON ALL COMMON CARRIERS TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS OVER MARYLAND
ROADS CAN BE EXACTED FROM INTERSTATE CARRIERS CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  A SUBSIDIARY CONTENTION
IMPLIEDLY RAISED BY CARRIER APPELLANTS HERE IS THAT THE TAX IS INVALID
AS APPLIED TO THEM.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND UPHELD THE TAX,  -
MD. - , 64 A.2D 284.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1257(2). 

THE TAX CHALLENGED BY APPELLANTS IS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 25A OF ART. 66
1/2 OF THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, 1947 CUM. SUPP.  IN THE LANGUAGE
OF APPELLANTS THAT SECTION IMPOSES "A TAX OF 2% UPON THE FAIR MARKET
VALUE OF MOTOR VEHICLES USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF TITLE THERETO (THE
ISSUANCE OF SUCH CERTIFICATES BEING A FURTHER CONDITION PRECEDENT TO
THE REGISTRATION AND OPERATION OF SUCH VEHICLES IN THE STATE OF
MARYLAND) ...  "  FN1 

FIRST.  APPELLANTS DO NOT CONTEND THAT AS INTERSTATE CARRIERS THEY
ARE WHOLLY EXEMPT FROM STATE TAXATION.  THIS COURT AND OTHERS HAVE
CONSISTENTLY UPHELD TAXES ON INTERSTATE CARRIERS TO COMPENSATE A STATE
FAIRLY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING ITS ROADS OR FOR THE COST OF
ADMINISTERING STATE TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.  FN2  COURTS HAVE INVOKED THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE TO INVALIDATE STATE TAXES ON INTERSTATE CARRIERS ONLY
UPON FINDING THAT:  (1) THE TAX DISCRIMINATED AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN FAVOR OF INTRASTATE COMMERCE; (2) THE TAX WAS IMPOSED ON
THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A
TAX EXACTING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OR FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF ROAD LAWS; OR (3) THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX EXCEEDED FAIR
COMPENSATION TO THE STATE.  FN3  THIS MARYLAND TAX APPLIES TO
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION.  THE TAX
PROCEEDS ARE USED BY MARYLAND WHOLLY FOR ROAD PURPOSES, AND THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE TAX WAS IMPOSED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ROAD
USE.  AND NEITHER IN THE MARYLAND COURTS NOR HERE HAVE APPELLANTS
SPECIFICALLY CHARGED THAT THE AMOUNT OF TAXES IMPOSED ON CARRIERS WILL
ALWAYS BE IN EXCESS OF FAIR COMPENSATION.  THEIR CHALLENGE IS LEVELED
AGAINST THE FORMULA, NOT THE AMOUNT. 

THE TAXES UPHELD HAVE TAKEN MANY FORMS.  EXAMPLES ARE TAXES BASED ON
MILEAGE, CHASSIS WEIGHT, TONNAGE-CAPACITY, OR HORSEPOWER, SINGLY OR IN
COMBINATION - A LIST WHICH DOES NOT BEGIN TO EXHAUST THE INNUMERABLE
FACTORS BEARING ON THE FAIRNESS OF COMPENSATION BY EACH CARRIER TO A
STATE.  FN4 THE DIFFICULTY IN GEARING TAXES TO THESE FACTORS WAS
RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT AS EARLY AS KANE V. NEW JERSEY, 242 U.S. 160,
168, WHERE IT SAID THAT SO LONG AS FEES ARE REASONABLE IN AMOUNT "IT IS
CLEARLY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE STATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS BY AUTOMOBILES SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY WAY OF A FEE, PAYABLE ANNUALLY OR SEMIANNUALLY, OR BY A
TOLL BASED ON MILEAGE OR OTHERWISE."  FN5  LATER, IN REJECTING
CONTENTIONS THAT THE VALIDITY OF TAXES MUST BE DETERMINED BY FORMULA
RATHER THAN RESULT, THE COURT HELD THAT A FLAT FEE ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
USING STATE HIGHWAYS "IS NOT A FORBIDDEN BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE"
UNLESS "UNREASONABLE IN AMOUNT."  MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407, 412. 
SEE ALSO AERO TRANSIT CO. V. COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495, AND ANNOTATION
THERETO, 92 L. ED. 109, 119-120.  YET CLEARLY A FLAT FEE IS NOT GEARED
TO MILEAGE, WEIGHT OR ANY OTHER FACTOR RELEVANT IN CONSIDERING THE
FAIRNESS OF COMPENSATION FOR ROAD USE.  THUS, UNLESS WE ARE TO DEPART
FROM PRIOR DECISIONS, THE MARYLAND TAX BASED ON THE COST OF THE
VEHICLES SHOULD BE JUDGED BY ITS RESULT, NOT ITS FORMULA, AND MUST
STAND UNLESS PROVEN TO BE UNREASONABLE IN AMOUNT FOR THE PRIVILEGE
GRANTED. 

APPELLANTS, HOWEVER, IN EFFECT URGE THAT WE MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO THE
GENERAL RULE AND STRIKE DOWN THIS TAX FORMULA REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF FAIR COMPENSATION.  NO TAX
PRECISELY LIKE THIS HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN BEFORE US.  APPELLANTS ARGUE
THAT A TAX ON VEHICLE VALUE SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
BECAUSE IT VARIES FOR EACH CARRIER WITHOUT RELATION TO ROAD USE.  IN
SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THEY POINT TO THE FACTS SHOWN IN THIS
RECORD.  EACH OF THE APPELLANT CARRIERS, ACCORDING TO ADMITTED
ALLEGATIONS, BOUGHT A NEW PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLE AND DECLARED A
PURPOSE TO USE ITS VEHICLE ON ONE OF ITS MARYLAND ROUTES.  THE MARYLAND
PORTIONS OF THESE THREE ROUTES ARE 9, 41 AND 64 MILES RESPECTIVELY. 
THE STATE TAXES COMPUTED ON THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF EACH VEHICLE ARE
$505.17, $580 AND $372.55, RESPECTIVELY.  THIS SHOWING DOES INDICATE
THAT THE TITLE TAX FALLS SHORT OF ACHIEVING UNIFORMITY AMONG CARRIERS
IN RELATION TO ROAD USE.  MOREOVER, AS ARGUED, IT MAY WELL BE UNWISE TO
SUBJECT CARRIERS TO THE MONETARY TEMPTATION INCIDENT TO THE APPLICATION
OF A TAX THAT HITS A CARRIER ONLY WHEN IT PURCHASES A BUS.  BUT THAT IS
NOT OUR ISSUE.  AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE TOTAL CHARGE OF
MARYLAND FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING ITS ROADS WILL NOT SHOW THE SAME
DISPARITY AMONG CARRIERS.  FOR MARYLAND ALSO CHARGES A MILEAGE TAX,
FN6  AND THIS TAX ADDED TO THE TITLE TAX IS WHAT MARYLAND ACTUALLY
CHARGES FOR ITS ROAD PRIVILEGES.  THUS THE TOTAL CHARGE AS AMONG
CARRIERS DOES VARY SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MILEAGE TRAVELED. 

WE RECOGNIZE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THIS COURT
HAS PRESCRIBED THE RULES WHICH DETERMINE THE POWER OF STATES TO TAX
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC, AND THEREFORE SHOULD AFTER THESE RULES IF NECESSARY
TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM OBSTRUCTIVE BARRIERS.  BUT WITH
FULL APPRECIATION OF CONGENITAL INFIRMITIES OF THE MARYLAND FORMULA -
AND INDEED OF ANY FORMULA IN THIS FIELD - AS WELL AS OF OUR PRESENT
RULES TO TEST ITS VALIDITY, WE ARE BY NO MEANS SURE THAT THE REMEDY
SUGGESTED BY APPELLANTS WOULD NOT BRING ABOUT GREATER ILLS.  COMPLETE
FAIRNESS WOULD REQUIRE THAT A STATE TAX FORMULA VARY WITH EVERY FACTOR
AFFECTING APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION FOR ROAD USE.  THESE FACTORS, LIKE
THOSE RELEVANT IN CONSIDERING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OTHER STATE
TAXES, ARE SO COUNTLESS THAT WE MUST BE CONTENT WITH "ROUGH
APPROXIMATION RATHER THAN PRECISION."  HARVESTER CO. V. EVATT, 329 U.S.
416, 422-423.  EACH ADDITIONAL FACTOR ADDS TO ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS OF
ENFORCEMENT,  FN7  WHICH FALL ALIKE ON TAXPAYERS AND GOVERNMENT.  WE
HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT SUCH BURDENS MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STATES
IN IGNORING EVEN SUCH A KEY FACTOR AS MILEAGE, ALTHOUGH THE RESULT MAY
BE A TAX WHICH ON ITS FACE APPEARS TO BEAR WITH UNEQUAL WEIGHT UPON
DIFFERENT CARRIERS.  AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285,
289.  UPON THIS TYPE OF REASONING RESTS OUR GENERAL RULE THAT TAXES
LIKE THAT OF MARYLAND HERE ARE VALID UNLESS THE AMOUNT IS SHOWN TO BE
IN EXCESS OF FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING STATE ROADS. 

OUR ADHERENCE TO EXISTING RULES DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY GROUP OF
CARRIERS IS REMEDILESS IF THE TOTAL MARYLAND TAXES ARE OUT OF LINE WITH
FAIR COMPENSATION DUE TO MARYLAND.  UNDER THE RULES WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY
PRESCRIBED, SUCH CARRIERS MAY CHALLENGE THE TAXES AS APPLIED, AND UPON
PROPER PROOF OTAIN A JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF THEIR INVALIDITY AS
APPLIED.  INGELS V. MORF, 300 U.S. 290.  CF. CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC.,
306 U.S. 583. 

IF A NEW RULE PROHIBITING TAXES MEASURED BY VEHICLE VALUE IS TO BE
DECLARED, WE THINK CONGRESS SHOULD DO IT.  FN8  WE DECLINE TO HOLD THAT
THIS MARYLAND TITLE TAX LAW IS WHOLLY INVALID HOWEVER APPLIED. 

SECOND.  LITTLE NEED BE SAID AS TO THE FAINT CONTENTION HERE THAT THE
TAXES ACTUALLY LEVIED AGAINST APPELLANTS ARE IN EXCESS OF A FAIR
COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING MARYLAND ROADS.  WHILE THE
STATE SUPREME COURT DID PASS ON THIS QUESTION, HOLDING THAT APPELLANTS
HAD FAILED TO PROVE EXCESSIVENESS, THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR HERE DID
NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION SUCH A CHALLENGE.  THAT COURT SATISFACTORILY
DISPOSED OF ANY QUESTION OF THE SIZE OF THE FEES IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE
ROAD PRIVILEGES GRANTED.  THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS RESPECT IS ON A
CARRIER WHO CHALLENGES A STATE LAW.  CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S.
583, 598-600.  WE AGREE WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND THAT HERE
THERE IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF PROOF SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE
THE STATE LAW ON THIS GROUND.  SEE DIXIE OHIO CO. V. COMMISSION, 306
U.S. 72, 77-78.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  MARYLAND ALSO IMPOSES A TAX FOR EACH PASSENGER SEAT OF ONE
THIRTIETH OF A CENT PER MILE TRAVELED ON MARYLAND ROADS.  MARYLAND ANN.
CODE (1947 CUM. SUPP.), ART. 81, SEC. 218.  PRIOR TO 1947 THE MILEAGE
TAX APPLIED BOTH TO INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE CARRIERS; THE 2% "TITLING
TAX" HERE CHALLENGED APPLIED TO INTRASTATE CARRIERS ONLY.  AT THAT TIME
THE STATE LEGISLATURE MADE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.  IT MADE THE TITLING
TAX APPLICABLE TO INTERSTATE AS WELL AS TO INTRASTATE CARRIERS AND
REDUCED THE SEAT-MILE TAX FROM ONE-EIGHTEENTH CENT TO ONE-THIRTIETH
CENT.  CHAPTERS 560 AND 326, 1947 LAWS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
MARYLAND. 

FN2  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN NOTES, 75 L. ED. 953 AND 92 L. ED. 109. 

FN3  SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163; INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V.
LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183; INGELS V. MORF, 300 U.S. 290.  AND SEE CASE
COLLECTIONS CITED IN NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN4  FOR EXAMPLES OF THE MANY FACTORS ON WHICH TAXES HAVE BEEN
HINGED, SEE NOTE, 92 L. ED. 109, 119-123. 

FN5  THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE IN A CASE WHERE FLAT LICENSE FEES WERE
BASED ON A VEHICLE'S RATED HORSEPOWER.  IN THAT CASE THE PERSON HELD
LIABLE FOR THE STATE TAX WAS A NONRESIDENT DRIVING THROUGH THE STATE. 
BY CITATION OF THIS CASE WE DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RULE RELATING TO A STATE'S POWER TO COLLECT FOR THE USE
OF ITS ROADS BY OCCASIONAL TRAVELERS IS AS BROAD AS WHERE ROAD USE BY
CARRIERS IS INVOLVED.  SEE AERO TRANSIT CO. V. COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495,
503.  SEE ALSO THE OPINIONS IN EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN7  ONE EXAMPLE OF THE COMPLEXITIES SPRINGING FROM STATE ATTEMPTS TO
WEIGH NUMEROUS FACTORS WAS THE INDIANA TAX UPHELD IN EAVEY CO. V.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 216 IND. 255, 264, 24 N.E.2D 268, 272, WHICH
WAS "  ...  BASED UPON THE CARRYING CAPACITY, NUMBER OF WHEELS PER
AXLE, LOAD PER AXLE, SIZE OF TIRES USED, WEIGHT, AND OTHER ELEMENTS
DESCRIBED IN THE ACT, ALL OF WHICH BEAR A DIRECT RELATION TO THE
HAZARDS OF THE HIGHWAYS." 

FN8  CONGRESS HAS PASSED COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION REGULATING
INTERSTATE CARRIERS IN WHICH IT IS DECLARED THAT "NOTHING IN THIS
CHAPTER SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE POWERS OF TAXATION OF THE
SEVERAL STATES  ...  "  49 U.S.C. SEC. 302(B).  SEE BRASHEAR FREIGHT
LINES V. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N, 23 F.SUPP.  865; SEE ALSO MAURER V.
HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598.  IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF FIXING RATES AND
ADMINISTERING THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT REQUIRES CARRIERS TO KEEP ACCOUNTS
SHOWING THE "COST OF ALL TAXES, LICENSES AND FEES ASSESSED FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING REVENUE VEHICLES OVER THE HIGHWAYS, SUCH AS
REGISTRATION FEES, LICENSE PLATE FEES,  ...  CERTIFICATES OF TITLE FEES
...  AND SIMILAR ITEMS ...  "  49 CFR, 1947 SUPP., SEC. 182.5220. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

ONCE MORE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO SUBJECT A STATE TAX ON INTERSTATE
MOTOR TRAFFIC TO THE SCRUTINY WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE REQUIRES SO
THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY ENJOY FREEDOM FROM STATE TAXATION OUTSIDE
OF THOSE NARROW LIMITS WITHIN WHICH STATES ARE FREE TO BURDEN SUCH
COMMERCE. 

THE ESSENTIAL FACTS ARE EASILY STATED.  BY VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF
MARYLAND LAW, AN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER MAY NOT OPERATE ITS VEHICLES
WITHIN THE STATE UNTIL IT HAS REGISTERED THEM.  AS A PREREQUISITE TO
REGISTRATION THE CARRIER MUST OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FOR EACH
VEHICLE.  SECTION 25A OF ARTICLE 66 1/2 OF THE ANNOTATED CODE OF
MARYLAND, 1947 CUM. SUPP., IMPOSES A SO-CALLED TITLING TAX OF 2% OF THE
"FAIR MARKET VALUE" OF EACH MOTOR VEHICLE "FOR THE ISSUANCE OF EVERY
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE  ...  AND  ...  EVERY SUBSEQUENT
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE  ...  IN THE CASE OF SALES OR RESALES  ...  "  FN1
THUS, THE TAX DOES NOT STRIKE AT PERIODIC INTERVALS BUT ONLY WHEN A
PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH IS TO BE OPERATED IN
WHOLE OR PART ON MARYLAND HIGHWAYS, WHETHER THE VEHICLE BE NEW OR OLD. 
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX ARE DEVOTED TO ROAD PURPOSES. 

APPELLANTS OPERATE INTERSTATE BUS LINES, IN PART OVER MARYLAND
ROADS.  FN2  EACH PURCHASED A BUS, BUT REFUSED TO PAY THE TAX ON THE
GROUND THAT SEC. 25A WAS INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS APPLIED
TO INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  THEY WERE DENIED CERTIFICATES OF TITLE BY THE
STATE AND THEREUPON FILED PETITIONS FOR MANDAMUS TO SECURE THEM.  THE
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE LEVY, 64 A.2D 284, AND THE CASE
IS HERE ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2).    I. SINCE "A STATE MAY
NOT LAY A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE," THE
TITLING TAX CAN BE SUSTAINED ONLY IF IT BE A FAIR IMPOSITION FOR THE
USE OF HIGHWAYS CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED BY MARYLAND OR FOR THE COST
OF TRAFFIC REGULATION.  INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S.
183, 185; SEE ALSO DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO. V. STATE REVENUE COMM'N, 306
U.S. 72, 76.  THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO LEVY SUCH A COMPENSATORY TAX ALSO
AS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR SPECIAL BENEFITS IS WELL SETTLED.  THE
SUBJECTION OF INTERSTATE MOTOR TRAFFIC TO SUCH STATE POWER IS ONLY A
PARTICULAR APPLICATION OF A GENERAL PRINCIPLE.  CLYDE MALLORY LINES V.
ALABAMA, 296 U.S. 261, 267-68, AND CASES CITED.  BUT WHETHER THE TAX
NOW UNDER REVIEW COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PRINCIPLE MUST BE TESTED
BY THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE GUIDED PRIOR ADJUDICATION.  (ALL OF
THE CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS DEALT WITH OUR SPECIFIC PROBLEM ARE
LISTED, AND THEIR RELEVANT FACTS DESCRIBED, IN AN APPENDIX TO THIS
OPINION, POST, P. 561.)  IF A NEW PRINCIPLE IS TO BE ANNOUNCED, IT,
TOO, MUST STAND THE TEST OF REASON IN RELATION TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

SINCE THE LEVY IS UPON COMMERCE EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE, AND THEREFORE
INEVITABLY AN INROAD UPON ITS NORMAL FREEDOM FROM STATE BURDENS,
MARYLAND MUST JUSTIFY IT AS A MEANS OF SECURING COMPENSATION FOR THE
ROAD USE WHICH THE STATE AFFORDS AND FOR WHICH IT MAY EXACT A RETURN. 
INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183.  THIS REQUIREMENT IS
NOT A CLOSE ACCOUNTING RESPONSIBILITY, HOWEVER, FOR THE STATES ARE FREE
TO EXERCISE A LOOSE JUDGMENT IN FIXING A QUID PRO QUO.  THUS, TAX
FORMULAS DEPENDENT ON ACTUAL USE OF THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS SATISFY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL TEST, WITHOUT MORE, SINCE THEY REFLECT AN OBVIOUS
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT IS DEMANDED AND WHAT IS GIVEN BY THE STATE. 
TAXES BASED ON MILES OR TON-MILES HAVE ENCOUNTERED NO DIFFICULTY HERE. 
INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, 276 U.S. 245; CONTINENTAL BAKING
CO. V. WOODRING, 286 U.S. 352. 

AGAIN, IF THE STATE MAKES CLEAR BY DISPOSITION OF THE TAX PROCEEDS OR
BY STATUTORY DECLARATION THAT THE TAX IS LEVIED TO SECURE COMPENSATION
FOR ROAD USE, THE TAX CLASSIFICATION WILL BE SUSTAINED IF IT MAY FAIRLY
BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PRIVILEGE OF ROAD USE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
ACTUAL USE.  COMPARE INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S.
183(NO ALLOCATION OF PROCEEDS) WITH CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S.
554(ALLOCATION); SEE APPENDIX, POST, P. 561.  THUS, MILEAGE MAY BE
IGNORED AND AN ANNUAL TAX MAY BE BASED ON HORSEPOWER, HENDRICK V.
MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610, AND KANE V. NEW JERSEY, 242 U.S. 160; ON
CARRYING CAPACITY, CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554, AND HICKLIN V. CONEY,
290 U.S. 169; AND ON MANUFACTURER'S RATED CAPACITY, DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS
CO. V. STATE REVENUE COMM'N, 306 U.S. 72.  AND THE COURT HAS UPHELD
FLAT FEES IMPOSED WITHOUT REGARD TO SIZE OR WEIGHT FACTORS.  AERO
MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285;
MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407; CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583;
AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. BOARD OF RAILROAD COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495. 

FROM THIS BODY OF DECISIONS, THE COURT NOW EXTRACTS THE PRINCIPLE
THAT, SO LONG AS A TAX IS LEVIED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES AND DOES NOT
FORMALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT CANNOT BE
ATTACKED FOR ITS TAX FORMULA OR CLASSIFICATION, BUT ONLY FOR
"EXCESSIVENESS" OF AMOUNT.  SUCH A VIEW COLLIDES WITH THE GUIDING
LIMITATION UPON STATE POWER ANNOUNCED IN INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V.
LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183, 186, THAT A TAX INTENDED TO COMPENSATE FOR ROAD
USE "WILL BE SUSTAINED UNLESS THE TAXPAYER SHOWS THAT IT BEARS NO
REASONABLE RELATION TO THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE HIGHWAYS OR IS
DISCRIMINATORY."  THIS WARY QUALIFICATION WAS FORMULATED FOR THE COURT
BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, WHO WAS MOST ALERT NOT TO DENY TO STATES THE
RIGHT TO MAKE INTERSTATE COMMERCE PAY ITS WAY.  LIKEWISE, TODAY'S
OPINION DISREGARDS MCCARROLL V. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES, INC., 309 U.S.
176, HOLDING A TAX INVALID SIMPLY BECAUSE THE STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT
WAS FOUND TO BE UNRELATED TO WHAT THE STATE GAVE.  IN THAT CASE, THE
TAX WAS DECLARED TO BE IMPOSED UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF HIGHWAY USE AND
THE PROCEEDS WERE ALLOCATED, AND, AS HERE, IT WAS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE
TAX AS LEVIED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE STATE
WAS COLLECTING SUMS IN EXCESS OF ITS NEEDS OR THAT THE CARRIER WAS
BEING SUBJECTED TO SEVERE ECONOMIC STRAIN.  THE DEFECT LAY IN THE
CAPRICIOUS TAX FORMULA. 

IN NO PRIOR CASE HAS THE COURT UPHELD A TAX FORMULA BEARING NO
REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRIVILEGE OF ROAD USE.  NO SUPPORT TO
THE RESULT NOW REACHED IS LENT BY THE FACT THAT STATE TAX FORMULAS NEED
NOT BE LIMITED TO FACTORS REFLECTING ACTUAL ROAD USE, SUCH AS MILEAGE,
BUT MAY BE MEASURED BY THE PRIVILEGE OF HIGHWAY USE EXTENDED TO ALL
ALIKE.  IN A CASE INVOLVING A FLAT TAX CHARACTERIZED AS "MODERATE," THE
MATTER WAS ILLUMINATINGLY PUT FOR THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO: 

"THERE WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES IN COLLECTING ON THAT
BASIS (I.E., MILEAGE).  THE FEE IS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF A USE AS
EXTENSIVE AS THE CARRIER WILLS THAT IT SHALL BE.  THERE IS NOTHING
UNREASONABLE OR OPPRESSIVE IN A BURDEN SO IMPOSED.  ...  ONE WHO
RECEIVES A PRIVILEGE WITHOUT LIMIT IS NOT WRONGED BY HIS OWN REFUSAL TO
ENJOY IT AS FREELY AS HE MAY."  AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285, 289. 

SYSTEMS OF TAXATION NEED NOT ACHIEVE THE IDEAL.  BUT THE FACT THAT
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEMAND PURE REASON AND IS SATISFIED BY
PRACTICAL REASON DOES NOT JUSTIFY UNREASON.  THOUGH A STATE MAY LEVY A
TAX BASED UPON THE PRIVILEGE GRANTED, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS
EXERCISE, THIS DOES NOT SANCTION A TAX THE MEASURE OF WHICH HAS NO
REASONABLE RELATION TO THE PRIVILEGE.  REASON PRECLUDES THE NOTION THAT
A TAX FOR A PRIVILEGE MAY DISREGARD THE ABSENCE OF A NEXUS BETWEEN
PRIVILEGE AND TAX.  OUR DECISIONS REFLECT THAT REASON.  A STATE
NATURALLY MAY DEEM FACTORS OF SIZE OR WEIGHT TO BE RELEVANT.  HICKLIN
V. CONEY, 290 U.S. 169, 173.  SINCE THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE FACTORS
TO HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS CANNOT BE MEASURED WITH
EVEN PROXIMATE ACCURACY, THE STATES ARE NOT HOBBLED IN EXERCISING ROUGH
JUDGMENT IN DEVISING TAX FORMULAS, GIVING TO SIZE, WEIGHT AND OTHER
RELEVANT FACTORS SUCH RESPECT AS IS FAIRLY WITHIN THE RESTRAINTS OF
DECENCY.  CF. CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583, 594.  AND A
STATE, WITH AN EYE TO THE PROBLEMS OF TAX ADMINISTRATION, MAY ALSO
REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH FACTORS ARE NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SIGNIFICANT OR MATERIAL TO CALL FOR INSISTENCE UPON
IMPRACTICAL DETAILS, AND THAT A FLAT TAX IS PROPER.  IN THE CASES
INVOLVING FLAT TAXES, THE COURT CAREFULLY POINTED OUT THAT THE
CLASSIFICATION WAS REASONABLE ON THE FACTS BEFORE IT.  MORF V.
BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407, 410; CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583,
600; AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. BOARD OF RAILROAD COMM'RS, 332 U.S.
495, 506. 

MARYLAND'S TITLING TAX FAILS TO MEET THE JUSTIFICATIONS THAT SUSTAIN
A STATE'S POWER TO LEVY A TAX ON WHAT IS EXCLUSIVELY THE CARRYING ON OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  GIVING THE STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT EVERY
INDULGENCE FOR SUPPORTING ITS VALIDITY, ONE CANNOT FIND ANY FAIR
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TAX AND ACTUAL ROAD USE OR THE PRIVILEGE OF
SUCH USE.  THE VALUE OF A VEHICLE IS NOT A PRACTICAL FUNCTION OF WHAT
THE STATE AFFORDS.  IT HAS AT BEST A MOST TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP TO THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING THE ROADS, SINCE DIFFERENCES IN VALUE ARE DUE TO A
VEHICLE'S APPOINTMENTS OR ITS AGE OR TO OTHER FACTORS WHICH HAVE NO
BEARING ON HIGHWAY USE.  DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF VEHICLES BASED ON
SUCH FACTORS, REFLECTING IN LARGE MEASURE THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF
OWNERS OR THEIR INVESTMENT POLICIES, CAN HARDLY FURNISH A STANDARD BY
WHICH A RETURN FOR ROAD USE MAY BE MEASURED. 

THIS IRRELEVANCE IN THE BASIS OF THE TAX IS REINFORCED BY THE
IRRELEVANCE OF ITS INCIDENCE.  FOR THE TAX IS EXACTED NOT ONLY ON THE
ORIGINAL PURCHASE OF THE VEHICLE BUT UPON ITS SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER TO A
NEW OWNER.  IF THE TAX BE TREATED AS ONE ON THE VEHICLE, THEN IT IS
ATTRIBUTABLE NOT TO THE PRIVILEGE OF ROAD USE BUT TO A SHIFT IN ITS
OWNERSHIP.  IF THE TAX IS DEEMED TO BE UPON THE OWNER, THEN IT DEPENDS
NOT UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF ROAD USE BUT UPON THE FREQUENCY OF TURNOVER
OF HIS EQUIPMENT.  UNLIKE ALL THE COMPARABLE TAXES HERETOFORE
SUSTAINED, THE MARYLAND TAX IS MEASURED BY CONSIDERATIONS EXTRANEOUS TO
THE STATE'S RIGHT TO IMPOSE IT. 

THE COURT IN EFFECT CONCEDES THIS, BUT PROCEEDS ON THE THEORY THAT
THE BASIS OF SUCH A ROAD TAX NEED NOT BE INTRINSICALLY REASONABLE. 
VALIDITY IS TREATED AS A QUESTION OF DOLLARS AND CENTS; ONLY THE AMOUNT
OF THE TAX MAY BE QUESTIONED.  IT SHOULD OCCASION NO SURPRISE THAT SUCH
A TEST BREAKS WHOLLY NEW GROUND.  AMOUNT HAS OF COURSE PLAYED A PART IN
THE TOTAL CONTEXT OF PRIOR DECISIONS AND IT RAISES ISSUES TO WHICH I
SHALL SHORTLY ADVERT.  BUT A TEST OF AMOUNT HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS
IN ITSELF A SUBSTITUTE FOR A REASONABLE TAX CLASSIFICATION.  WHILE
NOVELTY OF DOCTRINE DOES NOT PROVE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, NEITHER DOES IT
ESTABLISH CONSTITUTIONALITY.  IF NO PRIOR DECISION GIVES ANY WARRANT
FOR DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF A STATE TAX ON COMMERCE GOING THROUGH
IT MERELY BY THE SIZE OF THE FINANCIAL BURDEN WHICH SUCH A TAX ENTAILS,
THE REASON IS OBVIOUS ENOUGH.  IT WOULD CAST WHAT IS SURELY NOT A
JUDICIAL FUNCTION UPON THIS COURT TO DECIDE HOW BIG AN AMOUNT,
ABSTRACTLY CONSIDERED, CAN ECONOMICALLY BE ABSORBED BY A CARRIER
ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS AN EXACTION BY EACH STATE
THROUGH WHICH THE CARRIER PASSES.  FN3  CONTRARIWISE, IT IS WITHIN THE
COMPETENCE OF JUDGES TO DETERMINE THE FAIR RELEVANCE OF CRITERIA IN
ACHIEVING ALLOWABLE ENDS.  HOW CRITERIA WORK IN SPECIFIC CASES INVOLVES
FAMILIAR PRACTICALITIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW. 

NO DOUBT DIFFICULTIES ARE ENCOUNTERED BY THE STATES IN FORMULATING
CLASSIFICATIONS FOR TAX PURPOSES WHICH EXPRESS THE NEEDED ACCOMMODATION
IN OUR FEDERALISM BETWEEN DUE REGARD FOR THE SPECIAL FACILITIES
AFFORDED BY STATES TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR WHICH THEY REQUIRE
COMPENSATION, AND THAT FREEDOM OF COMMERCE ACROSS STATE LINES THE
DESIRE FOR WHICH WAS ONE OF THE PROPELLING FORCES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THIS NATION AND THE BENEFITS OF WHICH ARE ONE OF ITS GREATEST
SOURCES OF STRENGTH.  OF COURSE THIS COURT MUST NOT UNDULY REIN IN
STATES.  PRACTICAL, NOT IDEAL, LINES MUST BE DRAWN, WHICH MEANS THAT
WITHIN THE BROADEST REACH OF POLICY RELEVANT TO THE STATES' BASIS OF
TAXATION A WIDE CHOICE MUST BE ALLOWED TO THE STATES OF POSSIBLE TAXES
ON MOTOR VEHICLES TRAVELING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CLARK V. PAUL
GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583.  BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE MANY TAX FORMULAS MAY BE
DEVISED DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY FORMULA WILL DO.  OF COURSE, THE PROBLEM
INVOLVES MATTERS OF DEGREE.  DRAWING LINES, RECOGNITION OF DIFFERENCES
OF DEGREE, IS PERHAPS THE CHIEF CHARACTERISTIC OF THE PROCESS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION.  DIFFICULTIES IN APPLYING THE TEST OF
REASON DO NOT JUSTIFY ABANDONMENT OF REASON FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE TASK OF
DECIDING FISCAL FAIRNESS TO EACH INDIVIDUAL CARRIER. 

II.  SINCE THE BASIS OF ITS IMPOSITION IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE, THE
MARYLAND TAX CANNOT BE SAVED BY ITS AMOUNT.  BUT QUITE APART FROM ITS
FORMULA, THERE ARE SERIOUS QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF THIS TAX
WHICH THE COURT DISREGARDS.  THERE IS A SHOW OF FAIRNESS IN THE COURT'S
SUGGESTION THAT THE TAX WILL BE DECLARED BAD IF THE AMOUNT EXACTED
EXCEEDS "FAIR COMPENSATION" TO THE STATES.  THE TERM IS NOT SELF
DEFINING AND NO INTIMATION IS AFFORDED REGARDING THE STANDARDS BY WHICH
EXCESSIVENESS IS TO BE DETERMINED.  REFERENCE IS MADE TO INGELS V.
MORF, 300 U.S. 290.  PRESUMABLY, THEREFORE, THE COURT IS STILL
COMMITTED TO THE VIEW THAT A TAX MAY NOT BE SO HIGH THAT AMOUNTS
COLLECTED BY THE STATE ARE CLEARLY IN EXCESS OF THE COSTS OF THE
SPECIAL FACILITIES OR REGULATIONS FOR WHICH THE TAX IS PROFESSEDLY
LEVIED.  LIKE OTHER FORMS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, MOTOR CARRIERS SHOULD
BE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE THEIR FAIR SHARE, BROADLY CONCEIVED, OF THE
STATE'S DISTINCTIVE CONTRIBUTION FOR THE CARRYING ON OF SUCH COMMERCE. 
UNDER THE GUISE OF A SPECIAL COMPENSATORY TAX, HOWEVER, A STATE MAY NOT
EXACT MORE THAN THE VALUE OF THE SERVICES TO BE COMPENSATED.  THERE IS
NO SHOWING THAT THE TAX LEVIED HERE IS EXCESSIVE IN THIS SENSE. 

BUT FOR THE PROPER MAINTENANCE OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM, AND MORE
PARTICULARLY FOR THE RIGOROUS SAFEGUARDING OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT A STATE EXACT NO MORE
THAN THE VALUE OF WHAT IT GIVES - WITH ALL THE ELUSIVENESS OF
DETERMINING SUCH VALUE.  A STATE MUST NOT PLAY FAVORITES IN THE
OPERATION OF ITS TAXING SYSTEM BETWEEN BUSINESS CONFINED WITHIN ITS
BORDERS AND THE COMMON INTERESTS OF THE NATION EXPRESSED THROUGH
BUSINESS CONDUCTED ACROSS STATE LINES.  SUCH FAVORITISM IS BARRED
WHETHER IT IS OVERTLY DESIGNED OR RESULTS FROM THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF
A TAXING SCHEME.  THE MARYLAND TAX DOES NOT OBVIOUSLY DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT A TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ROAD USE
MAY IMPOSE SERIOUS DISADVANTAGES UPON THAT COMMERCE. 

SO LONG AS A STATE BASES ITS TAX ON A RELEVANT MEASURE OF ACTUAL ROAD
USE, OBVIOUSLY BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE CARRIERS PAY ACCORDING TO
THE FACILITIES IN FACT PROVIDED BY THE STATE.  BUT A TAX LEVIED FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING ROADS, AND NOT THEIR ACTUAL USE, MAY, IN THE NORMAL
COURSE OF OPERATIONS AND NOT AS A FANCIFUL HYPOTHESIS, INVOLVE AN UNDUE
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  WHILE THE PRIVILEGE EXTENDED BY A STATE
IS UNLIMITED IN FORM, AND THUS THEORETICALLY THE SAME FOR ALL VEHICLES,
WHETHER INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE, THE INTRASTATE VEHICLE CAN AND WILL
EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGE WHENEVER IT IS IN OPERATION, WHILE THE
INTERSTATE VEHICLE MUST NECESSARILY FOREGO THE PRIVILEGE SOME OF THE
TIME SIMPLY BECAUSE OF ITS INTERSTATE CHARACTER, I.E., BECAUSE IT
OPERATES IN OTHER STATES AS WELL.  IN THE GENERAL AVERAGE OF INSTANCES,
THE PRIVILEGE IS NOT AS VALUABLE TO THE INTERSTATE AS TO THE INTRASTATE
CARRIER.  AND BECAUSE IT OPERATES IN OTHER STATES THERE IS DANGER - AND
NOT A FANCIFUL DANGER - THAT THE INTERSTATE CARRIER WILL BE SUBJECT TO
THE PRIVILEGE TAXES OF SEVERAL STATES, EVEN THOUGH HIS ENTIRE USE OF
THE HIGHWAYS IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN THAT OF INTRASTATE
OPERATORS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO ONLY ONE PRIVILEGE TAX.  FN4    WHEN A
PRIVILEGE TAX IS RELATIVELY SMALL IN AMOUNT, AND THEREFORE TO BE
TREATED AS A ROUGH EQUIVALENT FOR WHAT THE STATE MAY EXACT WITH DUE
REGARD TO ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICALITIES, THE DANGER OF AN UNFAIR BURDEN
FALLING UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE REMAINS CORRESPONDINGLY SMALL.  CF.
UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 210-11.  BUT A LARGE
PRIVILEGE TAX PRESENTS DANGERS NOT UNLIKE THOSE ARISING FROM
UNAPPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES ON INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BEYOND
A STATE'S POWER TO IMPOSE.  CF. CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC. V.
MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653.  THESE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS PREVAILED AGAINST
A STATE IN SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163: 

"A FLAT TAX, SUBSTANTIAL IN AMOUNT AND THE SAME FOR BUSSES PLYING THE
STREETS CONTINUOUSLY IN LOCAL SERVICE AND FOR BUSSES MAKING, AS DO MANY
INTERSTATE BUSSES, ONLY A SINGLE TRIP DAILY, COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN
DESIGNED AS A MEASURE OF THE COST OR VALUE OF THE USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS."  277 U.S. AT 170.  FN5 

THAT THE COURT HAS AT ALL TIMES BEEN AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM IS
DEMONSTRATED BY ITS REITERATION THROUGHOUT THE RELEVANT DECISIONS THAT
THE CHARGE MUST BE "REASONABLE IN AMOUNT."  SEE ESPECIALLY AERO
MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285, 289:  "THE FEE
IS MODERATE IN AMOUNT," AND AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. BOARD OF
RAILROAD COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495, 507:  "  ...  THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF
BOTH TAXES COMBINED IS LESS THAN THAT OF TAXES HERETOFORE SUSTAINED." 

THE PROBLEM IS INESCAPABLY ONE OF DETERMINING HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH,
IN THE TOTAL NATURE OF THE TAX.  THUS, IT BECOMES IMPORTANT TO SEE HOW
THE MARYLAND TAX COMPARES IN AMOUNT WITH SIMILAR TAXES IN PRIOR CASES. 
THIS IS DONE, NOT TO TEST THE TAX AS INDIVIDUALLY APPLIED TO
APPELLANTS, BUT TO DETERMINE WHETHER GENERAL APPLICATION OF A TAX OF
THIS MAGNITUDE MAY FAIRLY BE DEEMED TO BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
UNDULY.  EXAMINATION OF DECIDED CASES REVEALS THAT THE LARGEST FLAT TAX
HERETOFORE SUSTAINED WAS $15 FOR SIX MONTHS OR $30 PER YEAR, AND THE
LARGEST ANNUAL TAX BASED UPON SIZE OR WEIGHT WAS $75.  FN6  SEE
APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION, POST, P. 561.  THE MARYLAND TAXES ON THE
THREE APPELLANTS AMOUNTED TO $372, $505 AND $580, BUT SINCE THE
MARYLAND TAX IS NOT ANNUAL, THESE AMOUNTS ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO AMOUNTS
PREVIOUSLY SUSTAINED.  IN ORDER TO EQUATE THEM, INFORMATION IS NEEDED
AS TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS TYPICAL MOTOR CARRIERS ARE LIKELY TO OPERATE
SUCH BUSSES OVER MARYLAND ROADS.  EVEN TAKING THE ASSUMPTION OF THE
MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS, NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD,
THAT FIVE YEARS WAS A FAIR ESTIMATE,  FN7  THE AMOUNTS ARE IN EXCESS OF
ANY SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT.  THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO
ACCEPT THE FORMULA OF THE MARYLAND TITLING TAX, THE CASE SHOULD BE
REMANDED FOR A FINDING OF THE ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF USE IN ORDER TO
HAVE SOME BASIS OF APPRAISING THE VALIDITY OF THE AMOUNT. 

III.  THE COURT'S FAILURE TO TREAT THE DANGER THAT LARGE PRIVILEGE
TAXES WILL UNDULY BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE - QUITE APART FROM
EXCESSIVENESS IN TERMS OF STATE COSTS - IS NOT UNLIKE ITS EXPLICIT
REJECTION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE TAXING FORMULA BE REASONABLY
RELATED TO THE PURPOSE WHICH ALONE JUSTIFIES THE TAX.  BOTH PROBLEMS
INVOLVE THE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS, WHICH IN APPLICATION
INEVITABLY REQUIRES NICE DISTINCTIONS.  IN THIS CASE THE COURT ATTEMPTS
TO AVOID DIFFICULTIES THROUGH WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN EXERCISE IN
ABSOLUTES.  THESE PROBLEMS INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF REASONABLENESS AND
DEGREE BUT THEIR DETERMINATION AFFECTS THE HARMONIOUS FUNCTIONING OF
OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY CAN BE SOLVED BY
DISREGARDING THE NATIONAL INTEREST MERELY BECAUSE A STATE TAX LEVIED IN
A PARTICULAR CASE DOES NOT ON ITS FACE APPEAR MONSTROUS IN AMOUNT.  SEE
HUDSON COUNTY WATER CO. V. MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349, 355. 

I WOULD REVERSE. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SEC. 25A READS MORE FULLY AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN ADDITION TO THE CHARGES PRESCRIBED BY THIS ARTICLE THERE IS
HEREBY LEVIED AND IMPOSED AN EXCISE TAX FOR THE ISSUANCE OF EVERY
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FOR MOTOR VEHICLES IN THIS STATE AND FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF EVERY SUBSEQUENT CERTIFICATE OF TITLE FOR MOTOR
VEHICLES IN THIS STATE IN THE CASE OF SALES OR RESALES THEREOF, AND ON
AND AFTER JULY 1, 1947, THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES SHALL COLLECT
SAID TAX UPON THE ISSUANCE OF EVERY SUCH CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OF A
MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE RATE OF TWO PER CENTUM OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
EVERY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR WHICH SUCH CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IS APPLIED FOR
AND ISSUED." 

FN2  ALTHOUGH TWO OF THE APPELLANTS ALSO ENGAGE TO SOME EXTENT IN
INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION, IT WAS NOT ARGUED EITHER HERE OR BELOW THAT
THIS HAS ANY BEARING ON THE CASE.  CF. SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S.
163, 170-71. 

FN3  THE COURT, TO BE SURE, DOES NOT AVOW THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE
TAX DEPENDS ON THE RELATION OF ITS SIZE TO THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF
THE CARRIER.  BUT SUCH IS THE EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCE OF THE
CONSIDERATIONS BY WHICH IT DETERMINES VALIDITY.  ONCE THE COURT
ABANDONS, AS IT DOES, AN INQUIRY INTO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE TAX
BASIS IN RELATION TO THE ALLOWABLE PURPOSES OF THE TAX, THERE IS
NOTHING BY WHICH THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPOSITION CAN BE JUDGED EXCEPT
ITS EFFECT UPON THE FINANCES OF THE CARRIER, UNLESS PERCHANCE THE
MATTER IS TO BE LEFT WHOLLY AT LARGE.  EVEN IN THAT EVENT, THE COURT IS
BOUND TO MAKE AD HOC JUDGMENTS THAT THE PARTICULAR AMOUNT A STATE ASKS
OF A CARRIER IS NOT GOING TO HURT IT. 

FN4  THESE DANGERS ARE HEIGHTENED WHEN THE TAX FALLS UPON AN
INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE ONLY ON A FIXED ROUTE. 
QUITE ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE GENERAL PROBLEM ARE THE
FACTS CONCERNING ONE OF APPELLANTS HERE, CAPITOL GREYHOUND LINES, WHICH
IS AUTHORIZED BY THE I.C.C. TO OPERATE A BUS LINE OVER A FIXED ROUTE
BETWEEN CINCINNATI, OHIO AND WASHINGTON, D.C., A DISTANCE OF ABOUT 496
MILES, ONLY NINE OF WHICH ARE OVER MARYLAND'S STATE ROADS.  TO SAY THAT
CAPITOL HAS AN UNLIMITED PRIVILEGE TO USE MARYLAND'S ROADS AND IS
THEREFORE BEING TREATED ON A PAR WITH INTRASTATE CARRIERS IS TO IGNORE
THE ADMONITION THAT "REGULATION AND COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES BOTH ARE
PRACTICAL RATHER THAN TECHNICAL CONCEPTIONS  ...  "  GALVESTON,
HARRISBURG AND SAN ANTONIO R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 225. 

FN5  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS' REFERENCE TO A FLAT TAX WAS NOT INTENDED
TO EXCLUDE SIZE OR WEIGHT TAXES, FOR THE SPROUT CASE INVOLVED A TAX
BASED UPON SEATING CAPACITY.  RATHER, HE WAS REFERRING TO PRIVILEGE, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM MILEAGE, TAXES. 

THE POTENTIALITY OF UNFAIR BURDENS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS
PRESENTED SHARPLY IN THE SPROUT CASE SINCE THE TAX WAS LEVIED BY A
MUNICIPALITY AND THERE WERE 33 OTHER CITIES ALONG THE ROUTE OF THE
INTERSTATE CARRIER.  SEE 277 U.S. AT 164. 

FN6  THE STATUTE IN CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554, PROVIDED FOR A RANGE
OF TAXATION OF FROM $20 TO $200, AND THAT IN HICKLIN V. CONEY, 290 U.S.
169, A RANGE OF FROM $30 TO $400.  BUT IN NEITHER CASE WAS EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED AS TO THE AMOUNTS TO WHICH THE PARTICULAR VEHICLE OWNERS
WOULD BE SUBJECT, AND SO THE COURT WAS NOT FACED WITH THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS REASONABLE.  SEE APPENDIX, N. 3, POST, P. 561. 

FN7  THE MARYLAND COURT ESTIMATED THE "USEFUL LIFE" OF THE BUSSES. 
IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PROBABLE PERIOD OF USE BY A TYPICAL MOTOR
CARRIER SINCE THE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON ANY TRANSFER OF THE VEHICLE TO
ANOTHER. 

                   APPENDIX

(CHART OMITTED)
..END :




















LABOR BOARD V. MEXIA TEXTILE MILLS, 339 U.S. 563 


NO. 434.  ARGUED APRIL 18, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1950.  - ORDER
VACATED. 


AFTER A HEARING FROM WHICH THE EMPLOYER WITHDREW WITHOUT INTRODUCING
ANY EVIDENCE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ISSUED AN ORDER
REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE BOARD
PETITIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDER.  THE
EMPLOYER MOVED FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, ALLEGING IN
SUBSTANCE THAT IT HAD COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER AND THAT THE UNION WHICH
HAD BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE NO LONGER
REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED THE CASE REFERRED BACK TO THE BOARD WITH
DIRECTIONS TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND REPORT WHETHER THE ORDER HAD BEEN
COMPLIED WITH; IF SO, WHETHER THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS
MOOT; AND, IF NOT, WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS THE BOARD HAD TO MAKE.  HELD:
THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER MUST BE DECREED UNDER SEC. 10(E), UNLESS "EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES" ARE PLEADED WHICH JUSTIFY THE EMPLOYER'S FAILURE TO URGE
ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE BOARD.  PP. 564-570. 

(A)  AN EMPLOYER'S COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER OF THE BOARD DOES NOT
RENDER THE CAUSE MOOT NOR DEPRIVE THE BOARD OF ITS OPPORTUNITY TO
SECURE ENFORCEMENT FROM AN APPROPRIATE COURT, SINCE A BOARD ORDER
IMPOSES A CONTINUING OBLIGATION AND THE BOARD IS ENTITLED TO HAVE A
RESUMPTION OF THE UNFAIR PRACTICE BARRED BY AN ENFORCEMENT DECREE.  PP.
567-568. 

(B)  THAT THE EMPLOYER DOUBTS THE CERTIFIED UNION'S ABILITY TO MUSTER
A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT DOES NOT JUSTIFY
DENIAL OF AN ENFORCEMENT DECREE.  P. 568. 

(C)  ALTHOUGH A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS
"ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION OF THE COURT," THE POWER OF
THE COURT TO ORDER THE TAKING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE EMPLOYED
TO ENLARGE THE STATUTORY SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  PP. 569-570. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MEXIA TEXTILE MILLS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS REPORTED IN 25 L.R.R.M. 2295.  THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS VACATED, P. 570. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CHARGING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE RESPONDENT, MEXIA TEXTILE MILLS,
A MANUFACTURER OF COTTON GOODS AT MEXIA, TEXAS, ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT  FN1
AND THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947.  FN2  ON THE BOARD'S
PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS CEASE AND DESIST ORDER, THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REFERRED THE CASE BACK TO THE BOARD WITH
DIRECTIONS TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND REPORT WHETHER THE ORDER HAD BEEN
COMPLIED WITH BY THE RESPONDENT; IF SO, WHETHER THE MATTER SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED AS MOOT; AND, IF NOT, WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS THE BOARD HAD
TO MAKE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI UPON THE CLAIM THAT THE EFFECT OF THE
ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS AT VARIANCE WITH PREVIOUS DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT.  338 U.S. 909(1950). 

THE PERTINENT FACTS ARE THESE.  IN NOVEMBER 1944, THE BOARD CONDUCTED
AN ELECTION AT THE RESPONDENT'S PLANT, IN WHICH THE TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, C.I.O., RECEIVED AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.  FN3  THE
BOARD THEREUPON CERTIFIED THAT UNION AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THOSE PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES WHO CONSTITUTED THE
APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD.  IN JANUARY 1947
THE UNION FILED A CHARGE WITH THE BOARD COMPLAINING THAT RESPONDENT HAD
REFUSED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE UNION AND WAS
THUS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 8(1)
AND 8(5) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE BOARD ISSUED ITS
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THOSE CHARGES IN JUNE 1947.  RESPONDENT, IN
ANSWER, ADMITTED THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT, DENIED THE CHARGES CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND
ALLEGED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE UNION NO LONGER REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF
EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT, THOUGH THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO
HAD WITHDRAWN WAS UNKNOWN TO RESPONDENT.  A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE A
TRIAL EXAMINER IN AUGUST 1947.  THE TRIAL EXAMINER DENIED RESPONDENT'S
MOTIONS FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT, AND FOR AN
ORDER PERMITTING THE INSPECTION AND COPYING OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE. 
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL THEREUPON WITHDREW FROM THE HEARING AND TOOK NO
FURTHER PART THEREIN. 

IN DECEMBER 1947 THE TRIAL EXAMINER ISSUED HIS REPORT.  HE CONCLUDED
THAT "FROM THE EVIDENCE, IT IS APPARENT THAT, ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT
CONFERRED WITH THE UNION ON POSSIBLE CONTRACT PROVISIONS, IT DID NOT
BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH AND HAD NO INTENTION OF DOING SO."  THE FAILURE
TO BARGAIN WAS MANIFEST FROM EVIDENCE OF INCIDENTS TAKING PLACE FROM
THE TIME OF THE CERTIFICATION OF THE UNION UNTIL A MONTH BEFORE ITS
COMPLAINT WAS FILED.  UNILATERAL WAGE INCREASES AND RESPONDENT'S
EFFORTS TO SHUNT THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES FROM ONE COMPANY OFFICIAL TO
ANOTHER IN SEARCH OF THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN WAGE AND CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS - THESE AND OTHER FINDINGS LED THE EXAMINER TO CONCLUDE
THAT "AN UNMISTAKEABLE EFFORT TO ESCAPE GENUINE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING"
WAS DEMONSTRATED.  FURTHER, THE EXAMINER DETERMINED, THERE WAS NO MERIT
IN THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE UNION DID NOT RETAIN THE
MEMBERSHIP OF A MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT. 
RESPONDENT, HAVING TAKEN NO PART IN THE HEARING, DID NOT OF COURSE
INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS ALLEGATION. 

THE EXAMINER RECOMMENDED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT RESPONDENT BE ORDERED TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE
UNION.  NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT WERE FILED WITHIN THE TIME
PERMITTED BY SEC. 10(C) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, AND IN
JULY 1948 THE BOARD ADOPTED THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND ISSUED
THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 10(C). 

IN APRIL 1949 THE BOARD PETITIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  RESPONDENT FILED A MOTION FOR
THE TAKING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, ALLEGING THAT SINCE THE REPORT OF
THE TRIAL EXAMINER, "DURING THE YEAR 1948," IT HAD "ENTERED INTO GOOD
FAITH BARGAINING WITH THE UNION," BUT THAT AN AGREEMENT HAD BEEN
PREVENTED BY THE UNION'S "ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND INTRANSIGENT
ATTITUDE  ...  "  A COPY OF A LETTER RESPONDENT HAD SENT TO THE BOARD'S
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SHORTLY AFTER THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S REPORT, WAS
ATTACHED TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION.  THE LETTER STATED THAT WHILE
RESPONDENT "DID NOT SEE FIT TO ARGUE" ABOUT PAST "DISAGREEMENTS AND
STRIKES" BEFORE THE TRIAL EXAMINER, IT WAS THEN "MORE THAN WILLING TO
ACCEPT (HIS) RECOMMENDATIONS  ...  "  RESPONDENT ALSO ALLEGED THAT
AFTER "THE RECORD IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS CLOSED" IT HAD COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE UNION NO LONGER REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES
IN THE BARGAINING UNIT. 

ON JUNE 3, 1949, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ORDERED
THAT 

"ACTION ON PETITIONER'S MOTION SHOULD BE DEFERRED AND THE MATTER BE
REFERRED BACK TO THE BOARD WITH DIRECTIONS TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND REPORT:
(1) WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT ITS ORDER HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY
RESPONDENT; (2) WHETHER AND WHY, IF THE ORDER HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH,
THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT; AND (3) IF THE MATTER IS
NOT MOOT, WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS OR REQUESTS THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE IN THE
PREMISES  ...  " 

WE THINK IT PLAIN FROM THE CASES THAT THE EMPLOYER'S COMPLIANCE WITH
AN ORDER OF THE BOARD DOES NOT RENDER THE CAUSE MOOT, DEPRIVING THE
BOARD OF ITS OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE ENFORCEMENT FROM AN APPROPRIATE
COURT.  FN4  INDEED, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS
APPARENTLY RECOGNIZED THIS RULE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE DECISION IN
THE INSTANT CASES.  FN5  A BOARD ORDER IMPOSES A CONTINUING OBLIGATION;
AND THE BOARD IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE RESUMPTION OF THE UNFAIR PRACTICE
BARRED BY AN ENFORCEMENT DECREE.  AS THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT REMARKED, "NO MORE IS INVOLVED THAN WHETHER WHAT THE LAW
ALREADY CONDEMNED, THE COURT SHALL FORBID; AND THE FACT THAT ITS
JUDGMENT ADDS TO EXISTING SANCTIONS THAT OF PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT, IS
NOT A CIRCUMSTANCE TO WHICH A COURT WILL ORDINARILY LEND A FRIENDLY
EAR."  LABOR BOARD V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 179 F.2D 221, 222(1950). 
THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE BOARD TO PLAY HIDE-AND-SEEK WITH THOSE
GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. 

THAT THE RESPONDENT DOUBTS THE UNION'S ABILITY TO MUSTER A MAJORITY
OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF
AN ENFORCEMENT DECREE.  EXPLICIT CONGRESSIONAL POLICY STANDS IN THE WAY
OF PERMITTING THE EMPLOYERS TO STALL ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDERS
ON THIS GROUND.  UNDER SEC. 9(C) OF THE ACT "AN EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF
EMPLOYEES OR ANY INDIVIDUAL OR LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTING IN THEIR
BEHALF" MAY "ASSERT THAT THE INDIVIDUAL OR LABOR ORGANIZATION, WHICH
HAS BEEN CERTIFIED OR IS BEING CURRENTLY RECOGNIZED BY THEIR EMPLOYER
AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, IS NO LONGER A REPRESENTATIVE AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 9(A)  ...  " SEC. 9(C)(1)(A)(II).  PETITIONS BY THE
EMPLOYER CONCERNING SELECTION OF BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES ARE LIMITED
TO THOSE "ALLEGING THAT ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS OR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
HAVE PRESENTED TO HIM A CLAIM TO BE RECOGNIZED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE
DEFINED IN SECTION 9(A)  ...  " SEC. 9(C)(1)(B).  TO AUTHORIZE THE
EMPLOYER TO ASSERT DIMINUTION IN MEMBERSHIP IN THE CERTIFIED UNION IN
AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING SUBVERTS THE STATUTORY MANDATE TO LEAVE THESE
MATTERS TO THE BOARD IN SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 9(C).  FN6 

IT IS OF COURSE EQUALLY CLEAR THAT A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(E) OF THE LABOR RELATIONS ACTS
IS "ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION OF THE COURT," SOUTHPORT
PETROLEUM CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 315 U.S. 100, 104(1942); LABOR BOARD V.
INDIANA & MICHIGAN ELECTRIC CO., 318 U.S. 9(1943).  WE ARE TOLD THAT
THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE
ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE, SO CLEARLY IRRELEVANT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
REVIEW, IS IMBUED WITH RELEVANCE SHOULD THE RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL MOVE
TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHEN THE CASE REACHES THE COURT OF
APPEALS. 

THE CASES ARE TO THE CONTRARY.  LABOR BOARD V. CONDENSER CORP., 128
F.2D 67, 81(C.A. 3D CIR. 1942); LABOR BOARD V. SWIFT & CO., 129 F.2D
222, 224(C.A.8TH CIR. 1942); LABOR BOARD V. AMERICAN POTASH & CHEMICAL
CORP., 98 F.2D 488, 493(C.A.9TH CIR. 1938), AND CASES THEREIN CITED. 
IF COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER OF THE BOARD IS IRRELEVANT TO THE REVIEWING
COURT'S FUNCTION AFTER THE NEW EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED, WE DO NOT SEE
THAT THERE IS POINT IN ADDUCING EVIDENCE OF THAT COMPLIANCE.  THIS
COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE "POWER TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
GRANTED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BY SEC. 10(E) CANNOT BE
EMPLOYED TO ENLARGE THE STATUTORY SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW."  LABOR
BOARD V. DONNELLY GARMENT CO., 330 U.S. 219, 234-235(1947).  AS THE
MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE REPORTED CONCERNING THE WAGNER ACT, THAT STATUTE CONTEMPLATED
THAT THERE BE "IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD AN EXISTING COURT
DECREE TO SERVE AS A BASIS FOR CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS," IN THE EVENT A
RENEWAL OF THE UNFAIR PRACTICE OCCURS AFTER THE ENFORCEMENT ORDER. 
H.R. REP. NO. 1371, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5.  SEE ALSO H.R. CONF.
REP. NO. 510, ON H.R. 3020, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 55; COMPARE H.R.
REP. NO. 245, ON H.R. 3020, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 43, 93.  SECTION
10(E), WHICH "IN EFFECT FORMULATES A FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE REGARDING NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE," LABOR BOARD V. DONNELLY GARMENT CO., SUPRA, 330
U.S. AT 234, DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A DISCRETION SO BROAD THAT EVIDENCE
IRRELEVANT AS A MATTER OF LAW MAY BE CONSIDERED "MATERIAL."  COMPARE
GRIFFIN V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 704, 708(1949), WITH UNITED STATES
V. JOHNSON, 327 U.S. 106(1946). 

THE CASES CITED BY RESPONDENT DO NOT TOUCH THIS CONTROLLING ISSUE. 
THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE VACATED AND THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE BOARD ORDER DECREED PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(E), UNLESS
"EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES" ARE PLEADED WHICH JUSTIFY THE
RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO URGE ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE BOARD.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN2  61 STAT. 136, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 141 ET SEQ. 

FN3  146 OF THE 164 VALID VOTES WERE CAST IN FAVOR OF THE UNION, OF
THE APPROXIMATELY 186 ELIGIBLE VOTERS. 

FN4  LABOR BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261,
271(1938); CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197,
230(1938); LABOR BOARD V. CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS, 337 U.S. 217,
225(1949); LABOR BOARD V. DRAPER CORP., 159 F.2D 294, 297(C.A. 1ST CIR.
1947); LABOR BOARD V. REMINGTON RAND, 94 F.2D 862, 869-870(C.A.2D CIR.
1938); LABOR BOARD V. CONDENSER CORP., 128 F.2D 67, 81(C.A. 3D CIR.
1942); LABOR BOARD V. BALTIMORE TRANSIT CO., 140 F.2D 51, 55(C.A.4TH
CIR. 1944); LABOR BOARD V. TOLEDO DESK & FIXTURE CO., 158 F.2D
426(C.A.6TH CIR. 1946); LABOR BOARD V. BACHELDER, 125 F.2D 387,
388(C.A.7TH CIR. 1942); LABOR BOARD V. SWIFT & CO., 129 F.2D 222,
224(C.A.8TH CIR. 1942); LABOR BOARD V. AMERICAN POTASH & CHEMICAL
CORP., 98 F.2D 488(C.A.9TH CIR. 1938); PUEBLO GAS & FUEL CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 118 F.2D 304, 307(C.A. 10TH CIR. 1941).  CF. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., 304 U.S. 257(1938). 

FN5  LABOR BOARD V. FICKETT-BROWN MFG. CO., 140 F.2D 883, 884(1944);
LABOR BOARD V. THE COOPER CO., 179 F.2D 241(1950). 

FN6  SEE LABOR BOARD V. REMINGTON RAND, 94 F.2D 862, 869-870(C.A.2D
CIR. 1938).  SEE ALSO, SECS. 203.46, 203.47 OF THE BOARD'S REGULATIONS
UNDER THE WAGNER ACT, 11 FED. REG. 177A-605, 177A-610(1946), AND SECS.
203.52 AND 203.53 OF THE RULES PRINTED AT 12 FED. REG. 5651,
5662(1947); LABOR BOARD V. BILES-COLEMAN LUMBER CO., 96 F.2D
197(C.A.9TH CIR. 1938).  COMPARE FRANKS BROS. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321
U.S. 702, 705-706(1944). 

THE BOARD HAS HELD THAT IT IS THE FORUM BEFORE WHICH AN EMPLOYER MAY
CHALLENGE A CERTIFIED UNION'S CONTINUED REPRESENTATIVE STATUS, MATTER
OF WHITNEY'S, 81 N.L.R.B. 75(1949), IN SEC. 9(C) PROCEEDINGS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, DISSENTING
$*. 

$*  (NOTE:  THIS DISSENT APPLIES ALSO TO NO. 435, NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. POOL MANUFACTURING CO., POST, P. 577.) 

COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS, OF
COURSE, NO DEFENSE TO THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF
ITS ORDER.  THEREFORE, A COURT OF APPEALS WOULD BE ABUSING THE
AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947* , IF, UPON SUCH
A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT, IT EVEN TEMPORARILY WITHHELD ENFORCEMENT
MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASKING THE BOARD TO REPORT TO IT WHETHER THE
ORDER HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLIED WITH.  EVEN IF IT HAD, THE BOARD IS
ENTITLED TO A FORMAL DECREE AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST REPETITION OF THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  IF IN THE CASES BEFORE US THE COURT OF APPEALS
HAD, BY SEEKING LIGHT FROM THE BOARD ON THE ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE, IN
EFFECT RULED THAT COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER OF THE BOARD WAS RELEVANT TO
ENFORCEMENT, IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON THIS COURT, IN THE FAIR
ADMINISTRATION OF LAW, TO ISSUE ITS DISCRETIONARY WRIT OF CERTIORARI
AND REVERSE THE ORDERS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SUMMARILY.    *SECTION
10(E) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"IF EITHER PARTY SHALL APPLY TO THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SHALL SHOW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE IN THE
HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY, THE COURT MAY
ORDER SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS
MEMBERS, AGENT, OR AGENCY, AND TO BE MADE A PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT." 
61 STAT. 148, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 160(E). 

BUT THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THESE TWO CASES CANNOT
FAIRLY BE INTERPRETED AS DEFIANCE OF THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT
COMPLIANCE BY AN EMPLOYER WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER IS NOT A DEFENSE TO AN
APPLICATION FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS PRIOR TO ITS
ACTIONS IN THESE TWO CASES, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT,
IN COMMON WITH ALL OTHER CIRCUITS, HAS ENFORCED ORDERS OF THE BOARD
DESPITE ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLIANCE.  NOR ARE THESE TWO CASES TO BE
INTERPRETED AS DEPARTURES FROM THE PRINCIPLE WHICH THAT COURT HAS
HERETOFORE RECOGNIZED AND OBEYED.  IT HAS EXPLICITLY ADVISED US THAT
THE OPINIONS AND ORDERS IN THESE TWO CASES "WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE,
THEY WERE NOT, DEPARTURES" FROM THE ESTABLISHED RULE.  LABOR BOARD V.
COOPER CO., 179 F.2D 241.  WHATEVER JUSTIFICATION THERE MAY HAVE BEEN
WHEN WE GRANTED CERTIORARI FOR ATTRIBUTING TO THE COURT BELOW A VOLTE
FACE ON ITS OWN REPEATED APPLICATION OF A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW,
THERE WAS NONE AFTER ITS DECISION IN THE COOPER CASE TEN DAYS LATER. 
YET IT IS ONLY BY ATTRIBUTING TO THE COURT OF APPEALS A DEPARTURE WHICH
THAT COURT HAS DISAVOWED THAT IT MAY BE CHARGED WITH AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION WHICH ALONE WOULD HAVE WARRANTED OUR TAKING THESE CASES FOR
REVIEW. 

THE FACT IS THAT IN BOTH THESE CASES REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDERS
ISSUED BY THE BOARD WHICH AMOUNT TO MORE THAN A CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYER
HAD COMPLIED WITH WHAT THE BOARD HAD DIRECTED.  THE CLAIMS CONCERN
CHANGE IN THE UNION AFFILIATION OF EMPLOYEES AND RECALCITRANCE ON THE
PART OF THE UNION, AND NOT OF THE EMPLOYER, TOWARD EFFECTUATING THE
BOARD'S ORDER.  TO BE SURE, THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE COURT'S ORDER
WHICH, TAKEN ABSTRACTLY, LOOKED AS THOUGH THE COURT DESIRED TO BE
INFORMED ON THE ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE AND THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT
SPELL OUT WITH PARTICULARITY THESE OTHER CLAIMS, BUT THEY WERE EMBRACED
IN A CATCH-ALL CLAUSE FOR FURTHER "EVIDENCE AND REPORT" BY THE BOARD. 

THIS RAISES FOR ME IMPORTANT ISSUES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.  DUE
REGARD FOR THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT SHOULD GOVERN THE EXERCISE OF OUR
DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION AND FOR THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE
COURTS OF APPEALS IN THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY
INDICATES DISMISSAL OF THESE WRITS. 

WE ARE DEALING WITH ONE OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS OF THE UNITED
STATES TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO COMMIT THE FINAL DETERMINATION
OF THIS TYPE OF CONTROVERSY, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE REVIEWING POWER OF
THIS COURT.  REVIEW IS TO BE EXERCISED, HOWEVER, NOT AS A MATTER OF
COURSE, BUT ONLY IN THOSE RARE INSTANCES WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES,
OR CONFLICTS OF CIRCUITS, OR OBVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS OF A PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE CALL FOR OUR ADJUDICATION.  IN ESTABLISHING THE COURTS OF
APPEALS, CONGRESS INTENDED TO CREATE COURTS OF GREAT DIGNITY AND
ABILITY WHOSE DECISIONS WERE TO BE FINAL EXCEPT IN THE VERY LIMITED
INSTANCES WHERE THE SUPREME BENCH SHOULD PRONOUNCE FOR THE WHOLE
NATION.  THIS DESIGN FOR THE COURTS OF APPEALS WAS POWERFULLY
REINFORCED BY THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, 43 STAT. 936, IN THAT IT
WITHDREW ALL BUT A FEW CATEGORIES OF CASES FROM THE OBLIGATORY
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS THAT WOULD BE DRAWN
TO THIS COURT BY THE OVERRIDING NATIONAL IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES WAS
BOUND TO BE SO HEAVY THAT ADEQUATE DISPOSITION OF THEM WAS ASSUMED TO
PRECLUDE THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI IN CASES, HOWEVER ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED
BELOW, IN WHICH THE INCIDENCE OF ERROR WAS TOO SMALL COMPARED WITH THE
DRAIN THAT THEIR CONSIDERATION WOULD MAKE ON THE THOUGHT AND ENERGY
DEMANDED OF THIS COURT BY THE CASES WHICH INEVITABLY BELONG HERE.  AND
SO THE COURT HAS SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OUGHT
NOT TO BE EMPLOYED TO BRING HERE CASES WHICH, IN THEIR ESSENTIAL
IMPACT, CONCERN A RESTRICTED AND PERHAPS A UNIQUE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES
AND DO NOT INVOLVE THE PRONOUNCEMENT BY A COURT OF APPEALS OF A GENERAL
DOCTRINE ON WHICH THIS COURT OUGHT TO HAVE THE LAST SAY. 

NO CANDID STUDENT OF THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF CERTIORARI CAN FEEL
CONFIDENT THAT THE CRITERIA PROFESSED FOR ITS EXERCISE HAVE BEEN
ADEQUATELY RESPECTED.  THIS COURT IS TOO FREQUENTLY ENGAGED IN DECIDING
CASES WHICH OUGHT NOT TO OCCUPY THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, BECAUSE
THEY DIVERT ITS ENERGY FROM THOSE MATTERS TO WHICH IT CANNOT GIVE TOO
MUCH UNBURDENED THOUGHT.  AND WHEN COMPARISON IS MADE BETWEEN THE
ISSUES AT STAKE IN PETITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THOSE IN WHICH
PETITIONS HAVE BEEN DENIED, THE CONTRAST IS AT TIMES GLARING. 

THIS HAS TWO CONSEQUENCES THAT ARE TO BE DEPRECATED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND THEY ARE AVOIDABLE WITHOUT
AIMING AT THE MOON.  BY TAKING CASES THAT OUGHT NOT TO BE TAKEN WE
OBVIOUSLY ENCOURAGE PETITIONS TO BE FILED THAT HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR BEING
HERE.  THE FACT THAT TERM AFTER TERM HUNDREDS OF PETITIONS ARE DENIED
INDICATES THAT OUR SCREENING PROCESS IS SUCH AS TO ENCOURAGE THE HOPE
THAT IS ETERNAL IN THE BREAST OF LOSING COUNSEL.  ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO
BE AN EASY GENERALIZER OF NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS TO BELIEVE THAT
LITIGIOUSNESS IS ONE OF OUR BESETTING SINS.  A RELAXED OBSERVANCE OF
THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT SUPPOSEDLY GOVERN OUR CERTIORARI JURISDICTION
IS NOT CALCULATED TO DISCOURAGE LITIGIOUSNESS. 

EQUALLY UNDESIRABLE IS THE EFFECT, HOWEVER INSIDIOUS, UPON COURTS OF
APPEALS.  IF, BARRING ONLY EXCEPTIONAL CASES, THEY ARE TO BE DEEMED
FINAL COURTS OF APPEALS, CONSCIOUSNESS OF SUCH RESPONSIBILITY WILL
ELICIT IN THEM, ASSUMING THEY ARE MANNED BY JUDGES FIT FOR THEIR TASKS,
THE QUALITIES APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH RESPONSIBILITY.  CONTRARIWISE,
ENCOURAGEMENT IN REGARDING COURTS OF APPEALS MERELY AS WAY-STATIONS TO
THIS COURT IS BOUND TO HAVE A WEAKENING EFFECT ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF
TRIBUNALS WHOSE AUTHORITY AND QUALITIES WE SHOULD BE ALERT TO PROMOTE. 

THESE ARE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS, BUT DUE REGARD FOR THEM GOES, I
BELIEVE, TO THE VERY MARROW OF HIGH JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE.  LET ME APPLY
THEM TO THE CASES IN HAND.  A YEAR AGO THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF LONG
EXPERIENCE DEFERRED MOTIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDERS (ONE OF WHICH HAD BEEN OUTSTANDING FOR TWO
AND ONE-HALF YEARS) BY REQUESTING THE BOARD FOR "ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE"
WHICH THESE JUDGES DEEMED MATERIAL.  THE COURT MADE THIS REQUEST UNDER
SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS CLAIMS, OUTLINED
ABOVE, AS THEY EMERGED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT.  WHEN IT WAS
CONFRONTED WITH THE EMPLOYERS' APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE SUCH
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE COURT PRESUMABLY EXAMINED THE CASES IN THIS
COURT AS TO THE NATURE OF ITS POWER TO GRANT THEM AND NOTED THAT OUR
CASES HELD THAT SUCH APPLICATIONS ARE "ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION OF THE COURT."  SOUTHPORT PETROLEUM CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 315
U.S. 100, 104; LABOR BOARD V. DONNELLY GARMENT CO., 330 U.S. 219, 233
34.  IN GRANTING THE APPLICATIONS, THE COURT, EXPRESSLY RESERVING
DECISION ON THE MERITS, MERELY REFERRED THE MATTERS BACK TO THE BOARD
FOR ITS ASSISTANCE IN FURNISHING FURTHER INFORMATION AND FOR ITS
RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTS "IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH FURTHER
INFORMATION."  INDEED, THAT COURT HAS RATHER PLAINTIVELY EXPLAINED THAT
IN THE TWO CASES WHICH ARE NOW REVERSED "NOTHING WAS DECIDED."  LABOR
BOARD V. COOPER CO., 179 F.2D 241. 

THE COURT NOTES THAT THE BOARD HAS HELD THAT THE CONTINUED MAJORITY
STATUS OF A CERTIFIED UNION MAY BE CHALLENGED BY AN EMPLOYER IN SEC.
9(C) PROCEEDINGS.  WHITNEY'S, 81 N.L.R.B. 75.  THERE IS NEITHER
EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION NOR EXPLICIT DENIAL IN THE STATUTE OF THE RIGHT
OF AN EMPLOYER TO MAKE SUCH A CHALLENGE IN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS. 
NOTHING IN THE TEXT OR CONTEXT OF THE STATUTE OR ANY CONSIDERATION
UNDERLYING ITS POLICY PRECLUDES THE RELEVANCE OF CONTINUED MAJORITY
STATUS TO ENFORCEMENT, ESPECIALLY WHERE LOSS OF MAJORITY MAY BE DUE TO
EMPLOYEE DISSATISFACTION WITH ALLEGED UNION INTRANSIGENCE.  IT APPEARS
TO ME ARBITRARY TO DENY TO A COURT OF APPEALS, IN THE FAIR EXERCISE OF
ITS DISCRETION UNDER SEC. 10(E), THE RIGHT TO ASK THE BOARD FOR LIGHT
ON THIS ISSUE, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT THE BOARD'S VIEWS WOULD
BE HELPFUL IN THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE. 

FULLY MINDFUL OF THE HEAVY LOAD OF CASES BEFORE THE BOARD, I VENTURE
TO SUGGEST THAT IT COULD HAVE SPEEDILY DISPOSED OF THE MATTERS THAT ON
THE RECORD APPEARED TO TROUBLE THE COURT OF APPEALS, COULD HAVE
REPORTED BACK TO THE COURT, AND COULD HAVE SECURED A PROMPT DISPOSITION
OF ITS PETITIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT.  ANY ADVERSE RULINGS BY THE COURT
COULD THEN HAVE BEEN BROUGHT HERE BY THE BOARD, NOT WITH ANY AMBIGUITY
INHERENT IN A DISCRETIONARY RULING, BUT WITH THE FULL CLARITY OF AN
ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS.  INSTEAD, THE BOARD COMES HERE TO REVIEW
THE COURT'S INTERIM ORDERS, PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI RESTING ON A
SPECIAL SET OF UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE GRANTED, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS NOW REVERSED BY ATTRIBUTING TO IT A DISAVOWED DISREGARD OF
AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ENTIRE SERIES OF DECISIONS BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE ORDERS IN THIS
CASE, IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME REASONABLE TO INTERPRET THE ORDERS NOW
BEFORE US AS DEMANDS ON THE BOARD FOR FINDINGS MERELY AS TO COMPLIANCE
WITH THE ORDERS SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED.  THAT COURT'S DECISIONS PRECLUDE
SUCH INTENDMENT.  SINCE THE RECORD PERMITS, WE OUGHT TO ATTRIBUTE TO A
COURT OF APPEALS NOT A WILLFUL DISREGARD OF PRINCIPLE AND, AS SUCH, AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION, BUT AN HONEST DESIRE TO GET LIGHT ON HAPPENINGS
AFTER THE BOARD'S ORDERS RELEVANT TO ITS DUTIES AS A COURT OF EQUITY. 
COURTS OF APPEALS ARE ALSO HUMAN INSTITUTIONS.  BY ATTRIBUTING TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS AN ABUSIVE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION WHEN THE RECORD MAY
FAIRLY BE OTHERWISE INTERPRETED, WE NOT ONLY NEEDLESSLY REBUKE THAT
COURT; WE TAKE ACTION CALCULATED TO CHILL OTHER JUDGES IN EXERCISING
WITH UTTER FREEDOM A DISCRETION WHICH WE HAVE HERETOFORE PRONOUNCED
THEY POSSESS. 

I WOULD LEAVE THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO TAKE THE COURSE
WHICH I BELIEVE WISELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN WHEN THEIR ORDERS WERE
ENTERED.  TO THAT END, I WOULD DISMISS THESE WRITS AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED. 
..END :

















LABOR BOARD V. POOL MFG. CO., 339 U.S. 577 


NO. 435.  ARGUED APRIL 18, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1950.  - ORDER
VACATED. 


IN DECEMBER 1943, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFIED A UNION
AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF
RESPONDENT, A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IN AUGUST 1946, THE BOARD
ORDERED RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH
THE UNION AND TO OFFER REINSTATEMENT AND BACK PAY TO EMPLOYEES WHO HAD
GONE ON STRIKE.  IN FEBRUARY 1949, THE BOARD PETITIONED FOR ENFORCEMENT
OF THIS ORDER.  RESPONDENT MOVED FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE, ALLEGING THAT IT HAD BARGAINED UNSUCCESSFULLY WITH THE UNION
SINCE THE DATE OF THE ORDER; THAT THE UNION HAD MADE NO EFFORT TO
BARGAIN SINCE EARLY IN 1948; AND THAT, AFTER THE RECORD IN THE CASE WAS
CLOSED, FACTS HAD COME TO RESPONDENT'S ATTENTION WHICH CAUSED
RESPONDENT TO QUESTION WHETHER THE UNION RETAINED THE MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED THE
CASE REFERRED BACK TO THE BOARD WITH DIRECTIONS TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND
REPORT WHETHER THE ORDER HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH; IF SO, WHETHER THE
MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT; AND, IF NOT, WHAT
RECOMMENDATIONS THE BOARD HAD TO MAKE.  HELD:  THE ORDER OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER MUST BE
DECREED PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(E), UNLESS "EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES"
ARE PLEADED WHICH JUSTIFY RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO URGE ITS OBJECTIONS
BEFORE THE BOARD.  LABOR BOARD V. MEXIA TEXTILE MILLS, ANTE, P. 563. 
PP. 578-582. 

(A)  IN THIS CASE, THE FACT THAT THE BOARD WAITED TWO AND ONE-HALF
YEARS BEFORE SEEKING ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER WAS NOT FATAL AND CANNOT
SAVE THE ORDER ENTERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  PP. 579-582. 

(B)  A STRICT JUDICIAL TIME LIMITATION OF THE DURATION PRESENTED IN
THIS CASE WOULD FRUSTRATE THE DELIBERATE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN
PERMITTING, BUT NOT REQUIRING, RESORT TO AN ENFORCEMENT DECREE.  P.
580. 

(C)  THOSE INTENT UPON VIOLATING THE ACT MAY NOT ESCAPE THROUGH THE
USE OF DELAYING TACTICS IN NEGOTIATION, CULMINATING IN THE FILING OF
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE WHEN ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT, THUS
EFFECTIVELY FRUSTRATING THE BOARD'S ORDER.  P. 582. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. POOL MANUFACTURING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE OPINION.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS REPORTED IN 24 L.R.R.M. 2147.  THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS VACATED, P. 582. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS A COMPANION TO LABOR BOARD V. MEXIA TEXTILE MILLS, ANTE,
P. 563, DECIDED THIS DAY.  RESPONDENT IS A MANUFACTURER OF CLOTHING IN
TEXAS, AND IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
LABOR RELATIONS ACTS.  FN1  IN DECEMBER 1943, THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD DESIGNATED LOCAL UNION NO. 251 OF THE UNITED GARMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF CERTAIN OF RESPONDENT'S
EMPLOYEES.  IN DECEMBER 1945, THE UNION CHARGED THE RESPONDENT WITH
VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 8(1) AND 8(5) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
IN CONNECTION WITH A STRIKE GOING ON AT THAT TIME.  THE BOARD'S
COMPLAINT WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THESE CHARGES IN APRIL 1946; A HEARING
WAS HELD; THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S INTERMEDIATE REPORT WAS ISSUED; AND,
SINCE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT WERE ENTERED BY THE RESPONDENT, THE
BOARD, ON AUGUST 26, 1946, ADOPTED THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S FINDINGS, FN2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  WITH CERTAIN
LIMITATIONS, THE COMPANY WAS ALSO ORDERED TO OFFER REINSTATEMENT AND
BACK PAY TO EMPLOYEES WHO HAD GONE ON STRIKE.  70 N.L.R.B. 540(1946). 

TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS LATER, ON FEBRUARY 17, 1949, THE BOARD
PETITIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  RESPONDENT MOVED FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.  IT STATED THAT IT HAD BARGAINED WITH THE UNION
SINCE THE DATE OF THE ORDER, BUT THAT NO AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED;
THAT THE UNION HAD MADE NO EFFORT TO BARGAIN SINCE EARLY IN 1948; THAT
RESPONDENT QUESTIONED WHETHER THE UNION RETAINED THE MAJORITY OF
EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT, SINCE CERTAIN EMPLOYEES HAD INFORMED
RESPONDENT THAT THEY HAD LEFT THE UNION, AND THE UNION'S ORGANIZER HAD
STATED, ACCORDING TO RESPONDENT, THAT A RIVAL UNION HAD A "SUBSTANTIAL
GROUP" WITHIN ITS MEMBERSHIP; THAT THESE FACTS HAD COME TO RESPONDENT'S
ATTENTION SINCE THE "RECORD IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS CLOSED AND
COMPLETED"; AND FINALLY THAT THE PASSAGE OF THE STATUTE IMPOSING A DUTY
UPON THE UNION TO BARGAIN WITH THE RESPONDENT MIGHT AFFECT THE
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE BEFORE THE BOARD. 

ON MAY 13, 1949, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ENTERED
AN ORDER IDENTICAL IN PERTINENT PART WITH THAT QUOTED IN LABOR BOARD V.
MEXIA TEXTILE MILLS, ANTE, P. 563.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 338 U.S.
909(1950). 

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT CONCEDES THAT THE DECISION IN THE MEXIA CASE
GOVERNS THE CASE AT BAR, A SINGLE ISSUE MAY DESERVE SEPARATE
TREATMENT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE BOARD WAITED TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS
BEFORE IT SOUGHT ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT
THE LENGTH OF THE DELAY MAY HAVE INFLUENCED THE COURT OF APPEALS IN
ORDERING THE BOARD TO TAKE EVIDENCE ON THE QUESTION OF COMPLIANCE.  WE
REGARD THIS AS DOUBTFUL, IN VIEW OF ITS IDENTICAL ACTION IN THE MEXIA
CASE, WHEN THE PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT WAS FILED ONLY NINE MONTHS
AFTER THE BOARD'S ORDER.  BUT IN ANY EVENT WE VIEW THE DELAY AS WITHOUT
CONSEQUENCE IN THIS CASE. 

THE BOARD IS OF COURSE CHARGED WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IN
EFFECTUATING THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  IT HAS DETERMINED THAT THOSE
POLICIES ARE ADVANCED IN SOME CASES BY RESORTING TO THE PROCESSES OF
NEGOTIATION WITH THE EMPLOYER RATHER THAN THE COMPULSION, AS WELL AS
THE TROUBLE AND EXPENSE, OF AN ENFORCEMENT DECREE.  SEE SEC. 202.13 OF
THE BOARD'S EARLIER REGULATIONS REGARDING THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 12 FED. REG. 5651, 5653(1947).  IN SOME CASES DELAY IN
ENFORCEMENT MAY BE HELPFUL IN REACHING AN IMMEDIATE SOLUTION OF THE
PROBLEM; IN OTHERS, EXHAUSTION OF NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUES BEFORE A
DECREE IS REQUESTED MAY CONSUME MANY MONTHS AFTER THE BOARD'S ORDER AND
BEFORE SUCH TECHNIQUES FAIL.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT A STRICT
JUDICIAL TIME LIMITATION OF THE DURATION PRESENTED IN THE INSTANT CASE
WOULD FRUSTRATE THE DELIBERATE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN PERMITTING, BUT
NOT REQUIRING, RESORT TO AN ENFORCEMENT DECREE.  FN3  CF. SEC. 10(B),
WHICH STATES A DEFINITE PERIOD OF LIMITATION REGARDING CHARGES FILED
WITH THE BOARD.  COMPARE LABOR BOARD V. AMERICAN CREOSOTING CO., 139
F.2D 193(C.A.6TH CIR. 1943); LABOR BOARD V. ELECTRIC VACUUM CLEANER
CO., 315 U.S. 685, 697-698(1942).  WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT THE
"QUESTION WHETHER THE SETTLEMENT (WITH THE EMPLOYER) SHALL BE ACCEPTED
AS DEFINITIVE IS FOR THE BOARD TO DECIDE ...  "  LABOR BOARD V. GENERAL
MOTORS CORP., 179 F.2D 221, 222(C.A.2D CIR. 1950).  THE EMPLOYER, WHO
COULD HAVE OBTAINED REVIEW OF THE BOARD ORDER WHEN IT WAS ENTERED, SEC.
10(F), IS HARDLY IN A POSITION TO OBJECT.  LABOR BOARD V. TODD CO., 173
F.2D 705(C.A.2D CIR. 1949); LABOR BOARD V. ANDREW JERGENS CO., 175 F.2D
130, 134(C.A.9TH CIR. 1949). 

THE CONTRARY ARGUMENT WAS MADE IN MORE EXPLICIT TERMS IN LABOR BOARD
V. CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS, 337 U.S. 217(1949), A CASE ALSO COMING TO
US FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.  THE BOARD'S
PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT HAD BEEN FILED MORE THAN A YEAR AND THREE
MONTHS AFTER ITS ORDER.  IN ITS BRIEF IN THIS COURT AS WELL AS IN
RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE
EMPLOYER ALLEGED THAT IT HAD BARGAINED COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION FOR
NEARLY TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT, AND THAT THE
BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED. 
NOTING THE DELAY, RESPONDENT ASKED THAT IT BE AFFORDED "AN OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVE THE PERTINENT FACTS."  THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED THE BOARD'S
"BELATED" PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT FOR A REASON NOT PERTINENT HERE,
COUPLED WITH "THE EARNEST ASSERTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT THAT IT HAS
COMPLIED WITH THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ORDER  ...  "  167 F.2D 662,
663(1948).  THIS COURT REVERSED, HOLDING "THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER TO
CEASE AND DESIST IS JUSTIFIED, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE
...  "  THE COURT STATED THAT "EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYER, SINCE JANUARY
1, 1946, MAY HAVE CARRIED ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH AS TO
RATES OF PAY AND OTHER MATTERS, A DECREE ENFORCING THE ORIGINAL ORDER
AGAINST MAKING A GENERAL INCREASE WITHOUT CONSULTING THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES IS JUSTIFIABLE.  '  ...  AN ORDER OF THE
CHARACTER MADE BY THE BOARD, LAWFUL WHEN MADE, DOES NOT BECOME MOOT
BECAUSE IT IS OBEYED OR BECAUSE CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT
THE NEED FOR IT MAY BE LESS THAN WHEN MADE.'  LABOR BOARD V.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 271.  SEE ALSO, FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., 304 U.S. 257."  337 U.S. AT
225, N. 7. 

WE THINK THE RATIONALE OF THE CROMPTON-HIGHLAND CASE IS PERSUASIVE
HERE.  OTHERWISE THOSE INTENT UPON VIOLATING THE ACT HAVE A READY MEANS
OF ESCAPE THROUGH THE USE OF DELAYING TACTICS IN NEGOTIATION,
CULMINATING IN THE FILING OF MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE WHEN
ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT, THUS EFFECTIVELY FRUSTRATING THE BOARD'S ORDER. 
WE NEED NOT NOW FACE THE QUESTION WHETHER A COURT OF APPEALS MAY UNDER
SEC. 10(E) REFER A MATTER BACK TO THE BOARD FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON A
SHOWING BY THE EMPLOYER THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE BOARD'S ORDER, BUT
BEFORE THE PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT SEVERAL YEARS LATER, A RIVAL UNION
HAS FILED BEFORE THE BOARD A PETITION FOR RECOGNITION, NOT YET ACTED
UPON, WHICH CLAIMS THAT THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE NO LONGER HAS A
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES.  NOR NEED WE DECIDE WHETHER A PERIOD OF
DELAY THROUGH ITS LENGTH ALONE MAY MATURE INTO A DENIAL OF AN
ENFORCEMENT DECREE OR MAKE NECESSARY THE ADDUCTION OF ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. EANET, 85 U.S. APP. D.C. 371, 179 F.2D
15(C.A. D.C. CIR. 1949).  WE DECIDE ONLY THAT IN THIS CASE THE BOARD'S
DELAY IN FILING ITS PETITION WAS NOT FATAL, AND CANNOT SAVE THE ORDER
ENTERED BELOW.  LIKE ITS COMPANION, THIS ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
MUST BE VACATED AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD ORDER DECREED PURSUANT
TO SEC. 10(E), UNLESS "EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES" ARE PLEADED WHICH
JUSTIFY THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO URGE ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE
BOARD.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ.; 61 STAT. 136, 29
U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 141 ET SEQ. 

FN2  INCLUDING THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S REJECTION OF THE EMPLOYER'S
ALLEGATION THAT THE UNION NO LONGER REPRESENTED THE MAJORITY IN THE
BARGAINING UNIT. 

FN3  "THE SENATE AMENDMENT FOLLOWED THE PRESENT LANGUAGE OF THE ACT,
WHICH PERMITS THE BOARD TO PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT, BUT DOES NOT
REQUIRE IT TO DO SO.  THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT ADOPTS THE LANGUAGE OF
THE SENATE AMENDMENT."  H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 510, ON H.R. 3020, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 55. 

(FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON, SEE ANTE, P. 570.) 
..END :








BROWN SHOE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 339 U.S. 583 


NO. 445.  ARGUED APRIL 5, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1950.  - 175 F.2D
305, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER CORPORATION RECEIVED CASH AND OTHER PROPERTY FROM CERTAIN
COMMUNITY GROUPS AS INDUCEMENTS TO THE LOCATION OR EXPANSION OF
PETITIONER'S MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS IN THE COMMUNITIES.  THE CASH SO
RECEIVED (WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNTS EXPENDED FOR LOCAL FACTORY
BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT) WAS NOT EARMARKED OR SEGREGATED BUT WAS
DEPOSITED IN PETITIONER'S GENERAL BANK ACCOUNT.  THE VALUES OF
BUILDINGS SO RECEIVED WERE CHARGED TO A BUILDING ACCOUNT.  BOTH CASH
AND OTHER PROPERTY SO RECEIVED WERE CREDITED TO SURPLUS.  HELD:  IN
DETERMINING PETITIONER'S EXCESS PROFITS TAX, COMPUTED BY THE INVESTED
CAPITAL METHOD, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED 1942 AND 1943: 

1.  UNDER SEC. 113(A)(8)(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, PETITIONER
WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON PROPERTY
ACQUIRED FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS OR ACQUIRED WITH CASH RECEIVED FROM SUCH
GROUPS, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED AFTER DECEMBER 31,
1920.  DETROIT EDISON CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 98, DISTINGUISHED. 
PP. 589-591. 

2.  UNDER SEC. 718(A)(1) AND (2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,
PETITIONER MAY ALSO INCLUDE THE VALUE OF SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
COMMUNITY GROUPS IN EQUITY INVESTED CAPITAL.  LABELLE IRON WORKS V.
UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 377, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 592-593. 

BROWN SHOE CO., INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE OPINION.  THE
DECISION BELOW IS REVERSED, P. 593. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING SEEKS REDETERMINATION OF PETITIONER'S EXCESS PROFITS
TAX, COMPUTED BY THE INVESTED CAPITAL METHOD, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS
ENDED 1942 AND 1943.  FN1  THE ISSUES ARISE FROM THE PAYMENT OF CASH
AND THE TRANSFER OF OTHER PROPERTY TO PETITIONER BY CERTAIN COMMUNITY
GROUPS AS AN INDUCEMENT TO THE LOCATION OR EXPANSION OF PETITIONER'S
FACTORY OPERATIONS IN THE COMMUNITIES.  PETITIONER CLAIMED, AND THE
COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED, (1) A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR
DEPRECIATION ON THE PROPERTY CONTRIBUTED AND ON THE FULL COST OF
PROPERTY ACQUIRED IN PART WITH CONTRIBUTED CASH OR EQUIVALENT FUNDS,
AND (2) INCLUSION OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS IN
PETITIONER'S EQUITY INVESTED CAPITAL.  THE TAX COURT REVERSED THE
COMMISSIONER'S RULING IN PART.  10 T.C. 291(1948).  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT HELD WITH THE COMMISSIONER ON ALL
ISSUES.  175 F.2D 305(1949).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 338 U.S.
909(1950), IN VIEW OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW
AND THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER
V. MCKAY PRODUCTS CORP., 178 F.2D 639(1949), REVERSING THE TAX COURT, 9
T.C. 1082(1947). 

TWO QUESTIONS MUST BE DETERMINED:  FIRST, WHETHER PETITIONER IN
COMPUTING ITS NORMAL-TAX NET INCOME, WHICH IS ADJUSTED IN DETERMINING
EXCESS PROFITS NET INCOME, IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION
WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO IT FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS OR
ACQUIRED WITH CASH TO THE EXTENT RECEIVED FROM SUCH GROUPS.  PETITIONER
CONTENDS THAT THE PROPERTIES SO ACQUIRED WERE DEPRECIABLE AS "GIFTS"
UNDER SEC. 113(A)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OR AS "CONTRIBUTIONS
TO CAPITAL" UNDER SEC. 113(A)(8)(B) OR BOTH; AS TO THE PROPERTIES
ACQUIRED WITH CASH IT CONTENDS ALTERNATIVELY THAT THEY HAD "COST" TO
THE TAXPAYER UNDER SEC. 113(A).  FN2  SECOND, WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER IN
COMPUTING PETITIONER'S INVESTED CAPITAL CREDIT THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF
THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED BY THE COMMUNITY GROUPS MAY BE INCLUDED IN
EQUITY INVESTED CAPITAL UNDER SEC. 718(A) OF THE CODE EITHER AS A
"CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL" OR AS "ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS." 
FN3 

PETITIONER IS A NEW YORK CORPORATION WHICH AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL
CONDUCTED MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS IN A NUMBER OF PLANTS LOCATED IN
ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MISSOURI AND TENNESSEE.  FROM 1914 TO 1939
PETITIONER RECEIVED IN SEVENTEEN TRANSACTIONS AN AGGREGATE OF
$885,559.45 IN CASH AND $85,471.56 IN BUILDINGS  FN4  FROM VARIOUS
COMMUNITY GROUPS IN TWELVE TOWNS.  EXCEPT IN ONE INSTANCE, EACH
TRANSFER WAS PURSUANT TO A WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE
RESPECTIVE COMMUNITY GROUP.  THE CONTRACTS WERE OF THREE TYPES:  THE
FIRST REQUIRED PETITIONER TO LOCATE, CONSTRUCT AND EQUIP, OR ENLARGE, A
FACTORY IN THE COMMUNITY, TO OPERATE THE FACTORY "CONTINUOUSLY SO LONG
AS IT IS PRACTICABLE IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS FOR AT LEAST A
PERIOD OF TEN YEARS," AND TO MEET A MINIMUM PAYROLL, IN CONSIDERATION
OF WHICH THE COMMUNITY GROUP AGREED TO TRANSFER LAND AND CASH "TO BE
USED FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUITABLE FACTORY BUILDING OR BUILDINGS"; IN ONE
INSTANCE EXISTING BUILDINGS WERE ALSO TRANSFERRED AND IN ANOTHER
INSTANCE ONLY BUILDINGS AND NO CASH SUM.  UNDER THIS TYPE OF CONTRACT
PETITIONER WAS OBLIGATED IN THE EVENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE TO TRANSFER THE
BUILDING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY GROUP OR TO REPAY THE SUM.  UNDER A
SECOND TYPE OF AGREEMENT PETITIONER IN CONSIDERATION OF A CASH PAYMENT
UNDERTOOK TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING FACTORY AND TO OPERATE IT FOR A PERIOD
OF TEN YEARS WITH A STIPULATED MINIMUM ADDITION TO PERSONNEL.  A THIRD
TYPE OF CONTRACT CALLED ONLY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO
PETITIONER'S EXISTING FACTORY IN CONSIDERATION OF A CASH SUM. 
CONTRACTS OF THE LATTER TYPE WERE IN THE NATURE OF SUPPLEMENTARY
AGREEMENTS WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS AND MAY HAVE INVOLVED AN OBLIGATION ON
THE PART OF PETITIONER TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF THE ADDITIONAL PLANT
FACILITIES FOR THE UNEXPIRED REMAINDER OF A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING TEN
YEARS AGREED UPON IN AN EARLIER CONTRACT.  NO RESTRICTION WAS IMPOSED
IN ANY INSTANCE AS TO THE USE WHICH PETITIONER MIGHT MAKE OF THE
PROPERTY CONTRIBUTED OR ACQUIRED WITH CASH, OR OF THE PROCEEDS IF THE
PROPERTY SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF, AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE REQUIRED PERIOD
OF OPERATION.  THE TAX COURT ASSUMED PERFORMANCE BY PETITIONER
ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENTS, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS DID
NOT DIFFER.  IN THE CASE OF ELEVEN CONTRACTS THE STIPULATED PERIOD FOR
PERFORMANCE HAD EXPIRED PRIOR TO THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION. 

THE SINGLE TRANSACTION WHICH WAS NOT BASED UPON SUCH CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS INVOLVED A $10,000 CASH BONUS PAID IN 1914, ACCORDING TO
THE MINUTES OF PETITIONER'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS, "AS A PART OF  ...
ORGANIZATION EXPENSES IN STARTING THE FACTORY" IN THE PARTICULAR TOWN. 

THE CASH SUMS RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM THE GROUPS WERE NOT
EARMARKED FOR, OR HELD INTACT AND APPLIED AGAINST, THE PLANT
ACQUISITIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES BUT WERE DEPOSITED IN
PETITIONER'S GENERAL BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH WERE PAID GENERAL
OPERATING EXPENSES AND THE COST OF ALL ASSETS ACQUIRED, INCLUDING
FACTORY BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT IN THE TOWNS INVOLVED.  THE CASH
PAYMENTS WERE DEBITED TO CASH ACCOUNT ON THE ASSETS SIDE OF
PETITIONER'S LEDGER AND WERE CREDITED TO EARNED SURPLUS EITHER UPON
RECEIPT OR AFTER HAVING FIRST BEEN ASSIGNED TO CONTRIBUTED SURPLUS. 
THE VALUES OF THE BUILDINGS ACQUIRED WERE SET UP IN A BUILDING ACCOUNT
ON THE ASSETS SIDE AND WERE CREDITED TO SURPLUS.  FN5  IN EVERY
INSTANCE THE CASH RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM A COMMUNITY GROUP WAS
LESS THAN THE AMOUNT EXPENDED BY IT FOR THE ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE LOCAL FACTORY BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT. 

IN COMPUTING ITS NORMAL TAX NET INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE YEARS IN
CONTROVERSY PETITIONER DEDUCTED DEPRECIATION ON THE BUILDINGS
TRANSFERRED BY THE COMMUNITY GROUPS AND ON THE FULL COST OF THE
BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED OR ENLARGED IN THE COMMUNITIES FROM
WHICH IT HAD RECEIVED CASH.  PETITIONER ALSO INCLUDED THE TOTAL OF
$971,031.01 IN CASH AND OTHER PROPERTY IN ITS EQUITY INVESTED CAPITAL. 

THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION DEDUCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
THE BUILDINGS TRANSFERRED (IN THE VALUE OF $85,471.56) AND THE
PROPERTIES ACQUIRED WITH CASH TO THE EXTENT PAID TO PETITIONER BY THE
GROUPS (IN THE VALUE OF $885,559.45).  FN6  IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF
DEPRECIATION TO BE ALLOWED, THE COMMISSIONER DEDUCTED THAT PORTION OF
THE COST OF THE BUILDINGS, LAND AND MACHINERY WHICH WAS PAID WITH SUCH
CONTRIBUTED CASH OR EQUIVALENT FUNDS.  FN7  THE COMMISSIONER IN MAKING
SUCH REDUCTIONS ALLOCATED THE CASH CONTRIBUTION TO EACH ITEM, SUCH AS
BUILDINGS, LAND IF ANY HAD BEEN PURCHASED, AND MACHINERY IN THE
PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL COST OF SUCH ITEM TO THE TOTAL COST OF THE
PROJECT.  THE COMMISSIONER ALSO DISALLOWED INCLUSION IN EQUITY INVESTED
CAPITAL OF THE TOTAL ASSETS TRANSFERRED, REDUCING SUCH CAPITAL AS
COMPUTED BY PETITIONER BY $971,031.01. 

THE TAX COURT REVERSED THE COMMISSIONER'S DISALLOWANCE OF
DEPRECIATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT PORTION OF THE ACQUISITIONS PAID FOR
WITH CASH.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THESE ITEMS HAD "COST" AND THEREFORE
"BASIS" TO PETITIONER, SINCE THEY HAD BEEN PAID FOR FROM PETITIONER'S
OWN UNRESTRICTED FUNDS IN WHICH THE CASH CONTRIBUTIONS HAD BEEN
DEPOSITED WITHOUT EARMARKING; AS TO THE BUILDINGS TRANSFERRED, THE
COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER ON THE GROUND THAT THESE TRANSFERS
WERE NOT GIFTS AND THEREFORE THE TRANSFEROR'S BASIS WAS NOT AVAILABLE
TO PETITIONER.  IT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER WAS IN ERROR IN RECORDING
THE CONTRIBUTIONS IN EQUITY INVESTED CAPITAL AS "CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CAPITAL" BECAUSE ONLY STOCKHOLDERS COULD MAKE SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS.  FN8
THE COURT OF APPEALS, REVERSING THE TAX COURT AS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF
DEPRECIATION DEDUCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY ACQUIRED WITH CASH,
HELD THAT TO THE EXTENT OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS THERE WAS NO COST TO
PETITIONER.  FN9 

WE THINK THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO PETITIONER BY THE COMMUNITY GROUPS
REPRESENTED "CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAPITAL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
113(A)(8)(B) AND REQUIRED NO REDUCTION IN THE DEPRECIATION BASIS OF THE
PROPERTIES ACQUIRED.  FN10  THE VALUES WHICH THE TAXPAYER RECEIVED WERE
ADDITIONS TO "CAPITAL" AS THAT TERM HAS COMMONLY BEEN UNDERSTOOD IN
BOTH BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTING PRACTICE; FN11  CONFORMABLY WITH THIS
USAGE THE PERTINENT TREASURY REGULATIONS HAVE CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED
THAT CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAPITAL MAY ORIGINATE WITH PERSONS HAVING NO
PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS.  FN12  THAT THIS INTERPRETATION
IS IN HARMONY WITH BROAD CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AS TO DEPRECIATION
DEDUCTIONS WAS EMPHASIZED BY THE THIRD CIRCUIT WHEN CONSIDERING THE
SIMILAR SITUATION PRESENTED IN COMMISSIONER V. MCKAY PRODUCTS CORP.,
SUPRA, 178 F.2D AT 643: 

"...  THE ASSETS RECEIVED  ...  ARE BEING USED BY THE TAXPAYER IN THE
OPERATION OF ITS BUSINESS.  THEY WILL IN TIME WEAR OUT, AND IF (THE
TAXPAYER) IS TO CONTINUE IN BUSINESS, THE PHYSICAL PLANT MUST
EVENTUALLY BE REPLACED.  LOOKING AS THEY DO TOWARD BUSINESS CONTINUITY,
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE'S DEPRECIATION PROVISIONS - AND ESPECIALLY
THOSE WHICH PROVIDE FOR A SUBSTITUTED RATHER THAN A COST BASIS - WOULD
SEEM TO ENVISION ALLOWANCE OF A DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION IN SITUATIONS
LIKE THIS...." 

THE COMMISSIONER CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THIS CONCLUSION WAS
FORECLOSED BY DETROIT EDISON CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 98(1943). 
THAT DECISION DENIED INCLUSION IN THE BASE FOR DEPRECIATION OF ELECTRIC
POWER LINES THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LINE EXTENSIONS TO THE PREMISES OF APPLICANTS FOR
SERVICE.  IT WAS HELD THAT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH PAYMENTS THE ELECTRIC
LINES DID NOT HAVE COST TO THE TAXPAYER, AND THAT SUCH PAYMENTS WERE
NEITHER GIFTS NOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TAXPAYER'S CAPITAL.  WE DO NOT
CONSIDER THAT CASE CONTROLLING ON THE ISSUE WHETHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CAPITAL ARE INVOLVED HERE.  BECAUSE IN THE DETROIT EDISON CASE "THE
PAYMENTS WERE TO THE CUSTOMER THE PRICE OF THE SERVICE," THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT "IT OVERTAXES IMAGINATION TO REGARD THE FARMERS AND
OTHER CUSTOMERS WHO FURNISHED THESE FUNDS AS MAKERS EITHER OF DONATIONS
OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMPANY."  SINCE IN THIS CASE THERE ARE NEITHER
CUSTOMERS NOR PAYMENTS FOR SERVICE, WE MAY INFER A DIFFERENT PURPOSE IN
THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE COMMUNITY GROUPS.  THE
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PETITIONER WERE PROVIDED BY CITIZENS OF THE RESPECTIVE
COMMUNITIES WHO NEITHER SOUGHT NOR COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED ANY DIRECT
SERVICE OR RECOMPENSE WHATEVER, THEIR ONLY EXPECTATION BEING THAT SUCH
CONTRIBUTIONS MIGHT PROVE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. 
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRANSFERS MANIFESTED A DEFINITE PURPOSE
TO ENLARGE THE WORKING CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY.  FN13 

THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED BY THE COMMUNITY GROUPS ARE LIKEWISE
CONTRIBUTIONS TO PETITIONER'S CAPITAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING ITS
INVESTED CAPITAL CREDIT.  FN14  CF. I.R.C. SEC. 728.  PRECISELY THE
SAME INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE RELEVANT TREASURY
REGULATIONS UPON THE TERM "CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL" APPEARING IN SEC.
718(A) AS UPON THE LIKE EXPRESSION IN THE INCOME TAX PROVISIONS.  FN15
THAT THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX PROVISION CHARACTERIZES CAPITAL
CONTRIBUTIONS AS BEING "INVESTED" AND "PAID IN" DOES NOT INDICATE, AS
THE COMMISSIONER URGES, THAT THE CONCEPT OF CAPITAL IS THE CONSTRICTED
ONE OF LEGAL CAPITAL OR CAPITAL ORIGINATING WITH PERSONS HAVING A
PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS; WE THINK INSTEAD THAT THE
TAXPAYER'S INVESTMENT INCLUDES CERTAIN VALUES WHICH ARE PROPERLY
"TREATED AS HIS INVESTMENT," CF. REISINGER V. COMMISSIONER, 144 F.2D
475, 477-478(C.A.2D CIR. 1944), THOUGH NOT HAVING COST TO THE
TAXPAYER.  CF. I.R.C. SEC. 723.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ODDITY FOR
CONGRESS TO MAKE THE INCLUSION OF ACTUAL CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN
EQUITY INVESTED CAPITAL TURN UPON WHETHER THE TRANSFEROR OWNED OR
FAILED TO OWN ONE OR TWO SHARES OF STOCK IN THE CORPORATION AT THE TIME
OF THE TRANSFER.  FN16 

THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES,
256 U.S. 377(1921), IS NOT TO THE CONTRARY.  THAT CASE WAS DECIDED
UNDER THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX LAW OF 1917 IN WHICH "INVESTED CAPITAL"
WAS DEFINED AS "(1) ACTUAL CASH PAID IN, (2) THE ACTUAL CASH VALUE OF
TANGIBLE PROPERTY PAID IN OTHER THAN CASH, FOR STOCK OR SHARES  ...  AT
THE TIME OF SUCH PAYMENT  ...  AND (3) PAID IN OR EARNED SURPLUS AND
UNDIVIDED PROFITS USED OR EMPLOYED IN THE BUSINESS  ...."  THE COURT
HELD THAT NEITHER UNEARNED APPRECIATION IN VALUE OF THE TAXPAYER'S ORE
LANDS NOR THE SURRENDER OF OLD STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR NEW ISSUES BASED
UPON THAT VALUE, COULD BE REGARDED AS "THE ACTUAL CASH VALUE OF
TANGIBLE PROPERTY PAID IN OTHER THAN CASH" OR AS "PAID IN OR EARNED
SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS."  THE INCLUDABILITY OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY
OUTSIDERS IN INVESTED CAPITAL WAS NOT PASSED UPON.  FN17    TO THE
EXTENT THAT PETITIONER ACQUIRED PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS CONTROVERSY
AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1920, IT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF
DEPRECIATION UNDER SEC 113(A)(8)(B).  IT ALSO MAY INCLUDE THE VALUE OF
THE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS IN EQUITY INVESTED CAPITAL
UNDER SEC. 718(A)(1) AND (2).  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE TAX
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED.    FN1  THE TAX IN CONTROVERSY IS IMPOSED UNDER THE EXCESS
PROFITS TAX PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 974,
975, AS AMENDED, I.R.C. SEC. 710 ET SEQ. THE TAX IS LEVIED UPON EXCESS
PROFITS NET INCOME REMANINING AFTER ALLOWANCE OF A $5,000 SPECIFIC
EXEMPTION AND AN EXCESS PROFITS CREDIT REPRESENTING A NORMAL PROFIT. 
THE ACT PERMITTED COMPUTATION OF THE CREDIT ON THE BASIS EITHER OF
AVERAGE INCOME OVER A BASE PERIOD OR OF "INVESTED CAPITAL," WHICH
INCLUDES EQUITY INVESTED CAPITAL AND 50 PERCENT OF BORROWED CAPITAL. 
THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WERE REPEALED IN 1945.  59
STAT. 556, 568. 

FN2  SECTION 23(1) OF THE CODE PERMITS A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME
FOR DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY, AND SEC. 23(N) PROVIDES THAT THE "BASIS"
FOR DEPRECIATION SHALL BE AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 114, WHICH ADOPTS THE
"ADJUSTED BASIS" PROVIDED IN SEC. 113(B) FOR DETERMINING GAIN.  THIS
SUBSECTION IN TURN REFERS TO SEC 113(A), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE "BASIS
(UNADJUSTED)" SHALL BE THE "COST" OF THE PROPERTY, WITH CERTAIN
EXCEPTIONS INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:  SEC. 113(A)(2) PROVIDES IN
RELEVANT PART THAT "IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY GIFT AFTER DECEMBER
31, 1920, THE BASIS SHALL BE THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF
THE DONOR OR THE LAST PRECEDING OWNER BY WHOM IT WAS NOT ACQUIRED BY
GIFT  ...."; SEC. 113(A)(8) PROVIDES THAT "IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED
AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1920, BY A CORPORATION  ...  BAS PAID-IN SURPLUS OR
AS A CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL, THEN THE BASIS SHALL BE THE SAME AS IT
WOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF THE TRANSFEROR  ...." 

FN3  SECTION 718(A) PROVIDED RELEVANTLY: 

"...  THE EQUITY INVESTED CAPITAL FOR ANY DAY OF ANY TAXABLE YEAR
...  SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS, REDUCED AS PROVIDED IN
SUBSECTION (B) - 

"(1)  ...  MONEY PREVIOUSLY PAID IN FOR STOCK, OR AS PAID-IN SURPLUS,
OR AS A CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL; 

"(2)  ...  PROPERTY (OTHER THAN MONEY) PREVIOUSLY PAID IN (REGARDLESS
OF THE TIME PAID IN) FOR STOCK, OR AS PAID-IN SURPLUS, OR AS A
CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL.... 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"(4)  ...  THE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS AS OF THE BEGINNING
OF SUCH TAXABLE YEAR  ...."  54 STAT. 974, 982, 26 U.S.C. (1940 ED.) 
SEC.  718(A)(1), (2), (4). 

FN4  THE VALUE OF THE LAND UPON WHICH THE BUILDINGS WERE LOCATED WAS
NOT INCLUDED IN PETITIONER'S BOOKS AND IS UNIMPORTANT FOR THIS
PROCEEDING. 

FN5  BOTH COURTS BELOW AND THE COMMISSIONER HAVE EXPRESSLY ASSUMED,
AS PETITIONER ASSERTS, THAT THE RECEIPTS OF PROPERTY AND CASH WERE NOT
TAXED AS INCOME. 

FN6  THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT DENY THAT SUCH DEDUCTIONS WERE
DISALLOWED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 1943, FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN
DETROIT EDISON CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 98(1943). 

FN7  THE AMOUNT THUS DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION WAS
$22,472.60 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED 1942 AND $24,307.10 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED 1943.  THERE WAS NO DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF A
DEFICIENCY IN PETITIONER'S NORMAL TAX FOR EITHER YEAR. 

FN8  THE TAX COURT RELIED AT THIS POINT UPON MCKAY PRODUCTS CORP., 9
T.C. 1082(1947), WHICH FOLLOWED FRANK HOLTON & CO., 10 B.T.A.
1317(1928) AND A.C.F. GASOLINE CO., 6 B.T.A. 1337(1927), DECIDED UNDER
EARLIER EXCESS PROFITS TAX LAWS, AND LIBERTY MIRROR WORKS, 3 T.C.
1018(1944), INVOLVING I.R.C. SEC. 718.  THE OPINIONS IN FRANK HOLTON &
CO. AND LIBERTY MIRROR WORKS REGARDED LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED
STATES, 256 U.S. 377(1921), AS CONTROLLING. 

FN9  FOR THIS RESULT THE COURT OF APPEALS CITED DETROIT EDISON CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 98(1943); COMMISSIONER V. ARUNDEL-BROOKS
CONCRETE CORP., 152 F.2D 225(C.A.4TH CIR. 1945); AND ITS OWN PRIOR
DECISION IN C.L. DOWNEY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 172 F.2D 810(C.A.8TH CIR.
1949).  IN AFFIRMING ON THE INVESTED CAPITAL ISSUE THE COURT OF APPEALS
RELIED IN PART ON LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, NOTE 8 SUPRA,
AND ON THE DETROIT EDISON CASE. 

FN10  SEE O'MEARA, CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAPITAL BY NON-SHAREHOLDERS, 3
TAX L. REV. 568, 572(1948). 

NO SUGGESTION IS MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER THAT BECAUSE THE TRANSFERS
WERE THE SUBJECT OF CONTRACT THEY WERE NOT "CONTRIBUTIONS" WITHIN THE
STATUTE. 

FN11  SEE, E.G., CURRENT PROBLEMS IN ACCOUNTING - PROCEEDINGS OF THE
ACCOUNTING INSTITUTE, 1941, P. 20(REVISED STATEMENT BY AMERICAN
ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATION OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING CORPORATE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS); GUTHMANN AND DOUGALL, CORPORATE FINANCIAL POLICY
525(1940); HARVEY, SOME INDICIA OF CAPITAL TRANSFERS UNDER THE FEDERAL
INCOME TAX LAWS, 37 MICH. L. REV. 745, 747, N. 6(1939); MARPLE, CAPITAL
SURPLUS AND CORPORATE NET WORTH 12, 136-137(1936).  CF. MAGILL, TAXABLE
INCOME 389(REV.  ED., 1945); 1 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION
SEC. 5.14(1942); TEXAS & PAC. R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 285,
289(1932); LYKES BROS. S.S. CO., INC., 42 B.T.A. 1395, 1401(1940),
AFF'D 126 F.2D 725, 727(C.A.5TH CIR. 1942); HELVERING V. CLAIBORNE
ANNAPOLIS FERRY CO., 93 F.2D 875, 876(C.A.4TH CIR. 1938). 

FN12  TREAS. REG. 86, ART. 113(A)(8)-1; TREAS. REG. 94, ART. 113(8)
1; TREAS. REG. 101, ART. 113(A)(8)-1; TREAS. REG. 103, SEC.
19.113(A)(8)-1; AND TREAS. REG. 111, SEC. 29.113(A)(8)-1 HAVE READ IN
PART:  "IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY A CORPORATION AFTER DECEMBER
31, 1920, FROM A SHAREHOLDER AS PAID-IN SURPLUS, OR FROM ANY PERSON AS
A CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL, THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF
THE CORPORATION IS THE BASIS WHICH THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE HAD IN THE
HANDS OF THE TRANSFEROR IF THE TRANSFER HAD NOT BEEN MADE...."  THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 113(A)(8)(B), REVENUE ACT OF 1932, IN WHICH THE TERM
"CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL" FIRST APPEARED IN FEDERAL REVENUE
LEGISLATION, WAS REENACTED WITHOUT CHANGE IN THE ACT OF 1934 AND,
FOLLOWING THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION IN THE REGULATIONS, IN THE ACTS OF
1936 AND 1938 AND IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

FN13  COMMISSIONER V. ARUNDEL-BROOKS CONCRETE CORP., 152 F.2D
225(C.A.4TH CIR. 1945), RELIED UPON BY THE COURT BELOW, INVOLVED ONLY
THE ISSUE WHETHER THE FULL COST OF A CONCRETE MIXING PLANT, THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH WAS FINANCED IN PART BY PAYMENTS FROM A NEARBY
SUPPLIER OF A RAW MATERIAL USED IN MIXING CONCRETE, WAS DEPRECIABLE TO
THE TAXPAYER; THERE WAS NO "CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL" ISSUE, THE ONLY
QUESTION BEING ONE OF COST BASIS.  HOWEVER, THE PAYMENTS IN THAT CASE
WERE MADE IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICES RENDERED.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE CONCRETE PLANT DIRECTLY BENEFITED THE SUPPLIER OF RAW MATERIALS BY
INSURING THE USE OF ITS SOLE PRODUCT BY THE TAXPAYER; THE SUPPLIER WAS
ALSO SERVED THROUGH A BUSINESS AFFILIATION WITH THE PARENT OF THE
WHOLLY OWNED TAXPAYER IN THE FORM OF AN EXCLUSIVE MARKETING ARRANGEMENT
WHICH SAVED THE SUPPLIER THE EXPENSE OF A SALES ORGANIZATION.  SEE
ARUNDEL-BROOKS CONCRETE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 129 F.2D 762(C.A.4TH
CIR. 1942). 

FN14  SEE BREWSTER, THE FEDERAL EXCESS PROFITS TAX 110-111(1941). 

FN15  TREAS. REG. 109, SEC. 30.718-1; TREAS. REG. 112, SEC. 35.718
1. 

THE COMMISSIONER AGREES THAT THE TERM "CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL" IS
USED WITH THE SAME MEANING IN SECS. 113(A)(8)(B) AND 718(A). 

FN16  SEE 2 MONTGOMERY'S FEDERAL TAXES - CORPORATIONS AND
PARTNERSHIPS - 1946-47, P. 372. 

FN17  IN SOUTHERN PAC. CO. V. EDWARDS, 57 F.2D 891(S.D.N.Y. 1932),
THE COURT HELD THAT A CAPITAL DONATION ORIGINATING WITH A
NONSTOCKHOLDER WAS INCLUDABLE IN INVESTED CAPITAL AS "PAID-IN SURPLUS"
UNDER THE 1917 ACT.  HOWEVER, CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT FROM
OUTSIDERS ARE OFTEN THOUGHT OF AS CONTRIBUTED OR DONATED CAPITAL
SURPLUS RATHER THAN AS PAID-IN SURPLUS, SEE E.G., HOAGLAND, CORPORATION
FINANCE 555(3D ED. 1947); WE THINK THAT FOR THIS REASON AMONG OTHERS
CONGRESS ADDED THE TERM "CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL" TO THE EXCESS PROFITS
TAX PROVISIONS OF THE 1940 ACT, AS IT HAD TO THE REVENUE ACTS (SEC.
113(A)(8)) SINCE 1932, TO INDICATE THAT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUTSIDERS
INTENDED AS ADDITIONS TO CAPITAL SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
COMPUTATION.  SEE S. REP. NO. 665, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. 27-28(1932);
H.R. REP. NO. 1492, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. 13(1932). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AGREES WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS AND WOULD AFFIRM
ITS JUDGMENT. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. BRYAN, 339 U.S. 323 


NO. 99.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1950.  - 84 U.S.
APP. D.C. 394, 174 F.2D 525, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT WAS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND HAD CUSTODY OF THE RECORDS
OF AN ASSOCIATION WHICH WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMITTEE ON UN
AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.  THE COMMITTEE
ISSUED AND SERVED UPON RESPONDENT A SUBPOENA DIRECTING HER TO PRODUCE
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, AT A STATED TIME, SPECIFIED RECORDS OF THE
ASSOCIATION.  RESPONDENT APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, BUT REFUSED TO
PRODUCE THE RECORDS ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS WITHOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DEMAND THEM.  RESPONDENT WAS INDICTED, TRIED
AND CONVICTED FOR WILLFUL DEFAULT IN VIOLATION OF R.S. SEC. 102, 2
U.S.C. SEC. 192.  HELD: 

1.  THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE AT THE TIME OF THE
RETURN TO THE SUBPOENA WAS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE
(CHRISTOFFEL V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 84, DISTINGUISHED); AND, WHEN
THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT HAD BEEN VALIDLY
SERVED WITH A LAWFUL SUBPOENA DIRECTING HER TO PRODUCE RECORDS WITHIN
HER CUSTODY AND CONTROL AND THAT ON THE RETURN DAY SHE INTENTIONALLY
FAILED TO COMPLY, IT MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF WILLFUL DEFAULT. 
PP. 327-330. 

2.  THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF A QUORUM WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENT
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  PP. 330-335. 

(A)  WHEN A WITNESS SEEKS TO EXCUSE A DEFAULT ON GROUNDS OF INABILITY
TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA, THE DEFENSE MUST FAIL IN THE ABSENCE OF A
SHOWING OF EVEN A MODICUM OF GOOD FAITH IN RESPONDING TO THE SUBPOENA. 
P. 332. 

(B)  RESPONDENT HAVING MADE NO OBJECTION TO THE LACK OF A QUORUM ON
HER APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, HAVING RELIED ON OTHER GROUNDS FOR
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA, AND HAVING RAISED THE QUORUM QUESTION
FOR THE FIRST TIME ON HER TRIAL TWO YEARS LATER, SHE CANNOT RELY UPON
THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF A QUORUM ON HER TRIAL FOR WILLFUL DEFAULT.  PP.
332-335. 

3.  THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN PERMITTING THE GOVERNMENT TO READ
TO THE JURY THE TESTIMONY THAT RESPONDENT HAD GIVEN BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE WHEN CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS.  PP. 335-343. 

(A)  R.S. SEC. 859, NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3486, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO
TESTIMONY GIVEN BY A WITNESS BEFORE  ...  ANY COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE
...  SHALL BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AGAINST HIM
IN ANY COURT, EXCEPT IN A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY COMMITTED IN GIVING
SUCH TESTIMONY," DID NOT BAR THE USE, AT RESPONDENT'S TRIAL FOR WILLFUL
DEFAULT UNDER R.S. SEC. 102, OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY HER BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE.  PP. 337-340. 

(B)  IN R.S. SEC. 859 THE TERM "ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING" DOES NOT
APPLY TO A PROSECUTION FOR WILLFUL DEFAULT UNDER R.S. SEC. 102.  PP.
338, 342-343. 

(C)  CONGRESS INTENDED THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED BY R.S. SEC. 859 TO
APPLY ONLY TO PAST CRIMINAL ACTS CONCERNING WHICH A WITNESS MAY BE
CALLED TO TESTIFY.  PP. 339-343. 

UNITED STATES V. BRYAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF R.S. SEC. 102, FOR FAILURE
TO PRODUCE RECORDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBPOENA OF THE COMMITTEE ON UN
AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.  72 F.SUPP.  58. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 394, 174 F.2D 525. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 846.  REVERSED, P. 343. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT IS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF AN ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE
JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
ASSOCIATION) AND AS SUCH HAS CUSTODY OF ITS RECORDS.  PRIOR TO APRIL 4,
1946, THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH WAS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSOCIATION, HAD ATTEMPTED WITHOUT SUCCESS TO PROCURE
THESE RECORDS FROM RESPONDENT AND FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
ASSOCIATION'S EXECUTIVE BOARD, DR. EDWARD K. BARSKY.  ON MARCH 29,
1946, THE COMMITTEE ISSUED SUBPOENAS TO EACH OF THE KNOWN MEMBERS OF
THE EXECUTIVE BOARD SUMMONING THEM TO APPEAR IN THE COMMITTEE'S ROOM ON
APRIL 4, 1946, AT 10 A.M., TO TESTIFY AND PRODUCE CERTAIN SPECIFIED
RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND AN IDENTICAL SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO THE
ASSOCIATION BY NAME WAS SERVED UPON RESPONDENT BRYAN IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY. 

BRYAN AND THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE AT THE DATE AND TIME SET OUT IN THE SUBPOENAS AND IN RESPONSE
THERETO.  EACH PERSON SO SUMMONED FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE RECORDS
SPECIFIED IN THE SUBPOENAS.  THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MADE
IDENTICAL STATEMENTS IN WHICH EACH DECLARED THAT HE OR SHE DID NOT HAVE
POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE RECORDS; THAT MISS BRYAN, THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, DID.  RESPONDENT ADMITTED THAT THE RECORDS WERE IN
HER POSSESSION BUT REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA BECAUSE "AFTER
CONSULTING WITH COUNSEL (SHE) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUBPENA
WAS NOT VALID" BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE HAD NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
DEMAND THE BOOKS AND RECORDS.  ASKED WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
SUPPORTED HER ACTION, SHE REFUSED TO ANSWER BECAUSE SHE DID NOT THINK
THE QUESTION PERTINENT. 

THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES THEN SUBMITTED ITS REPORT AND
RESOLUTION TO THE HOUSE.  SETTING OUT AT LENGTH THE COMMITTEE'S
ATTEMPTS TO PROCURE THE RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION, THE REPORT
CONCLUDES: 

"THE WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE REFUSAL OF HELEN R. BRYAN AND THE MEMBERS
OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE AS
NAMED HEREIN TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS, PAPERS, AND RECORDS CALLED FOR IN
THE SUBPENAS DEPRIVES YOUR COMMITTEE OF EVIDENCE NECESSARY IN THE
CONDUCT OF ITS INVESTIGATION OF THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE
COMMITTEE, WHICH EVIDENCE IS PERTINENT TO THE SAID INVESTIGATION AND
PLACES THE SAID PERSONS IN CONTEMPT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE UNITED STATES."  FN1 

THE RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SPEAKER TO CERTIFY THE COMMITTEE'S
REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR
LEGAL ACTION WAS APPROVED BY THE FULL HOUSE AFTER DEBATE.  FN2 

RESPONDENT WAS INDICTED FOR VIOLATION OF R.S. SEC. 102,  FN3  IN THAT
SHE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS CALLED FOR IN THE SUBPOENAS AND
HAD THEREBY WILFULLY MADE DEFAULT.  AT THE TRIAL SHE CONTENDED, INTER
ALIA, THAT SHE WAS NOT GUILTY OF WILFUL DEFAULT BECAUSE A QUORUM OF THE
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT WHEN SHE
APPEARED ON THE RETURN DAY.  HOWEVER, THE TRIAL COURT WITHDREW THAT
ISSUE FROM THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION BY INSTRUCTING THE JURY "AS A
MATTER OF LAW, THAT THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS A VALIDLY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE
CONGRESS, AND WAS AT THE TIME OF THE DEFENDANT'S APPEARANCE." 
RESPONDENT WAS FOUND GUILTY, 72 F.SUPP.  58, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED
THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE
COMMITTEE AT THE HEARING ON APRIL 4, 1946, WAS A MATERIAL QUESTION OF
FACT IN THE ALLEGED OFFENSE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 394, 174 F.2D 525.  WE GRANTED A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, 338 U.S. 846, TO CONSIDER THIS IMPORTANT QUESTION AFFECTING
THE PROCEDURES OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. 

FIRST.  R.S. SEC. 102 WAS ENACTED IN 1857.  ITS PURPOSE, AS STATED BY
ITS SPONSORS, WAS TO AVOID THE PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH HAD BEEN
EXPERIENCED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHEN PERSONS CITED FOR
CONTEMPT OF THE HOUSE WERE BROUGHT BEFORE ITS BAR TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THEY SHOULD NOT BE COMMITTED, AND, MORE IMPORTANT, TO PERMIT THE
IMPRISONMENT OF A CONTEMNOR BEYOND THE EXPIRATION OF THE CURRENT
SESSION OF CONGRESS.  FN4  TRANSMISSION OF THE FACT OF THE COMMISSION
OF A CONTEMPT TO THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY IS MADE UNDER THE SEAL OF
THE HOUSE OR SENATE BY THE SPEAKER OR PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE.  FN5
THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE INTENDED AS AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF
VINDICATING THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO COMPEL THE DISCLOSURE OF FACTS
WHICH ARE NEEDED IN THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION.  IN RE
CHAPMAN, 166 U.S. 661, 671-672(1897); JURNEY V. MACCRACKEN, 294 U.S.
125, 151(1935). 

"DEFAULT" IS, OF COURSE, A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SUMMONS.  IN
THIS CASE WE MAY ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE SUBPOENA SERVED ON
RESPONDENT REQUIRED HER TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, SITTING AS A
COMMITTEE.  FN6  UPON THAT ASSUMPTION, RESPONDENT TAKES THE POSITION
THAT, ABSENT A QUORUM, THE COMMITTEE WAS WITHOUT POWER TO RECEIVE THE
RECORDS ON THE RETURN DAY; THAT SHE CANNOT BE GUILTY OF A DEFAULT IN
FAILING TO PRODUCE PAPERS BEFORE AN "AGENCY ORGANIZATIONALLY
DEFECTIVE," WHICH, FOR THAT REASON, "CANNOT BE OBSTRUCTED."  RESPONDENT
DOES NOT AND CANNOT, IN VIEW OF THE JURY'S VERDICT, CONTEST THE FINDING
THAT SHE DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY REFUSED TO PRODUCE THE PAPERS
CALLED FOR IN THE SUBPOENA.  HER CONTENTION IS THAT A QUORUM OF THE
COMMITTEE WAS REQUIRED TO MEET TO WITNESS HER REFUSAL.  RELIANCE IS
PLACED UPON CERTAIN PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH
HOLD THAT A COMMITTEE REPORT MAY BE CHALLENGED IN THE HOUSE ON THE
GROUND THAT A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN THE REPORT
WAS APPROVED, AND UPON THIS COURT'S RECENT DECISION IN CHRISTOFFEL V.
UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 84(1949). 

THE CHRISTOFFEL CASE IS INAPPOSITE.  FOR THAT DECISION, WHICH
INVOLVED A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE,
RESTS IN PART UPON THE PROPOSITION THAT THE APPLICABLE PERJURY STATUTE
REQUIRES THAT A "COMPETENT TRIBUNAL" BE PRESENT WHEN THE FALSE
STATEMENT IS MADE.  THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT IN R.S. SEC. 102.  IT
DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE SOME AFFIRMATIVE ACT WHICH IS MADE PUNISHABLE ONLY
IF PERFORMED BEFORE A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL, BUT AN INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO
TESTIFY OR PRODUCE PAPERS, HOWEVER THE CONTUMACY IS MANIFESTED. 
RESPONDENT ATTEMPTS TO EQUATE R.S. SEC. 102 WITH THE PERJURY STATUTE
CONSIDERED IN THE CHRISTOFFEL CASE BY CONTENDING THAT IT APPLIES ONLY
TO THE REFUSAL TO TESTIFY OR PRODUCE PAPERS BEFORE A COMMITTEE - I.E.,
IN THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE.  BUT THE STATUTE IS NOT
SO LIMITED.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT REFERS TO THE WILFUL FAILURE BY ANY
PERSON "TO GIVE TESTIMONY OR TO PRODUCE PAPERS UPON ANY MATTER UNDER
INQUIRY BEFORE  ...  ANY COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS," NOT TO
THE FAILURE TO TESTIFY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.  AND THE FACT
THAT APPEARANCE BEFORE A COMMITTEE IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE
OFFENSE IS FURTHER EMPHASIZED BY ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE,
WHICH, AFTER DEFINING WILFUL DEFAULT IN THE TERMS SET OUT ABOVE,
CONTINUES, "OR WHO, HAVING APPEARED, REFUSES TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION
PERTINENT TO THE QUESTION UNDER INQUIRY, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR,  ...." 

IT IS CLEAR THAT R.S. SEC. 102 IS DESIGNED TO PUNISH THE OBSTRUCTION
OF INQUIRIES IN WHICH THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS OR THEIR COMMITTEES ARE
ENGAGED.  IF IT IS SHOWN THAT SUCH AN INQUIRY IS, IN FACT, OBSTRUCTED
BY THE INTENTIONAL WITHHOLDING OF DOCUMENTS, IT IS UNIMPORTANT WHETHER
THE SUBPOENAED PERSON PROCLAIMS HIS REFUSAL TO RESPOND BEFORE THE FULL
COMMITTEE, SENDS A TELEGRAM TO THE CHAIRMAN, OR SIMPLY STAYS AWAY FROM
THE HEARING ON THE RETURN DAY.  HIS STATEMENTS OR ACTIONS ARE MERELY
EVIDENCE FROM WHICH A JURY MIGHT INFER AN INTENT TO DEFAULT.  A
PROCLAIMED REFUSAL TO RESPOND, AS IN THIS CASE, MAKES THAT INTENT
PLAIN.  BUT IT WOULD HARDLY BE LESS PLAIN IF THE WITNESS EMBARKED ON A
VOYAGE TO EUROPE ON THE DAY BEFORE HIS SCHEDULED APPEARANCE BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE. 

OF COURSE A WITNESS MAY ALWAYS CHANGE HIS MIND.  A DEFAULT DOES NOT
MATURE UNTIL THE RETURN DATE OF THE SUBPOENA, WHATEVER THE PREVIOUS
MANIFESTATIONS OF INTENT TO DEFAULT.  BUT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT RESPONDENT HAD BEEN VALIDLY
SERVED WITH A LAWFUL SUBPOENA DIRECTING HER TO PRODUCE RECORDS WITHIN
HER CUSTODY AND CONTROL, AND THAT ON THE DAY SET OUT IN THE SUBPOENA
SHE INTENTIONALLY FAILED TO COMPLY, IT MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
WILFUL DEFAULT. 

SECOND.  IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO PROVE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM AFFIRMATIVELY, LACK OF A QUORUM
IS A DEFENSE RAISING MATERIAL QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  THE THEORY IS THAT IF THE SUBPOENA REQUIRED
PRODUCTION OF THE RECORDS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN
ACTIVITIES QUA COMMITTEE, RESPONDENT COULD NOT HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE
SUBPOENA IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM HAD SHE WISHED TO DO SO, AND
THEREFORE HER DEFAULT IS NOT WILFUL, ALBEIT DELIBERATE AND
INTENTIONAL.  WHILE SHE DID NOT INTRODUCE ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE AT THE
TRIAL, RESPONDENT APPROPRIATELY RAISED THE DEFENSE BY CROSS-EXAMINATION
AND BY HER MOTIONS, REQUESTS AND OBJECTIONS. 

ORDINARILY, ONE CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH A COURT ORDER MAKES A COMPLETE DEFENSE BY PROVING THAT HE IS
UNABLE TO COMPLY.  A COURT WILL NOT IMPRISON A WITNESS FOR FAILURE TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS WHICH HE DOES NOT HAVE, UNLESS HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THEIR UNAVAILABILITY, CF. JURNEY V. MACCRACKEN, SUPRA, OR IS IMPEDING
JUSTICE BY NOT EXPLAINING WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM, UNITED STATES V.
GOLDSTEIN, 105 F.2D 150(1939). 

ON THE OTHER HAND, PERSONS SUMMONED AS WITNESSES BY COMPETENT
AUTHORITY HAVE CERTAIN MINIMUM DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARE
NECESSARY CONCESSIONS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE ORDERLY OPERATION
OF LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL MACHINERY.  A SUBPOENA HAS NEVER BEEN
TREATED AS AN INVITATION TO A GAME OF HARE AND HOUNDS, IN WHICH THE
WITNESS MUST TESTIFY ONLY IF CORNERED AT THE END OF THE CHASE.  IF THAT
WERE THE CASE, THEN, INDEED, THE GREAT POWER OF TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION,
SO NECESSARY TO THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF COURTS AND LEGISLATURES,
WOULD BE A NULLITY.  WE HAVE OFTEN ITERATED THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
PUBLIC DUTY, WHICH EVERY PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO PERFORM WHEN PROPERLY SUMMONED.  SEE, E.G.,
BLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 273, 281(1919); BLACKMER V. UNITED
STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 438(1932). 

CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS FROM ATTENDING OR, HAVING ATTENDED, GIVING
TESTIMONY ARE RECOGNIZED BY ALL COURTS.  BUT EVERY SUCH EXEMPTION IS
GROUNDED IN A SUBSTANTIAL INDIVIDUAL INTEREST WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND,
THROUGH CENTURIES OF EXPERIENCE, TO OUTWEIGH THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE
SEARCH FOR TRUTH.  DEAN WIGMORE STATED THE PROPOSITION THUS:  "FOR MORE
THAN THREE CENTURIES IT HAS NOW BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A FUNDAMENTAL MAXIM
THAT THE PUBLIC (IN THE WORDS SANCTIONED BY LORD HARDWICKE) HAS A RIGHT
TO EVERY MAN'S EVIDENCE.  WHEN WE COME TO EXAMINE THE VARIOUS CLAIMS OF
EXEMPTION, WE START WITH THE PRIMARY ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS A GENERAL
DUTY TO GIVE WHAT TESTIMONY ONE IS CAPABLE OF GIVING, AND THAT ANY
EXEMPTIONS WHICH MAY EXIST ARE DISTINCTLY EXCEPTIONAL, BEING SO MANY
DEROGATIONS FROM A POSITIVE GENERAL RULE."  FN7 

EVERY EXEMPTION FROM TESTIFYING OR PRODUCING RECORDS THUS PRESUPPOSES
A VERY REAL INTEREST TO BE PROTECTED.  IF A PRIVILEGE BASED UPON THAT
INTEREST IS ASSERTED, ITS VALIDITY MUST BE ASSESSED.  SINCE WE ASSUME
IN THIS CASE THAT THE SUBPOENAS REFER TO THE PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE QUA COMMITTEE, WE AGREE THAT RESPONDENT COULD
RIGHTFULLY HAVE DEMANDED ATTENDANCE OF A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE AND
DECLINED TO TESTIFY OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS SO LONG AS A QUORUM WAS NOT
PRESENT.  BUT THE COURTS NEED NOT TREAT AS IMPORTANT THAT WHICH THE
WITNESS OBVIOUSLY REGARDED AS UNIMPORTANT.  FN8  TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION
IS AN INTENSELY PRACTICAL MATTER.  IF, THEREFORE, A WITNESS SEEKS TO
EXCUSE A DEFAULT ON GROUNDS OF INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA,
WE THINK THE DEFENSE MUST FAIL IN THE ABSENCE OF EVEN A MODICUM OF GOOD
FAITH IN RESPONDING TO THE SUBPOENA.  THAT SUCH WAS THE SITUATION IN
THIS CASE DOES NOT ADMIT OF DOUBT. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF RESPONDENT HAD LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR FAILING
TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION, A DECENT RESPECT FOR THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BY WHOSE AUTHORITY THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED,
WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THAT SHE STATE HER REASONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE UPON
THE RETURN OF THE WRIT.  AT THE TIME AND PLACE SPECIFIED IN THE
SUBPOENAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE AND A NUMBER OF OTHER MEMBERS -
WHETHER OR NOT A QUORUM WAS PRESENT AT ANY TIME IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE
RECORD - PRESENTED THEMSELVES FOR THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY AND RECEIPT
OF PAPERS.  THE DEFECT IN COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE, IF ANY, WAS ONE
WHICH COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN REMEDIED.  BUT THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT
INFORMED UNTIL THE TRIAL, TWO YEARS AFTER THE REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE
RECORDS, THAT RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO EXCUSE HER NONCOMPLIANCE ON THE
GROUND THAT A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT.  FOR TWO
YEARS, NOW GROWN TO FOUR, THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION WAS OBSTRUCTED
BY AN OBJECTION WHICH, SO FAR AS WE ARE INFORMED, COULD HAVE BEEN
RECTIFIED IN A FEW MINUTES. 

SUCH A PATENT EVASION OF THE DUTY OF ONE SUMMONED TO PRODUCE PAPERS
BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE CANNOT BE CONDONED.  SUPPOSE ONE WHO
HAS BEEN SUMMONED TO PRODUCE PAPERS FAILS TO DELIVER THEM AS REQUIRED
BUT REFUSES TO GIVE ANY REASON.  MAY HE DEFEND A PROSECUTION FOR WILFUL
DEFAULT, MANY MONTHS LATER, ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN A
SUFFICIENT TIME TO GATHER THE PAPERS?  WE THINK SUCH A CONTENTION
HARDLY TENABLE.  YET, AT THE RETURN DATE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA
WAS "IMPOSSIBLE" JUST AS IN THE PRESENT CASE.  TO DENY THE COMMITTEE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTION OR REMEDY IT IS IN ITSELF A
CONTEMPT OF ITS AUTHORITY AND AN OBSTRUCTION OF ITS PROCESSES.  SEE
BEVAN V. KRIEGER, 289 U.S. 459, 464-465(1933). 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT UPON WHICH
RESPONDENT NOW INSISTS IS, IN HER OWN ESTIMATION, AN IMMATERIAL ONE, IS
CLEARLY SHOWN BY HER RELIANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE UPON OTHER GROUNDS
FOR FAILING TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS.  SHE DOES NOT DENY, AND THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING MAKES IT PERFECTLY CLEAR, THAT SHE WOULD NOT
HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE SUBPOENAS NO MATTER HOW THE COMMITTEE HAD BEEN
CONSTITUTED AT THE TIME.  THIS COURT CONSIDERED A SIMILAR QUESTION IN
HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43(1906), WHERE A WITNESS HAD REFUSED IN THE
TRIAL COURT TO PRODUCE CERTAIN BOOKS AND PAPERS CALLED FOR BY A
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ON THREE GROUNDS, ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT IT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE TO COLLECT THE RECORDS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED.  THE COURT
POINTED OUT THAT "HAD THE WITNESS RELIED SOLELY UPON THE FIRST GROUND,
DOUBTLESS THE COURT WOULD HAVE GIVEN HIM THE NECESSARY TIME."  201 U.S.
AT P. 70.  BUT HAVING REFUSED COMPLIANCE FOR OTHER REASONS WHICH THE
LOWER COURT COULD NOT REMEDY, THE WITNESS COULD NOT LATER COMPLAIN OF
ITS REFUSAL TO DO A MEANINGLESS ACT - TO GRANT HIM ADDITIONAL TIME TO
GATHER PAPERS WHICH HE HAD INDICATED HE WOULD NOT PRODUCE IN ANY
EVENT.  FN9  HERE RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE THE COMMITTEE GO THROUGH THE
EMPTY FORMALITY OF SUMMONING A QUORUM OF ITS MEMBERS TO GATHER IN
SOLEMN CONCLAVE TO HEAR HER REFUSE TO HONOR ITS DEMANDS.  PRESUMABLY
THE SAME FORMALISM WOULD BE REQUIRED IF RESPONDENT HAD INFORMED THE
COMMITTEE THAT SHE WAS NOT COMING AT ALL AND DID NOT DO SO. 

IN A NOT DISSIMILAR CASE, JUDGE LEARNED HAND STATED WHAT WE CONSIDER
TO BE THE BASIC QUESTION BEFORE US AND GAVE THE ANSWER WHICH WE THINK
MUST NECESSARILY FOLLOW.  HE SAID: 

"THE QUESTION IS NO LESS THAN WHETHER COURTS MUST PUT UP WITH SHIFTS
AND SUBTERFUGES IN THE PLACE OF TRUTH AND ARE POWERLESS TO PUT AN END
TO TRIFLING.  THEY WOULD PROVE THEMSELVES INCAPABLE OF DEALING WITH
ACTUALITIES IF IT WERE SO, FOR THERE IS NO SURER SIGN OF A FEEBLE AND
FUMBLING LAW THAN TIMIDITY IN PENETRATING THE FORM TO THE SUBSTANCE." 
LOUBRIEL V. UNITED STATES, 9 F.2D 807, 808(1926). 

WE HOLD THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT A QUORUM OF
THE COMMITTEE WAS PRESENT WHEN THE DEFAULT OCCURRED, AND THAT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD A DEFENSE OF LACK OF A QUORUM
WAS NOT OPEN TO RESPONDENT. 

THIRD.  RESPONDENT ALSO CONTENDED AT THE TRIAL THAT THE COURT ERRED
IN PERMITTING THE GOVERNMENT TO READ TO THE JURY THE TESTIMONY SHE HAD
GIVEN BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WHEN CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE THE
RECORDS.  SHE RELIES UPON R.S. SEC. 859, NOW CONDIFIED IN SEC. 3486 OF
TITLE 18 U.S.C., WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO TESTIMONY GIVEN BY A WITNESS
BEFORE  ...  ANY COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE,  ...  SHALL BE USED AS
EVIDENCE IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AGAINST HIM IN ANY COURT, EXCEPT IN
A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY COMMITTED IN GIVING SUCH TESTIMONY.  ...  "
ADMITTEDLY HER TESTIMONY RELATIVE TO PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS COMES
WITHIN THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE; BUT THE TRIAL COURT THOUGHT
THAT TO APPLY THE STATUTE TO RESPONDENT'S TESTIMONY WOULD SUBVERT THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IN ITS PASSAGE.  FN10  WE AGREE. 

WE NEED NOT SET OUT THE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE IN DETAIL.  IT SHOULD
BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT ITS FUNCTION WAS TO PROVIDE AN IMMUNITY IN
SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO WITNESSES BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES, IN RETURN FOR WHICH IT WAS THOUGHT THAT WITNESSES COULD BE
COMPELLED TO GIVE SELF-INCRIMINATING TESTIMONY.  FN11  THAT PURPOSE WAS
EFFECTIVELY NULLIFIED IN 1892 BY THIS COURT'S DECISION IN COUNSELMAN V.
HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, HOLDING THAT R.S. SEC. 860,  FN12  A STATUTE
IDENTICAL IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS WITH R.S. SEC. 859, WAS NOT A
SUFFICIENT SUBSTITUTE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE OF REFUSING TO
ANSWER SELF-INCRIMINATING QUESTIONS.  UNDER THAT DECISION, A WITNESS
WHO IS OFFERED ONLY THE PARTIAL PROTECTION OF A STATUTE SUCH AS SECS.
859 AND 860 - THAT HIS TESTIMONY MAY NOT BE USED AGAINST HIM IN
SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS - RATHER THAN COMPLETE IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION FOR ANY ACT CONCERNING WHICH HE TESTIFIES  FN13  MAY CLAIM
HIS PRIVILEGE AND REMAIN SILENT WITH IMPUNITY. 

THE COUNSELMAN DECISION, IT REMAINED ON THE STATUTE BOOKS UNTIL 1910,
"A SHIELD TO THE CRIMINAL AND AN OBSTRUCTION TO JUSTICE."  FN14  BUT
THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS HAS NOT, APPARENTLY, BEEN CALLED TO THE
ANOMALY PRESENTED BY THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF R.S. SEC. 859, WHICH,
LIKE SEC. 860, WAS A CONSTITUENT PART OF AN IMMUNITY "BARGAIN" DECLARED
INVALID IN THE COUNSELMAN CASE.  FN15  THE COURTS MUST, THEREFORE, GIVE
EFFECT TO THE STATUTE.  CAMERON V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 710,
720(1914). 

SINCE RESPONDENT DID NOT REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS PUT TO HER BY
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, HER ARGUMENT IS NOT OF DENIAL OF ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BUT SOLELY THAT R.S. SEC. 859 BARS USE OF HER
TESTIMONY IN HER TRIAL FOR WILFUL DEFAULT.  FN16  THE HISTORY OF THAT
STATUTE, ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE, AND ITS PRESENT STATUS ARE ALL RELEVANT
CONSIDERATIONS IN ITS INTERPRETATION.  DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
LITERAL LANGUAGE WOULD ENCOMPASS TESTIMONY ELICITED BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE IN ITS QUESTIONING OF RESPONDENT RELATIVE TO THE PRODUCTION
OF THE RECORDS OF THE ASSOCIATION, THE COURT WILL NOT REACH THAT RESULT
IF IT IS CONTRARY TO THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND LEADS TO ABSURD
CONCLUSIONS.  UNITED STATES V. KIRBY, 7 WALL.  482, 486(1869);
GLICKSTEIN V. UNITED STATES, 222 U.S. 139(1911).  AND WE ARE CLEARLY OF
THE OPINION THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE WOULD BE FRUSTRATED IF THE
WORDS, "IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING," WERE READ TO INCLUDE A PROSECUTION
FOR WILFUL DEFAULT UNDER R.S. SEC. 102. 

THAT PURPOSE WAS "MORE EFFECTUALLY TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF
WITNESSES  ...  AND TO COMPEL THEM TO DISCOVER TESTIMONY."  FN17  IT
HAD BEEN THE EXPERIENCE OF CONGRESS PRIOR TO 1857 THAT WITNESSES COULD
NOT BE COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE DESIRED INFORMATION, IN PART BECAUSE OF
INSUFFICIENT PENALTIES FOR NONDISCLOSURE, AND IN PART BECAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  IN AN ATTEMPT TO
SURMOUNT THE LATTER OBSTACLE, CONGRESS ENACTED WHAT BECAME R.S. SEC.
859.  BY GRANTING AN IMMUNITY, IT WAS THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO
COMPEL TESTIMONY WHICH HAD HITHERTO BEEN UNAVAILABLE. 

IT IS NOW CONTENDED THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE STATUTE, WHICH WAS
EXTENDED TO WITNESSES IN AN EFFORT TO OBTAIN TESTIMONY, PROTECTS
EQUALLY THE PERSON WHO WILFULLY WITHHOLDS TESTIMONY AND IS PROSECUTED
FOR HIS WILFUL DEFAULT.  THIS CONTENTION COMPLETELY IGNORES THE PURPOSE
OF THE IMMUNITY.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IMPUTES TO CONGRESS THE
CONTRADICTORY AND IRRATIONAL PURPOSE OF GRANTING AN IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE OF THAT CONTEMPT. 
AND IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT ASSUMES THAT CONGRESS HAD SOME PURPOSE TO
COMPEL TESTIMONY OF THE KIND HERE INVOLVED - STATEMENTS OF REFUSAL BY
THE WITNESS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR PRODUCE DOCUMENTS - IN RETURN FOR
WHICH IT WAS WILLING TO GRANT AN IMMUNITY.  SUCH AN ASSUMPTION CANNOT
BE MADE.  THESE STATEMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE HOUSES OF
CONGRESS IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  THEY ARE UNIFORMLY PRINTED IN THE
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES RECOMMENDING CONTEMPT ACTION  FN18  AND ARE
RELIED UPON BY THE HOUSES WHEN DELIBERATING IN CONTEMPT CASES.  FN19
IN SHORT, THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE CONTRADICTS ITS APPLICATION TO
TESTIMONY OF THIS KIND. 

FURTHERMORE, TO HOLD SUCH TESTIMONY INADMISSIBLE IN A PROSECUTION FOR
WILFUL DEFAULT IS TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS, FOR NO DISCERNABLE REASON,
MADE PROOF OF CONTEMPT VASTLY MORE DIFFICULT BEFORE THE COURTS THAN IN
ITS OWN CHAMBERS, SINCE, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS
THEMSELVES ARE ACCUSTOMED TO RELY UPON SUCH TESTIMONY.  THERE IS NOT A
HINT OF ANY SUCH PURPOSE IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE OR
THE DECISIONS CONSTRUING IT.  ON THE CONTRARY, THIS COURT HAS OFTEN
NOTED THAT PROSECUTION UNDER R.S. SEC. 102 WAS INTENDED "MERELY TO
SUPPLEMENT THE POWER OF CONTEMPT BY PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL
PUNISHMENT."  JURNEY V. MACCRACKEN, SUPRA, AT 151. 

THE DEBATES ATTENDING ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTES HERE IN QUESTION AND
THE DECISIONS OF THIS AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS CONSTRUING SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL STATUTES MAKE PLAIN THE FACT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE
IMMUNITY THEREIN PROVIDED TO APPLY ONLY TO PAST CRIMINAL ACTS
CONCERNING WHICH THE WITNESS SHOULD BE CALLED TO TESTIFY.  FN20  THE
OFFENSE OF CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED,
ON THE OTHER HAND, MATURES ONLY WHEN THE WITNESS IS CALLED TO APPEAR
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND
WILFULLY FAILS TO DO SO.  UNTIL THAT MOMENT HE HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME. 
THERE IS, IN OUR JURISPRUDENCE, NO DOCTRINE OF "ANTICIPATORY
CONTEMPT."  WHILE THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY MAY SHOW THAT HE HAS ELECTED
TO PERJURE HIMSELF OR COMMIT CONTEMPT, HE DOES NOT THEREBY ADMIT HIS
GUILT OF SOME PAST CRIME ABOUT WHICH HE HAS BEEN SUMMONED FOR
QUESTIONING BUT COMMITS THE CRIMINAL ACT THEN AND THERE. 

IN GLICKSTEIN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THIS COURT CONSIDERED THE
PROBLEM THEREBY PRESENTED.  IT WAS THERE HELD THAT PERJURY COMMITTED IN
THE COURSE OF TESTIMONY GIVEN PURSUANT TO STATUTE FALLS OUTSIDE THE
PURVIEW OF SEC. 7(9) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 25(10),
WHICH, LIKE R.S. SEC. 859, PROVIDES THAT NO TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE
WITNESS (AT A CREDITORS' MEETING) SHALL BE USED AGAINST HIM IN ANY
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  IN THE COURT'S VIEW, SUCH AN IMMUNITY "RELATES
TO THE PAST AND DOES NOT ENDOW THE PERSON WHO TESTIFIES WITH A LICENSE
TO COMMIT PERJURY."  222 U.S. AT 142.  THE DISTINCTION IS FULLY SPELLED
OUT IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OPINION, EDELSTEIN V. UNITED STATES,
149 F. 636(1906), WHICH WAS CITED WITH APPROVAL IN THE GLICKSTEIN
CASE: 

"TO HOLD THAT THE STATUTE PROTECTS A BANKRUPT FROM THE USE OF HIS
EVIDENCE IN A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY WHILE ACTUALLY TESTIFYING WOULD
DEFEAT THE OBVIOUS PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  IT WOULD, IN EFFECT, SAY TO
THE BANKRUPT:  YOU MAY FOREGO THE EXERCISE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE, AND CONSENT TO TESTIFY CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF YOUR
BUSINESS, AND IN THAT WAY PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF YOUR
ESTATE AND BENEFIT YOUR CREDITORS, AND BY SO DOING SECURE THE IMMUNITY
PROVIDED FOR; BUT IF YOU GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY, CALCULATED TO EMBARRASS
THE ADMINISTRATION OF YOUR ESTATE AND TO DEFEAT THE JUST RIGHTS OF YOUR
CREDITORS, AND THEREBY COMMIT A CRIME SPECIALLY DENOUNCED AGAINST YOU,
YOU SHALL ENJOY THE SAME IMMUNITY THEREFOR.  MOREOVER, IT WOULD, IN
EFFECT, SECURE TO THE BANKRUPT THE IMMUNITY IN QUESTION FOR VIOLATING
HIS PART OF THE COMPACT, NAMELY, TO TESTIFY - THAT IS, TO TESTIFY
TRUTHFULLY - BY VIRTUE OF WHICH HE SECURED A RIGHT TO THE IMMUNITY.  WE
ARE NOT WILLING TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS ANY SUCH CONTRADICTORY AND ABSURD
PURPOSE.  THE WORDS 'ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING' CANNOT SENSIBLY OR
REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED SO LITERALLY AND GENERALLY AS TO INCLUDE THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PROVIDED BY LAW FOR FALSE SWEARING IN GIVING HIS
TESTIMONY.  THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE REFERENCE TO SUCH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AS ARISE OUT OF PAST TRANSACTIONS, ABOUT WHICH THE BANKRUPT IS CALLED
TO TESTIFY."  149 F. AT 643-644. 

THAT STATEMENT IS AT LEAST EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO STATEMENTS MADE BY
THE WITNESS IN REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR PRODUCE PAPERS.  SUCH,
IN FACT, WAS THE RATIONALE AND DECISION OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN JUST SUCH A CASE.  SEE IN RE KAPLAN BROS., 213 F.
753(1914).  AND SEE CAMERON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 719; MCCARTHY V.
ARNDSTEIN, 266 U.S. 34, 42(1924). 

THE SAME REASONS THAT LED THIS COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE CLAUSE
EXCEPTING A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY FROM THE REACH OF ANOTHER IMMUNITY
STATUTE "WAS ADDED ONLY FROM SUPERFLUOUS CAUTION AND THROWS NO LIGHT ON
THE CONSTRUCTION," HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 131, 141(1913),
LEAD US TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE TERM, "ANY CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING," TO ENCOMPASS A PROSECUTION OF THE WITNESS FOR WILFUL
DEFAULT UNDER R.S. SEC. 102.  A CONTRARY VIEW WOULD SIMPLY ENCOURAGE
THE REFUSAL OF WITNESSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR PRODUCE PAPERS, QUITE
CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE.    RESPONDENT ADVANCES SEVERAL
CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE NOT PASSED UPON BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WE DO
NOT DECIDE THEM AT THIS TIME.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
REVERSED. 

FN1  92 CONG. REC. 3762, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1946). 

FN2  ID. AT 3773. 

FN3  11 STAT. 155, AS AMENDED, R.S. SEC. 102, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192: 

"EVERY PERSON WHO HAVING BEEN SUMMONED AS A WITNESS BY THE AUTHORITY
OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS TO GIVE TESTIMONY OR TO PRODUCE PAPERS UPON
ANY MATTER UNDER INQUIRY BEFORE EITHER HOUSE, OR ANY JOINT COMMITTEE
ESTABLISHED BY A JOINT OR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE TWO HOUSES OF
CONGRESS, OR ANY COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS, WILLFULLY MAKES
DEFAULT, OR WHO, HAVING APPEARED, REFUSES TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION
PERTINENT TO THE QUESTION UNDER INQUIRY, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000 NOR LESS THAN
$100 AND IMPRISONMENT IN A COMMON JAIL FOR NOT LESS THAN ONE MONTH NOR
MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS." 

FN4  SEE, E.G., REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE ORR, CONG. GLOBE, 34TH
CONG., 3D SESS. 405(1857). 

FN5  R.S. SEC. 104, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 194. 

FN6  THE SUBPOENA READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

"TO THE SERGEANT AT ARMS, OR HIS SPECIAL MESSENGER: 

"YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUMMON THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE
COMMITTEE, 192 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY, A VOLUNTARY
ORGANIZATION TO BE AND APPEAR BEFORE THE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, OF
WHICH THE HON. JOHN S. WOOD IS CHAIRMAN, AND TO BRING WITH YOU ALL
BOOKS, LEDGERS, RECORDS AND PAPERS RELATING TO THE RECEIPT AND
DISBURSEMENT OF MONEY BY OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST
REFUGEE COMMITTEE OR ANY SUBSIDIARY OR SUB-COMMITTEE THEREOF, TOGETHER
WITH ALL CORRESPONDENCE AND MEMORANDA OF COMMUNICATIONS BY ANY MEANS
WHATSOEVER WITH PERSONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  THE SAID BOOKS, PAPERS
AND RECORDS DEMANDED HEREIN ARE FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 1945 UP
TO AND INCLUDING THE DATE OF THIS SUBPOENA, IN THEIR CHAMBER IN THE
CITY OF WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 4, 1946, AT THE HOUR OF 10:00 A.M. THEN
AND THERE TO TESTIFY TOUCHING MATTERS OF INQUIRY COMMITTED TO SAID
COMMITTEE; AND (SHE) IS NOT TO DEPART WITHOUT LEAVE OF SAID COMMITTEE. 

"HEREIN FAIL NOT, AND MAKE RETURN OF THIS SUMMONS.  ...  " 

FN7  WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SEC.  2192. 

FN8  IT IS, OF COURSE, CLEAR THAT RESPONDENT'S "INABILITY" TO COMPLY
WITH THE SUBPOENA BECAUSE A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT PRESENT
AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN THE CLAIM THAT SHE IS EXCUSED FROM DOING SO.
THE JURY FOUND THAT SHE HAD POWER TO PRODUCE THE PAPERS.  THE QUESTION
THEREFORE ARISES AS TO WHAT POSSIBLE PREJUDICE RESPONDENT MIGHT HAVE
SUFFERED IF SHE HAD TURNED OVER THE RECORDS TO LESS THAN A QUORUM OF
THE COMMITTEE.  IN THE CASE OF ORAL TESTIMONY, A WITNESS MIGHT WELL
DESIRE TO APPEAR ONLY IF A QUORUM WAS PRESENT BECAUSE OF A FEELING THAT
SOME COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UNRESTRAINED BY PRESENCE OF A MAJORITY, MIGHT
EXCEED PROPER BOUNDS OF INQUIRY.  BUT THAT CONSIDERATION IS OBVIOUSLY
INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF PAPERS AND IS IRRELEVANT HERE IN ANY
EVENT SINCE RESPONDENT TESTIFIED. 

FN9  SEE ALSO, BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 443(1932);
LEBER V. UNITED STATES, 170 F. 881, 888(1909); LONDON GUARANTEE &
ACCIDENT CO., LTD. V. DOYLE & DOAK, 134 F. 125(1905); STATE EX REL.
BERGE V. SUPERIOR COURT, 154 WASH. 144, 281 P. 335(1929). 

FN10  SEE THE COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. BARSKY, 72 F.SUPP. 
165(1947), AFFIRMED, BARSKY V. UNITED STATES, 83 U.S. APP. D.C. 127,
138, 167 F.2D 241, 252(1948). 

FN11  R.S. SEC. 859, AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN 1857, WAS A PART OF
SEC. 2 OF A COMPREHENSIVE STATUTE, 11 STAT. 155, DESIGNED ON THE ONE
HAND TO COMPEL THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND ON THE OTHER HAND TO
PROTECT THEM FROM PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES REVEALED BY THEIR TESTIMONY. 
ENACTED, SEC. 2 NOT ONLY PREVENTED THE USE OF A WITNESS' TESTIMONY IN
SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BUT GAVE HIM COMPLETE IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION "FOR ANY FACT OR ACT TOUCHING WHICH HE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
TESTIFY."  THIS LATTER PROVISION WAS DELETED IN 1862, 12 STAT. 333,
LEAVING ONLY THE PARTIAL PROTECTION OF SEC. 859, WHICH WAS IN EFFECT
DECLARED INSUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A WITNESS TO GIVE SELF-INCRIMINATORY
TESTIMONY IN COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547(1892). 

FN12  R.S. SEC. 860 APPLIED TO EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM A PARTY OR
WITNESS IN ANY "JUDICIAL PROCEEDING" AND PROVIDED THAT SUCH EVIDENCE
SHOULD NOT BE USED AGAINST SUCH PERSON IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. 

FN13  SEE BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591(1896). 

FN14  H.R. REP. NO. 266, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., WHICH WAS CONCURRED IN
BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORTING THE REPEALER, STATES: 

"THIS SECTION (860) WAS ENACTED APPARENTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ENABLING THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPEL THE DISCLOSURE OF INCRIMINATING
TESTIMONY ON CONDITION THAT THE WITNESS DISCLOSING THE SAME WOULD BE
GIVEN IMMUNITY.  IN THE CASE OF COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK (142 U.S., 547)
IT WAS HELD THAT LEGISLATION CAN NOT ABRIDGE A CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE, AND THAT IT CAN NOT REPLACE OR SUPPLY ONE, AT LEAST UNLESS
IT IS SO BROAD AS TO HAVE THE SAME EXTENT IN SCOPE AND EFFECT, AND THAT
SAID SECTION 860 OF THE REVISED STATUTES DOES NOT SUPPLY A COMPLETE
PROTECTION FROM ALL THE PERILS AGAINST WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITION WAS DESIGNED TO GUARD, AND IS NOT A FULL SUBSTITUTE FOR
THAT PROHIBITION, AND THAT IN VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
(ARTICLE 5 OF THE AMENDMENTS) A STATUTORY ENACTMENT TO BE VALID MUST
AFFORD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AGAINST FUTURE PROSECUTION FOR THE OFFENSE TO
WHICH THE QUESTION RELATES. 

"SINCE THE DECISION ABOVE REFERRED TO SECTION 860 HAS POSSESSED NO
USEFULNESS WHATEVER, BUT HAS REMAINED IN THE LAW AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO
THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.  UNDER IT A WITNESS CAN NOT BE COMPELLED TO GIVE
ANY INCRIMINATING TESTIMONY WHATEVER, BUT IF HE CHOOSES TO GO ON THE
WITNESS STAND AND TESTIFY AS TO ANY MATTER WHATEVER, EVEN OF HIS OWN
VOLITION, AND, WHETHER INCRIMINATORY OR NOT, HIS TESTIMONY CAN NOT
THEREAFTER BE BROUGHT UP AGAINST HIM IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  HE
CAN NOT BE CONFRONTED WITH HIS OWN TESTIMONY OR HIS OWN PREVIOUS
STATEMENT UNDER OATH EVEN ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.  THE STATUTE HAS BECOME
A SHIELD TO THE CRIMINAL AND AN OBSTRUCTION TO JUSTICE." 

FN15  IN 1938 CONGRESS MADE MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE STATUTES IN
QUESTION WITHOUT RECOGNIZING THEIR INCONSISTENCY WITH THE COUNSELMAN
CASE.  52 STAT. 943.  SEE S. REP. NO. 2108, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. MONIA, 317 U.S. 424(1943), IS, OF COURSE,
INAPPLICABLE.  THAT DECISION RELATES TO THE NECESSITY OF MAKING A CLAIM
OF IMMUNITY UNDER THE PARTICULAR STATUTE THERE INVOLVED.  THE OPINION
SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE, AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THAT CASE, MUST BE
CLAIMED.  ID. AT 427. 

FN17  SEE 11 STAT. 155. 

FN18  SEE, E.G., S. REP. NO. 254, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., THE REPORT OF
A SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION OF AIR MAIL AND OCEAN MAIL
CONTRACTS, SETTING OUT IN GREAT DETAIL THE TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM P.
MACCRACKEN, JR., ET AL., "IN ORDER THAT THE SENATE MAY DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT ANY ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE SENATE WITH A VIEW TO
PROCEEDING AGAINST THE SAID WILLIAM P. MACCRACKEN, JR. ...  IN THE
NATURE OF A PROCEEDING FOR CONTEMPT OR OTHERWISE  ...  "  SEE JURNEY V.
MACCRACKEN, 294 U.S. 125(1935). 

FN19  THE INCIDENT GIVING RISE TO ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE
ILLUSTRATES THE POINT.  A CORRESPONDENT OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, HAVING
MADE CHARGES OF CORRUPTION ON THE PART OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN CONNECTION WITH PENDING LEGISLATION, WAS CALLED
BEFORE A SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE AND ASKED TO NAME THE
REPRESENTATIVES INVOLVED.  HE DECLINED TO DO SO FOR THE REASON THAT THE
INFORMATION HAD BEEN GIVEN TO HIM IN CONFIDENCE.  THE COMMITTEE'S
QUESTIONS AND THE WITNESS' ANSWERS ARE SET OUT AT LENGTH IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 34TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 403-404, AS A PART OF
THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT AND RESULTED IN HIS BEING CALLED TO THE BAR OF
THE HOUSE "TO ANSWER AS FOR A CONTEMPT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THIS HOUSE,"
AND IN HIS SUBSEQUENT COMMITMENT.  THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED ON IN
CONJUNCTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTE IN THE HOUSE.  THE
CONTENTION NOW MADE WOULD IMPUTE TO CONGRESS AN INTENT TO DEPRIVE THE
COURTS OF THE VERY INFORMATION UPON WHICH THE HOUSE HAD ACTED IN THE
CASE GIVING RISE TO THE STATUTE. 

FN20  REPRESENTATIVE ORR:  "THE BILL PROVIDES THAT NO PERSONS CALLED
BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE TO TESTIFY BEFORE THEM SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ANY OFFENSE THEY MAY HAVE COMMITTED, AND FOR
WHICH THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD FURNISH THE BASIS OF AN INDICTMENT."  CONG.
GLOBE, 34TH CONG., 3D SESS. 406.  REPRESENTATIVE WASHBURN:  "THE SECOND
BE EXCUSED FROM ANSWERING A QUESTION FOR THE REASON THAT HIS ANSWER
WOULD CRIMINATE HIMSELF; AND PROVIDES THAT HE SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
PUNISHMENT FOR ANY OFFENSE WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY THAT HE HAS COMMITTED,
AND THAT ON TRIAL FOR SUCH OFFENSE IN ANY COURT IN THE COUNTRY SUCH
EVIDENCE SHALL NOT BE USED AGAINST HIM."  ID. AT 428.  SENATOR SEWARD:
"THE SECOND SECTION OF THE BILL PROVIDES THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL HAVE
THE BENEFIT OF BEING EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION AS TO THE MATTER
CONCERNING WHICH HE IS CALLED TO TESTIFY."  ID. AT 444.  IT MAY BE
POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE STATUTE, AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED, HAD THE
EFFECT OF GRANTING TOTAL IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR ANY FACT OR ACT
TOUCHING WHICH THE WITNESS TESTIFIED, ADOPTION OF RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION WOULD MEAN THAT CONGRESS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO IMMUNIZE THE
WITNESS WHO STATES BEFORE THE COMMITTEE THAT HE WILL NOT ANSWER
QUESTIONS OR PRODUCE PAPERS FROM ANY PROSECUTION FOR HIS DEFAULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AGREES WITH THIS OPINION EXCEPT AS TO THE
PORTION MARKED THIRD, INVOLVING THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 3486 OF TITLE
18 U.S.C. TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WHICH REQUIRES HIM TO DISSENT FROM
THE JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

WITH THE RESULT I AM IN AGREEMENT, BUT I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS DECISION
AND THAT IN THE CHRISTOFFEL CASE, 338 U.S. 84, CAN COEXIST. 

THE COURT IS AGREED THAT THIS DEFENDANT COULD RIGHTLY DEMAND
ATTENDANCE OF A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE AND DECLINE TO TESTIFY OR TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS SO LONG AS A QUORUM WAS NOT PRESENT.  THEREFORE THE
REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER, WITHOUT MAKING ANY DEMAND, THE ISSUE MAY
BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME LONG AFTERWARDS IN A TRIAL FOR CONTEMPT. 

THIS CASE IS THE DUPLICATE OF CHRISTOFFEL IN THIS RESPECT:  IN BOTH
CASES DEFENDANTS HAVE SOUGHT TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF NO QUORUM FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN COURT, WHEN THEY ARE ON TRIAL FOR AN OFFENSE, WITHOUT
HAVING RAISED IT IN ANY MANNER BEFORE THE COMMITTEE WHILE THERE WAS
TIME TO REMEDY IT.  THE COURT IS NOW SAYING, QUITE PROPERLY I THINK,
THAT THIS QUESTION MUST BE RAISED AT THE TIME WHEN IT CAN BE CORRECTED,
AND PROPER RECORDS MADE, AND CANNOT BE KEPT AS AN ACE UP THE SLEEVE TO
BE PRODUCED YEARS LATER AT A TRIAL.  BUT IN CHRISTOFFEL, THE MAJORITY
TOOK THE OPPOSITE VIEW AND SAID, "IN A CRIMINAL CASE AFFECTING THE
RIGHTS OF ONE NOT A MEMBER, THE OCCASION OF TRIAL IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE
FOR PETITIONER TO RAISE THE QUESTION."  SUPRA, AT 88.  IF THIS
STATEMENT OF THE LAW IS TO BE LEFT STANDING, I DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN
SAY THAT WHAT WAS TIMELY FOR CHRISTOFFEL IS TOO LATE FOR BRYAN.  IT IS
PLAIN WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE CHRISTOFFEL DECISION AND SO I THINK WE
SHOULD CANDIDLY OVERRULE IT. 

THE PRACTICE OF WITHHOLDING ALL OBJECTION UNTIL TIME OF TRIAL IS NOT
HELPFUL IN PROTECTING A WITNESS' RIGHT TO A VALID COMMITTEE.  IT
PREVENTS CORRECTION OF ANY ERROR IN THAT RESPECT AND PROFITS ONLY THE
WITNESS WHO SEEKS A CONCEALED DEFECT TO EXPLOIT.  CONGRESSIONAL CUSTOM,
WHETHER WRITTEN OR NOT, HAS ESTABLISHED THAT COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAY
INDULGE IN TEMPORARY ABSENCES, UNLESS THERE IS OBJECTION, WITHOUT
DISABLING THOSE REMAINING FROM CONTINUING WORK AS A COMMITTEE.  MEMBERS
MAY STEP OUT TO INTERVIEW CONSTITUENTS, CONSULT MEMBERS OF THEIR
STAFFS, CONFER WITH EACH OTHER, DICTATE A LETTER, OR VISIT A WASHROOM,
WITHOUT PUTTING AN END TO THE COMMITTEE - BUT ALWAYS SUBJECT TO CALL
WHENEVER THE POINT OF NO QUORUM IS RAISED; THAT IS NOTICE THAT SOMEONE
DEEMS THEIR PERSONAL PRESENCE IMPORTANT.  THIS IS THE CUSTOM
CHRISTOFFEL, IN EFFECT, DENIED TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.  A MEMBER NOW
STEPS OUT OF A COMMITTEE ROOM AT RISK OF NULLIFYING THE WHOLE
PROCEEDING. 

IT IS IRONIC THAT THIS INTERFERENCE WITH LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES WAS
PROMULGATED BY EXERCISE WITHIN THE COURT OF THE VERY RIGHT OF ABSENTEE
PARTICIPATION DENIED TO CONGRESSMEN.  EXAMINATION OF OUR JOURNAL ON THE
DAY CHRISTOFFEL WAS HANDED DOWN SHOWS ONLY EIGHT JUSTICES PRESENT AND
THAT FOUR JUSTICES DISSENTED IN THAT CASE.  THE PREVAILING OPINION DOES
NOT EXPRESSLY INDICATE THE JUSTICES WHO JOINED IN IT, BUT ONLY FOUR
NONDISSENTING JUSTICES WERE PRESENT TO DO SO.  ON THE RECORD THIS WOULD
SHOW ONLY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, WHICH WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT
BELOW.  THE ONLY WAY THE FOUR WHO WERE PRESENT AND FOR A REVERSAL COULD
HAVE PREVAILED WAS BY COUNTING FOR IT ONE SHOWN BY THE RECORD TO BE
ABSENT.  THERE IS NOT EVEN ANY PUBLIC RECORD TO SHOW THAT IN ABSENTIA
HE JOINED THE DECISION, OR APPROVED THE FINAL OPINION, OR CONSIDERED
THE MATTER AFTER THE DISSENT WAS CIRCULATED; NOR IS THERE ANY WRITTEN
RULE OR LAW WHICH PERMITTED HIM TO DO SO.    I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT I AM NOT CRITICIZING ANY JUSTICE OR SUGGESTING THE SLIGHTEST
IRREGULARITY IN WHAT WAS DONE.  I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT AUTHORIZATION TO
INCLUDE THE ABSENT JUSTICE WAS GIVEN; AND I KNOW THAT TO VOTE AND BE
COUNTED IN ABSENTIA HAS BEEN SANCTIONED BY PRACTICE AND WAS WITHOUT
OBJECTION BY ANYONE.  IT IS THE FACT THAT IT IS STRICTLY REGULAR AND
CUSTOMARY, ACCORDING TO OUR UNWRITTEN PRACTICE, TO COUNT AS PRESENT FOR
PURPOSES OF COURT ACTION ONE PHYSICALLY ABSENT THAT MAKES THE DENIAL OF
A COMPARABLE PRACTICE IN CONGRESS SO ANOMALOUS.  OF COURSE, THERE IS
THIS DIFFERENCE:  THE ABSENT CONGRESSMAN WAS ONLY NECESSARY TO A
QUORUM; THE ABSENT JUSTICE WAS NECESSARY TO A DECISION.  NO COMMITTEE
ACTION WAS DEPENDENT UPON THE REPRESENTATIVES PRESUMED TO BE ABSENT IN
THE CHRISTOFFEL CASE.  ALL THEY COULD HAVE DONE IF PRESENT WAS TO
LISTEN.  IN OUR OWN CASE, PERSONAL JUDGMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OF
THE ABSENT MEMBER WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE CHRISTOFFEL OPINION A
DECISION OF THE COURT. 

THE RULING OF THE COURT TODAY SEEMS IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE COURT'S
DECISION IN THAT CASE.  TRUE, THE INK ON CHRISTOFFEL IS HARDLY DRY. 
BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS, WHICH I THINK SHOULD BE THE NORMAL
PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL ACTION, IS NOT WELL SERVED BY FAILING TO MAKE
EXPLICIT AN OVERRULING WHICH IS IMPLICIT IN A LATER DECISION.  UNLESS
WE REALLY ACCEDE TO ITS AUTHORITY, IT WERE FAR BETTER TO UNDO
CHRISTOFFEL BEFORE IT BECOMES EMBEDDED IN THE LAW AS A MISLEADING
INFLUENCE WITH THE PROFESSION.  OF COURSE, IT IS EMBARRASSING TO
CONFESS A BLUNDER; IT MAY PROVE MORE EMBARRASSING TO ADHERE TO IT.  IN
VIEW OF THE HOLDING TODAY, I THINK THAT THE DECISION IN THE CHRISTOFFEL
CASE SHOULD BE FORTHRIGHTLY AND ARTLESSLY OVERRULED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

18 U.S.C. SEC. 3486 PROVIDES THAT NO TESTIMONY GIVEN BY A WITNESS
BEFORE ANY COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE "SHALL BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN ANY
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AGAINST HIM IN ANY COURT, EXCEPT IN A PROSECUTION
FOR PERJURY COMMITTED IN GIVING SUCH TESTIMONY."  THE COURT ADMITS THAT
USE OF SUCH TESTIMONY IN CONVICTING BRYAN FOR WILFUL FAILURE TO PRODUCE
RECORDS VIOLATED THE "LITERAL LANGUAGE" OF SEC. 3486, BUT DECLINES TO
GIVE EFFECT TO THAT LANGUAGE.  I DISSENT FROM THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO
ABIDE BY THIS CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE. 

THE STATUTORY EXCEPTION OF "PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY" SHOWS THAT THE
ATTENTION OF CONGRESS WAS FOCUSED ON WHETHER COMMITTEE TESTIMONY SHOULD
BE ADMISSIBLE IN ANY SPECIAL TYPE OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  YET THE
COURT NOW READS THE STATUTE AS IF CONGRESS HAD FORBIDDEN THE USE OF
COMMITTEE TESTIMONY "EXCEPT IN A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY OR FOR FAILURE
TO PRODUCE RECORDS."  SUCH EXTENSIVE JUDICIAL LAW-MAKING IS
PARTICULARLY QUESTIONABLE WHEN USED TO RESTRICT SAFEGUARDS ACCORDED
DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES.  MOREOVER, THIS STATUTE SPRINGS FROM
CONGRESS'S RECOGNITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST
COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION.  THE COURT'S NARROWING OF THE STATUTE
MARKS A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING PREVIOUS
INTERPRETATIONS OF OTHER IMMUNITY LEGISLATION.  SMITH V. UNITED STATES,
337 U.S. 137; UNITED STATES V. MONIA, 317 U.S. 424. 

THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE COURT FOR ITS AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE HAVE
AN ANOMALOUS BASIS:  THE COURT FEELS COMPELLED TO ALTER THE CLEAR
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 3486 IN ORDER NOT TO "SUBVERT THE CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE" WHICH IT ADMITS HAS ALREADY BEEN IRREVOCABLY FRUSTRATED BY THE
DECISION IN COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547. 

MOREOVER, THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS SO CLEAR AND PRECISE THAT DUBIOUS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CANNOT CONTRADICT IT.  AND NO PART OF THAT HISTORY
EVEN TENDS TO SHOW THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO PERMIT USE OF A WITNESS'
TESTIMONY TO CONVICT HIM OF ANY CRIME OTHER THAN PERJURY.  THERE IS A
JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR THE PERJURY EXCEPTION.  THE CRIME CONSISTS OF
THE TESTIMONY ITSELF, WITHOUT WHICH NO PROSECUTION WOULD BE POSSIBLE. 
NOT SO WITH DEFAULT IN PRODUCING PAPERS.  THAT CRIME IS BASED NOT ON A
WITNESS'S TESTIMONY BUT RATHER ON HIS FAILURE TO PRODUCE - CONDUCT
WHICH CAN BE PROVED BY MEMBERS OF A COMMITTEE, CLERKS, OR SPECTATORS. 
THERE IS THEREFORE NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
AS CONGRESS WROTE IT WOULD LEAD TO "ABSURD CONCLUSIONS" BY ENCOURAGING
THE "REFUSAL OF WITNESSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR PRODUCE PAPERS." 

AS FOR OTHER ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME, SUCH AS POWER TO
PRODUCE, THEY CANNOT BE PROVED BY EVIDENCE EXTRACTED FROM A DEFENDANT
UNDER COMPULSION.  A WITNESS SUMMONED TO TESTIFY AND PRODUCE PAPERS IS
NO LESS ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE PROTECTION OF THIS STATUTE AND OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION THAN IS ANY
OTHER DEFENDANT.  ONE WHO HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE CERTAINLY COULD NOT BE
COMPELLED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS CONCERNING HIS POWER TO PRODUCE, THEREBY
MAKING HIM A "WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF."  IF APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
AS CONGRESS WROTE IT WOULD LEAD TO "ABSURD CONCLUSIONS," SO WOULD THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE COURT FINDS COMFORT IN THE STATEMENT THAT THE COMMITTEE TESTIMONY
OF WITNESSES IS "UNIFORMLY PRINTED IN THE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
RECOMMENDING CONTEMPT ACTION" TO THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS.  HOWEVER
EXTENSIVE THIS PRACTICE MAY BE, IT WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE USE OF SUCH
EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL.  BY ITS OWN TERMS 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3486 IS
EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO "ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING  ...  IN ANY COURT." 
FN1 

FOR THESE REASONS THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. 

FN1  THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMINAL TRIALS AND CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AT THE BAR OF CONGRESS IS EMINENTLY REASONABLE IN VIEW OF
THE PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO.  SEE DISSENTING OPINION IN
UNITED STATES V. FLEISCHMAN, POST, P. 349.  FOR A DISCUSSION OF
CONGRESSIONAL CONTEMPT PROCEDURES, SEE EBERLING, CONGRESSIONAL
INVESTIGATIONS 179 AND PASSIM (COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1928). 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. FLEISCHMAN, 339 U.S. 349 


NO. 98.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1950.  - 84 U.S.
APP. D.C. 388, 174 F.2D 519, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT WAS A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF AN ASSOCIATION WHICH
WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.  THE COMMITTEE ISSUED SUBPOENAS TO EACH
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, DEMANDING THAT THEY PRODUCE IN
THE COMMITTEE ROOM AT A STATED TIME CERTAIN OF THE ASSOCIATION'S
RECORDS WHICH WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE
ASSOCIATION.  THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, ACTING TOGETHER, HAD
POWER TO DIRECT THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS AND TO
REMOVE HER FROM OFFICE; BUT THEY HELD NO MEETING TO CONSIDER COMPLIANCE
WITH THE SUBPOENA.  THEY APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBPOENAS BUT THE
RECORDS WERE NOT PRODUCED.  IN IDENTICAL PREPARED STATEMENTS TO THE
COMMITTEE, EACH ASSERTED THAT HE DID NOT INDIVIDUALLY HAVE CUSTODY OF
THE RECORDS AND WAS THEREFORE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA. 
ASKED WHETHER SHE PERSONALLY WOULD PERMIT THE COMMITTEE TO SEE THE
BOOKS, RESPONDENT ANSWERED:  "I DON'T THINK IT IS PERTINENT TO SAY WHAT
I SHOULD DO A WEEK FROM NOW."  SHE WAS INDICTED, TRIED AND CONVICTED
FOR WILLFUL DEFAULT UNDER R.S. SEC. 102, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192.  HELD: 

1.  THE QUESTION OF THE LACK OF A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE, RAISED FOR
THE FIRST TIME AT THE TRIAL, AND THE QUESTION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AT THE TRIAL FOR WILLFUL DEFAULT,
ARE GOVERNED BY THE DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. BRYAN, ANTE, P. 323. 
P. 352. 

2.  THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT HAD NO INDIVIDUAL CONTROL OVER THE
RECORDS WAS NO DEFENSE.  PP. 356-358. 

(A)  WHEN ONE ACCEPTS AN OFFICE OF JOINT RESPONSIBILITY, IN WHICH
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWFUL ORDERS REQUIRES JOINT ACTION BY THE BODY OF
WHICH HE IS A MEMBER, HE NECESSARILY ASSUMES AN INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HIS POWER, TO BRING ABOUT
COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH AN ORDER.  PP. 356-357. 

(B)  THE FACT THAT THE ORGANIZATION HERE INVOLVED WAS AN
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION RATHER THAN A CORPORATION IS IMMATERIAL.  P.
358. 

3.  AFTER INTRODUCING EVIDENCE THAT THE EXECUTIVE BOARD HAD POWER TO
PRODUCE THE RECORDS AND THAT IT HAD NOT DONE SO, THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT
HAVE THE FURTHER BURDEN OF PROVING THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER HAD NOT
DONE THAT WHICH WAS WITHIN HIS POWER TO BRING ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
COMMITTEE'S ORDER.  PP. 358-364. 

(A)  THE DOCTRINE THAT IT IS NOT INCUMBENT ON THE PROSECUTION TO
ADDUCE POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A NEGATIVE AVERMENT THE TRUTH OF
WHICH IS FAIRLY INDICATED BY ESTABLISHED CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHICH IF
UNTRUE COULD BE READILY DISPROVED BY THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR
OTHER EVIDENCE PROBABLY WITHIN THE DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION OR CONTROL,
IS APPLICABLE HERE.  PP. 360-361. 

(B)  IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT MADE SOME EFFORT TO
BRING ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA OR HAD SOME EXCUSE FOR FAILING
TO DO SO, THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT AMPLY SUSTAINED THE
CONVICTION.  P. 364. 

4.  THE SUBPOENA WAS NOT DEFECTIVE BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS
ADDRESSED NOT TO THE ASSOCIATION BY NAME BUT TO RESPONDENT AS A MEMBER
OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD.  PP. 353-354, N. 4. 

UNITED STATES V. FLEISCHMAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF WILLFUL DEFAULT UNDER R.S. SEC. 102, 2
U.S.C. SEC. 192, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA OF THE COMMITTEE
ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 388, 174 F.2D 519.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 846.  REVERSED, P. 365. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT FLEISCHMAN IS A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF AN
ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE
(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSOCIATION), WHICH, DURING 1945 AND
1946, WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN
ACTIVITIES.  IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS INVESTIGATION, THE COMMITTEE ISSUED
SUBPOENAS ON MARCH 29, 1946, TO EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE
BOARD AND TO HELEN R. BRYAN, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE
ASSOCIATION, DEMANDING THAT THEY PRODUCE CERTAIN OF THE ASSOCIATION'S
RECORDS IN THE COMMITTEE'S CHAMBER ON APRIL 4, 1946.  FLEISCHMAN AND
THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD APPEARED ON THAT DATE IN RESPONSE TO THE
SUBPOENAS BUT DID NOT PRODUCE THE RECORDS.  THE COMMITTEE THEREUPON
REPORTED TO THE HOUSE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WERE IN
CONTEMPT OF THAT BODY.  AFTER DEBATE, THE HOUSE VOTED TO DIRECT THE
SPEAKER TO CERTIFY THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL ACTION. 

RESPONDENT AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WERE JOINTLY
INDICTED FOR WILFUL DEFAULT UNDER R.S. SEC. 102,  FN1  BUT FLEISCHMAN
WAS TRIED SEPARATELY FROM THE OTHERS.  HER DEFENSE, LIKE THAT OF BRYAN,
FN2  CONSISTED IN PART IN THE CONTENTION THAT SHE COULD NOT BE GUILTY
OF WILFUL DEFAULT BECAUSE A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE HAD NOT BEEN
PRESENT WHEN SHE APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBPOENA.  THE TRIAL COURT
WITHDREW THAT ISSUE FROM THE JURY, HOLDING "AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT
THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WAS A VALIDLY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS, AND WAS AT THE TIME OF
THE DEFENDANT'S APPEARANCE."  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, 84 U.S. APP. D.C. 388, 174
F.2D 519, ON THE GROUND THAT PRESENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE AT
THE TIME OF RESPONDENT'S APPEARANCE WAS A MATERIAL QUESTION OF FACT FOR
THE JURY.  THE COURT ALSO DIVIDED ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION, A MAJORITY HOLDING THE
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT.  WE GRANTED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 338 U.S. 846, TO
CONSIDER THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER R.S. SEC. 102. 

THE QUORUM QUESTION IS GOVERNED BY OUR DECISION THIS DAY IN UNITED
STATES V. BRYAN, ANTE, P. 323.  LIKE BRYAN, RESPONDENT TESTIFIED BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE ON THE RETURN DAY OF THE SUBPOENA WITHOUT MAKING ANY
SUGGESTION OF LACK OF A QUORUM.  THAT ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST
TIME AT THE TRIAL, TWO YEARS AFTER HER APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE,
WHERE SHE HAD GIVEN OTHER REASONS FOR HER FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE
DOCUMENTS.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD, WE THINK
THE DEFENSE OF LACK OF QUORUM WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO HER. 

THE QUESTION OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HER TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE AT HER TRIAL FOR WILFUL DEFAULT IS LIKEWISE GOVERNED BY OUR
DECISION IN THE BRYAN CASE, WHERE WE HELD THAT R.S. SEC. 859, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 3486, CANNOT BE READ TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OF TESTIMONY OF
THIS KIND AT A TRIAL FOR WILFUL DEFAULT UNDER R.S. SEC. 102. 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE VERDICT OF GUILT IN THIS CASE.  THAT EVIDENCE CONSISTED IN
PART OF THE RECORD OF THE COMMITTEE'S UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS OVER A
PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS TO OBTAIN THE BOOKS AND PAPERS OF THE ASSOCIATION
FROM ITS CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OF WHICH THERE IS EVIDENCE
OF RESPONDENT'S KNOWLEDGE.  FN3  OTHER EVIDENCE INTRODUCED MAY
REASONABLY BE TAKEN TO ESTABLISH THE FOLLOWING FACTS:  FOLLOWING ITS
UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN THE RECORDS FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE COMMITTEE ISSUED SUBPOENAS TO ALL SIXTEEN
MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE ASSOCIATION, COMMANDING THEM TO
APPEAR ON APRIL 4, 1946, IN THE COMMITTEE'S CHAMBER, THERE TO PRODUCE
THE RECORDS.  THE SUBPOENA SERVED ON RESPONDENT WAS ADDRESSED TO HER AS
"A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE
COMMITTEE."  FN4  THE BOARD HAD POWER, ITS MEMBERS ACTING JOINTLY, TO
DIRECT MISS BRYAN TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS, TO TRANSFER CUSTODY OF THE
DOCUMENTS TO SOME OTHER PERSON, OR TO REMOVE HER FROM OFFICE.  FN5  BUT
DURING THE INTERVAL BETWEEN MARCH 29, WHEN THE SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED,
AND APRIL 4, WHEN ITS MEMBERS APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, NO MEETING
OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WAS HELD TO DISCUSS COMPLIANCE.  A NUMBER OF
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MET IN AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN NEW YORK ON APRIL
2, WHEN HE GAVE TO EACH A TYPEWRITTEN STATEMENT TO READ TO THE
COMMITTEE. 

ALL OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAD BEEN SUBPOENAED APPEARED AT THE TIME AND
PLACE SPECIFIED IN THE SUBPOENAS.  NO ONE PRODUCED THE RECORDS.  EACH
OF THE SIXTEEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, INCLUDING RESPONDENT, READ OR
HANDED TO THE COMMITTEE THE IDENTICALLY WORDED STATEMENTS PREPARED BY
THE ASSOCIATION'S ATTORNEY.  THESE STATEMENTS READ: 

"I INDIVIDUALLY DO NOT HAVE POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL OVER ANY
OF THE MATERIAL REQUESTED IN THE SUBPENA WHICH WAS SERVED UPON ME.  THE
BOOKS, RECORDS, AND CORRESPONDENCE OF THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE
COMMITTEE ARE IN THE POSSESSION, CUSTODY, AND CONTROL OF MISS HELEN R.
BRYAN, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF OUR ORGANIZATION, AND SHE IS THE
LEGAL CUSTODIAN OF THIS MATERIAL.  SINCE I DO NOT HAVE EITHER IN MY
POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL THE BOOKS, RECORDS, AND DOCUMENTS
DESCRIBED IN THE SUBPENA, I AM UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH YOUR ORDER TO
PRODUCE THEM." 

UPON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE COMMITTEE AS TO WHETHER SHE,
INDIVIDUALLY, WOULD GIVE HER CONSENT TO PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS,
RESPONDENT'S ANSWER WAS THAT THAT QUESTION WAS "NOT PERTINENT"; THAT
SHE WOULD DECIDE ONLY AT A MEETING OF THE BOARD. 

RESPONDENT AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WERE JOINTLY INDICTED
ON A CHARGE THAT THEY "APPEARED BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN
THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ON APRIL 4, 1946, BUT
FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS CALLED FOR IN THE SUBPOENAS, AS THEY HAD
POWER TO DO, AND THEREBY WILFULLY MADE DEFAULT."  AS WE HAVE POINTED
OUT, THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE THAT THE RECORDS WERE
UNDER THE JOINT CONTROL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD AND THAT
THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, ACTING TOGETHER, HAD POWER TO PRODUCE THEM.  IT
IS CONTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT RESPONDENT (IN THIS RESPECT NO DIFFERENT
FROM ANY OTHER MEMBER) HAD NO INDIVIDUAL CONTROL OVER THE RECORDS, AND
THAT THERE IS THUS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE NONPRODUCTION OF THE RECORDS
RESULTED FROM ANYTHING SHE PERSONALLY DID OR OMITTED TO DO. 

IT SEEMS ELEMENTARY THAT THE ONLY MANNER BY WHICH A DUTY REQUIRING
THE JOINT PARTICIPATION OF SEVERAL PERSONS MAY BE PERFORMED IS BY A
COMBINATION OF INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCES.  AND CONVERSELY, THE FAILURE TO
PERFORM SUCH A DUTY IS THE RESULT OF A FAILURE BY SOME OR ALL OF THE
PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO ACT TOGETHER TO DISCHARGE THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES.  THIS FAILURE IS NOT NECESSARILY THE RESULT OF A
CONSPIRACY, WHICH PREMISES AN AGREEMENT OF SOME KIND.  ONE MAY, EITHER
ALONE OR IN CONCERT WITH OTHERS, FAIL TO PERFORM HIS INDIVIDUAL PART OF
A TASK REQUIRING JOINT PARTICIPATION. 

WHEN ONE ACCEPTS AN OFFICE OF JOINT RESPONSIBILITY, WHETHER ON A
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION, THE GOVERNING BOARD OF A
MUNICIPALITY, OR ANY OTHER POSITION IN WHICH COMPLIANCE WITH LAWFUL
ORDERS REQUIRES JOINT ACTION BY A RESPONSIBLE BODY OF WHICH HE IS A
MEMBER, HE NECESSARILY ASSUMES AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT,
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HIS POWER TO DO SO, TO BRING ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH
THE ORDER.  IT MAY BE THAT THE EFFORTS OF ONE MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL
AVAIL NOTHING.  IF HE DOES ALL HE CAN, HE WILL NOT BE PUNISHED BECAUSE
OF THE RECALCITRANCE OF OTHERS.  COMMISSIONERS V. SELLEW, 99 U.S. 624,
627(1879).  BUT TO HOLD THAT, BECAUSE COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER DIRECTED
TO THE DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION OR OTHER ORGANIZATION REQUIRES COMMON
ACTION BY SEVERAL PERSONS, NO ONE OF THEM IS INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE FAILURE OF THE ORGANIZATION TO COMPLY, IS EFFECTUALLY TO REMOVE
SUCH ORGANIZATIONS BEYOND THE REACH OF LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL
COMMANDS.  THIS COURT AND THE STATE COURTS WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THE
MATTER  FN6  HAVE ADOPTED A CONTRARY VIEW.  IN WILSON V. UNITED STATES,
221 U.S. 361(1911), MR. JUSTICE HUGHES STATED THE PROPOSITION THUS: 

"A COMMAND TO THE CORPORATION IS IN EFFECT A COMMAND TO THOSE WHO ARE
OFFICIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS AFFAIRS.  IF THEY,
APPRISED OF THE WRIT DIRECTED TO THE CORPORATION, PREVENT COMPLIANCE OR
FAIL TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION WITHIN THEIR POWER FOR THE PERFORMANCE
OF THE CORPORATE DUTY, THEY, NO LESS THAN THE CORPORATION ITSELF, ARE
GUILTY OF DISOBEDIENCE AND MAY BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT."  ID. AT 376. 
SEE ALSO COMMISSIONERS V. SELLEW, SUPRA.  FN7 

NOR IS A DISTINCTION TO BE DRAWN ON THE GROUND THAT A CORPORATION WAS
THERE INVOLVED WHILE THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE IS AN
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION.  BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 134, 141
142(1928), MAKES IT CLEAR THAT A SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO AN UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATION AND ITS OFFICERS IS EQUALLY VALID.  IF THE LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE HAD A RIGHT TO DEMAND THE RECORDS, THE DIRECTING OFFICERS OF
THE ASSOCIATION ARE QUITE AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR PRODUCTION AS IF
THEY WERE CORPORATE OFFICERS.  CF. UNITED STATES V. WHITE, 322 U.S.
694(1944).  FN8 

THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS IS WHETHER, AFTER INTRODUCING EVIDENCE THAT
THE BOARD HAD POWER TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS, THAT IT HAD NOT DONE SO,
AND THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD HAD READ THE IDENTICAL STATEMENTS
QUOTED ABOVE AS HIS REASON FOR NONCOMPLIANCE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE
FURTHER BURDEN OF PROVING THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER HAD NOT DONE THAT
WHICH WAS WITHIN HIS POWER TO BRING ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
COMMITTEE'S ORDER.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT RESPONDENT'S PREPARED STATEMENT
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND HER ANSWERS TO THE COMMITTEE'S QUESTIONS ARE
SUFFICIENT IN THEMSELVES TO SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT.  FOR THEY
INDICATE CLEARLY THAT RESPONDENT HAD ASSUMED NO PERSONAL DUTY TO DO
ANYTHING.  THE PREPARED STATEMENT WAS, OF COURSE, A PATENT EVASION OF
THE COMMITTEE'S DEMANDS.  WHILE STATING THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE
EXECUTIVE BOARD INDIVIDUALLY DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE RECORDS, IT
DOES NOT DENY, AS IT COULD NOT, THAT THE MEMBERS HAD POWER JOINTLY TO
COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENAS.  SINCE THE SUBPOENAS REQUIRED THAT THEY ACT
JOINTLY - THE PREVIOUS DEMANDS ON THE CHAIRMAN AND THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY INDIVIDUALLY HAVING BEEN OF NO AVAIL - THE STATEMENT THAT THE
MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY HAD NO POWER TO COMPLY IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. 

AND WHEN THE COMMITTEE ASKED RESPONDENT WHETHER SHE, PERSONALLY,
WOULD PERMIT THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE BOOKS, HER ANSWER
AGAIN WAS AN EVASION.  SHE SAID:  "I DON'T THINK IT IS PERTINENT TO SAY
WHAT I SHOULD DO A WEEK FROM NOW." 

THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT POSITION IS THAT IT IS NOT FOR HER NOR ANY
OTHER MEMBER OF THE BOARD TO SAY THAT SHE WOULD MAKE UP HER MIND NEXT
WEEK.  THE RETURN DAY OF THE SUBPOENA HAD ARRIVED.  NO ONE SO MUCH AS
HINTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO TIME TO ACT.  THE MEMBERS HAD GATHERED IN
AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON APRIL 2, WHEN THEY RECEIVED THEIR STATEMENTS. 
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT SOME MEMBERS HAD GATHERED INFORMALLY ELSEWHERE
TO DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF COMPLIANCE.  IN FACT ALL WERE PRESENT IN THE
ANTEROOM OF THE COMMITTEE'S CHAMBER ON THE MORNING OF APRIL 4.  IF
THERE HAD BEEN THE SLIGHTEST BENT TOWARD COMPLIANCE, THE OPPORTUNITIES
WERE THERE.  WHEN RESPONDENT APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, SHE WAS
ASKED IN EFFECT, AS OF THAT TIME, WHETHER SHE WAS A PARTY TO THE JOINT
REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS:  "WOULD YOU NOW, RIGHT HERE NOW, GIVE
YOUR CONSENT TO THIS COMMITTEE TO (SEE THE BOOKS AND RECORDS)?"  AS ONE
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE STATED TO RESPONDENT:  "THAT IS THE
MAIN THING, THE WHOLE CASE."  HER ANSWER WAS NO ANSWER. 

IT MAY BE ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT RESPONDENT MAY HAVE ADOPTED THE
POSITION OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ONLY AFTER SHE HAD TRIED IN
GOOD FAITH TO BRING ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA.  OR PERHAPS SHE
HAD BEEN ILL OR NECESSARILY OUT OF TOWN IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO APRIL 4. 
GRANTING THAT THESE OR OTHER EXCUSES FOR NONACTION MAY EXIST, MUST THE
GOVERNMENT NEGATIVE EACH, OR WAS THE BURDEN ON RESPONDENT TO ADVANCE
THEM AS DEFENSIVE MATTER? 

WE THINK THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE FAIRLY BRING INTO PLAY
THE FAMILIAR DOCTRINE IN CRIMINAL CASES THAT "IT IS NOT INCUMBENT ON
THE PROSECUTION TO ADDUCE POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A NEGATIVE
AVERMENT THE TRUTH OF WHICH IS FAIRLY INDICATED BY ESTABLISHED
CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHICH IF UNTRUE COULD BE READILY DISPROVED BY THE
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR OTHER EVIDENCE PROBABLY WITHIN THE
DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION OR CONTROL."  ROSSI V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S.
89, 91-92(1933), AND AUTHORITIES CITED.  THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT GOVERN
THIS QUESTION HAVE BEEN WELL STATED BY MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO IN
DISCUSSING A SIMILAR QUESTION - THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE
WHICH SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION TO THE
DEFENDANT.  HE SAID:    "THE DECISIONS ARE MANIFOLD THAT WITHIN LIMITS
OF REASON AND FAIRNESS THE BURDEN OF PROOF MAY BE LIFTED FROM THE STATE
IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND CAST ON A DEFENDANT.  THE LIMITS ARE IN
SUBSTANCE THESE, THAT THE STATE SHALL HAVE PROVED ENOUGH TO MAKE IT
JUST FOR THE DEFENDANT TO BE REQUIRED TO REPEL WHAT HAS BEEN PROVED
WITH EXCUSE OR EXPLANATION, OR AT LEAST THAT UPON A BALANCING OF
CONVENIENCE OR OF THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR KNOWLEDGE THE SHIFTING OF THE
BURDEN WILL BE FOUND TO BE AN AID TO THE ACCUSER WITHOUT SUBJECTING THE
ACCUSED TO HARDSHIP OR OPPRESSION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"  ...  FOR A TRANSFER OF THE BURDEN, EXPERIENCE MUST TEACH THAT THE
EVIDENCE HELD TO BE INCULPATORY HAS AT LEAST A SINISTER SIGNIFICANCE
...  , OR IF THIS AT TIMES BE LACKING, THERE MUST BE IN ANY EVENT A
MANIFEST DISPARITY IN CONVENIENCE OF PROOF AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
KNOWLEDGE, AS, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE A GENERAL PROHIBITION IS APPLICABLE
TO EVERY ONE WHO IS UNABLE TO BRING HIMSELF WITHIN THE RANGE OF AN
EXCEPTION.  GREENLEAF, EVIDENCE, VOL. 1, SEC. 79* .  THE LIST IS NOT
EXHAUSTIVE.  OTHER INSTANCES MAY HAVE ARISEN OR MAY DEVELOP IN THE
FUTURE WHERE THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE CAN BE REDRESSED WITHOUT
OPPRESSION TO THE DEFENDANT THROUGH THE SAME PROCEDURAL EXPEDIENT.  THE
DECISIVE CONSIDERATIONS ARE TOO VARIABLE, TOO MUCH DISTINCTIONS OF
DEGREE, TOO DEPENDENT IN LAST ANALYSIS UPON A COMMON SENSE ESTIMATE OF
FAIRNESS OR OF FACILITIES OF PROOF, TO BE CROWDED INTO A FORMULA.  ONE
CAN DO NO MORE THAN ADUMBRATE THEM; SHARPER DEFINITION MUST AWAIT THE
SPECIFIC CASE AS IT ARISES."  MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 82, 88
91(1934).  FN9 

*THE COURT'S FOOTNOTE READS:  "INSTANCES OF THE APPLICATION OF THIS
PRINCIPLE CAN BE CITED IN PROFUSION.  THE CASES THAT FOLLOW ARE TYPICAL
EXAMPLES:  KING V. TURNER, 5 MAU.  & SEL.  206, WHERE A DEFENDANT
HAVING GAME IN HIS POSSESSION IN VIOLATION OF A STATUTE WHEREBY
POSSESSION WAS GENERALLY A CRIME, WAS HELD TO HAVE THE BURDEN OF
PROVING HIS SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS (CF. YEE HEM V. UNITED STATES, (268
U.S. 178); ALSO SPIERES V. PARKER, 1 T.R. 144, PER LORD MANSFIELD);
FLEMING V. PEOPLE, 27 N.Y. 329, A PROSECUTION FOR BIGAMY, WHERE ON
PROOF THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD CONTRACTED A SECOND MARRIAGE DURING THE
LIFETIME OF HIS FIRST WIFE, THE BURDEN WAS LAID UPON HIM TO PROVE
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THE MARRIAGE LAWFUL; AND
FINALLY SUCH CASES AS POTTER V. DEYO, 19 WEND.  361, 363, AND UNITED
STATES V. TURNER, 266 FED. 248(TYPICAL OF A HOST OF OTHERS) WHERE A
DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO THE BURDEN OF PRODUCING A LICENSE OR A
PERMIT FOR A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE ILLEGAL. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. HAYWARD, 26 FED. CAS. 240; BOARD OF COMM'RS V.
MERCHANT, 103 N.Y. 143; 8 N.E. 484." 

IN THIS SITUATION, MANIFESTLY, THE PROSECUTION IS UNDER A SERIOUS
PRACTICAL HANDICAP IF IT MUST PROVE THE NEGATIVE PROPOSITION - THAT
RESPONDENT DID NOT OR HAD NO GOOD REASON FOR FAILING TO TRY TO COMPLY
WITH THE SUBPOENA INSOFAR AS SHE WAS ABLE.  THE POSSIBILITIES OF TIME
AND CIRCUMSTANCE ARE OF SUCH WIDE RANGE AS TO DEFY INCLUSIVE REBUTTAL. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BURDEN OF THE AFFIRMATIVE WAS NOT AN OPPRESSIVE
ONE FOR RESPONDENT TO UNDERTAKE; THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE PECULIARLY
WITHIN HER KNOWLEDGE.  SHE WAS CALLED UPON MERELY TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
AS TO WHAT STEPS SHE TOOK AFTER RECEIVING THE SUBPOENA, OR, IF SHE TOOK
NO ACTION, ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO EXCUSE HER OMISSION.  RESPONDENT
DOES NOT LOSE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE THAT SURROUNDS THE DEFENDANT
IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  THAT PRESUMPTION CONTINUES TO OPERATE UNTIL
OVERCOME BY PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND IS NOT TO BE
CONFUSED WITH BURDEN OF PROOF, WHICH IS A RULE AFFECTING MERELY THE
TIME AND MANNER OF PROOF.  SEE 1 WHARTON, CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (11TH ED.) 
SECS. 199-204.  FN10 

EVEN THOUGH WE ASSUME, THEREFORE, CONTRARY TO THE REASONABLE
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM RESPONDENT'S STATEMENTS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE, THAT SHE MAY HAVE MADE SOME EFFORT TO BRING ABOUT COMPLIANCE
WITH THE SUBPOENA, OR HAD SOME EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO DO SO, WE THINK
THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENTED THE BURDEN WAS UPON HER TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN SUCH A DEFENSE.  AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH EVIDENCE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT
AMPLY SUSTAINS THE CONVICTION.  RESPONDENT IS NO MORE OR LESS GUILTY
THAN ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE BOARD.  IF SHE CAN ESCAPE PROSECUTION BY
REMAINING QUIESCENT, SO CAN ALL THE OTHERS.  IF HERS IS A VALID
DEFENSE, THEN ALL THAT THE DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION NEED DO WHEN THEY
AND THE CORPORATION ARE SERVED WITH SUBPOENAS IS TO REFRAIN FROM
DISCUSSING COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER.  NO ONE NEED MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO
COMPLY, FOR NONE OF THEM "INDIVIDUALLY" HAS CONTROL OVER THE ACTION -
OR NONACTION - OF THE CORPORATION.  A STRATAGEM SO TRANSPARENT DOES NOT
CAST A SHADOW OF SUBSTANCE.  FN11 

IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE DUTIES OF
WITNESSES SUMMONED BY ONE COMMITTEE BUT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OWED BY
PERSONS SUMMONED BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE OR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TO APPEAR BEFORE ANY PERSON OR GROUP DESIGNATED BY THAT AUTHORITY. 
REFORMS IN THE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES ARE
VIGOROUSLY DEMANDED BY PERSONS BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT CONGRESS.  WE
WOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD IN THIS CASE AS EXPRESSING EITHER APPROVAL OR
DISAPPROVAL OF THOSE PRACTICES.  BUT THE REMEDY, IF ANY IS NEEDED, IS
CERTAINLY NOT TO DESTROY THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF ALL COMMITTEES,
WHICH IS THE NECESSARY RESULT IF THEY CANNOT COMPEL THE DISCLOSURE OF
FACTS.  A SUBPOENA IS A STERILE DOCUMENT IF ITS ORDERS MAY BE FLOUTED
WITH IMPUNITY. 

RESPONDENT ADVANCES A NUMBER OF CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE NOT PASSED
UPON BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WE DO NOT DECIDE THEM AT THIS TIME.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  11 STAT. 155, AS AMENDED, R.S. SEC. 102, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192: 

"EVERY PERSON WHO HAVING BEEN SUMMONED AS A WITNESS BY THE AUTHORITY
OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS TO GIVE TESTIMONY OR TO PRODUCE PAPERS UPON
ANY MATTER UNDER INQUIRY BEFORE EITHER HOUSE, OR ANY JOINT COMMITTEE
ESTABLISHED BY A JOINT OR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE TWO HOUSES OF
CONGRESS, OR ANY COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS, WILLFULLY MAKES
DEFAULT, OR WHO, HAVING APPEARED, REFUSES TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION
PERTINENT TO THE QUESTION UNDER INQUIRY, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000 NOR LESS THAN
$100 AND IMPRISONMENT IN A COMMON JAIL FOR NOT LESS THAN ONE MONTH NOR
MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS." 

FN2  SEE UNITED STATES V. BRYAN, ANTE, P. 323. 

FN3  THIS EVIDENCE CONSISTED OF A RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE EXECUTIVE
BOARD ON DECEMBER 14, 1945, CONDEMNING THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION
AND DIRECTING MISS BRYAN TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY WITH A VIEW TOWARD
PROTECTING THE RECORDS FROM THE COMMITTEE, AND THE MINUTES OF A MEETING
OF FEBRUARY 11, 1946, AT WHICH THE EXECUTIVE BOARD VOTED TO INSTRUCT
DR. BARSKY NOT TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, AS HE HAD
BEEN ORDERED TO DO.  WHILE RESPONDENT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN EITHER OF
THESE ACTIONS, HER KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMITTEE'S EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE
RECORDS AND THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO WAS SHOWN
BY EVIDENCE OF HER ATTENDANCE OF A BOARD MEETING IN MARCH, 1946, WHEN
DR. BARSKY REPORTED CONCERNING HIS APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON
FEBRUARY 13, AND THE ASSOCIATION'S ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT AND TALKED TO
THE BOARD ABOUT ITS LEGAL POSITION IN THE MATTER. 

FN4  THE SUBPOENA SERVED ON MRS. FLEISCHMAN READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

"TO THE SERGEANT AT ARMS, OR HIS SPECIAL MESSENGER: 

"YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO SUMMON MRS. ERNESTINA G. FLEISCHMAN,
'VOICE OF FIGHTING SPAIN', 1 COLUMBUS AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY, A MEMBER
OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE TO
BE AND APPEAR BEFORE THE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, OF WHICH THE HON. JOHN S. WOOD
IS CHAIRMAN, AND TO BRING WITH YOU ALL BOOKS, LEDGERS, RECORDS AND
PAPERS RELATING TO THE RECEIPT AND DISBURSEMENT OF MONEY BY OR ON
ACCOUNT OF THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE OR ANY SUBSIDIARY
OR SUB-COMMITTEE THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH ALL CORRESPONDENCE AND
MEMORANDA OF COMMUNICATIONS BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER WITH PERSONS IN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  THE SAID BOOKS, PAPERS AND RECORDS DEMANDED HEREIN
ARE FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 1945 UP TO AND INCLUDING THE DATE OF
THIS SUBPOENA, IN THEIR CHAMBER IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 4,
1946, AT THE HOUR OF 10:00 A.M. THEN AND THERE TO TESTIFY TOUCHING
MATTERS OF INQUIRY COMMITTED TO SAID COMMITTEE; AND (SHE) IS NOT TO
DEPART WITHOUT LEAVE OF SAID COMMITTEE. 

"HEREIN FAIL NOT, AND MAKE RETURN OF THIS SUMMONS.  ...  " 

IT IS NOW SUGGESTED THAT THIS SUBPOENA IS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE ADDRESSED
NOT TO THE ASSOCIATION BY NAME BUT TO RESPONDENT AS A MEMBER OF THE
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221
U.S. 361(1911) AND COMMISSIONERS V. SELLEW, 99 U.S. 624(1879) ARE
DISTINGUISHED ON THAT GROUND.  WE CAN THINK OF NO CLEARER WAY OF
NOTIFYING RESPONDENT THAT SHE WAS REQUIRED TO PERFORM HER DUTY AS A
MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ASSOCIATION THAN TO SERVE AN
INDIVIDUAL SUBPOENA UPON HER, ADDRESSED TO HER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, AND CALLING FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
PAPERS WHICH SHE KNEW WERE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD. 
THIS SUBPOENA MAKES EXPLICIT WHAT IS MERELY IMPLICIT IN SUBPOENAS
ADDRESSED TO AN ORGANIZATION BY NAME AND SERVED ON INDIVIDUAL
DIRECTORS, AS WAS DONE IN THE WILSON CASE. 

FN5  MRS. FLEISCHMAN'S TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY
OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE CHAIRMAN.  THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN THE
EXECUTIVE BOARD? 

"MRS. FLEISCHMAN.  NO. 

"THE CHAIRMAN.  AND ON ALL MATTERS OF POLICY, DIRECTION OF THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE JOINT ANTI-FASCIST REFUGEE COMMITTEE, THE EXECUTIVE
BOARD IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY? 

"MRS. FLEISCHMAN.  YES. 

"THE CHAIRMAN.  NOW, AS A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD - YOU SAY YOU ARE A
MEMBER NOW? 

"MRS. FLEISCHMAN.  YES. 

"THE CHAIRMAN.  AS A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD ARE YOU NOW WILLING, SO FAR
AS YOU PERSONALLY ARE CONCERNED, AS A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD ARE YOU NOW
WILLING TO PERMIT THIS COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS TO SEE THOSE BOOKS AND
RECORDS CALLED FOR IN THAT SUBPENA? 

"MRS. FLEISCHMAN.  I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD DO.  IT WOULD REQUIRE A
MEETING OF THE BOARD." 

THERE WAS ALSO TESTIMONY THAT THE BOARD HAD POWER TO TRANSFER CUSTODY
OF THE RECORDS FROM BRYAN TO SOME OTHER PERSON AND THAT, IN FACT, THE
VOTE AT THE FEBRUARY 11 MEETING HAD BEEN ON THAT VERY QUESTION. 

FN6 FOR APPLICATIONS OF THIS PRINCIPLE IN THE ANALOGOUS SITUATION
PRESENTED BY NONCOMPLIANCE WITH A MANDAMUS, SEE STATE V. CITY OF LIVE
OAK, 126 FLA. 132, 170 SO. 608(1936); LITTLEFIELD V. TOWN OF ADEL, 151
GA. 684, 108 S.E. 56(1921); SMITH V. LOTT, 156 GA. 590, 119 S.E.
400(1923); MCCULLOCH V. STATE, 174 IND. 525, 92 N.E. 543(1910); MIDDLE
STATES UTILITIES CO. V. CITY OF OSCEOLA, 231 IOWA 462, 1 N.W.2D
643(1942); KENTUCKY CULVERT MFG. CO. V. ELLIOTT COUNTY FISCAL COURT,
239 KY. 797, 40 S.W.2D 375(1931); STATE V. MINNEAPOLIS STREET R. CO.,
154 MINN. 401, 191 N.W. 1004(1923); HEATHER V. CITY OF PALMYRA, 317 MO.
1320, 298 S.W. 750(1927); COMMONWEALTH V. SCHMIDT, 287 PA. 150, 134 A.
478(1926); BUTLER COUNTY V. PITTSBURGH, H., B. & N.C.R. CO., 298 PA.
347, 148 A. 504(1929). 

FN7  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE WILSON CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE
IT MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE FACT THAT, ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT COUNSEL,
THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN AFTER THE RECORDS "IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER" FOR
NEARLY A MONTH THAT THE SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM SERVED UPON THE DIRECTORS
HAD BEEN SUPPLEMENTED BY ORAL ORDERS.  THERE IS NOT ONE WORD IN THE
WILSON RECORD THAT SUPPORTS SUCH AN INFERENCE.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
GRAND JURY'S PRESENTMENT WAS NOT FOR FAILURE TO OBEY ANY ORAL COMMANDS
BUT "FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A CERTAIN SUBPOENA ISSUED OUT OF THIS COURT,
DATED OCTOBER 28, 1910."  VIDE THE FOLLOWING: 

"THE COURT:  WHAT IS THE PRESENTMENT PRECISELY? 

"MR. WISE (GOVERNMENT COUNSEL):  THE GRAND JURY PRESENTS THAT THE
CORPORATION IS IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT IN NOT OBEYING THE SUBPOENA,
THAT THESE GENTLEMEN ARE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT IN THAT THEY HAVE KNOWN
AND HAD ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO THE CORPORATION
REQUIRING IT TO PRODUCE THESE BOOKS, AND IN DEFIANCE OF THIS COURT AND
OF ITS PROCESS HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION TO HAVE THEIR CORPORATION
COMPLY WITH THE PROCESS,  ...  " 

FN8  THE ARGUMENT THAT RESPONDENT WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED UPON A
THEORY DIFFERENT FROM THAT UPON WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS HERE FOUND
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION IS REFUTED BY THE RECORD, WHICH IS
FULL OF DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE IMPORT OF THE WILSON CASE.  THE
FOLLOWING IS REPRESENTATIVE: 

"MR. ROGGE (COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT):  ...  LET'S LOOK AT THE WILSON
CASE AGAIN, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS PASSED ON (IN BARSKY V. UNITED
STATES, 167 F.2D 241, 251).  IT SAYS IF YOUR MEMBERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DIRECT THE CORPORATION AND FAIL TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION; IN ORDER TO
BE FREE OF GUILT HERE DID ERNESTINA HAVE TO BE A PROPAGANDIST AND GO TO
THE BOARD MEMBERS AND SAY BEFORE TAKING ACTION -    "THE COURT
(INTERPOSING):  WHEN SHE TAKES ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF AN EXECUTIVE
BOARD MEMBER CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES FLOW ALONG WITH THAT WHEN SHE
DOES IT. 

"MR. ROGGE:  SHE IS A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD.  THE EVIDENCE
HAS SHOWN THAT.  ... THE RECORD ALSO SHOWS THAT, WHAT YOU GET DOWN TO
IS THAT ERNESTINA, IN ORDER NOT TO BE GUILTY HERE, HAD TO SEE TO IT
THAT SOME SORT OF AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN, AND I DO NOT THINK
THAT IS REQUIRED EVEN UNDER THE WILSON CASE." 

FN9  SEE ALSO WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 78 U.S. APP. D.C. 147, 138
F.2D 81(1943).  IN TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463(1943), THIS COURT
REFUSED TO UPHOLD A FEDERAL STATUTE CREATING A PRESUMPTION THAT
FIREARMS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF ONE WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN
CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE WERE RECEIVED BY HIM IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE AFTER JULY 30, 1938, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PRESUMPTION IS "INCONSISTENT WITH ANY ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM EXPERIENCE." 
ID. AT 468. 

FN10  THIS CONCLUSION IS BUTTRESSED BY THE FACT THAT SUCH A BURDEN
ORDINARILY IS CAST UPON MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BOARDS OF CORPORATIONS
AND ASSOCIATIONS WHICH HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH COURT ORDERS, WHEN THEY
ARE BROUGHT INTO COURT ON CONTEMPT CHARGES.  IN WILSON V. UNITED
STATES, 221 U.S. 361(1911), WHERE WILSON, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
CORPORATION, HAD CUSTODY OF THE BOOKS AND HAD REMOVED THEM TO HIS HOME,
THE CORPORATION AND FIVE OF ITS DIRECTORS WERE SERVED WITH SUBPOENAS TO
PRODUCE.  THE DIRECTORS APPEARED IN COURT AND WERE NOT HELD IN CONTEMPT
ALTHOUGH THEY DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS BECAUSE, AS THIS COURT NOTED IN
ITS OPINION:  "ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTORS BEFORE THE COURT IT WAS
STATED THAT THEY HAD MADE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE BOOKS FOR PRODUCTION
BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, BUT THAT WILSON HAD DECLINED TO SURRENDER THEM. 
THEY PRESENTED THE MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HELD
ON THAT DAY AT WHICH THESE DIRECTORS (I.E. THOSE WHO HAD BEEN SERVED
WITH SUBPOENAS), CONSTITUTING A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, HAD PASSED A
RESOLUTION DEMANDING OF WILSON THE POSSESSION OF THE LETTER PRESS COPY
BOOKS CALLED FOR BY THE SUBPOENA 'FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE SAME BEFORE
THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY.'"  ID. AT 371.  AGAIN, IN CONTRASTING WILSON'S
ACTIONS WITH THOSE OF THE DIRECTORS, THE COURT STATED:  "THE APPELLANT
DID NOT ATTEMPT TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT ON (THE CORPORATION'S) PART; HIS
CONDUCT WAS IN ANTAGONISM TO THE CORPORATION, SO FAR AS ITS ATTITUDE IS
SHOWN.  A MAJORITY OF THE DIRECTORS, NOT INCLUDING THE APPELLANT,
APPEARED BEFORE THE COURT AND URGED THEIR SOLICITUDE TO COMPLY WITH THE
WRIT.  THEY PRESENTED THEIR FORMAL ACTION, TAKEN AT A MEETING OF THE
BOARD, IN WHICH THEY DEMANDED OF THE APPELLANT THE DELIVERY OF THE
BOOKS FOR PRODUCTION BEFORE THE GRAND JURY."  ID. AT 376.  IN
CONSIDERING THIS PRACTICE IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN CRIMINAL
CONTEMPTS, AS IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OBTAINS;
PROOF OF GUILT MUST BE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT; AND THE DEFENDANT MAY
NOT BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS
STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 444(1911); UNITED STATES V. GOLDMAN,
277 U.S. 229, 235-236(1928); MICHAELSON V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 42,
67(1924). 

FN11 THE PROPOSITION THAT ONE WHO TRIES BUT FAILS TO OBTAIN
COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBPOENA REQUIRING THE JOINT ACTION OF SEVERAL
PERSONS HAS MADE A USELESS AND "EMPTY GESTURE" WHICH SHOULD NOT BE
COMPELLED BY THE COURTS OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT IF ENOUGH MEMBERS OF
THE GOVERNING BODY MAKE THE ATTEMPT REQUIRED BY THE SUBPOENAS THEIR
JOINT EFFORT WILL ORDINARILY BE SUCCESSFUL.  IN THE WILSON CASE ITSELF
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMPRISONMENT OF THE DIRECTORS FOR CONTEMPT AND
THEIR ACQUITTAL WAS THEIR "EMPTY GESTURE" OF CALLING UPON WILSON TO
PRODUCE THE RECORDS.  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD TO
SUPPORT THE CONVICTION OF RESPONDENT FLEISCHMAN UNDER R.S. SEC. 102.  I
CANNOT AGREE.  WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT DEPENDS PRIMARILY ON
WHAT CONDUCT IS MADE CRIMINAL BY R.S. SEC. 102 AND WHAT ACTION IS
REQUIRED BY A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM.  MY VIEWS ON THESE QUESTIONS DIFFER
SO DRASTICALLY FROM THOSE OF THE COURT THAT I SHALL PRESENT THEM, AND
THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH THEY DICTATE, BEFORE TURNING TO THE COURT'S
OPINION. 

                                  I. 

R.S. SEC. 102 PROVIDES:  "EVERY PERSON WHO HAVING BEEN SUMMONED AS A
WITNESS BY THE AUTHORITY OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS, TO GIVE TESTIMONY
OR TO PRODUCE PAPERS  ...  WILLFULLY MAKES DEFAULT, ...  SHALL BE
DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR  ...  "  THIS CRIMINAL STATUTE IS
LIMITED BY ITS TERMS TO JUST TWO TYPES OF CONGRESSIONAL ORDERS:  (1) A
SUBPOENA TO GIVE TESTIMONY, AND (2) A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE PAPERS.  THE
LATTER TYPE OF ORDER IS INVOLVED HERE. 

REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE PAPERS CAN BE PUNISHED
ONLY IF THE WITNESS HAS POWER TO PRODUCE.  IT IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE FOR
HIM TO SHOW THAT THE PAPERS ARE NOT IN HIS POSSESSION OR UNDER HIS
CONTROL.  FOR A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DOES NOT REQUIRE A WITNESS "TO SUE
AND LABOR IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE POSSESSION OF ANY INSTRUMENT FROM
ANOTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS PRODUCTION AFTERWARDS BY HIMSELF  ...  "
MUNROE V. UNITED STATES, 216 F. 107, 111-112, QUOTING LORD
ELLENBOROUGH'S OPINION IN AMEY V. LONG, 9 EAST 473, 483; SEE THE
GENERAL DISCUSSION IN NOTES, 1915B L.R.A. 980-985; 32 AM. ST. REP.
648.  A COMMAND TO PRODUCE IS NOT A COMMAND TO GET OTHERS TO PRODUCE OR
ASSIST IN PRODUCING.  OF COURSE CONGRESS, LIKE A COURT, HAS BROAD
POWERS TO SUPPLEMENT ITS SUBPOENA WITH OTHER COMMANDS REQUIRING THE
WITNESS TO TAKE SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE STEPS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO
REMOVE OBSTACLES TO PRODUCTION.  BUT EVEN THOUGH DISOBEDIENCE OF SUCH
SUPPLEMENTARY ORDERS CAN BE PUNISHED AT THE BAR OF CONGRESS AS
CONTEMPT, JURNEY V. MACCRACKEN, 294 U.S. 125, IT DOES NOT COME WITHIN
THE LIMITED SCOPE OF R.S. SEC. 102.  ONLY BY IMPORTING THE BROAD
CONTEMPT POWERS OF CONGRESS INTO THIS CRIMINAL STATUTE CAN THIS COURT
SAY THAT IT DOES.  I CANNOT AGREE TO SUCH CAVALIER EXPANSION OF ANY
CRIMINAL PROVISION. 

PROSECUTION UNDER R.S. SEC. 102 IS THUS LIMITED TO A RANGE FAR
NARROWER THAN IS A PROCEEDING FOR CONTEMPT, EITHER IN COURT OR AT THE
BAR OF CONGRESS.  AND EVEN UNDER THE NOTORIOUSLY BROAD CONTEMPT POWER,
PUNISHMENT IS JUSTIFIABLE ONLY WHEN A PERSON HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH
AN ORDER SPECIFYING PRECISELY WHAT HE MUST DO, AND WHEN HE HAS POWER
HIMSELF TO DO WHAT IS ORDERED.  FN1 CERTAINLY NO LESS PRECISE STANDARD
SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL
STATUTE.  CF. PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 306, 310-311. 

VIEWED IN THIS LIGHT, THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE UNMISTAKABLY FALLS
SHORT OF PROVING THAT FLEISCHMAN DISOBEYED THE SUBPOENA OR VIOLATED THE
STATUTE.  THE GOVERNMENT DID SUCCEED IN ESTABLISHING THAT SHE HAD
RECEIVED THE SUBPOENA, KNEW APPROXIMATELY WHAT DOCUMENTS SHE WAS
REQUIRED TO PRODUCE, AND YET FAILED TO PRODUCE THEM.  BUT AN ESSENTIAL
INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE - THAT SHE HAD POWER TO PRODUCE THOSE RECORDS
ON APRIL 4 - REMAINS COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED.  FN2 THE GOVERNMENT
DOES NOT CONTEND THAT FLEISCHMAN HAD POWER TO PRODUCE EXCEPT BY ACTING
JOINTLY WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.  AND, FOR THE REASONS STATED
ABOVE, THE SUBPOENA ADDRESSED TO FLEISCHMAN AS AN INDIVIDUAL BOARD
MEMBER IMPOSED ON HER NO DUTY TO PROD OTHERS TO PRODUCE, OR TO INITIATE
JOINT ACTION AIMED AT PRODUCTION.  FN3 

BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED SCOPE OF R.S. SEC. 102 AND THE COMPLETE
ABSENCE OF PROOF THAT FLEISCHMAN HAD POWER TO PRODUCE THE SUBPOENAED
DOCUMENTS, HER CONVICTION OF THE CRIME CREATED BY THAT STATUTE SHOULD
BE SET ASIDE. 

                 II. 

THE COURT DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT OF
UPHOLD FLEISCHMAN'S CONVICTION UNDER THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES
OUTLINED ABOVE.  RATHER IT CONSTRUCTS A NOVEL LEGAL THEORY WHICH,
HOWEVER PLAUSIBLE ON THE SURFACE, WILL NOT STAND DETAILED ANALYSIS. 

THE CHAIN OF REASONING ON WHICH ITS LEGAL THEORY HANGS APPEARS TO BE
THIS:  FLEISCHMAN AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WERE SERVED
WITH SEPARATE SUBPOENAS ORDERING EACH TO PRODUCE PAPERS OF THE
ASSOCIATION ON APRIL 4; BRYAN, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HAD POSSESSION
OF THE PAPERS; THE INDIVIDUAL SUBPOENAS IMPOSED ON EACH BOARD MEMBER A
PERSONAL DUTY TO DO ALL EACH COULD TO BRING ABOUT JOINT ACTION THAT
WOULD CAUSE PRODUCTION; HAD FLEISCHMAN PERFORMED HER INDIVIDUAL PART OF
THIS JOINT TASK, SHE MIGHT HAVE PREVAILED ON THE BOARD TO PASS A
RESOLUTION WHICH MIGHT HAVE FORCED BRYAN TO PRODUCE; FLEISCHMAN FAILED
TO SHOW THAT SHE HAD DONE ALL SHE COULD TO BRING ABOUT THAT RESULT;
THEREFORE FLEISCHMAN WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF WILFULLY
DISOBEYING THE SUBPOENA ADDRESSED TO HER AS AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE
BOARD. 

IN THIS INTRICATE CHAIN, CERTAIN CRUCIAL LINKS ARE ENTIRELY MISSING
AND OTHERS ARE FAR TOO WEAK TO SUSTAIN A CRIMINAL CONVICTION: 

A. THE FOUNDATION OF THE COURT'S THEORY IS THAT A SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM ADDRESSED TO AN INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER INCLUDES THE COMMAND THAT
HE DO "ALL HE CAN" TO BRING ABOUT JOINT BOARD ACTION TO PRODUCE THE
SUBPOENAED PAPERS.  FN4  THIS DOCTRINE EXPANDS THE SCOPE OF THE
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FAR BEYOND ITS TRADITIONAL BOUNDARIES, WHICH ARE
OUTLINED IN PART I SUPRA.  NO PRECEDENT FOR SUCH AN EXPANSION CAN BE
FOUND IN THE TWO CASES RELIED ON BY THE COURT. 

COMMISSIONERS V. SELLEW, 99 U.S. 624, MERELY APPROVED ISSUANCE OF A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO A COUNTY COMMISSION ORDERING SPECIFIC ACTION ON A
SPECIFIC DATE AS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY KANSAS STATUTES.  SUCH IS THE
TRADITIONAL FUNCTION OF MANDAMUS.  SELDOM HAS A JUDICIAL ORDER BEEN
MORE EXPLICIT.  IN SHARP CONTRAST TO FLEISCHMAN, THE COMMISSIONERS WERE
NOT REQUIRED TO HAZARD THE LEAST GUESS AS TO WHAT ACTION WOULD SATISFY
THE JUDICIAL MANDATE.  BOTH THAT MANDATE AND THE APPLICABLE STATE
STATUTES TOLD THEM PRECISELY WHAT TO DO.  FN5 

NOR DOES THE OPINION IN WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361,
SUPPORT TODAY'S HOLDING THAT AN ORDER TO PRODUCE PAPERS REQUIRES A
PERSON, WITHOUT FURTHER ORDERS, TO TAKE ACTION GETTING OTHERS TO
PRODUCE.  THE COURT RELIES ON A DICTUM THAT CORPORATE OFFICIALS CAN BE
REQUIRED TO TAKE "APPROPRIATE ACTION" TO SECURE PERFORMANCE OF A
CORPORATE DUTY.  EVEN THE DICTUM, HOWEVER, MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEXT
OF THAT CASE.  WILSON, THE PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION TO WHICH A
SUBPOENA WAS ADDRESSED, HAD ACTUAL CUSTODY OF THE SUBPOENAED RECORDS. 
APPEARING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WITH SEVERAL CORPORATION DIRECTORS, HE
REFUSED TO PRODUCE.  THE DIRECTORS DENIED POWER TO MAKE HIM DO SO.  IN
THE RESULTING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY COMPLAINED
THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN AFTER THE RECORDS "IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
BEFORE THIS SAME GRAND JURY FOR NEARLY A MONTH."  HE EMPHASIZED THAT
MANY OF THE DIRECTORS HAD FREQUENTLY APPEARED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY,
AND INDEED HAD SPENT THE ENTIRE PRECEDING DAY THERE.  FN6  IN VIEW OF
THE FREQUENT AND PROLONGED APPEARANCES OF THE DIRECTORS BEFORE THE
GRAND JURY, EVEN A PASSING ACQUAINTANCE WITH HOW A GRAND JURY OPERATES
WOULD MAKE IT INCONCEIVABLE THAT "ONE WAY OR ANOTHER" DID NOT INCLUDE
ORAL ORDERS TO TAKE ACTION AIMED AT FORCING WILSON TO TURN OVER THE
RECORDS.  WHETHER SUCH ORDERS WERE SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY HOLDING
THE DIRECTORS IN CONTEMPT, OR WHETHER FAILURE TO TAKE ANY ACTION WOULD
JUSTIFY PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SUBPOENA ITSELF WITHOUT FIRST
ORDERING THE DIRECTORS TO TAKE SPECIFIC STEPS, BECAME IMMATERIAL WHEN
THE DIRECTORS PASSED A RESOLUTION ORDERING WILSON TO PRODUCE.  THE
DIRECTORS WERE FOUND INNOCENT, AND THE ONLY ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT
INVOLVED WILSON'S GUILT.  READ IN THIS CONTEXT, THE DICTUM ON WHICH THE
COURT RELIES AFFORDS NO SUPPORT WHATEVER FOR ITS CONCLUSION HERE THAT A
SUBPOENA, OF ITSELF, IMPOSES THE AMORPHOUS DUTY OF "APPROPRIATE ACTION"
TO GET OTHERS TO PRODUCE.  MOREOVER, CITATION OF THE SELLEW CASE AS
AUTHORITY FOR THE DICTUM CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE "APPROPRIATE
ACTION" WOULD HAVE TO BE DESIGNATED AND COMMANDED BY SPECIFIC ORDERS. 
NOTHING IN THE WILSON OPINION CAN FAIRLY BE INTERPRETED AS SUPPLANTING,
OR EVEN CASTING DOUBT ON, THE TRADITIONAL RULE THAT FAILURE TO TAKE
ACTION REQUIRED BY AN ORDER CAN BE PUNISHED ONLY IF THE ACTION IS
CLEARLY, SPECIFICALLY, AND UNEQUIVOCALLY COMMANDED BY THAT ORDER.  FN7 

APPARENTLY THE ONLY REASON GIVEN FOR DISCARDING THIS RULE IS THE
COURT'S STATEMENT THAT FAILURE TO CONSTRUE AN INDIVIDUAL SUBPOENA AS
REQUIRING JOINT ACTION BY MEMBERS OF A BOARD WOULD "REMOVE SUCH
ORGANIZATIONS BEYOND THE REACH OF LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL COMMANDS." 
THAT FEAR IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION.  A CUSTODIAN WILFULLY FAILING TO
PRODUCE RECORDS CAN BE PROSECUTED UNDER R.S. SEC. 102.  AND UNDER 18
U.S.C. SEC. 3, ANYONE "AIDING OR ABETTING" HER ALSO BECOMES A PRINCIPAL
IN THAT OFFENSE AND IS SIMILARLY SUBJECT TO R.S. SEC. 102.  MOREOVER, A
CONSPIRACY TO PREVENT PRODUCTION WOULD CERTAINLY PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR
CONVICTION.  THUS THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT FLEISCHMAN'S CONVICTION
COULD BE SUSTAINED IF THERE HAD BEEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT SHE
ACTUALLY AIDED OR ENCOURAGED THE CUSTODIAN'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE, OR
CONSPIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT RESULT.  FN8  AND IN THE RARE INSTANCE
WHERE THESE SANCTIONS SEEM UNLIKELY TO SECURE COMPLIANCE, CONGRESS CAN
ALWAYS FALL BACK UPON ITS ARSENAL OF SUPPLEMENTARY ORDERS ENFORCED BY
CONGRESSIONAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS:  FN9  OFFICERS WITH AUTHORITY TO
CALL A BOARD MEETING CAN BE ORDERED TO DO SO, AND BOARD MEMBERS CAN BE
ORDERED TO VOTE FOR RESOLUTIONS CALCULATED TO FOSTER PRODUCTION.  IT
CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT ANY ORGANIZATION CAPABLE OF ESCAPING THIS
BARRAGE WOULD NOT BE BROUGHT INTO LINE BY TODAY'S EXPANSION OF R.S.
SEC. 102.  A SUBPOENA IS NOT MADE "STERILE" BY HOLDING THAT IT COMMANDS
ONLY WHAT IT SAYS IT COMMANDS.    IN FACT, THE COURT'S NEW DOCTRINE
CREATES A DANGER FAR MORE GENUINE THAN WHAT IT ALLEGEDLY AVOIDS.  WHILE
IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS A WITNESS IN DOUBT AS TO JUST WHAT ACTION IS
DEMANDED CAN BE GIVEN MORE PRECISE ORDERS BEFORE A TRIBUNAL DECIDES TO
PUNISH HIM FOR NONCOMPLIANCE, NO SUCH FLEXIBILITY EXISTS IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS UNDER R.S. SEC. 102.  AS APPLIED TO SUCH PROSECUTIONS, THE
SWEEPING REQUIREMENT THAT A WITNESS NOT HAVING CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF
SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS MUST DO "ALL HE CAN" TO SECURE THEIR PRODUCTION
PLACES HIM IN AN UNFAIR DILEMMA.  CAUTION DICTATES THAT HE "SUE AND
LABOR" TO OBTAIN THE PAPERS, HOWEVER GREAT AND HOWEVER USELESS THE
EFFORT AND EXPENSE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, COMMON SENSE COUNSELS THAT HE
MAKE SUCH PRACTICAL EFFORTS AS WOULD SATISFY A REASONABLE JURY - AND
NOT UNTIL THE JURY HAS SPOKEN WILL HE KNOW WHETHER HE GUESSED RIGHT. 

NOT EVEN AFTER TODAY'S OPINION CAN FLEISCHMAN - OR, FOR THAT MATTER,
ANYONE ELSE - KNOW PRECISELY WHAT STEPS WERE REQUIRED OF HER TO
ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS WHICH SHE HERSELF COULD NOT PRODUCE. 
FN10 

B. EVEN IF THE THEORY ON WHICH THIS COURT UPHOLDS FLEISCHMAN'S
CONVICTION WERE TENABLE, IT IS, AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED FROM ITS NOVELTY,
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE THEORY ON WHICH THE CASE WAS TRIED.  AN
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN THE TRIAL JUDGE'S CHARGE WAS HIS INSTRUCTION THAT
THE JURY COULD FIND FLEISCHMAN GUILTY ONLY IF IT FOUND THAT SHE HAD
"ACTED IN CONCERT WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD" TO PREVENT
PRODUCTION.  BUT THE COURT, WITHOUT EVEN ATTEMPTING TO SUPPORT HER
CONVICTION ON THIS THEORY, SUBSTITUTES A THEORY INVOLVING COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT PROBLEMS OF PROOF AND EVIDENCE.  FN11  THE ISSUE OF WHETHER
FLEISCHMAN HAD FAILED TO ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE OTHERS TO PRODUCE WAS NOT
BEING TRIED, AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HER TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
CONCERNING IT. THE QUESTION ON REVIEW IS NOT WHETHER THE RECORD AS A
WHOLE EXUDES A GENERAL IMPRESSION OF GUILT, BUT WHETHER THE EVIDENCE
SUPPORTS A FINDING OF GUILT ON THE ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE JURY BY THE
TRIAL JUDGE'S CHARGE.  BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 607, 614. 
THIS COURT SHOULD HEED ITS MANDATES FORBIDDING STATE APPELLATE COURTS
TO UPHOLD CONVICTIONS ON ANY THEORY MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT ON
WHICH THE CASE WAS PRESENTED TO THE JURY.  SEE COLE V. ARKANSAS, 333
U.S. 196, 201-202. 

C. THE COURT RELIES HEAVILY ON STATEMENTS MADE BY FLEISCHMAN BEFORE
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.  BUT THESE STATEMENTS ARE EXPRESSLY MADE
INADMISSIBLE BY 18 U.S.C. SEC. 3486, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO TESTIMONY
GIVEN BY A WITNESS BEFORE ANY COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE "SHALL BE USED
AS EVIDENCE IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AGAINST HIM IN ANY COURT, EXCEPT
IN A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY COMMITTED IN GIVING SUCH TESTIMONY."  SEE
UNITED STATES V. BRYAN, ANTE, PP. 323, 346. 

NOR DOES FLEISCHMAN'S TESTIMONY, EVEN IF ADMISSIBLE, SUPPORT THE
INFERENCES DRAWN FROM IT BY THIS COURT.  WEIGHTY SIGNIFICANCE IS
ATTACHED TO HER REFUSAL TO SAY HOW SHE WOULD VOTE ON THE QUESTION OF
PRODUCTION IF A BOARD MEETING WERE HELD.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT NO
MEETING HAD BEEN HELD FOLLOWING HER RECEIPT OF THE SUBPOENA, NO FUTURE
MEETING HAD ANY RELEVANCE WHATEVER TO THE PAST OFFENSE WITH WHICH SHE
WAS CHARGED, AND THE SUBPOENA DID NOT ORDER HER TO TAKE ACTION AT A
BOARD MEETING ANYWAY.  SEE PART I SUPRA. 

EQUALLY UNWARRANTED IS THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE COURT FROM THE FACT
THAT FLEISCHMAN AND OTHER BOARD MEMBERS READ THE SAME STATEMENT DENYING
INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION OR CONTROL OVER THE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS.  THE
COURT REFERS TO THIS STATEMENT, PREPARED BY A LAWYER, AS A "PATENT
EVASION" OF THE COMMITTEE'S ORDER.  ON THE CONTRARY, I REGARD THE
DENIAL OF INDIVIDUAL POWER TO PRODUCE AS A COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE
RESPONSE TO THE INDIVIDUAL SUBPOENAS.  AND SURELY, ALTHOUGH THE
COMMITTEE WOULD NOT PERMIT COUNSEL FOR WITNESSES TO ENTER THE COMMITTEE
ROOM, WITNESSES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ENTITLED TO GET ADVICE FROM A
QUALIFIED LAWYER AND PRESENT A STATEMENT PREPARED BY HIM WITHOUT HAVING
INFERENCES OF GUILT DRAWN FROM THAT FACT. 

D. POWER TO PRODUCE IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF ANY OFFENSE UNDER
R.S. SEC. 102, AND THE INDICTMENT NECESSARILY ALLEGED THAT "EACH AND
ALL" OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD SUCH POWER.  THUS PROOF OF FLEISCHMAN'S
POWER TO PRODUCE THE SUBPOENAED PAPERS IS UNDENIABLY VITAL TO THE
COURT'S THEORY OF THE CASE. 

THE ONLY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW POWER IN THE BOARD ITSELF TO
PRODUCE IS THAT IT HAD AUTHORITY OVER THE POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES OF
THE ASSOCIATION, AND HAD POWER TO SUSPEND BRYAN AT ANY REGULAR BOARD
MEETING.  FN12 ASSUMING THAT THE BOARD COULD HAVE ORDERED BRYAN TO
PRODUCE UNDER THREAT OF SUSPENSION, THE WILSON CASE DEMONSTRATES THAT
PROSPECTIVE OBEDIENCE TO SUCH A POTENTIAL BOARD ORDER CANNOT ACCURATELY
BE INFERRED MERELY FROM THE SUPREMACY OF A BOARD.  AND THIS RECORD IS
BARREN OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT BRYAN WOULD HAVE
COMPLIED ON APRIL 4TH WITH A BOARD ORDER. 

EQUALLY IMPORTANT UNDER THE COURT'S THEORY IS THE QUESTION OF
FLEISCHMAN'S OWN POWER TO BRING ABOUT PRODUCTION.  THE COURT HOLDS THAT
MEMBERSHIP ON THE BOARD GAVE HER ONE-EIGHTEENTH OF THE BOARD'S OFFICIAL
"POWER," WHICH IT CONSIDERS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT CONVICTION.  BUT HER
FRACTION OF OFFICIAL "POWER" COULD BE EXERCISED ONLY AT AN OFFICIAL
MEETING.  THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT ANY MEETING WAS HELD BETWEEN MARCH
29 AND APRIL 4, OR THAT FLEISCHMAN HAD POWER TO CALL SUCH A MEETING. 
FN13  AND I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COURT TO SAY THAT THE "POWER TO
PRODUCE" WHICH FLEISCHMAN CRIMINALLY FAILED TO EXERCISE WAS SOLELY SOME
IMAGINED PERSONAL ABILITY, UNCONNECTED WITH HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, TO
ATTEMPT TO CAJOLE THE CHAIRMAN INTO CALLING A MEETING OR ORDERING
PRODUCTION. 

UPON A SHOWING MERELY THAT THE BOARD CONTROLLED THE "POLICIES AND
ACTIVITIES" OF THE ASSOCIATION AND THAT SHE WAS A BOARD MEMBER, THE
COURT IMPOSES ON FLEISCHMAN THE BURDEN OF DISPROVING THE CRUCIAL
ALLEGATION OF "POWER TO PRODUCE" BY ESTABLISHING THAT SHE HAD DONE "ALL
SHE COULD" TO BRING ABOUT PRODUCTION.  IN EFFECT IT HAS SET UP A
PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY BOARD MEMBER AUTOMATICALLY HAS SUCH POWER, AND
HAS SADDLED FLEISCHMAN WITH THE BURDEN OF PROVING HER INNOCENCE BY
SHOWING THAT THE PRESUMPTION SHOULD NOT APPLY TO HER.  FN14  IN THE
ABSENCE OF SOME SHOWING THAT SHE HAD AUTHORITY TO CALL OR AN
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE AT AN OFFICIAL BOARD MEETING, OR AT LEAST HAD
SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE OVER OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, THIS IS EVERY BIT AS
ARBITRARY AS THE PRESUMPTION REJECTED IN TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S.
463.  FN15  THAT CASE DIRECTLY BARS USE OF SUCH A DEVICE TO SHIFT THE
BURDEN OF PROOF, HOWEVER CONVENIENT IT WOULD BE FOR THE PROSECUTOR. 
AND WITHOUT THAT DEVICE, THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE WAS CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT. 

THE TIME-HONORED RULE, THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRED TO PROVE EVERY
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF AN OFFENSE IT CHARGES, PROVIDES A SAFEGUARD
ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVATION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL
OPPRESSION.  IT SHOULD NOT BE SACRIFICED IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE
CONVICTION OF A SINGLE DEFENDANT WHOSE GUILT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PLAINLY
FAILED TO PROVE. 

     *         *     *         *         * 

IF THE COURT'S THEORY MERELY HAD ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE FLAWS, ITS
CHAIN OF REASONING WOULD BREAK.  WITH ALL FOUR, IT COLLAPSES.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TWO COMPONENTS OF THIS GENERAL PRINCIPLE AND THEIR
APPLICATION TO THIS CASE ARE DISCUSSED IN II (A) AND II (D) INFRA. 

FN2  THE COURT'S ATTEMPT TO OFFSET THIS DEFICIENCY IS DISCUSSED IN II
(D) INFRA. 

FN3  WHETHER JOINT ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED BY A SUBPOENA
ADDRESSED TO THE BOARD IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT FOR THE REASONS SET OUT
IN NOTE 4 INFRA.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT AN ORDER TO THE
BOARD AS AN ENTITY NECESSARILY IMPLIES JOINT ACTION; ONE ADDRESSED TO
AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER DOES NOT.  MOREOVER, THE FORMER IS SUFFICIENTLY
SPECIFIC IF IT TELLS THE BOARD EXACTLY WHAT TO DO; THE LATTER MUST TELL
THE INDIVIDUAL WHAT TO DO.  IN EITHER CASE, THE RECIPIENT MUST HAVE
POWER TO DO WHAT IS ORDERED BEFORE PUNISHMENT IS JUSTIFIED. 

FN4  WHILE A SUBPOENA WAS ALSO ADDRESSED TO THE BOARD AS AN ENTITY,
THERE IS UTTERLY NO EVIDENCE THAT FLEISCHMAN EVER KNEW OF IT.
THEREFORE, LIKE THE COURT, WE TREAT THE CASE AS IF NO BOARD SUBPOENA
HAD EVER BEEN ISSUED. 

FN5  THE STRING OF MANDAMUS CASES CITED IN NOTE 6 OF THE COURT'S
OPINION ARE EQUALLY INAPPLICABLE FOR THE SAME GENERAL REASON.  NO CASE
CITED SUPPORTS THE COURT'S POSITION. 

FN6  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DIRECTORS APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO A
SUBPOENA ADDRESSED TO THE CORPORATION.  UNLIKE FLEISCHMAN, THEY WERE
NOT SUBPOENAED INDIVIDUALLY.  SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA. 

FN7  SEE, E.G., MCFARLAND V. UNITED STATES, 295 F. 648, 650:
"CERTAINLY BEFORE ONE MAY BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING A
COURT ORDER, THE TERMS OF SUCH ORDER SHOULD BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC, AND
LEAVE NO DOUBT OR UNCERTAINTY IN THE MINDS OF THOSE TO WHOM IT IS
ADDRESSED."  SEE ALSO BERRY V. MIDTOWN SERVICE CORP., 104 F.2D 107,
111, 122 A.L.R. 1341, AND LABOR BOARD V. NEW YORK MERCHANDISE CO., 134
F.2D 949, 952.  IN THE LATTER CASE THE COURT, IN AN OPINION BY JUDGE
LEARNED HAND, CHARACTERIZES AS "CARDINAL" THE RULE THAT "NO ONE SHALL
BE PUNISHED FOR THE DISOBEDIENCE OF AN ORDER WHICH DOES NOT DEFINITELY
PRESCRIBE WHAT HE IS TO DO."  FOR APPLICATION OF THE SAME GENERAL RULE
TO CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A COURT DECREE, SEE TERMINAL
R. ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 17, 29. 

FN8  ONE COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT ACTUALLY CHARGED FLEISCHMAN AND
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WITH CONSPIRACY.  THAT COUNT WAS DISMISSED. 
AS FOR FLEISCHMAN'S GUILT AS AN "AIDER AND ABETTOR," THAT QUESTION WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY BY THE TRIAL JUDGE'S CHARGE.  IN AFFIRMING, THIS
COURT DOES NOT EVEN SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
FLEISCHMAN HAD EVER AIDED OR ENCOURAGED BRYAN OR ANYONE ELSE.  THAT
FLEISCHMAN'S CONVICTION CANNOT BE UPHELD UNDER EXISTING DOCTRINES DOES
NOT ESTABLISH THE INADEQUACY OF THOSE DOCTRINES FOR ANY PURPOSE EXCEPT
CONVICTING ONE WHOSE GUILT AS CHARGED HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. 

FN9  SEE PART I SUPRA. 

FN10  THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION THAT ANYTHING FLEISCHMAN
COULD HAVE DONE EVEN HAD A PROSPECT OF FOSTERING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
SUBPOENA.  SEE II (D) INFRA.  APPARENTLY FLEISCHMAN'S CONVICTION IS
BEING UPHELD BECAUSE SHE FAILED TO MAKE SOME UNDEFINED EMPTY GESTURE. 

FN11  THE COURT ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY ITS CHANGE OF THEORIES BY QUOTING
FROM A BENCH ARGUMENT BETWEEN FLEISCHMAN'S ATTORNEY AND THE TRIAL
JUDGE.  SUCH AN ARGUMENT CANNOT ALTER THE THEORY ON WHICH THE CASE WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY BY THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. 

FN12  EVEN THIS EVIDENCE COMES PRIMARILY FROM FLEISCHMAN'S TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE HELD
INADMISSIBLE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BRYAN, ANTE, PP. 323, 346. 

FN13  THE COURT INTIMATES THAT FLEISCHMAN COULD HAVE CALLED A MEETING
WHEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WERE GATHERED IN AN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON
APRIL 2D, OR AN INFORMAL GATHERING OF MEMBERS ELSEWHERE.  IT SHOULD BE
NOTED THAT THE PROSECUTOR LABORED VALIANTLY AT THE TRIAL TO ESTABLISH
THAT FLEISCHMAN VISITED THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR ATTENDED SOME INFORMAL
MEETING.  HE FAILED COMPLETELY IN THIS EFFORT.  DESPITE REPEATED
QUESTIONS TO SEVERAL WITNESSES, NOT ONE RESPONSE WAS EVOKED INDICATING
THAT FLEISCHMAN EVER SAW OR COMMUNICATED WITH A SINGLE BOARD MEMBER
DURING THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE TIME SHE WAS SUBPOENAED AND THE TIME
THE MEMBERS MET IN THE ANTEROOM OF THE COMMITTEE.  AS FOR THE
SUGGESTION THAT FLEISCHMAN MIGHT HAVE CALLED A MEETING IN THE ANTEROOM
OF THE COMMITTEE'S CHAMBERS, IT IS STRANGE DOCTRINE TO ASSERT THAT THE
COMMITTEE'S COMMAND THAT ALL MEMBERS APPEAR WAS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE
AUTOMATICALLY THAT EACH MEMBER CALL A MEETING.  IF THAT WAS WHAT THE
COMMITTEE WANTED, IT COULD HAVE ORDERED A MEETING ITSELF. 

IN ANY EVENT, "OPPORTUNITY" TO CALL A MEETING CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH
OFFICIAL "POWER" TO CALL A MEETING.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EVEN
INTIMATING THAT SHE HAD SUCH AUTHORITY. 

FN14  THIS THEORY SHARPLY CONTRASTS WITH THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE
THAT CORPORATE AND ASSOCIATION OFFICIALS, LIKE OTHER PERSONS, CAN BE
HELD GUILTY ONLY FOR THEIR OWN CRIME, AND NOT FOR THE CRIMES OF THEIR
ASSOCIATES IN WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THEY PARTICIPATED.  ANY
CONTRARY DOCTRINE IS A STARTLING INNOVATION IN THE LAWS OF THIS
COUNTRY.  SEE BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 395,
406-407.  SEE ALSO CASES COLLECTED IN NOTES, 33 A.L.R. 787; 16 L.R.A.
(N.S.)  333; 8 ANN. CAS. 383. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 9 OF THE COURT'S OPINION. 

UNDER THE TOT RULE, THE MINIMUM JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH A PRESUMPTION
WOULD BE GENERAL EXPERIENCE THAT THE MOST INSIGNIFICANT MEMBER OF A
BOARD HAS POWER, IF SHE "DOES ALL SHE CAN," TO SECURE BOARD PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS HELD BY ITS CUSTODIAN.  EXPERIENCE NOT ONLY FAILS TO
SUPPORT THIS PREMISE; AS ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE LOOSE-JOINTED
STRUCTURE OF NONPROFIT ASSOCIATIONS SHOULD KNOW, MOST MEMBERS OR MOST
BOARDS ARE WHOLLY SUBORDINATE TO THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND THE
CHAIRMAN.  THIS IS ONE OF THE "MANY SIGNIFICANT RESPECTS" IN WHICH SUCH
ASSOCIATIONS OBVIOUSLY DIFFER FROM BUSINESS CORPORATIONS.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. WHITE, 322 U.S. 694, 697.  NOT A SINGLE LINE IN ROSSI V.
UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 89, OR MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 82,
SUPPORTS THE "PRESUMPTION" RETROACTIVELY CREATED HERE.  AS A BASIS OF
"POWER TO PRODUCE," MERE BOARD MEMBERSHIP IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR
POSSESSION, CUSTODY OR CONTROL.    MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER,
DISSENTING. 

ANYONE WHO "WILLFULLY MAKES DEFAULT" IN OBEYING A VALID SUBPOENA TO
PRODUCE RECORDS BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS HAS, EVER SINCE 1857,
BEEN GUILTY OF A FEDERAL OFFENSE.  ACT OF JANUARY 24, 1857, 11 STAT.
155, R.S. SEC. 102, AS AMENDED BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 22, 1938, 52
STAT. 942, NOW 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192.  THIS WAS THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH
RESPONDENT WAS PROSECUTED.  THE TRIAL COURT THUS PUT TO THE JURY THE
THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION: 

"IF YOU FIND THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, HAD CUSTODY OR DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE RECORDS
SUBPOENAED AND COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE RECORDS CALLED FOR, BUT WILFULLY
FAILED AND REFUSED TO DO SO, AND THAT THE DEFENDANT FLEISCHMAN ACTED IN
CONCERT WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD, EITHER THROUGHOUT OR
AT ANY POINT, TO PREVENT THE COMMITTEE FROM GETTING THE SUBPOENAED
RECORDS, THEN YOU MAY FIND THE DEFENDANT FLEISCHMAN GUILTY, IF YOU FIND
THAT THE OTHER ELEMENTS HEREINAFTER SET OUT HAVE BEEN PROVED BY THE
UNITED STATES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT." 

THE ONLY "OTHER ELEMENT" THAT BEARS ON THE ISSUE OF THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE EVIDENCE WAS THE COURT'S EXPLANATION THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT
THE DEFAULT BE MADE "WILLFULLY" MEANS THAT THE DEFAULT MUST BE
"DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL." 

THE INDICTMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT ALSO HAD A COUNT CHARGING HER AND
OTHERS WITH CONSPIRING TO MAKE WILLFUL DEFAULT OF CONGRESSIONAL
SUBPOENAS.  IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WOULD
HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO BRING RESPONDENT WITHIN THE EXPANSIVE RANGE OF
A CONSPIRACY CHARGE OR WHETHER EVIDENCE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED
UNDER SUCH A CHARGE BUT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THIS TRIAL WOULD HAVE
SUFFICED TO PROVE GUILT.  FOR ITS OWN GOOD REASONS THE GOVERNMENT
DISMISSED THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE AGAINST FLEISCHMAN.  A CAREFUL STUDY OF
THE RECORD COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT EDGERTON, J. CONVEYED FAIRLY AND
IN BALANCE ALL THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVED AGAINST RESPONDENT ON THE
CHARGE ON WHICH SHE WAS TRIED: 

"APPELLANT TESTIFIED WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT SHE COULD NOT PRODUCE
THE RECORDS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT IN HER POSSESSION OR CONTROL.  SHE
REFUSED TO EXPRESS EITHER WILLINGNESS OR UNWILLINGNESS THAT THEY BE
PRODUCED.  FN8  EVEN THIS REFUSAL DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL SHE WAS
QUESTIONED BY MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON APRIL 4.  THE
RECORDS WERE IN POSSESSION OF ONE BRYAN, SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY AN
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF ABOUT 18 MEMBERS OF WHOM APPELLANT WAS ONE.  LONG
BEFORE APRIL 4 BRYAN, DIRECTED BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BUT NOT BY
THE APPELLANT, HAD DETERMINED NOT TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT RATIFIED OR APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.  THE GOVERNMENT SAYS 'IN TAKING PART IN A
COMBINED ACTION TO WITHHOLD RECORDS FROM A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE THE
APPELLANT ACTED AT HER OWN PERIL.'  BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND
ANY EVIDENCE, AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THAT THE APPELLANT
TOOK PART IN A COMBINED ACTION TO WITHHOLD RECORDS.  IT HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE ASKED THE BOARD, OR BRYAN, TO PRODUCE THE
RECORDS.  BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IF SHE HAD ASKED THEM THEY
WOULD HAVE COMPLIED.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE NONPRODUCTION OF
THE RECORDS IN THE COMMITTEEROOM RESULTED EITHER FROM ANYTHING THE
APPELLANT DID OR FROM ANYTHING SHE OMITTED TO DO."  84 U.S. APP. D.C.
388, 390, 174 F.2D 519, 521. 

THE RESPONDENT WAS SUMMONED TO PRODUCE PAPERS BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE AND DID NOT PRODUCE THEM.  FOR THIS NON-ACTION SHE WAS
PROSECUTED AS A PERSON WHO "WILLFULLY MAKES DEFAULT" IN NOT PRODUCING
THE PAPERS.  I BELIEVE IN GIVING PENAL STATUTES A SCOPE THEIR WORDS
WOULD RECEIVE "IN EVERYDAY SPEECH."  MCBOYLE V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S.
25, 26, AND SEE ROSCHEN V. WARD, 279 U.S. 337, 339.  IF LANGUAGE IN A
CRIMINAL STATUTE IS TO BE READ WITH THE NORMAL MEANING OF ENGLISH
SPEECH, "WILLFULLY MAKES DEFAULT" SURELY CONVEYS THE THOUGHT OF A
SUBSTANTIAL TIE BETWEEN THE NON-PRODUCTION OF PAPERS AND THE NON-ACTION
TO WHICH IT IS ATTRIBUTED.  THIS RECORD IS BARREN OF THE PROOF WHICH
UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF PUNITIVE JUSTICE WOULD HAVE WARRANTED A JURY TO
FIND THAT RESPONDENT WAS ACTIVELY OR PASSIVELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NON
PRODUCTION OF THE PAPERS SHE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE. 

THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT IMPLY THE SLIGHTEST RELAXATION OF THE DUTY
OF OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWFUL COMMANDS OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES IN
EXERCISING THEIR POWER OF TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION.  MCGRAIN V.
DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S. 135.  BUT REGARD FOR THAT POWER DOES NOT CALL FOR
THE SLIGHTEST RELAXATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CRIMINAL PROCESS. 
A PENAL STATUTE MUST NOT BE APPLIED BEYOND ITS TERMS, AND THE CRIME
DEFINED BY IT AND CHARGED IN AN INDICTMENT MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 

IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE HOUSE COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE ASKED RESPONDENT
TO TRY TO HAVE CONVENED A MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WITH A VIEW TO
ASKING THE CUSTODIAN OF THE RECORDS TO PRODUCE THEM.  SUCH A PROCEDURE
IS SUGGESTED BY WHAT WAS DONE IN WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361,
370-71.  HAD RESPONDENT REFUSED SHE WOULD HAVE SUBJECTED HERSELF TO A
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF A COMMAND OF THE COMMITTEE. 
BUT THIS IS NOT SUCH A PROCEEDING.  AS TO THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH SHE WAS
PROSECUTED, I AGREE WITH JUDGE EDGERTON THAT AN ACQUITTAL SHOULD HAVE
BEEN DIRECTED. 

FN8  "'THE CHAIRMAN:  MRS. FLEISCHMAN; I AM GOING TO ASK YOU NOW FOR
YOUR PERSONAL PERMISSION.  I AM REQUESTING YOU PERSONALLY TO PERMIT
THIS COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE BOOKS.  WILL YOU
GIVE IT TO US OR NOT?  SO FAR AS YOU ARE ABLE TO DO, WILL YOU GIVE IT
TO US? 

"'MRS. FLEISCHMAN:  THAT IS EXPRESSING MY OPINION, MR. CHAIRMAN.  I
CANNOT SAY WHAT THE BOARD WILL DO. 

"'THE CHAIRMAN:  I AM NOT ASKING WHAT THE BOARD WILL DO.  I AM ASKING
WHAT YOU WILL DO. 

"'MRS. FLEISCHMAN:  I DO NOT KNOW, BECAUSE THE THING COMES TO THE
BOARD TO DISCUSS, AND I DON'T THINK IT IS PERTINENT TO SAY WHAT I
SHOULD DO A WEEK FROM NOW.  IT IS A SPECIAL MEETING.' 

"I KNOW OF NOTHING ELSE IN THE RECORD THAT COMES NEARER THAN THIS TO
SUPPORTING AN INFERENCE THAT APPELLANT REFUSED TO PRODUCE THE RECORDS
OR EXPRESSED UNWILLINGNESS TO PRODUCE THEM." 
..END :














COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS, 339 U.S. 382 


ARGUED OCTOBER 10-11, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1950.  - 79 F.SUPP.  563,
170 F.2D 247, AFFIRMED. 


LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, WHICH IMPOSES CERTAIN
RESTRICTIONS ON, AND DENIES THE BENEFITS OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO, ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION THE OFFICERS OF
WHICH HAVE NOT FILED WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE SO
CALLED "NON-COMMUNIST" AFFIDAVITS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 9(H), IS VALID
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 385-415. 

1.  ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT WAS TO
REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE RESULTING FROM
"POLITICAL STRIKES" INSTIGATED BY COMMUNISTS WHO HAD INFILTRATED THE
MANAGEMENT OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND WERE SUBORDINATING LEGITIMATE
TRADE-UNION OBJECTIVES TO OBSTRUCTIVE STRIKES WHEN DICTATED BY
COMMUNIST PARTY LEADERS, OFTEN IN SUPPORT OF THE POLICIES OF A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT.  PP. 387-389. 

2.  SECTION 9(H) DOES NOT MERELY WITHHOLD FROM NONCOMPLYING UNIONS
BENEFITS GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT; IT ALSO IMPOSES ON THEM A NUMBER OF
RESTRICTIONS WHICH WOULD NOT EXIST IF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.  HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT PERSONS WHO DO NOT
SIGN THE PRESCRIBED AFFIDAVIT FROM HOLDING UNION OFFICE.  PP. 389-390. 

3.  THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY SEC. 9(H) BEARS REASONABLE RELATION TO THE
EVIL WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED TO REACH, SINCE CONGRESS MIGHT REASONABLY
FIND THAT COMMUNISTS, UNLIKE MEMBERS OF OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES, AND
PERSONS WHO BELIEVE IN THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE, UNLIKE
PERSONS OF OTHER BELIEFS, REPRESENT A CONTINUING DANGER OF DISRUPTIVE
POLITICAL STRIKES WHEN THEY HOLD POSITIONS OF UNION LEADERSHIP.  PP.
390-393. 

4.  SECTION 9(H) IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT AGAINST WHAT
COMMUNISTS AND OTHERS IDENTIFIED THEREIN ADVOCATE OR BELIEVE, BUT
AGAINST WHAT CONGRESS HAS CONCLUDED THEY HAVE DONE AND ARE LIKELY TO DO
AGAIN; AND THE PROBABLE EFFECTS OF THE STATUTE UPON THE FREE EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHT OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST THE
CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION THAT POLITICAL STRIKES ARE EVILS OF CONDUCT
WHICH CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT COMMUNISTS
AND OTHERS IDENTIFIED BY SEC. 9(H) POSE CONTINUING THREATS TO THAT
PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN IN POSITIONS OF UNION LEADERSHIP.  PP. 393-400. 

5.  IN VIEW OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL STRIKES AND
HOW TO DEAL WITH THEIR LEADERS, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE GOOD FAITH
EXERCISE OF THE GREAT POWERS ENTRUSTED BY CONGRESS TO LABOR BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE FACT THAT
SEC. 9(H) TOUCHES ONLY A RELATIVELY FEW PERSONS WHO COMBINE CERTAIN
POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS OR BELIEFS WITH THE OCCUPANCY OF POSITIONS OF
GREAT POWER OVER THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY, AND THE FACT THAT INJURY
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD BE AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT BEFORE ANY
SANCTIONS COULD BE APPLIED, THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE MUST BE PROTECTED FROM A CONTINUING THREAT OF POLITICAL
STRIKES IS A PERMISSIBLE ONE IN THIS CASE.  PP. 400-406. 

6.  THE BELIEF IDENTIFIED IN SEC. 9(H) IS A BELIEF IN THE OBJECTIVE
OF OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR BY ANY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS IT NOW EXISTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS THEREOF.  THE SOLE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE UPON ONE
WHO HOLDS SUCH BELIEFS IS THAT HE MAY BE FORCED TO RELINQUISH HIS
POSITION AS A UNION LEADER.  SO CONSTRUED, IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE PROBLEM, SEC. 9(H) DOES NOT UNDULY
INFRINGE FREEDOMS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  PP. 406-412. 

7.  SECTION 9(H) IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE; IT DOES NOT VIOLATE
THE PROHIBITION OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST BILLS
OF ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAWS; AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A "TEST
OATH" CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE VI THAT "NO RELIGIOUS TEST
SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST
UNDER THE UNITED STATES."  PP. 412-415. 

AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN., C.I.O., ET AL. V. DOUDS, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

NO. 10.  APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 13, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA ET AL. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1949. 

NO. 10.  ALTHOUGH THE OFFICERS OF APPELLANT UNION HAD NOT FILED WITH
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE AFFIDAVIT PRESCRIBED BY SEC.
9(H) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 61 STAT. 136, 146, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP.
III) SECS. 141, 159(H), APPELLANT, CLAIMING THAT THE SECTION WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SUED TO RESTRAIN THE BOARD FROM HOLDING A
REPRESENTATION ELECTION IN A BARGAINING UNIT IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS THE
EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE, UNTIL A HEARING WAS GRANTED TO APPELLANT.  THE
THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  79 F.SUPP.  563. 
ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 415. 

NO. 13.  ON AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BY PETITIONER UNIONS, THE BOARD FOUND
THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN
REFUSING TO BARGAIN ON THE SUBJECT OF PENSIONS; BUT THE BOARD POSTPONED
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS ORDER COMPELLING THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN,
PENDING THE UNIONS' COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 9(H).  77 N.L.R.B. 1.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE BOARD'S ACTION ON BOTH COUNTS.  170 F.2D
247.  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI ON THE PENSION ISSUE, 336 U.S. 960,
BUT GRANTED CERTIORARI ON AN ISSUE REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
SEC. 9(H).  335 U.S. 910.  AFFIRMED, P. 415. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT FOR DECISION THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 9(H)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947.  FN1  THIS SECTION, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE
NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVIT PROVISION, READS AS FOLLOWS:  "NO INVESTIGATION
SHALL BE MADE BY THE (NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS) BOARD OF ANY QUESTION
AFFECTING COMMERCE CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES, RAISED
BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION, NO
PETITION UNDER SECTION 9(E)(1) SHALL BE ENTERTAINED, AND NO COMPLAINT
SHALL BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CHARGE MADE BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER
SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 10, UNLESS THERE IS ON FILE WITH THE BOARD AN
AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY OR WITHIN THE PRECEDING TWELVE
MONTH PERIOD BY EACH OFFICER OF SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION AND THE
OFFICERS OF ANY NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WHICH
IT IS AN AFFILIATE OR CONSTITUENT UNIT THAT HE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OR AFFILIATED WITH SUCH PARTY, AND THAT HE DOES NOT
BELIEVE IN, AND IS NOT A MEMBER OF OR SUPPORTS ANY ORGANIZATION THAT
BELIEVES IN OR TEACHES, THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
BY FORCE OR BY ANY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS.  THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 35 A OF THE CRIMINAL CODE SHALL BE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT TO
SUCH AFFIDAVITS." 

IN NO. 10, THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY A SUIT TO RESTRAIN
THE BOARD FROM HOLDING A REPRESENTATION ELECTION IN A BARGAINING UNIT
IN WHICH APPELLANT UNION WAS THE EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE, WITHOUT
PERMITTING ITS NAME TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, AND, SHOULD THE ELECTION
BE HELD, TO RESTRAIN THE BOARD FROM ANNOUNCING THE RESULTS OR
CERTIFYING THE VICTOR, UNTIL A HEARING WAS GRANTED TO APPELLANT.  A
HEARING HAD BEEN DENIED BECAUSE OF THE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 9(H). 
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THIS REQUIREMENT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WAS GRANTED BY THE STATUTORY
THREE-JUDGE COURT, 79 F.SUPP.  563(1948), WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING. 
SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WERE PROPERLY RAISED AND SUBSTANTIAL,
WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION. 

NO. 13 IS THE OUTCOME OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT FILED
WITH THE BOARD BY PETITIONER UNIONS.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT INLAND STEEL
COMPANY HAD VIOLATED THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN REFUSING TO BARGAIN ON
THE SUBJECT OF PENSIONS.  77 N.L.R.B. 1(1948).  BUT THE BOARD POSTPONED
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS ORDER COMPELLING THE COMPANY TO BARGAIN,
PENDING THE UNIONS' COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 9(H).  BOTH SIDES APPEALED:
THE COMPANY URGED THAT THE ACT HAD BEEN MISINTERPRETED; THE UNIONS
CONTENDED THAT SEC. 9(H) WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREFORE AN INVALID
CONDITION OF A BOARD ORDER.  WHEN THE COURT BELOW UPHELD THE BOARD ON
BOTH COUNTS, 170 F.2D 247(1948), WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING AS TO SEC.
9(H), BOTH SIDES FILED PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  WE DENIED THE
PETITION PERTAINING TO THE PENSION ISSUE, 336 U.S. 960(1949), BUT
GRANTED THE PETITION DIRECTED AT THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT, 335 U.S.
910(1949), BECAUSE OF THE MANIFEST IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES INVOLVED. 

                                  I. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
WAS THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY REMOVING
OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1(1937).  THAT ACT WAS
DESIGNED TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS CAUSED BY STRIKES AND OTHER FORMS OF
INDUSTRIAL UNREST, WHICH CONGRESS FOUND WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER BETWEEN UNORGANIZED EMPLOYEES AND THEIR
EMPLOYERS.  IT DID SO BY STRENGTHENING EMPLOYEE GROUPS, BY RESTRAINING
CERTAIN EMPLOYER PRACTICES, AND BY ENCOURAGING THE PROCESSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

WHEN THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT WAS PASSED TWELVE YEARS
LATER, IT WAS THE VIEW OF CONGRESS THAT ADDITIONAL IMPEDIMENTS TO THE
FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE MADE AMENDMENT OF THE ORIGINAL ACT DESIRABLE.  IT
WAS STATED IN THE FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY THAT: 

"EXPERIENCE HAS FURTHER DEMONSTRATED THAT CERTAIN PRACTICES BY SOME
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, THEIR OFFICERS, AND MEMBERS HAVE THE INTENT OR THE
NECESSARY EFFECT OF BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE BY PREVENTING THE
FREE FLOW OF GOODS IN SUCH COMMERCE THROUGH STRIKES AND OTHER FORMS OF
INDUSTRIAL UNREST OR THROUGH CONCERTED ACTIVITIES WHICH IMPAIR THE
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC IN THE FREE FLOW OF SUCH COMMERCE.  THE
ELIMINATION OF SUCH PRACTICES IS A NECESSARY CONDITION TO THE ASSURANCE
OF THE RIGHTS HEREIN GUARANTEED."  FN2 

ONE SUCH OBSTRUCTION, WHICH IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 9(H) OF THE
ACT TO REMOVE, WAS THE SO-CALLED "POLITICAL STRIKE."  SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE WERE PRESENTED TO VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS,
INCLUDING THE COMMITTEES IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED WITH LABOR LEGISLATION,
THAT COMMUNIST LEADERS OF LABOR UNIONS HAD IN THE PAST AND WOULD
CONTINUE IN THE FUTURE TO SUBORDINATE LEGITIMATE TRADE UNION OBJECTIVES
TO OBSTRUCTIVE STRIKES WHEN DICTATED BY PARTY LEADERS, OFTEN IN SUPPORT
OF THE POLICIES OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.  AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS
THE VIEW THAT SOME UNION LEADERS WHO HOLD TO A BELIEF IN VIOLENT
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR REASONS OTHER THAN LOYALTY TO THE
COMMUNIST PARTY LIKEWISE REGARD STRIKES AND OTHER FORMS OF DIRECT
ACTION DESIGNED TO SERVE ULTIMATE REVOLUTIONARY GOALS AS THE PRIMARY
OBJECTIVES OF LABOR UNIONS WHICH THEY CONTROL.  FN3  AT THE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS, THE INCIDENT MOST FULLY DEVELOPED WAS A STRIKE AT THE
MILWAUKEE PLANT OF THE ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY IN 1941,
WHEN THAT PLANT WAS PRODUCING VITAL MATERIALS FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
PROGRAM.  A FULL HEARING WAS GIVEN NOT ONLY TO COMPANY OFFICIALS, BUT
ALSO TO LEADERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL AND LOCAL UNIONS INVOLVED. 
CONGRESS HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THE STRIKE HAD BEEN CALLED SOLELY IN
OBEDIENCE TO PARTY ORDERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STARTING THE "SNOWBALLING
OF STRIKES" IN DEFENSE PLANTS.  FN4 

NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY SETTING OUT AT LENGTH THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE CONGRESS RELATING TO THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL STRIKES,
NOR CAN WE ATTEMPT TO ASSESS THE VALIDITY OF EACH ITEM OF EVIDENCE.  IT
IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT CONGRESS HAD A GREAT MASS OF MATERIAL BEFORE
IT WHICH TENDED TO SHOW THAT COMMUNISTS AND OTHERS PROSCRIBED BY THE
STATUTE HAD INFILTRATED UNION ORGANIZATIONS NOT TO SUPPORT AND FURTHER
TRADE UNION OBJECTIVES, INCLUDING THE ADVOCACY OF CHANGE BY DEMOCRATIC
METHODS, BUT TO MAKE THEM A DEVICE BY WHICH COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY MIGHT
BE DISRUPTED WHEN THE DICTATES OF POLITICAL POLICY REQUIRED SUCH
ACTION. 

                                 II. 

THE UNIONS CONTEND THAT THE NECESSARY EFFECT OF SEC. 9(H) IS TO MAKE
IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PERSONS WHO CANNOT SIGN THE OATH TO BE OFFICERS OF
LABOR UNIONS.  THEY URGE THAT SUCH A STATUTE VIOLATES FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT:  THE RIGHT OF UNION OFFICERS
TO HOLD WHAT POLITICAL VIEWS THEY CHOOSE AND TO ASSOCIATE WITH WHAT
POLITICAL GROUPS THEY WILL, AND THE RIGHT OF UNIONS TO CHOOSE THEIR
OFFICERS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM GOVERNMENT.  FN5  THE BOARD HAS
ARGUED, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT SEC. 9(H) PRESENTS NO FIRST AMENDMENT
PROBLEM BECAUSE ITS SOLE SANCTION IS THE WITHDRAWAL FROM NONCOMPLYING
UNIONS OF THE "PRIVILEGE" OF USING ITS FACILITIES. 

NEITHER CONTENTION STATES THE PROBLEM WITH COMPLETE ACCURACY.  IT
CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE
BOARD AND THE DENIAL OF A PLACE ON THE BALLOT IN REPRESENTATION
PROCEEDINGS IS NOT MERELY TO WITHHOLD BENEFITS GRANTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT BUT TO IMPOSE UPON NONCOMPLYING UNIONS A NUMBER OF
RESTRICTIONS WHICH WOULD NOT EXIST IF THE BOARD HAD NOT BEEN
ESTABLISHED.  FN6  THE STATUTE DOES NOT, HOWEVER, SPECIFICALLY FORBID
PERSONS WHO DO NOT SIGN THE AFFIDAVIT FROM HOLDING POSITIONS OF UNION
LEADERSHIP NOR REQUIRE THEIR DISCHARGE FROM OFFICE.  THE FACT IS THAT
SEC. 9(H) MAY WELL MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR UNIONS TO REMAIN EFFECTIVE IF
THEIR OFFICERS DO NOT SIGN THE AFFIDAVITS.  HOW DIFFICULT DEPENDS UPON
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INDUSTRY, THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION AND ITS
ORGANIZATIONAL DISCIPLINE.  WE ARE, THEREFORE, NEITHER FREE TO TREAT
SEC. 9(H) AS IF IT MERELY WITHDRAWS A PRIVILEGE GRATUITOUSLY GRANTED BY
THE GOVERNMENT, NOR ABLE TO CONSIDER IT A LICENSING STATUTE PROHIBITING
THOSE PERSONS WHO DO NOT SIGN THE AFFIDAVIT FROM HOLDING UNION OFFICE. 
THE PRACTICALITIES OF THE SITUATION PLACE THE PROSCRIPTIONS OF SEC.
9(H) SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THOSE TWO EXTREMES.  THE DIFFICULT QUESTION THAT
EMERGES IS WHETHER, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT, CONGRESS, BY
STATUTE, MAY EXERT THESE PRESSURES UPON LABOR UNIONS TO DENY POSITIONS
OF LEADERSHIP TO CERTAIN PERSONS WHO ARE IDENTIFIED BY PARTICULAR
BELIEFS AND POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS. 

                         III. 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS MAY, UNDER ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, ATTEMPT TO PREVENT
POLITICAL STRIKES AND OTHER KINDS OF DIRECT ACTION DESIGNED TO BURDEN
AND INTERRUPT THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE.  WE THINK IT IS CLEAR, IN
ADDITION, THAT THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY SEC. 9(H) BEARS REASONABLE
RELATION TO THE EVIL WHICH THE STATUTE WAS DESIGNED TO REACH.  CONGRESS
COULD RATIONALLY FIND THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS NOT LIKE OTHER
POLITICAL PARTIES IN ITS UTILIZATION OF POSITIONS OF UNION LEADERSHIP
AS MEANS BY WHICH TO BRING ABOUT STRIKES AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS OF
COMMERCE FOR PURPOSES OF POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, AND THAT MANY PERSONS WHO
BELIEVE IN OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE ARE ALSO
LIKELY TO RESORT TO SUCH TACTICS WHEN, AS OFFICERS, THEY FORMULATE
UNION POLICY. 

THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE IDENTIFIES PERSONS BY THEIR POLITICAL
AFFILIATIONS AND BELIEFS, WHICH ARE CIRCUMSTANCES ORDINARILY IRRELEVANT
TO PERMISSIBLE SUBJECTS OF GOVERNMENT ACTION, DOES NOT LEAD TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NEVER RELEVANT.  IN RE SUMMERS,
325 U.S. 561(1945); HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245(1934).  WE HAVE
HELD THAT ALIENS MAY BE BARRED FROM CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS BECAUSE OF A
REASONABLE RELATION BETWEEN THAT CLASSIFICATION AND THE APPREHENDED
EVIL, CLARKE V. DECKEBACH, 274 U.S. 392(1927); PEARL ASSURANCE CO. V.
HARRINGTON, 313 U.S. 549(1941), EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS
ARBITRARY BANNING OF ALIENS FROM THE PURSUIT OF LAWFUL OCCUPATIONS. 
TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33(1915); TAKAHASHI V. FISH AND GAME
COMMISSION, 334 U.S. 410(1948).  EVEN DISTINCTIONS BASED SOLELY ON
ANCESTRY, WHICH WE DECLARED "ARE BY THEIR VERY NATURE ODIOUS TO A FREE
PEOPLE," HAVE BEEN UPHELD UNDER THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF WARTIME. 
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81(1943).  FN7  IF ACCIDENTS OF
BIRTH AND ANCESTRY UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY AN INFERENCE
CONCERNING FUTURE CONDUCT, IT CAN HARDLY BE DOUBTED THAT VOLUNTARY
AFFILIATIONS AND BELIEFS JUSTIFY A SIMILAR INFERENCE WHEN DRAWN BY THE
LEGISLATURE ON THE BASIS OF ITS INVESTIGATIONS. 

THIS PRINCIPLE MAY BE ILLUSTRATED BY REFERENCE TO STATUTES DENYING
POSITIONS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE TO GROUPS OF PERSONS IDENTIFIED BY THEIR
BUSINESS AFFILIATIONS.  ONE FEDERAL STATUTE, FN8  FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDES
THAT NO PARTNER OR EMPLOYEE OF A FIRM PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN UNDERWRITING
SECURITIES MAY BE A DIRECTOR OF A NATIONAL BANK.  THIS COURT NOTED THAT
THE STATUTE IS DIRECTED "TO THE PROBABILITY OR LIKELIHOOD, BASED ON THE
EXPERIENCE OF THE 1920'S, THAT A BANK DIRECTOR INTERESTED IN THE
UNDERWRITING BUSINESS MAY USE HIS INFLUENCE IN THE BANK TO INVOLVE IT
OR ITS CUSTOMERS IN SECURITIES WHICH HIS UNDERWRITING HOUSE HAS IN ITS
PORTFOLIO OR HAS COMMITTED ITSELF TO TAKE."  BOARD OF GOVERNORS V.
AGNEW, 329 U.S. 441, 447(1947).  IT WAS DESIGNED "TO REMOVE TEMPTING
OPPORTUNITIES FROM THE MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL OF MEMBER BANKS."  ID.
AT P. 449.  THERE WAS NO SHOWING, NOR WAS ONE REQUIRED, THAT ALL
EMPLOYEES OF UNDERWRITING FIRMS WOULD ENGAGE IN SUCH CONDUCT.  BECAUSE
OF THEIR BUSINESS CONNECTIONS, CARRYING AS THEY DO CERTAIN LOYALTIES,
INTERESTS AND DISCIPLINES, THOSE PERSONS WERE THOUGHT TO POSE A
CONTINUING THREAT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE HARMFUL ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED
ABOVE.  POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS OF THE KIND HERE INVOLVED, NO LESS THAN
BUSINESS AFFILIATIONS, PROVIDE RATIONAL GROUND FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT THAT THOSE PERSONS PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 9(H) WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
"TEMPTING OPPORTUNITIES" TO COMMIT ACTS DEEMED HARMFUL TO THE NATIONAL
ECONOMY.  IN THIS RESPECT, SEC. 9(H) IS NOT UNLIKE A HOST OF OTHER
STATUTES WHICH PROHIBIT SPECIFIED GROUPS OF PERSONS FROM HOLDING
POSITIONS OF POWER AND PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE, IN THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT, THEY THREATEN TO ABUSE THE TRUST THAT IS A NECESSARY
CONCOMITANT OF THE POWER OF OFFICE. 

IF NO MORE WERE INVOLVED THAN POSSIBLE LOSS OF POSITION, THE
FOREGOING WOULD DISPOSE OF THE CASE.  BUT THE MORE DIFFICULT PROBLEM
HERE ARISES BECAUSE, IN DRAWING LINES ON THE BASIS OF BELIEFS AND
POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS, THOUGH IT MAY BE GRANTED THAT THE PROSCRIPTIONS
OF THE STATUTE BEAR A REASONABLE RELATION TO THE APPREHENDED EVIL,
CONGRESS HAS UNDENIABLY DISCOURAGED THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF POLITICAL
FREEDOMS AS WELL.  STATED OTHERWISE, THE PROBLEM IS THIS:  COMMUNISTS,
WE MAY ASSUME, CARRY ON LEGITIMATE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.  BELIEFS ARE
INVIOLATE.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 303(1940).  CONGRESS
MIGHT REASONABLY FIND, HOWEVER, THAT COMMUNISTS, UNLIKE MEMBERS OF
OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES, AND PERSONS WHO BELIEVE IN OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE, UNLIKE PERSONS OF OTHER BELIEFS, REPRESENT A
CONTINUING DANGER OF DISRUPTIVE POLITICAL STRIKES WHEN THEY HOLD
POSITIONS OF UNION LEADERSHIP.  BY EXERTING PRESSURES ON UNIONS TO DENY
OFFICE TO COMMUNISTS AND OTHERS IDENTIFIED THEREIN, SEC. 9(H)
UNDOUBTEDLY LESSENS THE THREAT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT IT HAS THE
FURTHER NECESSARY EFFECT OF DISCOURAGING THE EXERCISE OF POLITICAL
RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  MEN WHO HOLD UNION OFFICES
OFTEN HAVE LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO RENOUNCE COMMUNISM OR GIVE UP THEIR
OFFICES.  UNIONS WHICH WISH TO DO SO ARE DISCOURAGED FROM ELECTING
COMMUNISTS TO OFFICE.  TO THE GRAVE AND DIFFICULT PROBLEM THUS
PRESENTED WE MUST NOW TURN OUR ATTENTION. 

                                 IV. 

THE UNIONS CONTEND THAT ONCE IT IS DETERMINED THAT THIS IS A FREE
SPEECH CASE, THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST MUST APPLY.  SEE
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47(1919).  BUT THEY DISAGREE AS TO
HOW IT SHOULD BE APPLIED.  APPELLANT IN NO. 10 WOULD REQUIRE THAT
JOINING THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE EXPRESSION OF BELIEF IN OVERTHROW OF
THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE BE SHOWN TO BE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF
SOME SUBSTANTIVE EVIL, SINCE THOSE ARE THE DOCTRINES AFFECTED BY THE
STATUTE.  PETITIONER IN NO. 13, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD REQUIRE A
SHOWING THAT POLITICAL STRIKES, THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL INVOLVED, ARE A
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE SECURITY OF THE NATION OR THREATEN
WIDESPREAD INDUSTRIAL UNREST. 

THIS CONFUSION SUGGESTS THAT THE ATTEMPT TO APPLY THE TERM, "CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER," AS A MECHANICAL TEST IN EVERY CASE TOUCHING FIRST
AMENDMENT FREEDOMS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONTEXT OF ITS APPLICATION,
MISTAKES THE FORM IN WHICH AN IDEA WAS CAST FOR THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
IDEA.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, SAID MR. JUSTICE HOLMES,
"ARE NOT MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS HAVING THEIR ESSENCE IN THEIR FORM; THEY
ARE ORGANIC LIVING INSTITUTIONS TRANSPLANTED FROM ENGLISH SOIL.  THEIR
SIGNIFICANCE IS VITAL NOT FORMAL; IT IS TO BE GATHERED NOT SIMPLY BY
TAKING THE WORDS AND A DICTIONARY, BUT BY CONSIDERING THEIR ORIGIN AND
THE LINE OF THEIR GROWTH."  GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 604,
610(1914).  STILL LESS SHOULD THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION BE REDUCED TO THE STATUS OF MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS.  IT IS
THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT GAVE BIRTH TO THE PHRASE, "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER," NOT THE PHRASE ITSELF, THAT ARE VITAL IN OUR DECISION OF
QUESTIONS INVOLVING LIBERTIES PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

ALTHOUGH THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS OR ASSEMBLY, IT HAS LONG BEEN
ESTABLISHED THAT THOSE FREEDOMS THEMSELVES ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE POWER
OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT TO SURVIVE.  IF IT IS TO SURVIVE IT MUST
HAVE POWER TO PROTECT ITSELF AGAINST UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND, UNDER SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES, AGAINST INCITEMENTS TO COMMIT UNLAWFUL ACTS.  FREEDOM OF
SPEECH THUS DOES NOT COMPREHEND THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ON ANY SUBJECT AT
ANY TIME.  THE IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT CAME TO THIS COURT IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR WAS NOT WHETHER, BUT HOW FAR, THE FIRST
AMENDMENT PERMITS THE SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH WHICH ADVOCATES CONDUCT
INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  FN9  SOME THOUGHT SPEECH HAVING A
REASONABLE TENDENCY TO LEAD TO SUCH CONDUCT MIGHT BE PUNISHED. 
JUSTICES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW.  THEY THOUGHT THAT
THE GREATER DANGER TO A DEMOCRACY LIES IN THE SUPPRESSION OF PUBLIC
DISCUSSION; THAT IDEAS AND DOCTRINES THOUGHT HARMFUL OR DANGEROUS ARE
BEST FOUGHT WITH WORDS.  ONLY, THEREFORE, WHEN FORCE IS VERY LIKELY TO
FOLLOW AN UTTERANCE BEFORE THERE IS A CHANCE FOR COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO
HAVE EFFECT MAY THAT UTTERANCE BE PUNISHED OR PREVENTED.  FN10  THUS,
"THE NECESSITY WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO A VALID RESTRICTION DOES NOT EXIST
UNLESS SPEECH WOULD PRODUCE, OR IS INTENDED TO PRODUCE, A CLEAR AND
IMMINENT DANGER OF SOME SUBSTANTIVE EVIL WHICH THE STATE (OR CONGRESS)
CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY SEEK TO PREVENT  ...  " MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
CONCURRING IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 373.  BY THIS MEANS
THEY SOUGHT TO CONVEY THE PHILOSOPHY THAT, UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO EVERY MAN'S VIEWS AND EVERY MAN THE RIGHT TO
SPEAK THEM.  GOVERNMENT MAY CUT HIM OFF ONLY WHEN HIS VIEWS ARE NO
LONGER MERELY VIEWS BUT THREATEN, CLEARLY AND IMMINENTLY, TO RIPEN INTO
CONDUCT AGAINST WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO PROTECT ITSELF. 

BUT THE QUESTION WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE FACED IS NOT THE SAME ONE
THAT JUSTICES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS FOUND CONVENIENT TO CONSIDER IN TERMS
OF CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.  GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST HERE IS NOT IN
PREVENTING THE DISSEMINATION OF COMMUNIST DOCTRINE OR THE HOLDING OF
PARTICULAR BELIEFS BECAUSE IT IS FEARED THAT UNLAWFUL ACTION WILL
RESULT THEREFROM IF FREE SPEECH IS PRACTICED.  ITS INTEREST IS IN
PROTECTING THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE FROM WHAT CONGRESS CONSIDERS TO BE
SUBSTANTIAL EVILS OF CONDUCT THAT ARE NOT THE PRODUCTS OF SPEECH AT
ALL.  SECTION 9(H), IN OTHER WORDS, DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH SPEECH
BECAUSE CONGRESS FEARS THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPEECH; IT REGULATES HARMFUL
CONDUCT WHICH CONGRESS HAS DETERMINED IS CARRIED ON BY PERSONS WHO MAY
BE IDENTIFIED BY THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS AND BELIEFS.  THE BOARD
DOES NOT CONTEND THAT POLITICAL STRIKES, THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL AT WHICH
SEC. 9(H) IS AIMED, ARE THE PRESENT OR IMPENDING PRODUCTS OF ADVOCACY
OF THE DOCTRINES OF COMMUNISM OR THE EXPRESSION OF BELIEF IN OVERTHROW
OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT POINTS OUT THAT SUCH
STRIKES ARE CALLED BY PERSONS WHO, SO CONGRESS HAS FOUND, HAVE THE WILL
AND POWER TO DO SO WITHOUT ADVOCACY OR PERSUASION THAT SEEKS ACCEPTANCE
IN THE COMPETITION OF THE MARKET.  FN11  SPEECH MAY BE FOUGHT WITH
SPEECH.  FALSEHOODS AND FALLACIES MUST BE EXPOSED, NOT SUPPRESSED,
UNLESS THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TIME TO AVERT THE EVIL CONSEQUENCES OF
NOXIOUS DOCTRINE BY ARGUMENT AND EDUCATION.  THAT IS THE COMMAND OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  BUT FORCE MAY AND MUST BE MET WITH FORCE.  SECTION
9(H) IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC NOT AGAINST WHAT COMMUNISTS AND
OTHERS IDENTIFIED THEREIN ADVOCATE OR BELIEVE, BUT AGAINST WHAT
CONGRESS HAS CONCLUDED THEY HAVE DONE AND ARE LIKELY TO DO AGAIN. 

THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONER IN NO. 13 THAT THIS COURT MUST FIND THAT
POLITICAL STRIKES CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE SECURITY OF
THE NATION OR OF WIDESPREAD INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN SEC.
9(H) SIMILARLY MISCONCEIVES THE PURPOSE THAT PHRASE WAS INTENDED TO
SERVE.  IN THAT VIEW, NOT THE RELATIVE CERTAINTY THAT EVIL CONDUCT WILL
RESULT FROM SPEECH IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE, BUT THE EXTENT AND GRAVITY
OF THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL MUST BE MEASURED BY THE "TEST" LAID DOWN IN THE
SCHENCK CASE.  BUT THERE THE COURT SAID THAT:  "THE QUESTION IN EVERY
CASE IS WHETHER THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE
OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THEY WILL
BRING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS THAT CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO
PREVENT."  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 52. 

SO FAR AS THE SCHENCK CASE ITSELF IS CONCERNED, IMMINENT DANGER OF
ANY SUBSTANTIVE EVIL THAT CONGRESS MAY PREVENT JUSTIFIES THE
RESTRICTION OF SPEECH.  SINCE THAT TIME THIS COURT HAS DECIDED THAT
HOWEVER GREAT THE LIKELIHOOD THAT A SUBSTANTIVE EVIL WILL RESULT,
RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH AND PRESS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED UNLESS THE EVIL
ITSELF IS "SUBSTANTIAL" AND "RELATIVELY SERIOUS," BRANDEIS, J.,
CONCURRING IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA AT 374, 377, OR SOMETIMES
"EXTREMELY SERIOUS," BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 263(1941). 
AND IT FOLLOWS THEREFROM THAT EVEN HARMFUL CONDUCT CANNOT JUSTIFY
RESTRICTIONS UPON SPEECH UNLESS SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS OF SOCIETY ARE AT
STAKE.  BUT IN SUGGESTING THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL MUST BE SERIOUS AND
SUBSTANTIAL, IT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION OF THIS COURT TO LAY DOWN AN
ABSOLUTIST TEST MEASURED IN TERMS OF DANGER TO THE NATION.  WHEN THE
EFFECT OF A STATUTE OR ORDINANCE UPON THE EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT
FREEDOMS IS RELATIVELY SMALL AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO BE PROTECTED IS
SUBSTANTIAL, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A RIGID TEST REQUIRING A SHOWING OF
IMMINENT DANGER TO THE SECURITY OF THE NATION IS AN ABSURDITY.  WE
RECENTLY DISMISSED FOR WANT OF SUBSTANTIALITY AN APPEAL IN WHICH A
CHURCH GROUP CONTENDED THAT ITS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY
A MUNICIPAL ZONING ORDINANCE PREVENTING THE BUILDING OF CHURCHES IN
CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.  CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS V. PORTERVILLE, 338 U.S.
805(1949).  AND RECENT CASES IN THIS COURT INVOLVING CONTEMPT BY
PUBLICATION LIKEWISE HAVE NO MEANING IF IMMINENT DANGER OF NATIONAL
PERIL IS THE CRITERION.  FN12 

ON THE CONTRARY, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO BE PROTECTED
FROM EVILS OF CONDUCT, EVEN THOUGH FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF PERSONS OR
GROUPS ARE THEREBY IN SOME MANNER INFRINGED, HAS RECEIVED FREQUENT AND
CONSISTENT RECOGNITION BY THIS COURT.  WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE BLARING
SOUND TRUCK INVADES THE PRIVACY OF THE HOME AND MAY DROWN OUT OTHERS
WHO WISH TO BE HEARD.  KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77(1949).  THE
UNAUTHORIZED PARADE THROUGH CITY STREETS BY A RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL
GROUP DISRUPTS TRAFFIC AND MAY PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF THE MOST
ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312
U.S. 569, 574(1941).  THE EXERCISE OF PARTICULAR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
MAY FLY IN THE FACE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE HEALTH OF CHILDREN,
PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158(1944), OR OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY,
JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11(1905), AND IT MAY BE OFFENSIVE
TO THE MORAL STANDARDS OF THE COMMUNITY, REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98
U.S. 145(1878); DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333(1890).  AND GOVERNMENT'S
OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE AN EFFICIENT PUBLIC SERVICE, UNITED PUBLIC
WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75(1947), AND ITS INTEREST IN THE
CHARACTER OF MEMBERS OF THE BAR, IN RE SUMMERS, 325 U.S. 561(1945),
SOMETIMES ADMIT OF LIMITATIONS UPON RIGHTS SET OUT IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  AND SEE GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE CO., 336 U.S. 490, 499
501(1949).  WE HAVE NEVER HELD THAT SUCH FREEDOMS ARE ABSOLUTE.  THE
REASON IS PLAIN.  AS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES PUT IT, "CIVIL LIBERTIES,
AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IMPLY THE EXISTENCE OF AN ORGANIZED
SOCIETY MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER WITHOUT WHICH LIBERTY ITSELF WOULD BE
LOST IN THE EXCESSES OF UNRESTRAINED ABUSES."  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE,
SUPRA AT 574. 

WHEN PARTICULAR CONDUCT IS REGULATED IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC ORDER,
AND THE REGULATION RESULTS IN AN INDIRECT, CONDITIONAL, PARTIAL
ABRIDGMENT OF SPEECH, THE DUTY OF THE COURTS IS TO DETERMINE WHICH OF
THESE TWO CONFLICTING INTERESTS DEMANDS THE GREATER PROTECTION UNDER
THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED.  THE HIGH PLACE IN WHICH THE
RIGHT TO SPEAK, THINK, AND ASSEMBLE AS YOU WILL WAS HELD BY THE FRAMERS
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND IS HELD TODAY BY THOSE WHO VALUE LIBERTY BOTH
AS A MEANS AND AN END INDICATES THE SOLICITUDE WITH WHICH WE MUST VIEW
ANY ASSERTION OF PERSONAL FREEDOMS.  WE MUST RECOGNIZE, MOREOVER, THAT
REGULATION OF "CONDUCT" HAS ALL TOO FREQUENTLY BEEN EMPLOYED BY PUBLIC
AUTHORITY AS A CLOAK TO HIDE CENSORSHIP OF UNPOPULAR IDEAS.  WE HAVE
BEEN REMINDED THAT "IT IS NOT OFTEN IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE NOW MEET
WITH DIRECT AND CANDID EFFORTS TO STOP SPEAKING OR PUBLICATION AS
SUCH.  MODERN INROADS ON THESE RIGHTS COME FROM ASSOCIATING THE
SPEAKING WITH SOME OTHER FACTOR WHICH THE STATE MAY REGULATE SO AS TO
BRING THE WHOLE WITHIN OFFICIAL CONTROL."  FN13 

ON THE OTHER HAND, LEGITIMATE ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, NOT
FROM THE REMOTE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF NOXIOUS IDEOLOGIES, BUT FROM
PRESENT EXCESSES OF DIRECT, ACTIVE CONDUCT, ARE NOT PRESUMPTIVELY BAD
BECAUSE THEY INTERFERE WITH AND, IN SOME OF ITS MANIFESTATIONS,
RESTRAIN THE EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  REYNOLDS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA; PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA; COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE,
SUPRA; GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE CO., SUPRA.  IN ESSENCE, THE PROBLEM
IS ONE OF WEIGHING THE PROBABLE EFFECTS OF THE STATUTE UPON THE FREE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY AGAINST THE CONGRESSIONAL
DETERMINATION THAT POLITICAL STRIKES ARE EVILS OF CONDUCT WHICH CAUSE
SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT COMMUNISTS AND OTHERS
IDENTIFIED BY SEC. 9(H) POSE CONTINUING THREATS TO THAT PUBLIC INTEREST
WHEN IN POSITIONS OF UNION LEADERSHIP.  WE MUST, THEREFORE, UNDERTAKE
THE "DELICATE AND DIFFICULT TASK  ...  TO WEIGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND
TO APPRAISE THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE REASONS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF
THE REGULATION OF THE FREE ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS."  SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161(1939). 

                                  V. 

THE "REASONS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE REGULATION" ARE OF
CONSIDERABLE WEIGHT, AS EVEN THE OPPONENTS OF SEC. 9(H) AGREED.  THEY
ARE FAR FROM BEING "(MERE LEGISLATIVE PREFERENCES OR BELIEFS RESPECTING
MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE (WHICH) MAY WELL SUPPORT REGULATION
DIRECTED AT OTHER PERSONAL ACTIVITIES, BUT BE INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY
SUCH AS DIMINISHES THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS SO VITAL TO THE MAINTENANCE
OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS."  FN14  IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT
CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS, IS PRIMARILY CHARGED WITH DETERMINATION OF
THE NEED FOR REGULATION OF ACTIVITIES AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THIS COURT MUST, IF SUCH REGULATION UNDULY INFRINGES PERSONAL FREEDOMS,
DECLARE THE STATUTE INVALID UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S COMMAND THAT
THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR FREE PUBLIC DISCUSSION BE MAINTAINED.  BUT
INSOFAR AS THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF DRAWING INFERENCES CONCERNING THE NEED
FOR REGULATION OF PARTICULAR FORMS OF CONDUCT FROM CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE, THIS COURT IS IN NO POSITION TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT AS TO
THE NECESSITY OR DESIRABILITY OF THE STATUTE FOR THAT OF CONGRESS.  CF.
UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, SUPRA AT 95, 102.  IN BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, WE SAID THAT EVEN RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICULAR KINDS
OF UTTERANCES, IF ENACTED BY A LEGISLATURE AFTER APPRAISAL OF THE NEED,
COME TO THIS COURT "ENCASED IN THE ARMOR WROUGHT BY PRIOR LEGISLATIVE
DELIBERATION."  314 U.S. AT 261.  COMPARE GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S.
652(1925).  THE DEFERENCE DUE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE NEED FOR
RESTRICTION UPON PARTICULAR FORMS OF CONDUCT HAS FOUND REPEATED
EXPRESSION IN THIS COURT'S OPINIONS. 

WHEN COMPARED WITH ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS DEALING WITH LITTERING
OF THE STREETS OR DISTURBANCE OF HOUSEHOLDERS BY ITINERANT PREACHERS,
THE RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL
STRIKES AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEIR LEADERS BECOMES AT ONCE APPARENT. 
IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT SEC. 9(H) IS NOT AN ISOLATED STATUTE DEALING
WITH A SUBJECT DIVORCED FROM THE PROBLEMS OF LABOR PEACE GENERALLY.  IT
IS A PART OF SOME VERY COMPLEX MACHINERY SET UP BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING THE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF
LABOR DISPUTES.  UNDER THE STATUTORY SCHEME, UNIONS WHICH BECOME
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES FOR GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES OFTEN
REPRESENT NOT ONLY MEMBERS OF THE UNION BUT NONUNION WORKERS OR MEMBERS
OF OTHER UNIONS AS WELL.  BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY TO HAVE STRONG
UNIONS TO BARGAIN ON EQUAL TERMS WITH STRONG EMPLOYERS, INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO SACRIFICE RIGHTS WHICH, IN SOME CASES,
ARE VALUABLE TO THEM.  SEE J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S.
332(1944).  THE LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR THE GREATER BENEFIT OF
THE GROUP RESULTS IN A TREMENDOUS INCREASE IN THE POWER OF THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GROUP - THE UNION.  BUT POWER IS NEVER WITHOUT
RESPONSIBILITY.  AND WHEN AUTHORITY DERIVES IN PART FROM GOVERNMENT'S
THUMB ON THE SCALES, THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER BY PRIVATE PERSONS
BECOMES CLOSELY AKIN, IN SOME RESPECTS, TO ITS EXERCISE BY GOVERNMENT
ITSELF.  SEE GRAHAM V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 338 U.S.
232(1949); STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192(1944);
TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210(1944);
WALLACE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 323 U.S. 248, 255(1944); RAILWAY MAIL
ASSOCIATION V. CORSI, 326 U.S. 88, 94(1945). 

WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT LABOR UNIONS WHICH UTILIZE THE FACILITIES OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BECOME GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR MAY BE
REGULATED AS SUCH.  BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT WHEN CONGRESS CLOTHES THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE "WITH POWERS COMPARABLE TO THOSE POSSESSED BY
A LEGISLATIVE BODY BOTH TO CREATE AND RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHOM
IT REPRESENTS,"  FN15  THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE GOOD FAITH EXERCISE
OF THAT POWER IS VERY GREAT. 

WHAT OF THE EFFECTS OF SEC. 9(H) UPON THE RIGHTS OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY OF THOSE PROSCRIBED BY ITS TERMS?  THE STATUTE DOES NOT
PREVENT OR PUNISH BY CRIMINAL SANCTIONS THE MAKING OF A SPEECH, THE
AFFILIATION WITH ANY ORGANIZATION, OR THE HOLDING OF ANY BELIEF.  BUT
AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE FACT THAT NO DIRECT RESTRAINT OR PUNISHMENT IS
IMPOSED UPON SPEECH OR ASSEMBLY DOES NOT DETERMINE THE FREE SPEECH
QUESTION.  UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, INDIRECT "DISCOURAGEMENTS"
UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE THE SAME COERCIVE EFFECT UPON THE EXERCISE OF FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS IMPRISONMENT, FINES, INJUNCTIONS OR TAXES.  A
REQUIREMENT THAT ADHERENTS OF PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS FAITHS OR POLITICAL
PARTIES WEAR IDENTIFYING ARM-BANDS, FOR EXAMPLE, IS OBVIOUSLY OF THIS
NATURE. 

BUT WE HAVE HERE NO STATUTE WHICH IS EITHER FRANKLY AIMED AT THE
SUPPRESSION OF DANGEROUS IDEAS FN16  NOR ONE WHICH, ALTHOUGH OSTENSIBLY
AIMED AT THE REGULATION OF CONDUCT, MAY ACTUALLY "BE MADE THE
INSTRUMENT OF ARBITRARY SUPPRESSION OF FREE EXPRESSION OF VIEWS." 
HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, 307 U.S. 496,
516(1939).  FN17  THERE ARE HERE INVOLVED NONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF
CENSORSHIP OR PROHIBITION OF THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION THAT WERE
PRESENT IN THE CASES MAINLY RELIED UPON BY THOSE ATTACKING THE
STATUTE.  FN18  THE "DISCOURAGEMENTS" OF SEC. 9(H) PROCEED, NOT AGAINST
THE GROUPS OR BELIEFS IDENTIFIED THEREIN, BUT ONLY AGAINST THE
COMBINATION OF THOSE AFFILIATIONS OR BELIEFS WITH OCCUPANCY OF A
POSITION OF GREAT POWER OVER THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY.  CONGRESS HAS
CONCLUDED THAT SUBSTANTIAL HARM, IN THE FORM OF DIRECT, POSITIVE
ACTION, MAY BE EXPECTED FROM THAT COMBINATION.  IN THIS LEGISLATION,
CONGRESS DID NOT RESTRAIN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AS A
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION; NOR DID IT ATTEMPT TO STIFLE BELIEFS.  COMPARE
WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S.
624(1943).  FN19 SECTION 9(H) TOUCHES ONLY A RELATIVE HANDFUL OF
PERSONS, LEAVING THE GREAT MAJORITY OF PERSONS OF THE IDENTIFIED
AFFILIATIONS AND BELIEFS COMPLETELY FREE FROM RESTRAINT.  AND IT LEAVES
THOSE FEW WHO ARE AFFECTED FREE TO MAINTAIN THEIR AFFILIATIONS AND
BELIEFS SUBJECT ONLY TO POSSIBLE LOSS OF POSITIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS
CONCLUDED ARE BEING ABUSED TO THE INJURY OF THE PUBLIC BY MEMBERS OF
THE DESCRIBED GROUPS. 

WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER OTHER STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS IN WHICH THE INTERESTS INVOLVED WERE, IN LARGE MEASURE,
LIKE THOSE NOW BEING CONSIDERED.  IN UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL,
SUPRA, WE UPHELD A STATUTE WHICH PROVIDED THAT EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES,
CONCEDEDLY A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, IF THEY WOULD RETAIN THEIR
POSITIONS.  THE DECISION WAS NOT PUT UPON THE GROUND THAT GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYMENT IS A PRIVILEGE TO BE CONFERRED OR WITHHELD AT WILL.  FOR IT
WAS RECOGNIZED THAT CONGRESS MAY NOT "ENACT A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT
NO REPUBLICAN, JEW OR NEGRO SHALL BE APPOINTED TO FEDERAL OFFICE, OR
THAT NO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SHALL ATTEND MASS OR TAKE ANY ACTIVE PART IN
MISSIONARY WORK."  330 U.S. AT 100.  BUT THE RATIONAL CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE STATUTE AND ITS OBJECTS, THE LIMITED
SCOPE OF THE ABRIDGMENT OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND THE LARGE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN THE EFFICIENCY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE, WHICH CONGRESS HAD
FOUND NECESSITATED THE STATUTE, LED US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
STATUTE MAY STAND CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

SIMILARLY, IN IN RE SUMMERS, SUPRA, WE UPHELD THE REFUSAL OF A STATE
SUPREME COURT TO ADMIT TO MEMBERSHIP OF ITS BAR AN OTHERWISE QUALIFIED
PERSON ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT HE HAD CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AGAINST
WAR AND WOULD NOT USE FORCE TO PREVENT WRONG UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 
SINCE HE COULD NOT, SO THE JUSTICES OF THE STATE COURT FOUND, SWEAR IN
GOOD FAITH TO UPHOLD THE STATE CONSTITUTION, WHICH REQUIRES SERVICE IN
THE MILITIA IN TIME OF WAR, WE HELD THAT REFUSAL TO PERMIT HIM TO
PRACTICE LAW DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AS ITS COMMANDS ARE
INCORPORATED IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
AGAIN, THE RELATION BETWEEN THE OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR
AND SERVICE REQUIRED BY THE STATE IN TIME OF WAR, THE LIMITED EFFECT OF
THE STATE'S HOLDING UPON SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY, AND THE STRONG INTEREST
WHICH EVERY STATE COURT HAS IN THE PERSONS WHO BECOME OFFICERS OF THE
COURT WERE THOUGHT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE STATE ACTION.  SEE ALSO
HAMILTON V. REGENTS, SUPRA. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PRINCIPLE THAT STATUTES TOUCHING FIRST
AMENDMENT FREEDOMS MUST BE NARROWLY DRAWN DICTATES THAT A STATUTE AIMED
AT POLITICAL STRIKES SHOULD MAKE THE CALLING OF SUCH STRIKES UNLAWFUL
BUT SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO BRING ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF UNION OFFICERS,
WITH ITS ATTENDANT EFFECT UPON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  WE THINK,
HOWEVER, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MUST BE
PROTECTED FROM A CONTINUING THREAT OF SUCH STRIKES IS A PERMISSIBLE ONE
IN THIS CASE.  THE FACT THAT THE INJURY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD BE
AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT BEFORE ANY SANCTIONS COULD BE APPLIED, THE
POSSIBILITY THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF SUCH STRIKES MIGHT BE CALLED AT A
TIME OF EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL CRISIS, AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
WHICH WOULD BE ENCOUNTERED IN DETECTING ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THIS KIND
ARE FACTORS WHICH ARE PERSUASIVE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD NOT BE POWERLESS
TO REMOVE THE THREAT, NOT LIMITED TO PUNISHING THE ACT.  WE RECENTLY
SAID THAT "NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS CONGRESS FROM ACTING IN
TIME TO PREVENT POTENTIAL INJURY TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY FROM BECOMING
A REALITY."  NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
327 U.S. 686, 711(1946).  WHILE THIS STATEMENT MAY BE SUBJECT TO SOME
QUALIFICATION, IT INDICATES THE WIDE SCOPE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO
KEEP FROM THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE THAT WHICH WOULD HINDER AND OBSTRUCT
SUCH COMMERCE. 

                                 VI. 

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION HAS CONSIDERED THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
RAISED BY SEC. 9(H) AS THEY APPLY ALIKE TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY AND AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS AND TO PERSONS WHO BELIEVE IN
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE.  THE BREADTH OF THE PROVISION
CONCERNING BELIEF IN OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE WOULD RAISE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, HOWEVER, IF IT WERE READ VERY LITERALLY TO
INCLUDE ALL PERSONS WHO MIGHT, UNDER ANY CONCEIVABLE CIRCUMSTANCES,
SUBSCRIBE TO THAT BELIEF. 

BUT WE SEE NO REASON TO CONSTRUE THE STATUTE SO BROADLY.  IT IS
WITHIN THE POWER AND IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO CONSTRUE A STATUTE SO
AS TO AVOID THE DANGER OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IF IT MAY BE DONE IN
CONSONANCE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  UNITED STATES V. CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, 335 U.S. 106, 120-121(1948); UNITED STATES V.
DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366, 407-408(1909).  IN ENACTING SEC.
9(H), CONGRESS HAD AS ITS OBJECTIVE THE PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FROM DIRECT INTERFERENCE, NOT ANY INTENT TO DISTURB OR
PROSCRIBE BELIEFS AS SUCH.  ITS MANIFEST PURPOSE WAS TO BRING WITHIN
THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE ONLY THOSE PERSONS WHOSE BELIEFS STRONGLY
INDICATE A WILL TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL STRIKES AND OTHER FORMS OF
DIRECT ACTION WHEN, AS OFFICERS, THEY DIRECT UNION ACTIVITIES.  THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IS THEREFORE SERVED IF WE CONSTRUE THE CLAUSE,
"THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN, AND IS NOT A MEMBER OF OR SUPPORTS ANY
ORGANIZATION THAT BELIEVES IN OR TEACHES, THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR BY ANY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL
METHODS," TO APPLY TO PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO BELIEVE IN VIOLENT
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AS AN OBJECTIVE, NOT MERELY A PROPHECY.  CONGRESS MIGHT
WELL FIND THAT SUCH PERSONS - THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENT FORM
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE CHANGED BY FORCE OR
OTHER ILLEGAL METHODS - WOULD CARRY THAT OBJECTIVE INTO THEIR CONDUCT
OF UNION AFFAIRS BY CALLING POLITICAL STRIKES DESIGNED TO WEAKEN AND
DIVIDE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY CONSIDER ACTUAL OVERTHROW OF
THE GOVERNMENT TO BE NEAR OR DISTANT.  IT IS TO THOSE PERSONS THAT SEC.
9(H) IS INTENDED TO APPLY, AND ONLY TO THEM.  WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT
THE BELIEF IDENTIFIED IN SEC. 9(H) IS A BELIEF IN THE OBJECTIVE OF
OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR BY ANY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS IT NOW EXISTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS THEREOF. 

AS THUS CONSTRUED, WE THINK THAT THE "BELIEF" PROVISION OF THE OATH
PRESENTS NO DIFFERENT PROBLEM FROM THAT PRESENT IN THAT PART OF THE
WE AGREE THAT ONE MAY NOT BE IMPRISONED OR EXECUTED BECAUSE HE HOLDS
PARTICULAR BELIEFS.  BUT TO ATTACK THE STRAW MAN OF "THOUGHT CONTROL"
IS TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE SOLE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE UPON ONE WHO
BELIEVES IN OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE - AND
DOES NOT DENY HIS BELIEF - IS THAT HE MAY BE FORCED TO RELINQUISH HIS
POSITION AS A UNION LEADER.  THAT FACT WAS CRUCIAL IN OUR DISCUSSION OF
THE STATUTE AS IT RELATES TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  TO
QUOTE, WITH PERTINENT SUBSTITUTIONS, AN APT STATEMENT OF THAT
PRINCIPLE, POST, P. 434:  "THE ACT DOES NOT SUPPRESS OR OUTLAW THE
(BELIEF IN OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT), NOR PROHIBIT IT OR (THOSE WHO
HOLD THAT BELIEF) FROM ENGAGING IN ANY ABOVEBOARD ACTIVITY  ...  NO
INDIVIDUAL IS FORBIDDEN TO BE OR TO BECOME A PHILOSOPHICAL (BELIEVER IN
OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT) OR A FULL-FLEDGED MEMBER OF (A GROUP WHICH
HOLDS THAT BELIEF).  NO ONE IS PENALIZED FOR WRITING OR SPEAKING IN
FAVOR OF (SUCH A BELIEF) OR ITS PHILOSOPHY.  ALSO, THE ACT DOES NOT
REQUIRE OR FORBID ANYTHING WHATEVER TO ANY PERSON MERELY BECAUSE HE IS
(A BELIEVER IN OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE).  IT APPLIES ONLY
TO ONE WHO BECOMES AN OFFICER OF A LABOR UNION." 

IF THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONE MAY UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE REQUIRED TO
STATE HIS BELIEFS ON ANY SUBJECT NOR SUFFER THE LOSS OF ANY RIGHT OR
PRIVILEGE BECAUSE OF HIS BELIEFS BE A VALID ONE, ITS APPLICATION IN
OTHER POSSIBLE SITUATIONS BECOMES RELEVANT.  SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT
A FEDERAL STATUTE PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON MAY BECOME A MEMBER OF THE
SECRET SERVICE FORCE ASSIGNED TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT UNLESS HE SWEARS
THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT.  IS THIS
BEYOND THE POWER OF CONGRESS, WHATEVER THE NEED REVEALED BY ITS
INVESTIGATIONS?  AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER HARDLY COMMENDS ITSELF TO REASON
UNLESS, INDEED, THE BILL OF RIGHTS HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO A "SUICIDE
PACT."  TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1, 37(1949)(DISSENTING
OPINION).  YET THE EXAMPLE CHOSEN IS FAR-FETCHED ONLY BECAUSE OF THE
MANIFEST ABSURDITY OF RELIANCE UPON AN OATH IN SUCH A SITUATION.  ONE
CAN HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE SCREENING PROCESS IN THE SELECTION OF
PERSONS TO OCCUPY SUCH POSITIONS PROBES FAR DEEPER THAN MERE OATH
TAKING CAN POSSIBLY DO. 

TO HOLD THAT SUCH AN OATH IS PERMISSIBLE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS TO
ADMIT THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH ONE IS ASKED TO STATE HIS
BELIEF AND THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH FLOW FROM HIS REFUSAL TO DO SO OR HIS
DISCLOSURE OF A PARTICULAR BELIEF MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  THE REASON FOR
THE DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AT SOME LENGTH ABOVE.  FIRST, THE
LOSS OF A PARTICULAR POSITION IS NOT THE LOSS OF LIFE OR LIBERTY.  WE
HAVE NOTED THAT THE DISTINCTION IS ONE OF DEGREE, AND IT IS FOR THIS
REASON THAT THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE IN PROSCRIBING BELIEFS - LIKE ITS
EFFECT IN RESTRAINING SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION - MUST BE
CAREFULLY WEIGHED BY THE COURTS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE BALANCE
STRUCK BY CONGRESS COMPORTS WITH THE DICTATES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  BUT
IT IS INACCURATE TO SPEAK OF SEC. 9(H) AS "PUNISHING" OR "FORBIDDING"
THE HOLDING OF BELIEFS, ANY MORE THAN IT PUNISHES OR FORBIDS MEMBERSHIP
IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY. 

SECOND, THE PUBLIC INTEREST AT STAKE IN ASCERTAINING ONE'S BELIEFS
CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ASSIGNED AT ZERO WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INQUIRY.  IF IT IS ADMITTED THAT BELIEFS ARE
SPRINGS TO ACTION, IT BECOMES HIGHLY RELEVANT WHETHER THE PERSON WHO IS
ASKED WHETHER HE BELIEVES IN OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE IS A
GENERAL WITH FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN AT HIS COMMAND OR A VILLAGE
CONSTABLE.  TO ARGUE THAT BECAUSE THE LATTER MAY NOT BE ASKED HIS
BELIEFS THE FORMER MUST NECESSARILY BE EXEMPT IS TO MAKE A FETISH OF
BELIEFS.  THE ANSWER TO THE IMPLICATION THAT IF THIS STATUTE IS UPHELD
"THEN THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT OVER BELIEFS IS AS UNLIMITED AS ITS POWER
OVER CONDUCT AND THE WAY IS OPEN TO FORCE DISCLOSURE OF ATTITUDES ON
ALL MANNER OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, MORAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES," POST, P.
438, IS THAT THAT RESULT DOES NOT FOLLOW "WHILE THIS COURT SITS."  FN20
THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE INQUIRY, THEN, ARE LIKEWISE
FACTORS TO BE WEIGHED BY THE COURTS, GIVING DUE WEIGHT, OF COURSE, TO
THE CONGRESSIONAL JUDGMENT CONCERNING THE NEED.  IN SHORT, THE PROBLEM
OF BALANCING THE CONFLICTING INDIVIDUAL AND NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED
IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY PROSCRIPTIONS BASED UPON
POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS. 

INSOFAR AS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN BELIEFS AND POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS
IS BASED UPON ABSENCE OF ANY "OVERT ACT" IN THE FORMER CASE, IT IS
RELEVANT, IF AT ALL, IN CONNECTION WITH PROBLEMS OF PROOF.  IN PROVING
THAT ONE SWORE FALSELY THAT HE IS NOT A COMMUNIST, THE ACT OF JOINING
THE PARTY IS CRUCIAL.  PROOF THAT ONE LIED IN SWEARING THAT HE DOES NOT
BELIEVE IN OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE, ON THE OTHER HAND,
MUST CONSIST IN PROOF OF HIS MENTAL STATE.  TO THAT EXTENT THEY
DIFFER. 

TO STATE THE DIFFERENCE, HOWEVER, IS BUT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHILE
OBJECTIVE FACTS MAY BE PROVED DIRECTLY, THE STATE OF A MAN'S MIND MUST
BE INFERRED FROM THE THINGS HE SAYS OR DOES.  OF COURSE WE AGREE THAT
THE COURTS CANNOT "ASCERTAIN THE THOUGHT THAT HAS HAD NO OUTWARD
MANIFESTATION."  BUT COURTS AND JURIES EVERY DAY PASS UPON KNOWLEDGE,
BELIEF AND INTENT - THE STATE OF MEN'S MINDS - HAVING BEFORE THEM NO
MORE THAN EVIDENCE OF THEIR WORDS AND CONDUCT, FROM WHICH, IN ORDINARY
HUMAN EXPERIENCE, MENTAL CONDITION MAY BE INFERRED.  SEE 2 WIGMORE,
EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SECS.  244, 256 ET SEQ. FALSE SWEARING IN SIGNING
THE AFFIDAVIT MUST, AS IN OTHER CASES WHERE MENTAL STATE IS IN ISSUE,
BE PROVED BY THE OUTWARD MANIFESTATIONS OF STATE OF MIND.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH MANIFESTATIONS, WHICH ARE AS MUCH "OVERT ACTS" AS THE
ACT OF JOINING THE COMMUNIST PARTY, THERE CAN BE NO SUCCESSFUL
PROSECUTION FOR FALSE SWEARING.  FN21 

CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE PROBLEM - THE DEFERENCE
DUE THE CONGRESSIONAL JUDGMENT CONCERNING THE NEED FOR REGULATION OF
CONDUCT AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE
UPON RIGHTS OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY AND BELIEF - WE CONCLUDE THAT SEC. 9(H)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947, DOES NOT UNDULY INFRINGE FREEDOMS PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  THOSE WHO, SO CONGRESS HAS FOUND, WOULD SUBVERT THE
PUBLIC INTEREST CANNOT ESCAPE ALL REGULATION BECAUSE, AT THE SAME TIME,
THEY CARRY ON LEGITIMATE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.  CF. VALENTINE V.
CHRESTENSEN, 316 U.S. 52(1942).  TO ENCOURAGE UNIONS TO DISPLACE THEM
FROM POSITIONS OF GREAT POWER OVER THE NATIONAL ECONOMY, WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME LEAVING FREE THE OUTLETS BY WHICH THEY MAY PURSUE LEGITIMATE
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF PERSUASION AND ADVOCACY, DOES NOT SEEM TO US TO
CONTRAVENE THE PURPOSES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THAT AMENDMENT
REQUIRES THAT ONE BE PERMITTED TO BELIEVE WHAT HE WILL.  IT REQUIRES
THAT ONE BE PERMITTED TO ADVOCATE WHAT HE WILL UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC EVIL WILL RESULT
THEREFROM.  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT HE BE PERMITTED TO BE THE KEEPER
OF THE ARSENAL. 

                                 VII. 

THERE REMAIN TWO CONTENTIONS WHICH MERIT DISCUSSION.  ONE IS THAT
SEC. 9(H) IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE.  THE OTHER IS THAT IT VIOLATES
THE MANDATE OF ART. I, SEC. 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT "NO BILL OF
ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED." 

THE ARGUMENT AS TO VAGUENESS STRESSES THE BREADTH OF SUCH TERMS AS
"AFFILIATED," "SUPPORTS" AND "ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS." 
THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT THAT IMAGINATION CAN CONJURE UP HYPOTHETICAL
CASES IN WHICH THE MEANING OF THESE TERMS WILL BE IN NICE QUESTION. 
THE APPLICABLE STANDARD, HOWEVER, IS NOT ONE OF WHOLLY CONSISTENT
ACADEMIC DEFINITION OF ABSTRACT TERMS.  IT IS, RATHER, THE PRACTICAL
CRITERION OF FAIR NOTICE TO THOSE TO WHOM THE STATUTE IS DIRECTED.  THE
PARTICULAR CONTEXT IS ALL IMPORTANT. 

THE ONLY CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT SPECIFIED IS THE APPLICATION OF SEC.
35(A) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1001, WHICH COVERS ONLY
THOSE FALSE STATEMENTS MADE "KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY."  THE QUESTION IN
ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION INVOLVING A NON-COMMUNIST AFFIDAVIT MUST
THEREFORE BE WHETHER THE AFFIANT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH OR KNOWINGLY LIED
CONCERNING HIS AFFILIATIONS, BELIEFS, SUPPORT OF ORGANIZATIONS, ETC.
AND SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VICE IN A VAGUE OR INDEFINITE STATUTE IS
THE INJUSTICE TO THE ACCUSED IN PLACING HIM ON TRIAL FOR AN OFFENSE,
THE NATURE OF WHICH HE IS GIVEN NO FAIR WARNING, THE FACT THAT
PUNISHMENT IS RESTRICTED TO ACTS DONE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY
CONTRAVENE THE STATUTE MAKES THIS OBJECTION UNTENABLE.  AS THIS COURT
POINTED OUT IN UNITED STATES V. RAGEN, 314 U.S. 513, 524(1942), "A MIND
INTENT UPON WILLFUL EVASION IS INCONSISTENT WITH SURPRISED INNOCENCE." 
CF. OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246 U.S. 343(1918); HYGRADE PROVISION CO.
V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497(1925); SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S.
91(1945).  WITHOUT CONSIDERING, THEREFORE, WHETHER IN OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES THE WORDS USED IN SEC. 9(H) WOULD RENDER A STATUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND INDEFINITE, WE THINK THAT THE FACT THAT
UNDER SEC. 35(A) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE NO HONEST, UNTAINTED
INTERPRETATION OF THOSE WORDS IS PUNISHABLE REMOVES THE POSSIBILITY OF
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY. 

THE UNIONS' ARGUMENT AS TO BILL OF ATTAINDER CITES THE FAMILIAR
CASES, UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303(1946); EX PARTE GARLAND, 4
WALL.  333(1867); CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277(1867).  THOSE
CASES AND THIS ALSO, ACCORDING TO THE ARGUMENT, INVOLVE THE
PROSCRIPTION OF CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS TO A GROUP CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO
BELIEF AND LOYALTY.  BUT THERE IS A DECISIVE DISTINCTION:  IN THE
PREVIOUS DECISIONS THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED WERE IN FACT BEING PUNISHED
FOR PAST ACTIONS; WHEREAS IN THIS CASE THEY ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE
LOSS OF POSITION ONLY BECAUSE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL GROUND FOR THE
CONGRESSIONAL JUDGMENT THAT THEIR BELIEFS AND LOYALTIES WILL BE
TRANSFORMED INTO FUTURE CONDUCT.  OF COURSE, THE HISTORY OF THE PAST
CONDUCT IS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT THE FUTURE
CONDUCT IS LIKELY TO BE; BUT THAT DOES NOT ALTER THE CONCLUSION THAT
SEC. 9(H) IS INTENDED TO PREVENT FUTURE ACTION RATHER THAN TO PUNISH
PAST ACTION. 

THIS DISTINCTION IS EMPHASIZED BY THE FACT THAT MEMBERS OF THOSE
GROUPS IDENTIFIED IN SEC. 9(H) ARE FREE TO SERVE AS UNION OFFICERS IF
AT ANY TIME THEY RENOUNCE THE ALLEGIANCES WHICH CONSTITUTED A BAR TO
SIGNING THE AFFIDAVIT IN THE PAST.  PAST CONDUCT, ACTUAL OR THREATENED
BY THEIR PREVIOUS ADHERENCE TO AFFILIATIONS AND BELIEFS MENTIONED IN
SEC. 9(H), IS NOT A BAR TO RESUMPTION OF THE POSITION.  IN THE CASES
RELIED UPON BY THE UNIONS ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS COURT HAS EMPHASIZED
THAT, SINCE THE BASIS OF DISQUALIFICATION WAS PAST ACTION OR LOYALTY,
NOTHING THAT THOSE PERSONS PROSCRIBED BY ITS TERMS COULD EVER DO WOULD
CHANGE THE RESULT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, SUPRA, AT P. 314;
CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, AT P. 327.  HERE THE INTENTION IS TO
FORESTALL FUTURE DANGEROUS ACTS; THERE IS NO ONE WHO MAY NOT, BY A
VOLUNTARY ALTERATION OF THE LOYALTIES WHICH IMPEL HIM TO ACTION, BECOME
ELIGIBLE TO SIGN THE AFFIDAVIT.  WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THIS SECTION
IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER. 

IN THEIR ARGUMENT ON THIS POINT, THE UNIONS SEEK SOME ADVANTAGE FROM
REFERENCES TO ENGLISH HISTORY PERTINENT TO A RELIGIOUS TEST OATH.  THAT
EXPERIENCE IS WRITTEN INTO OUR CONSTITUTION IN THE FOLLOWING PROVISION
OF ARTICLE VI:  "THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE MENTIONED, AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE SEVERAL STATE LEGISLATURES, AND ALL EXECUTIVE AND
JUDICIAL OFFICERS, BOTH OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES,
SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION;
BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY
OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES."  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT
NOT ALL OATHS WERE ABOLISHED; THE MERE FACT THAT SEC. 9(H) IS IN OATH
FORM HARDLY RISES TO THE STATURE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.  ALL
THAT WAS FORBIDDEN WAS A "RELIGIOUS TEST."  WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE
OATH HERE INVOLVED CAN RIGHTLY BE TAKEN AS FALLING WITHIN THAT
CATEGORY. 

CLEARLY THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS THE REQUIREMENT OF OATHS BY
OFFICEHOLDERS TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.  THE OBVIOUS
IMPLICATION IS THAT THOSE UNWILLING TO TAKE SUCH AN OATH ARE TO BE
BARRED FROM PUBLIC OFFICE.  FOR THE PRESIDENT, A SPECIFIC OATH WAS SET
FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.  ART. II, SEC. 1.  AND CONGRESS HAS
DETAILED AN OATH FOR OTHER FEDERAL OFFICERS.  FN22  OBVIOUSLY, THE
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION THOUGHT THAT THE EXACTION OF AN AFFIRMATION
OF MINIMAL LOYALTY TO THE GOVERNMENT WAS WORTH THE PRICE OF WHATEVER
DEPRIVATION OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE WAS INVOLVED.  ALL THAT
WE NEED HOLD HERE IS THAT THE CASTING OF SEC. 9(H) INTO THE MOLD OF AN
OATH DOES NOT INVALIDATE IT, IF IT IS OTHERWISE CONSTITUTIONAL. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT SEC. 9(H) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, AS HEREIN
CONSTRUED, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND MAY STAND. 
THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS BELOW ARE THEREFORE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  61 STAT. 136, 146, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 141, SEC. 159(H),
AMENDING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 449, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN2  29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 151. 

FN3  A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AIMS AND TACTICS OF THE SOCIALIST
WORKERS PARTY, FOR EXAMPLE, MAY BE FOUND IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD IN
DUNNE V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 790(1943), CERTIORARI DENIED.  WE CITE
THE RECORD AS EVIDENCE ONLY AND EXPRESS NO OPINION WHATEVER ON THE
MERITS OF THE CASE.  SEE RECORD, PP. 267-271, 273-274, 330-332, 439,
475, 491-492, 495-496, 535, 606, 683-688, 693, 737, 804-805. 

FN4  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ON
BILLS TO AMEND AND REPEAL THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 80TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 3611-3615. 

FN5  THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROVIDES:  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES."    FN6  FOR EXAMPLE, A UNION WHOSE OFFICERS DO
NOT FILE DO NOT FILE AN AFFIDAVIT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 9(H) MAY NOT
ENTER INTO A UNION SHOP CONTRACT WITH AN EMPLOYER, AS IT WAS FREE TO DO
BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  A NONCOMPLYING
UNION IS EXCLUDED FROM THE BALLOT IN REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS.  IF
ANOTHER UNION IS CERTIFIED, THE NONCOMPLYING UNION INCURS THE
DISABILITIES OF SECS. 8(B)(4)(C) AND 303(A)(3), AS IT WOULD NOT HAVE
DONE PRIOR TO 1935.  SIMILARLY, CERTAIN STRIKES AND BOYCOTTS ARE
PROHIBITED TO NONCOMPLYING UNIONS BY SECS. 8(B)(4)(B), 8(B)(4)(C) AND
8(B)(4)(D) OF THE ACT. 

FN7  SEE ALSO LURIA V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 9(1913); MACKENZIE V.
HARE, 239 U.S. 299(1915); LAPIDES V. CLARK, 85 U.S. APP. D.C. 101, 176
F.2D 619(1949). 

FN8  SECTIONS 30 AND 32 OF THE BANKING ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 162,
193, 194, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 684, 709, 12 U.S.C. SECS. 77, 78. 

FN9  SEE SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47(1919); FROHWERK V.
UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 204(1919); DEBS V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S.
211(1919); ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616(1919); SCHAEFER V.
UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 466(1920); PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S.
239(1920); GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652(1925). 

FN10  "  ...  NO DANGER FLOWING FROM SPEECH CAN BE DEEMED CLEAR AND
PRESENT, UNLESS THE INCIDENCE OF THE EVIL APPREHENDED IS SO IMMINENT
THAT IT MAY BEFALL BEFORE THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR FULL DISCUSSION.  IF
THERE BE TIME TO EXPOSE THROUGH DISCUSSION THE FALSEHOOD AND FALLACIES,
TO AVERT THE EVIL BY THE PROCESSES OF EDUCATION, THE REMEDY TO BE
APPLIED IS MORE SPEECH, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
CONCURRING IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 377(1927). 

FN11  SEE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, DISSENTING IN ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES,
250 U.S. 616, 630(1919). 

FN12  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252(1941); PENNEKAMP V.
FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331(1946); CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367(1947). 

FN13  MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S.
516, 547(1945). 

FN14  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161(1939). 

FN15  STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 202(1944). 

FN16  CF. CASES CITED IN NOTE 9, SUPRA, AND WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA,
274 U.S. 357(1927); FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380(1927); STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359(1931); NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697(1931);
DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353(1937); HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S.
242(1937), 

FN17  CF. GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233(1936); THOMAS
V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516(1945). 

FN18  IN COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569(1941), MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
HUGHES, SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, STATED THE CONSIDERATIONS
THOUGHT CONTROLLING IN A NUMBER OF THESE CASES:  "IN LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
(303 U.S. 444), THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITED THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE
OF ANY KIND AT ANY TIME, AT ANY PLACE, AND IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT A
PERMIT FROM THE CITY MANAGER, THUS STRIKING AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF
THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BY SUBJECTING IT TO LICENSE AND CENSORSHIP. 
IN HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, (307 U.S. 496), THE
ORDINANCE DEALT WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATING VIEWS; IT DID NOT MAKE COMFORT OR CONVENIENCE
IN THE USE OF STREETS THE STANDARD OF OFFICIAL ACTION BUT ENABLED THE
LOCAL OFFICIAL ABSOLUTELY TO REFUSE A PERMIT ON HIS MERE OPINION THAT
SUCH REFUSAL WOULD PREVENT 'RIOTS, DISTURBANCES OR DISORDERLY
ASSEMBLAGE.'  THE ORDINANCE THUS CREATED, AS THE RECORD DISCLOSED, AN
INSTRUMENT OF ARBITRARY SUPPRESSION OF OPINIONS ON PUBLIC QUESTIONS. 
THE COURT SAID THAT 'UNCONTROLLED OFFICIAL SUPPRESSION OF THE PRIVILEGE
CANNOT BE MADE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN
CONNECTION WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT.'  IN SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
(308 U.S. 147)(P. 163) THE ORDINANCE WAS DIRECTED AT CANVASSING AND
BANNED UNLICENSED COMMUNICATION OF ANY VIEWS, OR THE ADVOCACY OF ANY
CAUSE, FROM DOOR TO DOOR, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE POWER OF A POLICE OFFICER
TO DETERMINE AS A CENSOR WHAT LITERATURE MIGHT BE DISTRIBUTED AND WHO
MIGHT DISTRIBUTE IT.  IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, (310 U.S. 296)(P.
305) THE STATUTE DEALT WITH THE SOLICITATION OF FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS
CAUSES AND AUTHORIZED AN OFFICIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CAUSE WAS A
RELIGIOUS ONE AND TO REFUSE A PERMIT IF HE DETERMINED IT WAS NOT, THUS
ESTABLISHING A CENSORSHIP OF RELIGION."  312 U.S. AT 577-578. 

FN19  IN THE BARNETTE CASE, THE COURT WAS CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THAT
THE SOLE INTEREST OF THE STATE WAS IN SECURING UNIFORMITY OF BELIEF BY
COMPELLING UTTERANCE OF A PRESCRIBED PLEDGE, AND THAT REFUSAL TO COMPLY
WITH THE STATE ORDER RESULTED IN PUNISHMENT FOR BOTH PARENT AND CHILD:
"THE FREEDOM ASSERTED BY THESE APPELLEES DOES NOT BRING THEM INTO
COLLISION WITH RIGHTS ASSERTED BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL.  IT IS SUCH
CONFLICTS WHICH MOST FREQUENTLY REQUIRE INTERVENTION OF THE STATE TO
DETERMINE WHERE THE RIGHTS OF ONE END AND THOSE OF ANOTHER BEGIN.  BUT
THE REFUSAL OF THESE PERSONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CEREMONY DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH OR DENY RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO SO.  NOR IS THERE ANY
QUESTION IN THIS CASE THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS PEACEABLE AND ORDERLY. 
THE SOLE CONFLICT IS BETWEEN AUTHORITY AND RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 
THE STATE ASSERTS POWER TO CONDITION ACCESS TO PUBLIC EDUCATION ON
MAKING A PRESCRIBED SIGN AND PROFESSION AND AT THE SAME TIME TO COERCE
ATTENDANCE BY PUNISHING BOTH PARENT AND CHILD.  THE LATTER STAND ON A
RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION IN MATTERS THAT TOUCH INDIVIDUAL OPINION
AND PERSONAL ATTITUDE."  319 U.S. AT 630-631. 

FN20  PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218, 223(1928)(DISSENTING
OPINION).  THE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, WHILE WRITTEN CONCERNING A
VERY DIFFERENT PROBLEM, ARE WELL WORTH REREADING IN THIS CONNECTION: 

"IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE STATE COURT WAS RIGHT.  I SHOULD SAY PLAINLY
RIGHT, BUT FOR THE EFFECT OF CERTAIN DICTA OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
WHICH CULMINATED IN OR RATHER WERE FOUNDED UPON HIS OFTEN QUOTED
PROPOSITION THAT THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY.  IN THOSE
DAYS IT WAS NOT RECOGNIZED AS IT IS TODAY THAT MOST OF THE DISTINCTIONS
OF THE LAW ARE DISTINCTIONS OF DEGREE.  IF THE STATES HAD ANY POWER IT
WAS ASSUMED THAT THEY HAD ALL POWER, AND THAT THE NECESSARY ALTERNATIVE
WAS TO DENY IT ALTOGETHER.  BUT THIS COURT WHICH SO OFTEN HAS DEFEATED
THE ATTEMPT TO TAX IN CERTAIN WAYS CAN DEFEAT AN ATTEMPT TO
DISCRIMINATE OR OTHERWISE GO TOO FAR WITHOUT WHOLLY ABOLISHING THE
POWER TO TAX.  THE POWER TO TAX IS NOT THE POWER TO DESTROY WHILE THIS
COURT SITS.  THE POWER TO FIX RATES IS THE POWER TO DESTROY IF
UNLIMITED, BUT THIS COURT WHILE IT ENDEAVORS TO PREVENT CONFISCATION
DOES NOT PREVENT THE FIXING OF RATES.  A TAX IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
REGULATION IN EVERY CASE WHERE AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF SALES WOULD
BE ONE.  HATCH V. REARDON, 204 U.S. 152, 162." 

FN21  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT STATE OF MIND IS ORDINARILY RELEVANT ONLY
WHEN IT IS INCIDENTAL TO, AND DETERMINES THE QUALITY OF, SOME OVERT ACT
(BUT CF. HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245(1934); IN RE SUMMERS, 325
U.S. 561(1945)), THE FACT MUST NOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT MENTAL STATE IN
SUCH CASES IS A DISTINCT ISSUE, 2 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SECS. 
244, 266, OF WHICH THE "OVERT ACT" MAY OR MAY NOT BE ANY PROOF.  FOR
EXAMPLE, THE PHYSICAL FACTS SURROUNDING A DEATH BY SHOOTING MAY BE AS
CONSISTENT WITH A FINDING OF ACCIDENT AS OF MURDER.  WILFULLNESS,
MALICE AND PREMEDITATION MUST THEREFORE BE PROVED BY EVIDENCE WHOLLY
APART FROM THE ACT OF SHOOTING. 

FN22  23 STAT. 22, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 16. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE CLARK AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN THE COURT'S OPINION EXCEPT AS
TO PART VII. 

"SCARCELY ANY POLITICAL QUESTION ARISES IN THE UNITED STATES,"
OBSERVED THE PERCEPTIVE DE TOCQUEVILLE AS EARLY AS 1835, "THAT IS NOT
RESOLVED, SOONER OR LATER, INTO A JUDICIAL QUESTION."  1 DEMOCRACY IN
AMERICA 280(BRADLEY ED. 1948).  AND SO IT WAS TO BE EXPECTED THAT THE
CONFLICT OF POLITICAL IDEAS NOW DIVIDING THE WORLD MORE PERVASIVELY
THAN ANY SINCE THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED WOULD GIVE RISE TO CONTROVERSIES
FOR ADJUDICATION BY THIS COURT.  "THE JUDICIAL POWER" WITH WHICH ALONE
THIS COURT IS INVESTED COMES INTO OPERATION ONLY AS TO ISSUES THAT THE
LONG TRADITION OF OUR HISTORY HAS MADE APPROPRIATE FOR DISPOSITION BY
JUDGES.  WHEN SUCH QUESTIONS ARE PROPERLY HERE THEY ARE TO BE DISPOSED
OF WITHIN THOSE STRICT CONFINES OF LEGAL REASONING WHICH LAYMEN TOO
OFTEN DEEM INVIDIOUSLY TECHNICAL.  THIS RESTRICTION TO JUSTICIABLE
ISSUES TO BE DISPOSED OF IN THE UNRHETORICAL MANNER OF OPINION-WRITING
REFLECTS RESPECT BY THE JUDICIARY FOR ITS VERY LIMITED, HOWEVER GREAT,
FUNCTION IN THE PROPER DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY IN OUR POLITICAL
SCHEME SO AS TO AVOID AUTOCRATIC RULE.  NO DOUBT ISSUES LIKE THOSE NOW
BEFORE US CANNOT BE COMPLETELY SEVERED FROM THE POLITICAL AND EMOTIONAL
CONTEXT OUT OF WHICH THEY EMERGE.  FOR THAT VERY REASON ADJUDICATION
TOUCHING SUCH MATTERS SHOULD NOT GO ONE WHIT BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE
ISSUES REQUIRING DECISION, AND WHAT IS SAID IN SUPPORT OF THE
ADJUDICATION SHOULD INSULATE THE COURT AS FAR AS IS RATIONALLY POSSIBLE
FROM THE POLITICAL CONFLICT BENEATH THE LEGAL ISSUES. 

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THE ENACTMENT NOW CHALLENGED IS THE
POWER OF CONGRESS, AS PART OF ITS COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR INDUSTRIAL
PEACE, TO KEEP COMMUNISTS OUT OF CONTROLLING POSITIONS IN LABOR UNIONS
AS A CONDITION TO UTILIZING THE OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT,
1947.  FN1  WRAPPED UP IN THIS PROBLEM ARE TWO GREAT CONCERNS OF OUR
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY - THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
BETTERMENT AND THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.  IT IS
TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO DENY TO CONGRESS THE POWER TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL
PEACE IN ALL THE FAR-FLUNG RANGE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  TO THAT END,
CONGRESS MAY TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AGAINST DISRUPTIVE CONDUCT NOT FAIRLY RELATED TO INDUSTRIAL BETTERMENT
WITHIN OUR DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK.  IT IS ONE THING TO FORBID HERETICAL
POLITICAL THOUGHT MERELY AS HERETICAL THOUGHT.  IT IS QUITE A DIFFERENT
THING FOR CONGRESS TO RESTRICT ATTEMPTS TO BRING ABOUT ANOTHER SCHEME
OF SOCIETY, NOT THROUGH APPEAL TO REASON AND THE USE OF THE BALLOT AS
DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN PURSUED THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, BUT THROUGH AN
ASSOCIATED EFFORT TO DISRUPT INDUSTRY. 

THUS STATED, IT WOULD MAKE UNDUE INROADS UPON THE POLICY-MAKING POWER
OF CONGRESS TO DENY IT THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THE INDUSTRIAL PEACE OF THE
COUNTRY BY EXCLUDING FROM LEADERSHIP IN TRADE UNIONS WHICH SEEK TO
AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE MACHINERY OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT
THOSE WHO ARE UNITED FOR ACTION AGAINST OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.  THIS
IS SO NOT BECAUSE CONGRESS IN AFFORDING A FACILITY CAN SUBJECT IT TO
ANY CONDITION IT PLEASES.  IT CANNOT.  CONGRESS MAY WITHHOLD ALL SORTS
OF FACILITIES FOR A BETTER LIFE BUT IF IT AFFORDS THEM IT CANNOT MAKE
THEM AVAILABLE IN AN OBVIOUSLY ARBITRARY WAY OR EXACT SURRENDER OF
FREEDOMS UNRELATED TO THE PURPOSE OF THE FACILITIES.  CONGRESS SURELY
CAN PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN CLEARLY RELEVANT QUALIFICATIONS OF
RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OF LEADERS OF TRADE UNIONS INVOKING THE
MACHINERY OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT.  THE ESSENTIAL
QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER CONGRESS MAY DETERMINE THAT MEMBERSHIP OF UNION
OFFICERS IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY CREATES SUCH AN OBVIOUS HAZARD TO THE
PEACEPROMOTING PURPOSES OF THE ACT THAT ACCESS TO THE MACHINERY OF THE
ACT MAY BE DENIED UNIONS WHICH PREFER THEIR FREEDOM TO HAVE OFFICERS
WHO ARE COMMUNISTS TO THEIR OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE ACT. 

WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH CONFLICTING FREEDOMS, AS WE ARE ON THE
ISSUES BEFORE US, WE ARE DEALING WITH LARGE CONCEPTS THAT TOO READILY
LEND THEMSELVES TO EXPLOSIVE RHETORIC.  WE ARE ALSO DEALING WITH
MATTERS AS TO WHICH DIFFERENT NUANCES IN PHRASING THE SAME CONCLUSION
LEAD TO DIFFERENT EMPHASIS AND THEREBY EVENTUALLY MAY LEAD TO DIFFERENT
CONCLUSIONS IN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.  FROM MY POINT OF VIEW
THESE ARE ISSUES AS TO WHICH IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR THE MEMBERS OF
THE COURT TO WRITE FULL-LENGTH INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS.  THE COURT'S
BUSINESS IN OUR TIME BEING WHAT IT IS PRECLUDES THIS.  IT MUST SUFFICE
FOR ME TO SAY THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS THAT TRADE UNIONS WHICH ARE
GUIDED BY OFFICERS WHO ARE COMMITTED BY TIES OF MEMBERSHIP TO THE
COMMUNIST PARTY MUST FOREGO THE ADVANTAGES OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT IS REASONABLY RELATED TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE
PURPOSES WHICH CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY HAD A RIGHT TO PURSUE.  TO
DENY THAT THAT IS A JUDGMENT WHICH CONGRESS MAY, AS A MATTER OF
EXPERIENCE, ENFORCE EVEN THOUGH IT INVOLVES THE INDICATED RESTRICTIONS
UPON FREEDOM WOULD BE TO MAKE NAIVETE A REQUIREMENT IN JUDGES.  SINCE
THE COURT'S OPINION, IN THE MAIN, EXPRESSES THE POINT OF VIEW WHICH I
HAVE VERY INADEQUATELY SKETCHED, I JOIN IT EXCEPT AS QUALIFIED IN WHAT
FOLLOWS. 

CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH WHAT IT JUSTIFIABLY DEEMED TO BE THE
DISORGANIZING PURPOSES OF COMMUNISTS WHO HOLD POSITIONS OF OFFICIAL
POWER IN LABOR UNIONS, OR, AT THE LEAST, WHAT IT MIGHT WELL DEEM THEIR
LACK OF DISINTERESTED DEVOTION TO THE BASIC TENETS OF THE AMERICAN
TRADE UNION MOVEMENT BECAUSE OF A HIGHER LOYALTY TO A POTENTIALLY
CONFLICTING CAUSE.  BUT CONGRESS DID NOT CHOOSE MERELY TO LIMIT THE
FREEDOM OF LABOR UNIONS WHICH SEEK THE ADVANTAGES OF THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT TO BE LED BY OFFICERS WHO ARE NOT WILLING TO
DISAVOW MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  THE SCOPE OF ITS
LEGISLATION WAS MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE. 

LEGISLATION, IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE ITS PURPOSES, MAY DEAL WITH
RADIATIONS BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE INCIDENCE OF A MISCHIEF.  IF A
PARTICULAR MISCHIEF IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER, WIDE
DISCRETION MUST BE ALLOWED TO CONGRESS FOR DEALING WITH IT
EFFECTIVELY.  IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THIS COURT TO RESTRICT CONGRESS
TOO NARROWLY IN DEFINING THE EXTENT OR THE NATURE OF REMEDIES.  HOW TO
CURB AN EVIL, WHAT REMEDIES WILL BE EFFECTIVE; THE REACH OF A
PARTICULAR EVIL AND THEREFORE THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE OF A REMEDY AGAINST
IT - ALL THESE ARE IN THE MAIN MATTERS OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY NOT OPEN
TO JUDICIAL CONDEMNATION.  THERE ARE, OF COURSE, SOME SPECIFIC
RESTRICTIONS IN DEVISING REMEDIES.  NO MATTER WHAT ITS NOTIONS OF
POLICY MAY BE, THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, BARS CONGRESS FROM
INFLICTING "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS."  I DO NOT SUPPOSE IT IS
EVEN ARGUABLE THAT CONGRESS COULD ASK FOR A DISCLOSURE OF HOW UNION
OFFICERS CAST THEIR BALLOTS AT THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION EVEN
THOUGH THE SECRET BALLOT IS A RELATIVELY RECENT INSTITUTION.  SEE
WIGMORE, THE AUSTRALIAN BALLOT SYSTEM 3, 15, 22(1889).  SO ALSO
CONGRESS MUST KEEP WITHIN THE CONTOURS OF THE "DUE PROCESS" REQUIREMENT
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, VAGUE AS THEY ARE.  IN ORDER TO CURB A MISCHIEF
CONGRESS CANNOT BE SO INDEFINITE IN ITS REQUIREMENTS THAT EFFORT TO
MEET THEM RAISES HAZARDS UNFAIR TO THOSE WHO SEEK OBEDIENCE OR INVOLVES
SURRENDER OF FREEDOMS WHICH EXCEEDS WHAT MAY FAIRLY BE EXACTED.  THESE
RESTRICTIONS ON THE BROAD SCOPE OF LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION ARE MERELY
THE LAW'S APPLICATION OF THE HOMELY SAWS THAT ONE SHOULD NOT THROW OUT
THE BABY WITH THE BATH OR BURN THE HOUSE IN ORDER TO ROAST THE PIG. 

IN MY VIEW CONGRESS HAS CAST ITS NET TOO INDISCRIMINATELY IN SOME OF
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9(H).  TO ASK AVOWAL THAT ONE "DOES NOT BELIEVE
IN, AND IS NOT A MEMBER OF OR SUPPORTS ANY ORGANIZATION THAT BELIEVES
IN  ...  THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT  ...  BY ANY
ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS" IS TO ASK ASSURANCES FROM MEN
REGARDING MATTERS THAT OPEN THE DOOR TOO WIDE TO MERE SPECULATION OR
UNCERTAINTY.  IT IS ASKING MORE THAN RIGHTFULLY MAY BE ASKED OF
ORDINARY MEN TO TAKE OATH THAT A METHOD IS NOT "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" OR
"ILLEGAL" WHEN CONSTITUTIONALITY OR LEGALITY IS FREQUENTLY DETERMINED
BY THIS COURT BY THE CHANCE OF A SINGLE VOTE.  FN2  IT DOES NOT MEET
THE DIFFICULTY TO SUGGEST THAT THE HAZARD OF A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY
IS NOT GREAT SINCE THE CONVICTIONS FOR PERJURY MUST BE FOUNDED ON
WILLFUL FALSITY.  TO SUGGEST THAT A JUDGE MIGHT NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN
ALLOWING A CASE TO GO TO A JURY, OR THAT A JURY WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED
IN CONVICTING, OR THAT, ON THE POSSIBLE HAPPENING OF THESE EVENTS, AN
APPELLATE COURT WOULD BE COMPELLED TO REVERSE, OR, FINALLY, THAT RESORT
COULD BE HAD TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
AFFORDS SAFEGUARDS TOO TENUOUS TO NEUTRALIZE THE DANGER.  SEE MUSSER V.
UTAH, 333 U.S. 95.  THE HAZARDS THAT WERE FOUND TO BE FATAL TO THE
LEGISLATION UNDER REVIEW IN WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507, APPEAR
TRIVIAL BY COMPARISON WITH WHAT IS HERE INVOLVED. 

IT IS NOT MERELY THE HAZARD OF PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY THAT IS
DEPENDENT ON A CORRECT DETERMINATION AS TO THE IMPLICATIONS OF A MAN'S
BELIEF OR THE BELIEF OF OTHERS WITH WHOM HE MAY BE ASSOCIATED IN AN
ORGANIZATION CONCERNED WITH POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE ASSUMED THAT OATHS WILL BE LIGHTLY TAKEN; FASTIDIOUSLY SCRUPULOUS
REGARD FOR THEM SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.  THEREFORE, IT BECOMES MOST
RELEVANT WHETHER AN OATH WHICH CONGRESS ASKS MEN TO TAKE MAY OR MAY NOT
BE THOUGHT TO TOUCH MATTERS THAT MAY NOT BE SUBJECTED TO COMPULSORY
AVOWAL OF BELIEF OR DISBELIEF.  IN THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE REACH OF SEC.
9(H), ONE MAY WITHHOLD AN OATH BECAUSE OF CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES THAT
IT COVERS BELIEFS WHOSE DISCLOSURE CONGRESS COULD NOT IN TERMS EXACT. 
IF A MAN HAS SCRUPLES ABOUT TAKING AN OATH BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO
WHETHER IT ENCOMPASSES SOME BELIEFS THAT ARE INVIOLATE, THE SURRENDER
OF ABSTENTION IS INVITED BY THE AMBIGUITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
EXACTION.  AS MR. JUSTICE JACKSON'S OPINION INDICATES, PROBING INTO
MEN'S THOUGHTS TRENCHES ON THOSE ASPECTS OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM WHICH WE
RIGHTLY REGARD AS THE MOST CHERISHED ASPECTS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION. 
THE CARDINAL ARTICLE OF FAITH OF OUR CIVILIZATION IS THE INVIOLATE
CHARACTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  A MAN CAN BE REGARDED AS AN INDIVIDUAL
AND NOT AS A FUNCTION OF THE STATE ONLY IF HE IS PROTECTED TO THE
LARGEST POSSIBLE EXTENT IN HIS THOUGHTS AND IN HIS BELIEFS AS THE
CITADEL OF HIS PERSON.  ENTRY INTO THAT CITADEL CAN BE JUSTIFIED, IF AT
ALL, ONLY IF STRICTLY CONFINED SO THAT THE BELIEF THAT A MAN IS ASKED
TO REVEAL IS SO DEFINED AS TO LEAVE NO FAIR ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT HE IS
NOT ASKED TO DISCLOSE WHAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO WITHHOLD. 

NO ONE COULD BELIEVE MORE STRONGLY THAN I DO THAT EVERY RATIONAL
INDULGENCE SHOULD BE MADE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN
ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS.  I DEEM IT MY DUTY TO GO TO THE FARTHEST
POSSIBLE LIMITS IN SO CONSTRUING LEGISLATION AS TO AVOID A FINDING THAT
CONGRESS HAS EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF ITS POWERS.  SEE, E.G., UNITED
STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303, 318, 329; SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, 335
U.S. 1, 36; UNITED STATES V. C.I.O., 335 U.S. 106, 124, 129. 

IF I POSSIBLY COULD, TO AVOID QUESTIONS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY I
WOULD CONSTRUE THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 9(H) TO BE RESTRICTED TO
DISAVOWAL OF ACTUAL MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY, OR IN AN
ORGANIZATION THAT IS IN FACT A CONTROLLED COVER FOR THAT PARTY OR OF
ACTIVE BELIEF, AS A MATTER OF PRESENT POLICY, IN THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE.  BUT WHAT CONGRESS HAS
WRITTEN DOES NOT PERMIT SUCH A GLOSS NOR DELETION OF WHAT IT HAS
WRITTEN.  SEE YU CONG ENG V. TRINIDAD, 271 U.S. 500.  I CANNOT DEEM IT
WITHIN THE RIGHTFUL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO PROBE INTO OPINIONS THAT
INVOLVE ONLY AN ARGUMENTATIVE DEMONSTRATION OF SOME COINCIDENTAL
PARALLELISM OF BELIEF WITH SOME OF THE BELIEFS OF THOSE WHO DIRECT THE
POLICY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, THOUGH WITHOUT ANY ALLEGIANCE TO IT.  TO
REQUIRE OATHS AS TO MATTERS THAT OPEN UP SUCH POSSIBILITIES INVADES THE
INNER LIFE OF MEN WHOSE COMPASSIONATE THOUGHT OR DOCTRINAIRE HOPES MAY
BE AS FAR REMOVED FROM ANY DANGEROUS KINSHIP WITH THE COMMUNIST CREED
AS WERE THOSE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE PRESENT ORTHODOX POLITICAL PARTIES
IN THIS COUNTRY. 

THE OFFENSIVE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9(H) LEAVE UNAFFECTED, HOWEVER, THE
VALID PORTIONS OF THE SECTION.  IN SEC. 16, CONGRESS HAS MADE EXPRESS
PROVISION FOR SUCH SEVERANCE.  SINCE THE JUDGMENTS BELOW WERE BASED IN
PART ON WHAT I DEEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, I CANNOT AFFIRM BUT
WOULD REMAND TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO OBEY MERELY THE VALID PORTIONS OF
SEC. 9(H). 

FN1  SECTION 9(H) REQUIRES EACH OFFICER OF A UNION SEEKING TO INVOKE
THE MACHINERY OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT TO SUBMIT AN
AFFIDAVIT "THAT HE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR AFFILIATED
WITH SUCH PARTY, AND THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN, AND IS NOT A MEMBER
OF OR SUPPORTS ANY ORGANIZATION THAT BELIEVES IN OR TEACHES, THE
OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR BY ANY ILLEGAL OR
UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS."  61 STAT. 146, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
159(H).  THE PROVISIONS OF WHAT IS NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1001, FORMERLY
SEC. 35(A) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, ARE MADE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT TO SUCH
AFFIDAVITS. 

FN2  AS TO THE DUBIOUS SCOPE OF THE TERM "AFFILIATED" IN THE STATUTE,
SEE BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING AND DISSENTING, EACH IN PART. 

IF THE STATUTE BEFORE US REQUIRED LABOR UNION OFFICERS TO FORSWEAR
MEMBERSHIP IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR THE
SOCIALIST PARTY, I SUPPOSE ALL AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT WHY, IF IT IS VALID AS TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY? 

THE ANSWER, FOR ME, IS IN THE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
COMMUNIST PARTY AND EVERY OTHER PARTY OF ANY IMPORTANCE IN THE LONG
EXPERIENCE OF THE UNITED STATES WITH PARTY GOVERNMENT.  IN ORDER THAT
TODAY'S DECISION MAY NOT BE USEFUL AS A PRECEDENT FOR SUPPRESSION OF
ANY POLITICAL OPPOSITION COMPATIBLE WITH OUR FREE INSTITUTIONS, I LIMIT
CONCURRENCE TO GROUNDS AND DISTINCTIONS EXPLICITLY SET FORTH HEREIN,
WITHOUT WHICH I SHOULD REGARD THIS ACT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

TO STATE CONTROLLING CRITERIA DEFINITIVELY IS BOTH IMPORTANT AND
DIFFICULT, BECAUSE THOSE COMMUNIST PARTY ACTIVITIES VISIBLE TO THE
PUBLIC CLOSELY RESEMBLE THOSE OF ANY OTHER PARTY.  PARTIES, WHETHER IN
OFFICE OR OUT, ARE OFTEN IRRESPONSIBLE IN THEIR USE AND ABUSE OF
FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND PRESS.  THEY ALL MAKE SCAPEGOATS OF UNPOPULAR
PERSONS OR CLASSES AND MAKE PROMISES OF DUBIOUS SINCERITY OR
FEASIBILITY IN ORDER TO WIN VOTES.  ALL PARTIES, WHEN IN OPPOSITION,
STRIVE TO DISCREDIT AND EMBARRASS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY BY
SPREADING EXAGGERATIONS AND UNTRUTHS AND BY INCITING PREJUDICED OR
UNREASONING DISCONTENT, NOT EVEN HESITATING TO INJURE THE NATION'S
PRESTIGE AMONG THE FAMILY OF NATIONS.  THE COMMUNIST PARTY, AT LEAST
OUTWARDLY, ONLY EXAGGERATES THESE WELL-WORN POLITICAL TECHNIQUES AND
MANY PERSONS ARE THUS LED TO THINK OF IT AS JUST ANOTHER MORE RADICAL
POLITICAL PARTY.  IF IT WERE NOTHING BUT THAT, I THINK THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THERE ARE, HOWEVER, CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN
WHAT MEETS THE EYE AND WHAT IS COVERTLY DONE, WHICH, IN MY VIEW OF THE
ISSUES, PROVIDE A RATIONAL BASIS UPON WHICH CONGRESS REASONABLY COULD
HAVE CONCLUDED  FN1  THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN
FACT FROM ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL PARTY WE HAVE KNOWN, AND HENCE MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE TREATED AS SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN LAW. 

                                  I. 

FROM INFORMATION BEFORE ITS SEVERAL COMMITTEES AND FROM FACTS OF
GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, CONGRESS COULD RATIONALLY CONCLUDE THAT, BEHIND ITS
POLITICAL PARTY FACADE, THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS A CONSPIRATORIAL AND
REVOLUTIONARY JUNTA, ORGANIZED TO REACH ENDS AND TO USE METHODS WHICH
ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  A ROUGH AND
COMPRESSED GROUPING OF THIS DATA  FN2 WOULD PERMIT CONGRESS TO DRAW
THESE IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS AS TO ITS DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS. 

1.  THE GOAL OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS TO SEIZE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT
BY AND FOR A MINORITY RATHER THAN TO ACQUIRE POWER THROUGH THE VOTE OF
A FREE ELECTORATE.  IT SEEKS NOT MERELY A CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION, OR
OF CONGRESS, OR REFORM LEGISLATION WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK.  ITS PROGRAM IS NOT MERELY TO SOCIALIZE PROPERTY MORE
RAPIDLY AND EXTENSIVELY THAN THE OTHER PARTIES ARE DOING.  WHILE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OTHER PARTIES IN THESE MATTERS IS LARGELY AS TO
PACE, THE COMMUNIST PARTY'S DIFFERENCE IS ONE OF DIRECTION. 

THE COMMUNIST PROGRAM ONLY BEGINS WITH SEIZURE OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH
THEN BECOMES A MEANS TO IMPOSE UPON SOCIETY AN ORGANIZATION ON
PRINCIPLES FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO THOSE PRESUPPOSED BY OUR
CONSTITUTION.  IT PURPOSES FORCIBLY TO RECAST OUR WHOLE SOCIAL AND
POLITICAL STRUCTURE AFTER THE MUSCOVITE MODEL OF POLICE-STATE
DICTATORSHIP.  IT REJECTS THE ENTIRE RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL HERITAGE OF
WESTERN CIVILIZATION, AS WELL AS THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL
SYSTEMS.  THIS COMMUNIST MOVEMENT IS A BELATED COUNTER-REVOLUTION TO
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, DESIGNED TO UNDO THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE, THE CONSTITUTION, AND OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND OVERTURN
OUR SYSTEM OF FREE, REPRESENTATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT. 

GOALS SO EXTREME AND OFFENSIVE TO AMERICAN TRADITION AND ASPIRATION
OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT BE ATTAINED OR APPROACHED THROUGH ORDER OR WITH
TRANQUILITY.  IF, BY THEIR BETTER ORGANIZATION AND DISCIPLINE, THEY
WERE SUCCESSFUL, MORE CANDID COMMUNISTS ADMIT THAT IT WOULD BE TO AN
ACCOMPANIMENT OF VIOLENCE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY DISCLAIM
RESPONSIBILITY BY BLAMING THE VIOLENCE UPON THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN
RESISTANCE OR REPRISAL.  IT MATTERS LITTLE BY WHOM THE FIRST BLOW WOULD
BE STRUCK; NO ONE CAN DOUBT THAT AN ERA OF VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION,
CONFISCATIONS AND LIQUIDATIONS WOULD BE CONCURRENT WITH A REGIME OF
COMMUNISM. 

SUCH GOALS SET UP A CLEAVAGE AMONG US TOO FUNDAMENTAL TO BE COMPOSED
BY DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES.  OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME OF ELECTIONS WILL
NOT SETTLE ISSUES BETWEEN LARGE GROUPS WHEN THE PRICE OF LOSING IS TO
SUFFER EXTINCTION.  WHEN DISSENSIONS CUT TOO DEEPLY, MEN WILL FIGHT,
EVEN HOPELESSLY, BEFORE THEY WILL SUBMIT.  FN3  AND THIS IS THE KIND OF
STRUGGLE PROJECTED BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND INHERENT IN ITS PROGRAM. 

2.  THE COMMUNIST PARTY ALONE AMONG AMERICAN PARTIES PAST OR PRESENT
IS DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.  IT IS A SATRAP
PARTY WHICH, TO THE THREAT OF CIVIL DISORDER, ADDS THE THREAT OF
BETRAYAL INTO ALIEN HANDS. 

THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FROM THE KREMLIN TO THE AMERICAN PARTY IS
STOUTLY DENIED AND USUALLY INVISIBLE, BUT IT WAS UNMISTAKABLY DISCLOSED
BY THE AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY SOMERSAULTING IN SYNCHRONISM WITH
SHIFTS IN THE KREMLIN'S FOREIGN POLICY.  BEFORE MUNICH, SOVIET POLICY
WAS ANTI-GERMAN - "ANTI-FASCIST" - AND THE COMMUNISTS IN THIS COUNTRY
WERE LIKEWISE.  HOWEVER, WHEN STALIN CONCLUDED A NONAGGRESSION PACT
WITH HITLER AND NAZI GERMANY AND THE SOVIET UNION BECAME PARTNERS IN
THE WAR, THE COMMUNISTS HERE DID EVERYTHING WITHIN THEIR POWER TO
RETARD AND EMBARRASS THE UNITED STATES' POLICY OF RENDERING AID SHORT
OF WAR TO VICTIMS OF AGGRESSION BY THAT EVIL PARTNERSHIP.  WHEN THOSE
PARTNERS AGAIN FELL OUT AND RUSSIAN POLICY ONCE MORE BECAME ANTI
GERMAN, THE COMMUNISTS IN THIS COUNTRY MADE AN ABRUPT AND FIERCE
REVERSAL AND WERE UNCONSCIONABLE IN THEIR DEMANDS THAT AMERICAN
SOLDIERS, WHOSE EQUIPMENT THEY HAD DELAYED AND SABOTAGED, BE SACRIFICED
IN A PREMATURE SECOND FRONT TO SPARE RUSSIA.  AMERICAN COMMUNISTS, LIKE
COMMUNISTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD, PLACED MOSCOW'S DEMAND ABOVE EVERY
PATRIOTIC INTEREST. 

BY LINEAGE AND COMPOSITION THE COMMUNIST PARTY WILL REMAIN PECULIARLY
SUSCEPTIBLE TO THIS ALIEN CONTROL.  THE ENTIRE APPARATUS OF COMMUNISM -
ITS GRIEVANCES, PROGRAM, PROPAGANDA AND VOCABULARY - WERE EVOLVED FOR
EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE, WHOSE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS BEAR
NO SEMBLANCE TO OUR OWN.  HOWEVER GIFTED MAY HAVE BEEN THE COMMUNIST
PARTY'S FOUNDERS AND LEADERS - MARX, ENGELS, LENIN AND STALIN - NOT ONE
OF THEM EVER LIVED IN AMERICA, EXPERIENCED OUR CONDITIONS, OR IMBIBED
THE SPIRIT OF OUR INSTITUTIONS.  THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS NOT NATIVE TO
THIS COUNTRY AND ITS BEGINNINGS HERE WERE NOT AN EFFORT OF AMERICANS TO
ANSWER AMERICAN PROBLEMS.  NOR IS IT THE RESPONSE TO A QUEST BY
AMERICAN POLITICAL LEADERS FOR LESSONS FROM EUROPEAN EXPERIENCES.  AS A
CONSEQUENCE, THE LEADERS OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY HAVE BEEN
OTHERWISE INSIGNIFICANT PERSONALITIES, WITHOUT PERSONAL POLITICAL
FOLLOWINGS OR APTITUDES FOR OUR POLITICAL METHODS, ADAPTED BY TRAINING
ONLY TO BORING THEIR WAY INTO THE LABOR MOVEMENT, MINORITY GROUPS AND
COTERIES OF NAIVE AND CONFUSED LIBERALS, WHOSE ORGANIZATIONS THEY HAVE
CAPTURED AND DISCREDITED AND AMONG WHOM THEY LIE IN WAIT FOR FURTHER
ORDERS. 

THE OLD WORLD MAY BE RICH IN LESSONS WHICH OUR STATESMEN COULD
CONSULT WITH ADVANTAGE.  BUT IT IS ONE THING TO LEARN FROM OR SUPPORT A
FOREIGN POWER BECAUSE THAT POLICY SERVES AMERICAN INTERESTS, AND
ANOTHER THING TO SUPPORT AMERICAN POLICIES BECAUSE THEY WILL SERVE
FOREIGN INTERESTS.  FN4  IN EACH COUNTRY WHERE THE COMMUNISTS HAVE
SEIZED CONTROL, THEY HAVE SO DENATIONALIZED ITS FOREIGN POLICY AS TO
MAKE IT A SATELLITE AND VASSAL OF THE SOVIET UNION AND ENFORCED A
DOMESTIC POLICY IN COMPLETE CONFORMITY WITH THE SOVIET PATTERN,
TOLERATING NO DEVIATION IN DEFERENCE TO ANY PEOPLE'S SEPARATE HISTORY,
TRADITION OR NATIONAL INTERESTS. 

3.  VIOLENT AND UNDEMOCRATIC MEANS ARE THE CALCULATED AND
INDISPENSABLE METHODS TO ATTAIN THE COMMUNIST PARTY'S GOAL.  IT WOULD
BE INCREDIBLE NAIVETE TO EXPECT THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF THIS MOVEMENT TO
FOREGO THE ONLY METHODS BY WHICH A COMMUNIST PARTY HAS ANYWHERE COME
INTO POWER.  IN NOT ONE OF THE COUNTRIES IT NOW DOMINATES WAS THE
COMMUNIST PARTY CHOSEN BY A FREE OR CONTESTIBLE ELECTION; IN NOT ONE
CAN IT BE EVICTED BY ANY ELECTION.  THE INTERNATIONAL POLICE STATE HAS
CREPT OVER EASTERN EUROPE BY DECEPTION, COERCION, COUP D'ETAT,
TERRORISM AND ASSASSINATION.  NOT ONLY HAS IT OVERPOWERED ITS CRITICS
AND OPPONENTS; IT HAS USUALLY LIQUIDATED THEM.  THE AMERICAN COMMUNIST
PARTY HAS COPIED THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND ITS LEADERS HAVE BEEN
SCHOOLED IN THE SAME TECHNIQUE AND BY THE SAME TUTORS. 

THE AMERICAN COMMUNISTS HAVE IMPORTED THE TOTALITARIAN ORGANIZATION'S
DISCIPLINES AND TECHNIQUES, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THIS COUNTRY
OFFERS THEM AND OTHER DISCONTENTED ELEMENTS A WAY TO PEACEFUL
REVOLUTION BY BALLOT.  FN5  IF THEY CAN PERSUADE ENOUGH CITIZENS, THEY
MAY NOT ONLY NAME NEW OFFICIALS AND INAUGURATE NEW POLICIES, BUT, BY
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, THEY CAN ABOLISH THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND
SET UP AN ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT BY LEGAL METHODS.  THEY ARE GIVEN
LIBERTIES OF SPEECH, PRESS AND ASSEMBLY TO ENABLE THEM TO PRESENT TO
THE PEOPLE THEIR PROPOSALS AND PROPAGANDA FOR PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL
CHANGES, HOWEVER EXTREME.  BUT INSTEAD OF RESTING THEIR CASE UPON
PERSUASION AND ANY APPEAL INHERENT IN THEIR IDEAS AND PRINCIPLES, THE
COMMUNIST PARTY ADOPTS THE TECHNIQUES OF A SECRET CABAL - FALSE NAMES,
FORGED PASSPORTS, CODE MESSAGES, CLANDESTINE MEETINGS.  TO THESE IT
ADDS OCCASIONAL TERRORISTIC AND THREATENING METHODS, SUCH AS PICKETING
COURTS AND JURIES, POLITICAL STRIKES AND SABOTAGE. 

THIS CABALISM AND TERRORISM IS UNDERSTANDABLE IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT
THEY WANT TO ACCOMPLISH AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO OVERCOME.  THE COMMUNIST
PROGRAM DOES NOT PRESENTLY, NOR IN FORESEEABLE FUTURE ELECTIONS,
COMMEND ITSELF TO ENOUGH AMERICAN VOTERS TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL POLITICAL
FORCE.  UNLESS THE COMMUNIST PARTY CAN OBTAIN SOME POWERFUL LEVERAGE ON
THE POPULATION, IT IS DOOMED TO REMAIN A NEGLIGIBLE FACTOR IN THE
UNITED STATES.  HENCE, CONSPIRACY, VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION AND THE COUP
D'ETAT ARE ALL THAT KEEP HOPE ALIVE IN THE COMMUNIST BREAST. 

4.  THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAS SOUGHT TO GAIN THIS LEVERAGE AND HOLD ON
THE AMERICAN POPULATION BY ACQUIRING CONTROL OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT. 
ALL POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE WOOED LABOR AND ITS LEADERS.  BUT WHAT OTHER
PARTIES SEEK IS PRINCIPALLY THE VOTE OF LABOR.  THE COMMUNIST PARTY, ON
THE OTHER HAND, IS NOT PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN LABOR'S VOTE, FOR IT
DOES NOT EXPECT TO WIN BY VOTES.  IT STRIVES FOR CONTROL OF LABOR'S
COERCIVE POWER - THE STRIKE, THE SIT-DOWN, THE SLOW-DOWN, SABOTAGE, OR
OTHER MEANS OF PRODUCING INDUSTRIAL PARALYSIS.  CONGRESS HAS LEGALIZED
THE STRIKE AS LABOR'S WEAPON FOR IMPROVING ITS OWN LOT.  BUT WHERE
COMMUNISTS HAVE LABOR CONTROL, THE STRIKE CAN BE AND SOMETIMES IS
PERVERTED TO A PARTY WEAPON.  IN 1940 AND 1941, UNDISCLOSED COMMUNISTS
USED THEIR LABOR OFFICES TO SABOTAGE THIS NATION'S EFFORT TO REBUILD
ITS OWN DEFENSES.  DISGUISED AS LEADERS OF FREE AMERICAN LABOR, THEY
WERE IN TRUTH SECRET PARTISANS OF STALIN, WHO, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
HITLER, WAS OVERRUNNING EUROPE, SENDING HONEST LABOR LEADERS TO
CONCENTRATION CAMPS, AND REDUCING LABOR TO SLAVERY IN EVERY LAND EITHER
OF THEM WAS ABLE TO OCCUPY.  NO OTHER IMPORTANT POLITICAL PARTY IN OUR
HISTORY HAS ATTEMPTED TO USE THE STRIKE TO NULLIFY A FOREIGN OR A
DOMESTIC POLICY ADOPTED BY THOSE CHOSEN UNDER OUR REPRESENTATIVE
SYSTEM. 

THIS LABOR LEVERAGE, HOWEVER, USUALLY CAN BE OBTAINED ONLY BY
CONCEALING THE COMMUNIST TIE FROM THE UNION MEMBERSHIP.  WHATEVER
GRIEVANCES AMERICAN WORKMEN MAY HAVE WITH AMERICAN EMPLOYERS, THEY ARE
TOO INTELLIGENT AND INFORMED TO SEEK A REMEDY THROUGH A COMMUNIST PARTY
WHICH DEFENDS SOVIET CONSCRIPTION OF LABOR, FORCED LABOR CAMPS AND THE
POLICE STATE.  HENCE THE RESORT TO CONCEALMENT, AND HENCE THE
RESENTMENT OF LAWS TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNIST PARTY TIES.  THE
MEMBERSHIP IS NOT LIKELY TO ENTRUST ITS BARGAINING POWER, ITS RECORDS,
AND ITS TREASURY TO SUCH HANDS.  WHEN IT DOES, THE UNION FINDS ITSELF A
MORE OR LESS HELPLESS CAPTIVE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  ITS OFFICERS
CEASE TO BE INTERESTED IN CORRECTING GRIEVANCES BUT SEEK TO WORSEN AND
EXPLOIT THEM; THEY CARE LESS FOR WINNING STRIKES THAN THAT THEY BE
LONG, BITTER AND DISRUPTIVE.  THEY ALWAYS FOLLOW THE COMMUNIST PARTY
LINE, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING ITS SOURCE OR ITS OBJECTIVES.  THE MOST
PROMISING COURSE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAS BEEN THE UNDERCOVER CAPTURE
OF THE COERCIVE POWER OF STRATEGIC LABOR UNIONS AS A LEVERAGE TO
MAGNIFY ITS POWER OVER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 

5.  EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS AN AGENT TO EXECUTE THE
COMMUNIST PROGRAM.  WHAT CONSTITUTES A PARTY?  MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES
IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE NEVER BEEN CLOSELY KNIT OR SECRET
ORGANIZATIONS.  ANYONE WHO USUALLY VOTES THE PARTY TICKET IS RECKONED A
MEMBER, ALTHOUGH HE HAS NOT APPLIED FOR OR BEEN ADMITTED TO MEMBERSHIP,
PAYS NO DUES, HAS TAKEN NO PLEDGE, AND IS FREE TO VOTE, SPEAK AND ACT
AS HE WILLS.  FOLLOWERS ARE HELD TOGETHER BY RATHER CASUAL ACCEPTANCE
OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES, THE INFLUENCE OF LEADERS, AND SOMETIMES BY THE
COHESIVE POWER OF PATRONAGE.  MEMBERSHIP IN THE PARTY CARRIES WITH IT
LITTLE ASSURANCE THAT THE MEMBER UNDERSTANDS OR BELIEVES IN ITS
PRINCIPLES AND NONE AT ALL THAT HE WILL TAKE ORDERS FROM ITS LEADERS. 
ONE MAY QUARREL WITH THE PARTY AND BOLT ITS CANDIDATES AND RETURN AGAIN
AS MUCH A MEMBER AS THOSE WHO WERE REGULAR.  AND IT IS OFTEN A SOURCE
OF GRIEF TO THOSE WHO HAVE LABORED LONG IN THE VINEYARD THAT LATE
ARRIVALS ARE TAKEN INTO THE PARTY COUNCILS FROM OTHER PARTIES WITHOUT
SCRUTINY.  OF COURSE, WHEN PARTY ORGANIZATION IS OF THIS CHARACTER,
THERE IS LITTLE GROUND FOR INFERENCE THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE COMMITTED TO
PARTY PLANS OR THAT THEY ARE AGENTS FOR THEIR EXECUTION. 

MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.  THE PARTY IS
A SECRET CONCLAVE.  MEMBERS ARE ADMITTED ONLY UPON ACCEPTANCE AS
RELIABLE AND AFTER INDOCTRINATION IN ITS POLICIES, TO WHICH THE MEMBER
IS FULLY COMMITTED.  THEY ARE PROVIDED WITH CARDS OR CREDENTIALS,
USUALLY ISSUED UNDER FALSE NAMES SO THAT THE IDENTIFICATION CAN ONLY BE
MADE BY OFFICERS OF THE PARTY WHO HOLD THE CODE.  MOREOVER, EACH
PLEDGES UNCONDITIONAL OBEDIENCE TO PARTY AUTHORITY.  ADHERENTS ARE
KNOWN BY SECRET OR CODE NAMES.  THEY CONSTITUTE "CELLS" IN THE FACTORY,
THE OFFICE, THE POLITICAL SOCIETY, OR THE LABOR UNION.  FOR ANY
DEVIATION FROM THE PARTY LINE THEY ARE PURGED AND EXCLUDED. 

INFERENCES FROM MEMBERSHIP IN SUCH AN ORGANIZATION ARE JUSTIFIABLY
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE TO BE DRAWN FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE USUAL TYPE OF
POLITICAL PARTY.  INDIVIDUALS WHO ASSUME SUCH OBLIGATIONS ARE
CHARGEABLE, ON ORDINARY CONSPIRACY PRINCIPLES, WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR
AND PARTICIPATION IN ALL THAT MAKES UP THE PARTY'S PROGRAM.  THE
CONSPIRACY PRINCIPLE HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN EMPLOYED TO PROTECT SOCIETY
AGAINST ALL "GANGING UP" OR CONCERTED ACTION IN VIOLATION OF ITS LAWS. 
NO TERM PASSES THAT THIS COURT DOES NOT SUSTAIN CONVICTIONS BASED ON
THAT DOCTRINE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS OR OTHER STATUTES. 
FN6  HOWEVER, THERE HAS RECENTLY ENTERED THE DIALECTIC OF POLITICS A
CLICHE USED TO CONDEMN APPLICATION OF THE CONSPIRACY PRINCIPLE TO
COMMUNISTS.  "GUILT BY ASSOCIATION" IS AN EPITHET FREQUENTLY USED AND
LITTLE EXPLAINED, EXCEPT THAT IT IS GENERALLY ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER
SLOGAN, "GUILT IS PERSONAL."  OF COURSE IT IS; BUT PERSONAL GUILT MAY
BE INCURRED BY JOINING A CONSPIRACY.  THAT ACT OF ASSOCIATION MAKES ONE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF OTHERS COMMITTED IN PURSUANCE OF THE
ASSOCIATION.  IT IS WHOLLY A QUESTION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF
ASSOCIATION TO IMPLY CONSPIRACY.  THERE IS CERTAINLY SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE THAT ALL MEMBERS OWE ALLEGIANCE TO EVERY DETAIL OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY PROGRAM AND HAVE ASSUMED A DUTY ACTIVELY TO HELP
EXECUTE IT, SO THAT CONGRESS COULD, ON FAMILIAR CONSPIRACY PRINCIPLES,
CHARGE EACH MEMBER WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GOALS AND MEANS OF THE
PARTY. 

SUCH THEN IS THE BACKGROUND WHICH CONGRESS COULD REASONABLY FIND AS A
BASIS FOR EXERTING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, AND WHICH THE JUDICIARY
CANNOT DISREGARD IN TESTING THEM.  ON THIS HYPOTHESIS WE MAY REVERT TO
CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTENTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS OATH
INSOFAR AS IT REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERSHIP OR
AFFILIATION. 

                                 II. 

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS HAS LESS POWER TO PROTECT A LABOR
UNION FROM COMMUNIST PARTY DOMINATION THAN IT HAS FROM EMPLOYER
DOMINATION.  THIS COURT HAS UNCOMPROMISINGLY UPHELD POWER OF CONGRESS
TO DISESTABLISH LABOR UNIONS WHERE THEY ARE COMPANY-DOMINATED AND TO
ERADICATE EMPLOYER INFLUENCE, EVEN WHEN EXERTED ONLY THROUGH SPOKEN OR
WRITTEN WORDS WHICH ANY PERSON NOT THE EMPLOYER WOULD BE FREE TO
UTTER.  FN7 

CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED UPON LABOR UNIONS IMPORTANT RIGHTS AND POWERS
IN MATTERS THAT AFFECT INDUSTRY, TRANSPORT, COMMUNICATIONS, AND
COMMERCE.  AND CONGRESS HAS NOT NOW DENIED ANY UNION FULL SELF
GOVERNMENT NOR PROHIBITED ANY UNION FROM CHOOSING COMMUNIST OFFICERS. 
IT SEEKS TO PROTECT THE UNION FROM DOING SO UNKNOWINGLY.  AND IF
MEMBERS DELIBERATELY CHOOSE TO PUT THE UNION IN THE HANDS OF COMMUNIST
OFFICERS, CONGRESS WITHDRAWS THE PRIVILEGES IT HAS CONFERRED ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WILL BE DEVOTED TO THE WELFARE OF THEIR MEMBERS. 
IT WOULD BE STRANGE INDEED IF IT WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY POWERLESS TO
PROTECT THESE DELEGATED FUNCTIONS FROM ABUSE AND MISAPPROPRIATION TO
THE SERVICE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE SOVIET UNION.  OUR
CONSTITUTION IS NOT A COVENANT OF NONRESISTANCE TOWARD ORGANIZED
EFFORTS AT DISRUPTION AND BETRAYAL, EITHER OF LABOR OR OF THE COUNTRY. 

COUNSEL STRESS THAT THIS IS A CIVIL-RIGHTS OR A FREE-SPEECH OR A FREE
PRESS CASE.  BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE WHAT THIS ACT DOES NOT DO.
THE ACT DOES NOT SUPPRESS OR OUTLAW THE COMMUNIST PARTY, NOR PROHIBIT
IT OR ITS MEMBERS FROM ENGAGING IN ANY ABOVEBOARD ACTIVITY NORMAL IN
PARTY STRUGGLES UNDER OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM.  IT MAY CONTINUE TO
NOMINATE CANDIDATES, HOLD MEETINGS, CONDUCT CAMPAIGNS AND ISSUE
PROPAGANDA, JUST AS OTHER PARTIES MAY.  NO INDIVIDUAL IS FORBIDDEN TO
BE OR TO BECOME A PHILOSOPHICAL COMMUNIST OR A FULL-FLEDGED MEMBER OF
THE PARTY.  NO ONE IS PENALIZED FOR WRITING OR SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE
PARTY OR ITS PHILOSOPHY.  ALSO, THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE OR FORBID
ANYTHING WHATEVER TO ANY PERSON MERELY BECAUSE HE IS A MEMBER OF, OR IS
AFFILIATED WITH, THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  IT APPLIES ONLY TO ONE WHO
BECOMES AN OFFICER OF A LABOR UNION. 

I AM AWARE THAT THE OATH IS RESENTED BY MANY LABOR LEADERS OF
UNQUESTIONED LOYALTY AND ABOVE SUSPICION OF COMMUNIST CONNECTIONS,
INDEED BY SOME WHO HAVE THEMSELVES TAKEN BOLD AND DIFFICULT STEPS TO
RID THE LABOR MOVEMENT OF COMMUNISTS.  I SUPPOSE NO ONE LIKES TO BE
COMPELLED TO EXONERATE HIMSELF FROM CONNECTIONS HE HAS NEVER ACQUIRED. 
I HAVE SOMETIMES WONDERED WHY I MUST FILE PAPERS SHOWING I DID NOT
STEAL MY CAR BEFORE I CAN GET A LICENSE FOR IT.  BUT EXPERIENCE SHOWS
THERE ARE THIEVES AMONG AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS, AND THAT THERE ARE
COMMUNISTS AMONG LABOR LEADERS.  THE PUBLIC WELFARE, IN IDENTIFYING
BOTH, OUTWEIGHS ANY AFFRONT TO INDIVIDUAL DIGNITY. 

IN WEIGHING CLAIMS THAT ANY PARTICULAR ACTIVITY IS ABOVE THE REACH OF
LAW, WE HAVE A HIGH RESPONSIBILITY TO DO SO IN THE LIGHT OF PRESENT-DAY
ACTUALITIES, NOT NOSTALGIC IDEALIZATIONS VALID FOR A SIMPLER AGE.  OUR
OWN WORLD, ORGANIZED FOR LIBERTY, HAS BEEN FORCED INTO DEADLY
COMPETITION WITH ANOTHER WORLD, ORGANIZED FOR POWER.  WE ARE FACED WITH
A LAWLESS AND RUTHLESS EFFORT TO INFILTRATE AND DISINTEGRATE OUR
SOCIETY.  IN CASES INVOLVING EFFORTS OF CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH THIS
STRUGGLE WE ARE CLEARLY CALLED UPON TO APPLY THE LONG-STANDING RULE
THAT AN APPOINTIVE JUDICIARY SHOULD STRIKE DOWN NO ACT PRODUCED BY THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES OF OUR REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM UNLESS
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS CLEAR AND CERTAIN.    I CONCLUDE THAT WE CANNOT
DENY CONGRESS POWER TO TAKE THESE MEASURES UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
REQUIRE LABOR UNION OFFICERS TO DISCLOSE THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN OR
AFFILIATION WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY. 

                                 III. 

CONGRESS HAS, HOWEVER, REQUIRED AN ADDITIONAL DISCLAIMER, WHICH IN MY
VIEW DOES ENCOUNTER SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.  A UNION OFFICER
MUST ALSO SWEAR THAT "HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN ...  THE OVERTHROW OF THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR BY ANY ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL
METHODS."  FN8 

IF CONGRESS HAS POWER TO CONDITION ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN  FN9  UPON DISCLOSURE AND DISAVOWAL OF BELIEF ON ANY
SUBJECT, IT IS OBVIOUSLY THIS ONE.  BUT THE SERIOUS ISSUE IS WHETHER
CONGRESS HAS POWER TO PROSCRIBE ANY OPINION OR BELIEF WHICH HAS NOT
MANIFESTED ITSELF IN ANY OVERT ACT.  WHILE THE FOREPART OF THE OATH
REQUIRES DISCLOSURE AND DISAVOWAL OF RELATIONSHIPS WHICH DEPEND ON
OVERT ACTS OF MEMBERSHIP OR AFFILIATION, THE AFTERPART DEMANDS
REVELATION AND DENIAL OF MERE BELIEFS OR OPINIONS, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY
NEVER HAVE MATURED INTO ANY ACT WHATEVER OR EVEN BEEN GIVEN UTTERANCE. 
IN FACT, THE OATH REQUIRES ONE TO FORM AND EXPRESS A CONVICTION ON AN
ABSTRACT PROPOSITION WHICH MANY GOOD CITIZENS, IF THEY HAVE THOUGHT OF
IT AT ALL, HAVE CONSIDERED TOO ACADEMIC AND REMOTE TO BOTHER ABOUT. 

THAT THIS DIFFERENCE IS DECISIVE ON THE QUESTION OF POWER BECOMES
UNMISTAKABLE WHEN WE CONSIDER MEASURES OF ENFORCEMENT.  THE ONLY
SANCTION PRESCRIBED, AND PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE POSSIBLE IN DEALING WITH
A FALSE AFFIDAVIT, IS PUNISHMENT FOR PERJURY.  IF ONE IS ACCUSED OF
FALSELY STATING THAT HE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF, OR AFFILIATED WITH, THE
COMMUNIST PARTY, HIS CONVICTION WOULD DEPEND UPON PROOF OF VISIBLE AND
KNOWABLE OVERT ACTS OR COURSES OF CONDUCT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT
RELATIONSHIP.  BUT IF ONE IS ACCUSED OF FALSELY SWEARING THAT HE DID
NOT BELIEVE SOMETHING THAT HE REALLY DID BELIEVE, THE TRIAL MUST
REVOLVE AROUND THE CONJECTURE AS TO WHETHER HE CANDIDLY EXPOSED HIS
STATE OF MIND. 

THE LAW SOMETIMES DOES INQUIRE AS TO MENTAL STATE, BUT ONLY SO FAR AS
I RECALL WHEN IT IS INCIDENTAL TO, AND DETERMINES THE QUALITY OF, SOME
OVERT ACT IN QUESTION.  FROM ITS CIRCUMSTANCES, COURTS SOMETIMES MUST
DECIDE WHETHER AN ACT WAS COMMITTED INTENTIONALLY OR WHETHER ITS
RESULTS WERE INTENDED, OR WHETHER THE ACTION TAKEN WAS IN MALICE, OR
AFTER DELIBERATION, OR WITH KNOWLEDGE OF CERTAIN FACTS.  BUT IN SUCH
CASES THE LAW PRIES INTO THE MIND ONLY TO DETERMINE THE NATURE AND
CULPABILITY OF AN ACT, AS A MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE, AND
I KNOW OF NO SITUATION IN WHICH A CITIZEN MAY INCUR CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
LIABILITY OR DISABILITY BECAUSE A COURT INFERS AN EVIL MENTAL STATE
WHERE NO ACT AT ALL HAS OCCURRED.  FN10  OUR TRIAL PROCESSES ARE CLUMSY
AND UNSATISFYING FOR INFERRING COGITATIONS WHICH ARE INCIDENTAL TO
ACTIONS, BUT THEY DO NOT EVEN PRETEND TO ASCERTAIN THE THOUGHT THAT HAS
HAD NO OUTWARD MANIFESTATION.  ATTEMPTS OF THE COURTS TO FATHOM MODERN
POLITICAL MEDITATIONS OF AN ACCUSED WOULD BE AS FUTILE AND MISCHIEVOUS
AS THE EFFORTS IN THE INFAMOUS HERESY TRIALS OF OLD TO FATHOM RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS. 

OUR CONSTITUTION EXPLICITLY PRECLUDES PUNISHMENT OF THE MALIGNANT
MENTAL STATE ALONE AS TREASON, MOST SERIOUS OF ALL POLITICAL CRIMES, OF
WHICH THE MENTAL STATE OF ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY IS AN ESSENTIAL PART. 
IT REQUIRES A DULY WITNESSED OVERT ACT OF AID AND COMFORT TO THE
ENEMY.  CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN
ENGLAND OF OLDEN TIMES MEN WERE TRIED FOR TREASON FOR MENTAL
INDISCRETIONS SUCH AS IMAGINING THE DEATH OF THE KING.  BUT OUR
CONSTITUTION WAS INTENDED TO END SUCH PROSECUTIONS.  ONLY IN THE
DARKEST PERIODS OF HUMAN HISTORY HAS ANY WESTERN GOVERNMENT CONCERNED
ITSELF WITH MERE BELIEF, HOWEVER ECCENTRIC OR MISCHIEVOUS, WHEN IT HAS
NOT MATURED INTO OVERT ACTION; AND IF THAT PRACTICE SURVIVES ANYWHERE,
IT IS IN THE COMMUNIST COUNTRIES WHOSE PHILOSOPHIES WE LOATHE. 

HOW FAR WE MUST REVERT TOWARD THESE DISCREDITED SYSTEMS IF WE ARE TO
SUSTAIN THIS OATH IS MADE VIVID BY THE COURT'S REASONING THAT THE ACT
APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE "WHOSE BELIEFS STRONGLY INDICATE A WILL TO ENGAGE
IN POLITICAL STRIKES  ...  "  SINCE CONGRESS HAS NEVER OUTLAWED THE
POLITICAL STRIKE ITSELF, THE COURT MUST BE HOLDING THAT CONGRESS MAY
ROOT OUT MERE IDEAS WHICH, EVEN IF ACTED UPON, WOULD NOT RESULT IN
CRIME.  IT IS A STRANGE PARADOX IF ONE MAY BE FORBIDDEN TO HAVE AN IDEA
IN MIND THAT HE IS FREE TO PUT INTO EXECUTION.  BUT APART FROM THIS,
EFFORTS TO WEED ERRONEOUS BELIEFS FROM THE MINDS OF MEN HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE ARGUMENT WHICH THE COURT INVOKES TODAY, THAT
BELIEFS ARE SPRINGS TO ACTION, THAT EVIL THOUGHTS TEND TO BECOME
FORBIDDEN DEEDS.  PROBABLY SO.  BUT IF POWER TO FORBID ACTS INCLUDES
POWER TO FORBID CONTEMPLATING THEM, THEN THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT OVER
BELIEFS IS AS UNLIMITED AS ITS POWER OVER CONDUCT AND THE WAY IS OPEN
TO FORCE DISCLOSURE OF ATTITUDES ON ALL MANNER OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC,
MORAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES. 

THESE SUGGESTIONS MAY BE DISCOUNTED AS FANCIFUL AND FARFETCHED.  BUT
WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT IN OUR COUNTRY ARE EVANGELISTS AND ZEALOTS OF
MANY DIFFERENT POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND RELIGIOUS PERSUASIONS WHOSE
FANATICAL CONVICTION IS THAT ALL THOUGHT IS DIVINELY CLASSIFIED INTO
TWO KINDS - THAT WHICH IS THEIR OWN AND THAT WHICH IS FALSE AND
DANGEROUS.  COMMUNISTS ARE NOT THE ONLY FACTION WHICH WOULD PUT US ALL
IN MENTAL STRAIT JACKETS.  INDEED ALL IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLES, RELIGIOUS
OR POLITICAL, ARE PRIMARILY BATTLES FOR DOMINANCE OVER THE MINDS OF
PEOPLE.  IT IS NOT TO BE SUPPOSED THAT THE AGE-OLD READINESS TO TRY TO
CONVERT MINDS BY PRESSURE OR SUPPRESSION, INSTEAD OF REASON AND
PERSUASION, IS EXTINCT.  OUR PROTECTION AGAINST ALL KINDS OF FANATICS
AND EXTREMISTS, NONE OF WHOM CAN BE TRUSTED WITH UNLIMITED POWER OVER
OTHERS, LIES NOT IN THEIR FORBEARANCE BUT IN THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION. 

IT HAPPENS THAT THE BELIEF IN OVERTHROW OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE WHICH CONGRESS CONDITIONALLY PROSCRIBES IS ONE
THAT I AGREE IS ERRONEOUS.  BUT "IF THERE IS ANY PRINCIPLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION THAT MORE IMPERATIVELY CALLS FOR ATTACHMENT THAN ANY OTHER
IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE THOUGHT - NOT FREE THOUGHT FOR THOSE WHO
AGREE WITH US BUT FREEDOM FOR THE THOUGHT THAT WE HATE."  HOLMES, J.,
DISSENTING IN UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644, 654-55. 
MOREOVER, IN JUDGING THE POWER TO DENY A PRIVILEGE TO THINK OTHERWISE,
WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT ORIGINATED IN
REVOLUTION AND IS LEGITIMATE ONLY IF OVERTHROW BY FORCE MAY SOMETIMES
BE JUSTIFIED.  THAT CIRCUMSTANCES SOMETIMES JUSTIFY IT IS NOT COMMUNIST
DOCTRINE BUT AN OLD AMERICAN BELIEF.  FN11 

THE MEN WHO LED THE STRUGGLE FORCIBLY TO OVERTHROW LAWFULLY
CONSTITUTED BRITISH AUTHORITY FOUND MORAL SUPPORT BY ASSERTING A
NATURAL LAW UNDER WHICH THEIR REVOLUTION WAS JUSTIFIED, AND THEY
BROADLY PROCLAIMED THESE BELIEFS IN THE DOCUMENT BASIC TO OUR FREEDOM. 
SUCH SENTIMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN GIVEN ARDENT AND RATHER EXTRAVAGANT
EXPRESSION BY AMERICANS OF UNDOUBTED PATRIOTISM N12.  MOST OF THESE
UTTERANCES WERE DIRECTED AGAINST A TYRANNY WHICH LEFT NO WAY TO CHANGE
BY SUFFRAGE.  IT SEEMS TO ME A PERVERSION OF THEIR MEANING TO QUOTE
THEM, AS THE COMMUNISTS OFTEN DO, TO SANCTION VIOLENT ATTACKS UPON A
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT WHICH DOES AFFORD SUCH MEANS.  BUT WHILE I
THINK CONGRESS MAY MAKE IT A CRIME TO TAKE ONE OVERT STEP TO USE OR TO
INCITE VIOLENCE OR FORCE AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT, I DO NOT SEE HOW IN
THE LIGHT OF OUR HISTORY A MERE BELIEF THAT ONE HAS A NATURAL RIGHT
UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES TO DO SO CAN SUBJECT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO
PREJUDICE ANY MORE THAN POSSESSION OF ANY OTHER ERRONEOUS BELIEF.  CAN
WE SAY THAT MEN OF OUR TIME MUST NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT THE PROPOSITIONS
ON WHICH OUR OWN REVOLUTION WAS JUSTIFIED?  OR MAY THEY THINK, PROVIDED
THEY REACH ONLY ONE CONCLUSION - AND THAT THE OPPOSITE OF MR.
JEFFERSON'S? 

WHILE THE GOVERNMENTS, STATE AND FEDERAL, HAVE EXPANSIVE POWERS TO
CURTAIL ACTION, AND SOME SMALL POWERS TO CURTAIL SPEECH OR WRITING, I
THINK NEITHER HAS ANY POWER, ON ANY PRETEXT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO
ATTEMPT FORECLOSURE OF ANY LINE OF THOUGHT.  OUR FOREFATHERS FOUND THE
EVILS OF FREE THINKING MORE TO BE ENDURED THAN THE EVILS OF INQUEST OR
SUPPRESSION.  THEY GAVE THE STATUS OF ALMOST ABSOLUTE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
TO THE OUTWARD MEANS OF EXPRESSING BELIEF.  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THEY
LEFT OPEN A WAY FOR LEGISLATION TO EMBARRASS OR IMPEDE THE MERE
INTELLECTUAL PROCESSES BY WHICH THOSE EXPRESSIONS OF BELIEF ARE
EXAMINED AND FORMULATED.  THIS IS NOT ONLY BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL THINKING
PRESENTS NO DANGER TO SOCIETY, BUT BECAUSE THOUGHTFUL, BOLD AND
INDEPENDENT MINDS ARE ESSENTIAL TO WISE AND CONSIDERED SELF
GOVERNMENT. 

PROGRESS GENERALLY BEGINS IN SKEPTICISM ABOUT ACCEPTED TRUTHS. 
INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM MEANS THE RIGHT TO RE-EXAMINE MUCH THAT HAS BEEN
LONG TAKEN FOR GRANTED.  A FREE MAN MUST BE A REASONING MAN, AND HE
MUST DARE TO DOUBT WHAT A LEGISLATIVE OR ELECTORAL MAJORITY MAY MOST
PASSIONATELY ASSERT.  THE DANGER THAT CITIZENS WILL THINK WRONGLY IS
SERIOUS, BUT LESS DANGEROUS THAN ATROPHY FROM NOT THINKING AT ALL.  OUR
CONSTITUTION RELIES ON OUR ELECTORATE'S COMPLETE IDEOLOGICAL FREEDOM TO
NOURISH INDEPENDENT AND RESPONSIBLE INTELLIGENCE AND PRESERVE OUR
DEMOCRACY FROM THAT SUBMISSIVENESS, TIMIDITY AND HERD-MINDEDNESS OF THE
MASSES WHICH WOULD FOSTER A TYRANNY OF MEDIOCRITY.  THE PRICELESS
HERITAGE OF OUR SOCIETY IS THE UNRESTRICTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF
EACH MEMBER TO THINK AS HE WILL.  THOUGHT CONTROL IS A COPYRIGHT OF
TOTALITARIANISM, AND WE HAVE NO CLAIM TO IT.  IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF
OUR GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THE CITIZEN FROM FALLING INTO ERROR; IT IS THE
FUNCTION OF THE CITIZEN TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT FROM FALLING INTO
ERROR.  WE COULD JUSTIFY ANY CENSORSHIP ONLY WHEN THE CENSORS ARE
BETTER SHIELDED AGAINST ERROR THAN THE CENSORED. 

THE IDEA THAT A CONSTITUTION SHOULD PROTECT INDIVIDUAL NONCONFORMITY
IS ESSENTIALLY AMERICAN AND IS THE LAST THING IN THE WORLD THAT
COMMUNISTS WILL TOLERATE.  NOTHING EXCEEDS THE BITTERNESS OF THEIR
DEMANDS FOR FREEDOM FOR THEMSELVES IN THIS COUNTRY EXCEPT THE
BITTERNESS OF THEIR INTOLERANCE OF FREEDOM FOR OTHERS WHERE THEY ARE IN
POWER.  FN13  AN EXACTION OF SOME PROFESSION OF BELIEF OR NONBELIEF IS
PRECISELY WHAT THE COMMUNISTS WOULD ENACT - EACH INDIVIDUAL MUST ADOPT
THE IDEAS THAT ARE COMMON TO THE RULING GROUP.  THEIR WHOLE PHILOSOPHY
IS TO MINIMIZE MAN AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND TO INCREASE THE POWER OF MAN
ACTING IN THE MASS.  IF ANY SINGLE CHARACTERISTIC DISTINGUISHES OUR
DEMOCRACY FROM COMMUNISM IT IS OUR RECOGNITION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS A
PERSONALITY RATHER THAN AS A SOULLESS PART IN THE JIGSAW PUZZLE THAT IS
THE COLLECTIVIST STATE. 

I ADHERE TO VIEWS I HAVE HERETOFORE EXPRESSED, WHETHER THE COURT
AGREED, WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, OR
DISAGREED, SEE DISSENTING OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. BALLARD, 322 U.S.
78, 92, THAT OUR CONSTITUTION EXCLUDES BOTH GENERAL AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM THE REALM OF OPINIONS AND IDEAS, BELIEFS AND DOUBTS,
HERESY AND ORTHODOXY, POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS OR SCIENTIFIC.  THE RIGHT TO
SPEAK OUT, OR TO PUBLISH, ALSO IS PROTECTED WHEN IT DOES NOT CLEARLY
AND PRESENTLY THREATEN SOME INJURY TO SOCIETY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS
A RIGHT TO PROTECT.  SEPARATE OPINION, THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S.
516.  BUT I HAVE PROTESTED THE DEGRADATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIBERTIES TO IMMUNIZE AND APPROVE MOB MOVEMENTS, WHETHER THOSE MOBS BE
RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL, RADICAL OR CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL OR ILLIBERAL,
DOUGLAS V. CITY OF JEANNETTE, 319 U.S. 157; TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337
U.S. 1, 13, OR TO AUTHORIZE PRESSURE GROUPS TO USE AMPLIFYING DEVICES
TO DROWN OUT THE NATURAL VOICE AND DESTROY THE PEACE OF OTHER
INDIVIDUALS.  SAIA V. PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558; KOVACS V.
COOPER, 336 U.S. 77.  AND I HAVE POINTED OUT THAT MEN CANNOT ENJOY
THEIR RIGHT TO PERSONAL FREEDOM IF FANATICAL MASSES, WHATEVER THEIR
MISSION, CAN STRANGLE INDIVIDUAL THOUGHTS AND INVADE PERSONAL PRIVACY. 
MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141, DISSENT AT 166.  A CATALOGUE OF
RIGHTS WAS PLACED IN OUR CONSTITUTION, IN MY VIEW, TO PROTECT THE
INDIVIDUAL IN HIS INDIVIDUALITY, AND NEITHER STATUTES WHICH PUT THOSE
RIGHTS AT THE MERCY OF OFFICIALS NOR JUDICIAL DECISIONS WHICH PUT THEM
AT THE MERCY OF THE MOB ARE CONSISTENT WITH ITS TEXT OR ITS SPIRIT. 

I THINK THAT UNDER OUR SYSTEM, IT IS TIME ENOUGH FOR THE LAW TO LAY
HOLD OF THE CITIZEN WHEN HE ACTS ILLEGALLY, OR IN SOME RARE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN HIS THOUGHTS ARE GIVEN ILLEGAL UTTERANCE.  I THINK
WE MUST LET HIS MIND ALONE.  FN14

         IV. 

THE TASK OF THIS COURT TO MAINTAIN A BALANCE BETWEEN LIBERTY AND
AUTHORITY IS NEVER DONE, BECAUSE NEW CONDITIONS TODAY UPSET THE
EQUILIBRIUMS OF YESTERDAY.  THE SEESAW BETWEEN FREEDOM AND POWER MAKES
UP MOST OF THE HISTORY OF GOVERNMENTS, WHICH, AS BRYCE POINTS OUT, ON A
LONG VIEW CONSISTS OF REPEATING A PAINFUL CYCLE FROM ANARCHY TO TYRANNY
AND BACK AGAIN.  THE COURT'S DAY-TO-DAY TASK IS TO REJECT AS FALSE,
CLAIMS IN THE NAME OF CIVIL LIBERTY WHICH, IF GRANTED, WOULD PARALYZE
OR IMPAIR AUTHORITY TO DEFEND EXISTENCE OF OUR SOCIETY, AND TO REJECT
AS FALSE, CLAIMS IN THE NAME OF SECURITY WHICH WOULD UNDERMINE OUR
FREEDOMS AND OPEN THE WAY TO OPPRESSION.  THESE ARE THE COMPETING
CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED IN JUDGING ANY MEASURES WHICH GOVERNMENT MAY
TAKE TO SUPPRESS OR DISADVANTAGE ITS OPPONENTS AND CRITICS.    I
CONCLUDE THAT TODAY'S TASK CAN ONLY BE DISCHARGED BY HOLDING THAT ALL
PARTS OF THIS OATH WHICH REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF OVERT ACTS OF
AFFILIATION OR MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY ARE WITHIN THE
COMPETENCE OF CONGRESS TO ENACT AND THAT ANY PARTS OF IT THAT CALL FOR
A DISCLOSURE OF BELIEF UNCONNECTED WITH ANY OVERT ACT ARE BEYOND ITS
POWER.  FN15 

FN1  OF COURSE, IT IS NOT FOR ANY MEMBER OF THIS COURT TO EXPRESS OR
TO ACT UPON ANY OPINION HE MAY HAVE AS TO THE WISDOM, EFFECTIVENESS OR
NEED OF THIS LEGISLATION.  OUR "INQUIRIES, WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT IS DRAWN IN QUESTION, MUST BE RESTRICTED TO THE ISSUE WHETHER
ANY STATE OF FACTS EITHER KNOWN OR WHICH COULD REASONABLY BE ASSUMED
AFFORDS SUPPORT FOR IT."  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304
U.S. 144, 154. 

FN2  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO SET OUT A COMPREHENSIVE COMPENDIUM OF THE
MATERIALS WHICH CONGRESS MAY OR COULD HAVE CONSIDERED, OR TO REVIEW THE
VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE BEFORE ITS SEVERAL COMMITTEES, MUCH OF WHICH IS
ALREADY REFERRED TO IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  MOST OF THIS INFORMATION
WOULD BE OF DOUBTFUL ADMISSIBILITY OR CREDIBILITY IN A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING.  ITS PERSUASIVENESS, VALIDITY AND CREDIBILITY FOR
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES ARE FOR CONGRESS, SEE N. 1, SUPRA.  I INTIMATE NO
OPINION AS TO ITS SUFFICIENCY FOR PURPOSES OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL. 

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT MAY BE FOUND IN:
COHEN AND FUCHS, COMMUNISM'S CHALLENGE AND THE CONSTITUTION, 34 CORNELL
L.Q. 182; MOORE, THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE U.S.A., 39 AM. POL.  SCI. 
REV. 31; TIMASHEFF, THE SCHNEIDERMAN CASE - ITS POLITICAL ASPECTS, 12
FORD.  L. REV. 209; NOTE, 32 GEORGETOWN L.J. 405, 411-418; EMERSON &
HELFELD, LOYALTY AMONG GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 58 YALE L.J. 1, 61-64;
DONOVAN & JONES, PROGRAM FOR A DEMOCRATIC COUNTER ATTACK TO COMMUNIST
PENETRATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE, 58 YALE L.J. 1211, 1215-1222; AND
SEE NOTES, 48 COL. L. REV. 253; 96 U. OF PA. L. REV. 381; 1 STANFORD L.
REV. 85; 23 NOTRE DAME LAWYER 577; 34 VA. L. REV. 439, 450. 

SEE ALSO MILLS, THE NEW MEN OF POWER (1948) 186-200; LEVENSTEIN,
LABOR TODAY AND TOMORROW (1945) 159-177; TELLER, MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
UNDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (1947) 401-410; SMITH, SPOTLIGHT ON LABOR
UNIONS (1946) 40-43, 63-67, 79-82; TAFT, ECONOMICS AND PROBLEMS OF
LABOR (1948) 499-501, 722; SAPOSS, LEFT WING UNIONISM (1926) 48-65;
FOSTER, FROM BRYAN TO STALIN (1937) 275-277; GITLOW, I CONFESS (1940)
334-395; THE COMMUNIST IN LABOR RELATIONS TODAY (RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF
AMERICA, NEW YORK, MARCH 28, 1946); BALDWIN, UNION ADMINISTRATION AND
CIVIL LIBERTIES, 248 ANNALS 54, 59; LABOR ABROAD, DEC. 1947, NO. 5(U.S.
DEPT. OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) 3; LABOR ABROAD, FEB. 1948,
NO. 6(U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) 1-3; POSTWAR
LABOR MOVEMENT IN ITALY, 68 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW (U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR,
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS) 49.  FOR THE STORY OF AMERICAN POLITICAL
PARTIES SEE BINKLEY, AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES (2D ED., 1945); 2
BRYCE, THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH (2D ED. REV. 1891); AND ON THE
COMMUNIST PARTY, IN ADDITION TO MATERIALS ABOVE CITED, ODEGARD AND
HELMS, AMERICAN POLITICS (1938) 795-797. 

FN3  SUCH IS THE VIEW OF STUDENTS OF WESTERN SOCIETY, WITH OUTLOOK SO
OPPOSED AS LORD BALFOUR AND HAROLD LASKI.  BALFOUR WROTE: 

"OUR ALTERNATING CABINETS, THOUGH BELONGING TO DIFFERENT PARTIES,
HAVE NEVER DIFFERED ABOUT THE FOUNDATION OF SOCIETY, AND IT IS EVIDENT
THAT OUR WHOLE POLITICAL MACHINERY PRESUPPOSES A PEOPLE SO
FUNDAMENTALLY AT ONE THAT THEY CAN AFFORD TO BICKER; AND SO SURE OF
THEIR OWN MODERATION THAT THEY ARE NOT DANGEROUSLY DISTURBED BY THE
NEVERENDING DIN OF POLITICAL CONFLICT.  MAY IT ALWAYS BE SO."  PREFACE
TO THE WORLD'S CLASSICS EDITION OF BAGEHOT'S ENGLISH CONSTITUTION, P.
XXIII. 

LASKI COMMENTED: 

"IN AN INTERESTING PASSAGE (CITING THE ABOVE) LORD BALFOUR HAS DRAWN
ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE SUCCESS OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION IN
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY - IT IS WORTH ADDING THE GENERAL SUCCESS OF
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT - WAS BUILT UPON AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES
IN THE STATE UPON FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.  THERE WAS, THAT IS, A
KINDRED OUTLOOK UPON LARGE ISSUES; AND SINCE FIGHTING WAS CONFINED TO
MATTERS OF COMPARATIVE DETAIL, MEN WERE PREPARED TO LET REASON HAVE ITS
SWAY IN THE REALM OF CONFLICT.  FOR IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT IN THE ONE
REALM WHERE DEPTH OF FEELING WAS PASSIONATE - IRISH HOME RULE - EVENTS
MOVED RAPIDLY TO THE TEST OF THE SWORD; AND THE SETTLEMENT MADE WAS
EFFECTED BY VIOLENCE AND NOT BY REASON."  LASKI, LIBERTY IN THE MODERN
STATE, 238. 

IF WE SUBSTITUTE THE CIVIL WAR FOR IRISH HOME RULE, THESE STATEMENTS
BECOME AS APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES AS THEY ARE TO ENGLAND. 

FN4  TO COMPARE ATTACKS AGAINST THOMAS JEFFERSON WITH ATTACKS AGAINST
THE COMMUNIST LEADERS - AS COMMUNISTS GENERALLY DO (E.G. DENNIS, LET
THE PEOPLE KNOW (1947) 13) - WOULD BE MEANINGFUL ONLY IF HIS CHARACTER
AND MOTIVES WERE COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF THE COMMUNIST LEADERS.  WHEN WE
CONSIDER THAT JEFFERSON WAS THE AUTHOR OF VIRGINIA'S STATUTE OF
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, WAS WAR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA, RISKED HIS LIFE TO
SIGN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, WAS SECRETARY OF STATE IN
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON'S CABINET AND BECAME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES THROUGH THE INFLUENCE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, IT SEEMS
SACRILEGIOUS TO LIKEN JEFFERSON'S MOTIVES IN SUPPORTING CERTAIN PHASES
OF FRENCH POLICY WITH COMMUNIST ALLEGIANCE TO THE KREMLIN. 

FN5  CHANGES AS DECISIVE AS THOSE WROUGHT BY MOST REVOLUTIONS
RESULTED FROM THE ELECTION OF JEFFERSON IN 1800, JACKSON IN 1828,
LINCOLN IN 1860, AND ROOSEVELT IN 1932. 

FN6  I HAVE TAKEN PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF
CONSPIRACY AND ITS ABUSE PRESENTS A DANGER TO THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE.  CONCURRING OPINION, KRULEWITCH V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S.
440, 445. 

FN7  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 548. 

FN8  THE ACT LAYS DOWN OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE OATH WHICH DO NOT
REQUIRE EXTENDED DISCUSSION, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CLAUSE "IS NOT A
MEMBER OF OR SUPPORTS ANY ORGANIZATION THAT BELIEVES IN OR TEACHES, THE
OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BY FORCE."  FOR REASONS SET
FORTH IN PARTS I AND II, CONGRESS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE POWER TO
REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION WHICH HAD THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF
SIMILAR GRAVITY.  AS DRAWN, THIS CLAUSE MIGHT, HOWEVER, APPLY TO
MEMBERSHIP IN A MERE PHILOSOPHICAL OR DISCUSSION GROUP. 

FN9  THIS PART OF THE OATH WAS OBVIOUSLY INTENDED TO DISCLOSE PERSONS
NOT MEMBERS OF OR AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY BUT WHO WERE A
PART OF THE UNDERTOW OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.  IT WAS PROBABLY
SUGGESTED BY THE LONG-STANDING REQUIREMENT OF SOMEWHAT SIMILAR OATHS IN
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION MATTERS.  THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO ANALOGY
BETWEEN WHAT CONGRESS MAY REQUIRE OF ALIENS AS A CONDITION OF ADMISSION
OR OF CITIZENSHIP AND WHAT IT MAY REQUIRE OF A CITIZEN. 

FN10  SEE HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW, LECTURES II, III AND IV, PP. 65-68,
132 ET SEQ. 

FN11  NOTHING IS MORE PERNICIOUS THAN THE IDEA THAT EVERY RADICAL
MEASURE IS "COMMUNISTIC" OR EVERY LIBERAL-MINDED PERSON A "COMMUNIST." 
ONE OF THE TRAGEDIES OF OUR TIME IS THE CONFUSION BETWEEN REFORM AND
COMMUNISM - A CONFUSION TO WHICH BOTH THE FRIENDS AND ENEMIES OF REFORM
HAVE CONTRIBUTED, THE ONE BY FAILING TO TAKE A CLEAR STAND AGAINST
COMMUNISTS AND COMMUNISM AND THE OTHER BY CHARACTERIZING EVEN THE MOST
MODERATE SUGGESTION OF REFORM AS "COMMUNISTIC" AND ITS ADVOCATES AS
"COMMUNISTS."  UNQUESTIONING IDOLATRY OF THE STATUS QUO HAS NEVER BEEN
AN AMERICAN CHARACTERISTIC. 

FN12  A SURPRISING CATALOGUE OF STATEMENTS COULD BE COMPILED.  THE
FOLLOWING ARE SELECTED FROM MENCKEN, A NEW DICTIONARY OF QUOTATIONS,
UNDER THE RUBRIC "REVOLUTION":  "WHENEVER ANY GOVERNMENT BECOMES
DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS)
IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE
A NEW GOVERNMENT, LAYING ITS FOUNDATIONS ON SUCH PRINCIPLES, AND
ORGANIZING ITS POWERS IN SUCH FORM, AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM MOST LIKELY
TO EFFECT THEIR SAFETY AND HAPPINESS."  THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, JULY 4, 1776.  "THE COMMUNITY HATH AN
INDUBITABLE, INALIENABLE, AND INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO REFORM, ALTER OR
ABOLISH GOVERNMENT, IN SUCH MANNER AS SHALL BE BY THAT COMMUNITY JUDGED
MOST CONDUCIVE TO THE PUBLIC WEAL."  THE PENNSYLVANIA DECLARATION OF
RIGHTS, 1776.  "IT IS AN OBSERVATION OF ONE OF THE PROFOUNDEST
INQUIRERS INTO HUMAN AFFAIRS THAT A REVOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT IS THE
STRONGEST PROOF THAT CAN BE GIVEN BY A PEOPLE OF THEIR VIRTUE AND GOOD
SENSE."  JOHN ADAMS, DIARY, 1786.  "WHAT COUNTRY CAN PRESERVE ITS
LIBERTIES IF THEIR RULERS ARE NOT WARNED FROM TIME TO TIME THAT THEIR
PEOPLE PRESERVE THE SPIRIT OF RESISTANCE?  LET THEM TAKE ARMS."  THOMAS
JEFFERSON, LETTER TO W. S. SMITH, NOV. 13, 1787.  "AN OPPRESSED PEOPLE
ARE AUTHORIZED WHENEVER THEY CAN TO RISE AND BREAK THEIR FETTERS." 
HENRY CLAY, SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 4, 1818. 
"ANY PEOPLE ANYWHERE, BEING INCLINED AND HAVING THE POWER, HAVE THE
RIGHT TO RISE UP AND SHAKE OFF THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT AND FORM A NEW
ONE THAT SUITS THEM BETTER."  ABRAHAM LINCOLN, SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 1848.  "ALL MEN RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION:
THAT IS, THE RIGHT TO REFUSE ALLEGIANCE TO, AND TO RESIST, THE
GOVERNMENT WHEN ITS TYRANNY OR ITS INEFFICIENCY ARE GREAT AND
UNENDURABLE."  H. D. THOREAU, AN ESSAY ON CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, 1849. 
"THIS COUNTRY, WITH ITS INSTITUTIONS, BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE WHO INHABIT
IT.  WHENEVER THEY SHALL GROW WEARY OF THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT THEY CAN
EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF AMENDING IT, OR THEIR
REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT TO DISMEMBER OR OVERTHROW IT."  ABRAHAM LINCOLN,
INAUGURAL ADDRESS, MARCH 4, 1861.  "WHENEVER THE ENDS OF GOVERNMENT ARE
PERVERTED, AND PUBLIC LIBERTY MANIFESTLY ENDANGERED, AND ALL OTHER
MEANS OF REDRESS ARE INEFFECTUAL, THE PEOPLE MAY, AND OF A RIGHT OUGHT
TO REFORM THE OLD, OR ESTABLISH A NEW GOVERNMENT; THE DOCTRINE OF NON
RESISTANCE AGAINST ARBITRARY POWER AND OPPRESSION IS ABSURD, SLAVISH
AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GOOD AND HAPPINESS OF MANKIND."  DECLARATION OF
RIGHTS OF MARYLAND, 1867.  "THE RIGHT OF REVOLUTION IS AN INHERENT
ONE.  WHEN PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSED BY THEIR GOVERNMENT, IT IS A NATURAL
RIGHT THEY ENJOY TO RELIEVE THEMSELVES OF THE OPPRESSION, IF THEY ARE
STRONG ENOUGH, EITHER BY WITHDRAWAL FROM IT, OR BY OVERTHROWING IT AND
SUBSTITUTING A GOVERNMENT MORE ACCEPTABLE."  U. S. GRANT, PERSONAL
MEMOIRS, I, 1885. 

QUOTATIONS OF SIMILAR STATEMENTS COULD BE MULTIPLIED INDEFINITELY. 
OF COURSE, THESE QUOTATIONS ARE OUT OF THEIR CONTEXT AND OUT OF THEIR
TIMES.  AND DESPITE THEIR ABSTRACT THEORIES ABOUT REVOLT, IT SHOULD
ALSO BE NOTED THAT ADAMS, JEFFERSON, LINCOLN AND GRANT WERE
UNCOMPROMISING IN PUTTING DOWN ANY SHOW OF REBELLION TOWARD THE
GOVERNMENT THEY HEADED. 

THE REVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT HAS INCLINED AMERICANS
TO VALUE REVOLUTION AS A MEANS TO LIBERTY AND LOOSELY TO THINK THAT ALL
REVOLUTIONISTS ARE LIBERALS.  THE FACT IS, HOWEVER, THAT VIOLENT
REVOLUTIONS ARE RARE WHICH DO MORE IN THE LONG RUN THAN TO OVERTHROW
ONE TYRANNY TO MAKE WAY FOR ANOTHER.  THE CYCLE FROM REVOLT TO REACTION
HAS TAKEN LESS THAN A SCORE OF BLOODY YEARS IN THE GREAT REVOLUTIONS. 
THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTH UNDER CROMWELL LED BUT TO THE RESTORATION; THE
FRENCH BY REVOLUTION ESCAPED FROM THE REIGN OF LOUIS XVI TO THE
DICTATORSHIP OF NAPOLEON; THE RUSSIANS OVERTHREW THE CZAR AND WON THE
DICTATORSHIP OF LENIN AND STALIN; THE GERMANS DEPOSED THE KAISER AND
FELL VICTIMS OF A DICTATORSHIP BY HITLER.  I AM CONVINCED THAT FORCE
AND VIOLENCE DO NOT SERVE THE CAUSE OF LIBERTY AS WELL AS NONVIOLENCE. 
SEE FISCHER, GANDHI AND STALIN, PASSIM. 

BUT THE SENTIMENTS I HAVE QUOTED HAVE STRONG APPEAL TO THE IMPETUOUS
AND ARE DEEPLY IMBEDDED IN AMERICAN TRADITION. 

FN13  PRIME MINISTER ATTLEE RECENTLY STATED:  "I CONSTANTLY GET
HYPOCRITICAL RESOLUTIONS PROTESTING AGAINST ALLEGED INFRINGEMENTS OF
FREEDOM IN THIS COUNTRY.  I GET PROTESTS BECAUSE WE KEEP OUT FROM
PLACES WHERE SECRET WORK IS CARRIED ON PEOPLE WHO CANNOT BE TRUSTED. 
THIS FROM COMMUNISTS WHO KNOW THAT THEIR FELLOWS IN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
CARRY ON A CONSTANT PURGE AND RUTHLESSLY REMOVE FROM OFFICE ANYONE WHO
SHOWS THE SLIGHTEST SIGN OF DEVIATING FROM WHAT THEIR RULERS CONSIDER
TO BE ORTHODOXY.  IT IS SICKENING HYPOCRISY."  LONDON TIMES WEEKLY
EDITION, JULY 6, 1949. 

FN14  THE COURT APPEARS TO RECOGNIZE AND COMPOUND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
WEAKNESS OF THIS STATUTE AND, TO SAVE THIS PART OF THE OATH FROM
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, DECLINES TO READ THE TEXT "VERY LITERALLY."  IT
RENDERS THE ACT TO CALL FOR DISCLAIMER OF BELIEF IN FORCIBLE OVERTHROW
ONLY AS AN OBJECTIVE BUT NOT AS A PROPHECY.  AND FURTHERMORE, ONE IS
ALLOWED TO BELIEVE IN FORCIBLE OVERTHROW, EVEN AS AN OBJECTIVE, SO LONG
AS THE BELIEF DOES NOT RELATE TO THE GOVERNMENT "AS IT NOW EXISTS."  I
THINK WE DO NOT MAKE AN ACT CONSTITUTIONAL BY MAKING IT VAGUE BUT ONLY
COMPOUND ITS INVALIDITY.  CF. WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507. 

FN15  THIS CONCLUSION, IF IT PREVAILED, WOULD REQUIRE DECISION OF THE
EFFECT OF PARTIAL INVALIDITY ON THE WHOLE AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.  AS IT DOES NOT PREVAIL, DISCUSSION OF THE
QUESTION WOULD BE ACADEMIC. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT "FREEDOM TO THINK IS ABSOLUTE OF ITS OWN NATURE;
THE MOST TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT IS POWERLESS TO CONTROL THE INWARD
WORKINGS OF THE MIND."  FN1  BUT PEOPLE CAN BE, AND IN LESS DEMOCRATIC
COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN, MADE TO SUFFER FOR THEIR ADMITTED OR CONJECTURED
THOUGHTS.  BLACKSTONE RECALLS THAT DIONYSIUS IS "RECORDED TO HAVE
EXECUTED A SUBJECT, BARELY FOR DREAMING THAT HE HAD KILLED HIM; WHICH
WAS HELD FOR A SUFFICIENT PROOF, THAT HE HAD THOUGHT THEREOF IN HIS
WAKING HOURS."  FN2  SUCH A RESULT, WHILE TOO BARBARIC TO BE TOLERATED
IN OUR NATION, IS NOT ILLOGICAL IF A GOVERNMENT CAN TAMPER IN THE REALM
OF THOUGHT AND PENALIZE "BELIEF" ON THE GROUND THAT IT MIGHT LEAD TO
ILLEGAL CONDUCT.  INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND GOVERNMENTAL THOUGHT-PROBING
CANNOT LIVE TOGETHER.  AS THE COURT ADMITS EVEN TODAY, UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT "BELIEFS ARE INVIOLATE."    TODAY'S DECISION REJECTS THAT
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE.  THE COURT ADMITS, AS IT MUST, THAT THE
"PROSCRIPTIONS" OF SEC. 9(H) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AS
AMENDED BY THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT REST ON "BELIEFS AND POLITICAL
AFFILIATIONS," AND THAT "CONGRESS HAS UNDENIABLY DISCOURAGED THE LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF POLITICAL FREEDOMS" WHICH ARE "PROTECTED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT."  THESE INESCAPABLE FACTS SHOULD COMPEL A HOLDING THAT SEC.
9(H) CONFLICTS WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

CRUCIAL TO THE COURT'S CONTRARY HOLDING IS THE PREMISE THAT
CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO REGULATE TRADE AND TRAFFIC INCLUDES POWER TO
PROSCRIBE "BELIEFS AND POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS."  NO CASE CITED BY THE
COURT PROVIDES THE LEAST VESTIGE OF SUPPORT FOR THUS HOLDING THAT THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE RESTRICTS THE RIGHT TO THINK.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
FIRST AMENDMENT WAS ADDED AFTER ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
EXPRESS PURPOSE OF BARRING CONGRESS FROM USING PREVIOUSLY GRANTED
POWERS TO ABRIDGE BELIEF OR ITS EXPRESSION.  FREEDOM TO THINK IS
INEVITABLY ABRIDGED WHEN BELIEFS ARE PENALIZED BY IMPOSITION OF CIVIL
DISABILITIES. 

SINCE SEC. 9(H) WAS PASSED TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN BELIEFS FROM ONE ARENA
OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY, IT WAS QUITE NATURAL TO UTILIZE THE TEST OATH
AS A WEAPON.  HISTORY ATTESTS THE EFFICACY OF THAT INSTRUMENT FOR
INFLICTING PENALTIES AND DISABILITIES ON OBNOXIOUS MINORITIES.  IT WAS
ONE OF THE MAJOR DEVICES USED AGAINST THE HUGUENOTS IN FRANCE, AND
AGAINST "HERETICS" DURING THE SPANISH INQUISITION.  IT HELPED ENGLISH
RULERS IDENTIFY AND OUTLAW CATHOLICS, QUAKERS, BAPTISTS, AND
CONGREGATIONALISTS - GROUPS CONSIDERED DANGEROUS FOR POLITICAL AS WELL
AS RELIGIOUS REASONS.  FN3 AND WHEREVER THE TEST OATH WAS IN VOGUE,
SPIES AND INFORMERS FOUND REWARDS FAR MORE TEMPTING THAN TRUTH.  FN4
PAINFUL AWARENESS OF THE EVILS OF THOUGHT ESPIONAGE MADE SUCH OATHS "AN
ABOMINATION TO THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION," IN RE SUMMERS, 325 U.S.
561, 576, DISSENTING OPINION.  WHETHER RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, OR BOTH,
TEST OATHS ARE IMPLACABLE FOES OF FREE THOUGHT.  BY APPROVING THEIR
IMPOSITION, THIS COURT HAS INJECTED COMPROMISE INTO A FIELD WHERE THE
FIRST AMENDMENT FORBIDS COMPROMISE. 

THE COURT ASSURES US THAT TODAY'S ENCROACHMENT ON LIBERTY IS JUST A
SMALL ONE, THAT THIS PARTICULAR STATUTORY PROVISION "TOUCHES ONLY A
RELATIVE HANDFUL OF PERSONS, LEAVING THE GREAT MAJORITY OF PERSONS OF
THE IDENTIFIED AFFILIATIONS AND BELIEFS COMPLETELY FREE FROM
RESTRAINT."  BUT NOT THE LEAST OF THE VIRTUES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS
ITS PROTECTION OF EACH MEMBER OF THE SMALLEST AND MOST UNORTHODOX
MINORITY.  CENTURIES OF EXPERIENCE TESTIFY THAT LAWS AIMED AT ONE
POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS GROUP, HOWEVER RATIONAL THESE LAWS MAY BE IN
THEIR BEGINNINGS, GENERATE HATREDS AND PREJUDICES WHICH RAPIDLY SPREAD
BEYOND CONTROL.  TOO OFTEN IT IS FEAR WHICH INSPIRES SUCH PASSIONS, AND
NOTHING IS MORE RECKLESS OR CONTAGIOUS.  IN THE RESULTING HYSTERIA,
POPULAR INDIGNATION TARS WITH THE SAME BRUSH ALL THOSE WHO HAVE EVER
BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE GROUP UNDER ATTACK OR WHO HOLD A
VIEW WHICH, THOUGH SUPPORTED BY REVERED AMERICANS AS ESSENTIAL TO
DEMOCRACY, HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THAT GROUP FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES. 

UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON PROSCRIBED GROUPS
ARE SELDOM STATIC,  FN5 EVEN THOUGH THE RATE OF EXPANSION MAY NOT MOVE
IN GEOMETRIC PROGRESSION FROM DISCRIMINATION TO ARM-BAND TO GHETTO AND
WORSE.  THUS I CANNOT REGARD THE COURT'S HOLDING AS ONE WHICH MERELY
BARS COMMUNISTS FROM HOLDING UNION OFFICE AND NOTHING MORE.  FOR ITS
REASONING WOULD APPLY JUST AS FORCIBLY TO STATUTES BARRING COMMUNISTS
AND THEIR SUSPECTED SYMPATHIZERS FROM ELECTION TO POLITICAL OFFICE,
MERE MEMBERSHIP IN UNIONS, AND IN FACT FROM GETTING OR HOLDING ANY JOBS
WHEREBY THEY COULD EARN A LIVING. 

THE COURT FINDS COMFORT IN ITS ASSURANCE THAT WE NEED NOT FEAR TOO
MUCH LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTION OF POLITICAL BELIEF OR ASSOCIATION "WHILE
THIS COURT SITS."  THAT EXPRESSION, WHILE FELICITOUS, HAS NO VALIDITY
IN THIS PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL FIELD.  FOR IT SPRINGS FROM THE
ASSUMPTION THAT INDIVIDUAL MENTAL FREEDOM CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
ABRIDGED WHENEVER ANY MAJORITY OF THIS COURT FINDS A SATISFACTORY
LEGISLATIVE REASON.  NEVER BEFORE HAS THIS COURT HELD THAT THE
GOVERNMENT COULD FOR ANY REASON ATTAINT PERSONS FOR THEIR POLITICAL
BELIEFS OR AFFILIATIONS.  IT DOES SO TODAY. 

TODAY THE "POLITICAL AFFILIATION" HAPPENS TO BE THE COMMUNIST PARTY:
TESTIMONY OF AN EX-COMMUNIST THAT SOME COMMUNIST UNION OFFICERS HAD
CALLED "POLITICAL STRIKES" IS HELD SUFFICIENT TO UPHOLD A LAW COERCING
UNION MEMBERS NOT TO ELECT ANY COMMUNIST AS AN OFFICER.  UNDER THIS
REASONING, AFFILIATIONS WITH OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES COULD BE
PROSCRIBED JUST AS VALIDLY.  OF COURSE THERE IS NO PRACTICAL
POSSIBILITY THAT EITHER MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY WOULD TURN THIS WEAPON ON
THE OTHER, EVEN THOUGH MEMBERS OF ONE PARTY WERE ACCUSED OF "POLITICAL
LOCKOUTS" A FEW YEARS AGO AND MEMBERS OF THE OTHER ARE NOW CHARGED WITH
FOSTERING A "WELFARE STATE" ALIEN TO OUR SYSTEM.  BUT WITH MINOR
PARTIES THE POSSIBILITY IS NOT WHOLLY FANCIFUL.  ONE, FOR INSTANCE,
ADVOCATES SOCIALISM; FN6  ANOTHER ALLEGEDLY FOLLOWS THE COMMUNIST
"LINE"; STILL ANOTHER IS REPEATEDLY CHARGED WITH A DESIRE AND PURPOSE
TO DEPRIVE NEGROES OF EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITIES.  UNDER TODAY'S OPINION
CONGRESS COULD VALIDLY BAR ALL MEMBERS OF THESE PARTIES FROM
OFFICERSHIP IN UNIONS OR INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS; THE ONLY SHOWING
REQUIRED WOULD BE TESTIMONY THAT SOME MEMBERS IN SUCH POSITIONS HAD, BY
ATTEMPTS TO FURTHER THEIR PARTY'S PURPOSES, UNJUSTIFIABLY FOSTERED
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WHICH HAMPERED INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IT IS INDICATED, ALTHOUGH THE OPINION IS NOT THUS LIMITED AND IS
BASED ON THREATS TO COMMERCE RATHER THAN TO NATIONAL SECURITY, THAT
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR ITS "AFFILIATES" CAN BE INDIVIDUALLY
ATTAINTED WITHOUT DANGER TO OTHERS BECAUSE THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT
AS A GROUP THEY ACT IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDS OF A FOREIGN POWER. 
THIS WAS THE PRECISE REASON GIVEN IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND FOR
ATTAINTING ALL CATHOLICS UNLESS THEY SUBSCRIBED TO TEST OATHS WHOLLY
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THEIR RELIGION.  FN7  YET IN THE HOUR OF CRISIS, AN
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE ENGLISH CATHOLICS THUS PERSECUTED RALLIED
LOYALLY TO DEFEND THEIR HOMELAND AGAINST SPAIN AND ITS CATHOLIC
TROOPS.  FN8  AND IN OUR OWN COUNTRY JEFFERSON AND HIS FOLLOWERS WERE
EARNESTLY ACCUSED OF SUBVERSIVE ALLEGIANCE TO FRANCE.  FN9  AT THE
TIME, IMPOSITION OF CIVIL DISABILITY ON ALL MEMBERS OF HIS POLITICAL
PARTY MUST HAVE SEEMED AT LEAST AS DESIRABLE AS DOES SEC. 9(H) TODAY. 
FOR AT STAKE, SO MANY BELIEVED, WAS THE SURVIVAL OF A NEWLY-FOUNDED
NATION, NOT MERELY A FEW POTENTIAL INTERRUPTIONS OF COMMERCE BY STRIKES
"POLITICAL" RATHER THAN ECONOMIC IN ORIGIN. 

THESE EXPERIENCES UNDERLINE THE WISDOM OF THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL
PRECEPT THAT PENALTIES SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY FOR A PERSON'S OWN
CONDUCT, NOT FOR HIS BELIEFS OR FOR THE CONDUCT OF OTHERS WITH WHOM HE
MAY ASSOCIATE.  GUILT SHOULD NOT BE IMPUTED SOLELY FROM ASSOCIATION OR
AFFILIATION WITH POLITICAL PARTIES OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, HOWEVER
MUCH WE ABHOR THE IDEAS WHICH THEY ADVOCATE.  SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 118, 136-139.  FN10  LIKE ANYONE ELSE, INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNISTS WHO COMMIT OVERT ACTS IN VIOLATION OF VALID LAWS CAN AND
SHOULD BE PUNISHED.  BUT THE POSTULATE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS THAT
OUR FREE INSTITUTIONS CAN BE MAINTAINED WITHOUT PROSCRIBING OR
PENALIZING POLITICAL BELIEF, SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, OR PARTY
AFFILIATION.  FN11 THIS IS A FAR BOLDER PHILOSOPHY THAN DESPOTIC RULERS
CAN AFFORD TO FOLLOW.  IT IS THE HEART OF THE SYSTEM ON WHICH OUR
FREEDOM DEPENDS. 

FEARS OF ALIEN IDEOLOGIES HAVE FREQUENTLY AGITATED THE NATION AND
INSPIRED LEGISLATION AIMED AT SUPPRESSING ADVOCACY OF THOSE
IDEOLOGIES.  FN12  AT SUCH TIMES THE FOG OF PUBLIC EXCITEMENT OBSCURES
THE ANCIENT LANDMARKS SET UP IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.  YET THEN, OF ALL
TIMES, SHOULD THIS COURT ADHERE MOST CLOSELY TO THE COURSE THEY MARK. 
THIS WAS DONE IN DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 365, WHERE THE COURT
STRUCK DOWN A STATE STATUTE MAKING IT A CRIME TO PARTICIPATE IN A
MEETING CONDUCTED BY COMMUNISTS.  IT HAD BEEN STIPULATED THAT THE
COMMUNIST PARTY ADVOCATED VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
SPEAKING THROUGH CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, A UNANIMOUS COURT CALMLY
ANNOUNCED TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD GOVERN THIS COURT TODAY:
"THE GREATER THE IMPORTANCE OF SAFEGUARDING THE COMMUNITY FROM
INCITEMENTS TO THE OVERTHROW OF OUR INSTITUTIONS BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE,
THE MORE IMPERATIVE IS THE NEED TO PRESERVE INVIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS AND FREE ASSEMBLY IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR FREE POLITICAL DISCUSSION, TO THE
END THAT GOVERNMENT MAY BE RESPONSIVE TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND
THAT CHANGES, IF DESIRED, MAY BE OBTAINED BY PEACEFUL MEANS.  THEREIN
LIES THE SECURITY OF THE REPUBLIC, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT." 

FN1  DISSENTING OPINION IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, 618,
ADOPTED AS THE COURT'S OPINION IN 319 U.S. 103.  SEE ALSO CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 303. 

FN2  4 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 79(6TH ED. DUBLIN 1775). 

FN3  THE INCREASING RESTRICTIONS AND PUNISHMENT IMPOSED ON THESE
GROUPS ARE SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES.  IN 1558 PARLIAMENT
PRESCRIBED AN OATH, WHICH NO CONSCIENTIOUS CATHOLIC COULD TAKE, FOR ALL
JUDGES, ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTERS, THOSE RECEIVING PAY FROM THE QUEEN,
AND THOSE TAKING UNIVERSITY DEGREES; FOUR YEARS LATER THE OATH WAS
EXTENDED TO SCHOOLMASTERS, LAWYERS, SHERIFFS, AND COURT OFFICERS.  IN
1593 ALL PROTESTANTS WERE REQUIRED TO ATTEND ANGLICAN SERVICES AND
FORBIDDEN TO HOLD NONCONFORMIST RELIGIOUS MEETINGS.  AND CATHOLICS
CONVICTED OF FAILING TO ATTEND ANGLICAN SERVICES REGULARLY WERE
RESTRICTED TO WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THEIR DWELLINGS.  IN 1609 SUCH
CATHOLICS WERE BARRED EVEN FROM SERVING AS EXECUTORS, GUARDIANS,
PHYSICIANS, OR APOTHECARIES, AND THEIR RIGHT TO PROSECUTE SUITS IN
COURT WAS PRACTICALLY ABOLISHED; IT WAS ALSO MADE TREASON TO BE
CONVERTED OR CONVERT ANYONE ELSE TO CATHOLICISM.  BETWEEN 1661 AND
1677, PARLIAMENT OUTLAWED ATTENDANCE AT ANY NON-ANGLICAN RELIGIOUS
SERVICES, AND REQUIRED THOSE HOLDING CIVIL, MILITARY, OR MUNICIPAL
OFFICE TO SUBSCRIBE TO AN OATH WHICH EFFECTIVELY BARRED CATHOLICS AND
NON-ANGLICAN PROTESTANTS.  PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THESE AND THE
MANY SIMILAR STATUTES RANGED FROM FINES AND IMPRISONMENT TO EXILE AND
DEATH.  SEE, E.G., 1 ELIZ.  C. 1; 5 ELIZ.  C. 1; 35 ELIZ.  CC. 1, 2; 3
JAC.  I CC. 4, 5; 7 JAC.  I CC. 2, 6; 13 CAR.  II STAT. 2, C. 1; 13 &
14 CAR.  II CC. 1, 4, 33; 22 CAR.  II C. 1; 25 CAR.  II C. 2; 30 CAR. 
II STAT. 2. 

AS FOR THE POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS AND OBJECTIVES OF THESE STATUTES,
SEE, E.G., THE DECLARATION OF PURPOSE IN 35 ELIZ.  C. 2, QUOTED IN NOTE
7 INFRA. 

FN4  UNDER THE STUART MONARCHS IN ENGLAND IT WAS STANDARD PRACTICE TO
GIVE AN INFORMER ONE-THIRD OF THE FINES COLLECTED FROM HIS VICTIM.  E.
G., 3 JAC.  I C. 5.  AND A FEW WERE SUFFICIENTLY DARING AND
UNSCRUPULOUS TO OBTAIN THE MORE SATISFYING REWARD OF FAME.  A NOTORIOUS
EXAMPLE TOOK PLACE IN ENGLAND DURING THE REIGN OF CHARLES II: 

"THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE WAS ELECTRIC.  ...  THUS IT IS NOT STRANGE
THAT WHEN TITUS OATES, AN ANGLICAN CLERGYMAN WHO HAD BEEN RECONCILED
THE YEAR BEFORE TO ROME, CAME FORWARD IN AUGUST, 1678, TO DENOUNCE A
VAST JESUIT CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE KING'S LIFE AND THE PROTESTANT
RELIGION, HIS TALE OF WILD LIES MET WITH A DEGREE OF CREDENCE THAT
LATER AGES WOULD PERHAPS HAVE REFUSED TO IT.  ... THE POPE, HE
DECLARED, HAD COMMANDED, AND THE JESUITS UNDERTAKEN A CONQUEST OF THE
KINGDOM; ... IN ALL THE ARRANGEMENTS HE HAD BEEN, HE SAID, A TRUSTED
EMISSARY  ...  OVER A HUNDRED CONSPIRATORS, MOSTLY JESUITS, WERE
MENTIONED BY NAME  ...  OATES WAS EXAMINED AT THE COUNCIL BOARD.  THE
KING CAUGHT HIM LYING, BUT THE EXTENT AND GRAVITY OF HIS CHARGES
DEMANDED INVESTIGATION; ...  IN ONE IMPORTANT POINT OATES' STORY WAS
CONFIRMED.  ...  THERE WAS NO 'PLOT' IN OATES' SENSE; BUT THERE WAS
QUITE ENOUGH OF PLOTTING TO COST MEN THEIR HEADS UNDER THE ENGLISH LAW
OF TREASON  ...  "  5 CAMBRIDGE MODERN HISTORY 220-221. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA.  AND SEE THE COMMENT ON SUCH LEGISLATION IN 2
HALLAM, THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND 473(LONDON, 1829):  "IT
IS THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF RESTRICTIVE LAWS TO AGGRAVATE THE
DISAFFECTION WHICH HAS SERVED AS THEIR PRETEXT; AND THUS TO CREATE A
NECESSITY FOR A LEGISLATURE THAT WILL NOT RETRACE ITS STEPS, TO PASS
STILL ONWARD IN THE COURSE OF SEVERITY." 

FN6  PROSCRIPTIONS BASED ON AFFILIATION WITH THE SOCIALIST PARTY ARE
NOT UNPRECEDENTED.  IN 1920 THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY, UPON ALLEGATIONS
THAT THE PARTY WAS DISLOYAL, SUSPENDED FIVE LEGISLATORS ELECTED ON THE
SOCIALIST TICKET.  THE VIGOROUS PROTESTS OF A BAR ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE
HEADED BY CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, LATER CHIEF JUSTICE OF THIS COURT, WERE
OF NO AVAIL.  SEE JOHN LORD O'BRIAN, LOYALTY TESTS AND GUILT BY
ASSOCIATION, 61 HARV. L. REV. 592, 593. 

FN7  35 ELIZ.  C. 2, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS AIMED AT "SUNDRY WICKED AND
SEDITIOUS PERSONS, WHO TERMING THEMSELVES CATHOLICKS, AND BEING INDEED
SPIES AND INTELLIGENCERS,  ...  AND HIDING THEIR MOST DETESTABLE AND
DEVILISH PURPOSES UNDER A FALSE PRETEXT OF RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE, DO
SECRETLY WANDER AND SHIFT FROM PLACE TO PLACE WITHIN THIS REALM, TO
CORRUPT AND SEDUCE HER MAJESTY'S SUBJECTS, AND TO STIR THEM TO SEDITION
AND REBELLION."    FN8  AS IS EVIDENCED BY THE STATUTE QUOTED IN NOTE 7
SUPRA, THE TEST OATHS, THE DRASTIC RESTRICTIONS AND THE PUNISHMENT
IMPOSED ON CATHOLICS WERE "BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL CATHOLICS
WERE POLITICALLY HOSTILE TO THE QUEEN, AND WERE AT ONE WITH ALLEN AND
THE JESUITS IN SEEKING HER DEPOSITION AND THE CONQUEST OF THE COUNTRY
BY SPAIN.  THE PATRIOTIC ACTION OF THE CATHOLICS AT HOME THROUGH THE
CRISIS OF THE SPANISH ARMADA PROVED THE WEAKNESS OF THIS ASSUMPTION. 
IN THE HOUR OF PERIL THE ENGLISH CATHOLICS PLACED LOYALTY TO THEIR
QUEEN AND COUNTRY BEFORE ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.  ...  THE INJUSTICE
OF IMPUTING TREACHERY TO THE WHOLE CATHOLIC POPULATION WAS PROVED
BEYOND QUESTION."  3 CAMBRIDGE MODERN HISTORY 351. 

FN9  CASTIGATING JEFFERSON AND HIS FOLLOWERS AS "JACOBINS," A "FRENCH
FACTION" GUILTY OF "SUBVERSION," FISHER AMES WARNED:  "(THE) JACOBINS
HAVE AT LAST MADE THEIR OWN DISCIPLINE PERFECT: THEY ARE TRAINED,
OFFICERED, REGIMENTED AND FORMED TO SUBORDINATION, IN A MANNER THAT OUR
MILITIA HAVE NEVER YET EQUALLED.  ...  (AND) IT IS AS CERTAIN AS ANY
FUTURE EVENT CAN BE, THAT THEY WILL TAKE ARMS AGAINST THE LAWS AS SOON
AS THEY DARE  ...  "  AMES, LAOCOON, PRINTED IN WORKS OF FISHER AMES
94, 101, 106(BOSTON, 1809). 

FN10  AND SEE, E.G., JOHN LORD O'BRIAN, LOYALTY TESTS AND GUILT BY
ASSOCIATION, 61 HARV. L. REV. 592.  THAT ARTICLE QUOTES THE FOLLOWING
FROM A MEMORIAL SUBMITTED TO THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY BY A SPECIAL
COMMITTEE OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK PROTESTING THE
SUSPENSION OF FIVE SOCIALIST LEGISLATORS:  "IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THE
INSTITUTIONS OF LIBERTY THAT IT BE RECOGNIZED THAT GUILT IS PERSONAL
AND CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE HOLDING OF OPINION OR TO MERE INTENT IN
THE ABSENCE OF OVERT ACTS  ...  "  O'BRIAN POINTS OUT THAT THIS
MEMORIAL WAS "LARGELY WRITTEN BY" CHARLES EVANS HUGHES.  ID. AT 594. 

FN11  "IF THERE BE ANY AMONG US WHO WOULD WISH TO DISSOLVE THIS UNION
OR TO CHANGE ITS REPUBLICAN FORM, LET THEM STAND UNDISTURBED AS
MONUMENTS OF THE SAFETY WITH WHICH ERROR OF OPINION MAY BE TOLERATED
WHERE REASON IS LEFT FREE TO COMBAT IT.  I KNOW, INDEED, THAT SOME
HONEST MEN FEAR THAT A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE STRONG; THAT
THIS GOVERNMENT IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH.  BUT WOULD THE HONEST PATRIOT, IN
THE FULL TIDE OF SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT, ABANDON A GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS
SO FAR KEPT US FREE AND FIRM, ON THE THEORETIC AND VISIONARY FEAR THAT
THIS GOVERNMENT, THE WORLD'S BEST HOPE, MAY BY POSSIBILITY WANT ENERGY
TO PRESERVE ITSELF?"  THOMAS JEFFERSON, FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS, MARCH
4, 1801.  THIS ADDRESS, ALONG WITH OTHER WRITINGS ON FREEDOMS
GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IS REPRINTED IN JONES, PRIMER OF
INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM 142(HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1949). 

FN12  FOR DISCUSSION OF EARLY AMERICAN MODELS, THE ALIEN AND SEDITION
ACTS, SEE BOWERS, JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON, 1925, C. XVI, "HYSTERICS,"
AND C. XVII, "THE REIGN OF TERROR"; 1 MORISON, LIFE OF OTIS, C. VIII,
"A SYSTEM OF TERROR." 
..END :










AUTOMOBILE WORKERS V. O'BRIEN, 339 U.S. 454 


NO. 456.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1950.  - 325 MICH.
250, 38 N.W.2D 421, REVERSED. 


THE STRIKE-VOTE PROVISIONS OF THE MICHIGAN LABOR MEDIATION LAW, MICH.
COMP. LAWS, 1948, SECS. 423.1 ET SEQ., WHICH PROHIBIT THE CALLING OF A
STRIKE UNLESS A STATE-PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE FOR MEDIATION IS FOLLOWED
AND UNLESS A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A STATE-DEFINED BARGAINING
UNIT AUTHORIZES THE STRIKE IN A STATE-CONDUCTED ELECTION, CONFLICT WITH
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, 1947, AND ARE INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 455-459. 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED AUTOMOBILE, ETC. WORKERS OF AMERICA,
C.I.O., ET AL. V. O'BRIEN, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

IN A SUIT BY APPELLANTS TO ENJOIN POSSIBLE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR A
VIOLATION OF MICH. COMP. LAWS, 1948, SECS. 423.1 ET SEQ., A MICHIGAN
TRIAL COURT HELD THOSE SECTIONS INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN REVERSED.  325 MICH. 250,
38 N.W.2D 421.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 459. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STRIKE VOTE PROVISION OF THE MICHIGAN
LABOR MEDIATION LAW  FN1  IS BEFORE US IN THIS CASE.  APPELLANTS STRUCK
AGAINST CHRYSLER CORPORATION IN MAY, 1948, WITHOUT CONFORMING TO THE
PRESCRIBED STATE PROCEDURE.  THE STRIKE WAS CALLED TO ENFORCE DEMANDS
FOR HIGHER WAGES, AND IT WAS CONDUCTED PEACEFULLY.  TO ENJOIN POSSIBLE
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION,  FN2  APPELLANTS INSTITUTED THIS SUIT IN THE
STATE COURTS, CONTENDING THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND
COMMERCE CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE TRIAL COURT UPHELD
THEIR CONTENTIONS BUT THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT REVERSED.  325 MICH.
250, 38 N.W.2D 421(1949).  WE FIND NO NEED TO DISCUSS THE DUE PROCESS
POINT, INASMUCH AS WE HOLD THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN ITS DECISION
ON THE COMMERCE POWER. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT BEEN SILENT ON THE SUBJECT OF STRIKES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 449,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 151, AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT,
1947, 61 STAT. 136, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 141, CONGRESS
SAFEGUARDED THE EXERCISE BY EMPLOYEES OF "CONCERTED ACTIVITIES" AND
EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO STRIKE.  FN3 IT QUALIFIED AND
REGULATED THAT RIGHT IN THE 1947 ACT.  IT ESTABLISHED CERTAIN
PREREQUISITES, WITH WHICH APPELLANTS COMPLIED, FOR ANY STRIKE OVER
CONTRACT TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION.  SEC. 8(D).  THESE INCLUDE
NOTICES TO BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL  FN4  MEDIATION AUTHORITIES; BOTH DID
PARTICIPATE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS IN THIS CASE.  IN PROVISIONS WHICH DID
NOT AFFECT APPELLANTS, CONGRESS FORBADE STRIKES FOR CERTAIN OBJECTIVES
AND DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR STRIKES WHICH MIGHT CREATE A NATIONAL
EMERGENCY.  SECS. 8(B)(4), 206-210.  NONE OF THESE SECTIONS CAN BE READ
AS PERMITTING CONCURRENT STATE REGULATION OF PEACEFUL STRIKES FOR
HIGHER WAGES.  CONGRESS OCCUPIED THIS FIELD AND CLOSED IT TO STATE
REGULATION.  PLANKINTON PACKING CO. V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 338 U.S.
953(1950); LA CROSSE TELEPHONE CORP. V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 336 U.S.
18(1949); BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK LABOR BOARD, 330 U.S.
767(1947); HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538(1945). 

EVEN IF SOME STATE LEGISLATION IN THIS AREA COULD BE SUSTAINED, THE
PARTICULAR STATUTE BEFORE US COULD NOT STAND.  FOR IT CONFLICTS WITH
THE FEDERAL ACT.  THE MICHIGAN LAW CALLS FOR A NOTICE GIVEN "IN THE
EVENT THE PARTIES  ...  ARE UNABLE TO SETTLE ANY DISPUTE" TO BE
FOLLOWED BY MEDIATION, AND IF THAT IS UNSUCCESSFUL, BY A STRIKE VOTE
WITHIN TWENTY DAYS, WITH A MAJORITY REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE A STRIKE. 
UNDER THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, THE PRESCRIBED STRIKE NOTICE CAN BE
GIVEN SIXTY DAYS BEFORE THE CONTRACT TERMINATION OR MODIFICATION.  SEC.
8(D).  THE FEDERAL ACT THUS PERMITS STRIKES AT A DIFFERENT AND USUALLY
EARLIER TIME THAN THE MICHIGAN LAW; AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE MAJORITY
AUTHORIZATION FOR ANY STRIKE.  THIS REQUIREMENT OF APPROVAL BY A
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES WAS CONTAINED IN THE BILL WHICH PASSED THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; FN5  BUT THE ACT AS FINALLY ADOPTED
DELIBERATELY REFRAINS FROM IMPOSING THE PREREQUISITE OF MAJORITY
APPROVAL IN EACH OF ITS REFERENCES TO STRIKE VOTES.  SECS. 203(C),
209(B)-210. 

FINALLY, THE BARGAINING UNIT ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL
LAW MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT REQUIRED BY STATE REGULATION.  THOUGH
THE UNIT FOR THE MICHIGAN STRIKE VOTE CANNOT EXTEND BEYOND THE STATE'S
BORDERS, THE UNIT FOR WHICH APPELLANT UNION IS THE FEDERALLY CERTIFIED
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE INCLUDES CHRYSLER PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA AND
INDIANA AS WELL AS MICHIGAN.  CHRYSLER CORP., 42 N.L.R.B. 1145(1942). 
WITHOUT QUESTION, THE MICHIGAN PROVISION CONFLICTS WITH THE EXERCISE OF
FEDERALLY PROTECTED LABOR RIGHTS.  A STATE STATUTE SO AT WAR WITH
FEDERAL LAW CANNOT SURVIVE.  PLANKINTON PACKING CO. V. WISCONSIN BOARD,
338 U.S. 953(1950); LA CROSSE TELEPHONE CORP. V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 336
U.S. 18(1949); BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK LABOR BOARD, 330 U.S.
767(1947); HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538(1945). 

AUTO. WORKERS V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 336 U.S. 245(1949), UPON WHICH
MICHIGAN PRINCIPALLY RELIES, WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH A TRADITIONAL,
PEACEFUL STRIKE FOR HIGHER WAGES.  THE EMPLOYEES' CONDUCT THERE WAS "A
NEW TECHNIQUE FOR BRINGING PRESSURE UPON THE EMPLOYER," A "RECURRENT OR
INTERMITTENT UNANNOUNCED STOPPAGE OF WORK TO WIN UNSTATED ENDS."  ID.
AT 249, 264.  THAT ACTIVITY WE REGARDED AS "COERCIVE," SIMILAR TO THE
SIT-DOWN STRIKE HELD TO FALL OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF THE FEDERAL ACT
IN LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORP., 306 U.S. 240(1939), AND
TO THE LABOR VIOLENCE HELD TO BE SUBJECT TO STATE POLICE CONTROL IN
ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 315 U.S. 740(1942).  IN THE
WISCONSIN AUTO.  WORKERS CASE, WE CONCLUDED THAT THE UNION TACTIC WAS
"NEITHER FORBIDDEN BY FEDERAL STATUTE NOR WAS IT LEGALIZED AND APPROVED
THEREBY."  336 U.S. AT 265.  "THERE IS NO EXISTING OR POSSIBLE CONFLICT
OR OVERLAPPING BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE BOARDS,
BECAUSE THE FEDERAL BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY EITHER TO INVESTIGATE,
APPROVE OR FORBID THE UNION CONDUCT IN QUESTION.  THIS CONDUCT IS
GOVERNABLE BY THE STATE OR IT IS ENTIRELY UNGOVERNED."  ID. AT 254. 
CLEARLY, WE REAFFIRMED THE PRINCIPLE THAT IF "CONGRESS HAS PROTECTED
THE UNION CONDUCT WHICH THE STATE HAS FORBIDDEN  ...  THE STATE
LEGISLATION MUST YIELD."  ID. AT 252.  THAT PRINCIPLE IS CONTROLLING
HERE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  MICH. STAT. ANN. (CUM. SUPP. 1949) SECS. 17.454(1) ET SEQ.;
MICH. COMP. LAWS, 1948, SECS. 423.1 ET SEQ. AT THE TIME OF APPELLANTS'
STRIKE, THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE LAW READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 9.  NO STRIKE OR LOCKOUT SHALL TAKE PLACE OR BE PUT INTO EFFECT
UNTIL AND UNLESS EACH OF THE STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE REQUIREMENTS
COMPLIED WITH AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT. 

"1.  IN THE EVENT THE PARTIES THERETO ARE UNABLE TO SETTLE ANY
DISPUTE, THE EMPLOYEES OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, IN THE CASE OF
IMPENDING STRIKE, OR THE EMPLOYER OR HIS AGENT, IN THE CASE OF AN
IMPENDING LOCKOUT, SHALL SERVE NOTICE UPON THE BOARD OF SUCH DISPUTE
TOGETHER WITH A STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED.  ...  NOT LESS THAN
10 DAYS BEFORE THE STRIKE OR LOCKOUT IS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE, OR IN CASE
OF AN INDUSTRY AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST OR A PUBLIC UTILITY OR
HOSPITAL, SAID NOTICE SHALL BE SO SERVED NOT LESS THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE
THE STRIKE OR LOCKOUT IS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE. 

"2.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE BOARD TO
EXERCISE THE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED TO EFFECT A SETTLEMENT OF SUCH
DISPUTE BY MEDIATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  PRIOR TO THE CALLING OF AN
ELECTION AS PROVIDED HEREINAFTER, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF EACH OF THE
PARTIES TO SUCH DISPUTE TO ACTIVELY AND IN GOOD FAITH PARTICIPATE IN
THE MEDIATION THEREOF.  ... 

"SEC. 9A.  IN THE EVENT THAT IT BECOMES APPARENT TO THE BOARD THAT
THERE IS NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF SETTLEMENT OF SUCH DISPUTE BY
MEDIATION AND THAT FURTHER EFFORTS TO THAT END WOULD BE WITHOUT AVAIL,
THERE SHALL BE HELD IN THE CASE OF ANY IMPENDING STRIKE, AN ELECTION
UPON SUCH ISSUE WHICH ELECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED AND SUPERVISED BY THE
BOARD.  IN THE EVENT EITHER PARTY TO SAID DISPUTE NOTIFIES THE BOARD IN
WRITING  ...  THAT IN THE OPINION OF SUCH PARTY, FURTHER EFFORTS TO
SETTLE SUCH DISPUTE BY MEDIATION WOULD BE WITHOUT AVAIL, IT SHALL BE
THE DUTY OF THE BOARD TO CAUSE AN ELECTION TO BE HELD WITHIN 10 DAYS OF
THE RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE UNLESS IT IS NOT PRACTICAL TO HOLD SUCH
ELECTION WITHIN SAID PERIOD, IN WHICH EVENT SAID ELECTION SHALL BE HELD
WITHIN 20 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE  ...  EVERY EMPLOYEE IN THE
BARGAINING UNIT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO VOTE IN SUCH ELECTION AND IN ORDER
TO AUTHORIZE A STRIKE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, A MAJORITY OF
ALL EMPLOYEES IN SUCH BARGAINING UNIT MUST VOTE IN FAVOR OF SUCH
ACTION." 

IN 1949, THE LAST REQUIREMENT WAS AMENDED TO READ, "A MAJORITY OF ALL
EMPLOYEES CASTING VALID BALLOTS MUST VOTE IN FAVOR OF SUCH ACTION." 
THIS CHANGE IS NOT MATERIAL TO OUR DECISION. 

FN2  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT APPELLANTS' ACTS "RENDERED (THEM)
SUBJECT TO THREATENED CRIMINAL PROSECUTION  ...  "  325 MICH. AT 254,
38 N.W.2D AT 422.  SEE SEC. 22.  WE ARE OF COURSE BOUND BY THIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW. 

FN3  SEE SECS. 7, 2(3), 13 OF BOTH ACTS; H.R. REP. NO. 510, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 59(1947); S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
28(1947); STATEMENT OF SENATOR TAFT, 93 CONG. REC. 3835(1947), WHICH
INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:  "THAT MEANS THAT WE RECOGNIZE FREEDOM TO
STRIKE WHEN THE QUESTION INVOLVED IS THE IMPROVEMENT OF WAGES, HOURS,
AND WORKING CONDITIONS, WHEN A CONTRACT HAS EXPIRED AND NEITHER SIDE IS
BOUND BY A CONTRACT.  ...  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE CAN BE MODIFIED.  I THINK IT CAN BE MODIFIED IN CASES
WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE THE BASIC QUESTION OF WAGES, PRICES, AND WORKING
CONDITIONS.  ...  SO FAR AS THE BILL IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE PROCEEDED ON
THE THEORY THAT THERE IS A RIGHT TO STRIKE AND THAT LABOR PEACE MUST BE
BASED ON FREE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  WE HAVE DONE NOTHING TO OUTLAW
STRIKES FOR BASIC WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS AFTER PROPER
OPPORTUNITY FOR MEDIATION." 

FN4  CONGRESS CREATED A NEW FEDERAL AGENCY, THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND
CONCILIATION SERVICE, TO ASSIST IN THE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF
DISPUTES.  SECS. 202-204. 

FN5  H.R. 3020, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. SEC. 2(11)(B)(VI)(H)(1947). 
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED ON
THE MERITS, AND NOT BECAUSE OF ANY DESIRE TO LEAVE THE STATES FREE TO
ADOPT IT.  SEE, E.G., H.R. REP. NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 34
35(1947); TESTIMONY OF GOVERNOR STASSEN, HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE ON S. 55 AND S.J. RES. 22, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 562-65, 572-78, 586-89(1947). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :













HUGHES V. SUPERIOR COURT, 339 U.S. 460 


NO. 61.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8-9, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1950.  - 32 CAL.2D
850, 198 P.2D 885, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONERS DEMANDED OF AN EMPLOYER THAT IT HIRE NEGROES AT ONE OF ITS
GROCERY STORES, AS WHITE CLERKS QUIT OR WERE TRANSFERRED, UNTIL THE
PROPORTION OF NEGRO CLERKS TO WHITE CLERKS APPROXIMATED THE PROPORTION
OF NEGRO TO WHITE CUSTOMERS, WHICH WAS THEN ABOUT 50%.  A CALIFORNIA
STATE COURT ENJOINED PETITIONERS FROM PICKETING THE EMPLOYER'S STORES
TO ENFORCE THIS SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR SELECTIVE HIRING ON A RACIAL
BASIS.  FOR VIOLATION OF THE INJUNCTION, PETITIONERS WERE FOUND GUILTY
OF CONTEMPT AND WERE SENTENCED TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  THE POLICY OF
CALIFORNIA IS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF COLOR.  HELD:  THE
INJUNCTION DID NOT VIOLATE PETITIONERS' RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS
GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP.
461-469. 

1.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEMAND THAT THE ELEMENT OF
COMMUNICATION IN PICKETING PREVAIL OVER THE MISCHIEF FURTHERED BY ITS
USE TO COMPEL EMPLOYMENT ON THE BASIS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONTRARY
TO THE STATE'S POLICY.  PP. 463-464. 

2.  INDUSTRIAL PICKETING IS SOMETHING MORE THAN FREE SPEECH, SINCE IT
INVOLVES PATROL OF A PARTICULAR LOCALITY AND SINCE THE VERY PRESENCE OF
A PICKET LINE MAY INDUCE ACTION OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER, QUITE
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE IDEAS WHICH ARE BEING DISSEMINATED. 
PP. 464-465. 

3.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS PRECLUDING
CALIFORNIA FROM SECURING RESPECT FOR ITS POLICY AGAINST INVOLUNTARY
EMPLOYMENT ON RACIAL LINES BY PROHIBITING SYSTEMATIC PICKETING THAT
WOULD SUBVERT SUCH POLICY.  PP. 465-466. 

4.  THE FACT THAT THE POLICY OF THE STATE IS EXPRESSED BY ITS COURTS
RATHER THAN BY ITS LEGISLATURE IS IMMATERIAL SO FAR AS THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED.  PP. 466-469. 

5.  A STATE MAY DIRECT ITS LAW AGAINST WHAT IT DEEMS THE EVIL AS IT
ACTUALLY EXISTS WITHOUT COVERING THE WHOLE FIELD OF POSSIBLE ABUSES,
AND IT MAY DO SO THOUGH THE FORBIDDEN ACT DOES NOT DIFFER IN KIND FROM
THOSE THAT ARE ALLOWED.  P. 468. 

HUGHES ET AL. V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE FIRST THREE PARAGRAPHS OF THE OPINION.  THE
JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED, P. 469. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BAR A STATE FROM
USE OF THE INJUNCTION TO PROHIBIT PICKETING OF A PLACE OF BUSINESS
SOLELY IN ORDER TO SECURE COMPLIANCE WITH A DEMAND THAT ITS EMPLOYEES
BE IN PROPORTION TO THE RACIAL ORIGIN OF ITS THEN CUSTOMERS?  SUCH IS
THE BROAD QUESTION OF THIS CASE. 

THE PETITIONERS, ACTING ON BEHALF OF A GROUP CALLING THEMSELVES
PROGRESSIVE CITIZENS OF AMERICA, DEMANDED OF LUCKY STORES, INC., THAT
IT HIRE NEGROES AT ITS GROCERY STORE NEAR THE CANAL HOUSING PROJECT IN
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, AS WHITE CLERKS QUIT OR WERE TRANSFERRED, UNTIL
THE PROPORTION OF NEGRO CLERKS TO WHITE CLERKS APPROXIMATED THE
PROPORTION OF NEGRO TO WHITE CUSTOMERS.  AT THE TIME IN CONTROVERSY
ABOUT 50% OF THE CUSTOMERS OF THE CANAL STORE WERE NEGROES.  UPON
REFUSAL OF THIS DEMAND AND IN ORDER TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE, THE CANAL
STORE WAS SYSTEMATICALLY PATROLLED BY PICKETS CARRYING PLACARDS STATING
THAT LUCKY REFUSED TO HIRE NEGRO CLERKS IN PROPORTION TO NEGRO
CUSTOMERS. 

SUIT WAS BEGUN BY LUCKY TO ENJOIN THE PICKETING ON APPROPRIATE
ALLEGATIONS FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF.  THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY ISSUED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING PETITIONERS AND
OTHERS FROM PICKETING ANY OF LUCKY'S STORES TO COMPEL "THE SELECTIVE
HIRING OF NEGRO CLERKS, SUCH HIRING TO BE BASED ON THE PROPORTION OF
WHITE AND NEGRO CUSTOMERS WHO PATRONIZE PLAINTIFF'S STORES."  IN THE
FACE OF THIS INJUNCTION, PETITIONERS CONTINUED TO PICKET THE CANAL
STORE, CARRYING PLACARDS READING:  "LUCKY WON'T HIRE NEGRO CLERKS IN
PROPORTION TO NEGRO TRADE - DON'T PATRONIZE."  IN CONFORMITY WITH STATE
PROCEDURE, PETITIONERS WERE FOUND GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR "WILFULLY
DISREGARDING" THE INJUNCTION AND WERE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO
DAYS AND FINED $20 EACH.  THEY DEFENDED THEIR CONDUCT BY CHALLENGING
THE INJUNCTION AS A DEPRIVATION OF THE LIBERTY ASSURED THEM BY THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT ANNULLED THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT, 186 P.2D 756, BUT IT WAS
REINSTATED ON REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  THAT COURT
HELD THAT THE CONCEDED PURPOSE OF THE PICKETING IN THIS CASE - TO
COMPEL THE HIRING OF NEGROES IN PROPORTION TO NEGRO CUSTOMERS - WAS
UNLAWFUL EVEN THOUGH PURSUED IN A PEACEFUL MANNER.  HAVING VIOLATED A
VALID INJUNCTION PETITIONERS WERE PROPERLY PUNISHABLE FOR CONTEMPT. 
"THE CONTROLLING POINTS," ACCORDING TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, "ARE THAT THE INJUNCTION IS LIMITED TO PROHIBITING
PICKETING FOR A SPECIFIC UNLAWFUL PURPOSE AND THAT THE EVIDENCE
JUSTIFIED THE TRIAL COURT IN FINDING THAT SUCH NARROW PROHIBITION WAS
DELIBERATELY VIOLATED."  32 CAL.2D 850, 856, 198 P.2D 885, 888.  WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE TO CONSIDER CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT
OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  336 U.S. 966. 

FIRST.  DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN EMPLOYMENT HAS BROUGHT A
VARIETY OF LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT IN RECENT YEARS.  GRAHAM V.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, 338 U.S. 232; RAILWAY
MAIL ASSN. V. CORSI, 326 U.S. 88; STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323
U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN,
323 U.S. 210; NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. SANITARY GROCERY CO., 303 U.S.
552.  SEE ALSO MYRDAL, AN AMERICAN DILEMMA CC. 13-14(1944).  SUCH
DISCRIMINATION RAISES SOCIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WHICH IN SOME ASPECTS AND
WITHIN LIMITS HAVE RECEIVED LEGAL SOLUTIONS.  CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN
SENSITIVE TO THESE PROBLEMS AND DECISIONS OF ITS SUPREME COURT HAVE
BEEN HOSTILE TO DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF COLOR.  JAMES V.
MARINSHIP CORP., 25 CAL.2D 721, 155 P.2D 329; WILLIAMS V. INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, 27 CAL.2D 586, 165 P.2D 903.  THIS
BACKGROUND OF CALIFORNIA'S LEGAL POLICY IS RELEVANT TO THE CONVICTION
OF ITS COURT THAT IT WOULD ENCOURAGE DISCRIMINATORY HIRING TO GIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO PETITIONERS' EFFORTS TO SUBJECT THE
OPPORTUNITY OF GETTING A JOB TO A QUOTA SYSTEM.  THE VIEW OF THAT COURT
IS BEST EXPRESSED IN ITS OWN WORDS: 

"IT WAS JUST SUCH A SITUATION - AN ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION UPON THE
BASIS OF RACE AND COLOR ALONE, RATHER THAN A CHOICE BASED SOLELY UPON
INDIVIDUAL QUALIFICATION FOR THE WORK TO BE DONE - WHICH WE CONDEMNED
IN THE MARINSHIP CASE, SUPRA (25 CAL.2D 721, 737, 745).  THE FACT THAT
THOSE SEEKING SUCH DISCRIMINATION DO NOT DEMAND THAT IT BE PRACTICED AS
TO ALL EMPLOYES OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYER DIMINISHES IN NO RESPECT THE
UNLAWFULNESS OF THEIR PURPOSE; THEY WOULD, TO THE EXTENT OF THE FIXED
PROPORTION, MAKE THE RIGHT TO WORK FOR LUCKY DEPENDENT NOT ON FITNESS
FOR THE WORK NOR ON AN EQUAL RIGHT OF ALL, REGARDLESS OF RACE, TO
COMPETE IN AN OPEN MARKET, BUT, RATHER, ON MEMBERSHIP IN A PARTICULAR
RACE.  IF PETITIONERS WERE UPHELD IN THEIR DEMAND THEN OTHER RACES,
WHITE, YELLOW, BROWN AND RED, WOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS TO DEMAND
DISCRIMINATORY HIRING ON A RACIAL BASIS.  YET THAT IS PRECISELY THE
TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION TO WHICH PETITIONERS AVOWEDLY OBJECT."  32
CAL.2D AT 856, 198 P.2D AT 889. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE MOST PERTINENT IN REGARD TO A POPULATION
MADE UP OF SO MANY DIVERSE GROUPS AS OURS.  TO DENY TO CALIFORNIA THE
RIGHT TO BAN PICKETING IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WOULD MEAN
THAT THERE COULD BE NO PROHIBITION OF THE PRESSURE OF PICKETING TO
SECURE PROPORTIONAL EMPLOYMENT ON ANCESTRAL GROUNDS OF HUNGARIANS IN
CLEVELAND, OF POLES IN BUFFALO, OF GERMANS IN MILWAUKEE, OF PORTUGUESE
IN NEW BEDFORD, OF MEXICANS IN SAN ANTONIO, OF THE NUMEROUS MINORITY
GROUPS IN NEW YORK, AND SO ON THROUGH THE WHOLE GAMUT OF RACIAL AND
RELIGIOUS CONCENTRATIONS IN VARIOUS CITIES.  STATES MAY WELL BELIEVE
THAT SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL SHELTERING WOULD INEVITABLY ENCOURAGE USE OF
PICKETING TO COMPEL EMPLOYMENT ON THE BASIS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. 
IN DISALLOWING SUCH PICKETING STATES MAY ACT UNDER THE BELIEF THAT
OTHERWISE COMMUNITY TENSIONS AND CONFLICTS WOULD BE EXACERBATED.  THE
DIFFERENCES IN CULTURAL TRADITIONS INSTEAD OF ADDING FLAVOR AND VARIETY
TO OUR COMMON CITIZENRY MIGHT WELL BE HARDENED INTO HOSTILITIES BY
LEAVE OF LAW.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEMAND THAT THE ELEMENT OF
COMMUNICATION IN PICKETING PREVAIL OVER THE MISCHIEF FURTHERED BY ITS
USE IN THESE SITUATIONS. 

SECOND.  "(THE) DOMAIN OF LIBERTY, WITHDRAWN BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT FROM ENCROACHMENT BY THE STATES," PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302
U.S. 319, 327, NO DOUBT INCLUDES LIBERTY OF THOUGHT AND APPROPRIATE
MEANS FOR EXPRESSING IT.  BUT WHILE PICKETING IS A MODE OF
COMMUNICATION IT IS INSEPARABLY SOMETHING MORE AND DIFFERENT. 
INDUSTRIAL PICKETING "IS MORE THAN FREE SPEECH, SINCE IT INVOLVES
PATROL OF A PARTICULAR LOCALITY AND SINCE THE VERY PRESENCE OF A PICKET
LINE MAY INDUCE ACTION OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER, QUITE IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE NATURE OF THE IDEAS WHICH ARE BEING DISSEMINATED."  MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, JOINED BY BLACK AND MURPHY, JJ., CONCURRING IN BAKERY & PASTRY
DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769, 775, 776.  PUBLICATION
IN A NEWSPAPER, OR BY DISTRIBUTION OF CIRCULARS, MAY CONVEY THE SAME
INFORMATION OR MAKE THE SAME CHARGE AS DO THOSE PATROLLING A PICKET
LINE.  BUT THE VERY PURPOSE OF A PICKET LINE IS TO EXERT INFLUENCES,
AND IT PRODUCES CONSEQUENCES, DIFFERENT FROM OTHER MODES OF
COMMUNICATION.  THE LOYALTIES AND RESPONSES EVOKED AND EXACTED BY
PICKET LINES ARE UNLIKE THOSE FLOWING FROM APPEALS BY PRINTED WORD. 
SEE GREGORY, LABOR AND THE LAW 346-48(REV.  ED. 1949); TELLER,
PICKETING AND FREE SPEECH, 56 HARV. L. REV. 180, 200-02(1942); DODD,
PICKETING AND FREE SPEECH:  A DISSENT, 56 HARV. L. REV. 513, 517(1943);
HELLERSTEIN, PICKETING LEGISLATION AND THE COURTS, 10 N.C.L. REV. 158,
186-87, N. 135(1932). 

THIRD.  A STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMIT PICKETING DESPITE THE
INGREDIENTS IN IT THAT DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM SPEECH IN ITS ORDINARY
CONTEXT.  SENN V. TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION, 301 U.S. 468.  AND WE
HAVE FOUND THAT BECAUSE OF ITS ELEMENT OF COMMUNICATION PICKETING UNDER
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES FINDS SANCTION IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V.
SWING, 312 U.S. 321; BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL V. WOHL,
315 U.S. 769; CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. 293. 
HOWEVER GENERAL OR LOOSE THE LANGUAGE OF OPINIONS, THE SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS HAVE CONTROLLED DECISION.  IT HAS BEEN AMPLY RECOGNIZED THAT
PICKETING, NOT BEING THE EQUIVALENT OF SPEECH AS A MATTER OF FACT, IS
NOT ITS INEVITABLE LEGAL EQUIVALENT.  PICKETING IS NOT BEYOND THE
CONTROL OF A STATE IF THE MANNER IN WHICH PICKETING IS CONDUCTED OR THE
PURPOSE WHICH IT SEEKS TO EFFECTUATE GIVES GROUND FOR ITS
DISALLOWANCE.  SEE DORCHY V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306; MILK WAGON DRIVERS
UNION V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, INC., 312 U.S. 287; HOTEL AND RESTAURANT
EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE V. WISCONSIN E.R.B., 315 U.S. 437;
CARPENTERS & JOINERS UNION V. RITTER'S CAFE, 315 U.S. 722; GIBONEY V.
EMPIRE STORAGE & ICE CO., 336 U.S. 490.  "A STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO
TOLERATE IN ALL PLACES AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN PEACEFUL PICKETING BY
AN INDIVIDUAL."  BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL V. WOHL, SUPRA
AT 775. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE COMPETING INTERESTS OF
SOCIETY INVOLVED IN THE USE OF PICKETING CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED BY
GENERAL PHRASES.  PICKETING WHEN NOT IN NUMBERS THAT OF THEMSELVES
CARRY A THREAT OF VIOLENCE MAY BE A LAWFUL MEANS TO A LAWFUL END.  SEE
AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL, 257 U.S.
184, 206-07.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SUGGESTED A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN PICKETING TO PROMOTE DISCRIMINATION, AS HERE, AND PICKETING
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION:  "IT MAY BE ASSUMED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
DECISION, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT IF SUCH DISCRIMINATION EXISTS,
PICKETING TO PROTEST IT WOULD NOT BE FOR AN UNLAWFUL OBJECTIVE."  32
CAL.2D AT 855, 198 P.2D AT 888.  WE CANNOT CONSTRUE THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSES AS PRECLUDING CALIFORNIA FROM SECURING RESPECT FOR ITS POLICY
AGAINST INVOLUNTARY EMPLOYMENT ON RACIAL LINES BY PROHIBITING
SYSTEMATIC PICKETING THAT WOULD SUBVERT SUCH POLICY.  SEE GIBONEY V.
EMPIRE STORAGE & ICE CO., SUPRA. 

FOURTH.  THE FACT THAT CALIFORNIA'S POLICY IS EXPRESSED BY THE
JUDICIAL ORGAN OF THE STATE RATHER THAN BY THE LEGISLATURE WE HAVE
REPEATEDLY RULED TO BE IMMATERIAL* .  CASTILLO V. MCCONNICO, 168 U.S.
674, 684; HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316; NASHVILLE, C. & ST.
L.R. CO. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, 369; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S.
69, 79; SNOWDEN V. HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1, 11.  FOR THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT LEAVES THE STATES FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT
AS THEY WILL BETWEEN THEIR LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES.  DREYER
V. ILLINOIS, 187 U.S. 71, 83-84; SOLIAH V. HESKIN, 222 U.S. 522, 524;
ERIE R. CO. V. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTIL.  COMM'RS, 254 U.S. 394, 413;
PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE CO., 211 U.S. 210, 225; KELLER V.
POTOMAC ELEC.  POWER CO., 261 U.S. 428, 443.  "(RIGHTS) UNDER THAT
AMENDMENT TURN ON THE POWER OF THE STATE, NO MATTER BY WHAT ORGAN IT
ACTS."  MISSOURI V. DOCKERY, 191 U.S. 165, 170-71. 

*THE RANGE OF POLICY IN PROSCRIBING OR PERMITTING PICKETING FOR
VARIOUS ENDS IS ILLUSTRATED BY A RECENT BILL AGAINST PICKETING OF
COURTS PASSED BY THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE BUT VETOED BY GOVERNOR
DEWEY.  SEE N.Y. TIMES, APR. 11, 1950, P. 21, COL. 1. 

IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO DENY TO A STATE THE RIGHT, OR EVEN TO
QUESTION THE DESIRABILITY, OF FITTING ITS LAW "TO A CONCRETE SITUATION
THROUGH THE AUTHORITY GIVEN  ...  TO ITS COURTS."  MILK WAGON DRIVERS
UNION V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, INC., SUPRA AT 297.  IT IS PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT TO BEAR THIS IN MIND IN REGARD TO MATTERS AFFECTING
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS WHICH, UNTIL RECENTLY, HAVE "BEEN LEFT LARGELY TO
JUDICIAL LAWMAKING AND NOT TO LEGISLATION."  CARPENTERS & JOINERS UNION
V. RITTER'S CAFE, SUPRA AT 724.  IN CHARGING ITS COURTS WITH EVOLVING
LAW INSTEAD OF FORMULATING POLICY BY STATUTE, CALIFORNIA HAS AVAILED
ITSELF OF THE VARIETY OF LAW-MAKING SOURCES, AND HAS RECOGNIZED THAT IN
OUR DAY AS IN COKE'S "THE LAW HATH PROVIDED SEVERAL WEAPONS OF
REMEDY."  COKE, THE COMPLEAT COPYHOLDER SEC. 9 IN THREE LAW TRACTS
(1764).  CALIFORNIA CHOSE TO STRIKE AT THE DISCRIMINATION INHERENT IN
THE QUOTA SYSTEM BY MEANS OF THE EQUITABLE REMEDY OF INJUNCTION TO
PROTECT AGAINST UNWILLING SUBMISSION TO SUCH A SYSTEM.  IT IS NOT FOR
THIS COURT TO DENY TO CALIFORNIA THAT CHOICE FROM AMONG ALL "THE
VARIOUS WEAPONS IN THE ARMORY OF THE LAW."  TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S.
141, 148. 

THE POLICY OF A STATE MAY RELY FOR THE COMMON GOOD ON THE FREE PLAY
OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS AND LEAVE CONDUCT UNREGULATED.  CONTRARIWISE,
A STATE MAY DEEM IT WISER POLICY TO REGULATE.  REGULATION MAY TAKE THE
FORM OF LEGISLATION, E.G., RESTRAINT OF TRADE STATUTES, OR BE LEFT TO
THE AD HOC JUDICIAL PROCESS, E.G., COMMON LAW MODE OF DEALING WITH
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  EITHER METHOD MAY OUTLAW AN END NOT IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST OR MERELY ADDRESS ITSELF TO THE OBVIOUS MEANS TOWARD SUCH
END.  THE FORM THE REGULATION SHOULD TAKE AND ITS SCOPE ARE SURELY
MATTERS OF POLICY AND, AS SUCH, WITHIN A STATE'S CHOICE.    IF BECAUSE
OF THE COMPULSIVE FEATURES INHERENT IN PICKETING, BEYOND THE ASPECT OF
MERE COMMUNICATION AS AN APPEAL TO REASON, A STATE CHOOSES TO ENJOIN
PICKETING TO SECURE SUBMISSION TO A DEMAND FOR EMPLOYMENT PROPORTIONAL
TO THE RACIAL ORIGIN OF THE THEN CUSTOMERS OF A BUSINESS, IT NEED NOT
FORBID THE EMPLOYER TO ADOPT SUCH A QUOTA SYSTEM OF HIS OWN FREE WILL. 
A STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXERCISE ITS INTERVENTION ON THE BASIS OF
ABSTRACT REASONING.  THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS NEITHER LOGICAL SYMMETRY
NOR EXHAUSTION OF A PRINCIPLE.  "THE PROBLEMS OF GOVERNMENT ARE
PRACTICAL ONES AND MAY JUSTIFY, IF THEY DO NOT REQUIRE, ROUGH
ACCOMMODATIONS - ILLOGICAL, IT MAY BE, AND UNSCIENTIFIC."  METROPOLIS
THEATRE CO. V. CHICAGO, 228 U.S. 61, 69-70.  A STATE MAY "DIRECT ITS
LAW AGAINST WHAT IT DEEMS THE EVIL AS IT ACTUALLY EXISTS WITHOUT
COVERING THE WHOLE FIELD OF POSSIBLE ABUSES, AND IT MAY DO SO NONE THE
LESS THAT THE FORBIDDEN ACT DOES NOT DIFFER IN KIND FROM THOSE THAT ARE
ALLOWED."  CENTRAL LUMBER CO. V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 226 U.S. 157, 160.  SEE
ALSO LINDSLEY V. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61, 81; KEOKEE
CONSOLIDATED COKE CO. V. TAYLOR, 234 U.S. 224, 227; MILLER V. WILSON,
236 U.S. 373, 384; FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK V. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK,
262 U.S. 649, 661-62; JAMES-DICKINSON FARM MORTGAGE CO. V. HARRY, 273
U.S. 119, 125; SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 396; LABOR BOARD V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 46.  LAWMAKING IS ESSENTIALLY
EMPIRICAL AND TENTATIVE, AND IN ADJUDICATION AS IN LEGISLATION THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FORBID "CAUTIOUS ADVANCE, STEP BY STEP, AND THE
DISTRUST OF GENERALITIES."  CARROLL V. GREENWICH INSURANCE CO., 199
U.S. 401, 411. 

THE INJUNCTION HERE WAS DRAWN TO MEET WHAT CALIFORNIA DEEMED THE EVIL
OF PICKETING TO BRING ABOUT PROPORTIONAL HIRING.  WE DO NOT GO BEYOND
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  GENERALIZATIONS ARE TREACHEROUS IN THE
APPLICATION OF LARGE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTS.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS
CASE IS CONTROLLED BY THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN GIBONEY V. EMPIRE
STORAGE & ICE CO., 336 U.S. 490, AND THEREFORE CONCUR IN THE COURT'S
JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING. 

I READ THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TO HOLD THAT
THE PICKETS SOUGHT FROM LUCKY STORES, INC., DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF
PERSONS OF THE NEGRO RACE, A DISCRIMINATION UNLAWFUL UNDER CALIFORNIA
LAW.  SUCH PICKETING MAY BE BARRED BY A STATE.  GIBONEY V. EMPIRE
STORAGE & ICE CO., 336 U.S. 490. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





TEAMSTERS UNION V. HANKE, 339 U.S. 470 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1950.  - 33 WASH.2D 646, 666,
207 P.2D 206, 216, AFFIRMED. 


A BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE OWNER HIMSELF WITHOUT EMPLOYEES WAS
PEACEFULLY PICKETED BY A LABOR UNION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH A DEMAND
FOR A UNION SHOP.  HELD:  A STATE COURT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
PICKETING, CHALLENGED AS INFRINGING THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS
GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IS
AFFIRMED.  PP. 471-474, 481. 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. UNION, LOCAL 309, ET AL.
V. HANKE ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS ATLAS AUTO REBUILD. 

NO. 309.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 364, AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS & DEMONSTRATORS LOCAL
UNION NO. 882 ET AL. V. CLINE, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT,
ARGUED FEBRUARY 9-10, 1950. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THESE TWO CASES SUSTAINED PERMANENT
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PICKETING OF PLACES OF BUSINESS.  33 WASH.2D 646,
666, 207 P.2D 206, 216.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 903. 
AFFIRMED, P. 481. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON CONCURRED. 

THESE TWO CASES RAISE THE SAME ISSUES AND ARE THEREFORE DISPOSED OF
IN A SINGLE OPINION.  THE QUESTION IS THIS:  DOES THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BAR A STATE FROM USE OF THE INJUNCTION TO
PROHIBIT THE PICKETING OF A BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE OWNER HIMSELF
WITHOUT EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO SECURE COMPLIANCE BY HIM WITH A DEMAND TO
BECOME A UNION SHOP? 

IN NO. 309, RESPONDENTS A. E. HANKE AND HIS THREE SONS, AS
COPARTNERS, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REPAIRING AUTOMOBILES,
DISPENSING GASOLINE AND AUTOMOBILE ACCESSORIES, AND SELLING USED
AUTOMOBILES IN SEATTLE.  THEY CONDUCTED THEIR ENTIRE ENTERPRISE
THEMSELVES, WITHOUT ANY EMPLOYEES.  AT THE TIME THE SENIOR HANKE
PURCHASED THE BUSINESS IN JUNE, 1946, WHICH HAD THERETOFORE BEEN
CONDUCTED AS A UNION SHOP, HE BECAME A MEMBER OF LOCAL 309 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, WHICH INCLUDES IN ITS
MEMBERSHIP PERSONS EMPLOYED AND ENGAGED IN THE GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
BUSINESS IN SEATTLE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE HANKES CONTINUED TO DISPLAY IN
THEIR SHOW WINDOW THE UNION SHOP CARD OF THEIR PREDECESSOR.  LOCAL 309
ALSO INCLUDED THE HANKES' BUSINESS IN THE LIST OF FIRMS FOR WHICH IT
URGED PATRONAGE IN ADVERTISEMENTS PUBLISHED IN THE WASHINGTON ORGAN OF
THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, DISTRIBUTED WEEKLY TO
MEMBERS.  AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF THE UNION SHOP CARD AND THESE
ADVERTISEMENTS, THE HANKES RECEIVED UNION PATRONAGE WHICH THEY
OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD. 

AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS AND DEMONSTRATORS LOCAL 882, CLOSELY AFFILIATED
WITH LOCAL 309 AND ALSO CHARTERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, INCLUDES IN ITS MEMBERSHIP PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS
OF SELLING USED CARS AND USED CAR SALESMEN IN SEATTLE.  THIS UNION
NEGOTIATED AN AGREEMENT IN 1946 WITH THE INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE DEALERS
ASSOCIATION OF SEATTLE, TO WHICH THE HANKES DID NOT BELONG, PROVIDING
THAT USED CAR LOTS BE CLOSED BY 6 P.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND ALL DAY ON
SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS AND EIGHT SPECIFIED HOLIDAYS.  THIS AGREEMENT WAS
INTENDED TO BE APPLICABLE TO 115 USED CAR DEALERS IN SEATTLE, ALL
EXCEPT TEN OF WHICH WERE SELF-EMPLOYERS WITH NO EMPLOYEES. 

IT WAS THE PRACTICE OF THE HANKES TO REMAIN OPEN NIGHTS, WEEKENDS AND
HOLIDAYS.  IN JANUARY, 1948, REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH LOCALS CALLED UPON
THE HANKES TO URGE THEM TO RESPECT THE LIMITATION ON BUSINESS HOURS IN
THE AGREEMENT OR GIVE UP THEIR UNION SHOP CARD.  THE HANKES REFUSED TO
CONSENT TO ABIDE BY THE AGREEMENT, CLAIMING THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE
TO CONTINUE IN BUSINESS AND DO SO, AND SURRENDERED THE UNION SHOP
CARD.  THE NAME OF THE HANKES' BUSINESS WAS THEREAFTER OMITTED FROM THE
LIST PUBLISHED BY LOCAL 309 IN ITS ADVERTISEMENTS. 

SOON AFTERWARDS THE LOCAL SENT A SINGLE PICKET TO PATROL UP AND DOWN
PEACEFULLY IN FRONT OF THE HANKES' BUSINESS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:30
A.M. AND 5 P.M., CARRYING A "SANDWICH SIGN" WITH THE WORDS "UNION
PEOPLE LOOK FOR THE UNION SHOP CARD" AND A FACSIMILE OF THE SHOP CARD. 
THE PICKET ALSO WROTE DOWN THE AUTOMOBILE LICENSE NUMBERS OF THE
HANKES' PATRONS.  AS A RESULT OF THE PICKETING, THE HANKES' BUSINESS
FELL OFF HEAVILY AND DRIVERS FOR SUPPLY HOUSES REFUSED TO DELIVER PARTS
AND OTHER NEEDED MATERIALS.  THE HANKES HAD TO USE THEIR OWN TRUCK TO
CALL FOR THE MATERIALS NECESSARY TO CARRY ON THEIR BUSINESS. 

TO RESTRAIN THIS CONDUCT, THE HANKES BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST LOCAL 309
AND ITS OFFICERS.  THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE PICKETING AND AWARDED THE HANKES A JUDGMENT OF $250, THE
SUM STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES TO BE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE OCCASIONED BY
THE PICKETING.  THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON AFFIRMED.  33 WASH.2D
646, 207 P.2D 206. 

THE BACKGROUND IN NO. 364 IS SIMILAR.  GEORGE E. CLINE ENGAGED IN THE
USED CAR BUSINESS IN SEATTLE, PERFORMING HIMSELF THE SERVICES OF HIS
BUSINESS HERE RELEVANT.  HE WAS INDUCED BY THE THREAT OF PICKETING TO
JOIN AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS LOCAL 882 IN 1946, AND IN THAT YEAR HE ALSO
BECAME A MEMBER OF THE INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF
SEATTLE WHICH NEGOTIATED WITH LOCAL 882 THE AGREEMENT AS TO BUSINESS
HOURS TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE. 

IN AUGUST, 1947, CLINE ADVISED LOCAL 882 THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO
CONTINUE MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION AND THAT HE WAS NO LONGER A MEMBER OF
THE INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION.  HE ANNOUNCED THAT HE
DID NOT CONSIDER HIMSELF BOUND BY THE AGREEMENT AS TO BUSINESS HOURS
AND THAT HE INTENDED TO OPERATE ON SATURDAYS.  WHEN CLINE PROCEEDED TO
DO SO LOCAL 882 BEGAN TO PICKET HIS BUSINESS. 

THE PICKETING WAS CONDUCTED PEACEFULLY, NORMALLY BY TWO PICKETS WHO
PATROLLED UP AND DOWN CARRYING "SANDWICH SIGNS" STATING THAT CLINE WAS
UNFAIR TO THE UNION.  THE PICKETS TOOK DOWN THE AUTOMOBILE LICENSE
NUMBERS OF CLINE'S PATRONS, AND WHEN INQUIRY WAS MADE BY PATRONS AS TO
WHY THEY WERE DOING SO, THEIR REPLY WAS:  "YOU'LL FIND OUT."  BECAUSE
OF INTERFERENCE BY THE PICKETS WITH THE USE OF ONE OF CLINE'S
DRIVEWAYS, HE WAS FORCED TO CLOSE IT TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF ONE OF
THE PICKETS BEING RUN OVER.  AS A RESULT OF THE PICKETING, CLINE'S
BUSINESS FELL OFF AND, AS IN NO. 309, DRIVERS FOR SUPPLY HOUSES REFUSED
TO DELIVER PARTS AND OTHER NEEDED MATERIALS.  CLINE HAD TO USE HIS OWN
VEHICLE TO CALL FOR SUPPLIES NECESSARY TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS. 

LOCAL 882 REACHED A NEW AGREEMENT WITH THE INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE
DEALERS ASSOCIATION IN APRIL, 1948.  AS A CONDITION TO REMOVAL OF THE
PICKET LINE, THE UNION DEMANDED THAT CLINE AGREE TO KEEP HIS BUSINESS
CLOSED AFTER 1 P.M. ON SATURDAYS AND TO HIRE A MEMBER OF THE UNION AS A
SALESMAN TO BE COMPENSATED AT THE RATE OF SEVEN PERCENT OF THE GROSS
SALES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE MADE BY CLINE OR THIS EMPLOYEE. 
SUIT BY CLINE TO RESTRAIN PATROLLING OF HIS BUSINESS RESULTED IN A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE UNION AND ITS OFFICERS - CLINE WAIVED
HIS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - AND THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON, RELYING ON
ITS DECISION IN THE HANKE CASE, AFFIRMED.  33 WASH.2D 666, 207 P.2D
216. 

IN BOTH THESE CASES WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER CLAIMS OF
INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS GUARANTEED BY THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  338 U.S. 903. 

HERE, AS IN HUGHES V. SUPERIOR COURT, ANTE, P. 460, WE MUST START
WITH THE FACT THAT WHILE PICKETING HAS AN INGREDIENT OF COMMUNICATION
IT CANNOT DOGMATICALLY BE EQUATED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  OUR DECISIONS REFLECT RECOGNITION THAT PICKETING IS
"INDEED A HYBRID."  FREUND, ON UNDERSTANDING THE SUPREME COURT
18(1949).  SEE ALSO JAFFE, IN DEFENSE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S PICKETING
DOCTRINE, 41 MICH. L. REV. 1037(1943).  THE EFFORT IN THE CASES HAS
BEEN TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE
ELEMENT OF COMMUNICATION IN PICKETING AND "THE POWER OF THE STATE TO
SET THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE CONTEST OPEN TO INDUSTRIAL COMBATANTS." 
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 104.  FN1  A STATE'S JUDGMENT ON
STRIKING SUCH A BALANCE IS OF COURSE SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  EMBRACING AS SUCH A JUDGMENT DOES, HOWEVER, A
STATE'S SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICIES, WHICH IN TURN DEPEND ON KNOWLEDGE
AND APPRAISAL OF LOCAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS, SUCH JUDGMENT ON
THESE MATTERS COMES TO THIS COURT BEARING A WEIGHTY TITLE OF RESPECT. 

THESE TWO CASES EMPHASIZE THE NATURE OF A PROBLEM THAT IS PRESENTED
BY OUR DUTY OF SITTING IN JUDGMENT ON A STATE'S JUDGMENT IN STRIKING
THE BALANCE THAT HAS TO BE STRUCK WHEN A STATE DECIDES NOT TO KEEP
HANDS OFF THESE INDUSTRIAL CONTESTS.  HERE WE HAVE A GLARING INSTANCE
OF THE INTERPLAY OF COMPETING SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND
VIEWPOINTS.  UNIONS OBVIOUSLY ARE CONCERNED NOT TO HAVE UNION STANDARDS
UNDERMINED BY NON-UNION SHOPS.  THIS INTEREST PENETRACTES INTO SELF
EMPLOYER SHOPS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME OF OUR PROFOUNDEST THINKERS
FROM JEFFERSON TO BRANDEIS HAVE STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE TO A DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY OF ENCOURAGING SELF-EMPLOYER ECONOMIC UNITS AS A COUNTER
MOVEMENT TO WHAT ARE DEEMED TO BE THE DANGERS INHERENT IN EXCESSIVE
CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER.  "THERE IS A WIDESPREAD BELIEF  ...
THAT THE TRUE PROSPERITY OF OUR PAST CAME NOT FROM BIG BUSINESS, BUT
THROUGH THE COURAGE, THE ENERGY AND THE RESOURCEFULNESS OF SMALL MEN
... AND THAT ONLY THROUGH PARTICIPATION BY THE MANY IN THE
RESPONSIBILITIES AND DETERMINATIONS OF BUSINESS, CAN AMERICANS SECURE
THE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF LIBERTY."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, DISSENTING IN LIGGETT
CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. 517, 541, 580. 

WHETHER TO PREFER THE UNION OR A SELF-EMPLOYER IN SUCH A SITUATION,
OR TO SEEK PARTIAL RECOGNITION OF BOTH INTERESTS, AND, IF SO, BY WHAT
MEANS TO SECURE SUCH ACCOMMODATION, OBVIOUSLY PRESENTS TO A STATE
SERIOUS PROBLEMS.  THERE ARE NO SURE ANSWERS, AND THE BEST AVAILABLE
SOLUTION IS LIKELY TO BE EXPERIMENTAL AND TENTATIVE, AND ALWAYS SUBJECT
TO THE CONTROL OF THE POPULAR WILL.  THAT THE SOLUTION OF THESE
PERPLEXITIES IS A CHALLENGE TO WISDOM AND NOT A COMMAND OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SENN V. TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE
UNION, 301 U.S. 468.  SENN, A SELF-EMPLOYED TILE LAYER WHO OCCASIONALLY
HIRED OTHER TILE LAYERS TO ASSIST HIM, WAS PICKETED WHEN HE REFUSED TO
YIELD TO THE UNION DEMAND THAT HE NO LONGER WORK HIMSELF AT HIS TRADE. 
THE WISCONSIN COURT FOUND THE SITUATION TO BE WITHIN THE STATE'S ANTI
INJUNCTION STATUTE AND DENIED RELIEF.  IN REJECTING THE CLAIM THAT THE
RESTRICTION UPON SENN'S FREEDOM WAS A DENIAL OF HIS LIBERTY UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THIS COURT HELD THAT IT LAY IN THE DOMAIN OF
POLICY FOR WISCONSIN TO PERMIT THE PICKETING:  "WHETHER IT WAS WISE FOR
THE STATE TO PERMIT THE UNIONS TO DO SO IS A QUESTION OF ITS PUBLIC
POLICY - NOT OUR CONCERN."  301 U.S. AT 481. 

THIS CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON THE COURT'S RECOGNITION THAT IT WAS
WISCONSIN, NOT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHICH PUT SUCH PICKETING AS A
"MEANS OF PUBLICITY ON A PAR WITH ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE PRESS."  FN2
301 U.S. AT 479.  IF WISCONSIN COULD PERMIT SUCH PICKETING AS A MATTER
OF POLICY IT MUST HAVE BEEN EQUALLY FREE AS A MATTER OF POLICY TO
CHOOSE NOT TO PERMIT IT AND THEREFORE NOT TO "PUT THIS MEANS OF
PUBLICITY ON A PAR WITH ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE PRESS."  IF WISCONSIN
COULD HAVE DEEMED IT WISE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE UNION THE PERMISSION
WHICH THIS COURT FOUND OUTSIDE THE BAN OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
SUCH ACTION BY WASHINGTON CANNOT BE INSIDE THAT BAN.  FN3 

WASHINGTON HERE CONCLUDED THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE RELIEF AFFORDED THE
HANKES AND CLINE ENTAILED RESTRICTION UPON COMMUNICATION THAT THE
UNIONS SOUGHT TO CONVEY THROUGH PICKETING, IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO
SAFEGUARD THE VALUE WHICH THE STATE PLACED UPON SELF-EMPLOYERS, LEAVING
ALL OTHER CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION OPEN TO THE UNION.  THE RELATIVELY
SMALL INTEREST OF THE UNIONS CONSIDERABLY INFLUENCED THE BALANCE THAT
WAS STRUCK.  OF 115 USED CAR DEALERS IN SEATTLE MAINTAINING UNION
STANDARDS, ALL BUT TEN WERE SELF-EMPLOYERS WITH NO EMPLOYEES.  "FROM
THIS FACT," SO WE ARE INFORMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON, "THE
CONCLUSION SEEMS IRRESISTIBLE THAT THE UNION'S INTEREST IN THE WELFARE
OF A MERE HANDFUL OF MEMBERS (OF WHOSE WORKING CONDITIONS NO COMPLAINT
AT ALL IS MADE) IS FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE INTERESTS OF INDIVIDUAL
PROPRIETORS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, TO THE END THAT
LITTLE BUSINESSMEN AND PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL BE FREE FROM DICTATION AS
TO BUSINESS POLICY BY AN OUTSIDE GROUP HAVING BUT A RELATIVELY SMALL
AND INDIRECT INTEREST IN SUCH POLICY."  33 WASH.2D AT 659, 207 P.2D AT
213. 

WE ARE, NEEDLESS TO SAY, FULLY AWARE OF THE CONTENTIOUS NATURE OF
THESE VIEWS.  IT IS NOT OUR BUSINESS EVEN REMOTELY TO HINT AT AGREEMENT
OR DISAGREEMENT WITH WHAT HAS COMMENDED ITSELF TO THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, OR EVEN TO INTIMATE THAT ALL THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
ARE EXPOSED IN THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE WASHINGTON COURT.  THEY
SELDOM ARE IN THIS FIELD, SO DECEPTIVE AND OPAQUE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF
THESE PROBLEMS.  THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IS MEANT BY RECOGNIZING THAT
THEY ARE WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF A STATE'S PUBLIC POLICY.  BECAUSE THERE
IS LACK OF AGREEMENT AS TO THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND DIVERGENT
INTERPRETATIONS OF THEIR MEANING, AS WELL AS DIFFERENCES IN ASSESSING
WHAT IS THE SHORT AND WHAT IS THE LONG VIEW, THE CLASH OF FACT AND
OPINION SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND NOT BY THE
JUDICIAL SWORD.  INVALIDATION HERE WOULD MEAN DENIAL OF POWER TO THE
CONGRESS AS WELL AS TO THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES.    IT IS NOT FOR US TO
PASS JUDGMENT ON CASES NOT NOW BEFORE US.  BUT WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THAT
ISSUES NOT UNLIKE THOSE THAT ARE HERE HAVE BEEN SIMILARLY VIEWED BY
OTHER STATES  FN4  AND BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,  FN5  WE
CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT WASHINGTON, IN HOLDING THE PICKETING IN THESE
CASES TO BE FOR AN UNLAWFUL OBJECT, HAS STRUCK A BALANCE SO
INCONSISTENT WITH ROOTED TRADITIONS OF A FREE PEOPLE THAT IT MUST BE
FOUND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CHOICE.  MINDFUL AS WE ARE THAT A PHASE OF
PICKETING IS COMMUNICATION, WE CANNOT FIND THAT WASHINGTON HAS OFFENDED
THE CONSTITUTION. 

WE NEED NOT REPEAT THE CONSIDERATIONS TO WHICH WE ADVERTED IN HUGHES
V. SUPERIOR COURT THAT MAKE IT IMMATERIAL, IN RESPECT TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE BEFORE US, THAT THE POLICY OF WASHINGTON WAS
EXPRESSED BY ITS SUPREME COURT RATHER THAN BY ITS LEGISLATURE.  THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LEAVES THE STATES FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THE POWERS OF
GOVERNMENT AS THEY WILL BETWEEN THEIR LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL
BRANCHES.  DREYER V. ILLINOIS, 187 U.S. 71, 83-84; PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC
COAST LINE CO., 211 U.S. 210, 225.  "(RIGHTS) UNDER THAT AMENDMENT TURN
ON THE POWER OF THE STATE, NO MATTER BY WHAT ORGAN IT ACTS."  MISSOURI
V. DOCKERY, 191 U.S. 165, 170-71. 

NOR DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRE PROHIBITION BY WASHINGTON
ALSO OF VOLUNTARY ACQUIESCENCE IN THE DEMANDS OF THE UNION IN ORDER
THAT IT MAY CHOOSE TO PROHIBIT THE RIGHT TO SECURE SUBMISSION THROUGH
PICKETING.  IN ABSTAINING FROM INTERFERENCE WITH SUCH VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENTS A STATE MAY RELY ON SELF-INTEREST.  IN ANY EVENT, IT IS NOT
FOR THIS COURT TO QUESTION A STATE'S JUDGMENT IN REGULATING ONLY WHERE
AN EVIL SEEMS TO IT MOST CONSPICUOUS. 

WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING,
312 U.S. 321, BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S.
769, AND CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. 293, DOES NOT
PRECLUDE US FROM UPHOLDING WASHINGTON'S POWER TO MAKE THE CHOICE OF
POLICY SHE HAS HERE MADE.  IN THOSE CASES WE HELD ONLY THAT A STATE
COULD NOT PROSCRIBE PICKETING MERELY BY SETTING ARTIFICIAL BOUNDS,
UNREAL IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO WHAT CONSTITUTES AN
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIP OR A LABOR DISPUTE.  FN6  SEE COX, SOME ASPECTS
OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 61 HARV. L. REV. 1,
30(1947).  THE POWER OF A STATE TO DECLARE A POLICY IN FAVOR OF SELF
EMPLOYERS AND TO MAKE CONDUCT RESTRICTIVE OF SELF-EMPLOYMENT UNLAWFUL
WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THOSE CASES.  INDEED IN WOHL THIS COURT EXPRESSLY
NOTED THAT THE STATE COURTS HAD NOT FOUND THAT THE PICKETING THERE
CONDEMNED WAS FOR A DEFINED UNLAWFUL OBJECT.  315 U.S. AT 774. 

WHEN AN INJUNCTION OF A STATE COURT COMES BEFORE US IT COMES NOT AS
AN INDEPENDENT COLLOCATION OF WORDS.  IT IS DEFINED AND CONFINED BY THE
OPINION OF THE STATE COURT.  THE INJUNCTIONS IN THESE TWO CASES ARE TO
BE JUDGED HERE WITH ALL THE LIMITATIONS THAT ARE INFUSED INTO THEIR
TERMS BY THE OPINIONS OF THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH THE JUDGMENTS BELOW COME BEFORE US.  SO READ, THE INJUNCTIONS ARE
DIRECTED SOLELY AGAINST PICKETING FOR THE ENDS DEFINED BY THE PARTIES
BEFORE THE WASHINGTON COURT AND THIS COURT.  TO TREAT THE INJUNCTIONS
OTHERWISE - TO TREAT THEM, THAT IS, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ISSUES
WHICH THEY REPRESENT - IS TO DEAL WITH A CASE THAT IS NOT HERE AND WAS
NOT BEFORE THE WASHINGTON COURT.  IN CONSIDERING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
PICKETING RECENTLY, WE HAD OCCASION TO REJECT A SIMILAR CLAIM OF
INFIRMITY DERIVED NOT FROM THE RECORD BUT FROM UNREALITY.  WHAT WE THEN
SAID IS PERTINENT NOW:  "WHAT IS BEFORE US  ...  IS NOT THE ORDER AS AN
ISOLATED, SELF-CONTAINED WRITING BUT THE ORDER WITH THE GLOSS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN UPON IT."  HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES'
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE V. WISCONSIN E.R.B., 315 U.S. 437, 441.  OUR
AFFIRMANCE OF THESE INJUNCTIONS IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE READING
DERIVED FROM THE WASHINGTON COURT'S OPINIONS.  IF ASTUTENESS MAY
DISCOVER ARGUMENTATIVE EXCESS IN THE SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTIONS BEYOND
WHAT WE CONSTITUTIONALLY JUSTIFY BY THIS OPINION, IT WILL BE OPEN TO
PETITIONERS TO RAISE THE MATTER, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT RAISED HERE, WHEN
THE CASES ON REMAND REACH THE WASHINGTON COURT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE ALABAMA STATUTE HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE THORNHILL CASE HAD BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE STATE
COURTS TO PROHIBIT PICKETING WITHOUT "EXCEPTIONS BASED UPON EITHER THE
NUMBER OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE PROSCRIBED ACTIVITY, THE PEACEFUL
CHARACTER OF THEIR DEMEANOR, THE NATURE OF THEIR DISPUTE WITH AN
EMPLOYER, OR THE RESTRAINED CHARACTER AND THE ACCURATENESS OF THE
TERMINOLOGY USED IN NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC OF THE FACTS OF THE DISPUTE." 
310 U.S. AT 99. 

FN2  THE COURT SAID:  "IN DECLARING SUCH PICKETING PERMISSIBLE
WISCONSIN HAS PUT THIS MEANS OF PUBLICITY ON A PAR WITH ADVERTISEMENTS
IN THE PRESS."  301 U.S. AT 479.  TO ASSUME THAT THIS SENTENCE IS TO BE
READ AS THOUGH THE PICKETING WAS PERMITTED BY WISCONSIN NOT AS A MATTER
OF CHOICE BUT BECAUSE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT COMPELLED ITS ALLOWANCE
IS TO ASSUME THAT SO CAREFUL A WRITER AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, THE
AUTHOR OF THE COURT'S OPINION, MEANT THE ABOVE SENTENCE TO BE READ AS
THOUGH IT CONTAINED THE BRACKETED INSERTION AS FOLLOWS:  "IN DECLARING
SUCH PICKETING PERMISSIBLE WISCONSIN (RECOGNIZED THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT) HAS PUT THIS MEANS OF PUBLICITY ON A PAR WITH ADVERTISEMENTS
IN THE PRESS."  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE BRACKETED
INTERPOLATION WHICH JUSTICE BRANDEIS DID NOT WRITE IS TO BE READ INTO
WHAT HE DID WRITE ALTHOUGH THEREBY ITS ESSENTIAL MEANING WOULD BE
ALTERED. 

FN3  OF COURSE, THE TRUE SIGNIFICANCE OF PARTICULAR PHRASES IN SENN
APPEARS ONLY WHEN THEY ARE EXAMINED IN THEIR CONTEXT:  "CLEARLY THE
MEANS WHICH THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES - PICKETING AND PUBLICITY - ARE NOT
PROHIBITED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  MEMBERS OF A UNION MIGHT,
WITHOUT SPECIAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION BY A STATE, MAKE KNOWN THE
FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE, FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS GUARANTEED BY THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE STATE MAY, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE
POWER, REGULATE THE METHODS AND MEANS OF PUBLICITY AS WELL AS THE USE
OF PUBLIC STREETS."  301 U.S. AT 478. 

FN4  SEE, E.G., BAUTISTA V. JONES, 25 CAL.2D 746, 155 P.2D 343;
DINOFFRIA V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND CHAUFFEURS, 331
ILL. APP. 129, 72 N.E.2D 635; SAVEALL V. DEMERS, 322 MASS. 70, 76
N.E.2D 12. 

FN5  SECTION 8(B)(4)(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, MAKES IT AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE FOR A UNION "TO ENGAGE IN  ...  A STRIKE ...  WHERE AN
OBJECT THEREOF IS:  (A) FORCING OR REQUIRING ANY EMPLOYER OR SELF
EMPLOYED PERSON TO JOIN ANY LABOR OR EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION."  61 STAT.
141, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 158(B)(4)(A).  SEE ALSO SEC. 10(L) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED, AND SEC. 303 OF THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT. 

FN6  AS TO THE COURT'S DUTY TO RESTRICT GENERAL EXPRESSIONS IN
OPINIONS IN EARLIER CASES TO THEIR SPECIFIC CONTEXT, SEE COHENS V.
VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264, 399-400; ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S.
126, 132-33. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS FOR SUBSTANTIALLY THE REASONS GIVEN IN HIS
DISSENT IN CARPENTERS & JOINERS UNION V. RITTER'S CAFE, 315 U.S. 722,
729-32. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS, DISSENTING. 

PETITIONERS IN EACH OF THESE CASES WERE "PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED AND
ENJOINED FROM IN ANY MANNER PICKETING" THE PLACES OF BUSINESS OF
RESPONDENTS.  THE PICKETING HERE WAS PEACEFUL PUBLICITY, NOT ENMESHED
IN A PATTERN OF VIOLENCE AS WAS TRUE IN MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION V.
MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, 312 U.S. 287; NOR WAS THERE VIOLENCE IN THE
PICKETING, AS IN HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE
V. WISCONSIN E.R.B., 315 U.S. 437.  THE DECREES ENTERED IN THE INSTANT
CASES WERE NOT TAILORED TO MEET THE EVILS OF THREATS AND INTIMIDATION
AS CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. 293, 295, INDICATES
THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN; NOR WERE THEY LIMITED TO RESTRAINT OF PICKETING
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORCING THE PERSON PICKETED TO VIOLATE THE LAW AND
PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE, AS WERE THE DECREES IN GIBONEY V. EMPIRE
STORAGE & ICE CO., 336 U.S. 490, AND BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION
V. GAZZAM, POST, P. 532, THIS DAY DECIDED.  THE ABUSES OF PICKETING
INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE CASES WERE HELD BY THIS COURT NOT TO BE PROTECTED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM STATE RESTRAINT. 

IT SEEMS EQUALLY CLEAR TO ME THAT PEACEFUL PICKETING WHICH IS USED
PROPERLY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PUBLICITY HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT IN
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106;
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321; BAKERY & PASTRY
DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769; AND CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES
UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. 293, TO BE PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE LAST THREE MENTIONED CASES
THIS COURT, AS THE MAJORITY IN ITS OPINION SAYS, "HELD ONLY THAT A
STATE COULD NOT PROSCRIBE PICKETING MERELY BY SETTING ARTIFICIAL
BOUNDS, UNREAL IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO WHAT
CONSTITUTES AN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIP OR A LABOR DISPUTE."  IF THE
STATES MAY SET BOUNDS, IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO SAY WHERE THEY SHALL
BE SET, UNLESS THE SETTING VIOLATES SOME PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  I UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE CASES TO HAVE FOUND VIOLATIONS OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND THE
PICKETING COULD NOT BE RESTRAINED BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD VIOLATE THE
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND PUBLICITY.  THIS VIEW IS PLAINLY STATED BY
THIS COURT IN CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. AT 295: 

"IN SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468, THIS COURT RULED THAT
MEMBERS OF A UNION MIGHT, 'WITHOUT SPECIAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION BY A
STATE, MAKE KNOWN THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE, FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH
IS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.'  301 U.S. AT 478.  LATER
CASES APPLIED THE SENN DOCTRINE BY ENFORCING THE RIGHT OF WORKERS TO
STATE THEIR CASE AND TO APPEAL FOR PUBLIC SUPPORT IN AN ORDERLY AND
PEACEFUL MANNER REGARDLESS OF THE AREA OF IMMUNITY AS DEFINED BY STATE
POLICY.  A.F. OF L. V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321; BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V.
WOHL, 315 U.S. 769." 

ALL THE RECENT CASES OF THIS COURT UPHOLDING PICKETING, FROM
THORNHILL TO ANGELOS, HAVE DONE SO ON THE VIEW THAT "PEACEFUL PICKETING
AND TRUTHFUL PUBLICITY" (SEE 320 U.S. AT 295) IS PROTECTED BY THE
GUARANTY OF FREE SPEECH.  THIS VIEW STEMS FROM MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS'
STATEMENT IN SENN THAT "MEMBERS OF A UNION MIGHT, WITHOUT SPECIAL
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION BY A STATE, MAKE KNOWN THE FACTS OF A LABOR
DISPUTE, FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION."  301 U.S. 468, 478.  IN THAT CASE JUSTICE BRANDEIS WAS
DEALING WITH ACTION OF WISCONSIN THAT PERMITTED PICKETING BY A LABOR
UNION OF A ONE-MAN SHOP.  OF COURSE, AS LONG AS WISCONSIN ALLOWED
PICKETING, THERE WAS NO INTERFERENCE WITH FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  BY
PERMITTING PICKETING THE STATE WAS ALLOWING THE EXPRESSION FOUND IN
"PEACEFUL PICKETING AND TRUTHFUL PUBLICITY."  THERE WAS IN THAT POSTURE
OF THE CASE NO QUESTION OF CONFLICT WITH THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  BUT
BECAUSE WISCONSIN COULD PERMIT PICKETING, AND NOT THEREBY ENCROACH UPON
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT COULD FORBID LIKE
PICKETING; FOR THAT MIGHT INVOLVE CONFLICT WITH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT JUSTICE BRANDEIS, FORESEEING THE
PROBLEM OF THE CONVERSE, MADE THE STATEMENT ABOVE QUOTED IN ORDER TO
INDICATE THAT PICKETING COULD BE PROTECTED BY THE FREE SPEECH GUARANTY
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS WHAT JUSTICE
BRANDEIS MEANT, I THINK THIS COURT HAS ACCEPTED THAT VIEW, FROM
THORNHILL TO ANGELOS.  IT SEEMS TO ME TOO LATE NOW TO DENY THAT THOSE
CASES WERE ROOTED IN THE FREE SPEECH DOCTRINE.  I THINK WE SHOULD NOT
DECIDE THE INSTANT CASES IN A MANNER SO ALIEN TO THE BASIS OF PRIOR
DECISIONS. 

THE OUTLAWING OF PICKETING FOR ALL PURPOSES IS PERMITTED THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON BY THE UPHOLDING OF THESE BROAD DECREES.  NO DISTINCTION IS
MADE BETWEEN WHAT IS LEGITIMATE PICKETING AND WHAT IS ABUSIVE
PICKETING.  "(HERE) WE HAVE NO ATTEMPT BY THE STATE THROUGH ITS COURTS
TO RESTRICT CONDUCT JUSTIFIABLY FOUND TO BE AN ABUSIVE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHT TO PICKET."  ANGELOS CASE, 320 U.S. AT 295. 

BECAUSE THE DECREES HERE ARE NOT DIRECTED AT ANY ABUSE OF PICKETING
BUT AT ALL PICKETING, I THINK TO SUSTAIN THEM IS CONTRARY TO OUR PRIOR
HOLDINGS, FOUNDED AS THEY ARE IN THE DOCTRINE THAT "PEACEFUL PICKETING
AND TRUTHFUL PUBLICITY" IS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF
THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  I RECOGNIZE THAT PICKETING IS MORE THAN
SPEECH.  THAT IS WHY I THINK AN ABUSE OF PICKETING MAY LEAD TO A
FORFEITURE OF THE PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH.  TESTED BY THE PHILOSOPHY
OF PRIOR DECISIONS, NO SUCH FORFEITURE IS JUSTIFIED HERE. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS IN THESE TWO CASES. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. REAL ESTATE BOARDS, 339 U.S. 485 


NO. 428.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1950.  - 84 F.SUPP. 
802, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  THAT NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INVOLVED IS NOT A BARRIER TO A SUIT
TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT INVOLVING PURELY
LOCAL CONDUCT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SINCE CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY
MADE SEC. 3 APPLICABLE TO SUCH CONDUCT AND HAD POWER TO DO SO UNDER
ART. I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ATLANTIC CLEANERS &
DYERS V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 427.  P. 488. 

2.  IF THE BUSINESS OF A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS "TRADE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, EVIDENCE THAT THE WASHINGTON REAL
ESTATE BOARD HAD ADOPTED STANDARD RATES OF COMMISSIONS FOR ITS MEMBERS,
THAT ITS CODE OF ETHICS REQUIRED MEMBERS TO MAINTAIN SUCH STANDARD
RATES, THAT MEMBERS AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE CODE, AND THAT THE
PRESCRIBED RATES WERE USED IN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF TRANSACTIONS,
ALTHOUGH THE BOARD HAD INVOKED NO SANCTIONS FOR DEPARTURE THEREFROM, IS
SUFFICIENT TO SHOW A PRICE-FIXING SCHEME VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 3.  PP. 488
489. 

(A)  THAT SUCH PRICE-FIXING MAY SERVE A WORTHY OR HONORABLE END IS
IMMATERIAL.  P. 489. 

(B)  THAT NO PENALTIES WERE IMPOSED FOR DEVIATIONS FROM THE PRICE
SCHEDULES IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 489. 

3.  THE BUSINESS OF A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS "TRADE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 489-492. 

(A)  THE SERVICES OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS CANNOT BE ASSIMILATED TO
THOSE OF EMPLOYEES, NOR CAN THE PRESENT CASE BE COMPARED TO THOSE
INVOLVING THE APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO LABOR UNIONS -
NOTWITHSTANDING SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT DECLARING THAT "THE LABOR OF
A HUMAN BEING IS NOT A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE OF COMMERCE" AND EXEMPTING
LABOR UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS FROM THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  PP. 489-490. 

(B)  THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF A REAL ESTATE BROKER INVOLVES THE
SALE OF PERSONAL SERVICES RATHER THAN COMMODITIES DOES NOT TAKE IT OUT
OF THE CATEGORY OF "TRADE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, WHICH IS AIMED AT THE FIXING OF PRICES AND OTHER UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINTS IN THE CASE OF SERVICES AS WELL AS GOODS.  PP. 490-491. 

(C)  THE ACTIVITY OF A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS COMMERCIAL AND CARRIED
ON FOR PROFIT; AND THE COMPETITIVE STANDARDS WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT
SOUGHT TO PRESERVE IN THE FIELD OF TRADE AND COMMERCE ARE AS RELEVANT
TO THE BROKERAGE BUSINESS AS TO OTHER BRANCHES OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. 
P. 492. 

4.  THAT APPELLEES WERE ACQUITTED IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS NO BAR TO THIS CIVIL
SUIT TO ENJOIN THE SAME CONSPIRACY, SINCE THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
IS NOT APPLICABLE.  HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391.  PP. 492-494. 

5.  THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS AND ITS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT DID NOT IN FACT
CONSPIRE WITH THE WASHINGTON BOARD TO FIX AND PRESCRIBE THE RATES OF
COMMISSION TO BE CHARGED BY MEMBERS OF THE LATTER IS SUSTAINED, SINCE
IT WAS NOT "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 52 OF THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  PP. 494-496. 

UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRCT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

IN A CIVIL SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN A CONSPIRACY TO
FIX RATES OF COMMISSIONS OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED FOR DEFENDANTS.  84 F.SUPP.  802.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, P. 496. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENJOIN
APPELLEES  FN1  FROM ENGAGING IN A PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, 26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 3.  FN2  THE
CORE OF THE CASE IS THE CHARGE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON REAL
ESTATE BOARD COMBINED AND CONSPIRED TO FIX THE COMMISSION RATES FOR
THEIR SERVICES WHEN ACTING AS BROKERS IN THE SALE, EXCHANGE, LEASE AND
MANAGEMENT OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

THE SAME CONSPIRACY WAS CHARGED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING N3.  THE
CRIMINAL CASE WAS TRIED FIRST.  AT THE END OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE THE
COURT GRANTED THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.  80
F.SUPP.  350.  APPELLEES THEN MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CIVIL
SUIT, CONTENDING THAT THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CASE IS
RES JUDICATA HERE.  THAT MOTION WAS DENIED.  FN4 

THE CIVIL CASE WAS THEN TRIED.  IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THE TRIAL
WOULD BE ON THE RECORD IN THE CRIMINAL CASE, THE UNITED STATES
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OFFER ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS.  NO EVIDENCE WAS
OFFERED BY APPELLEES.  THE COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLEES,
HOLDING THAT THE AGREEMENT TO FIX THE RATES OF BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS,
WHICH HAD BEEN SHOWN, WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  84 F.SUPP. 
802.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  32 STAT. 823, 62 STAT. 989, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 29. 

FIRST.  THE FACT THAT NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INVOLVED IS NOT A
BARRIER TO THIS SUIT.  SECTION 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT  FN5  IS NOT
LEVELED AT INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES ALONE.  IT ALSO PUTS BEYOND THE PALE
CERTAIN CONDUCT PURELY LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND CONFINED TO THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.  THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER SO TO LEGISLATE FOR THE
DISTRICT BY VIRTUE OF ART. I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
DID SO BY SEC. 3 WAS SETTLED BY ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED
STATES, 286 U.S. 427, 432-435. 

SECOND.  THE WASHINGTON BOARD HAS ADOPTED STANDARD RATES OF
COMMISSIONS FOR ITS MEMBERS - CHARGES WHICH COVER THE WIDE RANGE OF
SERVICES FURNISHED BY A REAL ESTATE AGENT.  THE BOARD'S CODE OF ETHICS
PROVIDES THAT "BROKERS SHOULD MAINTAIN THE STANDARD RATES OF COMMISSION
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD AND NO BUSINESS SHOULD BE SOLICITED AT LOWER
RATES."  MEMBERS AGREE TO ABIDE BY THIS CODE.  THE PRESCRIBED RATES ARE
USED IN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF TRANSACTIONS, ALTHOUGH IN EXCEPTIONAL
SITUATIONS A LOWER CHARGE IS MADE.  BUT DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESCRIBED
RATES HAS NOT CAUSED THE WASHINGTON BOARD TO INVOKE ANY SANCTIONS. 
HENCE THE DISTRICT COURT CALLED THE RATE SCHEDULES "NON-MANDATORY." 

ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID TO SHOW THAT UNDER OUR DECISIONS AN ILLEGAL
PRICE-FIXING SCHEME HAS BEEN PROVED, UNLESS THE FIXING OF REAL ESTATE
COMMISSIONS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT. 
PRICE-FIXING IS PER SE AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  IT IS NOT
FOR THE COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN PARTICULAR SETTINGS PRICE-FIXING
SERVES AN HONORABLE OR WORTHY END.  AN AGREEMENT, SHOWN EITHER BY
ADHERENCE TO A PRICE SCHEDULE OR BY PROOF OF CONSENSUAL ACTION FIXING
THE UNIFORM OR MINIMUM PRICE, IS ITSELF ILLEGAL UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT,
NO MATTER WHAT END IT WAS DESIGNED TO SERVE.  THAT IS THE TEACHING OF
AN UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL
CO., 310 U.S. 150, 218 ET SEQ.; UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES,
334 U.S. 131, 142, 143.  AND THE FACT THAT NO PENALTIES ARE IMPOSED FOR
DEVIATIONS FROM THE PRICE SCHEDULES IS NOT MATERIAL.  SEE EASTERN
STATES LUMBER ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600, 608-609; AMERICAN
COLUMN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 377, 411; FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. PACIFIC PAPER ASSN., 273 U.S. 52, 62.  SUBTLE INFLUENCES
MAY BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE AS THE THREAT OR USE OF FORMAL SANCTIONS TO
HOLD PEOPLE IN LINE. 

THIRD.  THE CRITICAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE BUSINESS OF A REAL
ESTATE AGENT IS INCLUDED IN THE WORD "TRADE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
3 OF THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT NOT.  IT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT
WHERE PERSONAL SERVICES ARE INVOLVED, A COMBINATION TO FIX THE PRICE OR
COMPENSATION IS LEGAL.  IT SEEMINGLY WAS INFLUENCED BY THE DECLARATION
IN SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 17, THAT
"THE LABOR OF A HUMAN BEING IS NOT A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE OF COMMERCE
...  NOR SHALL SUCH (LABOR) ORGANIZATIONS, OR THE MEMBERS THEREOF, BE
HELD OR CONSTRUED TO BE ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE, UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS."  BUT WE THINK IT A
MISCONCEPTION TO ASSIMILATE THE SERVICES INVOLVED HERE TO THOSE OF
EMPLOYEES OR TO COMPARE THE PRESENT CASE TO THOSE INVOLVING THE
APPLICATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO LABOR UNIONS.  CF. APEX HOSIERY
CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469; UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219. 
WE DO NOT HAVE HERE ANY MORE THAN WE DID IN AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN. V.
UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 519, OR UNITED STATES V. WOMEN'S SPORTSWEAR
MFRS.  ASSN., 336 U.S. 460, CF. COLUMBIA RIVER PACKERS ASSN. V. HINTON,
315 U.S. 143, AN ASPECT OF THE EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP TO WHICH
THE ANTITRUST LAWS HAVE MADE SPECIAL CONCESSIONS. 

MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON BOARD ARE ENTREPRENEURS.  SOME ARE
INDIVIDUAL PROPRIETORS; OTHERS ARE BANKS OR CORPORATIONS.  SOME MAY
HAVE NO EMPLOYEES; OTHERS HAVE LARGE STAFFS.  BUT EACH IS IN BUSINESS
ON HIS OWN.  THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS INVOLVES THE SALE OF PERSONAL
SERVICES RATHER THAN COMMODITIES DOES NOT TAKE IT OUT OF THE CATEGORY
OF "TRADE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT.  THE ACT WAS AIMED
AT COMBINATIONS ORGANIZED AND DIRECTED TO CONTROL OF THE MARKET BY
SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION "IN THE MARKETING OF GOODS AND SERVICES." 
SEE APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, SUPRA, P. 493. 

JUSTICE STORY IN THE NYMPH, 18 FED. CAS. 506, WHILE CONSTRUING THE
WORD "TRADE" IN THE COASTING AND FISHERY ACT OF 1793, 1 STAT. 305,
SAID, 

"THE ARGUMENT FOR THE CLAIMANT INSISTS, THAT 'TRADE' IS HERE USED IN
ITS MOST RESTRICTIVE SENSE, AND AS EQUIVALENT TO TRAFFIC IN GOODS, OR
BUYING AND SELLING IN COMMERCE OR EXCHANGE.  BUT I AM CLEARLY OF
OPINION, THAT SUCH IS NOT THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD, AS USED IN THE
32D SECTION.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE WORD 'TRADE' IS OFTEN, AND INDEED
GENERALLY, USED IN A BROADER SENSE, AS EQUIVALENT TO OCCUPATION,
EMPLOYMENT, OR BUSINESS, WHETHER MANUAL OR MERCANTILE.  WHEREVER ANY
OCCUPATION, EMPLOYMENT, OR BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROFIT, OR GAIN, OR A LIVELIHOOD, NOT IN THE LIBERAL ARTS OR IN THE
LEARNED PROFESSIONS, IT IS CONSTANTLY CALLED A TRADE.  THUS, WE
CONSTANTLY SPEAK OF THE ART, MYSTERY, OR TRADE OF A HOUSEWRIGHT, A
SHIPWRIGHT, A TAILOR, A BLACKSMITH, AND A SHOEMAKER, THOUGH SOME OF
THESE MAY BE, AND SOMETIMES ARE, CARRIED ON WITHOUT BUYING OR SELLING
GOODS." 

IT IS IN THAT BROAD SENSE THAT "TRADE" IS USED IN THE SHERMAN ACT. 
THAT HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT HOLDING OF THE DECISIONS.  THE FIXING OF
PRICES AND OTHER UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY
CONDEMNED IN CASE OF SERVICES AS WELL AS GOODS.  TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES (UNITED STATES V. FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 312; UNITED
STATES V. JOINT TRAFFIC ASSN., 171 U.S. 505), CLEANING, DYEING, AND
RENOVATING WEARING APPAREL (ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED STATES,
286 U.S. 427), THE PROCUREMENT OF MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICES
(AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 528), THE FURNISHING
OF NEWS OR ADVERTISING SERVICES (FARMER'S GUIDE CO. V. PRAIRIE CO., 293
U.S. 268; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1) - THESE
INDICATE THE RANGE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE
COVERED BY THE ACT.  IN ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 435, 437, THE COURT REJECTED THE VIEW THAT "TRADE" AS USED IN
SEC. 3 SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN THE NARROW SENSE WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE
PERSONAL SERVICES.  IT HELD, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND,
THAT SEC. 3 USED THE WORD IN THE BROAD SENSE IN WHICH JUSTICE STORY
USED IT IN THE NYMPH, SUPRA.  CHIEF JUSTICE GRONER MADE AN EXTENDED
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF THE PROBLEM IN UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN
MEDICAL ASSN., 72 APP. D.C. 12, 16-20, 110 F.2D 703, 707-711, WHERE THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HELD THAT THE PRACTICE OF
MEDICINE IN THE DISTRICT WAS A "TRADE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3 OF
THE ACT.  ITS CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE TERM INCLUDED "ALL OCCUPATIONS IN
WHICH MEN ARE ENGAGED FOR A LIVELIHOOD."  WE DO NOT INTIMATE AN OPINION
ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE APPLICATION OF THE TERM TO THE PROFESSIONS. 
WE HAVE SAID ENOUGH TO INDICATE WE WOULD BE CONTRACTING THE SCOPE OF
THE CONCEPT OF "TRADE," AS USED IN THE PHRASE "RESTRAINT OF TRADE," IN
A PRECEDENT-BREAKING MANNER IF WE CARVED OUT AN EXEMPTION FOR REAL
ESTATE BROKERS.  THEIR ACTIVITY IS COMMERCIAL AND CARRIED ON FOR
PROFIT.  THE FACT THAT NO GOODS ARE MANUFACTURED OR BOUGHT OR SOLD IN
THE PROCESS IS AS IRRELEVANT HERE AS IT WAS IN ATLANTIC CLEANERS &
DYERS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  NO REASON OF POLICY HAS BEEN ADVANCED
FOR READING SEC. 3 OF THE ACT LESS LITERALLY THAN ITS TERMS SUGGEST. 
THE COMPETITIVE STANDARDS WHICH THE ACT SOUGHT TO PRESERVE IN THE FIELD
OF TRADE AND COMMERCE SEEM AS RELEVANT TO THE BROKERAGE BUSINESS AS TO
OTHER BRANCHES OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. 

HOPKINS V. UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 578, AND ANDERSON V. UNITED
STATES, 171 U.S. 604, ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS CONCLUSION.  IT WAS HELD
IN THOSE CASES THAT COMMISSION MERCHANTS AND YARD TRADERS ON LIVESTOCK
EXCHANGES WERE NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE EVEN THOUGH THE
LIVESTOCK MOVED ACROSS STATE LINES (CF. STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S.
495), AND THEREFORE THAT THE RULES AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE MERCHANTS
AND TRADERS (WHICH INCLUDED IN THE HOPKINS CASE THE FIXING OF MINIMUM
FEES) DID NOT FALL UNDER THE BAN OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  BUT WE ARE NOT
CONFRONTED WITH THAT PROBLEM HERE.  AS NOTED, WE ARE CONCERNED HERE NOT
WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT WITH TRADE OR COMMERCE IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

FOURTH.  APPELLEES CLAIM THAT THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN THE
CRIMINAL ACTION IS RES JUDICATA IN THIS ACTION.  HELVERING V. MITCHELL,
303 U.S. 391, IS CONTRA AND RULES THIS CASE.  THERE MITCHELL HAD BEEN
TRIED AND ACQUITTED OF A CRIMINAL CHARGE OF WILFULLY ATTEMPTING TO
EVADE PAYMENT OF HIS INCOME TAX.  THEREAFTER SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO
COLLECT THE TAXES OWED PLUS A 50 PER CENT PENALTY FOR FRAUDULENT
EVASION.  THE ACQUITTAL IN THE CRIMINAL CASE WAS HELD NOT TO BE A BAR
TO THE COLLECTION OF THE PENALTY.  FN6  "THE DIFFERENCE IN DEGREE OF
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES" WAS HELD TO PRECLUDE
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IN THE CIVIL SUIT.  303
U.S. 397.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OVERCAME ALL REASONABLE DOUBT
OF THE GUILT OF APPELLEES.  FN7  THE RULING ON THEM DID NOT DETERMINE
WHETHER BY THE LESSER DEGREE OF PROOF REQUIRED IN A CIVIL CASE
APPELLEES MIGHT BE FOUND TO HAVE CONSPIRED TO FIX COMMISSIONS.  THE
CIVIL ACTION IS INDEPENDENT OF THE CRIMINAL CAUSE (STANDARD SANITARY
MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 52) AND IS REMEDIAL IN NATURE. 
IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THOUGH THE CIVIL SUIT IS BOTTOMED ON
THE SAME FACTS, IT IS NOT BARRED BY THE PRIOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN
THE CRIMINAL CASE.  SEE STONE V. UNITED STATES, 167 U.S. 178; MURPHY V.
UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 630; HELVERING V. MITCHELL, SUPRA.  THE RESULT
IS NOT ALTERED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE COURT IN RULING ON THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE STARTED WITH AN ERRONEOUS
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW. 

FIFTH.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT TWO OF THE APPELLEES - NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION AND HERBERT U. NELSON  FN8  - DID NOT CONSPIRE WITH THE
WASHINGTON BOARD TO FIX AND PRESCRIBE THE RATES OF COMMISSION TO BE
CHARGED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LATTER.  NO MORE PARTICULARIZED FINDINGS
WERE MADE.  APPELLANT ASKS US TO SET ASIDE THAT RULING.  THE QUESTION
IS WHETHER WE MAY DO SO IN LIGHT OF RULE 52 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH PROVIDES IN PART: 

"FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS,
AND DUE REGARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES." 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION IS A NATIONWIDE, INCORPORATED TRADE
ASSOCIATION OF WHICH THE WASHINGTON BOARD IS A MEMBER.  ACTIVE MEMBERS
OF THE WASHINGTON BOARD ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. 
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION HAS A CODE OF ETHICS WHICH INCLUDES AN ARTICLE
STATING THAT "THE SCHEDULES OF FEES ESTABLISHED BY THE VARIOUS REAL
ESTATE BOARDS ARE BELIEVED TO REPRESENT FAIR COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
RENDERED IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND SHOULD BE OBSERVED BY EVERY
REALTOR."  IT IS PROVIDED IN THE BY-LAWS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
(1) THAT EACH MEMBER BOARD SHALL ADOPT THE CODE OF ETHICS OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS A PART OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
VIOLATION OF WHICH DISCIPLINARY ACTION MAY BE TAKEN, AND (2) THAT ANY
MEMBER BOARD THAT NEGLECTS OR REFUSES TO MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE THE CODE
OF ETHICS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITIES OF ITS CONSTITUENT MEMBERS MAY
BE EXPELLED FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.  THE APPELLANT
ALSO POINTS TO EVIDENCE SHOWING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION IN DEVELOPING A NATIONAL SCHEDULE OF COMMISSIONS WHICH, IT
IS ALLEGED, WERE INFLUENTIAL IN SHAPING THE FEES ADOPTED BY THE
WASHINGTON BOARD IN 1944.    APPELLANT RELIES CHIEFLY ON THE CODE OF
ETHICS AND BY-LAWS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS IT CLEARLY MAY
(ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 8, 12), TO ESTABLISH THE
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
"CLEARLY ERRONEOUS" IN FINDING THAT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND NELSON
WERE NOT LACED INTO THE CONSPIRACY TO FIX THE COMMISSIONS IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE STATEMENT IN THE CODE OF ETHICS THAT THE
SCHEDULE OF FEES "SHOULD BE OBSERVED" IS SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS.  IT MAY BE
ADVISORY ONLY.  THE PROVISION OF THE BY-LAWS THAT VIOLATIONS OF THE
CODE OF ETHICS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION SHOULD BE THE BASIS OF
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST BOTH MEMBER BOARDS AND THEIR CONSTITUENT
MEMBERS IS AIMED AT THIRTY-FIVE ARTICLES OF THE CODE OF ETHICS, NOT
SELECTIVELY AT THE FEE PROVISION.  SO WE ARE LEFT SOMEWHAT IN DOUBT AS
TO THE EXTENT IF ANY TO WHICH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND NELSON WERE
ARCHITECTS OF THE FEE-FIXING CONSPIRACY OR PARTICIPANTS IN IT.  AT BEST
THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO IT IS, ON THIS RECORD, A SOMEWHAT ATTENUATED
ONE. 

IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT WE MIGHT GIVE THE FACTS ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION,
RESOLVE THE AMBIGUITIES DIFFERENTLY, AND FIND A MORE SINISTER CAST TO
ACTIONS WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT APPARENTLY DEEMED INNOCENT.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 338 U.S. 338, 342; UNITED STATES V.
GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364, 394-395.  WE ARE NOT GIVEN THOSE CHOICES,
BECAUSE OUR MANDATE IS NOT TO SET ASIDE FINDINGS OF FACT "UNLESS
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS." 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED EXCEPT AS TO THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND NELSON; AND AS TO THEM IT IS AFFIRMED.  SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS, A NATION-WIDE
INCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATION; HERBERT U. NELSON, ITS EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT; WASHINGTON REAL ESTATE BOARD, AN INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF
REAL ESTATE BROKERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.; AND 15 OF ITS MEMBERS
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS CONSISTING OF ALL
MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON BOARD. 

FN2  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR
CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE IN ANY TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
OR COMMERCE BETWEEN ANY SUCH TERRITORY AND ANOTHER, OR BETWEEN ANY SUCH
TERRITORY OR TERRITORIES AND ANY STATE OR STATES OR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, OR BETWEEN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AND ANY STATE OR STATES OR FOREIGN NATIONS, IS DECLARED ILLEGAL." 

FN3  THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED AGAINST THE WASHINGTON REAL ESTATE
BOARD AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS. 

FN4  AN APPEAL FROM THAT ORDER WAS DISMISSED.  85 U.S. APP. D.C. 165,
176 F.2D 631. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  SINCE THE COURT RULED THAT THE 50 PER CENT PENALTY WAS NOT A
CRIMINAL PENALTY BUT A CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION (303 U.S. 398
406), THE CASE WAS CONSIDERED DISTINCT FROM COFFEY V. UNITED STATES,
116 U.S. 436, WHICH HELD THAT THE FACTS ASCERTAINED IN A CRIMINAL CASE
AS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE CLAIMANT COULD NOT BE AGAIN
LITIGATED BETWEEN THEM IN A CIVIL SUIT WHICH WAS PUNITIVE IN
CHARACTER.  THE FACT THAT IN CASE OF CORPORATIONS DISSOLUTION CAN
RESULT FROM A CIVIL SUIT UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS DOES NOT MAKE THE
PROCEEDING ANY THE LESS REMEDIAL.  THE CIVIL SUIT AIMS TO PUT AN END TO
THE RESTRAINT, NOT TO IMPOSE PUNISHMENT FOR PAST ACTS.  SEE SCHINE
THEATRES V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 110, 128. 

FN7  THE MOTIONS APPARENTLY WERE MADE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHICH PROVIDES IN PART:  "MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.  MOTIONS FOR DIRECTED VERDICT ARE ABOLISHED AND
MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL SHALL BE USED IN THEIR PLACE.  THE
COURT ON MOTION OF A DEFENDANT OR OF ITS OWN MOTION SHALL ORDER THE
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OF ONE OR MORE OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION AFTER THE EVIDENCE ON EITHER SIDE IS CLOSED
IF THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION OF SUCH OFFENSE
OR OFFENSES." 

FN8  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

IF REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PROFESSIONS
OR FROM OTHER LABOR THAT IS PERMITTED TO ORGANIZE, THE COURT DOES NOT
IMPART ANY STANDARDS FOR SO DOING. 

IT IS CERTAIN THAT THOSE RENDERING MANY KINDS OF SERVICE ARE ALLOWED
TO COMBINE AND FIX UNIFORM RATES OF PAY AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE. 
THIS IS TRUE OF ALL LABORERS, WHO MAY DO SO WITHIN OR WITHOUT UNIONS
AND WHOSE UNIONS FREQUENTLY DO INCLUDE OWNERS OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT
EMPLOY OTHERS, SUCH AS AUTOMOBILE SALES AGENCIES.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. V. HANKE, ANTE, P. 470.  I
SUPPOSE THIS IMMUNITY IS NOT CONFINED TO THOSE WHOSE LABOR IS MANUAL,
AND IS NOT LOST BECAUSE THE LABOR PERFORMED IS PROFESSIONAL.  THE
BROKERAGE WHICH IS SWEPT UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS BY THIS DECISION IS
PERHAPS A BORDERLINE ACTIVITY.  HOWEVER, THE BROKER FURNISHES NO GOODS
AND PERFORMS ONLY PERSONAL SERVICES.  CAPITAL ASSETS PLAY NO GREATER
PART IN HIS SERVICE THAN IN THAT OF THE LAWYER, DOCTOR OR OFFICE
WORKER.  SERVICES OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER, IF NOT STRICTLY FIDUCIARY,
ARE AT LEAST THOSE OF A TRUSTED AGENT AND, OFTENTIMES, ADVISORY AS TO
VALUES AND PROCEDURES.  I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT FIXING UNIFORM FEES FOR
THE BROKER'S LABOR IS MORE OFFENSIVE TO THE ANTITRUST LAWS THAN FIXING
UNIFORM FEES FOR THE LABOR OF A LAWYER, A DOCTOR, A CARPENTER, OR A
PLUMBER.  I WOULD AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW. 
..END :









POWELL V. U.S. CARTRIDGE CO., 339 U.S. 497 


ARGUED DECEMBER 8-9, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1950.  - 174 F.2D 718 - 174
F.2D 730 - 171 F.2D 964, REVERSED. 


THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES OF A PRIVATE
CONTRACTOR OPERATING A GOVERNMENT-OWNED MUNITIONS PLANT UNDER A COST
PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  PP. 498-522. 

1.  SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  PP. 504-508. 

2.  SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  PP. 509-515. 

(A)  THE "TRANSPORTATION" OF MUNITIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
DESTINATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF THEIR PRODUCTION IS "COMMERCE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE MUNITIONS WERE
TRANSPORTED FOR USE OR CONSUMPTION AND NOT FOR SALE OR EXCHANGE.  PP.
511-512. 

(B)  THE MUNITIONS PRODUCED WERE "GOODS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ACT, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE PRODUCED FOR DELIVERY INTO THE ACTUAL
PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES AS THEIR ULTIMATE CONSUMER. 
PP. 512-515. 

3.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT OF JUNE 30,
1936, 41 U.S.C. SECS. 35 ET SEQ., ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, BUT ARE
MUTUALLY SUPPLEMENTARY.  PP. 515-520. 

4.  NEITHER THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 1171, 1172,
NOR THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR TAKEN PURSUANT THERETO EXCLUDES
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO SUCH EMPLOYEES. 
PP. 520-522. 

POWELL ET AL. V. UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE CO. 

NO. 96.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 79, AARON ET AL. V. FORD, BACON & DAVIS, INC., ON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT; AND NO. 58, CREEL ET AL. V. LONE STAR DEFENSE CORP., ON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW ARE STATED IN THE OPINION AT PP. 499
504.  THE JUDGMENTS BELOW ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES REMANDED, P.
522. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN EACH OF THESE CASES IS WHETHER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED, FN1  APPLIES TO A PERSON EMPLOYED BY
A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR AT A GOVERNMENT-OWNED MUNITIONS PLANT OPERATED BY
THE CONTRACTOR UNDER A COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT MADE WITH THE
UNITED STATES.  WE HOLD THAT THE ACT DOES APPLY BUT WE DO NOT REACH THE
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS BASED UPON IT. 

THIS ISSUE WAS ARGUED HERE IN KENNEDY V. SILAS MASON CO., 334 U.S.
249.  WE, HOWEVER, REMANDED THAT CASE AND WITHHELD DECISION OF THE
ISSUE, AWAITING A MORE SOLID BASIS OF FINDINGS.  ID. AT P. 257.  EACH
OF THE INSTANT CASES PRESENTS SUCH A BASIS. 

                       NO. 96(THE POWELL CASE). 

IN DECEMBER, 1940, THE UNITED STATES CONTRACTED WITH THE UNITED
STATES CARTRIDGE COMPANY, RESPONDENT HEREIN, AS "AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR AND IN NO WISE AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT" ON A COST-PLUS-A
FIXED-FEE BASIS TO OPERATE THE GOVERNMENT'S ST. LOUIS ORDNANCE PLANT IN
MISSOURI.  FN2 THE CONTRACT STATED THAT IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF
JULY 2, 1940.  FN3  IT PROVIDED THAT THE RESPONDENT WOULD OPERATE THE
GOVERNMENT'S PLANT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF CERTAIN TYPES AND QUANTITIES
OF SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION, THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REIMBURSE THE
RESPONDENT FOR ITS EXPENDITURES IN SUCH OPERATION AND, IN ADDITION, PAY
THE RESPONDENT A FIXED FEE BASED UPON THE TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF
AMMUNITION IT SUPPLIED.  THE TITLE TO THE SITE, PLANT, EQUIPMENT AND,
IN GENERAL, TO THE RAW MATERIAL, WORK IN PROGRESS AND FINISHED
MUNITIONS WAS TO BE IN THE GOVERNMENT.  FN4  MOST OF THE MATERIALS WERE
TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED EXPRESSLY FOR
THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT'S EXPENSES FOR LABOR.  THE
RESPONDENT, IN TURN, AGREED TO SUPPLY PRACTICALLY ALL SERVICES INCIDENT
TO THE SETTING UP OF AN EFFICIENT OPERATING FORCE AND TO THE OPERATION
OF THE PLANT UNTIL THE REQUIRED AMMUNITION HAD BEEN PRODUCED.  THE
RESPONDENT WAS MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR STORING THE MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND
FINISHED AMMUNITION AND FOR LOADING THE AMMUNITION ON CARS OR OTHER
CARRIERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S INSTRUCTIONS.  THE
AMMUNITION GENERALLY WAS SHIPPED BY COMMON CARRIER ON GOVERNMENT BILLS
OF LADING TO MILITARY DESTINATIONS OUTSIDE OF MISSOURI.  THE GOVERNMENT
RESERVED LARGE RIGHTS OF SUPERVISION, AUDITING AND INSPECTION TO BE
EXERCISED THROUGH ITS "CONTRACTING OFFICER."  THE EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING
THE PETITIONERS, WERE TO BE HIRED, ASSIGNED, DIRECTED, SUPERVISED, PAID
AND DISCHARGED BY THE RESPONDENT.  THE CONTRACT STATED EXPRESSLY THAT
ALL PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE WORK "SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL AND
CONSTITUTE EMPLOYEES OF THE CONTRACTOR  ...  "  IT QUOTED ALL OF THE
"REPRESENTATIONS AND STIPULATIONS" RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT DIRECTED BY
THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT.  FN5  UNDER IT, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER (SUBJECT
TO A RIGHT OF APPEAL) COULD REQUIRE THE RESPONDENT TO DISMISS ANY
EMPLOYEE WHOM HE DEEMED INCOMPETENT OR WHOSE RETENTION "IS DEEMED" NOT
TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE CONTRACT MADE NO EXPRESS REFERENCE
TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  HOWEVER, IN A BOOKLET WHICH WAS
DISTRIBUTED BY THE RESPONDENT, EACH EMPLOYEE AT THE ST. LOUIS ORDNANCE
PLANT WAS INFORMED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT "THERE WILL BE EIGHT HOURS
IN ANY WORKING DAY, AND FORTY HOURS WILL CONSTITUTE A WORKING WEEK. 
...  WHEN PRODUCTION DEMANDS REQUIRE A LONGER WORK DAY, OR LONGER WORK
WEEK, THE COMPANY WILL PAY THE LEGAL OVERTIME RATE AS PROVIDED UNDER
THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT, AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT." 

THE 59 INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS WERE EMPLOYED IN THE SAFETY DEPARTMENT
OF THE PLANT.  THEY ALLEGED THAT, UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,
THEY WERE ENTITLED TO OVERTIME PAY WHICH THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED.  THEY
SUED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI TO RECOVER THAT PAY, PLUS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND AN ATTORNEY'S
FEE.  THE RESPONDENT DENIED LIABILITY ON MANY GROUNDS, INCLUDING THOSE
THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DID NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYEES AT THE ST.
LOUIS ORDNANCE PLANT AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THESE PETITIONERS WERE NOT
ENTITLED TO ANY RECOVERY UNDER THAT ACT.  AFTER TRIAL, THE DISTRICT
COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE TOTAL SUM OF
$246,251.44(TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE OVERTIME PAY CLAIMED), PLUS $24,625
AS AN ATTORNEY'S FEE AND COSTS.  THE RESPONDENT MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL
TO THAT THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947,  FN6  WHICH HAD BEEN ADOPTED
FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT, MIGHT BE APPLIED TO THE
ISSUES.  THE MOTION WAS DENIED AND THE CASE WAS APPEALED.  WHILE THE
APPEAL WAS PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT, THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN KENNEDY V. SILAS MASON CO.,
SUPRA, WAS ANNOUNCED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS THEREUPON HEARD A
REARGUMENT OF THIS CASE WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN
THE SILAS MASON CASE.  SITTING EN BANC, IT REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT
AND HELD THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DID NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYMENT
AT THE ST. LOUIS ORDNANCE PLANT.  174 F.2D 718.  ALL SEVEN JUDGES HELD
THAT THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT APPLIED TO SUCH EMPLOYMENT TO THE EXCLUSION
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FOUR OF THOSE JUDGES ALSO JOINED IN
AN OPINION (P. 726) STATING THAT THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, HAD GIVEN
DISCRETION TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO DETERMINE WHAT OVERTIME
REGULATIONS SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO GOVERNMENT-OWNED PRIVATELY OPERATED
PLANTS AND THAT, THROUGH HIS ADOPTION OF THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT, HE HAD
RENDERED THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT INAPPLICABLE UNDER THIS
CONTRACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT REACH THE MERITS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 810. 

                       NO. 79(THE AARON CASE). 

THIS CASE PRESENTS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ISSUE AS THAT IN THE POWELL
CASE, BUT IT RELATES TO EMPLOYEES AT THE ARKANSAS ORDNANCE PLANT.  THE
ISSUE ARISES ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT,
RENDERED ON PLEADINGS, SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, ADMISSIONS OF FACT AND
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES.  THE PLANT WAS OPERATED BY THE RESPONDENT
UNDER A COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THE UNITED
STATES IN JULY, 1941, AND GENERALLY COMPARABLE, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES,
WITH THAT IN THE POWELL CASE.  THE PETITIONERS, 1,278 IN NUMBER, WERE
HANDLERS, CARRIERS AND PROCESSORS OF EXPLOSIVES, WHO CLAIMED ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FOR APPROXIMATELY 35
MINUTES BEFORE, AND 30 MINUTES AFTER, THEIR SCHEDULED WORK IN THE
PLANT.  THE RESPONDENT ANSWERED AND MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THREE
GROUNDS - THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENGAGED IN THE KIND OF WORK
THAT IS COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THAT THEY ARE NOT
WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT BECAUSE THEY WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND THAT, BY VIRTUE OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947,
THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN ANY EVENT. 

IN RENDERING JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT, THE DISTRICT COURT ADOPTED
ITS OPINION IN BARKSDALE V. FORD, BACON & DAVIS, 70 F.SUPP.  690. 
WITHOUT PASSING ON OTHER CONTENTIONS, IT THERE HELD THAT THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE, IN PROCESSING AND ASSEMBLING
MUNITIONS UNDER LIKE CONDITIONS, THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT BEEN ENGAGED
"IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT
ACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 174 F.2D
730, ON AUTHORITY OF ITS DECISION IN THE POWELL CASE, SUPRA.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 955. 

    NO. 58(THE CREEL CASE). 

THIS CASE, FROM THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, PRESENTS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
ISSUE AS DO THE POWELL AND AARON CASES.  THE ISSUE ARISES ON A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT, RENDERED BY THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ON PLEADINGS AND
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS.  HERE THE LONE STAR ORDNANCE PLANT, NEAR
TEXARKANA, TEXAS, WAS OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND OPERATED BY THE
RESPONDENT UNDER A COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THE
UNITED STATES IN JULY, 1941, COMPARABLE IN ITS MATERIAL FEATURES TO
THOSE IN THE POWELL AND AARON CASES.  THE PETITIONERS, SEVERAL HUNDRED
IN NUMBER, WERE EMPLOYED AT THE PLANT IN CAPACITIES SUCH AS THOSE OF
TRUCK DRIVERS, LIFT-FORK OPERATORS, LOADERS AND UNLOADERS.  THEIR
SERVICES WERE USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF MUNITIONS, SUCH AS SHELLS,
BOMBS, DETONATORS AND OTHER ORDNANCE ITEMS.  THE TITLE TO SUBSTANTIALLY
ALL OF THE RAW MATERIAL, WORK IN PROGRESS AND FINISHED PRODUCTS WAS IN
THE GOVERNMENT.  MOST OF THE MATERIALS WERE FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE FINISHED PRODUCTS WERE SHIPPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT
INSTRUCTIONS ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING TO MILITARY DESTINATIONS,
USUALLY OUTSIDE OF TEXAS.  THE PETITIONERS SUED FOR OVERTIME PAY
CLAIMED TO BE DUE THEM UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  QUOTING
FROM THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE BARKSDALE CASE, SUPRA,
THE TRIAL COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  171 F.2D 964.  IT STATED THAT THE
RESPONDENT, ON THE RECORD BEFORE IT, WAS AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT,
WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WAS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 923.  WE HEARD THIS CASE WITH THE POWELL AND
AARON CASES. 

THE UNITED STATES FILED A BRIEF AND ARGUED HERE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN
SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONERS ON THE LIMITED ISSUE NOW BEFORE US.

             I. THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE

                UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE

                      FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

IF THE PETITIONERS WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT EXCLUDES THEM FROM ITS COVERAGE.  FN7  A SIMILAR
DEFENSE IS PRESENTED THROUGH THE CLAIM THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOT
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS BUT WERE AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
REPRESENTING AND BINDING THE UNITED STATES AS THEIR PRINCIPAL IN THE
EMPLOYMENT OF PETITIONERS. 

IN EACH CONTRACT, THERE WAS A PROVISION COMPARABLE TO THE FOLLOWING
QUOTED FROM THE CONTRACT IN THE POWELL CASE: 

"ARTICLE I-E - AUTHORITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 

"IN CARRYING OUT THE WORK UNDER THIS TITLE I THE CONTRACTOR IS
AUTHORIZED TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT IN AND ABOUT THE
OPERATING AND CLOSING DOWN OF THE PLANT, OR ANY PART THEREOF, INCLUDING
(BUT NOT LIMITED TO) THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE WORK
HEREUNDER, (WHO SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL AND CONSTITUTE
EMPLOYEES OF THE CONTRACTOR), ...." 

EACH CONTRACT IS REPLETE WITH REFERENCES TO THE PERSONS EMPLOYED AS
THE "EMPLOYEES OF THE CONTRACTOR" OR "PERSONS EMPLOYED BY THE
CONTRACTOR." 

THE CONTRACT IN THE POWELL CASE CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL
CLAUSE: 

"ARTICLE III-A - STATUS OF CONTRACTOR. 

"IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND THE
GOVERNMENT THAT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK PROVIDED FOR IN THIS
CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND IN NO WISE AN
AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT." 

SUCH PROVISIONS ARE PERSUASIVE THAT THE PETITIONERS SHOULD BE
RECOGNIZED HERE AS EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPECTIVE RESPONDENTS AND THE
RESPONDENTS AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  THE RESPONDENTS ARGUE,
HOWEVER, THAT THE CONTEXT OF THE TIMES, OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
CONTRACTS AND THE PRACTICE UNDER THE CONTRACTS DEPRIVE THESE STATEMENTS
OF THEIR ORDINARY MEANING.  WE FIND, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT EACH OF
THESE SOURCES SUPPLIES ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THESE PROVISIONS
CORRECTLY STATE THE TRUE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND
RESPONDENTS. 

FOR EXAMPLE, WE FIND IN THESE CONTRACTS A REFLECTION OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO REFRAIN, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE,
FROM DOING ITS OWN MANUFACTURING AND TO USE, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE (IN
THE PRODUCTION OF MUNITIONS), THE EXPERIENCE IN MASS PRODUCTION AND THE
GENIUS FOR ORGANIZATION THAT HAD MADE AMERICAN INDUSTRY OUTSTANDING IN
THE WORLD.  FN8  THE ESSENCE OF THIS POLICY CALLED FOR PRIVATE, RATHER
THAN PUBLIC, OPERATION OF WAR PRODUCTION PLANTS.  THIS PURPOSE SHINES
THROUGH THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT IN THE POWELL CASE: 

"WHEREAS, THE GOVERNMENT DESIRES TO HAVE THE CONTRACTOR, AS AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ON A COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE BASIS, MAKE ALL
NECESSARY PREPARATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF SAID PLANT, INCLUDING THE
TRAINING OF OPERATING PERSONNEL  ...  BUT EXCLUDING THE PROCUREMENT AND
SUPERVISION OF THE INSTALLATION OF MANUFACTURING FACILITIES (TO BE
DONE, UNDER A LIKE CONTRACT, BY THE CONTRACTOR'S PARENT CORPORATION,
WESTERN CARTRIDGE COMPANY); AND OPERATE SAID PLANT; ...."    IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN SIMPLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE ORDERED ALL OF THIS
PRODUCTION TO BE DONE UNDER GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION AS WELL AS UNDER
GOVERNMENTAL OWNERSHIP.  TO DO SO, HOWEVER, MIGHT HAVE WEAKENED OUR
SYSTEM OF FREE ENTERPRISE.  WE RELIED UPON THAT SYSTEM AS THE
FOUNDATION OF THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SUPREMACY UPON WHICH ULTIMATE
VICTORY MIGHT DEPEND.  IN THIS LIGHT, THE GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY
SOUGHT TO INSURE PRIVATE OPERATION OF ITS NEW MUNITIONS PLANTS. 

IN THESE GREAT PROJECTS BUILT FOR AND OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT WAS
ALMOST INEVITABLE THAT THE NEW EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS WOULD BE
SUPPLIED LARGELY BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE PRODUCTS WOULD BE OWNED
AND USED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT WAS ESSENTIAL THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SUPERVISE CLOSELY THE EXPENDITURES MADE AND THE SPECIFICATIONS AND
STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY IT.  THESE INCIDENTS OF THE PROGRAM DID NOT,
HOWEVER, PREVENT THE PLACING OF MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBILITY UPON
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER BETWEEN THE WORKER AND THE
CONTRACTOR APPEARS NOT ONLY IN THE EXPRESS TERMINOLOGY THAT HAS BEEN
QUOTED.  IT APPEARS IN THE SUBSTANTIAL OBLIGATION OF THE RESPONDENT
CONTRACTORS TO TRAIN THEIR WORKING FORCES, MAKE JOB ASSIGNMENTS, FIX
SALARIES, MEET PAYROLLS, COMPLY WITH STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS
AND SOCIAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS AND "TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY OR
CONVENIENT IN AND ABOUT THE OPERATING AND CLOSING DOWN OF THE PLANT,
...  "  FN9 

THE INSERTION IN EACH OF THESE CONTRACTS OF THE REPRESENTATIONS AND
SPECIFICATIONS THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT WAS, IN
ITSELF, A RECOGNITION BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR OF THE INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR STATUS OF THE RESPONDENTS. 

THE PETITIONER-EMPLOYEES AND THE GOVERNMENT EXPRESSLY DISAVOW, IN
THEIR BRIEFS, ANY EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM.  THE MANAGERIAL
DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THE RESPONDENTS WERE THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS.  THAT
SUCH DUTIES BE PERFORMED BY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS WAS A VITAL PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S GENERAL PRODUCTION POLICY.  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE
CONSIDERATIONS, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE RESPECTIVE RESPONDENTS, IN FORM
AND IN SUBSTANCE, WERE THE EMPLOYERS OF THESE PETITIONERS WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FN10

           II.  PETITIONERS WERE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF

           GOODS FOR COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING        OF THE

           FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

BEFORE DISCUSSING THE DEFINITIONS ASSIGNED BY THE ACT TO THE WORDS
"COMMERCE" AND "GOODS," IT IS HELPFUL TO EXAMINE THE ACT AS A WHOLE IN
THE LIGHT OF THE TIME OF ITS ADOPTION.  IT WAS ADOPTED IN 1938, DURING
AN INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSION.  IT EXPRESSLY STATED ITS PURPOSES.  FN11
THIS COURT HAS FURTHER EXPOUNDED THEM.  FN12  IN THIS ACT, THE PRIMARY
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS NOT TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS SUCH. 
IT WAS TO ELIMINATE, AS RAPIDLY AS PRACTICABLE, SUBSTANDARD LABOR
CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT THE NATION.  IT SOUGHT TO RAISE LIVING STANDARDS
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING EMPLOYMENT OR EARNING POWER.  ROLAND
ELECTRICAL CO. V. WALLING, 326 U.S. 657, 669-670.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
MUNITIONS PLANTS PROVIDED AN APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THE BENEFICIAL
APPLICATION OF THE ACT'S STANDARDS OF WORKING CONDITIONS WITHOUT DANGER
OF REDUCED EMPLOYMENT THROUGH LOSS OF BUSINESS.  THIS ACT WOULD FAIL
MATERIALLY IN ITS PURPOSE IF IT DID NOT REACH THE PRODUCERS OF THE
TREMENDOUS VOLUME OF WARTIME GOODS DESTINED FOR INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  IN 1941-1945 THE MANUFACTURE OF MUNITIONS WAS A MAJOR
SOURCE OF EMPLOYMENT.  WAGES AND HOURS IN THAT INDUSTRY WERE A MAJOR
FACTOR IN FIXING THE LIVING STANDARDS OF AMERICAN LABOR. 

A. THE "TRANSPORTATION" OF MUNITIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
DESTINATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF THEIR PRODUCTION IS "COMMERCE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  THE ACT APPLIES TO "EMPLOYEES ...
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  FN13
THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE MUNITIONS WERE PRODUCED FOR
"COMMERCE" WHEN SUCH PRODUCTION WAS FOR TRANSPORTATION OUTSIDE OF THE
STATE AND FOR USE BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE PROSECUTION OF WAR, BUT
NOT FOR SALE OR EXCHANGE. 

"COMMERCE": 

"(B)  'COMMERCE' MEANS TRADE, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION,
OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR FROM ANY STATE TO ANY
PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF."  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 203(B). 

THIS DEFINITION IS AN EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER "TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, AND AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES,  ...  "  U.S. CONST. ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 3.  SUCH POWER HAS
BEEN HELD REPEATEDLY TO INCLUDE THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
SHIPMENTS OR TRANSPORTATION AS SUCH, AND NOT MERELY TO REGULATE
SHIPMENTS OR TRANSPORTATION OF ARTICLES THAT ARE INTENDED FOR SALE,
EXCHANGE OR OTHER TRADING ACTIVITIES.  FN14 

CONGRESS COULD HAVE EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED FROM THE ACT EMPLOYEES ENGAGED
IN PRODUCING GOODS FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION NOT LEADING TO A SALE
OR EXCHANGE.  CONGRESS ALSO COULD HAVE EXEMPTED EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
PRODUCING MUNITIONS FOR USE BY THE UNITED STATES IN WAR, RATHER THAN
FOR SALE OR EXCHANGE BY IT.  CONGRESS MIGHT EVEN HAVE EXEMPTED ALL
EMPLOYEES PRODUCING GOODS IN ANY GOVERNMENT-OWNED PLANTS.  HOWEVER,
CONGRESS STATED NO SUCH EXEMPTIONS.  ON THE CONTRARY, CONGRESS
INCLUDED, BY EXPRESS DEFINITION OF TERMS, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE FROM ITS COVERAGE THOSE
EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF MUNITIONS FOR
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION FOR USE OR CONSUMPTION, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
TRANSPORTATION OF THEM FOR SALE OR EXCHANGE. 

B. THE MUNITIONS PRODUCED WERE "GOODS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE
MUNITIONS WERE PRODUCED FOR COMMERCE, THEY WERE NOT "GOODS" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  SECTION 3(I) DEFINES "GOODS" AS FOLLOWS: 

"(I)  'GOODS' MEANS GOODS (INCLUDING SHIPS AND MARINE EQUIPMENT),
WARES, PRODUCTS, COMMODITIES, MERCHANDISE, OR ARTICLES OR SUBJECTS OF
COMMERCE OF ANY CHARACTER, OR ANY PART OR INGREDIENT THEREOF, BUT DOES
NOT INCLUDE GOODS AFTER THEIR DELIVERY INTO THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL
POSSESSION OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER THEREOF OTHER THAN A PRODUCER,
MANUFACTURER, OR PROCESSOR THEREOF."  52 STAT. 1061, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
203(I). 

RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT THIS LANGUAGE EXCLUDES THE PETITIONERS FROM
THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS WERE ENGAGED IN
PRODUCING MUNITIONS WHICH THEREAFTER, AND PRIOR TO THEIR INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION, WERE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE UNITED STATES AS THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMER.  THIS INTERPRETATION WOULD DEPRIVE THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTIONAL FACT - THAT AT THE TIME THE MUNITIONS WERE PRODUCED THEY
WERE INTENDED FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION - OF ITS COVERING EFFECT
MERELY BECAUSE THOSE MUNITIONS, UPON A LATER DELIVERY TO THE UNITED
STATES, WOULD THEN CEASE TO BE "GOODS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 

WE BELIEVE THAT THE CRUCIAL FACT WHICH ESTABLISHES THE COVERAGE OF
THE ACT IS THE STATUS OF THE MUNITIONS, AS "GOODS," DURING THE TIME
THEY WERE BEING PRODUCED.  THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE EXCLUSIONARY
CLAUSE IN SEC. 3(I), AND THAT WHICH BEST SERVES THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT, IS MERELY THAT, AFTER THE PRODUCTS SHALL HAVE BEEN DELIVERED INTO
THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THEIR ULTIMATE CONSUMER, THEY THEN
SHALL CEASE TO BE "GOODS."  THIS RETAINS THE IMPORTANT EFFECT THAT,
THEREAFTER, IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF SEC. 15(A)(1)  FN15  FOR THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMER TO TRANSPORT THE PRODUCTS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  THIS
INTERPRETATION WAS ADOPTED BY THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR.  1940 WH
MAN.  131, 133.  IT WAS READOPTED WITHOUT CHANGE IN THE JULY, 1947,
REVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATIONS.  12 FED. REG. 4585, 29
C.F.R. SEC. 776.7(H).  FN16 

WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT THE FACT THAT THE MUNITIONS WERE PRODUCED
FOR DELIVERY, INTO THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES
AS THEIR ULTIMATE CONSUMER, BEFORE THEIR SUBSEQUENT INTERSTATE
SHIPMENT, DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE EMPLOYEES WHO PRODUCED THE MUNITIONS OF
THE BENEFITS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IT IS NOT MATERIAL
WHETHER SUCH INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION WAS TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE OR
AFTER THE DELIVERY OF THE MUNITIONS TO THE UNITED STATES.  IN EITHER
EVENT, THE EMPLOYEES WERE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF "GOODS" FOR
"COMMERCE."  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD RESTRICT THE ACT NOT ONLY
ARBITRARILY BUT ALSO INCONSISTENTLY WITH ITS BROAD PURPOSES. 

III.  THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT AND THE FAIR LABOR

              STANDARDS ACT ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. 

THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT WAS ADOPTED ABOUT ONE YEAR AFTER THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT  FN17 HAD BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495.  SEEKING THEN TO
REGULATE WAGES AND HOURS OF EMPLOYEES, THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT KEPT WITHIN
A NARROW FIELD OF ASSURED CONSTITUTIONALITY.  IT PRESCRIBED THAT, IN
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OR FURNISHING OF MATERIALS,
SUPPLIES, ARTICLES AND EQUIPMENT IN ANY AMOUNT EXCEEDING $10,000, THE
CONTRACTOR PAY ITS EMPLOYEES NOT LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGES DETERMINED
BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TO BE THE PREVAILING MINIMUM WAGES FOR
PERSONS EMPLOYED ON SIMILAR WORK IN THE LOCALITY.  IT PRESCRIBED ALSO
THAT NO SUCH EMPLOYEES BE PERMITTED TO WORK IN EXCESS OF EIGHT HOURS IN
ANY ONE DAY OR IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS IN ANY ONE WEEK,  FN18  THAT NO
MALE PERSON UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE, NO FEMALE PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF
AGE AND NO CONVICT LABOR BE EMPLOYED BY THE CONTRACTOR, AND THAT NO
PART OF THE CONTRACT BE PERFORMED OR ANY OF THE MATERIAL, SUPPLIES,
ARTICLES OR EQUIPMENT BE MANUFACTURED OR FABRICATED UNDER WORKING
CONDITIONS UNSANITARY, HAZARDOUS OR DANGEROUS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF THE EMPLOYEES. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 WAS PASSED NEARLY TWO YEARS
LATER BY THE NEXT CONGRESS.  IT PRESENTED A DIFFERENT AND BROADER
APPROACH.  IT WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO PUBLIC CONTRACTS.  THE SPONSOR OF
THE BILL STATED THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO CARRY OUT THE SUGGESTIONS MADE
BY THE PRESIDENT IN HIS MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.  81 CONG. REC. 4960,
4961(1937).  IN THAT MESSAGE, THE PRESIDENT SAID: 

"  ...  TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS OF FREE LABOR AND A FREE
PEOPLE WE PROPOSE THAT ONLY GOODS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED UNDER
CONDITIONS WHICH MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF FREE LABOR SHALL BE
ADMITTED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  GOODS PRODUCED UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH
DO NOT MEET RUDIMENTARY STANDARDS OF DECENCY SHOULD BE REGARDED AS
CONTRABAND AND OUGHT NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO POLLUTE THE CHANNELS OF
INTERSTATE TRADE." 

THE ACT DECLARED ITS PURPOSES IN BOLD AND SWEEPING TERMS.  FN19
BREADTH OF COVERAGE WAS VITAL TO ITS MISSION.  ITS SCOPE WAS STATED IN
TERMS OF SUBSTANTIAL UNIVERSALITY AMPLY BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE
EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS WORKING ON PUBLIC PROJECTS AS WELL AS
ON PRIVATE PROJECTS.  WHERE EXCEPTIONS WERE MADE, THEY WERE NARROW AND
SPECIFIC.  IT INCLUDED AS EMPLOYEES "ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY AN
EMPLOYER" (SEC. 3(E)), AND DEFINED AN EMPLOYER SO AS AMPLY TO COVER AN
INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION EMPLOYING PERSONS ON PUBLIC CONTRACTS, WHILE
EXPRESSLY EXCLUDING, AS AN EMPLOYER, "THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE OR
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF A STATE,  ...  " (SEC. 3(A) AND (D)).  IT
DEVOTED SEC. 13 TO LISTING EXEMPTIONS OF SPECIFIC CLASSES OF
EMPLOYEES.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT EXEMPTED ANY SEAMAN, ANY EMPLOYEE OF A
CARRIER BY AIR SUBJECT TO TITLE II OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND ANY
EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE.  IT EXEMPTED CERTAIN EMPLOYEES UNDER
SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935,  FN20  BUT LIMITED THEIR
EXEMPTION TO THE MAXIMUM HOUR PROVISIONS IN SEC. 7.  IT ALSO EXEMPTED
ANY EMPLOYEE OF AN EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO PART I OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  SUCH SPECIFICITY IN STATING EXEMPTIONS STRENGTHENS THE
IMPLICATION THAT EMPLOYEES NOT THUS EXEMPTED, SUCH AS EMPLOYEES OF
PRIVATE CONTRACTORS UNDER PUBLIC CONTRACTS, REMAIN WITHIN THE ACT. 

THE ACT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT AS TO THE
RELATION OF ITS PROVISIONS TO OTHER LAWS:

"RELATION TO OTHER LAWS 

"SEC. 18.  NO PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR OF ANY ORDER THEREUNDER SHALL
EXCUSE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ANY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW OR MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM WAGE HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE
ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS ACT OR A MAXIMUM WORKWEEK LOWER THAN THE MAXIMUM
WORKWEEK ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS ACT, AND NO PROVISION OF THIS ACT
RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF CHILD LABOR SHALL JUSTIFY NONCOMPLIANCE
WITH ANY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW OR MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A
HIGHER STANDARD THAN THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS ACT.  NO
PROVISION OF THIS ACT SHALL JUSTIFY ANY EMPLOYER IN REDUCING A WAGE
PAID BY HIM WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE APPLICABLE MINIMUM WAGE UNDER
THIS ACT, OR JUSTIFY ANY EMPLOYER IN INCREASING HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT
MAINTAINED BY HIM WHICH ARE SHORTER THAN THE MAXIMUM HOURS APPLICABLE
UNDER THIS ACT."  52 STAT. 1069, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 218. 

THE ABOVE LANGUAGE DISCLOSES A CONGRESSIONAL AWARENESS THAT THE
COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OVERLAPS THAT OF OTHER FEDERAL
LEGISLATION AFFECTING LABOR STANDARDS.  IN OTHER ENACTMENTS WE FIND
COLLATERAL RECOGNITION THAT THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT MIGHT APPLY TO THE
SAME EMPLOYMENT AS THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  AN AMENDMENT TO THE
WALSH-HEALEY ACT, IN 1942, RECOGNIZED THIS POSSIBILITY.  FN21
SIMILARLY, THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947 INDICATED THAT PERSONS
EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, AND THUS PROTECTED BY THE WALSH
HEALEY ACT, WERE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  FN22 

DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT THE TWO STATUTES DEFINE OVERLAPPING AREAS,
RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THEY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS BEING MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE.  THERE HAS BEEN NO PRESENTATION OF INSTANCES, HOWEVER, WHERE
COMPLIANCE WITH ONE ACT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE OTHER. 
THERE HAS BEEN NO DEMONSTRATION OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF DETERMINING, IN
EACH INSTANCE, THE RESPECTIVE WAGE REQUIREMENTS UNDER EACH ACT AND THEN
APPLYING THE HIGHER REQUIREMENT AS SATISFYING BOTH. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS PRESENTED, AS A CONSIDERED ANALYSIS OF THE
OVERLAPPING EFFECTS OF THESE ACTS, EXCERPTS FROM THE MANUAL OF
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF CONTRACTS (WAR DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE, 1941).  THESE ARE PUBLISHED IN THE
APPENDIX TO THE BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES.  THEIR FORTHRIGHT TREATMENT
AND DETAILED SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS OF THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE
SUPPLEMENTARY USE OF THE TWO ACTS ARE IMPRESSIVE. 

IN SOME, AND PROBABLY MOST, INSTANCES, THE "PREVAILING MINIMUM WAGES"
REQUIRED BY THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT WERE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO EMPLOYEES
THAN THE MINIMUM WAGES PRESCRIBED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AT
THE TIMES HERE UNDER REVIEW.  FN23  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REMEDIAL
PROCEDURE UNDER THE LATER ACT WAS GENERALLY MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO
EMPLOYEES THAN THE PROCEDURE UNDER THE EARLIER ACT. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ACTS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.  THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT TO THE CONTRACTS BEFORE US
THEREFORE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT TO EMPLOYEES UNDER THE SAME CONTRACTS.  WE FIND THE ACTS TO BE
MUTUALLY SUPPLEMENTARY. 

IV.  NEITHER THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, NOR THE ACTION   OF

         THE SECRETARY OF WAR TAKEN PURSUANT TO IT      EXCLUDES

           THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR   LABOR

           STANDARDS ACT. 

WE FIND IN THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940,  FN24  NO SUCH RECOGNITION OF THE
UNIQUENESS OF WAR DEPARTMENT CONTRACTS FOR THE PRIVATE OPERATION OF
GOVERNMENT-OWNED MUNITIONS PLANTS AS IS CLAIMED IN THE CONCURRING
OPINION BELOW IN THE POWELL CASE.  FN25  WITHOUT MORE SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS THAN THIS ACT CONTAINS, WE CANNOT INTERPRET IT AS EXCLUDING,
OR AS GRANTING, AUTHORITY TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS TO EXCLUDE, EMPLOYEES
IN SUCH PLANTS FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE GENERAL WAGE AND HOUR
PROVISIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED IN THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT AND
MORE FULLY AND RECENTLY IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.    THE
PURPOSES OF THIS TEMPORARY ACT OF 1940 WERE THE CLARIFICATION OF THE
CONTRACT-MAKING AUTHORITY OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT UNDER EXISTING GENERAL
LAW, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS AS WERE EXPRESSLY NOTED, THE ELIMINATION OF
CERTAIN HAZARDS, AND THE MAKING OF ADDITIONAL GRANTS OF EMERGENCY
AUTHORITY TO THE PRESIDENT.  FOR EXAMPLE, THIS ACT REFERRED EXPRESSLY
TO THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT AS APPLICABLE TO THE NEW WAR DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTS WHEN ENTERED INTO WITH OR WITHOUT ADVERTISING.  THIS WAS
HELPFUL BECAUSE, WHEN THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT WAS ADOPTED, THE CONTRACTS
TO WHICH IT APPLIED DID NOT INCLUDE CONTRACTS NEGOTIATED WITHOUT
ADVERTISING FOR COMPETITIVE BIDS.  SIMILARLY, THE 1940 ACT EXPRESSLY
SUSPENDED CERTAIN SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS ON THE WAR DEPARTMENT, E.G.,
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF ESTIMATES AND THE MAKING
OF APPROPRIATIONS PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
BUILDINGS (SEC. 1(A)), RESTRICTIONS ON LEASING (SEC. 1(B)),
RESTRICTIONS ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL (SEC. 2(B)), LIMITATIONS ON
THE NUMBER OF SERVICEABLE AIRCRAFT (SEC. 3), AND RESTRICTIONS AS TO
CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES (SEC. 4(A)).  NO SUGGESTION WAS MADE OF A
SUSPENSION OF PART OR ALL OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, NOR WAS
ANYTHING AUTHORIZED THAT WOULD VIOLATE THAT ACT. 

THE SINGLE REFERENCE MADE IN THE 1940 ACT TO THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT WAS
TO INSURE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE LATTER ACT TO NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS. 
THIS APPEARS FROM THE FOLLOWING REVEALING STATEMENT MADE ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE BY SENATOR WAGNER, THE AUTHOR OF THE AMENDMENT CONTAINING
THE REFERENCE: 

"A QUESTION HAS ARISEN - AND THE AMENDMENT IS SIMPLY TO REMOVE THE
AMBIGUITY - AS TO WHETHER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT, WHICH IS NOW DEFINITELY
APPLICABLE TO A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES AS A RESULT OF
ADVERTISING, WILL ALSO APPLY TO A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT.  ... 

"  ...  UNLESS THIS AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED WE WOULD HAVE THIS ANOMALOUS
SITUATION:  UNDER A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THE GOVERNMENT AS THE
RESULT OF PUBLIC BIDDING ONE SET OF MINIMUM WAGES, THAT IS, THE
PREVAILING WAGES  WOULD BE APPLIED, WHEREAS UNDER ANOTHER CONTRACT
ENTERED INTO AS A RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS, A MUCH LOWER MINIMUM WAGE
WOULD BE PAID, THAT IS, THE FLAT MINIMUM UNDER THE WAGE AND HOUR ACT
(THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT).  THIS SITUATION WOULD PRESENT AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPLOITATION, SINCE A CONTRACTOR UNDER A NEGOTIATED
CONTRACT MIGHT BE PAYING WAGES IN SOME INSTANCES 25 PERCENT TO 75
PERCENT BELOW THOSE REQUIRED UNDER THE HEALEY-WALSH ACT.  I AM SURE
THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT TO INVITE ANY SUCH EXPLOITATION."  86 CONG. REC.
7924(1940). 

SEE ALSO, 86 CONG. REC. 7839-7843, AND H.R. REP. NO. 2685, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS. 1(1940). 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS,
INCLUDING THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THE STATEMENT OF LABOR POLICY
ISSUED BY THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS IN 1942,  FN26  BUT WE DO NOT
FIND IN THEM A CONVINCING REFUTATION OF THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS.  WE,
ACCORDINGLY, FIND THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AS
AMENDED, IS APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN EACH OF THE INSTANT
CASES.  WE DO NOT REACH THE VALIDITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF THE
PETITIONERS MADE IN RELIANCE UPON THAT ACT. 

IN NO. 96, POWELL ET AL. V. THE UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE COMPANY, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED
TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERRORS ASSERTED ON
APPEAL BUT NOT REVIEWED BY THAT COURT. 

IN NO. 79, AARON ET AL. V. FORD, BACON AND DAVIS, AND IN NO. 58,
CREEL V. LONE STAR DEFENSE CORPORATION, THE JUDGMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE
COURTS OF APPEALS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED TO THE
RESPECTIVE DISTRICT COURTS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH
THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, ET SEQ., 53 STAT. 1266, 54 STAT. 615-616, 55
STAT. 756, 61 STAT. 87, 63 STAT. 446, 910-920, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 201-219,
29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 201-217. 

FN2  CONGRESS CHARGED THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS WITH THE OPERATION
OF ABOUT 100 GIANT GOVERNMENT-OWNED MUNITIONS PLANTS.  THOSE
DEPARTMENTS HAD THE OPTION OF OPERATING THEM THEMSELVES OR THROUGH
COMMERCIAL CONTRACTORS.  SO AS TO UTILIZE FULLY THE LABOR AND
MANAGEMENT RESOURCES OF THE NATION AND TO MINIMIZE ENCROACHMENT UPON
ITS INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE, BOTH DEPARTMENTS CHOSE THE LATTER COURSE.  AS
TO THE GENERAL WAR PRODUCTION POLICIES, SEE LICHTER V. UNITED STATES,
334 U.S. 742, 767-768.  OUT OF 143 BILLION DOLLARS OF CONTRACTS MADE BY
THE WAR DEPARTMENT BETWEEN 1941 AND 1946, OVER 40 BILLIONS WERE COST
PLUS CONTRACTS.  OUT OF 68 BILLION DOLLARS OF NAVY CONTRACTS, 18
BILLIONS WERE COST-PLUS CONTRACTS.  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. NO. 70, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
422-423, 624-626(1947).  THE QUOTATION IN THE TEXT IS FROM THE CONTRACT
IN THIS CASE, SEE P. 505, INFRA. 

FN3  54 STAT. 712-714, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 1171, 1172. 

FN4  ARTICLE III-F, P3 OF THE CONTRACT STATED THAT: 

"THE TITLE TO ALL WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT, COMPLETED OR IN THE
COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OR MANUFACTURE, AND TO ALL THE AMMUNITION
MANUFACTURED OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MANUFACTURED, SHALL BE IN THE
GOVERNMENT.  LIKEWISE, UPON DELIVERY AT THE SITE OF THE WORK, OR AT AN
APPROVED STORAGE SITE, TITLE TO ALL PURCHASED MATERIALS, TOOLS,
MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES, FOR WHICH THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED UNDER TITLE II HEREOF, SHALL VEST IN THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BEAR ALL RISK INCIDENT TO SUCH
OWNERSHIP.  THESE PROVISIONS AS TO TITLE BEING VESTED IN THE GOVERNMENT
SHALL NOT OPERATE HOWEVER, TO RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM ANY DUTIES
IMPOSED UPON IT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT." 

FN5  ADOPTED JUNE 30, 1936, 49 STAT. 2036, ET SEQ., 41 U.S.C. SEC.
35, ET SEQ. 

FN6  61 STAT. 84-90, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 216, 251-262. 

FN7  "SEC.  3.  AS USED IN THIS ACT - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(D)  'EMPLOYER' INCLUDES ANY PERSON ACTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN
THE INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO AN EMPLOYEE BUT SHALL NOT
INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF A
STATE,  ... 

"(E)  'EMPLOYEE' INCLUDES ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY AN EMPLOYER." 
52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 203(D) AND (E). 

FN8  FOR A REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WAR PRODUCTION PROGRAM
AND ITS RELIANCE ON PRIVATE INDUSTRY, SEE LICHTER V. UNITED STATES, 334
U.S. 742, 758-766. 

FN9  IF THE WORKERS WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, STATE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS AND OTHER COMPARABLE LAWS WOULD BE
INAPPLICABLE.  IN THE ST. LOUIS AND ARKANSAS ORDNANCE PLANTS THE
CONTRACTOR, IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIPS BEING ESTABLISHED,
ISSUED A BOOKLET TO EACH NEW EMPLOYEE.  THE MANUAL THUS USED AT THE ST.
LOUIS PLANT IS ENTITLED "YOUR JOB WITH THE ST. LOUIS ORDNANCE PLANT." 
IT OPENS WITH THE STATEMENT "EVERY PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEE OF UNITED
STATES CARTRIDGE COMPANY SHOULD READ THIS BOOKLET DESCRIBING THE
COMPANY'S POLICY AND PROCEDURE."  IT DESCRIBES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE COMPANY AND "OUR EMPLOYEES."  FOR
EXAMPLE, IT SAYS "THE COMPANY  ...  IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT FOR AMMUNITION PRODUCTION, TO THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS IN
MAINTAINING A SUCCESSFUL CIVIC ENTERPRISE, AND TO OUR EMPLOYEES, FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WORKING CONDITIONS CONDUCIVE TO THE HEALTH AND
HAPPINESS OF EACH MAN AND WOMAN EMPLOYED IN THE PLANT."  IT EXPLAINS
THE FINANCIAL BASIS OF ITS COST-PLUS CONTRACT OF MANAGEMENT AS FOLLOWS:
"IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, YOUR WAGES COME FROM THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, WHOSE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME IS TAXES COLLECTED FROM YOU AND
ALL OTHER CITIZENS.  THE UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE COMPANY IS MERELY
MANAGING THE PLANT FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."  IT ADDS THAT "WHEN
PRODUCTION DEMANDS REQUIRE A LONGER WORK DAY, OR LONGER WORK WEEK, THE
COMPANY WILL PAY THE LEGAL OVERTIME RATE AS PROVIDED UNDER THE WALSH
HEALEY ACT, AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT." 

FN10  SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF CIRCUIT JUDGE HUTCHESON IN
KENNEDY V. SILAS MASON CO., 164 F.2D 1016, 1019-1920(C.A.5TH CIR.), THE
REASONING OF WHICH IS IN ACCORD WITH OUR DECISION:  "HERE THE WHOLE
ELABORATE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED AND OPERATED SO THAT THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD NOT BE THE EMPLOYER."  ID. AT P. 1020.  CF. CURRY V. UNITED
STATES, 314 U.S. 14, AND ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1.  THOSE
CASES HELD THAT THE CONTRACTORS, UNDER GOVERNMENT COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE
CONTRACTS, WERE, AS SUCH, SUBJECT TO STATE USE TAXES AND STATE SALES
TAXES. 

FN11  "SEC.  2.  (A)  THE CONGRESS HEREBY FINDS THAT THE EXISTENCE,
IN INDUSTRIES ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE, OF LABOR CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING NECESSARY FOR HEALTH, EFFICIENCY, AND
GENERAL WELL-BEING OF WORKERS (1) CAUSES COMMERCE AND THE CHANNELS AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF COMMERCE TO BE USED TO SPREAD AND PERPETUATE SUCH
LABOR CONDITIONS AMONG THE WORKERS OF THE SEVERAL STATES; (2) BURDENS
COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF GOODS IN COMMERCE; (3) CONSTITUTES AN
UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE; (4) LEADS TO LABOR DISPUTES
BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF GOODS IN
COMMERCE; AND (5) INTERFERES WITH THE ORDERLY AND FAIR MARKETING OF
GOODS IN COMMERCE. 

"(B)  IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF THIS ACT, THROUGH THE
EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, TO CORRECT AND AS RAPIDLY AS PRACTICABLE TO ELIMINATE
THE CONDITIONS ABOVE REFERRED TO IN SUCH INDUSTRIES WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING EMPLOYMENT OR EARNING POWER."  52 STAT. 1060,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 202. 

FN12  WHILE ONE MAJOR MEANS OF SPREADING SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS
WAS RECOGNIZED TO BE THROUGH THE LOWERING OF PRICES FOR GOODS PRODUCED
UNDER SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS, THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT IN THE ACT, OR
IN THIS COURT'S DISCUSSION OF THE ACT, TO LIMIT ITS COVERAGE TO
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN PRODUCING GOODS SOLELY FOR COMPETITIVE MARKETS. 
AN ANNOUNCED PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO RAISE LIVING STANDARDS AND TO
ELIMINATE "LABOR CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING NECESSARY FOR HEALTH, EFFICIENCY, AND
GENERAL WELL-BEING OF WORKERS ...  "  (SEC. 2(A), SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA.)
THAT PURPOSE WAS CONCERNED DIRECTLY WITH ANY WIDESPREAD EXISTENCE OF
SUBSTANDARD WAGES, HOURS OR WORKING CONDITIONS.  THAT SUCH CONDITIONS
COULD BE REACHED BY CONGRESS THROUGH ITS REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF THE PRODUCTS OF THOSE CONDITIONS HAD BEEN FORCEFULLY
STATED IN THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247
U.S. 251, 277-281.  IN 1941, THIS COURT EXPRESSLY APPROVED THAT
REASONING AND UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 115-117.  THE LANGUAGE OF
MR. JUSTICE STONE IN SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN THAT CASE IS
SIGNIFICANT.  IT EXTENDED TO INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS AND TRANSPORTATION OF
PROSCRIBED PRODUCTS IN GENERAL: 

"WHILE MANUFACTURE IS NOT OF ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE SHIPMENT
OF MANUFACTURED GOODS INTERSTATE IS SUCH COMMERCE AND THE PROHIBITION
OF SUCH SHIPMENT BY CONGRESS IS INDUBITABLY A REGULATION OF THE
COMMERCE.  ...  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT
TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE INCLUDES NOXIOUS ARTICLES,
LOTTERY CASE, SUPRA (188 U.S. 321); HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES,
220 U.S. 45; CF. HOKE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA (227 U.S. 308); STOLEN
ARTICLES, BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432; KIDNAPPED PERSONS,
GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124, AND ARTICLES SUCH AS INTOXICATING
LIQUOR OR CONVICT MADE GOODS, TRAFFIC IN WHICH IS FORBIDDEN OR
RESTRICTED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DESTINATION.  KENTUCKY WHIP &
COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"WHATEVER THEIR MOTIVE AND PURPOSE, REGULATIONS OF COMMERCE WHICH DO
NOT INFRINGE SOME CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ARE WITHIN THE PLENARY
POWER CONFERRED ON CONGRESS BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SUBJECT ONLY TO
THAT LIMITATION,  ...  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PROHIBITION OF THE SHIPMENT
INTERSTATE OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER THE FORBIDDEN SUBSTANDARD LABOR
CONDITIONS IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS NOT ONLY TO PREVENT THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF THE PROSCRIBED PRODUCT, BUT TO STOP THE
INITIAL STEP TOWARD TRANSPORTATION, PRODUCTION WITH THE PURPOSE OF SO
TRANSPORTING IT."  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA, AT PP. 113, 115,
117. 

FOR FURTHER LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT, SEE ROLAND ELECTRICAL CO.
V. WALLING, 326 U.S. 657, 668-669, N. 5. 

FN13  .  "SEC.  6.  (A)  EVERY EMPLOYER SHALL PAY TO EACH OF HIS
EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE (CERTAIN MINIMUM WAGES)  ... 

"SEC. 7.  (A)  NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN
THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR
IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE (LONGER THAN CERTAIN MAXIMUM
HOURS)  ...  "  52 STAT. 1062, 1063, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 206(A) AND
207(A). 

FN14  E.G., EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160; GOOCH V. UNITED
STATES, 297 U.S. 124; THORNTON V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 414; BROOKS
V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432; UNITED STATES V. HILL, 248 U.S. 420;
CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470.  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V.
SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533, 549; BELL V. PORTER,
159 F.2D 117, 118-119(C.A.7TH CIR.).    FN15  "SEC.  15.  (A)  ...  IT
SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON - 

"(A)  TO TRANSPORT, OFFER FOR TRANSPORTATION, SHIP, DELIVER, OR SELL
IN COMMERCE, OR TO SHIP, DELIVER, OR SELL WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT SHIPMENT
OR DELIVERY OR SALE THEREOF IN COMMERCE IS INTENDED, ANY GOODS IN THE
PRODUCTION OF WHICH ANY EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION
6(MINIMUM WAGES) OR SECTION 7(MAXIMUM HOURS),  ... 

     .         .         .    .         .    "SEC. 16.  (A)  ANY
PERSON WHO WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15 SHALL
UPON CONVICTION THEREOF BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000,
OR TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BOTH...."  52 STAT.
1068, 1069, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 215(A)(1) AND 216(A). 

FN16  "IRRESPECTIVE OF THE QUESTION AS TO WHO IS THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMER, HOWEVER, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
CONTAINER MANUFACTURER ARE SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  THE FACT THAT PRODUCTS
LOSE THEIR CHARACTER AS 'GOODS' WHEN THEY COME INTO THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL
POSSESSION OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER DOES NOT AFFECT THE COVERAGE OF THE
ACT AS FAR AS THE EMPLOYEES PRODUCING THE PRODUCTS ARE CONCERNED.  THE
FACTS AT THE TIME THAT THE PRODUCTS ARE BEING PRODUCED DETERMINE
WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE,
AND AT THE TIME OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE CONTAINERS THEY WERE CLEARLY
'GOODS' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE SINCE THEY WERE NOT, AT THAT
POINT OF TIME, IN THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMER.  ALL THAT THE TERM 'GOODS' QUOTED ABOVE IS INTENDED TO
ACCOMPLISH IS TO PROTECT ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, OTHER THAN PRODUCERS,
MANUFACTURERS, OR PROCESSORS OF THE GOODS IN QUESTION FROM THE 'HOT
GOODS' PROVISION OF SECTION 15(A)(1).  THIS SEEMS CLEAR FROM THE
LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.  ...  BUT CONGRESS CLEARLY DID NOT INTEND TO
PERMIT AN EMPLOYER TO AVOID THE MINIMUM WAGE AND MAXIMUM HOURS
STANDARDS OF THE ACT BY MAKING DELIVERY WITHIN THE STATE INTO THE
ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER WHO TRANSPORTS OR
SHIPS THE GOODS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  THUS, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN BUILDING A BOAT FOR DELIVERY TO THE PURCHASER AT
THE BOATYARD ARE WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT IF THE EMPLOYER, AT THE
TIME THE BOAT IS BEING BUILT, INTENDS, HOPES, OR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT THE PURCHASER WILL SAIL IT OUTSIDE THE STATE."  29 C.F.R. SEC.
776.7(H). 

FN17  48 STAT. 195. 

FN18  THIS CLAUSE WAS AMENDED IN 1942 BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
"PROVIDED, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION (C) SHALL NOT APPLY
TO ANY EMPLOYER WHO SHALL HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HIS
EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 1 OR 2 OF SUBSECTION
(B) OF SECTION 7 OF AN ACT ENTITLED 'FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF
1938'."  56 STAT. 277, 41 U.S.C. SEC. 35(C).  THOSE PARAGRAPHS RELATE
TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS COVERING 26 OR 52 CONSECUTIVE
WORKWEEKS AND EXEMPTING THE EMPLOYER MAKING THEM FROM CHARGES OF
VIOLATION OF THE USUAL MAXIMUM HOUR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  THIS AMENDMENT THUS RECOGNIZED THE APPLICATION OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO EMPLOYMENT TO WHICH THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT
ALSO APPLIED. 

FN19  SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA. 

FN20  SEE PYRAMID MOTOR CORP. V. ISPASS, 330 U.S. 695; LEVINSON V.
SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, 330 U.S. 649; SOUTHLAND GASOLINE CO. V. BAYLEY,
319 U.S. 44; OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572; UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534. 

FN21  SEE NOTE 18, SUPRA. 

FN22  "SECTION 1.  (A)  THE CONGRESS HEREBY FINDS THAT THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED, HAS BEEN INTERPRETED JUDICIALLY IN
DISREGARD OF LONG-ESTABLISHED CUSTOMS, PRACTICES, AND CONTRACTS BETWEEN
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, THEREBY CREATING WHOLLY UNEXPECTED
LIABILITIES, IMMENSE IN AMOUNT AND RETROACTIVE IN OPERATION, UPON
EMPLOYERS WITH THE RESULTS THAT, IF SAID ACT AS SO INTERPRETED OR
CLAIMS ARISING UNDER SUCH INTERPRETATIONS WERE PERMITTED TO STAND, ...
(9) THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES HERETOFORE AND
HEREAFTER PURCHASED BY ITS VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES WOULD BE
UNREASONABLY INCREASED AND THE PUBLIC TREASURY WOULD BE SERIOUSLY
AFFECTED BY CONSEQUENT INCREASED COST OF WAR CONTRACTS; ... 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"THE CONGRESS FURTHER FINDS AND DECLARES THAT ALL OF THE RESULTS
WHICH HAVE ARISEN OR MAY ARISE UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF
1938, AS AMENDED, AS AFORESAID, MAY (EXCEPT AS TO LIABILITY FOR
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES) ARISE WITH RESPECT TO THE WALSH-HEALEY AND BACON
DAVIS ACTS AND THAT IT IS, THEREFORE, IN THE NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST
AND FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE, ESSENTIAL TO NATIONAL DEFENSE, AND
NECESSARY TO AID, PROTECT, AND FOSTER COMMERCE, THAT THIS ACT SHALL
APPLY TO THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT AND THE BACON-DAVIS ACT."  61 STAT. 84
85, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC. 251(A). 

FN23  THE 1949 AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, INCLUDING
ESPECIALLY THE INCREASE OF MINIMUM WAGES FROM 40 CENTS TO 75 CENTS AN
HOUR, DEMONSTRATE, HOWEVER, THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF THE APPLICATION
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  63 STAT. 446, 910-920, 29 U.S.C.
(SUPP. III) SEC. 202, ET SEQ., ESPECIALLY SEC. 206(A)(1). 

FN24  54 STAT. 712-714, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 1171, 1172. 

FN25  174 F.2D 718, 726-730. 

FN26  THIS STATEMENT OF LABOR POLICY WAS EMPHASIZED BY COUNSEL FOR
THE RESPONDENT IN THE AARON CASE.  MUCH OF IT IS PUBLISHED IN
REGULATIONS - ARMY:  ORDNANCE PROCUREMENT INSTRUCTIONS, 2 CCH WAR LAW
SERV. SECS. 9,101.1, 9,104.3, 9,104.4, 9,105.2 AND 9,105.3. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF ANY OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THESE CASES DO NOT PRESENT JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS IN
THE LONG SERIES IN WHICH THE COURT HAS BEEN CALLED UPON TO GIVE A
SYMPATHETIC CONSTRUCTION TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  WE DO NOT
HERE HAVE A CONTROVERSY INVOLVING RELATIONS BETWEEN A CAPITALIST
EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYEES.  THE REAL CONTROVERSY IS BETWEEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WHICH CONCEIVED, FORMULATED, AND ADMINISTERED A
SCHEME FOR THE PRODUCTION OF WAR MATERIEL BY MEANS OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED
PLANTS AND THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WHICH
ADMINISTERS THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  WE DO NOT HAVE HERE, IN
SHORT, THE RESISTANCE OF PRIVATE EMPLOYERS TO THE DEMANDS OF THEIR
EMPLOYEES.  HERE A VAST CLAIM ON THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES IS
IN ISSUE.  THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS HAS MANIFESTED IN THE MOST EMPHATIC WAY THAT THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT IS NOT TO BE STRETCHED TO THE EXTENT THAT SOPHISTICAL
ARGUMENTATION CAN STRETCH ITS SCOPE BUT IS TO BE APPLIED IN A
COMMONSENSICAL WAY.  FN1  FINE DISTINCTIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
STATUTE CAN HARDLY BE AVOIDED.  THAT MAKES IT ALL THE MORE NECESSARY TO
HEW CLOSE TO THE LINE MARKED OUT BY THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE CASES
BEFORE US. THE CAUTION THAT GENERAL PROPOSITIONS DO NOT DECIDE CONCRETE
CASES IS PARTICULARLY TO BE HEEDED IN DEALING WITH AN ENACTMENT FRAMED
IN TERMS OF LEGAL CATEGORIES HAVING DIVERSE AND CONFLICTING CONTENTS. 
IT BEGS THE REAL QUESTION TO PURPORT TO SOLVE A PARTICULAR PROBLEM
MERELY BY INVOKING SUCH A CATEGORY. 

NOT ONLY IS IT IMPORTANT TO BE HEEDFUL OF WHAT THESE CASES ARE REALLY
ABOUT; IT IS NO LESS IMPORTANT TO BE MINDFUL OF WHAT THEY ARE NOT
ABOUT.  THE PROBLEM BEFORE US IS NOT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO WORK DONE UNDER ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, OR
EVEN TO WORK UNDER ALL VARIETIES OF WAR PRODUCTION CONTRACTS, COST-PLUS
FIXED-FEE OR OTHERWISE.  WHAT IS INVOLVED IS THE PARTICULAR KIND OF
COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACTS FOR THE OPERATION OF ORDNANCE PLANTS
UNDER THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO
PROVIDE FOR THE OPERATION OF SUCH PLANTS "THROUGH THE AGENCY OF
SELECTED QUALIFIED COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURERS."  FN2 54 STAT. 713, 50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1171(B). 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE NATURE OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF GOVERNMENT,
CONTRACTOR AND EMPLOYEES IS NECESSARY TO PUT THE ISSUES IN THEIR PROPER
PERSPECTIVE.  THE FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IN ALL THREE CASES,
BUT SINCE THE FINDINGS IN NO. 79, AARON V. FORD, BACON & DAVIS, INC.,
ARE PARTICULARLY DETAILED, FURTHER DISCUSSION WILL CENTER ON THAT
CASE. 

THE UNITED STATES CONTRACTED WITH RESPONDENT FORD, BACON & DAVIS,
INC. IN JULY, 1941, FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED ARKANSAS
ORDNANCE PLANT AND PRODUCTION THERE OF MUNITIONS FOR WAR - DETONATORS,
PERCUSSION ELEMENTS, ARTILLERY PRIMERS, FUSES, BOOSTERS AND POWDER
TRAIN FUSES.  THE PLANT WAS A MILITARY RESERVATION UNDER THE IMMEDIATE
CONTROL OF AN ORDNANCE OFFICER DESIGNATED BY THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE. 
MUNITION QUOTAS AND SPECIFICATIONS WERE SET BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND
INSPECTION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AT EACH STAGE OF PRODUCTION CHECKED
COMPLIANCE WITH RULES PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNMENT NOT MERELY AS TO
SAFETY BUT AS TO PRODUCTION AS WELL.  THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINABLE AT
WILL BY THE GOVERNMENT AND UNDER IT THE "NORMAL FACTORS WHICH GO TO
MAKE UP COMMERCIAL PROFIT ARE LACKING."  WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS'
STATEMENT OF LABOR POLICY GOVERNING GOVERNMENT-OWNED, PRIVATELY
OPERATED PLANTS (1942), DIGESTED IN 2 CCH WAR LAW SERV. P24,862 ET SEQ.
THE UNITED STATES OWNED ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT USED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE OPERATION OF THE PLANT.  NINETY-FIVE PER CENT WERE FURNISHED
BY THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY; THE REMAINDER WAS OBTAINED BY THE
CONTRACTOR AFTER APPROVAL BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE UNITED STATES
OBTAINED TITLE TO THE LATTER PURCHASES AT THE POINT OF ORIGIN, AND
SHIPMENT TO THE PLANT WAS ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING AT A REDUCED
RATE AND WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TAX.  TITLE TO ALL
MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND WORK IN PROCESS IN THE PLANT WAS AT ALL TIMES
IN THE UNITED STATES.  FINISHED PRODUCTS WERE SHIPPED OUT OF ARKANSAS
TO MILITARY FACILITIES ON GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING. 

UNDER THE CONTRACT THE GOVERNMENT PAID ALL EXPENSES OF OPERATING THE
PLANT, INCLUDING LABOR COSTS.  THE CONTRACTOR WAS EVEN ALLOWED COSTS OF
PRODUCTION OF MUNITIONS THAT DID NOT MEET SPECIFICATIONS AND COULD NOT
BE USED.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTED FOR ELECTRIC POWER, TELEPHONE,
TELETYPE AND TELEGRAPH SERVICES ITSELF AND PAID THE BILLS DIRECTLY, AND
PROVIDED EMPLOYEES TRAVELING ON BUSINESS WITH TAX-FREE TRANSPORTATION
TICKETS.  AT NO TIME DID THE CONTRACTOR HAVE TO ADVANCE ITS OWN MONEY -
EXPENSES WERE PAID OUT OF AVAILABLE GOVERNMENT FUNDS.  FOR ITS SERVICES
IN OPERATING THE PLANT, THE CONTRACTOR WAS PAID A FIXED FEE. 

THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS' STATEMENT OF LABOR POLICY FORBADE
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND PERSONNEL "WHICH, IN THE OPINION
OF EITHER THE SECRETARY OF WAR OR THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, WILL HAVE
THE EFFECT OF RESTRICTING OR HAMPERING MAXIMUM OUTPUT."  ALTHOUGH THE
CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS TO HIRE ALL EMPLOYEES AND
THAT THEY WERE TO BE "SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL AND CONSTITUTE EMPLOYEES
OF THE CONTRACTOR," THE GOVERNMENT RETAINED THE RIGHT TO APPROVE OR
DISAPPROVE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALL PERSONNEL AND COULD REQUIRE THE
DISMISSAL OF ANY EMPLOYEE DEEMED "INCOMPETENT OR WHOSE RETENTION IS
DEEMED TO BE NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  NO KEY EMPLOYEE COULD BE
ASSIGNED TO SERVICE UNTIL THE CONTRACTING OFFICER APPROVED A STATEMENT
SUBMITTED TO HIM ON THE EMPLOYEE'S PREVIOUS AND PROPOSED SALARY,
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE.  ALL WAGE AND SALARY RATES AND OTHER
CHANGES IN STATUS WERE SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENT APPROVAL, AND THE
GOVERNMENT AUDITED IN ADVANCE OF PAYMENT ALL TIME CARDS AND PAYROLLS
AND WITNESSED THE ACTUAL PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEES.  THE REQUIREMENT OF
APPROVAL OF WAGE RATES WAS NEITHER A DEAD LETTER NOR A FORMALITY. 
PROPOSED WAGE SCALES WERE IN FACT REJECTED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT. 

WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE SUBJECT TO THE WALSH
HEALEY ACT, 49 STAT. 2036, 41 U.S.C. SEC. 35 ET SEQ. THIS STATUTE WAS
ENACTED BY CONGRESS AFTER THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT WAS
INVALIDATED, WITH A VIEW TO DIRECTING "GOVERNMENT PURCHASES ALONG LINES
TENDING TO MAINTAIN THE ADVANCE IN WAGES AND PURCHASING POWER ACHIEVED
UNDER THE N.R.A."  S. REP. NO. 1157, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1(1935). 
SEE ALSO S. REP. NO. 1193, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1935); H.R. REP. NO.
2946, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1936).  TO THAT END, SEC. 1(B) REQUIRES
THAT EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS BE PAID NOT LESS THAN THE
"PREVAILING MINIMUM WAGE FOR PERSONS EMPLOYED ON SIMILAR WORK OR IN THE
PARTICULAR OR SIMILAR INDUSTRIES OR GROUPS OF INDUSTRIES CURRENTLY
OPERATING IN THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, ARTICLES,
OR EQUIPMENT ARE TO BE MANUFACTURED OR FURNISHED."  PROVISION IS ALSO
MADE, INTER ALIA, FOR MAXIMUM HOURS, WITH OVERTIME PERMITTED AT "NOT
LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE BASIC HOURLY RATE."  PURSUANT TO
SEC. 2 OF THE STATUTE THE CONTRACT MADE THE CONTRACTOR LIABLE TO THE
UNITED STATES FOR ANY UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES FOR THE BENEFIT OF
UNDERPAID EMPLOYEES.  FN3 

TWO YEARS AFTER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT BECAME LAW, CONGRESS BY THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 FIXED SPECIFIC MINIMUM HOURLY WAGES AND
MAXIMUM HOURS FOR EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION
OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  52 STAT. 1062, 1063, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 206,
207.  SECTION 16(B) OF THAT ACT GIVES EMPLOYEES A RIGHT OF ACTION
AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYER FOR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES OR OVERTIME
COMPENSATION AND FOR "AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES.  ... THE COURT IN SUCH ACTION SHALL, IN ADDITION TO ANY
JUDGMENT AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF  ...  ALLOW A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S
FEE TO BE PAID BY THE DEFENDANT, AND COSTS OF THE ACTION."    THE COURT
NOW HOLDS THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES
OF COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACTORS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ULTIMATE
LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE CONTRACTS FOR WHATEVER SUMS
ARE RECOVERED IN THESE SUITS.  AS WE SAID IN KENNEDY V. SILAS MASON
CO., 334 U.S. 249, 254, THE CONTRACTOR "IN A SENSE, IS NO MORE THAN A
NOMINAL DEFENDANT, FOR IT IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE
GOVERNMENT."  THE REACH OF THE LIABILITY WHICH TODAY'S DECISION
ESTABLISHES IS INDICATED BY THE AGREED STATEMENT THAT IN THE AARON CASE
ALONE, A "CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT IN SUIT, EXCLUSIVE
OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND COSTS, IS IN EXCESS OF $500,000.00."  IT WAS
ESTIMATED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR IN 1946 THAT THE AMOUNT AT STAKE IN
"EXISTING SUITS AND POTENTIAL SUITS  ...  MAY IN THE AGGREGATE EXCEED
$250,000,000, SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF WHICH WILL BE REIMBURSABLE TO THE
CONTRACTORS."  FN4  THE COURT CREATES SUCH A DRAIN ON THE TREASURY BY
IMPUTING TO THE CONGRESS WHICH ENACTED THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT -
AND WHICH OF COURSE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE FORESEEN THE COST-PLUS
FIXED-FEE ARRANGEMENTS INVOLVED HERE - THE INTENTION, IN EFFECT, TO
OPEN THE TREASURY NOT ONLY TO HUGE CLAIMS FOR OVERTIME BUT IN ADDITION
TO DEMANDS FOR LIKE AMOUNTS AS "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES," AND ATTORNEYS'
FEES.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS
CONTEMPLATED SUCH A RESULT OR WOULD HAVE COUNTENANCED IT, I CANNOT
BRING MYSELF TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS THE DESIRE TO PLACE SUCH A DOUBLE
BURDEN UPON THE FISC. 

CERTAINLY SUCH A RESULT SHOULD HAVE A MORE SALIENT JUSTIFICATION THAN
ABSTRACT ARGUMENTATION ABOUT WORDS NOT HAVING FIXED SCOPE OR FUNCTION. 
OUR DECISIONS HAVE MADE ONE THING CLEAR ABOUT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT:  ITS APPLICABILITY IS NOT FIXED BY LABELS THAT PARTIES MAY ATTACH
TO THEIR RELATIONSHIP NOR BY COMMON LAW CATEGORIES NOR BY
CLASSIFICATIONS UNDER OTHER STATUTES.  RUTHERFORD FOOD CORP. V. MCCOMB,
331 U.S. 722; WALLING V. PORTLAND TERMINAL CO., 330 U.S. 148, 150;
MCCOMB V. MCKAY, 164 F.2D 40; CF. UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS,
330 U.S. 258, 285-86.  UNLESS WE ARE TO DISREGARD THIS GUIDANCE OF
WISDOM IN CONSTRUING SO DYNAMIC A CODE AS THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,
DESIGNATION IN THE CONTRACTS OF THE CONTRACTORS AS THE "EMPLOYERS" OF
THE PERSONNEL IN THE ORDNANCE PLANTS CANNOT BE DECISIVE.  AGAIN, THE
BARE WORDS OF THE DEFINITIONS IN THAT ACT, NEVER SELF-APPLYING IN
PARTICULAR CASES, ARE ESPECIALLY INCONCLUSIVE HERE BECAUSE THE COST
PLUS-FIXED-FEE ARRANGEMENTS ADOPTED FOR THE OPERATION OF THESE PLANTS
WERE OF SUCH AN UNPRECEDENTED CHARACTER.  WE ARE DEALING WITH ECONOMIC
ARRANGEMENTS WHICH IN THEIR SCOPE AND INCIDENCE WERE APTLY
CHARACTERIZED BY THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS' STATEMENT OF LABOR
POLICY: "THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS THUS CREATED ARE UNIQUE."  IN SUCH UNIQUE
SITUATIONS ESPECIALLY WE SHOULD HEED OUR ADMONITION AGAINST PERVERTING
"THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION BY MECHANICALLY APPLYING DEFINITIONS IN
UNINTENDED CONTEXTS."  FARMERS RESERVOIR & IRRIGATION CO. V. MCCOMB,
337 U.S. 755, 764.  IN LAW AS ELSEWHERE WORDS OF MANY-HUED MEANINGS
DERIVE THEIR SCOPE FROM THE USE TO WHICH THEY ARE PUT. 

NO DOUBT, AS SUGGESTED, THE PURPOSE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
SHOULD GUIDE OUR READING OF IT.  THE AIM OF THE ACT, SET FORTH IN SEC.
2(A), IS TO ELIMINATE "IN INDUSTRIES ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE  ...  LABOR CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO
THE MAINTENANCE OF THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING NECESSARY FOR HEALTH,
EFFICIENCY, AND GENERAL WELL-BEING OF WORKERS."  BUT TO FIND THAT THIS
ACT DOES NOT FIT THE CONTRACTS IN SUIT NEITHER NEGATIVES CONGRESSIONAL
CONCERN FOR THE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED NOR DEPRIVES THEM OF
PROTECTION CONSONANT WITH THE HUMANE MOTIVES UNDERLYING THE ACT.  THE
WALSH-HEALEY ACT ITSELF SERVES AS PROOF OF CONGRESSIONAL PROVISION FOR
CIVILIZED STANDARDS FOR EMPLOYEES CARRYING OUT GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. 
PURSUANT TO THAT STATUTE, THE POLICY UNDER THE CONTRACTS HERE WAS TO
PAY TIME AND ONE-HALF FOR OVERTIME TO EMPLOYEES IN NONSUPERVISORY
CLASSIFICATIONS.  THE DEGREE OF CONTROL EXERTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OVER
WORKING CONDITIONS AND WAGE RATES, GOVERNMENT AUDIT OF TIME CARDS AND
PAYROLLS, THE PRESENCE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AT THE TIME EMPLOYEES
WERE PAID, AND THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO WITHHOLD PAYMENTS
OTHERWISE DUE THE CONTRACTOR OR TO SUE FOR DEPARTURE FROM SPECIFIED
STANDARDS AND USE THE RECOVERY TO COMPENSATE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES
FURNISHED A SCHEME OF SAFEGUARDS TO ASSURE FAIR DEALING. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED
ADMINISTRATIVELY AS COVERING THE EMPLOYEES IN THESE CASES.  BUT THE
AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH THE FORMULATION AND SUPERVISION OF
THESE CONTRACTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF
THE CONTRACTORS HERE.  CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN 1944 SHOWS THAT INITIAL
RELUCTANCE OF THE TWO DEPARTMENTS TO HAVE SUITS AGAINST COST-PLUS-FIXED
FEE CONTRACTORS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DEFENDED ON THE
BASIS OF THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE DID NOT STEM FROM LACK OF
CONVICTION ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE DEFENSE.  RATHER, THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS FEARED THAT ITS SUCCESSFUL ASSERTION WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
AND WOULD "RESULT IN AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OVER WAR PLANTS OR CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL
DOUBT TO BE CAST UPON SUCH JURISDICTION."  THIS FEAR WAS ENGENDERED BY
THE UNRESOURCEFUL ADVICE OF A GOVERNMENT LAWYER AS TO THE SUBJECTION OF
THE EMPLOYMENT UNDER THESE CONTRACTS TO THE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
POLICY OF THE WAGNER ACT IF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS NOT
APPLICABLE.  IN VIEW OF SUCH ADVICE, THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS
CONCLUDED THAT THE INTEREST IN EFFICIENT PROSECUTION OF THE WAR WOULD
BEST BE SERVED BY PRESERVING AT WAR PLANTS THE DEGREE OF SUPERVISION
OVER LABOR RELATIONS EMBODIED IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT EVEN
AT THE EXPENSE OF ABANDONING ATTACKS UPON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACTORS.  SEE ALSO 22
COMP. GEN. 277.  TO FIND "ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION" IN A DECISION
OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, ACTING UNDER LEGAL ADVICE, THAT A CONCESSION
AS TO A STATUTE'S APPLICABILITY WAS AN EXPEDIENT STEP IN THE WAR
PRODUCTION PROGRAM IS TO DISREGARD THE JUSTIFICATION FOR UTILIZING
"ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION" AS A GLOSS ON AMBIGUOUS LEGISLATION. 

THE GOVERNMENT EXERTED CLOSE SUPERVISION OVER EVERY PHASE OF
OPERATIONS AT THESE ORDNANCE PLANTS, SPECIFYING ARTICLES TO BE
MANUFACTURED, PRODUCTION QUOTAS AND METHODS OF PRODUCTION.  GOVERNMENT
CONTROL WAS PARTICULARLY DOMINANT WITH RESPECT TO PERSONNEL POLICIES,
INCLUDING PHASES OF HIRING AND FIRING, JOB ASSIGNMENTS, WORKING
CONDITIONS, WAGE RATES, AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION.  THE INVESTMENT IN
PLANT AND FACILITIES WAS ENTIRELY THE GOVERNMENT'S, AND THE GOVERNMENT
BORE ALL THE EXPENDITURES AND ALL THE RISKS OF OPERATION.  AS BETWEEN
THE CONTRACTORS AND THE WORKERS, THE OPERATION WAS WANTING IN THE
CHARACTERISTIC ASPECTS OF THE NORMAL EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATION.  IN
VIEW OF THESE FACTORS AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT
WITH ITS PROTECTIVE FEATURES FOR PLANT PERSONNEL, I SEE NO BASIS FOR
ATTRIBUTING TO CONGRESS THE INTENTION TO MAKE THESE CONTRACTORS
"EMPLOYERS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WHEN
SUCH A RESULT WOULD HAVE FISCAL CONSEQUENCES NEITHER FORESEEN NOR, ON
ANY REASONABLE ASSUMPTION, DESIRED BY CONGRESS.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
WITTEK, 337 U.S. 346.  SINCE THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AN "EMPLOYER"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS ARE
INAPPLICABLE. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS CALL FOR AFFIRMANCE WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF OTHER
GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADVANCED FOR SUSTAINING THE JUDGMENTS BELOW,
SOME OF WHICH AT LEAST HAVE COMMENDED THEMSELVES TO SEVERAL COURTS OF
APPEALS. 

FN1  CONGRESS FOUND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THIS COURT PLACED
UPON THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN JEWELL RIDGE COAL CORP. V. LOCAL
NO. 6167, 325 U.S. 161, ANDERSON V. MT. CLEMENS POTTERY CO., 328 U.S.
680, BAY RIDGE OPERATING CO. V. AARON, 334 U.S. 446, BROOKLYN SAVINGS
BANK V. O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697, AND FARMERS RESERVOIR AND IRRIGATION CO.
V. MCCOMB, 337 U.S. 755, MISCONCEIVED THE PURPOSES OF CONGRESS.  SEE
PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 84, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SEC.
251 ET SEQ.; ACT OF JULY 20, 1949, 63 STAT. 446, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III)
SEC. 207(E)(1), (2), (F); FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AMENDMENTS OF 1949,
SECS. 11, 14, 63 STAT. 910, 917, 919, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. III) SECS. 213,
216. 

FN2  THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY WAS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS
FOR PRIVATE OPERATION OF NAVY INSTALLATIONS ON A COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE
BASIS BY SECS. 2(A) AND 8(B) OF THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940.  54 STAT.
677, 680, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 1152(A)(1), 1158(B). 

FN3  SECTION 2 PROVIDES:  "ANY SUMS OF MONEY DUE TO THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA BY REASON OF ANY VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS AND
STIPULATIONS OF SAID CONTRACT  ...  MAY BE WITHHELD FROM ANY AMOUNTS
DUE ON ANY SUCH CONTRACTS OR MAY BE RECOVERED IN SUITS BROUGHT IN THE
NAME OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEREOF. 
ALL SUMS WITHHELD OR RECOVERED AS DEDUCTIONS, REBATES, REFUNDS, OR
UNDERPAYMENTS OF WAGES SHALL BE HELD IN A SPECIAL DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AND
SHALL BE PAID, ON ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, DIRECTLY TO THE
EMPLOYEES ...  ON WHOSE ACCOUNT SUCH SUMS WERE WITHHELD OR RECOVERED." 

FN4  UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT EVEN EMPLOYERS WHO ACTED WITH
THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH ARE LIABLE FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS'
FEES IN ADDITION TO UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES OR OVERTIME COMPENSATION.  THE
SEVERE IMPACT A LARGE, UNFORESEEN NONREIMBURSED LIABILITY WOULD HAVE
UPON A FIXED-FEE CONTRACTOR RECEIVING AN ANNUAL FEE OF $420,000 AS IN
THE AARON CASE IS MANIFEST. 
..END :




















BUILDING SERVICE UNION V. GAZZAM, 339 U.S. 532 


NO. 449.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 1950.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1950.  - 34 WASH.2D
38, 207 P.2D 699, AFFIRMED. 


IN A STATE WHOSE PUBLIC POLICY IS THAT EMPLOYERS SHALL NOT COERCE
THEIR EMPLOYEES' CHOICE OF A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, A STATE COURT
INJUNCTION AGAINST PEACEFUL PICKETING BY A LABOR UNION FOR THE
PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF COMPELLING AN EMPLOYER TO SIGN A CONTRACT WHICH
WOULD COERCE HIS EMPLOYEES' CHOICE OF A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 533-541. 

(A)  SINCE PICKETING IS MORE THAN SPEECH AND ESTABLISHES A LOCUS IN
QUO THAT HAS FAR MORE POTENTIAL FOR INDUCING ACTION THAN THE MESSAGE
THE PICKETS CONVEY, THIS COURT UPHOLDS A STATE'S RESTRAINT OF ACTS AND
CONDUCT WHICH ARE AN ABUSE OF THE RIGHT TO PICKET RATHER THAN A MEANS
OF PEACEFUL AND TRUTHFUL PUBLICITY.  PP. 536-537. 

(B)  THE PICKETING OF THE EMPLOYER TO COMPEL HIM TO COERCE HIS
EMPLOYEES' CHOICE OF A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WAS UNLAWFUL BECAUSE
IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO INDUCE A TRANSGRESSION OF THE STATE'S POLICY
AGAINST SUCH COERCION OF EMPLOYEES.  PP. 538-539. 

(C)  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321,
DISTINGUISHED; GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE & ICE CO., 336 U.S. 490,
FOLLOWED.  PP. 539-540. 

BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 262, ET AL. V.
GAZZAM. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

PETITIONERS WERE ENJOINED BY A STATE COURT FROM PICKETING
RESPONDENT'S PLACE OF BUSINESS.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  34
WASH.2D 38, 207 P.2D 699.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S.
903.  AFFIRMED, P. 541. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IT IS THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT EMPLOYERS
SHALL NOT COERCE THEIR EMPLOYEES' CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  DO THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PERMIT THE STATE, IN RELIANCE ON
THIS POLICY, TO ENJOIN PEACEFUL PICKETING CARRIED ON FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COMPELLING AN EMPLOYER TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH A LABOR UNION WHICH
COERCES HIS EMPLOYEES' CHOICE OF BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE? 

THE STATE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  AN INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED IN
NARROW TERMS ENJOINING PETITIONERS "FROM ENDEAVORING TO COMPEL
PLAINTIFF TO COERCE HIS EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE DEFENDANT UNION OR TO
DESIGNATE DEFENDANT UNION AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, BY PICKETING THE HOTEL PREMISES OF PLAINTIFF  ...  "  THE
SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON AFFIRMED, 34 WASH.2D 38, 207 P.2D 699, AND
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 903. 

AT THE TIME OF THE CONTROVERSY, RESPONDENT EMPLOYED ABOUT FIFTEEN
PERSONS AT ENETAI INN, A SMALL HOTEL WHICH HE OPERATES IN BREMERTON,
WASHINGTON.  JUST PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1946, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
PETITIONER UNION CALLED UPON RESPONDENT ABOUT ORGANIZING HIS EMPLOYEES
AND ASKED HIM TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE UNION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE HIS
EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE UNION.  NONE OF THE EMPLOYEES WAS A MEMBER OF ANY
UNION ACTIVE IN THE AREA.  RESPONDENT REPLIED THAT THAT WAS A MATTER
FOR THE EMPLOYEES TO DECIDE.  HE GAVE THE UNION AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES
PERMISSION FREELY TO VISIT AND SOLICIT HIS EMPLOYEES FOR MEMBERSHIP
WHILE HE WAS ABSENT ON A BRIEF TRIP TO LOS ANGELES.  UPON HIS RETURN,
THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES AGAIN APPROACHED HIM ABOUT SIGNING A
CONTRACT.  THE REPRESENTATIVES ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD NOT SECURED ANY
MEMBERS AMONG THE EMPLOYEES, AND RESPONDENT AGAIN REPLIED THAT IT WAS A
MATTER FOR THE EMPLOYEES.  ON MAY 2, 1946, RESPONDENT WAS ADVISED THAT
THE UNION PROPOSED TO HAVE THE ENETAI INN PLACED ON THE "WE DO NOT
PATRONIZE" LIST, AND A MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTEMPTING TO REACH A
SETTLEMENT WAS SUGGESTED.  AT THE MEETING HELD A FEW DAYS LATER
RESPONDENT WAS REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY.  THE UNION STILL INSISTED
THAT RESPONDENT SIGN THE CONTRACT, AND RESPONDENT THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY
STILL DECLINED TO SIGN ON THE GROUND THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO
COERCE HIS EMPLOYEES TO JOIN A UNION, CONTRARY TO STATE LAW. 

THE UNION ASKED FOR AND WAS GRANTED A MEETING WITH RESPONDENT'S
EMPLOYEES AT WHICH THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES MIGHT PRESENT THEIR CASE. 
SIX REPRESENTATIVES OF ORGANIZED LABOR ATTENDED THIS MEETING, HELD ON
MAY 10, 1946.  ELEVEN OF THE EMPLOYEES ATTENDED.  ONE WAS A BELLBOY
WHOSE WORK THE UNION APPARENTLY DID NOT WISH TO HAVE COVERED. 
RESPONDENT WAS AGAIN REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY.  THE UNION
REPRESENTATIVES WERE GIVEN COMPLETE AND UNHAMPERED OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS FOR UNIONIZATION TO THE EMPLOYEES.  NO
STATEMENT WAS MADE BY ANYONE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT OR THE EMPLOYEES. 
AFTER THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES HAD COMPLETED THEIR PRESENTATION, ALL
WITHDREW EXCEPT THE EMPLOYEES WHO THEN TOOK A VOTE AS TO WHETHER THEY
WISHED TO JOIN THE UNION.  OF THE ELEVEN VOTING, NINE VOTED AGAINST
JOINING, ONE WAS UNDECIDED, AND THE BELLBOY, WHOSE MEMBERSHIP THE UNION
DID NOT DESIRE, VOTED TO JOIN.  THE RESULT WAS IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO
THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES AND TO RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY.  SEVERAL DAYS
LATER RESPONDENT WAS NOTIFIED THAT HIS HOTEL HAD BEEN PLACED ON THE "WE
DO NOT PATRONIZE" LIST AND PICKETS BEGAN WALKING IN FRONT OF HIS HOTEL
BEARING A SIGN READING:  "ENETAI INN - UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR."  THE
PICKETING WAS CARRIED ON BY A SINGLE PICKET AT A TIME AND WAS
INTERMITTENT AND PEACEFUL. 

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF REFUSING TO SIGN THE CONTRACT REQUIRING HIS
EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE UNION, RESPONDENT HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE
REQUESTS AND DEMANDS OF THE UNION.  THAT SINGLE REFUSAL WAS WHAT CAUSED
THE UNION TO BRAND RESPONDENT'S PLACE OF BUSINESS AS UNFAIR.  AFTER THE
PICKETING STARTED, RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY AGREED TO TALK TO RESPONDENT
AGAIN TO SEE IF HE WOULD CONSIDER SIGNING THE CONTRACT.  AFTER
CONSULTING WITH RESPONDENT, THE ATTORNEY WROTE THE UNION'S ATTORNEY
THAT RESPONDENT WAS WILLING TO NEGOTIATE FURTHER WITH THE UNION BUT
WOULD NOT SIGN THE TYPE OF CONTRACT THAT HAD BEEN TENDERED HIM.  THE
UNION THEN OFFERED A CONTRACT WHICH PROVIDED THAT PRESENT EMPLOYEES
SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO JOIN THE UNION AS A CONDITION OF CONTINUED
EMPLOYMENT, BUT THAT ANY EMPLOYEES HIRED IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO JOIN WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS OR BE DISCHARGED.  THE NEW
CONTRACT ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE UNION SHOULD BE THE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE FOR BOTH UNION AND NONUNION EMPLOYEES.  THE SECOND
CONTRACT WAS JUST THE FIRST CONTRACT IN SLOW MOTION.  RESPONDENT
REFUSED TO SIGN IT FOR THE SAME REASON HE HAD REFUSED TO SIGN THE
PREVIOUSLY TENDERED CONTRACT. 

THE PEACEFUL PICKETING CONTINUED, AND ON JUNE 29, 1946, RESPONDENT
FILED THIS SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES.  ON THE FIRST HEARING
THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR A NONSUIT AND DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON REVERSED ON APPEAL.  29
WASH.2D 488, 188 P.2D 97.  UPON REMAND THE TRIAL COURT ON SEPTEMBER 20,
1948, ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES FOR THE "WRONGFUL
PICKETING" IN THE SUM OF $500 AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINED PETITIONERS IN
THE PREVIOUSLY QUOTED LANGUAGE.  THIS JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF
WASHINGTON AFFIRMED ON JULY 1, 1949, BY A DIVIDED COURT.  34 WASH.2D
38, 207 P.2D 699. 

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAS WHAT IS SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS A
"LITTLE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT," FN1  WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO INJUNCTION
SHALL ISSUE IN A "LABOR DISPUTE," AS DEFINED IN THE ACT, EXCEPT IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT; NOR SHALL ANY INJUNCTION
ISSUE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC POLICY DECLARED IN THE ACT.  NO "LABOR
DISPUTE" AS DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF WASHINGTON WAS HELD TO EXIST IN
THIS CASE.  THERE WAS NO INJUNCTION AGAINST PICKETING GENERALLY.  IT
WAS HELD THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PICKETING WAS VIOLATIVE OF THE
PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST EMPLOYER COERCION OF EMPLOYEES' CHOICE OF
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AND THAT THE PICKETING SHOULD BE ENJOINED ON
THAT NARROW GROUND.  FN2 

DOES THE INJUNCTION, LIMITED AS IT IS TO RESTRAINING PETITIONERS FROM
PICKETING RESPONDENT'S HOTEL FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPELLING HIM TO
COERCE HIS EMPLOYEES' CHOICE OF BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, CONSTITUTE
AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS? 

THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT PICKETING IS IN PART AN EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  CAFETERIA
EMPLOYEES UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. 293; BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS &
HELPERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V.
SWING, 312 U.S. 321; CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106; THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468.  BUT
SINCE PICKETING IS MORE THAN SPEECH AND ESTABLISHES A LOCUS IN QUO THAT
HAS FAR MORE POTENTIAL FOR INDUCING ACTION OR NONACTION THAN THE
MESSAGE THE PICKETS CONVEY, THIS COURT HAS NOT HESITATED TO UPHOLD A
STATE'S RESTRAINT OF ACTS AND CONDUCT WHICH ARE AN ABUSE OF THE RIGHT
TO PICKET RATHER THAN A MEANS OF PEACEFUL AND TRUTHFUL PUBLICITY.  THUS
IN MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, 312 U.S. 287, THE
PICKETING IN ISSUE, CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION, WAS PEACEFUL, BUT HAD BEEN
FOUND TO BE ENMESHED WITH AND SET IN SUCH A BACKGROUND OF VIOLENCE THAT
IT WAS A PART OF A PATTERN OF VIOLENCE.  THIS COURT HELD THAT PEACEFUL
PICKETING UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT PROPERLY BE ENJOINED BY THE
STATE. 

IN HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE V. WISCONSIN
E.R.B., 315 U.S. 437, THIS COURT UPHELD THE RIGHT OF WISCONSIN THROUGH
ITS EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD TO ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
AGAINST VIOLENCE IN PICKETING AND BOYCOTTING BY THE UNION INVOLVED. 
CARPENTERS & JOINERS UNION V. RITTER'S CAFE, 315 U.S. 722, UPHELD A
DECREE ENJOINING THE UNION FROM PICKETING A CAFE HAVING NO BUSINESS
CONNECTION WITH THE PLACE WHERE THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CENTERED.  AND
IN GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE & ICE CO., 336 U.S. 490, THE COURT
SUSTAINED A DECREE ENJOINING PICKETING WHICH WAS PEACEFUL AND
INFORMATIVE BUT WAS CARRIED ON FOR THE PURPOSE OF COERCING THE EMPLOYER
TO VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAW OF MISSOURI. 

THE PUBLIC POLICY OF ANY STATE IS TO BE FOUND IN ITS CONSTITUTION,
ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND DECISIONS OF ITS COURTS.  "PRIMARILY IT IS
FOR THE LAWMAKERS TO DETERMINE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE."  TWIN
CITY PIPE LINE COMPANY V. HARDING GLASS COMPANY, 283 U.S. 353, 357. 

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAS BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT DECLARED ITS
PUBLIC POLICY ON THE SUBJECT OF ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS FOR BARGAINING
PURPOSES.  THE PERTINENT PART OF THIS STATUTE IS SET FORTH IN THE
MARGIN.  FN3  THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF THIS DECLARATION OF POLICY IS
FOUND IN ITS APPLICATION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE TO THE
CONCRETE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE.  UNDER THE SO-ENUNCIATED PUBLIC
POLICY OF WASHINGTON, IT IS CLEAR THAT WORKERS SHALL BE FREE TO JOIN OR
NOT TO JOIN A UNION, AND THAT THEY SHALL BE FREE FROM THE COERCION,
INTERFERENCE, OR RESTRAINT OF EMPLOYERS OF LABOR IN THE DESIGNATION OF
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  PICKETING OF AN
EMPLOYER TO COMPEL HIM TO COERCE HIS EMPLOYEES' CHOICE OF A BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE IS AN ATTEMPT TO INDUCE A TRANSGRESSION OF THIS POLICY,
AND THE STATE HERE RESTRAINED THE ADVOCATES OF SUCH TRANSGRESSION FROM
FURTHER ACTION WITH LIKE AIM.  TO JUDGE THE WISDOM OF SUCH POLICY IS
NOT FOR US; OURS IS BUT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A RESTRAINT OF PICKETING
IN RELIANCE ON THE POLICY IS AN UNWARRANTED ENCROACHMENT UPON RIGHTS
PROTECTED FROM STATE ABRIDGMENT BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE SWING CASE, SUPRA, IS CONTROLLING.  WE
THINK NOT.  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT STRUCK DOWN THE STATE'S RESTRAINT
OF PICKETING BASED SOLELY ON THE ABSENCE OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP.  AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE INSTANT DECREE IS THE UNLAWFUL
OBJECTIVE OF THE PICKETING, NAMELY, COERCION BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE
EMPLOYEES' SELECTION OF A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  PEACEFUL
PICKETING FOR ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE DECREE UNDER
REVIEW.  THE STATE HAS NOT HERE, AS IN SWING, RELIED ON THE ABSENCE OF
AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  THUS THE STATE HAS NOT, AS WAS THE
CASE THERE, EXCLUDED "WORKINGMEN FROM PEACEFULLY EXERCISING THE RIGHT
OF FREE COMMUNICATION BY DRAWING THE CIRCLE OF ECONOMIC COMPETITION
BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS SO SMALL AS TO CONTAIN ONLY AN EMPLOYER
AND THOSE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY HIM."  312 U.S. AT 326. 

THE WASHINGTON STATUTE HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE WASHINGTON
COURTS IN THIS CASE TO PROHIBIT PICKETING OF WORKERS BY OTHER WORKERS. 
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH WE ARE REVIEWING ONLY PROHIBITS
COERCION OF WORKERS BY EMPLOYERS.  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH PETITIONERS'
READING OF THIS INJUNCTION THAT "WHATEVER TYPES OF PICKETING WERE TO BE
CARRIED OUT BY THE UNION WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE DECREE." 
RESPONDENT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT PICKETING PER SE HAS BEEN ENJOINED BUT
ONLY THAT PICKETING WHICH HAS AS ITS PURPOSE VIOLATION OF THE POLICY OF
THE STATE.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT PICKETING DIRECTED AT EMPLOYEES
FOR ORGANIZATION PURPOSES WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF THAT POLICY.  THE
DECREE DOES NOT HAVE THAT EFFECT. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE & ICE CO., 336
U.S. 490, CONTROLS THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE, AND THAT IT THEREFORE
MUST BE AFFIRMED.  IN THE GIBONEY CASE IT IS TRUE THAT THE STATE LAW
WHICH MADE THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PICKETING UNLAWFUL HAD CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS.  THE WASHINGTON STATUTE HERE HAS NO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. 
PETITIONERS SEEK TO DISTINGUISH GIBONEY ON THAT GROUND.  THIS COURT
THERE SAID:  "BUT PLACARDS USED AS AN ESSENTIAL AND INSEPARABLE PART OF
A GRAVE OFFENSE AGAINST AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC LAW CANNOT IMMUNIZE THAT
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT FROM STATE CONTROL.  ...  AND IT IS CLEAR THAT
APPELLANTS WERE DOING MORE THAN EXERCISING A RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH OR
PRESS.  ...  THEY WERE EXERCISING THEIR ECONOMIC POWER TOGETHER WITH
THAT OF THEIR ALLIES TO COMPEL EMPIRE TO ABIDE BY UNION RATHER THAN BY
STATE REGULATION OF TRADE."  336 U.S. AT 502-503.  IT IS NOT THE
PRESENCE OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS WHICH MAKES A STATE POLICY "IMPORTANT
PUBLIC LAW."  MUCH PUBLIC POLICY DOES NOT READILY LEND ITSELF TO
ACCOMPANYING CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.  WHETHER TO IMPOSE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
IN CONNECTION WITH A GIVEN POLICY IS ITSELF A QUESTION OF POLICY. 
HERE, AS IN GIBONEY, THE UNION WAS USING ITS ECONOMIC POWER WITH THAT
OF ITS ALLIES TO COMPEL RESPONDENT TO ABIDE BY UNION POLICY RATHER THAN
BY THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE STATE.  THAT STATE POLICY GUARANTEES
WORKERS FREE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR BARGAINING PURPOSES.  IF
RESPONDENT HAD COMPLIED WITH PETITIONERS' DEMANDS AND HAD SIGNED ONE OF
THE TENDERED CONTRACTS AND LIVED UP TO ITS TERMS, HE WOULD HAVE THEREBY
COERCED HIS EMPLOYEES.  THE EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE HAD NO FREE CHOICE AS
TO WHETHER THEY WISHED TO ORGANIZE OR WHAT UNION WOULD BE THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE. 

THE PUBLIC POLICY OF WASHINGTON RELIED UPON BY THE COURTS BELOW TO
SUSTAIN THIS INJUNCTION IS AN IMPORTANT AND WIDELY ACCEPTED ONE.  THE
BROAD PURPOSE OF THE ACT FROM WHICH THIS POLICY FLOWS WAS TO PREVENT
UNREASONABLE JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVES OF
WORKERS.  BUT ABUSE BY WORKERS OR ORGANIZATIONS OF WORKERS OF THE
DECLARED PUBLIC POLICY OF SUCH AN ACT IS NO MORE TO BE CONDONED THAN
VIOLATION OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH CERTAIN
ACTIVITIES OF WORKERS.  WE THEREFORE FIND NO UNWARRANTED RESTRAINT OF
PICKETING HERE.  THE INJUNCTION GRANTED WAS TAILORED TO PREVENT A
SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF AN IMPORTANT STATE LAW.  THE DECREE WAS LIMITED
TO THE WRONG BEING PERPETRATED, NAMELY, "AN ABUSIVE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHT TO PICKET."  CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. AT
295.  THE JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  WASHINGTON LABOR DISPUTES ACT, REM.  REV.  STAT. (SUPP. 1940)
SEC. 7612.  CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THIS ACT WERE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY
THE WASHINGTON COURT IN BLANCHARD V. GOLDEN AGE BREWING COMPANY, 188
WASH. 396, 63 P.2D 397. 

FN2  THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT REVIEWED ITS DECISIONS IN THIS
FIELD IN ITS FIRST OPINION IN THE INSTANT CASE.  O'NEIL V. BUILDING
SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, 9 WASH.2D 507, 115 P.2D 662, AND S & W FINE
FOODS V. RETAIL DELIVERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN'S UNION, 11 WASH.2D 262,
118 P.2D 962, HAD TREATED ANY PEACEFUL PICKETING AS LAWFUL.  AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321, WAS HELD TO BE CONTROLLING
IN BOTH CASES.  BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, BOTH THE O'NEIL AND S & W
CASES WERE CHARACTERIZED AS WRONG IN PRINCIPLE AND WERE EXPRESSLY
OVERRULED.  THE COURT QUOTED FROM SWENSON V. SEATTLE CENTRAL LABOR
COUNCIL, 27 WASH.2D 193, 206, 177 P.2D 873, 880, WHERE IT WAS SAID THAT
PEACEFUL PICKETING IS AN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH WHICH
LOSES THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY WHERE "IT STEPS OVER
THE LINE FROM PERSUASION TO COERCION." 

FN3  "IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS ACT AND IN DETERMINING THE
JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AS
SUCH JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY ARE HEREIN DEFINED AND LIMITED, THE
PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IS HEREBY DECLARED AS
FOLLOWS: 

"WHEREAS, UNDER PREVAILING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, DEVELOPED WITH THE
AID OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY FOR OWNERS OF PROPERTY TO ORGANIZE IN THE
CORPORATE AND OTHER FORMS OF OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATION, THE INDIVIDUAL
UNORGANIZED WORKER IS COMMONLY HELPLESS TO EXERCISE ACTUAL LIBERTY OF
CONTRACT AND TO PROTECT HIS FREEDOM OF LABOR, AND THEREBY TO OBTAIN
ACCEPTABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, WHEREFORE, THOUGH HE
SHOULD BE FREE TO DECLINE TO ASSOCIATE WITH HIS FELLOWS, IT IS
NECESSARY THAT HE HAVE FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION,
AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS OWN CHOOSING, TO NEGOTIATE
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT HE SHALL BE FREE
FROM INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYERS OF LABOR, OR
THEIR AGENTS, IN THE DESIGNATION OF SUCH REPRESENTATIVES OR IN SELF
ORGANIZATION OR IN OTHER CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTIONS; THEREFORE,
THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS OF, AND LIMITATIONS UPON, THE JURISDICTION
AND AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ARE HEREBY
ENACTED."  REM.  REV. STAT. (SUPP. 1940) SEC. 7612-2. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CASE IS CONTROLLED BY
THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE & ICE CO., 336
U.S. 490, AND THEREFORE CONCURS IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















CASSELL V. TEXAS, 339 U.S. 282 


NO. 46.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1950.  - 154
TEX. CR. R. - , 216 S.W.2D 813, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS CONVICTED IN A TEXAS STATE COURT FOR MURDER,
NOTWITHSTANDING HIS MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT
HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAD BEEN VIOLATED BY THE
EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM THE GRAND JURY.  THE JURY COMMISSIONERS
TESTIFIED THAT NO NEGROES WERE SELECTED FOR THE GRAND JURY BECAUSE THEY
CHOSE JURYMEN ONLY FROM PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY WERE PERSONALLY
ACQUAINTED AND THEY KNEW NO NEGROES WHO WERE ELIGIBLE AND AVAILABLE FOR
GRAND-JURY SERVICE.  IT ALSO APPEARED FROM THE RECORD THAT, FROM 1942,
WHEN HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, WAS DECIDED, UNTIL PETITIONER'S
INDICTMENT IN 1947, THERE HAD BEEN 21 GRAND JURIES ON NONE OF WHICH WAS
THERE MORE THAN ONE NEGRO, THAT OF THE 252 MEMBERS 17(OR 6.7%) WERE
NEGROES, AND THAT ABOUT 15.5% OF THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY AND 6.5%
OF THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS WERE NEGROES.  HELD:  THE CONVICTION IS
REVERSED.  PP. 282-298. 

CASSELL V. TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. 

THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AFFIRMED PETITIONER'S CONVICTION
FOR MURDER.  154 TEX. CR. R. - , 216 S.W.2D 813.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 943.  REVERSED, P. 290. 

MR. JUSTICE REED ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN OPINION
IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK
CONCURRED. 

REVIEW WAS SOUGHT IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A
VIOLATION BY TEXAS OF PETITIONER'S FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL GRAND JURY.  THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS RAISED BY A
MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER, A NEGRO,
SUFFERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION THROUGH THE SELECTION OF WHITE
MEN ONLY FOR THE GRAND JURY THAT INDICTED HIM.  AFTER FULL HEARING, THE
TRIAL COURT DENIED THE MOTION, AND THIS ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS IN AFFIRMING PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION.  CASSELL V. STATE, 154 TEX. CR. R. - , 216 S.W.2D 813. 

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ACCEPTED THE FEDERAL RULE THAT A NEGRO
IS DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS WHEN HE IS INDICTED BY A
GRAND JURY FROM WHICH NEGROES AS A RACE HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY
EXCLUDED.  CASSELL V. STATE, SUPRA, 154 TEX. CR. R. AT - , 216 S.W.2D
AT 819; NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370, 394; SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S.
128, 130; HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, 404; AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S.
398, 403.  IT WAS FROM AN EXAMINATION OF FACTS THAT THE COURT DEDUCED
ITS CONCLUSION THAT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION HAD NOT BEEN PRACTICED. 
SINCE THE RESULT REACHED MAY DENY A FEDERAL RIGHT, WE MAY REEXAMINE THE
FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PETITIONER HAS SUSTAINED BY PROOF HIS
ALLEGATION OF DISCRIMINATION N1.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED (336 U.S. 943)
TO CONSIDER PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT IN THIS CASE NEGROES WERE OMITTED
FROM THE LIST OF GRAND JURYMEN EITHER BECAUSE OF DELIBERATE LIMITATION
BY THE DALLAS COUNTY JURY COMMISSIONERS, OR BECAUSE OF FAILURE BY THE
COMMISSIONERS TO ACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH AVAILABLE NEGROES. 

ACTING UNDER THE TEXAS STATUTES,  FN2  THE DALLAS COUNTY GRAND-JURY
COMMISSIONERS CHOSE A LIST OF SIXTEEN MALES  FN3  FOR THIS SEPTEMBER
1947 GRAND JURY FROM CITIZENS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE STATUTE.  FN4  THE
JUDGE CHOSE TWELVE OF THESE FOR THE PANEL.  FN5  NO CHALLENGE IS NOW
MADE TO THE FAIRNESS OF THIS STATUTORY SYSTEM.  WE HAVE APPROVED IT.
FN6 

PETITIONER'S ATTACK IS UPON THE WAY THE STATUTORY METHOD OF GRAND
JURY SELECTION HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED BY THE JURY COMMISSIONERS.  FN7
ONE CHARGE IS THAT DISCRIMINATION MUST HAVE BEEN PRACTICED BECAUSE THE
NEGRO PROPORTION OF GRAND JURORS IS LESS THAN THE NEGRO PROPORTION OF
THE COUNTY'S POPULATION.  UNDER THE 1940 CENSUS THE TOTAL POPULATION OF
DALLAS COUNTY WAS 398,564, OF WHOM 61,605 WERE NEGROES.  FN8  THIS IS
ABOUT 15.5%.  IN WEIGHING THIS MATTER OF CUSTOM, WE LIMIT OURSELVES, AS
DO THE PARTIES, TO THE PERIOD BETWEEN JUNE 1, 1942, WHEN HILL V. TEXAS,
SUPRA, WAS DECIDED, AND NOVEMBER 1947, WHEN PETITIONER WAS INDICTED. 
THERE WERE 21 GRAND JURIES IN THIS PERIOD; OF THE 252 MEMBERS OF THE
PANELS,  FN9  17, OR 6.7%, WERE NEGROES.  BUT THIS APPARENT DISCREPANCY
MAY BE EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT TEXAS GRAND JURORS MUST POSSESS
CERTAIN STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS N10.  GRAND JURORS MUST ORDINARILY BE
ELIGIBLE TO VOTE; ELIGIBILITY REQUIRES PAYMENT OF A POLL TAX; FN11  AND
THE VALIDITY OF THE POLL-TAX REQUIREMENT IS NOT CHALLENGED.  THE RECORD
SHOWS 5,500 CURRENT NEGRO POLL-TAX PAYERS IN DALLAS COUNTY IN 1947, AND
NOTHING INDICATES THAT THIS NUMBER VARIED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM YEAR TO
YEAR.  FN12  THE CORRESPONDING FIGURE FOR ALL POLL-TAX PAYERS, MALE AND
FEMALE, IS 83,667.  FN13  THESE FIGURES WOULD INDICATE THAT AS A
PROPORTIONAL MATTER 6.5% OF GRAND JURORS WOULD BE NEGROES, A PERCENTAGE
APPROXIMATING THE RATIO OF NEGROES ACTUALLY SITTING ON THE 21 GRAND
JURY PANELS.  FN14  WITHOUT MORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NEGROES HAD
BEEN LEFT OFF GRAND-JURY PANELS TO SUCH A DEGREE AS TO ESTABLISH A
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DISCRIMINATION.  FN15 

A DIFFERENT QUESTION IS PRESENTED BY PETITIONER'S NEXT CHARGE THAT
SUBSEQUENT TO THE HILL CASE THE DALLAS COUNTY GRAND-JURY COMMISSIONERS
FOR 21 CONSECUTIVE LISTS HAD CONSISTENTLY LIMITED NEGROES SELECTED FOR
GRAND-JURY SERVICE TO NOT MORE THAN ONE ON EACH GRAND JURY.  THE
CONTENTION IS THAT THE AKINS CASE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED IN DALLAS COUNTY
TO ALLOW A LIMITATION OF THE NUMBER OF NEGROES ON EACH GRAND JURY,
PROVIDED THE LIMITATION IS APPROXIMATELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER OF
NEGROES ELIGIBLE FOR GRAND-JURY SERVICE.  SINCE THE HILL CASE THE
JUDGES OF THE TRIAL COURT HAVE BEEN CAREFUL TO INSTRUCT THEIR JURY
COMMISSIONERS THAT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF RACE OR COLOR IS
FORBIDDEN.  FN16  THE JUDGE DID SO HERE.  FN17  IF, NOTWITHSTANDING
THIS CAUTION BY THE TRIAL COURT JUDGES, COMMISSIONERS SHOULD LIMIT
PROPORTIONALLY THE NUMBER OF NEGROES SELECTED FOR GRAND-JURY SERVICE,
SUCH LIMITATION WOULD VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTION.  JURYMEN SHOULD BE
SELECTED AS INDIVIDUALS, ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL QUALIFICATIONS, AND
NOT AS MEMBERS OF A RACE. 

WE HAVE RECENTLY WRITTEN WHY PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF RACES ON
A JURY IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUISITE.  FN18  SUCCINCTLY STATED, OUR
REASON WAS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES ONLY A FAIR JURY SELECTED
WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE.  OBVIOUSLY THE NUMBER OF RACES AND
NATIONALITIES APPEARING IN THE ANCESTRY OF OUR CITIZENS WOULD MAKE IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET A REQUIREMENT OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. 
SIMILARLY, SINCE THERE CAN BE NO EXCLUSION OF NEGROES AS A RACE AND NO
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF COLOR,  FN19  PROPORTIONAL LIMITATION IS NOT
PERMISSIBLE.  THAT CONCLUSION IS COMPELLED BY THE U.S.C.  TITLE 18,
SEC. 243,  FN20  BASED ON SEC. 4 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875. 
WHILE THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION DIRECTS ATTENTION TO THE RIGHT TO
SERVE AS A JUROR, ITS COMMAND HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED ALSO TO ASSURE
RIGHTS TO AN ACCUSED.  PROHIBITING RACIAL DISQUALIFICATION OF NEGROES
FOR JURY SERVICE, THIS CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, SEC. 5,  FN21  HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY SUSTAINED AND ITS
VIOLATION HELD TO DENY A PROPER TRIAL TO A NEGRO ACCUSED.  FN22
PROPORTIONAL RACIAL LIMITATION IS THEREFORE FORBIDDEN.  AN ACCUSED IS
ENTITLED TO HAVE CHARGES AGAINST HIM CONSIDERED BY A JURY IN THE
SELECTION OF WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NEITHER INCLUSION NOR EXCLUSION
BECAUSE OF RACE. 

OUR HOLDING THAT THERE WAS DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF GRAND
JURORS IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, IS BASED ON ANOTHER GROUND.  IN
EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT NO NEGROES APPEARED ON THIS GRAND-JURY LIST,
THE COMMISSIONERS SAID THAT THEY KNEW NONE AVAILABLE WHO QUALIFIED; AT
THE SAME TIME THEY SAID THEY CHOSE JURYMEN ONLY FROM THOSE PEOPLE WITH
WHOM THEY WERE PERSONALLY ACQUAINTED.  FN23  IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT IN
ORDINARY ACTIVITIES IN DALLAS COUNTY, ACQUAINTANCESHIP BETWEEN THE
RACES IS NOT ON A SUFFICIENTLY FAMILIAR BASIS TO GIVE CITIZENS ELIGIBLE
FOR APPOINTMENT AS JURY COMMISSIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THE
QUALIFICATIONS FOR GRAND-JURY SERVICE OF MANY MEMBERS OF ANOTHER RACE. 
AN INDIVIDUAL'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR GRAND-JURY SERVICE, HOWEVER, ARE NOT
HARD TO ASCERTAIN,  FN24  AND WITH NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, WE MUST
ASSUME THAT A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE NEGROES OF DALLAS COUNTY MET THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR JURY SERVICE.  FN25  WHEN THE COMMISSIONERS
WERE APPOINTED AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS, IT WAS THEIR DUTY
TO FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES FAIRLY WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE
ELIGIBLE JURORS OF THE COUNTY WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE AND COLOR.  FN26
THEY DID NOT DO SO HERE, AND THE RESULT HAS BEEN RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION.  WE REPEAT THE RECENT STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE STONE
IN HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, 404: 

"DISCRIMINATION CAN ARISE FROM THE ACTION OF COMMISSIONERS WHO
EXCLUDE ALL NEGROES WHOM THEY DO NOT KNOW TO BE QUALIFIED AND WHO
NEITHER KNOW NOR SEEK TO LEARN WHETHER THERE ARE IN FACT ANY QUALIFIED
TO SERVE.  IN SUCH A CASE, DISCRIMINATION NECESSARILY RESULTS WHERE
THERE ARE QUALIFIED NEGROES AVAILABLE FOR JURY SERVICE.  WITH THE LARGE
NUMBER OF COLORED MALE RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY WHO ARE LITERATE, AND IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY COUNTERVAILING TESTIMONY, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR
INFERENCE THAT THERE ARE NOT AMONG THEM HOUSEHOLDERS OF GOOD MORAL
CHARACTER, WHO CAN READ AND WRITE, QUALIFIED AND AVAILABLE FOR GRAND
JURY SERVICE." 

THE EXISTENCE OF THE KIND OF DISCRIMINATION DESCRIBED IN THE HILL
CASE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION CONTINUING OVER A LONG
PERIOD AND PRACTICED BY A SUCCESSION OF JURY COMMISSIONERS.  SINCE THE
ISSUE MUST BE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF
THE JURY THAT HAS INDICTED PETITIONER, IT IS ENOUGH TO HAVE DIRECT
EVIDENCE BASED ON THE STATEMENTS OF THE JURY COMMISSIONERS IN THE VERY
CASE.  DISCRIMINATION MAY BE PROVED IN OTHER WAYS THAN BY EVIDENCE OF
LONG-CONTINUED UNEXPLAINED ABSENCE OF NEGROES FROM MANY PANELS.  THE
STATEMENTS OF THE JURY COMMISSIONERS THAT THEY CHOSE ONLY WHOM THEY
KNEW, AND THAT THEY KNEW NO ELIGIBLE NEGROES IN AN AREA WHERE NEGROES
MADE UP SO LARGE A PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION, PROVE THE INTENTIONAL
EXCLUSION THAT IS DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 590; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306
U.S. 354, 358; SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128, 130; FAY V. NEW YORK, 332
U.S. 261, 272. 

FN2  TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (VERNON, 1948), ARTS. 333-340. 

FN3  ID., ART. 338.  UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES, WOMEN
MAY NOT SERVE ON TEXAS JURIES.  TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ART. 5, SEC. 13;
HARPER V. STATE, 90 TEX. CR. R. 252, 234 S.W. 909. 

FN4  TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (VERNON, 1948): 

"ART. 339.  ...  NO PERSON SHALL BE SELECTED OR SERVE AS A GRAND
JUROR WHO DOES NOT POSSESS THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS: 

"1.  HE MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE STATE, AND OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH HE
IS TO SERVE, AND QUALIFIED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS TO VOTE IN
SAID COUNTY; BUT, WHENEVER IT SHALL BE MADE TO APPEAR TO THE COURT THAT
THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF JURORS WHO HAVE PAID THEIR POLL TAXES CAN NOT
BE FOUND WITHIN THE COUNTY, THE COURT SHALL NOT REGARD THE PAYMENT OF
POLL TAXES AS A QUALIFICATION FOR SERVICE AS A JUROR. 

"2.  HE MUST BE A FREEHOLDER WITHIN THE STATE, OR A HOUSEHOLDER
WITHIN THE COUNTY. 

"3.  HE MUST BE OF SOUND MIND AND GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 

"4.  HE MUST BE ABLE TO READ AND WRITE. 

"5.  HE MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY FELONY. 

"6.  HE MUST NOT BE UNDER INDICTMENT OR OTHER LEGAL ACCUSATION FOR
THEFT OR OF ANY FELONY." 

FN5  ID., ART. 357. 

FN6  SMITH V. TEXAS, SUPRA, P. 130.  SEE ZIMMERMAN V. STATE, 59 A.2D
675, 676-77, AFFIRMED UNDER TITLE ZIMMERMAN V. MARYLAND, 336 U.S. 901;
FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 261, 266, 272; MORSE, A SURVEY OF THE GRAND
JURY SYSTEM, PART II, 10 ORE.  L. REV. 217, 226-239. 

FN7  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE CASE THAT ANY JUDGE OF THE COUNTY
TRIAL COURTS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST NEGROES IN HIS SELECTION FROM THE
LISTS OF THE MEMBERS FOR THE GRAND JURIES. 

FN8  SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES:  1940, POPULATION, VOLUME
II, PART 6, P. 795. 

FN9  WE USE THE WORD "PANEL" TO MEAN THE GRAND JURY WHICH IS THE
FINAL RESULT OF THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE.  SEE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, ART. 360.  THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THE NUMBER OF
NEGROES WHO WERE PLACED ON THE LISTS OF SIXTEEN, BUT DID NOT SERVE. 
ALL THAT APPEARS IN THIS CONNECTION IS THAT NO NEGROES WERE PLACED ON
THE LIST IN THIS CASE. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN11  TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ART. 6, SEC. 2; VERNON'S TEXAS STATUTES,
1948, ART. 2955; CONKLIN V. STATE, 144 TEX. CR. R. 210, 162 S.W.2D
416. 

FN12  THERE IS SOME OBSCURITY IN THE RECORD AS TO WHETHER THE ABOVE
FIGURE OF NEGRO POLL-TAX PAYERS REFERS TO MALES ONLY OR TO MEN AND
WOMEN.  154 TEX. CR. R. - ,  - ,  - , 216 S.W.2D 813, 816, 819.  THE
TESTIMONY AND THE STATISTICS IN THE BRIEFS CAUSE US TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE FIGURE REFERS TO ALL ELIGIBLE NEGRO VOTERS. 

FN13  TEXAS ALMANAC, 1947-1948, P. 421. 

FN14  IN OUR COMPUTATIONS WE HAVE USED STATISTICS WHICH INCLUDE BOTH
MEN AND WOMEN, BECAUSE IN MANY CASES STATISTICAL BREAKDOWNS IN TERMS OF
SEX ARE NOT AVAILABLE.  ALTHOUGH ONLY MEN MAY SERVE ON THE GRAND
JURIES, THE USE OF TOTALS INCLUDING BOTH SEXES SHOULD MAKE FOR ONLY
MINOR VARIATIONS IN THE PERCENTAGES. 

FN15  COMPARE NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 591; PIERRE V.
LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354, 361; SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128, 129; HILL
V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, 401-403. 

FN16  AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398, 404. 

FN17  CASSELL V. STATE, 154 TEX. CR. R. - , 216 S.W.2D 813. 

FN18  AKINS V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 403. 

FN19  NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370, 394; AKINS V. TEXAS, SUPRA,
404. 

FN20  "NO CITIZEN POSSESSING ALL OTHER QUALIFICATIONS WHICH ARE OR
MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED FOR SERVICE AS GRAND OR
PETIT JUROR IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY STATE ON
ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE; AND
WHOEVER, BEING AN OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON CHARGED WITH ANY DUTY IN THE
SELECTION OR SUMMONING OF JURORS, EXCLUDES OR FAILS TO SUMMON ANY
CITIZEN FOR SUCH CAUSE, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000."    FN21
"SECTION 5.  THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE, BY APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE." 

FN22  SEE NEAL V. DELAWARE, SUPRA, 385, 386; HILL V. TEXAS, SUPRA,
404; FAY V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, 284. 

FN23  ONE COMMISSIONER SAID:  "I WAS NOT PERSONALLY ACQUAINTED WITH
ANY NEGRO CITIZEN OF DALLAS COUNTY THAT I THOUGHT WAS QUALIFIED TO SIT
ON THE GRAND JURY, AT THAT TIME.  I DID NOT KNOW A ONE PERSONALLY THAT
I WOULD RECOMMEND, MYSELF, AT THAT TIME. 

"  ...  THE REASON THAT I DID NOT SUBMIT THE NAME OF A NEGRO IN MY 6
NAMES THAT I SUBMITTED WAS BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW ANY NEGRO CITIZEN
THAT I FELT WAS QUALIFIED WITH REFERENCE TO EDUCATION AND BUSINESS
ABILITY TO SERVE ON THIS GRAND JURY." 

ANOTHER SAID: 

"WE DID NOT SELECT A NEGRO WHEN I SERVED AS A COMMISSIONER; WE DID
DISREGARD COLOR, RACE OR CREED; I DID NOT KNOW PLENTY OF NEGROES THAT I
SAID WOULD BE QUALIFIED.  I KNOW A LOT OF NEGROES THAT ARE QUALIFIED
LAWYERS, DOCTORS, SUPERINTENDENTS OF SCHOOLS AND THAT SORT OF THING BUT
THE PARTICULAR THING IS THAT THEIR OCCUPATION PRECLUDES THEIR SERVING. 
YOU COULD NOT ASK A DOCTOR OR LAWYER TO SERVE 3 MONTHS OF THEIR TIME,
EITHER WHITE OR COLORED; THAT LIMITED US AS TO THE NUMBER THAT WE COULD
SELECT.  I KNEW A LOT OF WHITE AND COLORED PEOPLE THAT WERE QUALIFIED. 

"I DID NOT SELECT A NEGRO ON THIS GRAND JURY PANEL BUT I TRIED." 
THIS COMMISSIONER HAD SOUGHT A NEGRO HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL FOR THE
LIST. 

THE THIRD SAID:  "THE REASON A NEGRO WAS NOT SELECTED WAS NOT BECAUSE
WE DISCRIMINATED; I ONLY APPOINTED THOSE THAT I PERSONALLY KNEW TO BE
QUALIFIED. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IF THE NAME OF ANY QUALIFIED NEGRO CITIZEN - BEEN SUBMITTED AT THAT
TIME, WHO HAD GIVEN HIS PERMISSION AND SAID THAT HE HAD TIME TO SERVE,
I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED HIS NAME ALONG WITH THE OTHER 15
NAMES, IF IT WAS SOMEBODY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE TO ME." 

FN24  SEE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTS. 339, 355. 

IN LARGE CENTERS METHODS OF SELECTION OTHER THAN PERSONAL
ACQUAINTANCESHIP HAVE BEEN FOUND CONVENIENT.  FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S.
261. 

FN25  PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354, 360. 

FN26  SMITH V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 131-132.  THERE WAS A FURTHER DISCUSSION
OF THE DUTY OF JURY COMMISSIONERS TO FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH JURY
ELIGIBLES IN HILL V. STATE, 144 TEX. CR. R. 415, 418, 157 S.W.2D 369,
371.  THE COMMISSIONERS' LACK OF ACQUAINTANCE WITH AVAILABLE NEGROES
WAS NOT DEEMED SUFFICIENT BY THE STATE COURT TO JUSTIFY REVERSAL.  WE
DISAGREED AND REVERSED.  316 U.S. 400. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND MR. JUSTICE
MINTON JOIN, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT. 

IT HAS BEEN SETTLED LAW SINCE 1880 THAT THE CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS
BARRED THE STATES FROM DISCRIMINATING BECAUSE OF RACE IN THE SELECTION
OF JURIES, WHETHER GRAND OR PETTY.  AS A RESULT, A CONVICTION CANNOT
STAND WHICH IS BASED ON AN INDICTMENT FOUND BY A GRAND JURY FROM WHICH
NEGROES WERE KEPT BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION.  NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103
U.S. 370; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354.  WE OUGHT NOT TO REVERSE A
COURSE OF DECISIONS OF LONG STANDING DIRECTED AGAINST RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  BUT DISCRIMINATION IN
THIS CONTEXT MEANS PURPOSEFUL, SYSTEMATIC NON-INCLUSION BECAUSE OF
COLOR.  HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400.  IT DOES NOT MEAN AN ABSENCE OF
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF THE VARIOUS RACIAL COMPONENTS OF THE
RELEVANT POLITICAL UNIT FROM WHICH A GRAND JURY IS DRAWN OR AN ISOLATED
INSTANCE OF DISPARITY AMONG SUCH COMPONENTS.  AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S.
398, 403; FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 261, 284.  ASSUMING THAT THE GRAND
JURY POOL FAIRLY ENOUGH REFLECTS THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE
COMMUNITY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL
DISCRIMINATION IF WITHOUT DESIGN IT COMES TO PASS THAT A PARTICULAR
GRAND JURY HAS NO REPRESENTATION OF A PARTICULAR RACE.  THE CIVIL WAR
AMENDMENTS DID NOT DEPRIVE THE STATES OF THEIR POWER TO DEFINE
QUALIFICATIONS FOR GRAND-JURY SERVICE RELEVANT TO THE FUNCTIONS OF A
GRAND JURY, NOR DID THEY TURN MATTERS THAT ARE INHERENTLY
INCOMMENSURABLE INTO MERE MATTERS OF ARITHMETIC.  THE CONSTITUTION HAS
NOT WITHDRAWN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, OF WHICH THE JURY
SYSTEM IS A PART, FROM THE STATES.  IT DOES COMMAND THAT NO STATE
PURPOSEFULLY MAKE JURY SERVICE TURN ON COLOR. 

A CLAIM THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION WAS
DISREGARDED CALLS FOR ASCERTAINMENT OF TWO KINDS OF ISSUES WHICH OUGHT
NOT TO BE CONFUSED BY BEING COMPENDIOUSLY CALLED "FACTS."  THE
DEMONSTRABLE, OUTWARD EVENTS BY WHICH A GRAND JURY CAME INTO BEING
RAISE ISSUES QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE FAIR INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM
WHAT TOOK PLACE IN DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION:  WAS THERE
A PURPOSEFUL NON-INCLUSION OF NEGROES BECAUSE OF RACE OR A MERELY
SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION, NOT THE OPERATION OF AN HONEST EXERCISE OF
RELEVANT JUDGMENT OR THE UNCONTROLLED CAPRICES OF CHANCE? 

THIS COURT DOES NOT SIT AS A JURY TO WEIGH CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ON
UNDERLYING DETAILS, AS FOR INSTANCE WHAT STEPS WERE TAKEN TO MAKE UP
THE JURY LIST, WHY ONE PERSON WAS REJECTED AND ANOTHER TAKEN, WHETHER
NAMES WERE PICKED BLINDLY OR CHOSEN BY JUDGMENT.  THIS IS NOT THE PLACE
FOR DISPUTATION ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.  ON THAT WE ACCEPT THE
FINDINGS OF THE STATE COURT.  BUT IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO DEFINE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS BY WHICH THOSE FINDINGS ARE TO BE JUDGED. 
THEREBY THE DUTY OF SECURING OBSERVANCE OF THESE STANDARDS MAY FALL
UPON THIS COURT.  THE MEANING OF UNCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS IN RELATION TO
THE ULTIMATE ISSUE OF DISCRIMINATION IS PRECISELY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE ON WHICH THIS COURT MUST PASS.  SEE WATTS V. INDIANA, 338 U.S.
49, 50-51.  OF COURSE EVEN AS TO THIS, AS ALWAYS WHEN A STATE COURT
JUDGMENT IS CLAIMED TO BE IN DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTION, APPROPRIATE
RESPECT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT.  AND SO WE
ARE BROUGHT TO THIS CASE. 

IF THE RECORD HERE SHOWED NO MORE THAN THAT THE GRAND-JURY
COMMISSIONERS HAD CONSIDERED THE NEGROES WITH WHOM THEY WERE ACQUAINTED
- JUST AS THEY CONSIDERED WHITE PERSONS WHOM THEY KNEW - AND HAD FOUND
THEM TO BE EITHER UNQUALIFIED FOR GRAND-JURY SERVICE OR QUALIFIED BUT
UNAVAILABLE, AND DID SO NOT DESIGNEDLY TO EXCLUDE NEGROES, THE STATE
COURT'S VALIDATION OF THE LOCAL PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE TO PREVAIL.  WE
OUGHT NOT TO GO BEHIND SUCH A CONSCIENTIOUS PROCESS, HOWEVER ROUGH AND
READY THE PROCEDURE OF SELECTION BY JURY COMMISSIONERS.  TO FIND IN
SUCH HONEST EVEN IF PRAGMATIC SELECTION OF GRAND JURORS THE OPERATION
OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS WOULD TURN THIS COURT INTO AN AGENCY FOR
SUPERVISING THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES.  SUCH AN
ASSUMPTION OF AUTHORITY BY THIS COURT WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE PRACTICAL
FUNCTIONING OF GRAND JURIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IN VIEW OF THE GREAT
VARIETY OF MINORITY GROUPS THAT COMPOSE OUR SOCIETY. 

A DIFFERENT SITUATION WOULD BE PRESENTED BY AN UNQUESTIONED SHOWING
THAT JURY COMMISSIONERS HAD SUCH A LIMITED PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF
POTENTIALLY QUALIFIED NEGRO JURORS THAT THEIR PURPOSEFUL LIMITATION OF
CHOICE TO THE NEGLIGIBLY FEW NEGROES KNOWN TO THEM WOULD INEVITABLY
IMPLY DESIGNED EXCLUSION OF ELIGIBLE NEGROES.  THE RECORD HERE AFFORDS
NO BASIS WHATEVER FOR SUCH A FINDING.  IT INDICATES THE CONTRARY. 

THE RECORD DOES DISCLOSE STARK FACTS REQUIRING REVERSAL ON A VERY
DIFFERENT BASIS.  IF ONE FACTOR IS UNIFORM IN A CONTINUING SERIES OF
EVENTS THAT ARE BROUGHT TO PASS THROUGH HUMAN INTERVENTION, THE LAW
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE BLINDNESS OF INDIFFERENCE RATHER THAN THE
BLINDNESS OF IMPARTIALITY NOT TO ATTRIBUTE THE UNIFORM FACTOR TO MAN'S
PURPOSE.  THE PURPOSE MAY NOT BE OF EVIL INTENT OR IN CONSCIOUS
DISREGARD OF WHAT IS CONCEIVED TO BE A BINDING DUTY.  PROHIBITED
CONDUCT MAY RESULT FROM MISCONCEPTION OF WHAT DUTY REQUIRES.  SUCH
MISCONCEPTION I BELIEVE TO BE THE REAL SITUATION ON THE RECORD BEFORE
US. 

THE GOVERNING FACTS ARE BRIEFLY STATED.  IN HILL V. TEXAS, SUPRA,
THIS COURT FOUND DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF GRAND JURORS IN
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT, DESPITE A LARGE
NUMBER OF NEGROES QUALIFIED FOR GRAND-JURY SERVICE, NONE HAD BEEN
DRAWN.  IN THE COURSE OF THE FIVE AND A HALF YEARS BETWEEN THAT
DECISION AND THE TIME OF THE DRAWING OF THE GRAND JURY WHICH FOUND THE
INDICTMENT NOW CHALLENGED, THERE WERE TWENTY-ONE GRAND-JURY PANELS. 
FN1  ON EACH OF THESE TWENTY-ONE CONSECUTIVE PANELS THERE WAS NEVER
MORE THAN ONE NEGRO.  THIS SELECTION WAS MADE FROM LISTS WHICH WERE NOT
THE RESULT OF A DRAWING OF LOTS BUT THE PERSONAL CHOICE OF THE GRAND
JURY COMMISSIONERS.  THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE CLEARLY INDICATES THAT NO
MORE THAN ONE NEGRO WAS CHOSEN BY THE COMMISSIONERS FOR EACH OF THE
TWENTY-ONE LISTS.  ONLY ONE NEGRO WAS PLACED ON THE LIST - HE DID NOT
SERVE ON THE PANEL - FOR THE SECOND GRAND JURY IN DALLAS COUNTY AFTER
THE DECISION IN HILL V. TEXAS.  AGAIN, AS TO THE GRAND JURY WHICH
FIGURED IN AKINS V. TEXAS, SUPRA, ONLY ONE NEGRO WAS PLACED ON THE
LIST, AND HE SERVED AS A GRAND JUROR.  325 U.S. AT 405.  AND IN WEEMS
V. STATE, 148 TEX. CRIM. 154, 157, 185 S.W.2D 431, 433, IT WAS
STIPULATED THAT ONLY ONE NEGRO, WHO DID NOT SERVE ON THE PANEL, WAS ON
THE LIST.  IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS CONCEDED THAT NO NEGRO WAS PLACED
ON THE LIST.  THE STATE MAKES NO CONTRARY CLAIM AS TO ANY OF THE OTHER
GRAND-JURY LISTS THOUGH THE FACTS REGARDING THEM ARE PECULIARLY WITHIN
THE STATE'S KNOWLEDGE.  IN VIEW OF THIS BACKGROUND, THE ASSUMPTION THAT
MORE THAN ONE NEGRO WAS PLACED ON THE LISTS IS INCONCEIVABLE. 

TO ASSUME THAT THE COMMISSIONERS DID TENDER TO THE JUDGES LISTS
CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE NEGRO WOULD LEAD INESCAPABLY TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE JUDGES SYSTEMATICALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST NEGROES.  THIS IS
SO BECAUSE IT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN THAT FROM LISTS OF SIXTEEN IT IS
ALWAYS NEGROES (BARRING ONE) THAT JUDGES UNPURPOSEFULLY REJECT.  I
CANNOT ATTRIBUTE SUCH DISCRIMINATION TO THE TRIAL JUDGES OF DALLAS
COUNTY.  I CAN DECLINE TO ATTRIBUTE SUCH DISCRIMINATION TO THESE JUDGES
ONLY BY CONCLUDING THAT THE JUDGES WERE NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SELECT MORE THAN ONE NEGRO. 

THE GRAND-JURY COMMISSIONERS HERE RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE
JUDGE NOT TO "DISCRIMINATE," AND I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THEY TRIED
CONSCIENTIOUSLY TO ABIDE BY THEM.  THE DIFFICULTY LIES IN WHAT THEY
CONCEIVED TO BE THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING DISCRIMINATION, AS
REVEALED BY THEIR ACTION.  THE NUMBER OF NEGROES BOTH QUALIFIED AND
AVAILABLE FOR JURY SERVICE IN DALLAS COUNTY PRECLUDED SUCH UNIFORM
PRESENCE OF NEVER MORE THAN ONE NEGRO ON ANY OTHER BASIS OF GOOD FAITH
THAN THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WERE GUIDED BY THE BELIEF THAT ONE NEGRO ON
THE GRAND JURY SATISFIED THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN HILL
V. TEXAS.  THAT THIS WAS THEIR VIEW IS COMPELLED BY THEIR TESTIMONY AT
THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT.  FN2 

THIS IS OF COURSE A MISCONCEPTION.  THE PROHIBITION OF THE
CONSTITUTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF COLOR DOES NOT REQUIRE
IN AND OF ITSELF THE PRESENCE OF A NEGRO ON A JURY.  BUT NEITHER IS IT
SATISFIED BY NEGRO REPRESENTATION ARBITRARILY LIMITED TO ONE.  IT IS
NOT A QUESTION OF PRESENCE ON A GRAND JURY NOR ABSENCE FROM IT.  THE
BASIS OF SELECTION CANNOT CONSCIOUSLY TAKE COLOR INTO ACCOUNT.  SUCH IS
THE COMMAND OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ONCE THAT RESTRICTION UPON THE
STATE'S FREEDOM IN DEVISING AND ADMINISTERING ITS JURY SYSTEM IS
OBSERVED, THE STATES ARE MASTERS IN THEIR OWN HOUSEHOLD.  IF IT IS
OBSERVED, THEY CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF COLOR,
NO MATTER WHAT THE COMPOSITION OF A GRAND JURY MAY TURN OUT TO BE. 

ON THIS RECORD I CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW
IS NOT BASED ON AN ALLOWABLE FINDING OF FACTS BEHIND WHICH THIS COURT
CANNOT GO.  IT DERIVES FROM THE ULTIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS.  THESE BEAR NO OTHER RATIONAL MEANING THAN PURPOSEFUL
DISCRIMINATION.  IT DOES NOT NEUTRALIZE THE DISCRIMINATION THAT IT MAY
WELL HAVE BEEN DUE TO A MISCONCEPTION BY THE GRAND-JURY COMMISSIONERS
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS. 

THIS COMPELS REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  I USE THE TERM "PANEL," AS DOES MR. JUSTICE REED IN HIS OPINION,
TO MEAN THE GRAND JURY OF TWELVE SELECTED FROM THE LIST OF SIXTEEN
PERSONS TENDERED TO THE JUDGE BY THE GRAND-JURY COMMISSIONERS. 

FN2  THE FOLLOWING IS A FAIR COMPILATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE
THREE GRAND-JURY COMMISSIONERS ON THIS POINT: 

"  ...  IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE JURY ROOM (AMONG) WE COMMISSIONERS
THAT AN EFFORT HAD BEEN MADE TO SECURE A NEGRO FOR THE GRAND JURY  ...
" 

"THE REASON THAT A NEGRO WAS NOT PUT ON THIS GRAND JURY PANEL WAS NOT
BECAUSE I HAD NOT MADE AN EFFORT TO SECURE ONE  ...  " 

"I DID NOT SELECT A NEGRO ON THIS GRAND JURY PANEL BUT I TRIED." 

"AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE WAS NOT A NEGRO ON THE OCTOBER, 1947, TERM
OF GRAND JURY; I HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM IN A BODY.  WHEN THE INFORMATION
CAME TO ME I TRIED TO CONTACT A NEGRO  ...  " 

"THE REASON A NEGRO WAS NOT SELECTED WAS NOT BECAUSE WE DISCRIMINATED
...  " 

"IF THE NAME OF ANY QUALIFIED NEGRO CITIZEN (HAD) BEEN SUBMITTED AT
THAT TIME, WHO HAD GIVEN HIS PERMISSION AND SAID THAT HE HAD TIME TO
SERVE, I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED HIS NAME ALONG WITH THE OTHER
15 NAMES, IF IT WAS SOMEBODY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE TO ME." 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, CONCURRING.    FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON, IT SEEMS TO ME QUITE DOUBTFUL AS AN ORIGINAL ISSUE
WHETHER A CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF PURPOSEFUL EXCLUSION
OF THE MEMBERS OF A RACE FROM THE GRAND JURY WHICH RETURNED THE
INDICTMENT.  HOWEVER, I THINK WE MUST ADHERE TO THE SETTLED COURSE OF
DECISION BY THIS COURT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH EXCLUSION. 

I AM UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION IN HILL V.
TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400(1942) TO THE DATE OF THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE THERE
HAS BEEN PURPOSEFUL SYSTEMATIC LIMITATION OF THE NUMBER OF NEGROES ON
GRAND JURIES IN DALLAS COUNTY.  THE ONLY EVIDENCE RELIED UPON TO
ESTABLISH SUCH LIMITATION IS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE
TWENTY-ONE GRAND JURIES, INCLUDING THE JURY RETURNING THE INDICTMENT OF
PETITIONER, WHICH WERE IMPANELED DURING THIS PERIOD.  BUT EACH OF THESE
GRAND JURIES OF TWELVE PERSONS WAS SELECTED BY A JUDGE FROM A LIST OF
SIXTEEN PERSONS PREPARED BY COMMISSIONERS.  THE RECORD SHOWS ONLY THOSE
NEGROES WHO HAVE ACTUALLY SERVED ON THE GRAND JURIES AND NOT THOSE WHO
WERE ON THE COMMISSIONERS' LISTS.  WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THERE HAS
BEEN UNIFORMITY AS TO RACE IN THE SELECTIONS OF COMMISSIONERS WHEN WE
DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY NEGROES HAVE BEEN ON THEIR LISTS.  EVEN IF
JUDICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN OF THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THREE LISTS
DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, WHICH ARE REPORTED IN AKINS V. TEXAS,
325 U.S. 398, 405(1945) AND IN WEEMS V. STATE, 148 TEX. CR. R. 154,
157, 185 S.W.2D 431, 433(1945), THERE REMAIN SIXTY-EIGHT PERSONS ON THE
LISTS WHOSE RACE IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE FROM THE RECORD OR FROM ANY
CONCESSION OF COUNSEL.  NOR DO I THINK THAT ALTERNATIVELY WE ARE
COMPELLED BY THE STATISTICS RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE JUDGES PURPOSEFULLY DISCRIMINATED DURING THIS PERIOD.  ANY
PRESUMPTION AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE JUDGES, OR OF THE COMMISSIONERS
WHOM THE JUDGES APPOINTED, INSTRUCTED AND SUPERVISED, MUST BE THAT THEY
INTENDED NO RACIAL LIMITATION.  AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE JUDGE WHO
IMPANELED THE GRAND JURY IN THIS CASE AND A NUMBER OF OTHER GRAND
JURIES DURING THE PERIOD UNDER REVIEW, AS WELL AS THE TESTIMONY OF THE
COMMISSIONERS IN THIS CASE AS TO THE JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM,
INDICATES THAT HE HAS NOT PURPOSEFULLY LIMITED PARTICIPATION ON ACCOUNT
OF RACE.  IN THE FACE OF THIS PRESUMPTION AND TESTIMONY, I THINK THAT,
EVEN IF THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE NEGRO ON EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS'
LISTS, WE COULD NOT INFER ANY PURPOSE ON THE PART OF THE JUDGES TO
LIMIT NEGRO PARTICIPATION SOLELY BECAUSE OF RACE.  THE BURDEN OF
SHOWING FACTS WHICH PERMIT AN INFERENCE OF PURPOSEFUL LIMITATION IS ON
THE DEFENDANT.  MARTIN V. TEXAS, 200 U.S. 316(1906).  I DO NOT FIND THE
PRESENT RECORD PERSUASIVE THAT THERE WAS SUCH LIMITATION. 

THE DIFFICULTIES FACING GRAND-JURY COMMISSIONERS ARE WELL ILLUSTRATED
BY THIS CASE.  ON THE ONE HAND THEY ARE TOLD THAT PURPOSEFUL
DISCRIMINATION IS INFERRED FROM THE AVAILABLE STATISTICS DURING THE
PREVIOUS FIVE AND ONE-HALF YEARS, SHOWING THAT NO MORE THAN ONE NEGRO
WAS CHOSEN FOR EACH OF 21 GRAND JURIES; THAT THIS INDICATES THAT THE
COMMISSIONERS MUST HAVE BEEN GUIDED BY THE MISCONCEIVED VIEW THAT THE
PRESENCE OF ONE NEGRO ON THE GRAND JURY SATISFIED CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS.  BUT THEY ARE ALSO TOLD QUITE PROPERLY THAT A TOKEN
REPRESENTATION OF A RACE ON A GRAND JURY IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUISITE; THAT IN FACT IT MAY REACH THE POINT OF ILLEGALITY; THAT
REPRESENTATION ON THE GRAND JURY BY RACE IN PROPORTION TO POPULATION IS
NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THERE MUST BE "NEITHER INCLUSION NOR EXCLUSION
BECAUSE OF RACE."  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ONE MAY, LIKE JOB'S
COMFORTER, ONLY ADD TO THE COMMISSIONERS' DISTRESS BY WRITING FURTHER. 
BUT IT DOES APPEAR TO ME FROM THIS RECORD THAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS
BROADER THAN THEY UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE.  THEY FRANKLY STATED THAT IN
MAKING UP THE LIST THEY DISCUSSED ONLY THOSE PERSONS WHOM THEY KNEW
PERSONALLY, AND THAT THEY CONSIDERED ONLY ONE NEGRO, A SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
WHO COULD NOT SERVE.  THE RECORD INDICATES CLEARLY THAT THERE WERE
NEGROES QUALIFIED AND AVAILABLE WHOM THE COMMISSIONERS DID NOT KNOW BUT
WHOM UPON INQUIRY THEY SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED.  THEIR RESPONSIBILITY
WAS TO LEARN WHETHER THERE WERE PERSONS AMONG THE NEGROES THEY DID NOT
KNOW WHO WERE QUALIFIED AND AVAILABLE FOR SERVICE.  HILL V. TEXAS, 316
U.S. 400(1942); SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128(1940).  THE ELIMINATION OF
THIS LARGE GROUP IN THE COMMUNITY FROM THE COMMISSIONERS' CONSIDERATION
DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS AS DEFINED IN THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  FOR THIS REASON I CONCUR IN THE OPINION OF
MR. JUSTICE REED AND IN THE JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE CASE BEFORE US IS THAT OF A NEGRO CONVICTED OF MURDER BY CRUSHING
THE SKULL OF A SLEEPING WATCHMAN WITH A PIECE OF IRON PIPE TO CARRY OUT
A BURGLARY.  NO QUESTION IS HERE AS TO HIS GUILT.  WE ARE ASKED TO
ORDER HIS RELEASE FROM THIS CONVICTION UPON THE SOLE GROUND THAT
NEGROES WERE PURPOSEFULLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN SELECTION OF THE
GRAND JURY THAT INDICTED HIM.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT NEGROES WERE NOT
EXCLUDED FROM THE TRIAL JURY BY WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED. 

IN SETTING ASIDE THIS CONVICTION, THE COURT IS MOVED BY A DESIRE TO
ENFORCE EQUALITY IN THAT REALM WHERE, ABOVE ALL, IT MUST BE ENFORCED -
IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  BUT THIS CONVICTION IS REVERSED FOR ERRORS
THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT OR INNOCENCE, OR
WITH A FAIR TRIAL OF THAT ISSUE.  THIS CONFLICTS WITH ANOTHER PRINCIPLE
IMPORTANT TO OUR LAW, VIZ., THAT NO CONVICTION SHOULD BE SET ASIDE FOR
ERRORS NOT AFFECTING SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. 

THIS COURT HAS NEVER WEIGHED THESE COMPETING CONSIDERATIONS IN CASES
OF THIS KIND.  THE USE OF OBJECTIONS TO THE COMPOSITION OF JURIES IS
LATELY SO MUCH RESORTED TO FOR PURPOSES OF DELAY, HOWEVER, AND THE
SPECTACLE OF A DEFENDANT PUTTING THE GRAND JURY ON TRIAL BEFORE HE CAN
BE TRIED FOR A CRIME IS SO DISCREDITING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE, THAT IT IS TIME TO EXAMINE THE BASIS FOR THE PRACTICE. 

                                  I. 

IT IS THE COMMAND OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THAT NEGRO CITIZENS BE
AFFORDED THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES TO SERVE UPON GRAND JURIES AS ARE
AFFORDED WHITE CITIZENS.  MOREOVER, CONGRESS, WHICH IS AUTHORIZED TO
PROVIDE FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT, HAS ENACTED THAT "NO CITIZEN POSSESSING
ALL OTHER QUALIFICATIONS WHICH ARE OR MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW SHALL BE
DISQUALIFIED FOR SERVICE AS GRAND OR PETIT JUROR IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY STATE, ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS
CONDITION OF SERVITUDE; ...  "  ACT OF MARCH 1, 1875, C. 114, SEC. 4,
18 STAT. 336, 62 STAT. 696, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 243. 

THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT IS THUS CLEAR.  BUT WHOSE RIGHT IS IT?  THE
RIGHT IS CONFERRED UPON THE QUALIFIED COLORED CITIZEN TO SERVE ON EQUAL
TERMS WITH THE QUALIFIED WHITE CITIZEN.  THIS DEFENDANT IS NOT HERE
ASKING THAT RIGHT FOR HIMSELF.  HE CLAIMS THAT FAILURE TO GIVE OTHER
NEGROES AN EQUAL RIGHT TO SIT ON THE GRAND JURY GIVES HIM QUITE A
DIFFERENT RIGHT - A RIGHT NOT TO BE INDICTED BY IT.  TWO REASONS OCCUR
TO ME WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THIS COURT IN TRANSLATING THE WRONG TO THOSE
NEGROES EXCLUDED FROM A GRAND JURY INTO A RIGHT OF THIS DEFENDANT TO
VOID AN INDICTMENT.  ONE IS THAT THE ABSENCE OF NEGROES ON THE GRAND
JURY PREJUDICED THIS DEFENDANT.  THE OTHER IS THAT IT IS THE ONLY
PRACTICABLE METHOD FOR ENFORCING THE RIGHT OF QUALIFIED NEGROES TO
SERVE ON GRAND JURIES.  IT IS DOUBTFUL IF EITHER OF THESE CAN BE
SUSTAINED. 

                            II. 

CONGRESS, WHICH HAS IMPLEMENTED THE RIGHT OF NEGROES TO SERVE ON
JURIES, HAD ALSO COMMANDED ALL UNITED STATES COURTS TO GIVE JUDGMENT
"WITHOUT REGARD TO TECHNICAL ERRORS, DEFECTS, OR EXCEPTIONS WHICH DO
NOT AFFECT THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES."  FN1  AND THIS SAME
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY WAS MANIFESTED IN A PROVISION DIRECTING THAT NO
INDICTMENT FOUND AND PRESENTED BY A GRAND JURY IN UNITED STATES COURTS
"SHALL BE DEEMED INSUFFICIENT, NOR SHALL THE TRIAL, JUDGMENT, OR OTHER
PROCEEDING THEREON BE AFFECTED BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT OR IMPERFECTION
IN MATTER OF FORM ONLY, WHICH SHALL NOT TEND TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
DEFENDANT"; FN2  AND ALSO IN THE PROVISION THAT A MOTION TO QUASH AN
INDICTMENT SHALL FAIL WHERE THE GROUND IS THAT ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF
THE GRAND JURY WERE UNQUALIFIED, BUT WHERE IT APPEARS THAT TWELVE OR
MORE QUALIFIED JURORS CONCURRED IN THE FINDING OF THE INDICTMENT.  FN3 

THIS COURT NEVER HAS EXPLAINED HOW DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF
A GRAND JURY, ILLEGAL THOUGH IT BE, HAS PREJUDICED A DEFENDANT WHOM A
TRIAL JURY, CHOSEN WITH NO DISCRIMINATION, HAS CONVICTED.  THE REASON
THIS QUESTION WAS NOT CONSIDERED PERHAPS IS THAT, IN THE EARLIER CASES
WHERE CONVICTIONS WERE SET ASIDE, THE DISCRIMINATION CONDEMNED WAS
PRESENT IN SELECTING BOTH GRAND AND TRIAL JURY AND, WHILE THE ARGUMENT
WAS CHIEFLY BASED ON THE LATTER, THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPINIONS MADE NO
DIFFERENTIATION, NOR FOR THEIR PURPOSE DID THEY NEED TO.  CF. STRAUDER
V. WEST VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 303; NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370; SEE
ALSO BUSH V. KENTUCKY, 107 U.S. 110; GIBSON V. MISSISSIPPI, 162 U.S.
565; HALE V. KENTUCKY, 303 U.S. 613.  ONLY WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS
HAVE CONVICTIONS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR DISCRIMINATION IN COMPOSITION OF
THE GRAND JURY ALONE, AND IN THESE THE QUESTION NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION
WAS NOT DISCUSSED.  PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354; SMITH V. TEXAS,
311 U.S. 128; HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT DISCRIMINATORY EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM A TRIAL
JURY DOES, OR AT LEAST MAY, PREJUDICE A NEGRO'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL,
AND THAT A CONVICTION SO OBTAINED SHOULD NOT STAND.  THE TRIAL JURY
HEARS THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH SIDES AND CHOOSES WHAT IT WILL BELIEVE.  IN
SO DECIDING, IT IS INFLUENCED BY IMPONDERABLES - UNCONSCIOUS AND
CONSCIOUS PREJUDICES AND PREFERENCES - AND A THOUSAND THINGS WE CANNOT
DETECT OR ISOLATE IN ITS VERDICT AND WHOSE INFLUENCE WE CANNOT WEIGH. 
A SINGLE JUROR'S DISSENT IS GENERALLY ENOUGH TO PREVENT CONVICTION.  A
TRIAL JURY ON WHICH ONE OF THE DEFENDANT'S RACE HAS NO CHANCE TO SIT
MAY NOT HAVE THE SUBSTANCE, AND CANNOT HAVE THE APPEARANCE, OF
IMPARTIALITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ACCUSED IS A NEGRO AND THE ALLEGED
VICTIM IS NOT. 

THE GRAND JURY IS A VERY DIFFERENT INSTITUTION.  THE STATES ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO USE IT AT ALL.  HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516.  ITS
POWER IS ONLY TO ACCUSE, NOT TO CONVICT.  ITS INDICTMENT DOES NOT EVEN
CREATE A PRESUMPTION OF GUILT; ALL THAT IT CHARGES MUST LATER BE PROVED
BEFORE THE TRIAL JURY, AND THEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  THE GRAND
JURY NEED NOT BE UNANIMOUS.  IT DOES NOT HEAR BOTH SIDES BUT ONLY THE
PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE, AND DOES NOT FACE THE PROBLEM OF A CHOICE
BETWEEN TWO ADVERSARIES.  ITS DUTY IS TO INDICT IF THE PROSECUTION'S
EVIDENCE, UNEXPLAINED, UNCONTRADICTED AND UNSUPPLEMENTED, WOULD WARRANT
A CONVICTION.  IF SO, ITS INDICTMENT MERELY PUTS THE ACCUSED TO TRIAL. 
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FUNCTION OF THE TRIAL JURY AND THE FUNCTION
OF THE GRAND JURY IS ALL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECIDING A CASE AND
MERELY DECIDING THAT A CASE SHOULD BE TRIED. 

IT HARDLY LIES IN THE MOUTH OF A DEFENDANT WHOM A FAIRLY CHOSEN TRIAL
JURY HAS FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, TO SAY THAT HIS
INDICTMENT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PREJUDICE.  IN THIS CASE A TRIAL JUDGE
HEARD THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE, RULED IT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A
CONVICTION, APPELLATE COURTS HAVE HELD THE SAME, AND NO FURTHER
QUESTION ABOUT IT IS BEFORE US.  MOREOVER, A JURY ADMITTEDLY CHOSEN
WITHOUT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION HAS HEARD THE PROSECUTION'S AND
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE AND HAS HELD THAT GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
HAS BEEN PROVED.  THAT FINDING, TOO, HAS BEEN AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND IS
NOT HERE.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS FRIVOLOUS TO CONTEND THAT
ANY GRAND JURY, HOWEVER CONSTITUTED, COULD HAVE DONE ITS DUTY IN ANY
WAY OTHER THAN TO INDICT. 

                                III. 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED MEANS OTHER THAN RELEASE OF CONVICTED
DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE THIS RIGHT OF THE NEGRO COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE
IN GRAND JURY SERVICE; AND THEY ARE, IF USED, DIRECT AND EFFECTIVE
REMEDIES TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE. 

"(WHOEVER), BEING AN OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON CHARGED WITH ANY DUTY IN
THE SELECTION OR SUMMONING OF JURORS, EXCLUDES OR FAILS TO SUMMON ANY
CITIZEN" BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR OR RACE HAS COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME AND
IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000.  62 STAT. 696, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 243. 

CONGRESS HAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT "EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY
STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OTHER PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE
DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, RPIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN
ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR
REDRESS."  17 STAT. 13, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43. 

THESE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL REMEDIES FOR DISCRIMINATORY EXCLUSIONS FROM
THE JURY HAVE BEEN ALMOST TOTALLY NEGLECTED BOTH BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND BY NEGRO CITIZENS ENTITLED TO SIT AS JURORS.  BACK IN
1878 A STATE JUDGE WAS INDICTED IN FEDERAL COURT FOR VIOLATION OF THE
ACT AND THIS COURT SUSTAINED IT.  EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339. 
THAT CASE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO STAND AS SOLITARY AND NEGLECTED AUTHORITY
FOR DIRECT ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEGRO'S RIGHT TO SIT ON JURIES. 

QUALIFIED NEGROES EXCLUDED BY DISCRIMINATION HAVE AVAILABLE, IN
ADDITION, REMEDIES IN COURTS OF EQUITY.  I SUPPOSE THERE IS NO DOUBT,
AND IF THERE IS THIS COURT CAN DISPEL IT, THAT A CITIZEN OR A CLASS OF
CITIZENS UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED FROM JURY SERVICE COULD MAINTAIN IN A
FEDERAL COURT AN INDIVIDUAL OR A CLASS ACTION FOR AN INJUNCTION OR
MANDAMUS AGAINST THE STATE OFFICERS RESPONSIBLE.  CF. HAGUE V.
COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, 307 U.S. 496; DOUGLAS V.
JEANNETTE, 319 U.S. 157; MORRIS V. WILLIAMS, 149 F.2D 703; MYERSON V.
SAMUEL, 74 F.SUPP.  315; ROLES V. SCHOOL BOARD, 61 F.SUPP.  395.  IF
THE ORDER WERE EVADED OR DISOBEYED, IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT COULD
FOLLOW.                                       IV. 

IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE COURT'S DECISION THAT THE FEDERAL PENAL
STATUTE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 243, SUPRA, HAS BEEN VIOLATED.  SO IN EFFECT IT
HOLDS THAT THE CRIME OF DISCRIMINATION OFFSETS THE CRIME OF MURDER AND
THAT THE STATE MUST START OVER AGAIN, IF DEATH OF WITNESSES, LOSS OF
EVIDENCE OR OTHER CONDITIONS WROUGHT BY TIME DO NOT PREVENT. 

I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS COURT CAN ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT ANY
DISCRIMINATION IN SELECTION OF THE GRAND JURY IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER
GREAT THE WRONG TOWARD QUALIFIED NEGROES OF THE COMMUNITY, WAS HARMLESS
TO THIS DEFENDANT.  TO CONCLUDE OTHERWISE IS TO ASSUME THAT NEGROES
QUALIFIED TO SIT ON A GRAND JURY WOULD REFUSE EVEN TO PUT TO TRIAL A
MAN WHOM A LAWFULLY CHOSEN TRIAL JURY FOUND GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT. 

THE NEGRO'S RIGHT TO BE SELECTED FOR GRAND JURY SERVICE IS
UNQUESTIONABLE AND SHOULD BE DIRECTLY AND UNCOMPROMISINGLY ENFORCED. 
BUT I DOUBT IF ANY GOOD PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED IN THE LONG RUN BY
IDENTIFYING THE RIGHT OF THE MOST WORTHY NEGROES TO SERVE ON GRAND
JURIES WITH THE EFFORTS OF THE LEAST WORTHY TO DEFER OR ESCAPE
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME.  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE QUALIFIED FOR GRAND
JURY SERVICE WOULD FAIL TO RETURN A TRUE BILL AGAINST A MURDERER
BECAUSE HE IS A NEGRO.  BUT UNLESS THEY WOULD, THIS DEFENDANT HAS NOT
BEEN HARMED. 

I WOULD TREAT THIS AS A CASE WHERE THE IRREGULARITY IS NOT SHOWN TO
HAVE HARMED THIS DEFENDANT, AND AFFIRM THE CONVICTION.  BUT IN THIS AND
SIMILAR CASES, I WOULD SEND A COPY OF THE RECORD TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE FOR INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN VIOLATIONS OF
THE STATUTE AND, IF SO, FOR PROSECUTION. 

FN1  THE QUOTED LANGUAGE APPEARED IN 40 STAT. 1181, 28 U.S.C. (1940
ED.)  SEC.  391.  THIS PROVISION WAS REPEALED IN THE REVISION OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE IN 1948, ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, C. 646, SEC. 39, 62 STAT.
992, 998, APPARENTLY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN EMBODIED IN RULE 52(A),
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEE NOTE OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOLLOWING RULE 52(A); BUT WAS PARTIALLY REENACTED BY ACT OF MAY 24,
1949, C. 139, SEC. 110, 63 STAT. 105, AND NOW APPEARS AS SEC. 2111, 28
U.S.C. (SUPP. III, 1950). 

FN2  17 STAT. 198, 18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  556, REPEALED IN THE
1948 REVISION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, C. 645, SEC.
21, 62 STAT. 862, 866, APPARENTLY FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAD BEEN
INCORPORATED IN RULES 6 AND 52, FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 
SEE NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOLLOWING RULES 6 AND 52. 

FN3  48 STAT. 649, 18 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  554A, REPEALED BY ACT
OF JUNE 25, 1948, C. 645, SEC. 21, 62 STAT. 862, 866, APPARENTLY
BECAUSE OF ITS INCORPORATION INTO RULE 6(B)(2), FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  SEE NOTE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOLLOWING RULE
6(B)(2). 
..END :


















MULLANE V. CENTRAL HANOVER TR. CO., 339 U.S. 306 


NO. 378.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1950.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1950.  - 299
N.Y. 697, 87 N.E.2D 73, REVERSED. 


A TRUST COMPANY IN NEW YORK WHICH HAD EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
OF A COMMON TRUST FUND ESTABLISHED BY IT UNDER SEC. 100-C OF THE NEW
YORK BANKING LAW PETITIONED UNDER THAT SECTION FOR A JUDICIAL
SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WOULD BE BINDING AND CONCLUSIVE AS TO ANY
MATTER SET FORTH THEREIN UPON EVERYONE HAVING ANY INTEREST IN THE
COMMON FUND OR IN ANY PARTICIPATING TRUST.  IN THIS COMMON FUND THE
TRUST COMPANY HAD INVESTED ASSETS OF NUMEROUS SMALL TRUSTS OF WHICH IT
WAS TRUSTEE AND OF WHICH SOME OF THE BENEFICIARIES WERE RESIDENTS AND
SOME NONRESIDENTS OF THE STATE.  THE ONLY NOTICE OF THIS PETITION GIVEN
BENEFICIARIES WAS BY PUBLICATION IN A LOCAL NEWSPAPER PURSUANT TO SEC.
100-C (12).  HELD: 

1.  WHETHER SUCH A PROCEEDING FOR SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS BE
TECHNICALLY IN PERSONAM, IN REM, OR QUASI IN REM, THE INTEREST OF EACH
STATE IN PROVIDING MEANS TO CLOSE TRUSTS THAT EXIST BY THE GRACE OF ITS
LAWS AND ARE ADMINISTERED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ITS COURTS IS SUCH
AS TO ESTABLISH BEYOND DOUBT THE RIGHT OF ITS COURTS TO DETERMINE THE
INTERESTS OF ALL CLAIMANTS, RESIDENT OR NONRESIDENT, PROVIDED ITS
PROCEDURE ACCORDS FULL OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND BE HEARD.  PP. 311
313. 

2.  THE STATUTORY NOTICE BY PUBLICATION IS SUFFICIENT AS TO ANY
BENEFICIARIES WHOSE INTERESTS OR ADDRESSES ARE UNKNOWN TO THE TRUSTEE,
SINCE THERE ARE NO OTHER MEANS OF GIVING THEM NOTICE WHICH ARE BOTH
PRACTICABLE AND MORE EFFECTIVE.  PP. 313-318. 

3.  SUCH NOTICE BY PUBLICATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AS A BASIS FOR ADJUDICATION DEPRIVING OF SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS KNOWN PERSONS WHOSE WHEREABOUTS ARE ALSO KNOWN, SINCE IT IS NOT
IMPRACTICABLE TO MAKE SERIOUS EFFORTS TO NOTIFY THEM AT LEAST BY
ORDINARY MAIL TO THEIR ADDRESSES ON RECORD WITH THE TRUST COMPANY.  PP.
318-320. 

MULLANE, SPECIAL GUARDIAN, V. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO.,
TRUSTEE, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO THE STATUTORY NOTICE TO BENEFICIARIES BY
PUBLICATION AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 100-C OF THE NEW YORK BANKING LAW, A NEW
YORK SURROGATE'S COURT ENTERED A FINAL DECREE ACCEPTING AN ACCOUNTING
OF THE TRUSTEE OF A COMMON TRUST FUND ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THAT
DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK (SEE 274 APP. DIV. 772, 80
N.Y.S.2D 127) AND THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK (299 N.Y. 697, 87
N.E.2D 73).  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 320. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CONTROVERSY QUESTIONS THE CONSTITUTIONAL SUFFICIENCY OF NOTICE
TO BENEFICIARIES ON JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS BY THE TRUSTEE OF A
COMMON TRUST FUND ESTABLISHED UNDER THE NEW YORK BANKING LAW.  THE NEW
YORK COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED AND OVERRULED OBJECTIONS THAT THE
STATUTORY NOTICE CONTRAVENES REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND THAT BY ALLOWANCE OF THE ACCOUNT BENEFICIARIES WERE DEPRIVED OF
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  299 N.Y. 697, 87 N.E.2D 73.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257. 

COMMON TRUST FUND LEGISLATION IS ADDRESSED TO A PROBLEM APPROPRIATE
FOR STATE ACTION.  MOUNTING OVERHEADS HAVE MADE ADMINISTRATION OF SMALL
TRUSTS UNDESIRABLE TO CORPORATE TRUSTEES.  IN ORDER THAT DONORS AND
TESTATORS OF MODERATELY SIZED TRUSTS MAY NOT BE DENIED THE SERVICE OF
CORPORATE FIDUCIARIES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND SOME THIRTY STATES
OTHER THAN NEW YORK HAVE PERMITTED POOLING SMALL TRUST ESTATES INTO ONE
FUND FOR INVESTMENT ADMINISTRATION* .  THE INCOME, CAPITAL GAINS,
LOSSES AND EXPENSES OF THE COLLECTIVE TRUST ARE SHARED BY THE
CONSTITUENT TRUSTS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR CONTRIBUTION.  BY THIS PLAN,
DIVERSIFICATION OF RISK AND ECONOMY OF MANAGEMENT CAN BE EXTENDED TO
THOSE WHOSE CAPITAL STANDING ALONE WOULD NOT OBTAIN SUCH ADVANTAGE. 

*ALA. CODE ANN., 1940, CUM. SUPP. 1947, TIT. 58, SECS. 88 TO 103, AS
AMENDED, LAWS 1949, ACT 262; ARIZ. CODE ANN., 1939, CUM. SUPP. 1949,
SECS. 51-1101 TO 51-1104; ARK. STAT. ANN. 1947, SECS. 58-110 TO 58-112;
CAL. BANK.  CODE ANN., DEERING, 1949, SEC. 1564; COLO. STAT. ANN.,
1935, CUM. SUPP. 1947, C. 18, SECS. 173 TO 178; CONN. GEN. STAT. 1949
REV., SEC. 5805; DEL. REV. CODE, 1935, SEC. 4401, AS AMENDED, LAWS,
1943, C. 171, LAWS 1947, C. 268; (D.C.)  63 STAT. 938; FLA. STAT.,
1941, SECS. 655.29 TO 655.34; GA. CODE ANN., 1937, CUM. SUPP. 1947,
SECS. 109-601 TO 109-622; IDAHO CODE ANN., 1949, CUM. SUPP. 1949, SECS.
68-701 TO 68-703; ILL. REV. STAT., 1949, C. 16 1/2, SECS. 57 TO 63;
IND. STAT. ANN., BURNS, 1950, SECS. 18-2009 TO 18-2014; KY. REV. STAT.,
1948, SEC. 287.230; LA. GEN. STAT. ANN., 1939, SEC. 9850.64; MD. ANN.
CODE GEN. LAWS, 1939, CUM. SUPP. 1947, ART. 11, SEC. 62A; MASS. ANN.
LAWS, 1933, CUM. SUPP. 1949, C. 203A; MICH. STAT. ANN., 1943, SECS.
23.1141 TO 23.1153; MINN. STAT., 1945, SEC. 48.84, AS AMENDED, LAWS
1947, C. 234; N.J. STAT. ANN., 1939, CUM. SUPP. 1949, SECS. 17:9A-36 TO
17:9A-46; N.C. GEN. STAT., 1943, SECS. 36-47 TO 36-52; OHIO GEN. CODE
ANN. (PAGE, 1946) SECS. 715 TO 720, 722; OKLA. STAT., 1941, CUM. SUPP.
1949, TIT. 60, SEC. 162; PA. STAT. ANN., 1939, CUM. SUPP. 1949, TIT. 7,
SECS. 819-1109 TO 819-1109D; SO. DAK.  LAWS 1941, C. 20; TEX. REV. CIV.
STAT. ANN., 1939, CUM. SUPP. 1949, ART. 7425B-48; VT. STAT., 1947 REV.,
SEC. 8873; VA. CODE ANN., 1950, SECS. 6-569 TO 6-576; WASH. REV. STAT.
ANN., SUPP. 1943, SECS. 3388 TO 3388-6; W. VA. CODE ANN., 1949, SEC.
4219(1) ET SEQ.; WIS. STAT., 1947, SEC. 223.055. 

STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH COMMON TRUST
FUNDS IS PROVIDED IN THE NEW YORK BANKING LAW, SEC. 100-C (C. 687, L.
1937, AS AMENDED BY C. 602, L. 1943 AND C. 158, L. 1944).  UNDER THIS
ACT A TRUST COMPANY MAY, WITH APPROVAL OF THE STATE BANKING BOARD,
ESTABLISH A COMMON FUND AND, WITHIN PRESCRIBED LIMITS, INVEST THEREIN
THE ASSETS OF AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF ESTATES, TRUSTS OR OTHER FUNDS OF
WHICH IT IS TRUSTEE.  EACH PARTICIPATING TRUST SHARES RATABLY IN THE
COMMON FUND, BUT EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL IS IN THE TRUST
COMPANY AS TRUSTEE, AND NEITHER A FIDUCIARY NOR ANY BENEFICIARY OF A
PARTICIPATING TRUST IS DEEMED TO HAVE OWNERSHIP IN ANY PARTICULAR ASSET
OR INVESTMENT OF THIS COMMON FUND.  THE TRUST COMPANY MUST KEEP FUND
ASSETS SEPARATE FROM ITS OWN, AND IN ITS FIDUCIARY CAPACITY MAY NOT
DEAL WITH ITSELF OR ANY AFFILIATE.  PROVISIONS ARE MADE FOR ACCOUNTINGS
TWELVE TO FIFTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUND AND
TRIENNIALLY THEREAFTER.  THE DECREE IN EACH SUCH JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF
ACCOUNTS IS MADE BINDING AND CONCLUSIVE AS TO ANY MATTER SET FORTH IN
THE ACCOUNT UPON EVERYONE HAVING ANY INTEREST IN THE COMMON FUND OR IN
ANY PARTICIPATING ESTATE, TRUST OR FUND. 

IN JANUARY, 1946, CENTRAL HANOVER BANK AND TRUST COMPANY ESTABLISHED
A COMMON TRUST FUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PROVISIONS, AND IN MARCH,
1947, IT PETITIONED THE SURROGATE'S COURT FOR SETTLEMENT OF ITS FIRST
ACCOUNT AS COMMON TRUSTEE.  DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD A TOTAL OF 113
TRUSTS, APPROXIMATELY HALF INTER VIVOS AND HALF TESTAMENTARY,
PARTICIPATED IN THE COMMON TRUST FUND, THE GROSS CAPITAL OF WHICH WAS
NEARLY THREE MILLION DOLLARS.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THE NUMBER OR
RESIDENCE OF THE BENEFICIARIES, BUT THEY WERE MANY AND IT IS CLEAR THAT
SOME OF THEM WERE NOT RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

THE ONLY NOTICE GIVEN BENEFICIARIES OF THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION WAS
BY PUBLICATION IN A LOCAL NEWSPAPER IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF N.Y. BANKING LAW SEC. 100-C (12): "AFTER FILING
SUCH PETITION (FOR JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ITS ACCOUNT) THE PETITIONER
SHALL CAUSE TO BE ISSUED BY THE COURT IN WHICH THE PETITION IS FILED
AND SHALL PUBLISH NOT LESS THAN ONCE IN EACH WEEK FOR FOUR SUCCESSIVE
WEEKS IN A NEWSPAPER TO BE DESIGNATED BY THE COURT A NOTICE OR CITATION
ADDRESSED GENERALLY WITHOUT NAMING THEM TO ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN
SUCH COMMON TRUST FUND AND IN SUCH ESTATES, TRUSTS OR FUNDS MENTIONED
IN THE PETITION, ALL OF WHICH MAY BE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTICE OR
CITATION ONLY IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN SAID PETITION AND WITHOUT
SETTING FORTH THE RESIDENCE OF ANY SUCH DECEDENT OR DONOR OF ANY SUCH
ESTATE, TRUST OR FUND."  THUS THE ONLY NOTICE REQUIRED, AND THE ONLY
ONE GIVEN, WAS BY NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION SETTING FORTH MERELY THE NAME
AND ADDRESS OF THE TRUST COMPANY, THE NAME AND THE DATE OF
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMON TRUST FUND, AND A LIST OF ALL PARTICIPATING
ESTATES, TRUSTS OR FUNDS. 

AT THE TIME THE FIRST INVESTMENT IN THE COMMON FUND WAS MADE ON
BEHALF OF EACH PARTICIPATING ESTATE, HOWEVER, THE TRUST COMPANY,
PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 100-C (9), HAD NOTIFIED BY MAIL
EACH PERSON OF FULL AGE AND SOUND MIND WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS WERE THEN
KNOWN TO IT AND WHO WAS "ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE INCOME THEREFROM  ...
(OR)  ...  WHO WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PRINCIPAL IF THE
EVENT UPON WHICH SUCH ESTATE, TRUST OR FUND WILL BECOME DISTRIBUTABLE
SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED AT THE TIME OF SENDING SUCH NOTICE."  INCLUDED IN
THE NOTICE WAS A COPY OF THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT RELATING TO THE
SENDING OF THE NOTICE ITSELF AND TO THE JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF COMMON
TRUST FUND ACCOUNTS. 

UPON THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS,
APPELLANT WAS, BY ORDER OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO SEC. 100-C (12),
APPOINTED SPECIAL GUARDIAN AND ATTORNEY FOR ALL PERSONS KNOWN OR
UNKNOWN NOT OTHERWISE APPEARING WHO HAD OR MIGHT THEREAFTER HAVE ANY
INTEREST IN THE INCOME OF THE COMMON TRUST FUND; AND APPELLEE VAUGHAN
WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THOSE SIMILARLY INTERESTED IN THE
PRINCIPAL.  THERE WERE NO OTHER APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF ANY ONE
INTERESTED IN EITHER INTEREST OR PRINCIPAL. 

APPELLANT APPEARED SPECIALLY, OBJECTING THAT NOTICE AND THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS FOR NOTICE TO BENEFICIARIES WERE INADEQUATE TO AFFORD DUE
PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THEREFORE THAT THE COURT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO RENDER A FINAL AND BINDING DECREE. 
APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS WERE ENTERTAINED AND OVERRULED, THE SURROGATE
HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE REQUIRED AND GIVEN WAS SUFFICIENT.  75 N.Y.S.2D
397.  A FINAL DECREE ACCEPTING THE ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN ENTERED, AFFIRMED
BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, 275 APP. DIV. 769, 88
N.Y.S.2D 907, AND BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 
299 N.Y. 697, 87 N.E.2D 73. 

THE EFFECT OF THIS DECREE, AS HELD BELOW, IS TO SETTLE "ALL QUESTIONS
RESPECTING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMON FUND."  WE UNDERSTAND THAT
EVERY RIGHT WHICH BENEFICIARIES WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE AGAINST THE TRUST
COMPANY, EITHER AS TRUSTEE OF THE COMMON FUND OR AS TRUSTEE OF ANY
INDIVIDUAL TRUST, FOR IMPROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMON TRUST FUND
DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE ACCOUNTING IS SEALED AND WHOLLY
TERMINATED BY THE DECREE.  SEE MATTER OF HOAGLUND, 194 MISC. 803, 811
812, 74 N.Y.S.2D 156, 164, AFF'D 272 APP. DIV. 1040, 74 N.Y.S.2D 911,
AFF'D 297 N.Y. 920, 79 N.E.2D 746; MATTER OF BANK OF NEW YORK, 189
MISC. 459, 470, 67 N.Y.S.2D 444, 453; MATTER OF SECURITY TRUST CO. OF
ROCHESTER, ID. 748, 760, 70 N.Y.S.2D 260, 271; MATTER OF CONTINENTAL
BANK & TRUST CO., ID. 795, 797, 67 N.Y.S.2D 806, 807-808. 

WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH A CHALLENGE TO THE POWER OF THE STATE -
THE RIGHT OF ITS COURTS TO ADJUDICATE AT ALL AS AGAINST THOSE
BENEFICIARIES WHO RESIDE WITHOUT THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  IT IS
CONTENDED THAT THE PROCEEDING IS ONE IN PERSONAM IN THAT THE DECREE
AFFECTS NEITHER TITLE TO NOR POSSESSION OF ANY RES, BUT ADJUDGES ONLY
PERSONAL RIGHTS OF THE BENEFICIARIES TO SURCHARGE THEIR TRUSTEE FOR
NEGLIGENCE OR BREACH OF TRUST.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SAID, UNDER THE
STRICT DOCTRINE OF PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714, THE SURROGATE IS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS TO NONRESIDENTS UPON WHOM PERSONAL SERVICE OF
PROCESS WAS NOT MADE. 

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ACTIONS IN REM AND THOSE IN PERSONAM ARE ANCIENT
AND ORIGINALLY EXPRESSED IN PROCEDURAL TERMS WHAT SEEMS REALLY TO HAVE
BEEN A DISTINCTION IN THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF PROPERTY UNDER A SYSTEM
QUITE UNLIKE OUR OWN.  BUCKLAND AND MCNAIR, ROMAN LAW AND COMMON LAW,
66; BURDICK, PRINCIPLES OF ROMAN LAW AND THEIR RELATION TO MODERN LAW,
298.  THE LEGAL RECOGNITION AND RISE IN ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF
INCORPOREAL OR INTANGIBLE FORMS OF PROPERTY HAVE UPSET THE ANCIENT
SIMPLICITY OF PROPERTY LAW AND THE CLARITY OF ITS DISTINCTIONS, WHILE
NEW FORMS OF PROCEEDINGS HAVE CONFUSED THE OLD PROCEDURAL
CLASSIFICATION.  AMERICAN COURTS HAVE SOMETIMES CLASSED CERTAIN ACTIONS
AS IN REM BECAUSE PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS NOT REQUIRED, AND AT
OTHER TIMES HAVE HELD PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE
THE ACTION WAS IN REM.  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS,
SECS. 1517 ET SEQ. (5TH ED.). 

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO SETTLE FIDUCIARY ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN SOMETIMES
TERMED IN REM, OR MORE INDEFINITELY QUASI IN REM, OR MORE VAGUELY
STILL, "IN THE NATURE OF A PROCEEDING IN REM."  IT IS NOT READILY
APPARENT HOW THE COURTS OF NEW YORK DID OR WOULD CLASSIFY THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING, WHICH HAS SOME CHARACTERISTICS AND IS WANTING IN SOME
FEATURES OF PROCEEDINGS BOTH IN REM AND IN PERSONAM.  BUT IN ANY EVENT
WE THINK THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DO NOT DEPEND UPON A CLASSIFICATION FOR WHICH THE
STANDARDS ARE SO ELUSIVE AND CONFUSED GENERALLY AND WHICH, BEING
PRIMARILY FOR STATE COURTS TO DEFINE, MAY AND DO VARY FROM STATE TO
STATE.  WITHOUT DISPARAGING THE USEFULNESS OF DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
ACTIONS IN REM AND THOSE IN PERSONAM IN MANY BRANCHES OF LAW, OR ON
OTHER ISSUES, OR THE REASONING WHICH UNDERLIES THEM, WE DO NOT REST THE
POWER OF THE STATE TO RESORT TO CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE IN THIS PROCEEDING
UPON HOW ITS COURTS OR THIS COURT MAY REGARD THIS HISTORIC ANTITHESIS. 
IT IS SUFFICIENT TO OBSERVE THAT, WHATEVER THE TECHNICAL DEFINITION OF
ITS CHOSEN PROCEDURE, THE INTEREST OF EACH STATE IN PROVIDING MEANS TO
CLOSE TRUSTS THAT EXIST BY THE GRACE OF ITS LAWS AND ARE ADMINISTERED
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF ITS COURTS IS SO INSISTENT AND ROOTED IN
CUSTOM AS TO ESTABLISH BEYOND DOUBT THE RIGHT OF ITS COURTS TO
DETERMINE THE INTERESTS OF ALL CLAIMANTS, RESIDENT OR NONRESIDENT,
PROVIDED ITS PROCEDURE ACCORDS FULL OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND BE
HEARD. 

QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE QUESTION OF A STATE'S POWER TO DISCHARGE
TRUSTEES IS THAT OF THE OPPORTUNITY IT MUST GIVE BENEFICIARIES TO
CONTEST.  MANY CONTROVERSIES HAVE RAGED ABOUT THE CRYPTIC AND ABSTRACT
WORDS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BUT THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT AT A
MINIMUM THEY REQUIRE THAT DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY BY
ADJUDICATION BE PRECEDED BY NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING
APPROPRIATE TO THE NATURE OF THE CASE. 

IN TWO WAYS THIS PROCEEDING DOES OR MAY DEPRIVE BENEFICIARIES OF
PROPERTY.  IT MAY CUT OFF THEIR RIGHTS TO HAVE THE TRUSTEE ANSWER FOR
NEGLIGENT OR ILLEGAL IMPAIRMENTS OF THEIR INTERESTS.  ALSO, THEIR
INTERESTS ARE PRESUMABLY SUBJECT TO DIMINUTION IN THE PROCEEDING BY
ALLOWANCE OF FEES AND EXPENSES TO ONE WHO, IN THEIR NAMES BUT WITHOUT
THEIR KNOWLEDGE, MAY CONDUCT A FRUITLESS OR UNCOMPENSATORY CONTEST. 
CERTAINLY THE PROCEEDING IS ONE IN WHICH THEY MAY BE DEPRIVED OF
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND HENCE NOTICE AND HEARING MUST MEASURE UP TO THE
STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS.    PERSONAL SERVICE OF WRITTEN NOTICE WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION IS THE CLASSIC FORM OF NOTICE ALWAYS ADEQUATE IN ANY
TYPE OF PROCEEDING.  BUT THE VITAL INTEREST OF THE STATE IN BRINGING
ANY ISSUES AS TO ITS FIDUCIARIES TO A FINAL SETTLEMENT CAN BE SERVED
ONLY IF INTERESTS OR CLAIMS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE
CAN SOMEHOW BE DETERMINED.  A CONSTRUCTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
WHICH WOULD PLACE IMPOSSIBLE OR IMPRACTICAL OBSTACLES IN THE WAY COULD
NOT BE JUSTIFIED.    AGAINST THIS INTEREST OF THE STATE WE MUST BALANCE
THE INDIVIDUAL INTEREST SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THIS IS DEFINED BY OUR HOLDING THAT "THE FUNDAMENTAL
REQUISITE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD." 
GRANNIS V. ORDEAN, 234 U.S. 385, 394.  THIS RIGHT TO BE HEARD HAS
LITTLE REALITY OR WORTH UNLESS ONE IS INFORMED THAT THE MATTER IS
PENDING AND CAN CHOOSE FOR HIMSELF WHETHER TO APPEAR OR DEFAULT,
ACQUIESCE OR CONTEST. 

THE COURT HAS NOT COMMITTED ITSELF TO ANY FORMULA ACHIEVING A BALANCE
BETWEEN THESE INTERESTS IN A PARTICULAR PROCEEDING OR DETERMINING WHEN
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE MAY BE UTILIZED OR WHAT TEST IT MUST MEET. 
PERSONAL SERVICE HAS NOT IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES BEEN REGARDED AS
INDISPENSABLE TO THE PROCESS DUE TO RESIDENTS, AND IT HAS MORE OFTEN
BEEN HELD UNNECESSARY AS TO NONRESIDENTS.  WE DISTURB NONE OF THE
ESTABLISHED RULES ON THESE SUBJECTS.  NO DECISION CONSTITUTES A
CONTROLLING OR EVEN A VERY ILLUMINATING PRECEDENT FOR THE CASE BEFORE
US.  BUT A FEW GENERAL PRINCIPLES STAND OUT IN THE BOOKS. 

AN ELEMENTARY AND FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS IN ANY
PROCEEDING WHICH IS TO BE ACCORDED FINALITY IS NOTICE REASONABLY
CALCULATED, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO APPRISE INTERESTED PARTIES
OF THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION AND AFFORD THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
THEIR OBJECTIONS.  MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S. 457; GRANNIS V. ORDEAN,
234 U.S. 385; PRIEST V. LAS VEGAS, 232 U.S. 604; ROLLER V. HOLLY, 176
U.S. 398.  THE NOTICE MUST BE OF SUCH NATURE AS REASONABLY TO CONVEY
THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, GRANNIS V. ORDEAN, SUPRA, AND IT MUST AFFORD
A REASONABLE TIME FOR THOSE INTERESTED TO MAKE THEIR APPEARANCE, ROLLER
V. HOLLY, SUPRA, AND CF. GOODRICH V. FERRIS, 214 U.S. 71.  BUT IF WITH
DUE REGARD FOR THE PRACTICALITIES AND PECULIARITIES OF THE CASE THESE
CONDITIONS ARE REASONABLY MET, THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE
SATISFIED.  "THE CRITERION IS NOT THE POSSIBILITY OF CONCEIVABLE INJURY
BUT THE JUST AND REASONABLE CHARACTER OF THE REQUIREMENTS, HAVING
REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT WITH WHICH THE STATUTE DEALS."  AMERICAN LAND
CO. V. ZEISS, 219 U.S. 47, 67; AND SEE BLINN V. NELSON, 222 U.S. 1, 7. 

BUT WHEN NOTICE IS A PERSON'S DUE, PROCESS WHICH IS A MERE GESTURE IS
NOT DUE PROCESS.  THE MEANS EMPLOYED MUST BE SUCH AS ONE DESIROUS OF
ACTUALLY INFORMING THE ABSENTEE MIGHT REASONABLY ADOPT TO ACCOMPLISH
IT.  THE REASONABLENESS AND HENCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF ANY
CHOSEN METHOD MAY BE DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS IN ITSELF
REASONABLY CERTAIN TO INFORM THOSE AFFECTED, COMPARE HESS V. PAWLOSKI,
274 U.S. 352, WITH WUCHTER V. PIZZUTTI, 276 U.S. 13, OR, WHERE
CONDITIONS DO NOT REASONABLY PERMIT SUCH NOTICE, THAT THE FORM CHOSEN
IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY LESS LIKELY TO BRING HOME NOTICE THAN OTHER OF THE
FEASIBLE AND CUSTOMARY SUBSTITUTES. 

IT WOULD BE IDLE TO PRETEND THAT PUBLICATION ALONE, AS PRESCRIBED
HERE, IS A RELIABLE MEANS OF ACQUAINTING INTERESTED PARTIES OF THE FACT
THAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE BEFORE THE COURTS.  IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT THAT
THE GREATER NUMBER OF CASES REACHING THIS COURT ON THE QUESTION OF
ADEQUACY OF NOTICE HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH ACTIONS FOUNDED ON PROCESS
CONSTRUCTIVELY SERVED THROUGH LOCAL NEWSPAPERS.  CHANCE ALONE BRINGS TO
THE ATTENTION OF EVEN A LOCAL RESIDENT AN ADVERTISEMENT IN SMALL TYPE
INSERTED IN THE BACK PAGES OF A NEWSPAPER, AND IF HE MAKES HIS HOME
OUTSIDE THE AREA OF THE NEWSPAPER'S NORMAL CIRCULATION THE ODDS THAT
THE INFORMATION WILL NEVER REACH HIM ARE LARGE INDEED.  THE CHANCE OF
ACTUAL NOTICE IS FURTHER REDUCED WHEN, AS HERE, THE NOTICE REQUIRED
DOES NOT EVEN NAME THOSE WHOSE ATTENTION IT IS SUPPOSED TO ATTRACT, AND
DOES NOT INFORM ACQUAINTANCES WHO MIGHT CALL IT TO ATTENTION.  IN
WEIGHING ITS SUFFICIENCY ON THE BASIS OF EQUIVALENCE WITH ACTUAL
NOTICE, WE ARE UNABLE TO REGARD THIS AS MORE THAN A FEINT. 

NOR IS PUBLICATION HERE REINFORCED BY STEPS LIKELY TO ATTRACT THE
PARTIES' ATTENTION TO THE PROCEEDING.  IT IS TRUE THAT PUBLICATION
TRADITIONALLY HAS BEEN ACCEPTABLE AS NOTIFICATION SUPPLEMENTAL TO OTHER
ACTION WHICH IN ITSELF MAY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO CONVEY A WARNING. 
THE WAYS OF AN OWNER WITH TANGIBLE PROPERTY ARE SUCH THAT HE USUALLY
ARRANGES MEANS TO LEARN OF ANY DIRECT ATTACK UPON HIS POSSESSORY OR
PROPRIETARY RIGHTS.  HENCE, LIBEL OF A SHIP, ATTACHMENT OF A CHATTEL OR
ENTRY UPON REAL ESTATE IN THE NAME OF LAW MAY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO
COME PROMPTLY TO THE OWNER'S ATTENTION.  WHEN THE STATE WITHIN WHICH
THE OWNER HAS LOCATED SUCH PROPERTY SEIZES IT FOR SOME REASON,
PUBLICATION OR POSTING AFFORDS AN ADDITIONAL MEASURE OF NOTIFICATION. 
A STATE MAY INDULGE THE ASSUMPTION THAT ONE WHO HAS LEFT TANGIBLE
PROPERTY IN THE STATE EITHER HAS ABANDONED IT, IN WHICH CASE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IT DEPRIVE HIM OF NOTHING, CF. ANDERSON NATIONAL
BANK V. LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233; SECURITY SAVINGS BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 263
U.S. 282, OR THAT HE HAS LEFT SOME CARETAKER UNDER A DUTY TO LET HIM
KNOW THAT IT IS BEING JEOPARDIZED.  BALLARD V. HUNTER, 204 U.S. 241;
HULING V. KAW VALLEY R. CO., 130 U.S. 559.  AS PHRASED LONG AGO BY
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN THE MARY, 9 CRANCH 126, 144, "IT IS THE PART
OF COMMON PRUDENCE FOR ALL THOSE WHO HAVE ANY INTEREST IN (A THING), TO
GUARD THAT INTEREST BY PERSONS WHO ARE IN A SITUATION TO PROTECT IT." 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US THERE IS, OF COURSE, NO ABANDONMENT.  ON THE
OTHER HAND THESE BENEFICIARIES DO HAVE A RESIDENT FIDUCIARY AS
CARETAKER OF THEIR INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY.  BUT IT IS THEIR
CARETAKER WHO IN THE ACCOUNTING BECOMES THEIR ADVERSARY.  THEIR TRUSTEE
IS RELEASED FROM GIVING NOTICE OF JEOPARDY, AND NO ONE ELSE IS EXPECTED
TO DO SO.  NOT EVEN THE SPECIAL GUARDIAN IS REQUIRED OR APPARENTLY
EXPECTED TO COMMUNICATE WITH HIS WARD AND CLIENT, AND, OF COURSE, IF
SUCH A DUTY WERE MERELY TRANSFERRED FROM THE TRUSTEE TO THE GUARDIAN,
ECONOMY WOULD NOT BE SERVED AND MORE LIKELY THE COST WOULD BE
INCREASED. 

THIS COURT HAS NOT HESITATED TO APPROVE OF RESORT TO PUBLICATION AS A
CUSTOMARY SUBSTITUTE IN ANOTHER CLASS OF CASES WHERE IT IS NOT
REASONABLY POSSIBLE OR PRACTICABLE TO GIVE MORE ADEQUATE WARNING.  THUS
IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT, IN THE CASE OF PERSONS MISSING OR UNKNOWN,
EMPLOYMENT OF AN INDIRECT AND EVEN A PROBABLY FUTILE MEANS OF
NOTIFICATION IS ALL THAT THE SITUATION PERMITS AND CREATES NO
CONSTITUTIONAL BAR TO A FINAL DECREE FORECLOSING THEIR RIGHTS.  CUNNIUS
V. READING SCHOOL DISTRICT, 198 U.S. 458; BLINN V. NELSON, 222 U.S. 1;
AND SEE JACOB V. ROBERTS, 223 U.S. 261. 

THOSE BENEFICIARIES REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT WHOSE INTERESTS OR
WHEREABOUTS COULD NOT WITH DUE DILIGENCE BE ASCERTAINED COME CLEARLY
WITHIN THIS CATEGORY.  AS TO THEM THE STATUTORY NOTICE IS SUFFICIENT. 
HOWEVER GREAT THE ODDS THAT PUBLICATION WILL NEVER REACH THE EYES OF
SUCH UNKNOWN PARTIES, IT IS NOT IN THE TYPICAL CASE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO
FAIL THAN ANY OF THE CHOICES OPEN TO LEGISLATORS ENDEAVORING TO
PRESCRIBE THE BEST NOTICE PRACTICABLE. 

NOR DO WE CONSIDER IT UNREASONABLE FOR THE STATE TO DISPENSE WITH
MORE CERTAIN NOTICE TO THOSE BENEFICIARIES WHOSE INTERESTS ARE EITHER
CONJECTURAL OR FUTURE OR, ALTHOUGH THEY COULD BE DISCOVERED UPON
INVESTIGATION, DO NOT IN DUE COURSE OF BUSINESS COME TO KNOWLEDGE OF
THE COMMON TRUSTEE.  WHATEVER SEARCHES MIGHT BE REQUIRED IN ANOTHER
SITUATION UNDER ORDINARY STANDARDS OF DILIGENCE, IN VIEW OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE NATURE OF THE INTERESTS HERE
INVOLVED WE THINK THEM UNNECESSARY.  WE RECOGNIZE THE PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES AND COSTS THAT WOULD BE ATTENDANT ON FREQUENT
INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE STATUS OF GREAT NUMBERS OF BENEFICIARIES, MANY
OF WHOSE INTERESTS IN THE COMMON FUND ARE SO REMOTE AS TO BE EPHEMERAL;
AND WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT SUCH IMPRACTICABLE AND EXTENDED SEARCHES ARE
NOT REQUIRED IN THE NAME OF DUE PROCESS.  THE EXPENSE OF KEEPING
INFORMED FROM DAY TO DAY OF SUBSTITUTIONS AMONG EVEN CURRENT INCOME
BENEFICIARIES AND PRESUMPTIVE REMAINDERMEN, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE FAR
GREATER NUMBER OF CONTINGENT BENEFICIARIES, WOULD IMPOSE A SEVERE
BURDEN ON THE PLAN, AND WOULD LIKELY DISSIPATE ITS ADVANTAGES.  THESE
ARE PRACTICAL MATTERS IN WHICH WE SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO DISTURB THE
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES. 

ACCORDINGLY WE OVERRULE APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS TO
PUBLISHED NOTICE INSOFAR AS THEY ARE URGED ON BEHALF OF ANY
BENEFICIARIES WHOSE INTERESTS OR ADDRESSES ARE UNKNOWN TO THE TRUSTEE. 

AS TO KNOWN PRESENT BENEFICIARIES OF KNOWN PLACE OF RESIDENCE,
HOWEVER, NOTICE BY PUBLICATION STANDS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING. 
EXCEPTIONS IN THE NAME OF NECESSITY DO NOT SWEEP AWAY THE RULE THAT
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PRACTICABILITY NOTICE MUST BE SUCH AS IS
REASONABLY CALCULATED TO REACH INTERESTED PARTIES.  WHERE THE NAMES AND
POST-OFFICE ADDRESSES OF THOSE AFFECTED BY A PROCEEDING ARE AT HAND,
THE REASONS DISAPPEAR FOR RESORT TO MEANS LESS LIKELY THAN THE MAILS TO
APPRISE THEM OF ITS PENDENCY. 

THE TRUSTEE HAS ON ITS BOOKS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE INCOME
BENEFICIARIES REPRESENTED BY APPELLANT, AND WE FIND NO TENABLE GROUND
FOR DISPENSING WITH A SERIOUS EFFORT TO INFORM THEM PERSONALLY OF THE
ACCOUNTING, AT LEAST BY ORDINARY MAIL TO THE RECORD ADDRESSES.  CF.
WUCHTER V. PIZZUTTI, SUPRA.  CERTAINLY SENDING THEM A COPY OF THE
STATUTE MONTHS AND PERHAPS YEARS IN ADVANCE DOES NOT ANSWER THIS
PURPOSE.  THE TRUSTEE PERIODICALLY REMITS THEIR INCOME TO THEM, AND WE
THINK THAT THEY MIGHT REASONABLY EXPECT THAT WITH OR APART FROM THEIR
REMITTANCES WORD MIGHT COME TO THEM PERSONALLY THAT STEPS WERE BEING
TAKEN AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS. 

WE NEED NOT WEIGH CONTENTIONS THAT A REQUIREMENT OF PERSONAL SERVICE
OF CITATION ON EVEN THE LARGE NUMBER OF KNOWN RESIDENT OR NONRESIDENT
BENEFICIARIES WOULD, BY REASONS OF DELAY IF NOT OF EXPENSE, SERIOUSLY
INTERFERE WITH THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND.  OF COURSE
PERSONAL SERVICE EVEN WITHOUT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ISSUING AUTHORITY
SERVES THE END OF ACTUAL AND PERSONAL NOTICE, WHATEVER POWER OF
COMPULSION IT MIGHT LACK.  HOWEVER, NO SUCH SERVICE IS REQUIRED UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THIS TYPE OF TRUST PRESUPPOSES A LARGE NUMBER OF
SMALL INTERESTS.  THE INDIVIDUAL INTEREST DOES NOT STAND ALONE BUT IS
IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF A CLASS.  THE RIGHTS OF EACH IN THE INTEGRITY OF
THE FUND AND THE FIDELITY OF THE TRUSTEE ARE SHARED BY MANY OTHER
BENEFICIARIES.  THEREFORE NOTICE REASONABLY CERTAIN TO REACH MOST OF
THOSE INTERESTED IN OBJECTING IS LIKELY TO SAFEGUARD THE INTERESTS OF
ALL, SINCE ANY OBJECTION SUSTAINED WOULD INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF ALL. 
WE THINK THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES REASONABLE RISKS THAT NOTICE
MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY REACH EVERY BENEFICIARY ARE JUSTIFIABLE.  "NOW AND
THEN AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE MAY TURN UP, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW LIKE
OTHER MORTAL CONTRIVANCES HAS TO TAKE SOME CHANCES, AND IN THE GREAT
MAJORITY OF INSTANCES NO DOUBT JUSTICE WILL BE DONE."  BLINN V. NELSON,
SUPRA, 7. 

THE STATUTORY NOTICE TO KNOWN BENEFICIARIES IS INADEQUATE, NOT
BECAUSE IN FACT IT FAILS TO REACH EVERYONE, BUT BECAUSE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT REASONABLY CALCULATED TO REACH THOSE WHO COULD
EASILY BE INFORMED BY OTHER MEANS AT HAND.  HOWEVER IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN
FORMER TIMES, THE MAILS TODAY ARE RECOGNIZED AS AN EFFICIENT AND
INEXPENSIVE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.  MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THE TRUST
COMPANY HAS BEEN ABLE TO GIVE MAILED NOTICE TO KNOWN BENEFICIARIES AT
THE TIME THE COMMON TRUST FUND WAS ESTABLISHED IS PERSUASIVE THAT
POSTAL  NOTIFICATION AT THE TIME OF ACCOUNTING WOULD NOT SERIOUSLY
BURDEN THE PLAN. 

IN SOME SITUATIONS THE LAW REQUIRES GREATER PRECAUTIONS IN ITS
PROCEEDINGS THAN THE BUSINESS WORLD ACCEPTS FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES.  IN
FEW, IF ANY, WILL IT BE SATISFIED WITH LESS.  CERTAINLY IT IS
INSTRUCTIVE, IN DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE IMPERSONAL
BROADCAST NOTIFICATION HERE USED, TO ASK WHETHER IT WOULD SATISFY A
PRUDENT MAN OF BUSINESS, COUNTING HIS PENNIES BUT FINDING IT IN HIS
INTEREST TO CONVEY INFORMATION TO MANY PERSONS WHOSE NAMES AND
ADDRESSES ARE IN HIS FILES.  WE ARE NOT SATISFIED THAT IT WOULD. 
PUBLICATION MAY THEORETICALLY BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE,
BUT IT IS TOO MUCH IN OUR DAY TO SUPPOSE THAT EACH OR ANY INDIVIDUAL
BENEFICIARY DOES OR COULD EXAMINE ALL THAT IS PUBLISHED TO SEE IF
SOMETHING MAY BE TUCKED AWAY IN IT THAT AFFECTS HIS PROPERTY
INTERESTS.  WE HAVE BEFORE INDICATED IN REFERENCE TO NOTICE BY
PUBLICATION THAT, "GREAT CAUTION SHOULD BE USED NOT TO LET FICTION DENY
THE FAIR PLAY THAT CAN BE SECURED ONLY BY A PRETTY CLOSE ADHESION TO
FACT."  MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243 U.S. 90, 91. 

WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE OF JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS REQUIRED
BY THE NEW YORK BANKING LAW SEC. 100-C (12) IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A BASIS FOR ADJUDICATION
DEPRIVING KNOWN PERSONS WHOSE WHEREABOUTS ARE ALSO KNOWN OF SUBSTANTIAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS.  ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE.    MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

THESE COMMON TRUSTS ARE AVAILABLE ONLY WHEN THE INSTRUMENTS CREATING
THE PARTICIPATING TRUSTS PERMIT PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMON FUND. 
WHETHER OR NOT FURTHER NOTICE TO BENEFICIARIES SHOULD SUPPLEMENT THE
NOTICE AND REPRESENTATION HERE PROVIDED IS PROPERLY WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE STATE.  THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE IT
HERE. 
..END :
























SHIPMAN V. DUPRE, 339 U.S. 321 


NO. 689.  DECIDED APRIL 24, 1950.  - 88 F.SUPP.  482, JUDGMENT VACATED. 


IN THIS CASE, A THREE-JUDGE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN RULING ON
THE MERITS OF A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE ON THE
GROUND OF ITS INVALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHEN IT DID NOT
APPEAR THAT THE STATUTE HAD BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT; BUT THE
FEDERAL COURT SHOULD RETAIN JURISDICTION PENDING A REASONABLE TIME TO
AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPLAINANTS TO OBTAIN SUCH A CONSTRUCTION. 
PP. 321-322. 

SHIPMAN ET AL., TRADING AS SHIPMAN BROTHERS, ET AL. V. DUPRE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

APPELLANTS' APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION, ON
THE GROUND OF THE ALLEGED INVALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES REGULATING THE FISHERIES
AND SHRIMPING INDUSTRY, WAS DISMISSED ON THE MERITS BY A THREE-JUDGE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  88 F.SUPP.  482.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, THE
JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED, P. 322. 

PER CURIAM. 

APPELLANTS SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE
SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING THE FISHERIES AND SHRIMPING INDUSTRY
WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND INTERLOCUTORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS
RESTRAINING THE STATE OFFICIALS FROM CARRYING OUT THOSE PROVISIONS. 
THE STATUTORY THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT ASSUMED JURISDICTION, DECIDED
THE ISSUES ON THE MERITS, AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  88 F.SUPP. 
482.  FROM THE PAPERS SUBMITTED ON APPEAL, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
STATUTORY SECTIONS IN QUESTION HAVE AS YET BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE STATE
COURTS.  WE ARE THEREFORE OF OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN
DISPOSING OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE MERITS.  SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582, 595-599. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO RETAIN JURISDICTION OF THE
COMPLAINT FOR A REASONABLE TIME, TO AFFORD APPELLANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
OBTAIN, BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS, A CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE COURT
OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. WESTINGHOUSE CO., 339 U.S. 261 


NO. 26.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13-14, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1950.  - 170
F.2D 752, REVERSED. 


THE UNITED STATES CONDEMNED CERTAIN PREMISES FOR USE BY THE ARMY FOR A
TERM INITIALLY ENDING JUNE 30, 1943, WITH AN OPTION TO RENEW FOR
ADDITIONAL PERIODS DURING THE EXISTING NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  RESPONDENT
WAS LESSEE OF A PORTION OF THE PREMISES FOR A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 31,
1944, AND INCURRED EXPENSES FOR THE REMOVAL OF ITS PERSONAL PROPERTY. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE GOVERNMENT EXTENDED ITS OCCUPANCY FOR TWO ADDITIONAL
YEARLY PERIODS ENDING JUNE 30, 1945.  HELD: ALTHOUGH THE OCCUPANCY
TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES WAS INITIALLY FOR A PERIOD LESS THAN THE
REMAINDER OF RESPONDENT'S TERM, RESPONDENT'S REMOVAL EXPENSES ARE NOT
RELEVANT IN DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION, SINCE RESPONDENT'S TERM HAD
BEEN EXHAUSTED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY.  PP. 262-268. 

(A)  WHEN THERE IS AN ENTIRE TAKING OF A CONDEMNEE'S PROPERTY, BE IT
A LEASEHOLD OR A FEE, THE EXPENSES OF REMOVAL OR RELOCATION ARE NOT TO
BE INCLUDED IN VALUING WHAT IS TAKEN.  P. 264. 

(B)  WHERE THE GOVERNMENT INITIALLY TAKES AN OCCUPANCY FOR LESS THAN
THE OUTSTANDING TERM OF A LEASE BUT LATER EXERCISES A RENEWAL OPTION SO
AS TO EXHAUST THE ENTIRE LEASE, THIS SHOULD BE TREATED AS A TAKING OF
THE WHOLE LEASE.  PP. 265-268. 

(C)  WHERE THE GOVERNMENT INITIALLY TAKES AN OCCUPANCY FOR LESS THAN
THE OUTSTANDING TERM OF A LEASE WITH AN OPTION FOR EXTENSION, AN AWARD
BASED ON REMOVAL COSTS SHOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL IT IS KNOWN WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY HAS EXHAUSTED THE TENANT'S LEASEHOLD.  P. 268. 

UNITED STATES V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDED RESPONDENT COMPENSATION FOR THE EXPENSE OF
REMOVING PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM LEASED PREMISES CONDEMNED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  71 F.SUPP.  1001.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  170
F.2D 752.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 950.  REVERSED, P.
268. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON FEBRUARY 18, 1943, THE UNITED STATES FILED A PETITION IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TO
CONDEMN CERTAIN LAND AND BUILDINGS IN SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR
USE BY THE ARMY FOR A TERM INITIALLY ENDING JUNE 30, 1943, WITH A RIGHT
TO RENEW FOR ADDITIONAL YEARLY PERIODS DURING THE EXISTING NATIONAL
EMERGENCY, AT THE ELECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR.  FN1  ON THE SAME
DAY THE DISTRICT COURT AUTHORIZED THE UNITED STATES TO TAKE IMMEDIATE
POSSESSION.  THE RESPONDENT, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC AND MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, WAS LESSEE OF A PORTION OF THE CONDEMNED PROPERTY, USING IT AS
A WAREHOUSE, UNDER A LEASE DATED JANUARY 19, 1942, FOR A TERM EXPIRING
ON OCTOBER 31, 1944.  RESPONDENT, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE DISTRICT
COURT'S ORDER OF IMMEDIATE POSSESSION, INCURRED EXPENSES FOR THE
REMOVAL OF ITS PERSONAL PROPERTY.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SECRETARY OF WAR
EXERCISED HIS RIGHT OF RENEWAL AND EXTENDED THE GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY
FOR TWO ADDITIONAL YEARLY PERIODS ENDING ON JUNE 30, 1945.  THUS,
ALTHOUGH THE OCCUPANCY TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES WAS INITIALLY FOR A
PERIOD LESS THAN THE REMAINDER OF RESPONDENT'S TERM, THE RENEWALS
EVENTUALLY EXHAUSTED RESPONDENT'S LEASEHOLD. 

AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL TAKING AS WELL AS UPON EACH YEARLY
EXTENSION, SUMS WERE DEPOSITED INTO THE DISTRICT COURT AS ESTIMATED
JUST COMPENSATION.  IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THESE SUMS REPRESENTED THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE BARE, UNHEATED WAREHOUSE SPACE TAKEN, LEAVING
OPEN THE QUESTION WHETHER, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE REMOVAL COSTS
INCURRED BY THE RESPONDENT WERE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING
JUST COMPENSATION FOR WHAT WAS CONDEMNED.  IT WAS FURTHER STIPULATED
THAT THE REMOVAL EXPENSES WERE BOTH REASONABLE AND NECESSARY, AND THAT,
TAKING SUCH REMOVAL COSTS INTO ACCOUNT, THE MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE
PREMISES WAS $25,600 GREATER ON A SUBLEASE GIVEN BY RESPONDENT TO A
TEMPORARY OCCUPIER THAN AS BARE UNHEATED WAREHOUSE SPACE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT REMOVAL EXPENSES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN
THE MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION, AND AWARDED TO RESPONDENT THE
STIPULATED AMOUNT.  71 F.SUPP.  1001.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,
CHIEF JUDGE MAGRUDER DISSENTING.  170 F.2D 752.  THE DISAGREEMENT WAS
DUE NOT TO DIFFERENCES OF INDEPENDENT VIEWS BUT TO CONFLICTING MEANINGS
DRAWN FROM THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. GENERAL
MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, AND UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327
U.S. 372.  THE NEED FOR CLARIFICATION LED US TO BRING THE CASE HERE. 
336 U.S. 950. 

THE GENERAL MOTORS AND PETTY MOTOR CASES CONCERNED THEMSELVES WITH
THE SITUATION IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT TAKE THE WHOLE OF A
MAN'S INTEREST BUT DESIRES MERELY TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF PREMISES UNDER
LEASE.  GENERAL MOTORS HELD THAT WHEN SUCH OCCUPANCY IS FOR A PERIOD
LESS THAN AN OUTSTANDING TERM, REMOVAL COSTS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE
AWARD OF "JUST COMPENSATION" TO THE TEMPORARILY EJECTED TENANT - NOT AS
AN INDEPENDENT ITEM OF DAMAGE, BUT AS BEARING ON THE RENTAL VALUE SUCH
PREMISES WOULD HAVE ON A VOLUNTARY SUBLEASE BY A LONG-TERM TENANT TO A
TEMPORARY OCCUPIER.  FN2 

IN THIS HOLDING OF WHAT IS JUST, WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, THE COURT WAS SCRUPULOUSLY CAREFUL NOT TO DEPART FROM THE
SETTLED RULE AGAINST ALLOWANCE FOR "CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES" IN FEDERAL
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.  323 U.S. AT 379 ET SEQ. WHEN THERE IS AN
ENTIRE TAKING OF A CONDEMNEE'S PROPERTY, WHETHER THAT PROPERTY
REPRESENTS THE INTEREST IN A LEASEHOLD OR A FEE, THE EXPENSES OF
REMOVAL OR OF RELOCATION ARE NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN VALUING WHAT IS
TAKEN.  THAT RULE WAS FOUND INAPPLICABLE TO THE NEW SITUATION PRESENTED
BY THE GENERAL MOTORS CASE - INAPPLICABLE, THAT IS, WHERE WHAT WAS TO
BE VALUED WAS "A RIGHT OF TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF A BUILDING EQUIPPED
FOR THE CONDEMNEE'S BUSINESS, FILLED WITH HIS COMMODITIES, AND
PRESUMABLY TO BE REOCCUPIED AND USED, AS BEFORE, TO THE END OF THE
LEASE TERM ON THE TERMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S USE."  323 U.S. AT
380. 

PETTY MOTOR MADE CLEAR THAT THE TAKING OF THE WHOLE OF A TENANT'S
LEASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL MOTORS DOCTRINE.  THE REASON FOR
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO SITUATIONS WAS MADE EXPLICIT IN PETTY
MOTOR: 

"THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAKING OF A PART OF A
LEASE AND THE TAKING OF THE WHOLE LEASE.  THAT DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE
LESSEE MUST RETURN TO THE LEASEHOLD AT THE END OF THE GOVERNMENT'S USE
OR AT LEAST THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PERIOD OF THE LEASE WHICH IS NOT
TAKEN RESTS UPON THE LESSEE.  THIS WAS BROUGHT OUT IN THE GENERAL
MOTORS DECISION.  BECAUSE OF THAT CONTINUING OBLIGATION IN ALL TAKINGS
OF TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF LEASEHOLDS, THE VALUE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
LESSEES WHICH ARE TAKEN MAY BE AFFECTED BY EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF
TEMPORARY REMOVAL."  327 U.S. AT 379-80. 

WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT IN BOTH THE GENERAL MOTORS AND PETTY MOTOR
CASES THE GOVERNMENT HAD RETAINED AN OPTION TO VARY THE DURATION OF ITS
OCCUPANCY - IN THE FORMER CASE IT COULD EXTEND, AND IN THE LATTER IT
COULD SHORTEN - THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SUCH AN OPTION WITH RESPECT
TO REMOVAL COSTS WAS NOT SQUARELY IN ISSUE.  IT IS NOW.  WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT INITIALLY TAKES AN OCCUPANCY FOR LESS THAN THE OUTSTANDING
TERM OF A LEASE BUT THEN EXERCISES ITS RENEWAL OPTION SO AS TO EXHAUST
THE ENTIRE LEASE, SHALL THIS BE TREATED MERELY AS A TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY
DURING PART OF AN OUTSTANDING LEASE AND THUS WITHIN THE GENERAL MOTORS
DOCTRINE, OR AS A TAKING OF THE WHOLE LEASE AND HENCE WITHIN PETTY
MOTOR?  FN3 

HERE, AS IN GENERAL MOTORS, THE GOVERNMENT INITIALLY TOOK OVER ONLY
PART OF AN OUTSTANDING LEASE.  BUT HERE THE SECRETARY OF WAR IN FACT
CONTINUED THE ARMY'S OCCUPANCY OF THE PREMISES BEYOND THE EXPIRATION OF
WESTINGHOUSE'S LEASE.  JUDGED BY THE EVENT, THEREFORE, THIS CASE WAS
UNLIKE GENERAL MOTORS IN THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT TOOK WAS THE WHOLE OF
THE LEASE.  IT WAS THUS LIKE PETTY MOTOR.  THE FORMAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THIS CASE AND PETTY MOTOR WAS THAT IN THIS CASE THE GOVERNMENT
BEGAN WITH AN OCCUPANCY SHORTER THAN THE OUTSTANDING LEASE WITH A
CONTINGENT RESERVATION FOR ITS EXTENSION, WHILE IN PETTY MOTOR THERE
WAS A CONTINGENT RESERVATION TO SHORTEN AN OCCUPANCY THAT NOMINALLY
EXHAUSTED THE LEASE. 

TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN TAKING A PART OF A LEASE WITH NOTICE
THAT THE PERIOD OF OCCUPANCY MAY BE EXTENDED FOR THE REST OF THE
LEASEHOLD, AND FORMALLY TAKING A WHOLE LEASEHOLD WITH THE RIGHT TO
OCCUPY ONLY A PORTION OF IT AND THROW UP THE REST, IS TO MAKE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR JUST COMPENSATION TURN ON A WHOLLY
BARREN FORMALITY.  IT IS BARREN BECAUSE A TAKING OF A CONTINGENT
OCCUPANCY BY THE GOVERNMENT COULD BE CAST IN EITHER FORM BY THOSE IN
CHARGE OF ITS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE
TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST.  THE REASON FOR CONDEMNATION FOR A PERIOD
SHORTER THAN A TENANT'S OUTSTANDING TERM WITH NOTICE THAT EXTENSIONS
MAY ABSORB THE BALANCE OF THE TERM (I.E., THE FORM IN THIS CASE), OR
FOR CONDEMNATION FORMALLY FOR THE WHOLE OF AN UNEXPIRED LEASEHOLD WITH
NOTICE THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY MAY BE TERMINATED BEFORE THE
OUTSTANDING TERM HAS EXPIRED (I.E., THE FORM IN PETTY MOTOR), IS
PRECISELY THE SAME.  IT IS A RECOGNITION OF THE CONTINGENCIES WHICH MAY
DETERMINE THE DURATION OF THE EMERGENCY DURING WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
SEEKS TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF LEASED PREMISES.  AND SO IT TAKES A
FLEXIBLE TERM, CASTING THE BURDEN OF THE CONTINGENCY UPON THE OUSTED
TENANT. 

UNDER EITHER TYPE OF CONDEMNATION THE UNITED STATES MAY IN FACT MOVE
OUT BEFORE THE OUSTED LEASEHOLDER'S TERM HAS EXPIRED, THUS IMPOSING
UPON HIM THE DUTY TO RETURN TO THE PREMISES OR MAKE SOME OTHER
BURDENSOME ADJUSTMENT.  IN THAT EVENT, HE IS PLACED IN PRECISELY THE
SAME BOAT AS WAS THE GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, AND THE COST OF
REMOVAL IS THEREFORE ADMINISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE "AS BEARING ON THE MARKET
RENTAL VALUE OF THE TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY TAKEN."  323 U.S. AT 383. 
CONTRARIWISE, UNDER EITHER TYPE OF CONDEMNATION THE GOVERNMENT MAY
CONTINUE ITS OCCUPANCY THROUGHOUT THE TENANT'S TERM.  IN THAT EVENT,
THE SITUATION IS GOVERNED BY PETTY MOTOR AND REMOVAL COSTS MAY NOT BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  THE FINAL SEVERANCE OF A LESSEE'S OCCUPANCY AS
AGAINST A TEMPORARY INTERRUPTION OF AN OUTSTANDING LEASEHOLD, EVEN
THOUGH NOT DEFINITIVELY FIXED AT THE OUTSET, IS A DIFFERENCE IN DEGREE
WIDE ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY A DIFFERENCE IN RESULT. 

THE TEST OF THE OUTCOME - IS THE GOVERNMENT MERELY A TEMPORARY
OCCUPIER OF AN UNEXPIRED LEASEHOLD OR HAS IT ABSORBED THE TERM OF THE
LEASE?   - HAS ACTUALITY BEHIND IT.  UNTIL EVENTS HAVE MADE IT CLEAR,
WE CANNOT KNOW WHETHER THE TENANT WILL HAVE TO MOVE BACK INTO HIS
LEASED PREMISES OR MAKE SOME OTHER ADJUSTMENT, AND THUS WE CANNOT KNOW
WHETHER THE REASON FOR THE GENERAL MOTORS DOCTRINE OPERATES. 

CONDEMNATION FOR INDEFINITE PERIODS OF OCCUPANCY WAS A PRACTICAL
RESPONSE TO THE UNCERTAINTIES OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEEDS IN WARTIME. 
LAW HAS SUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE ITSELF TO THESE
UNCERTAINTIES BY MAKING WHAT IS A RELATIVELY MINOR ITEM AWAIT THE
EVENT.  TO DO SO DOES NOT KEEP THE LITIGATION OPEN LONGER THAN IT HAS
TO BE KEPT OPEN, BECAUSE THE TOTAL AWARD FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY
CANNOT BE DETERMINED UNTIL ITS DURATION IS KNOWN.  THE USUAL RULE FOR
ASCERTAINING VALUE AT THE TIME OF TAKING IS NOT DISRESPECTED IF ONE
ITEM IS MADE A FUNCTION OF THE FUTURE BECAUSE ONLY THEN CAN IT BE KNOWN
WHETHER THAT ITEM FORMS A PART OF WHAT HAS BEEN "TAKEN."  THE
ALTERNATIVE IS TO REQUIRE A FORECAST OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE TENANT
WILL HAVE TO MOVE BACK INTO THE PREMISES.  THE FACTORS ON WHICH SUCH A
FORECAST MUST BE BASED ARE TOO CONTINGENT, TOO UNIQUE FOR GUIDANCE BY
EXPERIENCE, TO PERMIT RATIONAL ASSESSMENT.  THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE
THE LAW SHOULD EXPRESS "A JUDGMENT FROM EXPERIENCE AS AGAINST A
JUDGMENT FROM SPECULATION."  TANNER V. LITTLE, 240 U.S. 369, 386.  OR,
AS IT WAS PUT BY MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO FOR THE COURT IN A RELEVANT
SITUATION:  "EXPERIENCE IS THEN AVAILABLE TO CORRECT UNCERTAIN
PROPHECY.  HERE IS A BOOK OF WISDOM THAT COURTS MAY NOT NEGLECT.  WE
FIND NO RULE OF LAW THAT SETS A CLASP UPON ITS PAGES, AND FORBIDS US TO
LOOK WITHIN."  SINCLAIR REFINING CO. V. JENKINS PETROLEUM PROCESS CO.,
289 U.S. 689, 698. 

AN AWARD BASED ON REMOVAL COSTS WILL OF COURSE BE DELAYED UNTIL IT IS
KNOWN WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY HAS EXHAUSTED THE TENANT'S
LEASEHOLD.  BUT THIS PRESENTS NO REAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES. 
THAT THE ESSENTIAL FACTS HERE BECAME KNOWN BEFORE THE TIME FOR JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION HARDLY MAKES THIS CASE ATYPICAL.  EVEN IN THE CASES WHERE
THE EVENT IS STILL OPEN, THE COST OF MOVING OUT, INSOFAR AS IT IS TO BE
REFLECTED IN JUST COMPENSATION, MAY BE TREATED AS A SEGREGATED ITEM. 
THUS, ITS AMOUNT MAY BE ASCERTAINED AT AN EARLY STAGE OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE JUDGMENT MADE CONDITIONAL UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY.  AND RENTAL PAYMENTS DUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT
NEED NOT BE POSTPONED.  SO LONG AS THE DURATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
OCCUPANCY IS UNDETERMINED, THE DISTRICT COURT MUST NECESSARILY RETAIN
THE CASE FOR THE PERIODIC DETERMINATION AND PAYMENT OF RENTAL
COMPENSATION.  THIS IS SO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROBLEM ARISING OUT OF
REMOVAL COSTS.  NO UNFAIRNESS OR EMBARRASSMENT TO THE DISPLACED TENANT
IS THUS INVOLVED BY LEAVING LIABILITY BASED ON REMOVAL TO AWAIT THE
EVENT. 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME OF TRIAL IN THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT RESPONDENT'S TERM HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED INSOFAR
AS IT AWARDS $25,600 TO RESPONDENT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE PETITION WAS FILED UNDER SEC. 201 OF TITLE II OF THE SECOND
WAR POWERS ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 176, 177, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 632. 
THIS SECTION AUTHORIZED CERTAIN OFFICIALS "TO ACQUIRE BY CONDEMNATION,
ANY REAL PROPERTY, TEMPORARY USE THEREOF, OR OTHER INTEREST THEREIN,"
FOR PURPOSES RELATED TO THE WAR.  PLAINLY IT CONFERRED POWER TO CONDEMN
INTERESTS IN REALTY NORMALLY PURCHASED BY PRIVATE PERSONS, INCLUDING,
OF COURSE, OPTIONS TO RENEW. 

FN2  THIS HOLDING IN THE GENERAL MOTORS CASE WAS THE COURT'S
DETERMINATION, WITHOUT ANY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, OF WHAT CONSTITUTED
"JUST COMPENSATION" UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

FN3  PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE VALUATION OF RENEWAL OPTIONS ARE NOT
BEFORE US ON THIS RECORD.  IT NEED HARDLY BE SAID THAT PROVISION FOR
RENEWAL DOES NOT NECESSITATE THE SAME RENTAL FOR THE RENEWED PERIOD AS
FOR THE INITIAL PERIOD.  WHETHER A RENTAL FOR EACH RENEWED PERIOD WAS
INITIALLY FIXED IN THIS CASE IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE STIPULATED FACTS. 
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

DIFFICULTIES IN RESOLVING THE CONTROVERSY OVER REMOVAL COSTS ARE
CAUSED BY A CONDEMNATION POLICY UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT, IN TAKING
TEMPORARY USE OF PROPERTY, ALSO CONDEMNS AN OPTION TO RENEW OR SHORTEN
THE PERIOD OF USE.  WHILE WE HAVE DECIDED CASES IN WHICH QUESTIONS
CONCERNING OPTIONS WERE RAISED, UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,
323 U.S. 373; UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. 372, I THINK
THAT THE COURT HAS NOT FULLY FACED UP TO THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE
OPTIONING POLICY.    VALUATION PROBLEMS OF THE PAST HAVE BEEN SIMPLE
CONTRASTED TO THOSE THE NEW POLICY IMPOSES UPON COURTS.  CONDEMNATION
IN THE MAIN WAS OF TITLE TO PHYSICAL PROPERTIES, AND THE PROBLEM OF
JUST COMPENSATION WAS ONE OF ASCERTAINING THE EQUIVALENT IN MONEY AT
THE DATE OF APPROPRIATION - A DATE THAT HAD ALREADY ARRIVED.  THE
COURTS WERE DEALING WITH A SINGLE POINT OF TIME AND WITH FACTS AND
CONDITIONS WHICH WERE AT LEAST IN EXPERIENCE, NOT PROPHECY. 

IN RECENT YEARS, THE GOVERNMENT EMBARKED UPON A NEW TYPE OF
CONDEMNATION.  FN1  IT DOES NOT TAKE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY AND PUT INTO
THE POCKETS OF THE OWNERS THE CURRENT MONEY EQUIVALENT.  INSTEAD, IT
KEEPS THE OWNERS' CAPITAL TIED TO THEIR INVESTMENTS AND PAYS THEM ONLY
AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF ITS FUTURE USE.  THIS REQUIRES COURTS TO PREDICT
VALUES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. 

VALUING TIME IS THE ESSENCE OF MUCH BUSINESS AND OF MOST
SPECULATION.  ALL OPTIONS, FUTURES, INSURANCE CONTRACTS, LEASES,
INVESTMENTS, DEFERRED DELIVERIES AND COMMITMENTS INVOLVE AN APPRAISAL
OF TIME.  AND THOUGH IT TAKES US INTO THE REALM OF PURE CONJECTURE, IT
MAY BE POSSIBLE, HOWEVER UNSATISFACTORILY, TO FIX VALUES FOR RIGHTS OF
FUTURE OCCUPANCY IF THE PERIOD OF THE OCCUPANCY CAN BE KNOWN. 

THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, HAS ADOPTED THE POLICY OF EXPROPRIATING FOR
A "FLEXIBLE TERM" BY CONDEMNING A RIGHT TO SHORTEN OR TO EXTEND THE USE
FROM TIME TO TIME AS MAY PLEASE IT.  THIS TYPE OF CONDEMNATION DENIES
COURTS EVEN A DEFINED TIME PERIOD TO EVALUATE, AND IT IS SMALL WONDER
THAT THE COURT CONCLUDES THIS LEAVES THE FACTORS TOO CONTINGENT AND
UNIQUE "TO PERMIT RATIONAL ASSESSMENT."  THIS RAISES THE QUESTION
WHETHER CONGRESS EVER AUTHORIZED A TYPE OF EXPROPRIATION THAT CAN NOT
BE RATIONALLY COMPENSATED. 

THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE TAKING IN THIS CASE RESTS - ONE OF THE
BROADEST OF ITS KIND EVER ENACTED BY CONGRESS - AUTHORIZES VARIOUS
OFFICERS "  ...  TO ACQUIRE BY CONDEMNATION, ANY REAL PROPERTY,
TEMPORARY USE THEREOF, OR OTHER INTEREST THEREIN, TOGETHER WITH ANY
PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED THEREON OR USED THEREWITH, THAT SHALL BE
DEEMED NECESSARY, FOR MILITARY, NAVAL, OR OTHER WAR PURPOSES  ...  "
56 STAT. 177.  ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PROVIDES NO EXPLANATION OF THE
LANGUAGE WHICH AUTHORIZES TAKING "ANY REAL PROPERTY, TEMPORARY USE
THEREOF, OR OTHER INTEREST THEREIN,"  FN2  NOR DOES IT OFFER ANY REASON
FOR ITS INCLUSION.  FN3  BUT CONGRESS HAD NO APPARENT EXPECTATION THAT
IT WOULD AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATIONS FOR UNSTATED PERIODS OF TIME.  FN4
THE ANNOUNCED PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION WAS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF
FEDERAL OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO INSTITUTE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE POSSESSION AND USE OF PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, AND TO ELIMINATE UNCERTAINTIES REGARDING THE
TAKING IN THE SAME PROCEEDING OF PERSONALTY LOCATED UPON OR USED ALONG
WITH THE REAL PROPERTY BEING CONDEMNED.  FN5  AND THOUGH AUTHORITY FOR
CONDEMNING LESS THAN A FEE HAD EXISTED THERETOFORE, THE WHOLE QUESTION
OF TAKING TEMPORARY USES WAS IN SOME DOUBT.  FN6 

IT IS PLAIN THAT CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED ONLY SUCH TAKINGS AS WERE
NECESSARY.  WE SHOULD GIVE THIS A BROAD CONSTRUCTION; WE MAY EVEN GO SO
FAR AS TO SAY THAT THE NECESSITY FOR A TAKING IS A POLITICAL OR POLICY
QUESTION NOT USUALLY SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  BUT THE STATUTE
IMPLIES SOME FOUNDATION IN NECESSITY AND NOTHING CAN BE LESS NECESSARY
THAN CONDEMNATION OF AN OPTION TO TAKE PROPERTY OR ITS POSSESSION. 

THE UNITED STATES NEEDS NO SUCH OPTION, FOR ITS INHERENT CONDEMNATION
POWER, BY ITS VERY NATURE, IS A PERPETUAL OPTION TO TAKE, AT ANY TIME,
ANY PROPERTY IT NEEDS.  THE EFFECT OF CONDEMNING AN OPTION TO TAKE AT
SOME FUTURE TIME IS TO INCREASE THE ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY AND
SPECULATION IN THE LIQUIDATION OF AN AWARD.  FURTHERMORE, SUCH PURPOSE
IS WHOLLY ONE-SIDED.  IF, LET US SAY, THE PRICE LEVEL SHOULD FALL, THE
GOVERNMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT WANTS THE PROPERTY, IS NOT BOUND TO KEEP IT
ON THE OPTION TERMS.  THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF OPTION.  BUT IT MAY
ABANDON THE OPTION AND TAKE THE PROPERTY UNDER A NEW DECLARATION,
THEREBY GETTING A NEW VALUATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE LOWER PRICE LEVEL. 
IF, HOWEVER, PRICES GO UP, THE GOVERNMENT CAN USE ITS CONDEMNED OPTION
TO KEEP THE OWNER FROM ENJOYING THE RISING VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY AS
OTHER OWNERS MAY DO.  THE TAKING OF A TERM WITH AN OPTION TO LENGTHEN
IS THEREFORE NO MORE THAN A HEDGE AGAINST INFLATION. 

THIS SAME ONE-SIDEDNESS INHERES IN THE POLICY OF TAKING A TERM WITH
AN OPTION TO SHORTEN.  SPECIFIC AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS TO DISPOSE OF SURPLUS PROPERTIES TAKEN FOR WAR PURPOSES; FN7
INDEED SUCH AUTHORITY IS CONTAINED IN THE VERY STATUTE UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  FN8 VARIOUS OFFICIALS ARE GIVEN POWER TO "LEASE, SELL,
OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF" ANY PROPERTIES TAKEN BY CONDEMNATION WHICH
BECOME SURPLUS OR UNNECESSARY.  AND SO, IF THE GOVERNMENT CONDEMNED FOR
A TERM WITH AN OPTION TO SHORTEN, AND THEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY
SO TAKEN WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY, IT COULD SELL, LEASE, OR OTHERWISE
DISPOSE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM AT THE THEN CURRENT MARKET PRICE. 
THIS IT WOULD CERTAINLY DO IF THE PRICE LEVEL HAD RISEN.  BUT IF PRICES
HAD FALLEN, IT COULD AVOID THE LOSS OF TRADING ON THE OPEN MARKET BY
EXERCISING THE OPTION TO SHORTEN, CUT DOWN THE TERM AND PUT ON THE
OWNER THE BURDEN OF SALVAGING ITS SURPLUS PROPERTY.  THE TAKING OF A
TERM WITH AN OPTION TO SHORTEN IS THEREFORE NO MORE THAN A HEDGE
AGAINST DEFLATION. 

IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE SUCH
SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION AS RESULT FROM AN OPTION TO INCREASE OR
DECREASE THE TIME PERIOD.  IF WE CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE TAKING SO THAT
THE TIME IS KNOWN BUT THE SPACE IS INDEFINITE, THE HAZARD TO THE
GOVERNMENT BECOMES QUICKLY APPARENT; IF WE HAD A DECLARATION TAKING
SUCH PART OF A PROPERTY AS FROM TIME TO TIME THE GOVERNMENT WOULD WANT,
WE WOULD HAVE TO COMPENSATE ON THE BASIS THAT THE TAKING WAS OF THE
MAXIMUM WITHIN ITS TERMS.  SUCH INDEFINITE TAKINGS INVITE EXCESSIVE
AWARDS, FOR THE SPECULATION INVOLVED IS INVOLUNTARY WITH THE CLAIMANT
AND ITS OUTCOME CONTROLLED BY, AND HEDGED IN THE INTEREST OF, THE
GOVERNMENT.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND, ETC., 55
F.SUPP.  257, 265. 

THE COURT GIVES UP THE EFFORT TO VALUE WHAT IS TAKEN AND DETERMINES
TO POSTPONE DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION TO AWAIT THE EVENT.  THIS
EXPEDIENT RECOGNIZES, BUT DOES NOT FAIRLY SOLVE, THE PROBLEM ENGENDERED
BY THIS TYPE OF CONDEMNATION.  IF THERE IS A PRESENT TAKING, THE
PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTITLED TO POCKET HIS COMPENSATION.  IT SEEMS HARDLY
FAIR THAT THE OWNER, DISPOSSESSED FOR A TIME WHICH HE CAN NOT LEARN,
MUST WAIT INDEFINITELY TO BE PAID ANYTHING EXCEPT BARE RENTAL,
REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER EXPENSE HE MAY BE PUT TO.  HOW CAN THE OWNER
KNOW WHETHER TO SELL HIS REMOVABLE PROPERTY, STORE IT, OR PERHAPS TO
LIQUIDATE HIS BUSINESS, OR SEEK A NEW LOCATION, WITHOUT KNOWING THE
LENGTH OF TIME FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING HIS PREMISES?  THE
PROPERTY OWNER CANNOT AWAIT THE HAPPENING OF THE EVENT TO MAKE THESE
ESSENTIAL BUSINESS JUDGMENTS.  TO LET THE GOVERNMENT TAKE AN OPTION AND
PAY FOR IT ONLY IF IT DECIDES TO EXERCISE IT, IS TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT
A "HEADS I WIN; TAILS YOU LOSE" POSITION IN A GAMBLE THE PROPERTY OWNER
HAS NOT WILLINGLY JOINED.  FN9 

I THINK WE SHOULD HOLD THE EFFORT TO CONDEMN OPTIONS TO BE A NULLITY
FOR WANT OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND DETERMINE CLAIMS FOR JUST
COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS OF THE FIXED TERM SPECIFIED IN THE
DECLARATION.  IF THE GOVERNMENT, UPON EXPIRATION OF THE FIXED TERM,
DESIRES TO CONTINUE IN POSSESSION, IT MAY FILE A NEW DECLARATION OF
TAKING AND HAVE THE VALUE OF THAT TERM FIXED IN THE LIGHT OF CONDITIONS
THAT THEN PREVAIL.  IF IT ABANDONS THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE FIXED TERM
EXPIRES, IT HAS SURPLUS PROPERTY ON ITS HANDS TO DISPOSE OF AS IT MAY
CHOOSE.  THESE ARE NOT, OF COURSE, VERY SATISFACTORY RESULTS, BUT THEY
WOULD COME NEARER OBEYING THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF "JUST
COMPENSATION" THAN THE DELAYED DECISION COURSE ADOPTED BY THE COURT. 

FN1  SEE JUST, CONDEMNATION PROCEDURE DURING WORLD WAR II, 12 GEO.
WASH. L. REV. 286; DOLAN, PRESENT DAY COURT PRACTICE IN CONDEMNATION
SUITS, 31 VA. L. REV. 9. 

FN2  E.G., CF. S. REP. NO. 989, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 4(1942).  (THE
BILL COVERS INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING EASEMENTS AND OTHER
RIGHTS APPURTENANT THERETO.)  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY ON S. 2208, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 15(1942).  (IT WOULD
ENABLE THE ACQUISITION OF LEASEHOLDS OR OF ANY OTHER PROPERTY.) 

FN3 TITLE II OF THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT, 56 STAT. 177, 50 US.C.
APP. SEC. 632, THE STATUTE HERE INVOLVED, WAS AMENDATORY TO THE ACT OF
JULY 2, 1917(40 STAT. 241), TO AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS OF
LANDS FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.  AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED, THE 1917 ACT
CONTAINED AUTHORIZATION FOR ONLY THE CONDEMNATION OF "ANY LAND, OR
RIGHT PERTAINING THERETO."  55 CONG. REC. 3632(1917).  BUT, UPON THE
UNEXPLAINED RECOMMENDATION OF THE THEN SECRETARY OF WAR, THE WORDS
"TEMPORARY USE THEREOF OR OTHER INTEREST THEREIN" WERE INSERTED AFTER
THE WORD "LAND."  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 83, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1917);
55 CONG. REC. 3991, 4130-4131, 4263(1917).  THESE WORDS WERE CARRIED
OVER BY THE AMENDATORY ACT WITHOUT COMMENT. 

SEE GENERALLY, SENATE COMMITTEE PRINT, STATEMENTS IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION ON S. 2208, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 6-7, 13-16; S. REP. NO. 989,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 4(1942); HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY ON S. 2208, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 10, 15-23(1942); H.R.
REP. NO. 1765, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 6(1942); 88 CONG. REC. 1639-1641,
1644-1645, 1647-1650, 1653-1656. 

FN4  SEE, E.G., TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL BIDDLE IN HEARINGS
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 2208, N. 2, SUPRA, AT
19: 

"MR. HANCOCK OF NEW YORK.  IS IT POSSIBLE UNDER A CONDEMNATION ACT TO
ACQUIRE TEMPORARY USE? 

"MR. BIDDLE.  YES, SIR. 

"MR. HANCOCK OF NEW YORK.  IN THAT CASE THE TITLE WOULD REVERT BACK
TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER AFTER THE TEMPORARY USE. 

"MR. BIDDLE.  YES. 

"MR. HANCOCK OF NEW YORK.  BUT YOU CAN ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY A LEASE? 

"MR. BIDDLE.  YES.  YOU CAN CONDEMN IT FOR A CERTAIN LENGTH OF
TIME." 

SEE ALSO MATERIALS CITED IN NN. 2, 3, SUPRA, AND 5, 6, INFRA. 

FN5  E.G., COMMITTEE PRINT, N. 3, SUPRA, AT 6; S. REP. NO. 989, N. 3,
SUPRA, AT 4; HEARINGS, N. 3, SUPRA, AT 10, 15-23; H.R. REP. NO. 1765,
N. 3, SUPRA, AT 6. 

FN6  SEE 88 CONG. REC. 1644-45, 1647-48, 1653.  SEE ALSO N. 4,
SUPRA. 

FN7  E.G., 54 STAT. 712, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1171(B). 

FN8  54 STAT. 713; 56 STAT. 177.  AND SEE 88 CONG. REC. 1648. 

FN9  IT IS UNNECESSARY, IF CONGRESS HAS NOT AUTHORIZED SUCH
CONDEMNATIONS, TO RELY ON ANY CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBTS CONCERNING THEM. 
BUT WE SHOULD NOTE THAT A LOCAL SCHEME NOT TOO UNLIKE THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONDEMNATION POLICIES HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS IN AT LEAST ONE JURISDICTION.  THE GENERAL CITY
LAW OF NEW YORK PROVIDES THAT CITY PLANNING BOARDS MAY FILE MASTER
PLANS PROVIDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY, AND "FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF SUCH OFFICIAL MAP" NO PERMITS, AS A
GENERAL MATTER, WILL ISSUE FOR BUILDING IN THE BED OF ANY STREET OR
HIGHWAY LAID OUT ON THE MAP; AND THIS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE MAP
MAY AT ALL TIMES BE MODIFIED AND THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION MAY NEVER BE
CARRIED OUT.  N.Y. GENERAL CITY LAW (MCKINNEY, CONSOL.  LAWS OF N.Y.,
SUPP. 1949) SECS. 26-39.  THIS LAW EMPOWERS A MUNICIPALITY TO RESTRICT
THE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH IT MAY AT SOME FUTURE TIME DECIDE TO
TAKE.  SEE MATTER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 196 N.Y. 255, 259, 89 N.E.
814, 815-816.  IT GRANTS, IN EFFECT, A FORM OF RESTRICTIVE OPTION.  AND
ALTHOUGH IT WAS DRAFTED WITH AN EYE TO AVOIDING THE PITFALLS WHICH
BROUGHT INVALIDATION UPON AN EARLIER SIMILAR SCHEME, SEE FORSTER V.
SCOTT, 136 N.Y. 577, 32 N.E. 976, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO A
PRELIMINARY CONSTITUTIONAL SKIRMISH.  SEE PLATT V. CITY OF NEW YORK,
196 MISC. 360, 92 N.Y.S.2D 138, REV'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 276 APP. DIV.
873, 93 N.Y.S.2D 738.  AND OTHER COURTS HAVE INDICATED THAT, WHERE A
RIGHT IS SO VAGUE THAT A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION CANNOT BE MADE OF JUST
COMPENSATION FOR ITS TAKING, THE RIGHT TO EXPROPRIATE FAILS, SEE
ALBRIGHT V. SUSSEX COUNTY LAKE & PARK COMM'N, 71 N.J.L. 303, 307-308,
57 A. 398, 400-401, AND THAT CERTAIN PERSONAL RIGHTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
CONDEMNATION.  HAMILTON, GLENDALE & CINCINNATI TRACTION CO. V. PARISH,
67 OHIO ST. 181, 192-193, 65 N.E. 1011, 1014.  THESE CASES DO NOT
GOVERN US, BUT THEY INDICATE THAT WE ARE ON THE VERY FRINGES OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY AND MIGHT WELL INDULGE IN AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
STATUTE WHICH WILL KEEP US CLEARLY OUT OF IT.
..END :























SOUTH V. PETERS, 339 U.S. 276 


NO. 724.  DECIDED APRIL 17, 1950.  - 89 F.SUPP.  672, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT HEREIN
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF GEORGIA'S COUNTY UNIT ELECTION SYSTEM UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  PP. 276-277. 

2.  FEDERAL COURTS CONSISTENTLY REFUSE TO EXERCISE THEIR EQUITY
POWERS IN CASES POSING POLITICAL ISSUES ARISING FROM A STATE'S
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL STRENGTH AMONG ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS.  P. 277. 

SOUTH ET AL. V. PETERS, CHAIRMAN OF THE GEORGIA STATE DEMOCRATIC
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ADHERENCE TO THE
COUNTY UNIT SYSTEM PRESCRIBED BY GA. CODE ANN. SECS. 34-3212 ET SEQ.,
IN THE FORTHCOMING DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR,
GOVERNOR AND OTHER STATE OFFICES.  89 F.SUPP.  672.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 277. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE GEORGIA STATUTE WHICH APPELLANTS ATTACK AS VIOLATIVE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENTS PROVIDES THAT COUNTY UNIT VOTES
SHALL DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF A PRIMARY ELECTION.  FN1 EACH COUNTY IS
ALLOTTED A NUMBER OF UNIT VOTES, RANGING FROM SIX FOR THE EIGHT MOST
POPULOUS COUNTIES, TO TWO FOR MOST OF THE COUNTIES.  THE CANDIDATE WHO
RECEIVES THE HIGHEST POPULAR VOTE IN THE COUNTY IS AWARDED THE
APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF UNIT VOTES.  APPELLANTS, RESIDENTS OF THE MOST
POPULOUS COUNTY IN THE STATE, CONTEND THAT THEIR VOTES AND THOSE OF ALL
OTHER VOTERS IN THAT COUNTY HAVE ON THE AVERAGE BUT ONE-TENTH THE
WEIGHT OF THOSE IN THE OTHER COUNTIES.  URGING THAT THIS AMOUNTS TO AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM, APPELLANTS BROUGHT THIS
SUIT TO RESTRAIN ADHERENCE TO THE STATUTE IN THE FORTHCOMING DEMOCRATIC
PARTY PRIMARY FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR, GOVERNOR AND OTHER STATE
OFFICES. 

THE COURT BELOW DISMISSED APPELLANTS' PETITION.  89 F.SUPP.  672.  WE
AFFIRM.  FEDERAL COURTS CONSISTENTLY REFUSE TO EXERCISE THEIR EQUITY
POWERS IN CASES POSING POLITICAL ISSUES ARISING FROM A STATE'S
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL STRENGTH AMONG ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS.  SEE MACDOUGALL V. GREEN, 335 U.S. 281(1948); COLEGROVE
V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549(1946); WOOD V. BROOM, 287 U.S. 1, 8(1932); CF.
JOHNSON V. STEVENSON, 170 F.2D 108(C.A.5TH CIR., 1948).  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  GA. CODE ANN. SECS. 34-3212 ET SEQ. (1936).  ALTHOUGH THIS
PARTICULAR STATUTE WAS ENACTED IN 1917, THE COUNTY UNIT HAS BEEN BASIC
IN THE STATE ELECTORAL SCHEME SINCE GEORGIA'S FIRST CONSTITUTION IN
1777. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I SUPPOSE THAT IF A STATE REDUCED THE VOTE OF NEGROES, CATHOLICS, OR
JEWS SO THAT EACH GOT ONLY ONE-TENTH OF A VOTE, WE WOULD STRIKE THE LAW
DOWN.  THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN A PRIMARY WAS HELD IN NIXON V. HERNDON, 273
U.S. 536, TO BE COVERED BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AND WHERE, AS IN GEORGIA, A PARTY PRIMARY
ELECTION IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE STATE ELECTION MACHINERY, THE RIGHT
TO VOTE IN IT IS PROTECTED BY THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SMITH V.
ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S.
299.  UNDER BOTH AMENDMENTS DISCRIMINATIONS BASED ON RACE, CREED OR
COLOR FALL BEYOND THE PALE. 

YET THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SHOWING THAT GEORGIA'S COUNTY UNIT
SYSTEM OF CONSOLIDATING VOTES IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS MAKES AN EQUALLY
INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION.  UNDER THIS PRIMARY LAW THE NOMINATION DOES
NOT GO TO THE CANDIDATE WHO GETS THE MAJORITY OR PLURALITY OF VOTES. 
VOTES ARE COUNTED COUNTY BY COUNTY.  THE WINNER IN EACH COUNTY GETS A
DESIGNATED NUMBER OF VOTES - SIX IN THE MOST POPULOUS COUNTIES, FOUR IN
THE NEXT MOST POPULOUS, TWO IN EACH OF THE REST. 

PLAINTIFFS ARE REGISTERED VOTERS IN GEORGIA'S MOST POPULOUS COUNTY -
FULTON COUNTY.  THEY COMPLAIN THAT THEIR VOTES WILL BE COUNTED SO AS
DRASTICALLY TO REDUCE THEIR VOTING STRENGTH. 

THEY SHOW THAT A VOTE IN ONE COUNTY WILL BE WORTH OVER 120 TIMES EACH
OF THEIR VOTES.  THEY SHOW THAT IN 45 COUNTIES A VOTE WILL BE GIVEN
TWENTY TIMES THE WEIGHT OF EACH OF THEIRS.  THEY SHOW THAT ON A STATE
WIDE AVERAGE EACH VOTE OUTSIDE FULTON COUNTY WILL HAVE OVER 11 TIMES
THE WEIGHT OF EACH VOTE OF THE PLAINTIFFS. 

POPULATION FIGURES SHOW THAT THERE IS A HEAVY NEGRO POPULATION IN THE
LARGE CITIES.  THERE IS TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD THAT ONLY IN THOSE
AREAS HAVE NEGROES BEEN ABLE TO VOTE IN IMPORTANT NUMBERS.  YET THE
COUNTY UNIT SYSTEM HEAVILY DISENFRANCHISES THAT URBAN NEGRO
POPULATION.  THE COUNTY UNIT SYSTEM HAS INDEED BEEN CALLED THE "LAST
LOOPHOLE" AROUND OUR DECISIONS HOLDING THAT THERE MUST BE NO
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE IN PRIMARY AS WELL AS IN GENERAL
ELECTIONS. 

THE RACIAL ANGLE OF THE CASE ONLY EMPHASIZES THE BITE OF THE DECISION
WHICH SUSTAINS THE COUNTY UNIT SYSTEM OF VOTING.  THE DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST CITIZENS IN THE MORE POPULOUS COUNTIES OF GEORGIA IS PLAIN. 
BECAUSE THEY ARE CITY FOLKS THEIR VOTING POWER IS ONLY AN ELEVENTH OR A
HUNDRED AND TWENTIETH OF THE VOTING POWER OF OTHER CITIZENS.  I CAN SEE
NO WAY TO SAVE THAT CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. 
THE CREATION BY LAW OF FAVORED GROUPS OF CITIZENS AND THE GRANT TO THEM
OF PREFERRED POLITICAL RIGHTS IS THE WORST OF ALL DISCRIMINATIONS UNDER
A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 

THE COUNTY UNIT SYSTEM HAS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES.  ARTICLE
I, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE "CHOSEN" BY THE PEOPLE.  AND THE SEVENTEENTH
AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT SENATORS SHALL BE "ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE." 
THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EXTEND TO THE PRIMARY WHERE THAT ELECTION
IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROCEDURE OF CHOOSING REPRESENTATIVES OR
SENATORS, OR WHERE IN FACT THE PRIMARY EFFECTIVELY CONTROLS THE
CHOICE.  UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, SUPRA.  IN GEORGIA'S PRIMARY TO BE
HELD ON JUNE 28, 1950, A UNITED STATES SENATOR WILL BE NOMINATED. 
CERTAINLY IN A STATE LIKE GEORGIA, WHERE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION IS
EQUIVALENT TO ELECTION, IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY TO SAY THAT THE TRUE
ELECTION IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE COMES LATER. 

THERE IS MORE TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE THAN THE RIGHT TO MARK A PIECE OF
PAPER AND DROP IT IN A BOX OR THE RIGHT TO PULL A LEVER IN A VOTING
BOOTH.  THE RIGHT TO VOTE INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE BALLOT
COUNTED.  UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, SUPRA; EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S.
651.  IT ALSO INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE VOTE COUNTED AT FULL VALUE
WITHOUT DILUTION OR DISCOUNT.  UNITED STATES V. SAYLOR, 322 U.S. 385. 
THAT FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHT SUFFERS SUBSTANTIAL DILUTION IN THIS
CASE.  THE FAVORED GROUP HAS FULL VOTING STRENGTH.  THE GROUPS NOT IN
FAVOR HAVE THEIR VOTES DISCOUNTED. 

IN COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549, WE HAD BEFORE US A CASE
INVOLVING THE DIVISION OF ILLINOIS INTO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS IN SUCH
A WAY THAT GROSS INEQUALITIES IN VOTING RESULTED.  CITIZENS OF HEAVILY
POPULATED DISTRICTS SUED TO ENJOIN STATE OFFICIALS FROM HOLDING AN
ELECTION UNDER THE ILLINOIS LAW GOVERNING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. 
THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT, PERSUASIVE TO THREE MEMBERS OF THE COURT, THAT
THE ISSUE PRESENTED WAS OF A POLITICAL NATURE AND NOT JUSTICIABLE, THAT
IT WAS AN EFFORT TO GET THE FEDERAL COURTS "TO RECONSTRUCT THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS OF ILLINOIS IN ORDER THAT IT MAY BE ADEQUATELY
REPRESENTED IN THE COUNCILS OF THE NATION."  328 U.S. 552.  AND IN
MACDOUGALL V. GREEN, 335 U.S. 281, THE COURT ON A CLOSELY DIVIDED VOTE
REFUSED TO INTERFERE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ILLINOIS LAW GOVERNING
THE FORMATION OF A NEW POLITICAL PARTY.  THERE IS NO SUCH FORCE IN THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE QUESTION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS POLITICAL AND NOT
JUSTICIABLE. 

PLAINTIFFS SUE AS INDIVIDUALS TO ENFORCE RIGHTS POLITICAL IN ORIGIN
AND RELATING TO POLITICAL ACTION.  BUT AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID OF
THE SAME ARGUMENT IN NIXON V. HERNDON, SUPRA, P. 540, IT IS "LITTLE
MORE THAN A PLAY UPON WORDS" TO CALL IT A POLITICAL SUIT AND THEREFORE
A NONJUSTICIABLE ONE.  THE RIGHTS THEY SEEK TO ENFORCE ARE PERSONAL AND
INDIVIDUAL.  MOREOVER, NO DECREE WHICH WE NEED ENTER WOULD COLLIDE
EITHER WITH CONGRESS OR WITH THE ELECTION.  GEORGIA NEED NOT BE
REMAPPED POLITICALLY.  THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE NEED NOT TAKE NEW ACTION
AFTER OUR DECREE.  THERE IS NO NECESSITY THAT WE SUPERVISE AN
ELECTION.  THERE NEED BE NO CHANGE OR ALTERATION IN THE PLACE OF THE
ELECTION, ITS TIME, THE BALLOTS THAT ARE USED, OR THE REGULATIONS THAT
GOVERN ITS CONDUCT.  THE WRONG DONE BY THE COUNTY UNIT SYSTEM TAKES
PLACE NOT ONLY AFTER THE BALLOTS ARE IN THE BOX BUT ALSO AFTER THEY
HAVE BEEN COUNTED.  THE IMPACT OF THE DECREE WOULD BE ON THE TALLYING
OF VOTES AND THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT NAMES GO ON THE GENERAL ELECTION
BALLOT.  THE INTERFERENCE WITH THE POLITICAL PROCESSES OF THE STATE IS
NO GREATER HERE THAN IT IS WHEN BALLOT BOXES ARE STUFFED OR OTHER
TAMPERING WITH THE VOTES OCCURS AND WE TAKE ACTION TO CORRECT THE
PRACTICE.  AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH LED MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
TO CONCLUDE IN COLEGROVE V. GREEN THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT EXERCISE
ITS EQUITY POWERS IN THAT ELECTION, ARE LACKING HERE.  THERE IS TIME TO
ACT, SINCE THE STATE PRIMARY IS CALLED FOR JUNE 28, 1950.  RELIEF CAN
BE CERTAIN.  NO CONFLICT WITH ANY POLICY OF CONGRESS IS POSSIBLE. 
THERE IS NO OVERHAULING OF THE STATE'S ELECTORAL PROCESS. 

THE CASE IS OF GREATER IMPORTANCE THAN THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFFS IN
THIS NEXT ELECTION MAY APPEAR TO BE.  WE HAVE HERE A SYSTEM OF
DISCRIMINATION IN PRIMARY VOTING THAT UNDERMINES THE ADVANCES MADE BY
THE NIXON, CLASSIC, AND ALLWRIGHT CASES.  THOSE DECISIONS ARE DEFEATED
BY A DEVICE AS DEEPLY ROOTED IN DISCRIMINATION AS THE PRACTICE WHICH
KEEPS A MAN FROM THE VOTING BOOTH BECAUSE OF HIS RACE, CREED OR COLOR,
OR WHICH FAILS TO COUNT HIS VOTE AFTER IT HAS BEEN CAST. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE DILUTION OF PLAINTIFFS' VOTES IN THE PRESENT CASE
IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE EQUALITY OF VOTING IS UNNECESSARY IN THE
NOMINATION OF UNITED STATES SENATORS.  THUS IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IN
SOME STATES NOMINATION IS BY CONVENTIONS.  BUT THAT PROVES TOO MUCH. 
IF THAT PREMISE IS ALLOWED, THEN THE WHOLE GROUND IS CUT FROM UNDER OUR
PRIMARY CASES SINCE NIXON V. HERNDON, WHICH HAVE INSISTED THAT WHERE
THERE IS VOTING THERE BE EQUALITY.  INDEED THE ONLY TENABLE PREMISE
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH, FIFTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENTS IS THAT
WHERE NOMINATIONS ARE MADE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS, THERE SHALL BE NO
INEQUALITY IN VOTING POWER BY REASON OF RACE, CREED, COLOR OR OTHER
INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION. 
..END :
















SLOCUM V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 339 U.S. 239 


NO. 391.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1950.  - DECIDED APRIL 10, 1950.  - 299
N.Y. 496, 87 N.E.2D 532, REVERSED. 


1.  A RAILROAD HAD SEPARATE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WITH TWO
LABOR UNIONS.  A DISPUTE AROSE BETWEEN THE TWO UNIONS CONCERNING THE
SCOPE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AGREEMENTS, EACH CLAIMING FOR ITS MEMBERS
CERTAIN JOBS WITH THE RAILROAD.  THE CLAIMS WERE PURSUED IN "THE USUAL
MANNER" UNDER SEC. 3 FIRST (I) OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, WITHOUT
REACHING AN ADJUSTMENT.  INSTEAD OF INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD, THE RAILROAD FILED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IN A
STATE COURT, NAMING BOTH UNIONS AS DEFENDANTS.  AFTER A TRIAL, THE
STATE COURT INTERPRETED THE AGREEMENTS AND ENTERED A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT.  HELD:  UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD TO ADJUST GRIEVANCES AND DISPUTES
OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED IS EXCLUSIVE, AND THE STATE COURT ERRED IN
INTERPRETING THE AGREEMENTS AND ENTERING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  PP.
240-245. 

2.  THE RATIONALE OF ORDER OF CONDUCTORS V. PITNEY, 326 U.S. 561,
HOLDING THAT FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD NOT INTERPRET A CARRIER-UNION
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT PRIOR TO AN INTERPRETATION OF SUCH AGREEMENT BY
THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, EQUALLY SUPPORTS A DENIAL OF POWER TO A STATE
COURT TO INVADE THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD BY
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 312 U.S. 630,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 243-245. 

SLOCUM, GENERAL CHAIRMAN, LACKAWANNA DIVISION NO. 30, ORDER OF
RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS, V. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

A RAILROAD BROUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IN A NEW YORK STATE
COURT, NAMING AS DEFENDANTS TWO LABOR UNIONS WITH WHICH IT HAD SEPARATE
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  THE STATE COURT INTERPRETED THE
AGREEMENTS AND ENTERED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE APPELLATE DIVISION, 274 APP. DIV. 950, 83 N.Y.S.2D 513, AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS, 299 N.Y. 496, 87 N.E.2D 532.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 890.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 245. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD TO HOLD HEARINGS, MAKE FINDINGS, AND
ENTER AWARDS IN ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN CARRIERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES
"GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION
OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS
...  "  FN1  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER STATE COURTS HAVE POWER
TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES INVOLVING SUCH INTERPRETATIONS WHEN THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAS NOT ACTED. 

THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD HAS SEPARATE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
WITH THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY
CLERKS.  FN2  A DISPUTE AROSE BETWEEN THE TWO UNIONS CONCERNING THE
SCOPE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE AGREEMENTS.  EACH CLAIMED FOR ITS MEMBERS
CERTAIN JOBS IN THE RAILROAD YARDS AT ELMIRA, NEW YORK.  THE RAILROAD
AGREED WITH THE CLERKS UNION.  THE CHAIRMAN OF TELEGRAPHERS PROTESTED,
URGING REASSIGNMENT OF THE WORK TO MEMBERS OF HIS UNION AND CLAIMING
BACK PAY ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS.  THE CLAIMS WERE
PURSUED IN "THE USUAL MANNER" REQUIRED BY SEC. 3 FIRST (I) OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 153 FIRST (I), AS A PREREQUISITE TO
INVOKING JURISDICTION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  FN3  THAT SECTION
FURTHER PROVIDES THAT, "FAILING TO REACH AN ADJUSTMENT IN THIS MANNER,
THE DISPUTES MAY BE REFERRED BY PETITION OF THE PARTIES OR BY EITHER
PARTY TO THE APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD  ...  " 

INSTEAD OF INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, THE
RAILROAD FILED THIS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN A NEW YORK STATE
COURT, NAMING BOTH UNIONS AS DEFENDANTS.  IT PRAYED FOR AN
INTERPRETATION OF BOTH AGREEMENTS, AND FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE
CLERKS'  AGREEMENT, NOT THE TELEGRAPHERS', COVERED THE JOBS IN
CONTROVERSY.  IT ALSO ASKED FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE TELEGRAPHERS
MUST REFRAIN FROM MAKING SIMILAR CLAIMS UNDER ITS BARGAINING
AGREEMENT.  TELEGRAPHERS MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT LEFT THE STATE COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
INTERPRET THE CONTRACTS AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE.  THAT MOTION WAS
DENIED.  AFTER A TRIAL, THE COURT INTERPRETED THE CONTRACTS AS THE
RAILROAD HAD URGED, AND ENTERED THE REQUESTED DECLARATIONS.  THIS
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, TWO JUDGES
DISSENTING.  299 N.Y. 496, 87 N.E.2D 532.  FN4  THE MAJORITY THOUGHT
THAT OUR OPINION IN MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 312 U.S. 630,
LEFT STATE COURTS FREE TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF A CARRIER
UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WITHOUT OBTAINING THE BOARD'S INTERPRETATION
OF THAT AGREEMENT.  THE DISSENTING JUDGES, HOWEVER, RELIED ON ORDER OF
CONDUCTORS V. PITNEY, 326 U.S. 561, WHERE WE HELD THAT FEDERAL COURTS
SHOULD NOT INTERPRET SUCH AGREEMENTS PRIOR TO INTERPRETATION BY THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  THEY ASSERTED THAT THIS RULE WAS ALSO APPLICABLE IN
STATE COURTS.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER THESE QUESTIONS.  338
U.S. 890. 

THE FIRST DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS "TO AVOID ANY
INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE OR TO THE OPERATION OF ANY CARRIER ENGAGED
THEREIN."  48 STAT. 1186(SEC.  2), 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151A.  THIS PURPOSE
EXTENDS BOTH TO DISPUTES CONCERNING THE MAKING OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS
AND TO GRIEVANCES ARISING UNDER EXISTING AGREEMENTS.  SEE ELGIN, J. &
E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711, 722.  THE PLAN OF THE ACT IS TO
PROVIDE ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS FOR SETTLING DISPUTES BEFORE THEY REACH
ACUTE STAGES THAT MIGHT BE PROVOCATIVE OF STRIKES.  CARRIERS ARE
THEREFORE REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE WITH BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 547, 548. 
THE ACT ALSO SETS UP MACHINERY FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION, ARBITRATION
AND ADJUSTMENT OF DISPUTES, TO BE INVOKED IF NEGOTIATIONS FAIL. 

IN THIS CASE THE DISPUTE CONCERNED INTERPRETATION OF AN EXISTING
BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  ITS SETTLEMENT WOULD HAVE PROSPECTIVE AS WELL AS
RETROSPECTIVE IMPORTANCE TO BOTH THE RAILROAD AND ITS EMPLOYEES, SINCE
THE INTERPRETATION ACCEPTED WOULD GOVERN FUTURE RELATIONS OF THOSE
PARTIES.  THIS TYPE OF GRIEVANCE HAS LONG BEEN CONSIDERED A POTENT
CAUSE OF FRICTION LEADING TO STRIKES.  IT WAS TO PREVENT SUCH FRICTION
THAT THE 1926 ACT PROVIDED FOR CREATION OF VARIOUS ADJUSTMENT BOARDS BY
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CARRIERS AND WORKERS.  44 STAT. 578.  BUT
THIS VOLUNTARY MACHINERY PROVED UNSATISFACTORY, AND IN 1934 CONGRESS,
WITH THE SUPPORT OF BOTH UNIONS AND RAILROADS, PASSED AN AMENDMENT
WHICH DIRECTLY CREATED A NATIONAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD COMPOSED OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF RAILROADS AND UNIONS.  FN5  48 STAT. 1189-1193.  THE
ACT THUS REPRESENTS A CONSIDERED EFFORT ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO
PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND DESIRABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES FOR ADJUSTMENT
OF RAILROAD-EMPLOYEE DISPUTES GROWING OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OF
EXISTING AGREEMENTS.  THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD IS WELL EQUIPPED TO EXERCISE
ITS CONGRESSIONALLY IMPOSED FUNCTIONS.  ITS MEMBERS UNDERSTAND RAILROAD
PROBLEMS AND SPEAK THE RAILROAD JARGON.  FN6  LONG AND VARIED
EXPERIENCES HAVE ADDED TO THE BOARD'S INITIAL QUALIFICATIONS. 
PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED BY IT, WHILE NOT NECESSARILY BINDING, PROVIDE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR A DESIRABLE DEGREE OF UNIFORMITY IN THE
INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE NATION'S RAILWAY SYSTEMS. 

THE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THESE CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES OF
RAILROADS AND UNIONS ADJUST GRIEVANCES AND DISPUTES WAS EMPHASIZED BY
OUR OPINION IN ORDER OF CONDUCTORS V. PITNEY, SUPRA. THERE WE HELD, IN
A CASE REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO THE ONE BEFORE US NOW, THAT THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IN ITS EQUITABLE DISCRETION SHOULD HAVE REFUSED "TO
ADJUDICATE A JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE INVOLVING THE RAILROAD AND TWO
EMPLOYEE ACCREDITED BARGAINING AGENTS  ...  "  OUR GROUND FOR THIS
HOLDING WAS THAT THE COURT "SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE CONTRACTS"
BUT SHOULD HAVE LEFT THIS QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION BY THE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD, A CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED AGENCY PECULIARLY COMPETENT IN THIS
FIELD.  326 U.S. AT 567-568.  THIS REASONING EQUALLY SUPPORTS A DENIAL
OF POWER IN ANY COURT - STATE AS WELL AS FEDERAL - TO INVADE THE
JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD BY THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT. 

OUR HOLDING HERE IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OUR HOLDING IN MOORE V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 312 U.S. 630.  MOORE WAS DISCHARGED BY THE
RAILROAD.  HE COULD HAVE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF HIS DISCHARGE
BEFORE THE BOARD, SEEKING REINSTATEMENT AND BACK PAY.  INSTEAD HE CHOSE
TO ACCEPT THE RAILROAD'S ACTION IN DISCHARGING HIM AS FINAL, THEREBY
CEASING TO BE AN EMPLOYEE, AND BROUGHT SUIT CLAIMING DAMAGES FOR BREACH
OF CONTRACT.  AS WE THERE HELD, THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT DOES NOT BAR
COURTS FROM ADJUDICATING SUCH CASES.  A COMMON-LAW OR STATUTORY ACTION
FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE DIFFERS FROM ANY REMEDY WHICH THE BOARD HAS
POWER TO PROVIDE, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF FUTURE RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND ITS OTHER EMPLOYEES.  IF A COURT IN HANDLING
SUCH A CASE MUST CONSIDER SOME PROVISION OF A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENT, ITS INTERPRETATION WOULD OF COURSE HAVE NO BINDING EFFECT ON
FUTURE INTERPRETATIONS BY THE BOARD. 

WE HOLD THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD TO ADJUST GRIEVANCES AND
DISPUTES OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED IS EXCLUSIVE N7.  THE HOLDING OF THE
MOORE CASE DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THIS DECISION, AND NO CONTRARY
INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN FROM ANY LANGUAGE IN THE MOORE OPINION.  IT
WAS ERROR FOR THE NEW YORK COURTS TO UPHOLD A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INTERPRETING THESE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  THE JUDGMENT OF
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 1185, 1189-1193, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 153. 

FN2  THE FULL NAME OF THE LATTER UNION IS BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES. 

FN3  "THE DISPUTES BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES AND A
CARRIER OR CARRIERS GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE
INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY,
RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS  ...  SHALL BE HANDLED IN THE USUAL MANNER
UP TO AND INCLUDING THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CARRIER
DESIGNATED TO HANDLE SUCH DISPUTES; BUT, FAILING TO REACH AN ADJUSTMENT
IN THIS MANNER, THE DISPUTES MAY BE REFERRED BY PETITION OF THE PARTIES
OR BY EITHER PARTY TO THE APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
WITH A FULL STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND ALL SUPPORTING DATA BEARING UPON
THE DISPUTES."  48 STAT. 1191. 

FN4  THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT (3D DEPT.) ALSO
AFFIRMED BOTH THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT DENYING THE MOTION TO
DISMISS, 269 APP. DIV. 467, 57 N.Y.S.2D 65, AND THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT
ON THE MERITS, 274 APP. DIV. 950, 83 N.Y.S.2D 513.  AN OPINION OF THE
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REMOVE THE ACTION
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IS REPORTED AT 183 MISC. 454, 50
N.Y.S.2D 313.  THE OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
REMANDING THE CASE TO THE STATE COURT IS REPORTED IN 56 F.SUPP.  634. 

FN5  "THESE UNADJUSTED DISPUTES HAVE BECOME SO NUMEROUS THAT ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE EMPLOYEES HAVE RESORTED TO THE ISSUANCE OF STRIKE
BALLOTS AND THREATENED TO INTERRUPT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER TO
SECURE AN ADJUSTMENT.  THIS HAS MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO INTERVENE AND ESTABLISH AN EMERGENCY BOARD TO
INVESTIGATE THE CONTROVERSIES.  THIS CONDITION SHOULD BE CORRECTED IN
THE INTEREST OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND OF UNINTERRUPTED TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE.  THIS BILL, THEREFORE, PROVIDES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
NATIONAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO WHICH THESE DISPUTES MAY BE SUBMITTED
IF THEY SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED IN CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES."  H.R. REP. NO. 1944, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 3. 

FN6  FOR AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION OF THE ACT'S HISTORY AND PURPOSES,
SEE GARRISON, "THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD:  A UNIQUE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY," 46 YALE L.J. 567 ET SEQ. 

FN7  WE ARE NOT CONFRONTED HERE WITH ANY DISAGREEMENT OR CONFLICT IN
INTEREST BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AS IN
STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192.  NOR ARE WE CALLED UPON
TO DECIDE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW BOARD
ACTION OR INACTION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT DENIES "POWER IN ANY COURT - STATE AS WELL AS FEDERAL - TO
INVADE THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD BY THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT."  IT SAYS "THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD TO
ADJUST GRIEVANCES AND DISPUTES OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED IS
EXCLUSIVE."  READ LITERALLY, THIS LANGUAGE WOULD INDICATE THAT THE
COURT HOLDS THAT THE BOARD IN MOST CASES NOT ONLY HAS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION FOR THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE RIGHTS
UNDER RAILROAD COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, BUT ALSO FOR THEIR
FINAL DETERMINATION, I.E., THAT THERE IS NO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
BOARD'S AWARDS, EXCEPT THOSE FOR MONEY.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, IN NOTE 7
STATES THAT IT IS NOT "CALLED UPON TO DECIDE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW BOARD ACTION OR INACTION."  FROM THIS I
TAKE IT THAT THE COURT MEANS ONLY TO HOLD THAT THE BOARD HAS WHAT MIGHT
BE CALLED EXCLUSIVE PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND THAT THE DECISION IS TO
HAVE NO IMPLICATIONS FOR LATER CASES WHICH MIGHT POSE THE ISSUE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF BOARD "ACTION OR INACTION."  FN1  NEVERTHELESS I
THINK THE COURT'S DECISION LACKS STATUTORY BASIS, AND I DISSENT FROM
ITS OPINION AND JUDGMENT. 

SINCE THE COURT'S DECISION WILL BE REFERRED TO AS A PRECEDENT FOR
SOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION PROBLEMS, IT SEEMS WORTH WHILE TO
SET OUT MY REASONS FOR DISAGREEING WITH THE COURT'S OPINION.  WE CAN
FORESEE ONLY A PART OF THE COMPLICATIONS THAT THIS RULING OF EXCLUSIVE
PRIMARY JURISDICTION MAY BRING INTO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT.  THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT ADJUDICATORY BODY HAS POWER TO
JUDGE A CONTROVERSY IS BASIC TO ALL LITIGATION.  JURISDICTION THAT HAS
ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED TO EXIST IN STATE COURTS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN
FROM THEM BY INFERENCE DRAWN WITH DIFFICULTY FROM THE STATUTE BY THIS
COURT AFTER CONTRARY CONCLUSIONS BY TWO STATE COURTS.  FN2  THE PASSAGE
OF A FEDERAL LAW CREATING A FORUM FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN
CONTRACT RIGHTS CONNECTED WITH COMMERCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY WITHDRAW
FROM STATE COURTS THEIR RECOGNIZED JURISDICTION OVER THESE CONTRACT
CONTROVERSIES.  THE PURPOSE TO LIMIT ENFORCEMENT TO THE FEDERAL FORUM
MUST BE FOUND IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE IN EXPRESS WORDS OR NECESSARY
IMPLICATION.  FN3    THE COURT CALLS ATTENTION TO NOTHING TO SUPPLY
THESE REQUISITES.  THERE IS NOT A LINE IN THE STATUTE, AND SO FAR AS I
CAN ASCERTAIN, NOT A SUGGESTION IN THE HEARINGS THAT THE CREATION OF
THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD WAS INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO CLOSE THE DOORS OF THE
COURTS TO LITIGANTS WITH OTHERWISE JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSIES.  THE ONLY
EXPRESSION IN THE STATUTE WHICH MIGHT CONCEIVABLY SUPPORT THE COURT IS
THE GENERAL DECLARATION OF THE ACT'S PURPOSE "TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROMPT
AND ORDERLY SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT
OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS COVERING RATES OF
PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS."  FN4  BUT THIS EXPRESSION IS AS
CONSISTENT WITH AN INTENTION TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE FORUM AS TO
PROVIDE AN EXCLUSIVE ONE.  EXPERIENCE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE
SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES HAS BEEN ANY THE LESS PROMPT AND ORDERLY IN
THE COURTS THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE BOARD.  FN5 

NEITHER THE ACT NOR OUR PRECEDENTS SUPPORT THE COURT'S RULING.  IN
THE SECTION WHICH CONFERRED JURISDICTION ON THE BOARD, SEC. 3 FIRST
(I), CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT DISPUTES "SHALL" BE FIRST HANDLED BY
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ON THEIR FAILURE "MAY BE REFERRED
BY PETITION OF THE PARTIES OR BY EITHER PARTY TO THE APPROPRIATE
DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD  ...  "  FN6 THE USE OF "MAY" AND
"SHALL" IN THE 1934 RAILWAY LABOR ACT MAY NOT BE DECISIVE, BUT I FAIL
TO SEE HOW IT CAN NOW BE DISREGARDED COMPLETELY, WHEN AT THE TIME OF
MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 312 U.S. 630, THE USE OF "MAY" SEEMED
AN INDICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE SUFFICIENT TO FURNISH A GROUND
FOR HOLDING THAT COURTS HAD CONCURRENT PRIMARY JURISDICTION.  FN7 

THE RULING IN TEXAS & PAC. R. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S.
426, DOES NOT SUPPORT TODAY'S DECISION.  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT HELD
REPUGNANT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT A SUIT IN A STATE COURT TO
RECOVER UNREASONABLE CARRIER CHARGES.  THE ACT HAD GIVEN THE COMMISSION
POWER TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF RATES FILED AND PUBLISHED
UNDER ITS PROVISIONS.  IT ALSO PROHIBITED EXPLICITLY PREFERENCES AND
DISCRIMINATIONS IN FAVOR OF SHIPPERS.  THE COURT HELD THAT, IF A
SHIPPER COULD RECOVER IN THE COURTS PART OF A TARIFF CHARGE, HE WOULD
RECEIVE A DISCRIMINATORY PREFERENCE.  SINCE THIS WOULD BE WHOLLY
INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, STATE COURTS WERE
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUITS FOR THE RECOVERY OF
UNREASONABLE CHARGES.  FN8  BY NECESSARY INFERENCE THE COMMISSION WAS
FOUND TO HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO ENTERTAIN ORIGINALLY PROCEEDINGS WHICH
MIGHT RESULT IN THE ALTERATION OF AN ESTABLISHED SCHEDULE.  BUT THE
COURT WAS CAREFUL TO SAY THAT A STATUTE WAS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS
TAKING AWAY A COMMON-LAW RIGHT UNLESS IT WERE FOUND THAT IT WAS "SO
REPUGNANT TO THE STATUTE THAT THE SURVIVAL OF SUCH RIGHT WOULD IN
EFFECT DEPRIVE THE SUBSEQUENT STATUTE OF ITS EFFICACY."  FN9  THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT HAS NO RULE OF LAW, SIMILAR TO THAT AGAINST
PREFERENCES, THAT WOULD BE CONTROVERTED IF DIFFERENT COURTS IN
DIFFERENT STATES SHOULD CONSTRUE IDENTICAL COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS DIFFERENTLY.  IF, TO PRESERVE UNIFORMITY IN THE RULINGS OF
THE BOARD, IT WERE NECESSARY THAT IT HAVE EXCLUSIVE PRIMARY
JURISDICTION OVER GRIEVANCE DISPUTES, CONGRESS WOULD HARDLY HAVE
PROVIDED, AS IT DID, THAT CARRIERS AND RAILROADS BY AGREEMENT MIGHT SET
UP SYSTEM AND REGIONAL BOARDS INDEPENDENT OF THE NATIONAL BOARD.  FN10
THE ABILENE CASE WAS PRESSED BY FOUR DISSENTERS AS CONTROLLING
AUTHORITY TO COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BOARD HAD EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IN ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711.  FN11
BUT ON THE TACIT ASSUMPTION THAT COURTS WERE NOT OUSTED OF THEIR
JURISDICTION, WE UPHELD THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO SUE THE CARRIER
ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP STILL EXISTED. 

THE CASE BEFORE US IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM SWITCHMEN'S UNION V.
MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297, AND GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO.,
320 U.S. 323.  THOSE CONCERNED CONTROVERSIES OF A KIND UNFAMILIAR TO
COURTS, AND THEY INVOLVED THE MEDIATION BOARD, WHICH COULD IMPOSE
SANCTIONS ONLY WHEN THE PARTIES AGREED TO ACCEPT ITS AWARDS.  FN12  WE
HELD THAT THE ISSUES IN THOSE CASES WERE NOT JUSTICIABLE IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS, SINCE THE "CONCEPT OF MEDIATION IS THE ANTITHESIS OF
JUSTICIABILITY."  FN13  HERE, THE CONTROVERSY RELATES TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS, A FUNCTION COURTS HAVE ALWAYS PERFORMED,
AND "IT IS NOT TO BE LIGHTLY ASSUMED THAT THE SILENCE OF THE STATUTE
BARS FROM THE COURTS AN OTHERWISE JUSTICIABLE ISSUE."  FN14 

NOR DID ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS V. PITNEY, 326 U.S. 561,
DETERMINE THE PRESENT JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.  IN A FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY
COURT HANDLING A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION, AN INTERPRETATION OF A
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS SOUGHT.  WE DECLARED THAT THE
FEDERAL EQUITY COURT SHOULD "EXERCISE EQUITABLE DISCRETION TO GIVE (THE
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD) THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO PASS ON
THE ISSUE."  FN15  THUS WE DETERMINED ONLY THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THAT CASE THE DISTRICT COURT, AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION, SHOULD HAVE
REMANDED TO THE BOARD A CONTROVERSY OVER THE MEANING OF THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT, AND AT THE SAME TIME SHOULD HAVE RETAINED
JURISDICTION TO APPLY THE BOARD'S INTERPRETATION TO THE CONTROVERSY. 
THERE WAS NO INTIMATION THAT THE OBLIGATION TO SEND THE CONTROVERSY TO
THE BOARD WAS ANY MORE UNIVERSAL THAN THE OBLIGATION OF AN EQUITY COURT
TO SOMETIMES REMIT PARTIES TO THE STATE COURTS FOR A PRELIMINARY
DECISION ON STATE LAW.  FN16  THERE WAS NO RULING THAT CONGRESS HAD
DEPRIVED THE DISTRICT COURT OF JURISDICTION.  TODAY THE COURT IS
COMPELLED TO EXTEND THE PITNEY PRECEDENT FROM "DISCRETION" TO
"JURISDICTION" BECAUSE FEDERAL COURTS LACK POWER TO ORDER STATE COURTS
TO EXERCISE IN A PARTICULAR MANNER THEIR EQUITABLE DISCRETION.  BUT THE
COURT'S INABILITY TO SECURE A FLEXIBLE RULE DOES NOT WARRANT THE COURT
TO IMPOSE ON THE STATE COURTS A RIGID ONE. 

CONGRESS SURELY WOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THIS EXCLUSIVE PRIMARY POWER
TO ADJUDICATE CONTRACTS TO A BODY LIKE THE BOARD.  IT CONSISTS OF
PEOPLE CHOSEN AND PAID, NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT, BUT BY GROUPS OF
CARRIERS AND THE LARGE NATIONAL UNIONS.  FN17  CONGRESS HAS FURNISHED
FEW PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.  THERE IS NO PROCESS FOR COMPELLING THE
ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES OR THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE.  THERE IS NO
OFFICIAL RECORD, OTHER THAN THAT OF THE INFORMAL PLEADINGS.  HEARINGS
ARE CONDUCTED WITHOUT WITNESSES.  FN18  THE BOARD HAS OPERATED WITHOUT
GIVING INDIVIDUALS A CHANCE TO BE HEARD UNLESS THEY WERE REPRESENTED BY
UNIONS.  FN19 

THROUGHOUT THIS OPINION I HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE COURT MEANS ONLY TO
IMPOSE A REQUIREMENT OF PRIMARY RECOURSE TO THE BOARD.  BUT THAT
INEVITABLY MEANS MANY LITIGANTS WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ACCESS TO THE
COURTS.  THE EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AWARDS OTHER THAN MONEY
AWARDS IS DOUBTFUL, AND IT IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE WHETHER EVEN A MONEY
AWARD CAN BE REVIEWED IN THE COURTS IF ONLY THE CARRIER WISHES REVIEW. 
FN20  MOST IMPORTANT, THE STATUTE PROVIDES NO RELIEF FOR A PETITIONING
PARTY - BE HE UNION, INDIVIDUAL OR CARRIER - AGAINST AN ERRONEOUS ORDER
OF THE BOARD.  FN21  THIS COURT MAY BE HARD PUT TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF MINORITIES UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN22 

NEVERTHELESS THE COURT SAYS THAT CONGRESS HAS FORCED THE PARTIES INTO
A FORUM THAT HAS FEW OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF A COURT, BUT WHICH MAY BE THE
FINAL JUDGE OF THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.  OUR DUTY AS A COURT DOES NOT
EXTEND TO A DETERMINATION OF THE WISDOM OF PUTTING A SOLUTION OF
INDUSTRY PROBLEMS INTO THE HANDS OF INDUSTRY AGENCIES SO FAR AS THE
CONSTITUTION WILL PERMIT.  FN23  SOME MAY DEEM IT DESIRABLE TO WELD
VARIOUS INDUSTRIES OR PROFESSIONS INTO SELF-GOVERNING FORMS, COMPLETELY
FREE FROM JUDICIAL INTERVENTION.  THIS DESIRE MAY SPRING FROM A
CONVICTION THAT EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING IN HIGHLY SPECIALIZED FIELDS
GIVE THE MEMBERS OF A GROUP THAT UNDERSTANDING AND CAPACITY WHICH WILL
ENABLE THEM TO GOVERN THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS BETTER THAN WOULD COURTS
DEALING WITH THE GENERALITY OF HUMAN RELATIONS AND ONLY OCCASIONALLY
WITH THESE SPECIALIZED CONTROVERSIES.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, HAS NEVER
COMPLETELY SO ISOLATED AN INDUSTRY FROM THE REST OF THE NATION.  THERE
IS TOO MUCH INTERRELATION AND INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN SUCH GROUPS AND
THE REST OF THE POPULATION.  IN SOME INSTANCES THE CONGRESS HAS GIVEN
GREAT SWEEP TO AGENCIES IN SOME FIELDS.  EVEN SPECIAL COURTS HAVE BEEN
CREATED, SUCH AS THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS.  WHEN
CONGRESS HAS CREATED THESE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND SPECIAL COURTS,
IT HAS CAREFULLY OUTLINED THEIR POWERS, PROVIDED STATED PROTECTIONS FOR
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, AND HAS FURNISHED NEUTRAL OFFICIALS.  BUT HERE,
ALTHOUGH NONE OF THESE PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED, THE COURT FINDS
AN UNDERLYING PURPOSE IN CONGRESS TO ABOLISH, WITHOUT DISCUSSION,
JUDICIAL JURISDICTION. 

WHEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY VARIES SO MARKEDLY FROM THE KIND WHICH
EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN MAY SAFELY BE GIVEN FINAL POWER OVER PEOPLE'S
RIGHTS, IT SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE PRIMARY
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD TO BE EXCLUSIVE.  A MORE DEFINITE EXPRESSION
IS REQUIRED.  THE DECISION OF THE COURT PLACES IT IN A DILEMMA OF ITS
OWN CREATION - IT MUST IN THE FUTURE BUILD UP A COMPLEX SYSTEM OF
REVIEW, OR IT MUST SAY THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO LEAVE THE RIGHTS OF
MANY INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS TO THE UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION OF A
PRIVATELY SELECTED BOARD.  BY GIVING EFFECT TO THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE
STATUTE WHICH CONFER ON THE BOARD A JURISDICTION ONLY CONCURRENT WITH
THE COURTS, WE SHOULD AVOID THE NECESSITY FOR JUDICIAL LEGISLATION IN
UNEXPLORED AREAS OF THE LAW.  IF UNSEEMLY RESULTS SHOULD FOLLOW, THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY WOULD HAVE THE FACILITIES TO UNDERTAKE THE IMPORTANT
AND EXTENSIVE TASK OF DECIDING WHAT SHOULD BE THE PROPER DISTRIBUTION
OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES IN CONNECTION
WITH RAILROAD LABOR RELATIONS.  COURTS SHOULD AWAIT SPECIFIC
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION INSTEAD OF READING INTO A STATUTE A PURPOSE TO
TRANSFER JURISDICTION FROM STATE COURTS TO A FEDERAL BOARD. 

FN1  THE SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE WHICH BEAR ON APPEALABILITY ARE 48
STAT. 1191, SEC. 3 FIRST (M) AND (P).  SEE ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V.
BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711, DISSENT, 761. 

FN2  DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V. SLOCUM, 299 N.Y. 496, 87 N.E.2D 532;
SOUTHERN R. CO. V. ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, 210 S.C. 121, 41 S.E.2D
774.  SEE ALSO ADAMS V. NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO., 121 F.2D 808. 

FN3  CF. UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK CO., 296 U.S. 463, 479;
SEE CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 136. 

FN4  48 STAT. 1187, SEC. 2(5). 

FN5  SEE FIFTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, P.
12; MONOGRAPH OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE, PART 4, RAILWAY LABOR, P. 16, S. DOC. NO. 10, 77TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. (1941). 

FN6  48 STAT. 1191, SEC. 3 FIRST (I): 

"(I)  THE DISPUTES BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES AND A
CARRIER OR CARRIERS GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE
INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY,
RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS, INCLUDING CASES PENDING AND UNADJUSTED ON
THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE HANDLED IN THE USUAL MANNER
UP TO AND INCLUDING THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CARRIER
DESIGNATED TO HANDLE SUCH DISPUTES; BUT, FAILING TO REACH AN ADJUSTMENT
IN THIS MANNER, THE DISPUTES MAY BE REFERRED BY PETITION OF THE PARTIES
OR BY EITHER PARTY TO THE APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
WITH A FULL STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND ALL SUPPORTING DATA BEARING UPON
THE DISPUTES." 

FN7  312 U.S. 630, 635-36:  "IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SECTION
POINTED OUT, SEC. 153(I), AS AMENDED IN 1934, PROVIDES NO MORE THAN
THAT DISPUTES 'MAY BE REFERRED  ...  TO THE  ... ADJUSTMENT BOARD  ...
'  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COMPARABLE SECTION OF THE 1926 RAILWAY
LABOR ACT (44 STAT. 577, 578) HAD, BEFORE THE 1934 AMENDMENT, PROVIDED
THAT UPON FAILURE OF THE PARTIES TO REACH AN ADJUSTMENT A 'DISPUTE
SHALL BE REFERRED TO THE DESIGNATED ADJUSTMENT BOARD BY THE PARTIES, OR
BY EITHER PARTY  ...  '  THIS DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE, SUBSTITUTING
'MAY' FOR 'SHALL,' WAS NOT, WE THINK, AN INDICATION OF A CHANGE IN
POLICY, BUT WAS INSTEAD A CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW'S ORIGINAL PURPOSE. 
FOR NEITHER THE ORIGINAL 1926 ACT, NOR THE ACT AS AMENDED IN 1934,
INDICATES THAT THE MACHINERY PROVIDED FOR SETTLING DISPUTES WAS BASED
ON A PHILOSOPHY OF LEGAL COMPULSION.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT SHOWS A CONSISTENT PURPOSE ON THE PART
OF CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM FOR PEACEFUL ADJUSTMENT
AND MEDIATION VOLUNTARY IN ITS NATURE." 

FN8  204 U.S. 426, 440-41:  "FOR IF, WITHOUT PREVIOUS ACTION BY THE
COMMISSION, POWER MIGHT BE EXERTED BY COURTS AND JURIES GENERALLY TO
DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF AN ESTABLISHED RATE, IT WOULD FOLLOW
THAT UNLESS ALL COURTS REACHED AN IDENTICAL CONCLUSION A UNIFORM
STANDARD OF RATES IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE, AS THE STANDARD
WOULD FLUCTUATE AND VARY, DEPENDENT UPON THE DIVERGENT CONCLUSIONS
REACHED AS TO REASONABLENESS BY THE VARIOUS COURTS CALLED UPON TO
CONSIDER THE SUBJECT AS AN ORIGINAL QUESTION.  INDEED THE RECOGNITION
OF SUCH A RIGHT IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER
CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION AND WITH THE DUTY, WHICH THE STATUTE
CASTS UPON THAT BODY, OF SEEING TO IT THAT THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AS
TO UNIFORMITY AND EQUALITY OF RATES IS OBSERVED."    FN9  204 U.S. 426,
436-37:  "AS THE RIGHT TO RECOVER, WHICH THE COURT BELOW SUSTAINED, WAS
CLEARLY WITHIN THE PRINCIPLES JUST STATED, AND AS IT IS CONCEDED THAT
THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE DID NOT IN SO MANY WORDS ABROGATE SUCH
RIGHT, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CONTENTION THAT THE RIGHT WAS TAKEN AWAY BY
THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE RESTS UPON THE PROPOSITION THAT SUCH
RESULT WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY IMPLICATION.  IN TESTING THE CORRECTNESS OF
THIS PROPOSITION WE CONCEDE THAT WE MUST BE GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLE
THAT REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED, AND INDEED THAT A STATUTE
WILL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS TAKING AWAY A COMMON LAW RIGHT EXISTING AT THE
DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT, UNLESS THAT RESULT IS IMPERATIVELY REQUIRED;
THAT IS TO SAY, UNLESS IT BE FOUND THAT THE PREEXISTING RIGHT IS SO
REPUGNANT TO THE STATUTE THAT THE SURVIVAL OF SUCH RIGHT WOULD IN
EFFECT DEPRIVE THE SUBSEQUENT STATUTE OF ITS EFFICACY; IN OTHER WORDS,
RENDER ITS PROVISIONS NUGATORY." 

FN10  48 STAT. 1193, SEC. 3 SECOND. 

FN11  325 U.S. 711, DISSENT, 759.  THE DISSENTERS INSISTED, P. 760:
"THE CONSIDERATIONS MAKING FOR HARMONIOUS ADJUSTMENT OF RAILROAD
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS THROUGH THE MACHINERY DESIGNED BY CONGRESS IN THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT ARE DISREGARDED BY ALLOWING THAT MACHINERY TO BE BY
PASSED AND BY INTRODUCING DISLOCATING DIFFERENTIATIONS THROUGH
INDIVIDUAL RESORT TO THE COURTS IN THE APPLICATION OF A COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT." 

FN12  48 STAT. 1195, SEC. 5 FIRST; 44 STAT. 584, SEC. 8. 

FN13  GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO., 320 U.S. 323, 337.  NOT
LONG AFTER THESE DECISIONS WERE HANDED DOWN WE EXPLAINED THEM AS
FOLLOWS:  "THIS RESULT WAS REACHED BECAUSE OF THIS COURT'S VIEW THAT
JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES BETWEEN UNIONS WERE LEFT BY CONGRESS TO
MEDIATION RATHER THAN ADJUDICATION.  320 U.S. 302 AND 337.  THAT IS TO
SAY, NO PERSONAL RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES, ENFORCIBLE IN THE COURTS, WAS
CREATED IN THE PARTICULAR INSTANCES UNDER CONSIDERATION.  320 U.S.
337.  BUT WHERE RIGHTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, CREATED BY THE SAME
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, CONTAINED DEFINITE PROHIBITIONS OF CONDUCT OR WERE
MANDATORY IN FORM, THIS COURT ENFORCED THE RIGHTS JUDICIALLY.  320 U.S.
330, 331.  CF. TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S.
548; VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515."  STARK V.
WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288, 306-307.  SEE STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO.,
323 U.S. 192, 207. 

FN14  STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288, 309. 

FN15  ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS V. PITNEY, 326 U.S. 561, 567. 

FN16  IBID.; CF. PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472; MEREDITH V. WINTER
HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228. 

FN17  48 STAT. 1189, SEC. 3 FIRST (A)(B)(C)(G). 

FN18  MONOGRAPH, N. 5, SUPRA, PP. 11-14; SEE GARRISON, NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, 46 YALE L.J. 567, 576 ET SEQ. 

FN19  MONOGRAPH, N. 5, SUPRA, P. 7. 

FN20  SEE WASHINGTON TERMINAL CO. V. BOSWELL, 75 U.S. APP. D.C. 1,
12, 124 F.2D 235, 246; AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 319 U.S.
732. 

FN21  48 STAT. 1191, SEC. 3 FIRST (M) AND (P).  GARRISON, NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, 46 YALE L.J. 567, 591. 

FN22  SEE TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210;
STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 206.  COMPARE HOWARD V.
THOMPSON, 72 F.SUPP.  695; STATE EX REL. ST. LOUIS-S. F.R. CO. V.
RUSSELL, 358 MO. 1136, 219 S.W.2D 340; EDWARDS V. CAPITAL AIRLINES, 84
U.S. APP. D.C. 346, 350, 176 F.2D 755, 759 ET SEQ. CF. SHIELDS V. UTAH
IDAHO R. CO., 305 U.S. 177. 

FN23  SEE MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO., 18 HOW. 
272, 284; NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276. 
..END :











ORDER OF CONDUCTORS V. SO. R. CO., 339 U.S. 255 


NO. 438.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8-9, 1950.  - DECIDED APRIL 10, 1950.  - 215
S.C. 280, 54 S.E.2D 816, REVERSED. 


A DISPUTE AROSE BETWEEN A RAILROAD AND A LABOR UNION AS TO THE
RAILROAD'S OBLIGATION UNDER THEIR COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO
GIVE CONDUCTORS EXTRA PAY FOR CERTAIN SERVICES.  THE RAILROAD REFUSED
THE DEMAND OF THE UNION AND COMMENCED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IN
A STATE COURT.  THE UNION THEREAFTER FILED A PETITION FOR HEARING AND
AWARD BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  HELD:
THE STATE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO INTERPRET THE TERMS OF THE
AGREEMENT AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE.  SLOCUM V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R.
CO., ANTE, P. 239.  PP. 255-257. 

ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION BROUGHT BY A RAILROAD AGAINST A
LABOR UNION, FOR ADJUDICATION OF A DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM, A STATE COURT INTERPRETED THE
AGREEMENT AND ENTERED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED.  215 S.C. 280, 54 S.E.2D 816.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 899.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 257. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES THE SAME STATUTORY QUESTION AS SLOCUM V. DELAWARE,
L. & W.R. CO., ANTE, P. 239.  THE PETITIONER, ORDER OF RAILWAY
CONDUCTORS, IS THE ONLY ACCREDITED BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF
CONDUCTORS EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT SOUTHERN RAILWAY.  A DISPUTE
AROSE BETWEEN CERTAIN CONDUCTORS AND THE RAILROAD CONCERNING THE
RAILROAD'S OBLIGATION UNDER THE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT TO GIVE
CONDUCTORS EXTRA PAY FOR CERTAIN SERVICES.  THE CLAIMS OF THE
CONDUCTORS WERE REFERRED TO THE UNION, WHICH SOUGHT BY NEGOTIATION TO
PERSUADE THE RAILROAD TO PAY.  THE RAILROAD REFUSED, AND THEREAFTER
PRAYED A SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INTERPRETING THE AGREEMENT AS NOT REQUIRING THE CLAIMED PAYMENTS.  THE
TRIAL COURT FIRST REFUSED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION.  CITING ORDER OF
CONDUCTORS V. PITNEY, 326 U.S. 561, IT HELD THAT STATE COURTS, LIKE
FEDERAL COURTS, SHOULD LEAVE SETTLEMENT OF SUCH DISPUTES TO THE
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED,
HOLDING THAT THE STATE COURT DID HAVE POWER TO INTERPRET THE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE.  210 S.C. 121, 41 S.E.2D 774. 
AFTER A LENGTHY TRIAL THE LOWER COURT HELD THAT THE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT DID NOT REQUIRE THE COMPENSATION SOUGHT BY THE CONDUCTORS AND
ENTERED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REQUESTED.  THE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED.  215 S.C. 280, 54 S.E.2D 816. 

FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THE SLOCUM CASE, ANTE, P. 239, WE HOLD THAT
THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO INTERPRET THE TERMS
OF THIS AGREEMENT AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE.  WE DISCUSS THIS CASE
SEPARATELY BECAUSE IT SHARPLY POINTS UP THE CONFLICTS THAT COULD ARISE
FROM STATE COURT INTERVENTION IN RAILROAD-UNION DISPUTES.  AFTER THE
RAILROAD HAD SUED IN THE STATE COURT, THE UNION FILED A PETITION FOR
HEARING AND AWARD BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  THE STATE COURT
NEVERTHELESS PROCEEDED TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE.  SUSTAINING THE STATE
COURT'S ACTION WOULD INVITE RACES OF DILIGENCE WHENEVER A CARRIER OR
UNION PREFERRED ONE FORUM TO THE OTHER.  AND IF A CARRIER OR A UNION
COULD CHOOSE A COURT INSTEAD OF THE BOARD, THE OTHER PARTY WOULD BE
DEPRIVED OF THE PRIVILEGE CONFERRED BY SEC. 3 FIRST (I) OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT, 48 STAT. 1191, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 153 FIRST (I), WHICH PROVIDES
THAT AFTER NEGOTIATIONS HAVE FAILED "EITHER PARTY" MAY REFER THE
DISPUTE TO THE APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT IS REVERSED, AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION BELOW SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN HIS DISSENT IN SLOCUM V. DELAWARE,
L. & W.R. CO., ANTE, P. 245. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



















MORFORD V. UNITED STATES, 339 U.S. 258 


NO. 236.  DECIDED APRIL 10, 1950.  - 85 U.S. APP. D.C. 172, 176 F.2D 54,
REVERSED. 


PETITIONER, WHO IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, INC., WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA OF VIOLATING R.S. SEC. 102, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192, BY WILLFULLY
REFUSING TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON UN
AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN COMPLIANCE WITH
A SUBPOENA DULY SERVED UPON HIM.  ON VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION, COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER WAS NOT PERMITTED TO QUESTION GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON THE
JURY PANEL WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9835, THE SO-CALLED "LOYALTY ORDER," ON THEIR ABILITY
TO RENDER A JUST AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT; AND FOUR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
WERE PERMITTED TO SERVE ON THE JURY OVER HIS OBJECTION.  HELD:  THE
CONVICTION IS REVERSED BECAUSE OF THIS DENIAL OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVE ACTUAL BIAS ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO SERVED ON
THE JURY.  P. 259. 

MORFORD V. UNITED STATES. 

ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER, WHO IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
AMERICAN-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP, INC., WAS INDICTED IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA FOR VIOLATING R.S. SEC. 102, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192, BY WILLFULLY
REFUSING TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON UN
AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE SUBPOENA DULY SERVED UPON HIM.  FOUR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SERVED ON
THE JURY OVER HIS OBJECTION, AND HE WAS CONVICTED.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  85 U.S. APP. D.C. 172, 176 F.2D 54.  CERTIORARI
GRANTED AND CONVICTION REVERSED, P. 259. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS CASE THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT PERMIT COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO
INTERROGATE PROSPECTIVE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE JURORS UPON VOIR DIRE
EXAMINATION WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF THE
"LOYALTY ORDER," EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9835, ON THEIR ABILITY TO RENDER A
JUST AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT.  SUCH QUESTIONING WAS PERMITTED IN DENNIS
V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 162; SEE N. 4 OF THE COURT'S OPINION, ANTE,
PP. 170-171. 

WE SAID IN DENNIS THAT "PRESERVATION OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE
ACTUAL BIAS IS A GUARANTEE OF A DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL
JURY."  ANTE, PP. 171-172.  SINCE THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS DENIED IN THIS
CASE, THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED AND THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCUR IN THE REVERSAL
FOR THE REASONS EXPRESSED IN THEIR OPINIONS IN DENNIS V. UNITED STATES,
ANTE, P. 162. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT.  SINCE,
HOWEVER, COUNSEL REQUESTED THAT ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BE EXCLUDED
FROM THE JURY IN THESE CASES, HE THINKS THE REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GRANTED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE DISSENTING JUSTICES IN FRAZIER V.
UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 497, AND IN DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P.
162. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :









DARR V. BURFORD, 339 U.S. 200 


NO. 51.  SUBMITTED DECEMBER 5, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 3, 1950.  - 172
F.2D 668, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, A STATE PRISONER, APPLIED TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR
HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PETITIONING THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI FROM A
DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS ON THE MERITS BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT OR
EXCUSING HIS FAILURE TO DO SO.  LIMITING ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE
APPLICATION SOLELY TO THE QUESTION WHETHER IT PRESENTED AN
EXTRAORDINARY INSTANCE THAT CALLED FOR DISREGARD OF ACCUSTOMED
PROCEDURE OF PETITIONING THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI, THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND THAT NOTHING EXTRAORDINARY APPEARED AND DISCHARGED THE WRIT. 
HELD:  THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO EXAMINE FURTHER INTO THE
MERITS OF THE PETITION AND PROPERLY DISCHARGED THE WRIT.  PP. 201-219. 

(A)  ORDINARILY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE DETAINED
UNDER A STATE COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR CRIME WILL BE
ENTERTAINED BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ONLY AFTER ALL STATE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE, INCLUDING ALL APPELLATE REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS, HAVE
BEEN EXHAUSTED AND REVIEW HAS BEEN DENIED BY THIS COURT.  EX PARTE
HAWK, 321 U.S. 114.  PP. 203-208. 

(B)  WHATEVER DEVIATION FROM THE ESTABLISHED RULE MAY BE INFERRED
FROM OR IMPLIED BY WADE V. MAYO, 334 U.S. 672, IS CORRECTED BY THIS
DECISION.  PP. 208-210. 

(C)  IN SEC. 2254 OF THE 1948 RECODIFICATION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
CONGRESS ACCEPTED THE RULE OF THE HAWK CASE AS A SOUND RULE TO GUIDE
CONSIDERATION OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURTS.  PP. 210-214. 

(D)  THOUGH A REFUSAL OF CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT MAY CARRY NO WEIGHT
ON THE MERITS UPON A LATER APPLICATION TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR
HABEAS CORPUS, COMITY ORDINARILY REQUIRES AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW BY
THIS COURT BEFORE A LOWER FEDERAL COURT MAY BE ASKED TO INTERVENE IN
STATE MATTERS.  PP. 214-217. 

(E)  IN THIS CASE, PETITIONER DID NOT SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF SHOWING
THAT CIRCUMSTANCES OF PECULIAR URGENCY EXISTED TO REQUIRE PROMPT
FEDERAL INTERVENTION.  P. 219. 

DARR V. BURFORD, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, TO SECURE HIS RELEASE
FROM IMPRISONMENT UNDER A STATE COURT CONVICTION ALLEGEDLY IN VIOLATION
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  77
F.SUPP.  553.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  172 F.2D 668.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 923.  AFFIRMED, P. 219. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER DARR, AN INMATE OF THE OKLAHOMA STATE PENITENTIARY, HAS
BEEN DENIED FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST HIS OTHER
AVAILABLE REMEDIES.  PETITIONER'S OMISSION TO APPLY HERE FOR CERTIORARI
FROM THE STATE COURT'S DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS HELD AN ERROR, FATAL
TO CONSIDERATION ON THE MERITS.  THEREFORE THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S
CLAIMS OF IMPRISONMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT BEFORE
US.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI REQUIRES US TO PASS SOLELY UPON THE
CORRECTNESS OF THE LOWER COURT'S VIEW THAT ORDINARILY A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI MUST BE MADE TO THIS COURT FROM A STATE COURT'S REFUSAL OF
COLLATERAL RELIEF BEFORE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WILL CONSIDER AN
APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON ITS MERITS. 

PETITIONER WAS SERVING A TERM IN THE OKLAHOMA STATE PENITENTIARY
WHEN, ON NOVEMBER 28, 1930, HE WAS SUMMONED TO APPEAR IN ANOTHER
OKLAHOMA COUNTY TO PLEAD TO TWO SEPARATE CHARGES OF ARMED BANK
ROBBERY.  IN JANUARY OF 1931, HE WAS TRIED BY JURY, AND CONVICTED ON
THE FIRST CHARGE; PETITIONER THEN PLEADED GUILTY TO THE SECOND.  HE WAS
SENTENCED TO TWO TERMS OF FORTY YEARS EACH, TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY, AND
THE FIRST SENTENCE IS NOW BEING SERVED.  NO APPEAL FROM THE CONVICTION
WAS TAKEN, BUT IN 1947 PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  JUDGING ONLY FROM THE STATE
COURT'S OPINION,  FN1  FOR THE ORIGINAL PETITION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
RECORD BEFORE US, PETITIONER ALLEGED IN THE STATE COURT THAT HE HAD
BEEN WITHOUT FUNDS TO EMPLOY COUNSEL, THAT HE HAD NOT HAD THE AID OF
COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOOSING, AND HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED SUFFICIENT TIME
TO PROCURE AND PREPARE WITNESSES FOR HIS DEFENSE.  THESE ALLEGATIONS
WERE REVIEWED BY THE STATE COURT AND THE WRIT WAS DENIED ON THE
MERITS.  NO APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI WAS MADE HERE. 

PETITIONER THEN FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS HERE AT
BAR.  THE ALLEGATIONS WERE THOSE PASSED UPON BY THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS, WITH THE ADDITION OF A CLAIM THAT PETITIONER'S PLEA
OF GUILTY TO THE SECOND ARMED ROBBERY CHARGE HAD BEEN COERCED.  AFTER
HEARING PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY IN OPEN COURT, THE DISTRICT JUDGE
EXAMINED INTO THE MERITS SUFFICIENTLY TO ASSURE HIMSELF THAT NO
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY FEDERAL
INQUIRY INTO THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT THE
EXHAUSTION OF ALL OTHER AVAILABLE REMEDIES.  FN2  HE THEN CONCLUDED
THAT THE WRIT MUST BE DISCHARGED AS TO THE FIRST SENTENCE SINCE
PETITIONER HAD NOT APPLIED FOR CERTIORARI HERE FROM THE STATE COURT'S
DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF A COERCED PLEA UNDERLYING
THE SECOND SENTENCE COULD NOT PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED, HELD THE COURT,
FIRST, BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD NOT RAISED THE POINT IN THE STATE
PROCEEDING, AND FURTHER BECAUSE PETITIONER IS NOT PRESENTLY BEING
DETAINED UNDER THAT SENTENCE.  THEREFORE NO ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS
WAS GIVEN.  FN3  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING FROM THE PROPOSITION THAT APPLICATION FOR
CERTIORARI IS A REQUISITE STEP IN THE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDY.  FN4 

IT IS NOT ARGUED THAT THE COURTS BELOW STATE THE LAW INCORRECTLY
INSOFAR AS THE SECOND CONVICTION IS CONCERNED.  IT HAS LONG BEEN
SETTLED THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL NOT CONSIDER ON HABEAS CORPUS
CLAIMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN RAISED IN THE STATE TRIBUNAL; FN5  AND IN
ANY EVENT, IT IS UNQUESTIONED DOCTRINE THAT ONLY THE SENTENCE BEING
SERVED IS SUBJECT TO HABEAS CORPUS ATTACK.  FN6  FURTHER, SINCE NEITHER
COURT BASED ITS CONCLUSION UPON PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO APPEAL FROM HIS
INITIAL CONVICTION, THAT ISSUE IS NOT BEFORE US.  THERE IS NO PROBLEM
OF JURISDICTION OR POWER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CONSIDER APPLICATIONS
FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  NOR IS THERE AT ISSUE THE EFFECT OF A REFUSAL OF
CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT UPON FUTURE APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL HABEAS
CORPUS BY THE STATE PRISONER.  THE ISSUE OF EXHAUSTION OF REMEDY,
HOWEVER, IS NOT ONLY OF VITAL CONCERN TO THOSE WHO WOULD SEEK THE
PROTECTION OF THE GREAT WRIT, BUT IN THE CASE OF STATE PRISONERS IS
CRUCIAL TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTIES
IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR COORDINATE POWER OVER HABEAS CORPUS.  DOUBT
RESPECTING THIS ISSUE SHOULD NOT GO UNRESOLVED.  WE THEREFORE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 923. 

THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS COMMANDS GENERAL RECOGNITION AS THE
ESSENTIAL REMEDY TO SAFEGUARD A CITIZEN AGAINST IMPRISONMENT BY STATE
OR NATION IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  FN7 TO MAKE THIS
PROTECTION EFFECTIVE FOR UNLETTERED PRISONERS WITHOUT FRIENDS OR FUNDS,
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE LONG DISREGARDED LEGALISTIC REQUIREMENTS IN
EXAMINING APPLICATIONS FOR THE WRIT AND JUDGED THE PAPERS BY THE SIMPLE
STATUTORY TEST OF WHETHER FACTS ARE ALLEGED THAT ENTITLE THE APPLICANT
TO RELIEF.  FN8 

THIS FAVORABLE ATTITUDE TOWARD PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES ACCORDS WITH
THE SALUTARY PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN EXTENDING IN 1867 THE SCOPE OF
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS BEYOND AN EXAMINATION OF THE COMMITMENT PAPERS
UNDER WHICH A PRISONER WAS HELD TO THE "VERY TRUTH AND SUBSTANCE OF THE
CAUSES OF HIS DETENTION."  FN9  THROUGH THIS EXTENSION OF THE
BOUNDARIES OF FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS, PERSONS RESTRAINED IN VIOLATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MAY REGAIN THEIR FREEDOM.  BUT, SINCE THE 1867
STATUTE GRANTED JURISDICTION TO FEDERAL COURTS TO EXAMINE INTO ALLEGED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT OF PRISONERS BY STATE POWER, IT CREATED AN
AREA OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  AS IT
WOULD BE UNSEEMLY IN OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT FOR A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT TO UPSET A STATE COURT CONVICTION WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY
TO THE STATE COURTS TO CORRECT A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, THE FEDERAL
COURTS SOUGHT A MEANS TO AVOID SUCH COLLISIONS.  SOLUTION WAS FOUND IN
THE DOCTRINE OF COMITY BETWEEN COURTS, A DOCTRINE WHICH TEACHES THAT
ONE COURT SHOULD DEFER ACTION ON CAUSES PROPERLY WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION UNTIL THE COURTS OF ANOTHER SOVEREIGNTY WITH CONCURRENT
POWERS, AND ALREADY COGNIZANT OF THE LITIGATION, HAVE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PASS UPON THE MATTER.  FN10 

SINCE HABEAS CORPUS IS A DISCRETIONARY WRIT, FEDERAL COURTS HAD
AUTHORITY TO REFUSE RELIEF AS A MATTER OF COMITY UNTIL STATE REMEDIES
WERE EXHAUSTED.  THROUGH THIS COMITY, THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
STATE REMEDIES HAS DEVELOPED STEADILY FROM CASES REFUSING FEDERAL
HABEAS CORPUS BEFORE STATE TRIAL TO A STATUTORY DIRECTION THAT FEDERAL
COURTS SHALL NOT GRANT THE WRIT TO A STATE PRISONER UNTIL STATE
REMEDIES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  EX PARTE ROYALL,  FN11  DECIDED IN 1886,
HELD THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO RELEASE BEFORE
TRIAL A STATE PRISONER WHO WAS HELD IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT IT APPROVED DENIAL OF THE WRIT AS A MATTER
OF DISCRETION.  IT WAS NOT TO BE PRESUMED THAT "THE DECISION OF THE
STATE COURT WOULD BE OTHERWISE THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW
OF THE LAND, OR THAT IT WOULD DISREGARD THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT  ...  "  FN12  ANALOGY WAS
FOUND IN EARLIER CASES WHERE STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO ATTACH
PROPERTY HAD BEEN FOUND TO OVERLAP.  APROPOS WERE THE WORDS OF THE
COURT IN COVELL V. HEYMAN:  FN13 

"THE FORBEARANCE WHICH COURTS OF CO-ORDINATE JURISDICTION,
ADMINISTERED UNDER A SINGLE SYSTEM, EXERCISE TOWARDS EACH OTHER,
WHEREBY CONFLICTS ARE AVOIDED, BY AVOIDING INTERFERENCE WITH THE
PROCESS OF EACH OTHER, IS A PRINCIPLE OF COMITY, WITH PERHAPS NO HIGHER
SANCTION THAN THE UTILITY WHICH COMES FROM CONCORD; BUT BETWEEN STATE
COURTS AND THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES, IT IS SOMETHING MORE.  IT IS A
PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT AND OF LAW, AND THEREFORE, OF NECESSITY." 

IN THE SAME TERM OF COURT THE DOCTRINE WAS ADVANCED TO ITS NEXT
STAGE, FOR IN EX PARTE FONDA FN14  THE PRISONER SOUGHT HIS FEDERAL
RELIEF IN THIS COURT AFTER HIS STATE CONVICTION BUT BEFORE HE HAD
PROSECUTED HIS APPEAL TO THE STATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.  STRESSING THE
IMPORTANCE OF NONINTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDERLY PROCESSES OF APPELLATE
REVIEW, THIS COURT DENIED THE WRIT, FOR IF THE TRIAL COURT HAD ERRED TO
THE PREJUDICE OF PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IT COULD NOT BE
ASSUMED THAT THE STATE APPELLATE COURT WOULD SUFFER THE ERROR TO GO
UNCORRECTED.  FN15 

THE ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE WAS APPLIED TO MEET THE VARIATIONS PRESENTED
BY THE CASES.  BY 1891, IT WAS CLEAR THAT A FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
COMMITTED NO ERROR IN REFUSING A WRIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER
HAD NOT COME TO THIS COURT ON WRIT OF ERROR; FN16  AND A GREAT BODY OF
CASES AFFIRMED THIS HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE "PUT TO HIS
WRIT OF ERROR."  FN17  BAKER V. GRICE  FN18  STATES THE REASON FOR THE
RULE THAT AFTER A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CASE BY THE STATE COURT,
THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL EVEN THEN GENERALLY LEAVE THE PETITIONER TO HIS
REMEDY BY WRIT OF ERROR FROM THIS COURT. 

"  ...  IT IS AN EXCEEDINGLY DELICATE JURISDICTION GIVEN TO THE
FEDERAL COURTS BY WHICH A PERSON UNDER AN INDICTMENT IN A STATE COURT
AND SUBJECT TO ITS LAWS MAY, BY THE DECISION OF A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE
FEDERAL COURT, UPON A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, BE TAKEN OUT OF THE
CUSTODY OF THE OFFICERS OF THE STATE AND FINALLY DISCHARGED THEREFROM,
AND THUS A TRIAL BY THE STATE COURTS OF AN INDICTMENT FOUND UNDER THE
LAWS OF A STATE BE FINALLY PREVENTED." 

AND TO THIS THE COURT ADDED, IN MARKUSON V. BOUCHER,  FN19  THE
EXPLICIT REASON WHY THE EXHAUSTION PRINCIPLE MUST EXTEND TO REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THIS COURT AS WELL AS THOSE OPEN IN THE STATE TRIBUNALS. 

"THE JURISDICTION IS MORE DELICATE, THE REASON AGAINST ITS EXERCISE
STRONGER, WHEN A SINGLE JUDGE IS INVOKED TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE
HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF A
PRISONER COULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED  ...  " 

IN 1913, A PETITIONER WAS DENIED AN ORIGINAL WRIT HERE EVEN THOUGH HE
HAD APPEALED AND HAD APPLIED FOR STATE HABEAS CORPUS, WITH THE COMMENT
THAT WRIT OF ERROR TO THIS COURT WAS REQUIRED.  FN20  AND FOLLOWING
NEXT UPON THE HEELS OF AN ADJUDICATION THAT A STATE HABEAS CORPUS
ACTION IS A "SUIT" YIELDING A FINAL REVIEWABLE JUDGMENT,  FN21  CAME
THE LEADING CASE OF MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, FN22  CLEARLY ESTABLISHING THE
RULE THAT AVAILABLE COLLATERAL ATTACKS IN THE STATE TRIBUNALS MUST BE
EXHAUSTED IN ADDITION TO DIRECT ATTACKS ON THE CONVICTION.  FN23  IN
1944 THE UNANIMOUS PER CURIAM OPINION OF EX PARTE HAWK STATED THE FULLY
DEVELOPED AND ESTABLISHED EXHAUSTION DOCTRINE IN ITS MOST FREQUENTLY
QUOTED FORM.  FN24 

"ORDINARILY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE DETAINED UNDER A
STATE COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR CRIME WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY A
FEDERAL COURT ONLY AFTER ALL STATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE, INCLUDING ALL
APPELLATE REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS AND IN THIS COURT BY APPEAL OR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED." 

THE DOCTRINE OF EX PARTE HAWK HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY APPROVED,  FN25
AND IN WHITE V. RAGEN THE SAME COURT AGAIN UNANIMOUSLY RESTATED THAT
PRINCIPLE IN THE CLEAREST LANGUAGE.  FN26 

"WHERE THE HIGHEST STATE COURT IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD
CONSIDERS AND ADJUDICATES THE MERITS OF A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS,
STATE REMEDIES, INCLUDING APPELLATE REVIEW, ARE NOT EXHAUSTED SO AS TO
PERMIT THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT, UNLESS THE FEDERAL QUESTION INVOLVED IS PRESENTED TO THIS COURT
ON CERTIORARI OR APPEAL FROM THE STATE COURT DECISION." 

THUS COMITY, WHICH HAD CONSTRAINED THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS TO REFUSE
A GRANT OF THE GREAT WRIT WHEN REMEDIES IN STATE COURTS WERE STILL
OPEN, BROUGHT FORTH THE RELATED RULE THAT LOWER FEDERAL COURTS
ORDINARILY WILL NOT ALLOW HABEAS CORPUS IF THE APPLICANT HAS NOT
EXHAUSTED HIS REMEDY IN THIS COURT BY CERTIORARI OR APPEAL FROM STATE
COURTS' REFUSAL OF RELIEF ON COLLATERAL ATTACK. 

IN WADE V. MAYO ALONE,  FN27  A CASE DECIDED LESS THAN FOUR YEARS
LATER, DOES THERE APPEAR LANGUAGE THAT MAY BE CONSTRUED AS A DEPARTURE
FROM THE ESTABLISHED RULE.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ALLOWED TO HEAR
WADE'S PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NOT APPLIED HERE
FOR CERTIORARI, BECAUSE THERE WAS GRAVE DOUBT WHETHER THE STATE
JUDGMENT CONSTITUTED AN ADJUDICATION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION.  THE COURT
SAID, AT P. 682: 

"THAT DOUBT WAS SUCH AS TO MAKE IT REASONABLY CERTAIN THAT THIS COURT
WOULD HAVE DENIED CERTIORARI ON THE THEORY THAT AN ADEQUATE STATE
GROUND APPEARED TO UNDERLIE THE JUDGMENT.  HIS FAILURE TO MAKE THIS
FUTILE ATTEMPT TO SECURE CERTIORARI ACCORDINGLY SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE
HIS SUBSEQUENT PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT."    WE
HAD POINTED OUT IN WHITE V. RAGEN, SUPRA, A PER CURIAM EXPRESSLY
REITERATING THE HAWK DOCTRINE, THAT WHERE A STATE COURT'S "DECISION IS
BASED UPON SOME OTHER ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND, IT IS UNNECESSARY
FOR THE PETITIONER TO ASK THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI IN ORDER TO EXHAUST
HIS STATE REMEDIES, SINCE WE WOULD LACK JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT.". FN28 

NOT LIMITING ITS DISCUSSION TO THE HOLDING ON THE HAWK EXCEPTION,
HOWEVER, WADE ALSO TREATED WITH THE GENERAL HAWK RULE OF THE NECESSITY
FOR REVIEW HERE BEFORE SEEKING THE WRIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
THE THOUGHT BEHIND THE LANGUAGE ON THAT POINT EVIDENTLY WAS THAT REVIEW
HERE IS NOT USUALLY REQUIRED AS A CONDITION TO A HEARING ON THE MERITS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  WADE DID RECOGNIZE THAT FAILURE TO COME HERE
MIGHT BE RELEVANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER A DISTRICT COURT SHOULD
ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION.  ON P. 680 IT IS SAID: 

"AFTER STATE PROCEDURE HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED, THE CONCERN IS WITH THE
APPROPRIATE FEDERAL FORUM IN WHICH TO PURSUE FURTHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIM.  THE CHOICE LIES BETWEEN APPLYING DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT FOR
REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE BY CERTIORARI OR INSTITUTING AN
ORIGINAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
CONSIDERATIONS OF PROMPT AND ORDERLY PROCEDURE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
WILL OFTEN DICTATE THAT DIRECT REVIEW BE SOUGHT FIRST IN THIS COURT. 
AND WHERE A PRISONER HAS NEGLECTED TO SEEK THAT REVIEW, SUCH FAILURE
MAY BE A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION FOR A DISTRICT COURT IN DETERMINING
WHETHER TO ENTERTAIN A SUBSEQUENT HABEAS CORPUS PETITION." 

WE DO NOT STOP TO REEXAMINE THE MEANING OF WADE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. 
WHATEVER DEVIATION WADE MAY IMPLY FROM THE ESTABLISHED RULE WILL BE
CORRECTED BY THIS DECISION. 

EX PARTE HAWK PRESCRIBES ONLY WHAT SHOULD "ORDINARILY" BE THE PROPER
PROCEDURE; ALL THE CITED CASES FROM EX PARTE ROYALL TO HAWK RECOGNIZE
THAT MUCH CANNOT BE FORESEEN, AND THAT "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" JUSTIFY
DEPARTURE FROM RULES DESIGNED TO REGULATE THE USUAL CASE.  THE
EXCEPTIONS ARE FEW BUT THEY EXIST.  FN29  OTHER SITUATIONS MAY
DEVELOP.  COMPARE MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86.  CONGRESS HAS NOW MADE
STATUTORY ALLOWANCE FOR EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS THESE, LEAVING FEDERAL
COURTS FREE TO GRANT HABEAS CORPUS WHEN THERE EXIST "CIRCUMSTANCES
RENDERING SUCH (STATE) PROCESS INEFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
PRISONER."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254. 

IN SEC. 2254 OF THE 1948 RECODIFICATION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
CONGRESS GAVE LEGISLATIVE RECOGNITION TO THE HAWK RULE FOR THE
EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS AND THIS COURT.  FN30  THIS
WAS DONE BY EMBODYING IN THE NEW STATUTE THE RULINGS DRAWN FROM THE
PRECEDENTS.  FN31 THE RULINGS HAD BEEN DEFINITIVELY RESTATED IN HAWK. 
THAT CASE HAD REPRESENTED AN EFFORT BY THIS COURT TO CLEAR THE WAY FOR
PROMPT AND ORDERLY CONSIDERATION OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS FROM STATE
PRISONERS.  THIS COURT HAD CAUSED THE HAWK OPINION TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO
PERSONS SEEKING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FROM STATE RESTRAINT AND
THE OPINION HAD BEEN GENERALLY CITED AND FOLLOWED.  FN32  THERE IS NO
DOUBT THAT CONGRESS THOUGHT THAT THE DESIRABLE RULE DRAWN FROM THE
EXISTING PRECEDENTS WAS STATED BY HAWK, FOR THE STATUTORY REVISER'S
NOTES INFORM US THAT 

"THIS NEW SECTION IS DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW AS AFFIRMED BY THE
SUPREME COURT.  (SEE EX PARTE HAWK, 1944, 64 S. CT. 448, 321 U.S. 114,
88 L. ED. 572.)"  FN33 

WHILE THIS SECTION DOES NOT REFER EXPRESSLY TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR
APPLICATION TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW, IT MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF
THE STATEMENT QUOTED ON P. 207, SUPRA, FROM HAWK.  SO READ, THERE WAS
OCCASION NEITHER FOR THE DRAFTSMEN OF SEC. 2254 TO MAKE REFERENCE TO
REVIEW IN THIS COURT, NOR FOR THE COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OR SENATE OR
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO COMMENT UPON IT.  IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER AS A
MATTER OF TERMINOLOGY IT IS SAID THAT REVIEW IN THIS COURT OF A STATE
JUDGMENT DECLINING RELIEF FROM STATE RESTRAINT IS A PART OF THE STATE
JUDICIAL PROCESS WHICH MUST BE EXHAUSTED, OR WHETHER IT IS SAID TO BE A
PART OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE.  THE ISSUE CANNOT BE SETTLED BY USE OF THE
PROPER WORDS.  HAWK TREATED REVIEW HERE AS A STATE REMEDY.  WADE
THOUGHT IT WAS NOT STATE PROCEDURE.  BUT UNDOUBTEDLY REVIEW HERE IS A
PART OF THE PROCESS BY WHICH A PERSON UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRAINED OF
HIS LIBERTY MAY SECURE REDRESS.  EX PARTE HAWK HAD MADE IT CLEAR THAT
ALL APPELLATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURT AND IN THIS COURT
MUST BE CONSIDERED AS STEPS IN THE EXHAUSTION OF THE STATE REMEDY IN
THE SENSE THAT THE TERM IS USED, PERHAPS INEXACTLY, IN THE FIELD OF
HABEAS CORPUS.  FN34  CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC.
2254 REVEALS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE DRAFTSMEN INTENDED TO ALTER THE
SENSE OF THE TERM AS DEFINED IN HAWK OR TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN
EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES AND REVIEW IN THIS COURT.  ALL THE
EVIDENCE MANIFESTS A PURPOSE TO ENACT HAWK INTO STATUTE.  THE REVISER'S
NOTES, EXPLICITLY STATING THIS PURPOSE, REMAINED UNCHANGED THROUGHOUT
THE BILL'S LEGISLATIVE PROGRESS.  FN35  SO DID THE STATEMENT OF THE
EXHAUSTION PRINCIPLE CONTAINED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 2254 DOWN
TO THE FIRST "OR."  FN36  NONE OF THE CHANGES OR ADDITIONS MADE BY THE
SENATE TO SEC. 2254 AFFECTED THE PROBLEM OF REVIEW HERE.  THEY WERE
DIRECTED AT OTHER ISSUES.  FN37 

IT SEEMS SURE THAT CONGRESS DRAFTED AND ENACTED SEC. 2254 EXPECTING
REVIEW HERE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE HAWK RULE.  NOTHING INDICATES TO US
A DESIRE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO MODIFY THE LANGUAGE.  WE THINK THE
RULE OF THE HAWK CASE THAT ORDINARILY REQUIRES AN EFFORT TO OBTAIN
REVIEW HERE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY CONGRESS AS A SOUND RULE TO GUIDE
CONSIDERATION OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FEDERAL COURTS. 

THERE IS AN INSISTENCE VOICED BY THE DISSENT THAT WE DETERMINE WHAT
EFFECT THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD ACCORD A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY
THIS COURT WHEN THE STATE PRISONER LATER APPLIES FOR FEDERAL HABEAS
CORPUS.  THE ISSUE OF THE EFFECT OF SUCH A DENIAL APPARENTLY COULD
ARISE ONLY IN A CASE WHERE, AFTER OUR REFUSAL, THE STATE PRISONER
PRESENTED HIS APPLICATION TO ANOTHER FEDERAL COURT.  IT IS NOT HERE IN
THIS CASE.  WE DOUBT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT ON A
POINT NOT IN ISSUE.  FN38  WHETHER A REFUSAL TO GRANT CERTIORARI
IMPORTS AN OPINION ON ANY ISSUE OR NOT, THE REASON PERSISTS FOR
REQUIRING AN APPLICATION HERE FROM THE STATE REFUSAL BEFORE APPLICATION
TO ANOTHER FEDERAL COURT. 

THERE SHOULD BE NO CONTROVERSY OVER WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF CERTIORARI
"WOULD SERVE THE PURPOSE OF AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS."  ALL THE
AUTHORITIES AGREE THAT RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO APPLICATIONS FOR
HABEAS CORPUS.  THE COURTS MUST BE KEPT OPEN TO GUARD AGAINST INJUSTICE
THROUGH JUDICIAL ERROR.  FN39  EVEN AFTER THIS COURT HAS DECLINED TO
REVIEW A STATE JUDGMENT DENYING RELIEF, OTHER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE POWER
TO ACT ON A NEW APPLICATION BY THE PRISONER.  FN40  ON THAT
APPLICATION, THE COURT MAY REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE RECORD AND ACTION
ON PRIOR APPLICATIONS, AND MAY DECLINE TO EXAMINE FURTHER INTO THE
MERITS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE PETITIONER. 
FN41  THUS THERE IS AVOIDED ABUSE OF THE WRIT BY REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO
SECURE A HEARING ON FRIVOLOUS GROUNDS, AND REPEATED ADJUDICATIONS OF
THE SAME ISSUES BY COURTS OF COORDINATE POWERS. 

IN THIS WAY THE RECORD ON CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT IS BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE TRIAL COURT.  THERE HAVE BEEN STATEMENTS MADE IN
FORMER OPINIONS OF THIS COURT AS TO THE EFFECT OF DENIAL OF PETITIONS
FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  FN42  RECORDS PRESENTED TO THIS COURT ON PETITIONS
IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES RAISE MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES.  THERE MAY BE
ISSUES OF STATE PROCEDURE, QUESTIONS OF FACT REGARDING THE ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND ISSUES OF LAW RESPECTING THE
SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS - PROBLEMS MADE DIFFICULT BY THE
FREQUENT PRACTICE OF STATE COURTS TO DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS WITHOUT
OPINION.  IF THIS COURT HAS DOUBTS CONCERNING THE BASIS OF STATE COURT
JUDGMENTS, THE MATTER MAY BE HANDLED AS IN BURKE V. GEORGIA, 338 U.S.
941, WITH AN EXPRESS DIRECTION THAT THE PETITIONER MAY PROCEED IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREJUDICE FROM THE DENIAL OF HIS
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  IF THE DISTRICT COURT FEELS THAT ERROR MAY
HAVE OCCURRED, IT HAS POWER TO EXAMINE THE APPLICATION TO SEE IF
CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TO JUSTIFY IT IN HOLDING A HEARING ON THE MERITS. 
SUCH FREEDOM OF ACTION PROTECTS THE GREAT WRIT WITHOUT TRIVIALIZING IT.
FN43 

BUT IT IS ARGUED THAT IF THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI MEAN NOTHING, THE
RESULT OF OUR DECISION IS TO FORCE A "MEANINGLESS STEP."  WE DO NOT
AGREE.  THOUGH OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI CARRY NO WEIGHT IN A SUBSEQUENT
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, WE THINK A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
SHOULD NEVERTHELESS BE MADE BEFORE AN APPLICATION MAY BE FILED IN
ANOTHER FEDERAL COURT BY A STATE PRISONER.  THE REQUIREMENT DERIVES
FROM THE BASIC FACT THAT THIS REPUBLIC IS A FEDERATION, A UNION OF
STATES THAT HAS CREATED THE UNITED STATES.  WE HAVE DETAILED THE
EVOLUTION OF AND THE REASON FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY
TO INTERVENE IN STATE CRIMINAL MATTERS RESTS PRIMARILY UPON THIS
COURT.  IT IS THIS COURT WHICH ORDINARILY SHOULD REVERSE STATE COURT
JUDGMENTS CONCERNING LOCAL CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION.  THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MEET THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE AFFORDED.  EVEN IF
THE DISTRICT COURT MAY DISREGARD OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI, THE FACT
THAT POWER TO OVERTURN STATE CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION MUST NOT BE
LIMITED TO THIS COURT ALONE DOES NOT MAKE IT LESS DESIRABLE TO GIVE
THIS COURT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERFORM ITS DUTY OF PASSING UPON CHARGES
OF STATE VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THIS COURT HAS
EVOLVED A PROCEDURE WHICH ASSURES AN EXAMINATION INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF
A PRISONER'S PROTEST AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL DETENTION WITHOUT
ALLOWING DESTRUCTIVE ABUSE OF THE PRECIOUS GUARANTY OF THE GREAT WRIT. 
CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED IT.  THOUGH A REFUSAL OF CERTIORARI
HAVE NO EFFECT UPON A LATER APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS, A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HERE ORDINARILY SHOULD BE REQUIRED. 

THE ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO
SEEK REVIEW HERE FROM A STATE'S REFUSAL TO GRANT COLLATERAL RELIEF
BEFORE APPLYING TO OTHER FEDERAL COURTS INVOLVES A PROPER DISTRIBUTION
OF POWER BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  THE SOLE ISSUE IS WHETHER
COMITY CALLS FOR REVIEW HERE BEFORE A LOWER FEDERAL COURT MAY BE ASKED
TO INTERVENE IN STATE MATTERS.  WE ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  SUCH A
RULE ACCORDS WITH OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  SINCE THE STATES HAVE THE
MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER WITHIN THEIR
BORDERS, THE DIGNITY AND IMPORTANCE OF THEIR ROLE AS GUARDIANS OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE MERITS REVIEW OF THEIR ACTS BY THIS
COURT BEFORE A PRISONER, AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE, MAY SEEK RELEASE FROM
STATE PROCESS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS THIS
COURT'S CONVICTION THAT ORDERLY FEDERAL PROCEDURE UNDER OUR DUAL SYSTEM
OF GOVERNMENT DEMANDS THAT THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURTS SHOULD ORDINARILY
BE SUBJECT TO REVERSAL ONLY BY THIS COURT AND THAT A STATE'S SYSTEM FOR
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AS CONSTITUTIONALLY
INADEQUATE ONLY BY THIS COURT.  FROM THIS CONVICTION SPRINGS THE
REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR APPLICATION TO THIS COURT TO AVOID UNSEEMLY
INTERFERENCE BY FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS WITH STATE CRIMINAL
ADMINISTRATION. 

AS THE HAWK REQUIREMENT, WE THINK, HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE RULE, NO
CHANGE IN PROCEDURE IS NECESSARY AND THE REITERATION OF THE RULE IN
THIS DECISION CAN, OF COURSE, RESULT IN NO SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF
WORK AMONG FEDERAL COURTS.  FN44  NO PERSON RESTRAINED BY STATE PROCESS
COULD HERETOFORE HAVE BEEN CERTAIN OF A HEARING ON THE MERITS OF HIS
APPLICATION TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNLESS HE HAD SOUGHT REVIEW IN
THIS COURT OF THE STATE'S REFUSAL TO RELEASE HIM.  FN45  FURTHER, THE
RULE CONTRIBUTES TOWARD EXPEDITIOUS ADMINISTRATION, SINCE IT RAISES THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN A FEDERAL FORUM IMMEDIATELY, WITHOUT THE
NECESSITY OF A SECOND TRIAL COURT PROCEEDING AND THE COMPILATION OF A
SECOND RECORD.  AND WHILE THE RULE HAS THE MERIT OF REASONABLE
CERTAINTY, IT DOES NOT ERR ON THE SIDE OF UNREASONABLE RIGIDITY. 
FLEXIBILITY IS LEFT TO TAKE CARE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS THAT
DEMAND PROMPT ACTION.  SOLICITOUS AS WE ARE THAT NO MAN BE
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRAINED AND THAT PROMPT, CERTAIN AND SIMPLE
METHODS FOR REDRESS BE AVAILABLE, THOSE ENDS FOR WHICH MODERN HABEAS
CORPUS HAS BEEN EVOLVED CAN BEST BE ACHIEVED BY REQUIRING IN ORDINARY
CASES THE EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES AND REVIEW HERE. 

THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES A REFUSAL, ON THE MERITS, OF STATE
COLLATERAL RELIEF FROM A CONVICTION ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  NO REVIEW WAS SOUGHT IN THIS COURT OF THE STATE'S
REFUSAL.  INSTEAD, WITHOUT ALLEGING THAT REVIEW HAD BEEN SOUGHT IN THIS
COURT AND WITHOUT RELIANCE UPON ANY PLEADED FACTS TO EXCUSE SUCH
FAILURE, THE PETITIONER FILED HIS APPLICATION FOR THIS HABEAS CORPUS IN
THE DISTRICT COURT.  LIMITING ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION
SOLELY TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY INSTANCE
THAT REQUIRED DISREGARD OF ACCUSTOMED PROCEDURE, THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND THAT THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF PECULIAR URGENCY.  WE AGREE WITH THE
LOWER COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT IT SHOULD GO NO FURTHER INTO
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION.  A CONVICTION AFTER PUBLIC TRIAL IN A
STATE COURT BY VERDICT OR PLEA OF GUILTY PLACES THE BURDEN ON THE
ACCUSED TO ALLEGE AND PROVE PRIMARY FACTS, NOT INFERENCES, THAT SHOW,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE STRONG PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL REGULARITY IN
STATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, THAT IN HIS PROSECUTION THE STATE SO
DEPARTED FROM CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO JUSTIFY A FEDERAL
COURT'S INTERVENTION TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED.  FN46  THE
PETITIONER HAS THE BURDEN ALSO OF SHOWING THAT OTHER AVAILABLE REMEDIES
HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED OR THAT CIRCUMSTANCES OF PECULIAR URGENCY EXIST. 
NOTHING HAS BEEN PLEADED OR PROVED TO SHOW THAT HERE EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TO REQUIRE PROMPT FEDERAL INTERVENTION.  OKLAHOMA
DENIED HABEAS CORPUS AFTER OBVIOUSLY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.  FN47  IF
THAT DENIAL VIOLATED FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THE REMEDY WAS
HERE, NOT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AND THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY
REFUSED TO EXAMINE THE MERITS.  AFFIRMED.    FN1  EX PARTE DARR, 84
OKLA. CR. 352, 182 P.2D 523.    FN2  77 F.SUPP.  553, 556. 

FN3  77 F.SUPP.  553. 

FN4  172 F.2D 668(C.A. 10TH CIR.). 

FN5  DAVIS V. BURKE, 179 U.S. 399. 

FN6  MCNALLY V. HILL, 293 U.S. 131. 

FN7  HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271, 274. 

FN8  HOLIDAY V. JOHNSON, 313 U.S. 342, 350; PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334
U.S. 266, 291-92; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2242, RESTATING R.S. SEC. 754. 

FN9  SEE HAWK V. OLSON, SUPRA, PP. 274-75, NOTES 3, 4. 

FN10  COMITY THROUGH DISCRETION IN GRANTING HABEAS CORPUS HAD AN
ANTECEDENT IN AN EARLY STATUTORY COMMAND RESTRAINING FEDERAL INJUNCTIVE
INTERFERENCE WITH STATE COURTS.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2283; 1 STAT. 334, SEC.
5; SEE BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503.  CF. THE THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT PROVISIONS, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 2281, 2284. 

FN11  117 U.S. 241. 

FN12  117 U.S. 241, 252; COOK V. HART, 146 U.S. 183. 

FN13  111 U.S. 176, 182. 

FN14  117 U.S. 516. 

FN15  IN RE DUNCAN, 139 U.S. 449, 454. 

FN16  IN RE WOOD, 140 U.S. 278. 

FN17  IN RE JUGIRO, 140 U.S. 291; IN RE FREDERICH, 149 U.S. 70, 77
78; NEW YORK V. ENO, 155 U.S. 89, 98; PEPKE V. CRONAN, 155 U.S. 100;
WHITTEN V. TOMLINSON, 160 U.S. 231, 242; TINSLEY V. ANDERSON, 171 U.S.
101, 104-105; MINNESOTA V. BRUNDAGE, 180 U.S. 499, 503; REID V. JONES,
187 U.S. 153; URQUHART V. BROWN, 205 U.S. 179, 181-82; UNITED STATES EX
REL. KENNEDY V. TYLER, 269 U.S. 13, 17. 

FN18  169 U.S. 284, 291. 

FN19  175 U.S. 184, 187. 

FN20  EX PARTE SPENCER, 228 U.S. 652, 660-61. 

FN21  BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63, 70. 

FN22  294 U.S. 103. 

FN23  THE POINT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED MANY TIMES.  EX PARTE BOTWINSKI,
314 U.S. 586; EX PARTE DAVIS, 317 U.S. 592; EX PARTE WILLIAMS, 317 U.S.
604; EX PARTE ABERNATHY, 320 U.S. 219; AND SEE CASES CITED IN NOTE 25,
INFRA. 

FN24  321 U.S. 114, 116-17. 

FN25  WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760, 767; HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42,
46, 48; MARINO V. RAGEN, 332 U.S. 561, 564; WADE V. MAYO, 334 U.S. 672,
679; YOUNG V. RAGEN, 337 U.S. 235, 238.  AND SEE NOTE 32, INFRA. 

FN26  324 U.S. 760, 764. 

FN27  334 U.S. 672. 

FN28  324 U.S. 760, 765.  IN THE WHITE CASE WE CONCLUDED THAT THE
STATE GROUND WAS THE REFUSAL BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS TO
ENTERTAIN APPLICATIONS WITH POSSIBLE FACT CONTROVERSIES.  PP. 766-67. 
WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WHILE PROPER PROCEDURE DOES NOT REQUIRE REVIEW IN
THIS COURT OF A JUDGMENT DENYING HABEAS CORPUS ON AN ADEQUATE STATE
GROUND, OTHER AVAILABLE STATE REMEDIES MUST BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE AN
APPLICATION SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED IN A DISTRICT COURT.  P. 767. 

FN29  SEE WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760; EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S.
241, 251. 

FN30  YOUNG V. RAGEN, 337 U.S. 235, 238.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254 READS: 

"AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF A PERSON IN
CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT SHALL NOT BE GRANTED
UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, OR THAT THERE IS EITHER AN
ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE STATE CORRECTIVE PROCESS OR THE EXISTENCE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING SUCH PROCESS INEFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF THE PRISONER. 

"AN APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
ANY AVAILABLE PROCEDURE, THE QUESTION PRESENTED." 

FN31  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ON H.R. 3214, APRIL 22 TO JUNE 7, 1948, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
P. 28.  SEE 28 U.S.C. CONGRESSIONAL SERVICE, P. XXVIII; H.R. REP. NO.
308 ON H.R. 3214, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3. 

FN32  SEE LYON V. HARKNESS, 151 F.2D 731, 733(C.A. 1ST CIR., N.H.);
UNITED STATES EX REL. MONSKY V. WARDEN OF CLINTON STATE PRISON, 163
F.2D 978, 980(C.A.2D CIR., N.Y.); STONEBREAKER V. SMYTH, 163 F.2D 498,
501, 502(C.A.4TH CIR., VA.); NUSSER V. ADERHOLD, 164 F.2D 127(C.A.5TH
CIR., GA.); MAKOWSKI V. BENSON, 158 F.2D 158(C.A.6TH CIR., MICH.);
UNITED STATES EX REL. ROSS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 159 F.2D 994(C.A.7TH CIR.,
ILL.); GUY V. UTECHT, 144 F.2D 913, 915(C.A.8TH CIR., MINN.); GORDON V.
SCUDDER, 163 F.2D 518(C.A.9TH CIR., CAL.); HERZOG V. COLPOYS, 79 U.S.
APP. D.C. 81, 143 F.2D 137, 138. 

FN33  SEE S. REP. NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 9 AND H.R. REP.
NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. A180. 

FN34  SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS BY JUDGE JOHN J. PARKER, WHO SERVED AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES, COMMITTEE
ON HABEAS CORPUS, ARE INSTRUCTIVE. 

"  ...  THE THING IN MIND IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS SECTION WAS TO
PROVIDE THAT REVIEW OF STATE COURT ACTION BE HAD SO FAR AS POSSIBLE
ONLY BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHOSE REVIEW OF SUCH
ACTION HAS HISTORICAL BASIS, AND THAT REVIEW NOT BE HAD BY THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS, WHOSE EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER IS UNSEEMLY AND LIKELY TO
BREED DANGEROUS CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION.  ... 

"ONE OF THE INCIDENTS OF THE STATE REMEDY IS (THE) RIGHT TO APPLY TO
THE SUPREME COURT FOR CERTIORARI.  IF A PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO MAKE
SUCH APPLICATION AFTER THE REFUSAL OF THE STATE COURT TO RELEASE HIM,
HE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER
STATE PROCEDURE, PROVIDED HE HAS THE RIGHT TO APPLY AGAIN TO THE STATE
COURTS FOR RELIEF AS A BASIS FOR APPLICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR
CERTIORARI.  ... 

"THE FACT THAT CERTIORARI FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO THE STATE COURT
MAY BE CALLED A FEDERAL REMEDY IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE QUESTION
HERE INVOLVED.  THE CRUCIAL MATTER IS THAT PETITIONER STILL HAS A RIGHT
TO ATTACK IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE THE VALIDITY OF HIS CONVICTION
AND, UPON THE RECORD MADE IN SUCH ATTACK, TO PETITION THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE LAND FOR A REVIEW.  SO LONG AS SUCH RIGHT REMAINS, HE DOES NOT
HAVE, AND OUGHT NOT HAVE, THE RIGHT TO ASK A REVIEW BY ONE OF THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS.  ...  "  PARKER, LIMITING THE ABUSE OF HABEAS CORPUS, 8
F.R.D. 171, 176-77. 

WADE V. MAYO, SUPRA, HAD NO EFFECT ON THE DISCUSSION OF SEC. 2254,
SINCE IT CAME DOWN TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE NEW CODE, TOO
LATE FOR CONSIDERATION. 

FN35  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. A180, AND
FINAL REVISER'S NOTE TO SEC. 2254. 

FN36  SEE NOTE 30, SUPRA.  COMPARE SEC. 2254, H.R. 3214, UNION
CALENDAR #140, H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., WITH SEC.
2254, H.R. 3214 IN SENATE, S. REP. NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS., P.
9. 

FN37  THE TWO EXCEPTIONS AT THE LAST OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH PROVIDE
FOR PARTICULAR SITUATIONS IN THE STATES.  THE DEFINITION OF EXHAUSTION
IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH WAS MADE BY THE SENATE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES.  S. REP. NO. 1559, 80TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 9.  REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER
SESSION 1947, P. 17. 

H.R. 3214 HAD PERMITTED FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS NOT ONLY WHERE STATE
REMEDIES HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED BUT WHERE "THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY
AVAILABLE IN" THE STATE COURT.  THE SENATE REPORT INFORMS US THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT WAS "TO SUBSTITUTE DETAILED AND
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR THE PHRASE 'NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AVAILABLE.'  THAT
PHRASE IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND PRECISE, AND ITS MEANING
SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE SPELLED OUT IN MORE DETAIL IN THE SECTION AS IS
DONE BY THE AMENDMENT."  S. REP. NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS., P.
10. 

FN38  COMPARE BOWEN, L.J., IN COOKE V. NEW RIVER CO., 38 CH. D. 56,
70-71:  "  ...  LIKE MY BROTHERS WHO SIT WITH ME, I AM EXTREMELY
RELUCTANT TO DECIDE ANYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE SPECIAL
CASE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE BY LONG EXPERIENCE THAT JUDGMENTS COME WITH FAR
MORE WEIGHT AND GRAVITY WHEN THEY COME UPON POINTS WHICH THE JUDGES ARE
BOUND TO DECIDE, AND I BELIEVE THAT OBITER DICTA, LIKE THE PROVERBIAL
CHICKENS OF DESTINY, COME HOME TO ROOST SOONER OR LATER IN A VERY
UNCOMFORTABLE WAY TO THE JUDGES WHO HAVE UTTERED THEM, AND ARE A GREAT
SOURCE OF EMBARRASSMENT IN FUTURE CASES."  COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6
WHEAT.  264, 399-400; WRIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 583, 593-594. 

FN39  SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224, 230. 

FN40  EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241. 

FN41  SALINGER V. LOISEL, NOTE 39, SUPRA. 

FN42  EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 117; HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42,
48; WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760, 764-65. 

FN43  DORSEY V. GILL, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 9, 148 F.2D 857. 

FN44  SEE NOTE 32, SUPRA. 

FN45  WADE V. MAYO, 334 U.S. 672, 681. 

FN46  IN RE CUDDY, 131 U.S. 280; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458,
468; WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275, 286; HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S.
271, 279. 

FN47  EX PARTE DARR, 84 OKLA. CR. 352, 182 P.2D 523. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE CLARK JOINS, CONCURS IN THE
JUDGMENT AND OPINION OF THE COURT, EXCEPT FOR ANY INDICATION IT MAY
CONTAIN THAT, ALTHOUGH THE REASONS FOR A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI ARE NOT
STATED, THEY NEVERTHELESS MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE RECORD.  HE BELIEVES
THAT THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING IS SUCH THAT, WHEN THE REASONS FOR A
DENIAL OF CERTIORARI ARE NOT STATED, THE DENIAL SHOULD BE DISREGARDED
IN PASSING UPON A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR RELIEF, EXCEPT TO NOTE
THAT THIS SOURCE OF POSSIBLE RELIEF HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS, DISSENTING* . 

*(MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ALSO JOINED IN THIS OPINION.  SEE POST, P.
238.) 

THIS CASE CONCERNS THE EXERCISE BY THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THEIR
HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION ON BEHALF OF STATE PRISONERS WHEN A PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A STATE COURT'S DETERMINATION OF A FEDERAL
CLAIM WAS NOT FIRST BROUGHT IN THIS COURT.  IN THE GENERALITY OF
INSTANCES THE ISSUE IS WHETHER DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IS A PREREQUISITE
TO RESORT TO THE DISTRICT COURTS.  THE CASE THUS RAISES SERIOUS
QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES
AS WELL AS BETWEEN THIS COURT AND THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  MY VIEW IN
BRIEF IS THAT FEDERAL COURTS MUST WITHHOLD INTERFERENCE WITH STATE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNTIL EVERY OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS
FOR THE VINDICATION OF A FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED.  WHETHER THE
STATE REMEDIES HAVE BEEN SO EXHAUSTED OFTEN INVOLVES ELUSIVE QUESTIONS
OF LOCAL LAW WITH WHICH DISTRICT JUDGES ARE MORE FAMILIAR THAN WE CAN
BE WITHOUT THE LIGHT THE LOWER COURTS AFFORD US.  THEREFORE, THE POWER
OF THE DISTRICT COURTS TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE
BARRED SIMPLY BECAUSE A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS NOT FIRST MADE IN
THIS COURT.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE IS TO DISREGARD THE SETTLED RULE THAT
DENIAL OF CERTIORARI HAS NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
IF DENIAL OF CERTIORARI REMAINS WITHOUT BEARING ON THE MERITS IN HABEAS
CORPUS AS IN OTHER CASES, TO REQUIRE THE STATE PRISONER TO GO THROUGH
THE MOTION OF SECURING A DENIAL IS TO COMMAND A GESTURE WHICH IS
MEANINGLESS TO HIM AND BURDENSOME TO THIS COURT.  IN ANY EVENT, TO
LEAVE THE DISTRICT COURTS IN THE DARK AS TO WHAT A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI
MEANS IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FAIR
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

1.  THE COURSE OF OUR DECISIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS TO ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ON
BEHALF OF STATE PRISONERS HAS NOT RUN SMOOTH.  THERE IS A REASON.  THIS
SEEMINGLY TECHNICAL PROBLEM OF JURISDICTION CONCERNS THE RELATION OF
THE UNITED STATES AND THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE STATES AND
THE COURTS OF THE STATES.  UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THIS "IS A VERY
DELICATE MATTER THAT HAS OCCUPIED THE THOUGHTS OF STATESMEN AND JUDGES
FOR A HUNDRED YEARS  ...  "  MEMORANDUM OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, AUGUST
20, 1927, DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR STAY PENDING A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  5 THE SACCO-VANZETTI CASE 5516. 

PRIOR TO THE CIVIL WAR, HABEAS CORPUS WAS AVAILABLE IN THE UNITED
STATES COURTS, BARRING LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, ONLY FOR THOSE IN FEDERAL
CUSTODY.  THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1867, EXTENDED THE POWER OF THE UNITED
STATES COURTS TO GRANT WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS TO "ALL CASES WHERE ANY
PERSON MAY BE RESTRAINED OF HIS  ...  LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, OR OF ANY TREATY OR LAW OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  14
STAT. 385.  A CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN
RELATION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE TOUCHES THAT "VERY
DELICATE MATTER" AT ITS MOST SENSITIVE POINT.  THE ACT OF 1867 OPENED
WIDE THE DOOR TO THAT CONFLICT.  IT HAS BECOME INTENSIFIED DURING THE
LAST TWENTY YEARS BECAUSE OF THE INCREASING SUBJECTION OF STATE
CONVICTIONS TO FEDERAL JUDICIAL REVIEW THROUGH THE EXPANDED CONCEPT OF
DUE PROCESS.  SEE, E.G., POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, AND MOONEY V.
HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103.  IT OUGHT NOT TO BE TOO SURPRISING, THEREFORE,
THAT THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS UPON THE FREE RANGE
OF A STATE'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE HAVE TAKEN TIME TO UNFOLD. 

2.  DECISIONS ON MATTERS OF PROCEDURE WITHIN THE COURT'S CONTROL
OUGHT NOT TO BE LIKE SHIFTING SAND.  QUICK FLUCTUATIONS IN THEM SHOULD
BE AVOIDED UNLESS A RULE OF PRACTICE HAS PROVEN ITSELF MISCHIEVOUS IN
PRACTICE.  THE REAL QUESTION BEFORE US IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER WADE V.
MAYO, 334 U.S. 672, SHOULD BE OVERRULED.  WHETHER THIS OVERRULING IS TO
BE DONE FORTHRIGHTLY BY TWO WORDS SAYING THE CASE "IS OVERRULED" OR THE
OVERRULING IS EUPHEMISTICALLY DONE BY FIFTEEN WORDS HARDLY CHANGES THE
FACT.  RESPECT FOR AN EXPLICIT ADJUDICATION ON A MATTER OF PROCEDURE
VERY RECENTLY RENDERED AFTER THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION, AS WELL AS THE
SOUNDNESS OF THE DECISION, SHOULD LEAD US TO ADHERE TO WADE V. MAYO. 
3.  THE WEIGHT WHICH ATTACHES TO A DECISION OF THIS COURT PARTICULARLY
ON MATTERS OF PRACTICE IS NATURALLY ENOUGH AFFECTED BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING IT.  APART FROM THE INTRINSIC JUSTIFICATION OF
WADE V. MAYO ON GROUNDS OF POLICY, TO WHICH I SHALL SHORTLY ADVERT,
THAT DECISION WAS A PRODUCT OF THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS AT ITS
WEIGHTIEST.  ON ORIGINAL SUBMISSION IN OCTOBER, 1947, AND FULL
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, THE CASE WAS RESTORED TO THE DOCKET IN
NOVEMBER, 1947, WAS RESUBMITTED ON MARCH 9, 1948, RECEIVED THOROUGH
RECONSIDERATION BY THE COURT, AND AFTER LONG INCUBATION WAS DECIDED ON
JUNE 14, 1948.  THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE WHICH RECEIVED THIS UNUSUAL
ATTENTION WAS THUS PHRASED IN THE COURT'S OPINION: 

"WHETHER IT WAS PROPER FOR A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN A
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION FILED BY A STATE PRISONER WHO, HAVING SECURED A
RULING FROM THE HIGHEST STATE COURT ON HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIM, HAD FAILED TO SEEK A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT."  334
U.S. AT 674-75. 

THIS IS THE WAY THE ISSUE WAS FRAMED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION: 

"THE FIRST QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER WADE'S FAILURE TO BRING A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT IN HIS STATE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING SHOULD AFFECT HIS
EFFORT TO OBTAIN RELEASE THROUGH A FEDERAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  OR,
TO REPHRASE THE PROBLEM, SHOULD CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT BE CONSIDERED
A PART OF THE STATE REMEDY FOR PURPOSES OF THE WELL-RECOGNIZED DOCTRINE
OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES?"  334 U.S. AT 686. 

THE PROBLEM AS REPHRASED IN THE DISSENT STATED WITH PRECISION THE
DECISIVE INQUIRY.  RELIEF FROM A FEDERAL COURT CANNOT COME UNTIL
CORRECTIVE STATE PROCESS TO VINDICATE THE CLAIMED FEDERAL RIGHT IS
UNAVAILABLE.  THIS HAS BEEN SO EVER SINCE EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S.
241.  THEREFORE, IF THE "STATE REMEDIES" WHICH MUST BE EXHAUSTED
INCLUDE AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A STATE COURT'S DECISION BY OUR
DISCRETIONARY WRIT OF CERTIORARI, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE FOR A DISTRICT
COURT TO ENTERTAIN A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BEFORE SUCH
APPLICATION.  THAT QUESTION - WHETHER A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS TO
BE DEEMED PART OF THE "STATE REMEDIES" - HAD NEVER BEEN CANVASSED BY
THIS COURT.  THE COURT HAD MADE SOME UNCRITICAL ASSERTIONS ABOUT IT AND
IN A MOMENT I SHALL DEAL WITH THEM.  BUT THE PROBLEM HAD NEVER BEEN
CRITICALLY ANALYZED UNTIL THE ISSUE BECAME DETERMINATIVE OF THE
DECISION IN WADE V. MAYO. 

4.  THE ANSWER WHICH THE DISSENT GAVE TO THE PROBLEM DETERMINED THE
DISSENT.  IT CONCLUDED "THAT CERTIORARI SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A PART OF
THE STATE PROCEDURE FOR PURPOSES OF HABEAS CORPUS."  334 U.S. AT 689. 
THE COURT'S ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM LED TO THE CONTRARY RESULT.  WHILE
FULLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE PRINCIPLE THAT STATE REMEDIES MUST BE EXHAUSTED
BEFORE RELIEF CAN BE SOUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT, IT REJECTED THE NOTION
THAT AN APPLICATION TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW BY CERTIORARI CAN BE
DEEMED PART OF THE STATE REMEDIES. 

5.  NOW THE COURT LIKEWISE REJECTS THE BASIS OF THE DISSENT IN WADE
V. MAYO - THAT A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS TO BE DEEMED PART OF STATE
REMEDIES AND AS SUCH MUST BE EXHAUSTED.  BUT IT RETAINS THE CONCLUSION
WHICH WAS DRAWN FROM THE REJECTED PREMISE.  IT DOES SO IN COMPLETE
DISREGARD OF OUR REPEATED INSISTENCE REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
DENIAL OF PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, REFLECTING THE NARROW RANGE OF
INQUIRY NOT GOING TO THE MERITS WHICH ALONE IS OPEN ON SUCH PETITIONS. 
LIKEWISE DISREGARDED ARE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THIS COURT'S BUSINESS, PARTICULARLY THE INHERENT
DIFFICULTIES OF ASCERTAINING IN THIS COURT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THE
AVAILABLE REMEDIES UNDER STATE PROCEDURE, WHICH IS A THRESHOLD QUESTION
IN DETERMINING WHETHER STATE REMEDIES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. 

6.  OF COURSE A STATE PRISONER CAN COME HERE AND SEEK REVIEW, BY WAY
OF CERTIORARI, OF A DENIAL BY THE STATE COURT OF HIS ALLEGED FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  THE COURT MAY GRANT HIS PETITION AND DECIDE THE
ISSUE AGAINST HIM.  IF THE PETITION IS GRANTED AND THE STATE'S VIEW OF
HIS FEDERAL CLAIM IS SUSTAINED HERE, HE MAY STILL SUE OUT A WRIT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IS INAPPLICABLE.  IN THE
SACCO-VANZETTI CASE, APPLICATION WAS FIRST MADE TO THE CIRCUIT JUSTICE,
THEN TO THE SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND THEREAFTER TO THE DISTRICT
JUDGE.  SEE 5 THE SACCO-VANZETTI CASE 5532, 5533, 5534.  TO BE SURE,
PRIOR DENIALS CARRY CONSIDERABLE WEIGHT IN DISPOSING OF A LATER
APPLICATION, BUT MERELY BY WAY OF SAFEGUARD AGAINST "ABUSIVE USE" OF
THE WRIT WHILE FULLY RESPECTING "ITS RECOGNIZED STATUS AS A PRIVILEGED
WRIT OF FREEDOM."  SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224, 232. 

OUR PROBLEM IS NOT WHETHER A PETITIONER MAY COME HERE AFTER
EXHAUSTING HIS STATE REMEDIES BUT WHETHER HE MUST COME HERE AND HAVE
HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED AS A CONDITION TO INVOKING A FEDERAL
COURT'S JURISDICTION ON HABEAS CORPUS.  AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
NECESSARILY TURNS ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI.  MR.
JUSTICE REED'S OPINION MAKES A DELPHIC DISPOSITION OF THIS ISSUE, WHICH
WILL INEVITABLY CREATE CONFUSION AMONG FEDERAL JUDGES.  IT SURELY DOES
NOT MAKE FOR CLARITY OF DOCTRINE NOR DOES IT PROMOTE THE PRACTICAL
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TO SUGGEST THAT DENIAL OF CERTIORARI MAY BE
GIVEN WEIGHT UPON LATER APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS, BUT TO REFUSE TO BE EXPLICIT.  ON THE BASIS OF THIS
PRONOUNCEMENT, HOW ARE SOME 200 DISTRICT JUDGES TO DISPOSE OF PETITIONS
FOR HABEAS CORPUS BROUGHT BY STATE PRISONERS AFTER DENIAL OF CERTIORARI
HERE?  THE OPINION IN EFFECT INVITES THEM TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
THE PRIOR DENIAL HERE, BUT THEN THREATENS THEM WITH POSSIBLE REVERSAL
FOR SO DOING. 

THE STATE OF UNCERTAINTY IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE LEFT MUST
LEAD TO CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF OUR UNDISCLOSED MEANING.  SOME
JUDGES WILL INFER THAT DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BEARS ON THE EXERCISE OF
HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION.  OTHERS WILL FEEL THEY SHOULD ADHERE TO
THIS COURT'S OLD AVOWALS CONCERNING DENIAL UNTIL THEY ARE TOLD
EXPLICITLY TO THE CONTRARY.  MOST CONFUSING OF ALL, MANY JUDGES, AS IS
THE WAY OF JUDGES, ARE UNLIKELY TO RESOLVE THE AMBIGUITY DECISIVELY. 
INSTEAD, THEY WILL TAKE AN EQUIVOCAL POSITION IN DENYING A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, RELYING IN PART ON THE DISCRETIONARY ASPECT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND IN PART ON THE FACT THAT THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI.  SUCH
A DISPOSITION WILL EITHER LEAD LAWYERS TO BE DUBIOUS ABOUT PRESSING AN
APPEAL, OR, IF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION BE APPEALED, SUCH A BLEND
OF REASONS IN DENYING THE WRIT IS NOT LIKELY TO BE OVERTURNED BY A
COURT OF APPEALS, AND IT WOULD BE MOST NATURAL FOR THIS COURT NOT TO
GRANT CERTIORARI TO REVIEW SUCH A CASE.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A DENIAL
OF CERTIORARI GIVEN BY THE LOWER COURTS WOULD NOT BE PRESENTED IN SUCH
AN UNENTANGLED FORM AS WOULD COMMEND ITSELF ACCORDING TO NORMAL
CRITERIA FOR A GRANT OF CERTIORARI.  ADJUDICATION BY THIS COURT OF THE
SPECIFIC ISSUE WILL THUS BE GREATLY DELAYED.  THE RESULT MAY WELL BE
THAT DENIAL OF CERTIORARI WOULD IN PRACTICE ATTAIN A SIGNIFICANCE WHICH
THE COURT IS UNWILLING TO GIVE IT BY CANDID ADJUDICATION. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, ONE OF OUR FUNCTIONS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS AMONG THE
LOWER COURTS.  BUT IT IS NOT OUR DUTY TO STIMULATE SUCH CONFLICTS. 
ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD WE AVOID SUCH
AMBIGUITY.  "THE GREAT WRIT OF LIBERTY" OUGHT NOT TO BE TREATED AS
THOUGH WE WERE PLAYING A GAME.  WHEN A QUESTION AFFECTING THE HABEAS
CORPUS JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IS BEFORE US, IT IS OUR DUTY
TO GUIDE THE DISTRICT COURTS AND NOT REFUSE TO GUIDE THEM.  WE CANNOT
AVOID AN ANSWER ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE THE
COURT.  OPINIONS ARE REQUIRED IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IN ORDER THAT THE
REASONING WHICH JUSTIFIES A CONCLUSION MAY BE MADE MANIFEST.  THE
DISCLOSURE OF THE REASONING BY WHICH A CONCLUSION IS REACHED CANNOT
REMOTELY BE DEEMED DICTUM.  A DECISION IMPLIES THE PROCESS OF REASONING
WHICH REQUIRES IT.  IT IS ESSENTIAL TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI MEANS BEFORE DETERMINING WHETHER A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
IS PREREQUISITE TO THE EXERCISE OF HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION BY A
DISTRICT COURT.  SURELY IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHAT A PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENT MEANS BEFORE MAKING IT A REQUIREMENT. 

7.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OUGHT
NO LONGER TO REQUIRE DISCUSSION.  THIS COURT HAS SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND AGAIN THAT SUCH A DENIAL HAS NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE WHATEVER BEARING
ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM.  THE DENIAL MEANS THAT THIS COURT HAS
REFUSED TO TAKE THE CASE.  IT MEANS NOTHING ELSE.  THE STATE COURT'S
JUDGMENT IS LEFT UNDISTURBED WITHOUT ANY LEGAL REINFORCEMENT WHATEVER
OF THE VIEWS WHICH THE STATE COURT EXPRESSED.  COUNSEL AT THE BAR HAVE
FREQUENTLY BEEN STOPPED FOR DRAWING COMFORT OUT OF SUCH A DENIAL AND
THE COURT'S OPINIONS HAVE INDICATED IMPATIENCE WITH FAILURE TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE ONLY THING THAT SUCH A DENIAL IMPORTS IS THAT THERE
WERE NOT FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COURT WHO DEEMED IT DESIRABLE, FOR THEIR
RESPECTIVE REASONS, TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT.  EVEN
BEFORE THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925 SO VASTLY EXTENDED THIS COURT'S
CERTIORARI JURISDICTION, THE COURT SAID:  "THE DENIAL OF A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI IMPORTS NO EXPRESSION OF OPINION UPON THE MERITS OF THE
CASE, AS THE BAR HAS BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES."  UNITED STATES V. CARVER,
260 U.S. 482, 490.  THIS NOTE OF IMPATIENCE HAS BEEN SOUNDED
REPEATEDLY. 

THE WHOLLY NEGATIVE MEANING OF A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IS NOT SO
MERELY BECAUSE WE HAVE SAID IT. WE HAVE SAID IT BECAUSE IT MUST BE SO
UNLESS THE WHOLE CONCEPTION OF CERTIORARI IN RELATION TO THE BUSINESS
OF THIS COURT IS TO BE RADICALLY TRANSFORMED.  SUCH A REVOLUTIONARY
CHANGE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY BE TAKEN IN RELATION TO ONE LARGE GROUP OF
CASES WITHOUT DRASTIC REVISION OF THE COURT'S TREATMENT OF SUCH CASES,
WITH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT AND ITS
PROPER DISCHARGE. 

NOTHING IS MORE BASIC TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THIS COURT THAN AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IS OCCASIONED BY A VARIETY OF
REASONS WHICH PRECLUDES THE IMPLICATION THAT WERE THE CASE HERE THE
MERITS WOULD GO AGAINST THE PETITIONER.  PETITIONS MAY HAVE BEEN DENIED
BECAUSE, EVEN THOUGH SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WERE RAISED, IT
SEEMED TO AT LEAST SIX MEMBERS OF THE COURT THAT THE ISSUE WAS EITHER
NOT RIPE ENOUGH OR TOO MORIBUND FOR ADJUDICATION; THAT THE QUESTION HAD
BETTER AWAIT THE PERSPECTIVE OF TIME OR THAT TIME WOULD SOON BURY THE
QUESTION OR, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, IT WAS DESIRABLE TO WAIT AND
SEE; OR THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS ENTANGLED WITH
NONCONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT RAISED DOUBT WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE COULD BE EFFECTIVELY ISOLATED; OR FOR VARIOUS OTHER REASONS NOT
RELATING TO THE MERITS.  DIVERGENT AND CONTRADICTORY REASONS OFTEN
OPERATE AS TO THE SAME PETITION AND LEAD TO A COMMON VOTE OF DENIAL. 
THE WANT OF EXPLANATIONS FOR DENIALS OF CERTIORARI IS IN PART DUE TO
THE FACT THAT A COLLECTIVE REASON FREQUENTLY COULD NOT BE GIVEN.  TO
SUGGEST THAT A DISTRICT COURT CAN DETERMINE THE SIGNIFICANCE TO BE
ATTACHED TO THIS COURT'S DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE
RECORD ON CERTIORARI HERE IS TO OFFER THE DISTRICT COURTS DARKNESS
WITHOUT ARIADNE'S THREAD.  PARTICULARLY IS THIS TRUE IN CASES SOUGHT TO
BE BROUGHT HERE FROM THE STATE COURTS IN WHICH STATE AND FEDERAL
GROUNDS ARE FREQUENTLY ENTANGLED AND AN UNAMBIGUOUS FEDERAL QUESTION
OFTEN DOES NOT EMERGE FROM THE RECORD. 

TO ATTACH SIGNIFICANCE TO A DENIAL OF A CERTIORARI PETITION REGARDING
THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITION WOULD BE TO TRANSFORM A
MECHANISM FOR KEEPING CASES OUT OF THIS COURT INTO A MEANS OF BRINGING
THEM IN.  IT WOULD CONTRADICT ALL THAT LED TO THE ADOPTION OF
CERTIORARI JURISDICTION AND WOULD REJECT THE WHOLE COURSE OF THE
COURT'S TREATMENT OF SUCH PETITIONS, BOTH IN PRACTICE AND PROFESSION. 
FOR IF DENIAL DOES IMPORT AN EXPRESSION OF OPINION UPON THE MERITS OF
THE CASE, THEN WE MUST DEAL WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE.  DURING THE
LAST FOUR FISCAL YEARS THE DISTRICT COURTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY HAD
ANNUALLY FROM 500 TO 600 HABEAS CORPUS CASES BROUGHT BY PETITIONERS
UNDER STATE CUSTODY.  TO OVERRULE WADE V. MAYO AND TO MAKE IT THE DUTY
OF THIS COURT TO PASS ON THE MERITS OF ANYTHING LIKE THE NUMBER OF
THESE CASES WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT HERE ON PETITIONS FOR
CERTIORARI FROM THE STATE COURTS WOULD THROW AN ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE
BURDEN UPON THE COURT.  FN1 

8.  WE CERTAINLY OUGHT NOT TO CONDITION THE POWER OF THE LOCAL
DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON A PRIOR
DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HERE IF SUCH DENIAL CARRIES NO
OTHER SIGNIFICANCE THAN DOES THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN ANY OTHER
CLASS OF CASES.  MEANINGLESS MULTIPLICATION OF STEPS IN THE LEGAL
PROCESS CAN HARDLY BE DEEMED A VIRTUE IN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.  NOR
WOULD IT BE MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE DIGNITY OF A STATE COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT COURT TO DISAGREE WITH THE STATE COURT'S VIEW OF FEDERAL LAW
IF SUCH DISAGREEMENT CAME AFTER THIS COURT HAD DENIED CERTIORARI RATHER
THAN BEFORE. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS COURT SHOULD HAVE THE FIRST
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER WHETHER A STATE COURT WAS RIGHT IN HAVING
DENIED A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM - WHAT HAS BEEN COLLOQUIALLY CALLED A
"FIRST-CRACK" POLICY.  THE MOST WEIGHTY CONSIDERATIONS OF PRACTICAL
ADMINISTRATION COUNSEL AGAINST IT.  THE BURDEN OF THE COURT'S VOLUME OF
BUSINESS WILL BE GREATLY INCREASED, NOT MERELY BECAUSE A GREATER NUMBER
OF CERTIORARI PETITIONS WOULD BE FILED, BUT BY REASON OF THE EFFECTIVE
PRESSURE TOWARD GRANTING PETITIONS MORE FREELY.  FOR IF THE "FIRST
CRACK" POLICY HAS ANY VALIDITY, IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT EVERY DOUBT BE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF GRANTING CERTIORARI, RATHER THAN LEAVING THE CASE
TO THE DISTRICT COURTS.    MOREOVER, STATE COURT DECISIONS INVOLVING
DENIAL OF FEDERAL CLAIMS MADE IN COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A CONVICTION ARE
FREQUENTLY DECISIONS BASED MERELY ON ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS. 
THIS COURT CAN DISPOSE OF THEM ONLY AS A MATTER OF ABSTRACT PLEADING. 
THE DISTRICT COURTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, CAN HOLD HEARINGS WHEN DEEMED
APPROPRIATE, CONSIDER ALLEGATIONS ON THEIR MERITS IF THEY ARE AT ALL
SUBSTANTIAL AND DISPOSE OF WHAT OFTEN TURN OUT TO BE UNMERITORIOUS
CLAIMS.  THUS, THE IMPACT UPON FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIPS OF REVERSALS
OF STATE COURT DECISIONS, WHICH THIS COURT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AVOID
WHEN IT IS LIMITED TO THE PLEADINGS, MAY WELL BE AVOIDED BY LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS, LOOKING BEYOND PAPER ALLEGATIONS TO THE MERITS. 

9.  THERE IS STILL ANOTHER REASON WHY IT MAKES AGAINST, NOT FOR,
SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TO BAR EXERCISE BY A DISTRICT COURT OF
ITS HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION MERELY BECAUSE THE DISCRETIONARY POWER
OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW A STATE COURT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN INVOKED. 
IT IS THAT CASES INVOLVING FEDERAL CLAIMS BY STATE PRISONERS SO
FREQUENTLY INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW WHICH MUST BE ANSWERED BEFORE
THE FEDERAL ISSUE CAN BE REACHED.  STATE QUESTIONS ARE OF TWO KINDS:
(1) DID THE ADVERSE STATE RULING EXHAUST THE PRISONER'S AVAILABLE STATE
REMEDIES?  (2) MAY THE STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT BE DEEMED TO REST SOME
STATE GROUND? 

NOTHING STANDS OUT MORE PROMINENTLY IN THE COURT'S EXPERIENCE WITH
THESE CASES THAN THE DOUBTS AND DIFFICULTIES IN ASCERTAINING THE LAW
CONTROLLING LOCAL PRACTICE AND LOCAL REMEDIES.  THUS, ACCORDING TO THE
PROCEDURE OF ONE STATE A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE LIKE THAT IN MOONEY V.
HOLOHAN, SUPRA, MUST BE RAISED BY HABEAS CORPUS, NOT CORAM NOBIS, WHILE
IN ANOTHER STATE ONLY CORAM NOBIS IS AVAILABLE, NOT HABEAS CORPUS. 
ALTHOUGH A STATE COURT MAY HAVE FELT THAT IT WROTE CLEARLY, WE MAY NOT
BE ABLE TO READ CLEARLY OR AT LEAST IN UNISON; SOME MEMBERS OF THE
COURT READ ONE WAY, SOME ANOTHER.  SEE, E.G., NEW YORK EX REL. WHITMAN
V. WILSON, 318 U.S. 688; MORHOUS V. SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, 293 N.Y.
131, 56 N.E.2D 79; PEOPLE V. SADNESS, 300 N.Y. 69, 89 N.E.2D 188. 

THE DIFFICULTIES IN DETERMINING EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES ARE
ILLUSTRATED BY A LITIGATION ANOTHER STAGE OF WHICH WAS REACHED BY
DENIAL OF CERTIORARI LAST MONDAY.  HAWK V. NEBRASKA, 339 U.S. 923.  AT
AN EARLIER DATE, THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA HAD AFFIRMED A DENIAL OF
HABEAS CORPUS BY THE LOWER STATE COURT.  HAWK V. OLSON, 145 NEB. 306,
16 N.W.2D 181.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI AND REVERSED ON THE
MERITS, ACTING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT A FEDERAL RIGHT HAD BEEN
DISREGARDED, 326 U.S. 271, DESPITE OUR EARLIER STATEMENT IN EX PARTE
HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 116, TO THE EFFECT THAT STATE REMEDIES COULD NOT BE
DEEMED EXHAUSTED IN NEBRASKA UNTIL CORAM NOBIS HAD BEEN ATTEMPTED.  ON
THE REMAND, THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT ADVISED US THAT WE HAD
MISCONCEIVED ITS OPINION AND MISUNDERSTOOD LOCAL PROCEDURE - THAT IT
HAD NOT DENIED A FEDERAL CLAIM OUT OF HAND BUT DECIDED ONLY THAT HABEAS
CORPUS WAS NOT THE PROPER PROCEDURAL ROAD TO TAKE IN NEBRASKA.  146
NEB. 875, 22 N.W.2D 136.  HAWK THEN APPLIED FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR NEBRASKA, BUT WAS TOLD THAT HE MUST
FIRST TRY CORAM NOBIS IN THE STATE COURTS.  66 F.SUPP.  195, AFFIRMED
SUB NOM. HAWK V. JONES, 160 F.2D 807.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE SHOWED HIS
KNOWLEDGE OF HIS LOCAL LAW, FOR WHEN THE FEDERAL CLAIM WAS ASSERTED BY
CORAM NOBIS IT WAS HEARD ON THE MERITS, DECIDED BY A NEBRASKA TRIAL
COURT AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND AFFIRMED BY THE NEBRASKA SUPREME
COURT, HAWK V. STATE, 151 NEB. 717, 39 N.W.2D 561. 

THE HAWK LITIGATION ILLUSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF
EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES.  THAT DOCTRINE IS VITAL TO THE HARMONIOUS
FUNCTIONING OF TWO JUDICIAL SYSTEMS WHERE ONE IS SUBORDINATE TO THE
OTHER.  BUT THE LITIGATION ALSO SHOWS THAT WASTE AND FRICTION ARE BOUND
TO BE PROMOTED IF REVIEW OF STATE COURT DECISIONS IN THIS FIELD WILL
HAVE TO COME HERE INITIALLY.  WE ARE DEALING WITH ELUSIVE AND
TREACHEROUS LOCAL LEGAL MATERIALS WHICH IN THEIR NATURE ARE NOT WITHIN
THE SPECIAL COMPETENCE OF THIS COURT.  SUCH MATERIALS LOOK ONE WAY IF
ONE EXAMINES ONLY THE DEAD LETTER OF PRINT.  BUT TO ONE BROUGHT UP
WITHIN THE LOCAL SYSTEM THEY CARRY MEANING WHICH NEVER CAN BE GOT FROM
BOOKS.  SEE DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, 261 U.S. 102, 106.  THE SURE-FOOTED
MANNER IN WHICH THE FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE DEALT WITH NEBRASKA
PROCEDURE IN HAWK V. OLSON, SUPRA, INDICATES THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE
MADE THE ERROR INTO WHICH THIS COURT FELL.  THE NEBRASKA SITUATION IS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIFFICULTIES AND DOUBTS THAT THIS COURT HAS
ENCOUNTERED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN REGARD TO THE LOCAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE. 
THE MATTER COMES PECULIARLY WITHIN THE RULE OF WISDOM, OFTEN APPLIED BY
THIS COURT, WHEREBY QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW AND LOCAL PRACTICES WILL NOT
BE DECIDED HERE BUT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE KNOWLEDGEABLE VIEWS OF
FEDERAL JUDGES IN THE VARIOUS LOCALITIES.  SEE GARDNER V. NEW JERSEY,
329 U.S. 565, 583, AND CASES CITED.  THIS RULE RESPECTS ALL THE
CONSIDERATIONS THAT PRECLUDE INTERVENTION BY A FEDERAL COURT UNTIL THE
STATE COURTS HAVE FULLY ACTED. 

BURKE V. GEORGIA, 338 U.S. 941, IS ANOTHER ADMIRABLE ILLUSTRATION OF
WHY WE SHOULD NOT REQUIRE CASES RAISING A DUBIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF STATE CONVICTIONS TO BE BROUGHT HERE
BEFORE HABEAS CORPUS IS SOUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURTS.  THAT WE DENIED
CERTIORARI "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" TO FUTURE PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT CARRIED NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.  FN2  THE CASE MERELY DEMONSTRATES
HOW FREQUENTLY IN THIS SITUATION PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS OF STATE
PROCEDURE AND STATE COURT JURISDICTION ARE INVOLVED.  INSTEAD OF
ALLOWING THESE LOCAL ISSUES TO BE CANVASSED INITIALLY IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS, IT IS NOW PROPOSED TO DEAL WITH CASES LIKE BURKE V. GEORGIA BY
REQUIRING THAT THEY BE BROUGHT HERE ENVELOPED IN THE FOG OF STATE
PROCEDURAL LAW AND THEN LEAVING IT TO THE DISTRICT COURTS TO LIFT THE
FOG AFTER WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS TOO THICK FOR US TO PIERCE. 
SUCH PROCEDURE, I SUBMIT, WOULD NEITHER FURTHER THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE NOR BE CONDUCIVE TO THE PROPER USE OF THIS COURT'S TIME FOR THE
EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF ITS INESCAPABLE BUSINESS NOR ADVANCE THE SELF
ESTEEM OF STATE COURTS. 

10.  NOR NEED WE BE CONCERNED LEST THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS WILL
LIGHTLY INJECT THEMSELVES INTO THE STATE CRIMINAL PROCESS AND OPEN WIDE
THE STATE PRISON DOORS.  EXPERIENCE COMPLETELY DISPELS SUCH EXCOGITATED
FEARS.  THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGES WHO ARE
CITIZENS OF THE STATE, WITH LOYALTIES TO IT NO LESS STRONG THAN THOSE
OF THE JUDGES OF THE STATE COURTS.  JUDGES OFTEN COME TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS FROM THE STATE COURTS.  THE PROOF OF THE PUDDING IS IN THE
EATING.  THE SHOWING IS OVERWHELMING THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS GRANT
WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS MOST SPARINGLY AND ONLY WITH DUE REGARD FOR THIS
COURT'S DECISIONS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  FN3 

EVEN THOUGH A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
MAY INVOLVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH WERE FOUND AGAINST THE
PETITIONER BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF HIS STATE, THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT
SITTING AS A COURT OF REVIEW OF THE STATE COURT.  A PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS IN A FEDERAL COURT, AFTER THE STATE PROCESS HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED,
"COMES IN FROM THE OUTSIDE," AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES PHRASED IT IN HIS
DISSENTING OPINION IN FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 345, 346, A VIEW
WHICH ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS LAW IN MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86.  IF
IT BE SUGGESTED THAT AS A MATTER OF APPEARANCE, LEGAL ANALYSIS APART, A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT MIGHT BE GRANTING RELIEF WHICH THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE HAD DENIED, THE SAME UNANALYZED APPEARANCE WOULD ATTACH TO
A DISTRICT COURT'S GRANTING RELIEF AFTER THIS COURT HAD DENIED IT. 

11.  DUE REGARD FOR STATE AND FEDERAL RELATIONS AS EXPRESSED IN THE
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES AND ADHERENCE TO THE FUNCTION
PLAYED BY CERTIORARI IN THE BUSINESS OF THIS COURT COMBINE TO REJECT AS
ERRONEOUS THE NOTION THAT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS ARE TO BE BARRED FROM
EXERCISING THEIR HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION IF CERTIORARI WAS NOT FIRST
SOUGHT HERE.  THE ERROR DERIVES FROM THE ASSUMPTION THAT A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT WAS INCLUDED IN THE "STATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE"
WHICH MUST BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE A FEDERAL COURT CAN ENTERTAIN A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.  THIS ASSUMPTION APPEARS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A PER
CURIAM OPINION IN EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 117.  IT WAS REPEATED,
THOUGH NOT IN ISSUE, IN THE PER CURIAM IN WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760,
764.  A CONSIDERATION OF WHAT ACTUALLY WAS SAID IN EX PARTE HAWK ON
THIS MATTER MAKES IT PERFECTLY CLEAR HOW THE MISCONCEPTION ABOUT
CERTIORARI IN RELATION TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION IN HABEAS
CORPUS CREPT INTO EX PARTE HAWK.  THE FOLLOWING IS EVERYTHING CONTAINED
IN EX PARTE HAWK ON THE SUBJECT: 

"ORDINARILY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE DETAINED UNDER A
STATE COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR CRIME WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY A
FEDERAL COURT ONLY AFTER ALL STATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE, INCLUDING ALL
APPELLATE REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS AND IN THIS COURT BY APPEAL OR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  TINSLEY V. ANDERSON, 171 U.S.
101, 104-5; URQUHART V. BROWN, 205 U.S. 179; UNITED STATES EX REL.
KENNEDY V. TYLER, 269 U.S. 13; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA, 115; EX PARTE
ABERNATHY, 320 U.S. 219."  321 U.S. AT 116-17. 

THE ESSENCE OF THIS STATEMENT IS THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE
REMEDIES.  TWO OF THE CITATIONS - MOONEY V. HOLOHAN AND EX PARTE
ABERNATHY - HAVE ONLY THAT RELEVANCE.  THE THREE OTHER CITATIONS -
TINSLEY V. ANDERSON; URQUHART V. BROWN; UNITED STATES EX REL. KENNEDY
V. TYLER - ARE DIRECTED TO THE PARTICULARIZATION IN THE MAIN STATEMENT
AS TO THE EXHAUSTION OF "ALL STATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE, INCLUDING ALL
APPELLATE REMEDIES  ...  IN THIS COURT  ...  "  THESE THREE CASES
ILLUSTRATE A SERIES OF DECISIONS IN THIS COURT HOLDING THAT A LOWER
FEDERAL COURT ORDINARILY OUGHT NOT TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION IN
HABEAS CORPUS IN FAVOR OF ONE IN STATE CUSTODY EVEN AFTER A FINAL
DETERMINATION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE UNLESS HE HAS AVAILED
HIMSELF OF HIS REMEDY "TO REVIEW IT BY WRIT OF ERROR FROM THIS COURT." 
TINSLEY V. ANDERSON, 171 U.S. 101, 105. 

OF COURSE.  A WRIT OF ERROR WAS A WRIT OF RIGHT.  IT MAKES ALL THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD WHETHER A PRISONER KNOCKS AT THE DOOR OF THIS
COURT TO INVOKE ITS GRACE OR HAS UNQUESTIONED ACCESS FOR THE FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION AS TO WHICH THE HIGHEST COURT OF
THE STATE WAS MERELY AN INTERMEDIATE TRIBUNAL.  THE LATTER WAS THE
SITUATION IN THE THREE CASES CITED IN EX PARTE HAWK.  IN THE WRIT OF
ERROR CASES THIS COURT HELD HABEAS CORPUS IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS
OUGHT NOT TO TAKE THE PLACE OF A MANDATORY APPEAL.  MARKUSON V.
BOUCHER, 175 U.S. 184. 

BUT THIS JURISDICTIONAL SITUATION WAS DRASTICALLY CHANGED BY THE ACT
OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1916, 39 STAT. 726, AND THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925,
43 STAT. 936.  THE WHOLE PURPORT OF THIS TRANSFORMING JURISDICTIONAL
LEGISLATION WAS TO BAR THE DOOR OF THIS COURT TO LITIGATION LIKE THIS
FLOOD OF HABEAS CORPUS CASES.  AFTER THIS SHIFT FROM REVIEW AS OF RIGHT
TO REVIEW BY GRACE, IT COULD NO LONGER BE SAID THAT A LITIGANT FORWENT
HIS RIGHT TO HAVE THIS COURT REVIEW AND REVERSE A STATE COURT.  THE
RIGHT WAS GONE.  ONLY AN OPPORTUNITY - AND A SLIM ONE - REMAINED.  IT
COMPLETELY MISCONCEIVES THE DOCTRINE WHICH REQUIRED A CASE TO BE
BROUGHT TO THIS COURT BY WRIT OF ERROR, BECAUSE IT WAS THE DUTY OF THIS
COURT TO ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM ON THE MERITS, TO APPLY IT TO THE TOTALLY
DIFFERENT FACTORS INVOLVED IN CERTIORARI.  ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS OF
POLICY REQUIRED THAT THE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION THROUGH
WRIT OF ERROR BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE A LOWER FEDERAL COURT COULD STEP IN.
UNTIL EX PARTE HAWK THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION OF ASSIMILATING CERTIORARI
TO THE WRIT OF ERROR DOCTRINE.  IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT OF THE COURT'S
BUSINESS IN RELATION TO THESE CASES - THEIR VOLUME AND THE REQUIRED
KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL LAW WITH WHICH THE LOCAL FEDERAL JUDGES ARE MUCH
MORE FAMILIAR THAN WE CAN POSSIBLY BE - ALL CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY
URGE AGAINST REQUIRING CERTIORARI TO BE FILED AND DENIED BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COURT MAY BE ALLOWED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION. 

THE REASONS UNDERLYING STARE DECISIS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH A
PROCEDURAL SUGGESTION AS EX PARTE HAWK MADE REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT
OF PETITIONING THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI BEFORE EVOKING THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JURISDICTION ON HABEAS CORPUS.  THAT SUGGESTION NEVER WAS
TRANSLATED INTO PRACTICE SO FAR AS THE RECORDS OF THIS COURT DISCLOSE. 
WHAT WAS SPECIFICALLY DECIDED IN EX PARTE HAWK DID BECOME THE PRACTICE
OF THIS COURT - THAT IS, PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN THIS COURT UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, NOW 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1651, WERE THEREAFTER DENIED.  BUT NO INSTANCE HAS BEEN REVEALED
IN WHICH THIS COURT ACTED ON THE SUGGESTION THAT EXHAUSTION OF STATE
REMEDIES INCLUDES DENIAL OF CERTIORARI HERE.  APART FROM THE FACT THAT
WADE V. MAYO DISPLACED THE INCLUSION OF CERTIORARI AS PART OF THE STATE
REMEDIES, IT WAS RECOGNIZED AT THE LAST TERM OF COURT THAT THE SCOPE OF
EX PARTE HAWK WAS THAT IT EXPRESSED THE "DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
STATE REMEDIES."  YOUNG V. RAGEN, 337 U.S. 235, 238.    12.  A FINAL
POINT REMAINS AND THAT IS THE SUGGESTION THAT THE PROVISION OF THE 1948
REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE REQUIRES ADHERENCE TO WHAT WAS SAID IN EX
PARTE HAWK ABOUT RESORT TO CERTIORARI.  THE CODE PROVISIONS SAY NO SUCH
THING NOR DO THE REVISER'S NOTES.  SECTION 2254 OF TITLE 28 MERELY
FORMULATES THE JUDICIAL DOCTRINE FIRST ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT IN EX
PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241 - THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE
REMEDIES: 

"AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF A PERSON IN
CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT SHALL NOT BE GRANTED
UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE  ... 

"AN APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
ANY AVAILABLE PROCEDURE, THE QUESTION PRESENTED." 

WADE V. MAYO MADE IT CLEAR THAT CERTIORARI IS NOT A REMEDY "AVAILABLE
IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE" AND NO CLAIM IS NOW MADE TO THE CONTRARY. 
WITH THAT ABANDONMENT GOES THE UNCRITICAL INCLUSION BY EX PARTE HAWK OF
CERTIORARI AMONG THE REMEDIES OF THE STATE.  WADE V. MAYO, TO BE SURE,
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE CONGRESS, BUT THE REVISER CHARACTERIZED
SEC. 2254 AS "DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW AS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME
COURT," ADDING "SEE EX PARTE HAWK."  THAT DECISION IS SOUND ENOUGH IN
ITS ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR "EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES."  THE SLIP
IN ANALYSIS IT CONTAINED AS TO WHAT ARE "STATE REMEDIES" IS SURELY NOT
THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS.  A FAR MORE PERSUASIVE CASE
FOR FINDING REENACTMENT BY CONGRESS OF A DECISION OF THIS COURT WAS
REJECTED IN GIROUARD V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 61. 

13.  IN SHORT, THE DECISION REACHED TODAY HAS ALTERNATIVE
CONSEQUENCES NEITHER OF WHICH, I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT, CAN BE
JUSTIFIED.  IN BARRING A DISTRICT COURT FROM ENTERTAINING A PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON BEHALF OF A STATE PRISONER PRIOR TO DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI HERE, THE DECISION MUST MEAN EITHER (1) THAT DENIAL OF A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THIS CLASS OF CASES, UNLIKE DENIALS IN ALL
OTHER CLASSES OF CASES, WOULD SERVE THE PURPOSE OF AN ADJUDICATION ON
THE MERITS, THEREBY CARRYING WITH IT ALL THE WEIGHT THAT AN
ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS BY THIS COURT SHOULD CARRY WITH A DISTRICT
COURT EVEN IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES, OR (2) THAT SUCH A DENIAL, AS IS
TRUE OF DENIALS IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF CASE, HAS NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. 

THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE - THAT IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI HAS THE EFFECT OF A DISPOSITION ON THE MERITS - WOULD
REQUIRE A COMPLETE CHANGE IN OUR CONSIDERATION OF SUCH PETITIONS BY
THIS COURT.  THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE TREATED AS WE NOW TREAT CASES IN
WHICH A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS GRANTED SO AS TO BE HEARD ON THE
MERITS.  THIS WOULD CAST A NEW BURDEN UPON THE COURT FULL OF THE DIREST
CONSEQUENCES TO THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE REST OF THE BUSINESS OF
THE COURT.  IN ADDITION, IF DENIAL OF CERTIORARI AS THOUGH ON THE
MERITS BUT WITHOUT FULL DRESS CONSIDERATION WOULD, FOR ALL EFFECTIVE
PURPOSES, PRECLUDE RESORT TO THE DISTRICT COURTS ON A CLAIM THAT STATE
CUSTODY IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT WOULD JUDICIALLY
NULLIFY THE HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION WHICH WAS FIRST GIVEN TO THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1867, AND HAS EVER SINCE
BEEN RETAINED.  ON THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE, I.E., THAT DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES IS LIKE ANY OTHER DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI, THE COURT WOULD ANNOUNCE THAT A MEANINGLESS STEP IN THIS
COURT IS AN INDISPENSABLE PRELIMINARY TO GOING TO THE LOCAL DISTRICT
COURT. 

I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF JUDGE PHILLIPS BELOW THAT THE CASE SHOULD
BE REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN1  JUDGE LEARNED HAND HAS CARRIED THE REQUIREMENT OF ELICITING A
DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES TO ITS
LOGICAL CONCLUSION BY GIVING SUCH DENIAL CONCLUSIVE EFFECT ON THE
MERITS.  SCHECHTMAN V. FOSTER, 172 F.2D 339, 342-43.  THAT IS THE
LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF SUCH A REQUIREMENT - BUT IT IS THE LOGIC OF
UNREALITY.  FOR IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE ACTUALITIES OF A DENIAL. 
THE CONSIDERATIONS ENTERING INTO SUCH DENIALS HAVE NECESSITATED THE
HITHERTO SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT DENIAL CARRIES NO SUGGESTION OF
ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS. 

FN2  THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT LEAD TO AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT THAT
DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IS "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" TO OTHER AVENUES OF RELIEF
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT BEAR ON THE MERITS OF COURSE CARRY NO NEGATIVE
IMPLICATION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PHRASE THE DENIAL IS WITH
PREJUDICE. 

FN3  THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS HAS
COMPILED THE FOLLOWING STATISTICS:

          FISCAL YEARS              1945-46  1946-47  1947-48  1948
49 

HABEAS CORPUS CASES 

INVOLVING STATE PRISONERS 

DISPOSED OF BY DISTRICT 

COURTS ..............................      503      481      487
610 

CASES IN WHICH PETITIONERS 

WERE SUCCESSFUL......................       14       13       11
10 

PERCENTAGE OF CASES IN WHICH 

PETITIONERS WERE SUCCESSFUL..........     2.8%     2.7%     2.3%
1.6% 

SEE SPECK, STATISTICS ON FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS, 10 OHIO STATE L.J.
337, 357(1949). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, BEING OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS THE BETTER OF
THE TWO UNSATISFACTORY COURSES OPEN TO US, JOINS THIS OPINION. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. COMMODITIES CORP., 339 U.S. 121 


ARGUED JANUARY 10-11, 1950.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1950.  - 113 CT. CL.
244, 83 F.SUPP.  356, REVERSED. 


IN 1944 THE WAR DEPARTMENT REQUISITIONED A QUANTITY OF WHOLE BLACK
PEPPER, AS TO WHICH A CEILING PRICE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE OFFICE
OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT.  IN A SUIT BY THE OWNER TO RECOVER JUST COMPENSATION, THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FIXED AS JUST COMPENSATION A PRICE IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING
PRICE.  HELD:  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE CEILING PRICE OF THE
PEPPER AT THE TIME IT WAS REQUISITIONED WAS THE PROPER MEASURE OF JUST
COMPENSATION.  PP. 122-131. 

1.  THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND THE NECESSITIES OF A WARTIME
ECONOMY REQUIRE THAT CEILING PRICES BE ACCEPTED AS THE MEASURE OF JUST
COMPENSATION, SO FAR AS THAT CAN BE DONE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 123-125. 

2.  NEITHER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT NOR THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT'S
PROVISION THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO COMPEL AN OWNER TO
SELL HIS PROPERTY REQUIRES THAT, IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF JUST
COMPENSATION, THERE BE ADDED TO THE CEILING PRICE A "RETENTION VALUE" -
I.E., AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE PRICE THE OWNER COULD HAVE OBTAINED HAD HE
BEEN PERMITTED TO HOLD THE COMMODITY UNTIL AFTER PRICE RESTRICTIONS HAD
BEEN REMOVED.  PP. 125-128. 

3.  THE OWNER FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROVING SPECIAL
CONDITIONS AND HARDSHIPS PECULIARLY APPLICABLE TO IT; WHEREFORE THE
CEILING PRICE OF THE PEPPER, FAIR AND JUST TO THE TRADE GENERALLY, MUST
BE ACCEPTED AS THE MAXIMUM MEASURE OF COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING.  PP.
128-131. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT THE OWNER WAS AN "INVESTOR" IN PEPPER RATHER THAN
A "TRADER" DID NOT ENTITLE IT TO "RETENTION VALUE," A VALUE BASED ON
SPECULATION CONCERNING THE PRICE IT MIGHT HAVE OBTAINED FOR PEPPER
AFTER THE WAR AND AFTER PRICE CONTROLS WERE REMOVED.  PP. 128-129. 

(B)  THE FACT THAT THE PARTICULAR PEPPER DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNMENT
COST THE OWNER MORE THAN THE CEILING PRICE IS NO BASIS FOR EXCEPTING
THE OWNER FROM APPLICATION OF THE CEILING PRICE AS THE PROPER MEASURE
OF JUST COMPENSATION.  PP. 129-130. 

(C)  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO
COMPENSATE AN OWNER OF REQUISITIONED GOODS FOR POTENTIAL PROFITS LOST
BECAUSE OF WAR AND THE CONSEQUENT PRICE CONTROLS.  P. 130. 

UNITED STATES V. COMMODITIES TRADING CORP. ET AL. 

NO. 156.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 163, COMMODITIES TRADING CORP. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN A SUIT TO RECOVER JUST COMPENSATION FOR A QUANTITY OF WHOLE BLACK
PEPPER REQUISITIONED IN 1944 BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT, THE COURT OF CLAIMS
AWARDED AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE O.P.A. CEILING PRICE BUT LESS THAN
THE AMOUNT CLAIMED.  113 CT. CL. 244, 83 F.SUPP.  356.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CROSS-PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 857.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 131. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

COMMODITIES TRADING CORPORATION BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO RECOVER "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR ABOUT 760,000 POUNDS OF WHOLE
BLACK PEPPER REQUISITIONED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1944 FROM
COMMODITIES' STOCK OF 17,000,000 POUNDS.  THE UNITED STATES CONTENDED
THAT THE OPA CEILING PRICE OF 6.63 CENTS PER POUND WAS JUST
COMPENSATION.  COMMODITIES DENIED, THIS, CLAIMING 22 CENTS PER POUND. 
IT ARGUED THAT CONGRESS DID NOT AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY FIX THE
CEILING PRICE AS A MEASURE FOR DETERMINING WHAT IS JUST COMPENSATION
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  COMMODITIES ALSO CONTENDED THAT, FOR REASONS
PECULIAR TO ITS OWN SITUATION, APPLICATION OF THE CEILING PRICE IN THIS
INSTANCE WOULD BE PARTICULARLY UNJUST.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FIXED "JUST
COMPENSATION" AT 15 CENTS PER POUND.  IN SO DOING, THAT COURT TOOK INTO
CONSIDERATION WHAT IT TERMS "RETENTION VALUE," EXPLAINED AS AN
ALLOWANCE FOR THE PRICE COMMODITIES "UNDOUBTEDLY COULD HAVE SECURED FOR
ITS PEPPER HAD IT BEEN PERMITTED TO HOLD IT UNTIL AFTER RESTRICTIONS
HAD BEEN REMOVED  ...  "  THE COURT ALSO CONSIDERED HOW MUCH THE
PRECISE PEPPER REQUISITIONED COST COMMODITIES, THE PRICES AT WHICH THAT
COMPANY SOLD PEPPER AFTER THE GOVERNMENT REQUISITION, SUBSEQUENT OPA
CEILING PRICES, AND THE AVERAGE PRICE OF PEPPER FOR THE PAST 75 YEARS. 
113 CT. CL. 244, 83 F.SUPP.  356.  WE GRANTED THE PETITIONS OF BOTH
PARTIES FOR CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 857. 

FIRST.  THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE CONTROLLED BY THE CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE "TAKEN FOR
PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."  THIS COURT HAS NEVER ATTEMPTED
TO PRESCRIBE A RIGID RULE FOR DETERMINING WHAT IS "JUST COMPENSATION"
UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN ALL CASES.  FAIR MARKET VALUE HAS
NORMALLY BEEN ACCEPTED AS A JUST STANDARD.  BUT WHEN MARKET VALUE HAS
BEEN TOO DIFFICULT TO FIND, OR WHEN ITS APPLICATION WOULD RESULT IN
MANIFEST INJUSTICE TO OWNER OR PUBLIC, COURTS HAVE FASHIONED AND
APPLIED OTHER STANDARDS.  FN1  SINCE THE MARKET VALUE STANDARD WAS
DEVELOPED IN THE CONTEXT OF A MARKET LARGELY FREE FROM GOVERNMENT
CONTROLS, PRICES RIGIDLY FIXED BY LAW RAISE QUESTIONS CONCERNING
WHETHER A "MARKET VALUE" SO FIXED CAN BE A MEASURE OF "JUST
COMPENSATION."  UNITED STATES V. FELIN & CO., 334 U.S. 624.  WHATEVER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARISE, THE
DOMINANT CONSIDERATION ALWAYS REMAINS THE SAME:  WHAT COMPENSATION IS
"JUST" BOTH TO AN OWNER WHOSE PROPERTY IS TAKEN AND TO THE PUBLIC THAT
MUST PAY THE BILL? 

THE WORD "JUST" IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT EVOKES IDEAS OF "FAIRNESS" AND
"EQUITY," AND THESE WERE THE PRIMARY STANDARDS PRESCRIBED FOR CEILING
PRICES UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  FN2 AS ASSURANCE THAT
PRICES FIXED UNDER ITS AUTHORITY BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WOULD BE
"GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE," CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT PRICE
REGULATIONS COULD BE SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  ALL LEGITIMATE
PURCHASES AND SALES HAD TO BE MADE AT OR BELOW CEILING PRICES.  AND
MOST BUSINESSMEN WERE COMPELLED TO SELL BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEIR
GOODS WERE PERISHABLE OR THEIR BUSINESSES DEPENDED ON CONTINUOUS
SALES.  THUS CEILING PRICES OF COMMODITIES HELD FOR SALE REPRESENTED
NOT ONLY MARKET VALUE BUT IN FACT THE ONLY VALUE THAT COULD BE REALIZED
BY MOST OWNERS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THEY CANNOT PROPERLY BE
IGNORED IN DECIDING WHAT IS JUST COMPENSATION. 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH CEILING PRICES SHOULD GOVERN COURTS IN SUCH A
DECISION IS ANOTHER MATTER.  CONGRESS DID NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT
PRICES FIXED UNDER THE PRICE CONTROL ACT SHOULD CONSTITUTE THE MEASURE
OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY TAKEN UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  FN3
AND SEC. 4(D) PROVIDES THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS
REQUIRING ANY PERSON TO SELL.  BUT SEC. 1(A) DECLARED THE ACT'S
PURPOSES "TO ASSURE THAT DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ARE NOT DISSIPATED BY
EXCESSIVE PRICES" AND TO "PREVENT HARDSHIPS  ...  TO THE FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM ABNORMAL
INCREASES IN PRICES  ...  "  CONGRESS THUS PLAINLY CONTEMPLATED THAT
THESE GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY GOODS FULFILLING THEIR WARTIME
NEEDS AT THE PRICES FIXED FOR OTHER PURCHASERS.  THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE
OF THIS IN THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN FOR A STABILIZED WAR ECONOMY TO LIMIT
INFLATION AND PREVENT PROFITEERING IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT DURING THE
WAR APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF OF THE NATION'S OUTPUT OF GOODS AND SERVICES
WENT TO FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.  FN4  AND SHOULD JUDICIAL
AWARDS OF JUST COMPENSATION BE UNIFORMLY GREATER IN AMOUNT THAN CEILING
PRICES, EXPECTATIONS OF PECUNIARY GAINS FROM CONDEMNATIONS MIGHT PROMPT
MANY OWNERS TO WITHHOLD ESSENTIAL MATERIALS UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT
REQUISITIONED THEM.  WE THINK THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND THE
NECESSITIES OF A WARTIME ECONOMY REQUIRE THAT CEILING PRICES BE
ACCEPTED AS THE MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION, SO FAR AS THAT CAN BE
DONE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

SECOND.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT ACCEPTANCE OF CEILING PRICES AS JUST
COMPENSATION WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE
SUCH PRICES FAIL TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A FACTOR DESIGNATED BY THE COURT
OF CLAIMS AS "RETENTION VALUE."  THIS CONCEPT STEMS LARGELY FROM THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT'S PROVISION THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS COMPELLING AN OWNER TO SELL HIS PROPERTY AGAINST HIS
WILL.  TRANSLATING THE PROVISION AS CONFERRING ON AN OWNER THE "RIGHT
TO HOLD HIS PROPERTY UNTIL HE CAN GET FOR IT WHATEVER ANYONE IS WILLING
TO PAY," THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT IT GAVE RISE TO A "RETENTION
VALUE" WHICH MUST BE ADDED TO THE CEILING PRICE IN ORDER TO MEET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF "JUST COMPENSATION."  FN5 

IN ENACTING THAT PROVISION CONGRESS MERELY REFUSED TO TAKE FROM
OWNERS THEIR LONG-EXISTING "RIGHT TO HOLD" UNTIL THEY WANTED TO SELL. 
IT DID NOT CREATE A NEW "RIGHT TO HOLD" AS AGAINST A CONSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENT TAKING, OR ENGRAFT ADDED VALUES OF ANY KIND ON PROPERTY
WHICH HAPPENS TO BE REQUISITIONED AT A TIME WHEN PRICES ARE FIXED BY
LAW.  WE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY STRETCH THIS PROVISION INTO A COMMAND THAT
THE GOVERNMENT PAY OWNERS A "RETENTION VALUE" FOR PROPERTY TAKEN. 

NOR CAN WE CONSTRUE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AS SUPPORTING THE COURT OF
CLAIMS "RETENTION VALUE" RULE.  IN PEACETIME WHEN PRICES ARE NOT FIXED,
THE NORMAL MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION HAS BEEN CURRENT MARKET VALUE;
RETENTION VALUE HAS NEVER BEEN TREATED AS A SEPARATE AND ESSENTIAL
FACTOR.  TRUE, CURRENT MARKET VALUE MAY SOMETIMES BE HIGHER BECAUSE A
BUYER ANTICIPATES FUTURE RISES IN PRICES.  AND EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE CONCEIVED WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY RESORT TO EVIDENTIAL
FORECASTS OF POTENTIAL FUTURE VALUES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE PRESENT
MARKET VALUE.  BUT THE GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RULE DECLARED AND APPLIED
BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS DID NOT REST ON EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. 

A PERSUASIVE REASON AGAINST THE GENERAL RULE DECLARED BY THE COURT OF
CLAIMS IS THE HIGHLY SPECULATIVE NATURE OF PROOF TO SHOW POSSIBLE
FUTURE PRICES ON WHICH "RETENTION VALUE" MUST DEPEND.  IN THIS CASE,
FOR INSTANCE, NO ONE KNEW HOW LONG THE WAR WOULD LAST NOR HOW LONG
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS DUE TO WAR MIGHT LEAD CONGRESS TO CONTINUE PRICE
FIXING LEGISLATION.  PREDICTIONS ON THESE SUBJECTS WERE GUESSES, NOT
INFORMED FORECASTS.  AND EVEN IF SUCH PREDICTIONS WERE REASONABLY
CERTAIN, THERE REMAINED OTHER UNKNOWNS.  HOW MUCH MORE THAN THE CEILING
PRICE WOULD A SPECULATIVE PURCHASER HAVE PAID FOR PROPERTY AT THE TIME
OF SEIZURE?  TO WHAT EXTENT, IF AT ALL, WOULD THE LIFTING OF WAR
CONTROLS RAISE PRICES ABOVE THE CONTROLLED CEILINGS?  AND AS OF WHAT
DATE SHOULD FUTURE VALUE BE ESTIMATED?  THE COURT OF CLAIMS OPINION
INDICATES HOW HAPHAZARD SUCH CALCULATIONS MUST BE:  ITS FIGURE OF 15
CENTS PER POUND APPEARS TO BE A ROUGH JUDICIAL COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE
CEILING PRICE AND THE 22 CENTS CLAIMED, NOT A WEIGHTED AVERAGE DRAWN
FROM THE VARIED ASSORTMENT OF DOUBTFUL FACTORS CONSIDERED BY THE
COURT.  MOREOVER, THAT FIGURE SEEMS COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM THE
CONJECTURED POSTWAR PRICE, A FACTOR CRUCIALLY SIGNIFICANT IN THE
COURT'S "RETENTION VALUE" CONCEPT. 

AN EQUALLY FORCEFUL OBJECTION TO THE "RETENTION VALUE" RULE IS THE
DISCRIMINATION IT WOULD BREED.  ONLY A LIMITED GROUP OF OWNERS COULD
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RULE:  THOSE WHO HAVE NONPERISHABLE PRODUCTS SO
ESSENTIAL FOR WAR PURPOSES THAT REFUSAL TO SELL WOULD RESULT IN
GOVERNMENTAL REQUISITION.  AND MANY OF THESE WOULD BE FINANCIALLY
UNABLE TO WITHHOLD THEIR GOODS ON SUCH A GAMBLE.  THUS OWNERS ABLE TO
HOLD ESSENTIAL NONPERISHABLE GOODS UNTIL REQUISITION WOULD BECOME A
FAVORED CLASS AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER OWNERS NOT SO FORTUNATE. 
MOREOVER, EVEN WITHIN THAT FAVORED CLASS THE "RETENTION VALUE" RULE
WOULD CREATE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OWNERS IMPELLED BY A SENSE OF DUTY
TO SELL THEIR GOODS TO THE GOVERNMENT AT CEILING PRICES WITHOUT WAITING
FOR REQUISITION.  A PREMIUM WOULD BE PLACED ON RECALCITRANCE IN TIME OF
WAR. 

A RULE SO DIFFICULT TO APPLY AND LEADING TO SUCH DISCRIMINATORY AND
UNJUST RESULTS CANNOT BE REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S COMMAND FOR
PAYMENT OF "JUST COMPENSATION." 

THIRD.  WHILE THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE TO TREATING
"GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE" CEILING PRICES AS THE NORMAL MEASURE OF
JUST COMPENSATION FOR COMMODITIES HELD FOR SALE, THERE MUST BE ROOM FOR
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO SUCH A GENERAL RULE.  FOR UNFAIR HARDSHIP MAY BE
INFLICTED ON A PARTICULAR DEALER BY VALID CEILING PRICES WHICH ARE
"GENERALLY" FAIR.  BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 516-518.  BUT
THE CEILING PRICE OF PEPPER, FAIR AND JUST TO THE TRADE GENERALLY,
SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS THE MAXIMUM MEASURE OF COMPENSATION UNLESS
COMMODITIES HAS SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF PROVING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND
HARDSHIPS PECULIARLY APPLICABLE TO IT.  FN6  CF. MARION & RYE VALLEY R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 280, 285. 

COMMODITIES CONTENDS THAT IT PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH
CONDITIONS.  IT POINTS TO THE STATEMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT THE
"SO-CALLED 'RETENTION VALUE' IS PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE"
BECAUSE COMMODITIES WAS AN "INVESTOR" IN PEPPER RATHER THAN A
"TRADER."  THE COMPANY ACCUMULATED ITS LARGE SUPPLY AT INTERVALS DURING
THE 1933-1941 PERIOD, EXPECTING TO HOLD IT TO SELL WHEN THE PRICE WENT
UP.  THE COURT FOUND THAT COMMODITIES COULD REASONABLY EXPECT THIS
RISE: THE NATURE OF PRODUCTION WAS SUCH THAT PERIODS OF ABUNDANCE AND
SCARCITY WERE BOUND TO ALTERNATE, AND DURING THE PRECEDING 75 YEARS THE
PRICE OF PEPPER HAD SHOWN MARKED FLUCTUATIONS IN FAIRLY REGULAR
CYCLES.  MOST OF COMMODITIES' PEPPER WAS BOUGHT WHEN PRICES WERE LOW. 
IT IS ARGUED THAT AS AN "INVESTOR" COMMODITIES SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED
OF THE PECUNIARY BENEFITS WHICH FUTURE HIGH PRICES WOULD HAVE AFFORDED
BUT FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S TAKING. 

UNDER THIS STATE OF FACTS THE SITUATION OF COMMODITIES DIFFERED ONLY
IN DEGREE, IF AT ALL, FROM THAT OF MYRIAD OTHER COMMODITY OWNERS WHO
QUITE NATURALLY WISHED TO HOLD THEIR GOODS FOR HIGHER PRICES.  POSTWAR
INFLATIONARY INFLUENCES ARE COMMON AND GENERALLY EXPECTED.  PRICE
CYCLES, SEASONAL AND OTHERWISE, ARE ALSO WELL-RECOGNIZED ECONOMIC
PHENOMENA.  DOUBTLESS OWNERS OF STEEL, TEXTILES, FOODSTUFFS, AND OTHER
GOODS COULD PRODUCE EVIDENCE SIMILAR TO THAT OFFERED IN REGARD TO
PEPPER TO SHOW CYCLICAL FLUCTUATIONS IN THEIR PRICES.  NOR WOULD THERE
BE MUCH DIFFICULTY IN SHOWING THAT A GREAT MANY OWNERS HAD BOUGHT,
PRODUCED, OR MANUFACTURED THEIR VARIOUS MERCHANDISE WITH THE IDEA OF
WITHHOLDING FROM MARKETS TO AWAIT EXPECTED HIGHER PRICES.  MANY LOST
ANTICIPATED PROFITS DUE TO PRICE CONTROL OR REQUISITION.  SACRIFICES OF
THIS KIND AND OTHERS FAR GREATER ARE THE LOT OF A PEOPLE ENGAGED IN
WAR.  THAT A WAR CALLS FOR SACRIFICES IS OF COURSE NO REASON WHY AN
UNFAIR AND DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN SHOULD BE BORNE BY COMMODITIES.  BUT
THE FACTS HERE SHOW NO SUCH BURDEN ON COMMODITIES.  COMMODITIES, JUST
LIKE OTHER TRADERS IN PEPPER AND OTHER PRODUCTS, BOUGHT PEPPER WITH THE
INTENTION OF ULTIMATELY SELLING ON THE MARKET.  NO MORE THAN ANY OTHER
OWNER IS COMMODITIES ENTITLED TO "RETENTION VALUE," A VALUE BASED ON
SPECULATION CONCERNING THE PRICE IT MIGHT HAVE OBTAINED FOR PEPPER
AFTER THE WAR AND AFTER PRICE CONTROLS WERE REMOVED. 

ANOTHER CONTENTION IS THAT THE PARTICULAR PEPPER TURNED OVER TO THE
GOVERNMENT COST COMMODITIES MORE THAN THE CEILING PRICE, AND THAT THIS
IS A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE SUFFICIENT TO PRECLUDE USE OF THE CEILING
PRICE HERE.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS DID FIND THAT THE AVERAGE COST TO
COMMODITIES OF THE PRECISE PEPPER TAKEN, INCLUDING LABOR COSTS,
STORAGE, INTEREST, INSURANCE, TAXES AND OTHER EXPENSES, WAS 12.7 CENTS
PER POUND.  THE GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES THESE FINDINGS AND ALSO CLAIMS
THAT COMMODITIES SELECTED ITS HIGH-COST PEPPER FOR DELIVERY UNDER THE
REQUISITION.  POINTING OUT THAT PEPPER IS FUNGIBLE AND THAT THE ONLY
RELEVANT COST FIGURE IS THE AVERAGE COST TO COMMODITIES OF ALL ITS
PEPPER, THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT THIS AVERAGE COST WAS LESS THAN THE
CEILING PRICE.    WE DO NOT CONSIDER THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THE COST OF THE PEPPER DELIVERED
PROVIDES NO SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR SPECIALLY EXCLUDING COMMODITIES FROM
APPLICATION OF THE CEILING PRICE.  THE GENERAL RULE HAS BEEN THAT THE
GOVERNMENT PAYS CURRENT MARKET VALUE FOR PROPERTY TAKEN, THE PRICE
WHICH COULD BE OBTAINED IN A NEGOTIATED SALE, WHETHER THE PROPERTY HAD
COST THE OWNER MORE OR LESS THAN THAT PRICE.  VOGELSTEIN & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 262 U.S. 337, 340.  THE REASONS UNDERLYING THE RULE IN
CASES WHERE NO GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED PRICES ARE INVOLVED ALSO SUPPORT
ITS APPLICATION WHERE VALUE IS MEASURED BY A CEILING PRICE.  IN NEITHER
INSTANCE SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE GOOD ANY LOSSES
CAUSED BY THE FACT THAT THE OWNER PURCHASED GOODS AT A PRICE HIGHER
THAN MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF TAKING.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE WHERE
THE RESULTING LOOPHOLE IN WARTIME REGULATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY TO
DEALERS IN ESSENTIAL NONPERISHABLE COMMODITIES WHO HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS
AND STORAGE SPACE TO WITHHOLD GOODS UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT IS FORCED TO
REQUISITION THEM. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL OTHER CONTENTIONS OF COMMODITIES AND FIND THAT
NONE OF THEM PRESENT REASONS FUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY AWARDING COMMODITIES
AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF CEILING PRICES.  IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS ALL ITS
ARGUMENTS REST ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST PAY
COMMODITIES FOR POTENTIAL PROFITS LOST BECAUSE OF WAR AND THE
CONSEQUENT PRICE CONTROLS.  WE CANNOT HOLD THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE OWNERS OF REQUISITIONED GOODS SUCH A
SPECIAL BENEFIT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT BASED ON THE
MAXIMUM CEILING PRICE OF THE PEPPER AT THE TIME IT WAS TAKEN.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

FN1 SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 369; OLSON V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 246. 

FN2  56 STAT. 23, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 901. 

FN3  HAD CONGRESS PRESCRIBED A RULE THAT PRICES FIXED UNDER THE ACT
SHOULD CONSTITUTE THE MEASURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL "JUST COMPENSATION,"
COURTS UPON PROPER CHALLENGES WOULD HAVE BEEN FACED WITH RESPONSIBILITY
OF DETERMINING WHETHER THAT RULE SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137.  COMPARE
MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 312, 327. 

FN4  EIGHTH REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF WAR MOBILIZATION AND
RECONVERSION, OCTOBER 1, 1946, H.R. DOC. NO. 45, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
P. 7. 

FN5  PERTINENT PARTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS DISCUSSION OF "RETENTION
VALUE" WERE: 

"WE HAVE SEVERAL TIMES HELD THAT, IN DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION,
WE MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO HOLD ITS PROPERTY
UNTIL RESTRICTIONS ON ITS DISPOSITION ARE REMOVED.  SEVEN-UP BOTTLING
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 107 C. CLS. 402; KAISER V. UNITED STATES, 108 C.
CLS. 47; ADLER METAL PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 108 C. CLS. 102;
PANTEX PRESSING MACHINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 108 C. CLS. 735. 

"THE GOVERNMENT IN TIME OF WAR HAS THE UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO SAY TO THE
CITIZEN, IF YOU WANT TO SELL YOUR PROPERTY YOU MUST NOT SELL IT FOR
MORE THAN A CERTAIN PRICE; BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO TAKE THE
PROPERTY AND PAY FOR IT NO MORE THAN THIS FIXED PRICE, UNLESS THAT
PRICE JUSTLY COMPENSATES THE OWNER, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION HIS RIGHT
TO HOLD HIS PROPERTY UNTIL HE CAN GET FOR IT WHATEVER ANYONE IS WILLING
TO PAY."  113 CT. CL. 259-260, 83 F.SUPP.  357. 

FN6  COMMODITIES HAD PETITIONED THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR IN 1943 TO
AMEND THE APPLICABLE REGULATION SO AS TO PERMIT HIGHER PRICES FOR
PEPPER BY ALLOWANCES FOR STORAGE EXPENSES.  THIS PETITION WAS DENIED. 
NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS WAS
EVER ASKED TO CONSIDER CEILING PRICES FOR PEPPER. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING IN PART. 

IN 1933 COMMODITIES TRADING CORPORATION BEGAN TO ACCUMULATE AN
INVENTORY OF BLACK PEPPER, NOT AS A TRADER IN PEPPER BUT AS AN INVESTOR
IN A NONPERISHABLE COMMODITY.  IT BASED THIS INVESTMENT POLICY ON THE
FAIRLY REGULAR CYCLICAL FLUCTUATIONS OF PEPPER PRICES OVER A PERIOD OF
ABOUT SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS.  THIS REGULARITY WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT
PEPPER PLANTINGS IN SUMATRA, FRENCH INDO-CHINA AND INDIA, WHICH
SUPPLIED ALMOST ALL OF IT, FLUCTUATED WITH THE PRICE OF PEPPER IN THE
WORLD MARKET.  NEGLECT OF THEIR CROPS BY THE NATIVE GROWERS IN PERIODS
OF DEPRESSED PRICES LOWERED SUPPLY; THEREBY PRICES WERE RAISED AND THIS
IN TURN STIMULATED NEW PLANTINGS.  SINCE IT TAKES THE PEPPER PLANT
ABOUT FOUR YEARS TO BEAR, PRICES WOULD NORMALLY MAINTAIN THEIR HIGH
LEVEL FOR ABOUT THAT PERIOD.  THE OPERATIONS OF COMMODITIES WERE BASED
ON THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD PROFITABLY ADJUST THE SALE OF ITS
HOLDINGS TO THE CYCLICAL MOVEMENT. 

BY 1938 COMMODITIES HAD ACCUMULATED 25,000,000 POUNDS; BY DECEMBER,
1941, IT HAD DISPOSED OF ABOUT 8,000,000 POUNDS.  THE REST IT WITHHELD
FROM THE MARKET UNTIL THE REQUISITION HERE IN CONTROVERSY WAS MADE BY
THE WAR DEPARTMENT, IN MAY, 1944.  DECEMBER, 1941, IS A SIGNIFICANT
DATE BECAUSE A CEILING PRICE ON PEPPER WAS THEN ESTABLISHED.  THE PRICE
AT WHICH IT WAS PEGGED - 6.75 CENTS PER POUND, AMENDED SHORTLY
THEREAFTER TO 6.50 CENTS PLUS LIMITED CARRYING CHARGES - APPROXIMATED
THE MARKET PRICE AT THE TIME THE FREE MARKET IN PEPPER CAME TO AN END. 
THIS FREE MARKET PRICE WAS RESPONSIVE TO THE THEN UNUSUALLY LARGE
INVENTORY OF PEPPER IN THE COUNTRY, AMOUNTING TO FROM 78,000,000 TO
100,000,000 POUNDS, A THREE-YEAR SUPPLY.  THE GOVERNMENT FORBADE
IMPORTATION OF HIGH-PRICED PEPPER FROM INDIA, AND THE OTHER SOURCES OF
SUPPLY WERE CUT OFF BY THE JAPANESE INVASION.  AS A RESULT, STOCKS
RAPIDLY DECLINED, THE FALL BEING ACCELERATED AFTER THE IMPOSITION OF
CEILING PRICES BY A DESIRE ON THE PART OF MANY IMPORTERS TO AVOID
ADDITIONAL CARRYING CHARGES.  BY SEPTEMBER, 1943, ONLY ABOUT 28,000,000
POUNDS WERE IN THE HANDS OF IMPORTERS.  OF THIS COMMODITIES HELD, AS WE
HAVE SEEN, 17,000,000.  FROM ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF 1942 ACTIVITY HAD
STEADILY SHRUNK AND BY EARLY 1944 PEPPER WAS NOT FOR SALE. 

IN MAY, 1944, THE WAR DEPARTMENT REQUISITIONED FROM COMMODITIES ABOUT
760,000 POUNDS OF BLACK PEPPER.  COMMODITIES REJECTED THE GOVERNMENT'S
OFFER OF COMPENSATION AT THE CEILING PRICE AND THIS SUIT TO RECOVER
"JUST COMPENSATION" FOLLOWED. 

ON THE BASIS OF ITS "SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT" THE COURT OF CLAIMS
HELD THAT THE CEILING PRICE WAS NOT THE MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION
FOR THE REQUISITIONED PEPPER.  IT DEEMED THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD FROM
SALE NONPERISHABLE GOODS UNTIL AFTER PRICE CONTROL TERMINATED A VALUE
OF SUBSTANCE TO BE INCLUDED IN ASCERTAINING JUST COMPENSATION.  THE
INCLUSION OF THIS "RETENTION VALUE" IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES WAS
ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE, SO THE COURT OF CLAIMS REASONED, BECAUSE
COMMODITIES WAS NOT A TRADER BUT A LONG-TERM INVESTOR.  AFTER THE
CONTROLS WERE REMOVED IN 1946, PEPPER SOLD AT 50 TO 60 CENTS A POUND
AND UPWARD AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS DEEMED THESE FREE MARKET VALUES
RELEVANT IN DETERMINING THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE PEPPER
REQUISITIONED IN 1944.  IN GIVING AN AWARD ABOVE THE CEILING PRICE,
THAT COURT WAS FURTHER INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE COST OF THE
PEPPER IT ATTRIBUTED TO COMMODITIES - 12.7 CENTS PER POUND - EXCEEDED
THE CEILING.  TAKING ALL THE FACTORS IT DEEMED RELEVANT INTO ACCOUNT,
15 CENTS PER POUND WAS FOUND BY THAT COURT TO BE JUST COMPENSATION FOR
THE PEPPER TAKING. 

I. THE "JUST COMPENSATION" REQUIRED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS WHEN
"PRIVATE PROPERTY (IS) TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE" HAS A WAY OF ATTRACTING
FAR-FLUNG CONTENTIONS.  SO HERE, EXTREME POSITIONS ARE TAKEN REGARDING
THE RELEVANCE OF CEILING PRICES TO "JUST COMPENSATION."  ON THE ONE
HAND IT IS URGED THAT CEILING PRICES ARE TO BE TREATED AS THOUGH THEY
REPRESENT VALUE DETERMINED BY A FREE MARKET.  ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS
INSISTED THAT SINCE IT WOULD BE UNJUST FOR THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF TO FIX
THE COMPENSATION FOR WHAT IT TAKES, CEILING PRICES SHOULD BE IGNORED. 
I AGREE WITH WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE COURT'S VIEW IN REJECTING BOTH
THESE ABSOLUTES. 

WAR CONDITIONS DRASTICALLY CHANGE THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH A
FREE MARKET HAS ITS JUSTIFICATION.  THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLS
IS TO TERMINATE SUCH A DISTORTED FREE MARKET.  SINCE CEILING PRICES ARE
REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE"  FN1  AND GOVERN
VOLUNTARY SALES OF PROPERTY, THEY ARE NOT IRRELEVANT IN ASSESSING JUST
COMPENSATION.  THE VALUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS NOT IMMUTABLE;
ESPECIALLY IS IT NOT IMMUNE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL
POLICIES.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, CONGRESS BY
GENERAL ENACTMENTS MAY IN DIVERSE WAYS CAUSE EVEN APPRECIABLE PECUNIARY
LOSS WITHOUT COMPENSATION.  "GOVERNMENT HARDLY COULD GO ON IF TO SOME
EXTENT VALUES INCIDENT TO PROPERTY COULD NOT BE DIMINISHED WITHOUT
PAYING FOR EVERY SUCH CHANGE IN THE GENERAL LAW.  ...  WHEN (THE
DIMINUTION) REACHES A CERTAIN MAGNITUDE, IN MOST IF NOT IN ALL CASES
THERE MUST BE AN EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND COMPENSATION TO SUSTAIN
THE ACT.  SO THE QUESTION DEPENDS UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS." 
PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. V. MAHON, 260 U.S. 393, 413.  SEE ALSO HUDSON
COUNTY WATER CO. V. MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349, 355; PIPE LINE CASES, 234
U.S. 548, 561; JACKMAN V. ROSENBAUM CO., 260 U.S. 22, 31. 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT CONTROLLED PRICES AUTOMATICALLY MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR JUST COMPENSATION IN THE FORCIBLE TAKING OF PROPERTY
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY REPLACED FREE MARKET PRICES WHICH COULD NO LONGER
BE RELIED ON TO REFLECT THE NORMAL PLAY OF FREE ECONOMIC FORCES.  A
SYSTEM OF PRICE CONTROLS WHICH IS "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE" MAY
GIVE RISE TO INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF HARDSHIP IN THE REQUISITIONING OF
PROPERTY NO MATTER HOW CONSCIENTIOUSLY AND COMPETENTLY ADMINISTERED. 
SEE BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 516-18.  THE HARDSHIP MAY REACH
SUCH MAGNITUDE IN AN INDIVIDUAL INSTANCE AS TO MAKE A TAKING BY THE
PUBLIC AT A CEILING PRICE UNJUST COMPENSATION.  OF COURSE WAR MEANS
BURDENS, AND THERE IS NO CALCULUS BY WHICH THEY CAN BE FAIRLY
DISTRIBUTED.  FROM ANY POINT OF VIEW THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICES ARE
UNCOMPENSABLE.  BUT THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT IN CARRYING
OUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WHEN THERE IS A TAKING OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC
USE, WHETHER IN WAR OR IN PEACE, THE BURDEN OF THE TAKING IS THE
COMMUNITY'S BURDEN.  THE OWNER SHOULD BE REQUITED BY THAT WHICH
SATISFIES PREVAILING STANDARDS OF JUSTICE.  THIS LIMITATION UPON THE
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN HAS THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY BEEN LEFT FOR
JUDICIAL APPLICATION.  WE WOULD BE FACED WITH A NEW PROBLEM HAD
CONGRESS SPECIFIED THAT THE CEILING PRICES SHOULD BE THE LIMIT OF JUST
COMPENSATION.  SUCH A STATUTE WOULD CALL FOR THE USUAL RESPECT TO BE
ACCORDED TO THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS IN PASSING ON THE VALIDITY OF
LEGISLATION WHEN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE IS LIMITED BY BROAD
STANDARDS AND NOT BY RESTRICTIONS ALMOST TECHNICAL IN THEIR NATURE.  WE
ARE RELIEVED FROM A CONSIDERATION OF ANY SUCH QUESTION BECAUSE CONGRESS
CHOSE NOT TO MAKE CEILING PRICE THE MEASURE OF "JUST COMPENSATION."  IT
IS THEREFORE AN INESCAPABLE JUDICIAL DUTY TO EXPLORE THE ELEMENTS
RELEVANT TO JUST COMPENSATION EVEN FOR THE TAKING OF PROPERTY WHICH, AS
TO VOLUNTARY TRANSACTIONS, IS SUBJECT TO PRICE CONTROL.  THE STANDARD
OF JUST COMPENSATION IS NOT MECHANICALLY TO BE REPLACED BY CEILING
PRICES. 

IT TAKES US SOME DISTANCE NEITHER WHOLLY TO ACCEPT NOR WHOLLY TO
REJECT PRICE CEILINGS AS JUST COMPENSATION.  THE COMPLICATIONS
INTRODUCED BY THE DISPLACEMENT OF FREE MARKET PRICES BY CONTROLLED
PRICES SERVE TO INTENSIFY THE USUAL WARINESS AGAINST UNDUE
GENERALIZATIONS IN ASCERTAINING THE VALUE OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY TAKEN
FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.  CAUTIOUS EMPIRICISM IS THE MOST PROMISING
ATTITUDE IN DEALING WITH PROBLEMS OF THIS SORT.  THIS MEANS HUGGING AS
CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE THE SHORE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR
CASE. 

ON THE PRESENT RECORD ONLY TWO ISSUES NEED TO BE FACED.  IN ARRIVING
AT JUST COMPENSATION DID THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
(1) A "RETENTION VALUE" AND (2) THE COST OF THE PEPPER TO COMMODITIES. 

II.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS APPEARS TO HAVE RECOGNIZED AS A COMPONENT OF
JUST COMPENSATION THE RIGHT OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO WITHHOLD HIS
PROPERTY FOR SOME FUTURE OPPORTUNITY OF ENHANCED REALIZATION, EVEN
THOUGH HE BE IN THE SAME BOAT WITH ALL OTHER OWNERS FOR WHOM THE
CEILING PRICE IS A FAIR MEASURE.  IN ITS BEARING UPON OUR IMMEDIATE
PROBLEM, RECOGNITION OF SUCH A "RETENTION VALUE" AS PART OF THE
CONTEMPORANEOUS VALUE OF WHAT WAS TAKEN WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE POWER
TO "DIVINE PROPHETICALLY" THE WAR'S END AND THE LIFTING OF CONTROLS BY
CONGRESS AS WELL AS THE STATE OF THE PEPPER MARKET THEREAFTER.  THIS IS
"TO EXACT GIFTS THAT MANKIND DOES NOT POSSESS."  INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 216, 223, 224.  TO ALLOW SUCH WILD
IMAGINATION TO ENTER INTO THE PRACTICAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS JUST
COMPENSATION WOULD MERELY SANCTION UNBRIDLED DRAFTS ON THE TREASURY. 
IT WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERY PROPERTY OWNER TO HOLD HIS GOODS OFF THE
MARKET AND TO FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO REQUISITION RATHER THAN
PURCHASE.  THAT, BY SUCH RETENTION, PROFITS MIGHT BE REALIZED IN THE
DISTANT FUTURE IS NOT AN INTEREST WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS. 
THE DIFFUSED LOSS OF PROFIT THROUGHOUT THE NATION'S ECONOMY MUST BE
BORNE AS A PART OF THE COMMON LOT.  OF A DIFFERENT ORDER OF LOSS WOULD
BE A TAKING OF THE PEPPER AT CEILING PRICES, IF THE CEILING PRICE WAS
FAR BELOW THE COST OF THE PEPPER TO COMMODITIES AND SUCH COST WAS
INCURRED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF LONG-TERM HOLDING OPERATIONS.  THIS
MIGHT PRESENT A SITUATION WHEREBY THE OWNER OF THE REQUISITIONED
PROPERTY WOULD BE ASKED TO BEAR MORE THAN ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE JUST
ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE WAR.    III.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE
COST TO COMMODITIES OF THE REQUISITIONED PEPPER WAS 12.7 CENTS PER
POUND COMPARED WITH THE CEILING PRICE OF 6.5 CENTS.  THE GOVERNMENT
CHALLENGES THE COST FIGURES.  IT POINTS OUT THAT COMMODITIES KEPT ITS
COST RECORDS ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC BAGS OF PEPPER, EACH BAG BEING
RECORDED AT ITS INVOICE COST AND THE APPLICABLE CARRYING CHARGES. 
COMMODITIES SELECTED THE BAGS OF PEPPER DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNMENT. 
APPARENTLY IT CHOSE THE BAGS WHICH HAD THE HIGHEST INVOICE COST AND THE
GREATEST CARRYING CHARGES, THE PEPPER BOUGHT IN 1933-1936.  ASSUMING
THAT COSTS HIGHER THAN CEILING PRICES MAY AFFECT JUST COMPENSATION, THE
COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE HIGH COST OF THE
PEPPER TURNED OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT WAS DUE TO COMMODITIES' ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM.  SINCE PEPPER IS FUNGIBLE AND DOES NOT HAVE AGE VALUE, FOR ALL
THAT APPEARS COMMODITIES' METHOD OF COMPUTING COSTS MAY HAVE BEEN
UNFAIR TO THE GOVERNMENT.  "JUST COMPENSATION" IS NOT A FUNCTION OF A
SELLER'S THEORY OF ACCOUNTING. 

THE COURT'S OPINION, HOWEVER, HOLDS THAT WHATEVER THE COSTS THEY ARE
IRRELEVANT IN ASSESSING JUST COMPENSATION.  THEREBY THE COURT
DISREGARDS IN THE CONCRETE THE PRINCIPLE WHICH IT AVOWS IN THE ABSTRACT
- NAMELY, THAT CEILING PRICES ARE NOT TO BE DEEMED AS THOUGH THEY WERE
VALUES ARRIVED AT IN A FREE MARKET AND THAT INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF
HARDSHIP MAY PROPERLY RECEIVE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.  THE COURT
URGES THAT HIGH COSTS WOULD BE IRRELEVANT IN PEACETIME WHEN AN
UNCONTROLLED MARKET DETERMINES VALUE.  COMPARE VOGELSTEIN & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 262 U.S. 337.  BUT A CONTROLLED MARKET IS NOT AN
UNCONTROLLED MARKET.  ONLY BY TREATING A CONTROLLED MARKET AS THE
EQUIVALENT OF AN UNCONTROLLED MARKET CAN CEILING PRICES BE MADE THE
EQUIVALENT OF MARKET VALUE AND THEREBY THE MEASURE OF JUST
COMPENSATION. 

SINCE "JUST COMPENSATION" IS NOT EASILY REDUCED TO QUANTITATIVE
DETERMINATION, THE PRICE WHICH IS ARRIVED AT THROUGH THE HAGGLING OF
THE MARKET IS THE ACCEPTED NORM IN DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION.  THE
LAW SENSIBLY RECOGNIZES THAT MARKET PRICE REFLECTS FAIR DEALING BY MEN
WHO ARE FREELY ENGAGED IN IT.  BUT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THE NORM
IS GONE WHEN THE AREA OF FAIR DEALING IS ELIMINATED.  THE REPLACEMENT
OF THE FREE JOSTLING OF THE DESIRES OF BUYERS AND SELLERS BY GOVERNMENT
EDICT IS NO DOUBT DUE TO THE REALIZATION THAT UNDER THE ABNORMAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF WAR A FREE MARKET IN THE SENSE OF BEING UNCONTROLLED
IS NOT A FAIR MARKET.  BUT SUCH PRICE REGULATION IS THE IMPOSITION OF
THE WILL OF OUTSIDERS AND NOT THE DISTILLATION OF FREELY DIRECTED WILLS
GUIDED BY SELF-INTEREST.  THE NORM OF PRICE FIXING BY GOVERNMENT IS
THUS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE USUAL PRICE FIXING BY FREE EXCHANGE. 
GOVERNMENTAL PRICE FIXING CARRIES ITS OWN VALID TITLES FOR RESPECT BY
THE COURTS.  BUT IT DOES NOT CARRY THAT TITLE OF SELF-DETERMINATION, AS
IT WERE, WHICH IS IMPLIED BY A FREE MARKET PRICE.  WANT OF A FREE
MARKET VALUE DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO EMBRACE AUTOMATICALLY THE CEILING
PRICE IN DISREGARD OF OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES BEARING ON JUSTICE
IN A PARTICULAR CASE. 

COSTS, UNLIKE "RETENTION VALUE," DO NOT YIELD INHERENTLY SPECULATIVE
RESULTS.  INCLUDING COSTS IN COMPUTING JUST COMPENSATION DOES NOT GIVE
THE CONDEMNEE A "WAR PROFIT" NOR MAKE INROADS ON THE SYSTEM OF PRICE
CONTROLS.  SUCH INCLUSION IS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DISCRIMINATING
HARDSHIPS RESULTING FROM A FORMULA WHICH IS GENERALLY FAIR BUT WHICH BY
ITS NATURE CANNOT BE FAIR TO EACH INDIVIDUAL.  BY THE TERMS OF THE
PRICE CONTROL ACT THE ONLY STANDARD WHICH CONGRESS LAID DOWN FOR PRICE
FIXING WAS THAT THE CEILING PRICE BE "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE." 
THE ACT ITSELF MADE NO PROVISION FOR INDIVIDUAL RELIEF FROM THE GENERAL
PRICE.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION FOR ENFORCING THE ACT VESTED IN
THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR NO DOUBT AUTHORIZED HIM TO QUALIFY THE PRICES
HE FIXED BY PROCEDURE FOR INDIVIDUAL RELIEF THEREFROM.  AS TO MANY
COMMODITIES THE MAXIMUM PRICE SCHEDULES DID INCLUDE SUCH PROVISIONS. 
THE PRICE REGULATION REGARDING THE PEPPER REQUISITIONED FROM
COMMODITIES CONTAINED NO SUCH PROVISION.  THERE WAS NO WAY, THEREFORE,
BY WHICH COMMODITIES COULD HAVE HAD RELIEF FROM ANY UNFAIRNESS OF THE
MAXIMUM PRICE AFFECTING ITS PEPPER BY REASON OF THE HIGH COST WHICH, ON
THE BASIS OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS, IT PAID. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT CONGRESS PROVIDED IN SEC. 4(D) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT THAT "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE ANY PERSON TO SELL ANY COMMODITY  ...  "  56 STAT.
28, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 904(D).  THIS PROTECTIVE PROVISION IS
PECULIARLY APPLICABLE TO SELLERS WHO HAD ACQUIRED NONPERISHABLE
PROPERTY BY WAY OF REASONABLE INVESTMENT AT COSTS ABOVE THE CEILING
PRICE.  UNDER SEC. 4(D) THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE A LOSS.  BUT
TODAY'S DECISION WITHDRAWS THAT STATUTORY PROTECTION FROM THOSE
SUBJECTED TO THE EXERCISE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER OF CONDEMNATION. 
IT MAY BE THAT, DESPITE SEC. 4(D), CERTAIN SELLERS WITH HIGH COSTS
WOULD HAVE HAD TO SELL IN THE PRIVATE MARKET BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC
FACTORS.  THERE IS CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE, HOWEVER, BETWEEN HARDSHIPS
RESULTING FROM THE IMPERSONAL WORKINGS OF A GENERAL REGULATION AND THE
PERSONAL OPERATION OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, UNDER WHICH
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVE COMPLETE DISCRETION TO SELECT THE INDIVIDUAL
WHO SHALL GIVE UP HIS PROPERTY AT A LOSS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. 

WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER COSTS EXCEEDING THE CEILING PRICE ARE
ALWAYS RELEVANT TO JUST COMPENSATION OR THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY MAY
QUALIFY THE CEILING PRICE.  IT IS ENOUGH TO HOLD THAT, IF COMMODITIES'
COSTS, FAIRLY MEASURED, WERE GREATER THAN THE CEILING PRICE FOR PEPPER,
IT IS FAIR TO TAKE THEM INTO ACCOUNT.  WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH A
HOARDER OR WITH ONE WHO BOUGHT PROPERTY AT RECKLESSLY HIGH COSTS IN THE
EXPECTATION THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REIMBURSE HIM. 
COMMODITIES DID NOT SUDDENLY SHIFT FROM "SELLER" TO "HOLDER" UPON
IMPOSITION OF CONTROLS IN 1941; WHILE IT REDUCED ITS TOTAL STOCKS
BETWEEN 1938 AND 1941, THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT IT WAS
ESSENTIALLY A "HOLDER" FROM 1933 ON.  NOR DID COMMODITIES MAKE
SUBSTANTIAL SALES TO PRIVATE PERSONS AT THE CEILING PRICE, AND HOLD OUT
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  IT MERELY EXERCISED ITS STATUTORY RIGHT TO
REFUSE TO SELL, A DECISION ETHICALLY JUSTIFIED IF BY SELLING IT WOULD
INCUR AN HONEST LOSS. 

IV.  THE ERROR OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF
"RETENTION VALUE" REQUIRES REVERSAL OF ITS JUDGMENT.  THAT COURT SHOULD
REEXAMINE COMMODITIES' COSTS AND IF, UNDER A FAIR ACCOUNTING THEORY,
THOSE COSTS PROVE TO BE HIGHER THAN CEILING, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
IN THE COMPUTATION OF JUST COMPENSATION. 

FN1  EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT SEC. 2(A), 56 STAT. 24, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 902(A). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

WHEN CONGRESS ENACTED THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, IT PROVIDED
THAT "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE ANY PERSON TO
SELL ANY COMMODITY  ...  "  56 STAT. 28, SEC. 4(D), 50 U.S.C APP. SEC.
904(D).  OF COURSE, CONGRESS DID NOT THEREBY SURRENDER THE GOVERNMENT'S
RIGHT TO REQUISITION ANY GOODS IT MIGHT WANT UNDER THE USUAL EMINENT
DOMAIN POWERS AND FOR "JUST COMPENSATION."  WHY THEN THIS PROVISION? 

IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO AVOID JUST WHAT THE COURT
DOES TODAY - MAKING CEILING PRICES FOR VOLUNTARY SALES THE MEASURE OF
COMPENSATION FOR COMPULSORY SALES.  THIS SEPARATION WAS NOT MADE AS A
FAVOR TO PROFITEERS.  IN UNITED STATES V. FELIN & CO., 334 U.S. 624,
650, WRITING IN DISSENT FOR MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MYSELF, I SET FORTH
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WEIGHED HEAVILY UPON THOSE PROPONENTS OF PRICE
CONTROLS WHO WANTED THE CONTROLS TO OPERATE SMOOTHLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY
AND ALSO TO AVOID CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION, OR AT LEAST ADVERSE
DECISIONS.  I SAID THERE: 

"IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW JUST COMPENSATION CAN BE THE LEGAL EQUIVALENT
OF A CONTROLLED PRICE, UNLESS A CONTROLLED PRICE IS ALSO ALWAYS
REQUIRED TO EQUAL JUST COMPENSATION.  IT NEVER HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN
REGULATING A COMMODITY PRICE THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO FIX ONE THAT IS
ADEQUATELY COMPENSATORY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, SO LONG AS THE
OWNER IS FREE TO KEEP HIS PROPERTY OR TO PUT IT ON THE MARKET AS HE
CHOOSES.  IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE REQUIRED TO DO SO, THE TASK OF PRICE
REGULATION WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY, IF NOT DISASTROUSLY, COMPLICATED AND
RETARDED.  IT SEEMS QUITE INDISPENSABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, FOR
THE LONG-RANGE SUCCESS OF PRICE CONTROLS, THAT FIXED PRICES FOR
VOLUNTARY SALES BE NOT IDENTIFIED WITH THE JUST COMPENSATION DUE UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION TO ONE WHO IS COMPELLED TO PART WITH HIS PROPERTY." 
334 U.S. AT 651. 

THE COURT TODAY NULLIFIES THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY THAT NO ONE IS
COMPELLED TO SELL UNDER THE ACT BY USING THE CONDEMNATION POWER TO
COMPEL THE SALE AND THIS ACT TO FIX THE PRICE.  IT ALSO MAKES THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR JUST COMPENSATION MEANINGLESS, SINCE THE
GOVERNMENT MAY FIRST FIX THE PRICE, AS IF NO SALES WERE COMPELLED, AND
THEN COMPEL THE SALES AT THE PRICES SO FIXED.  I THINK THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO FIX PRICES FOR VOLUNTARY SALE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS MUCH LESS CONFINED THAN THE POWER TO FIX PRICES FOR TAKING
PROPERTY.  BUT HEREAFTER, THE PRICE FIXED MAY HAVE TO BE TESTED BY
WHETHER IT WOULD BE JUST COMPENSATION FOR A COMPULSORY SALE. 

I AGREE THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN ITS THEORY OF "RETENTION
VALUE."  IT DID SO BY MAKING THE SAME BASIC ERROR THIS COURT IS MAKING:
THAT OF COMBINING TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS - PRICE FIXING AND
CONDEMNATION.  IT CONSIDERED THAT BECAUSE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT SAID A CLAIMANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SELL UNDER THE ACT, HE MIGHT
RETAIN HIS PROPERTY FOR SOME FUTURE RISE IN MARKET.  BUT IT IS NOT THAT
ACT WHICH MAKES HIM SELL.  IT IS UNDER THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN THAT
THE GOVERNMENT EXPROPRIATES THIS PEPPER.  AND UNDER THAT POWER HE HAS
NO RIGHT OF DELAY AND HENCE NO RETENTION VALUE.  HE MUST PART WITH HIS
PROPERTY ON DEMAND, AND THE ISSUE IS WHAT IS JUST COMPENSATION AT THAT
TIME. 

AT THE TIME OF THIS EXPROPRIATION THERE WAS, INSOFAR AS MARKET PRICES
WERE CONCERNED, A CONTROLLED MARKET IN THE UNITED STATES - CONTROLLED
BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT WAS DOING THE EXPROPRIATING.  THERE WAS ALSO A
WORLD MARKET, WITH FAR HIGHER MARKET PRICES, TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
WOULD HAVE HAD RECOURSE HAD NOT THESE PARTIES EARLIER IMPORTED A LARGE
SUPPLY.  MOREOVER, WHILE THE CEILING PRICE ON WHOLE PEPPER WAS KEPT AT
A LOW FIGURE, THE PRICE ON GROUND PEPPER TO THE PUBLIC SHOWED WHAT
SEEMS TO BE AN UNACCOUNTABLY LARGE SPREAD.  THE PROBLEM OF COMBINING
ALL RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS THAT GO TO A VALUATION IS A DIFFICULT ONE. 

I CONCUR IN THE REVERSAL BUT WOULD RETURN THE CASE FOR
REDETERMINATION OF THE VALUE AT THE DATE OF REQUISITION WITHOUT
ALLOWANCE FOR "RETENTION VALUE."  I SHOULD NOT DIRECT THAT THE CEILING
PRICE BE USED AS THE SOLE MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION. 
..END :
























RAILWAY LABOR ASSN. V. U.S., 339 U.S. 142 


NO. 337.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 14, 1950.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1950.  - 84
F.SUPP.  178, REVERSED. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN APPROVING A CONSOLIDATION
OF RAILROAD FACILITIES UNDER SEC. 5(2)(F) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, HAS THE POWER TO REQUIRE A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT TO
PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDER.  PP. 143-155. 

2.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, EFFECTIVE MAY 17,
1948, APPROVING A CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROAD FACILITIES INCIDENT TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PASSENGER TERMINAL AT NEW ORLEANS, REQUIRED THE
CONSTRUCTION TO COMMENCE BY DECEMBER 31, 1948(LATER EXTENDED TO
DECEMBER 31, 1949), AND TO BE COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 31, 1953(LATER
EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 1954).  IT CONTAINED DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR
THE COMPENSATORY PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY THE CONSOLIDATION;
BUT ALL SUCH PROTECTION WAS TO END BY MAY 17, 1952.  MANY EMPLOYEES
AFFECTED BY THE CONSOLIDATION WOULD NOT BE DISPLACED UNTIL THE
COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, AND THEREFORE WOULD RECEIVE NO COMPENSATORY
PROTECTION.  HELD:  NEITHER SUCH DISCRIMINATION NOR SUCH INSUBSTANTIAL
"PROTECTION" IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND HISTORY OF SEC. 5(2)(F)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  PP. 143-155. 

3.  WHILE THE COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 5(2)(F) AS LIMITING
EMPLOYEE PROTECTION TO A MAXIMUM OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE ORDER IS ENTITLED TO WEIGHT, ITS DECISIONS RELIED UPON HERE WERE
MADE IN CASES IN WHICH THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE APPROVED TRANSACTIONS
WERE TO BE FELT BY THE EMPLOYEES LONG BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH
FOUR YEARS, AND THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT PERSUASIVE IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  PP. 154-155. 

RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE PART OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  84 F.SUPP.  178.  ON
DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 155. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, IN APPROVING A CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROAD FACILITIES UNDER
SEC. 5(2)(F) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,  FN1  HAS THE POWER TO
EXTEND THE PERIOD OF PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDER.  FOR
THE REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THAT
POWER. 

IN 1947, THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, AND SEVERAL COMMON
CARRIERS BY RAILROAD, ALL APPELLEES HEREIN, FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION A JOINT APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT,
ACQUIRE AND JOINTLY OWN OR USE CERTAIN LINES OF RAILROAD, AS WELL AS TO
ABANDON CERTAIN OTHER LINES OR OPERATIONS, AS INCIDENTS TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PASSENGER TERMINAL AT NEW ORLEANS.  THE RAILWAY LABOR
EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT HEREIN, INTERVENED AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE RAILROADS. 
DIVISION 4 OF THE COMMISSION ENTERED A REPORT AND ORDER, EFFECTIVE MAY
17, 1948, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSACTIONS.  NEW ORLEANS
UNION PASSENGER TERMINAL CASE, 267 I.C.C. 763, AND SEE OKLAHOMA R. CO.
TRUSTEES ABANDONMENT, 257 I.C.C. 177, 197-201. 

THE ORDER REQUIRED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED LINES TO COMMENCE
BY DECEMBER 31, 1948(LATER EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 1949), AND TO BE
COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 31, 1953(LATER EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 1954). 
IT CONTAINED DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR THE COMPENSATORY PROTECTION OF
EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY THE CONSOLIDATION, BUT ALL SUCH PROTECTION WAS TO
END BY MAY 17, 1952.  THE ORDER DISCLOSED THAT MANY EMPLOYEES AFFECTED
BY THE CONSOLIDATION WOULD NOT BE DISPLACED UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE
PROJECT AND THAT, THEREFORE, THEY WOULD RECEIVE NO COMPENSATORY
PROTECTION.  FN2 

AFTER UNSUCCESSFULLY SEEKING RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE
ORDER BY THE FULL COMMISSION, THE APPELLANT SUED THE UNITED STATES (SEE
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2322), IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, ASKING THAT COURT TO SET ASIDE THAT PART OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER WHICH LIMITED THE PERIOD OF PROTECTION TO FOUR YEARS.  THE
COMMISSION AND THE RAILROADS INTERVENED, ANSWERS WERE FILED AND, NO
FACTS BEING IN DISPUTE, ALL PARTIES SOUGHT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  THE
CASE WAS HEARD BY A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT (SEE 28 U.S.C. SECS.
1336, 2325 AND 2284) WHICH GRANTED THE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  84 F.SUPP.  178.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SECS. 1253 AND 2101(B). 


"AS A CONDITION OF ITS APPROVAL, UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH (2), OF ANY
TRANSACTION INVOLVING A CARRIER OR CARRIERS BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, THE COMMISSION SHALL REQUIRE A FAIR AND
EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.  IN ITS ORDER OF APPROVAL THE COMMISSION SHALL
INCLUDE TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDING THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF FOUR
YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SUCH ORDER SUCH TRANSACTION WILL NOT
RESULT IN EMPLOYEES OF THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS BY RAILROAD AFFECTED BY
SUCH ORDER BEING IN A WORSE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT,
EXCEPT THAT THE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO ANY EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THIS
SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE FOR A LONGER PERIOD,
FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SUCH ORDER, THAN THE PERIOD DURING
WHICH SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF SUCH CARRIER OR CARRIERS PRIOR
TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SUCH ORDER.  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AN AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE PROTECTION OF
THE INTERESTS OF SAID EMPLOYEES MAY HEREAFTER BE ENTERED INTO BY ANY
CARRIER OR CARRIERS BY RAILROAD AND THE DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
OR REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES."  54 STAT. 906-907, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 5(2)(F). 

THE APPELLANT AND THE UNITED STATES  FN3  CONTEND THAT THE FIRST
SENTENCE OF SEC. 5(2)(F) REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO CONDITION ITS
APPROVAL UPON A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS
OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY THIS CONSOLIDATION.  THEY CONTEND
ALSO THAT THE SECOND SENTENCE PRESCRIBES A MINIMUM OF PROTECTION BUT
DOES NOT RESTRICT THE COMMISSION'S POWER, UNDER THE FIRST SENTENCE, TO
PRESCRIBE FURTHER PROTECTION IF SUCH PROTECTION IS DEEMED NECESSARY TO
MAKE THE ARRANGEMENT FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES.  THE
COMMISSION, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUES THAT THE SECOND SENTENCE SETS AN
INFLEXIBLE STANDARD FOR THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT REQUIRED BY
THE FIRST SENTENCE.  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDES, THEREFORE, THAT, IN THIS
CASE, IT HAS POWER TO REQUIRE ONLY SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT AS WILL PREVENT
THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES FROM BEING IN A WORSE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO
THEIR EMPLOYMENT FOR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ORDER APPROVING THE PROJECT.  FN4 

BEFORE THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 BROUGHT SEC. 5(2)(F) INTO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THERE WAS NO STATUTORY PROVISION SPECIFICALLY
REQUIRING THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY CONSOLIDATIONS OF
RAILROAD FACILITIES.  THE PRECURSOR OF THIS PROVISION WAS SEC. 5(4)(B),
AS AMENDED BY THE EMERGENCY RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1933.  THAT
TERMS AND CONDITIONS  ...  FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE."  FN5
THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A WIDESPREAD AWARENESS IN THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY
THAT MANY OF THE ECONOMIES TO BE GAINED FROM CONSOLIDATIONS OR
ABANDONMENTS COULD BE REALIZED ONLY AT THE EXPENSE OF DISPLACED
RAILROAD LABOR.  THE INTERESTS OF SUCH EMPLOYEES WERE RECOGNIZED IN THE
WASHINGTON JOB PROTECTIVE AGREEMENT OF 1936.  FN6  THIS WAS A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT APPROVED BY ABOUT 85% OF THE RAILROAD
CARRIERS AND 20 OF THE 21 RAILROAD BROTHERHOODS.  IT CONTAINED A
SCHEDULE OF SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL BENEFITS RECOMMENDED FOR EMPLOYEES
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY CONSOLIDATIONS OR SO-CALLED "COORDINATIONS." 
FN7 

WHEN, IN 1939, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD POWER TO
PRESCRIBE TERMS AND CONDITIONS COMPARABLE TO THOSE IN THE WASHINGTON
AGREEMENT.  UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225.  THE COMMISSION'S
REQUIREMENT, IN THAT CASE, OF A PROTECTIVE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS WAS
SUSTAINED.  THUS, AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 5(2)(F), THE
COMMISSION ALREADY HAD POWER TO DETERMINE AND PRESCRIBE JUST AND
REASONABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY
CONSOLIDATIONS.  FN8 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 5(2)(F) SHOWS THAT ONE OF ITS
PRINCIPAL PURPOSES WAS TO PROVIDE MANDATORY PROTECTION FOR THE
INTERESTS OF EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY RAILROAD CONSOLIDATIONS.  IN 1938,
THE PRESIDENT APPOINTED A COMMITTEE OF SIX TO CONSIDER THE
TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM AND RECOMMEND LEGISLATION.  FN9  IT WAS COMPOSED
EQUALLY OF REPRESENTATIVES OF RAILROAD MANAGEMENT AND RAILROAD LABOR. 
THEY ENDORSED THE WASHINGTON AGREEMENT AND RECOMMENDED AMENDING SEC. 5
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT SO AS TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 

"AFTER THE DETAILS OF ANY PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION HAVE BEEN DETERMINED
BY THE INTERESTS INVOLVED, THEY SHOULD BE EMBODIED IN AN APPLICATION
FOR APPROVAL, ADDRESSED TO THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD.  IN PASSING UPON
SUCH AN APPLICATION, THE BOARD SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE FOLLOWING
CONSIDERATIONS: 

     .         .         .         .   . 

"(D)  THE INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.  THE BOARD SHALL
EXAMINE INTO THE PROBABLE RESULTS OF THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION AND
REQUIRE, AS A PREREQUISITE TO ITS APPROVAL, A FAIR AND EQUITABLE
ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE SAID EMPLOYEES."  FN10 

MARCH 30, 1939, SENATORS WHEELER AND TRUMAN INTRODUCED S. 2009,
WHICH, IN SEC. 49(3)(C), CONTAINED SUBSTANTIALLY THE ABOVE LANGUAGE: 

"THE COMMISSION SHALL REQUIRE, AS A PREREQUISITE TO ITS APPROVAL OF
ANY PROPOSED TRANSACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, A FAIR
AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYEES
AFFECTED."  FN11 

IN THE MEANTIME, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONSIDERED A COMPARABLE
BILL, H.R. 4862, INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE LEA.  EXTENDED HEARINGS
WERE HELD.  ON THE ISSUE BEFORE US, THIS BILL CONTAINED THE SAME
LANGUAGE AS DID THE SENATE BILL.  IT REQUIRED, AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL, "A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYEES AFFECTED."  FN12  WHEN S. 2009 REACHED THE
HOUSE, THE COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF IT STRUCK OUT EVERYTHING AFTER THE
ENACTING CLAUSE, SUBSTITUTED THE TEXT OF THE HOUSE BILL AND RECOMMENDED
ITS PASSAGE.  IN IT, THE PROVISION IN QUESTION TOOK THE FORM OF AN
AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

IF THIS PROVISION, WHICH LATER BECAME THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SEC.
5(2)(F), NOW STOOD ALONE AS IT DID THEN, THE COMMISSION UNQUESTIONABLY
WOULD HAVE POWER TO GRANT AT LEAST AS MUCH RELIEF TO EMPLOYEES AS IT
HAD UNDER SEC. 5(4)(B).  THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SECOND
SENTENCE OF SEC. 5(2)(F), WHICH WAS INSERTED SOON THEREAFTER, AMOUNTS
NOT ONLY TO AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LABOR, BUT
ALSO TO A LIMITATION UPON THE DISCRETION VESTED IN THE COMMISSION BY
THE FIRST SENTENCE. 

THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SEC. 5(2)(F) HAS A SIGNIFICANT HISTORY OF ITS
OWN.  ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVE HARRINGTON SUGGESTED
THE FOLLOWING PROVISO TO FOLLOW THE FIRST SENTENCE: 

"PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH TRANSACTION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION IF SUCH TRANSACTION WILL RESULT IN UNEMPLOYMENT OR
DISPLACEMENT OF EMPLOYEES OF THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS, OR IN THE
IMPAIRMENT OF EXISTING EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF SAID EMPLOYEES."  FN13 

THE HARRINGTON AMENDMENT THUS INTRODUCED A NEW PROBLEM.  UNTIL IT
APPEARED, THERE HAD BEEN SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT ON THE NEED FOR
CONSOLIDATIONS, TOGETHER WITH A RECOGNITION THAT EMPLOYEES COULD AND
SHOULD BE FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY PROTECTED.  THIS AMENDMENT, HOWEVER,
THREATENED TO PREVENT ALL CONSOLIDATIONS TO WHICH IT RELATED. 

WITH THE HARRINGTON AMENDMENT IN IT THE BILL WENT TO CONFERENCE. 
FN14  IT CAME OUT WITH ALL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONSOLIDATIONS UNDER
SEC. 5 ELIMINATED.  THE HOUSE, HOWEVER, RECOMMITTED THE BILL TO
CONFERENCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO INSERT A MODIFIED FORM OF THE FIRST
SENTENCE OF SEC. 5(2)(F), TOGETHER WITH A MODIFIED FORM OF THE
HARRINGTON AMENDMENT.  THE MODIFICATION OF THE FIRST SENTENCE MERELY
EXTENDED THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AS TO FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS SO
AS TO INCLUDE ABANDONMENTS AS WELL AS CONSOLIDATIONS.  FN15  THE
MODIFICATION OF THE HARRINGTON AMENDMENT IS NOT NOW MATERIAL. 

THE SECOND CONFERENCE REPORTED SEC. 5(2)(F) IN THE FINAL FORM IN
WHICH IT WAS ENACTED INTO LAW.  IT RETAINED THE FIRST SENTENCE IN ITS
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.  FN16  IN THE SECOND SENTENCE, HOWEVER, IT INCLUDED
A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE HARRINGTON PROPOSAL.  IT LIMITED IT TO THE
FOUR YEARS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF
APPROVAL.  IT PROVIDED ALSO THAT IN EACH CASE THE PROTECTIVE PERIOD WAS
NOT TO EXCEED THE LENGTH OF EACH EMPLOYEE'S EMPLOYMENT BY A CARRIER
PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF APPROVAL. 
THIS CLAUSE EMPHASIZED THE SEPARABILITY OF THE SECOND SENTENCE, FOR IT
PROVIDED THAT "THE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO ANY EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THIS
SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE FOR A LONGER PERIOD,  ..." 
THAN THAT PRESCRIBED.  (SEE P. 145, SUPRA, FOR FULL TEXT OF THE
CLAUSE.) 

THE SECOND SENTENCE THUS GAVE A LIMITED SCOPE TO THE HARRINGTON
AMENDMENT AND MADE IT WORKABLE BY PUTTING A TIME LIMIT UPON ITS
OTHERWISE PROHIBITORY EFFECT.  THERE WAS NO COMPARABLE NEED FOR SUCH A
RESTRICTION UPON THE FIRST SENTENCE.  WE FIND, THEREFORE, THAT THE TIME
LIMIT IN THE SECOND SENTENCE NOW APPLIES TO IT AND TO IT ALONE.  AS
THUS LIMITED, THAT SENTENCE ADDS A NEW GUARANTY OF PROTECTION FOR THE
INTERESTS OF EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT RESTRICTING THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO
REQUIRE GREATER PROTECTION AS PART OF A FAIR AND EQUITABLE
ARRANGEMENT.  THIS SERVES THE PURPOSE OF THE SENTENCE TO INCREASE,
RATHER THAN TO DECREASE, THE PROTECTIVE EFFECT OF THE PARAGRAPH. 

UNDER THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THE INSTANT CASE, EMPLOYEES DISPLACED
THROUGH THE EARLY ELIMINATION OF GRADE CROSSINGS OR OTHERWISE MAY
RECEIVE COMPENSATORY PROTECTION UP TO MAY 17, 1952, BUT EMPLOYEES
DISPLACED AFTER THAT DATE WILL RECEIVE NONE.  THEY WILL HAVE HAD LONG
NOTICE THAT, BY 1954, THEY MAY BE DISPLACED.  BUT THAT MUCH
"PROTECTION" AGAINST THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE CONSOLIDATION WOULD
HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THEM WITHOUT SEC. 5(2)(F).  NEITHER SUCH
DISCRIMINATION NOR SUCH INSUBSTANTIAL "PROTECTION" IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE PURPOSE OR THE HISTORY OF THE PROVISION.    THE COMMISSION'S
INTERPRETATION OF THIS STATUTE, ALTHOUGH ENTITLED TO WEIGHT, IS NOT
PERSUASIVE.  ITS PRESENT VIEW OF ITS AUTHORITY IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH
ITS BROAD VIEW OF ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 5(4)(B), APPROVED IN UNITED
STATES V. LOWDEN, SUPRA.  IT ALSO IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE BROAD
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THIS COURT TO SEC. 1(18)-(20) AS TO
ABANDONMENTS.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. RAILWAY LABOR
EXECUTIVES ASSN., 315 U.S. 373.  THE COMMISSION'S OWN DECISIONS UNDER
SEC. 5(2)(F), RELIED UPON HERE, HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASES IN WHICH THE
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE APPROVED TRANSACTIONS WERE TO BE FELT BY THE
EMPLOYEES LONG BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL.  FN17  FOR EXAMPLE, IN CHICAGO, M., ST.
P. & P.R. CO. TRUSTEES CONSTRUCTION, 257 I.C.C. 292, WHICH IS
PRINCIPALLY RELIED UPON BY THE COMMISSION, THE CONSTRUCTION ORIGINALLY
WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED DECEMBER 31, 1943, AND THAT DATE WAS
EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 1944, BUT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDER OF
APPROVAL WAS APRIL 26, 1942, SO THAT THE MINIMUM PROTECTIVE PERIOD OF
FOUR YEARS DID NOT EXPIRE UNTIL 1946.  IN THAT CASE, THE COMMISSION DID
NOT ELIMINATE ALL COMPENSATORY PROTECTION AS IT HAS FOR MANY EMPLOYEES
HERE. 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE COMMISSION, WHILE REQUIRED TO
OBSERVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SEC. 5(2)(F) AS A
MINIMUM PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED, IS NOT CONFINED TO
THE FOUR-YEAR PROTECTIVE PERIOD AS A STATUTORY MAXIMUM.  THE COMMISSION
HAS THE POWER TO REQUIRE A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT
THE INTERESTS OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDER APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE IS
REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND IT TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  54 STAT. 906-907, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(2)(F). 

FN2  "THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ON THE NEW ORLEANS LINES THAT
PROBABLY WOULD BE AFFECTED ...  HAS BEEN ESTIMATED  ...  AT 1,022, AND
THE NUMBER REQUIRED TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE UNION PASSENGER
TERMINAL HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT 680.  AS PROVIDED IN THE TERMINAL
AGREEMENT, SO FAR AS FEASIBLE THE TERMINAL MANAGER WILL RECRUIT THE
NECESSARY PERSONNEL FROM SUPERVISORY AND OTHER EMPLOYEES DISPLACED AT
THE 5 SEPARATE STATIONS TO BE ABANDONED ON COMPLETION OF THE UNION
PASSENGER TERMINAL.  THE ESTIMATES INDICATE A NET DISPLACEMENT OF ABOUT
350 EMPLOYEES, OF WHOM 9 ARE BRIDGE TENDERS AND ABOUT 108 ARE CROSSING
WATCHMEN NOW EMPLOYED ON TRACKS WHICH WILL BE RETIRED OR OVER WHICH
TRAIN AND YARD MOVEMENTS WILL BE REDUCED; BUT THE OPINION IS EXPRESSED
THAT THE NUMBER EVENTUALLY DISPLACED WILL NOT EXCEED 300."  NEW ORLEANS
UNION PASSENGER TERMINAL CASE, 267 I.C.C. 763, 777-778. 

FN3  ALTHOUGH IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE UNITED STATES SUPPORTED THE
COMMISSION, IT HAS HERE FILED A BRIEF SUPPORTING THE APPELLANT. 

FN4  "AS THE RECORD SHOWS DEFINITELY THAT EMPLOYEES WILL BE AFFECTED
ADVERSELY BY THE APPLICANTS' PROPOSALS, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE
THAT WE REQUIRE A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF EMPLOYEES SO AFFECTED.  WE THINK THAT THE BENEFIT OF SUCH
AN ARRANGEMENT NECESSARILY MUST EXTEND TO ALL THE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES
AFFECTED BY EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS HEREIN GRANTED.  BUT WE ALSO
THINK THAT THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION
5(2)(F) IS MEASURED BY THE SPECIFICATION THEREIN OF A PROTECTIVE PERIOD
OF 4 YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF OUR ORDER APPROVING A TRANSACTION
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 5(2).  AS WAS DECIDED IN CHICAGO, M., ST.
P. & P.R. CO. TRUSTEES CONSTRUCTION, SUPRA (257 I.C.C. 292), WE HAVE NO
AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE ANY OTHER PERIOD."  NEW ORLEANS UNION PASSENGER
TERMINAL CASE, 267 I.C.C. 763, 782. 

FN5  "  ...  IF AFTER SUCH HEARING THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT, SUBJECT
TO SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SUCH MODIFICATIONS AS IT SHALL FIND TO
BE JUST AND REASONABLE, THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION,  ...  WILL PROMOTE
THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IT MAY ENTER AN ORDER APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
SUCH CONSOLIDATION,  ...  UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND WITH THE
MODIFICATIONS SO FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE."  48 STAT. 217. 

FN6  THE AGREEMENT IS PUBLISHED IN THE HEARINGS HELD BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 2531, 76TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 231-241(1939). 

FN7  GEORGE M. HARRISON, PRESIDENT OF THE RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES'
ASSOCIATION, RECOMMENDED THE ENACTMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
PROPOSALS OF THE WASHINGTON AGREEMENT INTO LAW, SO THAT THE COMMISSION
MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE USE OF THOSE PROPOSALS WHERE APPROPRIATE.  THOSE
PROPOSALS INCLUDED COMPENSATORY RELIEF FOR EMPLOYEES, DATING FROM THE
TAKING EFFECT OF A "COORDINATION."  AS APPLIED TO A PARTICULAR
EMPLOYEE, THE AGREEMENT STATED THAT THE TAKING EFFECT OF A COORDINATION
"MEANS THE DATE IN SAID PERIOD WHEN THAT EMPLOYEE IS FIRST ADVERSELY
AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF SAID COORDINATION."  ID. AT P. 232.  IT
PRESCRIBED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES DEPRIVED OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT, FOR THOSE CONTINUED IN SERVICE BUT DISPLACED FROM THEIR
FORMER POSITIONS, AND FOR THOSE REQUIRED TO MOVE TO NEW PLACES OF
RESIDENCE, ETC.  IT RELATED INDIVIDUAL PROTECTIVE PERIODS TO PRIOR
LENGTHS OF SERVICE.  IN SOME INSTANCES, IT LIMITED RELIEF TO FIVE YEARS
FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE COORDINATION. 

FN8  IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT THE COMPENSATORY RELIEF AT ISSUE IN UNITED
STATES V. LOWDEN, SUPRA, WOULD CONSUME, IN FIVE YEARS, $290,000 OUT OF
THE $500,000 OF CONTEMPLATED SAVINGS TO RESULT TO THE RAILROADS. 
SHORTLY BEFORE THAT DECISION, CONGRESS APPROVED, IN THE BILL STILL
PENDING BEFORE IT, THE LANGUAGE WHICH WAS TO BECOME THE FIRST SENTENCE
OF SEC. 5(2)(F).  THIS COURT SAID OF SUCH APPROVAL:  "WE THINK THE ONLY
EFFECT OF THIS ACTION WAS TO GIVE LEGISLATIVE EMPHASIS TO A POLICY AND
A PRACTICE ALREADY RECOGNIZED BY SEC. 5(4)(B) BY MAKING THE PRACTICE
MANDATORY INSTEAD OF DISCRETIONARY, AS IT HAD BEEN UNDER THE EARLIER
ACT."  ID. AT P. 239.  SEE ALSO, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES ASSN., 315 U.S. 373, 379. 

FN9  LETTER OF DECEMBER 23, 1938, TRANSMITTING A REPORT TO THE
PRESIDENT FROM A COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY HIM SEPTEMBER 20, 1938, TO
CONSIDER THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM AND RECOMMEND LEGISLATION. 
HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 1310,
2016, 1869 AND 2009, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3-5(1939).  SEE ALSO, H.R.
DOC. NO. 583, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 1(1938), AS TO THE EARLIER COMMITTEE
OF THREE APPOINTED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. 

FN10  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE ON H.R. 2531, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 275(1939).  AND SEE
SUPPORTING TESTIMONY OF GEORGE M. HARRISON AT PP. 216-217.  THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED VESTING THE PROTECTIVE POWER IN A TRANSPORTATION
BOARD, FOR WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS LATER
SUBSTITUTED. 

FN11  AS THIS PROVISION WAS DERIVED FROM THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF SIX, THE TESTIMONY OF GEORGE M. HARRISON, A MEMBER OF THAT
COMMITTEE, THROWS LIGHT UPON ITS MEANING.  HE SAID: 

"IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF SIX WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO LAY
DOWN THE SPECIFIC, DETAILED PROTECTION THAT SHOULD BE ACCORDED LABOR BY
THE COMMISSION, BUT WE WERE MUCH OF THE OPINION THAT IN PRESCRIBING THE
PROTECTION THE COMMISSION WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY FOLLOW WHAT SEEMS TO BE
GENERALLY THE PRACTICE; AND THAT IS REPRESENTED IN AN AGREEMENT THAT
NOW EXISTS BETWEEN SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE RAILROADS AND ALL OF THE
EMPLOYEES' LABOR UNIONS.  IT PROVIDES A SCHEDULE OF BENEFITS AND
PROTECTIONS."  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ON S. 1310, 2016, 1869 AND 2009, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
34(1938). 

FN12  H.R. REP. NO. 1217, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 12(1939), AND SEE
HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
ON H.R. 2531, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 184, 193-194, 214, 260(1939). 

FN13  84 CONG. REC. PT. 9, 9882(1939). 

THIS PROPOSAL WAS NOT WITHOUT PRECEDENT.  IN THE EMERGENCY RAILROAD
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 211, THERE WERE MANY TEMPORARY
PROVISIONS WHICH ORIGINALLY WERE TO EXPIRE IN 1934 AND FINALLY DID
EXPIRE IN 1936.  AMONG THESE WAS SEC. 7(B).  IT PROVIDED THAT NO
EMPLOYEE WAS TO BE DEPRIVED OF EMPLOYMENT OR BE IN A WORSE POSITION
WITH RESPECT TO HIS JOB BY REASON OF ANY ACTION TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE
AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE ACT.  THAT PROVISION, ON A TEMPORARY AND
INDEPENDENT BASIS, THUS COEXISTED WITH THE PERMANENT AMENDMENTS WHICH
WERE THEN MADE TO SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, INCLUDING SEC.
5(4)(B). 

FN14  WHILE THE BILL WAS IN CONFERENCE, THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SENT A COMMUNICATION TO CONGRESS
CONDEMNING THE PRINCIPLE OF THE AMENDMENT AND UPHOLDING THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SEC. 5(2)(F): 

"AS FOR THE (HARRINGTON) PROVISO, THE OBJECT OF UNIFICATIONS IS TO
SAVE EXPENSE, USUALLY BY THE SAVING OF LABOR.  EMPLOYEES WHO MAY BE
DISPLACED SHOULD, IN THE CASE OF RAILROAD UNIFICATIONS, BE PROTECTED BY
SOME SUCH PLAN AS IS EMBODIED IN THE SO-CALLED 'WASHINGTON AGREEMENT'
OF 1936 BETWEEN THE RAILROAD MANAGEMENTS AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  THE
PROVISO, BY PROHIBITING ANY DISPLACEMENT OF EMPLOYEES, GOES MUCH TOO
FAR, AND IN THE LONG RUN WILL DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD TO THE
EMPLOYEES."  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORT ON S. 2009, OMNIBUS
TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION, P. 67(76TH CONG., 3D SESS., HOUSE COMMITTEE
PRINT), TRANSMITTED JANUARY 29, 1940. 

FN15  "(F)  AS A PREREQUISITE TO ITS APPROVAL OF ANY CONSOLIDATION,
MERGER, PURCHASE, LEASE, OPERATING CONTRACT, OR ACQUISITION OF CONTROL,
OR ANY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, OR COMBINATION MENTIONED IN THIS SECTION,
IN RESPECT TO CARRIERS BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 1,
AND AS A PREREQUISITE TO ITS APPROVAL OF THE SUBSTITUTION AND USE OF
ANOTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION FOR RAIL TRANSPORTATION PROPOSED TO BE
ABANDONED, THE COMMISSION SHALL REQUIRE A FAIR AND EQUITABLE
ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES
AFFECTED.  ... "  86 CONG. REC. PT. 6, 5886(1940). 

FN16  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2832, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. 68-69(1940), AND
REMARKS BY REPRESENTATIVE LEA, CHAIRMAN OF HOUSE CONFEREES, 86 CONG.
REC. PT. 6, 10178(1940), AND OF REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON AT P. 10189. 

THE COMMISSION'S POWERS AS TO ABANDONMENTS ARE THUS LEFT TO SEC.
1(18)-(20), TO WHICH THE HARRINGTON AMENDMENT HAS NO POSSIBLE
APPLICATION.  THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"(18)  ...  NO CARRIER BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THIS ACT SHALL ABANDON
ALL OR ANY PORTION OF A LINE OF RAILROAD, OR THE OPERATION THEREOF,
UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE
COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY PERMIT OF SUCH ABANDONMENT. 

     .      .         .         .         . 

"(20)  THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE SUCH CERTIFICATE  ...
AND MAY ATTACH TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS IN ITS JUDGMENT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY MAY
REQUIRE.  ...  "  41 STAT. 477-478, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(18) AND (20). 

UNDER SEC. 1(18) AND (20), THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY, IN ITS SOUND
DISCRETION, TO PRESCRIBE THE PERIOD AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE
PROTECTION NEEDED BY EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY ABANDONMENTS.  SEE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES ASSN., 315
U.S. 373.  IN THAT CASE, THIS COURT REVERSED THE NARROW INTERPRETATION
WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE COMMISSION TO SEC. 1(20) IN CHICAGO G.W.R.
CO. TRACKAGE, 207 I.C.C. 315, 322.  THE COMMISSION HAD HELD THAT IT WAS
WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
INTERESTS OF THE DISPLACED EMPLOYEES.  BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THIS COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED BY SEC. 1(18)-(20) MIGHT BE NARROWER THAN THAT APPLICABLE TO
CONSOLIDATIONS UNDER SEC. 5(4)(B)(SEE UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S.
225) BUT HELD, NEVERTHELESS, THAT IT GAVE THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO
PROTECT THE EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.  UNDER THE RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION
WHICH THE COMMISSION SEEKS TO APPLY TO ITS POWER IN THE INSTANT CASE,
IT WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM APPLYING ITS FULL DISCRETION TO EMPLOYEES
DISPLACED BY CONSOLIDATIONS, AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT IS AUTHORIZED TO
APPLY ITS FULL DISCRETION TO THOSE DISPLACED BY ABANDONMENTS.  SEE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES ASSN., 315
U.S. 373.  THIS DISTINCTION WOULD BE PECULIARLY DISCRIMINATORY IN THE
INSTANT CASE WHERE THE CONSOLIDATION INCLUDES MANY ABANDONMENTS. 

FN17  CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. ABANDONMENT, 257 I.C.C. 700; CHICAGO,
M., ST. P. & P.R. CO. TRUSTEES CONSTRUCTION, 257 I.C.C. 292; OKLAHOMA
R. CO. TRUSTEES ABANDONMENT, 257 I.C.C. 177, 196-202; TEXAS & P.R. CO.
OPERATION, 247 I.C.C. 285, 295, 296. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS UPON THE GROUND THAT RESORT TO
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO VARY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE IS NOT JUSTIFIED
IN THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN TO
THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SEC. 5(2)(F) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT BY
THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1940, 54 STAT. 898, 906-07.  THE DISTRICT
COURT AGREED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE PROVISION BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  IN THE COURT BELOW, BUT NOT HERE, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE JOINED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN
URGING THIS CONSTRUCTION UPON THAT COURT.  I DO NOT THINK THE ARGUMENTS
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT URGED BELOW HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY ANSWERED, AND I
THEREFORE YIELD TO THEM.  I CANNOT DO BETTER THAN STATE THEM IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S OWN LANGUAGE:    "THE SECTION CONTAINS THE CLEAR AND
PRECISE PROVISION THAT THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD SHALL COMMENCE FROM THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL.  HAD CONGRESS INTENDED THAT
THE PERIOD SHALL RUN FROM THE DATE WHEN THE CONSOLIDATION GOES INTO
EFFECT OR, AS ARGUED BY PLAINTIFF, FROM THE DATE THE EMPLOYEES ARE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED, SUCH WORDS EASILY COULD AND WOULD HAVE BEEN USED BY
CONGRESS.  NOR DOES THE SECTION GIVE TO THE COMMISSION DISCRETION IN
APPLYING A PERIOD OTHER THAN FOUR YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ORDER OF APPROVAL.  THE TERMINOLOGY IN THE STATUTE IS THAT THE
COMMISSION SHALL INCLUDE THE FOUR-YEAR LIMITATION THEREIN PROVIDED.  TO
PROVIDE A DIFFERENT PERIOD IN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WOULD BE CONTRARY
TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT IMPOSED UPON THE COMMISSION BY THE
STATUTE. 

     .   .         .         .         . 

"CONGRESS DELIBERATELY FIXED THE PERIOD OF PROTECTION TO START FROM
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDER AND NOT THE DATE AN EMPLOYEE IS
ADVERSELY AFFECTED. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLEAR UNAMBIGUOUS AND SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF
COMMISSION, SINCE ITS ENACTMENT AND OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS, AND
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
HEREIN SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED." 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
..END :





















STANDARD-VACUUM OIL CO. V. U.S., 339 U.S. 157 


NO. 18.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1950.  - 112 CT.
CL. 137, 80 F.SUPP.  657, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


PETITIONER SUED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR
PROPERTY IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ALLEGEDLY REQUISITIONED BY THE
UNITED STATES FOR MILITARY PURPOSES DURING THE JAPANESE INVASION OF THE
ISLANDS MORE THAN SIX YEARS PREVIOUSLY.  THE GOVERNMENT MOVED TO
DISMISS THE CLAIMS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE BARRED BY THE SIX-YEAR
LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 156 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, NOW 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2501.  PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT, DURING THE JAPANESE OCCUPATION
OF THE ISLANDS, IT WAS DEPRIVED OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION BEARING ON THE
EXISTENCE OF ITS CLAIMS; BUT ITS PLEADINGS CONTAINED NO SUCH
ALLEGATIONS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS CONSIDERED THIS CONTENTION BUT
DISMISSED THE CLAIMS.  HELD: 

1.  SINCE THE QUESTION WHETHER DEPRIVATION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION
BEARING ON THE EXISTENCE OF PETITIONER'S CLAIMS DURING THE JAPANESE
OCCUPATION OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS COULD OR WOULD AFFECT THE
OPERATION OF THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS NOT PROPERLY
PRESENTED ON THE RECORD, THIS COURT WILL NOT CONSIDER IT.  PP. 158
160. 

2.  SINCE THE COURT BELOW CONSIDERED FACTS NOT STATED IN THE
PLEADINGS AND ITS OPINION AND JUDGMENT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SUCH FACTS,
ITS JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH DISCRETION TO
PERMIT FURTHER PLEADINGS.  PP. 160-161. 

3.  IF PERMISSION TO PLEAD FURTHER IS DENIED, OR IF IT IS GRANTED AND
PETITIONER FAILS TO PLEAD FURTHER, THE CAUSE SHALL BE DISMISSED.  P.
161. 

STANDARD-VACUUM OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS DISMISSED PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR
PROPERTY ALLEGEDLY REQUISITIONED BY THE UNITED STATES.  112 CT. CL.
137, 80 F.SUPP.  657.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 935. 
JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED, P. 161. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON DECEMBER 5, 1947, PETITIONER FILED SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO
RECOVER JUST COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN OF ITS PROPERTIES IN THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAD ALLEGEDLY REQUISITIONED
FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.  ON MARCH 24, 1948, PETITIONER FILED AN AMENDED
PETITION, INCLUDING FOR THE FIRST TIME THE CLAIMS HERE INVOLVED, THE
SEVENTH AND THE FIFTEENTH.  A SECOND AMENDED PETITION WAS FILED JUNE 1,
1948.  IN THE SEVENTH CLAIM OF THE AMENDED PETITION, PETITIONER ALLEGED
THAT THE UNITED STATES ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 18, 1941, REQUISITIONED AND
TOOK CERTAIN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND OTHER PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY OF
PETITIONER LOCATED IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  THE FIFTEENTH CLAIM OF
THE AMENDED PETITION CONTAINED AN ALLEGATION, INTER ALIA, THAT DURING
THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 1941 TO JANUARY 1942, RESPONDENT TOOK AND
DISBURSED CERTAIN OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OF PETITIONER LOCATED AT
ANOTHER PLACE IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  FN1  IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN
THE FILING OF THE FIRST AND THE SECOND AMENDED PETITIONS, ON APRIL 12,
1948, THE UNITED STATES HAD FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE SEVENTH AND
FIFTEENTH CLAIMS ON THE GROUND THAT IT APPEARED ON THE FACE OF THE
AMENDED PETITION THAT THE CLAIMS SUED UPON EACH ACCRUED MORE THAN SIX
YEARS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE AMENDED PETITION, THAT THE CLAIMS WERE
THEREFORE BARRED BY SEC. 156 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,  FN2  AND THE COURT
OF CLAIMS WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HEAR SAID CLAIMS.  THE COURT
ALLOWED THIS MOTION TO STAND DIRECTED AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDED
PETITION.  AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT, THE COURT SUSTAINED THE MOTION TO
DISMISS, AND DID DISMISS THE SEVENTH AND FIFTEENTH CLAIMS.  112 CT. CL.
137, 80 F.SUPP.  657.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI (336 U.S. 935) ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE RECORD PRESENTED THE QUESTION WHETHER DEPRIVATION
OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION BEARING ON THE EXISTENCE OF PETITIONER'S
CLAIMS DURING THE JAPANESE OCCUPATION OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS COULD
OR DID AFFECT THE OPERATION OF THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE.  BUT SINCE THE
RECORD DOES NOT PROPERLY PRESENT THAT QUESTION, WE CANNOT ANSWER IT. 

THE CASE REACHES US UPON PLEADINGS THAT ALLEGE ONLY THE FACT OF
TAKING IN 1941 AND 1942, MORE THAN SIX YEARS BEFORE THE SEVENTH AND
FIFTEENTH CLAIMS WERE FILED BY PETITIONER.  WE DO NOT INTIMATE THAT ANY
FACTS COULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF RELIEVING PETITIONER FROM THE LIMITATION
OF THE STATUTE, NOR WHAT FACTS SHOULD BE ALLEGED THAT COULD HAVE THAT
EFFECT. 

IT MIGHT BE ASSUMED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER'S PLEADINGS WHAT IS
JUDICIALLY KNOWN, THAT THE JAPANESE WERE, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES,
IN COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS BY MAY 1942 AND CONTINUED
IN CONTROL UNTIL SOMETIME SUBSEQUENT TO OCTOBER 1944, WHEN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY RETURNED.  BUT IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT PETITIONER WAS
DEPRIVED OF INFORMATION ABOUT ITS PROPERTY BEFORE AND DURING THAT
PERIOD.  THE PLEADINGS DO NOT SO INFORM, AND CERTAINLY A COURT COULD
NOT KNOW JUDICIALLY THE FACTS OF PETITIONER'S INFORMATION OR LACK OF
INFORMATION.  THEN THERE IS THE PERIOD FROM THE UNITED STATES
REOCCUPATION IN 1945 TO MARCH 24, 1948.  WITH RESPECT TO THIS PERIOD OF
UNITED STATES CONTROL OF THE ISLANDS, NOTHING IS ALLEGED BY PETITIONER
CONCERNING ITS DEPRIVATION OF OR ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT THE TAKING
OF ITS PROPERTY AT THE TIMES SET FORTH IN THE CLAIMS. 

TRUE, THE DISCUSSION OF PETITIONER'S CLAIMS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN AT
LARGE BEFORE THE COURT OF CLAIMS AS TO THE INFORMATION OR LACK OF
INFORMATION PETITIONER HAD CONCERNING ITS CLAIMS AND AS TO THE EFFECT
SUCH INFORMATION OR LACK THEREOF MIGHT HAVE HAD UPON PETITIONER'S RIGHT
TO FILE THE CLAIMS MORE THAN SIX YEARS AFTER THEY ACCRUED.  THE
MAJORITY OPINION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS RECITES: 

"PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT BECAUSE OF THE LOSS AND DESTRUCTION OF ITS
RECORDS PROPER CLAIMS COULD NOT BE FILED UNTIL THE JAPANESE OCCUPATION
HAD ENDED AND OPPORTUNITY HAD TO RECONSTRUCT STATISTICALLY THE
PROPERTIES, STOCKS, EQUIPMENT, ETC., OWNED BY IT AT THE TIME OF
REQUISITIONING OR DESTRUCTION."  112 CT. CL. AT 139, 80 F.SUPP.  AT
658. 

THERE ARE NO SUCH ALLEGATIONS IN THE AMENDED PETITION.  WHAT
ALLEGATIONS THERE ARE IN THE PETITION BRING THE CASE SQUARELY WITHIN
THE STATUTE, WHICH DENIES THE COURT OF CLAIMS POWER TO ENTERTAIN AN
ACTION BROUGHT MORE THAN SIX YEARS AFTER THE ACTION ACCRUES. 

THUS THE CASE WAS DECIDED NOT ONLY UPON WHAT WAS ALLEGED IN THE
PLEADINGS BUT UPON OTHER ALLEGATIONS AS WELL, AS TO WHICH NO CLEAR
INKLING APPEARS IN THE RECORD.  BECAUSE THE COURT OF CLAIMS CONSIDERED
THESE ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS, IT IS URGED THAT WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER
THEM.  BUT WE CANNOT CONSIDER SUCH ALLEGATIONS IN DETERMINING THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE CAUSE STATED.  AFTER ALL, PLEADINGS AND THE MAKING
OF A PROPER RECORD HAVE NOT BEEN DISPENSED WITH.  THEY STILL HAVE A
FUNCTION TO PERFORM.  THIS CASE POINTS UP THAT FUNCTION.  WE WILL NOT
REVIEW QUESTIONS NOT CLEARLY RAISED ON THE RECORD. 

SINCE IT IS APPARENT THAT FACTS WERE CONSIDERED BY BOTH THE COURT OF
CLAIMS AND COUNSEL THAT WERE NOT IN THE PLEADINGS, AND THE COURT'S
OPINION AND JUDGMENT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SUCH FACTS, THE JUDGMENT IS
VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY PERMIT
FURTHER PLEADINGS IF IN THE COURT'S DISCRETION SUCH FURTHER PLEADINGS
SEEM PROPER AND JUST.  IF PERMISSION TO PLEAD FURTHER IS DENIED, OR IF
PETITIONER FAILS TO PLEAD FURTHER SHOULD PERMISSION BE GRANTED, THE
CAUSE SHALL BE DISMISSED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1 THIS PORTION OF THE FIFTEENTH CLAIM IS HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS
THE FIFTEENTH CLAIM. 

FN2  "EVERY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES COGNIZABLE BY THE COURT
OF CLAIMS, SHALL BE FOREVER BARRED UNLESS THE PETITION SETTING FORTH A
STATEMENT THEREOF IS FILED IN THE COURT  ...  WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER
THE CLAIM FIRST ACCRUES  ...  "  36 STAT. 1139, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 262, NOW
62 STAT. 976, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2501. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















DENNIS V. UNITED STATES, 339 U.S. 162 


NO. 14.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1950.  - 84 U.S.
APP. D.C. 31, 171 F.2D 986, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, WHO IS GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE
UNITED STATES, WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF VIOLATING
R.S. SEC. 102, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192, BY WILLFULLY FAILING TO APPEAR BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
IN COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBPOENA DULY SERVED UPON HIM.  ON VOIR DIRE
EXAMINATION, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON THE JURY PANEL WERE INTERROGATED
INDIVIDUALLY BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL AS TO WHETHER THE FACT THAT
PETITIONER WAS A COMMUNIST, THE ATTITUDE OF THE COMMITTEE ON UN
AMERICAN ACTIVITIES TOWARD COMMUNISTS, OR THE RECENTLY ISSUED EXECUTIVE
ORDER 9835 PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR THE DISCHARGE OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES UPON REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEF THAT THEY ARE DISLOYAL TO
THE GOVERNMENT, WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM RENDERING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
VERDICT.  SEVEN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO GAVE NEGATIVE ANSWERS TO THESE
QUESTIONS AND TESTIFIED THAT THEY COULD RENDER A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
VERDICT WERE PERMITTED TO SERVE ON THE JURY.  THERE WAS NO PROOF OF
ACTUAL BIAS, AND PETITIONER'S CHALLENGE OF THESE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
FOR CAUSE WAS DENIED.  HELD:  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
PETITIONER WAS NOT DENIED THE TRIAL "BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY" GUARANTEED
BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 164-172. 

(A)  THE ENACTMENT OF D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 11-1420, WHICH REMOVED
(WITH SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS) THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING DISQUALIFICATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOR JURY SERVICE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN
CRIMINAL AND OTHER CASES TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY, WAS WITHIN
THE POWER OF CONGRESS AND, THEREFORE, EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ARE NOT CHALLENGEABLE SOLELY BY REASON OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT. 
UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 123; FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S.
497.  PP. 165-167, 172. 

(B)  WHILE IMPANELING A JURY, THE TRIAL COURT HAS A SERIOUS DUTY TO
DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF ACTUAL BIAS AND A BROAD DISCRETION IN ITS
RULINGS ON THE CHALLENGES THEREFOR; AND IT MUST BE ZEALOUS TO PROTECT
THE RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED, IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS.  P. 168. 

(C)  ONE OF AN UNPOPULAR MINORITY GROUP MUST BE ACCORDED THAT
SOLICITUDE WHICH PROPERLY ACCOMPANIES AN ACCUSED PERSON; BUT HE IS NOT
ENTITLED TO UNUSUAL PROTECTION OR EXCEPTION.  P. 168. 

(D)  IN ORDER TO SECURE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF TRIAL BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY
THAT ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BE HELD TO BE BIASED AS A MATTER OF LAW. 
PP. 168, 172. 

(E)  THE WAY IS OPEN IN EVERY CASE TO RAISE A CONTENTION OF BIAS FROM
THE REALM OF SPECULATION TO THE REALM OF FACT; AND PRESERVATION OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE ACTUAL BIAS IS A GUARANTEE OF A DEFENDANT'S RIGHT
TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY.  PP. 168, 171-172. 

(F)  JUDICIAL NOTICE MAY BE TAKEN OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9835; BUT THAT
DOES NOT JUSTIFY AN ASSUMPTION BY THIS COURT THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
COULD NOT SERVE FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY AS JURORS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE - ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY STATED UNDER OATH THAT THEY COULD
DO SO.  PP. 169-171. 

(G)  NOR, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THIS CASE, CAN AN EXCEPTION IN FAVOR
OF A COMMUNIST BE CARVED OUT OF THE RULE LAID DOWN IN THE STATUTE AND
CONSTRUED IN WOOD V. UNITED STATES AND FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES THAT
THERE IS NO IMPLIED BIAS BY REASON OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.  P. 171. 

(H)  NOR CAN THIS COURT, ANY MORE THAN THE TRIAL COURT, TAKE JUDICIAL
NOTICE OF A "MIASMA OF FEAR" TO WHICH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE CLAIMED
TO BE PECULIARLY VULNERABLE AND FROM WHICH OTHER CITIZENS ARE BY
IMPLICATION IMMUNE.  P. 172. 

DENNIS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF VIOLATING
R.S. SEC. 102, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 192.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  84
U.S. APP. D.C. 31, 171 F.2D 986.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337
U.S. 954.  AFFIRMED, P. 172. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION WE HAVE FOR DETERMINATION HERE IS WHETHER A CHALLENGE
FOR CAUSE TO JURORS ON VOIR DIRE BECAUSE OF EMPLOYMENT BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING R.S. SEC. 102, 2 U.S.C. SEC.
192, FOR WILLFULLY FAILING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON UN
AMERICAN ACTIVITIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN COMPLIANCE WITH
A SUBPOENA DULY SERVED UPON HIM.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 84
U.S. APP. D.C. 31, 171 F.2D 986.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COULD PROPERLY SERVE ON THE JURY
WHICH TRIED PETITIONER.  337 U.S. 954. 

PETITIONER VOLUNTARILY APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN
AMERICAN ACTIVITIES WHICH HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION TWO BILLS TO OUTLAW
THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  PETITIONER WAS AND IS GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  ON HIS VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, PETITIONER REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS TO HIS
NAME AND THE DATE AND PLACE OF HIS BIRTH.  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE DIRECTED THAT A SUBPOENA BE SERVED FORTHWITH UPON PETITIONER,
REQUIRING HIM TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON APRIL 9, 1947.  ON THE
APPOINTED DATE PETITIONER SENT A REPRESENTATIVE BUT DID NOT APPEAR IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA.  THE COMMITTEE REPORTED HIS REFUSAL TO
APPEAR TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE HOUSE ADOPTED A
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  PETITIONER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
INDICTED. 

WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR TRIAL, PETITIONER MADE A MOTION FOR
TRANSFER UPON THE GROUND THAT HE COULD NOT OBTAIN A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IN HIS AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING THE
MOTION, HE POSITED THIS CONTENTION MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, WHO COMPRISE A LARGE PART OF THE DISTRICT'S POPULATION, ARE
SUBJECT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 9835, 12 FED. REG. 1935, PROVIDING STANDARDS
FOR THEIR DISCHARGE UPON REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEF THAT THEY ARE
DISLOYAL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  HE ARGUED THAT
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WOULD BE AFRAID TO RISK THE CHARGE OF DISLOYALTY
OR POSSIBLE TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH WOULD ALLEGEDLY FLOW FROM A
VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL.  THE MOTION FOR A TRANSFER WAS DENIED. 

BOTH SIDES CONDUCTED FURTHER VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION AT THE CONCLUSION
OF THE COURT'S QUESTIONING OF THE PANEL.  ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
QUESTIONED INDIVIDUALLY EACH MEMBER OF THE PANEL WHO INDICATED THAT HE
WAS EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  HE THEN CHALLENGED FOR CAUSE ALL
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  THE COURT DENIED THE CHALLENGE.  PETITIONER
EXERCISED TWO OF HIS THREE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AGAINST GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.  HE EXHAUSTED ALL HIS PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES.  SEVEN OF THE
TWELVE FINALLY SELECTED WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  EACH OF THE SEVEN
EXPRESSED THE BELIEF THAT HE COULD RENDER A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
VERDICT. 

IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE HIS CHALLENGE TO THE
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOR CAUSE WAS NOT SUSTAINED?  THE QUESTION OF THE
PRESENCE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JURIES IS NOT
A NEW CONTROVERSY.  IT HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT ON THREE PREVIOUS
OCCASIONS.  CRAWFORD V. UNITED STATES, 212 U.S. 183; UNITED STATES V.
WOOD, 299 U.S. 123; FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 497.  IN THE
CRAWFORD CASE THE DEFENDANTS WERE CHARGED WITH A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
THE UNITED STATES.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTE PRESCRIBING THE
ELIGIBILITY OF JURORS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DID NOT CONTROL THE
SUBJECT.  THE COURT TURNED TO THE COMMON LAW IN FORCE IN MARYLAND WHEN
THE DISTRICT WAS FORMED, AND FOUND THAT A SERVANT WAS SUBJECT TO
CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AT COMMON LAW WHERE THE MASTER WAS PARTY TO THE
CASE ON TRIAL.  IN SUCH A CASE, BIAS WOULD BE IMPLIED AS A MATTER OF
LAW.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS ERROR TO DENY A CHALLENGE FOR
CAUSE TO A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IN A CASE TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS A
PARTY. 

IN 1935 CONGRESS, PROMPTED BY THE PAUCITY OF QUALIFIED JURORS WHICH
RESULTED FROM THE CRAWFORD DECISION, PASSED AN ACT REDEFINING
ELIGIBILITY FOR JURY SERVICE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  AFTER
EXEMPTING CERTAIN CLASSES, THE ACT PROVIDED:  "ALL OTHER PERSONS,
OTHERWISE QUALIFIED ACCORDING TO LAW WHETHER EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  ...
SHALL BE QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS JURORS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
SHALL NOT BE EXEMPT FROM SUCH SERVICE  ...  "  49 STAT. 682, D.C. CODE,
SEC. 11-1420(1940). 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS ACT WAS SUSTAINED IN UNITED STATES V.
WOOD, 299 U.S. 123, WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH PETTY LARCENY
FROM A PRIVATE CORPORATION.  THE DEFENDANT CONTENDED THAT THE PRESENCE
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON THE JURY DENIED THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  HE POINTED OUT THAT UNDER THE
COMMON LAW AS EXPOUNDED BY BLACKSTONE, A KING'S SERVANT AND THEREFORE A
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE COULD NOT SERVE ON A JURY, AND HE ARGUED THAT THIS
VIEW WAS CARRIED INTO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES,
SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, METICULOUSLY EXAMINED THE PROBLEM.  HE FOUND
THAT BLACKSTONE'S STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION HAD REFERENCE ONLY TO
SERVANTS OF PRIVATE PARTIES, AND THAT THERE WAS NO ESTABLISHED PRACTICE
WITH RESPECT TO THE KING'S SERVANTS AT COMMON LAW.  THE COURT WAS OF
THE VIEW THAT EVEN IF SUCH A COMMON LAW DISQUALIFICATION EXISTED,
CONGRESS HAD POWER TO REMOVE IT.  UNLIKE THE STATUTE IN THE CRAWFORD
CASE, THE 1935 ACT LEFT NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO QUALIFY
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AS JURORS.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH A
DECLARATION WAS PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME.  THE OPINION CAREFULLY
EMPHASIZED THAT THE ACT LEFT ACCUSED PERSONS FREE TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE
OF ACTUAL BIAS.  ONLY THE QUESTION OF IMPLIED BIAS WAS PRESENTED.  THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE GUARANTEE OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY WAS NOT
IMPAIRED, STATING: 

"IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE ACT WAS PASSED TO MEET A PUBLIC NEED AND
THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ACTUAL IMPARTIALITY OF THE JURY WAS
CONTEMPLATED.  THE ENACTMENT ITSELF IS TANTAMOUNT TO A LEGISLATIVE
DECLARATION THAT THE PRIOR DISQUALIFICATION WAS ARTIFICIAL AND NOT
NECESSARY TO SECURE IMPARTIALITY.  ...  TO IMPUTE BIAS AS MATTER OF LAW
TO THE JURORS IN QUESTION HERE WOULD BE NO MORE SENSIBLE THAN TO IMPUTE
BIAS TO ALL STOREOWNERS AND HOUSEHOLDERS IN CASES OF LARCENY OR
BURGLARY."  UNITED STATES V. WOOD, SUPRA, 148-149, 150. 

ONLY LAST TERM IN FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 497, THE PROBLEM
OF JURY SERVICE BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WAS REEXAMINED.  THERE THE
DEFENDANT WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE NARCOTICS ACT BY A
JURY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMPOSED ENTIRELY, DUE TO
CIRCUMSTANCES FORTUITOUS OR OTHERWISE, OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.  MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, REEXAMINED
THE RULE OF THE WOOD CASE THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE NOT
DISQUALIFIED AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM SERVING ON A JURY IN A CASE TO
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY.  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WERE AGAIN HELD
TO BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE ONLY FOR "ACTUAL BIAS." 

IT WOULD BE A WORK OF SUPEREROGATION TO ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY THE
STATEMENT OF THE LAW AFTER THE WOOD AND FRAZIER CASES.  SOME MAY DOUBT
THE WISDOM OF THE COURT'S DECISION IN LAYING DOWN THE RULE, BUT THERE
CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THIS COURT HAS SPOKEN VERY CLEARLY, NOT ONLY ONCE,
BUT TWICE. 

NO QUESTION OF ACTUAL BIAS IS BEFORE US.  THE WAY IS OPEN IN EVERY
CASE TO RAISE A CONTENTION OF BIAS FROM THE REALM OF SPECULATION TO THE
REALM OF FACT.  IN BOTH THE WOOD AND FRAZIER CASES THIS COURT STRESSED
THAT WHILE IMPANELING A JURY THE TRIAL COURT HAS A SERIOUS DUTY TO
DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF ACTUAL BIAS, AND A BROAD DISCRETION IN ITS
RULINGS ON CHALLENGES THEREFOR.  UNITED STATES V. WOOD, SUPRA, 133-134,
150; FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 511-512.  WE REAFFIRM THOSE
PRINCIPLES.  IN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION, THE TRIAL COURT MUST BE
ZEALOUS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED.  AND WE AGREE THAT THIS
THE COURT MUST DO WITHOUT REFERENCE TO AN ACCUSED'S POLITICAL OR
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, HOWEVER SUCH BELIEFS MAY BE RECEIVED BY A
PREDOMINANT SEGMENT OF OUR POPULATION.  IDEOLOGICAL STATUS IS NOT AN
APPROPRIATE GAUGE OF THE HIGH STANDARD OF JUSTICE TOWARD WHICH OUR
COURTS MAY NOT BE CONTENT ONLY TO STRIVE.  BUT WHILE ONE OF AN
UNPOPULAR MINORITY GROUP MUST BE ACCORDED THAT SOLICITUDE WHICH
PROPERLY ACCOMPANIES AN ACCUSED PERSON, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO UNUSUAL
PROTECTION OR EXCEPTION. 

PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT IN ORDER TO SECURE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE OF TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES MUST
BE HELD, IN THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, TO BE BIASED AS A
MATTER OF LAW.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT BIAS APPEARS AS A FACT FROM
THE RECORD.  AS FAR AS IT APPEARS, THE COURT WAS WILLING TO CONSIDER
ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT INVESTIGATORY AGENCIES OF THE
GOVERNMENT HAD RECOGNIZED IN THE PAST OR WOULD TAKE COGNIZANCE IN THE
FUTURE OF A VOTE OF ACQUITTAL, BUT NO SUCH PROOF WAS MADE.  NOR WAS
THERE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF A CLIMATE OF OPINION
AMONG GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THAT THEY WOULD JEOPARDIZE THEIR TENURE OR
PROVOKE INVESTIGATION BY SUCH A VERDICT.  RATHER PETITIONER ASKS THAT
BIAS BE IMPLIED FROM THE RECITATION OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:  HE
IS A COMMUNIST; THE INSTIGATOR OF THE CHARGES IS THE UN-AMERICAN
ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE WHICH ALLEGEDLY WOULD TAKE NOTICE OF A VOTE FOR
ACQUITTAL; THE ISSUE IN THE CASE IS CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS; IN CONTEMPT
CASES THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IS THE VINDICATION OF A DIRECT AFFRONT,
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS ROLE IN AN ORDINARY PROSECUTION.  BUT
PETITIONER PRIMARILY BASES HIS CASE ON A REQUEST, IN EFFECT, THAT
JUDICIAL NOTICE BE TAKEN OF AN AURA OF SURVEILLANCE AND INTIMIDATION
WHICH IS SAID TO EXIST IN THE DISTRICT BECAUSE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9835,
OUTSTANDING AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL. 

THE "LOYALTY ORDER," AS IT IS POPULARLY KNOWN, REQUIRES THE
INVESTIGATION OF ALL PERSONS ENTERING CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT WITH THE
UNITED STATES; AS TO THOSE ALREADY IN SERVICE, HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES ARE CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF MAKING CERTAIN THAT DISLOYAL
PERSONS ARE NOT RETAINED.  PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT BECAUSE OF THIS
ORDER, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WOULD BE HESITANT TO VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL
BECAUSE SUCH ACTION MIGHT BE INTERPRETED AS "SYMPATHETIC ASSOCIATION"
WITH COMMUNISM. 

OF COURSE, THE LOYALTY ORDER COULD BE THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL
NOTICE.  SUCH NOTICE, HOWEVER, WOULD GIVE ONLY LIMITED ILLUMINATION. 
IT IS PROPER TO OBSERVE THAT THE LOYALTY ORDER IS NOT DIRECTED SOLELY
AGAINST COMMUNISTS, AND THAT THE CRIME OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED IS NOT A CRIME PECULIAR TO COMMUNISTS.  FURTHER, THE LOYALTY
ORDER PRECEDED THE INSTANT TRIAL ONLY BY ABOUT THREE MONTHS.  IT WAS
PROMULGATED BY THE PRESIDENT ON MARCH 21, 1947.  THIS TRIAL BEGAN ON
JUNE 23, 1947, AND WAS CONCLUDED ON JUNE 26, 1947.  ON MAY 9, 1947, THE
PRESIDENT SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS A REQUEST FOR AN APPROPRIATION TO CARRY
OUT THE LOYALTY ORDER,  FN1  WHICH WAS NOT ENACTED INTO LAW UNTIL JULY
31, 1947.  FN2  IT WAS NOT UNTIL AUGUST 18, 1947, THAT STANDARD FORM
84, REQUESTING CERTAIN PERTINENT INFORMATION FROM EACH FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE, WAS MADE AVAILABLE.  FN3 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9835, WHICH WAS
YET TO COME, WAS APPARENTLY NOT THE SUBJECT OF ANTICIPATORY FEAR BY
THESE JURORS.  THEIR ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES ON THE INFLUENCE OF THE
LOYALTY ORDER WERE CATEGORICALLY TO THE CONTRARY.  FN4  WE MUST CREDIT
THESE REPRESENTATIONS, AND THIS IS PARTICULARLY SO IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD INDICATE AN OPPOSITE OPINION AMONG GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.  ONE MAY NOT KNOW OR ALTOGETHER UNDERSTAND THE IMPONDERABLES
WHICH CAUSE ONE TO THINK WHAT HE THINKS, BUT SURELY ONE WHO IS TRYING
AS AN HONEST MAN TO LIVE UP TO THE SANCTITY OF HIS OATH IS WELL
QUALIFIED TO SAY WHETHER HE HAS AN UNBIASED MIND IN A CERTAIN MATTER. 

ULTIMATELY, PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS AMOUNT TO THIS:  SINCE HE IS A
COMMUNIST, IN VIEW OF ALL THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AN EXCEPTION
MUST BE CARVED OUT OF THE RULE LAID DOWN IN THE STATUTE, AND CONSTRUED
IN WOOD AND FRAZIER, THAT THERE IS NO IMPLIED BIAS BY REASON OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.  THUS THE RULE WOULD APPLY TO ANYONE BUT A
COMMUNIST TRIED FOR CONTEMPT OF A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, BUT NOT TO A
COMMUNIST.  WE THINK THE RULE IN WOOD AND FRAZIER SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY
APPLIED.  A HOLDING OF IMPLIED BIAS TO DISQUALIFY JURORS BECAUSE OF
THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER PERMISSIBLE.  THE
ACT MAKES NO EXCEPTION FOR DISTINCTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT STATES THAT:
"ALL  ...  PERSONS  ...  WHETHER EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  ...
SHALL BE QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS JURORS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
SHALL NOT BE EXEMPT FROM SUCH SERVICE  ...  " PRESERVATION OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE ACTUAL BIAS IS A GUARANTEE OF A DEFENDANT'S RIGHT
TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY.  WE ADHERE TO OUR HOLDING THAT THE ENACTMENT OF
THE STATUTE IS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS, AND THAT THEREFORE
EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE NOT CHALLENGEABLE SOLELY BY
REASON OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.    IT FOLLOWS THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE FAILURE TO SUSTAIN THE CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE DENIED
PETITIONER AN "IMPARTIAL JURY."  "IMPARTIALITY IS NOT A TECHNICAL
CONCEPTION.  IT IS A STATE OF MIND.  FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THIS
MENTAL ATTITUDE OF APPROPRIATE INDIFFERENCE, THE CONSTITUTION LAYS DOWN
NO PARTICULAR TESTS AND PROCEDURE IS NOT CHAINED TO ANY ANCIENT AND
ARTIFICIAL FORMULA."  UNITED STATES V. WOOD, SUPRA, 145-146.  IN THIS
CASE, NO MORE THAN THE TRIAL COURT CAN WE WITHOUT INJUSTICE TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A MIASMA OF FEAR TO WHICH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE
CLAIMED TO BE PECULIARLY VULNERABLE - AND FROM WHICH OTHER CITIZENS ARE
BY IMPLICATION IMMUNE.  VAGUE CONJECTURE DOES NOT CONVINCE THAT
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE SO INTIMIDATED THAT THEY CRINGE BEFORE THEIR
GOVERNMENT IN FEAR OF INVESTIGATION AND LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT IF THEY DO
THEIR DUTY AS JURORS, WHICH DUTY THIS SAME GOVERNMENT HAS IMPOSED UPON
THEM.  THERE IS NO DISCLOSURE IN THIS RECORD THAT THESE JURORS DID NOT
BRING TO BEAR, AS IS PARTICULARLY THE CUSTOM WHEN PERSONAL LIBERTY
HINGES ON THE DETERMINATION, THE SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY AND THE
INDIVIDUAL INTEGRITY BY WHICH MEN JUDGE MEN. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  H.R. DOC. NO. 242, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1947); 93 CONG. REC.
4977(1947). 

FN2  61 STAT. 696, 700.  SEE INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON
EXPENDITURES, INVESTIGATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES LOYALTY PROGRAM, S.
REP. NO. 1775, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1948). 

FN3  FEDERAL PERSONNEL MANUAL I2-4.  IN A PRESS RELEASE DATED
NOVEMBER 7, 1947, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ANNOUNCED THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD.  A STATEMENT OF THE BOARD WITH
RESPECT TO ITS REGULATIONS WAS PUBLISHED ON JANUARY 20, 1948.  13 FED.
REG. 253. 

FN4  "MR. MCCABE:  YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE GOVERNMENT LOYALTY OATH
INVESTIGATION? 

"JUROR HOLFORD:  I BELIEVE I AM.  I HAVE HEARD SOMETHING OF IT. 

"MR. MCCABE:  DO YOU FEEL THAT RENDERING A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY IN
THIS CASE, IF YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION, IT WOULD STOP YOU, ANY
CRITICISM OR EMBARRASSMENT AMONG YOUR FELLOW EMPLOYEES? 

"JUROR HOLFORD:  NONE WHATSOEVER. 

"MR. MCCABE:  OR BY YOUR SUPERIORS? 

"JUROR HOLFORD:  NO. 

"MR. MCCABE:  YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ANY THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE TAKEN AS
EVIDENCE OF FRIENDLINESS TO COMMUNISM? 

"JUROR HOLFORD:  NO; I AM NOT WORRIED ABOUT MY JOB THAT WAY." 

     .     .         .         .         . 

"MR. MCCABE:  NOW, MR. JONES, YOU HAVE HEARD, HAVE YOU, OF THE
LOYALTY TEST OR LOYALTY INVESTIGATION WHICH IS GOING ON TO TEST THE
LOYALTY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES?  HAVE YOU HEARD OF THAT? 

"MR. JONES:  YES, I HAVE. 

"MR. MCCABE:  ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE TESTS THAT
MIGHT DISQUALIFY OR PREVENT YOU FROM GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT IS FRIENDLY
ASSOCIATION WITH ANY COMMUNIST PERSON OR ANY COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS? 

"MR. JONES:  THAT WOULD NOT.  I AM A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE.  I HAVE
TAKEN AN EXAMINATION FOR MY JOB. 

"MR. MCCABE:  YES.  ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT, DESPITE ANY CIVIL
SERVICE PROTECTION, STILL A FINDING THAT YOU WERE IN FRIENDLY
ASSOCIATION WITH ANY COMMUNIST OR COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION WOULD RENDER
YOU INELIGIBLE TO CONTINUE IN YOUR GOVERNMENT POSITION? 

"MR. JONES:  IT WOULD NOT. 

"MR. MCCABE:  WHAT? 

"MR. JONES:  IT WOULD NOT." 

THE REPLIES OF THE OTHER JURORS WERE IN A SIMILAR VEIN. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THE OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 
HE READS THE COURT'S DECISION TO MEAN THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES MAY BE
BARRED FOR IMPLIED BIAS WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PROPERLY BROUGHT TO THE
COURT'S ATTENTION WHICH CONVINCE THE COURT THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
WOULD NOT BE SUITABLE JURORS IN A PARTICULAR CASE.  ABSENT SUCH A
SHOWING, HOWEVER, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BE BARRED FROM JURY
SERVICE MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 

IN BUT TWO WAYS COULD THE COURT AVOID AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF
DENNIS.  ONE IS TO RESCIND THE GENERAL RULE ESTABLISHED IN FRAZIER V.
UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 497, THAT A JURY IS, IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW
"IMPARTIAL," EVEN WHEN ENTIRELY COMPOSED OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  THE
OTHER IS TO RETAIN, AND THEREBY STRENGTHEN, THAT GENERAL RULE BUT
CREATE A SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR COMMUNISTS. 

I ADHERE WITH INCREASING CONVICTION TO MY DISSENT IN FRAZIER V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 514.  THE COURT THERE DUG A PIT DANGEROUS FOR
CIVIL LIBERTIES.  THE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL IS THE RIGHT THAT STANDS
GUARDIAN OVER ALL OTHER RIGHTS.  REFERENCE TO THE REPORTS WILL SHOW
WHAT OTHERWISE ONE WOULD NOT BELIEVE:  THAT THE COURT, BY A BARE
MAJORITY, HELD IT TO BE ENTIRELY FAIR TO TRY A PERSON BEFORE A JURY
CONSISTING SOLELY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, PLUS THE FACT THAT ONE JUROR
AND THE WIFE OF ANOTHER WORKED IN THE OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD
RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW CHARGED TO BE VIOLATED.  THE
COMMON INSTINCT OF MEN FOR FAIR DEALING AND THE EXPERIENCE OF TRIAL
LAWYERS ALIKE REJECT THIS HOLDING.  WHENEVER ANY MAJORITY CAN BE
MUSTERED TO OVERRULE THAT WEIRD AND MISGUIDED DECISION, I SHALL BE ONE
OF IT. 

BUT THE WAY FOR THE COURT TO GET OUT OF THE HOLE IT FELL INTO WITH
FRAZIER IS NOT TO DIG ANOTHER AND WORSE ONE.  WE ARE ACTUALLY URGED TO
HOLD THAT THE KIND OF JURY A DEFENDANT MAY HAVE DEPENDS UPON HIS
POLITICAL OPINIONS OR AFFILIATIONS.  THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH DENNIS WAS
TRIED WAS CONTEMPT OF A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS.  THAT IS NOT AN OFFENSE
THAT TOUCHES THE IMMEDIATE SECURITY OF THE NATION.  NOR DOES GUILT OR
INNOCENCE DEPEND UPON DEFENDANT'S POLITICAL VIEWS OR PARTY MEMBERSHIP. 
OF COURSE, HE IS, AND THE JURY WAS BOUND TO LEARN THAT HE IS, A
PROMINENT FIGURE IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  BUT THE SAME ACTS WOULD BE
THE SAME OFFENSE IF HE WERE AN ORTHODOX DEMOCRAT.  THE SOLE GROUND FOR
CREATING AN EXEMPTION FROM THE FRAZIER RULE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS A
COMMUNIST, AND COMMUNISTS ARE NOW EXCEEDINGLY UNPOPULAR IN WASHINGTON. 
I AGREE THAT THIS HIGHLIGHTS THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE FRAZIER RULE AND
PROVIDES REASON FOR OVERRULING IT; BUT I DO NOT AGREE THAT IT JUSTIFIES
THE PROPOSED EXCEPTION TO THAT DECISION. 

THE FRAZIER DOCTRINE WAS PROMULGATED BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT WHICH
WELL KNEW THAT ITS RULE WOULD APPLY TO THIS TYPE OF CASE AND IN THESE
TIMES.  THAT DECISION WAS HANDED DOWN ON DECEMBER 20, 1948, WITH THIS
PRESENT CASE JUST AROUND THE CORNER.  DENNIS HAD ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED
AND HIS CONVICTION HAD BEEN AFFIRMED IN HIGHLY PUBLICIZED PROCEEDINGS
OCCURRING ONLY A FEW CITY BLOCKS FROM US; AND HIS PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI HAD BEEN FILED IN THIS COURT.  THE FOUR OF US DISSENTING IN
FRAZIER WARNED SPECIFICALLY THAT THE GOVERNMENT IN THESE TIMES IS USING
ITS POWER AS NEVER BEFORE TO PRY INTO LIVES AND THOUGHTS OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.  ALL THAT IS URGED NOW IS MORE OF THE SAME AND THERE IS
NOTHING IN THIS SITUATION THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE
CONTEMPLATION OF THE COURT WHEN THE FRAZIER CASE WAS DECIDED THE WAY IT
WAS.  THE PROPOSAL NOW IS A PARTIAL REPEAL - FOR COMMUNISTS ONLY. 

COURTS SHOULD GIVE TO A COMMUNIST EVERY RIGHT AND ADVANTAGE THAT THEY
GIVE TO ANY DEFENDANT.  BUT IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT BEING A COMMUNIST
CAN ENTITLE A DEFENDANT TO MORE.  LET US PICTURE THE PROPOSAL IN
OPERATION.  TWO DEFENDANTS ARE BROUGHT TO TRIAL FOR CONTEMPT OF
CONGRESS.  ONE, A COMMUNIST, HAS DEFIED THE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
COMMITTEE.  THE OTHER, A REPUBLICAN, HAS DEFIED THE COMMITTEE
INVESTIGATING THE STATE DEPARTMENT.  BOTH MAKE WELL-FOUNDED CLAIMS THAT
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT IS HOSTILE TO THEM; BOTH ASK TO
EXCLUDE ITS EMPLOYEES FROM THE JURY SO THEY MAY BE TRIED BY PERSONS
UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO THEIR ADVERSARIES.  THE PROPOSAL IS THAT THE
TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD GRANT THE MOTION OF THE COMMUNIST AND DENY THAT OF
THE REPUBLICAN.  WHAT THEN BECOMES OF EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW? 

IT IS TRUE THAT COMMUNISTS ARE THE CURRENT PROBIA IN WASHINGTON.  BUT
ALWAYS, SINCE I CAN REMEMBER, SOME GROUP OR OTHER IS BEING INVESTIGATED
AND CASTIGATED HERE.  AT VARIOUS TIMES IT HAS BEEN BUNDISTS AND
GERMANS, JAPANESE, LOBBYISTS, TAX EVADERS, OIL MEN, UTILITY MEN,
BANKERS, BROKERS, LABOR LEADERS, SILVER SHIRTS AND FASCISTS.  AT TIMES,
USUALLY AFTER DRAMATIC AND PUBLICIZED EXPOSURES, MEMBERS OF THESE
GROUPS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TRIAL FOR SOME OFFENSE.  I THINK THAT NONE
OF THEM AT SUCH TIMES EVER SHOULD BE FORCED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S ACCUSATIONS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT'S
EMPLOYEES.  BUT SO LONG AS ACCUSED PERSONS WHO ARE REPUBLICANS,
DIXIECRATS, SOCIALISTS, OR DEMOCRATS MUST PUT UP WITH SUCH A JURY, IT
WILL HAVE TO DO FOR COMMUNISTS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE PETITIONER, DENNIS, WAS CONVICTED OF WILFULLY REFUSING TO GIVE
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES.  THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM WAS EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG.  BUT NO MATTER HOW
STRONG THAT EVIDENCE, HE HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE IT PASSED
ON BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY.  FN1  NO JUROR CAN MEET THE TEST OF
"IMPARTIALITY" IF HE HAS GOOD REASON TO FEAR THAT A VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL
WOULD SUBJECT HIM TO HARASSING INVESTIGATIONS AND PERHAPS COST HIM HIS
JOB.  ON THIS GROUND THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CALLED FOR JURY DUTY WERE
CHALLENGED FOR CAUSE BY PETITIONER.  I AM CONVINCED THAT DENIAL OF THIS
CHALLENGE DEPRIVED DENNIS OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY. 

ALTHOUGH EACH JUROR ASSERTED THAT HE OR SHE COULD VOTE FOR ACQUITTAL
WITHOUT FEAR OF ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES, THAT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF IMPARTIALITY.  THE TEST OF BIAS SUFFICIENT TO
EXCLUDE A JUROR FOR CAUSE IS NOT WHAT THE PARTICULAR JUROR BELIEVES HE
COULD DO. LONG AGO CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL RULED THAT A PERSON "MAY
DECLARE THAT HE FEELS NO PREJUDICE IN THE CASE, AND YET THE LAW
CAUTIOUSLY INCAPACITATES HIM FROM SERVING ON THE JURY; BECAUSE IT
SUSPECTS PREJUDICE; BECAUSE IN GENERAL, PERSONS IN A SIMILAR SITUATION,
WOULD FEEL PREJUDICE."  1 BURR'S TRIAL 414, 415, 25 FED. CAS. 14,692G,
AT P. 50.  AND THIS COURT, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT PERSONS OF THE
"HIGHEST HONOR AND GREATEST SELF-SACRIFICE" WOULD NOT BE INFLUENCED BY
FEAR OF FINANCIAL LOSSES, HAS SAID THAT "EVERY PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD
OFFER A POSSIBLE TEMPTATION TO THE AVERAGE MAN AS A JUDGE  ...  NOT TO
HOLD THE BALANCE NICE, CLEAR AND TRUE BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE
ACCUSED, DENIES THE LATTER DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  TUMEY V. OHIO, 273
U.S. 510, 532.  FN2 

WE DID NOT DEPART FROM THE "AVERAGE MAN" TEST IN UNITED STATES V.
WOOD, 299 U.S. 123, OR FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 497.  THOSE
CASES INVOLVED CONVICTIONS FOR THEFT AND DOPE-PEDDLING.  THEY DID HOLD
THAT PROOF OF MERE GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYMENT WAS NOT ENOUGH, STANDING
ALONE, AUTOMATICALLY TO IMPUTE DISQUALIFYING BIAS IN EVERY CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  BUT BOTH OPINIONS
CLEARLY INDICATED THAT "PARTICULAR ISSUES OR CIRCUMSTANCES" MIGHT
REQUIRE EXCLUSION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO ASSURE AN
IMPARTIAL JURY.  FN3  IN COMPLETE HARMONY WITH THE PRINCIPLE DECLARED
IN THE BURR AND TUMEY CASES, OUR WOOD OPINION CAUTIONED THAT A
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE COULD BE DISQUALIFIED IF "IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OR
CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, OR OF THE RELATION OF THE PARTICULAR
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY TO THE MATTERS INVOLVED IN THE PROSECUTION, OR
OTHERWISE, HE HAD ACTUAL BIAS  ...  "  FN4  299 U.S. AT 134.  AND THE
FRAZIER OPINION EMPHASIZED THAT THESE FACTORS WOULD SUPPORT
DISQUALIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOR "ACTUAL BIAS" WITHOUT
PROOF OF "PREJUDICE IN THE SUBJECTIVE SENSE."  335 U.S. AT 510-11, N.
19. 

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TYPE SUPPORTING DISQUALIFICATION UNDER
THESE DECISIONS ARE, IN MY JUDGMENT, CLEARLY SHOWN BY THIS RECORD.  THE
DIFFICULTY OF SECURING AN IMPARTIAL JURY AT ALL IS REVEALED BY THE
NUMBER OF POTENTIAL JURORS WHO FELT THAT DENNIS'S POSITION AS SECRETARY
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD ALONE PREVENT THEIR GIVING
HIM A FAIR TRIAL.  FN5  AND THE PREVAILING PATTERN OF LOYALTY
INVESTIGATIONS AND THREATENED PURGES MAKES IT WHOLLY UNREALISTIC TO
EXPECT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO ENTER THE JURY BOX WITH THAT QUALITY OF
DISINTERESTEDNESS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE IMPARTIALITY. 

THE REASONS URGED FOR DISQUALIFYING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WERE FIRST
PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL COURT IN AN AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE.  THE SWORN ALLEGATIONS OF THAT AFFIDAVIT
WERE NEVER DENIED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IN ESSENCE, THE AFFIDAVIT POINTED
OUT THAT ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WERE UNDER CONSTANT SCRUTINY BY VARIOUS
AGENCIES AND CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES FOR POSSIBLE SYMPATHY WITH
COMMUNISTS OR WITH AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS; THAT UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER
9835, ISSUED FOLLOWING VIGOROUS DEMANDS BY THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
WHICH HAD INITIATED THE PROSECUTION OF DENNIS, ANY OF THESE EMPLOYEES
WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF A "LOYALTY TEST" REVEALED "REASONABLE GROUNDS"
FOR BELIEF THAT HE WAS DISLOYAL; THAT MEMBERS OF THE SAME COMMITTEE HAD
STATED THAT ANYTHING LESS THAN IMPOSITION OF MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT ON
DENNIS WOULD EXPOSE THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR TO CHARGES OF
DISLOYAL SYMPATHY WITH COMMUNISM; FN6  AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY A VOTE FOR
ACQUITTAL WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE JOB OF ANY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SO
VOTING.  FN7  PETITIONER AGAIN CITED THE "LOYALTY TEST" IN CHALLENGING
FOR CAUSE ALL GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES CALLED AS JURORS, ALTHOUGH HE DID
NOT BOTHER TO REARGUE THE FACTS BECAUSE HIS REASONS WERE "CLEAR TO US
ALL."  THUS PETITIONER CALLED THE TRIAL JUDGE'S ATTENTION TO
SUBSTANTIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CHALLENGES.    TO SAY THAT
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES COULD MEET OBJECTIVE TESTS OF COMPLETE
IMPARTIALITY IN THE TRIAL OF CASES LIKE THIS IS TO DISREGARD HUMAN
NATURE.  PROBABLY AT NO PERIOD OF THE NATION'S HISTORY HAS THE
"LOYALTY" OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BEEN SUBJECTED TO SUCH CONSTANT
SCRUTINY AND INVESTIGATION BY SO MANY GOVERNMENT AGENTS AND SECRET
INFORMERS.  AND FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS PRESS AND RADIO HAVE BEEN
CROWDED WITH CHARGES BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS AND OTHERS THAT THE
WRITINGS, FRIENDSHIPS, OR ASSOCIATIONS OF SOME GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE HAVE
BRANDED HIM "DISLOYAL."  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE GOOD REASON TO FEAR
THAT AN HONEST VOTE TO ACQUIT A COMMUNIST OR ANYONE ELSE ACCUSED OF
"SUBVERSIVE" BELIEFS, HOWEVER FLIMSY THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE, MIGHT
BE CONSIDERED A "DISLOYAL" ACT WHICH COULD EASILY COST THEM THEIR JOB. 
THAT VOTE ALONE WOULD IN ALL PROBABILITY EVOKE CLAMOROUS DEMANDS THAT
HE BE PUBLICLY INVESTIGATED OR DISCHARGED OUTRIGHT; AT THE VERY LEAST
IT WOULD RESULT IN WHISPERINGS, SUSPICIONS, AND A BLEMISHED
REPUTATION. 

IN THE WOOD CASE THIS COURT REGARDED AS "FAR-FETCHED AND CHIMERICAL"
THE SUGGESTION THAT NO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE COULD HAVE VOTED FOR
ACQUITTAL OF THEFT WITHOUT ENDANGERING HIS JOB.  I AGREE.  BUT UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE IT SEEMS EQUALLY "FAR-FETCHED AND CHIMERICAL" TO
SUGGEST THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, HOWEVER CONVINCED OF INNOCENCE,
WOULD FEEL COMPLETELY FREE TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH
DISOBEYING A COMMAND OF THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES.  MY
BELIEF IS THAT NO DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH SUCH AN OFFENSE, WHATEVER HIS
POLITICAL AFFILIATION, SHOULD BE FORCED TO ACCEPT A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
AS A JUROR.  NOR SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT WANT SUCH AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. 
OF COURSE THIS ADVANTAGE MAKES CONVICTIONS EASIER.  THAT IS PRECISELY
WHAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.  IT COMMANDS
IMPARTIALITY IN THE JURY-BOX.  IMPARTIALITY CANNOT SURVIVE IN THE
SHADOW OF THREATS TO A JUROR'S REPUTATION AND LIVELIHOOD. 

FN1  THE SIXTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH CRIMES
IN FEDERAL COURTS "SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO  ...  TRIAL, BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY."  AND SEE TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S. 510, 535: "NO MATTER
WHAT THE EVIDENCE WAS AGAINST HIM, HE HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN
IMPARTIAL JUDGE."  THIS CASE RELATED TO FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF A MAYOR
TRYING DEFENDANTS, BUT THE PRINCIPLES THERE DECLARED ARE EQUALLY
APPLICABLE TO JURORS WHO MUST JUDGE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF A
DEFENDANT. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  IN THE FRAZIER CASE ONE JUROR AND THE WIFE OF ANOTHER WERE
EMPLOYED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, WHICH WAS CHARGED WITH
ENFORCING THE ANTI-NARCOTIC LAWS.  THIS COURT DID NOT DECIDE WHETHER
SUCH EMPLOYMENT WOULD DISTINGUISH THESE JURORS FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES SUFFICIENTLY TO SUPPORT A TIMELY CHALLENGE, BECAUSE THE ONLY
SPECIAL CHALLENGE RAISING THIS GROUND WAS BELATEDLY MADE IN A MOTION
FOR NEW TRIAL. 

FN4  THE COURT ALSO STATED THAT BIAS COULD NOT BE IMPUTED "SIMPLY BY
VIRTUE OF GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY ACTUAL
PARTIALITY GROWING OUT OF THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF PARTICULAR
CASES."  299 U.S. AT 149. 

FN5  THE DIFFICULTY OF OBTAINING AN IMPARTIAL JURY IN CASES WHERE
POPULAR INDIGNATION IS AROUSED BECAME MANIFEST DURING WORLD WAR I.
JUDGE AMIDON, A VETERAN TRIER OF ESPIONAGE ACT CASES, DESCRIBED HIS
EXPERIENCES AS FOLLOWS: 

"FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS AFTER JUNE 15, 1917, I TRIED WAR CASES
BEFORE JURYMEN WHO WERE CANDID, SOBER, INTELLIGENT BUSINESS MEN, WHOM I
HAD KNOWN FOR THIRTY YEARS, AND WHO UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD
HAVE HAD THE HIGHEST RESPECT FOR MY DECLARATIONS OF LAW, BUT DURING
THAT PERIOD THEY LOOKED BACK INTO MY EYES WITH THE SAVAGERY OF WILD
ANIMALS, SAYING BY THEIR MANNER, 'AWAY WITH THIS TWIDDLING, LET US GET
AT HIM.'  MEN BELIEVED DURING THAT PERIOD THAT THE ONLY VERDICT IN A
WAR CASE, WHICH COULD SHOW LOYALTY, WAS A VERDICT OF GUILTY."  QUOTED
IN CHAFEE, FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES 70(1941 ED.). 

FN6  IN THIS CONNECTION THE AFFIDAVIT ASSERTED THAT COMMITTEE MEMBERS
"HAVE STATED OPENLY ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT
THEY DEMAND A PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION OF, AND THE IMPOSITION OF THE
MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT ON THIS DEFENDANT.  THEY HAVE CHARGED THAT ANYTHING
LESS WOULD OPEN THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR TO A CHARGE OF
DISLOYALTY, AND SYMPATHY TO COMMUNISM." 

IN ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND AN
ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCES, COUNSEL ELABORATED ON ONE FACET
OF THIS CHARGE BY READING FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD A COLLOQUY
BETWEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE AND OTHER CONGRESSMEN.  THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE COLLOQUY WAS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD BE IMPEACHED
UNLESS HE OBTAINED QUICK TRIALS OF DENNIS AND OTHERS CHARGED WITH
CONTEMPT BY THE COMMITTEE.  93 CONG. REC. 3815-3816. 

FN7  THE AFFIDAVIT READ IN PART:  "THE ENORMOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER REFERRED TO ABOVE MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO
SECURE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR A
LEADER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM
IS LAID BY THE COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES.  THE FINDING OF
DISLOYALTY INVOLVES NOT ONLY DISCHARGE FROM EMPLOYMENT BUT A PERMANENT
BRANDING AS A DISLOYAL AND UNDESIRABLE PERSON, ENDANGERING THE
POSSIBILITY OF EARNING A LIVELIHOOD IN THE FUTURE.  NO INDIVIDUAL CAN
BE EXPECTED LIGHTLY TO TAKE THE RISK OF INCURRING SUCH CONSEQUENCES TO
HIMSELF, HIS FAMILY AND HIS ASSOCIATES.  THE MEANING OF 'SYMPATHETIC
ASSOCIATION' IS UNDEFINED IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND THERE IS NO
ASSURANCE THAT IT MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
INCLUDE A RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHTS OF A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY.  AND EVEN IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIMSELF WOULD NOT SO CONSTRUE
IT, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ASSUME THAT PERSONS SELECTED FOR JURY DUTY WILL
RUN THE RISK OF A CHARGE OF SYMPATHY WITH COMMUNISM FLOWING FROM VOTING
FOR AN ACQUITTAL OF SO PROMINENT A LEADER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

ACQUIESCENCE IN A PRECEDENT DOES NOT REQUIRE APPROVAL OF ITS
EXTENSION.  ALTHOUGH I ADHERE TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON FOR THE MINORITY IN FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 497,
514, I DO NOT URGE THAT IT BE OVERRULED.  BUT IN ABIDING BY IT I NEED
NOT ASSENT TO ENLARGING THE AREAS OF ITS UNDESIRABILITY.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND FOR TRIAL BY AN "IMPARTIAL JURY" CASTS UPON THE
JUDICIARY THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT IN DETERMINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH PRECLUDE THAT FREE, FEARLESS AND DISINTERESTED CAPACITY IN
ANALYZING EVIDENCE WHICH IS INDISPENSABLE IF JURYMEN ARE TO DEAL
IMPARTIALLY WITH AN ACCUSATION.  THE JUDGMENT THAT A COURT MUST THUS
EXERCISE IN FINDING "DISQUALIFICATION FOR BIAS" OF PERSONS WHO BELONG
TO A PARTICULAR CLASS IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL JUDGMENT.  IT IS A JUDGMENT
FOUNDED ON HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND NOT ON TECHNICAL LEARNING.  AND SO IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT MERELY BECAUSE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE NOT
AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFIED AS JURORS IN EVERY PROSECUTION IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THEY SHOULD NOT BE DISQUALIFIED IN PROSECUTIONS
THAT ARE DEEMED TO CONCERN THE SECURITY OF THE NATION. 

THE REASON FOR DISQUALIFYING A WHOLE CLASS ON THE GROUND OF BIAS IS
THE LAW'S RECOGNITION THAT IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CLASS IN THE
RUN OF INSTANCES ARE LIKELY TO GENERATE BIAS, CONSCIOUSLY OR
UNCONSCIOUSLY, IT WOULD BE A HOPELESS ENDEAVOR TO SEARCH OUT THE IMPACT
OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE MIND AND JUDGMENT OF A PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUAL.  THAT IS THE REASON WHY THE INFLUENCES OF CONSANGUINITY OR
OF FINANCIAL INTEREST ARE NOT INDIVIDUALLY CANVASSED.  LAW AS A
RESPONSE TO LIFE RECOGNIZES THE OPERATION OF SUCH INFLUENCES EVEN
THOUGH NOT CONSCIOUSLY OR CLEARLY ENTERTAINED.  THE APPEARANCE OF
IMPARTIALITY IS AN ESSENTIAL MANIFESTATION OF ITS REALITY.  THIS IS THE
BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL REASON WHY THE FOUNDERS OF THIS COUNTRY GAVE THE
JUDICIARY AN UNLIMITED TENURE.  IMPARTIALITY REQUIRES INDEPENDENCE, AND
INDEPENDENCE, THE FRAMERS REALIZED, REQUIRES FREEDOM FROM THE EFFECT OF
THOSE "OCCASIONAL ILLHUMORS IN THE SOCIETY," WHICH AS ALEXANDER
HAMILTON PUT IT IN THE FEDERALIST ARE "THE INFLUENCE OF PARTICULAR
CONJUNCTURES."  THE FEDERALIST, NO. 78 AT 400(BELOFF ED. 1948). 

ONE OF THE GREATEST OF JUDGES HAS ASSURED US THAT "JUDGES ARE APT TO
BE NAIF, SIMPLE-MINDED MEN."  HOLMES, COLLECTED LEGAL PAPERS 295.  ONLY
NAIVETE COULD BE UNMINDFUL OF THE FORCE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS SET FORTH
BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, AND KNOWN OF ALL MEN.  THERE IS A PERVASIVENESS
OF ATMOSPHERE IN WASHINGTON WHEREBY FORCES ARE RELEASED IN RELATION TO
JURORS WHO MAY BE DEEMED SUPPORTERS OF AN ACCUSED UNDER A CLOUD OF
DISLOYALTY THAT ARE EMOTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH COME INTO
PLAY IN RELATION TO JURORS DEALING WITH OFFENSES WHICH IN THEIR
IMPLICATIONS DO NOT TOUCH THE SECURITY OF THE NATION.  CONSIDERING THE
SITUATION IN WHICH MEN OF POWER AND INFLUENCE FIND THEMSELVES THROUGH
SUCH ALLEGED ASSOCIATIONS, IT IS ASKING MORE OF HUMAN NATURE IN
ORDINARY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THAN HISTORY WARRANTS TO ASK THEM TO
EXERCISE THAT "UNCOMMON PORTION OF FORTITUDE" WHICH THE FOUNDERS OF
THIS NATION THOUGHT JUDGES COULD EXERCISE ONLY IF GIVEN A LIFE TENURE. 
THE FEDERALIST, SUPRA. 

A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OUGHT NOT TO BE ASKED WHETHER HE WOULD FEEL
FREE TO DECIDE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN CASES THAT TO THE COMMON
UNDERSTANDING INVOLVE DISLOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY.  QUESTIONS OUGHT NOT
TO BE PUT TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS THAT OFFER NO FAIR CHOICE FOR ANSWER. 
MEN OUGHT NOT TO BE ASKED IN EFFECT WHETHER THEY ARE BRAVE OR WHOLLY
INDIFFERENT TO THE ENVELOPING ATMOSPHERE.  THEY SHOULD NOT BE ASKED TO
CONFESS THAT THEY ARE WEAKLINGS NOR SHOULD IT BE ASSUMED THAT THEY ARE
FULLY CONSCIOUS OF ALL THE PRESSURES THAT MAY MOVE THEM.  THEY MAY NOT
KNOW WHAT JUDGES OF CONSIDERABLE FORENSIC EXPERIENCE KNOW, THAT ONE
CANNOT HAVE CONFIDENT KNOWLEDGE OF INFLUENCES THAT MAY PLAY AND PREY
UNCONSCIOUSLY UPON JUDGMENT.  SEE, E.G., MR. JUSTICE OLIVER IN REX V.
DAVIES, (1945) 1 K.B. 435, 445.  THE WELL-KNOWN OBSERVATIONS OF MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES ON THESE PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES ARE HERE PERTINENT:
"THIS IS NOT A MATTER FOR POLITE PRESUMPTIONS; WE MUST LOOK FACTS IN
THE FACE.  ANY JUDGE WHO HAS SAT WITH JURIES KNOWS THAT IN SPITE OF
FORMS THEY ARE EXTREMELY LIKELY TO BE IMPREGNATED BY THE ENVIRONING
ATMOSPHERE."  FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 345, 349.  NOR IS IT
IRRELEVANT TO NOTE THAT WE ARE LIVING IN A TIME WHEN INROADS HAVE BEEN
MADE ON THE SECRECY OF THE JURY ROOM SO THAT, UPON FAILURE TO AGREE,
JURORS ARE SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT TO DISCLOSE THEIR POSITION IN THE
JURY ROOM.  OUGHT WE TO EXPOSE OUR ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
TO SITUATIONS WHEREBY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MUST CONTEMPLATE INQUISITIONS
INTO THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY DISCHARGED THEIR JUROR'S OATH? 

TO CONCLUDE THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE NOT DISQUALIFIED IN
PROSECUTIONS INHERENTLY TOUCHING THE SECURITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, AT A
TIME WHEN PUBLIC FEELING ON THESE MATTERS IS NOTORIOUSLY RUNNING HIGH,
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IPSO FACTO DISQUALIFIED FROM SITTING IN A
PROSECUTION AGAINST A DRUG ADDICT OR A PETTY THIEF, IS TO SAY THAT
THINGS THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT ARE THE SAME.  THE DOCTRINE OF THE
FRAZIER CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH DISREGARD OF THE RELEVANT.  TO
RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF WHAT IS CHARACTERIZED AS A PHOBIA AGAINST A
PARTICULAR GROUP IS NOT TO DISCRIMINATE IN ITS FAVOR.  IF A PARTICULAR
GROUP, NO MATTER WHAT ITS BELIEFS, IS UNDER PRESSURE OF POPULAR
HOSTILITY, EXCLUSION OF POTENTIAL JURORS PECULIARLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO SUCH
PRESSURE IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF REGARD FOR POLITICAL OPINIONS BUT
RECOGNITION BY LAW OF THE FACTS OF LIFE.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
BECAUSE MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT BUT RESPECTED POLITICAL PARTIES CAN SIT IN
JUDGMENT UPON ONE ANOTHER WHERE PUNISHMENT IS INVOLVED, ALL MEMBERS OF
SUCH PARTIES, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR RELATION TO AN OPERATING BIAS, CAN
FREELY AND FAIRLY SIT IN JUDGMENT UPON THOSE BELONGING TO AN OSTRACIZED
GROUP. 

LET THERE BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING.  TO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF A
GROUP WHOSE VIEWS ARE FEARED AND DESPISED BY THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE
DOES NOT EVEN REMOTELY IMPLY ANY SUPPORT OF THAT GROUP.  TO TAKE
APPROPRIATE MEASURES IN ORDER TO AVERT INJUSTICE EVEN TOWARDS A MEMBER
OF A DESPISED GROUP IS TO ENFORCE JUSTICE.  IT IS NOT TO PLAY
FAVORITES.  THE BOAST OF OUR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS THAT IT PROTECTS AN
ACCUSED, SO FAR AS LEGAL PROCEDURE CAN, FROM A BIAS OPERATING AGAINST
SUCH A GROUP TO WHICH HE BELONGS.  THIS PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE ENFORCED
WHATEVER THE TENETS OF THE GROUP - WHETHER THE OLD LOCOFOCOS OR THE
KNOW-NOTHINGS, THE KU KLUX KLAN OR THE COMMUNISTS.  THIS IS NOT TO
CODDLE COMMUNISTS BUT TO RESPECT OUR PROFESSIONS OF EQUAL JUSTICE TO
ALL.  IT WAS A WISE MAN WHO SAID THAT THERE IS NO GREATER INEQUALITY
THAN THE EQUAL TREATMENT OF UNEQUALS. 

WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SOMETHING FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN SUSTAINING A
PARTICULAR CONVICTION.  MANY AND CONFLICTING ARE THE CRITERIA BY WHICH
A SOCIETY IS TO BE DEEMED GOOD, BUT PERHAPS NO TEST IS MORE REVEALING
THAN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ITS PUNITIVE JUSTICE.  NO SINGLE ASPECT OF
OUR SOCIETY IS MORE PRECIOUS AND MORE DISTINCTIVE THAN THAT WE SEEK TO
ADMINISTER CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACCORDING TO MORALLY FASTIDIOUS STANDARDS. 
THESE REVEAL CONFIDENCE IN OUR INSTITUTIONS, RESPECT FOR REASON, AND
LOYALTY TO OUR PROFESSIONS OF FAIRNESS.  THE POWERFUL CLAIM IN BEHALF
OF OUR CIVILIZATION REPRESENTED BY OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE WILL
BE VINDICATED AND STRENGTHENED IF THOSE WHO IN THE POPULAR MIND APPEAR
TO THREATEN THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE TRIED BY CITIZENS
OTHER THAN THOSE IN THE IMMEDIATE EMPLOY OF THE GOVERNMENT AT THE SEAT
OF GOVERNMENT. 
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. U.S. SMELTING CO., 339 U.S. 186 


NO. 173.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 13-14, 1950.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1950.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER UNDER THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO FIX THE POINT AT WHICH LINE-HAUL OR CARRIER
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BEGINS AND ENDS.  PP. 190, 193, 197. 

2.  THE CONVENIENT POINTS AT WHICH LINE-HAUL OR CARRIER
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BEGINS AND ENDS ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION; AND ITS FINDINGS ON THOSE QUESTIONS WILL
NOT BE DISTURBED BY THE COURTS IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
P. 193. 

3.  IN THIS PROCEEDING, THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF THE POINTS
AT WHICH LINE-HAUL OR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BEGINS AND ENDS AT
THE SMELTING COMPANIES' PLANTS IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND
MUST BE SUSTAINED.  PP. 188-194. 

4.  WHEN THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED THE POINT AT WHICH LINE-HAUL
OR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BEGINS AND ENDS AT A PARTICULAR
PLANT, THE LINE-HAUL CHARGE THEREAFTER MUST BE TO THAT POINT AND NOT TO
A FURTHER POINT FIXED IN A CARRIER TARIFF, SINCE TRANSPORTATION TO THE
LATTER POINT AT THE LINE-HAUL RATE WOULD BE PREFERENTIAL AND WOULD
VIOLATE SEC. 6(7) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  PP. 194-197. 

5.  THE CONTENTION THAT TO REQUIRE THE CARRIERS TO CONFORM TO THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS IN THIS CASE WOULD REQUIRE THE SMELTING COMPANIES
TO PAY TWICE FOR THEIR SERVICES MISCONCEIVES THE SCOPE OF THIS
PROCEEDING, WHICH WAS SOLELY TO DEFINE WHAT IS EMBRACED IN LINE-HAUL
TRANSPORTATION, AND NOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHARGE MADE FOR THE
SERVICE WAS COMPENSATORY.  PP. 197-198. 

6.  THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO EXCLUDE RATE QUESTIONS FROM THIS
PROCEEDING.  P. 198. 

7.  THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO APPEAL FROM AN EARLIER JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND REMANDING THE CASE
TO THE COMMISSION (THE COURT HAVING FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN A COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE LINE-HAUL RATES WERE NOT
COMPENSATORY FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED) DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE
JUDGMENT HERE APPEALED FROM BE AFFIRMED UNDER THE RULE OF "LAW OF THE
CASE," SINCE THE EARLIER JUDGMENT WAS NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT.  PP. 198
199. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. UNITED STATES SMELTING REFINING & MINING CO.
ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
UTAH. 

IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE ORDERS UNLAWFUL AND
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, REVERSED, P. 199. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION INSTITUTED THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING
TO THE ORDERS HERE INVOLVED AS ITS SEVENTY-FIFTH AND SEVENTY-SIXTH
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS TO EX PARTE 104, PRACTICES OF CARRIERS AFFECTING
OPERATING REVENUES OR EXPENSES, PART II, TERMINAL SERVICES, 209 I.C.C.
11.  THE PROCEEDINGS CONCERNED THE SWITCHING AND SPOTTING SERVICES
RENDERED BY APPELLEE-CARRIERS AT THE GARFIELD AND MURRAY, UTAH, AND
LEADVILLE, COLORADO, PLANTS OF THE AMERICAN SMELTING COMPANY, AND THE
MIDVALE, UTAH, PLANT OF THE UNITED STATES SMELTING COMPANY.  EXTENSIVE
HEARINGS WERE HELD IN THESE SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING THE RESPECTIVE POINTS AT WHICH THE CARRIERS' LINE-HAUL
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ENDED AND THE EXTENT OF THE SERVICE THE CARRIERS
MIGHT RENDER IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO DELIVER THE
FREIGHT AT THESE FOUR PLANTS. 

IT WILL NOT BE NECESSARY TO DETAIL THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
EACH OF THE PLANTS INVOLVED HERE.  EACH HAS A RECEIVING YARD OR
INTERCHANGE TRACKS UPON WHICH INCOMING AND OUTGOING FREIGHT IS
SWITCHED.  BEYOND THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS SWITCHING SERVICES ARE
NUMEROUS AND EXTENSIVE WITHIN THE PLANTS.  THE GARFIELD PLANT MAY BE
DESCRIBED AS INDICATIVE OF THE SITUATION AT ALL THE PLANTS.  FN1 THERE,
FROZEN ORE IS HANDLED IN SIX DISTINCT MOVEMENTS.  A LARGE AMOUNT OF
INTRAPLANT SWITCHING IS DONE BY THE CARRIERS.  TO PERFORM THESE
SWITCHING SERVICES AT GARFIELD REQUIRES THREE TRAIN-CREW SHIFTS DAILY. 
IN ONE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD AT THIS PLANT, 22,982 CARLOADS OF INBOUND
AND 6,960 CARLOADS OF OUTBOUND FREIGHT WERE HANDLED. 

ON OCTOBER 14, 1946, THE COMMISSION ENTERED ITS FIRST ORDERS IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS, ENJOINING APPELLEE-CARRIERS FROM PERFORMING SWITCHING AND
SPOTTING SERVICE IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  ON
PETITION TO THE DISTRICT COURT, A STATUTORY THREE-JUDGE COURT SITTING,
THE ORDERS WERE HELD UNLAWFUL.  THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EACH
OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS WAS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE LINE-HAUL
RATES DID NOT COVER THE INTRAPLANT SERVICES, AND HELD THAT SUCH A
FINDING WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  IN ADDITION, THE COURT
FOUND THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NOT "PRESUMED TO EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY
WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE CONFERRED UNDER EX PARTE 104 IN THAT THE ORDER
MADE IS NOT SPECIFICALLY BASED UPON THAT AUTHORITY."  THE MATTER WAS
REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION "FOR SUCH ACTION AS IT MAY FIND JUSTIFIABLE
IN THE PREMISES," AND THE COMMISSION WAS "TEMPORARILY ENJOINED FROM
REQUIRING ITS FORMAL ORDER TO BE CARRIED INTO FORCE AND EFFECT  ...  "
THE COMMISSION ON REMAND REOPENED THE CASE BUT TOOK NO MORE EVIDENCE. 
IT RESTATED THE GROUND FOR ITS ACTION AND ENTERED CEASE AND DESIST
ORDERS AGAINST THE CARRIERS.  ON PETITION OF THE APPELLEES, THE
DISTRICT COURT AGAIN HELD THE ORDERS UNLAWFUL AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  IT IS FROM THIS JUDGMENT THAT THE COMMISSION AND
THE UNITED STATES HAVE APPEALED. 

THE COMMISSION UNDERTOOK ITS GENERAL INVESTIGATION, EX PARTE 104, IN
THE INTEREST OF ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM AND EQUAL SERVICE FOR SHIPPERS. 
THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT CARRIER OBLIGATION FOR TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE ENDS CUSTOMARILY WHEN DELIVERY IS MADE AT A CONVENIENT POINT ON
THE SIDING INSIDE OR OUTSIDE A CONSIGNEE'S PLANT.  THIS DELIVERY IS
SUCH AS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ONE CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT WITHOUT
"INTERRUPTION" OCCASIONED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE INDUSTRY, AND IS
ONLY THE EQUIVALENT OF TEAM TRACK OR SIMPLE PLACEMENT SWITCHING.  IN
THE COMMISSION'S VIEW AS DEVELOPED IN EX PARTE 104, SUCH A CONVENIENT
DELIVERY POINT MARKS THE BEGINNING AND END OF WHAT IS TERMED "LINE
HAUL" TRANSPORTATION, AND IS THE EXTENT OF THE SERVICE WHICH MAY BE
PERFORMED UNDER THE LINE-HAUL RATE.  THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE THE POINT WHERE TRANSPORTATION DUTY ENDS AND INDUSTRY
CONVENIENCE BEGINS WAS UPHELD BY THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S. 402.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION IN ITS APPLICATION OF EX PARTE 104 PRINCIPLES
TO PARTICULAR PLANTS WHERE IT HAS PROHIBITED THE PERFORMANCE OF
SERVICES BEYOND THE POINT FIXED UNDER A LINE-HAUL RATE.  FN2  IN
ISSUING CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS IN THESE CASES THE COMMISSION HAS ACTED
PURSUANT TO ITS DUTY TO ENFORCE SEC. 6(7) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, WHICH SECTION PROHIBITS DEPARTURE FROM FILED TARIFFS AND THE
RENDERING OF PREFERENTIAL SERVICES.  FN3 

AS STATED, THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS
TO DETERMINE THE BEGINNING AND END OF LINE-HAUL SERVICE AT APPELLEE
SMELTERS' PLANTS.  THE NEXT QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE SERVICE RENDERED
BY THE CARRIERS CONFORMED TO THE SERVICES DELIMITED BY THE COMMISSION. 
THUS THE COMMISSION, IN ITS PROCEEDINGS AFTER REMAND, WAS NOT CONCERNED
WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER REASONABLE RATES WERE IN FORCE, AS IT
EXPLAINED IN ITS SECOND REPORT IN THE AMERICAN SMELTING COMPANY CASE: 

"THE QUESTION OF THE REASONABLENESS OF PUBLISHED RATES OR OF CHARGES
THAT ARE OR MAY BE FIXED FOR PERFORMING INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CAN BE
DECIDED ONLY IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT, OR INVESTIGATION INSTITUTED,
UNDER DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  IT IS OUR PURPOSE TO MAKE IT
ENTIRELY CLEAR HERE THAT OUR ORDER HEREIN IS BASED SOLELY UPON OUR
FINDINGS HEREIN, WHICH IN TURN ARE BASED SOLELY UPON THE PRINCIPLES AND
AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPREME COURT IN OUR
ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS IN EX PARTE NO. 104, PART II, AND
THAT SAID ORDER IS NOT BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON ANY CONCLUSIONS
OR FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH TARIFF PROVISIONS OR TESTIMONY AS TO
WHETHER THE PUBLISHED RATES ARE REASONABLE AND DO OR DO NOT INCLUDE
COMPENSATION FOR SWITCHING WITHIN THE PLANT AREAS.  WE HEREBY REPUDIATE
ANY REFERENCE OR CONCLUSION TO THE CONTRARY CONVEYED BY OUR DISCUSSION
OR EVIDENCE RELATIVE TO SUCH QUESTIONS AND THE CONCLUSIONS BASED
THEREON IN OUR PRIOR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT HEREIN."  270 I.C.C. AT 362. 

WITH THAT CLEAR AND DISTINCT STATEMENT OF WHAT IT WAS DOING AND WHAT
IT WAS NOT DOING, THE COMMISSION MADE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH APPEAR
IN THE MARGIN.  FN4  THE ESSENTIAL PART OF THE FINDINGS IS THAT LINE
HAUL BEGAN AND ENDED AT THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS, KNOWN AS "ASSEMBLY
YARD" AT MIDVALE, THE PLANT OF UNITED STATES SMELTING, AND THE "PLANT
YARD" AT GARFIELD, "HOLD TRACKS" AT MURRAY, AND "FLAT YARD" AT
LEADVILLE, THE PLANTS OF AMERICAN SMELTING; THAT ALL SERVICES BEYOND
THESE POINTS WERE EXCESS SERVICES NOT REQUIRED OF THE CARRIER AS PART
OF ITS LINE-HAUL CARRIAGE; AND THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES BEYOND
THESE POINTS WITHOUT COMPENSATORY CHARGES RESULTS IN PREFERENTIAL
SERVICE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(7). 

THAT THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH THE POINT WHERE LINE
HAUL SERVICE BEGINS AND ENDS IS NOT TO BE DOUBTED.  THE QUESTION, IN
REVIEWING THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF THE CONVENIENT POINTS AT
WHICH LINE-HAUL OR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BEGINS AND ENDS, IS
WHETHER SUCH DETERMINATION IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,  FN5
AS THIS COURT SAID IN UNITED STATES V. WABASH R. CO., 321 U.S. 403,
408: 

"IN SUSTAINING THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, AS IN
RELATED CASES, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POINT IN TIME AND SPACE AT
WHICH THE CARRIER'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ENDS IS A QUESTION OF FACT
TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION AND NOT THE COURTS, AND THAT ITS
FINDINGS ON THAT QUESTION WILL NOT BE DISTURBED BY THE COURTS IF
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE." 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT THE CONVENIENT POINTS FOR THE BEGINNING AND
END OF LINE-HAUL WERE AT THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS, MORE SPECIFICALLY
CHARACTERIZED ABOVE.  THE COMMISSION HAD BEFORE IT THE EXTENSIVE RECORD
OF THE BASIC PROCEEDING, WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT HAVE,
TOGETHER WITH THE INSTANT SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS.  THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS WERE BASED IN PART ON THE TESTIMONY OF ITS EXPERTS WHO HAD
MADE PERSONAL SURVEYS AND OBSERVATIONS OF SWITCHING AND CAR MOVEMENTS
AT THESE PLANTS.  IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT EXTENSIVE
INTRAPLANT SERVICES WERE PERFORMED ON INSTRUCTIONS OF AND FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE APPELLEE-SMELTERS.  WHEN A CAR IS FOLLOWED THROUGH
ITS INTRAPLANT MOVEMENTS ON A MAP, IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT EXTENSIVE
SERVICES WERE PERFORMED IN EXCESS OF THOSE WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED AS
THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT OF LINE-HAUL IN EX PARTE 104.  THE COMMISSION'S
DESIGNATION OF THE CONVENIENT DELIVERY POINTS AT EACH OF THESE PLANTS
MUST BE SUSTAINED. 

THE CONTENTION OF APPELLEES IS THAT THERE ARE NOW IN EFFECT TARIFFS
THAT COMPENSATE FOR LINE-HAUL AND PLANT SERVICES.  THESE TARIFFS WILL
BE SEPARATELY DISCUSSED BELOW.  APPELLEES URGE THAT THE CARRIERS CANNOT
BE GUILTY OF VIOLATING SEC. 6(7) WHEN THEY ARE FULLY COMPENSATED FOR
CARRIER SERVICES IN LINE-HAUL AND PLANT SERVICES BEYOND THAT, SINCE THE
SMELTERS DO NOT THEN RECEIVE A PREFERENTIAL SERVICE NOT ACCORDED TO
SHIPPERS GENERALLY.  THE COROLLARY OF THIS CONTENTION IS THAT TO
REQUIRE PAYMENT FOR THE PLANT SERVICES IN ADDITION TO THE LINE-HAUL
RATES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS, WOULD BE TO REQUIRE
THE SMELTERS TO PAY TWICE FOR THE SERVICES. 

THIS COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE PREFERENCE INVOLVED IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS IS BASED UPON AN APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS DERIVED FROM
EX PARTE 104 TO THE UNIQUE CONDITIONS AT PARTICULAR PLANTS, A
PREFERENCE NECESSARILY RESULTING WHEN A SERVICE IS RENDERED "IN EXCESS
OF THAT WHICH THE CARRIERS ARE OBLIGED TO PERFORM BY THEIR TARIFFS." 
UNITED STATES V. WABASH R. CO., SUPRA, 412, 413.  IN CORN PRODUCTS
REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 790, THIS COURT AFFIRMED PER
CURIAM A DECISION UPHOLDING THE EXCLUSION, ON GROUNDS OF IRRELEVANCY,
OF EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF CARRIERS IN MAKING
DELIVERY TO OTHER SHIPPERS.  IF CUSTOM MAY NOT BE USED TO INTERPRET
"LINE-HAUL" AFTER DEMARCATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND INDUSTRY SERVICE BY
THE COMMISSION, WE THINK IT FOLLOWS THAT A CARRIER DEFINITION WRITTEN
INTO FILED TARIFFS DOES NOT MAKE IMPOTENT THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO
DEFINE THE POINT. 

A TARIFF, EFFECTIVE JUNE 25, 1938, IS CONSIDERED APPLICABLE ONLY TO
THE MIDVALE, GARFIELD, AND MURRAY PLANTS.  BY THIS TARIFF THE "LINE
HAUL RATE INCLUDES MOVEMENT OF LOADED CARS TO TRACK SCALES AND
SUBSEQUENT DELIVERY TO ANY DESIGNATED TRACK WITHIN THE PLANT WHICH CAN
BE ACCOMPLISHED BY ONE UNINTERRUPTED MOVEMENT  ...  FROM THE ROAD-HAUL
POINT OF DELIVERY TO THE SWITCHING LINE."  FN6  266 I.C.C. AT 353-354. 
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR OTHER SERVICES IN THE PLANTS. 

IF THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO FIX THE POINT AT WHICH LINE
HAUL BEGINS AND ENDS, AND WE HAVE HELD THAT IT HAS, AND IT DESIGNATES
POINT X, OBVIOUSLY THE CARRIERS CANNOT BY TARIFF FIX LINE-HAUL AT POINT
Y, A FURTHER POINT, AND EVEN ADD ONE SUBSEQUENT MOVEMENT.  THAT WOULD
DEPRIVE THE COMMISSION OF ITS RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE POINT.  IN THE
COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, DELIVERY TO
POINT X IS THE EQUIVALENT OF TEAM TRACK AND SIMPLE PLACEMENT SERVICE -
THE SERVICE OTHER SHIPPERS RECEIVE UNDER A LINE-HAUL RATE.  FOR THE
CARRIERS TO GIVE THE APPELLEE-SMELTERS SERVICE TO POINT Y PLUS 1 IS TO
ACCORD THEM SERVICE DIFFERENT FROM THAT GIVEN OTHER SHIPPERS UNDER EX
PARTE 104 AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS.  BY THE ORDERS IN THE INSTANT
CASES, LINE-HAUL IS TRANSLATED, AS IT WERE, INTO THE TARIFFS AS
BEGINNING AND ENDING WHERE THE COMMISSION FIXED IT AND NOT WHERE THE
APPELLEE-CARRIERS FIXED IT BY TARIFF.  THEREAFTER, THE CHARGE FOR LINE
HAUL MUST BE TO THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS AND NOT TO THE POINT FIXED IN
THE TARIFF.  TRANSPORTATION TO THE LATTER POINT AT THE LINE-HAUL RATE
WOULD BE PREFERENTIAL AND WOULD VIOLATE SEC. 6(7). 

THE TARIFF WHICH IS CONSIDERED BY APPELLEE-CARRIERS AS APPLICABLE
ONLY TO THE LEADVILLE PLANT IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN7  IT MAY BE
NOTED THAT THIS TARIFF DOES NOT PROVIDE, AS DOES THE 1938 TARIFF
APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER PLANTS, THAT THE LINE-HAUL RATE INCLUDES THE
INTRAPLANT SERVICES.  FURTHER, THE "MOVEMENT" SPECIFIED IN DELIVERY OF
A LINE-HAUL SHIPMENT INCLUDES NOT JUST ONE, AS PROVIDED BY THE 1938
TARIFF, BUT SEVERAL SWITCHING OPERATIONS WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS
CLASSIFIED AS "INTERRUPTED" TERMINAL SWITCHING SERVICES, PERFORMED FOR
THE CONVENIENCE OF THE INDUSTRY ONLY. 

THE COMMISSION HAS FIXED THE POINT AT WHICH LINE-HAUL OR
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ENDS AS THE "FLAT YARD" AT LEADVILLE AND FINDS
THERE ARE SERVICES PERFORMED BEYOND THIS POINT.  THESE INDUSTRY
SERVICES MUST BE SO COMPENSATED FOR, AND MAY NOT BE WRAPPED UP IN
DELIVERY OF A LINE-HAUL SHIPMENT.    "SINCE THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT
THE CARRIERS' SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION IS COMPLETE UPON DELIVERY TO
THE INDUSTRIES' INTERCHANGE TRACKS, AND THAT SPOTTING WITHIN THE PLANTS
IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SERVICE FOR WHICH THE LINE-HAUL RATES WERE
FIXED, THERE IS POWER TO ENJOIN THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT ADDITIONAL
SERVICE OR THE MAKING OF AN ALLOWANCE TO THE INDUSTRY WHICH PERFORMS
IT."  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S. 402,
408. 

OBVIOUSLY THE PLANT SERVICES AT LEADVILLE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE AT
MIDVALE, GARFIELD, AND MURRAY UNDER THE 1938 TARIFF, WHICH ONLY
EMPHASIZES THE WISDOM OF CONGRESS IN EMPOWERING THE COMMISSION TO FIX
THE POINT WHERE LINE-HAUL BEGINS AND ENDS WITH A VIEW TO GIVING ALL
SHIPPERS EQUIVALENT SERVICE.  THE COMMISSION HAS STANDARDIZED SUCH
SERVICE AS TEAM TRACK OR SIMPLE PLACEMENT SWITCHING.  WHAT WE NOW HOLD
IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO FIX THE POINT AT WHICH LINE
HAUL OR CARRIER SERVICE BEGINS AND ENDS.  THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE
NEED FOR SWITCHING VARIES FROM PLANT TO PLANT; INDEED, SOME PLANTS MAY
NEED NO INTRAPLANT SWITCHING SERVICE.  THUS, UNLESS THE COMMISSION CAN
FIX THE BEGINNING AND ENDING POINT OF THE LINE-HAUL, SOME SHIPPERS
WOULD PAY AN IDENTICAL LINE-HAUL RATE FOR LESS SERVICE THAN THAT
REQUIRED BY OTHER INDUSTRIAL PLANTS.  SEE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507, 526.  A DIFFERENT POINT FIXED BY THE
CARRIER IN ITS TARIFF GIVES SERVICE IN EXCESS OF THAT ACCORDED SHIPPERS
GENERALLY AS ESTABLISHED IN EX PARTE 104, AND THEREFORE AMOUNTS TO AN
UNLAWFUL PREFERENTIAL SERVICE. 

AS TO THE ARGUMENT THAT TO REQUIRE THE CARRIERS TO CONFORM TO THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS WOULD REQUIRE THE APPELLEE-SMELTERS TO PAY TWICE
FOR THEIR SERVICE, THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT APPELLEES MISCONCEIVE THE
SCOPE OF THIS PROCEEDING, WHICH IS SOLELY TO DEFINE WHAT IS EMBRACED IN
LINE-HAUL TRANSPORTATION.  WE ACCEPT THE ADMONITION OF THE COMMISSION
IN ITS SECOND REPORT, QUOTED SUPRA, AND REITERATED IN ITS BRIEF, THAT
IT WAS NOT HERE CONCERNED, AND MADE NO FINDING, AS TO WHETHER THE
CHARGE MADE FOR THE SERVICE WAS OR WAS NOT COMPENSATORY.  WE THINK THAT
THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO EXCLUDE RATE QUESTIONS FROM THIS
PROCEEDING.  IF THE CARRIERS SO WISH, THEY MAY FILE A NEW TARIFF TO
CONFORM THEIR CHARGES TO THE SERVICES INDICATED IN THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(1) AND (3).  IF THE CARRIER MAKES A DOUBLE OR
UNREASONABLE CHARGE, THE INDUSTRY MAY BE HEARD UPON THE REASONABLENESS
OF THE RATE.  49 U.S.C. SECS. 9, 13, 15. 

FINALLY IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT AND MANDATE WHEN
THE CASE WAS SENT BACK TO THE COMMISSION, THE COURT HAVING FOUND THAT
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE LINE
HAUL RATES WERE NOT COMPENSATORY FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED.  APPELLEES
ARGUE THAT THAT DECISION BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE. 

THE RULE OF THE LAW OF THE CASE IS A RULE OF PRACTICE, BASED UPON
SOUND POLICY THAT WHEN AN ISSUE IS ONCE LITIGATED AND DECIDED, THAT
SHOULD BE THE END OF THE MATTER.  MESSENGER V. ANDERSON, 225 U.S. 436,
444; INSURANCE GROUP V. DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO., 329 U.S. 607, 612.  IT
IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE WHEN THE CASE WAS FIRST REMANDED,
NOTHING WAS FINALLY DECIDED.  THE WHOLE PROCEEDING THEREAFTER WAS IN
FIERI.  THE COMMISSION HAD A RIGHT ON RECONSIDERATION TO MAKE A NEW
RECORD.  FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 364, 374-75.  WHEN
FINALLY DECIDED, ALL QUESTIONS WERE STILL OPEN AND COULD BE PRESENTED. 
THE FACT THAT AN APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE FIRST ORDER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT BECAUSE IT WAS A FINAL ADJUDICATION BUT
BECAUSE A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HAD BEEN GRANTED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
THE STATUS QUO.  THIS WAS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER THAT WAS APPEALABLE
BECAUSE CONGRESS, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS INTERLOCUTORY CHARACTER, HAD MADE
IT APPEALABLE.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253.  THE APPELLANTS MIGHT HAVE
APPEALED, BUT THEY WERE NOT BOUND TO.  WE THINK THAT IT REQUIRES A
FINAL JUDGMENT TO SUSTAIN THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF THE LAW OF THE
CASE JUST AS IT DOES FOR THE KINDRED RULE OF RES JUDICATA.  COMPARE
UNITED STATES V. WALLACE CO., 336 U.S. 793, 800-801.  AND ALTHOUGH THE
LATTER IS A UNIFORM RULE, THE "LAW OF THE CASE" IS ONLY A DISCRETIONARY
RULE OF PRACTICE.  IT IS NOT CONTROLLING HERE.  SEE SOUTHERN R. CO. V.
CLIFT, 260 U.S. 316, 319.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  THE PLANTS ARE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS
REPORTS, 263 I.C.C. 749, 266 I.C.C. 476, 270 I.C.C. 385; 263 I.C.C.
719, 266 I.C.C. 349, 270 I.C.C. 359. 

FN2  CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 790; HANNA
FURNACE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 667; UNITED STATES V. WABASH
R. CO., 321 U.S. 403; UNITED STATES V. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP.,
304 U.S. 156; A.O. SMITH CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 669; GOODMAN
LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 669. 

FN3  "NO CARRIER, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS CHAPTER, SHALL
ENGAGE OR PARTICIPATE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY,
AS DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER, UNLESS THE RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES UPON
WHICH THE SAME ARE TRANSPORTED BY SAID CARRIER HAVE BEEN FILED AND
PUBLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER; NOR SHALL
ANY CARRIER CHARGE OR DEMAND OR COLLECT OR RECEIVE A GREATER OR LESS OR
DIFFERENT COMPENSATION FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR
PROPERTY, OR FOR ANY SERVICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, BETWEEN THE
POINTS NAMED IN SUCH TARIFFS THAN THE RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES WHICH
ARE SPECIFIED IN THE TARIFF FILED AND IN EFFECT AT THE TIME; NOR SHALL
ANY CARRIER REFUND OR REMIT IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY DEVICE ANY PORTION
OF THE RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES SO SPECIFIED, NOR EXTEND TO ANY
SHIPPER OR PERSON ANY PRIVILEGES OR FACILITIES IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY, EXCEPT SUCH AS ARE SPECIFIED IN SUCH TARIFFS." 
24 STAT. 379, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(7). 

FN4  THE FOLLOWING WERE THE FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE
GARFIELD, MURRAY AND LEADVILLE PLANTS OF AMERICAN SMELTING.  THE
FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE MIDVALE PLANT OF UNITED STATES SMELTING
WERE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL. 

"(1)  THAT IT IS THE DUTY AND OBLIGATION OF THE SMELTERS TO OBTAIN
AND CERTIFY TO THE CARRIERS THE VALUES OF ORES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASCERTAINING FREIGHT CHARGES, AND THAT THE CARRIERS ARE NOT UNDER ANY
OBLIGATION OR DUTY TO PERFORM ANY SWITCHING OR OTHER SERVICES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING, OR ASSISTING THE SMELTERS IN ASCERTAINING,
SUCH VALUES. 

"(2)  THAT THE 'PLANT YARD' AT THE GARFIELD PLANT, THE 'HOLD TRACKS'
AT THE MURRAY PLANT, AND THE 'FLAT YARD' AT THE LEADVILLE PLANT,
HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY AS THE 'CONVENIENT POINTS' AS
DESCRIBED IN THE PRIOR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS HEREIN, ARE REASONABLY
CONVENIENT POINTS FOR THE DELIVERY AND RECEIPT OF CARLOAD TRAFFIC
MOVING TO AND FROM THE PLANTS OF THE AMERICAN SMELTING & REFINING
COMPANY. 

"(3)  THAT THE SEVERAL RESPONDENTS SERVING SAID PLANTS MOVE LOADED
AND EMPTY FREIGHT CARS FROM SAID CONVENIENT POINTS TO POINTS WITHIN THE
PLANT AREAS, FROM SUCH POINTS WITHIN THE PLANT AREAS TO THE CONVENIENT
POINTS, AND BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE PLANT AREAS. 

"(4)  THAT THE SAID SERVICES RENDERED WITHIN THE PLANT AREAS TO AND
FROM THE CONVENIENT POINTS ARE IN EXCESS OF THOSE RENDERED SHIPPERS
GENERALLY IN THE RECEIPT AND DELIVERY OF TRAFFIC ON TEAM TRACKS OR
INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS OR SPURS. 

"(5)  THAT THE SAID SERVICES RENDERED BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE PLANT
AREAS ARE IN EXCESS OF THOSE RENDERED SHIPPERS GENERALLY IN THE RECEIPT
AND DELIVERY OF TRAFFIC ON TEAM TRACKS OR INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS OR SPURS. 

"(6)  THAT THE SERVICES FROM AND TO THE CONVENIENT POINTS AND BETWEEN
POINTS WITHIN THE PLANT AREAS ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE PERFORMED IN A
CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE AT
RESPONDENTS' OPERATING CONVENIENCE BECAUSE OF THE DISABILITIES OF THE
PLANTS, INCLUDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS ARE
CONDUCTED, ALL AS EXPLAINED IN THE PRIOR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS. 

"(7)  THAT THE SAID SERVICES RENDERED BETWEEN THE CONVENIENT POINTS
AND POINTS IN THE PLANT AREAS AND BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE PLANT AREAS
ARE IN EXCESS OF THOSE PERFORMED IN SIMPLE SWITCHING AND TEAM-TRACK
DELIVERY AND ARE INDUSTRIAL OR PLANT SERVICES WHICH RESPONDENTS ARE NOT
OBLIGATED TO AND SHOULD NOT PERFORM AT THE LINE-HAUL RATES. 

"(8)  THAT THE COMMON-CARRIER TRANSPORTATION WHICH RESPONDENTS ARE
OBLIGATED TO PERFORM BEGINS AND ENDS AT THE CONVENIENT POINTS, AND THAT
ALL SERVICES BEYOND THOSE POINTS IN THE PLANT AREAS ARE INDUSTRIAL OR
PLANT SERVICES FOR WHICH RESPONDENTS SHOULD MAKE REASONABLY
COMPENSATORY CHARGES. 

"(9)  THAT THE PERFORMANCE BY RESPONDENTS WITHOUT REASONABLY
COMPENSATORY CHARGES IN ADDITION TO THE LINE-HAUL RATES OF THE
DESCRIBED SERVICES WITHIN THE PLANT AREAS BEYOND THE CONVENIENT POINTS
AT ANY AND ALL OF THE SAID PLANTS RESULTS IN THE AMERICAN SMELTING &
REFINING COMPANY RECEIVING A PREFERENTIAL SERVICE NOT ACCORDED SHIPPERS
GENERALLY AND RESULTS IN THE REFUNDING OR REMITTING OF A PORTION OF THE
RATES AND CHARGES COLLECTED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 6(7) OF THE ACT." 
ID., AT 367-368. 

FN5  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. HOBOKEN MANUFACTURERS' R.
CO., 320 U.S. 368, 378; UNITED STATES V. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP.,
304 U.S. 156, 158; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301
U.S. 402, 408, 409. 

FN6  AN "UNINTERRUPTED MOVEMENT" IS DEFINED IN THE TARIFF AS "ONE
CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT OF SWITCHING LOCOMOTIVE AND CREW WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION, RESULTING FROM ORDERS FROM, OR REQUIREMENTS OF, THE
SMELTER." 

FN7  THIS TARIFF IS ALMOST IDENTICAL WITH THAT WHICH WAS APPLICABLE
TO ALL OF THE PLANTS IN 1920.  THE SMELTERS, WE ARE INFORMED, PAY THE
1938 TARIFF UNDER PROTEST, AND INSIST UPON THE 1920 TARIFF. 

      "DELIVERY OF LINE-HAUL CARLOAD SHIPMENT DESTINED TO SMELTER

     AT LEADVILLE, COLO. 

"DELIVERY OF A LINE-HAUL CARLOAD SHIPMENT DESTINED TO SMELTER AT
LEADVILLE, COLO., WILL INCLUDE MOVEMENT WITHIN SMELTER PLANT OVER TRACK
SCALES, TO AND FROM THAW-HOUSE, TO AND FROM A SMELTER SAMPLER OR TO AND
FROM A COMBINATION SAMPLER AND CONCENTRATOR TO A DESIGNATED UNLOADING
POINT INDICATED BY THE SAMPLING COMPANY." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. BURNISON, 339 U.S. 87 


ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 13, 1950.  - 33 CAL.2D 638,
647, 204 P.2D 330, 335, AFFIRMED. 


HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, PREVENTS A CALIFORNIA DOMICILIARY FROM
MAKING AN UNRESTRICTED TESTAMENTARY GIFT TO THE UNITED STATES OF
PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE, ALTHOUGH SUCH A
GIFT MAY BE MADE TO THE STATE, ITS COUNTIES OR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. 
HELD: 

1.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE
IS BINDING HERE, BUT THE QUESTION OF ITS VALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IS FOR THIS COURT TO DETERMINE.  P. 89. 

2.  THE SECTION, AS CONSTRUED, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 90-93. 

(A)  THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECEIVE TESTAMENTARY GIFTS
DOES NOT PRECLUDE A STATE FROM DENYING A TESTATOR THE RIGHT TO WILL HIS
PROPERTY TO THE UNITED STATES.  UNITED STATES V. FOX, 94 U.S. 315.  PP.
90-93. 

(B)  THE TENTH AMENDMENT RESERVES TO THE STATES THE POWER TO DETERMINE
THE MANNER OF TESTAMENTARY TRANSFER OF A DOMICILIARY'S PROPERTY AND THE
POWER TO DETERMINE WHO MAY BE MADE BENEFICIARIES.  PP. 91-93. 

(C)  IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED, NO
DISTINCTION IS TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN REALTY AND PERSONALTY.  P. 93. 

3.  THE SECTION, AS CONSTRUED, DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 93-95. 

(A)  DECISIONS UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF PERSONS TO SUE IN STATE COURTS
ON FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS ARE NOT IN POINT HERE.  PP. 93-94. 

(B)  ASSUMING THAT THE UNITED STATES IS PROTECTED BY THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE SECTION IS
NEVERTHELESS JUSTIFIED BY THE STATE'S CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO ITS
RESIDENTS AND THEIR PROPERTY.  P. 95. 

UNITED STATES V. BURNISON ET AL. 

NO. 171.  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 188, UNITED STATES V. GAYETTY ET AL., ALSO ON
APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HELD VOID UNDER STATE LAW CERTAIN
TESTAMENTARY GIFTS TO THE UNITED STATES AND DIRECTED THAT THE PROPERTY
BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE STATUTORY HEIRS OF EACH DECEDENT.  33 CAL.2D 638,
647, 204 P.2D 330, 335.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 95. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE APPEALS INVOLVE THE POWER OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO
DECLARE INVALID TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS TO THE UNITED STATES BY TWO
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS.  THE BEQUEST TO THE UNITED STATES IN NO. 171
INCLUDED ONLY PERSONAL PROPERTY; IN NO. 188 THE UNITED STATES WAS
DESIGNATED TO RECEIVE BOTH REAL PROPERTY AND UNITED STATES BONDS.  THE
SITUS OF ALL THE PROPERTY IS ASSUMED TO BE CALIFORNIA.  AFTER
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURAL STEPS, THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HELD VOID
THESE TESTAMENTARY GIFTS AND DIRECTED THAT THEY BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE
STATUTORY HEIRS OF EACH DECEDENT.  FN1  THE TWO CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED
FOR ARGUMENT BELOW AND WILL BE CONSIDERED HERE IN ONE OPINION. 

THE CALIFORNIA COURT CONSTRUED SEC. 27 OF THE CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE
FN2  TO PREVENT A CALIFORNIA DOMICILIARY FROM MAKING AN UNRESTRICTED
TESTAMENTARY GIFT TO THE UNITED STATES, ALTHOUGH SUCH A GIFT MAY BE
MADE TO CALIFORNIA, ITS COUNTIES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.  FN3  THE
COURT ARRIVED AT THIS INTERPRETATION DESPITE THE CONTENTION OF THE
UNITED STATES THAT IT WOULD RAISE SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. 
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
IS, OF COURSE, BINDING ON US.  IT LEAVES US, HOWEVER, WITH THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS THAT THE UNITED STATES URGED THE CALIFORNIA
COURT TO AVOID. 

IN THESE APPEALS THE UNITED STATES MAKES TWO CONTENTIONS.  IT URGES
THAT THE CALIFORNIA CODE, AS INTERPRETED, VIOLATES THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THAT IT INFRINGES UPON THE "INHERENT SOVEREIGN
POWER" OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECEIVE TESTAMENTARY GIFTS. 
ALTERNATIVELY IT ARGUES THAT THE CODE EFFECTS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, SINCE A TESTAMENTARY
GIFT MAY BE MADE BY A CALIFORNIAN TO CALIFORNIA, BUT MAY NOT BE MADE TO
THE UNITED STATES. 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE RECEIPT OF GIFTS, TESTAMENTARY AND
NONTESTAMENTARY, IS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF FEDERAL POWERS.  UNINTERRUPTED
USAGE FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE GOVERNMENT HAS SANCTIONED IT.  THE
FIRST QUESTION HERE, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE POWER TO RECEIVE
TESTAMENTARY GIFTS REACHES SO FAR AS TO FORBID A STATE TO DENY A
TESTATOR THE RIGHT TO WILL HIS PROPERTY TO THE UNITED STATES. 

TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION AFFIRMATIVELY WOULD REQUIRE US TO OVERRULE
UNITED STATES V. FOX, 94 U.S. 315, DECIDED AT THE 1876 TERM BY A
UNANIMOUS COURT AND FREQUENTLY CITED WITH APPROVAL.  A DEVISE OF NEW
YORK REALTY TO THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN HELD VOID BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS  FN4 UNDER A NEW YORK STATUTE THAT DECLARED LAND IN NEW YORK
COULD BE DEVISED ONLY TO NATURAL PERSONS AND SUCH CORPORATIONS AS NEW
YORK HAD EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO TAKE BY DEVISE.  ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT
SPECIFICALLY URGED THAT THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE PRECLUDES A STATE'S
INTERFERENCE WITH THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECEIVE
TESTAMENTARY GIFTS, THIS POINT WAS NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN THE UNITED
STATES' ARGUMENT THAT THE NEW YORK PROHIBITION VIOLATED AN ESSENTIAL
ATTRIBUTE OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY - THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY
ALL METHODS KNOWN TO THE LAW.  IN AFFIRMING, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE
POWER TO CONTROL DEVISES OF PROPERTY WAS IN THE STATE, AND THAT
THEREFORE A PERSON MUST "DEVISE HIS LANDS IN THAT STATE WITHIN THE
LIMITATIONS OF THE STATUTE OR HE CANNOT DEVISE THEM AT ALL."  FN5 

THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE NO SEMBLANCE OF A CLAIM HERE WERE IT NOT
FOR WILLS PROBATED UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.  THE FOX CASE IS ONLY ONE OF A
LONG LINE OF CASES WHICH HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT PART OF THE
RESIDUE OF SOVEREIGNTY RETAINED BY THE STATES, A RESIDUE INSURED BY THE
TENTH AMENDMENT,  FN9  IS THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE MANNER OF
TESTAMENTARY TRANSFER OF A DOMICILIARY'S PROPERTY AND THE POWER TO
DETERMINE WHO MAY BE MADE BENEFICIARIES.  FN10  IT WOULD BE ANOMALOUS
TO HOLD THAT, BECAUSE OF AN AMORPHOUS DOCTRINE OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY,
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REACHED INTO A CALIFORNIA STATUTE AND MADE
IMPOTENT THAT STATE'S RESTRICTIONS ON THE DESIGNATION OF
BENEFICIARIES. 

THE UNITED STATES' ARGUMENT LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO
OBSTRUCTION WHATEVER MAY BE PUT IN THE WAY OF THE UNITED STATES' POWER
TO RECEIVE BY WILL.  THUS THE UNITED STATES COULD CLAIM RIGHTS UNDER
THE WILL OF A TESTATOR WHOM THE STATE HAD DECLARED INCOMPETENT, OR
UNDER A WILL THAT HAD NOT BEEN WITNESSED AND ATTESTED ACCORDING TO THE
LAWS OF THE STATE.  THE UNITED STATES COULD TAKE TO THE COMPLETE
EXCLUSION OF A SURVIVING SPOUSE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATE LAW. 

THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. PERKINS, 163 U.S. 625, MAKES CLEAR THAT
OBSTACLES MAY BE PUT BY STATES TO THE PASSAGE OF PROPERTY BY WILL TO
THE UNITED STATES.  THERE THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAD UPHELD THE
APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK INHERITANCE TAX TO PERSONALTY BEQUEATHED
THE UNITED STATES.  ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WHERE THE UNITED
STATES ACTS IN ITS SOVEREIGN CAPACITY, IT IS FREE FROM STATE TAXES ON
THAT ACTIVITY,  FN11  THIS COURT, IN AFFIRMING, SAID: 

"CERTAINLY, IF IT BE TRUE THAT THE RIGHT OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION
IS PURELY STATUTORY, THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO REQUIRE A CONTRIBUTION TO
THE PUBLIC TREASURY BEFORE THE BEQUEST SHALL TAKE EFFECT.  ... 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"WE THINK THAT IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT THE ACT IN QUESTION IS NOT
OPEN TO THE OBJECTION THAT IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO TAX THE PROPERTY OF THE
UNITED STATES, SINCE THE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON THE LEGACY BEFORE IT
REACHES THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE LEGACY BECOMES THE PROPERTY
OF THE UNITED STATES ONLY AFTER IT HAS SUFFERED A DIMINUTION TO THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX, AND IT IS ONLY UPON THIS CONDITION THAT THE
LEGISLATURE ASSENTS TO A BEQUEST OF IT."  FN12 

WE SHALL NOT OVERRULE THE FOX CASE, AND, OF COURSE, WE FIND NO
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REALTY AND PERSONALTY.  WITHIN BROAD LIMITS, THE
STATE HAS POWER TO SAY WHAT IS DEVISABLE AND TO WHOM IT MAY BE GIVEN. 
WE MAY ASSUME WITH THE UNITED STATES THAT THE STATE'S POWER OVER
TESTAMENTARY GIFTS IS NOT ABSOLUTE,  FN13  BUT WE FIND NOTHING IN THE
SUPREMACY CLAUSE WHICH PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM PREVENTING ITS
DOMICILIARY FROM WILLING PROPERTY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN14 

THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION IS THAT SEC. 27 OF THE PROBATE CODE, AS
INTERPRETED, DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT EVEN IF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
WOULD NOT BE VIOLATED IF THE STATUTE PROVIDED THAT NO GOVERNMENTAL BODY
COULD BE MADE THE BENEFICIARY OF A CALIFORNIA WILL, THERE IS A
VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS TREATED
LESS ADVANTAGEOUSLY THAN CALIFORNIA.  APPARENTLY THE CAPACITY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO RECEIVE GIFTS IS ANALOGIZED TO THE RIGHT OF A PERSON
TO SUE ON A FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION IN A STATE COURT.  RELIANCE IS
PLACED ON THE CASES WHICH HAVE HELD THAT FEDERAL RIGHTS MUST BE
ENFORCED BY THE COURTS OF A STATE WHEN "ORDINARY JURISDICTION AS
PRESCRIBED BY LOCAL LAWS IS APPROPRIATE TO THE OCCASION."  FN15  THUS,
URGES APPELLANT, SINCE STATE COURTS MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE IN THE
AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL RELIEF BETWEEN STATE CREATED RIGHTS AND
FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS, NO MORE CAN A STATE DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN
CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES AS BENEFICIARIES UNDER WILLS. 

WHEN A STATE REFUSES TO HEAR PLEAS BASED ON FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS
WHILE IT TAKES COGNIZANCE OF THOSE CREATED BY STATE LAW, THERE MAY BE
INVALID DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE BY THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE FEDERAL LAWS ARE
MADE LAWS OF THE STATE.  FN16  THEREFORE TO ALLOW A SUIT BASED ON STATE
LAW AND TO REFUSE ONE BASED ON FEDERAL LAW COULD "DISCRIMINATE" WITHOUT
ANY REASON FOR THE CLASSIFICATION.  FN17  BUT THE UNITED STATES'
CAPACITY TO RECEIVE, EVEN THOUGH CALLED A "RIGHT" OR A "POWER," IS NOT
A "LAW OF THE STATE."  AS WE HAVE SHOWN IN THE EARLIER DISCUSSION, THAT
CAPACITY CANNOT BE MAGICALLY TRANSFORMED INTO SOMETHING THAT MUST BE
ENFORCED.  THE CASES UPHOLDING THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS TO SUE ARE NOT IN
POINT. 

IN A SENSE, OF COURSE, THE UNITED STATES IS BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY
FROM CALIFORNIA, AND DIFFERENCES AND DISTINCTIONS IN A STATE'S
TREATMENT OF PERSONS ARE FREQUENTLY CLAIMED TO BE DISCRIMINATORY IN
VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSES
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BUT SUCH DIFFERENCES AND DISTINCTIONS,
EVEN WHEN APPLIED TO PERSONS CLEARLY PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, ARE NOT IN THEMSELVES UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IT IS ONLY WHEN THE
VARIATIONS ARE ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT REASONABLE LEGAL BASIS THAT AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION OCCURS.  A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS HAS
MOLDED THIS JUDICIAL CONCEPT.  FN18  THUS, ALTHOUGH WE SHOULD MAKE THE
SOMEWHAT DUBIOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE UNITED STATES MUST RECEIVE EQUAL
PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL
VIOLATION.  CALIFORNIA'S DECISION TO PERMIT ONLY ITSELF AND ITS
SUBORDINATE MUNICIPALITIES TO BE UNLIMITED GOVERNMENTAL BENEFICIARIES
UNDER THE WILLS OF ITS DOMICILIARIES IS BASED ON A PERMISSIBLE
DISTINCTION.  IT IS JUSTIFIED BY REASON OF THE STATE'S CLOSE
RELATIONSHIP WITH ITS RESIDENTS AND THEIR PROPERTY.  FN19 A STATE MAY
BY STATUTE PROPERLY PREFER ITSELF IN THIS WAY, JUST AS STATES HAVE
ALWAYS PREFERRED THEMSELVES IN ESCHEAT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ESTATE OF BURNISON, 33 CAL.2D 638, 204 P.2D 330; ESTATE OF
SANBORN, 33 CAL.2D 647, 204 P.2D 335. 

FN2  PROBATE CODE OF CALIFORNIA, SEC. 27: 

"WHO MAY TAKE BY WILL.  A TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION MAY BE MADE TO THE
STATE, TO COUNTIES, TO MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, TO NATURAL PERSONS
CAPABLE BY LAW OF TAKING THE PROPERTY, TO UNINCORPORATE RELIGIOUS,
BENEVOLENT OR FRATERNAL SOCIETIES OR ASSOCIATIONS OR LODGES OR BRANCHES
THEREOF, AND TO CORPORATIONS FORMED FOR RELIGIOUS, SCIENTIFIC,
LITERARY, OR SOLELY EDUCATIONAL OR HOSPITAL OR SANATORIUM PURPOSES, OR
PRIMARILY FOR THE PUBLIC PRESERVATION OF FORESTS AND NATURAL SCENERY,
OR TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS OR ART GALLERIES, OR FOR
SIMILAR PUBLIC PURPOSES.  NO OTHER CORPORATION CAN TAKE UNDER A WILL,
UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE." 

FN3  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED ON THE AUTHORITY OF ESTATE OF HENDRIX, 77
CAL. APP.2D 647, 651-53, 176 P.2D 398, 400-402.  THE HENDRIX WILL
BEQUEATHED PROPERTY TO THE UNITED STATES VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION FOR
THE AID, COMFORT AND ASSISTANCE OF DISABLED VETERANS.  THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, AT 651, DECLARED THAT THIS WAS REALLY A
BEQUEST TO THE UNITED STATES, A CORPORATION, AND THAT ITS AGENCY, THE
DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY, WAS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY CALIFORNIA PROBATE
CODE SEC. 27 TO TAKE PROPERTY UNDER A WILL.  THUS THE BEQUEST WAS
VALID.  IN ITS OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
THIS LANGUAGE HAD BEEN UNNECESSARY TO THE DECISION AND REFUSED TO
EXTEND IT TO THE GIFTS NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.  IT THOUGHT THAT THE
HENDRIX GIFT WAS GOOD AS ONE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES TO A LEGALLY
CONSTITUTED INSTITUTION.  THE SUPREME COURT THOUGHT A GIFT TO THE
UNITED STATES "WITHOUT QUALIFICATION AS TO ADMINISTRATION OR PURPOSE,"
33 CAL.2D 646, 204 P.2D 335, DID NOT COME UNDER THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF
ASSOCIATIONS OR CORPORATIONS IN SEC. 27. 

FN4  MATTER OF WILL OF FOX, 52 N.Y. 530. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. FOX, 94 U.S. 315, 321. 

IN ASKING US TO OVERRULE THE FOX CASE, THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS
THAT SINCE IT HAS THE POWER TO ACCEPT TESTAMENTARY GIFTS, THE SUPREMACY
CLAUSE BARS A STATE FROM STOPPING THIS STREAM OF FEDERAL REVENUE AT ITS
SOURCE.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT EVERY AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY OF THE UNITED
STATES REPRESENTS AN EXERCISE OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL POWER,  FN6  AND THAT
THEREFORE THE POWER TO RECEIVE PROPERTY THROUGH A WILL IS A
GOVERNMENTAL POWER.  SINCE A STATE CANNOT INTERPOSE "AN OBSTACLE TO THE
EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL POWER,"  FN7  THE
GOVERNMENT ARGUES A STATE CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THIS POWER TO RECEIVE. 
THIS ARGUMENT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE STATE ACTS UPON THE POWER OF
ITS DOMICILIARY TO GIVE AND NOT ON THE UNITED STATES' POWER TO
RECEIVE.  AS A LEGAL CONCEPT A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY MAY BE LOOKED UPON
AS A SINGLE TRANSACTION OR IT MAY BE SEPARATED INTO A SERIES OF STEPS. 
THE APPROACH CHOSEN MAY DETERMINE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.  FN8 WHERE POWERS
FLOW SO DISTINCTLY FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES AS DO THE POWER TO WILL AND
THE POWER TO RECEIVE, WE THINK THE VALIDITY OF EACH STEP IS TO BE
TREATED SEPARATELY. 

FN6  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, 477; PITTMAN
V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21, 32; FEDERAL LAND BANK V.
BISMARCK LUMBER CO., 314 U.S. 95, 102. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. BELMONT, 301 U.S. 324, 331-32.    FN8  GREGORY
V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. SPRAGUE, 282 U.S. 716, 733; UNITED STATES V.
DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 123. 

FN10  MAGER V. GRIMA, 8 HOW.  490, 493-94; UNITED STATES V. FOX, 94
U.S. 315, 321; UNITED STATES V. PERKINS, 163 U.S. 625, 627, 628;
PLUMMER V. COLER, 178 U.S. 115, 137; MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250 U.S. 525,
536; LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 193; IRVING TRUST CO. V. DAY, 314
U.S. 556, 562; DEMOREST V. CITY BANK CO., 321 U.S. 36, 48. 

FN11  MAYO V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 441. 

FN12  UNITED STATES V. PERKINS, 163 U.S. 625, 628, 630.    FN13
CLARK V. ALLEN, 331 U.S. 503.  CF. OYAMA V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633. 

FN14  AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THE FOX CASE, OUR DETERMINATION DOES NOT
AFFECT THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY PURCHASE
OR EMINENT DOMAIN IN THE FACE OF A PROHIBITORY STATUTE OF THE STATE. 
KOHL V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 367.  AN AUTHORIZED DECLARATION OF
TAKING OR A REQUISITION WILL PUT REALTY OR PERSONALTY AT THE DISPOSAL
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR "JUST COMPENSATION."  IT MAY TAX TESTAMENTARY
TRANSFERS.  ITS POWERS WILL NOT SUFFER. 

FN15  SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 56; DOUGLAS V.
NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377; MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R.
CO., 292 U.S. 230. 

FN16  CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 136; SECOND EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, SUPRA, 57. 

FN17  MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO., SUPRA, 234; CF. DOUGLAS V.
NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., SUPRA. 

FN18  E.G., DENVER V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 229 U.S. 123; RAST V. VAN
DEMAN & LEWIS CO., 240 U.S. 342; LA TOURETTE V. MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465;
MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250 U.S. 525; NEW YORK RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. CITY
OF NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573; QUEENSIDE HILLS REALTY CO. V. SAXL, 328 U.S.
80. 

FN19  BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ILLINOIS, 203 U.S. 553; CF. CONNECTICUT
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. MOORE, 333 U.S. 541, 551. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















AFFOLDER V. N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO., 339 U.S. 96 


NO. 200.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 13, 1950.  - 174
F.2D 486, REVERSED. 


IN THIS ACTION AGAINST A RAILROAD UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT AND
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, BASED ON AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
THE AUTOMATIC-COUPLER REQUIREMENT OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, IT
APPEARED FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PLAINTIFF, A SWITCHMAN, LOST A LEG
IN HIS ATTEMPT TO STOP A STRING OF MOVING CARS WHICH HAD SEPARATED FROM
OTHERS AFTER AN EARLIER FAILURE OF TWO OF THEM TO COUPLE ON IMPACT. 
THE VERDICT OF THE JURY AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WERE FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.  HELD: 

1.  THE ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE WAS PROPERLY DETERMINED IN FAVOR OF
THE PLAINTIFF.  CARTER V. ATLANTA & ST. A.B.R. CO., 338 U.S. 430.  P.
98. 

2.  THE DUTY OF THE CARRIER UNDER THE AUTOMATIC-COUPLER REQUIREMENT
OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT IS UNRELATED TO NEGLIGENCE, BUT IS AN
ABSOLUTE ONE REQUIRING PROPER PERFORMANCE OF THE COUPLERS ON THE
OCCASION IN QUESTION.  O'DONNELL V. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO., 338 U.S.
384.  P. 98. 

3.  THE CHARGE OF THE TRIAL COURT IN THIS CASE SUFFICIENTLY INFORMED
THE JURY AS TO THE RELEVANT LEGAL RULES.  IT DID NOT DEPRIVE THE
RAILROAD OF A DEFENSE BASED ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SEPARATION OF
THE CARS WAS DUE TO THE PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO OPEN THE COUPLER.  PP.
98-100. 

4.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
($80,000) AWARDED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT WAS NOT EXCESSIVE.  P.
101. 

AFFOLDER V. NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT AND THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  174 F.2D 486.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 813.  REVERSED, P. 101. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE HAVE FOR REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT, REVERSING PETITIONER'S RECOVERY OF AN $80,000 JUDGMENT AGAINST
THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD BASED ON AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT  FN1  AND THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 
FN2 PETITIONER WAS A MEMBER OF A CREW ENGAGED IN CLASSIFYING, OR
SORTING, A NUMBER OF RAILROAD CARS IN THE RESPONDENT'S YARDS.  TWENTY
FOUR CARS HAD BEEN COUPLED TOGETHER ON ONE TRACK.  THE TWENTY-FIFTH, A
ROCK ISLAND CAR, WAS KICKED EASTWARD DOWN THE TRACK TO COUPLE WITH THE
OTHERS.  IT DID SO, ITS EAST END JOINING THE OTHER CARS.  A
PENNSYLVANIA CAR WAS THE NEXT CAR KICKED EASTWARD DOWN THE TRACK, BUT
IT AND THE ROCK ISLAND CAR FAILED TO COUPLE TOGETHER.  AFTER THREE OR
FOUR OTHER CARS HAD BEEN ADDED, THE ROCK ISLAND CAR AND THE TWENTY-FOUR
OTHERS TO WHICH IT WAS ATTACHED BEGAN ROLLING DOWN THE TRACK. 
PETITIONER RAN AFTER THE MOVING TRAIN OF CARS IN AN ATTEMPT TO BOARD
AND STOP THEM, AS WAS HIS DUTY.  HIS LEG WAS LOST AS HE FELL UNDER A
CAR IN THIS ATTEMPT. 

THE TRIAL WAS TO A JURY, PETITIONER CONTENDING THAT THE FAILURE OF
THE PENNSYLVANIA CAR TO JOIN THE ROCK ISLAND CAR ON IMPACT WAS IN
ITSELF A VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, RESULTING IN THE
SEPARATION AND HIS INJURY.  RESPONDENT TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE
CRITERION OF THE ACT IS, "WERE THEY (THE CARS) EQUIPPED WITH EFFICIENT
COUPLERS?"  AND NOT "DID THEY (THE COUPLERS) IN FACT FAIL TO COUPLE?";
AND THAT IF THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE ACT, IT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF THE INJURY.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR $95,000 WHICH,
UPON REMITTITUR, WAS REDUCED TO $80,000.  A JUDGMENT IN THIS AMOUNT WAS
ENTERED.  79 F.SUPP.  365(1948).  ON APPEAL THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED. 
174 F.2D 486(1949).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 813(1949). 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE FAVORABLY
TO PETITIONER, AND RESPONDENT ADMITS THAT THE "PROBLEM OF CAUSAL
CONNECTION VEL NON IN THE AFFOLDER CASE IS LEGALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE
SAME PROBLEM IN THE CARTER CASE.  (CARTER V. ATLANTA & SAINT ANDREWS
BAY R. CO., 338 U.S. 430(1949).)"  WE AGREE AND CONSEQUENTLY HOLD THE
ISSUE CORRECTLY DETERMINED BELOW. 

NOR DO WE THINK THAT ANY QUESTION REGARDING THE NORMAL EFFICIENCY OF
THE COUPLERS IS INVOLVED IN AN ACTION UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS. 
AS WE SAID IN O'DONNELL V. ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN R. CO., 338 U.S.
384(1949), AND THE CARTER CASE, SUPRA, THE DUTY UNDER THE ACTS IS NOT
BASED ON THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CARRIER BUT IS AN ABSOLUTE ONE REQUIRING
PERFORMANCE "ON THE OCCASION IN QUESTION." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS BASED ITS DISPOSITION OF THE CASE ON THE
REASONING THAT THE CHARGE  FN3 GIVEN THE JURY CONTAINED "NO EXPLANATION
OF THE LEGAL EFFECT" OF THE DIRECT PROOF OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CARS
"AND THE PERMISSIBLE USE WHICH THE JURY COULD MAKE OF IT  ...  "  WE
THINK THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE JURY COULD
FIND FOR THE PLAINTIFF ONLY IF IT INFERRED "BAD CONDITION OF THE
COUPLERS AND CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT'S STATUTORY DUTY ...  "
THIS WAS THE SAME ERROR THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
MADE IN O'DONNELL, SUPRA, IN AN OPINION RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT IN
THE PRESENT CAUSE.  IN SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS, WE HELD THAT THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE TO SHOW A "BAD"
CONDITION OF THE COUPLER; SHE WAS ENTITLED TO A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION
THAT TO EQUIP A CAR WITH A COUPLER WHICH FAILED TO PERFORM PROPERLY "IN
THE SWITCHING OPERATION WAS A VIOLATION OF THE ACT, WHICH RENDERED
DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR INJURIES PROXIMATELY RESULTING THEREFROM, AND THAT
NEITHER EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE NOR OF DILIGENCE AND CARE WAS TO BE
CONSIDERED ON THE QUESTION OF THIS LIABILITY."  FURTHER, WE SAID, "A
FAILURE OF EQUIPMENT TO PERFORM AS REQUIRED BY THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT
IS IN ITSELF AN ACTIONABLE WRONG  ...  " 

OF COURSE THIS ASSUMES THAT THE COUPLER WAS PLACED IN A POSITION TO
OPERATE ON IMPACT.  THUS, IF "THE FAILURE OF THESE TWO CARS TO COUPLE
ON IMPACT WAS BECAUSE THE COUPLER ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CAR HAD NOT BEEN
PROPERLY OPENED," THE RAILROAD HAD A GOOD DEFENSE.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS ALSO FOUND FAULT WITH THE CHARGE ON THE GROUND THAT IT DEPRIVED
DEFENDANT OF THIS DEFENSE.  WE CANNOT AGREE.  THE TRIAL COURT DIRECTED
THE JURY AT LEAST THREE TIMES THAT IT WAS FOR THEM TO DETERMINE THE
REASON WHY THE CARS SEPARATED AND SPECIFICALLY CALLED THEIR ATTENTION
TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE HEAD SWITCHMAN, THUS EMPHASIZING THE
POSSIBILITY THAT HIS FAILURE, IF ANY, TO OPEN THE COUPLER WAS THE CAUSE
OF THE SEPARATION.  LIKEWISE, THE ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL, BOTH FOR
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE SOLE QUESTION WITH
REGARD TO THIS ISSUE WAS WHETHER, AFTER THE COUPLERS WERE PLACED IN
OPEN OR PROPER POSITION, THEY FAILED TO COUPLE AUTOMATICALLY ON
IMPACT.  FN4  THE JURY, BY ITS VERDICT, RESOLVED THE QUESTION AGAINST
THE RESPONDENT. 

WE THINK THE CHARGE, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, SUFFICIENTLY INFORMED THE JURY
OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL RULES. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AWARDED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT IS NOT MONSTROUS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE.  BARRY V. EDMUNDS, 116 U.S. 550(1886).  ACCORDINGLY, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY RAILROAD TO HAUL OR PERMIT TO BE HAULED OR USED
ON ITS LINE ANY CAR USED IN MOVING INTERSTATE TRAFFIC NOT EQUIPPED WITH
COUPLERS COUPLING AUTOMATICALLY BY IMPACT, AND WHICH CAN BE UNCOUPLED
WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF MEN GOING BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE CARS."  27
STAT. 531, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 2. 

FN2  35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 51-60. 

FN3  THE TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE IS SET OUT AT LENGTH IN THE OPINION OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS, 174 F.2D 486, 488-491. 

FN4  DEFENDANT HAD INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE A SMALL MODEL OF THE
COUPLER INVOLVED AND AN EXPERT HAD DEMONSTRATED ITS WORKINGS TO THE
JURY.  COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT ARGUED TO THE JURY:  "HE (PLAINTIFF'S
COUNSEL) SAYS IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO COUPLING. 
I SAY HE IS WRONG.  I SAY HE MUST SHOW THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE TO
COUPLE BECAUSE THE CAR WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH COUPLERS COUPLING
AUTOMATICALLY ON IMPACT.  IF THEY DID NOT COUPLE, AND IF THEY DID NOT
COUPLE BECAUSE OF SOME OTHER REASON  ...  THEN THERE IS NO LIABILITY IN
THIS CASE."  DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL, IN USING THE MODEL, EXPLAINED HIS
POSITION:  IF "THIS LOCK WAS HELD UP SO THAT THE KNUCKLE WOULD NOT LOCK
BACK, IT WAS CLOSED, TELL ME, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WOULD THIS KNUCKLE
BE OPENED OR CLOSED FOLLOWING THE ACCIDENT?  WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF THE
FAILURE OF THE COUPLING TO MAKE WAS BECAUSE THE KNUCKLE WAS NOT LOCKED
CLOSED, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE OPEN FOLLOWING THE ACCIDENT, AND MILLIKAN
TESTIFIED THAT THE KNUCKLE (AN HOUR AFTER THE ACCIDENT) WAS NOT ONLY
CLOSED  ...  BUT THE PIN WAS SEATED, THE LOCK WAS DOWN  ...  NOW, THE
ANSWER TO THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER  ...
THIS KNUCKLE WAS CLOSED WHEN THE PENNSYLVANIA CAR WAS KICKED DOWN ON TO
THE ROCK ISLAND CAR." 

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL COUNTERED: 

"I DON'T SAY, AND NEVER TOLD YOU, NEVER WILL, NOR WILL THE COURT,
THAT IF THERE IS MERELY SEPARATION OF CARS, PLAINTIFF SHALL RECOVER.  I
SIMPLY TOLD YOU, IF THERE IS A SEPARATION OF CARS AFTER THOSE DEVICES
WERE PUT IN OPERATION AND DID NOT OPERATE, THEN THEY FAILED TO PERFORM
THEIR DUTY, REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY OPERATED BEFORE OR SINCE, AND THAT
WE DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE - AND THE COURT WILL TELL YOU THAT EMPHATICALLY
- ANY DEFECT." 

AS TO WHETHER THE KNUCKLE WAS OPENED, THERE WAS THIS ARGUMENT BY
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL: 

"NOW, LET ME ASK YOU, DID TIELKER (THE HEAD SWITCHMAN) OPEN THAT
KNUCKLE OR NOT OPEN IT?  HE SAYS THAT WHEN HE WENT TO OPEN THAT
KNUCKLE, HE HAD DIFFICULTY IN OPENING IT - HE HAD TO PUSH IT THREE
TIMES, WHEN IT FAILED TO OPEN THE FIRST TIME, SHOWING SOMETHING WAS
STUCK. 

     .         .         .         .        . 

"THIS BAD-ORDER CARD - REMEMBER THIS IS ON THE FRONT END OF IT - AND
THAT IS CAR PENNSYLVANIA 727512.  ...  THEY FIND THAT BENT OPERATING
LEVER ROD, OR BENT OPERATING LEVER BRACKET, DON'T THEY?  THEY FIND THAT
THEMSELVES.  THIS IS THEIR CARD, THIS IS THEIR RECORD. 

"WHAT DOES THIS CARD DO THEN THAT I HAVE IN MY HAND?  WHAT DOES IT
DO?  IT CONFIRMS TIELKER, DOESN'T IT?" 

MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENTS.  HE WOULD AFFIRM ON THE FAILURE OF THE
TRIAL COURT TO MAKE CLEAR TO THE JURY THAT THE CARRIER WAS NOT LIABLE
UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT IF THE FAILURE TO COUPLE WAS DUE TO
NEGLIGENCE IN SETTING THE COUPLER.  SEE NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V.
AFFOLDER, 174 F.2D 486, 491, AND O'DONNELL V. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO., 338
U.S. 384, 394, NOTE 7. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER WOULD DISMISS THIS WRIT AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED, FOR REASONS SET FORTH BY HIM IN CARTER V. ATLANTA & ST.
ANDREWS BAY R. CO., 338 U.S. 430, 437. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE ONLY ISSUE SURVIVING IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE CHARGE GAVE THE
JURY A SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND CORRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW TO BE
APPLIED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THE CHARGE AS A WHOLE "VERY PROBABLY
GAVE THE JURY THE IMPRESSION" THAT IT NEED ONLY FIND THAT TWO CARS
FAILED TO COUPLE ON IMPACT TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT.  THIS, AS THE COURT RECOGNIZES, IS NOT THE LAW.  BEFORE
A FAILURE TO COUPLE ESTABLISHES A DEFECTIVE COUPLER, IT MUST BE FOUND
THAT IT WAS PROPERLY SET SO IT COULD COUPLE.  IF IT WAS NOT ADJUSTED AS
SUCH AUTOMATIC COUPLERS MUST BE, OF COURSE THE FAILURE IS NOT THAT OF
THE DEVICE. 

THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED LANGUAGE QUOTED BY THIS COURT THAT WOULD
SUGGEST THIS RULE.  OTHER LANGUAGE WAS USED, HOWEVER, WHICH MIGHT WELL
CANCEL THE EFFECT OF THAT QUOTED.  JUDGE COLLET, FOR THE COURT OF
APPEALS, SAID, "WE ARE UNABLE TO ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
INSTRUCTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND DEFINITE IN THAT RESPECT." 
174 F.2D AT 491. 

IF THE CHARGE SEEMED SO FOGGY TO A COURT OF APPEALS, GENERALLY
FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS DRIVING AT, I DO NOT SEE HOW
THIS COURT CAN BE SO CONFIDENT THAT IT DID NOT MISLEAD A JURY OF
LAYMEN.  THAT CONFIDENCE IS ALL UPON WHICH WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT.  WE
CANNOT KNOW ANY MORE ABOUT ITS EFFECT THAN DID THE COURT OF APPEALS;
AND THAT COURT HAPPENED TO HAVE BEEN COMPOSED OF JUDGES, TWO OF WHOM
HAVE HAD THE EXPERIENCE OF PRESIDING OVER JURY TRIALS IN DISTRICT
COURT, WHICH GIVES THEM A BETTER INFORMED MIND ON THE SUBJECT THAN WE
HAVE.  I SHOULD BE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THEM THAT THE CHARGE LEAVES
THE SUBJECT IN SO MUCH CONFUSION THAT I DO NOT KNOW JUST WHAT THE
INSTRUCTION DID AMOUNT TO.  THE MOST THAT CAN HAPPEN UNDER THE DECISION
NOW BEING REVERSED IS TO RESUBMIT THE CASE TO A JURY THAT PROBABLY
WOULD BE MORE CAREFULLY AND CLEARLY INSTRUCTED. 

IN ANY EVENT, I DO NOT THINK THIS IS THE KIND OF ISSUE THAT MEETS THE
QUALIFICATIONS WE HAVE OURSELVES LAID DOWN FOR GRANT OF CERTIORARI. 
SUPREME COURT RULE 38(5).  NO QUESTION OF LAW IS, OR COULD BE, SETTLED
UNLESS WE COULD DEVISE SOME MEASURE OF INCOHERENCE SO THAT LOWER COURTS
WOULD KNOW HOW MUCH WE WILL THINK IS TOO MUCH.  SHORT OF THAT, WE ONLY
SUBSTITUTE OUR OWN IMPRESSION FOR THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AS TO
THE PROBABLE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT OF THE INSTRUCTION IN THIS INDIVIDUAL
CASE.  ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN IN FAVOR OF DISMISSING A WRIT AS
IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED IN CARTER V. ATLANTA & ST. A.B.R. CO., 338 U.S.
430, 437, AND WILKERSON V. MCCARTHY, 336 U.S. 53, 65-77, SEEMS
ESPECIALLY APPLICABLE HERE.  I WOULD DISMISS THIS WRIT AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED. 
..END :













HIATT V. BROWN, 339 U.S. 103 


NO. 359.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6-7, 1950.  - DECIDED MARCH 13, 1950.  - 175
F.2D 273, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT, A SOLDIER IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY IN GERMANY, WAS
CONVICTED OF MURDER BY A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL AND WAS SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT.  AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, IN 1947, THE 8TH ARTICLE OF
WAR REQUIRED THE AUTHORITY APPOINTING A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL TO DETAIL
AS LAW MEMBER THEREOF AN OFFICER OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S
DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT WHEN AN OFFICER OF THAT DEPARTMENT WAS "NOT
AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE."  IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL
APPOINTING THE GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL WHICH TRIED RESPONDENT, THE ONLY
OFFICER NAMED FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT WAS A
CAPTAIN WHO WAS DESIGNATED AS ONE OF THE ASSISTANT TRIAL JUDGE
ADVOCATES, AND HE WAS ABSENT FROM THE TRIAL ON VERBAL ORDERS OF THE
COMMANDING GENERAL.  AND ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINING A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ORDERING RESPONDENT DISCHARGED WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  HELD: 

1.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVIEWABLE BY THIS COURT
ON CERTIORARI UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1254.  P. 106, N. 1. 

2.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY DISREGARD OF THE
8TH ARTICLE OF WAR IN THE APPOINTMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL. 
PP. 106-110. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT AN OFFICER OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S
DEPARTMENT WAS DETAILED TO A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL IN ANOTHER CAPACITY,
AND THAT NOTHING OTHERWISE APPEARED TO NEGATIVE HIS AVAILABILITY AS A
LAW MEMBER, DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS "AVAILABLE" FOR
APPOINTMENT AS LAW MEMBER, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE 8TH ARTICLE OF
WAR.  PP. 107-108. 

(B)  THE AVAILABILITY OF AN OFFICER OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S
DEPARTMENT AS LAW MEMBER OF A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL WAS INTENDED BY
CONGRESS TO BE A MATTER WITHIN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE APPOINTING
AUTHORITY.  P. 108. 

(C)  IN THE 8TH ARTICLE OF WAR, THE PHRASE "AVAILABLE FOR THE
PURPOSE" CONNOTES AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE APPOINTING
AUTHORITY.  PP. 108-109. 

(D)  IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE MEANING OF THE 8TH ARTICLE OF WAR,
THIS COURT ACCORDS GREAT WEIGHT TO AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ARTICLE
WHICH HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY GIVEN AND APPLIED BY THE ARMY.  P. 109. 

(E)  THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION CONFERRED ON THE APPOINTING
AUTHORITY BY THE 8TH ARTICLE MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE COURTS ONLY IF A
GROSS ABUSE OF THAT DISCRETION WOULD HAVE GIVEN RISE TO A DEFECT IN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT-MARTIAL; AND WHETHER THE 8TH ARTICLE IMPOSES
A REQUIREMENT GOING TO THE JURISDICTION NEED NOT HERE BE DETERMINED,
FOR NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE DISCRETION OF THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITY WAS IMPROPERLY EXERCISED.  PP. 109-110. 

(F)  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, NO ABUSE OF THE DISCRETION OF THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS DISCLOSED BY THE APPOINTMENT OF AN OFFICER OF
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT IN A CAPACITY OTHER THAN LAW
MEMBER, OR BY REASSIGNMENT OF THAT OFFICER TO OTHER DUTY AT THE TIME OF
THE TRIAL, OR BY THE STANDARD OF COMPETENCE IN LEGAL MATTERS SHOWN BY
THE LAW MEMBER AT THE TRIAL.  P. 110. 

3.  THE PROCEEDING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS BEING IN HABEAS CORPUS,
THAT COURT ERRED IN EXTENDING ITS REVIEW, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, TO SUCH MATTERS AS
THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW SET FORTH IN THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S REPORT,
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN RESPONDENT'S CONVICTION, THE
ADEQUACY OF THE PRETRIAL INVESTIGATION, AND THE COMPETENCE OF THE LAW
MEMBER AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.  PP. 110-111. 

(A)  IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING TO OBTAIN THE RELEASE OF ONE UNDER
SENTENCE OF A COURT-MARTIAL, THE SINGLE INQUIRY IS AS TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT-MARTIAL.  P. 111. 

(B)  THE GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL IN THIS CASE HAD JURISDICTION OF THE
PERSON ACCUSED AND OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED, AND ACTED WITHIN ITS LAWFUL
POWERS.  P. 111. 

(C)  THE CORRECTION OF ANY ERRORS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY
THE GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL IS FOR THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES, WHICH ARE
ALONE AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW ITS DECISION.  IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1,
8-9.  P. 111. 

HIATT, WARDEN, V. BROWN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING TO SECURE RESPONDENT'S RELEASE FROM
IMPRISONMENT UNDER A SENTENCE OF A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL, THE DISTRICT
COURT SUSTAINED THE WRIT AND ORDERED RESPONDENT DISCHARGED.  81
F.SUPP.  647.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  175 F.2D 273.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 890.  REVERSED, P. 111. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, WHILE SERVING AS AN ENLISTED SOLDIER IN THE UNITED STATES
ARMY IN GERMANY, WAS CONVICTED BY A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL OF COMMITTING
MURDER ON DECEMBER 25, 1946, IN VIOLATION OF THE 92D ARTICLE OF WAR, 41
STAT. 805, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1564.  THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS DISHONORABLE
DISCHARGE, FORFEITURE OF ALL PAY AND ALLOWANCES, AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT,
WHICH WAS REDUCED TO TWENTY YEARS UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL.  ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ORDERED RESPONDENT
DISCHARGED FROM THE FEDERAL PENITENTIARY IN ATLANTA, 81 F.SUPP. 
647(1948), AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING.  175 F.2D 273(1949).  BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL WHICH CONVICTED
RESPONDENT WAS IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED AND LACKED JURISDICTION OF THE
OFFENSE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD FURTHER THAT THE RECORD WAS
"REPLETE WITH HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES" WHICH
DEPRIVED RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND
AFFORDED AN INDEPENDENT GROUND FOR SUSTAINING THE WRIT.  WE BROUGHT THE
CASE HERE, ON PETITION OF THE WARDEN HAVING CUSTODY OF RESPONDENT, IN
VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION BELOW IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
MILITARY JUSTICE.  338 U.S. 890(1949).  OUR JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1254(1).  FN1 

RESPONDENT WAS TRIED IN GERMANY ON JANUARY 9 AND 14, 1947, BEFORE A
GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL WHICH HAD BEEN APPOINTED BY ORDER OF THE
COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE CONTINENTAL BASE SECTION, EUROPEAN THEATRE,
ON DECEMBER 7, 1946.  THE DETAIL APPOINTED WAS COMPRISED OF A TRIAL
JUDGE ADVOCATE AND TWO ASSISTANT TRIAL JUDGE ADVOCATES, DEFENSE COUNSEL
AND TWO ASSISTANT DEFENSE COUNSEL, THE LAW MEMBER AND TWELVE OTHER
OFFICERS.  THE RANKING OFFICER OF THE DETAIL, A COLONEL OF THE FIELD
ARTILLERY WITH TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE, WAS APPOINTED
LAW MEMBER.  THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE DETAIL APPOINTED FROM THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT WAS A CAPTAIN WHO WAS DESIGNATED AN
ASSISTANT TRIAL JUDGE ADVOCATE.  FN2  HE WAS ABSENT FROM RESPONDENT'S
TRIAL ON VERBAL ORDERS OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE
COURT-MARTIAL HAD BEEN APPOINTED IN DISREGARD OF THE 8TH ARTICLE OF
WAR, 41 STAT. 788, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1479.  THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THIS
ARTICLE AS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF RESPONDENT'S TRIAL IS SET FORTH IN
THE MARGIN.  FN3  THE ARTICLE WAS INTERPRETED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
AS REQUIRING, "CERTAINLY IN TIMES OF PEACE, THAT THE PRESENCE OF A DULY
QUALIFIED LAW MEMBER FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT BE
MADE A JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITE TO THE VALIDITY OF SUCH COURT
MARTIAL PROCEEDING, EXCEPT IN THE SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE SUCH OFFICER IS
ACTUALLY, AND IN FACT, 'NOT AVAILABLE.'"  175 F.2D AT 276.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF A LAW MEMBER FROM THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT WAS CONCLUSIVELY INDICATED BY THE ORDER
DETAILING AN OFFICER FROM THAT DEPARTMENT IN ANOTHER CAPACITY WITHOUT
ANY EXPLANATION.  THUS THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE PROCEEDING WAS
VOID. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THIS RECORD
DISCLOSES ANY DISREGARD OF THE 8TH ARTICLE OF WAR IN THE APPOINTMENT OF
THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CONVICTED RESPONDENT. 

UNDER THE INTERPRETATION PLACED ON THE 8TH ARTICLE BY THE COURT
BELOW, AN OFFICER FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT WAS
"AVAILABLE" FOR APPOINTMENT AS LAW MEMBER IF HE WAS APPOINTED ON THE
DETAIL IN ANOTHER CAPACITY AND NOTHING OTHERWISE APPEARED TO NEGATIVE
HIS AVAILABILITY AS LAW MEMBER.  THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN CONSTRUED
DIFFERENTLY BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN HENRY V.
HODGES, 171 F.2D 401(1948).  IN THAT CASE, IN WHICH THE INTERPRETATIVE
ISSUE WAS SIMILARLY RAISED ON PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, ONE OFFICER
FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN APPOINTED TRIAL
JUDGE ADVOCATE AND A SECOND DESIGNATED COUNSEL FOR ANOTHER ACCUSED. 
THE COURT THROUGH JUDGE LEARNED HAND DECLARED: 

"THERE REMAINS THE  ...  QUESTION  ...  WHETHER ANY MEMBER OF THE
JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT WAS 'AVAILABLE' AT THE TIME.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS NOT MORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO DETAIL
BEATTY TO DEFEND FELTMAN THAN TO PUT HIM ON THE COURT; OR THAT IT WAS
NOT BETTER JUDGMENT TO MAKE SWAN A PROSECUTOR THAN A JUDGE  ...  THE
WHOLE QUESTION IS ESPECIALLY ONE OF DISCRETION; AND, IF IT IS EVER
REVIEWABLE, CERTAINLY THE RECORD AT BAR IS WITHOUT EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD
JUSTIFY A REVIEW.  THE COMMANDING OFFICER WHO CONVENES THE COURT MUST
DECIDE WHAT MEMBERSHIP WILL BE LEAST TO THE 'INJURY OF THE SERVICE,'
AND WHAT OFFICERS ARE 'AVAILABLE.'  'AVAILABLE' MEANS MORE THAN
PRESENTLY 'ACCESSIBLE'; IT DEMANDS A BALANCE BETWEEN THE CONFLICTING
DEMANDS UPON THE SERVICE, AND IT MUST BE DETERMINED ON THE SPOT."  171
F.2D AT 403. 

WE AGREE WITH THE LATTER INTERPRETATION THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF AN
OFFICER AS LAW MEMBER WAS INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO BE A MATTER WITHIN
THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.  ORDINARILY THE
"AVAILABILITY" OF MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO ARE SUBJECT TO ASSIGNMENT BY
AN APPOINTING AUTHORITY IS UNDERSTOOD TO DEPEND UPON A DISCRETIONARY
DETERMINATION BY THE SUPERIOR.  CF. KAHN V. ANDERSON, 255 U.S. 1(1921);
SWAIM V. UNITED STATES, 165 U.S. 553(1897); MULLAN V. UNITED STATES,
140 U.S. 240(1891); MARTIN V. MOTT, 12 WHEAT.  19(1827).  MOREOVER, THE
PHRASE ADOPTED IN THE 8TH ARTICLE, "AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE,"
EXPRESSES A CLEAR INTENT THAT THE CONCEPT OF AVAILABILITY SHOULD
INCLUDE THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY.  FN4 

THE 8TH ARTICLE HAS ALSO BEEN CONSISTENTLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED BY
THE ARMY AS VESTING A DISCRETION IN THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY, WHICH
WHEN EXERCISED IS CONCLUSIVE IN DETERMINING NOT ONLY THE ACCESSIBILITY
OF PERSONNEL BUT ALSO THE SUITABILITY OF THE OFFICER DETAILED AS THE
LAW MEMBER OF A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL.  CM 231963, HATTEBERG, 18 B.R.
349, 366-369(1943); CM ETO 804, OGLETREE, 2 B.R. (ETO) 337, 346(1943);
CM 209988, CROMWELL, 9 B.R. 169, 196(1938); DIGEST OF OPINIONS OF THE
JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (1912-1940) SEC. 365(9).  THIS ESTABLISHED
INTERPRETATION IS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT IN OUR DETERMINATION OF THE
MEANING OF THE ARTICLE.  CF. UNITED STATES EX REL. HIRSHBERG V. COOKE,
336 U.S. 210, 216(1949). 

THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION THUS CONFERRED ON THE APPOINTING
AUTHORITY MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE COURTS ONLY IF A GROSS ABUSE OF THAT
DISCRETION WOULD HAVE GIVEN RISE TO A DEFECT IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT-MARTIAL.  FN5  HOWEVER, WE NEED NOT DETERMINE AT THIS TIME
WHETHER THE PROVISION OF THE 8TH ARTICLE RELIED UPON BELOW IMPOSED A
REQUIREMENT GOING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT-MARTIAL, FOR NOTHING
IN THE RECORD HERE INVOLVED INDICATES THAT THE DISCRETION OF THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITY WAS IMPROPERLY EXERCISED.  CLEARLY NO ABUSE IS
DISCLOSED BY THE APPOINTMENT OF AN OFFICER FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT TO A CAPACITY OTHER THAN LAW MEMBER ON THE DETAIL,
OR BY REASSIGNMENT OF THAT OFFICER TO OTHER DUTY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL,
OR BY THE STANDARD OF COMPETENCE IN LEGAL MATTERS SHOWN BY THE LAW
MEMBER AT THE TRIAL. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO CONCLUDED THAT CERTAIN ERRORS COMMITTED BY
THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL AND REVIEWING AUTHORITIES HAD DEPRIVED RESPONDENT
OF DUE PROCESS.  FN6  WE THINK THE COURT WAS IN ERROR IN EXTENDING ITS
REVIEW, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE, TO SUCH MATTERS AS THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW SET FORTH IN THE
STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S REPORT, THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN RESPONDENT'S CONVICTION, THE ADEQUACY OF THE PRETRIAL
INVESTIGATION, AND THE COMPETENCE OF THE LAW MEMBER AND DEFENSE
COUNSEL.  CF. HUMPHREY V. SMITH, 336 U.S. 695(1949).  IT IS WELL
SETTLED THAT "BY HABEAS CORPUS THE CIVIL COURTS EXERCISE NO SUPERVISORY
OR CORRECTING POWER OVER THE PROCEEDINGS OF A COURT-MARTIAL  ...  THE
SINGLE INQUIRY, THE TEST, IS JURISDICTION."  IN RE GRIMLEY, 137 U.S.
147, 150(1890).  IN THIS CASE THE COURT-MARTIAL HAD JURISDICTION OF THE
PERSON ACCUSED AND THE OFFENSE CHARGED, AND ACTED WITHIN ITS LAWFUL
POWERS.  THE CORRECTION OF ANY ERRORS IT MAY HAVE COMMITTED IS FOR THE
MILITARY AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE ALONE AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW ITS
DECISION.  IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, 8-9(1946); SWAIM V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 165 U.S. AT 562. 

IT RESULTS THAT THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW
A COURT OF APPEALS' JUDGMENT ORDERING DISCHARGE OF A PRISONER OR
AFFIRMING SUCH AN ORDER, IN VIEW OF THE OMISSION FROM REVISED TITLE 28
OF ANY PROVISION COMPARABLE TO FORMER SEC. 463C WHICH EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED REVIEW OF SUCH JUDGMENTS ON CERTIORARI.  WE THINK THIS
CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT IN VIEW OF THE BROAD PROVISION OF SEC. 1254
THAT "CASES IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME
COURT ...  (1) BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED UPON THE PETITION OF ANY
PARTY TO ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASE  ...  " 

FN2  THE COURT OF APPEALS STATED IN ITS OPINION THAT TWO OFFICERS OF
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT WERE APPOINTED TO THE DETAIL. 
HOWEVER, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT ONLY ONE OF THOSE MENTIONED BELOW
WAS APPOINTED FROM THAT DEPARTMENT. 

FN3  "THE AUTHORITY APPOINTING A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL SHALL DETAIL
AS ONE OF THE MEMBERS THEREOF A LAW MEMBER, WHO SHALL BE AN OFFICER OF
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT THAT WHEN AN OFFICER OF
THAT DEPARTMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE THE APPOINTING
AUTHORITY SHALL DETAIL INSTEAD AN OFFICER OF SOME OTHER BRANCH OF THE
SERVICE SELECTED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY AS SPECIALLY QUALIFIED TO
PERFORM THE DUTIES OF LAW MEMBER.  ...  "  41 STAT. 788, 10 U.S.C. SEC.
1479.  THE 8TH ARTICLE WAS AMENDED SUBSTANTIALLY IN 1948, 62 STAT. 628
629.  SEE NOTE 5, INFRA. 

FN4  THE RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PROVISION OF THE 8TH
ARTICLE RELATING TO THE LAW MEMBER SUPPORTS THIS INTERPRETATION.  PRIOR
TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 8TH ARTICLE OF WAR IN 1920, MILITARY LAW DID NOT
PROVIDE FOR THE SERVICE OF A LAW MEMBER ON A COURT-MARTIAL.  UNDER THE
IMPETUS FOR REFORM FOLLOWING WORLD WAR I, THE ORIGINAL DRAFT OF WHAT
BECAME THE 8TH ARTICLE PROVIDED THAT EVERY GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL SHOULD
HAVE A JUDGE ADVOCATE WHOSE DUTIES WERE TO BE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE
"LAW MEMBER," AS FINALLY PROVIDED FOR.  THE PROPOSED ARTICLE WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED FURTHER THAT SUCH JUDGE ADVOCATE OF THE COURT BE A MEMBER OF
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT OR AN OFFICER WHOSE
QUALIFICATIONS WERE APPROVED BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.  HEARINGS
ON S. 64, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS,
66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5.  THE PROPOSED ARTICLE WAS, HOWEVER,
ABANDONED FOR THE PROVISIONS OF THE 8TH ARTICLE.  SEE 18 B.R. 349, 366
367(1943). 

FN5  THE 8TH ARTICLE OF WAR, AS IN FORCE SINCE FEBRUARY 1, 1949,
EXPRESSLY IMPOSES AS A JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE LAW MEMBER
BE AN OFFICER FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT OR AN
OFFICER WHOSE QUALIFICATION FOR SUCH DETAIL HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE
JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.  62 STAT. 628-629. 

FN6  THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES OF ERROR IN THE MILITARY PROCEEDINGS
WERE CITED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS: 

"(1)  ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED ON THE THEORY THAT ALTHOUGH HE WAS ON
DUTY AS A SENTRY AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM
TO RETREAT FROM HIS POST OF DUTY. 

"(2)  ACCUSED HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER ON EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT
MEASURE TO MALICE, PREMEDITATION, OR DELIBERATION. 

"(3)  THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE LAW MEMBER APPOINTED WAS GROSSLY
INCOMPETENT. 

"(4)  THERE WAS NO PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION WHATEVER UPON THE CHARGE
OF MURDER. 

"(5)  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT COUNSEL APPOINTED TO DEFEND THE ACCUSED
WAS INCOMPETENT, GAVE NO PREPARATION TO THE CASE, AND SUBMITTED ONLY A
TOKEN DEFENSE. 

"(6)  THE APPELLATE REVIEWS BY THE ARMY REVIEWING AUTHORITIES REVEAL
A TOTAL MISCONCEPTION OF THE APPLICABLE LAW."  175 F.2D AT 277. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAUSE IN THE 8TH ARTICLE OF WAR,
WHICH DEALS WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF AN OFFICER OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT AND IS HERE AT ISSUE, IS PURELY DIRECTORY, AND NOT
JURISDICTIONAL.  THE 8TH ARTICLE, IN ANY EVENT, CALLS FOR THE
APPOINTMENT AS THE LAW MEMBER OF A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL OF AN OFFICER
MEETING CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS.  HE MUST BE EITHER AN OFFICER OF THE
JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT OR HE MUST BE SELECTED BY THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITY AS SPECIALLY QUALIFIED FOR HIS DUTIES.  THE
UNAVAILABILITY OF AN OFFICER OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT
MERELY OPENS THE FIELD OF ELIGIBILITY TO OTHER BRANCHES OF THE
SERVICE.    IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT, WHEN THE GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WAS APPOINTED, IT WAS A JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE A LAW MEMBER APPOINTED TO IT.  IT ALSO MAY BE
ASSUMED THAT IT WAS A JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT, IF THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITY DETERMINED THAT NO OFFICER OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT WAS THEN "AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE," SUCH
AUTHORITY WAS RESTRICTED TO THE APPOINTMENT OF "AN OFFICER OF SOME
OTHER BRANCH OF THE SERVICE SELECTED BY (HIM)  ...  AS SPECIALLY
QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF LAW MEMBER."  IF THE OFFICER WHO WAS
APPOINTED MET NEITHER REQUIREMENT, IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE COURT
MARTIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  IF, HOWEVER, AS IN THIS
CASE, IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE LAW MEMBER MET THE SECOND
REQUIREMENT, I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD NOT PERMIT A REVIEW HERE OF THE
DISCRETION USED BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY IN DETERMINING THE
PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT AN OFFICER OF THE
JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT WAS "AVAILABLE FOR THE PURPOSE." 
WE SHOULD NOT PERMIT IT, EVEN IF IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE APPOINTING
AUTHORITY'S DISCRETION IN THIS REGARD WAS GROSSLY ABUSED.  THAT DETAIL
WAS A MATTER WITHIN HIS ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY AND SHOULD NOT BE
AVAILABLE AS A BASIS FOR COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON THE JURISDICTION OF AN
OTHERWISE QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL. 
..END :

















REIDER V. THOMPSON, 339 U.S. 113 


NO. 403.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1950.  - DECIDED MARCH 13, 1950.  - 176
F.2D 13, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT RAILROAD RECEIVED GOODS AT NEW ORLEANS, LA., FOR
TRANSPORTATION TO BOSTON, MASS., BY WAY OF ITS LINE AND CONNECTING
CARRIERS, AND ISSUED ITS ORIGINAL THROUGH BILL OF LADING FOR THE
SHIPMENT.  PETITIONER SUED RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE CARMACK
AMENDMENT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11), ALLEGING THAT PETITIONER WAS THE
LAWFUL HOLDER OF THE BILL OF LADING AND OWNER OF THE GOODS, THAT THE
SHIPMENT WAS IN GOOD ORDER AND CONDITION WHEN RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT AT
NEW ORLEANS, AND THAT IT ARRIVED AT BOSTON DAMAGED.  HELD: 

1.  THE CARMACK AMENDMENT WAS APPLICABLE TO THE SHIPMENT, AND
PETITIONER STATED A CLAIM AGAINST RESPONDENT UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE
GRANTED.  PP. 115-119. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE SHIPMENT ORIGINATED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, AND
THAT THE GOODS WERE TRANSPORTED TO NEW ORLEANS ON AN OCEAN BILL OF
LADING, DID NOT RENDER THE CARMACK AMENDMENT INAPPLICABLE, SINCE THERE
WAS NO THROUGH BILL OF LADING FROM THE FOREIGN COUNTRY TO BOSTON AND
THE FOREIGN PORTION OF THE JOURNEY TERMINATED AT NEW ORLEANS.  PP. 117
119. 

3.  WITH RESPECT TO THIS TRANSACTION, RESPONDENT WAS THE RECEIVING
CARRIER WITHIN THE WORDING AND MEANING OF THE CARMACK AMENDMENT.  P.
119. 

REIDER V. THOMPSON, TRUSTEE, MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE CARMACK
AMENDMENT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11), WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  176 F.2D 13.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 890.  REVERSED, P. 119. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER A CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER THE SO
CALLED CARMACK AMENDMENT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT HAS BEEN STATED
AGAINST RESPONDENT CARRIER.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT A CLAIM
WITHIN THE AMENDMENT HAD NOT BEEN STATED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED COURT.  176 F.2D 13.  BECAUSE THE
CASE PRESENTS AN ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE IN THE APPLICATION OF A FEDERAL
STATUTE GOVERNING LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS FOR DAMAGE TO GOODS
TRANSPORTED BY THEM, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 890. 

THE CARMACK AMENDMENT IN PERTINENT PART PROVIDES: 

"ANY COMMON CARRIER, RAILROAD, OR TRANSPORTATION COMPANY SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER RECEIVING PROPERTY FOR TRANSPORTATION
FROM A POINT IN ONE STATE OR TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO A
POINT IN ANOTHER STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR FROM ANY
POINT IN THE UNITED STATES TO A POINT IN AN ADJACENT FOREIGN COUNTRY
SHALL ISSUE A RECEIPT OR BILL OF LADING THEREFOR, AND SHALL BE LIABLE
TO THE LAWFUL HOLDER THEREOF FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE, OR INJURY TO SUCH
PROPERTY CAUSED BY IT OR BY ANY COMMON CARRIER, RAILROAD, OR
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY TO WHICH SUCH PROPERTY MAY BE DELIVERED OR OVER
WHOSE LINE OR LINES SUCH PROPERTY MAY PASS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR
WITHIN AN ADJACENT FOREIGN COUNTRY WHEN TRANSPORTED ON A THROUGH BILL
OF LADING ...  "  34 STAT. 593, 595, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
20(11). 

RESPONDENT RAILROAD RECEIVED A SHIPMENT OF WOOL AND SKINS AT NEW
ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, FOR TRANSPORTATION TO BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, BY WAY
OF ITS LINE AND CONNECTING CARRIERS, AND ISSUED ITS ORIGINAL THROUGH
BILL OF LADING FOR THE SHIPMENT.  PETITIONER, WHO ALLEGED THAT HE WAS
THE LAWFUL HOLDER OF THE BILL OF LADING AND OWNER OF THE GOODS, SUED
RESPONDENT, AS RECEIVING CARRIER UNDER THE CARMACK AMENDMENT, FOR
DAMAGES, ASSERTING THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS IN GOOD ORDER AND CONDITION
WHEN RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT AT NEW ORLEANS AND WAS DAMAGED ON ARRIVAL
IN BOSTON.  RESPONDENT FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CLAIM AGAINST RESPONDENT UPON WHICH RELIEF
COULD BE GRANTED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S
ORDER GRANTING THIS MOTION AND DISMISSING THE SUIT. 

IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT IF THESE WERE ALL THE FACTS IN THE CASE THE
COURTS BELOW WERE IN ERROR.  CLEARLY RESPONDENT IS A COMMON CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THE ACT, AND A CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST RESPONDENT, AS
RECEIVING CARRIER, ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGE TO A SHIPMENT OF GOODS MOVING
FROM A POINT IN ONE STATE TO A POINT IN ANOTHER STATE WAS PLEADED UNDER
THE CARMACK AMENDMENT.  SEE GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 223
U.S. 481.  BUT FROM A STIPULATION FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND
CONSIDERED WITH THE PLEADINGS, WE LEARN THAT THE SHIPMENT ORIGINATED IN
BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA.  THE GOODS WERE TRANSPORTED BY STEAMSHIP FROM
THERE TO NEW ORLEANS ON AN OCEAN BILL OF LADING, FREIGHT FOR WHICH WAS
PAYABLE AT BUENOS AIRES.  WHAT IS STIPULATED TO BE AN ACCURATE ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF THE OCEAN BILL OF LADING READS IN PART: 

"THE SHIPPER, SHIP, CONSIGNEE, DESTINATION AND GOODS WHICH ARE
SPECIFIED IN THIS BILL OF LADING ARE THE FOLLOWING: 

SHIPPER:  EMILIO ROSLER S.R.L.       SHIP:  RIO PARANA 

.         .         .         .         . 

PORT OF SHIPMENT:  BUENOS AIRES 

PORT OF DISCHARGE OF THE SHIP NEW ORLEANS 

DESTINATION OF THE GOODS:  --------------------(IF THE GOODS ARE TO
BE TRANSSHIPPED OUT OF THE PORT OF DISCHARGE) 

SHIPPER TO THE ORDER OF:  THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON 

NOTICE OF ARRIVAL SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO (IF CONSIGNED TO SHIPPER'S
ORDER) RUDOLF REIDER 39 SOUTH STREET BOSTON MASS. U.S.A." 

THE DOMESTIC BILL OF LADING ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AT NEW ORLEANS
RECITED THAT THE GOODS WERE RECEIVED FROM H.P. LAMBERT CO. AND
CONSIGNED TO THE SAME H.P. LAMBERT CO. AT BOSTON.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
CHARACTERIZED THIS RAILROAD BILL AS A "SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF LADING"
ISSUED BY THE DOMESTIC CARRIER TO COVER IT PORTION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY OF A "THROUGH FOREIGN SHIPMENT," AND HELD
THAT THE CARMACK AMENDMENT WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO SUCH A FOREIGN
SHIPMENT.  THE TESTS LAID DOWN IN UNITED STATES V. ERIE R. CO., 280
U.S. 98, AND TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. SABINE TRAM CO., 227 U.S.
111, WERE APPLIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN DETERMINING THAT THE
TRANSACTION WAS A "THROUGH FOREIGN SHIPMENT."  AND MISSOURI PACIFIC R.
CO. V. PORTER, 273 U.S. 341, WAS RELIED ON AS AUTHORITY FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT THE CARMACK AMENDMENT WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO
SUCH A SHIPMENT. 

RELIANCE ON THE CITED CASES IS MISPLACED.  THE ISSUE IN THE PORTER
CASE, SUPRA, WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE QUESTION HERE.  FN1  AND
WHETHER THE COMMERCE IS PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC
IS, IN OUR VIEW OF THE CASE, NOT MATERIAL. 

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THIS TRANSACTION IS WITHIN THE CARMACK
AMENDMENT.  BUT BASICALLY, THE PROBLEM HERE IS ONE OF LIABILITY.  THE
CONTRACT GIVING RISE TO LIABILITY - THE BILL OF LADING - IS OUR PRIMARY
AID IN SOLVING THAT PROBLEM.  SO WE TURN TO THE CONTRACT TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER IT EVIDENCES A TRANSACTION WITHIN THE CARMACK AMENDMENT. 

DOES THE FACT THAT THE SHIPMENT IN THIS CASE ORIGINATED IN A FOREIGN
COUNTRY TAKE IT WITHOUT THE CARMACK AMENDMENT?  WE THINK NOT.  THERE
WAS NO THROUGH BILL OF LADING FROM BUENOS AIRES TO BOSTON.  THE RECORD
DOES NOT SHOW THE SLIGHTEST PRIVITY BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE OCEAN
CARRIER.  THE CONTRACT FOR OCEAN TRANSPORTATION TERMINATED AT NEW
ORLEANS.  HAVING TERMINATED, NOTHING OF IT REMAINED FOR THE NEW,
SEPARATE, AND DISTINCT DOMESTIC CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE TO "SUPPLEMENT." 
EVEN THE PARTIES TO THE OCEAN BILL OF LADING AND THE DOMESTIC BILL OF
LADING WERE DIFFERENT.  IF THE VARIOUS PARTIES DEALING WITH THIS
SHIPMENT SEPARATED THE CARRIAGE INTO DISTINCT PORTIONS BY THEIR
CONTRACTS, IT IS NOT FOR COURTS JUDICIALLY TO MELD THE PORTIONS INTO
SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT.  THE TEST IS NOT WHERE THE SHIPMENT ORIGINATED,
BUT WHERE THE OBLIGATION OF THE CARRIER AS RECEIVING CARRIER
ORIGINATED.  RICE V. OREGON SHORT LINE R. CO., 33 IDAHO 565, 198 P.
161; BARRETT V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 29 IDAHO 139, 157 P. 1016;
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. MONTGOMERY & CO., 19 GA. APP. 29, 90 S.E.
740.  THUS IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT THAT THE SHIPMENT IN THIS CASE
ORIGINATED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, SINCE THE FOREIGN PORTION OF THE
JOURNEY TERMINATED AT THE BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE OBLIGATION
AS RECEIVING CARRIER ORIGINATED WHEN RESPONDENT ISSUED ITS ORIGINAL
THROUGH BILL OF LADING AT NEW ORLEANS.  THAT CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE WAS
SQUARELY WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE. 

THE CASE OF ALWINE V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 141 PA. SUPER.  558, 15
A.2D 507, MUCH RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, IS
NOT IN POINT.  WE NEED NOT NOW DETERMINE WHETHER THAT CASE WAS
CORRECTLY DECIDED.  FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE
THAT THERE THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT EMPHASIZED THAT THE SHIPMENT CAME
INTO THIS COUNTRY ON A THROUGH BILL OF LADING FROM CANADA.  THE
CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE DID NOT TERMINATE AT THE BORDER, AS IN THE INSTANT
CASE.  NOR DOES MEXICAN LIGHT & POWER CO. V. TEXAS MEXICAN R. CO., 331
U.S. 731, AID RESPONDENT.  THERE AN EXPORT SHIPMENT ON A THROUGH BILL
OF LADING FROM PENNSYLVANIA TO THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY, DESTINED FOR
A POINT IN MEXICO, WAS DAMAGED IN MEXICO.  THE TEXAS MEXICAN CO., THE
LAST IN A SERIES OF CARRIERS HANDLING THE SHIPMENT IN THIS COUNTRY,
ISSUED A SECOND BILL OF LADING AT LAREDO, TEXAS, FOR THE CARRIAGE ON
INTO MEXICO.  RECOVERY WAS SOUGHT AGAINST THE TEXAS MEXICAN CO. AS
INITIAL (RECEIVING) CARRIER UNDER THE CARMACK AMENDMENT.  THIS COURT
HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A RECEIVING CARRIER BECAUSE ITS DUTIES WERE
CONTROLLED BY THE FIRST BILL, AND THE SECOND BILL WAS WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION AND VOID.  AS THE DISSENTING JUDGE BELOW SAID:  "THAT
CASE RULES NOTHING AS TO A REVERSE SHIPMENT  ...  "  AND IT COULD
HARDLY BE CONTENDED THAT RESPONDENT'S DOMESTIC BILL OF LADING HERE WAS
VOID.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE SHIPMENT IN THIS CASE COULD NOT HAVE
MOVED AN INCH BEYOND NEW ORLEANS UNDER THE OCEAN BILL; AND THE CARMACK
AMENDMENT REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO ISSUE A THROUGH BILL OF LADING FOR THE
CARRIAGE FROM NEW ORLEANS TO BOSTON. 

WE DISAVOW, AS DID BOTH THE CONCURRING JUDGE AND THE DISSENTING JUDGE
BELOW, ANY INTIMATION THAT OUR HOLDING MIGHT IMPOSE LIABILITY ON A
DOMESTIC CARRIER FOR DAMAGE ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN OCEAN CARRIER.  THE
COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE ALLEGES THAT THE SHIPMENT WAS RECEIVED BY
RESPONDENT IN GOOD ORDER AND CONDITION AND WAS DAMAGED WHEN DELIVERED. 
UNLESS PETITIONER CAN PROVE THE CASE STATED BY HIS COMPLAINT,
RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE CARMACK AMENDMENT WAS TO RELIEVE SHIPPERS OF THE
BURDEN OF SEARCHING OUT A PARTICULAR NEGLIGENT CARRIER FROM AMONG THE
OFTEN NUMEROUS CARRIERS HANDLING AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF GOODS.  TO
HOLD OTHERWISE THAN WE DO WOULD IMMUNIZE FROM THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS
OF THE AMENDMENT ALL SHIPMENTS ORIGINATING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY WHEN
RESHIPPED VIA THE VERY TRANSPORTATION CHAIN WITH WHICH THE AMENDMENT
WAS MOST CONCERNED.  RESPONDENT WAS THE RECEIVING CARRIER SQUARELY
WITHIN THE WORDING AND MEANING OF THE CARMACK AMENDMENT.  THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COURT THERE BRIEFLY ALLUDED TO THE COVERAGE OF THE CARMACK
AMENDMENT.  BUT THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE PORTER CASE WAS WHETHER FEDERAL
REGULATION OF BILLS OF LADING HAD COVERED THE FIELD TO THE EXCLUSION OF
STATE REGULATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER.  THE COURT'S DISCUSSION OF
THE CARMACK AMENDMENT THERE DOES NOT CONTROL OUR DECISION IN THIS
CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER A SHIPMENT WHICH
CONSTITUTES AN ORGANIC TRANSACTION IN COMMERCE BETWEEN A NON-ADJACENT
FOREIGN COUNTRY AND THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES FOR EVERY OTHER
ASPECT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH FOR
PURPOSES OF SEC. 20(11) OF THAT ACT, FAMILIARLY KNOWN AS THE CARMACK
AMENDMENT.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11).  SINCE I AGREE WITH THE ANSWER GIVEN
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS I OUGHT NOT TO JOIN IN REVERSING ITS DECISION. 

THAT COURT'S POSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THIS COURT'S VIEW OF THE MATTER
IN MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. PORTER, 273 U.S. 341, 344, 345, READ IN
THE LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES A SHIPMENT
IN FOREIGN COMMERCE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ERIE R. CO., 280 U.S. 98. 
TO BE SURE, THE PRECISE QUESTION NOW HERE WAS NOT THE ISSUE IN THE
PORTER CASE.  BUT WHAT WAS THERE SAID AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE CARMACK
AMENDMENT IN RELATION TO SUCH COMMERCE WITH A NON-ADJACENT FOREIGN
COUNTRY WAS RELEVANT TO THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION IN THE PORTER CASE
CONSIDERED IN ITS TRUE ASPECT.  IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE PRECISE QUESTION
OF THAT CASE THE COURT HAD TO CONSIDER THE REGULATORY SCHEME OF
LIABILITY UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IN ITS ENTIRETY.  THE
CONCLUSION OF THE PORTER CASE - THAT THE CARMACK AMENDMENT DOES NOT
APPLY TO AN UNBROKEN TRANSACTION OF COMMERCE WITH A NONADJACENT FOREIGN
COUNTRY - CARRIED THE AUTHORITY OF THE TWO JUSTICES, BUTLER AND
BRANDEIS, WHO BETWEEN THEM HAD HAD THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE EXPERIENCE
WITH THE WORKING OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  AS JUDGE HUTCHESON
INDICATED IN HIS CONCURRING OPINION BELOW, THE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEM IS
NOT TO BE HAD BY TAKING WORDS OF THE CARMACK AMENDMENT OUT OF THE
ILLUMINATING CONTEXT OF THE REGULATORY SCHEME OF WHICH THEY ARE A
PART.  A LEGAL FAGGOT OUGHT NOT TO BE BROKEN INTO VERBAL STICKS. 
..END :





DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. LITTLE, 339 U.S. 1 


NO. 302.  ARGUED JANUARY 11-12, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 20, 1950.  -
85 U.S. APP. D.C. 242, 178 F.2D 13, AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS. 


RECEIVING INFORMATION THAT RESPONDENT'S HOME WAS IN AN UNSANITARY
CONDITION, A HEALTH OFFICER WENT THERE, WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTING IT.  RESPONDENT WAS AWAY AND THE DOOR WAS
LOCKED; BUT SHE RETURNED WHILE THE OFFICER WAS STANDING OUTSIDE THE
DOOR.  SHE PROTESTED HIS RIGHT TO ENTER, CLAIMING THAT IT WOULD VIOLATE
HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND SHE REFUSED TO UNLOCK THE DOOR; BUT SHE
NEITHER USED NOR THREATENED FORCE OF ANY KIND.  SHE WAS CONVICTED OF
VIOLATING A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGULATION MAKING IT A MISDEMEANOR TO
INTERFERE WITH OR PREVENT THE INSPECTION OF ANY BUILDING REPORTED TO BE
IN AN UNSANITARY CONDITION.  HELD: 

1.  RESPONDENT'S MERE REFUSAL TO UNLOCK THE DOOR ON SUBSTANTIAL
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS WAS NOT THE KIND OF INTERFERENCE PROHIBITED BY
THE REGULATION.  PP. 4-7. 

2.  THE FOREGOING CONCLUSION MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FORBADE THE HEALTH OFFICER TO ENTER RESPONDENT'S
HOME WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.  PP. 3-4. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. LITTLE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REGULATION MAKING IT A MISDEMEANOR TO INTERFERE WITH OR PREVENT THE
INSPECTION OF A BUILDING REPORTED TO BE IN AN UNSANITARY CONDITION. 
THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  62 A.2D 874.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
85 U.S. APP. D.C. 242, 178 F.2D 13.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
338 U.S. 866.  AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS, P. 7. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN INFORMATION WAS FILED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT GERALDINE LITTLE IN
THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARGING THAT SHE HAD
INTERFERED WITH A DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT
RESPONDENT HAD TOLD THE HEALTH OFFICER, WHO HAD NO SEARCH WARRANT, NOT
TO ENTER HER HOME TO INSPECT ITS SANITARY CONDITION; SHE HAD ALSO
REFUSED TO UNLOCK HER DOOR.  SHE WAS CONVICTED AND FINED $25.  THE
MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
FORBADE THE HEALTH OFFICER TO ENTER RESPONDENT'S PRIVATE HOME WITHOUT A
SEARCH WARRANT.  62 A.2D 874.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AFFIRMED ON THE SAME GROUNDS.  85 U.S.
APP. D.C. 242, 178 F.2D 13.  THE CASE RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
CONCERNING LEGAL PROVISIONS FOR PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE BY
SPECIAL AND PERIODIC INSPECTION AND ELIMINATION OF POTENTIAL SOURCES OF
DISEASE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 338 U.S. 866. 

IN THIS COURT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS HAVE EXTENDED FAR BEYOND
THE COMPARATIVELY NARROW ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PARTICULAR CASE.  AT
ONE EXTREME THE DISTRICT ARGUES THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS NO
APPLICATION WHATEVER TO INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS MADE BY HEALTH
OFFICERS; THAT TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, OFFICERS MAY WITHOUT
JUDICIAL WARRANTS ENTER PREMISES, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PRIVATE
RESIDENCES AT ANY REASONABLE HOUR, WITH OR WITHOUT THE OWNER'S
CONSENT.  AT THE OPPOSITE EXTREME, IT IS ARGUED THAT NO SANITARY
INSPECTION CAN EVER BE MADE BY HEALTH OFFICERS WITHOUT A SEARCH
WARRANT, EXCEPT WITH A PROPERTY OWNER'S CONSENT.  BETWEEN THESE TWO
EXTREMES ARE SUGGESTIONS THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES SEARCH
WARRANTS TO INSPECT PREMISES WHERE THE OBJECT OF INSPECTIONS IS TO
OBTAIN EVIDENCE FOR CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT OR WHERE THERE ARE CONDITIONS
IMMINENTLY DANGEROUS TO LIFE AND HEALTH, BUT THAT MUNICIPALITIES AND
OTHER GOVERNING AGENCIES MAY LAWFULLY PROVIDE FOR GENERAL ROUTINE
INSPECTIONS AT REASONABLE HOURS WITHOUT SEARCH WARRANTS.  AN IMPRESSIVE
ARRAY OF FACTS IS ALSO PRESENTED CONCERNING THE UNIFORM PRACTICES OF
AGENCIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH GENERAL ROUTINE
INSPECTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH SANITATION, PLUMBING, BUILDINGS, ETC. 

NEITHER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, NOR THE DISTRICT LAW ON WHICH THE
PROSECUTION RESTS, PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A SWEEPING DETERMINATION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT'S APPLICATION TO ALL THESE VARIED TYPES OF
INVESTIGATIONS, INSPECTIONS AND SEARCHES.  YET A DECISION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR A SEARCH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE MIGHT
HAVE FAR-REACHING AND UNEXPECTED IMPLICATIONS AS TO CLOSELY RELATED
QUESTIONS NOT NOW BEFORE US.  THIS IS THEREFORE AN APPROPRIATE CASE IN
WHICH TO APPLY OUR SOUND GENERAL POLICY AGAINST DECIDING CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS IF THE RECORD PERMITS FINAL DISPOSITION OF A CAUSE ON NON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  SEE RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S.
549, 568-575, AND CASES THERE CITED.  APPLYING THIS POLICY, WE FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRED A SEARCH
WARRANT HERE.  FOR EVEN IF THE HEALTH OFFICER HAD A LAWFUL RIGHT TO
INSPECT THE PREMISES WITHOUT A WARRANT, WE ARE PERSUADED THAT
RESPONDENT'S STATEMENTS TO THE OFFICER WERE NOT AN "INTERFERENCE" THAT
MADE HER GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR UNDER THE CONTROLLING DISTRICT LAW. 
FN1 

THE DISTRICT REGULATION WHICH RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING
IS SET OUT IN PART BELOW.  FN2  IT REQUIRES THAT OCCUPANTS OF PREMISES
IN THE DISTRICT SHALL KEEP THEM "CLEAN AND WHOLESOME"; THAT HEALTH
OFFICERS SHALL "EXAMINE OR CAUSE TO BE EXAMINED ANY BUILDING SUPPOSED
OR REPORTED TO BE IN AN UNSANITARY CONDITION"; AND THAT "ANY PERSON
VIOLATING  ...  ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS, OR
INTERFERING WITH OR PREVENTING ANY INSPECTION AUTHORIZED THEREBY, SHALL
BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR  ...  "  AN OCCUPANT OF RESPONDENT'S
HOUSE REPORTED TO THE HEALTH OFFICER THAT CONDITIONS INSIDE HER HOME
WERE VERY FAR FROM "CLEAN AND WHOLESOME."  FN3  THE HEALTH OFFICER THEN
WENT TO RESPONDENT'S HOME.  SHE WAS AWAY AND THE DOOR WAS LOCKED.  THE
OFFICER HAD NO SEARCH WARRANT.  WHILE HE WAS STANDING OUTSIDE THE DOOR,
RESPONDENT RETURNED.  SHE PROTESTED THE RIGHT OF THE INSPECTOR TO ENTER
HER PRIVATE HOME, CLAIMING THAT HIS ENTRY WOULD VIOLATE HER
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  SHE NEITHER USED NOR THREATENED FORCE OF ANY
KIND.  FN4  IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS FOUND BY THE COURTS BELOW, THE
QUESTION BOILS DOWN TO WHETHER RESPONDENT'S MERE REFUSAL TO UNLOCK THE
DOOR ACCOMPANIED BY REMONSTRANCES ON SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
WAS THE KIND OF INTERFERENCE PROHIBITED BY THE REGULATION.  FN5  WE
HOLD THAT IT WAS NOT. 

ALTHOUGH FORCE OR THREATENED FORCE IS NOT ALWAYS AN INDISPENSABLE
INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE OF INTERFERING WITH AN OFFICER IN THE
DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES, MERE REMONSTRANCES OR EVEN CRITICISMS OF AN
OFFICER ARE NOT USUALLY HELD TO BE THE EQUIVALENT OF UNLAWFUL
INTERFERENCE.  FN6  NOR DOES ANY EXPRESS LANGUAGE IN THE DISTRICT
REGULATION CONTROLLING HERE IMPOSE ANY DUTY ON HOME OWNERS TO ASSIST
HEALTH OFFICERS TO ENTER AND INSPECT THEIR HOMES.  IT DOES NOT EVEN
PROHIBIT "HINDERING" OR "REFUSING TO PERMIT ANY LAWFUL INSPECTION," IN
SHARP CONTRAST WITH A SEPARATE INSPECTION STATUTE ENACTED BY CONGRESS
FOR THE DISTRICT WHICH ADDS THESE PHRASES TO PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
"INTERFERENCE" AND "PREVENTION."  FN7  THE WORD "INTERFERE" IN THIS
REGULATION CANNOT FAIRLY BE INTERPRETED TO ENCOMPASS RESPONDENT'S
FAILURE TO UNLOCK HER DOOR AND HER REMONSTRANCES ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS. 

HAD THE RESPONDENT NOT OBJECTED TO THE OFFICER'S ENTRY OF HER HOUSE
WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT, SHE MIGHT THEREBY HAVE WAIVED HER
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.  FN8  THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE HOME HOLDS
TOO HIGH A PLACE IN OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS TO JUSTIFY A STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD IMPOSE A CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT ON ONE WHO DOES
NOTHING MORE THAN RESPONDENT DID HERE.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMING THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE
THE CONVICTION IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE LOWER COURTS, APPARENTLY PREOCCUPIED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE, DID NOT REFER TO THIS QUESTION.  ORDINARILY WE WOULD HESITATE TO
DECIDE QUESTIONS OF DISTRICT LAW ON WHICH THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT
HAVE NOT SPOKEN.  SEE, E.G., GRIFFIN V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 704,
718, AND CASES THERE CITED.  HERE, HOWEVER, THE INTERPRETATIVE QUESTION
IS SO ENMESHED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT COMPLETE DISPOSITION BY
THIS COURT IS IN ORDER. 

FN2  "2.  THAT IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF EVERY PERSON OCCUPYING ANY
PREMISES, OR ANY PART OF ANY PREMISES, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR
IF SUCH PREMISES BE NOT OCCUPIED, OF THE OWNER THEREOF, TO KEEP SUCH
PREMISES OR PART  ...  CLEAN AND WHOLESOME; IF, UPON INSPECTION BY THE
HEALTH OFFICER OR AN INSPECTOR OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IT BE
ASCERTAINED THAT ANY SUCH PREMISES, OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR ANY
BUILDING, YARD,  ...  IS NOT IN SUCH CONDITION AS HEREIN REQUIRED, THE
OCCUPANT OR OCCUPANTS OF SUCH PREMISES OR PART, OR THE OWNER THEREOF,
AS HEREINBEFORE SPECIFIED, SHALL BE NOTIFIED THEREOF AND REQUIRED TO
PLACE THE SAME IN A CLEAN AND WHOLESOME CONDITION; AND IN CASE ANY
PERSON SHALL FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PLACE SUCH PREMISES OR PART IN SUCH
CONDITION WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY SAID NOTICE HE SHALL BE LIABLE TO
THE PENALTIES HEREINAFTER PROVIDED. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"10.  THAT THE HEALTH OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE OR CAUSE TO BE EXAMINED
ANY BUILDING SUPPOSED OR REPORTED TO BE IN AN UNSANITARY CONDITION, AND
MAKE A RECORD OF SUCH EXAMINATION; ... 

.         .         .         .         . 

"12.  THAT ANY PERSON VIOLATING, OR AIDING OR ABETTING IN VIOLATING,
ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS, OR INTERFERING WITH OR
PREVENTING ANY INSPECTION AUTHORIZED THEREBY, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF
A MISDEMEANOR, AND SHALL, UPON CONVICTION IN THE POLICE COURT, BE
PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $5 NOR MORE THAN $45." 
COMMISSIONERS' REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, PROMULGATED APRIL 22, 1897, AMENDED JULY 28,
1922. 

FN3  THE COMPLAINT WAS THAT "THERE WAS AN ACCUMULATION OF LOOSE AND
UNCOVERED GARBAGE AND TRASH IN THE HALLS OF SAID PREMISES AND THAT
CERTAIN OF THE PERSONS RESIDING THEREIN HAD FAILED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES
OF THE TOILET FACILITIES." 

FN4  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT SOME DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE HOME
RESPONDENT ATTEMPTED TO GRAB SOME PAPERS FROM THE OFFICER.  THE
MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
BOTH HELD THAT THE INFORMATION ON WHICH RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED WAS
NOT BASED ON THIS INCIDENT.  THOSE COURTS AND THE MUNICIPAL COURT IN
WHICH RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED ALL TREATED THE CONVICTION AS HAVING
BEEN BASED ON RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO UNLOCK THE DOOR ON THE GROUND
THAT THE OFFICER WAS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ENTER. 

FN5  THE INFORMATION CHARGED THAT RESPONDENT "DID  ...  HINDER,
OBSTRUCT, AND INTERFERE WITH AN INSPECTOR OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT  ...
"  THE REGULATION ON WHICH THE PROSECUTION WAS BASED DOES NOT INCLUDE
THE WORDS "HINDER" AND "OBSTRUCT."  THESE WORDS DO APPEAR IN AN ACT OF
CONGRESS WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES IN THE DISTRICT
AND SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES PERSONS DELEGATED BY THE DISTRICT
COMMISSIONERS TO ENTER PREMISES "DURING ALL REASONABLE HOURS, TO
INSPECT THE SAME AND TO DO WHATEVER MAY BE NECESSARY TO CORRECT" A
CONDITION AMOUNTING TO A NUISANCE.  34 STAT. 115.  BUT THAT ACT IS NOT
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

FN6  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN NOTES, 48 A.L.R. 746, 749, 755; ANN. CAS.
1914B, 814. 

FN7  "SEC.  11.  THAT NO PERSON SHALL INTERFERE WITH ANY MEMBER OF
THE BOARD FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF INSANITARY BUILDINGS OR WITH ANY
PERSON ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY AND BY DIRECTION OF SAID BOARD IN THE
DISCHARGE OF HIS LAWFUL DUTIES, NOR HINDER, PREVENT, OR REFUSE TO
PERMIT ANY LAWFUL INSPECTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY WORK AUTHORIZED
BY THIS ACT TO BE DONE BY OR BY AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION OF SAID
BOARD."  34 STAT. 157, 159. 

THERE IS ANOTHER INTERESTING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ABOVE STATUTE AND
THE REGULATION HERE INVOLVED.  THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY LIMITS INSPECTION
TO THE HOURS BETWEEN 8 A.M. AND 5 P.M.; THE REGULATION HAS NO
LIMITATION OF THIS OR INDEED OF ANY OTHER TYPE, THOUGH PETITIONER
ADMITS THAT A REQUIREMENT OF "REASONABLENESS" SHOULD BE READ INTO IT.
SEE ALSO 49 STAT. 1917, 1919, SEC. 10. 

FN8  SEE COLLECTIONS CITED IN NOTE 6 SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

IF THIS COURT IS TO INTERPRET AN ORDINANCE OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENT WAS AN
EFFECTIVE INTERFERENCE WITH AN INSPECTOR OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH
DEPARTMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES, AND THAT SUCH
CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE ORDINANCE THAT IS BEFORE US.  IN
MY OPINION, ALSO, THE DUTIES WHICH THE INSPECTOR WAS SEEKING TO
PERFORM, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT, WERE OF SUCH A
REASONABLE, GENERAL, ROUTINE, ACCEPTED AND IMPORTANT CHARACTER, IN THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, THAT THEY WERE BEING
PERFORMED LAWFULLY WITHOUT SUCH A SEARCH WARRANT AS IS REQUIRED BY THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN
THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE CONVICTION OF THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE SUSTAINED,
AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS SETTING ASIDE THAT
CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :



SOLESBEE V. BALKCOM, 339 U.S. 9 


NO. 77.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 20, 1950.  - 205
GA. 122, 52 S.E.2D 433, AFFIRMED. 


WHERE A STATE POLICY IS AGAINST EXECUTION OF A CONDEMNED CONVICT WHO
HAS BECOME INSANE AFTER CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, IT IS NOT A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO VEST DISCRETIONARY
AUTHORITY IN THE GOVERNOR (AIDED BY PHYSICIANS) TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
CONDEMNED CONVICT HAS BECOME INSANE AFTER SENTENCE AND, IF SO, WHETHER
HE SHOULD BE COMMITTED TO AN INSANE ASYLUM - EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNOR'S
DECISION IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE STATUTE MAKES NO
PROVISION FOR AN ADVERSARY HEARING AT WHICH THE CONVICT MAY APPEAR IN
PERSON OR BY COUNSEL OR THROUGH FRIENDS AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND
OFFER EVIDENCE.  PP. 9-14. 

SOLESBEE V. BALKCOM, WARDEN. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, A GEORGIA TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF GA. CODE SEC. 27-2602, WHICH LEAVES
DETERMINATION OF SANITY AFTER CONVICTION OF A CAPITAL OFFENSE TO THE
GOVERNOR SUPPORTED BY THE REPORT OF PHYSICIANS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
GEORGIA AFFIRMED.  205 GA. 122, 52 S.E.2D 433.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 14. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER IN A GEORGIA STATE COURT.  HIS
SENTENCE WAS DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION.  SUBSEQUENTLY HE ASKED THE
GOVERNOR TO POSTPONE EXECUTION ON THE GROUND THAT AFTER CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE HE HAD BECOME INSANE.  ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SEC.
27-2602 OF THE GEORGIA CODE  FN1  THE GOVERNOR APPOINTED THREE
PHYSICIANS WHO EXAMINED PETITIONER AND DECLARED HIM SANE.  PETITIONER
THEN FILED THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING AGAIN ALLEGING HIS INSANITY. 
HE CONTENDED THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
REQUIRED THAT HIS CLAIM OF INSANITY AFTER SENTENCE BE ORIGINALLY
DETERMINED BY A JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARINGS IN WHICH HE COULD BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES AND OFFER EVIDENCE.  HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IF THE
TRIBUNAL WAS ADMINISTRATIVE ITS FINDINGS MUST BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEC.
27-2602, HOLDING THAT DETERMINATION OF PETITIONER'S SANITY BY THE
GOVERNOR SUPPORTED BY THE REPORT OF PHYSICIANS HAD MET THE STANDARDS OF
DUE PROCESS.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED, 205 GA. 122, 52 S.E.2D
433.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BEING SUBSTANTIAL, SEE PHYLE V.
DUFFY, 334 U.S. 431, 439, THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1257(2). 

IN AFFIRMING, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A PERSON LEGALLY
CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO DEATH HAD NO STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO A JUDICIALLY CONDUCTED OR SUPERVISED "INQUISITION OR TRIAL" ON
THE QUESTION OF INSANITY SUBSEQUENT TO SENTENCE.  FN2  IT VIEWED THE
GEORGIA STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF THIS QUESTION AS
MOTIVATED SOLELY BY A SENSE OF "PUBLIC PROPRIETY AND DECENCY" - AN "ACT
OF GRACE" WHICH COULD BE "BESTOWED OR WITHHELD BY THE STATE AT WILL"
AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE AND
HEARING.  THE COURT CITED AS AUTHORITY, AMONG OTHERS, OUR HOLDING IN
NOBLES V. GEORGIA, 168 U.S. 398.  COMPARE BURNS V. UNITED STATES, 287
U.S. 216, 223. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED POLICY WE SHALL NOT GO BEYOND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES NECESSARILY RAISED BY THIS RECORD.  AT THE OUTSET
WE LAY ASIDE THE CONTENTION THAT EXECUTION OF AN INSANE PERSON IS A
TYPE OF "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT" FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  SEE FRANCIS V. RESWEBER, 329 U.S. 459.  FOR THE CONTROLLING
GEORGIA STATUTES NEITHER APPROVE THE PRACTICE OF EXECUTING INSANE
PERSONS, NOR IS THIS PETITIONER ABOUT TO BE EXECUTED ON SUCH A
PREMISE.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE REASONING OF THE GEORGIA SUPREME
COURT IN THIS CASE REQUIRES US TO PASS UPON THE STATE STATUTE AS THOUGH
IT HAD ESTABLISHED A STATE PRACTICE DESIGNED TO EXECUTE PERSONS WHILE
INSANE.  BUT WE SHALL NOT MEASURE THE STATUTE BY SOME POSSIBLE FUTURE
APPLICATION.  OUR HOLDING IS LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
METHOD APPLIED BY GEORGIA HERE TO DETERMINE THE SANITY OF AN ALREADY
CONVICTED DEFENDANT OFFENDS DUE PROCESS. 

POSTPONEMENT OF EXECUTION BECAUSE OF INSANITY BEARS A CLOSE AFFINITY
NOT TO TRIAL FOR A CRIME BUT RATHER TO REPRIEVES OF SENTENCES IN
GENERAL.  THE POWER TO REPRIEVE HAS USUALLY SPRUNG FROM THE SAME SOURCE
AS THE POWER TO PARDON.  POWER OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY IN THIS COUNTRY
UNDOUBTEDLY DERIVED FROM THE PRACTICE AS IT HAD EXISTED IN ENGLAND. 
SUCH POWER HAS TRADITIONALLY RESTED IN GOVERNORS OR THE PRESIDENT,
ALTHOUGH SOME OF THAT POWER IS OFTEN DELEGATED TO AGENCIES SUCH AS
PARDON OR PAROLE BOARDS.  SELDOM, IF EVER, HAS THIS POWER OF EXECUTIVE
CLEMENCY BEEN SUBJECTED TO REVIEW BY THE COURTS.  SEE EX PARTE UNITED
STATES, 242 U.S. 27, 42, AND CASES COLLECTED IN NOTE, 38 L.R.A. 577,
587. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT IT OFFENDS DUE PROCESS FOR A STATE TO DEEM
ITS GOVERNOR AN "APT AND SPECIAL TRIBUNAL" N3 TO PASS UPON A QUESTION
SO CLOSELY RELATED TO POWERS THAT FROM THE BEGINNING HAVE BEEN
ENTRUSTED TO GOVERNORS.  AND HERE THE GOVERNOR HAD THE AID OF
PHYSICIANS SPECIALLY TRAINED IN APPRAISING THE ELUSIVE AND OFTEN
DECEPTIVE SYMPTOMS OF INSANITY.  IT IS TRUE THAT GOVERNORS AND
PHYSICIANS MIGHT MAKE ERRORS OF JUDGMENT.  BUT THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH IN
THIS FIELD IS ALWAYS BESET BY DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY BEGET ERROR.  EVEN
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF SANITY MIGHT BE WRONG. 

RECENTLY WE HAVE POINTED OUT THE NECESSARY AND INHERENT DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN TRIAL PROCEDURES AND POSTCONVICTION PROCEDURES SUCH AS
SENTENCING.  WILLIAMS V. NEW YORK, 337 U.S. 241.  IN THAT CASE WE
EMPHASIZED THAT CERTAIN TRIAL PROCEDURE SAFEGUARDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE
TO THE PROCESS OF SENTENCING.  THIS PRINCIPLE APPLIES EVEN MORE
FORCEFULLY TO AN EFFORT TO TRANSPLANT EVERY TRIAL SAFEGUARD TO A
DETERMINATION OF SANITY AFTER CONVICTION.  AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THE
NOBLES CASE, SUPRA, TO REQUIRE JUDICIAL REVIEW EVERY TIME A CONVICTED
DEFENDANT SUGGESTED INSANITY WOULD MAKE THE POSSIBILITY OF CARRYING OUT
A SENTENCE DEPEND UPON "FECUNDITY IN MAKING SUGGESTION AFTER SUGGESTION
OF INSANITY."  NOBLES V. GEORGIA, SUPRA, AT 405-406.  SEE ALSO PHYLE V.
DUFFY, SUPRA. TO PROTECT ITSELF SOCIETY MUST HAVE POWER TO TRY,
CONVICT, AND EXECUTE SENTENCES.  OUR LEGAL SYSTEM DEMANDS THAT THIS
GOVERNMENTAL DUTY BE PERFORMED WITH SCRUPULOUS FAIRNESS TO AN ACCUSED. 
WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT OFFENDS DUE PROCESS TO LEAVE THE QUESTION OF A
CONVICTED PERSON'S SANITY TO THE SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE'S
HIGHEST EXECUTIVE WITH AUTHORITY TO INVOKE THE AID OF THE MOST SKILLFUL
CLASS OF EXPERTS ON THE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 

THIS LEAVES THE CONTENTION THAT THE GEORGIA STATUTES DO NOT MAKE
PROVISIONS FOR AN ADVERSARY HEARING IN WHICH A CONVICTED DEFENDANT CAN
BE PRESENT BY FRIENDS, ATTORNEYS, OR IN PERSON, WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF
CROSS-EXAMINING WITNESSES AND OFFERING EVIDENCE.  WHETHER THIS GOVERNOR
DECLINED TO HEAR ANY STATEMENTS ON PETITIONER'S BEHALF, THIS RECORD
DOES NOT SHOW.  WE WOULD SUPPOSE THAT MOST IF NOT ALL GOVERNORS, LIKE
MOST IF NOT ALL JUDGES, WOULD WELCOME ANY INFORMATION WHICH MIGHT BE
SUGGESTED IN CASES WHERE HUMAN LIVES DEPEND UPON THEIR DECISION. 

BOTH THE NOBLES AND THE PHYLE CASES STAND FOR THE UNIVERSAL COMMON
LAW PRINCIPLE THAT UPON A SUGGESTION OF INSANITY AFTER SENTENCE, THE
TRIBUNAL CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY MUST BE VESTED WITH BROAD
DISCRETION IN DECIDING WHETHER EVIDENCE SHALL BE HEARD.  THIS
DISCRETION HAS USUALLY BEEN HELD NONREVIEWABLE BY APPELLATE COURTS. 
FN4  THE HEART OF THE COMMON-LAW DOCTRINE HAS BEEN THAT A SUGGESTION OF
INSANITY AFTER SENTENCE IS AN APPEAL TO THE CONSCIENCE AND SOUND WISDOM
OF THE PARTICULAR TRIBUNAL WHICH IS ASKED TO POSTPONE SENTENCE.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE TRUST THUS REPOSED IN JUDGES SHOULD BE DENIED
GOVERNORS, TRADITIONALLY CHARGED WITH SAYING THE LAST WORD THAT SPELLS
LIFE OR DEATH.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT EITHER THE GOVERNOR OR THE
PHYSICIANS WHO ACTED ON PETITIONER'S APPLICATION VIOLATED THE
HUMANITARIAN POLICY OF GEORGIA AGAINST EXECUTION OF THE INSANE.  WE
HOLD THAT THE GEORGIA STATUTE AS APPLIED IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "DISPOSITION OF INSANE CONVICTS.  ...  UPON SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE BEING OFFERED TO THE GOVERNOR THAT THE PERSON CONVICTED OF A
CAPITAL OFFENSE HAS BECOME INSANE SUBSEQUENT TO HIS CONVICTION, THE
GOVERNOR MAY, WITHIN HIS DISCRETION, HAVE SAID PERSON EXAMINED BY SUCH
EXPERT PHYSICIANS AS THE GOVERNOR MAY CHOOSE; AND SAID PHYSICIANS SHALL
REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR THE RESULT OF THEIR INVESTIGATION; AND THE
GOVERNOR MAY, IF HE SHALL DETERMINE THAT THE PERSON CONVICTED HAS
BECOME INSANE, HAVE THE POWER OF COMMITTING HIM TO THE MILLEDGEVILLE
STATE HOSPITAL UNTIL HIS SANITY SHALL HAVE BEEN RESTORED, AS DETERMINED
BY LAWS NOW IN FORCE.  ...  "  GA. CODE ANN. SEC. 27-2602(1074 P.C.);
ACTS 1903, P. 77. 

FN2  "NO PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A CAPITAL OFFENSE SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO ANY INQUISITION OR TRIAL TO DETERMINE HIS SANITY."  GA.
CODE ANN. SEC. 27-2601(1073 P.C.); ACTS 1903, P. 77. 

FN3  NOBLES V. GEORGIA, 168 U.S. 398, 409. 

FN4  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN NOTES, ANN. CAS. 1916E, 424 ET SEQ.; 49
A.L.R. 801 ET SEQ.; 38 L.R.A. 577 ET SEQ. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

IN THE HISTORY OF MURDER, THE ONSET OF INSANITY WHILE AWAITING
EXECUTION OF A DEATH SENTENCE IS NOT A RARE PHENOMENON.  THE LEGAL
PROBLEMS WHICH SUCH SUPERVENING INSANITY RAISES HAPPILY DO NOT INVOLVE
EXPLORATIONS OF THE PATHOLOGICAL PROCESSES WHICH GIVE RISE TO THE
CONFLICT BETWEEN SO-CALLED LEGAL AND MEDICAL INSANITY.  SEE M'NAGHTEN'S
CASE, 10 CL. & F. 200(1843); GLUECK, MENTAL DISORDER AND THE CRIMINAL
LAW PASSIM (1925); MINUTES OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE 1949 ROYAL COMMISSION
ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  THE CASE NOW BEFORE THE COURT PRESENTS A
FAMILIAR CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE PLACED IN THE SETTING OF A CLAIM OF
SUPERVENING INSANITY. 

THE QUESTION IS THIS:  MAY A STATE WITHOUT OFFENDING THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PUT TO DEATH ONE ON WHOSE BEHALF IT
IS CLAIMED THAT HE BECAME INSANE WHILE AWAITING EXECUTION, IF ALL
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HIS CASE PUT IS DENIED AND THE CLAIM OF SUPERVENING
INSANITY IS REJECTED ON THE BASIS OF AN EX PARTE INQUIRY BY THE
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE?  THIS ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE COURT VERY RECENTLY,
BUT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MATTER WAS NOT RIPE FOR DECISION.  PHYLE
V. DUFFY, 334 U.S. 431.  ON THE RECORD BEFORE US THE ISSUE MUST BE
MET.  UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN PHYLE V. DUFFY, IT CANNOT BE URGED THAT
THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW LEAVES OPEN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A
HEARING WHICH WAS GIVEN WHEN PHYLE V. DUFFY WENT BACK TO THE CALIFORNIA
COURTS.  34 CAL.2D 144, 208 P.2D 668.  WE CANNOT AVOID NOW DECIDING
WHETHER ONE AWAITING ELECTROCUTION WHO MAKES A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM THAT
HE HAS BECOME INSANE CAN BE DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE MIND OF
THE GOVERNOR, OR THOSE WHO ADVISE HIM, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE FACT
OF SUCH INSANITY.  IN PHYLE'S CASE, THE COURT RECOGNIZED "THE GRAVITY
OF THE QUESTIONS HERE RAISED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE."  334 U.S.
AT 439.  APPARENTLY BETWEEN JUNE 1948 AND TODAY THE GRAVITY SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN DISPELLED.  THESE GRAVE QUESTIONS ARE NOW ALMOST SUMMARILY
ANSWERED.  IT CANNOT BE DUE TO THE WEIGHTINESS OF THE ARGUMENT
PRESENTED AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT FOR NONE WAS MADE HERE BY GEORGIA,
AND ITS SLIGHT BRIEF HARDLY DISCUSSES THE PROBLEMS. 

THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION BEFORE US DEPENDS ON THE VIEW ONE TAKES OF THE
LEGAL RIGHT OF A STATE TO EXECUTE A PERSON BECOME INSANE AFTER
SENTENCE.  IF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES
NOT BAR THE STATE FROM INFLICTION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE WHILE SUCH
INSANITY PERSISTS, OF COURSE IT NEED MAKE NO INQUIRY INTO THE EXISTENCE
OF SUPERVENING INSANITY.  IF IT CHOOSES TO MAKE ANY INQUIRY IT MAY DO
SO ENTIRELY ON ITS OWN TERMS.  IF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES LIMIT THE
STATE'S POWER TO EXECUTE SUCH AN INSANE PERSON, THIS COURT MUST ASSERT
THE SUPREMACY OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND PROHIBIT ITS VIOLATION BY A
STATE. 

THE COURT IN AN EASY, QUICK WAY PUTS THIS CRUCIAL PROBLEM TO ONE SIDE
AS NOT BEFORE US.  BUT IN DETERMINING WHAT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS A
STATE MUST PROVIDE, IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD WHETHER
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PLACES A SUBSTANTIVE RESTRICTION ON THE
STATE'S POWER TO TAKE THE LIFE OF AN INSANE MAN.  IF NOT TO EXECUTE IS
MERELY A BENEVOLENT WITHHOLDING OF THE RIGHT TO KILL, THE STATE MAY
EXERCISE ITS BENEVOLENCE AS IT SEES FIT.  BUT IF GEORGIA IS PRECLUDED
BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FROM EXECUTING A MAN WHO HAS TEMPORARILY OR
PERMANENTLY BECOME INSANE, IT IS NOT A MATTER OF GRACE TO ASSERT THAT
RIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE LIFE ABOUT TO BE TAKEN.  IF TAKING LIFE UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION, THEN IT IS NOT
WITHIN THE BENEVOLENT DISCRETION OF GEORGIA TO DETERMINE HOW IT WILL
ASCERTAIN SANITY.  GEORGIA MUST AFFORD THE RUDIMENTARY SAFEGUARDS FOR
ESTABLISHING THE FACT.  IF GEORGIA DENIES THEM SHE TRANSGRESSES THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE LIMITS THAT THE CONSTITUTION PLACES UPON HER. 

DOES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE THEN BAR A STATE FROM EXECUTING A MAN
UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH WHILE INSANE?  IT IS NOW THE SETTLED DOCTRINE
OF THIS COURT THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE EMBODIES A SYSTEM OF RIGHTS
BASED ON MORAL PRINCIPLES SO DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN THE TRADITIONS AND
FEELINGS OF OUR PEOPLE AS TO BE DEEMED FUNDAMENTAL TO A CIVILIZED
SOCIETY AS CONCEIVED BY OUR WHOLE HISTORY.  DUE PROCESS IS THAT WHICH
COMPORTS WITH THE DEEPEST NOTIONS OF WHAT IS FAIR AND RIGHT AND JUST. 
THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL THE BELIEFS ARE THE LESS LIKELY THEY ARE TO BE
EXPLICITLY STATED.  BUT RESPECT FOR THEM IS OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  IN ENFORCING THEM THIS COURT DOES NOT TRANSLATE
PERSONAL VIEWS INTO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  IN APPLYING SUCH A
LARGE, UNTECHNICAL CONCEPT AS "DUE PROCESS," THE COURT ENFORCES THOSE
PERMANENT AND PERVASIVE FEELINGS OF OUR SOCIETY AS TO WHICH THERE IS
COMPELLING EVIDENCE OF THE KIND RELEVANT TO JUDGMENTS ON SOCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.    THAT IT OFFENDS OUR HISTORIC HERITAGE TO KILL A MAN
WHO HAS BECOME INSANE WHILE AWAITING SENTENCE CANNOT BE GAINSAID.  THIS
LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF THE STATE TO TAKE LIFE HAS BEEN PART OF OUR
LAW FOR CENTURIES, RECOGNIZED DURING PERIODS OF ENGLISH HISTORY WHEN
FEELINGS WERE MORE BARBAROUS AND MEN RECOILED LESS FROM BRUTAL ACTION
THAN WE LIKE TO THINK IS TRUE OF OUR TIME.  DUE PROCESS IS ITSELF "A
HISTORICAL PRODUCT," JACKMAN V. ROSENBAUM CO., 260 U.S. 22, 31, AND IT
REQUIRES NO EXPANSION OF ITS PURPOSES TO FIND IN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT A RESTRICTION UPON STATE ACTION THAT CARRIES SUCH IMPRESSIVE
CREDENTIALS OF HISTORY AS DOES THAT FORBIDDING THE STATE TO KILL AN
INSANE MAN THOUGH UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH: 

"IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED BY THE SAID ACT OF 33 H. 8.  THAT IF A MAN
ATTAINTED OF TREASON BECAME MAD, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING HE SHOULD BE
EXECUTED; WHICH CRUELL AND INHUMANE LAW LIVED NOT LONG, BUT WAS
REPEALED, FOR IN THAT POINT ALSO IT WAS AGAINST THE COMMON LAW, BECAUSE
BY INTENDMENT OF LAW THE EXECUTION OF THE OFFENDER IS FOR EXAMPLE, UT
POENA AD PAUCOS, METUS AD OMNES PERVENIAT, AS BEFORE IS SAID:  BUT SO
IT IS NOT WHEN A MAD MAN IS EXECUTED, BUT SHOULD BE A MISERABLE
SPECTACLE, BOTH AGAINST LAW, AND OF EXTREAME INHUMANITY AND CRUELTY,
AND CAN BE NO EXAMPLE TO OTHERS."  COKE, THIRD INSTITUTES 6(1644). 

"AND IT SEEMS AGREED AT THIS DAY, THAT IF ONE WHO HAS COMMITTED A
CAPITAL OFFENCE, BECOME NON COMPOS BEFORE CONVICTION, HE SHALL NOT BE
ARRAIGNED; AND IF AFTER CONVICTION, THAT HE SHALL NOT BE EXECUTED."  1
HAWKINS, PLEAS OF THE CROWN 2(1716). 

"  ...  FOR NOTHING IS MORE CERTAIN IN LAW, THAN THAT A PERSON WHO
FALLS MAD AFTER A CRIME SUPPOS'D TO BE COMMITTED, SHALL NOT BE TRY'D
FOR IT; AND IF HE FALL MAD AFTER JUDGMENT, HE SHALL NOT BE EXECUTED:
THO I DO NOT THINK THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE LAW IN THAT POINT WILL
MAINTAIN IT, WHICH IS, THAT THE END OF PUNISHMENT IS THE STRIKING A
TERROR INTO OTHERS, BUT THE EXECUTION OF A MADMAN HAD NOT THAT EFFECT;
WHICH IS NOT TRUE, FOR THE TERROR TO THE LIVING IS EQUAL, WHETHER THE
PERSON BE MAD OR IN HIS SENSES  ...  BUT THE TRUE REASON OF THE LAW I
THINK TO BE THIS, A PERSON OF NON SANA MEMORIA, AND A LUNATICK DURING
HIS LUNACY, IS BY AN ACT OF GOD (FOR SO IT IS CALL'D, THO THE MEANS MAY
BE HUMANE, BE IT VIOLENT, AS HARD IMPRISONMENT, TERROR OF DEATH, OR
NATURAL, AS SICKNESS) DISABLED TO MAKE HIS JUST DEFENCE, THERE MAY BE
CIRCUMSTANCES LYING IN HIS PRIVATE KNOWLEDG, WHICH WOULD PROVE HIS
INNOCENCY, OF WHICH HE CAN HAVE NO ADVANTAGE, BECAUSE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PERSONS WHO SHALL TAKE UPON THEM HIS DEFENCE  ... 

     .         .         .     .         . 

"THE KING IS THEREFORE NO OTHERWISE BENEFITED BY THE DESTRUCTION OF
HIS SUBJECTS, THAN THAT THE EXAMPLE DETERS OTHERS FROM COMMITTING THE
LIKE CRIMES; AND THERE BEING SO MANY TO BE MADE EXAMPLES OF, BESIDES
THOSE ON WHOM THE MISFORTUNES OF MADNESS FALL, IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH
HUMANITY TO MAKE EXAMPLES OF THEM; IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH RELIGION, AS
BEING AGAINST CHRISTIAN CHARITY TO SEND A GREAT OFFENDER QUICK, AS IT
IS STIL'D, INTO ANOTHER WORLD, WHEN HE IS NOT OF A CAPACITY TO FIT
HIMSELF FOR IT.  BUT WHATEVER THE REASON OF THE LAW IS, IT IS PLAIN THE
LAW IS SO  ...  " REMARKS ON THE TRYAL OF CHARLES BATEMAN BY SIR JOHN
HAWLES, SOLICITOR-GENERAL IN THE REIGN OF KING WILLIAM III, 3 STATE
TRYALS 651, 652-53(1719). 

"IF A MAN IN HIS SOUND MEMORY COMMITS A CAPITAL OFFENSE, AND BEFORE
HIS ARRAIGNMENT HE BECOMES ABSOLUTELY MAD, HE OUGHT NOT BY LAW TO BE
ARRAIGNED DURING SUCH HIS PHRENZY, BUT BE REMITTED TO PRISON UNTIL THAT
INCAPACITY BE REMOVED; THE REASON IS, BECAUSE HE CANNOT ADVISEDLY PLEAD
TO THE INDICTMENT  ...  AND IF SUCH PERSON AFTER HIS PLEA, AND BEFORE
HIS TRIAL, BECOME OF NON SANE MEMORY, HE SHALL NOT BE TRIED; OR, IF
AFTER HIS TRIAL HE BECOME OF NON SANE MEMORY, HE SHALL NOT RECEIVE
JUDGMENT; OR, IF AFTER JUDGMENT HE BECOME OF NON SANE MEMORY, HIS
EXECUTION SHALL BE SPARED; FOR WERE HE OF SOUND MEMORY, HE MIGHT ALLEGE
SOMEWHAT IN STAY OF JUDGMENT OR EXECUTION."  1 HALE, THE HISTORY OF THE
PLEAS OF THE CROWN 34-35(1736).  FN1 

"ANOTHER CAUSE OF REGULAR REPRIEVE IS, IF THE OFFENDER BECOME NON
COMPOS  ...  IF AFTER JUDGMENT, HE SHALL NOT BE ORDERED FOR EXECUTION:
FOR 'FURIOSUS SOLO FURORE PUNITUR,' AND THE LAW KNOWS NOT BUT HE MIGHT
HAVE OFFERED SOME REASON, IF IN HIS SENSES, TO HAVE STAYED THESE
RESPECTIVE PROCEEDINGS."  4 BL. COMM. 388-89(1769). 

HOWEVER QUAINT SOME OF THESE ANCIENT AUTHORITIES OF OUR LAW MAY SOUND
TO OUR EARS, THE TWENTIETH CENTURY HAS NOT SO FAR PROGRESSED AS TO
OUTMODE THEIR REASONING.  WE SHOULD NOT BE LESS HUMANE THAN WERE
ENGLISHMEN IN THE CENTURIES THAT PRECEDED THIS REPUBLIC.  FN2 AND THE
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE NOT LESS RELEVANT TODAY THAN THEY WERE
WHEN URGED BY SIR JOHN HAWLES AND HALE AND HAWKINS AND BLACKSTONE IN
WRITINGS WHICH NURTURED SO MANY FOUNDERS OF THE REPUBLIC.  IF A MAN HAS
GONE INSANE, IS HE STILL HIMSELF?  IS HE STILL THE MAN WHO WAS
CONVICTED?  IN ANY EVENT "WERE HE OF SOUND MEMORY, HE MIGHT ALLEGE
SOMEWHAT" TO SAVE HIMSELF FROM DOOM.  IT IS NOT AN IDLE FANCY THAT ONE
UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH OUGHT NOT, BY BECOMING NON COMPOS, BE DENIED
THE MEANS TO "ALLEGE SOMEWHAT" THAT MIGHT FREE HIM.  SUCH AN
OPPORTUNITY MAY SAVE LIFE, AS THE LAST MINUTE APPLICATIONS TO THIS
COURT FROM TIME TO TIME AND NOT ALWAYS WITHOUT SUCCESS AMPLY ATTEST. 
FN3 

THE SHORT OF IT IS THAT AMERICAN LAW IS NOT MORE BRUTAL THAN WHAT IS
REVEALED AS THE UNBROKEN COMMAND OF ENGLISH LAW FOR CENTURIES PRECEDING
THE SEPARATION OF THE COLONIES.  THE COURT PUTS OUT OF SIGHT, AS IT
WERE, WHAT IS BASIC TO A DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE, NAMELY, THAT NOT A
STATE IN THE UNION SUPPORTS THE NOTION THAT AN INSANE MAN UNDER
SENTENCE OF DEATH WOULD LEGALLY BE EXECUTED.  IF RESPECT IS TO BE GIVEN
TO CLAIMS SO DEEPLY ROOTED IN OUR COMMON HERITAGE AS THIS LIMITATION
UPON STATE POWER, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT STANDS ON GUARD TO ENFORCE
IT. 

UNLESS THIS RESTRICTION ON STATE POWER IS FULLY RECOGNIZED AND ITS
IMPLICATIONS ARE DULY RESPECTED, THE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY
THIS CASE ARE AVOIDED.  WE ARE HERE NOT DEALING WITH THE CROWN'S
PREROGATIVE OF MERCY CONTINUED THROUGH THE PARDONING POWER IN THIS
COUNTRY AS AN EXERCISE OF GRACE.  SEE EX PARTE GROSSMAN, 267 U.S. 87. 
NOR ARE WE DEALING WITH THE RANGE OF DISCRETION VESTED IN JUDGES BY
PENAL LAWS CARRYING FLEXIBLE INSTEAD OF FIXED PENALTIES.  SEE WILLIAMS
V. NEW YORK, 337 U.S. 241.  WE ARE DEALING WITH A RESTRICTION UPON THE
STATES AGAINST TAKING LIFE IF A CERTAIN FACT IS ESTABLISHED, TO-WIT,
INSANITY, LIKE UNTO OTHER RESTRICTIONS UPON THE STATE IN TAKING LIBERTY
OR PROPERTY.  IN VIEW OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IT IS NOT FOR THE STATE
TO SAY:  "I CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE LIFE IF A MAN UNDER SENTENCE BECOMES
INSANE."  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE SAYS TO A STATE:  "THOU SHALT NOT." 

AND SO WE COME TO THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION
UPON A STATE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT CAN DENY ALL OPPORTUNITY
TO LAY BEFORE SOME AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH,
IF TRUE, MUST STAY THE EXECUTIONER'S HAND. 

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATES HAVE DEALT WITH THIS PROBLEM FURNISHES
A FAIR REFLEX, FOR PURPOSES OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, OF THE
UNDERLYING FEELINGS OF OUR SOCIETY ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS WHO
BECOME INSANE WHILE UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH. 

SIX STATES NO LONGER HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY.  (SEE APPENDIX, PART
A.)  AS TO THE REMAINING 42: 

I. IN 30 STATES, EXECUTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IS SUSPENDED UPON A
DETERMINATION OF INSANITY SUPERVENING AFTER SENTENCE. 

(A)  OF THESE, 9 STATES PROVIDE (5 BY STATUTE AND 4 UNDER COMMON LAW)
THAT THE INQUIRY SHALL BE ENTIRELY JUDICIAL.  (PART B.) 

(B)  OF THESE, 14 STATES PROVIDE FOR THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION OF
SANITY OR INSANITY BY A JUDGE OR JURY AFTER A HEARING, UPON INITIATION
OF THE HEARING BY A DESIGNATED PRISON OR POLICE OFFICIAL. 

(1)  OF THESE, 2 STATES PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE OFFICIAL'S
DECISION NOT TO INITIATE A HEARING.  (PART C-I.) 

(2)  OF THESE, 12 STATES HAVE NO LEGISLATION OR ADJUDICATION DEFINING
WHETHER THE OFFICIAL'S DECISION IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW.  (PART C-II.) 

(C)  OF THESE, 7 STATES PROVIDE FOR THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION OF
SANITY BY THE GOVERNOR OR BY A BODY OF PHYSICIANS AND LAYMEN. 

(1)  OF THESE, 1 STATE APPEARS TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. 
(PART D-I.) 

(2)  OF THESE, 3 STATES APPEAR TO PROVIDE FOR AN EX PARTE INQUIRY. 
(PART D-II.) 

(3)  OF THESE, 3 STATES HAVE NO PROVISION INDICATING THE NATURE OF
THE INQUIRY.  (PART D-III.) 

II.  IN 3 STATES, SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
BECAUSE OF INSANITY IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNOR.  (PART E.) 

III.  AS TO 9 STATES, THE AVAILABLE LEGISLATION AND DECISIONS AFFORD
NO CLEAR BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION.  OF THESE, 4 GIVE STRONG INDICATIONS
THAT EXECUTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IS SUSPENDED UPON INSANITY
SUPERVENING AFTER SENTENCE,  FN4  3 OFFER INSUFFICIENT MATERIAL EVEN
FOR INFERENCE, AND 2 OFFER NO RELEVANT MATERIAL.  (PART F.) 

WE START WITH THE FACT THAT NOT A SINGLE STATE GIVES ANY INDICATION
OF HAVING UPROOTED THE HERITAGE OF THE COMMON LAW WHICH DEEMED IT TOO
BARBAROUS TO EXECUTE A MAN WHILE INSANE.  THIS BRINGS US TO THE MODE OF
ESTABLISHING THE CRUCIAL BASIS FOR THE LAWFUL KILLING BY A STATE,
NAMELY, THAT IT KILL NOT AN INSANE PERSON.  NINE STATES MAKE THE
NECESSARY INQUIRY ENTIRELY JUDICIAL.  FOURTEEN MORE STATES PUT THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR INITIATING JUDICIAL INQUIRY, WITH VARIOUS
ALTERNATIVES OF JUDGE AND JURY, UPON AN APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL.  IN TEN
STATES THE DETERMINATION OF SANITY IS VESTED IN THE GOVERNOR EITHER
WITH OR WITHOUT THE AID OF ADVISORS OR IN A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARD.  BUT EVEN AS TO THESE, IN ONLY SIX STATES, INCLUDING GEORGIA, IS
IT CLEAR THAT SUCH AN INQUIRY MAY BE ENTIRELY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBMISSION OF FACTS ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON
WHOSE SANITY IS TO BE DETERMINED AS A PREREQUISITE TO KILLING HIM. 

THIS IMPRESSIVE BODY OF STATE LEGISLATION SIGNIFIES MORE THAN THE
HISTORIC CONTINUITY OF OUR REPULSION AGAINST KILLING AN INSANE MAN EVEN
THOUGH HE BE UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH.  THE VINDICATION OF THIS CONCERN
TURNS ON THE ASCERTAINMENT OF WHAT IS CALLED A FACT, BUT WHICH IN THE
PRESENT STATE OF THE MENTAL SCIENCES IS AT BEST A HAZARDOUS GUESS
HOWEVER CONSCIENTIOUS.  IF THE DEEPLY ROOTED PRINCIPLE IN OUR SOCIETY
AGAINST KILLING AN INSANE MAN IS TO BE RESPECTED, AT LEAST THE MINIMUM
PROVISION FOR ASSURING A FAIR APPLICATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE IS INHERENT
IN THE PRINCIPLE ITSELF.  AND THE MINIMUM ASSURANCE THAT THE LIFE-AND
DEATH GUESS WILL BE A TRULY INFORMED GUESS REQUIRES RESPECT FOR THE
BASIC INGREDIENT OF DUE PROCESS, NAMELY, AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ALLOWED
TO SUBSTANTIATE A CLAIM BEFORE IT IS REJECTED. 

THIS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THIS COURT HAS ENFORCED AGAIN AND AGAIN
WHEN MERE INTERESTS OF PROPERTY WERE INVOLVED.  SEE E.G., PENNOYER V.
NEFF, 95 U.S. 714; PRIEST V. TRUSTEES OF LAS VEGAS, 232 U.S. 604.  IT
CANNOT BE THAT THE COURT IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT PROPERTY LOSSES THAT
ARE NOT IRREMEDIABLE THAN ABOUT IRRETRIEVABLE HUMAN CLAIMS.  IF, AS WAS
HELD ONLY THE OTHER DAY, DUE PROCESS SAVES A MAN FROM BEING SENT TO
JAIL FOR SIXTY DAYS ON A CHARGE OF CONTEMPT BECAUSE HE WAS TRIED IN
SECRET, IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257, DUE PROCESS OUGHT ALSO TO VINDICATE
THE SELF-RESPECT OF SOCIETY BY NOT SENDING A MAN TO HIS DEATH ON THE
BASIS OF A PROCEEDING AS TO HIS SANITY IN WHICH ALL OPPORTUNITY ON HIS
BEHALF HAS BEEN DENIED TO SHOW THAT HE IS IN FACT IN THAT CONDITION OF
INSANITY WHICH BARS THE STATE FROM KILLING HIM.  HE SHOULD NOT BE
DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM THE MIND OF THE TRIBUNAL - BE IT A
GOVERNOR, A BOARD OR A JUDGE - THAT HAS TO DECIDE BETWEEN LIFE AND
DEATH, NOT AS A MATTER OF GRACE BUT ON THE BASIS OF LAW.  FOR IF HE BE
INSANE HIS LIFE CANNOT BE FORFEIT EXCEPT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF THE
LAND. 

IF A MAN "IS AT THE VERY LEAST ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS FRIENDS,
RELATIVES AND COUNSEL PRESENT, NO MATTER WITH WHAT OFFENSE HE MAY BE
CHARGED" BEFORE BEING CONVICTED, IN RE OLIVER, SUPRA AT 272, HE SHOULD
NO LESS BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SOMEONE SPEAK FOR HIM WHEN THE ISSUE IS NOT
MERELY A PREROGATIVE OF MERCY OR THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION WHICH
MODERN PENOLOGICAL THOUGHT, TRANSLATED INTO LEGISLATION, VESTS IN
JUDGES IN IMPOSING SENTENCE.  THE KILLING OF AN INSANE MAN UNDER
SENTENCE, IT NEEDS TO BE REPEATED, IS IN OUR LAW NOT A MATTER OF
DISCRETION.  NOT TO KILL SUCH AN INSANE MAN "HAS ITS ROOTS IN OUR
ENGLISH COMMON LAW HERITAGE" NO LESS DEEP THAN NOT TO CONVICT HIM
WITHOUT A HEARING.  SEE IN RE OLIVER, SUPRA AT 266.  THE RULE AGAINST
KILLING AN INSANE PERSON EMBEDDED SO DEEPLY IN OUR LAW AS TO BE
PROTECTED BY SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS REQUIRES AS PART OF
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS THAT THE VICTIM BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY THROUGH
COUNSEL OR THE NEXT OF KIN TO INVOKE THE SUBSTANTIVE PRINCIPLE OF DUE
PROCESS. 

SINCE IT DOES NOT GO TO THE QUESTION OF GUILT BUT TO ITS
CONSEQUENCES, THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF INSANITY AFTER SENTENCE
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE SAFEGUARDS OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.  SEE NG FUNG
HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 284-85.  NOR NEED THE PROCEEDING BE OPEN; IT
MAY BE IN CAMERA.  BUT PRECISELY BECAUSE THE INQUIRY NEED NOT BE OPEN
AND MAY BE MADE IN CAMERA, IT MUST BE FAIR IN RELATION TO THE ISSUE FOR
DETERMINATION.  IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE TENTATIVE AND DUBIOUS
KNOWLEDGE AS TO MENTAL DISEASES AND THE GREAT STRIFE OF SCHOOLS IN
REGARD TO THEM, IT SURELY OPERATES UNFAIRLY TO MAKE SUCH DETERMINATIONS
NOT ONLY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BUT WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PART OF THE MAN WHOSE LIFE
HANGS IN THE BALANCE.    TO SAY THAT AN INQUIRY SO CONDUCTED IS UNFAIR
BECAUSE OF THE TREACHEROUS UNCERTAINTIES IN THE PRESENT STATE OF
PSYCHIATRIC KNOWLEDGE IS NOT TO IMPUGN THE GOOD FAITH OF GOVERNORS OR
BOARDS IN EXCLUDING WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PUT BEFORE THEM ON BEHALF OF A
PUTATIVE INSANE PERSON.  THE FACT THAT A CONCLUSION IS REACHED IN GOOD
CONSCIENCE IS NO PROOF OF ITS RELIABILITY.  THE VALIDITY OF A
CONCLUSION DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE MODE BY WHICH IT WAS REACHED.  A
GOVERNOR MIGHT NOT WANT TO HAVE IT ON HIS CONSCIENCE TO HAVE SENT A MAN
TO DEATH AFTER HEARING CONFLICTING VIEWS, EQUALLY PERSUASIVE, REGARDING
THE MAN'S SANITY.  CLAIMS OBVIOUSLY FRIVOLOUS NEED OF COURSE NOT BE
HEARD, EVEN AS THIS COURT DOES NOT LISTEN TO CLAIMS THAT RAISE NO
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION.  IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF
INSANITY WAS BASELESS. 

IT IS A GROUNDLESS FEAR TO ASSUME THAT IT WOULD OBSTRUCT THE RIGOROUS
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE TO ALLOW THE CASE TO BE PUT FOR A
CLAIM OF INSANITY, HOWEVER INFORMAL AND EXPEDITIOUS THE PROCEDURE FOR
DEALING WITH THE CLAIM.  THE TIME NEEDED FOR SUCH A FAIR PROCEDURE
COULD NOT UNREASONABLY DELAY THE EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE UNLESS IN
ALL FAIRNESS AND WITH DUE RESPECT FOR A BASIC PRINCIPLE IN OUR LAW THE
EXECUTION SHOULD BE DELAYED.  THE RISK OF AN UNDUE DELAY IS HARDLY
COMPARABLE TO THE GRIM RISK OF THE BARBAROUS EXECUTION OF AN INSANE MAN
BECAUSE OF A HURRIED, ONE-SIDED, UNTESTED DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION
OF INSANITY, THE ANSWERS TO WHICH ARE AS YET SO WRAPPED IN CONFUSION
AND CONFLICT AND SO DEPENDENT ON ELUCIDATION BY MORE THAN ONE-SIDED
PARTISANSHIP. 

TO DENY ALL OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT WAS HERE MADE ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IS IN MY VIEW A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

FN1  THE FIRST PUBLICATION OF HALE'S PLEAS OF THE CROWN WAS OF COURSE
BASED UPON THE MANUSCRIPT LEFT BY HIM AT HIS DEATH IN 1676.  SEE 6
HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW 574, 589-90(1924). 

FN2 SEE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INSANITY AND CRIME, CMD.  NO.
2005, PP. 17, 19(1923). 

FN3  INSANE PERSONS DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED. 
SEE YOUTSEY V. UNITED STATES, 97 F. 937; FORTHOFFER V. SWOPE, 103 F.2D
707.  AFTER SENTENCE OF DEATH, THE TEST OF INSANITY IS WHETHER THE
PRISONER HAS NOT "FROM THE DEFECTS OF HIS FACULTIES, SUFFICIENT
INTELLIGENCE TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM,
WHAT HE WAS TRIED FOR, THE PURPOSE OF HIS PUNISHMENT, THE IMPENDING
FATE WHICH AWAITS HIM, A SUFFICIENT UNDERSTANDING TO KNOW ANY FACT
WHICH MIGHT EXIST WHICH WOULD MAKE HIS PUNISHMENT UNJUST OR UNLAWFUL,
AND THE INTELLIGENCE REQUISITE TO CONVEY SUCH INFORMATION TO HIS
ATTORNEYS OR THE COURT."  IN RE SMITH, 25 N.M. 48, 59, 176 P. 819,
823.  SEE ALSO PEOPLE V. GEARY, 298 ILL. 236, 131 N.E. 652; IN RE
GRAMMER, 104 NEB. 744, 178 N.W. 624. 

FN4  IN THESE 4 STATES, 3 HAVE STATUTORY PROVISIONS DEALING WITH
INSANITY AFTER CONVICTION BUT BEFORE SENTENCE, AND 1 HAS A PROVISION
DEALING WITH INSANITY AFTER CONVICTION.  COMPARE STATE V. ALLEN, 204
LA. 513, 15 SO.2D 870. 

                APPENDIX TO OPINION OF FRANKFURTER, J. 

STATE LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CONCERNING EXECUTION OF
DEATH PENALTY WHERE INSANITY SUPERVENES AFTER SENTENCE.  FN1 

A. STATES IN WHICH PROBLEM DOES NOT ARISE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO DEATH
PENALTY:  FN2 

(1) ME. REV. STAT. C. 117, SEC. 1(1944). 

(2)  MICH. COMP. LAWS SEC. 750.316(1948). 

(3)  MINN. STAT. SEC. 619.07(HENDERSON 1945). 

(4)  N.D. REV. CODE SEC. 12-2713(1943).  FN3 

(5)  R.I. GEN. LAWS C. 606, SEC. 2(1938).  FN3 

(6)  WIS. STAT. SEC. 340.02(1947). 

B. STATES SUSPENDING EXECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY UNDER STATUTORY OR
COMMON LAW PROVISIONS FOR HEARING BEFORE JUDGE OR JUDGE AND JURY UPON
INITIATION BY JUDGE:  FN4 

I. STATUTORY PROCEDURE: 

(7)  ALA. CODE ANN. TIT. 15, SEC. 427(1940). 

(8)  COLO. STAT. ANN. C. 48, SECS. 6, 7(1935).  SEE BULGER V. PEOPLE,
61 COLO. 187, 156 P. 800. 

(9)  ILL. REV. STAT. C. 38, SECS. 593-94(1949).  SEE PEOPLE V. GEARY,
298 ILL. 236, 131 N.E. 652; PEOPLE V. PRESTON, 345 ILL. 11, 177 N.E.
761. 

(10)  LA. CODE CRIM. LAW & PROC. ANN. ART. 267(1943).  SEE STATE V.
ALLEN, 204 LA. 513, 15 SO.2D 870, 18 TULANE L. REV. 497; STATE V.
GUNTER, 208 LA. 694, 23 SO.2D 305; STATE V. HEBERT, 187 LA. 318, 174
SO. 369; LA. LAWS 1918, NO. 261, P. 483. 

(11)  N.J. STAT. ANN. SEC. 2:193-12(1939) IN CONNECTION WITH IN RE
LANG, 77 N.J.L. 207, 71 A. 47; IN RE HERRON, 77 N.J.L. 315, 72 A. 133;
79 N.J.L. 67, 73 A. 599. 

II.  COMMON LAW PROCEDURE: 

(12)  NORTH CAROLINA.  SEE STATE V. VANN, 84 N.C. 722, 724; STATE V.
GODWIN, 216 N.C. 49, 3 S.E.2D 347; STATE V. SULLIVAN, 229 N.C. 251, 49
S.E.2D 458.  SEE ALSO N.C. GEN. STAT. ANN. SECS. 122-84, 122-85(SUPP. 
1949). 

(13)  SOUTH CAROLINA.  SEE STATE V. BETHUNE, 88 S.C. 401, 71 S.E.
29.  SEE ALSO S.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 6239(1942). 

(14)  TENNESSEE.  SEE JORDAN V. STATE, 124 TENN. 81, 90-91, 135 S.W.
327, 329-30; BONDS V. STATE, 8 TENN. 142.  SEE ALSO TENN. CODE ANN.
SECS. 4476, 4502(WILLIAMS 1934). 

(15)  WASHINGTON.  SEE STATE V. NORDSTROM, 21 WASH. 403, 58 P. 248;
GROSSI V. LONG, 136 WASH. 133, 238 P. 983; STATE EX REL. ALFANI V.
SUPERIOR COURT, 139 WASH. 125, 245 P. 929; STATE V. DAVIS, 6 WASH.2D
696, 717, 108 P.2D 641, 650-51. 

C. STATES SUSPENDING EXECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY UNDER STATUTORY
PROVISIONS FOR HEARING BEFORE JUDGE OR JURY UPON INITIATION BY
DESIGNATED PRISON OR POLICE OFFICIAL:  FN5 

I. OFFICIAL'S REFUSAL TO INITIATE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW: 

(16)  ARK. STAT. ANN. SECS. 41-109, 43-2622(1947).  SEE HOWELL V.
KINCANNON, 181 ARK. 58, 24 S.W.2D 953; HOWELL V. TODHUNTER, 181 ARK.
250, 25 S.W.2D 21; SHANK V. TODHUNTER, 189 ARK. 881, 75 S.W.2D 382. 

(17)  CAL. PEN.  CODE SECS. 1367, 3701-03(1949).  SEE PHYLE V. DUFFY,
34 CAL.2D 144, 208 P.2D 668. 

II.  WHETHER OFFICIAL'S REFUSAL TO INITIATE INQUIRY IS SUBJECT TO
REVIEW UNDEFINED BY LEGISLATION OR ADJUDICATION: 

(18)  IDAHO CODE ANN. SECS. 19-2709 TO 19-2712, 19-3301(1948). 

(19)  KY. REV. STAT. SEC. 431.240(1948).  SEE KY. CODES, CRIM. PRAC. 
SECS.  295-96(1948); BARRETT V. COMMONWEALTH, 202 KY. 153, 259 S.W. 25;
STUCKER V. COMMONWEALTH, 261 KY. 618, 88 S.W.2D 280; MURRELL V.
COMMONWEALTH, 291 KY. 65, 163 S.W.2D 1. 

(20)  MO. REV. STAT. ANN. SECS. 4192-94(1939). 

(21)  MONT. REV. CODES ANN. SECS. 94-8009 TO 94-8012(1947). 

(22)  NEV. COMP. LAWS ANN. SECS. 11192.01 TO 11192.06(SUPP.  1945). 

(23)  N.M. STAT. ANN. SECS. 42-1404 TO 42-1407(1941). 

(24)  OHIO GEN. CODE ANN. SECS. 13456-8, 13456-9(1939). 

(25)  OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 22, SECS. 1005-08(1937).  SEE BINGHAM V.
STATE, 82 OKLA. CRIM. 305, 169 P.2D 311. 

(26)  PA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 50, SEC. 48(SUPP.  1948).  SEE COMMONWEALTH
V. BARNES, 280 PA. 351, 124 A. 636(WHETHER STATUTE APPLIES AFTER
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OR WHETHER COMMON LAW PRINCICIPLES GOVERN IS
NOT CLEAR).  BUT CF. EX PARTE MCGINNIS, 14 W.N.C. 221(PA. SUP. CT.). 

(27) TEX. STAT., CODE CRIM. PROC. ARTS. 921-27(1948).  SEE DOTSON V.
STATE, 149 TEX. CRIM. 434, 195 S.W.2D 372.  A HEARING MAY ALSO BE
INITIATED ON THE AFFIDAVITS OF TWO PRIVATE PHYSICIANS.  CF. EX PARTE
MILLIKIN, 108 TEX. CRIM. 121, 299 S.W. 433; MILLIKIN V. JEFFREY, 117
TEX. 134, 299 S.W. 393(SIMILAR EARLIER STATUTE). 

(28)  UTAH CODE ANN. SECS. 105-37-9 TO 105-37-12(1943).  SEE STATE EX
REL. JOHNSON V. ALEXANDER, 87 UTAH 376, 49 P.2D 408; STATE V. GREEN, 88
UTAH 491, 55 P.2D 1324. 

(29)  WYO. COMP. STAT. ANN. SECS. 10-1701, 10-1702(1945). 

III.  OFFICIAL'S REFUSAL TO INITIATE GIVEN EXPLICIT FINALITY WITHOUT
REVIEW: 

NONE. 

D. STATES SUSPENDING EXECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY UNDER STATUTORY
PROVISIONS FOR INQUIRY BY GOVERNOR OR BY A BODY OF PHYSICIANS AND
LAYMEN ON INITIATION BY DESIGNATED PRISON OR POLICE OFFICIAL: 

I. PROCEEDING APPEARS TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD: 

(30)  IOWA CODE SECS. 792.5 TO 792.7(1946). 

II.  PROCEEDING APPEARS TO BE EX PARTE: 

(31)  CONN. GEN. STAT. SEC. 8817(1949). 

(32)  KAN. GEN. STAT. ANN. SEC. 62-2406(1935). 

(33)  NEB. REV. STAT. SEC. 29-2509(1943).  SEE IN RE GRAMMER, 104
NEB. 744, 178 N.W. 624. 

III.  WHETHER PROCEEDING IS EX PARTE OR AFFORDS OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD IS UNCERTAIN: 

(34)  ARIZ. CODE ANN. SECS. 44-2307, 44-2309(1939). 

(35)  FLA. STAT. SEC. 922.07(1941). 

(36)  MISS.  CODE ANN. SEC. 2558(1942). 

E. STATES IN WHICH SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION OF DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE
OF INSANITY IS AT DISCRETION OF GOVERNOR: 

(37)  GA. CODE ANN. SECS. 27-2601, 27-2602(1936), SOLESBEE V.
BALKCOM, 205 GA. 122, 52 S.E.2D 433. 

(38)  INDIANA.  DIAMOND V. STATE, 195 IND. 285, 144 N.E. 466(ONLY
REMEDY IS REPRIEVE BY GOVERNOR). 

(39)  MASS. GEN. LAWS C. 279, SEC. 48(1932), JUGGINS V. EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL, 257 MASS. 386, 154 N.E. 72(ONLY REMEDY SEEMS TO BE REPRIEVE BY
GOVERNOR WITH ADVICE AND CONSENT OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL). 

F. STATES AS TO WHICH LEGISLATION OR JUDICIAL DECISIONS AFFORD NO
CLEAR BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION: 

(40)  DELAWARE.  COMPARE DEL. REV. CODE SEC. 3083(1935)(INSANITY
AFTER CONVICTION BUT BEFORE SENTENCE IN CAPITAL CASES); ID. SEC.
3084(INSANITY WHILE SERVING IMPRISONMENT SENTENCE). 

(41)  MARYLAND.  COMPARE MD. ANN. CODE GEN. LAWS ART. 27, SEC. 798;
ART. 59, SEC. 47(1939)(INSANITY WHILE SERVING IMPRISONMENT SENTENCE). 

(42)  NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

(43)  N.Y. CRIM. CODE SEC. 495A.  COMPARE 2 REP. ATTY. GEN. N.Y. 294,
297(1914), WITH PEOPLE V. SKWIRSKY, 213 N.Y. 151, 153-54, 107 N.E. 47
48. 

(44)  OREGON.  COMPARE ORE.  COMP.  LAWS ANN. SECS. 26-930, 26
931(1940)(INSANITY AT TRIAL). 

(45)  SOUTH DAKOTA.  COMPARE S.D. CODE SEC. 34.2001(1939)(A PERSON
CANNOT "BE TRIED, ADJUDGED TO PUNISHMENT, OR PUNISHED FOR A PUBLIC
OFFENSE WHILE HE IS INSANE"); ID. SECS. 34.2002 TO 34.2004(INSANITY
AFTER CONVICTION BUT BEFORE SENTENCE). 

(46)  VERMONT. 

(47)  VIRGINIA.  COMPARE VA. CODE ANN. SECS. 19-208, 37
93(1950)(INSANITY AFTER CONVICTION BUT BEFORE SENTENCE); ID. SEC. 19
209(INSANITY WHILE SERVING IMPRISONMENT SENTENCE). 

(48)  WEST VIRGINIA.  COMPARE W. VA. CODE ANN. SEC.
6198(1949)(INSANITY AFTER CONVICTION OR WHILE SERVING SENTENCE). 

FN1  IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GIVE WARNING THAT THE MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO
SOME OF THE STATUTES CITED IN THIS APPENDIX DOES NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT
OF GUIDING STATE ADJUDICATION AND THAT, EVEN WHEN SUCH ADJUDICATION IS
AVAILABLE TO THROW LIGHT ON STATUTORY MEANING OR ON THE STATE'S COMMON
LAW, CLASSIFICATION HAS BEEN BASED ON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHICH ARE
NOT ALWAYS EXPLICIT HOLDINGS.  THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE LAW OF A STATE
WHEN THERE IS NOT A CLEAR RULING BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THAT STATE IS
TREACHEROUS BUSINESS.  IT SHOULD ALSO BE ADDED THAT WHILE THIS APPENDIX
IS BASED ON THE LATEST LEGAL MATERIALS IN THE LIBRARY OF THIS COURT
THAT IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THERE MAY NOT BE STILL LATER RELEVANT LOCAL
MATERIALS. 

FN2  THE STATUTES CITED GIVE THE PENALTY FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER. 
SEE ALSO GRUNHUT, PENAL REFORM 7(1948). 

FN3 THE PENALTY FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT UNLESS A
PERSON IS UNDER SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT AT THE TIME OF
CONVICTION. 

FN4  IN ALL STATES PROVIDING FOR SUSPENSION OF DEATH PENALTY UPON
SUPERVENING INSANITY, THE PROCEDURAL PROBLEM RAISES TWO QUESTIONS: 

(1)  WHO SHALL DECIDE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A SUFFICIENT PRIMA FACIE
SHOWING OF INSANITY TO WARRANT INITIATION OF A FURTHER PROCEEDING; 

(2)  WHO SHALL BE THE FACT FINDER IN SUCH PROCEEDING. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 4 SUPRA.  MOST OF THE STATES IN PARTS C AND D REQUIRE
THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING THE FURTHER INQUIRY TO ACT IF
THERE IS "GOOD REASON," OR A LIKE GROUND, FOR BELIEVING THAT THE
CONVICTED MAN IS INSANE.  IN SOME OF THESE STATES THE RELEVANT STATUTE
PROVIDES THAT THE OFFICIAL "MAY" ACT WHERE "GOOD REASON" EXISTS,
THEREBY RAISING THE FAMILIAR PROBLEM AS TO WHEN "MAY," CONSIDERING ITS
FUNCTION, MEANS "MUST" IN LEGISLATIVE ENGLISH.  COMPARE HOWELL V.
TODHUNTER, 181 ARK. 250, 25 S.W.2D 21. 
..END :











WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, 339 U.S. 33 


NO. 154.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 20, 1950.  - 84
U.S. APP. D.C. 419, 174 F.2D 158, REVERSED. 


1.  ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DEPORTATION OF
ALIENS MUST CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT, 5 U.S.C. SECS. 1001 ET SEQ. PP. 35-53. 

2.  THE HISTORY OF THIS ACT DISCLOSES THAT IT IS REMEDIAL LEGISLATION
WHICH SHOULD BE CONSTRUED, SO FAR AS ITS TEXT PERMITS, TO GIVE EFFECT
TO ITS REMEDIAL PURPOSES WHERE THE EVILS IT WAS AIMED AT APPEAR.  PP.
36-41. 

3.  ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF THE ACT WAS TO AMELIORATE THE
EVILS RESULTING FROM THE PRACTICE OF COMMINGLING IN ONE PERSON THE
DUTIES OF PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE.  PP. 41-45, 46. 

4.  A HEARING IN A PROCEEDING FOR THE DEPORTATION OF AN ALIEN WAS
PRESIDED OVER BY A "PRESIDING INSPECTOR" OF THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE,
WHO HAD NOT INVESTIGATED THAT PARTICULAR CASE BUT WHOSE GENERAL DUTIES
INCLUDED THE INVESTIGATION OF SIMILAR CASES.  THERE BEING NO "EXAMINING
INSPECTOR" PRESENT TO CONDUCT THE PROSECUTION, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE
"PRESIDING INSPECTOR" TO CONDUCT THE INTERROGATION OF THE ALIEN AND THE
GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES, CROSS-EXAMINE THE ALIEN'S WITNESSES, AND
"PRESENT SUCH EVIDENCE AS IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES IN THE
WARRANT OF ARREST."  IT MIGHT BECOME HIS DUTY TO LODGE AN ADDITIONAL
CHARGE AGAINST THE ALIEN AND HEAR THE EVIDENCE ON THAT CHARGE.  AFTER
THE HEARING, HE WAS REQUIRED TO PREPARE A SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE,
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND A PROPOSED ORDER,
FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION.  HELD:  THIS
WAS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT TO
AMELIORATE THE EVILS RESULTING FROM A COMBINATION OF THE PROSECUTING
AND ADJUDICATING FUNCTIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 45-48. 

5.  SECTION 5 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, WHICH ESTABLISHES
CERTAIN FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EVERY "ADJUDICATION REQUIRED BY STATUTE
TO BE DETERMINED ON THE RECORD AFTER OPPORTUNITY FOR AGENCY HEARING,"
APPLIES TO DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE IMMIGRATION
SERVICE, ALTHOUGH THE IMMIGRATION ACT CONTAINS NO EXPRESS REQUIREMENT
FOR HEARINGS IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 48-51. 

(A)  THE LIMITATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT TO
HEARINGS "REQUIRED BY STATUTE" DOES NOT EXEMPT HEARINGS HELD BY
COMPULSION BUT ONLY THOSE WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES MAY HOLD BY
REGULATION, RULE, CUSTOM, OR SPECIAL DISPENSATION.  P. 50. 

(B)  THEY DO NOT EXEMPT HEARINGS THE REQUIREMENT FOR WHICH HAS BEEN
READ INTO A STATUTE BY THIS COURT IN ORDER TO SAVE THE STATUTE FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY.  PP. 50-51. 

6.  THE EXCEPTION IN SEC. 7(A) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE "OFFICERS SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR BY OR DESIGNATED
PURSUANT TO STATUTE" DOES NOT EXEMPT DEPORTATION HEARINGS HELD BEFORE
IMMIGRANT INSPECTORS.  PP. 51-53. 

(A)  NOTHING IN THE IMMIGRATION ACT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT
IMMIGRANT INSPECTORS SHALL CONDUCT DEPORTATION HEARINGS OR BE
DESIGNATED TO DO SO.  PP. 51-52. 

WONG YANG SUNG V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF JUNE 11, 1946, 60 STAT. 237, 5 U.S.C.
SECS. 1001 ET SEQ., DOES NOT APPLY TO DEPORTATION HEARINGS.  80
F.SUPP.  235.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 419,
174 F.2D 158.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 812.  REVERSED,
P. 53. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING INVOLVES A SINGLE ULTIMATE QUESTION -
WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS IN DEPORTATION CASES MUST CONFORM TO
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF JUNE 11, 1946, 60
STAT. 237, 5 U.S.C. SECS. 1001 ET SEQ. 

WONG YANG SUNG, NATIVE AND CITIZEN OF CHINA, WAS ARRESTED BY
IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS ON A CHARGE OF BEING UNLAWFULLY IN THE UNITED
STATES THROUGH HAVING OVERSTAYED SHORE LEAVE AS ONE OF A SHIPPING
CREW.  A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE AN IMMIGRANT INSPECTOR WHO RECOMMENDED
DEPORTATION.  THE ACTING COMMISSIONER APPROVED; AND THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS AFFIRMED. 

WONG YANG SUNG THEN SOUGHT RELEASE FROM CUSTODY BY HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UPON THE
SOLE GROUND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN
CONFORMITY WITH SECS. 5 AND 11 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. 
FN1 THE GOVERNMENT ADMITTED NONCOMPLIANCE, BUT ASSERTED THAT THE ACT
DID NOT APPLY.  THE COURT, AFTER HEARING, DISCHARGED THE WRIT AND
REMANDED THE PRISONER TO CUSTODY, HOLDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT INAPPLICABLE TO DEPORTATION HEARINGS.  80 F.SUPP.  235.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 419, 174 F.2D 158.  PRISONER'S
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS NOT OPPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND, BECAUSE
THE QUESTION PRESENTED HAS OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE IMMIGRATION LAWS, WE GRANTED REVIEW.  338 U.S. 812. 

            I. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF JUNE 11, 1946, SUPRA, IS A NEW,
BASIC AND COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION OF PROCEDURES IN MANY AGENCIES, MORE
THAN A FEW OF WHICH CAN ADVANCE ARGUMENTS THAT ITS GENERALITIES SHOULD
NOT OR DO NOT INCLUDE THEM.  DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS OF ITS COVERAGE
MAY WELL BE APPROACHED THROUGH CONSIDERATION OF ITS PURPOSES AS
DISCLOSED BY ITS BACKGROUND. 

MULTIPLICATION OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND EXPANSION OF
THEIR FUNCTIONS TO INCLUDE ADJUDICATIONS WHICH HAVE SERIOUS IMPACT ON
PRIVATE RIGHTS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE DRAMATIC LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS OF THE
PAST HALF-CENTURY  FN2.  PARTLY FROM RESTRICTION BY STATUTE, PARTLY
FROM JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT, AND PARTLY BY NECESSITY - FROM THE NATURE
OF THEIR MULTITUDINOUS AND SEMILEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE TASKS - THE
DECISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS WERE ACCORDED CONSIDERABLE
FINALITY, AND ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO FACT FINDING.  FN3  THE
CONVICTION DEVELOPED, PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE LEGAL PROFESSION, THAT
THIS POWER WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SAFEGUARDED AND SOMETIMES WAS PUT TO
ARBITRARY AND BIASED USE.  FN4 

CONCERN OVER ADMINISTRATIVE IMPARTIALITY AND RESPONSE TO GROWING
DISCONTENT WAS REFLECTED IN CONGRESS AS EARLY AS 1929, WHEN SENATOR
NORRIS INTRODUCED A BILL TO CREATE A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. 
FN5  FEARS AND DISSATISFACTIONS INCREASED AS TRIBUNALS GREW IN NUMBER
AND JURISDICTION, AND A SUCCESSION OF BILLS OFFERING VARIOUS REMEDIES
APPEARED IN CONGRESS.  FN6 INQUIRIES INTO THE PRACTICES OF STATE
AGENCIES, WHICH TENDED TO PARALLEL OR FOLLOW THE FEDERAL PATTERN, WERE
INSTITUTED IN SEVERAL STATES, AND SOME STUDIES NOTEWORTHY FOR
THOROUGHNESS, IMPARTIALITY AND VISION RESULTED.  FN7 

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALSO BECAME CONCERNED
AS TO WHETHER THE STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURE OF THESE BODIES WAS CONDUCIVE
TO FAIRNESS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S
COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT IN 1937 RECOMMENDED COMPLETE
SEPARATION OF ADJUDICATING FUNCTIONS AND PERSONNEL FROM THOSE HAVING TO
DO WITH INVESTIGATION OR PROSECUTION.  FN8  THE PRESIDENT EARLY IN 1939
ALSO DIRECTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO NAME "A COMMITTEE OF EMINENT
LAWYERS, JURISTS, SCHOLARS, AND ADMINISTRATORS TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IN THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF THE EXECUTIVE
GOVERNMENT AND TO RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE SUGGESTION OF
ANY NEEDED LEGISLATION."  FN9 

SO STRONG WAS THE DEMAND FOR REFORM, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
AWAIT THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT BUT PASSED WHAT WAS KNOWN AS THE WALTER
LOGAN BILL, A COMPREHENSIVE AND RIGID PRESCRIPTION OF STANDARDIZED
PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  FN10  THIS BILL WAS VETOED BY
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT DECEMBER 18, 1940,  FN11  AND THE VETO WAS
SUSTAINED BY THE HOUSE.  FN12  BUT THE PRESIDENT'S VETO MESSAGE MADE NO
DENIAL OF THE NEED FOR REFORM.  RATHER IT POINTED OUT THAT THE TASK OF
THE COMMITTEE, WHOSE OBJECTIVE WAS "TO SUGGEST IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE THE
PROCESS MORE WORKABLE AND MORE JUST," HAD PROVED "UNEXPECTEDLY
COMPLEX."  THE PRESIDENT SAID, "I SHOULD DESIRE TO AWAIT THEIR REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE APPROVING ANY MEASURE IN THIS COMPLICATED
FIELD."  FN13 

THE COMMITTEE DIVIDED IN ITS VIEWS AND BOTH THE MAJORITY AND THE
MINORITY SUBMITTED BILLS  FN14 WHICH WERE INTRODUCED IN 1941.  A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HELD EXHAUSTIVE HEARINGS
ON THREE PROPOSED MEASURES,  FN15  BUT, BEFORE THE GATHERING STORM OF
NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND WAR, CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM WAS PUT
ASIDE.  THOUGH BILLS ON THE SUBJECT REAPPEARED IN 1944,  FN16  THEY DID
NOT ATTRACT MUCH ATTENTION. 

THE MCCARRAN-SUMNERS BILL, WHICH EVOLVED INTO THE PRESENT ACT, WAS
INTRODUCED IN 1945.  FN17 ITS CONSIDERATION AND HEARING, ESPECIALLY OF
AGENCY INTERESTS, WAS PAINSTAKING.  ALL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES WERE
INVITED TO SUBMIT THEIR VIEWS IN WRITING.  A TENTATIVE REVISED BILL WAS
THEN PREPARED AND INTERESTED PARTIES AGAIN WERE INVITED TO SUBMIT
CRITICISMS.  FN18  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NAMED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO CANVASS THE AGENCIES AND REPORT THEIR
CRITICISMS, AND SUBMITTED A FAVORABLE REPORT ON THE BILL AS FINALLY
REVISED.  FN19 IT PASSED BOTH HOUSES WITHOUT OPPOSITION AND WAS SIGNED
BY PRESIDENT TRUMAN JUNE 11, 1946.  FN20 

THE ACT THUS REPRESENTS A LONG PERIOD OF STUDY AND STRIFE; IT SETTLES
LONG-CONTINUED AND HARD-FOUGHT CONTENTIONS, AND ENACTS A FORMULA UPON
WHICH OPPOSING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL FORCES HAVE COME TO REST.  IT
CONTAINS MANY COMPROMISES AND GENERALITIES AND, NO DOUBT, SOME
AMBIGUITIES.  EXPERIENCE MAY REVEAL DEFECTS.  BUT IT WOULD BE A
DISSERVICE TO OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
ITSELF IF THE COURTS SHOULD FAIL, SO FAR AS THE TERMS OF THE ACT
WARRANT, TO GIVE EFFECT TO ITS REMEDIAL PURPOSES WHERE THE EVILS IT WAS
AIMED AT APPEAR. 

II. 

OF THE SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EVILS SOUGHT TO BE CURED OR MINIMIZED,
ONLY TWO ARE PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO ISSUES BEFORE US TODAY.  ONE
PURPOSE WAS TO INTRODUCE GREATER UNIFORMITY OF PROCEDURE AND
STANDARDIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AMONG THE DIVERSE AGENCIES
WHOSE CUSTOMS HAD DEPARTED WIDELY FROM EACH OTHER.  FN21  WE PURSUE
THIS NO FURTHER THAN TO NOTE THAT ANY EXCEPTION WE MAY FIND TO ITS
APPLICABILITY WOULD TEND TO DEFEAT THIS PURPOSE. 

MORE FUNDAMENTAL, HOWEVER, WAS THE PURPOSE TO CURTAIL AND CHANGE THE
PRACTICE OF EMBODYING IN ONE PERSON OR AGENCY THE DUTIES OF PROSECUTOR
AND JUDGE.  THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT
VOICED IN 1937 THE THEME WHICH, WITH VARIATIONS IN LANGUAGE, WAS
REITERATED THROUGHOUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT.  THE
COMMITTEE'S REPORT, WHICH PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS
WITH HIS APPROVAL AS "A GREAT DOCUMENT OF PERMANENT IMPORTANCE," FN22
SAID: 

"  ...  THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION IS OBLIGED TO CARRY ON JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH THREATEN THE IMPARTIAL PERFORMANCE OF
THAT JUDICIAL WORK.  THE DISCRETIONARY WORK OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IS
MERGED WITH THAT OF THE JUDGE.  PRESSURES AND INFLUENCES PROPERLY
ENOUGH DIRECTED TOWARD OFFICERS RESPONSIBLE FOR FORMULATING AND
ADMINISTERING POLICY CONSTITUTE AN UNWHOLESOME ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH TO
ADJUDICATE PRIVATE RIGHTS.  BUT THE MIXED DUTIES OF THE COMMISSIONS
RENDER ESCAPE FROM THESE SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCES IMPOSSIBLE. 

"FURTHERMORE, THE SAME MEN ARE OBLIGED TO SERVE BOTH AS PROSECUTORS
AND AS JUDGES.  THIS NOT ONLY UNDERMINES JUDICIAL FAIRNESS; IT WEAKENS
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THAT FAIRNESS.  COMMISSION DECISIONS AFFECTING
PRIVATE RIGHTS AND CONDUCT LIE UNDER THE SUSPICION OF BEING
RATIONALIZATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS WHICH THE COMMISSION, IN
THE ROLE OF PROSECUTOR, PRESENTED TO ITSELF."  ADMINISTRATIVE
MANAGEMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, REPORT OF THE
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT, 36-37(1937). 

THE COMMITTEE THEREFORE RECOMMENDED A REDISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS
WITHIN THE REGULATORY AGENCIES.  "(IT) WOULD BE DIVIDED INTO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION AND A JUDICIAL SECTION" AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE
...  " AND THE JUDICIAL SECTION "WOULD SIT AS AN IMPARTIAL,
INDEPENDENT BODY TO MAKE DECISIONS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
PRIVATE RIGHTS UPON THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS AND FINDINGS PRESENTED TO
IT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION."  ID. AT 37. 

ANOTHER STUDY WAS MADE BY A DISTINGUISHED COMMITTEE NAMED BY THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR, WHOSE JURISDICTION AT THE TIME INCLUDED THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.  SOME OF THE COMMITTEE'S
OBSERVATIONS HAVE RELEVANCY TO THE PROCEDURE UNDER EXAMINATION HERE. 
IT SAID: 

"THE INSPECTOR WHO PRESIDES OVER THE FORMAL HEARING IS IN MANY
RESPECTS COMPARABLE TO A TRIAL JUDGE.  HE HAS, AT A MINIMUM, THE
FUNCTION OF DETERMINING - SUBJECT TO OBJECTION ON THE ALIEN'S BEHALF -
WHAT GOES INTO THE WRITTEN RECORD UPON WHICH DECISION ULTIMATELY IS TO
BE BASED.  UNDER THE EXISTING PRACTICE HE HAS ALSO THE FUNCTION OF
COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE MOVING PARTY - HE DOES NOT MERELY ADMIT
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ALIEN; HE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SEEING THAT
SUCH EVIDENCE IS PUT INTO THE RECORD.  THE PRECISE SCOPE OF HIS
APPROPRIATE FUNCTIONS IS THE FIRST QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED."  THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, 77(MIMEO.  1940). 

FURTHER: 

"MERELY TO PROVIDE THAT IN PARTICULAR CASES DIFFERENT INSPECTORS
SHALL INVESTIGATE AND HEAR IS AN INSUFFICIENT GUARANTEE OF INSULATION
AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICIAL.  THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION
OF THE FIELD STAFF NOT ONLY GIVES WORK OF BOTH KINDS COMMONLY TO THE
SAME INSPECTOR BUT TENDS TOWARD AN IDENTITY OF VIEWPOINT AS BETWEEN
INSPECTORS WHO ARE CHIEFLY DOING ONLY ONE OR THE OTHER KIND OF WORK. 
... 

"  ...  WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PRESIDING INSPECTORS BE RELIEVED OF
THEIR PRESENT DUTIES OF PRESENTING THE CASE AGAINST ALIENS AND BE
CONFIRMED ENTIRELY TO THE DUTIES CUSTOMARY FOR A JUDGE.  THIS, OF
COURSE, WOULD REQUIRE THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANOTHER OFFICER TO PERFORM THE
TASK OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.  THE APPROPRIATE OFFICER FOR THIS
PURPOSE WOULD SEEM TO BE THE INVESTIGATING INSPECTOR WHO, HAVING
PREPARED THE CASE AGAINST THE ALIEN, IS ALREADY THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR
WITH IT.  ... 

"A GENUINELY IMPARTIAL HEARING, CONDUCTED WITH CRITICAL DETACHMENT,
IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY IMPROBABLE IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, WHEN THE PRESIDING
OFFICER HAS AT ONCE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPRAISING THE STRENGTH OF
THE CASE AND OF SEEKING TO MAKE IT AS STRONG AS POSSIBLE.  NOR IS
COMPLETE DIVORCE BETWEEN INVESTIGATION AND HEARING POSSIBLE SO LONG AS
THE PRESIDING INSPECTOR HAS THE DUTY HIMSELF OF ASSEMBLING AND
PRESENTING THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION.  ...  "  ID. AT 81-82. 

AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE,
WHICH DIVIDED AS TO THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY,  FN23  WAS UNANIMOUS THAT
THIS EVIL EXISTED.  ITS FINAL REPORT SAID: 

"THESE TYPES OF COMMINGLING OF FUNCTIONS OF INVESTIGATION OR ADVOCACY
WITH THE FUNCTION OF DECIDING ARE THUS PLAINLY UNDESIRABLE.  BUT THEY
ARE ALSO AVOIDABLE AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED BY APPROPRIATE INTERNAL
DIVISION OF LABOR.  FOR THE DISQUALIFICATIONS PRODUCED BY INVESTIGATION
OR ADVOCACY ARE PERSONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ONES WHICH RESULT FROM ENGAGING
IN THOSE TYPES OF ACTIVITY; AND THE PROBLEM IS SIMPLY ONE OF ISOLATING
THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN THE ACTIVITY.  CREATION OF INDEPENDENT HEARING
COMMISSIONERS INSULATED FROM ALL PHASES OF A CASE OTHER THAN HEARING
AND DECIDING WILL, THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES, GO FAR TOWARD SOLVING THIS
PROBLEM AT THE LEVEL OF THE INITIAL HEARING PROVIDED THE PROPER
SAFEGUARDS ARE ESTABLISHED TO ASSURE THE INSULATION.  ...  " REP. ATTY.
GEN. COMM. AD. PROC. 56(1941), S. DOC. NO. 8, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
56(1941). 

THE ACT BEFORE US ADOPTS IN GENERAL THIS RECOMMENDED FORM OF REMEDIAL
ACTION.  A MINORITY OF THE COMMITTEE HAD, FURTHERMORE, URGED AN EVEN
MORE THOROUGHGOING SEPARATION AND SUPPORTED IT WITH A COGENT REPORT. 
ID. AT 203 ET SEQ.    SUCH WERE THE EVILS FOUND BY DISINTERESTED AND
COMPETENT STUDENTS.  SUCH WERE THE FACTS BEFORE CONGRESS WHICH GAVE
IMPETUS TO THE DEMAND FOR THE REFORM WHICH THIS ACT WAS INTENDED TO
ACCOMPLISH.  IT IS THE PLAIN DUTY OF THE COURTS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR
VIEWS OF THE WISDOM OR POLICY OF THE ACT, TO CONSTRUE THIS REMEDIAL
LEGISLATION TO ELIMINATE, SO FAR AS ITS TEXT PERMITS, THE PRACTICES IT
CONDEMNS. 

III. 

TURNING NOW TO THE CASE BEFORE US, WE FIND THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
A PERFECT EXEMPLIFICATION OF THE PRACTICES SO UNANIMOUSLY CONDEMNED. 
THIS HEARING, WHICH FOLLOWED THE UNIFORM PRACTICE OF THE IMMIGRATION
SERVICE,  FN24  WAS BEFORE AN IMMIGRANT INSPECTOR, WHO, FOR PURPOSES OF
THE HEARING, IS CALLED THE "PRESIDING INSPECTOR."  EXCEPT WITH CONSENT
OF THE ALIEN, THE PRESIDING INSPECTOR MAY NOT BE THE ONE WHO
INVESTIGATED THE CASE.  8 C.F.R. 150.6(B).  FN25  BUT THE INSPECTOR'S
DUTIES INCLUDE INVESTIGATION OF LIKE CASES; AND WHILE HE IS TODAY
HEARING CASES INVESTIGATED BY A COLLEAGUE, TOMORROW HIS INVESTIGATION
OF A CASE MAY BE HEARD BEFORE THE INSPECTOR WHOSE CASE HE PASSES ON
TODAY.  AN "EXAMINING INSPECTOR" MAY BE DESIGNATED TO CONDUCT THE
PROSECUTION, 8 C.F.R. 150.6(N), BUT NONE WAS IN THIS CASE; AND, IN ANY
EVENT, THE EXAMINING INSPECTOR ALSO HAS THE SAME MIXED PROSECUTIVE AND
HEARING FUNCTIONS.  THE PRESIDING INSPECTOR, WHEN NO EXAMINING
INSPECTOR IS PRESENT, IS REQUIRED TO "CONDUCT THE INTERROGATION OF THE
ALIEN AND THE WITNESSES IN BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND SHALL CROSS
EXAMINE THE ALIEN'S WITNESSES AND PRESENT SUCH EVIDENCE AS IS NECESSARY
TO SUPPORT THE CHARGES IN THE WARRANT OF ARREST."  8 C.F.R. 150.6(B). 
IT MAY EVEN BECOME HIS DUTY TO LODGE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE AGAINST THE
ALIEN AND PROCEED TO HEAR HIS OWN ACCUSATION IN LIKE MANNER.  8 C.F.R.
150.6(L).  THEN, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, HE IS TO PREPARE A SUMMARY OF
THE EVIDENCE, PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND A
PROPOSED ORDER.  A COPY IS FURNISHED THE ALIEN OR HIS COUNSEL, WHO MAY
FILE EXCEPTIONS AND BRIEF, 8 C.F.R. 150.7, WHEREUPON THE WHOLE IS
FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSIONER.  8 C.F.R. 150.9. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT DID NOT GO SO FAR AS TO REQUIRE A
COMPLETE SEPARATION OF INVESTIGATING AND PROSECUTING FUNCTIONS FROM
ADJUDICATING FUNCTIONS.  BUT THAT THE SAFEGUARDS IT DID SET UP WERE
INTENDED TO AMELIORATE THE EVILS FROM THE COMMINGLING OF FUNCTIONS AS
EXEMPLIFIED HERE IS BEYOND DOUBT.  AND THIS COMMINGLING, IF
OBJECTIONABLE ANYWHERE, WOULD SEEM TO BE PARTICULARLY SO IN THE
DEPORTATION PROCEEDING, WHERE WE FREQUENTLY MEET WITH A VOTELESS CLASS
OF LITIGANTS WHO NOT ONLY LACK THE INFLUENCE OF CITIZENS, BUT WHO ARE
STRANGERS TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS IN WHICH THEY FIND THEMSELVES
INVOLVED AND WHO OFTEN DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND THE TONGUE IN WHICH THEY
ARE ACCUSED.  NOTHING IN THE NATURE OF THE PARTIES OR PROCEEDINGS
SUGGESTS THAT WE SHOULD STRAIN TO EXEMPT DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS FROM
REFORMS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE APPLICABLE GENERALLY TO FEDERAL
AGENCIES. 

NOR CAN WE ACCORD ANY WEIGHT TO THE ARGUMENT THAT TO APPLY THE ACT TO
SUCH HEARINGS WILL CAUSE INCONVENIENCE AND ADDED EXPENSE TO THE
IMMIGRATION SERVICE.  OF COURSE IT WILL, AS IT WILL TO NEARLY EVERY
AGENCY TO WHICH IT IS APPLIED.  BUT THE POWER OF THE PURSE BELONGS TO
CONGRESS, AND CONGRESS HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PRICE FOR GREATER
FAIRNESS IS NOT TOO HIGH.  THE AGENCIES, UNLIKE THE ALIENS, HAVE READY
AND PERSUASIVE ACCESS TO THE LEGISLATIVE EAR AND IF ERROR IS MADE BY
INCLUDING THEM, RELIEF FROM CONGRESS IS A SIMPLE MATTER. 

THIS BRINGS US TO CONTENTIONS BOTH PARTIES HAVE ADVANCED BASED ON THE
PENDENCY IN CONGRESS OF BILLS TO EXEMPT THIS AGENCY FROM THE ACT. 
FOLLOWING AN ADVERSE DECISION,  FN26  THE DEPARTMENT ASKED CONGRESS FOR
EXEMPTING LEGISLATION,  FN27  WHICH APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF BOTH
HOUSES REPORTED FAVORABLY BUT IN DIFFERENT FORM AND SUBSTANCE.  FN28
CONGRESS ADJOURNED WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT
CONGRESS KNOWS THAT THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE HAS CONSTRUED THE ACT AS
NOT APPLYING TO DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT IT "HAS TAKEN NO
ACTION INDICATING DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT INTERPRETATION"; THAT
THEREFORE IT "IS AT LEAST ARGUABLE THAT CONGRESS WAS PREPARED TO
SPECIFICALLY CONFIRM THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION BY CLARIFYING
LEGISLATION."  WE DO NOT THINK WE CAN DRAW THAT INFERENCE FROM
INCOMPLETED STEPS IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  CF. HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 119-120. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, WE WILL NOT DRAW THE INFERENCE, URGED BY
PETITIONER, THAT AN AGENCY ADMITS THAT IT IS ACTING UPON A WRONG
CONSTRUCTION BY SEEKING RATIFICATION FROM CONGRESS.  PUBLIC POLICY
REQUIRES THAT AGENCIES FEEL FREE TO ASK LEGISLATION WHICH WILL
TERMINATE OR AVOID ADVERSE CONTENTIONS AND LITIGATIONS.  WE DO NOT FEEL
JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT A REQUEST FOR AND FAILURE TO GET IN A SINGLE
SESSION OF CONGRESS CLARIFYING LEGISLATION ON A GENUINELY DEBATABLE
POINT OF AGENCY PROCEDURE ADMITS WEAKNESS IN THE AGENCY'S CONTENTIONS. 
WE DRAW, THEREFORE, NO INFERENCE IN FAVOR OF EITHER CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ACT - FROM THE DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE CLARIFICATION, FROM
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES' WILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER IT, OR FROM
CONGRESS' FAILURE TO ENACT IT. 

WE COME, THEN, TO EXAMINATION OF THE TEXT OF THE ACT TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS RIGHT IN ITS CONTENTIONS:  FIRST, THAT THE
GENERAL SCOPE OF SEC. 5 OF THE ACT DOES NOT COVER DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS; AND, SECOND, THAT EVEN IF IT DOES, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE
EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 7. 

                                 IV. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, SEC. 5, ESTABLISHES A NUMBER OF
FORMAL REQUIREMENTS TO BE APPLICABLE "IN EVERY CASE OF ADJUDICATION
REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO BE DETERMINED ON THE RECORD AFTER OPPORTUNITY
FOR AN AGENCY HEARING."  THE ARGUMENT HERE DEPENDS UPON THE WORDS
"ADJUDICATION REQUIRED BY STATUTE."  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THERE
IS NO EXPRESS REQUIREMENT FOR ANY HEARING OR ADJUDICATION IN THE
STATUTE AUTHORIZING DEPORTATION,  FN29  AND THAT THIS OMISSION SHIELDS
THESE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE IMPACT OF SEC. 5.  PETITIONER, ON THE OTHER
HAND, CONTENDS THAT DEPORTATION HEARINGS, THOUGH NOT EXPRESSLY REQUIRED
BY STATUTE, ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,  FN30  AND
THE PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 5. 

BOTH PARTIES INVOKE MANY CITATIONS TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS TO THE
MEANING GIVEN TO THESE KEY WORDS BY THE FRAMERS, ADVOCATES OR OPPONENTS
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  BECAUSE SEC. 5 IN THE ORIGINAL
BILL APPLIED TO HEARINGS REQUIRED "BY LAW,"  FN31  BECAUSE IT WAS
SUGGESTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO
"REQUIRED BY STATUTE OR CONSTITUTION,"  FN32  AND BECAUSE IT FINALLY
EMERGED "REQUIRED BY STATUTE," THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE SECTION
IS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY WHEN EXPLICIT STATUTORY WORDS GRANTING A
RIGHT TO ADJUDICATION CAN BE POINTED OUT.  PETITIONER ON THE OTHER HAND
CITES REFERENCES WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THE LIMITATION TO STATUTORY
HEARING WAS MERELY TO AVOID CREATING BY INFERENCE A NEW RIGHT TO
HEARINGS WHERE NO RIGHT EXISTED OTHERWISE.  WE DO NOT KNOW.  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS MORE CONFLICTING THAN THE TEXT IS AMBIGUOUS. 

BUT THE DIFFICULTY WITH ANY ARGUMENT PREMISED ON THE PROPOSITION THAT
THE DEPORTATION STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE A HEARING IS THAT, WITHOUT
SUCH HEARING, THERE WOULD BE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR
DEPORTATION.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
OF LAW DERIVES FROM THE SAME SOURCE AS CONGRESS' POWER TO LEGISLATE
AND, WHERE APPLICABLE, PERMEATES EVERY VALID ENACTMENT OF THAT BODY. 
IT WAS UNDER COMPULSION OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THIS COURT LONG AGO
HELD THAT AN ANTECEDENT DEPORTATION STATUTE MUST PROVIDE A HEARING AT
LEAST FOR ALIENS WHO HAD NOT ENTERED CLANDESTINELY AND WHO HAD BEEN
HERE SOME TIME EVEN IF ILLEGALLY.  THE COURT SAID: 

"THIS IS THE REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACTS OF CONGRESS HERE IN
QUESTION, AND THEY NEED NOT BE OTHERWISE INTERPRETED.  IN THE CASE OF
ALL ACTS OF CONGRESS, SUCH INTERPRETATION OUGHT TO BE ADOPTED AS,
WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE IMPORT OF THE WORDS USED, WILL BRING THEM
INTO HARMONY WITH THE CONSTITUTION."  THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189
U.S. 86, 101. 

WE THINK THAT THE LIMITATION TO HEARINGS "REQUIRED BY STATUTE" IN
SEC. 5 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT EXEMPTS FROM THAT SECTION'S
APPLICATION ONLY THOSE HEARINGS WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES MAY HOLD
BY REGULATION, RULE, CUSTOM, OR SPECIAL DISPENSATION; NOT THOSE HELD BY
COMPULSION.  WE DO NOT THINK THE LIMITING WORDS RENDER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT INAPPLICABLE TO HEARINGS, THE REQUIREMENT
FOR WHICH HAS BEEN READ INTO A STATUTE BY THE COURT IN ORDER TO SAVE
THE STATUTE FROM INVALIDITY.  THEY EXEMPT HEARINGS OF LESS THAN
STATUTORY AUTHORITY, NOT THOSE OF MORE THAN STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  WE
WOULD HARDLY ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS A PURPOSE TO BE LESS SCRUPULOUS
ABOUT THE FAIRNESS OF A HEARING NECESSITATED BY THE CONSTITUTION THAN
ONE GRANTED BY IT AS A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY. 

INDEED, TO SO CONSTRUE THE IMMIGRATION ACT MIGHT AGAIN BRING IT INTO
CONSTITUTIONAL JEOPARDY.  WHEN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A HEARING, IT
REQUIRES A FAIR ONE, ONE BEFORE A TRIBUNAL WHICH MEETS AT LEAST
CURRENTLY PREVAILING STANDARDS OF IMPARTIALITY.  A DEPORTATION HEARING
INVOLVES ISSUES BASIC TO HUMAN LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS AND, IN THE
PRESENT UPHEAVALS IN LANDS TO WHICH ALIENS MAY BE RETURNED, PERHAPS TO
LIFE ITSELF.  IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY AS MEASURING UP TO
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS OF IMPARTIALITY A HEARING TRIBUNAL FOR
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS THE LIKE OF WHICH HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BY
CONGRESS AS UNFAIR EVEN WHERE LESS VITAL MATTERS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE
AT STAKE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, SEC. 5, DOES COVER
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE. 

                                  V. 

THE REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EXCEPTION OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT EXEMPTS DEPORTATION HEARINGS HELD BEFORE
IMMIGRANT INSPECTORS.  IT PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 7.  IN HEARINGS WHICH SECTION 4 OR 5 REQUIRES TO BE CONDUCTED
PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION - 

"(A)  PRESIDING OFFICERS.  - THERE SHALL PRESIDE AT THE TAKING OF
EVIDENCE (1) THE AGENCY, (2) ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE BODY WHICH
COMPRISES THE AGENCY, OR (3) ONE OR MORE EXAMINERS APPOINTED AS
PROVIDED IN THIS ACT; BUT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO
SUPERSEDE THE CONDUCT OF SPECIFIED CLASSES OF PROCEEDINGS IN WHOLE OR
PART BY OR BEFORE BOARDS OR OTHER OFFICERS SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR BY OR
DESIGNATED PURSUANT TO STATUTE.  ...  "  60 STAT. 237, 241, 5 U.S.C.
SEC. 1006. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT IMMIGRANT INSPECTORS ARE "SPECIALLY
PROVIDED FOR BY OR DESIGNATED PURSUANT TO" SEC. 16 OF THE IMMIGRATION
ACT, WHICH, IN PERTINENT PART, READS: 

"  ...  THE INSPECTION  ...  OF ALIENS, INCLUDING THOSE SEEKING
ADMISSION OR READMISSION TO OR THE PRIVILEGE OF PASSING THROUGH OR
RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THE EXAMINATION OF ALIENS ARRESTED
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES UNDER THIS ACT,  FN33  SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY
IMMIGRANT INSPECTORS, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED IN REGARD TO
BOARDS OF SPECIAL INQUIRY.  ...  SAID INSPECTORS SHALL HAVE POWER TO
ADMINISTER OATHS AND TO TAKE AND CONSIDER EVIDENCE TOUCHING THE RIGHT
OF ANY ALIEN TO ENTER, REENTER, PASS THROUGH, OR RESIDE IN THE UNITED
STATES, AND, WHERE SUCH ACTION MAY BE NECESSARY, TO MAKE A WRITTEN
RECORD OF SUCH EVIDENCE; ...  "  39 STAT. 874, 885, AS AMENDED, 8
U.S.C. SEC. 152. 

CERTAINLY NOTHING HERE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT IMMIGRANT
INSPECTORS SHALL CONDUCT DEPORTATION HEARINGS OR BE DESIGNATED TO DO
SO.  THIS LANGUAGE DOES DIRECT THEM TO CONDUCT BORDER INSPECTIONS OF
ALIENS SEEKING ADMISSION.  THEY MAY ADMINISTER OATHS AND TAKE, RECORD,
AND CONSIDER EVIDENCE.  BUT THESE FUNCTIONS ARE INDISPENSABLE TO
INVESTIGATIONS WHICH ARE CONCEDEDLY WITHIN THEIR COMPETENCE.  AND THESE
FUNCTIONS ARE LIKEWISE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE PREPARATION OF
COMPLAINTS FOR PROSECUTIVE PURPOSES.  BUT THAT CONGRESS BY GRANT OF
THESE POWERS HAS SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED THEM OR PROVIDED FOR THEIR
DESIGNATION AS HEARING OFFICERS IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT
APPEAR. 

AND ONE OR MORE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BODY COMPRISING THE AGENCY, AND
IT ALSO LEAVES UNTOUCHED ANY OTHERS WHOSE RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
AS HEARING OFFICERS ARE ESTABLISHED BY OTHER STATUTORY PROVISION.  BUT
IF HEARINGS ARE TO BE HAD BEFORE EMPLOYEES WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY AND
AUTHORITY DERIVES FROM A LESSER SOURCE, THEY MUST BE EXAMINERS WHOSE
INDEPENDENCE AND TENURE ARE SO GUARDED BY THE ACT AS TO GIVE THE
ASSURANCES OF NEUTRALITY WHICH CONGRESS THOUGHT WOULD GUARANTEE THE
IMPARTIALITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. 

WE FIND NO BASIS IN THE PURPOSES, HISTORY OR TEXT OF THIS ACT FOR
JUDICIALLY DECLARING AN EXEMPTION IN FAVOR OF DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS
FROM THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS ENACTED FOR GENERAL APPLICATION TO
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  WE HOLD THAT DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS MUST
CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT IF
RESULTING ORDERS ARE TO HAVE VALIDITY.  SINCE THE PROCEEDING IN THE
CASE BEFORE US DID NOT COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS, WE SUSTAIN THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECT RELEASE OF THE PRISONER* . 

*(FOR ORDER MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT, SEE POST, P. 908.)  REVERSED. 

FN1  PARTICULARLY INVOKED ARE SEC. 5(C), 60 STAT. 237, 240, 5 U.S.C.
SEC. 1004(C), WHICH PROVIDES IN PART:    "THE SAME OFFICERS WHO PRESIDE
AT THE RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 7 SHALL MAKE THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OR INITIAL DECISION REQUIRED BY SECTION 8 EXCEPT
WHERE SUCH OFFICERS BECOME UNAVAILABLE TO THE AGENCY.  SAVE TO THE
EXTENT REQUIRED FOR THE DISPOSITION OF EX PARTE MATTERS AS AUTHORIZED
BY LAW, NO SUCH OFFICER SHALL CONSULT ANY PERSON OR PARTY ON ANY FACT
IN ISSUE UNLESS UPON NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL PARTIES TO
PARTICIPATE; NOR SHALL SUCH OFFICER BE RESPONSIBLE TO OR SUBJECT TO THE
SUPERVISION OR DIRECTION OF ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT ENGAGED IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF INVESTIGATIVE OR PROSECUTING FUNCTIONS FOR ANY
AGENCY.  NO OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
INVESTIGATIVE OR PROSECUTING FUNCTIONS FOR ANY AGENCY IN ANY CASE
SHALL, IN THAT OR A FACTUALLY RELATED CASE, PARTICIPATE OR ADVISE IN
THE DECISION, RECOMMENDED DECISION, OR AGENCY REVIEW PURSUANT TO
AND SEC. 11, 60 STAT. AT 244, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1010, WHICH PROVIDES IN
PART:  "SUBJECT TO THE CIVIL-SERVICE AND OTHER LAWS TO THE EXTENT NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS ACT, THERE SHALL BE APPOINTED BY AND FOR EACH
AGENCY AS MANY QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT EXAMINERS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
FOR PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 7 AND 8, WHO SHALL BE ASSIGNED TO
CASES IN ROTATION SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE AND SHALL PERFORM NO DUTIES
INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS EXAMINERS. 
EXAMINERS SHALL BE REMOVABLE BY THE AGENCY IN WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED
ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE ESTABLISHED AND DETERMINED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE COMMISSION) AFTER OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING AND UPON THE RECORD THEREOF.  EXAMINERS SHALL RECEIVE
COMPENSATION PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION INDEPENDENTLY OF AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS OR RATINGS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLASSIFICATION
ACT OF 1923, AS AMENDED, EXCEPT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS (2)
AND (3) OF SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 7 OF SAID ACT, AS AMENDED, AND THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9 OF SAID ACT, AS AMENDED, SHALL NOT BE
APPLICABLE.  ...  " 

FN2  SEE E.G., BLACHLY AND OATMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE LEGISLATION AND
ADJUDICATION 1(1934); LANDIS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS 1(1938);
POUND, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 27(1942); CARROW, THE BACKGROUND OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 1(1948); THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES 4(N.Y.U. 1947); FINAL REPORT OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 7(1941),
CONTAINED IN S. DOC. NO. 8, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1941); CUSHMAN, THE
INDEPENDENT REGULATORY COMMISSIONS, CC. II-V (1941); FRANKFURTER, THE
TASK OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 75 U. OF PA. L. REV. 614(1927); MATERIALS
CITED IN N. 4, INFRA. 

FN3  SEE E.G., DICKINSON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE AND THE SUPREMACY OF
LAW, PASSIM (1927); FINAL REPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, SUPRA, AT 11-18, 75-92; AND SEE MATERIALS
CITED IN N. 4, INFRA. 

FN4  E.G., ROOT, PUBLIC SERVICE BY THE BAR, 41 A.B.A. REP. 355,
368(1916); HUGHES, SOME ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN LAW, 39
N.Y.B.A. REP. 266, 269(1916); SUTHERLAND, PRIVATE RIGHTS AND GOVERNMENT
CONTROL, 42 A.B.A. REP. 197, 205(1917); ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT GUTHRIE,
46 N.Y.B.A. REP. 169, 186(1923).  AFTER 1933, WHEN THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION FORMED A SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THE BAR'S
CONCERN CAN BE TRACED IN THIS COMMITTEE'S REPORTS.  E.G., 58 A.B.A.
REP. 197, 407(1933); 59 A.B.A. REP. 539(1934); 61 A.B.A. REP.
720(1936); 62 A.B.A. REP. 789(1937). 

FN5  S. 5154, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1929). 

FN6  S. 1835, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1933); S. 3787, H.R. 12297, 74TH
CONG., 2D SESS. (1936); S. 3676, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. (1938); H.R.
6324, H.R. 4235, H.R. 4236, S. 915, S. 916, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1939); S. 674, S. 675, S. 918, H.R. 3464, H.R. 4238, H.R. 4782, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1941); H.R. 4314, H.R. 5081, H.R. 5237, S. 2030, 78TH
CONG., 2D SESS. (1944); H.R. 1203, S. 7, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945). 

FN7  E.G., BENJAMIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION IN THE STATE OF NEW
YORK (1942); TENTH BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL TO THE
GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE OF CALIFORNIA (1944).  SEE ALSO FESLER, THE
INDEPENDENCE OF STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES (1942); HANDBOOK OF THE
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS, 226 ET SEQ.
(1943); 63 A.B.A. REP. 623(1938). 

FN8  ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE
MANAGEMENT 37(1937). 

FN9  THE QUOTED STATEMENT IS FROM PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S MESSAGE TO
CONGRESS OF DECEMBER 18, 1940, VETOING H.R. 6324, THE SO-CALLED WALTER
LOGAN BILL.  H.R. DOC. NO. 986, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., 3-4(1940).  THE
ORIGIN AND ORDERS LEADING TO THE CREATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
COMMITTEE ARE SET OUT IN APPENDIX A OF THE COMMITTEE'S FINAL REPORT,
SUPRA. 

FN10  S. 915, H.R. 6324, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1939). 

FN11  86 CONG. REC. 13942-3(1940), REPRINTED IN H.R. DOC. NO. 986,
76TH CONG., 3D SESS. (1940). 

FN12  86 CONG. REC. 13953(1940). 

FN13  86 CONG. REC. AT 13943; H.R. DOC. NO. 986, SUPRA, 4. 

FN14  THESE BILLS APPEAR AT PP. 192 AND 217 OF THE COMMITTEE'S FINAL
REPORT, SUPRA.  THE MAJORITY BILL BECAME S. 675, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1941) AND THE MINORITY RECOMMENDATION WAS EMBODIED IN S. 674, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1941). 

FN15  THE HEARINGS RAN FROM APRIL 2 TO JULY 2, 1941, AND, WITH AN
APPENDIX, HAVE BEEN COLLECTED IN FOUR PARTS AND OVER 1,600 PAGES. 
HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S.
674, S. 675 AND S. 918, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1941). 

FN16  H.R. 4314, H.R. 5081, H.R. 5237, S. 2030, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS.
(1944). 

FN17  S. 7 AND H.R. 1203, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945). 

FN18  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1980, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 14-15(1946); S.
REP. NO. 752, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 4-5(1945), REPRINTED IN S. DOC. NO.
248, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., AT 233, 248-249, AND 185, 190-191,
RESPECTIVELY. 

FN19  S. REP. NO. 752, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 37-45(1945); 92 CONG.
REC. APP. A-2982-5(1946). 

FN20  92 CONG. REC. 2167(1946)(PASSAGE BY THE SENATE); 92 CONG. REC.
5668(1946)(AMENDED VERSION PASSED BY HOUSE); 92 CONG. REC.
5791(1946)(HOUSE VERSION AGREED TO BY SENATE); 92 CONG. REC.
6706(1946)(APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT). 

FN21  H.R. REP. NO. 1980, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 16(1946); FINAL REPORT
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE,
20(1941); MCFARLAND, ANALYSIS OF THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT, IN FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES 16, 22(N.Y.U. 1947).  SEE ALSO HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE
NO. 4 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 4236, H.R. 6198,
AND H.R. 6324, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 14, 31(1939); S. REP. NO. 442,
76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 9(1939); H.R. REP. NO. 1149, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 2-3(1939); S. DOC. NO. 71, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 5(1939). 

FN22  81 CONG. REC. 187, 191(1937). 

FN23  SEE N. 14, SUPRA. 

FN24  SEE 8 C.F.R. 150.1 ET SEQ. 

FN25  THE INITIAL STEP IN A DEPORTATION CASE IS THE INVESTIGATION OF
AN ALIEN BY AN IMMIGRANT INSPECTOR.  8 C.F.R. 150.1.  THIS IS FOLLOWED
BY ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST, 8 C.F.R. 150.2-150.4 AND
INCARCERATION, UNLESS THE ALIEN IS RELEASED UNDER BOND.  8 C.F.R.
150.5.  THE FORMAL HEARING FOLLOWS. 

FN26  EISLER V. CLARK (D.D.C. 1948), 77 F.SUPP.  610. 

FN27  S. 2755 AND H.R. 6652, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1948). 

FN28  S. REP. NO. 1588, H.R. REP. NO. 2140, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS.
(1948). 

FN29  SECTION 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, 39
STAT. 874, 889, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A), PROVIDES IN PART: 

"  ...  ANY ALIEN WHO SHALL HAVE ENTERED OR WHO SHALL BE FOUND IN THE
UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT, OR IN VIOLATION OF ANY OTHER
LAW OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL, UPON THE WARRANT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED.  ...  IN EVERY CASE WHERE
ANY PERSON IS ORDERED DEPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR OF ANY LAW OR TREATY, THE DECISION OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL BE FINAL."  SEE NOTE 33, INFRA. 

FN30  THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86, 100, 101; KWOCK JAN
FAT V. WHITE, 253 U.S. 454, 459, 464; BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135,
160(CONCURRING OPINION). 

FN31  SECTION 301 OF THE BILLS PROPOSED IN THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE
ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, PP. 195, 232-233. 

FN32  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY ON S. 674, S. 675 AND S. 918, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
1456(1941). 

FN33  THE ORIGINAL ACT, 39 STAT. 886, READS "UNDER THIS ACT,"
ALTHOUGH IN THE CODIFICATION, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 152, IT READS "UNDER THIS
112, 204(A). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT, IT SEEMS TO ME, HAS DISREGARDED A CONGRESSIONAL EXEMPTION
OF CERTAIN AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE, FROM SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT.  SUCH JUDICIAL INTRUSION INTO THE LEGISLATIVE DOMAIN JUSTIFIES A
PROTEST.  IT MAY BE USEFUL TO CALL ATTENTION TO THE NECESSITY OF
RECOGNIZING SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS TO GENERAL RULES.  THIS PROTEST IS
RESTED ON THE GROUND THAT IMMIGRANT INSPECTORS PERFORMING DUTIES UNDER
SEC. 16 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT ARE WITHIN THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED BY
SEC. 7(A) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  THE COURT'S OPINION
DISCUSSES THIS POINT UNDER SUBDIVISION V. THE SECTIONS ARE THERE SET
OUT AND CAN BE EXAMINED BY THE READER. 

IN THIS CASE NO ONE QUESTIONS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE HEARING
WONG RECEIVED BEFORE THE IMMIGRANT INSPECTOR, WITH ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS.  THE
QUESTION ON WHICH I DISAGREE WITH THE COURT IS WHETHER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT PERMITS AN INSPECTOR OF THE IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE TO SERVE AS A PRESIDING OFFICER AT A
DEPORTATION HEARING. 

OFFICIAL PRESIDING AT THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE SHALL BE AN AGENCY, AN
AGENCY MEMBER OR AN EXAMINER APPOINTED UNDER THAT ACT.  THERE IS AN
EXCEPTION TO THIS REQUIREMENT.  IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"BUT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO SUPERSEDE THE CONDUCT OF
SPECIFIED CLASSES OF PROCEEDINGS IN WHOLE OR PART BY OR BEFORE BOARDS
OR OTHER OFFICERS SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR BY OR DESIGNATED PURSUANT TO
STATUTE." 

IT IS THIS EXCEPTION THAT MADE IT PROPER FOR AN IMMIGRANT INSPECTOR
TO PRESIDE AT THIS DEPORTATION HEARING. 

UNDER SEC. 16 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT, 39 STAT. 874, 885, THE 

"INSPECTION  ...  OF ALIENS, INCLUDING THOSE SEEKING ADMISSION OR
READMISSION TO OR THE PRIVILEGE OF PASSING THROUGH OR RESIDING IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND THE EXAMINATION OF ALIENS ARRESTED WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THIS ACT, SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY IMMIGRANT INSPECTORS, ...
SAID INSPECTORS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ADMINISTER OATHS AND TO TAKE AND
CONSIDER EVIDENCE TOUCHING THE RIGHT OF ANY ALIEN TO ENTER, REENTER,
PASS THROUGH, OR RESIDE IN THE UNITED STATES, AND, WHERE SUCH ACTION
MAY BE NECESSARY, TO MAKE A WRITTEN RECORD OF SUCH EVIDENCE; ...  " 

IT SEEMS TO ME OBVIOUS THAT THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN SEC. 7(A)
COVERS IMMIGRANT INSPECTORS DEALING WITH THE ARREST OF AN ALIEN FOR
VIOLATION OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT.  THE EXAMINATION OF ARRESTED ALIENS
AT A DEPORTATION PROCEEDING IS SURELY A SPECIFIED CLASS OF PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 7(A) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, AND IT IS SURELY
CONDUCTED BY AN OFFICER "SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR BY  ...  STATUTE." 

THE REASON FOR THE EXCEPTION IN SEC. 7(A) WAS NOT SPELLED OUT IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR IN THE ACT ITSELF.  THE EXCEPTION MAY HAVE BEEN
MADE TO RETAIN SMOOTHNESS OF OPERATION IN THE SEVERAL AGENCIES WHERE
THERE WERE OFFICIALS SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE OR DESIGNATED
PURSUANT TO A STATUTE.  WHEN MAKING EXCEPTIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS AS
TO SEPARATION OF THE INVESTIGATORY AND ADJUDICATORY FUNCTIONS, IT WAS
NATURAL TO INCLUDE OFFICERS SPECIALLY DESIGNATED BY STATUTE TO SIT IN
JUDGMENT.  AGENCY MEMBERS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  THEY, TOO, HAVE INVESTIGATORY AND
ADJUDICATORY DUTIES.  SINCE THE MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY AND THE
STATUTORILY DESIGNATED OFFICERS WERE SPECIALLY SELECTED FOR THE
FUNCTIONS THEY WERE TO PERFORM, CONGRESS PROBABLY REPOSED CONFIDENCE IN
THEIR EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTNESS.  IT DOUBTLESS DID NOT WISH TO
DISORGANIZE ADMINISTRATION UNTIL TIME SHOWED WHETHER THAT CONFIDENCE
WAS WELL PLACED.  FN1 

SINCE THE COURT DOES NOT ACCEPT MY VIEW OF THE REACH OF SEC. 7(A), IT
WOULD BE USELESS TO UNDERTAKE AN ANALYSIS OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS
PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

FN1  THUS THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE WARNED THAT SHOULD THE
EXCEPTION "BE A LOOPHOLE FOR AVOIDANCE OF THE EXAMINER SYSTEM IN ANY
REAL SENSE, CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION WOULD BE NECESSARY.  THAT PROVISION
IS NOT INTENDED TO PERMIT AGENCIES TO AVOID THE USE OF EXAMINERS BUT TO
PRESERVE SPECIAL STATUTORY TYPES OF HEARING OFFICERS WHO CONTRIBUTE
SOMETHING MORE THAN EXAMINERS COULD CONTRIBUTE AND AT THE SAME TIME
ASSURE THE PARTIES FAIR AND IMPARTIAL PROCEDURE."  S. DOC. NO. 248,
79TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 216. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. RABINOWITZ, 339 U.S. 56 


NO. 293.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 20, 1950.  - 176
F.2D 732, REVERSED. 


1.  KNOWING THAT RESPONDENT HAD SOLD FOUR FORGED POSTAGE STAMPS TO A
GOVERNMENT AGENT AND PROBABLY POSSESSED MANY MORE IN HIS ONE-ROOM PLACE
OF BUSINESS WHICH WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, OFFICERS OBTAINED A WARRANT
FOR HIS ARREST; BUT THEY DID NOT OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT.  THEY
ARRESTED HIM IN HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS, SEARCHED THE DESK, SAFE AND FILE
CABINETS AND SEIZED 573 FORGED STAMPS.  HE WAS INDICTED FOR POSSESSING
AND CONCEALING THE STAMPS SO SEIZED AND FOR SELLING THE FOUR THAT HAD
BEEN PURCHASED.  THE SEIZED STAMPS WERE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER HIS
OBJECTION, AND HE WAS CONVICTED ON BOTH COUNTS.  HELD:  THE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE WERE INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST, THEY WERE NOT UNREASONABLE,
AND THEY DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 57-66. 

(A)  WHAT IS A REASONABLE SEARCH IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY ANY FIXED
FORMULA.  THE RECURRING QUESTIONS OF THE REASONABLENESS OF SEARCHES
MUST FIND RESOLUTION IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.  P.
63. 

(B)  HERE THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WERE REASONABLE BECAUSE:  (1) THEY
WERE INCIDENT TO A VALID ARREST; (2) THE PLACE OF THE SEARCH WAS A
BUSINESS ROOM TO WHICH THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING THE OFFICERS, WAS INVITED;
(3) THE ROOM WAS SMALL AND UNDER THE IMMEDIATE AND COMPLETE CONTROL OF
RESPONDENT; (4) THE SEARCH DID NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE ROOM USED FOR
UNLAWFUL PURPOSES; AND (5) THE POSSESSION OF THE FORGED STAMPS WAS A
CRIME.  PP. 63-64. 

2.  TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699, OVERRULED TO THE EXTENT
THAT IT REQUIRES A SEARCH WARRANT SOLELY UPON THE BASIS OF THE
PRACTICABILITY OF PROCURING IT RATHER THAN UPON THE REASONABLENESS OF
THE SEARCH AFTER A LAWFUL ARREST.  PP. 65-66. 

UNITED STATES V. RABINOWITZ. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SECS. 
265, 268.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  176 F.2D 732.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 884.  REVERSED, P. 66. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF SELLING AND OF POSSESSING AND CONCEALING
FORGED AND ALTERED OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH INTENT TO
DEFRAUD.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS THE REASONABLENESS OF A SEARCH
WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT OF A PLACE OF BUSINESS CONSISTING OF A ONE
ROOM OFFICE, INCIDENT TO A VALID ARREST. 

ON FEBRUARY 1, 1943, A PRINTER WHO POSSESSED PLATES FOR FORGING
"OVERPRINTS" ON CANCELED STAMPS WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY.  HE DISCLOSED
THAT RESPONDENT, A DEALER IN STAMPS, WAS ONE OF THE CUSTOMERS TO WHOM
HE HAD DELIVERED LARGE NUMBERS OF STAMPS BEARING FORGED OVERPRINTS. 
FN1  ON SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1943, WITH THIS INFORMATION CONCERNING
RESPONDENT AND HIS ACTIVITIES IN THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS, A
POSTAL EMPLOYEE WAS SENT TO RESPONDENT'S PLACE OF BUSINESS TO BUY
STAMPS BEARING OVERPRINTS.  HE BOUGHT FOUR STAMPS.  ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY
8, THE STAMPS WERE SENT TO AN EXPERT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
OVERPRINTS WERE GENUINE.  ON FEBRUARY 9 THE REPORT WAS RECEIVED SHOWING
THE OVERPRINTS TO BE FORGERIES, HAVING BEEN PLACED UPON THE STAMPS
AFTER CANCELLATION, AND NOT BEFORE AS WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S PRACTICE. 
ON FEBRUARY 11 A FURTHER STATEMENT WAS OBTAINED FROM THE PRINTER WHO
HAD MADE THE OVERPRINTS.  ON FEBRUARY 16, 1943, A WARRANT FOR THE
ARREST OF RESPONDENT WAS OBTAINED. 

IN 1941 RESPONDENT HAD BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO THREE MONTHS'
IMPRISONMENT ON A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A TWO-COUNT INDICTMENT CHARGING THE
ALTERATION OF OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT IS, OF
OVERPRINTING GOVERNMENT POSTAGE STAMPS, AND THE POSSESSION OF A PLATE
FROM WHICH A SIMILITUDE OF A UNITED STATES OBLIGATION HAD BEEN
PRINTED.  THUS, WHEN THE WARRANT FOR ARREST WAS OBTAINED, THE OFFICERS
HAD RELIABLE INFORMATION THAT RESPONDENT WAS AN OLD OFFENDER, THAT HE
HAD SOLD FOUR FORGED AND ALTERED STAMPS TO AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AND THAT HE PROBABLY POSSESSED SEVERAL THOUSAND ALTERED STAMPS BEARING
FORGED OVERPRINTS.  WHILE THE WARRANT OF ARREST WAS NOT PUT IN EVIDENCE
IT CONTAINED, AS A GOVERNMENT WITNESS TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION,
AUTHORITY TO ARREST FOR MORE THAN THE SALE OF THE FOUR STAMPS; IT
COVERED ALL THE GOVERNMENT OFFICERS' INFORMATION.  FN2 

ARMED WITH THIS VALID WARRANT FOR ARREST, THE GOVERNMENT OFFICERS,
ACCOMPANIED BY TWO STAMP EXPERTS, WENT TO RESPONDENT'S PLACE OF
BUSINESS, A ONE-ROOM OFFICE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.  THE OFFICERS THEREUPON
ARRESTED THE RESPONDENT, AND OVER HIS OBJECTION SEARCHED THE DESK,
SAFE, AND FILE CABINETS IN THE OFFICE FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF. 
THEY FOUND AND SEIZED 573 STAMPS, ON WHICH IT WAS LATER DETERMINED THAT
OVERPRINTS HAD BEEN FORGED, ALONG WITH SOME OTHER STAMPS WHICH WERE
SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED TO RESPONDENT. 

RESPONDENT WAS INDICTED ON TWO COUNTS.  HE WAS CHARGED IN COUNT ONE
WITH SELLING FOUR FORGED AND ALTERED STAMPS, KNOWING THEY WERE FORGED
AND ALTERED AND WITH THE INTENT THAT THEY BE PASSED AS GENUINE.  FN3
THE SECOND COUNT CHARGED THAT HE DID KEEP IN HIS POSSESSION AND
CONCEAL, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD, THE 573 FORGED AND ALTERED STAMPS. 
FN4 

RESPONDENT MADE TIMELY MOTIONS FOR SUPPRESSION AND TO STRIKE THE
EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE 573 STAMPS, ALL OF WHICH WERE EVENTUALLY
DENIED.  RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED ON BOTH COUNTS AFTER TRIAL BEFORE A
JURY IN WHICH HE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE.  RELYING ON TRUPIANO V. UNITED
STATES, 334 U.S. 699, THE COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING,
REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE THE OFFICERS HAD HAD TIME IN WHICH TO
PROCURE A SEARCH WARRANT AND HAD FAILED TO DO SO THE SEARCH WAS
ILLEGAL, AND THE EVIDENCE THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED.  176
F.2D 732.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE
SEARCH BECAUSE OF THE QUESTION'S IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE LAW OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  338 U.S. 884. 

WERE THE 573 STAMPS, THE FRUITS OF THIS SEARCH, ADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE?  IF LEGALLY OBTAINED, THESE STAMPS WERE COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO
SHOW INTENT UNDER THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT, AND THEY WERE THE
VERY THINGS THE POSSESSION OF WHICH WAS THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE SECOND
COUNT. 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES: 

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES,
PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL
NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,
SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE
TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

IT IS UNREASONABLE SEARCHES THAT ARE PROHIBITED BY THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, 147.  IT WAS
RECOGNIZED BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE SEARCHES FOR WHICH NO WARRANT WAS REQUIRED.  THE RIGHT OF
THE "PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS" WAS CERTAINLY OF AS MUCH
CONCERN TO THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE PROPERTY OF THE
PERSON.  YET NO ONE QUESTIONS THE RIGHT, WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT, TO
SEARCH THE PERSON AFTER A VALID ARREST.  THE RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PERSON
INCIDENT TO ARREST ALWAYS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN
ENGLAND.  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 392.  WHERE ONE HAD
BEEN PLACED IN THE CUSTODY OF THE LAW BY VALID ACTION OF OFFICERS, IT
WAS NOT UNREASONABLE TO SEARCH HIM. 

OF COURSE, A SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT INCIDENT TO AN ARREST IS
DEPENDENT INITIALLY ON A VALID ARREST.  HERE THE OFFICERS HAD A WARRANT
FOR RESPONDENT'S ARREST WHICH WAS, AS FAR AS CAN BE ASCERTAINED, BROAD
ENOUGH TO COVER THE CRIME OF POSSESSION CHARGED IN THE SECOND COUNT,
AND CONSEQUENTLY RESPONDENT WAS PROPERLY ARRESTED.  EVEN IF THE WARRANT
OF ARREST WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE THE ARREST FOR POSSESSION OF
THE STAMPS, THE ARREST THEREFOR WAS VALID BECAUSE THE OFFICERS HAD
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT A FELONY WAS BEING COMMITTED IN THEIR
VERY PRESENCE.  CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, 156-57. 

THE ARREST WAS THEREFORE VALID IN ANY EVENT, AND RESPONDENT'S PERSON
COULD BE LAWFULLY SEARCHED.  COULD THE OFFICERS SEARCH HIS DESK, SAFE
AND FILE CABINETS, ALL WITHIN PLAIN SIGHT OF THE PARTIES, AND ALL
LOCATED UNDER RESPONDENT'S IMMEDIATE CONTROL IN HIS ONE-ROOM OFFICE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? 

DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE OFTEN RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS A
PERMISSIBLE AREA OF SEARCH BEYOND THE PERSON PROPER.  THUS IN AGNELLO
V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, 30, THIS COURT STATED: 

"THE RIGHT WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TO SEARCH
PERSONS LAWFULLY ARRESTED WHILE COMMITTING CRIME AND TO SEARCH THE
PLACE WHERE THE ARREST IS MADE IN ORDER TO FIND AND SEIZE THINGS
CONNECTED WITH THE CRIME AS ITS FRUITS OR AS THE MEANS BY WHICH IT WAS
COMMITTED, AS WELL AS WEAPONS AND OTHER THINGS TO EFFECT AN ESCAPE FROM
CUSTODY, IS NOT TO BE DOUBTED." 

THE RIGHT "TO SEARCH THE PLACE WHERE THE ARREST IS MADE IN ORDER TO
FIND AND SEIZE THINGS CONNECTED WITH THE CRIME AS ITS FRUITS OR AS THE
MEANS BY WHICH IT WAS COMMITTED" SEEMS TO HAVE STEMMED NOT ONLY FROM
THE ACKNOWLEDGED AUTHORITY TO SEARCH THE PERSON, BUT ALSO FROM THE
LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF SEARCHING FOR OTHER PROOFS OF GUILT WITHIN THE
CONTROL OF THE ACCUSED FOUND UPON ARREST.  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 383, 392.  IT BECAME ACCEPTED THAT THE PREMISES WHERE THE ARREST
WAS MADE, WHICH PREMISES WERE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PERSON ARRESTED
AND WHERE THE CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTED, WERE SUBJECT TO SEARCH WITHOUT
A SEARCH WARRANT.  SUCH A SEARCH WAS NOT "UNREASONABLE."  AGNELLO V.
UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, 30; CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132,
158; BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, 623-24. 

IN MARRON V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192, THE OFFICERS HAD A WARRANT
TO SEARCH FOR LIQUOR, BUT THE WARRANT DID NOT DESCRIBE A CERTAIN LEDGER
AND INVOICES PERTAINING TO THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS.  THE LATTER
WERE SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OF THE PLACE OF BUSINESS BUT WERE NOT
RETURNED ON THE SEARCH WARRANT AS THEY WERE NOT DESCRIBED THEREIN.  THE
OFFENSE OF MAINTAINING A NUISANCE UNDER THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT
WAS BEING COMMITTED IN THE ROOM BY THE ARRESTED BARTENDER IN THE
OFFICERS' PRESENCE.  THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS HELD NOT TO COVER THE
ARTICLES SEIZED, BUT THE ARREST FOR THE OFFENSE BEING COMMITTED IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE OFFICERS WAS HELD TO AUTHORIZE THE SEARCH FOR AND
SEIZURE OF THE LEDGER AND INVOICES, THIS COURT SAYING: 

"THE OFFICERS WERE AUTHORIZED TO ARREST FOR CRIME BEING COMMITTED IN
THEIR PRESENCE, AND THEY LAWFULLY ARRESTED BIRDSALL.  THEY HAD A RIGHT
WITHOUT A WARRANT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TO SEARCH THE PLACE IN ORDER TO
FIND AND SEIZE THE THINGS USED TO CARRY ON THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. 
...  THE CLOSET IN WHICH LIQUOR AND THE LEDGER WERE FOUND WAS USED AS A
PART OF THE SALOON.  AND, IF THE LEDGER WAS NOT AS ESSENTIAL TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT AS WERE BOTTLES, LIQUORS AND GLASSES,
IT WAS NONE THE LESS A PART OF THE OUTFIT OR EQUIPMENT ACTUALLY USED TO
COMMIT THE OFFENSE.  AND, WHILE IT WAS NOT ON BIRDSALL'S PERSON AT THE
TIME OF HIS ARREST, IT WAS IN HIS IMMEDIATE POSSESSION AND CONTROL. 
THE AUTHORITY OF OFFICERS TO SEARCH AND SEIZE THE THINGS BY WHICH THE
NUISANCE WAS BEING MAINTAINED, EXTENDED TO ALL PARTS OF THE PREMISES
USED FOR THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSE."  MARRON V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192,
198-199. 

WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MARRON CASE TO HAVE BEEN DRAINED OF
CONTEMPORARY VITALITY BY GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344,
AND UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452.  THOSE CASES CONDEMNED
GENERAL EXPLORATORY SEARCHES, WHICH CANNOT BE UNDERTAKEN BY OFFICERS
WITH OR WITHOUT A WARRANT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE SEARCH WAS NOT
GENERAL OR EXPLORATORY FOR WHATEVER MIGHT BE TURNED UP.  SPECIFICITY
WAS THE MARK OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE HERE.  THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE
TO BELIEVE THAT RESPONDENT WAS CONDUCTING HIS BUSINESS ILLEGALLY.  THE
SEARCH WAS FOR STAMPS OVERPRINTED ILLEGALLY, WHICH WERE THOUGHT UPON
THE MOST RELIABLE INFORMATION TO BE IN THE POSSESSION OF AND CONCEALED
BY RESPONDENT IN THE VERY ROOM WHERE HE WAS ARRESTED, OVER WHICH ROOM
HE HAD IMMEDIATE CONTROL AND IN WHICH HE HAD BEEN SELLING SUCH STAMPS
UNLAWFULLY.  HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
OVERRULED, IS AMPLE AUTHORITY FOR THE MORE LIMITED SEARCH HERE
CONSIDERED.  IN ALL THE YEARS OF OUR NATION'S EXISTENCE, WITH SPECIAL
ATTENTION TO THE PROHIBITION ERA, IT SEEMS NEVER TO HAVE BEEN
QUESTIONED SERIOUSLY THAT A LIMITED SEARCH SUCH AS HERE CONDUCTED AS
INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST WAS A REASONABLE SEARCH AND THEREFORE
VALID.  FN5  IT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE SAME PATTERN AS SEARCH OF
THE PERSON AFTER LAWFUL ARREST. 

WHAT IS A REASONABLE SEARCH IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY ANY FIXED
FORMULA.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT ARE "UNREASONABLE"
SEARCHES AND, REGRETTABLY, IN OUR DISCIPLINE WE HAVE NO READY LITMUS
PAPER TEST.  THE RECURRING QUESTIONS OF THE REASONABLENESS OF SEARCHES
MUST FIND RESOLUTION IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.  GO
BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344, 357.  REASONABLENESS IS IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE.  WE THINK THE
DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT HERE THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WERE
REASONABLE SHOULD BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE:  (1) THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
WERE INCIDENT TO A VALID ARREST; (2) THE PLACE OF THE SEARCH WAS A
BUSINESS ROOM TO WHICH THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING THE OFFICERS, WAS INVITED;
(3) THE ROOM WAS SMALL AND UNDER THE IMMEDIATE AND COMPLETE CONTROL OF
RESPONDENT; (4) THE SEARCH DID NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE ROOM USED FOR
UNLAWFUL PURPOSES; (5) THE POSSESSION OF THE FORGED AND ALTERED STAMPS
WAS A CRIME, JUST AS IT IS A CRIME TO POSSESS BURGLARS' TOOLS, LOTTERY
TICKETS OR COUNTERFEIT MONEY.  FN6 

ASSUMING THAT THE OFFICERS HAD TIME TO PROCURE A SEARCH WARRANT, WERE
THEY BOUND TO DO SO?  WE THINK NOT, BECAUSE THE SEARCH WAS OTHERWISE
REASONABLE, AS PREVIOUSLY CONCLUDED.  IN A RECENT OPINION, TRUPIANO V.
UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699, THIS COURT FIRST ENUNCIATED THE
REQUIREMENT THAT SEARCH WARRANTS MUST BE PROCURED WHEN "PRACTICABLE" IN
A CASE OF SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST.  ON THE OCCASION OF THE PREVIOUS
SUGGESTION OF SUCH A TEST, TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1, THE
COURT HAD BEEN SCRUPULOUS TO RESTRICT THE OPINION TO THE FAMILIAR
SITUATION THERE PRESENTED.  PROHIBITION AGENTS, HAVING RECEIVED
COMPLAINTS FOR ABOUT A YEAR, WENT AT 2:30 A.M. TO A GARAGE ADJACENT TO
A HOUSE, FLASHED A LIGHT THROUGH A SMALL OPENING, AND THEN BROKE IN AND
SEIZED LIQUOR.  THE COURT EMPHASIZED THAT "NO ONE WAS WITHIN THE PLACE
AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO THINK OTHERWISE."  ID. AT 5.  LEST THE
HOLDING THAT SUCH A SEARCH OF AN UNOCCUPIED BUILDING WAS UNREASONABLE
BE THOUGHT TO HAVE BROADER SIGNIFICANCE THE COURT CAREFULLY STATED IN
CONCLUSION: "THIS RECORD DOES NOT MAKE IT NECESSARY FOR US TO DISCUSS
THE RULE IN RESPECT OF SEARCHES IN CONNECTION WITH AN ARREST.  NO
OFFENDER WAS IN THE GARAGE; THE ACTION OF THE AGENTS HAD NO IMMEDIATE
CONNECTION WITH AN ARREST.  THE PURPOSE WAS TO SECURE EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT SOME FUTURE ARREST."  ID. AT 6.    A RULE OF THUMB REQUIRING
THAT A SEARCH WARRANT ALWAYS BE PROCURED WHENEVER PRACTICABLE MAY BE
APPEALING FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF EASY ADMINISTRATION.  BUT WE CANNOT
AGREE THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE CRYSTALLIZED INTO A SINE QUA NON
TO THE REASONABLENESS OF A SEARCH.  IT IS FALLACIOUS TO JUDGE EVENTS
RETROSPECTIVELY AND THUS TO DETERMINE, CONSIDERING THE TIME ELEMENT
ALONE, THAT THERE WAS TIME TO PROCURE A SEARCH WARRANT.  WHETHER THERE
WAS TIME MAY WELL BE DEPENDENT UPON CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN THE
TICKING OFF OF MINUTES OR HOURS.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE OFFICERS AS TO
WHEN TO CLOSE THE TRAP ON A CRIMINAL COMMITTING A CRIME IN THEIR
PRESENCE OR WHO THEY HAVE REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE IS COMMITTING A
FELONY IS NOT DETERMINED SOLELY UPON WHETHER THERE WAS TIME TO PROCURE
A SEARCH WARRANT.  SOME FLEXIBILITY WILL BE ACCORDED LAW OFFICERS
ENGAGED IN DAILY BATTLE WITH CRIMINALS FOR WHOSE RESTRAINT CRIMINAL
LAWS ARE ESSENTIAL. 

IT IS APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT THE
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS SHOULD NOT BE
VIOLATED WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT IF IT IS PRACTICABLE FOR THE OFFICERS
TO PROCURE ONE.  THE MANDATE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS THAT THE PEOPLE
SHALL BE SECURE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT
THERE MAY BE REASONABLE SEARCHES, INCIDENT TO AN ARREST, WITHOUT A
SEARCH WARRANT.  UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THIS ESTABLISHED RULE THAT SOME
AUTHORITY TO SEARCH FOLLOWS FROM LAWFULLY TAKING THE PERSON INTO
CUSTODY, IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT SUCH SEARCHES TURN UPON THE
REASONABLENESS UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOT UPON THE
PRACTICABILITY OF PROCURING A SEARCH WARRANT, FOR THE WARRANT IS NOT
REQUIRED.  TO THE EXTENT THAT TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699,
REQUIRES A SEARCH WARRANT SOLELY UPON THE BASIS OF THE PRACTICABILITY
OF PROCURING IT RATHER THAN UPON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE SEARCH AFTER
A LAWFUL ARREST, THAT CASE IS OVERRULED.  THE RELEVANT TEST IS NOT
WHETHER IT IS REASONABLE TO PROCURE A SEARCH WARRANT, BUT WHETHER THE
SEARCH WAS REASONABLE.  THAT CRITERION IN TURN DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES - THE TOTAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE CASE.  IT IS A
SUFFICIENT PRECAUTION THAT LAW OFFICERS MUST JUSTIFY THEIR CONDUCT
BEFORE COURTS WHICH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, AND MUST BE, JEALOUS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT OF PRIVACY WITHIN THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT. 

WE DO NOT TREAT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY RESPONDENT IN HIS
BRIEF TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WE CONSIDER IT
APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE OF THESE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF THE EXCELLENT
DISCUSSION BELOW. 

THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE STAMPS INVOLVED WERE GENUINE POSTAGE STAMPS.  AT CERTAIN
TIMES THE GOVERNMENT HAS PRINTED THE NAME OF A PARTICULAR STATE OR
POSSESSION ON STAMPS PRIOR TO POST OFFICE SALE.  CANCELED STAMPS
BEARING THESE OVERPRINTS HAVE AN UNUSUAL VALUE FOR STAMP COLLECTORS. 

FN2  "Q.  NOW, WHEN YOU WENT TO MR. RABINOWITZ'S PLACE OF BUSINESS,
ALL YOU HAD WITH YOU WAS A WARRANT TO ARREST HIM IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ALLEGED SALE OF THOSE FOUR STAMPS; IS THAT CORRECT? 

"A.  AND ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ARREST WARRANT; YES. 

"Q.  I DIDN'T HEAR THE LAST PART OF YOUR ANSWER. 

"A. IN OUR QUESTIONS A FEW MINUTES BACK, I STATED THAT THE FOUR
STAMPS WERE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE WARRANT
FOR ARREST, BUT THAT THERE WAS OTHER INFORMATION IN MY POSSESSION THAT
WAS INCLUDED IN THAT WARRANT FOR ARREST. 

"Q.  WELL, WASN'T THE WARRANT OF ARREST ISSUED SOLELY ON THE CHARGE
THAT MR. RABINOWITZ HAD SOLD FOUR STAMPS CONTAINING FALSE OR ALTERED
OVERPRINTS"  WASN'T THAT WHAT THE WARRANT OF ARREST WAS ISSUED FOR? 

"A.  PRIMARILY, YES, BUT NOT COMPLETELY." 

FN3  18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  268. 

FN4  18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  265.  ALL OF THESE STAMPS ARE
DEFINED BY STATUTE AS OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.  18 U.S.C.
(1946 ED.)  SEC.  261. 

FN5  WHEN CONSTRUING STATE SAFEGUARDS SIMILAR TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, STATE COURTS HAVE SHOWN LITTLE HESITANCY
IN HOLDING THAT INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST UPON PREMISES WITHIN THE
CONTROL OF THE ARRESTED PERSON, A SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AT LEAST TO
THE EXTENT CONDUCTED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT UNREASONABLE.  SEE,
E.G.:  ARGETAKIS V. STATE, 24 ARIZ. 599, 212 P. 372; ITALIANO V. STATE,
141 FLA. 249, 193 SO. 48; STATE V. CONNER, 59 IDAHO 695, 89 P.2D 197;
STATE V. CARENZA, 357 MO. 1172, 212 S.W.2D 743; STATE EX REL. WONG YOU
V. DISTRICT COURT, 106 MONT. 347, 78 P.2D 353; DAVIS V. STATE, 30 OKLA.
CR. 61, 234 P. 787; STATE EX REL. FONG V. SUPERIOR COURT, 29 WASH.2D
601, 188 P.2D 125; STATE V. ADAMS, 103 W. VA. 77, 136 S.E. 703. 

FN6  THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECTS SEARCHED FOR AND SEIZED
HERE, HAVING BEEN UTILIZED IN PERPETRATING A CRIME FOR WHICH ARREST WAS
MADE, WERE PROPERLY SUBJECT TO SEIZURE.  SUCH OBJECTS ARE TO BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM MERELY EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS WHICH MAY NOT BE TAKEN
INTO CUSTODY.  UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, SUPRA, AT 464-66; GOULED V.
UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, 309-11.  THIS IS A DISTINCTION OF
IMPORTANCE, FOR "LIMITATIONS UPON THE FRUIT TO BE GATHERED TEND TO
LIMIT THE QUEST ITSELF  ...  "  UNITED STATES V. POLLER, 43 F.2D 911,
914. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699, WAS DECIDED ON THE
UNARTICULATED PREMISE THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF ITSELF BARRED THE
USE OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY WHAT THE COURT CONSIDERED AN "UNREASONABLE"
SEARCH.  I DISSENTED IN THAT CASE.  LATER, CONCURRING IN THIS COURT'S
DECISION IN WOLF V. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25, 39-40, I STATED MY AGREEMENT
WITH THE "PLAIN IMPLICATION" OF THE WOLF OPINION THAT "THE FEDERAL
EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS NOT A COMMAND OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BUT IS A
JUDICIALLY CREATED RULE OF EVIDENCE WHICH CONGRESS MIGHT NEGATE."  IN
THE LIGHT OF THE WOLF CASE, THE TRUPIANO RULE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMAND, BUT RATHER AN EVIDENTIARY POLICY ADOPTED BY THIS COURT IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY POWERS OVER FEDERAL COURTS.  CF. MCNABB V.
UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332.  THE PRESENT CASE COMES WITHIN THAT RULE:
THE TRIAL COURT ADMITTED CERTAIN EVIDENCE PROCURED BY A SEARCH AND
SEIZURE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT ALTHOUGH THE OFFICERS HAD AMPLE TIME
AND OPPORTUNITY TO GET ONE.  WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD ADHERE TO THE
TRUPIANO PRINCIPLE MAKING EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED INADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL
COURTS NOW PRESENTS NO MORE THAN A QUESTION OF WHAT IS WISE JUDICIAL
POLICY.  ALTHOUGH THE RULE DOES NOT IN ALL RESPECTS CONFORM TO MY OWN
IDEAS, I THINK THAT THE REASONS FOR CHANGING IT ARE OUTWEIGHED BY
REASONS AGAINST ITS CHANGE. 

IN RECENT YEARS, THE SCOPE OF THE RULE HAS BEEN A SUBJECT OF ALMOST
CONSTANT JUDICIAL CONTROVERSY BOTH IN TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS.  IN
NO OTHER FIELD HAS THE LAW'S UNCERTAINTY BEEN MORE CLEARLY MANIFESTED. 
TO SOME EXTENT THAT UNCERTAINTY MAY BE UNAVOIDABLE.  THE TRUPIANO CASE
ITSELF ADDED NEW CONFUSIONS "IN A FIELD ALREADY REPLETE WITH
COMPLEXITIES."  TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 716.  BUT OVERRULING
THAT DECISION MERELY AGGRAVATES EXISTING UNCERTAINTY.  FOR AS MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER POINTS OUT, TODAY'S HOLDING CASTS DOUBT ON OTHER
CASES RECENTLY DECIDED.  AND I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TRIAL JUDGES CAN
BE EXPECTED TO FORESEE WHAT FURTHER SHIFTS MAY OCCUR.  IN MY JUDGMENT
IT WOULD BE WISER JUDICIAL POLICY TO ADHERE TO THE TRUPIANO RULE OF
EVIDENCE, AT LEAST LONG ENOUGH TO SEE HOW IT WORKS. 

THAT RULE IS BASED UPON VERY STRICT REQUIREMENTS DESIGNED TO NARROW
THE OCCASIONS UPON WHICH OFFICERS CAN MAKE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
WITHOUT JUDICIAL WARRANT.  UNQUESTIONABLY ITS APPLICATION WILL NOW AND
THEN PERMIT A GUILTY PERSON TO ESCAPE CONVICTION BECAUSE OF HASTY OR
ILL-ADVISED ACTION ON THE PART OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  BUT THE SAME
MAY BE SAID OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WHICH THE
EXCLUSIONARY RULE WAS FASHIONED TO IMPLEMENT.  THE FRAMERS OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT MUST HAVE CONCLUDED THAT REASONABLY STRICT SEARCH AND
SEIZURE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT TOO COSTLY A PRICE TO PAY FOR PROTECTION
AGAINST THE DANGERS INCIDENT TO INVASION OF PRIVATE PREMISES AND PAPERS
BY OFFICERS, SOME OF WHOM MIGHT BE OVERZEALOUS AND OPPRESSIVE.  SEE
DISSENT IN FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 487, 500-502.  NOR CAN I
SEE WHERE THE ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS LIKELY TO BE SERIOUSLY
HANDICAPPED BY ADHERING TO THE TRUPIANO HOLDING. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE CLEAR-CUT ISSUE BEFORE US IS THIS:  IN MAKING A LAWFUL ARREST,
MAY ARRESTING OFFICERS SEARCH WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT NOT MERELY THE
PERSON UNDER ARREST OR THINGS UNDER HIS IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL CONTROL, BUT
THE PREMISES WHERE THE ARREST IS MADE, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS AMPLE TIME TO
SECURE SUCH A WARRANT AND NO DANGER THAT THE "PAPERS AND EFFECTS" FOR
WHICH A SEARCH WARRANT COULD BE ISSUED WOULD BE DESPOILED OR
DESTROYED? 

THE OLD SAW THAT HARD CASES MAKE BAD LAW HAS ITS BASIS IN
EXPERIENCE.  BUT PETTY CASES ARE EVEN MORE CALCULATED TO MAKE BAD LAW. 
THE IMPACT OF A SORDID LITTLE CASE IS APT TO OBSCURE THE IMPLICATIONS
OF THE GENERALIZATION TO WHICH THE CASE GIVES RISE.  ONLY THUS CAN I
ACCOUNT FOR A DISREGARD OF THE HISTORY EMBEDDED IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
AND THE GREAT PLACE WHICH BELONGS TO THAT AMENDMENT IN THE BODY OF OUR
LIBERTIES AS RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED BY UNANIMOUS DECISIONS OVER A LONG
STRETCH OF THE COURT'S HISTORY. 

IT IS A FAIR SUMMARY OF HISTORY TO SAY THAT THE SAFEGUARDS OF LIBERTY
HAVE FREQUENTLY BEEN FORGED IN CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING NOT VERY NICE
PEOPLE.  AND SO, WHILE WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH A SHABBY DEFRAUDER,
WE MUST DEAL WITH HIS CASE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT ARE REALLY THE GREAT
THEMES EXPRESSED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  A DISREGARD OF THE HISTORIC
MATERIALS UNDERLYING THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT ANSWER THEM. 

1.  IT IS TRUE ALSO OF JOURNEYS IN THE LAW THAT THE PLACE YOU REACH
DEPENDS ON THE DIRECTION YOU ARE TAKING.  AND SO, WHERE ONE COMES OUT
ON A CASE DEPENDS ON WHERE ONE GOES IN.  IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN
THE WORLD WHETHER ONE APPROACHES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AS THE COURT
APPROACHED IT IN BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, IN WEEKS V.
UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, IN SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 251 U.S. 385, IN GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, OR ONE
APPROACHES IT AS A PROVISION DEALING WITH A FORMALITY.  IT MAKES ALL
THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD WHETHER ONE RECOGNIZES THE CENTRAL FACT
ABOUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, NAMELY, THAT IT WAS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST
RECURRENCE OF ABUSES SO DEEPLY FELT BY THE COLONIES AS TO BE ONE OF THE
POTENT CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION, OR ONE THINKS OF IT AS MERELY A
REQUIREMENT FOR A PIECE OF PAPER. 

2.  THIS IS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: 

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES,
PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL
NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,
SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE
TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

THESE WORDS ARE NOT JUST A LITERARY COMPOSITION.  THEY ARE NOT TO BE
READ AS THEY MIGHT BE READ BY A MAN WHO KNOWS ENGLISH BUT HAS NO
KNOWLEDGE OF THE HISTORY THAT GAVE RISE TO THE WORDS.  THE CLUE TO THE
MEANING AND SCOPE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS JOHN ADAMS'
CHARACTERIZATION OF OTIS' ARGUMENT AGAINST SEARCH BY THE POLICE THAT
"AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WAS THEN AND THERE BORN."  10 ADAMS, WORKS 247. 
ONE CANNOT WRENCH "UNREASONABLE SEARCHES" FROM THE TEXT AND CONTEXT AND
HISTORIC CONTENT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  IT WAS THE ANSWER OF THE
REVOLUTIONARY STATESMEN TO THE EVILS OF SEARCHES WITHOUT WARRANTS AND
SEARCHES WITH WARRANTS UNRESTRICTED IN SCOPE.  BOTH WERE DEEMED
"UNREASONABLE."  WORDS MUST BE READ WITH THE GLOSS OF THE EXPERIENCE OF
THOSE WHO FRAMED THEM.  BECAUSE THE EXPERIENCE OF THE FRAMERS OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS WAS SO VIVID, THEY ASSUMED THAT IT WOULD BE CARRIED DOWN
THE STREAM OF HISTORY AND THAT THEIR WORDS WOULD RECEIVE THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXPERIENCE TO WHICH THEY WERE ADDRESSED - A
SIGNIFICANCE NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE DICTIONARY.  WHEN THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT OUTLAWED "UNREASONABLE SEARCHES" AND THEN WENT ON TO DEFINE
THE VERY RESTRICTED AUTHORITY THAT EVEN A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED BY A
MAGISTRATE COULD GIVE, THE FRAMERS SAID WITH ALL THE CLARITY OF THE
GLOSS OF HISTORY THAT A SEARCH IS "UNREASONABLE" UNLESS A WARRANT
AUTHORIZES IT, BARRING ONLY EXCEPTIONS JUSTIFIED BY ABSOLUTE
NECESSITY.  EVEN A WARRANT CANNOT AUTHORIZE IT EXCEPT WHEN IT IS ISSUED
"UPON PROBABLE CAUSE  ...  AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE
SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED."  FN1  WITH ALL
RESPECT I SUGGEST THAT IT MAKES A MOCKERY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO
SANCTION SEARCH WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT MERELY BECAUSE OF THE LEGALITY
OF AN ARREST.  I HAVE YET TO HEAR THE ANSWER TO JUDGE LEARNED HAND'S
REASONING BELOW THAT TO MAKE THE VALIDITY OF A SEARCH 

"DEPEND UPON THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTY IN THE PREMISES SEARCHED AT
THE TIME OF THE ARREST  ... WOULD MAKE CRUCIAL A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HAS
NO RATIONAL RELEVANCE TO THE PURPOSES OF THE PRIVILEGE.  THE FEELINGS
WHICH LIE BEHIND IT HAVE THEIR BASIS IN THE RESENTMENT, INEVITABLE IN A
FREE SOCIETY, AGAINST THE INVASION OF A MAN'S PRIVACY WITHOUT SOME
JUDICIAL SANCTION.  IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN ONE HAS BEEN ARRESTED IN HIS
HOME OR HIS OFFICE, HIS PRIVACY HAS ALREADY BEEN INVADED; BUT THAT
INTEREST, THOUGH LOST, IS ALTOGETHER SEPARATE FROM THE INTEREST IN
PROTECTING HIS PAPERS FROM INDISCRIMINATE RUMMAGE, EVEN THOUGH BOTH ARE
CUSTOMARILY GROUPED TOGETHER AS PARTS OF THE 'RIGHT OF PRIVACY.'  ...
THE HISTORY OF THE TWO PRIVILEGES IS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT; THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN THEM; AND IN STATUTES THEY HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN TREATED AS DEPENDING UPON SEPARATE CONDITIONS."  176 F.2D 732,
735.    3.  THIS BRINGS ME TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE RIGHT OF SEARCH
AND SEIZURE "INCIDENT TO ARREST."  UNDUE HASTE IN COMING TO THAT ISSUE
TOO READILY LEADS TO GETTING OFF THE TRACK OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 
THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED AS THOUGH THE CONSTITUTION SAID SEARCH OF
PREMISES MAY BE AT LARGE WHENEVER AN ARREST IS MADE IN THEM.  THE
UTTERLY FREE HAND, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THIS GIVES THE ARRESTING
OFFICERS TO RUMMAGE ALL OVER THE HOUSE IS, I THINK, INEVITABLE UNLESS
THE BASIS OF ANY RIGHT TO SEARCH AS AN INCIDENT TO ARREST IS PUT IN
PROPER FOCUS.  PHOTOGRAPHS CAN BE SO TAKEN AS TO MAKE A MIDGET LOOK
LIKE A GIANT, AND VICE VERSA.  THE SAME KIND OF DISTORTION RESULTS IF A
LEGAL DOCTRINE EMBEDDED IN A LARGER MATRIX OF PRINCIPLE IS TAKEN OUT OF
THE MATRIX AND ELEVATED TO AN INDEPENDENT POSITION.  IN PLAIN ENGLISH,
THE RIGHT TO SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST IS MERELY ONE OF THOSE VERY
NARROW EXCEPTIONS TO THE "GUARANTIES AND IMMUNITIES WHICH WE HAD
INHERITED FROM OUR ENGLISH ANCESTORS, AND WHICH HAD FROM TIME
IMMEMORIAL BEEN SUBJECT TO CERTAIN WELL-RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS ARISING
FROM THE NECESSITIES OF THE CASE."  ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275,
281. 

4.  WHAT, THEN, IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION BY THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT OF SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT IN CASE OF A LEGAL ARREST,
WHETHER THE ARREST IS ON A WARRANT OR BASED ON THE HISTORIC RIGHT OF
ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT IF A CRIME IS COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
ARRESTER?  THE EXCEPTION MAY IN PART BE A SURVIVING INCIDENT OF THE
HISTORIC ROLE OF "HUE AND CRY" IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON LAW.  SEE JUDGE
CARDOZO IN PEOPLE V. CHIAGLES, 237 N.Y. 193, 196, 142 N.E. 583, 584. 
ITS BASIC ROOTS, HOWEVER, LIE IN NECESSITY.  WHAT IS THE NECESSITY? 
WHY IS SEARCH OF THE ARRESTED PERSON PERMITTED?  FOR TWO REASONS:
FIRST, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ARRESTING OFFICER AND TO DEPRIVE THE
PRISONER OF POTENTIAL MEANS OF ESCAPE, CLOSSON V. MORRISON, 47 N.H.
482, AND, SECONDLY, TO AVOID DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE BY THE ARRESTED
PERSON.  SEE REIFSNYDER V. LEE, 44 IOWA 101, 103; HOLKER V. HENNESSEY,
141 MO. 527, 540, 42 S.W. 1090, 1093.  FROM THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT
OFFICERS MAY SEARCH AND SEIZE NOT ONLY THE THINGS PHYSICALLY ON THE
PERSON ARRESTED, BUT THOSE WITHIN HIS IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL CONTROL.  WHAT
A FARCE IT MAKES OF THE WHOLE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE FOR
MANY LEGAL PURPOSES EVERYTHING IN A MAN'S HOUSE IS UNDER HIS CONTROL
THEREFORE HIS HOUSE - HIS ROOMS - MAY BE SEARCHED.  OF COURSE IN THIS
FIELD OF LAW, AS IN OTHERS, OPINIONS SOMETIMES USE LANGUAGE NOT WITH
FASTIDIOUS PRECISION.  APART FROM SUCH INSTANCES OF LOOSE USE OF
LANGUAGE, THE DOCTRINE OF SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO ARREST HAS, UNTIL VERY
RECENTLY, BEEN STRICTLY CONFINED TO THE NECESSITIES OF THE SITUATION,
I.E., THE SEARCH OF THE PERSON AND THOSE IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL
SURROUNDINGS WHICH MAY FAIRLY BE DEEMED TO BE AN EXTENSION OF HIS
PERSON. 

5.  ANOTHER EXCEPTION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION OF
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES IS LIKEWISE ROOTED IN NECESSITY.  THE SEARCH
WITHOUT A WARRANT OF MOVING OBJECTS - VEHICLES AND VESSELS - WAS
SANCTIONED IN CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, ON THE GROUND
THAT "IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE TO SECURE A WARRANT BECAUSE THE VEHICLE CAN
BE QUICKLY MOVED OUT OF THE LOCALITY OR JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE
WARRANT MUST BE SOUGHT."  267 U.S. AT 153.  FURTHERMORE, THE LIMITS OF
THE EXCEPTION WERE CAREFULLY DEFINED IN TERMS OF NECESSITY, FOR THE
COURT ADDED: 

"IN CASES WHERE THE SECURING OF A WARRANT IS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE,
IT MUST BE USED, AND WHEN PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT AND ISSUED
AFTER JUDICIAL APPROVAL PROTECTS THE SEIZING OFFICER AGAINST A SUIT FOR
DAMAGES.  IN CASES WHERE SEIZURE IS IMPOSSIBLE EXCEPT WITHOUT WARRANT,
THE SEIZING OFFICER ACTS UNLAWFULLY AND AT HIS PERIL UNLESS HE CAN SHOW
THE COURT PROBABLE CAUSE."  267 U.S. AT 156. 

EVEN AS TO MOVING VEHICLES, THIS COURT DID NOT LAY DOWN AN ABSOLUTE
RULE DISPENSING WITH A SEARCH WARRANT.  IT LIMITED DISPENSATION TO THE
DEMANDS OF NECESSITY, WHERE WANT OF TIME PRECLUDED THE OBTAINING OF A
WARRANT.  THE NECESSITY FOUNDED ON THE TIME FACTOR WHICH GUIDED THE
COURT IN THE CARROLL CASE CANNOT JUSTIFY THE SEARCH HERE MADE OF THE
RESPONDENT'S PREMISES, FOR THERE WAS AMPLE TIME TO OBTAIN A WARRANT
BEFORE THE ARREST AND EVEN ON THE OCCASION OF THE ARREST. 

6.  IT IS IN THIS CONNECTION THAT THE BODY OF CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENTS BECOMES SIGNIFICANT, PARTICULARLY LEGISLATION
CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  IF EXPLICIT
LEGISLATION WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO INSPECT WITHOUT WARRANT EVEN
VESSELS AND VEHICLES, AND IF CONGRESS HAS BEEN VERY NIGGARDLY IN GIVING
AUTHORITY TO SEARCH EVEN WITH A WARRANT - NIGGARDLY BOTH AS TO THE
OFFICERS WHO MAY OBTAIN SUCH WARRANTS AND AS TO STRICTLY DEFINED
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SEARCH IS ALLOWED - THE ATTITUDE DISCLOSED BY
THIS IMPRESSIVE LEGISLATION BEARS POWERFULLY ON THE HISTORIC PURPOSES
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND THE FUNCTIONS THAT IT FULFILLS IN OUR
DEMOCRACY.  IT DESERVES TO BE RECALLED THAT CONGRESS, DESPITE REPEATED
REQUESTS BY ATTORNEYS GENERAL, LONG REFUSED TO MAKE SEARCH BY WARRANT
GENERALLY AVAILABLE AS AN AID TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  IT DID NOT DO
SO UNTIL THE FIRST WORLD WAR AND EVEN THEN IT DID NOT DO SO EXCEPT
UNDER CONDITIONS MOST CAREFULLY CIRCUMSCRIBED.  FN2 

7.  WITH ONLY RARE DEVIATIONS, SUCH AS TODAY'S DECISION, THIS COURT
HAS CONSTRUED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT "LIBERALLY TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT OF
PRIVACY."  UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452, 464.  FN3  THE
GUIDING LINE IN DEALING WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS SET FORTH IN
GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, 303-04: 

"IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD TO THE EMPHASIS WITH WHICH THE
FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND THIS COURT (IN BOYD V. UNITED STATES,
116 U.S. 616, IN WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, AND IN
SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385) HAVE DECLARED
THE IMPORTANCE TO POLITICAL LIBERTY AND TO THE WELFARE OF OUR COUNTRY
OF THE DUE OBSERVANCE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
BY THESE TWO AMENDMENTS.  THE EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS CITED IS:  THAT
SUCH RIGHTS ARE DECLARED TO BE INDISPENSABLE TO THE 'FULL ENJOYMENT OF
PERSONAL SECURITY, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY'; THAT THEY
ARE TO BE REGARDED AS OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY;
AND THAT THE GUARANTY OF THEM IS AS IMPORTANT AND AS IMPERATIVE AS ARE
THE GUARANTIES OF THE OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
CITIZEN,  - THE RIGHT, TO TRIAL BY JURY, TO THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DECIDED THAT THESE
AMENDMENTS SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION, SO AS TO PREVENT
STEALTHY ENCROACHMENT UPON OR 'GRADUAL DEPRECIATION' OF THE RIGHTS
SECURED BY THEM, BY IMPERCEPTIBLE PRACTICE OF COURTS OR BY WELL
INTENTIONED BUT MISTAKENLY OVER-ZEALOUS EXECUTIVE OFFICERS." 

8.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT INSISTS, HOWEVER, THAT ITS MAJOR PREMISE
THAT AN ARREST CREATES A RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PLACE OF ARREST - FINDS
SUPPORT IN DECISIONS BEGINNING WITH WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S.
383.  THESE DECISIONS DO NOT JUSTIFY TODAY'S DECISION.  THEY MERELY
PROVE HOW A HINT BECOMES A SUGGESTION, IS LOOSELY TURNED INTO DICTUM
AND FINALLY ELEVATED TO A DECISION.  THIS PROGRESSIVE DISTORTION IS DUE
TO AN UNCRITICAL CONFUSION OF (1) THE RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PERSON
ARRESTED AND ARTICLES IN HIS IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL CONTROL AND (2) THE
RIGHT TO SEIZE VISIBLE INSTRUMENTS OR FRUITS OF CRIME AT THE SCENE OF
THE ARREST WITH (3) AN ALLEGED RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PLACE OF ARREST.  IT
IS NECESSARY IN THIS CONNECTION TO DISTINGUISH CLEARLY BETWEEN
PROHIBITED SEARCHES AND IMPROPER SEIZURES.  IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO
MAKE AN IMPROPER SEARCH EVEN FOR ARTICLES THAT ARE APPROPRIATELY
SUBJECT TO SEIZURE WHEN FOUND BY LEGAL MEANS.  E.G., AMOS V. UNITED
STATES, 255 U.S. 313; BYARS V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28; TAYLOR V.
UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1.  THUS, THE SEIZURE OF ITEMS PROPERLY SUBJECT
TO SEIZURE BECAUSE IN OPEN VIEW AT THE TIME OF ARREST DOES NOT CARRY
WITH IT THE RIGHT TO SEARCH FOR SUCH ITEMS. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PLACE OF ARREST ANNOUNCED
TODAY RESTS ON THE PRECARIOUS FOUNDATION OF THIS PASSAGE IN THE WEEKS
CASE: 

"WHAT THEN IS THE PRESENT CASE?  BEFORE ANSWERING THAT INQUIRY
SPECIFICALLY, IT MAY BE WELL BY A PROCESS OF EXCLUSION TO STATE WHAT IT
IS NOT.  IT IS NOT AN ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT ON THE PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT, ALWAYS RECOGNIZED UNDER ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LAW, TO SEARCH
THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED WHEN LEGALLY ARRESTED TO DISCOVER AND SEIZE
THE FRUITS OR EVIDENCES OF CRIME.  THIS RIGHT HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY
MAINTAINED IN MANY CASES.  1 BISHOP ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEC. 211;
WHARTON, CRIM. PLEAD.  AND PRACTICE, 8TH ED., SEC. 60; DILLON V.
O'BRIEN AND DAVIS, 16 COX C.C. 245.  ... NOR IS IT THE CASE OF
BURGLAR'S TOOLS OR OTHER PROOFS OF GUILT FOUND UPON HIS ARREST WITHIN
THE CONTROL OF THE ACCUSED."  232 U.S. 383, 392. 

THE STATEMENT DOES NOT EVEN REFER TO A RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PLACE OF
ARREST, AND THE AUTHORITIES CITED MERELY SUPPORT THE ASSERTION OF A
RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PERSON ARRESTED AND TO SEIZE VISIBLE INSTRUMENTS OR
FRUITS OF CRIME.  FN4 

THE AUTHORITY TO SEARCH WHICH FLOWS FROM THE RIGHT TO ARREST WAS NEXT
DISCUSSED BY THIS COURT IN CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132,
158: 

"WHEN A MAN IS LEGALLY ARRESTED FOR AN OFFENSE, WHATEVER IS FOUND
UPON HIS PERSON OR IN HIS CONTROL WHICH IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR HIM TO HAVE
AND WHICH MAY BE USED TO PROVE THE OFFENSE MAY BE SEIZED AND HELD AS
EVIDENCE IN THE PROSECUTION."  WHILE BROADER THAN THE WEEKS STATEMENT,
THIS IS STILL FAR FROM CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO SEARCH A PLACE MERELY
BECAUSE OF AN ARREST THERE.  WHAT WAS SAID IN THE EARLIER CASE ABOUT
ARTICLES IN THE CONTROL OF THE ARRESTED PERSON NOT BEING IN ISSUE IS
NOW STATED POSITIVELY AS A RIGHT TO SEIZE WHATEVER IS FOUND IN THE
CONTROL OF THE PERSON ARRESTED.  THIS CARROLL STATEMENT IS BASED ON
WHAT WAS SAID IN WEEKS, AND ON TWO STATE CASES WHICH DID NOT ENUNCIATE
A RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PLACE OF ARREST.  FN5 

THESE LIMITED STATEMENTS IN THE WEEKS AND CARROLL OPINIONS WERE
UNCRITICALLY EXPANDED IN AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, 30: 

"THE RIGHT WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TO SEARCH
PERSONS LAWFULLY ARRESTED WHILE COMMITTING CRIME AND TO SEARCH THE
PLACE WHERE THE ARREST IS MADE IN ORDER TO FIND AND SEIZE THINGS
CONNECTED WITH THE CRIME AS ITS FRUITS OR AS THE MEANS BY WHICH IT WAS
COMMITTED, AS WELL AS WEAPONS AND OTHER THINGS TO EFFECT AN ESCAPE FROM
CUSTODY, IS NOT TO BE DOUBTED.  SEE CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S.
132, 158; WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 392." 

IF SUCH A RIGHT WAS "NOT TO BE DOUBTED" IT CERTAINLY CANNOT BE
SUPPORTED BY THE CASES CITED.  CARROLL AND WEEKS MAY HAVE ESTABLISHED A
RIGHT TO SEIZE VISIBLE EVIDENCES OF CRIME AND TO SEARCH THE PERSON
ARRESTED AND EVEN OBJECTS HE PHYSICALLY CONTROLS, BUT NEITHER CASE SO
MUCH AS HINTS THAT THERE IS A RIGHT TO SEARCH THE ENTIRE PLACE OF
ARREST FOR "THINGS CONNECTED WITH THE CRIME." 

IN MARRON V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192, THESE CARELESSLY PHRASED
DICTA WERE FOR THE FIRST TIME REFLECTED IN THE RESULT.  THE STATEMENT
IN THE OPINION THAT OFFICERS "HAD A RIGHT WITHOUT A WARRANT
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TO SEARCH THE PLACE IN ORDER TO FIND AND SEIZE THE
THINGS USED TO CARRY ON THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE," 275 U.S. AT 199, WAS
DRASTICALLY QUALIFIED BY GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344,
AND UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452.  THE TEACHING OF THOSE
CASES IS THAT THE WARRANT OF ARREST CARRIES WITH IT AUTHORITY TO SEIZE
ALL THAT IS ON THE PERSON, OR IN SUCH IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL RELATION TO
THE ONE ARRESTED AS TO BE IN A FAIR SENSE A PROJECTION OF HIS PERSON. 
THE LEFKOWITZ DECISION EMPHASIZED THAT THE THINGS SEIZED IN MARRON
"BEING IN PLAIN VIEW WERE PICKED UP BY THE OFFICERS AS AN INCIDENT OF
THE ARREST.  NO SEARCH FOR THEM WAS MADE."  285 U.S. AT 465.  THUS
EXPLAINED, MARRON STANDS MERELY FOR THE HISTORICALLY JUSTIFIED RIGHT TO
SEIZE VISIBLE INSTRUMENTS OF CRIME AT THE SCENE OF THE ARREST. 

IN RELIANCE ON THE PRIOR DICTA AND ON THE MARRON DECISION, IT WAS
ASSERTED IN HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145, 150, THAT "SEARCH
AND SEIZURE INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST IS A PRACTICE OF ANCIENT
ORIGIN."  LITERALLY, THIS IS TRUE:  THE RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PERSON
ARRESTED AND TO SEIZE VISIBLE INSTRUMENTS OF CRIME HAS A GOOD LEGAL
TITLE.  BUT JUDICIAL HISTORY CANNOT BE AVOUCHED IF THIS STATEMENT IS
MEANT TO COVER THE RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PLACE OF ARREST.  SUCH A CLAIM
CAN ONLY BE MADE BY SLIDING FROM A SEARCH OF THE PERSON TO A SEARCH FOR
THINGS IN HIS "POSSESSION" OR "IN HIS IMMEDIATE CONTROL," WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE TREACHEROUS AMBIGUITY OF THESE TERMS, AND THEN USING
THESE PHRASES, TAKEN OUT OF THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT, SO AS TO INCLUDE
THE ENTIRE PREMISES. 

THE SHORT OF IT IS THAT THE RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PLACE OF ARREST IS AN
INNOVATION BASED ON CONFUSION, WITHOUT HISTORIC FOUNDATION, AND MADE IN
THE TEETH OF A HISTORIC PROTECTION AGAINST IT. 

9.  IF THE EXCEPTION OF SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT INCIDENTAL TO A
LEGAL ARREST IS EXTENDED BEYOND THE PERSON AND HIS PHYSICAL EXTENSION,
SEARCH THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE NECESSARILY FOLLOWS.  I AM AWARE THAT MOST
DIFFERENCES IN THE LAW DEPEND ON DIFFERENCES OF DEGREE.  BUT
DIFFERENCES THOUGH OF DEGREE MUST NOT BE CAPRICIOUS; THE DIFFERENCES
MUST PERMIT RATIONAL CLASSIFICATION.  IF UPON ARREST YOU MAY SEARCH
BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE PERSON AND THE VERY RESTRICTED AREA THAT MAY
FAIRLY BE DEEMED PART OF THE PERSON, WHAT RATIONAL LINE CAN BE DRAWN
SHORT OF SEARCHING AS MANY ROOMS AS ARRESTING OFFICERS MAY DEEM
APPROPRIATE FOR FINDING "THE FRUITS OF THE CRIME"?  IS SEARCH TO BE
RESTRICTED TO THE ROOM IN WHICH THE PERSON IS ARRESTED BUT NOT TO
ANOTHER OPEN ROOM INTO WHICH IT LEADS?  OR, TAKE A HOUSE OR AN
APARTMENT CONSISTING LARGELY OF ONE BIG ROOM SERVING AS DINING ROOM,
LIVING ROOM AND BEDROOM.  MAY SEARCH BE MADE IN A SMALL ROOM BUT NOT IN
SUCH A LARGE ROOM?  IF YOU MAY SEARCH THE BEDROOM PART OF A LARGE ROOM,
WHY NOT A BEDROOM SEPARATED FROM THE DINING ROOM BY A PARTITION?  THESE
ARE NOT SILLY HARD CASES.  THEY PUT THE PRINCIPLE TO A TEST.  THE RIGHT
TO SEARCH AN ARRESTED PERSON AND TO TAKE THE STUFF ON TOP OF THE DESK
AT WHICH HE SITS HAS A JUSTIFICATION OF NECESSITY WHICH DOES NOT EAT
AWAY THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  BUT TO ASSUME THAT
THIS EXCEPTION OF A SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO ARREST PERMITS A FREE-HANDED
SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT IS TO SUBVERT THE PURPOSE OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT BY MAKING THE EXCEPTION DISPLACE THE PRINCIPLE.  HISTORY AND
THE POLICY WHICH IT REPRESENTS ALIKE ADMONISH AGAINST IT. 

10.  TO TEAR "UNREASONABLE" FROM THE CONTEXT AND HISTORY AND PURPOSE
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN APPLYING THE NARROW EXCEPTION OF SEARCH AS
AN INCIDENT TO AN ARREST IS TO DISREGARD THE REASON TO WHICH REFERENCE
MUST BE MADE WHEN A QUESTION ARISES UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  IT IS
TO MAKE THE ARREST AN INCIDENT TO AN UNWARRANTED SEARCH INSTEAD OF A
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AN INCIDENT TO AN ARREST.  THE TEST BY WHICH
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES MUST BE JUDGED IS WHETHER CONDUCT IS CONSONANT
WITH THE MAIN AIM OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THE MAIN AIM OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT IS AGAINST INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY AS TO ONE'S
EFFECTS AND PAPERS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE RESULT OF SUCH INVASION.  THE
PURPOSE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS TO ASSURE THAT THE EXISTENCE OF
PROBABLE CAUSE AS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR MAKING A SEARCH WAS TO BE
DETERMINED BY A JUDICIAL OFFICER BEFORE ARREST AND NOT AFTER, SUBJECT
ONLY TO WHAT IS NECESSARILY TO BE EXCEPTED FROM SUCH REQUIREMENT.  THE
EXCEPTIONS CANNOT BE ENTHRONED INTO THE RULE.  THE JUSTIFICATION FOR
INTRUSION INTO A MAN'S PRIVACY WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY A MAGISTRATE
UNINFLUENCED BY WHAT MAY TURN OUT TO BE A SUCCESSFUL SEARCH FOR PAPERS,
THE DESIRE TO SEARCH FOR WHICH MIGHT BE THE VERY REASON FOR THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION.  THE FRAMERS DID NOT REGARD JUDICIAL
AUTHORIZATION AS A FORMAL REQUIREMENT FOR A PIECE OF PAPER.  THEY
DEEMED A MAN'S BELONGINGS PART OF HIS PERSONALITY AND HIS LIFE.  IN
DEALING WITH THE QUESTION, THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ,
285 U.S. 452, 464, APPROVINGLY CITED WHAT WAS SAID BY JUDGE LEARNED
HAND IN UNITED STATES V. KIRSCHENBLATT, 16 F.2D 202, 203: 

"WHATEVER THE CASUISTRY OF BORDER CASES, IT IS BROADLY A TOTALLY
DIFFERENT THING TO SEARCH A MAN'S POCKETS AND USE AGAINST HIM WHAT THEY
CONTAIN, FROM RANSACKING HIS HOUSE FOR EVERYTHING WHICH MAY INCRIMINATE
HIM, ONCE YOU HAVE GAINED LAWFUL ENTRY, EITHER BY MEANS OF A SEARCH
WARRANT OR BY HIS CONSENT.  THE SECOND IS A PRACTICE WHICH ENGLISH
SPEAKING PEOPLES HAVE THOUGHT INTOLERABLE FOR OVER A CENTURY AND A
HALF.  IT WAS AGAINST GENERAL WARRANTS OF SEARCH, WHOSE ORIGIN WAS, OR
WAS THOUGHT TO BE, DERIVED FROM STAR CHAMBER, AND WHICH HAD BEEN A
POWERFUL WEAPON FOR SUPPRESSING POLITICAL AGITATION, THAT THE DECISIONS
WERE DIRECTED, OF WHICH ENTICK V. CARRINGTON, 19 HOW.  ST. TRIALS,
1029, IS MOST OFTEN CITED.  THESE CASES WERE DECIDED JUST AFTER THE
COLONISTS HAD BEEN HOTLY AROUSED BY THE ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE CUSTOMS
DUTIES BY WRITS OF ASSISTANCE, AND WHEN WITHIN 30 YEARS THEY FRAMED THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT IT WAS GENERAL WARRANTS THAT THEY ESPECIALLY HAD IN
MIND.  BOYD V. U.S., 116 U.S. 616  ... 

"AFTER ARRESTING A MAN IN HIS HOUSE, TO RUMMAGE AT WILL AMONG HIS
PAPERS IN SEARCH OF WHATEVER WILL CONVICT HIM, APPEARS TO US TO BE
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WHAT MIGHT BE DONE UNDER A GENERAL WARRANT;
INDEED, THE WARRANT WOULD GIVE MORE PROTECTION, FOR PRESUMABLY IT MUST
BE ISSUED BY A MAGISTRATE.  TRUE, BY HYPOTHESIS THE POWER WOULD NOT
EXIST, IF THE SUPPOSED OFFENDER WERE NOT FOUND ON THE PREMISES; BUT IT
IS SMALL CONSOLATION TO KNOW THAT ONE'S PAPERS ARE SAFE ONLY SO LONG AS
ONE IS NOT AT HOME.  SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ARISE FROM
GRIEVANCES, REAL OR FANCIED, WHICH THEIR MAKERS HAVE SUFFERED, AND
SHOULD GO PARI PASSU WITH THE SUPPOSED EVIL.  THEY WITHSTAND THE WINDS
OF LOGIC BY THE DEPTH AND TOUGHNESS OF THEIR ROOTS IN THE PAST.  NOR
SHOULD WE FORGET THAT WHAT SEEMS FAIR ENOUGH AGAINST A SQUALID HUCKSTER
OF BAD LIQUOR MAY TAKE ON A VERY DIFFERENT FACE, IF USED BY A
GOVERNMENT DETERMINED TO SUPPRESS POLITICAL OPPOSITION UNDER THE GUISE
OF SEDITION." 

11.  BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS THE FOUNDERS OF THIS COUNTRY SUBORDINATED
POLICE ACTION TO LEGAL RESTRAINTS, NOT IN ORDER TO CONVENIENCE THE
GUILTY BUT TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT.  NOR DID THEY PROVIDE THAT ONLY THE
INNOCENT MAY APPEAL TO THESE SAFEGUARDS.  THEY KNEW TOO WELL THAT THE
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE GUILTY DOES NOT REQUIRE JEOPARDY TO THE
INNOCENT.  THE KNOCK AT THE DOOR UNDER THE GUISE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST
FOR A VENIAL OR SPURIOUS OFFENSE WAS NOT UNKNOWN TO THEM.  COMPARE THE
STATEMENT IN WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 390, THAT SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES HAD BEEN MADE UNDER GENERAL WARRANTS IN ENGLAND "IN
SUPPORT OF CHARGES, REAL OR IMAGINARY."  WE HAVE HAD GRIM REMINDERS IN
OUR DAY OF THEIR EXPERIENCE.  ARREST UNDER A WARRANT FOR A MINOR OR A
TRUMPED-UP CHARGE HAS BEEN FAMILIAR PRACTICE IN THE PAST, IS A
COMMONPLACE IN THE POLICE STATE OF TODAY, AND TOO WELL-KNOWN IN THIS
COUNTRY.  SEE LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451.  THE PROGRESS IS
TOO EASY FROM POLICE ACTION UNSCRUTINIZED BY JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO
THE POLICE STATE.  THE FOUNDERS WROTE INTO THE CONSTITUTION THEIR
CONVICTION THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EASY BUT DANGEROUS
WAY OF LETTING THE POLICE DETERMINE WHEN SEARCH IS CALLED FOR WITHOUT
PRIOR AUTHORIZATION BY A MAGISTRATE.  THEY HAVE BEEN VINDICATED IN THAT
CONVICTION.  IT MAY SAFELY BE ASSERTED THAT CRIME IS MOST EFFECTIVELY
BROUGHT TO BOOK WHEN THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RESTRAINTS UPON POLICE ACTION ARE MOST SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVED. 

THE HIGHLY EXPERIENCED COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT HOOVER SPOKE OF "THE HIGH STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
EXACTED BY ENGLISHMEN OF THE POLICE."  VOL. IV REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT ("LAWLESSNESS IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT") P. 259.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WE CANNOT AFFORD THE LUXURY
OF SUCH THEORETICALLY DESIRABLE SUBORDINATION OF THE POLICE TO LAW
BECAUSE GREATER OBEDIENCE TO LAW IS PART OF ENGLISH LIFE GENERALLY.  I
DO NOT THINK THAT ACCEPTANCE OF LOWER STANDARDS THAN THOSE PREVAILING
IN ENGLAND SHOULD BE WRITTEN BY US INTO LAW.  THAT ONLY SERVES TO
ENCOURAGE LOW STANDARDS, NOT TO ELEVATE THEM.  IT IS UNFAIR TO OUR
PEOPLE TO SUGGEST THAT THEY CANNOT ATTAIN AS HIGH STANDARDS AS DO THE
BRITISH IN GUARDING AGAINST POLICE EXCESSES WITHOUT IMPAIRING EFFECTIVE
MEANS FOR COMBATTING CRIME.  EXPERIENCE PROVES THAT IT IS A COUNSEL OF
DESPAIR TO ASSUME THAT THE POLICE CANNOT BE KEPT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
THE PRINCIPLES WHICH THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS EMBODY EXCEPT AT
THE COST OF IMPOTENCE IN PREVENTING CRIME AND DEALING STERNLY WITH ITS
COMMISSION. 

12.  TO SAY THAT THE SEARCH MUST BE REASONABLE IS TO REQUIRE SOME
CRITERION OF REASON.  IT IS NO GUIDE AT ALL EITHER FOR A JURY OR FOR
DISTRICT JUDGES OR THE POLICE TO SAY THAT AN "UNREASONABLE SEARCH" IS
FORBIDDEN - THAT THE SEARCH MUST BE REASONABLE.  WHAT IS THE TEST OF
REASON WHICH MAKES A SEARCH REASONABLE?  THE TEST IS THE REASON
UNDERLYING AND EXPRESSED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: THE HISTORY AND THE
EXPERIENCE WHICH IT EMBODIES AND THE SAFEGUARDS AFFORDED BY IT AGAINST
THE EVILS TO WHICH IT WAS A RESPONSE.  THERE MUST BE A WARRANT TO
PERMIT SEARCH, BARRING ONLY INHERENT LIMITATIONS UPON THAT REQUIREMENT
WHEN THERE IS A GOOD EXCUSE FOR NOT GETTING A SEARCH WARRANT, I.E., THE
JUSTIFICATIONS THAT DISPENSE WITH SEARCH WARRANTS WHEN SEARCHING THE
PERSON IN HIS EXTENSION, WHICH IS HIS BODY AND THAT WHICH HIS BODY CAN
IMMEDIATELY CONTROL, AND MOVING VEHICLES.  IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO LAY
DOWN CRITERIA THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGES CAN APPLY.  IT IS NO CRITERION
OF REASON TO SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MUST FIND IT REASONABLE. 

13.  EVEN IF THE TEST OF REASONABLENESS IS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE
CONTEXT OF THE HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE TEST
SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICERS' CONDUCT IN
MAKING THE ARREST.  THEIR CONDUCT PRIOR TO ARREST IS NO LESS RELEVANT. 
IN ANY EVENT, THEREFORE, THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF AN AMPLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR GETTING A SEARCH WARRANT BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT.  IT IS
NOT A RULE OF THUMB.  IT IS A RULE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND OF THE
REASONS FOR ITS ADOPTION.  IT IS NOT A RULE INVENTED IN TRUPIANO V.
UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699.  IT IS NOT A RULE OF THOSE WHO CAME ON
THIS COURT IN RECENT YEARS.  THE DECISION IN TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES,
286 U.S. 1, TURNED ON IT.  IT WAS NOT A SENTIMENTAL COURT THAT STATED
IN TAYLOR: 

"ALTHOUGH OVER A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS CONCERNING
THE USE OF THESE PREMISES HAD BEEN RECEIVED, THE AGENTS HAD MADE NO
EFFORT TO OBTAIN A WARRANT FOR MAKING A SEARCH.  THEY HAD ABUNDANT
OPPORTUNITY SO TO DO AND TO PROCEED IN AN ORDERLY WAY EVEN AFTER THE
ODOR HAD EMPHASIZED THEIR SUSPICIONS; THERE WAS NO PROBABILITY OF
MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE SITUATION DURING THE TIME NECESSARY TO SECURE
SUCH WARRANT.  MOREOVER, A SHORT PERIOD OF WATCHING WOULD HAVE
PREVENTED ANY SUCH POSSIBILITY."  286 U.S. AT 6. 

THAT THE ARREST IN THAT CASE WAS MADE AFTER THE SEARCH WAS BEGUN DOES
NOT AFFECT ITS IMPORTANCE.  OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT IS
EITHER RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT IN DETERMINING THE APPLICATION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT.  AS THE COURT CONCEIVES THE TEST OF UNREASONABLENESS,
DIFFERENT FACTORS MAY BE GIVEN VARYING WEIGHT.  BUT OPPORTUNITY TO
OBTAIN A WARRANT CANNOT BE RELEVANT IN ONE SITUATION AND TOTALLY
IRRELEVANT IN ANOTHER.  THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TAYLOR CASE. 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST SUGGESTION THAT THE
ARRESTING OFFICERS HAD NOT THE TIME TO SECURE A SEARCH WARRANT.  THE
ARREST AND SEARCH WERE MADE ON FEBRUARY 16, 1943.  ON FEBRUARY 1, THERE
WAS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT HAD IN HIS POSSESSION LARGE NUMBERS
OF STAMPS BEARING FORGED OVERPRINTS, IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC.
265.  ON FEBRUARY 6, A POSTAL EMPLOYEE PURCHASED FROM RESPONDENT FOUR
STAMPS BEARING OVERPRINTS AND, ON FEBRUARY 9, REPORTS WERE RECEIVED
SHOWING THE OVERPRINTS TO BE FORGERIES.  THUS, THE GOVERNMENT HAD AT
LEAST SEVEN, AND MORE ACCURATELY FIFTEEN, DAYS IN WHICH TO PROCURE A
SEARCH WARRANT.  NOR WAS THIS A CASE IN WHICH THE NEED FOR A SEARCH
BECAME APPARENT AT THE TIME OF ARREST.  THE ARRESTING OFFICERS WERE
ACCOMPANIED BY TWO STAMP EXPERTS, WHOSE SOLE FUNCTION WAS TO EXAMINE
THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH WHICH THEY KNEW WOULD BE MADE.  THIS IS HARDLY
A NATURAL DESCRIPTION OF A "SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO AN ARREST." 

IT IS MOST RELEVANT THAT THE OFFICERS HAD "NO EXCUSE FOR NOT GETTING
A SEARCH WARRANT," 176 F.2D 732, 735, FOR THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS DIRECTED AGAINST - THAT SOME MAGISTRATE AND NOT
THE POLICE OFFICER SHOULD DETERMINE, IF SUCH DETERMINATION IS NOT
PRECLUDED BY NECESSITY, WHO SHALL BE RUMMAGING AROUND IN MY ROOM,
WHETHER IT BE A SMALL ROOM OR A VERY LARGE ROOM, WHETHER IT BE ONE
ROOM, OR TWO ROOMS, OR THREE ROOMS, OR FOUR ROOMS. 

14.  IT IS NOT AS THOUGH WE ARE ASKED TO EXTEND A MISCHIEVOUS
DOCTRINE THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAMPER LAW ENFORCERS.  WE ARE ASKED TO
OVERRULE DECISIONS BASED ON A LONG COURSE OF PRIOR UNANIMOUS DECISIONS,
DRAWN FROM HISTORY AND LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE.  IN OVERRULING TRUPIANO
WE OVERRULE THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF A WHOLE SERIES OF RECENT CASES:
UNITED STATES V. DI RE, 332 U.S. 581; JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333
U.S. 10; MCDONALD V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 451, BASED ON THE EARLIER
CASES.  FOR THESE CASES OUGHT NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN AS DERELICTS
ON THE STREAM OF THE LAW, IF WE OVERRULE TRUPIANO.  THESE ARE NOT
OUTMODED DECISIONS ERODED BY TIME.  EVEN UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES,
THE COURT OUGHT NOT TO OVERRULE SUCH A SERIES OF DECISIONS WHERE NO
MISCHIEF FLOWING FROM THEM HAS BEEN MADE MANIFEST.  RESPECT FOR
CONTINUITY IN LAW, WHERE REASONS FOR CHANGE ARE WANTING, ALONE REQUIRES
ADHERENCE TO TRUPIANO AND THE OTHER DECISIONS.  ESPECIALLY OUGHT THE
COURT NOT REENFORCE NEEDLESSLY THE INSTABILITIES OF OUR DAY BY GIVING
FAIR GROUND FOR THE BELIEF THAT LAW IS THE EXPRESSION OF CHANCE - FOR
INSTANCE, OF UNEXPECTED CHANGES IN THE COURT'S COMPOSITION AND THE
CONTINGENCIES IN THE CHOICE OF SUCCESSORS. 

FN1  FOR A MORE DETAILED SUMMARY OF THE ENGLISH AND AMERICAN HISTORY
UNDERLYING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, SEE THE DISSENTING OPINIONS IN DAVIS
V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, 603-05, AND HARRIS V. UNITED STATES,
331 U.S. 145, 157-62.  THE IMPACT OF THIS HISTORY WAS SUCH THAT EVERY
STATE OF THE UNION NOW AFFORDS CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST
GOVERNMENTAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  ITS CONTEMPORARY VITALITY IS
EMPHASIZED BY NEW YORK'S ADOPTION OF SUCH A PROVISION AS RECENTLY AS
1938.  N.Y. CONST. OF 1938, ART. 1, SEC. 12. 

FN2  SEE TITLE XI OF THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, 40 STAT. 217, 228, NOW
RULE 41 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  FOR A TABLE OF
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, INDICATING ITS SCOPE, SEE THE APPENDIX TO
THE DISSENTING OPINION IN DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, 616. 
FN3  SEE ALSO AN ANALYSIS OF THE CASES IN THE APPENDIX TO THE
DISSENTING OPINION IN HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145, 175. 

FN4  A FAIR SAMPLE IS SEC. 60 OF WHARTON, CRIM. PLEAD.  AND PRACTICE,
8TH ED.:  "RIGHT TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT," WHICH
DISCUSSES ONLY THE RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PERSON ARRESTED.  AGAIN, IN
DILLON V. O'BRIEN AND DAVIS, 16 COX C.C. 245, THE ISSUE WAS THE RIGHT
OF ARRESTING OFFICERS TO SEIZE APPARENT EVIDENCES OF CRIME, NOT THEIR
RIGHT TO RIFLE FILES IN AN EFFORT TO TURN UP THE EVIDENCE. 

FN5  GETCHELL V. PAGE, 103 ME. 387, 69 A. 624, WAS AN ACTION FOR
TRESPASS FOR THE SEIZURE OF ACCOUTREMENTS OF LIQUOR-MAKING UNDER A
WARRANT WHICH AUTHORIZED THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF INTOXICATING
LIQUOR.  THE DECISION THAT THE OFFICER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SEIZURE
UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES DOES NOT SUPPORT AN INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO
SEARCH THE PLACE OF ARREST.  IN KNEELAND V. CONNALLY, 70 GA. 424, 425,
THE OTHER CASE CITED, THE COURT ACTUALLY HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD
NO JURISDICTION OF THE CASE.  IT WENT ON TO SAY THAT "JUST AS A WARRANT
TO ARREST A MAN CHARGED WITH MURDER WOULD CARRY WITH IT AUTHORITY TO
SEIZE THE BLOODY KNIFE OR SMOKING PISTOL WHICH KILLED," THE INSTRUMENTS
OF THE CRIME OF GAMING COULD BE SEIZED IN ARRESTING A PROPRIETOR OF A
GAMBLING HOUSE.  BUT ONCE AGAIN NO AUTHORITY TO SEARCH FOR THESE
INSTRUMENTS WAS SUGGESTED. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. BENEDICT, 338 U.S. 692 


NO. 45.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 1950.  - 112
CT. CL. 550, 81 F.SUPP.  717, REVERSED. 


IN 1944, TRUSTEES PERMANENTLY SET ASIDE A CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION FROM
GAINS REALIZED UPON THE DISPOSITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS HELD IN THE TRUST
FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.  PURSUANT TO SEC. 117(B) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, THEY TREATED ONLY 50% OF THESE CAPITAL GAINS AS INCOME IN
COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE TRUST.  HELD:  UNDER SEC. 162(A), ONLY 50%
OF THE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION (THE PROPORTIONATE PART ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE TAXABLE PART OF THE CAPITAL GAINS) COULD BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING
THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX OF THE TRUST.  PP. 692-699. 

UNITED STATES V. BENEDICT ET AL., TRUSTEES, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED RESPONDENTS A JUDGMENT FOR A REFUND OF
INCOME TAXES.  112 CT. CL. 550, 81 F.SUPP.  717.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 966.  REVERSED, P. 699. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER TRUSTEES, WHO, IN 1944, PERMANENTLY
SET ASIDE A CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION FROM GAINS REALIZED UPON THE
DISPOSITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, WERE
ENTITLED, IN COMPUTING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX OF THE TRUST, TO DEDUCT
THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION,  FN1  ALTHOUGH ONLY HALF OF THOSE
GAINS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING NET INCOME.  FN2  FOR THE
REASONS HEREAFTER STATED, OUR ANSWER IS IN THE NEGATIVE. 

THE RESPONDENTS ARE TRUSTEES OF A TRUST CREATED BY THE WILL OF JOHN
E. ANDRUS.  THE WILL DIRECTS THAT THE NET INCOME OF THE TRUST BE
DIVIDED INTO 100 PARTS, 55 TO BE PAID TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL
BENEFICIARIES AND 45 TO THE SURDNA FOUNDATION, INC., A CHARITABLE
CORPORATION.  FN3  PURSUANT TO THOSE TERMS THE TRUSTEES PERMANENTLY SET
ASIDE FOR THE FOUNDATION 45% OF THE TRUST'S NET INCOME FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED APRIL 30, 1944, THE PERIOD INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

IN THEIR FIDUCIARY TAX RETURN, THE TRUSTEES REPORTED ORDINARY NET
INCOME OF $240,567.73, AND DEDUCTED FROM IT, AS A CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTION, THE $108,255.48(45% OF THAT NET INCOME) WHICH THEY HAD
SET ASIDE FOR THE SURDNA FOUNDATION.  THIS WAS DONE UNDER SEC. 162(A)
OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  FN4  THE TRUSTEES ALSO REPORTED GAINS OF
$60,374.01 ON THE DISPOSITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR MORE THAN SIX
MONTHS.  OF THESE GAINS, THEY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ONLY 50%, AMOUNTING TO
$30,187.01, IN COMPUTING THE TRUST'S TAXABLE INCOME.  THIS WAS DONE
UNDER SEC. 117(B).  FN5  AN UNCONTROVERTED DEDUCTION OF $329.60,
REPRESENTING THE CARRY-OVER OF A 1942 LOSS, REDUCED THIS AMOUNT TO
$29,857.41.  FROM THIS THE TRUSTEES DEDUCTED 45%, REPRESENTING A
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE TRUST'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE SURDNA
FOUNDATION.  THIS DEDUCTION AMOUNTED TO $13,435.83, LEAVING A TAXABLE
NET INCOME OF $16,421.58, ON WHICH A TAX OF $5,480.35 WAS PAID, PLUS
INTEREST. 

IN 1947 THE TRUSTEES FILED A CLAIM FOR A REFUND OF $5,157.41.  THEY
BASED THEIR CLAIM UPON A 1946 DECISION OF THE TAX COURT AS TO THE 1941
TAXES OF A NEARLY IDENTICAL TRUST.  ANDRUS TRUST NO. 1 V. COMMISSIONER,
7 T.C. 573.  ON THAT BASIS, THE TRUSTEES CLAIMED A DEDUCTION FROM THE
AFORESAID $29,857.41, NOT ONLY OF A PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE
CONTRIBUTION WHICH THE TRUST HAD SET ASIDE FROM CAPITAL GAINS, BUT OF
THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THAT CONTRIBUTION.  THIS INCREASED THAT DEDUCTION
FROM $13,435.83(45% OF $29,857.41) TO $27,168.31(45% OF THE TOTAL
CAPITAL GAINS OF $60,374.01), AND CORRESPONDINGLY REDUCED THE TRUST'S
TAXABLE NET INCOME FROM $16,421.58 TO $2,689.10. 

IN JULY, 1947, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED THE TAX COURT IN THE CASE RELATING TO 1941 TAXES. 
COMMISSIONER V. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK CO., 163 F.2D 208, CERT. DENIED,
NOVEMBER, 1947, 332 U.S. 830.  THE COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER, TOOK NO
ACTION ON THE TRUSTEES' CLAIM FOR A REFUND RELATING TO 1944 TAXES, AND,
IN 1948, THE TRUSTEES FILED THIS PROCEEDING FOR ITS RECOVERY THROUGH
THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, THAT COURT DECIDED IN
THEIR FAVOR.  112 CT. CL. 550, 81 F.SUPP.  717.  TO RESOLVE THE
RESULTING CONFLICT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 966. 

AN ILLUSTRATION BASED UPON THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE WILL BRING
THE STATUTORY PROBLEM INTO CLEARER FOCUS.  A TRUST REALIZES GAINS OF
$60,000 DURING THE TAX YEAR FROM THE SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR
MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.  FROM THESE IT MAKES A CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION OF
50%. SECTION 162(A) OF THE CODE  FN6  PROVIDES THAT A TRUST MAY DEDUCT
ANY PART OF ITS "GROSS INCOME" WHICH IT CONTRIBUTES TO SUCH A CHARITY
AS THE ONE SELECTED.  SECTION 117(B)  FN7  PROVIDES THAT ONLY 50% OF
SUCH GAINS SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING NET INCOME. 

THE TRUSTEES CONTEND THAT, FOR TAX PURPOSES, THE ENTIRE $60,000 IS
"GROSS INCOME," THAT FROM THIS AMOUNT THE $30,000 CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTION MAY BE DEDUCTED UNDER SEC. 162(A), AND THAT THE ENTIRE
REMAINING $30,000 IS TO BE LEFT OUT OF ACCOUNT BY FORCE OF SEC. 117(B),
THEREBY LEAVING NO TAXABLE NET INCOME, ALTHOUGH $30,000 GOES TO
INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES.  THE COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT
ONLY THE $30,000 OF THE RECOGNIZED CAPITAL GAINS THAT IS TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT BY FORCE OF SEC. 117(B) CONSTITUTES "GROSS INCOME," AND THAT
NECESSARILY THE OTHER $30,000 THAT IS NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR
TAX PURPOSES IS NOT "GROSS INCOME."  BEGINNING, THUS, WITH $30,000 OF
GROSS INCOME, THE COMMISSIONER ALLOWS A DEDUCTION FROM IT OF THAT
PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE HALF OF THE RECOGNIZED CAPITAL GAINS WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT.  THAT DEDUCTION AMOUNTS TO $15,000, LEAVING A TAXABLE NET
INCOME OF $15,000. 

THE NARROW STATUTORY QUESTION THUS PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE
RECOGNIZED CAPITAL GAINS OR ONLY THAT HALF TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT UNDER
SEC. 117(B) SHALL CONSTITUTE GROSS INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES.  STATED
CONVERSELY, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT HALF OF A TAXPAYER'S
RECOGNIZED CAPITAL GAINS THAT IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR TAX
PURPOSES SHALL BE LEFT OUT OF ACCOUNT BY WAY OF ITS INITIAL EXCLUSION
FROM GROSS INCOME, OR BY WAY OF ITS SUBSEQUENT DEDUCTION FROM GROSS
INCOME.  ON THIS PRECISE QUESTION THE CODE IS SILENT.  NO PROVISION OF
THE CODE AND NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE EXPRESSLY SETTLES THE COURSE TO BE FOLLOWED.  WE, THEREFORE,
SEEK THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE AND ADOPT THAT
CONSTRUCTION WHICH BEST GIVES EFFECT TO THOSE PURPOSES. 

WE FIND THAT THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF SEC. 162(A) IS TO ENCOURAGE THE
MAKING OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OUT OF THE GROSS INCOME OF A TRUST
AND, TO THAT END, IT COMPLETELY EXEMPTS SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM INCOME
TAX, WITHOUT THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED UPON CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE
BY INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATIONS.  FN8 THIS PURPOSE IS SERVED BY EACH OF
THE CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE CODE SUGGESTED BY THE PARTIES.  UNDER EITHER
METHOD OF COMPUTATION THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION
WILL RECEIVE IT IN FULL AND FREE OF TAX. 

WE THEN FIND THAT THE EFFECT OF SEC. 117(B) IS TO TAX RECOGNIZED
CAPITAL GAINS LIKE ORDINARY INCOME, EXCEPT THAT THE TAX ON CAPITAL
GAINS HELD FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS IS TO BE COMPUTED ON 50% OF THE
AMOUNT ON WHICH IT WOULD BE COMPUTED IF THOSE GAINS WERE ORDINARY
INCOME.  THE COMMISSIONER'S SOLUTION ACCOMPLISHES PRECISELY THAT RESULT
AND THUS SERVES THAT PURPOSE.  IN THE ILLUSTRATION, IF THE GAINS WERE
ORDINARY INCOME, THE AMOUNT SUBJECT TO TAX, AFTER THE DEDUCTION OF THE
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION, WOULD BE $30,000.  AS IT IS, THE AMOUNT
SUBJECT TO TAX IS $15,000.  THE TRUSTEES' CONSTRUCTION IN THE INSTANT
CASE WOULD RESULT IN TAXING THE CAPITAL GAINS AT SUBSTANTIALLY LESS
THAN 50% OF THE AMOUNT AT WHICH THEY WOULD BE TAXED IF THEY WERE
ORDINARY INCOME.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE AMOUNT SUBJECT TO TAX GOES
BELOW THAT PERCENTAGE, IT FAILS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PURPOSE OF SEC.
117(B).  FN9  IN THE MORE EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES SUGGESTED BY THE
ILLUSTRATION, THIS CONSTRUCTION WOULD ENTIRELY ELIMINATE THE TAX. 

WE, THEREFORE, APPROVE THAT INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 117(B) AND THE
DEFINITION OF STATUTORY GROSS INCOME ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.  WE
TREAT THE WORDS IN SEC. 117(B), WHICH STATE THAT ONLY 50% OF CERTAIN
RECOGNIZED CAPITAL GAINS "SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING  ...
NET INCOME," AS APPLYING TO THE ENTIRE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX,
BEGINNING WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE GROSS INCOME OF THE TRUST AND
CONCLUDING WITH ITS TAXABLE NET INCOME.  FN10  WE TREAT THAT PERCENTAGE
OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH EXPRESSLY IS NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN
COMPUTING TAXABLE NET INCOME AS ALSO EXCLUDED FROM STATUTORY GROSS
INCOME.  FN11 

ACCORDINGLY, THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ORIGINAL
RETURN IS APPROVED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS
REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  162.  NET INCOME. 

"THE NET INCOME OF THE ESTATE OR TRUST SHALL BE COMPUTED IN THE SAME
MANNER AND ON THE SAME BASIS AS IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, EXCEPT
THAT - 

"(A)  THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION (IN LIEU OF THE DEDUCTION
FOR CHARITABLE, ETC., CONTRIBUTIONS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 23(O)) ANY
PART OF THE GROSS INCOME, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHICH PURSUANT TO THE
TERMS OF THE WILL OR DEED CREATING THE TRUST, IS DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR PAID OR PERMANENTLY SET ASIDE FOR THE PURPOSES AND IN THE MANNER
SPECIFIED IN SECTION 23(O), OR IS TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR RELIGIOUS,
CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, OR FOR THE
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN OR ANIMALS, OR FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT,
ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF A PUBLIC CEMETERY NOT OPERATED
FOR PROFIT; ...."  53 STAT. 66, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 162(A). 

FN2  "SEC.  117.  CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  PERCENTAGE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  - IN THE CASE OF A TAXPAYER,
OTHER THAN A CORPORATION, ONLY THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE GAIN OR
LOSS RECOGNIZED UPON THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF A CAPITAL ASSET SHALL BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING NET CAPITAL GAIN, NET CAPITAL LOSS, AND
NET INCOME: 

"100 PER CENTUM IF THE CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN HELD FOR NOT MORE THAN
6 MONTHS; 

"50 PER CENTUM IF THE CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN HELD FOR MORE THAN 6
MONTHS."  53 STAT. 50-51, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 843, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
117(B). 

FN3  THE WILL CREATING THE TRUST CONTAINED NO PROVISION AS TO THE
KIND OF INCOME FROM WHICH THE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE TO BE SET
ASIDE, AND IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE TRUSTEES PROPERLY SET ASIDE THE
CONTRIBUTIONS PROPORTIONATELY FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND ALL OTHER INCOME. 
THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE TRUSTEES, IN SETTING ASIDE THE
CONTRIBUTION, ATTEMPTED TO ALLOCATE THEM TO ANY PARTICULAR PART OR
PERCENTAGE OF THE CAPITAL GAINS.  SEE HELVERING V. BLISS, 293 U.S. 144,
149-150; GREY V. COMMISSIONER, 118 F.2D 153(C.A.7TH CIR., AFFIRMING 41
B.T.A. 234); SCOTT V. UNITED STATES, 111 CT. CL. 610, 618-620, 78
F.SUPP.  811, 815-816; NEWBURY V. UNITED STATES, 102 CT. CL. 192, 57
F.SUPP.  168; MEISSNER V. COMMISSIONER, 8 T.C. 780; ESTATE OF TRAISER
V. COMMISSIONER, 41 B.T.A. 228; MONTGOMERY, FEDERAL TAXES, ESTATES,
TRUSTS AND GIFTS 179(1948-1949); 2 NOSSAMAN, TRUST ADMINISTRATION AND
TAXATION 115-116(1945). 

FN4  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN5 SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN8  UNITED STATES V. PLEASANTS, 305 U.S. 357, 363; OLD COLONY TRUST
CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 301 U.S. 379, 384; HELVERING V. BLISS, 293 U.S.
144, 147. 

WHEN THE WORDS "WITHOUT LIMITATION," IN SEC. 162(A), ARE READ IN
CONNECTION WITH SEC. 23(O), 53 STAT. 12, 14-15, AS AMENDED, 53 STAT.
880, AND 56 STAT. 826, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(O), THEIR EFFECT IS ONLY TO
MAKE INAPPLICABLE THE LIMITATION OF 15%, UNDER SEC. 23(O), AND ANY
OTHER STATUTORY LIMITATION WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT APPLY TO CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTIONS MADE OUT OF THE GROSS INCOME OF AN ESTATE OR TRUST.  GREY
V. COMMISSIONER, 41 B.T.A. 234, 243, AFF'D, 118 F.2D 153.  SEE ALSO,
OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 301 U.S. 379, 382-384;
COMMISSIONER V. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK CO., 163 F.2D 208, 211(C.A.2D
CIR.); FRANK TRUST OF 1931 V. COMMISSIONER, 145 F.2D 411, 413(C.A.3D
CIR.); SCOTT V. UNITED STATES, 111 CT. CL. 610, 618-620, 78 F.SUPP. 
811, 815-816; NEWBURY V. UNITED STATES, 102 CT. CL. 192, 57 F.SUPP. 
168.  FOR THE COMPARABLE 5% LIMITATION APPLICABLE TO CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY CORPORATIONS, SEE 53 STAT. 15-16, AS AMENDED, 56
STAT. 822, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(Q). 

FN9  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA.  THE ALTERNATIVE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX ON
CAPITAL GAINS PROVIDED BY SEC. 117(C)(2) OF THE CODE IS CONSISTENT WITH
THIS RESULT.  53 STAT. 51, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 843-844, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
117(C)(2). 

FN10  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REVIEW THE INTRICATE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
AS TO THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE CODE.  THEY DO NOT COMPEL THE ADOPTION OF
EITHER INTERPRETATION OR PRECLUDE THE CONCLUSION HERE REACHED.  THIS IS
NOT A CASE IN WHICH THE TRUST OR THE STATUTE HAS REQUIRED OR EVEN
AUTHORIZED THE TRUSTEES TO EARMARK THEIR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AS
COMING FROM ANY PARTICULAR ITEMS OF TRUST INCOME, OR FROM ANY
PARTICULAR KIND OF TRUST INCOME.  THE ISSUE DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY
POSSIBLE ALLOCATION OF A CHARITABLE DEDUCTION TO ORDINARY INCOME RATHER
THAN TO CAPITAL GAINS. 

FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT, UNDER SEC. 162(A), EACH CONTRIBUTION IN
ORDER TO BE DEDUCTIBLE MUST BE MADE OR PERMANENTLY SET ASIDE PURSUANT
TO THE TERMS OF THE WILL OR DEED CREATING THE TRUST, AND ALSO MUST BE
FROM A PART OF THE GROSS INCOME OF THE TRUST, SEE OLD COLONY TRUST CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 301 U.S. 379; FRANK TRUST OF 1931 V. COMMISSIONER, 145
F.2D 411(C.A.3D CIR.); WELLMAN V. WELCH, 99 F.2D 75(C.A.1ST CIR.);
ESTATE OF TYLER V. COMMISSIONER, 9 B.T.A. 255, 262-263.    FN11  SEE
COMMISSIONER V. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK CO., 163 F.2D 208, 210; FRANK
TRUST OF 1931 V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA; WELLMAN V. WELCH, SUPRA; GREEN V.
COMMISSIONER, 7 T.C. 263, 277; MALOY V. COMMISSIONER, 45 B.T.A. 1104,
1107. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS
WHICH IT GAVE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTHER.    THE CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS EXPRESSED BY
THE TAX COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT
OF CLAIMS AND NOW BY THIS COURT IN THE TASK OF HARMONIZING SECS. 22(A),
117(B) AND 162(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THE
OPAQUENESS, IF NOT INHERENT INCONGRUITY, OF THOSE PROVISIONS.  COURTS
MUST DO THE BEST THEY CAN WITH SUCH MATERIALS SINCE THE POWER TO WRITE
OR REWRITE LEGISLATION IS NOT THEIRS.  BUT THE FACT THAT A TAXPAYER MAY
ASTUTELY APPLY HIS INCOME SO AS TO REDUCE THE NET BASE ON WHICH A TAX
IS TO BE LEVIED IS NOT IN ITSELF GROUND FOR REJECTING A CONSTRUCTION OF
THE REVENUE CODE WHICH PERMITS THE REDUCED BASE, EVEN THOUGH THE
PARTICULAR MODE OF DISTRIBUTING HIS INCOME MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
CONTEMPLATED IN THE ENACTMENT OF THE CLASSES OF EXEMPTIONS AND
DEDUCTIONS WITHIN WHICH THE TAXPAYER BRINGS HIMSELF.  I, TOO, RECOIL
FROM A BIZARRE RESULT AND IF LEGISLATION IS AMBIGUOUS ITS CONSTRUCTION
SHOULD AVOID SUCH A RESULT.  BUT THE RATIONALE OF CONSTRUCTION
STRUCTION OUGHT NOT TO BE BASED ON THE IMPACT OF A SINGLE BIZARRE
INSTANCE. 

A DEDUCTION FOR TRUST INCOME APPLIED TO CHARITABLE PURPOSES SHOULD
NOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY BECAUSE ONE TAXPAYER CAN EFFECT THE PAYMENT OF
A LOWER INCOME TAX THAN ANOTHER THROUGH THE MODE BY WHICH THE
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION IS MADE.  THUS, WHERE THE TRUST INSTRUMENT
PROVIDES THAT ALL CHARITABLE DONATIONS SHALL BE ALLOCATED FROM ORDINARY
INCOME AND NOT FROM CAPITAL GAINS, THE TAXPAYER MAY DOUBTLESS DEDUCT
SUCH CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS IN FULL AND MAY AT THE SAME TIME REPORT
ANY CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE SPECIAL CAPITAL GAINS PROVISIONS OF THE
CODE.  THIS WOULD SECURE THE VERY BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE TAXPAYERS
HERE.  THE RULE ENUNCIATED BY THE COURT MAY THEREFORE ITSELF REST TAX
LIABILITY ON THE ASTUTENESS SHOWN IN DRAWING THE TRUST INSTRUMENT
ALLOCATING INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. 

SINCE I AM NOT ALONE IN ENTERTAINING THESE DOUBTS AND THEY HAVE NOT
BEEN DISPELLED, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO EXPRESS THEM. 
















MANNING V. SEELEY TUBE & BOX CO., 338 U.S. 561 


NO. 70.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17-18, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  -
172 F.2D 77, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT CORPORATION FILED A FEDERAL TAX RETURN FOR 1941 AND TIMELY
PAID THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX SHOWN THEREON.  IN 1943, AFTER RESPONDENT
HAD BEEN ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
USING THE ACCELERATED PROCEDURE APPLICABLE IN BANKRUPTCY CASES,
ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY IN THE 1941 TAX WITH INTEREST FROM THE DATE THE
TAX WAS PROPERLY DUE TO THE ASSESSMENT DATE.  RESPONDENT SUBSEQUENTLY
FILED ITS RETURN FOR 1943, WHICH DISCLOSED A NET OPERATING LOSS FOR
THAT YEAR.  UNDER THE CARRY-BACK PROVISION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE, THIS LOSS WAS SUFFICIENT TO ABATE COMPLETELY RESPONDENT'S TAX
LIABILITY FOR 1941.  HELD:  RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF
THE INTEREST WHICH HAD BEEN ASSESSED ON THE TAX DEFICIENCY.  PP. 562
571. 

(A)  THE SUBSEQUENT CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSED DEFICIENCY BY
OPERATION OF THE CARRY-BACK PROVISION DID NOT CANCEL RESPONDENT'S
OBLIGATION TO PAY THE INTEREST ASSESSED ON THE DEFICIENCY.  PP. 565
566. 

(B)  ENACTMENT OF THE CARRY-BACK PROVISION IN 1942 DID NOT CHANGE THE
BASIC STATUTORY POLICY THAT THE UNITED STATES IS TO HAVE THE POSSESSION
AND USE OF THE LAWFUL TAX AT THE DATE IT IS PROPERLY DUE.  PP. 566
567. 

(C)  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CARRY-BACK PROVISION DOES NOT
RETROACTIVELY ALTER THE DUTY OF THE TAXPAYER TO PAY HIS FULL TAX
PROMPTLY IS SUPPORTED BY SEC. 3771(E) OF THE CODE, WHICH PROHIBITS A
TAXPAYER WHO DOES PAY A TAX WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY ABATED BY A CARRY
BACK FROM CLAIMING INTEREST FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE INTERVENING
PERIOD.  PP. 567-568. 

(D)  WHERE A DEFICIENCY AND INTEREST HAVE BEEN VALIDLY ASSESSED UNDER
ANY APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROCEDURE, A SUBSEQUENT CARRY-BACK WITH AN
ABATEMENT OF THE DEFICIENCY DOES NOT ABATE THE INTEREST PREVIOUSLY
ASSESSED ON THAT DEFICIENCY.  PP. 569-570. 

MANNING, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. SEELEY TUBE & BOX CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO RECOVER AN
AMOUNT WITHHELD AS INTEREST ON A TAX DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
ABATED, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE COLLECTOR.  76
F.SUPP.  937.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  172 F.2D 77.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 955.  REVERSED, P. 571. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON BY STIPULATION.  ON
DECEMBER 15, 1941, RESPONDENT TAXPAYER, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, FILED
A CORPORATE TAX RETURN FOR ITS FISCAL PERIOD, JANUARY 1, 1941, TO
SEPTEMBER 30, 1941.  ON JANUARY 12, 1942, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE ASSESSED THE TAX,  FN1  WHICH RESPONDENT TIMELY PAID. 
RESPONDENT WAS ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT AND A RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED ON JULY
7, 1943.  ON AUGUST 2, 1943, THE COMMISSIONER, USING THE ACCELERATED
PROCEDURE APPLICABLE IN BANKRUPTCY CASES,  FN2  ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES
IN THE 1941 TAXES WITH INTEREST FROM THE DATE THE TAX WAS PROPERLY DUE
TO THE ASSESSMENT DATE.  FN3 

ON MARCH 3, 1944, RESPONDENT FILED ITS RETURN FOR THE FISCAL PERIOD
FROM OCTOBER 1, 1942, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1943, SHOWING A NET OPERATING
LOSS  FN4  FOR THAT YEAR.  THIS LOSS, WHEN CARRIED BACK IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SEC. 122(B)(1) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,  FN5  WAS SUFFICIENT
TO ABATE COMPLETELY RESPONDENT'S TAX LIABILITY FOR 1941.  RESPONDENT
THEN FILED CLAIMS FOR A REFUND OF THAT PART OF THE 1941 TAX WHICH HAD
ALREADY BEEN PAID, AND FOR THE ABATEMENT OF THE ASSESSED DEFICIENCY AND
INTEREST.  THE COMMISSIONER ABATED THE DEFICIENCY, BUT REFUSED TO
REFUND ALL THE TAX WHICH HAD BEEN PAID, RETAINING AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
THE INTEREST WHICH HAD BEEN ASSESSED ON THE DEFICIENCY. 

RESPONDENT THEN SUED THE COLLECTOR FOR THE INTEREST.  THE DISTRICT
COURT SUSTAINED THE COLLECTER, HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE INTEREST
REMAINED AN OBLIGATION OF THE TAXPAYER, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSED
DEFICIENCY HAD ITSELF BEEN ABATED.  76 F.SUPP.  937(1948).  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE CARRY-BACK, IN WIPING OUT THE
DEBT OF THE TAX DEFICIENCY, MUST ALSO HAVE WIPED OUT THE INTEREST WHICH
HAD BEEN ASSESSED ON THAT DEFICIENCY.  172 F.2D 77(1948).  BECAUSE OF
THE FREQUENCY OF THE USE OF THE CARRY-BACK PROVISION OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 955(1949). 

THE GENERAL STATUTORY SCHEME WHICH PRESENTS THE PROBLEM IS AS
FOLLOWS:  AS OF A CERTAIN DATE THE TAXPAYER HAS A DUTY TO FILE A RETURN
FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR AND PAY THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX ACTUALLY DUE
FOR THAT YEAR.  FN6  IF THIS RETURN IS ERRONEOUSLY CALCULATED AND THE
PAYMENT IS LESS THAN THE TAX PROPERLY DUE, THE COMMISSIONER, USING THE
PROCEDURE APPROPRIATE TO THE PARTICULAR SITUATION, MAY ASSESS A
DEFICIENCY, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAX IMPOSED BY LAW AND THE TAX
SHOWN UPON THE RETURN.  FN7  INTEREST UPON THIS DEFICIENCY AT THE RATE
OF SIX PER CENT FROM THE DATE THE TAX WAS LAWFULLY DUE TO THE DATE OF
THE ASSESSMENT IS ASSESSED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE DEFICIENCY.  FN8  IF
A NET OPERATING LOSS IS SUBSEQUENTLY SUSTAINED, THAT LOSS MAY BE
CARRIED BACK AND ADDED TO THE DEDUCTIONS FOR THE TWO PREVIOUS TAXABLE
YEARS, WITH APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE TAX LIABILITY FOR THOSE
YEARS.  THE PROBLEM WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER
THE INTEREST ON A VALIDLY ASSESSED DEFICIENCY IS ABATED WHEN THE
DEFICIENCY ITSELF IS ABATED BY THE CARRY-BACK OF A NET OPERATING LOSS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST WAS PROPERLY WITHHELD BY THE COLLECTOR. 
THE SUBSEQUENT CANCELLATION OF THE DUTY TO PAY THIS ASSESSED DEFICIENCY
DOES NOT CANCEL IN LIKE MANNER THE DUTY TO PAY THE INTEREST ON THAT
DEFICIENCY.  FROM THE DATE THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS TO BE FILED UNTIL
THE DATE THE DEFICIENCY WAS ACTUALLY ASSESSED, THE TAXPAYER HAD A
POSITIVE OBLIGATION TO THE UNITED STATES:  A DUTY TO PAY ITS TAX.  SEE
RODGERS V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 371, 374(1947); UNITED STATES V.
CHILDS, 266 U.S. 304, 309-310(1924); BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 261, 285-287(1914).  FOR THAT PERIOD THE TAXPAYER, BY ITS FAILURE
TO PAY THE TAXES OWED, HAD THE USE OF FUNDS WHICH RIGHTFULLY SHOULD
HAVE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE FACT THAT THE
STATUTE PERMITS THE TAXPAYER SUBSEQUENTLY TO AVOID THE PAYMENT OF THAT
DEBT IN NO WAY INDICATES THAT THE TAXPAYER IS TO DERIVE THE BENEFITS OF
THE FUNDS FOR THE INTERVENING PERIOD.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR
LEGISLATIVE EXPRESSION TO THE CONTRARY, THE QUESTION OF WHO PROPERLY
SHOULD POSSESS THE RIGHT OF USE OF THE MONEY OWED THE GOVERNMENT FOR
THE PERIOD IT IS OWED MUST BE ANSWERED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

IT IS APPARENT FROM AN INSPECTION OF THE CODE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE THE USE OF THE MONEY LAWFULLY DUE WHEN IT
BECAME DUE.  SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE CODE PRESCRIBE PENALTIES AND
ADDITIONS TO THE TAX FOR NEGLIGENCE AND FRAUD.  FN9  A TAXPAYER WHO
FILES A TIMELY RETURN BUT DOES NOT PAY THE TAX ON TIME MUST PAY
INTEREST ON THE TAX UNTIL PAYMENT.  FN10  EVEN WHEN THE COMMISSIONER,
AT THE REQUEST OF THE TAXPAYER, AUTHORIZES AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME OF
PAYMENT, INTEREST MUST BE PAID BY THE TAXPAYER FOR THE PERIOD OF THE
EXTENSION.  FN11  AND WHEN THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSES A DEFICIENCY HE
ALSO MAY ASSESS INTEREST ON THAT DEFICIENCY FROM THE DATE THE TAX WAS
DUE TO THE ASSESSMENT DATE.  FN12 

THE ENACTMENT OF THE CARRY-BACK PROVISION IN 1942 DID NOT CHANGE THIS
POLICY OF THE STATUTE REQUIRING PROMPT PAYMENT.  THIS SECTION WAS
INTENDED TO AFFORD TAXPAYERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT FOR TAX PURPOSES
A REALISTIC, BALANCED PICTURE OF THEIR PROFITS AND LOSSES.  IT PERMITS
A TAXPAYER TO ADD A NET OPERATING LOSS FOR ONE YEAR TO THE DEDUCTIONS
FOR THE TWO PREVIOUS TAXABLE YEARS.  THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON FINANCE STATES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION WAS TO AFFORD RELIEF
TO CASES WHERE MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP EXPENSES WERE DEFERRED TO
PEACETIME YEARS BECAUSE OF WARTIME RESTRICTIONS.  S. REP. NO. 1631,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 51-52(1942).  BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE TAXPAYERS TO CEASE PROMPT PAYMENT OF
TAXES.  THE SAME REPORT, EXPLAINING THE OPERATION OF THE SECTION WHICH
BECAME THE PRESENT CARRY-BACK PROVISION, STATES, "A TAXPAYER ENTITLED
TO A CARRY-BACK OF A NET OPERATING LOSS OR AN UNUSED EXCESS PROFITS
CREDIT  ...  WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF
SUCH CARRY-BACK UNTIL THE CLOSE OF THE FUTURE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH HE
SUSTAINS THE NET OPERATING LOSS OR HAS THE UNUSED EXCESS PROFITS
CREDIT.  HE MUST THEREFORE FILE HIS RETURN AND PAY HIS TAX WITHOUT
REGARD TO SUCH DEDUCTION, AND MUST FILE A CLAIM FOR REFUND AT THE CLOSE
OF THE SUCCEEDING TAXABLE YEAR WHEN HE IS ABLE TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT
OF SUCH CARRY-BACK."  S. REP. NO. 1631 AT 123-124.  WE CAN IMAGINE NO
CLEARER INDICATION OF A CONGRESSIONAL UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT THAT THE
CARRY-BACK WAS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS DEFERRING OR DELAYING THE
PROMPT PAYMENT OF TAXES PROPERLY DUE. 

ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT FOR MANY PURPOSES THE CARRY-BACK IS
EQUIVALENT TO A DE NOVO DETERMINATION OF THE TAX, OUR CONCLUSION THAT
THIS SECTION DOES NOT RETROACTIVELY ALTER THE DUTY OF A TAXPAYER TO PAY
HIS FULL TAX PROMPTLY IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY SEC. 3771(E) OF THE CODE. 
FN13 THAT SECTION, AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CARRY-BACK PROVISION,
PROHIBITS A TAXPAYER WHO DOES PAY A TAX WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY ABATED BY
A CARRY-BACK FROM CLAIMING INTEREST FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE
INTERVENING PERIOD.  IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT CONGRESS IN 1942 DID
NOT INTEND TO CHANGE THE BASIC STATUTORY POLICY:  THE UNITED STATES IS
TO HAVE THE POSSESSION AND USE OF THE LAWFUL TAX AT THE DATE IT IS
PROPERLY DUE. 

TO SUSTAIN RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION WOULD BE TO PLACE A PREMIUM ON
FAILURE TO CONFORM DILIGENTLY WITH THE LAW.  FOR THEN A TAXPAYER WHO
DID NOT PAY HIS TAXES ON TIME WOULD RECEIVE THE FULL USE OF THE TAX
FUNDS FOR THE INTERVENING PERIOD, WHILE THE TAXPAYER WHO DID OBEY THE
STATUTORY MANDATE AND PAY HIS LAWFUL TAXES PROMPTLY WOULD BE PROHIBITED
BY SEC. 3771(E) FROM HAVING THE USE OF THE MONEY FOR THAT PERIOD.  WE
CANNOT APPROVE SUCH A RESULT. 

ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRESENT
STRUCTURE OF THE CODE, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 4(A) OF THE TAX ADJUSTMENT
ACT OF 1945, 59 STAT. 519, NOW SECS. 3779 AND 3780 OF THECODE.  PRIOR
TO 1945, THE COMMISSIONER HAD POWER TO AUTHORIZE, AT THE REQUEST OF THE
TAXPAYER, AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAXES, AND INTEREST
ON SUCH AN EXTENSION WAS CHARGED AT THE RATE OF SIX PER CENT.  FN14
THE TAX ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1945 WAS PASSED TO IMPROVE THE CASH POSITION
OF TAXPAYERS BY ALLOWING THEM TO DEFER CURRENT TAX PAYMENTS IF THERE
WAS A REASONABLE CHANCE THAT THESE PAYMENTS WOULD BE RETURNED TO THEM
IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE OF BUSINESS LOSSES, AND TO SPEED UP THE REFUND OF
TAXES PAID.  H.R. REP. NO. 849, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1-6(1945); JOINT
COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION, REP. NO. 1, 79TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 6-9(1945).  UNDER SEC. 3779 A CORPORATION FILING ITS RETURN FOR
THE PRECEDING TAX YEAR HAS THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX FOR THAT PRECEDING YEAR.  THIS EXTENSION MAY BE
OBTAINED IF THE CORPORATION EXPECTS TO SUFFER, IN THE FISCAL YEAR IN
WHICH THE RETURN IS FILED, A NET OPERATING LOSS SUFFICIENT TO DIMINISH,
BY A CARRY-BACK, ITS TAX LIABILITY FOR THE PRECEDING TAX YEARS.  AT THE
CLOSE OF THAT YEAR, THE TAXPAYER MAY FILE, UNDER SEC. 3780, AN
APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE READJUSTMENT OF TAXES FOR PRECEDING YEARS,
INCLUDING A QUICK REFUND OF TAXES PAID OR AN ABATEMENT OF TAXES WHICH
HAVE BEEN DEFERRED.  A CORPORATION WHICH DOES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE
PROVISIONS IS NOT COMPLETELY ABSOLVED FROM THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON
DEFERRED TAXES ACTUALLY ABATED.  FOR SEC. 3779(I) EXPRESSLY PROVIDES
THAT THE CORPORATION MUST PAY THREE PER CENT INTEREST ON DEFERRED TAXES
ACTUALLY ABATED BY THE CARRY-BACK AND SIX PER CENT ON THOSE NOT
ABATED.  AGAIN IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CODE CONTEMPLATES TIMELY PAYMENT
OF TAXES AND SUBSUMES THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE INTERIM USE
OF THE TAX PAYMENTS. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A
REFUND OF THE ASSESSED INTEREST IS UNFAIR, ALLEGEDLY DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST A TAXPAYER WHOSE DEFICIENCY IS ASSESSED UNDER THE ACCELERATED
BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE IN FAVOR OF ONE WHOSE DEFICIENCY IS ASSESSED UNDER
SEC. 272(A)(1), THE MORE CUSTOMARY "90-DAY LETTER" TAX COURT
PROCEDURE.  THIS SECTION PROVIDES THAT IN THE USUAL CASE THE
COMMISSIONER MUST NOTIFY THE TAXPAYER THAT HE INTENDS TO ASSESS A
DEFICIENCY AGAINST HIM.  THE TAXPAYER IS THEN ALLOWED NINETY DAYS IN
WHICH TO FILE A PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT FOR A REDETERMINATION OF
THE ALLEGED DEFICIENCY, AND THE COMMISSIONER IS RESTRAINED FROM
ASSESSING ANY DEFICIENCY UNTIL THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT BECOMES
FINAL.  NOR MAY THE COMMISSIONER ASSESS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT THE TAX
COURT DETERMINES TO BE THE DIFICIENCY.  SECTION 292(A), PROVIDING FOR
INTEREST ON DEFICIENCIES, STATES, "INTEREST UPON THE AMOUNT DETERMINED
AS A DEFICIENCY SHALL BE ASSESSED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE DEFICIENCY
...."  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IF THERE IS NO DEFICIENCY THERE CAN BE NO
INTEREST, AND, IT IS FURTHER URGED, THE TAX COURT WILL NORMALLY ARRIVE
AT A RESULT OF NO DEFICIENCY, FOR IT WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE
NET OPERATING LOSS CARRY-BACK IN ITS REDETERMINATION.  THEREFORE, NO
INTEREST WILL BE ASSESSED. 

AT THE TIME OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE
NET OPERATING LOSS HAD NOT YET BEEN REPORTED.  NOR HAS THE VALIDITY OF
THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT BEEN CHALLENGED AT ANY TIME THROUGHOUT THE
LITIGATION.  THUS, THE COMPARABLE SITUATION TO THE INSTANT CASE WOULD
BE, IF, BEFORE THE NET OPERATING LOSS WAS CLAIMED, THE TAX COURT WAS
CONFRONTED WITH A DEFICIENCY DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER.  WE SEE NO
REASON WHY THAT METHOD OF ASSESSMENT, OR ANY OF THE OTHERS AUTHORIZED
BY STATUTE, WOULD ARRIVE AT A DIFFERENT FIGURE BECAUSE OF AN UNCLAIMED
NET OPERATING LOSS.  WHETHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE REQUIRES A
DEFFERENT RESULT WHEN THE LOSS IS CLAIMED BEFORE THE ATTEMPTED
ASSESSMENT OF THE DEFICIENCY IS A QUESTION WHICH IS NOT CONSIDERED BY
US ON THIS RECORD.  WE HOLD THAT WHERE A DEFICIENCY AND INTEREST HAVE
BEEN VALIDLY ASSESSED UNDER ANY APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROCEDURE, A
SUBSEQUENT CARRY-BACK WITH AN ABATEMENT OF THE DEFICIENCY DOES NOT
ABATE THE INTEREST PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED ON THAT DEFICIENCY. 

RESPONDENT ALSO PLACES GREAT RELIANCE ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT "INTEREST
IS AN ACCRETION TO AND PART OF THE TAX," AND, THEREFORE, MUST BE ABATED
WHEN THE TAX IS ABATED.  THE CASES TO WHICH WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED IN
SUPPORT OF THIS PRINCIPLE DEAL WITH COMPROMISES OF TAXES WHICH WERE
INCORRECTLY ASSESSED AT THE OUTSET, AND NOT, AS HERE, WITH A SUBSEQUENT
ABATEMENT OF A TAX CORRECTLY ASSESSED.  AS SUCH, THEY ARE NOT
PERSUASIVE OF A CONTRARY RESULT. 

TWO ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS  FN15  ON THE CARRY-BACK PROVISION OF
THEREVENUE ACT OF 1918, 40 STAT. 1057, ARE CITED AS OPPOSED TO THIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.  WE SEE NO NEED TO DISTINGUISH THESE
REGULATIONS OR DECISIONS.  TWO RULINGS RELATING TO A CARRY-BACK SECTION
OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, NOT REPEATED IN THE INTERVENING
QUARTERCENTURY, ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO FORCE US TO CONCLUDE THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO IMPART THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF THAT SECTION TO THE
PRESENT PROVISION.    WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE REMAINDER OF THE POINTS
RAISED BY THE COURT BELOW AND RESPONDENT, BUT FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS
ARE IN ACCORD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE
REVERSED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 
FN1  THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION INCLUDED CORPORATE INCOME TAX, DEFENSE TAX
AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX.  NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED AS TO THE CORRECTNESS
OF THE DEFENSE TAX PAYMENT. 

FN2  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 274(A):  "UPON THE ADJUDICATION OF
BANKRUPTCY OF ANY TAXPAYER IN ANY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING OR THE
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER FOR ANY TAXPAYER IN ANY RECEIVERSHIP
PROCEEDING BEFORE ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANY DEFICIENCY (TOGETHER WITH
ALL INTEREST, ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS, OR ADDITIONS TO THE TAX PROVIDED FOR
BY LAW) DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN RESPECT OF A TAX IMPOSED BY
THIS CHAPTER UPON SUCH TAXPAYER SHALL, DESPITE THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED
BY SECTION 272(A) UPON ASSESSMENTS BE IMMEDIATELY ASSESSED IF SUCH
DEFICIENCY HAS NOT THERETOFORE BEEN ASSESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 
IN SUCH CASES THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVER SHALL GIVE NOTICE
IN WRITING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY OR THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER, AND THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ON THE MAKING OF ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE
PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY OR THE APPOINTMENT
OF THE RECEIVER TO A DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE UPON WHICH THE NOTICE
FROM THE TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER IS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER; BUT THE
SUSPENSION UNDER THIS SENTENCE SHALL IN NO CASE BE FOR A PERIOD IN
EXCESS OF TWO YEARS.  CLAIMS FOR THE DEFICIENCY AND SUCH INTEREST,
ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE TAX MAY BE PRESENTED, FOR
ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, TO THE COURT BEFORE WHICH THE
BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDING IS PENDING, DESPITE THE PENDENCY
OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REDETERMINATION OF THE DEFICIENCY IN PURSUANCE
OF A PETITION TO THE TAX COURT; BUT NO PETITION FOR ANY SUCH
REDETERMINATION SHALL BE FILED WITH THE TAX COURT AFTER THE
ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY OR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER." 

FN3  DEFICIENCIES WERE ASSESSED BOTH AS TO THE NORMAL INCOME TAX AND
AS TO THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX. 

FURTHER DEFICIENCIES WERE ASSESSED MARCH 21, 1944.  THE INTEREST ON
THESE DEFICIENCIES AMOUNTED TO $82.66, WHEREAS THE INTEREST ON THE
DEFICIENCIES ASSESSED IN AUGUST, 1943, TOTALED $4,430.68.  WE FEEL THAT
ANY POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE IN RESULT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TIMING OF THE
ASSESSMENT HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON THE AMOUNT TO WHICH TAXPAYER MIGHT BE
ENTITLED IN THIS CASE, AND WE DO NOT CONSIDER THIS FACTOR. 

THE RECORD IS BARE OF ANY CLAIM OR PAYMENT OF INTEREST FROM THE DATE
OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DEFICIENCY UNTIL THE DATE OF THE CLAIM OF THE
REFUND.  SEE INT. REV. CODE SEC. 294(B). 

RESPONDENT DOES NOT URGE AND WE NEED NOT DECIDE THE APPLICABILITY OF
CITY OF NEW YORK V. SAPER, 336 U.S. 328(1949), WHERE WE HELD THAT UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE, BANKRUPTCY TERMINATED THE RUNNING OF
INTEREST ON CLAIMS AGAINST THE BANKRUPT.  IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT
RESPONDENT WAS REVESTED WITH TITLE TO ITS ASSETS ON JUNE 4, 1945, AND
THAT THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE BANKRUPTCY AND THE MAJOR PART OF THE
ASSESSMENT WAS LESS THAN A MONTH, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT THE HOLDING OF
THAT CASE COULD EFFECT ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE
PROBLEM AT HAND. 

FN4  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 122(A):  "AS USED IN THIS SECTION, THE TERM
'NET OPERATING LOSS' MEANS THE EXCESS OF THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY THIS
CHAPTER OVER THE GROSS INCOME, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS, ADDITIONS, AND
LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (D)." 

FN5  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 122(B)(1):  "IF FOR ANY TAXABLE YEAR
BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1941, THE TAXPAYER HAS A NET OPERATING
LOSS, SUCH NET OPERATING LOSS SHALL BE A NET OPERATING LOSS CARRY-BANK
FOR EACH OF THE TWO PRECEDING TAXABLE YEARS,  ...." 

THE CARRY-BACK OPERATED SIMILARLY ON THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX.  26
U.S.C. SECS. 710, 728, 729(1946).  THE ENTIRE EXCESS PROFITS SECTION OF
THE CODE, PASSED IN 1940, 54 STAT. 975, WAS REPEALED IN 1945, 59 STAT.
568. 

FN6  SEE INT. REV. CODE SECS. 52(A), 53(A), 56(A).  THE TAX MAY ALSO
BE PAID IN QUARTERLY INSTALLMENTS.  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 56(B). 

FN7  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 271(A). 

FN8  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 292(A). 

FN9  E.G., INT. REV. CODE SECS. 291(A), 293(A), (B). 

FN10  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 294(A)(1). 

FN11  INT. REV. CODE SECS. 56(C)(1), 295. 

FN12  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 292(A). 

FN13  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 3771(E):  "IF THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINES
THAT ANY PART OF AN OVERPAYMENT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INCLUSION IN
COMPUTING THE NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR OF ANY
PART OF THE NET OPERATING LOSS FOR A SUCCEEDING TAXABLE YEAR OR TO THE
INCLUSION IN COMPUTING THE UNUSED EXCESS PROFITS CREDIT ADJUSTMENT FOR
THE TAXABLE YEAR OF ANY PART OF THE UNUSED EXCESS PROFITS CREDIT FOR A
SUCCEEDING TAXABLE YEAR, NO INTEREST SHALL BE ALLOWED OR PAID WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH PART OF THE OVERPAYMENT FOR ANY PERIOD BEFORE THE
FILING OF A CLAIM FOR CREDIT OR REFUND OF SUCH PART OF THE OVERPAYMENT
OR THE FILING OF A PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER;
...." 

FN14  INT. REV. CODE SECS. 56(C), 295. 

FN15  L. O. 1115, II-2 CUM. BULL.  221(1923); I.T. 1447, I-2 CUM.
BULL.  220(1922). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :














CIVIL AERO. BD. V. STATE AIRLINES, 338 U.S. 572 


ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - 84 U.S. APP.
D.C. 374, 174 F.2D 510, REVERSED. 


UNDER THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938, THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
CONSOLIDATED 45 ROUTE APPLICATIONS OF 25 AIR LINES INTO ONE AREA
PROCEEDING.  AFTER HEARINGS, IT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO WHAT NEW
ROUTES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AND WHICH OF THE APPLICANTS COULD BEST
SERVE THESE ROUTES.  IT ENTERED ORDERS AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATES OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR SEVERAL NEW ROUTES IN THE AREA.  ONE
APPLICANT WAS AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN AIR TRANSPORTATION ALONG CERTAIN
OF THESE ROUTES WHICH WERE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE DESCRIBED IN ITS
APPLICATIONS.  ITS APPLICATIONS REQUESTED AUTHORITY TO TRANSPORT ON
"THE ROUTES DETAILED HEREIN, OR SUCH MODIFICATION OF SUCH ROUTES AS THE
BOARD MAY FIND PUBLIC NECESSITY AND CONVENIENCE REQUIRE" AND ALSO
CONTAINED PRAYERS FOR GENERAL RELIEF.  HELD: 

1.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO
PERMIT CERTIFICATION OF THIS APPLICANT FOR THE ROUTES AWARDED.  PP. 575
578. 

(A)  EXCEPT FOR THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN AND VERIFIED
APPLICATIONS, CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED TO LEAVE THE BOARD FREE TO WORK
OUT APPLICATION PROCEDURES REASONABLY ADAPTED TO FAIR AND ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION OF ITS COMPLEX RESPONSIBILITIES.  P. 576. 

(B)  IN DECIDING THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT COULD BEST BE SERVED IN
THIS CASE BY A CONSOLIDATED AREA PROCEEDING, THE BOARD DID NOT EXCEED
ITS PROCEDURAL DISCRETION.  PP. 576-577. 

(C)  IN AWARDING ROUTES VARYING FROM THOSE SPECIFICALLY DETAILED IN
THE APPLICATIONS IN THIS CASE, THE BOARD DID NOT DEPART FROM
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY HINGING CERTIFICATION GENERALLY ON APPLICATION
PROCEDURES.  PP. 577-578. 

(D)  THE STANDARD ADOPTED BY THE BOARD UNDER WHICH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IS GIVEN PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION IS A CORRECT STANDARD.  PP.
580-581. 

2.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANT WAS NOT
DENIED A FAIR HEARING IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD.  PP.  578
581. 

3.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE
SUCCESSFUL APPLICANT WAS FIT AND ABLE TO PERFORM THE SERVICES
AUTHORIZED AND WAS BETTER QUALIFIED TO DO SO THAN THE UNSUCCESSFUL
APPLICANT, WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND IS SUSTAINED.  PP.
581-582. 

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD V. STATE AIRLINES, INC. 

NO. 157.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 158, STATE AIRLINES, INC. V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS
BOARD ET AL., AND NO. 159, PIEDMONT AVIATION, INC. V. STATE AIRLINES,
INC., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AN ORDER OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
GRANTING CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE OPERATION OF
CERTAIN NEW AIR-LINE ROUTES.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 374, 174 F.2D 510. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 812.  NO. 158 DISMISSED; NOS.
157 AND 159 REVERSED, P. 582. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ACTING UNDER THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938,  FN1  THE CIVIL
AERONAUTICS BOARD (C.A.B.)  CONSOLIDATED SOME 45 ROUTE APPLICATIONS OF
25 AIRLINES INTO ONE AREA PROCEEDING, STYLED THE "SOUTHEASTERN STATES
CASE."  AFTER HEARINGS, IT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO WHAT NEW ROUTES
SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AND WHICH OF THE APPLICANTS COULD BEST SERVE
THESE ROUTES.  IT THEN ENTERED ORDERS AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATES OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR SEVERAL NEW ROUTES IN THE AREA.  PIEDMONT
AVIATION, INC., WAS AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN AIR TRANSPORTATION OF
PERSONS, PROPERTY, AND MAIL ALONG CERTAIN OF THESE ROUTES.  STATE
AIRLINES, INC., WAS DENIED AUTHORITY TO ACT AS A CARRIER ON ANY OF
THEM.  FN2  STATE FILED A PETITION IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ASKING THAT COURT TO
REVERSE THE ORDERS AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE BOARD WITH DIRECTIONS TO
GRANT CARRIER CERTIFICATES TO STATE INSTEAD OF PIEDMONT.  FN3  THE
COURT REVERSED INSOFAR AS THE ORDERS AWARDED CERTIFICATES TO PIEDMONT
BUT HELD THAT IT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT THE BOARD TO CERTIFY
STATE.  FN4  A CRUCIAL GROUND OF THE COURT'S REVERSAL WAS ITS FINDING
THAT PIEDMONT HAD NEVER FILED AN APPLICATION FOR THE PARTICULAR ROUTES
CERTIFIED, AN INDISPENSABLE PREREQUISITE TO CERTIFICATION AS THE COURT
OF APPEALS INTERPRETED THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT.  A SECOND GROUND FOR
REVERSAL WAS THAT SINCE PIEDMONT HAD FILED NO APPLICATION FOR THE
PARTICULAR ROUTES CERTIFIED, STATE FAILED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE
THAT THE BOARD MIGHT CONSIDER PIEDMONT AS A COMPETING APPLICANT, AND
THUS WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO DISCREDIT PIEDMONT'S FITNESS
AND ABILITY TO SERVE THOSE ROUTES.  A THIRD GROUND WAS THAT THE BOARD'S
FINDINGS THAT PIEDMONT WAS FIT AND ABLE TO SERVE THE ROUTES "WERE, IN
THE LEGAL SENSE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND LACKED THE SUPPORT OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE."  BOTH PIEDMONT AND THE BOARD PETITIONED FOR
REVIEW OF THE COURT'S REVERSAL, WHILE STATE CROSS-PETITIONED FOR REVIEW
OF THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO DIRECT CERTIFICATION OF STATE.  FN5  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVED, PARTICULARLY THOSE INVOLVING INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, IS OF
IMPORTANCE FOR FUTURE GUIDANCE OF THE BOARD IN CARRYING OUT ITS
CONGRESSIONALLY IMPOSED FUNCTIONS.  338 U.S. 812. 

FIRST.  WE HOLD THAT PIEDMONT'S APPLICATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT TO
PERMIT CERTIFICATION OF PIEDMONT FOR THE ROUTES AWARDED.  THE CONTRARY
HOLDING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS RESTED PRIMARILY ON ITS INTERPRETATION
OF SEC. 401(D)(1) AND (2) OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT.  THE PARTICULAR
LANGUAGE MOST RELIED ON BY THE COURT WAS THAT WHICH EMPOWERS THE BOARD
TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES "AUTHORIZING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE
TRANSPORTATION COVERED BY THE APPLICATION, IF IT FINDS THAT THE
APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING, AND ABLE TO PERFORM SUCH TRANSPORTATION
PROPERLY  ...."  THE COURT OF APPEALS READ THIS LANGUAGE AS SHOWING A
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO BAR THE BOARD FROM GRANTING ANY CERTIFICATES
IN WHICH THE ROUTES AWARDED DEVIATE MORE THAN SLIGHTLY FROM THE PRECISE
ROUTES DEFINED IN THE APPLICATION.  WE THINK THAT SUCH A NARROW
INTERPRETATION IS NOT COMPELLED BY THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 401(D) AND THAT
THE ACT AS A WHOLE REFUTES ANY INTENT TO FREEZE THE BOARD'S PROCEDURES
IN SO RIGID A MOLD. 

THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 401(D)(1) AND (2) UNQUALIFIEDLY GIVES THE BOARD
POWER, AFTER APPLICATION AND APPROPRIATE FINDINGS, TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATES FOR THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF TRANSPORTATION COVERED IN AN
APPLICATION.  THIS MANIFESTS A PURPOSE GENERALLY TO GEAR THE AWARD OF
CERTIFICATES TO AN APPLICATION PROCEDURE.  BUT CONGRESS MADE NO ATTEMPT
IN (1) AND (2) OF SEC. 401(D) TO DEFINE THE FULL REACH OR CONTENTS OF
AN APPLICATION.  THESE SUBSECTIONS DO NOT EVEN REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO
DESIGNATE THE TERMINAL CITIES OR THE INTERMEDIATE POINTS A PROPOSED
ROUTE WOULD SERVE.  A DIFFERENT PROVISION, SEC. 401(B), CONTAINS THE
ONLY REQUIREMENTS DIRECTLY IMPOSED BY CONGRESS - THAT AN APPLICATION
MUST BE IN WRITING AND VERIFIED.  FN7  WITH THIS ONE EXCEPTION, SEC.
401(B) PROVIDES THAT AN APPLICATION "SHALL BE IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAIN
SUCH INFORMATION  ...  AS THE BOARD SHALL BY REGULATION REQUIRE."  AND
IN SEC. 1001 CONGRESS GRANTED THE BOARD AUTHORITY TO "CONDUCT ITS
PROCEEDINGS IN SUCH MANNER AS WILL BE CONDUCIVE TO THE PROPER DISPATCH
OF BUSINESS AND TO THE ENDS OF JUSTICE."  THUS, EXCEPT FOR THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN AND VERIFIED APPLICATIONS, CONGRESS
PLAINLY INTENDED TO LEAVE THE BOARD FREE TO WORK OUT APPLICATION
PROCEDURES REASONABLY ADAPTED TO FAIR AND ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF ITS
COMPLEX RESPONSIBILITIES. 

HERE THE BOARD DECIDED THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT COULD BEST BE
SERVED BY A CONSOLIDATED AREA PROCEEDING.  IN DOING SO IT DID NOT
EXCEED ITS PROCEDURAL DISCRETION.  ONLY THROUGH SUCH JOINT HEARINGS
COULD THE BOARD EXPEDITIOUSLY DECIDE WHAT NEW ROUTES SHOULD BE
ESTABLISHED, IF ANY, AND WHICH OF THE NUMEROUS APPLICANTS SHOULD BE
SELECTED AS APPROPRIATE CARRIERS FOR DIFFERENT ROUTES.  AND IN SUCH A
PROCEEDING, AS THE BOARD HAS FOUND, LIMITING ALL APPLICATIONS TO THE
PRECISE ROUTES THEY DESCRIBE WOULD DESTROY NECESSARY FLEXIBILITY.  FOR
THE BOARD'S DECISION AS TO WHAT NEW ROUTES ARE ACTUALLY AVAILABLE IS
NOT REACHED UNTIL LONG AFTER THE APPLICATIONS ARE FILED.  RECOGNIZING
THIS, PIEDMONT, LIKE OTHER AIRLINES, INSERTED A SO-CALLED "CATCHALL
CLAUSE" IN ITS APPLICATIONS, BROADLY REQUESTING AUTHORITY TO TRANSPORT
ON "THE ROUTES DETAILED HEREIN, OR SUCH MODIFICATION OF SUCH ROUTES AS
THE BOARD MAY FIND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE."  IT ALSO
INCLUDED A GENERAL PRAYER "FOR SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF, GENERAL
AND SPECIFIC, UNDER SECTION 401 OF THE ... ACT  ...  AS THE BOARD MAY
DEEM APPROPRIATE, AND TO WHICH THE APPLICANT MAY BE ENTITLED IN ANY
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE APPLICATION MAY BE HEARD IN PART OR IN ITS
ENTIRETY." 

WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE BOARD, IN AWARDING ROUTES VARYING FROM
THOSE SPECIFICALLY DETAILED IN PIEDMONT'S APPLICATION, HAS NOT DEPARTED
FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY HINGING CERTIFICATION GENERALLY ON
APPLICATION PROCEDURES.  WHILE THE ROUTES SOUGHT BY PIEDMONT DID DIFFER
MARKEDLY FROM THOSE AWARDED,  FN8  THEY WERE ALL IN THE GENERAL AREA
COVERED BY THE CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS.  ALL TWENTY-FIVE APPLICANTS HAD
ASKED FOR ROUTES SOMEWHERE IN THE AREA, AND MANY OF THESE ROUTES
OVERLAPPED.  IN SUCH AN AREA PROCEEDING IT WOULD EXALT IMAGINARY
PROCEDURAL RIGHTS ABOVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO HOLD THAT THE BOARD IS
HAMSTRUNG BY THE LACK OF FORESIGHT OR SKILL OF A DRAFTSMAN IN
DESCRIBING ROUTES.  THE FLEXIBLE REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE BOARD WERE
REASONABLE.  THEY ACCORDED WITH THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  THE BOARD IN
WELL-CONSIDERED OPINIONS HELD THAT PIEDMONT'S APPLICATION MET THESE
REQUIREMENTS.  THAT APPLICATION ALSO MET THE CONGRESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
OF WRITING AND VERIFICATION.  SO FAR AS SEC. 401(D)(1) AND (2) ARE
CONCERNED, THE BOARD ACTED WITHIN ITS POWER IN ENTERING THE ORDERS. 

SECOND.  THE COURT OF APPEALS RECOGNIZED THAT FULL HEARINGS WERE HELD
IN THE AREA PROCEEDINGS AFTER DUE NOTICE TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. 
BUT THAT COURT NEVERTHELESS HELD THAT STATE WAS WITHOUT ADEQUATE NOTICE
THAT THE BOARD MIGHT CONSIDER PIEDMONT AS AN APPLICANT FOR ROUTES
ENCROACHING ON THOSE SOUGHT BY STATE.  THIS CONTENTION LARGELY RESTS ON
THE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION WE HAVE REJECTED.  STATE ARGUES, HOWEVER,
THAT SINCE IT NEVER CONSIDERED PIEDMONT AS A POSSIBLE APPLICANT FOR THE
ROUTES AWARDED, IT FAILED TO PRODUCE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS
TO CONVINCE THE BOARD THAT PIEDMONT WAS NOT FIT AND ABLE TO SERVE AS A
CARRIER ON THE ROUTES. 

THIS CHALLENGE IS SUBSTANTIAL.  THE BOARD'S MAJOR STANDARD IS THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IN HAVING CONVENIENT ROUTES SERVED BY FIT AND ABLE
CARRIERS.  THESE QUESTIONS ARE TO BE DETERMINED IN HEARINGS AFTER
NOTICE.  THE PRIME PURPOSE OF ALLOWING INTERESTED PERSONS TO OFFER
EVIDENCE IS TO GIVE THE BOARD THE ADVANTAGE OF ALL AVAILABLE
INFORMATION AS A BASIS FOR ITS SELECTION OF THE APPLICANT BEST
QUALIFIED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  CF. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMM'N V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470, 477.  IF THE BOARD HAD
NEGLECTED THIS PURPOSE, STATE COULD RIGHTLY COMPLAIN. 

HERE, HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE BOARD FULLY APPRECIATED ITS
RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS RESPECT.  IT SEEMS PLAIN TO US FROM THE ENTIRE
RECORD THAT STATE DID FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT PIEDMONT WAS A POTENTIAL
COMPETITIVE APPLICANT IN THE CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS.  THEIR
APPLICATIONS IN LARGE PART SOUGHT CERTIFICATES IN THE SAME GENERAL
AREA.  EACH ARGUED AGAINST THE OTHER BEFORE THE BOARD. 

MOREOVER, AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER, THE BOARD GRANTED STATE A
LIMITED REHEARING TO SHOW, IF IT COULD, THAT THE PROCEEDING SHOULD BE
REOPENED TO ENABLE STATE TO OFFER NEW EVIDENCE AGAINST PIEDMONT'S
FITNESS AND ABILITY.  IN THE REHEARING ARGUMENT, STATE'S MAIN
CONTENTION WAS THAT THE BOARD LACKED JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE
LIMITED NATURE OF PIEDMONT'S APPLICATION, A CONTENTION WE HAVE ALREADY
REJECTED.  BUT STATE ALSO CONTENDED THAT HAD IT KNOWN PIEDMONT TO BE AN
ACTUAL COMPETITOR, STATE WOULD HAVE MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS BY CROSS
EXAMINATION AND OTHERWISE TO PREVENT THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT
PIEDMONT'S QUALIFICATIONS WERE SUPERIOR TO STATE'S.  THE RECORD REVEALS
THAT THE BOARD GAVE MOST CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE CONTENTIONS
MADE BY STATE'S COUNSEL.  THE BOARD IN AN OPINION DISCUSSED EACH OF
THOSE CONTENTIONS.  8 C.A.B. 716.  WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE
GENERAL CONTENTION THAT IN REOPENED PROCEEDINGS STATE COULD OFFER
EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF PIEDMONT'S SUPERIOR
QUALIFICATIONS, THE BOARD SAID:  "ALTHOUGH IN THE COURSE OF THE
SUBSEQUENT ARGUMENT STATE ASSERTED THAT HAD IT BEEN AWARE OF THE
SITUATION IT MIGHT HAVE PRESENTED ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT EVIDENCE AND
WOULD HAVE ENLARGED UPON ITS INQUIRIES INTO PIEDMONT'S CASE, IT DID
NOT, IN THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENT OR IN ITS PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, SPECIFY WHAT THE NATURE OF SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR
INQUIRIES WOULD HAVE BEEN."  FN9  ID., AT 721.  IT WAS IN THIS SETTING
THAT THE BOARD HELD STATE'S SHOWING INADEQUATE TO JUSTIFY NEW HEARINGS
CONCERNING THE RESPECTIVE QUALIFICATIONS OF STATE AND PIEDMONT.  IN
REAFFIRMING ITS PREVIOUS HOLDING OF PIEDMONT'S SUPERIOR QUALIFICATIONS,
THE BOARD SAID:  "THE ONLY PRACTICAL APPROACH THAT CAN BE TAKEN IN
CASES OF THIS TYPE IS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS, NOT WITH A VIEW AS
TO HOW AN INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL WOULD BENEFIT THE APPLICANT, OR WHETHER A
PARTICULAR PROPOSED ROUTE IS REQUIRED PRECISELY AS SET FORTH IN AN
APPLICATION, BUT RATHER TO CONSIDER THE ENTIRE CASE WITH THE OBJECTIVE
OF ESTABLISHING A SOUND TRANSPORTATION PATTERN IN THE AREA INVOLVED." 
FN10  8 C.A.B. AT 722. 

WE THINK THE STANDARD ADOPTED BY THE BOARD UNDER WHICH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IS GIVEN A PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION IS A CORRECT STANDARD.  AND
SINCE THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT THE PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT BE REOPENED
REPRESENTS ITS INFORMED JUDGMENT AFTER A SEARCHING INQUIRY, WE ACCEPT
ITS CONCLUSION.  BECAUSE OF THE FOREGOING AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD WE THINK THERE IS NO GROUND FOR STATE'S
CONTENTION THAT IT FAILED TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING.  SEE CHICAGO, ST.
PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 1, 3. 

THIRD.  DURING THE REHEARING ARGUMENT, COUNSEL FOR STATE WAS ASKED BY
A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WHETHER STATE TOOK THE POSITION THAT PIEDMONT WAS
"NOT CAPABLE OF RUNNING THE ROUTE THAT WAS AWARDED."  HE REPLIED:  "WE
ARE TAKING THE POSITION THAT BOTH STATE AND PIEDMONT ARE FIT AND ABLE,
IT'S A QUESTION OF WHICH HAS DEMONSTRATED IN THIS RECORD TO BE MORE
FIT, WILLING AND ABLE."  STATE NEVERTHELESS CONTENDS HERE, AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE BOARD'S FINDING OF PIEDMONT'S FITNESS AND ABILITY.  THIS
CONTENTION, LIKE OTHERS, RESTS ALMOST WHOLLY ON THE ARGUMENT THAT
PIEDMONT HAD NOT APPLIED FOR THE PARTICULAR ROUTES AWARDED AND THUS
COULD NOT HAVE EVIDENCED ITS ABILITY TO HANDLE THOSE ROUTES.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS ALSO EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT THE ROUTES AWARDED REQUIRED
PIEDMONT TO TRANSPORT OVER MOUNTAINS, WHEREAS THE DETAILED PASSENGER
ROUTES FOR WHICH IT HAD APPLIED WOULD NOT HAVE CROSSED THE MOUNTAINS;
IT CONTRASTED THIS WITH STATE'S APPLICATIONS, WHICH HAD SPECIFICALLY
SHOWN ROUTES CROSSING THE MOUNTAINS.  PRECISELY WHAT ADDED SKILLS, IF
ANY, ARE REQUIRED FOR FLIGHTS ACROSS MOUNTAINS IS A MATTER OF PROOF. 
IN THE EXTENSIVE HEARINGS HELD IN THIS AREA PROCEEDING, EACH APPLICANT
WAS REQUIRED TO AND DID OFFER EVIDENCE CONCERNING FITNESS AND ABILITY. 
MUCH OF THIS EVIDENCE CONCERNED THE FINANCIAL CONDITION AND EXPERIENCE
IN AVIATION OF BOTH PIEDMONT AND STATE.  THE BOARD'S OPINIONS SHOW THE
PAINSTAKING CONSIDERATION GIVEN THIS EVIDENCE.  THE BOARD FOUND BOTH
AIRLINES FIT AND ABLE, BUT FOUND THE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS AS
BETWEEN THE TWO WEIGHTED ON PIEDMONT'S SIDE.  WE HOLD THAT THE
CONCLUSION WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.    IN VIEW OF OUR
CONCLUSION WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE ALLEGATIONS OF STATE'S CROSS
PETITION IN NO. 158 AND THAT CASE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED.  IN NOS. 157
AND 159 THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 973, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 401 ET SEQ. 

FN2  THE SEVERAL OPINIONS OF THE BOARD ARE REPORTED.  7 C.A.B. 863; 8
C.A.B. 585 AND 716. 

FN3  AUTHORITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IS GIVEN BY SEC. 1006 OF THE ACT,
52 STAT. 1024, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 646. 

FN4  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 374, 174 F.2D 510. 

FN5  THE BOARD'S PETITION IS OUR DOCKET NO. 157; PIEDMONT'S IS NO.
159; STATE'S CROSS-PETITION IS NO. 158. 

FN6  THERE ARE SLIGHT BUT IMMATERIAL VARIANTS IN THE RELEVANT
LANGUAGE AS IT APPEARS IN (1) AND (2) OF SEC. 401(D).  THOSE SECTIONS,
AS ITALICIZED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, READ: 

"(1)  THE BOARD SHALL ISSUE A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING THE WHOLE OR
ANY PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION COVERED BY THE APPLICATION, IF IT FINDS
THAT THE APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING, AND ABLE TO PERFORM SUCH
TRANSPORTATION PROPERLY, AND TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER (ORIGINALLY THIS ACT) AND THE RULES, REGULATIONS, AND
REQUIREMENTS OF THE BOARD HEREUNDER, AND THAT SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS
REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC COVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; OTHERWISE SUCH
APPLICATION SHALL BE DENIED. 

"(2)  IN THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE TO ENGAGE IN
TEMPORARY AIR TRANSPORTATION, THE BOARD MAY ISSUE A CERTIFICATE
AUTHORIZING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART THEREOF FOR SUCH LIMITED PERIODS AS
MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, IF IT FINDS
THAT THE APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING, AND ABLE PROPERLY TO PERFORM SUCH
TRANSPORTATION AND TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND THE
RULES, REGULATIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE BOARD HEREUNDER." 

FN7  "APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING TO THE
(BOARD) AND SHALL BE SO VERIFIED, SHALL BE IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAIN
SUCH INFORMATION, AND SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY SUCH PROOF OF SERVICE
UPON SUCH INTERESTED PERSONS, AS THE (BOARD) SHALL BY REGULATION
REQUIRE."  CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED, SEC. 401(B). 

FN8  THE COURT OF APPEALS PLACED IN ITS OPINION TWO MAPS CHARTING THE
PASSENGER ROUTES APPLIED FOR BY PIEDMONT AND STATE AND INDICATING THAT
THE ROUTES AWARDED PIEDMONT FAR MORE NEARLY APPROXIMATED THOSE SOUGHT
BY STATE.  THE BOARD AND STATE TAKE THE POSITION THAT THESE MAPS DO NOT
SHOW ALL OF THE POINTS AND ROUTES APPLIED FOR BY EITHER AIRLINE, AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID AS MUCH WITH REFERENCE TO THE MAPS.  BUT THE
VIEW WE TAKE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO ELABORATE THE DIFFERENT VIEWS AS
TO THE PRECISE ROUTES FOR WHICH PIEDMONT AND STATE APPLIED. 

FN9  THE RECORD DOES SHOW A STATEMENT BY STATE'S COUNSEL, MADE NEAR
THE END OF THE REHEARING ARGUMENT, THAT "HAD STATE KNOWN THAT PIEDMONT
WAS AN APPLICANT FOR THESE ROUTES" IT COULD HAVE PROVEN IN THE ORIGINAL
HEARINGS THAT PIEDMONT DID NOT HAVE "FACILITIES FOR ALL TYPES OF
OVERHAUL."  IT MAY BE THAT THIS GENERAL SUGGESTION CAN BE CONSIDERED AS
A REQUEST BY STATE TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR PROOF ON THIS
PARTICULAR SINGLE POINT.  IF SO CONSIDERED, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO POINT
OUT THAT THE BOARD FOUND THAT PIEDMONT HAD ADEQUATE FINANCING TO OBTAIN
ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS A MAJOR CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING
THE COMPARATIVE FITNESS AND ABILITY AS BETWEEN APPLICANTS WHO PROPOSE
TO OPERATE NEWLY ESTABLISHED ROUTES.  SEE THE CASE CITED IN THE BOARD'S
OPINION, AMERICAN EXPORT AIRLINES, INC., TRANS-ATLANTIC SERVICE, 2
C.A.B. 16, 38(1940). 

FN10  IN THIS COURT A SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT TWO SENTENCES BY ONE
MEMBER OF THE BOARD DURING THE REHEARING ARGUMENT INDICATE THAT THE
BOARD ACTED ON A WRONG STANDARD OF PUBLIC INTEREST: "YES, BUT APART
FROM ALL THESE LEGALISMS, ISN'T THE REAL ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT WE MADE A
MISTAKE AND PICKED A CARRIER WHO CANNOT RUN THIS ROUTE?  IF WE REALLY
GET DOWN AND TRY TO FIND WHAT IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST, ISN'T THAT THE
REAL POINT?"  IT IS SAID THAT THIS STATEMENT DEPARTS FROM THE STANDARD
OF "PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY."  BUT IN THE STATEMENT
ITSELF THE BOARD MEMBER POINTED OUT THAT THE PROPER STANDARD WAS "THE
PUBLIC INTEREST."  MOREOVER, HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT "THE IMPORTANT
THING IS NOT WHETHER YOU WIN OR PIEDMONT WINS BUT WHETHER THE PEOPLE OF
NORTH CAROLINA AND KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA AND THAT AREA IN THERE GET THE
KIND OF SERVICE THAT THEY SHOULD." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS TO AWARD
CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO APPLICANTS FOR AIR
ROUTES.  THE BOARD MAY GIVE TO ONE APPLICANT, AND DENY TO OTHERS, THE
EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING AN AIR ROUTE TO THE APPLICANT'S PRIVATE
PROFIT.  A DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD, HOWEVER, INVOLVES MORE THAN A
CHOICE AMONG COMPETING INDIVIDUALS; THE BOARD HAS BEEN MADE THE
GUARDIAN OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND THE ARBITER OF THE CONFLICTING
CONCERNS OF VARIOUS COMMUNITIES.  THE INTERESTS TO BE PROTECTED ARE SO
IMPORTANT THAT CONGRESS HAS LEGISLATED TO INSURE THAT THOSE SEEKING
THIS UNIQUE PUBLIC PRIVILEGE BE NOT INSULATED FROM CHALLENGE AND
COMPETITION.  THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT PROVIDES, 52 STAT. 987, SEC.
401:

        "APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE 

"(B)  APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING TO THE
AUTHORITY AND SHALL BE SO VERIFIED, SHALL BE IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAIN
SUCH INFORMATION, AND SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY SUCH PROOF OF SERVICE
UPON SUCH INTERESTED PERSONS, AS THE AUTHORITY SHALL BY REGULATION
REQUIRE. 

                        "NOTICE OF APPLICATION 

"(C)  UPON THE FILING OF ANY SUCH APPLICATION, THE AUTHORITY SHALL
GIVE DUE NOTICE THEREOF TO THE PUBLIC BY POSTING A NOTICE OF SUCH
APPLICATION IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AUTHORITY AND TO SUCH
OTHER PERSONS AS THE AUTHORITY MAY BY REGULATION DETERMINE.  ANY
INTERESTED PERSON MAY FILE WITH THE AUTHORITY A PROTEST OR MEMORANDUM
OF OPPOSITION TO OR IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE.  SUCH
APPLICATION SHALL BE SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE AUTHORITY SHALL
DISPOSE OF SUCH APPLICATION AS SPEEDILY AS POSSIBLE. 

"ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE 

"(D)(1)  THE AUTHORITY SHALL ISSUE A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING THE
WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION COVERED BY THE APPLICATION, IF
IT FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING, AND ABLE TO PERFORM SUCH
TRANSPORTATION PROPERLY, AND TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
AND THE RULES, REGULATIONS, AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE AUTHORITY
HEREUNDER, AND THAT SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; OTHERWISE SUCH APPLICATION SHALL BE
DENIED." 

THE PROCEDURES SO DEFINED BY CONGRESS PROVIDE THE FRAME WITHIN WHICH
THE BOARD'S DISCRETION MAY FREELY MOVE.  SO LONG AS THAT DISCRETION IS
EXERCISED WITHIN THE FRAME, THE COURTS SHOULD NOT INTERFERE.  BUT
BECAUSE THE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED IN THE BOARD BY CONGRESS IS GREAT,
AND BECAUSE THE DAMAGE A BOARD ERROR IN AWARDING A CERTIFICATE MAY
CAUSE TO OTHER CARRIERS AND THE PUBLIC IS IRREPARABLE, THE COURTS
SHOULD INSIST THAT THE PROCEDURES BE STRICTLY FOLLOWED. 

THEY WERE NOT FOLLOWED HERE.  IN 1945 THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
CONSOLIDATED FOR A COMMON HEARING THE APPLICATIONS, PARTICULARIZED AS
REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS, OF TWENTY-FIVE AIR-LINE
COMPANIES WHICH HAD FILED DOCUMENTS SEEKING CERTIFICATES FOR FORTY-FIVE
SPECIFIC ROUTES, VARYING CONSIDERABLY, BUT ALL WITHIN AN AREA THAT
EXTENDS ROUGHLY FROM MARYLAND TO FLORIDA, VIRGINIA TO MISSOURI.  AFTER
SETTLING UPON THE FEW ROUTES TO BE AWARDED, THE COMMISSION, WITHOUT
FURTHER NOTICE TO ANYONE, SELECTED FOR ONE OF THESE PIEDMONT, WHICH HAD
ASKED FOR A QUITE DIFFERENT ROUTE.  HOW MUCH THE ROUTE GRANTED DIFFERED
FROM THAT APPLIED FOR MAY BE SEEN READILY BY A GLANCE AT THE MAPS IN 84
U.S. APP. D.C. 374, 377, 174 F.2D 510, 513.  THIS COURT SAYS IT
DIFFERED "MARKEDLY." 

AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY MUST FOLLOW CAREFULLY THE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY CONGRESS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM
ADMINISTRATIVE ABSOLUTISM.  TO INSIST THAT THE STATUTE BE FOLLOWED IS
NOT MERE SEARCH FOR PRECISION.  THE FACT THAT STATE KNEW OF THE AWARD
OF THE ROUTE TO PIEDMONT IN TIME TO APPLY FOR A REHEARING DOES NOT
JUSTIFY THE FAILURE OF THE BOARD TO GIVE NOT ONLY STATE, BUT OTHERS AS
WELL, AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST FAIRLY FOR THE SELECTED ROUTE BEFORE
THE BOARD'S OPINIONS CRYSTALLIZED. 

SINCE THE ERROR OF THE BOARD LAY IN ITS FAILURE TO FOLLOW REQUIRED
PROCEDURE, IT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO CALL FOR A NEW DETERMINATION IF ON
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FROM STATE OR THE PUBLIC, OR ON A DIFFERENT MANNER
OF PRESENTATION, THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE MADE ITS AWARD TO A CARRIER OTHER
THAN PIEDMONT.  THAT IT IS NOT FANCIFUL TO ASSUME IT MIGHT HAVE DONE SO
MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE BOARD IN ITS FIRST OPINION
THAT EVEN THEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN STATE AND PIEDMONT WAS "A CLOSE AND
DIFFICULT QUESTION."  7 C.A.B. 863, 901.  MOREOVER, WHEN THE LIMITED
REHEARING WAS GRANTED, THE ISSUE, AT LEAST IN THE MIND OF ONE MEMBER OF
THE COMMISSION, MAY HAVE SHIFTED.  AT ONE POINT THIS MEMBER SAID:
"YES, BUT APART FROM ALL THESE LEGALISMS, ISN'T THE REAL ISSUE WHETHER
OR NOT WE MADE A MISTAKE AND PICKED A CARRIER WHO CANNOT RUN THIS
ROUTE?  IF WE REALLY GET DOWN AND TRY TO FIND WHAT IS THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, ISN'T THAT THE REAL POINT?"  THIS IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE
QUESTION OF WHICH CARRIER CAN BEST SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. 

I SEE NO OBJECTION TO A PROCEEDING IN WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR
SEPARATELY DEFINED ROUTES IN A SINGLE LARGE REGION ARE CONSIDERED
TOGETHER.  BUT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN "AREA PROCEEDING" THE
PROCEDURE FOR NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWED.  AFTER DECIDING ON THE ROUTES FOR THE "AREA," THE BOARD
SHOULD HAVE PERMITTED APPLICANTS TO AMEND THEIR APPLICATIONS TO CONFORM
WITH THE SELECTED ROUTES.  SUCH MATERIAL CHANGES AS PIEDMONT WOULD HAVE
HAD TO MAKE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTICE UNDER SEC. 401(C) OF THE
STATUTE, AND THUS THE ATTENTION OF COMPETING AIR LINES AND INTERESTED
MUNICIPALITIES WOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO THE CONTROLLING QUESTION OF
WHICH AIR LINE WOULD BEST SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ON THE SELECTED
ROUTE.  THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE "PROPER DISPATCH" OF BUSINESS THAT THE
STATUTE REQUIRES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT A REMAND MIGHT WELL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE AGAIN OF A
CERTIFICATE TO PIEDMONT.  THAT AWARD, HOWEVER, WOULD BE ON AN AMENDED
APPLICATION AND ON PROPER NOTICE, AND, AT LEAST, THE PUBLIC AND
PIEDMONT'S POSSIBLE COMPETITORS WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
AFTER PREPARATION AND IN REGULAR COURSE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :





















REGENTS V. CARROLL, 338 U.S. 586 


NO. 83.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - 78 GA.
APP. 292, 50 S.E.2D 808, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RENEWED A LICENSE FOR A
RADIO STATION ONLY AFTER THE APPLICANT (PETITIONER HERE), PURSUANT TO A
CONDITION PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION AND WITHOUT RESPONDENTS'
CONSENT, REPUDIATED A CONTRACT WITH RESPONDENTS.  THE COMMISSION HAD
DETERMINED THAT, UNLESS THE CONTRACT WERE GIVEN "NO FURTHER EFFECT," A
RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THIS WAS
BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE CONTRACT JEOPARDIZED PETITIONER'S FINANCIAL
POSITION AND THAT IT ALLOWED RESPONDENTS TO PROFIT FROM A SITUATION
CREATED BY A PREVIOUS CONTRACT WITH PETITIONER WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD
HELD ILLEGAL.  RESPONDENTS WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE COMMISSION AND DID NOT SEEK TO INTERVENE; BUT THEY SUBSEQUENTLY
SUED IN A STATE COURT AND OBTAINED A JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER
THE CONTRACT.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT DID NOT
CONTRAVENE THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PP.
587-603. 

2.  WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE ITS DEFENSE OF
IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE SUSTAINED IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW.  P.
594. 

3.  UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, THE COMMISSION'S REGULATORY
POWERS CENTER AROUND THE GRANT OR REVOCATION OF LICENSES.  PP. 594
600. 

4.  UNDER SEC. 303(R) OF THE ACT, AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO
PRESCRIBE SUCH "CONDITIONS" AS ARE "NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS" OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE CONDITIONS WHICH AN
APPLICANT MUST MEET BEFORE IT WILL BE GRANTED A LICENSE; BUT IMPOSITION
OF SUCH CONDITIONS CANNOT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE APPLICANT'S
RESPONSIBILITIES TO A THIRD PARTY DEALING WITH THE APPLICANT.  P. 600. 

5.  THE COMMISSION COULD INSIST THAT THE APPLICANT CHANGE ITS
SITUATION BEFORE IT GRANTED A LICENSE; BUT IT COULD NOT ACT AS A
BANKRUPTCY COURT TO CHANGE THE SITUATION FOR THE APPLICANT.  PP. 600
602. 

6.  THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE
VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS BETWEEN LICENSEES AND OTHERS.  P. 602. 

7.  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS
HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN DENYING A LICENSE UNLESS
THE CONTRACT WERE GIVEN "NO EFFECT" AND THEY MADE NO EFFORT TO
INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  PP. 602-603. 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA V. CARROLL ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA. 

NOTWITHSTANDING AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (11
F.C.C. 71) RENEWING PETITIONER'S LICENSE FOR A RADIO STATION ON
CONDITION THAT PETITIONER REPUDIATE A CONTRACT WITH RESPONDENTS, A
GEORGIA COURT AWARDED RESPONDENTS A JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER
THE CONTRACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA AFFIRMED.  78 GA. APP.
292, 50 S.E.2D 808.  THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA DENIED CERTIORARI. 
78 GA. APP. 898.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 846. 
AFFIRMED, P. 603. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RENEWED A RADIO LICENSE ONLY
AFTER THE APPLICANT, THE BOARD OF REGENTS, CARRIED OUT A REQUIRED
REPUDIATION OF A CONTRACT WITH OTHER PERSONS, RESPONDENTS HERE.  THE
COMMISSION HAD DETERMINED THAT UNLESS THE CONTRACT WERE GIVEN "NO
FURTHER EFFECT" A RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  THIS WAS BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE CONTRACT SERIOUSLY
JEOPARDIZED THE APPLICANT'S FINANCIAL POSITION AND THAT IT ALLOWED THE
OTHER PERSONS TO PROFIT FROM A SITUATION CREATED BY A PREVIOUS CONTRACT
WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD HELD ILLEGAL.  MAY A STATE
NOW ENFORCE THE REPUDIATED CONTRACT AGAINST THE APPLICANT ALTHOUGH THIS
WOULD HAVE THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF NULLIFYING THE REPUDIATION REQUIRED
BY THE COMMISSION?  THAT IS THE FEDERAL QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS
PROCEEDING. 

THE QUESTION ARISES IN THIS WAY.  THE GEORGIA SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY
RECEIVED RADIO STATION WGST IN 1923 AS A GIFT.  PETITIONER  FN1
OPERATED THE STATION UNTIL JANUARY 1930, WHEN IT MADE A CONTRACT WITH
THE SOUTHERN BROADCASTING COMPANY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE STATION. 
THE CONTRACT WAS TO RUN FOR A TEN-YEAR PERIOD, AND THE COMPANY WAS TO
RECEIVE ALL THE EARNINGS OF THE STATION EXCEPT A PERCENTAGE OF THE
GROSS RECEIPTS.  THIS PERCENTAGE, WHICH VARIED UP TO 10%, WAS TO BE
PAID REGENTS.  SOUTHERN BROADCASTING STATIONS, INC., OF WHICH
RESPONDENTS ARE THE FORMER STOCKHOLDERS, SUCCEEDED TO THE RIGHTS OF THE
COMPANY.  THE CONTRACT WAS EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD TO END JANUARY 6,
1950.  ON EXECUTION BOTH THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT AND THE EXTENSION WERE
FILED WITH THE COMMISSION.  10 F.C.C. 110, 114. 

VARIOUS RENEWALS OF PETITIONER'S LICENSE WERE MADE DURING THIS
PERIOD, BUT WHEN PETITIONER APPLIED FOR A RENEWAL IN 1940, THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ORDERED A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
CONTRACT ARRANGEMENT CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND WHETHER RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE TO PETITIONER
WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  SOUTHERN
WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDING. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT ITS
EXECUTION SHOULD NOT RELEASE THE LICENSEE FROM ITS RIGHT AND DUTY TO
MAINTAIN GENERAL CONTROL OVER THE STATION, ACTUALLY PETITIONER HAD
EXERCISED ONLY NOMINAL AUTHORITY.  THE CONTRACT ITSELF STIPULATED THAT
SOUTHERN SHOULD ARRANGE THE PROGRAMS AND ATTEND TO ALL PROGRAM
DETAILS.  IN THE OPERATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT SOUTHERN HAD PURCHASED
ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT AND APPARATUS WITHOUT CONSULTING WITH PETITIONER,
AND SINCE 1930 NOTHING HAD BEEN SPENT BY PETITIONER FOR PURCHASE OR
MAINTENANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT.  SOUTHERN HAD CONTRACTED IN ITS OWN NAME
WITH BUYERS OF BROADCASTING TIME AND FOR NETWORK SERVICE. 

FROM THESE FACTS THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT SOUTHERN'S OPERATION
OF PETITIONER'S STATION VIOLATED THE COMMISSION'S RULE THAT A LICENSEE
MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTROL AND OPERATION OF THE STATION, AND
THAT A LICENSEE MAY NOT TRANSFER TO ANY PERSON ITS RESPONSIBILITY AS
LICENSEE EXCEPT WITH THE COMMISSION'S WRITTEN CONSENT.  IT ALSO HELD
THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 HAD BEEN VIOLATED.  FN2 

THE COMMISSION ISSUED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW ON MARCH 23, 1943.  THIS DECISION REFUSED THE APPLICATION FOR
RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE.  IT SAID, HOWEVER, THAT "THE COMMISSION WILL
CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE TO GEORGIA SCHOOL OF
TECHNOLOGY PROVIDED THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN ASSURANCE THAT THE
APPLICANT IS PREPARED TO AND WILL IN FACT ASSUME AND DISCHARGE THE FULL
RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LICENSEE."  10 F.C.C. AT 121.  IT PERMITTED
TEMPORARY CONTINUED OPERATION.  THE PROPOSAL WAS ADOPTED BY THE
COMMISSION MAY 8, 1943.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN BY PETITIONER OR
RESPONDENTS FROM THIS ORDER.  SEE 47 U.S.C. SEC. 402. 

IN ORDER TO OBVIATE THE COMMISSION'S OBJECTION TO SOUTHERN'S
OPERATION OF THE STATION, PETITIONER ON APRIL 15, 1943, ENTERED INTO
THE CONTRACT HERE IN ISSUE.  UNDER IT PETITIONER PURCHASED FROM
RESPONDENTS ALL THE SHARES OF STOCK OF SOUTHERN, AND, AS THE
CONSIDERATION, AGREED TO PAY EACH MONTH A SUM EQUAL TO 15% OF THE NET
BILLINGS  FN3  OF THE STATION UNTIL JANUARY 6, 1950.  PETITIONER
PROCEEDED TO LIQUIDATE SOUTHERN AND TO TRANSFER THE ASSETS, CONSISTING
OF STATION EQUIPMENT, BROADCASTING CONTRACTS AND SUNDRIES, TO ITSELF IN
TRUST FOR THE GEORGIA SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY.  SINCE JULY 9, 1943,
PETITIONER HAS ITSELF MANAGED, DIRECTED AND CONTROLLED THE AFFAIRS OF
THE STATION. 

ON MAY 23, 1943, PETITIONER FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF
ITS LICENSE.  WHILE RESPONDENTS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS SECOND
PROCEEDING, THEY WERE NEVER PARTIES TO IT BY INTERVENTION OR
OTHERWISE.  AFTER HEARINGS, THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY WOULD NOT BE SERVED BY A GRANT OF
THE APPLICATION.  ESTIMATING THAT UNDER THE NEW CONTRACT PETITIONER
WOULD BE PAYING OUT 70% OF THE NET EARNINGS OF THE STATION, IT FOUND
THAT PETITIONER'S FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CONDUCT THE STATION IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE JEOPARDIZED.  IT WAS CONCERNED ESPECIALLY
BECAUSE IT THOUGHT THAT THE USE OF SO MUCH OF THE STATION INCOME FOR
THE CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS WOULD LESSEN THE STATION'S ABILITY TO ENTER
THE FIELDS OF FM AND TELEVISION.  THE COMMISSION ALSO FOUND THAT THE
CONTRACT REPRESENTED AN EFFORT TO GIVE FURTHER EFFECT TO THE EARLIER
MANAGERIAL ARRANGEMENTS, WHICH IT HAD HELD VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT AND ITS
REGULATIONS.  IT THOUGHT THAT THE AGREED PRICE FOR THE STOCK -
ESTIMATED AT OVER $300,000 - WAS EXCESSIVE BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT HAD
ONLY AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF $50,000.  SOUTHERN'S TITLE TO THAT WAS
QUESTIONABLE, AND SOUTHERN HAD NO "LEGAL INTEREST" IN THE OPERATION OF
THE STATION.  WHILE THE COMMISSION DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO PASS UPON THE
VALIDITY OF THE STOCK PURCHASE CONTRACT AS A MATTER OF CONTRACT LAW, IT
CONCLUDED (11 F.C.C. 71, 76): 

"A GRANT OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A PARTY
TO AN ARRANGEMENT FOUND BY THE COMMISSION TO BE IN CONTRAVENTION OF LAW
WOULD CONTINUE TO PROFIT FROM SUCH ARRANGEMENT WOULD NOT BE IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST SINCE IT WOULD, IN EFFECT, CONDONE SUCH ILLEGALITY AND
THWART THE COMMISSION'S EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
ACT." 

THE COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1945, AGAIN DENIED THE APPLICATION,
BUT IT ALLOWED THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS AND TO MAKE A NEW
APPLICATION, PROVIDED IT SHOULD AFFIRMATIVELY SHOW "THAT NO FURTHER
EFFECT IS GIVEN TO THE AGREEMENTS" BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS. 
ONE OF THESE AGREEMENTS IS THE STOCK PURCHASE CONTRACT INVOLVED IN THIS
PRESENT LITIGATION. 

THEREUPON, THE REGENTS ON OCTOBER 11, 1945, ADOPTED A RESOLUTION
REPUDIATING THE STOCK PURCHASE CONTRACT, AND ADDED A COPY OF THE
RESOLUTION TO ITS PENDING APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF ITS LICENSE.  FN4
BY A STATEMENT ATTACHED TO ITS APPLICATION, THE REGENTS INFORMED THE
COMMISSION THAT RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE RESOLUTION AND
ANNOUNCED THAT NO SETTLEMENT WOULD BE MADE WITH RESPONDENTS WITHOUT
COMMISSION APPROVAL.  FN5  RESPONDENTS DO NOT DENY NOTICE OF THE
REPUDIATION.  ON MARCH 7, 1946, THE COMMISSION ISSUED TO PETITIONER THE
REQUESTED LICENSE, AND HAS SINCE RENEWED IT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MAY
1, 1950.  THUS PETITIONER HAS BEEN ABLE TO OPERATE ITS STATION WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. 

UNTIL THE REPUDIATION, THE AGREED PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE UNDER THE
CONTRACT.  AFTER THE NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS PETITIONER MADE NO FURTHER
PAYMENTS, NOR DID IT AT ANY TIME, SO FAR AS THE RECORD INDICATES, MAKE
ANY EFFORT OR OFFER TO RETURN TO RESPONDENTS THE PROPERTY AND THE
INTANGIBLE ASSETS ACQUIRED THROUGH THE CONTRACT.  THE REGENTS CANNOT
NOW RESTORE THE PARTIES TO THEIR FORMER POSITION.  THE PROCEEDING ON
REVIEW WAS BROUGHT BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR AN ACCOUNTING ON THE CONTRACT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, IN JUNE, 1947, FOR THE
SUMS ACCRUING FROM AUGUST, 1945. 

PETITIONER DEFENDED THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT TO PERMIT RECOVERY
WOULD BE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S POWER OVER
BROADCASTING.  IT ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION'S REQUIREMENT OF
DISAFFIRMANCE MADE THE PURCHASE CONTRACT IMPOSSIBLE OF PERFORMANCE. 
FN6  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED BY STIPULATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE,
AND THERE WAS NO CONFLICT AS TO THE FACTS.  THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED A
JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT THROUGH AUGUST, 1947,
SOME $145,000.  THE COURT HELD THAT "THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO NULLIFY, CHANGE OR ANYWISE
MODIFY THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT OF
APRIL 15, 1943."  IT ALSO DECIDED THAT THE COMMISSION ORDER REQUIRING
DISAFFIRMANCE OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT "DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID
DEFENSE OR BAR AS A MATTER OF FACT OR LAW TO THE RIGHT OF THE
PLAINTIFFS TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT OF APRIL 15, 1943,
ON THE GROUND THAT SAID ORDER HAS RENDERED PERFORMANCE ON THE PART OF
THE DEFENDANT BOARD OF REGENTS IMPOSSIBLE." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA ACCEPTED THE TRIAL COURT'S
DETERMINATIONS AND AFFIRMED.  FN7 SINCE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE
RELATION OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE POWER TO STATE JUDICIAL POWER WAS
INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 846. 

WE MAY SUMMARILY DISPOSE OF THE DEFENSE OF IMPOSSIBILITY OF
PERFORMANCE.  IT IS A MATTER OF STATE LAW.  IT WAS A DEFENSE MADE IN A
STATE COURT TO A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO UNDER THE LAW OF GEORGIA.  SINCE
PETITIONER ACTUALLY WAS AN OPERATING LICENSEE UP TO THE ENTRY OF THE
JUDGMENT, THE STATE COURT THOUGHT PETITIONER REMAINED LIABLE UNDER THE
CONTRACT. 

WHATEVER POWER THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAD TO AFFECT
THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES UNDER THESE CONTRACTS RESTS ON THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 AND ITS AMENDMENTS.  THE SECTIONS PERTINENT
TO THE DETERMINATION OF THIS CASE APPEAR IN THE MARGIN.  FN8 

TO LAY BARE THE CONTROLLING ISSUE IN THIS CASE, WE CAN REMOVE SEVERAL
MATTERS FROM DISCUSSION AS NOT SIGNIFICANT TO OUR DECISION.  THERE IS
NO CHALLENGE TO THE COMMISSION'S RULING THAT SOUTHERN'S OPERATION OF
THE STATION VIOLATED SEC. 310(B) AND THE REGULATIONS IN THAT IT
CONSTITUTED A TRANSFER OF THE LICENSEE'S RESPONSIBILITIES WITHOUT
CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION.  FN9  WE ASSUME ITS SOUNDNESS.  SIMILARLY WE
ACCEPT THE RULING THAT THE PAYMENTS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE STOCK
PURCHASE CONTRACT MADE THE PETITIONER FINANCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE AS A
LICENSEE,  FN10  AND WE ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S
CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER MIGHT BE DENIED A LICENSE BECAUSE THE PRICE
PROMISED RESPONDENTS UNDER THE STOCK PURCHASE CONTRACT PERMITTED THEM
TO PROFIT FROM THEIR PRIOR INVALID ARRANGEMENT N11.  THUS OUR INQUIRY
IS NARROWED TO THE POINT OF WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUPREMACY
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION A STATE MAY ENTER A JUDGMENT THAT GRANTS
RESPONDENTS A RECOVERY ON THE VERY STOCK PURCHASE CONTRACT THAT
JUSTIFIED THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL OF A LICENSE.  FN12 

OUR FORMER DECISIONS INTERPRETATIVE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT FURNISH
A BASIS FOR EXAMINING THIS QUESTION.  AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, THE
COMMISSION MUST FIND ITS POWERS WITHIN THE COMPASS OF THE AUTHORITY
GIVEN IT BY CONGRESS.  FN13  WHEN TO ASSERT ITS UNDOUBTED POWER TO
REGULATE RADIO CHANNELS,  FN14  CONGRESS SET UP THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, IT PRESCRIBED LICENSING AS THE METHOD OF
REGULATION.  47 U.S.C. SEC. 307.  IN ITS ACTION ON LICENSES, THE
COMMISSION IS TO BE GUIDED BY WHAT WE HAVE CALLED THE "TOUCHSTONE" OF
"PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY."  FN15  SINCE THE LICENSEE
RECEIVES NO RIGHTS IN THE CHANNEL BEYOND THE TERM OF ITS LICENSE, THE
COMMISSION MAY GRANT A LICENSE TO A COMPETITOR EVEN THOUGH IT RESULTS
IN AN ECONOMIC INJURY TO AN EXISTING STATION.  FN16  ALTHOUGH THE
LICENSEE'S BUSINESS AS SUCH IS NOT REGULATED, THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE
LICENSEE AND THE CHARACTER OF ITS BROADCASTS MAY BE WEIGHED IN
DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT A LICENSE.  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470, 475; NATIONAL
BROADCASTING CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190, 218, 227.  THESE
CASES MAKE CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION'S REGULATORY POWERS CENTER AROUND
THE GRANT OF LICENSES.  THEY CONTAIN NO REFERENCE TO ANY SANCTIONS,
OTHER THAN REFUSAL OR REVOCATION OF A LICENSE, THAT THE COMMISSION MAY
APPLY TO ENFORCE ITS DECISIONS.  FN17 

RADIO STATION WOW, INC. V. JOHNSON, 326 U.S. 120, WHICH REQUIRED AN
EXAMINATION INTO THE RESPECTIVE POWERS OF STATE COURTS AND THE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, IS PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. 
THE OWNER OF LICENSED STATION WOW HAD LEASED THE FACILITIES FOR A TERM
OF YEARS AND HAD SECURED APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSION OF A TRANSFER OF
THE LICENSE TO THE LESSEE.  THE STATE COURTS SET ASIDE THE LEASE FOR
FRAUD AND ORDERED A RETRANSFER OF THE PHYSICAL FACILITIES TO THE
LESSOR.  THE ESSENTIAL HOLDING, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO OUR PRESENT
PROBLEM, LIES IN THESE WORDS AT P. 131:    "WE HAVE NO DOUBT OF THE
POWER OF THE NEBRASKA COURT TO ADJUDICATE, AND CONCLUSIVELY, THE CLAIM
OF FRAUD IN THE TRANSFER OF THE STATION BY THE SOCIETY TO WOW AND UPON
FINDING FRAUD TO DIRECT A RECONVEYANCE OF THE LEASE TO THE SOCIETY. 
AND THIS, EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF LICENSED FACILITIES AND
THE SOCIETY CHOOSES NOT TO APPLY FOR RETRANSFER OF THE RADIO LICENSE TO
IT, OR THE COMMISSION, UPON SUCH APPLICATION, REFUSES THE RETRANSFER. 
THE RESULT MAY WELL BE THE TERMINATION OF A BROADCASTING STATION." 

IN THE WOW CASE, THE COMMISSION HAD NOT PASSED UPON THE QUESTION OF
FRAUD, BUT IF AT THE TIME OF THE STATE ADJUDICATION THERE HAD BEEN A
FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE FACTS DID NOT JUSTIFY A REFUSAL TO
TRANSFER THE LICENSE, THIS FINDING WOULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE RIGHT OF
THE STATE COURT TO DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY THE ISSUE OF FRAUD. 

WE NOW COME TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD TO SHOW THAT UNDER
THE ACT THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS ARE EFFECTIVE TO BAR RECOVERY.  ONE
SUGGESTION IS THAT PETITIONER'S POSITION HAS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY BASIS
IN SEC. 303(R), WHICH PERMITS THE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE SUCH
"CONDITIONS" AS ARE "NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS" OF THE
ACT.  WE DO NOT THINK THE SUGGESTION IS SOUND.  CONGRESS HAS ENABLED
THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE THE USE OF BROADCASTING CHANNELS THROUGH A
LICENSING POWER.  IT IS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS POWER THAT SEC. 303(R)
IS TO BE INTERPRETED.  THE COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE ON AN APPLICANT
CONDITIONS WHICH IT MUST MEET BEFORE IT WILL BE GRANTED A LICENSE, BUT
THE IMPOSITION OF THE CONDITIONS CANNOT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE APPLICANT'S
RESPONSIBILITIES TO A THIRD PARTY DEALING WITH THE APPLICANT. 

PETITIONER ALSO URGES THAT A STATE COURT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED TO THWART THE COMMISSION'S EFFORTS TO ENFORCE THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE ACT.  FN18  SINCE THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY
EMPOWER THE COMMISSION TO ADJUDICATE THE CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY OF A
LICENSEE FOR ITS CONTRACTS OR TO DECLARE A LICENSEE'S CONTRACTS
UNENFORCEABLE IN THE COURTS, FOR THIS DEFENSE PETITIONER MUST DEPEND
UPON GENERAL IMPLICATIONS FROM THE ACT. 

THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IF BEFORE IT ISSUES A LICENSE THE COMMISSION
CANNOT BE ASSURED THAT IT HAS SECURED AN EFFECTIVE CANCELLATION OF A
CONTRACT LIKE THE ONE IN SUIT, IT MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO UNDESIRABLE
ALTERNATIVES.  IT MUST EITHER CONDONE THE VIOLATION OF ITS RULES FOR
OPERATION AND FORSAKE ITS DUTY TO INSURE THAT ONLY THE FINANCIALLY ABLE
MAY BE LICENSEES, OR IT MUST DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF THE ADVANTAGE OF A
STATION UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS. 

THE RENEWAL APPLICATION INDEED PRESENTED THE COMMISSION WITH A HARD
CHOICE.  FOR TEN YEARS THE OPERATING ARRANGEMENT HAD CONTINUED. 
SUDDENLY, AFTER THE STATION HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO A FAVORABLE PROFIT
POSITION UNDER SOUTHERN'S MANAGEMENT, THE COMMISSION BECAME CONSCIOUS
OF THE VIOLATION OF LAW INVOLVED IN THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT.  WHEN THE
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WAS SUPERSEDED BY THE PURCHASE CONTRACT, THE
COMMISSION INSISTED THAT PETITIONER COULD NOT BE A SUITABLE LICENSEE
UNLESS THE LATTER CONTRACT WERE GIVEN "NO EFFECT."  FOR SOME REASON,
WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED TO US, THE COMMISSION WAS SATISFIED THAT
THE CONTRACT WAS OF "NO EFFECT" WHEN THE PETITIONER MADE A UNILATERAL
DISAFFIRMANCE, AND IT DID NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE THAT
SOUTHERN AGREE TO THE CANCELLATION BEFORE A LICENSE WOULD ISSUE. 

THIS CHOICE OF METHOD LAY WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S POWER. 
CONSIDERATIONS UNKNOWN TO US MAY HAVE DICTATED THIS PROCEDURE.  BEFORE
ISSUING A LICENSE IN SIMILAR CASES, HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION HAS
SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED FROM BOTH PARTIES TO A CONTRACT CLEAR AND
UNEQUIVOCAL ASSENT TO ITS CANCELLATION.  FN19  INDEED, THE COMMISSION
MIGHT REFUSE TO ISSUE A LICENSE UNTIL THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED
THAT IT HAS BEEN FREED BY THE STATE COURTS FROM THE OBNOXIOUS
CONTRACT.  FN20 

BUT IF THE COMMISSION WAS PLACED IN A DILEMMA FROM WHICH IT HAD NO
ESCAPE, THAT DILEMMA WAS THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME
OF LICENSING.  THE COMMISSION ITSELF HAS INDICATED TO CONGRESS THAT IT
IS EMBARRASSED BY ITS INABILITY TO ISSUE CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS, THAT
IT HAS AT ITS DISPOSAL ONLY THE CUMBERSOME WEAPONS OF CRIMINAL
PENALTIES AND LICENSE REFUSAL AND REVOCATION.  FN21  BUT, SO FAR AS WE
ARE AWARE, THE COMMISSION REQUEST DID NOT GO BEYOND ASKING FOR POWER TO
ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST A LICENSEE.  NO POWER WAS SOUGHT
AGAINST A THIRD PARTY.  UNDER THE PRESENT STATUTE, THE COMMISSION COULD
MAKE A CHOICE ONLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS LICENSING POWER, I.E., TO
GRANT OR DENY THE LICENSE ON THE BASIS OF THE SITUATION OF THE
APPLICANT.  IT COULD INSIST THAT THE APPLICANT CHANGE ITS SITUATION
BEFORE IT GRANTED A LICENSE, BUT IT COULD NOT ACT AS A BANKRUPTCY COURT
TO CHANGE THAT SITUATION FOR THE APPLICANT.  THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AFTER
ALL, IS IN THE EFFECTIVE USE OF THE AVAILABLE CHANNELS, AND ONLY TO
THAT EXTENT IN WHAT PARTICULAR APPLICANT RECEIVES A LICENSE.  FN22  THE
COMMISSION HAS SAID FREQUENTLY THAT CONTROVERSIES AS TO RIGHTS BETWEEN
LICENSEES AND OTHERS ARE OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF ITS POWERS.  FN23 WE DO
NOT READ THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS BETWEEN LICENSEES AND OTHERS. 

FINALLY, WE FIND IRRELEVANT THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS HAD KNOWLEDGE
OF THE COMMISSION PROCEEDING DENYING A LICENSE UNLESS THE STOCK
PURCHASE CONTRACT WERE GIVEN "NO EFFECT."  EVEN IF WE SHOULD ASSUME
THAT RESPONDENTS HAD THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THAT PROCEEDING AND TO
APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION'S DECISION, THEIR FAILURE TO DO SO COULD NOT
DESTROY THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT.  IT COULD AFFECT THEM NO MORE
THAN TO PREVENT THEM FROM CHALLENGING IN ANY COURT THE COMMISSION'S
DECISION THAT A LICENSE MIGHT BE DENIED REGENTS FOR THE REASONS GIVEN
BY THE COMMISSION.  FN24  WE HAVE ASSUMED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
REFUSAL TO GRANT A LICENSE, BUT WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
CANNOT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT.  IT IS A MOST
EXTRAORDINARY RULE THAT WOULD REQUIRE RESPONDENTS TO INTERVENE UPON
PAIN OF SUFFERING A BINDING JUDGMENT WHICH THE COMMISSION COULD NOT
HAVE LAWFULLY IMPOSED UPON THEM HAD THEY BEEN ACTUAL PARTIES. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AS NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE IN THIS CASE TURNS UPON THE DETAILS OF
TITLE, WE HEREAFTER REFER TO THE PETITIONER AS PETITIONER OR REGENTS. 
WE TREAT IT AS OWNER, APPLICANT FOR LICENSE OR LICENSEE.  CONTRACTS FOR
THE OPERATION OF WGST WERE MADE BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GEORGIA
SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY UNTIL BY STATE LEGISLATION MANAGEMENT OF THE
SCHOOL AFFAIRS PASSED FROM THAT BOARD TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA.  THEREAFTER THE REGENTS HANDLED THE
STATION FOR THE SCHOOL.  THE APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSE HAVE BEEN MADE
AND THE LICENSES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE GEORGIA SCHOOL OF
TECHNOLOGY. 

FN2  10 F.C.C. 110, 120.  THE COMMISSION BASED ITS RULING
PARTICULARLY ON ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE IN F.C.C. RULES &
REGULATIONS SEC. 1.364(PART I, REVISED TO FEB. 1, 1945), AND ON SECS.
301, 307, 308, 309 AND 310 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT (47 U.S.C.).  IT
ALSO CALLED ATTENTION TO THE APPLICATION FORM FOR RENEWALS, ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS ON WHICH, NO. 11C, ASKED:  "DOES APPLICANT HAVE ABSOLUTE
CONTROL OF STATION, BOTH AS TO PHYSICAL OPERATION AND PROGRAMS
BROADCAST?" 

FN3  I.E., THE SALES OF BROADCASTING TIME LESS COMMISSIONS OR
DISBURSEMENTS TO OTHERS. 

FN4  "RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF
GEORGIA THAT THE RULING OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAVING
MADE THE CONTRACT WITH THE STOCKHOLDERS OF SOUTHERN BROADCASTING
STATIONS, INC. LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE OF PERFORMANCE, THE BOARD HEREBY
APPROVES THE ACTION OF ITS WGST RADIO COMMITTEE IN DIRECTING THAT SAID
CONTRACT BE NOT FURTHER COMPLIED WITH.  THIS ACTION IS TAKEN WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO A FAIR ADJUSTMENT OR SETTLEMENT OF WHATEVER RIGHTS THE
SAID STOCKHOLDERS MAY HAVE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OR CONSENT OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION." 

FN5  "THE AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE APRIL 15, 1943, WAS CANCELLED BY THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA BY RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT A
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS HELD ON OCTOBER 11, 1945.  A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF THE RESOLUTION IS HERETO ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT J. THE
OTHER PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED ORALLY OF THE
CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT AND NO PAYMENTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT HAVE
BEEN MADE SINCE THE ISSUANCE OF THE PROPOSED DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
IN DOCKET NO. 6534 ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1945.  THE BOARD OF REGENTS WILL
NOT UNDERTAKE TO NEGOTIATE ANY ADJUSTMENT OR SETTLEMENT WITH THE OTHER
PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT UNLESS AND UNTIL SAID PARTIES FIRST OBTAIN THE
APPROVAL OR CONSENT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO
NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT OF WHATEVER RIGHTS SAID PARTIES MAY HAVE UNDER
THE AGREEMENT." 

FN6  THERE ARE FURTHER ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENSE IN THE ANSWER THAT MAY
BE SUMMARIZED AS A STATEMENT THAT RESPONDENTS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF
THE FILING OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION THAT RESULTED IN ISSUANCE OF THE
LICENSE; THAT RESPONDENTS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEARINGS, OF THE
PROPOSED DECISION AND OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  THE
PETITIONER FURTHER ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENTS KNEW THE OPERATION OF THE
STATION DEPENDED UPON THE GRANT OF A LICENSE. 

WE CONSIDER THESE ALLEGATIONS AS TO NOTICE ONLY AS THEY BEAR UPON THE
EFFECT OF THE BOARD ORDER ON PETITIONER'S RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE
CONTRACT.  PETITIONER DID NOT PLEAD THEM AS AN ESTOPPEL TO RECOVERY. 
NEITHER OF THE GEORGIA COURTS TREATED THE ALLEGATIONS AS A BASIS OF
ESTOPPEL UNDER THE LAW OF GEORGIA.  THIS WOULD BE A MATTER OF STATE
LAW. 

FN7  78 GA. APP. 292, 50 S.E.2D 808(CERT.  BY THE SUP. CT. OF GEORGIA
DENIED, 78 GA. APP. 898). 

FN8  47 U.S.C.: 

SEC. 151.  "FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE IN COMMUNICATION BY WIRE AND RADIO SO AS TO MAKE (IT)
AVAILABLE, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
...  THERE IS CREATED A COMMISSION TO BE KNOWN AS THE 'FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION' ...  " 

SEC. 154.  "(I)  THE COMMISSION MAY PERFORM ANY AND ALL ACTS, MAKE
SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND ISSUE SUCH ORDERS, NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS CHAPTER, AS MAY BE NECESSARY IN THE EXECUTION OF ITS
FUNCTIONS." 

SEC. 301.  "IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO
MAINTAIN THE CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES OVER ALL THE CHANNELS OF
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN RADIO TRANSMISSION; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE
OF SUCH CHANNELS, BUT NOT THE OWNERSHIP THEREOF, BY PERSONS FOR LIMITED
PERIODS OF TIME, UNDER LICENSES GRANTED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY, AND NO
SUCH LICENSE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CREATE ANY RIGHT, BEYOND THE TERMS,
CONDITIONS, AND PERIODS OF THE LICENSE.  NO PERSON SHALL USE OR OPERATE
ANY APPARATUS FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY OR COMMUNICATIONS OR
SIGNALS BY RADIO  ...  , EXCEPT UNDER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS
CHAPTER AND WITH A LICENSE IN THAT BEHALF GRANTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CHAPTER." 

SEC. 303.  "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER, THE
COMMISSION FROM TIME TO TIME, AS PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR
NECESSITY REQUIRES, SHALL - 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"(R)  MAKE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AND PRESCRIBE SUCH RESTRICTIONS
AND CONDITIONS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LAW, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CARRY
OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER,  ...  " 

SEC. 307.  "(A)  THE COMMISSION, IF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR
NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED THEREBY, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER, SHALL GRANT TO ANY APPLICANT THEREFOR A STATION LICENSE
PROVIDED FOR BY THIS CHAPTER." 

SEC. 307.  "(D)  ...  BUT ACTION OF THE COMMISSION WITH REFERENCE TO
THE GRANTING OF SUCH APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE SHALL BE
LIMITED TO AND GOVERNED BY THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS AND PRACTICE WHICH
AFFECT THE GRANTING OF ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS." 

SEC. 308.  "(B)  ALL SUCH APPLICATIONS SHALL SET FORTH SUCH FACTS AS
THE COMMISSION BY REGULATION MAY PRESCRIBE AS TO THE CITIZENSHIP,
CHARACTER, AND FINANCIAL, TECHNICAL, AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS OF THE
APPLICANT TO OPERATE THE STATION; ...  " 

SEC. 309.  "(A)  IF UPON EXAMINATION OF ANY APPLICATION FOR A STATION
LICENSE OR FOR THE RENEWAL OR MODIFICATION OF A STATION LICENSE THE
COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE THAT PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR
NECESSITY WOULD BE SERVED BY THE GRANTING THEREOF, IT SHALL AUTHORIZE
THE ISSUANCE, RENEWAL, OR MODIFICATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID
FINDING.  ...  " 

SEC. 310.  "(B)  THE STATION LICENSE REQUIRED, THE FREQUENCIES
AUTHORIZED TO BE USED BY THE LICENSEE, AND THE RIGHTS THEREIN GRANTED
SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, OR IN ANY MANNER EITHER VOLUNTARILY
OR INVOLUNTARILY DISPOSED OF, OR INDIRECTLY BY TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF
ANY CORPORATION HOLDING SUCH LICENSE, TO ANY PERSON, UNLESS THE
COMMISSION SHALL, AFTER SECURING FULL INFORMATION, DECIDE THAT SAID
TRANSFER IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND SHALL GIVE ITS CONSENT IN
WRITING." 

SEC. 312.  "(A)  ANY STATION LICENSE MAY BE REVOKED FOR FALSE
STATEMENTS EITHER IN THE APPLICATION OR IN THE STATEMENT OF FACT WHICH
MAY BE REQUIRED BY SECTION 308 OF THIS TITLE, OR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS
REVEALED BY SUCH STATEMENTS OF FACT AS MAY BE REQUIRED FROM TIME TO
TIME WHICH WOULD WARRANT THE COMMISSION IN REFUSING TO GRANT A LICENSE
ON AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION, OR FOR FAILURE TO OPERATE SUBSTANTIALLY AS
SET FORTH IN THE LICENSE, OR FOR VIOLATION OF OR FAILURE TO OBSERVE ANY
OF THE RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS CHAPTER OR OF ANY REGULATION
OF THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED BY THIS CHAPTER OR BY A TREATY RATIFIED BY
THE UNITED STATES: ...  "    SEC. 405.  "AFTER A DECISION, ORDER, OR
REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE COMMISSION IN ANY PROCEEDING, ANY
PARTY THERETO MAY AT ANY TIME MAKE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OF THE
SAME, OR ANY MATTER DETERMINED THEREIN, AND IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR THE
COMMISSION IN ITS DISCRETION TO GRANT SUCH A REHEARING IF SUFFICIENT
REASON THEREFOR BE MADE TO APPEAR:  ...  "    FN9  10 F.C.C. 110, 120;
11 F.C.C. 71, 76. 

FN10  11 F.C.C. 71 AT 75; SEE SEC. 308(B), NOTE 8.  SEE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470, 475. 

FN11  11 F.C.C. 71, 76. 

FN12  THE GEORGIA COURT SIMILARLY CONCEIVED THE ISSUE: 

"THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, EMPOWERED TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934(47 U.S.C.A., SEC. 151, ET SEQ.), AND HAS THE
POWER AND AUTHORITY TO GRANT OR REFUSE LICENSES TO RADIO-BROADCASTING
STATIONS, WITH A VIEW TO SUBSERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST SO THAT THE
PEOPLE SHALL HAVE THE BEST POSSIBLE RADIO SERVICE; BUT NOTHING IN THE
POWER GRANTED TO THE COMMISSION, OR IN SAID COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
CONGRESS, GIVES TO THE COMMISSION THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
THE PRIVATE CONTRACTS AND BUSINESS OF THOSE OPERATING RADIO
BROADCASTING STATIONS, WHERE THE SAME IS NOT NECESSARY IN THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND WHERE SUCH CONTRACTS DO NOT
AFFECT THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS OF THE RADIO STATION."  78 GA. APP.
292, 50 S.E.2D 808, 809. 

"THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAS POWER IN THE 'PUBLIC
INTEREST' UNDER SAID ACT TO REFUSE LICENSES TO STATIONS WHICH ENGAGE IN
PRACTICES CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY. 
IN EACH CASE THAT COMES BEFORE IT, THE COMMISSION MUST EXERCISE
ULTIMATE JUDGMENT WHETHER THE GRANT OF A LICENSE IN THE PARTICULAR
INSTANCE WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY. 
... 

"THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAS THE POWER AND AUTHORITY IN
GRANTING A LICENSE TO A RADIO STATION TO SEE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AND CONVENIENCE ARE SUBSERVED THEREBY, AND AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF
PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE AFFECTING THE ISSUE OF A RADIO
BROADCASTING LICENSE IS THE ABILITY OF THE LICENSEE TO RENDER THE BEST
PRACTICABLE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY REACHED BY HIS BROADCASTS.  THE
COMMISSION MUST SEE TO IT THAT ALL APPLICANTS FOR RADIO-STATION
LICENSES HAVE THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL ABILITY TO BROADCAST PROGRAMS,
AND THAT THE STATIONS ARE PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED AND PROPERLY AND
ADEQUATELY MANNED AND DO NOT INTERFERE WITH OTHER STATIONS, AND THAT
ALL LICENSEES ARE RESPONSIBLE, MORALLY AND FINANCIALLY.  ...  "  78 GA.
APP. 298-99, 50 S.E.2D 812, 813. 

"  ...  MATTERS OF PRIVATE CONCERN, AND CONTRACTS AFFECTING SUCH
RIGHTS, WHICH DO NOT HAVE AS THEIR SUBJECT-MATTER THE RIGHTS CONFERRED
BY A LICENSE, OR DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT SUCH RIGHTS, ARE NOT
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO REGULATE AND CONTROL IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST BROADCASTING BY RADIO STATIONS AND LICENSES TO SUCH
STATIONS.  ...  "  78 GA. APP. 300, 50 S.E.2D 813. 

THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN THE OPINION (78 GA. APP. 292, 302, 50
S.E.2D 808, 814) FROM WHICH IT MIGHT BE INFERRED THAT THE COURT OF
APPEALS THOUGHT THAT IT COULD REVIEW THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION
THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE WITH THE CONTRACT IN EFFECT WOULD
ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENTS ABOVE
AND THE GENERAL TENOR OF THE OPINION, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE COURT
OF APPEALS DID NOT CLAIM A POWER TO DECIDE THE CONTRACT'S EFFECT UPON
AN APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY FOR A LICENSE
FROM THE COMMISSION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS BOTTOMED ITS DECISION ON THE
LACK OF POWER IN THE COMMISSION TO AFFECT LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY UNDER
THIS CONTRACT. 

FN13  AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94,
110; HELVERING V. SABINE TRANS.  CO., 318 U.S. 306, 311; ADDISON V.
HOLLY HILL CO., 322 U.S. 607, 617-18; ASHBACKER RADIO CORP. V. F.C.C.,
326 U.S. 327, 333, DISSENT, 335.  CF. SEC. 9(A) ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 242: 

"SEC. 9.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY POWER OR AUTHORITY - 

"(A)  IN GENERAL.  - NO SANCTION SHALL BE IMPOSED OR SUBSTANTIVE RULE
OR ORDER BE ISSUED EXCEPT WITHIN JURISDICTION DELEGATED TO THE AGENCY
AND AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW." 

FN14  FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION V. NELSON BROS. CO., 289 U.S. 266,
279; NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190,
210. 

FN15  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO.,
309 U.S. 134, 138; NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES,
319 U.S. 190, 216.  47 U.S.C. SEC. 307(A). 

FN16  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309
U.S. 470, 473, 475, 476. 

FN17  THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT HAS NO PROVISION SUCH AS APPEARS IN THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SEC. 10(C), 49 STAT. 454, AUTHORIZING THE
LABOR BOARD TO REQUIRE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FROM THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE
LABOR ACT.  YET, EVEN IN CASES UNDER THAT ACT, THIRD PERSONS WERE LEFT
FREE TO ASSERT RIGHTS UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS.  NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 365. 

FN18  11 F.C.C. 71, 76. 

FN19  MATTER OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC AND MANUFACTURING CO., 8 F.C.C.
195; IN RE CORNELL UNIVERSITY (WHCU), DOCKET NO. 5820(ORDER, OCT. 15,
1940). 

FN20  SEE MATTER OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN (WCAM), 4 PIKE AND FISCHER
RADIO REGULATIONS 344, 384. 

FN21  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON S. 1333, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 14,
51. 

FN22  NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 215
16, 218. 

FN23  SEE IN RE PETITION OF FANNIE I. LEESE ET AL., 5 F.C.C. 364;
MATTER OF HEARST RADIO, INC., 7 F.C.C. 292, 295; IN RE ASSIGNMENT OF
LICENSE OF STATION WMCA, 10 F.C.C. 241, 242. 

FN24  SEE RED RIVER BROADCASTING CO. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, 69 APP. D.C. 1, 98 F.2D 282. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





















SECRETARY OF AGRI. V. CENT. ROIG CO., 338 U.S. 604 


ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - 84 U.S. APP.
D.C. 161, 171 F.2D 1016, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 205(A) OF THE SUGAR ACT OF 1948 AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE TO MAKE ALLOTMENTS OF SUGAR QUOTAS WHICH MAY BE MARKETED
IN THE UNITED STATES, AND REQUIRES THAT HE DO SO "IN SUCH MANNER AND IN
SUCH AMOUNTS AS TO PROVIDE A FAIR, EFFICIENT, AND EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION" OF THE QUOTA, "BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION" (1)
PROCESSINGS TO WHICH PROPORTIONATE SHARES PERTAINED, (2) PAST
MARKETINGS, AND (3) ABILITY TO MARKET.  IN ISSUING PUERTO RICO SUGAR
ORDER NO. 18, WHICH ALLOTTED AMONG THE VARIOUS PUERTO RICAN REFINERIES
THE 1948 QUOTA OF PUERTO RICAN REFINED SUGAR WHICH COULD BE MARKETED ON
THE MAINLAND, THE SECRETARY TOOK AS THE MEASURE OF "PAST MARKETINGS"
THE AVERAGE OF THE HIGHEST FIVE YEARS OF MARKETINGS DURING THE 1935
1941 PERIOD; TOOK AS THE MEASURE OF "ABILITY TO MARKET" THE HIGHEST
MARKETINGS OF ANY YEAR DURING THE 1935-1947 PERIOD; GAVE EQUAL WEIGHT
TO THESE FACTORS; AND CONSIDERED, BUT CONCLUDED TO GIVE NO WEIGHT TO,
PROCESSINGS TO WHICH PROPORTIONATE SHARES PERTAINED.  HELD:  HE DID NOT
ACT ARBITRARILY OR EXCEED THE AUTHORITY GRANTED HIM BY THE ACT.  PP.
605-614. 

2.  THE SUGAR ACT OF 1948, AS APPLIED IN PUERTO RICO SUGAR ORDER NO.
18, IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 614-619. 

3.  IN VIEW OF THE CONCLUSION REACHED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES,
WHICH HAD TO BE MET APART FROM ANY JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION, IT IS
UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF PUERTO RICO'S
STANDING TO SUE.  PP. 619-620. 

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. CENTRAL ROIG REFINING CO. ET AL. 

NO. 27.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 30, PORTO RICAN AMERICAN SUGAR REFINERY, INC. V.
CENTRAL ROIG REFINING CO. ET AL., AND NO. 32, PUERTO RICO V. SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

ON APPEALS FROM AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER
THE SUGAR ACT OF 1948, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE ORDER AS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 161, 171 F.2D 1016.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 959.  NOS. 27 AND 30 REVERSED; NO.
32 DISMISSED, P. 620. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE THREE CASES BRING BEFORE US THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ISSUED BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF THE SUGAR ACT
OF 1948.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE SECRETARY DISOBEYED THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THAT ACT.  IF IT BE FOUND THAT THE SECRETARY BROUGHT HIMSELF WITHIN
THE ACT, THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO GIVE HIM THE AUTHORITY HE EXERCISED
IS CHALLENGED.  BY A SERIES OF ENACTMENTS CONGRESS ADDRESSED ITSELF TO
WHAT IT FOUND TO BE SERIOUS EVILS RESULTING FROM AN UNCONTROLLED SUGAR
MARKET.  THE CENTRAL AIM OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS TO RATIONALIZE THE
MISCHIEVOUS FLUCTUATIONS OF A FREE SUGAR MARKET BY THE FAMILIAR DEVICE
OF A QUOTA SYSTEM.  THE JONES-COSTIGAN ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 670, THE
SUGAR ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 903, AND THE SUGAR ACT OF 1948, 61 STAT.
922, 7 U.S.C. (SUPP. II, 1949) SECS. 1100-60. 

THE VOLUME OF SUGAR MOVING TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES MARKET
WAS CONTROLLED TO SECURE A HARMONIOUS RELATION BETWEEN SUPPLY AND
DEMAND.  FN1  TO ADAPT MEANS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE SUGAR LEGISLATION,
THE ACT OF 1948 DEFINES FIVE DOMESTIC SUGAR-PRODUCING AREAS:  TWO IN
THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND ONE EACH IN HAWAII, PUERTO RICO AND
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.  TO EACH AREA IS ALLOTTED AN ANNUAL QUOTA OF SUGAR,
SPECIFYING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TONS WHICH MAY BE MARKETED ON THE
MAINLAND FROM THAT AREA.  SEC. 202(A).  A QUOTA IS LIKEWISE ASSIGNED TO
THE PHILIPPINES.  SEC. 202(B).  THE BALANCE OF THE NEEDS OF CONSUMERS
IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, TO BE DETERMINED EACH YEAR BY THE
SECRETARY, SEC. 201, IS MET BY IMPORTATION FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES,
PREDOMINANTLY FROM CUBA, OF THE REQUISITE AMOUNT OF SUGAR.  SEC.
202(C). 

THE QUOTAS THUS ESTABLISHED APPLY TO SUGAR IN ANY FORM, RAW OR
REFINED.  IN ADDITION, SEC. 207 OF THE ACT ESTABLISHES FIXED LIMITS ON
THE TONNAGE OF "DIRECT-CONSUMPTION" OR REFINED SUGAR  FN2 WHICH MAY BE
MARKETED ANNUALLY ON THE MAINLAND FROM THE OFFSHORE AREAS AS PART OF
THEIR TOTAL SUGAR QUOTAS.  BUT MAINLAND REFINERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
QUOTA LIMITATIONS UPON THE MARKETING OF REFINED SUGAR. 

THE PUERTO RICAN QUOTA FOR "DIRECT-CONSUMPTION" SUGAR IS 126,033
TONS.  THIS FIGURE HAD ITS GENESIS IN THE JONES-COSTIGAN ACT OF 1934,
WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE QUOTA FOR EACH OFFSHORE AREA WAS TO BE THE
LARGEST AMOUNT SHIPPED TO THE MAINLAND IN ANY ONE OF THE THREE
PRECEDING YEARS.  48 STAT. 670, 672-73.  IN THE CASE OF PUERTO RICO
THIS WAS COMPUTED BY THE SECRETARY AT 126,033 TONS.  GENERAL SUGAR
QUOTA REGULATIONS, SER.  2, REV. 1, P. 4, AUGUST 17, 1935.  BY THE
SUGAR ACTS OF 1937 AND 1948, CONGRESS EMBEDDED THIS AMOUNT IN
LEGISLATION.  ALL THE DETAILS FOR THE CONTROL OF A COMMODITY LIKE SUGAR
COULD NOT, OF COURSE, BE LEGISLATIVELY PREDETERMINED.  ADMINISTRATIVE
POWERS ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SUCH A REGULATORY SCHEME.  THE POWERS
CONFERRED BY SEC. 205(A) UPON THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE RAISE SOME
OF THE SERIOUS ISSUES IN THIS LITIGATION.  BY THAT SECTION CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY TO ALLOT THE REFINED SUGAR QUOTA AS WELL AS
THE INCLUSIVE ALLOWANCE OF A PARTICULAR AREA AMONG THOSE MARKETING THE
SUGAR ON THE MAINLAND FROM THAT AREA.  FN3  THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT
"ALLOTMENTS SHALL BE MADE IN SUCH MANNER AND IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS TO
PROVIDE A FAIR, EFFICIENT, AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH QUOTA OR
PRORATION THEREOF, BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION" THREE FACTORS:  (1)
"PROCESSINGS OF SUGAR  ...  TO WHICH PROPORTIONATE SHARES  ...
PERTAINED"; FN4  (2) PAST MARKETINGS; AND (3) ABILITY TO MARKET THE
AMOUNT ALLOTTED. 

ON JANUARY 21, 1948, THE SECRETARY ISSUED PUERTO RICO SUGAR ORDER NO.
18, 13 FED. REG. 310, ALLOTTING THE 1948 PUERTO RICAN REFINED SUGAR
QUOTA AMONG THE VARIOUS REFINERIES OF THE ISLAND.  HAVING SATISFIED
HIMSELF OF THE NEED FOR AN ALLOTMENT, THE SECRETARY, IN CONFORMITY WITH
THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 205(A), APPORTIONED THE QUOTA AMONG
THE INDIVIDUAL REFINERS, SETTING FORTH IN APPROPRIATE FINDINGS THE
MANNER IN WHICH HE APPLIED THE THREE STATUTORY STANDARDS FOR
ALLOTMENT. 

AS TO "PAST MARKETINGS" HE FOUND THAT THE PROPER MEASURE WAS THE
AVERAGE OF THE HIGHEST FIVE YEARS OF MARKETINGS DURING THE SEVEN-YEAR
PERIOD OF 1935-1941.  WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT ORDINARILY THE MOST RECENT
PERIOD OF MARKETINGS FURNISHED THE APPROPRIATE DATA, HE CONCLUDED THAT
THE PERIOD 1942-1947 WAS UNREPRESENTATIVE IN THAT THE WAR NEEDS MADE
THOSE YEARS ABNORMAL AND NOT A FAIR BASIS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ECONOMIC
STABILIZATION WHICH WAS THE AIM OF THE 1948 ACT.  SHORTAGES AS TO
TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE AND MATERIALS, CAUSED BY THE WAR, LED TO
SPECIAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL.  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES RESULTED IN HARDSHIPS
OR ADVANTAGES IN VARYING DEGREES TO DIFFERENT REFINERS, QUITE UNRELATED
TO A FAIR SYSTEM OF QUOTAS FOR THE POST-WAR PERIOD. 

LIKEWISE AS TO "THE ABILITY  ...  TO MARKET," THE SECRETARY
RECOGNIZED THAT MARKETINGS DURING A RECENT PERIOD ORDINARILY FURNISHED
THE BEST MEASURE.  BUT AGAIN HE FOUND THAT THE DERANGEMENTS OF THE WAR
YEARS SERVED TO MAKE THAT MEASURE ABNORMAL.  HE THEREFORE CONCLUDED
THAT A FAIRER GUIDE TO HIS JUDGMENT CAME FROM THE HIGHEST MARKETINGS OF
ANY YEAR DURING THE 1935-1947 PERIOD, USING, HOWEVER, PRESENT PLANT
CAPACITY AS A CORRECTIVE. 

THE SECRETARY DULY CONSIDERED "THE PROCESSINGS OF SUGAR" TO WHICH
PROPORTIONATE SHARES PERTAINED, BUT CONCLUDED THAT THIS FACTOR COULD
NOT FAIRLY BE APPLIED.  THIS WAS SO BECAUSE IT REFERRED TO PROCESSINGS
OF RAW SUGAR FROM SUGAR CANE, WHEREAS THE THREE LARGEST PUERTO RICAN
REFINING CONCERNS RESTRICTED THEMSELVES TO REFINING RAW SUGAR AFTER IT
HAD ALREADY BEEN PROCESSED.  HE FELT BOUND, THEREFORE, TO GIVE NO
WEIGHT TO THIS FACTOR IN THE SUM HE FINALLY STRUCK, AND GAVE EQUAL
WEIGHT TO PAST MARKETINGS AND ABILITY TO MARKET. 

AVAILING THEMSELVES OF SEC. 205(B), RESPONDENTS, CENTRAL ROIG
REFINING COMPANY AND WESTERN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY, TWO OF THE THREE
LARGEST REFINERS IN PUERTO RICO, APPEALED FROM THE SECRETARY'S ORDER TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THEY CHARGED THE
SECRETARY WITH DISREGARD OF THE STANDARDS WHICH CONGRESS IMPOSED BY
SEC. 205(A) FOR HIS GUIDANCE IN MAKING ALLOTMENT OF QUOTAS; THEY
CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT ITSELF UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PORTO RICAN AMERICAN SUGAR REFINERY, INC.,
PETITIONER IN NO. 30, THE LARGEST OF THE PUERTO RICAN REFINERS,
INTERVENED TO DEFEND THE SECRETARY'S ORDER AGAINST THE STATUTORY
ATTACK.  THE GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO, PETITIONER IN NO. 32,
INTERVENED TO URGE THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE, WHILE THE
AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY AND OTHER MAINLAND REFINERS INTERVENED
TO MEET THIS ATTACK.  BEING OF OPINION THAT THE SECRETARY'S ORDER WAS
NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED IT.  84 U.S.
APP. D.C. 161, 171 F.2D 1016.  SINCE THE ORDER FAILED ON STATUTORY
GROUNDS, A MAJORITY OF THAT COURT DID NOT DEEM IT PROPER TO DECIDE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE OF THE
DECISION BELOW IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SUGAR ACT WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 959. 

I. IN MAKING QUOTA ALLOTMENTS THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE MUST OF
COURSE KEEP SCRUPULOUSLY WITHIN THE LIMITS SET BY THE SUGAR ACT OF
1948.  IN DEVISING THE FRAMEWORK OF CONTROL CONGRESS FIXED THE FLAT
QUOTAS FOR THE SUGAR-PRODUCING AREAS.  CONGRESS COULD NOT ITSELF, AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, ALLOT THE AREA QUOTAS AMONG INDIVIDUAL MARKETERS. 
THE DETAILS ON WHICH FAIR JUDGMENT MUST BE BASED ARE TOO SHIFTING AND
JUDGMENT UPON THEM CALLS FOR TOO SPECIALIZED UNDERSTANDING TO MAKE
DIRECT CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION FEASIBLE.  ALMOST INESCAPABLY THE
FUNCTION OF ALLOTTING THE AREA QUOTAS AMONG INDIVIDUAL MARKETERS
BECOMES AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION ENTRUSTED TO THE MEMBER OF THE
CABINET CHARGED WITH OVERSIGHT OF THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY OF THE
NATION.  HE COULD NOT BE LEFT AT LARGE AND YET HE COULD NOT BE RIGIDLY
BOUNDED.  EITHER EXTREME WOULD DEFEAT THE CONTROL SYSTEM.  THEY COULD
BE AVOIDED ONLY BY LAYING DOWN STANDARDS OF SUCH BREADTH AS INEVITABLY
TO GIVE THE SECRETARY LEEWAY FOR HIS EXPERT JUDGMENT.  ITS EXERCISE
PRESUMES A JUDGMENT AT ONCE COMPREHENSIVE AND CONSCIENTIOUS. 
ACCORDINGLY, CONGRESS INSTRUCTED THE SECRETARY TO MAKE ALLOTMENTS "IN
SUCH MANNER AND IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS TO PROVIDE A FAIR, EFFICIENT, AND
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION" OF THE QUOTA. 

IN SHORT, CONGRESS GAVE THE SECRETARY DISCRETION COMMENSURATE WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE GOAL.  ALLOCATION OF QUOTAS TO INDIVIDUAL MARKETERS WAS
DEEMED AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE REGULATORY SCHEME.  THE COMPLEXITY OF
PROBLEMS AFFECTING RAW AND REFINED SUGAR IN WIDELY SEPARATED AND
ECONOMICALLY DISPARATE AREAS, ACCENTUATED BY THE INSTABILITY OF THE
DIFFERENTIATING FACTORS, MUST HAVE PERSUADED CONGRESS OF THE NEED FOR
CONTINUOUS DETAILED ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION.  FN5  IN ANY EVENT,
SUCH IS THE PLAIN PURPORT OF THE LEGISLATION. 

BY WAY OF GUIDING THE SECRETARY IN FORMULATING A FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF
INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENTS, CONGRESS DIRECTED HIM TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION
"BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION" THREE FACTORS: PAST MARKETINGS, ABILITY
TO MARKET, AND PROCESSINGS TO WHICH PROPORTIONATE SHARES PERTAINED. 
PLAINLY THESE ARE NOT MECHANICAL OR SELF-DEFINING STANDARDS.  THEY IN
TURN IMPLY WIDE AREAS OF JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE OF DISCRETION.  THE
FACT THAT THE SECRETARY'S JUDGMENT IS FINALLY EXPRESSED ARITHMETICALLY
GIVES AN ILLUSORY DEFINITENESS TO THE PROCESS OF REACHING IT.
MOREOVER, HE IS UNDER A DUTY MERELY TO TAKE "INTO CONSIDERATION" THE
PARTICULARIZED FACTORS.  THE SECRETARY CANNOT BE HEEDLESS OF THESE
FACTORS IN THE SENSE, FOR INSTANCE, OF REFUSING TO HEAR RELEVANT
EVIDENCE BEARING ON THEM.  BUT CONGRESS DID NOT THINK IT WAS FEASIBLE
TO BIND THE SECRETARY AS TO THE PART HIS "CONSIDERATION" OF THESE THREE
FACTORS SHOULD PLAY IN HIS FINAL JUDGMENT - WHAT WEIGHT EACH SHOULD BE
GIVEN, OR WHETHER IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION ALL THREE FACTORS MUST PLAY
A QUANTITATIVE SHARE IN HIS COMPUTATION. 

IT WAS EVIDENTLY DEEMED FAIR THAT IN A CONTROLLED MARKET EACH
PRODUCER SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN MORE OR LESS THE SHARE OF THE
MARKET WHICH HE HAD ACQUIRED IN THE PAST.  ACCORDINGLY, PAST MARKETINGS
WERE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE SECRETARY'S ALLOTMENTS.  BUT
THE PAST IS RELEVANT ONLY IF IT FURNISHES A REPRESENTATIVE INDEX OF THE
RELATIVE POSITIONS OF DIFFERENT MARKETERS.  AND THERE IS NO CALCULUS
AVAILABLE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A BASE PERIOD FOR MEASUREMENT IS
FAIRLY REPRESENTATIVE.  WHETHER CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SO UNUSUAL AS TO
MAKE A PERIOD UNREPRESENTATIVE IS NOT A MATTER OF COUNTING FIGURES BUT
OF WEIGHING IMPONDERABLES.  IF HE IS TO EXERCISE THE FUNCTION OF
ALLOTTING A LIMITED SUPPLY AMONG AVID CONTENDERS FOR IT, THE SECRETARY
CANNOT ESCAPE THE NECESSITY OF PASSING JUDGMENT ON THEIR RELATIVE
COMPETITIVE POSITIONS.  FOR CONGRESS ANNOUNCED THAT ONE OF THE MAIN
PURPOSES JUSTIFYING THE MAKING OF ALLOTMENTS IS "TO AFFORD ALL
INTERESTED PERSONS AN EQUITABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MARKET SUGAR."  SEC.
205(A). 

IN DIRECTING THE SECRETARY TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ABILITY TO
MARKET, CONGRESS IN EFFECT CHARGED THE SECRETARY WITH MAKING A FORECAST
OF THE MARKETERS' CAPACITY TO PERFORM IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.  SUCH A
FORECAST NO DOUBT DRAWS HEAVILY ON EXPERIENCE, BUT HISTORY NEVER QUITE
REPEATS ITSELF EVEN IN THE VICISSITUDES OF INDUSTRY.  WHETHER ABILITY
TO MARKET IS MOST RATIONALLY MEASURED BY PLANT CAPACITY OR BY PAST
PERFORMANCE, WHETHER, IF THE LATTER, THE BASE PERIOD SHOULD BE A YEAR
AND WHAT YEAR OR A GROUP OF YEARS AND WHAT GROUP - THESE ARE NOT
QUESTIONS TO BE DEALT WITH AS STATISTICAL PROBLEMS.  THEY REQUIRE A
DISINTERESTED, INFORMED JUDGMENT BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES THEMSELVES
DIFFICULT OF PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION. 

THE PROPER MODE OF ASCERTAINING "PROCESSINGS OF SUGAR  ...  TO WHICH
PROPORTIONATE SHARES  ... PERTAINED" IS NOT HERE IN CONTROVERSY. 
PERHAPS THIS FACTOR TOO IMPLIES CHOICE.  BUT THE QUESTION COMMON TO ALL
THREE STANDARDS IS WHETHER THE SECRETARY MAY CONCLUDE, AFTER DUE
CONSIDERATION, THAT IN THE PARTICULAR SITUATION BEFORE HIM IT IS NOT
ESSENTIAL THAT EACH OF THE THREE FACTORS BE QUANTITATIVELY REFLECTED IN
THE FINAL ALLOTMENT FORMULA.  CONCEDEDLY, SEC. 205(A) EMPOWERS THE
SECRETARY TO ATTRIBUTE DIFFERENT INFLUENCES TO THE THREE FACTORS. 
OBVIOUSLY ONE FACTOR MAY BE MORE INFLUENTIAL THAN ANOTHER IN THE SENSE
OF FURNISHING A BETTER MEANS OF ACHIEVING A "FAIR, EFFICIENT, AND
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION."  BUT IT IS NOT CONSONANT WITH REASON TO
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY TO FIND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION BEFORE
HIM THAT A CRITERION HAS LITTLE VALUE AND IS ENTITLED TO NO MORE THAN
NOMINAL WEIGHT, BUT TO FIND IT UNREASONABLE FOR HIM TO CONCLUDE THAT
THIS FACTOR HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE AT ALL
REFLECTED QUANTITATIVELY.    CONGRESS DID NOT PREDETERMINE THE PERIODS
OF TIME TO WHICH THE STANDARDS SHOULD BE RELATED OR THE RESPECTIVE
WEIGHTS TO BE ACCORDED THEM.  IN THIS RESPECT THE SUGAR-QUOTA SCHEME
DIFFERS FROM THE QUOTAS DESIGNED BY CONGRESS FOR TOBACCO, WHEAT, COTTON
AND RICE, RESPECTIVELY.  SEE SECS. 313(A), 334(A), 344(A) AND 353(A) OF
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 47, 53, 57, 61, AS
AMENDED, 7 U.S.C. SECS. 1313(A), 1334(A), 1344(A), 1353(A).  NOR DO THE
BARE WORDS OF SEC. 205(A) CONFINE THE SECRETARY IN THE RESPONSIBLE
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BEYOND THE LIMITATION INHERENT UPON SUCH
DELEGATED AUTHORITY.  HE IS NOT FREE TO BE CAPRICIOUS, TO ACT WITHOUT
REASON, THAT IS, IN RELATION TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTS DECLARED
BY SEC. 205(A).  THE VERY STANDARDS FOR HIS CONDUCT, THE ATTAINMENT OF
"FAIR, EFFICIENT, AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION" PRECLUDE ABSTRACT OR
DOCTRINAIRE CATEGORIES.  A VARIETY OF PLANS OF ALLOTMENT MAY WELL
CONFORM TO THE STATUTORY STANDARDS.  BUT THE CHOICE AMONG PERMISSIVE
PLANS IS NECESSARILY THE SECRETARY'S; HE IS THE AGENCY ENTRUSTED BY
CONGRESS TO MAKE THE CHOICE. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS DISPOSE OF THIS PHASE OF THE CASE.  WE WOULD
HAVE TO REPLACE THE SECRETARY'S JUDGMENT WITH OUR OWN TO HOLD THAT ON
THE RECORD BEFORE US HE ACTED ARBITRARILY IN REACHING THE CONVICTION
THAT THE YEARS 1935-1941 FURNISHED A FAIRER MEASURE OF PAST MARKETINGS
THAN THE WAR YEARS 1942-1947.  NOR CAN WE HOLD THAT IT WAS BASELESS FOR
HIM TO DECIDE THAT INCREASED MARKETINGS DURING THE WAR YEARS MAY BE
TAKEN TO MEAN IMPROVED ABILITY TO MARKET BUT DECREASED MARKETINGS DO
NOT JUSTIFY THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.  AND IT WAS WITHIN HIS PROVINCE TO
EXCLUDE FROM HIS DETERMINATION THE PROCESSINGS OF SUGAR TO WHICH
PROPORTIONATE SHARES PERTAINED.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO REJECT THE BALANCE
HE STRUCK ON CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTORS UNLESS WE CAN SAY THAT
HIS JUDGMENT IS NOT ONE THAT A FAIR-MINDED TRIBUNAL WITH SPECIALIZED
KNOWLEDGE COULD HAVE REACHED.  THIS WE CANNOT SAY.  WE CONCLUDE,
THEREFORE, THAT IN ISSUING ORDER NO. 18 THE SECRETARY DID NOT EXCEED
THE AUTHORITY GIVEN HIM BY CONGRESS. 

II.  WE MUST THEREFORE FACE THE CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE ACT OF 1948.  THIS OBJECTION TO THE ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
JUDGMENT BELOW IS CLEARLY OPEN TO RESPONDENTS IN NOS. 27 AND 30.  THE
GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO LIKEWISE CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE ACT.  BUT ITS STATUS IN THIS LITIGATION RAISES A DISTINCT ISSUE,
CONSIDERATION OF WHICH WILL BE POSTPONED FOR THE MOMENT. 

THE SUGAR PROBLEM OF THE COUNTRY IS AN OLD AND OBSTINATE ONE.  FOR
FOURTEEN YEARS CONGRESS GRAPPLED WITH IT THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF
QUOTAS.  THREE ENACTMENTS, CULMINATING IN THE SUGAR ACT OF 1948,
REPRESENTED AN EFFORT TO DEAL WITH WHAT WERE DEEMED TO BE THE HARMFUL
EFFECTS ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OF PROGRESSIVELY DEPRESSED
SUGAR PRICES OF EARLIER YEARS CREATED BY WORLD SURPLUSES, OR, IF ONE
PREFERS IT, BY THE CONDITIONS THAT REFLECTED THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN
PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION  FN6.  THE LEGISLATION PRESUPPOSES A FINDING
BY CONGRESS THAT PRODUCERS AND MARKETERS OF SUGAR COULD NOT ADEQUATELY
RESPOND TO MARKET CHANGES MERELY THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF A FREE MARKET
AND THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INSOFAR AS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE MAY BE
DRAWN UPON TO MEET IT, NEEDED CONTROLS TO SUPPLEMENT AND REPLACE THE
HAGGLING OF THE MARKET. 

CONGRESS MIGHT OF COURSE HAVE LIMITED ITS INTERVENTION TO THE RAW
SUGAR MARKET, TRUSTING THAT THEREBY STABILITY IN THE REFINED SUGAR
MARKET WOULD BE PRODUCED.  CONGRESS THOUGHT OTHERWISE; IT EVIDENTLY
FELT THAT COMPETITION AMONG REFINERS FOR A LEGALLY LIMITED SUPPLY OF
RAW SUGAR, IN A PERIOD OF OVEREXPANDED REFINING CAPACITY,  FN7  OUGHT
NOT TO BE LEFT AT LARGE.  IN ANY EVENT, CONGRESS HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO THINK OTHERWISE AND TO BRING THE REFINING OF SUGAR WITHIN ITS
REGULATORY SCHEME.  SEE MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38; UNITED STATES V.
ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, INC., 307 U.S. 533; WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317
U.S. 111. 

IT IS A COMMONPLACE THAT REFORMS MAY BRING IN THEIR TRAIN NEW
DIFFICULTIES.  IN ANY SCHEME OF REFORM, THEIR PREVENTION OR MITIGATION
BECOMES A PROPER LEGISLATIVE CONCERN.  WHILE AMELIORATING THE EFFECT OF
DISORDERLY COMPETITION, MARKET CONTROLS GENERATE PROBLEMS OF THEIR OWN,
NOT ENCOUNTERED UNDER A COMPETITIVE SYSTEM.  SUCH NEW PROBLEMS ARE NOT
OUTSIDE THE COMPREHENSIVE SCOPE OF THE GREAT COMMERCE CLAUSE.  NOR DOES
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS OF GEOGRAPHIC UNIFORMITY. 
(COMPARE ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 1 AND CL. 4.)  CONGRESS MAY DEVISE, AS IT
HAS DONE IN THE SUGAR ACT OF 1948, A NATIONAL POLICY WITH DUE REGARD
FOR THE VARYING AND FLUCTUATING INTERESTS OF DIFFERENT REGIONS.  SEE
E.G., CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S. 311;
KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334;
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408.  AND SINCE THE ACT
OF 1948 DOES NOT EVEN REMOTELY IMPINGE ON ANY OF THE SPECIFIC
LIMITATIONS UPON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE (ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 5 AND CL. 6),
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE VEXING PROBLEM OF THE APPLICABILITY OF
THESE CLAUSES TO PUERTO RICO.  COMPARE DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244;
DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 183 U.S. 151; ALASKA V. TROY, 258 U.S. 101;
HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652, 670, N. 5. 

HOWEVER, NOT EVEN RESORT TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE CAN DEFY THE
STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS.  WE ASSUME THAT THESE STANDARDS EXTEND TO
REGULATIONS OF COMMERCE THAT ENMESH PUERTO RICO.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 148-51; UNITED STATES V. DARBY,
312 U.S. 100, 125-26; BALZAC V. PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298, 313.  THE
SUGAR ACT OF 1948 IS CLAIMED TO OFFEND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER AND THE
OPPRESSIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFINED SUGAR QUOTA ESTABLISHED BY THE ACT. 
IF EVER CLAIMS OF THIS SORT CARRIED PLAUSIBILITY, THEY SEEM TO US
SINGULARLY BELATED IN VIEW OF THE UNFOLDING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE USE OF QUOTAS ON REFINED SUGAR, LEGISLATIVELY APPORTIONED TO
DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY ALLOCATED TO INDIVIDUAL
BENEFICIARIES, IS A DEVICE BASED ON THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF
1938, 52 STAT. 31, AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1281 ET SEQ., AND
SANCTIONED BY THIS COURT IN MULFORD V. SMITH, SUPRA.  THE PROBLEM WHICH
CONFRONTED CONGRESS WAS NOT THE SETTING OF QUOTAS ABSTRACTLY CONSIDERED
BUT SO TO FIX THEIR AMOUNT AS TO ACHIEVE APPROXIMATE JUSTICE IN THE
SHARES ALLOTTED TO EACH AREA AND THE PERSONS WITHIN IT.  TO RECOGNIZE
THE PROBLEM IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS PERPLEXITIES. 

CONGRESS WAS THUS CONFRONTED WITH THE FORMULATION OF POLICY
PECULIARLY WITHIN ITS WIDE SWATH OF DISCRETION.  IT WOULD BE A SINGULAR
INTRUSION OF THE JUDICIARY INTO THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO EXTRAPOLATE
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE FORMULATION OF SUCH AN ECONOMIC POLICY FROM THOSE
DEEPLY ROOTED NOTIONS OF JUSTICE WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
EXPRESSES.  TO FIX QUOTAS ON A STRICT HISTORICAL BASIS IS HARD ON
LATECOMERS INTO THE INDUSTRY OR ON THOSE IN IT WHO DESIRE TO EXPAND. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, TO THE EXTENT THAT NEWCOMERS ARE ALLOWED TO ENTER OR
OLD-TIMERS TO EXPAND THERE MUST EITHER BE AN INCREASE IN SUPPLY OR A
REDUCTION IN THE QUOTAS OF OTHERS.  MANY OTHER FACTORS MUST PLAGUE
THOSE CHARGED WITH THE FORMULATION OF POLICY - THE EXTENT TO WHICH
PROJECTED EXPANSION IS A FUNCTION OF EFFICIENCY OR BECOMES A DEPRESSANT
OF WAGE STANDARDS; THE WISE DIRECTION OF CAPITAL INTO INVESTMENTS AND
THE ECONOMIC WASTE INCIDENT TO WHAT MAY BE ON THE SHORT OR THE LONG
PULL OVEREXPANSION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES; THE AVAILABILITY OF A MORE
SUITABLE BASIS FOR THE FIXING OF QUOTAS, ETC., ETC.  THE FINAL JUDGMENT
IS TOO APT TO BE A HODGE-PODGE OF CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING
CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY WELL WEIGH WITH LEGISLATORS BUT WHICH THIS
COURT CAN HARDLY DISENTANGLE. 

SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT SINCE CONGRESS FIXED THE QUOTAS ON A
HISTORICAL BASIS IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO REWEIGH THE RELEVANT
FACTORS AND, PERCHANCE, SUBSTITUTE ITS NOTION OF EXPEDIENCY AND
FAIRNESS FOR THAT OF CONGRESS.  THIS IS SO EVEN THOUGH THE QUOTAS THUS
FIXED MAY DEMONSTRABLY BE DISADVANTAGEOUS TO CERTAIN AREAS OR PERSONS. 
THIS COURT IS NOT A TRIBUNAL FOR RELIEF FROM THE CRUDITIES AND
INEQUITIES OF COMPLICATED EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMIC LEGISLATION.  SEE
WICKARD V. FILBURN, SUPRA AT 129. 

CONGRESS, IT IS INSISTED, HAS NOT ESTABLISHED REFINED SUGAR QUOTAS
FOR THE MAINLAND REFINERS AS IT HAS FOR THE OFFSHORE AREAS.  WHATEVER
INEQUALITIES MAY THEREBY BE CREATED, THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THEIR
CORRECTION FOR THE ALL-SUFFICIENT REASON THAT THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF
INEQUALITIES ARE THEMSELVES CONTROVERSIAL MATTERS HARDLY MEET FOR
JUDICIAL SOLUTION.  THUS, WHILE THE MAINLAND REFINERS ARE LEGALLY FREE
TO PURCHASE AND REFINE ALL SUGAR WITHIN THE RAW SUGAR QUOTA AND PUERTO
RICAN REFINERS ARE LIMITED TO THEIR SHARES OF THE REFINED SUGAR QUOTA,
CONGRESS APPARENTLY THOUGHT THAT PUERTO RICAN REFINERS OPERATED AT
COSTS SUFFICIENTLY LOW TO INSULATE THEM FROM MAINLAND COMPETITION.  IN
ADDITION, IT IS CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE TOTAL SUPPLY OF RAW SUGAR
PERMITTED TO ENTER THE MAINLAND MARKET IS LIMITED THE MAINLAND REFINERS
ARE IN EFFECT ALSO SUBJECT TO THE REFINED SUGAR QUOTA, ALTHOUGH IN
CONTRAST TO THE UNCHANGING QUOTAS OF THE TERRITORIES THE MAINLAND QUOTA
WILL VARY WITH CHANGES IN THE TOTAL CONSUMER DEMAND.  BECAUSE THIS
DEMAND TENDS TO BE STABLE, HOWEVER, THE MAINLAND REFINERS' SHARE OF THE
REFINED SUGAR HAS NOT, IT IS URGED, GREATLY EXPANDED DURING THE YEARS
WHEN QUOTAS WERE IN EFFECT.  CONGRESS MIGHT WELL HAVE THOUGHT THAT
RELATIVELY MINOR CONTRACTIONS AND EXPANSIONS IN SUPPLY FROM YEAR TO
YEAR SHOULD THUS BE ABSORBED. 

PLAINLY IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF JUDGES TO SIT IN JUDGMENT ON THE
VALIDITY OR THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SUCH VIEWS.  THE ACT MAY IMPOSE
HARDSHIPS HERE AND THERE; THE INCIDENCE OF HARDSHIP MAY SHIFT IN
LOCATION AND INTENSITY.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO HAVE VIEWS ON THE MERITS
OF THIS LEGISLATION.  IT SUFFICES THAT WE CANNOT SAY, AS WE CANNOT,
THAT THERE IS "DISCRIMINATION OF SUCH AN INJURIOUS CHARACTER AS TO
BRING INTO OPERATION THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE."  CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306
U.S. 1, 14.  EXPRESSIONS OF DISSATISFACTION BY THE EXECUTIVE AND IN
SOME QUARTERS OF CONGRESS THAT THE REFINED SUGAR QUOTAS WERE
"ARBITRARY," "DISCRIMINATORY," AND "UNFAIR" MAY REFLECT GREATER WISDOM
OR GREATER FAIRNESS THAN THE COLLECTIVE WISDOM OF CONGRESS WHICH PUT
THIS ACT ON THE STATUTE BOOKS.  BUT THE ISSUE WAS THRASHED OUT IN
CONGRESS; CONGRESS IS THE PLACE FOR ITS RECONSIDERATION. 

III.  THERE REMAINS PUERTO RICO'S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
LITIGATION.  PUERTO RICO CAN HAVE NO BETTER STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SUGAR ACT OF 1948 THAN IF IT WERE A FULL
FLEDGED STATE.  THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO PRESS SUCH A CLAIM RAISES
FAMILIAR DIFFICULTIES.  COMPARE MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447;
FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12; JONES EX REL. LOUISIANA V. BOWLES, 322
U.S. 707, WITH GEORGIA V. TENNESSEE COPPER CO., 206 U.S. 230; NEW YORK
V. NEW JERSEY, 256 U.S. 296; GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S.
439.  WHATEVER RIGHTS PUERTO RICO HAS AS A POLITY, SEE PORTO RICO V.
ROSALY, 227 U.S. 270; PUERTO RICO V. SHELL CO., 302 U.S. 253; PUERTO
RICO V. RUBERT HERMANOS, INC., 309 U.S. 543, THE ISLAND IS NOT A
STATE.  ADDITIONAL LEGAL QUESTIONS ARE RAISED WHETHER PUERTO RICO CAN
PRESS THE INTERESTS THAT IT IS HERE PRESSING.  IN VIEW OF THE
CONCLUSION THAT WE HAVE REACHED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH HAD
TO BE MET APART FROM ANY JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION, IT WOULD ENTAIL AN
EMPTY DISCUSSION TO DECIDE WHETHER PUERTO RICO HAS A STANDING AS A
PARTY IN THIS CASE.  IT WOULD IN EFFECT BE MERELY AN ADVISORY OPINION
ON A DELICATE SUBJECT.  SINCE THE REAL ISSUES RAISED BY PUERTO RICO
HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN NOS. 27 AND 30, IT BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO
DECIDE THE QUESTION OF PUERTO RICO'S STANDING TO SUE.  WICKARD V.
FILBURN, SUPRA AT 114, N. 3.  NOS. 27 AND 30 REVERSED.  NO. 32
DISMISSED. 

FN1  IN THE COURSE OF THIS OPINION ALL EXPRESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC
CHARACTER ARE TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THOSE WHO HAVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH
ECONOMIC JUDGMENTS - THE CONGRESS AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE -
AND ARE NOT TO BE DEEMED THE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT.  IT IS
NOT OUR RIGHT TO PRONOUNCE ECONOMIC VIEWS; WE ARE CONFINED TO PASSING
ON THE RIGHT OF THE CONGRESS AND THE SECRETARY TO ACT ON THE BASIS OF
ENTERTAINABLE ECONOMIC JUDGMENTS. 

FN2  WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS NOT RELEVANT HERE, THE TERM "DIRECT
CONSUMPTION" SUGAR IN THE ACT REFERS TO REFINED SUGAR. 

FN3  THE FULL TEXT OF SEC. 205(A) IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHENEVER THE SECRETARY FINDS THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF ANY QUOTA, OR
PRORATION THEREOF, ESTABLISHED FOR ANY AREA PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT, IS NECESSARY TO ASSURE AN ORDERLY AND ADEQUATE FLOW OF
SUGAR OR LIQUID SUGAR IN THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, OR TO PREVENT DISORDERLY MARKETING OR IMPORTATION OF SUGAR OR
LIQUID SUGAR, OR TO MAINTAIN A CONTINUOUS AND STABLE SUPPLY OF SUGAR OR
LIQUID SUGAR, OR TO AFFORD ALL INTERESTED PERSONS AN EQUITABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO MARKET SUGAR OR LIQUID SUGAR WITHIN ANY AREA'S QUOTA,
AFTER SUCH HEARING AND UPON SUCH NOTICE AS HE MAY BY REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBE, HE SHALL MAKE ALLOTMENTS OF SUCH QUOTA OR PRORATION THEREOF
BY ALLOTTING TO PERSONS WHO MARKET OR IMPORT SUGAR OR LIQUID SUGAR, FOR
SUCH PERIODS AS HE MAY DESIGNATE, THE QUANTITIES OF SUGAR OR LIQUID
SUGAR WHICH EACH SUCH PERSON MAY MARKET IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES,
THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, OR PUERTO RICO, OR MAY IMPORT OR BRING INTO
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, FOR CONSUMPTION THEREIN.  ALLOTMENTS SHALL
BE MADE IN SUCH MANNER AND IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS TO PROVIDE A FAIR,
EFFICIENT, AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH QUOTA OR PRORATION
THEREOF, BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROCESSINGS OF SUGAR OR
LIQUID SUGAR FROM SUGAR BEETS OR SUGARCANE TO WHICH PROPORTIONATE
SHARES, DETERMINED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) OF
SUCH PERSON; AND THE ABILITY OF SUCH PERSON TO MARKET OR IMPORT THAT
PORTION OF SUCH QUOTA OR PRORATION THEREOF ALLOTTED TO HIM.  THE
SECRETARY MAY ALSO, UPON SUCH HEARING AND NOTICE AS HE MAY BY
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBE, REVISE OR AMEND ANY SUCH ALLOTMENT UPON THE SAME
BASIS AS THE INITIAL ALLOTMENT WAS MADE."  61 STAT. 926, 7 U.S.C. SEC.
1115. 

FN4  TO HELP EFFECTUATE THE MARKETING CONTROLS, SEC. 301 OF THE ACT
PROVIDES THAT CERTAIN PAYMENTS WILL BE MADE TO FARMERS ONLY IF THEY
LIMIT THE MARKETING OF SUGAR CANE OR BEETS GROWN ON THEIR FARMS TO A
"PROPORTIONATE SHARE" OF THE QUANTITY NECESSARY TO FILL THE AREA'S
QUOTA, PLUS A NORMAL CARRY-OVER.  THE RELEVANCE OF THIS PROVISION HERE
IS THAT PROCESSINGS OF SUGAR GROWN WITHIN THE "PROPORTIONATE SHARE"
RESTRICTION ARE ONE OF THE THREE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
SECRETARY IN THE MAKING OF ALLOTMENTS UNDER SEC. 205(A). 

FN5  WITH RESPECT TO THE SECRETARY'S COMPARABLE FUNCTION OF FIXING
PROPORTIONATE SHARES FOR FARMS UNDER SEC. 302 OF THE ACT, THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE STATED:  "IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENCES IN
CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION OBTAINING IN THE VARIOUS SUGAR-PRODUCING
AREAS, THE COMMITTEE HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO SPECIFY THE EXACT MANNER IN
WHICH THE SECRETARY SHALL USE PRODUCTION HISTORY.  IT IS THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COMMITTEE THAT CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE
SECRETARY TO DEAL WITH THE VARIED AND CHANGING CONDITIONS IN THE
VARIOUS PRODUCING AREAS, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH FAIR AND EQUITABLE
PROPORTIONATE SHARES FOR FARMS IN SUCH AREAS."  H.R. REP. NO. 796, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 8. 

FN6  THE AVERAGE PRICE PER POUND OF DUTY-PAID RAW SUGAR GRADUALLY
DECLINED FROM 6.98 CENTS IN 1923 TO 2.80 CENTS IN EARLY 1932.  UNITED
STATES TARIFF COMM'N, REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON SUGAR, REPORT NO. 73,
2D SER., P. 46.  SEE ALSO DALTON, SUGAR, A CASE STUDY OF GOVERNMENT
CONTROL, CC. IV, V, ESPECIALLY P. 41; 16 DEPT. STATE BULL.  44. 

FN7  IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT THE MAINLAND REFINERIES ALONE HAD A
CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF DEMAND OF FROM ONE-THIRD TO ONE-HALF.  SEE UNITED
STATES TARIFF COMM'N, REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON SUGAR, REPORT NO. 73,
2D SER., P. 91; CF. SUGAR INSTITUTE, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S.
553, 574. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FOR THE REASONS
GIVEN IN THAT COURT'S OPINION.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 161, 171 F.2D 1016. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THESE CASES. 
..END :





CHAPMAN V. SHERIDAN-WYOMING CO., 338 U.S. 621 


NO. 60.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - 84 U.S.
APP. D.C. 288, 172 F.2D 282, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE MINERAL LANDS LEASING ACT, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
LEASED COAL-MINING RIGHTS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS TO ONE LESSEE AND NOW
PROPOSES TO LEASE SIMILAR RIGHTS IN OTHER PUBLIC LANDS TO A COMPETITOR
OPERATING COAL MINES ON STATE LANDS WHICH ARE NEARING EXHAUSTION.  THE
FIRST LESSEE SUED TO ENJOIN THE PROPOSED LEASE TO ITS COMPETITOR.  ITS
LEASE CONTAINED NO EXPRESS COVENANT NOT TO LEASE OTHER LANDS TO
COMPETITORS; BUT A REGULATION OF THE SECRETARY DIRECTS THAT LEASES BE
RECOMMENDED "ONLY IN CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN FURNISHED A
SATISFACTORY SHOWING THAT AN ADDITIONAL COAL MINE IS NEEDED AND THAT
THERE IS AN ACTUAL NEED FOR COAL WHICH CANNOT OTHERWISE BE REASONABLY
MET."  IT IS ASSUMED THAT NO SUCH SHOWING HAS BEEN OR CAN BE MADE IN
THIS CASE.  HELD: THE COMPLAINT STATED NO CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE
PROPOSED LEASE DOES NOT BREACH ANY CONTRACT RIGHT OR INVADE ANY
PROPERTY RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF AND DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY LAW, BUT IS WITHIN
THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE SECRETARY.  PP. 622-631. 

(A)  THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT SHOW A CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENFORCE A
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR PROPERTY RIGHT AGAINST LEASING OTHER PUBLIC
LANDS AS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE.  PP. 625-629. 

(B)  ASSUMING THAT THE REGULATION FIXES A CONTROLLING POLICY, THE
SECRETARY'S INTERPRETATION OF IT AS NOT APPLYING TO A LEASE TO KEEP AN
EXISTING COAL MINE IN OPERATION, IS A PERMISSIBLE INTERPRETATION WHICH
WILL NOT BE DISTURBED BY THE COURTS.  PP. 629-631. 

2.  THE MINERAL LANDS LEASING ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO GRANT
OR TO OBTAIN EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO COAL RESOURCES IN PUBLIC
LANDS BUT SEEMS TO CONTEMPLATE THE OPENING OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO
COMPETITIVE EXPLOITATION.  PP. 628-629. 

CHAPMAN, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, V. SHERIDAN-WYOMING COAL CO.,
INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW ARE STATED CONCISELY IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF
THE OPINION.  CHAPMAN WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR KRUG AS THE PARTY
PETITIONER.  338 U.S. 898.  THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IS REPORTED AT
P. 631.  COURT. 

THIS ACTION BY A LESSEE OF COAL-MINING RIGHTS IN PUBLIC LANDS SEEKS
TO PREVENT LEASING OF SIMILAR RIGHTS IN OTHER LANDS TO A COMPETITOR. 
THE CASE IS BEFORE US ONLY ON PLEADINGS.  THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS
DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON SEVERAL GROUNDS BUT THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOWED NO
STANDING TO SUE, THERE BEING NO ALLEGATION OF SPECIAL INJURY TO ANY
PROPERTY RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF.  SHERIDAN-WYOMING COAL CO. V. KRUG, 83
U.S. APP. D.C. 162, 168 F.2D 557.  IT GAVE LEAVE TO APPLY TO THE
DISTRICT COURT TO AMEND IN THIS RESPECT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
PRIVILEGE, HOWEVER, HOLDING THAT THE PROPOSED NEW MATTER ADDED NOTHING
MATERIAL, AND THAT AMENDMENT WOULD BE IDLE AND NEEDLESSLY PROLONG THE
LITIGATION.  THIS, WE THINK, WAS EQUIVALENT IN EFFECT TO SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND REQUIRES US TO TREAT WELL-PLEADED
FACTS AS TRUE.  ON THIS BASIS, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND, IN
SUBSTANCE, HELD THAT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT DOES STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 288, 172 F.2D 282.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
338 U.S. 810. 

THE HYPOTHESIS ON WHICH THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE DECIDED IS THIS: 

AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES THE FOLLOWING REGULATION, PROMULGATED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, HAS BEEN IN EFFECT: 

"SHOWING REQUIRED THAT AN ADDITIONAL COAL MINE IS NEEDED.  THE
GENERAL LAND OFFICE WILL MAKE FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION THAT LEASING
UNITS BE SEGREGATED AND THAT AUCTIONS BE AUTHORIZED ONLY IN CASES WHERE
THERE HAS BEEN FURNISHED A SATISFACTORY SHOWING THAT AN ADDITIONAL COAL
MINE IS NEEDED AND THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL NEED FOR COAL WHICH CANNOT
OTHERWISE BE REASONABLY MET."  43 CFR 1938, SEC. 193.3. 

IT ORIGINATED IN 1934, WHEN THE COAL INDUSTRY WAS DEMORALIZED BY
EXCESS PRODUCTION CAPACITY DESCRIBED IN OPINIONS OF THIS COURT. 
APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344, 361; CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, OPINION OF CARDOZO, J., 324, 330;
SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 395.  THE POLICY
WHICH THE DEPARTMENT EMBODIED IN THIS REGULATION, AND TO WHICH IT HAS
SINCE ADHERED, WAS STATED IN LETTERS OF THE SECRETARY SET FORTH IN THE
MARGIN.  FN1 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1943, THE SHERIDAN-WYOMING COAL COMPANY LEASED
ADDITIONAL LANDS LOCATED IN WYOMING FOR COALMINING PURPOSES FROM THE
GOVERNMENT AND, "IN RELIANCE UPON THE REGULATION," HAS EXPENDED LARGE
SUMS IN DEVELOPMENT AND BUILT UP A PROSPEROUS BUSINESS IN THE RATHER
LOW-GRADE COAL MINED AND LARGELY CONSUMED IN THAT REGION. 

IN DECEMBER, 1943, THE BIG HORN COMPANY APPLIED FOR A LEASE OF NEARBY
LANDS FOR PRODUCTION OF COMPETITIVE COAL, AND IN 1945 APPLIED FOR
ADDITIONAL LANDS.  MEANWHILE BIG HORN ALREADY HAD ESTABLISHED MINES ON
PARTIALLY EXHAUSTED STATE-OWNED LANDS AND DESIRED THE FEDERAL LANDS TO
PROLONG ITS BUSINESS.  THE SHERIDAN-WYOMING COMPANY, AMONG OTHERS,
PROTESTED ON THE BASIS OF THE REGULATION.  THE PROTEST, AFTER HEARINGS,
WAS OVERRULED AND, UNLESS PREVENTED, THE SECRETARY WILL LEASE TO BIG
HORN.  THE SECRETARY HAS MADE NO FINDING THAT THERE IS NEED FOR ANY
ADDITIONAL SUPPLY OF COAL AND, IN FACT, THERE IS NO SUCH NEED.  IF HE
LEASES TO BIG HORN, THE TWO COMPANIES WILL HAVE CAPACITY TO PRODUCE IN
EXCESS OF THE DEMAND FOR THAT GRADE OF COAL IN THE LIMITED MARKET.  THE
INVESTMENT OF SHERIDAN-WYOMING WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED AND ITS
VOLUME OF SALES DECREASED AND PROFITABLE MARKETS LOST.  ABOUT THESE
THREE ULTIMATE FACTS - THE REGULATION, THE LEASE AND THE THREATENED
LEASE TO A COMPETITOR - THE PARTIES HAVE ARGUED SEVERAL INTRICATE AND
INTERESTING QUESTIONS AS TO THE STANDING OF THE PLAINTIFF TO SUE,
WHETHER THE SUIT REALLY IS ONE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT
SOVEREIGN CONSENT AND WHETHER THE SECRETARY HAS ABUSED HIS POWER IN
ENTERTAINING THE APPLICATION OF BIG HORN.  THESE QUESTIONS WE DO NOT
NEED TO DISCUSS BECAUSE OF THE VIEW WE TAKE OF MORE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS
OF THE CASE.  WE THINK THE FACTS GIVE RISE TO NO CAUSE OF ACTION,
BECAUSE THE PROPOSED LEASE DOES NOT BREACH ANY CONTRACT RIGHT OR INVADE
ANY PROPERTY RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF AND DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY LAW.  HENCE,
THE LEASING IS WITHIN THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE SECRETARY AND
COURTS WILL NOT REVIEW ITS EXERCISE. 

                         I. CONTRACT RIGHTS. 

THE COURT BELOW HAS SUSTAINED THE COMPLAINT FOR THE PRINCIPAL REASON
THAT A LEASE TO BIG HORN WOULD BREACH THE LEASE TO PLAINTIFF AND THAT
PLAINTIFF HAS A PROPERTY RIGHT TO HAVE THE LANDS INVOLVED WITHHELD FROM
LEASE. 

IT IS ONLY ON THIS BASIS OF ITS PROPERTY RIGHTS, CREATED BY CONTRACT,
THAT PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN HELD TO HAVE STANDING TO SUE; FOR, IF IT HAS
SUCH RIGHTS, THE COURT BELOW TRULY SAID, "THE PREVENTION OF A BREACH OF
A RESTRICTIVE PROVISION IN A CONTRACT IS ONE OF EQUITY'S MOST USUAL
FUNCTIONS."  CREDITED WITH "THE STATUS OF ONE CLAIMING A PROPERTY RIGHT
BY CONTRACT, THREATENED WITH INVASION," THE PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN TERMED
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS "POSSESSOR OF A VALUABLE RIGHT, CREATED BY
CONTRACT IN THE PRESENCE OF VALID AND BINDING RESTRICTIVE
REGULATIONS." 

OF COURSE, NO EXPRESS COVENANT OF PLAINTIFF'S LEASE RESTRICTS THE
SECRETARY FROM LEASING OTHER LANDS TO OTHER APPLICANTS.  THE
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS SOUGHT TO BE SUPPLIED BY IMPLICATION.  THE
LEASE, IT IS REASONED, WAS EXPRESSLY MADE SUBJECT TO THE MINERAL LANDS
LEASING ACT, 41 STAT. 437, AS AMENDED, 30 U.S.C. SECS. 181 ET SEQ.; THE
LEASE CONSTRUCTIVELY INCLUDES THE STATUTE; THE REGULATION WHICH WAS NOT
REFERRED TO IN THE LEASE NEVERTHELESS HAD THE FORCE AND SANCTION OF
STATUTE; HENCE, THE RESTRICTIVE REGULATION WAS A COVENANT OF THE
LEASE.  IT IS SAID THE THREATENED LEASE WOULD VIOLATE THE REGULATION. 
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TESTING THE CONTRACT-RIGHT THEORY, WE SHALL ASSUME
THAT IT DOES SO. 

WHAT IS THE CONTRACT PROPERTY RIGHT ASSUMED?  IT IS A RIGHT TO
NONDEVELOPMENT OF COAL RESERVES IN AN INDETERMINATE BUT SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR BENEFIT OF ITS OWN LEASE.  IT IS NOT A
RIGHT NECESSARY TO THE FULLEST PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENJOYMENT OF
ALL THE LANDS PLAINTIFF ACQUIRED FOR ITSELF, AND IS ONE NOT NORMALLY
APPURTENANT TO REAL ESTATE.  THE ASSUMED COVENANT IS PURELY NEGATIVE IN
CHARACTER AND ITS WHOLE BURDEN IS UPON OTHER PREMISES OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO OTHER INTEREST.  THEY ARE
PREMISES, MOREOVER, IN WHICH IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD
LAWFULLY ACQUIRE ANY OTHER INTEREST IN VIEW OF THE LIMITED AREAS WHICH
THE STATUTE ALLOWS TO ONE LESSEE.  BY THE ASSUMED COVENANT, ALIENATION
AND UTILIZATION OF PUBLIC LANDS IN THE MANNER AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS IS
RESTRICTED.  THIS IS FOR AN UNSTATED AND INDETERMINABLE PERIOD.  AND IT
IS ACCOMPLISHED NOT BY A COVENANT EXPRESSED IN THE LEASE ITSELF, BUT BY
ONE READ INTO IT FROM THE REGULATIONS. 

A COMPETENT GRANTOR BY APPROPRIATE COVENANTS COULD, OF COURSE, CONVEY
THE RIGHT CLAIMED HERE, AND EQUITY WOULD ENFORCE IT.  BUT WHEN A RIGHT
"CONSISTS IN RESTRAINING THE OWNER FROM DOING THAT WITH, AND UPON, HIS
PROPERTY WHICH, BUT FOR THE GRANT OR COVENANT, HE MIGHT LAWFULLY HAVE
DONE," IT IS AN EASEMENT, SOMETIMES CALLED A NEGATIVE EASEMENT, OR AN
AMENITY.  TRUSTEES V. LYNCH, 70 N.Y. 440, 447.  "AN EQUITABLE
RESTRICTION," WHICH PREVENTS DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY BY BUILDING ON IT,
HAS BEEN SAID TO BE "AN EASEMENT, OR SERVITUDE IN THE NATURE OF AN
EASEMENT," A "RIGHT IN THE NATURE OF AN EASEMENT," AND AN "INTEREST IN
A CONTRACTUAL STIPULATION WHICH IS MADE FOR THEIR COMMON BENEFIT." 
SUCH "EQUITABLE RESTRICTIONS" ARE REAL EATATE, PART AND PARCEL OF THE
LAND TO WHICH THEY ARE ATTACHED AND PASS BY CONVEYANCE.  RIVERBANK
IMPROVEMENT CO. V. CHADWICK, 228 MASS. 242, 246, 117 N.E. 244, 245.  A
CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTION WHICH LIMITS THE USE ONE MAY MAKE OF HIS OWN
LANDS IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER AND HIS LANDS IS "SOMETIMES CALLED A NEGATIVE
EASEMENT, WHICH IS THE RIGHT IN THE OWNER OF THE DOMINANT TENEMENT TO
RESTRICT THE OWNER OF THE SERVIENT TENEMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF GENERAL
AND NATURAL RIGHTS OF PROPERTY."  IT IS AN INTEREST IN LANDS WHICH CAN
PASS ONLY BY DEED AND IS IN EVERY LEGAL SENSE AN INCUMBRANCE.  UIHLEIN
V. MATTHEWS, 172 N.Y. 154, 158, 64 N.E. 792, 793. 

BUT WHATEVER WE MIGHT DETERMINE TO BE THE TECHNICAL NATURE OF THE
COLLATERAL PROPERTY RIGHT CLAIMED TO RESULT FROM SHERIDAN'S LEASE, TO
ANY EXTENT THAT IT ADDED A PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE PLAINTIFF'S LANDS IT
CREATED AN INCUMBRANCE OR SUBTRACTION FROM THE AGGREGATE OF RIGHTS IN
THE UNITED STATES.  COURTS WOULD NOT LIGHTLY IMPLY AGAINST ANY LAND
OWNER A COVENANT WHICH WOULD RESTRICT ALIENATION OR ENJOYMENT OF HIS
ESTATE.  THERE ARE EVEN STRONGER REASONS AGAINST IMPLIED COVENANTS
IMPOSING EASEMENTS, SERVITUDES, AMENITIES OR RESTRICTIONS UPON THE
PUBLIC LANDS. 

THE MINERAL LANDS LEASING ACTS CONFER BROAD POWERS ON THE SECRETARY
AS LEASING AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  WE FIND NOTHING THAT EXPRESSLY
PREVENTS HIM FROM TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHETHER A PUBLIC INTEREST
WILL BE SERVED OR INJURED BY OPENING A PARTICULAR MINE.  BUT WE FIND NO
GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO CREATE A PRIVATE CONTRACT RIGHT THAT WOULD
OVERRIDE HIS CONTINUING DUTY TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
DECIDING TO LEASE OR WITHHOLD LEASES. 

THE LEASING ACTS STRICTLY LIMIT THE AREA WHICH ANY ONE LESSEE MAY
ACQUIRE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.  30 U.S.C. SEC. 184.  BUT IF,
IN TAKING UP A PERMITTED ALLOTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS, ONE MAY ACQUIRE A
RIGHT THAT OTHER AREAS FAR MORE EXTENSIVE MUST LIE FALLOW AND UNUSED
FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS LANDS, HE IS ACQUIRING AN INTEREST IN PROHIBITED
LANDS AND AN INTEREST THAT MAY BE WORTH MANY TIMES THAT INTEREST WHICH
THE STATUTE ALLOWS HIM.  AND IT IS ACQUIRED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL PURCHASE
PRICE, RENTAL, OR ROYALTY. 

MOREOVER, IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE EFFECT OF SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF'S
SUIT WOULD BE TO CREATE A MONOPOLY.  OF COURSE, IT IS A LITTLE ONE,
LIMITED TO LOW-GRADE COAL AND TO AN ADVANTAGEOUS SHIPPING ZONE.  BIG
HORN, IF IT GETS NO LEASE, MUST EVENTUALLY GO OUT OF BUSINESS, LEAVING
ITS CUSTOMERS TO SHERIDAN.  AND THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT FOR SOME
PERIOD - WE DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG - ADMIT ANY OTHER COMPETITOR TO THE
FIELD, UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT SHERIDAN'S SUPPLY IS NOT EQUAL TO
THE MARKET.  IT MAY, HOWEVER, CONTINUE TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL RESERVES
AS ITS OWN APPROACH EXHAUSTION.  THE WHOLE CLAIM OF DAMAGE HERE IS THAT
COMPETITION FROM BIG HORN WILL IMPAIR THIS SNUG LITTLE MONOPOLY OF THE
MARKET TO WHICH PLAINTIFF THINKS IT HAS ACQUIRED A PROPERTY RIGHT. 

BUT THE POLICY OF THE LEASING STATUTE LOOKS THE OTHER WAY.  BESIDES
LIMITING THE LEASEHOLD OF ANY ONE LESSEE, IT PREVENTS MINERAL RIGHTS,
ON PAIN OF FORFEITURE, FROM PASSING INTO THE HANDS OF ANY UNLAWFUL
TRUST OR BECOMING THE SUBJECT OF ANY CONTRACT OR CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  30 U.S.C. SEC. 184.  ITS WHOLE POLICY SEEMS TO
CONTEMPLATE THE OPENING OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO COMPETITIVE
EXPLOITATION.  IT NOWHERE AUTHORIZES ANYONE TO GRANT OR TO OBTAIN
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO THESE COAL RESOURCES.  WHAT LESSEES CAN
ACQUIRE FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS A SUPPLY OF COAL, NOT AN EXCLUSIVE
MARKET.  WE DO NOT SAY THAT THE SECRETARY MAY NOT WITHHOLD, OR BY
REGULATION PROVIDE FOR WITHHOLDING, LANDS FROM LEASE BECAUSE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WOULD BE INJURED, THROUGH IMPAIRING PRIVATE BUSINESS, FROM
EXCESS PRODUCTION CAPACITY.  BUT WE FIND NO AUTHORITY TO FREEZE THIS
PUBLIC INTEREST INTO AN IRREVOCABLE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT. 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT THEREFORE DO NOT SHOW A
CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENFORCE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR PROPERTY RIGHT
AGAINST LEASING OTHER PUBLIC LANDS AS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE. 

                 II.  VIOLATION OF LAW OR REGULATION. 

SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OVERRULED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ONLY
BECAUSE OF THE LATTER'S PROPERTY RIGHTS THEORY AND SINCE THE COMPLAINT
WITHOUT THESE ALLEGATIONS HAD EARLIER BEEN HELD INSUFFICIENT, IT MAY BE
QUESTIONED WHETHER OTHER GROUNDS TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT BELOW CAN BE
AVAILED OF.  BUT EVEN IF THE ALLEGATIONS FAIL TO SHOW A PROPERTY RIGHT
THAT EQUITY WILL PROTECT, THEY MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW A SPECIAL
INJURY OR INTEREST, SUCH AS WOULD ENABLE PLAINTIFF TO RAISE THE
QUESTION OF VIOLATION OF LAW OR REGULATION IN THE PROPOSED LEASING.  TO
END A LITIGATION ALREADY PENDING TOO LONG, WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING,
THAT PLAINTIFF MAY RAISE THIS ISSUE WHICH WE NOW CONSIDER. 

THE ONLY CLAIM OF LAW VIOLATION IS THAT THE SECRETARY IS PROPOSING TO
VIOLATE HIS OWN REGULATION, PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE ACT AND HENCE
HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW.  THAT IT BINDS HIM AS WELL AS OTHERS WHILE IT
IS IN EFFECT IS NOT DOUBTED. 

THE REGULATION ON LITERAL READING DOES NOT PURPORT TO PROHIBIT THE
SECRETARY FROM ANY LEASING UNLESS NEED FOR NEW MINES BE SHOWN.  IT DOES
DIRECT THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE (NOW THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT) TO
FIND NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CAPACITY BEFORE RECOMMENDING NEW LEASING.  ITS
RECOMMENDATION, HOWEVER, IS ONLY ADVISORY AND CAN BE OVERRULED OR
DISREGARDED.  ON ITS FACE, THEREFORE, THE REGULATION WOULD SEEM TO BE
DIRECTED PRIMARILY TO A PROCEDURAL MATTER WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR.  HOWEVER, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE LETTERS OF SECRETARY ICKES
AT THE TIME IT WAS ADOPTED AND THE UNIFORM PRACTICE SINCE, SHOW IT TO
HAVE BEEN A REGULATION FIXING A CONTROLLING POLICY.  WE PROCEED ON THAT
ASSUMPTION.    IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE SECRETARY NEITHER REPUDIATES
THE REGULATION NOR STANDS UPON ANY RIGHT TO DEPART FROM IT.  HE SAYS
THAT, PROPERLY CONSTRUED, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PROPOSED BIG HORN
LEASE.  IT ONLY PREVENTS A LEASE WHICH WILL INTRODUCE A NEW COMPETITOR
TO THE FIELD AND NOT, HE SAYS, A LEASE WHICH WOULD ONLY ENABLE AN
EXISTING MINE AND AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS TO CONTINUE.  SHERIDAN ARGUES
THAT THIS REASONING SANCTIONS AN EVASION OF THE REGULATION IN THAT BIG
HORN OPENED ITS MINE ON PARTIALLY DEPLETED STATE LANDS KNOWING IT MUST
GET FEDERAL LANDS ALSO OR QUIT.  THE IMPLICATION IS THAT STATE LANDS
WERE USED AS A SORT OF PORTAL IN WHICH TO STAND WHILE PRYING A FEDERAL
LEASE OUT FROM UNDER THE REGULATION.  PLAINTIFF INSISTS THAT THE
SECRETARY IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN THE LIGHT OF CONDITIONS WHEN BIG HORN
FIRST APPLIED, AND NOT AS OF NOW WHEN IT HAS BUILT UP A GOING BUSINESS
ON THE INADEQUATE STATE LEASES, AIDED BY WAR CONDITIONS. 

BUT THE ACTION IS ONE IN EQUITY, AND "EQUITY WILL ADMINISTER SUCH
RELIEF AS THE EXIGENCIES OF THE CASE DEMAND AT THE CLOSE OF THE
TRIAL."  BLOOMQUIST V. FARSON, 222 N.Y. 375, 380, 118 N.E. 855, 856;
LIGHTFOOT V. DAVIS, 198 N.Y. 261, 273, 91 N.E. 582, 586.  THE QUESTION
ON INJUNCTION IS WHETHER THE ACTION THREATENED WILL BE A VIOLATION IF
IT NOW TAKES PLACE IN LIGHT OF CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THE PROPOSED AMENDED
COMPLAINT.  THAT PLEADS FINDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH SHOW WHAT HAS
HAPPENED SINCE THE BIG HORN APPLICATION WAS FILED.  WITHOUT RECOURSE TO
FEDERAL LANDS, IT HAS ESTABLISHED A MINE AND A BUSINESS IN THE FACE OF
SHERIDAN COMPETITION.  IF TIME HAS IMPROVED BIG HORN'S POSITION IN THIS
RESPECT, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE DELAY IN ACTING ON ITS APPLICATION
HAS BEEN LARGELY DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S PROTESTS AND LITIGATIONS. 

WE THINK A COURT OF EQUITY CANNOT TERM UNREASONABLE THE VIEW OF THE
SECRETARY THAT BIG HORN'S LEASE IS NOT FOR "AN ADDITIONAL COAL MINE,"
NEED FOR WHICH MUST BE PROVED.  IT DOES NOT USE FEDERAL RESERVES TO ADD
A NEW COMPETITOR TO THE MARKET.  IT USES THEM TO KEEP ONE THERE.  WE
THINK THE DISTINCTION IS SUBSTANTIAL AND THE SECRETARY'S INTERPRETATION
OF THE REGULATION IS PERMISSIBLE, EVEN IF NOT INEVITABLE.  THE
DECLINING MARKET FOLLOWING THE WAR AND THE GROWING USE OF OIL MAY
PRESENT DIFFICULT PROBLEMS OF SURVIVAL FOR GOVERNMENT LESSEES AND OF
FAIR DEALING FOR THE SECRETARY.  BUT COURTS CAN INTERVENE ONLY WHERE
LEGAL RIGHTS ARE INVADED OR THE LAW VIOLATED. 

WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A LEGAL CASE FOR THE RELIEF ASKED. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1              "EXHIBIT 'A' 

"EXCERPT FROM LETTER OF JANUARY 24, 1934, FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 

"THE QUESTION OF THE ADVISABILITY OF WITHHOLDING NEW LEASES OF COAL
LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO ME. 

"IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 2 OF THE LEASING ACT OF
FEBRUARY 25, 1920(41 STAT. 437), AND FROM THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO
IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. WILBUR, 283 U.S. 414, THAT IT IS WITHIN
THE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WHETHER HE
SHALL ISSUE ANY COAL LEASES AND COAL PROSPECTING PERMITS.  IN THE
PRESENT SITUATION OF THE COAL INDUSTRY IT IS DESIRABLE THAT VERY FEW,
IF ANY, NEW COAL LEASES OR PROSPECTING PERMITS BE ISSUED. 

"TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CASES
WHERE NEW SMALL COAL MINES FOR LOCAL NEEDS ARE ADVISABLE AND THAT THERE
MAY ALSO BE CASES WHERE LEASES FOR SHIPPING MINES SHOULD NOT BE DENIED,
IT IS THOUGHT THAT NO GENERAL ORDER SHOULD BE ISSUED IN EFFECT
SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THE LEASING ACT AS TO NEW COAL LEASES AND
PROSPECTING PERMITS.  IT IS BELIEVED THAT SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RESULT
CAN BE REACHED BY DECLINING TO OFFER COAL LANDS FOR LEASE OR TO GRANT
PROSPECTING PERMITS UNLESS AN ACTUAL NEED FOR COAL WHICH CANNOT
OTHERWISE BE REASONABLY PURCHASED OR OBTAINED IS SHOWN.  ... 

"HEREAFTER THE OFFERING OF COAL LANDS FOR LEASE BY COMPETITIVE
BIDDING OR THE GRANTING OF PROSPECTING PERMITS SHOULD NOT BE
RECOMMENDED UNLESS YOU HAVE RELIABLE INFORMATION THAT THERE IS AN
ACTUAL NEED FOR COAL WHICH CANNOT OTHERWISE BE REASONABLY MET." 

                             "EXHIBIT 'B' 

"EXCERPT FROM LETTER OF JANUARY 24, 1934, FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE. 

"IN THE PRESENT SITUATION OF THE COAL INDUSTRY IT IS DESIRABLE THAT
VERY FEW, IF ANY, NEW COAL LEASES OR PROSPECTING PERMITS BE ISSUED. 

"TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CASES
WHERE NEW SMALL COAL MINES FOR LOCAL NEEDS ARE ADVISABLE AND THAT THERE
MAY ALSO BE CASES WHERE LEASES FOR SHIPPING MINES SHOULD NOT BE DENIED,
IT IS THOUGHT THAT NO GENERAL ORDER SHOULD BE ISSUED IN EFFECT
SUSPENDING THE LEASING ACT AS TO NEW COAL LEASES AND PROSPECTING
PERMITS.  IT IS BELIEVED THAT SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RESULT CAN BE
REACHED BY DECLINING TO OFFER COAL LANDS FOR LEASE OR TO GRANT
PROSPECTING PERMITS UNLESS AN ACTUAL NEED IS SHOWN FOR COAL WHICH
CANNOT OTHERWISE BE REASONABLY PURCHASED OR OBTAINED.  ... 

"IT IS ADVISABLE THAT YOU IN THE FIRST INSTANCE REQUIRE LEASE
APPLICANTS TO SHOW FULLY THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION OF COAL." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :














UNITED STATES V. MORTON SALT CO., 338 U.S. 632 


ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - 174 F.2D 703,
REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, THE COMMISSION
ORDERED RESPONDENT CORPORATIONS AND OTHERS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
CERTAIN TRADE PRACTICES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER WITH
MODIFICATIONS AND COMMANDED COMPLIANCE.  THE DECREE DIRECTED THAT
REPORTS OF COMPLIANCE BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION WITHIN 90 DAYS,
RESERVED JURISDICTION TO ENTER FURTHER ORDERS TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE,
AND PROVIDED THAT IT WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO PROSECUTE SUITS TO RECOVER CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
OF THE ORDER AND TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
DECREE.  REPORTS OF COMPLIANCE WERE FILED AND ACCEPTED.  UNDER SEC.
6(A) AND (B) OF THE ACT AND ITS OWN RULE OF PRACTICE NO. XXVI, THE
COMMISSION SUBSEQUENTLY ORDERED RESPONDENTS TO FILE SPECIAL REPORTS TO
SHOW CONTINUING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE.  HELD: 

1.  THIS ORDER DID NOT INVADE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  PP. 638-643. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION'S CONTINUING DUTY TO PREVENT UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN COMMERCE IS
NOT SUSPENDED OR EXHAUSTED AS TO ANY VIOLATOR WHOSE GUILT IS ONCE
ESTABLISHED.  PP. 638-639. 

(B)  ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION'S CEASE AND DESIST ORDER WAS MERGED IN
THE COURT'S DECREE, THE COURT NEITHER ASSUMED TO ITSELF NOR DENIED TO
THE COMMISSION THAT AGENCY'S DUTY TO INFORM ITSELF AND TO PROTECT
COMMERCE AGAINST CONTINUED OR RENEWED UNLAWFUL PRACTICE.  P. 641. 

(C)  WHEN INVESTIGATIVE AND ACCUSATORY DUTIES ARE DELEGATED BY
STATUTE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY LIKE THE COMMISSION, IT MAY TAKE
STEPS TO INFORM ITSELF AS TO WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE VIOLATION OF THE
LAW WITHOUT FIRST MAKING CHARGES THAT THERE ARE SUCH VIOLATIONS.  PP.
641-643. 

(D)  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER FOR SPECIAL REPORTS WAS NOT MADE IN THE
NAME OF THE COURT OR IN RELIANCE UPON JUDICIAL POWERS, BUT IN RELIANCE
UPON ITS OWN LAW-ENFORCING POWERS.  P. 643. 

2.  THE ORDER DID NOT VIOLATE SEC. 3(A) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT.  RESPONDENTS WERE PUT ON NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDERS BY THE COMMISSION'S RULE XXVI, TOGETHER
WITH ITS STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES AND FUNCTIONS, WHICH
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT SECTION.  PP. 644-647. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE ACT TO REQUIRE
SPECIAL REPORTS OF CORPORATIONS INCLUDES SPECIAL REPORTS OF THE MANNER
IN WHICH THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH DECREES ENFORCING CEASE AND DESIST
ORDERS UNDER SEC. 5.  PP. 647-651. 

(A)  THAT THIS USE OF THE COMMISSION'S POWER UNDER SEC. 6 IS NOVEL
AND UNPRECEDENTED IN COMMISSION PRACTICE DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT
RESULT, SINCE POWER GRANTED TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES IS NOT FORFEITED
BY NONUSER.  PP. 647-648. 

(B)  THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 6 IS CLEARLY BROAD ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE THE
ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER HERE IN QUESTION.  PP. 648-649. 

(C)  THE USE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED IN SPECIAL REPORTS UNDER SEC. 6
IS NOT LIMITED TO SUPPORT OF GENERAL ECONOMIC SURVEYS FOR THE
PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESS OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  IT MAY ALSO BE USED
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN PROPER COMPLIANCE WITH THE
COURT'S DECREE UNDER SEC. 5.  PP. 649-650. 

(D)  THE SPECIAL REPORTS REQUIRED BY THE ORDER WERE OF THE KIND WHICH
THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 6 TO REQUIRE.  P. 650. 

(E)  THE FACT THAT SEC. 5 APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND
CORPORATIONS, WHILE SECS. 6(B) AND 10 APPLY ONLY TO CORPORATIONS, DOES
NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT.  PP. 650-651. 

4.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S
PROSCRIPTION OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OR THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 651-654. 

(A)  LAW-ENFORCING AGENCIES HAVE A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO SATISFY
THEMSELVES THAT CORPORATE BEHAVIOR IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW AND THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  P. 652. 

(B)  IF THE INQUIRY IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE AGENCY, THE DEMAND
IS NOT TOO INDEFINITE AND THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IS REASONABLY
RELEVANT, IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE INVESTIGATORY POWER OF THE
COMMISSION.  P. 652. 

(C)  ON ITS FACE, THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DID NOT TRANSGRESS THESE
BOUNDS.  PP. 652-653. 

(D)  BEFORE THE COURTS WILL HOLD AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SEEKING
INFORMATION REPORTS ARBITRARILY EXCESSIVE, THEY MAY EXPECT THE
SUPPLICANT TO HAVE MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ITSELF
TO OBTAIN REASONABLE CONDITIONS; AND PETITIONERS MADE NO SUCH EFFORTS
IN THIS CASE.  PP. 653-654. 

(E)  THIS DECISION IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS HOLDING SUCH ORDERS
EXEMPT FROM JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OR AS EXTENDING A LICENSE TO EXACT AS
REPORTS WHAT WOULD NOT REASONABLY BE COMPREHENDED WITHIN THAT TERM AS
USED BY CONGRESS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ACT.  P. 654. 

UNITED STATES V. MORTON SALT CO. 

NO. 273.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 274, UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL SALT CO., ALSO
ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER SECS. 9
AND 10 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS TO
COMPLY WITH AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REQUIRING THEM TO
FILE SPECIAL REPORTS, AND TO RECOVER PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.  80
F.SUPP.  419.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  174 F.2D 703.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 857.  REVERSED, P. 654. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A CONTROVERSY AS TO THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
TO REQUIRE CORPORATIONS TO FILE REPORTS SHOWING HOW THEY HAVE COMPLIED
WITH A DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING THE COMMISSION'S CEASE
AND DESIST ORDER, IN ADDITION TO THOSE REPORTS REQUIRED BY THE DECREE
ITSELF. 

PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT  FN1
CULMINATED IN A COMMISSION ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENTS MORTON SALT
COMPANY AND INTERNATIONAL SALT COMPANY, TOGETHER WITH EIGHTEEN OTHER
SALT PRODUCERS AND A TRADE ASSOCIATION, TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM STATED
PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRICING, PRODUCING AND MARKETING OF
SALT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE ORDER
WITH MODIFICATIONS AND COMMANDED COMPLIANCE.  134 F.2D 354.  THE DECREE
DIRECTED THAT REPORTS OF THE MANNER OF COMPLIANCE BE FILED WITH THE
COMMISSION WITHIN NINETY DAYS, BUT IT RESERVED JURISDICTION "TO ENTER
SUCH FURTHER ORDERS HEREIN FROM TIME TO TIME AS MAY BECOME NECESSARY
EFFECTIVELY TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE IN EVERY RESPECT WITH THIS DECREE AND
TO PREVENT EVASION THEREOF."  THE DECREE EXPRESSLY WAS "WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION
5(1) OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, TO PROSECUTE SUITS TO RECOVER
CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SAID MODIFIED ORDER TO CEASE AND
DESIST HEREBY AFFIRMED, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THIS DECREE."  THE REPORTS OF COMPLIANCE WERE
SUBSEQUENTLY FILED AND ACCEPTED, AND THERE THE MATTER APPEARS TO HAVE
RESTED FOR A LITTLE UPWARDS OF FOUR YEARS. 

ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1947, THE COMMISSION ORDERED ADDITIONAL AND HIGHLY
PARTICULARIZED REPORTS TO SHOW CONTINUING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE. 
THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT APPLICATION TO THE COURT, WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY
ANY PROVISION OF ITS DECREE, AND IS NOT PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 5 OF THE
STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSION'S ORIGINAL CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
HAD ISSUED.  THE NEW ORDER RECITED THAT IT WAS ISSUED ON THE
COMMISSION'S OWN MOTION PURSUANT TO ITS PUBLISHED RULE OF PRACTICE NO.
XXVI  FN2  AND THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SEC.
6 OF THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  IT ORDERED THESE AND OTHER PARTIES
RESTRAINED BY THE EARLIER DECREE TO FILE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS "ADDITIONAL
REPORTS SHOWING IN DETAIL THE MANNER AND FORM IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN,
AND ARE NOW, COMPLYING WITH SAID MODIFIED ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST AND
SAID DECREE."  IT DEMANDED OF EACH PRODUCER A "COMPLETE STATEMENT" OF
THE "PRICES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS OF SALE OF SALT, TOGETHER WITH BOOKS
OR COMPILATIONS OF FREIGHT RATES USED IN CALCULATING DELIVERED PRICES,
PRICE LISTS AND PRICE ANNOUNCEMENTS DISTRIBUTED, PUBLISHED OR EMPLOYED
IN MARKETING SALT FROM AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1944."  FROM THE SALT
PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION IT REQUIRED INFORMATION AS TO ITS ACTIVITIES AND
SERVICES.  THE ASSOCIATION AND SOME OF THE PRODUCERS REPORTED
SATISFACTORILY.  THESE TWO RESPONDENTS DID NOT.  INSTEAD, EACH INFORMED
THE COMMISSION IN GENERAL TERMS THAT IT HAD COMPLIED WITH THE DECREE IN
THE MANNER PREVIOUSLY REPORTED, BUT THAT IT DOUBTED THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION TO REQUIRE FURTHER REPORTS AND DECLINED TO SUPPLY THE
PARTICULARS DEMANDED.  NEITHER ASKED ANY HEARING OR MADE OBJECTION TO
THE SCOPE OF THE ORDER. 

THE COMMISSION NEXT GAVE RESPONDENTS NOTICES ASSERTING THEIR DEFAULT
AND CALLING ATTENTION TO PENALTIES PROVIDED IN SEC. 10 OF THE ACT. 
NEITHER RESPONDENT ASKED ANY HEARING ON THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT.  THESE
SUITS WERE THEN COMMENCED IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES IN DISTRICT
COURT UNDER SECS. 9 AND 10 OF THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT, ASKING
MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS COMMANDING RESPONDENTS TO REPORT AS DIRECTED,
TOGETHER WITH JUDGMENT AGAINST EACH FOR $100 PER DAY WHILE DEFAULT
CONTINUED.  RESPONDENTS ANSWERED.  BOTH SIDES MOVED FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENTS.  THE COURT FOUND NO DISPUTE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS AND
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  80 F.SUPP.  419. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS, BY DIVIDED VOTE, AFFIRMED.  174 F.2D 703.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 338 U.S. 857, BECAUSE THE CASE INVOLVED ISSUES OF
SOME IMPORTANCE TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT AND OF COURT DECREES UNDER IT
AND UNDER OTHER ACTS WHICH PROVIDE SIMILAR METHODS TO ENFORCE ORDERS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S SUITS AND THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ARE CHALLENGED UPON
A VARIETY OF GROUNDS, NOT ALL OF WHICH WERE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  THEY INCLUDE CONTENTIONS THAT (1) THE ORDER CONSTITUTES AN
INTERFERENCE WITH THE DECREE AND AN INVASION OF THE POWERS OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS; (2) THE COMMISSION'S RULE XXVI IS ULTRA VIRES AND VIOLATES
THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 237, 5 U.S.C. SECS.
1001 ET SEQ.; (3) THE PROCEDURE IS UNAUTHORIZED BY THOSE SECTIONS OF
THE ACT ON WHICH IT IS BASED; (4) IT IS NOVEL AND ARBITRARY AND
VIOLATES THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.  FOR
REASONS GIVEN, WE REJECT EACH OF THESE CONTENTIONS. 

I. INVASION OF COURT OF APPEALS JURISDICTION. 

THE RESPONDENTS' CASE AND THE DECISION BELOW ARE RESTED HEAVILY ON
THIS ARGUMENT THAT THE COMMISSION IS INVADING THE PROVINCE OF THE
JUDICIARY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF
SEPTEMBER 2, 1947, REPRESENTED AN UNAUTHORIZED ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THAT
COURT'S DECREE.  IT POINTED OUT THAT THE STATUTE HAD MADE THE COURT'S
OWN JURISDICTION OF THE PROCEEDING "EXCLUSIVE" AND ITS OWN DECREE
FINAL.  IT CONSIDERED THAT "EVERY VESTIGE OF JURISDICTION" OVER THAT
SUBJECT WAS "FIRMLY AND EXCLUSIVELY LODGED IN (THE) COURT OF APPEALS." 
IT NOTED THAT IT HAD REQUIRED FILING OF ONLY THE ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE
REPORTS, AND THAT IT HAD PROTECTED ITS JURISDICTION BY RESERVING POWER
TO ENTER FURTHER ORDERS NECESSARY TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE AND PREVENT
EVASION.  IT THOUGHT THAT THE EFFECT OF THE COMMISSION'S PROCEEDINGS
WAS TO ASSERT "SUCH JURISDICTION TO RESIDE ELSEWHERE." 

IT SEEMS CONCEDED, HOWEVER, THAT SOME POWER OR DUTY, INDEPENDENTLY OF
THE DECREE, MUST STILL HAVE RESIDED IN THE COMMISSION.  FN3  CERTAINLY
ENTRY OF THE COURT DECREE DID NOT WHOLLY RELIEVE THE COMMISSION OF
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THE DECREE RECOGNIZED THAT.  IT
LEFT TO THE COMMISSION THE RIGHT AND HENCE THE RESPONSIBILITY "TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE VIOLATION OF THIS DECREE."  THIS
MUST HAVE CONTEMPLATED THAT THE COMMISSION COULD OBTAIN ACCURATE
INFORMATION FROM TIME TO TIME ON WHICH TO BASE A RESPONSIBLE CONCLUSION
THAT THERE WAS OR WAS NOT CAUSE FOR SUCH A PROCEEDING.  THE DECREE ALSO
REQUIRED THE ORIGINAL REPORT SHOWING THE MANNER AND FORM OF EACH
RESPONDENT'S COMPLIANCE TO BE FILED, NOT WITH THE COURT BUT WITH THE
COMMISSION.  PRESUMABLY THE COMMISSION WAS EXPECTED TO SCRUTINIZE IT
AND, IF INSUFFICIENT ON ITS FACE, TO REJECT IT AND MOVE THE COURT TO
TAKE NOTICE OF THE DEFAULT.  AND THE DUTY LIKEWISE WAS LEFT UPON THE
COMMISSION TO MOVE THE COURT IF ANY RESPONDENT MADE A FALSE REPORT. 
THE DUTY WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE SAME IF A TEMPORARY COMPLIANCE WERE
TRULY REPORTED BUT CONDUCT RESUMED WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THE DECREE.  IN
ADDITION, THE TRADE COMMISSION HAS A CONTINUING DUTY TO PREVENT UNFAIR
METHODS OF COMPETITION AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN
COMMERCE.  THAT RESPONSIBILITY AS TO ALL WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT
IS NOT SUSPENDED OR EXHAUSTED AS TO ANY VIOLATOR WHOSE GUILT IS ONCE
ESTABLISHED. 

IF THE COMMISSION HAD PETITIONED THE COURT ITSELF TO ORDER ADDITIONAL
REPORTS OF COMPLIANCE, IT COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PRESENT
SOME EVIDENCE OF PROBABLE VIOLATION TO OVERCOME THE "PRESUMPTION OF
LEGALITY," OF INNOCENCE, AND OF OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW WHICH RESPONDENTS
HERE URGE.  COURTS HESITATE TO ALTER OR SUPPLEMENT THEIR DECREES EXCEPT
THE NEED BE PROVED AS WELL AS ASSERTED.  EVIDENCE THE COMMISSION DID
NOT HAVE; IT HAD AT MOST A SUSPICION, OR LET US SAY A CURIOSITY AS TO
WHETHER RESPONDENTS' REPORTED REFORMATION IN BUSINESS METHODS WAS AN
ABIDING ONE. 

MUST THE DECREE, AFTER A SINGLE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE, REST UPON
RESPONDENTS' HONOR UNLESS EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION FORTUITOUSLY COMES TO
THE COMMISSION?  MAY NOT THE COMMISSION, IN VIEW OF ITS RESIDUAL DUTY
OF ENFORCEMENT, AFFIRMATIVELY SATISFY ITSELF THAT THE DECREE IS BEING
OBSERVED?  WHETHER THIS USURPS THE COURTS' OWN FUNCTION IS, WE THINK,
ANSWERED BY CONSIDERATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES. 

THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT IS ONE OF SEVERAL IN WHICH CONGRESS, TO MAKE
ITS POLICY EFFECTIVE, HAS RELIED UPON THE INITIATIVE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICIALS AND THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  ITS
AGENCIES ARE PROVIDED WITH STAFFS TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AND TO
FOLLOW UP DECREES AND POLICE THEIR OBEDIENCE.  WHILE THAT PROCESS AT
TIMES IS ADVERSARY, IT ALSO AT TIMES IS INQUISITORIAL.  THESE AGENCIES
ARE EXPECTED TO ASCERTAIN WHEN AND AGAINST WHOM PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE
SET IN MOTION AND TO TAKE THE LEAD IN FOLLOWING THROUGH TO EFFECTIVE
RESULTS.  IT IS EXPECTED THAT THIS COMBINATION OF DUTY AND POWER ALWAYS
WILL RESULT IN EARNEST AND EAGER ACTION BUT IT IS FEARED THAT IT MAY
SOMETIMES RESULT IN HARSH AND OVERZEALOUS ACTION. 

TO PROTECT AGAINST MISTAKEN OR ARBITRARY ORDERS, JUDICIAL REVIEW IS
PROVIDED.  ITS FUNCTION IS DISPASSIONATE AND DISINTERESTED
ADJUDICATION, UNMIXED WITH ANY CONCERN AS TO THE SUCCESS OF EITHER
PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE.  COURTS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO START WHEELS MOVING
OR TO FOLLOW UP JUDGMENTS.  COURTS NEITHER HAVE, NOR NEED, SLEUTHS TO
DIG UP EVIDENCE, STAFFS TO ANALYZE REPORTS, OR PERSONNEL TO PREPARE
PROSECUTIONS FOR CONTEMPTS.  INDEED, WHILE SOME SITUATIONS FORCE THE
JUDGE TO PASS ON CONTEMPT ISSUES WHICH HE HIMSELF RAISES, IT IS TO BE
REGRETTED WHENEVER A COURT IN ANY SENSE MUST BECOME PROSECUTOR.  THOSE
OCCASIONS SHOULD NOT BE NEEDLESSLY MULTIPLIED BY DENYING INVESTIGATIVE
AND PROSECUTIVE POWERS TO OTHER LAWFUL AGENCIES. 

THE COURT IN THIS CASE ADVISEDLY LEFT IT TO THE COMMISSION TO RECEIVE
THE REPORT OF COMPLIANCE AND TO INSTITUTE ANY CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS. 
THIS WAS IN HARMONY WITH OUR SYSTEM.  WHEN THE PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION
IS COMPLETE, ALL JUDGMENTS ARE HANDED OVER TO THE LITIGANT OR EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS, SUCH AS THE SHERIFF OR MARSHAL, TO EXECUTE.  STEPS WHICH THE
LITIGANT OR EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT LAWFULLY TAKES FOR THEIR ENFORCEMENT
ARE A VINDICATION RATHER THAN A USURPATION OF THE COURT'S POWER.  IN
THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS TRUE THAT THE COMMISSION'S CEASE AND DESIST
ORDER WAS MERGED IN THE COURT'S DECREE; BUT THE COURT NEITHER ASSUMED
TO ITSELF NOR DENIED TO THE COMMISSION THAT AGENCY'S DUTY TO INFORM
ITSELF AND PROTECT COMMERCE AGAINST CONTINUED OR RENEWED UNLAWFUL
PRACTICE. 

THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION
AND THE FUNCTION THE COMMISSION IS ATTEMPTING TO PERFORM.  THE
RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT SINCE THE COMMISSION MADE NO CHARGE OF VIOLATION
EITHER OF THE DECREE OR THE STATUTE, IT IS ENGAGED IN A MERE "FISHING
EXPEDITION" TO SEE IF IT CAN TURN UP EVIDENCE OF GUILT.  WE WILL ASSUME
FOR THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS SO.  COURTS HAVE OFTEN DISAPPROVED THE
EMPLOYMENT OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN SUCH AN ENTERPRISE.  FEDERAL
JUDICIAL POWER ITSELF EXTENDS ONLY TO ADJUDICATION OF CASES AND
CONTROVERSIES AND IT IS NATURAL THAT ITS INVESTIGATIVE POWERS SHOULD BE
JEALOUSLY CONFINED TO THESE ENDS.  THE JUDICIAL SUBPOENA POWER NOT ONLY
IS SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, WHICH ALSO APPLY TO
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS, SUCH AS THOSE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW, BUT ALSO IS
SUBJECT TO THOSE LIMITATIONS INHERENT IN THE BODY THAT ISSUES THEM
BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

WE MUST NOT DISGUISE THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES, ESPECIALLY EARLY IN THE
HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THE COURTS WERE
PERSUADED TO ENGRAFT JUDICIAL LIMITATIONS UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS.  THE COURTS COULD NOT GO FISHING, AND SO IT FOLLOWED NEITHER
COULD ANYONE ELSE.  ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS FELL BEFORE THE
COLORFUL AND NOSTALGIC SLOGAN "NO FISHING EXPEDITIONS."  IT MUST NOT BE
FORGOTTEN THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AND ITS AGENCIES ARE RELATIVE
NEWCOMERS IN THE FIELD OF LAW AND THAT IT HAS TAKEN AND WILL CONTINUE
TO TAKE EXPERIENCE AND TRIAL AND ERROR TO FIT THIS PROCESS INTO OUR
SYSTEM OF JUDICATURE.  MORE RECENT VIEWS HAVE BEEN MORE TOLERANT OF IT
THAN THOSE WHICH UNDERLAY MANY OLDER DECISIONS.  COMPARE JONES V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N, 298 U.S. 1, WITH UNITED STATES V. MORGAN,
307 U.S. 183, 191.    THE ONLY POWER THAT IS INVOLVED HERE IS THE POWER
TO GET INFORMATION FROM THOSE WHO BEST CAN GIVE IT AND WHO ARE MOST
INTERESTED IN NOT DOING SO.  BECAUSE JUDICIAL POWER IS RELUCTANT IF NOT
UNABLE TO SUMMON EVIDENCE UNTIL IT IS SHOWN TO BE RELEVANT TO ISSUES IN
LITIGATION, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CHARGED
WITH SEEING THAT THE LAWS ARE ENFORCED MAY NOT HAVE AND EXERCISE POWERS
OF ORIGINAL INQUIRY.  IT HAS A POWER OF INQUISITION, IF ONE CHOOSES TO
CALL IT THAT, WHICH IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  IT IS
MORE ANALOGOUS TO THE GRAND JURY, WHICH DOES NOT DEPEND ON A CASE OR
CONTROVERSY FOR POWER TO GET EVIDENCE BUT CAN INVESTIGATE MERELY ON
SUSPICION THAT THE LAW IS BEING VIOLATED, OR EVEN JUST BECAUSE IT WANTS
ASSURANCE THAT IT IS NOT.  WHEN INVESTIGATIVE AND ACCUSATORY DUTIES ARE
DELEGATED BY STATUTE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, IT, TOO, MAY TAKE STEPS
TO INFORM ITSELF AS TO WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE VIOLATION OF THE LAW. 

OF COURSE, THE COMMISSION CANNOT INTRUDE UPON OR USURP THE COURT'S
FUNCTION OF ADJUDICATION.  THE DECREE IS ALWAYS WHAT THE COURT MAKES
IT; THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW IS AND REMAINS EXCLUSIVE, ITS
JUDGMENT FINAL.  WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE, HOWEVER, IS NOT TO
MODIFY BUT TO FOLLOW UP THIS DECREE.  IT HAS NOT ASKED THIS REPORT IN
THE NAME OF THE COURT, OR IN RELIANCE UPON JUDICIAL POWERS, BUT IN
RELIANCE UPON ITS OWN LAW-ENFORCING POWERS. 

THAT CONGRESS DID NOT REGARD IT AS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION TO INVESTIGATE
COMPLIANCE WITH COURT DECREES, AT LEAST INITIALLY, IS SHOWN BY ITS
ACTION AS TO OTHER ANTITRUST DECREES.  SECTION 6(C) OF THE ACT UNDER
CONSIDERATION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION, ON ITS OWN
INITIATIVE AND WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT, TO INVESTIGATE COMPLIANCE WITH
FINAL DECREES IN CASES PROSECUTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND NOT
INVOLVING THE COMMISSION AS A PARTY.  CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY DEEMED IT A
FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION, RATHER THAN OF THE COURTS, TO PROBE
COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH DECREES, EVEN WHEN IT HAD NO PART IN OBTAINING
THEM.  IT SURELY WAS NOT BECAUSE OF FEAR IT WOULD INVOLVE COLLISION
WITH THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION THAT CONGRESS OMITTED EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION
FOR THE COMMISSION TO FOLLOW UP DECREES IN ITS OWN CASES.  EXPRESS
GRANT OF POWER WOULD ONLY SEEM NECESSARY AS TO DECREES IN WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAD NO OTHER INTEREST. 

WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS INVADED ANY PRIVATE RIGHT OF RESPONDENTS,
WE CONSIDER UNDER LATER RUBRICS.  OUR ONLY CONCERN UNDER THE PRESENT
HEADING IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S ORDER INFRINGES PREROGATIVES OF THE
COURT.  WE HOLD IT DOES NOT. 

II.  VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT WAS FRAMED AGAINST A BACKGROUND OF
RAPID EXPANSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AS A CHECK UPON
ADMINISTRATORS WHOSE ZEAL MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE CARRIED THEM TO EXCESSES
NOT CONTEMPLATED IN LEGISLATION CREATING THEIR OFFICES.  IT CREATED
SAFEGUARDS EVEN NARROWER THAN THE CONSTITUTIONAL ONES, AGAINST
ARBITRARY OFFICIAL ENCROACHMENT ON PRIVATE RIGHTS. 

THUS SEC. 3(A) OF THE ACT REQUIRES EVERY AGENCY TO WHICH IT APPLIES,
WHICH INCLUDES THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, TO PUBLISH IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER CERTAIN STATEMENTS OF ITS RULES, ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE,
"INCLUDING THE NATURE AND REQUIREMENTS OF ALL FORMAL OR INFORMAL
PROCEDURES AVAILABLE," AND ADDS THAT, "NO PERSON SHALL IN ANY MANNER BE
REQUIRED TO RESORT TO ORGANIZATION OR PROCEDURE NOT SO PUBLISHED."  IN
ADDITION SEC. 6(B) PROSCRIBES ANY REQUIREMENT OF A REPORT OR OTHER
INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND "IN ANY MANNER OR FOR ANY PURPOSE EXCEPT AS
AUTHORIZED BY LAW." 

PRINCIPALLY ON THE BASIS OF THESE TWO SECTIONS RESPONDENTS CONTEND
THAT THE CURRENT ORDER CANNOT BE ENFORCED EXCEPT IN VIOLATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  HAVE THE RESPONDENTS BEEN ORDERED TO
COMPLY WITH PROCEDURE OF WHICH THEY WERE NOT PUT ON NOTICE BY
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER?  AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
PROCEDURE HAD BEEN DEFINED AND PUBLISHED, WAS IT AUTHORIZED BY LAW? 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT BECAME
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 11, 1946.  ON DECEMBER 11, 1946, THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ITS RULES OF PRACTICE, 11
FED. REG. 14233-14239.  THE COMMISSION'S RULE XXVI, ID., 14237,
REPUBLISHED WITHOUT CHANGE IN 12 FED. REG. 5444, 5448, SETS THE TIME
LIMIT FOR FILING INITIAL REPORTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH COMMISSION ORDERS
AND ASSERTS THE COMMISSION'S RIGHT TO REQUIRE, WITHIN ITS SOUND
DISCRETION, THE FILING OF FURTHER COMPLIANCE REPORTS THEREAFTER.  FN4
IN SEC. 7.12 OF ITS STATEMENT OF ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES, AND
FUNCTIONS, 12 FED. REG. 5450, 5452, THE COMMISSION RESTATED ITS RIGHT
TO REQUIRE BY ORDER "SUCH SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS OF COMPLIANCE AS IT
CONSIDERS WARRANTED," AND DEFINED THE CONTENTS OF SUCH A REPORT.  FN5 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSION'S PUBLISHED RULE XXVI ANNOUNCED THE
RIGHT IT CLAIMS IN THIS CASE TO DEMAND OF A PARTY AGAINST WHOM AN
ENFORCEMENT DECREE HAS BEEN ENTERED THAT IT "FILE WITH THE COMMISSION,
FROM TIME TO TIME THEREAFTER, FURTHER REPORTS IN WRITING, SETTING FORTH
IN DETAIL THE MANNER AND FORM IN WHICH THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH SAID
ORDER  ...  "  TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THE COMMISSION'S STATEMENT OF
ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURES, AND FUNCTIONS, SUPRA, IF INDEED NOT BY
ITSELF, RULE XXVI AMPLY MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 3(A) OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. 

RESPONDENTS HARDLY CHALLENGE THIS CONCLUSION.  THEIRS IS THE MORE
SUBTLE ARGUMENT THAT REQUIREMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS FOLLOWING
COURT ENFORCEMENT OF A COMMISSION ORDER IS UNAUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND
ULTRA VIRES, SO THAT NO VALID NOTICE OF RULE XXVI HAD BEEN OR COULD BE
GIVEN, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 3(A) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. 
ALSO, IT IS SAID TO BE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(B) OF THAT ACT. 
THIS LEADS TO THE QUESTION OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE ORDER TO
REPORT, A QUESTION WE MUST DETERMINE EVEN APART FROM CONSIDERATION OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.  ACCORDINGLY WE TURN TO THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT ITSELF TO SEE WHETHER IT CONTAINS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY FOR THE COMMISSION'S RULE XXVI, AS WELL AS FOR ITS ORDER HERE
SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED, ISSUED, AS IT WAS, PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURES
PROCLAIMED IN THAT RULE.  IF WE FIND SUCH STATUTORY AUTHORITY, WE MUST
CONCLUDE THAT THE OBJECTIONS UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT ARE
TAKEN IN VAIN. 

III.  STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE REPORTS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THE COMMISSION TO BE WITHOUT STATUTORY
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REPORTS AS TO COMPLIANCE.  SECTION 6 OF
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, IT THOUGHT, COULD NOT BE INVOKED IN
CONNECTION WITH A DECREE SOUGHT AND ENTERED PURSUANT TO SEC. 5, WHICH
TO WHOLLY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.  SECTION 6, SO IT WAS HELD, AUTHORIZED
REQUIREMENT ONLY OF "SPECIAL REPORTS" SUPPLEMENTAL TO "ANNUAL REPORTS"
AND COULD NOT BE AUTHORITY FOR REQUIRING SPECIAL REPORTS SUPPLEMENTAL
TO A REPORT OF COMPLIANCE REQUIRED BY COURT DECREE IN A SEC. 5 CASE. 

AT THE ROOT OF THIS POSITION LIES THE ELABORATE AND PLAUSIBLE
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENTS THAT SECS. 5 AND 6 OF THE ACT SET UP SELF
SUFFICIENT, INDEPENDENT AND EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH
DIFFERENT MATTERS AND THAT THEREFORE NEITHER SECTION CAN BE SUPPORTED
OR AIDED BY THE OTHER.  RESPONDENTS ALSO SAY THAT THE PRESENT USE OF
THE ASSERTED POWER IS NOVEL AND UNPRECEDENTED IN COMMISSION PRACTICE
AND INTRODUCES A NEW METHOD OF INVESTIGATING COMPLIANCE.  RESPONDENTS
ARE NOT WITHOUT STATEMENTS BY THE COMMISSION OR ITS OFFICIALS, DICTA
FROM JUDICIAL OPINIONS, VIEWS OF TEXT WRITERS AND FACTS OF LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY WHICH GIVE SOME SUPPORT TO THIS THEORY.  BUT THIS COURT NEVER
BEFORE HAS BEEN CALLED UPON TO DEAL CONSCIOUSLY AND SQUARELY WITH THE
SUBJECT. 

THE FACT THAT POWERS LONG HAVE BEEN UNEXERCISED WELL MAY CALL FOR
CLOSE SCRUTINY AS TO WHETHER THEY EXIST; BUT IF GRANTED, THEY ARE NOT
LOST BY BEING ALLOWED TO LIE DORMANT, ANY MORE THAN NONEXISTENT POWERS
CAN BE PRESCRIPTED BY AN UNCHALLENGED EXERCISE.  WE KNOW THAT
UNQUESTIONED POWERS ARE SOMETIMES UNEXERCISED FROM LACK OF FUNDS,
MOTIVES OF EXPEDIENCY, OR THE COMPETITION OF MORE IMMEDIATELY IMPORTANT
CONCERNS.  WE FIND NO BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT ANY POWER EVER GRANTED TO
THE TRADE COMMISSION HAS BEEN FORFEITED BY NONUSER. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORGANIC ACT, SEC. 5, COMPREHENSIVELY PROVIDES
SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL RULES FOR CHECKING UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION.  THE PROCEDURE IS COMPLETE FROM COMPLAINT AND SERVICE OF
PROCESS THROUGH FINAL ORDER, COURT REVIEW, AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS
TO RECOVER PENALTIES WHICH ARE NOT THOSE HERE SUED FOR.  THIS ENTIRE
SUBJECT OF UNFAIR COMPETITION, IT IS TRUE, CAME INTO THE BILL LATE IN
ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND DEALT WITH A COMMERCIAL EVIL QUITE
DIFFERENT FROM THE TARGET OF PRIOR ANTITRUST LAWS.  IT IS TO BE NOTED,
HOWEVER, THAT ALTHOUGH COMPLETE OTHERWISE, THIS SECTION CONFERS NO
POWER TO INVESTIGATE THIS OR ANY OTHER MATTER.  THAT POWER, WITHOUT
WHICH ALL OTHERS WOULD BE VAIN, MUST BE FOUND IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
ACT.  THE COMMISSION, FOR POWER TO INVESTIGATE COMPLIANCE WITH A SEC. 5
ORDER, HAS TURNED TO SEC. 6, WHICH AUTHORIZES IT TO REQUIRE CERTAIN
REPORTS BUT IS NOT EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE TO A SEC. 5 CASE.  RESPONDENTS
SAY IT MIGHT BETTER HAVE TURNED TO SEC. 9, WHICH AUTHORIZES IT TO SEND
INVESTIGATORS TO EXAMINE THEIR BOOKS, COPY DOCUMENTS AND ISSUE
SUBPOENAS, AND WHICH IS EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE TO SEC. 5 PROCEEDINGS. 

AND WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL, THE POWER "TO INVESTIGATE FROM TIME
TO TIME THE ORGANIZATION, BUSINESS, CONDUCT, PRACTICES, AND MANAGEMENT
OF ANY CORPORATION ENGAGED IN COMMERCE,  ...  AND ITS RELATION TO OTHER
CORPORATIONS AND TO INDIVIDUALS, ASSOCIATIONS, AND PARTNERSHIPS."  IT
ALSO AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION "TO REQUIRE, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL
ORDERS, CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE  ...  TO FILE WITH THE
COMMISSION IN SUCH FORM AS THE COMMISSION MAY PRESCRIBE ANNUAL OR
SPECIAL, OR BOTH ANNUAL AND SPECIAL, REPORTS OR ANSWERS IN WRITING TO
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, FURNISHING TO THE COMMISSION SUCH INFORMATION AS IT
MAY REQUIRE AS TO THE ORGANIZATION, BUSINESS, CONDUCT, PRACTICES,
MANAGEMENT, AND RELATION TO OTHER CORPORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND
INDIVIDUALS OF THE RESPECTIVE CORPORATIONS FILING SUCH REPORTS OR
ANSWERS IN WRITING." 

TO ONE INFORMED OF NO FACT APART FROM THIS TEXT, IT WOULD APPEAR TO
GRANT AMPLE POWER TO ORDER THE REPORTS HERE IN QUESTION.  RESPONDENTS
ARE IN THE CLASS SUBJECT TO INQUIRY, THE CALL IS FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE
A SPECIAL REPORT AND THE MATTER TO BE REPORTED WOULD SEEM TO BE AS TO
BUSINESS CONDUCT AND PRACTICES ABOUT WHICH THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED
TO INQUIRE.  BUT RESPONDENTS ADVANCE SEVERAL ARGUMENTS TO PERSUADE US
THAT THIS SEEMINGLY COMPREHENSIVE POWER IS SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS NOT
EVIDENT IN THE TEXT. 

RESPONDENTS DERIVE FROM LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THEIR CONTENTION THAT
CONGRESS DIVIDED THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE COMMISSION INTO TWO
SEPARATE CATEGORIES, ONE IN SEC. 6 MERELY RE-ENACTING THE OLD POWERS OF
INVESTIGATION AND PUBLICITY IN ANTITRUST MATTERS - "ESSENTIALLY A MERE
CONTINUANCE OF THE FORMER POWERS OF THE OLD BUREAU OF CORPORATIONS." 
THE OTHER WAS A NEW UNFAIR-COMPETITION POWER, SELF-CONTAINED AND SEALED
OFF IN SEC. 5.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE REPORTS SET FORTH IN SEC. 6 CAN
BE REQUIRED ONLY "IN SUPPORT OF GENERAL ECONOMIC SURVEYS AND NOT IN AID
OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER  ...  SECTION 5." 

WHILE WE FIND A GOOD DEAL WHICH WOULD WARRANT OUR CONCLUDING THAT
SEC. 6 WAS FRAMED WITH THE PRE-EXISTING ANTITRUST LAWS IN MIND, AND IN
THE EXPECTATION THAT THE INFORMATION PROCURED WOULD BE CHIEFLY USEFUL
IN REPORTS TO THE PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESS, OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE
FIND NOTHING THAT WOULD DENY ITS USE FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHIN THE DUTIES
OF THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING A SEC. 5 PROCEEDING.  A CONSTRUCTION OF
SUCH AN ACT THAT WOULD ALLOW INFORMATION TO BE OBTAINED FOR ONLY A PART
OF A COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS AND WOULD REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO PURSUE
THE REST OF ITS DUTIES AS IF THE INFORMATION DID NOT EXIST WOULD BE
UNUSUAL, TO SAY THE LEAST.  THE INFORMATION WAS SUCH AS THE COMMISSION
WAS AUTHORIZED TO OBTAIN AND WE THINK IT COULD BE REQUIRED FOR USE IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN PROPER COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S
DECREE IN A SEC. 5 CASE. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, AND THE COURT BELOW HAS AGREED, THAT THE
"SPECIAL REPORT" AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE DOES NOT EMBRACE THE ONE HERE
ASKED AS TO THE METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE.  WE FIND NOTHING
IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT WOULD JUSTIFY SO LIMITING THE MEANING
OF SPECIAL REPORTS, OR HOLDING THAT THE REPORT HERE ASKED IS NOT SUCH A
ONE.  THE VERY HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT (H.R. REP. NO. 533, 63D CONG., 2D
SESS.) WHICH THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT SUSTAINED RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION,
WE READ IN ITS CONTEXT TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION.  SPEAKING OF WHAT
BECAME THIS SECTION, THE REPORT SAID, "THE COMMISSION, UNDER THIS
ADVISABLE.  BY THIS MEANS, IF THE ORDINARY DATA FURNISHED BY A
CORPORATION IN ITS ANNUAL REPORTS DOES NOT ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE ITS
ORGANIZATION, FINANCIAL CONDITION, BUSINESS PRACTICES, OR RELATION TO
OTHER CORPORATIONS, THERE CAN BE OBTAINED BY A SPECIAL REPORT SUCH
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS THE COMMISSION MAY DEEM NECESSARY."  ID., AT
P. 4.  AN ANNUAL REPORT OF A CORPORATION IS A RECURRENT AND RELATIVELY
STANDARDIZED AFFAIR.  THE SPECIAL REPORT WAS USED TO ENABLE THE
COMMISSION TO ELICIT ANY INFORMATION BEYOND THE ORDINARY DATA OF A
ROUTINE ANNUAL REPORT.  IF THE REPORT ASKED HERE IS NOT A SPECIAL
REPORT, WE WOULD BE HARD PUT TO DEFINE ONE.    NOR DOES THE FACT THAT
SEC. 5 APPLIES TO INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND CORPORATIONS, WHILE
SECS. 6(B) AND 10 APPLY ONLY TO CORPORATIONS, LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE ACT MUST NOT BE READ AS AN INTEGRATED WHOLE.  THE ARGUMENT THAT,
BECAUSE THE REPORTING AND PENALTY PROVISIONS OF THE LATTER EXTEND ONLY
TO CORPORATIONS THEY MUST NOT BE INVOKED TO IMPLEMENT, AS AGAINST
CORPORATIONS, A SEC. 5 PROCEEDING WHICH CONTEMPLATES ACTION AGAINST
PERSONS AND PARTNERSHIPS AS WELL, WOULD HAVE FORCE WERE THERE NOT SOUND
REASON FOR MORE DRASTIC POWERS TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE FROM CORPORATIONS
THAN FROM NATURAL PERSONS.  WHAT THE FORMER MAY BE COMPELLED TO
DISCLOSE WITHOUT OBJECTION THE LATTER MAY WITHHOLD, OR REVEAL ONLY
AFTER EXACTING THE PRICE OF IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION.  CORPORATIONS
NOT ONLY HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM SELF-INCRIMINATION, BUT
THE DISPARITY BETWEEN ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL PERSONS IS SO SIGNIFICANT
THAT DIFFERING TREATMENT CAN RARELY BE URGED AS AN OBJECTION TO A
PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE.  MOREOVER, CONGRESS MAY HAVE
CONSIDERED THAT THE VOLUME OR PROPORTION OF UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS OR
THE RELATIVELY SMALL SIZE OF INDIVIDUALLY OWNED ENTERPRISES, OR EVEN A
LESSER CAPACITY AND DISPOSITION TO RESIST MADE IT POSSIBLE TO OMIT
PERSONS FROM DUTIES AND PENALTIES IMPOSED ON ARTIFICIAL COMBINATIONS OF
CAPITAL. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 6 TO
REQUIRE SPECIAL REPORTS OF CORPORATIONS INCLUDES SPECIAL REPORTS OF THE
MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH DECREES ENFORCING SEC. 5 CEASE
AND DESIST ORDERS. 

IV.  RIGHTS UNDER FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS CRITICIZED UPON GROUNDS THAT THE ORDER
TRANSGRESSES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S PROSCRIPTION OF UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S DUE PROCESS OF LAW
CLAUSE. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A
CORPORATION IS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  CF.
OKLAHOMA PRESS PUBLISHING CO. V. WALLING, 327 U.S. 186.  ALTHOUGH THE
"RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE - THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE OF RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT
MOST VALUED BY CIVILIZED MEN," BRANDEIS, J., DISSENTING IN OLMSTEAD V.
UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 471, AT 478, IS NOT CONFINED LITERALLY TO
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AS SUCH, BUT EXTENDS AS WELL TO THE ORDERLY
TAKING UNDER COMPULSION OF PROCESS, BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S.
616, HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 70, NEITHER INCORPORATED NOR
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS CAN PLEAD AN UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO CONDUCT
THEIR AFFAIRS IN SECRET.  HALE V. HENKEL, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V.
WHITE, 322 U.S. 694. 

WHILE THEY MAY AND SHOULD HAVE PROTECTION FROM UNLAWFUL DEMANDS MADE
IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC INVESTIGATION, CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298, CORPORATIONS CAN CLAIM NO EQUALITY
WITH INDIVIDUALS IN THE ENJOYMENT OF A RIGHT TO PRIVACY.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. WHITE, SUPRA.  THEY ARE ENDOWED WITH PUBLIC ATTRIBUTES.  THEY
HAVE A COLLECTIVE IMPACT UPON SOCIETY, FROM WHICH THEY DERIVE THE
PRIVILEGE OF ACTING AS ARTIFICIAL ENTITIES.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ALLOWS THEM THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FAVORS
FROM GOVERNMENT OFTEN CARRY WITH THEM AN ENHANCED MEASURE OF
REGULATION.  CF. GRAHAM V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 338 U.S.
232; STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 323 U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN, 323 U.S. 210; WICKARD V.
FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111, AT 129.  EVEN IF ONE WERE TO REGARD THE REQUEST
FOR INFORMATION IN THIS CASE AS CAUSED BY NOTHING MORE THAN OFFICIAL
CURIOSITY, NEVERTHELESS LAW-ENFORCING AGENCIES HAVE A LEGITIMATE RIGHT
TO SATISFY THEMSELVES THAT CORPORATE BEHAVIOR IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
LAW AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

OF COURSE A GOVERNMENTAL INVESTIGATION INTO CORPORATE MATTERS MAY BE
OF SUCH A SWEEPING NATURE AND SO UNRELATED TO THE MATTER PROPERLY UNDER
INQUIRY AS TO EXCEED THE INVESTIGATORY POWER.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., SUPRA.  BUT IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE INQUIRY IS
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE AGENCY, THE DEMAND IS NOT TOO INDEFINITE
AND THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IS REASONABLY RELEVANT.  "THE GIST OF THE
PROTECTION IS IN THE REQUIREMENT, EXPRESSED IN TERMS, THAT THE
DISCLOSURE SOUGHT SHALL NOT BE UNREASONABLE."  OKLAHOMA PRESS
PUBLISHING CO. V. WALLING, 327 U.S. 186, 208.  NOTHING ON THE FACE OF
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER TRANSGRESSED THESE BOUNDS. 

NOR DO WE CONSIDER WHETHER, FOR REASONS PECULIAR TO THESE CASES NOT
APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE ORDERS, THESE LIMITS ARE TRANSGRESSED. 
SUCH QUESTIONS ARE NOT PRESENTED BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY
RESPONDENTS.  BEFORE THE COURTS WILL HOLD AN ORDER SEEKING INFORMATION
REPORTS TO BE ARBITRARILY EXCESSIVE, THEY MAY EXPECT THE SUPPLICANT TO
HAVE MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ITSELF TO OBTAIN
REASONABLE CONDITIONS.  NEITHER RESPONDENT RAISED OBJECTION TO THE
ORDER'S SWEEP, NOR ASKED ANY MODIFICATION, CLARIFICATION OR
INTERPRETATION OF IT.  BOTH CHALLENGED, INSTEAD, POWER TO ISSUE IT.
THEIR POSITION WAS THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO MORE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A
REASONABLE ORDER THAN AN UNREASONABLE ONE.  THAT, TOO, WAS THE DEFENSE
TO THIS ACTION IN THE COURT BELOW. 

OF COURSE, THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT, IN THE NAME OF REPORTS, THE
COMMISSION MAY DEMAND.  JUST WHAT THESE LIMITS ARE WE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO
DEFINE IN THE ABSTRACT.  BUT IT IS SAFE TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD STOP THE
COMMISSION CONSIDERABLY SHORT OF THE EXTRAVAGANT EXAMPLE USED BY ONE OF
THE RESPONDENTS OF WHAT IT FEARS IF WE SUSTAIN THIS ORDER - THAT THE
COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE REPORTS FROM AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES WHICH INCLUDE
FILING AUTOMOBILES.  IN THIS CASE WE DOUBT THAT WE SHOULD READ THE
ORDER AS RESPONDENTS ASK TO REQUIRE SHIPMENT OF EXTENSIVE FILES OR
GIFTS OF EXPENSIVE BOOKS.  THIS IS NOT A NECESSARY READING CERTAINLY,
AND OTHER PARTIES TO THE DECREE SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SATISFY ITS
REQUIREMENTS. 

IF RESPONDENTS HAD OBJECTED TO THE TERMS OF THE ORDER, THEY WOULD
HAVE PRESENTED OR AT LEAST OFFERED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE CONCERNING ANY
RECORDS REQUIRED AND THE COST OF THEIR BOOKS, MATTERS WHICH NOW REST ON
MERE ASSERTIONS IN THEIR BRIEFS.  THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE HAD
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCLAIM ANY INADVERTENT EXCESSES OR TO JUSTIFY THEIR
DEMANDS IN THE RECORD.  WE THINK THESE RESPONDENTS COULD HAVE OBTAINED
ANY REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY, BUT, IF NOT, AT LEAST COULD
HAVE MADE A RECORD THAT WOULD CONVINCE US OF THE MEASURE OF THEIR
GRIEVANCE RATHER THAN ASK US TO ASSUME IT. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT IF WE SUSTAIN THIS USE OF SEC. 6, THE POWER WILL BE
UNCONFINED AND ITS ARBITRARY EXERCISE SUBJECT TO NO JUDICIAL REVIEW OR
CONTROL, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT BRINGS SUIT, AS HERE, FOR
PENALTIES.  THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS SAID, MAY DELAY SUCH ACTION WHILE
RUINOUS PENALTIES ACCUMULATE AND DEFENDANT RUNS THE RISK THAT HIS
DEFENSES WILL NOT BE SUSTAINED.  HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO SAY
THAT COURTS WOULD BE POWERLESS IF AFTER AN EFFORT TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY
SUCH AN ORDER IT STILL IS CONSIDERED TO BE SO ARBITRARY AS TO BE
UNLAWFUL AND THE GOVERNMENT PURSUES A POLICY OF ACCUMULATING PENALTIES
WHILE AVOIDING A JUDICIAL TEST BY REFUSING TO BRING ACTION TO RECOVER
THEM.  SINCE WE DO NOT THINK THIS RECORD PRESENTS THE QUESTION, WE DO
NOT UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, OR GENERAL EQUITABLE POWERS OF THE COURTS
WOULD AFFORD A REMEDY IF THERE WERE SHOWN TO BE A WRONG, OR WHAT THE
CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE IF NO CHANCE IS GIVEN FOR A TEST OF REASONABLE
OBJECTIONS TO SUCH AN ORDER.  CF. OKLAHOMA OPERATING CO. V. LOVE, 252
U.S. 331.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT, IN UPHOLDING THIS ORDER UPON THIS
RECORD, WE ARE NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS HOLDING SUCH ORDERS EXEMPT FROM
JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OR AS EXTENDING A LICENSE TO EXACT AS REPORTS WHAT
WOULD NOT REASONABLY BE COMPREHENDED WITHIN THAT TERM AS USED BY
CONGRESS IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS ACT. 

THE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WAS ESTABLISHED, UNDER THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT, 38 STAT. 717, AS AMENDED 52 STAT. 111, 1028, 15
U.S.C. SECS. 41 ET SEQ., TO PREVENT UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND
UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY CERTAIN
PERSONS, PARTNERSHIPS OR CORPORATIONS.  UNDER SEC. 5(B) OF THAT ACT THE
COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED AND DIRECTED, FOLLOWING SUITABLE HEARING AND
DETERMINATION, TO ORDER THAT THOSE FOUND GUILTY OF SUCH PRACTICES CEASE
AND DESIST THEREFROM; AND UNDER SECS. 5(C) AND 5(D) EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM, ENFORCE, MODIFY, OR SET ASIDE SUCH ORDERS IS
PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE COURT OF APPEALS, WHOSE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
ARE FINAL EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW HERE.  CIVIL
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS ARE PROVIDED FOR,
SEC. 5(1), TO BE RECOVERED IN CIVIL ACTIONS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED
STATES.  UNDER SECS. 6(A) AND 6(B) OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSION IS
AUTHORIZED TO COMPILE INFORMATION CONCERNING, AND TO INVESTIGATE, THE
ORGANIZATION, BUSINESS, CONDUCT, PRACTICES, AND MANAGEMENT OF ANY
CORPORATION WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, AND TO REQUIRE ANY SUCH
CORPORATION TO FILE "ANNUAL OR SPECIAL, OR BOTH ANNUAL AND SPECIAL,
REPORTS OR ANSWERS IN WRITING TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS," CONCERNING SUCH
INFORMATION.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED,
IN SEC. 9, TO EXAMINE AND COPY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ANY CORPORATION
BEING INVESTIGATED OR PROCEEDED AGAINST, AND TO REQUIRE ATTENDANCE OF
WITNESSES AND PRODUCTION OF ALL SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.  THE SAME
WITH THE SUBPOENA AS WELL AS OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR ANY ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF.  AND, FINALLY, IN SEC. 10,
IT IS PROVIDED THAT, "IF ANY CORPORATION REQUIRED BY THIS ACT TO FILE
ANY ANNUAL OR SPECIAL REPORT SHALL FAIL SO TO DO WITHIN THE TIME FIXED
BY THE COMMISSION FOR FILING THE SAME, AND SUCH FAILURE SHALL CONTINUE
FOR THIRTY DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF SUCH DEFAULT, THE CORPORATION SHALL
FORFEIT TO THE UNITED STATES THE SUM OF $100 FOR EACH AND EVERY DAY OF
THE CONTINUANCE OF SUCH FAILURE, WHICH FORFEITURE  ... SHALL BE
RECOVERABLE IN A CIVIL SUIT IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "
THE PRESENT ACTION WAS BROUGHT TO COMPEL THE FILING OF REPORTS ORDERED
BY THE COMMISSION AND FOR MONEY JUDGMENT UNDER SEC. 10 FOR RESPONDENTS'
DEFAULT TO DO SO. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 4, INFRA. 

FN3  FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS FRANKLY STATES:  "  ... AT
NO TIME HAS THIS RESPONDENT ATTEMPTED TO ARGUE THAT IT WAS IMMUNE TO
INVESTIGATION BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE
ORIGINAL CASE HAVING COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  THIS RESPONDENT ASSUMES THAT IN SOME MANNER OR OTHER THE
COMMISSION CAN, IF IT CHOOSES, CONTINUE TO POLICE THE COMPLIANCE OF
THIS RESPONDENT BY APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURES.  WHETHER OR
NOT THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE IS (A) BY PETITIONING THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR PERMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THE RESPONDENT WITH A VIEW TO
POSSIBLE CONTEMPT OR SECTION 5(1) PROCEEDINGS, (B) BY AN ASSERTION OF A
RIGHT OF INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 9, EVEN THOUGH IT BE AN
INVESTIGATION SUPPLEMENTAL TO A COURT OF APPEALS DECREE, OR (C) BY AN
ASSERTION OF AN ALLEGED INHERENT RIGHT OF INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION
5, IS A MATTER OF LAW NOT AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, AND IT REPRESENTS AN
ISSUE AS TO WHICH THIS RESPONDENT AT THE MOMENT IS COMPLETELY
INDIFFERENT.  ...  " 

FN4  "SEC.  2.26 REPORTS SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS AND WITH
STIPULATIONS.  (A)  IN EVERY CASE WHERE AN ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST IS
ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING VIOLATIONS OF
LAW AND IN EVERY INSTANCE WHERE THE COMMISSION APPROVES AND ACCEPTS A
STIPULATION IN WHICH A PARTY AGREES TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE
UNLAWFUL METHODS, ACTS OR PRACTICES INVOLVED, THE RESPONDENTS NAMED IN
SUCH ORDERS AND THE PARTIES SO STIPULATING SHALL FILE WITH THE
COMMISSION, WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE SERVICE OF SUCH ORDER AND WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS OF THE APPROVAL OF SUCH STIPULATION, A REPORT, IN WRITING,
SETTING FORTH IN DETAIL THE MANNER AND FORM IN WHICH THEY HAVE COMPLIED
WITH SAID ORDER OR WITH SAID STIPULATION; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF
WITHIN THE SAID SIXTY (60) DAY PERIOD RESPONDENT SHALL FILE PETITION
FOR REVIEW IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE TIME FOR FILING REPORT OF
COMPLIANCE WILL BEGIN TO RUN DE NOVO FROM THE FINAL JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION  ... 

"(B)  WITHIN ITS SOUND DISCRETION, THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE ANY
RESPONDENT UPON WHOM SUCH ORDER HAS BEEN SERVED AND ANY PARTY ENTERING
INTO SUCH STIPULATION, TO FILE WITH THE COMMISSION, FROM TIME TO TIME
THEREAFTER, FURTHER REPORTS IN WRITING, SETTING FORTH IN DETAIL THE
MANNER AND FORM IN WHICH THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH SAID ORDER OR WITH
SAID STIPULATION.  ...  " 

FN5  "SEC.  7.12  COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT.  (A)  REPORTS OF
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS TO CEASE AND DESIST ARE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2.26 OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE.  THE
COMMISSION MAY BY ORDER REQUIRE SUCH SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS OF COMPLIANCE
AS IT CONSIDERS WARRANTED.  REPORTS OF COMPLIANCE MUST CONSIST OF A
FULL STATEMENT SHOWING THE MANNER AND FORM IN WHICH THE ORDER HAS BEEN
COMPLIED WITH.  MERE STATEMENTS THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT VIOLATING
THE ORDER ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.  A FACTUAL SHOWING IS REQUIRED SUFFICIENT
TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO APPRAISE THE MANNER AND FORM OF
COMPLIANCE. 

"(B)  AFTER AN ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION
PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT HAS BECOME FINAL AS
PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 5 OF THAT ACT, AND THE COMMISSION HAS REASON
TO BELIEVE THAT A RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED SUCH ORDER, IT SHALL CERTIFY
THE FACTS CONCERNING THE VIOLATION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO MAY
INSTITUTE A SUIT IN ONE OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE RECOVERY OF CIVIL PENALTIES AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT.  IN PROCEEDINGS
UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, WHERE A CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BY DECREE COMMANDED OBEDIENCE TO THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, ENFORCEMENT MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY WAY OF CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.  WITH RESPECT TO ORDERS UNDER THE
VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT, ENFORCEMENT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED
BY WAY OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  ...  "    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE
CASES. 
..END :











WISSNER V. WISSNER, 338 U.S. 655 


NO. 119.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6-7, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - 89
CAL. APP.2D 759, 201 P.2D 837, REVERSED. 


AN INSURED UNDER A NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, WHO WAS
DOMICILED IN CALIFORNIA, AS WAS HIS WIFE, DESIGNATED HIS MOTHER AS
PRINCIPAL BENEFICIARY AND HIS FATHER AS CONTINGENT BENEFICIARY. 
PREMIUMS ON THE POLICY WERE PAID FROM THE INSURED'S ARMY PAY.  SINCE
HIS DEATH THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY WERE BEING PAID TO HIS MOTHER IN
MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS.  THE INSURED'S WIDOW BROUGHT SUIT IN A CALIFORNIA
COURT, ALLEGING THAT, UNDER THE STATE COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW, SHE WAS
ENTITLED TO ONE-HALF THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY.  THE COURT GAVE
JUDGMENT TO THE WIDOW FOR ONE-HALF OF THE PAYMENTS ALREADY RECEIVED AND
REQUIRED PAYMENT TO HER OF ONE-HALF OF ALL FUTURE PAYMENTS IMMEDIATELY
UPON RECEIPT THEREOF.  HELD: 

1.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT WAS INVALID AS IN CONFLICT WITH
THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF 1940.  PP. 656-660. 

(A)  UNDER 38 U.S.C. SEC. 802(G), THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH A POLICY
BELONG TO THE NAMED BENEFICIARY; AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW WOULD NULLIFY
THE SOLDIER'S CHOICE AND FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  PP. 658
659. 

(B)  SO FAR AS IT ORDERED DIVERSION OF FUTURE PAYMENTS, THE JUDGMENT
CONTRAVENES THE PROVISION OF 38 U.S.C. SEC. 454A THAT PAYMENTS TO THE
NAMED BENEFICIARY "SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS, AND
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO ATTACHMENT, LEVY, OR SEIZURE BY OR UNDER ANY
LEGAL OR EQUITABLE PROCESS WHATEVER, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT BY
THE BENEFICIARY  ...  "  P. 659. 

(C)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY DECISIONS HOLDING
EXEMPTIONS RELATING TO PENSIONS AND VETERANS' RELIEF INAPPLICABLE WHEN
ALIMONY OR THE SUPPORT OF WIFE OR CHILDREN IS IN ISSUE.  PP. 659-660. 

2.  THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT IS A VALID EXERCISE OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL POWERS OVER NATIONAL DEFENSE.  PP. 660-661. 

3.  NO ISSUE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS PRESENTED; BECAUSE THE ACT
PRECLUDES ANY CLAIM BY THE WIDOW OF A "VESTED" RIGHT IN THE PROCEEDS OF
THE INSURANCE.  P. 661. 

WISSNER ET AL. V. WISSNER. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT,
OF CALIFORNIA. 

IN A SUIT IN A CALIFORNIA STATE COURT, BY THE WIDOW OF AN INSURED
UNDER A NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, TO RECOVER ONE-HALF THE
PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY, THE STATE COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.  THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED.  89 CAL. APP.2D 759,
201 P.2D 837.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED A HEARING.  ON APPEAL TO
THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 661. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW, AS
APPLIED IN THIS CASE, CONFLICTS WITH CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF 1940; FN1  AND IF SO, WHETHER THE FEDERAL
LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE CAUSE IS HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF
A CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
HAVING DENIED A HEARING.  READING THE OPINION BELOW AS A DECISION THAT
THE FEDERAL STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WE NOTED PROBABLE
JURISDICTION.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(1). 

THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  APPELLANTS ARE THE PARENTS,
AND APPELLEE THE WIDOW, OF MAJOR LEONARD O. WISSNER, WHO DIED IN INDIA
IN 1945 IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY.  HE HAD ENLISTED IN
THE ARMY IN NOVEMBER 1942 AND IN JANUARY 1943 SUBSCRIBED TO A NATIONAL
SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY IN THE PRINCIPAL SUM OF $10,000, WHICH
POLICY WAS IN EFFECT AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH.  THE OPINION BELOW
INDICATES THAT THE DECEDENT AND APPELLEE WERE ESTRANGED AT THE TIME HE
ENTERED THE ARMY OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER.  IN JANUARY 1943 HE REQUESTED
HIS ATTORNEY TO "GET AN INSURANCE POLICY AWAY" FROM APPELLEE.  AFTER
SIX MONTHS IN THE SERVICE DECEDENT STOPPED THE ALLOTMENT TO HIS WIFE,
AND IN SEPTEMBER 1943 EXPRESSED THE WISH THAT HE "COULD FIND SOME WAY
OF FORCING PLAINTIFF TO A SETTLEMENT AND A DIVORCE."  IT IS NOT
SURPRISING, THEREFORE, THAT, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF HIS
WIFE, THE MAJOR NAMED HIS MOTHER PRINCIPAL AND HIS FATHER CONTINGENT
BENEFICIARY UNDER HIS NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY.  SINCE
HIS DEATH THE UNITED STATES VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN PAYING
HIS MOTHER THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS. 

IN 1947 THE MAJOR'S WIDOW BROUGHT ACTION AGAINST THE APPELLANTS IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR STANISLAUS COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALLEGING
THAT UNDER CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW SHE WAS ENTITLED TO ONE
HALF THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY.  APPELLANTS ANSWERED THAT THEIR
DESIGNATION AS BENEFICIARIES WAS "FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AS AGAINST ANY
CLAIMED RIGHTS" OF APPELLEE.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE DECEDENT AND HIS
WIDOW HAD BEEN MARRIED IN 1930, AND UNTIL THE DATE OF MAJOR WISSNER'S
DEATH HAD BEEN LEGALLY DOMICILED THERE AND SUBJECT TO THE STATE'S
COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS.  MAJOR WISSNER'S ARMY PAY, WHICH WAS HELD TO
BE COMMUNITY PROPERTY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, FN2  WAS THE SOURCE OF THE
PREMIUMS PAID ON THE POLICY.  BUT NO CLAIM WAS MADE FOR THE PREMIUMS;
THE WIDOW SOUGHT THE PROCEEDS OF THE INSURANCE.  THE COURT CONCLUDED
THAT, CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA LAW IN THE ORDINARY INSURANCE CASE,
THE PROCEEDS OF THIS POLICY "WERE AND ARE THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY" OF
THE WIDOW AND THE DECEDENT, AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR APPELLEE FOR ONE
HALF THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS ALREADY RECEIVED, PLUS INTEREST, AND
REQUIRED APPELLANTS TO PAY APPELLEE ONE-HALF OF ALL FUTURE PAYMENTS
"IMMEDIATELY UPON THE RECEIPT THEREOF" BY APPELLEES OR EITHER THEREOF. 
THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED, 89 CAL. APP.2D 759, 201 P.2D
837(1949), HOLDING THAT APPELLEE HAD A "VESTED RIGHT" TO THE INSURANCE
PROCEEDS, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA DENIED A HEARING, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION BELOW WAS INCORRECT.  THE
NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT IS THE CONGRESSIONAL MODE OF
AFFORDING A UNIFORM AND COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF LIFE INSURANCE FOR
MEMBERS AND VETERANS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.  A
LIBERAL POLICY TOWARD THE SERVICEMAN AND HIS NAMED BENEFICIARY IS
EVERYWHERE EVIDENT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE STATUTORY PLAN.  PREMIUMS ARE
VERY LOW AND ARE WAIVED DURING THE INSURED'S DISABILITY; COSTS OF
ADMINISTRATION ARE BORNE BY THE UNITED STATES; LIABILITIES MAY BE
DISCHARGED OUT OF CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS. 

THE CONTROLLING SECTION OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE INSURED "SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE THE BENEFICIARY OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE
INSURANCE (WITHIN A DESIGNATED CLASS),  ...  AND SHALL ...  AT ALL
TIMES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARY OR BENEFICIARIES  ...  "
38 U.S.C. SEC. 802(G).  THUS CONGRESS HAS SPOKEN WITH FORCE AND
CLARITY IN DIRECTING THAT THE PROCEEDS BELONG TO THE NAMED BENEFICIARY
AND NO OTHER.  PURSUANT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND, THE GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTED TO PAY THE INSURANCE TO THE INSURED'S CHOICE.  HE CHOSE HIS
MOTHER.  IT IS PLAIN TO US THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT, AS TO
ONE-HALF OF THE PROCEEDS, SUBSTITUTES THE WIDOW FOR THE MOTHER, WHO WAS
THE BENEFICIARY CONGRESS DIRECTED SHALL RECEIVE THE INSURANCE MONEY. 
WE DO NOT SHARE APPELLEE'S DISCOVERY OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE THAT
WIDOWS IN COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES PARTICIPATE IN THE PAYMENTS UNDER
THE POLICY, CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE INSURED.  WHETHER
DIRECTED AT THE VERY MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR AN
EQUIVALENT AMOUNT, THE JUDGMENT BELOW NULLIFIES THE SOLDIER'S CHOICE
AND FRUSTRATES THE DELIBERATE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  IT CANNOT STAND. 

THE JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW HAS A FURTHER DEFICIENCY SO FAR AS IT
ORDERED THE DIVERSION OF FUTURE PAYMENTS AS SOON AS THEY ARE PAID BY
THE GOVERNMENT TO THE MOTHER.  AT LEAST IN THIS RESPECT, THE VERY
PAYMENTS RECEIVED UNDER THE POLICY ARE TO BE "SEIZED," IN EFFECT, BY
THE JUDGMENT BELOW.  THIS IS IN FLAT CONFLICT WITH THE EXEMPTION
PROVISION CONTAINED IN 38 U.S.C. SEC. 454A, MADE A PART OF THIS ACT BY
38 U.S.C. SEC. 816: PAYMENTS TO THE NAMED BENEFICIARY "SHALL BE EXEMPT
FROM THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS, AND SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO ATTACHMENT,
LEVY, OR SEIZURE BY OR UNDER ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE PROCESS WHATEVER,
EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT BY THE BENEFICIARY.  ...  " 

WE RECOGNIZE THAT SOME COURTS HAVE RULED THAT THIS AND SIMILAR
EXEMPTIONS RELATING TO PENSIONS AND VETERANS' RELIEF DO NOT APPLY WHEN
ALIMONY OR THE SUPPORT OF WIFE OR CHILDREN IS IN ISSUE.  SEE SCHLAEFER
V. SCHLAEFER, 71 APP. D.C. 350, 112 F.2D 177(1940); TULLY V. TULLY, 159
MASS. 91, 34 N.E. 79(1893); HODSON V. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 243 APP. DIV. 480, 278 N.Y. SUPP. 16(1935); IN RE
GUARDIANSHIP OF BAGNALL, 238 IOWA 905, 29 N.W.2D 597(1947), AND CASES
THEREIN CITED.  BUT CF. BREWER V. BREWER, 19 TENN. APP. 209, 239-241,
84 S.W.2D 1022, 1040(1933).  WE SHALL NOT ATTEMPT TO EPITOMIZE A LEGAL
SYSTEM AT LEAST AS ANCIENT AS THE CUSTOMS OF THE VISIGOTHS,  FN3  BUT
WE MUST NOTE THAT THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY PRINCIPLE RESTS UPON SOMETHING
MORE THAN THE MORAL OBLIGATION OF SUPPORTING SPOUSE AND CHILDREN:  THE
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP OF MAN AND WIFE FOR THEIR MUTUAL MONETARY
PROFIT.  SEE DE FUNIAK, COMMUNITY PROPERTY, SEC. 11(1943).  VENERABLE
AND WORTHY AS THIS COMMUNITY IS, IT IS NOT, WE THINK, AS LIKELY TO
JUSTIFY AN EXCEPTION TO THE CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE AS SPECIFIC JUDICIAL
RECOGNITION OF PARTICULAR NEEDS, IN THE ALIMONY AND SUPPORT CASES.  OUR
VIEW OF THOSE CASES, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, IS IRRELEVANT HERE.  FN4
FURTHER, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE
ACT THAT THE CHOSEN BENEFICIARY OF THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY SHALL BE,
DURING LIFE, THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROCEEDS. 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE ABOVE EXPOUNDED
NEED NOT DETAIN US LONG.  CERTAINLY CONGRESS IN ITS DESIRE TO AFFORD AS
MUCH MATERIAL PROTECTION AS POSSIBLE TO ITS FIGHTING FORCE COULD WISELY
PROVIDE A PLAN OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.  POSSESSION OF GOVERNMENT
INSURANCE, PAYABLE TO THE RELATIVE OF HIS CHOICE, MIGHT WELL DIRECTLY
ENHANCE THE MORALE OF THE SERVICEMAN.  THE EXEMPTION PROVISION IS HIS
GUARANTEE OF THE COMPLETE AND FULL PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT TO THE
EXCLUSION OF CONFLICTING CLAIMS.  THE END IS A LEGITIMATE ONE WITHIN
THE CONGRESSIONAL POWERS OVER NATIONAL DEFENSE, AND THE MEANS ARE
ADAPTED TO THE CHOSEN END.  THE ACT IS VALID.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4
WHEAT.  316, 421(1819).  AND SINCE THE STATUTE WHICH MADE THE INSURANCE
PROCEEDS POSSIBLE WAS EXPLICIT IN ANNOUNCING THAT THE INSURED SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE THE RECIPIENT OF THE INSURANCE, AND THAT
"NO PERSON SHALL HAVE A VESTED RIGHT" TO THOSE PROCEEDS, 38 U.S.C. SEC.
802(I), APPELLEE COULD NOT, IN LAW, CONTEMPLATE THEIR CAPTURE.  THE
FEDERAL STATUTE ESTABLISHES THE FUND IN ISSUE, AND FORESTALLS THE
EXISTENCE OF ANY "VESTED" RIGHT IN THE PROCEEDS OF FEDERAL INSURANCE. 
HENCE NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS PRESENTED.  HOWEVER "VESTED" HER
RIGHT TO THE PROCEEDS OF NONGOVERNMENTAL INSURANCE UNDER CALIFORNIA
LAW, THAT RULE CANNOT APPLY TO THIS INSURANCE.  COMPARE W.B. WORTHEN
CO. V. THOMAS, 292 U.S. 426(1934); LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
571(1934).  SEE HINES V. LOWREY, 305 U.S. 85(1938); NORMAN V. BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO., 294 U.S. 240(1935); RUDDY V. ROSSI, 248 U.S. 104(1918). 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  54 STAT. 1008, AS AMENDED, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 801 ET SEQ. AMENDMENTS
ADDED IN 1946, 60 STAT. 781, DO NOT CONCERN US HERE. 

FN2  WE ASSUME THE CORRECTNESS OF THE LOWER COURT'S STATEMENT OF
STATE LAW.  SEE ALSO FRENCH V. FRENCH, 17 CAL.2D 775, 112 P.2D
235(1941).  THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO
DECIDE WHETHER CALIFORNIA IS ENTITLED TO CALL ARMY PAY COMMUNITY
PROPERTY. 

FN3  SEE LOBINGIER, AN HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY PROPERTY
LAW, 8 NAT. UNIV.  L. REV. (NO. 2), P. 45(1928); DE FUNIAK, COMMUNITY
PROPERTY, C. II (1943). 

FN4  THERE ARE, OF COURSE, SUPPORT ASPECTS TO THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY
PRINCIPLE, AND IN SOME CASES THEY MAY BE OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE. 
LIKEWISE ALIMONY MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT ESSENTIAL TO SUPPORT
THE DIVORCED SPOUSE.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THE CONGRESS WOULD HAVE
INTENDED DECISION TO TURN ON FACTUAL VARIATIONS IN THE SPOUSE'S NEED. 
IF THERE IS A DISTINCTION TO BE DRAWN, WE THINK IT MUST BE BASED UPON A
GENERALIZATION AS TO THE DOMINATING CHARACTERISTICS OF A PARTICULAR
CLASS OF CASES - ALIMONY CASES, SUPPORT CASES, COMMUNITY PROPERTY
CASES.  THE ALIMONY CASES HAVE UNIFORMLY BEEN DECIDED ON THAT BASIS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, AND I ARE UNABLE TO
AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY IN THIS CASE.  THE HUSBAND'S EARNINGS ARE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY UNDER SEC. 161A, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE.  THE WIFE
HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN ONE-HALF OF SUCH EARNINGS.  UNITED STATES V.
MALCOLM, 282 U.S. 792; BANK OF AMERICA V. MANTZ, 4 CAL.2D 322, 49 P.2D
279; COOKE V. COOKE, 65 CAL. APP.2D 260, 150 P.2D 514. 

IF THE PREMIUMS ON A POLICY IN A PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD BEEN
PAID OUT OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY WITHOUT THE WIFE'S CONSENT, THE WIFE
COULD CLAIM HER PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE INSURANCE.  GRIMM V. GRIMM,
26 CAL.2D 173, 157 P.2D 841; COOKE V. COOKE, SUPRA; BAZZELL V. ENDRISS,
41 CAL. APP.2D 463, 107 P.2D 49; MUNDT V. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS.
CO., 35 CAL. APP.2D 416, 95 P.2D 966.  FN1 

IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE EXEMPTION PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE
PREVENTS THE SAME RULE FROM APPLYING HERE.  THIS PROVISION, 49 STAT.
609, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 454A, PROVIDES: 

"PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS DUE OR TO BECOME DUE  ...  SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS, AND SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO ATTACHMENT, LEVY,
OR SEIZURE BY OR UNDER ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE PROCESS WHATEVER, EITHER
BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT BY THE BENEFICIARY." 

WHAT DID CONGRESS CONTEMPLATE BY THE ENACTMENT OF THIS PROVISION?  I
THINK THE STATUTE PRESUPPOSES THAT THE BENEFICIARY IS THE UNDISPUTED
OWNER OF THE PROCEEDS, AND THAT A CREDITOR HAS SOUGHT TO REACH THE FUND
ON AN INDEPENDENT CLAIM.  UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE REMEDY IS
DENIED, FOR THE STATUTE IMMUNIZES THE FUND FROM LEVY OR ATTACHMENT. 
THAT IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US.  THE NATURE OF THIS DISPUTE IS A CLAIM
BY THE WIFE THAT SHE IS THE OWNER OF A HALF PORTION OF THESE PROCEEDS
BECAUSE SUCH PROCEEDS ARE THE FRUITS OF FUNDS ORIGINALLY HERS. 

AND RECOGNITION OF HER STATUS AS AN OWNER GLARINGLY REVEALS THE
IRRELEVANCY OF THE CHOICE OF BENEFICIARY PROVISION.  54 STAT. 1010, 38
U.S.C. SEC. 802(G).  CONGRESS STATED THAT THE SERVICEMAN WAS TO HAVE
THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE HIS BENEFICIARY.  WHEN HE HAS DONE SO ALL OTHER
PERSONS THAN THE ONE SELECTED ARE FORECLOSED FROM CLAIMING THE PROCEEDS
AS BENEFICIARY.  NO FURTHER EFFECT HAS THE STATUTE.  HERE THE WIFE
MAKES NO CLAIM TO RIGHTS AS A BENEFICIARY.  I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT
EITHER THE CHOICE OF BENEFICIARY OR THE EXEMPTION PROVISION SHOULD
CARRY THE IMPLICATION OF WIPING OUT FAMILY PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHICH
TRADITIONALLY HAVE BEEN DEFINED BY STATE LAW.  FULLY TO RESPECT THE
RIGHT WHICH CONGRESS GAVE THE SERVICEMAN TO DESIGNATE HIS BENEFICIARY
DOES NOT REQUIRE DISRESPECT OF SETTLED FAMILY LAW AND THE INCIDENTS OF
THE FAMILY RELATIONSHIP.  AS NOTED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
ANALOGOUS OCCASIONS HAVE FOUND COURTS EXPRESSING GREATER RELUCTANCE TO
OBLITERATE RIGHTS RECOGNIZED BY THE STATES.  FN2    EVEN ACCEPTING THE
COURT'S VIEW THAT THE EXEMPTION PROVISION APPLIES TO THE WIFE, IT WAS
INTENDED TO PROTECT THE FUND FROM ATTACHMENT, LEVY, OR SEIZURE ONLY SO
LONG AS IT COULD BE IDENTIFIED AS A FUND.  NO ATTACHMENT, LEVY, OR
SEIZURE IS ATTEMPTED HERE.  THIS WAS AN ACTION AT LAW FOR A MONEY
JUDGMENT.  APPELLEE OBTAINED A JUDGMENT FOR ONE-HALF OF THE PAYMENTS
THAT HAD BEEN COLLECTED BY THE BENEFICIARIES AND FOR ONE-HALF OF THOSE
TO BE COLLECTED THEREAFTER.  PAYMENTS RECEIVED UNDER THE POLICY ARE
ONLY THE MEASURE OF THE RECOVERY. 

TO ALLOW SUCH A JUDGMENT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FUND OR THE FREE
DESIGNATION OF THE BENEFICIARY BY THE SERVICEMAN.  I CANNOT BELIEVE
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO SAY TO A SERVICEMAN, "YOU MAY TAKE YOUR
WIFE'S PROPERTY AND PURCHASE A POLICY OF INSURANCE PAYABLE TO YOUR
MOTHER, AND WE WILL SEE THAT YOUR DEFRAUDED WIFE GETS NONE OF THE
MONEY."  CERTAINLY CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO UPSET THE LONG-STANDING
COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW OF THE STATES WHERE IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS RELATION TO THE SOLDIER OR TO THE
INTEGRITY OF THE FUND FROM "ATTACHMENT, LEVY, OR SEIZURE."  THESE ARE
WORDS OF ART. THEY HAVE A DEFINITE MEANING AND USAGE IN THE LAW.  THIS
USAGE IS NOT PRESENT HERE.  I FIND NOTHING IN THE SECTION THAT
PROHIBITS THE BENEFICIARY FROM BEING SUED AT ANY TIME ON A MATTER
GROWING OUT OF THE TRANSACTION BY WHICH THE SOLDIER ACQUIRED THE
INSURANCE, AT LEAST WHERE THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO ATTACH, LEVY, OR SEIZE
THE FUND.  IT WAS THE FUND CONGRESS WAS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING, NOT
THE BENEFICIARY.  I WOULD AFFIRM. 

FN1  "  ...  THE ONLY TEST APPLIED TO THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN WHETHER
THE PREMIUMS (ON A POLICY ISSUED ON THE LIFE OF A HUSBAND AFTER
COVERTURE) ARE PAID ENTIRELY FROM COMMUNITY FUNDS.  IF SO, THE POLICY
BECOMES A COMMUNITY ASSET AND THE NONCONSENTING WIFE MAY RECOVER AN
UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF THEREOF  ...  WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DISPROPORTIONATE
SIZE OF THE PREMIUM WHEN COMPARED WITH THE FACE OF THE POLICY."  MUNDT
V. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO., 35 CAL. APP.2D AT 421, 95 P.2D AT
969. 

FN2  THE COURT HAS SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH, UNSUCCESSFULLY I THINK, THE
MANY CASES HOLDING THAT PAYMENTS RECEIVED AS PENSION, DISABILITY
INSURANCE, OR VETERANS' COMPENSATION ARE NOT EXEMPTED FROM CLAIMS FOR
ALIMONY OR FAMILY SUPPORT BY EXEMPTION STATUTES IN THE PATTERN OF SEC.
454A.  EXHAUSTIVE DISCUSSIONS MAY BE FOUND IN IN RE BAGNALL'S
GUARDIANSHIP, 238 IOWA 905, 29 N.W.2D 597; SCHLAEFER V. SCHLAEFER, 71
APP. D.C. 350, 112 F.2D 177.  SEE ALSO GASKINS V. SECURITY-FIRST NAT.
BANK OF LOS ANGELES, 30 CAL. APP.2D 409, 86 P.2D 681; HOLLIS V. BRYAN,
166 MISS.  874, 143 SO. 687.  CF. NOTE, 11 A.L.R. 123 AND SUCCEEDING
ANNOTATIONS. 
..END :






















N.J. INS. CO. V. DIV. OF TAX APPEALS, 338 U.S. 665 


NO. 147.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - 1
N.J. 496, 64 A.2D 341, REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 54:4-22 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY, AS AMENDED
BY LAWS OF 1938, C. 245, A TAXING DISTRICT OF THE STATE LEVIED AGAINST
THE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY OF A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY AN ASSESSMENT FOR
THE TAXABLE YEAR 1945 IN THE AMOUNT OF 15 PER CENT OF THE COMPANY'S
PAID-UP CAPITAL AND SURPLUS, COMPUTED WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES BONDS AND ACCRUED INTEREST THEREON. 
HELD:  THE ASSESSMENT WAS INVALID AS IN CONFLICT WITH SEC. 3701 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "ALL STOCKS,
BONDS, TREASURY NOTES, AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES,
SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY OR UNDER STATE OR MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL
AUTHORITY."  PP. 666-676. 

(A)  THE TAX AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE STATUTE, WHETHER LEVIED AGAINST
CAPITAL AND SURPLUS LESS LIABILITIES OR AGAINST ENTIRE NET WORTH, WAS
IN PRACTICAL OPERATION AND EFFECT A TAX UPON FEDERAL BONDS.  PP. 672
673. 

(B)  TRADESMENS NATIONAL BANK V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N, 309 U.S. 560,
AND EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, DISTINGUISHED.  PP.
673-674. 

(C)  A TAX ON CORPORATE CAPITAL MEASURED BY FEDERAL SECURITIES MAY BE
INVALID EVEN THOUGH IMPOSED WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FEDERAL
OBLIGATIONS.  PP. 674-675. 

(D)  IF THE AMOUNT HERE ASSESSED BE VIEWED AS LEVIED EXCLUSIVELY ON
THE CORPORATION'S NET WORTH REMAINING AFTER DEDUCTION OF GOVERNMENT
BONDS AND INTEREST, THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE DISCRIMINATORY BECAUSE IT
WOULD BE LEVIED AT THE RATE OF OVER 79 PER CENT OF THE CORPORATION'S
ASSESSABLE VALUATION RATHER THAN AT THE RATE OF 15 PER CENT PRESCRIBED
BY THE STATE STATUTE.  P. 675. 

(E)  THE RESULT HERE REACHED IS CONSONANT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE OF R.S. SEC. 3701 "TO PREVENT TAXES WHICH DIMINISH IN THE
SLIGHTEST DEGREE THE MARKET VALUE OR THE INVESTMENT ATTRACTIVENESS OF
OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES IN AN EFFORT TO SECURE
NECESSARY CREDIT."  P. 675. 

(F)  THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OF R.S. SEC. 3701 ALSO REQUIRES THE
EXEMPTION FROM ASSESSMENT UNDER THE STATE STATUTE OF INTEREST ON
FEDERAL SECURITIES WHICH HAD ACCRUED BUT HAD NOT YET BEEN PAID.  PP.
675-676. 

NEW JERSEY REALTY TITLE INSURANCE CO. V. DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS OF
NEW JERSEY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY. 

AN ORDER OF A STATE TAX AGENCY DISMISSING APPELLANT'S APPEAL FROM AN
ASSESSMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE FORMER NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT.  137
N.J.L. 444, 60 A.2D 265.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY AS
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PRESENT STATE CONSTITUTION REVERSED.  1 N.J. 496,
64 A.2D 341.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 676. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A TAXING DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY HAS LEVIED AGAINST THE INTANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY OF A DOMESTIC CORPORATION AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE
TAXABLE YEAR 1945 IN THE AMOUNT OF 15 PER CENT OF THE TAXPAYER'S PAID
UP CAPITAL AND SURPLUS, COMPUTED WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES BONDS AND ACCRUED INTEREST THEREON.  THIS
APPEAL CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT AND OF THE TAX STATUTE
UNDER WHICH IT WAS LEVIED, ON THE GROUND OF CONFLICT WITH ART. I, SEC.
8 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, BY WHICH CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED "TO
BORROW MONEY ON THE CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES," AND WITH SEC. 3701 OF
THE REVISED STATUTES (1875), 31 U.S.C. SEC. 742, WHICH GENERALLY
EXEMPTS INTEREST-BEARING OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM STATE
AND LOCAL TAXATION. 

THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION WAS LEVIED UNDER SEC. 54:4-22 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY (1937), AS AMENDED BY LAWS OF 1938, C.
245.  FN1  N.J. REV. STAT. CUM. SUPP., LAWS OF 1938, 1939, 1940, SEC.
54:4-22.  THAT SECTION PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"EVERY STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS
STATE, OTHER THAN A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, SHALL BE ASSESSED AND TAXED
IN THE TAXING DISTRICT WHERE ITS OFFICE IS SITUATED, UPON THE FULL
AMOUNT OR VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY (EXCLUSIVE OF REAL ESTATE AND TANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHICH SHALL BE SEPARATELY ASSESSED AND TAXED WHERE
THE SAME IS LOCATED, AND EXCLUSIVE OF ALL SHARES OF STOCK OWNED BY SUCH
INSURANCE COMPANY AND EXCLUSIVE OF NONTAXABLE PROPERTY AND OF PROPERTY
EXEMPT FROM TAXATION), DEDUCTING FROM SUCH AMOUNT OR VALUE ALL DEBTS
AND LIABILITIES CERTAIN AND DEFINITE AS TO OBLIGATION AND AMOUNT, AND
THE FULL AMOUNT OF ALL RESERVES FOR TAXES, AND SUCH PROPORTION OF THE
RESERVES FOR UNEARNED PREMIUMS, LOSSES AND OTHER LIABILITIES AS THE
FULL AMOUNT OR VALUE OF ITS TAXABLE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY BEARS TO THE
FULL AMOUNT OR VALUE OF ALL ITS INTANGIBLE PROPERTY; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ANY STOCK
INSURANCE COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL IN NO
EVENT BE LESS THAN FIFTEEN PER CENTUM OF THE SUM OF THE PAID-UP CAPITAL
AND THE SURPLUS IN EXCESS OF THE TOTAL OF ALL LIABILITIES OF SUCH
COMPANY, AS THE SAME ARE STATED IN THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF SUCH COMPANY
FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR NEXT PRECEDING THE DATE OF SUCH ASSESSMENT AND
FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY, AFTER DEDUCTING FROM SUCH TOTAL OF CAPITAL AND SURPLUS THE
AMOUNT OF ALL TAX ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ANY AND ALL REAL ESTATE, TITLE TO
WHICH STANDS IN THE NAME OF SUCH COMPANY. 

"THE CAPITAL STOCK IN ANY SUCH COMPANY SHALL NOT BE REGARDED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT (SECTION) AS A LIABILITY AND NO PART OF THE AMOUNT
THEREOF SHALL BE DEDUCTED, AND THE PERSON OR PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS
HOLDING THE CAPITAL STOCK OF SUCH COMPANY SHALL NOT BE ASSESSED OR
TAXED THEREFOR.  NO FRANCHISE TAX SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON ANY INSURANCE
COMPANY INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION."  FN2 

A CORPORATION SUBJECT TO THIS SECTION WAS TAXABLE AT THE RATE OF THE
LOCAL TAXING DISTRICT. 

APPELLANT IS NEW JERSEY REALTY TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A STOCK
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY WITH ITS OFFICE IN THE CITY AND TAXING
DISTRICT OF NEWARK, COUNTY OF ESSEX, NEW JERSEY.  FOR THE YEAR 1945 THE
CITY OF NEWARK LEVIED AN ASSESSMENT OF $75,700 ON APPELLANT'S
INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND COLLECTED FROM IT A TAX OF $3,906.12
COMPUTED THEREON. 

APPELLANT HAD FILED A RETURN  FN3  BASED ON ITS BALANCE SHEET AT THE
CLOSE OF BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 30, 1944, SHOWING TOTAL ASSETS OF
$774,972.98, THE ENTIRETY OF WHICH WAS DECLARED TO BE INTANGIBLES.  IN
CALCULATING ITS "TOTAL TAXABLE INTANGIBLES" APPELLANT DEDUCTED THE
FOLLOWING FROM ITS TOTAL ASSETS:  UNITED STATES TREASURY BONDS OF THE
FACE AMOUNT OF $450,000; ACCRUED INTEREST THEREON IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,682.25; AND OTHER NONTAXABLE OR EXEMPT PROPERTY VALUED AT
$318,771.95.  THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY THUS EXCLUDED WAS
$770,454.20.  THE REMAINDER, $4,518.78, WAS ENTERED ON THE RETURN AS
THE TOTAL TAXABLE INTANGIBLES.  FROM THIS AMOUNT APPELLANT DEDUCTED:
$25,756.63 AS "DEBTS AND LIABILITIES CERTAIN"; $28,175.46 AS "RESERVES
FOR TAXES"; AND $758.13 AS "PROPORTION OF LOSS AND PREMIUM."  THERE IS
NO DISAGREEMENT WITH THESE COMPUTATIONS.  AS OBSERVED BY THE HIGHEST
COURT BELOW, THESE DEDUCTIONS "LEFT NO BALANCE OF ASSESSABLE PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO TAX." 

THE TAXING DISTRICT THEREFORE ASSESSED APPELLANT'S PROPERTY UNDER THE
PROVISO IN SEC. 54:4-22 WHICH DIRECTED AN ASSESSMENT OF NOT LESS THAN
15 PER CENT OF "THE SUM OF THE PAID-UP CAPITAL AND THE SURPLUS IN
EXCESS OF THE TOTAL OF ALL LIABILITIES" OF APPELLANT AS SHOWN BY ITS
ANNUAL STATEMENT FOR THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR FILED WITH THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND INSURANCE.  THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF THE
ASSESSMENT IS NOT EXPLICIT IN THE RECORD.  MOREOVER, THE OPINION OF THE
HIGHEST COURT OF NEW JERSEY IS SUBJECT TO SEVERAL INTERPRETATIONS AS TO
THE PROPER METHOD OF COMPUTING THE ASSESSMENT.  THE COURT STATED THAT
THE ASSESSMENT "MAY NOT BE LESS IN AMOUNT THAN 15 PERCENT OF THE PAID
UP CAPITAL AND SURPLUS AS DEFINED BY THE STATUTE."  IF BY THE PHRASE
"AS DEFINED BY THE STATUTE," THE COURT REFERRED TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE
PROVISO IN SEC. 54:4-22, "PAID-UP CAPITAL AND THE SURPLUS IN EXCESS OF
THE TOTAL OF ALL LIABILITIES", IT WOULD SEEM NECESSARY TO DEDUCT
LIABILITIES FROM CAPITAL AND SURPLUS IN DETERMINING THE BASIS FOR THE
15 PER CENT COMPUTATION.  THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION WOULD THEN BE
$496,999.70,  FN4  AND THE 15 PER CENT SUM, $74,549.95.  THE COURT
SUBSEQUENTLY STATED THAT "THE ASSESSMENT MAY EQUAL OR EXCEED 15 PERCENT
OF THE PAID-UP CAPITAL AND SURPLUS, AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE
PRECISELY THE SAME, BUT  ...  CAN NOT BE LESS IN AMOUNT THAN 15 PERCENT
OF THE PAID-UP CAPITAL AND SURPLUS."  SUCH REFERENCES TO "PAID-UP
CAPITAL AND SURPLUS," TOGETHER WITH THE COURT'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
TAX AS LAID ON NET WORTH, SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPUTED
AGAINST APPELLANT'S NET WORTH OF $547,462.93.  ON THIS BASIS, HOWEVER,
THE 15 PER CENT SUM WOULD HAVE BEEN NOT LESS THAN $82,119.43, AND THE
PRESENT ASSESSMENT OF LESS AMOUNT WOULD NOT SATISFY THE COURT'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE AS REQUIRING A LEVY OF NOT LESS THAN 15
PER CENT.  FOR OUR DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE, HOWEVER, IT IS UNNECESSARY
TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THESE CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE OPINION OF
THE COURT BELOW. 

CLEARLY THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY HAS NEGATIVED ANY PURPOSE TO
AUTHORIZE A TAX ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S UNITED STATES
BONDS.  THE COURT BELOW CONCEDED THAT THE SECURITIES INVOLVED WERE, AT
THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT, EXEMPT FROM STATE, MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL
TAXATION.  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE
ASSESSMENT THE FACE VALUE OF APPELLANT'S GOVERNMENT BONDS, TOGETHER
WITH THE INTEREST THEREON, WAS IN FACT INCLUDED.  FN5 

CONTENDING THAT SEC. 54:4-22 AS THUS APPLIED CONTRAVENES PARAMOUNT
FEDERAL PROVISIONS, APPELLANT SOUGHT CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ON
APPEAL TO THE DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND
FINANCE OF NEW JERSEY.  THE DIVISION'S OPINION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL
REFERRED TO THE PROCEEDING AS "A PERSONAL PROPERTY APPEAL."  ITS ORDER
OF DISMISSAL WAS REVERSED BY THE FORMER NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  137 N.J.L. 444, 60 A.2D 265.  THAT COURT VIEWED
THE LEVY AS AN AD VALOREM TAX ON PERSONALTY; AFTER CONCLUDING THAT THE
TAX WOULD BE VALID ONLY IF THE BONDS AND INTEREST WERE EXCLUDED FROM
THE COMPUTATION, THE COURT CONSTRUED THE TAX STATUTE AS REQUIRING SUCH
EXCLUSION.  THIS RULING WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
AS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE.  1 N.J.
496, 64 A.2D 341.  THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE DECLARED THAT THE
ASSESSMENT WAS "AGAINST THE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY" BUT "CONCLUDED THAT
THE TAX LEVIED  ...  IS NOT AN AD VALOREM TAX OR PROPERTY TAX BUT
RATHER IS A ...  TAX UPON THE NET WORTH OF THE COMPANY."  IT HELD THAT
SUCH A TAX, HAVING BEEN IMPOSED WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, WAS
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE.  FROM THIS DECISION THE PRESENT APPEAL
WAS TAKEN.  WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

THE ASSESSMENT MUST FALL AS IN CONFLICT WITH SEC. 3701 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES, PROVIDING THAT "ALL STOCKS, BONDS, TREASURY NOTES, AND OTHER
OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY OR
UNDER STATE OR MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL AUTHORITY." 

IF WE CONSIDER THE ASSESSMENT AS A 15 PER CENT LEVY EITHER AGAINST
CAPITAL AND SURPLUS LESS LIABILITIES OR AGAINST ENTIRE NET WORTH, WE
TAKE AS GUIDES TO OUR APPLICATION OF SEC. 3701 THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT ON THE RELATED CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF IMMUNITY IN BANK OF
COMMERCE V. NEW YORK CITY, 2 BLACK 620(1863), AND THE BANK TAX CASE, 2
WALL.  200(1865), WHICH CONSIDERED ASSESSMENTS UNDER STATE TAXING
PROVISIONS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM NEW JERSEY'S SEC.
54:4-22 AS THUS APPLIED.  THE BANK OF COMMERCE CASE INVOLVED AN
ASSESSMENT LEVIED UPON THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE CAPITAL STOCK, LESS THE
VALUE OF REAL ESTATE, OF A CORPORATE TAXPAYER WHICH HAD INVESTED IN
UNITED STATES SECURITIES ALL OF ITS ASSETS OTHER THAN ITS REALTY.  IN
HOLDING THE TAX INVALID AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE FEDERAL BORROWING
POWER, THE COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED AS A LEVY UPON CORPORATE CAPITAL REPRESENTED BY FEDERAL
SECURITIES.  IN THE BANK TAX CASE THIS COURT CONSIDERED ASSESSMENTS
LEVIED AGAINST "THE AMOUNT OF ...  CAPITAL STOCK PAID IN OR SECURED TO
BE PAID IN, AND  ...  SURPLUS EARNINGS" OF BANKING CORPORATIONS WHICH
HAD INVESTED ALL OR A LARGE PART OF THEIR CAPITAL IN GOVERNMENT
SECURITIES.  AS AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT THIS COURT SHOULD REGARD AS
CONCLUSIVE THE STATE COURT'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TAX AS ONE LAID ON
CAPITAL AND SURPLUS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENTS WERE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE COURT OBSERVED THAT 

"WHEN THE CAPITAL  ...  THUS INVESTED IS MADE THE BASIS OF TAXATION
OF THE INSTITUTIONS, THERE IS GREAT DIFFICULTY IN SAYING THAT IT IS NOT
THE STOCK THUS CONSTITUTING THE CORPUS OR BODY OF THE CAPITAL THAT IS
TAXED.  IT IS NOT EASY TO SEPARATE THE PROPERTY IN WHICH THE CAPITAL IS
INVESTED FROM THE CAPITAL ITSELF.  ...  THE LEGISLATURE  ...  WHEN
PROVIDING FOR A TAX ON  ...  CAPITAL AT A VALUATION  ...  COULD NOT BUT
HAVE INTENDED A TAX UPON THE PROPERTY IN WHICH THE CAPITAL HAD BEEN
INVESTED.  ...  SUCH IS THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE TAX  ...  "  2
WALL.  AT 208-209. 

AND IN BANK V. SUPERVISORS, 7 WALL.  26(1869), IT WAS HELD THAT
CERTAIN ISSUES OF UNITED STATES NOTES WERE EXEMPT FROM ASSESSMENT UNDER
THE STATUTE CONSIDERED IN THE BANK TAX CASE, SUPRA, IN VIEW OF A
CONGRESSIONAL PROVISION, WHICH FORESHADOWED SEC. 3701, THAT UNITED
STATES SECURITIES "SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY OR UNDER STATE
AUTHORITY."  12 STAT. 346.  AND SEE FARMERS BANK V. MINNESOTA, 232 U.S.
516, 528(1914); HOME SAVINGS BANK V. DES MOINES, 205 U.S. 503, 512
513(1907). 

IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER THE TAX IS, AS APPELLEE CONTENDS, AN INDIRECT
OR EXCISE LEVY ON NET WORTH MEASURED BY CORPORATE CAPITAL AND SURPLUS
OR IS, AS APPELLANT URGES, A TAX ON PERSONAL PROPERTY BASED ON A
VALUATION GAUGED BY CAPITAL AND SURPLUS.  OUR INQUIRY IS NARROWED TO
WHETHER IN PRACTICAL OPERATION AND EFFECT THE TAX IS IN PART A TAX UPON
FEDERAL BONDS.  WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE TAX AUTHORIZED BY SEC.
54:4-22, WHETHER LEVIED AGAINST CAPITAL AND SURPLUS LESS LIABILITIES OR
AGAINST ENTIRE NET WORTH, IS IMPOSED ON SUCH SECURITIES REGARDLESS OF
THE ACCOUNTING LABEL EMPLOYED IN DESCRIBING IT. 

THE COURT BELOW, DESCRIBING THE TAX AS LEVIED ON NET WORTH AND
INDIRECTLY ON CAPITAL AND SURPLUS MEASURED IN PART BY TAX-EXEMPT
PROPERTY, HELD IT VALID ON THE AUTHORITY OF TRADESMENS NAT. BANK V.
OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N, 309 U.S. 560(1940), AND EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V.
WARD, 282 U.S. 379(1931).  THE DECISION IN THE TRADESMENS BANK CASE
DOES NOT BEAR UPON THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  THERE THE COURT UPHELD A
STATE TAX STATUTE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO AN ACT OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZING
STATE TAXATION OF NATIONAL BANKS.  MOREOVER, THE TAX THERE CONSIDERED,
AS WELL AS THAT UNDER SCRUTINY IN THE EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. CASE, WAS
NOT MEASURED IN EFFECT BY THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXPAYER'S FEDERAL
SECURITIES OR INTEREST BUT WAS A FRANCHISE TAX MEASURED BY NET INCOME. 
FN6 THE SECTION HERE IN QUESTION WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS IMPOSING A TAX
ON PRIVILEGE OR FRANCHISE BY EITHER THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE  FN7  OR
THE TAXING OFFICIALS  FN8  OR BY ANY OF THE COURTS BELOW.  FN9  WHILE
WE ARE NOT LIMITED BY THE STATE'S CHARACTERIZATION OF ITS TAX, CF.
WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 443(1940), WE LIKEWISE DO
NOT THINK THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE SUSTAINED AS ONE LEVIED ON A CORPORATE
FRANCHISE.  IN CONSIDERING THE SIMILAR TAX ON CAPITAL AND EARNED
SURPLUS UNDER REVIEW IN THE BANK TAX CASE, SUPRA, THIS COURT DECLARED
THAT THE LEVY WAS "IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTY OF THE INSTITUTIONS, AS
CONTRADISTINGUISHED FROM A TAX UPON THEIR PRIVILEGES OR FRANCHISES."  2
WALL.  AT 209.    IF THE ASSESSMENT IS CONSIDERED TO BE 15 PER CENT OF
CAPITAL AND SURPLUS LESS LIABILITIES OR OF ENTIRE NET WORTH, WE AGREE
WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE TAX LEVIED UNDER SEC. 54:4-22 DOES NOT
IMPOSE A DISCRIMINATORY BURDEN ON FEDERAL ISSUES AS DID THE TAX STATUTE
AGAINST WHICH SEC. 3701 WAS INVOKED IN MISSOURI INS. CO. V. GEHNER, 281
U.S. 313(1930).  BUT SINCE THE DECISION IN BANK OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK
CITY, SUPRA, IT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT A TAX ON CORPORATE CAPITAL
MEASURED BY FEDERAL SECURITIES MAY BE INVALID EVEN THOUGH IMPOSED
WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS. 

IF, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT OF $75,700 IS VIEWED AS IF IT WERE LEVIED
EXCLUSIVELY UPON APPELLANT'S NET WORTH REMAINING AFTER DEDUCTION OF
GOVERNMENT BONDS AND INTEREST, THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE DISCRIMINATORY
SINCE IT WOULD BE LEVIED AT THE RATE OF OVER 79 PER CENT OF APPELLANT'S
ASSESSABLE VALUATION OF $94,936.87 RATHER THAN AT THE RATE OF 15 PER
CENT PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 54:4-22.  SUCH INCREASED RATE OF ASSESSMENT
WOULD RESULT SOLELY FROM APPELLANT'S OWNERSHIP OF FEDERAL ISSUES.  IN
THE GEHNER CASE, SUPRA, THIS COURT HELD THAT SEC. 3701 WAS OFFENDED BY
A COMPUTATION WHICH ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE
TAXPAYER'S FEDERAL BONDS YET AT THE SAME TIME PARED DOWN THE NET VALUE
OF OTHER ALLOWABLE EXEMPTIONS, TO THE TAXPAYER'S DISADVANTAGE, SOLELY
BECAUSE OF SUCH OWNERSHIP OF FEDERAL BONDS.  CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
GEHNER DECISION, WE CAN ONLY HOLD THAT SEC. 3701 IS VIOLATED BY AN
AUTOMATIC INCREASE IN THE RATE OF ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO APPELLANT'S
VALUATION AFTER DEDUCTION OF FEDERAL BONDS. 

THE RESULT WHICH IS THUS INDICATED IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, WHICH WE HAVE FOUND IN SEC. 3701, "TO PREVENT
TAXES WHICH DIMINISH IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE THE MARKET VALUE OR THE
INVESTMENT ATTRACTIVENESS OF OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES IN
AN EFFORT TO SECURE NECESSARY CREDIT."  SMITH V. DAVIS, 323 U.S. 111,
117(1944). 

THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OF SEC. 3701 ALSO REQUIRED THE EXEMPTION FROM
ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 54:4-22 OF INTEREST ON FEDERAL SECURITIES WHICH
HAD ACCRUED BUT WAS NOT YET PAID.  CF. HIBERNIA SAVINGS & LOAN SOCIETY
V. SAN FRANCISCO, 200 U.S. 310(1906).  CONGRESS ON OCCASION HAS
EXPRESSLY DECLARED AN EXEMPTION FROM STATE TAXATION OF INTEREST ON
FEDERAL SECURITIES,  FN10 AND WE DO NOT FIND A CONTRARY PURPOSE
DISCLOSED BY THE OMISSION FROM SEC. 3701 OF THE PHRASE "AND INTEREST
THEREON." 

THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAX UNDER SEC. 54:4-22 OF THE NEW JERSEY REVISED
STATUTES AS LEVIED IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE PARAMOUNT PROVISION OF SEC.
3701 OF THE REVISED STATUTES.  THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
JERSEY IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 54:4-22 IS INCLUDED UNDER "TITLE 54.  SUBTITLE 2. 
TAXATION OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IN GENERAL." 

FN2  BY AN AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN 1945, BUT NOT OPERATIVE ON THE
ASSESSMENT DATE HERE INVOLVED, THE LAST SENTENCE OF SEC. 54:4-22 AS
QUOTED ABOVE WAS DELETED.  N.J. REV. STAT. CUM. SUPP., LAWS OF 1945,
1946, 1947, SEC. 54:4-22. 

FN3  THE RETURN WAS ON A FORM FURNISHED BY THE TAXING DISTRICT AND
ENTITLED "PERSONAL PROPERTY RETURN OF STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY FOR YEAR
1945 UNDER SECTION 54:4-22 OF REVISED STATUTES." 

FN4  THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR 1943 REFLECTED THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
PAID-UP CAPITAL $250,000; PAID-IN SURPLUS $250,000; EARNED SURPLUS
$47,462.93; LIABILITIES $50,463.23; UNITED STATES TREASURY BONDS AND
ACCRUED INTEREST OF $452,526.06.  RESERVES AMOUNTED TO $161,047.74, NOT
INCLUDING RESERVES FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN IN THE
RECORD.  IT SEEMS PROBABLE THAT IF THE NEW JERSEY COURT DID APPROVE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 54:4-22 SUGGESTED ABOVE, IT MEANT TO AUTHORIZE THE
DEDUCTION OF NONRESERVE LIABILITIES ONLY.  BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE
HAVE ASSUMED IN THEIR BRIEFS THAT IF ANY DEDUCTION OF LIABILITIES FROM
CAPITAL AND SURPLUS WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE STATUTE, ONLY NONRESERVE
LIABILITIES WERE DEDUCTIBLE. 

FN5  IF UNDER THE PROVISO OF SEC. 54:4-22 "THE TOTAL OF ALL
LIABILITIES" OF APPELLANT IS DEDUCTIBLE FROM "THE PAID-UP CAPITAL AND
THE SURPLUS," AND THE 15 PER CENT MUST BE COMPUTED AGAINST THE FIGURE
OF $496,999.70, DEDUCTION THEREFROM OF APPELLANT'S UNITED STATES BONDS
AND INTEREST LEAVES ONLY $44,473.64.  IF, HOWEVER, THE BASIS OF
COMPUTATION IS APPELLANT'S NET WORTH OF $547,462.93, THEN THERE IS A
REMAINDER OF $94,936.87 AFTER DEDUCTING THE GOVERNMENT BONDS AND
INTEREST.  BUT NEITHER THE APPELLEE NOR ANY OF THE COURTS BELOW HAS
SOUGHT TO UPHOLD THE ASSESSMENT OF $75,700 AS HAVING BEEN COMPUTED
SOLELY AGAINST THIS EXCESS OVER BONDS AND INTEREST.  IN FACT IT MAY BE
IMPLIED FROM APPELLEE'S BRIEF THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL BONDS AND
INTEREST MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM NET WORTH, THE EXCESS OF NET WORTH AFTER
SUCH DEDUCTION IS SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AT THE 15 PER CENT RATE. 

FN6  IN ALL OTHER DECISIONS IN WHICH A STATE TAX HAS BEEN UPHELD,
AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT IT WAS IN EFFECT LEVIED ON A CORPORATE
TAXPAYER'S FEDERAL BONDS OR INTEREST, THE TAX WAS A FRANCHISE LEVY,
MEASURED EITHER BY AMOUNT OF BANK DEPOSITS, SOCIETY FOR SAVINGS V.
COITE, 6 WALL.  594(1868); PROVIDENT INSTITUTION V. MASSACHUSETTS, 6
WALL.  611(1868), OR BY THE MARKET VALUE OF THE TAXPAYER'S SHARES,
HAMILTON CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 6 WALL.  632(1868), OR BY DIVIDENDS
DECLARED OR PAID, HOME INS. CO. V. NEW YORK, 134 U.S. 594(1890). 

FN7  SEE NOTES 1 AND 2 SUPRA. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA. 

FN9  THE HIGHEST COURT OF NEW JERSEY DECLARED THAT ITS DECISION WAS
REQUIRED "WHETHER THE TAXING STATUTE IS A FRANCHISE TAX OR A TAX UPON
THE NET WORTH OF THE COMPANY, WHICH LATTER WE HOLD THE TAX UNDER THE
STATUTE BEFORE US TO BE."  1 N.J. 502, 64 A.2D 344. 

FN10  SEE 16 STAT. 272; 39 STAT. 1000, 1003; 40 STAT. 288, 291. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE THAT NEW JERSEY CANNOT TAX UNITED STATES BONDS MADE TAX
EXEMPT BY CONGRESS.  THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD, HOWEVER, THAT
SUCH BONDS NEED NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM COMPUTATION OF A JUSTIFIABLE STATE
TAX IMPOSED ON CORPORATIONS CREATED BY OR DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE
STATE.  A SHORT TIME AGO WE SAID THAT "THE POWER OF A STATE TO LEVY A
TAX ON A LEGITIMATE SUBJECT, SUCH AS A FRANCHISE, MEASURED BY NET
ASSETS OR NET INCOME INCLUDING TAX-EXEMPT FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES OR
THEIR INCOME IS LIKEWISE WELL SETTLED."  TRADESMENS BANK V. TAX COMM'N,
309 U.S. 560, 564; AND SEE CASES THERE CITED.  I DO NOT SEE HOW THE
COURT'S OPINION HERE CAN POSSIBLY BE RECONCILED WITH THAT PRINCIPLE,
FOR IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS NEW JERSEY TAX AS APPLIED FALLS
WITHIN SUCH A CLASSIFICATION. 

THE STATE LAW UNDER WHICH THIS TAX WAS LEVIED APPLIES ONLY TO STOCK
INSURANCE COMPANIES ORGANIZED UNDER NEW JERSEY LAWS.  THE FIRST PART
PROVIDES FOR A TAX ON INTANGIBLE PROPERTY TO BE COMPUTED BY A FORMULA
WHICH EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES TAX-EXEMPT BONDS, AS WELL AS CERTAIN RESERVES,
FROM THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAX.  TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY THAT
OCCASIONALLY THIS FORMULA MIGHT PRODUCE NO TAX AT ALL, NEW JERSEY ADDED
A PROVISO SETTING A MINIMUM ASSESSMENT OF 15% OF CORPORATE NET WORTH. 
THE NECESSITY OF SUCH A MINIMUM IS CLEAR, FOR THE STATUTE ALSO PROVIDES
THAT "NO FRANCHISE TAX SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON ANY INSURANCE COMPANY
INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION."  THIS TAX ON AN ASSESSMENT MEASURED BY 15%
OF NET WORTH IS THE ONLY NEW JERSEY TAX TO WHICH APPELLANT, A STOCK
INSURANCE COMPANY CREATED BY AND DOING BUSINESS IN NEW JERSEY, WAS
SUBJECTED FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION.  THUS, BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE
AND IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, THIS TAX AT LEAST REPLACED A FRANCHISE TAX. 
CERTAINLY IT WAS LEVIED "ON A LEGITIMATE SUBJECT," WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE TRADESMENS BANK OPINION.  I CAN SEE NO PRACTICAL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THIS NEW JERSEY TAX AND A FRANCHISE TAX, UNLESS THE COURT IS
NOW DEPARTING FROM THE SOUND PRINCIPLE OF DETERMINING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE TAX "BY ITS OPERATION RATHER THAN BY
PARTICULAR DESCRIPTIVE LANGUAGE WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO IT." 
EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, 387.  YET ONLY BY MAKING
SUCH A DISTINCTION CONSTITUTIONALLY DETERMINATIVE CAN THE NEW JERSEY
TAX BE INVALIDATED.  SEE TRADESMENS BANK V. TAX COMM'N, SUPRA;
EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, SUPRA. IF NEW JERSEY HAD SET A MINIMUM
TAX IN DOLLARS WHICH EXCEEDED THE TAX ON APPELLANT HERE, WE COULD NOT
SAY THAT THE TAX WAS AN UNREASONABLE CHARGE FOR THE ADVANTAGES ACCORDED
APPELLANT BY THE STATE.  THAT THE MINIMUM TAX ACTUALLY ENACTED VARIES
FAIRLY WITH NET WORTH, AND THAT APPELLANT HAPPENS TO OWN UNITED STATES
BONDS, SHOULD NOT REQUIRE US TO STRIKE DOWN THIS TAX AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  AND THERE WAS CERTAINLY NO PURPOSE TO PUT A HEAVIER
TAX BURDEN ON APPELLANT MERELY BECAUSE IT OWNED TAX-EXEMPT BONDS.  CF.
MISSOURI INS. CO. V. GEHNER, 281 U.S. 313, 318. 

BUT EVEN UNDER THE COURT'S CONTRARY REASONING ON THAT POINT, I THINK
THE TAX SHOULD STAND.  IT WAS LEVIED ON ONLY $75,700 WORTH OF
APPELLANT'S PROPERTY.  APPELLANT CONCEDED IN ITS BRIEF THAT ITS "NET
WORTH" EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF ITS TAX-EXEMPT FEDERAL SECURITIES BY
$94,936.87.  FN1  THUS THE TAX IMPOSED ON APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE TO
TOUCH ITS TAX-EXEMPT BONDS.  THE COURT'S OPINION ACKNOWLEDGES, AS IT
MUST, THAT NEW JERSEY "CLEARLY  ...  NEGATIVED ANY PURPOSE" TO INCLUDE
THEM IN THE TAX ASSESSMENT.  A LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO EXCLUDE THESE
BONDS FROM ASSESSMENT IS EXPRESS IN THE FIRST PART OF THE NEW JERSEY
STATUTE.  A CONTRARY PURPOSE IN THE PROVISO UNDER WHICH APPELLANT IS
TAXED SHOULD NOT BE DRAWN BY THIS COURT WHEN APPELLANT'S TAX-EXEMPT
BONDS NEED NOT BE TOUCHED BY THE TAX.  THE ASSESSMENT OF 15% OF NET
WORTH LEAVES UNTAXED 85% OF THE NET WORTH, WHICH MORE THAN COVERS THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX-EXEMPT BONDS.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT NEW JERSEY DID NOT
INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH JUST THIS RESULT BY LEAVING 85% UNTAXED.  UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DECISION IN MISSOURI INS. CO. V. GEHNER, SUPRA,
ON WHICH THE COURT RELIES, DOES NOT BAR UPHOLDING THE NEW JERSEY TAX. 
THE GEHNER OPINION RECOGNIZED THE POWER OF THE STATE TO APPLY ITS TAX
RATE TO A COMPANY'S NET WORTH IN EXCESS OF TAX-EXEMPT BONDS. 

MOREOVER, THE NEW JERSEY LAW DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INSURANCE
COMPANIES OWNING GOVERNMENT BONDS.  THE STATE STATUTE HELD INVALID IN
THE GEHNER CASE HAD GRANTED TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR STATUTORY RESERVES,
ETC., BUT HAD DEPRIVED INSURANCE COMPANIES OF THESE EXEMPTIONS TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE COMPANIES OWNED TAX-EXEMPT FEDERAL BONDS.  THIS COURT
HELD SUCH "DISCRIMINATION" UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT THAT HOLDING CAN HAVE
NO APPLICABILITY TO THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE, UNDER WHICH FEDERAL BONDS
IN NO WAY DEPRIVE THEIR OWNERS OF ANY STATE EXEMPTION.  AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, THE NEW JERSEY TAX LAW DID NOT INCREASE APPELLANT'S BURDEN
MERELY BECAUSE APPELLANT OWNED TAX-EXEMPT BONDS.  INDEED, APPELLANT'S
TAX IS SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER THAN IF THE FUNDS INVESTED IN THESE BONDS
HAD BEEN INVESTED IN NON-EXEMPT PROPERTY. 

I THINK THE DECISION OF THE NEW JERSEY COURT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COURT SUGGESTS THAT PERHAPS THE STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED
AS REQUIRING LIABILITIES OTHER THAN RESERVES TO BE SUBTRACTED FROM NET
WORTH BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPUTED, IN WHICH CASE THE EXCESS OVER
GOVERNMENT BONDS WOULD BE ONLY $44,473.64.  I HAD NOT UNDERSTOOD THE
APPELLANT TO RAISE SUCH A QUESTION IN NEW JERSEY OR HERE, NOR DID I
KNOW THAT APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE TAX AS BEING ON TOO LOW AN
ASSESSMENT.  MOREOVER, IN DISCOVERING THIS SUPPOSED AMBIGUITY IN THE
STATUTE THE COURT IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY THE DOUBTFUL PREMISE THAT THE
STATE COURT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ALLEGATION OR PROOF THAT THE TAX
LEVIED WAS TOO SMALL, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RECOMPUTE THE TAX ITSELF AND
THEN EITHER REMAND THE CASE OR CONSTRUE THE STATUTE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO
JUSTIFY WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN MERELY AN ARITHMETICAL ERROR.  FOR AN
INSTANCE IN WHICH A STATE COURT HAS EXPRESSLY REFUSED TO DO EITHER, SEE
MISSOURI INS. CO. V. GEHNER, 281 U.S. 313, 319.  FURTHERMORE, SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION WOULD HAVE ABSURD CONSEQUENCES.  UNDER IT, A COMPANY
COULD AVOID TAXATION COMPLETELY BY MERELY BORROWING A FEW MILLION
DOLLARS TWO DAYS BEFORE THE OPERATIVE DATE OF ASSESSMENT AND PAYING IT
BACK TWO DAYS AFTERWARDS:  THE NET WORTH OF THE COMPANY WOULD NOT BE
ALTERED BY THIS TRANSACTION, BUT THE LIABILITIES WOULD BE INCREASED
(AND THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY REDUCED) BY THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN
OBTAINED.  AS APPELLANT CONCEDES IN ITS BRIEF, SUBTRACTING LIABILITIES
FROM NET WORTH (WHICH IS ITSELF DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING LIABILITIES
FROM ASSETS) WOULD CONFLICT WITH "ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AND
PRACTICE."  IT WOULD ALSO CONFLICT WITH THE STATE COURT'S STATEMENT
THAT THE TAX IS UPON NET WORTH.  I CANNOT ASCRIBE SUCH A SELF-DEFEATING
INTERPRETATION TO THE HIGHEST COURT OF NEW JERSEY. 
..END :























UNITED STATES V. ALPERS, 338 U.S. 680 


NO. 217.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - 175
F.2D 137, REVERSED. 


1.  OBSCENE PHONOGRAPH RECORDS ARE WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 245
OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, WHICH FORBIDS THE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF ANY
OBSCENE "BOOK, PAMPHLET, PICTURE, MOTION-PICTURE FILM, PAPER, LETTER,
WRITING, PRINT, OR OTHER MATTER OF INDECENT CHARACTER."  PP. 680-685. 

2.  THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS MAY NOT BE APPLIED WHEN TO DO SO
WOULD DEFEAT THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION.  PP. 682-683. 

UNITED STATES V. ALPERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VIOLATING SEC. 245
OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  175 F.2D 137. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 813.  REVERSED, P. 685. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE SHIPMENT OF OBSCENE
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 245 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE, WHICH MAKES ILLEGAL THE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF ANY
"OBSCENE  ...  BOOK, PAMPHLET, PICTURE, MOTION-PICTURE FILM, PAPER,
LETTER, WRITING, PRINT, OR OTHER MATTER OF INDECENT CHARACTER." 

RESPONDENT WAS CHARGED BY AN INFORMATION IN THREE COUNTS WITH
KNOWINGLY DEPOSITING WITH AN EXPRESS COMPANY FOR CARRIAGE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE PACKAGES "CONTAINING CERTAIN MATTER OF AN INDECENT CHARACTER,
TO-WIT:  PHONOGRAPH RECORDS IMPRESSED WITH RECORDINGS OF OBSCENE, LEWD,
LASCIVIOUS AND FILTHY LANGUAGE AND OBSCENE, LEWD, LASCIVIOUS AND FILTHY
STORIES."  RESPONDENT, HAVING WAIVED JURY TRIAL, WAS FOUND GUILTY BY
THE DISTRICT COURT ON TWO COUNTS AND WAS ASSESSED A FINE ON EACH.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  175 F.2D 137.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 245 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE TO THE FACTS
OF THIS CASE.  338 U.S. 813. 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHOEVER SHALL  ...  KNOWINGLY DEPOSIT OR CAUSE TO BE DEPOSITED WITH
ANY EXPRESS COMPANY OR OTHER COMMON CARRIER (FOR CARRIAGE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE) ANY OBSCENE, LEWD, OR LASCIVIOUS, OR ANY FILTHY BOOK,
PAMPHLET, PICTURE, MOTION-PICTURE FILM, PAPER, LETTER, WRITING, PRINT,
OR OTHER MATTER OF INDECENT CHARACTER  ...  SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE
THAN $5,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH."  41 STAT.
1060, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 396, NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1462. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE PHONOGRAPH RECORDS WERE OBSCENE AND
INDECENT.  THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY COME WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE. 

WE ARE AWARE THAT THIS IS A CRIMINAL STATUTE AND MUST BE STRICTLY
CONSTRUED.  THIS MEANS THAT NO OFFENSE MAY BE CREATED EXCEPT BY THE
WORDS OF CONGRESS USED IN THEIR USUAL AND ORDINARY SENSE.  THERE ARE NO
CONSTRUCTIVE OFFENSES.  UNITED STATES V. RESNICK, 299 U.S. 207, 210. 
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO BE DETERMINED IS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS. 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE MAY NOT BE DISTORTED UNDER THE GUISE OF
CONSTRUCTION, OR SO LIMITED BY CONSTRUCTION AS TO DEFEAT THE MANIFEST
INTENT OF CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES V. RAYNOR, 302 U.S. 540, 552.  FN1 

IN INTERPRETING THE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO THIS CASE THE COURT OF
APPEALS INVOKED THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS.  SINCE THE WORDS "BOOK,
PAMPHLET, PICTURE, MOTION-PICTURE FILM, PAPER, LETTER, WRITING, PRINT"
APPEARING IN THE STATUTE REFER TO OBJECTS COMPREHENSIBLE BY SIGHT ONLY,
THE COURT CONSTRUED THE GENERAL WORDS "OTHER MATTER OF INDECENT
CHARACTER" TO BE LIMITED TO MATTER OF THE SAME GENUS.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS HELD PHONOGRAPH RECORDS WITHOUT THE STATUTE, SO INTERPRETED,
SINCE PHONOGRAPH RECORDS ARE COMPREHENDED BY THE SENSE OF HEARING. 

WHEN PROPERLY APPLIED, THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS IS A USEFUL CANON
OF CONSTRUCTION.  BUT IT IS TO BE RESORTED TO NOT TO OBSCURE AND DEFEAT
THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF CONGRESS, BUT TO ELUCIDATE ITS WORDS AND
EFFECTUATE ITS INTENT.  IT CANNOT BE EMPLOYED TO RENDER GENERAL WORDS
MEANINGLESS.  MASON V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 545, 554.  WHAT IS OR IS
NOT A PROPER CASE FOR APPLICATION OF THE RULE WAS DISCUSSED IN GOOCH V.
UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124.  IN THAT CASE A BANDIT AND A COMPANION HAD
KIDNAPED TWO POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING ARREST AND HAD
TRANSPORTED THEM ACROSS A STATE LINE.  THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF
KIDNAPING UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH MADE IT AN OFFENSE TO TRANSPORT
ACROSS STATE LINES ANY PERSON WHO HAD BEEN KIDNAPED "AND HELD FOR
RANSOM OR REWARD OR OTHERWISE."  THE POLICE OFFICERS HAD BEEN HELD NOT
FOR RANSOM OR REWARD BUT FOR PROTECTION, AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE
WORDS "OR OTHERWISE" DID NOT COVER THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT, SINCE UNDER
THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS, THE GENERAL PHRASE WAS LIMITED IN MEANING
TO SOME KIND OF MONETARY REWARD.  THIS COURT REJECTED SUCH LIMITING
APPLICATION OF THE RULE, SAYING: 

"THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS, WHILE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, IS ONLY AN
INSTRUMENTALITY FOR ASCERTAINING THE CORRECT MEANING OF WORDS WHEN
THERE IS UNCERTAINTY.  ORDINARILY, IT LIMITS GENERAL TERMS WHICH FOLLOW
SPECIFIC ONES TO MATTERS SIMILAR TO THOSE SPECIFIED; BUT IT MAY NOT BE
USED TO DEFEAT THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION.  AND, WHILE PENAL
STATUTES ARE NARROWLY CONSTRUED, THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE REJECTION OF
THAT SENSE OF THE WORDS WHICH BEST HARMONIZES WITH THE CONTEXT AND THE
END IN VIEW."  297 U.S. AT 128. 

WE THINK THAT TO APPLY THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS TO THE PRESENT
CASE WOULD BE "TO DEFEAT THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION."  THE
OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS TO PREVENT
THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM BEING USED TO DISSEMINATE ANY
MATTER THAT, IN ITS ESSENTIAL NATURE, COMMUNICATES OBSCENE, LEWD,
LASCIVIOUS OR FILTHY IDEAS.  THE STATUTE IS MORE FULLY SET OUT IN THE
MARGIN.  FN2  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT CONGRESS LEGISLATED WITH RESPECT TO
A NUMBER OF EVILS IN ADDITION TO THOSE PROSCRIBED BY THE PORTION OF THE
STATUTE UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT WAS CHARGED.  STATUTES ARE CONSTRUED IN
THEIR ENTIRE CONTEXT.  THIS IS A COMPREHENSIVE STATUTE, WHICH SHOULD
NOT BE CONSTRICTED BY A MECHANICAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR ITS HISTORY TO INDICATE THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE APPLICABLE PORTION OF THE STATUTE TO
SUCH INDECENT MATTER AS IS COMPREHENDED THROUGH THE SENSE OF SIGHT. 
TRUE, THIS STATUTE WAS AMENDED IN 1920 TO INCLUDE "MOTION-PICTURE
FILM."  WE ARE NOT PERSUADED THAT CONGRESS, BY ADDING MOTION-PICTURE
FILM TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, EVIDENCED AN INTENT
THAT OBSCENE MATTER NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDED WAS WITHOUT THE PROHIBITION
OF THE STATUTE; NOR DO WE THINK THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT ONLY VISUAL
OBSCENE MATTER WAS WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE.  THE FIRST
WORLD WAR GAVE CONSIDERABLE IMPETUS TO THE MAKING AND DISTRIBUTION OF
MOTION-PICTURE FILMS.  AND IN 1920 THE PUBLIC WAS CONSIDERABLY ALARMED
AT THE INDECENCY OF MANY OF THE FILMS.  FN3  IT THUS APPEARS THAT WITH
RESPECT TO THIS AMENDMENT, CONGRESS WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH MAKING DOUBLY
SURE THAT MOTION-PICTURE FILM WAS WITHIN THE ACT, AND WAS CONCERNED
WITH NOTHING MORE OR LESS.  FN4 

UPON THIS RECORD WE COULD NOT HOLD, NOR DO WE WISH TO BE UNDERSTOOD
TO HOLD, THAT THE APPLICABLE PORTION OF THE STATUTE IS ALL-INCLUSIVE. 
AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THE SAME STATUTE CONTAINS OTHER PROVISIONS
RELATING TO OBJECTS INTENDED FOR AN INDECENT OR IMMORAL USE.  BUT THE
PORTION OF THE STATUTE HERE IN ISSUE DOES PROSCRIBE THE DISSEMINATION
OF MATTER WHICH, IN ITS ESSENTIAL NATURE, COMMUNICATES OBSCENE IDEAS. 
WE ARE CLEAR THEREFORE THAT OBSCENE PHONOGRAPH RECORDS ARE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED,
AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE HORACK, THE DISINTEGRATION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, 24
IND. L.J. 335, 343-344(1949). 

FN2  "WHOEVER SHALL BRING OR CAUSE TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED
STATES, OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, FROM ANY
FOREIGN COUNTRY, OR SHALL THEREIN KNOWINGLY DEPOSIT OR CAUSE TO BE
DEPOSITED WITH ANY EXPRESS COMPANY OR OTHER COMMON CARRIER (FOR
CARRIAGE IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE) ANY OBSCENE, LEWD, OR
LASCIVIOUS, OR ANY FILTHY BOOK, PAMPHLET, PICTURE, MOTION-PICTURE FILM,
PAPER, LETTER, WRITING, PRINT, OR OTHER MATTER OF INDECENT CHARACTER,
OR ANY DRUG, MEDICINE, ARTICLE, OR THING DESIGNED, ADAPTED, OR INTENDED
FOR PREVENTING CONCEPTION, OR PRODUCING ABORTION, OR FOR ANY INDECENT
OR IMMORAL USE; OR ANY WRITTEN OR PRINTED CARD, LETTER, CIRCULAR, BOOK,
PAMPHLET, ADVERTISEMENT, OR NOTICE OF ANY KIND GIVING INFORMATION,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, WHERE, HOW, OR OF WHOM, OR BY WHAT MEANS ANY OF
THE HEREINBEFORE MENTIONED ARTICLES, MATTERS, OR THINGS MAY BE OBTAINED
OR MADE; OR WHOEVER SHALL KNOWINGLY TAKE OR CAUSE TO BE TAKEN FROM SUCH
EXPRESS COMPANY OR OTHER COMMON CARRIER ANY MATTER OR THING THE
DEPOSITING OF WHICH FOR CARRIAGE IS HEREIN MADE UNLAWFUL, SHALL BE
FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR
BOTH."  18 U.S.C. SEC. 396, NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1462. 

FN3  SEE THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY, 254 ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, PP. 7-9, 140, 155, 157(1947). 

FN4  H.R. REP. NO. 580, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1920); S. REP. NO. 528,
66TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1920); 59 CONG. REC. 2178-2179, 7162, 7297, 8280,
8334(1920). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THE CONDUCT OF THIS RESPONDENT WAS MADE AN
OFFENSE BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION ON WHICH HIS
CONVICTION RESTS.  THAT PROVISION FORBIDS DEPOSIT WITH AN EXPRESS
COMPANY, FOR INTERSTATE CARRIAGE, OF "ANY OBSCENE, LEWD, OR LASCIVIOUS,
OR ANY FILTHY BOOK, PAMPHLET, PICTURE, MOTION-PICTURE FILM, PAPER,
LETTER, WRITING, PRINT, OR OTHER MATTER OF INDECENT CHARACTER  ...  "
18 U.S.C. SEC. 396(1946 ED.), NOW SEC. 1462(1948 REV.).  THE CRIME WITH
WHICH RESPONDENT WAS CHARGED INVOLVED PHONOGRAPH RECORDS, WHICH DO NOT
COME UNDER ANY SPECIFIC CATEGORY LISTED IN THE STATUTE.  CONSEQUENTLY
THE INFORMATION AGAINST RESPONDENT COULD ONLY CHARGE VIOLATION OF THE
PROVISION'S GENERAL LANGUAGE BARRING SHIPMENT OF "OTHER MATTER OF
INDECENT CHARACTER."  THE COURT SUSTAINS THE CONVICTION HERE BY
REASONING THAT A PHONOGRAPH RECORD IS "MATTER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THIS CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION. 

OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT CRIMINAL
STATUTES SHALL BE COUCHED IN LANGUAGE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR TO APPRISE
PEOPLE OF THE PRECISE CONDUCT THAT IS PROHIBITED.  JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION DEVIATES FROM THIS SALUTARY PRINCIPLE WHEN STATUTORY
LANGUAGE IS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE CONDUCT THAT CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE
BARRED, BUT DID NOT, BY THE LANGUAGE IT USED.  FN1 COMPARE UNITED
STATES V. WEITZEL, 246 U.S. 533, 543, WITH UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN,
332 U.S. 689, 693-694. 

THE RELUCTANCE OF COURTS TO EXPAND THE COVERAGE OF CRIMINAL STATUTES
IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT WHERE, AS HERE, THE STATUTE RESULTS IN
CENSORSHIP.  ACCORDING TO DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS, "MATTER" UNDENIABLY
INCLUDES PHONOGRAPH RECORDS AND THE SUBSTANCES OF WHICH THEY ARE MADE. 
INDEED, DICTIONARIES TELL US THAT "MATTER" ENCOMPASSES ALL TANGIBLES
AND MANY INTANGIBLES, INCLUDING MATERIAL TREATED OR TO BE TREATED IN A
BOOK, SPEECH, LEGAL ACTION OR THE LIKE; MATTER FOR DISCUSSION,
ARGUMENT, EXPOSITION, ETC.; AND MATERIAL TREATED IN THE MEDIEVAL
METRICAL ROMANCES.  THE MANY MEANINGS OF "MATTER" ARE WARNING SIGNALS
AGAINST GIVING THE WORD THE BROAD CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE COURT. 

HISTORY IS NOT LACKING IN PROOF THAT STATUTES LIKE THIS MAY READILY
BE CONVERTED INTO INSTRUMENTS FOR DANGEROUS ABRIDGMENTS OF FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION.  PEOPLE OF VARIED TEMPERAMENTS AND BELIEFS HAVE ALWAYS
DIFFERED AMONG THEMSELVES CONCERNING WHAT IS "INDECENT."  SCULPTURE,
PAINTINGS AND LITERATURE, RANKED AMONG THE CLASSICS BY SOME, DEEPLY
OFFEND THE RELIGIOUS AND MORAL SENSIBILITIES OF OTHERS.  FN2  AND THOSE
WHICH OFFEND, HOWEVER PRICELESS OR IRREPLACEABLE, HAVE OFTEN BEEN
DESTROYED BY HONEST ZEALOTS CONVINCED THAT SUCH DESTRUCTION WAS
NECESSARY TO PRESERVE MORALITY AS THEY SAW IT. 

OF COURSE THERE IS A TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CULTURAL TREASURES
AND THE PHONOGRAPH RECORDS HERE INVOLVED.  BUT OUR DECISION CANNOT BE
BASED ON THAT DIFFERENCE.  INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS THE VITAL QUESTION
OF WHETHER COURTS SHOULD GIVE THE MOST EXPANSIVE CONSTRUCTION TO
GENERAL TERMS IN LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR CENSORSHIP OF PUBLICATIONS
OR PICTURES FOUND TO BE "INDECENT," "OBSCENE," ETC.  CENSORSHIP IN ANY
FIELD MAY SO READILY ENCROACH ON CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED LIBERTIES
THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT ADD TO THE LIST OF ITEMS BANNED BY CONGRESS. 
FN3 

IN THE PROVISION RELIED ON, AS WELL AS ELSEWHERE IN THE ACT, CONGRESS
USED LANGUAGE CAREFULLY DESCRIBING A NUMBER OF "INDECENT" ARTICLES AND
FORBADE THEIR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS SPECIFIC LIST
APPLIED CENSORSHIP ONLY TO ARTICLES THAT PEOPLE COULD READ OR SEE; THE
COURT NOW ADDS TO IT ARTICLES CAPABLE OF USE TO PRODUCE SOUNDS THAT
PEOPLE CAN HEAR.  FN4  THE JUDICIAL ADDITION HERE MAY ITSELF BE SMALL. 
BUT IT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY A TECHNIQUE OF BROAD INTERPRETATION WHICH TOO
OFTEN MAY BE SUCCESSFULLY INVOKED BY THE MANY PEOPLE WHO WANT THE LAW
TO PROSCRIBE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE MAY SAY, WRITE, HEAR, SEE, OR READ.  I
CANNOT AGREE TO ANY DEPARTURE FROM THE SOUND PRACTICE OF NARROWLY
CONSTRUING STATUTES WHICH BY CENSORSHIP RESTRICT LIBERTY OF
COMMUNICATION. 

SINCE CONGRESS DID NOT SPECIFICALLY BAN THE SHIPMENT OF PHONOGRAPH
RECORDS,  FN5  THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DO SO.    FN1  THE GOVERNMENT
POINTS TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS AND RELATED STATUTES AS PROOF
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED ITS LANGUAGE TO BE MOST BROADLY CONSTRUED. 
PARTICULARLY IT RELIES ON THE ARGUMENT THAT ANTHONY COMSTOCK, A
SUPPORTER AND PROMOTER OF THE FIRST FEDERAL STATUTES IN THIS FIELD, HAD
A REPUTATION FOR "THOROUGHNESS IN HIS PURSUIT OF IMMORALITY."  THIS MAY
BE CONCEDED, BUT WE CANNOT CONSTRUE THIS STATUTE ON THE THEORY THAT MR.
COMSTOCK'S ZEAL AS A REFORMER OF MORALS MUST BE CONSIDERED AS
DETERMINATIVE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  THAT ZEAL WAS UNDOUBTEDLY GREAT, SO
GREAT THAT IF ACCEPTED AS A CRITERION OF CONSTRUCTION THE COURT COULD
EXPAND THE PUNISHMENT ALONG WITH THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT. 

FN2  SEE HANNEGAN V. ESQUIRE, INC., 327 U.S. 146, 157-158; BLEISTEIN
V. DONALDSON LITHOGRAPHING CO., 188 U.S. 239, 251-252. 

FN3  SEE DISCUSSION IN 1 CHAFEE, GOVERNMENT AND MASS COMMUNICATIONS
200-366. 

FN4  IN A SECOND PROVISION OF THE ACT, CONGRESS BARRED SHIPMENT OF
"ANY DRUG, MEDICINE, ARTICLE, OR THING DESIGNED, ADAPTED, OR INTENDED
FOR PREVENTING CONCEPTION, OR PRODUCING ABORTION, OR FOR ANY INDECENT
OR IMMORAL USE  ...  "  THIS PROVISION, UNLIKE THE FIRST PROVISION
RELATING TO PICTURES AND WRITTEN OR PRINTED MATTER, REQUIRES PROOF THAT
THE OBJECT SHIPPED WAS DESIGNED, ADAPTED OR INTENDED FOR INDECENT OR
IMMORAL USE. 

A NEW YORK STATUTE CONTAINS TWO PROVISIONS CLOSELY RESEMBLING THESE
TWO PROVISIONS IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  NEW YORK PENAL LAW, SEC. 1141. 
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR
SELLING PHONOGRAPH RECORDS BASED ON AN INFORMATION CHARGING VIOLATION
OF THE FIRST PROVISION OF THE STATE ACT, WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT TO THE FEDERAL PROVISION HERE INVOLVED EXCEPT THAT THE WORD
"MATTER" WAS MODIFIED BY THE PHRASE "WRITTEN OR PRINTED."  THE STATE
COURT DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PROSECUTION
COULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE SECOND PROVISION, WHICH COVERS "ANY
ARTICLE OR INSTRUMENT OF INDECENT OR IMMORAL USE."  NEW YORK V.
STRASSNER, 299 N.Y. 325, 87 N.E.2D 280. 

FN5  SINCE THE DECISION BELOW, A BILL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO
AMEND THE STATUTE SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE TRANSPORTATION OF OBSCENE
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  H.R. 6622, 81ST CONG., 2D
SESS.  IN REQUESTING THIS AMENDMENT, THE ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL STATED THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESENT STATUTE APPLIED TO
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS WAS "QUESTIONABLE," PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE
DECISION BELOW.  RECALLING THE 1920 AMENDMENT TO BRING MOTION-PICTURE
FILM WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE STATUTE, HE URGED THAT "APPARENTLY, THE
TIME HAS NOW ARRIVED FOR A FURTHER AMENDMENT TO BRING OBSCENE
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS CLEARLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PRESENT SECTION." 
THIS PROPOSED BILL IS STILL PENDING IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY. 
..END :






















U.S. V. PACIFIC COAST WHOLESALERS, 338 U.S. 689 


ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1950.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1950.  - 81 F.SUPP. 
991, AFFIRMED. 


AN ASSOCIATION OF WHOLESALE AUTOMOBILE PARTS DEALERS ORGANIZED AND
OPERATED IN GOOD FAITH, ON A NONPROFIT BASIS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EFFECTING SAVINGS IN FREIGHT CHARGES FOR ITS MEMBERS BY SECURING THE
BENEFITS OF CARLOAD, TRUCKLOAD, OR OTHER VOLUME RATES, HELD EXEMPT
UNDER SEC. 402(C)(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT FROM REGULATION BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AS A FREIGHT FORWARDER.  PP. 690
691. 

(A)  THE BASIS OF THE SHIPMENTS - WHETHER F.O.B. DESTINATION (OR
DELIVERED PRICE) OR F.O.B. ORIGIN - IS NOT DETERMINATIVE.  P. 691. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. PACIFIC COAST WHOLESALERS' ASSOCIATION ET AL. 

NO. 113.  APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 114, FREIGHT FORWARDERS INSTITUTE V. PACIFIC COAST
WHOLESALERS' ASSOCIATION ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE AND ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REQUIRING THE APPELLEE IN
NO. 113 TO DISCONTINUE OPERATIONS AS A FREIGHT FORWARDER WITHOUT A
PERMIT FROM THE COMMISSION.  81 F.SUPP.  991.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 691. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE APPELLEE, PACIFIC COAST WHOLESALERS' ASSOCIATION, WAS FORMED BY
SEVEN LOS ANGELES AUTO PARTS DEALERS IN 1935; INCORPORATED UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW AS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION IN 1943; AND HAD FORTY-ONE
MEMBERS AND ISSUED FREIGHT BILLS EXCEEDING ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN
ANNUAL VALUE IN 1945.  THE ISSUE PRESENTED IS WHETHER THIS ASSOCIATION,
WITH RESPECT TO THE SHIPMENTS HERE INVOLVED, IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION
BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AS A FREIGHT FORWARDER OR STANDS
IN EXEMPT STATUS UNDER SEC. 402(C)(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
THIS SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY (1) TO
THE OPERATIONS OF A SHIPPER, OR A GROUP OR ASSOCIATION OF SHIPPERS, IN
CONSOLIDATING OR DISTRIBUTING FREIGHT FOR THEMSELVES OR FOR THE MEMBERS
THEREOF, ON A NONPROFIT BASIS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE BENEFITS
OF CARLOAD, TRUCKLOAD, OR OTHER VOLUME RATES,  ...  "  FN1 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN 1945, CONSIDERED THE STATUS OF
THE APPELLEE IN ITS FIRST DECISION IN THIS MATTER.  AT THAT TIME, IT
CONCLUDED THAT "IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THIS PROCEEDING THAT THE
TRAFFIC HANDLED IS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION, THAT THE ASSOCIATION
WAS FOUNDED AND HAS BEEN OPERATED, IN GOOD FAITH, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EFFECTING SAVINGS IN FREIGHT CHARGES FOR ITS MEMBERS BY SECURING THE
BENEFITS OF CARLOAD, TRUCKLOAD, OR OTHER VOLUME RATES, AND THAT THE
ASSOCIATION IS OPERATED ON A NONPROFIT BASIS.  THESE ARE OPERATIONS OF
THE CHARACTER CONTEMPLATED BY THE EXEMPTION REFERRED TO, AND MAY BE
CONTINUED WITHOUT OBTAINING AUTHORITY THEREFOR FROM THIS COMMISSION." 
264 I.C.C. 134, 142. 

IN 1947, THE COMMISSION REVERSED ITS POSITION AS IT APPLIED TO
SHIPMENTS ON AN F.O.B. DESTINATION OR DELIVERED PRICE BASIS.  269
I.C.C. 504.  IT LEFT STANDING THE EXEMPTION OF THE ASSOCIATION FROM
REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF SHIPMENTS ON AN F.O.B.
ORIGIN BASIS.  IT WAS STATED THAT THE LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE
FREIGHT CHARGES RESTED ON THE NONMEMBER CONSIGNOR, WHO PAID THE FULL
LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATE, RATHER THAN ON THE CONSIGNEE ASSOCIATION
MEMBER.  IT WAS THEREFORE HELD THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RATE
PAID BY THE NONMEMBER AND THE CARLOAD TRANSPORTATION COST WAS PROFIT TO
THE ASSOCIATION, AND THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS HOLDING OUT ITS SERVICE
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  IN THIS VIEW, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT
APPELLEE WAS NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE EXEMPT STATUS ON F.O.B. DESTINATION
OR DELIVERED PRICE SHIPMENTS. 

A DECREE OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER AS WITHOUT RATIONAL BASIS.  81 F.SUPP.  991.  THE COURT
CONSIDERED AS DECISIVE THAT NO SHIPMENTS BY THE ASSOCIATION WERE EVER
UNDERTAKEN EXCEPT AT THE BEHEST AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF A MEMBER. 
LOOKING TO THE AGENCY BETWEEN MEMBER AND ASSOCIATION, RATHER THAN THAT
BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER, THE COURT SAW NO REASONABLE GROUND FOR RULING
THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS ON A PROFIT BASIS, OR THAT IT WAS HOLDING ITS
SERVICE OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  WE AGREE. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT OR THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY TO SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE EXEMPTION TO TURN ON THE
TYPE OF SHIPMENT WHICH WAS INVOLVED, WHETHER F.O.B. ORIGIN OR F.O.B.
DESTINATION (DELIVERED PRICE).  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MEMBERS AND THE GROUP WAS
THOUGHT TO BE DETERMINATIVE.  UNDER THAT TEST, THE VALID CLAIM OF THE
ASSOCIATION TO THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ORIGINAL
COMMISSION DECISION.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  56 STAT. 285, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1002(C)(1). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















DICKINSON V. PETROLEUM CORP., 338 U.S. 507 


NO. 150.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1949.  - DECIDED JANUARY 16, 1950.  - 173
F.2D 738, REVERSED. 


1.  IN APRIL 1947 THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER HEARING, ENTERED A DECREE
IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS
HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE.  THE DECREE GRANTED PART OF THE RELIEF
PRAYED BY THE CORPORATION BUT DISMISSED ITS OTHER CLAIMS.  THE COURT
RESERVED JURISDICTION AS TO MATTERS WHICH WERE OF CONCERN TO OTHER
INTERVENORS BUT WHICH COULD NOT POSSIBLY AFFECT THE CORPORATION.  IN
AUGUST 1948 A "FINAL DECREE" WAS ENTERED, WHICH DID NOT IN ANY WAY
CHANGE THE 1947 DECREE AS TO THE CORPORATION.  HELD:  AS TO THE
CORPORATION, THE 1947 DECREE WAS AN APPEALABLE FINAL DECREE; ITS
FAILURE TO APPEAL THEREFROM FORFEITED ITS RIGHT OF REVIEW; AND APPEAL
FROM THE 1948 DECREE WAS INEFFECTIVE AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  PP. 508
516. 

2.  RULE 54(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NOT HAVING
BEEN IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE 1947 DECREE, THIS COURT DOES NOT
DETERMINE ITS EFFECT ON CASES OF THIS KIND.  P. 512. 

DICKINSON V. PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

A MOTION TO DISMISS AN APPEAL BY A CORPORATION FROM A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, ON THE GROUND THAT AS TO THE CORPORATION AN EARLIER
DECREE WAS FINAL AND APPEALABLE, WAS DENIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
173 F.2D 738.  THIS COURT GRANTED A LIMITED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 811. 
REVERSED, P. 516. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ONLY ISSUE PRESENTED BY THIS CASE TURNS ON THE FINALITY OF A
JUDGMENT FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL, A SUBJECT ON WHICH THE VOLUME OF
JUDICIAL WRITING ALREADY IS FORMIDABLE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS RESOLVED
AGAINST FINALITY OF THE DECREE IN QUESTION, SAYING, HOWEVER, THAT IT
DID SO AGAINST THE UNANIMOUS CONVICTION OF THE COURT AS CONSTITUTED BUT
IN DEFERENCE TO A PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED BY A DIFFERENTLY CONSTITUTED
COURT OF THE SAME CIRCUIT.  173 F.2D 738.  BECAUSE OF THIS INTRACIRCUIT
CONFLICT, WE MADE A LIMITED GRANT OF CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 811.  THAT
WE CANNOT DEVISE A FORM OF WORDS THAT WILL SETTLE THIS RECURRENT
PROBLEM SEEMS CERTAIN; BUT IN THIS CASE WE AGREE WITH THE CONVICTIONS
OF THE COURT BELOW AND REVERSE ITS JUDGMENT. 

SOMETHING OVER A DECADE AGO, DICKINSON SUED LLOYD, WITH WHOM HE HAD
BEEN ASSOCIATED IN PROMOTING THE PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORPORATION,
ALONG WITH OTHERS, TO IMPRESS AN EQUITABLE LIEN UPON CERTAIN OF THE
CORPORATION'S SHARES THEN IN LLOYD'S NAME AND POSSESSION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND
DIRECTED A NEW TRIAL.  DICKINSON V. RINKE, 132 F.2D 805.  BEFORE
RETRIAL, BURNHAM AND VAUGHAN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND SUCH OTHER
STOCKHOLDERS AS SUBSCRIBED TO A FUND TO AID THE COMPANY OR ITS
PREDECESSOR IN ITS EMBARRASSMENT, WERE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE.  THEY SET
UP A CLAIM AGAINST BOTH PLAINTIFF DICKINSON AND DEFENDANT LLOYD THAT
THE STOCK INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THEM HAD BEEN
FRAUDULENTLY ISSUED AND DEMANDED THAT THIS STOCK BE CANCELED.  THEY
ALSO SOUGHT RECOVERY OF $87,310.28 FROM THEM AS UNLAWFUL PROFITS
SECRETLY REALIZED BY BREACH OF THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTY.  PETROLEUM
CONVERSION CORPORATION ALSO INTERVENED, MAKING THE SAME GENERAL
ALLEGATIONS AND DEMANDS FOR RELIEF.  THE CORPORATION AND THE CLASS OF
SUBSCRIBERS THUS JOINED FORCES TO GET FOR ONE OR THE OTHER
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME REMEDY AGAINST BOTH DICKINSON AND LLOYD. 

THIS TRIANGULAR CONTROVERSY WAS TRIED AND A DECREE DATED APRIL 10,
1947, WAS ENTERED.  THE ISSUE HERE TURNS ON THE CHARACTER OF THAT
DECREE.  IT RECITES TWENTY-THREE DAYS OF TRIAL, THE FILING OF A
DECISION, OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND IT
"ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED" THAT ALL OF THE PLAINTIFF DICKINSON'S
CLAIMS BE DISMISSED ON THE MERITS; THAT ALL OF THE DEFENDANT LLOYD'S
CLAIMS THERE PRESSED BY HIS ADMINISTRATOR BE DISMISSED ON THE MERITS;
THAT THE CLASS INTERVENORS HAVE JUDGMENT OF $174,620.56 AGAINST BOTH
DICKINSON AND LLOYD'S ADMINISTRATOR, AND THAT A CONCOURSE OF ALL THESE
SUBSCRIBERS BE PROVIDED BY WHICH THEIR SEVERAL CLAIMS COULD BE
LIQUIDATED AND THE SHARE OF EACH IN THE RECOVERY FIXED; THAT PETROLEUM
CONVERSION CORPORATION RECEIVE 8,200 SHARES OF ITS STOCK IN THE HANDS
OF LLOYD'S ADMINISTRATOR BUT THAT ITS CLAIM TO 12,596 ADDITIONAL SUCH
SHARES AND ITS CLAIM TO OVER 244,000 OF ITS SHARES IN POSSESSION OF THE
COURT BE DISMISSED; AND PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORPORATION WAS DIRECTED
TO ISSUE NEW SHARES TO STOCKHOLDERS OF ANOTHER CORPORATION, PROVIDED
THAT, IF ANY SHARES WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED FOR ANY REASON, THEY BE
REDEPOSITED WITH THE COURT SUBJECT TO ITS FURTHER ORDER WITH
JURISDICTION RETAINED BY THE COURT TO SUPERVISE THE DISTRIBUTION OF
SUCH SHARES.  IT DISMISSED ALL OTHER CLAIMS OF PETROLEUM CONVERSION
CORPORATION. 

FROM THIS DECREE PETROLEUM TOOK NO APPEAL.  THE DISTRICT COURT WENT
AHEAD WITH HEARINGS TO DETERMINE CLAIMS OF OVER SEVENTY MEMBERS OF THE
CLASS TO SHARE IN THE AGGREGATE RECOVERY AGAINST DICKINSON AND LLOYD'S
ADMINISTRATOR.  ON AUGUST 3, 1948, THE COURT SIGNED A "FINAL DECREE"
WHICH APPORTIONED THE RECOVERY AS BETWEEN THOSE CLAIMANTS.  IT RECITED
THAT "THE ISSUES RESERVED IN THE DECREE HEREIN DATED THE 10TH DAY OF
APRIL, 1947, HAVING BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COURT  ...  THE SAID DECREE
IS HEREBY MADE FINAL."  IT MADE NO DECISION AS TO ANY ISSUE INVOLVING
PETROLEUM AND IN NO WAY CHANGED THE 1947 DECREE AS TO IT.  IT ALSO
AWARDED COSTS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SETTLED IN THE EARLIER DECREE, BUT
MADE NO AWARD AGAINST PETROLEUM. 

THEREUPON PETROLEUM'S RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY APPEALED FROM SO MUCH OF
THIS 1948 DECREE AS DISMISSED THE CLAIMS OF PETROLEUM.  FN1  ON MOTION
TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, THE CHIEF QUESTION AND THE ONLY ONE WE GRANTED
REVIEW, WAS WHETHER THE CORPORATION COULD HAVE APPEALED FROM THE 1947
DECREE, OR WHETHER IT COULD ONLY APPEAL FROM THE 1948 DECREE.  FN2  IN
DECIDING THIS MOTION, THE COURT SAID: 

"IN THE VIEW OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COURT, AS IT IS NOW CONSTITUTED,
THIS SHOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE FOR THE WHOLE COUNTERCLAIM OF THE
PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORPORATION HAD BEEN FINALLY DISPOSED OF ON APRIL
TENTH, 1947; AND AS TO IT THE ACTION WAS AT AN END AS MUCH AS THOUGH IT
HAD BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE AT ALL; INDEED, THE JUDGMENT WAS
MORE FINAL, SO TO SAY, BECAUSE, UNLIKE THE DENIAL OF A PETITION TO
INTERVENE, IT WAS A BAR TO ANY EFFORT TO RELITIGATE THE CLAIMS
DETERMINED."  173 F.2D AT 740. 

BUT BECAUSE IT COULD FIND NO BASIS FOR DISTINGUISHING CLARK V.
TAYLOR, 163 F.2D 940, IN WHICH A DIFFERENTLY COMPOSED COURT IN THE SAME
CIRCUIT HAD SUSTAINED WHAT APPEARS TO BE A CONTRARY POSITION, IT HELD
THE EARLIER ORDER NOT APPEALABLE AND HENCE NO BAR TO THE PRESENT
APPEAL.  173 F.2D AT 740-741. 

HALF A CENTURY AGO THIS COURT LAMENTED, "PROBABLY NO QUESTION OF
EQUITY PRACTICE HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MORE FREQUENT DISCUSSION IN
THIS COURT THAN THE FINALITY OF DECREES.  ...  THE CASES, IT MUST BE
CONCEDED, ARE NOT ALTOGETHER HARMONIOUS."  MCGOURKEY V. TOLEDO & OHIO
CENT. R. CO., 146 U.S. 536, 544-45.  THIS LAMENTATION IS EQUALLY
FITTING TO DESCRIBE THE INTERVENING STRUGGLE OF THE COURTS; SOMETIMES
TO DEVISE A FORMULA THAT WILL ENCOMPASS ALL SITUATIONS AND AT OTHER
TIMES TO TAKE HARDSHIP CASES OUT FROM UNDER THE RIGIDITY OF PREVIOUS
DECLARATIONS; SOMETIMES CHOOSING ONE AND SOMETIMES ANOTHER OF THE
CONSIDERATIONS THAT ALWAYS COMPETE IN THE QUESTION OF APPEALABILITY,
THE MOST IMPORTANT OF WHICH ARE THE INCONVENIENCE AND COSTS OF
PIECEMEAL REVIEW ON THE ONE HAND AND THE DANGER OF DENYING JUSTICE BY
DELAY ON THE OTHER.  FN3 

THE LIBERALIZATION OF OUR PRACTICE TO ALLOW MORE ISSUES AND PARTIES
TO BE JOINED IN ONE ACTION AND TO EXPAND THE PRIVILEGE OF INTERVENTION
BY THOSE NOT ORIGINALLY PARTIES HAS INCREASED THE DANGER OF HARDSHIP
AND DENIAL OF JUSTICE THROUGH DELAY IF EACH ISSUE MUST AWAIT THE
DETERMINATION OF ALL ISSUES AS TO ALL PARTIES BEFORE A FINAL JUDGMENT
CAN BE HAD.  IN RECOGNITION OF THIS DIFFICULTY, PRESENT RULE 54(B),
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WAS PROMULGATED.  IT PROVIDES: 

"WHEN MORE THAN ONE CLAIM FOR RELIEF IS PRESENTED IN AN ACTION,
WHETHER AS A CLAIM, COUNTERCLAIM, CROSS-CLAIM, OR THIRD-PARTY CLAIM,
THE COURT MAY DIRECT THE ENTRY OF A FINAL JUDGMENT UPON ONE OR MORE BUT
LESS THAN ALL OF THE CLAIMS ONLY UPON AN EXPRESS DETERMINATION THAT
THERE IS NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY AND UPON AN EXPRESS DIRECTION FOR THE
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETERMINATION AND DIRECTION,
ANY ORDER OR OTHER FORM OF DECISION, HOWEVER DESIGNATED, WHICH
ADJUDICATES LESS THAN ALL THE CLAIMS SHALL NOT TERMINATE THE ACTION AS
TO ANY OF THE CLAIMS, AND THE ORDER OR OTHER FORM OF DECISION IS
SUBJECT TO REVISION AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
ADJUDICATING ALL THE CLAIMS." 

THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, AS INDICATED BY THE NOTES OF THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, IS TO REDUCE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE UNCERTAINTY AND
THE HAZARD ASSUMED BY A LITIGANT WHO EITHER DOES OR DOES NOT APPEAL
FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE CHARACTER WE HAVE HERE.  FN4  IT PROVIDES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR LITIGANTS TO OBTAIN FROM THE DISTRICT COURT A CLEAR
STATEMENT OF WHAT THAT COURT IS INTENDING WITH REFERENCE TO FINALITY,
AND IF SUCH A DIRECTION IS DENIED, THE LITIGANT CAN AT LEAST PROTECT
HIMSELF ACCORDINGLY. 

BUT THIS NEW RULE - WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 19, 1948 - WAS
NOT IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE 1947 DECREE IN THIS CASE AND IT WOULD
NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE ITS EFFECT ON CASES OF THIS
KIND BEYOND OBSERVING THAT IT MAY DO MUCH TO PREVENT THEM FROM COMING
HERE.  WE WILL NOT, THEREFORE, TRY TO LAY DOWN RULES TO EMBRACE ANY
CASE BUT THIS. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT AN ORDER DENYING INTERVENTION TO A PERSON HAVING AN
ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IS FINAL AND APPEALABLE.  BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 331 U.S. 519; MISSOURI
KANSAS PIPE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 502.  WHEN THE
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION IS DENIED, THE WOULD-BE INTERVENOR IS
FORECLOSED FROM FURTHER ACTION IN THE CASE AND ITS PROCEEDINGS CANNOT
AFFECT HIM NOR CAN HE AFFECT THEM.  AS THE COURT BELOW OBSERVED, IT IS
HARD TO SEE WHY THE EXCLUSION OF AN INTERVENOR FROM THE CASE SHOULD BE
LESS FINAL WHEN IT IS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE THAN WHEN IT IS BASED
UPON PLEADINGS.  IN EITHER CASE, THE LAWSUIT IS ALL OVER SO FAR AS THE
INTERVENOR IS CONCERNED. 

WHEN ITS CLAIMS WERE DISMISSED BY THE DECREE OF APRIL 1947, ANY
GRIEVANCE THAT PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORPORATION HAD WAS FULLY MATURED. 
FN5  AT THAT POINT PETROLEUM WAS OUT OF THE CASE.  THE DECREE WAS NOT
TENTATIVE, INFORMAL NOR INCOMPLETE AS TO IT; AND THE CASE WAS CONCLUDED
AND CLOSED AS TO ITS COUNTERCLAIMS.  THE COURT'S RESERVATION OF
JURISDICTION TO SUPERVISE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SHARES OF STOCK AND
THE PROVISION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE THE INDIVIDUAL
SHARES IN THE AGGREGATE RECOVERY ALLOWED DID NOT IN ANY MANNER AFFECT
PETROLEUM'S RIGHTS.  WHAT THE COURT RESERVED WAS ESSENTIALLY
SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OVER THE DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE CLASS OF THE
RECOVERY AWARDED THE INTERVENORS AS THE CLASS' REPRESENTATIVES.  THE
ONLY QUESTIONS WERE, SO TO SPEAK, INTERNAL TO THE INTERVENING
INTEREST.  PETROLEUM NO LONGER HAD ANY CONCERN WITH THESE QUESTIONS
AND, HOWEVER THEY WERE RESOLVED, PETROLEUM COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN
AFFECTED.  THE COURT OBVIOUSLY SELECTED WITH DELIBERATION THE ISSUES IT
WOULD CLOSE BY THE DECREE AND THOSE IT WOULD RESERVE FOR FUTURE
DECISION.  IF IT HAD ANY PURPOSE TO LEAVE OPEN ANY ISSUE CONCERNING
PETROLEUM'S CONTENTIONS, OR AFFECTING ITS INTERESTS, HALF A LINE IN THE
DECREE WOULD HAVE DONE SO.  BUT THAT HALF-LINE WAS NOT WRITTEN. 

WE HOLD THE DECREE OF APRIL 10, 1947, TO HAVE BEEN A FINAL ONE AS TO
PETROLEUM  FN6  AND ONE FROM WHICH IT COULD HAVE APPEALED AND THAT ITS
FAILURE TO APPEAL THEREFROM FORFEITS ITS RIGHT OF REVIEW.  ITS ATTEMPT
TO REVIEW THE EARLIER DECREE BY APPEALING FROM THE LATER ONE IS
INEFFECTIVE, AND ITS APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AS WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, HOWEVER, THE 1948 DECREE DID NOT
DISMISS OR DECIDE ANY OF PETROLEUM'S CLAIMS EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT MAY BE
CONSTRUED TO FINALIZE THE 1947 DECREE. 

FN2  IF THE 1947 DECREE WAS FINAL AS TO PETROLEUM FOR PURPOSES OF
APPEAL, PETROLEUM COULD NOT APPEAL FROM THE 1948 DECREE.  HILL V.
CHICAGO & EVANSTON R. CO., 140 U.S. 52. 

FN3  THE CASES AND THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THEM ARE
COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IN 3 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE, 1948 SUPP., 172
187; MOORE'S COMMENTARY ON THE U.S. JUDICIAL CODE, 495-501, 507
518(1949); NOTE TO RULE 54(B), ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S REPORT OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1946); REFORMULATION OF THE
"FINAL DECISION" RULE - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 54(B), 56 YALE L.J.
141; THE FINAL JUDGMENT RULE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, 47 COL. L. REV.
239; FEDERAL RULE 54(B) AND THE FINAL JUDGMENT RULE, 47 MICH. L. REV.
233. 

FN4  NOTE TO RULE 54(B), ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S REPORT OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1946) 70-72.  SEE ALSO
AUTHORITIES CITED IN N. 3, SUPRA. 

FN5  WHILE IT SHOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS TO THE LAW THAT GOVERNS
FINALITY, IT IS FAIR TO THE LAW AND TO THE COURT TO DISPEL THE
IMPRESSION THAT THIS DECISION MAKES THE CREDITORS OF PETROLEUM
CONVERSION CORPORATION "VICTIMS OF THIS JUNGLE OF DOUBT," OR VICTIMS OF
ANY KIND, OR THAT THEY ARE IN THIS PREDICAMENT FROM A "FAILURE TO GUESS
RIGHT ON A LEGAL QUESTION."  THIS CALLS FOR SOME FURTHER DETAIL
IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF LAW. 

THE DECREE OF APRIL 10, 1947, AWARDS THE RECOVERY OF $176,245.24,
WITH INTEREST FROM 1926, TO THE RINKE AGENCY SUBSCRIBERS, AS THEIR
SEVERAL SHARES MIGHT BE DETERMINED.  THESE WERE THE PERSONS WHO IN 1926
PUT UP THE FUNDS, AMOUNTING TO SOME $600,000, OUT OF WHICH DICKINSON
AND LLOYD WITHDREW SECRET PROFITS IN BREACH OF THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTY TO
THOSE SUBSCRIBERS.  THE PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORPORATION HAD NOT BEEN
ORGANIZED AT THE TIME OF THIS BREACH OF FAITH AND ITS CLAIM WAS DERIVED
FROM ITS PREDECESSOR CORPORATION FOR THE FINANCIAL RELIEF OF WHICH THIS
FUND WAS SUBSCRIBED.    IT WILL THUS BE SEEN THAT PETROLEUM
CONVERSION'S CLAIMS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF FRAUD AND SECRET ILLEGAL
PROFITS WERE NOT BASED UPON ANY DEPLETION OF ITS OWN TREASURY, BUT OF A
SEPARATE FUND SUBSCRIBED, OF WHICH IT MIGHT ULTIMATELY BE A
BENEFICIARY.  THE REPAYMENT OF THE SECRET PROFITS WAS AWARDED TO THOSE
WHO HAD PUT UP THE MONEY OF WHICH THEY HAD BEEN DEFRAUDED AND WAS NOT
AWARDED TO THE CORPORATION.  THE DECREE WHICH IT NOW WANTS TO REVIEW
WAS ENTERED ON MOTION OF PETROLEUM'S OWN ATTORNEY.  ITS INTERESTS AND
THOSE OF THE INTERVENING SUBSCRIBER CLASS WERE HANDLED BY THE SAME
ATTORNEY AT THE TRIAL.  A SINGLE BRIEF AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSION OF LAW WERE JOINTLY SUBMITTED BY PETROLEUM AND OTHER
INTERVENORS TO THE TRIAL COURT, WHICH LEFT IT TO THE COURT, IF RECOVERY
WERE ALLOWED, WHETHER THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE
CORPORATION OR THE SUBSCRIBERS.  THE COURT DECIDED THE RECOVERY
BELONGED TO THE SUBSCRIBERS.  IT WAS DELIBERATELY DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL
THE COURT'S DISMISSAL OF PETROLEUM'S CLAIMS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE ATTORNEY NOW SEEKING TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL SOUGHT IN MARCH OF
1948 TO INTERVENE IN DISTRICT COURT ON BEHALF OF PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS.  HE ATTACKED THIS COOPERATION BETWEEN COUNSEL FOR THE TWO
INTERVENORS AND PARTICULARLY THE FAILURE OF COUNSEL TO APPEAL THE APRIL
10, 1947 DECREE.  AS TO THIS CHARGE, THE TRIAL JUDGE SAID:  "IN SO FAR
AS THEIR PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IS BASED ON THE CHARGE THAT
THE CORPORATION'S (PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORPORATION) RIGHTS IN RESPECT
TO THE $176,000 CLAIM HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY AND HONESTLY PRESENTED, THE
HISTORY OF THIS LITIGATION, AS SET FORTH IN THE COURT'S OPINION OF
OCTOBER, 1946, AND THE TRIAL RECORD SHOW THAT ANY SUCH CHARGE IS
BASELESS."  IT WAS IN THAT CONNECTION THAT THE TRIAL COURT SUGGESTED
THAT "IN MY OPINION IT WAS NOT A FINAL DECREE AND WAS NOT APPEALABLE,
AT LEAST IN SO FAR AS IT INVOLVED THE CLAIM FOR $176,000."  BUT THE
TIME TO APPEAL WAS THEN LONG PAST AND FAILURE TO APPEAL WAS NOT
INFLUENCED BY THIS STATEMENT, NOR, SO FAR AS APPEARS, BY ANY
BEWILDERMENT AS TO THE FINALITY OF THE DECREE.  NO APPEAL WAS
PROSECUTED BECAUSE COUNSEL WHO HAD FOUGHT AND WON THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES
IN THE CASE THOUGHT JUSTICE HAD BEEN DONE BY THE DECREE AS IT STOOD. 

AFTER THE FINAL DECREE, COUNSEL, HAVING BEEN THUS CRITICIZED, FILED
ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DECREE.  THIS
WAS ON BEHALF OF THE TRUSTEE FOR PETROLEUM, WHICH MEANWHILE WAS
ADJUDGED BANKRUPT. 

BUT THE TRUSTEE AT ONCE LAID THE INADVISABILITY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  HE ADVISED THE COURT THAT "THE TRUSTEE IS
SATISFIED FROM HIS INVESTIGATION THAT JUDGE LEIBELL HAD SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTING AUTHORITIES FOR FINDING AS HE DID AND BELIEVES
THAT AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD PROBABLY BE FRUITLESS." 
HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ATTORNEY WHO NOW PROPOSES TO PROSECUTE THE
APPEAL HAD OBJECTED TO ITS ABANDONMENT, BUT REPORTED THAT "THE TRUSTEE
ACCORDINGLY PROPOSES NOT TO PROSECUTE SAID APPEAL AND PETITIONS THE
APPROVAL OF THIS COURT."  NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO ALL CREDITORS OF THE
CORPORATION AND, "NO CREDITORS HAVING OBJECTED TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE TRUSTEE," IT WAS APPROVED.  IT WAS PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT, IF
ANY CREDITOR DESIRED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL, WITHOUT LIABILITY UPON
THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE FOR COSTS OR EXPENSES UNLESS THE APPEAL WAS
SUCCESSFUL, HE MIGHT DO SO UNDER SEC. 64(A)(1) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
60 STAT. 330, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 104(A)(1). 

THEREAFTER, PERMISSION SO TO PROSECUTE THIS APPEAL WAS GRANTED. 
COUNSEL HAS ALSO MOVED TO AMEND BOTH THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND THE
PLEADINGS, WITHOUT WHICH HE CLAIMS THE APPEAL MIGHT BE IRREPARABLY
PREJUDICED.  WHAT NEW ISSUES HE WOULD RAISE WE CANNOT LEARN FROM THE
RECORD BEFORE US. 

SOME OF US ARE UNABLE TO SEE THAT THIS CASE EXEMPLIFIES ANY SUCH
INJUSTICE IN THE RULE OF FINALITY THAT THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE REMOLDED
TO ALLOW AN APPEAL FROM EITHER DECREE IN ORDER TO SAVE THIS APPELLANT. 

THE JUDGMENT REQUIRED REPAYMENT OF MONEY TO SEVENTY AND MORE
CLAIMANTS WHO WERE DEFRAUDED OF IT IN 1926.  THE PURPOSE OF THE
APPELLANT IS TO DIVERT THIS SAME MONEY RECOVERY THROUGH THE TRUSTEESHIP
OF A BANKRUPT CORPORATION, WHERE IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO RENEWED
LITIGATION AS TO HOW IT SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED AND TO MULTIPLE FEES.  IF
THE RULE OF FINALITY WE APPLY MEANS THAT AMENDS FOR A 1926 FRAUD SHALL
BE CONCLUDED AS EARLY AS 1950, WE DO NOT THINK THAT CONDEMNS THE RULE
AS UNJUST. 

FN6  THE PARTIES HAVE NOT TENDERED TO THIS COURT, AND WE DID NOT TAKE
BY CERTIORARI, ANY ISSUE AS TO ANY APPEAL BY DICKINSON.  WHAT ITS FATE
WILL BE IF SUCH AN APPEAL IS PENDING WE DO NOT KNOW AND THE RECORD IS
NOT COMPILED TO INFORM US OF ITS MERITS.  DICKINSON, WE ONLY KNOW, WAS
A PARTY TO THE ORIGINAL ACTION; NOT AS PETROLEUM, AN INTERVENOR.  THE
LAST DECREE OF THE COURT, WE KNOW TOO, AWARDED COSTS AGAINST HIM WHICH
THE FORMER DECREE DID NOT.  AND IT AWARDED AGAINST HIM MONEY JUDGMENTS
FOR SPECIFIC AMOUNTS IN FAVOR OF PARTICULAR CLAIMANTS, WHEREAS THE
EARLIER DECREE ADJUDGED ONLY A GENERAL LIABILITY TO A CLASS.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS WILL BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH ANY CONTENTIONS THAT THE DICKINSON
APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED, AND UNTIL IT HAS ACTED, WE DRAW NO
INFERENCES FROM OBVIOUSLY INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ON UNLITIGATED
ISSUES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE RIGHT TO APPEAL A JUDGMENT HAS LONG BEEN SAID TO DEPEND ON
WHETHER IT IS "FINAL."  THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION WHERE A COURT DECIDES
ALL ISSUES SIMULTANEOUSLY AND ENTERS A FINAL ORDER PUTTING AN END TO A
CONTROVERSY.  BUT WHEN AN ORDER APPARENTLY LEAVES SOME QUESTION OR
CLAIMS OPEN FOR FURTHER COURT ACTION AT A LATER DATE, DOUBTS AS TO
FINALITY ARISE.  SEE, E.G., HOHORST V. HAMBURG-AMERICAN PACKET CO., 148
U.S. 262.  FINALITY AND APPEALABILITY HAVE PROVIDED JUDGES, LAWYERS,
AND COMMENTATORS WITH A PERPETUAL SUBJECT FOR DEBATE.  FN1  BUT
LITIGANTS HAVE TOO OFTEN BEEN THROWN OUT OF COURT BECAUSE THEIR LAWYERS
FAILED TO GUESS THAT AN ORDER WOULD BE HELD "FINAL" BY AN APPELLATE
COURT.  THE CREDITORS OF PETROLEUM CONVERSION CORPORATION, WHO ARE
PROSECUTING THIS ACTION FOR RESPONDENT HERE, ARE NOT THE FIRST VICTIMS
OF THIS JUNGLE OF DOUBT.  FN2  I ALSO DOUBT THAT THEY WILL BE THE LAST
VICTIMS, DESPITE THE COURT'S HOPE THAT THE NEW RULE 54(B) HAS CHARTED A
CLEAR ROUTE THROUGH THE JUNGLE. 

I SEE NO PRACTICAL REASON WHY THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN FREE TO REVIEW THE RESPONDENT'S CHALLENGE TO THE 1948 DECREE
WITHOUT REGARD TO APPEALABILITY OF THE 1947 DECREE.  A RATIONAL SYSTEM
OF JURISPRUDENCE SHOULD NOT ATTACH INEXORABLE CONSEQUENCES TO FAILURE
TO GUESS RIGHT ON A LEGAL QUESTION FOR THE SOLUTION OF WHICH NEITHER
STATUTES NOR COURT OPINIONS HAVE PROVIDED EVEN A REASONABLY CERTAIN
GUIDE.  WHERE, AS HERE, ARGUMENTS AS TO WHICH OF TWO DECREES IS "FINAL"
MAY BE CONSIDERED RELATIVELY EVEN, AN APPELLATE COURT SHOULD BE FREE TO
FIND "FINALITY" IN EITHER DECREE APPEALED FROM.  UNDER SUCH A RULE A
COURT COULD CONSIDER THE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES RELEVANT TO ORDERLY
APPELLATE ADMINISTRATION WITHOUT PENALIZING LITIGANTS MERELY BECAUSE IT
FINDS THAT AN EARLIER DECREE FALLS ON THE "FINALITY" SIDE OF WHAT
REMAINS A TWILIGHT ZONE.  CF. DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S.
249.  SEE ALSO DISSENT IN MORGANTOWN V. ROYAL INS. CO., 337 U.S. 254,
263-264. 

EVEN IF THE OLD "EITHER-OR" RULE IS APPLIED AS TO APPEALABILITY OF
THE 1947 AND 1948 DECREES HERE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WEIGHTIER REASONS
SUPPORT HOLDING THE LATTER FINAL.  THE JUDGE WHO TRIED THE CASE AND
RENDERED BOTH DECREES ATTRIBUTED FINALITY TO THE DECREE OF 1948 AND NOT
TO THAT OF 1947.  HE TERMED THE 1947 ORDER A "DECREE," THE 1948 ORDER A
"FINAL DECREE."  HE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE 1947 DECREE "THAT THE
TAXATION OF COSTS IN THIS CASE AND THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT THEREFOR, BE
DEFERRED UNTIL THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN RESPECT TO THE MATTERS
HEREINABOVE RESERVED FOR THE FUTURE DETERMINATION OF THIS COURT."  AT
HIS ORDER, BOTH PETROLEUM AND DICKINSON RECEIVED NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT
HEARINGS.  FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE FINAL 1948 DECREE THE TRIAL JUDGE IN
A MEMORANDUM OPINION REFERRED TO THE 1947 DECREE AS "INTERLOCUTORY." 
ANSWERING CONTENTIONS THAT RESPONDENT HERE SHOULD HAVE APPEALED FROM
THE 1947 DECREE, HE STATED:  "IN MY OPINION IT WAS NOT A FINAL DECREE
AND WAS NOT APPEALABLE, AT LEAST IN SO FAR AS IT INVOLVED THE CLAIM FOR
$176,000."  AND IN THE 1948 DECREE THE TRIAL JUDGE FOR THE FIRST TIME
DECLARED THAT THE 1947 DECREE "IS HEREBY MADE FINAL."  FN3  THE
CREDITORS PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FOR RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED
OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL FROM THE 1948 DECREE JUST BECAUSE ATTORNEYS
FOR THE CORPORATION FAILED TO APPEAL FROM A FORMER DECREE WHICH THE
TRIAL JUDGE HIMSELF SEEMS TO HAVE CONSIDERED INTERLOCUTORY AND
NONAPPEALABLE.  FN4 

THE HOLDING THAT PETROLEUM'S APPEAL FROM THE 1948 JUDGMENT MUST BE
DISMISSED MAY WELL PRODUCE A STRANGE CONSEQUENCE.  THE REASON FOR
DISMISSAL URGED HERE BY PETITIONER DICKINSON IS THAT THE 1947 DECREE
WAS FINAL; UNDER HIS CONTENTION, THAT DECREE LEFT NOTHING FOR THE TRIAL
COURT TO DO EXCEPT DETERMINE THE SHARES OF VARIOUS "RINKE SUBSCRIBERS"
IN "THE PARTICULAR SUM" FOUND DUE TO THAT CLASS FROM LLOYD AND
DICKINSON, AND TO ASSESS COSTS AND ENTER JUDGMENT.  ON THIS HYPOTHESIS
THE 1947 DECREE SEEMS JUST AS FINAL ON DICKINSON'S CLAIMS AND LIABILITY
AS ON PETROLEUM'S.  THE 1947 LITIGATION ORIGINATED IN CHARGES OF FRAUD
MADE BY DICKINSON AGAINST LLOYD.  PETROLEUM AND PERSONS DESIGNATED AS
"RINKE SUBSCRIBERS" THEN INTERVENED, CHARGING FRAUD AGAINST BOTH
DICKINSON AND LLOYD.  THE 1947 DECREE RESTED ON FINDINGS THAT THE
CHARGES AGAINST DICKINSON AND LLOYD HAD BEEN PROVEN.  THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THE RINKE SUBSCRIBERS, AND TO SOME EXTENT PETROLEUM, HAD
BEEN DAMAGED BY THEIR FRAUD.  ACCORDINGLY THE COURT AWARDED PARTIAL
RELIEF TO PETROLEUM ON ONE OF ITS CLAIMS, DISMISSING ALL ITS OTHER
CLAIMS.  THE COURT ALSO FIXED A PARTICULAR AMOUNT FOR THE RINKE
SUBSCRIBERS AS A GROUP TO RECOVER FROM DICKINSON AND THE LLOYD ESTATE. 
THAT DECREE, HERE HELD FINAL AS TO PETROLEUM, APPARENTLY HAD AN
IDENTICAL DEGREE OF FINALITY AS TO DICKINSON:  IN ADDITION TO FIXING
THE PRECISE SUM FOR WHICH DICKINSON AND LLOYD WERE LIABLE TO RINKE
SUBSCRIBERS AS A GROUP, IT COMPLETELY DISMISSED DICKINSON'S AFFIRMATIVE
CLAIMS.  FN5  YET DICKINSON HIMSELF HAS APPEALED FROM THE 1948 DECREE,
FN6  AND IRONICALLY ENOUGH HE IS THE ONLY PARTY HERE URGING DISMISSAL
OF PETROLEUM'S APPEAL FROM THE SAME DECREE. 

SO FAR AS WE KNOW, DICKINSON'S APPEAL IS STILL PENDING.  WITH
PETROLEUM OUT OF THE CASE BY THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT, HE SHOULD CERTAINLY
NOT BE LEFT FREE TO HAVE HIS OWN APPEAL CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  PERMITTING HIM TO CHALLENGE THE 1947 FINDINGS WOULD RESULT IN
APPELLATE REVIEW OF THAT DECREE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF PETROLEUM, WHO
WAS ONE OF DICKINSON'S 1947 ADVERSARIES.  IF DICKINSON CAN CHALLENGE
THE 1947 DECREE BY APPEAL FROM THE 1948 JUDGMENT, PETROLEUM SHOULD ALSO
BE ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE IT.  AND IF NEITHER CAN CHALLENGE IT, THE BASIC
QUESTIONS OF FRAUD AND LIABILITY ARE NOW BEYOND THE REACH OF APPELLATE
REVIEW.  I CANNOT JOIN THE COURT IN APPLYING A RULE OF "FINALITY" WHICH
ATTACHES SUCH CONSEQUENCES TO THE UNDERSTANDABLE FAILURE OF THESE
PARTIES TO APPEAL FROM THE 1947 DECREE. 

FN1  SEE, E.G., JUDGE FRANK, DISSENTING IN CLARK V. TAYLOR, 163 F.2D
940, 944-953.  SEE ALSO CRICK, THE FINAL JUDGMENT AS A BASIS FOR
APPEAL, 41 YALE L.J. 539; NOTE, FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS IN APPEALS FROM
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 49 YALE L.J. 1476. 

FN2  THE CORPORATION WAS ADJUDICATED BANKRUPT IN AUGUST 1948.  ON
SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THE TEMPORARY RECEIVER (LATER APPOINTED TRUSTEE)
FILED AN APPEAL FROM THE 1948 DECREE.  SUBSEQUENTLY HE REFUSED TO
PROSECUTE THE APPEAL, BUT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ACCEPTED HIS
RECOMMENDATION THAT CREDITORS BE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITHOUT EXPENSE TO
THE ESTATE.  BY TODAY'S DECISION THE CREDITORS OF THE BANKRUPT
CORPORATION, WHO WERE NOT REPRESENTED IN THE TRIAL BELOW, ARE DEPRIVED
OF THEIR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL. 

FN3  PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE 1948 DECREE READS: 

"THAT THE ISSUES RESERVED IN THE DECREE HEREIN DATED THE 10TH DAY OF
APRIL, 1947, HAVING BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COURT IN ITS DECISION AND
OPINION AND ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FILED HEREIN
DATED THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 1948, THE SAID DECREE IS HEREBY MADE
FINAL." 

FN4  THE CREDITORS HAVE CONTENDED THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE
CORPORATION WERE NOT ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED AT THE TRIAL BECAUSE THE
CORPORATION ATTORNEY REGARDED IT AS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE CORPORATION
OR RINKE SUBSCRIBERS OBTAINED THE RECOVERY. 

FN5  THE POSSIBLE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN FINALITY AS TO DICKINSON AND
AS TO PETROLEUM, LISTED BY THE COURT IN FOOTNOTE 6 OF ITS OPINION, SEEM
UNSUBSTANTIAL.  THAT PETROLEUM ENTERED THE CASES AS AN INTERVENOR IS
IMMATERIAL; HAVING LITIGATED ITS CLAIMS AND BEING BOUND BY THE
JUDGMENT, IT IS JUST AS MUCH A PARTY AS DICKINSON.  THE 1948 DECREE
COULD HAVE AWARDED COSTS AGAINST PETROLEUM AS EASILY AS AGAINST
DICKINSON, SINCE THE 1947 DECREE EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE QUESTION OF
COSTS AS TO ALL PARTIES.  AND THE EXTENT OF DICKINSON'S LIABILITY,
ADJUDICATED IN THE 1947 DECREE, WAS IN NO WAY ALTERED BY THE 1948
DECREE ALLOCATING RECOVERY AMONG THE RINKE SUBSCRIBERS. 

FN6  LLOYD'S ADMINISTRATOR IS LISTED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION
AS "APPELLEE-APPELLANT." 
..END :














EICHENLAUB V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 521 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 16-17, 1949.  - DECIDED JANUARY 16, 1950.  - 167 F.2D
659, 171 F.2D 773, AFFIRMED. 


AT A TIME WHEN HE WAS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, A
PERSON WAS CONVICTED OF A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF
1917.  THEREAFTER, IN A DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, HIS CITIZENSHIP
WAS REVOKED AND HIS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION WAS CANCELED ON THE
GROUND THAT HE HAD PROCURED IT BY FRAUD.  THEREAFTER, HE WAS ORDERED
DEPORTED UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE
DEPORTATION OF "ALIENS WHO SINCE AUGUST 1, 1914, HAVE BEEN OR MAY
HEREAFTER BE CONVICTED OF ANY VIOLATION OR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE" THE
ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917 AND WHO ARE FOUND TO BE "UNDESIRABLE RESIDENTS"
OF THE UNITED STATES.  HELD:  HIS DEPORTATION WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE
1920 ACT.  PP. 522-533. 

(A)  THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920, IS NOT LIMITED TO ALIENS WHO NEVER HAVE
BEEN NATURALIZED, NOR DOES IT EXEMPT PERSONS WHOSE CERTIFICATES OF
NATURALIZATION HAVE BEEN CANCELED FOR FRAUD IN PROCUREMENT.  P. 528. 

(B)  CONGRESS MAY VALIDLY PROVIDE FOR THE DEPORTATION OF ALIENS ON
GROUNDS OF PAST MISCONDUCT.  P. 529. 

(C)  THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT AN ALIEN WHOSE
DEPORTATION IT AUTHORIZES SHALL HAVE HAD THE STATUS OF AN ALIEN AT THE
TIME OF THE CONVICTION ON WHICH THE ORDER OF DEPORTATION IS BASED.  PP.
529-531. 

(D)  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT OF MAY
10, 1920, THAT SUGGESTS A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
ALIENS WHO NEVER HAD BEEN NATURALIZED AND THOSE WHO HAD OBTAINED
NATURALIZATION BY FRAUD AND LOST IT BY COURT DECREE.  PP. 531-533. 

(E)  THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920, IS NOT RENDERED INAPPLICABLE TO A
CONVICTION UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917 BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT
IN 1940 THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF THAT ACT WAS INCREASED.  P. 533,
N. 20. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. EICHENLAUB V. SHAUGHNESSY, ACTING DISTRICT
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION. 

NO. 3.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 82, UNITED STATES EX REL. WILLUMEIT V.
SHAUGHNESSY, ACTING DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,
ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN NO. 3, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN A
PROCEEDING CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE RELATOR'S DETENTION UNDER A
DEPORTATION ORDER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  167 F.2D 659.  AN
ORDER OF THIS COURT DENYING CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 867, WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
VACATED AND CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  337 U.S. 955.  AFFIRMED, P. 533. 

IN NO. 82, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN A
PROCEEDING CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE RELATOR'S DETENTION UNDER A
DEPORTATION ORDER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  171 F.2D 773.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 955.  AFFIRMED, P. 12. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY
10, 1920,  FN1  AUTHORIZES THE DEPORTATION OF AN ALIEN UNDER THE
FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES OCCURRING SINCE THAT ACT TOOK EFFECT: 

(1)  THE ALIEN WAS NATURALIZED; (2) WHILE HE WAS A NATURALIZED
CITIZEN HE WAS CONVICTED OF A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE ESPIONAGE ACT
OF 1917; FN2  (3) THEREAFTER, IN A DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, HIS
CITIZENSHIP WAS REVOKED AND HIS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION CANCELED
ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD PROCURED IT BY FRAUD; AND (4) THE PROPER
AUTHORITY, AFTER THE REQUIRED HEARINGS, FOUND THE ALIEN TO BE AN
UNDESIRABLE RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ORDERED HIM DEPORTED. 
FOR THE REASONS HEREINAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT THE ACT AUTHORIZES
SUCH DEPORTATION. 

                 NO. 3 - THE EICHENLAUB CASE. 

RICHARD EICHENLAUB, THE RELATOR, WAS BORN IN GERMANY IN 1905, AND
ENTERED THE UNITED STATES FROM THERE IN 1930.  HE WAS NATURALIZED AS AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN IN 1936, AND HAS RESIDED IN THE UNITED STATES
CONTINUOUSLY SINCE HIS REENTRY IN 1937, WHEN HE RETURNED FROM A VISIT
TO GERMANY.  IN 1941, ON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, HE WAS CONVICTED
OF CONSPIRING TO ACT AS AN AGENT FOR A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WITHOUT
HAVING BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  FN3  HE WAS
SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR 18 MONTHS AND FINED $1,000.  IN 1944,
WITH HIS CONSENT, A JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CANCELING HIS CITIZENSHIP
ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD IN ITS PROCUREMENT.  FN4  DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS WERE THEN INSTITUTED AGAINST HIM  FN5  AND, AFTER A HEARING
BEFORE AN IMMIGRATION INSPECTOR AND A REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN 1945, ORDERED HIS
DEPORTATION.  FN6 

THIS PROCEEDING FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS THEN FILED IN THE
COURT LAST NAMED.  AFTER HEARING, THE WRIT WAS DISMISSED AND THE
DISMISSAL WAS AFFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT.  167 F.2D 659.  WE DENIED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 867. 
HOWEVER, WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE WILLUMEIT CASE, NOW
BEFORE US, ON THE AUTHORITY OF THIS CASE, BUT CALLED ATTENTION TO THE
ADDED IMPRESSION WHICH HAD BEEN MADE UPON IT BY THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
OF WILLUMEIT ON THE POINT ABOVE STATED, WE VACATED OUR DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE AND GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH.  337 U.S. 955. 

                NO. 82 - THE WILLUMEIT CASE. 

IN 1905, OTTO A. WILLUMEIT, THE RELATOR, WAS BORN IN LORRAINE, WHICH
AT THAT TIME WAS A PART OF GERMANY, BUT AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST FOR
DEPORTATION HAD BECOME A PART OF FRANCE.  HE ENTERED THE UNITED STATES
FROM THERE IN 1925.  IN 1931 HE WAS NATURALIZED, AND HE HAS RESIDED IN
THE UNITED STATES CONTINUOUSLY SINCE HIS REENTRY IN 1941 AFTER A VISIT
TO MEXICO.  IN 1942, ON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, HE WAS CONVICTED OF
HAVING CONSPIRED TO VIOLATE THAT PORTION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917
WHICH MADE IT A CRIME TO TRANSMIT TO AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY
INFORMATION RELATING TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE OF THIS COUNTRY, WITH
INTENT OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH INFORMATION WOULD BE USED TO THE
INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES OR TO THE ADVANTAGE OF A FOREIGN NATION. 
FN7  HE WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE YEARS.  IN 1944, WITH
HIS CONSENT, A JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CANCELING HIS CITIZENSHIP ON THE
GROUND OF FRAUD IN ITS PROCUREMENT.  FN8  DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS WERE
THEN INSTITUTED AGAINST HIM AND, AFTER A HEARING BEFORE AN IMMIGRATION
INSPECTOR AND A REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN 1947, ORDERED HIS DEPORTATION.  FN9 

THIS PROCEEDING FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS FILED IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND, AFTER
A HEARING, THE WRIT WAS DISMISSED.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS
DECISION IN THE EICHENLAUB CASE.  FN10  171 F.2D 773.  BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE TO AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 955. 

THE PROPER SCOPE OF THE ACT OF 1920 AS APPLIED TO THESE CASES IS
FOUND IN THE ORDINARY MEANING OF ITS WORDS.  THE MATERIAL PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  THAT ALIENS OF THE FOLLOWING CLASSES  ...  SHALL, UPON THE
WARRANT OF THE (ATTORNEY GENERAL), BE TAKEN INTO HIS CUSTODY AND
DEPORTED  ...  IF THE (ATTORNEY GENERAL),  FN11  AFTER HEARING, FINDS
THAT SUCH ALIENS ARE UNDESIRABLE RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, TO
WIT: 

     .         .     .         .         . 

"(2)  ALL ALIENS WHO SINCE AUGUST 1, 1914, HAVE BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER
BE CONVICTED OF ANY VIOLATION OR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING ACTS OR PARTS OF ACTS, THE JUDGMENT ON SUCH CONVICTION HAVING
BECOME FINAL, NAMELY: 

"(A)  (THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917, AS AMENDED)."  FN12 

THE ABOVE WORDS REQUIRE THAT ALL PERSONS TO BE DEPORTED UNDER THIS
ACT SHALL BE "ALIENS."  FN13 THEY DO NOT LIMIT ITS SCOPE TO ALIENS WHO
NEVER HAVE BEEN NATURALIZED.  THEY DO NOT EXEMPT THOSE WHO HAVE SECURED
CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION, BUT THEN HAVE LOST THEM BY COURT ORDER
ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD IN THEIR PROCUREMENT.  THEY DO NOT SUGGEST THAT
SUCH PERSONS ARE NOT AS CLEARLY "ALIENS" AS THEY WERE BEFORE THEIR
FRAUDULENT NATURALIZATION.  FN14  THERE IS NO QUESTION AS TO THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO ENACT A STATUTE TO DEPORT ALIENS BECAUSE OF PAST
MISCONDUCT.  FN15  THAT IS WHAT CONGRESS DID IN THE ACT OF 1920, AND
THERE IS NO OCCASION TO RESTRICT ITS LANGUAGE SO AS TO NARROW ITS PLAIN
MEANING. 

THE ONE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE
RELATORS NOT ONLY MUST HAVE BEEN "ALIENS" AT THE TIMES WHEN THEY WERE
ORDERED DEPORTED, BUT THAT THEY MUST ALSO HAVE HAD THAT STATUS AT THE
TIMES WHEN THEY WERE CONVICTED OF DESIGNATED OFFENSES AGAINST THE
NATIONAL SECURITY.  THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT ONE ROUTE TO A
CONCLUSION ON THIS ISSUE IS TO HOLD THAT THE RELATORS, AS A MATTER OF
LAW, WERE "ALIENS" WHEN SO CONVICTED.  THE BASIS IT SUGGESTS FOR SO
HOLDING IS THAT THE JUDICIAL ANNULMENT OF THE RELATORS' NATURALIZATIONS
ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD IN THEIR PROCUREMENT DEPRIVED THEM OF THEIR
NATURALIZATIONS AB INITIO.  ROSENBERG V. UNITED STATES, 60 F.2D
475(C.A. 3D CIR.).  THEY THUS WOULD BE RETURNED TO THEIR STATUS AS
ALIENS AS OF THE DATE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE NATURALIZATIONS. 
ACCORDINGLY, THEY WOULD COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT OF 1920, EVEN
IF THAT ACT WERE HELD TO REQUIRE THAT ALL OFFENDERS SUBJECT TO
DEPORTATION UNDER IT ALSO MUST HAVE HAD AN ALIEN STATUS WHEN CONVICTED
OF THE DESIGNATED OFFENSES. 

IN OUR OPINION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESE CASES,
TO GIVE A RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO THE DENATURALIZATION ORDERS.  A SIMPLER
AND EQUALLY COMPLETE SOLUTION LIES IN THE VIEW THAT THE ACT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT THE OFFENDERS REACHED BY IT MUST HAVE HAD THE STATUS OF
ALIENS AT THE TIME THEY WERE CONVICTED.  AS THE ACT DOES NOT STATE THAT
NECESSITY, IT IS APPLICABLE TO ALL SUCH OFFENDERS, INCLUDING THOSE
DENATURALIZED BEFORE OR AFTER THEIR CONVICTIONS AS WELL AS THOSE WHO
NEVER HAVE BEEN NATURALIZED.  THE CONVICTIONS OF THE RELATORS FOR
DESIGNATED OFFENSES ARE IMPORTANT CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THEIR BEING
FOUND TO BE UNDESIRABLE RESIDENTS.  THEIR STATUS AS ALIENS IS A
NECESSARY FURTHER CONDITION OF THEIR DEPORTABILITY.  WHEN BOTH
CONDITIONS ARE MET AND, AFTER HEARING, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FINDS THEM
TO BE UNDESIRABLE RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ACT IS
SATISFIED. 

THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE WHICH SAYS THAT "ALIENS WHO SINCE AUGUST 1,
1914, HAVE BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER BE CONVICTED  ..."  FN16  REFERS TO
THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEPORTATIONS BE APPLICABLE TO ALL PERSONS WHO
HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF CERTAIN ENUMERATED OFFENSES SINCE ABOUT THE
BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR I (AUGUST 1, 1914), WHETHER THOSE CONVICTIONS
WERE HAD BEFORE OR AFTER MAY 10, 1920.  THE CRIMES LISTED WERE NOT
CRIMES IN WHICH CONVICTIONS DEPENDED UPON THE CITIZENSHIP, OR LACK OF
CITIZENSHIP, OF THEIR PERPETRATORS.  IN FACT, THEY WERE CRIMES AGAINST
THE NATIONAL SECURITY, SO THAT THEIR COMMISSION BY NATURALIZED CITIZENS
MIGHT WELL BE REGARDED BY CONGRESS AS MORE REPREHENSIBLE THAN THEIR
COMMISSION BY ALIENS WHO NEVER HAD BEEN NATURALIZED. 

THE RECOGNIZED PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS DEPORTATION.  IT IS DIFFICULT
TO IMAGINE A REASON WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE IT NATURAL OR APPROPRIATE FOR
CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PASS UPON THE
UNDESIRABILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF AN ALIEN, NEVER NATURALIZED, WHO
HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF ESPIONAGE, BUT WOULD PROHIBIT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FROM PASSING UPON THE UNDESIRABILITY AND DEPORTABILITY OF
ALIENS, SUCH AS THE RELATORS IN THE INSTANT CASES, WHO HAD PROCURED
CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION BEFORE THEIR CONVICTIONS OF ESPIONAGE,
BUT LATER HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF THOSE CERTIFICATES ON THE GROUND OF
FRAUD IN THEIR PROCUREMENT.  IF THERE WERE TO BE A DISTINCTION MADE IN
FAVOR OF ANY ALIENS BECAUSE THEY WERE AT ONE TIME NATURALIZED CITIZENS,
THE LOGICAL TIME AT WHICH THAT STATUS WOULD BE IMPORTANT WOULD BE THE
TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIMES, RATHER THAN THE PURELY FORTUITOUS
TIME OF THEIR CONVICTION OF THOSE CRIMES.  NOT EVEN SUCH A DISTINCTION
FINDS SUPPORT IN THE STATUTE. 

THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO GIVE EXPRESSION TO THE DISTINCTION, HERE
URGED BY THE RELATORS, BETWEEN ALIENS WHO NEVER HAVE BEEN NATURALIZED
AND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DENATURALIZED, WAS NOT DUE TO UNFAMILIARITY
WITH SUCH MATTERS.  IN 1920, CONGRESS MUST HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THE
STATUS OF ALIENS DENATURALIZED UNDER SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29,
1906, 34 STAT. 601, SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 736,  FN17 OR EXPATRIATED UNDER
SEC. 2 OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, 34 STAT. 1228, SEE 8
U.S.C. SEC. 801.  IT HAD HAD EXPERIENCE WITH THE DEPORTATION OF
UNDESIRABLE ALIENS UNDER SEC. 19 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5,
1917, 39 STAT. 889, SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155, AS WELL AS UNDER OTHER
WARTIME ACTS AND PROCLAMATIONS.  THESE ACTS DID NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
ALIENS WHO NEVER HAD BEEN NATURALIZED, AND THOSE WHO HAD OBTAINED
NATURALIZATION BY FRAUD ONLY TO LOSE IT BY COURT DECREE.  IF THE ACT OF
1920 HAD BEEN INTENDED TO INITIATE THE DISTINCTION HERE URGED BY THE
RELATORS, IT IS LIKELY THAT THE CHANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY EXPRESS
PROVISION FOR IT.  WE FIND NOTHING IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT
SUGGESTS A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TWO SUCH GROUPS
OF UNDESIRABLE CRIMINALS. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE REPORTS DEMONSTRATE THAT, WHILE THIS
STATUTE WAS FRAMED IN GENERAL LANGUAGE AND HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT FOR
30 YEARS, ITS ENACTMENT ORIGINALLY WAS OCCASIONED BY A DESIRE TO DEPORT
SOME OR ALL OF ABOUT 500 ALIENS WHO WERE THEN INTERNED AS DANGEROUS
ENEMY ALIENS AND WHO MIGHT BE FOUND, AFTER HEARINGS, TO BE UNDESIRABLE
RESIDENTS, AND ALSO TO DEPORT SOME OR ALL OF ABOUT 150 OTHER ALIENS
WHO, DURING WORLD WAR I, HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF VIOLATIONS OF THE
ESPIONAGE ACT OR OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY MEASURES, AND WHO MIGHT BE
FOUND, AFTER HEARINGS, TO BE UNDESIRABLE RESIDENTS.  FN18  IT IS HARDLY
CONCEIVABLE THAT, UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONGRESS, WITHOUT
EXPRESSLY SAYING SO, INTENDED TO PREVENT THE SECRETARY OF LABOR (OR HIS
SUCCESSOR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL) FROM DEPORTING ALIEN OFFENDERS MERELY
BECAUSE THEY HAD RECEIVED THEIR RESPECTIVE CONVICTIONS AT TIMES WHEN
THEY HELD CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION, LATER CANCELED FOR FRAUD.  TO
DO SO WOULD PERMIT THE DENATURALIZED ALIENS TO SET UP A CANCELED
FRAUDULENT STATUS AS A DEFENSE, AND SUCCESSFULLY TO CLAIM BENEFITS AND
ADVANTAGES UNDER IT.  FN19  CONGRESS, IN 1920, EVIDENTLY WANTED TO
PROVIDE A MEANS BY WHICH TO FREE THE UNITED STATES OF RESIDENTS WHO (1)
HAD BEEN OR THEREAFTER WERE CONVICTED OF CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST THE
SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES, (2) HAD BEEN OR THEREAFTER WERE FOUND,
AFTER HEARING, TO BE UNDESIRABLE RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
(3) BEING ALIENS WERE SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION.  CONGRESS SAID JUST
THAT.   WE HAVE GIVEN CONSIDERATION TO SUCH OTHER POINTS AS WERE RAISED
BY THE RELATORS, BUT WE FIND THAT THEY DO NOT AFFECT THE RESULT.  FN20 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN EACH CASE IS THEREFORE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  41 STAT. 593, SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 157. 

FN2  ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, 40 STAT. 217. 

FN3  THIS WAS UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE, 35
STAT. 1096, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  88, NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 371; AND
UNDER SEC. 3 OF TITLE VIII OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917, 40 STAT. 226,
22 U.S.C. SEC. 233, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 28, 1940,
54 STAT. 80, 22 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  601, NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 951. 
SEVERAL OTHER DEFENDANTS STOOD TRIAL IN THIS PROCEEDING, AND WERE
CONVICTED BOTH ON THIS AND ON A GENERAL ESPIONAGE COUNT.  THEIR
CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED ON THIS COUNT, BUT REVERSED ON THE OTHER. 
UNITED STATES V. HEINE, 151 F.2D 813(C.A.2D CIR.). 

FN4  UNDER SEC. 338 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1158
1160, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 738. 

FN5  UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920, 41 STAT. 593-594, 8
U.S.C. SEC. 157. 

FN6  UNDER THE 1940 REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. V, 54 STAT. 1238, THE
FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 10,
1920, WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THE WARRANT OF
DEPORTATION RECITED THAT THE RELATOR HAD BEEN "FOUND TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE UNDESIRABLE CLASSES OF ALIEN RESIDENTS ENUMERATED  ...  " IN THE
ACT OF MAY 10, 1920.  WHILE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FILE IS NOT IN THE
PRINTED RECORD, IT WAS USED IN ARGUMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND IS
ON FILE HERE.  THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS AT PAGE 5 OF ITS
OPINION FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE "RESPONDENT IS AN UNDESIRABLE RESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE COURT OF APPEALS, AT 167 F.2D 660, PROPERLY
RECOGNIZED THIS ADDITIONAL MATTER IN THE RECORD AS JUSTIFYING ITS
ACCEPTANCE OF THE LESS SPECIFIC FINDING RECITED IN THE WARRANT OF
DEPORTATION, AND AS DISTINGUISHING THIS CASE FROM MAHLER V. EBY, 264
U.S. 32, 42-46, ON THAT POINT. 

FN7  THIS CONVICTION WAS UNDER SECS. 2 AND 4 OF TITLE I OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 15, 1917, 40 STAT. 218-219, 50 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SECS.  32 AND
34, NOW 18 U.S.C. SECS. 794 AND 2388. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA.  IN THIS RECORD THE FINAL DECREE OF
DENATURALIZATION IS SET FORTH IN FULL.  AMONG OTHER THINGS, IT STATES
THAT THE ORDER ADMITTING THE RELATOR TO CITIZENSHIP - 

"IS HEREBY VACATED, ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE, AND THAT THE CERTIFICATE
OF CITIZENSHIP,  ...  IS HEREBY CANCELLED AND DECLARED NULL AND VOID,
...  AND THE DEFENDANT OTTO ALBERT WILLUMEIT IS HEREBY FOREVER
RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED FROM SETTING UP OR CLAIMING ANY RIGHTS OR
PRIVILEGES, BENEFITS OR ADVANTAGES WHATSOEVER UNDER SAID ORDER,  ...
OR THE CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP ISSUED BY VIRTUE OF SAID ORDER." 

FN9  THE ORDER WAS BASED NOT ONLY UPON SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY 10,
1920, 41 STAT. 593-594, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 157, THE APPLICABILITY OF WHICH
IN TURN WAS BASED UPON THE RELATOR'S CONVICTION OF A VIOLATION OF THE
ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917, BUT ALSO UPON SECS. 13 AND 14 OF THE IMMIGRATION
ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 161-162, AS AFFECTED BY 46 STAT. 581, 50 STAT.
165, THE 1940 REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. V, 54 STAT. 1238, AND 60 STAT.
975, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 213 AND 214, HAVING TO DO WITH RELATOR'S REENTRY
INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM MEXICO IN 1941.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND
IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS ON THIS ALLEGED GROUND FOR DEPORTATION IN VIEW
OF ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE OTHER GROUND.  171 F.2D AT 775.  WE CONCUR
FOR THE SAME REASON. 

AS IN THE EICHENLAUB CASE, THE WARRANT OF DEPORTATION APPARENTLY
STATED THAT IT WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE RELATOR "HAS BEEN FOUND
TO BE A MEMBER OF THE UNDESIRABLE CLASSES OF ALIEN RESIDENTS ...  "
WHILE THE WARRANT IS NOT PRINTED IN THE RECORD, THE FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS ARE
PRINTED IN FULL.  EACH CONTAINS AN EXPRESS FINDING THAT THE RELATOR "IS
AN UNDESIRABLE RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  EACH STATES REASONS FOR
SO CONCLUDING. 

FN10  THE RETURN TO THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE STATES
THAT, IN ADDITION TO ISSUING THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED WARRANT OF
DEPORTATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ORDERED THE RELATOR INTERNED IN 1945
AS A DANGEROUS ALIEN ENEMY AND, IN 1946, ORDERED THE RELATOR REMOVED
FROM THIS COUNTRY FOR THAT REASON.  THAT PROCEEDING DERIVES ITS
AUTHORITY FROM THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF JULY 6, 1798, 1 STAT. 577, AS IT
APPEARS IN R.S. SEC. 4067, AS AFFECTED BY 40 STAT. 531, AND
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. 2655 OF JULY 14, 1945, 3 C.F.R. 1945
SUPP. 29; 59 STAT., PT. 2, 870, SEE 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21.  IT THUS RAISES
QUESTIONS AS TO THE "ENEMY" STATUS OF AN ALIEN BORN IN LORRAINE, WHICH
AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH WAS A PART OF GERMANY, BUT AT THE TIME OF HIS
ARREST WAS A PART OF FRANCE.  WHILE THE GOVERNMENT REFERS TO THIS ACT
IN ITS ARGUMENT IN INTERPRETING THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920, AS IN PARI
MATERIA, IT DOES NOT PRESS THIS ARREST AS A SEPARATE GROUND FOR
DISMISSAL OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  SEE UNITED STATES EX REL.
ZELLER V. WATKINS, 167 F.2D 279(C.A.2D CIR.); UNITED STATES EX REL.
GREGOIRE V. WATKINS, 164 F.2D 137(C.A.2D CIR.); UNITED STATES EX REL.
D'ESQUIVA V. UHL, 137 F.2D 903(C.A.2D CIR.); UNITED STATES EX REL.
UMECKER V. MCCOY, 54 F.SUPP.  679(N.D.).  THE COURT BELOW DID NOT FIND
IT NECESSARY TO PASS ON THIS ISSUE (171 F.2D AT 775), NOR DO WE. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN12  THE FIRST PARAGRAPHS OF THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920, ARE, IN FULL,
AS FOLLOWS: 

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT ALIENS OF THE
FOLLOWING CLASSES, IN ADDITION TO THOSE FOR WHOSE EXPULSION FROM THE
UNITED STATES PROVISION IS MADE IN THE EXISTING LAW, SHALL, UPON THE
WARRANT OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, BE TAKEN INTO HIS CUSTODY AND
DEPORTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 19 AND 20 OF THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 5, 1917, ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO REGULATE THE IMMIGRATION OF
ALIENS TO, AND THE RESIDENCE OF ALIENS IN, THE UNITED STATES,' IF THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR, AFTER HEARING, FINDS THAT SUCH ALIENS ARE
UNDESIRABLE RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, TO WIT: 

"(1)  ALL ALIENS WHO ARE NOW INTERNED UNDER SECTION 4067 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PROCLAMATIONS ISSUED BY
THE PRESIDENT IN PURSUANCE OF SAID SECTION UNDER DATE OF APRIL 6, 1917,
NOVEMBER 16, 1917, DECEMBER 11, 1917, AND APRIL 19, 1918,
RESPECTIVELY. 

"(2)  ALL ALIENS WHO SINCE AUGUST 1, 1914, HAVE BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER
BE CONVICTED OF ANY VIOLATION OR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING ACTS OR PARTS OF ACTS, THE JUDGMENT ON SUCH CONVICTION HAVING
BECOME FINAL, NAMELY: 

"(A)  AN ACT ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO PUNISH ACTS OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE
FOREIGN RELATIONS, THE NEUTRALITY, AND THE FOREIGN COMMERCE OF THE
UNITED STATES, TO PUNISH ESPIONAGE, AND BETTER TO ENFORCE THE CRIMINAL
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' APPROVED JUNE 15,
1917, OR THE AMENDMENT THEREOF APPROVED MAY 16, 1918; ...  "  41 STAT.
593-594, SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 157. 

THE SUBSEQUENT SUBDIVISIONS (2)(B) TO (H), INCLUSIVE, REFER TO THE
EXPLOSIVES ACT, 40 STAT. 385; ACT RESTRICTING FOREIGN TRAVEL, 40 STAT.
559; ACT PUNISHING INJURY TO WAR MATERIAL, 40 STAT. 533; ARMY EMERGENCY
INCREASE ACT, 40 STAT. 80, 884, 955; ACT PUNISHING THREATS AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT, 39 STAT. 919; TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 40 STAT. 411; AND
THE SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY SECTION OF THE PENAL CODE, 35 STAT. 1088. 

FN13  THE WORD "ALIEN" IS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT.  IT IS, HOWEVER,
DEFINED IN CLOSELY RELATED STATUTES.  THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY
5, 1917, PROVIDES:  "THE WORD 'ALIEN' WHEREVER USED IN THIS ACT SHALL
INCLUDE ANY PERSON NOT A NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES; ...  "  39 STAT. 874, SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 173.  THE
IMMIGRATION ACT OF MAY 26, 1924, PROVIDES:  "THE TERM 'ALIEN' INCLUDES
ANY INDIVIDUAL NOT A NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES,  ...  "  43 STAT. 168, SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 224.  THESE
DEFINITIONS ARE IN EFFECT TODAY.  IN TITLE 8 OF THE U.S.C. THEY ARE
INCLUDED IN AND ARE MADE TO APPLY TO THE ENTIRE CHAPTER ON IMMIGRATION
AND THAT CHAPTER INCLUDES AS SEC. 157 THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920. 

FN14  WHILE THE ACT ALSO MAKES NO EXPRESS DISTINCTION BETWEEN ITS
APPLICABILITY TO ALIENS WHO NEVER HAVE BEEN NATURALIZED AND TO THOSE
WHO HAVE BEEN NATURALIZED, BUT HAVE LOST THEIR NATURALIZED CITIZENSHIP
BY LAWFUL AND VOLUNTARY EXPATRIATION (SEE 8 U.S.C. SECS. 800-810), THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A DISTINCTION IS NOT BEFORE US IN THE INSTANT
CASES.  THE REQUIRED FINDING BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AFTER HEARING,
THAT ANY ALIEN WHO IS TO BE DEPORTED IS AN UNDESIRABLE RESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES PREVENTS THE AUTOMATIC DEPORTATION OF ANYONE UNDER THIS
ACT WITHOUT SUCH A HEARING AND FINDING. 

FN15  MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32; NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276,
280; BUGAJEWITZ V. ADAMS, 228 U.S. 585; FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES,
149 U.S. 698, 730. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 12, SUPRA. 

FN17  "THE PRACTICE OF FILING PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL CERTIFICATES OF
NATURALIZATION BECAME WIDESPREAD IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE 1906 ACT WENT
INTO EFFECT.  IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1907 THERE WERE EIGHTY-SIX
CERTIFICATES CANCELLED; IN 1908 THERE WERE FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY
SEVEN; AND IN 1909, NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-ONE.  DURING THE THIRTY
YEARS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 1906 ACT, MORE THAN TWELVE
THOUSAND CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION WERE CANCELLED ON THE GROUND OF
FRAUD OR ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER AND CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION
WERE ILLEGALLY PROCURED."  CABLE, LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP 4-5(1943). 

FN18  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 143 AND S. REP. NO. 283, 66TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; 58 CONG. REC. 3362-3376(1919); LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160,
167-168, N. 12, 179-181. 

FN19  COMPARE THE INJUNCTION INCLUDED IN THE FINAL DECREE OF
DENATURALIZATION QUOTED IN NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN20  AMONG THESE IS THE CLAIM IN THE EICHENLAUB CASE THAT THE ACT OF
1920 DOES NOT APPLY TO HIS CONVICTION UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917,
BECAUSE, IN SUBSTANCE, THE PENALTY FOR ITS VIOLATION HAD BEEN INCREASED
IN 1940.  THIS CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

IN LIGHT OF THE ATTITUDE WITH WHICH THE DOOM OF DEPORTATION HAS
HERETOFORE BEEN VIEWED BY THIS COURT, IN THE CASE OF THOSE WHOSE LIVES
HAVE BEEN INTIMATELY TIED TO THIS COUNTRY, I DEEM IT MY DUTY NOT TO
SQUEEZE THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920, 41 STAT. 593, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 157, SO AS TO YIELD EVERY POSSIBLE HARDSHIP OF WHICH ITS WORDS ARE
SUSCEPTIBLE.  SEE NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 284-85; DELGADILLO
V. CARMICHAEL, 332 U.S. 388, 391; FONG HAW TAN V. PHELAN, 333 U.S. 6,
10; BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135, 147; FISWICK V. UNITED STATES, 329
U.S. 211, 222, N. 8; KLAPPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 601, 612,
MODIFIED, 336 U.S. 942.  BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT
SUCH DEPORTATION MAY RESULT "IN LOSS OF BOTH PROPERTY AND LIFE; OR OF
ALL THAT MAKES LIFE WORTH LIVING," THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW REQUIRES JUDICIAL DETERMINATION WHEN A CLAIM OF
CITIZENSHIP IS MADE IN A DEPORTATION PROCEEDING, WHILE UPON ENTRY OR
REENTRY THE SAME CLAIM MAY BE DETERMINED ADMINISTRATIVELY.  IT TOOK
INTO ACCOUNT THE GREAT DIFFERENCE "IN SECURITY OF JUDICIAL OVER
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION."  NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, SUPRA, AT 284, 285.  I AM
AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A PERSON WHOSE
CITIZENSHIP HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM HIM.  I MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THE
RIGOROUS STATUTE PERMITTING DEPORTATION OF AN "ALIEN" SHOULD BE READ TO
APPLY ONLY TO ONE WHO WAS AN ALIEN WHEN CONVICTED AND SHOULD NOT BE
MADE TO APPLY TO PERSONS IN THE POSITION OF THESE PETITIONERS. 

SINCE SUCH CONSTRUCTION IS NOT UNREASONABLE, DUE REGARD FOR
CONSEQUENCES DEMANDS THAT THE STATUTE BE SO READ.  WHERE, AS HERE, A
STATUTE PERMITS EITHER OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO
LANGUAGE, THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH LEADS TO HARDSHIP SHOULD BE REJECTED
IN FAVOR OF THE PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION CONSONANT WITH HUMANE
CONSIDERATIONS.  THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1920, PROVIDES THAT "ALL ALIENS WHO
SINCE AUGUST 1, 1914, HAVE BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER BE CONVICTED" OF
CERTAIN OFFENSES SHALL BE DEPORTED UPON A FINDING THAT THEY ARE
"UNDESIRABLE RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES."  SINCE NEITHER OF THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN WAS FOUND TO "HAVE BEEN" CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE
BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE ACT, THEY COME, IT IS URGED, WITHIN THE
ALTERNATIVE PREREQUISITE.  BUT THE STATUTE, IN TERMS, REFERS TO ALIENS
"WHO  ...  MAY HEREAFTER BE CONVICTED," NOT PERSONS WHO ARE CITIZENS
WHEN CONVICTED AND LATER TRANSFORMED INTO ALIENS BY THE PROCESS OF
DENATURALIZATION.  AND THIS VIEW OF THE STATUTE IS REINFORCED BY THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS WELL AS BY CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE IMPACT
OF THE COURT'S DECISION UPON VARIOUS OTHER CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS NOT
NOW BEFORE US. 

THE COMMITTEE REPORTS  FN1  AND CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE  FN2  MAKE PLAIN
THAT CONGRESS WAS PRINCIPALLY CONCERNED WITH THE STATUS OF ABOUT 500
PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN INTERNED BY THE PRESIDENT DURING THE FIRST WORLD
WAR AS DANGEROUS ALIEN ENEMIES AND ABOUT 150 ALIENS WHO HAD BEEN
CONVICTED UNDER VARIOUS SO-CALLED WAR STATUTES.  CONGRESS COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN UNAWARE THAT NATURALIZED CITIZENS MAY LOSE THEIR CITIZENSHIP;
YET NOWHERE IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DO WE FIND THE REMOTEST HINT
THAT CONGRESS HAD ALSO SUCH DENATURALIZED CITIZENS IN MIND.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THE DEBATES CONTAIN AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND
ONLY PERSONS CONVICTED WHEN ALIENS.  FN3    THE COURT'S DECISION HAS
SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CITIZENS DENATURALIZED FOR REASONS
NOT INVOLVING MORAL BLAME,  FN4  AND WHO HAVE, WHILE CITIZENS,
COMMITTED ONE OF A VARIETY OF ACTS NOT INVOLVING MORAL OBLIQUITY AND
CERTAINLY NOT ENDANGERING THE SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY BUT WHICH
NEVERTHELESS ARE COVERED BY OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN LANGUAGE
SIMILAR TO THAT BEFORE US.  FN5 THUS, DISCRIMINATIONS WOULD AS A MATTER
OF POLICY HAVE TO BE DRAWN IF THIS GENERAL PROBLEM WERE CONSCIOUSLY
FACED BY POLICY-MAKERS.  THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO
DRAW.  IF AND WHEN CONGRESS GIVES THE MATTER THOUGHT, IT MAY WELL DRAW
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ONE WHO WAS AN ALIEN AND ONE WHO WAS NATURALIZED
AT THE TIME OF CONVICTION, BASED ON THE MANNER IN WHICH CITIZENSHIP WAS
LOST, THE TYPE OF OFFENSE COMMITTED, AND THE LAPSE OF TIME BETWEEN
CONVICTION AND DENATURALIZATION.  THESE SERIOUS DIFFERENTIATIONS SHOULD
NOT BE DISREGARDED BY GIVING A RUTHLESSLY UNDISCRIMINATING CONSTRUCTION
TO THE STATUTE BEFORE US NOT REQUIRED BY WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN. 

FN1  H.R. REP. NO. 143, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1919); S. REP. NO.
283, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1919). 

FN2  58 CONG. REC. 3361-3377. 

FN3  REPRESENTATIVE GARD:  "I ASSUME THAT EVERYBODY WILL AGREE WITH
THAT, THAT IF AN ALIEN IS TRIED, IS AFFORDED A FAIR TRIAL AND IS
CONVICTED, THEN HE IS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR DEPORTATION."  58 CONG. REC.
3371. 

REPRESENTATIVE ROBSION, DISCUSSING WEALTHY ALIENS:  "WE PERMITTED
THEM TO LIVE HERE AND GRANTED THEM PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
AMERICAN CITIZEN.  THEY REWARD OUR HOSPITALITY BY JOINING WITH OUR
ENEMIES IN AN EFFORT TO DESTROY US.  AS THEY WERE NOT CITIZENS, THEY
WERE NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE UP ARMS IN DEFENSE OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH
THEY HAD GROWN RICH."  58 CONG. REC. 3374. 

FN4  CITIZENSHIP IS LOST BY ANY PERSON "VOTING IN A POLITICAL
ELECTION IN A FOREIGN STATE."  8 U.S.C. SEC. 801(E).  BILLS ARE NOW
BEFORE CONGRESS TO RESTORE CITIZENSHIP TO THE APPROXIMATELY 4,000
AMERICANS WHO VOTED IN RECENT ITALIAN ELECTIONS.  SEE H.R. 6616 AND
6617, 81ST CONG., 2D SESS. (1950); H.R. REP. NO. 1469, 81ST CONG., 2D
SESS. (1950); 96 CONG. REC. APP. 117(JANUARY 9, 1950).  SEE ALSO 8
U.S.C. SECS. 801(C) AND (D), 804; BATTAGLINO V. MARSHALL, 172 F.2D
979.  AS TO DENATURALIZATION BASED ON FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT OF
CITIZENSHIP, SEE BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 665. 

FN5  E.G., 8 U.S.C. SEC. 156A PROVIDES FOR THE DEPORTATION OF ANY
ALIEN, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE PERTINENT, "WHO, AFTER FEBRUARY 18,
1931, SHALL BE CONVICTED FOR VIOLATION OF OR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE" ANY
FEDERAL OR STATE NARCOTICS LAW.  IN UNITED STATES V. BALINT, 258 U.S.
250, THIS COURT HELD THAT CONVICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL ANTI-NARCOTIC
ACT CAN BE HAD WITHOUT THE USUAL REQUIREMENT OF SCIENTER. 

EVEN CONVICTIONS UNDER LAWS RELATED TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY INVOLVE
VARYING DEGREES OF CULPABILITY.  THIS IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE REMARKS OF
THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO THE DISTRICT COURT CONCERNING DR.
WILLUMEIT, THE RELATOR IN NO. 82, WHEN HIS SENTENCE WAS BEING
CONSIDERED: 

"IT HAS BEEN OUR BELIEF, AFTER HAVING GONE INTO THIS THING PRETTY
THOROUGHLY WITH HIM (THE RELATOR), THAT HE WAS MORE OR LESS CAUGHT IN
IT WITHOUT PERHAPS INTENDING TO GO AS FAR AS THE OTHERS WENT. 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"  ...  I HAVE A FEELING, YOUR HONOR, THAT DR. WILLUMEIT CAN BE
RESTORED TO DECENT CITIZENSHIP IN THIS COUNTRY.  I THINK HE HAS
SOMETHING THAT HE CAN GIVE TO AMERICA. 

   .         .         .         .         . 

"  ...  I WOULD SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD VIEW A LENIENT SENTENCE
AS A JUST SENTENCE UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  WE THINK SOMETHING CAN
BE DONE WITH THIS MAN.  WE DO NOT THINK HE IS A BAD MAN AT HEART, YOUR
HONOR.  WE THINK HE IS PROBABLY A GOOD MAN WHO GOT IN WITH BAD COMPANY
AND GOT IN WITH THIS TROUBLE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"I SAY TO YOUR HONOR I AM NOT HIS LAWYER.  I AM SUPPOSED TO BE HARD
WITH HIM, I GUESS, IF I BELIEVE IN IT.  BUT IN THIS CASE I DO NOT FEEL
THAT THIS MAN IS A BAD ACTOR.  I THINK THERE IS A PLACE FOR DR.
WILLUMEIT IN AMERICA IN TIME, AND HE MAY BECOME A MOST USEFUL
CITIZEN." 
..END :






KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, 338 U.S. 537 


NO. 54.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5-6, 1949.  - DECIDED JANUARY 16, 1950.  - 173
F.2D 599, AFFIRMED. 


THE ALIEN WIFE OF A CITIZEN WHO HAD SERVED HONORABLY IN THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES DURING WORLD WAR II SOUGHT ADMISSION TO THE
UNITED STATES.  ON THE BASIS OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THE DISCLOSURE
OF WHICH, IN HIS JUDGMENT, WOULD ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SECURITY, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DENIED A HEARING, FOUND THAT HER ADMISSION WOULD BE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ORDERED HER
EXCLUDED.  HELD:  THIS ACTION WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 21,
1941, 22 U.S.C. SEC. 223, AND THE PROCLAMATIONS AND REGULATIONS ISSUED
THEREUNDER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE WAR BRIDES ACT OF DECEMBER 28, 1945, 8
U.S.C. SEC. 232 ET SEQ. PP. 539-547. 

(A)  THE ADMISSION OF ALIENS TO THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A RIGHT BUT A
PRIVILEGE, WHICH IS GRANTED ONLY UPON SUCH TERMS AS THE UNITED STATES
PRESCRIBES.  P. 542. 

(B)  THE ACT OF JUNE 21, 1941, DID NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE
LEGISLATIVE POWER TO PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ALIENS SHOULD
BE EXCLUDED.  PP. 542-543. 

(C)  IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF ANY COURT, UNLESS EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED BY LAW, TO REVIEW THE DETERMINATION OF THE POLITICAL BRANCH
OF THE GOVERNMENT TO EXCLUDE A GIVEN ALIEN.  P. 543. 

(D)  ANY PROCEDURE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS FOR THE EXCLUSION OF ALIENS
IS DUE PROCESS, SO FAR AS AN ALIEN DENIED ENTRY IS CONCERNED.  P. 544. 

(E)  THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE ENTRY OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED
STATES DURING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED MAY 27, 1941, WHICH
WERE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 2523, WERE "REASONABLE" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF JUNE 21, 1941.  P. 544. 

(F)  PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 2523 AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AS WELL AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO ORDER THE EXCLUSION OF ALIENS.  P.
544. 

(G)  PETITIONER, AN ALIEN, HAD NO VESTED RIGHT OF ENTRY WHICH COULD
BE THE SUBJECT OF A PROHIBITION AGAINST RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF
REGULATIONS AFFECTING HER STATUS.  P. 544. 

(H)  THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED MAY 27, 1941, HAS NOT BEEN
TERMINATED; A STATE OF WAR STILL EXISTS; AND THE ACT OF JUNE 21, 1941,
AND THE PROCLAMATIONS AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER ARE STILL IN FORCE. 
PP. 545-546. 

(I)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE WAR BRIDES ACT, WHICH
WAIVES SOME OF THE USUAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN
ALIEN SPOUSES ONLY IF THEY ARE "OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE
IMMIGRATION LAWS."  PP. 546-547. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. KNAUFF V. SHAUGHNESSY, ACTING DISTRICT DIRECTOR
OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OBTAINED TO TEST
THE RIGHT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO EXCLUDE FROM THE UNITED STATES,
WITHOUT A HEARING, THE ALIEN WIFE OF A CITIZEN WHO HAD SERVED HONORABLY
IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES DURING WORLD WAR II.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  173 F.2D 599.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 966.  AFFIRMED, P. 547. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MAY THE UNITED STATES EXCLUDE WITHOUT HEARING, SOLELY UPON A FINDING
BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT HER ADMISSION WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ALIEN WIFE OF A CITIZEN WHO HAD
SERVED HONORABLY IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES DURING WORLD
WAR II? THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HELD
THAT IT COULD, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED.  173 F.2D 599.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION
ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE WAR BRIDES ACT OF DECEMBER 28, 1945. 
336 U.S. 966. 

PETITIONER WAS BORN IN GERMANY IN 1915.  SHE LEFT GERMANY AND WENT TO
CZECHOSLOVAKIA DURING THE HITLER REGIME.  THERE SHE WAS MARRIED AND
DIVORCED.  SHE WENT TO ENGLAND IN 1939 AS A REFUGEE.  THEREAFTER SHE
SERVED WITH THE ROYAL AIR FORCE EFFICIENTLY AND HONORABLY FROM JANUARY
1, 1943, UNTIL MAY 30, 1946.  SHE THEN SECURED CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE WAR DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN GERMANY.  HER WORK WAS RATED
"VERY GOOD" AND "EXCELLENT."  ON FEBRUARY 28, 1948, WITH THE PERMISSION
OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL AT FRANKFURT, GERMANY, SHE MARRIED KURT W.
KNAUFF, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  HE IS AN HONORABLY
DISCHARGED UNITED STATES ARMY VETERAN OF WORLD WAR II.  HE IS, AS HE
WAS AT THE TIME OF HIS MARRIAGE, A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED
STATES ARMY AT FRANKFURT, GERMANY. 

ON AUGUST 14, 1948, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES TO
BE NATURALIZED.  ON THAT DAY SHE WAS TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED FROM THE
UNITED STATES AND DETAINED AT ELLIS ISLAND.  ON OCTOBER 6, 1948, THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION RECOMMENDED
THAT SHE BE PERMANENTLY EXCLUDED WITHOUT A HEARING ON THE GROUND THAT
HER ADMISSION WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  ON THE SAME DAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ADOPTED THIS
RECOMMENDATION AND ENTERED A FINAL ORDER OF EXCLUSION.  TO TEST THE
RIGHT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO EXCLUDE HER WITHOUT A HEARING FOR
SECURITY REASONS, HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, BASED PRIMARILY ON PROVISIONS OF THE WAR
BRIDES ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED. 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ORDER THE EXCLUSION OF
ALIENS WITHOUT A HEARING FLOWS FROM THE ACT OF JUNE 21, 1941, AMENDING
SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1918(55 STAT. 252, 22 U.S.C. SEC. 223). 
FN1  BY THE 1941 AMENDMENT IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT,
UPON FINDING THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRED IT,
IMPOSE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS ON THE ENTRY INTO AND
DEPARTURE OF PERSONS FROM THE UNITED STATES DURING THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED MAY 27, 1941.  PURSUANT TO THIS ACT OF CONGRESS
THE PRESIDENT ON NOVEMBER 14, 1941, ISSUED PROCLAMATION 2523(3 CFR,
1943 CUM. SUPP., 270-272).  THIS PROCLAMATION RECITED THAT THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRED THE IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE ENTRY INTO AND DEPARTURE OF PERSONS FROM THE
COUNTRY AND AUTHORIZED THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS JOINTLY BY THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT
NO ALIEN SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES IF IT WERE
FOUND THAT SUCH ENTRY WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  FN2 

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THIS PROCLAMATION THE SECRETARY OF STATE
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUED REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE ENTRY INTO
AND DEPARTURE OF PERSONS FROM THE UNITED STATES DURING THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY.  SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) TO (K) OF SEC. 175.53 OF THESE
REGULATIONS SPECIFIED THE CLASSES OF ALIENS WHOSE ENTRY INTO THE UNITED
STATES WAS DEEMED PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  SUBPARAGRAPH (B)
OF SEC. 175.57 PROVIDED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MIGHT DENY AN ALIEN A
HEARING BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY IN SPECIAL CASES WHERE HE DETERMINED
THAT THE ALIEN WAS EXCLUDABLE UNDER THE REGULATIONS ON THE BASIS OF
INFORMATION OF A CONFIDENTIAL NATURE, THE DISCLOSURE OF WHICH WOULD BE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  FN3 

IT WAS UNDER THIS REGULATION SEC. 175.57(B) THAT PETITIONER WAS
EXCLUDED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND DENIED A HEARING.  WE ARE ASKED TO
PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF THIS ACTION. 

AT THE OUTSET WE WISH TO POINT OUT THAT AN ALIEN WHO SEEKS ADMISSION
TO THIS COUNTRY MAY NOT DO SO UNDER ANY CLAIM OF RIGHT.  ADMISSION OF
ALIENS TO THE UNITED STATES IS A PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE SOVEREIGN
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  SUCH PRIVILEGE IS GRANTED TO AN ALIEN ONLY
UPON SUCH TERMS AS THE UNITED STATES SHALL PRESCRIBE.  IT MUST BE
EXERCISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE WHICH THE UNITED STATES
PROVIDES.  NISHIMURA EKIU V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 651, 659; FONG YUE
TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, 711. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE 1941 ACT AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER
ARE VOID TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CONTAIN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATIONS
OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  BUT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INAPPROPRIATE
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER INVOLVED HERE.  THE EXCLUSION OF ALIENS
IS A FUNDAMENTAL ACT OF SOVEREIGNTY.  THE RIGHT TO DO SO STEMS NOT
ALONE FROM LEGISLATIVE POWER BUT IS INHERENT IN THE EXECUTIVE POWER TO
CONTROL THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE NATION.  UNITED STATES V. CURTISS
WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., 299 U.S. 304; FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149
U.S. 698, 713.  WHEN CONGRESS PRESCRIBES A PROCEDURE CONCERNING THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF ALIENS, IT IS NOT DEALING ALONE WITH A LEGISLATIVE
POWER.  IT IS IMPLEMENTING AN INHERENT EXECUTIVE POWER. 

THUS THE DECISION TO ADMIT OR TO EXCLUDE AN ALIEN MAY BE LAWFULLY
PLACED WITH THE PRESIDENT, WHO MAY IN TURN DELEGATE THE CARRYING OUT OF
THIS FUNCTION TO A RESPONSIBLE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE SOVEREIGN, SUCH
AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THE ACTION OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER
SUCH AUTHORITY IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  WHATEVER THE RULE MAY BE
CONCERNING DEPORTATION OF PERSONS WHO HAVE GAINED ENTRY INTO THE UNITED
STATES, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF ANY COURT, UNLESS EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED BY LAW, TO REVIEW THE DETERMINATION OF THE POLITICAL BRANCH
OF THE GOVERNMENT TO EXCLUDE A GIVEN ALIEN.  NISHIMURA EKIU V. UNITED
STATES, 142 U.S. 651, 659-660; FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S.
698, 713-714; LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160.  CF. YAMATAYA V.
FISHER, 189 U.S. 86, 101.  NORMALLY CONGRESS SUPPLIES THE CONDITIONS OF
THE PRIVILEGE OF ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.  BUT BECAUSE THE POWER
OF EXCLUSION OF ALIENS IS ALSO INHERENT IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF
THE SOVEREIGN, CONGRESS MAY IN BROAD TERMS AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE TO
EXERCISE THE POWER, E.G., AS WAS DONE HERE, FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE COUNTRY DURING A TIME OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
MAY BE ENTRUSTED WITH THE DUTY OF SPECIFYING THE PROCEDURES FOR
CARRYING OUT THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  WHAT WAS SAID IN LICHTER V.
UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 742, 785, IS EQUALLY APPROPRIATE HERE: 

"IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT CONGRESS SUPPLY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS
WITH A SPECIFIC FORMULA FOR THEIR GUIDANCE IN A FIELD WHERE FLEXIBILITY
AND THE ADAPTATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO INFINITELY VARIABLE
CONDITIONS CONSTITUTE THE ESSENCE OF THE PROGRAM.  ...  STANDARDS
PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS ARE TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONDITIONS TO
WHICH THEY ARE TO BE APPLIED.  'THEY DERIVE MUCH MEANINGFUL CONTENT
FROM THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, ITS FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND THE STATUTORY
CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY APPEAR.'"  WHATEVER THE PROCEDURE AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS IS, IT IS DUE PROCESS AS FAR AS AN ALIEN DENIED ENTRY IS
CONCERNED.  NISHIMURA EKIU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; LUDECKE V. WATKINS,
SUPRA. 

IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, EXERCISING THE DISCRETION ENTRUSTED TO HIM BY CONGRESS AND THE
PRESIDENT, CONCLUDED UPON THE BASIS OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT
THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRED THAT PETITIONER BE DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.  HE DENIED HER A HEARING ON THE MATTER
BECAUSE, IN HIS JUDGMENT, THE DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION ON WHICH HE
BASED THAT OPINION WOULD ITSELF ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SECURITY. 

WE FIND NO SUBSTANTIAL MERIT TO PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE
REGULATIONS WERE NOT "REASONABLE" AS THEY WERE REQUIRED TO BE BY THE
1941 ACT.  WE THINK THEM REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PERIOD
FOR WHICH THEY WERE AUTHORIZED, NAMELY, THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY OF WORLD
WAR II.  NOR CAN WE AGREE WITH PETITIONER'S ASSERTION THAT PROCLAMATION
2523(SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA) AUTHORIZED ONLY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND NOT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO ORDER THE EXCLUSION OF ALIENS.  SEE
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 2850 OF AUGUST 17, 1949(14 FED. REG. 5173),
AMENDING AND CLARIFYING PROCLAMATION 2523.  WE REITERATE THAT WE ARE
DEALING HERE WITH A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE.  PETITIONER HAD NO VESTED
RIGHT OF ENTRY WHICH COULD BE THE SUBJECT OF A PROHIBITION AGAINST
RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF REGULATIONS AFFECTING HER STATUS. 

IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ACTION WAS PURSUANT TO
THE 8 CFR REGULATIONS HERETOFORE DISCUSSED N4.  HOWEVER, 22 U.S.C. SEC.
223,  FN5  AUTHORIZES THESE SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE ENTRY OF ALIENS
ONLY WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR OR DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED MAY 27, 1941.  FN6  FOR ORDINARY TIMES
CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED ALIENS WITH A HEARING.  8 U.S.C. SECS. 152, 153. 
AND THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONER IS THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO THE
STATUTORY HEARING BECAUSE FOR PURPOSES OF THE WAR BRIDES ACT, WITHIN
WHICH SHE COMES, THE WAR TERMINATED WHEN THE PRESIDENT PROCLAIMED THE
CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES.  FN7  SHE CONTENDS THAT THE WAR BRIDES ACT,
APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF WHICH ARE SET OUT IN THE MARGIN,  FN8 DISCLOSES
A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE ENTRY OF ALIENS
SHOULD CEASE TO APPLY TO WAR BRIDES UPON THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES. 

THE WAR BRIDES ACT PROVIDES THAT WORLD WAR II IS THE PERIOD FROM
DECEMBER 7, 1941, UNTIL THE PROCLAIMED TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES. 
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE REGULATIONS HERE
ACTED UNDER WERE AUTHORIZED.  THE BEGINNING AND END OF THE WAR ARE
DEFINED BY THE WAR BRIDES ACT, WE ASSUME, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASCERTAINING THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH CITIZENS MUST HAVE SERVED IN THE
ARMED FORCES IN ORDER FOR THEIR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN TO BE ENTITLED TO
THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT.  THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE
WAS AUTHORIZED NOT ONLY DURING THE PERIOD OF ACTUAL HOSTILITIES BUT
DURING THE ENTIRE WAR AND THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED MAY 27,
1941.  THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY HAS NEVER BEEN TERMINATED.  INDEED, A
STATE OF WAR STILL EXISTS.  SEE WOODS V. MILLER CO., 333 U.S. 138, N.
3.  THUS, THE AUTHORITY UPON WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACTED REMAINS
IN FORCE.  THE ACT OF JUNE 21, 1941, AND THE PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATIONS
AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER ARE STILL A PART OF THE IMMIGRATION
LAWS. 

THE WAR BRIDES ACT DOES NOT RELIEVE PETITIONER OF HER ALIEN STATUS. 
INDEED, SHE SOUGHT ADMISSION IN ORDER TO BE NATURALIZED AND THUS TO
OVERCOME HER ALIEN STATUS.  THE ACT RELIEVED HER OF CERTAIN PHYSICAL,
MENTAL, AND DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS AND OF THE QUOTA PROVISIONS OF THE
IMMIGRATION LAWS.  BUT SHE MUST, AS THE ACT REQUIRES, STILL BE
"OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE IMMIGRATION LAWS."  IN OTHER WORDS,
ASIDE FROM THE ENUMERATED RELAXATIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS SHE MUST
BE TREATED AS ANY OTHER ALIEN SEEKING ADMISSION.  UNDER THE IMMIGRATION
LAWS AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL ALIENS SEEKING ENTRY INTO THE
UNITED STATES DURING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, SHE WAS EXCLUDED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHOUT A HEARING.  IN SUCH A CASE WE HAVE NO
AUTHORITY TO RETRY THE DETERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  LUDECKE
V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160, 171-172. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE WAR BRIDES ACT OR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FN9  TO INDICATE THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS, BY PARTIALLY
SUSPENDING COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND THE QUOTA
PROVISIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS, TO RELAX THE SECURITY PROVISIONS OF
THE IMMIGRATION LAWS.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
PERMIT MEMBERS OR FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO MARRY AND BRING
INTO THE UNITED STATES ALIENS THAT THE PRESIDENT, ACTING THROUGH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS SWORN DUTY, FOUND SHOULD BE
DENIED ENTRY FOR SECURITY REASONS.  AS ALL OTHER ALIENS, PETITIONER HAD
TO STAND THE TEST OF SECURITY.  THIS SHE FAILED TO MEET.  WE FIND NO
LEGAL DEFECT IN THE MANNER OF PETITIONER'S EXCLUSION, AND THE JUDGMENT
IS AFFIRMED.    FN1  "WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR OR DURING THE
EXISTENCE OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT ON MAY
27, 1941, OR AS TO ALIENS WHENEVER THERE EXISTS A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN,
OR AMONG, TWO OR MORE STATES, AND THE PRESIDENT SHALL FIND THAT THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRE THAT RESTRICTIONS AND
PROHIBITIONS IN ADDITION TO THOSE PROVIDED OTHERWISE THAN BY THIS ACT
BE IMPOSED UPON THE DEPARTURE OF PERSONS FROM AND THEIR ENTRY INTO THE
UNITED STATES, AND SHALL MAKE PUBLIC PROCLAMATION THEREOF, IT SHALL,
UNTIL OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS, BE UNLAWFUL - 
"(A)  FOR ANY ALIEN TO DEPART FROM OR ENTER OR ATTEMPT TO DEPART FROM
OR ENTER THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT UNDER SUCH REASONABLE RULES,
REGULATIONS, AND ORDERS, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
AS THE PRESIDENT SHALL PRESCRIBE  ...  " 

FN2  "(3)  AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS
HEREINAFTER AUTHORIZED, NO ALIEN SHALL ENTER OR ATTEMPT TO ENTER THE
UNITED STATES UNLESS HE IS IN POSSESSION OF A VALID UNEXPIRED PERMIT TO
ENTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, OR BY AN APPROPRIATE OFFICER
DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, OR IS EXEMPTED FROM OBTAINING A
PERMIT TO ENTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IS
HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE IN EXECUTION OF THESE RULES,
REGULATIONS, AND ORDERS. 

"NO ALIEN SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES IF IT APPEARS
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE THAT SUCH ENTRY WOULD BE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES AS PROVIDED IN THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS HEREINBEFORE AUTHORIZED TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL."  3
CFR, 1943 CUM. SUPP., 271. 

FN3  "IN THE CASE OF AN ALIEN TEMPORARILY EXCLUDED BY AN OFFICIAL OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS, OR MAY BE,
EXCLUDABLE UNDER ONE OR MORE OF THE CATEGORIES SET FORTH IN SEC.
175.53, NO HEARING BY A BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY SHALL BE HELD UNTIL
AFTER THE CASE IS REPORTED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SUCH A HEARING
IS DIRECTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE.  IN ANY
SPECIAL CASE THE ALIEN MAY BE DENIED A HEARING BEFORE A BOARD OF
SPECIAL INQUIRY AND AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THAT BOARD IF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINES THAT HE IS EXCLUDABLE UNDER ONE OF THE
CATEGORIES SET FORTH IN SEC. 175.53 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF A
CONFIDENTIAL NATURE, THE DISCLOSURE OF WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  8 CFR, 1945 SUPP., SEC. 175.57(B). 

FN4  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN6  AND AT CERTAIN OTHER TIMES NOT MATERIAL HERE. 

FN7  PROCLAMATION 2714 OF DECEMBER 31, 1946, 3 CFR, 1946 SUPP., 77. 

FN8  "THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OF THE SEVERAL CLAUSES OF SECTION 3 OF
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, EXCLUDING PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY
DEFECTIVE ALIENS, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS OF
ANY OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OR REGULATIONS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, OR
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER, ALIEN SPOUSES OR ALIEN
CHILDREN OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS SERVING IN, OR HAVING AN HONORABLE
DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE FROM THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES DURING
THE SECOND WORLD WAR SHALL, IF OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE
IMMIGRATION LAWS AND IF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION IS MADE WITHIN THREE
YEARS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, BE ADMITTED TO THE UNITED
STATES  ... 

"SEC. 2.  REGARDLESS OF SECTION 9 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924, ANY
ALIEN ADMITTED UNDER SECTION 1 OF THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A
NONQUOTA IMMIGRANT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 4(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF
1924. 

 .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 5.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT, THE SECOND WORLD WAR SHALL BE
DEEMED TO HAVE COMMENCED ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, AND TO HAVE CEASED UPON
THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES AS DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT OR BY A
JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS."  59 STAT. 659, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 232-236. 

FN9  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1320, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945); S. REP.
NO. 860, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945); 91 CONG. REC. 11738,
12342(1945). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

IF THE ESSENCE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IS TO FIND THE THOUGHT
BENEATH THE WORDS, THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, IN WHICH
I FULLY CONCUR, ENFORCE THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  THE CONTRARY
CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIALLY FRUSTRATES IT. 

SEVENTY YEARS AGO BEGAN THE POLICY OF EXCLUDING MENTALLY DEFECTIVE
ALIENS FROM ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED STATES.  THIRTY YEARS AGO IT
BECAME OUR SETTLED POLICY TO ADMIT EVEN THE MOST DESIRABLE ALIENS ONLY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE QUOTA SYSTEM.  BY THE SO-CALLED WAR BRIDES ACT
CONGRESS MADE INROADS UPON BOTH THESE DEEPLY-ROOTED POLICIES.  (ACT OF
DECEMBER 28, 1945, 59 STAT. 659, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 232 ET SEQ.) IT LIFTED
THE BAR AGAINST THE EXCLUSION EVEN OF "PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY
DEFECTIVE ALIENS."  IT DID THIS IN FAVOR OF "ALIEN SPOUSES AND ALIEN
MINOR CHILDREN OF CITIZEN MEMBERS WHO ARE SERVING OR HAVE SERVED
HONORABLY IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES DURING WORLD WAR
II."  H.R. REP. NO. 1320 AND S. REP. NO. 860, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1945). 

THIS WAS A BOUNTY AFFORDED BY CONGRESS NOT TO THE ALIEN WHO HAD
BECOME THE WIFE OF AN AMERICAN BUT TO THE CITIZEN WHO HAD HONORABLY
SERVED HIS COUNTRY.  CONGRESS GAVE THIS BOUNTY EVEN THOUGH A PHYSICALLY
OR MENTALLY DEFECTIVE PERSON MIGHT THEREBY BE ADDED TO THE POPULATION
OF THE UNITED STATES.  YET IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE DEEPEST TIE THAT AN
AMERICAN SOLDIER COULD FORM MAY BE SECRETLY SEVERED ON THE MERE SAY-SO
OF AN OFFICIAL, HOWEVER WELL-INTENTIONED.  ALTHOUGH FIVE MINUTES OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION COULD ENABLE THE SOLDIER-HUSBAND TO DISSIPATE
SEEMINGLY CONVINCING INFORMATION AFFECTING THE SECURITY DANGER OF HIS
WIFE, THAT OPPORTUNITY NEED NOT BE ACCORDED.  AND ALL THIS, BECAUSE OF
THE LITERAL READING OF THE PROVISION OF THE WAR BRIDES ACT THAT THE
ALIEN SPOUSE, THOUGH PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DEFECTIVE, IS TO BE
ALLOWED TO JOIN HER CITIZEN HUSBAND "IF OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE
IMMIGRATION LAWS."  UPON THAT PHRASE IS RESTED THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF
EXECUTIVE REGULATION BASED ON SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1918, 40
STAT. 559, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 21, 1941, 55 STAT. 252, 22
U.S.C. SEC. 223, REGARDING THE SUMMARY EXCLUSION, WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY
FOR A HEARING, OF AN ALIEN WHOSE ENTRY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FINDS
INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST* . 

*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS TO ACT ON INFORMATION THAT SATISFIES HIM;
NOT ONLY IS THERE NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING, BUT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CAN LOCK IN HIS OWN BOSOM THE EVIDENCE THAT DOES SATISFY HIM. 
8 C.F.R. SECS. 175.53, 175.57(1949). 

THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO READ SUCH LEGISLATION.  IT IS TRUE ALSO OF
ACTS OF CONGRESS THAT "THE LETTER KILLETH."  LEGISLATION SHOULD NOT BE
READ IN SUCH A DECIMATING SPIRIT UNLESS THE LETTER OF CONGRESS IS
INEXORABLE.  WE ARE REMINDED FROM TIME TO TIME THAT IN ENACTING
LEGISLATION CONGRESS IS NOT ENGAGED IN A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS WHICH TAKES
ACCOUNT OF EVERY CONTINGENCY.  ITS LAWS ARE NOT TO BE READ AS THOUGH
EVERY I HAS TO BE DOTTED AND EVERY T CROSSED.  THE WAR BRIDES ACT IS
LEGISLATION DERIVED FROM THE DOMINANT REGARD WHICH AMERICAN SOCIETY
PLACES UPON THE FAMILY.  IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS GAVE
WITH A BOUNTIFUL HAND BUT ALLOWED ITS BOUNTY ARBITRARILY TO BE TAKEN
AWAY.  IN FRAMING AND PASSING THE WAR BRIDES ACT, CONGRESS WAS
PREOCCUPIED WITH OPENING THE DOOR TO WIVES ACQUIRED BY AMERICAN
HUSBANDS DURING SERVICE IN FOREIGN LANDS.  IT OPENED THE DOOR ON
ESSENTIALS - WIVES OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND PERCHANCE MOTHERS OF THEIR
CHILDREN WERE NOT TO RUN THE GAUNTLET OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN
DETERMINING THEIR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CONDITION, AND WERE TO BE DEEMED
NONQUOTA IMMIGRANTS.  CONGRESS OUGHT NOT TO BE MADE TO APPEAR TO
REQUIRE THAT THEY INCUR THE GREATER HAZARDS OF AN INFORMER'S TALE
WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR ITS REFUTATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE
CONSIDERATIONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY, INSOFAR AS THEY ARE PERTINENT, CAN
BE AMPLY PROTECTED BY A HEARING IN CAMERA.  COMPARE RULE 46 OF THE
RULES OF PRACTICE FOR ADMIRALTY COURTS DURING WORLD WAR II, 316 U.S.
717; 328 U.S. 882, AND SEE HAYDOCK, SOME EVIDENTIARY PROBLEMS POSED BY
ATOMIC ENERGY SECURITY REQUIREMENTS, 61 HARV. L. REV. 468, 482
83(1948).  AN ALIEN'S OPPORTUNITY OF ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES IS OF
COURSE A PRIVILEGE WHICH CONGRESS MAY GRANT OR WITHHOLD.  BUT THE CRUX
OF THE PROBLEM BEFORE US IS WHETHER CONGRESS, HAVING EXTENDED THE
PRIVILEGE FOR THE BENEFIT NOT OF THE ALIEN BUT OF HER AMERICAN HUSBAND,
LEFT WIDE OPEN THE OPPORTUNITY RUTHLESSLY TO TAKE AWAY WHAT IT GAVE. 

A REGULATION PERMITTING SUCH EXCLUSION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S FIAT
- IN THE NATURE OF THINGS THAT HIGH FUNCTIONARY MUST LARGELY ACT ON
DOSSIERS PREPARED BY OTHERS - IN THE CASE OF AN ALIEN CLAIMING ENTRY ON
HIS OWN ACCOUNT IS ONE THING.  TO CONSTRUE SUCH REGULATION TO BE
AUTHORIZED AND TO APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE WIFE OF AN HONORABLY
DISCHARGED AMERICAN SOLDIER IS QUITE ANOTHER THING.  HAD CONGRESS
SPOKEN EXPLICITLY WE WOULD HAVE TO BOW TO IT.  SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL
CONTRADICTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BENEFICENCE WHICH IS AT THE HEART OF
THE WAR BRIDES ACT OUGHT NOT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO CONGRESS BY A PROCESS
OF ELABORATE IMPLICATION.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS TO BE AVOIDED WHEN TO DO
SO CHARGES CONGRESS WITH AN OBVIOUSLY HARSH PURPOSE.  DUE REGARD FOR
THE WHOLE BODY OF IMMIGRATION LAWS AND POLICIES MAKES IT SINGULARLY
APPROPRIATE IN CONSTRUING THE WAR BRIDES ACT TO BE HEEDFUL OF THE
ADMONITION THAT "THE LETTER KILLETH." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER JOIN, DISSENTING. 

I DO NOT QUESTION THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE
IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES TO TURN BACK FROM OUR GATES ANY ALIEN OR CLASS
OF ALIENS.  BUT I DO NOT FIND THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED AN ABRUPT
AND BRUTAL EXCLUSION OF THE WIFE OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT A
HEARING. 

CONGRESS HELD OUT A PROMISE OF LIBERALIZED ADMISSION TO ALIEN BRIDES,
TAKEN UNTO THEMSELVES BY MEN SERVING IN OR HONORABLY DISCHARGED FROM
OUR ARMED SERVICES ABROAD, AS THE ACT, SET FORTH IN THE COURT'S
OPINION, INDICATES.  THE PETITIONING HUSBAND IS HONORABLY DISCHARGED
AND REMAINED IN GERMANY AS A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE.  OUR MILITARY
AUTHORITIES ABROAD REQUIRED THEIR PERMISSION BEFORE MARRIAGE.  THE ARMY
IN GERMANY IS NOT WITHOUT A VIGILANT AND SECURITY-CONSCIOUS
INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.  THIS WOMAN WAS EMPLOYED BY OUR EUROPEAN COMMAND
AND HER RECORD IS NOT ONLY WITHOUT BLEMISH, BUT IS HIGHLY PRAISED BY
HER SUPERIORS.  THE MARRIAGE OF THIS ALIEN WOMAN TO THIS VETERAN WAS
APPROVED BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL AT FRANKFURT-ON-MAIN. 

NOW THIS AMERICAN CITIZEN IS TOLD HE CANNOT BRING HIS WIFE TO THE
UNITED STATES, BUT HE WILL NOT BE TOLD WHY.  HE MUST ABANDON HIS BRIDE
TO LIVE IN HIS OWN COUNTRY OR FORSAKE HIS COUNTRY TO LIVE WITH HIS
BRIDE. 

SO HE WENT TO COURT AND SOUGHT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WHICH WE
NEVER TIRE OF CITING TO EUROPE AS THE UNANSWERABLE EVIDENCE THAT OUR
FREE COUNTRY PERMITS NO ARBITRARY OFFICIAL DETENTION.  AND THE
GOVERNMENT TELLS THE COURT THAT NOT EVEN A COURT CAN FIND OUT WHY THE
GIRL IS EXCLUDED.  BUT IT SAYS WE MUST FIND THAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED
THIS TREATMENT OF WAR BRIDES AND, EVEN IF WE CANNOT GET ANY REASONS FOR
IT, WE MUST SAY IT IS LEGAL; SECURITY REQUIRES IT. 

SECURITY IS LIKE LIBERTY IN THAT MANY ARE THE CRIMES COMMITTED IN ITS
NAME.  THE MENACE TO THE SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY, BE IT GREAT AS IT
MAY, FROM THIS GIRL'S ADMISSION IS AS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE MENACE TO
FREE INSTITUTIONS INHERENT IN PROCEDURES OF THIS PATTERN.  IN THE NAME
OF SECURITY THE POLICE STATE JUSTIFIES ITS ARBITRARY OPPRESSIONS ON
EVIDENCE THAT IS SECRET, BECAUSE SECURITY MIGHT BE PREJUDICED IF IT
WERE BROUGHT TO LIGHT IN HEARINGS.  THE PLEA THAT EVIDENCE OF GUILT
MUST BE SECRET IS ABHORRENT TO FREE MEN, BECAUSE IT PROVIDES A CLOAK
FOR THE MALEVOLENT, THE MISINFORMED, THE MEDDLESOME, AND THE CORRUPT TO
PLAY THE ROLE OF INFORMER UNDETECTED AND UNCORRECTED.  CF. IN RE
OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257, 268. 

I AM SURE THE OFFICIALS HERE HAVE ACTED FROM A SENSE OF DUTY, WITH
FULL BELIEF IN THEIR LAWFUL POWER, AND NO DOUBT UPON INFORMATION WHICH,
IF IT STOOD THE TEST OF TRIAL, WOULD JUSTIFY THE ORDER OF EXCLUSION. 
BUT NOT EVEN THEY KNOW WHETHER IT WOULD STAND THIS TEST.  AND ANYWAY,
AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, PERSONAL CONFIDENCE IN THE OFFICIALS INVOLVED
DOES NOT EXCUSE A JUDGE FOR SANCTIONING A PROCEDURE THAT IS DANGEROUSLY
WRONG IN PRINCIPLE.  DISSENT IN BOWLES V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 33,
37. 

CONGRESS WILL HAVE TO USE MORE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE THAN ANY YET CITED
BEFORE I WILL AGREE THAT IT HAS AUTHORIZED AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO
BREAK UP THE FAMILY OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OR FORCE HIM TO KEEP HIS
WIFE BY BECOMING AN EXILE.  LIKEWISE, IT WILL HAVE TO BE MUCH MORE
EXPLICIT BEFORE I CAN AGREE THAT IT AUTHORIZED A FINDING OF SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT AGAINST THE WIFE OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITHOUT NOTICE OF
CHARGES, EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND A CHANCE TO MEET IT. 

I SHOULD DIRECT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EITHER TO PRODUCE HIS EVIDENCE
JUSTIFYING EXCLUSION OR TO ADMIT MRS. KNAUFF TO THE COUNTRY. 
..END :



BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 552 


NO. 178.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13-14, 1949.  - DECIDED JANUARY 16, 1950.  -
175 F.2D 223, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHEN A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES A DISTRICT COURT IN
A CRIMINAL CASE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A
CONVICTION, AND THE DEFENDANT HAD MADE ALL PROPER AND TIMELY MOTIONS
FOR ACQUITTAL AND FOR A NEW TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS NOT REQUIRED TO DIRECT A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL BUT MAY
DIRECT A NEW TRIAL.  PP. 553-560. 

(A)  THE AUTHORITY TO REMAND A CAUSE AND DIRECT THE ENTRY OF AN
"APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT" HAS LONG BEEN EXERCISED BY FEDERAL APPELLATE
COURTS AND IS NOW VESTED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS BY 28 U.S.C. SEC.
2106.  PP. 554-558. 

(B)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY RULE 29 OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SINCE THAT RULE REFERS TO PROCEEDINGS IN
THE DISTRICT COURT AND DOES NOT CONTROL THE DIRECTIONS WHICH A COURT OF
APPEALS MAY ISSUE WHEN IT REMANDS A CAUSE TO A DISTRICT COURT.  PP. 558
559. 

(C)  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE DIRECTION OF A NEW TRIAL BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS WAS AN "APPROPRIATE" JUDGMENT WHICH WAS "JUST" UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2106.  PP. 559
560. 

2.  WHERE AN ACCUSED SUCCESSFULLY SEEKS REVIEW OF A CONVICTION,
HAVING ASSIGNED SEVERAL ERRORS ON APPEAL, INCLUDING DENIAL OF A MOTION
FOR ACQUITTAL, THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY UPON A NEW TRIAL.  P. 560. 

BRYAN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE INCOME-TAX LAWS,
AND THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED MOTIONS FOR THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL AND FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, BECAUSE
THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT, AND REMANDED THE
CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL.  175
F.2D 223.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 813.  AFFIRMED, P.
560. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE IMPORTANT QUESTION PRESENTED UPON THIS RECORD IS WHETHER THE
COURT OF APPEALS, WHEN IT REVERSES THE DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE THE
EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION, MAY DIRECT A NEW
TRIAL WHERE A DEFENDANT HAD MADE ALL PROPER AND TIMELY MOTIONS FOR
ACQUITTAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED UPON TWO COUNTS OF AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE
INCOME-TAX LAWS AND SENTENCED TO TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT ON ONE COUNT
AND TO PAY A FINE OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ON THE OTHER.  AT THE CLOSE
OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE PETITIONER MOVED FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL,
AND THE MOTION WAS RENEWED AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE.  A
VERDICT OF GUILTY WAS RETURNED, AND WITHIN FIVE DAYS PETITIONER MADE A
FURTHER MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A
NEW TRIAL.  THESE MOTIONS WERE ALL DENIED.  ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT.  175 F.2D 223.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT A NEW
TRIAL.  PETITIONER MOVED THE COURT OF APPEALS TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT TO
"CONFORM TO RULE 29(A) OF FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,"
ALLEGING THAT A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED.  THIS
MOTION WAS DENIED. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO EXAMINE THE POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
GRANT A NEW TRIAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  338 U.S. 813. 

THE EXTENT OF THE POWER OF FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS TO ENTER JUDGMENT
WHEN REVERSING AND REMANDING CASES ARISING IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS
HAS BEEN DEFINED BY STATUTES FROM THE INCEPTION OF OUR SYSTEM OF
COURTS.  BY THE JUDICIARY ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, 1 STAT. 85, THE
SUPREME COURT WAS GIVEN STATUTORY AUTHORITY, UPON REVIEW OF A DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT, TO ORDER SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS "AS THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD HAVE RENDERED OR PASSED."  SEE BALLEW V. UNITED STATES,
160 U.S. 187, 198-99.  IN 1872 POWER WAS GIVEN THIS COURT TO "DIRECT
SUCH JUDGMENT, DECREE, OR ORDER TO BE RENDERED, OR SUCH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS TO BE HAD BY THE INFERIOR COURT AS THE JUSTICE OF THE CASE
MAY REQUIRE."  17 STAT. 196-97.  OUR AUTHORITY TO RENDER JUDGMENT "AS
THE JUSTICE OF THE CASE MAY REQUIRE" WAS CONTINUED IN THOSE TERMS UNTIL
THE REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE IN 1948.  R.S. SEC. 701, OLD TITLE 28
U.S.C. SEC. 876.  THIS AUTHORITY WAS EXERCISED BY REMANDING FOR A NEW
TRIAL WHERE, ON WRIT OF ERROR TO A DISTRICT COURT, THE JUDGMENT WAS
REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN
THE VERDICT.  WIBORG V. UNITED STATES, 163 U.S. 632.  LIKEWISE IN
CLYATT V. UNITED STATES, 197 U.S. 207, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, A NEW TRIAL WAS DIRECTED WHERE
THE EVIDENCE WAS HELD TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION.  ON
A SIMILAR GROUND THIS COURT REVERSED A JUDGMENT  AND DIRECTED THAT THE
DEFENDANTS BE DISCHARGED.  FRANCE V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 676. 

THE AUTHORITY AND PRACTICE OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN ROUGHLY
PARALLEL TO THOSE OF THIS COURT.  WHEN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
WERE ESTABLISHED IN 1891, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT UPON REVERSAL BY SUCH
COURTS THE "CAUSE SHALL BE REMANDED TO THE  ...  DISTRICT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE THERE TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH
DETERMINATION."  26 STAT. 829, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 877.  FN1  UNDER THIS
PROVISION THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE REVERSED FOR INSUFFICIENCY
OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL IN
NUMEROUS CASES, ALTHOUGH A VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED FOR THE
DEFENDANT BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  FIRST CIRCUIT:  ENRIQUE RIVERA V.
UNITED STATES, 57 F.2D 816; THIRD CIRCUIT:  UNITED STATES V. DI GENOVA,
134 F.2D 466; UNITED STATES V. RUSSO, 123 F.2D 420; RIDENOUR V. UNITED
STATES, 14 F.2D 888; EIGHTH CIRCUIT:  PINES V. UNITED STATES, 123 F.2D
825; SCOGGINS V. UNITED STATES, 255 F. 825; NINTH CIRCUIT:  BUHLER V.
UNITED STATES, 33 F.2D 382; TENTH CIRCUIT:  LESLIE V. UNITED STATES, 43
F.2D 288.  UNDER THE SAME STATUTORY AUTHORITY  FN2  SEVERAL CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE DIRECTED THE DISCHARGE OF THE DEFENDANT OR THE
DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT WHEN REVERSING FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE.  SECOND CIRCUIT:  UNITED STATES V. BONANZI, 94 F.2D 570;
ROMANO V. UNITED STATES, 9 F.2D 522; SIXTH CIRCUIT:  CEMONTE V. UNITED
STATES, 89 F.2D 362; NINTH CIRCUIT:  KLEE V. UNITED STATES, 53 F.2D
58.  SINCE THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WENT INTO EFFECT ON
MARCH 21, 1946, THREE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE ENTERED A JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITTAL UPON REVERSING FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, RELYING
AT LEAST IN PART ON RULE 29.  FN3  THIRD CIRCUIT:  UNITED STATES V.
BOZZA, 155 F.2D 592; UNITED STATES V. RENEE ICE CREAM CO., 160 F.2D
353; SEVENTH CIRCUIT:  UNITED STATES V. GARDNER, 171 F.2D 753; NINTH
CIRCUIT:  KARN V. UNITED STATES, 158 F.2D 568.  FN4 

WHEN THE JUDICIAL CODE WAS REVISED IN 1948 THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 876
AND SEC. 877 RELATING TO THE POWER OF THIS COURT AND THAT OF THE COURTS
OFAPPEALS ON REMAND WERE DOVETAILED INTO A SINGLE SECTION, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2106,  FN5  PROVIDING: 

"THE SUPREME COURT OR ANY OTHER COURT OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION MAY
AFFIRM, MODIFY, VACATE, SET ASIDE OR REVERSE ANY JUDGMENT, DECREE, OR
ORDER OF A COURT LAWFULLY BROUGHT BEFORE IT FOR REVIEW, AND MAY REMAND
THE CAUSE AND DIRECT THE ENTRY OF SUCH APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT, DECREE, OR
ORDER, OR REQUIRE SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE HAD AS MAY BE JUST
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  UNDER THIS STATUTE FOR THE FIRST TIME THE
POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURTS OF APPEALS TO ENTER JUDGMENT
WHEN REMANDING A CASE TO THE LOWER COURT IS SET OUT IN IDENTICAL
LANGUAGE IN A SINGLE SECTION.  THAT COEXTENSIVE POWER IS TO DIRECT
"SUCH APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT  ...  AS MAY BE JUST UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES."  THIS LANGUAGE IS AT LEAST AS BROAD AS THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 876 AND SEC. 877.  AS DETAILED ABOVE, THIS COURT AND THE COURTS
OF APPEALS DIRECTED NEW TRIALS AS A MATTER OF COURSE UNDER THOSE

IT IS PETITIONER'S POSITION THAT THIS PREVIOUS AUTHORITY HAS BEEN
ABROGATED BY THE ADVENT OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
ESPECIALLY RULE 29(A) AND (B).  FN6  PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE COURT
OF APPEALS MUST GIVE THE JUDGMENT THAT THE TRIAL COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED TO AWARD HAD IT RULED CORRECTLY.  SINCE THE GOVERNMENT FAILED
TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, HE CLAIMS THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO A
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT IS REQUIRED BY RULE 29 TO
ENTER SUCH JUDGMENT ON PROPER MOTION WHERE IT FINDS THE EVIDENCE
INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT.  PETITIONER CONTENDS IN THE
ALTERNATIVE THAT RULE 29 APPLIES TO THE COURTS OF APPEALS, AND THAT THE
COURT OF APPEALS WAS ITSELF COMPELLED BY THE RULE TO GIVE A JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL WHEN IT DECIDED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN
THE CONVICTION. 

THE RULES ARE ENTITLED "RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURTS."  RULE 1 DEFINES THEIR SCOPE, STATING THAT
"THESE RULES GOVERN THE PROCEDURE IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES." 
THE COURTS OF APPEALS ARE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF COURTS SPECIFIED IN
RULE 54(A)(1) TO WHICH THE RULES ARE TO APPLY.  IT IS OBVIOUS,
NEVERTHELESS, THAT SOME OF THE RULES ARE RELEVANT ONLY TO PRELIMINARY
PROCEEDINGS OR TO PROCEDURE PRIOR TO APPEAL.  IN OUR OPINION RULE 29 IS
SUCH A RULE, REFERRING SOLELY TO THE CONDUCT OF TRIALS IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS.  IT IS THERE THAT THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS
MADE.  IT IS THE OFFICE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO RULE ON THE MOTION.  WE
HOLD THAT THE "COURT" REFERRED TO IN RULE 29 IS THE DISTRICT COURT. 
CONSEQUENTLY THE RULE DOES NOT AFFECT, EITHER TO ADD TO OR TO DETRACT
FROM, THE POWER OF COURTS OF APPEALS WHEN REMANDING A CASE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT. 

OF COURSE THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE RULE HAS
BEEN OBSERVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  IF IT FINDS THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT HAS ERRED AND HAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED THE RULE, THAT IS AN ERROR
OF LAW FOR WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS MAY REVERSE AND REMAND.  BUT WHEN
THE COURT OF APPEALS REMANDS, RULE 29 DOES NOT CONTROL ITS DIRECTIONS
TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST LOOK TO THE STATUTE
DEFINING ITS APPELLATE POWER, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2106, FOR GUIDANCE AS TO
THE KIND OF ORDER WHICH IT MAY DIRECT THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER. 

WE THUS REACH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DIRECTION OF A NEW TRIAL BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS AN "APPROPRIATE" JUDGMENT WHICH WAS "JUST"
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEREFORE AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 2106, OR
WHETHER, AS PETITIONER CONTENDS, IT WAS MANDATORY THAT THE COURT OF
APPEALS ENTER A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.  WHETHER THE DIRECTION OF A
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR A REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT
DIRECTION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS IS NOT
BEFORE US. 

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE COURTS OF APPEALS HAD OFTEN DIRECTED A NEW
TRIAL PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 2106.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
APPARENTLY BELIEVED THAT JUSTICE WAS SERVED BY THE GRANTING OF A NEW
TRIAL IN THIS CASE.  ON THE MOTION TO AMEND ITS ORDER OF REMAND THE
COURT STATED:  "THE MAJORITY THINKING THE DEFECT IN THE EVIDENCE MIGHT
BE SUPPLIED ON ANOTHER TRIAL DIRECTED THAT IT BE HAD."  AND ONE JUDGE
VIGOROUSLY DISSENTED FROM THE ORIGINAL OPINION BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT
THE EVIDENCE AMPLY SUPPORTED THE VERDICT. 

A NEW TRIAL WAS ONE OF THE REMEDIES WHICH PETITIONER SOUGHT.  HE
PROPERLY GAVE THE DISTRICT COURT AN OPPORTUNITY AFTER VERDICT TO
CORRECT ITS ERROR IN FAILING TO SUSTAIN HIS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, WHICH CLAIMED ERROR
WAS ASSIGNED AS A GROUND FOR A NEW TRIAL.  WE AGREE THAT ON THIS RECORD
THE ORDER FOR A NEW TRIAL WAS A JUST AND APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WHICH THE
COURT OF APPEALS WAS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2106. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT TO REQUIRE HIM TO STAND TRIAL AGAIN
WOULD BE TO PLACE HIM TWICE IN JEOPARDY IS NOT PERSUASIVE.  HE SOUGHT
AND OBTAINED THE REVERSAL OF HIS CONVICTION, ASSIGNING A NUMBER OF
ALLEGED ERRORS ON APPEAL, INCLUDING DENIAL OF HIS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITTAL.  "...  WHERE THE ACCUSED SUCCESSFULLY SEEKS REVIEW OF A
CONVICTION, THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY UPON A NEW TRIAL."  FRANCIS V.
RESWEBER, 329 U.S. 459, 462.  SEE TRONO V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 521,
533-34. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE SUCCEEDING SECTION PROVIDED THAT EXISTING METHODS OF REVIEW
SHOULD REGULATE THE SYSTEM OF APPEALS AND WRITS OF ERROR IN THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS AND THAT THE JUDGES OF THE NEW COURTS WERE TO HAVE
"THE SAME POWERS AND DUTIES AS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF APPEALS OR WRITS OF
ERROR, AND THE CONDITIONS OF SUCH ALLOWANCE, AS NOW BY LAW BELONG TO
THE JUSTICES OR JUDGES IN RESPECT OF THE EXISTING COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES  ...."  26 STAT. 829.  ALTHOUGH IN TERMS THIS LATTER SECTION
DEALT ONLY WITH THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH APPEALS OR WRITS OF ERROR
WOULD BE PERMITTED, IT WAS CONSTRUED BY SOME COURTS AS MAKING 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 876, RELATING TO THE APPELLATE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT,
APPLICABLE TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  FARRAR V. WHEELER, 145 F.
482, 486-87; WHITWORTH V. UNITED STATES, 114 F. 302, 305; STANDARD CO.
V. CRANE ELEVATOR CO., 76 F. 767, 775.  CF. REALTY CORP. V. MONTGOMERY,
284 U.S. 547, 550; BALLEW V. UNITED STATES, 160 U.S. 187, 201-202;
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR.  SOC.  V. MERCANTILE CO., 143 F.2D 397, 405;
UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS SURETY CO., 226 F. 653, 664. 

FN2  SECTION 877 AUTHORIZED THE SUPREME COURT ON DIRECT APPEAL OR
OTHERWISE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT TO ORDER THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE
PROPER DISTRICT COURT FOR "FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE TAKEN IN PURSUANCE
OF SUCH DETERMINATION."  ON APPEAL OR OTHERWISE TO THE SUPREME COURT
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, AFTER REVIEW AND DETERMINATION, THE
CAUSE "SHALL BE REMANDED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO THE PROPER DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DETERMINATION."  ON
APPEAL OR OTHERWISE IN A CAUSE COMING TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR REVIEW AND DETERMINATION, IN WHICH THE
DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS FINAL, "SUCH CAUSE SHALL BE
REMANDED TO THE SAID DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE THERE
TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH DETERMINATION."  IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE
LANGUAGE GIVING AUTHORITY TO THE SUPREME COURT TO REMAND A PROCEEDING
BROUGHT TO THE COURT FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT CONTAIN
THE WORDS "TO BE TAKEN" AS IN THE CASE OF THE DIRECT PROCEEDINGS FROM
THE DISTRICT COURT.  IN PROCEEDINGS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE LANGUAGE WAS STILL DIFFERENT.  THERE THE
REMAND WAS "FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE THERE TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF
SUCH DETERMINATION."  WE HAVE FOUND NO CASE WHICH HAS NOTICED THIS
DISCREPANT LANGUAGE, ALTHOUGH IN THE SAME SECTION.    FN3  "RULE 29. 
MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL. 

"(A)  MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.  MOTIONS FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
ARE ABOLISHED AND MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL SHALL BE USED IN
THEIR PLACE.  THE COURT ON MOTION OF A DEFENDANT OR OF ITS OWN MOTION
SHALL ORDER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OF ONE OR MORE OFFENSES
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION AFTER THE EVIDENCE ON EITHER
SIDE IS CLOSED IF THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION
OF SUCH OFFENSE OR OFFENSES.  IF A DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT
GRANTED, THE DEFENDANT MAY OFFER EVIDENCE WITHOUT HAVING RESERVED THE
RIGHT. 

"(B)  RESERVATION OF DECISION ON MOTION.  IF A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL IS MADE AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT MAY
RESERVE DECISION ON THE MOTION, SUBMIT THE CASE TO THE JURY AND DECIDE
THE MOTION EITHER BEFORE THE JURY RETURNS A VERDICT OR AFTER IT RETURNS
A VERDICT OF GUILTY OR IS DISCHARGED WITHOUT HAVING RETURNED A
VERDICT.  IF THE MOTION IS DENIED AND THE CASE IS SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY, THE MOTION MAY BE RENEWED WITHIN 5 DAYS AFTER THE JURY IS
DISCHARGED AND MAY INCLUDE IN THE ALTERNATIVE A MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL.  IF A VERDICT OF GUILTY IS RETURNED THE COURT MAY ON SUCH MOTION
SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AND ORDER A NEW TRIAL OR ENTER JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL.  IF NO VERDICT IS RETURNED THE COURT MAY ORDER A NEW TRIAL
OR ENTER JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL."  327 U.S. 853. 

FN4  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
DISCUSSED BUT DID NOT DECIDE THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 29 TO ITS
JUDGMENTS.  THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE RULE APPLIED IT
AUTHORIZED THE COURT'S DIRECTION OF A NEW TRIAL. 

FN5  28 U.S.C. SEC. 344, RELEVANT TO REVIEW OF CASES FROM STATE
COURTS BY THE SUPREME COURT, WAS ALSO INCORPORATED IN SEC. 2106. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED WOULD AFFIRM WITH A
MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT TO REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DECIDE
WHETHER A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL SHOULD BE ENTERED OR A NEW TRIAL
ORDERED.  IN THEIR OPINION 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2106 MEANS THAT THE ORDER OF
AN APPELLATE COURT SHOULD BE CONFORMABLE TO SPECIFIC LEGAL
LIMITATIONS.  IN THIS CASE SUCH A LIMITATION IS FOUND IN CRIMINAL RULE
29.  UNDER THAT RULE THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER TO GRANT A NEW
TRIAL OR TO ACQUIT RESTS WITH THE DISTRICT COURT.  SEE CONE V. WEST
VIRGINIA PULP & PAPER CO., 330 U.S. 212. 
..END :











MARYLAND v. BALTIMORE RADIO SHOW, INC. ET AL., 338 U.S. 912;
70 S.CT. 252; 94 L. ED. 562 (1950).

JANUARY 9, 1950, DECIDED

PRIOR HISTORY:  COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.  REPORTED BELOW: 67
A. 2D 497.


COUNSEL: HALL HAMMOND, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, AND HARRISON
L. WINTER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR PETITIONER.  J. PURDON
WRIGHT AND W. FRANK EVERY FOR RESPONDENTS.  ELISHA HANSON,
WILLIAM K. VAN ALLEN AND ARTHUR B. HANSON FILED A BRIEF FOR THE
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, AS AMICUS CURIAE,
OPPOSING THE PETITION.


OPINION:  CERTIORARI DENIED.  MR.JUSTICE FRANKFURTER HAS FILED AN
OPINION RESPECTING THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.

THE CRIMINAL COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY FOUND THE RESPONDENTS
GUILTY OF CONTEMPT AND IMPOSED FINES FOR BROADCASTING OVER LOCAL
RADIO STATIONS MATTER RELATING TO ONE EUGENE H. JAMES AT A TIME
WHEN HE WAS IN CUSTODY ON A CHARGE OF MURDER.  THE FACTS UPON
WHICH THESE FINDINGS WERE BASED ARE BEST NARRATED IN THE
AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT:

"A LITTLE GIRL IN ONE OF THE PARKS OF WASHINGTON, D. C., HAD BEEN
MURDERED UNDER HORRIBLE AND TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCES.  SOME TEN DAYS
LATER, LITTLE MARSHA BRILL WAS DRAGGED FROM HER BICYCLE ON ONE OF
THE PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES OF BALTIMORE CITY WHILE IN THE COMPANY, OR
AT LEAST, IN THE VICINITY OF TWO OF HER PLAYMATES, AND THERE
STABBED TO DEATH.  THE IMPACT OF THOSE TWO SIMILAR CRIMES UPON THE
PUBLIC MIND WAS TERRIFIC.  THE PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY WERE
OUTRAGED.  NOT ONLY WERE THEY OUTRAGED BUT THEY WERE TERRIFIED.
CERTAINLY, ANY PARENT OF A YOUNG CHILD MUST HAVE FELT A DREAD AT
THE THOUGHT THAT HIS OR HER CHILD MIGHT BE KILLED WHILE OUT UPON
THE THOROUGHFARES OF BALTIMORE CITY.  WE THINK  WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN
DRAWING THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS WIDESPREAD AND COMPELLING
PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE BRILL MURDER.  WE THINK WE ARE  JUSTIFIED IN
ASSUMING THAT MANY, MANY EARS WERE ON THAT EVENING IN BALTIMORE,
GLUED TO THEIR RADIOS.  AND WHAT HAPPENED?  MR. CONNELLY GOES ON THE
AIR AND ANNOUNCES 'STAND BY FOR A SENSATION.'  NOW,  GENTLEMEN, IT IS
A FAIR AND SAFE BET THAT WHATEVER THE HOOPER-RATING OF HIS STATION
MAY BE, NO LISTENER TUNED TO HIS STATION WAS GOING TO TURN HIS
RADIO OFF WHEN HE HEARD THAT ANNOUNCEMENT.  MR. CONNELLY THEN  
PROCEEDED TO EXPLAIN THAT JAMES HAD BEEN APPREHENDED AND THAT HE
HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH THE BRILL MURDER.  THAT WAS ALL RIGHT.  NOBODY
COULD QUARREL WITH THAT, BUT THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT JAMES HAD
CONFESSED TO THIS DASTARDLY CRIME, THAT HE HAS A LONG CRIMINAL
RECORD, THAT HE WENT OUT TO THE SCENE WITH THE OFFICERS AND THERE
RE-ENACTED THE CRIME, AND FURTHER, DUG UP FROM SOMEWHERE DOWN IN
THE LEAVES THE KNIFE THAT HE HAD USED TO MURDER THE LITTLE GIRL.   
 NOW, GENTLEMEN, THE COURT HAS NO  DIFFICULTY IN CONCLUDING THAT THE
BROADCAST WAS DEVASTATING.  ANYBODY  WHO HEARD IT WOULD NEVER FORGET
IT.  THE QUESTION THEN BEFORE US IS: DID THAT BROADCAST AND OTHERS
WHICH WERE LESS DAMAGING BY THE OTHER STATIONS, HAVE A CLEAR AND
PRESENT EFFECT UPON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE?  THE COURT IS  
 BOUND TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE  BROADCASTS HAD ANY
APPRECIABLE EFFECT TO SAY NOTHING OF CONSTITUTING A CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER, UPON THE DECISION OF THE JUDGES WHO TRIED THE CASE.   
 AT THE MOMENT WE DO NOT RECALL JUST WHO THOSE JUDGES WERE, BUT  
JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MADE OF STERNER STUFF THAN TO BE
INFLUENCED  BY IRRESPONSIBLE STATEMENTS REGARDING PENDING CASES. 
THEY ARE TRAINED TO PUT ASIDE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND WHILE WE,
OF COURSE, RECOGNIZE OUR LIMITATIONS, I THINK THAT MOST JUDGES, AT
LEAST, ARE FAIRLY ABLE TO DISREGARD IMPROPER INFLUENCES WHICH MAY
HAVE REACHED THEIR ATTENTION.

"NOW, WHAT ABOUT THE JURY?  IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHAT IS THIS JURY
THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?  THEY ARE TWELVE MEN, OR IN MOST
JURISDICTIONS NOW, AS IN MARYLAND, MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE PICKED FROM
ALL WALKS OF LIFE AND WHO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HEARING CASES AND
DETERMINING, IN THIS STATE AT LEAST, NOT ONLY THE FACTS BUT THE LAW IN
THE CASE.  IT MAY BE UNFORTUNATE, PERHAPS, BUT CERTAINLY THE FACT IS
THAT THE JURY'S VERDICT IS FINAL IN MOST CASES.  THERE IS THE LIMITED
PROTECTION OF THE ACCUSED TO APPLY FOR A NEW TRIAL, BUT THE COURT OF
APPEALS CAN NOT DETERMINE - REVIEW AND DETERMINE - THE PROPRIETY OF THE
VERDICT REACHED BY THE JURY EITHER ON THE LAW OR ON THE FACTS.  NOW
THIS JURY SYSTEM IS INTENDED, AND I THINK IT WORKS OUT THAT WAY, TO
BRING TO THE TRIAL OF A CASE AS ONE ELEMENT, THE PUBLIC OPINION IN THE
COMMUNITY.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE JURY IS SWORN TO DECIDE THE CASE UPON
THE EVIDENCE WHICH IT HEARS FROM THE WITNESS STAND, BUT I THINK THAT NO
EXPERIENCED LAWYER WOULD CONTEND THAT A JURY IS NOT EXPECTED TO BRING
TO THE CONSIDERATION OF ITS VERDICT THE TEMPERAMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN
WHICH THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY LIVE.  THE JURY IS CALLED UPON TO DECIDE
THE FACTS AS IT HEARS THEM FROM THE WITNESS STAND IN THE LIGHT OF ITS
PAST EXPERIENCE AND, IF YOU PLEASE, ITS PAST KNOWLEDGE.  TRUE, ATTEMPTS
ARE MADE TO GET JURORS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN TOUCHED WITH ANY PREVIOUS
INFLUENCE IN THE CASE, BUT THE SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE PROVIDED FOR THE
REALIZATION OF THAT IDEAL ARE ALL TOO LIMITED. 

"THE COURT KNOWS NO GRAVER RESPONSIBILITY THAT DEVOLVES UPON COUNSEL
FOR THE DEFENSE IN A SERIOUS CRIMINAL CASE THAN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
ADVISING HIS CLIENT WHETHER TO ELECT A JURY TRIAL OR A COURT TRIAL. 
COUNSEL MUST BE ABLE TO SENSE PUBLIC OPINION, AND HE MUST EVALUATE THE
POSSIBLE EFFECT UPON THE JURORS' MINDS OF THOSE THINGS WHICH THEY KNOW
OR THINK THEY KNOW.  DOUBTLESS, ALL OF US HAVE SEEN CASES TRIED IN
WHICH WE FELT THAT THE COUNSEL MADE ERRORS OF JUDGMENT AS TO HOW THE
PARTICULAR CASES OUGHT TO BE TRIED.  THEY ARE, HOWEVER, DOING THE BEST
THAT THEY CAN AND, AS I HAVE INDICATED, THEIRS IS A GRAVE
RESPONSIBILITY, BECAUSE IT IS IRREVOCABLE.  WHEN A JURY DETERMINES A
CASE THAT TERMINATES THE CASE AND IF COUNSEL MAY HAVE MADE AN
UNFORTUNATE CHOICE THEN HIS CLIENT SUFFERS THE CONSEQUENCES. 

"NOW, THE COURT CAN NOT HELP BUT FEEL THAT THE BROADCAST REFERRED TO
IN THESE CASES MUST HAVE HAD AN INDELIBLE EFFECT UPON THE PUBLIC MIND
AND THAT THAT EFFECT WAS ONE THAT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE MEMBERS OF
THE PANEL INTO THE JURY ROOM.  THE COURT HARDLY NEEDS EVIDENCE IN THIS
FACTUAL SITUATION TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT JAMES' FREE CHOICE TO
EITHER A COURT TRIAL ON THE ONE HAND AND A JURY TRIAL ON THE OTHER, HAS
BEEN CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY INTERFERED WITH.  HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE THE
TESTIMONY OF HIS COUNSEL, MR. MURPHY, (AND WE ARE BOUND TO SAY THAT HIS
TESTIMONY SEEMED TO BE REASONABLE AND PERSUASIVE) WHO TOLD THE COURT
THAT HE FELT THAT HE HAD NO CHOICE.  HE SIMPLY COULD NOT AFFORD TO
SUBJECT HIS CLIENT TO THE RISK OF TRYING HIS CASE BEFORE A JURY IN A
COMMUNITY WHERE THIS EXTRANEOUS AND IMPROPER MATTER HAD BEEN
BROADCAST.  HE DID, IN FACT, ELECT A COURT TRIAL, BUT HE DID NOT HAVE
ANY ALTERNATIVE, ACCORDING TO HIS COUNSEL, AND THE COURT IS BOUND TO
SAY THAT WE AGREE WITH HIS COUNSEL.  THE SUGGESTION HAS BEEN MADE HERE
THAT THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL COULD HAVE BEEN PROTECTED BY THE RIGHT
OF REMOVAL AND IN THIS CASE HE DID HAVE THE RIGHT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT, OF REMOVAL.  WE ASSUME THAT THE COURT WOULD HAVE SENT THE CASE
TO SOME OTHER CIRCUIT FOR TRIAL BUT MR. MURPHY SAYS THAT THERE WERE
SOME COUNTIES IN THE STATE WHERE HE DID NOT WANT TO SEND HIS CLIENT FOR
A JURY TRIAL.  NOT ONLY THAT, BUT MANY PARTS OF THE STATE WERE
BLANKETED BY THE SAME BROADCAST INFORMATION THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE
PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE.  COUNSEL SAID THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE
STATIONS HAD A RADIUS OF SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILES. 

"THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE HERE ALSO, THAT THE MISCHIEF COULD HAVE BEEN
AVOIDED BY EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF THE DEFENSE TO EXAMINE, ON THEIR
VOIR DIRE, ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS AND THEN INQUIRING AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT THEY HAD HEARD THESE BROADCASTS.  WELL, NOW, IT HARDLY SEEMS
NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO SAY TO MEN WHO ARE EXPERIENCED IN THE TRIAL
OF JURY CASES, THAT EVERY TIME DEFENSE COUNSEL ASKED A PROSPECTIVE
JUROR WHETHER HE HAD HEARD A RADIO BROADCAST TO THE EFFECT THAT HIS
CLIENT HAS CONFESSED TO THIS CRIME OR THAT HE HAS BEEN GUILTY OF
SIMILAR CRIMES, HE WOULD BY THAT ACT BE DRIVING JUST ONE MORE NAIL INTO
JAMES' COFFIN.  WE THINK, THEREFORE, THAT REMEDY WAS USELESS. 

"NOW, GENTLEMEN, THE COURT MUST CONCLUDE THAT THESE BROADCASTS DID
CONSTITUTE, NOT MERELY A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE, BUT AN ACTUAL OBSTRUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,
IN THAT THEY DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT, JAMES, OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO HAVE AN IMPARTIAL JURY TRIAL." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND REVERSED THESE CONVICTIONS.  67 A.2D
497.  IT DID SO BY SUSTAINING "THE CHIEF CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS,
THAT THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT IS LIMITED BY THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND THAT THE FACTS
IN THE CASE AT BAR CANNOT SUPPORT THE JUDGMENTS, IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS, AS AUTHORITATIVELY CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT."  67
A.2D AT 507.  THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS THUS SUMMARIZED
IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MARKELL: 

"THIS COURT HOLDS THAT UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
(BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252; PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S.
331, AND CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367) THE JUDGMENTS BELOW VIOLATE THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IF
THIS IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THESE DECISIONS, OF COURSE THEY
ARE CONCLUSIVE."  67 A.2D AT 518. 

THEREUPON THE STATE OF MARYLAND ASKED THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF ITS COURT OF APPEALS.  IN ITS
PETITION MARYLAND URGES THAT WHILE THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF COURSE
BOUND BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, THAT COURT MISCONCEIVED OUR
RULINGS, THAT THE INTERPRETATION WHICH IT PLACED UPON THE BRIDGES,
PENNEKAMP AND CRAIG CASES WAS NOT CORRECT, WITH THE RESULT THAT IT
ERRONEOUSLY REVERSED THE JUDGMENTS FOR CONTEMPT.  SINCE THE COURT BELOW
REACHED ITS CONCLUSIONS ON A MISCONCEPTION OF FEDERAL LAW, SO THE STATE
OF MARYLAND ARGUES, ONLY THIS COURT CAN RELEASE THE MARYLAND COURT FROM
ITS BONDAGE OF ERROR. 

THIS COURT NOW DECLINES TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE MARYLAND COURT
OF APPEALS.  THE SOLE SIGNIFICANCE OF SUCH DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI NEED NOT BE ELUCIDATED TO THOSE VERSED IN THE
COURT'S PROCEDURES.  IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT FEWER THAN FOUR MEMBERS OF
THE COURT DEEMED IT DESIRABLE TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT
AS A MATTER "OF SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION."  RULE 38, PARAGRAPH 5.  A
VARIETY OF CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLIE DENIALS OF THE WRIT, AND AS TO THE
SAME PETITION DIFFERENT REASONS MAY LEAD DIFFERENT JUSTICES TO THE SAME
RESULT.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO A STATE COURT.  NARROWLY TECHNICAL REASONS MAY LEAD TO
DENIALS.  REVIEW MAY BE SOUGHT TOO LATE; THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER
COURT MAY NOT BE FINAL; IT MAY NOT BE THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT OF
LAST RESORT; THE DECISION MAY BE SUPPORTABLE AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW,
NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THIS COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE COURT ALSO
PASSED ON ISSUES OF FEDERAL LAW.  A DECISION MAY SATISFY ALL THESE
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND YET MAY COMMEND ITSELF FOR REVIEW TO FEWER
THAN FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COURT.  PERTINENT CONSIDERATIONS OF JUDICIAL
POLICY HERE COME INTO PLAY.  A CASE MAY RAISE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION BUT
THE RECORD MAY BE CLOUDY.  IT MAY BE DESIRABLE TO HAVE DIFFERENT
ASPECTS OF AN ISSUE FURTHER ILLUMINED BY THE LOWER COURTS.  WISE
ADJUDICATION HAS ITS OWN TIME FOR RIPENING. 

SINCE THERE ARE THESE CONFLICTING AND, TO THE UNINFORMED, EVEN
CONFUSING REASONS FOR DENYING PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, IT HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED FROM TIME TO TIME THAT THE COURT INDICATE ITS REASONS FOR
DENIAL.  PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS PRECLUDE.  IN ORDER THAT THE COURT
MAY BE ENABLED TO DISCHARGE ITS INDISPENSABLE DUTIES, CONGRESS HAS
PLACED THE CONTROL OF THE COURT'S BUSINESS, IN EFFECT, WITHIN THE
COURT'S DISCRETION.  DURING THE LAST THREE TERMS THE COURT DISPOSED OF
260, 217, 224 CASES, RESPECTIVELY, ON THEIR MERITS.  FOR THE SAME THREE
TERMS THE COURT DENIED, RESPECTIVELY, 1,260, 1,105, 1,189 PETITIONS
CALLING FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.  IF THE COURT IS TO DO ITS WORK IT
WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE TO GIVE REASONS, HOWEVER BRIEF, FOR REFUSING TO
TAKE THESE CASES.  THE TIME THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IS PROHIBITIVE,
APART FROM THE FACT AS ALREADY INDICATED THAT DIFFERENT REASONS NOT
INFREQUENTLY MOVE DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN CONCLUDING THAT A
PARTICULAR CASE AT A PARTICULAR TIME MAKES REVIEW UNDESIRABLE.  IT
BECOMES RELEVANT HERE TO NOTE THAT FAILURE TO RECORD A DISSENT FROM A
DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN NOWISE IMPLIES THAT ONLY
THE MEMBER OF THE COURT WHO NOTES HIS DISSENT THOUGHT THE PETITION
SHOULD BE GRANTED.    INASMUCH, THEREFORE, AS ALL THAT A DENIAL OF A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MEANS IS THAT FEWER THAN FOUR MEMBERS
OF THE COURT THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE GRANTED, THIS COURT HAS RIGOROUSLY
INSISTED THAT SUCH A DENIAL CARRIES WITH IT NO IMPLICATION WHATEVER
REGARDING THE COURT'S VIEWS ON THE MERITS OF A CASE WHICH IT HAS
DECLINED TO REVIEW.  THE COURT HAS SAID THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN; AGAIN AND
AGAIN THE ADMONITION HAS TO BE REPEATED. 

THE ONE THING THAT CAN BE SAID WITH CERTAINTY ABOUT THE COURT'S
DENIAL OF MARYLAND'S PETITION IN THIS CASE IS THAT IT DOES NOT REMOTELY
IMPLY APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF WHAT WAS SAID BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND.  THE ISSUES CANVASSED IN THE OPINIONS OF THAT COURT, AND
WHICH THE STATE OF MARYLAND HAS ASKED US TO REVIEW, ARE OF A NATURE
WHICH VERY READILY LEND THEMSELVES TO MISCONSTRUCTION OF THE DENIAL OF
THIS PETITION.  THE PRESENT INSTANCE IS PECULIARLY ONE WHERE THE
REDUNDANT BECOMES THE NECESSARY. 

IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO SAY THAT DENIAL OF THIS PETITION CARRIES NO
SUPPORT WHATEVER FOR CONCLUDING THAT EITHER THE MAJORITY OR THE DISSENT
IN THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE SCOPE OF OUR DECISIONS IN
BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252; PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S.
331; AND CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367.  IT DOES NOT CARRY ANY
IMPLICATION THAT EITHER, OR NEITHER, OPINION BELOW CORRECTLY APPLIED
THOSE DECISIONS TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE AT BAR. 

THE ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS BEAR ON SOME OF THE
BASIC PROBLEMS OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.  FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, PROPERLY
CONCEIVED, IS BASIC TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  SAFEGUARDS FOR THE
FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ARE ENSHRINED IN OUR BILL OF
RIGHTS.  RESPECT FOR BOTH OF THESE INDISPENSABLE ELEMENTS OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM PRESENTS SOME OF THE MOST DIFFICULT AND DELICATE
PROBLEMS FOR ADJUDICATION WHEN THEY ARE BEFORE THE COURT FOR
ADJUDICATION.  IT HAS TAKEN CENTURIES OF STRUGGLE TO EVOLVE OUR SYSTEM
FOR BRINGING THE GUILTY TO BOOK, PROTECTING THE INNOCENT, AND
MAINTAINING THE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY CONSONANT WITH OUR DEMOCRATIC
PROFESSIONS.  ONE OF THE DEMANDS OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY IS THAT THE
PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN COURTS BY BEING TOLD BY THE PRESS
WHAT HAPPENS THERE, TO THE END THAT THE PUBLIC MAY JUDGE WHETHER OUR
SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS FAIR AND RIGHT.  ON THE OTHER HAND OUR
SOCIETY HAS SET APART COURT AND JURY AS THE TRIBUNAL FOR DETERMINING
GUILT OR INNOCENCE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED IN COURT, SO FAR AS
IT IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.  IT WOULD BE THE GROSSEST PERVERSION OF ALL
THAT MR. JUSTICE HOLMES REPRESENTS TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS ALSO TRUE OF
THE THOUGHT BEHIND A CRIMINAL CHARGE "  ...  THAT THE BEST TEST OF
TRUTH IS THE POWER OF THE THOUGHT TO GET ITSELF ACCEPTED IN THE
COMPETITION OF THE MARKET."  ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616,
630.  PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE IN OPEN
COURT BEFORE A JURY ARE NOT IN COMPETITION WITH ANY OTHER MEANS FOR
ESTABLISHING THE CHARGE. 

I HAVE SET FORTH IN AN APPENDIX THE COURSE OF RECENT ENGLISH
DECISIONS DEALING WITH SITUATIONS IN WHICH PUBLICATIONS WERE CLAIMED TO
HAVE INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED THE PROSECUTIONS FOR CRIME AWAITING JURY
DETERMINATION.  (AS TO FREEDOM OF PRESS IN ENGLAND, SEE REPORT OF THE
ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS, CMD.  NO. 7700, AND THE DEBATE THEREON
IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 28, 1949.  467 H.C. DEB.  (5TH SER.) 
2683-2794.)  REFERENCE IS MADE TO THIS BODY OF EXPERIENCE MERELY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF INDICATING THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
FACED WERE WE CALLED UPON TO PASS ON THE LIMITS THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT PLACES UPON THE POWER OF STATES TO SAFEGUARD THE FAIR
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BY JURY TRIAL FROM MUTILATION OR
DISTORTION BY EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCES.  THESE ARE ISSUES THAT THIS COURT
HAS NOT YET ADJUDICATED.  IT IS NOT TO BE SUPPOSED THAT BY IMPLICATION
IT MEANS TO ADJUDICATE THEM BY REFUSING TO ADJUDICATE. 

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF FRANKFURTER, J. 

ENGLISH DECISIONS CONCERNING CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR COMMENTS
PREJUDICIAL TO THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. 

A. CASES FINDING CONTEMPT. 

1.  KING V. TIBBITS AND WINDUST, (1902) K.B. 77(1901).  THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT (LORD ALVERSTONE C.J., AND WILLS, GRANTHAM, KENNEDY AND
RIDLEY JJ.)  WAS READ BY LORD ALVERSTONE C.J. THE CASE IS ADEQUATELY
SUMMARIZED IN THE HEADNOTE: 

"DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL OF TWO PERSONS FOR FELONY THE
REPORTER FOR A CERTAIN NEWSPAPER SENT TO THE EDITOR ARTICLES AFFECTING
THE CONDUCT AND CHARACTER OF THE PERSONS UNDER TRIAL WHICH WOULD HAVE
BEEN INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.  THE EDITOR PUBLISHED THE
ARTICLES, AND, AFTER THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF THE TWO PERSONS, HE
AND THE REPORTER WERE CONVICTED ON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING THEM WITH
UNLAWFULLY ATTEMPTING TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY PUBLISHING
THE ARTICLES IN QUESTION AND WITH CONSPIRING TO DO SO:   - 

"HELD, THAT THE CONVICTION MUST BE AFFIRMED." 

EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS SENTENCED TO SIX WEEKS' IMPRISONMENT ON
EACH COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT, THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY. 

2.  KING V. PARKE, (1903) 2 K.B. 432(LORD ALVERSTONE C.J., WILLS AND
CHANNELL JJ.).  RULE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR PUBLICATION OF
STATEMENTS BY A NEWSPAPER, BEFORE THE ACCUSED'S COMMITMENT FOR TRIAL,
THAT HE HAD ENGAGED IN IMMORAL CONDUCT AND HAD ADMITTED A PRIOR
CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT FOR FORGERY.  ANSWERING THE ARGUMENT THAT
PUBLICATION BEFORE COMMITMENT WAS NOT A CONTEMPT, THE COURT THROUGH
WILLS J. SAID: 

"A MOMENT'S CONSIDERATION, IT SEEMS TO US, IS SUFFICIENT TO DISPOSE
OF SUCH A PROPOSITION.  THE REASON WHY THE PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES LIKE
THOSE WITH WHICH WE HAVE TO DEAL IS TREATED AS A CONTEMPT OF COURT IS
BECAUSE THEIR TENDENCY AND SOMETIMES THEIR OBJECT IS TO DEPRIVE THE
COURT OF THE POWER OF DOING THAT WHICH IS THE END FOR WHICH IT EXISTS -
NAMELY, TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE DULY, IMPARTIALLY, AND WITH REFERENCE
SOLELY TO THE FACTS JUDICIALLY BROUGHT BEFORE IT.  THEIR TENDENCY IS TO
REDUCE THE COURT WHICH HAS TO TRY THE CASE TO IMPOTENCE, SO FAR AS THE
EFFECTUAL ELIMINATION OF PREJUDICE AND PREPOSSESSION IS CONCERNED (PP.
436-37)." 

THE RULE WAS MADE ABSOLUTE, AND A FINE OF $*50 IMPOSED. 

3.  KING V. DAVIES, (1906) 1 K.B. 32(1905)(LORD ALVERSTONE C.J.,
WILLS AND DARLING JJ.).  RULE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR PUBLICATION IN
A NEWSPAPER OF STATEMENTS THAT A WOMAN, THEN UNDER ARREST ON A CHARGE
OF ABANDONING A CHILD BUT NOT COMMITTED FOR TRIAL FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER
OF THE CHILD UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLICATION, HAD PRACTICED WHOLESALE BABY
FARMING AND HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF FRAUD.  IN DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT, WILLS J. RELIED ON KING V. PARKE, SUPRA: 

"WE ADHERE TO THE VIEW WE EXPRESSED IN THAT CASE THAT THE PUBLICATION
OF SUCH ARTICLES IS A CONTEMPT OF THE COURT WHICH ULTIMATELY TRIES THE
CASE AFTER COMMITTAL, ALTHOUGH AT THE TIME WHEN THEY ARE PUBLISHED IT
CANNOT BE KNOWN WHETHER THERE WILL BE A COMMITTAL OR NOT.  THEIR
TENDENCY IS TO POISON THE STREAM OF JUSTICE IN THAT COURT, THOUGH AT
THE TIME OF THEIR PUBLICATION THE STREAM HAD NOT REACHED IT  ...  (P.
35)." 

THE RULE WAS MADE ABSOLUTE, AND A FINE OF $*100 IMPOSED. 

4.  REX V. CLARKE, 27 T.L.R. 32(K.B. 1910)(DARLING, PICKFORD AND
COLERIDGE JJ.).  RULE NISI FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT BASED ON A STATEMENT
PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER THAT ONE CRIPPEN HAD CONFESSED TO HAVING
KILLED HIS WIFE, BUT HAD DENIED THE ACT WAS MURDER.  CRIPPEN WAS AT THE
TIME IN CUSTODY THOUGH NOT YET FORMALLY CHARGED. 

DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENT, DARLING J. STATED: 

"EVEN IF A CONFESSION HAD REALLY BEEN MADE, IT MIGHT STILL HAVE BEEN
CONTEMPT TO PUBLISH IT; IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN OF SUCH A KIND AS TO BE
INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE (P. 33)." 

THE PERTINENT PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, DELIVERED THROUGH
DARLING J., WAS THUS REPORTED: 

"IN THE PRESENT CASE, AFTER THE MAN WAS IN CUSTODY THE NEWSPAPER
COMMENTED UPON THE CASE AS TO WHETHER HE HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME, NOT
TO ASSIST IN UNRAVELLING THE CASE.  IT WAS MERELY AN ATTEMPT TO
MINISTER TO THE IDLE CURIOSITY OF PEOPLE AS TO WHAT WAS PASSING WITHIN
THE PRISON BEFORE THE TRIAL TOOK PLACE.  A NEWS AGENT PROCURED VARIOUS
TELEGRAMS FROM QUEBEC, AND, WHEN HE DID NOT GET ENOUGH, HE TELEGRAPHED
FOR 1,000 WORDS MORE.  THE DAILY CHRONICLE PUBLISHED A TELEGRAM FROM
QUEBEC STATING:   - 'IT IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED HERE THAT THE FORMAL
OFFICIAL DENIALS THAT CRIPPEN HAS MADE A CONFESSION HINGE UPON A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WORDS "ADMISSION" AND "CONFESSION."'  WHETHER
IT WAS AN ADMISSION OR CONFESSION THE EFFECT ON THE PRISONER WOULD BE
THE SAME.  THE TELEGRAM WENT ON:   - 'IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT WHAT
CRIPPEN SAID MAY NOT BE REGARDED OFFICIALLY AS A CONFESSION, ESPECIALLY
AS HE DECLARED THAT HE WAS NOT A "MURDERER," BUT THAT THE PRISONER MADE
A STATEMENT TO INSPECTOR DEW LAST MONDAY I HAVE REASON TO FEEL
CERTAIN.  I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE AUTHORITY ON WHICH I CABLED YOU THE
INFORMATION SENT LAST NIGHT, AND I AM ASSURED TO-DAY FROM THE SAME
SOURCE THAT CRIPPEN ADMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES THAT HE HAD
KILLED HIS WIFE, BUT DENIED THAT THE ACT WAS MURDER,' AND FINISHING UP
WITH STATING THAT HIS WIFE DIED FROM AN OPERATION.  ANYTHING MORE
CALCULATED TO PREJUDICE A DEFENCE COULD NOT BE IMAGINED.  THE JURORS
WERE DRAWN FROM THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, WHERE THIS PAPER WAS WIDELY
CIRCULATED. 

"THE COURT HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A CONTEMPT OF THE COURT
HAD BEEN COMMITTED IN THE PUBLICATION OF THIS MATTER, AND THAT IT WAS A
VERY GRAVE CONTEMPT.  IT WAS MOST IMPORTANT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE IN THE COUNTRY SHOULD NOT BE HAMPERED.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD
BE TO NARROW THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, AND HIS LORDSHIP ADDED
THAT, SO LONG AS THEY SAT THERE, THEY WERE DETERMINED THAT TRIAL BY
NEWSPAPER SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR TRIAL BY JURY.  THE PRIMARY
PUNISHMENT IN A CASE OF THIS KIND WAS IMPRISONMENT.  THE COURT COULD
NOT BE BLIND TO THE FACT THAT NEWSPAPERS WERE FREQUENTLY OWNED BY
WEALTHY PEOPLE WHO WOULD TAKE THEIR CHANCE AND CHEERFULLY PAY ANY FINES
THAT MIGHT BE INFLICTED FOR THE SAKE OF THE ADVERTISEMENT.  IF THIS
PRACTICE WAS NOT STOPPED THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO INFLICT THE PRIMARY
PUNISHMENT.  BUT THE COURT DID NOT INTEND TO DO SO IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  MR. PERRIS HAD SEEN THAT HE WAS IN THE WRONG AND HAD
APOLOGIZED.  THE APOLOGY WAS DUE TO THE PEOPLE WRONGED AND TO THE
PUBLIC.  THE COURT HAD NO FEELING IN REGARD TO THE MATTER.  THE COURT
THEREFORE DID NOT PUNISH HIM AS IF HE PERSISTED IN HIS WRONGDOING. 
BUT, NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, A VERY GRAVE OFFENCE HAD BEEN COMMITTED. 
HIS LORDSHIP EXPRESSED THE HOPE THAT WHAT HE HAD SAID AND WHAT WOULD BE
SAID WOULD BE THE MEANS OF PUTTING A STOP TO THIS KIND OF THING.  THE
ORDER OF THE COURT WAS THAT MR. PERRIS 

SHOULD PAY TO THE COURT $*200 AND THE COSTS, AND THAT HE SHOULD BE
IMPRISONED UNTIL THE SUM WAS PAID (PP. 34-35)." 

5.  REX V. ASTOR, 30 T.L.R. 10(K.B. 1913)(RIDLEY, SCRUTTON AND
BAILHACHE JJ.).  RULES NISI FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR COMMENTS IN THE
PALL MALL GAZETTE AND THE GLOBE ABOUT A TRIAL FOR CRIMINAL LIBEL AND A
PRIVATE SHAREHOLDERS' SUIT, BOTH RELATING TO THE SAME PERSON AND TO THE
SAME TRANSACTION.  THE PROCEEDINGS ARE REPORTED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"COUNSEL CONTINUING SAID THAT IF THE RULE WAS MADE ABSOLUTE IT WOULD
AMOUNT TO AN EMBARGO ON THE PRESS, WHEN A TRIAL WAS PENDING, FROM
PUBLISHING ANY ITEM OF NEWS WHICH COULD IN ANY WAY BE THOUGHT TO
PREJUDICE THE TRIAL.  IT WOULD BE A VERY POOR COMPLIMENT TO THE JURY TO
SUPPOSE THAT THEY WOULD BE INFLUENCED BY THE PARAGRAPH. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON (REFERRING TO THE GAZETTE) SAID THAT IF A PAPER
TOOK UPON ITSELF TO MIX UP TOGETHER THE REPORTS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AND OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE SAME SHARE TRANSACTION, HE
COULD COME TO NO OTHER CONCLUSION THAN THAT IT MIGHT TEND TO PREJUDICE
THE JURY TRYING THE CASE, WHO WERE NOT TRAINED LAWYERS ABLE TO
DISTINGUISH THE EXACT RELEVANCE OF A CHARGE OF THAT KIND.  BUT HE
AGREED THAT, HAVING MADE AMPLE APOLOGIES, THE RESPONDENTS NEED ONLY PAY
THE COSTS (P. 12)." 

WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENTS IN THE GLOBE THE RULE WAS DISCHARGED
WITHOUT COSTS, SINCE THE COMMENTS ON THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
WERE PRINTED IN SEPARATE PORTIONS OF THE PAPER. 

6.  REX V. J.G. HAMMOND & CO., 30 T.L.R. 491(K.B. 1914)(DARLING,
AVORY AND ROWLATT JJ.).  RULE NISI FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR THE
PUBLICATION OF COMMENTS ON A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY THEN IN PROGRESS
BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE: 

"DEALING WITH THE MAIN QUESTION IN THE CASE, HE (MR. JUSTICE DARLING)
SAID HE COULD NOT ENTERTAIN THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT THAT THE COMMENTS MADE
IN MODERN SOCIETY WERE A CONTEMPT OF COURT.  IT SEEMED TO HIM THAT THEY
WERE ABSOLUTELY INTENDED TO DAMAGE THE PROSECUTOR, SIR J. B. ROBINSON,
AND TO GLORIFY AND EXTOL MR. LOUIS COHEN.  THAT BEING SO THEY WERE
CLEARLY CALCULATED TO PREJUDICE THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL, AND WERE
THEREFORE A CONTEMPT OF COURT.  HE COULD NOT ACCEPT AS SINCERE THE
EXPRESSIONS OF REGRET MADE BY THE TWO COMPANIES AND BY MR. HARRIS IN
THE AFFIDAVITS READ TO THEM.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WOULD BE THAT
MR. HARRIS MUST PAY A FINE OF $*50 AND THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 
HARRIS WAS OUT OF THE JURISDICTION AT PRESENT AND IT WAS NECESSARY THAT
THE ORDER OF THE COURT SHOULD BE IN A PARTICULAR FORM.  THE RULE WOULD
BE MADE ABSOLUTE AGAINST HIM, BUT THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT WOULD BE
SUPERSEDED IF HE PAID THE FINE OF $*50.  WITH REGARD TO THE TWO LIMITED
COMPANIES, IN THEIR JUDGMENT THERE WAS NOTHING TO BE SAID IN MITIGATION
OF THE OFFENCE WHICH THEY HAD COMMITTED, AND THE ORDER WITH REGARD TO
EACH WOULD BE THAT THEY MUST PAY A FINE OF $*50 AND THE COSTS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, THE FINE TO BE LEVIED UPON THE GOODS OF THE RESPECTIVE
COMPANIES (P. 492)."    7.  REX V. EDITOR AND PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS
OF THE EVENING STANDARD, 40 T.L.R. 833(K.B. 1924)(LORD HEWART C.J.,
ROCHE AND BRANSON JJ.).  RULES NISI FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT BASED UPON
STATEMENTS PRINTED IN THREE NEWSPAPERS, THE EVENING STANDARD,
MANCHESTER GUARDIAN AND DAILY EXPRESS.  THE STANDARD HAD HIRED AMATEUR
DETECTIVES TO INVESTIGATE A KILLING AND PUBLISHED WHAT WAS UNCOVERED AT
A TIME WHEN A CHARGE OF MURDER HAD BEEN MADE AND A TRIAL WAS TO TAKE
PLACE.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED THROUGH THE LORD CHIEF
JUSTICE AND REPORTED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT WAS URGED ON BEHALF OF ONE RESPONDENT ON THE PREVIOUS DAY THAT IT
WAS PART OF THE DUTY OF A NEWSPAPER WHEN A CRIMINAL CASE WAS PENDING TO
ELUCIDATE THE FACTS.  IF HE UNDERSTOOD THAT SUGGESTION WHEN CLEARLY
EXPRESSED IT CAME TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS; THAT WHILE THE POLICE OR THE
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT WERE TO PURSUE THEIR INVESTIGATIONS
IN SILENCE AND WITH ALL RETICENCE AND RESERVE, BEING CAREFUL TO SAY
NOTHING TO PREJUDICE THE TRIAL OF THE CASE, WHETHER FROM THE POINT OF
VIEW OF THE PROSECUTION OR THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DEFENCE, IT HAD
COME TO BE SOMEHOW FOR SOME REASON THE DUTY OF NEWSPAPERS TO EMPLOY AN
INDEPENDENT STAFF OF AMATEUR DETECTIVES, WHO WOULD BRING TO AN
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE A COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THE INTERESTS
WHETHER OF THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENCE.  THEY WERE TO CONDUCT THEIR
INVESTIGATION UNFETTERED, TO PUBLISH TO THE WHOLE WORLD FROM TIME TO
TIME THE RESULTS OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS, WHETHER THEY CONCEIVED THEM
TO BE SUCCESSFUL OR UNSUCCESSFUL RESULTS, AND BY SO DOING TO PERFORM
WHAT WAS REPRESENTED AS A DUTY, AND, ONE COULD NOT HELP THINKING, TO
CATER FOR THE PUBLIC APPETITE FOR SENSATIONAL MATTER. 

"IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THAT COURT, NOR HAD IT ANY INCLINATION, TO
SUGGEST TO THE RESPONSIBLE EDITORS OF THOSE NEWSPAPERS WHAT WERE THE
LINES ON WHICH THEY OUGHT TO PROCEED.  ANY SUCH TASK AS THAT WAS
ENTIRELY BEYOND THE PROVINCE OF THAT OR ANY OTHER TRIBUNAL.  THOSE WHO
HAD TO JUDGE BY THE RESULTS COULD SEE WHAT A PERILOUS ENTERPRISE THIS
KIND OF PUBLICATION WAS.  IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE EVEN FOR THE MOST
INGENIOUS MIND TO ANTICIPATE WITH CERTAINTY WHAT WERE TO BE THE REAL
ISSUES, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION WHAT WAS TO BE
THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT ISSUES IN A TRIAL WHICH WAS ABOUT
TO TAKE PLACE.  IT MIGHT BE THAT A DATE, A PLACE, OR A LETTER, OR SOME
OTHER ONE THING WHICH, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF, LOOKED TRIVIAL, MIGHT
PROVE IN THE END TO BE A MATTER OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE.  IT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE WHAT WAS IMPORTANT (P. 835). 

.         .         .         .         . 

"HIS LORDSHIP ADDED THAT IN ALL THE CASES THE FINES WOULD BE
INCREASED BY THE PAYMENT OF COSTS.  HE SAID THAT NOBODY WHO KNEW
ANYTHING OF THE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF A NEWSPAPER OFFICE COULD
BE IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT THE WORK OF NEWSPAPERS WAS VERY OFTEN DONE
IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF GREAT HURRY BY MANY DIFFERENT MINDS NOT ALWAYS
FULLY AWARE OF WHAT OTHERS MIGHT BE DOING.  THE RESULT WAS A COMPOSITE
THING, BUT THERE MUST BE CENTRAL RESPONSIBILITY.  IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO
SAY THAT MEN OCCUPYING RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS SHOULD BE EXCUSED BECAUSE
THEY THEMSELVES WERE NOT PERSONALLY AWARE OF WHAT WAS BEING DONE.  THE
PRACTICE WAS REALLY BECOMING PREVALENT, AND IT WAS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT
THERE WERE THOSE WHO THOUGHT THAT PUBLICATIONS OF THIS KIND WERE NOT
ONLY LEGITIMATE, BUT EVEN COMMENDABLE.  IN THE HOPE THAT THAT DAY'S
PROCEEDINGS WOULD SHOW THAT IN THE OPINION OF THAT COURT THAT VIEW WAS
ENTIRELY WRONG, THE COURT HAD MERELY IMPOSED A FINE, BUT IF THE
PRACTICE WERE REPEATED THE COURT WOULD NOT AGAIN BE DISPOSED TO ADOPT
THAT MERCIFUL ALTERNATIVE (P. 836)." 

THE RULES WERE MADE ABSOLUTE, AND FINES IMPOSED OF $*1,000 FOR THE
ACTS OF THE EVENING STANDARD AND $*300 EACH FOR THE STATEMENTS IN THE
MANCHESTER GUARDIAN AND DAILY EXPRESS. 

8.  REX V. EDITOR, PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS OF THE DAILY HERALD, 75
SOL.  J. 119(K.B. 1931)(LORD HEWART C.J., AVORY AND MACKINNON JJ.). 
RULE NISI FOR CONTEMPT FOR PUBLISHING A POSTER, WHICH IN FACT RELATED
TO ANOTHER CASE, CONTAINING THE WORDS "ANOTHER BLAZING CAR MURDER" AT A
TIME WHEN AN ACCUSED STOOD COMMITTED FOR TRIAL ON THE CHARGE OF MURDER
OF A MAN IN A MOTOR CAR FOUND BURNED UP.  AS IS THE PRACTICE IN ALL
THESE CASES THE RESPONDENTS TENDERED FULL APOLOGY TO THE COURT.  IN
DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT, LORD HEWART C.J. STATED THAT THE POSTER WORDS
MIGHT SUGGEST THAT THE ACCUSED HAD COMMITTED MURDER WHICH WAS THE ISSUE
THE JURY HAD TO DECIDE.  THE RULE WAS MADE ABSOLUTE, BUT ONLY COSTS
WERE ASSESSED. 

9.  REX V. EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER OF THE SURREY COMET, 75
SOL.  J. 311(K.B. 1931)(LORD HEWART C.J., AVORY AND HUMPHREYS JJ.). 
RULE NISI FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS
SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

"LORD HEWART, C.J., SAID THAT THE POINT WAS WHETHER SOMETHING HAD
BEEN PUBLISHED WHICH MIGHT PREJUDICE THE TRIAL OF AN ACCUSED MAN.  IN
THE ARTICLE COMPLAINED OF THERE WAS A LONG ACCOUNT, CAREFULLY GOT
TOGETHER, WHICH INCLUDED AT LEAST THREE STATEMENTS OF GRAVE PREJUDICE
AGAINST THE MAN WHO AFTERWARDS WAS CHARGED.  A NEWSPAPER WAS ENTITLED
TO REPORT, FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY, WHAT TOOK PLACE IN OPEN COURT, BUT,
IN THE PRESENT CASE, EX CONCESSIO, NOTHING HAD TAKEN PLACE IN COURT,
AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF REPORTING PROCEEDINGS IN COURT.  THE
NEWSPAPER HAD BUSIED ITSELF IN THE DEPLORABLE ENTERPRISE OF COLLECTING
MATERIALS WHICH MIGHT BE THOUGHT TO BE OF INTEREST CONCERNING THAT
WHICH HAD BEEN DONE AND THE PERSON WHO, IT WAS EXPECTED, WOULD BE
ACCUSED.  ONCE A NEWSPAPER DEPARTED FROM A FAIR AND ACCURATE REPORT OF
WHAT WAS ACTUALLY STATED IN OPEN COURT IT NOT ONLY TOOK A GREAT RISK
ITSELF, BUT IT ALSO IMPERILLED THE UNFORTUNATE MAN, GUILTY OR INNOCENT,
WHO WAS CHARGED.  FOR WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE WAS
NO CONCEIVABLE EXCUSE.  HIS LORDSHIP ADDED THAT IF THAT KIND OF CYNICAL
INDIFFERENCE FOR THE INTERESTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS CONTINUED TO BE
DISPLAYED, CASES WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE IMPOSITION OF FINES.  HE HOPED
THAT THE CASE WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF ATTRACTING THE ATTENTION OF
PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS TO THE UTTER IMPROPRIETY OF AN ENTERPRISE OF
THAT CHARACTER.  THE RULE WOULD BE MADE ABSOLUTE AGAINST THE EDITOR OF
THE NEWSPAPER, THE COSTS PAID AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT, AND THE
EDITOR WOULD BE FINED $*500(PP. 311-12)." 

10.  REX V. HUTCHISON, (1936) 2 ALL ENG. 1514(K.B.)(SWIFT, HUMPHREYS
AND GODDARD JJ.).  RULES NISI FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR SHOWING A NEWS
FILM OF THE ARREST OF A MAN, SUBSEQUENTLY CHARGED WITH UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, WITH THE CAPTION:  "ATTEMPT ON THE KING'S
LIFE."  THE ARREST HAD BEEN MADE AFTER A REVOLVER FELL CLOSE TO THE
KING'S HORSE DURING A PROCESSION IN WHICH THE KING WAS RIDING, AND IT
WAS WIDELY FEARED THAT AN ATTEMPT HAD BEEN MADE ON THE KING'S LIFE. 
SWIFT J. DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT MAKING THE RULES ABSOLUTE
ON THE GROUND THAT THE CAPTION WAS LIKELY TO BRING ABOUT "DERANGEMENT
IN THE CARRIAGE OF JUSTICE" (P. 1515).  BECAUSE OF THEIR APOLOGIES ONLY
COSTS WERE ASSESSED AGAINST SOME RESPONDENTS, BUT ANOTHER WAS FINED
$*50 AND COSTS "TO MARK THE COURT'S DISAPPROVAL OF THEIR CONDUCT" (P.
1515). 

11.  REX V. EDITOR, PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS OF THE EVENING NEWS, THE
TIMES (LONDON), JULY 30, 1936, P. 4, COL. 3(K.B.)(SWIFT, HUMPHREYS AND
GODDARD JJ.).  RULE NISI FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR PUBLISHING ARTICLES
DESCRIBING AS A "CRANK" AND A PERSON REGARDED BY THE POLICE AS A
"HARMLESS LUNATIC NURSING A GRIEVANCE" SOMEONE UNDER ARREST FOR
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.  HE WAS THE SAME ACCUSED ABOUT WHOM
THE NEWS FILM IN REX V. HUTCHISON, SUPRA, WAS SHOWN.  THE COURT'S
DECISION IS SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

"MR. JUSTICE SWIFT, IN GIVING JUDGMENT, SAID THAT PROCEEDINGS FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT WERE NOT TAKEN TO VINDICATE THE DIGNITY OF THE COURT
OR THE PERSON OF A JUDGE, BUT TO PREVENT UNDUE INTERFERENCE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  IT WAS ESSENTIAL THAT WHEN A CRIMINAL
CHARGE WAS MADE AGAINST ANY ONE THERE SHOULD BE NO TAMPERING OF ANY
SORT OR KIND WITH THOSE WHO WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE TO DECIDE THE
MATTER. 

"IT WAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ARTICLE COMPLAINED OF WAS A GROSS
CONTEMPT OF COURT IN THE SENSE THAT IT WAS BOUND TO INFLUENCE THE MINDS
OF THOSE WHO READ IT AGAINST THE MAN WHO WAS ACCUSED OF A CRIME BEFORE
HE COULD BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL. 

"THE COURT THOUGHT THAT IT WAS AN EXTREMELY SERIOUS MATTER; BUT IT
TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE UNQUALIFIED, UNRESERVED, AND SINCERE APOLOGY
WHICH HAD BEEN MADE FOR WHAT HAD BEEN DONE.  THE COURT ALSO RECOGNIZED
THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ALLEVIATED PART, BUT
ONLY PART, OF WHAT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED.  NO REGARD SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN
PAID BY THE NEWSPAPER TO THE POSITION OF THE ACCUSED MAN AT ALL.  HIS
STATE OF MIND, HIS CONDUCT IN THE PAST, THE NAMES UNDER WHICH HE HAD
GONE, WHETHER THE STATEMENTS MADE WERE TRUE OR UNTRUE, WERE ALL PUT
BEFORE THE PUBLIC AND THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD ULTIMATELY
FORM THE TRIBUNAL TO TRY HIM. 

"THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WOULD BE THAT THE RULE SHOULD BE MADE
ABSOLUTE AND THAT THE EDITOR AND THE PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS OF THE
NEWSPAPER SHOULD EACH BE FINED $*500, AND BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS
OF THE APPLICATION." 

12.  KING V. DAILY MIRROR, (1927) 1 K.B. 845.  RULES NISI FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR PUBLISHING IN A NEWSPAPER THE PHOTOGRAPH OF A
PERSON CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.  THE BEARING OF SUCH
PUBLICATION ON THE FAIRNESS OF A LATER TRIAL IS SUFFICIENTLY INDICATED
IN THE JUDGMENT OF LORD HEWART C.J., WITH WHOM AVORY AND TALBOT JJ.
CONCURRED: 

"THE PHRASE 'CONTEMPT OF COURT,' AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED MORE THAN ONCE,
IS, IN RELATION TO THE KIND OF SUBJECT-MATTER WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW
CONCERNED, A LITTLE MISLEADING.  THE MISCHIEF REFERRED TO CONSISTS, NOT
IN SOME ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE COURT ITSELF, BUT IN CONDUCT TENDING TO
PREJUDICE THE POSITION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON.  IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS
REALLY IN QUESTION IS NOTHING ATTACKING THE STATUS OF THE COURT AS A
COURT, BUT SOMETHING WHICH MAY PROFOUNDLY AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS
(P. 847). 

.         .         .      .         . 

"NOBODY WOULD EXCUSE A POLICE OFFICER IN THE CONDUCT OF A CASE IF,
COLLECTING TOGETHER ALL THE VARIOUS PERSONS AMONG WHOM IDENTIFYING
WITNESSES MIGHT BE FOUND, HE SAID:  'I HAVE ARRESTED A MAN, AND I AM
GOING TO PUT HIM UP FOR IDENTIFICATION BY YOU,' AND THEN SHOWED TO
THOSE PERSONS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUSPECTED PERSON.  THE UNFAIRNESS OF
THAT COURSE IS MANIFEST, BECAUSE THE WITNESS APPROACHES THE DIFFICULT
AND IT MAY BE THE CRUCIAL TASK OF IDENTIFICATION WITH HIS MIND
PREJUDICED BY THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PERSON HAS BEEN
ARRESTED AND IS IN THE HANDS OF THE POLICE.  WHAT DOES A NEWSPAPER DO
WHEN IT PRINTS A PHOTOGRAPH IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES?  IT INVITES THE
WHOLE COUNTRY TO SCRUTINIZE THE FEATURES OF THE ACCUSED WHO HAS BEEN
ARRESTED.  THAT IT DOES THAT ACT NOT IN THE COURSE OF PREPARATION OF
THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION BUT MERELY IN THE COURSE OF THE CONDUCT OF
A MONEY-MAKING BUSINESS DOES NOT EXCUSE IN A NEWSPAPER THAT WHICH WOULD
BE REPREHENSIBLE IN A POLICE OFFICER.  IN MY OPINION, IN THE
PUBLICATION OF A PHOTOGRAPH NO LESS THAN IN NARRATIVE, IT IS THE DUTY
OF A NEWSPAPER TO TAKE CARE TO AVOID PUBLISHING THAT WHICH IS
CALCULATED TO PREJUDICE A FAIR TRIAL.  TO APPROACH THE MATTER IN A MOOD
OF CYNICAL INDIFFERENCE IS OBVIOUSLY WRONG.  THERE IS A DUTY TO TAKE
CARE LEST, BY THE PUBLICATION OF MATTER, WHETHER IN THE FORM OF A
PHOTOGRAPH OR OF PRINTED WORDS, PREJUDICE SHOULD BE CAUSED TO A PERSON
ABOUT TO STAND HIS TRIAL.  THAT OF COURSE DOES NOT MEAN, NOR AM I FOR A
MOMENT SUGGESTING, THAT A NEWSPAPER IS NOT ENTITLED IN ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES TO PUBLISH A PHOTOGRAPH OF A PERSON WHO IS A PARTY TO
EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  BUT I AM NO LESS CLEAR UPON THE
POINT THAT THERE IS A DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM THE PUBLICATION OF THE
PHOTOGRAPH OF AN ACCUSED PERSON WHERE IT IS APPARENT TO A REASONABLE
MAN THAT A QUESTION OF IDENTITY MAY ARISE.  IF IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES A
NEWSPAPER PRINTS A PHOTOGRAPH IT IS TAKING A GRAVE RISK, WHICH IN ONE
SENSE AFFECTS THE ACCUSED PERSON, AND IN ANOTHER SENSE AFFECTS THE
NEWSPAPER (PP. 849-50)." 

THE RULES WERE MADE ABSOLUTE, BUT, SINCE THIS WAS THE FIRST OCCASION
UPON WHICH THE QUESTION AROSE WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLICATION OF A
PHOTOGRAPH OF AN ACCUSED PERSON, ONLY COSTS WERE ASSESSED. 

13.  THE TIMES (LONDON), MAR. 26, 1949, P. 3, COL. 1, REPORTED THE
RECENT CASE ARISING OUT OF THE PROSECUTION OF HAIGH, THE SO-CALLED
BLUEBEARD, AS FOLLOWS: 

"A DIVISIONAL COURT OF THE KING'S BENCH - THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
(GODDARD), MR. JUSTICE HUMPHREYS, AND MR. JUSTICE BIRKETT - YESTERDAY,
ON THE TWO MOTIONS FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT MADE
ON BEHALF OF JOHN GEORGE HAIGH (WHO IS AT PRESENT IN CUSTODY ON A
CHARGE OF MURDERING MRS. OLIVE DURAND-DEACON) AGAINST MR. SILVESTER
BOLAM, THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY MIRROR, AND DAILY MIRROR NEWSPAPERS,
LIMITED, THE COURT ORDERED THAT MR. BOLAM SHOULD BE COMMITTED TO PRISON
FOR THREE CALENDAR MONTHS AND THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD PAY A FINE OF
$*10,000 AND THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, SAID
THAT SIR WALTER MONCKTON HAD MOVED FOR A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AGAINST MR.
SILVESTER BOLAM, THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY MIRROR, FOR CONTEMPT OF
COURT.  IN VIEW OF THE GRAVITY OF THE CASE THE COURT DIRECTED THAT THE
PROPRIETORS OF THE NEWSPAPER, A LIMITED COMPANY, DAILY MIRROR
NEWSPAPERS, LIMITED, SHOULD ALSO BE SUMMONED BEFORE THE COURT TO ANSWER
FOR THE CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY THE PUBLICATION IN THE NEWSPAPER OF THE
MATTERS COMPLAINED OF.  IT APPEARED THAT A MAN NAMED HAIGH HAD BEEN
ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH MURDER.  HE HAD BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE
EXAMINING JUSTICES AT HORSHAM AND THE CASE HAD NOT YET BEEN OPENED.  NO
MORE WAS KNOWN THAN THAT HE HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER.    "ON MARCH
4 THREE ISSUES OF THE DAILY MIRROR WERE PUBLISHED - THREE SEPARATE
EDITIONS.  THOSE EDITIONS CONTAINED ARTICLES, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND
HEADLINES IN THE LARGEST POSSIBLE TYPE, OF A CHARACTER WHICH THE COURT
COULD ONLY DESCRIBE AS A DISGRACE TO ENGLISH JOURNALISM AS VIOLATING
EVERY PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WHICH IT HAD BEEN THE PRIDE OF
THIS COUNTRY TO EXTEND TO THE WORST OF CRIMINALS. 

"'TO USE THE LANGUAGE OF LORD HARDWICKE IN 1742, IN THE CASE OF THE
ST. JAMES'S EVENING POST - IT IS A CASE OF PREJUDICING MANKIND AGAINST
PERSONS BEFORE THEIR CASE IS HEARD.' 

"ANY ONE WHO HAD HAD THE MISFORTUNE, AS THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT HAD,
TO READ THE ARTICLES MUST BE LEFT WONDERING HOW IT COULD BE POSSIBLE
FOR THIS MAN TO OBTAIN A FAIR TRIAL AFTER WHAT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED.  NOT
ONLY DID THE ARTICLES DESCRIBE HIM AS A VAMPIRE AND GIVE REASONS FOR
THAT DESCRIPTION OF HIM, BUT, AFTER SAYING THAT HE HAD BEEN CHARGED
WITH ONE MURDER, THEY WENT ON TO SAY NOT MERELY THAT HE WAS CHARGED
WITH OTHER MURDERS BUT THAT HE HAD COMMITTED OTHERS AND GAVE THE NAMES
OF PERSONS WHOM, THEY SAID, HE HAD MURDERED.  A PHOTOGRAPH WAS GIVEN OF
A PERSON WHOM HE WAS SAID TO HAVE MURDERED, WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE
WAY IN WHICH THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED. 

"IN THE LONG HISTORY OF THE PRESENT CLASS OF CASE THERE HAD NEVER, IN
THE OPINION OF THE COURT, BEEN ONE OF SUCH GRAVITY AS THIS, OR ONE OF
SUCH A SCANDALOUS AND WICKED CHARACTER.  IT WAS OF THE UTMOST
IMPORTANCE THAT THE COURT SHOULD VINDICATE THE COMMON PRINCIPLES OF
JUSTICE AND, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SEE THAT CONDIGN PUNISHMENT WAS
METED OUT TO PERSONS GUILTY OF SUCH CONDUCT.  IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT WHAT HAD BEEN DONE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT BUT
WAS DONE AS A MATTER OF POLICY IN PANDERING TO SENSATIONALISM FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE CIRCULATION OF THE NEWSPAPER. 

"AFTER IT HAD COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
THAT THE DAILY MIRROR OR SOME OTHER PAPER MIGHT BE LIKELY TO PUBLISH
SOME DETAILS OF THE CASE, IN THE COURSE OF THE EVENING A WARNING WAS
SENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TO THIS NEWSPAPER. 
THAT THAT HAD ANY REAL EFFECT ON THIS NEWSPAPER, IN SPITE OF WHAT HAD
BEEN SAID IN THE AFFIDAVIT, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE.  IT WAS TRUE
THAT THERE WAS SOME, BUT VERY LITTLE, ALTERATION IN THE LAST EDITION. 
THAT EDITION WAS ITSELF A GROSS CONTEMPT, NOT PERHAPS QUITE SO BAD AS
THE OTHER TWO WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED.  THE FACT THAT THE POLICE HAD
GIVEN A WARNING DID NOT AFFECT THE QUESTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.  IT
WAS AN OFFENCE WHETHER NOTICE HAD BEEN GIVEN OR NOT.  IT MIGHT
AGGRAVATE THE CASE THAT MORE ATTENTION WAS NOT PAID TO THE WARNING. 

"AS HE HAD SAID, IN VIEW OF THE GRAVITY OF THE CASE THE COURT HAD
ORDERED THE PROPRIETORS OF THE NEWSPAPER TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE
COURT.  HE WOULD ADD A WORD OF WARNING:  LET THE DIRECTORS BEWARE; THEY
KNEW NOW THE CONDUCT OF WHICH THEIR EMPLOYEES WERE CAPABLE, AND THE
VIEW WHICH THE COURT TOOK OF THE MATTER.  IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCREASING THE CIRCULATION OF THEIR PAPER THEY SHOULD AGAIN VENTURE TO
PUBLISH SUCH MATTER AS THIS, THE DIRECTORS THEMSELVES MIGHT FIND THAT
THE ARM OF THAT COURT WAS LONG ENOUGH TO REACH THEM AND TO DEAL WITH
THEM INDIVIDUALLY.  THE COURT HAD TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THERE MUST BE
SEVERE PUNISHMENT. 

"HIS LORDSHIP THEN CALLED ON MR. BOLAM TO STAND UP, AND, ADDRESSING
HIM, SAID:  "THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT WILL BE ISSUED, AND YOU WILL BE
TAKEN IN THE CUSTODY OF THE TIPSTAFF AND COMMITTED TO BRIXTON PRISON
FOR THREE CALENDAR MONTHS.' 

"CONTINUING, HIS LORDSHIP SAID THAT THE RESPONDENT COMPANY WOULD BE
FINED $*10,000 AND PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS."  FN1 

B. CASES FINDING NO CONTEMPT. 

1.  REX V. EDITOR AND PUBLISHERS OF THE PEOPLE, THE TIMES (LONDON),
APRIL 7, 1925, P. 5, COL. 4(K.B.)(LORD HEWART C.J., SHEARMAN AND SALTER
JJ.).  RULE FOR CONTEMPT FOR PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES ACCUSING ONE HOBBS
OF DIABOLICAL ROGUERY AND CALLING HIM THE "WIZARD CROOK OF THE
UNDERWORLD."  THE ARTICLES WERE PUBLISHED AFTER HOBBS' CONVICTION FOR
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD ANOTHER, BUT IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THEY WERE
CALCULATED TO PREJUDICE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL.  THE RELEVANT PART
OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPORTED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, IN HIS JUDGMENT, SAID THAT THE ARGUMENT HAD
TRAVELLED OVER VARIOUS MATTERS WHICH IN HIS OPINION DID NOT ARISE UPON
THIS RULE, THE SOLE GROUND OF WHICH WAS THAT THE ARTICLES WERE
CALCULATED TO PREJUDICE THE FAIR HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 

.    .         .         .         . 

"THE COURT, CONTINUED HIS LORDSHIP, IS NOT A SCHOOL OF TASTE; HOWEVER
DEPLORABLE, HOWEVER DISGUSTING THESE ARTICLES MAY BE, OR BE THOUGHT TO
BE, THE QUESTION OF CENSURE TO BE PASSED ON THEM BY MEN OF TASTE OR MEN
OF DISCRETION DOES NOT ARISE.  THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY ARE
CALCULATED TO PREJUDICE THE FAIR HEARING OF THE APPEAL.  IN MY OPINION,
WHATEVER MAY BE THE REMEDIES OF HOBBS OTHERWISE, OR THE VIEWS OF A
CENSOR MORUM OR TASTEFUL CRITIC ABOUT THESE ARTICLES, THEY DO NOT COME
WITHIN THIS BRANCH OF THE LAW OF CONTEMPT, AND THE RULE WILL BE
DISCHARGED." 

2.  REX V. EDITOR OF THE DAILY MAIL, 44 T.L.R. 303(K.B. 1928)(LORD
HEWART C.J., AVORY AND BRANSON JJ.).  RULE NISI FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
WITH RESPECT TO AN ARTICLE IN THE DAILY MAIL COMMENTING ON A SUIT FOR
LIBEL  FN2  BY ONE FACTOR AGAINST THE NEWSPAPER BASED ON AN EARLIER
ARTICLE PUBLISHED THEREIN.  THE ARTICLE AS TO WHICH CONTEMPT WAS
CHARGED CONTAINED MATERIAL WHICH HAD FREQUENTLY APPEARED IN PRIOR
ISSUES OF THE PAPER, BUT DID NOT TOUCH ON THE ISSUE OF FACT IN THE
LIBEL PROCEEDING.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DISCHARGING THE RULE WAS
DELIVERED BY THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE AND REPORTED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE COURT WAS NOT SATISFIED THAT THE ARTICLE OF DECEMBER 23 - COMING
AS IT DID, AFTER A LONG SERIES OF SIMILAR ARTICLES, BEING BUT A
REPETITION OF CHARGES ALREADY OFTEN MADE AGAINST FACTOR AND NOT
COMPLAINED OF, AND AVOIDING, AS IT DID, ANY FURTHER MENTION OF THE
ALLEGED ASSOCIATION OF FACTOR WITH MONTGOMERY - WAS CALCULATED TO
PREJUDICE THE TRIAL OF THE ONLY ISSUES WHICH FACTOR HAD CHOSEN TO RAISE
- NAMELY, THAT OF HIS ASSOCIATION WITH MONTGOMERY AND OF THE DAMAGES
WHICH HE SHOULD OBTAIN IF THAT ISSUE WERE FOUND IN HIS FAVOUR (P.
307)." 

3.  REX V. EDITOR, PRINTERS, AND PUBLISHERS OF NEWS OF THE WORLD, 48
T.L.R. 234(K.B. 1932)(LORD HEWART C.J., AVORY AND HAWKE JJ.).  RULE
NISI FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR PUBLISHING PRIOR TO THE TRIAL WHAT
PURPORTED TO BE A STATEMENT OF THE DEFENSE WHICH WOULD BE MADE.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DISCHARGING THE RULE WAS DELIVERED BY THE LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE AND REPORTED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO DOUBT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN SOME CASES, THE PUBLICATION
BEFOREHAND OF WHAT WAS SAID TO BE THE DEFENCE OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
MIGHT AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT.  THEY WERE DEALING, HOWEVER, NOT
WITH GENERAL PRINCIPLES, BUT WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THOSE WORDS CAME
WITHIN THE MISCHIEF AGAINST WHICH CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WERE DIRECTED. 
THEY NOW HAD IT FROM COUNSEL SUPPORTING THE RULE THAT LAST DECEMBER
SOMETHING OF THE SAME SORT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN SAID TO THE POLICE BY THE
ACCUSED MAN HIMSELF (PP. 234-35)." 

4.  REX V. DAVIES, (1945) 1 K.B. 435(HUMPHREYS AND OLIVER JJ.). 
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF
COURT, BASED ON COMMENTS IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT ONE CONVICTED OF
PROCURING MISCARRIAGE, MADE AFTER NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE CONVICTION
HAD BEEN FILED.  THE MOTION WAS REFUSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PARTICULAR COMMENTS DID NOT AMOUNT TO A CONTEMPT OF COURT, BUT BOTH
HUMPHREYS AND OLIVER JJ. AGREED THAT THERE MIGHT BE CONTEMPT EVEN
THOUGH THE TRIAL HAD ENDED.  PORTIONS OF THEIR OPINIONS FOLLOW: 

"HUMPHREYS J. ...  CAN THE PUBLICATION OF ANY DEFAMATORY MATTER, OR
OF ANY MATTER WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO A CONTEMPT OF COURT IF IT HAD BEEN
PUBLISHED BEFORE THE APPLICANT IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD BEEN TRIED BY A
JURY, BE SAID TO BE CALCULATED TO INTERFERE WITH THE DUE COURSE OF LAW
AND JUSTICE BY PREJUDICING THE FAIR HEARING OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL? 
IN CONSIDERING THIS QUESTION ONE MUST REMEMBER WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.  IF THAT COURT EXISTED FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF DECIDING QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH COME BEFORE IT, THE ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION I PUT ABOVE MIGHT WELL BE IN THE NEGATIVE.  IT MIGHT BE
SAID THAT IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT ANY COURT CONSIDERING A PURE
QUESTION OF LAW COULD BE AFFECTED BY ANYTHING WRITTEN IN A NEWSPAPER
ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF ONE OF THE PARTIES IN A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASE. 
IT IS, INDEED, INCONCEIVABLE THAT IF ONE OF THE JUDGES OF SUCH A COURT
HAD HAPPENED TO HAVE READ THE PARTICULAR NEWSPAPER IN QUESTION, IT
COULD HAVE THE SMALLEST EFFECT ON HIM.  THOSE OBSERVATIONS, HOWEVER, DO
NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.  THAT COURT HAS
MANY FUNCTIONS TO PERFORM.  ONE OF THE POWERS WHICH IT POSSESSES, AS
WAS DECIDED BY THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN CRANE V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS ((1921) 15 CR. APP. R. 183), IS THAT WHEN IT FINDS THAT
PROCEEDINGS ON AN INDICTMENT ARE FOR ANY REASON VOID, IT MAY ORDER A
TRIAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN QUESTION.  IT, THEREFORE, HAS THE POWER
WHICH USED TO EXIST IN THE COURT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CROWN CASES
RESERVED, OF AWARDING VENIRE DE NOVO.  THE EFFECT OF THAT IS THAT IN
ANY CASE COMING BEFORE IT THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL MAY DIRECT THAT
A JURY SHALL BE SWORN TO TRY THE ISSUE ON THE INDICTMENT WHICH HAS
NEVER PROPERLY BEEN TRIED.  IT IS, THEREFORE, QUITE A FALLACY TO TREAT
THIS CASE AS IF ALL THAT THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL COULD DO WITH
REGARD TO IT WOULD BE TO DECIDE A QUESTION OF LAW.  IT MAY BE TRUE IN A
SENSE THAT THEY ARE DECIDING A QUESTION OF LAW, BUT THE EFFECT OF THEIR
DECISION MAY BE THAT A JURY WILL HAVE TO TRY THE QUESTION OF FACT.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT ANY MATTER WHICH IS PUBLISHED BETWEEN THE DATE OF A
CONVICTION AND THE DATE OF THE HEARING BY THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
MAY COME TO THE ATTENTION OF A JURYMAN WHO HAS TO TRY THE QUESTION OF
THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF SOME PERSON ON THE INDICTMENT IN RESPECT OF
WHICH VENIRE DE NOVO HAS BEEN AWARDED.  ...  THERE IS ANOTHER MATTER
REGARDING WHICH I DESIRE TO SAY A FEW WORDS.  I THINK IT IS A FALLACY
TO ASSUME THAT THE ONLY OBJECT OF IMPOSING PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF
COURT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS TO PREVENT A JURYMAN, WHO MAY BE TRYING THE
PERSON AFFECTED, FROM READING MATTER OF WHICH HE OUGHT TO KNOW
NOTHING.  THERE IS ALSO THE JUDGE TO BE CONSIDERED, AND, WHILE I AM NOT
SAYING FOR A MOMENT THAT ANY PERSON SITTING IN A JUDICIAL CAPACITY, WHO
MAY, BE IT REMEMBERED, BE A CHAIRMAN OF QUARTER SESSIONS, WHO MAY OR
MAY NOT BE A LAWYER, OR A RECORDER, OR IT MAY BE, OF COURSE, ONE OF THE
JUDGES OF THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION, WOULD BE AFFECTED BY ANYTHING HE
MIGHT READ, I THINK IT IS A FALLACY TO SAY OR TO ASSUME THAT THE
PRESIDING JUDGE IS A PERSON WHO CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY OUTSIDE
INFORMATION.  HE IS A HUMAN BEING, AND WHILE I DO NOT SUGGEST THAT IT
IS LIKELY THAT ANY JUDGE, AS THE RESULT OF INFORMATION WHICH HAD BEEN
IMPROPERLY CONVEYED TO HIM, WOULD GIVE A DECISION WHICH OTHERWISE HE
WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN, IT IS EMBARRASSING TO A JUDGE THAT HE SHOULD BE
INFORMED OF MATTERS WHICH HE WOULD MUCH RATHER NOT HEAR AND WHICH MAKE
IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO DO HIS DUTY.  ...  IT IS MY OWN
OPINION AND I EXPRESS IT AS SUCH, BUT I VENTURE TO THINK THAT NO JUDGE
WITH LONG CRIMINAL EXPERIENCE WILL FAIL TO BE ABLE TO RECALL INSTANCES
IN WHICH THE PUBLICATION OF MATTERS SUCH AS THAT TO WHICH I HAVE
REFERRED HAS HAD THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE TASK OF A JUDGE EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT, AND NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH MATTER WHICH WILL HAVE
THAT EFFECT (PP. 441-43)." 

"OLIVER J. ...  ONE OF THE EVILS OF INADMISSIBLE MATTER BEING
DISSEMINATED IS THAT NO ONE CAN TELL WHAT EFFECT A PARTICULAR PIECE OF
INFORMATION MAY HAVE ON HIS MIND.  WHY, AS MY LORD HAS ASKED, AND I CAN
THINK OF NO BETTER WORD, SHOULD A JUDGE BE 'EMBARRASSED' BY HAVING
MATTERS PUT INTO HIS MIND, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
ESTIMATE OR ASSESS?  AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THIS PROPOSITION, THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL HAS EXPRESSED, NOT ONCE BUT MANY TIMES, ITS THOROUGH
DISAPPROVAL OF EVIDENCE WHICH IS SOMETIMES GIVEN BY POLICE OFFICERS AT
THE END OF A CASE WHEN A MAN HAS BEEN CONVICTED.  ON SUCH OCCASIONS ALL
SORTS OF ALLEGATIONS ARE FREQUENTLY MADE AGAINST A MAN'S CHARACTER,
SOMETIMES IN THE NATURE OF HEARSAY AND SOMETIMES NOT SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE AT ALL.  WHAT IS THE GROUND FOR THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL REGARDING SUCH STATEMENTS?  IT CAN ONLY BE THAT THE
JUDGE WHO, AFTER HEARING THE STATEMENTS, HAS TO PRONOUNCE SENTENCE,
MAY, QUITE UNCONSCIOUSLY, HAVE HIS JUDGMENT INFLUENCED BY MATTERS WHICH
HE HAS NO RIGHT TO CONSIDER.   ...  NOT ALL DEFAMATORY MATTER CAN
AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO GO THROUGH THE
AUTHORITIES, BUT THAT APPEARS IN CASE AFTER CASE.  WHETHER DEFAMATORY
MATTER AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE IS A QUESTION IN EACH
CASE OF FACT, OF DEGREE AND OF CIRCUMSTANCES.  OBVIOUSLY FAR LESS WOULD
AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT IF THE MATTER WERE PUBLISHED BEFORE THE
HEARING BY A JURY THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE A HEARING BY A JUDGE OR
BY THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.  ...  MUCH IS SAID TO-DAY ABOUT THE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND I ONLY WISH TO POINT OUT THAT OUR DECISION IN
THIS CASE COMES TO NO MORE THAN THIS: THAT EVERYTHING THE PUBLIC HAS A
RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT A TRIAL OF THE KIND WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE
CONCERNED, THAT IS TO SAY, EVERYTHING THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN OPEN
COURT, MAY BE PUBLISHED, AND BEYOND THAT THERE IS NO NEED OR RIGHT TO
GO (PP. 445-46)." 

FN1  THE DECISION IS COMMENTED UPON IN 207 L.T.
181(1949) AND 207 L.T. 225(1949). 

FN2  THIS PROCEEDING WAS CIVIL, BUT IT IS INCLUDED HEREIN FOR
COMPLETENESS. 




REO MOTORS V. COMMISSIONER, 338 U.S. 442 


NO. 59.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 14, 1949.  - DECIDED JANUARY 9, 1950.  -
170 F.2D 1001, AFFIRMED. 


IN 1941 A CORPORATE TAXPAYER SUSTAINED A LOSS ARISING OUT OF THE
LIQUIDATION OF A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY WHOSE STOCK WAS WORTHLESS. 
UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAWS APPLICABLE IN 1941, THE LOSS WAS A LONG-TERM
CAPITAL LOSS; BUT IT COULD NOT ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION OF NET
OPERATING LOSS, BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER HAD NO LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 
UNDER A 1942 AMENDMENT, SUCH A CAPITAL LOSS COULD ENTER INTO THE
COMPUTATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS, AND THE TAXPAYER USED THE 1941
CAPITAL LOSS IN CLAIMING A NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION IN ITS RETURN
FOR 1942.  HELD:  THE TAXPAYER'S NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION IN 1942
WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED.  PP. 443-450. 

(A)  A NET OPERATING LOSS MUST BE COMPUTED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE
STATUTES IN EFFECT DURING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LOSS WAS SUSTAINED. 
PP. 446-449. 

(B)  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 101 OF THE 1942 REVENUE ACT THAT THE
AMENDMENTS ENACTED THEREIN "SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO
TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1941" CANNOT BE READ TO MEAN
"SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY IN COMPUTING TAX LIABILITY FOR TAXABLE YEARS
BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1941."  P. 449. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT THE 1924, 1926, 1928 AND 1932 REVENUE ACTS, WHICH
PERMITTED THE CARRY-OVER OF NET LOSS FROM AN EARLIER YEAR, EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED THAT SUCH NET LOSS SHOULD BE COMPUTED UNDER THE LAW IN EFFECT
DURING THE EARLIER PERIOD, AND THAT THE PRESENT CODE CONTAINS NO SUCH
PROVISION, DOES NOT REQUIRE A RESULT DIFFERENT FROM THAT HERE REACHED. 
PP. 449-450. 

(D)  COMMISSIONER V. MOORE, INC., 151 F.2D 527, DISAPPROVED.  PP. 444
445, N. 4. 

REO MOTORS, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN PETITIONER'S
INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX FOR 1942 WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TAX COURT. 
9 T.C. 314.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  170 F.2D 1001.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 923.  AFFIRMED, P. 450. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND THAT OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V. MOORE, INC., 151
F.2D 527, MADE THIS AN APPROPRIATE CASE FOR OUR REVIEW ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.  FN1  A RECITAL OF THE FACTS MUST PRECEDE DEFINITION OF THE
ISSUE. 

PETITIONER IS A MICHIGAN CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
MOTOR VEHICLES.  ON FEBRUARY 1, 1941, REO SALES CORP., A WHOLLY-OWNED
SUBSIDIARY, WAS DISSOLVED AND ALL OF ITS ASSETS, SUBJECT TO ALL ITS
LIABILITIES, WERE TRANSFERRED TO PETITIONER.  AT THE DATE OF
DISSOLUTION, REO SALES WAS INDEBTED TO PETITIONER IN AN AMOUNT GREATER
THAN THE VALUE OF ITS NET ASSETS.  CONSEQUENTLY, ITS STOCK, WHICH HAD
AN ADJUSTED BASIS IN PETITIONER'S HANDS OF $1,551,902.79, WAS
WORTHLESS.  THIS LOSS WAS A LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS UNDER THE LAW
APPLICABLE IN 1941.  FN2  IT WAS SO CLAIMED BY PETITIONER AND ALLOWED
BY THE COMMISSIONER. 

PETITIONER REALIZED NO GAINS FROM THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF CAPITAL
ASSETS IN 1941.  ITS GROSS INCOME AMOUNTED TO $2,573,259.89, WHILE
ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER 1 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,
EXCLUSIVE OF THE CAPITAL LOSS ON REO SALES STOCK, AMOUNTED TO
$2,215,727.08.  WITH THE REO SALES STOCK LOSS INCLUDED, PETITIONER'S
ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS EXCEEDED ITS GROSS INCOME BY $1,194,369.98. 

UNDER THE TAX LAWS APPLICABLE IN 1941, PETITIONER'S CAPITAL LOSS ON
REO SALES STOCK COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED AS A NET OPERATING LOSS TO
BE CARRIED OVER TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  SECTION 122(A) OF THE CODE
DEFINES "NET OPERATING LOSS" AS "THE EXCESS OF THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED
BY THIS CHAPTER OVER THE GROSS INCOME, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS AND
LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (D)."  FN3  THE EXCEPTIONS OUTLINED
IN SEC. 122(D) INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING, WHICH IS PERTINENT HERE: 

"(4) LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSSES SHALL BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 117(B). 
AS SO COMPUTED THE AMOUNT DEDUCTIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL
LOSSES SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT INCLUDIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE LONG
TERM CAPITAL GAINS, AND THE AMOUNT DEDUCTIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT-TERM
CAPITAL LOSSES SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT INCLUDIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE
SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS;...."  FN4  SINCE PETITIONER REALIZED NO LONG
TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN 1941, ITS LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON THE REO SALES
STOCK COULD NOT ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS. 

IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, SEC. 23(G) OF THE CODE, WHICH DEFINES
CAPITAL LOSSES, WAS AMENDED BY ADDING SUBSECTION (4).  FN5  THIS
AMENDMENT HAD THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF MAKING LOSSES SUCH AS THAT
SUFFERED BY PETITIONER IN THE DISSOLUTION OF REO SALES CORP. ORDINARY
RATHER THAN CAPITAL LOSSES.  UNDER 1942 LAW, THEREFORE, THE EXCEPTION
SET OUT IN SEC. 122(D)(4) IS INAPPLICABLE, AND A LOSS OF THIS KIND MAY
ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS. 

IT IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION, REFLECTED IN ITS 1942 INCOME TAX
RETURNS, THAT ALTHOUGH ITS LOSS IN THE LIQUIDATION OF REO SALES CORP.
WAS INCURRED IN 1941, DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF NET OPERATING LOSS
WAS POSTPONED UNTIL 1942, WHEN IT SOUGHT TO CARRY OVER AND DEDUCT SUCH
NET OPERATING LOSS, AND THAT THE 1942 STATUTES THEREFORE GOVERN THAT
DETERMINATION.  SINCE, UNDER THE 1942 STATUTES, ITS LOSS ON REO SALES
STOCK WAS AN ORDINARY LOSS, IT CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO INCLUDE THAT LOSS IN
THE COMPUTATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS FOR CARRY-OVER AND DEDUCTION FROM
GROSS INCOME IN 1942.  WHILE SEC. 101 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942
PROVIDES THAT "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED, THE AMENDMENTS
MADE BY THIS TITLE SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO TAXABLE
YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1941," PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THIS
SIMPLY MEANS THAT SUCH AMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY IN COMPUTING
TAX LIABILITY FOR TAX YEARS AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1941. 

THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, WHETHER, IN THE COMPUTATION OF NET OPERATING
LOSS, THE GOVERNING STATUTES ARE THOSE IN EFFECT DURING THE YEAR WHEN
THE TRANSACTION OCCURRED (1941), OR WHETHER THE STATUTES IN EFFECT
DURING THE YEAR WHEN THE NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION IS TAKEN (1942)
ARE CONTROLLING.  THE COMMISSIONER'S DISALLOWANCE OF PETITIONER'S NET
OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION IN 1942 WAS UPHELD BY THE TAX COURT, 9 T.C.
314, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 170 F.2D 1001. 

WE THINK THAT A NET OPERATING LOSS MUST BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF
THE TAX LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LOSS WAS SUFFERED. 
WHAT PETITIONER SEEKS HERE IS NOT THE KIND OF RELIEF WHICH THE STATUTE
WAS DESIGNED TO GRANT.  FN6  IT ASKS THAT THE CARRY-OVER SECTION BE
USED AS A VEHICLE BY WHICH IT MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF CHANGES IN THE TAX
LAWS IN YEARS AFTER THE TAXABLE EVENT HAS OCCURRED.  WE FIND NOTHING IN
THE LANGUAGE OR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTES TO JUSTIFY SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION. 

THE SCHEME OF THE STATUTE IS THIS:  SECTION 23(S) OF THE CODE PERMITS
AS A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME "THE NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION
COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 122."  THE AMOUNT OF THAT DEDUCTION IS
DETERMINED IN THREE SEPARATE STEPS.  FIRST, THE NET OPERATING LOSS IS
DETERMINED.  SECTION 122(A)  FN7  PROVIDES THE DEFINITION AND METHOD OF
COMPUTATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING THAT THE
EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 122(D) ARE APPLICABLE IN ITS
COMPUTATION.  SECOND, NET OPERATING LOSS HAVING BEEN DETERMINED, THE
AMOUNT AND EXTENT TO WHICH IT MAY BE UTILIZED AS A CARRY-OVER IS SET
OUT IN SEC. 122(B)(2),  FN8  AND AS A CARRY-BACK IN SEC. 122(B)(1). 
FINALLY, THE AMOUNT WHICH MAY ACTUALLY BE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME
UNDER SEC. 23(S) IS COMPUTED UNDER THE TERMS OF SEC. 122(C).  FN9  THAT
CARRY-BACKS AND THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS THERETO. 

THE STARTING POINT IS THUS THE DETERMINATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS
UNDER SEC. 122(A).  WE MAY POINT BRIEFLY TO SEVERAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH, WE THINK, REQUIRE A HOLDING THAT NET OPERATING LOSS MUST BE
COMPUTED SOLELY WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATUTES IN EFFECT DURING THE
YEAR WHEN THE LOSS OCCURRED. 

FIRST, UNDER PETITIONER'S THEORY, THE NET OPERATING LOSS SUSTAINED IN
ANY GIVEN YEAR WOULD NOT BE A FIXED AMOUNT BUT WOULD VARY FROM YEAR TO
YEAR DEPENDING UPON CHANGES IN THE TAX LAWS.  BUT SEC. 122(A) DEFINES
NET OPERATING LOSS AS "THE EXCESS OF THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY THIS
CHAPTER OVER THE GROSS INCOME."  CLEARLY, DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT
OF GROSS INCOME AND OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS FOR ANY GIVEN YEAR MUST
DEPEND UPON THE TAX STATUTES IN EFFECT DURING THAT YEAR.  IF, AS
PETITIONER CONTENDS, 1942 LAW GOVERNS ALTHOUGH THE LOSS OCCURRED IN
1941, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY THE WHOLE OF ITS 1941 OPERATIONS, AND
NOT MERELY THE REO SALES LIQUIDATION, SHOULD NOT BE RECOMPUTED ON THE
BASIS OF THE INCOME AND DEDUCTION PROVISIONS APPLICABLE IN 1942. 
PETITIONER DOES NOT SUGGEST SUCH A RECOMPUTATION, IN SPITE OF THE FACT
THAT THE TERMS IN WHICH NET OPERATING LOSS IS DEFINED - "GROSS INCOME"
AND "DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY THIS CHAPTER" - ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN
THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME TAXES GENERALLY.  AND EVEN IF A DISTINCTION
COULD BE DRAWN, SO FAR AS APPLICABLE LAW IS CONCERNED, BETWEEN
COMPUTATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS AND COMPUTATION OF ORDINARY TAX
LIABILITY, WE SHOULD THINK IT STRAINED AND ANOMALOUS TO READ SEC.
122(A) AS DEFINING NET OPERATING LOSS IN THIS CASE AS "THE EXCESS OF
THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED FOR 1942 INCOMES OVER THE GROSS INCOME EARNED IN
1941 BUT COMPUTED ACCORDING TO 1942 LAW." 

FURTHERMORE, THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 122(B) NEGATIVES THE CONTENTION
THAT NET OPERATING LOSS FOR ANY GIVEN YEAR IS NOT A FIXED AMOUNT BUT
VARIES DEPENDING UPON THE LAW IN EFFECT DURING THE YEAR WHEN THE
DEDUCTION IS TAKEN.  SECTION 122(B)(2), FOR EXAMPLE, STATES THAT "IF
FOR ANY TAXABLE YEAR THE TAXPAYER HAS A NET OPERATING LOSS, SUCH NET
OPERATING LOSS"  FN10  SHALL BE A CARRY-OVER FOR THE TWO SUCCEEDING
YEARS.  UNDER PETITIONER'S INTERPRETATION, "SUCH NET OPERATING LOSS"
"FOR ANY TAXABLE YEAR" MAY BE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS AT DIFFERENT TIMES. 
AND, AS IN THIS CASE, WHAT WAS NO NET OPERATING LOSS AT ALL FOR THE
YEAR WHEN THE EVENT OCCURRED BECOMES A LOSS FOR THAT YEAR THROUGH
SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN THE STATUTES.  SIMILARLY, IN SOME CASES IN WHICH
THE TAXPAYER HAD NET INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONTROLLING LAW,
SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN THE LAW MIGHT PRODUCE A NET OPERATING LOSS FOR
THAT YEAR IF PETITIONER'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE PREVAILED.  WE
FIND NO WARRANT FOR THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT A STATUTE
DESIGNED TO EQUALIZE TAX BURDENS SHOULD BE USED TO PRODUCE NET LOSSES
WHERE NONE HAD PREVIOUSLY EXISTED.  FN11 

WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE WORDS OF SEC. 101 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, WHICH STATES THAT THE AMENDMENTS ENACTED THEREIN
"SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER
DECEMBER 31, 1941," CANNOT BE READ TO MEAN "SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY IN
COMPUTING TAX LIABILITY FOR TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31,
1941."  TO APPLY SEC. 23(G)(4) TO ESTABLISH A NET OPERATING LOSS IS
CLEARLY TO APPLY THE 1942 AMENDMENT "WITH RESPECT TO" 1941, CONTRARY TO
THE STATUTE. 

PETITIONER FINDS COMFORT IN THE FACT THAT THE 1924, 1926, 1928, AND
1932 REVENUE ACTS, WHICH PERMITTED THE CARRY-OVER OF NET LOSS FROM AN
EARLIER YEAR, EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT SUCH NET LOSS SHOULD BE COMPUTED
UNDER THE LAW IN EFFECT DURING THE EARLIER PERIOD, WHILE THE PRESENT
CODE CONTAINS NO SUCH PROVISION.  TWO OBSERVATIONS MAY BE MADE:  FIRST,
THAT IN REVIVING CARRY-OVERS IN 1939 AFTER A SEVEN YEAR LAPSE, CONGRESS
PATTERNED THE NEW STATUTE GENERALLY ON THE PRIOR PRACTICE WITHOUT ANY
SUGGESTION OF CHANGE IN THIS PARTICULAR; AND SECOND, THAT WHILE SUCH
EXPRESS PROVISIONS WERE APPROPRIATE IN REVENUE ACTS PRIOR TO THE CODE,
WHEN THE LAW OF A PRIOR YEAR WAS OF NO EFFECT WHEN SUPERSEDED BY A NEW
ACT UNLESS SPECIFICALLY MADE APPLICABLE, THE PRESENT CODE HAS
CONTINUOUS APPLICATION, AND INCORPORATION OF PREVIOUS STATUTES IS
UNNECESSARY.  INSTEAD, THE OLD PROVISIONS REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR PRIOR
YEARS, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS, SUCH AS SEC. 101 OF THE 1942 ACT, GIVE
AMENDMENTS PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION ONLY, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED. 

THE RESULT IS THAT NET OPERATING LOSS MUST BE COMPUTED SOLELY ON THE
BASIS OF THE STATUTES IN EFFECT DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR WHEN THE LOSS
WAS INCURRED.  ONLY IF SUCH A LOSS EXISTS UNDER THOSE STATUTES WILL A
TAXPAYER HAVE ANYTHING THAT MAY BE CARRIED OVER OR BACK.  SEC. 122(A)
AND (D).  THE AMOUNT OF NET OPERATING LOSS WHICH MAY BE UTILIZED AS A
CARRY-OVER OR CARRY-BACK AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT MAY BE USED AS AN
OFFSET TO NET INCOME IN ANOTHER YEAR DEPEND UPON THE LAW OF THE YEAR IN
WHICH THE "CARRY" IS EFFECTIVE, SEC. 122(B), WHILE THE NET OPERATING
LOSS DEDUCTION WHICH MAY BE TAKEN IN ANY ONE YEAR DEPENDS UPON THE LAW
IN EFFECT DURING THAT YEAR.  SECS. 23(S) AND 122(C). 

WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S OTHER CONTENTIONS,  FN12  IT IS
SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THEY IGNORE THE TRICHOTOMY PLAINLY ESTABLISHED
WITH RESPECT TO SEC. 122:  DETERMINATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS;
DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT AND EXTENT OF CARRY-OVER AND CARRY-BACK;
AND DETERMINATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION.  THE DECISION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  337 U.S. 923. 

FN2  SECTION 23(G) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. (1940
ED.)  SEC.  23(G). 

FN3  SECTION 122(A) WAS AMENDED BY SEC. 105(E)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1942 TO READ  "...  WITH THE EXCEPTIONS, ADDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (D)." 

FN4  SECTION 122(D)(4) WAS AMENDED BY SEC. 150(E) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1942 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"(4)  GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS
SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
117(B).  AS SO COMPUTED THE AMOUNT DEDUCTIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH LOSSES
SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT INCLUDIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH GAINS." 

IT WAS THIS AMENDMENT THAT WAS INVOLVED IN COMMISSIONER V. MOORE,
INC., 151 F.2D 527.  IN 1941 MOORE HAD A LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF
$17,025 AND SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF $2,844.  UNDER SEC. 122(D)(4)
AS IT STOOD IN 1941(SEE TEXT, SUPRA), LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSSES COULD
NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN COMPUTING NET
OPERATING LOSSES, WHILE UNDER THE 1942 AMENDMENT THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN LONG AND SHORT-TERM CAPITAL LOSSES WAS WITHDRAWN.  TAXPAYER
THEREFORE HAD NO NET OPERATING LOSS IN 1941, BUT UNDER THE 1942 STATUTE
HE WOULD HAVE HAD SUCH A LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF HIS SHORT-TERM CAPITAL
GAIN OF $2,844.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT APPROVED
SUCH AN OFFSET IN THE COMPUTATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS TO BE CARRIED
OVER TO 1942 AND DEDUCTED IN THAT YEAR.  THAT DECISION IS OBVIOUSLY
INCONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE STATUTE AND MUST BE
DISAPPROVED.    FN5  SUBSECTION (4), WHICH WAS ADDED BY SEC. 123(A)(1)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, PROVIDES THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING CAPITAL LOSSES, STOCK IN A CORPORATION AFFILIATED WITH THE
TAXPAYER SHALL NOT BE DEEMED A CAPITAL ASSET.  "AFFILIATION" IS DEFINED
IN TERMS THAT CLEARLY COMPREHEND PETITIONER'S OWNERSHIP OF REO SALES
CORP. 

FN6  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 855, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1939); S. REP. NO.
1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942).    FN7  "(A)  DEFINITION OF NET
OPERATING LOSS.  - AS USUAL IN THIS SECTION, THE TERM 'NET OPERATING
LOSS' MEANS THE EXCESS OF THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY THIS CHAPTER OVER
THE GROSS INCOME, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN
SUBSECTION (D)."  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN8  "(2)  NET OPERATING LOSS CARRY-OVER.  - IF FOR ANY TAXABLE YEAR
THE TAXPAYER HAS A NET OPERATING LOSS, SUCH NET OPERATING LOSS SHALL BE
A NET OPERATING LOSS CARRY-OVER FOR EACH OF THE TWO SUCCEEDING TAXABLE
YEARS, EXCEPT THAT THE CARRY-OVER IN THE CASE OF THE SECOND SUCCEEDING
TAXABLE YEAR SHALL BE THE EXCESS, IF ANY, OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH NET
OPERATING LOSS OVER THE NET INCOME FOR THE INTERVENING TAXABLE YEAR
..."  COMPUTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE CARRY-OVER MUST BE USED TO OFFSET
CERTAIN NONTAXABLE, AS WELL AS TAXABLE, INCOME.  SECTION 122(B)(1) IS
SIMILAR IN LANGUAGE AND THEORY. 

FN9  "(C)  AMOUNT OF NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION.  - THE AMOUNT OF
THE NET OPERATING LOSS DEDUCTION SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE NET
OPERATING LOSS CARRY-OVERS AND OF THE NET OPERATING LOSS CARRY-BACKS TO
THE TAXABLE YEAR REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, BY WHICH THE NET INCOME
(COMPUTED WITH THE EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION
(D)(1), (2), (3), AND (4)) EXCEEDS,  ...  IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION,
THE NORMAL-TAX NET INCOME (COMPUTED WITHOUT SUCH DEDUCTION AND WITHOUT
THE CREDIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 26(E));...." 

FN10  ITALICS ADDED.  *0J  FN11  IN COMMENTING UPON A SIMILAR
POSSIBILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE NET LOSS PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1924, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS STATED:  "IF CAPITAL
LOSSES WERE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE NET LOSS, IT WOULD
RESULT IN THE ANOMALOUS SITUATION OF A TAXPAYER PAYING A TAX IN ONE
YEAR BUT AT THE SAME TIME HAVING A NET LOSS WHICH HE COULD CARRY OVER
AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE TAX FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR."  H.R.
REP. NO. 179, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 19(1924). 

FN12  PETITIONER RELIES, INTER ALIA, UPON SOME LANGUAGE IN THE REPORT
OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, S. REP. NO.
1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 122, 123.  BUT THAT PORTION OF THE
REPORT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH COMPUTATION OF NET OPERATING LOSS BUT WITH
ESTABLISHMENT OF CARRY-BACK PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENT OF THE CARRY-OVER
AMOUNT AND EXTENT OF THE CARRY-OVER AND CARRY-BACK (SEC. 122(B)), NOT
TO THAT APPLICABLE IN DETERMINING NET OPERATING LOSS (SEC. 122(A) AND
(D)). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















U.S. V. CUMBERLAND PUB. SERV. CO., 338 U.S. 451 


NO. 214.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1949.  - DECIDED JANUARY 9, 1950.  - 113
CT. CL. 460, 83 F.SUPP.  843, AFFIRMED. 


A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION MADE TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS A DISTRIBUTION OF
ASSETS IN KIND AND WAS DISSOLVED.  THE STOCKHOLDERS TRANSFERRED THE
PROPERTY TO A PURCHASER.  IN AN ACTION BY THE CORPORATION FOR REFUND OF
A CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON THE SALE, THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND, UPON PROPER
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, THAT THE SALE WAS MADE BY THE SHAREHOLDERS RATHER
THAN BY THE CORPORATION, AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE CORPORATION. 
HELD:  THE RECORD DOES NOT REQUIRE A FINDING THAT THE SALE WAS MADE BY
THE CORPORATION RATHER THAN BY THE SHAREHOLDERS, AND THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS AFFIRMED.  COMMISSIONER V. COURT HOLDING CO.,
324 U.S. 331, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 452-456. 

(A)  A CORPORATION MAY LIQUIDATE OR DISSOLVE WITHOUT SUBJECTING
ITSELF TO THE CORPORATE GAINS TAX, EVEN THOUGH A PRIMARY MOTIVE IS TO
AVOID THE BURDEN OF CORPORATE TAXATION.  P. 455. 

(B)  IN THIS CASE IT WAS FOR THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THE TRIAL COURT),
UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION, TO DETERMINE THE FACTUAL
CATEGORY IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION BELONGED.  P. 456. 

UNITED STATES V. CUMBERLAND PUBLIC SERVICE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

IN AN ACTION FOR REFUND OF A FEDERAL TAX, THE COURT OF CLAIMS GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  113 CT. CL. 460, 83 F.SUPP.  843.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 846.  AFFIRMED, P. 456. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A CORPORATION SELLING ITS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES IS TAXED ON CAPITAL
GAINS RESULTING FROM THE SALE.  FN1  THERE IS NO CORPORATE TAX,
HOWEVER, ON DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS IN KIND TO SHAREHOLDERS AS PART OF A
GENUINE LIQUIDATION.  FN2  THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION TRANSFERRED
PROPERTY TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS AS A LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND IN KIND.  THE
SHAREHOLDERS TRANSFERRED IT TO A PURCHASER.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER,
DESPITE CONTRARY FINDINGS BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THIS RECORD REQUIRES
A HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS IN FACT A SALE BY THE CORPORATION
SUBJECTING THE CORPORATION TO A CAPITAL GAINS TAX. 

DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTION ARE AS FOLLOWS.  THE RESPONDENT, A CLOSELY
HELD CORPORATION, WAS LONG ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATING AND
DISTRIBUTING ELECTRIC POWER IN THREE KENTUCKY COUNTIES.  IN 1936 A
LOCAL COOPERATIVE BEGAN TO DISTRIBUTE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY POWER
IN THE AREA SERVED BY RESPONDENT.  IT SOON BECAME OBVIOUS THAT
RESPONDENT'S DIESEL-GENERATED POWER COULD NOT COMPETE WITH TVA POWER,
WHICH RESPONDENT HAD BEEN UNABLE TO OBTAIN.  RESPONDENT'S SHAREHOLDERS,
REALIZING THAT THE CORPORATION MUST GET OUT OF THE POWER BUSINESS
UNLESS IT OBTAINED TVA POWER, ACCORDINGLY OFFERED TO SELL ALL THE
CORPORATE STOCK TO THE COOPERATIVE, WHICH WAS RECEIVING SUCH POWER. 
THE COOPERATIVE REFUSED TO BUY THE STOCK, BUT COUNTERED WITH AN OFFER
TO BUY FROM THE CORPORATION ITS TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
EQUIPMENT.  THE CORPORATION REJECTED THE OFFER BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN COMPELLED TO PAY A HEAVY CAPITAL GAINS TAX.  AT THE SAME TIME THE
SHAREHOLDERS, DESIRING TO SAVE PAYMENT OF THE CORPORATE CAPITAL GAINS
TAX, OFFERED TO ACQUIRE THE TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION EQUIPMENT AND
THEN SELL TO THE COOPERATIVE.  THE COOPERATIVE ACCEPTED.  THE
CORPORATION TRANSFERRED THE TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TO
ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN PARTIAL LIQUIDATION.  THE REMAINING ASSETS WERE
SOLD AND THE CORPORATION DISSOLVED.  THE SHAREHOLDERS THEN EXECUTED THE
PREVIOUSLY CONTEMPLATED SALE TO THE COOPERATIVE. 

UPON THIS SALE BY THE SHAREHOLDERS, THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED AND
COLLECTED A $17,000 TAX FROM THE CORPORATION ON THE THEORY THAT THE
SHAREHOLDERS HAD BEEN USED AS A MERE CONDUIT FOR EFFECTUATING WHAT WAS
REALLY A CORPORATE SALE.  RESPONDENT CORPORATION BROUGHT THIS ACTION TO
RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE
METHOD BY WHICH THE STOCKHOLDERS DISPOSED OF THE PROPERTIES WAS
AVOWEDLY CHOSEN IN ORDER TO REDUCE TAXES, BUT THAT THE LIQUIDATION AND
DISSOLUTION GENUINELY ENDED THE CORPORATION'S ACTIVITIES AND
EXISTENCE.  THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT AT NO TIME DID THE CORPORATION
PLAN TO MAKE THE SALE ITSELF.  ACCORDINGLY IT FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE
SALE WAS MADE BY THE SHAREHOLDERS RATHER THAN THE CORPORATION, AND
ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED, BELIEVING THAT
OUR OPINION IN COMMISSIONER V. COURT HOLDING CO., 324 U.S. 331,
REQUIRED A FINDING THAT THE SALE HAD BEEN MADE BY THE CORPORATION. 
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 338 U.S. 846, TO CLEAR UP DOUBTS ARISING OUT OF
THE COURT HOLDING CO. CASE. 

OUR COURT HOLDING CO. DECISION RESTED ON FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE TAX
COURT THAT A SALE HAD BEEN MADE AND GAINS REALIZED BY THE TAXPAYER
CORPORATION.  THERE THE CORPORATION HAD NEGOTIATED FOR SALE OF ITS
ASSETS AND HAD REACHED AN ORAL AGREEMENT OF SALE.  WHEN THE TAX
CONSEQUENCES OF THE CORPORATE SALE WERE BELATEDLY RECOGNIZED, THE
CORPORATION PURPORTED TO "CALL OFF" THE SALE AT THE LAST MINUTE AND
DISTRIBUTED THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES IN KIND TO THE STOCKHOLDERS.  THEY
PROMPTLY CONVEYED THESE PROPERTIES TO THE SAME PERSONS WHO HAD
NEGOTIATED WITH THE CORPORATION.  THE TERMS OF PURCHASE WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY THOSE OF THE PREVIOUS ORAL AGREEMENT.  ONE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ALREADY PAID TO THE CORPORATION WAS APPLIED AS PART PAYMENT OF
THE PURCHASE PRICE.  THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT THE CORPORATION NEVER
REALLY ABANDONED ITS SALES NEGOTIATIONS, THAT IT NEVER DID DISSOLVE,
AND THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE SO-CALLED LIQUIDATION WAS TO DISGUISE
A CORPORATE SALE THROUGH USE OF MERE FORMALISMS IN ORDER TO AVOID TAX
LIABILITY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE
EVIDENCE.  IN THIS COURT THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT WHETHER A
LIQUIDATION DISTRIBUTION WAS GENUINE OR MERELY A SHAM WAS TRADITIONALLY
A QUESTION OF FACT.  WE AGREED WITH THIS CONTENTION, AND REINSTATED THE
TAX COURT'S FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT.  DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE WHICH
SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF FACT, WE WENT ON TO SAY THAT "THE INCIDENCE
OF TAXATION DEPENDS UPON THE SUBSTANCE OF A TRANSACTION" REGARDLESS OF
"MERE FORMALISMS," AND THAT TAXES ON A CORPORATE SALE CANNOT BE AVOIDED
BY USING THE SHAREHOLDERS AS A "CONDUIT THROUGH WHICH TO PASS TITLE." 

THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN THAT A CORPORATION CAN BE TAXED EVEN WHEN
THE SALE HAS BEEN MADE BY ITS STOCKHOLDERS FOLLOWING A GENUINE
LIQUIDATION AND DISSOLUTION.  FN3  WHILE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SALES
BY A CORPORATION AS COMPARED WITH DISTRIBUTION IN KIND FOLLOWED BY
SHAREHOLDER SALES MAY BE PARTICULARLY SHADOWY AND ARTIFICIAL WHEN THE
CORPORATION IS CLOSELY HELD, CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO RECOGNIZE SUCH A
DISTINCTION FOR TAX PURPOSES.  THE CORPORATE TAX IS THUS AIMED
PRIMARILY AT THE PROFITS OF A GOING CONCERN.  THIS IS TRUE DESPITE THE
FACT THAT GAINS REALIZED FROM CORPORATE SALES ARE TAXED, PERHAPS TO
PREVENT TAX EVASIONS, EVEN WHERE THE CASH PROCEEDS ARE AT ONCE
DISTRIBUTED IN LIQUIDATION.  FN4  BUT CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED NO TAX ON
LIQUIDATING DISTRIBUTIONS IN KIND OR ON DISSOLUTION, WHATEVER MAY BE
THE MOTIVE FOR SUCH LIQUIDATION.  CONSEQUENTLY, A CORPORATION MAY
LIQUIDATE OR DISSOLVE WITHOUT SUBJECTING ITSELF TO THE CORPORATE GAINS
TAX, EVEN THOUGH A PRIMARY MOTIVE IS TO AVOID THE BURDEN OF CORPORATE
TAXATION. 

HERE, ON THE BASIS OF ADEQUATE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS, THE COURT OF
CLAIMS HAS FOUND THAT THE SALE IN QUESTION WAS MADE BY THE STOCKHOLDERS
RATHER THAN THE CORPORATION.  THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE
SHAREHOLDERS ACTED AS A MERE "CONDUIT" FOR A SALE BY RESPONDENT
CORPORATION MUST FALL BEFORE THIS FINDING.  THE SUBSIDIARY FINDING THAT
A MAJOR MOTIVE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WAS TO REDUCE TAXES DOES NOT BAR
THIS CONCLUSION.  WHATEVER THE MOTIVE AND HOWEVER RELEVANT IT MAY BE IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE TRANSACTION WAS REAL OR A SHAM, SALES OF
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES BY SHAREHOLDERS FOLLOWING A GENUINE LIQUIDATION
DISTRIBUTION CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE CORPORATION FOR TAX PURPOSES. 

THE ODDITIES IN TAX CONSEQUENCES THAT EMERGE FROM THE TAX PROVISIONS
HERE CONTROLLING APPEAR TO BE INHERENT IN THE PRESENT TAX PATTERN.  FOR
A CORPORATION IS TAXED IF IT SELLS ALL ITS PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND
DISTRIBUTES THE CASH PROCEEDS AS LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS, YET IS NOT
TAXED IF THAT PROPERTY IS DISTRIBUTED IN KIND AND IS THEN SOLD BY THE
SHAREHOLDERS.  IN BOTH INSTANCES THE INTEREST OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IN
THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE PURCHASER.  AGAIN, IF THESE
STOCKHOLDERS HAD SUCCEEDED IN THEIR ORIGINAL EFFORT TO SELL ALL THEIR
STOCK, THEIR INTEREST WOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE PURCHASERS
JUST AS EFFECTIVELY.  YET ON SUCH A TRANSACTION THE CORPORATION WOULD
HAVE REALIZED NO TAXABLE GAIN. 

CONGRESS HAVING DETERMINED THAT DIFFERENT TAX CONSEQUENCES SHALL FLOW
FROM DIFFERENT METHODS BY WHICH THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A CLOSELY HELD
CORPORATION MAY DISPOSE OF CORPORATE PROPERTY, WE ACCEPT ITS MANDATE. 
IT IS FOR THE TRIAL COURT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF AN ENTIRE TRANSACTION,
TO DETERMINE THE FACTUAL CATEGORY IN WHICH A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION
BELONGS.  HERE AS IN THE COURT HOLDING CO. CASE WE ACCEPT THE ULTIMATE
FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL TRIBUNAL.  ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  26 U.S.C. SEC. 22(A); TREAS. REG. 103, SEC. 19.22(A)-19. 

FN2  "...  NO GAIN OR LOSS IS REALIZED BY A CORPORATION FROM THE MERE
DISTRIBUTION OF ITS ASSETS IN KIND IN PARTIAL OR COMPLETE LIQUIDATION,
HOWEVER THEY MAY HAVE APPRECIATED OR DEPRECIATED IN VALUE SINCE THEIR
ACQUISITION...."  TREAS. REG. 103, SEC. 19.22(A)-21. 

FN3 WHAT WE SAID IN THE COURT HOLDING CO. CASE WAS AN APPROVAL OF THE
ACTION OF THE TAX COURT IN LOOKING BEYOND THE PAPERS EXECUTED BY THE
CORPORATION AND SHAREHOLDERS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SALE
THERE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MADE BY THE CORPORATION.  WE WERE BUT
EMPHASIZING THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT IN RESOLVING SUCH QUESTIONS
AS WHO MADE A SALE, FACT-FINDING TRIBUNALS IN TAX CASES CAN CONSIDER
MOTIVES, INTENT, AND CONDUCT IN ADDITION TO WHAT APPEARS IN WRITTEN
INSTRUMENTS USED BY PARTIES TO CONTROL RIGHTS AS AMONG THEMSELVES. 
SEE, E.G., HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 335-337; COMMISSIONER
V. TOWER, 327 U.S. 280. 

FN4  IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD THAT WHERE CORPORATE LIQUIDATIONS ARE
EFFECTED THROUGH TRUSTEES OR AGENTS, GAINS FROM SALES ARE TAXABLE TO
THE CORPORATION AS THOUGH IT WERE A GOING CONCERN.  SEE, E.G., FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 86 F.2D 938, 941; TREAS. REG. 103, SEC.
19.22(A)-21. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. MOORMAN, 338 U.S. 457 


NO. 97.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1949.  - DECIDED JANUARY 9, 1950.  - 113 CT.
CL. 159, 82 F.SUPP.  1010, REVERSED. 


SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF A GOVERNMENT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ON THE STANDARD FORM PROVIDED THAT, "IF THE
CONTRACTOR CONSIDERS ANY WORK DEMANDED OF HIM TO BE OUTSIDE THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT," HE COULD APPEAL TO THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT, "WHOSE DECISION OR THAT OF HIS DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING UPON THE PARTIES TO THE
CONTRACT."  HELD:  THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY NOT REVIEW AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISION MADE UNDER THIS PROVISION.  PP. 458-463. 

1.  CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES HAVE LONG
BEEN USED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT, ARE NOT
FORBIDDEN BY CONGRESS, AND SHOULD NOT BE FRUSTRATED BY JUDICIAL
"INTERPRETATION" OF CONTRACTS.  PP. 460-462. 

2.  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DISPUTE IN THIS CASE INVOLVED A
QUESTION OF FACT OR A QUESTION OF LAW, IT WAS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE
CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION FOR THE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT
OF SUCH DISPUTES.  PP. 462-463. 

UNITED STATES V. MOORMAN ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS J. W. MOORMAN &
SON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS REVIEWED A DECISION OF THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT
AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE WORK REQUIRED OF A CONTRACTOR UNDER A STANDARD
FORM OF GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND AWARDED THE CONTRACTOR A
MONEY JUDGMENT FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.  113 CT. CL. 159, 82
F.SUPP.  1010.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 810. 
REVERSED, P. 463. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED RELATE TO THE INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY OF
TERMS IN A GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PROVIDING THAT IN
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES THE DECISIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR OR HIS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING. 

THE RESPONDENT PARTNERSHIP ENTERED INTO A STANDARD FORM CONTRACT WITH
THE UNITED STATES TO GRADE THE SITE OF A PROPOSED AIRCRAFT ASSEMBLY
PLANT.  ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT OF 24 CENTS PER
CUBIC YARD OF GRADING, SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED "IN STRICT ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, SCHEDULES, AND DRAWINGS, ALL OF WHICH ARE MADE
A PART HEREOF  ...  "  A PROPOSED TAXIWAY WAS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS BUT
WAS NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE PLANT SITE AS DESCRIBED IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS.  THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY CONCERNS THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE CONTRACT REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO GRADE THIS TAXIWAY. 

ON DEMAND OF THE GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT GRADED FOR THE TAXIWAY AT THE
POINT SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.  IT THEN FILED A CLAIM WITH THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER ASKING EXTRA COMPENSATION, 84 CENTS PER CUBIC YARD
INSTEAD OF THE 24 CENTS SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT.  UPON INVESTIGATION
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MADE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH LED HIM TO REJECT
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM.  APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR, WHOSE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND DENIED THE
CLAIM.  ACCORDING TO PAR. 2-16(A) OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, SUCH A DENIAL
IS "FINAL AND BINDING UPON THE PARTIES" WHEN A CONTRACTOR CLAIMS AS
HERE THAT WORK DEMANDED IS "OUTSIDE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT." 
FN1 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING PROVISION THAT THE SECRETARY OF WAR'S
DECISION IS FINAL AND BINDING, RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER THE EXTRA COMPENSATION.  HE THERE CONTENDED
THAT HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS WAS MEASURED
BY ART. 15 OF THE CONTRACT, NOT BY PAR. 2-16 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. 
ARTICLE 15 MAKES A DEPARTMENT HEAD'S DECISION "FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE
UPON THE PARTIES" ONLY WHEN SUCH DISPUTES ARE OVER "QUESTIONS OF
FACT."  FN2  RESPONDENT, ALLEGING THAT THE DISPUTE HERE WAS OVER THE
PROPER "INTERPRETATION" OF THE CONTRACT, ARGUES THAT HOW A CONTRACT
SHALL BE INTERPRETED IS NOT A "QUESTION OF FACT" BUT A "QUESTION OF
LAW."  ADDING THIS PREMISE TO HIS ASSUMPTION THAT ART. 15 ALONE
GOVERNED FINALITY OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, RESPONDENT CONTENDED
THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS COULD RECONSIDER THE FACTS, MAKE NEW FINDINGS
AS A BASIS FOR ITS "INTERPRETATION," AND THEN OVERTURN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS DID ALL THREE.  ON THE
BASIS OF ITS NEW FINDINGS AND "INTERPRETATION," THE COURT ENTERED A
MONEY JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT COMPUTED AT 59.3 CENTS PER CUBIC YARD FOR
THE TAXIWAY GRADING.  113 CT. CL. 159, 82 F.SUPP.  1010. 

IN PETITIONING FOR CERTIORARI THE SOLICITOR GENERAL REPRESENTED THAT
THIS DECISION PLUS PREVIOUS ONES OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD "WEAKENED
AND NARROWED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE WELL-ESTABLISHED POLICY OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO SETTLE, WITHOUT EXPENSIVE LITIGATION, DISPUTES ARISING
UNDER ITS CONTRACTS"; AND THAT THE TOTAL EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS WAS TO
"ADD FURTHER DOUBT AND CONFUSION TO THE AUTHORITY OF DESIGNATED
OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE FINAL DECISIONS UNDER GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS."  FN3  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 810. 

FIRST.  CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS SUCH AS THESE HAVE LONG BEEN USED BY
THE GOVERNMENT.  NO CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT CONDEMNS THEIR CREATION OR
ENFORCEMENT.  AS EARLY AS 1878 THIS COURT EMPHATICALLY AUTHORIZED
ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS VESTING FINAL POWER IN A DISTRICT
QUARTERMASTER TO FIX DISTANCES, NOT CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT, ON
WHICH PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION WAS BASED.  KIHLBERG V. UNITED STATES,
97 U.S. 398.  FIVE YEARS LATER SWEENEY V. UNITED STATES, 109 U.S. 618,
UPHELD A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT PROVIDING THAT PAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
A WALL SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNTIL AN ARMY OFFICER OR OTHER AGENT
DESIGNATED BY THE UNITED STATES HAD CERTIFIED AFTER INSPECTION THAT "IT
WAS IN ALL RESPECTS AS CONTRACTED FOR."  AND IN MARTINSBURG & POTOMAC
R. CO. V. MARCH, 114 U.S. 549, THIS COURT ENFORCED A CONTRACT FOR
RAILROAD GRADING WHICH BROADLY PROVIDED THAT THE RAILROAD'S CHIEF
ENGINEER SHOULD IN ALL CASES "DETERMINE THE QUANTITY OF THE SEVERAL
KINDS OF WORK TO BE PAID FOR UNDER THE CONTRACT,  ... DECIDE EVERY
QUESTION WHICH CAN OR MAY ARISE RELATIVE TO THE EXECUTION OF THE
CONTRACT, AND 'HIS ESTIMATE SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.'"  ID. AT
PP. 551-552.  IN UPHOLDING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENGINEER THE COURT
EMPHASIZED THE DUTY OF TRIAL COURTS TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF PARTIES
TO MAKE AND RELY ON SUCH MUTUAL AGREEMENTS.  FINDINGS OF SUCH A
CONTRACTUALLY DESIGNATED AGENT, EVEN WHERE EMPLOYED BY ONE OF THE
PARTIES, WERE HELD "CONCLUSIVE, UNLESS IMPEACHED ON THE GROUND OF
FRAUD, OR SUCH GROSS MISTAKE AS NECESSARILY IMPLIED BAD FAITH."  ID. AT
P. 555. 

THE HOLDINGS OF THE FOREGOING CASES HAVE NEVER BEEN DEPARTED FROM BY
THIS COURT.  THEY STAND FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT PARTIES COMPETENT TO
MAKE CONTRACTS ARE ALSO COMPETENT TO MAKE SUCH AGREEMENTS.  THE COURT
OF CLAIMS DEPARTED FROM THIS ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE IN MCSHAIN V. UNITED
STATES, 88 CT. CL. 284, WHERE IT REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE AS FINAL THE
DECISION OF A CONTRACTING OFFICER, EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT AND
CONTRACTOR HAD AGREED THAT HIS DECISION SHOULD BE FINAL.  THE COURT OF
CLAIMS' HOLDING WAS BASED ON ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER'S DECISION HAD BEEN REACHED BY "INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT,
DRAWING, AND SPECIFICATIONS," AND THAT PARTIES WERE INCOMPETENT TO MAKE
SUCH DECISIONS BINDING EXCEPT AS TO QUESTIONS OF FACT.  ITS HOLDING WAS
CONSIDERED SUCH A DEPARTURE FROM ESTABLISHED CONTRACT LAW THAT THIS
COURT SUMMARILY REVERSED IN A PER CURIAM OPINION  FN4  CITING ONLY TWO
OF THE MANY PRIOR CASES ON THE SUBJECT.  ONE OF THE CITED CASES HAD
ENFORCED A CONTRACT PROVISION THAT "THE DECISION OF THE SUPERVISING
ARCHITECT AS TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE DRAWINGS AND
SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE FINAL."  MERRILL-RUCKGABER CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 241 U.S. 387, 393. 

SIMILAR AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN HELD ENFORCEABLE IN ALMOST EVERY STATE. 
SEE CASES COLLECTED IN NOTE, 54 A.L.R. 1255 ET SEQ. IN ONE STATE,
INDIANA, THE COURTS DO SEEM TO HOLD DIFFERENTLY, ON THE GROUND THAT
PERMITTING ENGINEERS OR OTHER PERSONS TO MAKE FINAL DETERMINATIONS OF
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES WOULD WRONGFULLY DEPRIVE THE PARTIES OF A RIGHT TO
HAVE THEIR CONTROVERSIES DECIDED IN COURTS.  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN
NOTE, 54 A.L.R. 1270-1271.  IN THE MCSHAIN CASE WE REJECTED A
CONTENTION THAT THIS COURT SHOULD ADOPT A RULE LIKE INDIANA'S AND WE
REJECT IT NOW.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE INTENTION OF PARTIES TO SUBMIT
THEIR CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES TO FINAL DETERMINATION OUTSIDE THE COURTS
SHOULD BE MADE MANIFEST BY PLAIN LANGUAGE.  MERCANTILE TRUST CO. V.
HENSEY, 205 U.S. 298, 309.  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HOSTILITY TO
SUCH PROVISIONS CAN JUSTIFY BLINDNESS TO A PLAIN INTENT OF PARTIES TO
ADOPT THIS METHOD FOR SETTLEMENT OF THEIR DISPUTES.  NOR SHOULD SUCH AN
AGREEMENT OF PARTIES BE FRUSTRATED BY JUDICIAL "INTERPRETATION" OF
CONTRACTS.  IF PARTIES COMPETENT TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES ARE TO BE
DEPRIVED OF THE PRIVILEGE OF MAKING SUCH ANTICIPATORY PROVISIONS FOR
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES, THIS DEPRIVATION SHOULD COME FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. 

SECOND.  WE TURN TO THE CONTRACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARTIES DID
SHOW AN INTENT TO AUTHORIZE FINAL DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF
WAR OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES IN THIS TYPE OF CONTROVERSY.  IF THE
DETERMINATION HERE IS CONSIDERED ONE OF FACT, ART. 15 OF THE CONTRACT
CLEARLY MAKES IT BINDING.  BUT WHILE THERE IS MUCH TO BE SAID FOR THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE "INTERPRETATION" HERE PRESENTS A QUESTION OF FACT, WE
NEED NOT CONSIDER THAT ARGUMENT.  FOR A CONCLUSION THAT THE QUESTION
HERE IS ONE OF LAW CANNOT REMOVE THE CONTROVERSY FROM THE AMBIT OF PAR.
2-16 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS.  THAT SECTION EXPRESSLY COVERS ALL CLAIMS
BY A CONTRACTOR WHO, LIKE RESPONDENT HERE, "CONSIDERS ANY WORK DEMANDED
OF HIM TO BE OUTSIDE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT  ...  " THE
PARTIES INCORPORATED IT INTO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND MADE THE
SPECIFICATIONS PART OF THE CONTRACT, ALL OF WHICH THEY HAD A LEGAL
RIGHT TO DO.  THE SECTION IS NEITHER IN CONFLICT WITH NOR LIMITED BY
ART. 15, FOR THE LATTER EXPRESSLY EXCEPTS FROM ITS COVERAGE SUCH
SPECIAL METHODS OF SETTLEMENT "OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS
CONTRACT." 

THE OFT-REPEATED CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT QUESTIONS OF
"INTERPRETATION" ARE NOT QUESTIONS OF FACT IS AMPLE REASON WHY THE
PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT SHOULD PROVIDE FOR FINAL DETERMINATION OF SUCH
DISPUTES BY A METHOD WHOLLY SEPARATE FROM THE FACT-LIMITED PROVISIONS
OF ART. 15.  TO HOLD THAT THE PARTIES DID NOT SO "INTEND" WOULD BE A
DISTORTION OF THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS.  THE LANGUAGE OF PAR. 2-16 IS
CLEAR.  NO AMBIGUITIES CAN BE INJECTED INTO IT BY SUPPORTABLE
REASONING.  IT STATES IN LANGUAGE AS PLAIN AS DRAFTSMEN COULD USE THAT
FINDINGS OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR IN DISPUTES OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED
SHALL BE "FINAL AND BINDING."  IN RECONSIDERING THE QUESTIONS DECIDED
BY THE DESIGNATED AGENT OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS IN
ERROR.  ITS JUDGMENT CANNOT STAND.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "IF THE CONTRACTOR CONSIDERS ANY WORK DEMANDED OF HIM TO BE
OUTSIDE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT OR IF HE CONSIDERS ANY ACTION
OR RULING OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR OF THE INSPECTORS TO BE UNFAIR,
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY, UPON SUCH DEMAND, ACTION, OR
RULING, SUBMIT HIS PROTEST THERETO IN WRITING TO THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER, STATING CLEARLY AND IN DETAIL THE BASIS OF HIS OBJECTIONS. 
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHALL THEREUPON PROMPTLY INVESTIGATE THE
COMPLAINT AND FURNISH THE CONTRACTOR HIS DECISION, IN WRITING,
THEREON.  IF THE CONTRACTOR IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER, HE MAY, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS, APPEAL IN WRITING TO
THE SECRETARY OF WAR, WHOSE DECISION OR THAT OF HIS DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING UPON THE PARTIES TO THE
CONTRACT.  ...  "  PARAGRAPH 2-16 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. 

FN2  "DISPUTES.  - EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS
CONTRACT, ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF FACT ARISING UNDER THIS
CONTRACT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUBJECT TO WRITTEN
APPEAL BY THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
CONCERNED OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WHOSE DECISION SHALL
BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES THERETO.  IN THE MEANTIME THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL DILIGENTLY PROCEED WITH THE WORK AS DIRECTED." 
ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONTRACT. 

FN3  THESE AND OTHER REPRESENTATIONS IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
IN THIS CASE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IN ASKING THIS COURT TO REVIEW A FORMER COURT OF
CLAIMS JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 88 CT. CL. 284.  THE CASE THERE, IT WAS
URGED, SEEMED TO BE THE "CULMINATION OF A RECENT TENDENCY IN THE COURT
OF CLAIMS TO WHITTLE AWAY THE AUTHORITY OF DESIGNATED OFFICERS OF THE
UNITED STATES TO MAKE FINAL DECISIONS UNDER CONTRACTS."  IT WAS
INSISTED THAT "AT LEAST, WE SUBMIT, THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE
EFFECTIVE CONTRACTS OF THIS CHARACTER SHOULD NOT BE SO CIRCUMSCRIBED
EXCEPT BY DECISION OF THIS COURT."  WE GRANTED THAT PETITION AND
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT IN A PER CURIAM OPINION. 
UNITED STATES V. MCSHAIN, 308 U.S. 512. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. MCSHAIN, 308 U.S. 512. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















POWER COMM'N V. EAST OHIO GAS CO., 338 U.S. 464 


NO. 71.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1949.  - DECIDED JANUARY 9, 1950.  - 84
U.S. APP. D.C. 312, 173 F.2D 429, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT OWNS AND OPERATES A NATURAL-GAS BUSINESS WHOLLY WITHIN
OHIO, SELLING GAS ONLY TO OHIO CONSUMERS.  MOST OF THIS GAS IS
TRANSPORTED INTO OHIO FROM OTHER STATES THROUGH INTERSTATE PIPE LINES,
OWNED BY OTHER COMPANIES, WHICH CONNECT INSIDE OHIO WITH RESPONDENT'S
LARGE HIGH-PRESSURE LINES IN WHICH THE GAS, PROPELLED MAINLY BY ITS OWN
PRESSURE, FLOWS CONTINUOUSLY MORE THAN 100 MILES TO RESPONDENT'S LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.  HELD: 

1.  RESPONDENT IS A "NATURAL-GAS COMPANY" SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  PP. 467
474. 

(A)  THE CONTINUOUS FLOW OF GAS FROM OTHER STATES TO AND THROUGH
RESPONDENT'S HIGH-PRESSURE LINES CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  PP. 467-468. 

(B)  THE WORD "TRANSPORTATION" IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT IS NOT LIMITED
TO COMPANIES WHICH BOTH TRANSPORT NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND SELL IT FOR RESALE; IT APPLIES TO THE MOVEMENT OF INTERSTATE GAS IN
RESPONDENT'S HIGH-PRESSURE PIPE LINES, EVEN THOUGH RESPONDENT SELLS GAS
DIRECT TO CONSUMERS RATHER THAN FOR RESALE.  PP. 468-469, 471-474. 

(C)  RESPONDENT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ALL ITS
FACILITIES COME WITHIN THE PROVISO IN SEC. 1(B) MAKING THE ACT
INAPPLICABLE "TO THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE
FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH DISTRIBUTION," SINCE THIS WAS NOT INTENDED TO
EXEMPT HIGH-PRESSURE PIPE LINES TRANSPORTING INTERSTATE GAS TO LOCAL
MAINS.  PP. 469-471. 

(D)  NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT NOR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
INDICATES THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO CREATE AN EXCEPTION FOR EVERY COMPANY
THAT TRANSPORTS INTERSTATE GAS IN ONLY ONE STATE, EVEN WHEN THE COMPANY
IS FULLY SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION AND SELLS GAS DIRECT TO CONSUMERS
RATHER THAN FOR RESALE.  PP. 471-474. 

2.  THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO
KEEP ACCOUNTS AND SUBMIT REPORTS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT IS NOT SO
BURDENSOME AS TO EXCEED CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY LIMITATIONS.  PP.
474-475. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RIGHTS RESERVED TO THE
STATES UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 476. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. EAST OHIO GAS CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS A NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION AND ORDERED RESPONDENT TO KEEP
ACCOUNTS AND SUBMIT REPORTS AS REQUIRED BY THE NATURAL GAS ACT, 15
U.S.C. SECS. 717 ET SEQ. 74 P.U.R. (N.S.)  256.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT "ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ACT."  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 312, 173 F.2D 429.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 937.  REVERSED, P. 476. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

"SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE
FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION  ...  AND TO NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY
OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH
DISTRIBUTION ...  "  SECTION 2(6) DEFINES "NATURAL-GAS COMPANY" AS "A
PERSON ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE  ...  "  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, AFTER HEARINGS, FOUND
AS FACTS THAT RESPONDENT EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY WAS A NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY AND SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION N2.  ON THESE AND
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS THE COMPANY WAS ORDERED TO KEEP ACCOUNTS AND SUBMIT
REPORTS AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT.  FN3 THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE
COMPANY'S CONTENTIONS  FN4  THAT ITS OPERATIONS WERE NOT COVERED BY THE
ACT AND THAT THE EXPENSE OF SUPPLYING THE REQUIRED INFORMATION WAS SO
GREAT AS TO TRANSGRESS STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS.  FN5  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WITHOUT REACHING OTHER
CONTENTIONS, REVERSED THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMPANY WAS NOT "ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT."  FN6 IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT PROMPTED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 937. 

             I. 

EAST OHIO OWNS AND OPERATES A NATURAL-GAS BUSINESS SOLELY IN OHIO,
SELLING GAS TO MORE THAN HALF A MILLION OHIO CONSUMERS THROUGH LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.  MOST OF THIS NATURAL GAS IS TRANSPORTED INTO
OHIO FROM KANSAS, TEXAS, OKLAHOMA, AND WEST VIRGINIA THROUGH PIPE LINES
OF PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY AND OF HOPE NATURAL GAS COMPANY,
AN AFFILIATE OF EAST OHIO.  INSIDE THE OHIO BOUNDARY THESE INTERSTATE
LINES CONNECT WITH EAST OHIO'S LARGE HIGH-PRESSURE LINES IN WHICH THE
IMPORTED GAS, PROPELLED MAINLY BY ITS OWN PRESSURE, FLOWS CONTINUOUSLY
MORE THAN 100 MILES TO EAST OHIO'S LOCAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS.  THE
COMBINED LENGTH OF THESE HIGH-PRESSURE TRUNK LINES IS AT LEAST 650
MILES. 

THAT THIS CONTINUOUS FLOW OF GAS FROM OTHER STATES TO AND THROUGH
EAST OHIO'S HIGH-PRESSURE LINES CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY NUMEROUS PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  THE
GAS DOES NOT CEASE ITS INTERSTATE JOURNEY THE INSTANT IT CROSSES THE
OHIO BOUNDARY OR ENTERS EAST OHIO'S PIPES, EVEN THOUGH THAT COMPANY
OPERATES COMPLETELY WITHIN THE STATE WHERE THE GAS IS FINALLY
CONSUMED.  RESPONDENTS DO NOT AND CANNOT CLAIM THAT THEIR GAS IS NOT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN7  AS WE HELD IN INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 331 U.S. 682, 688, THE MEANING OF "INTERSTATE
COMMERCE" IN THIS ACT IS NO MORE RESTRICTED THAN THAT WHICH THERETOFORE
HAD BEEN GIVEN TO IT IN THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT. 

RESPONDENTS CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT THE WORD "TRANSPORTATION" IN SEC.
1(B) MUST BE CONSTRUED AS APPLYING ONLY TO COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR HIRE OR FOR
SALES TO BE FOLLOWED BY RESALES, WHEREAS EAST OHIO DOES NEITHER.  THE
SHORT ANSWER IS THAT THE ACT'S LANGUAGE DID NOT EXPRESS ANY SUCH
LIMITATION.  DESPITE THE UNQUALIFIED LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1(B) MAKING THE
ACT APPLY TO "TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,"
RESPONDENTS ASK US TO QUALIFY THAT LANGUAGE BY APPLYING IT ONLY TO
BUSINESSES WHICH BOTH TRANSPORT AND SELL NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE.  THEY
RELY ON A SENTENCE IN THE DECLARATION OF POLICY, SEC. 1(A), REFERRING
TO "THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS."  BUT THEIR
CONTENTION THAT THE WORD "AND" IN THE POLICY PROVISION CREATES AN
UNSEVERABLE BOND IS COMPLETELY REFUTED BY THE CLEARLY DISJUNCTIVE
PHRASING OF SEC. 1(B) ITSELF.  AS WE POINTED OUT IN PANHANDLE EASTERN
PIPE LINE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 332 U.S. 507, 516, SEC. 1(B)
MADE THE NATURAL GAS ACT APPLICABLE TO THREE SEPARATE THINGS:  "(1) THE
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; (2) ITS SALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE; AND (3) NATURAL GAS COMPANIES ENGAGED
IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE."  AND THROUGHOUT THE ACT
"TRANSPORTATION" AND "SALE" ARE VIEWED AS SEPARATE SUBJECTS OF
REGULATION.  THEY HAVE INDEPENDENT AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT PLACES IN THE
ACT.  THUS, TO ADOPT RESPONDENTS' CONSTRUCTION WOULD UNDULY RESTRICT
THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO CARRY OUT ONE OF THE MAJOR POLICIES OF THE
ACT.  MOREOVER, THE INITIAL INTEREST OF CONGRESS IN REGULATION OF
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES WAS REEMPHASIZED IN 1942 BY PASSAGE OF AN
AMENDMENT TO SEC. 7(C) OF THE ACT BROADENING THE COMMISSION'S POWERS
OVER THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF PIPE LINES.  56 STAT. 83.  THIS
AMENDMENT FOLLOWED A REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO CONGRESS POINTING OUT
THAT WITHOUT AMENDMENT THE ACT VESTED THE COMMISSION WITH INADEQUATE
POWER TO MAKE "ANY SERIOUS EFFORT TO CONTROL THE UNPLANNED CONSTRUCTION
OF NATURAL-GAS PIPE LINES WITH A VIEW TO CONSERVING ONE OF THE
COUNTRY'S VALUABLE BUT EXHAUSTIBLE ENERGY RESOURCES."  N8  WE HOLD THAT
THE WORD "TRANSPORTATION" LIKE THE PHRASE "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" APTLY
DESCRIBES THE MOVEMENTS OF GAS IN EAST OHIO'S HIGH-PRESSURE PIPE
LINES.  FN9 

RESPONDENTS ALSO CONTEND THAT EAST OHIO IS EXEMPT FROM THE ACT
BECAUSE ALL ITS FACILITIES COME WITHIN THE PROVISO IN SEC. 1(B) MAKING
THE ACT INAPPLICABLE "TO THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO
THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH DISTRIBUTION."  BUT WHAT CONGRESS MUST
HAVE MEANT BY "FACILITIES" FOR "LOCAL DISTRIBUTION" WAS EQUIPMENT FOR
DISTRIBUTING GAS AMONG CONSUMERS WITHIN A PARTICULAR LOCAL COMMUNITY,
NOT THE HIGH-PRESSURE PIPE LINES TRANSPORTING THE GAS TO THE LOCAL
MAINS.  FOR IN DECISIONS PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE THIS COURT
HAD SHARPLY DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE TWO:  IT HAD MADE IT CLEAR THAT
THE NATIONAL COMMERCE POWER ALONE COVERED THE HIGHPRESSURE TRUNK LINES
TO THE POINT WHERE PRESSURE WAS REDUCED AND THE GAS ENTERED LOCAL
MAINS, WHILE THE STATE ALONE COULD REGULATE THE GAS AFTER IT ENTERED
THOSE MAINS.  FN10  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE ATTENTION OF
CONGRESS WAS DIRECTLY FOCUSED ON THE CASES DRAWING THIS DISTINCTION. 
IT WAS BECAUSE THESE CASES HAD BARRED FEDERAL REGULATION OF COMMUNITY
SUPPLY SYSTEMS THAT THE COMMITTEE REPORT COULD CORRECTLY DESCRIBE THE
"LOCAL DISTRIBUTION" PROVISO AS SURPLUSAGE WHICH WAS "NOT ACTUALLY
NECESSARY."  FN11  WE ARE WHOLLY UNPERSUADED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
TREAT TRUNK LINES LIKE EAST OHIO'S AS THOUGH THEY WERE MERE INTEGRATED
FACILITIES OF THE NUMEROUS COMMUNITY SUPPLY SYSTEMS WHICH THEY
SERVICE.  INDEED, AS RESPONDENTS ADMITTED UPON ORAL ARGUMENT HERE, THE
LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH A PRINCIPLE WOULD BE THAT EVEN A PIPE LINE
STRETCHING FROM TEXAS TO CLEVELAND WOULD BE COMPLETELY EXEMPT FROM THE
FEDERAL COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION IF IT WERE OWNED BY EAST OHIO.  TO
DRAW SUCH A STRAINED INFERENCE FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL EXEMPTION OF
LOCAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS WOULD IGNORE THE IMPORTANCE OF NATIONALLY
CONTROLLING INTERSTATE PIPE LINES IN ORDER TO PRESERVE "EQUALITY OF
OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT AMONG THE VARIOUS COMMUNITIES AND STATES
CONCERNED."  MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, 310. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID INDICATES THAT EAST OHIO COMES SQUARELY WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF THE ACT AS SET OUT IN SECS. 1(B) AND 2(6).  NEVERTHELESS
RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THIS EXPRESS COVERAGE IS RESTRICTED BY THE
BROAD PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO PROVIDE FEDERAL REGULATION ONLY FOR THOSE
COMPANIES WHICH STATES COULD NOT REGULATE.  URGING THAT ALL OF EAST
OHIO'S BUSINESS IS FULLY SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATE, THEY RELY
ON STATEMENTS BY THIS COURT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED NOT TO CUT DOWN
STATE REGULATORY POWER, BUT RATHER TO SUPPLEMENT IT BY CLOSING "THE GAP
CREATED BY THE PRIOR DECISIONS."  PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 332 U.S. 507, 517-519; SEE ALSO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMM'N OF OHIO V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO., 317 U.S. 456, 467.  WE ADHERE TO
THOSE STATEMENTS.  BUT PRIOR CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS, NOT WHAT WE HAVE
SINCE DECIDED OR WOULD DECIDE TODAY, FORM THE MEASURE OF THE GAP WHICH
CONGRESS INTENDED TO CLOSE BY THIS ACT.  ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 508; AND SEE PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314
U.S. 244, 250. 

IN A SERIES OF CASES REPEATEDLY CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE,  FN12  THIS COURT HAD DECLARED THAT STATES COULD REGULATE
INTERSTATE GAS ONLY AFTER IT WAS REDUCED IN PRESSURE AND ENTERED A
LOCAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. LANDON, 249 U.S.
236, 243; MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, 310; PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N V. ATTLEBORO CO., 273 U.S. 83, 89; AND SEE EAST OHIO
GAS CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 283 U.S. 465, 470-472 N13.  UNDER THESE
DECISIONS STATE REGULATORY POWER COULD NOT REACH HIGH-PRESSURE TRUNK
LINES AND SALES FOR RESALE.  THIS WAS THE "GAP" WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED
TO CLOSE.  IT THEREFORE ACTED UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER TO
REGULATE WHAT THESE DECISIONS HAD INDICATED THAT THE STATES COULD NOT. 
WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT IN SO DOING CONGRESS SUBJECTED TO FEDERAL
REGULATION A COMPANY TRANSPORTING INTERSTATE GAS, AND SELLING IT FOR
RESALE, WHOLLY WITHIN ONE STATE.  ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
CO., 314 U.S. 498.  FN14  THE ONLY RESPECT IN WHICH EAST OHIO DIFFERS
FROM THAT COMPANY IS THAT IT SELLS GAS DIRECT TO CONSUMERS RATHER THAN
FOR RESALE.  THIS DIFFERENCE IS IMMATERIAL.  FOR AS WE HAVE ALREADY
POINTED OUT, EAST OHIO COMES DIRECTLY WITHIN THE EXPRESS PROVISION
GRANTING POWER TO THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE "TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL
GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE," JUST AS THE ILLINOIS COMPANY CAME DIRECTLY
WITHIN THE EXPRESS PROVISION COVERING SALE FOR RESALE.  AND IN THE
LIGHT OF THE ILLINOIS GAS DECISION WE CANNOT SEE HOW THE "LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION" PROVISO CAN BE CONSTRUED AS ENCOMPASSING ALL OF EAST
OHIO'S OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.  THAT PROVISO CANNOT MEAN ONE
THING FOR "TRANSPORTATION" AND ANOTHER WHERE "SALE FOR RESALE" IS
INVOLVED. 

THERE AS ELSEWHERE, ONCE A COMPANY IS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A "NATURAL
GAS COMPANY," NO STATE CAN INTERFERE WITH FEDERAL REGULATION.  THAT A
STATE COMMISSION MIGHT ALSO HAVE SOME REGULATORY POWER WOULD NOT
PRECLUDE EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTION.  CONNECTICUT LIGHT &
POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S. 515, 533; PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMM'N V. ATTLEBORO CO., 273 U.S. 83, 89-90.  NOR DOES THE ACT PURPORT
TO ABOLISH ALL OVERLAPPING.  SECTION 5(B), FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDES THAT
THE COMMISSION MAY "INVESTIGATE AND DETERMINE THE COST OF THE
PRODUCTION OR TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS BY A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY IN
CASES WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A RATE
GOVERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF SUCH NATURAL GAS."  52 STAT.
824.  YET CLEARLY THE STATE AGENCY ESTABLISHING SUCH A RATE WOULD HAVE
EQUIVALENT AUTHORITY. 

WE FIND NO LANGUAGE IN THE ACT INDICATING THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO
CREATE AN EXCEPTION FOR EVERY COMPANY TRANSPORTING INTERSTATE GAS IN
ONLY ONE STATE.  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WISER AND
MORE FARSEEING STATESMANSHIP FOR CONGRESS TO HAVE MADE SUCH AN
EXCEPTION, WE SHOULD NOT DO SO THROUGH THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH AUTHORIZES US TO
INTERPRET AWAY THE PLAIN CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE. 

                                 II. 

A CONTENTION NOT PASSED ON BY THE COURT OF APPEALS BUT URGED HERE BY
RESPONDENTS, IS THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S ACCOUNTING AND
REPORT ORDERS WOULD IMPOSE SO GREAT A BURDEN ON EAST OHIO "AS TO MAKE
SUCH ORDERS TRANSGRESS STATUTORY AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS." 
OUR ATTENTION IS NOT SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ANYTHING IN THE RECORD
SHOWING THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REQUIRED EAST OHIO TO ADOPT ANY
PARTICULAR ACCOUNTING METHOD OR MAKE ANY PARTICULAR REPORT NOT
REASONABLY RELATED TO THE COMMISSION'S GRANTED POWERS IN THIS RESPECT. 
FN15  NOR DID THE COMMISSION FAIL TO MAKE PROPER FINDINGS TO SUPPORT
ITS ORDER.  ALL OF THE COMMISSION REQUIREMENTS AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR TO
CALL FOR THE PRECISE KIND OF ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, INFORMATION, AND
REPORTS THAT CONGRESS DEEMED RELEVANT AND NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSION
TO HAVE IN PERFORMING ITS REGULATORY DUTIES.  THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW
GOVERNING SUCH REQUIREMENTS WERE ADEQUATELY SET OUT BY MR. JUSTICE
CARDOZO SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232.  SEE ALSO NORTHWESTERN ELECTRIC CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 321 U.S. 119.  MEASURED BY THESE CRITERIA FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUCH ORDERS, WE FIND NO REASON TO REJECT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT THE ORDERS HERE ISSUED WERE NECESSARY AND
PROPER AS APPLIED TO EAST OHIO.  AND AS TO THE COST OF COMPLIANCE, IT
IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY AS THE COURT SAID IN THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE &
TELEGRAPH CASE, SUPRA, P. 247:  "THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE
EXPENSE  ...  WILL LAY SO HEAVY A BURDEN UPON THE COMPANIES AS TO
OVERPASS THE BOUNDS OF REASON."  FN16    THE CONTENTION THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER VIOLATES THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE STATES UNDER THE
TENTH AMENDMENT IS FORECLOSED BY THE COURT'S HOLDING IN NORTHWESTERN
ELECTRIC CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, SUPRA, AT 125.  SECTION 8(A) OF
THE NATURAL GAS ACT ITSELF PROVIDES THAT "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL
RELIEVE ANY SUCH NATURAL-GAS COMPANY FROM KEEPING ANY ACCOUNTS,
MEMORANDA, OR RECORDS WHICH SUCH NATURAL-GAS COMPANY MAY BE REQUIRED TO
KEEP BY OR UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE LAWS OF ANY STATE." 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS VALID AND SHOULD BE ENFORCED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 821, AS AMENDED BY 56 STAT. 83, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717 ET
SEQ. 

FN2  THE COMMISSION INSTITUTED THE PROCEEDINGS ON ITS OWN MOTION AND
ON COMPLAINT OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO.  LATER OTHER OHIO CITIES
FILED SIMILAR COMPLAINTS.  SEE 1 F.P.C. 586; 4 F.P.C. 15; 4 F.P.C.
497. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 15 INFRA. 

FN4  THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO, AN INTERVENOR, MADE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CONTENTIONS. 

FN5  74 P.U.R. (N.S.)  256.  RELATED ORDERS AND DISCUSSIONS APPEAR IN
4 F.P.C. 15, 497, 638, 28 P.U.R. (N.S.)  129; EAST OHIO GAS CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 115 F.2D 385. 

FN6  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 312, 316, 173 F.2D 429, 433. 

FN7  SEE, E.G., COLORADO-WYOMING GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
324 U.S. 626; ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILL. PUB. SERV. CO.,
314 U.S. 498, 503-4.  SEE ALSO EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 283
U.S. 465, 470; THE DANIEL BALL, 10 WALL.  557. 

FN8  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, TWENTIETH ANNUAL REPORT (1940), P.
78.  SEE WHEAT, ADMINISTRATION BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION OF THE
CERTIFICATE PROVISIONS OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, 14 GEO. WASH. L. REV.
194, 197. 

FN9  IN THE PIPE LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548, 562, THIS COURT HELD THAT
THE UNCLE SAM OIL COMPANY WAS NOT ENGAGED IN "TRANSPORTATION" OF OIL,
WITHIN THE STATUTORY MEANING OF THAT WORD IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, WHERE IT WAS "SIMPLY DRAWING OIL FROM ITS OWN WELLS ACROSS A STATE
LINE TO ITS OWN REFINERY FOR ITS OWN USE, AND THAT IS ALL  ...  "  THIS
HOLDING AS TO THE MEANING OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT HAS SLIGHT FORCE, IF ANY, IN DETERMINATION OF THE WORD'S MEANING
UNDER THIS DIFFERENT AND FAR MORE COMPREHENSIVE ACT.  FURTHERMORE, EAST
OHIO IS NOT MERELY MOVING GAS FOR PROCESSING IN ITS OWN PLANTS.  IT
BUYS AND TRANSPORTS IT FOR SALE; THERE IS NO FURTHER PROCESSING OF ANY
KIND, EXCEPT FOR EVENTUAL REDUCTION OF PRESSURE.  THIS PUTS EAST OHIO'S
TRANSPORTATION MORE NEARLY IN THE CATEGORY OF THAT WHICH WE HELD TO
BRING OIL TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 141, 145; CHAMPLIN
RFG.  CO. V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 29.  IN THE LATTER CASE
TRANSPORTED OIL WAS TO BE SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHILE HERE THE
SALE WAS TO BE MADE IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  THIS DIFFERENCE, HOWEVER,
IS NO PERSUASIVE REASON WHY THE SPECIAL HOLDING IN THE UNCLE SAM CASE
SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO CONTROL OUR HOLDING HERE. 

FN10  IN BOTH PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. LANDON, 249 U.S. 236, 245,
AND PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 252 U.S. 23, 28,
THIS COURT HELD THAT STATES COULD REGULATE RETAIL SALES OF INTERSTATE
GAS TO LOCAL CONSUMERS.  IN THE LANDON CASE THE COURT REASONED THAT
STATE CONTROL OF A LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY WAS PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE
"INTERSTATE MOVEMENT ENDED WHEN THE GAS PASSED INTO LOCAL MAINS."  THE
PENNSYLVANIA GAS DECISION, HOWEVER, WAS BASED ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
LINE OF REASONING.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE GAS CONTINUED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE UNTIL IT REACHED THE BURNER TIPS, BUT NEVERTHELESS PERMITTED
STATE REGULATION BECAUSE RETAIL SALES PRESENTED A PROBLEM OF LOCAL
RATHER THAN NATIONAL CONCERN.  IN MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO., 265 U.S.
298, 310, THE COURT RESOLVED THESE CONFLICTING DOCTRINES BY READOPTING
THE LANDON RULE.  IT LIMITED THE PENNSYLVANIA GAS HOLDING TO ITS
PRECISE FACTS BY INTERPRETING THAT DECISION AS RESTING SOLELY ON THE
LANDON PRINCIPLE THAT STATES COULD REGULATE CHARGES FOR SERVICE TO
LOCAL CONSUMERS.  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. ATTLEBORO CO., 273 U.S.
83, 89, REAFFIRMED THIS CHOICE OF DOCTRINE, APPLYING IT TO A COMPANY
WHICH LIKE EAST OHIO TRANSMITTED ITS PRODUCT (ELECTRICITY) WHOLLY
WITHIN ONE STATE.  IN EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 283 U.S. 465,
470-472, THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF PENNSYLVANIA GAS
EXTENDING INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE BURNER TIPS WAS IN CONFLICT WITH
AND MUST YIELD TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE LANDON AND KANSAS GAS CASES.  SEE
NOTE 13 INFRA.  THUS WHEN THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS PASSED THIS COURT'S
DECISIONS HAD ALREADY RESULTED IN A SHARP CLEAVAGE BETWEEN LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES AND HIGH-PRESSURE PIPE LINES SERVING THOSE
FACILITIES. 

FN11  THE REPORT STATED THAT THE PROVISO WAS "NOT ACTUALLY NECESSARY,
AS THE MATTERS SPECIFIED THEREIN COULD NOT BE SAID FAIRLY TO BE COVERED
BY THE LANGUAGE AFFIRMATIVELY STATING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION."  H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 3-4.  THIS
COULD ONLY MEAN THAT THE PHRASE "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" WAS CONSTRUED BY
THE COMMITTEE, AS IT HAD BEEN BY THIS COURT, TO EXCLUDE "LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION." 

FN12  THE RECORD OF THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED
BILL IS CROWDED WITH REPEATED REFERENCES TO THE CASES DISCUSSED IN NOTE
10 SUPRA; NO OTHER CASES RECEIVED SUCH EMPHASIS.  THE GENERAL SOLICITOR
FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS,
FOR EXAMPLE, EXPLAINED THAT THE EAST OHIO CASE "ESTABLISHED VERY
CLEARLY THAT A STATE HAS JURISDICTION TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS OF
DISTRIBUTING GAS AFTER IT HAS BEEN IMPORTED, AND THE PRESSURE HAS BEEN
STEPPED DOWN TO PERMIT OF LOCAL DISTRIBUTION.  IT, HOWEVER, LEAVES THE
STATE AUTHORITIES STILL SUBJECT TO THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN THE KANSAS
CASE  ...  "  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE
ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., 88.  THE
SOLICITOR OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION POINTED OUT IN HIS BRIEF TO
THE SAME COMMITTEE THAT "THE STATES CANNOT CONTROL THE WHOLESALE RATES
EXTRACTED FOR NATURAL GAS THUS TRANSPORTED, NOR MAY THEY REGULATE ANY
OTHER OF THE PHASES OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION."  ID., 16. 
AMENDMENTS WHICH WOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM FEDERAL
REGULATION ALL COMPANIES OPERATING WHOLLY WITHIN ONE STATE WERE
PROPOSED BUT REJECTED. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 10 SUPRA.  THE EAST OHIO CASE CITED ABOVE CONCERNED
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE COMPANY WAS SUBJECT TO STATE TAXES.  THE
TAX DOCTRINES INVOLVED ARE IRRELEVANT HERE.  UNDENIABLY RELEVANT,
HOWEVER, IS THE FACT THAT CONGRESS DIRECTLY CONSIDERED THE DOCTRINE OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ENUNCIATED IN THAT CASE:  THAT TRANSPORTATION OF
OUT-OF-STATE GAS TO THE LOCAL SYSTEMS "IS ESSENTIALLY NATIONAL - NOT
LOCAL - IN CHARACTER AND IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN AS WELL AS
WITHOUT THAT STATE."  283 U.S. 465, 470. 

FN14  THERE ARE IMPLICATIONS IN THE COURT'S OPINION THAT UNDER
PREVAILING CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE A STATE MIGHT NOW, IN THE ABSENCE OF
FEDERAL LEGISLATION, REGULATE SUCH A COMPANY AS ILLINOIS GAS OR EAST
OHIO.  SEE ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 504,
DISCUSSED IN PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
332 U.S. 507, 512.  BUT COMPARE HOOD & SONS V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525,
545. 

FN15  THE ORDERS HERE PRIMARILY REST ON COMMISSION REGULATIONS
PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS.  SECTION 6(B) AUTHORIZES THE
COMMISSION TO REQUIRE A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY TO FILE "AN INVENTORY OF
ALL OR ANY PART OF ITS PROPERTY AND A STATEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL COST
THEREOF, AND ...  KEEP THE COMMISSION INFORMED REGARDING THE COST OF
ALL ADDITIONS, BETTERMENTS, EXTENSIONS, AND NEW CONSTRUCTION."  52
STAT. 824, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717E (B).  SECTION 8(A) MAKES IT THE DUTY OF
SUCH COMPANIES TO KEEP "SUCH ACCOUNTS, RECORDS OF COST-ACCOUNTING
PROCEDURES," ETC., AS THE COMMISSION MAY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBE.  SECTION 10(A) SIMILARLY REQUIRES "ANNUAL AND OTHER PERIODIC
OR SPECIAL REPORTS."  SECTION 5(B) AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO
"INVESTIGATE AND DETERMINE THE COST OF THE  ...  TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS BY A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY" EVEN WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH RATES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF THAT
GAS.  SECTION 16 VESTS THE COMMISSION WITH BROAD POWERS TO PRESCRIBE
GENERAL ORDERS, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOUND "NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE
TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT." 

FN16  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT EAST OHIO'S ESTIMATE PLACING THE COST
OF COMPLIANCE AT BETWEEN $1,500,000 AND $2,000,000 WAS "NOT CONVINCING,
FOR OUR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER COMPANIES WITH GREATER PROPERTY
INVESTMENT INDICATES THAT THIS ESTIMATE IS CONSIDERABLY EXAGGERATED." 
74 P.U.R. (N.S.)  256, 263. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS, DISSENTING. 

IF THIS WERE A CASE OF APPLYING AN EXPLICIT POLICY OF CONGRESS TO ONE
RECALCITRANT GAS COMPANY, THERE WOULD OF COURSE BE NO DISSENT.  BUT IF
IT WERE SUCH, WE WOULD NOT BE LIKELY TO FIND THE STATE OF OHIO AND HER
UTILITY COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITY
COMMISSIONERS, AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES OF SEVERAL STATES, INCLUDING SOME
WITH NOTABLE RECORDS FOR PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HERE HELPING
THE UTILITY.  THIS ALLIANCE OF STATE AUTHORITIES AGAINST THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION SUGGESTS THAT THERE MUST BE MORE TO THIS CASE THAN
MEETS THE EYE. 

THE KEY TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE FEDERAL NATURAL GAS ACT IS ITS
PURPOSE TO SUPPLEMENT BUT NOT TO SUPPLANT STATE REGULATION.  BEFORE
PASSAGE OF THE ACT, EACH STATE WAS ABLE TO REGULATE THE ULTIMATE PRICE
OF NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTED TO ITS CONSUMERS.  PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 252 U.S. 23.  THIS COURT HAS NEVER DENIED ANY
STATE THAT POWER.  BUT IN DOING SO THEY WERE OBLIGED TO ALLOW AS
OPERATING COSTS WHAT THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY PAID FOR THE GAS WHEN
BROUGHT INTO ITS SYSTEM FROM OUT OF THE STATE.  THIS PURCHASE PRICE THE
STATE COULD NOT REGULATE, OFTEN NOT EVEN INVESTIGATE, AND THE PURCHASES
FREQUENTLY WERE FROM AFFILIATES, A FACT WHICH MIGHT COOL THE LOCAL
COMPANY'S NORMAL ZEAL TO DRIVE A GOOD BARGAIN FOR ITSELF AND ITS
CONSUMERS.  HENCE, THE STATES APPEALED TO CONGRESS TO SET UP MACHINERY
TO FIX THE IMPORT PRICE OF OUT-OF-STATE GAS.  THIS WAS ALL THAT THE
STATES ASKED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO, AND IT IS EVERYTHING THAT
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION REVEALED ANY PURPOSE TO DO WHILE THE
LEGISLATION WAS PENDING.  ITS SOLICITOR SUMMARIZED THE PURPOSES BEFORE
A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE, AS FOLLOWS:  "THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO BRING
UNDER FEDERAL REGULATION THE PIPE LINES AND TO LEAVE TO THE STATE
COMMISSIONS CONTROL OVER DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES AND OVER THEIR RATES,
WHETHER THAT GAS MOVES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR NOT."  HEARINGS BEFORE
A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE ON H.R. 11662, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., 24.  THAT IS WHAT THE
STATE AUTHORITIES ACTIVE IN PROMOTING THE LEGISLATION SEEM TO HAVE
BELIEVED HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. 

EAST OHIO IS AN ALL-OHIO COMPANY, DERIVING INCOME SOLELY FROM
DISTRIBUTING GAS DIRECTLY TO OHIO CONSUMERS.  IT SELLS NO GAS FOR
RESALE.  ALL OF ITS ASSETS ARE LOCATED AND ALL OF ITS BUSINESS IS
TRANSACTED IN OHIO.  SINCE 1911, THE OHIO STATE COMMISSION HAS
EXERCISED REGULATORY POWERS OVER IT WHICH HAVE INCLUDED RATE-MAKING,
AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF SALE OF PROPERTY, APPROVAL OF CAPITALIZATION
AND SECURITY ISSUES, COMPLETE CONTROL OF ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND
REQUIRING DETAILED PERIODIC REPORTS.  EXCEPT FOR INABILITY TO FIX THE
PRICE AT WHICH GAS SHOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE COMPANY AT THE STATE
LINE, OHIO IS ABLE TO SUPERVISE AND REGULATE THIS UTILITY COMPLETELY
AND CONTINUOUSLY. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT, FIXED THE
STATE-LINE PRICE THAT EAST OHIO MUST PAY FOR ITS OUT-OF-STATE
SUPPLIES.  BUT NOW IT SEEKS TO GO BEYOND THIS AND SUPERIMPOSE SOME
FEATURES OF ITS REGULATION WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE REGULATION OF THE
IDENTICAL SUBJECT MATTER BY THE STATE OF OHIO.  HOW MUCH FARTHER THAN
THE ORDER HERE UNDER REVIEW THE COMMISSION WILL GO IN SUPPLANTING OR
DUPLICATING STATE REGULATION IS NOT CLEAR FROM ITS ARGUMENT, AND HOW
FAR IT CAN GO IS RENDERED UNCLEAR BY THE COURT'S OPINION WHICH
EXPRESSLY APPROVES SOME OVERLAPPING BUT LEAVES ITS BOUNDS IN CAREFULLY
STATED DOUBT.  THE ANXIETY WHICH THIS PROGRAM STIRS AMONG OTHER STATES
IS EXPLAINED BY ITS MAGNITUDE.  THE POWER COMMISSION IN ITS PETITION
HERE NOTES FORTY-THREE PENDING CASES IN WHICH IT TAKES THIS SAME
POSITION VIS-A-VIS STATE REGULATION. 

IT APPEARS THAT THE PRESENT PARTICULAR ISSUE ARISES BECAUSE THE
COMMISSION HAS THEORIES OF ACCOUNTING DIFFERENT FROM THOSE THE STATE
HAS SEEN FIT TO ACCEPT.  THE FEDERAL COMMISSION HAS ORDERED EAST OHIO
TO CHANGE ITS ENTIRE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOR ALL OF ITS PROPERTIES AT A
VERY HEAVY COST.  THIS REQUIRES IT EITHER TO CONDUCT ITS ACCOUNTING
CONTRARY TO LAWS OF OHIO AND THE ORDERS OF THE STATE COMMISSION OR
PERHAPS TO KEEP TWO SETS OF BOOKS.  THIS IS A REAL CONFLICT IN WHICH
EXPERIENCE SHOWS STATE CONTROL WILL WITHER AWAY AND LEAVE THE FEDERAL
RULE IN POSSESSION OF THE FIELD.    THIS COURT CAN SUSTAIN SUCH
OVERLAPPING AND OVERRIDING OF THE STATE'S AUTHORITY ONLY BY REPUDIATING
ITS OWN RECENT STATEMENTS.  AFTER REVIEWING THE HISTORY OF THE NATURAL
GAS ACT, WE HAVE SAID THAT "CONGRESS MEANT TO CREATE A COMPREHENSIVE
SCHEME OF REGULATION WHICH WOULD BE COMPLEMENTARY IN ITS OPERATION TO
THAT OF THE STATES, WITHOUT ANY CONFUSION OF FUNCTIONS."  PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO., 317 U.S. 456, 467.  IN A LATER
CASE, QUOTING H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., WE SAID THAT
"THE BILL WAS DESIGNED TO TAKE 'NO AUTHORITY FROM STATE COMMISSIONS'
AND WAS 'SO DRAWN AS TO COMPLEMENT AND IN NO MANNER USURP STATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY.'"  FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO.,
320 U.S. 591, 610.  QUOTING THE SAME HOUSE REPORT, WE THEREAFTER
POINTED OUT THAT "THE 'BASIC PURPOSE' OF CONGRESS IN PASSING THE
NATURAL GAS ACT WAS 'TO OCCUPY THIS FIELD IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT
HAS HELD THAT THE STATES MAY NOT ACT.'"  INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 331 U.S. 682, 690.  AND ONLY LAST YEAR WE
OBSERVED THAT, "THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS DESIGNED TO SUPPLEMENT STATE
POWER AND TO PRODUCE A HARMONIOUS AND COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION OF THE
INDUSTRY.  NEITHER STATE NOR FEDERAL REGULATORY BODY WAS TO ENCROACH
UPON THE JURISDICTION OF THE OTHER."  FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. PANHANDLE
EASTERN PIPE LINE CO., 337 U.S. 498, 513. 

WHAT DEFINES THE POINT BEYOND WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL
NOT APPLY?  THE COURT SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS AN INHERENT LIMITATION ON
THE AFFIRMATIVE GRANT OF POWER WHICH WOULD RENDER SURPLUSAGE THE CLAUSE
IN SEC. 1(B) DENYING APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO "THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION
OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH DISTRIBUTION."  OR IT
MAY BE THIS EXCLUSIONARY CLAUSE ITSELF.  AT ANY RATE, THE COURT FINDS
THE DIVIDING LINE OF JURISDICTION TO BE DRAWN BY PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRANSMISSION LINES.  IT SEIZES UPON THE POINT
WHERE THE HIGH PRESSURE AT WHICH GAS IS TRANSMITTED ANY SUBSTANTIAL
DISTANCE IS REDUCED TO THE LOW PRESSURE AT WHICH IT MUST BE SERVED TO
CUSTOMERS' BURNERS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY SUPPLY LINES AS THE OUTER
LIMIT OF THE "LOCAL" AREA RESERVED TO THE STATES. 

RECOGNIZING THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL NATURAL GAS ACT OF JUNE 21,
1938, TO REGULATE ONLY THAT WHICH WAS UNREGULATED AND UNREGULATABLE BY
THE STATES, THE COURT ASSUMES THAT DECISIONS PRIOR TO ITS PASSAGE, "NOT
WHAT WE HAVE SINCE DECIDED OR WOULD DECIDE TODAY," FIX THE STATES'
POWER FOR THE PURPOSES OF MEASURING THAT OF THE COMMISSION.  THE COURT
HAS HERETOFORE FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT INTEND TO
FREEZE THE IMPACT OF ITS LEGISLATION WITHIN CURRENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE WHICH MAKES SUCH INTENTION UNMISTAKABLE. 
UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533.  BUT
TODAY IT MAKES NO EFFORT TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF SUCH AN INTENTION AND
HAD IT SEARCHED IT WOULD NOT HAVE FOUND IT.  CF. HELVERING V.
GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371; PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314 U.S. 244. 

TODAY'S ANOMALOUS RESULT WHEREBY THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN REGULATORY
POWER OVER THE INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES OF A GAS COMPANY OVER
WHOSE SALES IT ADMITTEDLY HAS NO JURISDICTION IS BASED UPON THE PREMISE
THAT PARAMOUNT IN CONGRESS' MIND IN DEALING WITH CASES PRIOR TO PASSAGE
OF THE ACT, WAS, NOT THE HOLDINGS OF APPLICABLE CASES RELATING TO
REGULATION, BUT THE PECULIARLY MECHANISTIC FORMULA EMPLOYED PRINCIPALLY
IN 1931 IN EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 283 U.S. 465, FN1  AS A
MEANS OF HOLDING THAT THE STATE OF OHIO COULD LEVY AN EXCISE TAX BASED
ON THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALES TO LOCAL CONSUMERS BY AN
INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY. 

I FIND NO CONVINCING INDICATION, EITHER IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT OR
IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT WE SHOULD BE
FOREVER BOUND, IN CONSTRUING THIS LEGISLATION, EITHER BY THE THEN
CURRENT DECISIONS AS TO LIMITATIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ON STATE
POWER, CF. UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., SUPRA, OR
BY THE THEN CURRENT CRITERIA OF WHAT SEPARATED LOCAL FROM NONLOCAL
FACILITIES.  THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THIS COURT IN 1931
WOULD HAVE HELD A GIVEN FACTUAL SITUATION WITHOUT THE AREA OF LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION AND BEYOND THE REACH OF STATE REGULATION, BUT WHETHER THIS
COURT TODAY CAN SAY THAT THE FEDERAL POWER CAN BE EXERTED BECAUSE THE
STATE POWER CANNOT BE EXERTED.  SO LONG AS WE PAY EVEN LIP SERVICE TO
CONGRESS' INTENTION TO LEAVE TO THE STATES THAT WHICH THEY CAN
REGULATE, WE CANNOT SATISFACTORILY BEG THIS QUESTION. 

BUT EVEN IF THE COURT IS TO SHIFT TO THE DOCTRINE THAT CONGRESS CASTS
ITS ACTS FOREVER IN THE MOLD MADE BY PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, THE
PRESSURE-REDUCTION STATION NOW RELIED UPON TO LIMIT "LOCAL" HAD LOST
ITS STANDING EVEN IN TAX CASES AND NEVER WAS ACCEPTED IN REGULATION
CASES.  IF CONGRESS WAS INTERESTED IN TAX CASE CRITERIA WHEN IT PASSED
THE NATURAL GAS ACT, IT MUST HAVE KNOWN OF THIS COURT'S DISDAINFUL
DISREGARD OF PRESSURE CHANGES IN FAVOR OF EMPHASIS ON THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN WHOLESALE AND RETAIL DISTRIBUTION LESS THAN HALF A YEAR AFTER
THE EAST OHIO TAX DECISION.  STATE TAX COMM'N V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS
CO., 284 U.S. 41.  FN2 

AND YET, ALTHOUGH THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND THE RECORDS OF
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES ON THE NATURAL GAS ACT MAY BE SCANNED IN VAIN FOR
ANY MENTION OF THIS PRESSURE-REDUCTION POINT, WE ARE NOW ASKED TO
BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS FIXED IT AS THE POINT WHERE STATE CONTROL SHOULD
END AND FEDERAL CONTROL SHOULD BEGIN.  WITH THIS APPROACH, TODAY'S
DECISION CONFINES THE STATES' REGULATORY POWER TO THE SERVICE AREA,
BOUNDED BY THE LOW-PRESSURE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, WHICH MEANS
PRACTICALLY WITHIN THE CITY GATES.  BY ITS EMPHASIS ON THIS PRESSURE
CHANGE THE COURT FINDS A PLAIN CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF COMMISSION
JURISDICTION OVER HIGH-PRESSURE PIPE LINES SUCH AS THOSE OF EAST OHIO. 
HOWEVER, THIS PRESSURE FACTOR IS ONE WHICH WE FOUND IMMATERIAL IN
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, SUPRA, 689, WHERE,
WITH RARE UNANIMITY, WE PUT OUR EMPHASIS UPON THE FACT OF SALE FOR
RESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT TODAY IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
RETAIL AND WHOLESALE OPERATIONS WHICH IS TERMED IMMATERIAL, SO LONG AS
THE FACTOR OF HIGH-PRESSURE PIPE LINES IS PRESENT. 

THIS SHIFT IN EMPHASIS RESTS UPON INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT WHICH ARE WHOLLY
INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE DRAWN IN OUR PRIOR DECISIONS EXAMINING THE
SUBJECT.  HERETOFORE WE HAVE BEEN CAREFUL CONSISTENTLY TO OBSERVE THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO OCCUPY THE ENTIRE FIELD WITHIN THE LIMITS
OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, AND UNTIL TODAY WE HAVE INSISTED THAT IN
EXTENDING FEDERAL REGULATION CONGRESS "WAS METICULOUS TO TAKE IN ONLY
TERRITORY WHICH THIS COURT HAD HELD THE STATES COULD NOT REACH." 
PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. COMM'N, 332 U.S. 507, 519.  WE SAID
ONLY TWO YEARS AGO IN THAT CASE THAT "BY 1938 THE COURT HAD DELINEATED
BROADLY BETWEEN THE AREA OF PERMISSIBLE STATE CONTROL AND THAT IN WHICH
THE STATES COULD NOT INTRUDE.  THE FORMER INCLUDED INTERSTATE DIRECT
SALES TO LOCAL CONSUMERS, AS EXEMPLIFIED IN PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 252 U.S. 23; THE LATTER, SERVICE INTERSTATE TO
LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES FOR RESALE, AS HELD IN MISSOURI V. KANSAS
GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, REINFORCED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V.
ATTLEBORO CO., 273 U.S. 83."  AND WE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE PURPOSE OF
THE LEGISLATION WAS TO MAKE STATE REGULATION EFFECTIVE "BY ADDING THE
WEIGHT OF FEDERAL REGULATION TO SUPPLEMENT AND REINFORCE IT IN THE GAP
CREATED BY THE PRIOR DECISIONS."  ID., PP. 514, 517.  AND SEE
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 331 U.S. 682, 689;
ALSO, FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 609,
QUOTING FROM ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S.
498, 506.  WE COULD HARDLY HAVE SAID MORE CLEARLY THAT THE "GAP" WAS IN
THE WHOLESALE REALM OF THE NATURAL-GAS INDUSTRY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

THE COURT'S OPINION PROFESSES TO ADHERE TO THESE STATEMENTS RELATING
TO THE GAP CONGRESS INTENDED TO CLOSE.  BUT IT FIRST WIDENS THE GAP,
SQUARELY UPON THE PREMISE THAT, UNDER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CALLED TO
CONGRESS' ATTENTION PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE ACT, THE STATE REGULATORY
POWER COULD NOT REACH TRANSMISSION LINES FOR INTERSTATE GAS OUTSIDE THE
POINT OF REDUCTION IN PRESSURE.  ACTUALLY, NO DECISION COULD HAVE BEEN
CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS, AND NONE IS OR CAN BE CITED TODAY,
IN WHICH THIS COURT HELD THAT ANY OF THE INTRASTATE TRANSMISSION LINES
OF ANY RETAIL GAS, ELECTRIC OR SIMILAR COMPANY, WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE
PRESSURE-REDUCTION POINT, WERE BEYOND THE STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY. 
NOR WAS THIS QUESTION EVEN AT ISSUE IN ANY CASE CITED BY THE COURT IN
SUPPORT OF ITS PREMISE.  THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT
CONSIDERED, HOWEVER.  QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, LESS THAN TWO MONTHS
BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, THIS COURT, THROUGH THE PEN OF
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, IN A CASE NOT CITED BY THE COURT, DECLARED
THAT SUCH TRANSMISSION LINES WERE PROPERLY WITHIN THE SPHERE OF STATE
RATE-MAKING POWERS.  LONE STAR GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 304 U.S. 224.  FN3
AND SO IF CONGRESS WERE CONSULTING THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT TO
DEFINE THE GAP IN STATE POWER, WHICH IT MUST FILL WITH THE COMMISSION'S
FUNCTION, IT FOUND THE LATEST, AND ALL BUT UNANIMOUS ONE, TO DECLARE
THAT NO GAP SUCH AS THE COURT PERCEIVES TODAY WAS THEN EXISTENT. 

ALTHOUGH THE SCOPE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS NOT LIMITED TO SALES OF
NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE, IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED
THAT, IF ANY ONE THING IS CLEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS
ACT, IT IS THAT CONGRESS' PARAMOUNT CONCERN WAS TO ESTABLISH REGULATION
OF SUCH PRICES.  FN4  AND IT MUST LIKEWISE BE RECOGNIZED THAT WHATEVER
OF OUR OLD DOCTRINES MAY HAVE BEEN FROZEN INTO THE ACT COULD NOT
INCLUDE THE POINT OF PRESSURE REDUCTION AND ENTRANCE INTO MUNICIPAL
LINES AS THE MEASURE OF STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, FOR NO SUCH
DOCTRINE CAN BE FOUND IN OUR CASES. 

THUS IT IS APPARENT THAT IN SELECTING THE POINT TO MARK EITHER THE
INHERENT LIMITATION IN THE ACT'S AFFIRMATIVE GRANT OF POWER TO THE
COMMISSION, OR THE COROLLARY LIMIT IMPOSED BY THE CLAUSE EXCLUDING
FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION, THE COURT HAS RESORTED TO
CRITERIA NEITHER SUPPORTABLE BY THIS COURT'S DECISIONS PRIOR TO THE ACT
NOR EVEN CLAIMED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ITS MOST RECENT DOCTRINES. 

BUT IF THE PRESSURE-REDUCTION POINT CANNOT BE RESURRECTED FROM THE
EAST OHIO TAX CASE TO BOUND THE FACILITIES USED IN THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHAT CRITERIA CAN
WE EMPLOY?  IT IS NOT AS THOUGH A SIMPLE, UNSOPHISTICATED ANSWER WERE
NOT AVAILABLE.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS THAT
INTRASTATE TRANSMISSION LINES OF A RETAIL GAS COMPANY DEVOTED
EXCLUSIVELY TO SERVING COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE STATE ARE FACILITIES USED
IN THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS AND ARE ACCORDINGLY EXCEPTED
FROM APPLICATION OF THE ACT.  FOR IT MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT IF
JUSTIFICATION FOR TODAY'S DECISION CANNOT BE FOUND IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE
ACT, IT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED BY RESORT TO THE LANGUAGE OF THOSE
JURISDICTIONAL.  IT SETS FORTH THE AREAS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT SHALL AND SHALL NOT APPLY.  ITS "BUT" CLAUSE WAS CONGRESS'
ASSURANCE TO THE STATE BODIES SPONSORING THE LEGISLATION THAT FEDERAL
CONTROL WOULD NOT EXTEND TO THE AREA WITHIN THEIR AUTHORITY.  CF.
CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S. 515,
527. 

THIS SIMPLE SOLUTION SQUARES NOT ONLY WITH MODERN STANDARDS, BUT ALSO
WITH THE APPROACH, IF IT IS TO BE ADOPTED, THAT CONGRESS IN PASSING
THIS ACT FROZE INTO LAW CURRENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS.  IT KEEPS FAITH
WITH THE STATES.  IT IS DECIDEDLY CONSISTENT WITH OUR RECENT
DECLARATION UNDER THE ALMOST IDENTICAL WORDS OF A SIMILAR ACT THAT
LIMITATION OF LOCAL FACILITIES WAS NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE EAST OHIO TAX
FORMULA, AND THAT EVEN THE TRANSMISSION LINES OF A STATE-WIDE SYSTEM
SUPPLYING ELECTRIC POWER TO CONSUMERS IN OVER A HUNDRED COMMUNITIES ARE
"FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION."  CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO.
V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, SUPRA. 

OF COURSE, THIS SOLUTION DOES NOT RENDER MEANINGLESS THE
"TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" TO WHICH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT APPLY.  FOR INSTANCE IT WOULD LOGICALLY ENOUGH
GIVE TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, UNDER THE ABOVE "TRANSPORTATION
CLAUSE," EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MAIN TRANSMISSION LINES OF A
RETAIL GAS COMPANY WHICH RAN THROUGH OHIO AND ON INTO NEW YORK; BUT IT
WOULD LEAVE TO OHIO EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER LATERAL LINES BRANCHING
OUT FROM THE MAIN TRUNK IN OHIO AND, WHETHER ONE OR ONE HUNDRED MILES
LONG, DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO DELIVERING GAS TO THE BURNER TIPS IN OHIO
COMMUNITIES.  SIMILARLY, UNDER THE HYPOTHESIS CONSTRUCTED IN THE
COURT'S OPINION, WHEREIN EAST OHIO IS PICTURED AS HAVING ITS OWN
TRANSMISSION LINES EXTENDING ALL THE WAY FROM TEXAS, IT WOULD GIVE
EXCLUSIVELY TO THE POWER COMMISSION JURISDICTION OVER THOSE LINES
BEYOND THE OHIO BORDER AS WELL AS OVER THOSE WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE
STATE NOT DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO SERVING OHIO CONSUMERS AT RETAIL. 
AGAIN, IT WOULD, QUITE OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE WORDS OF THE ACT, GIVE
EXCLUSIVELY TO THE POWER COMMISSION JURISDICTION OVER COMPANIES WHICH
MIGHT ACT IN THE NATURE OF COMMON CARRIERS TRANSPORTING GAS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR HIRE.  IN SHORT IT WOULD GIVE TO THE
TRANSPORTATION CLAUSE A MEANING WHICH, CONTRARY TO TODAY'S OPINION,
DOES NOT RENDER SURPLUSAGE THE "SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF NATURAL
GAS FOR RESALE" TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS ALSO APPLY.  FN5    WHAT THE
POWER COMMISSION ASKS THE COURT TO DO TODAY IS NOT TO FILL A GAP IN THE
STATE'S POWER TO REGULATE, FOR THERE IS NONE, BUT TO CREATE A GAP IN
ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR FEDERAL POWER. 

I CAN WELL UNDERSTAND THE ZEAL OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION TO
EXPAND ITS CONTROL OVER THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY.  IT SPRAWLS OVER MANY
STATES AND EACH SYSTEM MUST BE PHYSICALLY INTEGRATED FROM THE DEPTHS OF
THE WELLS TO THE CONSUMER'S BURNER TIPS.  ITS REGULATION CANNOT BE
UNIFORM IF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION CONTROLS ONLY A MIDDLE SEGMENT, WITH
PRODUCTION ON ONE END AND DISTRIBUTION ON THE OTHER COMMITTED TO THE
CONTROL OF DIFFERENT STATES.  BUT THAT WAS AS FAR AS CONGRESS WAS
WILLING TO SUPERSEDE STATE AUTHORITY.  IT LEFT THE PECULIAR PROBLEMS
AFFECTING PRODUCTION TO THE PRODUCING STATES, IT LEFT THE ULTIMATE
PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS TO THE CONSUMING STATES, AND IT LEFT THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IN THE MIDDLE TO FIX THE RATES FOR GAS MOVING
BETWEEN THE TWO.  THIS OBVIOUSLY SUBDIVIDES REGULATION OF WHAT HAS TO
OPERATE AS A UNITARY ENTERPRISE, BUT THAT IS OFTEN THE CONSEQUENCE OF
OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  WHATEVER WE MAY THINK WOULD BE WISE POLICY IN THIS
FIELD, THE ACT WHICH CONGRESS PASSED PLACES LIMITATIONS UPON THE POWER
COMMISSION, WHICH MAY CHAFE BUT WHICH NEITHER WE NOR THE COMMISSION ARE
FREE TO OVERRIDE.  IF THE COMMISSION HAD FORESHADOWED ITS PRESENT
COURSE, I DO NOT SUPPOSE THE ACT WOULD HAVE PASSED, FOR IT CERTAINLY
WOULD HAVE EVOKED RESISTANCE OF THE STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES INSTEAD
OF THEIR SUPPORT. 

CONGRESS MAY WELL HAVE BELIEVED THAT DIVERSITY OF EXPERIMENTATION IN
THE FIELD OF REGULATION HAS VALUES WHICH CENTRALIZATION AND UNIFORMITY
DESTROY.  AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SAID, "IT IS ONE OF THE HAPPY
INCIDENTS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM THAT A SINGLE COURAGEOUS STATE MAY, IF
ITS CITIZENS CHOOSE, SERVE AS A LABORATORY; AND TRY NOVEL SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC EXPERIMENTS WITHOUT RISK TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY."  NEW
STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262, 311.  LONG BEFORE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT COULD BE STIRRED TO REGULATE UTILITIES, COURAGEOUS STATES
TOOK THE INITIATIVE AND ALMOST THE WHOLE BODY OF UTILITY PRACTICE HAS
RESULTED FROM THEIR EXPERIENCES. 

WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT REGULATORY MEASURES ARE TEMPORARY EXPEDIENTS,
NOT ETERNAL VERITIES - IF INDEED THEY ARE VERITIES AT ALL.  CERTAINLY
ONE OF THE MATTERS ON WHICH THE STATES MIGHT WELL BE INDULGED - THE
RIGHT TO AN OPINION OF THEIR OWN - IS AS TO THE ACCOUNTING METHODS OF A
UTILITY WHOSE WHOLE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IS WITHIN
THE STATE.  OUT OF THEIR DIVERSITY OF PRACTICE AND EXPERIENCE EMERGE
PRAGMATIC TESTS.  WHAT THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION SEEKS TO REQUIRE OF
THIS OHIO GAS COMPANY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS TO REVERT BY ACCOUNTING METHODS
TO EMPHASIS ON ORIGINAL COST, A BASIS WHICH WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN FOR
AN EARLIER GENERATION OF PROGRESSIVES ELOQUENTLY URGED THIS COURT TO
REJECT IN THE FIELD OF RAILROAD RATE-MAKING.  SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S.
466.  SEE MR. BRYAN'S ARGUMENT, P. 489.  THAT IS A BASIS OF WHICH, LAST
MONTH, WE SAID IN ANOTHER CONNECTION, "ORIGINAL COST IS WELL TERMED THE
'FALSE STANDARD OF THE PAST' WHERE, AS HERE, PRESENT MARKET VALUE IN NO
WAY REFLECTS THAT COST."  UNITED STATES V. TORONTO NAVIGATION CO., 338
U.S. 396, 403.  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT CLOSER THAN ANY FEDERAL
AGENCY TO THOSE THEY REGULATE AND TO THEIR CUSTOMERS ARE THE STATE
AUTHORITIES, WHOSE MECHANISMS ARE LESS CUMBERSOME AND WHOSE PRINCIPLES
CAN MUCH MORE QUICKLY BE ADJUSTED TO THE CHANGING TIMES. 

WE SHOULD NOT UTILIZE THE CENTRALIZING POWERS OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY TO DESTROY DIVERSITIES BETWEEN STATES WHICH CONGRESS HAS BEEN
SCRUPULOUS TO PROTECT.  IF NOW AND THEN SOME STATE DOES NOT REGULATE
ITS UTILITIES ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL STANDARD, IT MAY BE A SMALL
PRICE TO PAY FOR PRESERVING THE STATE INITIATIVE WHICH GAVE US
UTILITIES REGULATION FAR IN ADVANCE OF FEDERAL INITIATIVE. 

I THINK THAT OBSERVANCE OF GOOD FAITH WITH THE STATES REQUIRES THAT
WE INTERPRET THIS ACT AS IT WAS REPRESENTED AT THE TIME THEY URGED ITS
ENACTMENT, AS ITS TERMS READ, AND AS WE HAVE, UNTIL TODAY, DECLARED IT,
VIZ. TO SUPPLEMENT BUT NOT TO SUPPLANT STATE REGULATION.  WHAT AMOUNTS
TO AN ENTRAPMENT OF THE STATE AGENCIES THAT SUPPORTED THIS ACT UNDER
THE REPRESENTATION THAT IT WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THEM OF POWERS BUT WOULD
ONLY MAKE THEIR POWERS EFFECTIVE WILL PROBABLY NOT MAKE IT EASIER TO
GET NEEDED REGULATORY LEGISLATION IN THE FUTURE. 

FN1  IN THE EAST OHIO TAX CASE THE REDUCTION OF PRESSURE AND
EXPANSION OF VOLUME OF THE GAS AT THE POINT OF ENTRANCE INTO LOCAL
SUPPLY MAINS WAS COMPARED TO THE BREAKING OF AN ORIGINAL PACKAGE AFTER
SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SO THAT ITS CONTENTS COULD BE TREATED,
PREPARED FOR SALE AND SOLD AT RETAIL. 

FN2  THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT CONCERNED THE POWER OF THE STATE
OF MISSISSIPPI TO TAX WHOLESALE OPERATIONS OF AN INTERSTATE PIPE-LINE
COMPANY.  CURTLY DISMISSING THE STATE'S ARGUMENTS RESTING ON THE FACT
THAT THE GAS PRESSURE HAD BEEN REDUCED BEFORE THE SALE FOR RESALE, THE
COURT HELD, AS SUCCINCTLY STATED IN THE HEADNOTE:  "THE SELLING OF GAS
WHOLESALE TO LOCAL, INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS FROM A SUPPLY PASSING INTO
AND THROUGH THE STATE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DOES NOT BECOME A LOCAL
AFFAIR AND SUBJECT TO A LOCAL PRIVILEGE TAX MERELY BECAUSE THE VENDOR,
TO DELIVER THE QUANTITIES SOLD, USES A THERMOMETER AND A METER AND
REDUCES THE PRESSURE."  IN ITS ARGUMENT TO THE COURT, 284 U.S. AT P.
42, THE STATE HAD PRESENTED THE ANALOGY OF PRESSURE REDUCTION TO THE
BREAKING OF AN ORIGINAL PACKAGE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CF.
NOTE 1, SUPRA.  STATE TAX COMM'N V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 284
U.S. 41. 

FN3  IN THE LONE STAR CASE THIS COURT EXAMINED THE VALIDITY OF AN
ORDER OF A TEXAS COMMISSION FIXING THE RATE TO BE CHARGED BY THE LONE
STAR COMPANY FOR GAS SOLD TO LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES AT THE GATES
OF NUMEROUS TEXAS COMMUNITIES.  MOST OF THE LONE STAR GAS WAS PIPED
FROM FIELDS IN THE TEXAS PANHANDLE, BUT ACROSS A SEGMENT OF OKLAHOMA. 
A SMALL AMOUNT WAS PRODUCED OR PURCHASED IN OKLAHOMA, PIPED INTO TEXAS,
TREATED, AND ADDED TO THE LOCAL SUPPLY.  THUS COMMINGLED BEYOND
SEPARATE RECOGNITION, BOTH TYPES OF GAS WERE CONDUCTED THROUGH HIGH
PRESSURE LINES AND SOLD TO THE VARIOUS RETAIL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES. 
BECAUSE OF THE INTERRELATED CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF LONE STAR AND THESE
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES, THE COURT TREATED THEM AS ONE OPERATING UNIT,
AND APPROVED THE STATE'S EXERCISE OF ITS RATE-MAKING POWER BASED UPON
VALUATION OF THE ENTIRE INTEGRATED SYSTEM. 

FN4  H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1-2, ADOPTED WITHOUT
CHANGE IN S. REP. NO. 1162, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1-2, SAID OF THE
PROPOSED BILL WHICH BECAME THE NATURAL GAS ACT:  "  ... THE STATES
HAVE, OF COURSE, FOR MANY YEARS REGULATED SALES OF NATURAL GAS TO
CONSUMERS IN INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS.  THE STATES HAVE ALSO BEEN ABLE
TO REGULATE SALES TO CONSUMERS EVEN THOUGH SUCH SALES ARE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SUCH SALES BEING CONSIDERED LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION.  (SEE
PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (1920), 252 U.S.
23.)  THERE IS NO INTENTION IN ENACTING THE PRESENT LEGISLATION TO
DISTURB THE STATES IN THEIR EXERCISE OF SUCH JURISDICTION.  HOWEVER, IN
THE CASE OF SALES FOR RESALE, OR SO-CALLED WHOLESALE SALES, IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FOR EXAMPLE, SALES BY PRODUCING COMPANIES TO
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES) THE LEGAL SITUATION IS DIFFERENT.  SUCH
TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE NOT LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND,
EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, NOT SUBJECT TO STATE
REGULATION.  (SEE MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO. (1924), 265 U.S. 298, AND
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELECTRIC CO. (1927) 273
U.S. 83.)  THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT LEGISLATION IS TO OCCUPY
THIS FIELD IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE STATES MAY NOT
ACT." 

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES ON THE BILL WERE SIMILARLY CONCERNED WITH THOSE
ASPECTS OF THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY OVER WHICH NO STATE REGULATORY
CONTROL EXISTED.  THESE DEBATES WERE LED, IN THE HOUSE, BY CHAIRMAN LEA
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND, IN THE
SENATE, BY CHAIRMAN WHEELER OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
IN HIS EXPLANATORY STATEMENT THE FORMER DECLARED, "THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
OF THE PENDING BILL IS TO PROVIDE FEDERAL REGULATION, IN THOSE CASES
WHERE THE STATE COMMISSIONS LACK AUTHORITY, UNDER THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE LAW.  THIS BILL TAKES NOTHING FROM THE STATE COMMISSIONS; THEY
RETAIN ALL THE STATE POWER THEY HAVE AT THE PRESENT TIME."  81 CONG.
REC. 6721.  AND HE ADDED LATER, "THE OBJECT OF THIS BILL IS TO SUPPLY
REGULATION IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE STATE COMMISSION HAS NO POWER TO
REGULATE."  IBID.  COMMITTEE MEMBER HALLECK ASSURED THE HOUSE THAT
"THIS BILL SEEKS ONLY TO REACH THOSE SALES WHERE THE SALE IS FOR RESALE
TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER."  ID., 6723.  AND IN THE SENATE, CHAIRMAN
WHEELER DECLARED: "THERE IS NO ATTEMPT AND CAN BE NO ATTEMPT UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL TO REGULATE ANYTHING IN THE FIELD EXCEPT WHERE
IT IS NOT REGULATED AT THE PRESENT TIME.  IT APPLIES ONLY AS TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ONLY TO THE WHOLESALE PRICE OF GAS."  81 CONG.
REC. 9313. 

NEITHER THE EAST OHIO CASE NOR ITS MECHANISTIC FORMULA WAS EMPHASIZED
OR EVEN ADVERTED TO IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS OR IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
DEBATES. 

FN5  THE SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION ALSO COMPORTS WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF
THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE REPORTS, H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 3, AND S. REP. NO. 1162, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3: 

"THAT PART OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION STATING THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT
APPLY TO 'THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS' IS SURPLUSAGE BY
REASON OF THE FACT THAT DISTRIBUTION IS MADE ONLY TO CONSUMERS IN
CONNECTION WITH SALES, AND SINCE NO JURISDICTION IS GIVEN TO THE
COMMISSION TO REGULATE SALES TO CONSUMERS THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE NO
AUTHORITY OVER DISTRIBUTION, WHETHER OR NOT LOCAL IN CHARACTER." 
..END :



SAVORGNAN V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 491 


NO. 48.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7-8, 1949.  - DECIDED JANUARY 9, 1950.  - 171
F.2D 155, AFFIRMED. 


IN 1940, PETITIONER, A NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO WAS A
COMPETENT ADULT WOMAN, VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY APPLIED FOR AND
OBTAINED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH
NATURALIZATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITALIAN LAW.  SHE WENT TO ITALY IN
1941 AND LIVED THERE WITH HER ITALIAN HUSBAND UNTIL 1945, WHEN SHE
RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES.  HELD:  SHE EXPATRIATED HERSELF UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES BY HER NATURALIZATION AS AN ITALIAN
CITIZEN FOLLOWED BY HER RESIDENCE ABROAD.  PP. 492-506. 

(A)  WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1907, THE
TERM "NATURALIZATION IN ANY FOREIGN STATE" INCLUDES NATURALIZATION
PROCEEDINGS WHICH LEAD TO CITIZENSHIP IN A FOREIGN STATE, EVEN THOUGH
SUCH PROCEEDINGS TAKE PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES.  P. 499. 

(B)  AFTER A COMPETENT ADULT AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS VOLUNTARILY AND
KNOWINGLY PERFORMED AN OVERT ACT WHICH SPELLS EXPATRIATION UNDER THE
WORDING OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1907, HE CANNOT PRESERVE OR REGAIN
HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BY SHOWING HIS INTENT OR UNDERSTANDING TO HAVE
BEEN CONTRARY TO THE USUAL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN ACT, SINCE
THOSE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE INTENTION OF THE
CITIZEN.  PP. 499-502. 

(C)  WHETHER THIS CASE BE GOVERNED AS TO FOREIGN RESIDENCE BY THE
NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 OR THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1907, THE FACT THAT,
FOLLOWING HER NATURALIZATION AS AN ITALIAN CITIZEN, PETITIONER ACTUALLY
RESIDED ABROAD (I.E., HAD A "PLACE OF GENERAL ABODE" THERE) FROM 1941
TO 1945 DEPRIVED HER OF HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
SHE INTENDED TO ABANDON HER RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES OR TO OBTAIN
A PERMANENT RESIDENCE ABROAD.  PP. 503-506. 

(D)  NO DECISION IS MADE ON THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER'S ITALIAN
NATURALIZATION IN 1940 WOULD HAVE DEPRIVED HER OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
HAD SHE NOT TAKEN UP HER RESIDENCE ABROAD.  PP. 502-503. 

(E)  PETITIONER'S SIGNING OF THE INSTRUMENT CONTAINING HER OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE TO THE KING OF ITALY WAS AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN
STATE WITHIN THE MEANINGS OF SEC. 2 OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1907 AND
SEC. 401(B) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, EVEN THOUGH NO CEREMONY OR
FORMAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH ACCOMPANIED HER SIGNATURE.  P. 496,
N. 5. 

SAVORGNAN V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT UNDER SEC. 503 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT.
1171, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 903, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED RESPONDENT A
JUDGMENT DECLARING HER TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.  73 F.SUPP.  109. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  171 F.2D 155.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 914.  AFFIRMED, P. 506. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, UNDER THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, A NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO BECAME AN ITALIAN CITIZEN IN
1940, AND LIVED IN ITALY WITH HER ITALIAN HUSBAND FROM 1941 TO 1945,
NEVERTHELESS RETAINED HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  FOR THE REASONS
HEREINAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT SHE DID NOT.  THE CONTROLLING STATUTES
ARE SEC. 2 OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1907, FN1 AND SECS. 401, 403 AND
104 OF ITS SUCCESSOR, THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940.  FN2 

THE PETITIONER, ROSETTE SORGE SAVORGNAN, BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN,
UNDER SEC. 503 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1171, 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 903, FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING HER TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.  THAT
COURT DECIDED IN HER FAVOR.  73 F.SUPP.  109.  THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDED
THE CASE WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES BECAUSE IT HAD NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED, AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS OPINION.  171
F.2D 155.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DECISION IN DETERMINING
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 914. 

INSOFAR AS MATERIAL, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS AND THOSE FOUND BY THE
DISTRICT COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

THE PETITIONER WAS BORN IN WISCONSIN IN 1915 OF NATIVEBORN PARENTS
AND RESIDED IN THE UNITED STATES UNTIL JULY, 1941.  IN MARCH, 1940, HER
INTENDED HUSBAND, ALESSANDRO SAVORGNAN, WAS AN ITALIAN CITIZEN, SERVING
AS ITALIAN VICE CONSUL AT ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.  HE INFORMED HER THAT,
UNDER ITALIAN LAW, SHE WOULD HAVE TO BECOME AN ITALIAN CITIZEN BEFORE
HE COULD OBTAIN THE NECESSARY ROYAL CONSENT TO THEIR MARRIAGE.  SHE
APPLIED FOR ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP.  HE PREPARED HER APPLICATION.  IT WAS
IN ITALIAN WHICH HE UNDERSTOOD, BUT WHICH SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND.  IN
AUGUST, THE PETITIONER WAS GRANTED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP.  IN NOVEMBER,
SHE APPEARED WITH SAVORGNAN AT THE ITALIAN CONSULATE IN CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS, AND, IN HIS PRESENCE, SIGNED AN INSTRUMENT WHICH CONTAINED AN
OATH, IN ITALIAN, EXPRESSLY RENOUNCING HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND
SWEARING HER ALLEGIANCE TO THE KING OF ITALY.  FN3  NO CEREMONY OR
FORMAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH ACCOMPANIED HER SIGNATURE AND
APPARENTLY NONE WAS REQUIRED.  SHE AND SAVORGNAN UNDERSTOOD THAT HER
SIGNING OF THIS INSTRUMENT HAD TO DO WITH HER CITIZENSHIP AND WITH
SECURING THE REQUIRED ROYAL CONSENT FOR SAVORGNAN TO MARRY HER, BUT HE
DID NOT TRANSLATE THE INSTRUMENT OR EXPLAIN ITS CONTENTS TO HER.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND AS A FACT THAT, AT THE TIME OF SIGNING EACH OF THE
DOCUMENTS MENTIONED, THE PETITIONER, ALTHOUGH INTENDING TO OBTAIN
ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP, HAD NO INTENTION OF ENDANGERING HER AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP OR OF RENOUNCING HER ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES. 

DECEMBER 26, 1940, THE PETITIONER AND SAVORGNAN WERE MARRIED.  IN
JULY, 1941, WHEN ITALIAN DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS WERE REQUIRED TO LEAVE
THE UNITED STATES, AN ITALIAN DIPLOMATIC PASSPORT WAS ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER, AND SHE EMBARKED FOR ITALY WITH HER HUSBAND.  SHE REMAINED
IN ITALY UNTIL NOVEMBER, 1945, EXCEPT FOR SIX MONTHS SPENT IN GERMANY. 
WHILE IN ITALY SHE LIVED WITH HER HUSBAND AND HIS FAMILY IN ROME, WHERE
HE WORKED IN THE ITALIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY.  IN NOVEMBER, 1945, SHE
RETURNED TO AMERICA ON AN ITALIAN DIPLOMATIC PASSPORT AND LATER
REQUESTED THE COMMISSIONER OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE TO CORRECT THE RECORDS OF HIS OFFICE TO SHOW THAT SHE WAS AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN AT THE TIME OF HER RETURN TO AMERICA.  THE REQUEST WAS
DENIED AND SHE INSTITUTED THE PRESENT PROCEEDING. 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF HER MAINTAINING, AT ANY TIME AFTER HER
MARRIAGE, A RESIDENCE, DWELLING PLACE OR PLACE OF GENERAL ABODE APART
FROM HER HUSBAND.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT, AT THE
TIMES OF SIGNING HER APPLICATION FOR ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP AND THE
INSTRUMENT CONTAINING HER OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE KING OF ITALY, SHE
DID NOT INTEND TO ESTABLISH A "PERMANENT RESIDENCE" IN ANY COUNTRY
OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES.  IT FOUND ALSO THAT WHEN SHE LEFT AMERICA
FOR ITALY, "SHE DID SO WITHOUT ANY INTENTION OF ESTABLISHING A
PERMANENT RESIDENCE ABROAD OR ABANDONING HER RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED
STATES, OR OF DIVESTING HERSELF OF HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP."  SEE 73
F.SUPP.  AT 110. 

WE THUS FACE TWO PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS: 

I. WHAT WAS THE EFFECT UPON THE PETITIONER'S AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP OF
HER APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP?  THE GOVERNMENT
CONTENDS THAT SHE THEREBY WAS NATURALIZED IN A FOREIGN STATE IN
CONFORMITY WITH ITS LAWS WITHIN THE MEANING OF EITHER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT
OF 1907 OR SEC. 401(A) OF THE ACT OF 1940.  FN4  IT CONTENDS FURTHER
THAT SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1907 DID NOT REQUIRE RESIDENCE ABROAD AS A
CONDITION OF EXPATRIATION, AND THAT SHE, THEREFORE, WAS, THEN AND
THERE, EFFECTIVELY EXPATRIATED UNDER THAT ACT, MERELY UPON BECOMING
NATURALIZED AS AN ITALIAN CITIZEN WHILE STILL REMAINING IN THE UNITED
STATES.  WE AGREE THAT SHE WAS THUS NATURALIZED, BUT WE DO NOT FIND IT
NECESSARY TO PASS UPON THE FURTHER CONTENTION THAT, BY OBTAINING SUCH
NATURALIZATION IN 1940, SHE THEN AND THERE EXPATRIATED HERSELF, AND
LOST HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT TAKING UP RESIDENCE ABROAD.  FN5 

II. WHAT WAS THE EFFECT UPON THE PETITIONER'S AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP OF
HER RESIDENCE IN ITALY FROM 1941 TO 1945?  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS
THAT, EVEN IF THE PETITIONER DID NOT LOSE HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, IN
1940, WHEN SHE BECAME A NATURALIZED ITALIAN CITIZEN, SHE LOST IT WHEN
SHE TOOK UP HER RESIDENCE IN ITALY.  WE AGREE.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS
THAT THIS EXPATRIATION WAS EFFECTED EITHER UNDER THE ACT OF 1940  FN6
OR UNDER THE ACT OF 1907 AS CONTINUED IN EFFECT BY A SAVING CLAUSE IN
THE ACT OF 1940.  FN7  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THESE
CONTENTIONS BECAUSE EACH LEADS TO THE SAME CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE. 

                                I.

          WHAT WAS THE EFFECT UPON THE PETITIONER'S AMERICAN

           CITIZENSHIP OF HER APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING

      ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP? 

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPATRIATION UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT
OF 1907 ARE OBJECTIVE.  FN8  THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT "ANY AMERICAN
CITIZEN SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXPATRIATED HIMSELF WHEN HE HAS BEEN
NATURALIZED IN ANY FOREIGN STATE IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS LAWS, OR WHEN
HE HAS TAKEN AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN STATE."  FN9 

TRADITIONALLY THE UNITED STATES HAS SUPPORTED THE RIGHT OF
EXPATRIATION AS A NATURAL AND INHERENT RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE.  FN10
DENIAL, RESTRICTION, IMPAIRMENT OR QUESTIONING OF THAT RIGHT WAS
DECLARED BY CONGRESS, IN 1868, TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF THIS GOVERNMENT.  FN11  FROM THE BEGINNING, ONE OF THE
MOST OBVIOUS AND EFFECTIVE FORMS OF EXPATRIATION HAS BEEN THAT OF
NATURALIZATION UNDER THE LAWS OF ANOTHER NATION.  HOWEVER, DUE TO THE
COMMON-LAW PROHIBITION OF EXPATRIATION WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE
SOVEREIGN, OUR COURTS HESITATED TO RECOGNIZE EXPATRIATION OF OUR
CITIZENS, EVEN BY FOREIGN NATURALIZATION, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT
OF OUR GOVERNMENT.  FN12  CONGRESS FINALLY GAVE ITS CONSENT UPON THE
SPECIFIC TERMS STATED IN THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1907 AND IN ITS
SUCCESSOR, THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940.  THOSE ACTS ARE TO BE READ IN
THE LIGHT OF THE DECLARATION OF POLICY FAVORING FREEDOM OF EXPATRIATION
WHICH STANDS UNREPEALED.  3 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
SECS. 242-250(1942). 

A. ONE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER IS THE NOVEL ONE THAT HER
NATURALIZATION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF
1907,  FN13  BECAUSE IT DID NOT TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A
FOREIGN STATE.  THE ANSWER IS THAT THE PHRASE IN SEC. 2 WHICH STATES
THAT "ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXPATRIATED HIMSELF
WHEN HE HAS BEEN NATURALIZED IN ANY FOREIGN STATE IN CONFORMITY WITH
ITS LAWS,  ..."  REFERS MERELY TO NATURALIZATION INTO THE CITIZENSHIP
OF ANY FOREIGN STATE.  IT DOES NOT REFER TO THE PLACE WHERE THE
NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING OCCURS.  THE MATTER IS EVEN MORE CLEARLY
DEALT WITH IN THE ACT OF 1940.  FN14  SECTION 401(A) THERE LISTS
"OBTAINING NATURALIZATION IN A FOREIGN STATE,  ...  " AS A MEANS OF
LOSING NATIONALITY.  SECTION 403(A) THEN STATES THAT EXPATRIATION SHALL
RESULT FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ACTS LISTED IN SEC. 401 "WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES  ...  " IF AND WHEN THE NATIONAL PERFORMING THEM
"THEREAFTER TAKES UP A RESIDENCE ABROAD."  THUS CONGRESS EXPRESSLY
RECOGNIZED THAT "NATURALIZATION IN A FOREIGN STATE" INCLUDED
NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED TO CITIZENSHIP IN A FOREIGN STATE,
BUT TOOK PLACE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. 

B. THE PETITIONER'S PRINCIPAL CONTENTION IS THAT SHE DID NOT INTEND
TO GIVE UP HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, ALTHOUGH SHE APPLIED FOR AND
ACCEPTED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP, AND THAT HER INTENT SHOULD PREVAIL. 
HOWEVER, THE ACTS UPON WHICH THE STATUTES EXPRESSLY CONDITION THE
CONSENT OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO THE EXPATRIATION OF ITS CITIZENS ARE
STATED OBJECTIVELY.  FN15  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE THAT THE EFFECT OF THE SPECIFIED OVERT ACTS, WHEN VOLUNTARILY
DONE, IS CONDITIONED UPON THE UNDISCLOSED INTENT OF THE PERSON DOING
THEM. 

THE UNITED STATES HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THE GENERAL UNDESIRABILITY OF
DUAL ALLEGIANCES.  SINCE 1795, CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED ANY ALIEN SEEKING
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP TO DECLARE "THAT HE DOTH ABSOLUTELY AND ENTIRELY
RENOUNCE AND ABJURE ALL ALLEGIANCE AND FIDELITY TO EVERY FOREIGN
PRINCE, POTENTATE, STATE OR SOVEREIGNTY WHATEVER, AND PARTICULARLY BY
NAME, THE PRINCE, POTENTATE, STATE OR SOVEREIGNTY, WHEREOF HE WAS
BEFORE A CITIZEN OR SUBJECT; ...  "  1 STAT. 414, SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC.
735(A).  FN16  TEMPORARY OR LIMITED DUALITY OF CITIZENSHIP HAS ARISEN
INEVITABLY FROM DIFFERENCES IN THE LAWS OF THE RESPECTIVE NATIONS AS TO
WHEN NATURALIZATION AND EXPATRIATION SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.  THERE IS
NOTHING, HOWEVER, IN THE ACT OF 1907 THAT IMPLIES A CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT THAT, AFTER AN AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS PERFORMED AN OVERT ACT WHICH
SPELLS EXPATRIATION UNDER THE WORDING OF THE STATUTE, HE, NEVERTHELESS,
CAN PRESERVE FOR HIMSELF A DUALITY OF CITIZENSHIP BY SHOWING HIS INTENT
OR UNDERSTANDING TO HAVE BEEN CONTRARY TO THE USUAL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
OF SUCH AN ACT.  FN17 

THIS COURT, IN INTERPRETING SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF 1907 AS IT EXISTED
FROM 1907 TO 1922, HAS PASSED UPON SUBSTANTIALLY THIS QUESTION. 
FOREIGNER SHALL TAKE THE NATIONALITY OF HER HUSBAND."  34 STAT. 1228,
REPEALED IN 42 STAT. 1022.  WHILE THAT PROVISION WAS IN EFFECT, A WOMAN
WHO WAS A NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES MARRIED A SUBJECT OF
GREAT BRITAIN RESIDING IN CALIFORNIA.  THE WOMAN HAD NOT INTENDED TO
GIVE UP HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  ON BEING ADVISED THAT SHE HAD DONE
SO, SHE SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE LOCAL BOARD OF
ELECTIONS TO REGISTER HER AS A VOTER AND SHE SHOWED THAT SHE HAD THE
NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION, PROVIDED SHE ESTABLISHED HER
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  THE COURT HELD THAT, DURING HER COVERTURE, HER
EXPATRIATION WAS BINDING UPON HER AS THE STATUTORY CONSEQUENCE OF HER
MARRIAGE TO A FOREIGNER IN SPITE OF HER CONTRARY INTENT AND
UNDERSTANDING AS TO HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  SHE ACCORDINGLY WAS
DENIED RELIEF.  MACKENZIE V. HARE, 239 U.S. 299.  SEE ALSO, EX PARTE
GRIFFIN, 237 F. 445(N.D.N.Y.).  CF. PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325. 

THE PETITIONER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, WAS A COMPETENT ADULT.  SHE
VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY SOUGHT AND OBTAINED ITALIAN CITIZENSHIP. 
FN18  HER APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION AND HER OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
WERE IN ITALIAN, WHICH SHE DID NOT UNDERSTAND, BUT SAVORGNAN DID
UNDERSTAND ITALIAN, AND HE WAS WITH HER AND ABLE TO TRANSLATE AND
EXPLAIN THEM TO HER WHEN SHE SIGNED THEM.  SHE KNEW THAT THE
INSTRUMENTS RELATED TO HER CITIZENSHIP AND THAT HER SIGNATURE OF THEM
WAS AN IMPORTANT CONDITION UPON WHICH HER MARRIAGE DEPENDED.  SHE THUS
WAS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR UNDERSTANDING THEM AS IF THEY HAD BEEN IN
ENGLISH.  ON THAT BASIS, SHE WAS MARRIED.  WHATEVER THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE ACTS MAY BE, SHE IS BOUND BY THEM. 

C. THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS VIGOROUSLY THAT THE PETITIONER'S ITALIAN
NATURALIZATION, IN 1940, THEN AND THERE EXPATRIATED HER.  IT CONTENDS
THAT THIS PROVIDES SUFFICIENT BASIS, UNDER THE ACT OF 1907, TO AFFIRM
THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
PETITIONER'S SUBSEQUENT RESIDENCE ABROAD.  WHILE RECOGNIZING THE FORCE
OF THIS ALTERNATIVE GROUND FOR AFFIRMANCE, WE DO NOT REST OUR DECISION
UPON IT.  IT IS, HOWEVER, ENTITLED TO BE NOTED.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
ARGUMENT IS THAT, WHILE RESIDENCE ABROAD MAY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED BEFORE
THE ACT OF 1907 AND IS NOW EXPRESSLY REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF 1940, IT
WAS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT OF 1907.  SEE MACKENZIE V. HARE, 239
U.S. 299.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES, HOWEVER, THAT, AT LEAST SINCE 1933,
THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS CONSIDERED RESIDENCE ABROAD TO BE A NECESSARY
ELEMENT OF EXPATRIATION.  3 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
SECS. 242-250(1942).  IN OUR VIEW, THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE ABROAD
FROM 1941 TO 1945 MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE, IN THIS CASE, WHAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN HER STATUS IF SHE HAD NOT TAKEN UP HER RESIDENCE
ABROAD.  WE ACCORDINGLY DO NOT DO SO.
II.         WHAT WAS THE EFFECT UPON THE PETITIONER'S AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP

 OF HER RESIDENCE IN ITALY FROM 1941 TO 1945? 

A. THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, INCLUDING ITS REPEAL OF SEC. 2 OF THE
CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1907, TOOK EFFECT JANUARY 13, 1941.  FN19  THE
PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE ABROAD BEGAN AFTER THAT DATE.  IT IS CONTENDED
THAT THE EFFECT OF SUCH RESIDENCE MAY BE DETERMINED EITHER BY THE TERMS
OF THE ACT OF 1940, OR BY THOSE OF THE ACT OF 1907 CONTINUED IN FORCE
BY A SAVING CLAUSE IN THE ACT OF 1940.  FN20  WE FIND, HOWEVER, THAT
THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE AND HER NATURALIZATION HAVE THE SAME EFFECT
WHETHER OR NOT RESORT IS HAD TO THE SAVING CLAUSE.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
NOT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE HERE WHETHER THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE AND
NATURALIZATION ARE TO BE TESTED UNDER THE SAVING CLAUSE OR UNDER THE
REST OF THE ACT OF 1940.  FN21 

B. THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE ABROAD MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT
OF 1940.  SECTIONS 403(A) AND 104 USED THE TERMS "RESIDENCE" AND "PLACE
OF GENERAL ABODE" WITHOUT MENTION OF THE INTENT OF THE PERSON
CONCERNED.  FN22 THE ACT CLEARED UP THE UNCERTAINTIES WHICH HAD BEEN
LEFT BY EARLY DECISIONS AS TO THE TYPE AND AMOUNT, IF ANY, OF RESIDENCE
ABROAD THAT WAS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH EXPATRIATION N23.  IN CONTRAST TO
SUCH TERMS AS:  "TEMPORARY RESIDENCE," "DOMICILE," "REMOVAL, WITH HIS
FAMILY AND EFFECTS," "ABSOLUTE REMOVAL" OR "PERMANENT RESIDENCE," THE
NEW ACT USED THE TERM "RESIDENCE" AS PLAINLY AS POSSIBLE TO DENOTE AN
OBJECTIVE FACT.  FN24  TO IDENTIFY THE REQUIRED "PLACE OF RESIDENCE,"
IT REQUIRED ONLY THAT IT BE THE "PLACE OF GENERAL ABODE."  CONFIRMATION
OF THIS INTENDED SIMPLIFICATION APPEARS IN THE REPORT ON REVISION AND
CODIFICATION OF THE NATIONALITY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, SUBMITTED BY
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF LABOR TO
CONGRESS ON THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940: 

"DEFINITIONS OF 'RESIDENCE' FREQUENTLY INCLUDE THE ELEMENT OF INTENT
AS TO THE FUTURE PLACE OF ABODE.  HOWEVER, IN SECTION 104 HEREOF NO
MENTION IS MADE OF INTENT, AND THE ACTUAL 'PLACE OF GENERAL ABODE' IS
THE SOLE TEST FOR DETERMINING RESIDENCE.  THE WORDS 'PLACE OF GENERAL
ABODE,' WHICH ARE TAKEN FROM THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 2 OF THE
CITIZENSHIP ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907(34 STAT. 1228), SEEM TO SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES.  THEY RELATE TO THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING PLACE OF A PERSON." 
FN25 

THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT FIND THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO TAKE UP
AN ACTUAL RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF GENERAL ABODE ABROAD.  IT FOUND MERELY
THAT IN "JULY 1941 WHEN SHE LEFT THIS COUNTRY FOR ITALY SHE DID SO
WITHOUT ANY INTENTION OF ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT RESIDENCE ABROAD OR
ABANDONING HER RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES,  ...  "  SEE 73 F.SUPP. 
AT 110.  UNDER THE ACT OF 1940, THE ISSUE IS NOT WHAT HER INTENT WAS ON
LEAVING THE UNITED STATES, NOR WHETHER, AT ANY LATER TIME, IT WAS HER
INTENT TO HAVE A PERMANENT RESIDENCE ABROAD OR TO HAVE A RESIDENCE IN
THE UNITED STATES.  THE ISSUE IS ONLY WHETHER SHE DID, AT ANY TIME
BETWEEN JULY, 1941, AND NOVEMBER, 1945, IN FACT "RESIDE" ABROAD.  THE
TEST OF SUCH "RESIDENCE" IS WHETHER, AT ANY TIME DURING THAT PERIOD,
SHE DID, IN FACT, HAVE A "PRINCIPAL DWELLING PLACE" OR "PLACE OF
GENERAL ABODE" ABROAD.  SHE TESTIFIED THAT, FROM 1941 TO 1945, SHE
LIVED WITH HER HUSBAND AND HIS FAMILY IN ROME, EXCEPT FOR SIX MONTHS'
INTERNMENT IN SALZBURG, GERMANY.  WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN HER REASONS,
WISHES OR INTENT, HER PRINCIPAL DWELLING PLACE WAS IN FACT WITH HER
HUSBAND IN ROME WHERE HE WAS SERVING IN HIS FOREIGN MINISTRY.  HER
INTENT AS TO HER "DOMICILE" OR AS TO HER "PERMANENT RESIDENCE," AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM HER ACTUAL "RESIDENCE," "PRINCIPAL DWELLING PLACE,"
AND "PLACE OF ABODE," IS NOT MATERIAL.  SHE EXPATRIATED HERSELF UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES BY HER NATURALIZATION AS AN ITALIAN
CITIZEN FOLLOWED BY HER RESIDENCE ABROAD.  FN26 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ACCORDINGLY, IS AFFIRMED, AND
THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS
THE PETITION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR
OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  2.  THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE
EXPATRIATED HIMSELF WHEN HE HAS BEEN NATURALIZED IN ANY FOREIGN STATE
IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS LAWS, OR WHEN HE HAS TAKEN AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
TO ANY FOREIGN STATE. 

"WHEN ANY NATURALIZED CITIZEN SHALL HAVE RESIDED FOR TWO YEARS IN THE
FOREIGN STATE FROM WHICH HE CAME, OR FOR FIVE YEARS IN ANY OTHER
FOREIGN STATE IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT HE HAS CEASED TO BE AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN, AND THE PLACE OF HIS GENERAL ABODE SHALL BE DEEMED HIS PLACE
OF RESIDENCE DURING SAID YEARS:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
PRESUMPTION MAY BE OVERCOME ON THE PRESENTATION OF SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE TO A DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES,
UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE MAY
PRESCRIBE:  AND PROVIDED ALSO, THAT NO AMERICAN CITIZEN SHALL BE
ALLOWED TO EXPATRIATE HIMSELF WHEN THIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR."  34 STAT.
1228, 8 U.S.C. (1934 ED.)  SEC.  17. 

FN2  "SEC.  401.  A PERSON WHO IS A NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
WHETHER BY BIRTH OR NATURALIZATION, SHALL LOSE HIS NATIONALITY BY: 

"(A)  OBTAINING NATURALIZATION IN A FOREIGN STATE, EITHER UPON HIS
OWN APPLICATION OR THROUGH THE NATURALIZATION OF A PARENT HAVING LEGAL
CUSTODY OF SUCH PERSON:  ...  OR 

"(B)  TAKING AN OATH OR MAKING AN AFFIRMATION OR OTHER FORMAL
DECLARATION OF ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN STATE; ...."  54 STAT. 1168
1169, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 801(A) AND (B). 

"SEC. 403.  (A)  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTIONS (G), (H), AND (I)
OF SECTION 401, NO NATIONAL CAN EXPATRIATE HIMSELF, OR BE EXPATRIATED,
UNDER THIS SECTION (*) WHILE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OF ITS
OUTLYING POSSESSIONS, BUT EXPATRIATION SHALL RESULT FROM THE
PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OF ITS OUTLYING POSSESSIONS
OF ANY OF THE ACTS OR THE FULFILLMENT OF ANY OF THE CONDITIONS
SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION (*) IF AND WHEN THE NATIONAL THEREAFTER TAKES
UP A RESIDENCE ABROAD."  58 STAT. 677, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 803(A). 

*THE WORDS "THIS SECTION" AS USED IN SEC. 403 REFER TO SEC. 401. 
THIS NOT ONLY IS EVIDENT FROM THE CONTEXT BUT A READY EXPLANATION
APPEARS FROM THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 403 ORIGINALLY APPEARED
AS A PROVISO IN SEC. 401(H) OF H.R. 6127, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1940).  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 6127, SUPERSEDED BY H.R. 9980, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 25(1940).  H.R. 9980 BECAME THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940. 

"SEC. 104.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 201, 307(B), 403, 404, 405,
406, AND 407 OF THIS ACT, THE PLACE OF GENERAL ABODE SHALL BE DEEMED
THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE."  54 STAT. 1138, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 504. 

FN3  A TRANSLATION SHOWS THAT THIS INSTRUMENT INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT: 

"THE PERSON IN QUESTION (ROSETTA ANDRUS SORGE, WHO, AS ROSETTE SORGE
SAVORGNAN, LATER BECAME THE PETITIONER IN THE INSTANT CASE), HAVING
BEEN REQUESTED TO TAKE AN OATH  ...  PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING WORDS: 

"'I, ROSETTA ANDRUS SORGE, BORN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, DECLARE I
RENOUNCE AND IN TRUTH DO RENOUNCE MY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, AND SWEAR TO
BE FAITHFUL TO H.M. THE KING OF ITALY AND ALBANIA, EMPEROR OF ETHIOPIA,
TO HIS ROYAL SUCCESSORS, AND TO LOYALLY OBSERVE THE STATUTES AND OTHER
LAWS OF THE KINGDOM OF ITALY.'" 

FN4  SEE NOTES 1 AND 2, SUPRA. 

FN5  THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER CLAIMS THAT THE PETITIONER'S SIGNING OF
THE INSTRUMENT CONTAINING HER OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE KING OF ITALY
WAS AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN STATE WITHIN THE MEANINGS OF
SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1907, AND OF SEC. 401(B) OF THE ACT OF 1940.  WE
AGREE. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN7  SECTION 347(A) OF THE ACT OF 1940 IS SET OUT IN FULL IN NOTE 20,
INFRA. 

FN8  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPATRIATION UNDER
SECS. 401(A) AND (B) AND 403(A) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940.  SEE
NOTES 1 AND 2, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO, BAUER V. CLARK, 161 F.2D 397 (C.A.7TH
CIR.); REYNOLDS V. HASKINS, 8 F.2D 473(C.A.8TH CIR.); UNITED STATES EX
REL. DE CICCO V. LONGO, 46 F.SUPP.  170(CONN.); UNITED STATES EX REL.
WRONA V. KARNUTH, 14 F.SUPP.  770(W.D. N.Y.). 

FN9  FOR FULL TEXT, SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN10  THE SANTISSIMA TRINIDAD, 7 WHEAT.  283; MURRAY V. THE CHARMING
BETSY, 2 CRANCH 64; CASE OF ISAAC WILLIAMS, OPINION OF ELLSWORTH, C.J.,
SEE 2 CRANCH 82-83, N.; TALBOT V. JANSON, 3 DALL.  133; EX PARTE
GRIFFIN, 237 F. 445(N.D.N.Y.); COMITIS V. PARKERSON, 56 F. 556(C.C.E.D.
LA.); 14 OP. ATTY. GEN. 295(1872-1874); 8 OP. ATTY. GEN. 139(1856
1857). 

FN11  "WHEREAS THE RIGHT OF EXPATRIATION IS A NATURAL AND INHERENT
RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE, INDISPENSABLE TO THE ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS; AND WHEREAS IN THE
RECOGNITION OF THIS PRINCIPLE THIS GOVERNMENT HAS FREELY RECEIVED
EMIGRANTS FROM ALL NATIONS, AND INVESTED THEM WITH THE RIGHTS OF
CITIZENSHIP; AND WHEREAS IT IS CLAIMED THAT SUCH AMERICAN CITIZENS,
WITH THEIR DESCENDENTS, ARE SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN STATES, OWING
ALLEGIANCE TO THE GOVERNMENTS THEREOF; AND WHEREAS IT IS NECESSARY TO
THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC PEACE THAT THIS CLAIM OF FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE
SHOULD BE PROMPTLY AND FINALLY DISAVOWED:  THEREFORE, 

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT ANY DECLARATION,
INSTRUCTION, OPINION, ORDER, OR DECISION OF ANY OFFICERS OF THIS
GOVERNMENT WHICH DENIES, RESTRICTS, IMPAIRS, OR QUESTIONS THE RIGHT OF
EXPATRIATION, IS HEREBY DECLARED INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF THIS GOVERNMENT."  15 STAT. 223-224, R.S. SEC. 1999, 8
U.S.C. SEC. 800. 

THE ABOVE LANGUAGE, WHEN ENACTED, WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ESPECIALLY TO
IMMIGRANTS INTO THE UNITED STATES.  IT SOUGHT TO EMPHASIZE THE NATURAL
AND INHERENT RIGHT OF SUCH PEOPLE TO EXPATRIATE THEMSELVES FROM THEIR
NATIVE NATIONALITIES.  IT SOUGHT ALSO TO SECURE FOR THEM FULL
RECOGNITION OF THEIR NEWLY ACQUIRED AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  THE LANGUAGE
IS ALSO BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER, AND DOES COVER, THE CORRESPONDING
NATURAL AND INHERENT RIGHT OF AMERICAN CITIZENS TO EXPATRIATE
THEMSELVES. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN16  THE PRESENT STATUTE REQUIRES AN OATH IN THE FOLLOWING FORM: 

"I HEREBY DECLARE, ON OATH, THAT I ABSOLUTELY AND ENTIRELY RENOUNCE
AND ABJURE ALL ALLEGIANCE AND FIDELITY TO ANY FOREIGN PRINCE,
POTENTATE, STATE, OR SOVEREIGNTY OF WHOM OR WHICH I HAVE HERETOFORE
BEEN A SUBJECT OR CITIZEN; THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST ALL
ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND
ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY WITHOUT
ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION:  SO HELP ME GOD.  IN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT WHEREOF I HAVE HEREUNTO AFFIXED MY SIGNATURE."  54 STAT.
1157, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 735(B). 

FN17  SEE 3 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW SECS. 243,
244(1942). 

THE CITIZENSHIP BOARD OF 1906, APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
PROPOSED THE EXPATRIATION PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1907, AND SAID IN
SUPPORT OF THEM: 

"IT IS TRUE THAT BECAUSE OF CONFLICTING LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF
CITIZENSHIP IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES A CHILD MAY BE BORN TO A DOUBLE
ALLEGIANCE; BUT NO MAN SHOULD BE PERMITTED DELIBERATELY TO PLACE
HIMSELF IN A POSITION WHERE HIS SERVICES MAY BE CLAIMED BY MORE THAN
ONE GOVERNMENT AND HIS ALLEGIANCE BE DUE TO MORE THAN ONE."  H.R. DOC.
NO. 326, 59TH CONG., 2D SESS. 23(1906-1907). 

SIMILARLY, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940
CONTAINS NO INTIMATION THAT SUBJECTIVE INTENT IS MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE
OF EXPATRIATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE NEW ACT ARE A RESTATEMENT OF THOSE IN SEC. 2
OF THE ACT OF 1907, AND OF THE HISTORIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
ON H.R. 6127, SUPERSEDED BY H.R. 9980, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 489,
408(1940). 

IN SEC. 401 OF THE ACT OF 1940, CONGRESS ADDED A NUMBER OF PER SE
ACTS OF EXPATRIATION.  THESE INCLUDED, AMONG OTHERS, ENTERING THE ARMED
FORCES OF A FOREIGN STATE, ACCEPTING OFFICE IN A FOREIGN STATE TO WHICH
ONLY NATIONALS OF SUCH STATE WERE ELIGIBLE, AND VOTING IN A POLITICAL
ELECTION OF A FOREIGN STATE.  LACK OF INTENT TO ABANDON AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP CERTAINLY COULD NOT OFFSET ANY OF THESE.  A FORTIORI A
MATURE CITIZEN WHO ACCEPTED NATURALIZATION INTO THE FULL CITIZENSHIP OF
A FOREIGN STATE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO HAVE
GREATER FREEDOM TO ESTABLISH DUALITY OF CITIZENSHIP. 

CONGRESS FOUND IT NECESSARY AFTER WORLD WAR I TO ENACT SPECIAL
LEGISLATION TO ASSIST MEN TO REGAIN THEIR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AFTER
THEY HAD EXPATRIATED THEMSELVES BY TAKING A FOREIGN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
REQUIRED TO PERMIT THEM TO ENLIST IN THE ARMIES OF CERTAIN FOREIGN
NATIONS.  40 STAT. 340, 542 ET SEQ. SEE 55 CONG. REC. 6935, 7665
7666(1917); S. REP. NO. 388, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS. 7-8(1917-1918); H.R.
REP. NO. 532, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS. 3-4(1917-1918); 56 CONG. REC. 6008
6009, 6011-6012(1917-1918).    FN18  "  ...  THE FORSAKING OF AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP, EVEN IN A DIFFICULT SITUATION, AS A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY,
WITH ATTEMPTED EXCUSE OF SUCH CONDUCT LATER WHEN CRASS MATERIAL
CONSIDERATIONS SUGGEST THAT COURSE, IS NOT DURESS."  DOREAU V.
MARSHALL, 170 F.2D 721, 724(C.A. 3D CIR.); BUT SEE, IN CASES OF REAL
DURESS, DOS REIS V. NICOLLS, 161 F.2D 860(C.A. 1ST CIR.); SCHIOLER V.
UNITED STATES, 75 F.SUPP.  353(N.D. ILL.); IN RE GOGAL, 75 F.SUPP. 
268(W.D. PA.). 

FN19  SEE SECS. 504, 601 OF THE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1172, 1174, 8
U.S.C. SECS. 904, 906.    FN20  IT IS APPARENT THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND TO LEAVE A GAP IN THE STATUTORY COVERAGE OF ACTS OF
EXPATRIATION. 

"SEC. 347.  (A)  NOTHING CONTAINED IN  ...  CHAPTER V (INCLUDING SEC.
504 WHICH EXPRESSLY REPEALED SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1907) OF THIS ACT,
UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED THEREIN, SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE
VALIDITY OF ANY DECLARATION OF INTENTION, PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION,
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION OR OF CITIZENSHIP, OR OTHER DOCUMENT OR
PROCEEDING WHICH SHALL BE VALID AT THE TIME THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT;
OR TO AFFECT ANY PROSECUTION, SUIT, ACTION, OR PROCEEDINGS, CIVIL OR
CRIMINAL, BROUGHT, OR ANY ACT, THING, OR MATTER, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL,
DONE OR EXISTING, AT THE TIME THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT; BUT AS TO ALL
SUCH PROSECUTIONS, SUITS, ACTIONS, PROCEEDINGS, ACTS, THINGS, OR
MATTERS, THE STATUTES OR PARTS OF STATUTES REPEALED BY THIS ACT, ARE
HEREBY CONTINUED IN FORCE AND EFFECT."  54 STAT. 1168, 8 U.S.C. SEC.
747(A). 

PROVIDED SHALL NOT TERMINATE NATIONALITY HERETOFORE LAWFULLY ACQUIRED,
NOR RESTORE NATIONALITY HERETOFORE LOST UNDER ANY LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES OR ANY TREATY TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY HAVE BEEN A
PARTY."  54 STAT. 1174, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 904. 

FN21  SECTION 403(A) OF THE ACT OF 1940(SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA) MAY APPLY
TO ANTECEDENT NATURALIZATIONS AND OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE, AS WELL AS TO
FUTURE ONES.  "A STATUTE IS NOT MADE RETROACTIVE MERELY BECAUSE IT
DRAWS UPON ANTECEDENT FACTS FOR ITS OPERATION."  COX V. HART, 260 U.S.
427, 435.  SEE ALSO, REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 443; UNITED
STATES V. BRADLEY, 83 F.2D 483(C.A.7TH CIR.); UNITED STATES EX REL.
ROJAK V. MARSHALL, 34 F.2D 219(W.D. PA.); 39 OP. ATTY. GEN. 474(1937
1940). 

FN22  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN23  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN24  WHERE "PERMANENT RESIDENCE" WAS INTENDED, THE STATUTE USED THAT
TERM.  E.G., SECS. 308 AND 407 OF THE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1143, 1170,
8 U.S.C. SECS. 708, 807. 

FN25  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 6127, SUPERSEDED BY H.R. 9980, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 417(1940). 

FN26  IF THE TEST IS TO BE MADE UNDER THE SAVING CLAUSE QUOTED IN
NOTE 20, SUPRA, THAT MAY MEAN THAT THE NEED AND CHARACTER OF HER
RESIDENCE ARE TO BE DETERMINED UNDER THE ACT OF 1907.  UNDER THE
CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NO RESIDENCE ABROAD WOULD BE
REQUIRED.  UNDER THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE SOME RESIDENCE
ABROAD WOULD BE REQUIRED.  3 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
SECS. 242-250(1942).  BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECS.
403(A) AND 104 OF THE ACT OF 1940 SUBSTANTIALLY REFLECT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THAT RESIDENCE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS, IS OF OPINION
THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE REINSTATED.  LAW OF
COURSE DETERMINES THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF CONDUCT.  BUT BOTH THE
CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1907 AND THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 RAISE ISSUES OF
FACT, AND THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWABLY FOUND THE FACTS IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER.  SINCE EXPATRIATION DOES NOT FOLLOW ON THE BASIS OF SUCH
FINDING, THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DISTURBED.  73 F.SUPP.  109. 
..END :

















ALCOA S.S. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 421 


NO. 271.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 19, 1949.  - 175
F.2D 661, AFFIRMED. 


GOVERNMENT PROPERTY WHICH WAS BEING CARRIED BY SEA UNDER A STANDARD
FORM GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING WAS LOST BY ENEMY ACTION BEFORE REACHING
ITS DESTINATION.  THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING PROVIDED THAT, "UNLESS
OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OR OTHERWISE STATED HEREON," THE
SHIPMENT WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE RULES AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO
COMMERCIAL SHIPMENTS; BUT PAYMENT WAS CONDITIONED ON PRESENTATION OF
THE BILL OF LADING "PROPERLY ACCOMPLISHED" AND OF A "FREIGHT VOUCHER
PREPARED ON THE AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT FORM."  A "GOODS OR VESSEL LOST
OR NOT LOST" PROVISION IN THE CARRIER'S COMMERCIAL BILL OF LADING WOULD
HAVE ENTITLED THE CARRIER TO PAYMENT OF THE FREIGHT HAD THE SHIPMENT
BEEN A COMMERCIAL ONE.  HELD:  THE TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF
LADING, CONSIDERED WITH PROVISIONS OF THE REQUIRED VOUCHER, WERE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE "GOODS OR VESSEL LOST OR NOT LOST" PROVISION, AND
THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE FREIGHT ON THE LOST PROPERTY. 
PP. 422-429. 

ALCOA STEAMSHIP CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, NOW 28
U.S.C. SEC. 1346, TO RECOVER A SUM ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DUE UNDER A
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
CLAIMANT.  80 F.SUPP.  158.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  175 F.2D
661.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  338 U.S. 813.  AFFIRMED, P. 429. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF AMERICAN MARITIME LAW THAT OCEAN CARRIER FREIGHT
CHARGES ARE NOT EARNED UNLESS AND UNTIL THE GOODS ARE DELIVERED TO
DESTINATION.  FN1  BUT CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING THE
SHIPPER'S LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL DELIVERY HAVE BEEN
UNIFORMLY HELD VALID,  FN2  AND HAVE BECOME COMMON STIPULATIONS IN
CARRIERS' BILLS OF LADING.  SHIPMENTS OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY ARE MADE
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE CARRIER'S USUAL CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE
UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT STANDARD FORM BILL OF LADING SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDES OTHERWISE.  FN3  AT BAR IS THE SINGLE QUESTION OF CONTRACT
INTERPRETATION WHETHER A CARRIER'S "GOODS OR VESSEL LOST OR NOT LOST"
PROVISION SURVIVES THE TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT STANDARD FORM BILL OF
LADING.  HAS THE GOVERNMENT BILL PROVIDED AGAINST LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT
CHARGES ON PUBLIC GOODS LOST AT SEA? 

ON JUNE 13, 1942, PETITIONER'S SHIP, S. S. GUNVOR, SHIPPED A CARGO OF
LUMBER AT MOBILE, ALABAMA, BOUND FOR TRINIDAD UNDER A GOVERNMENT FORM
BILL OF LADING.  ON HER FIRST DAY OUT SHE WAS TORPEDOED BY ENEMY
SUBMARINE.  SHIP AND CARGO WERE A TOTAL LOSS.  IN SPITE OF THE
CARRIER'S FAILURE TO DELIVER THE SHIPMENT, THE BILL OF LADING WAS
SURRENDERED TO IT, AND ITS CLAIM FOR FREIGHT ON THE LOST CARGO WAS PAID
BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1942.  ON AUDIT, HOWEVER, THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
FREIGHT HAD NOT BEEN EARNED, AND THE SUM WAS OFFSET AGAINST OTHER
CLAIMS ADMITTEDLY OWING TO PETITIONER.  PETITIONER INSTITUTED THIS SUIT
UNDER THE TUCKER ACT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TO RECOVER THE FREIGHT CLAIMED.  THE CASE
IN NO WAY CONCERNS LIABILITY FOR THE VALUE OF THE CARGO LOST. 
REVERSING THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT FOUND IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE STANDARD
GOVERNMENT FORM BILL OF LADING A "CAREFULLY DEVISED PLAN" TO PAY
FREIGHT CHARGES ONLY IF THE SHIPMENT ACTUALLY ARRIVES AT DESTINATION. 
FN4 WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE RAISED
HERE WILL GUIDE ADJUSTMENT OF A LARGE BODY OF SIMILAR CLAIMS NOW
PENDING.  338 U.S. 813. 

REVIEW OF EXISTING CASE LAW AND PREVAILING COMMERCIAL USAGE
RESPECTING THE EARNING OF FREIGHT PROVIDES NO ASSISTANCE IN SOLVING THE
NARROW PROBLEM RAISED BY THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT NOW BEFORE US.  FURTHER,
IN VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSION IN THE CASE, WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER WE
MAY PROPERLY CONSIDER THE GOVERNMENT'S EXTENSIVE ARGUMENT REGARDING
PAST ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, NOR RULE UPON ITS RELEVANCE OR WEIGHT. 
AS TO PETITIONER'S CITATION TO TWO INSTANCES WHERE, ALLEGEDLY, CLAIMS
SIMILAR TO THIS WERE HONORED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, WE AGREE WITH
THE COURT BELOW THAT A CASE OF CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE HAS
NOT BEEN MADE OUT, IF INDEED SUCH PRACTICE IS A RELEVANT
CONSIDERATION.  WE THEREFORE DEAL ONLY WITH THE BARE WORDS OF THE
CONTRACT. 

A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL SCHEME OF PAYMENT OF CARRIER CHARGES
UNDER THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING WILL FACILITATE DISCUSSION OF THE
NICETIES IN THE DRAFTSMANSHIP.  THE STANDARD FORM BILL OF LADING IS
FILLED OUT BY THE CONSIGNOR AT THE TIME OF SHIPMENT, SIGNED BY THE
CARRIER'S AGENT AND TRANSMITTED TO THE CONSIGNEE.  THE CONSIGNEE, UPON
RECEIPT OF THE GOODS SHIPPED, ENDORSES THE CONSIGNEE'S CERTIFICATE
PRINTED ON THE BILL AND HANDS THE BILL OVER TO THE CARRIER.  THE
CARRIER THEN SUBMITS TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY THE ENDORSED BILL AND A
STANDARD FORM GOVERNMENT VOUCHER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR THE
FREIGHT CHARGES.  SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS OF THIS DISBURSING
MACHINERY, THERE ARE PRINTED ON THE REVERSE OF THE BILL OF LADING
"GENERAL CONDITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS," CLEARLY REFERRED TO UPON THE
FACE OF THE BILL.  FN5 

"CONDITION 2" OF THE GOVERNMENT BILL PROVIDES THE INITIAL BASIS FOR
THE CONTROVERSY HERE: 

"UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OR OTHERWISE STATED HEREON,
THIS BILL OF LADING IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES AND CONDITIONS AS
GOVERN COMMERCIAL SHIPMENTS MADE ON THE USUAL FORMS PROVIDED THEREFOR
BY THE CARRIER." 

CLAUSE 6 OF PETITIONER'S BILL OF LADING PROVIDES THAT: 

"FULL FREIGHT TO DESTINATION  ...  AND ALL ADVANCE CHARGES AGAINST
THE GOODS ARE DUE AND PAYABLE ...  AS SOON AS THE GOODS ARE RECEIVED
FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSPORTATION; ...  GOODS OR VESSEL LOST OR NOT LOST
...  " 

IT IS THEREFORE CONCEDED BY ALL PARTIES THAT UNDER THESE TWO QUOTED
PROVISIONS, THE UNITED STATES IS OBLIGATED TO PAY FREIGHT ON THE LOST
GUNVOR CARGO UNLESS THE TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT BILL "SPECIFICALLY"
NEGATIVE THE CARRIER'S PROVISION.  WITH DUE REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLE OF
STRICT CONSTRUCTION AGAINST THE DRAFTSMAN OF A CONTRACT, WE HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT THE TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH PETITIONER'S CLAUSE 6, AND THAT THE UNITED STATES IS
NOT LIABLE FOR FREIGHT ON THIS LOST PUBLIC PROPERTY. 

OCCUPYING FIRST PLACE AMONG THE "CONDITIONS" TO THE BILL, AND CENTRAL
TO THE ISSUE HERE, IS THE PAYMENT PROVISION. 

"1.  PREPAYMENT OF CHARGES SHALL IN NO CASE BE DEMANDED BY CARRIER,
NOR SHALL COLLECTION BE MADE FROM CONSIGNEE.  ON PRESENTATION TO THE
OFFICE INDICATED ON THE FACE HEREOF OF THIS BILL OF LADING, PROPERLY
ACCOMPLISHED, ATTACHED TO FREIGHT VOUCHER PREPARED ON THE AUTHORIZED
GOVERNMENT FORM, PAYMENT WILL BE MADE  ...  " 

THE SIMPLE PROVISION AGAINST "PREPAYMENT" DOES NOT, WE THINK, FORCE
THE CONCLUSION THAT FREIGHT WILL BE PAID ONLY ON DELIVERED GOODS.  THIS
CLAUSE SEEMS TO US NOT TO FORBID ACCRUAL OF THE FREIGHT CHARGE
OBLIGATION IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERY, BUT ONLY TO PROHIBIT PAYMENT IN
ADVANCE.  FN6 BUT IT DOES SEEM CLEAR THAT THE SECOND SENTENCE OF
"CONDITION 1" EXPRESSLY CONDITIONS PAYMENT UPON SUBMISSION OF TWO
DOCUMENTS, THE BILL OF LADING "PROPERLY ACCOMPLISHED," AND A FREIGHT
VOUCHER PREPARED ON THE AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT FORM.  IF THE CARRIER IS
PUT ON EXPRESS NOTICE THAT FULFILLMENT OF EITHER OF THESE CONDITIONS
POSITS ACTUAL DELIVERY OF THE CARGO, PETITIONER'S "LOST OR NOT LOST"
PROVISION MUST BE HELD VITIATED.  IN FACT, BOTH SPECIFICALLY
CONTEMPLATE ACTUAL DELIVERY. 

I. 

IT IS PETITIONER'S CONSTRUCTION THAT THE BILL OF LADING CONDITION HAS
BEEN FULLY SATISFIED.  "ACCOMPLISHMENT" HE ARGUES TO BE A TECHNICAL
TERM OF ANCIENT USE IN THE LAW OF THE SEA SIGNIFYING NO MORE THAN
SURRENDER OF THE BILL TO THE CARRIER BY THE CONSIGNEE OR OTHER
AUTHORIZED HOLDER.  THIS MAY BE CONCEDED IMMEDIATELY, AND INDEED THE
GOVERNMENT BILL SEEMS TO IMPLY THIS USAGE WHERE THE TERM IS USED
ALONE.  BUT IN THIS ONE PROVISION ON THE BILL THE TERM IS NOT USED
ALONE.  PAYMENT IS NOT CONDITIONED UPON SUBMISSION OF AN "ACCOMPLISHED"
BILL OF LADING; THE BILL MUST BE "PROPERLY ACCOMPLISHED."  FN7  UNLESS
THE MODIFIER BE HELD TO MEAN NOTHING, IT CAN ONLY BE INFERRED THAT MORE
THAN BARE "ACCOMPLISHMENT" IS CONTEMPLATED.  THE REQUISITES TO A
"PROPERLY ACCOMPLISHED" BILL ARE SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH.  WE ITALICIZE
THE PERTINENT WORDS. 

REFERENCE TO "INSTRUCTION 2" INFORMS THE CARRIER THAT: 

"THE CONSIGNEE ON RECEIPT OF THE SHIPMENT WILL SIGN THE CONSIGNEE'S
CERTIFICATE ON THE ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING AND SURRENDER THE BILL OF
LADING TO THE LAST CARRIER.  THE BILL OF LADING THEN BECOMES THE
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH SETTLEMENT FOR THE SERVICE WILL BE MADE." 

THIS CONSIGNEE'S CERTIFICATE, PRINTED ON THE FACE OF THE BILL, IS
DENOMINATED A "CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY," AND IS INTRODUCED BY THE
WORDS: 

"I HAVE THIS DAY RECEIVED  ...  THE PUBLIC PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS
BILL OF LADING, IN APPARENT GOOD ORDER AND CONDITION, EXCEPT AS NOTED
ON THE REVERSE HEREOF." 

"CONDITION 6" RECITES THAT: 

"RECEIPT OF THE SHIPMENT IS MADE SUBJECT TO THE 'REPORT OF LOSS,
DAMAGE, OR SHRINKAGE' NOTED HEREON."  AND "INSTRUCTION 6" CALLS FOR
NOTATION OF ALL LOSS OR DAMAGE BEFORE ACCOMPLISHMENT IF POSSIBLE.  IN
SUM, "THE" EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE CARRIER MAY RELY FOR PAYMENT IS THE
"ACCOMPLISHED," OR SURRENDERED, BILL OF LADING, ACCOMPANIED BY THE
"CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY" SIGNED "ON RECEIPT OF THE SHIPMENT," WITH THE
"RECEIPT" SUBJECT TO THE LOSS OR DAMAGE REPORT. 

THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE SITUATION AT BAR ARE THOSE THAT COULD BE
ANTICIPATED FROM THE TERMS OF THE BILL.  THE CONSIGNEE'S CERTIFICATE OF
DELIVERY IS ENDORSED ONLY:  "S. S. 'GUNVOR' HAS BEEN LOST DUE TO ENEMY
ACTION.  ...  FOR THE ACTING DISTRICT ENGINEER (SIGNATURE ILLEGIBLE)
SUPERINTENDENT, AUGUST 8, 1942."  THE INDICATED SPACES ON THE FORM WERE
NOT FILLED IN, NOR WAS ANY ENTRY MADE IN THE "REPORT OF LOSS, DAMAGE,
OR SHRINKAGE."  WE DO NOT, OF COURSE, SUGGEST THAT THE PARTICULAR
ENTRIES MADE ON THIS BILL DETERMINE THE CONTRACTUAL ISSUE, BUT IT SEEMS
INESCAPABLE THAT THE ENTRY WAS MADE ENTIRELY FOR THE RECORD IN
EXPLANATION OF THE FAILURE OF THE LUMBER TO ARRIVE.  WITHOUT RECEIPT OF
THE GOODS, THE BILL WAS NOT, AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, FILLED IN UNDER
THE STRICT TERMS OF THE STANDARD FORM WHICH WE HAVE STRESSED, SO AS TO
BE "PROPERLY ACCOMPLISHED" FOR PURPOSES OF PAYMENT TO THE CARRIER. 

                          II. 

BY THE TERMS OF "CONDITION 1" OF THE BILL OF LADING, PAYMENT IS
FURTHER CONDITIONED UPON SUBMISSION OF THE AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT FORM
VOUCHER, A SEPARATE DOCUMENT N8.  ON THE REVERSE OF THIS VOUCHER FORM
ARE "INSTRUCTIONS TO CARRIERS," REFERRED TO ON THE FACE OF THE
VOUCHER.  IN THESE VOUCHER "INSTRUCTIONS" APPEARS IN UNEQUIVOCAL
LANGUAGE, STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION THAT IT SHALL NOT BE
HELD LIABLE FOR FREIGHT ON UNDELIVERED GOODS.  "INSTRUCTION 6" READS
EXPLICITLY: 

"PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION CHARGE WILL BE MADE ONLY FOR THE QUANTITY
OF STORES DELIVERED AT DESTINATION ...  "  FN9 

WE THINK OF BUT ONE ARGUMENT WHICH CAN BE ADVANCED AGAINST THE
CONCLUSIVENESS OF THIS CLAUSE.  "CONDITION 2" ON THE BILL OF LADING
INVOKES THE USUAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACT TERMS "UNLESS OTHERWISE
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OR OTHERWISE STATED HEREON"; IT IS ARGUABLE THAT
"HEREON" DOES NOT MEAN "THEREON," AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE CLEAR
PROVISION OF THE VOUCHER FORBIDDING PAYMENT FOR NON-DELIVERED GOODS
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED.  BUT, ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT THAT NO RELIANCE MAY
BE PLACED UPON THE FURTHER CONDITION THAT THE BILL OF LADING BE
"PROPERLY ACCOMPLISHED," THIS REASONING LEADS TO THE ANOMALOUS
CONCLUSION THAT (1) UNDER THE PIECE OF PAPER LABELED "BILL OF LADING"
FREIGHT IS "EARNED" THOUGH THE GOODS ARE NOT DELIVERED; BUT (2) PAYMENT
WILL BE MADE ONLY ON A VOUCHER, WHICH EXPRESSLY DENIES THE RIGHT TO
PAYMENT FOR UNDELIVERED GOODS.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION YIELDS AN ACCRUED
OBLIGATION, WITHOUT MEANS OF COLLECTION.  WE THINK IT MORE REASONABLE
TO ACCEPT THE AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE READING, AND HOLD THAT THE WORDS IN
"CONDITION 2" "OTHERWISE STATED HEREON" ARE SATISFIED BY THE EXPRESS
REFERENCE ON THE BILL TO THE STANDARD VOUCHER AND THE SPECIFIC
CONDITIONING OF PAYMENT UPON SUBMISSION OF THAT VOUCHER. 

TO HOLD PETITIONER TO THE TERMS OF THE VOUCHER COMPORTS WITH
PRACTICALITIES.  THE INTENT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO CONDITION PAYMENT UPON
DELIVERY WE THINK ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, AND THE BASIC QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE GOVERNMENT'S DRAFTSMANSHIP SUCCEEDS IN GIVING UNEQUIVOCAL NOTICE OF
THIS STIPULATION.  THE BILL EXPRESSLY SUMMONS ATTENTION TO THE VOUCHER;
THE PROVISION ON THE VOUCHER IS UNMISTAKABLE.  AN EXPERIENCED CARRIER
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNFAMILIAR WITH THE EXPRESS TERMS OF A DOCUMENT
WHICH IT USES REGULARLY, A PRESCRIBED DOCUMENT UPON WHICH EVERY CLAIM
AGAINST ONE OF ITS LARGEST CUSTOMERS MUST BE MADE. 

SINCE IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE BILL OF LADING'S SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
FOR PAYMENT CAN ONLY BE SATISFIED UPON DELIVERY OF THE SHIPMENT TO
DESTINATION, WE HOLD THE TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT BILL TO BE
INCONSISTENT WITH PETITIONER'S "GOODS OR VESSEL LOST OR NOT LOST"
PROVISION.  THE DECISION BELOW IS CORRECT, AND IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE, E.G., BRITTAN V. BARNABY, 21 HOW.  527, 533; CAZE & RICHAUD
V. BALTIMORE INS. CO., 7 CRANCH 358, 362; ROBINSON, ADMIRALTY, SEC.
82(1939); BORCHARD, THE EARNING OF FREIGHT ON UNCOMPLETED VOYAGES, 30
YALE L.J. 362(1921). 

FN2  E.G., INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V. THE GRACIE D. CHAMBERS, 248 U.S.
387; ALLANWILDE TRANSPORT CORP. V. VACUUM OIL CO., 248 U.S. 377. 

FN3  GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING, STANDARD FORM 1058, APPROVED BY THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL, AUGUST 24, 1928; 8 COMP. GEN. 698; "CONDITION 2"
QUOTED P. 424 INFRA. 

FN4  175 F.2D 661, 663. 

FN5  ALSO PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THE BILL ARE A SERIES OF
"ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIONS" AND A FORM FOR "REPORT OF LOSS, DAMAGE, OR
SHRINKAGE."    FN6  THE PROVISION WAS REQUIRED BY LAW.  FOR MORE THAN A
CENTURY IT HAD BEEN THE EXPRESSED LEGISLATIVE WILL THAT "NO ADVANCE OF
PUBLIC MONEY SHALL BE MADE IN ANY CASE WHATEVER  ...  "  3 STAT. 723. 
THE GOVERNMENT INTERPRETS A FURTHER PROVISION OF THIS STATUTE THAT "
...  PAYMENT SHALL NOT EXEED (EXCEED) THE VALUE OF THE SERVICE RENDERED
...  " TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AT BAR IN ITS FAVOR.  LIKE THE COURT
BELOW, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THIS CONTENTION. 

FN7  THE ONLY OTHER USE OF THE MODIFIER SIGNIFICANTLY APPEARS IN THE
PARALLEL PROVISION ON THE REVERSE OF THE VOUCHER.  VOUCHER INSTRUCTION
1 READS:  "PAYMENT  ...  WILL BE MADE  ...  UPON THIS VOUCHER FORM,
ACCOMPANIED BY THE CORRESPONDING BILLS OF LADING, PROPERLY RECEIPTED;
...."    FN8  STANDARD FORM 1068, APPROVED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL,
JUNE 26, 1931; 10 COMP. GEN. 588.  ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
FOR FREIGHT OR EXPRESS CHARGES MUST BE MADE UPON THIS STANDARD
VOUCHER. 

FN9  THE BALANCE OF THE SENTENCE IS NOT RELEVANT HERE.  IT READS: 

"...  EXCEPT THAT IN CASE OF LOSS OF WEIGHT FROM NATURAL SHRINKAGE EN
ROUTE AND WEIGHT SHIPPED, AS SHOWN BY THE BILL OF LADING, WILL BE PAID
FOR, PROVIDED PACKAGES ARE DELIVERED INTACT."  THE SYNTAX OF THIS
EXCEPTION CLAUSE IS DESTROYED BY THE CONJUNCTION IN ITALICS.  REFERENCE
TO THE OFFICIAL COPY AT 10 COMP. GEN. 589 SHOWS THAT "AND" IS A
PRINTER'S ERROR.  THE CORRECT WORD IS "THE". 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT ON THE GROUNDS
EXPRESSED BELOW IN THE OPINION OF JUDGE AUGUSTUS N. HAND.  175 F.2D
661, 663. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















CARTER V. ATLANTA & ST. A.B.R. CO., 338 U.S. 430 


NO. 23.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 19, 1949.  - 170
F.2D 719, REVERSED. 


IN THIS ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, BASED UPON A CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE AND A CHARGE OF
A VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT THROUGH THE FAILURE OF AN
AUTOMATIC COUPLER, HELD: 

1.  IT WAS ERROR TO TAKE FROM THE JURY THE PHASE OF THE CASE
INVOLVING THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, SINCE
THERE WAS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A JURY COULD FIND A CAUSAL RELATION
BETWEEN THE FAILURE OF THE COUPLER AND THE PLAINTIFF'S INJURY.  PP. 433
435. 

(A)  THE DUTY IMPOSED ON AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD BY THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT TO EQUIP CARS "WITH COUPLERS COUPLING AUTOMATICALLY BY
IMPACT" IS AN ABSOLUTE DUTY UNRELATED TO NEGLIGENCE, AND THE ABSENCE OF
A "DEFECT" CANNOT AID THE RAILROAD IF THE COUPLER WAS PROPERLY SET AND
FAILED TO COUPLE.  PP. 433-434. 

(B)  THE FACT THAT THE COUPLER FUNCTIONED PROPERLY ON OTHER OCCASIONS
IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 434. 

(C)  ONCE A VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT IS ESTABLISHED,
ONLY CAUSAL RELATION IS IN ISSUE, SINCE VIOLATION OF THAT ACT SUPPLIES
THE WRONGFUL ACT NECESSARY TO GROUND LIABILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, REGARDLESS OF NEGLIGENCE.  P. 434. 

(D)  IF THE JURY DETERMINES THAT DEFENDANT'S VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT IS "A CONTRIBUTORY PROXIMATE CAUSE" OF THE INJURY, IT MAY
FIND FOR PLAINTIFF.  P. 435. 

2.  IN AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT BASED ON
GENERAL NEGLIGENCE, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT BAR RECOVERY BUT
AFFECTS ONLY THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES RECOVERABLE; AND THE TRIAL COURT'S
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY ON THIS ISSUE IN THIS CASE WERE ERRONEOUS AND
WERE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PLAINTIFF.  PP. 435-437. 

CARTER V. ATLANTA & ST. ANDREWS BAY RAILWAY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THERE WAS A
VERDICT AGAINST PLAINTIFF UPON WHICH THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  170 F.2D 719. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 935.  REVERSED, P. 437. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS REQUIRE RAILROAD CARS USED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH COUPLERS COUPLING AUTOMATICALLY
BY IMPACT.  FN1  THIS CASE BRINGS BEFORE US FOR REVIEW ANOTHER ACTION
FOR DAMAGES BY A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS AND
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FN2  THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED
THE JURY THAT THERE COULD BE NO LIABILITY BASED ON ANY "DEFECT" IN THE
"AUTOMATIC COUPLING SYSTEM," BUT SUBMITTED THE CASE ON ISSUES OF
NEGLIGENCE.  THERE WAS A VERDICT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF UPON WHICH
JUDGMENT FOR THE RAILROAD WAS ENTERED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
170 F.2D 719.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSION WHICH HAS
DEVELOPED IN THE APPLICATION OF THE TWO STATUTES.  336 U.S. 935.  OUR
DUTY TO REVIEW CERTAIN CASES OF THIS NATURE IS SETTLED.  WILKERSON V.
MCCARTHY, 336 U.S. 53(1949); KEETON V. THOMPSON, 326 U.S. 689(1945);
ELLIS V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 329 U.S. 649(1947). 

ON FEBRUARY 2, 1946, THE PETITIONER WAS INJURED WHILE ACTING AS
"SWING MAN" OF A SWITCHING CREW ON THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD.  THE CREW
OF FIVE MEN WERE ENGAGED AT NIGHT IN SWITCHING OPERATIONS AT AND NEAR
THE INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY PLANT IN PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA.  THE
CONDUCTOR OF THE CREW HAD LAID OUT A PLAN FOR COUPLING TOGETHER A
NUMBER OF CARS, SOME OF WHICH WERE ON STORAGE TRACKS AND ONE ON THE
MAIN LINE.  THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE WAS TO SWITCH SOME WOOD RACK CARS
LOADED WITH PULPWOOD INTO THE WOOD YARD OF THE PAPER CONCERN.  IN THE
CONDUCTOR'S ABSENCE PETITIONER WAS IN CHARGE OF THE SWITCHING
OPERATIONS AND ATTEMPTED TO CARRY OUT THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN HIM. 

THE ENGINE, AFTER COUPLING IN FRONT OF IT A BOX CAR FOLLOWED BY EIGHT
FLAT CARS, WAS ENGAGED IN BACKING THE TRAIN OF CARS ONTO THE MAIN LINE,
IN ORDER TO COUPLE, AT THE END OF THE TRAIN, A LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
RAILROAD WOOD RACK CAR LOADED WITH PULPWOOD.  THE PETITIONER HAD
PREVIOUSLY SET THE BRAKE AND HAD OPENED BOTH LIPS OF THE COUPLER ON THE
L. & N. CAR PREPARATORY TO ATTACHING THE CAR TO THE TRAIN.  HE HAD
GIVEN THE FOOTBOARD MAN THE SLOW SIGNAL AHEAD FOR COUPLING, WHICH HAD
BEEN PASSED ON TO THE ENGINEER.  THE ENGINEER BROUGHT THE TRAIN FORWARD
AND HIT THE L. & N. CAR IN THE USUAL MANNER NECESSARY FOR COUPLING, BUT
INSTEAD OF COUPLING TO THE TRAIN THE L. & N. CAR STARTED ROLLING DOWN
THE TRACKS, WHICH WERE, AT THIS POINT, ON A DOWNGRADE. 

PETITIONER SAW THAT THE L. & N. CAR HAD NOT COUPLED AND RAN AFTER IT
FOR SOME FIFTY OR SIXTY FEET, CLIMBED TO THE BULKHEAD WHERE THE BRAKE
WHEEL WAS LOCATED, AND APPLIED THE HAND BRAKE TO STOP THE CAR.  HE WAS
ABLE TO BRING THE CAR TO A STOP ONLY AFTER IT HAD LEFT THE MAIN LINE
AND TRAVELED AROUND A CURVE FOR SOME SIX CAR LENGTHS.  LOOKING UP, HE
SAW THE TRAIN MOVING TOWARD HIM ABOUT TWENTY FEET AWAY AT A SPEED WHICH
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY PLACES AT A MAXIMUM OF FIFTEEN MILES PER HOUR TO
A MINIMUM OF TWO MILES PER HOUR.  PETITIONER GRABBED THE BRAKE WHEEL TO
BRACE HIMSELF, BUT THE TRAIN HIT THE L. & N. CAR SO VIOLENTLY THAT IT
THREW THE PETITIONER ABOUT SIX FEET DOWN INTO ITS HOLD.  THIS TIME THE
COUPLING WAS SUCCESSFUL, AND AS THE L. & N. CAR JERKED FROM THE IMPACT
SOME OF THE PULPWOOD LOADED IN THE CAR WAS PITCHED FORWARD ON THE
PETITIONER, CAUSING THE ALLEGED INJURIES. 

THE ENGINEER TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE L. & N. CAR
HAD SAFELY COUPLED AT THE FIRST IMPACT.  HE CONTENDED THAT AFTER THIS
IMPACT, HE RECEIVED THE COME-AHEAD SIGNAL FROM THE PETITIONER,
WHEREUPON HE MOVED THE TRAIN FORWARD AT ABOUT SIX MILES PER HOUR.  THE
TESTIMONY WAS IN SHARP CONFLICT WITH REFERENCE TO THIS SIGNAL, AS WELL
AS TO OTHER DETAILS OF THE INCIDENT. 

DEFENDANT MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AS TO THE FAILURE TO COUPLE ON
THE GROUND THAT WHILE THE COUPLER FAILED TO COUPLE ON THE INITIAL
IMPACT, "IT WORKED PREVIOUSLY AND WORKED SUBSEQUENTLY, AND THE PROOF
SHOWS NO DEFECT IN IT; AND UNDER THE FINDING IN WESTERN & ATLANTIC
RAILROAD COMPANY VS. GENTILE, 198 S.E. 257, THAT THIS RULE OF LAW IS
LAID DOWN  ...  THAT THE FAILURE OF COUPLERS TO COUPLE AUTOMATICALLY BY
IMPACT IS NOT PER SE A VIOLATION OF THIS ACT  ...  "  THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED THE MOTION, INSTRUCTING THE JURY "THAT THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE  ...  FROM WHICH YOU COULD PROPERLY FIND THERE
WAS DEFECT IN THIS  ...  AUTOMATIC COUPLING SYSTEM ON THAT CAR."  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON ANOTHER THEORY:  THAT THE FAILURE TO
COUPLE ON THE FIRST IMPACT "WAS THE REMOTE, NOT THE PROXIMATE, CAUSE OF
PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES." 

THE TRIAL COURT DID SUBMIT THE CAUSE ON THE MORE GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
ALLEGATIONS, AND ON THESE A VERDICT WAS RETURNED FOR THE RESPONDENT. 
BUT PETITIONER OBJECTS TO THOSE PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE
COVERING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ADMITTED THAT
STANDING ALONE, THE CHARGE "MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN PREJUDICIAL," BUT
STATED THAT HERE IT WAS "INCONSEQUENTIAL." 

IN THESE CONCLUSIONS THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR. 

FIRST.  SINCE 1893 THE CONGRESS HAS MADE IT UNLAWFUL FOR A RAILROAD
COMPANY SUCH AS RESPONDENT TO USE ANY CAR ON ITS LINE "NOT EQUIPPED
WITH COUPLERS COUPLING AUTOMATICALLY BY IMPACT."  THIS COURT HAS
REPEATEDLY ATTEMPTED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE DUTY
UNRELATED TO NEGLIGENCE, AND THAT THE ABSENCE OF A "DEFECT" CANNOT AID
THE RAILROAD IF THE COUPLER WAS PROPERLY SET  FN3  AND FAILED TO COUPLE
ON THE OCCASION IN QUESTION.  SEE O'DONNELL V. ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN
R. CO., 338 U.S. 384, 390(1949), AND CASES CITED.  THE FACT THAT THE
COUPLER FUNCTIONED PROPERLY ON OTHER OCCASIONS IS IMMATERIAL. 

BUT RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT WHEN THE L. & N. CAR CAME TO REST AFTER
THE FAILURE OF THE COUPLER "ITS CAPACITY FOR DOING HARM WAS SPENT." 
THE SECOND MOVEMENT, IT ARGUES, IN WHICH THE COUPLING WORKED PERFECTLY,
STARTED A NEW CHAIN OF EVENTS RESULTING IN CARTER'S INJURY. 

WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE VARIOUS EVENTS WERE SO DIVISIBLE.  THIS WAS
A TWO-PRONGED COMPLAINT, ALLEGING THE RIGHT TO RECOVER UNDER THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT AND THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  IN THIS
SITUATION THE TEST OF CAUSAL RELATION STATED IN THE EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT IS APPLICABLE, THE VIOLATION OF THE APPLIANCE ACT
SUPPLYING THE WRONGFUL ACT NECESSARY TO GROUND LIABILITY UNDER THE
F.E.L.A.  SEE MOORE V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO., 291 U.S. 205,
216(1934); O'DONNELL V. ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN R. CO., SUPRA; CORAY V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 335 U.S. 520(1949).  SOMETIMES THAT VIOLATION IS
DESCRIBED AS "NEGLIGENCE PER SE," H.R. REP. NO. 1386, 60TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 6; SAN ANTONIO & A.P.R. CO. V. WAGNER, 241 U.S. 476,
484(1916); BUT WE HAVE MADE CLEAR IN THE O'DONNELL CASE THAT THAT TERM
IS A CONFUSING LABEL FOR WHAT IS SIMPLY A VIOLATION OF AN ABSOLUTE
DUTY. 

ONCE THE VIOLATION IS ESTABLISHED, ONLY CAUSAL RELATION IS IN ISSUE. 
AND CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED LIABILITY IF THE INJURY RESULTED "IN WHOLE OR
IN PART" FROM DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE OR ITS VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT.  WE MADE CLEAR IN CORAY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., SUPRA,
335 U.S. AT 523, THAT IF THE JURY DETERMINES THAT THE DEFENDANT'S
BREACH IS "A CONTRIBUTORY PROXIMATE CAUSE" OF INJURY, IT MAY FIND FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.  SEE ALSO UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. HADLEY, 246 U.S. 330,
333(1918); SPOKANE & I.E.R. CO. V. CAMPBELL, 241 U.S. 497, 510(1916). 

CERTAINLY THERE WAS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A JURY COULD FIND A CAUSAL
RELATION BETWEEN THE FAILURE TO COUPLE, THE ACTION OF PETITIONER IN
RUNNING AND STOPPING THE ROLLING CAR, THE ENGINEER'S JUSTIFIED
ASSUMPTION THAT THE CAR HAD COUPLED WHEN IN FACT IT HAD FAILED TO DO
SO, AND THE CONTINUED MOVEMENT OF THE TRAIN INTO THE STANDING CAR, THUS
CAUSING INJURY.  SEE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. LAYTON, 243 U.S.
617(1917); ERIE R. CO. V. CALDWELL, 264 F. 947(1920).  IT WAS ERROR TO
TAKE THIS PHASE OF THE CASE FROM THE JURY. 

SECOND.  IN RULING ON PETITIONER'S GENERAL NEGLIGENCE ALLEGATIONS THE
TRIAL COURT FELL INTO ERRORS IN ITS CHARGE ON CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
FN4  WHICH OCCUR SO FREQUENTLY THAT WE WILL DISCUSS THEM BRIEFLY.  THE
CHARGE IS REPLETE WITH PHRASES SUCH AS, "IF YOU SHOULD FIND HIS (THE
PETITIONER'S) OWN NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF WHATEVER INJURY
FOLLOWED," THE VERDICT MUST BE FOR THE RESPONDENT.  WITH PROPER
EXPLANATIONS, THE COURT COULD HAVE ADVISED THE JURY THAT IF
PETITIONER'S OWN NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY,
THE VERDICT MUST BE FOR RESPONDENT; BUT HERE THE COURT AGAIN AND AGAIN
USED SUCH PHRASES AS "IF YOU SHOULD FIND HIS INJURY WAS DIRECTLY OR
PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE," VERDICT MUST BE FOR THE
RAILROAD; AND IF YOU FIND "THAT HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE IN NO MANNER
CONTRIBUTED TO HIS INJURY"; "IF YOU FIND  ... HE WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN
ANY MANNER," THE VERDICT MUST BE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  WE ARE UNABLE TO
SAY SUCH ERROR WAS INCONSEQUENTIAL.  IT VIOLATES THE DIRECT COMMAND OF
THE ACT OF CONGRESS.  THE "FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE BEEN GUILTY
OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE SHALL NOT BAR A RECOVERY, BUT THE DAMAGES
SHALL BE DIMINISHED BY THE JURY IN PROPORTION TO THE AMOUNT OF
NEGLIGENCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH EMPLOYEE ...  "  35 STAT. 66, 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 53.  FN5  THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND THAT OF THE
RAILROAD SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, AND IN THE LIGHT OF
THIS COMPARISON A VERDICT REACHED THAT WOULD DO JUSTICE TO ALL
CONCERNED.  SEE TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54,
65(1943). 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY RAILROAD TO HAUL OR PERMIT TO BE HAULED OR USED
ON ITS LINE ANY CAR USED IN MOVING INTERSTATE TRAFFIC NOT EQUIPPED WITH
COUPLERS COUPLING AUTOMATICALLY BY IMPACT, AND WHICH CAN BE UNCOUPLED
WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF MEN GOING BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE CARS."  27
STAT. 531, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 2. 

FN2  35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 51-59. 

FN3  SEE MYERS V. READING CO., 331 U.S. 477, 483(1947). 

RESPONDENT CONCEDED, IN OPPOSING CERTIORARI, THAT "THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT WAS VIOLATED -  ... A COUPLING FAILED TO COUPLE ON IMPACT
...  "  THAT STATEMENT IS APPARENTLY ABANDONED NOW, FOR THE ARGUMENT
IS THAT CARTER SET THE COUPLER IMPROPERLY.  ON THE RECORD BEFORE US IT
IS CLEAR THAT THAT IS A JURY QUESTION. 

FN4  OUR RULING HERE, OF COURSE, IS DIRECTED AT THE TRIAL COURT'S
CHARGE ON THE PETITIONER'S GENERAL NEGLIGENCE ALLEGATIONS.  IN
VIOLATIONS OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, NO EMPLOYEE "SHALL BE HELD TO
HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE  ...  ," 45 U.S.C. SEC. 53,
EVEN FOR PURPOSES OF JURY COMPARISON.  SEE CORAY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO., SUPRA. 

FN5  RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE COURT REMEDIED THESE ERRORS AFTER THE
ORAL CHARGE HAD BEEN GIVEN.  WE SEE NO BASIS FOR THAT CONCLUSION; THE
COURT'S ACTION AT THAT TIME WAS EQUIVOCAL AT BEST.  THE RECORD RECITES
THE FOLLOWING: 

"MR. PETTUS:  YOUR HONOR SAID IF THE PLAINTIFF NEGLIGENTLY CAUSED HIS
OWN INJURY, HE COULD NOT RECOVER.  IF THE PLAINTIFF BY HIS NEGLIGENCE
PROXIMATELY CAUSED HIS INJURY, HE COULDN'T RECOVER.  YOUR HONOR OMITTED
'SOLE'.  IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENCE WERE THE SOLE
PROXIMATE CAUSE, OF COURSE HE COULDN'T RECOVER. 

"THE COURT:  I WILL MODIFY IT TO THAT EXTENT.  THAT SIMPLY MEANS
WHETHER HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE WAS WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS INJURY.  IF
HE IS TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE, IT WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AS TO
NEGLIGENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE.  ... 

"MR. PETTUS:  WE EXCEPT TO THAT LATTER PART OF YOUR HONOR'S CHARGE,
'WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE.'  WE EXCEPT TO YOUR
HONOR'S CHARGE THAT THERE WAS NO DEFECT IN THE HAND BRAKE, AND ALSO
THAT PORTION OF YOUR HONOR'S CHARGE THAT THE PLAINTIFF NEGLIGENTLY SET
THE HAND BRAKE, AUTOMATIC COUPLING, AND THAT WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE,
WITHOUT LIMITING IT AND SAYING IT WAS THE SOLE CAUSE.  IN OTHER WORDS,
WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE AND NOT THE SOLE CAUSE.  AND THEN WHEN YOUR
HONOR WAS READING A WRITTEN CHARGE YOU SAID, IN EXPLANATION, 'IF THE
DIRECT OR PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF'S OWN NEGLIGENCE,' AND WE EXCEPT
TO THAT ON THE GROUND YOU DID NOT SAY IT MUST BE THE SOLE CAUSE.  WE
ASKED YOU AN EXPLANATORY CHARGE ON THAT RULE, IF YOUR HONOR WILL GIVE
IT AT THIS TIME.  I THINK YOUR HONOR OVERLOOKED CHARGING IT.  IF YOU
WILL LOOK AT THE RULE. 

"THE COURT:  I THINK I WILL REFUSE THIS CHARGE. 

"MR. PETTUS:  REFUSE IT? 

"THE COURT:  YES.  GIVE YOU AN EXCEPTION." 

MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENTS.  IN HIS VIEW THE FAILURE OF THE AUTOMATIC
COUPLER TO FASTEN ON THE FIRST IMPACT WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE
INJURY TO PETITIONER.  THE FAILURE DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE INJURY. 
THAT WAS CAUSED BY A TOO RAPID COUPLING ON THE SECOND EFFORT.    ANY
DEFICIENCY IN THE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEGLIGENCE WAS CURED BY THE COURT'S
MODIFICATION OF THE INSTRUCTION SET OUT IN NOTE 5 OF THE OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

PROPERLY DEEMING INDUSTRIAL INJURIES INHERENTLY INCIDENTAL TO THE
CONDUCT OF MODERN INDUSTRY, THE LAW THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES DEALS
WITH THEM AS SUCH ON THE PRINCIPLE OF INSURANCE, NOT ON THE PRINCIPLE
OF NEGLIGENCE.  THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS THEREBY ELIMINATED ALL
THE INEVITABLY CASUISTIC EFFORTS TO APPLY THE CONCEPTS OF "NEGLIGENCE,"
"PROXIMATE CAUSE" AND "CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE" WHICH SERVED WELL
ENOUGH EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS WHICH HAVE LONG SINCE CEASED.  TO
APPLY THE CONCEPTS OF "NEGLIGENCE" AND "PROXIMATE CAUSE" TO THE
INFINITE COMPLEXITIES OF MODERN INDUSTRY IS LIKE CATCHING BUTTERFLIES
WITHOUT A NET.  BUT AS TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY RAILROAD EMPLOYEES,
COURTS AND JURIES MUST CONTINUE TO APPLY THESE CONCEPTS SO LONG AS THE
ANACHRONISTIC FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT REMAINS. 

HAPPILY, HOWEVER, CONGRESS HAS NOT SAID THAT ALL THE CASUISTRIES
ABOUT "PROXIMATE CAUSE" MUST BE ADJUDICATED BY THREE COURTS.  AS AN
INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THIS COURT, CONGRESS
HAS LEFT IT TO OUR DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHETHER, AFTER A DISTRICT COURT
AND A COURT OF APPEALS OR TWO COURTS OF A STATE HAVE WRESTLED WITH THE
PHANTOMS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE, THIS COURT SHOULD HAVE ANOTHER GO AT IT.
A LAW BY WHICH INJURIES SUSTAINED BY RAILROAD EMPLOYEES IN THE COURSE
OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT ARE COMPENSATED ON THE BASIS OF NEGLIGENCE IS BOUND
TO WORK INJUSTICE, AND HARDSHIPS IN PARTICULAR SITUATIONS NATURALLY
PRESENT HUMANE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALLEVIATION.  BUT NO AMOUNT OF
STRETCHING OF NEGLIGENCE CONCEPTS CAN CHANGE THE ACT'S CHARACTER AND
THE MISCHIEF THAT IT DOES AS A CRUEL SURVIVAL OF A BY-GONE ERA.  AND IT
IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNCTIONS OF THIS COURT TO YIELD TO SUCH
TEMPTATIONS BY TAKING CASES IN WHICH A CONSCIENTIOUS APPELLATE COURT
FELT COMPELLED TO DECIDE AGAINST A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE ON ITS JUSTIFIABLE
APPLICATION OF THE DUBIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE, EVEN THOUGH A
CONTRARY VIEW MIGHT ALSO BE TAKEN.  WHERE A CASE INVOLVES NO GENERAL
PRINCIPLE REQUIRING PRONOUNCEMENT BUT MERELY ITS OWN UNIQUE
CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH ALLEVIATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA, SET
FORTH IN RULE 38, GOVERNING THIS COURT'S DISCRETION IN GRANTING A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI. 

THE ARGUMENT AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT AND THE OPINIONS DEALING WITH
THE MERITS LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT NO GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS HERE
INVOLVED.  THERE IS MERELY A DIFFERENCE IN THE APPLICATION OF
PROFESSEDLY SETTLED RULES TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PARTICULAR
CASE.  THREE EXPERIENCED JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE FOUND NO
ERROR IN THE JUDGMENT THAT WAS RENDERED FOR THE DEFENDANT.  THE
DIVISION IN THIS COURT UNDERLINES THE FACT THAT THE THREE JUDGES BELOW
COULD NOT UNREASONABLY HAVE ENTERTAINED THE VIEW THEY DID.  I AM NOT
REMOTELY SUGGESTING THAT THIS COURT HAS NOT REACHED THE RIGHT RESULT,
IF IT HAD TO DEAL WITH THE MERITS.  FOR ME IT IS DECISIVE THAT, SINCE
THE MERITS INVOLVE MERELY EVALUATION OF THE UNIQUE FACTS IN THE RECORD,
THE CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PROPER BUSINESS OF THE COURT. 

I WOULD THEREFORE DISMISS THE WRIT AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  BY NOT
DOING SO, THE COURT ENCOURAGES PETITIONS OF THIS CHARACTER INSTEAD OF
DISCOURAGING THEM.  THE COURT SHOULD SAVE ITS ENERGY FOR CASES IT
NECESSARILY MUST ADJUDICATE IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THEM WITH DUE REGARD
FOR THE NEEDS OF THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS.  THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY TO
RESPECT THESE CONSIDERATIONS IS TO CEASE ACQUIESCENCE IN THEIR
DISREGARD.  SEE WILKERSON V. MCCARTHY, 336 U.S. 53, 64(CONCURRING
OPINION). 
..END :





















HUBSCH V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 440 


NO. 379.  DECIDED DECEMBER 19, 1949.* *TOGETHER WITH NO. 380, SCHWEITZER
V. UNITED STATES. 


THE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR PASSING UPON A PROPOSED
COMPROMISE OF A CLAIM ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, AFTER
COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION THEREON, ARE IMPOSED BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2677
ON THE DISTRICT COURT; AND SUCH A PROPOSED COMPROMISE, SUBMITTED HERE
AFTER GRANT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMING JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON SUCH CLAIMS, IS REFERRED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION. 

HUBSCH V. UNITED STATES. 

ON APPLICATION OF PETITIONERS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR APPROVAL
OF SETTLEMENT. 

PER CURIAM. 

WE GRANTED WRITS OF CERTIORARI IN THESE CASES, 338 U.S. 814, TO
REVIEW A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, 174
F.2D 7, AFFIRMING JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES ON CLAIMS ARISING
UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT.  BEFORE ARGUMENT, PETITIONERS AND
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SUBMITTED A JOINT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF
PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS OF THE CLAIMS, CITING 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2677, WHICH
READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT, MAY ARBITRATE,
COMPROMISE, OR SETTLE ANY CLAIM COGNIZABLE UNDER SECTION 1346(B) OF
THIS TITLE (SUITS UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT), AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF
AN ACTION THEREON." 

WE CONSTRUE SEC. 2677 AS IMPOSING ON THE DISTRICT COURT THE AUTHORITY
AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR PASSING ON PROPOSED COMPROMISES, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT HERETOFORE ENTERED HEREIN.  THE APPLICATION AND
STIPULATIONS ARE THEREFORE REFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WITH AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER AND
DISPOSE OF THE SAME.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. AETNA SURETY CO., 338 U.S. 366 


ARGUED OCTOBER 19-20, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 12, 1949.  - JUDGMENTS
AFFIRMED. 


NOTWITHSTANDING R.S. SEC. 3477, RESTRICTING ASSIGNMENTS OF CLAIMS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, AN INSURANCE COMPANY MAY BRING AN ACTION
UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT IN ITS OWN NAME AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES UPON A CLAIM TO WHICH IT HAS BECOME SUBROGATED BY PAYMENT TO AN
INSURED WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BRING SUCH ACTION.  PP. 367-383. 

(A)  R.S. SEC. 3477 DOES NOT BAR TRANSFERS BY OPERATION OF LAW. 
UNITED STATES V. GILLIS, 95 U.S. 407; ERWIN V. UNITED STATES, 97 U.S.
392; GOODMAN V. NIBLACK, 102 U.S. 556.  PP. 370-376. 

(B)  IT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING OF CONGRESS WHEN IT PASSED THE TORT
CLAIMS ACT THAT SUBROGATION CLAIMS WERE NOT WITHIN THE BAR OF R.S. SEC.
3477.  PP. 376-380. 

(C)  UNDER RULE 17(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH
WERE SPECIFICALLY MADE APPLICABLE TO TORT CLAIMS LITIGATION, AN INSURER
SUBROGEE IS A "REAL PARTY IN INTEREST" AND MAY SUE IN ITS OWN NAME -
EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE SUBROGATED TO ONLY PART OF A CLAIM.  PP. 380
383. 

UNITED STATES V. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. 

NO. 35.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 36, UNITED STATES V. WORLD FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE
CO., ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT; NO. 37, UNITED STATES V. YORKSHIRE INSURANCE CO., ON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT;
AND NO. 38, UNITED STATES V. HOME INSURANCE CO., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

IN NO. 35, A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT BROUGHT BY AN INSURER WHO HAD
REIMBURSED AN EMPLOYEE OF AN INSURED FOR PERSONAL INJURIES RESULTING
FROM NEGLIGENCE OF A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE.  76 F.SUPP.  333.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  170 F.2D 469.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
336 U.S. 960.  AFFIRMED, P. 383. 

IN NO. 36, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT IN FAVOR OF AN INSURER WHO HAD
PARTIALLY REIMBURSED AN INSURED WHOSE PROPERTY HAD BEEN DAMAGED THROUGH
THE NEGLIGENCE OF A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 960.  AFFIRMED, P. 383. 

IN NOS. 37 AND 38, A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT BROUGHT BY TWO INSURERS WHICH
HAD REIMBURSED AN INSURED FOR PROPERTY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM
NEGLIGENCE OF A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
171 F.2D 374.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 960.  AFFIRMED,
P. 383. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES, HERE ON CERTIORARI, PRESENT THIS IMPORTANT QUESTION
UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT:  FN1  MAY AN INSURANCE COMPANY BRING
SUIT IN ITS OWN NAME AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UPON A CLAIM TO WHICH IT
HAS BECOME SUBROGATED BY PAYMENT TO AN INSURED WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO BRING SUCH AN ACTION?  THAT QUESTION, IN TURN, REQUIRES OUR
CONSIDERATION OF R.S. 3477, THE "ANTI-ASSIGNMENT" STATUTE.  FN2 

THREE CASES, EACH PRESENTING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ASPECT OF THE
PROBLEM, WERE HEARD BY THE COURT.  IN NO. 35, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES
THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK WAS INJURED AS
A RESULT OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF A UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEE.  RESPONDENT INSURANCE CARRIER HAD INSURED THE FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK AGAINST ITS LIABILITY FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, AND DULY PAID
THE INJURED PERSON'S CLAIM UNDER THE NEW YORK WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAW.  THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE INJURED PERSON FAILED TO
COMMENCE ANY ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
ACCIDENT, AND THAT HIS INACTION OPERATED, ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW,
FN3  AS AN ASSIGNMENT TO THE INSURER OF HIS CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, 76 F.SUPP. 
333, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR TRIAL.  170 F.2D 469. 

IN NO. 36, THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WAS
DENIED, AND, AFTER TRIAL, IT WAS FOUND AS FACT THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE HAD NEGLIGENTLY DRIVEN A GOVERNMENT
VEHICLE INTO A VEHICLE OWNED BY ONE HARDING, CAUSING DAMAGES OF
$1,484.50; THAT HARDING WAS INSURED BY THE RESPONDENT INSURANCE CARRIER
AND, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE POLICY, HAD BEEN PAID $784.50 BY THE
INSURER, TO WHICH IT WAS NOW SUBROGATED.  JUDGMENT WAS THEREUPON
ENTERED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN FAVOR OF HARDING FOR $700.00 AND
IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY FOR $784.50.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED. 

NOS. 37 AND 38 PRESENT THE SITUATION IN WHICH TWO INSURANCE
COMPANIES, EACH OF WHICH HAS PAID PART OF A CLAIM OF LOSS OCCASIONED BY
THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES, BRING SUITS IN
THEIR OWN NAMES, EACH ASKING RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT IT HAS PAID TO THE
ASSURED.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTS ON MOTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT REVERSED AND
REMANDED THE CAUSES.  171 F.2D 374. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THESE CASES, 336 U.S. 960, BECAUSE OF A
CONFLICT OF DECISIONS IN THE CIRCUITS  FN4  AND THE MANIFEST IMPORTANCE
OF THE QUESTION. 

THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART THAT 

"  ...  THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT WHEREIN THE
PLAINTIFF IS RESIDENT OR WHEREIN THE ACT OR OMISSION COMPLAINED OF
OCCURRED,  ...  SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO HEAR, DETERMINE, AND RENDER JUDGMENT ON ANY CLAIM
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, FOR MONEY ONLY,  ...  ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGE
TO OR LOSS OF PROPERTY OR ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CAUSED
BY THE NEGLIGENT OR WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION OF ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE
GOVERNMENT WHILE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT,
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE UNITED STATES, IF A PRIVATE PERSON, WOULD
BE LIABLE TO THE CLAIMANT FOR SUCH DAMAGE, LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ACT OR OMISSION
OCCURRED.  SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, THE UNITED STATES
SHALL BE LIABLE IN RESPECT OF SUCH CLAIMS TO THE SAME CLAIMANTS, IN THE
SAME MANNER, AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL UNDER LIKE
CIRCUMSTANCES  ...  "  FN5 

WHILE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE THAT
THE UNITED STATES BE TREATED AS IF IT WERE A PRIVATE PERSON IN RESPECT
OF TORTS COMMITTED BY ITS EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIC
EXCEPTIONS ENUMERATED IN THE ACT,  FN6  NEITHER THE TERMS OF THE ACT
NOR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY PRECLUDES THE APPLICATION OF R.S. 3477 IN
THIS SITUATION. 

IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION THAT R.S. 3477, WHICH IN TERMS MAKES
"ALL TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS  ...  OF ANY CLAIM UPON THE UNITED
STATES, OR OF ANY PART OR SHARE THEREOF, OR INTEREST THEREIN  ...
ABSOLUTELY NULL AND VOID  ...  " EXCEPT FOR ASSIGNMENTS MADE AFTER
PAYMENT OF THE CLAIM AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN PRESCRIBED
SAFEGUARDS, INCLUDES ASSIGNMENTS BY OPERATION OF LAW AND PROHIBITS SUIT
BY THE SUBROGEE IN ITS OWN NAME.  PETITIONER READS R.S. 3477 NOT AS
PROHIBITING TRANSFER OF A CLAIMANT'S SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS TO AN INSURER
SUBROGEE AND ULTIMATE RECOVERY BY THE INSURER BUT AS A PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENT THAT THE INSURANCE CARRIER SUE AND RECOVER JUDGMENT IN THE
NAME OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANT.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO.,
166 U.S. 468(1897).  ITS PURPOSE IN INVOKING THE ANTI-ASSIGNMENT
STATUTE IS SAID TO BE TWO-FOLD:  "(1) TO INSURE THAT THE UNITED STATES
MAY AVOID INVOLVEMENT IN ANY LITIGATION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OR EXTENT
OF SUBROGATION OR OTHER ASSIGNMENT OF SUCH CLAIMS; AND (2) TO INSURE
THAT THE SUITS AND ANY JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WILL BE IN
THE NAMES OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANTS SO THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL BE
ABLE TO AVAIL ITSELF OF ITS STATUTORY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF VENUE, AND
OF COUNTERCLAIM AND OFFSET ON ACCOUNT OF ANY CROSS-CLAIMS IT MAY HAVE
AGAINST THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANTS."  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT "THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE MAKING VOID AN ASSIGNMENT OR POWER OF
ATTORNEY BY A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR ARE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  HOBBS V. MCLEAN, 117 U.S. 567, 576; MCGOWAN V. PARISH, 237
U.S. 285, 294, 295.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A RULE, THE GOVERNMENT
WOULD BE IN DANGER OF BECOMING EMBROILED IN CONFLICTING CLAIMS, WITH
DELAY AND EMBARRASSMENT AND THE CHANCE OF MULTIPLE LIABILITY."  MARTIN
V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 588, 594(1937).  THE GOVERNMENT
CONTENDS THAT THE INCONVENIENCE, ADMINISTRATIVE AND ACCOUNTING
DIFFICULTIES, AND PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS WHICH, IT IS APPREHENDED, MAY
INVOLVE THE GOVERNMENT IF SUBROGEES ARE PERMITTED TO BRING SUITS UNDER
THE TORT CLAIMS ACT IN THEIR OWN NAMES MAKE THIS AN APT SITUATION FOR
APPLICATION OF R.S. 3477, AND THAT THAT WAS THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED AT THE OUTSET, HOWEVER, THAT IN THE COURTS BELOW
AND UNTIL ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT (AND EVEN IN ITS PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI) THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT R.S. 3477 WAS A COMPLETE BAR
TO RECOVERY BY A SUBROGEE.  ONLY IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT HERE WAS IT
SUGGESTED THAT THE INSURANCE CARRIER COULD RECOVER IF SUIT WAS BROUGHT
IN THE NAME OF THE INSURED TO THE USE OF THE INSURER, CITING FOR THE
FIRST TIME UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., SUPRA, A DECISION
REFLECTING COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE, UPON WHICH RELIANCE IS NOW PLACED. 
FN7  IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT THE OPINIONS BELOW WERE FOCUSED UPON
WHETHER R.S. 3477 IS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO RECOVERY BY THE SUBROGEE RATHER
THAN MERELY A BAR TO RECOVERY IN THE NAME OF THE SUBROGEE.  WE THINK,
HOWEVER, THAT EVEN THIS LIMITED, AND SOMEWHAT ANOMALOUS,  FN8  RELIANCE
UPON R.S. 3477 IS UNTENABLE, FIRST, BECAUSE OF THE UNIFORM
INTERPRETATION GIVEN THAT STATUTE BY THIS COURT FOR THE PAST 75 YEARS,
AND, SECOND, BECAUSE OF MANY AFFIRMATIVE INDICATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT THAT SUBROGATION CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM SUIT IN THE
NAME OF THE SUBROGEE UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT. 

R.S. 3477 WAS ENACTED IN 1853 AS PART OF A STATUTE ENTITLED "AN ACT
TO PREVENT FRAUDS UPON THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN9  ITS
PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY TO PREVENT PERSONS OF INFLUENCE FROM
BUYING UP CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WHICH MIGHT THEN BE
IMPROPERLY URGED UPON OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  FN10  SPOFFORD V.
KIRK, 97 U.S. 484, 490(1878).  ANOTHER PURPOSE, THAT UPON WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT NOW RELIES, HAS BEEN INFERRED BY THIS COURT FROM THE
LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.  THAT PURPOSE WAS TO PREVENT POSSIBLE MULTIPLE
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, TO MAKE UNNECESSARY THE INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED
ASSIGNMENTS, AND TO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO DEAL ONLY WITH THE
ORIGINAL CLAIMANT.  SPOFFORD V. KIRK, SUPRA; GOODMAN V. NIBLACK, 102
U.S. 556, 560(1881).  MOST OF THE EARLY CASES CONSTRUED THE STATUTE
STRICTLY, HOLDING THAT ALL ASSIGNMENTS WERE INCLUDED WITHIN THE STATUTE
AND THAT SUCH ASSIGNMENTS CONFERRED NO RIGHTS OF ANY KIND UPON THE
ASSIGNEE; THAT R.S. 3477 "INCAPACITATES EVERY CLAIMANT UPON THE
GOVERNMENT FROM CREATING AN INTEREST IN THE CLAIM IN ANY OTHER THAN
HIMSELF."  SPOFFORD V. KIRK, SUPRA, PP. 488-89.  SEE ALSO NATIONAL BANK
OF COMMERCE V. DOWNIE, 218 U.S. 345(1910); NUTT V. KNUT, 200 U.S.
12(1906); ST. PAUL & DULUTH R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 112 U.S.
733(1885). 

THE RIGOR OF THIS RULE WAS VERY EARLY RELAXED IN CASES WHICH WERE
THOUGHT NOT TO BE PRODUCTIVE OF THE EVILS WHICH THE STATUTE WAS
DESIGNED TO OBVIATE.  AND ONE OF THE FIRST SUCH EXCEPTIONS WAS TO
TRANSFERS BY OPERATION OF LAW.  IN UNITED STATES V. GILLIS, 95 U.S.
407(1877), THE COURT HELD THAT A PROVISION IN THE ACT CREATING THE
COURT OF CLAIMS THAT SUITS ON ASSIGNMENTS MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF
THE ASSIGNEE DID NOT MEAN THAT R.S. 3477 WAS INAPPLICABLE TO SUITS IN
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, BUT REFERRED TO CLAIMS WHICH WERE EXCEPTED FROM
THE PROHIBITION OF THAT STATUTE, SUCH AS "DEVOLUTIONS OF TITLE BY FORCE
OF LAW, WITHOUT ANY ACT OF PARTIES, OR INVOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENTS,
COMPELLED BY LAW."  DURING THE FOLLOWING TERM A CASE WAS PRESENTED IN
WHICH AN ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAD SUED THE UNITED STATES ON A CLAIM
OF THE BANKRUPT.  THIS COURT HELD THE SUIT MAINTAINABLE DESPITE R.S.
3477, ON THE GROUND THAT 

"THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF FEB. 26, 1853, TO PREVENT FRAUDS UPON THE
TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF CONSIDERATION
IN THE GILLIS CASE, APPLIES ONLY TO CASES OF VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT OF
DEMANDS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  IT DOES NOT EMBRACE CASES WHERE THERE
HAS BEEN A TRANSFER OF TITLE BY OPERATION OF LAW.  THE PASSING OF
CLAIMS TO HEIRS, DEVISEES, OR ASSIGNEES IN BANKRUPTCY ARE NOT WITHIN
THE EVIL AT WHICH THE STATUTE AIMED; NOR DOES THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN BY
THIS COURT DENY TO SUCH PARTIES A STANDING IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS." 
ERWIN V. UNITED STATES, 97 U.S. 392, 397(1878). 

THIS CONSTRUCTION OF R.S. 3477 - THAT ASSIGNMENTS BY OPERATION OF LAW
ARE NOT WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE - WAS RECOGNIZED AS
SETTLED LAW IN GOODMAN V. NIBLACK, SUPRA, AND HAS BEEN REPEATED WITH
APPROVAL IN A GREAT MANY SUBSEQUENT CASES.  FN11 

THE GOVERNMENT NOW CONTENDS, CONTRARY TO THE STATEMENTS IN ALL OF THE
CASES APPROVING ERWIN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THAT AN ASSIGNMENT BY
OPERATION OF LAW IS NOT ALWAYS EXEMPT FROM THE BAR OF R.S. 3477, BUT
THAT IN ADDITION THE ASSIGNMENT MUST BE OF A KIND THAT WILL NOT INVOLVE
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO.
ALL OF THE CASES IN WHICH R.S. 3477 HAS BEEN HELD INAPPLICABLE ON THE
GROUND OF ASSIGNMENT BY OPERATION OF LAW ARE EXPLAINED AS PRESENTING
SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT COULD SUFFER NO SUCH PROCEDURAL
EMBARRASSMENTS.  IN CASES OF TRANSFER BY DESCENT (ERWIN V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA), CONSOLIDATION OF CORPORATIONS (SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 655(1921)), AND PURCHASE AT A JUDICIAL SALE
IN A CORPORATE REORGANIZATION (WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
268 U.S. 271(1925)) IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY DEAL WITH
THE SUBSTITUTED REPRESENTATIVE AS IT WOULD HAVE DEALT WITH THE CLAIMANT
IF THERE HAD BEEN NO SUBSTITUTION.  RIGHTS OF COUNTERCLAIM AND SET-OFF
ARE SAID TO BE RETAINED AGAINST THE UNIVERSAL SUCCESSOR, WHILE SUCH
UNIVERSAL ASSIGNMENTS BY OPERATION OF LAW CAN GIVE RISE TO NO
CONTROVERSIES AS TO THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF THE TRANSFER FOR
ADJUDICATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANT AND
HIS TRUSTEE, RECEIVER, OR ADMINISTRATOR.    WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER
SOME OF THE CASES ARE NOT COMPREHENDED WITHIN THIS RATIONALE,  FN12 WE
DO NOT THINK THAT IT EXPLAINS THE EXCEPTION MADE FOR TRANSFERS BY
OPERATION OF LAW IN THE CASES REFERRED TO.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE
COURT HAS ALWAYS STATED THE FLAT EXCEPTION OF ALL TRANSFERS BY
OPERATION OF LAW, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM VOLUNTARY TRANSFERS.  IF THE
CASES REST UPON THE PREMISE ADVANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT HAS NEVER
BEEN ARTICULATED IN THE OPINIONS.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, AND CONSISTENT
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ALL TRANSFERS BY OPERATION OF LAW, THIS COURT HAS
A NUMBER OF TIMES INDICATED THAT NEITHER OF THE PURPOSES OF R.S. 3477
IS CONTRAVENED BY TRANSFERS BY OPERATION OF LAW.  IN GOODMAN V.
NIBLACK, SUPRA, IT WAS HELD THAT: 

"THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, 'ALL TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ANY
CLAIM UPON THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY PART THEREOF, OR ANY INTEREST
THEREIN,' IS BROAD ENOUGH (IF SUCH WERE THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS) TO
INCLUDE TRANSFERS BY OPERATION OF LAW, OR BY WILL.  YET WE HELD IT DID
NOT INCLUDE A TRANSFER BY OPERATION OF LAW, OR IN BANKRUPTCY, AND WE
SAID IT DID NOT INCLUDE ONE BY WILL.  THE OBVIOUS REASON OF THIS IS
THAT THERE CAN BE NO PURPOSE IN SUCH CASES TO HARASS THE GOVERNMENT BY
MULTIPLYING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WITH WHOM IT HAS TO DEAL, NOR ANY
DANGER OF ENLISTING IMPROPER INFLUENCES IN ADVOCACY OF THE CLAIM, AND
THAT THE EXIGENCIES OF THE PARTY WHO HELD IT JUSTIFIED AND REQUIRED THE
TRANSFER THAT WAS MADE."  (102 U.S. AT 560.)  SEE ALSO HAGER V. SWAYNE,
149 U.S. 242, 247-48(1893). 

THE FACT THAT SOME ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS MAY BE THE UNINTENDED BY
PRODUCTS OF AN INVOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT WAS NOT THOUGHT TO BE AN EVIL
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A STATUTE AIMED AT FRAUD AND HARASSMENT.  THAT
INTERPRETATION HAS, FOR NEARLY A CENTURY, EXEMPTED ALL TRANSFERS BY
OPERATION OF LAW FROM THE PROHIBITION OF R.S. 3477. 

THAT IT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING OF CONGRESS THAT SUBROGATION CLAIMS
WERE NOT WITHIN THE BAR OF R.S. 3477 WHEN IT PASSED THE TORT CLAIMS ACT
IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PARTICULARS: 

1.  THE SMALL TORT CLAIMS ACT OF 1922  FN13  PROVIDED THAT HEADS OF
DEPARTMENTS MAY "CONSIDER, ASCERTAIN, ADJUST, AND DETERMINE ANY CLAIM
...  ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGES TO OR LOSS OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY WHERE
THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM DOES NOT EXCEED $1,000, CAUSED BY THE
NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT ACTING WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT."  SUCH CLAIMS AS WERE FOUND DUE WERE
CERTIFIED TO CONGRESS FOR PAYMENT.  A QUESTION WAS DIRECTED TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN 1932 AS TO "WHETHER SUCH A CLAIM, WHICH IF MADE BY
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGED COULD HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED, MAY
PROPERLY BE CERTIFIED IF MADE BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH HAS BECOME
SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR THE
DAMAGE SUFFERED."  ATTORNEY GENERAL MITCHELL'S OPINION  FN14  WAS:  (1)
THAT SUBROGATION IS A TRANSFER BY OPERATION OF LAW OF THE RIGHT TO
RECEIVE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE; AND (2) THAT R.S. 3477 APPLIES ONLY
TO CASES OF VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT OF DEMANDS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  HE
THOUGHT, HOWEVER, THAT INASMUCH AS THE QUESTION WAS ONE CONCERNING THE
PURPOSE AND INTENT OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE SMALL TORT CLAIMS ACT,
THAT BODY SHOULD BE ASKED TO INTERPRET THE STATUTE BY PASSING UPON
SUBROGATION CLAIMS CERTIFIED TO IT AND EXPRESSLY CALLED TO ITS
ATTENTION.  THEREAFTER SUBROGATION CLAIMS IN THE NAMES OF INSURANCE
CARRIERS WERE REGULARLY SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS AND WERE CONSISTENTLY
APPROVED UNTIL THE ACT WAS REPEALED BY THE PRESENT TORT CLAIMS ACT. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION WAS APPROVED AND CONGRESSIONAL
ACQUIESCENCE NOTED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL IN OPINIONS IN 19 COMP.
GEN. 503, 21 COMP. GEN. 341, AND 22 COMP. GEN. 611.  A UNIQUE
INTERPRETATION BY CONGRESS OF ITS OWN STATUTE THUS SETTLED THE QUESTION
WHETHER R.S. 3477 WAS A BAR TO SUBROGATION CLAIMS UNDER THE SMALL TORT
CLAIMS ACT, WHICH, IN LANGUAGE NEARLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF THE
PRESENT TORT CLAIMS ACT, PERMITTED RECOVERY "ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGES TO
OR LOSS OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY  ...  " 

2.  THAT SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THE STATUTE WAS NECESSARY TO PRECLUDE
RECOVERY BY SUBROGEES IN THEIR OWN NAMES (I.E., THAT R.S. 3477 IS
INAPPLICABLE TO SUBROGEES) WAS CLEARLY THE VIEW OF CONGRESS WHEN IT
ENACTED THE TORT CLAIMS ACT.  FOR IN FOREIGN CLAIMS LEGISLATION WHERE
IT INTENDED THAT RESULT, CONGRESS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED THAT CLAIMS
OFFICERS SHOULD CONSIDER, ASCERTAIN, DETERMINE, AND PAY CLAIMS ON
ACCOUNT OF INJURY OR DEATH, OR PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE TO CLAIMANTS IN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES, "INCLUDING CLAIMS OF INSURED BUT EXCLUDING CLAIMS OF
SUBROGEES."  FN15  THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION, WHICH WAS ENACTED IN
1943, WAS TO FULFILL THE VERY OFFICE WHICH PETITIONER NOW CONTENDS IS
PERFORMED BY R.S. 3477.  FN16  NO SUCH EXCEPTION IS FOUND IN THE TORT
CLAIMS ACT, ALTHOUGH OTHER EXCEPTIONS ARE SPELLED OUT WITH GREAT
PARTICULARITY.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROVISION IN THE FOREIGN
CLAIMS STATUTE IS, FIRST, THAT WHEN CONGRESS WISHED TO EXCLUDE CLAIMS
BY SUBROGEES IT SAID SO; AND SECOND, THAT CONGRESS DID NOT THINK R.S.
3477 PERFORMED THAT FUNCTION.  FOR A SIMILAR PROVISION, SEE 49 STAT.
2194.  FN17 

3. NOR DID EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS THEMSELVES INTERPRET R.S. 3477 AS
APPLICABLE TO SUBROGATION CLAIMS, AS THE REPORT OF THE HEARINGS ON H.R.
6442, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942) MAKES PLAIN.  THAT BILL, WHICH WAS
DRAFTED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WOULD HAVE REQUIRED SUBROGEES TO
INSTITUTE ACTIONS AGAINST THEIR SUBROGORS IN SOME COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, WHICH WOULD THEN RESTRAIN THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANT FROM
RECEIVING ANY FUNDS FROM THE GOVERNMENT UNTIL FINAL DECISION WAS
REACHED AS TO WHO WAS TO RECEIVE THE MONEY.  THE ASSISTANT GENERAL
COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, IN EXPLAINING THE BILL, STATED: 

"IN 1877 THE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF U.S. V. GILLIS (95 U.S.
407), AFTER STATING IN EFFECT THAT SECTION 3477 WAS OF UNIVERSAL
APPLICATION AND COVERED ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN EVERY
TRIBUNAL IN WHICH THEY MIGHT BE ASSERTED, INDICATED IN LANGUAGE NOT
NECESSARY TO THE DECISION THAT TRANSFERS OR ASSIGNMENTS COMPELLED BY
LAW OR RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION OF LAW MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 3477. 

"NOW FROM THAT TIME ON ONE EXCEPTION AFTER ANOTHER HAS BEEN CARVED
FROM SECTION 3477, UNTIL NOW THE COURTS RECOGNIZE MANY TYPES OF ADVERSE
CLAIMS AS THE BASIS FOR WHAT IN EFFECT ARE THIRD-PARTY SUITS AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING SUITS BASED UPON ASSIGNMENTS BY OPERATION OF
LAW, SUBROGATION, AND EQUITABLE LIENS."  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE
NO. 3 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, ON H.R. 6442, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS. (1942), AT P. 3. 

IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE SERIOUSLY CONTENDED THAT CONGRESS AND THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS WERE NOT COGNIZANT OF THE EXEMPTION OF
SUBROGATION CLAIMS FROM R.S. 3477 WHEN THE TORT CLAIMS ACT WAS PASSED. 
THE BROAD SWEEP OF ITS LANGUAGE ASSUMING THE LIABILITY OF A PRIVATE
PERSON, THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO RELIEVE ITSELF OF CONSIDERATION OF
PRIVATE CLAIMS, AND THE FACT THAT SUBROGATION CLAIMS MADE UP A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THAT BURDEN ARE ALSO PERSUASIVE THAT CONGRESS DID
NOT INTEND THAT SUCH CLAIMS SHOULD BE BARRED. 

IF, THEN, R.S. 3477 IS INAPPLICABLE, THE GOVERNMENT MUST DEFEND SUITS
BY SUBROGEES AS IF IT WERE A PRIVATE PERSON.  RULE 17(A) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH WERE SPECIFICALLY MADE APPLICABLE TO
TORT CLAIMS LITIGATION,  FN18  PROVIDES THAT "EVERY ACTION SHALL BE
PROSECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST," AND OF COURSE AN
INSURER-SUBROGEE, WHO HAS SUBSTANTIVE EQUITABLE RIGHTS, QUALIFIES AS
SUCH.  IF THE SUBROGEE HAS PAID AN ENTIRE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE INSURED,
IT IS THE ONLY REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND MUST SUE IN ITS OWN NAME.  3
MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE (2D ED.)  P. 1339.  IF IT HAS PAID ONLY PART OF
THE LOSS, BOTH THE INSURED AND INSURER (AND OTHER INSURERS, IF ANY, WHO
HAVE ALSO PAID PORTIONS OF THE LOSS) HAVE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AGAINST
THE TORTFEASOR WHICH QUALIFY THEM AS REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. 

IN CASES OF PARTIAL SUBROGATION THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER SUIT MAY
BE BROUGHT BY THE INSURER ALONE, WHETHER SUIT MUST BE BROUGHT IN THE
NAME OF THE INSURED FOR HIS OWN USE AND FOR THE USE OF THE INSURANCE
COMPANY, OR WHETHER ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST MUST JOIN IN THE ACTION. 
UNDER THE COMMON-LAW PRACTICE RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY SUBROGATION COULD BE
ENFORCED IN AN ACTION AT LAW ONLY IN THE NAME OF THE INSURED TO THE
INSURER'S USE, HALL & LONG V. RAILROAD COMPANIES, 13 WALL.  367(1872);
UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., SUPRA, AS WAS ALSO TRUE OF SUITS
ON ASSIGNMENTS, GLENN V. MARBURY, 145 U.S. 499(1892).  MR. JUSTICE
STONE CHARACTERIZED THIS RULE AS "A VESTIGE OF THE COMMON LAW'S
RELUCTANCE TO ADMIT THAT A CHOSE IN ACTION MAY BE ASSIGNED, (WHICH) IS
TODAY BUT A FORMALITY WHICH HAS BEEN WIDELY ABOLISHED BY LEGISLATION." 
AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. MOSES, 287 U.S. 530, 540(1933).  UNDER THE
FEDERAL RULES, THE "USE" PRACTICE IS OBVIOUSLY UNNECESSARY, AS HAS LONG
BEEN TRUE IN EQUITY, GARRISON V. MEMPHIS INSURANCE CO., 19 HOW. 
312(1857), AND ADMIRALTY, LIVERPOOL & GREAT WESTERN STEAM CO. V. PHENIX
INSURANCE CO., 129 U.S. 397, 462(1889).  RULE 17(A) WAS TAKEN ALMOST
VERBATIM FROM EQUITY RULE 37.  NO REASON APPEARS WHY SUCH A PRACTICE
SHOULD NOW BE REQUIRED IN CASES OF PARTIAL SUBROGATION, SINCE BOTH
INSURED AND INSURER "OWN" PORTIONS OF THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT AND SHOULD
APPEAR IN THE LITIGATION IN THEIR OWN NAMES. 

ALTHOUGH EITHER PARTY MAY SUE, THE UNITED STATES, UPON TIMELY MOTION,
MAY COMPEL THEIR JOINDER.  DELAWARE COUNTY V. DIEBOLD SAFE & LOCK CO.,
133 U.S. 473, 488(1890)(APPLYING A STATE CODE UNDER THE CONFORMITY
ACT).  3 MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE (2D ED.)  P. 1348.  BOTH ARE
"NECESSARY" PARTIES.  RULE 19(B), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 
FN19  THE PLEADINGS SHOULD BE MADE TO REVEAL AND ASSERT THE ACTUAL
INTEREST OF THE PLAINTIFF, AND TO INDICATE THE INTERESTS OF ANY OTHERS
IN THE CLAIM.  ADDITIONAL PARTIES MAY BE ADDED AT ANY STAGE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, ON MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES, UPON SUCH TERMS AS MAY BE
JUST.  RULE 21. 

IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER THIS RATIONALE, THERE WILL BE CASES IN WHICH
ALL PARTIES CANNOT BE JOINED BECAUSE ONE OR MORE ARE OUTSIDE THE
JURISDICTION, AND THE COURT MAY NEVERTHELESS PROCEED IN THE ACTION
UNDER RULE 19(B).  IN SUCH CASES THE UNITED STATES, LIKE OTHER
TORTFEASORS, MAY HAVE TO DEFEND TWO OR MORE ACTIONS ON THE SAME TORT
AND MAY BE UNABLE TO ASSERT COUNTERCLAIMS AND OFFSETS AGAINST THE
ORIGINAL CLAIMANT UPON UNRELATED TRANSACTIONS.  FN20 

IF R.S. 3477 IS INAPPLICABLE, AS WE THINK IS CLEARLY THE CASE, THESE
OBJECTIONS HAVE NO LEGAL FOUNDATION UPON WHICH TO REST.  IN ARGUMENT
BEFORE A NUMBER OF DISTRICT COURTS AND COURTS OF APPEALS, THE
GOVERNMENT RELIED UPON THE DOCTRINE THAT STATUTES WAIVING SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  WE THINK THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL
ATTITUDE IN PASSING THE TORT CLAIMS ACT IS MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTED BY
JUDGE CARDOZO'S STATEMENT IN ANDERSON V. HAYES CONSTRUCTION CO., 243
N.Y. 140, 147, 153 N.E. 28, 29-30:  "THE EXEMPTION OF THE SOVEREIGN
FROM SUIT INVOLVES HARDSHIP ENOUGH WHERE CONSENT HAS BEEN WITHHELD.  WE
ARE NOT TO ADD TO ITS RIGOR BY REFINEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION WHERE CONSENT
HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED." 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN EACH OF THESE CASES IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  60 STAT. 842; FORMERLY CODIFIED AS 28 U.S.C. SEC. 931 ET SEQ.
THE NEW JUDICIAL CODE BECAME EFFECTIVE ON SEPT. 1, 1948, WHILE THESE
ACTIONS WERE PENDING ON APPEAL, AND THE PROVISIONS FORMERLY EMBODIED IN
THE TORT CLAIMS ACT ARE NOW DISTRIBUTED THROUGH VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE
NEW CODE. 

FN2  10 STAT. 170 AS AMENDED; 31 U.S.C. SEC. 203. 

FN3  WHEN THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT, SEC. 29 OF THE NEW YORK WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT PROVIDED THAT IF AN INJURED EMPLOYEE HAS TAKEN
COMPENSATION BUT HAS FAILED TO COMMENCE ACTION AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR
WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED, "SUCH FAILURE SHALL
OPERATE AS AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SUCH OTHER  ...
TO THE PERSON, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, OR INSURANCE CARRIER LIABLE
FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH COMPENSATION." 

FN4  COURTS OF APPEALS IN SEVEN CIRCUITS HAVE UPHELD THE RIGHT OF
SUBROGEES TO SUE UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT.  STATE FARM MUTUAL
LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 1ST CIR., 172 F.2D 737; AETNA
CASUALTY & SURETY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 2D CIR., 170 F.2D 469;
YORKSHIRE INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 3D CIR., 171 F.2D 374; UNITED
STATES V. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPT., 4TH CIR., 171 F.2D 893;
OLD COLONY INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 6TH CIR., 168 F.2D 931;
NATIONAL AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 9TH CIR., 171
F.2D 206; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 10TH CIR., 171
F.2D 377. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REACHED A CONTRARY
CONCLUSION, UNITED STATES V. HILL, 171 F.2D 404, JUDGE HUTCHESON
DISSENTING.  REARGUMENT WAS ORDERED BEFORE THE FULL BENCH AND, UPON
RECONSIDERATION, THE ORIGINAL OPINION WAS MODIFIED, 174 F.2D 61, JUDGE
HUTCHESON CONCURRING IN THE RESULT "AS IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORDANCE WITH
THE VIEWS THE DISSENT EXPRESSED." 

FN5  FORMERLY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 931.  THIS SECTION IS NOW DIVIDED AND,
WITH IMMATERIAL CHANGES, APPEARS IN 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1346(B) AND 2674. 
FN6  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2680. 

FN7  THIS CONTENTION WAS ALSO MADE IN REARGUMENT OF UNITED STATES V.
HILL, BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, WHICH TOOK
PLACE AFTER CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BY THIS COURT.  SEE NOTE 4. 

FN8  PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS, IN EFFECT, THAT R.S. 3477 DOES NOT
PREVENT THE ASSIGNMENT OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
BUT MERELY CONTROLS THE METHOD OF PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE ASSIGNEE MAY
RECOVER.  THIS POSITION IS IN SQUARE CONFLICT WITH SPOFFORD V. KIRK, 97
U.S. 484, AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANYTHING SAID IN MARTIN V. NATIONAL
SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 588.  FURTHERMORE, IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE REAL
PARTY IN INTEREST PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
RULE 17(A), BE DISREGARDED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE MADE
SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO SUITS UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, AND THAT
SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN WHICH A SUBROGEE OWNS THE SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHT BE CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE OLD COMMON-LAW PROCEDURES IN EFFECT
PRIOR TO THE PROMULGATION OF THE FEDERAL RULES.  PETITIONER ADMITS AS
MUCH BY ITS RELIANCE UPON UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 166
U.S. 468.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT R.S. 3477 WAS "REPEALED" BY THE
FEDERAL RULES, BUT THAT A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE WHICH IS
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RULES, AS EXPRESSLY INCORPORATED IN THE TORT
CLAIMS ACT, MUST BE CLEARLY JUSTIFIED. 

FN9  10 STAT. 170. 

FN10  OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT MADE IT UNLAWFUL FOR OFFICERS OF THE
UNITED STATES OR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO HAVE ANY INTEREST IN CLAIMS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR TO ACT FOR CLAIMANTS, PENALIZED BRIBERY OR
UNDUE INFLUENCING OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND PROHIBITED THE
DESTRUCTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF PUBLIC RECORDS. 

FN11  SEE, E.G., ST. PAUL & DULUTH R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 112 U.S.
733, 736; BUTLER V. GORELEY, 146 U.S. 303, 311; HAGER V. SWAYNE, 149
U.S. 242; BALL V. HALSELL, 161 U.S. 72, 79; PRICE V. FORREST, 173 U.S.
410, 421; NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE V. DOWNIE, 218 U.S. 345, 356;
WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 271, 275. 

FN12  FOR EXAMPLE, TRANSFERS BY WILL OR INTESTACY, WHICH ARE NOT
WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF R.S. 3477 UNDER THE CASES, WOULD OBVIOUSLY
MULTIPLY THE PERSONS WITH WHOM THE UNITED STATES MUST DEAL AND MIGHT
VERY WELL EMBROIL IT IN CONFLICTING CLAIMS. 

FN13  42 STAT. 1066, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 215. 

FN14  REPORTED AT 36 OP. ATTY. GEN. 553.  SEE HOLTZOFF, HANDLING OF
TORT CLAIMS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 9 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB. 
311, 318; THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, 42 ILL. L. REV. 344, 349. 

FN15  57 STAT. 66, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 224D. 

FN16  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT STATES THAT "SUCH A PROVISION OF LAW
LEAVES UNDISTURBED, AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE RIGHTS OF THE INSURED
AND OF INSURANCE COMPANIES AND OTHERS WHO HAVE BECOME SUBROGATED TO THE
RIGHTS OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY OR OF THE PERSON WHO IS INJURED OR
WHOSE DEATH RESULTS, BUT PERMITS THE GOVERNMENT TO SETTLE WITH A SINGLE
CLAIMANT AND WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF INQUIRY INTO, OR DETERMINATION
OF, THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES."  H.R. REP. NO. 312, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

FN17  THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS WERE AWARE OF THE
PROBLEM OF RECOVERY BY INSURANCE CARRIER-SUBROGEES AT THE TIME THE TORT
CLAIMS ACT WAS PASSED IS DEMONSTRATED BY THAT COMMITTEE'S REPORT,
SUBMITTED LESS THAN TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE ACT, ON
SUBROGATION CLAIMS PRESENTED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES IN CONNECTION WITH
THE CRASH OF AN ARMY AIRPLANE INTO THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING.  THE WAR
DEPARTMENT HAD RECOMMENDED TO CONGRESS THAT EMPIRE STATE, INC., AND
OTHER PRIVATE CLAIMANTS BE PAID THEIR UNINSURED LOSSES (WHICH WAS DONE)
BUT REFUSED TO RECOMMEND PAYMENT OF INSURED LOSSES.  H.R. 6683 WAS
INTRODUCED "TO APPROPRIATE THE SUM OF $143,279.94 TO 22 FIRE-INSURANCE
COMPANIES IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THEIR SUBROGATION CLAIMS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES  ...  "  THE COMMITTEE MADE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO
ATTORNEY GENERAL MITCHELL'S OPINION, NOTED THAT SINCE THAT TIME THE WAR
DEPARTMENT HAD PAID SUBROGATION CLAIMS OF LESS THAN $1,000 UNDER THE
MILITARY CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 223, AND DISAPPROVED THAT
DEPARTMENT'S REFUSAL TO CERTIFY CLAIMS OF OVER $1,000.  TO THE
ASSERTION THAT CONGRESS HAD CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE
SUBROGATION CLAIMS AS BARRED BY R.S. 3477, THE COMMITTEE REPORT
CONTAINS THE FLAT DENIAL:  "THAT STATEMENT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE FACT" AND CITES A NUMBER OF SUBROGATION CLAIMS FAVORABLY ACTED UPON
BY CONGRESS.  THE BILL WAS FAVORABLY REPORTED, H.R. REP. NO. 2655, 79TH
CONG., 2D SESS., BUT NINE DAYS LATER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT WAS PASSED,
SEC. 131 OF WHICH PROVIDED THAT NO PRIVATE BILL SHOULD AUTHORIZE
PAYMENT OF MONEY FOR CLAIMS FOR WHICH SUIT MIGHT BE BROUGHT UNDER THAT
ACT, EXTENDING RETROACTIVELY TO CLAIMS ACCRUING AFTER JANUARY 1, 1945. 
SINCE THE CLAIMS INVOLVED HAD ACCRUED SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE, THE
INSURANCE COMPANY SUBROGEES BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT,
WHERE THE GOVERNMENT ONCE MORE INTERPOSED A DEFENSE BASED ON R.S. 3477,
DESPITE THE COMMITTEE'S SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF PAYMENT DIRECTLY TO THE
SUBROGEES.  THE DEFENSE WAS REJECTED.  NIAGARA FIRE INS. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 76 F.SUPP.  850. 

FN18  FORMERLY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 932.  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN19  THEY ARE CLEARLY NOT "INDISPENSABLE" PARTIES UNDER THE FAMILIAR
TEST OF SHIELDS V. BARROW, 17 HOW.  130, 139(1855), THAT SUCH PARTIES
HAVE "AN INTEREST OF SUCH A NATURE THAT A FINAL DECREE CANNOT BE MADE
WITHOUT EITHER AFFECTING THAT INTEREST, OR LEAVING THE CONTROVERSY IN
SUCH A CONDITION THAT ITS FINAL TERMINATION MAY BE WHOLLY INCONSISTENT
WITH EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE."  SEE DELAWARE COUNTY V. DIEBOLD SAFE
& LOCK CO., 133 U.S. 473, 488(1890); HUBBARD V. MANHATTAN TRUST CO., 87
F. 51; ROGERS V. PENOBSCOT MINING CO., 154 F. 606; 3 MOORE, FEDERAL
PRACTICE (2D ED.)  P. 2178. 

FN20  THE COUNTERCLAIM STATUTE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1346(C), CONFERS
JURISDICTION ON DISTRICT COURTS OVER ANY "COUNTERCLAIM, OR OTHER CLAIM
OR DEMAND WHATEVER ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ANY
PLAINTIFF COMMENCING AN ACTION."  THE OFFSET STATUTE, 31 U.S.C. SECS.
71, 227, DIRECTS THE DEDUCTION FROM JUDGMENTS AND ALLOWED CLAIMS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF DEBTS AS TO WHICH "THE PLAINTIFF THEREIN
SHALL BE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES."  (ITALICS ADDED.)  WE NEED NOT
AND DO NOT CONSIDER WHAT RIGHTS OF COUNTERCLAIM AND SET-OFF MAY LIE IN
THE UNITED STATES IN SUITS BROUGHT BY INSURER-SUBROGEES.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. MUNSEY TRUST CO., 332 U.S. 234(1947); DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORP.
V. UNITED STATES LINES CO., 148 F.2D 311. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






O'DONNELL V. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO., 338 U.S. 384 


NO. 56.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 12, 1949.  - 171
F.2D 973, REVERSED. 


IN AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR A DEATH CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE
BREAKING OF AN AUTOMATIC COUPLER, THE COMPLAINT MINGLED IN A SINGLE
CAUSE OF ACTION CHARGES OF GENERAL NEGLIGENCE AND A SPECIFIC CHARGE
THAT DEFENDANT "CARELESSLY AND NEGLIGENTLY" VIOLATED THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT BY OPERATING A CAR NOT EQUIPPED WITH THE PRESCRIBED
COUPLER.  THE TRIAL COURT DENIED PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS
THAT THE BREAKING OF THE COUPLER WAS NEGLIGENCE PER SE AND SUBMITTED
THE WHOLE CASE TO THE JURY INDISCRIMINATELY AS A NEGLIGENCE CASE.  THE
JURY FOUND FOR DEFENDANT.  HELD:  AS TO THE CLAIM BASED ON THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION THAT
TO EQUIP A CAR WITH A COUPLER WHICH BROKE IN A SWITCHING OPERATION WAS
A VIOLATION OF THE ACT, WHICH RENDERED DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR INJURIES
PROXIMATELY RESULTING THEREFROM, AND THAT NEITHER EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE NOR OF DILIGENCE AND CARE WAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE
QUESTION OF THIS LIABILITY.  PP. 385-394. 

(A) THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT REQUIRES COUPLERS, WHICH, AFTER A SECURE
COUPLING IS EFFECTED, WILL REMAIN COUPLED UNTIL SET FREE BY SOME
PURPOSEFUL ACT OF CONTROL.  PP. 387-389. 

(B)  A FAILURE OF EQUIPMENT TO PERFORM AS REQUIRED BY THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT IS IN ITSELF AN ACTIONABLE WRONG, IN NO WAY DEPENDENT
UPON NEGLIGENCE AND FOR THE PROXIMATE RESULTS OF WHICH THERE IS
LIABILITY THAT CANNOT BE ESCAPED BY PROOF OF CARE OR DILIGENCE.  PP.
389-392. 

(C)  PLEADINGS WILL SERVE THEIR PURPOSE OF SHARPENING AND LIMITING
THE ISSUES ONLY IF CLAIMS BASED ON NEGLIGENCE ARE SET FORTH SEPARATELY
FROM THOSE BASED ON VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.  P. 392. 

(D)  EVEN THOUGH NO OBJECTION BE MADE TO AN IMPROPER PLEADING IN A
CASE SUCH AS THIS, IT IS ALMOST INDISPENSABLE TO AN INTELLIGIBLE CHARGE
TO THE JURY THAT A CLEAR SEPARATION BETWEEN CLAIMS BASED ON NEGLIGENCE
AND THOSE BASED ON VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT BE OBSERVED
AND IMPRESSED.  P. 393. 

(E)  EVIDENCE PERTINENT TO NEGLIGENCE IS IMMATERIAL TO ISSUES RAISED
BY A CLAIM BASED ON VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.  PP. 393
394. 

O'DONNELL, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT IN AN
ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  171 F.2D 973.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 929.  REVERSED, P. 394. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT,
45 U.S.C. SECS. 51-60.  THE COMPLAINT MINGLED IN A SINGLE COUNT OR
CAUSE OF ACTION CHARGES OF GENERAL NEGLIGENCE AND A SPECIFIC CHARGE
THAT DEFENDANT "CARELESSLY AND NEGLIGENTLY" VIOLATED THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 2, BY OPERATING A CAR NOT EQUIPPED WITH
THE PRESCRIBED COUPLER.  THE JURY FOUND AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND JUDGMENT
FOR DEFENDANT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  171 F.2D 973. 
THIS RESULT MUST STAND IF THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED, AS TO WHICH
THE COURT OF APPEALS DIVIDED. 

O'DONNELL, WHOSE ADMINISTRATRIX IS PETITIONER HERE AND WAS PLAINTIFF
BELOW, MET AN UNWITNESSED DEATH WHILE WORKING IN DEFENDANT'S YARDS AS A
MEMBER OF ITS SWITCHING CREW.  WHEN LAST SEEN, HE WAS GOING TO ADJUST
THE COUPLERS ON CERTAIN CARS WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD FAILED TO COUPLE BY
IMPACT.  SHORTLY AFTER HIS DEPARTURE, AS THE RESULT OF THE BREAKING OF
A COUPLER, TWO CARS BROKE LOOSE FROM A CUT OF CARS THAT WAS BEING MOVED
IN A SWITCHING OPERATION.  RUNNING FREE, THEY COLLIDED WITH OTHER
STANDING CARS AND DROVE THEM AGAINST THOSE WHOSE COUPLERS DECEDENT HAD
SAID HE WAS GOING TO ADJUST.  SOME TIME LATER DECEDENT'S MANGLED BODY
WAS FOUND LYING ACROSS ONE RAIL OF THE TRACK ON WHICH THE CARS HE HAD
INTENDED TO PREPARE FOR COUPLING HAD STOOD.  THAT HE HAD GONE BETWEEN
THEM TO ADJUST THE COUPLERS IS SUGGESTED BY THE FACT THAT THEY COUPLED
UPON IMPACT WITH THE COLLIDING CARS, THOUGH THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD FAILED
SO TO DO.  PETITIONER'S CONTENTION, FROM ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES PROVED,
IS THAT O'DONNELL'S DEATH WAS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE BREAKING OF THE
COUPLER, WHICH PERMITTED THE TWO CARS TO RUN FREE, STRIKE THE STANDING
CARS, AND CAUSE UNEXPECTED MOVEMENT OF THE CARS BETWEEN WHICH O'DONNELL
WAS ENGAGED.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THEY INDICATE INSTEAD THAT DEATH
RESULTED FROM A LATER AND INDEPENDENT MOVEMENT ON THE TRACK WHEN THE
RUNAWAY CARS WERE HAULED OUT - AN EVENT WHICH TOOK PLACE BEFORE
DISCOVERY OF DECEDENT'S BODY BUT AFTER THE COLLISION OF THE TWO SETS OF
CARS.  WE NEED NOT RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE COMPETING
THEORIES OF CAUSATION, FOR THAT DECISION WAS FOR THE JURY.  ELLIS V.
UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 329 U.S. 649, 653. 

OUR CONCERN IS WITH THE EFFECT ACCORDED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BREAKING OF THE COUPLER.  THE ISSUE WAS DEFINED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS:  "THE RECORD IS DEVOID OF ANY REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFF THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED THAT THEY MIGHT INFER NEGLIGENCE
FROM THE BREAKING OF THE COUPLER, BUT IN THE DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF
CONTENDED FOR AND TENDERED INSTRUCTIONS UPON THE THEORY THAT A BREAKING
OF THE COUPLER IN AND OF ITSELF WAS NEGLIGENCE PER SE.  THE COURT
REFUSED TO SO INSTRUCT."  171 F.2D AT 976.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH
ONE DISSENT, SUSTAINED THIS REFUSAL SO TO CHARGE, SAYING, "WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THE ACT REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO FURNISH COUPLERS THAT WOULD NOT
BREAK.  WE THINK THE TRUE RULE IS THAT WHERE A COUPLER DOES BREAK, THE
JURY MAY, IF THEY THINK IT REASONABLE UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
INFER THAT THE COUPLER WAS DEFECTIVE AND WAS FURNISHED AND USED IN
VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  THE CASES GO NO FURTHER THAN TO HOLD THAT FROM
THE BREAKING OF A COUPLER THE JURY MAY INFER NEGLIGENCE."  AS THIS VIEW
OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT APPEARS TO CONFLICT WITH THE RULE LAID DOWN
IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS,  FN1 WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 929. 

A CLOSE AND LITERAL READING OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 2,  FN2  SUGGESTS THAT TWO FUNCTIONS ONLY ARE REQUIRED OF
COUPLERS:  THAT THEY COUPLE AUTOMATICALLY BY IMPACT AND THAT THEY
UNCOUPLE WITHOUT REQUIRING MEN TO GO BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE CARS. 
THIS CONSTRUCTION FINDS SOME SUPPORT IN THE DECISIONS.  SEE, E.G., ST.
LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO R. CO. V. CONARTY, 238 U.S. 243, 250; CHICAGO, B.
& Q.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 559, 571; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
R. CO. V. LAYTON, 243 U.S. 617; JOHNSON V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 196
U.S. 1, 18.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 135 F. 122,
127(S.D. ILL., 1905); CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V. CHARLTON, 247 F. 34,
40(C.A.4TH CIR., 1917); CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO. V. LINEHAN, 66
F.2D 373, 377(C.A.8TH CIR., 1933); PENN V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 163
F.2D 995, 997(C.A.7TH CIR., 1947). 

COURTS AT OTHER TIMES HAVE HELD, HOWEVER, THAT FAILURE OF COUPLERS TO
REMAIN COUPLED UNTIL RELEASED CONSTITUTES OR EVIDENCES A VIOLATION OF
THE ACT JUST AS DOES THEIR FAILURE TO COUPLE UPON IMPACT OR UNCOUPLE
FROM THE SIDES OF CARS.  AS STATED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND
CIRCUIT, THE ACT "IS ALSO AIMED AT INSURING COUPLERS THAT WILL HOLD
TOGETHER."  KEENAN V. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, 285 F. 286,
290(C.A.2D CIR., 1922); PHILADELPHIA & R.R. CO. V. EISENHART, 280 F.
271(C.A. 3D CIR., 1922); ERIE R. CO. V. CALDWELL, 264 F. 947(C.A.6TH
CIR., 1920); SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. THOMAS, 21 ARIZ. 355, 188 P. 268;
KOWALSKI V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 159 MINN. 388, 199 N.W. 178;
MCALLISTER V. ST. LOUIS MERCHANTS BRIDGE TERMINAL R. CO.(, 324 MO.
1005, 25 S.W.2D 791; SAXTON V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 256 N.Y. 363, 176
N.E. 425; STEWART V. WABASH R. CO.(, 105 NEB. 812, 182 N.W. 496.  AND
SEE REETZ V. CHICAGO & E.R. CO., 46 F.2D 50(C.A.6TH CIR., 1931).  THIS
APPEARS ALSO TO HAVE BEEN THE VIEW OF THIS COURT IN THE ONLY CASE OF
THIS NATURE EVER BEFORE IT.  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V.
GOTSCHALL, 244 U.S. 66.  SEE ALSO MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. 
MARIE R. CO. V. GONEAU, 269 U.S. 406. 

IT IS HARD TO THINK OF A COUPLER DEFECT IN WHICH GREATER DANGER
INHERES TO WORKMEN, TRAVELERS AND ALL TO WHOM THE RAILROAD OWES A DUTY,
THAN ONE WHICH SETS CARS RUNNING UNCONTROLLED UPON ITS TRACKS.  WE FIND
IT DIFFICULT TO READ THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT TO REQUIRE THAT CARS BE
EQUIPPED WITH APPLIANCES WHICH COUPLE AUTOMATICALLY BY IMPACT AND WHICH
MAY BE RELEASED WITHOUT GOING BETWEEN THE ENDS OF CARS, BUT WHICH NEED
NOT REMAIN COUPLED IN THE MEANTIME.  THE ACT SO CONSTRUED WOULD GUARD
AGAINST DANGERS INCIDENT TO EFFECTING AN ENGAGEMENT OR DISENGAGEMENT
WHILE IGNORING THE EVEN GREATER HAZARDS WHICH CAN RESULT FROM THE
FAILURE OF A COUPLING TO PERFORM ITS MAIN FUNCTION, WHICH IS TO STAY
COUPLED UNTIL RELEASED. 

WE HOLD THAT THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT REQUIRES COUPLERS WHICH, AFTER
A SECURE COUPLING IS EFFECTED, WILL REMAIN COUPLED UNTIL SET FREE BY
SOME PURPOSEFUL ACT OF CONTROL. 

WHAT THEN SHOULD A JURY BE INSTRUCTED IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF A FAILURE
TO PROVIDE COUPLERS THAT SO PERFORM?  SHOULD THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED
THAT IT MUST FIND LIABILITY OR MERELY THAT IT MAY FIND LIABILITY FOR
INJURIES PROXIMATELY RESULTING FROM THE FAILURE? 

THE ARGUMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS CASE, AS WELL AS OTHERS, AND
THE LANGUAGE OF MANY OPINIONS AND TEXTS REFLECT WIDESPREAD CONFUSION AS
TO THE EFFECT TO BE ACCORDED A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY
APPLIANCE STATUTE.  FN3  PART OF THIS CONFUSION IS TRACEABLE TO THE
DIVERSITY OF JUDICIAL OPINION CONCERNING THE CONSEQUENCES ATTRIBUTED IN
NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS TO THE VIOLATION OF A STATUTE.  FN4  BREACH OF
CERTAIN STATUTES IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS WILL BE REGARDED AS SOME
EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, TO BE WEIGHED BY THE JURY ALONG WITH THE
FACTS.  HAYES V. MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO.(, 111 U.S. 228, 240; UNION
PACIFIC R. CO. V. MCDONALD, 152 U.S. 262, 283.  AT OTHER TIMES OR
PLACES, OR UNDER OTHER STATUTES, A VIOLATION MAY BE "PRIMA FACIE" OR
"PRESUMPTIVE" EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH DEFENDANT MUST MEET OR
OVERCOME.  E.G., VOILES V. HUNT, 213 IOWA 1234, 240 N.W. 703.  COURTS
SOMETIMES TALK OF IT IN TERMS OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, CF. MINNEAPOLIS &
ST. LOUIS R. CO. V. GOTSCHALL, SUPRA(, OR TREAT VIOLATIONS AS
NEGLIGENCE PER SE.  E.G., SAN ANTONIO & A.P.R. CO. V. WAGNER, 241 U.S.
476, 484; WATTS V. MONTGOMERY TRACTION CO., 175 ALA. 102, 57 SO. 471;
EVANS V. KLUSMEYER, 301 MO. 352, 359, 256 S.W. 1036, 1037-1038.  IT IS
NOT UNCOMMON THAT WITHIN THE SAME JURISDICTION THE RULE IS DIFFERENT AS
TO DIFFERENT STATUTES.  SEE MARTIN V. HERZOG, 228 N.Y. 164, 168, 126
N.E. 814, 815.  BUT USUALLY, UNLESS THE STATUTE SETS UP A SPECIAL CAUSE
OF ACTION FOR ITS BREACH, A VIOLATION BECOMES AN INGREDIENT, OF GREATER
OR LESSER WEIGHT, IN DETERMINING THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE. 

BUT THIS COURT EARLY SWEPT ALL ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE OUT OF CASES UNDER
THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.  FOR REASONS SET FORTH AT LENGTH IN OUR
BOOKS, THE COURT HELD THAT A FAILURE OF EQUIPMENT TO PERFORM AS
REQUIRED BY THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT IS IN ITSELF AN ACTIONABLE WRONG,
IN NO WAY DEPENDENT UPON NEGLIGENCE AND FOR THE PROXIMATE RESULTS OF
WHICH THERE IS LIABILITY - A LIABILITY THAT CANNOT BE ESCAPED BY PROOF
OF CARE OR DILIGENCE.  ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO. V. TAYLOR, 210 U.S.
281, 294; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 275-577; DELK
V. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO., 220 U.S. 580.  THESE RIGOROUS HOLDINGS WERE
MORE RECENTLY EPITOMIZED BY CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, SPEAKING FOR THE
COURT:  "THE STATUTORY LIABILITY IS NOT BASED UPON THE CARRIER'S
NEGLIGENCE.  THE DUTY IMPOSED IS AN ABSOLUTE ONE AND THE CARRIER IS NOT
EXCUSED BY ANY SHOWING OF CARE HOWEVER ASSIDUOUS."  BRADY V. TERMINAL
RAILROAD ASSN., 303 U.S. 10, 15. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS COURT'S EFFORTS TO DISTINGUISH THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE VIOLATION CASE FROM THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CASE, CONFUSION
OF THE TWO PERSISTS, IN PART, AT LEAST, DUE TO THE ANOMALOUS PROCEDURE
BY WHICH SUCH CLAIMS ARE LITIGATED.  THIS NON-NEGLIGENCE CLAIM, BASED
ON A STATUTORY VIOLATION, IS PURSUED BY ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, BASICALLY A FORM OF ACTION PREDICATED ONLY
UPON NEGLIGENCE.  FN5  THE APPLIANCE CAUSE OFTEN IS JOINED WITH ONE FOR
NEGLIGENCE, AND EVEN SOMETIMES, AS HERE, MINGLED IN A SINGLE MONGREL
CAUSE OF ACTION.  IN ADDITION, AT TRIAL, CERTAIN ISSUES SUCH AS
CAUSATION AND EXTENT OF INJURY, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE COMMON TO BOTH CAUSES
OF ACTION.  ALL OF THIS HAS RESULTED IN MUCH BORROWING OF THE LANGUAGE
OF NEGLIGENCE LAW TO DEAL WITH SFETY APPLIANCE ACT CASES.  AND SO, IN
AN EARLY CASE IN WHICH THIS COURT HELD, "IF THIS ACT IS VIOLATED, THE
QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE IN THE GENERAL SENSE OF WANT OF CARE IS
IMMATERIAL," WE FIND THAT IT WENT ON NEVERTHELESS TO SAY THAT THE
VIOLATION IS TREATED "AS 'NEGLIGENCE' - WHAT IS SOMETIMES CALLED
NEGLIGENCE PER SE."  SAN ANTONIO & A.P.R. CO. V. WAGNER, SUPRA. 

IN A LATER CASE, THE CONTENTION IN THIS COURT INVOLVED THE RULE OF
RES IPSA LOQUITUR(, A MAXIM OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE IN SOME
NEGLIGENCE CASES.  THE TRIAL COURT HAD CHARGED THAT FROM THE BREAKING
OF THE COUPLER THE JURY MIGHT INFER NEGLIGENCE, WHICH WAS THE
INSTRUCTION WHICH HAD BEEN REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF.  THE RAILROAD
OPPOSED THIS INSTRUCTION.  THIS COURT, IN AN OPINION ANTICIPATORY OF
THIS ONE, UPHELD THE CHARGE AGAINST THE OBJECTION.  SINCE THE PLAINTIFF
HAD RECOVERED A VERDICT, THIS COURT, IN AFFIRMING, FOUND NO OCCASION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO A MORE
FAVORABLE CHARGE.  BUT THE OPINION NEGATIVING THE RAILROAD'S OBJECTION
AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ABSOLUTE LIABILITY IMPOSED BY THE ACT APPEARS
IN THE HEADNOTE AS A HOLDING "THAT, IN VIEW OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACT, NEGLIGENCE MIGHT BE INFERRED FROM THE MERE OPENING OF THE
COUPLERS."  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V. GOTSCHALL, SUPRA.  THUS
THE VOCABULARY OF NEGLIGENCE, APPROPRIATED TO NON-NEGLIGENCE USES,
COMES TO DOMINATE THE THOUGHT. 

WE NO LONGER INSIST UPON TECHNICAL RULES OF PLEADING, BUT IT WILL
EVER BE DIFFICULT IN A JURY TRIAL TO SEGREGATE ISSUES WHICH COUNSEL DO
NOT SEPARATE IN THEIR PLEADING, PREPARATION OR THINKING.  WE THINK THE
UNFORTUNATELY PROLONGED COURSE OF THIS LITIGATION IS IN NO SMALL PART
DUE TO THE FAILURE TO HEED THE ADMONITION WELL STATED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN A SIMILAR CASE:  "OF COURSE, IT IS
NOT PROPER TO PLEAD DIFFERENT THEORIES IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, BUT IT IS
NOT NECESSARILY FATAL ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ADVERSARY MAKES NO
OBJECTION."  VIGOR V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO., 101 F.2D 865,
869(1939).  PLEADINGS WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE OF SHARPENING AND LIMITING
THE ISSUES ONLY IF CLAIMS BASED ON NEGLIGENCE ARE SET FORTH SEPARATELY
FROM THOSE BASED ON VIOLATION OF THE APPLIANCE ACTS.  FN6 

BUT NO MATTER HOW THE PLEADINGS ARE ALLOWED TO STAND, WE THINK IT IS
ALMOST INDISPENSABLE TO AN INTELLIGIBLE CHARGE TO THE JURY THAT A CLEAR
SEPARATION OF THE TWO KINDS OF ACTIONS BE OBSERVED AND IMPRESSED.  THE
TRIAL COURT IN THIS CASE SUBMITTED THE WHOLE INDISCRIMINATELY AS A
NEGLIGENCE CASE.  THIS IS HARDLY TO BE REGARDED AS REVERSIBLE ERROR,
FOR BOTH COUNSEL PLEADED AND TRIED THE CASE AS SUCH AND THEIR REQUESTS
WERE STATED ENTIRELY IN TERMS OF THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE.  BUT THE
SCRAMBLING OF THE CLAIMS IN THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES HOW MUCH EVIDENCE MAY
BE ADMITTED, SUBMITTED AND CONSIDERED ON NEGLIGENCE ISSUES THAT, UNDER
OUR REPEATED HOLDINGS, WOULD BE IMMATERIAL IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.    THE PLAINTIFF, FOR EXAMPLE, CAN ADD NOTHING
TO THE LIABILITY INCURRED FROM A VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY PRODUCING
EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE.  HERE THERE WAS AFFIRMATIVE AND, SO FAR AS WE
CAN FIND, UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS "A PARTIAL FRACTURE
ON THE INSIDE OF THE COUPLER," INDICATING THAT THE COUPLER WAS WEAKENED
BY AN OLD DEFECT.  HOWEVER IMPORTANT THIS EVIDENCE MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN
DETERMINING COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE, IT ADDED NOTHING TO THE DIRECT CASE
UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT MADE BY SHOWING THE BREAKING OF THE
COUPLER.    THE DEFENDANT STRESSED EVIDENCE THAT IN THE SWITCHING
OPERATION THE COUPLER BROKE CONCURRENTLY WITH AN EMERGENCY STOP.  SUCH
EVIDENCE MIGHT BE MATERIAL ON THE QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE.  BUT THE ACT
CERTAINLY REQUIRES EQUIPMENT THAT WILL WITHSTAND THE STRESS AND STRAIN
OF ALL ORDINARY OPERATION, GRADES, LOADINGS, STOPS AND STARTS,
INCLUDING EMERGENCY STOPS.  A DEFENDANT CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR A
COUPLER'S INADEQUACY BY SHOWING THAT TOO MUCH WAS DEMANDED OF IT, NOR
BY SHOWING THAT WHILE THE COUPLER BROKE IT HAD BEEN PROPERLY
MANUFACTURED, DILIGENTLY INSPECTED AND SHOWED NO VISIBLE DEFECTS. 
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DO GO TO THE QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE; BUT, EVEN IF A
RAILROAD SHOULD EXPLAIN AWAY ITS NEGLIGENCE, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO
EXPLAIN AWAY ITS LIABILITY IF IT HAS VIOLATED THE ACT.  FN7 

CRITICISM IS MADE THAT PETITIONER'S REQUESTS TO CHARGE WERE NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC.  THAT THEY WERE SOMEWHAT GENERAL IN STATEMENT
AND WERE CAST IN TERMS OF A NEGLIGENCE CASE IS TRUE.  BUT THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOUND THESE REQUESTS SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND PERTINENT TO THE
ISSUES TO PRESENT THE QUESTION WHICH IT DECIDED.  AND IN DECIDING THIS
QUESTION THE WAY IT DID, WE BELIEVE IT HAS FALLEN INTO ERROR.  WE MAKE
NO EXAMINATION OF THE CHARGE INSOFAR AS IT RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF
GENERAL NEGLIGENCE.  AS TO THE CLAIM BASED ON THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT,
WE HOLD THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION
THAT TO EQUIP A CAR WITH A COUPLER WHICH BROKE IN THE SWITCHING
OPERATION WAS A VIOLATION OF THE ACT, WHICH RENDERED DEFENDANT LIABLE
FOR INJURIES PROXIMATELY RESULTING THEREFROM, AND THAT NEITHER EVIDENCE
OF NEGLIGENCE NOR OF DILIGENCE AND CARE WAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE
QUESTION OF THIS LIABILITY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PHILADELPHIA & R.R. CO. V. EISENHART, 280 F. 271(C.A. 3D CIR.,
1922); KEENAN V. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, 285 F. 286(C.A.2D CIR.,
1922); MCALLISTER V. ST. LOUIS MERCHANTS BRIDGE TERMINAL R. CO., 324
MO. 1005, 1014, 25 S.W.2D 791, 796(1930); SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
THOMAS, 21 ARIZ. 355, 360-361, 188 P. 268, 270(1920); KOWALSKI V.
CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 159 MINN. 388, 392-393, 199 N.W. 178, 180(1924);
SAXTON V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 256 N.Y. 363, 176 N.E. 425(1931).  CF.
VIGOR V. CHESAPEAKE & O.R. CO., 101 F.2D 865, 868(C.A.7TH CIR., 1939);
WESTERN & ATL. R. CO. V. GENTLE, 58 GA. APP. 282, 295, 198 S.E. 257,
265(1938). 

FN2  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY RAILROAD TO HAUL OR PERMIT TO BE HAULED OR USED
ON ITS LINE ANY CAR USED IN MOVING INTERSTATE TRAFFIC NOT EQUIPPED WITH
COUPLERS COUPLING AUTOMATICALLY BY IMPACT, AND WHICH CAN BE UNCOUPLED
WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF MEN GOING BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE CARS." 

FN3 E.G., SAN ANTONIO & A.P.R. CO. V. WAGNER, 241 U.S. 476;
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V. GOTSCHALL, 244 U.S. 66; SOUTHERN PAC.
CO. V. THOMAS, 21 ARIZ. 355, 361, 188 P. 268, 270; WESTERN & ATLANTIC
R. CO. V. GENTLE, 58 GA. APP. 282, 198 S.E. 257; VIGOR V. CHESAPEAKE &
O.R. CO., 101 F.2D 865, 869.  SEE ALSO 2 ROBERTS, FEDERAL LIABILITIES
OF CARRIERS, SECS. 620, 655 ET SEQ., 789, 790(2D ED. 1929); 2 SHEARMAN
& REDFIELD ON NEGLIGENCE, SEC. 183(REV.  ED. 1941); THORNTON, FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY AND SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS, SECS. 289, 302, 311(3D
ED. 1916); RICHEY'S FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY, SAFETY APPLIANCE, AND
HOURS OF SERVICE ACTS, SECS. 56, 217, 252(2D ED. 1916). 

FN4  FOR DISCUSSIONS OF THE GENERAL PROBLEM AND ILLUSTRATIVE CASES,
SEE PROSSER ON TORTS, SEC. 39; HARPER, LAW OF TORTS, SEC. 78; BOHLEN,
CASES ON TORTS, PP. 187-204(3D ED. 1930); 1 SHEARMAN & REDFIELD ON
NEGLIGENCE, SECS. 11, 12(REV.  ED. 1941); 2 RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF
TORTS, SECS. 286-288; THAYER, PUBLIC WRONG AND PRIVATE ACTION, 27 HARV.
L. REV. 317; LOWNDES, CIVIL LIABILITY CREATED BY CRIMINAL LEGISLATION,
16 MINN. L. REV. 361. 

FN5  SECTION 1 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 51, PROVIDES THAT "EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD  ...  SHALL BE
LIABLE IN DAMAGES  ...  FOR SUCH INJURY OR DEATH RESULTING IN WHOLE OR
IN PART  ...  BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT OR INSUFFICIENCY, DUE TO ITS
NEGLIGENCE  ...  "  AND SEE SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. HORTON, 233
U.S. 492, 501-502. 

FN6  THIS, AFTER ALL, IS THE COMMAND OF RULE 10(B), FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH PROVIDES:  "ALL AVERMENTS OF CLAIM OR DEFENSE
SHALL BE MADE IN NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS, THE CONTENTS OF EACH OF WHICH
SHALL BE LIMITED AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE TO A STATEMENT OF A SINGLE SET
OF CIRCUMSTANCES  ...  " 

PROFESSOR MOORE, IN DISCUSSING THIS RULE WITH REFERENCE TO CLAIMS
BASED UPON BOTH COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY GROUNDS, STATES:  "SEPARATE
STATEMENT BY WAY OF COUNTS IS NOT REQUIRED; SEPARATE PARAGRAPHING IN
SETTING OUT THE GROUNDS IN THE ABOVE ACTIONS IS DESIRABLE AND
REQUIRED."  2 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE, 2006-2007(2D ED. 1948). 

FN7  WE DO NOT SAY THAT A RAILROAD MAY NEVER EFFECTIVELY DEFEND UNDER
THE ACT BY SHOWING THAT AN ADEQUATE COUPLER FAILED TO HOLD BECAUSE IT
WAS BROKEN OR RELEASED THROUGH INTERVENING AND INDEPENDENT CAUSES OTHER
THAN ITS INADEQUACY OR DEFECTIVENESS; SUCH, FOR EXAMPLE, AS THE WORK OF
A SABOTEUR.  AND WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER A SITUATION
WHERE AN ADEQUATE COUPLER FAILED TO HOLD BECAUSE IT WAS IMPROPERLY SET,
SINCE SUCH FACTS ARE NOT BEFORE US. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON
TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

WE DO NOT AGREE THAT THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS CONTAIN A MANDATORY
REQUIREMENT THAT CARS USED IN MOVING INTERSTATE TRAFFIC MUST BE
EQUIPPED WITH COUPLERS THAT "WILL REMAIN COUPLED UNTIL SET FREE BY SOME
PURPOSEFUL ACT OF CONTROL."  FN1  CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE SO LEGISLATED, AS
IT DID IN THE SECTION WHICH REQUIRED CARS TO BE EQUIPPED WITH
"EFFICIENT HAND BRAKES; ...  "  FN2  SEE MYERS V. READING CO., 331 U.S.
477.  HOWEVER, IT DID NOT DO SO.  ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIAL JUDGE, ON THIS
PHASE OF THIS CASE, WAS JUSTIFIED IN OMITTING ANY INSTRUCTION TO THE
JURY THAT, IF THE RAILROAD USED A CAR EQUIPPED WITH A COUPLER THAT
BROKE IN THE SWITCHING OPERATION, IT THEREBY VIOLATED THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACTS. 

IN OUR VIEW, THE SEPARATING OF THE CARS AT THE BROKEN COUPLER WAS
PROPERLY TREATED AS MATERIAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD INFER
THAT THE RAILROAD HAD VIOLATED THE PROHIBITION OF THE ACTS AGAINST
USING CARS "NOT EQUIPPED WITH COUPLERS COUPLING AUTOMATICALLY BY
IMPACT, AND WHICH CAN BE UNCOUPLED WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF MEN GOING
BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE CARS."  FN3  VIGOR V. CHESAPEAKE & O.R. CO.,
101 F.2D 865.  CF. JOHNSON V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 196 U.S. 1.  THE
JURY WAS ADEQUATELY INSTRUCTED TO THAT EFFECT. 

FN1  SUPRA, P. 389. 

FN2  36 STAT. 298, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 11. 

FN3  27 STAT. 531, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 2. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. TORONTO NAV. CO., 338 U.S. 396 


NO. 39.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 12, 1949.  - 112
CT. CL. 240, 81 F.SUPP.  237, REVERSED. 


UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 902 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, AS
AMENDED, THE UNITED STATES REQUISITIONED RESPONDENT'S FRESH-WATER CAR
FERRY ON LAKE ERIE.  THE VESSEL WAS BUILT IN 1916; WAS IN SERVICE ON
LAKE ERIE FROM THAT YEAR UNTIL 1932; AND, EXCEPT FOR A 2-YEAR CHARTER
PERIOD, WAS IDLE FROM 1932 UNTIL REQUISITIONED IN 1942.  IN DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO BE
PAID RESPONDENT, THE COURT OF CLAIMS, ABSENT EVIDENCE OF "MARKET
VALUE," RELIED UPON THE EARNINGS OF THE VESSEL FROM 1916 TO 1932 AND
UPON THE "DEMAND" FOR SUCH A VESSEL FOR USE BETWEEN FLORIDA AND CUBA. 
HELD: 

1.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRED IN RELYING
ON THE VESSEL'S 1916-1932 EARNINGS.  PP. 402-403. 

(A)  WHERE, AS HERE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE "MARKET VALUE" AS
A BASIS FOR JUST COMPENSATION, OTHER MEASURES OF VALUE MAY BE
RELEVANT.  PP. 402-403. 

(B)  PAST EARNINGS ARE SIGNIFICANT IN ASSESSING VALUE ONLY WHEN THEY
TEND TO REFLECT FUTURE RETURNS.  P. 403. 

(C)  ON THE RECORD, THE VESSEL'S 1916-1932 EARNINGS WERE WITHOUT
RELEVANCE ON THE ISSUE OF ITS CAPACITY TO EARN AFTER 1942, ON THE GREAT
LAKES OR ELSEWHERE.  P. 403. 

2.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRED IN
ACCORDING WEIGHT TO FLORIDA VALUES.  PP. 404-407. 

(A)  TO JUSTIFY CONSIDERATION OF FLORIDA VALUES, THE BURDEN WAS ON
THE RESPONDENT TO SHOW THAT IT WAS LIKELY THAT A PROSPECTIVE FLORIDA
BUYER WOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED THE GREAT LAKES MARKET AND CONSIDERED A
VESSEL LIKE RESPONDENT'S MOORED TO ITS OHIO DOCK; OR THAT THE ORDINARY
GREAT LAKES OWNER WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE TROUBLE AND EXPENSE TO SEND A
VESSEL TO FLORIDA FOR A POSSIBLE SALE; OR THAT EITHER OF THESE
POSSIBILITIES WOULD HAVE HAD AN EFFECT ON PRICE HAD RESPONDENT'S VESSEL
BEEN SOLD ON THE GREAT LAKES.  P. 406. 

(B)  THE QUESTION IN SUCH CASE IS WHAT THE ORDINARY BUSINESSMAN IN
THE TRADE WOULD HAVE DONE, NOT WHAT THE OWNER WOULD HAVE DONE.  P.
406. 

(C)  RESPONDENT'S BURDEN OF PROOF WAS NOT MET BY A BARE RECORD OF
FIVE SALES, THREE OF WHICH WERE TO THE UNITED STATES, AND BUT ONE ON
THE GREAT LAKES FOR FLORIDA USE - AND THAT AFTER THE WAR'S END.  P.
406. 

(D)  A FINDING BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT THERE WERE PROBABILITIES
OF SALE IN FLORIDA IN 1942 SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION OF
DEMAND THERE IN FIXING THE VALUE OF RESPONDENT'S VESSEL, ON SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE NOT NOW BEFORE THIS COURT, IS NOT FORECLOSED; BUT THE COURT OF
CLAIMS IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ANY GEOGRAPHIC PRICE RANGE AT FULL
VALUE.  PP. 406-407. 

UNITED STATES V. TORONTO, HAMILTON & BUFFALO NAVIGATION CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER JUST COMPENSATION
FOR A VESSEL REQUISITIONED UNDER SEC. 902 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF
1936, AS AMENDED, THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE
CLAIMANT, RESPONDENT HERE.  112 CT. CL. 240, 81 F.SUPP.  237.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 965.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P.
407. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE FACED AGAIN WITH ELUSIVE QUESTIONS OF PROPERTY VALUATION IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE UNITED STATES AWARDED "JUST COMPENSATION" UNDER
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WHEN IT TOOK THE RESPONDENT'S CAR FERRY, THE
MAITLAND NO. 1, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SEC. 902 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE
ACT OF 1936, AS AMENDED, 53 STAT. 1254, 1255, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1242.  THE
GOVERNMENT REQUISITIONED THE VESSEL IN 1942, AND DETERMINED ITS FAIR
VALUE AS $72,500.  IN 1943, RESPONDENT EXERCISED ITS OPTION TO ACCEPT
75 PER CENT OF THE AWARD, AND IN 1945 BROUGHT ACTION IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO RECOVER $711,753 AS THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR JUST
COMPENSATION.  THE COURT, TWO JUDGES DISSENTING, HELD THAT THE FAIR
VALUE OF THE MAITLAND WAS $161,833.72, MORE THAN TWICE THE GOVERNMENT'S
ORIGINAL DETERMINATION.  112 CT. CL. 240, 81 F.SUPP.  237.  WE BROUGHT
THE CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI, 336 U.S. 965, BECAUSE IT PRESENTS PROBLEMS
OF DIFFICULTY AND IMPORTANCE IN THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE
GENERAL STANDARD OF JUST COMPENSATION. 

THE FACTS WERE FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THEY MUST BE STATED IN
SOME DETAIL. 

1.  THE MAITLAND NO. 1 WAS A CONVENTIONAL, STEEL-HULL, TWO-STACKER,
TWIN-SCREW FERRY FOR RAILROAD CARS, BUILT IN 1916.  UNTIL 1932 SHE
PLIED ACROSS LAKE ERIE BETWEEN ASHTABULA, OHIO, AND PORT MAITLAND,
CANADA.  SHE WAS RESPONDENT'S ONLY SHIP ON THAT ROUTE, AND HER
PRINCIPAL CARGO WAS COAL FOR A STEEL COMPANY IN HAMILTON, ONTARIO.  ON
THE CANADIAN SIDE, RESPONDENT'S CONNECTING RAIL LINE MOVED THE COAL TO
DESTINATION IN HAMILTON.  BUT A MORE CONVENIENT ROUTE ON LAKE ONTARIO
CAUSED A SHARP DECLINE IN RESPONDENT'S TRAFFIC BEGINNING IN 1928.  AND
WHEN THE "NEW WELLAND CANAL" BETWEEN LAKE ERIE AND LAKE ONTARIO WAS
OPENED IN 1932, AND LARGER SHIPS CARRIED THE LOAD DIRECTLY TO HAMILTON,
RESPONDENT ABANDONED THE LINE.  FROM 1932 TO 1935 THE MAITLAND WAS LAID
UP AT HER DOCK IN OHIO. 

ON NOVEMBER 29, 1935, RESPONDENT CHARTERED THE SHIP AT AN UNSPECIFIED
RATE TO A COMPANY FERRYING FREIGHT ACROSS LAKE MICHIGAN, AND
THEREAFTER, FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES, TITLE WAS TRANSFERRED
TO THE LAKE MICHIGAN CONCERN.  THE TRANSFER RECITED A TOTAL
CONSIDERATION OF $166,000 AND INCLUDED A "RECAPTURE" CLAUSE.  ON
DECEMBER 15, 1937, THIS RIGHT WAS EXERCISED AND UPON PAYMENT OF
$92,894.80 THE MAITLAND WAS RETURNED TO ASHTABULA WHERE SHE LAY UNTIL
REQUISITIONED IN AUGUST, 1942. 

2.  COST, BOOK AND SCRAP VALUE, UPKEEP AND EARNINGS OF MAITLAND.  -
THE MAITLAND WAS BUILT IN 1916 AT A COST OF $362,800.  RESPONDENT, A
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND CANADIAN PACIFIC
RAILWAYS, ACQUIRED HER FROM RESPONDENT'S OWN PRESIDENT IN THAT YEAR,
PAYING $394,560.  FROM 1917 TO 1930, RESPONDENT SPENT $38,115.46 FOR
"ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS TO THE VESSEL."  REPAIRS FROM 1922 TO 1932
AMOUNTED TO $20,329.11 PER ANNUM.  LAY-UP EXPENSES FROM 1938 TO 1942 -
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EARLIER YEARS - AVERAGED $2,700 PER YEAR,
INCLUDING REPAIRS.  IT WOULD HAVE COST THE GOVERNMENT SOME $35,000 TO
PLACE THE SHIP IN OPERATING CONDITION IN 1942. 

HER INSURED VALUATION IN 1942 WAS $100,000; HER SCRAP VALUE $13,500. 
WE DO NOT KNOW THE REPRODUCTION COST AT THAT TIME.  BOOK VALUE, FIGURED
AT ORIGINAL COST LESS DEPRECIATION AT ONE PER CENT FOR EACH OF THE
FIRST THREE YEARS AND FOUR PER CENT PER ANNUM FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD
WAS $75,509.51.  THE EARNINGS VARIED DURING THE YEARS SHE WAS OPERATED
BY RESPONDENT.  THE AVERAGE ANNUAL NET OPERATING INCOME THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 1920, WAS $17,216.28; BOTH 1921 AND 1922 OPERATIONS FOUND
A DEFICIT, WHILE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS NET PROFIT WAS AT ITS HIGHEST
LEVEL, AVERAGING $129,893.92 PER ANNUM.  1928 AND 1929 WERE
PROGRESSIVELY BAD YEARS AND THE NEXT TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS SHOWED
LOSSES AVERAGING $15,417.82 PER YEAR.  IN JUNE 1932 THE TRAFFIC WAS SO
POOR THAT THE VESSEL WAS DOCKED AND HER OPERATION NEVER RESUMED.  THE
COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE AVERAGE ANNUAL NET PROFIT FOR THE ENTIRE
PERIOD OF OPERATION, ENDING IN 1932, WAS $42,816.36, AMOUNTING TO A
RETURN OF 10.41 PER CENT PER ANNUM ON THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT. 

3.  SALES OF OTHER VESSELS OF LIKE CLASS ON GREAT LAKES.  - AFTER
1930, SHIPS OF THE MAITLAND TYPE WERE OBSOLETE AND NOT IN DEMAND AS
RAILROAD CAR FERRIES ON THE GREAT LAKES.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE "OUTER
BELT" RAILROAD AROUND THE CHICAGO YARDS AND ABOLITION OF A RATE
DIFFERENTIAL MADE ALLRAIL TRANSPORTATION, OR MOVEMENT ON LARGER AND
MORE MODERN FERRIES, MORE PRACTICAL FOR SHIPPERS. 

BUT THE COURT FOUND THAT IN 1942 "THERE WERE A NUMBER OF SECONDARY
USES FOR THE VESSEL FOR WHICH A DEMAND DID EXIST AT THAT TIME" FOR USE
ON THE GREAT LAKES.  CONVERSION TO AUTOMOBILE FERRY WAS RELATIVELY
SIMPLE AND ECONOMICAL; AND THE COURT FOUND THAT THREE SALES OF SIMILAR
VESSELS HAD OCCURRED FROM 1936 TO 1940 FOR THAT USE.  THE PRICES RANGED
FROM $25,000 TO $65,000, BUT CONVERSION AND REPAIR COSTS WERE GREATER
BECAUSE OF THE AGE AND MAINTENANCE RECORD OF THE VESSELS. 

TWO OTHER VESSELS THAT WERE BUILT FROM THE SAME PLANS AS THE MAITLAND
WERE SOLD FOR USE ON THE GREAT LAKES IN 1940 AND 1942, FOR CONVERSION
AS BULK CARRIERS OF PULPWOOD.  SALE PRICES WERE $24,000 AND $37,724.04,
RESPECTIVELY.  NEITHER OF THESE VESSELS, HOWEVER, WAS IN THE STATE OF
REPAIR OF THE MAITLAND.  ONE HAD BEEN BUILT IN 1903, THE OTHER IN
1910. 

4.  SALES OF VESSELS OF LIKE CLASS FOR CAR FERRYING ON ATLANTIC
COAST.  - WHILE THERE WAS A FINDING THAT IN "1942, THERE WAS A DEMAND
FOR A VESSEL SUCH AS THE MAITLAND NO. 1 FOR USE AS A CAR FERRY BETWEEN
FLORIDA AND CUBA," THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THIS "DEMAND" HAD
REFLECTED ITSELF IN THE GREAT LAKES MARKET.  THE MAITLAND WAS NOT
EQUIPPED TO OPERATE IN SALT WATER AND IT WOULD HAVE COST "NOT LESS
THAN" $115,000 SO TO EQUIP AND MOVE HER TO FLORIDA, NOT INCLUDING
NECESSARY STRENGTHENING FOR OCEAN SERVICE.  THERE IS NO FINDING THAT
RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SELL THE VESSEL HAD IT BEEN
TRANSPORTED TO FLORIDA, NOR THAT SUCCESSFUL OPERATION THERE WAS
POSSIBLE. 

THE FLORIDA "DEMAND" SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN PREDICATED UPON FIVE SALES OF
FOUR VESSELS BETWEEN 1941 AND 1945.  ONLY ONE SHIP, THE GRAND HAVEN,
WAS SOLD WHILE ON THE GREAT LAKES, AND THAT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER
HOSTILITIES ENDED IN THE LAST WAR.  SHE WAS SMALLER BUT FASTER THAN THE
MAITLAND, AND BROUGHT A $50,000 PRICE.  SHE WAS FLOATED DOWN THE
MISSISSIPPI TO THE GULF AT "CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE."  WE KNOW NEITHER
THIS AMOUNT NOR THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR REPAIRS. 

THE OTHER FOUR SALES WERE OF VESSELS VERY SIMILAR TO THE MAITLAND,
BUILT BETWEEN 1914 AND 1920; BUT, UNLIKE THE GRAND HAVEN AND THE
MAITLAND, THESE FERRIES WERE OPERATING ON THE ATLANTIC COAST AND WERE
ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED FOR OCEAN TRAVEL.  THE SALE PRICES WERE $100,000
AND $170,000 FOR ONE VESSEL, THE HENRY M. FLAGLER,  FN1  AND $332,500
EACH FOR THE TWO OTHERS.  FN2  THE LATTER TWO REQUIRED ABOUT $20,000
EACH FOR REPAIRS.  ALL THREE VESSELS WERE "PURCHASED" BY THE UNITED
STATES AFTER REQUISITION. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS, FINDING THAT "THE PROPERTY CONDEMNED" WAS
"UNIQUE,  ...  PECULIARLY SITUATED" AND WITHOUT RELATIVE COMPARISON ON
THE GREAT LAKES, CONCLUDED THAT THE MAITLAND WAS WORTH MORE THAN "THE
RESIDUAL VALUE OF AN OBSOLETE CAR FERRY," THUS REQUIRING RESORT TO "A
CONSIDERATION OF THE EARNINGS  ...  , IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
CONTEMPORANEOUS TRANSACTIONS IN VESSELS OF CLOSE SIMILARITY IN
DETERMINING A FAIR VALUE."  IT CALLED "THE AVERAGE MEAN RESIDUAL VALUE
OF AN OBSOLETE CAR FERRY" $50,000; "ATTRIBUTING THIS VALUE TO THE
MAITLAND," THE CAPITALIZED VALUE OF AN ANNUAL INCOME COMPARABLE TO THAT
OF THE MAITLAND FOR THE SIXTEEN YEARS ENDING IN 1932 WAS THE FIGURE OF
$389,767.15, "ACCORDING TO ACTUARIAL TABLES IN EVIDENCE."  THE COURT
THEN DEDUCTED THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF
THE VESSEL IN FRESH AND SALT WATER (20%), THE COST OF CONVERSION TO
SALT WATER AND SAILING IT TO FLORIDA, AND THE NECESSARY REPAIRS.  UNDER
THIS FORMULA, $161,833.72 WAS THE FAIR VALUE "FOR ITS HIGHEST AVAILABLE
AND MOST PROFITABLE USE FOR WHICH IT WAS ADAPTABLE AT THE TIME OF ITS
TAKING." 

PERHAPS NO WARNING HAS BEEN MORE REPEATED THAN THAT THE DETERMINATION
OF VALUE CANNOT BE REDUCED TO INEXORABLE RULES.  SUFFICE TO SAY THAT
THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC'S NEED AND THE CLAIMANT'S LOSS HAS BEEN
STRUCK, IN MOST CASES, BY AWARDING THE CLAIMANT THE MONETARY "MARKET
VALUE" OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S.
369, 374(1943).  USUALLY THAT IS A PRACTICAL STANDARD; USUALLY THAT
APPROACHES THE "JUST" COMPENSATION DEMANDED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

AT TIMES, HOWEVER, PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES MAY MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
DETERMINE A "MARKET VALUE."  THERE MAY HAVE BEEN, FOR EXAMPLE, SO FEW
SALES OF SIMILAR PROPERTY THAT WE CANNOT PREDICT WITH ANY ASSURANCE
THAT THE PRICES PAID WOULD HAVE BEEN REPEATED IN THE SALE WE POSTULATE
OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN.  WE THEN SAY THAT THERE IS "NO MARKET" FOR THE
PROPERTY IN QUESTION.  BUT THAT DOES NOT PUT OUT OF HAND THE BEARING
WHICH THE SCATTERED SALES MAY HAVE ON WHAT AN ORDINARY PURCHASER WOULD
HAVE PAID FOR THE CLAIMANT'S PROPERTY.  FN3  WE SIMPLY MUST BE WARY
THAT WE GIVE THESE SPARSE SALES LESS WEIGHT THAN WE ACCORD "MARKET"
PRICE, AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THOSE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN OTHER
SALES WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED OUR HYPOTHETICAL BUYER.  AND IT IS
HERE THAT OTHER MEANS OF MEASURING VALUE MAY HAVE RELEVANCE - BUT ONLY,
OF COURSE, AS BEARING ON WHAT A PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER WOULD HAVE PAID. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO
GREAT LAKES "MARKET" IN THE SENSE DISCUSSED ABOVE.  WE HARDLY THINK
THAT FIVE SALES OF DISSIMILAR VESSELS REQUIRE A FINDING THAT ANY ONE OF
THE VARYING PRICES WOULD HAVE BEEN REPEATED HAD THE MAITLAND BEEN
OFFERED FOR SALE.  AND SO WE ARE IN BASIC AGREEMENT WITH THE COURT
BELOW THAT OTHER MEASURES OF VALUE MAY BE RELEVANT. 

BUT THERE ARE FEW OF THESE SUBSTITUTE STANDARDS WHICH ARE IN FACT OF
ASSISTANCE IN ASSESSING THE VALUE OF THE MAITLAND.  ORIGINAL COST IS
WELL TERMED THE "FALSE STANDARD OF THE PAST"  FN4  WHERE, AS HERE,
PRESENT MARKET VALUE IN NO WAY REFLECTS THAT COST.  SO WITH
REPRODUCTION COST, WHEN NO ONE WOULD THINK OF REPRODUCING THE
PROPERTY.  FN5  AND PAST EARNINGS ARE SIGNIFICANT ONLY WHEN THEY TEND
TO REFLECT FUTURE RETURNS.  FN6  WE SEE NO RELEVANCE IN THE MAITLAND'S
EARNINGS BETWEEN 1916 AND 1932 ON THE ISSUE OF CAPACITY TO EARN AFTER
1942, ON THE GREAT LAKES OR ELSEWHERE.  ON THIS RECORD THEY ARE
ENTIRELY TOO REMOTE TO BEAR ON THE VESSEL'S VALUE WHEN TAKEN.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS' RELIANCE UPON EARNINGS WAS ERROR. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT THE ABSENCE OF "MARKET" PRICE DOES NOT, IPSO FACTO,
RID ISOLATED CONTEMPORANEOUS SALES OF ALL RELEVANCE.  NONE OF THE
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE FINDINGS BELOW WERE BASED IS BEFORE US, BUT IT
SEEMS LIKELY THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MAITLAND AND SHIPS SOLD
ON THE GREAT LAKES BETWEEN 1936 AND 1942 MAY BE CALCULATED WITH SOME
DEGREE OF ACCURACY.  AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY INDICATE THE RELEVANCE
OF THE MAITLAND'S INSURANCE VALUATION.  SEE RULE 3, ADVISORY BOARD ON
JUST COMPENSATION, 1943 A.M.C. 1443, 1444.  BUT CF. WESTMORELAND C. &
C. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 293 PA. 326, 331, 142 A. 867,
869(1928); REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD, SUPRA, PP. 152
153. 

WE HAVE YET TO CONSIDER THE WEIGHT GIVEN TO WHAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS
CALLED FLORIDA "DEMAND."  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER FLORIDA PRICES MAY BE
CONSIDERED AT ALL IN DETERMINING VALUE WHEN THE MAITLAND WAS TAKEN ON
THE GREAT LAKES. 

TWO CASES IN THIS COURT, BOTH INVOLVING THE REQUISITION OF COAL, HAVE
STATED THE RULE THAT WHERE "PRIVATE PROPERTY IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE,
AND THERE IS A MARKET PRICE PREVAILING AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE
TAKING, THAT PRICE IS JUST COMPENSATION."  UNITED STATES V. NEW RIVER
COLLIERIES, 262 U.S. 341, 344(1923); DAVIS V. NEWTON COAL CO., 267 U.S.
292, 301(1925).  (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.)  WE HAVE HELD THAT IN THIS CASE
THERE WAS NO "MARKET" ON THE GREAT LAKES; AND SO THE QUOTED RULE IS IN
TERMS INAPPLICABLE.  BUT NEITHER CAN A FLORIDA MARKET BE ESTABLISHED ON
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US. AND WE HAVE REMINDED THE COURT BELOW THAT IT
MAY CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL SALES FOR USE ON THE GREAT LAKES FOR WHAT
BEARING THEY MAY HAVE UPON THE MAITLAND'S VALUE. 

WE TAKE IT THAT IN THE VALUATION OF READILY SALABLE ARTICLES, PRICE
AT THE MARKET NEAREST THE TAKING IS, AT LEAST IN THE USUAL CASE, A
PRACTICAL RULE OF THUMB, AND ONE THAT IS MOST LIKELY TO PLACE THE
CLAIMANT IN THE PECUNIARY POSITION HE OCCUPIED BEFORE THE TAKING.  SUCH
CONSIDERATIONS SEEM TO UNDERLIE A SIMILAR RESULT IN THE LAW OF SALES,
AND IN THE GENERAL LAW OF DAMAGES.  THUS, IN GRAND TOWER CO. V.
PHILLIPS, 23 WALL.  471(1874), THE PLAINTIFF HAD PLANNED TO SELL THE
DEFENDANT'S COAL AT THE BEST AVAILABLE MARKET ON THE MISSISSIPPI
BETWEEN CAIRO AND NEW ORLEANS.  YET THE DEFENDANT'S BREACH OF CONTRACT
TO SELL TO PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A "MORE DIRECT" MEASUREMENT OF DAMAGES:
THE NEAREST AVAILABLE MARKET.  SEE HARRIS V. PANAMA R. CO., 58 N.Y.
660(1874); 3 WILLISTON, SALES SECS. 599, 599E (REV. ED. 1948), AND
CASES CITED.    BUT WE DO NOT THINK A SIMILAR RULE PRACTICAL OR FAIR IN
THE REQUISITION OF PROPERTY WHICH MOST OWNERS WOULD, IF POSSIBLE, SELL
WITHOUT GEOGRAPHIC RESTRICTION.  WE DOUBT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT OWNERS OF
OCEAN LINERS WOULD, UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, FAIL TO NEGOTIATE
BEYOND THE PORT IN WHICH THE VESSELS LAY - WHETHER OR NOT OCEAN LINERS
ARE "GOODS" AND SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SALES.  FN7  WERE MARKET
CONDITIONS NORMAL,  FN8  WE COULD HARDLY CALL AN AWARD "JUST
COMPENSATION" UNLESS RELEVANT FOREIGN SALES, IN AVAILABLE MARKETS, WERE
CONSIDERED.  SEE SUPPLEMENTARY RULES 1 AND 3, ADVISORY BOARD ON JUST
COMPENSATION, 1945 A.M.C. 1382, 1383; GLASPY V. CABOT, 135 MASS.
435(1883). 

THE QUESTION IS OF COURSE ONE OF DEGREE, AND WE DO NOT MEAN TO
FORECLOSE THE CONSIDERATION OF EACH CASE UPON ITS FACTS.  OLSON V.
UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 246, 255(1934), RELIED UPON BELOW, MAKES THIS
CLEAR.  THIS COURT THERE STATED THAT THE "HIGHEST AND MOST PROFITABLE
USE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY IS ADAPTABLE AND NEEDED OR LIKELY TO BE
NEEDED IN THE REASONABLY NEAR FUTURE IS TO BE CONSIDERED, NOT
NECESSARILY AS THE MEASURE OF VALUE, BUT TO THE FULL EXTENT THAT THE
PROSPECT OF DEMAND FOR SUCH USE AFFECTS THE MARKET VALUE WHILE THE
PROPERTY IS PRIVATELY HELD."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES HAD EARLIER WARNED
THAT THE PROSPECTIVE USE MAY BE CONSIDERED "ONLY SO FAR AS THE PUBLIC
WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED IT"; THE PRICE WAS NOT TO BE "WHAT A TRIBUNAL AT
A LATER DATE MAY THINK A PURCHASER WOULD HAVE BEEN WISE TO GIVE."  NEW
YORK V. SAGE, 239 U.S. 57, 61(1915). 

ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS IN ERROR IN
ACCORDING WEIGHT TO FLORIDA VALUES.  WHETHER THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF MORE
PROFITABLE USE OR SIMPLY OF A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS PRICE IN A DISTANT
PORT, THE BURDEN IS ON THE CLAIMANT  FN9  TO SHOW THAT IT IS LIKELY
THAT A PROSPECTIVE FLORIDA BUYER WOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED THE GREAT
LAKES MARKET AND CONSIDERED A SHIP LIKE THE MAITLAND WHILE IT WAS
MOORED TO ITS OHIO DOCK; OR THAT THE ORDINARY GREAT LAKES OWNER WOULD
HAVE UNDERGONE THE TROUBLE AND EXPENSE NECESSARY TO SEND HIS SHIP TO
FLORIDA FOR A POSSIBLE SALE; OR, FINALLY, THAT EITHER OF THESE
POSSIBILITIES WOULD HAVE HAD AN EFFECT ON PRICE HAD THE MAITLAND BEEN
SOLD ON THE GREAT LAKES.  AND THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE ORDINARY
BUSINESSMAN IN THE TRADE WOULD DO, NOT WHAT THE OWNER CLAIMS HE WOULD
DO; A CONTRARY RULE WOULD INVITE PERJURY, AND WOULD SMACK OF THE KIND
OF SPECIAL VALUE WHICH WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE ORDINARY
PURCHASER.  SEE GRAND TOWER CO. V. PHILLIPS, SUPRA. 

A BARE RECORD RECITING FIVE SALES, THREE TO THE UNITED STATES, AND
BUT ONE ON THE GREAT LAKES FOR FLORIDA USE - AND THAT AFTER THE WAR'S
END - DOES NOT MEET THE CLAIMANT'S BURDEN.  BUT WE LEAVE THE FINAL
QUESTION OPEN FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BELOW.  WE DO NOT MEAN TO
FORECLOSE A FINDING, ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE NOT NOW BEFORE US, THAT
THERE WERE PROBABILITIES OF SALE IN FLORIDA IN 1942 SUFFICIENT TO
WARRANT CONSIDERATION OF DEMAND THERE IN FIXING THE VALUE OF THE
MAITLAND.  WE MAY ADD THAT THE COURT IS CLEARLY NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ANY
GEOGRAPHIC PRICE RANGE AT FULL VALUE. 

THIS RECORD, HOWEVER, JUSTIFIES NEITHER OF THE VALUATION MEASURES
ADOPTED BELOW.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE FIRST SALE WAS IN MAY 1941 TO A PRIVATE PARTY WHO HAD
THEREAFTER SPENT $63,820 FOR NECESSARY REPAIRS.  THE SECOND SALE WAS ON
REQUISITION, JULY 28, 1941, BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION. 

FN2  THESE VESSELS, THE JOSEPH R. PARROTT AND THE ESTRADA PALMA, WERE
REQUISITIONED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION IN JUNE, 1942. 

FN3  CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MIGHT AFFECT OUR RULINGS IN THIS CASE IF
THE CAUSE WERE TRIED TO A JURY NEED NOT CONCERN US HERE. 

FN4  E. SCHMALENBACH, FINANZIERUNGEN, PP. 4-6(3D ED., LEIPZIG, 1922),
QUOTED IN 1 BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY 147, N. 9(1937).  "IT IS
THE PROPERTY AND NOT THE COST OF IT THAT IS PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT."  BROOKS-SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S. 106,
123(1924).  BUT SEE BONBRIGHT, SUPRA, CH. VIII. 

FN5  SEE 1 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD ON JUST
COMPENSATION 170(UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION, MIMEOGRAPHED, 1943).  CF. STANDARD OIL CO. V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO., 268 U.S. 146(1925); THE HISKO, 54 F.2D 540(1931). 

FN6  SEE ORGEL, VALUATION UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN, CH. XIV (1936); 2
NICHOLS, EMINENT DOMAIN SEC. 446(2D ED. 1917); THE I.C. WHITE, 295 F.
593, 595, 596(1924).  AS TO THE SEPARATION WHICH MUST BE MADE, IN ANY
CASE, BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE VALUE OF THE CLAIMANT'S
OWN BUSINESS SKILL, SEE KIMBALL LAUNDRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S.
1(1949). 

FN7  SEE RIVARA V. STEWART & CO., 241 N.Y. 259, 264, 149 N.E. 851,
852(1925), PER CARDOZO, J.; BEHNKE V. BEDE SHIPPING CO. (1927) 1 K.B.
649.  CF. MEERING V. DUKE, 6 L.J. (O.S.)  211(K.B. 1828)(STAMP ACT). 

FN8  BUT SEE REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD, NOTE 5,
SUPRA, PP. 64-71. 

FN9  UNITED STATES EX REL. T.V.A. V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266,
273(1943). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

EVEN THOUGH I JOIN THE COURT'S OPINION IN ITS GENERAL DIRECTION, THE
TREACHEROUS NATURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER MAKES APPROPRIATE A SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF VIEWS. 

RESORT TO THE CONVENTIONAL FORMULAS FOR ASCERTAINING JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF PROPERTY RARELY BOUGHT AND SOLD, AND
HAVING THEREFORE NO RECOGNIZED MARKET VALUE, DOES NOT YIELD FRUITFUL
RESULTS.  THE VARIABLES ARE TOO MANY TO PERMIT OF ANYTHING EXCEPT AN
INFORMED JUDGMENT.  EVERYTHING, THEREFORE, TURNS ON THE PROCESS OF
JUDGMENT TO THE END THAT JUDGMENT BE NOT BASED ON STANDARDS TOO
DIFFICULT OF APPLICATION OR EVIDENCE TOO TENUOUS FOR SOLID INFERENCE. 

IT IS THIS COURT'S DUTY TO LAY DOWN STANDARDS FOR APPLICATION BY THE
LOWER COURTS.  BUT SINCE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH ASCERTAINMENT OF RATHER
ELUSIVE VALUES, THOSE WHOSE PRIMARY DUTY IT IS TO MAKE THESE ESTIMATES
OUGHT NOT TO BE CRAMPED BY RULES THAT ARE TOO RIGID AND TOO
ARTIFICIAL.  IF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THIS COURT IN A PARTICULAR
CASE REALLY TURN, AS THEY DO HERE, ON THE RELEVANCE OF DATA AND THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THEM IN ARRIVING AT JUST
COMPENSATION, THE TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE OF THE FACT-FINDERS BECOME
IMPORTANT. 

IF A JURY IS TO MAKE THE VALUATION THE AREA WITHIN WHICH SPECULATION
MAY IN THE NATURE OF THINGS ROAM AT LARGE SHOULD BE AS NARROWLY
CONFINED AS POSSIBLE.  SEE KIMBALL LAUNDRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 338
U.S. 1, 20.  BUT WHEN THE VALUER IS A COURT AND PARTICULARLY THE
TRIBUNAL THAT CONSISTS OF JUDGES TO WHOM MAY FAIRLY BE ATTRIBUTED THE
EXPERTNESS THAT COMES FROM FREQUENT DEALING WITH THE MORE ELUSIVE
PROBLEMS OF VALUE, IT SEEMS DESIRABLE FOR THIS COURT TO ALLOW SUCH
TRIBUNAL CONSIDERABLE FREEDOM FROM HARD AND FAST RULES IN DETERMINING
WHAT DATA ARE RELEVANT AND WHAT SIGNIFICANCE MAY BE DRAWN FROM THEM. 
BARRING OBVIOUSLY WRONG CRITERIA, OR FINDINGS BASELESS IN PROOF,
EXPERIENCE COUNSELS EMPIRICISM IN DEALING WITH THESE PROBLEMS.  AND
EMPIRICISM SUGGESTS SAILING AS CLOSE TO THE RECORD OF A PARTICULAR CASE
AS POSSIBLE.  ONLY THUS SHALL WE AVOID ABSTRACT PRONOUNCEMENTS BOUND TO
DISTORT OR TO BE DISTORTED BY THE CASE-BY-CASE ADJUDICATORY PROCESS
ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE IN PROBLEMS OF THIS NATURE.  EITHER LIP-SERVICE
WILL BE PAID SUCH FORMULAS WHILE DECISIONS ARE ROOTED IN CONSIDERATIONS
OUTSIDE THEM, OR FORMULAS NOT FITTING PRACTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES WILL
ACHIEVE IMPRACTICAL RESULTS. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS GENERAL APPROACH THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT COMES
DOWN TO THIS: 

1.  THE STARTING POINT OF THE COMPUTATION BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF
THE AMOUNT TO BE AWARDED FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S TAKING OF THE MAITLAND
WAS CAPITALIZATION OF ITS EARNINGS BETWEEN 1916 AND 1932.  WHILE WE DO
NOT HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS BEFORE THE COURT BELOW, ITS FINDINGS
DISCLOSE NO REASONABLE RELATION BETWEEN SUCH EARNINGS AND THE VALUE OF
THE VESSEL IN 1942, THE YEAR OF THE TAKING, WHETHER FOR USE ON THE
GREAT LAKES OR IN FLORIDA WATERS.  TO PERMIT SUCH DATA TO SERVE AS A
SPRINGBOARD FOR JUDGMENT IS TO LEAVE TOO MUCH TEMPTATION FOR UNBRIDLED
SPECULATION EVEN BY EXPERIENCED JUDGES. 

2.  IN THESE DAYS OF QUICK MOBILITY BOTH FOR PERSONS AND PROPERTY IT
WOULD BE AN UNJUSTIFIABLY ARTIFICIAL RULE TO CONFINE THE WORTH OF
MOBILE PROPERTY, AS WAS THE MAITLAND, TO PLACE VALUE.  OF COURSE IF
THERE WAS AN ACTIVE MARKET FOR PROPERTY TO BE CONDEMNED AT ABOUT THE
TIME AND PLACE OF THE TAKING, EVIDENCE OF DEMAND FOR SPECIAL USES, OR
AT OTHER PLACES, WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL IN SEEKING THE GENERAL VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY AS AGAINST SOME UNUSUAL SALABILITY OF THE PROPERTY,
UNUSUAL EITHER BY REASON OF LOCATION OR AS A MATTER OF USE.  SUCH
EVIDENCE OF ATYPICAL DEMAND SHOULD BE EXCLUDED NOT BECAUSE IT HAS NO
LOGICAL RELEVANCE BUT BECAUSE SUCH PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE AS IT HAS IS
ALREADY REFLECTED IN CURRENT MARKET PRICES.  BUT HERE IT WAS FOUND THAT
THERE WAS IN FACT NO MARKET ON THE GREAT LAKES FOR VESSELS LIKE THE
MAITLAND, AND, SINCE WHAT THE UNITED STATES GOT HAD TO BE TRANSLATED
INTO DOLLARS AND CENTS, THERE IS NO REASON IN SENSE AND THEREFORE NONE
IN LAW FOR EXCLUDING FROM CONSIDERATION THAT THERE WAS A DEMAND FOR
VESSELS SUCH AS THE MAITLAND FOR USE AS A CAR FERRY BETWEEN FLORIDA AND
CUBA. 

3.  BUT SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE CRITICALLY USED.  IT IS ONE THING TO
EXCLUDE SUCH EVIDENCE OF DEMAND AT A DISTANT PLACE TO WHICH THE
PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERABLE AND QUITE ANOTHER TO ASSUME THAT A FINDING
THAT IN 1942 THERE WAS SUCH A DEMAND IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT THE
MAITLAND WOULD HAVE FOUND A MARKET IN FLORIDA AND TO BASE VALUATION ON
SUCH ASSUMPTION.  PARTICULARLY IS THIS TRUE WHEN THE COURT BELOW FOUND
THAT IT WOULD HAVE COST AT LEAST $115,000 TO TRANSPORT THE MAITLAND TO
FLORIDA WATERS AND TO OUTFIT IT FOR SALT-WATER USE.  THE AMOUNT OF THIS
EXPENDITURE IS MORE THAN THE ARITHMETIC MEASURE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN
VALUE BETWEEN A VESSEL LOCATED IN FLORIDA AND ONE ON THE GREAT LAKES. 
THE RISK TO A PROFITABLE VENTURE THAT THE $115,000 EXPENDITURE IMPLIES
CASTS DOUBT ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE MAITLAND'S USE IN THE FLORIDA
TRADE.  FOR THE GREATER THE RISK THE SMALLER THE IMPACT OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES OF THE DISTANT MARKET.  THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THAT
FOR ITS DIFFICULT TASK OF VALUING THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE
CONFINED EITHER TO ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF THE FLORIDA DEMAND IN
TOTO.  LIKE MOST PROBLEMS IN THE LAW IT IS A MATTER OF DEGREE. 

4.  THIS COURT SHOULD NOT GO BEYOND INDICATING THE BROAD LINES FOR
ADJUDICATION BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, LEAVING TO THAT COURT DISCRETION
APPROPRIATE TO ITS EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING THE INDICATED STANDARDS TO
THE FACTS BEFORE IT.  THE ANALYSIS WE HAVE OUTLINED MUST BE FITTED TO
FACTS NOT NOW BEFORE US.  FN1  I AM NOT PREPARED THEREFORE TO SPECIFY
AS A MATTER OF LAW WHAT NUMBER OF LOGICALLY RELEVANT SALES DO OR DO NOT
MEET THE CLAIMANT'S BURDEN.  AFTER THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS MADE
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S DECISION IT WILL BE
TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE DATA BEFORE IT ARE TOO TENUOUS TO
PERMIT SOLID INFERENCES FROM THEM, AS SET FORTH IN APPROPRIATE
FINDINGS, REGARDING THE WEIGHT WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY ACCORD TO
THE FLORIDA DEMAND. 

FN1  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE COULD OF COURSE HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN
THE RECORD BROUGHT HERE UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1939, 53 STAT. 752,
AMENDING SEC. 3(B) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 939. 
SEE ALSO RULE 41 OF THIS COURT. 
..END :

















WILMETTE PARK DIST. V. CAMPBELL, 338 U.S. 411 


NO. 75.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15-16, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 12, 1949.  -
172 F.2D 885, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A STATE, OPERATED ON A NON-PROFIT
BASIS A PUBLIC BATHING BEACH TO WHICH ALL PERSONS ENTERING WERE CHARGED
ADMISSION.  FOR FAILURE TO COLLECT AND PAY THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC.
1700(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE ON CHARGES FOR "ADMISSION TO ANY
PLACE," PENALTIES WERE ASSESSED AGAINST PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 1718 OF
THE CODE.  HELD: 

1.  HAVING PAID THE PENALTIES FROM ITS GENERAL REVENUE FUND,
PETITIONER'S FINANCIAL INTEREST WAS SUFFICIENT TO GIVE IT STANDING TO
SUE FOR REFUND.  P. 414. 

2.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1700(A), THE CHARGE MADE BY PETITIONER
FOR ADMISSION TO THE BEACH WAS AN "AMOUNT PAID FOR ADMISSION TO ANY
PLACE," AND THAT SECTION WAS APPLICABLE.  PP. 414-419. 

(A)  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND BY SEC. 1700(A) TO TAX ONLY ADMISSIONS
TO "SPECTATOR ENTERTAINMENTS."  P. 415. 

(B)  THE BEACH AREA HERE INVOLVED WAS A "PLACE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 1700(A)(1).  PP. 415-416. 

(C)  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO EXEMPT NON-PROFIT OPERATIONS FROM THE
ADMISSIONS TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 1700(A) OF THE CODE, NOTWITHSTANDING
CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ALLOWED.  P. 416. 

(D)  THAT ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY A MUNICIPALITY WERE NOT INTENDED TO
BE EXEMPT FROM THE ADMISSIONS TAX IS INDICATED BY A LONG-CONTINUED
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION, EXPRESSLY DENYING SUCH EXEMPTION, WHICH
HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY REPEATED REENACTMENT OF THE RELEVANT LANGUAGE
WITHOUT CHANGE.  PP. 416-418. 

(E)  THE FACT THAT PETITIONER'S BEACH PATRONS MAKE USE OF A BEACH AND
ITS FACILITIES, AND THAT ITS ADMISSION CHARGE MAY BY LOCAL LAW BE
CONSIDERED A "USE TAX," DOES NOT RENDER SEC. 1700(A) INAPPLICABLE.  PP.
418-419. 

3.  THE APPLICATION OF THE ADMISSIONS TAX IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
ACTIVITY OF THE PETITIONER, THOUGH AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A STATE, DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 419-420. 

WILMETTE PARK DISTRICT V. CAMPBELL, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT FOR REFUND OF PENALTIES ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO COLLECT
FEDERAL ADMISSIONS TAX, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR
PETITIONER.  76 F.SUPP.  924.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  172 F.2D
885.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 937.  AFFIRMED, P. 420. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  SECTION
1700(A)(1) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES FOR THE
IMPOSITION, EXCEPT AS TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF PERSONS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
NOT IMPORTANT HERE, OF "A TAX OF 1 CENT FOR EACH 10 CENTS OR FRACTION
THEREOF OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR ADMISSION TO ANY PLACE, INCLUDING
ADMISSION BY SEASON TICKET OR SUBSCRIPTION."  FN1 PARAGRAPH (2) OF THE
SUBSECTION DECLARES THAT THE TAX "SHALL BE PAID BY THE PERSON PAYING
FOR SUCH ADMISSION."  AND SEC. 1715 REQUIRES THAT "EVERY PERSON
RECEIVING ANY PAYMENTS FOR ADMISSION  ...  SUBJECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED
BY SECTION 1700  ...  SHALL COLLECT THE AMOUNT THEREOF FROM THE PERSON
MAKING SUCH PAYMENTS." 

THIS SUIT, BROUGHT TO RECOVER PENALTIES PAID BY PETITIONER FOR
NONCOLLECTION OF FEDERAL ADMISSIONS TAX, PRESENTS TWO QUESTIONS FOR
DETERMINATION:  WHETHER SEC. 1700(A) IS APPLICABLE TO PAID ADMITTANCES
TO A BATHING BEACH OPERATED WITHOUT PURPOSE OF GAIN BY A LOCAL PARK
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS; AND, IF THE CODE PROVISION IS TO BE SO
INTERPRETED, WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF ADMISSIONS TAX IN CONNECTION
WITH SUCH STATE ACTIVITY IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF
CONGRESS. 

PETITIONER IS WILMETTE PARK DISTRICT, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE
LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF WILMETTE, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. 
ORGANIZED AND ADMINISTERED PURSUANT TO ILLINOIS STATUTES, THE DISTRICT
INCLUDES WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION FOUR PARK AREAS.  THE LARGEST,
WASHINGTON PARK, EXTENDS FOR APPROXIMATELY THREE-FOURTHS OF A MILE
ALONG LAKE MICHIGAN AND WAS ACQUIRED PARTLY BY GRANT FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, PARTLY BY PURCHASE, AND PARTLY BY EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN.  AT THE NORTH END OF WASHINGTON PARK, PETITIONER HAS
OPERATED A PUBLIC BATHING BEACH DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS FOR MANY
YEARS, UNDER AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE.  THE
BEACH HAS BEEN USED PRIMARILY BY RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT, BUT ALSO
HAS BEEN OPEN TO NONRESIDENTS. 

AMONG THE FACILITIES WHICH THE DISTRICT PROVIDED AT THE BEACH DURING
THE PERIOD UNDER REVIEW WERE A BATH HOUSE, AUTOMOBILE PARKING AREA,
LIFE-SAVING EQUIPMENT, FLOOD LIGHTING, DRINKING FOUNTAINS, SHOWERS,
SPECTATOR BENCHES, BICYCLE RACKS, FIRST AID, AND SUPPLIES.  THE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA AND ITS VARIOUS SERVICES WERE
SOLELY BY THE DISTRICT, WHICH EMPLOYED THE NECESSARY PERSONNEL. 

PETITIONER CHARGED ALL PERSONS FOR ADMITTANCE TO THE BEACH.  ITS
CHARGES WERE OF TWO TYPES:  A DAILY FEE OF FIFTY CENTS ON WEEKDAYS AND
ONE DOLLAR ON SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS, FOR WHICH NO TICKET WAS
ISSUED; AND A FLAT RATE FOR A SEASON TICKET WHICH COULD BE PURCHASED ON
AN INDIVIDUAL OR FAMILY BASIS.  THESE CHARGES WERE MADE TO COVER THE
EXPENSE OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE BEACH AND OF SOME CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS.  OVER THE YEARS THE CHARGES WERE INTENDED MERELY TO
APPROXIMATE THESE COSTS AND NOT TO PRODUCE NET INCOME OR PROFIT TO
PETITIONER; DURING THE PERIOD 1940-1944 THE ACCOUNTS OF THE BEACH,
MAINTAINED ON A CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS BASIS, REFLECTED AN
EXCESS OF RECEIPTS OVER EXPENDITURES OF $42.11. 

IN JULY 1941 THE COLLECTOR NOTIFIED PETITIONER TO COLLECT A TAX OF 10
PER CENT ON ALL TICKETS TO THE BEACH SOLD ON OR AFTER JULY 25 OF THAT
YEAR.  PETITIONER HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED SUCH TAXES, AND IT
REFUSED TO DO SO AFTER THE COLLECTOR'S NOTICE.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE
COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC. 1718 OF THE CODE ASSESSED OVER PETITIONER'S
PROTEST PENALTIES IN THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX WHICH THE COMMISSIONER
CLAIMED SHOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED UNDER SEC. 1700(A) FROM JULY 25,
1941 THROUGH 1945, PLUS INTEREST AND SUMS DUE UNDER SEC. 3655(B) OF THE
CODE FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE TAX ON DEMAND.  THESE PENALTIES AMOUNTED TO
$6,139.93 AND WERE PAID OUT OF PETITIONER'S GENERAL FUNDS RAISED BY
PROPERTY TAXES. 

PETITIONER FILED TIMELY CLAIMS FOR REFUND WHICH WERE REJECTED, AND IN
1946 BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR.  THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER.  76 F.SUPP.  924.  FN2 THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  172 F.2D 885.  BECAUSE THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED HAVE IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ADMISSIONS TAX SECTIONS OF THE CODE, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S.
937. 

FIRST.  THE GOVERNMENT RAISES NO ISSUE AS TO PETITIONER'S STANDING TO
SUE FOR REFUND.  AS RECOVERY IS HERE SOUGHT OF PENALTIES PAID FROM
PETITIONER'S GENERAL REVENUE FUND AFTER ITS FAILURE TO COLLECT THE TAX,
WE DEEM PETITIONER'S FINANCIAL INTEREST CLEARLY SUFFICIENT.  FN3 

SECOND.  SECTION 1700(A) IS APPLICABLE IF THE CHARGE MADE BY
PETITIONER FOR ADMITTANCE TO THE BEACH WAS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE, AN "AMOUNT PAID FOR ADMISSION TO ANY PLACE." 

THE WORDS OF THE PROVISION WHEN TAKEN IN THEIR ORDINARY AND FAMILIAR
MEANING REFLECT A LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OF COMPREHENSIVE APPLICATION.  BY
ITS TERMS THE SECTION EMBRACES EVERY PAYMENT MADE IN ORDER TO SECURE
ADMITTANCE TO A SPECIFIC LOCATION.  AND THIS PURPOSE OF BROAD
APPLICATION IS NOT LESS CERTAIN BECAUSE OF ANYTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE INITIAL ADOPTION OF THAT LANGUAGE.  FN4  IN THIS VIEW IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER PETITIONER'S BEACH AREA CAN BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM A "SPECTATOR ENTERTAINMENT," FOR WE ARE UNABLE TO
ACCEPT PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED IN SEC. 1700(A) TO
TAX ONLY ADMISSIONS TO SUCH EVENTS.  FN5 

WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT A BEACH AREA MAY BE A "PLACE" IN THE SENSE OF
SEC. 1700(A)(1).  PETITIONER'S BEACH PARK, INCLUDING THE ADJACENT SHOAL
WATERS, WAS POLICED AND LIGHTED; THE LAND AREA WAS DEFINED, AND
ENTRANCE WAS THROUGH GATES.  A PAYMENT WAS MADE BY PATRONS OF THE BEACH
AS THE CONDITION OF ADMITTANCE TO A SPECIFIC AREA WITH DEFINITE
PHYSICAL LIMITS.  THUS THE FEE WHICH PETITIONER CHARGED WAS "PAID FOR
ADMISSION" TO A "PLACE" AS THOSE TERMS ARE USED IN SEC. 1700(A)(1). 
FN6 

WE CANNOT AGREE WITH PETITIONER'S SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
TO EXEMPT FROM TAX ADMISSIONS TO ANY ACTIVITY NOT CONDUCTED FOR GAIN. 
TERMINATION ON OCTOBER 1, 1941 PURSUANT TO THE REVENUE ACT OF 1941,
SEC. 541(B).  55 STAT. 687, 710.  IN SEC. 1701 CONGRESS EXEMPTED
ADMISSIONS TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF EVENTS AND ADMISSIONS ALL THE PROCEEDS
OF WHICH INURED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE BENEFIT OF DESIGNATED CLASSES OF
PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS.  BUT SINCE CONGRESS DID NOT EXEMPT ALL
ACTIVITIES NOT FOR PROFIT AS IT READILY MIGHT HAVE DONE, IT APPEARS
THAT ADMISSIONS TO SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE NOT FOR THAT REASON OUTSIDE THE
ADMISSIONS TAX SCHEME.  EXMOOR COUNTRY CLUB V. UNITED STATES, 119 F.2D
961(C.A.7TH CIR., 1941). 

NOR IS THERE GREATER FORCE IN PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE
ADMISSIONS TAX WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY IN THE CASE OF ACTIVITIES
CONDUCTED BY A MUNICIPALITY.  IN INTERPRETING FEDERAL REVENUE MEASURES
EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF GENERAL APPLICATION, THIS COURT HAS ORDINARILY
FOUND THEM OPERATIVE IN THE CASE OF STATE ACTIVITIES EVEN THOUGH STATES
WERE NOT EXPRESSLY INDICATED AS SUBJECTS OF TAX.  SEE CONCURRING
OPINION IN NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 572, 584 AND N.
3(1946).  AND IN ALLEN V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA,
304 U.S. 439(1938), IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE ADMISSIONS TAX LAW WAS
APPLICABLE IN CONNECTION WITH ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY AN AGENCY OF A
STATE, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE ISSUE OF LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE WAS THERE DISPUTED.  HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO DISCOVER THAT
THERE HAS BEEN ANY DESIGN TO EXEMPT ADMISSIONS TO MUNICIPALLY CONDUCTED
ACTIVITIES.  FN7  WE REGARD THE INTERPRETATIVE ISSUE AS CONTROLLED BY A
LONG-CONTINUED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION, EXPRESSLY DENYING SUCH
EXEMPTION,  FN8  WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY REPEATED REENACTMENT OF THE
RELEVANT LANGUAGE WITHOUT CHANGE.  FN9  CF. HELVERING V. WINMILL, 305
U.S. 79(1938). 

FINALLY, SEC. 1700(A)(1) IS NOT RENDERED INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE BEACH
PATRONS MAKE USE OF A BEACH AND ITS FACILITIES, THUS AFFORDING
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ADMISSION FEE AS A "USE CHARGE."  FEW IF ANY
ADMISSIONS TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 1700(A) ARE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A USE OF
THE PROPERTY OR EQUIPMENT TO WHICH THE ADMITTEE'S LICENSE EXTENDS. 
ALTHOUGH TABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR WHICH A CHARGE IS MADE ARE USUALLY
THOUGHT OF AS OBJECTS OF A PATRON'S USE, YET CONGRESS IN SEC. 1704 OF
THE CODE HAS DECLARED THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THE ADMISSIONS TAX LAW A
CHARGE FOR THEIR USE MUST BE TREATED AS A CHARGE FOR ADMISSION AND NOT
AS A RENTAL CHARGE.  A SIMILAR RESULT MUST OBTAIN WHEN PAYMENT IS
PREREQUISITE, AS IT WAS AT PETITIONER'S BEACH, TO BOTH ADMISSION TO AND
USE OF A SPECIFIC AREA.  CHIMNEY ROCK CO. V. UNITED STATES, 63 CT. CL.
660(1927), CERT. DENIED, 275 U.S. 552(1927); TWIN FALLS NATATORIUM V.
UNITED STATES, 22 F.2D 308(D. IDAHO, 1927).  FN10 

THIS TRIAL COURT, IN ALLOWING JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER IN VIEW OF THE
USE MADE OF THE BEACH, CONSIDERED THE FEE A "USE TAX."  BUT IF THERE IS
NO TAX EXEMPTION FOR ADMISSIONS TO A MUNICIPALLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY,
THEN A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT ESCAPE TAX BY CLAIMING THAT ITS ADMISSION
FEE IS A "USE TAX" WHEN A SIMILAR PRIVATE BUSINESS COULD NOT ADVANCE
SUCH CLAIM.  NOR DOES IT MATTER THAT PETITIONER'S AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY
CHARGE TO BEACH PATRONS  IS DERIVED FROM A STATUTE WHICH CONTEMPLATES A
CHARGE FOR "USE."  ILL. REV. STAT., C. 105, SEC. 8-7D (1947).  THE
APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL ADMISSIONS TAX STATUTE IS NOT CONTROLLED BY
THE CHARACTERIZATION OF PETITIONER'S FEE BY LOCAL LAW.  CF. MORGAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78, 81(1940). 

WE CONCLUDE THAT SEC. 1700(A) IS APPLICABLE. 

THIRD.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ADMISSIONS TAX LEVIED IN CONNECTION
WITH AN ACTIVITY OF A STATE INSTRUMENTALITY WAS BEFORE THIS COURT IN
ALLEN V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, 304 U.S.
439(1938).  WE THERE FOUND NO CONSTITUTIONAL INHIBITION AGAINST A
NONDISCRIMINATORY IMPOSITION OF SUCH TAX ON ADMISSIONS TO AN ATHLETIC
EXHIBITION CONDUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH A STATE EDUCATIONAL
ADMINISTRATION AND IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. 

THE ALLEN DECISION FOLLOWED SOON AFTER HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304
U.S. 405(1938), WHICH DECLARED TWO PRINCIPLES LIMITING STATE IMMUNITY
FROM FEDERAL TAXATION.  ID. AT 419.  THE FIRST OF THESE, INVOKED IN THE
ALLEN DECISION, WAS DEPENDENT UPON THE NATURE OF THE FUNCTION BEING
PERFORMED BY THE STATE AGENCY AND EXCLUDED FROM IMMUNITY SUCH
ACTIVITIES AS MIGHT BE THOUGHT NOT ESSENTIAL FOR THE PRESERVATION OF
STATE GOVERNMENT.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER HERE THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT
DOCTRINE, FOR THE PETITIONER'S ASSERTION OF IMMUNITY MUST BE REJECTED
ON THE SECOND RESTRICTIVE PRINCIPLE REAFFIRMED IN THE GERHARDT
DECISION.  THIS "PRINCIPLE, EXEMPLIFIED BY THOSE CASES WHERE THE TAX
LAID UPON INDIVIDUALS AFFECTS THE STATE ONLY AS THE BURDEN IS PASSED ON
TO IT BY THE TAXPAYER, FORBIDS RECOGNITION OF THE IMMUNITY WHEN THE
BURDEN ON THE STATE IS SO SPECULATIVE AND UNCERTAIN THAT IF ALLOWED IT
WOULD RESTRICT THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY
CORRESPONDING TANGIBLE PROTECTION TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT."  304 U.S.
AT 419-420.  ACCORDING TO THIS PRINCIPLE, THE STATE "IS NOT NECESSARILY
PROTECTED FROM A TAX WHICH WELL MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY OR ENTIRELY
ABSORBED BY PRIVATE PERSONS."  ID. AT 420. 

WHILE THE ALLEN DECISION ASSUMED THAT THE ADMISSIONS TAX THERE
IMPOSED WAS A DIRECT BURDEN ON THE STATE, THAT ASSUMPTION WAS REQUIRED
ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF LIMITATION
OF IMMUNITY AS FORMULATED IN THE GERHARDT CASE.  SUCH AN ASSUMPTION
NEED NOT BE MADE HERE.  IT IS TRUE, OF COURSE, THAT UNLESS THERE IS A
SHIFT IN DEMAND FOR ADMISSIONS TO PETITIONER'S BEACH, IMPOSITION OF THE
TAX MAY TO AN UNDETERMINABLE EXTENT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VOLUME OF
ADMISSIONS.  FN11  INSOFAR AS THIS OCCURS, THE SERVICES OF THE DISTRICT
WILL BE LESS WIDELY AVAILABLE AND ITS REVENUES FROM BEACH ADMISSIONS
WILL BE REDUCED.  BUT ADMISSIONS TAX, WHICH IS "PAID BY THE PERSON
PAYING FOR SUCH ADMISSION," IS SO IMPOSED AS TO FACILITATE ABSORPTION
BY PATRONS OF THE BEACH RATHER THAN BY THE DISTRICT, AND WE HAVE NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE DISTRICT WILL BE FORCED TO ABSORB THE TAX IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN THE VOLUME OF ITS REVENUES AND THE AVAILABILITY OF ITS
BENEFITS.  CF. METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 526(1926). 
"THE MERE FACT THAT THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF SUCH TAXES MAY BE PASSED ON
TO A STATE GOVERNMENT AND THUS INCREASE TO SOME EXTENT, HERE WHOLLY
CONJECTURAL, THE EXPENSE OF ITS OPERATION, INFRINGES NO CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY.  SUCH BURDENS ARE BUT NORMAL INCIDENTS OF THE ORGANIZATION
WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY OF TWO GOVERNMENTS, EACH POSSESSED OF THE
TAXING POWER."  HELVERING V. GERHARDT, SUPRA, 304 U.S. AT 422.    AS IT
FOLLOWS THAT THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO THE TAX PENALTIES
ASSESSED AGAINST PETITIONER, THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST
BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  A WAR TAX RATE OF 1 CENT FOR EACH 5 CENTS OR MAJOR FRACTION
THEREOF HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE APRIL 1, 1944, PURSUANT TO REVENUE ACT
OF 1943, SEC. 302(A).  58 STAT. 21, 61(1944). 

FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED RECOVERY ONLY OF PAYMENTS MADE SINCE
JANUARY 1, 1945, WHEN RESPONDENT TOOK OFFICE AS COLLECTOR.  THESE
PAYMENTS WERE BASED ON PETITIONER'S OPERATIONS AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1941,
THROUGH 1945.  PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1945, PETITIONER PAID $57.20 ON THE
BASIS OF OPERATIONS FROM JULY 25, 1941, TO OCTOBER 1, 1941. 

FN3  SEE 42 ILL. L. REV. ,18, 819-820(1948). 

FN4  THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS RELATING TO
THE WAR REVENUE ACT OF 1917 "RECOMMENDED THAT THIS TAX BE IMPOSED UPON
ALL PLACES TO WHICH ADMISSION IS CHARGED, SUCH AS MOTION-PICTURE SHOWS,
THEATERS, CIRCUSES, ENTERTAINMENTS, CABARETS, BALL GAMES, ATHLETIC
GAMES, ETC., BUT NOT UPON ADMISSIONS ALL THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH WILL GO
EXCLUSIVELY TO THE BENEFIT OF RELIGIOUS OR CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS OR
FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES."  H.R. REP. NO. 45, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
8(1917).  SEE 55 CONG. REC. 2148(1917). 

FN5  IN THE ADMISSIONS TAX PROVISIONS OF THE CODE, WORDS RESTRICTING
THE IMPOSITION OF TAX TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF PLACES APPEAR ONLY IN
SUBSECTIONS OTHER THAN (A) OF SEC. 1700.  SECTION 1700(B) IMPOSES A TAX
OF 11 PER CENT ON THE PERMANENT USE OR LEASE OF BOXES OR SEATS "IN AN
OPERA HOUSE OR ANY PLACE OF AMUSEMENT"; SUCH TAX IS IN LIEU OF THAT
PROVIDED FOR UNDER SEC. 1700(A).  SECTION 1700(C) IMPOSES ON THE SALE
OUTSIDE BOX OFFICES, OF TICKETS TO "THEATERS, OPERAS, AND OTHER PLACES
OF AMUSEMENT" A TAX OF 11 PER CENT OF THE PRICE IN EXCESS OF THE BOX
OFFICE PRICE; SUCH TAX IS IN ADDITION TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC.
1700(A).  SECTION 1700(D) IMPOSES A TAX OF 50 PER CENT ON THE AMOUNT OF
SALES IN EXCESS OF REGULAR PRICE BY THE MANAGEMENT OF "ANY OPERA HOUSE,
THEATER, OR OTHER PLACE OF AMUSEMENT."  SECTION 1700(E) IMPOSES A TAX
OF 5 PER CENT ON AMOUNTS PAID FOR ADMISSION, REFRESHMENT, SERVICE, OR
MERCHANDISE, "AT ANY ROOF GARDEN, CABARET, OR OTHER SIMILAR PLACE
FURNISHING A PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT"; IN SUCH CASES NO TAX MAY
BE IMPOSED UNDER SEC. 1700(A). 

COMPARE EXMOOR COUNTRY CLUB V. UNITED STATES, 119 F.2D 961(C.A.7TH
CIR., 1941); TWIN FALLS NATATORIUM V. UNITED STATES, 22 F.2D 308(D.
IDAHO, 1927); UNITED STATES V. KOLLER, 287 F. 418(W.D. WASH., 1921). 

FN6  ACCORD:  DASHOW V. HARRISON, 1946 P-H P72,405(N.D. ILL., 1946). 

FN7  ALTHOUGH AN EXEMPTION WAS ALLOWED BY SEC. 1701 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1941, OF "ADMISSIONS ALL THE PROCEEDS
OF WHICH INURE  ...  EXCLUSIVELY TO THE BENEFIT OF  ...  SOCIETIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS CONDUCTED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE  ...  OF IMPROVING ANY
CITY, TOWN, VILLAGE, OR OTHER MUNICIPALITY," WE NEED NOT DETERMINE
WHETHER THE EXEMPTION WAS PROPERLY INTERPRETED AS INAPPLICABLE TO
ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.  SEE TREAS. REG.
43(1928 ED.)  ART.  22; ID. (1932 ED.)  ART.  22; ID. (1940 ED.)  SEC. 
101.25.  THE PROVISION BECAME INAPPLICABLE PRIOR TO THE PERIOD FOR
WHICH PETITIONER MADE PAYMENTS WHICH COULD BE RECOVERED AGAINST THE
PRESENT RESPONDENT.  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

PETITIONER HAS ARGUED THAT THE SPECIFIC EXEMPTION BENEFITING
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT SOCIETIES WAS INTENDED TO AFFORD THEM THE SAME
EXEMPTION WHICH CONGRESS THOUGHT APPLIED TO MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS;
THUS, IT IS URGED, REPEAL OF THE SOCIETIES' EXEMPTION STILL WOULD LEAVE
THE EXEMPTION IN THE CASE OF MUNICIPALLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITIES.  IF
CONGRESS ASSUMED THAT ANY SUCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EXEMPTION EXISTED
BY IMPLICATION, IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT IT DID SO BECAUSE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WE NOTICE HEREAFTER AND NOT BECAUSE
OF A BELIEF OR PURPOSE THAT THE TAX WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO ACTIVITIES
CONDUCTED BY ANY PUBLIC AGENCY.  THUS CONGRESS, IN ADOPTING 49 STAT.
1757, 1792(1936) AND 55 STAT. 303, 350(1941), APPARENTLY ASSUMED THAT
AN EXPRESS EXEMPTION WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS TO
NATIONAL PARKS FROM THE TAX STATUTE.  CF. 55 STAT. 687,710(1941),
TERMINATING SUCH EXEMPTIONS OF PARK ADMISSIONS. 

FN8  TREAS. REG. 43(1919 ED., PART 1) ART. 42; ID. (1921 ED., PART 1)
ART. 42; ID. (1922 ED., PART 1) ART. 26; ID. (1924 ED., PART 1) ART. 26
ID. (1926 ED., PART 1) ART. 26; ID. (1928 ED.)  ART. 24; ID. (1932
ED.)  ART.  24; ID. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  101.27; ID. (1941 ED.)  SEC. 
101.16. 

FN9  REVENUE ACT OF 1918, SEC. 800, 40 STAT. 1057, 1120; REVENUE ACT
OF 1921, SEC. 800, 42 STAT. 227, 289; REVENUE ACT OF 1924, SEC. 500, 43
STAT. 253, 320; REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC. 500, 44 STAT. 9, 91; REVENUE
ACT OF 1928, SEC. 411, 45 STAT. 791, 863; REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC.
711, 47 STAT. 169, 271; PUB. RES. NO. 36, JUNE 28, 1935, 49 STAT. 431;
I.R.C. SECS. 1700, 1701(1939); REVENUE ACT OF 1941, SEC. 541, 55 STAT.
687, 710. 

FN10  SEE HUGUENOT YACHT CLUB V. UNITED STATES, 32 F.SUPP.  387,
388(S.D.N.Y., 1940); LENT, THE ADMISSIONS TAX, 1 NAT. TAX J. 31, 35
36(1948); 61 HARV. L. REV. 894(1948). 

FN11  SEE LENT, NOTE 10, SUPRA, AT 40-42. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















PARKER V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 338 U.S. 327 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1949.  - 88 CAL. APP.2D
481, 199 P.2D 429, CERTIORARI DISMISSED. 


A STATE COURT DISMISSED ACTIONS BY CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR RELIEF
AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF A "LOYALTY" PROGRAM BY A COUNTY, WITHOUT
CONSIDERING WHETHER DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION SOUGHT BY A PRESCRIBED
AFFIDAVIT WOULD HAVE PENAL CONSEQUENCES, AND ITS DECISION LEFT IN DOUBT
WHETHER IT HAD PASSED ON THE VALIDITY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF
SANCTIONS (IF THERE WERE ANY) FOR FAILURE TO EXECUTE THE AFFIDAVIT.  BY
A SUBSEQUENT ORDER, NOT INVOLVED IN THE JUDGMENTS NOW BEFORE THIS
COURT, THE COUNTY EXPLICITLY ADOPTED SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO EXECUTE
AFFIDAVITS; AND THE VALIDITY OF THIS LATTER ORDER WAS ATTACKED FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN LITIGATION STILL PENDING IN THE STATE COURTS.  SINCE THIS
LATTER LITIGATION MAY BE DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEES ON GROUNDS
OF STATE LAW, HELD:  THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED IN THESE CASES
ARE NOT RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION, AND THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI HERETOFORE
GRANTED ARE DISMISSED.  PP. 328-333. 

PARKER ET AL. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL. 

NO. 49.  CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 50, STEINER V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL., ALSO
ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A STATE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED SUITS BY CERTAIN COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR
RELIEF AGAINST A SO-CALLED "LOYALTY TEST" PRESCRIBED BY THE COUNTY'S
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.  THE STATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED.  88
CAL. APP.2D 481, 199 P.2D 429.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 929. 
WRITS OF CERTIORARI DISMISSED, P. 333. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN NO. 49, TWENTY-FIVE CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THAT COUNTY, AND IN
NO. 50, SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY ONE SUCH EMPLOYEE.  THE RESPECTIVE
PLAINTIFFS SOUGHT RELIEF AGAINST ENFORCEMENT BY THE COUNTY AND ITS
OFFICIALS OF WHAT IS COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS A LOYALTY TEST, AND THEY DID
SO FOR THEMSELVES AND "IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY  ...  ON BEHALF OF
20,000 EMPLOYEES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SIMILARLY SITUATED." 

THE PLAINTIFFS, PETITIONERS HERE, ALLEGED THAT ON AUGUST 26, 1947,
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ADOPTED AS PART
OF ITS "LOYALTY CHECK" PROGRAM THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL COUNTY
EMPLOYEES EXECUTE A PRESCRIBED AFFIDAVIT.  IT CONSISTED OF FOUR PARTS,
FULLY SET FORTH IN THE APPENDIX.  BY PART A, EACH EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED
TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; BY PART B, HE FORSWEARS THAT SINCE
DECEMBER 7, 1941, HE HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF ANY ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING
THE FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, THAT HE NOW
ADVOCATES SUCH OVERTHROW, OR THAT HE WILL IN THE FUTURE SO ADVOCATE
DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AN ORGANIZATION; BY PART C, HE IS REQUIRED TO LIST
HIS ALIASES; AND BY PART D, HE IS ASKED TO INDICATE WHETHER HE HAS EVER
BEEN "A MEMBER OF, OR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SUPPORTED OR FOLLOWED" ANY
OF AN ENUMERATED LIST OF 145 ORGANIZATIONS.  ASSERTING FEAR OF
PENALIZING CONSEQUENCES FROM THE LOYALTY PROGRAM, AND CLAIMING THAT THE
LAW OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES BARRED
COERCIVE MEASURES BY THE COUNTY TO SECURE OBEDIENCE TO THE ALLEGED
AFFIDAVIT REQUIREMENT, PETITIONERS BROUGHT THESE ACTIONS.  DEMURRERS TO
THE COMPLAINTS WERE SUSTAINED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT AND ITS JUDGMENTS
WERE AFFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT.  88 CAL. APP.2D 481, 199 P.2D 429.  AFTER THE SUPREME COURT
OF CALIFORNIA DENIED DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE
BECAUSE, ON THE SHOWING THEN BEFORE US, SERIOUS QUESTIONS SEEMED RAISED
AS TO THE SCOPE OF A STATE'S POWER TO SAFEGUARD ITS SECURITY WITH DUE
REGARD FOR THE LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  337 U.S. 929.  IN VIEW, HOWEVER, OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT BECAME MANIFEST AFTER THE CASES CAME TO ARGUMENT, WE
ARE PRECLUDED FROM REACHING THESE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ON THEIR
MERITS. 

TO BEGIN WITH, THE CALIFORNIA DECISION UNDER REVIEW DOES NOT TELL US
UNAMBIGUOUSLY WHAT COMPULSION, IF ANY, THE LOYALTY ORDER OF AUGUST 26,
1947, CARRIED.  IT IS UNEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR THAT THE LOWER COURT REFUSED
TO DECIDE WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE WHO DISCLOSES HIS SO-CALLED "SUBVERSIVE"
ACTIVITIES OR CONNECTIONS MAY FOR THAT REASON BE DISCHARGED.  IT IS NOT
CLEAR, HOWEVER, WHETHER, AS PETITIONERS CONTEND, THE LOWER COURT MEANT
TO HOLD THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY DISCHARGE AN EMPLOYEE WHO
REFUSES TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT.  FN1  THIS AMBIGUITY RENDERS SO DOUBTFUL
WHETHER AN ISSUE UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS BEFORE US THAT
AT MOST WE WOULD EXERCISE JURISDICTION TO OBTAIN CLARIFICATION BY THE
STATE COURT.  SEE HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14; MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL
TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551; STATE TAX COMM'N V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511; HERB
V. PITCAIRN, 324 U.S. 117.  BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE CALLED TO
OUR ATTENTION AFTER THE CASES REACHED US LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE ISSUES
WHICH LED US TO BRING THEM HERE ARE NOT RIPE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION.  AMERICAN WOOD PAPER CO. V. HEFT, 8 WALL.  333, 131 U.S.
XCII; COMMERCIAL CABLE CO. V. BURLESON, 250 U.S. 360. 

AS OF JULY 20, 1948, NEARLY A YEAR AFTER THE ORIGINAL LOYALTY ORDER,
ALL BUT 104 OF THE 22,000 OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE COUNTY HAD
EXECUTED THE PRESCRIBED AFFIDAVIT.  ON THAT DAY, THESE NONCOMPLYING
EMPLOYEES WERE ADVISED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAD ADOPTED AN
ORDER PROVIDING (1) THAT UNLESS THEY HAD EXECUTED PARTS A, B AND C OF
THE AFFIDAVIT BY JULY 26 THEY WOULD BE DISCHARGED, AND (2) THAT UNLESS
THEY HAD EXECUTED PART D BY THAT TIME THEY WOULD BE DISCHARGED "IF AND
WHEN THE LOYALTY TEST LITIGATION NOW PENDING IS FINALLY CONCLUDED WITH
A DETERMINATION THAT THE COUNTY WAS JUSTIFIED IN REQUIRING FROM ITS
EMPLOYEES THE INFORMATION EMBODIED IN PARAGRAPH 'D.'"  FN2 

THIS ORDER WAS THE FIRST EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF SANCTIONS BY THE
BOARD IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS LOYALTY PROGRAM.  BY JULY 26 THE ENTIRE
AFFIDAVIT HAD BEEN EXECUTED BY ALL BUT 45 EMPLOYEES.  OF THESE, 29 HAD
EXECUTED ONLY PARTS A, B AND C. SIXTEEN STOOD THEIR GROUND AGAINST ANY
COMPLIANCE.  THEY INVOKED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY OF REVIEW BEFORE
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WHICH DECIDED AGAINST THEM.  ON JUNE 24 OF
THIS YEAR THESE SIXTEEN DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDATE
FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO REVIEW THE
DECISION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, WITH A PRAYER FOR
REINSTATEMENT AND BACK PAY.  WE ARE ADVISED THAT THIS LITIGATION IS NOW
PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURT.  THE PETITIONERS HERE, EXCEPT ONE IN NO.
49, SIGNED PARTS A, B AND C, AND THAT PETITIONER IS A PARTY IN THE CASE
BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT. 

FROM THIS IT APPEARS THAT THE CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE BEFORE THEM FOR
THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE LOYALTY PROGRAM AN ORDER
WHICH EXPRESSLY THREATENS SANCTIONS.  THESE SANCTIONS ARE BEING
CHALLENGED UNDER STATE LAW AS WELL AS UNDER THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.  FOR ALL WE KNOW THE CALIFORNIA COURTS MAY SUSTAIN THESE
CLAIMS UNDER LOCAL LAW.  FN3  THE PRESENT CASES ARE HERE FROM AN
INTERMEDIATE STATE APPELLATE COURT BECAUSE THE STATE SUPREME COURT DID
NOT DEEM THE RECORDS BEFORE IT TO PRESENT ISSUES DESERVING OF ITS
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.  THE EXPLICIT SANCTIONS OF THE MODIFIED ORDER MAY
LEAD THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TO PASS ON THEM SHOULD THE
LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THE LOWER COURTS GO AGAINST THE CONTENTIONS
OF THESE PETITIONERS.  IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT WHEN CLAIMS NOT
UNRELATED TO THOSE NOW URGED BEFORE US, BUT BASED ON STATE LAW, HAVE
COME BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THAT TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN
INSENSITIVE TO THEM.  SEE COMMUNIST PARTY V. PEEK, 20 CAL.2D 536, 127
P.2D 889; JAMES V. MARINSHIP CORP., 25 CAL.2D 721, 155 P.2D 329.  IF
THEIR CLAIMS ARE RECOGNIZED BY THE CALIFORNIA COURTS, PETITIONERS WOULD
OF COURSE HAVE NO BASIS FOR ASSERTING DENIAL OF A FEDERAL RIGHT.  IT
WILL BE TIME ENOUGH FOR THE PETITIONERS TO URGE DENIAL OF A FEDERAL
RIGHT AFTER THE STATE COURTS HAVE DEFINITIVELY DENIED THEIR CLAIMS
UNDER STATE LAW. 

DUE REGARD FOR OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM REQUIRES THAT THIS COURT STAY ITS
HAND UNTIL THE OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY STATE COURTS HAVE EXHAUSTED
CLAIMS OF LITIGANTS UNDER STATE LAW.  THIS IS NOT WHAT IS INVIDIOUSLY
CALLED A TECHNICAL RULE.  THE BEST TEACHING OF THIS COURT'S EXPERIENCE
ADMONISHES US NOT TO ENTERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE OF
THE STRICTEST NECESSITY.  DECENT RESPECT FOR CALIFORNIA AND ITS COURTS
DEMANDS THAT THIS COURT WAIT UNTIL THE STATE COURTS HAVE SPOKEN WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS BROUGHT TO LIGHT FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE BAR
OF THIS COURT.  SINCE THE WRITS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH BROUGHT THESE CASES HERE ARE NOT RIPE
FOR DECISION, ALL SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS FALL.  SEE RESCUE ARMY V.
MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, 585; ALABAMA STATE FED. OF LABOR V.
MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450; C.I.O. V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 472.  DISMISSED. 

FN1  CLEARLY ENOUGH SOME DISCHARGES OR DEMOTIONS OF CLASSIFIED
EMPLOYEES BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE NOT FINAL.  THE DIVISION OF
AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IS
THUS FORMULATED BY THE LOWER COURT: 

"IN CASE THE APPOINTING POWER WISHES TO DISCHARGE A CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEE THE REASONS THEREFOR MUST BE GIVEN AND, THEREUPON, IF THE
EMPLOYEE SO DESIRES HE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 
IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE REASONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT, THE
DISCHARGE IS VOID DESPITE ANYTHING THE APPOINTING POWER CAN DO ABOUT
IT. 

"FROM WHAT HAS SO FAR BEEN SAID, IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT NEITHER THE
BOARD NOR ITS AGENTS CAN DISCHARGE A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE FOR ANY
CAUSE THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FINDS INSUFFICIENT. 
ACCORDINGLY, IF IN THE VIEW OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OR ITS AGENTS
AS THE APPOINTING POWER, A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE DISCHARGED
ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS 'SUBVERSIVE,' THE DISCHARGE OR
ATTEMPT TO DISCHARGE ON THAT GROUND IS OF NO EFFECT IF, ON HEARING, THE
COMMISSION HOLDS OTHERWISE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

WHETHER THE APPOINTING POWER WILL OR WILL NOT DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES AS
CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFFS, FOR CAUSES OF THE CHARACTER ENUMERATED, AND
WHETHER THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WILL UPHOLD SUCH DISCHARGES, IF
ANY, ON SUCH CAUSES, ARE NOT MATTERS UPON WHICH THIS COURT MAY
SPECULATE OR ADJUDICATE AT THIS TIME...."  88 CAL. APP.2D 481, 493,
497, 199 P.2D 429, 436, 438-39.  SEE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHARTER, ART.
IX, SEC. 34(13) IN CAL. LAWS 1913, P. 1495, AS AMENDED, CAL. STAT.
1939, P. 3147. 

FN2  THE AFFIDAVIT IN THE ORDER OF JULY 20, 1948, DIFFERED FROM THE
AFFIDAVIT IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER ONLY IN THAT PART B WAS ELUCIDATED TO
AN EXTENT NOT HERE RELEVANT AND A FEW ORGANIZATIONS LISTED IN PART D
WERE OMITTED. 

FN3  ARTICLE IX, SEC. 41 OF THE LOS ANGELES CHARTER PROVIDES:  "NO
PERSON IN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE, OR SEEKING ADMISSION THERETO, SHALL
BE APPOINTED, REDUCED OR REMOVED OR IN ANY WAY FAVORED OR DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OR
AFFILIATIONS."  CAL. LAWS 1913, P. 1496.  ARTICLE I, SECS. 1, 4, 9, 10,
16, 21 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION CONTAINS SAFEGUARDS AGAINST
INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS AT WHICH PETITIONERS CLAIM THE LOYALTY
INVESTIGATION STRIKES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THESE CASES. 

         APPENDIX. 

THE AFFIDAVIT PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES ON AUGUST 26, 1947, AS PART OF ITS "LOYALTY CHECK" PROGRAM
IS AS FOLLOWS:

                     OATH AND AFFIDAVIT DEPARTMENT
........................................ 

A. OATH OF OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT 

I, .................., DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL
SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AGAINST ALL ENEMIES,
FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE
SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL
RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY
DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT ON WHICH I AM ABOUT TO
ENTER OR AM NOW ENGAGED.  SO HELP ME GOD. 

B. AFFIDAVIT RE SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY 

I DO FURTHER SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I DO NOT ADVOCATE, NOR AM I NOW A
MEMBER, NOR HAVE I BEEN SINCE DECEMBER 7, 1941, A MEMBER OF ANY
POLITICAL PARTY OR ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE, EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
...  AND THAT DURING SUCH TIME AS I AM AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, I WILL NOT ADVOCATE NOR BECOME A MEMBER OF ANY
POLITICAL PARTY OR ORGANIZATION THAT ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE. 

C. AFFIDAVIT RE ALIASES 

I DO FURTHER SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I HAVE NEVER USED OR BEEN KNOWN
BY ANY NAMES OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED AS FOLLOWS:  ... 

D. MEMBERSHIP IN ORGANIZATIONS 

I DO FURTHER SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN A MEMBER OF, OR
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SUPPORTED OR FOLLOWED ANY OF THE HEREINAFTER
LISTED ORGANIZATIONS, EXCEPT THOSE WHICH I INDICATE BY AN X MARK. 

NAME 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN BRIGADE. 

ACADEMIC AND CIVIL RIGHTS COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA. 

AFTER SCHOOL CLUBS. 

AGITPROP. 

AMERICAN ARTISTS CONGRESS. 

AMERICA FOR AMERICANS. 

AMERICAN COMM. FOR A FREE INDONESIA. 

AMERICAN COMM. FOR DEMOCRACY AND INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM. 

AMERICAN COMM. FOR PROTECTION OF THE FOREIGN BORN. 

AMERICAN COMM. TO SAVE REFUGEES.    AMERICANS COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. 

AMERICAN COMMUNIST PARTY. 

AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SOVIET RELATIONS. 

AMERICAN FEDERATION FOR POLITICAL UNITY. 

AMERICAN FRIENDS OF THE CHINESE PEOPLE. 

AMERICAN GUARD. 

AMERICAN LEAGUE AGAINST WAR AND FASCISM. 

AMERICAN LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY. 

AMERICAN LEAGUE OF CHRISTIAN WOMEN. 

AMERICAN PEACE MOBILIZATION. 

AMERICAN RUSSIAN INSTITUTE. 

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNICAL AID FOR SPAIN. 

AMERICAN STUDENT UNION. 

AMERICAN VETERANS COMM. 

AMERICAN WRITERS CONGRESS. 

AMERICAN YOUTH CONGRESS. 

AMERICAN WRITERS SCHOOL. 

AMERICAN YOUTH FOR DEMOCRACY. 

ANTI-AXIS COMM. 

ANTI-HEARST EXAMINER. 

ANTI-NAZI LEAGUE. 

ANTI-NAZI LEAGUE OF HOLLYWOOD. 

ANTI-ROTC COMMITTEE. 

ARCOS LIMITED. 

ARTIST FRONT TO WIN THE WAR. 

ARTS ADVISORY COUNCIL. 

AUTHORS LEAGUE. 

BALLILA. 

BAY AREA COUNCIL AGAINST DISCRIMINATION. 

CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION. 

CALIFORNIA LABOR SCHOOL. 

CALIFORNIA YOUTH LEGISLATURE. 

CENTRO ANTI-COMMUNISTS. 

CHINA AID COUNCIL OF AMERICAN 

LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY. 

CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR BETTER EDUCATION. 

CITIZENS COMM. FOR DEFENSE OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN YOUTH. 

CITIZENS COMM. TO FREE EARL BROWDER. 

CITIZENS COMM. TO SUPPORT LABORS RIGHT. 

CITIZENS NO FOREIGN WARS COALITION. 

CIVIL RIGHTS CONGRESS. 

CIVIL RIGHTS COUNCIL FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. 

COMINTERN. 

COMM. FOR BOYCOTT AGAINST JAPANESE AGGRESSION. 

COMM. FOR DEFENSE OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN YOUTH. 

COMM. FOR SUPPORT OF S.W. GARSON. 

COMM. PROTESTING ATTACKS AGAINST THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN BRIGADE. 

COMM. TO DEFEND AMERICA BY KEEPING OUT OF WAR. 

COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL. 

COMMUNIST PARTY'S LITTLE THEATRE. 

COMMUNIST WORKERS SCHOOL. 

COMMUNIST POLITICAL ASSN. 

CONFERENCE FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION. 

CONSUMERS NATIONAL FEDERATION. 

CONTEMPORARY THEATRE. 

CO-ORDINATING COMMISSION TO LIFT EMBARGO (TO SPAIN). 

COUNCIL FOR PAN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. 

CULTURAL AND PROFESSIONAL PROJECTS ASSN. 

CONGRESS OF MEXICAN AND SPANISH-MEXICAN PEOPLES OF U.S. 

DAILY WORKER. 

DEMOCRATIC YOUTH FEDERATION. 

ELIZABETH CURLEY FLYNN CLUB. 

ELIZALDE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMM. 

EMERGENCY COMM. TO AID SPAIN. 

EMERGENCY TRADE UNION CONFERENCE TO AID SPANISH DEMOCRACY. 

EX COMBATTANTI SOCIETY. 

FARMER LABOR PARTY. 

FEDERATION OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, CHEMISTS AND TECHNICIANS. 

FIELD WORKERS SCHOOL. 

FIRST CONGRESS OF MEXICAN AND SPANISH-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF U.S. 

FRIENDS OF SOVIET RUSSIA. 

FRIENDS OF SOVIET UNION. 

GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND. 

GREATER NEW YORK EMERGENCY CONFERENCE ON INALIENABLE RIGHTS. 

HARRY BRIDGES DEFENSE COMM. 

HOLD THE PRICE LINE COMM. 

HOLLYWOOD ANTI NAZI LEAGUE. 

HOLLYWOOD CULTURAL COMMISSION. 

HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY RADIO GROUP. 

HOLLYWOOD INDEPENDENT CITIZENS COMM. OF ARTS, SCIENCES AND
PROFESSIONS. 

HOLLYWOOD LEAGUE FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION. 

HOLLYWOOD THEATRE ALLIANCE. 

HOLLYWOOD WRITERS MOBILIZATION. 

HUMANIST SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 

INDEPENDENT CITIZENS COMM. OF ARTS, SCIENCES AND PROFESSIONS. 

INTERNATIONAL LABOR DEFENSE. 

INTERNATIONAL RED AID. 

INTERNATIONAL WORKERS ORDER. 

JEWISH PEOPLES COMMITTEE. 

JOHN REED CLUBS. 

JOINT COMMITTEE FOR TRADE UNION RIGHTS. 

JOINT ANTI-FASCISTS REFUGEE COMMITTEE. 

LEAGUE AGAINST WAR AND FASCISM. 

LEAGUE FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION. 

LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY. 

LEAGUE FOR AMERICAN WRITERS. 

LEAGUE FOR STRUGGLE FOR NEGRO RIGHTS. 

LEAGUE OF WOMEN SHOPPERS. 

LEAGUE TO SAVE AMERICA FIRST. 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY POLITICAL COMMISSION. 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRADE UNION COMMISSION. 

MOONEY DEFENSE COMMISSION. 

MARINE COOKS AND STEWARDS UNION. 

MARITIME FEDERATION OF THE PACIFIC. 

MOBILIZATION FOR DEMOCRACY. 

MOTION PICTURE COOPERATIVE BUYERS GUILD. 

MOTION PICTURE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE. 

NATIONAL CITIZENS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. 

NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO ABOLISH THE POLL TAX. 

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON SOVIET AMERICAN FRIENDSHIP. 

NATIONAL EMERGENCY CONFERENCE. 

NATIONAL FEDERATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES. 

NATIONAL NEGRO WOMEN'S COUNCIL. 

NATIONAL NEGRO CONGRESS. 

NATIONAL STUDENTS LEAGUE. 

NEW MASSES. 

NEW THEATRE LEAGUE. 

NORTH AMERICAN COMMISSION TO AID SPANISH DEMOCRACY. 

PEN AND HAMMER CLUB. 

PEOPLES COUNCIL OF AMERICA. 

PEOPLES FRONT. 

PROGRESSIVE COMM. TO REBUILD THE AMERICAN LABOR PARTY. 

REFUGEE SCHOLARSHIP AND PEACE COMM. 

SECOND ANNUAL CALIFORNIA MODEL LEGISLATURE. 

SIMON J. LUBIN SOCIETY. 

SOCIAL PROBLEMS CLUB. 

SPANISH RELIEF COMMITTEE. 

STUDENT RIGHTS ASSN. 

UNITED FARMERS LEAGUE. 

UNITED FEDERAL WORKERS. 

WESTERN WORKERS. 

WORKERS ALLIANCE. 

WORLD COMMITTEE AGAINST WAR. 

WORKERS SCHOOL. 

YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE. 

THE YOUNG PIONEERS. 
..END :

















UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 338 U.S. 338 


NO. 22.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14-15, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1949.  - 80
F.SUPP.  936, AFFIRMED. 


IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT
THROUGH A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE THE SALE OF TAXICABS BY
CONTROL OF THE PRINCIPAL COMPANIES OPERATING THEM IN CERTAIN STATES,
THE TRIAL COURT CAREFULLY WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE, FOUND IT INSUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR
DEFENDANTS.  HELD:  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  PP. 339-342. 

(A)  FOR TRIERS OF FACT TOTALLY TO REJECT AN OPPOSED VIEW IMPEACHES
NEITHER THEIR IMPARTIALITY NOR THE PROPRIETY OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS. 
LABOR BOARD V. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO., 337 U.S. 656.  P. 341. 

(B)  RULE 52, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPLIES TO APPEALS BY
THE GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS TO THOSE BY OTHER LITIGANTS.  PP. 341-342. 

(C)  WHERE THE EVIDENCE WOULD SUPPORT A CONCLUSION EITHER WAY AND THE
TRIAL COURT HAS DECIDED IT TO WEIGH MORE HEAVILY FOR THE DEFENDANTS,
SUCH A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO PERMISSIBLE VIEWS OF THE WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE IS NOT "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 52.  P.
342. 

UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT
THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS. 
80 F.SUPP.  936.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 342. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT IN EQUITY, UNDER SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, 15
U.S.C. SECS. 1 AND 2, ORIGINALLY INCLUDED THREE CHARGES OF VIOLATION:
(1) CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE TRANSPORTATION OF INTERSTATE
TRAVELERS BY TAXICAB BETWEEN CHICAGO RAILROAD STATIONS AND THEIR HOMES,
OFFICES AND HOTELS; (2) CONSPIRACY TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION FOR THE
BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CHICAGO RAILROAD
STATIONS; AND (3) CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE THE SALE OF
TAXICABS BY CONTROL OF THE PRINCIPAL COMPANIES OPERATING THEM IN
CHICAGO, NEW YORK, PITTSBURGH AND MINNEAPOLIS.  ON A PREVIOUS APPEAL
THIS COURT HELD THE FIRST OF THE CHARGES NOT TO STATE A CASE WITHIN THE
STATUTE, AND THAT CHARGE NO LONGER CONCERNS US.  UNITED STATES V.
YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218.  THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT THE
GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROVE THE SECOND CHARGE AND NO APPEAL IS TAKEN
FROM THAT PART OF THE JUDGMENT, SO THAT CHARGE HAS BEEN ELIMINATED.  WE
HAVE HELD THAT THE RESIDUE OF THE COMPLAINT, EMBODYING THE THIRD
CHARGE, ALLEGES A CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE STATUTE, BUT ONLY ON THE
EXPRESSED ASSUMPTION THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED ARE TRUE, UNITED STATES V.
YELLOW CAB COMPANY, SUPRA, AT 224; BUT THE TRIAL COURT HAS FOUND THAT
THE GOVERNMENT, AT THE TRIAL, HAS FAILED ON ALL THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE
ITS CASE.  80 F.SUPP.  936.  THE CAUSE IS BEFORE US BY A DIRECT APPEAL
UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, AND NOT BY AN EXERCISE OF
OUR DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION. 

THE FIRST QUESTION PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS WHETHER THE EVIDENCE
SUSTAINS THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THIS IS THE BASIC
ISSUE, AND THE GOVERNMENT RAISES NO QUESTION OF LAW THAT HAS AN
EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT OF IT.  THIS ISSUE OF FACT DOES NOT ARISE UPON
THE TRIAL COURT'S DISREGARD OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF SOME DEFINITE AND
WELL-ESTABLISHED FACT.  IT EXTENDS TO ALMOST EVERY DETAIL OF THE
DECISION, THE GOVERNMENT SAYING THAT THE TRIAL COURT "IGNORED  ...
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE FACTS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DEEMED
SIGNIFICANT." 

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ASKS, IN EFFECT, IS THAT WE TRY THE CASE DE NOVO
ON THE RECORD, REJECT NEARLY ALL OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT,
AND SUBSTITUTE CONTRARY FINDINGS OF OUR OWN.  SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR
WHICH ARE FUNDAMENTAL TO ITS CASE ASK US TO REWEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND
REVIEW FINDINGS THAT ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY CONCERNED WITH IMPONDERABLES,
SUCH AS THE INTENT OF PARTIES TO CERTAIN 1929 BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS,
WHETHER CORPORATE OFFICERS WERE THEN ACTING IN PERSONAL OR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES, WHAT WAS THE DESIGN AND PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THOSE WHO
CARRIED OUT TWENTY-YEAR-OLD TRANSACTIONS, AND WHETHER THEY HAD
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS MOTIVES OR WERE INTENDING TO RESTRAIN TRADE OF
THEIR COMPETITORS IN CAR MANUFACTURE, SUCH AS GENERAL MOTORS, FORD,
CHRYSLER AND PACKARD. 

THESE WERE THE CHIEF FACT ISSUES IN A TRIAL OF THREE WEEKS'
DURATION.  THE GOVERNMENT RELIED IN LARGE PART ON INFERENCES FROM ITS
485 EXHIBITS, INTRODUCED BY NINE WITNESSES.  THE DEFENDANTS RELIED
HEAVILY ON ORAL TESTIMONY TO CONTRADICT THOSE INFERENCES.  THE RECORD
IS BEFORE US IN 1,674 CLOSELY-PRINTED PAGES. 

THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT "SEEMS TO
REFLECT UNCRITICAL ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE AND OF
DEFENDANTS' VIEWS AS TO THE FACTS TO BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION IN PASSING
UPON THE LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT."  WE SEE THAT IT DID INDEED
ACCEPT DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE AND SUSTAINED DEFENDANTS' VIEW OF THE
FACTS.  BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO DISCOVER THE SLIGHTEST JUSTIFICATION FOR
THE ACCUSATION THAT IT DID SO "UNCRITICALLY."  ALSO, IT REJECTED THE
INFERENCES THE GOVERNMENT DREW FROM ITS DOCUMENTS, BUT WE FIND NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STATEMENT THAT IT "IGNORED" THEM.  THE JUDGMENT
BELOW IS SUPPORTED BY AN OPINION, PREPARED WITH OBVIOUS CARE, WHICH
ANALYZES THE EVIDENCE AND SHOWS THE REASONS FOR THE FINDINGS.  TO US IT
APPEARS TO REPRESENT THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF AN ABLE TRIAL JUDGE,
AFTER PATIENT HEARING, THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE FELL SHORT OF ITS
ALLEGATIONS - A NOT UNCOMMON FORM OF LITIGATION CASUALTY, FROM WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT IS NO MORE IMMUNE THAN OTHERS. 

ONLY LAST TERM WE ACCEPTED THE VIEW THEN ADVANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT
THAT FOR TRIERS OF FACT TOTALLY TO REJECT AN OPPOSED VIEW IMPEACHES
NEITHER THEIR IMPARTIALITY NOR THE PROPRIETY OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS.  WE
SAID, "WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO REJECT THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT AN
OBJECTIVE FINDER OF FACT COULD NOT RESOLVE ALL FACTUAL CONFLICTS
ARISING IN A LEGAL PROCEEDING IN FAVOR OF ONE LITIGANT.  THE ORDINARY
LAWSUIT, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, NORMALLY DEPENDS FOR ITS RESOLUTION ON
WHICH VERSION OF THE FACTS IN DISPUTE IS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIER OF
FACT.  ...  "  LABOR BOARD V. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO., 337 U.S. 656,
659. 

RULE 52, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDES, AMONG OTHER
THINGS: 

"FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS,
AND DUE REGARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES." 

FINDINGS AS TO THE DESIGN, MOTIVE AND INTENT WITH WHICH MEN ACT
DEPEND PECULIARLY UPON THE CREDIT GIVEN TO WITNESSES BY THOSE WHO SEE
AND HEAR THEM.  IF DEFENDANTS' WITNESSES SPOKE THE TRUTH, THE FINDINGS
ARE ADMITTEDLY JUSTIFIED.  THE TRIAL COURT LISTENED TO AND OBSERVED THE
OFFICERS WHO HAD MADE THE RECORDS FROM WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD DRAW
AN INFERENCE OF GUILT AND CONCLUDED THAT THEY BEAR A DIFFERENT MEANING
FROM THAT FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS. 

IT OUGHT TO BE UNNECESSARY TO SAY THAT RULE 52 APPLIES TO APPEALS BY
THE GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS TO THOSE BY OTHER LITIGANTS.  THERE IS NO
EXCEPTION WHICH PERMITS IT, EVEN IN AN ANTITRUST CASE, TO COME TO THIS
COURT FOR WHAT VIRTUALLY AMOUNTS TO A TRIAL DE NOVO ON THE RECORD OF
SUCH FINDINGS AS INTENT, MOTIVE AND DESIGN.  WHILE, OF COURSE, IT WOULD
BE OUR DUTY TO CORRECT CLEAR ERROR, EVEN IN FINDINGS OF FACT, THE
GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY GREATER GRIEVANCE HERE THAN IT
MIGHT HAVE IN ANY CASE WHERE THE EVIDENCE WOULD SUPPORT A CONCLUSION
EITHER WAY BUT WHERE THE TRIAL COURT HAS DECIDED IT TO WEIGH MORE
HEAVILY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.  SUCH A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO PERMISSIBLE
VIEWS OF THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS NOT "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS."  JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWED HERE WITHOUT DISPUTE THAT A MANUFACTURER OF
TAXICABS THROUGH A SERIES OF STOCK PURCHASES OBTAINED 62% OF THE STOCK
OF A CORPORATION WHICH ITSELF HAD LARGE STOCK INTERESTS IN LOCAL
COMPANIES OPERATING TAXICABS.  THE MAN WHO WAS PRESIDENT, GENERAL
MANAGER, DIRECTOR, AND DOMINANT STOCKHOLDER IN THE TAXICAB
MANUFACTURING COMPANY ALSO HELD AN IMPORTANT MANAGERIAL POSITION IN THE
CORPORATE NETWORK THAT CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF THE LOCAL TAXICAB
OPERATING COMPANIES.  THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT WERE THAT THE
AFFILIATED OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL WERE NOT THE RESULT OF ANY
DELIBERATE OR CALCULATED PURPOSE OF THE MANUFACTURING COMPANY TO
CONTROL THE OPERATING COMPANIES' PURCHASES OF TAXICABS, AND THAT NO
COMPULSION HAD BEEN EXERCISED TO CONTROL SUCH PURCHASES.  CONSEQUENTLY
THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT DESPITE THE INTEGRATION OF CORPORATE
MANAGEMENT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  I THINK THAT THE
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A FORMED INTENT TO SUPPRESS
COMPETITION IS AN INDISPENSABLE ELEMENT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN
ACT. 

IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, 105, 106, WE SAID: 

"IT IS, HOWEVER, NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY TO FIND A SPECIFIC INTENT TO
RESTRAIN TRADE OR TO BUILD A MONOPOLY IN ORDER TO FIND THAT THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT A RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR MONOPOLY RESULTS AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF A DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT
OR BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS.  UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 543;
UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 275.  TO REQUIRE A
GREATER SHOWING WOULD CRIPPLE THE ACT.  ...  (EVEN) IF WE ACCEPT THE
DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS THAT APPELLEES HAD NO INTENT OR PURPOSE
UNREASONABLY TO RESTRAIN TRADE OR TO MONOPOLIZE, WE ARE LEFT WITH THE
QUESTION WHETHER A NECESSARY AND DIRECT RESULT OF THE MASTER AGREEMENTS
WAS THE RESTRAINING OR MONOPOLIZING OF TRADE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SHERMAN ACT." 

MEASURED BY THIS TEST THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT HERE FAIL TO
SUPPORT ITS LEGAL CONCLUSIONS THAT NO VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT HAD
BEEN PROVEN.  SINCE THE TRIAL COURT WENT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
SUBJECTIVE INTENT TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF
SHERMAN LAW VIOLATIONS, IT DID NOT MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER
THE FREEDOM OF THE TAXICAB COMPANIES TO BUY TAXICABS FROM OTHER
MANUFACTURERS HAD BEEN HOBBLED BY THE DEFENDANTS' BUSINESS
ARRANGEMENTS, REGARDLESS OF COMPULSION OR INTENT TO DESTROY
COMPETITION.  THERE WAS MUCH EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THIS HOBBLING OF
COMPETITION.  I THINK THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT WERE
SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO PRESENT THIS ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE
COURT.  MOREOVER, PRESENTATION OF THE ISSUE WAS EMPHASIZED BY THE FACT
THAT A LARGE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE SUCCESSFUL ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
MONOPOLY OR RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WAS ADMITTED WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION BY
THE DEFENDANTS BASED ON VARIANCE FROM THE PLEADINGS.  SEE FEDERAL RULE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 15(B). 

THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO THE EFFECT THAT AS A RESULT OF THE
CORPORATE ARRANGEMENTS HERE THE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OBTAINED
SUFFICIENT POWER TO DICTATE THE TERMS OF PURCHASES BY THE LOCAL
COMPANIES; THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT THOSE COMPANIES DID THEREAFTER
LIMIT THEIR PURCHASES OF TAXICABS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO THOSE SOLD BY
THE MANUFACTURING DEFENDANT.  MOREOVER, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT SUCH
TAXICABS WERE IN SOME INSTANCES BOUGHT BY THE LOCAL COMPANY AT PRICES
ABOVE THOSE PAID BY OTHER TAXICAB COMPANIES WHOLLY FREE TO BUY TAXICABS
IN A COMPETITIVE MARKET.  THIS EVIDENCE, IF ACCEPTED, WOULD SUPPORT A
FINDING OF ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR MONOPOLY UNDER THE GRIFFITH
RULE.  I THINK THE CAUSE SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO
CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AND MAKE FINDINGS ON THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE. 
..END :
















COLE V. ARKANSAS, 338 U.S. 345 


NO. 62.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1949.  - 214
ARK. 387, 216 S.W.2D 402, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SEC. 2 OF ACT 193 OF THE
ARKANSAS ACTS OF 1943, WHICH MAKES IT UNLAWFUL "FOR ANY PERSON ACTING
IN CONCERT WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER PERSONS, TO ASSEMBLE AT OR NEAR ANY
PLACE WHERE A 'LABOR DISPUTE' EXISTS AND BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE PREVENT
OR ATTEMPT TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY LAWFUL VOCATION,
OR FOR ANY PERSON ACTING EITHER BY HIMSELF, OR AS A MEMBER OF ANY GROUP
OR ORGANIZATION OR ACTING IN CONCERT WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER PERSONS, TO
PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE OR AID ANY SUCH UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE."  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, INDICATING IN ITS OPINION THAT
AS TO ONE CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF THE ITALICIZED PORTION, THE STATUTE
REQUIRES THAT THE ACCUSED SHALL HAVE AIDED THE ASSEMBLAGE WITH THE
INTENTION THAT FORCE AND VIOLENCE WOULD BE USED TO PREVENT A PERSON
FROM WORKING.  HELD: 

1.  BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED THE
STATUTE AS NOT AUTHORIZING A CONVICTION FOR MERE PRESENCE IN AN
ASSEMBLAGE AT WHICH UNPLANNED AND UNCONCERTED VIOLENCE WAS PRECIPITATED
BY ANOTHER, AND THERE WAS NO DISPARITY BETWEEN THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE
TRIAL COURT AND THE OPINION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THIS
RESPECT.  PP. 347-352. 

2.  AS APPLIED TO PETITIONERS, THE STATUTE DID NOT ABRIDGE THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF ASSEMBLY GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 352-354. 

3.  THE ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, AND ITS APPLICATION IN
THIS CASE DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 354. 

COLE ET AL. V. ARKANSAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

ON THE REMAND ORDERED BY THIS COURT IN COLE V. ARKANSAS, 333 U.S.
196, THE STATE SUPREME COURT AGAIN AFFIRMED PETITIONERS' CONVICTION FOR
VIOLATION OF A STATE STATUTE.  214 ARK. 387, 216 S.W.2D 402.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 929.  AFFIRMED, P. 354. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN DECEMBER 1945, 112 OF THE 117 EMPLOYEES OF AN OIL COMPANY,
INCLUDING PETITIONERS, WENT OUT ON STRIKE.  ABOUT FIVE O'CLOCK ONE
AFTERNOON, PETITIONERS, WITH SEVERAL OTHER STRIKERS, ASSEMBLED NEAR THE
PLANT'S ENTRANCE.  ALTHOUGH A PICKET LINE WAS NEARBY, THESE MEN WERE
NOT A PART OF IT, AND THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THEIR ACTS WERE
ATTRIBUTABLE EITHER TO THE REGULAR PICKETS OR TO THE UNION REPRESENTING
THEM.  AS THE FIVE WORKING EMPLOYEES LEFT THE PLANT FOR THE DAY, THE
PETITIONER JONES CALLED OUT TO ONE NAMED WILLIAMS TO "WAIT A MINUTE, HE
WANTED TO TALK TO HIM."  WHEN WILLIAMS REPLIED THAT "HE DIDN'T HAVE
TIME, HE WAS ON HIS WAY HOME AND HE WOULD SEE HIM ANOTHER DAY,"
PETITIONER JONES GAVE A SIGNAL AND SAID, "COME ON, BOYS."  PETITIONER
COLE, WHO WAS CARRYING A STICK, TOLD ONE OF THE OTHER DEPARTING
EMPLOYEES "TO GO AHEAD ON, THAT THEY WASN'T AFTER ME."  ANOTHER STRIKER
NAMED CAMPBELL THEN ATTACKED WILLIAMS AND WAS KILLED IN THE ENSUING
STRUGGLE.  IT WAS FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT THESE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS
HAD THAT MORNING DISCUSSED TALKING TO THE MEN WHO WERE WORKING "AND
THEY AGREED THAT IF THEY DIDN'T TALK RIGHT, THEY WERE GOING TO WHIP
THEM."  WHILE SOME OF THIS WAS CONTRADICTED, SUCH IS THE VERSION WHICH
THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND FROM THE EVIDENCE. 

THE PRESENT CASE HAS HAD A CURIOUSLY INVOLVED HISTORY.  CONVICTED IN
1946 OF A STATUTORY OFFENSE FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE FOREGOING,
PETITIONERS SECURED A REVERSAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS FOR
ERRORS IN THE TRIAL.  210 ARK. 433, 196 S.W.2D 583.  FOLLOWING THE
RETRIAL, PETITIONERS' SECOND CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED, 211 ARK. 836, 202
S.W.2D 770; AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI AND REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT
THE AFFIRMANCE BELOW HAD BEEN BASED UPON A SECTION OF THE STATUTE OTHER
THAN THAT FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH THESE PETITIONERS HAD BEEN TRIED AND
CONVICTED.  COLE V. ARKANSAS, 333 U.S. 196.  FN1  ON REMAND, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HAS RECONSIDERED THE APPEAL AND HAS AGAIN AFFIRMED IN AN
OPINION SUSTAINING THE CONVICTIONS UNDER THE SECTION OF THE STATUTE ON
WHICH THE PROSECUTION WAS BASED.  214 ARK. 387, 216 S.W.2D 402.  DOUBTS
AS TO WHETHER THE MANDATE IN OUR EARLIER DECISION HAD BEEN OBEYED LED
US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 929. 

IT APPEARS ON THE SURFACE, AT LEAST, THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS HAS ATTEMPTED TO COMPLY WITH OUR MANDATE AND HAS NOW PLACED
ITS AFFIRMANCE UPON THE SAME SECTION OF THE STATUTE AS THAT UPON WHICH
THE TRIAL COURT SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY.  THE OBJECTION TO THIS
AFFIRMANCE IS, HOWEVER, MUCH MORE SUBTLE AND FAR-REACHING THAN THAT
INVOLVED IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISION.  THERE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT'S AFFIRMANCE WAS BASED UPON AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT STATUTORY OFFENSE FROM THAT CHARGED AND UNDER WHICH THE CASE
WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  IT IS NOW CLAIMED THAT, ALTHOUGH THEY BOTH
DEALT WITH THE SAME SECTION OF THE ACT INVOLVED, THE TRIAL COURT AND
THE APPELLATE COURT ADOPTED CONTRASTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THAT

IN ADDITION TO THIS CONTENTION, THAT THE PREVIOUS ERROR HAS BEEN
REPEATED, IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE STATUTE NOW INVOLVED VIOLATES THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THAT IT ABRIDGES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY, AND THAT THE CHARGE AND STATUTE ARE TOO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE
TO CONFORM TO DUE PROCESS.  ALL THREE CLAIMS INVOLVE SERIOUS CHARGES OF
ERROR, AND IF ANY ONE CAN BE SUPPORTED, PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO
PREVAIL. 


"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ACTING IN CONCERT WITH ONE OR
MORE OTHER PERSONS, TO ASSEMBLE AT OR NEAR ANY PLACE WHERE A 'LABOR
DISPUTE' EXISTS AND BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE PREVENT OR ATTEMPT TO PREVENT
ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY LAWFUL VOCATION, OR FOR ANY PERSON
ACTING EITHER BY HIMSELF, OR AS A MEMBER OF ANY GROUP OR ORGANIZATION
OR ACTING IN CONCERT WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER PERSONS, TO PROMOTE,
ENCOURAGE OR AID ANY SUCH UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE...." 

IN THE OPINION UNDER REVIEW, THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HAS
INDICATED THAT AS TO ONE CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF THE ITALICIZED
PORTION, THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE ACCUSED AID THE ASSEMBLAGE WITH
THE INTENTION THAT FORCE AND VIOLENCE WOULD BE USED TO PREVENT A PERSON
FROM WORKING.  PETITIONERS' QUARREL, HOWEVER, IS NOT WITH THIS
CONSTRUCTION.  INSTEAD, PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT IN THE TRIAL COURT, AS
THE STATUTE WAS CONSTRUED AND AS THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY,
THEIR CONVICTIONS RESTED UPON THE THEORY THAT NO MORE WAS REQUIRED THAN
MERE PRESENCE IN A GROUP WHERE UNPLANNED AND UNCONCERTED VIOLENCE WAS
PRECIPITATED BY ANOTHER.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT,
THEY CLAIM, WERE "READ INTO" THE STATUTE FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE
APPELLATE COURT ON REVIEW, AND WERE ABSENT IN THE TRIAL COURT. 

IT THUS BECOMES APPARENT THAT UNDERLYING EACH OF THE THREE
CONTENTIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THESE PETITIONERS IS THE BASIC
PREMISE THAT THEIR CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THE THEORY THAT
NOTHING MORE WAS NEEDED TO CONVICT THEM THAN MERE PRESENCE AT AN
ASSEMBLAGE WHERE VIOLENCE OCCURRED WITHOUT THEIR PARTICIPATION,
CONCERT, OR PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE.  THIS IS THE FOUNDATION, NOT ONLY OF
THE CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT ADOPTED
CONTRASTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ACT THEY ARE SAID TO HAVE VIOLATED,
BUT ALSO OF THE CLAIM THAT APPLICATION OF THAT ACT OFFENDS THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY PROTECTED FROM STATE
DEPRIVATION BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SIMILARLY THE ALLEGED
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TRIAL COURT AND THE APPELLATE COURT IN RENDERING
THE ACT IS THE BASIS OF THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
INVALID FOR VAGUENESS, IT BEING CONTENDED HERE THAT IN THIS VERY CASE
THE ACT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE SUSCEPTIBLE OF AT LEAST TWO
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS IN THE ARKANSAS COURTS. 

DID THE TRIAL COURT AUTHORIZE THE JURY TO CONVICT FOR MERE PRESENCE
IN AN ASSEMBLAGE WHERE UNPLANNED AND UNINTENDED VIOLENCE OCCURRED? 
THIS IS THE BASIS OF THE PLEA FOR REVERSAL AND WE TURN TO THE RECORD TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT IT IS JUSTIFIED. 

THE INFORMATION ON WHICH THE PETITIONERS WERE TRIED SET FORTH THAT
CAMPBELL IN CONCERT WITH OTHERS HAD ASSEMBLED AT THE PLANT WHERE A
LABOR DISPUTE EXISTED AND BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE PREVENTED WILLIAMS FROM
ENGAGING IN A LAWFUL VOCATION.  IT THEN CHARGED THAT "THE SAID ROY COLE
(AND) LOUIS JONES  ...  DID UNLAWFULLY AND FELONIOUSLY, ACTING IN
CONCERT WITH EACH OTHER, PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE AND AID SUCH UNLAWFUL
ASSEMBLAGE, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS." 
FN2 

AS WE HAVE NOTED IN COLE V. ARKANSAS, SUPRA, 198, THE LANGUAGE
EMPLOYED IN THE INFORMATION IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF
SEC. 2 OF THE ARKANSAS ACT. 

IN EXPLAINING THE ACT, WHICH WAS READ TO THE JURY, THE TRIAL COURT
SAID THAT IT INCLUDED TWO OFFENSES, "  ...  FIRST, THE CONCERT OF
ACTION BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS RESULTING IN THE PREVENTION OF A
PERSON BY MEANS OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE FROM ENGAGING IN A LAWFUL
VOCATION.  AND, SECOND, IN PROMOTING, ENCOURAGING OR AIDING OF SUCH
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE BY CONCERT OF ACTION AMONG THE DEFENDANTS AS IS
CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION HERE.  THE LATTER OFFENSE IS THE ONE ON
TRIAL IN THIS CASE." 

IN HIS SECOND INSTRUCTION, THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THAT "  ...  IF
YOU FURTHER BELIEVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANTS
WILFULLY, UNLAWFULLY AND FELONIOUSLY, WHICH (WHILE) ACTING IN CONCERT
WITH EACH OTHER, PROMOTED, ENCOURAGED AND AIDED SUCH UNLAWFUL
ASSEMBLAGE, YOU WILL CONVICT THE DEFENDANTS AS CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT." 

NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE DEFENDANTS PRESENTED NO REQUEST FOR A CHARGE
THAT WOULD CONSTRUE THE STATUTE AS UNFAVORABLE TO THEMSELVES AS THEY
NOW CONTEND IT WAS CONSTRUED.  TO THE CONTRARY, AN OPPOSITE
CONSTRUCTION WAS EMBODIED IN THE DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS TO CHARGE, ALL OF
WHICH, WITH MINOR VARIATIONS, WERE GRANTED SAVE ONE WHICH DUPLICATED A
CHARGE EARLIER MADE BY THE COURT.  THE NINTH INSTRUCTION REQUESTED BY
THE DEFENDANTS AND GRANTED BY THE COURT, SAID:  "THE COURT INSTRUCTS
YOU THAT MERE FACT, IF YOU FIND IT TO BE A FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS, OR
EITHER OF THEM, WERE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN
CAMPBELL AND WILLIAMS, SUCH FACT ALONE WOULD NOT JUSTIFY YOU IN FINDING
THE DEFENDANTS OR EITHER OF THEM GUILTY." 

BUT IT IS CONTENDED THAT SOME PORTIONS OF THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF ARKANSAS APPARENTLY "READ INTO" THE STATUTE THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE ACCUSED "PROMOTED, ENCOURAGED AND AIDED THE ASSEMBLAGE - WHICH
WAS UNLAWFUL BECAUSE OF ITS PURPOSE AND ITS ACCOMPLISHED RESULTS," AND
THAT IT SUSTAINED THE CONVICTIONS UPON A CONCLUSION FROM THE EVIDENCE
THAT "THE DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED, AIDED, ENCOURAGED AND ABETTED IN AN
AGREEMENT WITH OTHERS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE WORKERS  ...  WOULD BE
WHIPPED IF THEY DID NOT AGREE TO QUIT WORK."  PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT
THIS REQUIREMENT OF PURPOSE AND KNOWLEDGE WAS SUPPLIED AS AN ADDITIONAL
ELEMENT BY THE APPELLATE COURT, AND THAT IN SO DOING THAT COURT
DEPARTED EVEN FURTHER FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRIAL COURT.  BUT
THE QUESTION WAS BEFORE THE JURY IN ALMOST THE VERY LANGUAGE
PETITIONERS OBJECT TO AS ORIGINATING IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  "YOU
ARE INSTRUCTED," SAID THE TRIAL COURT IN GIVING A CHARGE REQUESTED BY
THESE PETITIONERS, "THAT BEFORE THE DEFENDANTS, OR EITHER OF THEM CAN
BE CONVICTED IN THIS CASE, YOU MUST BE CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT THEY PROMOTED, ENCOURAGED, AND AIDED IN AN UNLAWFUL
ASSEMBLAGE AT THE PLANT OF THE SOUTHERN COTTON OIL COMPANY, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PREVENTING OTHA WILLIAMS FROM ENGAGING IN A LAWFUL
VOCATION." 

WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH DISPARITY BETWEEN THE INSTRUCTIONS AND THE
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT AS IS SUGGESTED.  AT MOST, THE APPELLATE
COURT SPELLED OUT WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE TRIAL
COURT, AND BOTH WERE AGREED THAT THE STATUTE AUTHORIZED NO CONVICTION
FOR A MERE PRESENCE IN AN ASSEMBLAGE AT WHICH UNPLANNED AND UNCONCERTED
VIOLENCE WAS PRECIPITATED BY ANOTHER. 

WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID DISPOSES OF THE CONTENTION THAT THIS ACT AS
APPLIED TO PETITIONERS ABRIDGES FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.  FOR THIS
ARGUMENT, TOO, RESTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS ACT PENALIZES FOR MERE
PRESENCE IN A GATHERING WHERE VIOLENCE OCCURS.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT,
THE STATUTORY TEXT DOES NOT SO READ, THE CHARGE OF THE TRIAL COURT
EXPRESSLY NEGATIVED THIS CONSTRUCTION AT THE DEFENDANTS' OWN REQUEST,
AND THEY THEMSELVES HAVE COMPLAINED OF THE APPELLATE COURT THAT IT WENT
EVEN FURTHER IN THIS DIRECTION. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER A STATE HAS
POWER TO INCRIMINATE BY HIS MERE PRESENCE AN INNOCENT MEMBER OF A GROUP
WHEN SOME INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT HIS ENCOURAGEMENT OR CONCERT COMMITS AN
ACT OF VIOLENCE.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO REVIEW SUCH A QUESTION AS
THAT WHEN IT IS ASKED BY ONE WHO OCCUPIES SUCH A STATUS.  EVIDENTLY
THESE PETITIONERS, IN THE MINDS OF THE JURY, AT LEAST, DID NOT.  FN3
FOR, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED UNDER A STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION AND CHARGE WHICH FORBADE CONVICTION WITHOUT BELIEF THAT
THE PETITIONERS AIDED THE ASSEMBLAGE "FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING
OTHA WILLIAMS FROM ENGAGING IN A LAWFUL VOCATION." 

AS DEFINED BY THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT, AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, THE
AIDING OF WHICH IS PROHIBITED, IS "  ...  ONE WHERE PERSONS ACTING IN
CONCERT HAVE ASSEMBLED IN AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE
SOME OTHER PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN A LAWFUL OCCUPATION." 

CERTAINLY THE ACT BEFORE US DOES NOT PENALIZE THE PROMOTION,
ENCOURAGEMENT, OR FURTHERANCE OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AT OR NEAR ANY PLACE
WHERE A LABOR DISPUTE EXISTS, NOR DOES IT INFRINGE THE RIGHT OF
EXPRESSION OF VIEWS IN ANY LABOR DISPUTE. 

QUITE ANOTHER QUESTION IS INVOLVED WHEN ONE IS CONVICTED OF
PROMOTING, ENCOURAGING AND AIDING AN ASSEMBLAGE THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS
TO WREAK VIOLENCE.  SUCH AN ASSEMBLAGE HAS BEEN DENOMINATED UNLAWFUL BY
THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE, AND IT IS NO ABRIDGMENT OF FREE SPEECH OR
ASSEMBLY FOR THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS OF THE STATE TO FASTEN THEMSELVES
UPON ONE WHO HAS ACTIVELY AND CONSCIOUSLY ASSISTED THEREIN. 

SIMILARLY WE FIND NO MERIT IN PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THE
ARKANSAS STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, SO THAT ITS APPLICATION
IN THIS CASE VIOLATED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  HERE AGAIN THE PREMISE UPON
WHICH THE ARGUMENT IS PRESENTED TO US IS THAT THE TWO ARKANSAS COURTS
DIFFERED IN CONSTRUING THE STATUTE, AND WE ARE ASKED TO CONCLUDE FROM
THIS FACT THAT THE TEST OF DEFINITENESS WHICH CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST
MEET UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 216, 223, HAS NOT BEEN MET.  SINCE WE CANNOT ASSUME
THAT THE TWO COURTS WERE AT ODDS IN THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE
STATUTE, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO EXPLORE THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER
SUCH DISCREPANCY, IF IT EXISTED, WOULD CONSTITUTE A BASIS FOR
CONCLUDING THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN ACHIEVED. 
WE THINK THAT SEC. 2, ACT 193, ACTS OF ARKANSAS 1943, FAIRLY APPRISES
MEN OF ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE THAT FOR TWO OR MORE TO ASSEMBLE AND BY
FORCE OR VIOLENCE PREVENT OR ATTEMPT TO PREVENT ANOTHER FROM ENGAGING
IN ANY LAWFUL VOCATION CONSTITUTES AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE, AND THAT THE
PROMOTION, ENCOURAGEMENT OR AIDING THEREOF IS UNLAWFUL.  JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED.    FN1  ACT 193, ACTS OF ARKANSAS 1943, PROVIDES IN PERTINENT
PART:    "SECTION 1.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON BY THE USE OF
FORCE OR VIOLENCE, OR THREAT OF THE USE OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE, TO
PREVENT OR ATTEMPT TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY LAWFUL
VOCATION WITHIN THIS STATE.  ... 

"SECTION 2.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ACTING IN CONCERT
WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER PERSONS, TO ASSEMBLE AT OR NEAR ANY PLACE WHERE
A 'LABOR DISPUTE' EXISTS AND BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE PREVENT OR ATTEMPT TO
PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY LAWFUL VOCATION, OR FOR ANY
PERSON ACTING EITHER BY HIMSELF, OR AS A MEMBER OF ANY GROUP OR
ORGANIZATION OR ACTING IN CONCERT WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER PERSONS, TO
PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE OR AID ANY SUCH UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE.  ...  " 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HAD AFFIRMED THE PETITIONERS'
CONVICTIONS ON THE BASIS OF SEC. 1 OF THE ABOVE STATUTE, ALTHOUGH, AS
WE OBSERVED, BOTH THE INFORMATION DRAWN AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND THE
CHARGE TO THE JURY REFERRED IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS TO A VIOLATION, NOT
OF SEC. 1, BUT OF SEC. 2.  ACCORDINGLY WE REVERSED, HOLDING IT A
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO APPRAISE AND AFFIRM
PETITIONERS' CONVICTIONS ON CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE GOVERNING
THE CASE AS IT WAS TRIED AND AS THE ISSUES WERE DETERMINED IN THE TRIAL
COURT. 

FN2  THE ENTIRE INFORMATION WAS AS FOLLOWS:  "COMES SAM ROBINSON,
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND IN
THE NAME, BY THE AUTHORITY, AND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
INFORMATION GIVES ACCUSING ROY COLE, LOUIS JONES AND JESSIE BEAN OF THE
CRIME OF FELONY, COMMITTED AS FOLLOWS TO-WIT:  ON THE 26TH DAY OF
DECEMBER, A.D. 1945, IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, WALTER TED CAMPBELL,
ACTING IN CONCERT WITH OTHER PERSONS, ASSEMBLED AT THE SOUTHERN COTTON
OIL COMPANY'S PLANT IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, WHERE A LABOR DISPUTE
EXISTED, AND BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE PREVENTED OTHA WILLIAMS FROM
ENGAGING IN A LAWFUL VOCATION.  THE SAID ROY COLE, LOUIS JONES AND
JESSIE BEAN, IN THE COUNTY AND STATE AFORESAID, ON THE 26TH DAY OF
DECEMBER, 1945, DID UNLAWFULLY AND FELONIOUSLY, ACTING IN CONCERT WITH
EACH OTHER, PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE AND AID SUCH UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE,
AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS." 

FN3  ONE WITNESS, WHOM THE JURY WAS ENTITLED TO BELIEVE, TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  YOU SAY YOU WERE DOWN AT THE TENT THAT MORNING? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q. WHEN THESE DEFENDANTS HERE, LOUIS JONES AND THE OTHERS, WERE IN A
DISCUSSION AND WERE TALKING ABOUT TALKING TO THE MEN THAT WERE
WORKING? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  AND THEY AGREED THAT IF THEY DIDN'T TALK RIGHT, THEY WERE GOING
TO WHIP THEM? 

"A.  YES, SIR." 

FACTS DEMONSTRATING THE CONSUMMATION OF THIS PLAN WERE GIVEN TO THE
JURY BY THE TESTIMONY OF ANOTHER WITNESS.  AS THE MEN NOT ON STRIKE
WERE LEAVING THE PLANT, PETITIONER JONES, ACCORDING TO THE WITNESS,
CALLED UPON WILLIAMS "  ...  TO WAIT A MINUTE, HE WANTED TO TALK TO
HIM, AND OTHA TOLD HIM HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME, HE WAS ON HIS WAY HOME AND
HE WOULD SEE HIM ANOTHER DAY. 

"Q.  DID HE DO ANYTHING ELSE? 

"A.  HE GAVE A SIGNAL AND SAID 'COME ON, BOYS.'  ... 

"Q.  WHAT HAPPENED AFTER LOUIS JONES GAVE THE SIGNAL AND SAID 'COME
ON, BOYS'? 

"A.  THEY FLEW UP LIKE BLACKBIRDS AND CAME FIGHTING." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















COLGATE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 338 U.S. 355 


NO. 47.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1949.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1949.  - 171
F.2D 956, REVERSED. 


AN EMPLOYER AND A LABOR ORGANIZATION ENTERED INTO A CLOSED-SHOP
AGREEMENT WHICH WAS VALID UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND
UNDER STATE LAW.  THE AGREEMENT, WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAD ENTERED INTO IN
GOOD FAITH, WAS OF INDEFINITE DURATION AND HAD BEEN IN EFFECT MORE THAN
FOUR YEARS.  PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT, UPON THE DEMAND OF THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION AND IN GOOD FAITH, THE EMPLOYER DISCHARGED CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES WHOM THE LABOR ORGANIZATION HAD EXPELLED FROM MEMBERSHIP ON
ACCOUNT OF THEIR ACTIVITY IN BEHALF OF A RIVAL LABOR ORGANIZATION.  THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THEREUPON FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD
VIOLATED SECS. 8(1) AND 8(3) OF THE ACT, AND ORDERED THE DISCHARGED
EMPLOYEES RESTORED TO THEIR FORMER POSITIONS WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY
AND PAY.  HELD:  THE ORDER OF THE BOARD WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT
AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT.  PP. 356-365. 

(A)  THE APPLICATION OF THE SO-CALLED RUTLAND COURT DOCTRINE,
EMBODYING A POLICY OF THE LABOR BOARD, IS REJECTED, SINCE THE BOARD
CANNOT IGNORE THE PLAIN PROVISIONS OF A VALID CONTRACT MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF THE STATUTE AND REFORM IT
TO CONFORM TO THE BOARD'S IDEA OF CORRECT POLICY.  PP. 362-364. 

(B)  WALLACE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 323 U.S. 248, DISTINGUISHED.  PP.
364-365. 

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 70 N.L.R.B. 1202,
REQUIRING PETITIONER TO RESTORE CERTAIN DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES TO THEIR
FORMER POSITIONS WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY AND PAY, WAS GRANTED
ENFORCEMENT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  171 F.2D 956.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 913.  REVERSED, P. 365. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION WE HAVE HERE IS WHETHER A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT, ENTERED
INTO AND PERFORMED IN GOOD FAITH, AND VALID IN THE STATE WHERE MADE,
PROTECTS AN EMPLOYER FROM A CHARGE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  FN1 

PETITIONER WAS FOUND BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO HAVE
VIOLATED SECS. 8(1) AND 8(3) OF THE ACT.  FN2  ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
AND CROSS-PETITION OF THE BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER, THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENTERED A DECREE ENFORCING THE BOARD'S
ORDER.  FN3  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THIS CASE,  FN4
I.E., TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SO-CALLED RUTLAND COURT
DOCTRINE,  FN5  HERE APPLIED BY THE BOARD.  THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN
APPROVED IN THE SECOND,  FN6 THIRD,  FN7  AND NINTH CIRCUITS,  FN8  BUT
DISAPPROVED IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.  FN9 

AT THE PERIOD OF TIME IN QUESTION IN 1945, PETITIONER COMPANY WAS
ENGAGED IN PRODUCING GLYCERIN FOR WAR PURPOSES.  PETITIONER HAS NO
RECORD OF ANTIUNION OR ANTIORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES.  ITS EMPLOYEES
WERE FIRST ORGANIZED AND REPRESENTED IN 1936 BY A UNION AFFILIATED WITH
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.  IN 1938 THE INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS
OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, BECAME THE REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES.  ON JULY 9, 1941, THE C.I.O. ENTERED INTO A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING CONTRACT WITH PETITIONER WHICH CONTAINED A CLOSED-SHOP
PROVISION IN THESE WORDS: 

"SECTION 3.  THE EMPLOYER AGREES THAT WHEN NEW EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE
HIRED TO DO ANY WORK COVERED BY SECTION ONE (1), THEY SHALL BE HIRED
THRU THE OFFICES OF THE UNION, PROVIDED THAT THE UNION SHALL BE ABLE TO
FURNISH COMPETENT WORKERS FOR WORK REQUIRED.  IN THE EVENT THE UNION IS
UNABLE TO FURNISH COMPETENT WORKERS, THE EMPLOYER MAY HIRE FROM OUTSIDE
SOURCES, PROVIDED THAT EMPLOYEES SO HIRED SHALL MAKE APPLICATION FOR
MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT. 
THE EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE MEMBERS IN GOOD
STANDING OF THE UNION AND THE EMPLOYER SHALL EMPLOY NO WORKERS OTHER
THAN MEMBERS OF THE UNION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS HEREIN ABOVE
PRESCRIBED.  IN THE HIRING OF NEW HELP (FOR THE WAREHOUSES), THEY SHALL
BE HIRED THROUGH THE OFFICES OF THE WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 1-6,
I.L.W.U." 

THIS CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH BY THE PARTIES AND
SERVED AS A FOUNDATION FOR AMICABLE LABOR RELATIONS FOR OVER FOUR
YEARS.  IT WAS OF INDEFINITE DURATION.  ON JULY 24, 1945, THE C.I.O.
AND PETITIONER ENTERED INTO A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT THAT THEIR
CONTRACT OF JULY 9, 1941, "SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT"
PENDING APPROVAL OF CERTAIN AGREED-UPON ITEMS, OTHER THAN THE CLOSED
SHOP PROVISION, BY THE WAR LABOR BOARD.  IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS,
THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT, AS EXTENDED BY THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT,
WAS FOUND BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISO OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT.  FN10 

ON JULY 26, 1945, SHORTLY AFTER THE MAKING OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT, OPEN AGITATION FOR A CHANGE OF BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
BEGAN.  ON JULY 31 AN UNAUTHORIZED STRIKE OCCURRED WHICH WAS
PARTICIPATED IN BY A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES AND LASTED
TWO AND ONE-HALF DAYS, ALTHOUGH THE C.I.O. HAD PLEDGED ITS MEMBERSHIP
NOT TO STRIKE DURING WARTIME.  A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES FORMED AN
INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION WHICH LATER SOUGHT TO AFFILIATE WITH THE A.F.
OF L. THERE WAS MUCH PROPAGANDIZING AMONG THE EMPLOYEES AND WARNINGS
WERE ISSUED BY THE C.I.O. THAT ITS MEMBERS WOULD BE DISCIPLINED FOR
RIVAL UNION ACTIVITY, AND WOULD IF DISCIPLINED BE DISCHARGED FROM THEIR
JOBS UNDER THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WITH PETITIONER. 

ALTOGETHER SOME 37 EMPLOYEES WERE SUSPENDED AND EXPELLED BY THE
C.I.O. FOR THEIR ACTIVITIES IN BEHALF OF THE A.F. OF L. UNION DURING
THE FIGHT BETWEEN THE TWO UNIONS FOR CONTROL, AND BECAUSE OF THEIR
PARTICIPATION IN THE STRIKE CONTRARY TO C.I.O. POLICY.  THESE SUSPENDED
AND EXPELLED EMPLOYEES WERE DISCHARGED BY PETITIONER, WITH THE ADVICE
OF COUNSEL, UPON DEMAND BY THE C.I.O. THE GROUND OF THE DEMAND WAS THAT
THEY WERE NO LONGER "MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING" OF THE C.I.O. AS
REQUIRED BY THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT.  PETITIONER KNEW, AS THE BOARD
FOUND, THAT THE DISCHARGE OF THESE EMPLOYEES WAS DEMANDED BY THE C.I.O.
BECAUSE OF THEIR RIVAL UNION ACTIVITY. 

ON OCTOBER 16 THE C.I.O. WON AN ELECTION HELD BY THE BOARD TO
DETERMINE THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES, AND
THE OPEN HOSTILITIES WERE SUBSTANTIALLY CONCLUDED.  FN11 

PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) AND SEC. 8(3) OF
THE ACT AND FOUND GUILTY THEREOF BY THE BOARD FOR HAVING CARRIED OUT
THE TERMS OF THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT AT THE REQUEST OF THE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE.  THE BOARD ORDERED PETITIONER TO RESTORE THE EMPLOYEES
DISCHARGED AT THE REQUEST OF THE C.I.O. TO THEIR FORMER POSITIONS
WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY AND PAY.  IT IS THIS ORDER WHICH THE COURT OF
APPEALS DECREED SHOULD BE ENFORCED AND THAT IS HERE FOR REVIEW. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE DISCHARGES HAD THE EFFECT OF
INTERFERING WITH THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT, GIVEN BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, TO
SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES
OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.  NOR IS THERE ANY QUESTION BUT THAT THE
DISCHARGES HAD THE EFFECT OF DISCRIMINATING, CONTRARY TO THE
PROHIBITION OF SEC. 8(3), IN THE TENURE OF THE EMPLOYEES.  IT IS
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT SUCH INTERFERENCE AND DISCRIMINATION ARE
TAKEN OUT OF THE CATEGORY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHERE THE EMPLOYEES
ARE DISCHARGED IN GOOD FAITH, PURSUANT TO AN EMPLOYER'S OBLIGATIONS
UNDER A VALID CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES, AS PERMITTED BY THE PROVISO
CONTAINED IN SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT.  FN12  THE BOARD ADMITS THAT
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IS SUPPORTED BY THE PROVISO IN SEC. 8(3) BUT
SAYS THAT A CONTRACT OF INDEFINITE DURATION SUCH AS THE ONE IN THE
INSTANT CASE IS SUBJECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RUTLAND COURT OWNERS, INC.,
44 N.L.R.B. 587, 46 N.L.R.B. 1040.  IN THE RUTLAND COURT CASE THE BOARD
DETERMINED THAT AN EMPLOYER IS NOT PERMITTED TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT, EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACT IS VALID
UNDER THE PROVISO TO SEC. 8(3), WHEN, TO THE EMPLOYER'S KNOWLEDGE, THE
DISCHARGE IS REQUESTED BY THE UNION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE SOUGHT TO CHANGE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES AT A
PERIOD WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE EMPLOYEES TO SEEK A
REDETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES.  THE REASON FOR THIS HOLDING BY THE
BOARD WILL BE PRESENTLY DISCUSSED.  THE DOCTRINE AS APPLIED TO THE
FACTS IN THIS CASE IS STATED IN THE BOARD'S BRIEF AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE BOARD FOUND THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT TO HAVE BEEN VALIDLY
ENTERED INTO IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISO TO SECTION 8(3) OF THE
ACT.  THE BOARD CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT, BY VIRTUE OF THE INDEFINITE
TERM OF THE CONTRACT, WHICH HAD RUN FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS, THE
EMPLOYEES UNDERTOOK TO OUST THE C.I.O. AS THEIR BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE AT A PERIOD DURING WHICH IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO SEEK A
REDETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES." 

THE BOARD CONTENDS THAT THEREFORE THE CONTRACT NO LONGER PROTECTED
PETITIONER. 

WE TAKE IT FROM THIS CONCLUSION OF THE BOARD THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE
AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT AS FAR AS THE ACT IS
CONCERNED.  IN ALGOMA P. & V. CO. V. WISCONSIN EMPL.  REL.  BD., 336
U.S. 301, IT WAS HELD THAT NOTHING IN THE ACT PRECLUDES A STATE FROM
PROHIBITING CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  WE THEREFORE
ALSO LOOK TO THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WAS
MADE, HERE CALIFORNIA, TO DETERMINE ITS VALIDITY.  WE THINK IT IS
CLEAR, AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BOARD TO CONTEND OTHERWISE, THAT THE
CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WAS VALID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.  SHAFER V.
REGISTERED PHARMACISTS UNION LOCAL 1172, 16 CAL.2D 379, 106 P.2D 403;
PARK & TILFORD IMPORT CORP. V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
ETC., LOCAL 848, 27 CAL.2D 599, 165 P.2D 891; JAMES V. MARINSHIP CORP.,
25 CAL.2D 721, 155 P.2D 329.  IN THE MARINSHIP CASE, SUPRA, AT 736, THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT A UNION MAY EXPEL
PERSONS WHO "HAVE INTERESTS INIMICAL TO THE UNION" BECAUSE OF "THE
RIGHT OF THE UNION TO REJECT OR EXPEL PERSONS WHO REFUSE TO ABIDE BY
ANY REASONABLE REGULATION OR LAWFUL POLICY ADOPTED BY THE UNION."  SEE
ALSO DAVIS V. INT. ALLIANCE OF STAGE EMPLOYEES, 60 CAL. APP.2D 713,
715, 141 P.2D 486, 487-488, WHERE IT IS STATED THAT UNDER CALIFORNIA
LAW, "AN ORGANIZATION HAS THE NATURAL RIGHT OF SELF PRESERVATION, AND
MAY WITH PROPRIETY EXPEL MEMBERS WHO SHOW THEIR DISLOYALTY BY JOINING A
RIVAL ORGANIZATION."  THE CONTRACT WAS VALID UNDER THE ACT AND UNDER
STATE LAW. 

THE CLAIMED IMPOTENCY OF THE CONTRACT AS A DEFENSE HERE RESTS NOT
UPON ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OR OF STATE LAW OR THE TERMS
OF THE CONTRACT, BUT UPON A POLICY DECLARED BY THE BOARD.  THAT POLICY
HAS FOR ITS AVOWED PURPOSE THE SOLUTION OF WHAT THE BOARD CONCEIVES TO
BE AN ANOMALOUS SITUATION, IN THAT SEC. 7 GUARANTEES EMPLOYEES THE
RIGHT TO SELECT FREELY THEIR REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
WHILE THE PROVISO TO SEC. 8(3) PERMITS A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WITH
INHERENT POSSIBILITIES FOR INVASION OF THE RIGHT GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7. 
THE SOLUTION ARRIVED AT IN THE RUTLAND COURT CASE, AND URGED HERE, IS
THAT THE BOARD MAY NOT GIVE FULL EFFECT TO THE PROVISO OF SEC. 8(3)
BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD PERMIT CIRCUMVENTION OF SEC. 7.  WE TURN TO THIS
CONTENTION. 

ONE OF THE OLDEST TECHNIQUES IN THE ART OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS
THE CLOSED SHOP.  FN13  IT PROTECTS THE INTEGRITY OF THE UNION AND
PROVIDES STABILITY TO LABOR RELATIONS.  TO ACHIEVE STABILITY OF LABOR
RELATIONS WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  FN14  CONGRESS KNEW THAT A CLOSED SHOP
WOULD INTERFERE WITH FREEDOM OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE IN ANOTHER UNION
AND WOULD, IF USED, LEAD INEVITABLY TO DISCRIMINATION IN TENURE OF
EMPLOYMENT.  FN15  NEVERTHELESS, WITH FULL REALIZATION THAT THERE WAS A
LIMITATION BY THE PROVISO OF SEC. 8(3) UPON THE FREEDOM OF SEC. 7,
CONGRESS INSERTED THE PROVISO OF SEC. 8(3).  IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US
TO JUSTIFY THE POLICY OF CONGRESS.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT WE FIND IT IN THE
STATUTE.  THAT POLICY CANNOT BE DEFEATED BY THE BOARD'S POLICY, WHICH
WOULD MAKE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OUT OF THAT WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY
THE ACT.  THE BOARD CANNOT IGNORE THE PLAIN PROVISIONS OF A VALID
CONTRACT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF THE
STATUTE AND REFORM IT TO CONFORM TO THE BOARD'S IDEA OF CORRECT
POLICY.  TO SUSTAIN THE BOARD'S CONTENTION WOULD BE TO PERMIT THE BOARD
UNDER THE GUISE OF ADMINISTRATION TO PUT LIMITATIONS IN THE STATUTE NOT
PLACED THERE BY CONGRESS.  IN REALITY WHATEVER INTERFERENCE OR
DISCRIMINATION WAS PRESENT HERE CAME NOT FROM THE EMPLOYER, BUT FROM
FELLOW-EMPLOYEES OF THE DISCHARGEES.  SHORN OF EMBELLISHMENT, THE
BOARD'S POLICY MAKES INTERFERENCE AND DISCRIMINATION BY FELLOW
EMPLOYEES AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF THE EMPLOYER.  YET THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THAT CONGRESS, BY REJECTING THE
PROPOSED TYDINGS AMENDMENT TO THE ACT, REFUSED TO WORD SEC. 7 SO AS TO
HAMPER COERCION OF EMPLOYEES BY FELLOW-EMPLOYEES.  FN16  THE
EMASCULATION OF THE CONTRACT PRESSED FOR BY THE BOARD IN ORDER TO
ACHIEVE THAT WHICH CONGRESS REFUSED TO ENACT INTO LAW CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THIS IS A CONTEST PRIMARILY BETWEEN LABOR
UNIONS FOR CONTROL.  IT IS QUITE REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS
THOUGHT IT CONDUCIVE TO STABILITY OF LABOR RELATIONS THAT PARTIES BE
REQUIRED TO LIVE UP TO A VALID CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT MADE VOLUNTARILY
WITH THE RECOGNIZED BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, REGARDLESS OF INTERNAL
DISRUPTIONS GROWING OUT OF AGITATION FOR A CHANGE IN BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE EMPLOYEES EXERCISED THEIR
RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  THE REPRESENTATIVE
BOUND THEM TO A VALID CONTRACT.  THE CONTRACT WAS LIVED UNDER FOR FOUR
YEARS AND WAS SUBSISTING AT THE PERIOD OF TIME IN QUESTION.  IT WAS
MADE AND CARRIED OUT IN GOOD FAITH BY PETITIONER, WHO CANNOT BE HELD
GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BY ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT OF THE
STATUTE.  WE REJECT THE APPLICATION OF THE SO-CALLED RUTLAND COURT
DOCTRINE. 

NOTHING THAT THIS COURT SAID IN WALLACE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 323
U.S. 248, SUPPORTS THE BOARD'S POSITION HERE.  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT
SAID:    "IT WAS AS MUCH A DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THESE MINORITY
EMPLOYEES FOR THE COMPANY DISCRIMINATORILY TO DISCHARGE THEM IN
COLLABORATION WITH INDEPENDENT AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE COMPANY
DONE IT ALONE.  TO PERMIT IT TO DO SO BY INDIRECTION, THROUGH THE
MEDIUM OF A 'UNION' OF ITS OWN CREATION, WOULD BE TO SANCTION A READILY
CONTRIVED MECHANISM FOR EVASION OF THE ACT."  323 U.S. AT 256. 

THERE THE INDEPENDENT UNION WAS FOUND TO BE A COMPANY-SUPPORTED
UNION, AND THE EMPLOYER WAS FOUND GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
FOR SUPPORTING IT.  WHILE THE PROVISO TO SEC. 8(3) PERMITS A CLOSED
SHOP CONTRACT, IT DOES NOT PERMIT ONE MADE WITH A UNION "ESTABLISHED,
MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THIS ACT AS AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE."  SO THE COURT CONCLUDED IN THE WALLACE CORP. CASE
THAT:  "THE BOARD THEREFORE IS REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449 ET SEQ., 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN2  MATTER OF COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET COMPANY, 70 N.L.R.B. 1202. 

FN3  171 F.2D 956. 

FN4  337 U.S. 913. 

FN5  MATTER OF RUTLAND COURT OWNERS, INC., 44 N.L.R.B. 587, 46
N.L.R.B. 1040. 

FN6  LABOR BOARD V. GERALDINE NOVELTY CO., 173 F.2D 14; COLONIE FIBRE
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 163 F.2D 65; LABOR BOARD V. AMERICAN WHITE CROSS
LABORATORIES, 160 F.2D 75. 

FN7  LABOR BOARD V. PUBLIC SERVICE TRANSPORT CO., 177 F.2D 119. 

FN8  LABOR BOARD V. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET CO., 171 F.2D 956; LOCAL
2880 V. LABOR BOARD, 158 F.2D 365, CERTIORARI GRANTED, 331 U.S. 798,
CERTIORARI DISMISSED ON MOTION OF PETITIONER, 332 U.S. 845. 

FN9  ALUMINUM CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 159 F.2D 523; LEWIS MEIER & CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 21 L.R.R.M. 2093(NOV.  1947). 

FN10  "SEC.  8.  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER
- 

     .         .      .         .         . 

"(3)  BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR
ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN THIS
ACT,  ...  OR IN ANY CODE OR AGREEMENT APPROVED OR PRESCRIBED
THEREUNDER, OR IN ANY OTHER STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL
PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER FROM MAKING AN AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION
(NOT ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THIS
ACT AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE) TO REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF
EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP THEREIN, IF SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION IS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 9(A), IN THE
APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT COVERED BY SUCH AGREEMENT WHEN
MADE."  49 STAT. 452, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 158(3). 

FN11  THIS ELECTION WAS THEREAFTER SET ASIDE BY THE BOARD, UPON
OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE A.F. OF L., ON THE GROUND THAT THE EMPLOYER'S
DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES AT THE REQUEST OF THE C.I.O. PREVENTED THE
RESULT OF THE ELECTION FROM BEING TRULY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES' WISHES. 

FN12  SUPRA, N. 10. 

FN13  SEE PETERSON, AMERICAN LABOR UNIONS, P. 1(1945).  REV. JEROME
L. TONER IN THE CLOSED SHOP IN THE AMERICAN LABOR MOVEMENT, PUBLISHED
UNDER AUSPICES OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, STUDIES IN
ECONOMICS, VOL. 5, 1941, TRACES THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CLOSED SHOP TO THE
ENGLISH GUILD SYSTEM, THE FORERUNNER OF THE AMERICAN UNION MOVEMENT, P.
16 ET SEQ. IN AMERICA THE DESIRE OF WORKERS FOR CLOSED-SHOP CONDITIONS
ANTEDATES THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND EVEN UNIONISM.  ID. AT 22, 58 ET
SEQ. 

FN14  49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151; S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 1(1935); H.R. REP. NOS. 969, 972, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
6(1935); H.R. REP. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8(1935). 

FN15  SEE STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAGNER:  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ON S. 195, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
47(1935); STATEMENT OF MR. MILLIS, ID. AT 179-180; AND THE SENATE AND
HOUSE REPORTS ACCOMPANYING THE BILL:  S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 16(1935); H.R. REP. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 15-17(1935). 

FN16  DURING CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL ON THE SENATE FLOOR, SENATOR
TYDINGS PROPOSED TO AMEND IT BY ADDING TO SEC. 7 THE WORDS, "FREE FROM
COERCION OR INTIMIDATION FROM ANY SOURCE."  IN THE DEBATE WHICH
FOLLOWED IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD DEAL WITH EMPLOYEE
AGAINST-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, WHILE THE BILL WAS DESIGNED TO DEAL ONLY
WITH EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER RELATIONS, AND THE AMENDMENT WAS DEFEATED.  SEE
79 CONG. REC. 7653-7658, 7675. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT.  IN THEIR OPINION
THE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN SEC. 7 AND SEC. 8(3) MADE BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD IS PERMISSIBLE.  THE USE OF THE CLOSED-SHOP PRIVILEGE
TO INTERFERE WITH THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE LABORERS' CHOICE DOES NOT
SEEM TO THEM TO BE WITHIN THE PURPOSE OF THE LABOR ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










BROWN V. WESTERN R. OF ALABAMA, 338 U.S. 294 


NO. 43.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 21, 1949.  - 77
GA. APP. 780, 49 S.E.2D 833, REVERSED. 


IN AN ACTION IN A STATE COURT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE
COMPLAINT AND DISMISSED THE ACTION.  UNDER THE STATE LAW, SUCH A
DISMISSAL WAS A FINAL ADJUDICATION BARRING RECOVERY IN ANY FUTURE STATE
PROCEEDING.  THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE BASIS OF A
STATE RULE OF PRACTICE TO CONSTRUE PLEADINGS "MOST STRONGLY AGAINST THE
PLEADER."  HELD: 

1. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE STATE COURT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH STATE PRACTICE IS NOT BINDING ON THIS COURT, WHICH WILL ITSELF
CONSTRUE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER
PETITIONER HAS BEEN DENIED A RIGHT OF TRIAL GRANTED HIM BY CONGRESS. 
PP. 295-296. 

2.  THE COMPLAINT DID SET FORTH A CAUSE OF ACTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN DISMISSED.  PP. 297-299. 

BROWN V. WESTERN RAILWAY OF ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA. 

A STATE COURT SUSTAINED A GENERAL DEMURRER TO A COMPLAINT CLAIMING
DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND DISMISSED THE
ACTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA AFFIRMED.  77 GA. APP. 780, 49
S.E.2D 833.  THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA DENIED CERTIORARI.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 965.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P.
299. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A GEORGIA STATE COURT CLAIMING
DAMAGES FROM THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ. RESPONDENT FILED A GENERAL
DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED TO "SET FORTH A
CAUSE OF ACTION AND IS OTHERWISE INSUFFICIENT IN LAW."  THE TRIAL COURT
SUSTAINED THE DEMURRER AND DISMISSED THE CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED, 77 GA. APP. 780, 49 S.E.2D 833, AND THE SUPREME COURT
OF GEORGIA DENIED CERTIORARI.  IT IS AGREED THAT UNDER GEORGIA LAW THE
DISMISSAL IS A FINAL ADJUDICATION BARRING RECOVERY IN ANY FUTURE STATE
PROCEEDING.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HERE PRESENTED THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE COMPLAINT DID SET FORTH A CAUSE OF ACTION SUFFICIENT TO
SURVIVE A GENERAL DEMURRER RESULTING IN FINAL DISMISSAL.  CERTIORARI
WAS GRANTED BECAUSE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISMISSAL WERE CONSIDERED
IMPORTANT TO A CORRECT AND UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT IN
THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  SEE BRADY V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 320 U.S.
476. 

FIRST.  THE GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT "STRIPPED OF ITS
DETAILS, THE PETITION SHOWS THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES WHEN HE STEPPED ON A LARGE CLINKER LYING
ALONGSIDE THE TRACK IN THE RAILROAD YARDS.  ...  THE MERE PRESENCE OF A
LARGE CLINKER IN A RAILROAD YARD CAN NOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE AN ACT
OF NEGLIGENCE.  ...  IN SO FAR AS THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION SHOW,
THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS THE ACT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN STEPPING
ON THIS LARGE CLINKER, WHICH HE WAS ABLE TO SEE AND COULD HAVE
AVOIDED."  77 GA. APP. 783, 49 S.E.2D 835.  THE COURT REACHED THE
FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS BY FOLLOWING A GEORGIA RULE OF PRACTICE TO
CONSTRUE PLEADING ALLEGATIONS "MOST STRONGLY AGAINST THE PLEADER." 
FOLLOWING THIS LOCAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION THE COURT SAID THAT "IN THE
ABSENCE OF ALLEGATIONS TO THE CONTRARY, THE INFERENCE ARISES THAT THE
PLAINTIFF'S VISION WAS UNOBSCURED AND THAT HE COULD HAVE SEEN AND
AVOIDED THE CLINKER."  77 GA. APP. 783, 49 S.E.2D 835.  UNDER THE SAME
LOCAL RULE THE COURT FOUND NO PRECISE ALLEGATION THAT THE PARTICULAR
CLINKER ON WHICH PETITIONER STUMBLED WAS BESIDE THE TRACKS DUE TO
RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPLAINT IS BINDING ON
US.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT WHILE STATE COURTS ARE WITHOUT POWER TO
DETRACT FROM "SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS" GRANTED BY CONGRESS IN FELA CASES,
THEY ARE FREE TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES OF "PRACTICE" AND "PROCEDURE." 
TO WHAT EXTENT RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE MAY THEMSELVES DIG INTO
"SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS" IS A TROUBLESOME QUESTION AT BEST AS IS SHOWN IN
THE VERY CASE ON WHICH RESPONDENT RELIES.  CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO. V.
WHITE, 238 U.S. 507.  OTHER CASES IN THIS COURT  FN1  POINT UP THE
IMPOSSIBILITY OF LAYING DOWN A PRECISE RULE TO DISTINGUISH "SUBSTANCE"
FROM "PROCEDURE."  FORTUNATELY, WE NEED NOT ATTEMPT TO DO SO.  A LONG
SERIES OF CASES PREVIOUSLY DECIDED, FROM WHICH WE SEE NO REASON TO
DEPART, MAKES IT OUR DUTY TO CONSTRUE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THIS COMPLAINT
OURSELVES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER PETITIONER HAS BEEN DENIED A
RIGHT OF TRIAL GRANTED HIM BY CONGRESS.  THIS FEDERAL RIGHT CANNOT BE
DEFEATED BY THE FORMS OF LOCAL PRACTICE.  SEE AMERICAN RY. EXP.  CO. V.
LEVEE, 263 U.S. 19, 21.  AND WE CANNOT ACCEPT AS FINAL A STATE COURT'S
INTERPRETATION OF ALLEGATIONS IN A COMPLAINT ASSERTING IT.  FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. ANDERSON, 269 U.S. 341, 346; DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263
U.S. 22, 24; COVINGTON TURNPIKE CO. V. SANDFORD, 164 U.S. 578, 595
596.  THIS RULE APPLIES TO FELA CASES NO LESS THAN TO OTHER TYPES. 
REYNOLDS V. ATLANTIC C.L.R. CO., 336 U.S. 207; ANDERSON V. A., T. &
S.F.R. CO., 333 U.S. 821; CF. LILLIE V. THOMPSON, 332 U.S. 459. 

SECOND.  WE HOLD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT DO SET FORTH A
CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.  IT CHARGED THAT
RESPONDENT HAD ALLOWED "CLINKERS" AND OTHER DEBRIS "TO COLLECT IN SAID
YARDS ALONG THE SIDE OF THE TRACKS"; THAT SUCH DEBRIS MADE THE "YARDS
UNSAFE"; THAT RESPONDENT THUS FAILED TO SUPPLY HIM A REASONABLY SAFE
PLACE TO WORK, BUT DIRECTED HIM TO WORK IN SAID YARDS "UNDER THE
CONDITIONS ABOVE DESCRIBED"; THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR PETITIONER "TO
CROSS OVER ALL SUCH MATERIAL AND DEBRIS"; THAT IN PERFORMING HIS DUTIES
HE "RAN AROUND" AN ENGINE AND "STEPPED ON A LARGE CLINKER LYING BESIDE
THE TRACKS AS AFORESAID WHICH CAUSED PETITIONER TO FALL AND BE
INJURED"; THAT PETITIONER'S INJURIES WERE "DIRECTLY AND PROXIMATELY
CAUSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT  ...  (A)
IN FAILING TO FURNISH PLAINTIFF WITH A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE IN WHICH
TO WORK AS HEREIN ALLEGED.  (B) IN LEAVING CLINKERS ...  AND OTHER
DEBRIS ALONG THE SIDE OF TRACK IN ITS YARDS AS AFORESAID, WELL KNOWING
THAT SAID YARDS IN SUCH CONDITION WERE DANGEROUS FOR USE BY BRAKEMEN,
WORKING THEREIN AND THAT PETITIONER WOULD HAVE TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES
WITH SAID YARDS IN SUCH CONDITION." 

OTHER ALLEGATIONS NEED NOT BE SET OUT SINCE THE FOREGOING IF PROVEN
WOULD SHOW AN INJURY OF THE PRECISE KIND FOR WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED A RECOVERY.  THESE ALLEGATIONS, FAIRLY CONSTRUED, ARE MUCH
MORE THAN A CHARGE THAT PETITIONER "STEPPED ON A LARGE CLINKER LYING
ALONGSIDE THE TRACK IN THE RAILROAD YARDS."  THEY ALSO CHARGE THAT THE
RAILROAD PERMITTED CLINKERS AND OTHER DEBRIS TO BE LEFT ALONG THE
TRACKS, "WELL KNOWING" THAT THIS WAS DANGEROUS TO WORKERS; THAT
PETITIONER WAS COMPELLED TO "CROSS OVER" THE CLINKERS AND DEBRIS; THAT
IN DOING SO HE FELL AND WAS INJURED; AND THAT ALL OF THIS WAS IN
VIOLATION OF THE RAILROAD'S DUTY TO FURNISH PETITIONER A REASONABLY
SAFE PLACE TO WORK.  CERTAINLY THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO
PERMIT INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE FROM WHICH A JURY MIGHT INFER THAT
PETITIONER'S INJURIES WERE DUE TO THE RAILROAD'S NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING
TO SUPPLY A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE TO WORK.  BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT
R. CO., 319 U.S. 350, 353.  AND WE HAVE ALREADY REFUSED TO SET ASIDE A
JUDGMENT COMING FROM THE GEORGIA COURTS WHERE THE JURY WAS PERMITTED TO
INFER NEGLIGENCE FROM THE PRESENCE OF CLINKERS ALONG THE TRACKS IN THE
RAILROAD YARD.  SOUTHERN R. CO. V. PUCKETT, 244 U.S. 571, 574,
AFFIRMING 16 GA. APP. 551, 554, 85 S.E. 809, 811. 

HERE THE GEORGIA COURT HAS DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT NO
INFERENCE OF RAILROAD NEGLIGENCE COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS ALLEGED
IN THIS CASE.  RATHER THE COURT ITSELF HAS DRAWN FROM THE PLEADINGS THE
REVERSE INFERENCE THAT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PETITIONER'S INJURY
WAS HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE.  THROUGHOUT ITS OPINION THE APPELLATE COURT
CLEARLY REVEALS A PREOCCUPATION WITH WHAT IT DEEMED TO BE PETITIONER'S
FAILURE TO TAKE PROPER PRECAUTIONS N2.  BUT AS THAT COURT NECESSARILY
ADMITS, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY UNDER THE
FELA. 

STRICT LOCAL RULES OF PLEADING CANNOT BE USED TO IMPOSE UNNECESSARY
BURDENS UPON RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AUTHORIZED BY FEDERAL LAWS.  "WHATEVER
SPRINGES THE STATE MAY SET FOR THOSE WHO ARE ENDEAVORING TO ASSERT
RIGHTS THAT THE STATE CONFERS, THE ASSERTION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS, WHEN
PLAINLY AND REASONABLY MADE, IS NOT TO BE DEFEATED UNDER THE NAME OF
LOCAL PRACTICE."  DAVIS V. WECHSLER, SUPRA, AT 24.  CF. MATY V.
GRASSELLI CHEMICAL CO., 303 U.S. 197.  SHOULD THIS COURT FAIL TO
PROTECT FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS FROM DISMISSAL BECAUSE OF OVER
EXACTING LOCAL REQUIREMENTS FOR METICULOUS PLEADINGS, DESIRABLE
UNIFORMITY IN ADJUDICATION OF FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS COULD NOT BE
ACHIEVED.  SEE BRADY V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 320 U.S. 476, 479. 

UPON TRIAL OF THIS CASE THE EVIDENCE OFFERED MAY OR MAY NOT SUPPORT
INFERENCES OF NEGLIGENCE.  WE SIMPLY HOLD THAT UNDER THE FACTS ALLEGED
IT WAS ERROR TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND THAT PETITIONER SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO TRY HIS CASE.  COVINGTON TURNPIKE CO. V. SANDFORD, SUPRA, AT
596; ANDERSON V. A., T. & S.F.R. CO., 333 U.S. 821. 

THE CAUSE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  ANGEL V. BULLINGTON, 330 U.S. 183; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK,
326 U.S. 99; GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239; ST. LOUIS,
S.F. & T.R. CO. V. SEALE, 229 U.S. 156, 157; AND SEE SAME CASE 148 S.W.
1099; TOLEDO, ST. L. & W.R. CO. V. SLAVIN, 236 U.S. 454, 457-458; AND
SEE SAME CASE 88 OHIO ST. 536, 106 N.E. 1077.  COMPARE BRINKMEIER V.
MISSOURI P.R. CO., 224 U.S. 268, WITH SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. RENN,
241 U.S. 290. 

FN2  THAT COURT AMONG OTHER THINGS SAID:  "IN THE ABSENCE OF
ALLEGATIONS TO THE CONTRARY, THE INFERENCE ARISES THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S
VISION WAS UNOBSCURED AND THAT HE COULD HAVE SEEN AND AVOIDED THE
CLINKER.  ...  IN SO FAR AS THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION SHOW, THE
SOLE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS THE ACT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN STEPPING ON
THIS LARGE CLINKER, WHICH HE WAS ABLE TO SEE AND COULD HAVE AVOIDED. 
IT WAS HE WHO, WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE INTERVENTION, FAILED TO LOOK,
STEPPED ON THE CLINKER, AND FELL."  77 GA. APP. 783, 49 S.E.2D 835. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

INSIGNIFICANT AS THIS CASE APPEARS ON THE SURFACE, ITS DISPOSITION
DEPENDS ON THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BETWEEN TWO JUDICIAL SYSTEMS CHARGED
WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF A LAW BINDING ON BOTH.  THIS, IT BEARS
RECALLING, IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE WORKING OF OUR FEDERALISM
WITHOUT NEEDLESS FRICTION. 

HAVE THE GEORGIA COURTS DISRESPECTED THE LAW OF THE LAND IN THE
JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW?  SINCE CONGRESS EMPOWERS STATE COURTS TO
ENTERTAIN SUITS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, A STATE
CANNOT WILFULLY SHUT ITS COURTS TO SUCH CASES.  SECOND EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1.  BUT THE COURTS SO EMPOWERED ARE CREATURES
OF THE STATES, WITH SUCH STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONS AS THE STATES ARE
FREE TO DEVISE AND DEFINE.  CONGRESS HAS NOT IMPOSED JURISDICTION ON
STATE COURTS FOR CLAIMS UNDER THE ACT "AS AGAINST AN OTHERWISE VALID
EXCUSE."  DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & H.R. CO., 27.  U.S. 377,
388.  AGAIN, IF A STATE HAS DISPENSED WITH THE JURY IN CIVIL SUITS OR
HAS MODIFIED THE COMMON-LAW REQUIREMENTS FOR TRIAL BY JURY, A PLAINTIFF
MUST TAKE THE JURY SYSTEM AS HE FINDS IT IF HE CHOOSES TO BRING HIS
SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IN A COURT OF THAT
STATE.  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L.R. CO. V. BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S. 211.  AFTER
ALL, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE. 

SO ALSO, STATES HAVE VARYING SYSTEMS OF PLEADING AND PRACTICE.  ONE
STATE MAY CHERISH FORMALITIES MORE THAN ANOTHER, ONE STATE MAY BE MORE
RESPONSIVE THAN ANOTHER TO PROCEDURAL REFORMS.  IF A LITIGANT CHOOSES
TO ENFORCE A FEDERAL RIGHT IN A STATE COURT, HE CANNOT BE HEARD TO
OBJECT IF HE IS TREATED EXACTLY AS ARE PLAINTIFFS WHO PRESS LIKE CLAIMS
ARISING UNDER STATE LAW WITH REGARD TO THE FORM IN WHICH THE CLAIM MUST
BE STATED - THE PARTICULARITY, FOR INSTANCE, WITH WHICH A CAUSE OF
ACTION MUST BE DESCRIBED.  FEDERAL LAW, THOUGH INVOKED IN A STATE
COURT, DELIMITS THE FEDERAL CLAIM - DEFINES WHAT GIVES A RIGHT TO
RECOVERY AND WHAT GOES TO PROVE IT.  BUT THE FORM IN WHICH THE CLAIM
MUST BE STATED NEED NOT BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE STATE EXACTS IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF LIKE OBLIGATIONS CREATED BY IT, SO LONG AS SUCH A
REQUIREMENT DOES NOT ADD TO, OR DIMINISH, THE RIGHT AS DEFINED BY
FEDERAL LAW, NOR BURDEN THE REALIZATION OF THIS RIGHT IN THE
ACTUALITIES OF LITIGATION. 

OF COURSE "THIS COURT IS NOT CONCLUDED" BY THE VIEW OF A STATE COURT
REGARDING THE SUFFICIENCY OF ALLEGATIONS OF A FEDERAL RIGHT OF ACTION
OR DEFENSE.  THIS MERELY MEANS THAT A STATE COURT CANNOT DEFEAT THE
SUBSTANCE OF A FEDERAL CLAIM BY DENIAL OF IT.  NOR CAN A STATE DO SO
UNDER THE GUISE OF PROFESSING MERELY TO PRESCRIBE HOW THE CLAIM SHOULD
BE FORMULATED.  AMERICAN R. EXPRESS CO. V. LEVEE, 263 U.S. 19, 21. 

THE CRUCIAL QUESTION FOR THIS COURT IS WHETHER THE GEORGIA COURTS
HAVE MERELY ENFORCED A LOCAL REQUIREMENT OF PLEADING, HOWEVER FINICKY,
APPLICABLE TO ALL SUCH LITIGATION IN GEORGIA WITHOUT QUALIFYING THE
BASIS OF RECOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OR
WEIGHTING THE SCALES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.  COMPARE NORFOLK SOUTHERN
R. CO. V. FEREBEE, 238 U.S. 269, WITH CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO. V. WHITE,
238 U.S. 507.  GEORGIA MAY ADHERE TO ITS REQUIREMENTS OF PLEADING, BUT
IT MAY NOT PUT "UNREASONABLE OBSTACLES IN THE WAY" OF A PLAINTIFF WHO
SEEKS ITS COURTS TO OBTAIN WHAT THE FEDERAL ACT GIVES HIM.  DAVIS V.
WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22, 25. 

THESE DECISIVE DIFFERENCES ARE USUALLY CONVEYED BY THE TERMS
"PROCEDURE" AND "SUBSTANCE."  THE TERMS ARE NOT MEANINGLESS EVEN THOUGH
THEY DO NOT HAVE FIXED UNDEVIATING MEANINGS.  THEY DERIVE CONTENT FROM
THE FUNCTIONS THEY SERVE HERE IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY IN WHICH WE
HAVE APPLIED THEM IN REVERSE SITUATIONS - WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE
PROBLEM WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURTS RESPECTED THE SUBSTANCE OF STATE
CREATED RIGHTS, AS REQUIRED BY THE RULE IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304
U.S. 64, OR IMPAIRED THEM BY PROFESSING MERELY TO ENFORCE THEM BY THE
MODE IN WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS DO BUSINESS.  REVIEW ON THIS ASPECT OF
STATE COURT JUDGMENTS IN FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES PRESENTS
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME KIND OF PROBLEM AS THAT WITH WHICH THIS COURT
DEALT IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, APPLIED AT THE LAST
TERM IN RAGAN V. MERCHANTS TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO., 337 U.S. 530, AND
COHEN V. BENEFICIAL INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORP., 337 U.S. 541, 555.  CONGRESS
HAS AUTHORIZED STATE COURTS TO ENFORCE FEDERAL RIGHTS, AND FEDERAL
COURTS STATE-CREATED RIGHTS.  NEITHER SYSTEM OF COURTS CAN IMPAIR THESE
RESPECTIVE RIGHTS, BUT BOTH MAY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS FOR STATING
CLAIMS (PLEADING) AND CONDUCTING LITIGATION (PRACTICE). 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONTROLLING CONSIDERATIONS, I CANNOT FIND THAT
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA HAS EITHER SOUGHT TO EVADE THE LAW OF
THE UNITED STATES OR DID SO UNWITTINGLY.  THAT COURT SHOWED FULL
AWARENESS OF THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARISING
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AS LAID DOWN IN THIS COURT'S
DECISIONS.  FN1  IT FULLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE RIGHT UNDER THE ACT IS
FOUNDED ON NEGLIGENCE BY THE CARRIER IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THAT
"ASSUMPTION OF RISK" MUST RIGOROUSLY BE EXCLUDED, THAT CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT DEFEAT THE ACTION BUT MERELY BEARS ON DAMAGES.  NOR
IS IT CLAIMED THAT BY THE USE OF PRESUMPTIONS OR OTHERWISE THE STATE
COURT PLACED ON THE PLAINTIFF A BURDEN OF PROOF EXCEEDING THAT OF THE
ACT.  ALL THAT THE GEORGIA COURT DID WAS CONSCIENTIOUSLY TO APPLY ITS
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS NECESSARY TO SET FORTH A CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE
ACCORDING TO THE LOCAL REQUIREMENT OF PARTICULARITY.  CONCRETELY IT
RULED THAT "THE MERE PRESENCE OF A LARGE CLINKER IN A RAILROAD YARD CAN
NOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE AN ACT OF NEGLIGENCE."  FOR ALL THAT APPEARS,
THE GEORGIA COURT SAID IN EFFECT, THE CLINKER HAD BEEN PLACED THERE
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RESPONSIBILITY COULD NOT BE CHARGED
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.  ON THIS AND OTHER ASSUMPTIONS NOT MET BY
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, THE COURT DID NOT FIND IN THE PHRASEOLOGY USED
IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGEABLE WITH NEGLECT FOR THE
PRESENCE OF THE OFFENDING CLINKER IN A YARD OPERATED BY ITSELF AS WELL
AS ANOTHER CARRIER.  I WOULD NOT SO READ THE COMPLAINT.  BUT THIS DOES
NOT PRECLUDE THE GEORGIA COURT FROM TAKING A MORE CONSTRAINED VIEW.  BY
SO DOING IT HAS NOT CONTRACTED RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT NOR HOBBLED
THE PLAINTIFF IN GETTING A JUDGMENT TO WHICH HE MAY BE ENTITLED. 

IT IS NOT CREDIBLE THAT THE GEORGIA COURT WOULD BE FOUND WANTING HAD
IT STATED THAT UNDER GEORGIA RULES, AS A MATTER OF PLEADING, IT WAS
NECESSARY TO STATE IN SO MANY WORDS THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTICULAR
CLINKER WAS DUE TO THE DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE, AND TO SET FORTH THE
DETAILED CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MADE THE DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE, ALTHOUGH
THE RANGE OF INFERENCE OPEN TO A JURY WAS NOT THEREBY AFFECTED.  THIS
IS WHAT THAT COURT'S DECISION SAYS IN EFFECT IN APPLYING THE STIFF
GEORGIA DOCTRINE OF CONSTRUING A COMPLAINT MOST STRONGLY AGAINST THE
PLEADER.  IT IS NOT A DENIAL OF A FEDERAL RIGHT FOR GEORGIA TO REFLECT
SOMETHING OF THE PERNICKETINESS WITH WHICH SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY COMMON
LAW READ A PLEADING.  HAD THE GEORGIA COURT GIVEN LEAVE TO AMEND IN
ORDER TO SATISFY ELEGANCIES OF PLEADING, THE CASE WOULD OF COURSE NOT
BE HERE.  WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NICETIES OF PLEADING REQUIRED BY
GEORGIA THE PLAINTIFF HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY.  GEORGIA CODE SEC. 81
1301(1933).  FN2  HE CHOSE TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT AGAINST A GENERAL
DEMURRER.  IF GEORGIA THEREAFTER AUTHORIZES DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT,
THE STATE DOES NOT THEREBY COLLIDE WITH FEDERAL LAW. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  INDEED, THE HISTORY OF GEORGIA LEGISLATION AND ADJUDICATION
INDICATES THAT LONG BEFORE THERE WAS A FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
THAT STATE WAS HUMANE AND NOT HARSH IN ALLOWING RECOVERY TO RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CARRIER.  GA.
LAWS 1855, P. 155; AUGUSTA & S.R. CO. V. MCELMURRY, 24 GA. 75; DODD,
ADMINISTRATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 13-14(1936). 

FN2  SEE ALSO WELLS V. BUTLER'S BUILDERS' SUPPLY CO., 128 GA. 37, 40,
57 S.E. 55, 57; CAHOON V. WILLS, 179 GA. 195, 175 S.E. 563; NOTE, 106
A.L.R. 570, 574(1937); DAVIS AND SHULMAN, GEORGIA PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE SEC. 96(1948). 
..END :


















MANUFACTURERS TR. CO. V. BECKER, 338 U.S. 304 


NO. 55.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 21, 1949.  - 173
F.2D 944, AFFIRMED. 


IN AN ARRANGEMENT PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY A CORPORATE DEBTOR UNDER
CHAPTER XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE OBJECTED TO THE
ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS EQUAL TO THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF DEBENTURES
ACQUIRED AT A DISCOUNT, WHILE THE DEBTOR WAS INSOLVENT, BY RESPONDENTS,
WHO WERE CLOSE RELATIVES AND AN OFFICE ASSOCIATE OF THE DEBTOR'S
DIRECTORS.  THE REFEREE FOUND, IN EFFECT, THAT THERE WAS NO BAD FAITH
OR UNFAIR DEALING, AND THAT, DURING THE PERIOD OF THE PURCHASES,
RESPONDENTS' CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO THE AFFAIRS OF THE DEBTOR WAS TO
ITS MATERIAL BENEFIT.  THE REFEREE DISMISSED THE OBJECTIONS, AND BOTH
THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  HELD:  ON THE
RECORD IN THIS CASE, EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE THAT
RESPONDENTS' CLAIMS BE LIMITED TO THE COST OF THE DEBENTURES PLUS
INTEREST.  PP. 305-315. 

(A)  THE TWO RESPONDENTS WHO WERE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS
PURCHASED ALL THEIR DEBENTURES WHILE THE DEBTOR WAS A GOING CONCERN
(THOUGH TECHNICALLY INSOLVENT); AND, EVEN IF THEIR CLAIMS BE VIEWED AS
CLAIMS OF DIRECTORS, THE PROBABILITY THAT AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF
INTERESTS AROSE FROM THEIR PURCHASES IS NOT GREAT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE
EXERCISE OF EQUITY JURISDICTION TO LIMIT THEIR CLAIMS TO THE COST OF
THE DEBENTURES PLUS INTEREST.  PP. 309-313. 

(B)  THE THIRD RESPONDENT DID PURCHASE A SMALL PORTION OF HIS
DEBENTURES AFTER THE DEBTOR CEASED TO BE A GOING CONCERN; BUT HE WAS
MERELY AN OFFICE ASSOCIATE AND FRIEND OF THE DIRECTORS, HE HAD BEGUN TO
BUY DEBENTURES SOME MONTHS BEFORE THEIR ELECTION, THERE WAS NOTHING TO
INDICATE THAT HIS PURCHASES AFTER THEY BECAME DIRECTORS WERE INFLUENCED
BY ADVICE FROM THEM, THEY HAD NO INTEREST IN HIS HOLDINGS, AND
CONSIDERATION OF HIS CLAIM AS THAT OF A DIRECTOR IS PRECLUDED.  PP. 314
315. 

MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, V. BECKER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE REFEREE'S
DISMISSAL OF OBJECTIONS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS WAS AFFIRMED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT (80 F.SUPP.  822) AND THE COURT OF APPEALS (173
F.2D 944).  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 923.  AFFIRMED, P.
315. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING IN BANKRUPTCY IS ON OBJECTIONS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF
CLAIMS EQUAL TO THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF BONDS OF THE DEBTOR ACQUIRED AT
A DISCOUNT DURING ITS INSOLVENCY BY CLOSE RELATIVES AND AN OFFICE
ASSOCIATE OF DIRECTORS OF DEBTOR.  PETITIONER'S OBJECTION THAT
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRE LIMITATION OF THE CLAIMS WAS DISMISSED
BY THE REFEREE, AND THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  80 F.SUPP.  822. 
FOLLOWING AFFIRMANCE BY A DIVIDED COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT, 173 F.2D 944, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE ISSUE
PRESENTED HAS IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARRANGEMENT AND
CORPORATE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  337 U.S.
923. 

ON JANUARY 8, 1946, CALTON CRESCENT, INC., SOLD ITS ONLY PROPERTY, AN
APARTMENT HOUSE LOCATED IN NEW ROCHELLE, NEW YORK, FOR $300,000
PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO IN OCTOBER 1945.  BEING UNABLE TO
DISCHARGE IN FULL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER DEBENTURE BONDS MATURING IN
1953, OUTSTANDING IN PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $254,450, DEBTOR FILED IN MAY
1946, A PETITION UNDER CH. XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 701
ET SEQ. UNDER THE PLAN OF ARRANGEMENT, AUTHORIZING A DIVIDEND OF 43.61%
OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS, RESPONDENTS REGINE BECKER, EMILY
K. BECKER, AND WALTER A. FRIBOURG WERE TO RECEIVE AN AGGREGATE DIVIDEND
OF $64,237.53 ON ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS BASED ON RESPECTIVE INDIVIDUAL
HOLDINGS OF DEBENTURES WHICH TOTAL $147,300 IN PRINCIPAL SUM BUT WERE
ACQUIRED AT A TOTAL COST OF $10,195.43.  FN1  PETITIONER, MANUFACTURERS
TRUST COMPANY, APPEARING INDIVIDUALLY AS CREDITOR FOR FEES AND
DISBURSEMENTS DUE IT AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE AND ALSO AS ORIGINAL TRUSTEE
UNDER SAID INDENTURE, OBJECTED TO ALLOWANCE OF RESPONDENTS' CLAIMS AS
FILED, ON THE GROUND THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF RESPONDENTS'
ACQUISITIONS REQUIRE LIMITATION OF THEIR CLAIMS TO THE COST OF THE
DEBENTURES PLUS INTEREST. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERTINENT TO OUR CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S
OBJECTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:  THE DEBTOR WAS ORGANIZED IN 1933 TO TAKE
TITLE TO THE APARTMENT PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION. 
BY JANUARY 1942 DEBTOR HAD DEFAULTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE AND WAS OPERATING WITH A DEFICIT; AT NO TIME IN THE PREVIOUS
SEVERAL YEARS HAD ITS DEBENTURES BEEN SELLING ON THE MARKET AT MORE
THAN 8% OF FACE VALUE. 

WHILE DEBTOR WAS THEN CONSIDERING A SALE OF THE PROPERTY FOR
$220,000, A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE SALE WAS BROUGHT BY SANFORD BECKER, SON
OF RESPONDENT REGINE BECKER AND HUSBAND OF RESPONDENT EMILY BECKER. 
FN2  THEREAFTER HE PROPOSED TO ARRANGE A LOAN ON SECOND MORTGAGE TO
DEBTOR OF $15,000 TO PAY OFF THE ARREARAGES ON THE FIRST MORTGAGE, ALL
SHARE AND DEBENTURE HOLDERS BEING INVITED TO PARTICIPATE.  IN APRIL
1942 DEBTOR ACCEPTED THE OFFER, BUT NONE OF ITS SHARE OR DEBENTURE
HOLDERS ELECTED TO PARTICIPATE OTHER THAN RESPONDENT FRIBOURG, WHO HAD
DESK ROOM IN THE OFFICES OF SANFORD BECKER AND HIS BROTHER NORMAN
BECKER AND WAS A LONG-TIME FRIEND OF THE FORMER.  THE LOAN WAS MADE BY
RESPONDENTS REGINE BECKER, EMILY BECKER, AND FRIBOURG.  THE SECOND
MORTGAGE THUS CREATED WAS IN DEFAULT BY THE END OF 1942, AND IN 1943
RESPONDENTS TOOK AN ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS BUT DID NOT FORECLOSE; NOR WAS
THERE CHANGE IN MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY.  THE SECOND MORTGAGE AND
INTEREST WERE PAID UPON SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN 1946.  IN ADDITION TO
THE SECOND MORTGAGE, SUMS AGGREGATING $7,921.63 WERE ADVANCED BY
RESPONDENTS TO PAY TAXES; THIS AMOUNT WAS REPAID WITHOUT INTEREST IN
1944 AND 1945.  PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT IN 1942,
SANFORD AND NORMAN BECKER WERE MADE DIRECTORS OF DEBTOR, AND WHEN THE
REMAINING THREE DIRECTORS RESIGNED IN 1944, THE VACANCIES WERE FILLED
BY NOMINEES OF THE BECKER BROTHERS. 

THE REFEREE FOUND THAT FROM EARLY 1942 THE MARKET VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY OF DEBTOR WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ITS DEBTS.  HOWEVER, THE
RECORD SHOWS A TAX VALUATION DURING THE PERIOD OF ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS
THAN THE OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS N3.  AND ALTHOUGH THE DEBTOR'S
OPERATING ACCOUNT FREQUENTLY RAN IN ARREARS, IT REVEALED A SURPLUS IN
1945.  PRIOR TO DISPOSING OF ITS PROPERTY DEBTOR WAS AT ALL TIMES A
GOING CONCERN.  FN4 

THE DEBENTURES ON WHICH RESPONDENTS CLAIM WERE ACQUIRED, AT PRICES
VARYING FROM 3% TO 14% OF FACE VALUE, AFTER THE BECKER BROTHERS BECAME
DIRECTORS IN 1942.  FN5  SANFORD BECKER DID NOT BUY ADDITIONAL
DEBENTURES AFTER BECOMING A DIRECTOR.  NORMAN BECKER NEVER OWNED ANY
INTEREST WHATEVER IN THE DEBTOR.  ALTHOUGH NEITHER OF THE BECKER
DIRECTORS WAS INTERESTED IN ANY PURCHASE OF THE RESPONDENTS, THE
DEBENTURES OF REGINE AND EMILY BECKER WERE PURCHASED THROUGH THE AGENCY
OF THE BECKER BROTHERS AND IN THE LATTER'S JUDGMENT.  THE DEBENTURES OF
REGINE BECKER WERE PURCHASED FROM AN OVER-THE-COUNTER SECURITIES
BROKER.  THOSE OF EMILY BECKER WERE ACQUIRED IN PART FROM THE SAME
DEALER, IN PART FROM AN ESTATE WHOSE ATTORNEYS WERE FULLY INFORMED AS
TO DEBTOR'S FINANCIAL AFFAIRS, AND IN PART FROM A CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY A MEMBER OF ITS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE WHO WAS FULLY
ADVISED AS TO THE CONDITION OF DEBTOR. 

SOME OF FRIBOURG'S DEBENTURES WERE BOUGHT FROM DEALERS IN THE OVER
THE-COUNTER MARKET; OTHERS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH AN AGENT FROM THE
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF DEBTOR WHEN THEY WITHDREW FROM ITS
MANAGEMENT IN 1944, AND FROM OTHER HOLDERS AFTER THE RETIRING PRESIDENT
INSISTED THAT THE OFFER MADE TO HIM BY FRIBOURG'S AGENT BE EXTENDED TO
ALL HOLDERS AND BE ACCOMPANIED BY A STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S
INTENTION TO ACCEPT.  FRIBOURG WAS IN THE MARKET FOR SPECULATIVE
SECURITIES AND PURCHASED THE DEBENTURES AS A "GAMBLE," BEING INFLUENCED
BY THE TAX VALUATION OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING. 

ALL OF RESPONDENTS' DEBENTURES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF $2,000 IN FACE
VALUE PURCHASED BY FRIBOURG FROM A DEALER, WERE ACQUIRED IN ADVANCE OF
THE CONTRACT FOR SALE OF THE APARTMENT PROPERTY AND THE FILING OF
DEBTOR'S PETITION FOR ARRANGEMENT.  FN6 

IT WAS THE REFEREE'S FINDING, LEFT UNDISTURBED BY BOTH COURTS BELOW,
THAT RESPONDENTS' PURCHASES WERE WITHOUT OVERREACHING OR FAILURE TO
DISCLOSE ANY MATERIAL FACT TO THE SELLING BONDHOLDERS.  PETITIONER DOES
NOT HERE CONTEND THAT RESPONDENTS' CLAIMS SHOULD BE LIMITED BECAUSE OF
CONDUCT BY THE BECKER DIRECTORS OR BY RESPONDENTS AMOUNTING TO BAD
FAITH OR ABUSE OF FIDUCIARY ADVANTAGE.  NOR DOES PETITIONER CONTEND
THAT RESPONDENTS' BONDHOLDINGS INFLUENCED THE CONDUCT OF CORPORATE
AFFAIRS TO THE INJURY OF THE CORPORATION OR OTHER CREDITORS.  INDEED,
THE REFEREE FOUND THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT UNFAIR TO DEBTOR, THAT AT
THE TIME OF RESPONDENTS' PURCHASES DEBTOR WAS NOT IN THE FIELD TO
SETTLE ITS INDEBTEDNESS ON THE DEBENTURES, AND THAT THE ASSISTANCE
RENDERED TO DEBTOR BY RESPONDENTS MATERIALLY AIDED IN ITS GRAVE
FINANCIAL SITUATION.  MOREOVER, THE FINDINGS INDICATE THAT THE MOST
GENEROUS SUGGESTION OF AN OFFER FOR THE APARTMENT BUILDING AFTER THE
BECKERS BECAME DIRECTORS AND PRIOR TO THE SALE WAS AT A FIGURE
SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE SALE PRICE. 

PETITIONER URGES BROADLY THAT DIRECTORS ARE PRECLUDED FROM PROFITING
BY THE PURCHASE OF CLAIMS AGAINST AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION.  AND, IT
CONTENDS, IF DIRECTORS MAY CLAIM ONLY THE COST OF DEBT SECURITIES
ACQUIRED AT A DISCOUNT DURING A DEBTOR'S INSOLVENCY, THOSE RELATED AS
RESPONDENTS ARE TO THE BECKER DIRECTORS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DO
MORE.  THUS WE VIEW RESPONDENTS' CLAIMS INITIALLY AS IF THEY WERE
CLAIMS OF DIRECTORS. 

THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY INSISTED ON GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING ON
THE PART OF CORPORATE FIDUCIARIES.  IT IS ESPECIALLY CLEAR, WHEN CLAIMS
IN BANKRUPTCY ACCRUE TO THE BENEFIT OF A CORPORATE OFFICER OR DIRECTOR,
THAT THE COURT MUST REJECT ANY CLAIM THAT WOULD NOT BE FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TO OTHER CREDITORS.  PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, 308
309(1939).  FN7 

CLAIMS OF A CORPORATE OFFICER OR DIRECTOR ARISING OUT OF TRANSACTIONS
WITH THE CORPORATION HAVE BEEN ENFORCED WHEN GOOD FAITH AND FAIRNESS
WERE FOUND.  SANFORD FORK & TOOL CO. V. HOWE, BROWN & CO., 157 U.S.
312(1895); CF. MANUFACTURING CO. V. BRADLEY, 105 U.S. 175(1882); SEE
RICHARDSON'S EX'R V. GREEN, 133 U.S. 30, 43(1890); TWIN-LICK OIL CO. V.
MARBURY, 91 U.S. 587, 589-591(1876).  LIKEWISE A STANDARD OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING HAS BEEN FOUND APPLICABLE, WHERE NOT SUPERSEDED BY A
DIFFERING LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE RULE, TO PURCHASES BY DIRECTORS
OF CORPORATE SHARES, IN THE OVER-THE-COUNTER MARKET, AT LESS THAN BOOK
VALUE ON CONVERSION UNDER A PLAN OF PUBLIC UTILITY REORGANIZATION. 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. CHENERY CORPORATION, 318 U.S.
80(1943); CF. ID., 332 U.S. 194(1947).  IN THE FIRST CHENERY DECISION
IT WAS DECLARED THAT EQUITY HAS NOT IMPOSED "UPON OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION ANY FIDUCIARY DUTY TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS WHICH
PRECLUDES THEM, MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, FROM
BUYING AND SELLING THE CORPORATION'S STOCK."  318 U.S. AT 88. 

WHEN THE TRANSACTIONS UNDERLYING RESPONDENTS' CLAIMS HERE ARE DRAWN
ALONGSIDE A GOOD FAITH STANDARD OF FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION, THEY APPEAR
UNOBJECTIONABLE.  THERE IS NO COMPONENT OF UNFAIR DEALING OR BAD
FAITH.  FN8  THE FINDINGS NEGATIVE ANY MISREPRESENTATION OR DECEPTION,
ANY UTILIZATION OF INSIDE KNOWLEDGE OR STRATEGIC POSITION, OR ANY
RIVALRY WITH THE CORPORATION.  FN9 DURING THE PERIOD OF THE PURCHASES
THE CONDUCT OF THE BECKER DIRECTORS AND OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE
TO THE AFFAIRS OF THE DEBTOR WAS TO ITS SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT AND TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THE OTHER DEBENTURE HOLDERS.  AND THERE IS NOTHING TO
SUGGEST THAT HAD THE DEBENTURES BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE BECKER DIRECTORS,
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN UNJUSTLY ENRICHED.  CF. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION V. CHENERY CORPORATION, SUPRA, 318 U.S. AT 86. 

HOWEVER, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONER, AND OF THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AS AMICUS CURIAE, THAT A STANDARD OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING IS INADEQUATE HERE.  RELYING PARTICULARLY UPON
MAGRUDER V. DRURY, 235 U.S. 106(1914), THEY INVOKE THE PRINCIPLE THAT A
TRUSTEE CAN MAKE NO PROFIT FROM HIS TRUST.  BUT MAGRUDER V. DRURY
INVOLVED AN EXPRESS TRUST, AND EVEN DURING INSOLVENCY CORPORATE ASSETS
"ARE NOT IN ANY TRUE AND COMPLETE SENSE TRUSTS."  HOLLINS V. BRIERFIELD
COAL & IRON CO., 150 U.S. 371, 381-382(1893).  FN10 

THE COMMISSION ASSERTS, ALSO, THAT IF A DIRECTOR IS FREE TO ACQUIRE
CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS AT A DISCOUNT DURING INSOLVENCY AND LATER ENFORCE
THEM IN FULL, HE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
INCONSISTENT WITH HIS ROLE AS FIDUCIARY TO CREDITORS OF THE
CORPORATION.  SPECIFICALLY IT IS ARGUED THAT HE MAY SEEK TO POSTPONE
ADJUSTMENT CLAIMS OR THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR RELIEF, WHEN
SUCH ACTION WOULD SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE CORPORATION AND ITS
CREDITORS, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE HIS OWN PURCHASE OF CORPORATE
OBLIGATIONS AT A MARKET PRICE LOWER THAN THE VALUATION WHICH HE HAS
MADE WITH THE BENEFIT OF INSIDE INFORMATION. 

THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT EQUITY MUST APPLY NOT ONLY THE
DOCTRINES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT WHEN FIDUCIARIES HAVE YIELDED TO THE
TEMPTATION OF SELF-INTEREST BUT ALSO A STANDARD OF LOYALTY WHICH WILL
PREVENT A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS FROM ARISING.  SEE WEIL V. NEARY, 278
U.S. 160, 173(1929); CF. WOODS V. CITY NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 312 U.S.
262, 268(1941).  IN THIS CASE THE CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER OR TO WHAT
EXTENT A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS WOULD ARISE FROM A DIRECTOR'S
OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE UNMATURED OBLIGATIONS OF A CORPORATION WHICH,
THOUGH TECHNICALLY INSOLVENT, REMAINS NEVERTHELESS A GOING CONCERN. 
THAT "THERE IS NO SUCH CONFLICT IN THE ORDINARY CASE OF THE PURCHASE BY
A DIRECTOR IN A GOING CORPORATION OF ITS OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS,"
SEYMOUR V. SPRING FOREST CEMETERY ASSN., 144 N.Y. 333, 344, 39 N.E.
365, 367(1895), WOULD SEEM TRUE NOT ONLY OF SOLVENT CORPORATIONS.  FN11
CERTAINLY THE PRESENT RECORD DOES NOT TEND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCH PURCHASES DURING INSOLVENCY WOULD DEPRIVE A GOING
CORPORATION OF THE SOUND JUDGMENT OF ITS OFFICER.  AND IN ANY EVENT THE
POTENTIALITY OF CONFLICT MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST THE DESIRABILITY OF
PERMITTING REINFORCEMENT OF THE INSOLVENT'S POSITION INSOFAR AS A
DIRECTOR'S ACQUISITION OF CLAIMS MAY HELP.  FN12  ON THIS RECORD THE
PROBABILITY THAT AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF LOYALTIES AROSE FROM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE RESPONDENTS' CLAIMS, WHILE THE DEBTOR WAS A
GOING CONCERN, IS NOT GREAT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE EXERCISE OF EQUITY
JURISDICTION WHICH PETITIONER URGES.  FN13 

UNDOUBTEDLY THE POSSIBILITIES OF A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS FOR THE
PURCHASING DIRECTOR ARE INTENSIFIED AS THE CORPORATION BECOMES LESS A
GOING CONCERN AND MORE A PROSPECTIVE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL RELIEF.  AND
IF IT IS CLEAR THAT A FIDUCIARY MAY ORDINARILY PURCHASE DEBT CLAIMS IN
FAIR TRANSACTIONS DURING SOLVENCY OF THE CORPORATION,  FN14 THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS SEEM EQUALLY AGREED THAT HE CANNOT PURCHASE AFTER
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RELIEF OF A DEBTOR ARE EXPECTED OR HAVE
BEGUN.  FN15  IN THIS CASE, WHICH LIES BETWEEN, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
DETERMINE PRECISELY AT WHAT POINT THE PROBABILITY OF CONFLICT REQUIRES
THAT EQUITY DECLARE ENDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROFITABLE TRADING.  IT
COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN PRIOR TO THE LATEST PURCHASES OF REGINE AND
EMILY BECKER.  FN16   THE NATURE OF THE RELATION BETWEEN FRIBOURG AND
THE BECKER DIRECTORS MAKES IMMATERIAL THAT SOME OF FRIBOURG'S
DEBENTURES MAY HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AFTER THE CORPORATION CEASED TO HAVE
THE POTENCY OF A GOING CONCERN, IN EXPECTATION OF OR EVEN AFTER
BANKRUPTCY.  NEITHER DIRECTOR HAD ANY INDIRECT INTEREST IN FRIBOURG'S
HOLDINGS OR SERVED AS HIS AGENT FOR PURCHASE.  FRIBOURG, MOREOVER, HAD
BEGUN TO ACQUIRE DEBENTURES SOME MONTHS BEFORE THE NEGOTIATIONS LEADING
TO THE ELECTION OF THE BECKERS AS DIRECTORS OF THE DEBTOR AND,
ACCORDING TO FRIBOURG'S UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY, HE BEGAN TO PURCHASE
AFTER LOOKING OVER THE APARTMENT FOLLOWING SANFORD BECKER'S MENTION OF
HIS OWN PURCHASE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO INDICATE THAT
FRIBOURG'S PURCHASES AFTER THE BECKERS BECAME DIRECTORS WERE INFLUENCED
BY ADVICE FROM THEM.  ACCORDINGLY, ANY CONSIDERATION OF FRIBOURG'S
CLAIM AS THAT OF A DIRECTOR IS PRECLUDED. 

A WORD OF CAUTION AS TO THE SCOPE OF OUR DECISION IS DESIRABLE IN
VIEW OF JUDGE LEARNED HAND'S OPINION BELOW.  HE SUGGESTED THAT IF IN
FACT LIQUIDATION HAD BEEN IMMINENT AT THE TIME OF RESPONDENTS'
PURCHASES OR IF IT WERE FAIRLY DEMONSTRABLE, AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE,
THAT A DIRECTOR FREE FROM ALL POTENTIAL SELF-INTEREST WOULD BE MORE
LIKELY TO INITIATE LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS OR TO EFFECT A DEBT
SETTLEMENT THAN ONE NOT WHOLLY DISINTERESTED, A COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD
EXPLORE SUCH ISSUES AND NOT DISMISS THEM OUT OF HAND.  THIS DECISION IS
NOT MEANT TO NEGATIVE THE RELEVANCE OF THESE ISSUES WHEN RAISED BY A
PROPER RECORD.  WE MENTION THESE MATTERS BECAUSE THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION URGES THE IMPORTANCE OF A DECISION IN THIS CASE FOR
QUESTIONS THAT MAY WELL ARISE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER CH. X. IN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ACTING AS THE
STATUTORY ADVISOR TO THE COURT, WOULD BE WITHIN ITS RIGHTFUL FUNCTION
IN SUBMITTING TO THE COURT THE LIGHT OF ITS EXPERIENCE ON DEALINGS OF
THE GENERAL KIND DISCLOSED IN THIS CASE.  HERE WE HAVE PROVEN FACTS IN
A PARTICULAR CASE, AND NOT A BODY OF EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PRESUMABLY INFORMED BY EXPERT
UNDERSTANDING. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE AMOUNT AND COST OF THE RESPECTIVE HOLDINGS OF THE
RESPONDENTS, INSOFAR AS OBJECTED TO, ARE AS FOLLOWS:

                                 PRINCIPAL

                      AMOUNT   COST 

REGINE BECKER ....................    $44,500  $3060.63 

EMILY K. BECKER ..................     52,800   5010.00 

WALTER A. FRIBOURG ...............     50,000   2124.80 

FN2  SANFORD BECKER AND RESPONDENT FRIBOURG FIRST BECAME INTERESTED
IN THE AFFAIRS OF DEBTOR IN SEPTEMBER 1941.  SOON THEREAFTER EACH
PURCHASED, INDEPENDENTLY, DEBENTURES OF DEBTOR OF THE FACE VALUE OF
$5,000.  NO CONTEST IS MADE OF THESE PURCHASES. 

IT APPEARS THAT TRANSACTIONS IN THE DEBENTURES INCLUDED THE TRANSFER
OF CAPITAL SHARES OF THE DEBTOR WHICH HAD NO MARKET APART FROM THE
DEBENTURES. 

FN3  THE MAJOR ITEMS OF INDEBTEDNESS CONSISTED OF (1) THE FIRST
MORTGAGE ON THE APARTMENT BUILDING IN ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
$175,000, WHICH HAD BEEN REDUCED BY 1946 TO $154,000, OF WHICH
REDUCTION $7,875 HAD BEEN PAID SINCE 1943; (2) THE SECOND MORTGAGE AND
TAX ADVANCES OF THE RESPONDENTS TOTALLING SOME $22,000, AND (3) THE
DEBENTURES OF $254,450, ON WHICH, HOWEVER, INTEREST WAS PAYABLE ONLY IF
EARNED.  THE TAX VALUATION WAS $421,630. 

FN4  THE DISTRICT COURT'S CHARACTERIZATION OF DEBTOR AS A GOING
CONCERN WAS NOT UPSET BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND IS ACCEPTED HERE. 

FN5  REGINE BECKER BEGAN PURCHASES ON FEBRUARY 10, 1944, AND
CONTINUED THROUGH AUGUST 30, 1945.  THE PURCHASES OF EMILY BECKER WERE
MADE BETWEEN MAY 24, 1944, AND FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  IN ADDITION TO THE
PURCHASES REFERRED TO IN NOTE 2, SUPRA, FRIBOURG MADE PURCHASES THROUGH
JUNE 4, 1946. 

FN6  THE LATEST PURCHASE BY A RESPONDENT CLEARLY PRIOR TO THE
CONTRACT FOR SALE WAS BY REGINE BECKER ON AUGUST 30 PRECEDING THE
CONTRACT IN OCTOBER 1945.  FRIBOURG APPARENTLY ACQUIRED $1,500 OF
DEBENTURES AFTER THE CONTRACT OF SALE AND AN ADDITIONAL $500 AFTER THE
FILING OF DEBTOR'S PETITION. 

FN7  SINCE THE POWER OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS, CONFERRED ON THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, 30 STAT. 545, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 11,
EMBRACES THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS "IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ACCORDING TO THE
EQUITIES OF THE CASE," PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, 304-305(1939),
THE COURT MAY UNDOUBTEDLY REQUIRE LIMITATION OF THE AMOUNT OF CLAIMS IN
VIEW OF EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS.  CF. BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 212, 52
STAT. 895, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 612. 

FN8  CF. IN RE THE VAN SWERINGEN CO., 119 F.2D 231(C.A.6TH CIR.
1941); IN RE NORCOR MFG. CO., 109 F.2D 407(C.A.7TH CIR. 1940). 

FN9 CF. IN RE JERSEY MATERIALS CO., 50 F.SUPP.  428(D.N.J. 1943); IN
RE MCCRORY STORES CORP., 12 F.SUPP.  267(S.D.N.Y. 1935). 

FN10  OTHER HOLDINGS UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION RELIES, PEPPER V.
LITTON, SUPRA, NOTE 7, AND WOODS V. CITY NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., 312
U.S. 262(1941), WERE CONSIDERED IN SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
V. CHENERY CORPORATION, 318 U.S. 80, 89(1943), AND THERE DISTINGUISHED
ON GROUNDS WHICH ARE ALSO DISPOSITIVE HERE. 

FN11  COURTS OF EQUITY, IN DEFINING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OFFICERS OF
A CORPORATION WHICH IS INSOLVENT AND YET A GOING CONCERN, HAVE
FREQUENTLY ASSIGNED GREATER IMPORTANCE TO THE CORPORATION'S VITALITY
THAN TO ITS INSOLVENCY.  E.G., SANFORD FORK & TOOL CO. V. HOWE, BROWN &
CO., 157 U.S. 312(1895); WHITE, POTTER & PAIGE MFG. CO. V. HENRY B.
PETTES IMPORTING CO., 30 F. 864(E.D. MO. 1887). 

FN12  AS RESPONDENTS' PURCHASES OF DEBENTURES RESULTED IN THEIR
SECURING CONTROL OF DEBTOR, SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA, THE ACQUISITIONS
ARGUABLY WERE A FACTOR IN PREVENTING FURTHER FINANCIAL DETERIORATION OF
DEBTOR.  SEE ALSO 62 HARV. L. REV. 1391, 1392(1949):  INSOLVENCY "IS
THE VERY TIME WHEN SUCH PURCHASES MAY BE OF MOST BENEFIT TO THE
CORPORATION, SINCE THE CREDIT OF THE CORPORATION MAY BE IMPROVED IF IT
IS KNOWN THAT DIRECTORS ARE PURCHASING THE CORPORATION'S SECURITIES;
ALSO IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO FORESTALL A BANKRUPTCY PETITION WHILE THE
CORPORATION IMPROVES ITS FINANCIAL POSITION." 

FN13  CF. IN THE MATTER OF WADE PARK MANOR CORPORATION, REPORT OF
SPECIAL MASTER:  CLAIMS OF MACKLIN ET AL. (N.D. OHIO, 1949); SEE 3
COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.), P. 1784, 1948 SUPP. P. 124. 

FN14  SEE IN RE PHILADELPHIA & WESTERN R. CO., 64 F.SUPP.  738,
739(E.D. PA. 1946); RIPPERGER V. ALLYN, 25 F.SUPP.  554, 555(S.D.N.Y.
1938); IN RE MCCRORY STORES CORP., NOTE 9, SUPRA, AT 269. 

FN15  MONROE V. SCOFIELD, 135 F.2D 725(C.A. 10TH CIR. 1943); IN RE
NORCOR MFG. CO., NOTE 8, SUPRA; IN RE PHILADELPHIA & WESTERN R. CO.,
NOTE 14, SUPRA; IN RE JERSEY MATERIALS CO., NOTE 9, SUPRA; IN RE LOS
ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 46 F.SUPP.  77(S.D. CAL. 1941). 

FN16  THUS IT BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RELATION
OF THE BECKER RESPONDENTS TO THE DIRECTORS WAS SUCH AS TO REQUIRE
LIMITATION OF THESE RESPONDENTS' CLAIMS IF THEY WOULD BE DISALLOWED IN
PART AS CLAIMS OF DIRECTORS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS, DISSENTING. 

WHILE CORPORATE DIRECTORS ARE NOT CLASSED AS EXPRESS TRUSTEES, THEIR
OBLIGATIONS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE CORPORATIONS ARE FIDUCIARY IN
CHARACTER.  THE MORE PRECARIOUS THE CONDITION OF THE CORPORATION, THE
MORE IT NEEDS THE UNDIVIDED LOYALTY OF ITS DIRECTORS.  CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST MUST BE RESOLVED IN ITS FAVOR.  AN EXAMPLE OF THE NEED FOR
DOING SO ARISES WHENEVER, IN THE FACE OF A PROSPECT OF THE
CORPORATION'S LIQUIDATION, SOME OF ITS DIRECTORS INVEST IN ITS NOTES AT
A SUBSTANTIAL DISCOUNT.  AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS IS THEREBY
CREATED.  IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THEM TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A CORPORATE
POLICY OF REORGANIZATION WHICH MIGHT BE BEST FOR THE CORPORATION AND
ONE OF LIQUIDATION WHICH MIGHT YIELD MORE CERTAIN PROFITS TO THEM AS
NOTEHOLDING DIRECTORS.  THE FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OF SUCH DIRECTORS TO
THEIR CORPORATION MIGHT THUS CONFLICT WITH THEIR PERSONAL INTERESTS AS
NOTEHOLDERS.  THEIR ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL CORPORATE INFORMATION
EMPHASIZES THE GOOD FAITH EXPECTED OF THEM.  THE SOLUTION LIES IN
MAKING THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO THEIR CORPORATION FOR THEIR PROFITS FROM
SUCH AN INVESTMENT, MUCH AS A TRUSTEE MUST ACCOUNT TO HIS BENEFICIARIES
FOR HIS PROFITS FROM DEALINGS IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF HIS TRUST.  THIS
RESULT WOULD SPRING WHOLLY FROM THE FIDUCIARY NATURE OF THE OBLIGATIONS
OF DIRECTORS TO THEIR CORPORATION.  IT WOULD NEED NO PROOF OF A BREACH
OF TRUST OR OF THE ACTUAL OVERREACHING OF ANYONE.  FN1 

AS LONG AS A CORPORATION ENJOYS THE HEALTHY STATUS OF A GOING
CONCERN, ITS DIRECTORS GENERALLY MAY INVEST FREELY IN ITS SECURITIES
WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR RESULTING PROFITS.  THEIR
DIRECTORSHIPS SHOULD MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUCH PROFITS WHEN THEIR
PERSONAL INTERESTS AS PURCHASERS OF SECURITIES MAY CONFLICT WITH THEIR
OBLIGATIONS AS DIRECTORS.  FN2  A MERE EXCESS OF A CORPORATION'S
LIABILITIES OVER ITS ASSETS MAY NOT SUBJECT ITS DIRECTORS TO THIS
ACCOUNTABILITY.  NEVERTHELESS, ANY EVIDENCE OF THE FINANCIAL
INSTABILITY OF THEIR CORPORATION OBLIGATES THE DIRECTORS TO OVERCOME
WHATEVER PRESUMPTION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS BETWEEN THEIR OWN AND
THOSE OF THE CORPORATION OR OF ITS CREDITORS THAT SUCH EVIDENCE
PRESENTS. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE SHOULD BE A FINDING WHETHER OR NOT, AT THE
TIME OF THE PURCHASES OF THE DEBENTURES IN QUESTION, THERE WAS A
SUFFICIENT PROSPECT OF LIQUIDATION TO BRING THE INTERESTS OF DIRECTORS
AS DEBENTURE PURCHASERS INTO CONFLICT WITH THE INTERESTS OF THEIR
CORPORATION.  IF SUCH A CONFLICT IS ESTABLISHED, IT THEN WILL BE
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT, IF ANY, TO WHICH THE RELATIVES AND
ASSOCIATES OF SUCH DIRECTORS ARE TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH THEM. 

I AGREE WITH THE REASONING OF THE DISSENT BELOW.  173 F.2D 944, 951. 
ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CAUSE FOR
FURTHER FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  EXPRESSION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO SUCH A PRINCIPLE IN MANY CASES
WHERE THERE HAVE ALSO OCCURRED BREACHES OF TRUST OF A NATURE SO SERIOUS
AS NOT TO REQUIRE A FINAL RELIANCE UPON THE PRINCIPLE.  SEE, E.G., IN
RE THE VAN SWERINGEN CO., 119 F.2D 231(C.A.6TH CIR.); IN RE NORCOR MFG.
CO., 109 F.2D 407(C.A.7TH CIR.); IN RE PHILADELPHIA & WESTERN R. CO.,
64 F.SUPP.  738(E.D. PA.); IN RE JERSEY MATERIALS CO., 50 F.SUPP. 
428(N.J.); IN RE LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 46 F.SUPP.  77(S.D.
CAL.); IN RE MCCRORY STORES CORP., 12 F.SUPP.  267, 269(S.D.N.Y.).  SEE
ALSO, 3 FLETCHER, CYCLOPEDIA OF CORPORATIONS SEC. 869.1(1947); 2
REMINGTON ON BANKRUPTCY SEC. 975.01(SUPP.  1947). 

FN2  DIRECTORS ORDINARILY MAY BUY AND SELL THE STOCK OF THEIR
CORPORATION, WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, EXCEPT UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
OF UNFAIRNESS IN THE PARTICULAR TRANSACTION.  3 FLETCHER, CYCLOPEDIA OF
CORPORATIONS SECS. 1171, 1174(1947); BALLANTINE ON CORPORATIONS SEC.
80(REV.  ED. 1946).  THEIR PURCHASE OF STOCK INCREASES THEIR STAKE IN
THE ULTIMATE INTERESTS OF THE CORPORATION THEY SERVE. 
..END :





















KINGSLAND V. DORSEY, 338 U.S. 318 


NO. 53.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18-19, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 21, 1949.  - 84
U.S. APP. D.C. 264, 173 F.2D 405, REVERSED - 69 F.SUPP.  788,
AFFIRMED. 


ACTING UNDER R.S. SEC. 487, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 11, THE COMMISSIONER OF
PATENTS FOUND, AFTER HEARINGS, THAT AN ATTORNEY HAD BEEN GUILTY OF
GROSS MISCONDUCT AND ENTERED AN ORDER BARRING HIM FROM PRACTICE BEFORE
THE PATENT OFFICE.  HELD:  THE FINDINGS WERE AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE, CHARGES OF UNFAIRNESS IN THE HEARINGS WERE WHOLLY WITHOUT
SUPPORT, AND THE ORDER IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 318-320. 

KINGSLAND, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, V. DORSEY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
BARRING AN ATTORNEY FROM PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT OFFICE.  69
F.SUPP.  788.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 264,
173 F.2D 405.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 914.  JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED, P. 320. 

PER CURIAM. 

ACTING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 487 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (35
U.S.C. SEC. 11), THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS FOUND AFTER HEARINGS THAT
PETITIONER, AN ATTORNEY, HAD BEEN GUILTY OF GROSS MISCONDUCT, AND
ENTERED AN ORDER BARRING HIM FROM PRACTICE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
PATENT OFFICE.  PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE SAME PROVISIONS,
THE DISTRICT COURT REVIEWED THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER.  CONCLUDING THAT
THE HEARINGS HAD BEEN FAIRLY CONDUCTED AFTER DUE NOTICE OF CHARGES AND
THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS AND ACTION
OF THE COMMISSIONER, THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDER.  69
F.SUPP.  788.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 84 U.S. APP. D.C. 264,
173 F.2D 405.  A MAJORITY OF THAT COURT THOUGHT THE NOTICE OF CHARGES
INADEQUATE AND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION UNFAIR.  IT ALSO
HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD TOO NARROWLY RESTRICTED ITS SCOPE OF
REVIEW IN HOLDING THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
THE FINDINGS.  IT APPARENTLY DREW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PHRASES
"SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" AND "SUBSTANTIAL PROBATIVE EVIDENCE."  MEASURING
THE FINDINGS BY THE LATTER PHRASE, IT HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S
FINDINGS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY "SUBSTANTIAL PROBATIVE EVIDENCE."  JUDGE
EDGERTON, DISSENTING, THOUGHT THE HEARINGS HAD BEEN FAIRLY CONDUCTED
AND "THE RESULT JUST."  HE AGREED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT
"SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT BUT WENT ON TO SAY
THAT HE THOUGHT THE "PROOF CONCLUSIVE." 

THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSIONER ACTED REPRESENTS
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY IN AN IMPORTANT FIELD.  IT RELATES TO THE
CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF "PERSONS, AGENTS, OR ATTORNEYS" WHO
PARTICIPATE IN PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN PATENTS.  WE AGREE WITH THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT MADE BY THE PATENT OFFICE COMMITTEE ON ENROLLMENT
AND DISBARMENT THAT CONSIDERED THIS CASE:  "BY REASON OF THE NATURE OF
AN APPLICATION FOR PATENT, THE RELATIONSHIP OF ATTORNEYS TO THE PATENT
OFFICE REQUIRES THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CANDOR AND GOOD FAITH.  IN ITS
RELATION TO APPLICANTS, THE OFFICE  ...  MUST RELY UPON THEIR INTEGRITY
AND DEAL WITH THEM IN A SPIRIT OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE  ...  "  IT WAS
THE COMMISSIONER, NOT THE COURTS, THAT CONGRESS MADE PRIMARILY
RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM THE EVIL CONSEQUENCES THAT
MIGHT RESULT IF PRACTITIONERS SHOULD BETRAY THEIR HIGH TRUST.  HAVING
SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED PROPERLY HERE
IN NULLIFYING THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE FINDINGS
WERE AMPLY SUPPORTED WHETHER THE MEASURE BE "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" OR
"SUBSTANTIAL PROBATIVE EVIDENCE."  THE CHARGE OF UNFAIRNESS IN THE
HEARINGS IS, WE THINK, WHOLLY WITHOUT SUPPORT. 

SINCE THE NARRATION OF EVIDENCE AND DISCUSSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS
SUFFICIENTLY APPEAR IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION, REITERATION HERE
CAN SERVE NO GOOD PURPOSE EITHER FOR THE PARTIES OR FOR THE LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF PRACTICING BEFORE THE PATENT OFFICE IS
ONE THAT MAY AND SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN FOR PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.  IN
DEFENSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE IT ALSO IS TRUE THAT THE LAWYER MAY NOT DEMAND
THAT CONCLUSIVENESS OF PROOF OR INVOKE ALL OF THE PROTECTIONS ASSURED
TO AN ACCUSED BY THE CRIMINAL PROCESS.  BUT WHILE SOCIETY MAY EXPECT
THAT HIS JUDGES WILL SHOW HIM NO FAVOR BECAUSE HE HAS LIVED RESPECTABLY
FOR EIGHTY YEARS AND DEVOTED FIFTY-NINE OF THEM TO PRACTICE OF HIS
PROFESSION WITHOUT BLEMISH, AN ACCUSED LAWYER MAY EXPECT THAT HE WILL
NOT BE CONDEMNED OUT OF A CAPRICIOUS SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS OR DENIED THE
ESSENTIALS OF A FAIR HEARING. 

THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT DORSEY HAD NOT BEEN FAIRLY JUDGED AND
INDIGNANTLY REVERSED HIS DISBARMENT.  DORSEY V. KINGSLAND, 84 U.S. APP.
D.C. 264, 173 F.2D 405.  ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN
RESOLVED AGAINST DORSEY BY HIS DEPARTMENTAL TRIERS, AND I SHALL NOT
HERE REVIEW ALL OF THOSE ISSUES, EVEN IF ON SOME OF THEM DORSEY WOULD
SEEM ENTITLED TO PREVAIL.  ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS AGAINST HIM AT THEIR
FULL FACE VALUE, I THINK THE DISBARMENT ORDER WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE. 

BACK IN 1926 THE HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. CONCEIVED AND EXECUTED A SCHEME
TO PREPARE AND PUBLISH, OVER THE SIGNATURE OF AN APPARENTLY
DISINTERESTED LABOR LEADER, AN ARTICLE TO BE PUBLISHED AND THEN USED IN
SUPPORT OF THE COMPANY'S PENDING PATENT APPLICATION.  SUCH A
DISSERTATION, ENTITLED, "INTRODUCTION OF AUTOMATIC GLASS WORKING
MACHINERY; HOW RECEIVED BY ORGANIZED LABOR," WAS PREPARED.  IT
PURPORTED TO BE AUTHORED BY ONE CLARKE, PRESIDENT OF A GLASSWORKERS'
UNION.  IT WAS PUBLISHED IN A TRADE JOURNAL AND THEN PRESENTED TO THE
PATENT OFFICE AS RECOGNITION BY A "RELUCTANT WITNESS" OF THE SUCCESS OF
THE DEVICE UNDER CONSIDERATION.  SEVERAL YEARS LATER, INVOLVED IN
LITIGATION TESTING THE VALIDITY OF ITS PATENT, HARTFORD-EMPIRE TOOK
STEPS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OF THE REAL AUTHORSHIP OF THE CLARKE ESSAY. 
IT MADE A GIFT OF $8,000 TO CLARKE, WHO HAD TOLD INVESTIGATORS EMPLOYED
BY HARTFORD-EMPIRE'S ADVERSARY THAT HE HAD WRITTEN THE ARTICLE AND
WOULD SO TESTIFY IF CALLED UPON AS A WITNESS.  ULTIMATELY, THIS COURT
REVIEWED THE ACTIONS OF HARTFORD-EMPIRE AND HELD THAT THE SUM TOTAL OF
ACTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT CONSTITUTED A FRAUD ON THE PATENT OFFICE AND
THE FEDERAL COURTS.  HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., 322
U.S. 238, REVERSING 137 F.2D 764.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. HARTFORD
EMPIRE CO., 46 F.SUPP.  541. 

DORSEY WAS ONE OF COUNSEL FOR HARTFORD-EMPIRE IN THE 1926 PATENT
APPLICATION AND, SHORTLY FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN HAZEL-ATLAS, SUPRA,
PROCEEDINGS TO SUSPEND OR EXCLUDE HIM FROM FURTHER PRACTICE BEFORE THE
PATENT OFFICE WERE COMMENCED UNDER 35 U.S.C. SEC. 11.  IDENTICAL BUT
SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED AGAINST THREE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
PATENT BAR INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTIONS.  ALL WERE DISBARRED.  ONLY THE
DORSEY CASE IS HERE. 

DORSEY WAS CHARGED WITH GROSS MISCONDUCT IN THAT, AS PARTICULARIZED
IN THE NOTICE WHICH INSTITUTED THE PROCEEDING, HE "  ...  PARTICIPATED
IN THE PREPARATION OF (THE CLARKE) ARTICLE AND/OR THE PRESENTATION
THEREOF TO THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE DURING THE PROSECUTION OF
SAID PATENT APPLICATION KNOWING THAT SAID ARTICLE WAS NOT WRITTEN BY
SAID WILLIAM P. CLARKE, AND WITH THE PURPOSE OF DECEIVING THE PATENT
OFFICE AS TO THE AUTHORSHIP OF SAID ARTICLE AND INFLUENCING THE ACTION
OF THE PATENT OFFICE ON SAID APPLICATION  ...  " 

A VIEW OF THE FACTS LEAST FAVORABLE TO DORSEY INDICATES THAT HE
INSPECTED AND CRITICIZED A FEW DETAILS OF AN EARLY DRAFT OF THE CLARKE
ARTICLE AND THAT LATER, WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT IT HAD BEEN PREPARED BY A
HARTFORD-EMPIRE EMPLOYEE, HE SUBMITTED IT TO THE PATENT OFFICE AS BEING
WHAT ON ITS FACE IT PURPORTED TO BE.  THIS IS THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF
THE CASE AGAINST DORSEY.  THE CASE AGAINST HARTFORD-EMPIRE, HOWEVER,
INCLUDED MUCH IN WHICH DORSEY IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD EVEN A
CONSENTING PART.  IN TWO RESPECTS ONLY ARE HIS ACTIONS URGED TO BE
WRONGDOING:  FIRST, IN THAT HE DECEIVED THE PATENT OFFICE AS TO THE
REAL AUTHOR, AND, SECOND (NOT CHARGED IN THE NOTICE BUT ADVANCED HERE),
THAT DORSEY REPRESENTED IT AS THE WORK OF A "RELUCTANT WITNESS." 

WHILE IT IS NOT DECISIVE OF THE NARROW ISSUE OF DECEPTION PRESSED
AGAINST DORSEY, IT SHOULD BE NOTED AS SHOWING HOW NARROW THAT ISSUE
REALLY IS, THAT IT INCLUDES NO CLAIM THAT ANY STATEMENT IN THE CLARKE
ARTICLE IS FALSE OR MISLEADING IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER.  IT STATED
FACTS TRUTHFULLY, FACTS WHICH A PATENT LAWYER WAS ENTITLED TO BRING TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE PATENT OFFICE IN ANY MANNER PERMITTED BY ITS
PRACTICE.  ONE MIGHT EXPECT THAT THE PATENT OFFICE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED
FACTS ON WHICH IT ISSUED A PATENT TO BE PROVED BY AFFIDAVITS WHOSE
TRUTHFULNESS IS ENCOURAGED, IF NOT ASSURED, BY SANCTIONS AGAINST
PERJURY; BUT IT WAS CONTENT TO ACCEPT UNSWORN PUBLICATIONS FOR ITS
PURPOSES.  THE WORST THAT CAN BE SAID OF DORSEY IS THAT HE TOOK
ADVANTAGE OF THIS LOOSE PRACTICE TO USE A TRADE JOURNAL ARTICLE AS
EVIDENCE, WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT IT WAS GHOST-WRITTEN FOR THE
OSTENSIBLE AUTHOR. 

LET US SUPPOSE THE PATENT OFFICE HAD EXACTED MORE LAWYERLY STANDARDS
OF PROOF AND HAD REQUIRED SUCH INFORMATION TO BE LAID BEFORE IT IN
AFFIDAVIT FORM.  CLARKE, LET US SAY, WAS PREVAILED UPON TO MAKE A
DEPOSITION.  WOULD IT BE DECEIT IF THE LAWYER DRAFTED EVERY WORD OF THE
AFFIDAVIT, THOUGH IT PURPORTED TO BE CLARKE'S TESTIMONY?  I SUPPOSE
THAT THE PRACTICE IS ALMOST UNIVERSAL THAT THE LAWYER ASCERTAINS TO
WHAT FACTS THE WITNESS CAN TESTIFY AND PUTS THEM IN PRESENTABLE FORM
AND SUITABLE WORDS, AND THAT THE WITNESS ADOPTS THE DOCUMENT AS HIS
TESTIMONY, WITH ANY CORRECTION NECESSARY TO CONVEY HIS STORY.  NOTHING
ON THE FACE OF THE USUAL AFFIDAVIT DISCLOSES THE FACT THAT THE
COMPOSITION IS THAT OF THE ATTORNEY; ON THE CONTRARY, IT GENERALLY
RECITES THAT IT IS THE WITNESS WHO "DEPOSES AND SAYS  ...  "  IS A
DIFFERENT STANDARD TO BE APPLIED TO A TRADE JOURNAL ARTICLE INTENDED
AND ACCEPTED TO SERVE THE SAME END? 

I SHOULD SUPPOSE THAT, SO FAR AS THE LAW IS CONCERNED, ONE MAY AS
EFFECTIVELY FATHER STATEMENTS BY ADOPTION AS BY CONCEPTION AND THAT
SINCERELY SUBSCRIBING TO WHAT ANOTHER HAS WRITTEN FOR HIM DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE LEGAL DECEIT OR GROUNDS FOR DISBARMENT, IMPEACHMENT OR OTHER
PENALTY.  AND IN THIS CASE, NOT ONLY IS THERE NO CLAIM THAT THE CLARKE
ARTICLE CONTAINED ONE FALSE STATEMENT, BUT THERE IS NO DENIAL THAT,
WHOEVER WAS THE SCRIBE, CLARKE BELIEVED AND KNOWINGLY ADOPTED AS HIS
OWN EVERY WORD OF IT. 

I SHOULD NOT LIKE TO BE SECOND TO ANYONE ON THIS COURT IN CONDEMNING
THE CUSTOM OF PUTTING UP DECOY AUTHORS TO IMPRESS THE GUILELESS, A
CUSTOM WHICH AS THE COURT BELOW CRUELLY POINTED OUT FLOURISHES EVEN IN
OFFICIAL CIRCLES IN WASHINGTON.  NOR DO I CONTEND THAT DORSEY'S SPECIAL
ADAPTATION OF THE PREVAILING CUSTOM COMPORTS WITH THE HIGHEST CANDOR. 
GHOST-WRITING HAS DEBASED THE INTELLECTUAL CURRENCY IN CIRCULATION HERE
AND IS A TYPE OF COUNTERFEITING WHICH INVITES NO DEFENSE.  PERHAPS THIS
COURT RENDERS A PUBLIC SERVICE IN TREATING PHANTOM AUTHORS AND GHOST
WRITERS AS LEGAL FRAUDS AND DISGUISED AUTHORSHIP AS A DECEPTION.  BUT
HAS ANY MAN BEFORE DORSEY EVER BEEN DISCIPLINED OR EVEN REPRIMANDED FOR
IT?  AND WILL ANY BE HEREAFTER? 

IT IS ADDED, THOUGH AS SOMETHING OF AN AFTERTHOUGHT, THAT DORSEY IN
HIS BRIEF TO THE PATENT OFFICE CHARACTERIZED CLARKE AS A "RELUCTANT
WITNESS."  I HAD SUPPOSED THAT SUCH ADJECTIVES WERE IN THE NATURE OF
ARGUMENT OR, AT MOST, OF CONCLUSION RATHER THAN REPRESENTATION OR
WARRANTY.  THE ARSENAL OF EVERY ADVOCATE HOLDS TWO BUNDLES OF
ADJECTIVES FOR WITNESSES - SUCH ONES AS "RELUCTANT," "UNBIASED,"
"DISINTERESTED," AND "HONEST" ARE RESERVED FOR HIS OWN; OTHERS, SUCH AS
"PARTISAN," "EAGER," "INTERESTED," "HOSTILE," AND EVEN "PERJURED," FOR
THOSE OF HIS ADVERSARY.  I HAVE THE GREATEST DIFFICULTY BELIEVING THAT
A MISCHOICE AMONG THESE ADJECTIVES HAS DECEIVED ANYONE FIT TO DECIDE
FACTS, OR THAT IN ANY CASE OTHER THAN THIS IT WOULD SUBJECT THE
ADVOCATE TO DISBARMENT.  BUT IF WRONG IN THIS STANDARD, I SHOULD THINK
THE USE OF "RELUCTANT" AS APPLIED TO CLARKE WAS JUSTIFIED.  I SHOULD
NOT EXPECT A UNION PRESIDENT TO BE OTHER THAN RELUCTANT TO POINT OUT
THE ADVANTAGES OF AUTOMATIC MACHINERY WHICH TENDS TO THROW HIS
MEMBERSHIP OUT OF EMPLOYMENT.  AT LEAST I HOPE WE HAVE NOT COME TO THE
TIME WHEN TO URGE THIS INFERENCE IS EVEN A MAKEWEIGHT IN DISBARMENT
PROCEEDINGS. 

IF, HOWEVER, A LAWYER IS TO BE CALLED UPON TO BE THE FIRST EXAMPLE OF
CONDEMNATION FOR AN OFFENSE SO TENUOUS, VAGUE AND NOVEL, THE LEAST
COURTS SHOULD REQUIRE IS THAT THE CASE AGAINST HIM BE CLEARLY PROVED. 
I SHALL GIVE BUT TWO OF SEVERAL REASONS WHY I THINK THAT STANDARD WAS
NOT MET IN THIS CASE. 

FIRST, THE PATENT OFFICE COMMITTEE, CONVENED TO HEAR THE CHARGES
AGAINST DORSEY, APPROACHED ITS DUTY UPON THE PREMISE THAT THIS COURT'S
HAZEL-ATLAS DECISION ESTABLISHED NOT ONLY HARTFORD-EMPIRE'S GUILT BUT
ALSO DORSEY'S, UNLESS HE SHOULD CLEAR HIS NAME.  THE RECORDS FROM THAT
CASE AND FROM UNITED STATES V. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., SUPRA, NOT ONLY
WERE INTRODUCED AGAINST DORSEY, WHO WAS NEITHER A PARTY NOR OF COUNSEL
IN EITHER, BUT WERE THE SOLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DIRECT CASE
AGAINST HIM.  THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION WAS APPARENTLY BASED UPON
ITS CONCLUSION THAT HE FAILED IN THE IMPOSED TASK OF PROVING HIS
INNOCENCE.  I THINK THIS WAS ERROR OF A SERIOUS KIND.    IT SHOULD BE
REMEMBERED THAT OUR CONCLUSION IN THAT CASE WAS REACHED UPON THE TOTAL
EFFECT OF MANY EVENTS PARTICIPATED IN BY MANY PERSONS WHOSE ACTS WERE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO HARTFORD-EMPIRE AS THEIR PRINCIPAL.  A CONSIDERABLE
PART WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO DORSEY.  THE MOST IMPORTANT AND
PREJUDICIAL OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INCRIMINATE HARTFORD-EMPIRE,
BUT NOT DORSEY, IS INVOLVED IN ANOTHER ERROR, WHICH I THINK DEPRIVED
THE ACCUSED OF A FAIR TRIAL. 

I THINK THAT DORSEY SUFFERED PREJUDICE AGAIN FROM RECEIPT OF EVIDENCE
CONCERNING HARTFORD-EMPIRE'S LATER PAYMENT TO CLARKE AND THE RELIANCE
UPON THAT FACT TO FIND DORSEY GUILTY.  THIS PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE AS AN
INDUCEMENT TO SIGN THE ARTICLE AND WAS MADE LONG AFTER DORSEY'S
RELATIONSHIP TO THE CASE HAD CEASED.  THE GOVERNMENT FRANKLY CONCEDES
THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IT WAS MADE WITH THE APPROVAL OR EVEN
KNOWLEDGE OF DORSEY.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED ITS FINDING, THAT "THERE IS NOTHING IN THE EVIDENCE
THAT CONNECTS DORSEY WITH THE PAYMENT OF ANY MONEY TO CLARKE."  WE ARE
BOUND BY THESE CONCURRENT FINDINGS. 

NEVERTHELESS, EVIDENCE OF THIS PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED AGAINST DORSEY
AND WAS THROWN IN THE SCALES AGAINST HIM IN THE DECISION.  REFERRING TO
THE PAYMENT OF MONEY TO CLARKE, THE PATENT OFFICE COMMITTEE REPORT ON
WHICH DORSEY WAS DISBARRED SAYS: 

"NEARLY SIX YEARS ELAPSED AFTER THE ARTICLE WAS FILED IN THE PATENT
OFFICE BEFORE OTHER EVENTS, RELEVANT TO THE CONDUCT OF THESE
RESPONDENTS WITH RESPECT TO IT, OCCURRED.  THESE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS CAST
THEIR LIGHT BACKWARDLY ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PARTIES DURING THE TIME
OF PREPARATION AND FILING OF THE CLARKE ARTICLE, GIVING ADDED
ILLUMINATION WITH REGARD TO THE PURPOSES, UNDERSTANDINGS, AND
INTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS AT THAT TIME." 

THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT HARTFORD-EMPIRE'S LATER CORRUPTION IN TRYING TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE, WHICH WE PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A FACTOR IN DECIDING
ITS CASE, WAS THE DECISIVE FACTOR IN FINDING DORSEY GUILTY, THOUGH HE
ADMITTEDLY HAD NO PART IN IT.  WITHOUT THIS MISAPPLICATION OF EVIDENCE,
NOTHING IN THE RECORD EXPLAINS OR EXCUSES THE HARSH JUDGMENT OF
DISBARMENT.  EVEN THOUGH COURTS LEAN BACKWARD TO AVOID SUSPICION OF
PARTIALITY TO MEN OF OUR OWN PROFESSION, THEY SHOULD NOT FEAR TO
PROTECT A LAWYER AGAINST LOSS OF HIS RIGHT TO PRACTICE ON SUCH A RECORD
AS THIS. 
..END :














REILLY V. PINKUS, 338 U.S. 269 


NO. 31.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 14, 1949.  - 170
F.2D 786, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A FRAUD-ORDER PROCEEDING UNDER 39 U.S.C. SECS. 259, 732, IT WAS
SHOWN THAT RESPONDENT HAD MADE EXPANSIVE CLAIMS IN ADVERTISEMENTS
REGARDING THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF HIS FAT-REDUCING PLAN, WHICH
CONSISTED OF A DIET AND THE TAKING OF SMALL QUANTITIES OF GRANULATED
KELP CONTAINING IODINE.  TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES, BASED UPON
THEIR GENERAL MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE, WAS SLIGHTLY CONFLICTING AS TO THE
VALUE OF IODINE FOR THIS PURPOSE; BUT THEY AGREED THAT THE RECOMMENDED
DIET MIGHT PROVE HARMFUL TO SOME PERSONS.  HELD:  THE EVIDENCE WAS
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL THAT THE
EFFICACY OF RESPONDENT'S REDUCING PLAN WAS MISREPRESENTED IN HIS
ADVERTISING.  PP. 270-275. 

(A)  AMERICAN SCHOOL OF HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94, DOES NOT
BAR A FINDING OF FRAUD WHENEVER THERE IS THE LEAST CONFLICT OF OPINION
AS TO CURATIVE EFFECTS OF A REMEDY.  PP. 273-274. 

(B)  IF MADE WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE, MISREPRESENTATIONS SUCH AS WERE
MADE HERE FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE TYPE WHICH IN LEACH V. CARLILE, 258
U.S. 138, WERE HELD TO JUSTIFY FINDINGS OF FRAUD.  PP. 274-275. 

2.  GOVERNMENT WITNESSES BASED THEIR EXPERT TESTIMONY IN PART ON
CERTAIN MEDICAL BOOKS, AND RESPONDENT WAS NOT PERMITTED TO CROSS
EXAMINE THEM ABOUT STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN OTHER MEDICAL BOOKS.  THE
PRESIDING OFFICER ADOPTED THE PROSECUTOR'S VIEW THAT GOOD FAITH WAS NOT
A DEFENSE.  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL FOUND THAT THE EFFICACY OF
RESPONDENT'S REDUCING PLAN WAS MISREPRESENTED IN HIS ADVERTISING AND
ISSUED A FRAUD ORDER.  HELD:  THE PRESENT FRAUD ORDER SHOULD NOT BE
ENFORCED; BUT THE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE REOPENED TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL
HEARINGS SHOULD THE POSTMASTER GENERAL CHOOSE TO DO SO.  PP. 275-277. 

(A)  IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR NOT TO PERMIT RESPONDENT TO CROSS
EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES AS TO STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN OTHER
MEDICAL BOOKS, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM WERE MERELY MEDICAL
DICTIONARIES.  P. 275. 

(B)  THIS ERROR WAS NOT CURED BY HAVING THE FACT-FINDER EXAMINE THE
EXCLUDED MATERIAL SUBSEQUENTLY.  PP. 275-276. 

(C)  IN POSTOFFICE FRAUD CASES, PROOF OF FRAUDULENT PURPOSE IS
ESSENTIAL:  IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE MERELY THAT AN INCORRECT
STATEMENT WAS MADE.  P. 276. 

(D)  ONE AGAINST WHOM SERIOUS CHARGES OF FRAUD ARE MADE MUST BE GIVEN
A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES ON THE VITAL ISSUE
OF HIS PURPOSE TO DECEIVE.  P. 276. 

(E)  THE STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES OF CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDERS
ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND FRAUD ORDERS ISSUED BY THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF LIMITING THE LATTER TO
INSTANCES WHERE ACTUAL FRAUD IS CLEARLY PROVED.  P. 277. 

REILLY, POSTMASTER, V. PINKUS, TRADING AS AMERICAN HEALTH AIDS CO.,
ALSO KNOWN AS ENERGY FOOD CENTER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF A FRAUD ORDER ISSUED BY THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL.  61 F.SUPP.  610; 71 F.SUPP.  993.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  170 F.2D 786.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337
U.S. 906.  AFFIRMED, P. 277. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FEDERAL STATUTES HAVE LONG AUTHORIZED THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO
FORBID DELIVERY OF MAIL AND PAYMENT OF MONEY ORDERS TO "ANY PERSON OR
COMPANY" FOUND, "UPON EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY" TO HIM, TO BE "CONDUCTING
ANY ...  SCHEME OR DEVICE FOR OBTAINING MONEY  ...  THROUGH THE MAILS
BY MEANS OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT PRETENSES, REPRESENTATIONS, OR PROMISES
...  "  FN1  FOLLOWING A HEARING THE POSTMASTER GENERAL ISSUED SUCH AN
ORDER RESTRICTING RESPONDENT'S USE OF THE MAILS.  FN2 

THE REPRESENTATIONS ON WHICH THE ORDER IS BASED RELATE TO
RESPONDENT'S ANTI-FAT TREATMENT, NATIONALLY ADVERTISED UNDER THE NAME
OF "DR. PHILLIPS' KELP-I-DINE REDUCING PLAN."  "KELP-I-DINE" IS A NAME
USED BY RESPONDENT FOR GRANULATED KELP, A NATURAL SEAWEED PRODUCT
CONTAINING IODINE.  THE REDUCING PLAN IS TWOFOLD:  IT REQUIRES USERS TO
TAKE ONE-HALF TEASPOONFUL OF "KELP-I-DINE" PER DAY, AND SUGGESTS
FOLLOWING A RECOMMENDED DAILY DIET WHICH ACCOMPANIES THE VIALS OF
KELP. 

RESPONDENT'S ADVERTISEMENTS MADE EXPANSIVE CLAIMS FOR ITS PLAN.  THEY
REPRESENTED THAT PERSONS SUFFERING FROM OBESITY COULD "EAT PLENTY" AND
YET REDUCE 3 TO 5 POUNDS IN A WEEK SURELY AND EASILY, WITHOUT "TORTUOUS
DIET" AND WITHOUT FEELING HUNGRY.  UNHAPPY PEOPLE EAGER TO REDUCE BUT
ALSO EAGER TO EAT PLENTY WERE REPEATEDLY REASSURED WITH ALLURING BUT
SUBTLY QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIONS SUCH AS THESE:  "REMEMBER WITH THE
KELPIDINE PLAN, YOU DON'T CUT OUT ICE CREAM, CAKE, CANDY, OR ANY OTHER
THINGS YOU LIKE TO EAT.  YOU JUST CUT DOWN ON THEM."  THE ALLEGED
SAFETY OF THE REMEDY AND EXTRAORDINARY EFFICACY OF KELP WERE EMPHASIZED
IN ADVERTISEMENTS STATING THAT IT "MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF YOU ARE 16 OR
60, OR IF YOU HAVE DIABETES, RHEUMATISM OR ANY OTHER AILMENT. 
KELPIDINE IS ALWAYS SAFE AND DOCTORS APPROVE THE KELPIDINE PLAN.  YOU
SIMPLY TAKE A HALF TEASPOON OF KELPIDINE ONCE EACH DAY AND EAT THREE
REGULAR SENSIBLE MEALS.  KELPIDINE DECREASES YOUR APPETITE." 

TWO DOCTORS WITH WIDE GENERAL KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD OF DIETETICS AND
TREATMENT FOR OBESITY WERE CALLED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE FRAUD
HEARING.  THEY TESTIFIED THAT IODINE, TO WHICH RESPONDENT CHIEFLY
ATTRIBUTED THE FAT-REDUCING POWERS OF KELP, IS VALUELESS AS AN ANTI
FAT; THAT KELP WOULD NOT REDUCE HUNGER; THAT THE SUGGESTED DIET WAS TOO
DRASTIC TO BE SAFE FOR USE WITHOUT MEDICAL SUPERVISION, PARTICULARLY
WHERE USERS SUFFERED FROM CHRONIC DISEASES SUCH AS DIABETES AND HEART
TROUBLE.  THE ONE PHYSICIAN CALLED BY RESPONDENT TESTIFIED THAT IODINE
WAS USED BY PHYSICIANS AS A WEIGHT REDUCER, AND EXPRESSED HIS JUDGMENT
THAT IT DID HAVE VALUE FOR SUCH USE.  EVEN HE, HOWEVER, CONCEDED THAT
THE DAILY DOSAGE OF IODINE TO REDUCE WEIGHT WOULD BE FIFTY TO SIXTY
TIMES MORE THAN THE IODINE IN RESPONDENT'S DAILY DOSAGE OF KELP.  THE
RESPONDENT'S WITNESS ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE RECOMMENDED DIET WAS
"RIGID," AND MIGHT PROVE HARMFUL TO PERSONS SUFFERING FROM
TUBERCULOSIS, ANEMIA, OR HEART DISEASE. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL WERE THAT KELP IS VALUELESS AS
A WEIGHT REDUCER AND THAT WHATEVER EFFICACY THERE WAS IN THE REMEDY LAY
IN THE DIET RECOMMENDATIONS.  HE ALSO FOUND THAT THE DIET WAS NEITHER
UNIFORMLY SAFE NOR HARMLESS AND MIGHT BE PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS FOR
PERSONS AFFLICTED WITH HEART AND KIDNEY TROUBLES; THAT THE DIET COULD
NOT, AS REPRESENTED, BE PURSUED IN EASE AND COMFORT, WITHOUT HUNGER,
WHILE EATING THE THINGS RESPONDENT HAD LED PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THEY
COULD.  ON THESE FINDINGS THE FRAUD ORDER WAS ENTERED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE
FRAUD ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER WAS UNSUPPORTED BY FACTUAL
EVIDENCE.  FN3  ASSERTING THAT THERE WAS "NO EXACT STANDARD OF ABSOLUTE
TRUTH" AGAINST WHICH RESPONDENT'S ADVERTISEMENTS COULD BE MEASURED, THE
COURT HELD THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE TWO DOCTORS ON WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT'S CASE RESTED WAS REDUCED BY THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY OF
RESPONDENT'S WITNESS TO THE STATUS OF MERE OPINION.  AS SUCH, THE
EVIDENCE WAS HELD INSUFFICIENT UNDER THE RULE LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT
IN AMERICAN SCHOOL OF HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED ON SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME GROUND.  FN4  BOTH COURTS
DISTINGUISHED LEACH V. CARLILE, 258 U.S. 138, WHERE WE HELD THAT A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER A PRODUCT HAD ANY VALUE AT ALL DID
NOT BAR A FRAUD ORDER BASED ON CLAIMS OF FAR GREATER CURATIVE POWERS
THAN THE PRODUCT COULD ACTUALLY HAVE.  IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING
THE SCOPE OF THE MCANNULTY CASE AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT POSTOFFICE FRAUD ORDERS PROMPTED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

FIRST.  IT IS CONTENDED HERE, AS BOTH COURTS BELOW HELD, THAT THE
FINDINGS OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL MUST BE SET ASIDE UNDER THE RULE OF
THE MCANNULTY CASE.  THERE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL HAD FORBIDDEN USE OF
THE MAILS UPON FINDING AS A FACT THAT PETITIONER WAS GUILTY OF
FALSEHOOD AND FRAUD IN OBTAINING MONEY BY REPRESENTATIONS BASED ON
CLAIMS THAT THE "MIND OF THE HUMAN RACE IS LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS
ILLS,  ...  AND THAT THE HUMAN RACE DOES POSSESS THE INNATE POWER,
THROUGH PROPER EXERCISE OF THE FACULTY OF THE BRAIN AND MIND, TO
LARGELY CONTROL AND REMEDY THE ILLS THAT HUMANITY IS HEIR TO  ...  "
THIS COURT SET ASIDE THE FRAUD ORDER, POINTING OUT THAT THERE WERE TWO
WIDELY HELD SCHOOLS OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE MIND COULD AFFECT
BODILY DISEASES, AND THAT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE HAD NOT ADVANCED TO THE
POINT WHERE AN ACTUAL INTENT TO DECEIVE COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO ONE WHO
ASSERTED EITHER OPINION.  THUS THERE WAS "NO EXACT STANDARD OF ABSOLUTE
TRUTH BY WHICH TO PROVE THE ASSERTION FALSE AND A FRAUD."  AT BEST,
TESTIMONY EITHER WAY WAS HELD TO BE NO MORE THAN "OPINION" IN A FIELD
WHERE IMPERFECT KNOWLEDGE MADE PROOF "AS OF AN ORDINARY FACT"
IMPOSSIBLE. 

RESPONDENT APPEARS TO ARGUE THAT THE MCANNULTY CASE BARS A FINDING OF
FRAUD WHENEVER THERE IS THE LEAST CONFLICT OF OPINION AS TO CURATIVE
EFFECTS OF A REMEDY.  THE CONTENTION SEEMS TO BE THAT EVEN THE
TESTIMONY OF THE MOST EXPERIENCED MEDICAL EXPERTS CAN NEVER RISE ABOVE
A MERE "OPINION" UNLESS THE EXPERT HAS MADE ACTUAL TESTS OF THE DRUG TO
DETERMINE ITS EFFECTS IN RELATION TO THE PARTICULAR REPRESENTATIONS
ALLEGED TO BE FALSE.  THE MCANNULTY HOLDING DID NOT GO SO FAR.  WE DO
NOT UNDERSTAND OR ACCEPT IT AS PRESCRIBING AN INEXORABLE RULE THAT
AUTOMATICALLY BARS RELIANCE OF THE FACT-FINDING TRIBUNAL UPON INFORMED
MEDICAL JUDGMENT EVERY TIME MEDICAL WITNESSES CAN BE PRODUCED WHO
BLINDLY ADHERE TO A CURATIVE TECHNIQUE THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED BY
RELIABLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIENCES.  BUT WE DO ACCEPT THE MCANNULTY
DECISION AS A WHOLESOME LIMITATION UPON FINDINGS OF FRAUD UNDER THE
MAIL STATUTES WHEN THE CHARGES CONCERN MEDICAL PRACTICES IN FIELDS
WHERE KNOWLEDGE HAS NOT YET BEEN CRYSTALLIZED IN THE CRUCIBLE OF
EXPERIENCE.  FOR IN THE SCIENCE OF MEDICINE, AS IN OTHER SCIENCES,
EXPERIMENTATION IS THE SPUR OF PROGRESS.  IT WOULD AMOUNT TO
CONDEMNATION OF NEW IDEAS WITHOUT A TRIAL TO GIVE THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL POWER TO CONDEMN NEW IDEAS AS FRAUDULENT SOLELY BECAUSE SOME
CLING TO TRADITIONAL OPINIONS WITH UNQUESTIONING TENACITY. 

IN THIS CASE THERE IS CONFLICT, THOUGH SLIGHT, AS TO WHETHER KELP OR
IODINE IS VALUELESS AS A WEIGHT REDUCER.  BUT EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT
MEDICAL OPINION IS YET IN A STATE OF FLUX ON THIS QUESTION, WE THINK
THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT THE
EFFICACY OF THE "REDUCING PLAN" AS A WHOLE WAS MISREPRESENTED IN
RESPONDENT'S ADVERTISING.  AND WE THINK THOSE MISREPRESENTATIONS WENT
BEYOND PERMISSIBLE "PUFFING" OF A SELLER'S WARES; THEY WERE MATERIAL
REPRESENTATIONS ON WHICH CREDULOUS PERSONS, EAGER TO REDUCE, WERE
ENTITLED TO RELY.  DESPITE SUBTLE QUALIFYING PHRASES IT IS DIFFICULT TO
READ THESE ADVERTISEMENTS AS A WHOLE WITHOUT RECEIVING THE IMPRESSION
THAT, CONTRARY TO FACTS JUSTIFIABLY FOUND BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
KELP IS A SURE AND DRASTIC WEIGHT REDUCER; THAT A USER CAN REDUCE
WITHOUT UNCOMFORTABLY RESTRICTING HIS USUAL AMPLE DIET OF FATTENING
FOODS; THAT THE TREATMENT IS ABSOLUTELY SAFE AND HARMLESS TO PEOPLE OF
ALL AGES, TO THE ILL AND THE WELL.  SEE DONALDSON V. READ MAGAZINE, 333
U.S. 178, 188-189.  THESE REPRESENTATIONS, IF MADE WITH INTENT TO
DECEIVE, FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE TYPE WHICH IN LEACH V. CARLILE, 258
U.S. 138, WERE HELD TO JUSTIFY FINDINGS OF FRAUD. 

SECOND.  NEVERTHELESS WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT THE PRESENT
FRAUD ORDER SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED.  IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE
DOCTORS' EXPERT EVIDENCE RESTED ON THEIR GENERAL PROFESSIONAL
KNOWLEDGE.  TO SOME EXTENT THIS KNOWLEDGE WAS ACQUIRED FROM MEDICAL
TEXT BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS, ON WHICH THESE EXPERTS PLACED RELIANCE. 
IN CROSS-EXAMINATION RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO QUESTION THESE WITNESSES
CONCERNING STATEMENTS IN OTHER MEDICAL BOOKS, SOME OF WHICH AT LEAST
WERE SHOWN TO BE RESPECTABLE AUTHORITIES.  THE QUESTIONS WERE NOT
PERMITTED.  WE THINK THIS WAS AN UNDUE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO
CROSS-EXAMINE.  IT CERTAINLY IS ILLOGICAL, IF NOT ACTUALLY UNFAIR, TO
PERMIT WITNESSES TO GIVE EXPERT OPINIONS BASED ON BOOK KNOWLEDGE, AND
THEN DEPRIVE THE PARTY CHALLENGING SUCH EVIDENCE OF ALL OPPORTUNITY TO
INTERROGATE THEM ABOUT DIVERGENT OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN OTHER REPUTABLE
BOOKS. 

PETITIONER SEEKS TO JUSTIFY EXCLUSION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION BASED ON
SOME OF THESE BOOKS BY POINTING OUT THAT THEY WERE MERELY MEDICAL
DICTIONARIES.  GOVERNMENT EXPERTS TESTIFIED THEY WOULD NOT CONSULT THE
DICTIONARIES TO ASCERTAIN THE EFFICACY OF A REMEDY, ALTHOUGH THEY KEPT
AND USED THEM FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  BUT THE BOOKS DID ASSERT THE USE OF
KELP AS A FAT REDUCER, AND TO SOME EXTENT THIS TENDED TO REFUTE
TESTIMONY BY GOVERNMENT EXPERTS THAT NO REPUTABLE PHYSICIANS WOULD
ACCEPT KELP OR IODINE AS A WEIGHT REDUCER. 

IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ERROR IN RESTRICTING CROSS-EXAMINATION
WAS HARMLESS HERE BECAUSE THE MEMORANDUM OF THE FACT-FINDING OFFICIAL
INDICATED THAT HE HAD READ THE EXCLUDED MATERIALS AND WOULD HAVE MADE
THE SAME ADVERSE FINDINGS HAD THE MATERIALS BEEN HELD ADMISSIBLE.  BUT
THE OBJECT OF USING THE BOOKS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS TO TEST THE
EXPERT'S TESTIMONY BY HAVING HIM REFER TO AND COMMENT UPON THEIR
CONTENTS.  RESPONDENT WAS DEPRIVED OF THIS OPPORTUNITY.  THE ERROR OF
THIS DEPRIVATION COULD NOT BE CURED BY HAVING THE FACT-FINDER
SUBSEQUENTLY EXAMINE THE MATERIAL. 

MOREOVER, THE ISSUES IN POSTOFFICE FRAUD CASES MAKE SUCH CROSS
EXAMINATION PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE.  PROOF OF FRAUDULENT PURPOSES IS
ESSENTIAL - AN "ACTUAL INTENT TO DECEIVE."  SEE SEVEN CASES V. UNITED
STATES, 239 U.S. 510, 517.  CONSEQUENTLY FRAUD UNDER THE MAIL STATUTES
IS NOT ESTABLISHED MERELY BY PROVING THAT AN INCORRECT STATEMENT WAS
MADE.  AN INTENT TO DECEIVE MIGHT BE INFERRED FROM THE UNIVERSALITY OF
SCIENTIFIC BELIEF THAT ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIONS ARE WHOLLY
UNSUPPORTABLE; CONVERSELY, THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH AN INFERENCE MIGHT BE
LESSENED SHOULD CROSS-EXAMINATION CAUSE A WITNESS TO ADMIT THAT THE
SCIENTIFIC BELIEF WAS LESS UNIVERSAL THAN HE HAD FIRST TESTIFIED. 

THE POWER TO REFUSE ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS FOR ERROR IN REGARD TO
EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SPARINGLY EXERCISED.  A LARGE AMOUNT OF DISCRETION
IN THE CONDUCT OF A HEARING IS NECESSARILY REPOSED IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY.  AND WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS REMOVING THIS
DISCRETION OR AS A COMPULSORY OPENING OF THE GATES FOR FLOODS OF
MEDICAL VOLUMES, EVEN WHERE SHOWN TO BE AUTHORITATIVE.  BUT IN THIS
KIND OF CASE AS IN OTHERS, ONE AGAINST WHOM SERIOUS CHARGES OF FRAUD
ARE MADE MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE
WITNESSES ON THE VITAL ISSUE OF HIS PURPOSE TO DECEIVE.  AND IN THIS
CASE ANY HOLDING OF HARMLESS ERROR IS PRECLUDED BY THE FACT THAT THE
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR PRESIDING AT THE HEARINGS ADOPTED THE PROSECUTOR'S
VIEW THAT RESPONDENT WAS TO BE BARRED FROM USING THE MAILS "REGARDLESS
OF THE QUESTION OF GOOD FAITH, EVEN IF THE RESPONDENT BELIEVED IN ALL
OF HIS REPRESENTATIONS  ...  IF THEY WERE FALSE AS A MATTER OF FACT." 

IT IS NOT AMISS TO POINT OUT THAT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DOES
HAVE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDERS IN CASES LIKE THIS
WITHOUT FINDINGS OF FRAUD.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 45(A), (B); FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. ALGOMA CO., 291 U.S. 67, 81.  BUT THAT REMEDY DOES NOT
APPROACH THE SEVERITY OF A MAIL FRAUD ORDER.  IN FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N
V. RALADAM CO., 316 U.S. 149, FOR INSTANCE, A BUSINESS ADVERTISING ITS
ANTI-FAT PRODUCT WITH EXTRAVAGANT STATEMENTS SIMILAR IN MANY RESPECTS
TO THOSE OF RESPONDENT HERE WAS ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM MAKING
SUCH STATEMENTS.  EXCEPT FOR THIS, THE BUSINESS WAS LEFT FREE TO SELL
ITS PRODUCT AS BEFORE.  UNLIKE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION CANNOT BAR AN OFFENDER FROM USING THE MAILS, AN ORDER
WHICH COULD WHOLLY DESTROY A BUSINESS.  SEE BRANDEIS, J., DISSENTING IN
MILWAUKEE PUB. CO. V. BURLESON, 255 U.S. 407, 417 ET SEQ. THE
STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES OF THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE TWO
AGENCIES ON THE BASIS OF ANALOGOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS EMPHASIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF LIMITING POSTOFFICE DEPARTMENT ORDERS TO INSTANCES WHERE
ACTUAL FRAUD IS CLEARLY PROVED.    THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
IS AFFIRMED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO A REOPENING OF THE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST RESPONDENT TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL HEARINGS SHOULD THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL CHOOSE TO DO SO.  IT IS SO ORDERED.    FN1  R.S. 3929, AS
AMENDED, 39 U.S.C. SEC. 259; R.S. 4041, AS AMENDED, 39 U.S.C. SEC.
732. 

FN2  THE ORDER DID NOT FORBID DELIVERY OF MAIL TO RESPONDENT PINKUS
INDIVIDUALLY.  IT DID FORBID DELIVERY TO TRADE NAMES USED BY RESPONDENT
PINKUS, "AMERICAN HEALTH AIDS COMPANY AND ENERGY FOOD CENTER, AND THEIR
OFFICERS AND AGENTS AS SUCH  ...  " 

FN3  71 F.SUPP.  993.  SEE ALSO 61 F.SUPP.  610. 

FN4  170 F.2D 786. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



















OAKLEY V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 338 U.S. 278 


ARGUED OCTOBER 17-18, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 14, 1949.  - 170 F.2D
1008 - 171 F.2D 128, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 8(C) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940,
THE EXPIRATION OF ONE YEAR OF REEMPLOYMENT OF A VETERAN BY HIS
PRESERVICE EMPLOYER DOES NOT TERMINATE THE VETERAN'S RIGHT TO THE
SENIORITY TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THE ACT'S TREATMENT OF
HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT. 
FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN CORP., 328 U.S. 275; TRAILMOBILE CO. V. WHIRLS,
331 U.S. 40, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 279-285. 

2.  A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COULD ENTERTAIN A COMPLAINT FILED
BY A VETERAN TO ENFORCE HIS RIGHT TO SUCH SENIORITY, EVEN THOUGH THE
COMPLAINT WAS NOT FILED UNTIL NEARLY THREE MONTHS AFTER THE EXPIRATION
OF SUCH YEAR OF REEMPLOYMENT.  PP. 284-285. 

OAKLEY V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

NO. 28.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 29, HAYNES V. CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS & TEXAS
PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED TWO ACTIONS BROUGHT BY VETERANS UNDER
SEC. 8(E) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940 TO ENFORCE
THEIR RIGHTS TO SENIORITY UNDER SEC. 8.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  170 F.2D 1008; 171 F.2D 128.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 943.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 285. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN BOTH NO. 28 AND NO. 29, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER, UNDER THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940,  FN1  ONE YEAR OF REEMPLOYMENT OF A
VETERAN BY HIS PRESERVICE EMPLOYER TERMINATED THAT VETERAN'S RIGHT TO
THE SENIORITY TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THAT ACT'S
TREATMENT OF HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS CIVILIAN
EMPLOYMENT.  FOR THE REASONS HEREINAFTER STATED, AND PURSUANT TO OUR
PREVIOUS DECISIONS, OUR ANSWER IS "NO."  IN NO. 29, THERE IS THE
FURTHER QUESTION WHETHER, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH YEAR, A UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT COULD ENTERTAIN A COMPLAINT FILED BY THE VETERAN
TO ENFORCE HIS RIGHT TO SUCH SENIORITY.  OUR ANSWER IS "YES." 

IN EACH CASE, A VETERAN SOUGHT, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND AN
ORDER RESTORING HIM TO THE SENIORITY WHICH HE CLAIMED HE WOULD HAVE HAD
IF HE HAD REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT.  IN NO. 28,
OAKLEY, THE PETITIONER, ALLEGED THAT WHEN HE WAS INDUCTED INTO THE
ARMED FORCES ON MAY 7, 1944, HE WAS EMPLOYED AS A LOCOMOTIVE MACHINIST
AT LOYALL, KENTUCKY, BY THE RESPONDENT, LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD
COMPANY; THAT, ON MAY 22, 1946, HE WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED FROM THE
ARMED FORCES; THAT, ON JULY 17, 1946, HE WAS REEMPLOYED BY THE
RESPONDENT AS A LOCOMOTIVE MACHINIST WITH SENIORITY FROM THAT DATE;
THAT, ON JULY 1, 1945, WHILE HE WAS WITH THE ARMED FORCES, THE
RESPONDENT'S LOYALL SHOP WAS TRANSFERRED TO CORBIN, KENTUCKY; "THAT HAD
HE NOT BEEN IN THE ARMED FORCES HE WOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE
CORBIN SHOP WITH SENIORITY FROM JULY 1, 1945,  ...  "; AND THAT,
BECAUSE OF THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO CREDIT HIM WITH SENIORITY FROM
THE EARLIER DATE, HE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO CERTAIN DISADVANTAGES IN
WORKING HOURS AND TO AN INCREASED POSSIBILITY OF BEING LAID OFF FROM
HIS EMPLOYMENT.  HE FILED HIS COMPLAINT, APRIL 14, 1947, UNDER SEC.
8(E) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 891,
AS REENACTED, 60 STAT. 341, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308(E).  THE COURT, ON
ITS OWN MOTION, ASSIGNED THE CASE FOR ARGUMENT "UPON THE QUESTION
WHETHER, UNDER THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE TRAILMOBILE
COMPANY, ET AL., V. WHIRLS (NO. 85, APRIL 14, 1947), THE CAUSE HAS BEEN
RENDERED MOOT BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTORY YEAR TO WHICH SECTION
8(C) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT LIMITED PLAINTIFF'S
RIGHT TO ANY SPECIAL OR PREFERENTIAL STANDING IN RESPECT TO RESTORED
SENIORITY."  THEREUPON, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT OF THE
MACHINIST EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT, WHICH HAD INTERVENED AS A
DEFENDANT, MOVED TO DISMISS THE CAUSE ON THE GROUND THAT MORE THAN ONE
YEAR HAD ELAPSED SINCE THE DATE OF THE PETITIONER'S RESTORATION TO HIS
EMPLOYMENT.  THIS MOTION IS HERE CONSIDERED UPON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS
PLEADED IN THE COMPLAINT.  FN2 

IN NO. 29, HAYNES, THE PETITIONER, ALLEGED THAT, WHEN HE ENLISTED IN
THE ARMED FORCES ON FEBRUARY 1, 1942, HE WAS EMPLOYED AS A MACHINIST
HELPER AT SOMERSET, KENTUCKY, BY THE RESPONDENT, CINCINNATI, NEW
ORLEANS AND TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY (ORIGINALLY SUED AS THE
SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM); THAT, ON OCTOBER 31, 1945, HE WAS HONORABLY
DISCHARGED FROM THE ARMED FORCES; THAT, ON NOVEMBER 16, 1945, HE WAS
REEMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT AS A MACHINIST HELPER, WITH SENIORITY FROM
THAT DATE; "THAT DURING HIS SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES THE DEFENDANT
COMPANY PROMOTED SIX HELPER MACHINISTS TO HELPER APPRENTICES, AND THAT
THESE SIX MEN WERE JUNIOR IN SENIORITY TO HIMSELF, AND THAT HAD HE NOT
ENTERED THE ARMED FORCES AS ABOVE MENTIONED HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED
TO HELPER APPRENTICE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE PAY AS SUCH,  ...";
AND THAT SUCH RATE OF PAY EXCEEDED THAT OF THE PETITIONER DURING HIS
REEMPLOYMENT.  HE FILED HIS COMPLAINT, FEBRUARY 14, 1947, ASKING FOR
RESTORATION TO HIS CLAIMED STATUS AND FOR THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
TO WHICH THAT STATUS WOULD HAVE ENTITLED HIM.  THE RESPONDENT ANSWERED,
BUT CERTAIN INTERVENING DEFENDANTS, FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE SIMILAR TO
THAT IN NO. 28, FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSE FOR THE REASONS
THERE STATED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD THE MOTIONS TOGETHER AND DISMISSED BOTH
ACTIONS.  FN3  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED. 
170 F.2D 1008; 171 F.2D 128.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 336 U.S. 943,
BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE RELATION OF THESE DISMISSALS TO OUR DECISIONS IN
FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN CORP., 328 U.S. 275, AND TRAILMOBILE CO. V.
WHIRLS, 331 U.S. 40. 

THE COURT BELOW RECOGNIZED THAT SEC. 8(C)  FN4  GRANTED TO THE
RESPECTIVE VETERANS SPECIAL STATUTORY PROTECTION AGAINST DISCHARGE
WITHOUT CAUSE AND AGAINST LOSS OF CERTAIN BENEFITS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR OF THEIR REEMPLOYMENT.  THAT COURT, HOWEVER, CONCLUDED ALSO THAT
THE EXPIRATION OF THAT YEAR NOT ONLY TERMINATED THE VETERAN'S RIGHT TO
SUCH SPECIAL STATUTORY PROTECTION, BUT LIKEWISE AUTOMATICALLY
TERMINATED HIS RIGHT TO THE SENIORITY IN THE RESTORED POSITION WHICH HE
WOULD HAVE HAD IF HE HAD REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS CIVILIAN
EMPLOYMENT.  THAT ADDITIONAL CONCLUSION IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE
OPINIONS OF THIS COURT OR BY THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  WE RESERVED THE
POINT IN THE TRAILMOBILE CASE, SUPRA: 

"WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY THEREFORE TO PASS UPON PETITIONERS' POSITION
IN THIS CASE, NAMELY, THAT ALL PROTECTION AFFORDED BY VIRTUE OF SEC.
8(C) TERMINATES WITH THE ENDING OF THE SPECIFIED YEAR.  WE HOLD ONLY
THAT SO MUCH OF IT ENDS THEN AS WOULD GIVE THE REEMPLOYED VETERAN A
PREFERRED STANDING OVER EMPLOYEES NOT VETERANS HAVING IDENTICAL
SENIORITY RIGHTS AS OF THE TIME OF HIS RESTORATION.  WE EXPRESSLY
RESERVE DECISION UPON WHETHER THE STATUTORY SECURITY EXTENDS BEYOND THE
ONE-YEAR PERIOD TO SECURE THE REEMPLOYED VETERAN AGAINST IMPAIRMENT IN
ANY RESPECT OF EQUALITY WITH SUCH A FELLOW WORKER."  (AT P. 60.) 

IN THE FISHGOLD CASE, WE DID NOT DEAL WITH THE EFFECT, IF ANY, UPON A
VETERAN'S SENIORITY, OF THE EXPIRATION OF HIS FIRST YEAR OF
REEMPLOYMENT.  WE THERE DEALT WITH THE INITIAL TERMS OF HIS RESTORED
POSITION.  WE STATED, IN EFFECT, THAT AN HONORABLY DISCHARGED VETERAN,
COVERED BY THE STATUTE, WAS ENTITLED BY THE ACT TO BE RESTORED NOT TO A
POSITION WHICH WOULD BE THE PRECISE EQUIVALENT OF THAT WHICH HE HAD
LEFT WHEN HE JOINED THE ARMED FORCES, BUT RATHER TO A POSITION WHICH,
ON THE MOVING ESCALATOR OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS AFFECTING THAT
PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT, WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE POSITION WHICH HE
WOULD HAVE HELD IF HE HAD REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS CIVILIAN
EMPLOYMENT.  FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN CORP., 328 U.S. 275, 284-285; SEE
ALSO, AERONAUTICAL LODGE V. CAMPBELL, 337 U.S. 521, 526.  IN THE
TRAILMOBILE CASE, SUPRA, AT PAGES 56 AND 60, WE DEALT WITH THE ONE YEAR
OF SPECIAL STATUTORY PROTECTION GIVEN TO THE VETERAN IN HIS RESTORED
POSITION.  WE SAID, IN EFFECT, THAT THIS PROVISION PROTECTED HIM NOT
ONLY FROM THE TOTAL LOSS OF THAT POSITION BY "DISCHARGE" FROM IT
"WITHOUT CAUSE," BUT THAT IT ALSO PROTECTED HIM, FOR ONE YEAR, AGAINST
THE LOSS OF CERTAIN OTHER BENEFITS INCIDENTAL TO HIS RESTORED
POSITION. 

THE INSTANT CASES TAKE US ONE STEP FURTHER.  IN THEM WE HOLD THAT THE
EXPIRATION OF THE YEAR DID NOT TERMINATE THE VETERAN'S RIGHT TO THE
SENIORITY TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THE ACT'S TREATMENT OF
HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT;
NOR DID IT OPEN THE DOOR TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIM, AS A VETERAN. 
HIS POSITION "WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY,  ...  "  HE THEREFORE ASSUMES,
UPON HIS REEMPLOYMENT, THE SENIORITY HE WOULD HAVE HAD IF HE HAD
REMAINED IN HIS CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT.  HIS SENIORITY STATUS SECURED BY
THIS STATUTORY WORDING CONTINUES BEYOND THE FIRST YEAR OF HIS
REEMPLOYMENT, SUBJECT TO THE ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO
THE OTHER EMPLOYEES. 

IN THE INSTANT CASES, THE RESPECTIVE COMPLAINTS STATED, IN EFFECT,
THAT THE COMPLAINANTS THEREIN HAD NOT BEEN RESTORED TO THE PLACES TO
WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED ON THE ESCALATORS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CIVILIAN
EMPLOYMENTS.  IN NO. 28, THE ALLEGATION WAS THAT THE PETITIONER WAS
ENTITLED, BY VIRTUE OF THE STATUS HE WOULD HAVE ENJOYED HAD HE REMAINED
CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT, TO THE SENIORITY OF A
LOCOMOTIVE MACHINIST AT CORBIN FROM JULY 1, 1945, RATHER THAN FROM JULY
17, 1946.  IF HE WERE ENTITLED TO THE HIGHER RATING UPON HIS
REEMPLOYMENT, THE ACT DID NOT DEPRIVE HIM OF THAT RATING MERELY BY
VIRTUE OF THE EXPIRATION OF HIS FIRST YEAR OF REEMPLOYMENT.  THE MOTION
TO DISMISS THIS ACTION BECAUSE OF THE EXPIRATION OF THAT YEAR,
ACCORDINGLY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED. 

IN NO. 29, WE REACH THE SAME RESULT.  THAT RESULT IS NOT AFFECTED BY
THE FAILURE OF THE VETERAN, IN THIS CASE, TO FILE HIS COMPLAINT UNTIL
NEARLY THREE MONTHS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF HIS FIRST YEAR OF
REEMPLOYMENT.  THE ACT DID NOT ESTABLISH A ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS UPON THE ASSERTION OF THE VETERAN'S INITIAL RIGHTS OF
REEMPLOYMENT.  IT ADDED SPECIAL STATUTORY PROTECTION, FOR ONE YEAR,
AGAINST CERTAIN TYPES OF DISCHARGES OR DEMOTIONS THAT MIGHT ROB THE
VETERAN'S REEMPLOYMENT OF ITS SUBSTANCE, BUT THE EXPIRATION OF THAT
YEAR DID NOT TERMINATE THE RIGHT OF THE VETERAN TO THE SENIORITY TO
WHICH HE WAS, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THE ACT'S
TREATMENT OF HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY IN HIS CIVILIAN
EMPLOYMENT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN EACH CASE IS THEREFORE
REVERSED AND THE RESPECTIVE CAUSES ARE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  SEE ESPECIALLY, SEC. 8(A), (B), (C) AND (E), 54 STAT. 890, AS
AMENDED, 56 STAT. 724, 58 STAT. 798, 60 STAT. 341, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
308(A), (B), (C) AND (E).  SEE ALSO, FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN CORP., 328
U.S. 275, 278, 280, 281, FOR REPRINTS OF THE MATERIAL PORTIONS OF THE
ACT. 

FN2  THE RESPONDENT PREVIOUSLY HAD ANSWERED, FILED A REQUEST FOR
ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RECEIVED
PETITIONER'S ADMISSIONS, AND MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS, THE ADMISSIONS, AND AN AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION.  IN THE MEANTIME, SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 91 OF THE RAILWAY
EMPLOYES' DEPARTMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, ACTING ON ITS
OWN BEHALF AND AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT OF RESPONDENT'S
MACHINIST EMPLOYEES, WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AND TO ANSWER.  IT THEN
FILED THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSE WHICH WAS ACTED UPON BY THE
COURT.  ACCORDINGLY, NEITHER THE ANSWERS NOR THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ARE BEFORE US, AND WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CASE ON THE
PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS IN HIS COMPLAINT. 

FN3  IN NO. 28, THE COURT SAID: 

"THIS CAUSE COMING ON TO BE HEARD ON THE MOTION OF THE INTERVENING
DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS THE CAUSE ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTION
PRESENTED HAS BECOME MOOT, BECAUSE MORE THAN ONE YEAR HAS ELAPSED SINCE
THE DATE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S RESTORATION TO EMPLOYMENT WITH THE
DEFENDANT, L. & N. RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE COURT BEING ADVISED, IT IS
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT SAID MOTION BE, AND THE SAME IS HEREBY,
SUSTAINED, AND THIS ACTION IS NOW DISMISSED AS MOOT, WITHOUT COST TO
EITHER THE PLAINTIFF, OR THE DEFENDANT, OR THE INTERVENING
DEFENDANTS." 

IN NO. 29, THE ENTRY WAS THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE NAME OF THE
DEFENDANT RAILWAY. 

FN4  "SEC.  8.  ... 

"(C)  ANY PERSON WHO IS RESTORED TO A POSITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (A) OR (B) OF SUBSECTION (B) SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN ON FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE DURING HIS
PERIOD OF TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, SHALL BE SO
RESTORED WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN
INSURANCE OR OTHER BENEFITS OFFERED BY THE EMPLOYER PURSUANT TO
ESTABLISHED RULES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO EMPLOYEES ON FURLOUGH OR
LEAVE OF ABSENCE IN EFFECT WITH THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME SUCH PERSON
WAS INDUCTED INTO SUCH FORCES, AND SHALL NOT BE DISCHARGED FROM SUCH
POSITION WITHOUT CAUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER SUCH RESTORATION."  54
STAT. 890, AS REENACTED, 60 STAT. 341, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308(C). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO., 338 U.S. 286 


ARGUED OCTOBER 20-21, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 14, 1949.  - REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THIS COURT'S DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. CAPITAL TRANSIT
CO., 325 U.S. 357, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION STILL HAS
JURISDICTION UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT TO PRESCRIBE JOINT THROUGH
FARES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY THE CAPITAL TRANSIT CO.
AND CONNECTING VIRGINIA LINES BETWEEN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
CERTAIN NEARBY POINTS IN VIRGINIA - EVEN THOUGH, SINCE THAT DECISION,
ACTIVE WARFARE HAS ENDED, THE NUMBER OF SUCH PASSENGERS HAS BEEN
REDUCED, THE CAPITAL TRANSIT CO. HAS DISCONTINUED RUNNING ANY BUSSES
FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INTO VIRGINIA, AND ITS SHARE OF SUCH
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC IS NOW CONFINED TO CARRYING PASSENGERS BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL SECTIONS AND THE BUSINESS SECTION OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, WHERE THEY TRANSFER TO OR FROM OTHER LINES RUNNING BETWEEN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND VIRGINIA.  PP. 288-291. 

2.  THIS COURT'S DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332
U.S. 218, DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ITS PRIOR HOLDING THAT SUCH
TRANSPORTATION WAS PART OF A CONTINUOUS STREAM OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  P. 290. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDING, MADE IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, THAT ITS
EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION WAS NECESSARY TO A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM "ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF  ...  THE NATIONAL DEFENSE" IS
STILL SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE
NATION IS NO LONGER ENGAGED IN ACTIVE WARFARE AND THERE ARE FEWER ARMY
AND NAVY EMPLOYEES AT THE VIRGINIA INSTALLATIONS.  PP. 290-291. 

4.  SINCE THE RECORD IN THIS CASE FAILS TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS
PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR ITS DETERMINATION ANY ISSUE AS
TO WHETHER THE JOINT RATES IN QUESTION ARE CONFISCATORY, THAT QUESTION
IS NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.  P. 291. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY ET AL. 

NO. 40.  APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 41, WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA & MARYLAND COACH CO. ET
AL. V. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO. ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PUTTING INTO EFFECT A RATE ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES
V. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO., 325 U.S. 357.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED, P. 291. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN UNITED STATES V. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO., 325 U.S. 357, WE UPHELD THE
JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO REGULATE CERTAIN
OF CAPITAL TRANSIT'S BUS AND STREETCAR RATES.  THE RATES INVOLVED WERE
IN TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.  TRANSIT OPERATED, AS IT STILL DOES, A BUS
AND STREETCAR SYSTEM WITHIN THE DISTRICT CONNECTING THE RESIDENTIAL
AREA WITH THE CENTRAL BUSINESS AREA.  IT WAS ALSO ONE OF FOUR BUS
COMPANIES CARRYING PASSENGERS FROM THAT CENTRAL BUSINESS AREA TO THE
PENTAGON BUILDING AND OTHER DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENTS LOCATED JUST ACROSS
THE POTOMAC IN VIRGINIA.  EACH DAY THOUSANDS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
LIVING IN THE DISTRICT BOARDED TRANSIT'S STREETCARS NEAR THEIR
RESIDENCES, RODE TO THE DISTRICT'S BUSINESS AREA, AND THERE TRANSFERRED
TO ONE OF THE VIRGINIA BUSSES FOR CARRIAGE TO THE NEARBY VIRGINIA
ESTABLISHMENTS.  IN THE ABOVE CASE WE SUSTAINED A COMMISSION ORDER
FIXING A THROUGH FARE FOR THE ENTIRE TRIP BETWEEN THE DISTRICT
RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THE VIRGINIA GOVERNMENTAL INSTALLATIONS.  TRANSIT
HAD STRONGLY URGED THAT ITS BUS AND STREETCAR TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN
RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS AREAS, BEING WHOLLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT, COULD
NOT BE TREATED AS PART OF AN INTERSTATE MOVEMENT.  FOR REASONS STATED
IN OUR FORMER OPINION WE REJECTED TRANSIT'S CONTENTION, HOLDING THAT
THE DAILY STREAM OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS FROM THE DISTRICT TO VIRGINIA
AND BACK AGAIN WAS AN INTERSTATE MOVEMENT AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO
REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  THIS HOLDING APPLIED TO TRANSIT CARRIAGE
EVEN WHERE TRANSIT PASSENGERS TRAVELED BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND
VIRGINIA ON OTHER BUS LINES.  TRANSIT ALSO CONTENDED THAT JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMISSION WAS PRECLUDED BY A PROVISO IN SEC. 216(E) OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT EXEMPTING "INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION" OF MOTOR
CARRIERS FROM REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  THIS CONTENTION WAS
REPEATED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.  WE REJECTED IT.  OUR HOLDING THAT
TRANSIT'S PART OF THE DISTRICT-VIRGINIA MOVEMENTS WAS "INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION" NECESSARILY MADE THE SEC. 216(E) EXEMPTION
INAPPLICABLE. 

AFTER OUR HOLDING THE COMMISSION ENTERED A NEW ORDER PUTTING INTO
EFFECT THE RATE ORDER WE HAD SUSTAINED.  IN THE PRESENT CASES, HERE ON
APPEAL FROM A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1253 AND
2101(B), THE NEW ORDER WAS ENJOINED  FN1  ON THE GROUND THAT TRANSIT'S
TRANSPORTATION, WHICH WE HAD HELD TO BE INTERSTATE, HAD NOW BECOME
"INTRASTATE."  ON THE SAME GROUND, THAT COURT ALSO HELD THAT TRANSIT
WAS EXEMPT FROM COMMISSION JURISDICTION UNDER THE PROVISO IN SEC.
216(E).  THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO CITED TO SUPPORT ITS RULING OUR RECENT
DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218. 

THE DISTRICT COURT APPARENTLY TOOK THE POSITION THAT CHANGED
CONDITIONS SINCE OUR DECISION IN THE PRIOR TRANSIT CASE HAD DEPRIVED
THE COMMISSION OF ITS JURISDICTION.  WHEN WE SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER IN THAT CASE, TRANSIT WAS ITSELF OPERATING ONE OF THE FOUR BUS
LINES CARRYING GOVERNMENT WORKERS FROM THE DISTRICT CENTRAL BUSINESS
AREA TO VIRGINIA.  IT ISSUED TRANSFERS TO PASSENGERS ON ITS BUSSES AND
STREETCARS BETWEEN THE DISTRICT BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS.  THESE
TRANSFERS WERE GOOD FOR RIDES ON TRANSIT'S OWN DISTRICT-VIRGINIA
BUSSES, BUT TRANSIT WOULD NOT GIVE TRANSFERS GOOD ON THE THREE
COMPETITIVE LINES.  WE ADVERTED TO AND RELIED ON THIS SITUATION AS ONE
OF THE REASONS SUPPORTING THE COMMISSION'S REQUIREMENT THAT TRANSIT
MAKE SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS FOR THROUGH FARES WITH THE OTHER LINES. 
APRIL 1, 1947, TRANSIT ABANDONED ITS DISTRICT-VIRGINIA BUS LINE. 
BECAUSE OF THIS THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT SINCE THAT DATE ALL OF
TRANSIT'S CARRIAGE OF VIRGINIA-BOUND PASSENGERS HAS BEEN "INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION." 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S ANNULMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE ABOVE
GROUND CANNOT STAND.  OUR PREVIOUS HOLDING WAS THAT ALL OF TRANSIT'S
INTRA-DISTRICT CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS BOUND TO AND FROM THE VIRGINIA
ESTABLISHMENTS WAS PART OF AN "INTERSTATE" MOVEMENT AND THEREFORE
SUBJECT TO COMMISSION REGULATION THROUGHOUT, UPON PROPER COMMISSION
FINDINGS.  UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., SUPRA, DOES NOT CONFLICT
WITH OUR PRIOR HOLDING THAT TRANSIT'S TRANSPORTATION WAS PART OF A
CONTINUOUS STREAM OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  WE ADHERE TO THAT
HOLDING.  TRANSIT'S INTRA-DISTRICT STREETCAR AND BUS TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS GOING TO AND FROM THE VIRGINIA ESTABLISHMENTS IS AN INTEGRAL
PART OF AN INTERSTATE MOVEMENT. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT IT IS URGED THAT THERE
WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT
ITS EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION WAS NECESSARY TO A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM "ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF  ...  THE NATIONAL DEFENSE."  THE
ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE ALTERED THIS
FINDING MADE IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THE NATION IS NO LONGER
AT WAR.  ANOTHER FACTOR POINTED OUT IS THAT THERE ARE NOW FEWER ARMY
AND NAVY WORKERS WHO WORK IN THE VIRGINIA INSTALLATIONS.  NEITHER OF
THESE ARGUMENTS IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SETTING ASIDE FINDINGS MADE BY
THE COMMISSION ON THIS POINT.  THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN
THE TWO PROCEEDINGS INDICATES THAT THE SAME REASONS EXIST FOR
COMMISSION ACTION NOW AS BEFORE.  AND DESPITE ATTEMPTED INTERFERENCE
WITH THE COMMISSION'S POWER BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
DISTRICT, IT IS STILL TRUE THAT NEITHER THE DISTRICT NOR VIRGINIA HAS
ADEQUATE POWER TO REGULATE THE THROUGH RATES FOR THIS DAILY STREAM OF
INTERSTATE TRAVEL. 

IT IS ALSO ARGUED HERE THAT THE ORDERS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE
THEY ARE CONFISCATORY.  BUT THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT THIS ISSUE
WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR ITS DETERMINATION. 
THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF CONFISCATION IS NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW. 

WE HAVE EXAMINED OTHER CONTENTIONS URGED IN SUPPORT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENTS AND FIND THAT ALL ARE WITHOUT MERIT. 

THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THESE CASES ARE REVERSED AND
THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED TO IT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THESE
ACTIONS.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT SIMULTANEOUSLY ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF TWO
SUBSEQUENT RELATED COMMISSION ORDERS.  ONE ORDER DECLINED TO PERMIT
CANCELLATION OF THE PRESCRIBED THROUGH RATES AND SCHEDULES.  47 M.C.C.
205.  THE OTHER INCREASED THE FORMER PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM RATES AND
PROVIDED FOR DIVISIONS OF THROUGH FARES AMONG THE COMPANIES CARRYING
THE DISTRICT-VIRGINIA PASSENGERS.  270 I.C.C. 651. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED, AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
DISSENTING. 

THE OPINION IN OUR VIEW BASES THE JUDGMENT ON A HOLDING "THAT ALL OF
TRANSIT'S INTRA-DISTRICT CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS BOUND TO AND FROM THE
VIRGINIA ESTABLISHMENTS WAS PART OF AN 'INTERSTATE' MOVEMENT AND
THEREFORE SUBJECT TO COMMISSION REGULATION THROUGHOUT, UPON PROPER
COMMISSION FINDINGS."  SINCE THE COURT DOES NOT REST THE APPLICABILITY
OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 49 STAT. 543, TO THE CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY
ON THE EXISTENCE OF TRANSIT'S LINES TO MARYLAND, WE, TOO, LAY THAT
PROBLEM ASIDE.  WE UNDERSTAND THE COURT TO ASSERT THAT THE STATUTE
EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO ENTER THE CONTESTED ORDER WHETHER OR NOT
TRANSIT OPERATES ADMITTED INTERSTATE ROUTES. 

THE PRESENT CASE DIFFERS FROM THE FORMER CASE INVOLVING THE
OPERATIONS OF THE TRANSIT COMPANY.  325 U.S. 357.  IN THE EARLIER CASE
TRANSIT SERVED VIRGINIA AREAS IN COMPETITION PETITION WITH OTHER
INTERSTATE OPERATORS OF BUSSES.  AS THE OPERATOR OF INTERSTATE ROUTES
SELLING THROUGH TICKETS ON ITS OWN LINES, TRANSIT WAS REQUIRED ALSO TO
SELL AND ACCEPT THROUGH TICKETS THAT WERE GOOD FOR PASSAGE ON OTHER
INTERSTATE LINES.  SUCH OBLIGATION WAS IMPOSED BY SEC. 216(E), THE
PREJUDICIAL," AND SEC. 216(C), THE SECTION REGULATING CHARGES FOR
VOLUNTARY THROUGH RATES.  325 U.S. AT 362. 

NOW TRANSIT DOES NOT OPERATE THE INTERSTATE ROUTES TO THE VIRGINIA
POINTS.  IT IS NOT AN INTERSTATE CARRIER OVER THE ROUTE FOR WHICH IT
NOW IS REQUIRED TO SELL THROUGH TICKETS.  THEREFORE, THE COURT'S
OPINION FINDS IT NECESSARY TO RELY UPON THE STREAM OF PASSENGERS
BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND VIRGINIA TO PUT TRANSIT UNDER THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT AS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO FAR AS IT TRANSPORTS,
IN THE DISTRICT, PASSENGERS WITH AN ULTIMATE OUT-OF-STATE DESTINATION. 
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE ACT PERMITS SUCH A CONSTRUCTION. 

CLEARLY THE ACT IS LIMITED TO OPERATIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN1
CONGRESS HAS NOT USED THE FULL EXTENT OF ITS COMMERCE POWER TO REACH
INCIDENTS AFFECTING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  IT HAS EMPHASIZED A
CONTRARY INTENTION BY PROVIDING FOR THE EXCLUSION FROM THE COVERAGE OF
THE ACT, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS, OF INTERSTATE PASSENGER TRAFFIC IN A
MUNICIPALITY, CONTIGUOUS MUNICIPALITIES OR ADJACENT ZONES.  SEC.
203(B)(8).  LIKEWISE THE ACT SPECIFICALLY BARS THE COMMISSION FROM
REGULATING INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT AFFECTS
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  FN2 SINCE THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT DOES NOT
REGULATE CARRIER ACTIVITIES THAT MERELY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WE
THINK THE STREAM OF COMMERCE THEORY INAPPLICABLE.  FN3  WE CANNOT AGREE
THAT INTRASTATE CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS WHO HAVE AN INTENTION TO
CONTINUE THEIR JOURNEY ACROSS STATE LINES BY WAY OF ANOTHER AND WHOLLY
UNCONNECTED COMPANY MAKES THE FIRST CARRIER A COMPANY ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT AS TO THAT
TRANSPORTATION. 

THE COURT'S DECISION MAY HAVE UNFORTUNATE RESULTS.  ITS UNLIMITED
LANGUAGE SWEEPS INTO THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION THE REGULATION OF ALL
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION THAT CARRIES A LARGE PROPORTION OF PASSENGERS
DESTINED FOR OR ARRIVING FROM OUT-OF-STATE POINTS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE
COURT'S RULING WOULD SEEM TO INCLUDE THE NEW YORK CITY COMMUTER TRAFFIC
MOVING BY LOCAL BUS, SUBWAY AND STREETCAR SERVICE ON ITS WAY TO AND
FROM INTERSTATE BUSSES. 

FN1  "SEC.  202.  (B)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART APPLY TO THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE AND TO THE PROCUREMENT OF AND THE
PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION, AND THE REGULATION OF
SUCH TRANSPORTATION, AND OF THE PROCUREMENT THEREOF, AND THE PROVISION
OF FACILITIES THEREFOR, IS HEREBY VESTED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION." 

FN2  "THAT NOTHING IN THIS PART SHALL EMPOWER THE COMMISSION TO
PRESCRIBE, OR IN ANY MANNER REGULATE, THE RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE FOR
INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION, OR FOR ANY SERVICE CONNECTED THEREWITH, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WHATEVER."  SEC. 216(E). 

FN3  SEE MCLEOD V. THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491; LABOR BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. SPELAR, 338 U.S. 217 


NO. 42.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1949.  - 171
F.2D 208, REVERSED. 


THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, WHICH IS INAPPLICABLE BY ITS TERMS TO ANY
CLAIM "ARISING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY," DOES NOT AUTHORIZE AN ACTION
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR AN ALLEGEDLY WRONGFUL DEATH OCCURRING AT
A NEWFOUNDLAND AIR BASE UNDER LONG-TERM LEASE FROM GREAT BRITAIN TO THE
UNITED STATES AND ALLEGEDLY RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF
THE AIR BASE BY THE UNITED STATES.  VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335
U.S. 377, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 218-222. 

UNITED STATES V. SPELAR, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, TO RECOVER FOR THE ALLEGEDLY
WRONGFUL DEATH OF A FLIGHT ENGINEER AT AN AIR FIELD IN NEWFOUNDLAND
LEASED BY THE UNITED STATES FROM GREAT BRITAIN.  75 F.SUPP.  967.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  171 F.2D 208.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 950.  REVERSED, P. 222. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT IS INAPPLICABLE BY ITS TERMS TO "ANY
CLAIM ARISING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY."  FN1  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT HAS HELD THAT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT BAR SUIT AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT FOR AN ALLEGEDLY WRONGFUL DEATH OCCURRING AT A
NEWFOUNDLAND AIR BASE UNDER LONG-TERM LEASE TO THE UNITED STATES.  FN2
WE ARE HERE ASKED TO REVIEW THAT DECISION. 

FLIGHT ENGINEER MARK SPELAR, AN EMPLOYEE OF AMERICAN OVERSEAS
AIRLINES, WAS KILLED ON OCTOBER 3, 1946, IN A TAKE-OFF CRASH AT HARMON
FIELD, NEWFOUNDLAND.  THIS AIR BASE IS ONE OF THE AREAS LEASED FOR
NINETY-NINE YEARS BY GREAT BRITAIN TO THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO THE
SAME EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT AND LEASES DISCUSSED AT LENGTH IN VERMILYA
BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377.  SPELAR'S ADMINISTRATRIX,
RESPONDENT HERE, INITIATED THIS ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, THE DISTRICT WHERE SHE RESIDES. 
SHE ALLEGES THAT THE FATAL ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S
NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF HARMON FIELD.  THE LOCAL LAW WHICH UNDERLIES HER
CAUSE OF ACTION IS NEWFOUNDLAND'S WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR TO BRING SUIT FOR DEATH ARISING FROM
NEGLIGENCE.  FN3  UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
THE CLAIM TO BE ONE "ARISING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY," AND DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
OUR DECISION IN VERMILYA-BROWN THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
APPLIES TO SUCH LEASED MILITARY BASES WAS DEEMED "PERSUASIVE, IF NOT
WELL-NIGH CONCLUSIVE" OF THE ISSUE HERE.  FN4  BECAUSE OF THIS BROAD
INTERPRETATION PUT UPON OUR OPINION IN VERMILYA-BROWN, AND BECAUSE THE
DECISION SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS THE AREA OF PRIVATE SUIT AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 336 U.S. 950. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COURT BELOW HAS ERRED.  SUFFICIENT
BASIS FOR OUR CONCLUSION LIES IN THE EXPRESS WORDS OF THE STATUTE.  WE
KNOW OF NO MORE ACCURATE PHRASE IN COMMON ENGLISH USAGE THAN "FOREIGN
COUNTRY" TO DENOTE TERRITORY SUBJECT TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ANOTHER
NATION.  FN5  BY THE EXCLUSION OF CLAIMS "ARISING IN A FOREIGN
COUNTRY," THE COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT WAS GEARED TO THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE REPEAT WHAT WAS SAID IN VERMILYA
BROWN AT PAGE 380:  "THE ARRANGEMENTS UNDER WHICH THE LEASED BASES WERE
ACQUIRED FROM GREAT BRITAIN DID NOT AND WERE NOT INTENDED TO TRANSFER
SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE LEASED AREAS FROM GREAT BRITAIN TO THE UNITED
STATES."  HARMON FIELD, WHERE THIS CLAIM "AROSE," REMAINED SUBJECT TO
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND LAY WITHIN A "FOREIGN COUNTRY." 
THE CLAIM MUST BE BARRED. 

IF THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE WERE NOT ENOUGH, HOWEVER, TO SUSTAIN OUR
RESULT, WE THINK THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BEHIND THIS PROVISION
CONCLUDES ALL DOUBT.  THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT OF 1946 WAS THE
PRODUCT OF SOME TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF CONGRESSIONAL DRAFTING AND
REDRAFTING, AMENDMENT AND COUNTER-AMENDMENT.  FN6  THE DRAFT BEING
CONSIDERED IN 1942 BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY EXEMPTED ALL
CLAIMS "ARISING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY IN BEHALF OF AN ALIEN."  FN7 AT
THE SUGGESTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE LAST FIVE WORDS WERE
EXCISED IN A REVISED VERSION OF THE BILL,  FN8  SO THAT THE EXEMPTION
PROVISION ASSUMED THE FORM WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY ENACTED INTO LAW.  FN9
THE SUPERSEDED DRAFT HAD MADE THE WAIVER OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
TRADITIONAL IMMUNITY TURN UPON THE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE
INJURED PARTY'S CITIZENSHIP.  THE AMENDED VERSION IDENTIFIED THE
COVERAGE OF THE ACT WITH THE SCOPE OF UNITED STATES SOVEREIGNTY.  THE
RECORD OF THE HEARINGS TELLS US WHY.  WE QUOTE THE PERTINENT COLLOQUY
BETWEEN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FRANCIS M. SHEA, WHO EXPLAINED THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REVISED VERSION OF THE BILL TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON THE JUDICIARY, AND CONGRESSMAN ROBSION OF THAT COMMITTEE. 

"MR. SHEA.  ...  CLAIMS ARISING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY HAVE BEEN
EXEMPTED FROM THIS BILL, H.R. 6463, WHETHER OR NOT THE CLAIMANT IS AN
ALIEN.  SINCE LIABILITY IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE SITUS OF
THE WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION IT IS WISE TO RESTRICT THE BILL TO CLAIMS
ARISING IN THIS COUNTRY.  THIS SEEMS DESIRABLE BECAUSE THE LAW OF THE
PARTICULAR STATE IS BEING APPLIED.  OTHERWISE, IT WILL LEAD I THINK TO
A GOOD DEAL OF DIFFICULTY. 

"MR. ROBSION.  YOU MEAN BY THAT ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED
STATES WHO COMMITTED A TORT IN ENGLAND OR SOME OTHER COUNTRY COULD NOT
BE REACHED UNDER THIS? 

"MR. SHEA.  THAT IS RIGHT.  THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THE COMMITTEE
ON CLAIMS IN THE CONGRESS."  FN10 

IN BRIEF, THOUGH CONGRESS WAS READY TO LAY ASIDE A GREAT PORTION OF
THE SOVEREIGN'S ANCIENT AND UNQUESTIONED IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, IT WAS
UNWILLING TO SUBJECT THE UNITED STATES TO LIABILITIES DEPENDING UPON
THE LAWS OF A FOREIGN POWER.  THE LEGISLATIVE WILL MUST BE RESPECTED. 
THE PRESENT SUIT, PREMISED ENTIRELY UPON NEWFOUNDLAND'S LAW, MAY NOT BE
ASSERTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN CONTRAVENTION OF THAT WILL. 

TO THE EXTENT THAT VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL HAS ANY APPLICATION
TO THE CASE AT BAR, IT STANDS AS AUTHORITY FOR OUR RESULT HERE, FOR IT
POSTULATES THAT THE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT AND LEASES EFFECTED NO TRANSFER
OF SOVEREIGNTY WITH RESPECT TO THE MILITARY BASES CONCERNED.  FN11  FOR
THE REST, WE THERE HELD NO MORE THAN THAT THE WORD "POSSESSIONS" DOES
NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY SOVEREIGNTY, AND CONCLUDED AS A MATTER OF
INTERPRETATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT THAT THE LEASED BASES, NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME THE ACT WAS
PASSED, WERE TO BE INCLUDED AS "POSSESSIONS" IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THAT
WORD WAS USED IN THAT STATUTE.  THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND THE
LEGISLATIVE RECORD RELATING TO THE AMBIT OF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT
DIFFER ENTIRELY FROM THOSE PERTINENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT;
AND SINCE THE BASES HAD BEEN LEASED TO THE UNITED STATES PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE HERE INVOLVED, THE VERMILYA-BROWN PROBLEM OF
DETERMINING WHAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE DONE WHEN FACED WITH A NEW
SITUATION DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

IN FOLEY BROS. V. FILARDO,  FN12  WE HAD OCCASION TO REFER TO THE
"CANON OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH TEACHES THAT LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS,
UNLESS A CONTRARY INTENT APPEARS, IS MEANT TO APPLY ONLY WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  THAT
PRESUMPTION, FAR FROM BEING OVERCOME HERE, IS DOUBLY FORTIFIED BY THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS STATUTE AND THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE UNDERLYING IT. 

THE DECISION MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  62 STAT. 984, 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. II) SEC. 2680(K).  THE LANGUAGE
WAS IDENTICAL AT THE TIME THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED THOUGH AT THAT TIME
CONTAINED IN 60 STAT. 846, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 943(K). 

FN2  SPELAR V. UNITED STATES, 171 F.2D 208. 

FN3  CONS.  STATS.  OF NEWFOUNDLAND (3D SERIES), C. 213.  LOCAL LAW
MUST BE PLEADED SINCE THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT PERMITS SUIT ONLY
"WHERE THE UNITED STATES, IF A PRIVATE PERSON, WOULD BE LIABLE  ...  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ACT OR OMISSION
OCCURRED."  60 STAT. 843, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 931(A).  THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS
PROVISION IS NOW EMBODIED IN 62 STAT. 933, 28 U.S.C. (SUPP. II) SEC.
1346(B). 

FN4  SPELAR V. UNITED STATES, 171 F.2D 208, 209. 

FN5  SEE MR. JUSTICE BROWN FOR THE COURT IN DE LIMA V. BIDWELL, 182
U.S. 1, 180:  "A FOREIGN COUNTRY WAS DEFINED BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL AND MR. JUSTICE STORY TO BE ONE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF A FOREIGN NATION, AND WITHOUT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE BOAT ELIZA, 2 GALL.  4; TABER V. UNITED STATES, 1
STORY, 1; THE SHIP ADVENTURE, 1 BROCK.  235, 241." 

FN6  AGITATION FOR REFORM OF THE CUMBERSOME PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
BORE ITS FIRST FRUIT IN H.R. 14737 INTRODUCED IN THE THIRD SESSION OF
THE SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS IN 1919.  THE SUBJECT WAS ALMOST CONTINUOUSLY
BEFORE ONE HOUSE OR THE OTHER UNTIL THE FINAL PASSAGE OF THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE PRESENT ACT BY THE SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS.  IN THE REVISION OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE, ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 869, MINOR
AMENDMENTS, NOT RELEVANT HERE, WERE MADE. 

FN7  H.R. 5373, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., SEC. 303(12). 

FN8  HEARINGS, H.R. 5373 AND H.R. 6463, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 29,
35, 66.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REVISED VERSION WAS H.R. 6463, SEC.
402(12). 

FN9  THE SHAPE OF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT WAS LARGELY DETERMINED
DURING ITS CONSIDERATION IN THE COURSE OF THE 77TH CONGRESS. 
SUBSEQUENTLY THE BILL WAS REINTRODUCED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION
OR FURTHER HEARINGS UNTIL ITS ENACTMENT DURING THE 79TH CONGRESS.  THE
REVISED VERSION OF THE TORT CLAIMS BILL INTRODUCED DURING THE 2D
SESSION OF THE 77TH CONGRESS, S. 2221, WAS REPORTED FAVORABLY BY THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY (S. REP. NO. 1196, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS.), AND PASSED THE SENATE.  88 CONG. REC. 3174.  THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, TO WHICH IT WAS THEN REFERRED, AND WHICH
HAD BEEN HOLDING HEARINGS ON H.R. 6463, THE COMPANION MEASURE TO S.
2221, THE BILL PASSED BY THE SENATE, REPORTED THE BILL FAVORABLY (H.R.
REP. NO. 2245, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.), BUT IT WAS NEVER CONSIDERED BY
THE HOUSE.  IT WAS REINTRODUCED IN THE 78TH CONGRESS (H.R. 1356, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. 1114, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.), BUT NO ACTION WAS
TAKEN AND AGAIN IN THE 79TH CONGRESS (H.R. 181, REPORTED IN H.R. REP.
NO. 1287, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS.).  IT WAS FINALLY PASSED BY THE 79TH
CONGRESS AS PART OF THE OMNIBUS LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT.  60
STAT. 842. 

FN10  HEARINGS, SUPRA NOTE 8, P. 35. 

FN11  VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377, 380. 

FN12  336 U.S. 281, 285.  THE CASE HOLDS THE EIGHT HOUR LAW
INAPPLICABLE TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS WORKING ON MILITARY BASES NOT
UNDER LEASE TO THE UNITED STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IN SOME ASPECTS, NO DOUBT, EVERY STATUTE PRESENTS A UNIQUE PROBLEM
FOR INTERPRETATION.  BUT THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN
CONSTRUING LEGISLATION SHOULD BE NEITHER CAPRICIOUS NOR AD HOC.  WHILE
NORMALLY, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT VERY FRUITFUL TO EXPRESS DISAGREEMENT
EITHER WITH THE RENDERING OF A PARTICULAR STATUTE OR THE MODE BY WHICH
THAT IS REACHED, WHERE THIS INVOLVES IMPLICATIONS TOUCHING THE VERY
PROCESS OF JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION SILENCE MAY CARRY SIGNIFICANCE BEYOND
THE IMMEDIATE CASE. 

I AGREE THAT THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT DOES NOT AFFORD A RIGHT OF
ACTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT, THROUGH ITS
EMPLOYEES, AT ONE OF THE BASES HELD BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE LONG
TERM ARRANGEMENTS MADE WITH GREAT BRITAIN.  BUT THE ROAD TRAVELED BY
THE COURT'S OPINION IN REACHING THIS RESULT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME THE WAY
TO GET THERE. 

THE COURT'S OPINION FINDS THE PHRASE "FOREIGN COUNTRY," IN THAT ACT'S
RESTRICTION AGAINST CLAIMS "ARISING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY," TO BE AS
COMPELLING IN EXCLUDING THE NEWFOUNDLAND AIR BASE, UNDER THE KIND OF
CONTROL THAT THE UNITED STATES EXERCISES AT THESE BASES, AS LESS THAN A
YEAR AGO IT FOUND THE TERM "POSSESSIONS" IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT TO BE COMPELLING IN INCLUDING THESE BASES.  VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V.
CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377.  TO ASSUME THAT TERMS LIKE "FOREIGN COUNTRY" AND
"POSSESSIONS" ARE SELF-DEFINING, NOT AT ALL INVOLVING A CHOICE OF
JUDICIAL JUDGMENT, IS MECHANICAL JURISPRUDENCE AT ITS BEST.  THESE
TERMS DO NOT HAVE FIXED AND INCLUSIVE MEANINGS, AS IS TRUE OF
MATHEMATICAL AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC TERMS.  BOTH "POSSESSIONS" AND
"FOREIGN COUNTRY" HAVE PENUMBRAL MEANINGS, WHICH IS NOT TRUE, FOR
INSTANCE, OF THE VERBAL DESIGNATIONS FOR WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.  IT IS
THIS PRECISION OF CONTENT WHICH DIFFERENTIATES SCIENTIFIC FROM MOST
POLITICAL, LEGISLATIVE AND LEGAL LANGUAGE. 

A "FOREIGN COUNTRY" IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS NO TERRITORIAL
CONTROL DOES NOT BEAR THE SAME RELATION TO THE UNITED STATES AS A
"FOREIGN COUNTRY" IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES DOES HAVE THE TERRITORIAL
CONTROL THAT IT HAS IN THE AIR BASE IN NEWFOUNDLAND.  IN THE ENTANGLING
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SUCH NATIONS AS GREAT BRITAIN AND THIS COUNTRY,
IT IS NOT COMPELLING THAT "FOREIGN COUNTRY" MEANS TODAY WHAT IT MAY
HAVE MEANT IN THE DAYS OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, OR EVEN IN THOSE OF
MR. JUSTICE BROWN.  THE VERY CONCEPT OF "SOVEREIGNTY" IS IN A STATE OF
MORE OR LESS SOLUTION THESE DAYS.  TO FIND A SINGLE AND UNDEVIATING
CONTENT FOR "FOREIGN COUNTRY" NECESSARILY EXCLUDING THESE BASES, WHILE
"POSSESSIONS" OF THE UNITED STATES IS TO BE DEEMED AS NECESSARILY
INCLUDING THEM, DESPITE THE MOMENTUM OF HISTORIC MEANING AND EXPERIENCE
LEADING TO A CONTRARY SIGNIFICANCE OF "POSSESSIONS," IS TO GIVE THE
APPEARANCE OF LOGICALLY COMPULSIVE FORCE TO DECISIONS.  IT FAILS TO
RECOGNIZE THE SCOPE OF SUPPLE WORDS THAT ARE THE RAW MATERIALS OF
LEGISLATION AND ADJUDICATION AND IS UNMINDFUL OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS
OF POLICY WHICH UNDERLIE, CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY, SEEMINGLY
VARIANT DECISIONS.  WHEN SO MANY ABLE JUDGES CAN SO MISCONCEIVE THE
IMPLICATIONS OF OUR DECISION IN VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, SUPRA,
AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO MISCONCEIVE THEM, THE SOURCE OF DIFFICULTY
CANNOT BE WHOLLY WITH THESE ABLE LOWER COURT JUDGES.    THE
CONSIDERATIONS THAT LED ME TO JOIN IN THE DISSENT IN VERMILYA-BROWN CO.
V. CONNELL, SUPRA, LEAD ME TO CONCUR WITH THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF
THE TORT CLAIMS ACT IN THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I REACH THE SAME RESULT; BUT I COULD HARDLY DO SO, AS DOES THE COURT,
BY REITERATION OF THE PREVAILING OPINION IN VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V.
CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377.  THAT DECISION, TAKEN WITH THE PRESENT ONE, ADDS
UP TO THIS:  IF AN EMPLOYEE SHOULD CHANCE TO WORK OVERTIME ON A LEASED
AIR BASE, HE CAN MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR EXTRA WAGES, PENALTIES AND
INTEREST, BECAUSE THE COURT FINDS THE AIR BASE TO BE A "POSSESSION" OF
THE UNITED STATES.  HOWEVER, IF HE IS INJURED AT THE SAME PLACE, HE MAY
NOT PROCEED UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT TO RECOVER, BECAUSE THE COURT
FINDS THE AIR BASE THEN TO BE A "FOREIGN COUNTRY."  TO THOSE
UNINITIATED IN MODERN METHODS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IT MAY SEEM A
SOMEWHAT ESOTERIC DOCTRINE THAT THE SAME PLACE AT THE SAME TIME MAY
LEGALLY BE BOTH A POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES AND A FOREIGN
COUNTRY.  THIS DISPARITY RESULTS FROM HOLDING THAT CONGRESS, WHEN IT
REFERS TO OUR LEASED AIR BASES, AT ONE TIME CALLS THEM "POSSESSIONS"
AND AT ANOTHER "FOREIGN COUNTRIES."  WHILE CONGRESSIONAL INCOHERENCE OF
THOUGHT OR OF SPEECH IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONGRESS CAN USE A
CONTRARIETY OF TERMS TO DESCRIBE THE SAME THING, WE SHOULD PAY CONGRESS
THE RESPECT OF NOT ASSUMING LIGHTLY THAT IT INDULGES IN INCONSISTENCIES
OF SPEECH WHICH MAKE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ALMOST MEANINGLESS.  THERE IS
SOME REASON TO THINK THE INCONSISTENCY LIES IN THE COURT'S RENDERING OF
THE STATUTES RATHER THAN IN THE WAY CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN THEM.  AT ALL
EVENTS, THE PRESENT DECISION SEEMS TO ME CORRECT, AND, SO FAR AS IT IS
CONTRADICTED BY THE EFFECT OF VERMILYA-BROWN, I THINK WE SHOULD RETREAT
FROM THE LATTER. 
..END :



ROTH V. DELANO, 338 U.S. 226 


NO. 24.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1949.  - 170
F.2D 966, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MICHIGAN BROUGHT AN ACTION IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IN MICHIGAN AGAINST THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY AND
THE RECEIVER OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK LOCATED IN MICHIGAN FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE MICHIGAN DISCOVERY AND ESCHEAT STATUTE,
AS AMENDED IN 1941, APPLIES TO UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS ON CLAIMS DULY
PROVED IN LIQUIDATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION "ON THE MERITS"; BUT IT WAS NOT CLEAR
WHETHER IT DID SO UPON THE GROUND THAT THE MICHIGAN STATUTE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR UPON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY
TO RECEIVERSHIPS BEGUN BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT.  MOREOVER, THE 1941
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN REPEALED, WITH THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE THAT NO NEW
SUIT COULD BE MAINTAINED TO ENFORCE IT.  HELD:  JUDGMENT VACATED AND
THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
OPINION.  PP. 227-231. 

(A)  SINCE AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW HOLDING THE
MICHIGAN ESCHEAT LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO NATIONAL BANKS,
THIS COURT HAS HELD, IN EFFECT, THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATE FROM ESCHEATING DEPOSITS IN A NATIONAL
BANK LOCATED AND ACTIVELY DOING BUSINESS THEREIN, ABANDONED BY THEIR
OWNERS OR BELONGING TO MISSING PERSONS.  ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK V.
LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233.  PP. 229-231. 

(B)  IF THE DECISION BELOW RESTS UPON EARLIER DECISIONAL LAW OF THE
CIRCUIT HOLDING THAT THE MICHIGAN ESCHEAT LAW WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY
TO RECEIVERSHIPS BEGUN BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT, THIS COURT WOULD HARDLY
REVIEW SUCH CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ACT.  P. 231. 

(C)  THE 1941 AMENDMENT TO THE MICHIGAN ESCHEAT ACT HAVING BEEN
REPEALED SINCE THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT, TO NOW DECIDE THIS SUIT FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BASED THEREON MIGHT BE TO RENDER AN ADVISORY
JUDGMENT ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A REPEALED STATE ACT, EVEN THOUGH
THE REPEAL PURPORTED NOT TO AFFECT ANY "PENDING SUIT OR PROCEEDING." 
P. 231. 

ROTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MICHIGAN, V. DELANO, COMPTROLLER OF THE
CURRENCY, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MICHIGAN AGAINST THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY AND THE
RECEIVER OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT
THE MICHIGAN DISCOVERY AND ESCHEAT STATUTE (MICH. COMP. LAWS, 1929,
MASON'S 1940 CUM. SUPP., C. 263, AS AMENDED BY MICH. PUBLIC ACT NO. 170
OF 1941) APPLIES TO UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS ON CLAIMS DULY PROVED IN
LIQUIDATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  170 F.2D 966.  ON APPEAL
TO THIS COURT, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED, P. 231. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK - DETROIT CLOSED ITS DOORS IN 1933 AND, IN
ITS LIQUIDATION, DIVIDENDS ON PROVED CLAIMS, SMALL IN AVERAGE BUT LARGE
IN THE AGGREGATE, HAVE REMAINED FOR SOME YEARS IN THE HANDS OF THE
FEDERAL LIQUIDATORS, UNCLAIMED BY THEIR OWNERS.  SINCE THIS NATIONAL
BANKING INSTITUTION WAS LOCATED IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, ATTORNEYS
GENERAL OF THAT STATE HAVE MADE PERSISTENT EFFORTS AT DIFFERENT STAGES
OF THE LIQUIDATION TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT IN THE STATE TO ESCHEAT THE
UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.  LATEST OF THESE WAS THIS ACTION, BROUGHT BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AGAINST THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY OF THE UNITED
STATES  FN1  AND THE RECEIVER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK - DETROIT, FOR
A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE MICHIGAN DISCOVERY AND ESCHEAT STATUTE
(MICHIGAN COMPILED LAWS, 1929, MASON'S 1940 CUM. SUPP., C. 263), AS
AMENDED BY THE STATUTE KNOWN AS ACT 170, PUBLIC ACTS OF MICHIGAN FOR
1941, APPLIES TO UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS ON CLAIMS DULY PROVED IN THE
LIQUIDATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE STATE STATUTE INEFFECTIVE
AS "AN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH THE LIQUIDATION OF A NATIONAL BANK
UPON THE SAME PRINCIPLES AND AUTHORITY FULLY DISCUSSED IN OUR PREVIOUS
OPINIONS."  IT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT IN DISMISSING THE ACTION "ON
THE MERITS," ADOPTING THE "SETTLED DOCTRINE" OF ITS OWN PRIOR
ADJUDICATIONS.  170 F.2D 966.  HOWEVER, RECOURSE TO THESE OPINIONS
CREATES SOME DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD THE
MICHIGAN STATUTE TO BE INVALID FOR CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR INAPPLICABLE BY INTENDMENT OF THE MICHIGAN
LEGISLATURE.  A REVIEW OF THESE CITED CASES WILL EXPOSE THE CAUSE OF
OUR UNCERTAINTY. 

IN STARR V. O'CONNOR, 118 F.2D 548(1941), THE THEN CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVIEWED THE STATUTES OF MICHIGAN THEN IN FORCE, WHICH DID NOT
INCLUDE ACT 170, HERE INVOLVED, AND HELD THEM APPLICABLE TO THE FIRST
NATIONAL LIQUIDATION BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER OUR DECISION IN FIRST
NATIONAL BANK OF SAN JOSE V. CALIFORNIA, 262 U.S. 366. 

IN RUSHTON V. SCHRAM, 143 F.2D 554(1944), THE COURT CONSIDERED
WHETHER THE AMENDMENT EFFECTED BY ACT 170 WAS APPLICABLE TO THE FIRST
NATIONAL RECEIVERSHIP AT THAT STAGE OF THE LIQUIDATION.  THE COURT SAID
THAT IT MUST DETERMINE AT THE THRESHOLD WHETHER THIS ACT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED AS RETROACTIVE IN EFFECT; THAT IS, WHETHER IT APPLIED TO A
LIQUIDATION COMMENCED BEFORE ITS PASSAGE.  THIS, OF COURSE, WAS A STATE
LAW QUESTION AND IT WAS DECIDED BY REFERENCE TO STATE DECISIONS.  THE
COURT CONSTRUED THE ACT, IN THE LIGHT OF MICHIGAN DECISIONAL LAW, NOT
TO APPLY RETROACTIVELY.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURT THERE REVIEWED
FEDERAL DECISIONS TO SHOW THAT IT WOULD RAISE A SERIOUS QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY IF THE ACT WERE CONSTRUED OTHERWISE.  BUT ANDERSON
NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233, HAD INTERVENED AND IN REFERENCE
TO IT THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID, "IN THE LIGHT OF THAT FRESH AUTHORITY,
WE DO NOT SAY THAT IF INVOKED FOR PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION, AND IN A
MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL STATUTES, THE MICHIGAN STATUTE WOULD
CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS AND CONSTITUTE AN UNLAWFUL
INTERFERENCE WITH THE LIQUIDATION OF A NATIONAL BANK.  DISCUSSION OF
THAT PROBLEM IS DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE IN VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE
ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION CARRIES NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT IN THE PRESENT
SITUATION."  143 F.2D AT 559. 

IN STARR V. SCHRAM, 143 F.2D 561(1944), THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED ON THE RECEIVER'S REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE
ESCHEAT LAWS WERE AT NO TIME VALIDLY APPLICABLE TO THE RECEIVERSHIP AND
THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER BACK CERTAIN DORMANT DEPOSIT BALANCES
AND THE DIVIDENDS THEREON WHICH ALREADY HAD BEEN PAID OVER TO THE STATE
PURSUANT TO THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD HELD THAT THE STATE
STATUTE WAS INVALID AS AN "UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE" WITH THE FEDERAL
LIQUIDATION.  THIS HOLDING THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BUT, ON
CONSIDERATIONS OF STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, IT REFUSED TO ALLOW
RECOVERY OF WHAT HAD BEEN PAID OVER. 

NOW COMES BLACK V. DELANO - THE PRESENT CASE, ROTH BEING SUBSTITUTED
FOR BLACK - 170 F.2D 966(1948), WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS RESTS ON THE
"SETTLED DOCTRINE" OF THESE CASES. 

ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT, SUPRA, IN SUBSTANCE, HELD THAT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATE FROM
ESCHEATING DEPOSITS IN A NATIONAL BANK LOCATED AND ACTIVELY DOING
BUSINESS THEREIN, ABANDONED BY THEIR OWNERS OR BELONGING TO MISSING
PERSONS.  THE STATE, AFTER A REASONABLE LAPSE OF TIME MAY LAWFULLY
ADMINISTER SUCH ASSETS, HOLDING THEM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DISAPPEARED
CLAIMANT OR THE MISSING OWNER FOR A PERIOD AND PROVIDING FOR EVENTUAL
ESCHEAT.  THIS IT MAY DO THROUGH APPOINTMENT OF A PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE, OR A PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR, OR BY UTILIZING ITS OWN
PUBLIC OFFICIALS.  WE HELD THAT MERE PUTTING OF THE STATE ITSELF, OR
ITS DULY NAMED OFFICER, IN THE SHOES OF THE CLAIMANT TO TAKE WHAT THE
BANK WOULD OTHERWISE BE OBLIGED TO DISBURSE TO THE CLAIMANT HIMSELF
DOES NOT BURDEN, OBSTRUCT OR FRUSTRATE A GOING BANK IN DISCHARGING ITS
FEDERAL FUNCTIONS.  WE ALSO HELD NO INTERFERENCE WITH A BANK'S FEDERAL
FUNCTION TO RESULT FROM A MERE REQUIREMENT THAT IT MAKE A REPORT TO THE
STATE OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY, ANY MORE THAN FROM A REQUIREMENT THAT IT
REPORT TO THE STATE TANGIBLE PROPERTY THEREIN FOR THE PURPOSES OF
TAXATION, AND NOTHING IN OUR DECISIONS SUGGESTS THAT SUCH A DISCLOSURE
WOULD BE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE LIQUIDATION FUNCTION.  IT WOULD NOT
SEEM TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT A FEDERAL OFFICER, POSSESSED OF PROPERTY
CLAIMED BY THE STATE TO BE SUBJECT TO ITS TAXING OR ESCHEAT POWER, MAKE
REASONABLE DISCLOSURE THEREOF TO SUCH AUTHORITY AS THE STATE
DESIGNATES.  IT IS BUT A DECENT COMITY BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS. 

OF COURSE, THESE BASIC AND GENERAL RIGHTS OF THE STATE, INCLUDING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS CLAIMS, MIGHT BE ASSERTED AT A TIME, IN A MANNER OR
THROUGH SUCH MEANS AS TO INTERFERE WITH THE FEDERAL FUNCTION OF ORDERLY
LIQUIDATION OR TO CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW; BUT ABSENT SUCH
INTERFERENCE WITH A FEDERAL STATUTE, THE BASIC ASSUMPTION OF THE STATE
HERE THAT NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS IT FROM ESCHEATING THE
SPECIFIC CLAIMS HERE INVOLVED IS MADE CLEAR IN OUR RECENT DECISIONS. 
ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO CONNECTICUT MUTUAL
LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. MOORE, 333 U.S. 541. 

REITERATION OF THESE GENERAL PRINCIPLES DOES NOT, OF COURSE,
DETERMINE WHETHER ANY PECULIARITY IN THE OPERATION OF ACT 170 WOULD GO
BEYOND THE RIGHT OF THE STATE AND CONSTITUTE AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON
FEDERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE RECEIVER.  BUT THIS QUESTION IS NOT
APPROPRIATE FOR DECISION HERE.  IF THE JUDGMENT BELOW RESTS, AS WELL IT
MAY, UPON EARLIER DECISIONAL LAW OF THE CIRCUIT WHICH HELD THAT THIS
ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO RECEIVERSHIPS BEGINNING BEFORE ITS
ENACTMENT, WE WOULD HARDLY REVIEW SUCH CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE ACT. 
AND THERE IS A FURTHER REASON WHY WE SHOULD NOT NOW DECIDE THE
PRINCIPAL QUESTION.  MICHIGAN HAS REPEALED ACT NO. 170 BY ACT 329,
PUBLIC ACTS OF MICHIGAN FOR 1947, RESERVING, HOWEVER, FROM THE EFFECT
OF THE REPEAL ANY "PENDING SUIT OR PROCEEDING."  A POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE
IS THAT NO NEW SUIT OR PROCEEDING COULD BE MAINTAINED TO ENFORCE THE
REPEALED ACT.  THUS, TO NOW DECIDE THIS SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
MIGHT BE TO RENDER AN ADVISORY OPINION ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
REPEALED STATE ACT.  AND, OF COURSE, A STATE CANNOT BY RESERVATION, ANY
MORE THAN BY AFFIRMATION, CONFER UPON US THE POWER OR IMPOSE UPON US
THE DUTY TO RENDER AN ADVISORY OPINION. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WE VACATE AND REMAND TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR SUCH ACTION AS IT MAY CONSIDER APPROPRIATE IN THE LIGHT OF
THE FOREGOING OPINION.  JUDGMENT VACATED. 

FN1  THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED AS TO THE COMPTROLLER ON THE GROUND IT
HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER HIM AND THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT PASS ON
THE CONTENTION THAT HE IS A NECESSARY PARTY.  170 F.2D 966, 967. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :

















GRAHAM V. BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN, 338 U.S. 232 


NO. 16.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1949.  - 84
U.S. APP. D.C. 67, 175 F.2D 802, REVERSED. 


PETITIONERS, NEGRO LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR
ORGANIZATION WHICH, UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, WAS THE EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES TO
WHICH THEY BELONGED.  THEY SOUGHT INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF AGAINST
THE ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE LABOR ORGANIZATION AND
VARIOUS RAILROADS WHICH, IN MATTERS OF JOB ASSIGNMENTS AND PROMOTIONS,
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DENIED A MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 
HOLDING THAT VENUE WAS IMPROPERLY LAID IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND ORDERED THE CASE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER
DISTRICT.  HELD: 

1.  THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON
THE LABOR ORGANIZATION WAS VALID, WHICH RULING WAS UNDISTURBED AND
IMPLIEDLY APPROVED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, IS ACCEPTED HERE.  P. 235. 

2.  THE VENUE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, D.C. CODE SEC. 11-308, WHICH PERMITS AN ACTION TO BE
MAINTAINED IF THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE "FOUND" WITHIN THE DISTRICT, WAS
AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE AND THE GENERAL VENUE STATUTE
WAS NOT EXCLUSIVE.  PP. 235-237. 

(A)  A PARTY ASSERTING A RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL LAWS
MAY INVOKE EITHER THE GENERAL VENUE STATUTES OR THE SPECIAL DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA STATUTES AND THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT MAY EXERCISE THEIR
AUTHORITY IN CASES COMMITTED TO THEM BY EITHER.  P. 237. 

3.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE BY INJUNCTION
PETITIONERS' RIGHTS TO NONDISCRIMINATORY REPRESENTATION BY THEIR
STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE.  PP. 237-240. 

(A)  THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT RELIEF BY
INJUNCTION IN THIS CASE IS NOT IMPAIRED BY THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT. 
VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515.  PP. 237-238,
240. 

(B)  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IMPOSES UPON AN EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE THE DUTY TO REPRESENT ALL MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT WITHOUT
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND FEDERAL COURTS AT THE SUIT OF A RACIAL
MINORITY OF THE CRAFT WILL ENFORCE THAT DUTY.  STEELE V. L. & N.R. CO.,
323 U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210.  PP.
238-240. 

GRAHAM ET AL. V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS SUED FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF AGAINST A LABOR
ORGANIZATION AND OTHERS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED A MOTION TO DISMISS
AND GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.  THE LABOR ORGANIZATION ALONE
APPEALED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING VENUE IMPROPERLY LAID
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 67, 175 F.2D 802.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 954.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P.
240. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TWENTY-ONE NEGRO FIREMEN, SOMETIME EMPLOYED BY SOUTHERN RAILROADS,
BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL DEFENDANT, THE BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, THREE RAILROADS, TWO LOCAL LODGES OF
THE BROTHERHOOD, AND CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THOSE LODGES.  THE COMPLAINT
ALLEGES IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE BROTHERHOOD IS AN EXCLUSIVELY WHITE MAN'S
UNION AND, AS IT INCLUDES A MAJORITY OF THE CRAFT, IT IS POSSESSED OF
SOLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING POWER IN BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE CRAFT
INCLUDING THE NEGRO FIREMEN IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 
IT HAS NEGOTIATED AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE SOUTHERN
RAILROADS WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST COLORED FIREMEN, WHO ARE
DENOMINATED "NOT-PROMOTABLE" WHILE WHITE ONES ARE "PROMOTABLE."  THE
EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENTS IS TO DEPRIVE THEM, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR
RACE, OF RIGHTS AND JOB ASSIGNMENTS TO WHICH THEIR SENIORITY WOULD
ENTITLE THEM.  MANY NEGRO FIREMEN HAVE BEEN THUS DISPLACED OR DEMOTED
AND REPLACED BY WHITE FIREMEN HAVING LESS SENIORITY.  THE COMPLAINT
ASKED FOR A DECLARATION OF PETITIONERS' RIGHTS, FOR AN INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE AGREEMENTS, AND FOR DAMAGES.  IN
SHORT, THE CAUSE OF ACTION PLEADED IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT
WHICH THIS COURT SUSTAINED IN STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO.,
323 U.S. 192, AND TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND
ENGINEMEN, 323 U.S. 210. 

IT IS NEEDLESS TO RECITE ADDITIONAL DETAILS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 
WHAT IT ADDS TO THE GOVERNING FACTS OF THE EARLIER CASES IS A
CONTINUING AND WILLFUL DISREGARD OF RIGHTS WHICH THIS COURT IN
UNMISTAKABLE TERMS HAS SAID MUST BE ACCORDED TO NEGRO FIREMEN. 

UPON THE COMPLAINT, SUPPLEMENTED BY EVIDENCE THAT THE DELIBERATE
ELIMINATION OF NEGRO FIREMEN WAS PROCEEDING AT A RAPID PACE AND THAT
THEY WOULD SOON BE ENTIRELY DISPLACED, MOTION WAS MADE FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO PREVENT FURTHER DISCRIMINATION AND LOSS OF
JOB ASSIGNMENTS PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION. 

THE BROTHERHOOD DID NOT MEET THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
OR THE AFFIDAVITS.  IT RESTED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, ASSIGNING AS
GROUNDS THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY SERVED WITH PROCESS AND THAT
VENUE WAS UNLAWFULLY LAID IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE TRIAL
COURT, AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES ON THESE MATTERS, DENIED
THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 

THE BROTHERHOOD ALONE PETITIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS UNDER DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CODE, SEC. 17-101, FOR A SPECIAL APPEAL AND STAY OF THE
INJUNCTION.  THESE WERE GRANTED AND THAT COURT REVERSED.  HOLDING THAT
VENUE WAS IMPROPERLY LAID IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IT ORDERED THE
CASE TRANSFERRED TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.  84 U.S. APP. D.C.
67, 175 F.2D 802.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 954. 

AT THE OUTSET WE ARE MET BY THE CONTENTION IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT
BELOW THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON THE BROTHERHOOD WAS NOT LEGALLY
PERFECTED, IN WHICH CASE, OF COURSE, IT WOULD NOT PROPERLY BE BEFORE
THE COURT AT ALL.  THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE UPON THE
SUBJECT, HELD THAT SERVICE UPON THE BROTHERHOOD WAS SUFFICIENT.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS NOTED THAT THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED BUT DID NOT
REVERSE UPON THIS GROUND.  INSTEAD, IT CONSIDERED AT LENGTH WHETHER THE
ACTION CONSTITUTIONALLY COULD BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A SUBJECT WHICH WOULD HARDLY BE RIPE FOR DECISION
IF THE ACTION HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY COMMENCED ANYWHERE.  MOREOVER, ITS
DECISION TRANSFERRED THE CAUSE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, A
POWER WHICH IT COULD EXERT ONLY IF IT CONSIDERED THE SERVICE ADEQUATE
TO CONFER JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES.  WE ACCEPT THE RULING OF THE
DISTRICT COURT ON THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE, BASED AS IT IS ESSENTIALLY
ON MATTERS OF FACT, AND UNDISTURBED AND IMPLIEDLY APPROVED BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS.  WE HOLD THAT PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THE RESPONDENT IS
ESTABLISHED. 

THIS CAUSE OF ACTION IS FOUNDED ON FEDERAL LAW, AND THE VENUE
PROVISION GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL COURTS AT THE TIME THIS
ACTION WAS COMMENCED REQUIRED SUCH ACTIONS TO BE BROUGHT IN THE
DISTRICT WHEREOF DEFENDANT "IS AN INHABITANT."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 112. 
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THIS PROVISION WAS MODIFIED TO REQUIRE
THAT SUCH ACTIONS BE BROUGHT "ONLY IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHERE ALL
DEFENDANTS RESIDE, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW."  28 U.S.C.
(SUPP. II) SEC. 1391(B).  IT WAS ASSUMED IN THE COURTS BELOW, AND SINCE
IT INVOLVES A QUESTION OF FACT WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER
THEY WERE CORRECT IN SO DOING, THAT IF THIS GENERAL FEDERAL VENUE
STATUTE IS THE SOLE AUTHORITY FOR BRINGING THIS CASE IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, THE VENUE COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED, AS THIS DEFENDANT CLAIMS
NEITHER TO RESIDE IN NOR TO INHABIT THE DISTRICT. 

BUT THERE IS, ADDITIONALLY, A VENUE STATUTE ENACTED BY CONGRESS,
APPLICABLE TO THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHICH PERMITS AN
ACTION TO BE MAINTAINED IF THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE "AN INHABITANT OF, OR
FOUND WITHIN, THE DISTRICT."  D.C. CODE SEC. 11-308.  SEE ALSO SEC. 11
306.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED UPON ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT THE
BROTHERHOOD WAS FOUND WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND IT BASED VENUE UPON THAT
FINDING.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT DENY THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS SO
"FOUND" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS ACT, BUT HELD THE ACT ITSELF
UNAVAILING TO THIS PLAINTIFF BECAUSE IT BELIEVED THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17, TO
PROVIDE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DOES NOT ENABLE
CONGRESS TO VEST JURISDICTION OF SUCH CASES AS THIS IN DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA COURTS.  IT BASED THIS REASONING ON O'DONOGHUE V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 516. 

LITTLE WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY REVIEWING THE CONFLICTING THEORIES AS
TO THE ORIGIN AND EXTENT OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA COURTS.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT READ ANY PRIOR
DECISION OF THIS COURT TO DENY CONGRESS POWER TO INVEST THESE COURTS
WITH JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DECIDE SUCH A CAUSE AS WE HAVE HERE.  WE
HOLD THAT A PARTY ASSERTING A RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL
LAWS MAY INVOKE EITHER THE GENERAL VENUE STATUTES OR THE SPECIAL
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATUTES AND THAT THE COURTS OF THIS DISTRICT MAY
EXERCISE THEIR AUTHORITY IN CASES COMMITTED TO THEM BY EITHER. 

THE RESPONDENT HAS STRENUOUSLY URGED THROUGHOUT THAT IN VIEW OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 101 ET SEQ.,
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GRANT RELIEF BY
INJUNCTION. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT PASS UPON THIS CONTENTION, AND WERE IT A
QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION WE SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSED TO CONSIDER IT
HERE AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  BUT THIS IS NOT A
QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION.  IN VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, WE HELD THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT DID NOT
DEPRIVE FEDERAL COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH
POSITIVE MANDATES OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 151 ET
SEQ., ENACTED FOR THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION, WITHIN A PARTICULAR
FIELD, OF THE SAME GROUPS WHOSE RIGHTS ARE PRESERVED BY THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT.  TO DEPART FROM THOSE VIEWS WOULD BE TO STRIKE FROM
LABOR'S HANDS THE SOLE JUDICIAL WEAPON IT MAY EMPLOY TO ENFORCE SUCH
MINORITY RIGHTS AS THESE PETITIONERS ASSERT AND WHICH WE HAVE HELD ARE
NOW SECURED TO THEM BY FEDERAL STATUTE.  TO HOLD THAT THIS ACT DEPRIVES
LABOR OF MEANS OF ENFORCING BARGAINING RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY ACCORDED BY
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WOULD INDEED BE TO "TURN THE BLADE INWARD."  WE
ADHERE TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE VIRGINIAN CASE. 

BUT THE BROTHERHOOD URGES THAT THE CONTROVERSY IN THE VIRGINIAN CASE
DID NOT INVOLVE A LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT AND THAT ACCORDINGLY THAT CASE MUST BE DISTINGUISHED ON
ITS FACTS.  THE ACT DEFINES A "LABOR DISPUTE" TO INCLUDE "ANY
CONTROVERSY CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING
THE ASSOCIATION OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING,
MAINTAINING, CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT  ...  "  29 U.S.C. SEC. 113(C).  WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE
BROTHERHOOD'S INVITATION TO NARROW THE MEANING OF THAT TERM.  THE
PURPOSE OF THE ACT WOULD BE VITIATED AND THE SCOPE OF ITS PROTECTION
LIMITED WERE IT TO BE CONSTRUED AS NOT EXTENDING TO EFFORTS OF A DULY
CERTIFIED BARGAINING AGENT TO OBTAIN RECOGNITION BY AN EMPLOYER. 
MOREOVER, IF THIS COURT HAD CONSIDERED THAT A LABOR DISPUTE WAS NOT
INVOLVED, IT WOULD HARDLY HAVE TAKEN THE TROUBLE, IN THE VIRGINIAN
CASE, TO REFUTE CONTENTIONS BASED UPON PARTS OF THE ACT, WHICH AS A
WHOLE EXTENDS ITS PROTECTION SOLELY TO SUCH DISPUTES. 

THE STEELE AND TUNSTALL CASES, SUPRA, AROSE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
ALMOST INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE OF THE INSTANT CASE, AND THE
COMPLAINTS ASKED THE SAME KIND OF RELIEF.  WE HELD THERE THAT, AS THE
EXCLUSIVE STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE CRAFT UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, THE BROTHERHOOD COULD NOT BARGAIN FOR THE DENIAL OF
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND PROMOTION OPPORTUNITIES TO A PART OF THE CRAFT
UPON GROUNDS OF RACE.  WE POINTED OUT THAT THE STATUTE WHICH GRANTS THE
MAJORITY EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURPOSES
STRIPS MINORITIES WITHIN THE CRAFT OF ALL POWER OF SELF-PROTECTION, FOR
NEITHER AS GROUPS NOR AS INDIVIDUALS CAN THEY ENTER INTO BARGAINING
WITH THE EMPLOYERS ON THEIR OWN BEHALF.  ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342; J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
321 U.S. 332; MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 678. 
AND WE HELD THAT ABUSE OF ITS POWERS BY PERPETRATING DISCRIMINATORY
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES BASED ON RACIAL CONSIDERATIONS GIVES RISE TO A
CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER FEDERAL LAW WHICH FEDERAL COURTS WILL ENTERTAIN
AND WILL REMEDY BY INJUNCTION.  BUT ALTHOUGH THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT
RELATES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS
IN LABOR DISPUTES, THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESSED, AND WE DID NOT DISCUSS IT
AT LENGTH. 

HOWEVER, THE OPINION LEFT NO DOUBT AS TO THE COURT'S POSITION:  "IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY, THE RIGHT HERE
ASSERTED, TO A REMEDY FOR BREACH OF THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO REPRESENT AND ACT FOR THE MEMBERS OF A
CRAFT, IS OF JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE.  THAT RIGHT WOULD BE SACRIFICED OR
OBLITERATED IF IT WERE WITHOUT THE REMEDY WHICH COURTS CAN GIVE FOR
BREACH OF SUCH A DUTY OR OBLIGATION AND WHICH IT IS THEIR DUTY TO GIVE
IN CASES IN WHICH THEY HAVE JURISDICTION.   ...  FOR THE PRESENT
COMMAND THERE IS NO MODE OF ENFORCEMENT OTHER THAN RESORT TO THE
COURTS, WHOSE JURISDICTION AND DUTY TO AFFORD A REMEDY FOR A BREACH OF
STATUTORY DUTY ARE LEFT UNAFFECTED.  THE RIGHT IS ANALOGOUS TO THE
STATUTORY RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH
THE STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT, A RIGHT WHICH THIS COURT HAS
ENFORCED AND PROTECTED BY ITS INJUNCTION IN TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO.
V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS (281 U.S. 548), 556-557, 560, AND IN VIRGINIAN
R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, SUPRA, 548, AND LIKE IT IS ONE FOR WHICH
THERE IS NO AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY."  STEELE V. LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE R. CO., SUPRA, 207.  AND SEE TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, SUPRA, 213. 

IT WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE TO REVIEW AT LENGTH THE REASONS WHICH, IN
THE STEELE AND TUNSTALL CASES, SUPRA, IMPELLED US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT IMPOSES UPON THE BROTHERHOOD THE DUTY TO REPRESENT
ALL MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AND INVESTS A RACIAL
MINORITY OF THE CRAFT WITH THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THAT DUTY.  IT SUFFICES
TO SAY THAT WE REITERATE THAT SUCH IS THE LAW. 

NOR DOES THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT CONTAIN ANYTHING TO SUGGEST THAT IT
WOULD DEPRIVE THESE NEGRO FIREMEN OF RECOURSE TO EQUITABLE RELIEF FROM
ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATORY REPRESENTATION BY WHICH THERE WOULD BE TAKEN
FROM THEM THEIR SENIORITY AND ULTIMATELY THEIR JOBS.  CONVERSELY THERE
IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT, IN ENACTING THE SUBSEQUENT RAILWAY LABOR
ACT PROVISIONS INSURING PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO NONDISCRIMINATORY
REPRESENTATION BY THEIR BARGAINING AGENT, CONGRESS INTENDED TO HOLD OUT
TO THEM AN ILLUSORY RIGHT FOR WHICH IT WAS DENYING THEM A REMEDY.  IF,
IN SPITE OF THE VIRGINIAN, STEELE, AND TUNSTALL CASES, SUPRA, THERE
REMAINS ANY ILLUSION THAT UNDER THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT THE FEDERAL
COURTS ARE POWERLESS TO ENFORCE THESE RIGHTS, WE DISPEL IT NOW.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE BY INJUNCTION PETITIONERS'
RIGHTS TO NONDISCRIMINATORY REPRESENTATION BY THEIR STATUTORY
REPRESENTATIVE.    ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
REVERSED, THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REINSTATED, AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  LET THE MANDATE GO DOWN FORTHWITH. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :

















MCGRATH V. MANUFACTURERS TR. CO., 338 U.S. 241 


ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1949.  - 169 F.2D 932,
AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  IN A SUMMARY PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 17 OF THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT TO ENFORCE AN ORDER OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN TO TURN
OVER TO HIM A FUND BELONGING TO AN ENEMY ALIEN, THE CUSTODIAN IS NOT
ENTITLED TO RECOVER INTEREST (AT 6% OR ANY OTHER RATE) FROM THE DATE OF
THE TURNOVER ORDER, WHERE SUCH INTEREST IS NOT A PART OF, OR AN
INCREMENT ON, THE FUND OWING TO THE ENEMY ALIEN.  PP. 246-249. 

(A)  SECTION 16 OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES FINES, SENTENCES AND
FORFEITURES AS SANCTIONS FOR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF VESTING ORDERS AND
TURNOVER DIRECTIVES; AND NOWHERE IN THE ACT IS THERE PROVISION FOR THE
ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH THESE SUMMARY
PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 247-248. 

(B)  IN SUCH A PROCEEDING, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT IN THE POSITION OF A
CREDITOR COLLECTING A DEBT OWING TO ITSELF, AND IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO
INTEREST AS UPON A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OR ONE ARISING OUT OF CUSTOMS
DUTIES OR TAXES.  P. 248. 

(C)  THERE IS NOT INVOLVED HERE ANY ISSUE REGARDING A CLAIM FOR
INTEREST CONSTITUTING A PART OF, OR AN INCREMENT ON, THE FUND OWING TO
THE ENEMY ALIEN.  PP. 248-249. 

2.  QUESTIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IF THE ANSWER IN THE
SUMMARY PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 17 HAD CONTAINED A DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED
DEBT, AN UNEQUIVOCAL PLEA OF SETOFF, OR A CLAIM OF A LIEN UPON THE
ENEMY CREDITOR'S INTEREST IN THE DEBT OR IN ITS PROCEEDS, NEED NOT HERE
BE CONSIDERED, SINCE THE ANSWER DID NOT PRESENT THOSE ISSUES.  PP. 249
250. 

MCGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN, V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO. 

NO. 11.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 15, MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO. V. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUMMARY PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 17 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT, FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A TURNOVER DIRECTIVE OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN, THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTED THE BANK TO PAY TO THE CUSTODIAN
THE SUM OF $25,581.49, PLUS INTEREST AT 6% FROM THE DATE OF THE
TURNOVER DIRECTIVE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DISALLOWED THE INTEREST BUT
OTHERWISE AFFIRMED.  169 F.2D 932.  PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI BY BOTH
PARTIES WERE AT FIRST DENIED BY THIS COURT, 335 U.S. 910, BUT
SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED, 337 U.S. 953.  NO. 11 AFFIRMED; NO. 15 VACATED,
P. 251. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NUMBERS 11 AND 15 ARE CROSS APPEALS FROM CLARK V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST
CO., 169 F.2D 932(C.A.2D CIR.).  FN1  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN NO. 11,
ON PETITION OF THE CUSTODIAN N2, TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
JUDGMENT BELOW AND THAT IN CLARK V. LAVINO & CO., 175 F.2D 897(C.A. 3D
CIR.).  THE CONFLICT IS CONFINED TO THE CUSTODIAN'S CLAIM TO THE
ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, IN HIS FAVOR, IN A SUMMARY PROCEEDING UNDER SEC.
17 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  FN3  HE CLAIMS INTEREST FROM THE
DATE THAT HIS TURNOVER DIRECTIVE N4 WAS SERVED UPON THE MANUFACTURERS
TRUST COMPANY, HERE REFERRED TO AS THE BANK, AND COMPUTES SUCH INTEREST
UPON THE SUM WHICH HE ORDERED TURNED OVER.  FOR THE REASONS HEREINAFTER
STATED, WE AGREE WITH THE JUDGMENT BELOW IN ITS DENIAL OF INTEREST.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI ALSO ON THE CROSS APPEAL OF THE BANK IN NO. 15. 
THIS WAS TO ENABLE US TO REEXAMINE THE PLEADINGS AND, IF THEY WERE
FOUND TO PERMIT IT, TO CONSIDER THE BANK'S CLAIM THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO ORDER IT TO TURN OVER TO THE CUSTODIAN THE
PRINCIPAL SUM IN QUESTION, IN THE FACE OF THE BANK'S DENIAL OF ITS
INDEBTEDNESS TO THE ENEMY CREDITOR FOR THAT SUM, ITS CLAIM OF A SETOFF
IN EXCESS OF THE ALLEGED DEBT, AND ITS CLAIM TO A LIEN UPON THE
PROCEEDS OF THE DEBT.  WE FIND THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT PERMIT US TO
REACH THAT ISSUE. 

FEBRUARY 1, 1946, THE CUSTODIAN ISSUED HIS VESTING ORDER NO. 5791, 11
FED. REG. 3005, UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT,  FN5  VESTING HIMSELF WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED
"PROPERTY": 

"THAT CERTAIN DEBT OR OTHER OBLIGATION OWING TO DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK,
BY MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY, 55 BROAD STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK,
ARISING OUT OF A DOLLAR ACCOUNT, ENTITLED REICHSBANK DIREKTORIUM
DIVISEN ABTEILUNG, AND ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO DEMAND, ENFORCE AND
COLLECT THE SAME, ...  " 

JANUARY 30, 1947, THE CUSTODIAN SERVED ON THE BANK HIS TURNOVER
DIRECTIVE BASED UPON HIS VESTING ORDER AND THEREBY DIRECTED THAT THE
SUM OF $25,581.49, "TOGETHER WITH ALL ACCUMULATIONS TO AND INCREMENTS
THEREON, SHALL FORTHWITH BE TURNED OVER TO THE UNDERSIGNED (THE
CUSTODIAN) TO BE HELD, USED, ADMINISTERED, LIQUIDATED, SOLD OR
OTHERWISE DEALT WITH IN THE INTEREST OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
UNITED STATES." 

OCTOBER 29, 1947, THE CUSTODIAN FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HIS PETITION AGAINST THE
BANK SEEKING SUMMARY ENFORCEMENT OF HIS ORDER UNDER SEC. 17 OF THE ACT,
SUPRA.  NOVEMBER 13, 1947, THE BANK ANSWERED.  FN6 

DECEMBER 12, 1947, THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHOUT OPINION, DIRECTED THE
BANK TO PAY TO THE CUSTODIAN $25,581.49, PLUS INTEREST AT 6% PER ANNUM
FROM JANUARY 30, 1947.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
STRUCK OUT THE INTEREST BUT OTHERWISE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  ONE JUDGE
SAID HE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO LIMIT THAT COURT'S HOLDING TO THE POINT
THAT THE ANSWER DID NOT ALLEGE A SUFFICIENTLY UNEQUIVOCAL CLAIM TO A
SETOFF TO RAISE THAT DEFENSE.  ANOTHER DISSENTED FROM THE DENIAL OF
INTEREST.  PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI WERE DENIED TO BOTH PARTIES,
JANUARY 17, 1949.  335 U.S. 910. 

JUNE 16, 1949, THE CUSTODIAN ASKED LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR
REHEARING AND FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON THE GROUND THAT, ON JUNE 1,
1949, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT HAD DECIDED CLARK V.
LAVINO & CO., SUPRA, IN WHICH IT HAD EXPRESSLY ALLOWED INTEREST TO THE
CUSTODIAN UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES LARGELY COMPARABLE TO THOSE IN THE CASE
BELOW.  THE BANK ASKED LEAVE TO PRESENT ITS CONTENTIONS SHOULD THE
CUSTODIAN'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BE GRANTED.  ALL APPLICATIONS WERE
GRANTED.  337 U.S. 953. 

                      I. 

THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT IS A WAR MEASURE.  FN7  IT CREATES
POWERFUL AND SWIFT EXECUTIVE AND SUMMARY PROCEDURES PARTICULARLY FOR
THE SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY OF ENEMIES BY LEGAL PROCESS AS AN EFFECTIVE
ALTERNATIVE TO SEIZURE BY MILITARY FORCE.  THE ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES
FOR THE SEIZURE OF ENEMY-HELD CLAIMS TO MONEY OWED ON DEBTS.  KOHN V.
JACOB & JOSEF KOHN, INC., 264 F. 253(S.D.N.Y.).   SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
ARE PROVIDED TO TRY THE MERITS OF CLAIMS TO PROPERTY SEIZED IN SUCH
SUMMARY POSSESSORY PROCEDURES.  FN8  THE PRESENT ACTION IS A SUMMARY
POSSESSORY PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 17.  FN9  SECTION 16, WHICH HAS
ACCOMPANIED SEC. 17 IN THE ACT SINCE 1917, PRESCRIBES FINES, SENTENCES
AND FORFEITURES AS SPECIAL SANCTIONS TO PUNISH WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF
VESTING ORDERS OR TURNOVER DIRECTIVES AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT WHOEVER SHALL WILLFULLY VIOLATE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT OR OF ANY LICENSE, RULE, OR REGULATION ISSUED THEREUNDER, AND
WHOEVER SHALL WILLFULLY VIOLATE, NEGLECT, OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH ANY
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT SHALL, UPON CONVICTION, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR, IF A
NATURAL PERSON, IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS, OR BOTH; AND
THE OFFICER, DIRECTOR, OR AGENT OF ANY CORPORATION WHO KNOWINGLY
PARTICIPATES IN SUCH VIOLATION SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A LIKE FINE,
IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH, AND ANY PROPERTY, FUNDS, SECURITIES, PAPERS, OR
OTHER ARTICLES OR DOCUMENTS,  ...  CONCERNED IN SUCH VIOLATION SHALL BE
FORFEITED TO THE UNITED STATES."  40 STAT. 425, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
16.  FN10 

THE ACT MAKES NO MENTION OF INTEREST CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THESE SUMMARY PROCEDURES.  WE RECOGNIZE THAT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF EXPRESS STATUTORY PROVISION FOR IT, INTEREST SOMETIMES HAS
BEEN ALLOWED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT UNDER OTHER STATUTES WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT'S POSITION HAS BEEN PRIMARILY THAT OF A CREDITOR COLLECTING
FROM A DEBTOR.  FN11  SEE RODGERS V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 371, 373,
IN WHICH THE RULE WAS STATED AND INTEREST DISALLOWED.  IN THE PRESENT
CASE, HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH INTEREST ACCRUING TO THE
GOVERNMENT UPON CONTRACTUAL INDEBTEDNESS OR UPON INDEBTEDNESS SUCH AS
THAT ARISING OUT OF CUSTOMS DUTIES OR TAXES.  WE HAVE HERE QUITE A
DIFFERENT MATTER, THE VIOLATION OF A SUMMARY ORDER OF THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN TO TURN OVER TO HIM THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF
CERTAIN FUNDS AS A PROTECTIVE WAR MEASURE.  THE TURNOVER DIRECTIVE IN
THE INSTANT CASE IS, IN ITS ESSENCE, THE SAME KIND OF AN ORDER AS WOULD
HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO COMPEL THE DELIVERY TO THE CUSTODIAN OF THE
PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF A $25,000 BOND OWNED BY THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK
BUT HELD BY THE MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY IN THE LATTER'S SAFE
DEPOSIT VAULTS.  STATUTORY FINES, SENTENCES AND FORFEITURES ARE
PRESCRIBED FOR WILLFUL VIOLATION OF SUCH AN ORDER AND, IN THE CASE OF
THE BOND, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE WOULD BE NO BASIS FOR THE ADDITION
OF AN INTEREST CHARGE, COMPUTED AT A STATUTORY OR JUDICIALLY DETERMINED
RATE ON THE FACE OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE BOND AND RUNNING MERELY FROM
THE DATE OF THE TURNOVER DIRECTIVE.  SIMILARLY, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR
ADDING SUCH AN INTEREST CHARGE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

NO CLAIM OF THE CUSTODIAN FOR ANY INTEREST ACCRUING UNDER THE TERMS
OF THE AGREEMENT OF DEPOSIT IS BEFORE US.  THE CUSTODIAN, IN HIS
TURNOVER DIRECTIVE AND IN HIS PETITION, CALLED FOR THE DELIVERY TO HIM
OF THE $25,581.49 OWING TO DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK ON THE DATE OF THE
VESTING ORDER, FEBRUARY 1, 1946, TOGETHER WITH ALL ACCUMULATIONS AND
INCREMENTS THEREON SINCE THAT DATE.  HE MADE NO SHOWING OF A
CONTRACTUAL BASIS FOR ANY ADDITIONS TO SUCH PRINCIPAL SUM AND,
ACCORDINGLY, JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED FOR THE DELIVERY TO HIM OF PRECISELY
$25,581.49, AND NO CLAIM IS MADE HERE THAT SUCH SUM IS NOT THE CORRECT
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, ALSO
ORDERED THE BANK TO TURN OVER TO THE CUSTODIAN 6% INTEREST ON
$25,581.49 FROM JANUARY 30, 1947.  THIS ADDITIONAL ITEM REFLECTED NO
TERMS OF THE DEPOSIT AGREEMENT.  WHATEVER THOSE TERMS MAY HAVE BEEN,
THEY HAD NOT CHANGED SINCE FEBRUARY 1, 1946, SO THAT ANY POSSIBLE BASIS
FOR THE 6% INTEREST FROM JANUARY 30, 1947, MUST BE SOUGHT IN THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  WE FIND NO AUTHORITY IN THAT ACT FOR A 6%
RATE OR FOR ANY OTHER RATE OF COERCIVE INTEREST TO BE ADDED AS AN
INCIDENT TO A SUMMARY ORDER FOR THE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF FUNDS. 
ACCORDINGLY, IN NO. 11, WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
WHICH OMITTED THE INTEREST. 

     II. 

IN NO. 15, THE PARTIES HAVE DISCUSSED SEVERAL QUESTIONS WHICH WOULD
HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IF THE ANSWER HAD CONTAINED A DENIAL OF THE ALLEGED
DEBT, AN UNEQUIVOCAL PLEA OF SETOFF, OR A CLAIM OF A LIEN UPON THE
DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK'S INTEREST IN THE DEBT OR IN ITS PROCEEDS.  THE
ANSWER, HOWEVER, DID NOT PRESENT THOSE ISSUES AND WE DO NOT CONSIDER
THEM.  WHEN READ AS A WHOLE, THE ANSWER DID NOT DENY THE EXISTENCE OF
THE CREDIT BALANCE OF $25,581.49 WHICH THE CUSTODIAN CLAIMED WAS ON
DEPOSIT AND WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE CUSTODIAN'S VESTING ORDER. 
NOR DID IT UNEQUIVOCALLY ASSERT A SETOFF.  INSTEAD, THE ANSWERING BANK
ALLEGED, ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THAT AN OFFSETTING INDEBTEDNESS OF
THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK TO IT AROSE FROM THE FACT THAT THE DEUTSCHE
REICHSBANK WAS AN INSTRUMENTALITY AND PART OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT,
THAT THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT HAD GUARANTEED TO THE ANSWERING BANK THE
PAYMENT TO IT OF THE DEBTS OF VARIOUS GERMAN BANKS, AND THAT, ON THE
DATE OF THE VESTING ORDER, THE INDEBTEDNESS OF SAID GERMAN BANKS TO THE
ANSWERING BANK WAS IN EXCESS OF $25,581.49.  THOSE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT
STATE THAT THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK WAS SUCH AN INSTRUMENTALITY AND SUCH
A PART OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT AS WOULD MAKE THE REICHSBANK
AUTOMATICALLY THE GUARANTOR OF THE DEBTS OF OTHER GERMAN BANKS TO THE
ANSWERING BANK.  FN12  THE ANSWER DID NOT EVEN ALLEGE THE STATUS OF THE
GUARANTEED DEBTS TO BE SUCH AS TO ENTITLE THE ANSWERING BANK TO RESORT
TO THE ALLEGED GUARANTY OF THEIR PAYMENT BY THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK. 
FN13  THE BANK'S CLAIM TO A LIEN UPON THE DEPOSIT DEPENDED, LIKEWISE,
UPON THE INADEQUATELY ALLEGED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK
TO IT. 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 11 IS AFFIRMED, AND THE
JUDGMENT IN NO. 15 IS VACATED SO AS TO PERMIT SUCH AMENDMENTS OF THE
PLEADINGS OR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  J. HOWARD MCGRATH WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR TOM C. CLARK, AS ATTORNEY
GENERAL, 338 U.S. 807. 

FN2  THE TERM "CUSTODIAN" IS USED TO REFER EITHER TO THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO SUCCEEDED TO THE
POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER
NO. 9788, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 15, 1946, 1 C.F.R. 1946 SUPP. 169. 

FN3  "SEC.  17.  THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
HEREBY GIVEN JURISDICTION TO MAKE AND ENTER ALL SUCH RULES AS TO NOTICE
AND OTHERWISE, AND ALL SUCH ORDERS AND DECREES, AND TO ISSUE SUCH
PROCESS AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROPER IN THE PREMISES TO ENFORCE THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, WITH A RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM THE FINAL ORDER OR
DECREE OF SUCH COURT AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY
EIGHT AND TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT OF THE ACT OF MARCH THIRD,
NINETEEN HUNDRED AND ELEVEN, ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO CODIFY, REVISE, AND
AMEND THE LAWS RELATING TO THE JUDICIARY.'"  40 STAT. 425, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 17. 

FN4  ISSUED UNDER SEC. 7(C), 40 STAT. 418, AS AMENDED, 40 STAT. 1020,
50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 7(C), AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9193, 1 C.F.R. CUM.
SUPP. 1174, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9567, 1 C.F.R. 1945 SUPP.
77. 

FN5  SEC. 5(B), 40 STAT. 415, AS AMENDED, 55 STAT. 839, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 5(B), AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9095, 1 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP.
1121. 

FN6  THE FOLLOWING PARTS OF THE ANSWER ARE ESPECIALLY MATERIAL TO OUR
DECISION IN NO. 15: 

"7.  FURTHERMORE, BY A VESTING ORDER THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN CAN
ONLY VEST PROPERTY OR A DEBT WHICH WAS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE
ISSUANCE OF THE VESTING ORDER.  MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY DID NOT
HOLD ANY PROPERTY FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK.  THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY AS A DEPOSITORY AND
THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK AS A DEPOSITOR OF MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY
IS A DEBTOR AND CREDITOR RELATIONSHIP.  THE EXISTENCE OF A DEBT FROM
MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY TO THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK CAN NOT BE
PREDICATED UPON THE STATUS OF A PARTICULAR ACCOUNT.  MANUFACTURERS
TRUST COMPANY CAN NOT BE A DEBTOR OF THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK UNLESS THE
TOTAL OF THEIR MUTUAL CREDITS EXCEEDS THE TOTAL OF THEIR MUTUAL
DEBITS.  AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE VESTING ORDER NO. 5791,
DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK'S INDEBTEDNESS TO MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY WAS
IN EXCESS OF $25,581.49 AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO DEBT OWING FROM
MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY TO DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK ARISING OUT OF THE
REICHSBANK DIREKTORIUM DIVISEN (ABTEILUNG) ACCOUNT.  THE INDEBTEDNESS
OF THE DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK AROSE FROM THE FACT THAT DEUTSCHE REICHSBANK
WAS UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AN INSTRUMENTALITY AND PART OF THE
GERMAN GOVERNMENT.  THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED TO MANUFACTURERS
TRUST COMPANY THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS OF VARIOUS GERMAN BANKS TO
MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY.  ON JUNE 1ST, 1940 AND JUNE 14TH, 1941,
THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE SAID BANKS TO MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY, WAS
IN EXCESS OF $25,581.49. 

"8.  IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING, MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY IS
ADVISED BY COUNSEL THAT A LIEN OF A BANK ON A DEPOSITOR'S BALANCE FOR
THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITOR'S INDEBTEDNESS TO THE BANK IS WELL RECOGNIZED
BY LAW.  MANUFACTURERS TRUST COMPANY IS FURTHER ADVISED BY COUNSEL THAT
PERSON WHO IS NOT AN ENEMY OR AN ALLY OF AN ENEMY AND THE LIENOR'S
RIGHT TO REALIZE THEREON IN SATISFACTION OF THE LIENOR'S CLAIMS." 

FN7 "THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, WHETHER TAKEN AS ORIGINALLY
ENACTED, OCTOBER 6, 1917, ...  OR AS SINCE AMENDED, MARCH 28, 1918,
...  NOVEMBER 4, 1918,  ...  JULY 11, 1919,  ...  JUNE 5, 1920,  ...
IS STRICTLY A WAR MEASURE AND FINDS ITS SANCTION IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION, ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 11, EMPOWERING CONGRESS 'TO DECLARE WAR,
GRANT LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL, AND MAKE RULES CONCERNING
CAPTURES ON LAND AND WATER.'  ... 

"IT IS WITH PARTS OF THE ACT WHICH RELATE TO CAPTURES ON LAND THAT WE
NOW ARE CONCERNED.  ... (AFTER DISCUSSING PARTICULARLY SECS. 7(C), 9,
AND 12): 

"THAT CONGRESS IN TIME OF WAR MAY AUTHORIZE AND PROVIDE FOR THE
SEIZURE AND SEQUESTRATION THROUGH EXECUTIVE CHANNELS OF PROPERTY
BELIEVED TO BE ENEMY-OWNED, IF ADEQUATE PROVISION BE MADE FOR A RETURN
IN CASE OF MISTAKE, IS NOT DEBATABLE.  ...  THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR
SAYING THAT THE ENEMY OWNERSHIP MUST BE DETERMINED JUDICIALLY BEFORE
THE PROPERTY CAN BE SEIZED; AND THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN THE OTHER WAY. 
THE PRESENT ACT COMMITS THE DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION TO THE
PRESIDENT, OR THE REPRESENTATIVE THROUGH WHOM HE ACTS, BUT IT DOES NOT
MAKE HIS ACTION FINAL."  STOEHR V. WALLACE, 255 U.S. 239, 241-242, 245
246.  SEE ALSO, CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U.S. 554, 568; RUBIN,
"INVIOLABILITY" OF ENEMY PRIVATE PROPERTY, 11 LAW AND CONTEMP.  PROB. 
166(1945). 

FN8  SECTION 9(A) OF THE ACT, 42 STAT. 1511, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
9(A), PROVIDES FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION AND ALLOWANCE OF
CLAIMS TO PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO THE CUSTODIAN.  A CLAIMANT ALSO MAY
SUE IN A DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ADJUDICATION OF THE VALIDITY OF HIS
CLAIM.  SECTION 32, 60 STAT. 50, AS AMENDED, 60 STAT. 930, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 32, AUTHORIZES THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECOGNITION OF CLAIMS TO
PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CUSTODIAN AND SEC. 34, 60 STAT. 925,
50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 34, AUTHORIZES A PROCEDURE FOR THE ALLOWANCE, AND
PAYMENT TO CLAIMANTS, OF DEBTS OWED BY THE PERSON WHOSE PROPERTY HAS
BEEN SEIZED BY THE CUSTODIAN.  SEE ALSO, CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. GARVAN,
254 U.S. 554, 568; GARVAN V. $20,000 BONDS, 265 F. 477(C.A.2D CIR.);
SIMON V. MILLER, 298 F. 520, 524(S.D.N.Y.); KAHN V. GARVAN, 263 F. 909,
916(S.D.N.Y.). 

FN9  PETITION FILED OCTOBER 29, 1947.  ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED
THAT DAY.  ANSWER FILED NOVEMBER 13.  CASE HEARD AND DECIDED THAT DAY. 
JUDGMENT ENTERED DECEMBER 12. 

FN10  SEE ALSO, PENALTIES FOR WILLFUL VIOLATION ADDED TO SEC. 5, 48
STAT. 1, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 5(B)(3).  THE CUSTODIAN MAY MAKE THE
REQUIRED PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS UNDER SEC. 7(C).  "IN SHORT, A
PERSONAL DETERMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT IS NOT REQUIRED; HE MAY ACT
THROUGH THE CUSTODIAN, AND A DETERMINATION BY THE LATTER IS IN EFFECT
THE ACT OF THE PRESIDENT."  STOEHR V. WALLACE, 255 U.S. 239, 245; AND
SEE CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U.S. 554, 567. 

FN11  E.G., ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 289, 296;
BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261; SEE ALSO, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343, 350, 352. 

FN12  FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY MONETARY AND BANKING
SYSTEM OF GERMANY AND OF THE PART PLAYED IN IT BY THE DEUTSCHE
REICHSBANK, SEE MILITARY GOVERNMENT HANDBOOK, GERMANY, SECTION 5:
MONEY AND BANKING, ARMY SERVICE FORCES MANUAL M356-5 REVISED (MARCH
1945), PP. 4, 66-73.  FOR EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
LIABILITIES OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OR SEMIPUBLIC CORPORATIONS AND THOSE OF
THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS TO WHICH THEY ARE RELATED, SEE UNITED STATES V.
DEUTSCHES KALISYNDIKAT GESELLSCHAFT, 31 F.2D 199(S.D.N.Y.)  AND COALE
V. SOCIETE CO-OP., 21 F.2D 180(S.D.N.Y.). 

FN13  5 MICHIE, BANKS AND BANKING (PERM.  ED.)  SECS. 126-128, AND
CASES CITED; 7 ZOLLMANN, BANKS AND BANKING (PERM.  ED.)  SECS. 4392,
4563, 4590.  SEE ALSO, RESTRICTIONS ON ASSERTION, WITHOUT A FEDERAL
LICENSE, OF ANY RIGHT OF SETOFF WHICH DID NOT EXIST BEFORE JUNE 14,
1941.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785, SECS. 1.  A. AND 1.  E., 1 C.F.R. CUM.
SUPP. 948, AND SEE PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE CLARK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF EITHER OF THESE CASES. 
..END :
















TREICHLER V. WISCONSIN, 338 U.S. 251 


NO. 20.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11-12, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1949.  - 254
WIS. 24, 35 N.W.2D 404, REVERSED. 


1.  THE WISCONSIN EMERGENCY TAX ON INHERITANCES, WIS. STAT. 1947, SEC.
72.74(2), AS APPLIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN IN THIS CASE, IS
A TAX ON PROPERTY RATED AND MEASURED IN PART BY TANGIBLE PROPERTY
SITUATED IN OTHER STATES.  PP. 252-256. 

2.  INSOFAR AS IT IS MEASURED BY TANGIBLE PROPERTY OUTSIDE WISCONSIN,
THE TAX VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473.  PP. 256-257. 

TREICHLER, EXECUTOR, V. WISCONSIN. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SUSTAINED A LEVY OF CERTAIN TAXES ON
THE ESTATE OF APPELLANT'S TESTATOR UNDER WIS. STAT. 1947, SEC.
72.74(2), NOTWITHSTANDING A CLAIM THAT IT VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT WAS BASED IN PART ON
TANGIBLE PROPERTY LOCATED OUTSIDE THE STATE.  254 WIS. 24, 35 N.W.2D
404.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 257. 

MR. JUSTICE CLARK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN,
ARISING FROM AN ORDER OF THE COUNTY COURT OF MILWAUKEE COUNTY, LEVYING
CERTAIN DEATH TAXES ON THE ESTATE OF FRED A. MILLER, DECEASED, UNDER
THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF WISCONSIN.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS THE
VALIDITY OF THE WISCONSIN EMERGENCY TAX ON INHERITANCES, WIS. STAT.
(1947) SEC. 72.74(2), WHEN TESTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

THE DECEDENT DIED TESTATE ON DECEMBER 19, 1943, A RESIDENT OF
WISCONSIN.  AT DEATH HIS GROSS ESTATE WAS $7,849,714.84.  PROPERTY
LOCATED IN WISCONSIN WAS VALUED AT $6,869,778.61; THE REMAINDER OF
$979,936.23 CONSISTED OF REAL AND TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY SITUATED
IN THE STATES OF ILLINOIS AND FLORIDA.  FN1 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ASSESSED NET FEDERAL TAXES
AGAINST THE ESTATE IN THE SUM OF $3,076,131.19, INCLUSIVE OF THE 80% OF
THE BASIC FEDERAL TAX SUBJECT TO CREDIT FOR STATE ESTATE TAXES AS
PROVIDED BY SEC. 301(B) OF THE UNITED STATES REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44
STAT. 70, AS AMENDED, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 813(B).  THIS 80% CREDIT WAS THE
SUM OF $630,709.62. 

WISCONSIN HAS A TRIAD OF DEATH TAXES KNOWN AS (1) NORMAL INHERITANCE
TAX, (2) ESTATE TAX, AND (3) EMERGENCY TAX. 

THE NORMAL WISCONSIN INHERITANCE TAX, AS LEVIED BY WIS. STAT. (1947)
SECS. 72.01 TO 72.24, WAS IN THIS CASE $220,682.12.  IT IS LEVIED ONLY
ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND IS NOT IN CONTROVERSY
HERE. 

TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CREDIT PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926, THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE ALSO ENACTED AN ESTATE TAX IN THE
AMOUNT OF 80% OF THE BASIC FEDERAL TAX SUBJECT TO CREDIT, LESS "THE
AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ALL ESTATES, INHERITANCE, TRANSFER, LEGACY AND
SUCCESSION TAXES PAID TO ANY STATE OR TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, IN RESPECT TO ANY PROPERTY IN THE ESTATE OF SAID DECEDENT." 
WIS. STAT. (1947) SEC. 72.50.  WISCONSIN NORMAL INHERITANCE TAXES AS
WELL AS OUT-OF-STATE TAXES ARE DEDUCTED FROM THE FEDERAL CREDIT.  THE
ESTATE TAX ON THIS ESTATE WAS COMPUTED AT $352,701.79.  HOWEVER, THIS
PROVISION OF THE WISCONSIN STATUTES IS NOT UNDER EXPLICIT ATTACK HERE. 

THE ONLY STATUTE, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL,
IS SEC. 72.74(2) OF THE WISCONSIN STATUTES KNOWN AS THE EMERGENCY TAX
ON INHERITANCES.  THE SECTION UNDER SCRUTINY PROVIDES: 

"IN ADDITION TO THE TAXES IMPOSED BY SECTIONS 72.01 TO 72.24 AND
72.50 TO 72.61, AN EMERGENCY TAX FOR RELIEF PURPOSES, REHABILITATION OF
RETURNING VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II, CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS AT
STATE INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER STATE PROPERTY AND FOR POST-WAR PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECTS TO RELIEVE POST-WAR UNEMPLOYMENT IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON
ALL TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY WHICH ARE TAXABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
SAID SECTIONS AND WHICH ARE MADE SUBSEQUENT TO MARCH 27, 1935 AND PRIOR
TO JULY 1, 1949 WHICH SAID TAX SHALL BE EQUAL TO 30 PER CENT OF THE TAX
IMPOSED BY SAID SECTIONS." 

AS IS APPARENT, COMPUTATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY TAX INVOLVES
ONLY FOUR FACTORS:  (1) THE AMOUNT OF THE 80% FEDERAL CREDIT, (2) THE
TAXES PAID TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS, (3) WISCONSIN NORMAL INHERITANCE
TAXES, AND (4) THE 30% RATE IMPOSED.  IN APPLYING THE YARD-STICK OF
THIS SECTION TO THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE, THE WISCONSIN AUTHORITIES TOOK
THE TOTAL OF THE 80% FEDERAL CREDIT, THAT IS $630,709.62, AND FIRST
DEDUCTED FROM IT THE TAXES PAID TO STATES OTHER THAN WISCONSIN -
ILLINOIS ($35,616.26) AND FLORIDA ($21,709.45) - AND WISCONSIN'S NORMAL
INHERITANCE TAX ($220,682.12), WHICH LEFT $352,701.79.  THE TAX DUE WAS
THEN CALCULATED BY TAKING 30% OF THE LATTER AMOUNT, PLUS 30% OF THE
NORMAL INHERITANCE TAX.  THE RESULT, $172,015.20, WAS LEVIED AS THE
EMERGENCY INHERITANCE TAX DUE. 

IT WILL BE SEEN THAT AS THE TAXING FORMULA IS REDUCED, THE NORMAL
INHERITANCE TAX IS NO LONGER A FACTOR IN THE COMPUTATION.  FOR WHILE
30% THEREOF IS ADDED TO 30% OF THE ESTATE TAX TO GIVE THE EMERGENCY
TAX, THE NORMAL INHERITANCE TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBTRACTED IN THE
COMPUTATION OF THE BASIC ESTATE TAX.  HENCE, IN EXTENDING THE FORMULA
OF THE EMERGENCY TAX, THE INHERITANCE TAXES CANCEL.  FN2  WHAT IS LEFT,
OTHER THAN OUT-OF-STATE TAXES, IS SIMPLY 80% OF THE BASIC FEDERAL TAX,
RATED AND MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE ESTATE, REGARDLESS OF SITUS, AND
THEREFORE INCLUDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN ILLINOIS AND FLORIDA. 

THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT THE PRESENCE OF 87.52% OF MR. MILLER'S
PROPERTY WITHIN WISCONSIN JUSTIFIED ITS STATEMENT THAT THE STATE TAXED
ONLY WISCONSIN PROPERTY.  AND THE STATE ARGUES THAT THE "OTHER 20%"
OVER THE FEDERAL BASIC ESTATE TAX 80% CREDIT "MORE THAN ABSORBS, OR IS,
ON ANY MATHEMATICAL BASIS, ATTRIBUTABLE TO" THE 12.48% OF PROPERTY
OUTSIDE WISCONSIN.  BUT WISCONSIN MADE BUT 80% OF THE FEDERAL TAX ITS
OWN; AND AS IT DID NOT APPORTION THAT 80% TO PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE,
THE PRESENCE OF PROPERTY THEREIN IS SIMPLY A FORTUITY WHICH CANNOT HELP
THE TAXING JURISDICTION.  SEE OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173
U.S. 664, 683(1899).  THE SAME MUST BE SAID OF DEDUCTIONS FOR OUT-OF
STATE TAXES, WHICH HAVE NO NECESSARY RELATION TO THE PROPORTION OF
PROPERTY OUTSIDE WISCONSIN.  FN3 

WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE ORDER ENTERED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
WISCONSIN AUTHORIZED A TAX ON PROPERTY RATED AND MEASURED IN PART BY
TANGIBLE PROPERTY, THE SITUS OF WHICH WAS OUTSIDE WISCONSIN. 

THIS WISCONSIN MAY NOT DO.  IN FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S.
473(1925), PENNSYLVANIA LEVIED AN INHERITANCE TAX BASED UPON REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED.  MR. FRICK'S ART COLLECTION WAS
LOCATED IN NEW YORK.  IN A UNANIMOUS OPINION THIS COURT RULED THAT
PENNSYLVANIA'S STATUTE, "IN SO FAR AS IT ATTEMPTS TO TAX THE TRANSFER
OF TANGIBLE PERSONALTY HAVING AN ACTUAL SITUS IN OTHER STATES,
CONTRAVENES THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND IS INVALID."  WISCONSIN'S STATUTE MAY BE MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN
PENNSYLVANIA'S, BUT IN TERMS OF ULTIMATE CONSEQUENCES THIS CASE AND THE
FRICK CASE ARE ONE.  IT IS QUITE UNNECESSARY TO KNOW IN EITHER CASE
WHAT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TAXING JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO
COMPUTE THE CHALLENGED EXACTION. 

NOR ARE WE INCLINED TO DISCARD THE FRICK RULE.  WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY
UPHELD THE DOMICILE'S LEVY WHEN IT WAS BASED UPON INTANGIBLE PROPERTY
WITH TECHNICAL TITLE WITHOUT THE JURISDICTION.  BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN,
277 U.S. 1(1928).  AND THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF TAX BURDENS IN THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM CANNOT CONTROL OUR RESULTS, LIMITED AS WE ARE TO THE
WORDS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH V.
ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, 181(1942), CITING HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN
BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586, 595(1930).  BUT WHEN A STATE REACHES
BEYOND ITS BORDERS AND FASTENS UPON TANGIBLE PROPERTY, IT CONFERS
NOTHING IN RETURN FOR ITS EXACTION.  SINCE THE STATE OF LOCATION HAS
ALL BUT COMPLETE DOMINION OVER THE PHYSICAL OBJECTS SOUGHT TO BE
MEASURED FOR TAX, SEE GREEN V. VAN BUSKIRK, 7 WALL.  139, 150(1869);
CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, 363(1939), AND CASES CITED, NO OTHER
STATE CAN OFFER A QUID PRO QUO.  A STATE IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THE
IMPLEMENTS OF POWER AND DIPLOMACY WITHOUT ITS BOUNDARIES WHICH ARE AT
THE ROOT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO MEASURE ITS TAX
UPON FOREIGN PROPERTY.  UNITED STATES V. BENNETT, 232 U.S. 299(1914);
SEE BURNET V. BROOKS, 288 U.S. 378(1933).  AND IF THE STATE HAS
AFFORDED NOTHING FOR WHICH IT CAN ASK RETURN, ITS TAXING STATUTE
OFFENDS AGAINST THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IT IS OUR DUTY TO ENFORCE. 
FN4 

WE HOLD THAT WISCONSIN'S EMERGENCY INHERITANCE TAX IS INVALID INSOFAR
AS IT IS MEASURED BY TANGIBLE PROPERTY OUTSIDE WISCONSIN.  THE JUDGMENT
MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE RECORD DOES NOT REVEAL THE EXACT NATURE OF THE PROPERTY, AND
WE HAVE HELD THAT WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS "TANGIBLE" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473(1925), INFRA, IS A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1(1928).  IN THIS CASE,
HOWEVER, THE PARTIES AND THE COURT BELOW AGREE THAT THE PROPERTY IS
CLEARLY "TANGIBLE" WITHIN THE FRICK RULE.  WE ACCEPT THAT ASSUMPTION. 

FN2  THE FORMULA IS AS FOLLOWS: 

30% X WISCONSIN NORMAL INHERITANCE TAX   30% (80% FEDERAL BASIC TAX -
WISCONSIN NORMAL INHERITANCE TAX - TAXES PAID IN ILLINOIS AND
FLORIDA).  THIS REDUCES TO:  30% (80% FEDERAL BASIC TAX - TAXES PAID IN
ILLINOIS AND FLORIDA). 

DEDUCTIONS AUTHORIZED IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE NORMAL INHERITANCE
TAX ARE THUS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE. 

THE STATE'S TABLE OF COMPUTATION READS: 

(1)  WISCONSIN NORMAL INHERITANCE TAXES ..................
$220,682.12 

(2)  WISCONSIN ESTATE TAX: - 

80% OF U.S. ESTATE TAX.......................  $630,709.62 

LESS: - 

(A)  WISCONSIN NORMAL 

TAXES (1) ABOVE...$220,682.12 

(B)  ILLINOIS INHERITANCE 

TAXES ............  35,616.26 

(C)  FLORIDA INHERITANCE 

TAXES ............  21,709.45 

TOTAL STATE TAXES............................   278,007.83

           ----------- 

DIFFERENCE IS WISCONSIN ESTATE TAX........................
352,701.79 

(3) WISCONSIN EMERGENCY TAX: - 

WISCONSIN NORMAL 

TAXES (1) ABOVE...$220,682.12 

WISCONSIN ESTATE TAX 

(2) ABOVE ....... 352,701.79 

--------------------------------------------- 

TOTAL ............ $573,383.91 

EMERGENCY TAX IS 30%......................................
172,015.20

                              ----------- 

TOTAL WISCONSIN INHERITANCE TAXES.........................
$745,399.11 

FN3  A DIFFERENT QUESTION MIGHT BE PRESENTED, HOWEVER, IF THE STATUTE
IN QUESTION AUTHORIZED COMPUTATION TO BEGIN WITH 87.52% RATHER THAN ALL
OF THE 80% FEDERAL CREDIT.  WE INTEND TO INTIMATE NO OPINION AS TO THAT
SITUATION. 

FN4  OF COURSE WE HAVE REFUSED TO BE GOVERNED BY THIS CONSIDERATION
WHEN SO TO DO WOULD HAVE PLACED A PREMIUM UPON THE AVOIDANCE OF ALL
STATE TAXES.  NEW YORK EX REL. NEW YORK C. & H.R.R. CO. V. MILLER, 202
U.S. 584, 597(1906); SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, 222 U.S.
63(1911); CF. NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292(1944).  SEE
COMMONWEALTH V. PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO., 197 PA. 551, 47 A. 740(1901);
NORFOLK & W.R. CO. V. BOARD, 97 VA. 23, 32 S.E. 779(1899). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS.  HE AGREES THAT THE COURT'S HOLDING
LOGICALLY FOLLOWS FROM ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IN
THE FRICK CASE, BUT BELIEVES THAT SO INTERPRETED THE CLAUSE GIVES A
MORE EXPANSIVE CONTROL OVER STATE TAX LEGISLATION THAN THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE JUSTIFIES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



















COMMISSIONER V. CONNELLY, 338 U.S. 258 


NO. 57.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1949.  - 84
U.S. APP. D.C. 260, 172 F.2D 877, REVERSED. 


A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE OF THE COAST GUARD WHO WAS ENROLLED
TEMPORARILY DURING THE WAR AS AN OFFICER IN THE COAST GUARD RESERVE
UNDER THE COAST GUARD AUXILIARY AND RESERVE ACT, 14 U.S.C. SEC. 307,
BUT WHO SERVED WITHOUT COMPENSATION OTHER THAN THAT OF HIS CIVILIAN
POSITION AND WHO PERFORMED AFTER ENROLLMENT DUTIES IDENTICAL WITH THOSE
HE HAD PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED, IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE $1,500 EXCLUSION
FROM GROSS INCOME PROVIDED BY SEC. 22(B)(13)(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE IN THE CASE OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED "FOR ACTIVE SERVICE AS A
COMMISSIONED OFFICER" IN THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES.  PP. 258-262. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. CONNELLY ET UX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE'S
DISALLOWANCE OF A CLAIM BY A TAXPAYER FOR EXCLUSION OF $1,500 FROM
GROSS INCOME PROVIDED BY SEC. 22(B)(13)(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE.  8 T.C. 848.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  84 U.S. APP. D.C.
260, 172 F.2D 877.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 924. 
REVERSED, P. 262. 

MR. JUSTICE MINTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION WE HAVE HERE IS WHETHER RESPONDENT WILLIAM I. CONNELLY,
HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE TAXPAYER, IS ENTITLED TO THE $1,500
EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME PROVIDED BY SEC. 22(B)(13)(A) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  FN1  THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED THIS ADDITIONAL
ALLOWANCE FOR THE TAXABLE YEARS 1943 AND 1944.  THE COMMISSIONER
DISALLOWED THE SUM DEDUCTED.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER,
8 T.C. 848, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING. 
84 U.S. APP. D.C. 260, 172 F.2D 877.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S.
924. 

ON FEBRUARY 19, 1943, TAXPAYER WAS A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE IN THE
LEGAL DIVISION OF THE COAST GUARD.  ON THAT DATE HE WAS ENROLLED AS A
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER WITHIN ONE OF THE SIX CLASSIFICATIONS WHICH
CONSTITUTED THE TEMPORARY MEMBERS OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE.  FN2 HIS
ENROLLMENT WAS UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE COAST GUARD AUXILIARY AND RESERVE
ACT WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE ENROLLING OF "PERSONS (INCLUDING GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES WITHOUT PAY OTHER THAN THE COMPENSATION OF THEIR CIVILIAN
POSITIONS)."  55 STAT. 12, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 1021, 14 U.S.C. SEC.
307.  ON APRIL 24, 1944, HE WAS REENROLLED AS A COMMANDER AND HIS CLASS
WAS DESCRIBED AS "COAST GUARD CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES." 

AFTER ENROLLMENT TAXPAYER PERFORMED DUTIES IDENTICAL WITH THOSE WHICH
HE HAD PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED.  AT THE TIME HE WAS ENROLLED, HIS CIVIL
SERVICE RATING WAS P-5.  LATER THIS RATING WAS RAISED TO P-6 AND HIS
RANK WAS INCREASED AT THE SAME TIME TO THAT OF COMMANDER.  HE RECEIVED
THE SAME PAY AFTER ENROLLMENT THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AS A CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEE.  HE RECEIVED OVERTIME PAY AS A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE,
DEDUCTIONS WERE MADE FROM HIS PAY FOR CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT, AND HE
WAS SUBJECT TO CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS AS TO ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE. 
IF HE HAD BEEN INJURED OR KILLED, HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BENEFITS AS A
CIVIL EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES.  HE WAS STILL SUBJECT TO THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT.  IN THE CASE OF SICKNESS OR DISEASE
CONTRACTED WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY, TAXPAYER WAS ENTITLED TO THE SAME
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CARE AS MEMBERS OF THE REGULAR COAST GUARD, BUT
DENTAL CARE WAS NOT INCLUDED.  WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY HE WAS REQUIRED TO
WEAR THE UNIFORM OF AND HE RECEIVED THE COURTESIES DUE HIS RANK.  HE
WAS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS, REGULATIONS AND ORDERS OF THE COAST GUARD AND
TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT TAXPAYER HAD A DUAL STATUS.  HE HAD A LIMITED
MILITARY STATUS WITH THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT COMMANDER AND LATER THAT OF
COMMANDER.  HE HAD ALSO THE STATUS OF A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE,
CAREFULLY SO LIMITED AND WITH ALL THE PRIVILEGES INCIDENT TO SUCH
STATUS.  HE WAS GIVEN JUST ENOUGH MILITARY STATUS TO ENABLE HIM
EFFECTIVELY TO CARRY OUT HIS DUTIES.  ALL CONSIDERATIONS OF AN ECONOMIC
CHARACTER PERTAINING TO HIS EMPLOYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT WERE RELATED
TO HIS CIVIL SERVICE STATUS. 

IN MITCHELL V. COHEN, 333 U.S. 411, WE HELD THAT ONE EMPLOYED IN A
DEPARTMENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE WHO
WAS ENROLLED TEMPORARILY IN THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE OF THE
COAST GUARD RESERVE AND WHO WORKED PART-TIME AS A RESERVIST WITHOUT PAY
WAS NOT AN "EX-SERVICEMAN" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE VETERANS'
PREFERENCE ACT.  LOOKING TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THAT STATUTE, WE
FOUND THAT THE OVER-SHADOWING PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO FAVOR THOSE WHO
HAD A REAL RECORD OF MILITARY SERVICE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND IN THIS CASE THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF
"LONG-ESTABLISHED CRITERIA - OATH OF OFFICE, MILITARY DUTY, AND
SUBJECTION TO MILITARY DISCIPLINE" TAXPAYER HAD ACQUIRED A MILITARY
STATUS AND WAS THUS ENTITLED TO THE EXCLUSION.  WE AGREE THAT HE HAD A
MILITARY STATUS FOR SOME PURPOSES.  BUT THE QUESTION FOR TAX PURPOSES
IS WHETHER HE RECEIVED HIS PAY IN THAT STATUS.  TO COME WITHIN SEC.
22(B)(13)(A), HE MUST HAVE RECEIVED HIS COMPENSATION "FOR ACTIVE
SERVICE AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER."  WE UNDERSTAND THIS TO MEAN THAT IF
TAXPAYER RECEIVED HIS PAY AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER, HE WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO THE EXCLUSION.  IT SEEMS EQUALLY PLAIN THAT IF HE RECEIVED
HIS PAY AS A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE AND SERVED WITHOUT MILITARY PAY AND
ALLOWANCES, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIMED EXCLUSION.  FN3  AS IN
THE COHEN CASE, THE EMPHASIS OF THE STATUTE IS ON A MILITARY AND NOT ON
A CIVILIAN STATUS. 

AND IT IS CLEAR THAT TAXPAYER RECEIVED HIS COMPENSATION IN A CIVILIAN
STATUS.  AS NOTED, SEC. 307 OF THE COAST GUARD AUXILIARY AND RESERVE
ACT PROVIDED FOR THE ENROLLING OF "PERSONS (INCLUDING GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES WITHOUT PAY OTHER THAN THE COMPENSATION OF THEIR CIVILIAN
POSITIONS)."  THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES REFERRED
TO THE AMENDMENT BY WHICH THE PARENTHETICAL PHRASE WAS ADDED TO THE
STATUTE AS BEING "ADVISABLE TO CLARIFY THIS AUTHORITY (ENROLLMENT OF
TEMPORARY MEMBERS WITHOUT THE PAY OF THEIR MILITARY RANK) AND RESOLVE
ANY DOUBT OF ITS APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BY SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDING FOR TEMPORARY MEMBERSHIP IN THE COAST GUARD RESERVE OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WITHOUT MILITARY PAY BUT WITH CONTINUANCE IN THEIR
CIVILIAN POSITIONS AND THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPENSATION THEREOF."  FN4 

FROM THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE ENROLLMENT STATUTE THERE SEEMS
TO HAVE BEEN NO DEVIATION FROM THE VIEW THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS TO BE
PAID AS A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE AND NOT AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER. 
HIS PAY CAME FROM CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS ALLOCATED TO CIVILIAN
POSITIONS.  HIS PAY WAS AT THE CIVIL SERVICE SCALE FOR HIS GRADE, WITH
OVERTIME PAY AND APPROPRIATE DEDUCTIONS FOR CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT. 
HIS CONTINUING CIVILIAN STATUS IS UNDERLINED BY HIS RECEIPT OF A CIVIL
SERVICE PROMOTION, FROM WHICH HIS MILITARY PROMOTION RESULTED.  INDEED,
THE TAXPAYER'S CERTIFICATE OF DISENROLLMENT DESCRIBED THE DUTY
PERFORMED AS "CHIEF OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME SECTION HAVING CIVIL
SERVICE STATUS, RECEIVING CIVILIAN BUT NO MILITARY PAY, AND HOLDING
RANK OF COMMANDER AS A TEMPORARY MEMBER OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS IGNORED THE STATUS IN WHICH TAXPAYER WAS
COMPENSATED AND GAVE EFFECT TO HIS MILITARY STATUS WHICH WAS PROVIDED
ONLY TO FACILITATE THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN WARTIME.  FN5
TAXPAYER'S RANK WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE JOB DONE, AND NOT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING COMPENSATION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  AS AMENDED BY REVENUE ACT OF 1945, SEC. 141(A), 59 STAT. 571: 

"(13)  ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE FOR MILITARY AND NAVAL PERSONNEL.  - 

"(A)  IN THE CASE OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED  ...  FOR ACTIVE SERVICE
AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER ...  IN THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES  ...  SO MUCH OF SUCH COMPENSATION AS DOES NOT EXCEED
$1,500." 

FN2  THESE CLASSIFICATIONS AND THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COAST GUARD
RESERVE ARE DETAILED IN MITCHELL V. COHEN, 333 U.S. 411, 412-14. 

FN3  SEE JUDGE EDGERTON, DISSENTING IN PART, BELOW: 

"...  I WOULD BE UNABLE, IN VIEW OF THE RULE THAT TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE
STRICTLY CONSTRUED, TO SAY THAT THE COMPENSATION OF A MAN WHO DID NOT
RECEIVE A COMMISSIONED OFFICER'S PAY BUT SERVED 'WITHOUT PAY OTHER THAN
THE COMPENSATION OF (HIS) CIVILIAN POSITIONS' WAS 'RECEIVED  ...  FOR
ACTIVE SERVICE AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER.'"  84 U.S. APP. D.C. AT 263,
172 F.2D AT 880. 

FN4  H.R. REP. NO. 2525, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 3(1942).  THE
COMMITTEE ADDED THAT THE AMENDMENT "WOULD OBVIATE ANY POSSIBLE
IMPAIRMENT OF THE RIGHT OF SUCH EMPLOYEES TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THE
COMPENSATION OF THEIR CIVILIAN POSITIONS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THEIR
PERFORMANCE OF ACTIVE COAST GUARD DUTY AS SUCH TEMPORARY MEMBERS. 
THERE WILL BE LITTLE, IF ANY, CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF THEIR DUTIES
AFTER ENROLLMENT." 

FN5  OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. 13-43 ISSUED BY THE COMMANDANT OF THE
COAST GUARD ON JULY 24, 1943, STATES: 

"6.  THE ATTENTION OF HEADS OF OFFICES AND CHIEFS OF DIVISIONS IS
INVITED TO THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL REASONS FOR THE INDUCTION
OF CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTO THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT AS TEMPORARY
MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE WAS TO OBTAIN A HOMOGENEOUS ORGANIZATION ON A
MILITARY BASIS AND TO ELIMINATE DIFFERENCES IN PROCEDURE AND PRACTICES
APPLICABLE TO MILITARY PERSONNEL AND CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL ENGAGED ON
EXACTLY THE SAME DUTY  ...." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






BOYD V. GRAND TRUNK W.R. CO., 338 U.S. 263 


NO. 17.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1949.  - 321
MICH. 693, 33 N.W.2D 120, REVERSED. 


AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A RAILROAD AND AN EMPLOYEE INJURED BY ITS
NEGLIGENCE, WHICH LIMITS THE VENUE OF ANY ACTION THEREAFTER BROUGHT BY
THE EMPLOYEE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND DEPRIVES
HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO BRING AN ACTION IN ANY FORUM AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT,
IS VOID AS CONFLICTING WITH THE ACT.  PP. 263-266. 

BOYD V. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY A RAILROAD COMPANY IN A STATE COURT OF MICHIGAN
TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM PROSECUTING A FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT CASE AGAINST IT IN ILLINOIS, THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT A CONTRACT
RESTRICTING THE CHOICE OF VENUE WAS VOID AND DISMISSED THE SUIT.  THE
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT REVERSED.  321 MICH. 693, 33 N.W.2D 120.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  337 U.S. 923.  REVERSED, P. 266. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN ISSUE HERE IS THE VALIDITY OF A CONTRACT RESTRICTING THE CHOICE OF
VENUE FOR AN ACTION BASED UPON THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 
FN1  PETITIONER WAS INJURED IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE
OF RESPONDENT RAILROAD IN NOVEMBER 1946.  TWICE DURING THE FOLLOWING
MONTH PETITIONER WAS ADVANCED FIFTY DOLLARS BY RESPONDENT.  ON EACH OF
THESE OCCASIONS PETITIONER SIGNED AN AGREEMENT STIPULATING THAT IF HIS
CLAIM COULD NOT BE SETTLED AND HE ELECTED TO SUE, "SUCH SUIT SHALL BE
COMMENCED WITHIN THE COUNTY OR DISTRICT WHERE I RESIDED AT THE TIME MY
INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED OR IN THE COUNTY OR DISTRICT WHERE MY INJURIES
WERE SUSTAINED AND NOT ELSEWHERE."  FN2 ALTHOUGH THIS PROVISION DEFINED
THE AVAILABLE FORUM AS EITHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CALHOUN COUNTY,
MICHIGAN, OR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MICHIGAN, PETITIONER BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS.  TO ENJOIN PETITIONER'S PROSECUTION OF THE ILLINOIS
CASE, RESPONDENT INSTITUTED THIS SUIT.  THE MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURT HELD
THAT THE CONTRACT RESTRICTING THE CHOICE OF VENUE WAS VOID AND
DISMISSED THE SUIT.  THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT REVERSED.  321 MICH.
693, 33 N.W.2D 120(1948). 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 337 U.S. 923(1949), BECAUSE THE FEDERAL AND
STATE COURTS WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE HAVE REACHED CONFLICTING
RESULTS.  FN3  WE AGREE WITH THOSE COURTS WHICH HAVE HELD THAT
CONTRACTS LIMITING THE CHOICE OF VENUE ARE VOID AS CONFLICTING WITH THE
LIABILITY ACT. 

ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE
DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, OR IN WHICH THE CAUSE OF
ACTION AROSE, OR IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE DOING BUSINESS AT THE
TIME OF COMMENCING SUCH ACTION.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF THE
COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, AND NO CASE ARISING UNDER THIS ACT AND
BROUGHT IN ANY STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SHALL BE REMOVED
TO ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT RESPONDENT
IS LIABLE TO SUIT IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS
PROVISION.  WE HOLD THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO BRING THE SUIT IN ANY
ELIGIBLE FORUM IS A RIGHT OF SUFFICIENT SUBSTANTIALITY TO BE INCLUDED
WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE OF SEC. 5 OF THE LIABILITY ACT:  "ANY
CONTRACT, RULE, REGULATION, OR DEVICE WHATSOEVER, THE PURPOSE OR INTENT
OF WHICH SHALL BE TO ENABLE ANY COMMON CARRIER TO EXEMPT ITSELF FROM
ANY LIABILITY CREATED BY THIS ACT, SHALL TO THAT EXTENT BE VOID  ...  "
THE CONTRACT BEFORE US IS THEREFORE VOID. 

ANY OTHER RESULT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH DUNCAN V. THOMPSON, 315
U.S. 1(1942).  THAT OPINION REVIEWED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND
CONCLUDED THAT "CONGRESS WANTED SEC. 5 TO HAVE THE FULL EFFECT THAT ITS
COMPREHENSIVE PHRASEOLOGY IMPLIES."  315 U.S. AT 6.  IN THAT CASE AS IN
THIS, THE CONTRACT BEFORE THE COURT WAS SIGNED AFTER THE INJURY
OCCURRED.  THE COURT BELOW, IN HOLDING THAT AN AGREEMENT DELIMITING
VENUE SHOULD BE ENFORCED IF IT WAS REACHED AFTER THE ACCIDENT,
DISREGARDED DUNCAN. 

THE VIGOR AND VALIDITY OF THE DUNCAN DECISION WAS NOT IMPAIRED BY
CALLEN V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 332 U.S. 625(1948).  WE THERE
DISTINGUISHED A FULL COMPROMISE ENABLING THE PARTIES TO SETTLE THEIR
DISPUTE WITHOUT LITIGATION, WHICH WE HELD DID NOT CONTRAVENE THE ACT,
FROM A DEVICE WHICH OBSTRUCTS THE RIGHT OF THE LIABILITY ACT PLAINTIFF
TO SECURE THE MAXIMUM RECOVERY IF HE SHOULD ELECT JUDICIAL TRIAL OF HIS
CAUSE.  FN4  AND NOTHING IN EX PARTE COLLETT, 337 U.S. 55(1949),
AFFECTS THE INITIAL CHOICE OF VENUE AFFORDED LIABILITY ACT PLAINTIFFS. 
WE STATED EXPRESSLY THAT THE SECTION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE THERE
INVOLVED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A), "DOES NOT LIMIT OR OTHERWISE MODIFY
ANY RIGHT GRANTED IN SEC. 6 OF THE LIABILITY ACT OR ELSEWHERE TO BRING
SUIT IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT.  AN ACTION MAY STILL BE BROUGHT IN ANY
COURT, STATE OR FEDERAL, IN WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
PREVIOUSLY."  337 U.S. AT 60. 

THE RIGHT TO SELECT THE FORUM GRANTED IN SEC. 6 IS A SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHT.  IT WOULD THWART THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT TO SANCTION DEFEAT OF THAT RIGHT BY THE DEVICE AT BAR. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

FN2  THE AGREEMENT ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE SUMS ADVANCED WOULD BE
DEDUCTED FROM WHATEVER SETTLEMENT OR RECOVERY PETITIONER FINALLY
ACHIEVED.  AS TO THIS, THE PROVISO IN SEC. 5 OF THE LIABILITY ACT
SPECIFIES "THAT IN ANY ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST ANY SUCH COMMON CARRIER
UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SUCH COMMON
CARRIER MAY SET OFF THEREIN ANY SUM IT HAS CONTRIBUTED OR PAID TO ANY
INSURANCE, RELIEF BENEFIT, OR INDEMNITY THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE
INJURED EMPLOYEE OR THE PERSON ENTITLED THERETO ON ACCOUNT OF THE
INJURY OR DEATH FOR WHICH SAID ACTION WAS BROUGHT."  REFERRING TO THIS
PROVISION, AND INTERPRETING A CONTRACT SIMILAR TO THE ONE HERE
INVOLVED, AT LEAST ONE FEDERAL COURT HAS HELD THAT "THE CONTRACT TO
WAIVE THE VENUE PROVISIONS IS OF NO EFFECT  ...  BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
CONSIDERATION FOR IT."  AKERLY V. NEW YORK C.R. CO., 168 F.2D 812,
815(C.A.6TH CIR. 1948). 

FN3  IN ACCORD WITH THE DECISION BELOW ARE:  ROLAND V. ATCHISON, T. &
S.F.R. CO., 65 F.SUPP.  630(N.D. ILL. 1946); HERRINGTON V. THOMPSON, 61
F.SUPP.  903(W.D. MO. 1945); CLARK V. LOWDEN, 48 F.SUPP.  261(D. MINN.
1942); DETWILER V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 15 F.SUPP.  541(D. MINN.
1936); DETWILER V. LOWDEN, 198 MINN. 185, 188, 269 N.W. 367, 369, 107
A.L.R. 1054, 1059(1936).  IN CONFLICT WITH THE RULING BEFORE US ARE:
KRENGER V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 174 F.2D 556(C.A.2D CIR. 1949),
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED THIS DAY, SEE POST, P. 866; AKERLY V.
NEW YORK C.R. CO., 168 F.2D 812(C.A.6TH CIR. 1948); FLEMING V. HUSTED,
68 F.SUPP.  900(S.D. IOWA 1946); SHERMAN V. PERE MARQUETTE R. CO., 62
F.SUPP.  590(N.D. ILL. 1945); PETERSEN V. OGDEN U.R. & D. CO., 110 UTAH
573, 175 P.2D 744(1946); CF. PORTER V. FLEMING, 74 F.SUPP.  378(D.
MINN. 1947). 

FN4  SEE KRENGER, SUPRA NOTE 3, 174 F.2D AT 558; ID. AT
561(CONCURRING OPINION OF L. HAND, C.J.); AKERLY, SUPRA NOTE 3, 168
F.2D AT 815; PETERSEN, SUPRA, NOTE 3, 110 UTAH AT 579, 175 P.2D AT
747. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR IN THE RESULT
BUT UPON THE GROUNDS STATED BY CHIEF JUDGE HAND IN KRENGER V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 174 F.2D 556, AT 560(C.A.2D CIR. 1949). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MINTON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :























FAULKNER V. GIBBS, 338 U.S. 267 


NO. 19.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1949.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1949.  - 170
F.2D 34, AFFIRMED. 


THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THAT RESPONDENT'S PATENT NO. 1,906,260 WAS VALID AND INFRINGED
BY PETITIONER, ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND THE JUDGMENT
BELOW IS AFFIRMED.  HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. V. WALKER, 329
U.S. 1, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 267-268. 

FAULKNER V. GIBBS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER FOR INFRINGEMENT
OF A PATENT, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  170 F.2D 34.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 935.  AFFIRMED, P. 268. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE CONTROVERSY HERE CONCERNED THE VALIDITY OF PATENT NO. 1,906,260,
ISSUED TO RESPONDENT, MAY 2, 1933, AND ITS ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT BY
PETITIONER.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE PATENT TO BE VALID AND
INFRINGED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 170
F.2D 34(1948).  BEING MOVED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI THAT THERE
WAS A CONFLICT WITH HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. V. WALKER, 329
U.S. 1(1946), WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE RECORD, BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL LEAD US TO THE VIEW THAT
HALLIBURTON, SUPRA, IS INAPPOSITE.  WE THERE HELD THE PATENT INVALID
BECAUSE ITS LANGUAGE WAS TOO BROAD AT THE PRECISE POINT OF NOVELTY.  IN
THE INSTANT CASE, THE PATENT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF
COMBINATION RATHER THAN THE NOVELTY OF ANY PARTICULAR ELEMENT. 

AFTER THE SUIT IN THIS CAUSE WAS INITIATED IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
PETITIONER MODIFIED HIS DEVICE.  THE COURTS BELOW HELD THAT THIS
MODIFICATION WAS INSUBSTANTIAL AND DID NOT PLACE PETITIONER OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF RESPONDENT'S PATENT. 

WE WILL NOT DISTURB THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS UPON THE ISSUES PRESENTED
TO US IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  WE ARE NOT PERSUADED THAT THE
FINDINGS ARE SHOWN TO BE CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIMS
WAS TOO BROAD AT THE PRECISE POINT WHERE THERE WAS NOVELTY, IF THERE
WAS NOVELTY ANYWHERE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















LARSON V. DOMESTIC & FOREIGN CORP., 337 U.S. 682 


NO. 31.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 83 U.S.
APP. D.C. 13, 165 F.2D 235, REVERSED. 


1.  PLAINTIFF, A PRIVATE CORPORATION, BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAR ASSETS
ADMINISTRATION, AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAD SOLD
CERTAIN SURPLUS COAL TO THE PLAINTIFF, BUT HAD REFUSED TO DELIVER IT
AND HAD MADE A NEW CONTRACT TO SELL IT TO OTHERS.  THE PRAYER WAS FOR
AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE ADMINISTRATOR, HIS AGENTS AND ALL PERSONS
ACTING UNDER THEIR DIRECTION, FROM SELLING OR DELIVERING THE COAL TO
ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PLAINTIFF AND FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE SALE TO
THE PLAINTIFF WAS VALID AND THE SALE TO THE SECOND PURCHASER INVALID. 
THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE CONTRACT OF SALE WAS WITH THE
ADMINISTRATOR PERSONALLY, NO ALLEGATION OF ANY STATUTORY LIMITATION ON
HIS POWERS AS A SALES AGENT, AND NO CLAIM THAT HIS ACTION CONSTITUTED
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF PROPERTY.  HELD:  THE SUIT WAS ONE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSENT BY THE UNITED
STATES, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  PP. 684-705. 

2.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER A SUIT NOMINALLY AGAINST AN OFFICER IS
AGAINST THE OFFICER INDIVIDUALLY OR AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN, THE CRUCIAL
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS RELIEF AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN. 
PP. 687-688. 

3.  IF THE ACTIONS OF AN OFFICER DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE TERMS OF
HIS VALID STATUTORY AUTHORITY, THEN THEY ARE ACTIONS OF THE SOVEREIGN,
WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE TORTIOUS UNDER GENERAL LAW, IF THEY WOULD BE
REGARDED AS THE ACTIONS OF A PRIVATE PRINCIPAL UNDER THE NORMAL RULES
OF AGENCY.  A GOVERNMENT OFFICER IS NOT THEREBY NECESSARILY IMMUNIZED
FROM LIABILITY, IF HIS ACTION IS SUCH THAT LIABILITY WOULD BE IMPOSED
BY THE GENERAL LAW OF TORTS.  BUT THE ACTION ITSELF CANNOT BE ENJOINED
OR DIRECTED, SINCE IT IS ALSO THE ACTION OF THE SOVEREIGN.  UNITED
STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 689-697. 

4.  THE ACTION OF AN OFFICER OF THE SOVEREIGN (BE IT HOLDING, TAKING
OR OTHERWISE LEGALLY AFFECTING A PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY) CAN BE REGARDED
AS SO "ILLEGAL" AS TO PERMIT A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF AGAINST THE
OFFICER AS AN INDIVIDUAL ONLY IF IT IS NOT WITHIN THE OFFICER'S
STATUTORY POWERS OR, IF WITHIN THOSE POWERS, ONLY IF THE POWERS, OR
THEIR EXERCISE IN THE PARTICULAR CASE, ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VOID. 
GOLDBERG V. DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218, FOLLOWED; GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S.
536, DISCUSSED.  PP. 697-702. 

5.  SINCE THE VERY BASIS OF PLAINTIFF'S ACTION IS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR WAS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A BINDING CONTRACT TO SELL
THE GOVERNMENT'S COAL, THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF ANY STATUTORY
LIMITATION ON HIS AUTHORITY, AS SALES AGENT, TO DELIVER ONLY WHEN HE
BELIEVED HE WAS REQUIRED TO DO SO UNDER THE CONTRACT, AND THERE IS NO
CLAIM THAT HIS ACTION IN REFUSING TO DELIVER CONSTITUTED AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY, THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
ACTION IN SO REFUSING WAS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE EFFORT TO
ENJOIN IT MUST FAIL AS AN EFFORT TO ENJOIN THE UNITED STATES.  P. 703. 

6.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION, THE
NECESSITY OF PERMITTING THE GOVERNMENT TO CARRY OUT ITS FUNCTIONS
UNHAMPERED BY DIRECT JUDICIAL INTERVENTION OUTWEIGHS THE POSSIBLE
DISADVANTAGE TO THE CITIZEN IN BEING RELEGATED TO THE RECOVERY OF MONEY
DAMAGES AFTER THE EVENT.  PP. 703-704. 

7.  IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO EXAMINE THE NECESSITY OF IMMUNITY OF
THE PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT AGENCY INVOLVED, SINCE THAT IS A FUNCTION OF
THE CONGRESS.  PP. 704-705. 

LARSON, WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATOR AND SURPLUS PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR,
V. DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN COMMERCE CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

A SUIT AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATION WAS
DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, AS A SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  83 U.S.
APP. D.C. 13, 165 F.2D 235.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, AND LARSON
WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR LITTLEJOHN AS THE PARTY PETITIONER.  333 U.S. 872. 
REVERSED, P. 705. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY THE DOMESTIC & FOREIGN COMMERCE CORPORATION
AGAINST ROBERT M. LITTLEJOHN, THE THEN HEAD OF THE WAR ASSETS
ADMINISTRATION.  FN1  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAD
SOLD CERTAIN SURPLUS COAL TO THE PLAINTIFF; THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR
REFUSED TO DELIVER THE COAL BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, HAD ENTERED INTO A
NEW CONTRACT TO SELL IT TO OTHERS.  THE PRAYER WAS FOR AN INJUNCTION
PROHIBITING THE ADMINISTRATOR FROM SELLING OR DELIVERING THE COAL TO
ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PLAINTIFF AND FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE SALE TO
THE PLAINTIFF WAS VALID AND THE SALE TO THE SECOND PURCHASER INVALID. 

A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED EX PARTE.  AT THE SUBSEQUENT
HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, THE DEFENDANT
MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE
COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE SUIT WAS ONE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES.  THE MOTION WAS GRANTED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,
HOLDING THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL CAPACITY OF THE COURT DEPENDED ON
WHETHER OR NOT TITLE TO THE COAL HAD PASSED.  FN2  SINCE THIS WAS ALSO
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ON THE MERITS, IT REMANDED THE CASE FOR TRIAL.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN3  333 U.S. 872. 

THE CONTROVERSY ON THE MERITS CONCERNS THE INTERPRETATION TO BE GIVEN
TO THE CONTRACT OF SALE.  THE WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATION CONSTRUED THE
CONTRACT AS REQUIRING THE PLAINTIFF TO DEPOSIT FUNDS TO PAY FOR THE
COAL IN ADVANCE AND, WHEN AN UNSATISFACTORY LETTER OF CREDIT WAS
OFFERED IN PLACE OF A DEPOSIT, IT CONSIDERED THAT THE CONTRACT WAS
BREACHED.  THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONSTRUED THE CONTRACT AS
REQUIRING PAYMENT ONLY ON DELIVERY OF THE DOCUMENTS COVERING THE COAL
SHIPMENT.  IN ITS VIEW, IT WAS NOT OBLIGED TO DEPOSIT ANY FUNDS IN
ADVANCE OF SHIPMENT AND, THEREFORE, HAD NOT BREACHED THE CONTRACT BY
FAILING TO DO SO. 

A SECOND QUESTION, RELATED TO BUT DIFFERENT FROM THE QUESTION OF
BREACH, WAS WHETHER LEGAL TITLE TO THE COAL HAD PASSED TO THE
RESPONDENT WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS MADE.  IF THE CONTRACT REQUIRED THE
DEPOSIT OF FUNDS THEN, OF COURSE, TITLE COULD NOT PASS UNTIL THE
CONTRACT TERMS WERE COMPLIED WITH.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CONTRACT
REQUIRED PAYMENT ONLY ON THE DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS, A QUESTION REMAINED
AS TO WHETHER TITLE NEVERTHELESS PASSED AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS
MADE. 

SINCE THESE QUESTIONS WERE NOT DECIDED BY THE COURTS BELOW WE DO NOT
PASS ON THEM HERE.  THEY ARE IMPORTANT ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY ILLUMINATE
THE BASIS ON WHICH IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUIT.  IT WAS NOT ALLEGED THAT THE CONTRACT FOR
THE SALE OF THE COAL WAS A CONTRACT WITH THE OFFICER PERSONALLY.  FN4
THE BASIS OF THE ACTION, ON THE CONTRARY, WAS THAT A CONTRACT HAD BEEN
ENTERED INTO WITH THE UNITED STATES.  NOR WAS IT CLAIMED THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAD ANY PERSONAL INTEREST IN THIS COAL OR, INDEED, THAT
HE HIMSELF HAD TAKEN ANY WRONGFUL ACTION.  THE COMPLAINT WAS DIRECTED
AGAINST HIM BECAUSE OF HIS OFFICIAL FUNCTION AS CHIEF OF THE WAR ASSETS
ADMINISTRATION.  FN5  IT ASKED FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST HIM IN THAT
CAPACITY, AND AGAINST "HIS AGENTS, ASSISTANTS, DEPUTIES AND EMPLOYEES
AND ALL PERSONS ACTING OR ASSUMING TO ACT UNDER THEIR DIRECTION."  THE
RELIEF SOUGHT WAS, IN SHORT, RELIEF AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION FOR
WRONGS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BY SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS IN THAT
ADMINISTRATION.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE COURTS BELOW WAS WHETHER
SUCH AN INJUNCTION WAS BARRED BY THE SOVEREIGN'S IMMUNITY FROM SUIT. 

BEFORE ANSWERING THAT QUESTION IT IS PERHAPS ADVISABLE TO STATE
CLEARLY WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT INVOLVED.  THERE IS NOT INVOLVED ANY
QUESTION OF THE IMMUNIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AGAINST
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR WRONGFUL ACTIONS.  IF THOSE ACTIONS ARE SUCH
AS TO CREATE A PERSONAL LIABILITY, WHETHER SOUNDING IN TORT OR IN
CONTRACT, THE FACT THAT THE OFFICER IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
SOVEREIGN DOES NOT, OF COURSE, FORBID A COURT FROM TAKING JURISDICTION
OVER A SUIT AGAINST HIM.  SLOAN SHIPYARDS V. U.S. FLEET CORP., 258 U.S.
549, 567(1922).  AS WAS SAID IN BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S.
575, 580(1943), THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN AGENT IS LIABLE FOR HIS OWN TORTS
"IS AN ANCIENT ONE AND APPLIES EVEN TO CERTAIN ACTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
OR PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITIES."  BUT THE EXISTENCE OF A RIGHT TO SUE THE
OFFICER IS NOT THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THIS
PARTICULAR SUIT IS NOT ALSO, IN EFFECT, A SUIT AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN. 
IF IT IS, IT MUST FAIL, WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICER MIGHT OTHERWISE BE
SUABLE. 

IF THE DENOMINATION OF THE PARTY DEFENDANT BY THE PLAINTIFF WERE THE
SOLE TEST OF WHETHER A SUIT WAS AGAINST THE OFFICER INDIVIDUALLY OR
AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL, THE SOVEREIGN, OUR TASK WOULD BE EASY.  OUR
DECISION THEN WOULD BE THAT THE UNITED STATES IN NOT BEING SUED HERE
BECAUSE IT IS NOT NAMED AS A PARTY.  THIS WOULD BE SIMPLE AND WOULD NOT
LEAVE ROOM FOR CONTROVERSY.  BUT CONTROVERSY THERE HAS BEEN, IN THIS
FIELD ABOVE ALL OTHERS, BECAUSE IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE
CRUCIAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN A SUIT NOMINALLY
ADDRESSED TO THE OFFICER IS RELIEF AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN.  FN6  IN A
SUIT AGAINST THE OFFICER TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE AGENT'S PERSONAL
ACTIONS, THAT QUESTION IS EASILY ANSWERED.  THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT WILL
NOT REQUIRE ACTION BY THE SOVEREIGN OR DISTURB THE SOVEREIGN'S
PROPERTY.  THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO JURISDICTIONAL DIFFICULTY.  FN7  THE
QUESTION BECOMES DIFFICULT AND THE AREA OF CONTROVERSY IS ENTERED WHEN
THE SUIT IS NOT ONE FOR DAMAGES BUT FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF:  I.E., THE
RECOVERY OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY OR MONIES, EJECTMENT FROM LAND, OR
INJUNCTION EITHER DIRECTING OR RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT OFFICER'S
ACTIONS.  IN EACH SUCH CASE THE QUESTION IS DIRECTLY POSED AS TO
WHETHER, BY OBTAINING RELIEF AGAINST THE OFFICER, RELIEF WILL NOT, IN
EFFECT, BE OBTAINED AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN.  FOR THE SOVEREIGN CAN ACT
ONLY THROUGH AGENTS AND, WHEN AN AGENT'S ACTIONS ARE RESTRAINED, THE
SOVEREIGN ITSELF MAY, THROUGH HIM, BE RESTRAINED.  AS INDICATED, THIS
QUESTION DOES NOT ARISE BECAUSE OF ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAW AND
EQUITY.  IT ARISES WHENEVER SUIT IS BROUGHT AGAINST AN OFFICER OF THE
SOVEREIGN IN WHICH THE RELIEF SOUGHT FROM HIM IS NOT COMPENSATION FOR
AN ALLEGED WRONG BUT, RATHER, THE PREVENTION OR DISCONTINUANCE, IN REM,
OF THE WRONG.  IN EACH SUCH CASE THE COMPULSION, WHICH THE COURT IS
ASKED TO IMPOSE, MAY BE COMPULSION AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN, ALTHOUGH
NOMINALLY DIRECTED AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICER.  IF IT IS, THEN THE
SUIT IS BARRED, NOT BECAUSE IT IS A SUIT AGAINST AN OFFICER OF THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT BECAUSE IT IS, IN SUBSTANCE, A SUIT AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT OVER WHICH THE COURT, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSENT, HAS NO
JURISDICTION. 

THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THIS CASE WAS NOT THE PAYMENT OF DAMAGES BY THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT.  FN8 TO THE CONTRARY, IT WAS ASKED THAT THE COURT
ORDER THE WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATOR, HIS AGENTS, ASSISTANTS, DEPUTIES
AND EMPLOYEES AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR DIRECTION, NOT TO SELL
THE COAL INVOLVED AND NOT TO DELIVER IT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE
RESPONDENT.  FN9  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THIS WAS RELIEF AGAINST
THE SOVEREIGN AND THEREFORE DISMISSED THE SUIT.  WE AGREE. 

THERE MAY BE, OF COURSE, SUITS FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF AGAINST OFFICERS
OF THE SOVEREIGN WHICH ARE NOT SUITS AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN.  IF THE
OFFICER PURPORTS TO ACT AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT AS AN OFFICIAL, A SUIT
DIRECTED AGAINST THAT ACTION IS NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN.  IF
THE WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATOR HAD COMPLETED A SALE OF HIS PERSONAL HOME,
HE PRESUMABLY COULD BE ENJOINED FROM LATER CONVEYING IT TO A THIRD
PERSON.  ON A SIMILAR THEORY, WHERE THE OFFICER'S POWERS ARE LIMITED BY
STATUTE, HIS ACTIONS BEYOND THOSE LIMITATIONS ARE CONSIDERED INDIVIDUAL
AND NOT SOVEREIGN ACTIONS.  THE OFFICER IS NOT DOING THE BUSINESS WHICH
THE SOVEREIGN HAS EMPOWERED HIM TO DO OR HE IS DOING IT IN A WAY WHICH
THE SOVEREIGN HAS FORBIDDEN.  HIS ACTIONS ARE ULTRA VIRES HIS AUTHORITY
AND THEREFORE MAY BE MADE THE OBJECT OF SPECIFIC RELIEF.  IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN SUCH CASES THE RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED, WITHOUT
IMPLEADING THE SOVEREIGN, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE OFFICER'S LACK OF
DELEGATED POWER.  A CLAIM OF ERROR IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER IS
THEREFORE NOT SUFFICIENT.  AND, SINCE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
HEAR THE CASE MAY DEPEND, AS WE HAVE RECENTLY RECOGNIZED, FN10  UPON
THE DECISION WHICH IT ULTIMATELY REACHES ON THE MERITS, IT IS NECESSARY
THAT THE PLAINTIFF SET OUT IN HIS COMPLAINT THE STATUTORY LIMITATION ON
WHICH HE RELIES. 

A SECOND TYPE OF CASE IS THAT IN WHICH THE STATUTE OR ORDER
CONFERRING POWER UPON THE OFFICER TO TAKE ACTION IN THE SOVEREIGN'S
NAME IS CLAIMED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  ACTIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS
AGAINST A WARDEN AND INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE THREATENED ENFORCEMENT OF
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES ARE FAMILIAR EXAMPLES OF THIS TYPE.  HERE,
TOO, THE CONDUCT AGAINST WHICH SPECIFIC RELIEF IS SOUGHT IS BEYOND THE
OFFICER'S POWERS AND IS, THEREFORE, NOT THE CONDUCT OF THE SOVEREIGN. 
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THIS CASE THE POWER HAS BEEN CONFERRED
IN FORM BUT THE GRANT IS LACKING IN SUBSTANCE BECAUSE OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY. 

THESE TWO TYPES HAVE FREQUENTLY BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT AS THE
ONLY ONES IN WHICH A RESTRAINT MAY BE OBTAINED AGAINST THE CONDUCT OF
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.  THE RULE WAS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE HUGHES IN
PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 620(1912), WHERE HE SAID:  "
...  IN CASE OF AN INJURY THREATENED BY HIS ILLEGAL ACTION, THE OFFICER
CANNOT CLAIM IMMUNITY FROM INJUNCTION PROCESS.  THE PRINCIPLE HAS
FREQUENTLY BEEN APPLIED WITH RESPECT TO STATE OFFICERS SEEKING TO
ENFORCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENTS.  (CITING CASES.)  AND IT IS
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO A FEDERAL OFFICER ACTING IN EXCESS OF HIS
AUTHORITY OR UNDER AN AUTHORITY NOT VALIDLY CONFERRED."  FN11 

IT IS NOT CONTENDED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT THE PRESENT CASE FALLS
WITHIN EITHER OF THESE CATEGORIES.  THERE WAS NO CLAIM MADE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS AGENTS, ETC., WERE ACTING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OR
PURSUANT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF POWER.  NOR WAS THERE ANY
ALLEGATION OF A LIMITATION ON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DELEGATED POWER TO
REFUSE SHIPMENT IN CASES IN WHICH HE BELIEVED THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT
OBLIGED TO DELIVER.  THERE WAS, IT IS TRUE, AN ALLEGATION THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR WAS ACTING "ILLEGALLY," AND THAT THE REFUSAL TO DELIVER
WAS "UNAUTHORIZED."  BUT THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT BASED AND DID NOT
PURPORT TO BE BASED UPON ANY LACK OF DELEGATED POWER.  FN12  NOR COULD
THEY BE, SINCE THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS EMPOWERED BY THE SOVEREIGN TO
ADMINISTER A GENERAL SALES PROGRAM ENCOMPASSING THE NEGOTIATION OF
CONTRACTS, THE SHIPMENT OF GOODS AND THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT.  A NORMAL
CONCOMITANT OF SUCH POWERS, AS A MATTER OF GENERAL AGENCY LAW, IS THE
POWER TO REFUSE DELIVERY WHEN, IN THE AGENT'S VIEW, DELIVERY IS NOT
CALLED FOR UNDER A CONTRACT AND THE POWER TO SELL GOODS WHICH THE AGENT
BELIEVES ARE STILL HIS PRINCIPAL'S TO SELL. 

THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED,
WAS THAT THERE EXISTS A THIRD CATEGORY OF CASES IN WHICH THE ACTION OF
A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL MAY BE RESTRAINED OR DIRECTED.  IF, SAYS THE
RESPONDENT, AN OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT WRONGLY TAKES OR HOLDS
SPECIFIC PROPERTY TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFF HAS TITLE, THEN HIS TAKING OR
HOLDING IS A TORT, AND "ILLEGAL" AS A MATTER OF GENERAL LAW, WHETHER OR
NOT IT BE WITHIN HIS DELEGATED POWERS.  HE MAY THEREFORE BE SUED
INDIVIDUALLY TO PREVENT THE "ILLEGAL" TAKING OR TO RECOVER THE PROPERTY
"ILLEGALLY" HELD. 

IF THIS IS AN ADEQUATE THEORY ON WHICH TO REST THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE RELIEF ASKED IS NOT RELIEF AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN, THEN THE
RESPONDENT'S COMPLAINT MADE OUT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR JURISDICTION. 
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENT'S CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED
STATES WAS AN IMMEDIATE CONTRACT OF SALE UNDER WHICH TITLE TO THE COAL
HAD PASSED.  THE COAL WAS THUS ALLEGED TO BE THE RESPONDENT'S COAL, NOT
THE UNITED STATES' COAL.  RETENTION OF IT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AFTER
DEMAND WAS CLAIMED TO BE A CONVERSION; SALE TO A THIRD PARTY WOULD
AGGRAVATE THE CONVERSION.  SINCE THESE ACTIONS WERE TORTIOUS THEY WERE
"ILLEGAL" IN THE RESPONDENT'S SENSE AND HENCE WERE CONTENDED TO BE
INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS, NOT PROPERLY TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES,
WHICH COULD BE ENJOINED WITHOUT MAKING THE UNITED STATES A PARTY.    WE
BELIEVE THE THEORY TO BE ERRONEOUS.  IT CONFUSES THE DOCTRINE OF
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PLAINTIFF STATE A CAUSE
OF ACTION.  IT IS A PREREQUISITE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF ANY ACTION FOR
SPECIFIC RELIEF THAT THE PLAINTIFF CLAIM AN INVASION OF HIS LEGAL
RIGHTS, EITHER PAST OR THREATENED.  HE MUST, THEREFORE, ALLEGE CONDUCT
WHICH IS "ILLEGAL" IN THE SENSE THAT THE RESPONDENT SUGGESTS.  IF HE
DOES NOT, HE HAS NOT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THIS IS TRUE WHETHER
THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF IS SOVEREIGN OR INDIVIDUAL.  IN A SUIT
AGAINST AN AGENCY OF THE SOVEREIGN, AS IN ANY OTHER SUIT, IT IS
THEREFORE NECESSARY THAT THE PLAINTIFF CLAIM AN INVASION OF HIS
RECOGNIZED LEGAL RIGHTS.  IF HE DOES NOT DO SO, THE SUIT MUST FAIL EVEN
IF HE ALLEGES THAT THE AGENT ACTED BEYOND STATUTORY AUTHORITY N13 OR
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.  FN14  BUT, IN A SUIT AGAINST AN AGENCY OF THE
SOVEREIGN, IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT HE MAKE SUCH A CLAIM.  SINCE THE
SOVEREIGN MAY NOT BE SUED, IT MUST ALSO APPEAR THAT THE ACTION TO BE
RESTRAINED OR DIRECTED IS NOT ACTION OF THE SOVEREIGN.  THE MERE
ALLEGATION THAT THE OFFICER, ACTING OFFICIALLY, WRONGFULLY HOLDS
PROPERTY TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFF HAS TITLE DOES NOT MEET THAT
REQUIREMENT.  TRUE, IT ESTABLISHES A WRONG TO THE PLAINTIFF.  BUT IT
DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE OFFICER, IN COMMITTING THAT WRONG, IS NOT
EXERCISING THE POWERS DELEGATED TO HIM BY THE SOVEREIGN.  IF HE IS
EXERCISING SUCH POWERS, THE ACTION IS THE SOVEREIGN'S AND A SUIT TO
ENJOIN IT MAY NOT BE BROUGHT UNLESS THE SOVEREIGN HAS CONSENTED. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION OF A TORT CANNOT BE
AUTHORIZED BY THE SOVEREIGN.  THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT GOES, THE
ALLEGATION THAT A GOVERNMENT OFFICER HAS ACTED OR IS THREATENING TO ACT
TORTIOUSLY TOWARD THE PLAINTIFF IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT
HE HAS ACTED BEYOND HIS DELEGATED POWERS.  IT IS ON THIS CONTENTION
THAT THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION FUNDAMENTALLY RESTS, SINCE IT IS
ADMITTED THAT, IF THE ACTION TO BE PREVENTED OR COMPELLED IS AUTHORIZED
BY THE SOVEREIGN, THE DEMAND FOR IT MUST FAIL AS A DEMAND AGAINST THE
SOVEREIGN.  IT HAS BEEN SAID, IN A VERY SPECIAL SENSE, THAT, AS A
MATTER OF AGENCY LAW, A PRINCIPAL MAY NEVER LAWFULLY AUTHORIZE THE
COMMISSION OF A TORT BY HIS AGENT.  BUT THAT STATEMENT, IN ITS USUAL
CONTEXT, IS ONLY A WAY OF SAYING THAT AN AGENT'S LIABILITY FOR TORTS
COMMITTED BY HIM CANNOT BE AVOIDED BY PLEADING THE DIRECTION OR
AUTHORIZATION OF HIS PRINCIPAL N15.  THE AGENT IS HIMSELF LIABLE
WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED OR EVEN DIRECTED TO COMMIT THE
TORT.  THIS, OF COURSE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PRINCIPAL IS NOT LIABLE
NOR THAT THE TORTIOUS ACTION MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS THE ACTION OF THE
PRINCIPAL.  IT DOES NOT MEAN, THEREFORE, THAT THE AGENT'S ACTION,
BECAUSE TORTIOUS, IS, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, ULTRA VIRES HIS
AUTHORITY.  AN ARGUMENT TO THAT EFFECT WAS AT ONE TIME ADVANCED IN
CONNECTION WITH CORPORATE AGENTS, IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID CORPORATE
LIABILITY FOR TORTS, BUT WAS DECISIVELY REJECTED.  FN16 

THERE IS, THEREFORE, NOTHING IN THE LAW OF AGENCY WHICH LENDS SUPPORT
TO THE CONTENTION THAT AN OFFICER'S TORTIOUS ACTION IS IPSO FACTO
BEYOND HIS DELEGATED POWERS.  NOR, WE THINK, IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE
DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WHICH REQUIRES US TO ADOPT SUCH A VIEW
AS REGARDS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.  IF, OF COURSE, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE
BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS THE THESIS THAT THE KING
CAN DO NO WRONG, THEN IT MAY BE ALSO ASSUMED THAT IF THE KING'S AGENT
DOES WRONG THAT ACTION CANNOT BE THE ACTION OF THE KING.  IT IS ON SOME
SUCH ARGUMENT THAT THE POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT RESTS.  IT IS ARGUED
THAT AN OFFICER GIVEN THE POWER TO MAKE DECISIONS IS ONLY GIVEN THE
POWER TO MAKE CORRECT DECISIONS.  IF HIS DECISIONS ARE NOT CORRECT,
THEN HIS ACTION BASED ON THOSE DECISIONS IS BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY AND
NOT THE ACTION OF THE SOVEREIGN.  THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR SUCH A
CONTENTION IN CASES IN WHICH THE DECISION MADE BY THE OFFICER DOES NOT
RELATE TO THE TERMS OF HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  CERTAINLY THE
JURISDICTION OF A COURT TO DECIDE A CASE DOES NOT DISAPPEAR IF ITS
DECISION ON THE MERITS IS WRONG.  AND WE HAVE HERETOFORE REJECTED THE
ARGUMENT THAT OFFICIAL ACTION IS INVALID IF BASED ON AN INCORRECT
DECISION AS TO LAW OR FACT, IF THE OFFICER MAKING THE DECISION WAS
EMPOWERED TO DO SO.  ADAMS V. NAGLE, 303 U.S. 532, 542(1938).  WE
THEREFORE REJECT THE CONTENTION HERE.  WE HOLD THAT IF THE ACTIONS OF
AN OFFICER DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE TERMS OF HIS VALID STATUTORY
AUTHORITY, THEN THEY ARE THE ACTIONS OF THE SOVEREIGN, WHETHER OR NOT
THEY ARE TORTIOUS UNDER GENERAL LAW, IF THEY WOULD BE REGARDED AS THE
ACTIONS OF A PRIVATE PRINCIPAL UNDER THE NORMAL RULES OF AGENCY.  A
GOVERNMENT OFFICER IS NOT THEREBY NECESSARILY IMMUNIZED FROM LIABILITY,
IF HIS ACTION IS SUCH THAT A LIABILITY WOULD BE IMPOSED BY THE GENERAL
LAW OF TORTS.  BUT THE ACTION ITSELF CANNOT BE ENJOINED OR DIRECTED,
SINCE IT IS ALSO THE ACTION OF THE SOVEREIGN. 

UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196(1882), IS SAID TO HAVE ESTABLISHED
THE RULE FOR WHICH THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS.  IT DID NOT.  IT
REPRESENTS, RATHER, A SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
EXCEPTION TO THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.  THE SUIT THERE WAS
AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICERS TO RECOVER LAND HELD BY THEM, WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THEIR AUTHORITY, AS A UNITED STATES MILITARY STATION AND CEMETERY. 
THE QUESTION AT ISSUE WAS THE VALIDITY OF A TAX SALE UNDER WHICH THE
UNITED STATES, AT LEAST IN THE VIEW OF THE OFFICERS, HAD OBTAINED TITLE
TO THE PROPERTY.  THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THAT THE SALE WAS INVALID AND
THAT TITLE TO THE LAND WAS IN HIM.  THE COURT HELD THAT IF HE WAS RIGHT
THE DEFENDANTS' POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS ILLEGAL AND A SUIT AGAINST
THEM WAS NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN.  PRIMA FACIE, THIS HOLDING
WOULD APPEAR TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE PLAINTIFF.  EXAMINATION
OF THE LEE CASE, HOWEVER, INDICATES THAT THE BASIS OF THE DECISION WAS
THE ASSUMED LACK OF THE DEFENDANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO HOLD
THE LAND AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.  THE COURT SAID (106 U.S. AT 219): 

"IT IS NOT PRETENDED, AS THE CASE NOW STANDS, THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD
ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO (TAKE THE LAND), OR THAT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY
COULD GIVE HIM ANY SUCH AUTHORITY EXCEPT UPON PAYMENT OF JUST
COMPENSATION.  THE DEFENCE STANDS HERE SOLELY UPON THE ABSOLUTE
IMMUNITY FROM JUDICIAL INQUIRY OF EVERY ONE WHO ASSERTS AUTHORITY FROM
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER CLEAR IT MAY BE MADE
THAT THE EXECUTIVE POSSESSED NO SUCH POWER.  NOT ONLY NO SUCH POWER IS
GIVEN, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED, BOTH TO THE EXECUTIVE AND THE
LEGISLATIVE, TO DEPRIVE ANY ONE OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW, OR TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SHALL IT BE SAID  ...  THAT THE COURTS CANNOT GIVE A REMEDY WHEN THE
CITIZEN HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS PROPERTY BY FORCE, HIS ESTATE SEIZED
AND CONVERTED TO THE USE OF THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY,
WITHOUT PROCESS OF LAW, AND WITHOUT COMPENSATION, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT
HAS ORDERED IT AND HIS OFFICERS ARE IN POSSESSION?" 

THE COURT THUS ASSUMED THAT IF TITLE HAD BEEN IN THE PLAINTIFF THE
TAKING OF THE PROPERTY BY THE DEFENDANTS WOULD BE A TAKING WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION AND, THEREFORE, AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION.  FN17  ON THAT
ASSUMPTION, AND ONLY ON THAT ASSUMPTION, THE DEFENDANTS' POSSESSION OF
THE PROPERTY WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USE OF THEIR POWER AND WAS,
THEREFORE, NOT VALIDLY AUTHORIZED BY THE SOVEREIGN.  FOR THAT REASON, A
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF, TO OBTAIN THE PROPERTY, WAS NOT A SUIT
AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN AND COULD BE MAINTAINED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS AS
INDIVIDUALS. 

THE LEE CASE, THEREFORE, OFFERS NO SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTION THAT A
CLAIM OF TITLE TO PROPERTY HELD BY AN OFFICER OF THE SOVEREIGN IS, OF
ITSELF, SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE OFFICER HOLDING THE PROPERTY
IS NOT VALIDLY EMPOWERED BY THE SOVEREIGN TO DO SO.  ONLY WHERE THERE
IS A CLAIM THAT THE HOLDING CONSTITUTES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF
PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION DOES THE LEE CASE REQUIRE THAT
CONCLUSION.  FN18  THE CASES WHICH FOLLOWED LEE'S DO NOT REQUIRE A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  THERE ARE A GREAT NUMBER OF SUCH CASES AND, AS THIS
COURT HAS ITSELF REMARKED, IT IS NOT "AN EASY MATTER TO RECONCILE ALL
THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT IN THIS CLASS OF CASES."  FN19  WITH ONLY
ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, SPECIFIC RELIEF IN CONNECTION WITH
PROPERTY HELD OR INJURED BY OFFICERS OF THE SOVEREIGN ACTING IN THE
NAME OF THE SOVEREIGN HAS BEEN GRANTED ONLY WHERE THERE WAS A CLAIM
THAT THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OR THE INJURY TO IT WAS NOT THE ACTION
OF THE SOVEREIGN BECAUSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL  FN20  OR BEYOND THE
OFFICER'S STATUTORY POWERS N21.  CERTAINLY, THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY
STATED THESE TO BE THE CASES IN WHICH SUCH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED. 
FN22  A CONTRARY DOCTRINE WAS STATED IN GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S.
536(1926).  IN THAT CASE THE UNITED STATES HAD LEASED BARGES TO THE
PLAINTIFF UNDER A CONTRACT WHICH GAVE IT A RIGHT TO REPOSSESS UNDER
CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  BELIEVING THAT THOSE CONDITIONS EXISTED, OFFICERS
OF THE GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO REPOSSESS THE BARGES.  THE COURT HELD
THAT A SUIT TO ENJOIN THEM FROM DOING SO WAS NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES.  THE COURT SAID THAT THE TAKING OF THE BARGES WAS
ALLEGED TO BE A TRESPASS AND HENCE "ILLEGAL."  THEREFORE, THE ACTIONS
OF THE OFFICERS WERE PERSONAL ACTIONS, NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND INJUNCTION AGAINST THEM WOULD NOT BE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES.  271 U.S. AT 544.  FOR THIS CONCLUSION THE COURT RELIED
ENTIRELY UPON THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HUGHES IN PHILADELPHIA CO. V.
STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605(1912).  THE RELIANCE WAS MISPLACED, SINCE THE
OPINION IN THAT CASE CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY RESTED ON THE CLAIM THAT
THERE WAS A LACK OF STATUTORY POWER TO ACT, NOT SIMPLY ON A CLAIM OF
TORTIOUS INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFF.  FN23 

OPPOSED TO THE RATIONALE OF THE GOLTRA OPINION IS THE DECISION, BY
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, IN GOLDBERG V. DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218(1913).  THERE,
AS HERE, THE QUESTION CONCERNED THE EFFECT OF A CLAIMED SALE OF
GOVERNMENT SURPLUS PROPERTY.  THE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED A SEALED BID FOR
A SURPLUS WAR VESSEL, ACCOMPANIED IN THAT CASE BY A CERTIFIED CHECK AS
PAYMENT IN ADVANCE.  WHEN THE BIDS WERE OPENED HIS WAS THE HIGHEST. 
THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, HOWEVER, DETERMINED NOT TO ACCEPT THE BID
AND REFUSED TO DELIVER THE VESSEL.  THE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT MANDAMUS.  HE
ALLEGED THAT THE SALE WAS COMPLETE WHEN THE BIDS WERE OPENED AND THAT
THE OWNERSHIP OF THE VESSEL WAS THEREFORE IN HIM, AND HE ASKED THAT THE
SECRETARY BE COMPELLED TO DELIVER IT.  THE LOWER COURTS EXAMINED THE
DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CONCLUDED THAT THE SALE WAS NOT COMPLETE
UNTIL THE SECRETARY ANNOUNCED HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID.  ON APPEAL
HERE, IT WAS EXPRESSLY HELD THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER
THE LOWER COURTS WERE CORRECT.  THE SUIT MUST FAIL AS ONE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES, THE COURT SAID, WHETHER OR NOT THE SALE WAS COMPLETE. 
IN SO HOLDING THE COURT SAID, IN EFFECT, THAT THE QUESTION OF TITLE WAS
IMMATERIAL TO THE COURT'S JURISDICTION.  WRONGFUL THE SECRETARY'S
CONDUCT MIGHT BE, BUT A SUIT TO RELIEVE THE WRONG BY OBTAINING THE
VESSEL WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE SOVEREIGN BEHIND ITS BACK AND HENCE
MUST FAIL.  FN24 

BOTH CASES ARE PRESSED UPON US.  THE PETITIONER ARGUES, AND
CORRECTLY, THAT THE RESULT IN THE GOLDBERG CASE CALLS FOR A SIMILAR
RESULT IN THIS CASE - A DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.  THE RESPONDENT ARGUES, WITH EQUAL CORRECTNESS, THAT THE
THEORY OF THE GOLTRA OPINION - THAT AN ALLEGATION THAT THE ACTIONS OF
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS ARE WRONGFUL UNDER GENERAL LAW IS SUFFICIENT TO
SHOW THAT THEY ARE "UNAUTHORIZED" - CALLS FOR AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE
DECISION BELOW.  SINCE WE MUST THEREFORE RESOLVE THE CONFLICT IN
DOCTRINE  FN25  WE ADHERE TO THE RULE APPLIED IN THE GOLDBERG CASE AND
TO THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY REPEATED BY THIS COURT, BOTH
BEFORE AND AFTER THE GOLTRA CASE:  THE ACTION OF AN OFFICER OF THE
SOVEREIGN (BE IT HOLDING, TAKING OR OTHERWISE LEGALLY AFFECTING THE
PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY) CAN BE REGARDED AS SO "ILLEGAL" AS TO PERMIT A
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF AGAINST THE OFFICER AS AN INDIVIDUAL ONLY IF
IT IS NOT WITHIN THE OFFICER'S STATUTORY POWERS OR, IF WITHIN THOSE
POWERS, ONLY IF THE POWERS, OR THEIR EXERCISE IN THE PARTICULAR CASE,
ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VOID.  FN26 

THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE TO THE PRESENT CASE IS CLEAR.  THE
VERY BASIS OF THE RESPONDENT'S ACTION IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS AN
OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT, VALIDLY APPOINTED TO ADMINISTER ITS SALES
PROGRAM AND THEREFORE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER, THROUGH HIS SUBORDINATES,
INTO A BINDING CONTRACT CONCERNING THE SALE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S COAL. 
THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF ANY STATUTORY LIMITATION ON HIS POWERS AS A
SALES AGENT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A LIMITATION HE, LIKE ANY OTHER
SALES AGENT, HAD THE POWER AND THE DUTY TO CONSTRUE SUCH CONTRACTS AND
TO REFUSE DELIVERY IN CASES IN WHICH HE BELIEVED THAT THE CONTRACT
TERMS HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH.  HIS ACTION IN SO DOING IN THIS CASE
WAS, THEREFORE, WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY EVEN IF, FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION
HERE, WE ASSUME THAT HIS CONSTRUCTION WAS WRONG AND THAT TITLE TO THE
COAL HAD, IN FACT, PASSED TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE CONTRACT.  THERE
IS NO CLAIM THAT HIS ACTION CONSTITUTED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING. 
FN27  IT WAS, THEREFORE, INESCAPABLY THE ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE EFFORT TO ENJOIN IT MUST FAIL AS AN EFFORT TO ENJOIN THE UNITED
STATES. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS AN ARCHAIC
HANGOVER NOT CONSONANT WITH MODERN MORALITY AND THAT IT SHOULD
THEREFORE BE LIMITED WHEREVER POSSIBLE.  THERE MAY BE SUBSTANCE IN SUCH
A VIEWPOINT AS APPLIED TO SUITS FOR DAMAGES.  THE CONGRESS HAS
INCREASINGLY PERMITTED SUCH SUITS TO BE MAINTAINED AGAINST THE
SOVEREIGN AND WE SHOULD GIVE HOSPITABLE SCOPE TO THAT TREND.  FN28  BUT
THE REASONING IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SUITS FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF.  FOR, IT
IS ONE THING TO PROVIDE A METHOD BY WHICH A CITIZEN MAY BE COMPENSATED
FOR A WRONG DONE TO HIM BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS A FAR DIFFERENT
MATTER TO PERMIT A COURT TO EXERCISE ITS COMPULSIVE POWERS TO RESTRAIN
THE GOVERNMENT FROM ACTING, OR TO COMPEL IT TO ACT.  THERE ARE THE
STRONGEST REASONS OF PUBLIC POLICY FOR THE RULE THAT SUCH RELIEF CANNOT
BE HAD AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN.  THE GOVERNMENT, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, CANNOT BE STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS BY ANY PLAINTIFF
WHO PRESENTS A DISPUTED QUESTION OF PROPERTY OR CONTRACT RIGHT.  AS WAS
EARLY RECOGNIZED, "THE INTERFERENCE OF THE COURTS WITH THE PERFORMANCE
OF THE ORDINARY DUTIES OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT,
WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE OF NOTHING BUT MISCHIEF  ...  "  FN29 

THERE ARE LIMITS, OF COURSE.  UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM,
CERTAIN RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL ACTION AND, IF SUCH
RIGHTS ARE INFRINGED BY THE ACTIONS OF OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, IT
IS PROPER THAT THE COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT RELIEF AGAINST THOSE
ACTIONS.  BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION,
THE NECESSITY OF PERMITTING THE GOVERNMENT TO CARRY OUT ITS FUNCTIONS
UNHAMPERED BY DIRECT JUDICIAL INTERVENTION OUTWEIGHS THE POSSIBLE
DISADVANTAGE TO THE CITIZEN IN BEING RELEGATED TO THE RECOVERY OF MONEY
DAMAGES AFTER THE EVENT. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT A SALES AGENCY, SUCH AS THE WAR ASSETS
ADMINISTRATION, IS NOT THE TYPE OF AGENCY WHICH REQUIRES THE PROTECTION
FROM DIRECT JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY CONFERS.  WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ACTIVITIES OF
THE GOVERNMENT WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE SUCH PROTECTION.  THERE ARE OTHERS
IN WHICH THE NECESSITY OF IMMUNITY IS APPARENT.  BUT IT IS NOT FOR THIS
COURT TO EXAMINE THE NECESSITY IN EACH CASE.  THAT IS A FUNCTION OF THE
CONGRESS.  THE CONGRESS HAS, IN MANY CASES, ENTRUSTED THE BUSINESS OF
THE GOVERNMENT TO AGENCIES WHICH MAY CONTRACT IN THEIR OWN NAMES AND
WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO SUIT IN THEIR OWN NAMES.  IN OTHER CASES IT HAS
PERMITTED SUITS FOR DAMAGES, BUT, SIGNIFICANTLY, NOT FOR SPECIFIC
RELIEF, IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE DIFFERENTIATIONS AS TO REMEDY
WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS ERECTED WOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY IF THE BASIS
ON WHICH THEY REST - THE ASSUMED IMMUNITY OF THE SOVEREIGN FROM SUIT IN
THE ABSENCE OF CONSENT - WERE UNDERMINED BY AN UNWARRANTED EXTENSION OF
THE LEE DOCTRINE. 

THE CAUSE IS REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS THAT THE COMPLAINT BE
DISMISSED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  LITTLEJOHN RESIGNED ON NOVEMBER 28, 1947.  ON APRIL 19, 1948, WE
GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE HIS SUCCESSOR, JESS
LARSON, AS PETITIONER HERE. 

FN2  165 F.2D 235(1947). 

FN3  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT A FINAL ONE, BUT WE
CONSIDERED IT APPROPRIATE FOR REVIEW HERE SINCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE WAS "FUNDAMENTAL TO THE FURTHER CONDUCT OF THE
CASE."  SEE LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731, 734(1947). 

FN4  CF. SLOAN SHIPYARDS V. U.S. FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549(1922),
WHERE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER A CORPORATE AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES
COULD BE SUED WHERE IT, NOT THE UNITED STATES, WAS THE CONTRACTOR. 

FN5  FOR THIS REASON, THERE OBVIOUSLY WAS NO OBJECTION TO THE
SUBSTITUTION IN THIS COURT OF THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATOR FOR HIS
PREDECESSOR, ALTHOUGH ALL THE ACTIONS COMPLAINED OF IN THE COMPLAINT
WERE TAKEN DURING THE PREDECESSOR'S ADMINISTRATION. 

FN6  IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443(1887).  AS WAS SAID IN MINNESOTA V.
HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373, 387(1902):  "  ...  WHETHER A SUIT IS ONE
AGAINST A STATE IS TO BE DETERMINED, NOT BY THE FACT OF THE PARTY NAMED
AS DEFENDANT ON THE RECORD, BUT BY THE RESULT OF THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE
WHICH MAY BE ENTERED  ...  " 

FN7  THERE ARE, OF COURSE, LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FROM PUBLIC OFFICERS.  SEE GIBSON V. REYNOLDS, 172 F.2D
95(1949); GLASS V. ICKES, 117 F.2D 273(1940); HARPER, LAW OF TORTS
(1933) SEC. 298.  THESE LIMITATIONS ARE MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW,
APPLICABLE IN SUITS INDUBITABLY ADDRESSED TO THE OFFICER, NOT THE
SOVEREIGN.  THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY COINCIDENTAL WITH THE LIMITATIONS
ON THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO HEAR A SUIT DIRECTED AGAINST THE
SOVEREIGN.  SEE JENNINGS, TORT LIABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, 21
MINN. L. REV. 263(1937), AND NOTE THE DIFFERING TREATMENT ACCORDED THE
CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION AND THE CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF IN BELKNAP V.
SCHILD, 161 U.S. 10, 27(1896). 

FN8  WHETHER SUCH RELIEF IS OBTAINABLE FROM ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICER ON
THE BASIS OF THE FACTS SET OUT IN THE COMPLAINT IS, AS STATED, NOT THE
QUESTION HERE.  BUT IT MAY SERIOUSLY BE DOUBTED WHETHER DAMAGES COULD,
IN ANY EVENT, BE RECOVERED FROM JESS LARSON, THE PRESENT WAR ASSETS
ADMINISTRATOR, OR FROM HIS PREDECESSOR, ROBERT M. LITTLEJOHN.  THE
COMPLAINT DID NOT CHARGE THEM WITH ANY PERSONAL WRONGDOING NOR EVEN
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED WRONGDOING OF THEIR SUBORDINATES.  CF.
ROBERTSON V. SICHEL, 127 U.S. 507, 515-516(1888).  SINCE THE COMPLAINT
DID NOT ASK FOR DAMAGES BUT FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF, THE ADMINISTRATOR, IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, WAS, OF COURSE, A PROPER PARTY.  CF. WILLIAMS V.
FANNING, 332 U.S. 490(1947). 

FN9  THE COMPLAINT ALSO ASKED FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF EVEN MORE
CLEARLY DIRECTED AT THE SOVEREIGN.  IT WAS ASKED THAT THE COURT DECLARE
THAT "THE SALE OF THIS COAL  ...  IS STILL VALID AND IN EFFECT."  THE
ADMINISTRATOR, AN AGENT FOR A DISCLOSED PRINCIPAL, WAS NOT A PARTY TO
THE CONTRACT OF SALE.  SEE 2 RESTATEMENT, AGENCY (1933) SEC. 320.  THE
REQUEST FOR AN ADJUDICATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE WAS THUS, EVEN
IN FORM, A REQUEST FOR AN ADJUDICATION AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN.  SUCH A
DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT VIS-A-VIS THE UNITED STATES
WOULD CLEARLY HAVE BEEN BEYOND THE COURT'S JURISDICTION.  SEE STANLEY
V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255(1896).  WE DO NOT REST OUR CONCLUSION HERE ON
THE REQUEST FOR SUCH A DECLARATION, SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT COULD HAVE
GRANTED ONLY THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED. 

FN10  LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731, 739(1947).  SINCE JURISDICTION IN
THIS TYPE OF CASE DOES REST ON THE DECISION ON THE MERITS THERE CAN BE
NO QUESTION THAT DISMISSAL OF A SUIT IN WHICH "THE ALLEGED CLAIM UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL STATUTES CLEARLY APPEARS TO BE  ...  MADE
SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING JURISDICTION OR  ...  IS WHOLLY
INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS" WOULD BE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION.  SEE BELL V. HOOD, 327 U.S. 678, 682-683(1946). 

FN11  OF COURSE, A SUIT MAY FAIL, AS ONE AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN, EVEN
IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE OFFICER BEING SUED HAS ACTED
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OR BEYOND HIS STATUTORY POWERS, IF THE RELIEF
REQUESTED CAN NOT BE GRANTED BY MERELY ORDERING THE CESSATION OF THE
CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF BUT WILL REQUIRE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY THE
SOVEREIGN OR THE DISPOSITION OF UNQUESTIONABLY SOVEREIGN PROPERTY. 
NORTH CAROLINA V. TEMPLE, 134 U.S. 22(1890). 

FN12  THIS CASE MUST, THEREFORE, BE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED FROM CASES
LIKE NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R. CO., 147 U.S. 165(1893).  IN THAT
CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE OFFICER BEING SUED LACKED POWER TO REFUSE
DELIVERY BECAUSE, UNDER THE STATUTORY SCHEME, HIS PREDECESSOR'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DELIVERY WAS BINDING. 
A SIMILAR CASE WOULD BE PRESENTED HERE IF THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATIONS OF CONTRACTS SHOULD
BE BINDING AND IRREVOCABLE AND IF A LATER, OR SUBORDINATE, OFFICIAL
REFUSED TO FOLLOW A PRIOR BINDING INTERPRETATION.  IN SUCH A CASE THE
ISSUE WOULD NOT BE THE CORRECTNESS OR INCORRECTNESS OF THE LATER
DECISION UNDER GENERAL LAW BUT SIMPLY THE POWER OF THE OFFICIAL, UNDER
THE STATUTE, TO MAKE A DECISION AT ALL.  CF. ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S.
82(1937). 

FN13  PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113, 125(1940). 

FN14  TENNESSEE POWER CO. V. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 137-139(1939);
MINE SAFETY CO. V. FORRESTAL, 326 U.S. 371(1945). 

FN15  THUS THE COURT SAID IN HOPKINS V. CLEMSON COLLEGE, 221 U.S.
636, 643(1911) "  ...  NEITHER A STATE NOR AN INDIVIDUAL CAN CONFER
UPON AN AGENT AUTHORITY TO COMMIT A TORT SO AS TO EXCUSE THE
PERPETRATOR."  SEE ALSO 1 MECHEM, AGENCY (2D ED., 1914) 1077. 

FN16  SEE PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON & BALTIMORE R. CO. V. QUIGLEY, 21
HOW.  202, 209-210(1859); 10 FLETCHER, CYCLOPEDIA CORPORATIONS (1931)
SEC. 4877.  THE CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS
REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO THAT MADE, AS REGARDS CORPORATE AGENTS, IN
CHESTNUT HILL TURNPIKE CO. V. RUTTER, 4 SERG.  & R. 6(PA. 1818).  THE
ARGUMENT IS REPORTED AS FOLLOWS, ID. AT P. 9: 

"NOW, A CORPORATION NEVER WAS AND NEVER CAN BE AUTHORISED BY LAW TO
COMMIT A TORT; THEY CAN INVEST NO ONE WITH POWER FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IF,
THEREFORE, AN AGENT CONSTITUTED FOR A LEGAL PURPOSE, INFLICT AN INJURY,
THE CORPORATION IS NO MORE ANSWERABLE, THAN IT WOULD BE FOR AN ACT OF
THAT AGENT, DONE WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY WHATEVER DERIVED FROM IT,
BECAUSE BEING UNAUTHORISED TO COMMIT A WRONG, IT IS OUT OF THE SCOPE OF
ITS CORPORATE POWERS." 

THE ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE COURT.  SEE ALSO THAYER V. BOSTON,
19 PICK.  511, 515(MASS.  1837). 

FN17  THE LEE CASE WAS DECIDED IN 1882.  AT THAT TIME THERE CLEARLY
WAS NO REMEDY AVAILABLE BY WHICH HE COULD HAVE OBTAINED COMPENSATION
FOR THE TAKING OF HIS LAND.  WHETHER COMPENSATION COULD BE OBTAINED
TODAY IN SUCH A CASE IS, OF COURSE, NOT THE ISSUE HERE. 

FN18  FOR THIS REASON THE AVAILABILITY OF A REMEDY IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS MAY, IN SOME CASES, BE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY.  WHERE THE ACTION AGAINST WHICH SPECIFIC RELIEF IS SOUGHT IS
A TAKING OR HOLDING OF THE PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTY, THE AVAILABILITY OF A
SUIT FOR COMPENSATION AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN WILL DEFEAT A CONTENTION
THAT THE ACTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  COMPARE HURLEY V. KINCAID, 285 U.S. 95(1932). 

FN19  CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK R. CO., 109 U.S. 446,
451(1883).  THE ENSUING YEARS HAVE NOT MADE THE TASK LESS DIFFICULT. 
SEE BROOKS V. DEWAR, 313 U.S. 354, 359(1941); LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S.
731, 738(1947). 

FN20  THUS, IN TINDAL V. WESLEY, 167 U.S. 204, 222(1897), THE COURT
STATED THAT A SUIT TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
PLAINTIFF AND WITHHELD BY OFFICERS OF A STATE WAS ANALOGOUS TO A SUIT
TO ENJOIN THE OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE.  ANY
OTHER VIEW, THE COURT SAID, WOULD LEAD TO THE RESULT "THAT IF A STATE,
BY ITS OFFICERS  ...  SHOULD SEIZE FOR PUBLIC USE THE PROPERTY OF A
CITIZEN, WITHOUT MAKING OR SECURING JUST COMPENSATION FOR HIM, AND THUS
VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION DECLARING THAT NO STATE SHALL
DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW  ...  THE
CITIZEN IS REMEDILESS SO LONG AS THE STATE, BY ITS AGENTS, CHOOSES TO
HOLD HIS PROPERTY  ...  " 

AND IN SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141, 152-153(1900), THE COURT
SAID THAT THE STATE COURT 

"WAS UNDER A DUTY TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAD OR COULD HAVE
ANY AUTHORITY IN LAW TO DO WHAT HE HAD DONE; AND THE SUIT WAS NOT TO BE
DEEMED ONE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE IN THE CONSIDERATION OF
THAT QUESTION IT WOULD BECOME NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE
DEFENDANT COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY ACQUIRE FROM THE UNITED STATES
AUTHORITY TO OBSTRUCT THE PLAINTIFF'S ACCESS  ... WITHOUT MAKING OR
SECURING COMPENSATION TO HIM.  ... 

"THE VITAL QUESTION THEREFORE IS  ...  WHETHER THE PROHIBITION IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR
PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION HAS ANY APPLICATION TO THE CASE
...  " 

FN21  SEE, E.G., PAYNE V. CENTRAL PACIFIC R. CO., 255 U.S. 228,
238(1921), WHERE THE COURT SAID THAT SPECIFIC RELIEF COULD BE HAD
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT OFFICERS HAD "DEPARTED FROM A PLAIN OFFICIAL
DUTY" "THROUGH A MISTAKEN CONCEPTION OF THEIR AUTHORITY," AND SANTA FE
PAC. R. CO. V. FALL, 259 U.S. 197, 199(1922), WHERE THE CONTENTION WAS
"THAT THE SECRETARY WENT BEYOND THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE
STATUTE."  THE CASES ARE MYRIAD AND IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REVIEW THEM
HERE. 

FN22  POINDEXTER V. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 270, 288(1884); PHILADELPHIA
CO. V. STIMSON, SUPRA, P. 7.  ALTHOUGH STATED IN REFERENCE TO A SUIT
FOR DAMAGES, THE RULE OF THE LEE LINE OF CASES WAS THUS SUMMED UP BY
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, IN YEARSLEY V. ROSS CONSTR.  CO., 309 U.S.
18, 21(1940): 

"WHERE AN AGENT OR OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT PURPORTING TO ACT ON ITS
BEHALF HAS BEEN HELD TO BE LIABLE FOR HIS CONDUCT CAUSING INJURY TO
ANOTHER, THE GROUND OF LIABILITY HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE EITHER THAT HE
EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY OR THAT IT WAS NOT VALIDLY CONFERRED." 

FN23  THE COURT IN THE STIMSON CASE SAID, 223 U.S. AT P. 622: 

"WHILE THE COMPLAINANT'S TITLE LAY AT THE FOUNDATION OF THE SUIT, AND
IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLAINANT TO PROVE IT, IF DENIED, STILL
IF ITS TITLE TO THE LANDS UNDER WATER WERE ESTABLISHED OR ADMITTED TO
BE AS ALLEGED, THE QUESTION WOULD REMAIN WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IN
IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS UPON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY WAS ACTING BY VIRTUE
OF AUTHORITY VALIDLY CONFERRED BY A GENERAL ACT OF CONGRESS.  THIS WAS
THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION WHICH THE COMPLAINANT SOUGHT TO HAVE
DETERMINED." 

FN24  THE REASONING OF THE GOLTRA CASE IS ALSO CONTRADICTED BY  THE
CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT IN THE CONVERSE CASE - WHERE A SUIT IS
BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, IN WHICH IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE
TORTIOUS ACTIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR
DELEGATED POWERS, ARE THE ACTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND GIVE RISE TO
A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST IT FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED CONTRACT. 
PORTSMOUTH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 327(1922), DEMONSTRATES THAT
SUCH SUITS CANNOT BE DEFEATED BY ARGUING THAT THE OFFICERS' ACTIONS,
BECAUSE TORTIOUS, ARE OUTSIDE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AND HENCE NOT ACTIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  CF. HOOE V. UNITED STATES, 218 U.S.
322(1910)(SPECIFIC LIMITATION ON THE AGENT'S AUTHORITY).  SEE ALSO
UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328 U.S. 256, 267(1946).    FN25  WHETHER THE
ACTUAL DECISION IN THE GOLTRA CASE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS THERE
PRESENTED, WAS CORRECT OR NOT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE
PRESENT CASE, AND WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THAT QUESTION.  GOLTRA,
UNLIKE GOLDBERG, DOES NOT PRESENT A PARALLEL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE
AT BAR.  THE ACTION COMPLAINED OF THERE WAS A SEIZURE WITH A STRONG
HAND WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS AN ARBITRARY TAKING
OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  INDEED, THE DISTRICT COURT
TOOK JURISDICTION ON THE THEORY THAT THE CASE BEFORE IT, LIKE THE LEE
CASE, WAS A CASE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION.  THERE IS NO SUCH CLAIM IN
THE PRESENT CASE. 

FN26  IN ADDITION TO GOLTRA V. WEEKS, SUPRA, THREE OTHER CASES ARE
ARGUED TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THIS PRINCIPLE:  SLOAN SHIPYARDS V. U.S.
FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549(1922); LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731(1947);
AND ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82(1937). 

THE SLOAN SHIPYARDS CASE IS ENTIRELY INAPPOSITE.  THE SUIT THERE WAS
AGAINST A CORPORATE AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH HAD NOT ACTED IN
THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES BUT IN ITS OWN CORPORATE NAME AND RIGHT. 
THE COURT HELD ONLY THAT THE FACT OF AGENCY DID NOT IMMUNIZE THE AGENT
FROM LIABILITY ON ITS OWN CONTRACTS. 

IN LAND V. DOLLAR, WHERE THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THAT THEY WERE
ENTITLED TO STOCK HELD BY THE MARITIME COMMISSION BECAUSE THE STOCK WAS
RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION ONLY AS A PLEDGE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ANY
OTHER KIND OF ACQUISITION WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SEC. 207 OF
THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, WHICH ALLEGEDLY GAVE THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY
TO ACQUIRE STOCK ONLY AS COLLATERAL.  THE COMPLAINT THEREFORE ALLEGED
THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION "ACTED IN EXCESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY
AS PUBLIC OFFICERS."  330 U.S. AT 738. 

THE GROUND FOR DECISION IN ICKES V. FOX IS NOT ALTOGETHER CLEAR.  THE
ARGUMENT WAS MADE IN THAT CASE THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HAD
NO STATUTORY POWER TO OVERRULE A DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
PLAINTIFFS MADE BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE.  300 U.S. AT 86.  THE
TORTIOUS INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFFS WAS ALSO ARGUED, IN RELIANCE ON
GOLTRA V. WEEKS, AS A BASIS FOR AVOIDING THE SOVEREIGN'S IMMUNITY.  THE
COURT APPEARS TO HAVE RELIED ON BOTH GROUNDS WITHOUT INDICATING WHICH
WAS CONTROLLING.  IT SAID:  "THE SUITS  ...  ARE BROUGHT TO ENJOIN THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FROM ENFORCING AN ORDER, THE WRONGFUL EFFECT
OF WHICH WILL BE TO DEPRIVE RESPONDENTS OF VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS NOT
ONLY ACQUIRED UNDER CONGRESSIONAL ACTS, STATE LAWS AND GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS, BUT SETTLED AND DETERMINED BY HIS PREDECESSORS IN OFFICE". 
ID. AT 96-97.  IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUIT COULD BE
MAINTAINED, THE COURT RELIED FIRST ON NOBLE V. UNION LOGGING R. CO.,
147 U.S. 165(1893), A DECISION RESTING ENTIRELY ON THE OFFICER'S LACK
OF STATUTORY POWER TO OVERRULE THE DECISION OF HIS PREDECESSOR. 

FN27  THERE COULD NOT BE SINCE THE RESPONDENT ADMITTEDLY HAS A
REMEDY, IN A SUIT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  SUCH
A SUIT, INDEED, WOULD BE BASED ON THE THEORY THAT THE ACTION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR IN REFUSING TO DELIVER WAS THE ACTION OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THUS CREATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST IT FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT.  ONLY IF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION WAS WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY
COULD SUCH A SUIT BE MAINTAINED.  HOOE V. UNITED STATES, 218 U.S.
322(1910).  IT HAS NEVER BEEN SUGGESTED THAT A SUIT IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF AN EXPRESS CONTRACT COULD BE DEFEATED BECAUSE THE
ACTION OF THE OFFICER IN BREACHING IT CONSTITUTED A TORT AND WAS
THEREFORE "UNAUTHORIZED." 

FN28 SEE BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 49(1949). 

FN29  DECATUR V. PAULDING, 14 PET. 497, 516(1840). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. 

I THINK THAT THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT ARE THE ONES WHICH
SHOULD GOVERN THE SELLING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.  LESS STRICT
APPLICATIONS OF THOSE PRINCIPLES WOULD CAUSE INTOLERABLE INTERFERENCE
WITH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.  TO MAKE THE RIGHT TO SUE THE OFFICER TURN
ON WHETHER BY THE LAW OF SALES TITLE HAD PASSED TO THE BUYER WOULD CLOG
THIS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION WITH INTOLERABLE BURDENS.  SO I HAVE JOINED
THE COURT'S OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

CASE-BY-CASE ADJUDICATION GIVES TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS THE IMPACT OF
ACTUALITY AND THEREBY SAVES IT FROM THE HAZARDS OF GENERALIZATIONS
INSUFFICIENTLY NOURISHED BY EXPERIENCE.  THERE IS, HOWEVER, AN
ATTENDANT WEAKNESS TO A SYSTEM THAT PURPORTS TO PASS MERELY ON WHAT ARE
DEEMED TO BE THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE.  CONSCIOUSLY OR
UNCONSCIOUSLY THE PRONOUNCEMENTS IN AN OPINION TOO OFTEN EXCEED THE
JUSTIFICATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED, OR,
CONTRARIWISE, JUDICIAL PREOCCUPATION WITH THE CLAIMS OF THE IMMEDIATE
LEADS TO A SUCCESSION OF AD HOC DETERMINATIONS MAKING FOR EVENTUAL
CONFUSION AND CONFLICT.  THERE COMES A TIME WHEN THE GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING EACH SPECIFIC SITUATION MUST BE EXPOSED IN
ORDER TO BRING THE TOO UNRULY INSTANCES INTO MORE FRUITFUL HARMONY. 
THE CASE BEFORE US PRESENTS ONE OF THOSE PROBLEMS FOR THE RATIONAL
SOLUTION OF WHICH IT BECOMES NECESSARY, AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL SELF
RESPECT, TO TAKE SOUNDINGS IN ORDER TO KNOW WHERE WE ARE AND WHITHER WE
ARE GOING. 

THE CASE BEFORE US IS THIS. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAD SOME SURPLUS COAL AT AN ARMY CAMP IN TEXAS.  ON
MARCH 11, 1947, THE WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATION, THROUGH THE REGIONAL
OFFICE IN DALLAS, TEXAS, INVITED A BID FROM THE PLAINTIFF, RESPONDENT
HERE, FOR PURCHASE OF THE COAL.  THE DALLAS OFFICE EXPRESSED THUS ITS
APPROVAL OF THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE PLAINTIFF:  "  ...  YOUR TERMS OF
PLACING $17,500.00 WITH THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK, DALLAS, TEXAS, FOR
PAYMENT UPON PRESENTATION OF OUR INVOICES TO SAID BANK ARE ACCEPTED." 
THEREUPON THE PLAINTIFF ARRANGED FOR RESALE OF THE COAL AND ITS
SHIPMENT ABROAD.  ON APRIL 1, 1947, THE DALLAS OFFICE WIRED THE
PLAINTIFF THAT UNLESS THE SUM OF $17,500 WAS DEPOSITED IN THE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK IN DALLAS BY NOON APRIL 4, "THE SALE WILL BE CANCELLED
AND OTHER DISPOSITION MADE."  THOUGH CLAIMING THAT THIS DEMAND WAS IN
THE TEETH OF THE CONTRACT, THE PLAINTIFF ARRANGED FOR AN IRREVOCABLE
LETTER OF CREDIT PAYABLE THROUGH THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DALLAS TO
THE WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATION.  THE DALLAS OFFICE NOW INSISTED THAT
UNLESS CASH WAS DEPOSITED "THE SALE OF 10,000 TONS OF COAL  ...  WILL
BE CANCELLED TEN DAYS FROM THIS DATE."  THAT OFFICE DISREGARDED FURTHER
ENDEAVORS BY THE PLAINTIFF TO ADJUST THE MATTER, AND ON APRIL 16 IT
INFORMED THE PLAINTIFF THAT THE CONTRACT WAS CANCELED.  HAVING LEARNED
THAT THE COAL WAS TO BE SOLD TO ANOTHER CONCERN, THE PLAINTIFF,
ASSERTING OWNERSHIP IN THE COAL AND THE THREAT OF IRREPARABLE DAMAGE,
BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO RESTRAIN THE WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATOR AND THOSE
UNDER HIS CONTROL FROM TRANSFERRING THE COAL TO ANY OTHER PERSON THAN
THE PLAINTIFF.  FN1 

AFTER ISSUING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THE DISTRICT COURT ON MAY
6, 1947, DISMISSED THE SUIT WITH THIS ORAL OBSERVATION:  "I AM
SATISFIED THAT THIS SUIT IS IN EFFECT A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
AND THE UNITED STATES IS A NECESSARY PARTY, AND THIS COURT IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION."  THE COURT OF APPEALS TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW:  "APPELLANT
...  DID NOT SEEK THE COURT'S AID TO INTERFERE IN THE USE OF OFFICIAL
DISCRETION BY THE APPELLEE.  SUCH DISCRETION WAS EXERCISED AT THE TIME
THE CONTRACT WITH APPELLANT WAS ENTERED INTO.  IF THAT CONTRACT SERVED
TO VEST TITLE IMMEDIATELY IN APPELLANT THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RULING
IN PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 650,  ...  IS CONTROLLING
HERE.  ...  CLEARLY, THEN, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE LOWER COURT IN
DETERMINING ITS JURISDICTIONAL CAPACITY TO DECIDE THE ULTIMATE QUESTION
OF WHETHER OR NOT A CONTRACT OF SALE HAD BEEN CONSUMMATED BETWEEN
APPELLANT AND APPELLEE."  165 F.2D 235. 

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ON
THESE FACTS REFLECTS FAIRLY ENOUGH THE SEEMING DISHARMONY OF THE
NUMEROUS OPINIONS IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS DEALT WITH THE CLAIM OF
IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT FROM UNCONSENTED SUIT.  AS TO THE STATES, LEGAL
IRRESPONSIBILITY WAS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE ELEVENTH
AMENDMENT; AS TO THE UNITED STATES, IT IS DERIVED BY IMPLICATION. 
MONACO V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 313, 321; SEE BLOCK, SUITS AGAINST
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE, 59 HARV. L.
REV., 1060, 1064-1065(1946).  THE SOURCES OF THE IMMUNITY ARE FORMALLY
DIFFERENT BUT THEY PRESENT THE SAME LEGAL ISSUES. 

THE SUBJECT IS NOT FREE FROM CASUISTRY.  THIS IS DOUBTLESS DUE TO THE
FACT THAT A STEADY CHANGE OF OPINION HAS GRADUALLY UNDERMINED
UNQUESTIONED ACCEPTANCE OF THE SOVEREIGN'S FREEDOM FROM ORDINARY LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITY.  THE VEHEMENT SPEED WITH WHICH THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
DISPLACED THE DECISION IN CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA, 2 DALL.  419(1793),
PROVES HOW DEEPLY ROOTED THAT DOCTRINE WAS IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE
REPUBLIC.  SEE NEW HAMPSHIRE V. LOUISIANA, 108 U.S. 76, 86-88.  IN THE
COURSE OF A CENTURY OR MORE A STEADILY EXPANDING CONCEPTION OF PUBLIC
MORALITY REGARDING "GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY" HAS LED TO A "GENEROUS
POLICY OF CONSENT FOR SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT" TO COMPENSATE FOR
THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS AGENTS AS WELL AS TO SECURE OBEDIENCE TO ITS
CONTRACTS.  KEIFER & KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306 U.S.
381, 396; SEE ALSO BORCHARD'S BIBLIOGRAPHY IN 20 A.B.A.J. 747, 748, AND
THE MATERIALS IN JUDGE MACK'S OPINION IN THE PESARO, 277 F. 473,
REVERSED, 271 U.S. 562. 

THE COURSE OF DECISIONS CONCERNING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS A GOOD
ILLUSTRATION OF THE CONFLICTING CONSIDERATIONS THAT OFTEN STRUGGLE FOR
MASTERY IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AT LEAST IMPLICITLY.  IN VARYING
DEGREES, AT DIFFERENT TIMES, THE MOMENTUM OF THE HISTORIC DOCTRINE IS
ARRESTED OR DEFLECTED BY AN UNEXPRESSED FEELING THAT GOVERNMENTAL
IMMUNITY RUNS COUNTER TO PREVAILING NOTIONS OF REASON AND JUSTICE. 
LEGAL CONCEPTS ARE THEN FOUND AVAILABLE TO GIVE EFFECT TO THIS FEELING,
AND ONE OF ITS RESULTS IS THE MULTITUDE OF DECISIONS IN WHICH THIS
COURT HAS REFUSED TO PERMIT AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO CLAIM THAT HE
IS PRO TANTO THE GOVERNMENT AND THEREFORE SHELTERED BY ITS IMMUNITY. 
MULTITUDINOUS AS ARE THESE CASES AND THE SEEMING INCONSISTENCIES AMONG
THEM, ANALYSIS REVEALS CERTAIN COMMON CONSIDERATIONS.  THE CASES IN
WHICH CLAIM WAS MADE THAT A SUIT AGAINST ONE WHO HOLDS PUBLIC OFFICE IS
IN FACT A SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FALL INTO WELL-DEFINED
CATEGORIES.  (SEE THE APPENDIX, POST, PP. 729-732.)  THOUGH OUR
OPINIONS HAVE NOT ALWAYS BEEN CONSCIOUSLY DIRECTED TOWARD THIS
CLASSIFICATION, IT IS SUPPORTED NOT ONLY BY WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED
BUT ALSO BY MUCH THAT IS EXPRESSLY SAID. 

OUR DECISIONS FALL UNDER THESE HEADS: 

(1)  CASES IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY WHICH
CONCEDEDLY, EVEN UNDER THE ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT, BELONGS TO THE
GOVERNMENT, OR CALLS FOR AN ASSERTION OF WHAT IS UNQUESTIONABLY
OFFICIAL AUTHORITY.  FN2 

(2)  CASES IN WHICH ACTION TO THE LEGAL DETRIMENT OF A PLAINTIFF IS
TAKEN BY AN OFFICIAL JUSTIFYING HIS ACTION UNDER AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
STATUTE.  FN3 

(3)  CASES IN WHICH A PLAINTIFF SUFFERS A LEGAL DETRIMENT THROUGH
ACTION OF AN OFFICER WHO HAS EXCEEDED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  FN4 

(4)  CASES IN WHICH AN OFFICER SEEKS SHELTER BEHIND STATUTORY
AUTHORITY OR SOME OTHER SOVEREIGN COMMAND FOR THE COMMISSION OF A
COMMON-LAW TORT.  FN5 

1.  THE SERIES OF CASES WHICH COME WITHIN THE FIRST CATEGORY BEGAN
WITH GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA V. MADRAZO, 1 PET. 110(1828).  THERE A CLAIM
WAS MADE UPON THE GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA, AS GOVERNOR, FOR MONEYS IN THE
TREASURY OF THE STATE AND SLAVES IN ITS POSSESSION.  THE COURT, IN AN
OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, HELD THAT THE STATE WAS ACTUALLY
THOUGH NOT FORMALLY THE DEFENDANT IN THE SUIT.  THIS WAS A DEPARTURE BY
MARSHALL FROM WHAT HE HAD SAID A FEW YEARS EARLIER IN OSBORN V. BANK OF
THE UNITED STATES, 9 WHEAT.  738, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ELEVENTH
AMENDMENT IS "LIMITED TO THOSE SUITS IN WHICH A STATE IS A PARTY ON THE
RECORD."  ID. AT P. 857.  SUCH A FORMAL TEST COULD NOT LONG SURVIVE
EXPERIENCE, AND IT WAS EXPLICITLY LAID TO REST IN IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S.
443, 487, ET SEQ. 

THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IN THIS CLASS OF CASES IS:  WHEN DOES A SUIT
AGAINST ONE HOLDING OFFICE INEVITABLY INVOLVE THE EXERCISE OF POWERS
THAT ARE HIS AS A FUNCTIONARY OF GOVERNMENT?  MARSHALL'S DECISION IN
THE CASE OF THE GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA DISPOSED OF THIS QUESTION WITH HIS
SENTENTIOUS CHARACTERIZATION OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AGAINST THE
GOVERNOR:  "THE DEMAND MADE UPON HIM, IS NOT MADE PERSONALLY, BUT
OFFICIALLY."  GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA V. MADRAZO, SUPRA, 1 PET. 110, 123. 
BUT THE ANSWER IS NOT ALWAYS AS MANIFEST AS IT WAS IN THAT CASE, FOR
THE GOVERNOR WAS ASKED TO SURRENDER MONEYS ACTUALLY IN THE STATE'S
TREASURY AND PROPERTY IN ITS POSSESSION.  THE FACT THAT A DEFENDANT HAS
NO PERSONAL CONNECTION WITH CONDUCT FOR WHICH REDRESS IS SOUGHT IS AN
INDICATION THAT HE IS BEING SUED BECAUSE HIS POSITION EMPOWERS HIM TO
CARRY OUT THE DESIRED RELIEF.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MERE FACT THAT
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY IS ASCRIBED TO THE AGENT AGAINST WHOM RELIEF IS
SOUGHT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE THAT HE IS BEING SUED AS FOR HIS SOVEREIGN. 
SEE E.G., PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325.    THE PERVASIVE MANIFESTATIONS
OF MODERN GOVERNMENT BEGET SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT IS NOT ALWAYS OBVIOUS
WHETHER THE DEMAND MADE UPON AN INDIVIDUAL IS, IN MARSHALL'S
PHRASEOLOGY, "NOR MADE PERSONALLY, BUT OFFICIALLY."  SUCH AN AMBIGUITY
AS TO THE MEANING OF PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IS A COMMONPLACE TASK FOR
THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE IS CLEAR ENOUGH.  IF A
DEFENDANT IS ASKED TO TRANSFER THE POSSESSION OR TITLE OF PROPERTY
WHICH IS THE GOVERNMENT'S, JUDGED BY THE CONVENTIONAL TESTS OF
POSSESSION OR OWNERSHIP, OR IF HE IS ASKED TO EXERCISE AUTHORITY WITH
WHICH THE STATE HAS INVESTED HIM AND THE DESIRED ACTION IS IN FACT
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION SO FAR AS AN INDIVIDUAL IS EVER PRO TANTO THE
IMPERSONAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH DEMANDS ARE EFFECTIVELY DEMANDS UPON THE
SOVEREIGN, WHICH REQUIRE THE SOVEREIGN'S CONSENT AS A PREREQUISITE TO
THE GRANT OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES. 

2.  TO THE SECOND CATEGORY BELONG THE CASES WHERE AN OFFICIAL ASSERTS
THE AUTHORITY OF A STATUTE FOR HIS ACTION BUT THE INJURED PLAINTIFF
CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE.  THREATENED INJURY
WILL THEN BE ENJOINED IF THE PLAINTIFF OTHERWISE SATISFIES THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR EQUITABLE INTERVENTION.  ALLEN V. BALTIMORE & O.R.
CO., 114 U.S. 311; REAGAN V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362;
EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; RICKERT RICE MILLS V. FONTENOT, 297 U.S.
110.  SO ALSO RECOVERY MAY BE HAD OF PROPERTY IN AN ACTION AGAINST AN
OFFICIAL WHEN THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY WAS
MADE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  POINDEXTER V. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 270.  IN
THESE CASES THE SUIT AGAINST ONE HOLDING OFFICE IS DEEMED "A SUIT
AGAINST HIM PERSONALLY AS A WRONGDOER AND NOT AGAINST THE STATE."  EX
PARTE YOUNG, SUPRA, 209 U.S. 123, 151. 

THESE CASES LIKEWISE APPLY A PRINCIPLE THAT IS CLEAR.  THERE IS AN
APPEARANCE OF INCONSISTENCY IN SOME OF THE CASES ONLY BECAUSE OPINIONS
ALSO ARE PREY TO THE FRAILTIES OF COMPOSITION.  FAMILIAR PHRASES ARE
NOT ALWAYS USED WITH CRITICAL PRECISION OR WITH DUE RELEVANCE TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR CASE. 

SPECIFICALLY, THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
STATUTE WAS CONCEDED AND YET THE LANGUAGE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAS
INVOKED TO BAR SUIT.  SEE, E.G., NORTH CAROLINA V. TEMPLE, 134 U.S. 22;
CHRISTIAN V. ATLANTIC & N.C.R. CO., 133 U.S. 233; NEW YORK GUARANTY &
INDEMNITY CO. V. STEELE, 134 U.S. 230.  THESE CASES DO NOT QUALIFY THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE CASES IN CATEGORY TWO.  REGARD FOR THE FACTS OF THESE
CASES BRINGS THEM WITHIN THE FIRST CATEGORY BECAUSE THE NATURE OF THE
RELIEF REQUESTED MAKES THEM EITHER CASES IN WHICH GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
WOULD HAVE TO BE TRANSFERRED, OR CASES WHERE THE PERSON SUED COULD
SATISFY THE COURT DECREE ONLY BY ACTING IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY.  THE
TORTFEASOR, THAT IS, IS NOT IMMUNIZED BECAUSE HE HAPPENED TO HOLD
OFFICE, BUT BECAUSE THE TORT CANNOT BE REDRESSED OR, IF THREATENED,
AVERTED, WITHOUT BRINGING INTO OPERATION GOVERNMENTAL MACHINERY. 

THUS, EVEN THOUGH A PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS UNDER A BOND ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SOUGHT TO BE DIMINISHED, HE CANNOT HAVE HIS BOND
RESPECTED IF TO DO SO A COURT WOULD HAVE TO ORDER THE LEVYING AND
COLLECTING OF A TAX.  ONLY THE STATE CAN EXACT TAXES, AND THAT
SOVEREIGN FUNCTION CANNOT BE ENFORCED WITHOUT THE STATE'S CONSENT BY
PRETENDING TO SUE A TAX COLLECTOR AS AN INDIVIDUAL EVEN THOUGH THE
INDIVIDUAL SUED HAD THE DUTY, UNDER THE STATUTE, TO COLLECT THE TAX. 
NORTH CAROLINA V. TEMPLE, 134 U.S. 22.  AGAIN, IF TITLE TO PROPERTY IS
IN THE GOVERNMENT, A SUIT TO SECURE TRANSFER OF THAT PROPERTY TO THE
PLAINTIFF WILL NOT LIE AGAINST AN OFFICIAL SUED AS AN INDIVIDUAL EVEN
THOUGH THE STATE ACQUIRED TITLE BY WAY OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE. 
CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK R. CO., 109 U.S. 446; CHRISTIAN V.
ATLANTIC & N.C.R. CO., 133 U.S. 233; SEE LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731,
737-738.  SO, ALSO, IF THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY AN INJURED PLAINTIFF WOULD
INVOLVE, IN PART AT LEAST, DESTRUCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN
PROPERTY, THAT PART OF RELIEF CANNOT BE GRANTED EVEN THOUGH A TORT
COMMITTED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT GAVE RISE TO THE INJURY.  BELKNAP V.
SCHILD, 161 U.S. 10; HOPKINS V. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, 221 U.S.
636.  TO THE EXTENT THAT RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT AFFECTING
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF A STATE, NOT A CONSENTING PARTY TO A CONTROVERSY, AN
ACTION IS NOT BARRED.  HOPKINS V. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, SUPRA,
221 U.S. 636, 649; SEE INTERNATIONAL POSTAL SUPPLY CO. V. BRUCE, 194
U.S. 601, 605-606. 

SINCE THE CASES TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS JUST BEEN MADE USUALLY INVOLVE
STATE DEBTS AND MONEY IN A STATE TREASURY, THEY HAVE SERVED TO SPONSOR
THE PROPOSITION THAT A SUIT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WHERE THE RELIEF
SOUGHT WOULD "EXPEND ITSELF ON THE PUBLIC TREASURY OR DOMAIN, OR
INTERFERE WITH THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION."  LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S.
731, 738.  THIS IS A WAY OF SAYING THAT A COURT CANNOT ENTERTAIN AN
ACTION, WHEN THE SOVEREIGN HAS NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED, IF THE
JUDGMENT SOUGHT FROM THE COURT WOULD REQUIRE AN OFFICIAL TO DO THAT
WHICH HE COULD ONLY DO BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT HE IS AN OFFICIAL,
THAT QUOAD HOC HE IS THE STATE.  BUT THE STATEMENT QUOTED DOES NOT MEAN
THAT THE MERE FACT THAT A STATE'S REVENUE IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED, IS
CONCLUSIVE OF A COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUIT AGAINST ONE WHO
HAPPENS TO HOLD A PUBLIC OFFICE.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN BOARD OF LIQUIDATION
V. MCCOMB, 92 U.S. 531, A BONDHOLDER WAS PERMITTED TO ENJOIN AN ISSUE
OF BONDS WHICH WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE VALUE OF HIS HOLDINGS BECAUSE THE
ISSUE WAS AUTHORIZED BY A STATUTE WHICH OFFENDED THE IMPAIRMENT-OF
OBLIGATION CLAUSE.  AND SEE ALLEN V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 114 U.S.
311; ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. O'CONNOR, 223 U.S. 280.  AND SUITS
HAVE LAIN TO OBTAIN PUBLIC LANDS WHERE THE DECREE INVOLVED NO
DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHOM THE DECREE BOUND.  SANTA
FE PAC. R. CO. V. FALL, 259 U.S. 197; NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R.
CO., 147 U.S. 165; PAYNE V. CENTRAL PAC. R. CO., 255 U.S. 228. 

THE MATTER BOILS DOWN TO THIS.  THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT BARRED
FROM ADJUDICATING A CLAIM AGAINST A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT WHO INVOKES
STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR HIS ACTION IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO GIVE
HIM SUCH A CLAIM OF IMMUNITY IS ITSELF CHALLENGED.  SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
MAY, HOWEVER, BECOME RELEVANT BECAUSE THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR ALSO
ENTAILS INTERFERENCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTY OR BRINGS THE OPERATION
OF GOVERNMENTAL MACHINERY INTO PLAY.  THE GOVERNMENT THEN BECOMES AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY AND WITHOUT ITS CONSENT CANNOT BE IMPLICATED.  SEE
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN MORRISON V. WORK, 266 U.S. 481, 486-487. 

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH WOULD, FOR ONE
REASON OR ANOTHER, FAIL IF BROUGHT AGAINST A PRIVATE AGENT, IS NOT
SAVED BECAUSE IT IS BROUGHT AGAINST ONE HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE
PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE.  THE ACTION MAY
FAIL BECAUSE THERE IS NO "CASE" OR "CONTROVERSY,"  FN6  OR BECAUSE THE
PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SUFFERED INVASION OF A LEGALLY PROTECTED INTEREST,
FN7  OR BECAUSE THE FOUNDATION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF IS WANTING,  FN8
OR BECAUSE THE PARTICULAR DEFENDANT HAS COMMITTED NO WRONG.  FN9  SUCH
SITUATIONS PRESENT NO PROBLEM OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, BUT LANGUAGE
PERTAINING TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY SOMETIMES CREEPS INTO OPINIONS
DISPOSING OF THEM. 

3.  RECOVERY HAS BEEN SUSTAINED WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE OFFICIAL ACTS
UNDER A VALID STATUTE, HE ACTUALLY EXCEEDED THE AUTHORITY WITH WHICH
THE STATUTE HAD INVESTED HIM.  AN ACTION THEN LIES AGAINST THE AGENT
BECAUSE "HE IS NOT SUED AS, OR BECAUSE HE IS, THE OFFICER OF THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND THE COURT IS NOT OUSTED OF
JURISDICTION BECAUSE HE ASSERTS AUTHORITY AS SUCH OFFICER.  TO MAKE OUT
HIS DEFENCE HE MUST SHOW THAT HIS AUTHORITY WAS SUFFICIENT IN LAW TO
PROTECT HIM."  PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY, 140 U.S. 1, 14; SCULLY V. BIRD,
209 U.S. 481; PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605.  HERE ALSO THE
TRADITIONAL CRITERIA FOR JUDICIAL ACTION ARE PREREQUISITE (SEE, E.G.,
LOUISIANA V. MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627); IF THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED THE
QUESTION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT EMERGE.  AND IF THE RELIEF
NECESSARILY IMPLICATES A RESORT TO STATE FUNDS THE STATE BECOMES AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY AND WITHOUT ITS CONSENT THE SUIT MUST FAIL.  SEE
LOUISIANA V. MCADOO, SUPRA; LANKFORD V. PLATTE IRON WORKS, 235 U.S.
461. 

4.  THE FOURTH CATEGORY OF CASES BRINGS US TO THE CONTROVERSY
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE COURT AND DEMANDS DETAILED ANALYSIS.  THESE ARE
THE CASES, IT WILL BE RECALLED, IN WHICH AN OFFICIAL SEEKS TO SCREEN
HIMSELF BEHIND THE SOVEREIGN IN A SUIT AGAINST HIM BASED ON THE
COMMISSION OF A COMMON-LAW TORT.  SEE APPENDIX, PART II, C, POST, P.
732.  A PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT "UNDER GENERAL LAW TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF
SPECIFIC PROPERTY WRONGFULLY WITHHELD" MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST AN
OFFICIAL AND HE CANNOT PLEAD THE SOVEREIGN'S IMMUNITY AGAINST THE
COURT'S POWER TO AFFORD A REMEDY.  LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731, 736;
BELKNAP V. SCHILD, 161 U.S. 10, 18-20; HOPKINS V. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL
COLLEGE, 221 U.S. 636, 643. 

THE STARTING POINT OF THIS LINE OF CASES IS UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106
U.S. 196.  FAMILIAR AS THAT CASE IS, ITS CONTROLLING FACTS BEAR
REHEARSAL.  THE ARLINGTON ESTATE OF GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE WAS SEIZED
FOR NONPAYMENT OF TAXES.  THESE TAXES HAD IN FACT BEEN TENDERED BY A
FRIEND, BUT THE OFFICIAL HAD INTERPRETED HIS AUTHORITY AS PERMITTING
PAYMENT OF THE TAXES ONLY BY THE RECORD OWNER.  AFTER SEIZURE, THE
UNITED STATES ESTABLISHED A FORT AND CEMETERY ON THE LAND.  THE
PLAINTIFF, IN WHOM TITLE TO THE ARLINGTON ESTATE VESTED IF ITS SEIZURE
COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED, BROUGHT AN ACTION OF EJECTMENT AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENTAL CUSTODIANS OF THE ESTATE.  AFTER THE OVERRULING OF A
SUGGESTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE PROPERTY WAS IN
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ACTION WAS SUSTAINED AGAINST THE
DEFENDANTS SINCE THEY COULD NOT JUSTIFY THEIR POSSESSION BY PROOF OF A
VALID TITLE IN THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS COURT AFFIRMED, HOLDING THAT THE
LOWER COURT WAS COMPETENT TO DECIDE THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES
WITHOUT THE NEED OF IMPLEADING THE GOVERNMENT WHOSE CONSENT WAS
WITHHELD. 

WHILE THERE WAS SOME TALK IN THE LEE OPINION, AS WELL AS IN SOME OF
THE CASES WHICH FOLLOWED THAT DECISION, ABOUT TAKING PROPERTY WITHOUT
COMPENSATION, THE BASIS OF THE ACTION WAS THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE
ORDINARY TORTFEASORS, NOT IMMUNIZED FOR THEIR WRONGFUL INVASION OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY BY THE FACT THAT THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE ACTED ON
BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT.  FN10  THIS GROUP OF CASES IS QUITE DIFFERENT
FROM THOSE IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMED THAT THE DEFENDANT,
PURPORTING TO ACT IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY, EXCEEDED THE AUTHORITY WHICH
A STATUTE CONFERRED UPON HIM, OR THAT THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH HE
JUSTIFIED HIS ACTION EXCEEDED THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CONFER
SUCH AUTHORITY.  IN THIS CLASS OF CASES THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENT HAD
VALID STATUTORY AUTHORITY BUT HE DETERMINED ERRONEOUSLY THE CONDITION
WHICH HAD TO EXIST BEFORE HE COULD EXERCISE IT.  THE BASIS OF ACTION IN
THIS CLASS OF CASES IS THE DEFENDANT'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
COMMISSION OF A TORT, WHICH MAKES IT IRRELEVANT THAT BY WAIVING THE
CASE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENT THE PLAINTIFF MIGHT CHOOSE TO SUE
THE GOVERNMENT AS FOR A CONTRACT.  A DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF FOUR
RECENT CASES SHOULD LEAVE NO DOUBT REGARDING THE SETTLED COURSE OF
DECISION IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS PRINCIPLE. 

(A) IN SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. UNITED STATES FLEET CORP., 258 U.S.
549, THE CONTROVERSY AROSE IN CONNECTION WITH A CONTRACT BETWEEN SLOAN
SHIPYARDS AND THE FLEET CORPORATION, A GOVERNMENT CORPORATION.  A
PROVISO IN THE CONTRACT AUTHORIZED THE UNITED STATES TO TAKE OVER THE
PLANT AND COMPLETE THE CONTRACT ON SLOAN SHIPYARDS' FAILURE TO
PERFORM.  UNDER A STATUTE THE UNITED STATES COULD ALSO CONDEMN THE LAND
AND THE BUSINESS, IF THAT WERE DEEMED NECESSARY FOR THE SUCCESSFUL
CONDUCT OF THE WAR.  THAT WOULD BRING INTO PLAY A RIGHT TO COMPENSATION
ENFORCEABLE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE FLEET CORPORATION SEIZED THE
PLANT, BUT IT WAS NOT MADE MANIFEST THAT THE SEIZURE OF THE PLANT WAS
AN EXERCISE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER OF CONDEMNATION.  SLOAN SHIPYARDS
BROUGHT SUIT FOR THE RETURN OF THE PROPERTY.  THE LOWER COURTS TREATED
THIS AS A SUIT FOR COMPENSATION, PURSUABLE AS SUCH AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THIS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES, REVERSED, TOOK THE BILL ON ITS FACE AS ONE BASED ON THE
WRONGFUL ACTS OF THE FLEET CORPORATION AND AS SUCH ENTERTAINABLE
REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE FLEET CORPORATION MIGHT
ALSO GIVE RISE TO A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. 
FN11 

THIS DECISION, WHICH HAD THOROUGH CONSIDERATION HERE, WOULD HAVE TO
BE OVERRULED IF THE THEORY NOW PROPOSED FOR THIS CLASS OF CASES IS TO
BE ACCEPTED.  THE CRUX OF THE COURT'S OPINION LEAVES NO ROOM FOR
DOUBT: 

"THE PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT SUING THE UNITED STATES BUT THE FLEET
CORPORATION, AND IF ITS ACT WAS UNLAWFUL, EVEN IF THEY MIGHT HAVE SUED
THE UNITED STATES, THEY ARE NOT CUT OFF FROM A REMEDY AGAINST THE AGENT
THAT DID THE WRONGFUL ACT.  IN GENERAL THE UNITED STATES CANNOT BE SUED
FOR A TORT, BUT ITS IMMUNITY DOES NOT EXTEND TO THOSE THAT ACTED IN ITS
NAME.  IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE FLEET CORPORATION PURPORTED TO ACT
UNDER THE CONTRACT GIVING IT THE RIGHT TO TAKE POSSESSION IN CERTAIN
EVENTS, BUT THAT THE PLAINTIFFS CAN SHOW THAT THE EVENTS HAD NOT
OCCURRED."  258 U.S. 549, 567-68. 

(B)  SO, TOO, GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536, WOULD HAVE TO GO BY THE
BOARD IF THE THEORY NOW PROPOSED WERE ACCEPTED.  THE GOVERNMENT HAD
LEASED ITS BARGES FOR OPERATION BY THE PLAINTIFF.  FOLLOWING A SEIZURE
OF SOME OF THE BARGES AND A THREAT TO SEIZE THE REST FOR ALLEGED
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LEASE TERMS, THE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A BILL
AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS TO ENJOIN THE
THREATENED SEIZURE AND TO SECURE RESTORATION OF THE BARGES ALREADY
SEIZED.  THIS COURT FOUND THAT IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
HOLD THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND TO HAVE DISMISSED
THE BILL FOR THAT REASON.  THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE WAS THUS FORMULATED
BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT:    "THE BILL WAS SUITABLY FRAMED TO SECURE
THE RELIEF FROM AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY OF THE DEFENDANTS WITHOUT LAWFUL
RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE PLAINTIFF THE BOATS OF WHICH BY LEASE OR
CHARTER HE ALLEGED THAT HE HAD ACQUIRED THE LAWFUL POSSESSION AND
ENJOYMENT FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.  HE WAS SEEKING EQUITABLE AID TO
AVOID A THREATENED TRESPASS UPON THAT PROPERTY BY PERSONS WHO WERE
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS.  IF IT WAS A TRESPASS, THEN THE OFFICERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE RESTRAINED WHETHER THEY PROFESSED TO BE ACTING FOR
THE GOVERNMENT OR NOT.  NEITHER THEY NOR THE GOVERNMENT WHICH THEY
REPRESENT COULD TRESPASS UPON THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER, AND IT IS WELL
SETTLED THAT THEY MAY BE STAYED IN THEIR UNLAWFUL PROCEEDING BY A COURT
OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, EVEN THOUGH THE UNITED STATES FOR WHOM THEY
MAY PROFESS TO ACT IS NOT A PARTY AND CAN NOT BE MADE ONE.  BY REASON
OF THEIR ILLEGALITY, THEIR ACTS OR THREATENED ACTS ARE PERSONAL AND
DERIVE NO OFFICIAL JUSTIFICATION FROM THEIR DOING THEM IN ASSERTED
AGENCY FOR THE GOVERNMENT."  271 U.S. 536, 544. 

(C)  THIS LINE OF CASES, BEGINNING WITH UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA,
106 U.S. 196, WAS AGAIN FOLLOWED IN ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82.  THERE A
BILL WAS SUSTAINED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT COMPLIANCE BY THE PLAINTIFF WITH THE
TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT MADE WITH A PREDECESSOR SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
RENDERED THE SECRETARY'S ACTION A TRESPASS AND AS SUCH ENJOINABLE,
THOUGH THE ACTION WAS JUSTIFIED AS A GOVERNMENTAL PREROGATIVE.  IN
REACHING THIS RESULT, THE COURT SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO THE PRINCIPLES
FORMULATED IN GOLTRA V. WEEKS, ABOVE QUOTED. 

(D)  ONLY THE OTHER DAY THIS COURT DECIDED LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S.
731.  THERE IT WAS RULED THAT A CLAIM BY THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE RECOVERY
OF THE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY PHYSICALLY CONTROLLED BY MEMBERS OF THE
UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION BUT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY
WITHHELD WAS NOT INHERENTLY A SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND GAVE
JURISDICTION TO THE COURT "TO DETERMINE ITS JURISDICTION BY PROCEEDING
TO A DECISION ON THE MERITS" - THAT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM THAT WITHHOLDING OF THE PLEDGED PROPERTY WAS, UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TORTIOUS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO RELIEF AGAINST THE
AGENTS AS INDIVIDUALS.  330 U.S. AT 739.  THE COURT ONCE MORE APPLIED
THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA, REINFORCED BY REFERENCE
TO THE CASES THAT APPLY THE LEE DOCTRINE, INCLUDING SLOAN SHIPYARDS
CORP. V. UNITED STATES FLEET CORP., SUPRA, GOLTRA V. WEEKS, SUPRA, AND
ICKES V. FOX, SUPRA.  IT ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE FACT THAT THERE
EXISTED A REMEDY IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WAS
IRRELEVANT.  330 U.S. AT 738. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THIS COURT SANCTIONED A SUIT AGAINST AN
OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT MERELY BECAUSE THE OFFICER MISCONCEIVED THE
FACTS, OR MISAPPLIED THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES, ON WHICH RESTED THE
PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT "UNDER GENERAL LAW TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF SPECIFIC
PROPERTY WRONGFULLY WITHHELD."  LAND V. DOLLAR, SUPRA, 330 U.S. AT
736.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AN OFFICER ACQUIRES NO IMMUNITY EVEN
THOUGH HE COMMITTED A TORT WHILE ATTEMPTING TO DISCHARGE WHAT WOULD BE
HIS DUTY IF HE WERE CORRECT ON HIS ASSUMPTION AS TO THE OWNERSHIP OF
THE PROPERTY OR AS TO THE RIGHT TO ITS POSSESSION UNDER THE LEGAL
INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING THE TRANSACTION.  SEE HOLMES, J., IN MILLER V.
HORTON, 152 MASS. 540, 26 N.E. 100; BELKNAP V. SCHILD, 161 U.S. 10, 18
19; HOPKINS V. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, 221 U.S. 636, 643-5; SLOAN
SHIPYARDS CORP. V. UNITED STATES FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549, 567.  IN
THIS CLASS OF CASES THE OFFICER CAN ESCAPE LIABILITY ONLY IF "SPECIAL
REMEDIES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY STATUTE THAT DISPLACE THOSE THAT
OTHERWISE WOULD BE AT THE PLAINTIFF'S COMMAND."  SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP.
V. UNITED STATES FLEET CORP., SUPRA AT 567.  WHEN THERE IS SUCH A
SPECIAL REMEDY THE SUIT AGAINST THE OFFICER IS BARRED, NOT BECAUSE HE
ENJOYS THE IMMUNITY OF THE SOVEREIGN BUT BECAUSE THE SOVEREIGN CAN
CONSTITUTIONALLY CHANGE THE TRADITIONAL RULES OF LIABILITY FOR THE TORT
OF THE AGENT BY PROVIDING A FAIR SUBSTITUTE.  CROZIER V. FRIED, 224
U.S. 290; RICHMOND SCREW ANCHOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 331. 
BUT THE GENERAL STATUTE PERMITTING SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN
CERTAIN INSTANCES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A STATUTE THAT PROVIDES
THAT REMEDIES OTHERWISE AT THE PLAINTIFF'S COMMAND ARE TO BE
DISPLACED.  FN12  A HOLDING THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ACTION FOR
MONETARY DAMAGES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
PREVENTS A SUIT AT LAW, OR, IF THE NECESSARY REQUISITES FOR EQUITY
JURISDICTION ARE PRESENT, IN EQUITY, AGAINST THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENT,
WOULD BE AS NOVEL AS IT IS INDEFENSIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SETTLED
COURSE OF DECISIONS.  INDEED, THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT NOVEL; IT HAS BEEN
EXPLICITLY NEGATIVED IN AT LEAST TWO CASES.  SEE SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP.
V. UNITED STATES FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549, 567, 568; LAND V. DOLLAR,
330 U.S. 731, 738. 

"SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY" CARRIES AN AUGUST SOUND.  BUT VERY RECENTLY WE
RECOGNIZED THAT THE DOCTRINE IS IN "DISFAVOR."  FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION V. BURR, 309 U.S. 242, 245.  FN13  IT OUGHT NOT TO BE
EXTENDED BY DISCREDITING A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS.  NO CONSIDERATIONS
OF POLICY WARRANT THE OVERRULING OF UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA, AND
THE CASES WHICH HAVE APPLIED IT IN GIVING A REMEDY FOR WRONGDOING
WITHOUT HARM TO ANY PUBLIC INTEREST THAT DESERVES PROTECTION.  TO
OVERRULE THE LEE CASE WOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE MERIT OF CANDOR.  TO
ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN IT ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF WAS NOT
SUABLE FOR THE WRONGDOING AT THE TIME OF THE LEE DECISION IS TO INVENT
A NEW THEORY TO EXPLAIN AWAY A DECISION WHICH HAS HELD ITS GROUND FOR
NEARLY SEVENTY YEARS. 

THIS LIABILITY FOR TORTS COMMITTED BY DEFENDANTS EVEN THOUGH THEY
CONCEIVE THEMSELVES TO BE ACTING AS OFFICIALS AND FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD,
RESTS ULTIMATELY ON THE CONVICTION THAT THE POLICY BEHIND THE IMMUNITY
OF THE SOVEREIGN FROM SUIT WITHOUT ITS CONSENT DOES NOT CALL FOR
DISREGARD OF A CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO PURSUE AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR
A WRONGFUL INVASION OF A RECOGNIZED LEGAL RIGHT UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE
DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPLACE THE RIGHT OF SUING THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANT WITH THE RIGHT TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT.  THE FACT THAT THE
GOVERNMENTAL AGENT CANNOT CLAIM THE IMMUNITY OF THE SOVEREIGN OF COURSE
DOES NOT SPELL LIABILITY, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR THE DISCHARGE OF
WHAT HE CONCEIVED TO BE HIS DUTY.  SEE, E.G., SEAVEY V. PREBLE, 64 ME.
120; FIELDS V. STOKLEY, 99 PA. 306; THE CONFLICTING CONSIDERATIONS ARE
PRESENTED IN MILLER V. HORTON, 152 MASS. 540, 26 N.E. 100.  SIMILARLY,
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS BEARING ON THE PROPRIETY OF GRANTING THE
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF AN INJUNCTION MAY HERE COME INTO PLAY, AS IS
TRUE WHENEVER A PRIVATE CLAIM CUTS ACROSS THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  FN14
BUT THESE ARE MATTERS WHOLLY BESIDE THE ISSUE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 

OF COURSE WHERE THE UNITED STATES IS THE OWNER IN POSSESSION OF
PROPERTY A COURT CANNOT INTERFERE WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT. 
BUT IF IT IS TO BE DENIED THAT A COURT CAN DECIDE THE QUESTION, WHEN
PROPERLY PRESENTED, WHETHER PROPERTY HELD BY AN OFFICIAL BELONGS TO THE
PLAINTIFF, GOLTRA V. WEEKS, SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. UNITED STATES
FLEET CORP., ICKES V. FOX, LAND V. DOLLAR, AND THE OTHER CASES CITED IN
PART II, C OF THE APPENDIX, POST, P. 732, MUST BE OVERRULED. 

ONLY THE OTHER DAY WE SAID: 

"WHERE THE RIGHT TO POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY UNDER GENERAL
LAW IS IN ISSUE, AND THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM AS OFFICERS OR AGENTS OF THE
SOVEREIGN, THE RULE OF UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA, HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
APPROVED  ...  IN UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA, RECORD TITLE OF THE LAND
WAS IN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS OFFICERS WERE IN POSSESSION.  THE
FORCE OF THE DECREE IN THAT CASE WAS TO GRANT POSSESSION TO THE PRIVATE
CLAIMANT.  THOUGH THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT RES JUDICATA AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES,  ...  IT SETTLED AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES THE CONTROVERSY OVER
POSSESSION.  PRECISELY THE SAME WILL BE TRUE HERE, IF WE ASSUME THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE PROVED."  LAND V. DOLLAR, SUPRA, P.
737.  WHEN A PLEADING RAISES A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM THAT THE DEFENDANT IS
WRONGFULLY WITHHOLDING FROM THE PLAINTIFF PROPERTY BELONGING TO HIM,
THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT HERETOFORE BEEN PERMITTED TO SHIELD HIMSELF
BEHIND THE IMMUNITY OF THE SOVEREIGN.  ONLY AFTER THE PRELIMINARY
QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP IS DECIDED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF DOES THE CLAIM
OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY COME INTO PLAY.  ONLY THEN CAN IT BE SAID THAT
THE DECREE WILL AFFECT PROPERTY OF THE SOVEREIGN. 

THE COURT TRIES TO EXPLAIN AWAY LAND V. DOLLAR, SUPRA, BY SUGGESTING
THAT IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE OFFICERS ACTED IN EXCESS OF THEIR
AUTHORITY, ALTHOUGH THE OPINION IN THAT CASE MAKES CLEAR THAT, EVEN IF
THE OFFICERS HAD AUTHORITY, THERE STILL REMAINED THE ISSUE WHETHER THE
SHARES OF STOCK WERE SOLD OR PLEDGED TO THE UNITED STATES.  IF THE
LATTER, TO HOLD AFTER SATISFACTION OF THE PLEDGE WOULD BE TORTIOUS, AND
THE STOCK COULD BE RECOVERED IN THE SUIT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS.  THE
COURT SEEKS TO AVOID THE DECISION IN ICKES V. FOX, SUPRA, BY SAYING
THAT THE GROUND OF DECISION IS NOT MADE CLEAR.  BUT NOT EVEN THESE MOST
DUBIOUS ARGUMENTS CAN EXPLAIN AWAY GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT IMPLIEDLY OVERRULES THAT DECISION.  NO REASON OF
POLICY IS VOUCHSAFED FOR OVERRULING A DECISION THAT CARRIES THE
AUTHORITY THAT THE GOLTRA CASE DOES.  IT WAS BASED ON A LONG SERIES OF
PRIOR CASES, IT WAS DECIDED BY A UNANIMOUS COURT AND DELIVERED BY A
CHIEF JUSTICE WHO BROUGHT TO THE COURT FROM HIS PRESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCE
A PARTIALITY TOWARD FREEDOM FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION, AS EVINCED BY HIS
OPINION IN THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CASE OF MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S.
52.  THE GOLTRA CASE HAS SINCE BEEN FREQUENTLY, AND ALWAYS APPROVINGLY,
CITED, MOST RECENTLY IN LAND V. DOLLAR, SUPRA, AS AN APPLICATION OF THE
LEE DOCTRINE.  SEE ALSO ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82, 97.  THE GOLTRA CASE
IS NOW THROWN INTO THE DISCARD BECAUSE IT DID NOT CITE GOLDBERG V.
DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218.  THAT EARLIER CASE IS DEEMED IN CONFLICT WITH
THE LATER GOLTRA DECISION AND THEREFORE THE LATER CASE, SO WE ARE TOLD,
MUST YIELD TO THE EARLIER CASE.  ONE WOULD SUPPOSE THAT THE FAILURE OF
A FULL-DRESS OPINION IN A LATER CASE, WHICH WAS THOROUGHLY ARGUED AND
NOT HASTILY DECIDED, TO CITE AN EARLIER OPINION WOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED
EITHER TO THE COURT'S UNAWARENESS OF THE EARLIER OPINION OR ITS SILENT
OVERRULING OF IT.  THAT THE COURT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF THE
DECISION IN THE GOLDBERG CASE IS INCONTESTABLY PROVED BY THE FACT THAT
IT WAS REFERRED TO IN THE BRIEFS IN THE GOLTRA CASE.  THAT THERE WAS
NOT OBVIOUS INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE TWO DECISIONS IS INDICATED BY THE
FACT THAT MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, WHO WROTE THE GOLDBERG OPINION, JOINED IN
THE GOLTRA OPINION.  IT IS TOO MUCH TO ASSUME THAT THERE WAS CONCERTED
SILENCE ABOUT THE GOLDBERG DECISION BY THE COURT IN GOLTRA. 

A MORE OBVIOUS EXPLANATION LIES ON THE SURFACE.  GOLDBERG WAS NOT
CITED IN GOLTRA FOR THE CONCLUSIVE REASON THAT GOLDBERG HAD NOTHING TO
DO WITH GOLTRA.  IN THE GOLDBERG CASE THE COURT, ON THE BASIS OF THE
PLEADINGS BEFORE IT, WAS DEALING WITH A SUIT WHERE "THE UNITED STATES
IS THE OWNER IN POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL."  231 U.S. 218, 221-222. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE SUIT WAS NOT FOR A TORTIOUS WITHHOLDING OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY AND THE GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY BARRED SUIT.  IN
GOLTRA, ON THE CONTRARY, THE CLAIM WAS FOR THE DELIVERY OF PROPERTY
ALLEGEDLY BELONGING TO THE PLAINTIFF AND TORTIOUSLY IN POSSESSION OF
THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, AND THE COURT HELD THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS
ENTITLED TO ESTABLISH SUCH A CLAIM AS HE CAN, "EVEN THOUGH THE UNITED
STATES FOR WHOM THEY (THE DEFENDANTS) MAY PROFESS TO ACT IS NOT A PARTY
AND CAN NOT BE MADE ONE."  271 U.S. AT 544.  THAT IS THIS CASE. 

AS IS TRUE OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE RIGHT OF CONTROL OVER PROPERTY
MAY DEPEND ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT.  THE FACT OF
COMPLIANCE MAY REST, CERTAINLY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, IN THE JUDGMENT
OF A PARTICULAR OFFICIAL.  BUT THAT WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE HIM TO RESCIND
A VALID CONTRACT IF THERE HAD BEEN FULL COMPLIANCE.  OF COURSE, EVEN
THAT POWER MAY BE CONFERRED BY AGREEMENT OR BY STATUTE.  BUT IN THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, OR SUCH A PROVISION IN A STATUTE, A
PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE REDRESS AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO HAS WRONGFULLY
RESCINDED A VALID CONTRACT FULLY PERFORMED IF A PROPERTY RIGHT OF THE
PLAINTIFF IS THEREBY TORTIOUSLY AFFECTED.  HE MAY ALSO HAVE HIS DAY IN
COURT IF HE DENIES THE RIGHT OF AN OFFICIAL TO DETERMINE DEFINITIVELY
WANT OF COMPLIANCE, WHEN THE ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE IS DECISIVE OF THE
DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED WRONG-DOING.  AND THESE ARE PRECISELY THE ISSUES
TENDERED BY THIS COMPLAINT.  IT IS NO ANSWER AT THIS STAGE OF THE CASE,
TO SAY THAT IT WAS IN FACT WITHIN THE AGENT'S AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT HE
DID.  IF A VALID STATUTE GIVES HIM POWER TO WITHHOLD PROPERTY WHICH
BELONGS TO ANOTHER, OR IF HE HAS THE POWER TO REVEST TITLE IN THE
GOVERNMENT AFTER A VALID CONTRACT HAS VESTED IT IN ANOTHER, THEN OF
COURSE HE IS FREE FROM LIABILITY.  BUT THESE ARE MATTERS THAT GO TO THE
MERITS.  THE VERY PURPOSE OF THIS SUIT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER WHAT THE
GOVERNMENTAL AGENT DID HERE WAS WITHIN HIS POWER.  TO DECIDE WHETHER
THE "AUTHORITY IS RIGHTFULLY ASSUMED IS THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION,
AND MUST LEAD TO THE DECISION OF THE MERITS OF THE QUESTION."  UNITED
STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196, 219.  THE ISSUES OUTLINED ABOVE ARE ISSUES
WHICH MAY BE CONTESTED AGAINST A DEFENDANT, EVEN THOUGH HE HOLD
OFFICE.  NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R. CO., 147 U.S. 165; PAYNE V.
CENTRAL PACIFIC R. CO., 255 U.S. 228; SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO. V. FALL,
259 U.S. 197; LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731.    THE DISTRICT COURT
THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CONTROVERSY BECAUSE ONLY AFTER A
CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OF THE RESPONDENT'S CLAIM COULD IT BE
DETERMINED WHETHER THE DECREE WOULD AFFECT GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.  SINCE
THAT COURT HAS JURISDICTION IT CAN ALSO DETERMINE WHETHER A CAUSE OF
ACTION WAS STATED AND WHETHER THERE ARE ANY CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WOULD
CAUSE A COURT OF EQUITY NOT TO GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

            APPENDIX. 

CASES SINCE OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 9 WHEAT.  738(1824),
CONCERNING SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL AGENTS IN WHICH DEFENSE OF
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAS RAISED. 

I. CASES IN WHICH JURISDICTION WAS FOUND WANTING. 

A. PLAINTIFF SOUGHT INTEREST IN PROPERTY WHICH CONCEDEDLY BELONGED TO
THE GOVERNMENT, OR DEMANDED RELIEF CALLING FOR AN ASSERTION OF WHAT WAS
UNQUESTIONABLY OFFICIAL AUTHORITY. 

GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA V. MADRAZO, 1 PET. 110(1828); LOUISIANA V. JUMEL,
107 U.S. 711; CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK R. CO., 109 U.S. 446;
HAGOOD V. SOUTHERN, 117 U.S. 52; CHRISTIAN V. ATLANTIC & N.C.R. CO.,
133 U.S. 233; NORTH CAROLINA V. TEMPLE, 134 U.S. 22; NEW YORK GUARANTY
& INDEMNITY CO. V. STEELE, 134 U.S. 230; BELKNAP V. SCHILD, 161 U.S.
10; OREGON V. HITCHCOCK, 202 U.S. 60; LOUISIANA V. GARFIELD, 211 U.S.
70; MURRAY V. WILSON CO., 213 U.S. 151; HOPKINS V. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL
COLLEGE, 221 U.S. 636; GOLDBERG V. DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218; LOUISIANA V.
MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627; LANKFORD V. PLATTE IRON WORKS, 235 U.S. 461;
WELLS V. ROPER, 246 U.S. 335; MORRISON V. WORK, 266 U.S. 481; MINNESOTA
V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382. 

B. DECISIONS COUCHED IN TERMS OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OR LATER SO
INTERPRETED BUT WHICH ACTUALLY TURNED ON OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. 

1.  NO LEGALLY PROTECTED INTEREST OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS AFFECTED. 

LOUISIANA V. MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627; TENNESSEE ELECTRIC POWER CO. V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 306 U.S. 118. 

2.  THE PARTICULAR DEFENDANT WAS UNRELATED TO THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM
BECAUSE HE WAS NOT THREATENING PLAINTIFF'S INTEREST. 

IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443; FITTS V. MCGHEE, 172 U.S. 516; WORCESTER
COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO. V.
FORRESTAL, 326 U.S. 371(ALTERNATIVE REASON). 

3.  NATURE OF THE ADJUDICATION REQUIRED PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN AS
A NECESSARY PARTY. 

CHRISTIAN V. ATLANTIC & NORTH CAROLINA R. CO., 133 U.S. 233; STANLEY
V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255; NEW MEXICO V. LANE, 243 U.S. 52. 

4.  CASE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF ORDINARY REQUIREMENTS OF EQUITY
JURISDICTION. 

HAWKS V. HAMILL, 288 U.S. 52; MORRISON V. WORK, 266 U.S.
481(ALTERNATIVE GROUND). 

C. CASES IN WHICH LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT ONLY THE
SOVEREIGN ITSELF COULD BE SUED FOR ACTION AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE. 

CROZIER V. FRIED, KRUPP AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, 224 U.S. 290; RICHMOND
SCREW ANCHOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 331. 

D. CASES IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF PURSUED A STATUTORY PROCEDURE
INDICATING CONSENT TO SUIT AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN AND IS THEREFORE BOUND
BY ITS LIMITATIONS. 

SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S. 436; GREAT NORTHERN LIFE INS. CO. V. READ,
322 U.S. 47; FORD MOTOR CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF INDIANA, 323
U.S. 459; KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 327 U.S. 573. 

II.  CASES IN WHICH JURISDICTION WAS ENTERTAINED. 

A. CASES IN WHICH AN OFFICIAL JUSTIFIED HIS ACTION UNDER AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE. 

OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 9 WHEAT.  738(1824); BOARD OF
LIQUIDATION V. MCCOMB, 92 U.S. 531; POINDEXTER V. GREENHOW, 114 U.S.
270; WHITE V. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 307; CHAFFIN V. TAYLOR, 114 U.S. 309;
ALLEN V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 114 U.S. 311; PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY,
140 U.S. 1; IN RE TYLER, 149 U.S. 164; REAGAN V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST
CO., 154 U.S. 362; SCOTT V. DONALD, 165 U.S. 58; SCOTT V. DONALD, 165
U.S. 107; SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466; PROUT V. STARR, 188 U.S. 537;
MISSISSIPPI R. COMM'N V. ILLINOIS C.R. CO., 203 U.S. 335; EX PARTE
YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; GENERAL OIL CO. V. CRAIN, 209 U.S. 211; LUDWIG V.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 216 U.S. 146; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
V. ANDREWS, 216 U.S. 165; HERNDON V. CHICAGO, R.I. & PAC. R. CO., 218
U.S. 135; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; TANNER V. LITTLE, 240 U.S. 369;
GREENE V. LOUISVILLE & I.R. CO., 244 U.S. 499; PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V.
CORBOY, 250 U.S. 153; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378; RICKERT
RICE MILLS V. FONTENOT, 297 U.S. 110. 

B. CASES IN WHICH AN OFFICER EXCEEDED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY. 

ROLSTON V. MISSOURI FUND COMMISSIONERS, 120 U.S. 390; SCULLY V. BIRD,
209 U.S. 481; ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. O'CONNOR, 223 U.S. 280;
PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605; WAITE V. MACY, 246 U.S. 606;
PAYNE V. CENTRAL PAC. R. CO., 255 U.S. 228; SANTA FE PAC. R. CO. V.
FALL, 259 U.S. 197; WORK V. LOUISIANA, 269 U.S. 250. 

C. CASES IN WHICH AN OFFICER SOUGHT SHELTER BEHIND STATUTORY
AUTHORITY OR SOME OTHER SOVEREIGN COMMAND FOR THE COMMISSION OF A
COMMON-LAW TORT. 

1.  CASES IN WHICH AN OFFICER WAS NOT RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR TORT
MERELY BECAUSE HE WAS ACTING FOR THE SOVEREIGN. 

STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 147 U.S. 508; SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141;
SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. UNITED STATES FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549;
GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536; ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82; LAND V.
DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731. 

2.  CASES IN WHICH AN OFFICER WAS HELD LIABLE FOR A COMMON-LAW TORT,
BUT THE OPINION MADE REFERENCE TO A SITUATION INVOLVING AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING. 

UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196; NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R.
CO., 147 U.S. 165; SOUTH CAROLINA V. WESLEY, 155 U.S. 542; TINDAL V.
WESLEY, 167 U.S. 204; HOPKINS V. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, 221 U.S.
636. 

FN1  THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF IN THE COMPLAINT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1)  THAT THIS COURT ISSUE ITS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST
THE DEFENDANT, HIS AGENTS, ASSISTANTS, DEPUTIES AND EMPLOYEES AND ALL
PERSONS ACTING OR ASSUMING TO ACT UNDER THEIR DIRECTION, ENJOINING AND
RESTRAINING THEM FROM: 

"(A)  CARRYING INTO EFFECT THE PURPORTED ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED
CONCELLATION OF THE SALE TO THE PLAINTIFF OF THIS COAL. 

"(B)  RESELLING OR ATTEMPTING TO RESELL THIS COAL TO ANY OTHER PERSON
WHATSOEVER THAN THE PLAINTIFF, THE LEGAL OWNER THEREOF. 

"(C)  DELIVERING ANY OR ALL OF THIS COAL TO ANY OTHER PERSON. 

"(2)  THAT UPON HEARING OF MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THAT
THIS COURT CONTINUE THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AS A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION. 

"(3)  THAT UPON FINAL HEARING THIS COURT MAKE PERMANENT THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 

"(4)  THAT UPON HEARING OF THIS CAUSE THE COURT DECREES THAT: 

"(A)  THE SALE OF THIS COAL TO THE PLAINTIFF BY LETTER OF WAR  ASSETS
ADMINISTRATION, DATED MARCH 19, 1947, IS STILL VALID AND IN EFFECT. 

"(B)  THAT THE PURPORTED SALE TO THE MIDLAND COAL COMPANY IS ILLEGAL,
BECAUSE TITLE TO THIS COAL IS IN THE PLAINTIFF. 

"(C)  THAT, IN VIEW OF THE DELAY AND DISRUPTION OF ARRANGEMENTS
CAUSED BY THE PURPORTED CANCELLATION, PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE THIRTY DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THIS COURT'S FINAL ORDER IN WHICH TO GIVE SHIPPING
INSTRUCTIONS. 

"(D)  THAT THE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SUCH OTHER FURTHER AND DIFFERENT
RELIEF AS MAY TO THE COURT SEEM PROPER AND JUST IN THE PREMISES." 

FN2  E.G., GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA V. MADRAZO, 1 PET. 110(1828);
LOUISIANA V. JUMEL, 107 U.S. 711; CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK R.
CO., 109 U.S. 446; HAGOOD V. SOUTHERN, 117 U.S. 52; CHRISTIAN V.
ATLANTIC & NORTH CAROLINA R. CO., 133 U.S. 233; NORTH CAROLINA V.
TEMPLE, 134 U.S. 22; NEW YORK GUARANTY & INDEMNITY CO. V. STEELE, 134
U.S. 230; BELKNAP V. SCHILD, 161 U.S. 10; OREGON V. HITCHCOCK, 202 U.S.
60; MURRAY V. WILSON CO., 213 U.S. 151; HOPKINS V. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL
COLLEGE, 221 U.S. 636; LOUISIANA V. MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627; LANKFORD V.
PLATTE IRON WORKS, 235 U.S. 461; WELLS V. ROPER, 246 U.S. 335; MORRISON
V. WORK, 266 U.S. 481; SEE LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731, 737-738. 

FN3  E.G., OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 9 WHEAT.  738(1824);
BOARD OF LIQUIDATION V. MCCOMB, 92 U.S. 531; POINDEXTER V. GREENHOW,
114 U.S. 270; WHITE V. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 307; CHAFFIN V. TAYLOR, 114
U.S. 309; ALLEN V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 114 U.S. 311; PENNOYER V.
MCCONNAUGHY, 140 U.S. 1; REAGAN V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S.
362; SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466; MISSISSIPPI R. COMM'N V. ILLINOIS
C.R. CO., 203 U.S. 335; EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; RICKERT RICE
MILLS V. FONTENOT, 297 U.S. 110. 

FN4  E.G., SCULLY V. BIRD, 209 U.S. 481; ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V.
O'CONNOR, 223 U.S. 280; PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605;
WAITE V. MACY, 246 U.S. 606; SANTA FE PAC. R. CO. V. FALL, 259 U.S.
197; WORK V. LOUISIANA, 269 U.S. 250. 

FN5  E.G., UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196; SOUTH CAROLINA V.
WESLEY, 155 U.S. 542; TINDAL V. WESLEY, 167 U.S. 204; HOPKINS V.
CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, 221 U.S. 636; SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V.
UNITED STATES FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549; GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536;
ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82; LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731.  IN FOUR CASES
BEFORE THE LEE CASE, SUIT WAS PERMITTED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENT
FOR TRESPASS TO PROPERTY UNDER THE CLAIM THAT IT WAS OWNED BY THE
GOVERNMENT WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION THAT A QUESTION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
MIGHT BE INVOLVED.  MEIGS V. M'CLUNG'S LESSEE, 9 CRANCH 11(1815);
WILCOX V. JACKSON, 13 PET. 498(1839); BROWN V. HUGER, 21 HOW. 
305(1858); GRISAR V. MCDOWELL, 6 WALL.  363(1867).  AND WHERE THE
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ARGUMENT WAS RAISED, IT WAS DISMISSED WITH "IT
CERTAINLY CAN NEVER BE ALLEGED, THAT A MERE SUGGESTION OF TITLE IN A
STATE TO PROPERTY, IN POSSESSION OF AN INDIVIDUAL, MUST ARREST THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT, AND PREVENT THEIR LOOKING INTO THE
SUGGESTION, AND EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE TITLE."  UNITED STATES V.
PETERS, 5 CRANCH 115, 139-40(1809); SEE ALSO THE DAVIS, 10 WALL. 
15(1869). 

FN6  SEE FITTS V. MCGHEE, 172 U.S. 516; SEE BLOCK, SUITS AGAINST
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE, 59 HARV. L.
REV. 1060, 1078, 1082(1946). 

FN7  LOUISIANA V. MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627; IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443. 

FN8  HAWKS V. HAMILL, 288 U.S. 52; MORRISON V. WORK, 266 U.S. 481. 

FN9  FITTS V. MCGHEE, 172 U.S. 516; WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V.
RILEY, 302 U.S. 292. 

FN10  THE PRINCIPLE OF THE LEE CASE CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AWAY BY
SUGGESTING THAT AT THE TIME IT WAS DECIDED RECOVERY COULD NOT BE HAD
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR THE MISCONDUCT OF
THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENT IN SEIZING THE LEE ESTATE.  THE SHORT AND
CONCLUSIVE ANSWER IS THAT RECOVERY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT
BE HAD TODAY UNLESS A WHOLE SERIES OF CASES IS TO BE OVERRULED.  SEE,
E.G., TEMPEL V. UNITED STATES, 248 U.S. 121, 130, AND THE CASES CITED
THEREIN; RUSSELL V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 516, 535; HARLEY V. UNITED
STATES, 198 U.S. 229, 235; HILL V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 593; UNITED
STATES V. NORTH AMERICAN TRANS.  & TRADING CO., 253 U.S. 330, 335;
JURAGUA IRON CO. V. UNITED STATES, 212 U.S. 297.  AND THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE FEDERAL TORTS CLAIM ACT WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT UNDER ITS
PROVISION SUIT COULD BE BROUGHT.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2680(A). 

FN11  THIS CASE IS CLEARLY APPOSITE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER IN A SUIT
AGAINST AN AGENT THE DEFENSE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS APPLICABLE.  TO
TAKE AWAY THE IMMUNITY OF A GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION MERELY PREVENTS
THE CORPORATION FROM CLAIMING THAT IT IS IMMUNIZED FROM SUIT.  BUT A
SUIT WILL STILL NOT LIE IF A DECREE WILL AFFECT THE GOVERNMENT'S,
RATHER THAN THE CORPORATION'S, PROPERTY. 

FN12  WHEN CONGRESS HAS WISHED TO DISPLACE THE ORDINARY REMEDIES
AGAINST THE AGENT, IT HAS USED EXPLICIT LANGUAGE TO DO SO.  SEE, E.G.,
56 STAT. 1013, 35 U.S.C. SECS. 89-96; 36 STAT. 851, AS AMENDED, 40
STAT. 705, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 68.  IT IS OF COURSE NOT A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS TO MAKE THE REMEDY, EVEN FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION OF THE
AGENTS WHO DO THE GOVERNMENT'S WORK, SOLELY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
INSTEAD OF THE AGENT WHO COMMITTED THE WRONG.  CF. COFFMAN V. FEDERAL
LABORATORIES, INC., 171 F.2D 94(C.A. 3D CIR.); RICHMOND SCREW ANCHOR
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 331; CROZIER V. FRIED, 224 U.S. 290.  IT
IS UPON SUCH CASES, INTERPRETING SPECIFIC PROVISIONS, STATING THAT
RELIEF SHOULD BE ONLY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THAT THE COURT RELIED IN
YEARSLEY V. ROSS CONSTRUCTION CO., 309 U.S. 18.  THAT CASE IS BASED ON
THE RICHMOND SCREW ANCHOR CO. CASE AND THE CROZIER CASE AND IS TO BE
UNDERSTOOD IN THE LIGHT OF THEM.  IN THE YEARSLEY CASE SUIT WAS BROUGHT
AGAINST A GOVERNMENTAL AGENT WHO HAD TAKEN LAND UNDER A STATUTE WHICH
AUTHORIZED THE TAKING OF THAT PARTICULAR LAND.  IMPLIEDLY THE OWNER WAS
TO BE COMPENSATED FOR IT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE COURT HELD THAT
IN AN AUTHORIZED TAKING THERE IS NO LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S REPRESENTATIVES WHO DO THE TAKING.  THE FACT THAT THERE
WAS ENTIRE COMPENSATION PROVIDED FOR EMPHASIZED THE EXCLUSIVE CHARACTER
OF THE REMEDY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  IN OTHER WORDS THE COURT WAS
DEALING WITH A SITUATION LIKE THE ONE INVOLVED IN THE RICHMOND SCREW
ANCHOR CO. CASE.  THUS THE YEARSLEY CASE DOES NOT TOUCH THE CASES
DECIDED, BEFORE AND SINCE THAT DECISION, ON THE BASIS OF THE LEE LINE
OF CASES.  MOREOVER, IN THIS CASE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT THERE WAS NO
AUTHORITY ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT TO RESCIND THE CONTRACT.  THIS
COURT HAS EXPLICITLY REJECTED THE THEORY THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD BE
SUED FOR A TORT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  TEMPEL V. UNITED STATES, 248
U.S. 121, 129, AND CASES CITED; SEE ALSO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2680(A). 
FN13  "WHETHER THIS IMMUNITY IS AN ABSOLUTE SURVIVAL OF THE MONARCHIAL
PRIVILEGE, OR IS A MANIFESTATION MERELY OF POWER, OR RESTS ON ABSTRACT
LOGICAL GROUNDS, SEE KAWANANAKOA V. POLYBLANK, 205 U.S. 349, IT
UNDOUBTEDLY RUNS COUNTER TO MODERN DEMOCRATIC NOTIONS OF THE MORAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE.  ACCORDINGLY, COURTS REFLECT A STRONG
LEGISLATIVE MOMENTUM IN THEIR TENDENCY TO EXTEND THE LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT AND TO CONFIRM MAITLAND'S BELIEF,
EXPRESSED NEARLY FIFTY YEARS AGO, THAT 'IT IS A WHOLESOME SIGHT TO SEE
"THE CROWN" SUED AND ANSWERING FOR ITS TORTS.'  3 MAITLAND, COLLECTED
PAPERS, 263."  GREAT NORTHERN LIFE INS. CO. V. READ, 322 U.S. 47, 57,
59(DISSENTING OPINION).  SEE ALSO KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. V. STATE TAX
COMM'N, 327 U.S. 573, 580, 582(DISSENTING OPINION). 

FN14  OF COURSE IF CONTROL IS SOUGHT OVER PROPERTY WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO RETAIN, THE CONSIDERATIONS AS TO WHETHER THE
EQUITABLE RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED MIGHT BE DIFFERENT.  CF. LOUISIANA
V. GARFIELD, 211 U.S. 70; GOLDBERG V. DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218.  HERE,
HOWEVER, THAT QUESTION IS NOT INVOLVED, SINCE THE COAL TO WHICH THE
PLAINTIFF ASSERTS TITLE IS, ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT, TO BE SOLD TO
ANOTHER DEALER.  AS BETWEEN THE TWO, THE PLAINTIFF, IF IT BE A FACT
THAT HE HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE CONTRACT, IS ENTITLED TO THE
PROPERTY.  THE THREATENED TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WRONGFULLY WITHHELD FROM
THE PLAINTIFF MAY BE ENJOINED IF THE CONVENTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF
EQUITABLE RELIEF ARE PRESENT. 
..END :


















COMMISSIONER V. CULBERTSON, 337 U.S. 733 


NO. 313.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 168 F.2D
979, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT TAXPAYER, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BREEDING AND SELLING
CATTLE, FORMED A FAMILY PARTNERSHIP WITH HIS FOUR SONS, TO WHOM HE SOLD
AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS, TAKING THEIR PROMISSORY
NOTE THEREFOR.  THE NOTE WAS PAID BY PROCEEDS FROM THE BUSINESS AND BY
GIFTS FROM RESPONDENT.  THE ELDEST SON WAS, BEFORE AND AFTER THE
FORMATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP, FOREMAN OF THE RANCH AND RECEIVED
COMPENSATION AS SUCH.  IN 1940, THE FIRST YEAR DURING WHICH THE
PARTNERSHIP OPERATED, THE SECOND SON FINISHED COLLEGE AND WENT INTO THE
ARMY.  THE TWO YOUNGER SONS WENT TO SCHOOL IN THE WINTER AND WORKED ON
THE RANCH IN THE SUMMER.  FOR THE TAXABLE YEARS 1940 AND 1941, THE TAX
COURT HELD THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE BUSINESS WAS TAXABLE TO
RESPONDENT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SONS HAD NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THE
PARTNERSHIP ANY CAPITAL ORIGINATING WITH THEM NOR ANY VITAL SERVICES. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE EXPECTATION THAT THE
SONS WOULD IN THE FUTURE CONTRIBUTE THEIR TIME AND SERVICES WAS
SUFFICIENT FOR RECOGNITION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES. 
HELD: 

1.  MEMBERS OF A PARTNERSHIP WHO CONTRIBUTED NEITHER CAPITAL NOR
SERVICES DURING THE TAX YEAR CANNOT BE REGARDED AS "CARRYING ON
BUSINESS IN PARTNERSHIP" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 181 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  PP. 737-740. 

(A)  TO HOLD THAT "INDIVIDUALS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN PARTNERSHIP"
INCLUDES PERSONS WHO CONTRIBUTE NOTHING DURING THE TAX PERIOD WOULD
VIOLATE THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF INCOME TAXATION: THAT INCOME MUST BE
TAXED TO HIM WHO EARNS IT.  PP. 739-740. 

(B)  THE INTENT TO PROVIDE MONEY, GOODS, LABOR, OR SKILL SOMETIME IN
THE FUTURE CANNOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF SECS. 11 AND 22(A) OF THE
CODE THAT HE WHO PRESENTLY EARNS THE INCOME THROUGH HIS LABOR AND SKILL
BE TAXED THEREFOR.  P. 740. 

2.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A TRUE PARTNERSHIP FOR INCOME
TAX PURPOSES, THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION OF "ORIGINAL
CAPITAL" OR "VITAL SERVICES" IS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT IT
IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  PP. 741-745. 

(A)  THE TEST IS WHETHER, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS - THE AGREEMENT,
THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES IN EXECUTION OF ITS PROVISIONS, THEIR
STATEMENTS, THE TESTIMONY OF DISINTERESTED PERSONS, THE RELATIONSHIP OF
THE PARTIES, THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES AND CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS, THE
ACTUAL CONTROL OF INCOME AND THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT IS USED, AND ANY
OTHER FACTS THROWING LIGHT ON THEIR TRUE INTENT - THE PARTIES IN GOOD
FAITH AND ACTING WITH A BUSINESS PURPOSE INTENDED TO JOIN TOGETHER IN
THE PRESENT CONDUCT OF THE ENTERPRISE.  P. 742. 

(B)  IF, UPON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE
PARTNERS JOINED TOGETHER IN GOOD FAITH TO CONDUCT A BUSINESS, HAVING
AGREED THAT THE SERVICES OR CAPITAL TO BE CONTRIBUTED PRESENTLY BY EACH
IS OF SUFFICIENT VALUE TO THE PARTNERSHIP THAT THE CONTRIBUTOR SHOULD
PARTICIPATE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS, THAT IS FUFFICIENT.  PP.
744-745. 

3.  A CONTRIBUTION OF "ORIGINAL CAPITAL" IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO
MEMBERSHIP IN A FAMILY PARTNERSHIP.  PP. 745-748. 

(A)  A FINDING THAT NO TRUE PARTNERSHIP WAS INTENDED IS NOT TO BE
INFERRED AUTOMATICALLY FROM THE FACT OF A GIFT TO A MEMBER OF ONE'S
FAMILY, FOLLOWED BY ITS INVESTMENT IN THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP.  P. 746. 

(B)  IF THE DONEE OF PROPERTY WHO THEN INVESTS IT IN THE FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP EXERCISES DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THAT PROPERTY - AND
THROUGH THAT CONTROL INFLUENCES THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND THE
DISPOSITION OF ITS INCOME - HE MAY WELL BE A TRUE PARTNER.  P. 747. 

4.  THE CAUSE MUST BE REMANDED TO THE TAX COURT FOR DECISION AS TO
WHICH, IF ANY, OF RESPONDENT'S SONS WERE PARTNERS WITH HIM IN THE
OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS DURING THE TAX YEARS IN QUESTION.  P. 748. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. CULBERTSON ET UX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN RESPONDENT'S
INCOME TAX FOR 1940 AND 1941 WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TAX COURT.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  168 F.2D 979.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
335 U.S. 883.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 748. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE REQUIRES OUR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP PROBLEM.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE RULED THAT
THE ENTIRE INCOME FROM A PARTNERSHIP ALLEGEDLY ENTERED INTO BY
RESPONDENT AND HIS FOUR SONS MUST BE TAXED TO RESPONDENT,  FN1  AND THE
TAX COURT SUSTAINED THAT DETERMINATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  168 F.2D 979.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 335 U.S.
883, TO CONSIDER THE COMMISSIONER'S CLAIM THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF
COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, 327 U.S. 280(1946), AND LUSTHAUS V.
COMMISSIONER, 327 U.S. 293(1946), HAVE BEEN DEPARTED FROM IN THIS AND
OTHER COURTS OF APPEALS DECISIONS. 

RESPONDENT TAXPAYER IS A RANCHER.  FROM 1915 UNTIL OCTOBER 1939, HE
HAD OPERATED A CATTLE BUSINESS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH R. S. COON.  COON,
WHO HAD NUMEROUS BUSINESS INTERESTS IN THE SOUTHWEST AND HAD LARGELY
FINANCED THE PARTNERSHIP, WAS 79 YEARS OLD IN 1939 AND DESIRED TO
DISSOLVE THE PARTNERSHIP BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH.  TO THAT END, THE BULK
OF THE PARTNERSHIP HERD WAS SOLD UNTIL, IN OCTOBER OF THAT YEAR, ONLY
ABOUT 1,500 HEAD REMAINED.  THESE CATTLE WERE ALL REGISTERED HEREFORDS,
THE BROOD OR FOUNDATION HERD.  CULBERTSON WISHED TO KEEP THESE CATTLE
AND APPROACHED COON WITH AN OFFER OF $65 A HEAD.  COON AGREED TO SELL
AT THAT PRICE, BUT ONLY UPON CONDITION THAT CULBERTSON WOULD SELL AN
UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN THE HERD TO HIS FOUR SONS AT THE SAME
PRICE.  HIS REASONS FOR IMPOSING THIS CONDITION WERE HIS INTENSE
INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE HEREFORD STRAIN WHICH HE AND CULBERTSON HAD
DEVELOPED, HIS CONVICTION THAT CULBERTSON WAS TOO OLD TO CARRY ON THE
WORK ALONE, AND HIS PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE CULBERTSON BOYS. 
CULBERTSON'S SONS WERE ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THE PROPOSITION, SO
RESPONDENT THEREUPON BOUGHT THE REMAINING CATTLE FROM THE COON AND
CULBERTSON PARTNERSHIP FOR $99,440.  TWO DAYS LATER CULBERTSON SOLD AN
UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST TO THE FOUR BOYS, AND THE FOLLOWING DAY
THEY GAVE THEIR FATHER A NOTE FOR $49,720 AT 4 PER CENT INTEREST DUE
ONE YEAR FROM DATE.  SEVERAL MONTHS LATER A NEW NOTE FOR $57,674 WAS
EXECUTED BY THE BOYS TO REPLACE THE EARLIER NOTE.  THE INCREASE IN
AMOUNT COVERED THE PURCHASE BY CULBERTSON AND HIS SONS OF OTHER
PROPERTIES FORMERLY OWNED BY COON AND CULBERTSON.  THIS NOTE WAS PAID
BY THE BOYS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 

CREDIT FOR OVERCHARGE.......................................
$5,930 

GIFTS FROM RESPONDENT.......................................
21,744 

ONE-HALF OF A LOAN PROCURED BY CULBERTSON 

& SONS PARTNERSHIP..........................................
30,000 

THE LOAN WAS REPAID FROM THE PROCEEDS FROM OPERATION OF THE RANCH. 

THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAXPAYER AND HIS SONS WAS ORAL. 
THE LOCAL PAPER ANNOUNCED THE DISSOLUTION OF THE COON AND CULBERTSON
PARTNERSHIP AND THE CONTINUATION OF THE BUSINESS BY RESPONDENT AND HIS
BOYS UNDER THE NAME OF CULBERTSON & SONS.  A BANK ACCOUNT WAS OPENED IN
THIS NAME, UPON WHICH TAXPAYER, HIS FOUR SONS AND A BOOKKEEPER COULD
CHECK.  AT THE TIME OF FORMATION OF THE NEW PARTNERSHIP, CULBERTSON'S
OLDEST SON WAS 24 YEARS OLD, MARRIED, AND LIVING ON THE RANCH, OF WHICH
HE HAD FOR TWO YEARS BEEN FOREMAN UNDER THE COON AND CULBERTSON
PARTNERSHIP.  HE WAS A COLLEGE GRADUATE AND RECEIVED $100 A MONTH PLUS
BOARD AND LODGING FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
FORMATION OF CULBERTSON & SONS AND UNTIL ENTERING THE ARMY.  THE SECOND
SON WAS 22 YEARS OLD, WAS MARRIED AND FINISHED COLLEGE IN 1940, THE
FIRST YEAR DURING WHICH THE NEW PARTNERSHIP OPERATED.  HE WENT DIRECTLY
INTO THE ARMY FOLLOWING GRADUATION AND RENDERED NO SERVICES TO THE
PARTNERSHIP.  THE TWO YOUNGER SONS, WHO WERE 18 AND 16 YEARS OLD
RESPECTIVELY IN 1940, WENT TO SCHOOL DURING THE WINTER AND WORKED ON
THE RANCH DURING THE SUMMER.  FN2 

THE TAX YEARS HERE INVOLVED ARE 1940 AND 1941.  A PARTNERSHIP RETURN
WAS FILED FOR BOTH YEARS INDICATING A DIVISION OF INCOME APPROXIMATING
THE CAPITAL ATTRIBUTED TO EACH PARTNER.  IT IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF THIS
DIVISION OF THE INCOME FROM THE RANCH THAT BRINGS THIS CASE INTO THE
COURTS. 

FIRST.  THE TAX COURT READ OUR DECISIONS IN COMMISSIONER V. TOWER,
SUPRA, AND LUSTHAUS V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, AS SETTING OUT TWO
ESSENTIAL TESTS OF PARTNERSHIP FOR INCOME-TAX PURPOSES: THAT EACH
PARTNER CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARTNERSHIP EITHER VITAL SERVICES OR CAPITAL
ORIGINATING WITH HIM.  ITS DECISION WAS BASED UPON A FINDING THAT NONE
OF RESPONDENT'S SONS HAD SATISFIED THOSE REQUIREMENTS DURING THE TAX
YEARS IN QUESTION.  SANCTION FOR THE USE OF THESE "TESTS" OF
PARTNERSHIP IS SOUGHT IN THIS PARAGRAPH FROM OUR OPINION IN THE TOWER
CASE: 

"THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT A WIFE AND A HUSBAND MAY, UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, BECOME PARTNERS FOR TAX, AS FOR OTHER,
PURPOSES.  IF SHE EITHER INVESTS CAPITAL ORIGINATING WITH HER OR
SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE
BUSINESS, OR OTHERWISE PERFORMS VITAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES, OR DOES ALL
OF THESE THINGS SHE MAY BE A PARTNER AS CONTEMPLATED BY 26 U.S.C. SECS.
181, 182.  THE TAX COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
THE INCOME BELONGS TO THE WIFE.  A WIFE MAY BECOME A GENERAL OR A
LIMITED PARTNER WITH HER HUSBAND.  BUT WHEN SHE DOES NOT SHARE IN THE
MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE BUSINESS, CONTRIBUTES NO VITAL ADDITIONAL
SERVICE, AND WHERE THE HUSBAND PURPORTS IN SOME WAY TO HAVE GIVEN HER A
PARTNERSHIP INTEREST, THE TAX COURT MAY PROPERLY TAKE THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PARTNERSHIP
IS REAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL REVENUE LAWS."  327 U.S. AT
290. 

IT IS THE COMMISSIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE TAX COURT'S DECISION CAN
AND SHOULD BE REINSTATED UPON THE MERE REAFFIRMATION OF THE QUOTED
PARAGRAPH. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT A
FAMILY PARTNERSHIP ENTERED INTO WITHOUT THOUGHT OF TAX AVOIDANCE SHOULD
BE GIVEN RECOGNITION TAX-WISE WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS INTENDED THAT SOME
OF THE PARTNERS CONTRIBUTE EITHER CAPITAL OR SERVICES DURING THE TAX
YEAR AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACTUALLY MADE SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS, SINCE IT
WAS FORMED "WITH THE FULL EXPECTATION AND PURPOSE THAT THE BOYS WOULD,
IN THE FUTURE, CONTRIBUTE THEIR TIME AND SERVICES TO THE PARTNERSHIP." 
FN3  WE MUST CONSIDER, THEREFORE, WHETHER AN INTENTION TO CONTRIBUTE
CAPITAL OR SERVICES SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE IS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY
ORDINARY CONCEPTS OF PARTNERSHIP, AS REQUIRED BY THE TOWER CASE.  THE
FN4  WHICH SET OUT THE METHOD OF TAXING PARTNERSHIP INCOME, AND SECS.
11 AND 22(A),  FN5 WHICH RELATE TO THE TAXATION OF INDIVIDUAL INCOMES. 

IN THE TOWER CASE WE HELD THAT, DESPITE THE CLAIMED PARTNERSHIP, THE
EVIDENCE FULLY JUSTIFIED THE TAX COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE HUSBAND,
THROUGH HIS OWNERSHIP OF THE CAPITAL AND HIS MANAGEMENT OF THE
BUSINESS, ACTUALLY CREATED THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE AND ENJOY THE BENEFIT
OF THE INCOME AND WAS THUS TAXABLE UPON THAT ENTIRE INCOME UNDER SECS.
11 AND 22(A).  IN SUCH CASE, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED "INDIVIDUALS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN PARTNERSHIP" AND THUS
"LIABLE FOR INCOME TAX  ...  IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 181.  IF IT IS CONCEDED THAT SONE OF THE PARTNERS
CONTRIBUTED NEITHER CAPITAL NOR SERVICES TO THE PARTNERSHIP DURING THE
TAX YEARS IN QUESTION, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS APPARENTLY WILLING
TO DO IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN HARDLY BE CONTENDED THAT THEY ARE IN
ANY WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME DURING THOSE YEARS. 
FN6  THE PARTNERSHIP SECTIONS OF THE CODE ARE, OF COURSE, GEARED TO THE
IMPOSED UPON PARTNERSHIP INCOME AS SUCH.  TO HOLD THAT "INDIVIDUALS
CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN PARTNERSHIP" INCLUDES PERSONS WHO CONTRIBUTE
NOTHING DURING THE TAX PERIOD WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF
INCOME TAXATION: THAT INCOME MUST BE TAXED TO HIM WHO EARNS IT.  LUCAS
V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111(1930); HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331(1940);
NATIONAL CARBIDE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 336 U.S. 422(1949). 

FURTHERMORE, OUR DECISION IN COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, SUPRA, CLEARLY
INDICATES THE IMPORTANCE OF PARTICIPATION IN THE BUSINESS BY THE
PARTNERS DURING THE TAX YEAR.  WE THERE SAID THAT A PARTNERSHIP IS
CREATED "WHEN PERSONS JOIN TOGETHER THEIR MONEY, GOODS, LABOR, OR SKILL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON A TRADE, PROFESSION, OR BUSINESS AND
WHEN THERE IS COMMUNITY OF INTEREST IN THE PROFITS AND LOSSES."  ID. AT
286.  THIS IS, AFTER ALL, BUT THE APPLICATION OF AN OFTEN ITERATED
DEFINITION OF INCOME - THE GAIN DERIVED FROM CAPITAL, FROM LABOR, OR
FROM BOTH COMBINED FN7  - TO A PARTICULAR FORM OF BUSINESS
ORGANIZATION.  A PARTNERSHIP IS, IN OTHER WORDS, AN ORGANIZATION FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME TO WHICH EACH PARTNER CONTRIBUTES ONE OR BOTH
OF THE INGREDIENTS OF INCOME - CAPITAL OR SERVICES.  WARD V. THOMPSON,
22 HOW.  330, 334(1859).  THE INTENT TO PROVIDE MONEY, GOODS, LABOR, OR
SKILL SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE CANNOT MEET THE DEMANDS OF SECS. 11 AND
22(A) OF THE CODE THAT HE WHO PRESENTLY EARNS THE INCOME THROUGH HIS
OWN LABOR AND SKILL AND THE UTILIZATION OF HIS OWN CAPITAL BE TAXED
THEREFOR.  THE VAGARIES OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE PRECLUDE RELIANCE UPON EVEN
GOOD FAITH INTENT AS TO FUTURE CONDUCT AS A BASIS FOR THE PRESENT
TAXATION OF INCOME.  FN8 

SECOND.  WE TURN NEXT TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE TAX COURT'S APPROACH
TO THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP PROBLEM.  IT TREATED AS ESSENTIAL TO
MEMBERSHIP IN A FAMILY PARTNERSHIP FOR TAX PURPOSES THE CONTRIBUTION OF
EITHER "VITAL SERVICES" OR "ORIGINAL CAPITAL."  FN9  USE OF THESE
"TESTS" OF PARTNERSHIP INDICATES, AT BEST, AN ERROR IN EMPHASIS.  IT
IGNORES WHAT WE SAID IS THE ULTIMATE QUESTION FOR DECISION, NAMELY,
"WHETHER THE PARTNERSHIP IS REAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL
REVENUE LAWS" AND MAKES DECISIVE WHAT WE DESCRIBED AS "CIRCUMSTANCES
(TO BE TAKEN) INTO CONSIDERATION" IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.  FN10 

THE TOWER CASE THUS PROVIDES NO SUPPORT FOR SUCH AN APPROACH.  WE
THERE SAID THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP IS REAL FOR
INCOME-TAX PURPOSES DEPENDS UPON 

"WHETHER THE PARTNERS REALLY AND TRULY INTENDED TO JOIN TOGETHER FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND SHARING IN THE PROFITS OR
LOSSES OR BOTH.  AND THEIR INTENTION IN THIS RESPECT IS A QUESTION OF
FACT, TO BE DETERMINED FROM TESTIMONY DISCLOSED BY THEIR 'AGREEMENT,
CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, AND BY THEIR CONDUCT IN EXECUTION OF ITS
PROVISIONS.'  DRENNEN V. LONDON ASSURANCE CO., 113 U.S. 51, 56; COX V.
HICKMAN, 8 H. L. CAS. 268.  WE SEE NO REASON WHY THIS GENERAL RULE
SHOULD NOT APPLY IN TAX CASES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES THE
EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP FOR TAX PURPOSES."  327 U.S. AT 287. 

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE SERVICES OR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY A
PARTNER ARE OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO MEET SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARD
SUPPOSEDLY ESTABLISHED BY THE TOWER CASE, BUT WHETHER, CONSIDERING ALL
THE FACTS - THE AGREEMENT, THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES IN EXECUTION OF
ITS PROVISIONS, THEIR STATEMENTS, THE TESTIMONY OF DISINTERESTED
PERSONS, THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES, THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES
AND CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS, THE ACTUAL CONTROL OF INCOME AND THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT IS USED, AND ANY OTHER FACTS THROWING LIGHT ON
THEIR TRUE INTENT - THE PARTIES IN GOOD FAITH AND ACTING WITH A
BUSINESS PURPOSE INTENDED TO JOIN TOGETHER IN THE PRESENT CONDUCT OF
THE ENTERPRISE.  FN11  THERE IS NOTHING NEW OR PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT
ABOUT SUCH A TEST.  TRIERS OF FACT ARE CONSTANTLY CALLED UPON TO
DETERMINE THE INTENT WITH WHICH A PERSON ACTED.  FN12  THE TAX COURT,
FOR EXAMPLE, MUST MAKE SUCH A DETERMINATION IN EVERY ESTATE TAX CASE IN
WHICH IT IS CONTENDED THAT A TRANSFER WAS MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF
DEATH, FOR "THE QUESTION, NECESSARILY, IS AS TO THE STATE OF MIND OF
THE DONOR."  UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S. 102, 117(1931).  SEE
ALLEN V. TRUST CO. OF GEORGIA, 326 U.S. 630(1946).  WHETHER THE PARTIES
REALLY INTENDED TO CARRY ON BUSINESS AS PARTNERS IS NOT, WE THINK, ANY
MORE DIFFICULT OF DETERMINATION OR THE MANIFESTATIONS OF SUCH INTENT
ANY LESS PERCEPTIBLE THAN IS ORDINARILY TRUE OF INQUIRIES INTO THE
SUBJECTIVE. 

BUT THE TAX COURT DID NOT VIEW THE QUESTION AS ONE CONCERNING THE
BONA FIDE INTENT OF THE PARTIES TO JOIN TOGETHER AS PARTNERS.  NOT ONCE
IN ITS OPINION IS THERE EVEN AN OBLIQUE REFERENCE TO ANY LACK OF INTENT
ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT AND HIS SONS TO COMBINE THEIR CAPITAL AND
SERVICES "FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS."  INSTEAD, THE
COURT, FOCUSING ENTIRELY UPON CONCEPTS OF "VITAL SERVICES" AND
"ORIGINAL CAPITAL," SIMPLY DECIDED THAT THE ALLEGED PARTNERS HAD NOT
SATISFIED THOSE TESTS WHEN THE FACTS WERE COMPARED WITH THOSE IN THE
TOWER CASE.  THE COURT'S OPINION IS REPLETE WITH SUCH STATEMENTS AS "WE
DISCERN NOTHING CONSTITUTING WHAT WE THINK IS A REQUISITE CONTRIBUTION
TO A REAL PARTNERSHIP," "WE FIND NO SON ADDING 'VITAL ADDITIONAL
SERVICE' WHICH WOULD TAKE THE PLACE OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BECAUSE OF
FORMATION OF A PARTNERSHIP," AND "THE SONS MADE NO CAPITAL
CONTRIBUTION, WITHIN THE SENCE OF THE TOWER CASE."  FN13  6 CCH TCM
698, 699.    UNQUESTIONABLY A COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT THE SERVICES
CONTRIBUTED BY A PARTNER ARE NOT "VITAL" AND THAT HE HAS NOT
PARTICIPATED IN "MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE BUSINESS"  FN14  OR
CONTRIBUTED "ORIGINAL CAPITAL" HAS THE EFFECT OF PLACING A HEAVY BURDEN
ON THE TAXPAYER TO SHOW THE BONA FIDE INTENT OF THE PARTIES TO JOIN
TOGETHER AS PARTNERS.  BUT SUCH A DETERMINATION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE, AND
THAT IS THE VICE IN THE "TESTS" ADOPTED BY THE TAX COURT.  IT ASSUMES
THAT THERE IS NO ROOM FOR AN HONEST DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER
THE SERVICES OR CAPITAL FURNISHED BY THE ALLEGED PARTNER ARE OF
SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO JUSTIFY HIS INCLUSION IN THE PARTNERSHIP.  IF,
UPON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE PARTNERS
JOINED TOGETHER IN GOOD FAITH TO CONDUCT A BUSINESS, HAVING AGREED THAT
THE SERVICES OR CAPITAL TO BE CONTRIBUTED PRESENTLY BY EACH IS OF SUCH
VALUE TO THE PARTNERSHIP THAT THE CONTRIBUTOR SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS, THAT IS SUFFICIENT.  THE TOWER CASE DID NOT
PURPORT TO AUTHORIZE THE TAX COURT TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT
OF THE PARTIES; IT SIMPLY FURNISHED SOME GUIDES TO THE DETERMINATION OF
THEIR TRUE INTENT.  EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ADMITTED IN THE TOWER CASE THAT
THE WIFE CONTRIBUTED NO ORIGINAL CAPITAL, MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS,
OR OTHER VITAL SERVICES, THIS COURT DID NOT SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT
THERE WAS NO VALID PARTNERSHIP.  WE SAID, INSTEAD, THAT "THERE WAS,
THUS, MORE THAN AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TAX COURT'S FINDING THAT
NO GENUINE UNION FOR PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS PURPOSES WAS EVER INTENDED
AND THAT THE HUSBAND EARNED THE INCOME."  327 U.S. AT 292. 

THIRD.  THE TAX COURT'S ISOLATION OF "ORIGINAL CAPITAL" AS AN
ESSENTIAL OF MEMBERSHIP IN A FAMILY PARTNERSHIP ALSO INDICATES AN
ERRONEOUS READING OF THE TOWER OPINION.  WE DID NOT SAY THAT THE DONEE
OF AN INTRA-FAMILY GIFT COULD NEVER BECOME A PARTNER THROUGH INVESTMENT
OF THE CAPITAL IN THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, ANY MORE THAN WE SAID THAT
ALL FAMILY TRUSTS ARE INVALID FOR TAX PURPOSES IN HELVERING V.
CLIFFORD, SUPRA.  THE FACTS MAY INDICATE, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT THE
AMOUNT THUS CONTRIBUTED AND THE INCOME THEREFROM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
THE PROPERTY OF THE DONEE FOR TAX, AS WELL AS GENERAL LAW, PURPOSES. 
IN THE TOWER AND LUSTHAUS CASES THIS COURT, APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF
LUCAS V. EARL, SUPRA; HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA; AND HELVERING V.
HORST, 311 U.S. 112, FOUND THAT THE PURPORTED GIFT, WHETHER OR NOT
TECHNICALLY COMPLETE, HAD MADE NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE ECONOMIC
RELATION OF MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY TO THE INCOME.  IN EACH CASE THE
HUSBAND CONTINUED TO MANAGE AND CONTROL THE BUSINESS AS BEFORE, AND
INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY GIVEN TO THE WIFE AND INVESTED BY HER IN THE
PARTNERSHIP CONTINUED TO BE USED IN THE BUSINESS OR EXPENDED FOR FAMILY
PURPOSES.  WE CHARACTERIZED THE RESULTS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED
INTO BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE AS "A MERE PAPER REALLOCATION OF INCOME
AMONG THE FAMILY MEMBERS," NOTING THAT "THE ACTUALITIES OF THEIR
RELATION TO THE INCOME DID NOT CHANGE."  327 U.S. AT 292.  THIS, WE
THOUGHT, PROVIDED AMPLE GROUNDS FOR THE FINDING THAT NO TRUE
PARTNERSHIP WAS INTENDED; THAT THE HUSBAND WAS STILL THE TRUE EARNER OF
THE INCOME. 

BUT APPLICATION OF THE CLIFFORD-HORST PRINCIPLE DOES NOT FOLLOW
AUTOMATICALLY UPON A GIFT TO A MEMBER OF ONE'S FAMILY, FOLLOWED BY ITS
INVESTMENT IN THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP.  IF IT DID, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY
TO DEFINE "FAMILY" AND TO SET PRECISE LIMITS OF MEMBERSHIP THEREIN.  WE
HAVE NOT DONE SO FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT EXISTENCE OF THE FAMILY
RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT CREATE A STATUS WHICH ITSELF DETERMINES TAX
QUESTIONS,  FN15  BUT IS SIMPLY A WARNING THAT THINGS MAY NOT BE WHAT
THEY SEEM.  IT IS FREQUENTLY STATED THAT TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN MEMBERS
OF A FAMILY WILL BE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED.  BUT, MORE PARTICULARLY, THE
FAMILY RELATIONSHIP OFTEN MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR ONE TO SHIFT TAX
INCIDENCE BY SURFACE CHANGES OF OWNERSHIP WITHOUT DISTURBING IN THE
LEAST HIS DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE SUBJECT OF THE GIFT OR THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY IS USED.  HE IS ABLE,
IN OTHER WORDS, TO RETAIN "THE SUBSTANCE OF FULL ENJOYMENT OF ALL THE
RIGHTS WHICH PREVIOUSLY HE HAD IN THE PROPERTY."  HELVERING V.
CLIFFORD, SUPRA, AT 336.  FN16 

THE FACT THAT TRANSFERS TO MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY GROUP MAY BE MERE
CAMOUFLAGE DOES NOT, HOWEVER, MEAN THAT THEY INVARIABLY ARE.  THE TOWER
CASE RECOGNIZED THAT ONE'S PARTICIPATION IN CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF
THE BUSINESS IS A CIRCUMSTANCE INDICATING AN INTENT TO BE A BONA FIDE
PARTNER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED ORIGINATED
ELSEWHERE IN THE FAMILY.  FN17  IF THE DONEE OF PROPERTY WHO THEN
INVESTS IT IN THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP EXERCISES DOMINION AND CONTROL
OVER THAT PROPERTY - AND THROUGH THAT CONTROL INFLUENCES THE CONDUCT OF
THE PARTNERSHIP AND THE DISPOSITION OF ITS INCOME - HE MAY WELL BE A
TRUE PARTNER.  WHETHER HE IS FREE TO, AND DOES, ENJOY THE FRUITS OF THE
PARTNERSHIP IS STRONGLY INDICATIVE OF THE REALITY OF HIS PARTICIPATION
IN THE ENTERPRISE.  IN THE TOWER AND LUSTHAUS CASES WE DISTINGUISHED
BETWEEN ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS BY A DONEE
OF A SHARE IN THE PARTNERSHIP ON THE ONE HAND, AND HIS PASSIVE
ACQUIESCENCE TO THE WILL OF THE DONOR ON THE OTHER.  FN18  THIS
DISTINCTION IS OF OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE TO A DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE
INTENT OF THE PARTIES.  IT IS MEANINGLESS IF "ORIGINAL CAPITAL" IS AN
ESSENTIAL TEST OF MEMBERSHIP IN A FAMILY PARTNERSHIP. 

THE CAUSE MUST THEREFORE BE REMANDED TO THE TAX COURT FOR A DECISION
AS TO WHICH, IF ANY, OF RESPONDENT'S SONS WERE PARTNERS WITH HIM IN THE
OPERATION OF THE RANCH DURING 1940 AND 1941.  AS TO WHICH OF THEM, IN
OTHER WORDS, WAS THERE A BONA FIDE INTENT THAT THEY BE PARTNERS IN THE
CONDUCT OF THE CATTLE BUSINESS, EITHER BECAUSE OF SERVICES TO BE
PERFORMED DURING THOSE YEARS, OR BECAUSE OF CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAPITAL OF
WHICH THEY WERE THE TRUE OWNERS, AS WE HAVE DEFINED THAT TERM IN THE
CLIFFORD, HORST, AND TOWER CASES?  NO QUESTION AS TO THE ALLOCATION OF
INCOME BETWEEN CAPITAL AND SERVICES IS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, AND WE
INTIMATE NO OPINION ON THAT SUBJECT. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO
REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE TAX COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  GLADYS CULBERTSON, THE WIFE OF W. O. CULBERTSON, SR., IS JOINED
AS A PARTY BECAUSE OF HER COMMUNITY OF INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND
INCOME OF HER HUSBAND UNDER TEXAS LAW. 

FN2  A DAUGHTER WAS ALSO MADE A MEMBER OF THE PARTNERSHIP SOME TIME
AFTER ITS FORMATION UPON THE GIFT BY RESPONDENT OF ONE-QUARTER OF HIS
ONE-HALF INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP.  RESPONDENT DID NOT CONTEND
BEFORE THE TAX COURT THAT SHE WAS A PARTNER FOR TAX PURPOSES. 

FN3  168 F.2D 979 AT 982.  THE COURT FURTHER SAID:  "NEITHER STATUTE,
COMMON SENSE, NOR IMPELLING PRECEDENT REQUIRES THE HOLDING THAT A
PARTNER MUST CONTRIBUTE CAPITAL OR RENDER SERVICES TO THE PARTNERSHIP
PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT HE IS TAKEN INTO IT.  THESE TESTS ARE EQUALLY
EFFECTIVE WHETHER THE CAPITAL AND THE SERVICES ARE PRESENTLY
CONTRIBUTED AND RENDERED OR ARE LATER TO BE CONTRIBUTED OR TO BE
RENDERED."  ID. AT 983.  SEE NOTE, 47 MICH. L. REV. 595. 

FN4  26 U.S.C. SECS. 181, 182. 

FN5  26 U.S.C. SECS. 11, 22(A). 

FN6  OF COURSE ONE WHO HAS BEEN A BONA FIDE PARTNER DOES NOT LOSE
THAT STATUS WHEN HE IS CALLED INTO MILITARY OR GOVERNMENT SERVICE, AND
THE COMMISSIONER HAS NOT SO CONTENDED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE HARDLY
BECOMES A PARTNER IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE MERELY BECAUSE HE MIGHT
HAVE DONE SO HAD HE NOT BEEN CALLED. 

FN7  EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 207(1920); MERCHANTS LOAN &
TRUST CO. V. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509, 519(1921).  SEE TREAS.  REG. 101,
ART. 22(A)-1.  SEE 1 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, 159 ET
SEQ. 

FN8  THE REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM OF THE THEORY THAT CHILDREN MAY BE
PARTNERS WITH THEIR PARENTS BEFORE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF BEING ENTRUSTED
WITH THE DISPOSITION OF PARTNERSHIP FUNDS OR OF CONTRIBUTING
SUBSTANTIAL SERVICES OCCURRED IN TINKOFF V. COMMISSIONER, 120 F.2D 564,
WHERE A TAXPAYER MADE HIS SON A PARTNER IN HIS ACCOUNTING FIRM THE DAY
THE SON WAS BORN. 

FN9  WHILE THE TAX COURT WENT ON TO CONSIDER OTHER FACTORS, IT IS
CLEAR FROM ITS OPINION THAT A CONTRIBUTION OF EITHER "VITAL SERVICES"
OR "ORIGINAL CAPITAL" WAS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE
PARTNERSHIP.  AFTER FINDING THAT NONE OF RESPONDENT'S SONS HAD, IN THE
COURT'S OPINION, CONTRIBUTED EITHER, THE COURT CONTINUED:  "IN ADDITION
TO THE ABOVE INQUIRY AS TO THE PRESENCE OF THOSE ELEMENTS DEEMED BY THE
TOWER CASE ESSENTIAL TO PARTNERSHIPS RECOGNIZABLE FOR FEDERAL TAX
PURPOSES,  ..."  6 CCH TCM 692, 699.  AGAIN, THE COURT COMMENTED: 

"THOUGH THE PETITIONER URGES THAT MANY CATTLE BUSINESSES ARE COMPOSED
OF FATHERS AND SONS, AND THAT THE NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY SO REQUIRES,
WE THINK THE SAME IS PROBABLY EQUALLY TRUE OF OTHER INDUSTRIES WHERE
MEN WHISH TO TAKE CHILDREN INTO BUSINESS WITH THEM.  NEVERTHELESS, WE
THINK THAT FACT DOES NOT OVERRIDE THE MANY DECISIONS TO THE GENERAL
EFFECT THAT PARTNERS MUST CONTRIBUTE CAPITAL ORIGINATING WITH THEM, OR
VITAL SERVICES."  ID. AT 700. 

FN10  SEE MANNHEIMER AND MOOK, A TAXWISE EVALUATION OF FAMILY
PARTNERSHIPS, 32 IOWA L. REV. 436, 447-48. 

FN11  THIS IS NOT, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, CONTRARY TO THE APPROACH
TAKEN BY THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE IN ITS MOST RECENT STATEMENT OF
POLICY.  I.T. 3845, 1947 CUM. BULL.  66, STATES AT P. 67: 

"WHERE PERSONS WHO ARE CLOSELY RELATED BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT PURPORTING TO CREATE A SO-CALLED FAMILY PARTNERSHIP
OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS OR
INCOME-PRODUCING VENTURE, UNDER WHICH AGREEMENT ALL OF THE PARTIES ARE
ACCORDED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TREATMENT AND CONSIDERATION WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR DESIGNATED INTERESTS AND PRESCRIBED RESPONSIBILITIES
IN THE BUSINESS AS IF THEY WERE STRANGERS DEALING AT ARM'S LENGTH;
WHERE THE ACTIONS OF THE PARTIES AS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE PERSONS
EVIDENCE AN INTENT TO CARRY ON A BUSINESS IN A PARTNERSHIP RELATION;
AND WHERE THE TERMS OF SUCH AGREEMENT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY FOLLOWED IN THE
OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS OR VENTURE, AS WELL AS IN THE DEALINGS OF THE
PARTNERS OR MEMBERS WITH EACH OTHER, IT IS THE POLICY OF THE BUREAU TO
DISREGARD THE CLOSE FAMILY RELATIONSHIP EXISTING BETWEEN THE PARTIES
AND TO RECOGNIZE, FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, THE DIVISION OF
PROFITS AS PRESCRIBED BY SUCH AGREEMENT.  HOWEVER, WHERE THE INSTRUMENT
PURPORTING TO CREATE THE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT THE
WIFE OR CHILD OR OTHER MEMBER OF THE FAMILY SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, OR IS MERELY SILENT ON
THAT POINT, THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE SERVICES OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL IN
THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS WILL BE GIVEN APPROPRIATE
EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT AS TO THE QUESTION OF INTENT TO CARRY ON THE
BUSINESS AS PARTNERS." 

FN12  NEARLY THREE-QUARTERS OF A CENTURY AGO, BOWEN, L.J., MADE THE
CLASSIC STATEMENT THAT "THE STATE OF A MAN'S MIND IS AS MUCH A FACT AS
THE STATE OF HIS DIGESTION."  EDGINGTON V. FITZMAURICE, 29 L.R. CH.
DIV. 459, 483.  STATE OF MIND HAS ALWAYS BEEN DETERMINATIVE OF THE
QUESTION WHETHER A PARTNERSHIP HAS BEEN FORMED AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 
SEE, E.G., DRENNEN V. LONDON ASSURANCE CO., 113 U.S. 51, 56(1885);
MEEHAN V. VALENTINE, 145 U.S. 611, 621(1892); BARKER V. KRAFT, 259
MICH. 70, 242 N.W. 841(1932); ZUBACK V. BAKMAZ, 346 PA. 279, 29 A.2D
473(1943); KENNEDY V. MULLINS, 155 VA. 166, 154 S.E. 568(1930). 

FN13  IN THE TOWER CASE THE TAXPAYER ARGUED THAT HE HAD A RIGHT TO
REDUCE HIS TAXES BY ANY LEGAL MEANS, TO WHICH THIS COURT AGREED.  WE
SAID, HOWEVER, THAT EXISTENCE OF A TAX AVOIDANCE MOTIVE GIVES SOME
INDICATION THAT THERE WAS NO BONA FIDE INTENT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS AS A
PARTNERSHIP.  IF TOWER HAD SET UP OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF MEMBERSHIP
IN A FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, SUCH AS "VITAL SERVICES" AND "ORIGINAL
CAPITAL," THE MOTIVES BEHIND ADOPTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FORM WOULD
HAVE BEEN IRRELEVANT. 

FN14  ALTHOUGH "MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE BUSINESS" WAS ONE OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES EMPHASIZED BY THE TOWER CASE, ALONG WITH "VITAL
SERVICES" AND "ORIGINAL CAPITAL," THE TAX COURT DID NOT CONSIDER IT AN
ALTERNATIVE "TEST" OF PARTNERSHIP.  SEE DISCUSSION, INFRA, AT PART
THIRD, AND NOTE 17. 

FN15  EXCEPT, OF COURSE, WHEN CONGRESS DEFINES "FAMILY" AND ATTACHES
TAX CONSEQUENCES THERETO.  SEE, E.G. 26 U.S.C. SECS. 503(A)(2). 

FN16  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY IN THIS CASE, AS WE DID IN THE CLIFFORD
CASE, THAT "IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT RESPONDENT FELT HIMSELF THE
POORER AFTER THIS (PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT) HAD BEEN EXECUTED OR, IF HE
DID, THAT IT HAD ANY RATIONAL FOUNDATION IN FACT."  309 U.S. AT 336. 
CULBERTSON'S INTEREST IN HIS PARTNERSHIP WITH COON WAS WORTH ABOUT
$50,000 IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP.  IN ORDER
TO SUSTAIN THE TAX COURT, WE WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT HE FELT
HIMSELF WORTH APPROXIMATELY TWICE THAT MUCH UPON HIS PURCHASE OF COON'S
INTEREST, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD AGREED TO SELL THAT INTEREST TO HIS SONS
AT THE SAME PRICE. 

FN17  AS NOTED ABOVE (NOTE 13), PARTICIPATION IN CONTROL AND
MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, ALTHOUGH GIVEN EQUAL PROMINENCE WITH
CONTRIBUTIONS OF "VITAL SERVICES" AND "ORIGINAL CAPITAL" AS
CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING AN INTENT TO ENTER INTO A PARTNERSHIP
RELATION, WAS DISCARDED BY THE TAX COURT AS A "TEST" OF PARTNERSHIP. 
THIS INDICATES A BASIC AND ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT ONE CAN NEVER MAKE
A GIFT TO A MEMBER OF ONE'S FAMILY WITHOUT RETAINING THE ESSENTIALS OF
OWNERSHIP, IF THE GIFT IS THEN INVESTED IN A FAMILY PARTNERSHIP.  WE
INCLUDED PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE BUSINESS AS A
CIRCUMSTANCE INDICATIVE OF INTENT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS AS A PARTNER TO
COVER THE SITUATION IN WHICH ACTIVE DOMINION AND CONTROL OF THE SUBJECT
OF THE GIFT HAD ACTUALLY PASSED TO THE DONEE.  IT IS A CIRCUMSTANCE OF
PRIME IMPORTANCE.    FN18  THERE IS TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD AS TO THE
PARTICIPATION BY RESPONDENT'S SONS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE RANCH. 
SINCE SUCH EVIDENCE DID NOT FALL WITHIN EITHER OF THE "TESTS" ADOPTED
BY THE TAX COURT, IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THIS TESTIMONY.  WITHOUT
INTIMATING ANY OPINION AS TO ITS PROBATIVE VALUE, WE THINK THAT IT IS
CLEARLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS AS
PARTNERS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE THINK THAT THE TAX COURT
PROPERLY APPLIED THE PRINCIPLES OF THE TOWER AND LUSTHAUS DECISIONS
(327 U.S. 280, ID., 293) IN THIS CASE.  HOWEVER, THEY CONSIDER IT OF
PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE IN THIS CASE TO HAVE A COURT INTERPRETATION OF THE
APPLICABLE TAXING STATUTE, FOR GUIDANCE IN ITS APPLICATION. 
ACCORDINGLY, THEY ACQUIESCE IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, CONCURRING, STATES THAT, UPON REMAND OF THE CAUSE
TO THE TAX COURT, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED HERE WHICH, AS A MATTER OF LAW, WILL PRECLUDE THAT COURT FROM
FINDING THAT THE 1940 AND 1941 INCOME WAS PROPERLY TAXABLE ON A
PARTNERSHIP BASIS.  THE PHYSICAL ABSENCE OF SOME OF THE CULBERTSON BOYS
FROM THE RANCH DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE THEM OR OTHERS FROM THE
OBLIGATIONS OR THE BENEFITS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR TAX PURPOSES.  THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAPITAL, THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE INCOME AND THEIR
COMMITMENTS TO RETURN TO THE RANCH OR OTHERWISE TO RENDER SERVICE TO
THE PARTNERSHIP ARE AMONG THE MATERIAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED.  A
PRESENT COMMITMENT TO RENDER FUTURE SERVICES TO A PARTNERSHIP IS IN
ITSELF A MATERIAL CONSIDERATION TO BE WEIGHED WITH ALL OTHER MATERIAL
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAXATION AS WELL AS FOR OTHER
PARTNERSHIP PURPOSES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON WOULD AFFIRM ON THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW,
BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDINARY COMMON-LAW TESTS OF VALIDITY OF
PARTNERSHIPS ARE THE TESTS FOR TAX PURPOSES AND THAT THEY WERE MET IN
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE COURT FINDS THAT THE TAX COURT APPLIED WRONG LEGAL STANDARDS IN
DETERMINING THAT THE ARRANGEMENT IN CONTROVERSY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A
PARTNERSHIP.  IT REMANDS THE CASE TO THE TAX COURT BECAUSE IT IS FOR
THAT COURT, AND NOT FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS, TO ASCERTAIN, ON THE
BASIS OF APPROPRIATE LEGAL CRITERIA, THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP
WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF INT. REV. CODE SECS. 181 AND 182.  WITH THESE
CONCLUSIONS I AGREE.  I THINK, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS DUE TO THE TAX
COURT, THE COURTS OF APPEALS, THE TREASURY AND THE BAR TO MAKE MORE
EXPLICIT WHAT THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL CRITERIA ARE. 

THE TAX COURT'S DECISION RESTED ON A MISCONCEPTION OF OUR DECISION IN
COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, 327 U.S. 280.  IT IS, HOWEVER, FAIR TO SAY THAT
IT WAS LED INTO THAT MISCONCEPTION BY PHRASES WHICH IT CULLED FROM THE
TOWER OPINION WITH INADEQUATE ATTENTION TO THE OPINION IN ITS ENTIRETY
BOTH WHAT IT SAID AND WHAT IT SIGNIFICANTLY DID NOT SAY.  THE TOWER
OPINION DID NOT SAY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT NOW URGES UPON THIS COURT; THE
COURT'S OPINION DID NOT TAKE THE POSITION OF THE CONCURRING OPINION. 
IN SHORT, THE OPINION DID NOT SAY THAT FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT TO
BE REGARDED AS PARTNERSHIPS FOR INCOME-TAX PURPOSES EVEN THOUGH THEY BE
GENUINE COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIPS; THE OPINION DID NOT EVEN ANNOUNCE
HOBBLING PRESUMPTIONS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX LAW AGAINST SUCH
PARTNERSHIPS. 

ON THE CONTRARY, IN DEFINING THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR
DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP, THE COURT IN THE TOWER CASE
RELIED ON FAMILIAR DECISIONS FORMULATING THE CONCEPT OF PARTNERSHIP FOR
PURPOSES OF VARIOUS COMMERCIAL SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE NATURE OF THAT
CONCEPT WAS DECISIVE.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT AMONG THE CASES CITED WAS
THE LEADING CASE OF COX V. HICKMAN, 8 H. L. CAS. 268.  THE COURT TODAY
REAFFIRMS THIS RELIANCE BY ITS QUOTATION FROM THE TOWER CASE.  THE
FINAL SENTENCE OF THE PORTION QUOTED UNDERLINES THE FACT THAT THE COURT
DID NOT PURPORT TO ANNOUNCE A SPECIAL CONCEPT OF "PARTNERSHIP" FOR TAX
PURPOSES DIFFERING FROM THE CONCEPT THAT RULES IN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL
LAW CASES.  THE SENTENCE IS: 

"WE SEE NO REASON WHY THIS GENERAL RULE SHOULD NOT APPLY IN TAX CASES
WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP FOR TAX
PURPOSES."  327 U.S. AT 287. 

THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME UNDER SECS. 181 AND 182 IS NOT A PURELY
ECONOMIC PROBLEM LIKE THE DETERMINATION UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF WHAT IS
INCOME AND TO WHOM IT IS ATTRIBUTABLE.  THE WORD "INCOME" HAS NONE BUT
AN ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE, AND SO THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 22(A) IS
PROPERLY A MATTER OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.  CF. LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S.
111.  BUT SECS. 181 AND 182 IMPORT A CONCEPT OF A DIFFERENT SORT. 
THESE SECTIONS MAKE TAXABILITY TURN ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE RELATION OF
"PARTNERSHIP."  THE TERM CARRIES ITS OWN MEANING, JUST AS DOES
"NEGLIGENCE" IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, BECAUSE SUCH A
COMMON-LAW CONCEPT HAS A CONTENT FAMILIAR THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY TO
THOSE TO WHOM THE LAW SPEAKS.  THE BASIC CRITERIA WHICH DETERMINE ITS
APPLICABILITY HAVE BEEN SO WELL AND SO LONG ESTABLISHED THAT THEY WERE
IMPLICITLY INCORPORATED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE'S DEFINITION OF
"PARTNERSHIP."  FN1  CONGRESS HAS THEREBY STAMPED A NATIONWIDE MEANING
UPON THE TERM WHICH DISREGARDS MINOR LOCAL VARIANTS OR AN OCCASIONAL
LEGAL SPORT.  ONLY IN THE APPLICATION TO A GIVEN CASE OF THE CRITERIA
THUS INCORPORATED DO ECONOMIC DATA BECOME RELEVANT, AND SUCH DATA ARE
INEVITABLY SUBJECT TO DIFFERING INFERENCES BY DIFFERENT TRIERS OF
FACT.  IT IS IN THE APPRAISAL OF FACTS, THEREFORE, THAT DIFFICULTY
ARISES, AND THIS DIFFICULTY IS REFLECTED BY AN APPELLATE COURT IN THE
DEGREE OF RESPECT IT ACCORDS TO THE PARTICULAR TRIBUNAL WHOSE APPRAISAL
OF THE FACTS IS BEFORE IT FOR REVIEW. 

THAT, AS I SEE IT, IS THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM THAT IS PRESENTED BY
THESE FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS IN THEIR RELATION TO THE INCOME TAX.  MEN MAY
PUT ON THE HABILIMENTS OF A PARTNERSHIP WHENEVER IT ADVANTAGES THEM TO
BE TREATED AS PARTNERS UNDERNEATH, ALTHOUGH IN FACT IT MAY BE A CASE OF
"THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES ON" TO THE SHARP EYES OF THE LAW.  SINCE THERE
ARE SPECIAL TEMPTATIONS TO APPEAR AS A PARTNERSHIP IN ORDER TO AVOID
THE HARDSHIPS OF HEAVY TAXATION, THE TRIBUNAL WHICH PRESUMABLY IS
GIFTED WITH SUPERIOR DISCERNMENT IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE REAL
THING AND THE IMITATION - THE TAX COURT - WILL NATURALLY BE ON THE
ALERT AGAINST BEING TAKEN IN.  THEREFORE, A FINDING BY THE TAX COURT
THAT THAT WHICH HAS THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE OF AN ARRANGEMENT TO ENGAGE
IN A COMMON ENTERPRISE IS NOT IN FACT SUCH AN ASSOCIATED BUSINESS
VENTURE OUGHT TO BE RESPECTED WHEN CHALLENGED IN ANOTHER COURT, UNLESS
SUCH A DETERMINATION IS WHOLLY WITHOUT WARRANT IN FACT OR, AS IN THIS
CASE, THE WRONG STANDARDS FOR JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN APPLIED. 

A FAIR READING OF OUR TOWER OPINION IN ITS ENTIRETY REFLECTS THE
FORMULATION OF THE CONCEPT OF PARTNERSHIP WHICH IS SET FORTH AT THE
BEGINNING OF ITS ANALYSIS AND WHICH THE COURT NOW QUOTES.  WHILE
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION "WHO ACTUALLY OWNED A SHARE
OF THE CAPITAL ATTRIBUTED TO THE WIFE ON THE PARTNERSHIP BOOKS," THE
TOWER OPINION STATES THE ULTIMATE ISSUE TO BE "WHETHER THIS HUSBAND AND
WIFE REALLY INTENDED TO CARRY ON BUSINESS AS A PARTNERSHIP."  327 U.S.
AT 289.  TO THAT DETERMINATION IT WAS OF COURSE RELEVANT THAT NO NEW
CAPITAL WAS BROUGHT INTO THE BUSINESS AS A RESULT OF THE FORMATION OF
THE PARTNERSHIP, THAT THE WIFE DREW ON INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP ONLY
TO PAY FOR THE TYPE OF THINGS SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY BOUGHT FOR THE FAMILY,
AND THAT THE CONSEQUENCE WAS A MERE PAPER REALLOCATION OF INCOME.  BUT
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CITED AS GIVING THE TERM "PARTNERSHIP" A
CONTENT PECULIAR TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THEY WERE
CHARACTERIZED, RATHER, SIMPLY AS "MORE THAN AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE TAX COURT'S FINDING THAT NO GENUINE UNION FOR PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS
PURPOSES WAS EVER INTENDED" AND, AS A COROLLARY, "THAT THE HUSBAND
EARNED THE INCOME."  327 U.S. AT 292. 

RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANCE, IN APPLYING SECS. 181 AND 182, OF THE
APPRAISAL OF FACTS MAKES MANIFEST WHY, QUITE APART FROM THE DEFINITION
CONTAINED IN SEC. 3797, A DETERMINATION BY A STATE COURT SHOULD NOT, AS
THE TOWER OPINION POINTED OUT, FORECLOSE A CONTRARY DETERMINATION BY A
FEDERAL TRIBUNAL CHARGED WITH ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX LAWS.  SUCH AN
INCONSISTENCY WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE LEGAL STANDARDS APPLIED BY EACH
WERE INCONSISTENT; IT WOULD BE A RESULT SIMPLY OF THE COMMONPLACE THAT
NO FINDER OF FACT CAN SEE THROUGH THE EYES OF ANY OTHER FINDER OF
FACT.  SEE TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398, 411.  NOR WOULD
INCONSISTENCY BE CREATED BY A STATE COURT'S CONCERN FOR THE PROTECTION
OF CREDITORS WHICH LEAD IT TO SEIZE UPON ADOPTION OF THE OUTWARD FORM
AS THE VITAL FACT.  SO, INDEED, MIGHT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES REFUSE TO
BE PRECLUDED FROM HOLDING THE TAXPAYER TO HIS ELECTION TO ADOPT THE
FORM OF A PARTNERSHIP.  CF. HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473, 477.  THE
NEED FOR GUARDING AGAINST MISUSE OF THE OUTWARD FORM OF A PARTNERSHIP
AS A DEVICE FOR OBTAINING TAX ADVANTAGES IS PROPERLY SATISFIED BY
RELIANCE ON THE VIGILANCE OF THE TAX COURT, NOT BY DISTORTING THE
CONCEPT OF PARTNERSHIP.  IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT, BY REDEFINITION OR
THE ERECTION OF PRESUMPTIONS, TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SO AS
VIRTUALLY TO BAN PARTNERSHIPS COMPOSED OF THE MEMBERS OF AN INTIMATE
FAMILY GROUP. 

THE PRESENT CASE, NEVERTHELESS, IS NOT THE FIRST MANIFESTATION  OF AN
IMPRESSION THAT THE TOWER OPINION HAD PRECISELY SUCH AN EFFECT.  FN2
IT SEEMS TO ME IMPORTANT, THEREFORE, TO MAKE CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THERE
IS NO SPECIAL CONCEPT OF "PARTNERSHIP" FOR TAX PURPOSES, WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME RECOGNIZING THAT IN VIEW OF THE TEMPTATIONS TO ASSUME A
VIRTUE THAT THEY HAVE NOT FOR THE SAKE OF TAX SAVINGS, MEN AND WOMEN
MAY APPEAR IN A GUISE WHICH THE GIMLET EYE OF THE TAX COURT IS ENTITLED
TO PIERCE.  WE SHOULD LEAVE NO DOUBT IN THE MINDS OF THE TAX COURT, OF
THE COURTS OF APPEALS, OF THE TREASURY AND OF THE BAR THAT THE
ESSENTIAL HOLDING OF THE TOWER CASE IS THAT THERE IS "NO REASON" WHY
THE "GENERAL RULE" BY WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP IS
DETERMINED "SHOULD NOT APPLY IN TAX CASES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT
CHALLENGES THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP FOR TAX PURPOSES." 

IN PLAIN ENGLISH, IF AN ARRANGEMENT AMONG MEN IS NOT AN ARRANGEMENT
WHICH PUTS THEM ALL IN THE SAME BUSINESS BOAT, THEN THEY CANNOT GET
INTO THE SAME BOAT MERELY TO SEEK THE BENEFITS OF SECS. 181 AND 182. 
BUT IF THEY ARE IN THE SAME BUSINESS BOAT, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVE
VARYING REWARDS AND VARIED RESPONSIBILITIES, THEY DO NOT CEASE TO BE IN
IT WHEN THE TAX COLLECTOR APPEARS. 

FN1  THE CODE DEFINES "PARTNERSHIP" IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 

"SEC. 3797.  DEFINITIONS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(2)  PARTNERSHIP AND PARTNER. 

"THE TERM 'PARTNERSHIP' INCLUDES A SYNDICATE, GROUP, POOL, JOINT
VENTURE, OR OTHER UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATION, THROUGH OR BY MEANS OF
WHICH ANY BUSINESS, FINANCIAL OPERATION, OR VENTURE IS CARRIED ON, AND
WHICH IS NOT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS TITLE, A TRUST OR ESTATE OR A
CORPORATION; AND THE TERM 'PARTNER' INCLUDES A MEMBER IN SUCH A
SYNDICATE, GROUP, POOL, JOINT VENTURE, OR ORGANIZATION." 

THIS DEFINITION CARRIES TWO NECESSARY IMPLICATIONS:  (1) RECOURSE TO
THE LAW OF A PARTICULAR STATE IS PRECLUDED, SEE TREAS. REG. 111, SECS.
29.3797-1, 29.3797-4; SEE ALSO LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 193-94; (2)
USE OF THE WORDS "THE TERM 'PARTNERSHIP' INCLUDES" PRESUPPOSES THAT THE
TERM HAS A RECOGNIZED CONTENT.  IF THIS IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE LAW
OF A PARTICULAR STATE, IT CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN THE GENERAL LAW OF
PARTNERSHIP. 

FN2  SEE, E.G., FLETCHER V. COMMISSIONER, 164 F.2D 182(C.A.2D CIR.);
HOUGLAND V. COMMISSIONER, 166 F.2D 815(C.A.6TH CIR.).  IN THIS
CONNECTION SEE ALSO TUTTLE AND WILSON, THE CONFUSION ON FAMILY
PARTNERSHIPS, 9 GA. B.J. 353(1947). 
..END :





FARMERS IRRIGATION CO. V. MCCOMB, 337 U.S. 755 


ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 167 F.2D 911,
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


THE SOLE ACTIVITY OF A MUTUAL IRRIGATION COMPANY OWNED ENTIRELY BY
FARMERS IS THE COLLECTION, STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER FOR
IRRIGATION PURPOSES, WHOLLY WITHIN COLORADO.  THE WATER IS SUPPLIED BY
THE COMPANY TO FARMERS AT HEADGATES ON THE COMPANY'S CANALS, WHENCE IT
IS TAKEN INTO THE FARMERS' OWN LATERALS AND USED BY THEM IN THE
PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS TO BE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE COMPANY IS NONPROFIT AND DISTRIBUTES WATER ONLY TO ITS
STOCKHOLDERS.  HELD:  THE COMPANY'S FIELD EMPLOYEES (DITCH RIDERS, LAKE
TENDERS AND MAINTENANCE MEN) AND ITS BOOKKEEPER ARE WITHIN THE COVERAGE
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AS EMPLOYED IN AN "OCCUPATION
NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 3(J); AND ARE NOT EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 13(A) AS
"EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE."  PP. 756-770. 

1.  THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY IS NECESSARY TO AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION.  P. 759. 

2.  THE TEST OF WHETHER A PARTICULAR TYPE OF ACTIVITY IS AGRICULTURAL
IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY IS CARRIED ON AS PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL
FUNCTION OR IS SEPARATELY ORGANIZED AS AN INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIVE
ACTIVITY.  P. 761. 

3.  THE IRRIGATION COMPANY IS NOT ENGAGED IN "AGRICULTURE," WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 3(F) OF THE ACT, SINCE IT OWNS NO FARMS, RAISES NO
CROPS, AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN CULTIVATING OR TILLING THE SOIL OR IN
GROWING ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY.  PP. 762-764. 

4.  IN SEC. 3(F) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES "AGRICULTURE," THE WORD
"PRODUCTION" IS NOT USED IN THE SPECIAL EXPANDED MEANING IN WHICH IT IS
USED IN SEC. 3(J) OF THE ACT.  PP. 764-766. 

5.  THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION ARE NOT EXEMPT, UNDER
SEC. 3(F), AS PRACTICES "PERFORMED BY A FARMER OR ON A FARM."  PP. 766
768. 

6.  ASSUMING THAT THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION INCLUDES THE WORK OF
PERSONS WHO DO NO FARMING BUT ARE EMPLOYED BY FARMERS, THE EMPLOYEES
HERE IN QUESTION ARE NONETHELESS NOT EXEMPT, SINCE THEY ARE EMPLOYED
NOT BY FARMERS BUT BY THE COMPANY, AND THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY IS
OWNED BY FARMERS AND IS NONPROFIT IS IMMATERIAL.  PP. 768-769. 

FARMERS RESERVOIR & IRRIGATION CO. V. MCCOMB, WAGE & HOUR
ADMINISTRATOR. 

NO. 128.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
TENTH CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 196, MCCOMB, WAGE & HOUR ADMINISTRATOR, V. FARMERS
RESERVOIR & IRRIGATION CO., ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A SUIT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BY A MUTUAL IRRIGATION COMPANY WAS DISMISSED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH HELD THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION EXEMPT AS
EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, EXCEPT AS TO A
BOOKKEEPER, WHOSE CASE IT REGARDED AS MOOT.  167 F.2D 911.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CROSS-PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 809.  MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED, P. 770. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE
EMPLOYEES OF A MUTUAL DITCH COMPANY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FN1  AS PERSONS EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE. 
THE COMPANY IS THE FARMERS RESERVOIR & IRRIGATION COMPANY, A COLORADO
CORPORATION HAVING AN AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK OF $1,050,000 AND AN
AUTHORIZED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF $850,000, $450,000 OF WHICH IS
PRESENTLY OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC.  THE COMPANY HAS
CENTRAL OFFICES IN DENVER.  IT OWNS FOUR LARGE AND SEVERAL SMALL
RESERVOIRS AND A SYSTEM OF CANALS FROM 200 TO 300 MILES LONG, ALL IN
COLORADO.  THE SOLE ACTIVITY OF THE CORPORATION IS THE COLLECTION,
STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES.  THE WATER
IS DIVERTED FROM THE PUBLIC STREAMS OF COLORADO, STORED IN THE
COMPANY'S RESERVOIRS AND DISTRIBUTED TO FARMERS THROUGH THE COMPANY'S
CANALS. 

THE COMPANY IS A MUTUAL ONE.  IT DOES NOT SELL WATER.  IT DISTRIBUTES
IT ONLY TO ITS OWN STOCKHOLDERS, WHO ARE EACH ENTITLED TO A LIMITED
QUANTITY FOR EACH SHARE OF STOCK HELD.  THE INCOME OF THE COMPANY IS
DERIVED LARGELY FROM ASSESSMENTS LEVIED ON THE STOCKHOLDERS ANNUALLY TO
PAY FOR THE COSTS OF OPERATING THE SYSTEM.  THERE ARE NO PROFITS AND NO
DIVIDENDS. 

THE COMPANY DID NOT COMPLY WITH EITHER THE RECORD KEEPING OR THE
WAGES AND HOURS PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AND THE
ADMINISTRATOR SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION DIRECTED AGAINST CONTINUATION OF
THESE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.  THE COMPANY CLAIMED THAT ITS EMPLOYEES WERE
NOT SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  THESE EMPLOYEES FALL INTO TWO CATEGORIES. 
FIRST, THERE ARE THE FIELD EMPLOYEES - DITCH RIDERS, LAKE TENDERS AND
MAINTENANCE MEN.  THEIR ACTIVITY, IN GENERAL, CONSISTS OF THE PHYSICAL
OPERATION, CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COMPANY'S CANALS, RESERVOIRS,
AND HEADGATES.  THE SECOND CATEGORY COMPRISES THE COMPANY'S OFFICE
FORCE IN DENVER.  FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT CONTAINS ONLY ONE
OCCUPANT - THE COMPANY'S BOOKKEEPER. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE FIELD EMPLOYEES WERE ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN SEC. 3
OF THE ACT, BUT THAT THE BOOKKEEPER WAS NOT.  IT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT
ALL OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES WERE EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 13(A)(6) AS
PERSONS "EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE."  THIS SECOND HOLDING WAS REVERSED,
AS TO THE FIELD EMPLOYEES, BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT,  FN2  ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, AND, IN NO. 128, WE GRANTED THE
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ON THE EXEMPTION ISSUE.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS DID NOT PASS ON THE BOOKKEEPER'S STATUS.  IT REGARDED HIS CASE
AS MOOT BECAUSE HIS SALARY WAS SAID BY THE COMPANY, IN ITS BRIEF, TO
HAVE BEEN RAISED TO $210 PER MONTH WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING.  THE
COURT REGARDED THIS AS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH HIS EXEMPTION AS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE UNDER SEC. 13(A)(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE
LIMITED ITS CONSIDERATION AND ITS REVERSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE
FIELD EMPLOYEES.  IN NO. 196, WE GRANTED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S CROSS
PETITION WITH RESPECT TO THE BOOKKEEPER. 

IT IS CONCEDED HERE THAT THE COURTS BELOW WERE CORRECT IN HOLDING
THAT THE FIELD EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE.  THE COMPANY, HOWEVER, ARGUES THAT THIS REQUIRES THE
CONCLUSION THAT THEY ARE EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE.  THIS ARGUMENT RESTS
ON THE FACT THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES ARE
ENTIRELY CONFINED WITHIN THE STATE OF COLORADO.  THE COMPANY DIVERTS
WATER IN COLORADO, STORES IT IN COLORADO, DISTRIBUTES IT IN COLORADO TO
FARMERS WHO, FINALLY, CONSUME IT IN COLORADO.  THE ONLY PRODUCTS MOVING
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE THE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES PRODUCED BY THE
FARMERS WHO CONSUME THE COMPANY'S WATER.  HENCE, IT IS SAID THAT WE CAN
HOLD THAT THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE ONLY IF WE SAY THAT THEIR WORK IN
SUPPLYING WATER TO THE FARMERS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PRODUCTION OF
THE FARM PRODUCTS WHICH ARE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT THAT
PRODUCTION IS, OF COURSE, AGRICULTURE.  HENCE, THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES,
IF THEY ARE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, MUST BE
EXEMPT AS PERSONS EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE. 

THE ARGUMENT RESTS ON A MISCONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 3(J) OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FN3  - THE SECTION WHICH THE COURTS BELOW RELIED
ON IN CONCLUDING THAT THE FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY ARE ENGAGED IN
THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  SECTION 3(J) PROVIDES THAT "FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN
ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED  ...
IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION THEREOF."  FN4
FROM THE BEGINNING, THIS COURT HAS REFUSED EITHER TO READ THIS
PROVISION OUT OF THE ACT BY LIMITING THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT TO THOSE
ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION OR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TO EXPAND IT SO
AS TO INCLUDE EVERY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION AFFECTING PRODUCTION FOR
COMMERCE.  WE HAVE HELD THAT, IF AN OCCUPATION, NOT ITSELF PRODUCTION
FOR COMMERCE, HAS "A CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE TIE" WITH THE PROCESS OF
PRODUCTION, IT COMES WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3(J).  FN5 APPLYING
THIS STANDARD, THE COURT OF APPEALS QUITE PROPERLY HELD THAT THE FIELD
EMPLOYEES HERE ARE ENGAGED IN AN OCCUPATION NECESSARY, IN THE STATUTORY
SENSE, FOR THE PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES SHIPPED IN
COMMERCE.  FN6 

BUT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORK IS NECESSARY TO AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO SAY THAT IT IS AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION.  THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN NECESSITY AND IDENTITY, OR,
DIFFERENTLY PHRASED, BETWEEN PRODUCTION IN THE NORMAL SENSE AND
PRODUCTION IN THE SPECIAL SENSE DEFINED IN SEC. 3(J), DISPOSES OF THE
COMPANY'S CONTENTION.  THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE OCCUPATION OF
THE FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE DITCH COMPANY CAN ITSELF BE TERMED
AGRICULTURE.  THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NOT PREDETERMINED BY THE
FACT THAT THE OCCUPATION IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT BECAUSE IT HAS
A NECESSARY CONNECTION, IN COMMERCE, WITH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. 
FN7 

AGRICULTURE, AS AN OCCUPATION, INCLUDES MORE THAN THE ELEMENTAL
PROCESS OF PLANTING, GROWING AND HARVESTING CROPS.  THERE ARE A HOST OF
INCIDENTAL ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO THAT PROCESS.  WHETHER A
PARTICULAR TYPE OF ACTIVITY IS AGRICULTURAL DEPENDS, IN LARGE MEASURE,
UPON THE WAY IN WHICH THAT ACTIVITY IS ORGANIZED IN A PARTICULAR
SOCIETY.  THE DETERMINATION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE ABSTRACT.  IN LESS
ADVANCED SOCIETIES THE AGRICULTURAL FUNCTION INCLUDES MANY TYPES OF
ACTIVITY WHICH, IN OTHERS, ARE NOT AGRICULTURAL.  THE FASHIONING OF
TOOLS, THE PROVISION OF FERTILIZER, THE PROCESSING OF THE PRODUCT, TO
MENTION ONLY A FEW EXAMPLES, ARE FUNCTIONS WHICH, IN SOME SOCIETIES,
ARE PERFORMED ON THE FARM BY FARMERS AS PART OF THEIR NORMAL
AGRICULTURAL ROUTINE.  ECONOMIC PROGRESS, HOWEVER, IS CHARACTERIZED BY
A PROGRESSIVE DIVISION OF LABOR AND SEPARATION OF FUNCTION.  TOOLS ARE
MADE BY A TOOL MANUFACTURER, WHO SPECIALIZES IN THAT KIND OF WORK AND
SUPPLIES THEM TO THE FARMER.  THE COMPOST HEAP IS REPLACED BY FACTORY
PRODUCED FERTILIZERS.  POWER IS DERIVED FROM ELECTRICITY AND GASOLINE
RATHER THAN SUPPLIED BY THE FARMER'S MULES.  WHEAT IS GROUND AT THE
MILL.  IN THIS WAY, FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO THE TOTAL ECONOMIC
PROCESS OF SUPPLYING AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT BECOME, IN THE PROCESS OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIALIZATION, SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT
PRODUCTIVE FUNCTIONS OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE AGRICULTURAL
FUNCTION BUT NO LONGER A PART OF IT.  THUS, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER
A PARTICULAR TYPE OF ACTIVITY IS AGRICULTURAL IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE
NECESSITY OF THE ACTIVITY TO AGRICULTURE NOR BY THE PHYSICAL SIMILARITY
OF THE ACTIVITY TO THAT DONE BY FARMERS IN OTHER SITUATIONS.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY IN THE PARTICULAR CASE IS CARRIED ON
AS PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL FUNCTION OR IS SEPARATELY ORGANIZED AS AN
INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY.  THE FARMHAND WHO CARES FOR THE
FARMER'S MULES OR PREPARES HIS FERTILIZER IS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE. 
BUT THE MAINTENANCE MAN IN A POWER PLANT  FN8  AND THE PACKER IN A
FERTILIZER FACTORY  FN9  ARE NOT EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE, EVEN IF THEIR
ACTIVITY IS NECESSARY TO FARMERS AND REPLACES WORK PREVIOUSLY DONE BY
FARMERS.  THE PRODUCTION OF POWER AND THE MANUFACTURE OF FERTILIZER ARE
INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIVE FUNCTIONS, NOT AGRICULTURE. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF A DETAILED DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE WE SHOULD BE
COMPELLED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTIVITY CONCERNED IN THE PRESENT
CASE - THE DIVERSION, STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION
PURPOSES - IS CARRIED ON AS PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL FUNCTION OR IS SO
SEPARATELY ORGANIZED AND CONDUCTED AS TO BE TREATED AS AN INDEPENDENT,
NONAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVE FUNCTION.  FORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT PROVIDES A CAREFULLY CONSIDERED DEFINITION WHICH IS
OF SUBSTANTIAL AID IN HELPING US TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. 

THE DEFINITION IS CONTAINED IN SEC. 3(F) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  IT SAYS: 

"SEC. 3(F).  'AGRICULTURE' INCLUDES FARMING IN ALL ITS BRANCHES AND
AMONG OTHER THINGS INCLUDES THE CULTIVATION AND TILLAGE OF THE SOIL,
DAIRYING, THE PRODUCTION, CULTIVATION, GROWING, AND HARVESTING OF ANY
AGRICULTURAL OR HORTICULTURAL COMMODITIES (INCLUDING COMMODITIES
DEFINED AS AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN SECTION 15(G) OF THE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, AS AMENDED), THE RAISING OF LIVESTOCK,
BEES, FUR-BEARING ANIMALS, OR POULTRY, AND ANY PRACTICES (INCLUDING ANY
FORESTRY OR LUMBERING OPERATIONS) PERFORMED BY A FARMER OR ON A FARM AS
AN INCIDENT TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUCH FARMING OPERATIONS,
INCLUDING PREPARATION FOR MARKET, DELIVERY TO STORAGE OR TO MARKET OR
TO CARRIERS FOR TRANSPORTATION TO MARKET." 

AS CAN BE READILY SEEN, THIS DEFINITION HAS TWO DISTINCT BRANCHES. 
FIRST, THERE IS THE PRIMARY MEANING.  AGRICULTURE INCLUDES FARMING IN
ALL ITS BRANCHES.  CERTAIN SPECIFIC PRACTICES SUCH AS CULTIVATION AND
TILLAGE OF THE SOIL, DAIRYING, ETC., ARE LISTED AS BEING INCLUDED IN
THIS PRIMARY MEANING.  SECOND, THERE IS THE BROADER MEANING. 
AGRICULTURE IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE THINGS OTHER THAN FARMING AS SO
ILLUSTRATED.  IT INCLUDES ANY PRACTICES, WHETHER OR NOT THEMSELVES
FARMING PRACTICES, WHICH ARE PERFORMED EITHER BY A FARMER OR ON A FARM,
INCIDENTLY TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH "SUCH" FARMING OPERATIONS. 

DEALING WITH THESE TWO BRANCHES OF THE DEFINITION IN ORDER, IT IS
CLEAR, FIRST, THAT THE OCCUPATION IN WHICH THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES ARE
ENGAGED IS NOT FARMING.  THE COMPANY OWNS NO FARMS AND RAISES NO
CROPS.  IRRIGATION, STRICTLY DEFINED - THAT IS THE ACTUAL WATERING OF
THE SOIL - MAY NO DOUBT BE CALLED FARMING.  AND THE WORK OF THE FARMERS
IN SEEING TO IT THAT THE WATER RELEASED FROM THE COMPANY'S DITCHES IS
PROPERLY DISTRIBUTED TO THE GROWING PLANTS UNDOUBTEDLY IS INCLUDED IN
FARMING AS BEING PART OF THE PROCESS OF CULTIVATING AND TILLING THE
SOIL.  BUT THE SIGNIFICANT FACT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THIS WORK IS NOT
DONE BY THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES.  THERE IS A CLEAR AND DEFINITE
DIVISION OF FUNCTION.  THE DITCH COMPANY CARRIES THE WATER IN ITS OWN
CANALS TO THE LANDS OF THE FARMERS.  WHEN A FARMER DESIRES WATER SO
THAT HE CAN IRRIGATE HIS FIELDS HE NOTIFIES THE COMPANY.  ITS EMPLOYEES
THEN OPERATE THE HEADGATES, WHICH ARE LOCATED ON THE COMPANY'S CANALS
AND WHICH THE FARMERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO OPERATE, FN10  SO THAT THE
APPROPRIATE QUANTITY OF WATER CAN PASS OUT OF THE COMPANY'S CANALS AND
OFF THE COMPANY'S LAND INTO THE FARMER'S IRRIGATION DITCHES.  THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES CEASES WHEN THEY SO RELEASE
THE WATER.  THE WATER IS SUPPLIED TO THE FARMER AT THE HEADGATES AND HE
TAKES IT OVER THERE AND USES IT, IN HIS OWN LATERALS, AS HE SEES FIT,
TO IRRIGATE HIS CROPS. 

THE DITCH COMPANY, THEN, IS NOT ENGAGED IN CULTIVATING OR TILLING THE
SOIL OR IN GROWING ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY.  IT IS CONTENDED,
HOWEVER, THAT IT IS NEVERTHELESS ENGAGED IN FARMING BECAUSE OF THE USE,
IN THE DEFINITION, OF THE WORDS "PRODUCTION  ...  OF ANY AGRICULTURAL
... COMMODITIES" IN ADDITION TO THE WORDS CULTIVATION, TILLAGE,
HARVESTING, ETC.  SINCE PRODUCE IS DEFINED IN SEC. 3(J) OF THE ACT SO
AS TO INCLUDE, "FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT," ANY OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO
PRODUCTION, IT IS ARGUED THAT PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
INCLUDES ANY OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES.  IT IS THUS ARGUED THAT IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURE, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER EXEMPTIONS, CONGRESS DID PROVIDE THAT THE
EXEMPTION SHOULD INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE OCCUPATION NAMED BUT ALSO ALL OF
THOSE OTHER OCCUPATIONS WHOSE WORK IS NECESSARY TO IT.    IF CONGRESS
INTENDED TO CONVEY THAT MEANING BY USING THE WORD PRODUCTION IN THE
DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE, WE SHOULD, OF COURSE, GIVE THE DEFINITION
ITS INTENDED SCOPE.  BUT WE DO NOT "MAKE A FORTRESS OUT OF THE
DICTIONARY."  FN11  AND WE HAVE, THEREFORE, CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO
PERVERT THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION BY MECHANICALLY APPLYING
DEFINITIONS IN UNINTENDED CONTEXTS.  LAWSON V. SUWANNEE S.S. CO., 336
U.S. 198(1949); ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S.
427(1932).  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CONFIRMS WHAT
A NATURAL READING OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION WOULD
INDICATE - THE WORD PRODUCTION WAS NOT THERE USED IN THE ARTIFICIAL AND
SPECIAL SENSE IN WHICH IT WAS DEFINED IN SEC. 3(J).  CERTAINLY, IF IT
WERE MEANT IN THAT SENSE, IT WOULD MAKE SURPLUSAGE OF THE REMAINDER OF
THE CAREFULLY WROUGHT DEFINITION.  AND IT WOULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN
INNOCUOUSLY PLACED AMONG SUCH SPECIFIC TERMS AS "CULTIVATION,"
"TILLAGE," "GROWING," AND "HARVESTING." 

BUT WE NEED NOT SPECULATE ON THE CONGRESSIONAL MEANING.  THE HISTORY
OF THE USE OF THE WORD PRODUCTION IS CRYSTAL CLEAR.  IT WAS ADDED TO
THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF A SPECIAL
SITUATION - THE PRODUCTION OF TURPENTINE AND GUM ROSINS BY A PROCESS
INVOLVING THE TAPPING OF LIVING TREES.  THERE HAD BEEN INDICATIONS THAT
SUCH ACTIVITY WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AGRICULTURE, SINCE TURPENTINE IS
NEITHER CULTIVATED NOR GROWN.  FN12  AND A SPECIAL AMENDMENT, SEC.
15(G), HAD BEEN ADDED TO THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT SPECIFYING THAT
COMMODITIES SO PRODUCED WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT.  FN13  TO INSURE THE INCLUSION OF THE
PROCESS WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT, THE WORD "PRODUCTION" WAS ADDED TO SEC. 3(F) IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE WORDS "INCLUDING COMMODITIES DEFINED AS AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THIS HISTORY, THE
WORD PRODUCTION IN THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
THOSE SPECIFIC PRODUCTS DEFINED IN SEC. 15(G) OF THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING ACT OR SHOULD BE GIVEN ITS NORMAL MEANING.  THE ONLY QUESTION
HERE IS WHETHER THE WORD WAS USED IN THE SPECIAL EXPANDED MEANING
DEFINED IN SEC. 3(J) OF THE PRESENT ACT.  IT IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT
USED IN THIS SPECIAL SENSE.  AND IT FOLLOWS THAT IT DOES NOT ENCOMPASS
THE WORK OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES WHO CANNOT BE SAID, IN ANY NORMAL
USE OF THE TERM, TO BE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES.  THEIR WORK IS NECESSARY TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, BUT
IT IS NOT PRODUCTION. 

THE WORK OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES IS NOT, THEN, FARMING.  BUT,
COMING TO THE SECOND BRANCH OF THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE, IT IS
EQUALLY CLEAR THAT IT DOES CONSTITUTE A PRACTICE PERFORMED AS AN
INCIDENT TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH FARMING.  IF THE ACT EXEMPTED ALL
SUCH PRACTICES, THE COMPANY WOULD BE EXEMPT.  BUT THE EXEMPTION IS
LIMITED.  SUCH PRACTICES ARE EXEMPT ONLY IF THEY ARE PERFORMED BY A
FARMER OR ON A FARM.  FN15 

THIS LANGUAGE WAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS.  AS ORIGINALLY
INTRODUCED, THE EXEMPTION COVERED SUCH PRACTICES ONLY IF PERFORMED BY A
FARMER.  ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE IT WAS OBJECTED THAT THIS WOULD
EXCLUDE THE THRESHING OF WHEAT OR OTHER FUNCTIONS NECESSARY TO THE
FARMER IF THOSE FUNCTIONS WERE NOT PERFORMED BY THE FARMER AND HIS
HANDS, BUT BY SEPARATE COMPANIES ORGANIZED FOR AND DEVOTED SOLELY TO
THAT PARTICULAR JOB.  FN16  TO TAKE CARE OF THAT SITUATION THE WORDS
"OR ON A FARM" WERE ADDED TO THE DEFINITION.  THUS, THE WHEAT THRESHING
COMPANIES, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE SEPARATE ENTERPRISES, WERE INCLUDED IN
THE EXEMPTION BECAUSE THEIR WORK WAS INCIDENTAL TO FARMING AND WAS DONE
ON THE FARM.  FN17  IN THE FACE OF THIS CAREFUL USE OF LANGUAGE, WE ARE
REQUIRED TO LIMIT THE EXEMPTION AS CONGRESS INTENDED IT SHOULD BE
LIMITED, TO PRACTICES PERFORMED BY A FARMER OR ON A FARM.  IN THE
PRESENT CASE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WORK OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES IS
DONE NEITHER ON A FARM OR BY FARMERS. 

CLEARLY, IT IS NOT DONE ON A FARM.  NOR, WE THINK, IS IT DONE "BY A
FARMER."  SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES ARE
NOT ENGAGED IN FARMING, IT IS PERHAPS TOO OBVIOUS THAT THE WORK THAT
THEY DO IS NOT DONE BY FARMERS.  BUT AN ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY IS
MADE.  IT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY IS A MUTUAL ONE, OWNED
BY THE FARMERS WHOM IT SERVES.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COMPANY IS
THEREFORE MERELY A FORMAL CONDUIT OR AGENT, BY WHICH THE FARMERS
COOPERATIVELY OPERATE THEIR COMMON WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM AND
COOPERATIVELY EMPLOY THE MEN.  THE MEN ARE, THEREFORE, SAID TO BE
FARMERS BECAUSE THEY ARE SAID TO BE EMPLOYED BY FARMERS. 

EVEN IF IT WERE CONCEDED THAT THE EXEMPTION INCLUDES THE WORK OF
PERSONS WHO DO NO FARMING BUT ARE EMPLOYED BY FARMERS, IT STILL DOES
NOT INCLUDE THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT, IN FACT, SO
EMPLOYED.  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIRING OF MUTUAL SERVANTS
BY A GROUP OF EMPLOYERS AND THE CREATION BY THEM OF A SEPARATE BUSINESS
ORGANIZATION, WITH ITS OWN OFFICERS, PROPERTY, AND BONDED INDEBTEDNESS,
WHICH IN TURN HIRES WORKING MEN.  THOSE WORKING MEN ARE IN NO REAL
SENSE EMPLOYEES OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE ORGANIZATION.  THEY ARE
HIRED BY THE ORGANIZATION, FIRED BY THE ORGANIZATION, CONTROLLED AND
DIRECTED BY THE ORGANIZATION, AND PAID BY IT.  THE FACT THAT THE
ORGANIZATION IS A CORPORATE ONE ADDS TO THE PICTURE BUT IS NOT
CONTROLLING.  THE CONTROLLING FACT IS THAT THE COMPANY HAS BEEN SET UP
BY THE FARMERS AS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY TO OPERATE AN INTEGRATED,
UNITARY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.  THE FUNCTION OF SUPPLYING WATER HAS THUS
BEEN DIVORCED BY THE FARMERS FROM THE FARMING OPERATION AND SET UP AS A
SEPARATE AND SELF-CONTAINED ACTIVITY IN WHICH THE FARMERS ARE
FORBIDDEN, BY THE COMPANY'S BY-LAWS, TO INTERFERE.  FN18  THOSE
EMPLOYED IN THAT ACTIVITY ARE EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY, NOT BY THE
FARMERS WHO OWN THE COMPANY.  THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY IS NOT OPERATED
FOR PROFIT IS IMMATERIAL.  IT IS NONETHELESS THE EMPLOYER.  OF COURSE,
IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED THE ABSENCE OF PROFIT TO BE MATERIAL AND HAD
PROVIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES SHOULD BE
EXEMPTED BECAUSE THEIR WORK IS DONE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FARMERS WHO
OWN THE COOPERATIVES, WE SHOULD HONOR THAT PROVISION.  BUT THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE EXISTING DEFINITION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NO
SUCH RESULT WAS INTENDED.  FN19 

WE CONCLUDE THEREFORE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY DETERMINED
THAT THE FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS PERSONS EMPLOYED IN
AGRICULTURE.  FN20 

THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION THE BOOKKEEPER'S CASE.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS LIMITED ITS REVERSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE FIELD
EMPLOYEES BECAUSE IT REGARDED THE BOOKKEEPER AS EXEMPT, IN ANY EVENT,
AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER IT ERRED IN
SO DOING, SINCE THE COMPANY IN THIS COURT DISCLAIMS - AS IT DID IN THE
DISTRICT COURT - ANY RELIANCE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXEMPTION.  AND OUR
DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO THE FIELD EMPLOYEES MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLAIM OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EXEMPTION, EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE BOOKKEEPER.  IT HAS
BEEN STIPULATED THAT HIS WORK IS A NECESSARY PART OF THE OPERATION OF
THE COMPANY'S WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM.  THE FACT THAT IT IS CLERICAL RATHER
THAN MANUAL IS IMMATERIAL.  BORDEN CO. V. BORELLA, 325 U.S. 679(1945). 
IT FOLLOWS THAT HIS CASE IS ON ALL FOURS WITH THAT OF THE FIELD WORKERS
AND THAT HE IS ENGAGED, AS THEY ARE, IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE AND IS NOT EXEMPT AS EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE.  THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS, REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT AND REMANDING THE
CASE TO IT, SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE TREATED AS APPLICABLE TO BOTH TYPES
OF EMPLOYEE. 

AS SO MODIFIED, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 201-219. 

FN2  167 F.2D 911(1948). 

FN3  52 STAT. 1061, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 203(J). 

FN4  EMPHASIS ADDED. 

FN5  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 525(1942); ARMOUR & CO.
V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126(1944); ROLAND CO. V. WALLING, 326 U.S. 657,
663(1946). 

FN6  "NECESSARY" UNDERSTATES THE CASE.  THE WATER SUPPLIED BY THE
COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES IS, IN THIS CASE, AN INDISPENSABLE PREREQUISITE FOR
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.  CULTIVATION BEGAN ONLY WITH IRRIGATION AND IT
WILL END IF THE IRRIGATION CEASES.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE CAN
BE NO DOUBT OF THE IMMEDIACY OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PRODUCTION,
BY THE FARMERS, FOR COMMERCE AND THE WORK OF THE COMPANY'S FIELD
EMPLOYEES IN PROVIDING WATER FOR IRRIGATION. 

FN7  THE FALLACY OF THE NOTION THAT AN EXEMPTION CARRIES WITH IT ALL
OCCUPATIONS WHOSE NEXUS WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS THE EXEMPTED
OCCUPATION IS DEMONSTRATED BY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS BY LOGIC.  IN
BOUTELL V. WALLING, 327 U.S. 463(1946), FOR EXAMPLE, THE QUESTION WAS
WHETHER MEN WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY A SERVICE COMPANY TO SERVICE TRUCKS
CARRYING GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE EXEMPT, UNDER SEC. 13(B)(1),
AS THE EMPLOYEES OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THEIR ONLY CONNECTION WITH COMMERCE
WAS THEIR WORK ON THE TRUCKS OF THE INTERSTATE CARRIER.  THE COURT
DIVIDED AS TO WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES WERE THEMSELVES EMPLOYED BY THE
CARRIER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND, THEREFORE,
EXEMPT.  BUT THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION IN EITHER OF THE OPINIONS IN THE
CASE THAT, IF NOT EMPLOYED BY THE CARRIER, THEY WERE NEVERTHELESS
EXEMPT BECAUSE THEIR ONLY CONNECTION WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS
THROUGH AN ENTERPRISE WHICH WAS ITSELF EXEMPT. 

IN ONLY ONE CASE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION WAS A CONTENTION PRESENTED
SIMILAR TO THAT MADE HERE.  IN DIZE V. MADDRIX, 144 F.2D 584(1944),
AFF'D, 324 U.S. 697(1945), THE LOCAL MANUFACTURE OF BOXES WAS HELD TO
BE WITHIN THE ACT BECAUSE THE BOXES WERE USED BY FISHERMEN TO SHIP
THEIR FISH IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE FISHERMEN WERE EXEMPT UNDER A
SPECIFIC EXEMPTION IN THE ACT COVERING FISHING, AND IT WAS ARGUED THAT
THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BOXES SHOULD THEREFORE BE EXEMPT AS "FISHING"
BECAUSE ITS ONLY CONNECTION WITH COMMERCE WAS THROUGH FISHING.  THE
ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED SUMMARILY. 

FN8  MEEKER COOPERATIVE LIGHT & POWER ASSN. V. PHILLIPS, 158 F.2D
698(1946). 

FN9  MCCOMB V. SUPER-A FERTILIZER WORKS, 165 F.2D 824(1948). 

FN10  ARTICLE VII, SEC. 5 OF THE COMPANY'S BY-LAWS PROVIDES AS
FOLLOWS: 

"ALL HEADGATES IN THE COMPANY'S CANALS SHALL BE OPERATED AND
MAINTAINED BY AND UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THIS COMPANY AND NO
STOCKHOLDER OR ANY OTHER PERSON SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH,
RECONSTRUCT, REPAIR, CHANGE, OR ALTER, OPEN OR CLOSE SAID HEADGATES OR
ANY OF THEM IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER." 

FN11  L. HAND, J., IN CABELL V. MARKHAM, 148 F.2D 737, 739(1945),
AFF'D, 326 U.S. 404(1945). 

FN12  SEE S. REP. NO. 230, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS. (1930). 

FN13  46 STAT. 1550, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 1141J (G).  THIS LANGUAGE
ORIGINATED IN S. 2354, 71ST CONGRESS.  THAT BILL WAS REPORTED TO THE
SENATE (S. REP. NO. 230) AND PASSED.  72 CONG. REC. 7016(1930).  IT DID
NOT COME TO A VOTE IN THE HOUSE.  ITS SUBSTANCE WAS ADDED BY THE SENATE
TO H.R. 16836, AN AMENDMENT TO THE OLEOMARGARINE TAX LAWS, AND IN THIS
FORM BECAME LAW.  SEE 74 CONG. REC. 6688, 7196(1931). 

FN14  H.R. REP. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2.  THE WORD
"PRODUCTION" WAS NOT ACTUALLY CONTAINED IN EITHER THE HOUSE OR SENATE
BILLS AS ORIGINALLY PASSED.  THE SENATE BILL, S. 2475, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., AS PASSED, CONTAINED THE REFERENCE TO SEC. 15(G) OF THE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT IN THE FOLLOWING WAY:  "  ...  'AGRICULTURE'
...  FURTHER INCLUDES THE DEFINITION CONTAINED IN SUBDIVISION (G) OF
7659(1937).  THIS LANGUAGE WAS FAULTY, SINCE THE SECTION REFERRED TO
WAS NOT A DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE BUT OF AN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY. 
THE LANGUAGE WAS RETAINED IN THIS FORM WHEN THE BILL WAS FIRST DEBATED
IN THE HOUSE.  SEE 82 CONG. REC. 1580, 1690(1937).  THE HOUSE VOTED TO
RECOMMIT THE BILL.  ID. AT 1835.  IN COMMITTEE, THE DEFINITION OF
AGRICULTURE WAS COMPLETELY REDRAFTED AND THE REFERENCE TO THE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT OMITTED.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH
CONG., 3D SESS. (1938).  THE BILL PASSED THE HOUSE IN THIS FORM.  IN
CONFERENCE, IT WAS AGREED THAT THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE DEFINITION OF
AGRICULTURE SHOULD BE ADOPTED, WITH THREE STATED EXCEPTIONS.  ONLY ONE
OF THE THREE IS RELEVANT HERE - THE REINSERTION OF THE REFERENCE TO THE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT.  THE WORD "PRODUCTION" WAS ADDED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THAT REFERENCE AND WAS OBVIOUSLY USED ONLY TO MAKE THE
REFERENCE GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT.  THE COMMITTEE REPORT STATES THE
CHANGE IN THIS WAY:  "THE PRODUCTION OF COMMODITIES DEFINED AS
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN SECTION 15(G) OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
ACT IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE  ...  "  H.R. REP.
NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 29(1938). 

FN15  ALTHOUGH NOT RELEVANT HERE, THERE IS THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT
THAT THE PRACTICES BE INCIDENTAL TO "SUCH" FARMING.  THUS, PROCESSING
ON A FARM OF COMMODITIES PRODUCED BY OTHER FARMERS IS INCIDENTAL TO OR
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FARMING OPERATION OF THE OTHER FARMERS AND NOT
INCIDENTAL TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FARMING OPERATION OF THE
FARMER ON WHOSE PREMISES THE PROCESSING IS DONE.  SUCH PROCESSING IS,
THEREFORE, NOT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE.  BOWIE V.
GONZALEZ, 117 F.2D 11(1941).    FN16  "MR. TYDINGS.  ...  IN THE CASE I
VISUALIZE  ...  THE FARMER IS NOT PERFORMING THE SERVICE.  THE MAN TO
WHOM I REFER MAKES A BUSINESS OF DOING NOTHING BUT THRESHING.  HE OWNS
HIS OWN MACHINE, AND HAULS IT FROM FARM TO FARM, AND ENTERS INTO
CONTRACTS WITH FARMERS TO THRESH THEIR CROPS; THE POINT BEING THAT
WHILE HE IS DEALING WITH AN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY, HE IS NOT
NECESSARILY A FARMER, AND HE IS NOT DOING WORK ORDINARILY DONE BY A
FARMER. 

"MR. BORAH.  HE IS DOING THE EXACT WORK WHICH THE FARMER DID BEFORE
HE TOOK IT UP.    "MR. TYDINGS.  THAT IS TRUE; BUT I DO NOT THINK THE
BILL IS DRAWN IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO BRING THE MAN TO WHOM I REFER
UNDER ITS PROVISIONS OF EXEMPTION."  81 CONG. REC. 7653(1937).  SEE
ALSO THE COMMENTS OF SENATOR BONE, ID. AT 7659. 

FN17  81 CONG. REC. 7888(1937). 

FN18  SEE N. 10, SUPRA. 

FN19  THE DEBATE IN BOTH HOUSES SHOWS A CLEAR AWARENESS THAT THE
EMPLOYEES OF FARMERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS WOULD NOT BE EXEMPTED AS
EMPLOYEES OF FARMERS.  AT VARIOUS TIMES AMENDMENTS WERE OFFERED, AND
ADOPTED, EXEMPTING THE EMPLOYEES OF CERTAIN TYPES OF COOPERATIVES.  SEE
81 CONG. REC. 7947(1937), 82 CONG. REC. 1783(1937).  ALL SUCH SPECIAL
EXEMPTIONS WERE, HOWEVER, OMITTED FROM THE BILL AS IT FINALLY BECAME
LAW.  SEE ALSO INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN, ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR,
WAGE & HOUR DIVISION, 29 C.F.R. 1947 SUPP., SECS. 780.81, 780.82. 

FN20  WHILE IT LACKS RELEVANCE TO THE QUESTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
INTENTION IN 1938, WE MAY NOTE THAT THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED
WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH ON THE SENATE FLOOR IN 1946 IN CONNECTION WITH
CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IT WAS CLEARLY
STATED, WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT EMPLOYEES OF AN IRRIGATION COMPANY
WHICH SUPPLIED WATER TO FARMERS WERE, LIKE THE EMPLOYEES OF A POWER
COMPANY WHICH SUPPLIES ELECTRICITY TO FARMERS, NOT EXEMPT AS EMPLOYED
IN AGRICULTURE.  92 CONG. REC. 2318-2319(1946). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

BOTH IN THE EMPLOYMENTS WHICH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT COVERS AND
IN THE EXEMPTIONS IT MAKES, THE CONGRESS HAS CAST UPON THE COURTS THE
DUTY OF MAKING DISTINCTIONS THAT OFTEN ARE BOUND TO BE SO NICE AS TO
APPEAR ARBITRARY IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER.  A SPECIFIC SITUATION, LIKE
THAT PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, PRESENTS A PROBLEM FOR CONSTRUCTION WHICH
MAY WITH NEARLY EQUAL REASON BE RESOLVED ONE WAY RATHER THAN ANOTHER. 
EXCEPT WHEN A CONFLICT BETWEEN COURTS OF APPEALS REQUIRES SETTLEMENT BY
THIS COURT, IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME VERY PROFITABLE TO BRING THE
INDIVIDUAL CASES HERE FOR ADJUDICATION.  BUT SINCE THIS CASE IS HERE IT
HAS TO BE DECIDED.  THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM BEING WHAT IT IS, I
ACQUIESCE IN THE JUDGMENT THAT COMMENDS ITSELF TO THE MAJORITY OF MY
BRETHREN. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

IF EMPLOYEES OPERATING THESE IRRIGATION WORKS ARE SO NECESSARY TO THE
RAISING OF CROPS DESTINED FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT THEY ARE
"PRODUCING GOODS FOR COMMERCE" WITHIN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, I
CANNOT AGREE THAT THEY ARE NOT "EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE" WITHIN ITS
EXEMPTIONS. 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT AS A SEPARATE ENTERPRISE THIS HANDLING OF
IRRIGATION WATER DOES NOT BRING THESE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE ACT
REGULATING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BECAUSE THE WATER IS CAPTURED, STORED,
TRANSMITTED, DELIVERED AND CONSUMED SOLELY WITHIN ONE STATE.  THE
REASONING BY WHICH THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS BROUGHT UNDER THE ACT IS THIS:
TO DELIVER WATER ON ARID LANDS IS SO INSEPARABLE FROM AGRICULTURE
THEREON THAT IT IS TO PRODUCE GOODS, THAT IS, AGRICULTURAL CROPS, FOR
COMMERCE. 

HOWEVER, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 213(A)(6) EXEMPTS INDIVIDUALS "EMPLOYED IN
AGRICULTURE."  IT WOULD SEEM LOGICAL THAT ONE WHO IS PRODUCING
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS FOR COMMERCE IS "EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTURE."  BUT
ACCORDING TO THE COURT HE IS NOT.  THE IRRIGATION ACTIVITY SEEMS
ENDOWED WITH SOME ESOTERIC DUPLICITY NOT APPARENT ON ITS FACE.  WHEN WE
READ 29 U.S.C. SEC. 206 OR SEC. 207, THE IRRIGATOR IS PRODUCING CROPS
BECAUSE HIS ACTIVITY IS INSEPARABLE FROM CROP PRODUCTION; BUT WHEN WE
READ ON A HALF-DOZEN SECTIONS AND GET TO 29 U.S.C. SEC. 213(A)(6), THE
IRRIGATION HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO A DISTINCT AND DISCONNECTED
ENTERPRISE. 

THIS PARADOX IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE IN 29
U.S.C. SEC. 203(F), WHICH IS SAID TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION "IN A NORMAL SENSE" AND THE SAME THING "IN THE
SPECIAL SENSE" OF SEC. 3(J) OF THE STATUTE, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 203(J). 
HOWEVER, ITS TEXT AND HISTORY SEEM TO SHOW THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE WAS NOT TO MAKE THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION LESS COMPREHENSIVE
THAN "NORMAL" AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BUT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT NOTHING
CONNECTED WITH FARMING REMAINED SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  IT EXEMPTED "ANY
PRACTICES  ...  PERFORMED BY A FARMER OR ON A FARM AS AN INCIDENT TO OR
IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUCH FARMING OPERATIONS."  THUS THE FARM EXEMPTION
DID NOT END AT THE LINE FENCE. 

THIS IRRIGATION SEEMS TO ME TO BE "PERFORMED BY A FARMER" AND HENCE,
BY DEFINITION, PART OF THE OPERATION OF AGRICULTURE.  CERTAINLY THE
AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION IS NOT LOST BECAUSE FARMERS POOL THEIR CAPITAL
THROUGH A MUTUAL, NONPROFIT CORPORATION FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE WHATEVER
THAN TO CARRY WATER TO THEIR OWN ARID LANDS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO
PRODUCE CROPS.  THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE CORPORATE FORM IS TO LIMIT
INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY FOR A PROJECT WHICH IS SUBSIDIARY TO EACH FARMER'S
MAIN ENTERPRISE BUT WHICH IS BEYOND THE MEANS OR DEMANDS OF ANY OF THEM
AS INDIVIDUALS.  ONLY THE LANDOWNERS CAN BECOME STOCKHOLDERS; ONLY THE
STOCKHOLDERS CAN BECOME WATER USERS, AND THE OPERATING COSTS AND
CAPITAL CHARGES ARE MET BY ASSESSING THEM IN PROPORTION TO THEIR WATER
BENEFITS.  EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE WATER OPERATION WOULD BE ON A QUITE
DIFFERENT FOOTING IF IT WERE A WATER COMPANY SELLING WATER TO THE
PUBLIC OR THE FARMER FOR PROFIT. 

IF, AS THE COURT HOLDS, THESE EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION OF
AGRICULTURAL CROPS FOR COMMERCE, I DO NOT SEE HOW IT CAN HOLD THAT THEY
ARE NOT ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE.  IF THE COURT COULD SAY "TO BE OR NOT
TO BE:  THAT IS THE QUESTION," IT MIGHT REASONABLY ANSWER IN SUPPORT OF
EITHER SIDE.  BUT HERE THE COURT TELLS US THAT THE REAL SOLUTION OF
THIS DILEMMA IS "TO BE" AND "NOT TO BE" AT THE SAME TIME.  WHILE THIS
IS A UNIQUE CONTRIBUTION TO THE LITERATURE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, I
CAN ONLY REGRET THE GREAT LOSS TO THE LITERATURE OF THE DRAMA THAT THIS
POSSIBILITY WAS OVERLOOKED BY THE BARD OF AVON.  IT WILL PROBABLY NOW
BE AS GREAT A SURPRISE TO THE PROPONENTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION
AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO SHAKESPEARE, HAD IT BEEN SUGGESTED TO HIM. 
..END :





















GIBBS V. BURKE, 337 U.S. 773 


NO. 418.  ARGUED APRIL 21-22, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  -
REVERSED. 


PETITIONER, A MAN IN HIS THIRTIES, WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED IN A
PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT FOR LARCENY, AND WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT
FOR 2 1/2 TO 5 YEARS.  HE CONDUCTED HIS OWN DEFENSE, APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL HAVING BEEN NEITHER REQUESTED BY PETITIONER NOR OFFERED BY THE
COURT.  AT THE TRIAL, CONSIDERABLE HEARSAY AND OTHERWISE INCOMPETENT
EVIDENCE PREJUDICIAL TO PETITIONER WAS ADMITTED; THE PROSECUTING
WITNESS, BEING RECALLED FOR FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION, WAS MADE A
WITNESS FOR PETITIONER, TO THE LATTER'S DETRIMENT; PETITIONER WAS
PREVENTED FROM PROVING A FACT CLEARLY RELEVANT TO HIS DEFENSE; AND THE
TRIAL JUDGE, ADVISING PETITIONER OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION, MADE REFERENCE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY TO
PETITIONER'S CRIMINAL RECORD.  PETITIONER'S SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION TO
THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, CLAIMING A DENIAL
OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ON HIS TRIAL, WAS DENIED.  HELD: 

1.  THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS ADEQUATELY RAISED, AND THE CASE IS
PROPERLY CONSIDERED HERE ON ITS MERITS.  P. 779. 

(A)  RELIANCE ON THE SIXTH RATHER THAN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN
THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WAS NOT FATAL, SINCE METICULOUSNESS IN
PROCEDURAL ALLEGATIONS IS NOT ESSENTIAL IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING. 
P. 779. 

(B)  IT APPEARS THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS A PROPER METHOD OF TESTING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONVICTION AND THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT.  P. 779. 

2.  THE FACTS OF THE CASE, PARTICULARLY THE OCCURRENCES AT THE TRIAL,
SUFFICIENTLY SHOW THAT PETITIONER WAS HANDICAPPED BY LACK OF COUNSEL TO
SUCH AN EXTENT THAT HE WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL CONTRARY TO THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 774-778, 780-782. 

GIBBS V. BURKE, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING, DENIED
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 867, AND APPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF
THIS COURT TO SERVE AS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.  335 U.S. 895. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 782. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
PETITIONER'S TRIAL FOR LARCENY IN A STATE COURT WITHOUT COUNSEL,
PENNSYLVANIA DEPRIVED HIM OF A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT PROTECTED
BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

PETITIONER, A MAN IN HIS THIRTIES, WAS ARRESTED IN PENNSYLVANIA IN
1947 FOR THE LARCENY OF CERTAIN CLOTHING AND OTHER PERSONAL EFFECTS
ALLEGEDLY BELONGING TO ONE JAMES BLADES.  UPON THE RETURN OF AN
INDICTMENT HE PLEADED NOT GUILTY, WAS TRIED BEFORE A JURY WHICH FOUND
HIM GUILTY, AND WAS SENTENCED TO A TERM OF TWO AND ONE-HALF TO FIVE
YEARS IN THE PENITENTIARY.  THE RECORD SHOWS NEITHER A REQUEST FOR
COUNSEL BY THE PETITIONER NOR AN OFFER OF COUNSEL BY THE COURT. 
PETITIONER CONDUCTED HIS OWN DEFENSE. 

ON MAY 24, 1948, GIBBS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA A
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN WHICH HE ALLEGED HIS ARREST, TRIAL,
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, AND IN WHICH HE ALSO STATED THAT HE "WAS
DENIED COUNSEL AND THROUGH IGNORANCE OF LAW AND FACT WAS FORCED TO ACT
AS HIS OWN COUNSEL" AND THAT HE "WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
AS SET FORTH IN THE TEN ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS, ARTICLE VI."  UPON THE
ISSUANCE OF A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, RESPONDENT ANSWERED, ADMITTING THE
FORMAL ALLEGATIONS AND THE FACT OF TRIAL AND SENTENCE, BUT ALLEGING THE
FOLLOWING CONCERNING THE DENIAL OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL:  "THE TRANSCRIPT
OF THE NOTES OF TESTIMONY TAKEN IN THE MATTER DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT
THE RELATOR DEMANDED COUNSEL NOR REQUESTED THAT COUNSEL BE APPOINTED TO
REPRESENT HIM.  ...  IT IS ALSO AVERRED BY WAY OF ANSWER THAT THE
RELATOR'S EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES AND QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE
COURSE OF THE TRIAL FULLY DISCLOSED HIS FAMILIARITY WITH LEGAL PROCESS
IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS."  THE ANSWER ALSO ATTACHED A TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AT THE TRIAL AND A TRANSCRIPT OF PETITIONER'S CRIMINAL
RECORD.  IT SHOWED EIGHT CONVICTIONS AND NINE ACQUITTALS, DISCHARGES,
AND NO TRUE BILLS.  ON JULY 6, 1948, THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DENIED THE WRIT.  AS THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION RAISED GRAVE
DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER PETITIONER HAD BEEN ACCORDED DUE PROCESS IN HIS
TRIAL, WE GRANTED THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 867. 

JAMES BLADES, THE PROSECUTING WITNESS, MRS. LAFIELD, HIS MOTHER,
CONSTABLE FLEMING, THE ARRESTING OFFICER, AND JAMES SILVERSTEIN, A
SECONDHAND DEALER, TESTIFIED FOR THE STATE.  BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED, THEIR
TESTIMONY TENDED TO PROVE THAT PETITIONER CAME TO BLADES' HOME ON THE
MORNING OF THE ALLEGED THEFT, LOOKED IN BLADES' ROOM, WHERE THE STOLEN
ARTICLES WERE IN PLAIN VIEW, AND, FINDING BLADES ABSENT, DEPARTED. 
WHEN BLADES RETURNED HOME THAT DAY HE NOTICED THAT THE ARTICLES WERE
MISSING FROM HIS ROOM AND, UPON LEARNING FROM HIS MOTHER THAT GIBBS HAD
BEEN THERE, HE NOTIFIED THE POLICE.  HE AND CONSTABLE FLEMING FOUND
SOME OF THE MISSING ARTICLES IN A PAWNSHOP AND FOUND THE PETITIONER IN
A TAPROOM WEARING BLADES' HAT AND WATCH.  LATER BLADES' WALLET WAS
FOUND IN THE JAIL CELL IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS INCARCERATED. 
SILVERSTEIN, THE SECONDHAND DEALER IN THE PAWNSHOP, TESTIFIED THAT
GIBBS HAD BROUGHT THE MISSING CLOTHING IN AND HAD SOLD THEM TO HIM. 

PETITIONER, BY MEANS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH THAT
THE ARTICLES HAD BEEN TAKEN, AND SOME OF THEM SOLD, PURSUANT TO AN
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN HIM AND BLADES. 

SEVERAL EVENTS OCCURRING AT THE TRIAL ARE PERTINENT TO PETITIONER'S
CLAIM THAT FAILURE TO APPOINT COUNSEL VIOLATED THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  (1) CONSIDERABLE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY AND OTHERWISE
INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE WAS ALLOWED TO GO IN WITHOUT OBJECTION BY GIBBS. 
FN1  (2) WHEN PETITIONER RECALLED THE PROSECUTING WITNESS BLADES FOR
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE TRIAL JUDGE ACCEPTED THE PROSECUTOR'S
SUGGESTION AND MADE BLADES THE PETITIONER'S WITNESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THE UNFAVORABLE TESTIMONY THEN ELICITED.  FN2  THUS HE MADE THIS
TESTIMONY BINDING ON THE PETITIONER ALTHOUGH THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE
WOULD SEEM TO BE THAT AN ADVERSE WITNESS CAN BE SO EXAMINED AND YET
REMAIN THE WITNESS OF THE OPPOSING PARTY.  FN3  (3) ALTHOUGH, AS WE
HAVE ALREADY NOTED, PETITIONER ATTEMPTED TO DEFEND HIMSELF ON THE
GROUND THAT HE TOOK AND SOLD THE ARTICLES PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE PROSECUTING WITNESS, HE WAS PREVENTED FROM PROVING A FACT CLEARLY
RELEVANT TO THAT DEFENSE,  FN4  I.E., THAT BLADES HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE A
BASELESS CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST HIM UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES N5. 
(4) THE TRIAL JUDGE ALSO ADVISED PETITIONER IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
JURY, SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, AS TO HIS OPPORTUNITY TO AVAIL
HIMSELF OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WHICH WAS HIS UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA LAW.  IN DOING SO HE MADE REFERENCE TO POSSIBLE PAST
CONVICTIONS.  FN6  SO TO REQUIRE HIM TO CLAIM HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARD IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY WAS, PETITIONER CLAIMS, A
VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW.  CF. PHILADELPHIA V. CLINE, 158 PA.
SUPER.  179, 185, 44 A.2D 610, 613; COMMONWEALTH V. VALEROSO, 273 PA.
213, 116 A. 828.  RESPONDENT DOES NOT CLAIM OTHERWISE.  THE INFORMATION
GIVEN BY THE JUDGE AS TO PAST CONVICTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY A
LAWYER TO THE PETITIONER BEYOND THE JURY'S HEARING.  (5) FINALLY, WHEN
SENTENCING PETITIONER, THE JUDGE USED LANGUAGE WHICH, IT IS CLAIMED,
EVINCED A HOSTILE AND THOROUGHLY UNJUDICIAL ATTITUDE.  FN7 

TWO PROCEDURAL POINTS REQUIRE BUT BRIEF ATTENTION.  THE FEDERAL
QUESTION WAS ADEQUATELY IF INARTISTICALLY RAISED IN THE PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  WE CONSIDER INSIGNIFICANT UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE FACT THAT PETITIONER CITED THE SIXTH RATHER THAN THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  FN8  METICULOUS INSISTENCE
UPON REGULARITY IN PROCEDURAL ALLEGATIONS IS FOREIGN TO THE PURPOSE OF
HABEAS CORPUS.  FN9  THE STATE DOES NOT CONTEST THE PROPRIETY OF A
CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE ON ITS MERITS.  FN10  THUS IT APPARENTLY
CONCEDES THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS A PROPER METHOD OF TESTING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONVICTION AND THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  FN11 

SINCE IT IS CLEAR THAT A FAILURE TO REQUEST COUNSEL DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A WAIVER WHEN THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT KNOW OF HIS RIGHT TO
COUNSEL, UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, 335 U.S. 437, WE PROCEED TO THE
MERITS.  WE CONSIDER THIS CASE ON THE THEORY UPHELD IN BETTS V. BRADY,
316 U.S. 455, THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE TO EVERY PERSON
CHARGED WITH A SERIOUS CRIME IN A STATE COURT THE RIGHT TO THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  BETTS V. BRADY
REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTOMATICALLY
AFFORDED SUCH PROTECTION.  IN SO DOING, HOWEVER, IT DID NOT, OF COURSE,
HOLD OR INTIMATE THAT COUNSEL WAS NEVER REQUIRED IN NONCAPITAL CASES IN
STATE COURTS IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE NECESSITY FOR BASIC FAIRNESS WHICH
IS FORMULATED IN THAT AMENDMENT. 

THERE HAVE BEEN MADE TO THIS COURT WITHOUT AVAIL ARGUMENTS BASED ON
THE LONG PRACTICE AS TO COUNSEL IN STATE COURTS TO CONVINCE US THAT
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A STATE MAY REFUSE TO FURNISH COUNSEL
EVEN WHEN NEEDED BY THE ACCUSED IN SERIOUS FELONIES OTHER THAN
CAPITAL.  OUR DECISIONS HAVE BEEN THAT WHERE THE IGNORANCE, YOUTH, OR
OTHER INCAPACITY OF THE DEFENDANT MADE A TRIAL WITHOUT COUNSEL UNFAIR,
THE DEFENDANT IS DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT N12.  COUNSEL NECESSARY FOR HIS ADEQUATE DEFENSE WOULD BE
LACKING. 

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT TO HOLD TO SUCH PRECEDENTS LEAVES THE STATE
PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES UNCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER TO OFFER COUNSEL TO ALL
ACCUSED WHO ARE WITHOUT ADEQUATE FUNDS AND UNDER SERIOUS CHARGES IN
STATE COURTS.  WE CANNOT OFFER A PANACEA FOR THE DIFFICULTY.  SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WOULD BE AN UNWARRANTED
FEDERAL INTRUSION INTO STATE CONTROL OF ITS CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF REDUCTION TO A MATHEMATICAL
FORMULA.  FN13 

FURTHERMORE, THE FAIR CONDUCT OF A TRIAL DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE
WISDOM AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.  HE KNOWS THE ESSENTIALS
OF A FAIR TRIAL.  THE PRIMARY DUTY FALLS ON HIM TO DETERMINE THE
ACCUSED'S NEED OF COUNSEL AT ARRAIGNMENT AND DURING TRIAL.  HE MAY
GUIDE A DEFENDANT WITHOUT A LAWYER PAST THE ERRORS THAT MAKE TRIALS
UNFAIR.  CF. UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA.  FAILURE TO PROTECT
PROPERLY THE RIGHTS OF ONE ACCUSED OF SERIOUS OFFENSES IS UNUSUAL. 
OBVIOUSLY A FAIR TRIAL TEST NECESSITATES AN APPRAISAL BEFORE AND DURING
THE TRIAL OF THE FACTS OF EACH CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE NEED FOR
COUNSEL IS SO GREAT THAT THE DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL WORKS
A FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS.  THE RECENT DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM IN
UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, MAKES FURTHER ELABORATION UNNECESSARY. 
WE THINK THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, PARTICULARLY THE EVENTS OCCURRING
AT THE TRIAL, REVEAL, IN THE LIGHT OF THAT OPINION AND THE PRECEDENTS
THERE CITED, THAT PETITIONER WAS HANDICAPPED BY LACK OF COUNSEL TO SUCH
AN EXTENT THAT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS DENIED. 
THIS CASE IS OF THE TYPE REFERRED TO IN BETTS V. BRADY, SUPRA, AT 473,
AS LACKING FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS BECAUSE NEITHER COUNSEL NOR ADEQUATE
JUDICIAL GUIDANCE OR PROTECTION WAS FURNISHED AT THE TRIAL. 

A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS NOT GUILTY AND ELECTS TO GO TO TRIAL IS
USUALLY MORE IN NEED OF THE ASSISTANCE OF A LAWYER THAN IS ONE WHO
PLEADS GUILTY.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE EVIDENCES PETITIONER'S
HELPLESSNESS, WITHOUT COUNSEL AND WITHOUT MORE ASSISTANCE FROM THE
JUDGE, IN DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST THIS CHARGE OF LARCENY.  WE TAKE NO
NOTE OF THE TONE OF THE COMMENTS AT THE TIME OF THE SENTENCE.  THE
TRIAL WAS OVER.  THE QUESTIONABLE ISSUES ALLOWED TO PASS UNNOTICED AS
TO PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, PRIVILEGE, AND INSTRUCTIONS DETAILED IN THE
FIRST PART OF THIS OPINION DEMONSTRATE TO US THAT PETITIONER DID NOT
HAVE A TRIAL THAT MEASURES UP TO THE TEST OF FAIRNESS PRESCRIBED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  BLADES:  "THEN SHE (WITNESS'S MOTHER) TELLS ME ABOUT HIM
(PETITIONER) BEING THERE." 

CONSTABLE FLEMING:  "I GOT A TELEPHONE CALL FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE,
MR. MILLER, TO GO UP TO MRS. LAFIELD'S TO INVESTIGATE A ROBBERY THAT
OCCURRED THERE.  ...  I ASKED JIM, WHERE WAS THE SUITCASE.  HE SAID,
THE SUITCASE WAS BY THE BED.  ...  " 

"I WENT TO THREE PAWNSHOPS AND THEY GAVE ME A DESCRIPTION OF EDWARD
GIBBS  ...  " 

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S UNSWORN OFFER OF PROOF CONCERNING THE MISSING
ARTICLES WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"MR. JOHNSON:  I WANT TO OFFER INTO EVIDENCE THE WALLET, THE WATCH,
WHICH WERE IDENTIFIED AND FOUND - THE WATCH WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE DEFENDANT.  THIS WALLET, CONTAINING THE PAPERS OF MR. BLADES,
WHICH WAS FOUND IN THE JAIL CELL THAT HAD BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE
DEFENDANT. 

"THE COURT:  WHAT ABOUT THE RADIO? 

"MR. JOHNSON:  IT HAS BEEN RECOVERED AND RETURNED TO THE OWNER." 

FN2  "THE DEFENDANT:  MAY I CALL THE PROSECUTOR (BLADES) BACK ON THE
STAND? 

"MR. JOHNSON:  HE DESIRES TO CALL THE PROSECUTOR AS HIS WITNESS." 

IN HIS CHARGE TO THE JURY THE JUDGE SAID WITH REFERENCE TO THIS
EPISODE: 

"AS HE HAS PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF HIS OWN, EXCEPT HAVING CALLED MR.
BLADES AND CERTAIN QUESTIONS WERE ASKED MR. BLADES AND CERTAIN ANSWERS
MADE; THAT IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE HE PRESENTED." 

FN3  COMMONWEALTH V. REEVES, 267 PA. 361, 362-363, 110 A. 158, 159;
COMMONWEALTH V. EISENHOWER, 181 PA. 470, 476, 37 A. 521, 522. 

FN4  COMMONWEALTH V. FARRELL, 187 PA. 408, 423-24, 41 A. 382, 384;
SEE 3 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 950. 

FN5  "Q.  LAST FALL, LAST YEAR, DIDN'T YOU WRECK YOUR OWN AUTOMOBILE
AND ENTER A COMPLAINT THAT I STOLE YOUR CAR AND WRECKED IT? 

"MR. JOHNSON:  OBJECTED TO. 

"THE COURT:  OBJECTION SUSTAINED.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS
CASE. 

"THE DEFENDANT:  ALL RIGHT." 

FN6  "THE COURT:  NOW THEN, GIBBS, YOU MAY, IF YOU WANT TO, TAKE THE
STAND AND SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY, BUT I WARN YOU IF YOU DO, IF
YOU HAVE ANY RECORD OF ANY PRIOR CONVICTION, ANY FELONIES OR ANY
MISDEMEANORS IN THE NATURE OF WHAT WE CALL CRIMEN FALSI, THE
COMMONWEALTH MAY OFFER THE RECORD OF ANY CONVICTIONS YOU MAY HAVE HAD. 
I AM WARNING YOU IN ADVANCE.  YOU MAY, HOWEVER, TAKE THE STAND AND
TESTIFY OR YOU MAY REFUSE TO TAKE THE STAND AND IF YOU DO REFUSE TO
TAKE THE STAND, THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE COURT MAY NOT COMMENT
UNFAVORABLY ABOUT YOUR FAILURE TO TAKE THE STAND AND TESTIFY.  I WANT
TO WARN YOU FULLY BEFORE YOU DO TAKE THE STAND. 

"DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THE STAND?    "THE DEFENDANT:  NO, I DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING TO SAY IN COURT." 

FN7  "BY THE COURT: 

"Q.  GIBBS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY BEFORE WE IMPOSE SENTENCE? 

"A.  NO, I GUESS NOT. 

"Q.  HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN JAIL? 

"A.  TWO MONTHS AND A HALF. 

"Q.  WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU; WHY CAN'T YOU KEEP OUT OF TROUBLE? 

"A.  I DON'T KNOW, SIR.    "Q.  YOU DON'T KNOW WHY YOU CAN'T DO IT?
WHAT DO YOU DO, GET DRUNK OR SOMETHING, OR ARE YOU JUST ORNERY? 

"MR. JOHNSON:  DON'T YOU THINK THIS MAN WOULD BE BETTER IF HE WERE
SENT TO THE EASTERN PENITENTIARY? 

"BY THE COURT: 

"Q.  DO YOU REALIZE YOU CAN BE PUT AWAY FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE? 

"A.  (NO ANSWER.) 

"THE COURT:  IT IS A WONDER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DOESN'T INDICT YOU
FOR IT.  YOU CAN BE INDICTED. 

"MR. JOHNSON:  IF HE COMES BACK AGAIN, I WILL TAKE IT AS MY PERSONAL
JOB TO INDICT HIM. 

"THE COURT:  IN 1928 YOU WERE FOUND GUILTY OF BURGLARY, LARCENY,
RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, BEFORE JUDGE FRONEFIELD - ONE TO TWO YEARS,
COUNTY JAIL.  IN 1931, PLEAD GUILTY TO LARCENY - $100 FINE AND COSTS,
ONE TO TWO YEARS, JUDGE MACDADE.  1932 FOUND GUILTY OF LARCENY AND
RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, $50 FINE AND COSTS, SIX MONTHS TO THREE YEARS
IN COUNTY JAIL, JUDGE MORROW.  THAT IS THREE.  1934 LARCENY, FOUND
GUILTY, $100 FINE AND COSTS, SIX MONTHS TO THREE YEARS IN COUNTY JAIL;
SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR IN COUNTY JAIL FOR VIOLATION OF PAROLE; JUDGE
FRONEFIELD.  THAT IS FOUR.  1937, RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, $10 FINE AND
COSTS, ONE TO THREE YEARS COUNTY JAIL, SENTENCE SUSPENDED BY JUDGE
MACDADE.  THAT IS FIVE.  1938, LARCENY; FOUND GUILTY, ONE AND HALF TO
THREE YEARS COUNTY JAIL, JUDGE CRICHTON.  I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS
ANYONE YOU MISSED UP TO NOW.  YOU WERE BEFORE ME A YEAR AGO.  NO, JUST
LAST MARCH.  YOU BEAT THAT, NOT GUILTY.  NOW, HERE YOU ARE THE SEVENTH
TIME. 

"ALL I CAN DO IS GIVE HIM TWO AND A HALF TO FIVE YEARS, IF YOU DON'T
WANT TO INDICT THESE FOURTH OFFENDERS. 

                               "SENTENCE 

"ON NO. 417 SEPTEMBER SESSIONS 1947, THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT IS
THAT YOU UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT IN THE EASTERN STATE PENITENTIARY AT
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND HARD LABOR FOR TWO AND A HALF TO FIVE YEARS
AND STAND COMMITTED UNTIL THIS SENTENCE BE COMPLIED WITH.  IF I COULD
GIVE YOU LIFE, I WOULD DO IT. 

"TAKE HIM AWAY." 

FN8  CF. PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334 U.S. 266, 292, AND CASES THERE
CITED. 

FN9  TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485, 487. 

FN10  RESPONDENT'S BRIEF STATES:  "THE ISSUE NOW TO BE DETERMINED IS
WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY CHARGED WITH THE OFFENSE, TRIED, CONVICTED AND
SENTENCED, UNDER THE LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, MORE PARTICULARLY THE PORTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT  ...  " 

FN11  SEE COMMONWEALTH EX REL. MCGLINN V. SMITH, 344 PA. 41, 24 A.2D
1; COMMONWEALTH EX REL. PENLAND V. ASHE, 341 PA. 337, 19 A.2D 464. 

FN12  UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, 335 U.S. 437, 441, AND CASES THERE
CITED. 

FN13  BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455; BUTE V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 640,
676; TOWNSEND V. BURKE, 334 U.S. 736, 739. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT.  THEY THINK THAT BETTS V. BRADY SHOULD BE OVERRULED.  IF
THAT CASE IS TO BE FOLLOWED, HOWEVER, THEY AGREE WITH THE COURT'S
OPINION INSOFAR AS IT HOLDS THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER
THE BETTS V. BRADY DOCTRINE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :















COSMOPOLITAN CO. V. MCALLISTER, 337 U.S. 783 


NO. 351.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1-2, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 169
F.2D 4, REVERSED. 


A GENERAL AGENT EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
WAR-TIME STANDARD FORM OF GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT TO MANAGE CERTAIN
PHASES OF THE BUSINESS OF A SHIP OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AND
OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION IS NOT LIABLE UNDER SEC. 33
OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920, KNOWN AS THE JONES ACT, TO A MEMBER
OF THE CREW OF THE SHIP WHO SUFFERED PHYSICAL INJURY THROUGH THE
NEGLIGENCE OF ITS MASTER AND OFFICERS, WHEN THE INJURY OCCURRED AFTER
MARCH 24, 1943, THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION ACT, KNOWN AS THE CLARIFICATION ACT.  PP. 785-801. 

1.  RATIONALE OF CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, 332 U.S. 155, FOLLOWED; HUST V.
MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707, OVERRULED.  PP. 787-794. 

(A)  THE OPINION IN THE HUST CASE MISCONCEIVED THE RULING OF BRADY V.
ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S. 575, WHICH DECIDED NO MORE, DIRECTLY OR BY
IMPLICATION, THAN THAT AN ACTION COULD BE MAINTAINED AGAINST AGENTS OF
THE UNITED STATES AT COMMON LAW FOR THE AGENTS' OWN TORTS AND DID NOT
INVOLVE THE RIGHT TO RECOVER AGAINST EMPLOYERS UNDER THE JONES ACT.  P.
789. 

(B)  NEITHER THE STATUTES RELATING TO SAILORS' RIGHTS NOR THE HISTORY
BEHIND THEIR ENACTMENT DISCLOSES ANY LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO CREATE IN
SEAMEN EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION A RIGHT TO ENFORCE TORT CLAIMS UNDER THE JONES ACT
AGAINST OTHERS THAN THEIR EMPLOYERS OR ANY RECOGNITION THAT SUCH RIGHT
EVER EXISTED.  PP. 789-790. 

(C)  A CONSTRUCTION OF THE JONES ACT CARRYING OUT THE INTENTION OF
CONGRESS TO GRANT CERTAIN NEW RIGHTS TO SEAMEN AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYERS
DOES NOT REQUIRE OR PERMIT A HOLDING THAT A GENERAL AGENT UNDER THE
STANDARD FORM OF WAR-TIME GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT IS AN EMPLOYER UNDER
THE JONES ACT.  PP. 790-791. 

(D)  NOTHING IN THE CLARIFICATION ACT OF MARCH 24, 1943, OR ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO DO ANYTHING
OTHER THAN TO EXTEND EXISTING RIGHTS OF MERCHANT SEAMEN TO ALL SEAMEN
EMPLOYED THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  PP. 791-793. 

2.  THE CONCLUSION HERE REACHED IS SUPPORTED BY A RE-EXAMINATION OF
THE TERMS OF THE PRESENT STANDARD SERVICE AGREEMENTS, THE ACTUAL
CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES THEREUNDER, AND THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE
AGREEMENTS.  PP. 794-801. 

(A)  AN EXAMINATION OF THE TERMS OF THE GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT AND
THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES THEREUNDER DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
UNITED STATES HAD RETAINED FOR THE ENTIRE VOYAGE THE POSSESSION,
MANAGEMENT, AND NAVIGATION OF THE VESSEL AND CONTROL OF THE SHIP'S
OFFICERS AND CREW TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE GENERAL AGENT.  PP. 795-796. 

(B)  THE DUTIES OF THE GENERAL AGENT WERE EXPRESSLY AND INTENTIONALLY
LIMITED TO THOSE OF A SHIP'S HUSBAND, WHO HAS BEEN ENGAGED TO TAKE CARE
OF THE SHORESIDE BUSINESS OF THE SHIP AND WHO HAS NO PART IN THE ACTUAL
MANAGEMENT OR NAVIGATION OF THE VESSEL.  P. 796. 

(C)  UNDER THE STANDARD SERVICE AGREEMENTS, THE SHORESIDE SERVICES
AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE MERCHANT FLEET WERE TO BE HANDLED BY EXISTING
PRIVATE COMPANIES WHILE THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE MASTER OF THE
SHIP, RETAINED FULL CONTROL OVER THE NAVIGATION AND PHYSICAL OPERATION
OF THE VESSEL.  PP. 796-798. 

COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO. V. MCALLISTER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

A MEMBER OF THE CREW OF A SHIP OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AND
OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION OBTAINED A JUDGMENT IN A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AGAINST A GENERAL AGENT EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED
STATES TO MANAGE CERTAIN PHASES OF THE SHIP'S BUSINESS, FOR INJURIES
SUSTAINED THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS MASTER AND OFFICERS.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  169 F.2D 4.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335
U.S. 870.  REVERSED, P. 801. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, LIKE HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707, AND
CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, 332 U.S. 155, PRESENTS QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE
LIABILITY FOR INJURY TO THIRD PERSONS OF A GENERAL AGENT WHO, UNDER THE
TERMS OF THE WARTIME STANDARD FORM OF AGENCY AGREEMENT, GAA 4-4-42,
FN1 MANAGES CERTAIN PHASES OF THE BUSINESS OF SHIPS OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES AND OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  MORE
SPECIFICALLY THE ISSUE RAISED BY THESE FACTS IS WHETHER SUCH A GENERAL
AGENT IS LIABLE UNDER SEC. 33 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920, KNOWN
AS THE JONES ACT, FN2  TO A MEMBER OF THE CREW WHO SUFFERED PHYSICAL
INJURY THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE MASTER AND OFFICERS OF SUCH A
VESSEL, WHEN THE INJURY OCCURRED AFTER MARCH 24, 1943, THE DATE OF
ENACTMENT OF THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION (CLARIFICATION) ACT.  FN3 

RESPONDENT WAS PROCURED FROM THE UNION HIRING HALL BY PETITIONER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE STANDARD AGREEMENT  FN4  AND MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE MASTER FOR EMPLOYMENT BY HIM.  THE MASTER IS
DESIGNATED BY THE CONTRACT AS AN AGENT AND EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED
STATES.  IN JULY OF 1945 RESPONDENT WAS SIGNED ON THE S.S. EDWARD B.
HAINES AT NEW YORK BY THE MASTER OF THAT VESSEL AS SECOND ASSISTANT
ENGINEER.  IN THE SPACE ON THE SHIPPING ARTICLES ENTITLED "OPERATING
COMPANY ON THIS VOYAGE" THERE WAS WRITTEN "COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO.,
INC., AS GENERAL AGENT FOR THE UNITED STATES."  THE ARTICLES WERE
STAMPED AT THE TOP AS FOLLOWS:  "YOU ARE BEING EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED
STATES."  FN5 

IN NOVEMBER, 1945, WHEN THE HAINES WAS ON VOYAGE AND EITHER IN PORT
OR OFF THE COAST OF CHINA, RESPONDENT CONTRACTED POLIOMYELITIS.  AT
THAT TIME THE MASTER EXERCISED "FULL CONTROL, RESPONSIBILITY AND
AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE NAVIGATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL"
AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 3A (D) OF THE CONTRACT.  SEE P. 796, INFRA. 
BECAUSE OF ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE MASTER AND OFFICERS IN FURNISHING
PROPER TREATMENT, HE SUFFERED PERMANENT INJURY FROM THE DISEASE. 
MCALLISTER SUED THE PETITIONER, COSMOPOLITAN, UNDER THE JONES ACT.  THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT COSMOPOLITAN "MANAGED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED"
THE HAINES UNDER A GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH ITS OWNER, THAT
MCALLISTER WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF COSMOPOLITAN, AND THAT HIS INJURIES
RESULTED FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF COSMOPOLITAN, "ITS AGENTS, SERVANTS,
AND EMPLOYEES" IN FAILING TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST A KNOWN
POLIOMYELITIS EPIDEMIC AND IN FAILING TO PROVIDE PROPER TREATMENT.  THE
ANSWER DENIED THESE ALLEGATIONS.  THE JURY FOUND A VERDICT FOR
RESPONDENT FOR $100,000. 

ON APPEAL THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED.  MCALLISTER V. COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO., 169 F.2D 4.  WHILE
RECOGNIZING THAT COSMOPOLITAN WAS "A SHIPPING COMPANY WHICH CONTRACTED
WITH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION TO ATTEND TO THE ACCOUNTING AND
CERTAIN OTHER SHORESIDE BUSINESS OF THE HAINES  ...  IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE STANDARD FORM OF GENERAL AGENCY SERVICE AGREEMENT," ID. AT P. 5,
THE COURT FELT ITSELF BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN HUST V.
MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, SUPRA.  IT RELIED UPON THE FACT THAT WE
EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED THE HUST CASE IN CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, SUPRA.
THE COURT OF APPEALS REACHED THIS CONCLUSION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
INJURY TO HUST OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE CLARIFICATION ACT, AND THE INJURY
HERE OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO THAT ACT.  IN ITS VIEW THE HUST CASE HELD,
AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT BEFORE THE CLARIFICATION ACT A SEAMAN UNDER
THE JONES ACT COULD RECOVER FOR A TORT AGAINST A SERVICE AGREEMENT
GENERAL AGENT, AS AN EMPLOYER.  THE COURT DID NOT PERCEIVE HOW THE
CLARIFICATION ACT CHANGED THIS LIABILITY.  169 F.2D 4, 8. 

                                  I. 

WE ARE IMPELLED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CLARIFICATION ACT AFFORDS
NO BASIS FOR DISTINGUISHING THE PRESENT CASE FROM THE HUST CASE AND
THAT THE REASONING IN THE LATER CALDAROLA CASE, WHICH WE ACCEPT AS
SOUND, CALLS FOR THE REJECTION OF THE BASIS OF THE HUST CASE.  THE HUST
CASE WENT ON THE THEORY THAT THE GENERAL AGENTS FOR THE UNITED STATES
UNDER THE SAME STANDARD SERVICE AGREEMENT WERE EMPLOYERS OF THE INJURED
SEAMAN, HUST, FOR THE PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER THE JONES ACT.  FN6
THE GENERAL AGENT WAS FOUND TO BE LIABLE TO THE SEAMAN BY TWO STEPS OF
REASONING:  FIRST, THAT THE OVERRULING OF FLEET CORPORATION V.
LUSTGARTEN, 280 U.S. 320, BY BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S. 575,
GAVE A SEAMAN A RIGHT TO SUE UNDER THE JONES ACT SUCH GENERAL AGENTS AS
WERE EMPLOYED UNDER CONTRACTS LIKE MOORE-MCCORMACK'S FOR TORTS
COMMITTED AGAINST SEAMEN BY MASTERS AND CREW, 328 U.S. 716-722; SECOND,
THAT ALTHOUGH "TECHNICALLY THE AGREEMENT MADE HUST AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
UNITED STATES," P. 723, THE "RULES OF PRIVATE AGENCY," P. 724, SHOULD
NOT BE APPLIED TO TAKE AWAY "PROTECTIONS" FROM SEAMEN.  SEE 332 U.S.
165-166.  FN7  THIS SECOND STEP WAS SAID TO FIND SUPPORT IN THE
ELECTION GIVEN TO SEAMEN BY SEC. 1 OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT TO PROCEED
UNDER THE NEW ACT FOR CLAIMS ARISING AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1941, AND BEFORE
THE ENACTMENT OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT, MARCH 24, 1943.  328 U.S. AT
725, ET SEQ. FN8 

AS TO THE FIRST CONCLUSION, WE THINK IT ARISES FROM A MISCONCEPTION
OF THE RULING OF THE BRADY CASE.  THE BRADY CASE DECIDED NO MORE,
DIRECTLY OR BY IMPLICATION, THAN THAT AN ACTION COULD BE MAINTAINED
AGAINST AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES AT COMMON LAW FOR THE AGENTS' OWN
TORTS.  THE CASE DID NOT INVOLVE THE RIGHT TO RECOVER AGAINST EMPLOYERS
UNDER THE JONES ACT.  BRADY WAS A CUSTOMS INSPECTOR SUING FOR INJURIES
SUSTAINED WHEN A SHIP'S LADDER BROKE.  THE OPINION SAID, 317 U.S. AT
577, "THE SOLE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT
MAKES PRIVATE OPERATORS SUCH AS RESPONDENT NONSUABLE FOR THEIR TORTS." 
FN9  CF. CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, 332 U.S. AT 159-160. 

AS TO THE SECOND CONCLUSION, WE ARE UNABLE TO PERCEIVE IN THE
STATUTES RELATING TO SAILORS' RIGHTS OR THE HISTORY BEHIND THEIR
ENACTMENT ANY LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO CREATE IN SEAMEN EMPLOYEES OF THE
UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION A RIGHT TO
ENFORCE TORT CLAIMS UNDER THE JONES ACT AGAINST OTHERS THAN THEIR
EMPLOYERS OR ANY RECOGNITION THAT SUCH RIGHT EVER EXISTED.  THE JONES
ACT WAS WELFARE LEGISLATION THAT CREATED NEW RIGHTS IN SEAMEN FOR
DAMAGES ARISING FROM MARITIME TORTS.  AS WELFARE LEGISLATION, THIS
STATUTE IS ENTITLED TO A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION TO ACCOMPLISH ITS
BENEFICENT PURPOSES.  COMPARE AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S.
724; AMERICAN STEVEDORES V. PORELLO, 330 U.S. 446.  IN CONSIDERING
SIMILAR LEGISLATION IN OTHER FIELDS, WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT THE PURPOSES OF SUCH ENACTMENTS SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED
BY COMMON-LAW CONCEPTS OF CONTROL SO AS TO BAR FROM WELFARE LEGISLATION
AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS PERSONS WHO WERE AS A MATTER OF ECONOMIC
REALITY A PART OF THE PROCESSES AND DEPENDENT UPON THE BUSINESSES TO
WHICH THEY RENDERED SERVICE.  FN10 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER A CONSTRUCTION OF THE JONES ACT
CARRYING OUT THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO GRANT THOSE NEW RIGHTS TO
SEAMEN AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYERS REQUIRES OR PERMITS A HOLDING THAT THE
GENERAL AGENT UNDER THE CONTRACT HERE IN QUESTION IS AN EMPLOYER UNDER
THE JONES ACT.  THE DECISION DEPENDS UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND COSMOPOLITAN ON ONE HAND AND THAT
BETWEEN COSMOPOLITAN AND THE UNITED STATES ON THE OTHER.  WE ASSUME,
WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE RULE OF THE HEARST CASE APPLIES, THAT IS,
THE WORD "EMPLOYMENT" SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE PROTECTION TO
SEAMEN FOR TORTS COMMITTED AGAINST THEM BY THOSE STANDING IN THE
PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER, AND THE RULES OF PRIVATE AGENCY SHOULD
NOT BE RIGOROUSLY APPLIED.  FN11  YET THIS COURT MAY NOT DISREGARD THE
PLAIN AND RATIONAL MEANING OF EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYER TO FURNISH A
SEAMAN A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ONE COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE BROADEST
LINES OR DEFINITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OR EMPLOYER.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT,
UNDER THE JONES ACT, ONLY ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION CAN BE SUED
AS EMPLOYER.  EITHER COSMOPOLITAN OR THE GOVERNMENT IS THAT EMPLOYER. 
FN12  THE SEAMAN'S SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS ARE THE SAME WHOEVER IS THE
EMPLOYER.  UNDER THE JONES ACT, HIS REMEDY PERMITS HIM TO DEMAND A JURY
TRIAL.  IF THE GOVERNMENT IS THE EMPLOYER, HIS REMEDY IS IN ADMIRALTY
WITHOUT A JURY.  SEE THE EXCERPT FROM THE HOUSE REPORT, P. 792, INFRA. 

IT WAS SAID IN HUST THAT THE ELECTION OF REMEDIES GRANTED SEAMEN
INJURED BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 1941, AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
CLARIFICATION ACT, MARCH 24, 1943, INDICATED THAT A SEAMAN HAD BROADER
RIGHTS BEFORE THE CLARIFICATION ACT THAN HE DID AFTER.  328 U.S. AT
725, PART III.  THE SUGGESTION WAS THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE
INTENDED TO RESTRICT SUITS AGAINST GENERAL AGENTS.  THIS STATEMENT
SPRINGS FROM THE COURT'S THEN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BRADY CASE, WHICH WE
HAVE HERETOFORE CONSIDERED.  THE REASON FOR THE ELECTION GIVEN BY THE
CLARIFICATION ACT WAS QUITE DIFFERENT.  IT WAS TO GIVE SEAMEN EMPLOYEES
OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION ON PUBLIC
VESSELS OR FOREIGN-FLAG VESSELS OR OTHERWISE AN ELECTION TO EMPLOY THE
MEANS FOR REDRESS THERETOFORE POSSESSED BY THEM, SUCH AS THOSE
MENTIONED IN SEC. 1 OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT, NOTE 8, SUPRA, OR TO
ENJOY THE SAME RIGHTS AS SIMILAR EMPLOYEES ON MERCHANT VESSELS.  FN13
NOTHING HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US FROM THE ACT OR FROM ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY INDICATIVE OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN
TO EXTEND EXISTING RIGHTS OF MERCHANT SEAMEN TO ALL SEAMEN EMPLOYED
THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY
DECLARED IN H.R. REP. NO. 107, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 21: 

"THE VARIOUS RIGHTS AND REMEDIES UNDER STATUTE AND GENERAL MARITIME
LAW WITH RESPECT TO DEATH, INJURY, ILLNESS, AND OTHER CASUALTY TO
SEAMEN, HAVE BEEN RATHER FULLY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE.  UNDER CLAUSE 2
OF SECTION 1(A) THESE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS WOULD BE GOVERNED BY EXISTING
LAW RELATING TO PRIVATELY EMPLOYED SEAMEN.  THE ONLY MODIFICATION
THEREOF ARISES FROM THE REMEDIAL PROVISION THAT THEY SHALL BE ENFORCED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  THIS
PROCEDURE IS APPROPRIATE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SUITS WILL BE
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN SUCH A SUIT NO
PROVISION IS MADE FOR A JURY TRIAL AS MAY OTHERWISE BE HAD IN A
PROCEEDING SUCH AS ONE UNDER THE JONES ACT FOR REASONS SET FORTH IN THE
LETTER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SEPTEMBER 14, 1942)." 

SEE S. REP. NO. 62, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 11-12; S. REP. NO.
1813, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 6; HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., ON H.R. 7424, P. 33. 

THE CALDAROLA CASE, 332 U.S. 155, UNDERMINED THE FOUNDATIONS OF
HUST.  SEE THE DISSENT THEREIN AT PP. 161-163.  CALDAROLA HELD THAT THE
GENERAL AGENTS UNDER THE STANDARD FORM CONTRACT WERE NOT IN POSSESSION
AND CONTROL OF THE VESSEL SO AS TO MAKE THEM LIABLE UNDER NEW YORK LAW
TO AN INVITEE FOR INJURIES ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE IN ITS MAINTENANCE. 
PP. 158-59.  OUR RULING WAS BASED ON "THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT
CONTRACT" AS "A MATTER OF FEDERAL CONCERN."  WE DO NOT THINK IT
CONSISTENT TO HOLD THAT THE GENERAL AGENT HAS ENOUGH "POSSESSION AND
CONTROL" TO BE AN EMPLOYER UNDER THE JONES ACT BUT NOT ENOUGH TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE UNDER NEW YORK LAW.  IT IS TRUE, AS
RESPONDENT ARGUES, THAT CALDAROLA DEALT ONLY WITH THE GENERAL AGENT'S
LIABILITY TO A STEVEDORE, AS OPPOSED TO A CREW MEMBER, UNDER THE LAW OF
NEW YORK.  WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT VICARIOUS LIABILITY TO ANYONE MUST
BE PREDICATED ON THE RELATION WHICH EXISTS UNDER THE STANDARD FORM
AGREEMENT AND THE SHIPPING ARTICLES BETWEEN THE GENERAL AGENT ON THE
ONE HAND AND THE MASTER AND CREW OF THE VESSEL ON THE OTHER.  CALDAROLA
HELD THAT THIS RELATION WAS NOT ONE WHICH INVOLVED THAT PROXIMITY
NECESSARY TO A FINDING OF LIABILITY IN THE GENERAL AGENT FOR THE TORTS
OF THE MASTER AND CREW.  WE PERCEIVE NO REASON WHY THE RATIONALE OF
THIS HOLDING DOES NOT APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE TO A SUIT UNDER THE JONES
ACT.  UNDER COMMON-LAW PRINCIPLES OF AGENCY SUCH A CONCLUSION IS
REQUIRED.  WE THINK IT EQUALLY COMPELLED EVEN IF WE ARE TO ADOPT, AS
THE COURT IN HUST SUGGESTED, THE PERHAPS LESS TECHNICAL AND MORE
SUBSTANTIAL TESTS PROPOUNDED IN LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322
U.S. 111. 

HUST WAS DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946; CALDAROLA JUNE 23, 1947.  CERTAINLY
FROM THE LATTER DATE, THE DANGER OF RELYING ON HUST WAS APPARENT TO THE
WORLD THOUGH IT MUST BE ADMITTED THERE WAS ENOUGH UNCERTAINTY IN THE
LAW PROPERLY TO GIVE CONCERN TO CONGRESS.  FN14  NOTWITHSTANDING THERE
MAY BE SOME UNDESIRABLE RESULTS IN OVERRULING HUST, SUCH AS LOSS OF
RIGHTS UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT BY RELIANCE ON HUST, WE THINK
THAT IN VIEW OF CALDAROLA, THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO REMEDIES THAT THE TWO
DECISIONS GENERATE, AND THE DESIRABILITY OF CLARIFYING THE POSITION OF
THE UNITED STATES AS AN EMPLOYER THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION, THAT CASE SHOULD BE AND IS OVERRULED. 
               II. 

A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PRESENT STANDARD SERVICE AGREEMENT WILL MAKE
CLEAR THE CONCLUSION SET OUT IN PART I OF THIS OPINION.  46 C.F.R. CUM.
SUPP. SEC. 306.44 ET SEQ. THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING
THE EMPLOYER UNDER SUCH A CONTRACT DEPENDS UPON DETERMINING WHOSE
ENTERPRISE THE OPERATION OF THE VESSEL WAS.  SUCH WORDS AS EMPLOYER,
AGENT, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ARE NOT DECISIVE.  NO SINGLE PHRASE CAN
BE SAID TO DETERMINE THE EMPLOYER.  ONE MUST LOOK AT THE VENTURE AS A
WHOLE.  WHOSE ORDERS CONTROLLED THE MASTER AND THE CREW?  WHOSE MONEY
PAID THEIR WAGES?  WHO HIRED THE CREW?  WHOSE INITIATIVE AND JUDGMENT
CHOSE THE ROUTE AND THE PORTS?  IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE BASIC
CONSIDERATIONS THAT ONE MUST READ THE CONTRACT.  NO EVIDENCE HAS COME
TO OUR ATTENTION THAT INDICATES THE GENERAL AGENT EVER UNDERTOOK TO
GIVE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS TO THE ROUTE OR MANAGEMENT OF THE SHIP
WHILE ON VOYAGE. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF
THE PARTIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, SO FAR AS SHOWN BY THE RECORD,
DEMONSTRATES THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD RETAINED FOR THE ENTIRE VOYAGE
THE POSSESSION, MANAGEMENT, AND NAVIGATION OF THE VESSEL AND CONTROL OF
THE SHIP'S OFFICERS AND CREW TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE GENERAL AGENT. 
UNDER THE GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT THE GENERAL AGENT IS APPOINTED BY
THE UNITED STATES "AS ITS AGENT AND NOT AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR,
TO MANAGE AND CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF VESSELS ASSIGNED TO IT."  ART. I.
THE GENERAL AGENT AGREES "TO MANAGE AND CONDUCT THE BUSINESS FOR THE
UNITED STATES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS, ORDERS, OR
REGULATIONS AS THE LATTER HAS PRESCRIBED, OR FROM TIME TO TIME MAY
PRESCRIBE."  ART. 2.  THE GENERAL AGENT ENGAGES ITSELF TO "MAINTAIN THE
VESSELS IN SUCH TRADE OR SERVICE AS THE UNITED STATES MAY DIRECT," TO
"COLLECT ALL MONEYS DUE THE UNITED STATES" UNDER THE AGREEMENT, TO
"EQUIP, VICTUAL, SUPPLY AND MAINTAIN THE VESSELS, SUBJECT TO SUCH
DIRECTIONS, ORDERS, REGULATIONS AND METHODS OF SUPERVISION AND
INSPECTION AS THE UNITED STATES MAY FROM TIME TO TIME PRESCRIBE," ART.
3A, TO "ARRANGE FOR THE REPAIR OF THE VESSELS" AND TO "EXERCISE
REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN MAKING INSPECTIONS AND OBTAINING INFORMATION
WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE OF REPAIR AND CONDITION OF THE VESSELS." 
ART. 14.  THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES IN ART. 3A (D) THAT: 

"(D)  THE GENERAL AGENT SHALL PROCURE THE MASTER OF THE VESSELS
OPERATED HEREUNDER, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
MASTER SHALL BE AN AGENT AND EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND SHALL
HAVE AND EXERCISE FULL CONTROL, RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY WITH
RESPECT TO THE NAVIGATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL.  THE GENERAL
AGENT SHALL PROCURE AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE MASTER FOR ENGAGEMENT BY
HIM THE OFFICERS AND MEN REQUIRED BY HIM TO FILL THE COMPLEMENT OF THE
VESSEL.  SUCH OFFICERS AND MEN SHALL BE PROCURED BY THE GENERAL AGENT
THROUGH THE USUAL CHANNELS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOMARY
PRACTICES OF COMMERCIAL OPERATORS AND UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PREVAILING IN THE PARTICULAR SERVICE OR SERVICES IN WHICH THE VESSELS
ARE TO BE OPERATED FROM TIME TO TIME.  THE OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE
CREW SHALL BE SUBJECT ONLY TO THE ORDERS OF THE MASTER.  ALL SUCH
PERSONS SHALL BE PAID IN THE CUSTOMARY MANNER WITH FUNDS BY THE UNITED
STATES HEREUNDER." 

IT IS THUS SEEN THAT THE DUTIES OF THE RESPONDENT WERE EXPRESSLY AND
INTENTIONALLY LIMITED TO THOSE OF A SHIP'S HUSBAND WHO HAS BEEN ENGAGED
TO TAKE CARE OF THE SHORESIDE BUSINESS OF THE SHIP AND WHO HAS NO PART
IN THE ACTUAL MANAGEMENT OR NAVIGATION OF THE VESSEL.  THIS VIEW IS
REINFORCED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION TO CONTROL "THE OPERATION, PURCHASE,
CHARTER, REQUISITION, AND USE OF ALL OCEAN VESSELS UNDER THE FLAG OR
CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN15  SECRECY, SPEED, AND EFFICIENCY OF
OPERATION WERE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE.  DIRECT GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION
OF THE MERCHANT FLEET INSURED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM REGULATION,
TAXATION, AND INSPECTION, BY OTHER SOVEREIGNTIES BOTH LOCAL AND
FOREIGN.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE SERVICES OF PRIVATE SHIPPING COMPANIES
COULD BE UTILIZED BECAUSE THEY POSSESSED PERSONNEL SKILLED IN THE
SHORESIDE BUSINESS OF A SHIP AND FAMILIAR WITH LOCAL PORT FACILITIES
AND CONDITIONS.  IN ADDITION THESE PRIVATE COMPANIES WERE FAVORABLY
SITUATED THROUGH THEIR UNION AND OTHER CONNECTIONS TO SECURE SEAMEN TO
MAN THE VESSELS.  AS A RESULT SERVICE AGREEMENTS WERE DESIGNED WHEREBY
THE SHORESIDE SERVICES AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE MERCHANT FLEET WERE TO
BE HANDLED BY EXISTING PRIVATE COMPANIES WHILE THE UNITED STATES,
THROUGH THE MASTER OF THE SHIP, RETAINED FULL CONTROL OVER THE
NAVIGATION AND PHYSICAL OPERATION OF THE VESSEL. 

TWO TYPES OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS WERE DRAFTED - THE GENERAL AGENCY
AGREEMENT, WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED, AND THE BERTH AGENCY
AGREEMENT.  FN16  THE GENERAL AGENT HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
HUSBANDING THE VESSEL AND HIS DUTIES ARE TO VICTUAL, SUPPLY, MAINTAIN,
AND REPAIR THE SHIP.  THE DUTIES OF THE BERTH AGENT RELATE PRIMARILY TO
THE HANDLING AND LOADING OF CARGO AND OTHER PORT SERVICES SUCH AS
WHARFAGE AND PILOTAGE NEEDED BY THE VESSEL.  IN FOREIGN PORTS THE BERTH
AGENT ALSO TAKES CARE OF THE HUSBANDING SERVICES.  THERE IS NECESSARILY
A CERTAIN OVERLAPPING OF DUTIES, BUT TO AVOID ANY CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY
BOTH THE GENERAL AGENT AND THE BERTH AGENT WERE MADE SUBJECT TO "SUCH
DIRECTIONS, ORDERS, OR REGULATIONS AS THE (UNITED STATES) HAS
PRESCRIBED, OR FROM TIME TO TIME MAY PRESCRIBE."  FN17  THIS DIVISION
OF DUTIES BETWEEN THE GENERAL AGENT AND THE BERTH AGENT EMPHASIZES THE
FACT THAT NEITHER THE POSSESSION NOR MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL WAS
CONFERRED ON EITHER OF THEM.  THERE COULD BE NO OCCASION FOR ANY
CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY WITH REGARD TO ORDERS RECEIVED BY THE MASTER AS
TO THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF THE SHIP, FOR HE WAS EXPRESSLY MADE, IN ART.
3A (D), THE AGENT AND EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES WITH "FULL CONTROL,
RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE NAVIGATION AND
MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL." 

EVEN THE DISCRETION VESTED IN THE AGENTS WAS DECREASED BY THE MASTER
CONTRACTS WHICH THE UNITED STATES EXECUTED FOR THE FURNISHING OF
NUMEROUS SERVICES AND SUPPLIES REQUIRED BY THE VESSELS.  FN18  THERE
WERE ALSO DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION AS TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS WHICH THE AGENTS WERE
AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO,  FN19  AND THESE CONTRACTS WERE REQUIRED TO
BE EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES AS PRINCIPAL.  FN20 

AT THE TIME OF THE WARTIME REQUISITION OF THE PRIVATELY OWNED
MERCHANT FLEET, THE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES CONCERNED GAVE
CAREFUL STUDY TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CREWS WERE TO BE EMPLOYEES
OF THE SHIPPING COMPANIES OR OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN21  THERE WERE
OUTSTANDING MANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PRIVATE
SHIPPING COMPANIES AND THE MARITIME UNIONS.  IT WAS MANIFESTLY
UNDESIRABLE TO DISTURB THESE EXISTING AGREEMENTS AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT
TO NEGOTIATE NEW ONES.  FN22  YET IT WAS ESSENTIAL THAT THE MASTERS AND
CREWS BE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO OBVIATE STRIKES AND WORK
STOPPAGES, TO INSURE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR THE VESSELS, AND TO
PRESERVE WARTIME SECRECY BY CONFINING ALL LITIGATION CONCERNING
OPERATION OF THE VESSELS TO THE ADMIRALTY COURTS WHERE APPROPRIATE
SECURITY PRECAUTIONS COULD BE OBSERVED.  THE SERVICE AGREEMENTS,
THEREFORE, PROVIDED THAT THE OFFICERS AND MEN TO FILL THE COMPLEMENT OF
THE VESSEL SHOULD BE PROCURED BY THE GENERAL AGENT THROUGH THE USUAL
CHANNELS UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CUSTOMARILY PREVAILING IN THE
SERVICES IN WHICH THE VESSELS WERE TO BE OPERATED.  FN23  THESE MEN,
HOWEVER, WERE TO BE HIRED BY THE MASTER OF THE SHIP AND WERE TO BE
SUBJECT TO HIS ORDERS ONLY.  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYING THE
OFFICERS, SO THE REGULATIONS SHOW, WAS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE
MASTER,  FN24  AND THE MEN SO HIRED BECAME EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED
STATES AND NOT OF THE GENERAL AGENT.  FN25 

PREVIOUSLY EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WERE ADHERED TO
SO THAT SEAMEN'S CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE DISRUPTED AS LITTLE
AS POSSIBLE BY THE CHANGE-OVER OCCASIONED BY GOVERNMENT REQUISITION OF
THE VESSELS.  SEE THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION'S OVER-ALL COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ARRANGEMENT WITH THE NINE PRINCIPAL MARITIME UNIONS, KNOWN
AS THE "STATEMENTS OF POLICY," WSA OPERATIONS REGULATIONS 1, MAY 25,
1942.  ALTHOUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION SEAMEN FELL WITHIN THE
EXCLUSION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE ADMINISTRATOR ARRANGED TO UTILIZE THE
FACILITIES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR THE DESIGNATION OF
BARGAINING UNITS, WHILE SPECIFICALLY RESERVING THE ADMINISTRATION'S
RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE BOARD'S ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OVER
PERSONNEL ABOARD WSA OPERATED VESSELS.  FN26  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, IN REPORTING THE CLARIFICATION ACT,
EXPRESSLY APPROVED OF THIS PRACTICAL SOLUTION OF THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROBLEM.  FN27  A SIMILAR PRACTICAL ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF THE WAR LABOR BOARD. 

THE SHIPPING ARTICLES SUMMARIZED ABOVE, PP. 785-786, COMPLIED WITH
THE TENOR OF THE GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT BY MAKING IT CLEAR THAT
RESPONDENT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN ORDER TO PAY THE
CREW AND THE OTHER EXPENSES INCIDENTAL TO THE OPERATION OF THE SHIP,
THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION DEPOSITED FUNDS IN A SPECIAL JOINT BANK
ACCOUNT SET UP IN THE NAME OF THE AGENT "AS GENERAL AGENT FOR THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION."  FROM THIS SPECIAL ACCOUNT THE GENERAL AGENT
DREW THE FUNDS AND TURNED THEM OVER TO THE MASTER TO PAY THE CREW.  NO
MONEY OF THE GENERAL AGENT WAS USED FOR THIS PURPOSE OR IN THE
OPERATION OF THE VESSEL. 

THUS THE CASES AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE
STANDARD FORM AGREEMENT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AN AGENT SUCH AS
COSMOPOLITAN, WHO CONTRACTS TO MANAGE CERTAIN SHORESIDE BUSINESS OF A
VESSEL OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, IS NOT LIABLE TO A
SEAMAN FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE MASTER OR CREW OF
SUCH A VESSEL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  46 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 306.44. 

FN2  41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688, WHICH PROVIDES IN PERTINENT
PART: 

"ANY SEAMAN WHO SHALL SUFFER PERSONAL INJURY IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT MAY, AT HIS ELECTION, MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AT LAW,
WITH THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, AND IN SUCH ACTION ALL STATUTES OF THE
UNITED STATES MODIFYING OR EXTENDING THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OR REMEDY IN
CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES SHALL APPLY; ...  " 

FN3  57 STAT. 45, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1291. 

FN4  SEE TEXT, P. 796, INFRA. 

FN5  UNDER 46 U.S.C. SECS. 564, 565, 713, THE CREWMAN SIGNS THE
SHIPPING ARTICLES IN THE PRESENCE OF A UNITED STATES SHIPPING
COMMISSIONER WHO CERTIFIES THAT THE CREWMAN FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE
CONTENTS OF THE INSTRUMENT. 

FN6  NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

AS SEC. 33 SHOWS ON ITS FACE, A SEAMAN HAS THE ADVANTAGES OF THE ACT
ONLY AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER.  PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375,
389; NOLAN V. GENERAL SEAFOODS CORP., 112 F.2D 515, 517; THE NORLAND,
101 F.2D 967; BAKER V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 57 F.SUPP.  207, 208;
EGGLESTON V. REPUBLIC STEEL CORP., 47 F.SUPP.  658, 659; GARDINER V.
AGWILINES, INC., 29 F.SUPP.  348. 

FN7  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT A CONCURRING OPINION ADDED TO THE
GROUNDS GIVEN IN THE COURT'S OPINION AN ARGUMENT THAT MOORE-MCCORMACK
WAS OWNER PRO HAC VICE.  328 U.S. 734.  THIS VIEW WAS AGAIN REJECTED IN
CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, 332 U.S. AT 159.  A CONTRACT SUCH AS THIS DOES NOT
GIVE "EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION, COMMAND, AND NAVIGATION OF THE VESSEL,"
REED V. UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  591, 600, AND THEREFORE FAILS TO GIVE
THE OPERATOR AN OWNER'S POWER.  LEARY V. UNITED STATES, 14 WALL.  607,
611; UNITED STATES V. SHEA, 152 U.S. 178, 186-89. 

FN8  57 STAT. 45, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1291: 

"(A)  OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF CREWS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS
'SEAMEN') EMPLOYED ON UNITED STATES OR FOREIGN FLAG VESSELS AS
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION
SHALL, WITH RESPECT TO (1) LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AS AMENDED BY SUBSECTION (B)(2)
AND (3) OF THIS SECTION; (2) DEATH, INJURIES, ILLNESS, MAINTENANCE AND
CURE, LOSS OF EFFECTS, DETENTION, OR REPATRIATION, OR CLAIMS ARISING
THEREFROM NOT COVERED BY THE FOREGOING CLAUSE (1); AND (3) COLLECTION
OF WAGES AND BONUSES AND MAKING OF ALLOTMENTS, HAVE ALL OF THE RIGHTS,
BENEFITS, EXEMPTIONS, PRIVILEGES, AND LIABILITIES, UNDER LAW APPLICABLE
TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYED AS SEAMEN ON PRIVATELY OWNED
AND OPERATED AMERICAN VESSELS.  SUCH SEAMEN, BECAUSE OF THE TEMPORARY
WARTIME CHARACTER OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT BY THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AS AMENDED; THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT, AS
AMENDED; THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED MARCH 7, 1942(PUBLIC LAW 490,
SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS); OR THE ACT ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO PROVIDE
BENEFITS FOR THE INJURY, DISABILITY, DEATH, OR DETENTION OF EMPLOYEES
OF CONTRACTORS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS OR
REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR', APPROVED DECEMBER 2, 1942(PUBLIC LAW 784,
SEVENTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS).  CLAIMS ARISING UNDER CLAUSE (1) HEREOF
SHALL BE ENFORCED IN THE SAME MANNER AS SUCH CLAIMS WOULD BE ENFORCED
IF THE SEAMAN WERE EMPLOYED ON A PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED AMERICAN
VESSEL.  ANY CLAIM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (2) OR (3) HEREOF SHALL, IF
ADMINISTRATIVELY DISALLOWED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BE ENFORCED PURSUANT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VESSEL ON WHICH THE SEAMAN IS EMPLOYED IS NOT A MERCHANT VESSEL WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SUCH ACT.  ANY CLAIM, RIGHT, OR CAUSE OF ACTION OF OR IN
RESPECT OF ANY SUCH SEAMAN ACCRUING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1941, AND
PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS SECTION MAY BE ENFORCED, AND
UPON THE ELECTION OF THE SEAMAN OR HIS SURVIVING DEPENDENT OR
BENEFICIARY, OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO DO SO SHALL BE GOVERNED, AS
IF THIS SECTION HAD BEEN IN EFFECT WHEN SUCH CLAIM, RIGHT, OR CAUSE OF
ACTION ACCRUED, SUCH ELECTION TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION.  RIGHTS OF ANY SEAMAN UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AS
AMENDED BY SUBSECTION (B)(2) AND (3), AND CLAIMS THEREFOR SHALL BE
GOVERNED SOLELY BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH ACT, SO AMENDED.  WHEN USED
IN THIS SUBSECTION THE TERM 'ADMINISTRATIVELY DISALLOWED' MEANS A
DENIAL OF A WRITTEN CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES OR REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  ...  " 

FN9  SEE THE DISCUSSION OF THE BRADY CASE AT 328 U.S. 745-47. 

FN10  NEWSBOYS, LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111,
120, 128-31; UNLOADERS OF COAL CARS, UNITED STATES V. SILK, 331 U.S.
704, 713; MEAT BONERS, RUTHERFORD FOOD CORP. V. MCCOMB, 331 U.S. 722. 

FN11  BUT COMPARE ROBINSON V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 237 U.S. 84,
94: 

"WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CONGRESS USED THE WORDS 'EMPLOYE' AND
'EMPLOYED' IN THE STATUTE IN THEIR NATURAL SENSE, AND INTENDED TO
DESCRIBE THE CONVENTIONAL RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE." 

HULL V. PHILADELPHIA & READING R. CO., 252 U.S. 475. 

FN12  IT IS MUCH THE SAME TYPE OF PROBLEM AS WAS PRESENTED IN BARTELS
V. BIRMINGHAM, 332 U.S. 126.  THERE WE CONCLUDED THAT THE LEADER AND
ORGANIZER OF A TRAVELING ORCHESTRA WAS THE EMPLOYER OF THE BAND MEMBERS
RATHER THAN THE VARIOUS DANCE HALL PROPRIETORS FOR WHOM THE ORCHESTRA
PERFORMED. 

FN13  FOR A FULL DISCUSSION SEE THE DISSENT IN HUST V. MOORE
MCCORMACK, 328 U.S. 707, 744, AND THE EXCERPTS FROM THE SENATE AND
HOUSE REPORTS, FOOTNOTES 9 AND 10. 

FOR THE BACKGROUND OF THE STATUTORY DISTINCTIONS DRAWN BETWEEN PUBLIC
VESSELS AND MERCHANT VESSELS, SEE CANADIAN AVIATOR, LTD. V. UNITED
STATES, 324 U.S. 215, 218-22; AMERICAN STEVEDORES V. PORELLO, 330 U.S.
446, 450-54. 

FN14  ALTHOUGH CONGRESS HAS NOT ENACTED LEGISLATION TO MAKE ENTIRELY
CLEAR THE REMEDIES OF W.S.A. SEAMEN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR
TORTS, THERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT TO DO SO.  H.R. 4873, 80TH CONG., 2D
SESS., SOUGHT TO DO SO BY AMENDING THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, SEC. 5,
41 STAT. 525, 526, SO AS TO MAKE THE REMEDY IN ADMIRALTY OF THAT ACT
EXCLUSIVE AS TO THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER SO AS TO PROTECT THE GENERAL
AGENT FROM SUITS SUCH AS HUST OR CALDAROLA.  THE BILL WAS PASSED BY THE
HOUSE JUNE 8, 1948, 94 CONG. REC. 7388-89, BUT WAS NOT PASSED BY THE
SENATE.  H.R. 483 AND 4051 OF THE 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS., TO THE SAME
EFFECT, ARE NOW PENDING.  IN H.R. REP. NO. 2060 ON H.R. 4873, 80TH
CONG., 2D SESS., THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SAID, P. 2: 

"THEN THE SUPREME COURT ON JUNE 23, 1947, HANDED DOWN ITS DECISION IN
CALDAROLA V. ECKERT (332 U.S. 155), WHICH CLARIFIED, IN THE OPINION OF
THE COMMITTEE, THE RULE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED SO AS TO MAKE IT PLAIN
THAT THE AGENT WHILE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS OWN EMPLOYEES WAS
NOT LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CIVIL-SERVICE MASTERS AND CREWS
WITH WHOM THE UNITED STATES MANNED THE VESSELS.  FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF
THOSE, THE UNITED STATES WAS THE ONLY RESPONSIBLE PARTY.  THE COMMITTEE
BELIEVES THAT LITIGANTS SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL
CONFUSION REGARDING THE PROPER REMEDY IN SUCH CASES, AND ARE NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDITIONS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE LACK OF CLARITY IN
THE OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.  LEGISLATIVE RELIEF IS REQUISITE NOT
ONLY TO SAVE TO LITIGANTS POSSESSING MERITORIOUS CLAIMS THEIR RIGHT TO
A DAY IN COURT, BUT ALSO TO SETTLE THE QUESTION OF REMEDY IN FUTURE
CASES." 

FN15  EXECUTIVE ORDER 9054 OF FEBRUARY 7, 1942, ISSUED UNDER THE
FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF DECEMBER 18, 1941, 55 STAT. 838.  3 C.F.R. CUM.
SUPP. 1086. 

FN16  PROMULGATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION,
IN GENERAL ORDER NO. 21, SEPT. 22, 1942, AND SUPP. 4 THERETO, DEC. 29,
1943.  7 FED. REG. 7561; 8 FED. REG. 17512. 

FN17  ARTICLE 2 OF THE GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT, FORM GAA 4-4-42, AND
ARTICLE 2 OF THE BERTH AGENCY AGREEMENT, FORM BA 12-29-43. 

FN18  EXAMPLES OF SUCH CONTRACTS ARE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD OF
CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, 332 U.S. 155, NO. 625, 1946 TERM. 

FN19  FOR EXAMPLE, SEE OPERATIONS REGULATIONS NOS. 27(TOWAGE
CONTRACTS); 84(DUTIES OF BERTH AGENTS, GENERAL AGENTS, AND AGENTS);
97(BUNKER OIL CONTRACTS); 99, SUPP. 1 AND 2(PILFERAGE). 

FN20  GENERAL ORDER NO. 42 OF THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, 9 F.R.
4110. 

FN21  SEE LETTER OF APRIL 28, 1947, FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
MARITIME COMMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 

FN22  SEE THE STATEMENTS OF POLICY OF MAY 4 AND MAY 12, 1942, ISSUED
BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION AND THE VARIOUS MARITIME UNIONS. 
WSA OPERATIONS REGULATION NO. 1. 

FN23  ARTICLE 3A (D) OF THE GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT, SET OUT IN TEXT
OF OPINION AT P. 796. 

FN24  OPERATIONS REGULATIONS NO. 15, DIRECTIVE NO. 2, ISSUED BY THE
WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION PROVIDED:  "THE MASTER OF A VESSEL HAS FULL
DISCRETION IN SIGNING ON CREW MEMBERS AND MAY REJECT ANY PERSON SEEKING
EMPLOYMENT  ...  RECORDS SHALL BE KEPT OF THE NAMES OF THOSE REJECTED
AND OF THE REASON FOR REJECTION AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PORT
OFFICE OF THE RECRUITMENT AND MANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION IN THE PORT IN WHICH THE REJECTION OCCURS." 

FN25  SEE RESTATEMENT, AGENCY, SEC. 79, COMMENT (A). 

FN26  SEE LETTER OF OCTOBER 20, 1942, FROM THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AND THE REPLY OF
OCTOBER 26, 1942, RECORD, PP. 43-51, IN NO. 360, FINK V. SHEPARD
STEAMSHIP CO., POST, P. 810. 

FN27  H.R. REP. NO. 107, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 23-24. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR.
JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENT. 
..END :
























WEADE V. DICHMANN CO., 337 U.S. 801 


NO. 179.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 168 F.2D
914, MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


1.  RESPONDENT WAS EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES AS A GENERAL AGENT
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE WAR-TIME STANDARD FORM OF GENERAL AGENCY
AGREEMENT TO MANAGE CERTAIN PHASES OF THE BUSINESS OF A SHIP OWNED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  BY
AN ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT, IT WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO ARRANGE FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS AS AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  CERTAIN
WOMEN PASSENGERS AND THE HUSBAND OF ONE OF THEM SUED RESPONDENT FOR
DAMAGES SUSTAINED THROUGH INJURIES TO THE WOMEN RESULTING FROM THE
WRONGFUL ACT OF A MEMBER OF THE SHIP'S CREW.  HELD:  RESPONDENT WAS NOT
LIABLE AS THE OWNER PRO HAC VICE, OR AS A COMMON CARRIER OPERATING THE
VESSEL, OR AS THE EMPLOYER OF THE MASTER OR CREW.  COSMOPOLITAN
SHIPPING CO. V. MCALLISTER, ANTE, P. 783.  PP. 802-809. 

2.  PERFORMANCE OF SUCH SHORESIDE DUTIES AS ISSUING TICKETS,
MAINTAINING THE VESSEL IN THE SERVICE DIRECTED BY THE UNITED STATES,
MAINTAINING TERMINALS AND OFFICES, ARRANGING FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING
PASSENGERS, ARRANGING FOR ADVERTISING, PROVISIONING THE SHIP, AND
PROCURING OFFICERS AND CREW FOR HIRE BY THE MASTER, ALL AS AGENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, DID NOT MAKE THE GENERAL AGENT LIABLE AS A COMMON
CARRIER TO THE PUBLIC OR ANYONE.  PP. 805-808. 

3.  PETITIONERS ARGUED HERE THAT RESPONDENT AS AN AGENT IS
INDEPENDENTLY LIABLE FOR ITS NEGLIGENCE IN PROCURING UNSUITABLE CREW
MEMBERS; BUT THIS THEORY OF LIABILITY WAS NOT RELIED UPON AT THE TRIAL,
INSTRUCTIONS UPON THE POINT WERE NOT GIVEN OR REQUESTED, AND NO
EXCEPTIONS WERE TAKEN BY PETITIONER TO THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN.  HELD:
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ERROR CANNOT BE URGED HERE AS TO THIS POINT. 
P. 808. 

4.  THERE BEING SUGGESTIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED
LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENT'S OWN NEGLIGENCE
WHILE ACTING AS GENERAL AGENT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH REVERSED THE
TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS, ERRED IN DIRECTING THE TRIAL
COURT TO ENTER A JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  PP. 808-809. 

5.  NO OPINION IS EXPRESSED AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
RESPONDENT MIGHT BE LIABLE FOR ITS OWN ACTIONS AS GENERAL AGENT.  P.
809. 

WEADE ET AL. V. DICHMANN, WRIGHT & PUGH, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT GAVE A JUDGMENT TO CERTAIN PASSENGERS AND
THE HUSBAND OF ONE OF THEM AGAINST A GENERAL AGENT EMPLOYED BY THE
UNITED STATES TO MANAGE CERTAIN PHASES OF THE BUSINESS OF A SHIP OWNED
BY THE UNITED STATES AND OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION,
FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE WRONGFUL CONDUCT OF A MEMBER
OF THE SHIP'S CREW.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  168 F.2D 914. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 810.  MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED,
P. 809. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON AUGUST 3, 1945, AT OLD POINT COMFORT, VIRGINIA, PETITIONERS, MRS.
LILLIAN A. WEADE AND MRS. ROBERTA L. STINEMEYER, PURCHASED TICKETS AND
EMBARKED AS PASSENGERS ON THE METEOR, A STEAMBOAT OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATING BETWEEN
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON, D.C.  THE LADIES RETIRED TO THEIR
STATEROOM ABOUT 11:00 P.M. AND BECAUSE OF THE WARM WEATHER OPENED BOTH
THE GLASS AND THE SHUTTER OF THE WINDOW WHICH FACED ONTO THE BOAT
DECK.  DURING THE NIGHT THE SECOND COOK OF THE METEOR ENTERED THE
STATEROOM THROUGH THE OPEN WINDOW AND RAPED MRS. WEADE, WHO WAS
SLEEPING IN THE LOWER BERTH.  MRS. STINEMEYER SUFFERED FRIGHT AND SHOCK
FROM WITNESSING THIS ATROCITY.  THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY TRIED, CONVICTED, AND EXECUTED. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE LIABILITY OF A GENERAL AGENT TO PASSENGERS
UNDER A CONTRACT SIMILAR TO THAT DISCUSSED IN COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO.
V. MCALLISTER, ANTE, P. 783, DECIDED THIS DAY.  THE AGENCY AGREEMENT
COVERED PASSENGER BOATS THROUGH AN ADDENDUM TO THE CONTRACT PROVIDING
FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES BY THE GENERAL AGENT.  FN1 

PETITIONERS, LILLIAN A. WEADE AND HER HUSBAND, INSTITUTED A CIVIL
ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST RESPONDENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.  THE HUSBAND ALLEGED AS HIS
DAMAGES LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AND THE EXPENSES OF THE HOSPITALIZATION OF
HIS WIFE.  PETITIONER MRS. STINEMEYER BROUGHT A SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION
FOR HER DAMAGES IN THE SAME COURT.  JURISDICTION IN BOTH ACTIONS WAS
BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THE TWO CIVIL ACTIONS WERE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL.  IN ADDITION MRS. WEADE FILED A LIBEL IN
ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WHICH ACTION HAS BEEN CONTINUED
PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. 

THE COMPLAINT OF MR. AND MRS. WEADE ALLEGED, SO FAR AS NOW IMPORTANT,
THAT THE STEAMBOAT WAS OPERATED AS A COMMON CARRIER BY RESPONDENT AND
THAT PETITIONERS WERE INJURED THROUGH THE FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR ITS PASSENGERS FROM THE PERSONAL
MISCONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND THROUGH THE FAILURE TO USE DUE CARE IN
THE SELECTION OF RELIABLE, CAREFUL, AND COMPETENT EMPLOYEES.  THE
COMPLAINT OF MRS. STINEMEYER IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS TO THE
SPECIFICATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE, THOUGH IT DID NOT ASSERT THAT RESPONDENT
ITSELF WAS A COMMON CARRIER, BUT DID ALLEGE THAT THE INJURY OCCURRED
THROUGH THE ACT OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES.  THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER
DENIED THAT THE VESSEL WAS OPERATED BY IT AS A COMMON CARRIER AND THAT
THE MASTER AND CREW OF THE VESSEL WERE ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE ANSWER
FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE VESSEL WAS OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION, AND THAT RESPONDENT ONLY PERFORMED CERTAIN SERVICES FOR
THE OWNER OF THE SHIP AS GENERAL AGENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD
SERVICE AGREEMENT. 

THE JURY AS TRIERS OF FACT IN THIS CIVIL PROCEEDING WERE INSTRUCTED
AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE CONTRACT RESPONDENT WAS THE
ACTUAL OPERATOR OF THE VESSEL AS A COMMON CARRIER OWING THE HIGHEST
DEGREE OF CARE TO ITS PASSENGERS.  THE TRIAL JUDGE FURTHER CHARGED
THAT, AS A COMMON CARRIER, THIS DUTY TO EXERCISE THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF
CARE EXTENDED TO ALL ACTS OF THE CARRIER AND INCLUDED THE PROVIDING OF
SAFE ACCOMMODATIONS AND PROTECTION FOR PASSENGERS, THE PROVIDING OF A
SUITABLE NUMBER OF WATCHMEN, AND THE SELECTION OF COMPETENT, CAREFUL,
AND SOBER EMPLOYEES.  THE JURY RETURNED VERDICTS FOR PETITIONERS, AND
THE TRIAL JUDGE DENIED THE MOTION OF THE RESPONDENT FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, STATING AS HIS REASON THEREFOR:  "WHILE
THE CASE OF HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, INCORPORATED, 328 U.S. 707,
IS NOT PRECISELY IN POINT, IT IS MY VIEW THAT IT IS CONTROLLING SO FAR
AS THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT IS CONCERNED."  ON APPEAL THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT REVERSED AND HELD THAT UNDER
CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, 332 U.S. 155, RESPONDENT WAS NOT THE OWNER PRO HAC
VICE IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE VESSEL AND THUS COULD NOT BE
LIABLE AS A COMMON CARRIER FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PASSENGERS.  DICHMANN,
WRIGHT & PUGH V. WEADE, 168 F.2D 914. 

UNDER OUR HOLDING TODAY IN NO. 351, COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO. V.
MCALLISTER, ANTE, P. 783, THE INSTRUCTIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE WERE
ERRONEOUS.  RESPONDENT WAS NOT THE OWNER PRO HAC VICE, WAS NOT A COMMON
CARRIER OPERATING THE VESSEL, AND WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF THE MASTER OR
CREW.  THE TRIAL OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDING REVOLVED AROUND THESE
QUESTIONS AND DID NOT CONCERN THE PROBLEM OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF
RESPONDENT OR OF ITS OWN AGENTS IN HANDLING THE SHIP OR CREW ON VOYAGE
AS AN AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN EMPLOYER OF
THE MASTER AND CREW OR OWNER PRO HAC VICE. 

PETITIONERS URGE IN POINT 3 OF THEIR BRIEF AS A GROUND FOR UPHOLDING
THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT RESPONDENT, BECAUSE OF THE DUTIES
IMPOSED UPON IT BY THE GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT, WAS LIABLE AS A COMMON
CARRIER AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC WAS CONCERNED.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS
CONTENTION THEY POINT TO THE DUTIES OF THE GENERAL AGENT TO ISSUE
TICKETS, MAINTAIN THE VESSEL IN THE SERVICE DIRECTED BY THE UNITED
STATES, MAINTAIN TERMINALS AND OFFICES, ARRANGE FOR THE LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF PASSENGERS, ARRANGE FOR ADVERTISING, PROVISION THE SHIP,
AND PROCURE OFFICERS AND CREW FOR HIRE BY THE MASTER.  THE PERFORMANCE
OF SUCH SHORESIDE DUTIES, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MAKE THE AGENT LIABLE AS A
COMMON CARRIER TO THE PUBLIC OR ANYONE.  FN2 

AT THE INSISTENCE OF THE NAVY, THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION IN
1945 INSTITUTED A NIGHTLY SERVICE OF TWO STEAMBOATS BETWEEN NORFOLK AND
WASHINGTON.  THE NAME GIVEN TO THIS SERVICE WAS THE WASHINGTON-HAMPTON
ROADS LINE, AND THE METEOR WAS ONE OF THE TWO VESSELS EMPLOYED
THEREIN.  THESE TWO VESSELS WERE ASSIGNED TO RESPONDENT AS GENERAL
AGENT BY A PASSENGER ADDENDUM TO THE STANDARD GAA 4-4-42 AGREEMENT,
FN3  UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT HAD BEEN GENERAL AGENT FOR SOME TWENTY
CARGO VESSELS.  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT, UNDER ARTICLE 3A (F) OF THE
ADDENDUM, THE GENERAL AGENT WAS TO ARRANGE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS AND TO ISSUE TICKETS FOR THIS PURPOSE.  THE TICKET, WHICH IS
SET OUT IN THE MARGIN,  FN4  BEARS THE EXPRESS NOTATION THAT THE
STEAMBOAT LINE WAS "OPERATED BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION," AND THAT RESPONDENT WAS SERVING IN THE CAPACITY OF AN
AGENT. 

RESPONDENT'S DUTIES WERE TO SERVICE THE SHIPS AND TO "ARRANGE FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION" OF PASSENGERS ON THEM.  THE DUTY OF A COMMON CARRIER,
ON THE OTHER HAND, IS TO TRANSPORT FOR HIRE WHOEVER EMPLOYS IT.  FN5
HERE THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR THE ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION TO BE CARRIED
OUT BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  THE RESPONDENT'S DUTIES ENDED
AT THE SHORE LINE.  COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO. V. MCALLISTER, SUPRA.
THE CASES CITED BY PETITIONER HOLDING A TRANSPORTATION AGENT LIABLE AS
A COMMON CARRIER INVOLVE SITUATIONS WHERE THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT OF GOODS
OR PASSENGERS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE AGENT.  FN6  UNDER THE CONTRACT
RESPONDENT HERE WAS NOT IN ANY WAY ENGAGED IN THE CARRIAGE OF
PASSENGERS BETWEEN NORFOLK AND WASHINGTON AND HAD NEVER HELD ITSELF OUT
TO THE PUBLIC AS READY TO ENGAGE IN SUCH TRAFFIC.  AS A MERE ARRANGER
OF TRANSPORTATION IT DOES NOT INCUR THE LIABILITY OF A COMMON CARRIER. 

APART FROM THEIR RELIANCE UPON RESPONDENT'S CONTROL OF THE VESSEL ON
VOYAGE UNDER THE AGENCY CONTRACT, PETITIONERS FURTHER ARGUE THAT
RESPONDENT AS AN AGENT IS INDEPENDENTLY LIABLE FOR ITS NEGLIGENCE IN
PROCURING UNSUITABLE CREW MEMBERS.  THIS THEORY OF LIABILITY WAS NOT
RELIED UPON AT THE TRIAL.  INSTRUCTIONS UPON THE POINT WERE NOT GIVEN
OR REQUESTED.  THE COURT DID CHARGE THAT AS PRINCIPAL AND OPERATOR OF
THE VESSEL THE RESPONDENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY TORT COMMITTED BY THE
STEAMSHIP PERSONNEL AND AS A COMMON CARRIER WAS UNDER THE DUTY TO
EXERCISE THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CARE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PASSENGERS
INCLUDING THE SELECTION OF PERSONNEL.  IT WAS UPON THE BASIS OF
RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY AS COMMON CARRIER THAT PETITIONERS DEVELOPED
THEIR CAUSES OF ACTION, AND UPON THAT THEORY THE JURY, UNDER THE
INSTRUCTIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, RETURNED A VERDICT IN THEIR FAVOR.  AT
THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S CHARGE, COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
STATED, "IF YOUR HONOR PLEASE, WE HAVE NO EXCEPTIONS."  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, ERROR CANNOT BE URGED AS TO THIS POINT.  SEE RULE 8(1),
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; RULE 51 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE; UNITED STATES V. ATKINSON, 297 U.S. 157. 

BY THE DECISION BELOW, THE TRIAL COURT WAS DIRECTED TO ENTER A
JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT, WHICH HAD FILED A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  AS THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS IN THE
COMPLAINT AND EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT TO
PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENT'S OWN NEGLIGENCE WHILE ACTING AS GENERAL
AGENT, THIS DIRECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN.  SEE BRADY V.
ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S. 575.  FN7  THE DECISION IS MODIFIED SO AS
TO ELIMINATE THE DIRECTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT.  FN8 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT FIX LIABILITY
UPON THE RESPONDENT FOR ITS OWN ACTIONS AS GENERAL AGENT.  AFFIRMED AS
MODIFIED. 

FN1  SEE NOTE 3, INFRA, AND 46 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 306.44. 

FN2  SEE COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO. V. MCALLISTER, ANTE, P. 783. 

FN3  "WHEREAS, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (HEREIN CALLED THE
'UNITED STATES') ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION, AND DICHMANN, WRIGHT & PUGH, INC. (HEREIN CALLED THE
'GENERAL AGENT') ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT (CONTRACT WSA-4098) DATED
JANUARY 9, 1943(HEREIN CALLED THE 'SERVICE AGREEMENT') WHEREBY THE
UNITED STATES APPOINTED THE GENERAL AGENT AS ITS AGENT TO MANAGE AND
CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF CARGO VESSELS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE UNITED
STATES; AND 

"WHEREAS, IT IS DESIRABLE TO HAVE AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE BOTH CARGO
VESSELS AND PASSENGER VESSELS OPERATED UNDER THE UNIFORM PROVISIONS OF
ONE AGREEMENT. 

"NOW, THEREFORE: 

"THE UNITED STATES AND THE GENERAL AGENT AGREE THAT PASSENGER VESSELS
HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ALLOCATED TO THE GENERAL AGENT TO CONDUCT THE
BUSINESS OF THE VESSELS AS AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE GOVERNED
BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 1.  ARTICLE 3A OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT IS HEREBY AMENDED BY
ADDING A PROVISION FOLLOWING SUBSECTION (E) THEREOF AS FOLLOWS: 

"'(F) SHALL ARRANGE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS WHEN SO
DIRECTED, AND ISSUE OR CAUSE TO BE ISSUED TO SUCH PASSENGERS CUSTOMARY
PASSENGER TICKETS.  AFTER A UNIFORM PASSENGER TICKET SHALL HAVE BEEN
ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES, SUCH PASSENGER TICKET SHALL BE USED IN
ALL CASES AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER RECEIPT THEREOF BY THE GENERAL
AGENT.  PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH UNIFORM PASSENGER TICKET, THE
GENERAL AGENT MAY CONTINUE TO USE ITS CUSTOMARY FORM OF PASSENGER
TICKET.' 

"SECTION 2.  THE VESSELS TO WHICH THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WILL APPLY BY
OPERATION OF THIS PART II, ARE AS LISTED ON EXHIBIT B ATTACHED HERETO
AND MADE A PART HEREOF, AND SUCH ADDITIONAL VESSELS AS MAY FROM TIME TO
TIME BE ASSIGNED TO THE GENERAL AGENT BY LETTER AGREEMENT. 

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF  ...  " 

FN4

        "ISSUED BY

                    "WASHINGTON-HAMPTON ROADS LINE 

"OPERATED BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION

                       "ONE FIRST CLASS PASSAGE

         "NORFOLK, OR OLD POINT COMFORT VA. TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

           "SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONTRACT: 

"THIS TICKET IS VOID UNLESS OFFICIALLY STAMPED AND DATED. 

"BAGGAGE VALUATION IS LIMITED TO $100 FOR AND ADULT AND $50 FOR A
CHILD, UNLESS PURCHASER HEREOF DECLARES A GREATER VALUATION AT TIME
BAGGAGE IS PRESENTED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND PAYS EXCESS VALUATION
CHARGES ACCORDING TO TARIFF RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS. 

"THE COMPANY WILL UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY
MONEYS OR VALUABLES UNLESS DEPOSITED WITH THE PURSER ON STEAMER, NOR
WILL THEY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY BAGGAGE UNLESS PROPERLY CHECKED. 

"THIS TICKET IS LIMITED FOR PASSAGE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM DATE OF
SALE STAMPED ON BACK. 

"DICHMANN, WRIGHT & PUGH, INC., AGENT. 

"I. S. WALKER, GEN. PASSENGER AGENT." 

FN5  NIAGARA V. CORDES, 21 HOW.  7, 22; WASHINGTON EX REL. STIMSON
LUMBER CO. V. KUYKENDALL, 275 U.S. 207, 211; UNITED STATES V. BROOKLYN
EASTERN DISTRICT TERMINAL, 249 U.S. 296, 305-306.  CF. LEHIGH VALLEY R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 444; I.C.C. V. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA &
WESTERN R. CO., 220 U.S. 235. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. BROOKLYN TERMINAL, 249 U.S. 296; UNION STOCK
YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 213. 

FN7  SEE 2 RESTATEMENT, AGENCY SEC. 358. 

FN8  GLOBE LIQUOR CO. V. SAN ROMAN, 332 U.S. 571; CONE V. WEST
VIRGINIA PAPER CO., 330 U.S. 212. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR.
JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENT. 
..END :














FINK V. SHEPARD S.S. CO., 337 U.S. 810 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 183 ORE.  373, 192
P.2D 258, AFFIRMED.  - 169 F.2D 612, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A GENERAL AGENT EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TERMS OF
THE WAR-TIME STANDARD FORM OF GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT TO MANAGE
CERTAIN PHASES OF THE BUSINESS OF A SHIP OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AND
OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION IS NOT LIABLE UNDER SEC. 33
OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920, KNOWN AS THE JONES ACT, TO A MEMBER
OF THE CREW OF THE SHIP WHO SUFFERED PHYSICAL INJURY THROUGH THE
NEGLIGENCE OF ITS MASTER AND OFFICERS, WHEN THE INJURY OCCURRED AFTER
MARCH 24, 1943, THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION ACT, KNOWN AS THE CLARIFICATION ACT.  COSMOPOLITAN
SHIPPING CO. V. MCALLISTER, ANTE, P. 783.  PP. 811-813. 

2.  NOR IS SUCH A GENERAL AGENT LIABLE TO A MEMBER OF THE CREW FOR
WAGES AND MAINTENANCE AND CURE, WHICH ARE INCIDENTS OF THE EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  PP. 813-815. 

3.  A DELIVERY CERTIFICATE RECITING THAT A SHIP WAS "DELIVERED" TO A
GENERAL AGENT "UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF" THE STANDARD GENERAL
AGENCY AGREEMENT ADDS NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE TO THAT AGREEMENT AND
DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE GENERAL AGENT WAS IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF
THE SHIP.  PP. 815-816. 

FINK V. SHEPARD STEAMSHIP CO. 

NO. 360.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 430, GAYNOR V. AGWILINES, INC., ON CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

NO. 360.  A MEMBER OF THE CREW OF A SHIP OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES
AND OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION OBTAINED A JUDGMENT IN
AN OREGON CIRCUIT COURT AGAINST A GENERAL AGENT EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED
STATES TO MANAGE CERTAIN PHASES OF THE SHIP'S BUSINESS, FOR INJURIES
SUSTAINED THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS MASTER AND OFFICERS.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF OREGON REVERSED, 183 ORE.  373, 192 P.2D 258, AND
DENIED A REHEARING, 183 ORE.  373, 193 P.2D 537.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 870.  AFFIRMED, P. 816. 

NO. 430.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN ACTION FOR WAGES AND
MAINTENANCE AND CURE BY A MEMBER OF THE CREW OF A SHIP OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES AND OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION AGAINST A
GENERAL AGENT EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES TO MANAGE CERTAIN PHASES OF
THE SHIP'S BUSINESS, 76 F.SUPP.  617.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
169 F.2D 612.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 870.  AFFIRMED,
P. 816. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE TWO CASES RAISE ISSUES WHICH, AS THE FACTS SET OUT BELOW
INDICATE, ARE CONTROLLED BY OUR DECISION IN COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO.
V. MCALLISTER, ANTE, P. 783, DECIDED THIS DAY. 

THE PETITIONER, FINK, SIGNED ON THE S. S. GEORGE DAVIDSON ON JUNE 8,
1943, AS AN ABLE SEAMAN.  THE SHIPPING ARTICLES SHOWED AS THE
"REGISTERED MANAGING OWNER OR MANAGER" THE "WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION
(OWNER) SHEPARD STEAMSHIP CO. (GEN. AGENTS)."  THE CONTRACT PURSUANT TO
WHICH RESPONDENT, SHEPARD STEAMSHIP CO., HANDLED CERTAIN PHASES OF THE
SHIP'S BUSINESS WAS THE STANDARD FORM GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT, GAA 4-4
42.  PETITIONER WAS PROCURED BY RESPONDENT FROM A UNION HIRING HALL FOR
EMPLOYMENT BY THE MASTER OF THE VESSEL. 

IN AUGUST, 1943, WHILE THE SHIP WAS AT SEA, FINK WAS ORDERED BY THE
MASTER AND BOATSWAIN TO EMPTY A GARBAGE CAN OVERBOARD.  NO ONE WAS
ASSIGNED TO HELP HIM ALTHOUGH THE CAN WAS HEAVY, THE RAIL HIGH AND THE
SEA ROUGH.  THE ROLL OF THE SHIP CAUSED THE CAN TO BE THROWN BACKWARDS
AGAINST PETITIONER, INJURING HIM. 

PETITIONER INSTITUTED THIS ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST RESPONDENT
UNDER THE JONES ACT  FN1  IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF OREGON, ALLEGING THAT
RESPONDENT WAS "IN POSSESSION OF, CONTROLLED, NAVIGATED, MANAGED AND
OPERATED" THE DAVIDSON AND WAS NEGLIGENT IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO DUMP
THE GARBAGE IN A HEAVY SEA WITHOUT ASSISTANCE.  FN2  RESPONDENT DENIED
ALL THESE ALLEGATIONS.  THE JURY WAS CHARGED THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE
SHIP WERE AGENTS OF RESPONDENT AND THAT THEIR NEGLIGENCE, IF ANY,
SHOULD BE IMPUTED TO RESPONDENT.  JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON A JURY
VERDICT FOR PETITIONER.  THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON REVERSED, FINK V.
SHEPARD S.S. CO., 183 ORE.  373, 192 P.2D 258, HOLDING THAT THE REMEDY
FOR AN INJURY CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP'S OFFICERS ON A
GOVERNMENT-OPERATED VESSEL SUCH AS THIS, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ENACTMENT OF
THE CLARIFICATION ACT, WAS EXCLUSIVELY BY SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  IT THUS DISTINGUISHED HUST V.
MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707, ON THE GROUND THAT THERE THE
INJURY OCCURRED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT. 
FN3  A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED AND THE CASE SET FOR
ARGUMENT ALONG WITH COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO. V. MCALLISTER, SUPRA. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT IN MCALLISTER, I.E., WHETHER
THE GENERAL AGENT OF A VESSEL OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND OPERATED BY
THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION IS LIABLE UNDER THE JONES ACT TO A
SEAMAN WHO IS INJURED AT SEA AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE
CLARIFICATION ACT BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OFFICER OF THE VESSEL.  THE
REASONS AND ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING OUR NEGATIVE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION
IN MCALLISTER ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE.  NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED
BY REPEATING THEM. 

WE DESIRE TO POINT OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THE TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE
CONFIRMS THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH WE HAVE DRAWN FROM A STUDY OF THE
STANDARD FORM GENERAL AGENCY AGREEMENT.  IT ESTABLISHES THAT RESPONDENT
WAS NEITHER THE EMPLOYER OF OFFICERS ON VESSELS SUCH AS THE DAVIDSON
NOR A PARTY TO SUCH A RELATION WITH THEM THAT IT COULD BE HELD
VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THEIR TORTS.  IT SHOWS THAT SUCH OFFICERS WERE
REQUIRED TO FILL OUT AN APPLICATION FORM FOR EMPLOYMENT CAPTIONED "WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF OPERATIONS, SERVICE RECORD." 
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THESE APPLICATIONS BY THE W.S.A. MADE THE
APPLICANTS EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES.  THEREAFTER, TRANSFER TO
OTHER W.S.A. VESSELS FOR WHICH DIFFERENT COMPANIES WERE GENERAL AGENTS
COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY FURNISHING TO W.S.A. A TRANSFER FORM.  NO NEW
APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT WAS REQUIRED.  IT SHOWS THAT THE GENERAL
AGENT HAD NO VOICE IN DETERMINING THE DESTINATION OR ROUTE OF THE
VESSEL, IN WHAT SERVICE IT WOULD BE OPERATED, OR HOW IT WOULD BE
HANDLED IN FOREIGN PORTS.  THE SOLICITING AND LOADING OF CARGO AND THE
COLLECTION OF FREIGHT WERE FUNCTIONS OF THE BERTH AGENTS. 

PETITIONER GAYNOR SIGNED SHIPPING ARTICLES IN 1945 AS A MEMBER OF THE
CREW OF THE S.S. CHRISTOPHER GADSDEN, A VESSEL WHICH WAS OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES AND OPERATED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  THE
ARTICLES REFERRED TO "AGWILINES, INC., AS GEN. AGTS.  FOR WSA," AND
ALSO STATED, "  ...  THE MASTER, OFFICERS, AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
CREW ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
(THE CLARIFICATION ACT, 57 STAT. 45, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1291), AND ARE
NOT EMPLOYEES OF AGWILINES, INC."  RESPONDENT AGWILINES WAS THE GENERAL
AGENT FOR THE SHIP UNDER STANDARD FORM CONTRACT GAA 4-4-42.  THE
GADSDEN DEPARTED FROM PHILADELPHIA ON A FOREIGN VOYAGE AND STOPPED EN
ROUTE AT CHARLESTON WHERE, WHILE ON AUTHORIZED SHORE LEAVE, PETITIONER
WAS INJURED IN A HIGHWAY ACCIDENT.  NEITHER THE SHIP, THE GENERAL
AGENT, NOR THE W.S.A. WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN THE
ACCIDENT. 

PETITIONER SUED RESPONDENT FOR WAGES AND MAINTENANCE AND CURE,
ALLEGING THAT RESPONDENT "POSSESSED, OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED"
THE VESSEL.  AGWILINES DENIED THESE ALLEGATIONS, AVERRED THAT IT WAS
MERELY THE GENERAL AGENT UNDER THE STANDARD FORM CONTRACT, THAT THE
SHIP WAS "OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED STATES," AND
THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CLARIFICATION ACT, WHICH
REQUIRED COMPLAINTS OF THIS SORT TO BE BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT. 

ON THE PLEADINGS, AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS AS SUMMARIZED ABOVE,
THE SHIPPING ARTICLES, THE STANDARD FORM AGREEMENT, AND THE DELIVERY
AND REDELIVERY CERTIFICATES EVIDENCING THE ALLOCATION OF THE VESSEL TO
RESPONDENT BY THE W.S.A., THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THE GROUND
THAT PETITIONER'S ONLY REMEDY WAS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
PURSUANT TO THE CLARIFICATION ACT.  76 F.SUPP.  617.  THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  GAYNOR V. AGWILINES,
INC., 169 F.2D 612.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI AND ASSIGNED THE CASE FOR
ARGUMENT ALONG WITH COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO. V. MCALLISTER, ANTE, P.
783, AND FINK V. SHEPARD STEAMSHIP CO., NO. 360, DECIDED HEREWITH. 

ALTHOUGH THIS CASE INVOLVES THE RIGHT TO WAGES AND MAINTENANCE AND
CURE, WHEREAS MCALLISTER AND FINK CONCERN DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT INJURY,
THE REASONING AND DECISIONS IN THOSE CASES ARE DISPOSITIVE HERE.  THIS
IS SO BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE IS "ANNEXED TO THE
EMPLOYMENT," CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 371; SEE
THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158; IS "AN INCIDENT OF THE MARINE EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP," AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724, 730;
1 BENEDICT, ADMIRALTY (6TH ED., 1940) 61, 253; AND BECAUSE ONLY THE
OWNER OR OWNER PRO HAC VICE OF A VESSEL IS LIABLE FOR WAGES, WHICH ALSO
STEM FROM THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.  SHILMAN V. UNITED STATES, 164
F.2D 649, 652; THE JOHN E. BERWIND, 56 F.2D 13; EVERETT V. UNITED
STATES, 284 F. 203; COX V. LYKES BROTHERS, 237 N.Y. 376, 383, 143 N.E.
226, 228-229.  THUS LIABILITY FOR WAGES AND MAINTENANCE AND CURE
DEPENDS UPON THE SAME RELATIONSHIP THAT IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT AN
ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INJURY.  THAT RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT EXIST BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.  FN4 

THE DELIVERY CERTIFICATE, RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER AS SHOWING THAT
THE GADSDEN WAS IN THE POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF AGWILINES, RECITES IN
PERTINENT PART THAT THE SHIP "WAS ON THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 1942
...  DELIVERED  ...  BY WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION TO AGWILINES, INC.
UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF 'SERVICE AGREEMENT, FORM GAA'  ...  "  IT
IS QUITE OBVIOUS, WE THINK, THAT THIS CERTIFICATE REFERS ONLY TO A
"DELIVERY" FOR THE PURPOSES CONTEMPLATED BY THE GENERAL AGENCY
AGREEMENT AND ADDS NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE TO THAT AGREEMENT, WHICH WE
HAVE ALREADY HELD, MCALLISTER, SUPRA, TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH
LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE GENERAL AGENT.  NOS. 360 AND 430
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688. 

FN2  HE ALSO FILED CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF HIS INJURIES WITH THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION AND SUED THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT AND THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION
(CLARIFICATION) ACT, 57 STAT. 45, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1291.  THIS SUIT
WAS LATER DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

FN3  SEE HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, SUPRA, AT 727. 

FN4  NOTE THAT WAGES AND MAINTENANCE AND CURE ARE TREATED ALONG WITH
CLAIMS FOR INJURIES IN SEC. 1 OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT, WHICH, IN THE
CASE OF SEAMEN EMPLOYED ON UNITED STATES OR FOREIGN VESSELS AS
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE W.S.A., DIRECTS THAT ALL OF
THESE RIGHTS SHALL BE ENFORCED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUITS
IN ADMIRALTY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR.
JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENT. 
..END :




KIMBALL LAUNDRY CO. V. U.S., 338 U.S. 1 


NO. 63.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7-8, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 166
F.2D 856, REVERSED. 


UNDER AN ACT AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY
FOR MILITARY PURPOSES, THE UNITED STATES, ON NOVEMBER 21, 1942,
PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONDEMN THE TEMPORARY USE OF A
LAUNDRY, FOR A TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1943, SUBJECT TO RENEWAL ANNUALLY. 
THE GOVERNMENT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ON NOVEMBER 22, 1942,
AND THE TERM WAS RENEWED ANNUALLY UNTIL JUNE 30, 1946.  MEANWHILE THE
LAUNDRY SUSPENDED SERVICE TO ITS REGULAR CUSTOMERS.  AS JUST
COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER, A JURY AWARDED AN ANNUAL RENTAL OF $70,000
AND $45,776.03 FOR DAMAGE TO THE PLANT AND MACHINERY BEYOND ORDINARY
WEAR AND TEAR.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT. 
INTEREST WAS ALLOWED FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1942, ON THE AMOUNT DUE FOR THE
PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1943; FROM THE BEGINNING OF EACH ANNUAL TERM ON
THE AMOUNT DUE FOR THAT TERM; AND FROM THE DATE OF THE AWARD ON THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGE TO THE PLANT AND MACHINERY.  NO COMPENSATION WAS
AWARDED FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS DUE TO THE
DESTRUCTION OF TRADE ROUTES, A PROFFER OF EVIDENCE THEREOF HAVING BEEN
REJECTED.  HELD: 

1.  THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION MADE FOR THE TEMPORARY TAKING OF THE
LAND, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT WAS CORRECT.  PP. 6-8. 

(A)  THE PROPER MEASURE OF COMPENSATION FOR THE TEMPORARY TAKING WAS
THE RENTAL THAT PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, NOT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE ON THE DATE OF THE TAKING AND ITS
MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF ITS RETURN.  PP. 6-7. 

(B)  THE AWARD FOR DAMAGE TO THE PLANT AND MACHINERY BEYOND ORDINARY
WEAR AND TEAR WAS JUSTIFIED ON THE THEORY THAT SUCH INDEMNITY WOULD BE
PAYABLE BY AN ORDINARY LESSEE, THOUGH NOT FIXED IN ADVANCE AS PART OF
HIS RENT BECAUSE NOT THEN ASCERTAINABLE.  P. 7. 

(C)  THE AMOUNTS AWARDED BY THE JURY AS RENTAL VALUE OF THE PHYSICAL
PROPERTY AND AS COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO THE PLANT AND EQUIPMENT IN
EXCESS OF ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR WERE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE.  PP. 7-8. 

2.  THE BASIS FOR THE AWARD OF INTEREST WAS APPROPRIATE.  THE
GOVERNMENT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR INTEREST ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE AWARD
FROM THE DATE OF THE TAKING.  P. 21. 

3.  THE GOVERNMENT HAVING FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES PREEMPTED THE
TRADE ROUTES FOR THE PERIOD OF ITS OCCUPANCY, IT MUST PAY COMPENSATION
FOR WHATEVER TRANSFERABLE VALUE THEIR TEMPORARY USE MAY HAVE HAD; AND
THE CASE MUST BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT
VALUE, IF ANY, WAS.  PP. 8-21. 

(A)  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN THE TEMPORARY USE OF BUSINESS
PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO DENY COMPENSATION FOR A DEMONSTRABLE
LOSS OF GOING-CONCERN VALUE UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT AN EVEN MORE
REMOTE POSSIBILITY - THE TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF GOING-CONCERN VALUE -
MIGHT HAVE BEEN REALIZED.  P. 15. 

(B)  IN DETERMINING THE COMPENSABLE VALUE OF THE TEMPORARY USE OF THE
TRADE ROUTES, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD CONSIDER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH
WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKELY TO CONVINCE A POTENTIAL PURCHASER AS TO THE
PRESENCE AND AMOUNT OF THE LAUNDRY'S GOING-CONCERN VALUE, INCLUDING (BY
WAY OF EXAMPLE AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CAUTIONS SET FORTH IN THE
OPINION) THE RECORD OF PAST EARNINGS AND EXPENDITURES FOR SOLICITING
BUSINESS.  PP. 16-21. 

(C)  IF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD FIND PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE ADEQUATE
TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY FOR A FINDING AS TO PRESENCE AND AMOUNT OF THE
VALUE OF THE TRADE ROUTES, IT MUST INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO COMPUTATION
OF THE COMPENSATION DUE, WHICH MUST NOT EXCEED THE VALUE OF THEIR
TEMPORARY CONTROL.  PP. 20-21. 

KIMBALL LAUNDRY CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ENTERED ON THE VERDICT OF A JURY IN
A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  166
F.2D 856.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 807.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 21. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON NOVEMBER 21, 1942, THE UNITED STATES FILED A PETITION  FN1  IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA, TO CONDEMN
THE PLANT OF THE KIMBALL LAUNDRY COMPANY IN OMAHA, NEBRASKA, FOR USE BY
THE ARMY FOR A TERM INITIALLY EXPIRING JUNE 30, 1943, AND TO BE
EXTENDED FROM YEAR TO YEAR AT THE ELECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 
THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE UNITED STATES IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF
THE FACILITIES OF THE COMPANY, EXCEPT DELIVERY EQUIPMENT, FOR THE
REQUESTED PERIOD.  THE TERM WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED SEVERAL TIMES. 
THE LAST YEAR'S EXTENSION WAS TO END ON JUNE 30, 1946, BUT THE PROPERTY
WAS FINALLY RETURNED ON MARCH 23, 1946. 

THE KIMBALL LAUNDRY COMPANY IS A FAMILY CORPORATION THE PRINCIPAL
STOCKHOLDERS OF WHICH ARE THREE BROTHERS WHO ARE ALSO ITS OFFICERS. 
THE LAUNDRY'S BUSINESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR MANY YEARS; ITS PLANT
IS LARGE AND WELL EQUIPPED WITH MODERN MACHINERY.  AFTER THE ARMY TOOK
OVER THE PLANT, THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS RAN IT AS A LAUNDRY FOR
PERSONNEL IN THE SEVENTH SERVICE COMMAND.  MOST OF THE LAUNDRY'S 180
EMPLOYEES WERE RETAINED, AND ONE OF THE BROTHERS STAYED ON AS OPERATING
MANAGER.  HAVING NO OTHER MEANS OF SERVING ITS CUSTOMERS, THE LAUNDRY
SUSPENDED BUSINESS FOR THE DURATION OF THE ARMY'S OCCUPANCY. 

ON NOVEMBER 19, 1943, A BOARD OF APPRAISERS APPOINTED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEBRASKA LAW, REPORTED THAT "THE JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE VALUE OF THE USE OF THE PREMISES TAKEN BY THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS THE SUM OF $74,940.00 PER ANNUM  ...  "
THE APPRAISERS MADE NO AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF PATRONS, WHICH
THEY RECOGNIZED TO BE PROBABLE, BECAUSE AT THAT TIME THE AMOUNT OF THE
LOSS COULD NOT BE APPRAISED.  THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LAUNDRY BOTH
APPEALED THE APPRAISERS' AWARD, AND THE QUESTION OF JUST COMPENSATION
WAS TRIED TO A JURY IN MARCH OF 1946.  THE JURY AWARDED AN ANNUAL
RENTAL OF $70,000 - A TOTAL OF $252,000 FOR THE WHOLE TERM - AND
$45,776.03 FOR DAMAGE TO THE PLANT AND MACHINERY BEYOND ORDINARY WEAR
AND TEAR.  THE RENTAL AWARD WAS INTENDED TO COVER TAXES, INSURANCE,
NORMAL DEPRECIATION, AND A RETURN ON THE VALUE OF THE LAUNDRY'S
PHYSICAL ASSETS.  INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PER CENT WAS ADDED FROM
NOVEMBER 22, 1942, THE DAY ON WHICH THE ARMY TOOK POSSESSION, ON THE
AMOUNT DUE FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN THAT DATE AND JUNE 30, 1943, AND ON
THE RENTAL FOR EACH YEAR THEREAFTER FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR
UNTIL PAID.  INTEREST ON THE SUM AWARDED FOR DAMAGE TO THE PLANT AND
MACHINERY WAS ADJUDGED TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF THE VERDICT, SINCE THE
PLANT HAD NOT THEN BEEN RETURNED. 

THE LAUNDRY APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT,
ASSIGNING NUMEROUS ERRORS IN THE ADMISSION AND EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY
AND IN THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
DISTRICT COURT, 166 F.2D 856, AND WE GRANTED THE LAUNDRY'S PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 807, BECAUSE IT RAISED NOVEL AND SERIOUS QUESTIONS
IN DETERMINING WHAT IS "JUST COMPENSATION" UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT RESOLVED BY THE FAMILIAR FORMULAS AVAILABLE
FOR THE CONVENTIONAL SITUATIONS WHICH GAVE OCCASION FOR THEIR
ADOPTION.  AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS OBSERVED, "VALUE IS A WORD OF MANY
MEANINGS."  SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
262 U.S. 276, 310.  FOR PURPOSES OF THE COMPENSATION DUE UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, OF COURSE, ONLY THAT "VALUE" NEED BE CONSIDERED WHICH
IS ATTACHED TO "PROPERTY,"  FN2  BUT THAT ONLY APPROACHES BY ONE STEP
THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION.  THE VALUE OF PROPERTY SPRINGS FROM
SUBJECTIVE NEEDS AND ATTITUDES; ITS VALUE TO THE OWNER MAY THEREFORE
DIFFER WIDELY FROM ITS VALUE TO THE TAKER.  MOST THINGS, HOWEVER, HAVE
A GENERAL DEMAND WHICH GIVES THEM A VALUE TRANSFERABLE FROM ONE OWNER
TO ANOTHER.  AS OPPOSED TO SUCH PERSONAL AND VARIANT STANDARDS AS VALUE
TO THE PARTICULAR OWNER WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TAKEN, THIS
TRANSFERABLE VALUE HAS AN EXTERNAL VALIDITY WHICH MAKES IT A FAIR
MEASURE OF PUBLIC OBLIGATION TO COMPENSATE THE LOSS INCURRED BY AN
OWNER AS A RESULT OF THE TAKING OF HIS PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE.  IN
VIEW, HOWEVER, OF THE LIABILITY OF ALL PROPERTY TO CONDEMNATION FOR THE
COMMON GOOD, LOSS TO THE OWNER OF NONTRANSFERABLE VALUES DERIVING FROM
HIS UNIQUE NEED FOR PROPERTY OR IDIOSYNCRATIC ATTACHMENT TO IT, LIKE
LOSS DUE TO AN EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER, IS PROPERLY TREATED AS
PART OF THE BURDEN OF COMMON CITIZENSHIP.  SEE OMNIA COMMERCIAL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 502, 508-09.  BECAUSE GAIN TO THE TAKER, ON THE
OTHER HAND, MAY BE WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE DEPRIVATION IMPOSED UPON THE
OWNER, IT MUST ALSO BE REJECTED AS A MEASURE OF PUBLIC OBLIGATION TO
REQUITE FOR THAT DEPRIVATION.  MCGOVERN V. NEW YORK, 229 U.S. 363;
UNITED STATES EX REL. T.V.A. V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266. 

THE VALUE COMPENSABLE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THEREFORE, IS ONLY
THAT VALUE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF TRANSFER FROM OWNER TO OWNER AND THUS OF
EXCHANGE FOR SOME EQUIVALENT.  ITS MEASURE IS THE AMOUNT OF THAT
EQUIVALENT.  BUT SINCE A TRANSFER BROUGHT ABOUT BY EMINENT DOMAIN IS
NOT A VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE, THIS AMOUNT CAN BE DETERMINED ONLY BY A
GUESS, AS WELL INFORMED AS POSSIBLE, AS TO WHAT THE EQUIVALENT WOULD
PROBABLY HAVE BEEN HAD A VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE TAKEN PLACE.  IF EXCHANGES
OF SIMILAR PROPERTY HAVE BEEN FREQUENT, THE INFERENCE IS STRONG THAT
THE EQUIVALENT ARRIVED AT BY THE HAGGLING OF THE MARKET WOULD PROBABLY
HAVE BEEN OFFERED AND ACCEPTED, AND IT IS THUS THAT THE "MARKET PRICE"
BECOMES SO IMPORTANT A STANDARD OF REFERENCE.  FN3  BUT WHEN THE
PROPERTY IS OF A KIND SELDOM EXCHANGED, IT HAS NO "MARKET PRICE," AND
THEN RECOURSE MUST BE HAD TO OTHER MEANS OF ASCERTAINING VALUE,
INCLUDING EVEN VALUE TO THE OWNER AS INDICATIVE OF VALUE TO OTHER
POTENTIAL OWNERS ENJOYING THE SAME RIGHTS.  CF. OLD SOUTH ASSOCIATION
V. BOSTON, 212 MASS. 299, 99 N.E. 235.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS HAVE
SPECIAL RELEVANCE WHERE "PROPERTY" IS "TAKEN" NOT IN FEE BUT FOR AN
INDETERMINATE PERIOD. 

APPROACHING THUS THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION FOR THE TEMPORARY
TAKING OF PETITIONER'S LAND, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT, WE BELIEVE THAT THE
AWARD MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CORRECT.  PETITIONER INSISTS,
HOWEVER, THAT THE MEASURE OF COMPENSATION FOR A TEMPORARY TAKING WHICH
SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MARKET VALUE OF
THE FEE ON THE DATE OF THE TAKING AND ITS MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF
ITS RETURN.  BUT IT WAS KNOWN FROM THE OUTSET THAT THIS TAKING WAS TO
BE TEMPORARY, AND DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY CAN
BE APPROACHED ONLY ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT FREE BARGAINING BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND A HYPOTHETICAL LESSEE OF THAT TEMPORARY INTEREST WOULD
HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE USUAL FRAMEWORK OF SUCH NEGOTIATIONS.  WE AGREE
WITH BOTH LOWER COURTS, THEREFORE, THAT THE PROPER MEASURE OF
COMPENSATION IS THE RENTAL THAT PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, AND
SO THIS COURT HAS HELD IN THE TWO RECENT CASES DEALING WITH TEMPORARY
TAKINGS.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373; UNITED
STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. 372.  INDEED, IF THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE ON THE DATE OF TAKING AND THAT ON
THE DATE OF RETURN WERE TAKEN TO BE THE MEASURE, THERE MIGHT FREQUENTLY
BE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE OWNER WOULD RECEIVE NO COMPENSATION WHATEVER
BECAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAD NOT DECREASED DURING THE
PERIOD OF THE TAKER'S OCCUPANCY. 

THE COURTS BELOW ALSO AWARDED COMPENSATION TO PETITIONER FOR DAMAGE
TO ITS MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IN EXCESS OF ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR, THE
AWARD OF RENTAL HAVING BEEN ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE AN ALLOWANCE FOR NORMAL
DEPRECIATION.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OBJECT TO THIS AWARD, BUT WE
THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO POINT OUT THAT WE FIND IT JUSTIFIED ON THE
THEORY THAT SUCH INDEMNITY WOULD BE PAYABLE BY AN ORDINARY LESSEE,
THOUGH NOT FIXED IN ADVANCE AS PART OF HIS RENT BECAUSE NOT THEN
CAPABLE OF DETERMINATION. 

THE PETITIONER MAKES NUMEROUS OBJECTIONS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AMOUNTS FIXED BY THE JURY AS THE RENTAL
VALUE OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY AND AS COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO THE
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT IN EXCESS OF ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR.  SUFFICE IT TO
SAY THAT WE FIND THESE AWARDS ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED. 

AT THE CORE OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT IT HAS BEEN DENIED JUST
COMPENSATION IS THE CONTENTION THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN
THE AWARD TO IT SOME ALLOWANCE FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ITS
BUSINESS DUE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ITS "TRADE ROUTES."  THE TERM "TRADE
ROUTES" SERVES AS A GENERAL DESIGNATION BOTH FOR THE LISTS OF CUSTOMERS
BUILT UP BY SOLICITATION OVER THE YEARS AND FOR THE CONTINUED HOLD OF
THE LAUNDRY UPON THEIR PATRONAGE. 

AT THE TRIAL PETITIONER OFFERED TO PROVE THE VALUE OF THE TRADE
ROUTES BY TESTIMONY OF AN EXPERT WITNESS BASED ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH CLASS OF CUSTOMERS, AND THE TESTIMONY OF ONE OF
ITS OFFICERS WAS OFFERED TO SHOW THAT THIS VALUE HAD WHOLLY DISAPPEARED
DURING THE THREE AND ONE-HALF YEARS OF THE ARMY'S USE OF THE PLANT. 
FN4  IT FURTHER OFFERED TO SHOW THE COST OF BUILDING UP THE CUSTOMER
LISTS, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CAPITALIZED BUT CHARGED TO EXPENSE, AND
LOSSES WHICH WOULD BE INCURRED AFTER THE RESUMPTION OF OPERATIONS WHILE
THEY WERE BEING REBUILT.  THE PETITIONER ALSO ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE
EVIDENCE OF ITS GROSS AND NET INCOME FOR THE EIGHTEEN YEARS PRECEDING
THE TAKING, THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS PAID, AND THE RATIO OF OFFICERS'
SALARIES TO CAPITAL STOCK AND SURPLUS, ON THE THEORY THAT THIS EVIDENCE
WOULD SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THE VALUE OF THE LAUNDRY AS A GOING
BUSINESS.  THE TRIAL COURT REJECTED THESE OFFERS AS NOT BEARING UPON
THE "FAIR MARKET VALUE OR FAIR USE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN" AND
INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT IT SHOULD NOT CONSIDER DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE
OF THE BUSINESS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BECAUSE, IN ITS
OPINION, WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE LOSS IN VALUE OF THE BUSINESS OR
THE TRADE ROUTES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE TAKING, "THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT
TAKE OR INTEND TO TAKE, AND OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT USE, THE COMPANY'S
BUSINESS, TRADE ROUTES OR CUSTOMERS."  166 F.2D AT 860. 

THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND AS A BUSINESS SITE TENDS TO BE AS HIGH AS
THE REASONABLY PROBABLE EARNINGS OF A BUSINESS THERE SITUATED WOULD
JUSTIFY, AND THE VALUE OF SPECIALLY ADAPTED PLANT AND MACHINERY EXCEEDS
ITS VALUE AS SCRAP ONLY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS INCOME-PRODUCING. 
AND INCOME, IN THE CASE OF A SERVICE INDUSTRY, PRESUPPOSES PATRONAGE. 
SINCE PETITIONER HAS BEEN FULLY COMPENSATED FOR THE VALUE OF ITS
PHYSICAL PROPERTY, ANY SEPARATE VALUE THAT ITS TRADE ROUTES MAY HAVE
MUST THEREFORE RESULT FROM THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE EARNING CAPACITY OF
THE BUSINESS OF GREATER SKILL IN MANAGEMENT AND MORE EFFECTIVE
SOLICITATION OF PATRONAGE THAN ARE COMMONLY GIVEN TO SUCH A COMBINATION
OF LAND, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT.  THE PRODUCT OF SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS IS AN
INTANGIBLE WHICH MAY BE COMPENDIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS "GOING-CONCERN
VALUE," BUT THIS IS A PORTMANTEAU PHRASE THAT NEEDS UNPACKING. 

THOUGH COMPOUNDED OF MANY FACTORS IN ADDITION TO RELATIONS WITH
CUSTOMERS, THAT ELEMENT OF GOING-CONCERN VALUE WHICH IS CONTRIBUTED BY
SUPERIOR MANAGEMENT MAY BE TRANSFERABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HAS A
MOMENTUM LIKELY TO BE FELT EVEN AFTER A NEW OWNER AND NEW MANAGEMENT
HAVE SUCCEEDED TO THE BUSINESS PROPERTY.  BUT BECAUSE THIS MOMENTUM CAN
BE MAINTAINED ONLY BY THE APPLICATION OF CONTINUED ENERGY AND SKILL, IT
WOULD GRADUALLY SPEND ITSELF IF THE EFFORT AND SKILL OF THE NEW
MANAGEMENT WERE NOT IN ITS TURN EXPENDED.  SEE PATON, ADVANCED
ACCOUNTING 427, 435(1941).  ONLY THAT EXERCISE OF MANAGERIAL
EFFICIENCY, HOWEVER, WHICH HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE FUTURE PROFITABILITY
OF THE BUSINESS WILL HAVE A TRANSFERABLE MOMENTUM THAT MAY GIVE IT
VALUE TO A POTENTIAL PURCHASER; THAT WHICH HAS HAD ONLY THE EFFECT OF
INCREASING CURRENT INCOME OR REDUCING EXPENSES OF OPERATION HAS SPENT
ITSELF FROM YEAR TO YEAR.  THE VALUE CONTRIBUTED BY THE EXPENDITURE OF
MONEY IN SOLICITING PATRONAGE, ALTHOUGH LIKEWISE OF LIMITED DURATION,
DIFFERS FROM MANAGERIAL EFFICIENCY IN THAT IT DERIVES NOT MERELY FROM
THE CONTRIBUTION OF PERSONAL QUALITIES BUT FROM ORIGINAL INVESTMENT OR
THE PLOWING BACK OF INCOME.  AS SUCH IT MAY SOMETIMES BE MORE READILY
RECOGNIZED AS AN ASSET OF THE BUSINESS.  FN5  IT IS CLEAR, AT ANY RATE,
THAT THE VALUE OF BOTH THESE ELEMENTS, IN COMBINATION, MUST BE REGARDED
AS IDENTICAL WITH THE VALUE ALLEGED TO INHERE IN THE TRADE ROUTES. 

ASSUMING, THEN, THAT PETITIONER'S BUSINESS MAY HAVE GOING-CONCERN
VALUE AS DEFINED ABOVE, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE INTANGIBLE
CHARACTER OF SUCH VALUE ALONE PRECLUDES COMPENSATION FOR IT.  THE
ANSWER IS NOT FAR TO SEEK.  THE VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY, AS WE HAVE
ALREADY OBSERVED, IS DEPENDENT UPON AND INSEPARABLE FROM INDIVIDUAL
NEEDS AND ATTITUDES, AND THESE, OBVIOUSLY, ARE INTANGIBLE.  AS FIXED BY
THE MARKET, VALUE IS NO MORE THAN A SUMMARY EXPRESSION OF FORECASTS
THAT THE NEEDS AND ATTITUDES WHICH MADE UP DEMAND IN THE PAST WILL HAVE
THEIR COUNTERPARTS IN THE FUTURE.  SEE ITHACA TRUST CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 279 U.S. 151, 155; CF. 1 BONBRIGHT, THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY
222(1937).  THE ONLY DISTINCTION TO BE MADE, THEREFORE, BETWEEN THE
ATTITUDES WHICH GENERATE GOING-CONCERN VALUE AND THOSE OF WHICH
TANGIBLE PROPERTY IS COMPOUNDED IS AS TO THE TENACITY OF THE PAST'S
HOLD UPON THE FUTURE:  IN THE CASE OF THE LATTER A FORECAST OF FUTURE
DEMAND CAN USUALLY BE MADE WITH GREATER CERTAINTY, FOR IT IS MORE
PROBABLE ON THE WHOLE THAT PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO WANT PARTICULAR
GOODS OR SERVICES THAN THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK TO A PARTICULAR
SUPPLIER OF THEM.  IT IS MORE LIKELY, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT PEOPLE WILL
PERSIST IN WANTING TO HAVE THEIR LAUNDRY DONE THAN THAT THEY WILL KEEP
ON SENDING IT TO A PARTICULAR LAUNDRY.  BUT AS THE PROBABILITY OF
CONTINUED PATRONAGE GAINS STRENGTH, THIS DISTINCTION BECOMES
OBLITERATED, AND THE INTANGIBLE ACQUIRES A VALUE TO A POTENTIAL
PURCHASER NO DIFFERENT FROM THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS' PHYSICAL
PROPERTY.  SINCE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES COMPENSATION FOR THE
LATTER, THE FORMER, IF SHOWN TO BE PRESENT AND TO HAVE BEEN "TAKEN,"
SHOULD ALSO BE COMPENSABLE.  AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS OBSERVED FOR THE
COURT IN GALVESTON ELEC.  CO. V. GALVESTON, 258 U.S. 388, 396, "IN
DETERMINING THE VALUE OF A BUSINESS AS BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER, THE
GOODWILL AND EARNING POWER DUE TO EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION ARE OFTEN MORE
IMPORTANT ELEMENTS THAN TANGIBLE PROPERTY.  WHERE THE PUBLIC ACQUIRES
THE BUSINESS, COMPENSATION MUST BE MADE FOR THESE, AT LEAST UNDER SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES."  SEE ALSO DES MOINES GAS CO. V. DES MOINES, 238 U.S.
153, 165; MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 272 U.S. 400, 414. 

WHAT, THEN, ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
REQUIRES COMPENSATION FOR SUCH AN INTANGIBLE?  NOT, INDEED, THOSE OF
THE USUAL TAKING OF FEE TITLE TO BUSINESS PROPERTY, BUT THE DENIAL OF
COMPENSATION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES RESTS ON A VERY CONCRETE
JUSTIFICATION:  THE GOING-CONCERN VALUE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN.  SUCH ARE
ALL THE CASES, MOST OF THEM DECIDED BY STATE COURTS UNDER CONSTITUTIONS
WITH PROVISIONS COMPARABLE TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IN WHICH ONLY THE
PHYSICAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONDEMNED, LEAVING THE OWNER FREE TO MOVE
HIS BUSINESS TO A NEW LOCATION.  E.G., BOTHWELL V. UNITED STATES, 254
U.S. 231; BANNER MILLING CO. V. STATE OF NEW YORK, 240 N.Y. 533, 148
N.E. 668.  IN SUCH A SITUATION THERE IS NO MORE REASON FOR A TAKER TO
PAY FOR THE BUSINESS' GOING-CONCERN VALUE THAN THERE WOULD BE FOR A
PURCHASER TO PAY FOR IT WHO HAD NOT SECURED FROM HIS VENDOR A COVENANT
TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING INTO COMPETITION WITH HIM.  IT IS TRUE THAT
THERE MAY BE LOSS TO THE OWNER BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY OF FINDING
OTHER PREMISES SUITABLY SITUATED FOR THE TRANSFER OF HIS GOOD WILL, AND
THAT SUCH LOSS, LIKE THE COST OF MOVING, IS DENIED COMPENSATION AS
CONSEQUENTIAL.  SEE JOSLIN MFG. CO. V. PROVIDENCE, 262 U.S. 668, 676. 
BUT SUCH VALUE AS THE GOOD WILL RETAINS, THE OWNER KEEPS, AND THE
REMAINDER DISSIPATED BY REMOVAL WOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE VALUE PAID
FOR BY A TRANSFEREE OF THE VACATED PREMISES, EXCEPT PERHAPS TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE PROSPECT OF ITS LOSS WOULD INDUCE THE OWNER TO HOLD OUT
FOR A HIGHER PRICE FOR HIS LAND AND BUILDING.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, 383.  WHEN A CONDEMNOR HAS TAKEN
FEE TITLE TO BUSINESS PROPERTY, THERE IS REASON FOR SAYING THAT THE
COMPENSATION DUE SHOULD NOT VARY WITH THE OWNER'S GOOD FORTUNE OR LACK
OF IT IN FINDING PREMISES SUITABLE FOR THE TRANSFERENCE OF GOING
CONCERN VALUE.  IN THE USUAL CASE MOST OF IT CAN BE TRANSFERRED; IN THE
REMAINDER THE AMOUNT OF LOSS IS SO SPECULATIVE THAT PROOF OF IT MAY
JUSTIFIABLY BE EXCLUDED.  SEE SAWYER V. COMMONWEALTH, 182 MASS. 245, 65
N.E. 52, PER HOLMES, C.J. BY AN EXTENSION OF THAT REASONING THE SAME
RESULT HAS BEEN REACHED EVEN UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NO OTHER PREMISES
WHATEVER WERE AVAILABLE.  MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 341. 

THE SITUATION IS OTHERWISE, HOWEVER, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS
CONDEMNED BUSINESS PROPERTY WITH THE INTENTION OF CARRYING ON THE
BUSINESS, AS WHERE PUBLIC-UTILITY PROPERTY HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER FOR
CONTINUED OPERATION BY A GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.  IF, IN SUCH A CASE,
THE TAKER ACQUIRES GOING-CONCERN VALUE, IT MUST PAY FOR IT.  OMAHA V.
OMAHA WATER CO., 218 U.S. 180; SEE DENVER V. DENVER UNION WATER CO.,
246 U.S. 178, 191; ORGEL, VALUATION UNDER THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN
SEC. 214(1936), AND CASES THERE CITED.  SINCE A UTILITY CANNOT
ORDINARILY BE OPERATED PROFITABLY EXCEPT AS A MONOPOLY, INVESTMENT BY
THE FORMER OWNER OF THE UTILITY IN DUPLICATING THE CONDEMNED FACILITIES
COULD HAVE NO PROSPECT OF A PROFITABLE RETURN.  THE TAKER HAS THUS IN
EFFECT ASSURED ITSELF OF FREEDOM FROM THE FORMER OWNER'S COMPETITION. 
THE OWNER RETAINS NOTHING OF THE GOING-CONCERN VALUE THAT IT FORMERLY
POSSESSED; SO FAR AS CONTROL OF THAT VALUE IS CONCERNED, THE TAKER
FULLY OCCUPIES THE OWNER'S SHOES. 

BUT THE PUBLIC-UTILITY CASES PLAINLY CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE FACT
THAT THE TAKER RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE UTILITY'S GOING-CONCERN
VALUE.  IF BENEFIT TO THE TAKER WERE MADE THE MEASURE OF COMPENSATION,
IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY HIGHER COMPENSATION FOR FARM LAND
TAKEN AS A FIRING RANGE THAN FOR SWAMP OR SANDY WASTE EQUALLY SUITED TO
THE PURPOSE.  BUT SEE MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 341, 344-45. 
IT WOULD BE EQUALLY DIFFICULT TO DENY COMPENSATION FOR VALUE TO THE
TAKER IN EXCESS OF VALUE TO THE OWNER.  BUT COMPARE, E.G., MCGOVERN V.
NEW YORK, 229 U.S. 363; UNITED STATES EX REL. T.V.A. V. POWELSON, 319
U.S. 266.  THE RATIONALE OF THE PUBLICUTILITY CASES, AS OPPOSED TO
THOSE IN WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BROUGHT ABOUT A DIMINUTION OF GOING
CONCERN VALUE ALTHOUGH THE OWNER REMAINED FREE TO TRANSFER IT, MUST
THEREFORE BE THAT AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WHICH HAS
THE INEVITABLE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING THE OWNER OF THE GOING-CONCERN VALUE
OF HIS BUSINESS IS A COMPENSABLE "TAKING" OF PROPERTY.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, 378; CF. UNITED STATES V.
CAUSBY, 328 U.S. 256.  IF SUCH A DEPRIVATION HAS OCCURRED, THE GOING
CONCERN VALUE OF THE BUSINESS IS AT THE GOVERNMENT'S DISPOSAL WHETHER
OR NOT IT CHOOSES TO AVAIL ITSELF OF IT.  SINCE WHAT THE OWNER HAD HAS
TRANSFERABLE VALUE, THE SITUATION IS APT FOR THE OFT-QUOTED REMARK OF
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, "THE QUESTION IS WHAT HAS THE OWNER LOST, NOT WHAT
HAS THE TAKER GAINED."  BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. BOSTON, 217 U.S.
189, 195. 

WE THINK THAT THE SITUATION BEFORE US COMES WITHIN THIS PRINCIPLE. 
THE GOVERNMENT'S TEMPORARY TAKING OF THE LAUNDRY'S PREMISES COULD NO
MORE COMPLETELY HAVE APPROPRIATED THE LAUNDRY'S OPPORTUNITY TO PROFIT
FROM ITS TRADE ROUTES THAN IF IT HAD SECURED A PROMISE FROM THE LAUNDRY
THAT IT WOULD NOT FOR THE DURATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY OF THE
PREMISES UNDERTAKE TO OPERATE A LAUNDRY BUSINESS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE
CITY OF OMAHA.  THE TAKING WAS FROM YEAR TO YEAR; IN THE MEANTIME THE
LAUNDRY'S INVESTMENT REMAINED BOUND UP IN THE REVERSION OF THE
PROPERTY.  EVEN IF FUNDS FOR THE INAUGURATION OF A NEW BUSINESS WERE
OBTAINABLE OTHERWISE THAN BY THE SALE OR LIQUIDATION OF THE OLD ONE,
THE LAUNDRY WOULD HAVE BEEN FACED WITH THE IMMINENT PROSPECT OF FINDING
ITSELF WITH TWO LAUNDRY PLANTS ON ITS HANDS, BOTH OF WHICH COULD HARDLY
HAVE BEEN OPERATED AT A PROFIT.  THERE WAS NOTHING IT COULD DO,
THEREFORE, BUT WAIT.  BESIDES, THOUGH TRADE ROUTES MAY BE CAPABLE OF
TRANSFER INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY WITH WHICH THEY HAVE
BEEN ASSOCIATED, IT IS WHOLLY BEYOND THE REALM OF CONJECTURE THAT THEY
COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD FROM YEAR TO YEAR OR THAT THE LAUNDRY WOULD HAVE
BOUND ITSELF TO GIVE THEM UP FOR A LONGER PERIOD WHEN AT ANY TIME ITS
PLANT MIGHT BE RETURNED.  IT IS EQUALLY FARFETCHED, MOREOVER, TO
SUPPOSE THAT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FOR A LIMITED PERIOD AND
THEN RECAPTURED. 

IT IS ARGUABLE, TO BE SURE, THAT SINCE AN EQUALLY SUITABLE PLANT
MIGHT CONCEIVABLY HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER AT REASONABLE
TERMS FOR THE SAME PERIOD AS THE GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY OF ITS OWN
PLANT, AND SINCE THAT WOULD HAVE ENABLED IT TO STAY IN BUSINESS WITHOUT
LOSS OF GOING-CONCERN VALUE, IT IS IRRELEVANT THAT NO SUCH PREMISES
HAPPENED TO BE AVAILABLE, AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IRRELEVANT, UNDER A
STRICT APPLICATION OF MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 341, HAD THE
GOVERNMENT TAKEN THE FEE.  WHEN FEE TITLE TO BUSINESS PROPERTY HAS BEEN
TAKEN, HOWEVER, IT IS FAIR ON THE WHOLE THAT THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
PAYABLE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE SPECULATIVE LOSSES CONSEQUENT UPON
REALIZATION OF THE REMOTE POSSIBILITY THAT THE OWNER WILL BE UNABLE TO
FIND A WHOLLY SUITABLE LOCATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF GOING-CONCERN
VALUE.  BUT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN THE TEMPORARY USE OF SUCH
PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO DENY COMPENSATION FOR A DEMONSTRABLE
LOSS OF GOING-CONCERN VALUE UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT AN EVEN MORE
REMOTE POSSIBILITY - THE TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF GOING-CONCERN VALUE -
MIGHT HAVE BEEN REALIZED.  THE TEMPORARY INTERRUPTION AS OPPOSED TO THE
FINAL SEVERANCE OF OCCUPANCY SO GREATLY NARROWS THE RANGE OF
ALTERNATIVES OPEN TO THE CONDEMNEE THAT IT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASES THE
CONDEMNOR'S OBLIGATION TO HIM.  IT IS A DIFFERENCE IN DEGREE WIDE
ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A DIFFERENCE IN RESULT.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V.
GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, WITH UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR
CO., 327 U.S. 372.  FN6 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT SINCE THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PERIOD OF
ITS OCCUPANCY OF PETITIONER'S PLANT HAS FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES
PREEMPTED THE TRADE ROUTES, IT MUST PAY COMPENSATION FOR WHATEVER
TRANSFERABLE VALUE THEIR TEMPORARY USE MAY HAVE HAD.  THE CASE MUST
ACCORDINGLY BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT
VALUE, IF ANY, WAS.  IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, THE COURT SHOULD
CONSIDER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKELY TO CONVINCE A
POTENTIAL PURCHASER AS TO THE PRESENCE AND AMOUNT OF PETITIONER'S GOING
CONCERN VALUE, FOR THIS, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, MUST BE CONSIDERED
IDENTICAL WITH THE VALUE ALLEGED TO INHERE IN THE TRADE ROUTES.  THOUGH
WE DO NOT MEAN TO FORECLOSE THE CONSIDERATION OF OTHER TYPES OF
EVIDENCE OR THE APPLICATION OF OTHER TECHNIQUES OF APPRAISAL, IT MAY
SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE PROBLEM TO INDICATE AS BRIEFLY AS POSSIBLE THE
RELEVANCE OF THE EVIDENCE REJECTED AT THE TRIAL TO THE DETERMINATION OF
THE PRESENCE AND AMOUNT OF THIS VALUE. 

ONE INDEX OF GOING-CONCERN VALUE OFFERED BY PETITIONER IS THE RECORD
OF ITS PAST EARNINGS.  IF THEY SHOULD BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNUSUALLY
HIGH IN PROPORTION TO INVESTMENT IN ITS PHYSICAL PROPERTY, THAT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN A PERSUASIVE INDICATION TO AN INFORMED PURCHASER OF THE
BUSINESS THAT MORE THAN TANGIBLE FACTORS WERE AT WORK.  FN7  SUCH A
PURCHASER MIGHT WELL HAVE MEASURED THE VALUE THUS CONTRIBUTED BY
CAPITALIZING, AT A RATE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ELEMENT OF RISK  FN8
AND THE NUMBER OF YEARS DURING WHICH THESE FACTORS WOULD PROBABLY HAVE
EFFECT, THE EXCESS OF THE PROBABLE FUTURE RETURN UPON INVESTMENT IN THE
BUSINESS OVER A RETURN WHICH WOULD BE ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR THE
RISK OF INVESTMENT IN IT.  FN9  IF THE FIGURE CHOSEN AS REPRESENTING
INVESTMENT WERE COST, HOWEVER, THE POSSIBILITY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN
RECOGNIZED THAT THE CAPITALIZED VALUE OF THE EXCESS INCOME MIGHT
INVOLVE DUPLICATION OF VALUE ALREADY REFLECTED IN THE VALUATION OF THE
SITE.  FN10 

IN ADDITION TO OR AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR NET INCOME AS AN INDEX OF GOING
CONCERN VALUE, A PURCHASER MIGHT HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY SUCH EVIDENCE
OF EXPENDITURE UPON BUILDING UP THE BUSINESS AS PETITIONER'S RECORDS OF
PAYMENTS TO DELIVERYMEN FOR THE SOLICITATION OF NEW CUSTOMERS.  INSTEAD
OF BEGINNING WITH EXCESS EARNINGS RESULTING IN PART FROM EXPENDITURE ON
SOLICITATION AND THEN CAPITALIZING THEM TO REACH GOING-CONCERN VALUE,
SUCH EXPENDITURE CAN BE REGARDED AS A DIRECT CONTRIBUTION, IN
PROPORTION TO THE AMOUNT OF ITS LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS, TO THE CAPITAL
ASSETS OF THE BUSINESS.  BUT THE LEGITIMACY OF THE INFERENCE THAT
EXPENDITURES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOLICITING BUSINESS HAVE RESULTED IN A
VALUE WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE EARNING CAPACITY OF THE
BUSINESS IN LATER YEARS AND WHICH IS THEREFORE A VALUE THAT A PURCHASER
MIGHT PAY FOR, NECESSARILY DEPENDS ON THE CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS AND
THE EXPERIENCE OF THOSE WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT. FN11  THIS, AT ANY
RATE, IS A MATTER WHICH IS OPEN TO PROOF. 

THOUGH NOT CAPITALIZED AND CARRIED ON THE BOOKS, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT
SUCH AN ASSET MAY BE PRESENT EVEN IN A BUSINESS LOSING MONEY OR AT ANY
RATE NOT MAKING ENOUGH TO HAVE ANY "EXCESS" INCOME.  A RELEVANT MEASURE
OF ITS VALUE, HOWEVER, WOULD BE THE GROSS INCOME OF THE BUSINESS, AS IS
RECOGNIZED BY THE METHOD OF ESTIMATING GOING-CONCERN VALUE THAT HAS
BEEN EMPLOYED IN CASES DEALING WITH THE EXCESS-PROFITS TAX BASE OF
LAUNDRY BUSINESSES.  SEE METROPOLITAN LAUNDRY CO., 2 B.T.A. 1062;
PIONEER LAUNDRY CO., 5 B.T.A. 821.  PETITIONER OFFERED PROOF OF THE
VALUE OF ITS TRADE ROUTES BASED ON JUST SUCH A METHOD AND FURTHER
OFFERED TO SHOW THAT IT WAS A METHOD GENERALLY USED IN THE LAUNDRY
BUSINESS.  IF SO, IT WOULD ALSO BE RELEVANT.  FN12 

BUT EVEN THOUGH EVIDENCE IN ONE OR MORE OF THESE CATEGORIES MAY TEND
TO ESTABLISH THE VALUE OF PETITIONER'S TRADE ROUTES, THE CONSEQUENCE OF
ITS INADEQUACY MAY REQUIRE COMPLETE DENIAL OF COMPENSATION WHERE THAT
WOULD NOT BE THE RESULT IN THE CASE OF ITS TANGIBLE PROPERTY.  THE
REASON IS THIS:  EVIDENCE WHICH IS NEEDED ONLY TO FIX THE AMOUNT OF THE
VALUE OF THE TANGIBLE PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF AN INTANGIBLE VALUE AS WELL AS ITS AMOUNT.  SINCE LAND AND
BUILDINGS ARE ASSUMED TO HAVE SOME TRANSFERABLE VALUE, WHEN A CLAIMANT
FOR JUST COMPENSATION FOR THEIR TAKING PROVES THAT HE WAS THEIR OWNER,
THAT PROOF IS IPSO FACTO PROOF THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO SOME
COMPENSATION.  THE CLAIMANT OF COMPENSATION FOR AN INTANGIBLE, ON THE
OTHER HAND, WHO CANNOT DEMONSTRATE A VALUE THAT A PURCHASER WOULD PAY
FOR HAS FAILED TO SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO
ANY COMPENSATION WHATEVER.  THIS IS A BURDEN, MOREOVER, WHICH MUST BE
SUSTAINED BY SOLID EVIDENCE; ONLY THUS CAN THE PROBABILITY OF FUTURE
DEMAND BE SHOWN TO APPROXIMATE THAT FOR TANGIBLE PROPERTY. 
PARTICULARLY IS THIS TRUE WHERE THESE ISSUES ARE TO BE LEFT FOR JURY
DETERMINATION, FOR JURIES SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN SOPHISTICAL AND ABSTRUSE
FORMULAS AS THE BASIS FOR THEIR FINDINGS NOR BE LEFT TO APPLY EVEN
SENSIBLE FORMULAS TO FACTORS THAT ARE TOO ELUSIVE. 

IF THE DISTRICT COURT, BEARING IN MIND THESE CAUTIONS, SHOULD FIND
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE ADEQUATE TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY FOR A FINDING AS
TO THE PRESENCE AND AMOUNT OF THE VALUE OF THE TRADE ROUTES, IT WILL
THEN BE NECESSARY ALSO TO INSTRUCT IT AS TO COMPUTATION OF THE
COMPENSATION DUE.  CONSISTENTLY WITH AN APPROACH WHICH SEEKS WITH THE
AID OF ALL RELEVANT DATA TO FIND AN AMOUNT REPRESENTING VALUE TO ANY
NORMALLY SITUATED OWNER OR PURCHASER OF THE INTERESTS TAKEN, NO VALUE
GREATER THAN THE VALUE OF THEIR TEMPORARY CONTROL WOULD BE
COMPENSABLE.  SINCE, AS WE HAVE NOTED, VALUE OF THIS SORT CAN HAVE ONLY
A LIMITED DURATION, THE VALUE OF THE TRADE ROUTES FOR THE PERIOD OF THE
ARMY'S OCCUPANCY OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY MIGHT BE ESTIMATED BY
COMPUTING THE DISCOUNTED VALUE AS OF THE BEGINNING OF THE PERIOD OF THE
NET CONTRIBUTION LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BUSINESS DURING THAT
PERIOD HAD IT BEEN CARRIED ON; ITS VALUE FOR EACH YEAR WOULD BE THE NET
CONTRIBUTION FOR THAT YEAR.  FN13  BUT HERE, AS HITHERTO, WE MEAN ONLY
TO ILLUSTRATE AND NOT TO PRESCRIBE THE COURSE WHICH MAY BE TAKEN UPON
REMAND OF THE CASE. 

PETITIONER ALSO PROTESTS AGAINST THE BASIS CHOSEN BY THE LOWER COURTS
FOR THE AWARD OF INTEREST.  IT ARGUES THAT THE GOVERNMENT, HAVING TAKEN
THE WHOLE PROPERTY ON NOVEMBER 21, 1942, SHOULD PAY INTEREST FROM THAT
DAY ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE AWARD.  WE HAVE ALREADY REJECTED,
HOWEVER, THE ONLY POSSIBLE THEORY UPON WHICH THIS CLAIM COULD REST -
THAT THE PROPER METHOD OF COMPUTING THE AWARD IS TO DETERMINE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS ON THE DATE OF TAKING AND
ITS VALUE ON THE DATE OF RETURN.  IT FOLLOWS FROM OUR HOLDING THAT THE
PROPER MEASURE OF COMPENSATION WAS AN ANNUAL RENTAL WHICH CAME DUE ONLY
AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH RENEWAL OF THE ARMY'S OCCUPANCY, THAT INTEREST
SHOULD BE PAYABLE ON EACH INSTALLMENT OF RENTAL ONLY FROM THAT DATE. 

FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION, THE CASE IS
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THE PETITION WAS FILED UNDER SEC. 201 OF TITLE II OF THE SECOND
WAR POWERS ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 176, 177, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 632. 

FN2  U.S. CONST. AMEND. V:  "  ...  NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION." 

FN3  ONCE TAKEN, OF COURSE, PROPERTY CAN HAVE NO ACTUAL MARKET VALUE
EXCEPT AS GIVING RISE TO A CLAIM AGAINST THE TAKER.  SEE 1 BONBRIGHT,
THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY 414(1937).  IN VIEW OF THE RESULTING
NECESSITY OF POSTULATING A HYPOTHETICAL SALE, CARE MUST BE TAKEN TO
AVOID THE EXTREMES, ON THE ONE HAND, OF EXCLUDING THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY FOR SPECIAL USES AND, ON THE OTHER, OF SUPPOSING THE
HYPOTHETICAL PURCHASER TO HAVE EITHER THE SAME IDIOSYNCRASIES AS THE
OWNER (COMPARE L.R. JUNCTION RY. V. WOODRUFF, 49 ARK. 381, 5 S.W. 792,
WITH PRODUCERS' WOOD PRESERVING CO. V. COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERAGE, 227
KY. 159, 12 S.W.2D 292) OR THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES FOR USE OF THE
PROPERTY AS A TAKER ARMED WITH THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN (SEE E.G.,
UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53; MCGOVERN V. NEW
YORK, 229 U.S. 363; OLSON V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 246; UNITED STATES
EX REL. T.V.A. V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266). 

FN4  ALTHOUGH THE THEORY UPON WHICH PETITIONER'S VARIOUS OFFERS OF
PROOF WERE MADE WAS NOT ALWAYS WELL DEFINED, THEIR IMPORT IS CLEAR
ENOUGH TO PRECLUDE REJECTING THEM AS MEANINGLESS. 

FN5  INDEED, FOR TAX PURPOSES THE TREASURY MAY INSIST THAT SUCH
"DEFERRED CHARGES" BE CAPITALIZED.  SEE NOTE 11, POST. 

FN6  THE LINE DRAWN IN THESE TWO CASES BETWEEN INCLUSION OF REMOVAL
COSTS IN COMPENSATION FOR A TEMPORARY TAKING OF LESS THAN A LESSEE'S
FULL TERM AND THEIR EXCLUSION WHERE THE WHOLE TERM HAS BEEN TAKEN IS
LIKEWISE BASED ON A RECOGNITION OF A DIFFERENCE IN THE DEGREE OF
RESTRICTION OF THE CONDEMNEE'S OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST HIMSELF TO THE
TAKING.  IN UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. AT 382, THE
COURT, COMPARING A TEMPORARY WITH A FEE TAKING, OBSERVED:  "IT IS
ALTOGETHER ANOTHER MATTER WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT TAKE HIS ENTIRE
INTEREST, BUT BY THE FORM OF ITS PROCEEDING CHOPS IT INTO BITS, OF
WHICH IT TAKES ONLY WHAT IT WANTS, HOWEVER FEW OR MINUTE, AND LEAVES
HIM HOLDING THE REMAINDER, WHICH MAY THEN BE ALTOGETHER USELESS TO HIM,
REFUSING TO PAY MORE THAN THE 'MARKET RENTAL VALUE' FOR THE USE OF THE
CHIPS SO CUT OFF.  THIS IS NEITHER THE 'TAKING' NOR THE 'JUST
COMPENSATION' THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CONTEMPLATES."  IN UNITED STATES V.
PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. AT 379, THE COURT SAID:  "THERE IS A
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAKING OF A PART OF A LEASE AND THE
TAKING OF THE WHOLE LEASE.  THAT DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE LESSEE MUST
RETURN TO THE LEASEHOLD AT THE END OF THE GOVERNMENT'S USE OR AT LEAST
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PERIOD OF THE LEASE WHICH IS NOT TAKEN RESTS
UPON THE LESSEE.  THIS WAS BROUGHT OUT IN THE GENERAL MOTORS DECISION. 
BECAUSE OF THAT CONTINUING OBLIGATION IN ALL TAKINGS OF TEMPORARY
OCCUPANCY OF LEASEHOLDS, THE VALUE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE LESSEES WHICH
ARE TAKEN MAY BE AFFECTED BY EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF TEMPORARY
REMOVAL." 

FN7  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT IF PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY AS TO THE
VALUE OF ITS PHYSICAL PROPERTY WERE ACCEPTED, IT COULD HAVE NO GOING
CONCERN VALUE BECAUSE ITS AVERAGE NET EARNINGS FOR THE FIVE YEARS
PRECEDING THE TAKING WERE TOO LOW TO ESTABLISH ANY EXCESS RETURN.  THE
ALLEGED VALUE WAS ABOUT $650,000, AND THE AVERAGE ANNUAL EARNINGS
$39,375.39, A RETURN ON THAT VALUE OF ABOUT 6%.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
GOVERNMENT'S OWN EXPERT WITNESSES RESPECTIVELY VALUED THE PHYSICAL
PROPERTY, AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION, AT $455,000 AND $433,500, AND ON
THAT BASIS THE RATE OF RETURN WOULD BE ABOUT 9%.  IT IS NOT FOR US, AT
ANY RATE, TO ASSUME THAT 6% RATHER THAN 5% OR SOME LOWER FIGURE IS THE
LOWEST THAT WOULD COMPENSATE INVESTMENT IN THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY. 

FN8  THE IMPORTANCE OF VARYING IN ACCORDANCE WITH VARYING RISKS THE
PERCENTAGE AT WHICH INCOME IS CAPITALIZED TO OBTAIN BUSINESS VALUE HAS
BEEN EMPHASIZED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IN COMPUTING
VALUE FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 77 B REORGANIZATIONS.  SEE NOTE, 55 HARV. L.
REV. 125, 133(1941).  SEE ALSO FISHER, THE NATURE OF CAPITAL AND
INCOME, C. 16, "THE RISK ELEMENT" (1906); ANGELL, VALUATION PROBLEMS
14(PRACTICING LAW INSTITUTE, 1945). 

FN9  SEE YANG, GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLES, CC. 5, 6(1927);
SIMPSON, GOODWILL IN 6 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 698, 699(1931).  FOR A
SYSTEMATIC DISCUSSION OF THE STEPS INVOLVED IN MAKING SUCH AN ESTIMATE,
SEE ACCOUNTANTS' HANDBOOK 869 ET SEQ. (PATON ED., 1944).  IT WOULD BE
THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE, OF COURSE, TO ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE
BUSINESS NOT BY ADDING GOING-CONCERN VALUE OBTAINED BY CAPITALIZATION
OF EXCESS INCOME TO A VALUATION OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY OBTAINED IN
SOME OTHER WAY, BUT BY CAPITALIZATION OF ALL INCOME.  SEE 1 BONBRIGHT,
THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY, CC. 11, 12; (1937); 1 DEWING, FINANCIAL
POLICY OF CORPORATIONS, BK. II, C. 1(4TH ED., 1941); CF. CONSOLIDATED
ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 525-26; INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 540-42.  BUT
A FORECAST OF FUTURE EARNINGS IS SUBJECT TO INACCURACY RESULTING BOTH
FROM THE DIFFICULTY OF DISCOUNTING THE NON-RECURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH ENTERED INTO THE RECORD OF PAST EARNINGS UPON WHICH THE FORECAST
IS BASED (EVEN IF NO PROJECTION OF FUTURE EARNINGS IS EXPRESSLY MADE,
PAST EARNINGS CAN BE USED AS A BASIS OF CAPITALIZATION ONLY ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE) AND THE HAZARDS OF ANY PREDICTION
OF FUTURE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS.  SEE MAY, A FOOTNOTE ON VALUE, 72 J.
OF ACCOUNTANCY 225(1941); ORGEL, VALUATION UNDER THE LAW OF EMINENT
DOMAIN SEC. 216(1936).  THE CONSEQUENCES OF INACCURACY ARE REDUCED BY
CONFINING THE CAPITALIZATION TO EXCESS INCOME, BUT OF COURSE IT IS A
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FUTURE EXCESS INCOME CAN BE PREDICTED WITH
CERTAINTY SUFFICIENT TO PERSUADE A PURCHASER OF THE BUSINESS TO PAY FOR
ITS CAPITALIZED VALUE.  SEE PP. 19-20, POST. 

FN10  THIS POSSIBILITY WOULD ARISE WHEREVER COST OF THE PHYSICAL
PROPERTY, BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS UNDEVELOPED AT THE TIME THE
BUSINESS SITE WAS ACQUIRED OR FOR SOME OTHER REASON, DID NOT WHOLLY
REFLECT ENHANCEMENT IN ITS MARKET VALUE BY THE ADVANTAGES OF ITS
LOCATION, SINCE THESE ADVANTAGES WOULD INCREASE TOTAL INCOME.  SUCH
DUPLICATION COULD BE AVOIDED, HOWEVER, BY USING AS THE MEASURE OF
INVESTMENT NOT COST BUT MARKET VALUE. 

FN11  IN THE CASE OF A BUSINESS LIKE THE LAUNDRY BUSINESS WHICH MUST
ENTICE PATRONS FROM ALREADY ESTABLISHED COMPETITORS IN AN AREA CONFINED
BY THE RANGE OF DELIVERY SERVICE, IT MAY BE THAT EXPENDITURE UPON
SOLICITATION IS REGARDED AS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR PART OF A
COMBINATION OF INCOME-PRODUCING ASSETS QUITE AS MUCH AS INVESTMENT IN
THE LAND AND BUILDING.  COMPARE HOUSTON NATURAL GAS CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, 90 F.2D 814(C.A.4TH CIR.), HOLDING THE SALARIES AND
EXPENSES OF SOLICITORS OF NEW CUSTOMERS FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY TO BE A
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE NONDEDUCTIBLE FROM CURRENT INCOME BECAUSE
CONTRIBUTING TO INCOME IN FUTURE YEARS.  THE TAX COURT, ITS
PREDECESSOR, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, AND THE COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE
FREQUENTLY HELD SUCH ANALOGOUS EXPENDITURES AS THOSE MADE TO INCREASE
THE CIRCULATION OF NEWSPAPERS AND FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF ADVERTISING TO
BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.  FOR COLLECTIONS OF SUCH CASES, SEE 4 MERTENS,
LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION SEC. 25.18 AND SEC. 25.27(1942).  SEE
ALSO DODD AND BAKER, CASES AND MATERIALS ON BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS 1125
26(1940).  COMPARE THE MATERIALS ON VALUATION OF GOOD WILL AS PART OF A
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE COLLECTED IN 2 PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT
TAXATION SEC. 18.16(1942), AND PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT TAXATION
SEC. 18.16(1946 SUPPLEMENT). 

FN12  PROCEEDING FROM THE ASSUMPTION THAT LAUNDRY BUSINESSES ARE A
CLASS HAVING UNIFORM CHARACTERISTICS, THIS METHOD PRESUPPOSES INFORMED
OPINION BOTH AS TO THE NORMAL RATIO OF A GIVEN VOLUME OF EXPENDITURE ON
SOLICITATION TO A GIVEN VOLUME OF GROSS INCOME AND AS TO THE NORMAL
DURATION OF THE CONTRIBUTION TO GROSS OF A GIVEN AMOUNT OF SUCH
EXPENDITURE.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CASES CITED AS WELL AS
PETITIONER'S OFFER OF PROOF INVOLVED THE FURTHER REFINEMENT THAT THE
RATIOS CHOSEN VARIED WITH THE GROSS INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH CLASS
OF CUSTOMERS. 

FN13  THAT CONTRIBUTION WOULD NOT OF COURSE CONTINUE FROM YEAR TO
YEAR IN A STRAIGHT LINE, THOUGH IT MAY PROVE MORE CONVENIENT TO TREAT
IT AS IF IT DID.  THE ANALYSIS OF COMPOUND-INTEREST METHODS OF
DEPRECIATION ACCOUNTING IN PATON, ADVANCED ACCOUNTING, C. 12(1941),
GIVES INSIGHT INTO WAYS IN WHICH THE RATE OF DECLINE IN THE VALUE OF
SUCH AN INTANGIBLE MIGHT BE COMPUTED.  SEE ALSO ID. AT 435; CANNING,
THE ECONOMICS OF ACCOUNTANCY, CC. 13, 14(1929); YANG, GOODWILL AND
OTHER INTANGIBLES, 201 ET SEQ. (1927). 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

AS I UNDERSTAND THE OPINION OF THE COURT, ITS EFFECT IS SIMPLY TO
RECOGNIZE THAT SHORT-TERM TAKINGS OF PROPERTY ENTAIL CONSIDERATIONS NOT
PRESENT WHERE COMPLETE TITLE HAS BEEN TAKEN.  RULES DEVELOPED FOR THE
SIMPLE SITUATION IN WHICH ALL THE OWNER'S INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTY
HAVE BEEN IRREVOCABLY SEVERED SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO FIT THE MORE
COMPLEX CONSEQUENCES OF A PIECEMEAL TAKING OF SUCCESSIVE SHORT-TERM
INTERESTS.  SUCH TAKINGS MAY INVOLVE COMPENSABLE ELEMENTS THAT IN THE
NATURE OF THINGS ARE NOT PRESENT WHERE THE WHOLE IS TAKEN. 

WITH THIS MUCH I AGREE.  BUT HAVING RECOGNIZED THE POSSIBLE
COMPENSABILITY OF INTANGIBLE INTERESTS, I WOULD NOT SUBSCRIBE TO A
FORMULATION OF THEORETICAL RULES DEFINING THEIR NATURE OR PRESCRIBING
THEIR MEASUREMENT.  WHAT SEEMS THEORETICALLY SOUND MAY PROVE UNWORKABLE
FOR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.  BUT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE OPINION OF
THE COURT TO DO MORE THAN INDICATE POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO THE
COMPENSATION OF SUCH INTERESTS.  SINCE REMAND OF THE CASE WILL PERMIT
THE EMPIRICAL TESTING OF THESE APPROACHES, I JOIN IN THE COURT'S
OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK
AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE UNITED STATES TOOK THIS PLANT IN ORDER TO RUN A LAUNDRY FOR THE
ARMY, NOT FOR THE PUBLIC.  THE TRADE-ROUTES WERE WHOLLY USELESS TO IT.
IT NEVER USED THEM.  YET IT IS FORCED TO PAY FOR THEM UNDER A NEW
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE THAT IS FORGED FOR THIS CASE. 

HERETOFORE IT WAS SETTLED THAT THE OWNER COULD NOT RECEIVE
COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF A
BUSINESS WHICH RESULTED FROM THE TAKING OF HIS PHYSICAL PROPERTY, EVEN
THOUGH THE BUSINESS COULD NOT BE REESTABLISHED ELSEWHERE.  MITCHELL V.
UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 341; BOTHWELL V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 231. 
THAT RESULT FOLLOWED FROM THE RULE THAT CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING
FROM THE TAKING WERE NOT COMPENSABLE.  SEE UNITED STATES EX REL. T.V.A.
V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266, 281-283; UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO.,
327 U.S. 372, 377-378.    AND SO IN THIS CASE IF THE UNITED STATES HAD
TAKEN THIS PLANT FOR A PERMANENT LAUNDRY TO RUN FOR THE ARMY AND NOT
FOR THE PUBLIC  FN1  IT NEED NOT PAY FOR THE TRADE-ROUTES.  AS JUSTICE
BRANDEIS SAID IN MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 345, "IF THE
BUSINESS WAS DESTROYED, THE DESTRUCTION WAS AN UNINTENDED INCIDENT OF
THE TAKING OF LAND."  AS MUCH SEEMS TO BE CONCEDED BY THE COURT IN THE
PRESENT CASE.  THAT CONCESSION IS NECESSARY IF PRECEDENT IS TO
CONTROL.  FOR IN UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS, 323 U.S. 373, 383, WE
SAID THAT A TEMPORARY TAKING AND A PERMANENT TAKING WERE TO BE TREATED
ALIKE IN THAT RESPECT.  IN THAT CASE THE COST OF MOVING OUT AND
PREPARING THE SPACE FOR THE NEW OCCUPANCY WAS ALLOWED INSOFAR AS IT
BORE ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY.  BUT WE RULED THAT
"PROOF OF VALUE PECULIAR TO THE RESPONDENT, OR THE VALUE OF GOOD-WILL
OR OF INJURY TO THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT" MUST IN THAT CASE "AS
IN THE CASE OF THE CONDEMNATION OF A FEE," BE EXCLUDED FROM THE
RECKONING, P. 383.  THE COURT TODAY REPUDIATES THAT RULING WHEN IT
HOLDS THAT THE UNITED STATES MUST PAY FOR THE TRADE-ROUTES OF
PETITIONER WHEN ITS TAKING OF THE LAUNDRY WAS ONLY TEMPORARY.  THERE
WOULD BE A COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF THE TRADE-ROUTES IF THE TAKING OF
THE PLANT WERE PERMANENT AND A DEPRECIATION OF THEM (I ASSUME) WHERE IT
IS TEMPORARY.  WHY THE LATTER IS COMPENSABLE WHEN THE FORMER IS NOT IS
A MYSTERY.  EVEN THE ACADEMIC DISSERTATION ON VALUATION WHICH THE
OPINION IMPORTS INTO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FROM ACCOUNTING LITERATURE
CONCEALS THE ANSWER. 

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE UNITED STATES IS BEING FORCED TO
PAY NOT FOR WHAT IT GETS BUT FOR WHAT THE OWNER LOSES.  THE VALUE OF
TRADE-ROUTES REPRESENTS THE PATRONAGE OF THE CUSTOMERS OF THE LAUNDRY. 
PETITIONER, I ASSUME, LOST SOME OF THEM AS A RESULT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
TEMPORARY TAKING OF THE LAUNDRY.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT TAKE
THEM.  THERE WAS INDEED NO POSSIBLE WAY IN WHICH IT COULD HAVE USED
THEM.  HENCE THE DOCTRINE THAT MAKES THE UNITED STATES PAY FOR THEM IS
NEW AND STARTLING.  IT PROMISES SWOLLEN AWARDS WHICH CONGRESS IN ITS
GENEROSITY MIGHT PERMIT BUT WHICH IT HAS NEVER BEEN ASSUMED THE
CONSTITUTION COMPELS. 

PETITIONER HAS RECEIVED ALL THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.  IT HAS OBTAINED AFTER THREE YEARS AND SEVEN MONTHS OF
USE OF ITS PLANT BY THE UNITED STATES A SUM OF MONEY EQUAL TO ALMOST
HALF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE FEE.  THAT AWARD WAS BASED ON THE MARKET
RENTAL VALUE OF THE PLANT FN2  PLUS AN ALLOWANCE TO RESTORE THE
PROPERTY TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION.  FN3  UNDER THE AUTHORITIES THAT
AWARD CANNOT BE INCREASED UNLESS WE ARE TO SIT AS A COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS
OF THE CONGRESS AND AWARD CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. 

FN1  AS RESPECTS PAYMENT FOR THE GOING-CONCERN VALUE WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT TAKES OVER A BUSINESS TO RUN IT AS SUCH, SEE OMAHA V. OMAHA
WATER CO., 218 U.S. 180, 202-203. 

FN2  THAT IS THE MEASURE OF COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF A
TEMPORARY INTEREST IN PROPERTY.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,
323 U.S. 373, 382; UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. 372,
378. 

FN3  COMPENSATION FOR ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR IS INCLUDED IN FIXING
THE MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  BUT WEAR AND TEAR ABOVE THAT
AMOUNT IS SEPARATELY COMPENSABLE.  SEE IN RE CONDEMNATION OF LANDS, 250
F. 314, 315; UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND, 55 F.SUPP.  257,
263; UNITED STATES V. 5,901.77 ACRES OF LAND, 65 F.SUPP.  454; UNITED
STATES V. 14.4756 ACRES OF LAND, 71 F.SUPP.  1005. 
..END :






WOLF V. COLORADO, 338 U.S. 25 


NOS. 17 AND 18.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  -
117 COLO. 279, 321, 187 P.2D 926, 928, AFFIRMED. 


IN A PROSECUTION IN A STATE COURT FOR A STATE CRIME, THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FORBID THE ADMISSION OF
RELEVANT EVIDENCE EVEN THOUGH OBTAINED BY AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE.  PP. 25-33. 

(A)  ARBITRARY INTRUSION INTO PRIVACY BY THE POLICE IS PROHIBITED BY
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 27-28. 

(B)  WHILE THE DOCTRINE OF WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383,
MAKING EVIDENCE SECURED IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
INADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL COURTS IS ADHERED TO, IT IS NOT IMPOSED ON THE
STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 28-33. 

WOLF V. COLORADO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO. 

JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION IN TWO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN A STATE COURT
WERE SUSTAINED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT AGAINST CLAIMS OF DENIAL OF
RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  117 COLO. 279, 321, 187 P.2D
926, 928.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 879.  AFFIRMED, P.
33. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IS THIS:  DOES A CONVICTION BY
A STATE COURT FOR A STATE OFFENSE DENY THE "DUE PROCESS OF LAW"
REQUIRED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SOLELY BECAUSE EVIDENCE THAT WAS
ADMITTED AT THE TRIAL WAS OBTAINED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD HAVE
RENDERED IT INADMISSIBLE IN A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL
LAW IN A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THERE DEEMED TO BE AN
INFRACTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AS APPLIED IN WEEKS V. UNITED
STATES, 232 U.S. 383?  THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO HAS SUSTAINED
CONVICTIONS IN WHICH SUCH EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED, 117 COL. 279, 187 P.2D
926; 117 COL. 321, 187 P.2D 928, AND WE BROUGHT THE CASES HERE.  333
U.S. 879. 

UNLIKE THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS PLACED BY THE BILL
OF RIGHTS (AMENDMENTS I TO VIII) UPON THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT SUBJECT
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE STATES TO SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS.  THE NOTION
THAT THE "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS
SHORTHAND FOR THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
THEREBY INCORPORATES THEM HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THIS COURT AGAIN AND
AGAIN, AFTER IMPRESSIVE CONSIDERATION.  SEE, E.G., HURTADO V.
CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78; BROWN V.
MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319.  ONLY
THE OTHER DAY THE COURT REAFFIRMED THIS REJECTION AFTER THOROUGH
REEXAMINATION OF THE SCOPE AND FUNCTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46.  THE
ISSUE IS CLOSED. 

FOR PURPOSES OF ASCERTAINING THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE IMPOSED UPON THE STATES IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR CRIMINAL
LAW, WE ADHERE TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA,
302 U.S. 319.  THAT DECISION SPEAKS TO US WITH THE GREAT WEIGHT OF THE
AUTHORITY, PARTICULARLY IN MATTERS OF CIVIL LIBERTY, OF A COURT THAT
INCLUDED MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, MR. JUSTICE
STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, TO NAME ONLY THE DEAD.  IN REJECTING THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE INCORPORATED THE ORIGINAL BILL
OF RIGHTS, MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO REAFFIRMED ON BEHALF OF THAT COURT A
DIFFERENT BUT DEEPER AND MORE PERVASIVE CONCEPTION OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  THIS CLAUSE EXACTS FROM THE STATES FOR THE LOWLIEST AND THE
MOST OUTCAST ALL THAT IS "IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY." 
302 U.S. AT 325. 

DUE PROCESS OF LAW THUS CONVEYS NEITHER FORMAL NOR FIXED NOR NARROW
REQUIREMENTS.  IT IS THE COMPENDIOUS EXPRESSION FOR ALL THOSE RIGHTS
WHICH THE COURTS MUST ENFORCE BECAUSE THEY ARE BASIC TO OUR FREE
SOCIETY.  BUT BASIC RIGHTS DO NOT BECOME PETRIFIED AS OF ANY ONE TIME,
EVEN THOUGH, AS A MATTER OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE, SOME MAY NOT TOO
RHETORICALLY BE CALLED ETERNAL VERITIES.  IT IS OF THE VERY NATURE OF A
FREE SOCIETY TO ADVANCE IN ITS STANDARDS OF WHAT IS DEEMED REASONABLE
AND RIGHT.  REPRESENTING AS IT DOES A LIVING PRINCIPLE, DUE PROCESS IS
NOT CONFINED WITHIN A PERMANENT CATALOGUE OF WHAT MAY AT A GIVEN TIME
BE DEEMED THE LIMITS OR THE ESSENTIALS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. 

TO RELY ON A TIDY FORMULA FOR THE EASY DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR PURPOSES OF LEGAL ENFORCEMENT MAY SATISFY A
LONGING FOR CERTAINTY BUT IGNORES THE MOVEMENTS OF A FREE SOCIETY.  IT
BELITTLES THE SCALE OF THE CONCEPTION OF DUE PROCESS.  THE REAL CLUE TO
THE PROBLEM CONFRONTING THE JUDICIARY IN THE APPLICATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE IS NOT TO ASK WHERE THE LINE IS ONCE AND FOR ALL TO BE
DRAWN BUT TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS FOR THE COURT TO DRAW IT BY THE
GRADUAL AND EMPIRIC PROCESS OF "INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION."  DAVIDSON V.
NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97, 104.  THIS WAS THE COURT'S INSIGHT WHEN FIRST
CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER THE PROBLEM; TO THIS INSIGHT THE COURT HAS ON
THE WHOLE BEEN FAITHFUL AS CASE AFTER CASE HAS COME BEFORE IT SINCE
DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS WAS DECIDED. 

THE SECURITY OF ONE'S PRIVACY AGAINST ARBITRARY INTRUSION BY THE
POLICE - WHICH IS AT THE CORE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT - IS BASIC TO A
FREE SOCIETY.  IT IS THEREFORE IMPLICIT IN "THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED
LIBERTY" AND AS SUCH ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE STATES THROUGH THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  THE KNOCK AT THE DOOR, WHETHER BY DAY OR BY NIGHT, AS
A PRELUDE TO A SEARCH, WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW BUT SOLELY ON THE
AUTHORITY OF THE POLICE, DID NOT NEED THE COMMENTARY OF RECENT HISTORY
TO BE CONDEMNED AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
ENSHRINED IN THE HISTORY AND THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS OF
ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN SAYING THAT WERE A STATE
AFFIRMATIVELY TO SANCTION SUCH POLICE INCURSION INTO PRIVACY IT WOULD
RUN COUNTER TO THE GUARANTY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BUT THE WAYS
OF ENFORCING SUCH A BASIC RIGHT RAISE QUESTIONS OF A DIFFERENT ORDER. 
HOW SUCH ARBITRARY CONDUCT SHOULD BE CHECKED, WHAT REMEDIES AGAINST IT
SHOULD BE AFFORDED, THE MEANS BY WHICH THE RIGHT SHOULD BE MADE
EFFECTIVE, ARE ALL QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT TO BE SO DOGMATICALLY
ANSWERED AS TO PRECLUDE THE VARYING SOLUTIONS WHICH SPRING FROM AN
ALLOWABLE RANGE OF JUDGMENT ON ISSUES NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF QUANTITATIVE
SOLUTION. 

IN WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THIS COURT HELD THAT IN A FEDERAL
PROSECUTION THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BARRED THE USE OF EVIDENCE SECURED
THROUGH AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  THIS RULING WAS MADE FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN 1914.  IT WAS NOT DERIVED FROM THE EXPLICIT REQUIREMENTS
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT; IT WAS NOT BASED ON LEGISLATION EXPRESSING
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
DECISION WAS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL IMPLICATION.  SINCE THEN IT HAS BEEN
FREQUENTLY APPLIED AND WE STOUTLY ADHERE TO IT.  BUT THE IMMEDIATE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE BASIC RIGHT TO PROTECTION AGAINST ARBITRARY
INTRUSION BY THE POLICE DEMANDS THE EXCLUSION OF LOGICALLY RELEVANT
EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE BECAUSE, IN A
FEDERAL PROSECUTION FOR A FEDERAL CRIME, IT WOULD BE EXCLUDED.  AS A
MATTER OF INHERENT REASON, ONE WOULD SUPPOSE THIS TO BE AN ISSUE AS TO
WHICH MEN WITH COMPLETE DEVOTION TO THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT OF
PRIVACY MIGHT GIVE DIFFERENT ANSWERS.  WHEN WE FIND THAT IN FACT MOST
OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD DOES NOT REGARD AS VITAL TO SUCH
PROTECTION THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE THUS OBTAINED, WE MUST HESITATE TO
TREAT THIS REMEDY AS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE RIGHT.  THE
CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS OF THE STATES IS PARTICULARLY IMPRESSIVE IN VIEW
OF THE CAREFUL RECONSIDERATION WHICH THEY HAVE GIVEN THE PROBLEM IN THE
LIGHT OF THE WEEKS DECISION. 

I. BEFORE THE WEEKS DECISION 27 STATES HAD PASSED ON THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 

(A)  OF THESE, 26 STATES OPPOSED THE WEEKS DOCTRINE.  (SEE APPENDIX,
TABLE A.) 

(B)  OF THESE, 1 STATE ANTICIPATED THE WEEKS DOCTRINE.  (TABLE B.) 

II.  SINCE THE WEEKS DECISION 47 STATES ALL TOLD HAVE PASSED ON THE
WEEKS DOCTRINE.  (TABLE C.) 

(A)  OF THESE, 20 PASSED ON IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. 

(1)  OF THE FOREGOING STATES, 6 FOLLOWED THE WEEKS DOCTRINE.  (TABLE
D.) 

(2)  OF THE FOREGOING STATES, 14 REJECTED THE WEEKS DOCTRINE.  (TABLE
E.) 

(B)  OF THESE, 26 STATES REVIEWED PRIOR DECISIONS CONTRARY TO THE
WEEKS DOCTRINE. 

(1)  OF THESE, 10 STATES HAVE FOLLOWED WEEKS, OVERRULING OR
DISTINGUISHING THEIR PRIOR DECISIONS.  (TABLE F.) 

(2)  OF THESE, 16 STATES ADHERED TO THEIR PRIOR DECISIONS AGAINST
WEEKS.  (TABLE G.) 

(C)  OF THESE, 1 STATE REPUDIATED ITS PRIOR FORMULATION OF THE WEEKS
DOCTRINE.  (TABLE H.) 

III.  AS OF TODAY 31 STATES REJECT THE WEEKS DOCTRINE, 16 STATES ARE
IN AGREEMENT WITH IT. (TABLE I.) 

IV.  OF 10 JURISDICTIONS WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE BRITISH
COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS WHICH HAVE PASSED ON THE QUESTION, NONE HAS
HELD EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE INADMISSIBLE. 
(TABLE J.) 

THE JURISDICTIONS WHICH HAVE REJECTED THE WEEKS DOCTRINE HAVE NOT
LEFT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY WITHOUT OTHER MEANS OF PROTECTION.  FN1
INDEED, THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE IS A REMEDY WHICH DIRECTLY SERVES
ONLY TO PROTECT THOSE UPON WHOSE PERSON OR PREMISES SOMETHING
INCRIMINATING HAS BEEN FOUND.  WE CANNOT, THEREFORE, REGARD IT AS A
DEPARTURE FROM BASIC STANDARDS TO REMAND SUCH PERSONS, TOGETHER WITH
THOSE WHO EMERGE SCATHELESS FROM A SEARCH, TO THE REMEDIES OF PRIVATE
ACTION AND SUCH PROTECTION AS THE INTERNAL DISCIPLINE OF THE POLICE,
UNDER THE EYES OF AN ALERT PUBLIC OPINION, MAY AFFORD.  GRANTING THAT
IN PRACTICE THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE MAY BE AN EFFECTIVE WAY OF
DETERRING UNREASONABLE SEARCHES, IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO CONDEMN AS
FALLING BELOW THE MINIMAL STANDARDS ASSURED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE A
STATE'S RELIANCE UPON OTHER METHODS WHICH, IF CONSISTENTLY ENFORCED,
WOULD BE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE.  WEIGHTY TESTIMONY AGAINST SUCH AN
INSISTENCE ON OUR OWN VIEW IS FURNISHED BY THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
(THEN JUDGE) CARDOZO IN PEOPLE V. DEFORE, 242 N.Y. 13, 150 N.E. 585. 
FN2  WE CANNOT BRUSH ASIDE THE EXPERIENCE OF STATES WHICH DEEM THE
INCIDENCE OF SUCH CONDUCT BY THE POLICE TOO SLIGHT TO CALL FOR A
DETERRENT REMEDY NOT BY WAY OF DISCIPLINARY MEASURES BUT BY OVERRIDING
THE RELEVANT RULES OF EVIDENCE.  THERE ARE, MOREOVER, REASONS FOR
EXCLUDING EVIDENCE UNREASONABLY OBTAINED BY THE FEDERAL POLICE WHICH
ARE LESS COMPELLING IN THE CASE OF POLICE UNDER STATE OR LOCAL
AUTHORITY.  THE PUBLIC OPINION OF A COMMUNITY CAN FAR MORE EFFECTIVELY
BE EXERTED AGAINST OPPRESSIVE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF POLICE DIRECTLY
RESPONSIBLE TO THE COMMUNITY ITSELF THAN CAN LOCAL OPINION,
SPORADICALLY AROUSED, BE BROUGHT TO BEAR UPON REMOTE AUTHORITY
PERVASIVELY EXERTED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. 

WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT IN A PROSECUTION IN A STATE COURT FOR A
STATE CRIME THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID THE ADMISSION OF
EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  AND THOUGH WE
HAVE INTERPRETED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO FORBID THE ADMISSION OF SUCH
EVIDENCE, A DIFFERENT QUESTION WOULD BE PRESENTED IF CONGRESS UNDER ITS
LEGISLATIVE POWERS WERE TO PASS A STATUTE PURPORTING TO NEGATE THE
WEEKS DOCTRINE.  WE WOULD THEN BE FACED WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE RESPECT
TO BE ACCORDED THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT ON AN ISSUE AS TO WHICH, IN
DEFAULT OF THAT JUDGMENT, WE HAVE BEEN FORCED TO DEPEND UPON OUR OWN. 
PROBLEMS OF A CONVERSE CHARACTER, ALSO NOT BEFORE US, WOULD BE
PRESENTED SHOULD CONGRESS UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
UNDERTAKE TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS THERE GUARANTEED BY ATTEMPTING TO MAKE
THE WEEKS DOCTRINE BINDING UPON THE STATES.  AFFIRMED. 

                              APPENDIX.* 

*IN THE CASE OF JURISDICTIONS WHICH HAVE DECIDED MORE THAN ONE CASE
IN POINT, THE FOLLOWING TABLES CITE ONLY THE LEADING CASE. 

                             TABLE A.

            STATES WHICH OPPOSED THE WEEKS DOCTRINE BEFORE

THE WEEKS CASE HAD BEEN DECIDED. 

ALA.  SHIELDS V. STATE, 104 ALA. 35, 16 SO. 85. 

ARK.  STARCHMAN V. STATE, 62 ARK. 538, 36 S.W. 940. 

CONN.  STATE V. GRISWOLD, 67 CONN. 290, 34 A. 1046. 

GA.  WILLIAMS V. STATE, 100 GA. 511, 28 S.E. 624. 

IDAHO  STATE V. BOND, 12 IDAHO 424, 439, 86 P. 43, 47. 

ILL.  SIEBERT V. PEOPLE, 143 ILL. 571, 583, 32 N.E. 431, 434. 

KAN.  STATE V. MILLER, 63 KAN. 62, 64 P. 1033. 

ME.  SEE STATE V. GORHAM, 65 ME. 270, 272. 

MD.  LAWRENCE V. STATE, 103 MD. 17, 35, 63 A. 96, 103. 

MASS.  COMMONWEALTH V. DANA, 2 METC.  329. 

MICH.  PEOPLE V. ALDORFER, 164 MICH. 676, 130 N.W. 351. 

MINN.  STATE V. STRAIT, 94 MINN. 384, 102 N.W. 913. 

MO.  STATE V. POMEROY, 130 MO. 489, 32 S.W. 1002. 

MONT.  SEE STATE V.FULLER, 34 MONT. 12, 19, 85 P. 369, 373. 

NEB.  GEIGER V. STATE, 6 NEB. 545. 

N.H.  STATE V. FLYNN, 36 N.H. 64. 

N.Y.  PEOPLE V. ADAMS, 176 N.Y. 351, 68 N.E. 636. 

N.C.  STATE V. WALLACE, 162 N.C. 622, 78 S.E. 1. 

OKLA.  SILVA V. STATE, 6 OKLA. CR. 97, 116 P. 199. 

ORE.  STATE V. MCDANIEL, 39 ORE.  161, 169-70, 65 P. 520, 523. 

S.C.  STATE V. ATKINSON, 40 S.C. 363, 371, 18 S.E. 1021, 1024. 

S.D.  STATE V. MADISON, 23 S.D. 584, 591, 122 N.W. 647, 650. 

TENN.  COHN V. STATE, 120 TENN. 61, 109 S.W. 1149. 

VT.  STATE V. MATHERS, 64 VT. 101, 23 A. 590. 

WASH.  STATE V. ROYCE, 38 WASH. 111, 80 P. 268. 

W. VA.  SEE STATE V. EDWARDS, 51 W. VA. 220, 229, 41 S.E. 429, 432
33. 

         TABLE B.

             STATE WHICH HAD FORMULATED THE WEEKS DOCTRINE

                      BEFORE THE WEEKS DECISION. 

IOWA STATE V. SHERIDAN, 121 IOWA 164, 96 N.W. 730. 

                               TABLE C.                 STATES
WHICH HAVE PASSED ON THE WEEKS DOCTRINE

                  SINCE THE WEEKS CASE WAS DECIDED. 

EVERY STATE EXCEPT RHODE ISLAND.  BUT SEE STATE V. LORENZO, 72 R.I.
175, 48 A.2D 407(HOLDING THAT DEFENDANT HAD CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH,
BUT THAT, EVEN IF HE HAD NOT AND EVEN IF THE FEDERAL RULE APPLIED, THE
EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE NO TIMELY MOTION TO SUPPRESS HAD BEEN
MADE). 

  TABLE D. 

     STATES WHICH PASSED ON THE WEEKS DOCTRINE FOR THE FIRST TIME

        AFTER THE WEEKS DECISION AND IN SO DOING FOLLOWED IT. 
FLA.  ATZ V. ANDREWS, 84 FLA. 43, 94 SO. 329. 

IND.  FLUM V. STATE, 193 IND. 585, 141 N.E. 353. 

KY.  YOUMAN V. COMMONWEALTH, 189 KY. 152, 224 S.W. 860. 

MISS.  TUCKER V. STATE, 128 MISS.  211, 90 SO. 845. 

WIS.  HOYER V. STATE, 180 WIS. 407, 193 N.W. 89. 

WYO.  STATE V. GEORGE, 32 WYO. 223, 231 P. 683. 

      TABLE E. 

     STATES WHICH PASSED ON THE WEEKS DOCTRINE FOR THE FIRST TIME

        AFTER THE WEEKS DECISION AND IN SO DOING REJECTED IT. 

ARIZ.  ARGETAKIS V. STATE, 24 ARIZ. 599, 212 P. 372. 

CALIF.  PEOPLE V. MAYEN, 188 CALIF. 237, 205 P. 435(ADOPTING THE
GENERAL RULE BUT DISTINGUISHING THE CASES THEN DECIDED BY THIS COURT ON
THE GROUND THAT THEY APPLY ONLY WHEN A TIMELY MOTION FOR RETURN OF THE
PROPERTY SEIZED HAS BEEN MADE). 

COLO.  MASSANTONIO V. PEOPLE, 77 COLO. 392, 236 P. 1019. 

DEL.  STATE V. CHUCHOLA, 32 DEL. 133, 120 A. 212(DISTINGUISHING THIS
COURT'S DECISIONS). 

LA.  STATE V. FLECKINGER, 152 LA. 337, 93 SO. 115.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1921 REFUSED TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT
INCORPORATING THE FEDERAL RULE.  SEE STATE V. EDDINS, 161 LA. 240, 108
SO. 468. 

NEV.  STATE V. CHIN GIM, 47 NEV. 431, 224 P. 798. 

N.J.  STATE V. BLACK, 5 N.J. MISC. 48, 135 A. 685. 

N.M.  STATE V. DILLON, 34 N.M. 366, 281 P. 474. 

N.D.  STATE V. FAHN, 53 N.D. 203, 205 N.W. 67. 

OHIO  STATE V. LINDWAY, 131 OHIO ST. 166, 2 N.E.2D 490. 

PA.  COMMONWEALTH V. DABBIERIO, 290 PA. 174, 138 A. 679. 

TEX.  WELCHEK V. STATE, 93 TEX. CR. REP. 271, 247 S.W. 524.  IN 1925
A STATUTE CHANGED THE RULE BY PROVIDING THAT "NO EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY
AN OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, OR OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SHALL BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
ACCUSED ON THE TRIAL OF ANY CRIMINAL CASE."  TEXAS LAWS 1925, C. 49, AS
AMENDED, 2 VERNON'S TEX. STAT., 1948(CODE OF CRIM. PROC.), ART. 727A. 

UTAH  STATE V. AIME, 62 UTAH 476, 220 P. 704. 

VA.  HALL V. COMMONWEALTH, 138 VA. 727, 121 S.E. 154. 

                   TABLE F.

          STATES WHICH, AFTER THE WEEKS DECISION, OVERRULED OR

           DISTINGUISHED PRIOR CONTRARY DECISIONS. 

IDAHO  IDAHO EXPRESSLY REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE WEEKS DECISION IN STATE
V. MYERS, 36 IDAHO 396, 211 P. 440, BUT REPUDIATED THE MYERS CASE AND
ADOPTED THE FEDERAL RULE IN STATE V. ARREGUI, 44 IDAHO 43, 254 P. 788. 

ILL.  AFTER TWO CASES FOLLOWING THE FORMER STATE RULE, ILLINOIS
ADOPTED THE FEDERAL RULE IN PEOPLE V. CASTREE, 311 ILL. 392, 143 N.E.
112. 

MICH.  PEOPLE V. MARXHAUSEN, 204 MICH. 559, 171 N.W.
557(DISTINGUISHING EARLIER CASES ON THE GROUND THAT IN THEM NO
PRELIMINARY MOTION TO SUPPRESS HAD BEEN MADE). 

MO.  STATE V. GRAHAM, 295 MO. 695, 247 S.W. 194, SUPPORTED THE OLD
RULE IN A DICTUM, BUT THE FEDERAL RULE WAS ADOPTED IN STATE V. OWENS,
302 MO. 348, 259 S.W. 100(DISTINGUISHING EARLIER CASES ON THE GROUND
THAT IN THEM NO PRELIMINARY MOTION TO DISMISS HAD BEEN MADE). 

MONT.  STATE EX REL. KING V. DISTRICT COURT, 70 MONT. 191, 224 P.
862. 

OKLA. GORE V. STATE, 24 OKLA. CR. 394, 218 P. 545. 

S.D.  STATE V. GOODER, 57 S.D. 619, 234 N.W. 610.  BUT CF. S.D. LAWS
1935, C. 96, NOW S.D. CODE SEC. 34.1102(1939), AMENDING REV. CODE 1919,
SEC. 4606(ALL EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER A VALID SEARCH WARRANT IS
ADMISSIBLE NOTWITHSTANDING DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT). 

TENN.  HUGHES V. STATE, 145 TENN. 544, 238 S.W. 588(DISTINGUISHING
COHN V. STATE, SUPRA, TABLE A). 

WASH.  STATE V. GIBBONS, 118 WASH. 171, 203 P. 390. 

W. VA.  STATE V. ANDREWS, 91 W. VA. 720, 114 S.E. 257(DISTINGUISHING
EARLIER CASES). 

                               TABLE G.

    STATES WHICH, AFTER THE WEEKS DECISION, REVIEWED PRIOR CONTRARY

        DECISIONS AND IN SO DOING ADHERED TO THOSE DECISIONS. 

ALA.  BANKS V. STATE, 207 ALA. 179, 93 SO. 293. 

ARK.  BENSON V. STATE, 149 ARK. 633, 233 S.W. 758. 

CONN.  STATE V. REYNOLDS, 101 CONN. 224, 125 A. 636. 

GA.  JACKSON V. STATE, 156 GA. 647, 119 S.E. 525. 

KAN.  STATE V. JOHNSON, 116 KAN. 58, 226 P. 245. 

ME.  STATE V. SCHOPPE, 113 ME. 10, 16, 92 A. 867, 869(ALTERNATIVE
HOLDING, NOT NOTICING WEEKS). 

MD.  MEISINGER V. STATE, 155 MD. 195, 141 A. 536, 142 A. 190.  BUT
CF. MD. LAWS 1929, C. 194, AS AMENDED, MD. CODE ANN., ART. 35, SEC.
5(1947 SUPP.)(IN TRIAL OF MISDEMEANORS, EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY ILLEGAL
SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS INADMISSIBLE). 

MASS.  COMMONWEALTH V. WILKINS, 243 MASS. 356, 138 N.E. 11. 

MINN. STATE V. PLUTH, 157 MINN. 145, 195 N.W. 789. 

NEB.  BILLINGS V. STATE, 109 NEB. 596, 191 N.W. 721. 

N.H.  STATE V. AGALOS, 79 N.H. 241, 242, 107 A. 314, 315(NOT NOTICING
WEEKS). 

N.Y.  PEOPLE V. DEFORE, 242 N.Y. 13, 150 N.E. 585; PEOPLE V.
RICHTER'S JEWELERS, 291 N.Y. 161, 169, 51 N.E.2D 690, 693(HOLDING THAT
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO STATE CONSTITUTION IN SAME LANGUAGE AS CIVIL
RIGHTS LAW CONSTRUED IN THE DEFORE CASE IS NOT OCCASION FOR CHANGING
INTERPRETATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION WHICH
FRAMED THE AMENDMENT SHOW THAT NO CHANGE WAS INTENDED). 

N.C.  STATE V. SIMMONS, 183 N.C. 684, 110 S.E. 591(DISTINGUISHING
BETWEEN EVIDENTIARY ARTICLES AND CORPUS DELICTI). 

ORE.  SEE STATE V. FOLKES, 174 ORE.  568, 588-89, 150 P.2D 17, 25. 
BUT SEE STATE V. LAUNDY, 103 ORE.  443, 493-95, 204 P. 958, 974-75. 

S.C.  AFTER GRANTING A MOTION TO RETURN ILLEGALLY SEIZED PROPERTY IN
BLACKSBURG V. BEAM, 104 S.C. 146, 88 S.E. 441, SOUTH CAROLINA
REAFFIRMED ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE GENERAL RULE IN STATE V. GREEN, 121
S.C. 230, 114 S.E. 317. 

VT.  STATE V. STACY, 104 VT. 379, 401, 160 A. 257, 266. 

                               TABLE H.

           STATE WHICH HAS REPUDIATED ITS PRIOR FORMULATION

          OF THE WEEKS DOCTRINE. 

IOWA  STATE V. ROWLEY, 197 IOWA 977, 195 N.W. 881(WITHDRAWING EARLIER
OPINION IN 187 N.W. 7). 

                               TABLE I.

    SUMMARY OF PRESENT POSITION OF STATES WHICH HAVE

               PASSED ON THE WEEKS DOCTRINE. 

(A)  STATES THAT REJECT WEEKS: 

ALA., ARIZ., ARK., CALIF., COLO., CONN., DEL., GA., IOWA, KAN., LA.,
ME., MD., MASS., MINN., NEB., NEV., N.H., N.J., N.M., N.Y., N.C., N.D.,
OHIO, ORE., PA., S.C., TEXAS, UTAH, VT., VA. 

(B)  STATES THAT ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH WEEKS: 

FLA., IDAHO, ILL., IND., KY., MICH., MISS., MO., MONT., OKLA., S.D.,
TENN., WASH., W. VA., WIS., WYO.

                     TABLE J.

   JURISDICTIONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH

OF NATIONS WHICH HAVE HELD ADMISSIBLE

           EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 

AUSTRALIA  MILLER V. NOBLET, (1927) S.A.S.R. 385. 

CANADA 

ALTA.  REX V. NELSON, (1922) 2 W.W.R. 381, 69 D.L.R. 180. 

MAN.  REX V. DUROUSSEL, 41 MAN.  15, (1933) 2 D.L.R. 446. 

ONT.  REGINA V. DOYLE, 12 ONT.  347. 

SASK.  REX V. KOSTACHUK, 24 SASK.  485, 54 CAN.  C.C. 189. 

ENGLAND  SEE ELIAS V. PASMORE, (1934) 2 K.B. 164. 

INDIA 

ALL.  ALI AHMAD KHAN V. EMPEROR, 81 I.C. 615(1). 

CAL.  BALDEO BIN V. EMPEROR, 142 I.C. 639. 

RANG.  CHWA HUM HTIVE V. EMPEROR, 143 I.C. 824. 

SCOTLAND  SEE HODGSON V. MACPHERSON, (1913) S.C. (J.)  68, 73. 

FN1  THE COMMON LAW PROVIDES ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE
SEARCHING OFFICER, E.G., ENTICK V. CARRINGTON, 2 WILS.  275, 19 HOW. 
ST. TR. 1029; GRUMON V. RAYMOND, 1 CONN. 40; SANDFORD V. NICHOLS, 13
MASS. 286; HALSTED V. BRICE, 13 MO. 171; HUSSEY V. DAVIS, 58 N.H. 317;
REED V. LUCAS, 42 TEXAS 529; AGAINST ONE WHO PROCURES THE ISSUANCE OF A
WARRANT MALICIOUSLY AND WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, E.G., GULSBY V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 167 ALA. 122, 52 SO. 392; WHITSON V. MAY, 71
IND. 269; KREHBIEL V. HENKLE, 152 IOWA 604, 129 N.W. 945; OLSON V.
TVETE, 46 MINN. 225, 48 N.W. 914; BOEGER V. LANGENBERG, 97 MO. 390, 11
S.W. 223; DOANE V. ANDERSON, 60 HUN 586, 15 N.Y. 459; SHALL V.
MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S.S.M.R. CO., 156 WIS. 195, 145 N.W. 649; AGAINST
A MAGISTRATE WHO HAS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ISSUING A WARRANT,
E.G., WILLIAMS V. KOZAK, 280 F. 373(C.A.4TH CIR.); GRUMON V. RAYMOND, 1
CONN. 40; KENNEDY V. TERRILL, HARDIN (KY.)  490; SHAW V. MOON, 117
ORE.  558, 245 P. 318; AND AGAINST PERSONS ASSISTING IN THE EXECUTION
OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, E.G., HEBREW V. PULIS, 73 N.J.L. 621, 625, 64 A.
121, 122; CARTWRIGHT V. CANODE, 138 S.W. 792(TEX.  CIV.  APP.), AFF'D,
106 TEXAS 502, 171 S.W. 696.  ONE MAY ALSO WITHOUT LIABILITY USE FORCE
TO RESIST AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH.  E.G., COMMONWEALTH V. MARTIN, 105 MASS.
178; STATE V. MANN, 27 N.C. 45. 

STATUTORY SANCTIONS IN THE MAIN PROVIDE FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF ONE
MALICIOUSLY PROCURING A SEARCH WARRANT OR WILLFULLY EXCEEDING HIS
AUTHORITY IN EXERCISING IT.  E.G., 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SECS. 630,
631; ALA. CODE, TIT. 15, SEC. 99(1940); ARIZ. CODE ANN. SEC. 44
3513(1939); FLA. STAT. ANN. SECS. 933.16, 933.17(1944); IOWA CODE SECS.
751.38, 751.39(1946); MONT. REV. CODE ANN. SECS. 10948, 10952(1935);
NEV. COMP. LAWS SECS. 10425, 10426(1929); N.Y. CRIM. CODE SECS. 811,
812, N.Y. PENAL LAW SECS. 1786, 1847; N.D. REV. CODE SECS. 12-1707, 12
1708(1943); OKLA. STAT. ANN., TIT. 21, SECS. 536, 585, TIT. 22, SECS.
1239, 1240(1937); ORE.  COMP.  LAWS ANN. SEC. 26-1717(1940); S.D. CODE
SECS. 13.1213, 13.1234, 34.9904, 34.9905(1939); TENN. CODE ANN. SEC.
11905(1934).  SOME STATUTES MORE BROADLY PENALIZE UNLAWFUL SEARCHES. 
E.G., 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  53A; IDAHO CODE ANN. SECS. 17-1004,
17-1024(1932); MINN. STAT. SECS. 613.54, 621.17(1945); VA. CODE ANN.
SEC. 4822D (MICHIE, 1942); WASH. REV. STAT. ANN. SECS. 2240-1, 2240-2. 
VIRGINIA ALSO MAKES PUNISHABLE ONE WHO ISSUES A GENERAL SEARCH WARRANT
OR A WARRANT UNSUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT.  VA. CODE ANN. SEC. 4822E
(MICHIE, 1942).  A FEW STATES HAVE PROVIDED STATUTORY CIVIL REMEDIES. 
SEE, E.G., GA. CODE ANN. SEC. 27-301(1935); ILL. REV. STAT., C. 38,
SEC. 698(SMITH-HURD, 1935); MISS.  CODE ANN. SEC. 1592(1942).  AND IN
ONE STATE, MISUSE OF A SEARCH WARRANT MAY BE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
PUNISHABLE AS CONTEMPT OF COURT.  SEE MICH. STAT. ANN. SEC.
27.511(1938). 

FN2  "WE HOLD, THEN, WITH THE DEFENDANT THAT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM
WAS THE OUTCOME OF A TRESPASS.  THE OFFICER MIGHT HAVE BEEN RESISTED,
OR SUED FOR DAMAGES, OR EVEN PROSECUTED FOR OPPRESSION (PENAL LAW,
SECS. 1846, 1847).  HE WAS SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OR OTHER DISCIPLINE AT
THE HANDS OF HIS SUPERIORS.  THESE CONSEQUENCES ARE UNDISPUTED.  THE
DEFENDANT WOULD ADD ANOTHER.  WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER EVIDENCE OF
CRIMINALITY, PROCURED BY AN ACT OF TRESPASS, IS TO BE REJECTED AS
INCOMPETENT FOR THE MISCONDUCT OF THE TRESPASSER.  ... 

"THOSE JUDGMENTS (WEEKS V. UNITED STATES AND CASES WHICH FOLLOWED IT)
DO NOT BIND US, FOR THEY CONSTRUE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS, NOT APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES.  EVEN THOUGH NOT BINDING, THEY MERIT OUR ATTENTIVE SCRUTINY. 
... 

"IN SO HOLDING (I.E., THAT EVIDENCE PROCURED BY UNLAWFUL SEARCH IS
NOT INCOMPETENT), WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE ARGUMENT THAT UNLESS THE
EVIDENCE IS EXCLUDED, THE STATUTE BECOMES A FORM AND ITS PROTECTION AN
ILLUSION.  THIS HAS A STRANGE SOUND WHEN THE IMMUNITY IS VIEWED IN THE
LIGHT OF ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY.  THE RULE NOW EMBODIED IN THE STATUTE
WAS RECEIVED INTO ENGLISH LAW AS THE OUTCOME OF THE PROSECUTION OF
WILKES AND ENTICK  ...  WILKES SUED THE MESSENGERS WHO HAD RANSACKED
HIS PAPERS, AND RECOVERED A VERDICT OF $*4,000 AGAINST ONE AND $*1,000
AGAINST THE OTHER.  ENTICK, TOO, HAD A SUBSTANTIAL VERDICT  ...  WE DO
NOT KNOW WHETHER THE PUBLIC, REPRESENTED BY ITS JURIES, IS TO-DAY MORE
INDIFFERENT TO ITS LIBERTIES THAN IT WAS WHEN THE IMMUNITY WAS BORN. 
IF SO, THE CHANGE OF SENTIMENT WITHOUT MORE DOES NOT WORK A CHANGE OF
REMEDY.  OTHER SANCTIONS, PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY, SUPPLEMENTING THE
RIGHT TO DAMAGES, HAVE ALREADY BEEN ENUMERATED.  NO DOUBT THE
PROTECTION OF THE STATUTE WOULD BE GREATER FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
THE INDIVIDUAL WHOSE PRIVACY HAD BEEN INVADED IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE
REQUIRED TO IGNORE WHAT IT HAD LEARNED THROUGH THE INVASION.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER PROTECTION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL WOULD NOT BE GAINED
AT A DISPROPORTIONATE LOSS OF PROTECTION FOR SOCIETY.  ON THE ONE SIDE
IS THE SOCIAL NEED THAT CRIME SHALL BE REPRESSED.  ON THE OTHER, THE
SOCIAL NEED THAT LAW SHALL NOT BE FLOUTED BY THE INSOLENCE OF OFFICE. 
THERE ARE DANGERS IN ANY CHOICE.  THE RULE OF THE ADAMS CASE (176 N.Y.
351, 68 N.E. 636) STRIKES A BALANCE BETWEEN OPPOSING INTERESTS."  242
N.Y. AT 19, 20, 24-25, 150 N.E. AT 586-87, 587, 588-89. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

IN THIS CASE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF A CRIME IN A STATE COURT ON
EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH AND SEIZURE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER THAT
THIS COURT HAS HELD "UNREASONABLE" AND THEREFORE IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT.  AND UNDER A RULE OF EVIDENCE ADOPTED BY THIS COURT
EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED BY FEDERAL OFFICERS CANNOT BE USED AGAINST
DEFENDANTS IN FEDERAL COURTS.  FOR REASONS STATED IN MY DISSENTING
OPINION IN ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46, 68, I AGREE WITH THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION OF
"UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES" IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE
STATES.  CONSEQUENTLY, I SHOULD BE FOR REVERSAL OF THIS CASE IF I
THOUGHT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT NOT ONLY PROHIBITED "UNREASONABLE SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES," BUT ALSO, OF ITSELF, BARRED THE USE OF EVIDENCE SO
UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED.  BUT I AGREE WITH WHAT APPEARS TO BE A PLAIN
IMPLICATION OF THE COURT'S OPINION THAT THE FEDERAL EXCLUSIONARY RULE
IS NOT A COMMAND OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BUT IS A JUDICIALLY CREATED
RULE OF EVIDENCE WHICH CONGRESS MIGHT NEGATE.  SEE MCNABB V. UNITED
STATES, 318 U.S. 332.  THIS LEADS ME TO CONCUR IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT
OF AFFIRMANCE. 

IT IS NOT AMISS TO REPEAT MY BELIEF THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS
INTENDED TO MAKE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES.  THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AGAINST
UNRESTRAINED SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BY SHERIFFS, POLICEMEN AND OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  SUCH PROTECTION IS AN ESSENTIAL IN A FREE
SOCIETY.  AND I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE FROM
OVER-ZEALOUS OR RUTHLESS STATE OFFICERS IS ANY LESS ESSENTIAL IN A
COUNTRY OF "ORDERED LIBERTY" THAN IS THE PROTECTION OF PEOPLE FROM OVER
ZEALOUS OR RUTHLESS FEDERAL OFFICERS.  CERTAINLY THERE ARE FAR MORE
STATE THAN FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES, UP TO
NOW, HAVE MORE FREQUENTLY AND CLOSELY TOUCHED THE INTIMATE DAILY LIVES
OF PEOPLE THAN HAVE THE ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL OFFICERS.  A STATE
OFFICER'S "KNOCK AT THE DOOR ...  AS A PRELUDE TO A SEARCH, WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF LAW," MAY BE, AS OUR EXPERIENCE SHOWS, JUST AS OMINOUS TO
"ORDERED LIBERTY" AS THOUGH THE KNOCK WERE MADE BY A FEDERAL OFFICER. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I BELIEVE FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK IN HIS DISSENT
IN ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46, 68, THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.  I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE MURPHY THAT THE
EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF IT MUST BE EXCLUDED IN STATE
PROSECUTIONS AS WELL AS IN FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS, SINCE IN ABSENCE OF
THAT RULE OF EVIDENCE THE AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE NO EFFECTIVE SANCTION. 
I ALSO AGREE WITH HIM THAT UNDER THAT TEST THIS EVIDENCE WAS IMPROPERLY
ADMITTED AND THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED.    MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOINS, DISSENTING. 

IT IS DISHEARTENING TO FIND SO MUCH THAT IS RIGHT IN AN OPINION WHICH
SEEMS TO ME SO FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG.  OF COURSE I AGREE WITH THE COURT
THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE PROSCRIBED
BY THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE CLAUSE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  SEE MY
DISSENTING VIEWS, AND THOSE OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, IN ADAMSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46, 68, 123.  QUITE APART FROM THE BLANKET
APPLICATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES, A DEVOTEE OF DEMOCRACY
WOULD ILL SUIT HIS NAME WERE HE TO SUGGEST THAT HIS HOME'S PROTECTION
AGAINST UNLICENSED GOVERNMENTAL INVASION WAS NOT "OF THE VERY ESSENCE
OF A SCHEME OF ORDERED LIBERTY."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319,
325.  IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE COURT CAN GO THIS
FAR AND YET BE UNWILLING TO MAKE THE STEP WHICH CAN GIVE SOME MEANING
TO THE PRONOUNCEMENTS IT UTTERS. 

IMAGINATION AND ZEAL MAY INVENT A DOZEN METHODS TO GIVE CONTENT TO
THE COMMANDS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  BUT THIS COURT IS LIMITED TO THE
REMEDIES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.  IT CANNOT LEGISLATE THE IDEAL SYSTEM. 
IF WE WOULD ATTEMPT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE CLAUSE IN
THE ORDINARY CASE TODAY, WE ARE LIMITED TO THREE DEVICES:  JUDICIAL
EXCLUSION OF THE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE; CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF
VIOLATORS; AND CIVIL ACTION AGAINST VIOLATORS IN THE ACTION OF
TRESPASS. 

ALTERNATIVES ARE DECEPTIVE.  THEIR VERY STATEMENT CONVEYS THE
IMPRESSION THAT ONE POSSIBILITY IS AS EFFECTIVE AS THE NEXT.  IN THIS
CASE THEIR STATEMENT IS BLINDING.  FOR THERE IS BUT ONE ALTERNATIVE TO
THE RULE OF EXCLUSION.  THAT IS NO SANCTION AT ALL. 

THIS HAS BEEN PERFECTLY CLEAR SINCE 1914, WHEN A UNANIMOUS COURT
DECIDED WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 393.  "IF LETTERS AND
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS CAN THUS BE SEIZED AND HELD AND USED IN EVIDENCE
AGAINST A CITIZEN ACCUSED OF AN OFFENSE," WE SAID, "THE PROTECTION OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DECLARING HIS RIGHT TO BE SECURE AGAINST SUCH
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IS OF NO VALUE, AND, SO FAR AS THOSE THUS PLACED
ARE CONCERNED, MIGHT AS WELL BE STRICKEN FROM THE CONSTITUTION."  "IT
REDUCES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO A FORM OF WORDS."  HOLMES, J., FOR THE
COURT, IN SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385, 392. 

TODAY THE COURT WIPES THOSE STATEMENTS FROM THE BOOKS WITH ITS BLAND
CITATION OF "OTHER REMEDIES."  LITTLE NEED BE SAID CONCERNING THE
POSSIBILITIES OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  SELF-SCRUTINY IS A LOFTY IDEAL,
BUT ITS EXALTATION REACHES NEW HEIGHTS IF WE EXPECT A DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TO PROSECUTE HIMSELF OR HIS ASSOCIATES FOR WELL-MEANING VIOLATIONS OF
THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE CLAUSE DURING A RAID THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR
HIS ASSOCIATES HAVE ORDERED.  FN1 BUT THERE IS AN APPEALING RING IN
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE.  A TRESPASS ACTION FOR DAMAGES IS A VENERABLE
MEANS OF SECURING REPARATION FOR UNAUTHORIZED INVASION OF THE HOME. 
WHY NOT PUT THE OLD WRIT TO A NEW USE?  WHEN THE COURT CITES CASES
PERMITTING THE ACTION, THE REMEDY SEEMS COMPLETE. 

BUT WHAT AN ILLUSORY REMEDY THIS IS, IF BY "REMEDY" WE MEAN A
POSITIVE DETERRENT TO POLICE AND PROSECUTORS TEMPTED TO VIOLATE THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THE APPEALING RING SOFTENS WHEN WE RECALL THAT IN A
TRESPASS ACTION THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES IS SIMPLY THE EXTENT OF THE
INJURY TO PHYSICAL PROPERTY.  IF THE OFFICER SEARCHES WITH CARE, HE CAN
AVOID ALL BUT NOMINAL DAMAGES - A PENNY, OR A DOLLAR.  ARE PUNITIVE
DAMAGES POSSIBLE?  PERHAPS.  BUT A FEW STATES PERMIT NONE, WHATEVER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES N2.  IN THOSE THAT DO, THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE REAL
ILL WILL OR MALICE OF THE DEFENDANT,  FN3  AND SURELY IT IS NOT
UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT ONE IN HONEST PURSUIT OF CRIME BEARS NO
MALICE TOWARD THE SEARCH VICTIM.  IF THAT BURDEN IS CARRIED, RECOVERY
MAY YET BE DEFEATED BY THE RULE THAT THERE MUST BE PHYSICAL DAMAGES
BEFORE PUNITIVE DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED.  FN4  IN ADDITION, SOME STATES
LIMIT PUNITIVE DAMAGES TO THE ACTUAL EXPENSES OF LITIGATION.  SEE 61
HARV. L. REV. 113, 119-120.  OTHERS DEMAND SOME ARBITRARY RATIO BETWEEN
ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES BEFORE A VERDICT MAY STAND.  SEE MORRIS,
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN TORT CASES, 44 HARV. L. REV. 1173, 1180-1181.  EVEN
ASSUMING THE ILL WILL OF THE OFFICER, HIS REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEF
THAT THE HOME HE SEARCHED HARBORED EVIDENCE OF CRIME IS ADMISSIBLE IN
MITIGATION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES.  GAMBLE V. KEYES, 35 S.D. 644, 153 N.W.
888; SIMPSON V. MCCAFFREY, 13 OHIO 508.  THE BAD REPUTATION OF THE
PLAINTIFF IS LIKEWISE ADMISSIBLE.  BANFILL V. BYRD, 122 MISS.  288, 84
SO. 227.  IF THE EVIDENCE SEIZED WAS ACTUALLY USED AT A TRIAL, THAT
FACT HAS BEEN HELD A COMPLETE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SEARCH, AND A
DEFENSE AGAINST THE TRESPASS ACTION.  ELIAS V. PASMORE (1934) 2 K.B.
164.  AND EVEN IF THE PLAINTIFF HURDLES ALL THESE OBSTACLES, AND GAINS
A SUBSTANTIAL VERDICT, THE INDIVIDUAL OFFICER'S FINANCES MAY WELL MAKE
THE JUDGMENT USELESS - FOR THE MUNICIPALITY, OF COURSE, IS NOT LIABLE
WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  IS IT SURPRISING THAT THERE IS SO LITTLE IN THE
BOOKS CONCERNING TRESPASS ACTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF THE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE CLAUSE? 

THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT BUT ONE REMEDY EXISTS TO DETER
VIOLATIONS OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE CLAUSE.  THAT IS THE RULE WHICH
EXCLUDES ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE.  ONLY BY EXCLUSION CAN WE IMPRESS
UPON THE ZEALOUS PROSECUTOR THAT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL DO
HIM NO GOOD.  AND ONLY WHEN THAT POINT IS DRIVEN HOME CAN THE
PROSECUTOR BE EXPECTED TO EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF OBSERVING
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE POLICE. 

IF PROOF OF THE EFFICACY OF THE FEDERAL RULE WERE NEEDED, THERE IS
TESTIMONY IN ABUNDANCE IN THE RECRUIT TRAINING PROGRAMS AND IN-SERVICE
COURSES PROVIDED THE POLICE IN STATES WHICH FOLLOW THE FEDERAL RULE. 
FN5  ST. LOUIS, FOR EXAMPLE, DEMANDS EXTENSIVE TRAINING IN THE RULES OF
SEARCH AND SEIZURE, WITH EMPHASIS UPON THE EASE WITH WHICH A CASE MAY
COLLAPSE IF IT DEPENDS UPON EVIDENCE OBTAINED UNLAWFULLY.  CURRENT
COURT DECISIONS ARE DIGESTED AND READ AT ROLL CALLS.  THE SAME GENERAL
PATTERN PREVAILS IN WASHINGTON, D.C..  FN6  IN DALLAS, OFFICERS ARE
THOROUGHLY BRIEFED AND INSTRUCTED THAT "THE COURTS WILL FOLLOW THE
RULES VERY CLOSELY AND WILL DETECT ANY FRAUDS."  FN7 IN MILWAUKEE, A
STOUT VOLUME ON THE LAW OF ARREST AND SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS MADE THE
BASIS OF EXTENDED INSTRUCTION.  FN8  OFFICER PREPARATION IN THE
APPLICABLE RULES IN JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, HAS INCLUDED THE LECTURES OF
AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT.  THE
INSTRUCTIONS ON EVIDENCE AND SEARCH AND SEIZURE GIVEN TO TRAINEES IN
SAN ANTONIO CAREFULLY NOTE THE RULE OF EXCLUSION IN TEXAS, AND CLOSE
WITH THIS STATEMENT:  "EVERY POLICE OFFICER SHOULD KNOW THE LAWS AND
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.  UPON KNOWLEDGE OF THESE FACTS DETERMINES
WHETHER THE  ... DEFENDANT WILL BE CONVICTED OR ACQUITTED.  ...  WHEN
YOU INVESTIGATE A CASE  ...  REMEMBER THROUGHOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION
THAT ONLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE CAN BE USED." 

BUT IN NEW YORK CITY, WE ARE INFORMED SIMPLY THAT "COPIES OF THE
STATE PENAL LAW AND CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE" ARE GIVEN TO OFFICERS,
AND THAT THEY ARE "KEPT ADVISED" THAT ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE MAY
BE ADMITTED IN NEW YORK COURTS.  IN BALTIMORE, A "DIGEST OF LAWS" IS
DISTRIBUTED, AND IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE STATUTORY SECTION EXCLUDING
EVIDENCE "IS LIMITED IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE TRIAL OF MISDEMEANORS. 
...  IT WOULD APPEAR  ...  THAT  ...  EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED MAY
STILL BE ADMISSIBLE IN THE TRIAL OF FELONIES."  IN CLEVELAND, RECRUITS
AND OTHER OFFICERS ARE TOLD OF THE RULES OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE, BUT
"INSTRUCTED THAT IT IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE COURTS OF OHIO.  THE OHIO
SUPREME COURT HAS INDICATED VERY DEFINITELY AND CLEARLY THAT OHIO
BELONGS TO THE 'ADMISSIONIST' GROUP OF STATES WHEN EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY
AN ILLEGAL SEARCH IS PRESENTED TO THE COURT."  A SIMILAR PATTERN
EMERGES IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA. 

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN STATES WITH THE FEDERAL RULE AND THOSE WITHOUT
IT IS THUS A POSITIVE DEMONSTRATION OF ITS EFFICACY.  THERE ARE
APPARENT EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONTRAST - DENVER, FOR EXAMPLE, APPEARS TO
PROVIDE AS COMPREHENSIVE A SERIES OF INSTRUCTIONS AS THAT IN CHICAGO,
ALTHOUGH COLORADO PERMITS INTRODUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE AND ILLINOIS
DOES NOT.  AND, SO FAR AS WE CAN DETERMINE FROM LETTERS, A FAIRLY
UNIFORM STANDARD OF OFFICER INSTRUCTION APPEARS IN OTHER CITIES,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LOCAL RULE OF EVIDENCE.  BUT THE EXAMPLES CITED
ABOVE SERVE TO GROUND AN ASSUMPTION THAT HAS MOTIVATED THIS COURT SINCE
THE WEEKS CASE:  THAT THIS IS AN AREA IN WHICH JUDICIAL ACTION HAS
POSITIVE EFFECT UPON THE BREACH OF LAW; AND THAT, WITHOUT JUDICIAL
ACTION, THERE ARE SIMPLY NO EFFECTIVE SANCTIONS PRESENTLY AVAILABLE. 

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD DECIDE DUE PROCESS QUESTIONS BY
SIMPLY TAKING A POLL OF THE RULES IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS, EVEN IF WE
FOLLOW THE PALKO "TEST."  TODAY'S DECISION WILL DO INESTIMABLE HARM TO
THE CAUSE OF FAIR POLICE METHODS IN OUR CITIES AND STATES.  EVEN MORE
IMPORTANT, PERHAPS, IT MUST HAVE TRAGIC EFFECT UPON PUBLIC RESPECT FOR
OUR JUDICIARY.  FOR THE COURT NOW ALLOWS WHAT IS INDEED SHABBY
BUSINESS:  LAWLESSNESS BY OFFICERS OF THE LAW. 

SINCE THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED WAS SECURED IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT, THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE POUND, CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA (NEW YORK, 1930):  "UNDER
OUR LEGAL SYSTEM THE WAY OF THE PROSECUTOR IS HARD, AND THE NEED OF
'GETTING RESULTS' PUTS PRESSURE UPON PROSECUTORS TO ...  INDULGE IN
THAT LAWLESS ENFORCEMENT OF LAW WHICH PRODUCES A VICIOUS CIRCLE OF
DISRESPECT FOR LAW."  P. 186. 

AND NOTE THE STATEMENT OF THE WICKERSHAM COMMISSION, WITH REFERENCE
TO ARRESTS:  "  ...  IN CASE OF PERSONS OF NO INFLUENCE OR LITTLE OR NO
MEANS THE LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT LIKELY TO GIVE AN OFFICER SERIOUS
TROUBLE."  II NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT,
REPORT ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1931), P. 19. 

FN2  SEE MCCORMICK, DAMAGES, SEC. 78.  SEE WILLIS, MEASURE OF DAMAGES
WHEN PROPERTY IS WRONGFULLY TAKEN BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, 22 HARV. L.
REV. 419. 

FN3  ID., SEC. 79.  SEE FENNEMORE V. ARMSTRONG, 29 DEL. 35, 96 A.
204. 

FN4  "IT IS A WELL SETTLED AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED RULE IN
THE LAW OF DAMAGES THAT A FINDING OF EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MUST BE
PREDICATED UPON A FINDING OF ACTUAL DAMAGES."  17 IOWA L. REV. 413,
414.  THIS APPEARS TO BE AN OVERSTATEMENT.  SEE MCCORMICK, SUPRA, SEC.
83; RESTATEMENT IV, TORTS, SEC. 908, COMMENT C. 

FN5  THE MATERIAL WHICH FOLLOWS IS GLEANED FROM LETTERS AND OTHER
MATERIAL FROM COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE AND CHIEFS OF POLICE IN TWENTY
SIX CITIES.  THIRTY-EIGHT LARGE CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES WERE
SELECTED AT RANDOM, AND INQUIRIES DIRECTED CONCERNING THE INSTRUCTIONS
PROVIDED POLICE ON THE RULES OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  TWENTY-SIX REPLIES
HAVE BEEN RECEIVED TO DATE.  THOSE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE ARE MENTIONED IN
THE TEXT OF THIS OPINION.  THE SAMPLE IS BELIEVED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE,
BUT IT CANNOT, OF COURSE, SUBSTITUTE FOR A THOROUGHGOING COMPARISON OF
PRESENT-DAY POLICE PROCEDURES BY A COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER.  A
STUDY OF THIS KIND WOULD BE OF INESTIMABLE VALUE. 

FN6  E.G., ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT TRUSCOTT'S LETTER TO THE
WASHINGTON POLICE FORCE OF JANUARY 3, 1949, CONCERNING MCDONALD V.
UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 451. 

FN7  RECENTLY LECTURES HAVE INCLUDED TWO PAGES OF DISCUSSION OF THE
OPINIONS IN HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145. 

FN8  CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN W. POLCYN NOTES, IN A FOREWORD TO THE BOOK,
THAT OFFICERS WERE OFTEN NOT PROPERLY INFORMED WITH RESPECT TO SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES BEFORE THOROUGHGOING INSTRUCTION WAS UNDERTAKEN.  ONE OF
THEIR FEARS WAS THAT OF "LOSING THEIR CASES IN COURT, ONLY BECAUSE THEY
NEGLECTED TO DO WHAT THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE WITH FULL LEGAL SANCTION AT
THE TIME OF THE ARREST, OR DID WHAT THEY HAD NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DO AT
SUCH TIME." 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

"WISDOM TOO OFTEN NEVER COMES, AND SO ONE OUGHT NOT TO REJECT IT
MERELY BECAUSE IT COMES LATE."  SIMILARLY, ONE SHOULD NOT REJECT A
PIECEMEAL WISDOM, MERELY BECAUSE IT HOBBLES TOWARD THE TRUTH WITH
BACKWARD GLANCES.  ACCORDINGLY, ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT ALL "THE SPECIFIC
GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS SHOULD BE CARRIED OVER INTACT INTO THE
FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT," ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332
U.S. 46, DISSENTING OPINION AT 124, I WELCOME THE FACT THAT THE COURT,
IN ITS SLOWER PROGRESS TOWARD THIS GOAL, TODAY FINDS THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT "TO BE IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY,
AND THUS, THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ... VALID AS AGAINST THE
STATES."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 325. 

BUT I REJECT THE COURT'S SIMULTANEOUS CONCLUSION THAT THE MANDATE
EMBODIED IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH BINDING ON THE STATES, DOES
NOT CARRY WITH IT THE ONE SANCTION - EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE TAKEN IN
VIOLATION OF THE AMENDMENT'S TERMS - FAILURE TO OBSERVE WHICH MEANS
THAT "THE PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT  ...  MIGHT AS WELL BE
STRICKEN FROM THE CONSTITUTION."  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383,
393.  FOR I AGREE WITH MY BROTHER MURPHY'S DEMONSTRATION THAT THE
AMENDMENT WITHOUT THE SANCTION IS A DEAD LETTER.  TWENTY-NINE YEARS AGO
THIS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH JUSTICE HOLMES, REFUSED TO PERMIT THE
GOVERNMENT TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH IT HAD STOLEN, COPIED
AND THEN RETURNED, FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH A PROCEDURE "REDUCES THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO A FORM OF WORDS."  SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385, 392.  BUT THE VERSION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT TODAY HELD APPLICABLE TO THE STATES HARDLY RISES TO THE
DIGNITY OF A FORM OF WORDS; AT BEST IT IS A PALE AND FRAYED CARBON COPY
OF THE ORIGINAL, BEARING LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO THE AMENDMENT THE
FULFILLMENT OF WHOSE COMMAND I HAD HERETOFORE THOUGHT TO BE "AN
INDISPENSABLE NEED FOR A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY."  HARRIS V. UNITED STATES,
331 U.S. 145, DISSENTING OPINION AT 161.    I ALSO REJECT ANY
INTIMATION THAT CONGRESS COULD VALIDLY ENACT LEGISLATION PERMITTING THE
INTRODUCTION IN FEDERAL COURTS OF EVIDENCE SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT.  I HAD THOUGHT THAT ISSUE SETTLED BY THIS COURT'S
INVALIDATION ON DUAL GROUNDS, IN BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616,
OF A FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH IN EFFECT REQUIRED THE PRODUCTION OF
EVIDENCE THOUGHT PROBATIVE BY GOVERNMENT COUNSEL - THE COURT THERE
HOLDING THE STATUTE TO BE "OBNOXIOUS TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS OF THE FIFTH."  ID. AT 632. 
SEE ADAMS V. NEW YORK, 192 U.S. 585, 597, 598.  THE VIEW THAT THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT ITSELF FORBIDS THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY
OBTAINED IN FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS IS ONE OF LONG STANDING AND FIRMLY
ESTABLISHED.  SEE OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 462.  IT IS
TOO LATE IN MY JUDGMENT TO QUESTION IT NOW.  WE APPLY IT TODAY IN
LUSTIG V. UNITED STATES, POST, P. 74. 

AS CONGRESS AND THIS COURT ARE, IN MY JUDGMENT, POWERLESS TO PERMIT
THE ADMISSION IN FEDERAL COURTS OF EVIDENCE SEIZED IN DEFIANCE OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT, SO I THINK STATE LEGISLATORS AND JUDGES - IF SUBJECT
TO THE AMENDMENT, AS I BELIEVE THEM TO BE - MAY NOT LEND THEIR OFFICES
TO THE ADMISSION IN STATE COURTS OF EVIDENCE THUS SEIZED.  COMPLIANCE
WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS BETOKENS MORE THAN LIP SERVICE. 

THE COURT MAKES THE ILLEGALITY OF THIS SEARCH AND SEIZURE ITS
INARTICULATE PREMISE OF DECISION.  I ACQUIESCE IN THAT PREMISE AND
THINK THE CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
















WATTS V. INDIANA, 338 U.S. 49 


NO. 610.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 226 IND.
655, 82 N.E.2D 846, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED ON SUSPICION ON A WEDNESDAY AND HELD WITHOUT
ARRAIGNMENT, WITHOUT THE AID OF COUNSEL OR FRIENDS AND WITHOUT ADVICE
AS TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, UNTIL THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY, WHEN HE
CONFESSED TO MURDER.  MEANWHILE HE WAS HELD MUCH OF THE TIME IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN A CELL WITH NO PLACE TO SIT OR SLEEP EXCEPT THE
FLOOR AND WAS INTERROGATED BY RELAYS OF POLICE OFFICERS, USUALLY UNTIL
LONG PAST MIDNIGHT.  AT HIS TRIAL IN A STATE COURT, THE CONFESSION WAS
ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER HIS OBJECTION AND HE WAS CONVICTED.  HELD:
THE USE AT THE TRIAL OF A CONFESSION OBTAINED IN THIS MANNER VIOLATED
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE CONVICTION
IS REVERSED.  PP. 49-55. 

WATTS V. INDIANA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA AFFIRMED PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR
MURDER, NOTWITHSTANDING HIS CONTENTION THAT HIS CONFESSION WAS PROCURED
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING ITS ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  226 IND. 655, 82 N.E.2D 846.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 917.  REVERSED, P. 55. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN. 

ALTHOUGH THE CONSTITUTION PUTS PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME PREDOMINANTLY
IN THE KEEPING OF THE STATES, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SEVERELY
RESTRICTED THE STATES IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. 
THUS, WHILE THE STATE COURTS HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURING THE
RUDIMENTARY REQUIREMENTS OF A CIVILIZED ORDER, IN DISCHARGING THAT
RESPONSIBILITY THERE HANGS OVER THEM THE REVIEWING POWER OF THIS
COURT.  FN1  POWER OF SUCH DELICACY AND IMPORT MUST, OF COURSE, BE
EXERCISED WITH THE GREATEST FORBEARANCE.  WHEN, HOWEVER, APPEAL IS MADE
TO IT, THERE IS NO ESCAPE.  AND SO THIS COURT ONCE AGAIN MUST MEET THE
UNCONGENIAL DUTY OF TESTING THE VALIDITY OF A CONVICTION BY A STATE
COURT FOR A STATE CRIME BY WHAT IS TO BE FOUND IN THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THIS CASE IS HERE BECAUSE THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA REJECTED PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT CONFESSIONS
ELICITED FROM HIM WERE PROCURED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING THEIR
ADMISSION AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  FN2
226 IND. 655, 82 N.E.2D 846.  THE GROUNDS ON WHICH OUR REVIEW WAS
SOUGHT SEEMED SUFFICIENTLY WEIGHTY TO GRANT THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 917. 

ON REVIEW HERE OF STATE CONVICTIONS, ALL THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE
USUALLY TERMED ISSUES OF FACT ARE FOR CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION BY THE
STATE COURTS AND ARE NOT OPEN FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT. 
OBSERVANCE OF THIS RESTRICTION IN OUR REVIEW OF STATE COURTS CALLS FOR
THE UTMOST SCRUPLE.  BUT "ISSUE OF FACT" IS A COAT OF MANY COLORS.  IT
DOES NOT COVER A CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM UNCONTROVERTED HAPPENINGS, WHEN
THAT CONCLUSION INCORPORATES STANDARDS OF CONDUCT OR CRITERIA FOR
JUDGMENT WHICH IN THEMSELVES ARE DECISIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
SUCH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA, MEASURED AGAINST THE REQUIREMENTS DRAWN
FROM CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, AND THEIR PROPER APPLICATIONS, ARE
ISSUES FOR THIS COURT'S ADJUDICATION.  HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT,
324 U.S. 652, 659, AND CASES CITED.  ESPECIALLY IN CASES ARISING UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS IT IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ISSUES OF
FACT THAT ARE HERE FORECLOSED AND ISSUES WHICH, THOUGH CAST IN THE FORM
OF DETERMINATIONS OF FACT, ARE THE VERY ISSUES TO REVIEW WHICH THIS
COURT SITS.  SEE NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 589-90; MARSH V.
ALABAMA, 326 U.S. 501, 510. 

IN THE APPLICATION OF SO EMBRACING A CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT AS "DUE
PROCESS," IT WOULD BE IDLE TO EXPECT AT ALL TIMES UNANIMITY OF VIEWS. 
NEVERTHELESS, IN ALL THE CASES THAT HAVE COME HERE DURING THE LAST
DECADE FROM THE COURTS OF THE VARIOUS STATES IN WHICH IT WAS CLAIMED
THAT THE ADMISSION OF COERCED CONFESSIONS VITIATED CONVICTIONS FOR
MURDER,  FN3  THERE HAS BEEN COMPLETE AGREEMENT THAT ANY CONFLICT IN
TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY LED TO A CONTESTED CONFESSION IS NOT THIS
COURT'S CONCERN.  SUCH CONFLICT COMES HERE AUTHORITATIVELY RESOLVED BY
THE STATE'S ADJUDICATION.  THEREFORE ONLY THOSE ELEMENTS OF THE EVENTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A CONFESSION WAS INVOLVED THAT ARE
UNQUESTIONED IN THE STATE'S VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED ARE RELEVANT TO
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE HERE.  BUT IF FORCE HAS BEEN APPLIED, THIS
COURT DOES NOT LEAVE TO LOCAL DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT THE
CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY.  THERE IS TORTURE OF MIND AS WELL AS BODY;
THE WILL IS AS MUCH AFFECTED BY FEAR AS BY FORCE.  AND THERE COMES A
POINT WHERE THIS COURT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORANT AS JUDGES OF WHAT WE KNOW
AS MEN.  SEE TAFT, C.J., IN THE CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20, 37. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE UNDISPUTED CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MUST DETERMINE
THE ISSUE OF DUE PROCESS IN THIS CASE.  THANKS TO THE FORTHRIGHTNESS OF
COUNSEL FOR INDIANA, THESE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE BRIEFLY STATED. 

ON NOVEMBER 12, 1947, A WEDNESDAY, PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED AND HELD
AS THE SUSPECTED PERPETRATOR OF AN ALLEGED CRIMINAL ASSAULT EARLIER IN
THE DAY.  LATER THE SAME DAY, IN THE VICINITY OF THIS OCCURRENCE, A
WOMAN WAS FOUND DEAD UNDER CONDITIONS SUGGESTING MURDER IN THE COURSE
OF AN ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL ASSAULT.  SUSPICION OF MURDER QUICKLY TURNED
TOWARDS PETITIONER AND THE POLICE BEGAN TO QUESTION HIM.  THEY TOOK HIM
FROM THE COUNTY JAIL TO STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, WHERE HE WAS
QUESTIONED BY OFFICERS IN RELAYS FROM ABOUT 11:30 THAT NIGHT UNTIL
SOMETIME BETWEEN 2:30 AND 3 O'CLOCK THE FOLLOWING MORNING.  THE SAME
PROCEDURE OF PERSISTENT INTERROGATION FROM ABOUT 5:30 IN THE AFTERNOON
UNTIL ABOUT 3 O'CLOCK THE FOLLOWING MORNING, BY A RELAY OF SIX TO EIGHT
OFFICERS, WAS PURSUED ON THURSDAY THE 13TH, FRIDAY THE 14TH, SATURDAY
THE 15TH, MONDAY THE 17TH.  SUNDAY WAS A DAY OF REST FROM
INTERROGATION.  ABOUT 3 O'CLOCK ON TUESDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 18, THE
PETITIONER MADE AN INCRIMINATING STATEMENT AFTER CONTINUOUS QUESTIONING
SINCE 6 O'CLOCK OF THE PRECEDING EVENING.  THE STATEMENT DID NOT
SATISFY THE PROSECUTOR WHO HAD BEEN CALLED IN AND HE THEN TOOK
PETITIONER IN HAND.  PETITIONER, QUESTIONED BY AN INTERROGATOR OF
TWENTY YEARS' EXPERIENCE AS LAWYER, JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR, YIELDED A
MORE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT. 

UNTIL HIS INCULPATORY STATEMENTS WERE SECURED, THE PETITIONER WAS A
PRISONER IN THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES.  HE
WAS KEPT FOR THE FIRST TWO DAYS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN A CELL APTLY
ENOUGH CALLED "THE HOLE" IN VIEW OF ITS PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AS
DESCRIBED BY THE STATE'S WITNESSES.  APART FROM THE FIVE NIGHT
SESSIONS, THE POLICE INTERMITTENTLY INTERROGATED WATTS DURING THE DAY
AND ON THREE DAYS DROVE HIM AROUND TOWN, HOURS AT A TIME, WITH A VIEW
TO ELICITING IDENTIFICATIONS AND OTHER DISCLOSURES.  ALTHOUGH THE LAW
OF INDIANA REQUIRED THAT PETITIONER BE GIVEN A PROMPT PRELIMINARY
HEARING BEFORE A MAGISTRATE, WITH ALL THE PROTECTION A HEARING WAS
INTENDED TO GIVE HIM, THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ONLY GIVEN NO HEARING
DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF INTERROGATION BUT WAS WITHOUT FRIENDLY OR
PROFESSIONAL AID AND WITHOUT ADVICE AS TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
DISREGARD OF RUDIMENTARY NEEDS OF LIFE - OPPORTUNITIES FOR SLEEP AND A
DECENT ALLOWANCE OF FOOD - ARE ALSO RELEVANT, NOT AS AGGRAVATING
ELEMENTS OF PETITIONER'S TREATMENT, BUT AS PART OF THE TOTAL SITUATION
OUT OF WHICH HIS CONFESSIONS CAME AND WHICH STAMPED THEIR CHARACTER. 

A CONFESSION BY WHICH LIFE BECOMES FORFEIT MUST BE THE EXPRESSION OF
FREE CHOICE.  A STATEMENT TO BE VOLUNTARY OF COURSE NEED NOT BE
VOLUNTEERED.  BUT IF IT IS THE PRODUCT OF SUSTAINED PRESSURE BY THE
POLICE IT DOES NOT ISSUE FROM A FREE CHOICE.  WHEN A SUSPECT SPEAKS
BECAUSE HE IS OVERBORNE, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER HE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED
TO A PHYSICAL OR A MENTAL ORDEAL.  EVENTUAL YIELDING TO QUESTIONING
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS PLAINLY THE PRODUCT OF THE SUCTION PROCESS
OF INTERROGATION AND THEREFORE THE REVERSE OF VOLUNTARY.  WE WOULD HAVE
TO SHUT OUR MINDS TO THE PLAIN SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT HERE TRANSPIRED TO
DENY THAT THIS WAS A CALCULATED ENDEAVOR TO SECURE A CONFESSION THROUGH
THE PRESSURE OF UNRELENTING INTERROGATION.  THE VERY RELENTLESSNESS OF
SUCH INTERROGATION IMPLIES THAT IT IS BETTER FOR THE PRISONER TO ANSWER
THAN TO PERSIST IN THE REFUSAL OF DISCLOSURE WHICH IS HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  (TO TURN THE DETENTION OF AN ACCUSED INTO A
PROCESS OF WRENCHING FROM HIM EVIDENCE WHICH COULD NOT BE EXTORTED IN
OPEN COURT WITH ALL ITS SAFEGUARDS, IS SO GRAVE AN ABUSE OF THE POWER
OF ARREST AS TO OFFEND THE PROCEDURAL STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS. 

THIS IS SO BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE IN OUR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.  OURS IS THE ACCUSATORIAL AS OPPOSED
TO THE INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM.  SUCH HAS BEEN THE CHARACTERISTIC OF ANGLO
AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SINCE IT FREED ITSELF FROM PRACTICES BORROWED
BY THE STAR CHAMBER FROM THE CONTINENT WHEREBY AN ACCUSED WAS
INTERROGATED IN SECRET FOR HOURS ON END.  SEE PLOSCOWE, THE DEVELOPMENT
OF PRESENT-DAY CRIMINAL PROCEDURES IN EUROPE AND AMERICA, 48 HARV. L.
REV. 433, 457-58, 467-473(1935).  UNDER OUR SYSTEM SOCIETY CARRIES THE
BURDEN OF PROVING ITS CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED NOT OUT OF HIS OWN
MOUTH.  IT MUST ESTABLISH ITS CASE, NOT BY INTERROGATION OF THE ACCUSED
EVEN UNDER JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS, BUT BY EVIDENCE INDEPENDENTLY SECURED
THROUGH SKILLFUL INVESTIGATION.  "THE LAW WILL NOT SUFFER A PRISONER TO
BE MADE THE DELUDED INSTRUMENT OF HIS OWN CONVICTION."  2 HAWKINS,
PLEAS OF THE CROWN, C. 46, SEC. 34(8TH ED., 1824).  THE REQUIREMENT OF
SPECIFIC CHARGES, THEIR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THE PROTECTION
OF THE ACCUSED FROM CONFESSIONS EXTORTED THROUGH WHATEVER FORM OF
POLICE PRESSURES, THE RIGHT TO A PROMPT HEARING BEFORE A MAGISTRATE,
THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, TO BE SUPPLIED BY GOVERNMENT WHEN
CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE IT NECESSARY, THE DUTY TO ADVISE AN ACCUSED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS - THESE ARE ALL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
ACCUSATORIAL SYSTEM AND MANIFESTATIONS OF ITS DEMANDS.  PROTRACTED,
SYSTEMATIC AND UNCONTROLLED SUBJECTION OF AN ACCUSED TO INTERROGATION
BY THE POLICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELICITING DISCLOSURES OR CONFESSIONS
IS SUBVERSIVE OF THE ACCUSATORIAL SYSTEM.  IT IS THE INQUISITORIAL
SYSTEM WITHOUT ITS SAFEGUARDS.  FOR WHILE UNDER THAT SYSTEM THE ACCUSED
IS SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL INTERROGATION, HE IS PROTECTED BY THE
DISINTERESTEDNESS OF THE JUDGE IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL.  SEE KEEDY,
THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF CRIME IN FRANCE, 88 U. OF PA. L. REV.
692, 708-712(1940). 

IN HOLDING THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BARS POLICE PROCEDURE WHICH
VIOLATES THE BASIC NOTIONS OF OUR ACCUSATORIAL MODE OF PROSECUTING
CRIME AND VITIATES A CONVICTION BASED ON THE FRUITS OF SUCH PROCEDURE,
WE APPLY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO ITS HISTORIC FUNCTION OF ASSURING
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE BEFORE LIBERTY IS CURTAILED OR LIFE IS TAKEN.  WE
ARE DEEPLY MINDFUL OF THE ANGUISHING PROBLEMS WHICH THE INCIDENCE OF
CRIME PRESENTS TO THE STATES.  BUT THE HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
PROVES OVERWHELMINGLY THAT BRUTAL METHODS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE
ESSENTIALLY SELF-DEFEATING, WHATEVER MAY BE THEIR EFFECT IN A
PARTICULAR CASE.  SEE, E.G., RADZINOWICZ, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH CRIMINAL
LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION FROM 1750, PASSIM (1948).  LAW TRIUMPHS WHEN
THE NATURAL IMPULSES AROUSED BY A SHOCKING CRIME YIELD TO THE
SAFEGUARDS WHICH OUR CIVILIZATION HAS EVOLVED FOR AN ADMINISTRATION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AT ONCE RATIONAL AND EFFECTIVE. 

WE HAVE EXAMINED PETITIONER'S OTHER CONTENTIONS AND DO NOT SUSTAIN
THEM.  REVERSED. 

FN1  OF COURSE THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE CORRECTIVE POWER OVER
STATE COURTS THAT IT HAS OVER THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  SEE, E.G.,
MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332.  IN THE MAIN, THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE STATES RESTS WITH THE STATE
COURTS.  THE NATURE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, HOWEVER, POTENTIALLY
GIVES WIDE RANGE TO THE REVIEWING POWER OF THIS COURT OVER STATECOURT
CONVICTIONS. 

FN2  IN THE PETITIONER'S STATEMENTS THERE WAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE
POSSESSION OF AN INCRIMINATING GUN, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH THE POLICE
INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED.  BUT A COERCED CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE EVEN THOUGH STATEMENTS IN IT MAY BE
INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED AS TRUE.  SEE LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S.
219, 236-237. 

FN3  THE VALIDITY OF A CONVICTION BECAUSE AN ALLEGEDLY COERCED
CONFESSION WAS USED HAS BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION IN THE FOLLOWING
CASES: 

(A)  CONFESSION WAS FOUND TO BE PROCURED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IN HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596;
MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S.
143; WARD V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 547; LOMAX V. TEXAS, 313 U.S. 544; VERNON
V. ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 547; WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530; CANTY V.
ALABAMA, 309 U.S. 629; WHITE V. TEXAS, 309 U.S. 631; CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278; AND SEE
ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 327 U.S. 274. 

(B)  CONFESSION WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROCURED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IN LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S.
596, AND LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ON THE
AUTHORITY OF CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE,
322 U.S. 143. 

ON THE RECORD BEFORE US AND IN VIEW OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE
EVIDENCE BY THE STATE COURTS AND THE CONCLUSION REACHED, THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON BELIEVE THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS: 

PETITIONER WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY EARLY IN THE AFTERNOON ON
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1947.  HE WAS FIRST DETAINED ON SUSPICION OF
HAVING COMMITTED A CRIMINAL ASSAULT, AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL LATER IN THE
DAY OF HIS ARREST THAT HE WAS SUSPECTED OF HAVING COMMITTED THE MURDER
FOR WHICH HE WAS LATER TRIED AND CONVICTED.  HE WAS HELD WITHOUT BEING
ARRAIGNED, UNTIL THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY WHEN HE GAVE A CONFESSION THAT
SATISFIED THE POLICE.  AT NO TIME WAS HE ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN
SILENT, NOR DID HE HAVE THE ADVICE OF FAMILY, FRIENDS OR COUNSEL DURING
HIS CONFINEMENT.  HE WAS NOT PROMPTLY ARRAIGNED AS INDIANA LAW
REQUIRES.    DURING THIS CONFINEMENT, PETITIONER WAS HELD IN THE COUNTY
JAIL.  THE FIRST TWO DAYS HE WAS PLACED IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN A
CELL KNOWN AMONG THE PRISONERS AS "THE HOLE."  THERE WAS NO PLACE ON
WHICH TO SIT OR SLEEP EXCEPT THE FLOOR.  THROUGHOUT THIS SIX-DAY
CONFINEMENT PETITIONER WAS SUBJECTED EACH DAY, EXCEPT SUNDAY, TO LONG
PERIODS OF INTERROGATION.  HE WAS MOVED TO THE STATE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS FOR THESE QUESTIONINGS.  THE QUESTION PERIOD WOULD USUALLY
BEGIN ABOUT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING, EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST NIGHT WHEN
IT BEGAN ABOUT ELEVEN THIRTY.  EACH QUESTION PERIOD WOULD EXTEND TO TWO
OR THREE O'CLOCK THE FOLLOWING MORNING.  THESE INTERROGATIONS WERE
CONDUCTED BY RELAYS OF SMALL GROUPS OF OFFICERS.  ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS
PETITIONER WAS GIVEN LIEDETECTOR TESTS.  FOLLOWING THE EVENING'S
INTERROGATION, HE WOULD BE RETURNED TO THE COUNTY JAIL.  EVEN THEN HE
WAS NOT ALWAYS GIVEN RESPITE UNTIL THE NEXT EVENING'S ORDEAL
COMMENCED.  HE WAS SUBJECTED TO INTERMITTENT QUESTIONING DURING THE
DAY, AND ON THREE AFTERNOONS HE WAS DRIVEN ABOUT THE TOWN FOR SEVERAL
HOURS BY THE POLICE IN AN ATTEMPT TO ELICIT FURTHER INFORMATION AND TO
RECONSTRUCT PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES THE DAY OF THE CRIME. 

IT WAS ABOUT TWO OR THREE O'CLOCK TUESDAY MORNING AFTER ABOUT SEVEN
HOURS' INTERROGATION THAT PETITIONER GAVE THE CONFESSION USED AGAINST
HIM OVER OBJECTION AT HIS TRIAL.  THIS WAS AFTER SIX DAYS OF
CONFINEMENT. 

IT WOULD BE NAIVE TO THINK THAT THIS PROTECTIVE CUSTODY WAS LESS THAN
THE INQUISITION.  THE MAN WAS HELD UNTIL HE BROKE.  THEN AND ONLY THEN
WAS HE ARRAIGNED AND GIVEN THE PROTECTION WHICH THE LAW PROVIDES ALL
ACCUSED.  DETENTION WITHOUT ARRAIGNMENT IS A TIME-HONORED METHOD FOR
KEEPING AN ACCUSED UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE POLICE.  THEY CAN
THEN OPERATE AT THEIR LEISURE.  THE ACCUSED IS WHOLLY AT THEIR MERCY. 
HE IS WITHOUT THE AID OF COUNSEL OR FRIENDS; AND HE IS DENIED THE
PROTECTION OF THE MAGISTRATE.  WE SHOULD UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMN THE
PROCEDURE AND STAND READY TO OUTLAW, AS WE DID IN MALINSKI V. NEW YORK,
324 U.S. 401, AND HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596, ANY CONFESSION OBTAINED
DURING THE PERIOD OF THE UNLAWFUL DETENTION.  THE PROCEDURE BREEDS
COERCED CONFESSIONS.  IT IS THE ROOT OF THE EVIL.  IT IS THE PROCEDURE
WITHOUT WHICH THE INQUISITION COULD NOT FLOURISH IN THE COUNTRY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURRING IN THE RESULT IN NO. 610 AND
DISSENTING IN NOS. 76 AND 107* . 

*(FOR OTHER OPINIONS IN NO. 76, HARRIS V. SOUTH CAROLINA, AND NO.
107, TURNER V. PENNSYLVANIA, SEE POST, PP. 68, 62.) 

THESE THREE CASES, FROM WIDELY SEPARATED STATES, PRESENT ESSENTIALLY
THE SAME PROBLEM.  ITS RECURRENCE SUGGESTS THAT IT HAS ROOTS IN SOME
CONDITION FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL TO OUR CRIMINAL SYSTEM. 

IN EACH CASE POLICE WERE CONFRONTED WITH ONE OR MORE BRUTAL MURDERS
WHICH THE AUTHORITIES WERE UNDER THE HIGHEST DUTY TO SOLVE.  EACH OF
THESE MURDERS WAS UNWITNESSED, AND THE ONLY POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH
A SOLUTION COULD BE BASED WAS POSSESSED BY THE KILLER.  IN EACH THERE
WAS REASONABLE GROUND TO SUSPECT AN INDIVIDUAL BUT NOT ENOUGH LEGAL
EVIDENCE TO CHARGE HIM WITH GUILT.  IN EACH THE POLICE ATTEMPTED TO
MEET THE SITUATION BY TAKING THE SUSPECT INTO CUSTODY AND INTERROGATING
HIM.  THIS EXTENDED OVER VARYING PERIODS.  IN EACH, CONFESSIONS WERE
MADE AND RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL.  CHECKED WITH EXTERNAL
EVIDENCE, THEY ARE INHERENTLY BELIEVABLE, AND WERE NOT SHAKEN AS TO
TRUTH BY ANYTHING THAT OCCURRED AT THE TRIAL.  EACH CONFESSOR WAS
CONVICTED BY A JURY AND STATE COURTS AFFIRMED.  THIS COURT SETS ALL
THREE CONVICTIONS ASIDE. 

THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT IS THAT NO ONE SUGGESTS THAT
ANY COURSE HELD PROMISE OF SOLUTION OF THESE MURDERS OTHER THAN TO TAKE
THE SUSPECT INTO CUSTODY FOR QUESTIONING.  THE ALTERNATIVE WAS TO CLOSE
THE BOOKS ON THE CRIME AND FORGET IT, WITH THE SUSPECT AT LARGE.  THIS
IS A GRAVE CHOICE FOR A SOCIETY IN WHICH TWO-THIRDS OF THE MURDERS
ALREADY ARE CLOSED OUT AS INSOLUBLE. 

A CONCURRING OPINION, HOWEVER, GOES TO THE VERY LIMIT AND SEEMS TO
DECLARE FOR OUTLAWING ANY CONFESSION, HOWEVER FREELY GIVEN, IF OBTAINED
DURING A PERIOD OF CUSTODY BETWEEN ARREST AND ARRAIGNMENT - WHICH, IN
PRACTICE, MEANS ALL OF THEM. 

OTHERS WOULD STRIKE DOWN THESE CONFESSIONS BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS
WHICH THEY SAY MAKE THEM "INVOLUNTARY."  IN THIS, ON ONLY A PRINTED
RECORD, THEY PIT THEIR JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT OF THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE
JURY.  BOTH, WITH THE GREAT ADVANTAGE OF HEARING AND SEEING THE
CONFESSOR AND ALSO THE OFFICERS WHOSE CONDUCT AND BEARING TOWARD HIM IS
IN QUESTION, HAVE FOUND THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE VOLUNTARY.  IN
ADDITION, THE MAJORITY OVERRULE IN EACH CASE ONE OR MORE STATE
APPELLATE COURTS, WHICH HAVE THE SAME LIMITED OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THE
TRUTH THAT WE DO. 

AMID MUCH THAT IS IRRELEVANT OR TRIVIAL, ONE SERIOUS SITUATION SEEMS
TO ME TO STAND OUT IN THESE CASES.  THE SUSPECT NEITHER HAD NOR WAS
ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO GET COUNSEL.  THIS PRESENTS A REAL DILEMMA IN A
FREE SOCIETY.  TO SUBJECT ONE WITHOUT COUNSEL TO QUESTIONING WHICH MAY
AND IS INTENDED TO CONVICT HIM, IS A REAL PERIL TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. 
TO BRING IN A LAWYER MEANS A REAL PERIL TO SOLUTION OF THE CRIME,
BECAUSE, UNDER OUR ADVERSARY SYSTEM, HE DEEMS THAT HIS SOLE DUTY IS TO
PROTECT HIS CLIENT - GUILTY OR INNOCENT - AND THAT IN SUCH A CAPACITY
HE OWES NO DUTY WHATEVER TO HELP SOCIETY SOLVE ITS CRIME PROBLEM. 
UNDER THIS CONCEPTION OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ANY LAWYER WORTH HIS SALT
WILL TELL THE SUSPECT IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS TO MAKE NO STATEMENT TO
POLICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IF THE STATE MAY ARREST ON SUSPICION AND INTERROGATE WITHOUT COUNSEL,
THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT IT LARGELY NEGATES THE BENEFITS OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  ANY
LAWYER WHO HAS EVER BEEN CALLED INTO A CASE AFTER HIS CLIENT HAS "TOLD
ALL" AND TURNED ANY EVIDENCE HE HAS OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT, KNOWS HOW
HELPLESS HE IS TO PROTECT HIS CLIENT AGAINST THE FACTS THUS DISCLOSED. 

I SUPPOSE THE VIEW ONE TAKES WILL TURN ON WHAT ONE THINKS SHOULD BE
THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON AGAINST THE STATE.  IS IT HIS RIGHT TO
HAVE THE JUDGMENT ON THE FACTS?  OR IS IT HIS RIGHT TO HAVE A JUDGMENT
BASED ON ONLY SUCH EVIDENCE AS HE CANNOT CONCEAL FROM THE AUTHORITIES,
WHO CANNOT COMPEL HIM TO TESTIFY IN COURT AND ALSO CANNOT QUESTION HIM
BEFORE?  OUR SYSTEM COMES CLOSE TO THE LATTER BY ANY INTERPRETATION,
FOR THE DEFENDANT IS SHIELDED BY SUCH SAFEGUARDS AS NO SYSTEM OF LAW
EXCEPT THE ANGLO-AMERICAN CONCEDES TO HIM. 

OF COURSE, NO CONFESSION THAT HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY ANY FORM OF
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE TO THE PERSON IS RELIABLE AND HENCE NO CONVICTION
SHOULD REST UPON ONE OBTAINED IN THAT MANNER.  SUCH TREATMENT NOT ONLY
BREAKS THE WILL TO CONCEAL OR LIE, BUT MAY EVEN BREAK THE WILL TO STAND
BY THE TRUTH.  NOR IS IT QUESTIONED THAT THE SAME RESULT CAN SOMETIMES
BE ACHIEVED BY THREATS, PROMISES, OR INDUCEMENTS, WHICH TORTURE THE
MIND BUT PUT NO SCAR ON THE BODY.  IF THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER IN THE WATTS CASE WERE BASED SOLELY ON THE STATE'S
ADMISSIONS AS TO THE TREATMENT OF WATTS, I SHOULD NOT DISAGREE.  BUT IF
ULTIMATE QUEST IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS THE TRUTH AND IF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE NO VIOLENCE OR THREATS OF IT, SHOULD SOCIETY BE
DEPRIVED OF THE SUSPECT'S HELP IN SOLVING A CRIME MERELY BECAUSE HE WAS
CONFINED AND QUESTIONED WHEN UNCOUNSELED? 

WE MUST NOT OVERLOOK THAT, IN THESE AS IN SOME PREVIOUS CASES, ONCE A
CONFESSION IS OBTAINED IT SUPPLIES WAYS OF VERIFYING ITS
TRUSTWORTHINESS.  IN THESE CASES BEFORE US THE VERIFICATION IS
SUFFICIENT TO LEAVE ME IN NO DOUBT THAT THE ADMISSIONS OF GUILT WERE
GENUINE AND TRUTHFUL.  SUCH CORROBORATION CONSISTS IN ONE CASE OF
FINDING A WEAPON WHERE THE ACCUSED HAS SAID HE HID IT, AND IN OTHERS
THAT CONDITIONS WHICH COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO ONE WHO WAS
IMPLICATED CORRESPOND WITH HIS STORY.  IT IS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS RARE,
THAT A CONFESSION, IF REPUDIATED ON THE TRIAL, STANDING ALONE WILL
CONVICT UNLESS THERE IS EXTERNAL PROOF OF ITS VERITY. 

IN ALL SUCH CASES, ALONG WITH OTHER CONDITIONS CRITICIZED, THE
CONTINUITY AND DURATION OF THE QUESTIONING IS INVOKED AND IT IS CALLED
AN "INQUIRY," "INQUEST" OR "INQUISITION," DEPENDING MAINLY ON THE
EMOTIONAL STATE OF THE WRITER.  BUT AS IN SOME OF THE CASES HERE, IF
INTERROGATION IS PERMISSIBLE AT ALL, THERE ARE SOUND REASONS FOR
PROLONGING IT - WHICH THE OPINIONS HERE IGNORE.  THE SUSPECT AT FIRST
PERHAPS MAKES AN EFFORT TO EXCULPATE HIMSELF BY ALIBIS OR OTHER
STATEMENTS.  THESE ARE VERIFIED, FOUND FALSE, AND HE IS THEN CONFRONTED
WITH HIS FALSEHOOD.  SOMETIMES (THOUGH SUCH CASES DO NOT REACH US)
VERIFICATION PROVES THEM TRUE OR CREDIBLE AND THE SUSPECT IS RELEASED. 
SOMETIMES, AS HERE, MORE THAN ONE CRIME IS INVOLVED.  THE DURATION OF
AN INTERROGATION MAY WELL DEPEND ON THE TEMPERAMENT, SHREWDNESS AND
CUNNING OF THE ACCUSED AND THE COMPETENCE OF THE EXAMINER.  BUT,
ASSUMING A RIGHT TO EXAMINE AT ALL, THE RIGHT MUST INCLUDE WHAT IS MADE
REASONABLY NECESSARY BY THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. 

IF THE RIGHT OF INTERROGATION BE ADMITTED, THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
WE MUST LEAVE IT TO TRIAL JUDGES AND JURIES AND STATE APPELLATE COURTS
TO DECIDE INDIVIDUAL CASES, UNLESS THEY SHOW SOME WANT OF PROPER
STANDARDS OF DECISION.  I FIND NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE
COURTS BELOW IN THESE CASES DID NOT HAVE A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, UNLESS THIS COURT THINKS IT MEANS ABSOLUTE
PROHIBITION OF INTERROGATION WHILE IN CUSTODY BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT. 

I SUPPOSE NO ONE WOULD DOUBT THAT OUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF
RIGHTS, GROUNDED IN REVOLT AGAINST THE ARBITRARY MEASURES OF GEORGE III
AND IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, REPRESENT THE MAXIMUM
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE POWER OF ORGANIZED SOCIETY OVER THE INDIVIDUAL
THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF ORGANIZED SOCIETY ITSELF. 
THEY WERE SO INTENDED AND SHOULD BE SO INTERPRETED.  IT CANNOT BE
DENIED THAT, EVEN IF CONSTRUED AS THESE PROVISIONS TRADITIONALLY HAVE
BEEN, THEY CONTAIN AN AGGREGATE OF RESTRICTIONS WHICH SERIOUSLY LIMIT
THE POWER OF SOCIETY TO SOLVE SUCH CRIMES AS CONFRONT US IN THESE
CASES.  THOSE RESTRICTIONS WE SHOULD NOT FOR THAT REASON CAST ASIDE,
BUT THAT IS GOOD REASON FOR INDULGING IN NO UNNECESSARY EXPANSION OF
THEM. 

I DOUBT VERY MUCH IF THEY REQUIRE US TO HOLD THAT THE STATE MAY NOT
TAKE INTO CUSTODY AND QUESTION ONE SUSPECTED REASONABLY OF AN
UNWITNESSED MURDER.  IF IT DOES, THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY MUST
DISCIPLINE THEMSELVES TO SEEING THEIR POLICE STAND BY HELPLESSLY WHILE
THOSE SUSPECTED OF MURDER PROWL ABOUT UNMOLESTED.  IS IT A NECESSARY
PRICE TO PAY FOR THE FAIRNESS WHICH WE KNOW AS "DUE PROCESS OF LAW"? 
AND IF NOT A NECESSARY ONE, SHOULD IT BE DEMANDED BY THIS COURT?  I DO
NOT KNOW THE ULTIMATE ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS; BUT, FOR THE PRESENT,
I SHOULD NOT INCREASE THE HANDICAP ON SOCIETY. 
..END :















TURNER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 338 U.S. 62 


NO. 107.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16-17, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 358
PA. 350, 58 A.2D 61, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED ON SUSPICION AND HELD FOR FIVE DAYS WITHOUT
ARRAIGNMENT, WITHOUT THE AID OF COUNSEL OR FRIENDS AND WITHOUT BEING
ADVISED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  MEANWHILE, HE WAS INTERROGATED
BY RELAYS OF POLICE OFFICERS, SOMETIMES DURING BOTH THE DAY AND THE
NIGHT, UNTIL HE CONFESSED TO MURDER.  IT WAS ADMITTED THAT ARRAIGNMENT
WAS PURPOSELY DELAYED UNTIL A CONFESSION COULD BE OBTAINED.  AT HIS
TRIAL IN A STATE COURT, THE CONFESSION WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER
HIS OBJECTION AND HE WAS CONVICTED.  HELD:  THE USE AT THE TRIAL OF A
CONFESSION THUS OBTAINED VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED.  WATTS V. INDIANA,
ANTE, P. 49.  PP. 63-66. 

TURNER V. PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AFFIRMED PETITIONER'S CONVICTION
FOR MURDER, NOTWITHSTANDING HIS CLAIM THAT HIS CONFESSION WAS PROCURED
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING ITS ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  358 PA. 350, 58 A.2D 61.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 858.  REVERSED, P. 66. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN. 

OUR RULING IN WATTS V. INDIANA, ANTE, P. 49, IS DECISIVE OF THE
PRESENT CASE.  IT IS ALSO A CAPITAL CASE IN WHICH THE PETITIONER CLAIMS
THAT HIS CONVICTION FOR FIRSTDEGREE MURDER RESULTED FROM THE USE OF
INCRIMINATORY STATEMENTS OBTAINED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SHOULD HAVE
BARRED THEIR ADMISSION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN
AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION, REJECTED THIS CLAIM.  358 PA. 350, 58 A.2D
61.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE TO MEASURE AGAINST THE REQUIREMENTS OF
DUE PROCESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM.  334 U.S. 858. 
AGAIN WE TAKE CONFLICTS OF TESTIMONY AS THEY WERE RESOLVED BY THE
STATE'S ADJUDICATION. 

FOR SIX MONTHS THE PHILADELPHIA POLICE HAD BEEN INVESTIGATING THE
FELONIOUS DEATH OF ONE FRANK ANDRES.  AT 10:30 IN THE MORNING OF JUNE
3, 1946, THEY ARRESTED AARON TURNER, THE PETITIONER, ON SUSPICION OF
THE HOMICIDE AND TOOK HIM TO THE OFFICE OF THE HOMICIDE DIVISION AT THE
CITY HALL BUILDING.  THE OFFICERS MAKING THE ARREST HAD NO WARRANT AND
DID NOT TELL THE PETITIONER WHY HE WAS BEING ARRESTED.  THESE OFFICERS
BEGAN TO QUESTION THE PETITIONER AS SOON AS THEY REACHED THE CITY HALL
POLICE STATION.  ONE OF THEM EXAMINED THE PETITIONER FOR THREE HOURS ON
THAT AFTERNOON AND AGAIN THAT NIGHT FROM EIGHT TO ELEVEN O'CLOCK.  FROM
TIME TO TIME OTHER OFFICERS JOINED IN THE INTERROGATION.  PETITIONER
PERSISTENTLY DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE MURDER. 

THE NEXT MORNING, JUNE 4, THE PETITIONER WAS BOOKED ON THE POLICE
RECORDS AS BEING HELD FOR QUESTIONING.  LATER THAT DAY HE WAS
QUESTIONED FOR ABOUT FOUR HOURS MORE.  ON JUNE 5 HE WAS INTERROGATED
FOR ANOTHER FOUR HOURS AND ON THE 6TH FOR DAY AND NIGHT SESSIONS
TOTALING SIX HOURS.  THE QUESTIONING WAS CONDUCTED SOMETIMES BY ONE
OFFICER AND AT OTHER TIMES BY SEVERAL WORKING TOGETHER; IT APPEARS, IN
FACT, THAT WHENEVER ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS INTERESTED IN THE
INVESTIGATION HAD ANY FREE TIME HE WOULD HAVE THE PETITIONER BROUGHT
FROM HIS CELL FOR QUESTIONING. 

ON JUNE 7, THE DAY WHEN A CONFESSION WAS FINALLY OBTAINED,
QUESTIONING BEGAN IN THE AFTERNOON AND CONTINUED FOR THREE HOURS. 
LATER THAT DAY THE OFFICERS WHO HAD BEEN PRESENT DURING THE AFTERNOON
RETURNED WITH OTHERS TO RESUME THE EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER.  DESPITE
THE FACT THAT HE WAS FALSELY TOLD THAT OTHER SUSPECTS HAD "OPENED UP"
ON HIM, PETITIONER REPEATEDLY DENIED GUILT.  BUT FINALLY, AT ABOUT
ELEVEN O'CLOCK, PETITIONER STATED THAT HE HAD KILLED THE PERSON FOR
WHOSE MURDER HE WAS LATER ARRAIGNED.  AT NINE O'CLOCK THE FOLLOWING
MORNING THE SAME POLICE OFFICERS STARTED TO REDUCE HIS STATEMENT TO
WRITING, INTERRUPTED THIS PROCESS TO BRING HIM FOR A PRELIMINARY
HEARING BEFORE A MAGISTRATE SITTING IN THE SAME BUILDING, AND RETURNED
TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS STATEMENT WHICH WAS COMPLETED BY ABOUT NOON. 

THE PETITIONER WAS NOT PERMITTED TO SEE FRIENDS OR RELATIVES DURING
THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF CUSTODY; HE WAS NOT INFORMED FORMED OF HIS RIGHT
TO REMAIN SILENT UNTIL AFTER HE HAD BEEN UNDER THE PRESSURE OF A LONG
PROCESS OF INTERROGATION AND HAD ACTUALLY YIELDED TO IT.  WITH
COMMENDABLE CANDOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ADMITTED THAT A HEARING WAS
WITHHELD UNTIL INTERROGATION HAD PRODUCED CONFESSION.  THE DELAY OF
FIVE DAYS THUS ACCOUNTED FOR WAS IN VIOLATION OF A PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE
WHICH REQUIRES THAT ARRESTED PERSONS BE GIVEN A PROMPT PRELIMINARY
HEARING. 

AT THE TRIAL, PETITIONER OBJECTED TO THE INTRODUCTION OF HIS
STATEMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS THE PRODUCT OF POLICE CONDUCT OF A
NATURE CONDEMNED BY OUR PREVIOUS CASES.  THE TRIAL JUDGE OVERRULED
PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE CONFESSION BUT TOLD THE JURY
TO DISREGARD IT IF THEY FOUND IT TO HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARY.  HE ALSO
TOLD THEM THAT IT WAS COMMON SENSE "NOT (TO) SEND THEM (SUSPECTS) TO
THE MAGISTRATE BEFORE YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO HOLD AN
ALLEGED CULPRIT FOR THE GRAND JURY."  HE REFUSED TO CHARGE THAT IN
CONSIDERING THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE CONFESSION THE PROLONGED
INTERROGATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. 

THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY AND RECOMMENDED THE DEATH
PENALTY.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION IN
AN OPINION STRESSING THE PROBABLE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER AND ASSUMING
THAT THE ALTERNATIVES BEFORE IT WERE EITHER TO APPROVE THE CONDUCT OF
THE POLICE OR TO TURN THE PETITIONER "LOOSE UPON (SOCIETY) AFTER HE HAS
CONFESSED HIS GUILT."  358 PA. AT 367. 

PUTTING THIS CASE BESIDE THE CONSIDERATIONS SET FORTH IN OUR OPINION
IN WATTS V. INDIANA, ANTE, P. 49, LEAVES OPEN NO OTHER POSSIBLE
CONCLUSION THAN THAT PETITIONER'S CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MADE ITS USE AT THE TRIAL A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. 
WE MUST, ACCORDINGLY, REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CASE. 

THERE REMAINS, HOWEVER, AN ADDITIONAL COMPLICATION.  THE POLICE
ARRESTED TWO OTHER MEN, JOHNSON AND LOFTON, WHO WERE SUSPECTED AS CO
PRINCIPALS WITH TURNER IN THE ANDRES MURDER.  THESE TWO ALSO MADE
CONFESSIONS INVOLVING TURNER AS WELL AS THEMSELVES.  TURNER SIGNED
THEIR CONFESSIONS AND THEY WERE INTRODUCED AGAINST HIM AT THE TRIAL. 
SINCE A NEW TRIAL IS CALLED FOR, ISSUES RAISED BY THESE CONFESSIONS
CALL FOR NOTICE. 

CLEARLY THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS THAT BAR ADMISSION OF THE CONFESSION
BY TURNER MADE OVER HIS OWN NAME EXTEND TO HIS CONTEMPORANEOUS ADOPTION
OF THE JOHNSON AND LOFTON CONFESSIONS.  BUT THESE STATEMENTS MAY BE
INTRODUCED NOT AS HIS OWN CONFESSIONS BUT AS CONFESSIONS BY CO
PRINCIPALS.  IN THAT EVENT PENNSYLVANIA MAY, AS A MATTER OF LOCAL
EVIDENTIARY LAW, HOLD THAT THE HEARSAY RULE REQUIRES THE EXCLUSION OF
STATEMENTS BY CO-PRINCIPALS NOT ON TRIAL.  ASSUMING, HOWEVER, THAT AS A
MATTER OF LOCAL LAW THESE STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE, THERE WOULD THEN
ARISE THE QUESTION WHETHER UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A COERCED
STATEMENT MAY BE EXCLUDED ON OBJECTION OF ONE NOT COERCED INTO MAKING
IT.  AT THIS STAGE, HOWEVER, THIS IS A WHOLLY HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
WHICH, AS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, WE OUGHT NOT HYPOTHETICALLY TO
ANSWER.  WE COULD NOT ANSWER IT, IN ANY EVENT, WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE THAT
JOHNSON'S AND LOFTON'S CONFESSIONS WERE ALSO COERCED, AND THE FACTS
NECESSARY TO THAT DETERMINATION ARE NOT BEFORE US. 

SUCH OTHER CONTENTIONS AS THE USE OF STATEMENTS MADE AT A
MAGISTRATE'S HEARING WHEN THE ACCUSED HAD NO COUNSEL MAY BE DISPOSED OF
BY PENNSYLVANIA CASES, OR FOR OTHER REASONS MAY FAIL TO ARISE ON
RETRIAL OF THE CASE.  SEE, E.G., COMMONWEALTH V. LENOUSKY, 206 PA. 277,
55 A. 977, CITED WITH APPROVAL IN COMMONWEALTH V. WESTWOOD, 324 PA.
289, 188 A. 304.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT ON THE AUTHORITY OF
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S.
143. 

ON THE RECORD BEFORE US AND IN VIEW OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE
EVIDENCE BY THE STATE COURTS AND THE CONCLUSION REACHED, THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON BELIEVE THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

(SEE ANTE, P. 57, FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN
THE RESULT IN NO. 610, WATTS V. INDIANA, ANTE, P. 49, AND DISSENTING IN
THIS CASE AND IN NO. 76, HARRIS V. SOUTH CAROLINA, POST, P. 68.) 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS SURROUNDING THE ARREST AND CONFESSION OF THE
PETITIONER IN THIS CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED JUNE 3, 1946, ON SUSPICION OF COMMITTING A
HOMICIDE ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER THE CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED.  AT THE
TIME OF HIS ARREST HE WAS NOT TAKEN BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE, AS
REQUIRED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW.  HE WAS HELD FIVE DAYS BEFORE BEING
LAWFULLY COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.  DURING THIS CONFINEMENT HE DID NOT HAVE
THE AID OF FAMILY, FRIENDS, OR COUNSEL.  HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT THE OUTSET OF HIS DETENTION. 

DURING THIS CONFINEMENT PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT TO CONTINUAL
INTERROGATIONS BY A NUMBER OF POLICE OFFICERS, WHO QUESTIONED HIM
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN SMALL GROUPS.  THE DAY OF HIS ARREST HE WAS
QUESTIONED ABOUT THREE HOURS IN THE AFTERNOON AND AGAIN IN THE
EVENING.  THE NEXT TWO DAYS HE WAS QUESTIONED THREE TO FOUR HOURS IN
THE AFTERNOON.  THE NEXT DAY THE QUESTIONING WAS INTENSIFIED AND HE WAS
AGAIN SUBJECTED TO BOTH DAY AND EVENING SESSIONS.  ON THE 7TH OF JUNE,
THE DAY HE FINALLY CONFESSED, THE INTERROGATIONS WERE INTENSIVE, ONCE
AGAIN BEING HELD AFTERNOON AND EVENING.  PETITIONER DENIED HIS GUILT,
EVEN AFTER BEING INFORMED THAT OTHER SUSPECTS HAD ISSUED STATEMENTS
INCRIMINATING HIM.  ABOUT ELEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING, AFTER THREE
HOURS OF INTERROGATION, PETITIONER FINALLY INDICATED THAT HE WISHED TO
MAKE A STATEMENT.  THIS CONFESSION WAS SET DOWN ON PAPER THE NEXT DAY,
AND PETITIONER SIGNED IT AFTER HE HAD BEEN COMMITTED BY A MAGISTRATE. 

THESE INTERROGATIONS HAD BEEN CONDUCTED BY AT LEAST SEVEN DIFFERENT
OFFICERS.  THEY WERE CONDUCTED IN PETITIONER'S CELL, IN A SMALL OFFICE,
AND IN A ROOM WHICH HAD A STAND-UP SCREEN WHERE SUSPECTS WERE PUT FOR
IDENTIFICATION.  IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE REASON PETITIONER WAS NOT
BROUGHT BEFORE A MAGISTRATE WAS BECAUSE HE HAD NOT GIVEN THE ANSWERS
WHICH THE POLICE WANTED AND WHICH THEY BELIEVED HE COULD GIVE. 

THE CASE IS BUT ANOTHER VIVID ILLUSTRATION OF THE USE OF ILLEGAL
DETENTIONS TO EXACT CONFESSIONS.  IT IS GOVERNED BY WATTS V. INDIANA,
ANTE, P. 49, DECIDED THIS DAY. 
..END :













HARRIS V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 338 U.S. 68 


NO. 76.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 212 S.C.
124, 46 S.E.2D 682, REVERSED. 


SUSPECTED OF MURDER IN SOUTH CAROLINA, PETITIONER, AN ILLITERATE
NEGRO, WAS ARRESTED IN TENNESSEE ON FRIDAY AND TAKEN TO SOUTH CAROLINA
ON SUNDAY.  THE SOUTH CAROLINA SHERIFF HAD OBTAINED A WARRANT FOR HIS
ARREST FOR THEFT OF A PISTOL, BUT IT WAS NOT READ TO HIM NOR WAS HE
INFORMED OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM.  CONFINED IN A SMALL HOT ROOM, HE
WAS INTERROGATED DAILY AND NIGHTLY BY RELAYS OF POLICE OFFICERS UNTIL
HE CONFESSED TO THE MURDER ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT, AFTER THE POLICE HAD
THREATENED TO ARREST HIS MOTHER.  MEANWHILE, HE WAS DENIED COUNSEL AND
ACCESS TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS, WAS NOT GIVEN A PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND
WAS NOT INFORMED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  AT HIS TRIAL IN A STATE
COURT, THE CONFESSION WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER HIS OBJECTION AND
HE WAS CONVICTED.  HELD:  THE USE OF A CONFESSION OBTAINED IN THIS
MANNER VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND
THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED.  WATTS V. INDIANA, ANTE, P. 49; TURNER V.
PENNSYLVANIA, ANTE, P. 62.  PP. 68-71. 

HARRIS V. SOUTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AFFIRMED PETITIONER'S CONVICTION
FOR MURDER, NOTWITHSTANDING HIS CLAIM THAT HIS CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING ITS ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  212 S.C. 124, 46 S.E.2D 682.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 837.  REVERSED, P. 71. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN. 

ON SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL 28, 1946, EDWARD L. BENNETT AND HIS WIFE
WERE KILLED IN THEIR STORE IN AIKEN COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.  BENNETT'S
LAST WORDS WERE, "A BIG NEGRO SHOT ME AND ROBBED ME."  PETITIONER,
HARRIS, AGE TWENTY-FIVE, A SLIGHTLY BUILT NEGRO, WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
INDICTED IN THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS FOR AIKEN COUNTY AND FOUND
GUILTY OF THE MURDER OF THE BENNETTS.  THE JURY'S VERDICT REQUIRED
IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
DENIED THE CLAIM THAT A CONFESSION INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL WAS OBTAINED
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECLUDED ITS ADMISSION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE AND SUSTAINED THE CONVICTION, 212 S.C. 124, 46 S.E.2D 682, BY A
3-2 VOTE, TWO JUDGES DISSENTING ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS SHOW THAT
THE CONFESSION "WAS NOT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE."  WE BROUGHT THE
CASE HERE TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THIS CLAIM.  334 U.S. 837. 

WHEN THE DISPUTED TESTIMONY IS RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE STATE, THE
FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE: 

THE POLICE OF AIKEN COUNTY SPENT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS IN FRUITLESS
INVESTIGATION OF THE MURDERS.  MANY SUSPECTS HAD BEEN HELD FOR
INTERROGATION AND THEN RELEASED.  SUSPICION WAS FINALLY DIRECTED TOWARD
PETITIONER BY REPORTS THAT HE POSSESSED A PISTOL AND HAD LEFT FOR
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, SOON AFTER THE MURDERS.  THE SHERIFF OF AIKEN
COUNTY THEN OBTAINED A WARRANT, OSTENSIBLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRESTING
PETITIONER FOR THE THEFT OF HIS AUNT'S PISTOL BUT ACTUALLY TO SECURE
HIS RETURN FROM NASHVILLE.  HE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY THERE ON FRIDAY,
JULY 12, 1946.  NO WARRANT WAS READ TO HIM AND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF
THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM.  HE WAS BROUGHT BACK TO AIKEN COUNTY AND LODGED
IN ITS JAIL ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON AT ABOUT FOUR O'CLOCK.  HE FIRST
LEARNED THAT HE WAS SUSPECTED OF THE MURDER OF BENNETT ON MONDAY
AFTERNOON.  HE DENIED THE ACCUSATION.  AT THAT TIME HE WAS BRIEFLY
INTERROGATED BY THE SHERIFF AND THE JAILER. 

ON MONDAY NIGHT QUESTIONING BEGAN IN EARNEST.  AT LEAST FIVE OFFICERS
WORKED IN RELAYS, RELIEVING EACH OTHER FROM TIME TO TIME TO PERMIT
RESPITE FROM THE STIFLING HEAT OF THE CUBICLE IN WHICH THE
INTERROGATION WAS CONDUCTED.  THROUGHOUT THE EVENING PETITIONER DENIED
THAT HE HAD KILLED THE BENNETTS.  ON TUESDAY THE QUESTIONING CONTINUED
UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS FROM 1:30 IN THE AFTERNOON UNTIL PAST ONE THE
FOLLOWING MORNING WITH ONLY AN HOUR'S INTERVAL AT 5:30.  ON WEDNESDAY
AFTERNOON THE CHIEF OF THE STATE CONSTABULARY, WITH HALF A DOZEN OF HIS
MEN, QUESTIONED PETITIONER FOR ABOUT AN HOUR, AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES
CARRIED ON THE INTERROGATION FOR THREE AND A HALF HOURS LONGER.  AT
6:30 THAT EVENING THE EXAMINATION RESUMED.  PETITIONER CONTINUED TO
DENY IMPLICATION IN THE KILLINGS.  THE SHERIFF THEN THREATENED TO
ARREST PETITIONER'S MOTHER FOR HANDLING STOLEN PROPERTY.  PETITIONER
REPLIED, "DON'T GET MY MOTHER MIXED UP IN IT AND I WILL TELL YOU THE
TRUTH."  PETITIONER THEN STATED IN SUBSTANCE WHAT APPEARS IN THE
CONFESSION INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL.  THE SESSION ENDED AT MIDNIGHT. 

PETITIONER WAS NOT INFORMED OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER SOUTH CAROLINA LAW,
SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SECURE A LAWYER, THE RIGHT TO REQUEST A
PRELIMINARY HEARING, OR THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.  NO PRELIMINARY
HEARING WAS EVER GIVEN AND HIS CONFESSION DOES NOT EVEN CONTAIN THE
USUAL STATEMENT THAT HE WAS TOLD THAT WHAT HE SAID MIGHT BE USED
AGAINST HIM.  DURING THE WHOLE PERIOD OF INTERROGATION HE WAS DENIED
THE BENEFIT OF CONSULTATION WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND WAS SURROUNDED
BY AS MANY AS A DOZEN MEMBERS OF A DOMINANT GROUP IN POSITIONS OF
AUTHORITY.  IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT HARRIS WAS AN ILLITERATE. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE IN HIS CHARGE TOLD THE JURY THAT WITHOUT THE
CONFESSION THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A CONVICTION AND
INSTRUCTED THEM THAT THEY COULD CONSIDER THE CONFESSION ONLY IF THEY
FOUND IT TO HAVE BEEN "VOLUNTARY."  UPON APPEAL, THE HIGHEST COURT OF
THE STATE MADE A CONSCIENTIOUS EFFORT TO MEASURE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH PETITIONER'S CONFESSION WAS MADE AGAINST THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING CONFESSIONS WHICH WE HAVE HELD TO BE THE PRODUCT OF UNDUE
PRESSURE.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THIS CONFESSION WAS NOT SO TAINTED.  WE
ARE CONSTRAINED TO DISAGREE.  THE SYSTEMATIC PERSISTENCE OF
INTERROGATION, THE LENGTH OF THE PERIODS OF QUESTIONING, THE FAILURE TO
ADVISE THE PETITIONER OF HIS RIGHTS, THE ABSENCE OF FRIENDS OR
DISINTERESTED PERSONS, AND THE CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT CONSTITUTE A
COMPLEX OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INVOKES THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
COMPELLED OUR DECISIONS IN WATTS V. INDIANA, ANTE, P. 49, AND TURNER V.
PENNSYLVANIA, ANTE, P. 62.  THE JUDGMENT IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT ON THE AUTHORITY OF
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S.
143. 

ON THE RECORD BEFORE US AND IN VIEW OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE
EVIDENCE BY THE STATE COURTS AND THE CONCLUSION REACHED, THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON BELIEVE THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

(SEE ANTE, P. 57, FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN
THE RESULT IN NO. 610, WATTS V. INDIANA, ANTE, P. 49, AND DISSENTING IN
THIS CASE AND IN NO. 107, TURNER V. PENNSYLVANIA, ANTE, P. 62.) 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS CONCERNING THE ARREST AND INTERROGATION OF THE
PETITIONER ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

A STOREKEEPER AND HIS WIFE WERE KILLED IN AIKEN, SOUTH CAROLINA.  THE
KILLING SEEMED SIMILAR TO OTHER CRIMES WHICH HAD BEEN COMMITTED IN THE
COMMUNITY AND WHICH CONSTITUTED A LOCAL CRIME WAVE.  LOCAL FEELING WAS
RUNNING HIGH AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WAS ANXIOUS TO FIND A SOLUTION. 
NUMEROUS PERSONS WERE INTERROGATED.  NEARLY THREE MONTHS LATER
SUSPICION FELL ON PETITIONER, BECAUSE IT BECAME KNOWN THAT HE POSSESSED
A PISTOL AND HAD LEFT THE COMMUNITY FOR NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, SHORTLY
AFTER THE MURDER HAD OCCURRED.  THE SHERIFF SECURED A WARRANT OF ARREST
FOR THE PETITIONER, ALLEGEDLY FOR POSSESSING A STOLEN PISTOL.  THE
AUTHORITIES IN NASHVILLE WERE NOTIFIED THAT PETITIONER WAS WANTED, AND
HE WAS PICKED UP THERE AND PLACED IN CUSTODY ON A FRIDAY.  ON THE NEXT
SUNDAY HE WAS DELIVERED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICERS.  HE WAS NOT
READ THE WARRANT OF ARREST, NOR WAS HE INFORMED THAT HE WAS SUSPECTED
OF HAVING COMMITTED THE MURDER WITH WHICH HE WAS LATER CHARGED AND NOW
STANDS CONVICTED.  WHILE HANDCUFFED, HE WAS DRIVEN BACK TO AIKEN AND
LODGED IN THE AIKEN JAIL LATE THAT AFTERNOON WITHOUT BEING BROUGHT
BEFORE A MAGISTRATE.  THAT WAS SUNDAY.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL MONDAY
AFTERNOON THAT HE WAS INFORMED THAT HE WAS UNDER SUSPICION OF HAVING
COMMITTED THE MURDER.  HE WAS QUESTIONED A SHORT TIME.  HE DENIED HIS
GUILT.  A MORE EXTENDED QUESTIONING WAS HELD THAT NIGHT.  THE NEXT DAY,
TUESDAY, THE VIGOR OF THE QUESTIONING WAS INCREASED.  PETITIONER WAS
INTERROGATED IN THE AFTERNOON AND AGAIN IN THE EVENING UNTIL AROUND
MIDNIGHT.  IT WAS DURING THIS SESSION THAT TWO INCIDENTS OCCURRED. 
PETITIONER HAD DENIED HIS GUILT, BUT FINALLY MADE A STATEMENT
IMPLICATING ANOTHER NEGRO, WHO DENIED GUILT WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE
ACCUSATION.  IT WAS ALSO ON TUESDAY EVENING THAT ONE OF THE OFFICERS
LAID A HAND ON THE PETITIONER.  SHARP ISSUE IS TAKEN ON THE NATURE OF
THIS ACT.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HE WAS STRUCK WITH FORCE.  THE
OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT HE MERELY PLACED HIS HAND ON PETITIONER'S
SHOULDER WITH NO MALICE AND THAT HE MERELY STATED THAT HE DID NOT
BELIEVE CERTAIN STATEMENTS THAT THE PETITIONER HAD MADE. 

ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON THE QUESTIONING WAS BEGUN AGAIN.  PETITIONER
STILL DENIED GUILT.  WEDNESDAY EVENING HE FINALLY BROKE.  THE SHERIFF
WAS ALONE WITH PETITIONER LATE AT NIGHT.  HE THREATENED TO HAVE
PETITIONER'S MOTHER ARRESTED FOR HAVING STOLEN PROPERTY.  IT WAS THEN
THAT PETITIONER OFFERED TO MAKE THE CONFESSION THAT WAS EVENTUALLY USED
AGAINST HIM.  PETITIONER MADE HIS CONFESSION, AND HE WAS THEN REMOVED
TO THE STATE PENITENTIARY FOR PROTECTION. 

THESE INTERROGATIONS HAD BEEN HELD IN A SMALL ROOM EIGHT FEET BY
ELEVEN.  SMALL GROUPS OF DIFFERENT OFFICERS CONDUCTED THESE
INTERROGATIONS, WHICH WENT ON AND ON IN THE HEAT OF THE DAYS AND
NIGHTS.  BUT DURING THIS TIME HE WAS DENIED COUNSEL AND ACCESS TO
FAMILY AND FRIENDS. 

THIS IS ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE USE BY THE POLICE OF THE CUSTODY
OF AN ACCUSED TO WRING A CONFESSION FROM HIM.  THE CONFESSION SO
OBTAINED FROM LITERATE AND ILLITERATE ALIKE SHOULD STAND CONDEMNED. 
SEE HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596. 
..END :






LUSTIG V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 74 


NO. 1389, OCT. TERM, 1946.  ARGUED APRIL 19, 1948.  - REARGUED OCTOBER
19, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 159 F.2D 798, REVERSED. 


NOTIFIED BY CITY POLICE AND A HOTEL MANAGER THAT COUNTERFEITING OF
CURRENCY APPARENTLY WAS BEING CARRIED ON IN A HOTEL ROOM FOR WHICH
PETITIONER AND ANOTHER WERE REGISTERED UNDER ASSUMED NAMES, A SECRET
SERVICE AGENT WENT THERE AND LOOKED THROUGH THE KEYHOLE.  HE REPORTED
TO THE CITY POLICE THAT HE SAW NO EVIDENCE OF CURRENCY COUNTERFEITING
BUT THAT HE WAS CONFIDENT THAT "SOMETHING WAS GOING ON."  SUSPECTING
THAT THE OCCUPANTS WERE COUNTERFEITING RACE-TRACK TICKETS AND DESIRING
TO "GET INTO THAT ROOM AND FIND OUT WHAT WAS IN THERE," CITY POLICE
OBTAINED WARRANTS FOR THEIR ARREST FOR VIOLATIONS OF A CITY ORDINANCE
REQUIRING "KNOWN CRIMINALS" TO REGISTER WITH THE POLICE; ENTERED THE
ROOM IN THEIR ABSENCE; SEARCHED IT; AND FOUND EVIDENCE OF CURRENCY
COUNTERFEITING.  THE SECRET SERVICE AGENT WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN THIS
TOOK PLACE; BUT HE ARRIVED LATER, EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE, AND WAS
PRESENT WHEN PETITIONER AND HIS COMPANION ARRIVED AND WERE ARRESTED AND
SEARCHED BY CITY POLICE, WHO TURNED THE ARTICLES EVIDENCING
COUNTERFEITING OF CURRENCY OVER TO THE SECRET SERVICE AGENT.  THIS
EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED OVER PETITIONER'S OBJECTION IN HIS TRIAL IN A
FEDERAL COURT AND HE WAS CONVICTED FOR COUNTERFEITING.  HELD:  THIS
EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AND THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED. 
PP. 75-80. 

LUSTIG V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S CONVICTION OF COUNTERFEITING WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS.  159 F.2D 798.  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 331 U.S. 853,
BUT, ON REHEARING, VACATED THAT ORDER AND GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S.
835.  REVERSED, P. 80. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR.
JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN. 

THIS IS A PROSECUTION UNDER THE COUNTERFEITING STATUTES.  REV. STAT.
SEC. 5430, 35 STAT. 1088, 1116, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  264(NOW
SEC. 474).  THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
DENIAL OF A PRETRIAL MOTION, SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT, 159 F.2D 798, TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN
SEIZED IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AS IT IS TO BE APPLIED
UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF BYARS V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28.  FN1 

SINCE THE LEGAL ISSUE TURNS ON THE PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE
THEY MUST BE STATED WITH PARTICULARITY. 

AT ABOUT 2 P.M. ON SUNDAY, MARCH 10, 1946, SECRET SERVICE AGENT
GREENE RECEIVED TWO TELEPHONE CALLS, ONE FROM THE POLICE OF CAMDEN, NEW
JERSEY, THE OTHER FROM THE MANAGER OF A HOTEL IN THAT CITY, INDICATING
VIOLATIONS OF THE COUNTERFEITING STATUTES BEING CARRIED ON IN ROOM 402
OF THE HOTEL.  LUSTIG, THE PETITIONER HERE, AND ONE REYNOLDS WERE
REGISTERED FOR THIS ROOM UNDER ASSUMED NAMES.  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT
THE SECRET SERVICE IS THE AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS PERTAINING TO COUNTERFEITING.  ON LOOKING
THROUGH THE KEYHOLE OF THE SUSPECT ROOM AFTER REACHING THE HOTEL,
GREENE SAW LUSTIG, TWO BRIEF CASES AND A LARGE SUITCASE, BUT NO
EVIDENCE PERTINENT TO COUNTERFEITING.  HE QUESTIONED THE CHAMBERMAID
WHOSE SUSPICIONS HAD LED TO THIS INVESTIGATION.  SHE RECOUNTED THE
HEARING OF NOISES "LIKE GLASS HITTING AGAINST GLASS OR METAL HITTING
AGAINST METAL" EMANATING FROM THE SUSPECT ROOM.  SHE ALSO REMARKED THAT
SHE HAD SEEN WHAT LOOKED LIKE MONEY ON THE TABLE. 

GREENE THEREUPON REPORTED TO DETECTIVE ARTHUR OF THE CAMDEN POLICE AT
THE CAMDEN POLICE STATION THAT HE HAD SEEN NO EVIDENCE OF
COUNTERFEITING BUT WAS CONFIDENT THAT "SOMETHING WAS GOING ON."  ARTHUR
REPORTED THE AFFAIR BY TELEPHONE TO HIS SUPERIOR, CAPTAIN KOERNER, AT
HIS HOME, WHO THEN CAME TO THE POLICE STATION.  IN HIS ACCOUNT OF THE
AFFAIR, GREENE GAVE TO KOERNER THE NAMES UNDER WHICH THE OCCUPANTS OF
THE ROOM HAD REGISTERED.  IN REPLY TO INQUIRY BY CAPTAIN KOERNER,
SERGEANT MURPHY OF THE CAMDEN POLICE STATED THAT ONE OF THE NAMES WAS
THAT OF A "RACEHORSE MAN OR A TOUT OR A BOOKIE."  AFTER VERIFYING THE
NAMES ON THE HOTEL REGISTER AND ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF
THE ROOM "MIGHT BE TRYING TO COUNTERFEIT RACE-TRACK TICKETS" RATHER
THAN CURRENCY, KOERNER SECURED WARRANTS FOR THE ARREST OF PERSONS
BEARING THE NAMES ON THE REGISTER IN ORDER TO "GET INTO THAT ROOM AND
FIND OUT WHAT WAS IN THERE."  THE OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST THOSE BEARING
THE ASSUMED NAMES WAS THE VIOLATION OF A CAMDEN ORDINANCE REQUIRING
"KNOWN CRIMINALS" TO REGISTER WITH THE LOCAL POLICE WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR
HOURS AFTER THEIR ARRIVAL IN TOWN.  AT ABOUT FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE
AFTERNOON OF THE SAME DAY, KOERNER AND THREE CITY DETECTIVES SECURED A
KEY FROM THE MANAGER OF THE HOTEL AND ENTERED ROOM 402.  THE POLICE
OFFICERS PROCEEDED TO EMPTY THE BAGS AND THE DRAWERS OF A BUREAU AND
THUS CAME UPON THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE SUPPRESSED.  WHAT THEY FOUND
INDICATED COUNTERFEITING OF CURRENCY RATHER THAN OF RACE-TRACK
TICKETS. 

DURING ALL THIS TIME, GREENE HAD REMAINED AT POLICE HEADQUARTERS
BECAUSE HE "WAS CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THEY WOULD FIND."  ON FINDING WHAT
THEY DID FIND, KOERNER SENT WORD TO GREENE, WHO CAME TO THE HOTEL AND
EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE IN CONTROVERSY.  WHEN LUSTIG AND REYNOLDS
EVENTUALLY RETURNED THEY WERE ARRESTED AND SEARCHED BY THE DETECTIVES. 
AS VARIOUS ARTICLES WERE TAKEN OUT OF THEIR POCKETS, THOSE DEEMED TO
HAVE BEARING ON COUNTERFEITING CURRENCY WERE TURNED OVER TO GREENE.  HE
OBSERVED THAT THE INK ON A $100 BILL TAKEN FROM REYNOLDS HAD NOT BEEN
TAMPERED WITH.  GREENE WAS TRYING TO DISCOVER WHAT HAD BEEN USED TO
MAKE THE IMPRESSION ON THE "SIMILITUDE" FOUND IN THE ROOM.  AFTER THE
SEARCH WAS COMPLETED, GREENE AND THE CITY POLICE GATHERED UP THE
ARTICLES REVEALED BY THE SEARCH AND CARRIED THEM TO THE POLICE
STATION.  SOME OF THESE ARTICLES WERE GIVEN TO GREENE BEFORE HE LEFT
ROOM 402; ALL WERE EVENTUALLY TURNED OVER TO HIM. 

WE ARE CONFRONTED BY A RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT, SUSTAINED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS, ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE.  BUT THE QUESTION BEFORE US
IS NOT FORECLOSED BY THE RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED TO A RULING ON AN ISSUE
OF FACT BY THE TRIAL COURT UNTIL ANALYSIS DISCLOSES THAT THE RULING WAS
MERELY ON AN ISSUE OF FACT AND THAT NO ISSUE OF LAW WAS ENTWINED IN THE
RULING.  INSOFAR AS WHAT THE LOWER COURTS FOUND AS FACTS MAY PROPERLY
BE SO REGARDED, THEY ARE TO BE ACCEPTED; BUT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE IS ANOTHER MATTER. 

ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WAS BEFORE HIM, THE TRIAL JUDGE ADMITTED THE
EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE DID NOT "SEE ANY CONNIVANCE OR ARRANGEMENT ON THE
PART OF THE FEDERAL OFFICERS TO HAVE AN ILLEGAL SEARCH MADE TO GET
EVIDENCE THEY COULD NOT SECURE UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW."  WE THEREFORE
ACCEPT AS A FACT THAT GREENE DID NOT REQUEST THE SEARCH, THAT, BEYOND
INDICATING TO THE LOCAL POLICE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG, HE WAS
NOT THE MOVING FORCE OF THE SEARCH, AND THAT THE SEARCH WAS NOT
UNDERTAKEN BY THE POLICE TO HELP ENFORCEMENT OF A FEDERAL LAW.  BUT
SEARCH IS A FUNCTIONAL, NOT MERELY A PHYSICAL, PROCESS.  SEARCH IS NOT
COMPLETED UNTIL EFFECTIVE APPROPRIATION, AS PART OF AN UNINTERRUPTED
TRANSACTION, IS MADE OF ILLICITLY OBTAINED OBJECTS FOR SUBSEQUENT PROOF
OF AN OFFENSE.  GREENE'S SELECTION OF THE EVIDENCE DEEMED IMPORTANT FOR
USE IN A FEDERAL PROSECUTION FOR COUNTERFEITING, AS PART OF THE ENTIRE
TRANSACTION IN ROOM 402, WAS NOT SEVERABLE, AND THEREFORE WAS PART OF
THE SEARCH CARRIED ON IN THAT ROOM.  THE UNCONTROVERTED FACTS SHOW THAT
BEFORE THE SEARCH WAS CONCLUDED GREENE WAS CALLED IN, AND ALTHOUGH HE
HIMSELF DID NOT HELP TO EMPTY THE PHYSICAL CONTAINERS OF THE SEIZED
ARTICLES HE DID SHARE IN THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE UNCOVERED
ARTICLES AS THE PHYSICAL SEARCH PROCEEDED.  IT SURELY CAN MAKE NO
DIFFERENCE WHETHER A STATE OFFICER TURNS UP THE EVIDENCE AND HANDS IT
OVER TO A FEDERAL AGENT FOR HIS CRITICAL INSPECTION WITH THE VIEW TO
ITS USE IN A FEDERAL PROSECUTION, OR THE FEDERAL AGENT HIMSELF TAKES
THE ARTICLES OUT OF A BAG.  IT WOULD TRIVIALIZE LAW TO BASE LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE ON SUCH A DIFFERENTIATION.  HAD GREENE ACCOMPANIED THE
CITY POLICE TO THE HOTEL, HIS PARTICIPATION COULD NOT BE OPEN TO
QUESTION EVEN THOUGH THE DOOR OF ROOM 402 HAD NOT BEEN OPENED BY HIM. 
SEE JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 10.  TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN
PARTICIPATION FROM THE BEGINNING OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND JOINING IT
BEFORE IT HAD RUN ITS COURSE, WOULD BE TO DRAW TOO FINE A LINE IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AS INTERPRETED
IN BYARS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 273 U.S. 28. 

THE CRUX OF THAT DOCTRINE IS THAT A SEARCH IS A SEARCH BY A FEDERAL
OFFICIAL IF HE HAD A HAND IN IT; IT IS NOT A SEARCH BY A FEDERAL
OFFICIAL IF EVIDENCE SECURED BY STATE AUTHORITIES IS TURNED OVER TO THE
FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ON A SILVER PLATTER.  THE DECISIVE FACTOR IN
DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE BYARS CASE IS THE ACTUALITY OF A
SHARE BY A FEDERAL OFFICIAL IN THE TOTAL ENTERPRISE OF SECURING AND
SELECTING EVIDENCE BY OTHER THAN SANCTIONED MEANS.  IT IS IMMATERIAL
WHETHER A FEDERAL AGENT ORIGINATED THE IDEA OR JOINED IN IT WHILE THE
SEARCH WAS IN PROGRESS.  SO LONG AS HE WAS IN IT BEFORE THE OBJECT OF
THE SEARCH WAS COMPLETELY ACCOMPLISHED, HE MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN IT.  WHERE THERE IS PARTICIPATION ON THE PART OF
FEDERAL OFFICERS IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHAT WOULD BE THE
RESULT IF THE SEARCH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED ENTIRELY BY STATE OFFICERS. 
EVIDENCE SECURED THROUGH SUCH FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IS INADMISSIBLE FOR
THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS AS THOSE WHICH MADE WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 383, THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE IN FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS. 

THOUGH STATE OFFICERS PRECEDED GREENE IN ILLEGALLY RUMMAGING THROUGH
THE BAGS AND BUREAU DRAWERS IN ROOM 402, THEY CONCERNED THEMSELVES
ESPECIALLY WITH TURNING UP EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
COUNTERFEITING LAWS AFTER GREENE JOINED THEM.  HE WAS AN EXPERT IN
COUNTERFEITING MATTERS AND HAD A VITAL SHARE IN SIFTING THE EVIDENCE AS
THE SEARCH PROCEEDED.  HE EXERCISED AN EXPERT'S DISCRETION IN SELECTING
OR REJECTING EVIDENCE THAT BORE ON COUNTERFEITING.  THE FACT THAT STATE
OFFICERS PRECEDED HIM IN BREACH OF THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY DOES NOT
NEGATIVE THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS COLLABORATION IN THE ILLEGAL
ENTERPRISE BEFORE IT HAD RUN ITS COURSE.  GREENE HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGED
SUCH PARTICIPATION BY HIS REMARK ABOUT "LEAVING THE ROOM AFTER WE HAD
GATHERED ALL THIS EVIDENCE TOGETHER." 

NOR IS THE SEARCH HERE DEFENSIBLE AS INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST. 
GREENE NEVER MADE THE ARREST, HE KNEW THAT LUSTIG AND REYNOLDS WERE NOT
PRESENT WHEN HE ENTERED THEIR ROOM AND HE HAD AN ACTIVE HAND IN THE
CONTINUATION OF THE SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT BEFORE LUSTIG AND REYNOLDS
HAD RETURNED.  THE RULING IN DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, DOES
NOT COME INTO PLAY.  NEITHER IS IT MATERIAL THAT GREENE MAY HAVE BEEN
INFORMED AS TO WHAT HE WAS LIKELY TO FIND BEFORE HE JOINED THE
SEARCHERS.  VINDICATED ANTICIPATION OF WHAT AN ILLEGAL SEARCH MAY
REVEAL DOES NOT VALIDATE A SEARCH OTHERWISE ILLEGAL.  TRUPIANO V.
UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699, 708-9.  WITH EVERY RESPECT FOR THE RULINGS
OF THE LOWER COURT, WE FIND THAT THE UNQUESTIONED FACTS DISCLOSE THAT
THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE CONVICTION RESTS WAS ILLICIT AND THE MOTION
TO SUPPRESS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AFTER THIS COURT DENIED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, A
PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS GRANTED.  THE ORDER ENTERED JUNE 16, 1947,
331 U.S. 853, DENYING CERTIORARI WAS VACATED AND THE PETITION FOR WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT WAS GRANTED
ON FEBRUARY 16, 1948.  333 U.S. 835. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT SUBSTANTIALLY
FOR REASONS SET OUT IN HIS DISSENT IN FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 322
U.S. 487, 494. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE JOIN, CONCURRING. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER FINDS IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER AN
ILLEGAL SEARCH BY STATE OFFICERS BARS THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FRUITS OF
THE SEARCH IN A FEDERAL COURT.  I JOIN IN HIS OPINION, AND IN THE
JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL.  BUT MY DISSENTING VIEWS IN WOLF V. COLORADO,
ANTE, P. 25, DECIDED THIS DAY, MAKE CLEAR MY POSITION ON THE QUESTION
HE RESERVES.  IN MY OPINION THE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IS THE PRESENCE
OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH.  WHETHER STATE OR FEDERAL OFFICIALS DID THE
SEARCHING IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE DEFENDANT, AND IT SHOULD MAKE NO
DIFFERENCE TO US. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULE AS TO THE USE OF EVIDENCE IN A FEDERAL
CRIMINAL TRIAL OBTAINED BY STATE OFFICERS THROUGH A SEARCH AND SEIZURE
CONDUCTED BY THEM UNDER STATE AUTHORITY IS THIS. 

"WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE MERE PARTICIPATION IN A STATE SEARCH OF
ONE WHO IS A FEDERAL OFFICER DOES NOT RENDER IT A FEDERAL UNDERTAKING,
THE COURT MUST BE VIGILANT TO SCRUTINIZE THE ATTENDANT FACTS WITH AN
EYE TO DETECT AND A HAND TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION BY
CIRCUITOUS AND INDIRECT METHODS."  BYARS V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28,
32.  IN THE BYARS OPINION THIS COURT WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAD THE RIGHT "TO AVAIL ITSELF OF EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY SEIZED
BY STATE OFFICERS OPERATING ENTIRELY UPON THEIR OWN ACCOUNT.  BUT THE
RULE IS OTHERWISE WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF, THROUGH ITS
AGENTS ACTING AS SUCH, PARTICIPATES IN THE WRONGFUL SEARCH AND
SEIZURE."  P. 33.  THIS IS THE RULE WHICH THE COURT REAFFIRMS TODAY. 

IT IS THE APPLICATION OF THAT RULE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WHICH
CAUSES ME TO DISSENT.  ALTHOUGH IT MAY SEEM ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF VIEW
AS TO THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE, IT BECOMES IMPORTANT IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.  IF FEDERAL PEACE OFFICERS ARE TO
BE RESTRICTED IN THEIR DUTIES TO THE EXTENT INDICATED IN THE OPINION,
THEY SHOULD HAVE FULL WARNING SO THAT THEIR WORK IN DETECTING CRIME
WILL NOT BE FRUSTRATED THROUGH THE OFFICER'S INADVERTENCE IN ACCEPTING
EVIDENCE TURNED OVER TO HIM BY STATE OFFICERS.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND
THAT GREENE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  WE SHOULD
ACCEPT THAT FINDING.  IF WE UNDERTAKE TO REEXAMINE THE TESTIMONY TO SEE
WHETHER THERE WAS PARTICIPATION BY GREENE, I SHOULD REACH THE SAME
CONCLUSION AS THE LOWER COURTS DID. 

IN MY VIEW SECRET SERVICE AGENT GREENE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS
SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED WAS
PROPERLY OVERRULED IN THE TRIAL COURT, AND THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION WAS
PROPERLY SUSTAINED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 
THE COURT ACCEPTS "AS A FACT THAT GREENE DID NOT REQUEST THE SEARCH,
THAT, BEYOND INDICATING TO THE LOCAL POLICE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING
WRONG, HE WAS NOT THE MOVING FORCE OF THE SEARCH, AND THAT THE SEARCH
WAS NOT UNDERTAKEN BY THE POLICE TO HELP ENFORCEMENT OF A FEDERAL
LAW."  THE RECORD SHOWS CLEARLY TO ME THAT AGENT GREENE DID NOT
PARTICIPATE IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 

ONLY STATE POLICE ENTERED THE ROOM OF LUSTIG, OPENED HIS BRIEF CASES
AND FOUND ALL THE ARTICLES USEFUL IN COUNTERFEITING.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL
AFTER ALL THE ARTICLES WERE FOUND THAT WERE OFFERED IN EVIDENCE THAT
AGENT GREENE WAS CALLED.  FN1  IT WAS STATED THUS IN THE BRIEF FOR
APPELLANT:  "WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE HOTEL, ALL OF THE MATERIAL THAT HAD
BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE BRIEF CASE WAS ON THE BED.  CAPT. KOERNER AND
SGT. MURPHY THEN PUT THE EXHIBITS BACK IN THE BRIEF CASES."  THIS WAS
GREENE'S TESTIMONY.  GREENE EXAMINED THE ARTICLES THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN
BY THE STATE POLICE FROM THE SATCHELS.  HE THEN LEFT THE ROOM AND
RETURNED AS LUSTIG AND HIS COMPANION REYNOLDS WERE IN THE ACT OF
OPENING THE DOOR TO ROOM 402 WHERE THE STATE OFFICERS WERE.  THE STATE
OFFICERS THEN ARRESTED REYNOLDS AND LUSTIG ON A WARRANT FOR A STATE
OFFENSE.  THE PRISONERS WERE SEARCHED.  ON REYNOLDS A $100 BILL WAS
FOUND THAT WAS SHOWN TO AGENT GREENE BY CAPTAIN KOERNER.  FN2  THE $100
BILL HAD NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH, WAS NOT EVIDENCE AGAINST LUSTIG AND
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE AGAINST HIM. 

UNLESS THE FACT THAT AGENT GREENE LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE SECURED BY
THE STATE POLICE BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE ROOM INVOLVES THE
UNITED STATES IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE LOWER COURTS WERE CORRECT
IN HOLDING THAT AGENT GREENE HAD NO PART IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 
GREENE DID NOT "SHARE IN THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE UNCOVERED
ARTICLES AS THE PHYSICAL SEARCH PROCEEDED."  FN3  THE SEARCH HAD ENDED
BEFORE HE CAME INTO THE ROOM.  THE SUBSEQUENT ARREST, EXAMINATION, AND
THE $100 BILL FOUND ON REYNOLDS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ALLEGED
UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE HAD RUN ITS COURSE
AND WE SHOULD NOT HOLD THAT THE APPEARANCE OF A FEDERAL OFFICER AT THE
PLACE OF UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE AFTER EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND
MAKES HIM A PARTICIPANT IN THE ACT.  THIS EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE
SUPPRESSED AND THE CONVICTION OF LUSTIG SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN KOERNER: 

"Q.  AFTER YOU DISCOVERED THESE ARTICLES, WHAT DID YOU DO? 

"A.  I CALLED AGENT GREENE, OF THE UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"GREENE CAME OVER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF FIVE O'CLOCK AFTER WE MADE A
THOROUGH SEARCH AND FOUND ALL THIS EVIDENCE I HAVE PRESENTED." 

TESTIMONY OF SERGEANT MURPHY: 

"Q.  WHEN DID MR. GREENE COME THERE? 

"A.  AFTER WE SEARCHED THE ROOM, SEEING WHAT WAS IN IT, AND FINDING
THE THREE NOTES, I TALKED TO CAPTAIN KOERNER AND I TOLD HIM WE HAD
ENOUGH TO CHARGE HIM WITH A FEDERAL VIOLATION, AND I CALLED MR. GREENE
FROM THE HOTEL AND EXPLAINED TO HIM OVER THE TELEPHONE JUST ABOUT WHAT
WE HAD FOUND, AND HE CAME OVER LATER." 

FN2  TESTIMONY OF AGENT GREENE: 

"Q.  THERE WAS A HUNDRED DOLLAR BILL FOUND ON MR. REYNOLDS? 

"A.  WELL, A NEW ONE. 

"Q.  DID YOU MATCH THE HUNDRED DOLLAR BILL WITH THAT IMPRESSION? 

"A.  NO, SIR.  I OBSERVED THAT THE INK ON THIS NEW HUNDRED DOLLAR
BILL HAD NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE BILL WAS NEW IN
APPEARANCE AND I CONCLUDED IT WAS NOT THE PATTERN BILL FROM WHICH THIS
HUNDRED DOLLARS WAS MADE. 

"Q.  YOU GAVE THE HUNDRED DOLLARS DID YOU TO MR. REYNOLDS? 

"A.  NO, SIR.  AT THE TIME I LOOKED AT THE BILL IT WAS IN CAPTAIN
KOERNER'S POSSESSION." 

FN3  OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, ANTE, P. 78. 
..END :









CHRISTOFFEL V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 84 


NO. 528.  ARGUED APRIL 20, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 84 U.S.
APP. D.C. 132, 171 F.2D 1004, REVERSED. 


FOR ALLEGED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED UNDER THE PERJURY STATUTE OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (SEC. 22-2501 OF THE D.C. CODE), WHICH MAKES
IT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE THAT IT SHALL HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED BEFORE "A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL."  THE COMMITTEE IN QUESTION HAD
A MEMBERSHIP OF TWENTY-FIVE.  ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED AT THE
TRIAL FROM WHICH A JURY MIGHT HAVE CONCLUDED THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE
ALLEGED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, LESS THAN A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE WERE
IN ATTENDANCE, THE TRIAL COURT IN ITS CHARGE ALLOWED THE JURY TO FIND A
QUORUM PRESENT SIMPLY BY FINDING THAT THIRTEEN OR MORE MEMBERS WERE IN
ATTENDANCE WHEN THE COMMITTEE WAS CONVENED.  HELD:  SO MUCH OF THE
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY AS ALLOWED THEM TO FIND A QUORUM PRESENT
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE FACTS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED PERJURIOUS
TESTIMONY WAS ERRONEOUS, AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION MUST BE
REVERSED.  PP. 85-90. 

CHRISTOFFEL V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF PERJURY UNDER THE PERJURY STATUTE OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (SEC. 22-2501 OF THE D.C. CODE), FOR ALLEGED
PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  84
U.S. APP. D.C. 132, 171 F.2D 1004.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336
U.S. 934.  REVERSED, P. 90. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN MARCH OF 1947, THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR WAS, AS IT IS
NOW, A STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.  FN1  DURING
THE FIRST SESSION OF THE 80TH CONGRESS IT HELD FREQUENT HEARINGS ON
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  ON MARCH 1,
1947, PETITIONER APPEARED AS A WITNESS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, UNDER
OATH, AND IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS WAS ASKED A SERIES OF
QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO HIS POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS.  IN
HIS ANSWERS HE UNEQUIVOCALLY DENIED THAT HE WAS A COMMUNIST OR THAT HE
ENDORSED, SUPPORTED OR PARTICIPATED IN COMMUNIST PROGRAMS.  AS A RESULT
OF THESE ANSWERS HE WAS INDICTED FOR PERJURY UNDER SEC. 22-2501 OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE,  FN2  AND AFTER A TRIAL BY JURY WAS
CONVICTED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, 84 U.S. APP.
D.C. 132, 171 F.2D 1004, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW ITS
VALIDITY.  336 U.S. 934. 

NO QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE RELEVANCY OR PROPRIETY OF THE
QUESTIONS ASKED.  PETITIONER'S MAIN CONTENTION IS THAT THE COMMITTEE
WAS NOT A "COMPETENT TRIBUNAL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, IN
THAT A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE
INCIDENT ON WHICH THE INDICTMENT WAS BASED.  AS TO THIS, THE RECORD
REVEALS THE FOLLOWING:  THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR CONSISTS
OF TWENTY-FIVE MEMBERS, OF WHOM THIRTEEN CONSTITUTE A QUORUM.  AT THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE AFTERNOON SESSION ON SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 1947,
SHORTLY AFTER TWO O'CLOCK, A ROLL CALL SHOWED THAT FOURTEEN MEMBERS
WERE PRESENT.  PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY STARTED SOME TIME AFTER FOUR
O'CLOCK.  THE RESPONSES SAID TO CONSTITUTE OFFENSES WERE GIVEN JUST
PRIOR TO FIVE P.M. 

EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED AT THE TRIAL FROM WHICH A JURY MIGHT HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGEDLY PERJURIOUS ANSWERS LESS
THAN A QUORUM - AS FEW AS SIX - OF THE COMMITTEE WERE IN ATTENDANCE. 
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER CONTENDED VIGOROUSLY AT THE TRIAL, ON APPEAL
AND IN THIS COURT THAT UNLESS A QUORUM WERE FOUND TO BE ACTUALLY
PRESENT WHEN THE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS WERE ASKED, THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT OF A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL WAS NOT MET AND THAT ABSENT SUCH A
FINDING A VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL SHOULD FOLLOW. 

THE TRIAL COURT AGREED THAT THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM WAS AN
INDISPENSABLE PART OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED, AND INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT
TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY THEY HAD TO FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
"THAT THE DEFENDANT CHRISTOFFEL APPEARED BEFORE A QUORUM OF AT LEAST
THIRTEEN MEMBERS OF THE SAID COMMITTEE," AND THAT "AT LEAST THAT NUMBER
MUST HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY AND PHYSICALLY PRESENT  ...  IF SUCH A
COMMITTEE SO MET, THAT IS, IF 13 MEMBERS DID MEET AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE AFTERNOON SESSION OF MARCH 1, 1947, AND THEREAFTER DURING THE
PROGRESS OF THE HEARING SOME OF THEM LEFT TEMPORARILY OR OTHERWISE AND
NO QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO THE LACK OF A QUORUM, THEN THE FACT THAT
THE MAJORITY DID NOT REMAIN THERE WOULD NOT AFFECT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THIS CASE, THE EXISTENCE OF THAT COMMITTEE AS A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL
PROVIDED THAT BEFORE THE OATH WAS ADMINISTERED AND BEFORE THE TESTIMONY
OF THE DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THERE WERE PRESENT AS MANY AS 13 MEMBERS OF
THAT COMMITTEE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE AFTERNOON SESSION.  ...  " 

THIS CHARGE IS OBJECTED TO INSOFAR AS IT ALLOWS THE JURY TO FIND A
QUORUM PRESENT SIMPLY BY FINDING THAT THIRTEEN OR MORE MEMBERS WERE IN
ATTENDANCE WHEN THE COMMITTEE WAS CONVENED, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
SUBSEQUENT FACTS. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES THAT "EACH HOUSE MAY
DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS," ART. I, SEC. 5, CL. 2, AND WE
FIND THAT THE SUBJECT OF COMPETENCY, BOTH OF THE HOUSE AS A WHOLE AND
OF ITS COMMITTEES, HAS BEEN A MATTER OF CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.  RULE XI
(2)(F) OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES READS IN PART, "THE RULES OF THE
HOUSE ARE HEREBY MADE THE RULES OF ITS STANDING COMMITTEES SO FAR AS
APPLICABLE  ...  "  RULE XV OF THE HOUSE PROVIDES FOR A CALL OF THE
HOUSE IF A QUORUM IS NOT PRESENT, AND IT HAS BEEN HELD UNDER THIS RULE
THAT SUCH A CALL, OR A MOTION TO ADJOURN, IS THE ONLY BUSINESS THAT MAY
BE TRANSACTED IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.  IV HIND'S PRECEDENTS SEC.
2950; ID. SEC. 2988.  SEE ID. SECS. 2934, 2939; VI CANNON'S PRECEDENTS
SEC. 653; ID. SEC. 680.  IT APPEARS TO US PLAIN THAT EVEN THE MOST
HIGHLY PRIVILEGED BUSINESS MUST BE SUSPENDED IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM
IN THE HOUSE ITSELF. 

A SIMILAR SITUATION OBTAINS IN THE COMMITTEES.  FN3  THE LEGISLATIVE
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946, 60 STAT. 812, 831, PROVIDES, REFERRING TO
THE STANDING COMMITTEES, IN SEC. 133(D), "NO MEASURE OR RECOMMENDATION
SHALL BE REPORTED FROM ANY SUCH COMMITTEE UNLESS A MAJORITY OF THE
COMMITTEE WERE ACTUALLY PRESENT."  THE RULE EMBODIED IN THIS SUBSECTION
WAS EFFECTIVE AS LONG AGO AS 1918 TO KEEP OFF THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE A
BILL FROM A COMMITTEE ATTENDED BY LESS THAN A QUORUM, EVEN THOUGH NO
OBJECTION WAS RAISED IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING ITSELF.  IT APPEARED THAT
THE SITUATION IN THE COMMITTEE WAS MUCH LIKE THE ONE WITH WHICH WE ARE
CONCERNED, WITH MEMBERS COMING AND GOING DURING THE MEETING.  NO POINT
OF NO QUORUM WAS RAISED AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING.  WHEN THE CHAIRMAN
PROPOSED IN THE HOUSE TO BRING UP THE BILL CONSIDERED IN THE MEETING,
THE SPEAKER RULED, ON OBJECTION BEING MADE FROM THE FLOOR, THAT IN
SPITE OF THE POINT'S NOT HAVING BEEN RAISED IN COMMITTEE, THE BILL
COULD NOT BE REPORTED.  THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM OF THE COMMITTEE,
THOUGH AT THE TIME UNOBJECTED TO, HAD MADE EFFECTIVE ACTION
IMPOSSIBLE.  VIII CANNON'S PRECEDENTS SEC. 2212.  WITNESSES IN
COMMITTEE HEARINGS CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE
COMPLICATIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE.  EVEN IF THEY ARE, THE POWER
TO RAISE A POINT OF NO QUORUM APPEARS TO BE LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT IF A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE HAD
RAISED A POINT OF NO QUORUM AND A COUNT HAD REVEALED THE PRESENCE OF
LESS THAN A MAJORITY, PROCEEDINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED UNTIL THE
DEFICIENCY SHOULD BE SUPPLIED.  IN A CRIMINAL CASE AFFECTING THE RIGHTS
OF ONE NOT A MEMBER, THE OCCASION OF TRIAL IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR
PETITIONER TO RAISE THE QUESTION. 

CONGRESSIONAL PRACTICE IN THE TRANSACTION OF ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE
BUSINESS IS OF COURSE NONE OF OUR CONCERN, AND BY THE SAME TOKEN THE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MAY LEAD CONGRESS AS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE
PRACTICE TO TREAT AS VALID THE CONDUCT OF ITS COMMITTEES DO NOT CONTROL
THE ISSUE BEFORE US.  THE QUESTION IS NEITHER WHAT RULES CONGRESS MAY
ESTABLISH FOR ITS OWN GOVERNANCE, NOR WHETHER PRESUMPTIONS OF
CONTINUITY MAY PROTECT THE VALIDITY OF ITS LEGISLATIVE CONDUCT.  THE
QUESTION IS RATHER WHAT RULES THE HOUSE HAS ESTABLISHED AND WHETHER
THEY HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED.  IT OF COURSE HAS THE POWER TO DEFINE WHAT
TRIBUNAL IS COMPETENT TO EXACT TESTIMONY AND THE CONDITIONS THAT
ESTABLISH ITS COMPETENCY TO DO SO.  THE HEART OF THIS CASE IS THAT BY
THE CHARGE THAT WAS GIVEN IT THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO ASSUME THAT THE
CONDITIONS OF COMPETENCY WERE SATISFIED EVEN THOUGH THE BASIS IN FACT
WAS NOT ESTABLISHED AND IN FACE OF A POSSIBLE FINDING THAT THE FACTS
CONTRADICTED THE ASSUMPTION. 

WE ARE MEASURING A CONVICTION OF CRIME BY THE STATUTE WHICH DEFINED
IT.  AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS CONVICTION, PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF FROM TWO TO SIX YEARS.  AN ESSENTIAL PART OF
A PROCEDURE WHICH CAN BE SAID FAIRLY TO INFLICT SUCH A PUNISHMENT IS
THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED SHALL BE PROVED BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.  AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INSTANT
INDICTMENT IS THE PRESENCE OF A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL, AND THE TRIAL COURT
PROPERLY SO INSTRUCTED THE JURY.  THE HOUSE INSISTS THAT TO BE SUCH A
TRIBUNAL A COMMITTEE MUST CONSIST OF A QUORUM, AND WE AGREE WITH THE
TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE THAT, TO CONVICT, THE JURY HAD TO BE SATISFIED
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THERE WERE "ACTUALLY AND PHYSICALLY
PRESENT" A MAJORITY OF THE COMMITTEE.  FN4 

THEN TO CHARGE, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED BY A
FINDING THAT THERE WAS A MAJORITY PRESENT TWO OR THREE HOURS BEFORE THE
DEFENDANT OFFERED HIS TESTIMONY, IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE INDICATING THE
CONTRARY, IS TO RULE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT A QUORUM NEED NOT BE
PRESENT WHEN THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED.  THIS NOT ONLY SEEMS TO US
CONTRARY TO THE RULES AND PRACTICE OF THE CONGRESS BUT DENIES
PETITIONER A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.  THAT RIGHT IS THAT HE BE CONVICTED OF
CRIME ONLY ON PROOF OF ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST
HIM.  A TRIBUNAL THAT IS NOT COMPETENT IS NO TRIBUNAL, AND IT IS
UNTHINKABLE THAT SUCH A BODY CAN BE THE INSTRUMENT OF CRIMINAL
CONVICTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING SO MUCH OF THE
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY AS ALLOWED THEM TO FIND A QUORUM PRESENT
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE FACTS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED PERJURIOUS
TESTIMONY, AND ITS JUDGMENT IS REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946, 60 STAT. 812, SEC. 121;
RULE X, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; H.R. RES. NO. 111, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., ADOPTED FEB. 26, 1947(93 CONG. REC. 1457). 

FN2  "SEC.  22-2501  ...  PERJURY - SUBORNATION OF PERJURY.  EVERY
PERSON WHO, HAVING TAKEN AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION BEFORE A COMPETENT
TRIBUNAL, OFFICER, OR PERSON, IN ANY CASE IN WHICH THE LAW AUTHORIZED
SUCH OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO BE ADMINISTERED, THAT HE WILL TESTIFY,
DECLARE, DEPOSE, OR CERTIFY TRULY, OR THAT ANY WRITTEN TESTIMONY,
DECLARATION, DEPOSITION, OR CERTIFICATE BY HIM SUBSCRIBED IS TRUE,
WILFULLY AND CONTRARY TO SUCH OATH OR AFFIRMATION STATES OR SUBSCRIBES
ANY MATERIAL MATTER WHICH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE, SHALL BE
GUILTY OF PERJURY; AND ANY PERSON CONVICTED OF PERJURY OR SUBORNATION
OF PERJURY SHALL BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY FOR
NOT LESS THAN TWO NOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS.  ...  "  31 STAT. 1329. 

FN3  THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCEDURE IN THE FULL HOUSE AND
IN ITS COMMITTEES.  IN THE FORMER, BUSINESS IS TRANSACTED ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT A QUORUM IS PRESENT AT ALL TIMES, UNLESS A ROLL CALL OR
A DIVISION INDICATE THE CONTRARY.  IN COMMITTEE MEETINGS, HOWEVER, THE
PRESENCE OF A QUORUM MUST BE AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
IS DEEMED TO BE LEGALLY MET.  VIII CANNON'S PRECEDENTS SEC. 2222. 

FN4  IN MEYERS V. UNITED STATES, 84 U.S. APP. D.C. 101, 171 F.2D 800,
THE APPELLANT MADE CONTENTIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF PETITIONER.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT HELD THE SAME
VIEW EXPRESSED HERE.  "ON OCTOBER 6, 1947, HOWEVER, ONLY TWO SENATORS
WERE PRESENT AT THE HEARING.  SINCE THEY WERE A MINORITY OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE, THEY COULD NOT LEGALLY FUNCTION EXCEPT TO ADJOURN.  FOR
THAT REASON, THE TESTIMONY OF LAMARRE GIVEN ON THAT DAY CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED AS PERJURY NOR CAN APPELLANT BE CONVICTED OF SUBORNING IT." 
84 U.S. APP. D.C. AT 112, 171 F.2D AT 811.  THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED
ON THE GROUND THAT ALL THE PERJURIOUS STATEMENTS ALLEGED IN THE
INDICTMENT WERE MADE ON OCTOBER 4, WHEN A QUORUM WAS PRESENT.  84 U.S.
APP. D.C. AT 113, 171 F.2D AT 812. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND I THINK
THE COURT IS DENYING TO THE RECORDS OF THE CONGRESS AND ITS COMMITTEES
THE CREDIT AND EFFECT TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED, QUITE CONTRARY TO ALL
RECOGNIZED PARLIAMENTARY RULES, OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS, AND THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF. 

NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT THE COMPETENCY OF A COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE
OF CONGRESS DEPENDS UPON THE ACTION OF THE HOUSE IN CONSTITUTING THE
COMMITTEE, AND IN DETERMINING THE RULES GOVERNING ITS PROCEDURE.  NOR
DOES ANY ONE DENY THAT EACH HOUSE HAS THE POWER TO PROVIDE EXPRESSLY
THAT A MAJORITY OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES SHALL
CONSTITUTE A QUORUM FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, AND THAT FOR OTHER PURPOSES A
DIFFERENT NUMBER SHALL BE SUFFICIENT.  FOR EXAMPLE, EITHER HOUSE MAY
PROVIDE EXPRESSLY THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENING A SESSION OF A
COMMITTEE OR OF APPROVING A REPORT, A MAJORITY OF THE COMMITTEE'S
ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP SHALL BE NECESSARY; AND THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TAKING SWORN TESTIMONY, ONE OR MORE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHALL BE
SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A QUORUM.  SIMILARLY, EACH HOUSE MAY SPELL OUT
A FORMAL RULE THAT A COMMITTEE SHALL CONSTITUTE A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL TO
TAKE SWORN TESTIMONY IF A MAJORITY OF ITS MEMBERS SHALL BE PRESENT AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE SESSION AT WHICH THE TESTIMONY IS TAKEN, AND THAT
SUCH COMPETENCY SHALL CONTINUE ALTHOUGH THE ATTENDANCE OF COMMITTEE
MEMBERS MAY DROP, DURING THE COMMITTEE'S SESSION, TO SOME SMALLER
NUMBER.  THE REASONABLENESS OF SUCH A RULE IS APPARENT BECAUSE THE
VALUE OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN BY SUCH A COMMITTEE IS MEASURED NOT SO
MUCH BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HEAR IT SPOKEN AT THE SESSION AS IT IS
BY THE NUMBER AND IDENTITY OF THOSE WHO READ IT LATER.    BUT WHAT
CONGRESS MAY DO BY EXPRESS RULE IT MAY DO ALSO BY ITS CUSTOM AND
PRACTICE.  THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT, CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHERWISE, THAT
ITS BODY OF PARLIAMENTARY LAW MUST BE RECORDED IN ORDER TO BE
AUTHORITATIVE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF OBJECTION RAISED AT THE TIME, AND IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING OF A RULE, PRACTICE OR CUSTOM TO THE
CONTRARY, THIS COURT HAS THE DUTY TO PRESUME THAT THE CONDUCT OF A
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, IN ITS USUAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, CONFORMS TO
BOTH THE WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN RULES OF THE HOUSE WHICH CREATED IT.
"EACH HOUSE MAY DETERMINE THE RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS,  ...  "  ART.
I, SEC. 5, CL. 2.  THIS COURT ACCORDINGLY CAN NEITHER DETERMINE THE
RULES FOR EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS NOR REQUIRE THOSE RULES TO BE
EXPRESSED WITH ANY DEGREE OF EXPLICITNESS OTHER THAN THAT CHOSEN BY THE
RESPECTIVE HOUSES. 

THE RECORD SHOWS A QUORUM OF THIS COMMITTEE PRESENT WHEN THE SESSION
BEGAN, AND NEITHER CHRISTOFFEL NOR ANYONE ELSE HAD RAISED THE POINT OF
NO QUORUM UP TO THE TIME HE GAVE FALSE TESTIMONY.  ON TRIAL FOR PERJURY
HE INTRODUCED ORAL TESTIMONY TENDING TO SHOW THAT, AT THE MOMENT HE SO
TESTIFIED, LESS THAN A QUORUM WERE ACTUALLY PRESENT.  THE TRIAL COURT
CHARGED THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF CHALLENGE OR PROOF TO THE CONTRARY, THE
QUORUM ESTABLISHED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SESSION IS PRESUMED TO
CONTINUE AND THE JURY COULD FIND CHRISTOFFEL GUILTY OF PERJURY IF HE
GAVE FALSE TESTIMONY BEFORE SUCH A BODY.  HE WAS FOUND GUILTY.  THE
COURT NOW HOLDS THE CHARGE WAS ERRONEOUS AND THAT, IF THE GOVERNMENT
CANNOT SHOW POSITIVELY THAT THERE WAS A QUORUM PRESENT WHEN HE
FALSIFIED, THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT A "COMPETENT TRIBUNAL" WITHIN THE
PERJURY STATUTE OF THE DISTRICT AND HIS CONVICTION THEREUNDER IS
INVALID. 

THUS THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER A QUORUM IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THE
COMMITTEE TO BE A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL, BUT WHETHER COMMITTEE RULES,
PRACTICES AND RECORDS, AND CONGRESSIONAL RULES, PRACTICES AND RECORDS
IN ANALOGOUS SITUATIONS, ARE SUBJECT TO ATTACK BY LATER ORAL TESTIMONY
AND TO INVALIDATION BY THE COURTS. 

ALL THE PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING THOSE CITED BY THE
COURT, AGREE THAT A QUORUM IS REQUIRED FOR ACTION, OTHER THAN
ADJOURNMENT, BY ANY PARLIAMENTARY BODY; AND THEY AGREE THAT THE
CUSTOMARY LAW OF SUCH BODIES IS THAT, THE PRESENCE OF A QUORUM HAVING
BEEN ASCERTAINED AND RECORDED AT THE BEGINNING OF A SESSION, THAT
RECORD STANDS UNLESS AND UNTIL THE POINT OF NO QUORUM IS RAISED.  THIS
IS THE UNIVERSAL PRACTICE.  IF IT WERE OTHERWISE, REPEATED USELESS ROLL
CALLS WOULD BE NECESSARY BEFORE EVERY ACTION. 

IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, THE RECORD ON THE SUBJECT OF QUORUM WAS
ENTITLED TO FULL CREDIT.  CHRISTOFFEL HIMSELF DID NOT, DURING HIS
TESTIMONY, RAISE THE QUESTION OF NO QUORUM.  WHETHER ONE NOT A MEMBER
OF THE BODY WOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO DO SO AND WHAT EFFECT IT WOULD
HAVE, HAD HE BEEN REFUSED, WE NEED NOT DECIDE.  THE FACT IS, HE MADE NO
EFFORT TO RAISE THE POINT.  TO HAVE THEN EVEN SUGGESTED THE OBJECTION
WOULD HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE COMMITTEE TO CORRECT IT. AND IF
THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT TO MAKE A LEGAL BODY,
HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF HIS OBJECTION WERE OVERRULED, TO WALK OUT. 
INSTEAD, HE CHOSE TO FALSIFY TO THE COMMITTEE AND NOW SAYS THAT,
DESPITE THE RECORD, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROVE THAT NOT ENOUGH
MEMBERS WERE PRESENT FOR HIS LIE TO BE LEGAL PERJURY.  THE COURT AGREES
AND HOLDS THAT THE HOUSE RULES REQUIRING A QUORUM FOR ACTION REQUIRE
THIS RESULT.  SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION GOVERNING THE HOUSE
ITSELF ALSO REQUIRES A QUORUM BEFORE THAT BODY CAN DO BUSINESS, THIS
RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DECISION NOW ANNOUNCED WILL ALSO APPLY
TO THE HOUSE ITSELF.  IF IT DOES, IT COULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF
INVALIDATING ANY ACTION TAKEN OR LEGISLATION PASSED WITHOUT A RECORD
VOTE, WHICH REPRESENTS A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE BUSINESS DONE BY BOTH
HOUSE AND SENATE.  THE EFFECT IS ILLUSTRATED BY NOTING THAT SUCH A RULE
WOULD MAKE POSSIBLE THE INVALIDATION OF NOT ONLY THIS CONVICTION FOR
PERJURY, BUT THE PERJURY ACT  FN1  ITSELF, AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL
CODE,  FN2 WHICH IS NOW THE SOURCE OF THIS COURT'S AUTHORITY TO REVIEW
THE CONVICTION.  MOREOVER, THIS RULE IS IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE EITHER HOUSE OR SENATE, MUCH LESS
A COMMITTEE, TO TAKE A RECORD VOTE EXCEPT  FN3  "AT THE DESIRE OF ONE
FIFTH OF THOSE PRESENT."  ART. I, SEC. 5, CL. 3. 

THE COURT SIGNIFICANTLY OMITS CITATION OF ANY PRIOR DECISION IN
SUPPORT OF ITS PRESENT CONCLUSION.  FN4  THE REASON IS FAIRLY CLEAR -
THE OTHERS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THIS ONE.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN UNITED
STATES V. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1, WE HELD IT TO BE WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF
THE HOUSE TO PRESCRIBE ANY METHOD REASONABLY CERTAIN TO ASCERTAIN THE
FACT OF A QUORUM; THAT THE COURTS ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WISDOM OR
ADVANTAGES OF ANY SUCH RULE - "WITH THE COURTS THE QUESTION IS ONLY ONE
OF POWER."  THE HOUSE HAS ADOPTED THE RULE AND PRACTICE THAT A QUORUM
ONCE ESTABLISHED IS PRESUMED TO CONTINUE UNLESS AND UNTIL A POINT OF NO
QUORUM IS RAISED.  BY THIS DECISION, THE COURT, IN EFFECT, INVALIDATES
THAT RULE DESPITE THE LIMITATIONS CONSISTENTLY IMPOSED UPON COURTS
WHERE SUCH AN ISSUE IS TENDERED.  SEE FIELD V. CLARK, 143 U.S. 649, 669
673; UNITED STATES V. BALLIN, 144 U.S. 1, 5; FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO.,
220 U.S. 107, 143; CF. LESER V. GARNETT, 258 U.S. 130, 137.  AND SEE
COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, 453-456; AND CONCURRING OPINIONS AT
307 U.S. 456-460, 460, AND 460-470. 

WE DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD DEVISE A NEW RULE FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE
TO EXTEND AID TO ONE WHO DID NOT RAISE HIS OBJECTION WHEN IT COULD BE
MET AND WHO HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY ABSENCE OF A QUORUM ONLY IF WE
ASSUME THAT, ALTHOUGH HE TOLD A FALSEHOOD TO ELEVEN CONGRESSMEN, HE
WOULD HAVE BEEN HONEST IF TWO MORE HAD BEEN PRESENT.  BUT IN NO EVENT
SHOULD WE PUT OUT A DOCTRINE BY WHICH EVERY CONGRESSIONAL ACT OR
COMMITTEE ACTION, AND PERHAPS EVERY JUDGMENT HERE, CAN BE OVERTURNED ON
ORAL TESTIMONY OF INTERESTED PARTIES. 

WE SHOULD AFFIRM THE CONVICTION. 

FN1  PASSED WITHOUT RECORD VOTE BY THE SENATE, 34 CONG. REC., PT. 4,
PP. 3496-97, AND BY THE HOUSE WITHOUT A RECORD VOTE, 34 CONG. REC., PT.
4, P. 3586. 

FN2  PASSED BY THE SENATE WITHOUT A RECORD VOTE, 94 CONG. REC., PT.
6, P. 7930, AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER WITHDRAWN, 94 CONG. REC., PT. 7,
P. 8297.  PASSED BY THE HOUSE WITHOUT A RECORD VOTE, 94 CONG. REC., PT.
7, P. 8501. 

FN3  A SEPARATE PROVISION REQUIRES A RECORD VOTE ON THE QUESTION OF
OVERRIDING A PRESIDENTIAL VETO.  ART. I, SEC. 7, CL. 2. 

FN4  THIS IS NOT BECAUSE OTHERS HAVE NOT TRIED TO RAISE THE ISSUE. 
IN MEYERS V. UNITED STATES, 84 U.S. APP. D.C. 101, 171 F.2D 800,
CERTIORARI DENIED 336 U.S. 912, THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY COMMITTED BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON TWO
SEPARATE DAYS - OCTOBER 4 AND OCTOBER 6.  THE CONVICTION WAS ALLOWED TO
STAND DESPITE A CHARGE TO THE JURY THAT THE QUORUM ON OCTOBER 4 WAS
PRESUMED TO CONTINUE UNLESS AND UNTIL A COMMITTEE MEMBER RAISED THE
POINT OF NO QUORUM, AND THAT FALSE TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE THE POINT IS
RAISED IS PERJURIOUS UNDER THIS SAME STATUTE.  THAT CHARGE IS
PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE CHARGE GIVEN IN THIS CASE, OF WHICH THIS
COURT NOW SAYS:  "THE HEART OF THIS CASE IS THAT BY THE CHARGE THAT WAS
GIVEN IT THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO ASSUME THAT THE CONDITIONS OF
COMPETENCY WERE SATISFIED EVEN THOUGH THE BASIS IN FACT WAS NOT
ESTABLISHED AND IN FACE OF A POSSIBLE FINDING THAT THE FACTS
CONTRADICTED THE ASSUMPTION."  THIS PERFECTLY DESCRIBES THE MEYERS
CASE, CONSIDERING ONLY THE OCTOBER 4TH TESTIMONY, ON WHICH IT IS SAID
THE CONVICTION RESTED.  CONSIDERING ONLY THAT PART OF EACH COUNT,
MEYERS WAS CONVICTED AND IS NOW IMPRISONED FOR SUBORNING PERJURY GIVEN
UNDER IDENTICAL CONDITIONS AS DID CHRISTOFFEL; AND MEYERS' GUILT WAS
DETERMINED BY A JURY WHICH RECEIVED THE SAME RULING THE COURT NOW HOLDS
TO BE ERROR AS APPLIED TO CHRISTOFFEL.  YET THE MEYERS CONVICTION WAS
AFFIRMED AND WE DENIED HIS PLEA FOR REVIEW.  SUCH A DENIAL HERE OF
COURSE DOES NOT IMPLY APPROVAL OF THE LAW ANNOUNCED BELOW BUT, ON THE
UNDISPUTED FACTS, MEYERS' CONVICTION RESTS ON A BASIS WHICH THIS COURT
SAYS IS "UNTHINKABLE" AS TO CHRISTOFFEL, WHOSE CONVICTION IS REVERSED. 

MOREOVER, THE MEYERS JURY WAS PERMITTED TO CONVICT, PARTLY AT LEAST,
ON THE BASIS OF TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE A COMMITTEE ON OCTOBER 6 WHEN
THE COMMITTEE RECORDS SHOWED, AND THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS, THAT NO QUORUM
WAS PRESENT AT ANY TIME.  TODAY'S OPINION IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO
THE MEYERS CONVICTION BASED ON THE OCTOBER 4TH TESTIMONY ALONE, BUT THE
MEYERS CONVICTION ALSO RESTS IN PART ON TESTIMONY BEFORE A BODY WHICH
DEMONSTRABLY AND ADMITTEDLY NEVER AMOUNTED TO A QUORUM, WHILE
CHRISTOFFEL'S IS REVERSED MERELY BECAUSE THE CHARGE PERMITTED THE JURY
TO IGNORE ORAL TESTIMONY "INDICATING" THAT A QUORUM ONCE ADMITTEDLY
ESTABLISHED MAY HAVE EVAPORATED.  I DO NOT SEE HOW THE COURT CAN
JUSTIFY SUCH DISCRIMINATION.  THE COURT BELOW EVIDENTLY COULD NOT, FOR
IT RELIED ON THE MEYERS CASE AS A PRECEDENT FOR AFFIRMING THE
CONVICTION OF CHRISTOFFEL ON THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE.  84 U.S. APP. D.C.
132, 133, 171 F.2D 1004, 1005, N. 1. 
..END :







S.E.C. V. CENTRAL-ILLINOIS CORP., 338 U.S. 96 


ARGUED JANUARY 12-13, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 168 F.2D 722,
REVERSED. 


THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION APPROVED AS FAIR AND EQUITABLE
AN AMENDED PLAN FOR DISSOLUTION SUBMITTED UNDER SEC. 11(E) OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935 BY A SOLVENT HOLDING COMPANY
WHOSE CAPITAL STRUCTURE CONSISTED OF THREE CLASSES OF PREFERRED AND ONE
CLASS OF COMMON STOCK.  THE PLAN PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT TO THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS IN CASH; DISTRIBUTION OF THE REMAINING ASSETS TO THE
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS; AND DISSOLUTION OF THE COMPANY.  THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS WERE TO BE PAID THE VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION VALUES (OR CALL
PRICES) FIXED BY THE CHARTER ($105, $110, AND $110, RESPECTIVELY),
WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND TO BE LESS THAN THEIR GOING-CONCERN OR
INVESTMENT VALUES BUT WHICH WERE MORE THAN THEIR CHARTER VALUES ON
INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION ($100 FOR EACH OF THE THREE CLASSES).  ON
APPLICATION BY THE COMMISSION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN, THE DISTRICT
COURT CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO PAY THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS MORE THAN $100 PER SHARE, ORDERED THE PLAN
MODIFIED TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH PAYMENT, AND APPROVED THE PLAN AS THUS
MODIFIED.  HELD:  THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE PLAN WAS NOT
CONTRARY TO LAW; ITS FINDINGS WERE SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE EVIDENCE; AND
ITS ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND ENFORCED.  PP. 99-113, 155. 

1.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AS TO VALUATION, WHICH ARE BASED UPON
EXPERT JUDGMENT, DISCRETION AND PREDICTION, AS WELL AS UPON "FACTS,"
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REEXAMINATION ON JUDICIAL REVIEW IN A PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 11(E), UNLESS THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
OR WERE NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LEGAL STANDARDS.  PP. 113-127. 

(A)  THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER FINDINGS OF FACT AND OVER
DETERMINATIONS IN MATTERS IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE COMMISSION
AUTHORITY TO ACT UPON ITS EXPERT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE IS NOT
DIFFERENT IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 11(E) FROM THAT IN A PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 24(A).  PP. 113-127. 

(B)  THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE REVIEWING COURT IN SEC. 11(E) AS "A
COURT OF EQUITY" WAS NOT INTENDED TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF REVIEW TO BE
EXERCISED OVER FINDINGS OF FACT OR DETERMINATIONS IN MATTERS COMMITTED
TO THE COMMISSION'S EXPERT JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION, OR TO SET UP A
DIFFERENT AND CONFLICTING STANDARD OF REVIEW FROM THE ONE TO BE APPLIED
IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 24(A).  P. 125. 

2.  THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENTS OF THE SECURITIES' INVESTMENT VALUES ON
A GOING-CONCERN BASIS, RATHER THAN CHARTER LIQUIDATION PROVISIONS,
PROVIDE THE MEASURE OF STOCKHOLDERS' RIGHTS IN LIQUIDATIONS COMPELLED
BY THE ACT.  OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N, 323 U.S. 624;
SCHWABACHER V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 182.  PP. 129-135. 

(A)  THE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" STANDARD REQUIRES THAT EACH SECURITY
HOLDER BE GIVEN THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE RIGHTS SURRENDERED; IN
LIQUIDATIONS UNDER THE ACT, EQUITABLE EQUIVALENCE IS DETERMINED, NOT BY
CHARTER PREFERENCES, BUT BY VALUING THE SECURITY SURRENDERED "ON THE
BASIS OF A GOING BUSINESS AND NOT AS THOUGH A LIQUIDATION WERE TAKING
PLACE."  PP. 130-131. 

(B)  THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHARTER
PROVISIONS IN THIS CASE AND THOSE IN THE OTIS CASE.  PP. 131-132. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT IN THIS CASE THERE IS A DISSOLUTION OF THE HOLDING
COMPANY ENTERPRISE BY THE LIQUIDATION OF THE LAST HOLDING COMPANY IN
THE SYSTEM, WHEREAS IN THE OTIS CASE THE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM WAS TO
CONTINUE, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE CHARTER INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION
PREFERENCE REPLACE INVESTMENT VALUES AS THE MEASURE OF THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS' RIGHTS.  SCHWABACHER V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 182.  PP.
132-135. 

(D)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT THE PLAN
PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS IN CASH RATHER THAN
IN SECURITIES OF A NEW CORPORATION.  P. 135. 

(E)  THE DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY OR FRUSTRATION DOES NOT PROVIDE A
MEASURE OF THE SECURITY HOLDERS' CLAIMS.  PP. 136-139. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S APPLICATION OF THE INVESTMENT VALUE PRINCIPLE
WAS FREE FROM ERRORS OF LAW; AND THE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO VALUE
WERE BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  PP. 139-152. 

(A)  THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPENSATING SECURITY HOLDERS BY ALLOWING THEM
THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE PRESENT GOING-CONCERN VALUE OF THEIR
SECURITIES AS THE MEASURE OF SECURITY SATISFACTION DID NOT, AND WAS NOT
INTENDED TO, DESTROY THE CHARTER RIGHT TO PRIORITY OF SATISFACTION.  P.
140. 

(B)  WHEN THE COMMISSION VALUES A SECURITY INTEREST BY DETERMINING
THE VALUE THAT INTEREST WOULD HAVE IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE PRESENT
LIQUIDATION REQUIRED BY THE ACT, IT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE
STATUTORY MANDATE.  PP. 140-143. 

(C)  WHEN THE CLAIMS OF SENIOR SECURITY HOLDERS ARE TO BE PAID IN
CASH, THE COMMISSION PROPERLY MEASURES THEIR CLAIMS IN TERMS OF THE
COST OF REINVESTMENT IN A SECURITY OF COMPARABLE RISK AND RETURN.  P.
144. 

(D)  WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE GOING-CONCERN VALUE WOULD
EXCEED THE CALL PRICES OF THE STOCKS BY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT, THE
EXACT GOING-CONCERN VALUE BECAME IMMATERIAL, BECAUSE THE CALL PRICE (AT
WHICH THE CORPORATION COULD ALWAYS RETIRE THE PREFERRED STOCK WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THE ACT) MARKED THE LIMITS OF THE PREFERRED STOCKS'
CLAIMS.  P. 145. 

(E)  THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE INVESTMENT VALUES OF THE
PREFERRED STOCKS WERE IN EXCESS OF THEIR CALL PRICES HAS AMPLE SUPPORT
IN THE RECORD.  PP. 144-148. 

(F)  THE COMMISSION DID NOT GIVE THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS LESS THAN
THE INVESTMENT VALUE OF THEIR STOCK.  PP. 148-151. 

(G)  SINCE THE AMENDED PLAN REQUIRED THE INVESTMENT VALUE OF THE
PREFERRED STOCK TO BE MEASURED BY CASH IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO
OCCASION FOR EXAMINATION OF THE CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE PREFERRED AND
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS; THE RIGHTS OF THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION UNTIL THE RIGHTS OF THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS
HAVE BEEN FULLY SATISFIED.  P. 151. 

(H)  IN DECIDING THE CASE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE INQUIRY WAS ONE
OF "RELATIVE RIGHTS BASED ON COLLOQUIAL EQUITY," THE DISTRICT COURT
ERRED INSOFAR AS BY "COLLOQUIAL EQUITIES" IT MEANT CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
DO NOT BEAR UPON THE INVESTMENT OR GOING-CONCERN VALUE THE PREFERRED
STOCKS WOULD HAVE ABSENT THE LIQUIDATION COMPELLED BY THE ACT.  PP. 151
152. 

4.  THE ESCROW ARRANGEMENT ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, WHEREBY
THERE WOULD BE DEPOSITED IN ESCROW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PRICE OF $100 PER SHARE AND THE AMOUNT WHICH
THE COMMISSION APPROVED, WAS FAIR TO THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  PP.
152-155. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. CENTRAL-ILLINOIS SECURITIES
CORP. ET AL. 

NO. 226.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 227, STREETER ET AL. V. CENTRAL-ILLINOIS
SECURITIES CORP. ET AL.; NO. 243, HOME INSURANCE CO. ET AL. V. CENTRAL
ILLINOIS SECURITIES CORP. ET AL.; AND NO. 266, CENTRAL-ILLINOIS
SECURITIES CORP. ET AL. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ET AL.,
ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A PLAN UNDER SEC. 11(E) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF
1935 WAS APPROVED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.  HOLDING
COMPANY ACT RELEASES NOS. 7041, 7119, AND 7190.  THE DISTRICT COURT
MODIFIED THE PLAN AND APPROVED IT AS MODIFIED.  71 F.SUPP.  797.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS VACATED THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WITH
DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE COMMISSION.  168 F.2D 722.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 851.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 155. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES AN AMENDED PLAN FILED UNDER SEC. 11(E) OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935  FN1 BY ENGINEERS PUBLIC
SERVICE COMPANY.  THE PLAN PROVIDED, INTER ALIA, FOR SATISFYING THE
CLAIMS OF ENGINEERS' PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS IN CASH AS A PRELIMINARY TO
DISTRIBUTING THE REMAINING ASSETS TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS AND DISSOLVING
THE COMPANY.  BROADLY, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, IN REVIEWING THE PLAN, CORRECTLY APPLIED THE "FAIR
AND EQUITABLE" STANDARD OF SEC. 11(E) IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNTS TO BE
PAID THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS IN SATISFACTION OF THEIR CLAIMS. 

AS WILL APPEAR, THE ULTIMATE EFFECT OF THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
WAS TO ALLOW THE HOLDERS OF THE THREE SERIES OF ENGINEERS' OUTSTANDING
CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK TO RECEIVE THE CALL (OR VOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION AND REDEMPTION) PRICES FOR THEIR SHARES, NAMELY, $105 PER
SHARE, $110 PER SHARE AND $110 PER SHARE, RATHER THAN THE INVOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE WHICH, FOR EACH OF THE THREE SERIES, WAS $100
PER SHARE.  COMMON SHAREHOLDERS OPPOSE THE ALLOWANCE TO THE PREFERRED
OF THE CALL PRICE VALUE, INSISTING THAT THE MAXIMUM TO WHICH THE
PREFERRED ARE ENTITLED IS THE INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE OF
$100. 

IN THIS VIEW THE DISTRICT COURT AND, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE COURT OF
APPEALS HAVE CONCURRED, DECLINING TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PLAN AS
APPROVED IN THIS RESPECT BY THE COMMISSION.  CONSEQUENTLY WE ARE
CONFRONTED NOT ONLY WITH ISSUES CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION IN APPLYING THE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" STANDARD OF
SEC. 11(E), BUT WITH THE FURTHER QUESTION WHETHER ITS JUDGMENT IN THESE
MATTERS IS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT OR THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, EITHER AS
EXERCISED BY IT OR AS MODIFIED IN CERTAIN RESPECTS BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS. 

THE FACTS AND THE SUBSIDIARY ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE VARIOUS
DETERMINATIONS ARE OF SOME COMPLEXITY AND MUST BE SET FORTH IN
CONSIDERABLE DETAIL FOR THEIR APPROPRIATE UNDERSTANDING AND
DISPOSITION. 

AT THE TIME THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT WAS ENACTED, THE
HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM DOMINATED BY ENGINEERS CONSISTED OF 17 UTILITY
AND NONUTILITY COMPANIES.  OF THESE, NINE WERE DIRECT SUBSIDIARIES OF
ENGINEERS AND EIGHT WERE INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES.  INTEGRATION
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(1) OF THE ACT WERE INSTITUTED WITH RESPECT
TO ENGINEERS AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES IN 1940.  IN A SERIES OF ORDERS
ISSUED IN 1941 AND 1942 THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION DIRECTED
ENGINEERS TO DISPOSE OF ITS INTERESTS IN ALL COMPANIES EXCEPT EITHER
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OR GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY,
AND DESIGNATED VIRGINIA AS THE PRINCIPAL SYSTEM IF ENGINEERS FAILED TO
ELECT BETWEEN IT AND GULF STATES.  FN2  AT THE TIME THE PLAN NOW UNDER
REVIEW WAS FILED ENGINEERS HAD COMPLIED WITH THE DIVESTMENT ORDERS TO
THE EXTENT OF DISPOSING OF ALL ITS PROPERTIES EXCEPT ITS INTEREST IN
VIRGINIA, CONSISTING OF 99.8 PER CENT OF THAT COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK,
AND ITS INTEREST IN GULF STATES AND EL PASO ELECTRIC COMPANY,
CONSISTING OF ALL THEIR COMMON STOCK.  ENGINEERS' PRINCIPAL ASSETS WERE
THE SECURITIES REPRESENTING ITS INTEREST IN THESE COMPANIES AND
$14,650,000 IN CASH AND UNITED STATES TREASURY SECURITIES. 

ENGINEERS HAD NO DEBTS.  IT HAD OUTSTANDING THREE SERIES OF
CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK OF EQUAL RANK:  143,951 SHARES OF $5 ANNUAL
DIVIDEND SERIES, 183,406 SHARES OF $5.50 SERIES, AND 65,098 SHARES OF
$6 SERIES.  AS HAS BEEN SAID, ALL THREE SERIES HAD INVOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES OF $100 PER SHARE, CALL PRICES OF $105 FOR THE
$5 SERIES AND $110 FOR THE $5.50 AND $6 SERIES, AND VOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES EQUAL TO THE CALL PRICES. 

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THE PLAN AS ORIGINALLY FILED. 
THE PLAN AS ORIGINALLY FILED BY ENGINEERS PROVIDED FOR THE RETIREMENT
OF ALL THREE SERIES OF PREFERRED STOCK BY PAYMENT OF THE INVOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE OF $100 PER SHARE, PLUS ACCRUED DIVIDENDS TO THE
DATE OF PAYMENT.  FN3  THE REMAINING PROPERTIES OF ENGINEERS WERE THEN
TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS, AND ENGINEERS WAS TO
DISSOLVE.  FN4 

IN ORDER TO INSURE ADEQUATE PRESENTATION OF THE VIEWS OF THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, ENGINEERS' BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZED ONE OF
ITS MEMBERS, THOMAS W. STREETER, WHO WAS PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN THE
PREFERRED STOCK, TO RETAIN COUNSEL PARTLY AT THE COMPANY'S EXPENSE. 
STREETER AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY ARE PETITIONERS IN NO. 227.  THESE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF A GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTORS WHO HELD PREFERRED STOCK, THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY AND
TRADESMENS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONERS IN NO. 243,
APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN.  THEY
CONTENDED THAT THEY SHOULD RECEIVE AMOUNTS EQUAL TO THE VOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE OF THE PREFERRED. 

AFTER SUMMARIZING THE ISSUING PRICES,  FN5  THE DIVIDEND HISTORY,
FN6  AND THE MARKET HISTORY FN7  OF THE THREE SERIES OF PREFERREDS, THE
COMMISSION ANALYZED THE ASSETS COVERAGE AND EARNINGS COVERAGE OF THE
STOCK.  THE PREFERRED STOCK OF ENGINEERS REPRESENTED 17.5 PER CENT OF
THE CONSOLIDATED CAPITALIZATION AND SURPLUS OF THE SYSTEM.  THAT STOCK
WAS JUNIOR TO THE 66.2 PER CENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED CAPITALIZATION AND
SURPLUS WHICH CONSISTED OF SECURITIES OF ENGINEERS' SUBSIDIARIES HELD
BY THE PUBLIC, AND SENIOR TO 16.3 PER CENT, CONSISTING OF ENGINEERS'
TOTAL COMMON STOCK AND SURPLUS. 

THE SYSTEM'S AVERAGE EARNINGS COVERAGE OF FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
DIVIDENDS FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE PLAN
WAS 1.4 TIMES.  FOR THESE FIVE YEARS ENGINEERS' AVERAGE EARNINGS
COVERAGE OF PREFERRED DIVIDENDS WAS 1.5 TIMES. 

CERTAIN EXPERT TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE GOING-CONCERN OR INVESTMENT
VALUE OF THE PREFERRED STOCK WAS ADDUCED BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  DR.
RALPH E. BADGER WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS.  HE MADE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE EARNINGS AND ASSETS
OF ENGINEERS AND OF THE THREE SERIES OF PREFERRED STOCK.  HE THEN
COMPARED ENGINEERS AND THE PREFERRED STOCK WITH RELEVANT INFORMATION
CONCERNING OTHER COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND SECURITIES.  FN8  HE
CONCLUDED THAT, APART FROM THEIR CALL PROVISIONS AND ON THE BASIS OF
QUALITY AND YIELD, THE THREE SERIES OF PREFERRED STOCK SHOULD BE VALUED
AT $108.70, $119.57, AND $130.33 RESPECTIVELY, BUT THAT BECAUSE OF THE
REDEMPTION PRIVILEGE, "THE PRESENT INVESTMENT VALUES ARE REPRESENTED BY
THEIR CALL PRICE, PLUS A SLIGHT PREMIUM TO ACCOUNT FOR THE TIME
REQUIRED TO EFFECT A CALL."  THE FAIR INVESTMENT VALUES OF THE
PREFERRED, IN VIEW OF THE REDEMPTION PRIVILEGE, WERE:  $5 SERIES -
$106.25; $5.50 SERIES - $111.38; $6 SERIES - $111.50.  NO REBUTTAL
TESTIMONY WAS INTRODUCED, AND THERE WAS NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO
BADGER'S CONCLUSIONS THAT THE FAIR INVESTMENT VALUE OF EACH SERIES OF
THE PREFERRED EXCEEDED THE CALL PRICES. 

DONALD C. BARNES, ENGINEERS' PRESIDENT, TESTIFIED THAT APART FROM THE
IMPACT OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CALL PRICES,
THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PREFERREDS, I.E., "WHAT A WILLING BUYER WOULD PAY
AND WHAT A WILLING SELLER WOULD TAKE IN TODAY'S MARKET FOR SUCH
SECURITIES," WAS SOMEWHAT ABOVE THE REDEMPTION PRICES.  BARNES SPOKE OF
SEVERAL FACTORS, VIZ., POSSIBILITIES OF CONTINUED INFLATION, OF
DEPRESSION, GOVERNMENT COMPETITION, ADVERSE CHANGES IN REGULATORY
POLICY, OR DEVELOPMENTS IN ATOMIC ENERGY, ALL "COMMON TO THE UTILITY
INDUSTRY GENERALLY," WHICH MIGHT HAVE A FUTURE ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
VALUE OF ENGINEERS PREFERRED.  BOTH WITNESSES AGREED, HOWEVER, AS
ENGINEERS STATED IN ITS BRIEF BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THAT "THE PRESENT
VALUE OR INVESTMENT WORTH OF THESE THREE SERIES OF STOCK, ON A GOING
CONCERN BASIS AND APART FROM THE ACT, UNDER PREVAILING YIELDS APPLIED
TO COMPARABLE SECURITIES" WAS IN EXCESS OF THE CALL PRICES.  BARNES
ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE PREFERRED STOCK WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED IF IT
HAD NOT BEEN FOR THE IMPACT OF SEC. 11. 

THE COMMISSION FIRST HELD THAT "THE DISSOLUTION OF ENGINEERS (WAS)
'NECESSARY' UNDER THE STANDARDS OF THE ACT."  HOWEVER, SINCE SUCH A
LIQUIDATION, UNDER OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
323 U.S. 624, "DOES NOT MATURE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS' CLAIMS," THE SO
CALLED INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PROVISION OF ENGINEERS' CHARTER WAS NOT
OPERATIVE.  THE OTIS CASE RULED "THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT ITS
EXERCISE OF POWER TO SIMPLIFY SHOULD MATURE RIGHTS, CREATED WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SIMPLIFICATION OF SYSTEM STRUCTURE, WHICH
OTHERWISE WOULD ONLY ARISE BY VOLUNTARY ACTION OF STOCKHOLDERS OR,
INVOLUNTARILY, THROUGH ACTION OF CREDITORS."  323 U.S. AT 638. 

AFTER ANNOUNCING THAT IN A SEC. 11 REORGANIZATION "A SECURITY HOLDER
MUST RECEIVE, IN THE ORDER OF HIS PRIORITY, FROM THAT WHICH IS
AVAILABLE FOR THE SATISFACTION OF HIS CLAIM, THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT
OF THE RIGHTS SURRENDERED," THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED ALL THE CHARTER
PROVISIONS WHICH AFFECTED THE PREFERRED, "SUCH AS THE DIVIDEND RATE AND
THE CALL PRICE AS WELL AS THE LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES," AND ANALYZED
THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE COMPANY "WITH PARTICULAR REGARD TO THE
ASSET AND EARNINGS COVERAGE OF THE PREFERRED."  ON THE BASIS OF THE
UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE GOING-CONCERN OR
INVESTMENT VALUE OF THE PREFERRED WAS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE RESPECTIVE
CALL PRICES.  SINCE THE CALL PRICES OPERATED AS CEILINGS ON THE VALUE
OF THE SECURITY BY PROVIDING WITH RESPECT TO EACH SERIES, "A MEANS,
APART FROM THE ACT, WHEREBY THE SECURITY CAN BE RETIRED AT A MAXIMUM
PRICE,"  FN9  NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INVESTMENT
VALUE OF ANY SERIES OF PREFERRED WOULD EXCEED THE CALL PRICE IF THERE
WERE NO CALL PROVISION. 

THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE PAYMENT OF ONLY $100 PER SHARE,
PLUS ACCRUED DIVIDENDS, WOULD NOT BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  IT THEREFORE REFUSED TO APPROVE THAT PROVISION
OF THE PLAN WHICH PROVIDED FOR RETIREMENT OF THE PREFERRED AT
INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES. 

TURNING ITS ATTENTION TO WHETHER THE PLAN WAS FAIR TO THE COMMON
STOCK, THE COMMISSION STATED THAT, BECAUSE OF THE ACCUMULATION OF LARGE
AMOUNTS OF IDLE CASH,  FN10  ELIMINATION OF PREFERRED STOCK HAVING
FIXED DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS WAS "HIGHLY BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMON." 
MOREOVER, BY IMPLEMENTING ADJUSTMENT OF THE SYSTEM TO COMPLIANCE WITH
THE ACT, RETIREMENT OF THE PREFERRED BROUGHT THE COMMON CLOSER TO THE
TIME WHEN IT WOULD BEGIN RECEIVING DIVIDENDS. 

ENGINEERS CONTENDED THAT PAYMENT TO THE PREFERRED OF ANY AMOUNT IN
EXCESS OF $100 PER SHARE WAS UNFAIR, BECAUSE CERTAIN DIVESTMENTS
REQUIRED BY THE ACT RESULTED IN LOSSES TO THE COMMON STOCK AND ALSO
ELIMINATED THE ADVANTAGES OF A "DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO OF SECURITIES." 
IN REPLY TO THIS THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT IT DID NOT ACCEPT THE
HYPOTHESIS THAT LOSSES WERE INCURRED BY DIVESTMENTS CAUSED BY THE ACT,
FN11  AND STATED THAT THE PREFERRED CLAIMS, MEASURED BY THEIR GOING
CONCERN VALUE, WERE ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE PRIORITY, AND THAT WHAT
REMAINED TO JUNIOR SECURITY HOLDERS AFTER SATISFYING THIS PRIORITY WAS
NECESSARILY THEIR FAIR SHARE. 

CERTAIN MECHANICAL FEATURES OF THE PLAN WERE ALSO DISAPPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION.  FN12 

THE AMENDED PLAN.  ENGINEERS THEN ACQUIESCED IN THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION AND SUBMITTED AN AMENDED PLAN.  IN ADDITION TO MEETING
THE COMMISSION'S MECHANICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN, THE
AMENDED PLAN PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT OF THE PREFERRED STOCKS AT THEIR
VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION OR CALL PRICES. 

OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF CERTAIN COMMON STOCKHOLDERS, THE COMMISSION
APPROVED THE PLAN AS AMENDED.  IT STATED THAT, IN THE EVENT THE COMMON
STOCKHOLDERS CONTINUED TO LITIGATE THE FAIRNESS OF THE PLAN AFTER
APPROVAL BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE "TO ACHIEVE
EXPEDITIOUS COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT AND FAIRNESS TO THE PERSONS
AFFECTED  ...  FOR ENGINEERS TO MAKE PROMPT PAYMENT OF $100 PER SHARE
AND ACCRUED DIVIDENDS IN ORDER TO STOP THE ACCRUAL OF FURTHER
DIVIDENDS, AND SET UP AN ESCROW ARRANGEMENT."  THE ESCROW WOULD SECURE
THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT IN ISSUE AND ALSO "AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO
PROVIDE THE PREFERRED 'FOR THE PERIOD OF THE ESCROW A RETURN ON THE
AMOUNT IN ESCROW WHICH IS MEASURED BY THE RETURN WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
RECEIVED BY IT IF THE STOCK REMAINED OUTSTANDING.'"  SUCH AN ESCROW
COULD BE ESTABLISHED UNDER COURT SUPERVISION WITHOUT RETURNING THE PLAN
TO THE COMMISSION.  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 7119, P. 6.  BY
LATER ORDER THE COMMISSION PROVIDED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH AN
ESCROW AT THE OPTION OF ENGINEERS IF IT APPEARED LIKELY THAT COMMON
STOCKHOLDERS WOULD LITIGATE BEYOND THE DISTRICT COURT.  HOLDING COMPANY
ACT RELEASE NO. 7190.  FN13    PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE
COMMISSION APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
FOR APPROVAL OF THE PLAN AS AMENDED.  SEC. 11(E).  CERTAIN COMMON
STOCKHOLDERS, RESPONDENTS IN NOS. 226, 227, AND 243, AND PETITIONERS IN
NO. 266, FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN, CONTENDING THAT THE COMMISSION
HAD ERRED IN AWARDING TO THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS THE EQUIVALENT OF
THE VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES OF THEIR SHARES.  THE STREETER
GROUP OF PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OBJECTED TO THE COMMISSION'S FINDING OF
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF AN ESCROW ARRANGEMENT TO STOP THE ACCRUAL OF
FURTHER DIVIDENDS IN THE EVENT OF CONTINUED LITIGATION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THE CASE ON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  IT PREFERRED NOT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INVOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES CONTROLLED, BUT STATED THAT "IN EACH CASE THE
INQUIRY IS ONE OF RELATIVE RIGHTS BASED ON COLLOQUIAL EQUITY."  71
F.SUPP.  797, 802.  THAT STANDARD, THOUGHT THE COURT, NECESSITATED
CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS FACTORS TO WHICH IT WAS THOUGHT THE COMMISSION
HAD ATTACHED LITTLE OR NO IMPORTANCE.  THUS IT WAS IMPORTANT TO
CONSIDER NOT ONLY THE CHARTER PROVISIONS BUT THE ISSUING PRICE IN TERMS
OF WHAT THE COMPANY RECEIVED FOR THE SECURITIES, AND THE MARKET HISTORY
OF THE PREFERRED.  THESE FACTORS MIGHT MORE THAN OFFSET THE FACTOR OF
INVESTMENT VALUE, THE TESTIMONY AS TO WHICH THE COURT ACCEPTED.  IN ANY
EVENT, THOUGHT THE COURT, SEVERAL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS HAVE THIS
EFFECT.  THE ACT, IN ADDITION TO COMPELLING THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS
TO SURRENDER "THIS PRESENT ENHANCED VALUE," WORKED HARDSHIPS ON THE
COMMON.  ALL CLASSES OF SECURITIES, THE COURT SAID, SUFFERED LOSSES AS
A RESULT OF THE DIVESTMENT ORDERS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE
ACT.  EARNINGS RETAINED IN THE SYSTEM AT A SACRIFICE TO THE COMMON
CONTRIBUTED TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PREFERRED.  THESE
STANDARDS OF "COLLOQUIAL EQUITY," WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT CONCEIVED TO
BE CONTROLLING IN OUR DECISION IN OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, SUPRA, COMPELLED THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR
AND EQUITABLE TO GIVE THE PREFERRED MORE THAN $100 PER SHARE. 
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE WORTH OF THE PREFERRED IN THE ABSENCE OF A
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT WERE THOUGHT NOT PROFITABLE TO
CONSIDER "FOR THERE IS A PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT."  IN
EFFECT AMENDING THE PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF THE PREFERRED AT
$100 PER SHARE, THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THE PLAN AS THUS AMENDED. 
THE ESCROW AGREEMENT PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION WAS APPROVED, THE
COURT CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS'
OBJECTIONS TO THIS FEATURE.  71 F.SUPP.  797. 

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT REGARDED AS A CENTRAL ISSUE IN THE CASE THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAD EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF REVIEW PROPERLY
EXERCISED BY A DISTRICT COURT REVIEWING A PLAN UNDER SEC. 11(E) OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF EXERCISING A FULL AND INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT AS TO THE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF A PLAN, "TO FUNCTION AS AN
EQUITY REORGANIZATION TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE
ACT."  168 F.2D 722, 736. 

TURNING TO THE VARIOUS FACTORS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT TO THE RIGHTS
SURRENDERED BY THE PREFERRED SHAREHOLDERS, THE COURT OF APPEALS
CRITICIZED THE COMMISSION FOR FINDING THE INVESTMENT VALUE OF THE
PREFERRED AS IF THERE WERE NO HOLDING COMPANY ACT WHILE OMITTING TO
EVALUATE THE COMMON BY THE SAME STANDARD, AND FOR FAILING TO CONSIDER
FACTORS OTHER THAN THE INVESTMENT VALUE.  IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE
COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE ESTIMATED THE FUTURE EARNING POWER OF ENGINEERS,
ABSENT A HOLDING COMPANY ACT, AND APPORTIONED THAT POWER BETWEEN
PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKHOLDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE
CLAIMS.  IT WAS ALSO THOUGHT THAT, IN THE PROCESS OF VALUING THE
PREFERRED AND THE COMMON BY THE SAME APPROACH, THE COMMISSION SHOULD
HAVE CONSIDERED "THE SUBSTANTIAL LOSSES WHICH OCCURRED TO ENGINEERS BY
VIRTUE OF DIVESTITURES COMPELLED BY THE ACT."  FN14 LOSSES OF THIS
NATURE "SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE ENTERPRISE'S
BALANCE SHEET AS A MATTER OF BOOKKEEPING."  ID. AT 737-738. 

BUT EVEN AN INVESTMENT VALUE FIGURE PROPERLY ARRIVED AT IS "ONLY ONE
OF A SERIES OF FACTORS TO BE USED IN ARRIVING AT EQUITABLE
EQUIVALENTS."  THE COMMISSION WAS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER "ALL PERTINENT
FACTORS AND ALL SUBSTANTIAL EQUITIES," WHICH PRESUMABLY INCLUDED THE
"COLLOQUIAL EQUITIES" ADVERTED TO BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  ID. AT 738. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, WAS HELD TO HAVE ERRED IN ONE
PARTICULAR:  IT HAD AMENDED THE PLAN BY SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN VALUATION
OF $100 PER SHARE FOR THE PREFERRED STOCK FOR THAT OF THE COMMISSION. 
THE COURT HAD NO POWER TO DO THIS.  IT COULD ONLY REJECT THE
COMMISSION'S VALUATION, AND RETURN THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION FOR
FURTHER ACTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE COURT'S VIEWS. 

AT THE TIME THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS RENDERED, THE
PLAN HAD BEEN CONSUMMATED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE
DISPUTED AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF THE INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES
OF THE PREFERRED.  THE ESCROW ARRANGEMENT, WHICH HAD BEEN EMPLOYED TO
PRESERVE THE ISSUE OF THE AMOUNT TO WHICH THE PREFERRED WAS ENTITLED
AFTER HAVING BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT,
WAS HELD TO BE PROPER. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY
ACT.  335 U.S. 851. 

                                  I. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE QUESTION OF THE EXTENT
OF "THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE DISTRICT COURTS  ...  BY THE ACT" WAS
ONE WHICH WENT "TO THE HEART OF THE INSTANT CONTROVERSY."  168 F.2D AT
729.  THE COMMISSION APPARENTLY TOOK THE POSITION BEFORE THAT COURT
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE AGENCY'S
CONCLUSIONS UNLESS THOSE CONCLUSIONS LACKED "ANY RATIONAL AND STATUTORY
FOUNDATION."  FN15  THIS VIEW WAS REJECTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
DISTINGUISHING JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER SEC. 24(A) AS BEING LIMITED TO THE
INQUIRY WHETHER THE COMMISSION "HAS PLAINLY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
THESE MATTERS," SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. CHENERY CORP.,
332 U.S. 194, 208,  FN16  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A SEC. 11(E)
COURT WAS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF EXERCISING A FULL AND INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT AS TO THE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF A PLAN, "TO FUNCTION AS AN
EQUITY REORGANIZATION TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE
ACT."  168 F.2D AT 736. 

THIS POSITION IS MAINTAINED BEFORE THIS COURT BY THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS.  THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS'
REPRESENTATIVES URGE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN THIS REGARD,
AND THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DISTURBED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, BECAUSE THAT CONCLUSION WAS SUPPORTED
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS WITHIN THE AGENCY'S STATUTORY
AUTHORITY.  THE DISTRICT COURT, IN THEIR VIEW, EXCEEDED THE PROPER
SCOPE OF REVIEW. 

THE COMMISSION APPARENTLY NO LONGER TAKES SO RESTRICTIVE A VIEW OF
THE DISTRICT COURT'S FUNCTION AS IT FORMERLY HELD.  IT NOW CONCEDES
THAT THAT COURT HAD POWER TO REVIEW "INDEPENDENTLY" THE METHOD OF
VALUATION EMPLOYED.  BUT IT URGES THAT IN THIS CASE THE QUESTION,
WHETHER A PROPER METHOD OF VALUATION WAS EMPLOYED, IS ONE OF LAW, SINCE
CONGRESS HAS ITSELF PRESCRIBED THE STANDARD FOR COMPENSATING THE
VARIOUS CLASSES OF SECURITY HOLDERS INSTEAD OF DELEGATING TO THE
COMMISSION THE TASK OF FIXING THAT STANDARD. 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT "IF, AS THE COURT BELOW
SEEMED TO ASSUME, THE QUESTION IS NOT ONE OF LAW,  ...  THE SCOPE OF
REVIEW UNDER SECTION 11(E) IS LIMITED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THAT
APPLICABLE TO DETERMINATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT," WHICH IS SAID TO EMBODY A
SIMILAR STATUTORY SCHEME AND UNDER WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS
OF VALUATION ARE SUSTAINED IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND NOT
CONTRARY TO LAW.  ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448, 473;
R.F.C. V. DENVER & RIO GRANDE W.R. CO., 328 U.S. 495, 505-509. 

THE PROBLEM OF THE SCOPE OF REVIEW WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED THE
DISTRICT COURT TO EXERCISE UNDER SEC. 11(E) ARISES FROM AND IS
COMPLICATED BY THE FACT THAT CONGRESS PROVIDED NOT ONE, BUT TWO
PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING COMMISSION ORDERS OF THE TYPE NOW IN
QUESTION. 

THE FIRST IS AFFORDED BY SEC. 11(E) ITSELF.  IT RELATES TO ORDERS
APPROVING VOLUNTARY PLANS SUBMITTED BY ANY REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY
OR SUBSIDIARY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION (B).  THE COMMISSION IS
AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE SUCH A PLAN IF, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING, IT "SHALL FIND SUCH PLAN, AS SUBMITTED OR AS MODIFIED,
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) AND FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED BY SUCH PLAN."  THEN FOLLOWS THE
PROVISION THAT "THE COMMISSION, AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMPANY, MAY
APPLY TO A COURT  ...  TO ENFORCE AND CARRY OUT THE TERMS AND
PROVISIONS OF SUCH PLAN.  IF  ...  THE COURT, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, SHALL APPROVE SUCH PLAN AS FAIR AND EQUITABLE
AND AS APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11," THE
COURT IS AUTHORIZED "AS A COURT OF EQUITY" TO TAKE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION AND POSSESSION OF THE COMPANY OR COMPANIES AND THEIR
ASSETS, AND TO APPOINT A TRUSTEE, WHICH MAY BE THE COMMISSION, FOR
PURPOSES OF CARRYING OUT THE PLAN.  FN17 

THE ALTERNATIVE MODE OF REVIEW IS PROVIDED BY SEC. 24(A).  IT APPLIES
TO ALL ORDERS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE ACT AND IN ABBREVIATED
FORM IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY PERSON OR PARTY AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION
...  MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
...  BY FILING IN SUCH COURT, WITHIN SIXTY DAYS  ... A WRITTEN PETITION
...  (THE) COMMISSION SHALL CERTIFY AND FILE IN THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT
OF THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF WAS ENTERED.  ...
(SUCH) COURT SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM, MODIFY, OR
SET ASIDE SUCH ORDER, IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  NO OBJECTION TO THE ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT UNLESS SUCH
OBJECTION SHALL HAVE BEEN URGED BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR UNLESS THERE
WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR FAILURE SO TO DO.  THE FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL
BE CONCLUSIVE."  FN18 

THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, FOCUSING THEIR ATTENTION
PRIMARILY ON SEC. 11(E), EMPHASIZED THE SECTION'S REQUIREMENT OF
APPROVAL BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT COURT'S DECLARED STATUS "AS A
COURT OF EQUITY," AND THE ABSENCE FROM SEC. 11(E) OF SUCH EXPLICIT
PROVISIONS AS THOSE OF SEC. 24(A) MAKING THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF
FACT CONCLUSIVE, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; LIMITING THE
COURT TO CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS URGED BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN THE
ABSENCE OF REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR FAILURE TO URGE THEM; AND RESTRICTING
THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION TO THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING REQUIRING REMAND TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE
TAKING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 

CHIEFLY FROM THESE FACTORS THE TWO COURTS REACHED THEIR RESPECTIVE
CONCLUSIONS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS REQUIRED TO EXERCISE A FULL AND
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO THE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF THE PLAN,
FUNCTIONING AS AN EQUITY REORGANIZATION TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT.  HOWEVER, THEY DIFFERED, AS HAS BEEN NOTED,
CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THOSE LIMITATIONS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT IT WAS AUTHORIZED TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN
JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER THE PLAN WAS "FAIR
AND EQUITABLE," AFTER CONSIDERING INDEPENDENTLY THE VARIOUS MATTERS IT
DENOMINATED AS "COLLOQUIAL EQUITIES."  ACCORDINGLY, AFTER REACHING
NUMEROUS CONCLUSIONS ON THOSE MATTERS CONTRARY TO THE COMMISSION'S OR
NOT GIVEN FINAL EFFECT IN ITS DETERMINATIONS, THE COURT ARRIVED AT AN
OVER-ALL JUDGMENT OPPOSITE TO THAT OF THE COMMISSION AND HELD THE PLAN
NOT "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" TO THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS IN AWARDING THE
PREFERRED MORE THAN $100 PER SHARE.  MODIFYING THE PLAN TO ALLOW THE
LATTER ONLY THAT AMOUNT, THE COURT ORDERED IT ENFORCED AS MODIFIED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT COURT
CONCERNING ITS POWER TO EXERCISE A FULL AND INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN
GIVING OR WITHHOLDING APPROVAL OF THE PLAN AS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" AND,
ON THE WHOLE, WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISPOSITIONS OF
THE MATTERS OF "COLLOQUIAL EQUITY."  STRESSING STATEMENTS APPEARING IN
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 11, THE COURT THOUGHT THEY GAVE BASIS
FOR A STRONG ANALOGY BETWEEN THE FUNCTIONS OF DISTRICT COURTS UNDER
SEC. 11(E) AND THOSE OF SUCH COURTS "WHEN CALLED UPON UNDER THE SHERMAN
AND HEPBURN ACTS TO EFFECT COMPULSORY CORPORATE READJUSTMENTS REQUIRED
BY THE PUBLIC POLICY EXPRESSED IN THOSE ACTS."  FN19  THE COURT'S
OPINION THEN ADDED:  "WE THINK THAT IT WILL NOT BE CONTENDED THAT A
DISTRICT COURT  ...  ADJUDGING A CONTROVERSY ARISING UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT WOULD FUNCTION OTHER THAN AS IN AN ORIGINAL EQUITY PROCEEDING,
EXERCISING ALL THE POWERS AND DUTIES INHERENT IN A COURT OF EQUITY
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES."  168 F.2D AT 729.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT
UPHELD THE DISTRICT COURT'S VIEW THAT IT HAD POWER, AS A COURT OF
EQUITY, TO WITHHOLD APPROVAL AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN UPON ITS OWN
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF THE "COLLOQUIAL EQUITIES," NOTWITHSTANDING THE
COMMISSION'S CONTRARY JUDGMENT AND, APPARENTLY, EVEN THOUGH THE
COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT INVOLVED NO CLEAR ERROR OF LAW OR ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.    THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, VIEWED SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENTLY THE LIMITATIONS PLACED BY THE ACT UPON THE POWER OF
REVIEW.  "THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE EQUITY REORGANIZATION COURT ARE
NOT STRICTLY DE NOVO SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT CAN ONLY APPROVE A PLAN
WHEN IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.  SEE APPLICATION OF
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, D.C. DEL., 50 F.SUPP.  965, 966." 
168 F.2D AT 732.  THE DISTRICT COURT, IT WAS SAID, COULD RECEIVE
EVIDENCE ALIUNDE THE COMMISSION'S RECORD, COULD DECIDE ON THAT EVIDENCE
AND THE COMMISSION'S RECORD THAT THE PLAN IS UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE,
AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, OR
COULD REMAND WITHOUT TAKING NEW EVIDENCE.  THE DISTRICT COURT THEREFORE
WAS WRONG IN ORDERING ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN AS MODIFIED BY ITSELF. 
IT COULD ONLY APPROVE AND ENFORCE OR REFUSE APPROVAL AND REMAND.  ONLY
A PLAN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THE COURT COULD BE ENFORCED. 

THESE VIEWS WERE THOUGHT SUPPORTED BY THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF
REORGANIZATION, INCLUDING EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS, REORGANIZATION OF
INSOLVENT COMPANIES UNDER FORMER SEC. 77 B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11
U.S.C. SEC. 207 ET SEQ., AND CHAPTER X REORGANIZATIONS (ID. AT SEC. 501
ET SEQ.), ALTHOUGH THE COURT DID NOT "MEAN TO IMPLY THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO GRANT A SECTION 11(E) COURT THE SAME FULL AND UNTRAMMELED
SCOPE THAT A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY WOULD HAVE IN A CHAPTER X
PROCEEDING."  168 F.2D AT 735-736.  NEVERTHELESS, "ANY QUESTION WHICH
GOES TO THE ISSUE OF WHAT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE MAY BE RAISED AND MUST
BE PASSED UPON."  ID. AT 735.  MOREOVER, SINCE "THE CRITICAL PHRASE
EMPLOYED ALIKE BY COURTS OF EQUITY AND BY CONGRESS IN FRAMING THE TEST
UNDER WHICH A PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED, HAS ALWAYS
EMBRACED THE PHRASE 'FAIR AND EQUITABLE' OR ITS SUBSTANTIAL
EQUIVALENT," THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THE POWER AND FUNCTIONS OF THE
DISTRICT COURTS IN REVIEW OF PLANS SUBMITTED DID NOT "VARY MUCH FROM
STATUTE TO STATUTE AND FROM CASE TO CASE," ID. AT 734, I.E., WHETHER
THE PLAN WAS TO BE CONSUMMATED BY WAY OF EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP, BY ACTION
UNDER FORMER SEC. 77 B, BY SUIT UNDER CHAPTER X, BY A PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 77, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205, OR BY PETITION TO A DISTRICT COURT UNDER
SEC. 11(E). 

THE VARIANT VIEWS HELD RESPECTIVELY BY THE COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT
COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
DEMONSTRATE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEM.  EACH VIEW HAS A RATIONAL
BASIS OF SUPPORT, BUT NONE IS WITHOUT ITS DIFFICULTIES, EITHER IN
STATUTORY TERMS, HISTORY AND INTENT OR IN PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 11(E) THROWS LITTLE LIGHT ON THE
PROBLEM.  THERE WAS, SURPRISINGLY, ONLY CASUAL, INDEED TANGENTAL,
DISCUSSION OF IT.  THE ANALOGY TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, DRAWN BY THE COMMISSION AND REFERRED TO BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS, RESTS CHIEFLY UPON THE STATEMENT OF SENATOR WHEELER, CO
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, MADE DURING A COLLOQUY IN DEBATE ON THE SENATE
FLOOR AND SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN20  BUT THAT STATEMENT DID NOT
OCCUR IN ANY DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE SCOPE AND INCIDENCE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  IT AROSE ONLY AS IT WERE INCIDENTALLY IN THE COURSE
OF EXTENDED DISCUSSION WHICH CENTERED ABOUT THE RECEIVERSHIP PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 11(E) AS IT STOOD AT THE TIME OF THE DEBATE. 

MOREOVER, THE DISCUSSION DID NOT AND COULD NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE
FACT THAT, UNDER OUR SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC AND
DENVER & RIO GRANDE CASES, SUPRA, MATTERS OF VALUATION IN SEC. 77
REORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, NOT FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS, EXCEPT AS STATED
ABOVE.  ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., SUPRA; R.F.C. V. DENVER &
RIO GRANDE W.R. CO., SUPRA.  SIGNIFICANTLY, THIS FACT SEEMS NOT TO HAVE
BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS INCLUDED THE SEC. 77
PROCEEDINGS AMONG ITS GENERAL GROUPING OF REORGANIZATION PROCEDURES FOR
ANALOGICAL PURPOSES.  AND IN THIS RESPECT THE COMMISSION MAKES CLEAR
ITS DIFFERENCE FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, POINTING OUT THAT UNDER THE
WESTERN PACIFIC AND RIO GRANDE DECISIONS THE COMMISSION DECIDES
QUESTIONS OF VALUATION, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE NARROW SCOPE OF REVIEW
THERE ALLOWED. 

BUT, AS IF TO COMPLICATE THE MATTER FURTHER, THE COMMISSION'S ANALOGY
IS SOMEWHAT WEAKENED BY THE FACT THAT THE WESTERN PACIFIC AND RIO
GRANDE RULINGS CONCERNING REVIEW OF VALUATION MATTERS RESTED UPON
LANGUAGE IN SEC. 77 NOT REPEATED IN SEC. 11(E) OF THE ACT PRESENTLY IN
QUESTION.  THAT LANGUAGE, APPEARING IN SUBSECTION (E) OF SEC. 77,
PROVIDED:  "IF IT SHALL BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF ANY
PROPERTY FOR ANY PURPOSE UNDER THIS SECTION, THE COMMISSION SHALL
DETERMINE SUCH VALUE AND CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE COURT IN ITS REPORT ON
THE PLAN."  THIS, THE COURT HELD, LEFT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION THE DETERMINATION OF VALUE "WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF A
REEXAMINATION BY THE COURT, WHEN THAT DETERMINATION IS REACHED WITH
MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LEGAL STANDARDS."  318 U.S. AT 472-473. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE OPPOSING ANALOGY DRAWN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
FROM THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF REORGANIZATION IN GENERAL IS HIGHLY
INDISCRIMINATE.  INSOFAR AS IT INCLUDES EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS, E.G.,
PURSUANT TO SHERMAN AND HEPBURN ACT READJUSTMENTS, IT IGNORES THE
IMPORTANT FACT THAT IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS THERE IS NO EFFORT TO BRIGADE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCESSES.  NOR DOES IT TAKE ACCOUNT OF
THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES "FROM STATUTE TO STATUTE," E.G., BETWEEN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS CONSTRUED IN THE
WESTERN PACIFIC AND RIO GRANDE CASES, ON THE ONE HAND, AND CHAPTER X
REORGANIZATIONS, ON THE OTHER.  MOREOVER, AND PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT,
IT SUBSTITUTES ANALOGY DRAWN FROM OTHER STATUTES AND JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, TOGETHER WITH A READING OF SEC. 11(E) IN COMPARATIVE
ISOLATION FROM THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF
THAT SECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ACT, AS A WHOLE AND PARTICULARLY
WITH REFERENCE TO ANY EFFORT TOWARD HARMONIZING THE SECTION WITH SEC.
24(A) AND BRINGING THE TWO AS CLOSE TOGETHER AS POSSIBLE IN PRACTICAL
OPERATION. 

OF COURSE CONGRESS COULD PROVIDE TWO ENTIRELY DISSIMILAR PROCEDURES
FOR REVIEW, DEPENDING ON WHETHER APPEAL WERE TAKEN BY AN AGGRIEVED
PERSON TO A COURT OF APPEALS OR THE PLAN WERE SUBMITTED BY THE
COMMISSION AT THE COMPANY'S REQUEST TO A DISTRICT COURT.  BUT IT IS
HARD TO IMAGINE ANY GOOD REASON THAT WOULD MOVE CONGRESS TO DO THIS
DELIBERATELY.  THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF ASSUMING THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
THE REVIEW UNDER SEC. 11(E) TO BE CONDUCTED WHOLLY WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
OR CONSIDERATION OF THE LIMITATIONS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR THE REVIEW
UNDER SEC. 24(A) CERTAINLY WOULD PRODUCE INCONGRUOUS RESULTS WHICH
WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS IN THE ABSENCE OF
UNMISTAKABLY EXPLICIT COMMAND. 

FOR ONE THING THE CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE, IN EFFECT, TO CREATE TO A
VERY LARGE POSSIBLE EXTENT DIFFERING STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATION AND
APPLICATION OF THE ACT, DEPENDING UPON WHICH MODE OF REVIEW WERE
INVOKED.  IN THE ONE INSTANCE, APART FROM REVIEWABLE LEGAL QUESTIONS,
THE COMMISSION'S EXPERT JUDGMENT ON THE VERY TECHNICAL AND COMPLICATED
MATTERS TO DEAL WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS ESTABLISHED, WOULD BE
CONTROLLING.  IN THE OTHER INSTANCE, IT WOULD HAVE TO GIVE WAY TO THE
CONTRARY VIEW OF WHATEVER DISTRICT COURT THE PLAN MIGHT BE SUBMITTED
TO. 

CONCEIVABLY THE SAME PLAN MIGHT BE BROUGHT UNDER REVIEW BY BOTH
ROUTES.  INDEED, IN ONE INSTANCE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DELAWARE, TO
WHICH THE PLAN HERE WAS SUBMITTED, HELD THAT ITS DETERMINATION OF THE
ISSUES IN A SEC. 11(E) PROCEEDING WAS PRECLUDED BY A PRIOR AFFIRMATION
OF THE SAME ORDER BY A COURT OF APPEALS IN A SEC. 24(A) REVIEW
PROCEEDING.  SEE L.J. MARQUIS & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, 134 F.2D 822, AND APPLICATION OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, 50 F.SUPP.  965.  PRESUMABLY, UNDER THE VIEWS NOW TAKEN BY
THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, IF DISTRICT COURT REVIEW
UNDER SEC. 11(E) COULD BE HAD FIRST, THAT DETERMINATION LIKEWISE WOULD
BE CONCLUSIVE AS AGAINST CONTRARY VIEWS HELD BY THE COMMISSION AND A
COURT OF APPEALS IN A LATER SEC. 24(A) PROCEEDING. 

MOREOVER, APART FROM LEGAL QUESTIONS, THE CONTROLLING STANDARD WOULD
BE FIXED BY THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO WHICH THE PLAN
MIGHT BE SUBMITTED.  AND SINCE SUCH A COURT MIGHT BE ANY OF THE MANY
DISTRICT COURTS AVAILABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE, THERE HARDLY COULD BE THE
UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" STANDARD WHICH CONGRESS
UNDOUBTEDLY HAD IN MIND WHEN IT ENTRUSTED ITS PRIMARY ADMINISTRATION TO
THE COMMISSION'S EXPERT JUDGMENT AND EXPERIENCE, AND WHEN IT DRAFTED
THE DETAILED PROVISIONS OF SEC. 24(A) FOR REVIEW.  TO THE EXTENT AT
LEAST THAT THE STANDARD CONTEMPLATED AN AREA OF EXPERT DISCRETION, ITS
CONTENT UNDER THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS COULD NOT BE UNIFORM, BUT WOULD VARY FROM COURT TO COURT AS THE
JUDICIAL DISCRETION MIGHT DIFFER FROM THAT OF THE COMMISSION OR OTHER
COURTS. 

IN CONTRAST WITH THE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 24(A), THE VERY
BREVITY AND LACK OF SPECIFICITY OF SEC. 11(E), TOGETHER WITH THE
PAUCITY AND TENTATIVE CHARACTER OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, CONCERNING
THE SCOPE OF REVIEW UNDER THE LATTER SECTION, GIVE CAUTION AGAINST
READING ITS TERMS AS IMPORTING A BREADTH OF REVIEW HIGHLY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE LIMITATIONS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY SEC. 24(A).  BOTH SECTIONS
ARE PARTS OF THE SAME STATUTE, DESIGNED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SAME
LEGISLATIVE POLICIES AND TO SECURE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE STATUTORY
STANDARDS.  THAT STATUTORY CONTEXT AND THOSE OBJECTS SHOULD OUTWEIGH
ANY GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OR ANALOGIES DRAWN INDISCRIMINATELY FROM
DIFFERING STATUTES OR FROM THE HISTORY OF REORGANIZATIONS IN GENERAL,
LEADING AS THESE DO TO INCONGRUITIES AND DIVERSITIES IN PRACTICAL
APPLICATION OF THE ACT'S TERMS AND POLICIES. 

INDEED WE THINK IT IS FAIR TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF
SEC. 11(E) WAS NOT TO PROVIDE A HIGHLY DIFFERENT SCOPE OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW FROM THAT AFFORDED BY SEC. 24(A), BUT WAS TO ENABLE THE
COMMISSION, BY GIVING IT THE AUTHORITY TO INVOKE THE COURT'S POWER, TO
MOBILIZE THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN CARRYING OUT THE POLICIES OF THE
ACT.  TO DO THIS THE COURT "AS A COURT OF EQUITY" WAS AUTHORIZED TO
"TAKE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND POSSESSION OF" THE COMPANY OR
COMPANIES AND THEIR ASSETS AND TO APPOINT A TRUSTEE TO HOLD AND
ADMINISTER THE ASSETS UNDER THE COURT'S DIRECTION. 

TRUE, THE COURT WAS TO APPROVE THE PLAN AS FAIR AND EQUITABLE; BUT
NOTHING WAS SAID EXPRESSLY AS TO THE SCOPE OF REVIEW OR THE RESOLUTION
OF DIFFERENCES IN DISCRETIONARY MATTERS BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE
COURT.  THE COURT'S CHARACTERIZATION AS "A COURT OF EQUITY" WAS
APPROPRIATE IN RELATION TO THE POWERS OF ENFORCEMENT CONFERRED.  WE DO
NOT THINK IT WAS INTENDED TO DEFINE WITH ACCURACY THE SCOPE OF REVIEW
TO BE EXERCISED OVER MATTERS COMMITTED TO THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION
AND EXPERT JUDGMENT, NOT INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF LAW, OR TO SET UP A
DIFFERENT AND CONFLICTING STANDARD IN THOSE MATTERS FROM THE ONE TO BE
APPLIED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 24(A).  THIS VIEW IS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH SENATOR WHEELER'S COMPARISON WITH SEC. 77 PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH PERHAPS, DESPITE ITS RATHER CASUAL INTERJECTION,
MOST NEARLY APPROACHES DISCLOSURE OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AS TO THE
PRESENT PROBLEM. 

IT MAY BE ADDED THAT, IN GENERAL, THE COURTS WHICH HAVE DEALT WITH
THE PROBLEM APPEAR TO HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW WE TAKE,  FN21  AS AGAINST
THE ONE PREVAILING IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS WHICH
REVIEWED THIS CASE,  FN22  ALTHOUGH IN NO CASE HAS THE QUESTION BEEN SO
SHARPLY FOCUSED AS HERE.  WHILE SEC. 11(E), AS WE HAVE NOTED, DOES NOT
CONTAIN LANGUAGE THE EQUIVALENT OF SUBSECTION (E) OF SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT UPON WHICH THIS COURT RESTED ITS RULING CONCERNING
REVIEW OF VALUATIONS IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC CASE, THAT LACK MAY BE
SUPPLIED IN THIS CASE BY THE CORRELATION WE THINK IS REQUIRED BETWEEN
THE TERMS OF SEC. 11(E) AND THOSE OF SEC. 24(A).  ACCORDINGLY WE ARE
UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT THE LATTER WAS FREE, IN PASSING UPON THE
COMMISSION'S VALUATIONS, TO DISREGARD ITS JUDGMENT IN THE LARGE AREAS
OF DISCRETION COMMITTED BY THE ACT TO THAT JUDGMENT. 

ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY IS NOT, OF COURSE, APPLICABLE ONLY TO AGENCY
FINDINGS OF "FACT" IN THE NARROW, LITERAL SENSE.  THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS AS TO VALUATION, WHICH ARE BASED UPON JUDGMENT AND PREDICTION,
AS WELL AS UPON "FACTS," LIKE THE VALUATION FINDINGS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION IN REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT, ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., SUPRA, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
REEXAMINATION BY THE COURT UNLESS THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE OR WERE NOT ARRIVED AT "IN ACCORDANCE WITH LEGAL STANDARDS." 

ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS OF POLICY, OFTEN BASED UPON UNDISPUTED
BASIC FACTS, IN AN AREA IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE AGENCY
AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP RULES BASED UPON ITS EXPERT KNOWLEDGE AND
EXPERIENCE, ARE EXEMPLIFIED BY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V.
CHENERY CORP., SUPRA, IN WHICH THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT PREFERRED
STOCK PURCHASED BY MANAGEMENT IN THE OVER-THE-COUNTER MARKET DURING THE
FORMULATION OF A HOLDING COMPANY REORGANIZATION PLAN COULD NOT BE
EXCHANGED FOR COMMON STOCK PARTICIPATION IN THE REORGANIZED COMPANY, AS
COULD OTHER PREFERRED STOCK; INSTEAD MANAGEMENT WAS TO BE PAID COST
PLUS INTEREST FOR THE PREFERRED STOCK SO PURCHASED.    THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION WAS MADE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DUTY TO DETERMINE THAT A
PLAN IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11(E) AND THAT
IT IS NOT "DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF
INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7(D)(6) AND SEC.
7(E).  ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WHICH HAD REVIEWED THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER UNDER SEC. 24(A) OF THE ACT, WE HELD THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION WAS "AN ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT WHICH WE CANNOT
DISTURB."  332 U.S. 194, AT 209.  THIS HOLDING WAS NOT BASED UPON THE
FACT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS REVIEWED UNDER SEC. 24(A) OF THE
ACT RATHER THAN UNDER SEC. 11(E), BUT UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION WAS MADE IN AN AREA IN WHICH CONGRESS HAD
DELEGATED POLICY DECISIONS OF THIS SORT TO THE COMMISSION, AND
THEREFORE THAT THE AGENCY DETERMINATION WAS "CONSISTENT WITH THE
AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CONGRESS."  ID. AT 207.  WE THINK THIS VIEW IS
APPLICABLE WHEN REVIEW IS HAD UNDER SEC. 11(E) AS MUCH AS WHEN IT
ARISES UNDER SEC. 24(A). 

EVEN WITH THE LATITUDE ALLOWED BY OUR PRESENT RULING FOR PLAY OF THE
COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT, IT REMAINS TO CONSIDER WHETHER IN THIS CASE THE
COMMISSION HAS COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTORY STANDARDS IN ITS
DETERMINATION THAT THE PLAN AS AMENDED BY IT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE. 
THE COMMON SHAREHOLDERS DENY THIS.  AND, CONTRARY TO THE PREFERRED
SHAREHOLDERS' POSITION, THE COMMISSION HAS ARGUED, ALTERNATIVELY TO ITS
CONTENTIONS CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF REVIEW, THAT APPLICATION OF THE
"FAIR AND EQUITABLE" STANDARD OF SEC. 11(E) IN THIS CASE PRESENTS
QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED ERRONEOUSLY BY THE DISTRICT
COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

TAKEN MOST BROADLY, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE COMMISSION SEEMS TO BE THAT
THE ENTIRE MATTER OF APPLYING THE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" STANDARD
INVOLVES ONLY LEGAL ISSUES, WITH THE RESULT THAT EACH SUBSIDIARY
QUESTION RAISED AND DETERMINED IN THAT PROCESS BECOMES INDEPENDENTLY
REVIEWABLE AND JUDICIALLY DETERMINABLE.  IF SO, OF COURSE, THE QUESTION
OF THE PROPER SCOPE OF REVIEW WOULD BECOME IRRELEVANT, AT ANY RATE FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, SINCE IT WAS DETERMINED SOLELY ON THE RECORD
MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

BUT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT STOP WITH THIS BROAD ARGUMENT.  IT GOES
ON TO CONSIDER PARTICULAR QUESTIONS WHICH AROSE IN THE VALUATION
PROCESS AND TO URGE THAT THEY PRESENTED QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH THE
REVIEWING COURTS ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED.  AMONG THESE ARE WHETHER THE
COURT'S DISPOSITIONS VIOLATED THE "ABSOLUTE PRIORITY" STANDARD
ATTRIBUTED TO THE OTIS CASE; WHETHER THEIR REQUIREMENT THAT THE
COMMISSION VALUE THE COMMON STOCK IN THE SAME MANNER AS IT DID THE
PREFERRED, RATHER THAN SIMPLY AWARDING TO THE COMMON SHAREHOLDERS ALL
OF ENGINEERS' ASSETS REMAINING AFTER GIVING THE PREFERRED THE EQUITABLE
EQUIVALENT OF THEIR SHARES AS DETERMINED, VIOLATED THE STATUTORY
STANDARD; WHETHER THE COURTS RIGHTLY REQUIRED THE COMMISSION TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT ALLEGED LOSSES INCURRED BY ENGINEERS IN EARLIER
DISPOSITIONS OF COMPANY PROPERTIES MADE TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT; AND
WHETHER THE COMMISSION IMPROPERLY FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OTHER
MATTERS OF "COLLOQUIAL EQUITY" THE COURTS CONSIDERED NOT ONLY PROPER
BUT ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR AND EQUITABLE DETERMINATION. 

WE THINK AT LEAST SOME OF THESE MATTERS DO RAISE LEGAL ISSUES,
PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE OTIS DECISION, WHICH SHOULD NOW BE
CONSIDERED AND RESOLVED.  ACCORDINGLY WE TURN TO THEM FOR THAT
PURPOSE. 

                                 II. 

CHALLENGES TO THE INVESTMENT VALUE THEORY OF VALUATION.  THE
PRINCIPAL EFFECT OF THE OTIS DECISION WAS TO RULE THAT IN
SIMPLIFICATION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECS. 11(B)(2) AND (E) OF THE
ACT THE INVOLUNTARY CHARTER LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE DOES NOT OF ITSELF
DETERMINE THE AMOUNTS SHAREHOLDERS ARE TO RECEIVE, BUT INSTEAD THE
AMOUNTS ALLOCATED SHOULD BE THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE SECURITIES'
INVESTMENT VALUE ON A GOING-CONCERN BASIS. 

THE COMMON SHAREHOLDERS SEEK TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF THIS RULING BY
VARIOUS ARGUMENTS PRESENTLY TO BE STATED, WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
AND DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OTIS DECISION AND THE COMMISSION'S
PRACTICE CONSISTENT WITH THAT DECISION, A SUMMARY OF WHICH PRACTICE IS
SET FORTH IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION. 

IN THE OTIS CASE THE PLAN CALLED FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNITED
LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY, THE TOP HOLDING COMPANY IN THE SYSTEM, IN
OBEDIENCE TO A COMMISSION ORDER REQUIRING THE ELIMINATION OF THAT
COMPANY, WHOSE EXISTENCE VIOLATED THE "GREAT-GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF
SEC. 11(B)(2).  SINCE BOTH COMMON AND PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WERE TO
RECEIVE, IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR STOCK IN UNITED POWER, STOCK IN ITS
SUBSIDIARY, THE UNITED LIGHT AND RAILWAYS COMPANY, WHICH WAS ITSELF A
HOLDING COMPANY, THE EFFECT OF THE DISSOLUTION WAS TO ELIMINATE THE TOP
HOLDING COMPANY IN A MULTI-TIERED HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM, LEAVING BOTH
CLASSES OF SECURITY HOLDERS WITH AN INVESTMENT IN A CONTINUING HOLDING
COMPANY ENTERPRISE. 

THE ASSETS OF UNITED POWER WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE CLAIMS OF
THE COMPANY'S PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, IF THE CHARTER LIQUIDATION
PREFERENCE OF THE PREFERRED WAS APPLICABLE.  THE COMMISSION FOUND
HOWEVER THAT "IF ALL THE ASSUMED EARNINGS MATERIALIZED AND WERE APPLIED
TO LIQUIDATING THE PREFERRED CURRENT AND DEFERRED DIVIDENDS, IN
APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN YEARS THE ARREARAGES WOULD BE PAID AND THE COMMON
WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO RECEIVE DIVIDENDS," 323 U.S. AT 632, AND THAT
ONLY BY FORCED LIQUIDATION COULD THE COMMON BE DEPRIVED OF ALL RIGHT TO
FUTURE EARNINGS AND THE PREFERRED BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO PROSPECTIVE
EARNINGS IN EXCESS OF THE DIVIDENDS GUARANTEED BY CHARTER.  THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT "IN ITS 'OVER-ALL JUDGMENT' POWER'S COMMON
HAD A LEGITIMATE INVESTMENT VALUE OF A PROPORTION OF 5.48 PER CENT OF
POWER'S ASSETS TO THE PREFERRED'S VALUE OF 94.52 PER CENT."  IBID.
RELYING ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT, 323 U.S. AT 636-637, AND
UPON THE FACT THAT THE CHARTER PROVISION WAS NOT DRAFTED IN
CONTEMPLATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY EMBODIED IN THE ACT, ID. AT 637
638, WE HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NOT ERRED IN ITS METHOD OF
VALUATION.  BY THIS RULING WE REJECTED THE EASIER SOLUTION OF
PERMITTING LIQUIDATIONS OR REORGANIZATIONS COMPELLED BY THE ACT TO
MATURE CHARTER RIGHTS AND THUS TO SHIFT INVESTMENT VALUES FROM ONE
CLASS OF SECURITY HOLDERS TO ANOTHER. 

IN SO RULING, THIS COURT DID NOT ABANDON THE "ABSOLUTE PRIORITY"
STANDARD INSOFAR AS EMBODIED IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PLAN BE "FAIR
AND EQUITABLE."  FN23  THAT STANDARD REQUIRES THAT EACH SECURITY HOLDER
BE GIVEN THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE RIGHTS SURRENDERED, BUT THE
EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT IS NOT INVARIABLY THE CHARTER LIQUIDATION
PREFERENCE, AS IT IS IN THE CASE OF LIQUIDATIONS OR REORGANIZATIONS
BROUGHT ABOUT THROUGH THE ACTION OF CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS.  THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE OTIS CASE IS THAT THE MEASURE OF EQUITABLE EQUIVALENCE
FOR PURPOSES OF SIMPLIFICATION PROCEEDINGS COMPELLED BY THE HOLDING
COMPANY ACT IS THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES "ON THE BASIS OF A GOING
BUSINESS AND NOT AS THOUGH A LIQUIDATION WERE TAKING PLACE."  323 U.S.
AT 633. 

THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION, FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT TO THE PRESENT
TIME, SHOW A CONSISTENT AND DEVELOPING APPLICATION OF THE INVESTMENT
VALUE RULE APPROVED IN THE OTIS CASE.  FN24  AT LEAST SINCE ITS
DECISION IN THAT CASE CHARTER PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN HELD INVARIABLY NOT
TO BE DETERMINATIVE.  FEDERAL COURTS WHICH HAVE HAD OCCASION TO SPEAK
IN THIS CONNECTION HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT CHARTER LIQUIDATION PROVISIONS
ARE NOT THE MEASURES OF STOCKHOLDERS' RIGHTS IN LIQUIDATIONS AND
REORGANIZATIONS COMPELLED BY THE ACT.  FN25 

SEEKING TO DISTINGUISH THE OTIS CASE, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS CONTEND THAT HERE THE CHARTER LIQUIDATION
PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE, FROM WHICH OF COURSE IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT
THOSE PROVISIONS ARE THE MEASURE OF EQUITABLE EQUIVALENCE. 

IT IS URGED FIRST THAT ENGINEERS' CHARTER LIQUIDATION PROVISION IS
PHRASED IN MORE COMPREHENSIVE TERMS THAN WAS THE ONE IN OTIS, AND THAT
THE FRAMERS OF ENGINEERS' CHARTER CONTEMPLATED THE POSSIBILITY OF
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION OF THE KIND REQUIRED BY THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT.  A
COMPARISON OF THE TWO CHARTER PROVISIONS REVEALS NO SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.  FN26  ENGINEERS' CHARTER WAS DRAFTED SOME
FOUR YEARS EARLIER THAN THE OTIS CHARTER.  EACH CONTRACT WAS MADE AT A
TIME WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY EMBODIED IN THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT
"WAS NOT FORESEEABLE."  323 U.S. AT 638.  FN27 

A FURTHER ASSERTED DISTINCTION IS THAT THERE IS HERE A "GENUINE
LIQUIDATION," I.E., A TERMINATION OF THE HOLDING COMPANY ENTERPRISE BY
THE LIQUIDATION OF THE LAST HOLDING COMPANY IN THE SYSTEM; WHILE IN THE
OTIS CASE "THE HOLDING COMPANY ENTERPRISE CONTINUED ESSENTIALLY
UNCHANGED, EVEN THOUGH THE PARTICULAR CORPORATION THERE INVOLVED WAS
BEING DISSOLVED PURSUANT TO THE MANDATE OF THE ACT, AS AN INCIDENT TO
THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE CONTINUING SYSTEM." 

IT WOULD PROBABLY SUFFICE TO OBSERVE THAT THE WORD "LIQUIDATION," AS
USED IN ENGINEERS' CHARTER LIQUIDATION PROVISION, QUITE OBVIOUSLY MEANS
LIQUIDATION OF ENGINEERS, NOT LIQUIDATION OF OTHER CORPORATIONS OR OF
THE HOLDING COMPANY ENTERPRISE OF WHICH ENGINEERS IS A PART.  BUT THERE
ARE MORE FUNDAMENTAL REASONS WHICH REQUIRE THE REJECTION OF THIS
ARGUMENT.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RELIED UPON IN THE OTIS CASE, 323
U.S. AT 636-637, CONTAINS NO HINT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO PRESERVE
INVESTMENT VALUES ONLY WHEN THE POLICY OF THE ACT REQUIRED A REDUCTION
IN THE NUMBER OF HOLDING COMPANIES IN A SYSTEM RATHER THAN THE
ELIMINATION OF THE SYSTEM'S LAST HOLDING COMPANY N28.  AND THE OTIS
OPINION REJECTED THE COMMISSION'S ARGUMENT IN THAT CASE THAT THE RESULT
THERE WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE HOLDING COMPANY ENTERPRISE WAS
TO CONTINUE.  WE SAID THAT THE REASON FOR THE INAPPLICABILITY OF
CHARTER PROVISIONS 

"DOES NOT LIE IN THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF POWER CONTINUES IN
ANOTHER FORM.  THAT IS TRUE OF BANKRUPTCY AND EQUITY REORGANIZATION. 
IT LIES IN THE FACT THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT ITS EXERCISE OF
POWER TO SIMPLIFY SHOULD MATURE RIGHTS, CREATED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF SIMPLIFICATION OF SYSTEM STRUCTURE, WHICH OTHERWISE
WOULD ONLY ARISE BY VOLUNTARY ACTION OF STOCKHOLDERS OR, INVOLUNTARILY,
THROUGH ACTION OF CREDITORS."  323 U.S. AT 638. 

FAR FROM AIDING THE DISTINCTION URGED BY THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS,
SCHWABACHER V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 182, SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION
THAT INVESTMENT VALUES RATHER THAN CHARTER PROVISIONS PROVIDE THE
MEASURE OF THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS' RIGHTS.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT
HELD THAT THE CHARTER LIQUIDATION PROVISION OF A RAILROAD CORPORATION
MERGING WITH ANOTHER RAILROAD UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE AMOUNT TO WHICH HOLDERS OF CUMULATIVE
PREFERRED STOCK WERE ENTITLED, AND THAT "IN APPRAISING A STOCKHOLDER'S
POSITION IN A MERGER AS TO JUSTICE AND REASONABLENESS, IT IS NOT THE
PROMISE THAT A CHARTER MADE TO HIM BUT THE CURRENT WORTH OF THAT
PROMISE THAT GOVERNS, IT IS NOT WHAT HE ONCE PUT INTO A CONSTITUENT
COMPANY BUT WHAT VALUE HE IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE MERGER THAT IS TO BE
MADE GOOD."  334 U.S. AT 199. 

AGAIN THIS RESULT DEPENDED, NOT UPON THE FACT THAT THE MERGER LEFT A
CONTINUING ENTERPRISE, BUT UPON THE FACT THAT CONGRESS, IN ITS EFFORTS
TO ACHIEVE A PARTICULAR ECONOMIC GOAL, WISHED TO AVOID SHIFTING
INVESTMENT VALUES FROM ONE CLASS OF SECURITIES TO ANOTHER BY MATURING
CONTRACT RIGHTS WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE MATURED.  AS DID THE
OTIS OPINION, WHICH WAS SAID TO CONSTRUE "A FEDERAL STATUTE OF VERY
SIMILAR PURPOSES,"  FN29  THE SCHWABACHER OPINION ASSUMED "THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXERCISE ITS POWER WITH THE LEAST POSSIBLE HARM TO
CITIZENS."  OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, SUPRA AT
638. 

THE FINAL REASON FOR REJECTING THE ASSERTED DISTINCTION BETWEEN
LIQUIDATION OF THE PARTICULAR CORPORATION AND LIQUIDATION OF THE
HOLDING COMPANY ENTERPRISE SERVES ALSO TO ANSWER A FURTHER, RELATED
ARGUMENT MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS.  IT IS
SAID THAT PAYMENT OF THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS IN CASH RATHER THAN IN
SECURITIES OF A NEW CORPORATION AND THE CONSEQUENT TERMINATION OF THESE
STOCKHOLDERS' INVESTMENT "MATURES" THE PREFERRED CLAIMS AND MAKES THIS
A "GENUINE LIQUIDATION."  THESE ARGUMENTS, WHICH NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT
THE COMMISSION MAY NOT CHOOSE THE ELIMINATION OF ONE COMPANY IN A
SYSTEM RATHER THAN ANOTHER OR PAYMENT IN CASH RATHER THAN SECURITIES AS
MEANS OF CONFORMING THE ENTERPRISE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT,
WITHOUT VARYING THE STANDARD BY WHICH STOCKHOLDERS ARE TO BE
COMPENSATED, ARE ANSWERED IN THE OTIS OPINION.  WE HELD THERE THAT
SECURITY VALUES SHOULD NOT 

"BE MADE TO DEPEND ON WHETHER THE COMMISSION, IN ENFORCING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE ACT, RESORTS TO DISSOLUTION OF A PARTICULAR COMPANY IN THE
HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM, OR RESORTS INSTEAD TO THE DEVICES OF MERGER OR
CONSOLIDATION, WHICH WOULD NOT RUN AFOUL OF A CHARTER PROVISION
FORMULATED YEARS BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE ACT IN QUESTION.  THE
COMMISSION IN ITS ENFORCEMENT OF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE
HAMPERED IN ITS DETERMINATION OF THE PROPER TYPE OF HOLDING COMPANY
STRUCTURE BY CONSIDERATIONS OF AVOIDANCE OF HARSH EFFECTS ON VARIOUS
STOCK INTERESTS WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM ENFORCEMENT OF CHARTER
PROVISIONS OF DOUBTFUL APPLICABILITY TO THE PROCEDURES UNDERTAKEN." 
323 U.S. AT 637-638.    THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS ARGUE ALSO THAT, EVEN
IF THE CHARTER LIQUIDATION PROVISION BE DEEMED INAPPLICABLE, THE "FAIR
AND EQUITABLE" STANDARD REQUIRES THE APPLICATION OF THE "DOCTRINE OF
FRUSTRATION."  IT IS SAID THAT FRUSTRATION OF A CONTRACT BY
GOVERNMENTAL EDICT OR ANY OTHER SUPERVENING EVENT NOT CONTEMPLATED BY
THE PARTIES REQUIRES THAT "THE LOSS  ...  LIE WHERE IT FALLS.  NEITHER
PARTY CAN BE COMPELLED TO PAY FOR THE OTHER'S DISAPPOINTED
EXPECTATIONS."  FN30 IN SUCH A CASE, IT IS SAID, "THE FACE AMOUNT OF
THE SECURITY - WHICH THEORETICALLY MIRRORS THE SENIOR SECURITY HOLDER'S
CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENTERPRISE - IS ALL THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER."  AGAIN THE OTIS CASE IS SAID TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE IN THAT
THERE THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WERE TO RECEIVE A PARTICIPATION IN THE
CONTINUING ENTERPRISE, WHILE HERE THEIR INVESTMENT IS TERMINATED BY
PAYMENT IN CASH.  BUT, AS WE OBSERVED ABOVE, THE COMMISSION IS NOT TO
BE HAMPERED IN ITS ENFORCEMENT OF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT "BY
CONSIDERATIONS OF AVOIDANCE OF HARSH EFFECTS ON VARIOUS STOCK
INTERESTS." 

THE AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON IN SUPPORT OF THE FRUSTRATION ARGUMENT
WOULD NOT COMPEL THE RESULT FOR WHICH THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS CONTEND,
EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OTIS DECISION.  CONSIDERABLE RELIANCE IS
PLACED UPON THE UNITED LIGHT & POWER CO., 10 S.E.C. 1215, AND THE
AFFIRMANCE OF THAT DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT IN NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
131 F.2D 274.  IN THAT CASE THE PLAN, A DIFFERENT FEATURE OF WHICH WAS
REVIEWED IN THE OTIS CASE, PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT TO THE COMPANY'S
DEBENTURE HOLDERS IN CASH.  THE COMMISSION, AFTER DECIDING THAT
VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES WERE NOT PAYABLE, AND THAT THE
BONDHOLDERS HAD NO RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE PREMIUM "BY VIRTUE OF ANY OTHER
RECOGNIZED LEGAL OR EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE," HELD THAT THERE WAS NO RIGHT
TO COMPENSATION FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE INVESTMENT, WHICH, LIKE THE
TERMINATION OF THE STOCKHOLDERS' INVESTMENTS, HAD BEEN "BROUGHT ABOUT
BY THE ACT OF A SOVEREIGN POWER - IN THIS CASE A CONGRESSIONAL
MANDATE."  10 S.E.C. AT 1223, 1228.  IN AFFIRMING THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT "THE CONTRACT IS NO
LONGER BINDING AND FURTHER PERFORMANCE IS EXCUSED.  ...  WHERE, AS
HERE, THE ESSENTIAL EXISTENCE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT HAS
BECOME ILLEGAL AND IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE CONTRARY TO A NEW CONCEPT OF
PUBLIC POLICY WHICH WAS UNFORESEEABLE WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS MADE."  131
F.2D AT 276.  SINCE THE CORPORATION WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO CALL THE
BONDS, "IT MIGHT WELL LET THE RIGHTS OF THOSE IN INTEREST BE DETERMINED
AS THOUGH THERE HAD BEEN NO CALL OPTION.  THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW WAS,
ACCORDINGLY, FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST SINCE IT
PROVIDED FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS IN A WAY WHICH DISCHARGED IN FULL
THE CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS OF THE DISSOLVED CORPORATION."  IBID. 

EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT NO DISTINCTION IS TO BE MADE BETWEEN BONDS
AND PREFERRED STOCK,  FN31 NEITHER THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
NOR THAT OF THE COMMISSION IN THE NEW YORK TRUST CASE IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE LATER OTIS DECISION OR WITH THE POSITION OF THE COMMISSION IN
THIS CASE, INSOFAR AS EACH HOLDS THAT PERFORMANCE OF THE CHARTER
CONTRACT IS EXCUSED.  FN32  ENGINEERS IS NO LONGER REQUIRED BY ITS
CONTRACT EITHER TO CONTINUE THE PAYMENT OF PREFERRED DIVIDENDS BEYOND
THE DISSOLUTION DATE PROVIDED IN THE PLAN OR TO REDEEM THE PREFERRED AT
EITHER VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY CHARTER LIQUIDATION PRICES. 

MOREOVER THE NEW YORK TRUST CASE NEED NOT BE CONSTRUED TO FIX THE
MEASURE OF THE SENIOR SECURITY HOLDER'S CLAIM AT THE FACE AMOUNT OF HIS
SECURITY.  IN MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 151 F.2D 424,  FN33  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECOGNIZED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY OR
FRUSTRATION APPLIED IN THE NEW YORK TRUST CASE EXCUSED THE CORPORATION
FROM ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND AGREED WITH THE COMMISSION THAT IT
WOULD NOT BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO PAY REDEMPTION PREMIUMS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE.  BUT THE COURT OBSERVED THAT "WHETHER, UPON
RETIREMENT OF OUTSTANDING BONDS  ... PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL, ACCRUED
INTEREST, AND REDEMPTION PREMIUMS IS THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE
BONDHOLDERS' RIGHTS DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS OF EACH PARTICULAR CASE." 
151 F.2D AT 430.  FN34 

THE DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY OR FRUSTRATION EXPLAINS THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE CORPORATION IS EXCUSED FROM PERFORMING ITS CONTRACT, BUT IT
DOES NOT PROVIDE A MEASURE OF THE SECURITY HOLDERS' CLAIMS.  FOR THAT
MEASURE, WE MUST LOOK TO THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS, AS WE DID IN THE
OTIS CASE. 

 III. 

APPLICATION OF THE INVESTMENT VALUE THEORY:  THE COMMISSION'S ALLEGED
FAILURE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF PRIOR DIVESTMENT LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
ENGINEERS; ITS ALLEGED FAILURE TO VALUE THE COMMON STOCK BY THE SAME
METHOD AS WAS USED IN VALUING THE PREFERRED; "COLLOQUIAL EQUITIES."  IT
WAS THE COMMISSION'S DUTY IN PASSING UPON THE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF
THE PLAN TO ACCORD EACH SECURITY HOLDER, IN THE ORDER OF HIS PRIORITY,
THE INVESTMENT OR GOING-CONCERN VALUE OF HIS SECURITY.  HERE, AS IN THE
OTIS CASE, THE MANIFEST SOLVENCY OF ENGINEERS "SIMPLIFIES THE PROBLEM
OF STOCKHOLDERS' RIGHTS  ...  THE CREDITORS ARE SATISFIED."  323 U.S.
AT 633-634.  VALUATION ON THE BASIS OF A GOING CONCERN NECESSARILY HAS
PRIMARY RELATIONSHIP TO VALUE AS OF THE TIME THE SHAREHOLDERS'
SURRENDER BECOMES EFFECTIVE, NOT AS OF SOME EARLIER, REMOTE PERIOD OR
ONE LONG AFTERWARD.  MOREOVER, 

"LIKE THE BANKRUPTCY AND REORGANIZATION STATUTES, THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT, IN PROVIDING THAT PLANS FOR SIMPLIFICATION BE
'FAIR AND EQUITABLE,' INCORPORATES THE PRINCIPLE OF FULL PRIORITY IN
THE TREATMENT TO BE ACCORDED VARIOUS CLASSES OF SECURITY INTERESTS. 
THIS RIGHT TO PRIORITY IN ASSETS WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN CREDITORS AND
STOCKHOLDERS, EXISTS ALSO BETWEEN VARIOUS CLASSES OF STOCKHOLDERS. 
WHEN BY CONTRACT AS EVIDENCED BY CHARTER PROVISIONS ONE CLASS OF
STOCKHOLDERS IS SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER IN ITS CLAIM AGAINST EARNINGS OR
ASSETS, THAT SUPERIOR POSITION MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY COURTS OR AGENCIES
WHICH DEAL WITH THE EARNINGS OR ASSETS OF SUCH A COMPANY.  FAIRNESS AND
EQUITY REQUIRE THIS CONCLUSION."  FN35 

THESE ARE THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED IN CONSIDERATION OF
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE REVIEWING COURTS
CONCERNING THE MATTERS LISTED IN THE HEADING OF THIS PARAGRAPH.  IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ALLOWING EQUITABLE EQUIVALENTS
OF PRESENT GOING-CONCERN VALUE TO REPLACE STATED CHARTER LIQUIDATION
VALUE AS THE MEASURE OF SECURITY SATISFACTION DID NOT AND WAS NOT
INTENDED TO DESTROY CHARTER OR CONTRACT RIGHT TO PRIORITY OF
SATISFACTION. 

A. THE INVESTMENT VALUE OR GOING-CONCERN VALUE THEORY RESTS UPON THE
PREMISE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXERCISE ITS POWER TO SIMPLIFY
HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS AND TO REMOVE UNECONOMIC COMPANIES WITHOUT
DESTROYING LEGITIMATE INVESTMENT VALUE.  IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS
PREMISE THAT THE INVESTMENT VALUE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION BE THE
INVESTMENT VALUE THE SECURITIES WOULD HAVE IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE
LIQUIDATION REQUIRED BY THE ACT.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT THE
AGENCY MUST VALUE THE STOCK AS IF THE ACT HAD NEVER AFFECTED THE
HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM OF WHICH THE PARTICULAR COMPANY DEALT WITH IN
THE PLAN IS A PART.  FN36  WHEN THE COMMISSION VALUES A SECURITY
INTEREST BY DETERMINING THE VALUE THAT INTEREST WOULD HAVE IF IT WERE
NOT FOR THE PRESENT LIQUIDATION OR REORGANIZATION REQUIRED BY THE ACT,
IT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE STATUTORY MANDATE. 

THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SUFFICIENT REASONS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE
ILLUSTRATED BY THE PRESENT CASE.  IT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY
IMPOSSIBLE, IN DETERMINING THE INVESTMENT VALUE OF SECURITIES IN A
CORPORATION BEING LIQUIDATED, TO REEVALUATE EVERY TRANSACTION IN THE
GRADUAL SIMPLIFICATION OF THE SYSTEM OF WHICH THE COMPANY IS A PART, AS
IF THE ACT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED.  FN37  IF THE COMMISSION WERE
REQUIRED TO RECONSTITUTE ENGINEERS' BALANCE SHEET AS IF THE ACT HAD
NEVER BEEN PASSED, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY, FOR EXAMPLE, RETROACTIVELY TO
EVALUATE THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE COMPELLED DIVESTMENT OF
ENGINEERS' INTEREST IN PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT CORPORATION IN 1943
AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT ENGINEERS WOULD HAVE GAINED
OR LOST BY RETAINING ITS INTEREST IN PUGET SOUND TO THE PRESENT TIME. 
FN38  THE DIFFICULTIES OF GOING THROUGH SUCH A PROCEDURE, MULTIPLIED BY
THE NUMBER OF DIVESTMENTS COMPELLED BY THE ACT OVER MANY YEARS,  FN39
WOULD BE INSUPERABLE. 

THE SECOND REASON LIES IN THE BASIS FOR THE OTIS RULE ITSELF.  SINCE
CONGRESS INTENDED THAT INVESTMENT VALUES SHOULD BE PRESERVED IN EACH
LIQUIDATION OR DIVESTITURE REQUIRED BY THE ACT, WE MAY ASSUME THAT IT
INTENDED THE COMMISSION TO VALUE SECURITIES IN A PARTICULAR LIQUIDATION
AS IF THAT LIQUIDATION WERE NOT TAKING PLACE, BUT NOT AS IF THE ACT HAD
NEVER BEEN PASSED; FOR, IF INVESTMENT VALUES HAVE BEEN PRESERVED IN THE
EARLY DIVESTITURES, IT IS USELESS TO RECONSTITUTE THE BALANCE SHEET AS
IF THE DIVESTITURES HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE.  THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATIONS UPON WHICH THE VARIOUS DIVESTITURE ORDERS WERE BASED MAY
NOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED. 

B. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE STANDARD OF COMPENSATION TO BE ACCORDED
SECURITY HOLDERS DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHETHER THEIR SECURITY INTERESTS
ARE TO BE RETIRED BY EXCHANGING THEM FOR NEW SECURITIES IN A CONTINUING
ENTERPRISE OR BY PAYMENT IN CASH.  HOWEVER, THESE DIFFERENT METHODS OF
COMPENSATING THE SECURITY HOLDER DETERMINE WHICH OF VARYING METHODS OF
ARRIVING AT INVESTMENT VALUE WILL BE EMPLOYED BY THE COMMISSION.  WHERE
THE SECURITY HOLDER IS TO RECEIVE NEW SECURITIES, THE COMMISSION IS
FACED WITH A DUAL VALUATION PROBLEM.  IT MUST EVALUATE THE SECURITY TO
BE SURRENDERED AND THE SECURITIES TO BE RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE. 
RECOGNIZING THE INHERENT COMPLEXITY OF THIS PROBLEM, THIS COURT HAS
HELD THAT A SECURITY HOLDER MAY BE ACCORDED THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF
THE RIGHTS SURRENDERED WITHOUT PLACING A DOLLAR VALUATION UPON EITHER
THE RIGHTS SURRENDERED OR THE SECURITIES GIVEN IN COMPENSATION
THEREFOR.  FN40  IN THE OTIS CASE, IN WHICH THE PLAN CONTEMPLATED
COMPENSATING BOTH PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKHOLDERS OF UNITED POWER IN
COMMON STOCK OF POWER'S SOLE SUBSIDIARY, THE COMMISSION WAS REQUIRED TO
APPORTION THE POWER COMMON BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES BY EVALUATING THE
EXPECTATION OF INCOME FROM THE NEW STOCK AND THE RISK FACTOR OF THAT
STOCK IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS BEING SURRENDERED.  IN EFFECT THE
COMMISSION'S TASK WAS TO APPORTION TO THE NEW STOCK EARNING POWER
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THAT SURRENDERED. 

BUT WHEN THE CLAIMS OF THE SENIOR SECURITY HOLDERS ARE TO BE
SATISFIED BY PAYMENT IN CASH, THE COMMISSION APPROPRIATELY VARIES ITS
APPROACH.  IN SUCH A CASE IT HOLDS THAT "THE MOST WORKABLE HYPOTHESIS
FOR FINDING A FAIR EQUIVALENT BETWEEN CASH RECEIVED AND THE SECURITY
SURRENDERED UNDER THE COMPULSION OF THE PLAN, IS THAT OF REINVESTMENT
IN A SECURITY OF COMPARABLE RISK."  THE QUESTION TO WHICH THE
COMMISSION SEEKS THE ANSWER IS, "HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD IT COST THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS TO REPLACE THEIR SECURITIES WITH COMPARABLE
ONES?" 

BADGER SOUGHT TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION BY DERIVING FROM
HIS ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON A PROPER YIELD BASIS FOR ENGINEERS'
PREFERRED,  FN41  WHICH, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EFFECT OF THE RISK
FACTOR, HE FOUND TO BE 4.6%.  CAPITALIZATION OF THIS RATE GAVE THE
PREFERREDS VALUES RANGING FROM $108.70 PER SHARE TO $130.33 PER SHARE,
AMOUNTS WELL IN EXCESS OF THE CALL PRICES.  THE TESTIMONY OF ENGINEERS'
PRESIDENT, BARNES, AS TO "WHAT A WILLING BUYER WOULD PAY AND WHAT A
WILLING SELLER WOULD TAKE IN TODAY'S MARKET FOR SUCH SECURITIES,"
ABSENT A PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT, COINCIDED WITH THAT OF
BADGER, AS TO THE ESTIMATED GOING-CONCERN VALUE IN CASH OF THE
PREFERRED.  FN42 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT RELY EXCLUSIVELY ON THIS EXPERT TESTIMONY BUT
MADE ITS OWN STUDY OF THE MARKET AND DIVIDEND HISTORY AND THE EARNINGS
COVERAGE AND ASSETS COVERAGE OF THE PREFERRED.  THIS SERVED NOT ONLY AS
A CHECK UPON THE ACCURACY OF BADGER'S PREMISES BUT AS A BASIS FOR THE
COMMISSION'S EXERCISE OF ITS INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.  THE COMMISSION
FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO MAKE ITS OWN INDEPENDENT ESTIMATE OF THE DOLLAR
VALUE OF THE PREFERRED STOCK, ABSENT A HOLDING COMPANY ACT.  FN43  WHEN
IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE GOING-CONCERN VALUE WOULD EXCEED THE CALL
PRICES OF THE STOCKS BY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT, THE EXACT GOING-CONCERN
VALUE BECAME IMMATERIAL, BECAUSE THE CALL PRICE, AT WHICH THE
CORPORATION COULD ALWAYS RETIRE THE PREFERRED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
ACT, MARKED THE LIMITS OF THE PREFERREDS' CLAIMS. 

THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS CONTEND THAT THIS METHOD OF VALUATION, AS
EMPLOYED IN THIS CASE, PRODUCED ONLY "A HYPOTHETICAL MARKET VALUE OF
THE PREFERREDS BASED ON MARKET PRICES AS OF THE TIME WHEN THE TESTIMONY
OF BADGER AND BARNES WAS GIVEN (THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF 1946)."  THEY
CRITICIZE BADGER, WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS UNDISPUTED AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE
COMMISSION, FOR FAILING TO EMPLOY, AS A BASIS FOR COMPARISON, MEDIAN
PRICES AND YIELDS OF THE SECURITIES CHOSEN FOR COMPARISON, COMPUTED ON
THE BASIS OF PRICES COVERING A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD OF TIME; THEY
COMPLAIN THAT THE LOW YIELD RATES AND HIGH MARKET LEVELS OF JANUARY,
1946, WERE ABNORMAL.  AND IT IS SAID THAT THE COMMISSION AND BADGER
FAILED PROPERLY TO EVALUATE ENGINEERS' ECONOMIC FUTURE, ABSENT A
HOLDING COMPANY ACT, I.E., FAILED TO MAKE "A PREDICTION AS TO WHAT WILL
OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, AN ESTIMATE ...  BASED ON AN INFORMED JUDGMENT
WHICH EMBRACES ALL FACTS RELEVANT TO FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY AND HENCE
TO PRESENT WORTH, INCLUDING, OF COURSE, THE NATURE AND CONDITION OF THE
PROPERTIES, THE PAST EARNINGS RECORD, AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THAT RECORD IS A RELIABLE CRITERION OF FUTURE
PERFORMANCE."  CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510,
526.    WE MAY CONCEDE THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE PREFERRED IS TO BE PAID IN
CASH AND THUS SHOULD RECEIVE CASH SUFFICIENT TO PURCHASE A COMPARABLE
INVESTMENT WITH A COMPARABLE YIELD, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE WRONG IN
SELECTING, AS A BASIS FOR VALUATION, ABNORMAL OR HIGHLY SPECULATIVE
MARKET VALUES OF A TRANSIENT NATURE.  BUT THIS WAS NOT DONE.  BADGER
STATED THAT "THE PRICES OF PREFERRED STOCKS TODAY ARE PREDICATED ON
FUNDAMENTAL CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN THE MONEY MARKETS, CONDITIONS
WHICH ARE OF A PERMANENT NATURE."  HE ADDED THAT THE VALUES HE PLACED
UPON THE PREFERREDS WERE "VALUES OF A PERMANENT NATURE AND  ...  NOT
VALUES OF A TEMPORARY OR SPECULATIVE NATURE."  FN44  HIS CONCLUSION WAS
SUPPORTED BY A SUMMARY OF THE PERTINENT ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS,
INCLUDING THE EFFECTS OF GOVERNMENT FINANCING AND THE LARGE GOVERNMENT
DEBT, TOGETHER WITH A COMPARISON OF YIELDS OF GOVERNMENT BONDS, HIGH
GRADE CORPORATE BONDS, AND HIGH GRADE PREFERRED STOCKS FROM 1932 TO
1945.  FINALLY, BADGER'S ANALYSIS OF ENGINEERS' ECONOMIC STATUS, ABSENT
A HOLDING COMPANY ACT, OF ENGINEERS' PREFERRED, AND OF COMPARABLE
SECURITIES OF OTHER COMPANIES WAS THOROUGH AND ADEQUATE. 

THE COMMISSION MADE ITS OWN INDEPENDENT STUDY OF ENGINEERS' ECONOMIC
RECORD.  IN EVALUATING BADGER'S TESTIMONY REGARDING THE QUALITY OF
ENGINEERS' PREFERREDS, THE PROPER YIELD BASIS FOR THE STOCK, AND
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THE PREDICTION THAT CURRENT YIELDS
AND PRICE LEVELS WERE RELATIVELY PERMANENT, THE COMMISSION EXERCISED
ITS INFORMED AND EXPERT JUDGMENT.  AT THE TIME IT PASSED UPON THE PLAN
IT WAS ABLE TO SAY THAT "NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE WAS MADE IN THE
PROCEEDINGS TO BADGER'S CONCLUSION THAT THE FAIR INVESTMENT VALUE OF
THE PREFERRED ON A GOING CONCERN BASIS IS IN EXCESS OF THE CALL
PRICE."  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 7041, P. 31.  ENGINEERS, IN
ITS BRIEF BEFORE THE COMMISSION, CONCEDED THAT "THESE AMOUNTS ($106.25,
$111.38, $111.50, RESPECTIVELY) ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE PRESENT VALUE OR
INVESTMENT WORTH OF THESE THREE SERIES OF STOCK, ON A GOING CONCERN
BASIS AND APART FROM THE ACT, UNDER PREVAILING YIELDS APPLIED TO
COMPARABLE SECURITIES."  IBID.  THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE
INVESTMENT VALUES OF THE PREFERREDS WERE IN EXCESS OF THEIR CALL PRICES
HAS AMPLE SUPPORT IN THE RECORD. 

BUT THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS CONTEND THAT A DROP IN YIELD RATES,
CAUSED BY A LOWERING OF SUPPORT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, SHOULD
BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT IN APPRAISING THE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION.  ANY CHANGES WHICH HAD OCCURRED SINCE THE
DATE OF CONSUMMATION WOULD OF COURSE BE IRRELEVANT, FOR THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS COULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO SURRENDER THEIR INVESTMENT AND
THEIR ADVANTAGEOUS DIVIDEND RATE AND YET REMAIN SUBJECTED TO THE RISK
OF FLUCTUATION IN THE VALUE OF THEIR ERSTWHILE INVESTMENT.  BUT THE
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS HAVE FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE INVESTMENT VALUES OF
THE PREFERREDS HAVE FALLEN BELOW THE CALL PRICES EVEN AFTER THAT DATE. 
FN45 

AN ARGUMENT WHICH HAS BEEN VARIOUSLY ARTICULATED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS RUNS TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE COMMISSION'S METHOD OF VALUATION, WHICH ASSIGNED NO
VALUE TO THE COMMON STOCK, AMOUNTS TO GIVING THE PREFERRED THE
INVESTMENT VALUE IT WOULD HAVE HAD IN THE ABSENCE OF A SEC. 11
LIQUIDATION, WHILE GIVING THE COMMON SOMETHING LESS THAN ITS INVESTMENT
VALUE APART FROM THE LIQUIDATION.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT PHRASED IT,
"THE ARGUMENT FOR PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM IS COMPARABLE TO DEALING CARDS
OFF THE TOP OF A DECK.  WHEN FULL HANDS (BASED ON THEORETICAL
'INVESTMENT VALUE') HAVE BEEN DEALT TO ALL THE SENIOR SECURITY HOLDERS,
THE COMMON WOULD MERELY GET WHATEVER HAPPENS TO REMAIN.  UNDER THE ACT
THE INTERESTS OF ALL INVESTORS MUST BE CONSIDERED."  71 F.SUPP.  AT
802.  FN46 

THE INITIAL ERROR IN THIS ARGUMENT IS ITS ASSUMPTION THAT THE
COMMISSION DEALS FROM LESS THAN A FULL DECK, THAT THE IMPACT OF SEC. 11
HAS CAUSED LOSSES TO ENGINEERS.  FOR, IF INVESTMENT VALUES HAVE NOT
BEEN DESTROYED BY THE OPERATION OF SEC. 11, GIVING THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS THE INVESTMENT VALUE OF THEIR SHARES WILL NOT DEPRIVE THE
COMMON OF ANY PART OF THE INVESTMENT VALUE OF THEIR STOCK.  WE HAVE
ALREADY DEALT WITH THE HYPOTHESIS ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE IMPACT OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE
LIQUIDATION INVOLVED HERE HAS CAUSED LOSSES BY FORCING THE COMPANY TO
DIVEST ITSELF OF ITS INTERESTS IN NUMEROUS OPERATING COMPANIES.  FN47 

IN ADDITION, HOWEVER, IT IS SAID THAT VALUE DISAPPEARED IN THE
LIQUIDATION OF ENGINEERS ITSELF, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT WHEN
ENGINEERS' MANAGEMENT CAME FORWARD WITH A PLAN FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF
ENGINEERS, THEY HAD ASSERTED THAT THERE WAS NO ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THAT CORPORATION, IN FACT HAD
CHARACTERIZED IT AS AN "ECONOMIC MONSTROSITY."  FN48 IN THE LIGHT OF
THE PRESENT RECORD IT SEEMS FUTILE TO ARGUE THAT THE DISSOLUTION OF
ENGINEERS INJURED THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS BY DEPRIVING THEM OF THE SO
CALLED ADVANTAGES OF "LEVERAGE,"  FN49 DIVERSITY OF INVESTMENT AND A
CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT, ARGUMENTS WHICH, INCIDENTALLY, WERE LARGELY
REJECTED BY CONGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT.  FN50  THE
RECORD INDICATES THAT WHATEVER TAX ADVANTAGE WOULD BE DERIVED FROM
REPORTING INCOME ON A CONSOLIDATED BASIS WAS NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE
COST OF PRESERVING ENGINEERS. 

EVEN IF WE COULD FIND THAT INVESTMENT VALUE HAD BEEN DESTROYED BY THE
LIQUIDATION OF ENGINEERS, OR IF WE COULD FIND THAT THE OPERATION OF THE
ACT PRIOR TO THE FORMULATION OF ENGINEERS' PLAN HAD INFLICTED LOSSES ON
THE ENGINEERS SYSTEM AND COULD TAKE SUCH LOSSES INTO ACCOUNT, THESE
FACTS WOULD BE IRRELEVANT, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH LOSSES HAD
IMPAIRED THE INVESTMENT VALUE OF ENGINEERS' PREFERRED BY LOWERING ITS
ASSETS COVERAGE OR OTHERWISE ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMIC PROSPECTS
OF THE COMPANY APART FROM THE ACT.  FOR THE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE"
STANDARD REQUIRES THAT, BEFORE THE JUNIOR SECURITY HOLDER MAY SHARE,
THE SENIOR SECURITY HOLDER MUST RECEIVE THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE
RIGHTS SURRENDERED, IN THIS CASE THE INVESTMENT VALUE.  SINCE THE
INVESTMENT VALUE OF THE PREFERRED MUST BE MEASURED IN CASH IN THIS
CASE, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR "AN EXAMINATION OF THE CORRELATIVE
RIGHTS OF THE PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKHOLDERS."  THE RIGHTS OF THE
COMMON ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION UNTIL THE RIGHTS OF THE
PREFERRED HAVE BEEN FULLY SATISFIED. 

C. THE DISTRICT COURT, WITH THE APPARENT APPROVAL OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, CAST THE STANDARD OF "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" IN THE MOLD OF
"COLLOQUIAL EQUITIES."  MAKING PAYMENT OF THE PREFERRED IN EXCESS OF
$100 PER SHARE UNFAIR, IT THOUGHT, WERE VARIOUS "COLLOQUIAL EQUITIES,"
WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD AN INCIDENTAL BEARING ON THE INVESTMENT
VALUE OF THE SHARES.  THE ISSUING PRICE WAS ONE SUCH FACTOR.  THE
"IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION" WAS "NOT WHAT THE PREFERRED SECURITY HOLDERS
PAID, BUT HOW MUCH THE COMPANY RECEIVED FOR THEIR STOCK," AND SINCE IT
WAS "PRACTICALLY CERTAIN" THAT THE COMPANY RECEIVED NO MORE THAN $98
PER SHARE FOR ANY OF THE THREE SERIES OF PREFERREDS AND THAT THE PUBLIC
PAID NO MORE THAN $100 PER SHARE, THERE WAS "NO CONSIDERATION OF
COLLOQUIAL EQUITY WHY THE PREFERREDS SHOULD BE PAID A PREMIUM."  71
F.SUPP.  AT 801.  OTHER "COLLOQUIAL EQUITIES" WERE THE MARKET HISTORY
OF THE PREFERRED,  FN51  THE FACT THAT EARNINGS HAD BEEN RETAINED IN
THE SYSTEM, THUS ENHANCING THE VALUE OF THE PREFERRED AT A SACRIFICE TO
THE COMMON,  FN52  AND THE HARDSHIP WORKED BY THE ACT UPON THE COMMON
STOCK IN THE FORM OF FORCED DIVESTITURES  FN53  AND FRUSTRATION OF THE
ENTERPRISE. 

IN DECIDING THE CASE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT "THE INQUIRY IS ONE OF
RELATIVE RIGHTS BASED ON COLLOQUIAL EQUITY," AND THAT THE OTIS CASE
ACCORDED PARTICIPATION TO SECURITY HOLDERS "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STANDARD OF COLLOQUIAL EQUITY," THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED INSOFAR AS BY
"COLLOQUIAL EQUITIES" IT MEANT CONSIDERATIONS WHICH DO NOT BEAR UPON
THE INVESTMENT OR GOING-CONCERN VALUE THE PREFERRED WOULD HAVE ABSENT
THE LIQUIDATION COMPELLED BY THE ACT.  CONGRESS, PERHAPS BELIEVING THAT
THE APPLICATION OF SUCH AN AMORPHOUS STANDARD AS THAT OF "COLLOQUIAL
EQUITY" WAS BEYOND THE COMPETENCE OF COURTS AND COMMISSIONS, HAS
INSTEAD PRESCRIBED THE REQUIREMENT THAT INVESTMENT VALUES BE
PRESERVED. 

                    IV. 

THE ESCROW ARRANGEMENT.  AS WE HAVE STATED, THE PLAN HAS BEEN
CONSUMMATED BY THE PAYMENT TO THE PREFERRED OF $100 PER SHARE, AND THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT PAID AND THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD BE
PAYABLE UNDER THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN
ESCROW, TOGETHER WITH AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THE PREFERRED,
DURING THE PERIOD OF THE LITIGATION, A RETURN ON THE SUM IN ESCROW
"MEASURED BY THE RETURN WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY (THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS) IF THE STOCK REMAINED OUTSTANDING."  FN54  THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, WHO RECEIVED $100 PER SHARE AT THE TIME OF THE
CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN, WILL THUS RECEIVE, ON THE ADDITIONAL $5 OR
$10 PER SHARE HELD IN ESCROW, SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RETURN THEY WOULD
HAVE DERIVED BY THE RETENTION OF $5 OR $10 WORTH OF ENGINEERS'
PREFERRED STOCK. 

BUT THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS CONTEND THAT THE PLAN SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN CONSUMMATED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY WERE PAID IN FULL THE AMOUNTS
DUE THEM IN SATISFACTION OF THEIR CLAIMS; THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IN ESCROW AND INTEREST THEREON, THEY SHOULD RECEIVE AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO DIVIDENDS ON THE $100 PER SHARE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF
CONSUMMATION, TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE $5 OR $10 HELD IN ESCROW. 
THEIR ARGUMENT IS A TECHNICAL ONE:  IT IS SAID THAT THE COMMISSION
ACTUALLY APPLIED THE REDEMPTION PROVISION TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF
PAYMENT TO THEM, SINCE IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT PROVISION THEY WOULD HAVE
BEEN ENTITLED TO AN INVESTMENT VALUE HIGHER THAN THE CALL PRICES; THAT
BY THE TERMS OF THAT PROVISION THE COMPANY HAD NO RIGHT TO TERMINATE
DIVIDENDS EXCEPT BY PAYMENT OF THE FULL CALL PRICES.  THE ANSWER IS
THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT APPLY THE REDEMPTION PROVISION, WHICH, LIKE
THE INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PROVISION, WAS INOPERATIVE, BUT HELD THAT
FAIRNESS REQUIRED THAT THE PREFERREDS BE PAID NO MORE THAN THE CALL
PRICE, SINCE THE COMPANY COULD HAVE CALLED THE STOCK AT THAT PRICE AT
ANY TIME, ABSENT THE ACT. 

THE TOTAL SUM IN ESCROW IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS' DEMAND.  IT IS NOT APPARENT HOW THEY COULD RECOVER THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUM IN ESCROW AND THE SUM THEY CLAIM IN THIS
PROCEEDING.  BUT WE NEED NOT LEARN, FOR THE ESCROW PROVISION ADOPTED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO
EXPEDITE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN WAS FAIR TO THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS.  FN55  THE $100 PER SHARE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF THE
CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN COULD HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN COMPARABLE
SECURITIES AT THE CURRENT RATE OF RETURN.  ON THE $5 OR $10 PER SHARE
HELD IN ESCROW THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WILL RECEIVE, FOR THE PERIOD
BETWEEN THE DATE OF CONSUMMATION AND THE DATE OF PAYMENT, A RETURN
WHICH APPROXIMATES THE FAVORABLE RATE OF RETURN THEY RECEIVED ON THEIR
PREFERRED STOCK IN ENGINEERS.  THEIR POSITION IS AT LEAST SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THEY RECEIVED $105 OR $110 PER SHARE
AT THE TIME OF THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN. 

OUR SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION HAS APPLIED TO THE MAJOR FEATURES OF
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE REVIEWING COURTS.  IN OUR
OPINION, IN THESE RESPECTS, THE COMMISSION'S ACTION HAS NOT BEEN
CONTRARY TO LAW AND ITS FINDINGS WERE SUSTAINED BY ADEQUATE EVIDENCE. 
CONSEQUENTLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS WE HAVE STATED CONCERNING
THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUSTAINED.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED OTHER CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE
PARTIES AND FIND NOTHING IN THEM WHICH WOULD WARRANT A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CASE IS
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 803, 822, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79K (E). 

FN2  ENGINEERS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 9 S.E.C. 764; THE WESTERN PUBLIC
SERVICE CO., 10 S.E.C. 904; ENGINEERS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 12 S.E.C. 41;
ENGINEERS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 12 S.E.C. 268.  THE LATTER TWO ORDERS
WERE REVIEWED ON THE PETITION OF ENGINEERS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHICH, ON NOVEMBER 22, 1943, SET ASIDE THOSE
ORDERS AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OPINION.  ENGINEERS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 78 U.S. APP. D.C. 199, 138 F.2D
936.  ON THE APPLICATIONS OF BOTH ENGINEERS AND THE COMMISSION, THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  322 U.S. 723.  WE WERE PREVENTED BY LACK OF
A QUORUM FROM DECIDING THE CASE, AND WHEN WE WERE ADVISED THAT THE
PARTIAL CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION RENDERED THE
QUESTION MOOT, WE ORDERED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
VACATED.  332 U.S. 788. 

FN3  THE CASH WITH WHICH THE PREFERRED WAS TO BE PAID WAS TO CONSIST
OF TREASURY CASH ON HAND, CASH OBTAINED BY A SHORT-TERM BANK LOAN, AND
$21,964,632 IN CASH WHICH ENGINEERS' COMMON STOCKHOLDERS WERE TO PAY
INTO THE COMPANY'S TREASURY IN EXCHANGE FOR WARRANTS ENTITLING THEM TO
PURCHASE ONE SHARE OF GULF STATES' COMMON STOCK AT $11.50 PER SHARE,
FOR EACH SHARE OF ENGINEERS OWNED.  THE PROVISION FOR THE BANK LOAN WAS
DELETED FROM THE AMENDED PLAN, BY REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMISSION, AND
THE CASH WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THUS OBTAINED WAS TO BE OBTAINED FROM
SPECIAL DIVIDENDS DECLARED BY THE THREE OPERATING SUBSIDIARIES.    FN4
AFTER RETIREMENT OF THE PREFERRED, THE COMMON STOCK OF EL PASO AND
VIRGINIA (THE TWO REMAINING COMPANIES WHOSE COMMON STOCK WAS OWNED BY
ENGINEERS) WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE 13,000 COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
OF ENGINEERS AS A FINAL LIQUIDATION DIVIDEND, AFTER WHICH ENGINEERS AND
THE SYSTEM'S SERVICE COMPANY WERE TO DISSOLVE. 

FN5  THE $5 SERIES WAS ISSUED IN MARCH, 1928, AND WAS SOLD, WITH A
CONVERSION PRIVILEGE WHICH HAD SINCE EXPIRED, TO THE PUBLIC AT $100 PER
SHARE.  THE $5.50 PREFERRED WAS ISSUED IN OCTOBER OF THE SAME YEAR AND
WAS SOLD, WITH WARRANTS (INOPERATIVE AT THE TIME THE PLAN WAS PROPOSED)
ENTITLING HOLDERS TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK, TO THE PUBLIC AT $99.50 PER
SHARE.  THE $6 SERIES WAS ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER, 1930, AND SOLD TO THE
PUBLIC AT $100. 

FN6  EXCEPT FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 1933, TO JULY 31, 1936,
DIVIDENDS ON THE PREFERRED STOCK WERE NEVER IN ARREARS.  THE ARREARAGES
FOR THIS SINGLE PERIOD OF DELINQUENCY WERE SATISFIED IN 1936 AND 1937. 

FN7  "THE $5.00 SERIES REACHED A HIGH OF $123.00 IN 1929; ITS AVERAGE
PRICE WITH THE CONVERSION PRIVILEGE WAS $60.94; AND $80.50 SINCE THE
EXPIRATION OF THAT PRIVILEGE, ITS OVERALL AVERAGE SINCE ISSUE IS
$67.16.  THE $5.50 SERIES HAD AN AVERAGE OF $53.98 WHILE ITS WARRANT
RIGHT EXISTED, AND AN AVERAGE OF $85.23 SINCE; IT REACHED A HIGH OF
$109.00 IN 1929, AND ITS OVERALL AVERAGE SINCE ISSUE IS $64.52.  THE
$6.00 PREFERRED REACHED ITS HIGHEST MARKET PRICE IN 1945; ITS AVERAGE
PRICE SINCE ISSUE IS $62.77.  AS OF FEBRUARY 13, 1946, THE LATEST DATE
COVERED IN THE HEARINGS, THE $5.00 SERIES WAS SELLING AT 105 1/8, THE
$5.50 SERIES AT 105 3/4, AND THE $6.00 SERIES AT 109. 

"ENGINEERS COMMON, ISSUED IN 1925, REACHED A HIGH OF 79 5/8 IN 1929
AND A LOW OF 1 1/8 IN 1935.  ON FEBRUARY 13, 1946 IT WAS SELLING AT
36."  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 7041, P. 27, N. 45.  QUOTATIONS
IN THE TEXT THROUGH NOTE 11 ARE FROM THIS RELEASE UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED. 

FN8  THE COMMISSION SUMMARIZED BADGER'S TESTIMONY AS FOLLOWS:  "AFTER
ANALYZING THE EARNINGS AND ASSETS OF ENGINEERS, HE (BADGER) SELECTED
FOR COMPARISON THE PREFERRED STOCKS OF FIVE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANIES WHICH HE BELIEVED TO BE SIMILAR TO ENGINEERS.  THESE
COMPANIES WERE COMPARED WITH ENGINEERS FOR THE YEARS 1940 TO 1945 WITH
REFERENCE TO 'TIMES ALL CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS EARNED,'
'PROPORTION OF PRIOR OBLIGATIONS TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION,' 'BOOK VALUE
OF EQUITY PER SHARE OF PREFERRED,' 'PERCENT OF NET QUICK ASSETS TO
PRIOR OBLIGATIONS' AND 'TIMES PARENT COMPANY DIVIDENDS WERE EARNED.' 
IT APPEARED THAT IN GENERAL THE POSITION OF ENGINEERS' PREFERRED WAS
SOMEWHAT BELOW THE AVERAGE OF THE FIVE OTHER COMPANIES UNTIL THE
DISPOSITION OF PUGET SOUND IN 1943.  AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT
DISPOSITION, ITS POSITION IMPROVED TO SLIGHTLY OVER THE AVERAGE FOR
THOSE COMPANIES.  BADGER CONCLUDED THAT ON AN OVERALL BASIS ENGINEERS
WAS IN A MEDIAN OR AVERAGE POSITION AS COMPARED TO THE FIVE COMPANIES
STUDIED.  ON THE BASIS OF A COMPARISON OF THE YIELDS OF THE FIVE
SECURITIES STUDIED, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE $5.00 PREFERRED OF ENGINEERS
HAD AN AVERAGE VALUE OF $107.49 A SHARE, THE $5.50 PREFERRED AN AVERAGE
VALUE OF $118.31 A SHARE, AND THE $6.00 PREFERRED AN AVERAGE VALUE OF
$129.07 A SHARE. 

"BADGER ALSO PREPARED A STUDY OF THE PREFERRED STOCKS OF TEN
OPERATING AND HOLDING COMPANIES SELECTED FOR THE SIMILARITY OF THEIR
EARNINGS TO THOSE OF ENGINEERS.  THESE COMPANIES ON AN AVERAGE EARNED
ALL CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS 1.49 TIMES IN 1943, AS AGAINST 1.40
TIMES FOR ENGINEERS.  IN 1944 THEY EARNED OVERALL CHARGES 1.48 TIMES,
AS AGAINST 1.54 TIMES FOR ENGINEERS.  THEY COVERED PREFERRED DIVIDENDS,
2.52 TIMES IN 1943, AS AGAINST 2.48 FOR ENGINEERS, AND IN 1944 COVERED
PREFERRED DIVIDENDS 2.46 TIMES, AS AGAINST A SIMILAR COVERAGE OF 3.20
FOR ENGINEERS.  THE STOCKS SELECTED SOLD AT PRICES TO YIELD BETWEEN 3.9
AND 5.4%, OR AN AVERAGE YIELD FOR THE TEN STOCKS OF 4.5%.  BADGER
APPLIED THIS YIELD TO THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF ENGINEERS' PREFERRED AND
OBTAINED CORRESPONDING VALUES OF $111.11 FOR THE $5.00 PREFERRED,
$122.22 FOR THE $5.50 PREFERRED, AND $133.33 FOR THE $6.00 PREFERRED. 
BADGER CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT IN HIS OPINION, AND IN VIEW OF THE
'INVESTMENT CHARACTERISTICS' OF THE COMPANY AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE
MONEY MARKET, A PROPER YIELD FOR THE ENGINEERS PREFERRED, ABSENT A CALL
PRICE, WOULD BE 4.6%, SO THAT THE CORRESPONDING INVESTMENT WORTH PER
SHARE OF THE THREE SERIES WOULD BE  ...  " THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE
TEXT.  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 7041, P. 30. 

FN9  THE COMMISSION CITED SEVERAL OF ITS PREVIOUS OPINIONS FOR
SUPPORT OF THIS RESULT:  BUFFALO, NIAGARA & EASTERN POWER CORP.,
HOLDING CO. ACT RELEASE NO. 6083; NEW ENGLAND POWER ASSOCIATION,
HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 6470; AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT CO.,
HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 6176. 

FN10  AT THE TIME OF THE HEARINGS THE COMPANY HAD ON HAND IN ITS
TREASURY SOME $14,650,000 IN IDLE CASH, AND IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT BY
THE END OF 1946 THIS SUM WOULD REACH $16,825,000.  THESE FUNDS HAD
ACCUMULATED FROM PROPERTY DISPOSITIONS AND RETAINED EARNINGS, THE
MANAGEMENT HAVING PURSUED A POLICY OF WITHHOLDING DIVIDENDS ON THE
COMMON UNTIL IT WAS SATISFIED THAT THE SYSTEM HAD MADE THE ADJUSTMENTS
REQUIRED BY THE ACT. 

FN11  THE COMMISSION OBSERVED:  "IN ALL OF ITS DIVESTMENTS, ENGINEERS
HAS BEEN FREE IN ITS CHOICE OF METHODS, AND, WITHIN LIMITS, TO CHOOSE
THE TIME FOR DIVESTMENT.  ALL SALES HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED BY ENGINEERS
AT ARM'S-LENGTH.  IF, AS IN THE CASE OF PUGET SOUND, THE SALE BROUGHT
LESS THAN THE CARRYING VALUE ON THE BOOKS OF ENGINEERS, THE INDICATION
IS THAT THE CARRYING VALUE WAS EXCESSIVE AND NOT THAT THE SALES PRICE
WAS LOW.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF ENGINEERS' COMMON
WHEN THE PLAN WAS FILED WAS THE HIGHEST SINCE 1932 AND THAT THE PRICE
HAS BEEN RISING STEADILY SINCE 1942 WHEN THE PROGRAM OF SIMPLIFICATION
GOT UNDER WAY.  ...  ENGINEERS' COMMON REACHED A LOW OF 1 1/8 IN 1935. 
BY 1945, WHEN THE PLAN WAS FILED, IT HAD REACHED A HIGH OF 37." 
HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 7041, P. 34, N. 55.  SEE ALSO NOTE 38
INFRA. 

FN12  THE BANK LOAN WHICH THE PLAN PROPOSED IN ORDER TO RAISE CASH
WITH WHICH TO PAY OFF THE PREFERRED WAS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION TO BE
UNNECESSARY.  SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA.  RETENTION OF $65,000,000 OF VIRGINIA
STOCK BY A TRUSTEESHIP ARRANGEMENT WHICH NECESSITATED RETENTION OF A
LARGE PART OF ENGINEERS' STAFF WAS FOUND UNNECESSARY.  ALL STOCK OF
VIRGINIA COULD BE DISTRIBUTED IMMEDIATELY UPON PAYMENT OF THE PREFERRED
AT $100 PER SHARE AND CREATION OF AN APPROPRIATE ESCROW TO PROTECT THE
PREFERRED SHAREHOLDERS' RIGHTS TO ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS FOUND DUE.  THE
PLAN WAS ALSO FOUND "INCOMPLETE AND UNFAIR" BECAUSE IT FAILED TO
INCLUDE A PROVISION FOR SUPERVISION BY THE COMMISSION OVER THE PAYMENT
OF FEES AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLAN. 

FN13  COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN THE POSITION IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS THAT THIS PROVISION REGARDING AN ESCROW DID NOT CONSTITUTE
AN "AMENDMENT" TO THE PLAN, STATING THAT "THE COMMISSION EXPRESSLY
REFUSED TO AMEND THE PLAN AND SAID IF AN ESCROW TURNS OUT TO BE
NECESSARY IT CAN BE DONE UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE COURT, AND WE HAVE
VIEWED THE ESCROW DEVICE SIMPLY AS A DEVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MECHANICS OF CONSUMMATION." 

COMMISSIONER CAFFREY, WHILE JOINING FULLY IN THE COMMISSION'S
OPINION, ADDED THAT ENGINEERS, AS A HOLDING COMPANY OF A SINGLE UTILITY
COMPANY, WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) OF
THE ACT HAD IT NOT COME FORWARD WITH A PLAN.  ITS DISSOLUTION,
THEREFORE, WAS A LOGICAL STEP FOLLOWING THE REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH
THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(1), AND WAS NOT VOLUNTARY. 
COMMISSIONER HANRAHAN CONCURRED BUT THOUGHT THE DISCUSSION OF THE
INVESTMENT VALUES OF THE PREFERRED WHOLLY UNNECESSARY, FOR IN HIS VIEW
THE LIQUIDATION WAS VOLUNTARY, AND THE PREFERRED SHOULD THEREFORE
RECEIVE THE VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES PROVIDED IN ENGINEERS'
CHARTER.  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 7119. 

FN14  EXAMPLES SELECTED BY THE COURT WERE DIVESTITURES OF INTERESTS
IN PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY. 
SEE NOTE 11 SUPRA AND NOTE 38 INFRA. 

FN15  "THE COMMISSION TAKES THE POSITION BEFORE US THAT 'UNLESS THE
CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMISSION LACK "ANY RATIONAL AND STATUTORY
FOUNDATION" THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED BY THE COURT BELOW FOR
THE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" RULE OF SECTION 11(E)  ...  (WAS) INSERTED BY
THE FRAMERS OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE VARIOUS INTERESTS AT
STAKE.  ...  THE VERY BREADTH OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE PRECLUDES A
REVERSAL OF THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT SAVE WHERE IT HAS PLAINLY ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION IN THESE MATTERS', CITING, AMONG OTHER AUTHORITIES,
SECURITIES COMM'N V. CHENERY CORP. (THE SECOND CHENERY CASE), 332 U.S.
194, 195, AT PAGES 207, 208."  168 F.2D AT 729.  SEE NOTE 16, INFRA. 

FN16  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE RULE OF REVIEW DECLARED IN
THE CHENERY CASE WAS INAPPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE CHENERY
INVOLVED A PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW UNDER SEC. 24(A) OF THE ACT, WHILE
THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 11(E).  BUT SEE TEXT INFRA. 

FN17  THE PERTINENT PART OF SEC. 11(E) IS IN TERMS AS FOLLOWS:  "IF,
AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND
SUCH PLAN, AS SUBMITTED OR AS MODIFIED, NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE
PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS
AFFECTED BY SUCH PLAN, THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE AN ORDER APPROVING
SUCH PLAN; AND THE COMMISSION, AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMPANY, MAY APPLY
TO A COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (F) OF
PLAN.  IF, UPON ANY SUCH APPLICATION, THE COURT, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, SHALL APPROVE SUCH PLAN AS FAIR AND EQUITABLE
AND AS APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11, THE
COURT AS A COURT OF EQUITY MAY, TO SUCH EXTENT AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF SUCH PLAN,
TAKE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND POSSESSION OF THE COMPANY OR COMPANIES
AND THE ASSETS THEREOF, WHEREVER LOCATED; AND THE COURT SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO APPOINT A TRUSTEE, AND THE COURT MAY CONSTITUTE AND
APPOINT THE COMMISSION AS SOLE TRUSTEE, TO HOLD OR ADMINISTER, UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN THERETOFORE
APPROVED BY THE COURT AND THE COMMISSION, THE ASSETS SO POSSESSED."  49
STAT. 822, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79K (E). 

FN18  THE FULL TEXT OF SEC. 24(A) IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 24.  (A)  ANY PERSON OR PARTY AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER ISSUED BY
THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS TITLE MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN ANY CIRCUIT
WHEREIN SUCH PERSON RESIDES OR HAS HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY
FILING IN SUCH COURT, WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF SUCH ORDER,
A WRITTEN PETITION PRAYING THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION BE MODIFIED
OR SET ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  A COPY OF SUCH PETITION SHALL BE
FORTHWITH SERVED UPON ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION, OR UPON ANY OFFICER
THEREOF DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND THEREUPON
THE COMMISSION SHALL CERTIFY AND FILE IN THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE
RECORD UPON WHICH THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF WAS ENTERED.  UPON THE FILING
OF SUCH TRANSCRIPT SUCH COURT SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO
AFFIRM, MODIFY, OR SET ASIDE SUCH ORDER, IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  NO
OBJECTION TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE
COURT UNLESS SUCH OBJECTION SHALL HAVE BEEN URGED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
OR UNLESS THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR FAILURE SO TO DO.  THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE.  IF APPLICATION IS MADE TO THE COURT FOR
LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AND IT IS SHOWN TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND
THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE
IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE COURT MAY ORDER SUCH
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND TO BE ADDUCED
UPON THE HEARING IN SUCH MANNER AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
TO THE COURT MAY SEEM PROPER.  THE COMMISSION MAY MODIFY ITS FINDINGS
AS TO THE FACTS BY REASON OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO TAKEN, AND IT
SHALL FILE WITH THE COURT SUCH MODIFIED OR NEW FINDINGS, WHICH, IF
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE, AND ITS
RECOMMENDATION, IF ANY, FOR THE MODIFICATION OR SETTING ASIDE OF THE
ORIGINAL ORDER.  THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE COURT AFFIRMING,
MODIFYING, OR SETTING ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY SUCH ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION SHALL BE FINAL, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES UPON CERTIORARI OR CERTIFICATION AS PROVIDED IN
28, SECS. 346 AND 347)."  49 STAT. 834, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79X. 

FN19  S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 13; 168 F.2D AT 729. 

FN20  79 CONG. REC. 8845: 

"MR. BORAH.  MR. PRESIDENT, I DESIRE TO ASK THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA
A QUESTION. 

"ON PAGE 50, BEGINNING WITH LINE 2, THE BILL PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"'IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDING A REORGANIZATION PLAN FOR A REGISTERED
HOLDING COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF SHALL NOT BECOME
EFFECTIVE UNLESS SUCH PLAN SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION
AFTER OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING PRIOR TO ITS SUBMISSION TO THE COURT.' 
"I DO NOT EXACTLY UNDERSTAND THAT LANGUAGE.  DOES IT MEAN THAT THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE REORGANIZATION, OR WHAT
SHALL BE PERMITTED BY DECREE OF THE COURT, IS LIMITED; OR IS IT SIMPLY
RECOMMENDATORY TO THE COURT? 

"MR. WHEELER.  WE DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING AT THE PRESENT TIME, AS I
UNDERSTAND, WITH REFERENCE TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  A
PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF A RAILROAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE SUBMITTED
TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR ITS APPROVAL BEFORE IT IS
APPROVED BY THE COURT.  WE PUT THIS PROVISION IN HERE IN PRACTICALLY
THE SAME MANNER, AS I RECALL, AS THE EXISTING PROVISION WITH REFERENCE
TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF RAILROAD
REORGANIZATIONS. 

     .  .         .         .         . 

"THE SENATOR FROM INDIANA (MR. MINTON) HAS CALLED MY ATTENTION TO THE
FACT THAT THE PROVISION DOES NOT OUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AT
ALL, BECAUSE THE COURT HAS TO APPROVE THE PLAN EVEN THOUGH THE
COMMISSION APPROVES IT.  IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS REALLY A DOUBLE CHECK
UPON THE PLAN, AND FINAL DETERMINATION RESTS AS IN THE PAST IN THE
COURTS." 

FN21  LAHTI V. NEW ENGLAND POWER ASSN., 160 F.2D 845(C.A. 1ST CIR.,
1947), AFF'G IN RE NEW ENGLAND POWER ASSN., 66 F.SUPP.  378(D. MASS.
1946); MASSACHUSETTS LIFE INS. CO. V. S.E.C., 151 F.2D 424(C.A.8TH
CIR., 1945), AFF'G IN RE LACLEDE GAS LIGHT CO., 57 F.SUPP.  997(E.D.
MO. 1944); IN RE ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO., 73 F.SUPP.  426(S.D.N.Y.
1946); IN RE EASTERN MINNESOTA POWER CORP., 74 F.SUPP.  528(D. MINN.
1947); IN RE KINGS COUNTY LIGHTING CO., 72 F.SUPP.  767(E.D.N.Y. 1947),
AFF'D SUB NOM., PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF N.Y. V. S.E.C., 166 F.2D
784(C.A.2D CIR., 1948); IN RE NEW ENGLAND PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 73
F.SUPP.  452(D. ME. 1947). 

FN22  IN RE COMMUNITY GAS & POWER CO., 168 F.2D 740(C.A. 3D CIR.,
1948), AFF'G 71 F.SUPP.  171(D. DEL. 1947); IN RE NORTH WEST UTILITIES
CO., 76 F.SUPP.  63(D. DEL. 1948); IN RE INTERSTATE POWER CO., 71
F.SUPP.  164(D. DEL. 1947); ACCORD, ILLINOIS IOWA POWER CO. V. NORTH
AMERICAN LIGHT & POWER CO., 49 F.SUPP.  277(D. DEL. 1943); BUT SEE IN
RE STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 151 F.2D 326(C.A. 3D CIR., 1945),
REVERSING 59 F.SUPP.  274(D. DEL. 1945). 

FN23  GROUP OF INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S.
523, 565; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482; CASE V. LOS
ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308 U.S. 106; CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS
CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510; MARINE PROPERTIES V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST
CO., 317 U.S. 78; ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448; OTIS
& CO. V. S.E.C., 323 U.S. 624, 634. 

FN24  SEE THE APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION, POST, P. 155. 

FN25  MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 151 F.2D 424, 430.  THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS
CASE AGREED THAT CHARTER PROVISIONS WERE NOT DETERMINATIVE, 168 F.2D AT
736.  WHILE THE DISTRICT JUDGE DECLINED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE
INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE APPLIED IN THIS CASE, HE HAS
ELSEWHERE INDICATED HIS AWARENESS THAT CHARTER PROVISIONS DO NOT
CONTROL IN LIQUIDATIONS COMPELLED BY THE ACT.  IN RE CONSOLIDATED
ELECTRIC & GAS CO., 55 F.SUPP.  211, 216; IN RE NORTH CONTINENT
UTILITIES CORP., 54 F.SUPP.  527, 530-531. 

FN26  ENGINEERS' CHARTER PROVIDES THAT PREFERRED SHAREHOLDERS SHALL
RECEIVE $100 PER SHARE, PLUS ACCRUED DIVIDENDS, "IN THE EVENT OF ANY
LIQUIDATION, DISSOLUTION OR WINDING UP OF THIS CORPORATION."  IN OTIS
THE LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE WAS PAYABLE "UPON THE DISSOLUTION OR
LIQUIDATION OF THE CORPORATION, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY."  323
U.S. AT 630, N. 6. 

FN27  THE CONCLUSION THAT LIQUIDATION COMPELLED BY GOVERNMENTAL EDICT
WAS NOT FORESEEN AT THE TIME ENGINEERS' CHARTER WAS DRAFTED IS
REENFORCED BY A STATEMENT APPEARING IN THE RECORD, MADE BY COUNSEL FOR
ENGINEERS, ONE OF THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE CHARTER, APPARENTLY IN
CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER CASE, THAT A SEC. 11 LIQUIDATION "IS AN
ARBITRARILY AND FORCED STATUTORY TERMINATION OF THE ENTERPRISE, AND IT
HAS NO RELATION WHATSOEVER TO ANY FACTORS WHICH THE PARTIES COULD HAVE
HAD IN MIND WHEN THEY ENTERED THE ENTERPRISE." 

FN28  THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS CONTEND THAT THE REPEATED REFERENCES IN
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT TO CONTINENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 156(S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 33; H.R. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 49-50;
79 CONG. REC. 4607, 8432) "LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT AT LEAST WHEN A GENUINE
LIQUIDATION IS COMPELLED BY THE ACT," CHARTER PROVISIONS WERE INTENDED
TO CONTROL.  BUT THESE CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCES TO THE CONTINENTAL CASE
WERE IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OTHER THAN THAT CHARTER LIQUIDATION
PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO LIQUIDATIONS COMPELLED BY THE ACT.  THE
OTIS OPINION POINTED OUT THAT THE CONTINENTAL CASE "TURNED  ...  ON THE
CHARTER RIGHTS OF THE PREFERRED TO SHARE EQUALLY WITH THE COMMON IN
EARNINGS WHICH HAD BECOME ASSETS,  ...  NOT ON WHETHER A RIGHT TO SHARE
WAS MATURED OR VARIED BY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION."  323 U.S. AT 639.  THE
OPINION PROCEEDS TO REFUTE EXPRESSLY THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE COMMON
STOCKHOLDERS HERE:  "WE DO NOT FEEL CONSTRAINED BY (THE CONTINENTAL
CASE'S) DEALING WITH CHARTER RIGHTS AS IN A NORMAL LIQUIDATION TO HOLD
THAT WHERE LIQUIDATION IS ADOPTED AS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ROUTINE, THE PREFERENCES ARE THEREBY MATURED."  IBID. 

FN29  THE OTIS CASE WAS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:  "IN CONSTRUING THE
WORDS 'FAIR AND EQUITABLE' IN A FEDERAL STATUTE OF VERY SIMILAR
PURPOSES, WE HAVE HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THE FULL PRIORITY RULE APPLIES IN
LIQUIDATION OF A SOLVENT HOLDING COMPANY PURSUANT TO A FEDERAL STATUTE,
THE PRIORITY IS SATISFIED BY GIVING EACH CLASS THE FULL ECONOMIC
EQUIVALENT OF WHAT THEY PRESENTLY HOLD, AND THAT, AS A MATTER OF
FEDERAL LAW, LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES PROVIDED BY THE CHARTER DO NOT
APPLY.  WE SAID THAT, ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY WAS IN FACT BEING LIQUIDATED
IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, THE RIGHTS OF THE
STOCKHOLDERS COULD BE VALUED 'ON THE BASIS OF A GOING BUSINESS AND NOT
AS THOUGH A LIQUIDATION WERE TAKING PLACE.'  CONSEQUENTLY THE
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES WERE ONLY ONE FACTOR IN VALUATION RATHER THAN
DETERMINATIVE OF AMOUNTS PAYABLE."  334 U.S. AT 199. 

FN30  AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT, CONTRACTS SEC. 468,
COMMENT ON SUBSECTION (3). 

FN31  THE ANALOGY BETWEEN BONDS AND PREFERRED STOCK, CF. 2 DEWING,
THE FINANCIAL POLICY OF CORPORATIONS 1247, N.R. (4TH ED., 1941), IS
SUBJECT TO OBVIOUS LIMITATIONS.  FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE CLAIMS OF
BONDHOLDERS RATHER THAN PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS HAD BEEN IN ISSUE IN THE
OTIS CASE, UNITED POWER WOULD HAVE BEEN AN INSOLVENT RATHER THAN A
SOLVENT CORPORATION AND SO SUBJECT TO BANKRUPTCY.  AT LEAST WITH
REFERENCE TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF THE FACE VALUE
OF A SECURITY ARE PAYABLE, WE NEED NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TREATMENT TO
BE ACCORDED BONDS AND PREFERRED STOCK.  THE COMMISSION'S TENDENCY HAS
BEEN TO TREAT BOTH THE SAME.  SEE, E.G., THE UNITED LIGHT & POWER CO.,
10 S.E.C. 1215, 1226-1227; CITIES SERVICE CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT
RELEASE NO. 4944. 

FN32  THE CITATION BY THE OTIS MAJORITY, "COMPARE NEW YORK TRUST CO.
V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 131 F.2D 274; IN RE LACLEDE GAS
LIGHT CO., 57 F.SUPP.  997," IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE COMMON
STOCKHOLDERS HERE, FOR IT IS IN SUPPORT OF AND DIRECTLY FOLLOWING THE
SENTENCE:  "WHERE PRE-EXISTING CONTRACT PROVISIONS EXIST WHICH PRODUCE
RESULTS AT VARIANCE WITH A LEGISLATIVE POLICY WHICH WAS NOT FORESEEABLE
AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS MADE, THEY CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO
OPERATE."  323 U.S. AT 638. 

FN33  AFFIRMING IN RE LACLEDE GAS LIGHT CO., 57 F.SUPP.  997. 

FN34  TWO OTHER DECISIONS IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS, WHICH CITE AND
PURPORT TO FOLLOW THE NEW YORK TRUST CASE, REASON THAT THE PREMIUM IS
PAYABLE ONLY IN THE EVENT OF VOLUNTARY REDEMPTION OF THE BOND, THAT THE
REDEMPTION IS NOT VOLUNTARY, AND THEREFORE THAT THE PREMIUM IS NOT
PAYABLE.  SINCE THIS SYLLOGISM DISPOSES OF EACH CASE WITHOUT REFERENCE
TO THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION, THE FRUSTRATION RATIONALE OF THE NEW
YORK TRUST CASE IS AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND IN BOTH CASES.  CITY NATIONAL
BANK & TRUST CO. V. S.E.C., 134 F.2D 65; IN RE STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC
CO., 151 F.2D 326. 

FN35  323 U.S. AT 634.  SEE ALSO THE QUOTED STATEMENT OF THE
COMMISSION'S VIEWS, AS OPPOSED TO THOSE OF COMMISSIONER HEALY, SET
FORTH ID. AT 635, N. 17; HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 4215, P. 12. 

FN36  THE COURT OF APPEALS TOOK THE COMMISSION'S METHOD TO BE
VALUATION "AS IF THE ACT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED."  IT CRITICIZED THE
COMMISSION FOR VALUING THE PREFERREDS ON THIS BASIS BUT NOT VALUING THE
COMMON IN THE SAME MANNER.  168 F.2D AT 737-738. 

FN37 THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT, IF THE COMMISSION WISHED TO
VALUE THE SECURITIES "EX THE ACT, LOSSES OF THE SORT REFERRED TO IN
THIS PARAGRAPH MUST BE WEIGHED INTO THE CALCULATION, I.E., SUCH LOSSES
SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE ENTERPRISE'S BALANCE SHEET
AS A MATTER OF BOOKKEEPING."  168 F.2D AT 738. 

FN38  IN THE PUGET SOUND REORGANIZATION ENGINEERS RECEIVED AS OF 1943
APPROXIMATELY A 3% INTEREST IN THE NEW COMMON STOCK IN RETURN FOR ITS
OLD 99.3% COMMON STOCK INTEREST.  THE OLD COMMON WAS ESTIMATED TO BE 18
TO 34 YEARS AWAY FROM DIVIDENDS IN THE ABSENCE OF A REORGANIZATION.  13
S.E.C. 226.  AS IN THE OTIS CASE, THE CONTROVERSY WAS OVER THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER ENGINEERS WAS ENTITLED TO ANY PARTICIPATION IN THE NEW
COMPANY, IN VIEW OF THE REMOTE AND CONTINGENT CHARACTER OF ITS EARNINGS
EXPECTATIONS.  ENGINEERS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD THE INTEREST IT RECEIVED IN
THE REORGANIZATION FOR $764,765. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS' CONCLUSION THAT ENGINEERS LOST THROUGH THE
PUGET SOUND DIVESTMENT IS BASED UPON THE PREMISE THAT ACTUAL EARNINGS
OF THE NEW COMPANY WERE CONSIDERABLY HIGHER DURING 1946 AND THE FIRST
HALF OF 1947 THAN THE ESTIMATED EARNINGS UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION
BASED ITS REORGANIZATION ALLOWANCE TO ENGINEERS.  168 F.2D AT 737,
CITING MOODY'S PUBLIC UTILITY MANUAL (1947) 53, AND SUPP. VOL. 19, AT
1914. 

THE COMMISSION CORRECTLY OBSERVES THAT THIS IS AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION
OF THE COMPLEX PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE VALUATION OF ENGINEERS'
INTEREST IN PUGET SOUND AND OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THAT INTEREST
IN 1943 AND ITS HYPOTHETICAL VALUE TODAY IF NO RECAPITALIZATION AND
DIVESTMENT HAD OCCURRED.  IT NOTES THAT THE EARNINGS FIGURES TAKEN FROM
MOODY'S FAIL TO REFLECT THE USE OF A MUCH LOWER DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE
THAT THE COMMISSION THOUGHT APPROPRIATE IN MAKING ITS EARNINGS
ESTIMATE, CAPITAL EXPENDITURES SINCE 1943, AND DIVESTMENT OF CERTAIN
PROPERTIES AFTER PUGET SOUND HAD CEASED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  THE
PERIOD TAKEN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN HARDLY BE ASSUMED TO PROVIDE A
RELIABLE AVERAGE EARNINGS FIGURE.  ABSENT THE IMPACT OF THE ACT,
RECAPITALIZATION OF PUGET SOUND WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IN
THE EXERCISE OF SOUND BUSINESS JUDGMENT, A CONSIDERATION WHICH IMPORTS
NUMEROUS ADDITIONAL UNCERTAINTIES.  FURTHER, THE EVALUATION OF THE
PUGET SOUND DIVESTITURE REQUIRED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD COMPEL
THE COMMISSION TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF ENGINEERS' HYPOTHETICAL LACK
OF THE $764,765 RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE SECURITIES RECEIVED IN
THE PUGET RECAPITALIZATION, FUNDS WHICH WERE ACTUALLY USED TO PURCHASE
ADDITIONAL INTERESTS IN OTHER COMPANIES AND TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO
ENGINEERS' PREFERRED STOCKS.  CERTAIN TAX ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE
SALE OF PUGET WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO CITED THE EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY
DIVESTITURE AS AN EXAMPLE OF A LOSS TO ENGINEERS CAUSED BY THE ACT,
SAYING, "UNDER THIS DIVESTITURE ENGINEERS LOST A PROFIT OF AT LEAST
$4,000,000."  168 F.2D AT 737.  IN 1931 ENGINEERS LOANED EL PASO
$3,500,000 AND RECEIVED IN RETURN $3,500,000 IN BONDS AND AN OPTION TO
PURCHASE 192,119 SHARES OF EL PASO'S COMMON STOCK.  AS A RESULT OF THE
EXERCISE OR ASSIGNMENT OF SOME OF THESE OPTIONS AND THE RESALE IN 1936,
1937 AND 1944 OF STOCK ACQUIRED BY THEIR EXERCISE, ENGINEERS REALIZED A
PROFIT, IN ADDITION TO THE REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN, OF $2,700,000 ON ITS
EL PASO INVESTMENT.  THE STATEMENT THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED A
LOSS OF $4,000,000 TO ENGINEERS IS BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE
TIMING OF THE SALES WAS COMPELLED BY SEC. 11 AND NOT BY MANAGERIAL
JUDGMENT, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SEC. 11 MANAGEMENT WOULD HAVE SOLD THE
STOCK AT THE VERY PEAK OF THE MARKET, AND UPON OTHER EQUALLY DUBIOUS
PREMISES. 

FN39  ENGINEERS' SYSTEM CONSISTED OF 17 COMPANIES BEFORE THE
COMMISSION BEGAN ITS INTEGRATION PROCEEDINGS.  SEE NOTE 2 AND TEXT,
SUPRA. 

FN40  ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448, 482-483; GROUP
OF INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 565-566;
OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 323 U.S. 624, 639
640. 

FN41  BADGER'S ANALYSIS, AS SUMMARIZED BY THE COMMISSION, IS STATED
IN NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN42  SEE TEXT SUPRA, PARAGRAPH FOLLOWING NOTE 8. 

FN43  THE COURT OF APPEALS STATED THAT THE COMMISSION ERRED IN
FAILING TO "GIVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CONSIDERATION TO THE FUTURE EARNING
POWER OF ENGINEERS AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS
HELD IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL TESTS FOR REORGANIZATION VALUATION." 
168 F.2D AT 736-737.  A PRECISE FINDING AS TO PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF A
CONTINUING ENGINEERS WOULD BE THE CONTROLLING SUBSIDIARY FINDING UPON
WHICH A PRECISE FINDING AS TO GOING-CONCERN VALUE "EX THE ACT" WOULD BE
BASED.  SEE GROUP OF INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318
U.S. 523, 540; CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510,
525; 6 COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY 3849-3855(14TH ED., 1947).  BUT WHERE IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF THE CORPORATION WOULD BE MORE
THAN ENOUGH TO CONTINUE PAYMENT OF PREFERRED DIVIDENDS AND TO CARRY THE
GOING-CONCERN VALUE, ABSENT CALL PROVISIONS, WELL ABOVE THE CALL PRICE,
THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR MAKING A PRECISE FORECAST OF FUTURE EARNINGS,
FOR THE CALL PRICE MARKS THE CEILING.  CF. ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R.
CORP., 318 U.S. 448, 479-483.    FN44  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE A
FINDING WITH RESPECT TO BADGER'S CONCLUSION AS TO THE PERMANENCE OF THE
CURRENT YIELD RATE AND CONCLUDED THAT "THE EXTREMELY LOW MONEY RATES
WHICH RESULTED IN BADGER'S FINDING THAT THE PREFERRED STOCKS OF
ENGINEERS HAVE AN 'INVESTMENT VALUE' GREATER THAN $100 PER SHARE,
LARGELY REFLECT ARTIFICIAL FACTORS WHICH ARE CLEARLY SUBJECT TO CHANGES
AT ANY TIME AND MAY WELL BE OF PURELY TRANSITORY CHARACTER."  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE THIS "FINDING" WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
WHICH APPEARS IN THE COURT'S PUBLISHED OPINION:  "I ACCEPT DR. BADGER'S
VALUES AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, I
SHALL ASSUME THAT THOSE VALUES ARE APPLICABLE AT THE PRESENT TIME."  71
F.SUPP.  AT 801.  AT ANY RATE, THIS IS PREDOMINATELY A QUESTION OF
FACT, AND THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION, SUPPORTED AS IT WAS BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED, ABSENT
SUPERVENING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS PRIOR TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN
WHICH CLEARLY REQUIRED RECONSIDERATION. 

FN45  THE CHANGES IN INTEREST RATES WHICH HAD OCCURRED AT THE TIME OF
THE DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS WERE
MERELY CITED TO INDICATE THAT FUTURE CHANGES MIGHT AFFECT THE ACCURACY
OF BADGER'S PREDICTIONS. 

FN46  THE COURT OF APPEALS STATES THAT THE COMMISSION "MADE NO
FINDING AS TO THE 'VALUE' OF THE COMMON STOCK," AND THAT "THE
COMMISSION ASCRIBED 'INVESTMENT VALUE' TO THE PREFERREDS BUT FAILED TO
MAKE A SIMILAR APPROACH TO THE COMMON."  168 F.2D AT 737.  CENTRAL
ILLINOIS SECURITIES CORPORATION AND CHRISTIAN A. JOHNSON, REPRESENTING
THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS, COMPLAIN THAT "THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
OF THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE RIGHTS SURRENDERED BY ENGINEERS'
STOCKHOLDERS FAILED UTTERLY TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE CORRELATIVE RIGHTS
OF THE PREFERRED AND COMMON." 

FN47  SEE NOTE 38 AND TEXT, SUPRA. 

FN48  THE COMMISSION STATED IN ITS OPINION THAT "ENGINEERS HAS
PRODUCED AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT ONCE IT HAS DISPOSED OF
EL PASO AND GULF, IT WILL HAVE NO REASON TO CONTINUE AS A SEPARATE
CORPORATE ENTITY FOR IT WOULD THEN BE THE PARENT OF A SINGLE OPERATING
COMPANY, VIRGINIA.  IN THAT SITUATION, ENGINEERS ADMITS THAT IT WOULD
BE AN 'ECONOMIC MONSTROSITY' AND ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THIS PROCEEDING
SEEM TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT CONCLUSION.  THE RECORD DOES NOT
CLEARLY INDICATE WHAT IT WILL COST TO MAINTAIN ENGINEERS AFTER GULF
STATES AND EL PASO HAVE BEEN DIVESTED.  ESTIMATES RANGE FROM $172,000
TO $365,000 A YEAR.  THE COMPANY FREELY ADMITS THAT ENGINEERS COULD IN
NO WAY JUSTIFY ANY SUCH CONTINUING EXPENDITURE.  VIRGINIA IS ABLE TO
UNDERTAKE ITS OWN FINANCING AND SERVICE AND IS LARGE ENOUGH TO STAND
INDEPENDENTLY.  ANY FUNCTIONS ENGINEERS MIGHT PERFORM SHOULD MORE
PROPERLY BE CARRIED OUT BY VIRGINIA'S OWN MANAGEMENT."  HOLDING COMPANY
ACT RELEASE NO. 7041, P. 18. 

FN49  "LEVERAGE" IS THE TERM USED TO DESCRIBE THE ADVANTAGE GAINED BY
JUNIOR INTERESTS THROUGH THE RENTAL OF CAPITAL AT A RATE LOWER THAN THE
RATE OF RETURN WHICH THEY RECEIVE IN THE USE OF THAT BORROWED CAPITAL. 
ASSUMING THAT THE HYPOTHETICAL ENGINEERS COULD HAVE USED TO ADVANTAGE
THE $39,000,000 IN CAPITAL SUPPLIED BY THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, THE
COMMISSION COULD PROPERLY HAVE FOUND THAT SUCH "LEVERAGE" WAS NOT WORTH
THE RISK THAT EARNINGS MIGHT DROP BELOW THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO PAY
DIVIDENDS ON THE PREFERRED, THEREBY ENDANGERING THE JUNIOR EQUITY OF
$66,768,148(THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES RECEIVED BY THE COMMON
UNDER THE PLAN, AS OF THE DATE OF CONSUMMATION, LESS THE AMOUNT PAID IN
THE EXERCISE OF GULF WARRANTS). 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION FROM THE
COMMISSION'S OPINION, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THE HYPOTHETICAL
ENGINEERS WOULD HAVE HAD USE FOR THE CAPITAL SUPPLIED BY THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS: "THE RETIREMENT OF THE PREFERRED STOCK WILL BE OF
IMMEDIATE BENEFIT TO THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS.  AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE
COMPANY AT THE TIME OF THE HEARINGS HAD ON HAND IDLE TREASURY CASH OF
OVER $14,650,000, WHILE IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THIS SUM WILL REACH
APPROXIMATELY $16,825,000 BY THE END OF 1946.  THESE FUNDS HAVE BEEN
ACCUMULATED THROUGH PROPERTY DISPOSITIONS AND RETAINED EARNINGS.  THE
MANAGEMENT HAS PURSUED A POLICY OF WITHHOLDING DIVIDENDS ON THE COMMON
STOCK UNTIL IT IS SATISFIED THAT THE SYSTEM HAS MADE ALL THE
ADJUSTMENTS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED OF IT UNDER THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT. 
AS A CONSEQUENCE THE COMPANY HAS NOW ACCUMULATED A LARGE AMOUNT OF IDLE
FUNDS WHILE IT CONTINUES TO HAVE OUTSTANDING THREE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES
OF PREFERRED STOCK HAVING FIXED DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS.  UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE ELIMINATION OF THIS PRIOR CHARGE IS HIGHLY BENEFICIAL
TO THE COMMON."  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 7041, P. 32. 

FN50  S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 11-12; ADDITIONAL VIEWS
BY REPRESENTATIVE EICHER, H.R. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 46
47; STATEMENT OF HOUSE MANAGERS, H.R. REP. NO. 1903, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 70-71; COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC UTILITY EXECUTIVES, SUMMARY OF S.
2796, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., WITH ANNOTATIONS, JUNE, 1935, 5, 7. 

FN51  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN52  CF. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 156,
IN WHICH THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE WAS WHETHER, WHEN THE CHARTER PROVIDED
THAT PREFERRED AND COMMON SHOULD SHARE EQUALLY ON DISSOLUTION IN THE
ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION, EARNINGS RETAINED IN THE SYSTEMS SHOULD BE
REGARDED AS ASSETS AND SHARED WITH THE PREFERRED IN A DISSOLUTION
FORCED BY THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  IT WAS HELD THAT THESE RETAINED EARNINGS
WERE ASSETS AND SHOULD BE SHARED BY THE PREFERRED. 

FN53  SEE NOTE 38 AND TEXT SUPRA. 

FN54  IN ESCROW IS THE SUM OF $4,000,000, COMPRISED AS FOLLOWS:
$3,204,795, WHICH IS EQUAL TO $5, $10, AND $10 PER SHARE RESPECTIVELY
OF THE THREE SERIES OF PREFERRED; $484,325, WHICH IS AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
SIMPLE INTEREST FOR THREE YEARS AT THE RATE OF 4.76% ON THE $5
PREFERRED, 5% ON THE $5.50 PREFERRED, AND 5.45% ON THE $6 PREFERRED;
$310,880, WHICH WILL COVER ALL FEES AND OTHER COMPENSATION AND ALL
REMUNERATION OR EXPENSES CLAIMED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLAN. 

FN55  THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OBJECT THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED TO
GIVE THEM NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE RECOMMENDATION
THAT AN ESCROW BE ESTABLISHED.  THE ESCROW RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE BY
WAY OF AN AMENDING ORDER, HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 7190, AND THE
COMMISSION SEEMS TO HAVE INSISTED THROUGHOUT THAT ITS RECOMMENDATION
DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF AMENDING THE PLAN, BUT THAT THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ESCROW WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
SEE NOTE 13 SUPRA.  THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH ORDERED THE CREATION OF
THE ESCROW, AFFORDED THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS A HEARING ON THE
PROPRIETY OF THAT PROVISION AND UPON WHETHER THE PLAN SHOULD BE
CONSUMMATED PRIOR TO A FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE COURT OF LAST RESORT
OF THE AMOUNTS DUE THE PREFERRED STOCK.  APPLICATIONS FOR STAY OF
CONSUMMATION WERE DENIED IN TURN BY THE DISTRICT COURT, BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND BY A JUSTICE OF THIS COURT.  THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO HOLD
A HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PLAN SHOULD BE CONSUMMATED BY
PAYMENT OF $100 AND THE CREATION OF AN ESCROW AT THE TIME THE
COMMISSION PASSED ON THE PLAN, FOR IT APPROVED THE PLAN'S PROVISION FOR
PAYMENT OF $105 AND $110.  THE NECESSITY OF DECIDING WHETHER THERE
SHOULD BE CONSUMMATION AND AN ESCROW FIRST AROSE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  IT WAS PROPER FOR THE COMMISSION, WHEN IT BECAME APPRISED OF
DETERMINED OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN ON THE PART OF CERTAIN COMMON
STOCKHOLDERS, TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLAN BE CONSUMMATED AND THAT AN
ESCROW BE CREATED TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PREFERRED, IN THE
INTEREST OF EXPEDITIOUSLY BRINGING THE REMNANT OF THE ENGINEERS SYSTEM
INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT, WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ON THE
PROPRIETY OF ITS RECOMMENDATION.  IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS, THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WERE ACCORDED FULL
HEARING. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

                              APPENDIX. 

           SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S DEVELOPMENT

             AND APPLICATION OF INVESTMENT VALUE THEORY.* 

*THIS APPENDIX IS MERELY A SUMMARY OF COMMISSION DECISIONS AND DOES
NOT PURPORT TO DECLARE ANY RULINGS OF LAW. 

THE COMMISSION FIRST APPLIED THE INVESTMENT VALUE STANDARD IN A
SERIES OF CASES HOLDING COMMON STOCK ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE WITH
PREFERRED IN THE NEW SECURITIES GIVEN TO SATISFY CLAIMS IN THE
DISSOLVING CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH IN EACH CASE THE BOOK VALUE OF THE
CORPORATION'S ASSETS WAS EXCEEDED BY THE CHARTER CLAIMS OF THE
PREFERRED.  FN1  THIS APPLICATION OF THE STANDARD WAS APPROVED BY THIS
COURT IN OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 323 U.S.
624.  SATISFACTION OF PREFERRED CLAIMS AT LESS THAN THEIR FACE AMOUNT
BY PAYMENT PARTLY IN CASH AND PARTLY IN NEW SECURITIES HAS ALSO BEEN
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.  FN2  IN OTHER CASED HOLDING THAT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, RETIREMENT OF PREFERRED STOCK
HAVING A CALL OR VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PRICE IN EXCESS OF THE
INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PRICE BY PAYMENT IN CASH AT THE LATTER PRICE IS
FAIR AND EQUITABLE, THE COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED A NUMBER OF FACTORS
OTHER THAN CHARTER PROVISIONS.  FN3 

IN A NUMBER OF CONTEMPORANEOUS CASES, THE COMMISSION APPROVED PLANS
WHICH PROVIDED FOR LIQUIDATION OF BONDS BY PAYMENT IN CASH AT THE FACE
AMOUNT OF THE BONDS WITHOUT PREMIUM.  FN4 EVEN IN THE EARLIEST OF THESE
CASES, IN ADDITION TO HOLDING THAT THE INDENTURE PROVISION REQUIRING
PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM IN THE EVENT OF VOLUNTARY CALL WAS INAPPLICABLE,
THE COMMISSION OBSERVED THE ABSENCE OF OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MIGHT HAVE MADE PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM FAIR AND
EQUITABLE.  FN5  AND IN THE LATER CASES, THE COMMISSION'S OPINIONS
"EMPHASIZED SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT ARTICULATED IN THE EARLIER CASES,
AS THE INTEREST RATE, MATURITY DATE, AND RISK FACTORS INCIDENT TO THE
PARTICULAR SECURITY WHICH IS TO BE PREPAID AS BEARING UPON THE FAIRNESS
OF THE PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF THE SECURITY."  AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT
CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 6176, P. 12. 

IN AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 6176,
THE COMMISSION APPLIED THE INVESTMENT VALUE THEORY TO ALLOW PAYMENT OF
PREMIUMS ON BONDS RETIRED UNDER COMPULSION OF SEC. 11(E).  AFTER
POINTING OUT THE TREND OBSERVED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH AND
ATTRIBUTING IT TO EXPERIENCE GAINED IN CONSIDERING A LARGE NUMBER OF
CASES, THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT VALUE THEORY SHOULD BE
APPLIED WHERE ITS APPLICATION RESULTED IN THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS AT
PRICES IN EXCESS OF THEIR FACE VALUE.  COMMISSIONER HEALY, WHO HAD
PERSISTENTLY DISSENTED IN THE LINE OF CASES FINALLY APPROVED BY THIS
COURT IN THE OTIS CASE,  FN6  DISSENTED VIGOROUSLY.  HE CONTENDED THAT
THE OTIS CASE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ITS FACTS AND THAT THE EARLIER CASES
REFUSING TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS ON BONDS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS
HOLDING THAT PAYMENT OF BONDS AT THEIR FACE AMOUNT WITHOUT PREMIUM "WAS
FAIR BECAUSE  ...  CONTRACT RIGHTS WERE SATISFIED, NOT BECAUSE THE
DEBENTURES WERE VALUED AND FOUND TO BE WORTH THEIR PRINCIPAL."  ID. AT
46.  FN7  HE THOUGHT IT HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT THAT A CONSISTENT
APPLICATION OF THE INVESTMENT VALUE STANDARD WOULD REQUIRE RETIREMENT
OF BONDS AT LESS THAN THEIR PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, IN CASES IN WHICH THE
BONDS WERE NOT "WORTH THEIR PRINCIPAL," AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NOT
SUGGESTED THAT ITS APPROACH SHOULD EXTEND SO FAR.  ID. AT 47-48.  FN8 

LESS THAN ONE YEAR LATER THE COMMISSION MADE A PARALLEL APPLICATION
OF THE INVESTMENT VALUE THEORY TO A CASE INVOLVING THE RETIREMENT OF
NONCALLABLE PREFERRED STOCK, HOLDING UNFAIR A PLAN PROVIDING FOR THE
RETIREMENT OF THAT STOCK BY PAYMENT IN CASH EQUIVALENT TO THE
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE.  THE UNITED LIGHT AND POWER CO., HOLDING
COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 6603.  COMMISSIONER HEALY, WHO DIED NOVEMBER
16, 1946, DISSENTED, STATING FOR THE LAST TIME HIS VIEW THAT THE CLAIM
SHOULD BE PAID AT ITS LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE, I.E., THAT THE CONTRACT
CONTROLLED.  FN9  AFTER THIS DECISION, IN WHICH THE COMMISSION DIVIDED
3-2,  FN10  A REHEARING WAS GRANTED.  WHILE DECISION ON REHEARING WAS
PENDING, THE COMPANY PROPOSED A SUBSTITUTE VOLUNTARY PROPOSAL, WHICH
THE COMMISSION APPROVED.  UNITED LIGHT AND RAILWAYS CO., HOLDING
COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 7951. 

THE NEXT APPLICATION OF THE INVESTMENT VALUE THEORY EMPLOYED BY THE
COMMISSION'S MAJORITY WAS MADE IN THIS CASE, DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1946. 
SINCE THIS DECISION AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ON REVIEW,
THE COMMISSION HAS AGAIN APPLIED THE INVESTMENT VALUE THEORY TO REQUIRE
PAYMENT OF PREFERRED STOCK IN CASH AT INVESTMENT VALUES EQUAL TO CALL
PRICES.  PENNSYLVANIA EDISON CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO.
8550. 

IN A NUMBER OF CASES THE COMMISSION HAS APPROVED PLANS WHICH PROVIDED
FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREFERRED STOCK AT CALL PRICES, WHERE THERE WAS NO
CONTENTION THAT THE PREMIUM WAS NOT PAYABLE.  FN11  BUT THESE CASES
HAVE NOT BEEN REGARDED AS PRECEDENTS IN CASES IN WHICH THE COMPANY
RESISTS PAYMENT OF THE PREFERRED STOCK OR BONDS IN AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF
THE FACE VALUE OR INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION PRICE.  UNITED LIGHT AND
POWER CO., 10 S.E.C. 1215, 1227. 

FN1  COMMUNITY POWER AND LIGHT CO., 6 S.E.C. 182; FEDERAL WATER
SERVICE CORP., 8 S.E.C. 893; UNITED POWER AND LIGHT CO., 13 S.E.C.
1(THE OTIS CASE); PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO.$, 13 S.E.C. 226;
SOUTHERN COLORADO POWER CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 4501;
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 4618. 
THESE CASES ARE DISCUSSED IN DODD, THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF PREFERRED AND
COMMON SHAREHOLDERS IN RECAPITALIZATION PLANS UNDER THE HOLDING COMPANY
ACT, 57 HARV. L. REV. 295.  COMMISSIONER HEALY, WHO CONCURRED IN THE
RESULT IN THE COMMUNITY POWER CASE, DISSENTED IN THE OTHER CASES,
CONTENDING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE PREFERRED WAS MEASURED BY THE CONTRACT
RIGHT.  HIS VIEW OF THE MEANING OF SEC. 11(E) LED HIM TO DISSENT IN
CASES INVOLVING APPLICATIONS OF THE INVESTMENT VALUE RULE WHICH
PRODUCED THE RESULTS REACHED IN THIS CASE.  SEE TEXT AT NOTE 6, INFRA. 
FN2  NEW ENGLAND POWER ASSN., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 6470,
66 F.SUPP.  378, AFFIRMED SUB NOM. LAHTI V. NEW ENGLAND POWER ASSN.,
160 F.2D 845. 

FN3  CITIES SERVICE CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 4944, PP. 16
17; GEORGIA POWER & LIGHT CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 5568,
PP. 16-17, 20-27. 

FN4  THE UNITED LIGHT AND POWER CO., 10 S.E.C. 1215, 1222, AFFIRMED
SUB NOM. NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. S.E.C., 131 F.2D 274; NORTH AMERICAN
LIGHT & POWER CO., 11 S.E.C. 820, 824, AFFIRMED SUB NOM.  CITY NATIONAL
BANK & TRUST CO. V. S.E.C., 134 F.2D 65; NORTH CONTINENT UTILITIES
CORP., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 4686, P. 12, APPROVED AND
ENFORCED, 54 F.SUPP.  527; CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC & GAS CO., HOLDING
COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 4900, P. 7, APPROVED AND ENFORCED, 57 F.SUPP. 
997, AFFIRMED SUB NOM. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V.
S.E.C., 151 F.2D 424. 

FN5 THE UNITED LIGHT AND POWER CO., 10 S.E.C. 1215, 1222; NORTH
AMERICAN LIGHT & POWER CO., 11 S.E.C. 820, 824. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN7  WHILE CONTENDING THAT THE MAJORITY'S APPROACH WAS NOT CONSISTENT
WITH THE CASES REFUSING TO ALLOW PREMIUMS, HE ADMITTED "THAT A CLOSE
READING OF THE COMMISSION'S OPINIONS IN THOSE CASES DISCLOSES SOME
LANGUAGE WHICH THE INVESTING PUBLIC MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE REALIZED
VAGUELY HERALDED THE PRESENT DOCTRINE."  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE
NO. 6176 AT P. 47. 

FN8  THE COMMISSION, IN ITS BRIEF IN THE CASE AT BAR, DECLINES TO
PREDICT WHAT IT WOULD DO IF FACED WITH THE PROBLEM SUGGESTED BY
COMMISSIONER HEALY, ASSERTING THAT MUCH WOULD DEPEND ON THE EXACT
NATURE OF THE SECURITY AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. 

FN9  COMMISSIONER HEALY'S POSITION IS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT:  "WHEN I SIGNED THE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL POWER POLICY
COMMITTEE TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT I UNDERSTOOD THE MUCH QUOTED REFERENCE
TO PRESERVATION OF INVESTMENT VALUES TO REFER TO THE VALUES OF
OPERATING COMPANY SECURITIES IN HOLDING COMPANY PORTFOLIOS.  I DID NOT
THEN AND DO NOT NOW BELIEVE IT WAS INTENDED AS A BASIS FOR DENYING THE
SENIOR SECURITY HOLDERS THEIR FULL PRIORITY RIGHTS OR FOR COMPELLING
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS TO PAY PREMIUMS UPON THE REDEMPTION OR RETIREMENT
OF SENIOR SECURITIES FORCED BY FEDERAL STATUTE."  THE UNITED LIGHT AND
POWER CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 6603, PP. 43-44. 

FN10  COMMISSIONER CAFFREY THOUGHT THE LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE
APPLICABLE FOR A REASON IRRELEVANT HERE.  SEE EL PASO ELECTRIC CO.,
HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 5499. 

FN11  E.G., MINNESOTA POWER & LIGHT CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE
NO. 5850; MISSISSIPPI RIVER POWER CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO.
5776; THE NORTH AMERICAN CO., HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 5796. 
..END :



BRINEGAR V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 160 


NO. 12.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18-19, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949.  - 165
F.2D 512, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A VIOLATION
OF THE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1936, ON CHARGES OF TRANSPORTING
INTOXICATING LIQUOR INTO OKLAHOMA CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF THAT STATE. 
HE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE OF THE USE IN
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM OF LIQUOR SEIZED IN A SEARCH OF HIS AUTOMOBILE
WITHOUT A WARRANT AND ALLEGEDLY IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 
AT THE HEARING ON PETITIONER'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THIS EVIDENCE, IT
APPEARED THAT ONE OF THE FEDERAL AGENTS WHO MADE THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
HAD ARRESTED PETITIONER FIVE MONTHS PREVIOUSLY FOR ILLEGALLY
TRANSPORTING LIQUOR; THAT HE HAD TWICE SEEN PETITIONER LOADING LIQUOR
INTO A CAR OR TRUCK IN MISSOURI, WHERE THE SALE OF LIQUOR WAS LEGAL;
AND THAT HE KNEW PETITIONER HAD A REPUTATION FOR HAULING LIQUOR.  THIS
OFFICER, ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER, RECOGNIZED PETITIONER AND HIS CAR,
WHICH APPEARED TO BE HEAVILY LOADED, GOING WEST IN OKLAHOMA NOT FAR
FROM THE MISSOURI LINE.  THEY GAVE CHASE, OVERTOOK PETITIONER, AND
FORCED HIS CAR TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.  UPON INTERROGATION, PETITIONER
ADMITTED THAT HE HAD TWELVE CASES OF LIQUOR IN HIS CAR, WHEREUPON THE
OFFICERS SEARCHED THE CAR, SEIZED THE LIQUOR AND ARRESTED PETITIONER. 
HELD: 

1.  THE FACTS TAKING PLACE BEFORE PETITIONER MADE THE INCRIMINATING
STATEMENTS WERE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH, AND
THE EVIDENCE SEIZED WAS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST PETITIONER AT THE TRIAL. 
CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, FOLLOWED.  PP. 165-171. 

2.  THE OFFICER'S KNOWLEDGE THAT PETITIONER WAS ENGAGING IN ILLICIT
LIQUOR-RUNNING WAS NOT BASED WHOLLY OR LARGELY ON SURMISE OR HEARSAY;
THE FACTS DERIVED FROM HIS PERSONAL OBSERVATION WERE SUFFICIENT IN
THEMSELVES, WITHOUT THE HEARSAY CONCERNING GENERAL REPUTATION, TO
SUSTAIN HIS CONCLUSION CONCERNING THE ILLEGAL CHARACTER OF PETITIONER'S
OPERATIONS.  P. 172. 

3.  IT WAS NOT IMPROPER TO ADMIT AS EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF PROBABLE
CAUSE THE FACT THAT THE OFFICER HAD ARRESTED THE PETITIONER SEVERAL
MONTHS BEFORE FOR ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR, ALTHOUGH THE
IDENTICAL EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY EXCLUDED AT THE TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF
GUILT.  PP. 172-174. 

4.  PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS WHERE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN
THE OFFICERS' KNOWLEDGE, AND OF WHICH THEY HAVE REASONABLY TRUSTWORTHY
INFORMATION, ARE SUFFICIENT IN THEMSELVES TO WARRANT A BELIEF BY A MAN
OF REASONABLE CAUTION THAT A CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED.  PP. 175-176. 

BRINEGAR V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A
VIOLATION OF THE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT ACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  165 F.2D 512.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S.
841.  AFFIRMED, P. 178. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BRINEGAR WAS CONVICTED OF IMPORTING INTOXICATING LIQUOR INTO OKLAHOMA
FROM MISSOURI IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH FORBIDS SUCH
IMPORTATION CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF ANY STATE.  FN1  HIS CONVICTION WAS
BASED IN PART ON THE USE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM OF LIQUOR SEIZED FROM
HIS AUTOMOBILE IN THE COURSE OF THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL IMPORTATION. 

PRIOR TO THE TRIAL BRINEGAR MOVED TO SUPPRESS THIS EVIDENCE AS HAVING
BEEN SECURED THROUGH AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  FN2  THE MOTION
WAS DENIED, AS WAS A RENEWAL OF THE OBJECTION AT THE TRIAL. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, 165 F.2D 512, AND
CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
CONTRAVENED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND THEREFORE THE USE OF THE LIQUOR IN
EVIDENCE VITIATED THE CONVICTION.  WE GRANTED THE WRIT TO DETERMINE
THIS QUESTION.  333 U.S. 841. 

THE FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY UNDISPUTED.  AT ABOUT SIX O'CLOCK ON THE
EVENING OF MARCH 3, 1947, MALSED, AN INVESTIGATOR OF THE ALCOHOL TAX
UNIT, AND CREEHAN, A SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR, WERE PARKED IN A CAR BESIDE
A HIGHWAY NEAR THE QUAPAW BRIDGE IN NORTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA.  THE POINT
WAS ABOUT FIVE MILES WEST OF THE MISSOURI-OKLAHOMA LINE.  BRINEGAR
DROVE PAST HEADED WEST IN HIS FORD COUPE.  MALSED HAD ARRESTED HIM
ABOUT FIVE MONTHS EARLIER FOR ILLEGALLY TRANSPORTING LIQUOR; HAD SEEN
HIM LOADING LIQUOR INTO A CAR OR TRUCK IN JOPLIN, MISSOURI, ON AT LEAST
TWO OCCASIONS DURING THE PRECEDING SIX MONTHS; AND KNEW HIM TO HAVE A
REPUTATION FOR HAULING LIQUOR.  AS BRINEGAR PASSED, MALSED RECOGNIZED
BOTH HIM AND THE FORD.  HE TOLD CREEHAN, WHO WAS DRIVING THE OFFICERS'
CAR, THAT BRINEGAR WAS THE DRIVER OF THE PASSING CAR.  BOTH AGENTS
LATER TESTIFIED THAT THE CAR, BUT NOT ESPECIALLY ITS REAR END, APPEARED
TO BE "HEAVILY LOADED" AND "WEIGHTED WITH SOMETHING."  BRINEGAR
INCREASED HIS SPEED AS HE PASSED THE OFFICERS.  THEY GAVE CHASE.  AFTER
PURSUING HIM FOR ABOUT A MILE AT TOP SPEED, THEY GAINED ON HIM AS HIS
CAR SKIDDED ON A CURVE, SOUNDED THEIR SIREN, OVERTOOK HIM, AND CROWDED
HIS CAR TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD BY PULLING ACROSS IN FRONT OF IT.  THE
HIGHWAY WAS ONE LEADING FROM JOPLIN, MISSOURI, TOWARD VINITA, OKLAHOMA,
BRINEGAR'S HOME. 

AS THE AGENTS GOT OUT OF THEIR CAR AND WALKED BACK TOWARD PETITIONER,
MALSED SAID, "HELLO, BRINEGAR, HOW MUCH LIQUOR HAVE YOU GOT IN THE
CAR?"  OR "HOW MUCH LIQUOR HAVE YOU GOT IN THE CAR THIS TIME?" 
PETITIONER REPLIED, "NOT TOO MUCH," OR "NOT SO MUCH."  AFTER FURTHER
QUESTIONING HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD TWELVE CASES IN THE CAR.  MALSED
TESTIFIED THAT ONE CASE, WHICH WAS ON THE FRONT SEAT, WAS VISIBLE FROM
OUTSIDE THE CAR, BUT PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS COVERED BY A LAP
ROBE.  TWELVE MORE CASES WERE FOUND UNDER AND BEHIND THE FRONT SEAT. 
THE AGENTS THEN PLACED BRINEGAR UNDER ARREST AND SEIZED THE LIQUOR. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE, AFTER A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS AT
WHICH THE FACTS STATED ABOVE APPEARED IN EVIDENCE, WAS OF THE OPINION
THAT "THE MERE FACT THAT THE AGENTS KNEW THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS
ENGAGED IN HAULING WHISKEY, EVEN COUPLED WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE
CAR APPEARED TO BE WEIGHTED, WOULD NOT BE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH
OF THIS CAR."  THEREFORE, HE THOUGHT, THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE WHEN
THE AGENTS BEGAN THE CHASE.  HE HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE VOLUNTARY
ADMISSION MADE BY PETITIONER AFTER HIS CAR HAD BEEN STOPPED CONSTITUTED
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH, REGARDLESS OF THE LEGALITY OF THE ARREST
AND DETENTION, AND THAT THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE.  AT THE
TRIAL, AS HAS BEEN SAID, THE COURT OVERRULED PETITIONER'S RENEWAL OF
THE OBJECTION. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, TOOK ESSENTIALLY THE VIEW
HELD BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE DISSENTING JUDGE THOUGHT THAT THE
SEARCH WAS UNLAWFUL AND THEREFORE STATEMENTS MADE DURING ITS COURSE
COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE SEARCH. 

THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR
BRINEGAR'S ARREST, IN THE LIGHT OF PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS ON THIS PROBLEM,
MORE PARTICULARLY CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, WHICH ON ITS
FACE MOST CLOSELY APPROXIMATES THE SITUATION PRESENTED HERE.  FN3 

THE CARROLL DECISION HELD THAT, UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, A VALID
SEARCH OF A VEHICLE MOVING ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY MAY BE HAD WITHOUT A
WARRANT, BUT ONLY IF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH EXISTS.  FN4  THE
COURT THEN WENT ON TO RULE THAT THE FACTS PRESENTED AMOUNTED TO
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF THE AUTOMOBILE THERE INVOLVED.  267
U.S. 132, 160. 

IN THE CARROLL CASE THREE FEDERAL PROHIBITION AGENTS AND A STATE
OFFICER STOPPED AND SEARCHED THE DEFENDANTS' CAR ON A HIGHWAY LEADING
FROM DETROIT TO GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, AND SEIZED A QUANTITY OF LIQUOR
DISCOVERED IN THE SEARCH.  ABOUT THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE SEARCH, THE
TWO DEFENDANTS AND ANOTHER MAN CALLED ON TWO OF THE AGENTS AT AN
APARTMENT IN GRAND RAPIDS AND, UNAWARE THAT THEY WERE DEALING WITH
FEDERAL AGENTS, AGREED TO SELL ONE OF THE AGENTS THREE CASES OF
LIQUOR.  BOTH AGENTS NOTICED THE OLDSMOBILE ROADSTER IN WHICH THE THREE
MEN CAME TO THE APARTMENT AND ITS LICENSE NUMBER.  PRESUMABLY BECAUSE
THE OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF THE PROPOSED PURCHASER WAS SUSPECTED BY THE
DEFENDANTS, THE LIQUOR WAS NEVER DELIVERED. 

ABOUT A WEEK LATER THE SAME TWO AGENTS, WHILE PATROLLING THE ROAD
BETWEEN GRAND RAPIDS AND DETROIT ON THE LOOKOUT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT, WERE PASSED BY THE DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE
PROCEEDING IN A DIRECTION FROM GRAND RAPIDS TOWARD DETROIT IN THE SAME
OLDSMOBILE ROADSTER.  THE AGENTS FOLLOWED THE DEFENDANTS FOR SOME
DISTANCE BUT LOST TRACE OF THEM.  STILL LATER, ON THE OCCASION OF THE
SEARCH, WHILE THE OFFICERS WERE PATROLLING THE SAME HIGHWAY, THEY MET
AND PASSED THE DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE IN THE SAME ROADSTER, GOING IN A
DIRECTION FROM DETROIT TOWARD GRAND RAPIDS.  RECOGNIZING THE
DEFENDANTS, THE AGENTS TURNED AROUND, PURSUED THEM, STOPPED THEM ABOUT
SIXTEEN MILES OUTSIDE GRAND RAPIDS, SEARCHED THEIR CAR AND SEIZED THE
LIQUOR IT CARRIED. 

THIS COURT RULED THAT THE INFORMATION HELD BY THE AGENTS, TOGETHER
WITH THE JUDICIALLY NOTICED FACT THAT DETROIT WAS "ONE OF THE MOST
ACTIVE CENTERS FOR INTRODUCING ILLEGALLY INTO THIS COUNTRY SPIRITUOUS
LIQUORS FOR DISTRIBUTION INTO THE INTERIOR" (267 U.S. AT 160),
CONSTITUTED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH. 

                                  I. 

OBVIOUSLY THE BASIC FACTS HELD TO CONSTITUTE PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE
CARROLL CASE WERE VERY SIMILAR TO THE BASIC FACTS HERE.  IN EACH CASE
THE SEARCH WAS OF AN AUTOMOBILE MOVING ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND WAS MADE
WITHOUT A WARRANT BY FEDERAL OFFICERS CHARGED WITH ENFORCING FEDERAL
STATUTES OUTLAWING THE TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (EXCEPT
UNDER CONDITIONS NOT COMPLIED WITH).  FN5  IN EACH INSTANCE THE
OFFICERS WERE PATROLLING THE HIGHWAY IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTY. 
AND IN EACH BEFORE STOPPING THE CAR OR STARTING TO PURSUE IT THEY
RECOGNIZED BOTH THE DRIVER AND THE CAR, FROM RECENT PERSONAL CONTACT
AND OBSERVATION, AS HAVING BEEN LATELY ENGAGED IN ILLICIT LIQUOR
DEALINGS.  FN6  FINALLY, EACH DRIVER WAS PROCEEDING IN HIS IDENTIFIED
CAR IN A DIRECTION FROM A KNOWN SOURCE OF LIQUOR SUPPLY TOWARD A
PROBABLE ILLEGAL MARKET, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING NO OTHER
PROBABLE PURPOSE THAN TO CARRY ON HIS ILLEGAL ADVENTURE.  FN7 

THESE ARE THE ULTIMATE FACTS.  NECESSARILY THE CONCRETE, SUBORDINATE
FACTS ON WHICH THEY WERE GROUNDED IN THE TWO CASES DIFFERED SOMEWHAT IN
DETAIL.  THE MORE IMPORTANT OF THE VARIATIONS IN DETAILS OF THE PROOF
ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

IN CARROLL THE AGENT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRIMARY AND ULTIMATE FACT
THAT THE ACCUSED WERE ENGAGED IN LIQUOR RUNNING WAS DERIVED FROM THE
DEFENDANTS' OFFER TO SELL LIQUOR TO THE AGENTS SOME THREE MONTHS PRIOR
TO THE SEARCH, WHILE HERE THAT KNOWLEDGE WAS DERIVED LARGELY FROM
MALSED'S PERSONAL OBSERVATION, REINFORCED BY HEARSAY; THE OFFICERS WHEN
THEY BARGAINED FOR THE LIQUOR IN CARROLL SAW THE NUMBER OF THE
DEFENDANTS' CAR, WHEREAS NO SUCH FACT IS SHOWN IN THIS RECORD; AND IN
CARROLL THE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT DETROIT WAS ON THE
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND AN ACTIVE CENTER FOR ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF
SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS FOR DISTRIBUTION INTO THE INTERIOR, WHILE IN THIS
CASE THE FACTS THAT JOPLIN, MISSOURI, WAS A READY SOURCE OF SUPPLY FOR
LIQUOR AND OKLAHOMA A PLACE OF LIKELY ILLEGAL MARKET WERE KNOWN TO THE
AGENT MALSED FROM HIS PERSONAL OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS
FROM FACTS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE. 

TREATING FIRST THE TWO LATTER AND LESS IMPORTANT MATTERS, IN VIEW OF
THE POSITIVE AND UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE CONCERNING MALSED'S IDENTIFICATION
OF BRINEGAR'S FORD, WE THINK NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATEVER ATTACHES, FOR
PURPOSES OF DISTINGUISHING THE CASES, TO THE FACT THAT IN THE CARROLL
CASE THE OFFICERS SAW AND RECALLED THE LICENSE NUMBER OF THE OFFENDING
CAR WHILE THIS RECORD DISCLOSES NO LIKE RECOLLECTION. 

LIKEWISE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH THE CARROLL CASE WITH
REFERENCE TO THE PROOF RELATING TO THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY, THE PLACE OF
PROBABLE DESTINATION AND ILLEGAL MARKET, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
PROBABILITY THAT THE KNOWN LIQUOR OPERATORS WERE USING THE CONNECTING
HIGHWAY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THEIR UNLAWFUL BUSINESS. 

THERE WERE OF COURSE SOME LEGAL AS WELL AS SOME FACTUAL DIFFERENCES
IN THE TWO SITUATIONS.  UNDER THE STATUTE IN REVIEW IN CARROLL THE
WHOLE NATION WAS LEGALLY DRY.  NOT ONLY THE MANUFACTURE, BUT THE
IMPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS WERE
PROHIBITED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  UNDER THE STATUTE NOW IN QUESTION
ONLY THE IMPORTATION OF SUCH LIQUORS CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE STATE
INTO WHICH THEY ARE BROUGHT AND IN WHICH THEY WERE SEIZED IS
FORBIDDEN. 

IN THE CARROLL CASE THE COURT JUDICIALLY NOTICED THAT DETROIT WAS
LOCATED ON THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY WITH CANADA AND HAD BECOME AN
ACTIVE CENTER FOR ILLEGALLY BRINGING LIQUOR INTO THE COUNTRY FOR
DISTRIBUTION INTO THE INTERIOR.  THIS WAS PERTINENT IN CONNECTION WITH
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR SHOWING THE PROBABILITY UNDER WHICH THE AGENTS
ACTED THAT USE OF THE HIGHWAY CONNECTING DETROIT AND GRAND RAPIDS BY
THE KNOWN OPERATORS IN LIQUOR WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON THEIR
UNLAWFUL TRAFFIC. 

IN THIS CASE, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BRINEGAR HAD USED JOPLIN,
MISSOURI, TO MALSED'S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE DERIVED FROM DIRECT
OBSERVATION, NOT MERELY FROM HEARSAY AS SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTED, AS A
SOURCE OF SUPPLY ON OTHER OCCASIONS WITHIN THE PRECEDING SIX MONTHS. 
IT ALSO DISCLOSES THAT BRINEGAR'S HOME WAS IN VINITA, OKLAHOMA, AND
THAT BRINEGAR WHEN APPREHENDED WAS TRAVELING IN A DIRECTION LEADING
FROM JOPLIN TO VINITA, AT A POINT ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE MILES WEST OF THE
MISSOURI-OKLAHOMA LINE. 

JOPLIN, LIKE DETROIT IN THE CARROLL CASE, WAS A READY SOURCE OF
SUPPLY.  BUT UNLIKE DETROIT IT WAS NOT AN ILLEGAL SOURCE.  SO FAR AS
APPEARS, BRINEGAR'S PURCHASES THERE WERE ENTIRELY LEGAL.  AND SO, WE
MAY ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, WAS HIS TRANSPORTATION OF THE LIQUOR
IN MISSOURI, UNTIL HE REACHED AND CROSSED THE STATE LINE INTO
OKLAHOMA. 

THIS DIFFERENCE, HOWEVER, IS INSUBSTANTIAL.  FOR THE IMPORTANT THING
HERE IS NOT WHETHER JOPLIN WAS AN ILLEGAL SOURCE OF SUPPLY; IT IS
RATHER THAT JOPLIN WAS A READY, CONVENIENT AND PROBABLE ONE FOR PERSONS
DISPOSED TO VIOLATE THE OKLAHOMA AND FEDERAL STATUTES.  THAT FACT WAS
DEMONSTRATED FULLY, NOT ONLY BY THE GEOGRAPHIC FACTS, BUT BY MALSED'S
DIRECT AND UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY OF HIS PERSONAL OBSERVATION OF
BRINEGAR'S USE OF LIQUOR-DISPENSING ESTABLISHMENTS IN JOPLIN FOR
PROCURING HIS WHISKEY.  SUCH DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS LACKING IN CARROLL AS
TO DETROIT, AND FOR THAT REASON THE COURT RESORTED TO JUDICIAL NOTICE
OF THE COMMONLY KNOWN FACTS TO SUPPLY THAT DEFICIENCY.  MALSED'S DIRECT
TESTIMONY, BASED ON HIS PERSONAL OBSERVATION, DISPENSED WITH THAT
NECESSITY IN THIS CASE. 

THE SITUATION RELATING TO THE PROBABLE PLACE OF MARKET, AS BEARING ON
THE PROBABILITY OF UNLAWFUL IMPORTATION, IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT. 
BROADLY ON THE FACTS THIS MAY WELL HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO BE THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA AS A WHOLE OR ITS POPULOUS NORTHEASTERN REGION.  FROM THE
FACTS OF RECORD WE KNOW, AS THE AGENTS KNEW, THAT OKLAHOMA WAS A "DRY"
STATE.  AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH, ITS LAW FORBADE THE IMPORTATION OF
INTOXICATING LIQUORS FROM OTHER STATES, EXCEPT UNDER A PERMIT NOT
GENERALLY PROCURABLE N8 AND WHICH THERE IS NO PRETENSE BRINEGAR HAD
SECURED OR ATTEMPTED TO SECURE.  THIS FACT, TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH
THE KNOWN "WET" STATUS OF MISSOURI AND THE LOCATION OF JOPLIN CLOSE TO
THE OKLAHOMA LINE, AFFORDS A VERY NATURAL SITUATION FOR PERSONS
INCLINED TO VIOLATE THE OKLAHOMA AND FEDERAL STATUTES TO PLY THEIR
TRADE.  THE PROOF THEREFORE CONCERNING THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY, THE PLACE
OF PROBABLE DESTINATION AND ILLEGAL MARKET, AND HENCE THE PROBABILITY
THAT BRINEGAR WAS USING THE HIGHWAY FOR THE FORBIDDEN TRANSPORTATION,
WAS CERTAINLY NO LESS STRONG THAN THE SHOWING IN THESE RESPECTS IN THE
CARROLL CASE.  FN9    FINALLY, AS FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT POTENTIAL
DISTINCTION, NAMELY, THAT CONCERNING THE PRIMARY AND ULTIMATE FACT THAT
THE PETITIONER WAS ENGAGING IN LIQUOR RUNNING, MALSED'S PERSONAL
OBSERVATION OF BRINEGAR'S RECENT ACTIVITIES ESTABLISHED THAT HE WAS SO
ENGAGED QUITE AS EFFECTIVELY AS DID THE AGENT'S PRIOR BARGAINING WITH
THE DEFENDANTS IN THE CARROLL CASE.  HE SAW BRINEGAR LOADING LIQUOR, IN
LARGER QUANTITIES THAN WOULD BE NORMAL FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION, INTO A
CAR OR A TRUCK IN JOPLIN ON OTHER OCCASIONS DURING THE SIX MONTHS PRIOR
TO THE SEARCH.  HE SAW THE CAR BRINEGAR WAS USING IN THIS CASE IN USE
BY HIM AT LEAST ONCE IN JOPLIN WITHIN THAT PERIOD AND FOLLOWED IT.  AND
SEVERAL MONTHS PRIOR TO THE SEARCH HE HAD ARRESTED BRINEGAR FOR
UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR AND THIS ARREST HAD RESULTED IN AN
INDICTMENT WHICH WAS PENDING AT THE TIME OF THIS TRIAL.  MOREOVER
MALSED INSTANTLY RECOGNIZED BRINEGAR'S FORD COUPE AND BRINEGAR AS THE
DRIVER WHEN HE PASSED THE PARKED POLICE CAR.  AND AT THAT TIME BRINEGAR
WAS MOVING IN A DIRECTION FROM JOPLIN TOWARD VINITA ONLY A SHORT
DISTANCE INSIDE OKLAHOMA FROM THE STATE LINE. 

ALL THESE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.  WHOLLY APART FROM MALSED'S KNOWLEDGE
THAT BRINEGAR BORE THE GENERAL REPUTATION OF BEING ENGAGED IN LIQUOR
RUNNING, THEY CONSTITUTE POSITIVE AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT BRINEGAR
WAS ENGAGED IN THAT ACTIVITY, NO LESS CONVINCING THAN THE EVIDENCE IN
CARROLL THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD OFFERED TO SELL LIQUOR TO THE
OFFICERS.  THE EVIDENCE HERE IS UNDISPUTED, IS ADMISSIBLE ON THE ISSUE
OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE AGENT HAD GOOD
GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT BRINEGAR WAS ENGAGED REGULARLY THROUGHOUT THE
PERIOD IN ILLICIT LIQUOR RUNNING AND DEALING. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE VARIATIONS IN DETAIL, THEREFORE, WE THINK THE
PROOF IN THIS CASE FURNISHES SUPPORT QUITE AS STRONG AS THAT MADE IN
THE CARROLL CASE, INDEED STRONGER IN SOME RESPECTS, TO SUSTAIN THE
ULTIMATE FACTS THERE HELD IN THE AGGREGATE TO CONSTITUTE PROBABLE CAUSE
FOR A SEARCH IDENTICAL IN ALL SUBSTANTIAL AND MATERIAL RESPECTS WITH
THE ONE MADE HERE.  NOTHING IN THE VARIATIONS OF DETAIL AFFORDS A
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR UNDERMINING HERE ANY OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS HELD
TO BE SUFFICIENT IN CARROLL OR FOR DISTINGUISHING THE CASES.  EACH OF
THE ULTIMATE FACTS FOUND IN CARROLL TO CONSTITUTE PROBABLE CAUSE, WHEN
TAKEN TOGETHER, IS PRESENT IN THIS CASE AND IS FULLY SUBSTANTIATED BY
THE PROOF.  ACCORDINGLY THE CARROLL DECISION MUST BE TAKEN TO CONTROL
THIS SITUATION, UNLESS IT IS NOW TO BE OVERRULED. 

THIS IS TRUE, ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS,
INCLUDING THE DISSENTING JUDGE, WERE OF THE OPINION, AS STATED BY THE
LATTER COURT, "THAT THE FACTS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INVESTIGATORS
AND OF WHICH THEY HAD REASONABLE TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE
TIME THE INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS WERE MADE BY BRINEGAR WERE NOT
SUFFICIENT TO LEAD A REASONABLY DISCREET AND PRUDENT MAN TO BELIEVE
THAT INTOXICATING LIQUOR WAS BEING TRANSPORTED IN THE COUPE, AND DID
NOT CONSTITUTE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH."  165 F.2D AT 514.  IF, AS
WE THINK, THE CARROLL CASE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THIS ONE ON THE
MATERIAL FACTS, AND THAT DECISION IS TO CONTINUE IN FORCE, IT
NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT THE QUOTED "FINDING" OR "CONCLUSION" WAS
ERRONEOUS.  FN10  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE
FACTS, IT CANNOT BE THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S INCIDENCE TURNS ON
WHETHER DIFFERENT TRIAL JUDGES DRAW GENERAL CONCLUSIONS THAT THE FACTS
ARE SUFFICIENT OR INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE PROBABLE CAUSE. 

                 II. 

IT REMAINS TO CONSIDER ONE FURTHER ASSERTED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS
CASE AND THE CARROLL CASE, HAVING TO DO WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY OR
INADMISSIBILITY AT THE TRIAL OF THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE AGENTS ACTED
IN MAKING THE SEARCH, PARTICULARLY THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THEIR
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENGAGING IN ILLICIT LIQUOR RUNNING. 

IT IS ARGUED FIRST THAT THIS CASE CAN BE DISTINGUISHED FROM CARROLL
BECAUSE MALSED'S KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PRIMARY AND ULTIMATE FACT RESTED
WHOLLY OR LARGELY ON SURMISE OR HEARSAY.  THIS ARGUMENT IS DISPROVED BY
THE FACTS OF RECORD WHICH WE HAVE SET FORTH ABOVE.  THERE WAS HEARSAY,
BUT THERE WAS MUCH MORE.  INDEED, AS WE HAVE EMPHASIZED, THE FACTS
DERIVED FROM MALSED'S PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS WERE SUFFICIENT IN
THEMSELVES, WITHOUT THE HEARSAY CONCERNING GENERAL REPUTATION, TO
SUSTAIN HIS CONCLUSION CONCERNING THE ILLEGAL CHARACTER OF BRINEGAR'S
OPERATIONS. 

BUT A FURTHER DISTINCTION BASED UPON INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE
IS ASSERTED.  IT IS SAID THAT, WHILE IN CARROLL THE DEFENDANTS' OFFER
TO SELL LIQUOR TO THE AGENTS WAS ADMISSIBLE AND WAS ADMITTED AT THE
TRIAL, HERE THE EVIDENCE THAT MALSED HAD ARRESTED BRINEGAR FOR ILLEGAL
TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE THE SEARCH, THOUGH
ADMITTED ON THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS, WAS EXCLUDED AT THE
TRIAL.  CF. MICHELSON V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 469.  THE INFERENCE
SEEMS TO BE THAT THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE PRIOR ARREST SHOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AT THE HEARING ON THE MOTION.  IN ANY EVENT, THE
CONCLUSION IS DRAWN THAT THE FACTORS RELATING TO INADMISSIBILITY OF THE
EVIDENCE HERE, FOR PURPOSES OF PROVING GUILT AT THE TRIAL, DEPRIVE THE
EVIDENCE AS A WHOLE OF SUFFICIENCY TO SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE
SEARCH AND THEREFORE DISTINGUISH THIS CASE FROM THE CARROLL CASE. 

APART FROM ITS FAILURE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY
MALSED'S DIRECT AND PERSONAL OBSERVATION, EVEN IF HIS TESTIMONY
CONCERNING THE PRIOR ARREST WERE EXCLUDED, THE SO-CALLED DISTINCTION
PLACES A WHOLLY UNWARRANTED EMPHASIS UPON THE CRITERION OF
ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE, TO PROVE THE ACCUSED'S GUILT, OF THE FACTS
RELIED UPON TO SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE.  THAT EMPHASIS, WE THINK, GOES MUCH
TOO FAR IN CONFUSING AND DISREGARDING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS
REQUIRED TO PROVE GUILT IN A CRIMINAL CASE AND WHAT IS REQUIRED TO SHOW
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST OR SEARCH.  IT APPROACHES REQUIRING (IF IT
DOES NOT IN PRACTICAL EFFECT REQUIRE) PROOF SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH
GUILT IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.  THERE
IS A LARGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO THINGS TO BE PROVED, AS WELL AS
BETWEEN THE TRIBUNALS WHICH DETERMINE THEM, AND THEREFORE A LIKE
DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTA AND MODES OF PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH
THEM. 

FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS RELATING NOT ONLY TO PROBATIVE VALUE AND
TRUSTWORTHINESS, BUT ALSO TO POSSIBLE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT UPON A TRIAL
JURY AND THE ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE
GENERALLY ACCEPTED RULES OF EVIDENCE THROW MANY EXCLUSIONARY
PROTECTIONS ABOUT ONE WHO IS CHARGED WITH AND STANDING TRIAL FOR
CRIME.  MUCH EVIDENCE OF REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL PROBATIVE VALUE GOES OUT
ON CONSIDERATIONS IRRELEVANT TO ITS PROBATIVE WEIGHT BUT RELEVANT TO
POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING OR MISUSE BY THE JURY. 

THUS, IN THIS CASE, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE RECORD
AT THE TRIAL, CF. MICHELSON V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 469, MALSED'S
TESTIMONY THAT HE HAD ARRESTED BRINEGAR SEVERAL MONTHS EARLIER FOR
ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR AND THAT THE RESULTING INDICTMENT WAS
PENDING IN ANOTHER COURT AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE.  THIS
CERTAINLY WAS NOT DONE ON THE BASIS THAT THE TESTIMONY CONCERNING
ARREST, OR PERHAPS EVEN THE INDICTMENT, WAS SURMISE OR HEARSAY OR THAT
IT WAS WITHOUT PROBATIVE VALUE.  YET THE SAME COURT ADMITTED THE
TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED
IN THE SEARCH, WHERE THE ISSUE WAS NOT GUILT BUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WAS
DETERMINED BY THE COURT WITHOUT A JURY.  FN11 

THE COURT'S RULINGS, ONE ADMITTING, THE OTHER EXCLUDING THE IDENTICAL
TESTIMONY, WERE NEITHER INCONSISTENT NOR IMPROPER.  THEY ILLUSTRATE THE
DIFFERENCE IN STANDARDS AND LATITUDE ALLOWED IN PASSING UPON THE
DISTINCT ISSUES OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND GUILT.  GUILT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND BY EVIDENCE CONFINED TO
THAT WHICH LONG EXPERIENCE IN THE COMMON-LAW TRADITION, TO SOME EXTENT
EMBODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION, HAS CRYSTALLIZED INTO RULES OF EVIDENCE
CONSISTENT WITH THAT STANDARD.  THESE RULES ARE HISTORICALLY GROUNDED
RIGHTS OF OUR SYSTEM, DEVELOPED TO SAFEGUARD MEN FROM DUBIOUS AND
UNJUST CONVICTIONS, WITH RESULTING FORFEITURES OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY. 

HOWEVER, IF THOSE STANDARDS WERE TO BE MADE APPLICABLE IN DETERMINING
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST OR FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE, MORE ESPECIALLY
IN CASES SUCH AS THIS INVOLVING MOVING VEHICLES USED IN THE COMMISSION
OF CRIME, FEW INDEED WOULD BE THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH AN OFFICER,
CHARGED WITH PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY ENFORCING THE LAW, COULD
TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION TOWARD THAT END.  FN12  THOSE STANDARDS HAVE
SELDOM BEEN SO APPLIED.  FN13 

IN DEALING WITH PROBABLE CAUSE, HOWEVER, AS THE VERY NAME IMPLIES, WE
DEAL WITH PROBABILITIES.  THESE ARE NOT TECHNICAL; THEY ARE THE FACTUAL
AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF EVERYDAY LIFE ON WHICH REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT MEN, NOT LEGAL TECHNICIANS, ACT.  THE STANDARD OF PROOF IS
ACCORDINGLY CORRELATIVE TO WHAT MUST BE PROVED. 

"THE SUBSTANCE OF ALL THE DEFINITIONS" OF PROBABLE CAUSE "IS A
REASONABLE GROUND FOR BELIEF OF GUILT."  MCCARTHY V. DE ARMIT, 99 PA.
ST. 63, 69, QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN THE CARROLL OPINION.  267 U.S. AT
161.  AND THIS "MEANS LESS THAN EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY
CONDEMNATION" OR CONVICTION, AS MARSHALL, C.J., SAID FOR THE COURT MORE
THAN A CENTURY AGO IN LOCKE V. UNITED STATES, 7 CRANCH 339, 348.  SINCE
MARSHALL'S TIME, AT ANY RATE,  FN14  IT HAS COME TO MEAN MORE THAN BARE
SUSPICION:  PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS WHERE "THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
WITHIN THEIR (THE OFFICERS') KNOWLEDGE AND OF WHICH THEY HAD REASONABLY
TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION (ARE) SUFFICIENT IN THEMSELVES TO WARRANT A MAN
OF REASONABLE CAUTION IN THE BELIEF THAT" AN OFFENSE HAS BEEN OR IS
BEING COMMITTED.  CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, 162.  FN15 

THESE LONG-PREVAILING STANDARDS SEEK TO SAFEGUARD CITIZENS FROM RASH
AND UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCES WITH PRIVACY AND FROM UNFOUNDED CHARGES
OF CRIME.  THEY ALSO SEEK TO GIVE FAIR LEEWAY FOR ENFORCING THE LAW IN
THE COMMUNITY'S PROTECTION.  BECAUSE MANY SITUATIONS WHICH CONFRONT
OFFICERS IN THE COURSE OF EXECUTING THEIR DUTIES ARE MORE OR LESS
AMBIGUOUS, ROOM MUST BE ALLOWED FOR SOME MISTAKES ON THEIR PART.  BUT
THE MISTAKES MUST BE THOSE OF REASONABLE MEN, ACTING ON FACTS LEADING
SENSIBLY TO THEIR CONCLUSIONS OF PROBABILITY.  THE RULE OF PROBABLE
CAUSE IS A PRACTICAL, NONTECHNICAL CONCEPTION AFFORDING THE BEST
COMPROMISE THAT HAS BEEN FOUND FOR ACCOMMODATING THESE OFTEN OPPOSING
INTERESTS.  REQUIRING MORE WOULD UNDULY HAMPER LAW ENFORCEMENT.  TO
ALLOW LESS WOULD BE TO LEAVE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AT THE MERCY OF THE
OFFICERS' WHIM OR CAPRICE. 

THE TROUBLESOME LINE POSED BY THE FACTS IN THE CARROLL CASE AND THIS
CASE IS ONE BETWEEN MERE SUSPICION AND PROBABLE CAUSE.  THAT LINE
NECESSARILY MUST BE DRAWN BY AN ACT OF JUDGMENT FORMED IN THE LIGHT OF
THE PARTICULAR SITUATION AND WITH ACCOUNT TAKEN OF ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  NO PROBLEM OF SEARCHING THE HOME OR ANY OTHER PLACE OF
PRIVACY WAS PRESENTED EITHER IN CARROLL OR HERE.  BOTH CASES INVOLVE
FREEDOM TO USE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IN SWIFTLY MOVING VEHICLES FOR DEALING
IN CONTRABAND, AND TO BE UNMOLESTED BY INVESTIGATION AND SEARCH IN
THOSE MOVEMENTS.  IN SUCH A CASE THE CITIZEN WHO HAS GIVEN NO GOOD
CAUSE FOR BELIEVING HE IS ENGAGED IN THAT SORT OF ACTIVITY IS ENTITLED
TO PROCEED ON HIS WAY WITHOUT INTERFERENCE.  FN16  BUT ONE WHO RECENTLY
AND REPEATEDLY HAS GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT HE IS
ENGAGING IN THE FORBIDDEN TRANSPORTATION IN THE AREA OF HIS USUAL
OPERATIONS HAS NO SUCH IMMUNITY, IF THE OFFICER WHO INTERCEPTS HIM IN
THAT REGION KNOWS THAT FACT AT THE TIME HE MAKES THE INTERCEPTION AND
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT IS MADE ARE NOT SUCH AS TO INDICATE
THE SUSPECT IS GOING ABOUT LEGITIMATE AFFAIRS. 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN, AS SEEMS TO BE ASSUMED, THAT EVERY TRAVELER ALONG
THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS MAY BE STOPPED AND SEARCHED AT THE OFFICERS' WHIM,
CAPRICE OR MERE SUSPICION N17.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THE CARROLL
CASE LAY ON THE BORDER BETWEEN SUSPICION AND PROBABLE CAUSE.  BUT THE
COURT CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THAT PROBLEM AND RESOLVED IT BY CONCLUDING
THAT THE FACTS WITHIN THE OFFICERS' KNOWLEDGE WHEN THEY INTERCEPTED THE
CARROLL DEFENDANTS AMOUNTED TO MORE THAN MERE SUSPICION AND CONSTITUTED
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THEIR ACTION.  WE CANNOT SAY THIS CONCLUSION WAS
WRONG, OR WAS SO LACKING IN REASON AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT'S PURPOSES THAT IT SHOULD NOW BE OVERRIDDEN.  NOR, AS WE HAVE
SAID, CAN WE FIND IN THE PRESENT FACTS ANY SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR
DISTINGUISHING THIS CASE FROM THE CARROLL CASE. 

ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 3(A) OF THE LIQUOR ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT.
1928, 27 U.S.C. SEC. 223, PROVIDES:  "WHOEVER SHALL IMPORT, BRING, OR
TRANSPORT ANY INTOXICATING LIQUOR INTO ANY STATE IN WHICH ALL SALES
(EXCEPT FOR SCIENTIFIC, SACRAMENTAL, MEDICINAL, OR MECHANICAL PURPOSES)
OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR CONTAINING MORE THAN 4 PER CENTUM OF ALCOHOL BY
VOLUME ARE PROHIBITED, OTHERWISE THAN IN THE COURSE OF CONTINUOUS
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION THROUGH SUCH STATE, OR ATTEMPT SO TO DO, OR
ASSIST IN SO DOING, SHALL:  (1) IF SUCH LIQUOR IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY
SUCH PERMIT OR PERMITS, LICENSE OR LICENSES THEREFOR AS ARE NOW OR
HEREAFTER REQUIRED BY THE LAWS OF SUCH STATE; OR (2) IF ALL
IMPORTATION, BRINGING, OR TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR INTO
SUCH STATE IS PROHIBITED BY THE LAWS THEREOF; BE GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR AND SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT
MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH."  OKLA. SESS. LAWS, 1939, C. 16, ART. 1,
SEC. 1, IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PETITIONER'S ARREST, MADE IT UNLAWFUL
TO IMPORT OR CAUSE TO BE IMPORTED INTO THAT STATE, WITHOUT A PERMIT,
ANY INTOXICATING LIQUOR CONTAINING MORE THAN 4 PER CENT OF ALCOHOL BY
VOLUME.    FN2  "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS,
HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON
PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE
SEIZED."  U.S. CONST. AMEND. IV.    FN3  NEITHER THE OPINION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS NOR THE UNPUBLISHED OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT REFERS
TO THE CARROLL CASE. 

FN4  "THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT DENOUNCE ALL SEARCHES OR
SEIZURES, BUT ONLY SUCH AS ARE UNREASONABLE.  ...  ON REASON AND
AUTHORITY THE TRUE RULE IS THAT IF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITHOUT A
WARRANT ARE MADE UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, THAT IS, UPON A BELIEF,
REASONABLY ARISING OUT OF CIRCUMSTANCES KNOWN TO THE SEIZING OFFICER,
THAT AN AUTOMOBILE OR OTHER VEHICLE CONTAINS THAT WHICH BY LAW IS
SUBJECT TO SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION, THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ARE VALID." 
CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, 147, 149. 

FN5  THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE CHARGED IN CARROLL WAS VIOLATION OF THE
NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT, 41 STAT. 305; HERE, VIOLATION OF THE LIQUOR
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1936. 

FN6  IN THIS CASE IDENTIFICATION OF THE CAR AS HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY
USED BY BRINEGAR IN HIS LIQUOR-RUNNING ACTIVITIES WAS INFERENTIAL,
ALTHOUGH IDENTIFICATION OF ITS USE BY HIM IN JOPLIN, MO., HIS SOURCE OF
SUPPLY, WAS DIRECT AND UNDISPUTED. 

FN7  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO STRESSES THE FACT, NOT PRESENT IN THE
CARROLL CASE, OF FLIGHT BY BRINEGAR AFTER HE REALIZED HE WAS BEING
PURSUED.  WE FIND IT IS UNNECESSARY TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THIS FACTOR IN
DECIDING THIS CASE.  AS TO THE FACTOR OF FLIGHT, SEE HUSTY V. UNITED
STATES, 282 U.S. 694, 700-701; TALLEY V. UNITED STATES, 159 F.2D 703;
UNITED STATES V. HEITNER, 149 F.2D 105, 107; JONES V. UNITED STATES,
131 F.2D 539, 541; LEVINE V. UNITED STATES, 138 F.2D 627, 629. 

FN8  IT WAS UNLAWFUL TO IMPORT INTO OKLAHOMA, WITHOUT A PERMIT, ANY
INTOXICATING LIQUOR, AS DEFINED BY THE LAWS OF THAT STATE, CONTAINING
MORE THAN FOUR PER CENT OF ALCOHOL BY VOLUME.  SEE NOTE 1 SUPRA.
MANUFACTURE, SALE, FURNISHING OR TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR
WAS FORBIDDEN IN OKLAHOMA.  37 OKLA. STAT. SEC. 1(1941). 

FN9  INDEED THE SHOWING HERE WAS STRONGER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
NECESSITY, AS THERE WAS IN THE CARROLL CASE, FOR RESORTING TO JUDICIAL
NOTICE TO ESTABLISH EITHER THE PROBABLE SOURCE OF SUPPLY OR THAT IT WAS
ILLEGAL.  ON THE PRESENT RECORD JUDICIAL NOTICE IS HARDLY NEEDED TO
GIVE US COGNIZANCE OF THE DIFFERING LAWS OF MISSOURI AND OKLAHOMA, OR
OF JOPLIN'S PROXIMITY TO THE STATE LINE, AND ITS READY CONVENIENCE TO
ONE LIVING AS NEAR BY AS VINITA WHO MIGHT BE DISPOSED TO USE IT AS A
BASE OF SUPPLY FOR IMPORTING LIQUOR INTO OKLAHOMA IN VIOLATION OF THE
STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES. 

FN10  AS HAS BEEN NOTED ABOVE, THE CARROLL CASE IS NEITHER CITED NOR
REFERRED TO IN ANY OF THE OPINIONS FILED IN THE TRIAL COURT AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  NOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE RECORD BEFORE US
SHOWING THAT THE CARROLL DECISION WAS CONSIDERED IN ANY OF THE RULINGS
MADE IN THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS, AT THE TRIAL, OR IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS. 

FN11  THE COURT HOWEVER THOUGHT THAT, EVEN WITH THE FACT OF THE
ARREST BEFORE IT, THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE
AT THE TIME BRINEGAR PASSED THE POLICE CAR. 

FN12  THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF APPLYING THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AS A
CRITERION TO DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE IS APPARENT IN THE CASE OF AN
APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT BEFORE A MAGISTRATE, THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE
ISSUE OF PROBABLE CAUSE MOST FREQUENTLY ARISES.  THE ORDINARY RULES OF
EVIDENCE ARE GENERALLY NOT APPLIED IN EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS, "PARTLY
BECAUSE THERE IS NO OPPONENT TO INVOKE THEM, PARTLY BECAUSE THE JUDGE'S
DETERMINATION IS USUALLY DISCRETIONARY, PARTLY BECAUSE IT IS SELDOM
FINAL, BUT MAINLY BECAUSE THE SYSTEM OF EVIDENCE RULES WAS DEVISED FOR
THE SPECIAL CONTROL OF TRIALS BY JURY."  1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.,
1940) 19.  SEE ALSO NOTE, 46 HARV. L. REV. 1307, 1310-1311. 

FN13  BUT SEE, E.G., GRAU V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 124, 128, IN
WHICH IT WAS SAID BY WAY OF DICTUM THAT "A SEARCH WARRANT MAY ISSUE
ONLY UPON EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE COMPETENT IN THE TRIAL OF THE OFFENSE
BEFORE A JURY (GILES V. UNITED STATES, 284 FED. 208; WAGNER V. UNITED
STATES, 8 F.(2D) 581  ...  "  FOR THIS PROPOSITION THERE WAS NO
AUTHORITY IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  IT WAS STATED IN A CASE IN
WHICH THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED TO PROVE PROBABLE CAUSE WAS NOT INCOMPETENT,
BUT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INFERENCE NECESSARY TO THE
EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.  THE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN REPEATED BY
THIS COURT. 

THE WAGNER CASE RELIES SOLELY UPON GILES, THE OTHER CASE CITED IN
GRAU, AND HOLDS A WARRANT BAD WHICH ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF "HEARSAY AND
CONCLUSIONS."  THE GRAU DICTUM OCCASIONALLY HAS BEEN APPLIED OR STATED
AS DICTUM BY THE COURTS OF APPEALS AND DISTRICT COURTS:  SIMMONS V.
UNITED STATES, 18 F.2D 85, 88; WORTHINGTON V. UNITED STATES, 166 F.2D
557, 564-565; SEE ALSO REEVE V. HOWE, 33 F.SUPP.  619, 622; UNITED
STATES V. NOVERO, 58 F.SUPP.  275, 279.  CF. DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 35
F.2D 957.  SEE NOTE, 46 HARV. L. REV. 1307, 1310-1311, FOR A CRITICISM
OF THE GRAU DICTUM.  AND SEE NOTE 15, INFRA, AND TEXT. 

FN14  MARSHALL'S FULL STATEMENT IN LOCKE V. UNITED STATES WAS:  "IT
MAY BE ADDED, THAT THE TERM 'PROBABLE CAUSE,' ACCORDING TO ITS USUAL
ACCEPTATION, MEANS LESS THAN EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY CONDEMNATION;
AND, IN ALL CASES OF SEIZURE, HAS A FIXED AND WELL KNOWN MEANING.  IT
IMPORTS A SEIZURE MADE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WARRANT SUSPICION."  7
CRANCH 339, 348. 

FN15  TO THE SAME EFFECT ARE:  HUSTY V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 694,
700-701; DUMBRA V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 435, 441; STEELE V. UNITED
STATES NO. 1, 267 U.S. 498, 504-505; STACEY V. EMERY, 97 U.S. 642,
645. 

THE CARROLL OPINION ALSO QUOTES WITH APPROVAL THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT:  "IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE THE OFFICER ARE SUCH
AS TO WARRANT A MAN OF PRUDENCE AND CAUTION IN BELIEVING THAT THE
OFFENSE HAS BEEN COMMITTED, IT IS SUFFICIENT."  P. 161.  ASCRIPTION OF
THE STATEMENT TO LOCKE V. UNITED STATES, 7 CRANCH 339, APPEARS TO BE AN
ERROR IN CITATION. 

FN16  SEE THE DISCUSSION OF EXCEPTIONS IN THE CARROLL OPINION, 267
U.S. 132, 149 FF. 

FN17  "IT WOULD BE INTOLERABLE AND UNREASONABLE IF A PROHIBITION
AGENT WERE AUTHORIZED TO STOP EVERY AUTOMOBILE ON THE CHANCE OF FINDING
LIQUOR AND THUS SUBJECT ALL PERSONS LAWFULLY USING THE HIGHWAYS TO THE
INCONVENIENCE AND INDIGNITY OF SUCH A SEARCH.  TRAVELLERS MAY BE SO
STOPPED IN CROSSING AN INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY BECAUSE OF NATIONAL SELF
PROTECTION REASONABLY REQUIRING ONE ENTERING THE COUNTRY TO IDENTIFY
HIMSELF AS ENTITLED TO COME IN, AND HIS BELONGINGS AS EFFECTS WHICH MAY
BE LAWFULLY BROUGHT IN.  BUT THOSE LAWFULLY WITHIN THE COUNTRY,
ENTITLED TO USE THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE PASSAGE
WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR SEARCH UNLESS THERE IS KNOWN TO A COMPETENT
OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED TO SEARCH, PROBABLE CAUSE FOR BELIEVING THAT THEIR
VEHICLES ARE CARRYING CONTRABAND OR ILLEGAL MERCHANDISE."  CARROLL V.
UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, 153-154. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR
THE SEARCH WITHIN THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN CARROLL V. UNITED
STATES, 267 U.S. 132. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE NECESSARY PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH OF THE
PETITIONER'S CAR EXISTED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS CAUGHT UP WITH
HIM AND SAID TO HIM, "HOW MUCH LIQUOR HAVE YOU GOT IN THE CAR THIS
TIME?"  AND HE REPLIED, "NOT TOO MUCH," IT IS CLEAR, AND EACH OF THE
LOWER COURTS FOUND, THAT, UNDER ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
THE NECESSARY PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF THE PETITIONER'S CAR
THEN EXISTED.  IF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH EXISTED AT THAT POINT,
THE SEARCH WHICH THEN WAS BEGUN WAS LAWFUL WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT AS
IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  THAT SEARCH DISCLOSED
THAT A CRIME WAS IN THE COURSE OF ITS COMMISSION IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
ARRESTING OFFICERS, PRECISELY AS THOSE OFFICERS HAD GOOD REASON TO
BELIEVE WAS THE FACT.  THE ENSUING ARREST OF THE PETITIONER WAS LAWFUL
AND THE SUBSEQUENT DENIAL OF HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE
OBTAINED BY THE SEARCH WAS PROPERLY SUSTAINED. 

IT IS MY VIEW THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
CASE, TO ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH AT ANY POINT EARLIER
THAN THAT OF THE ABOVE COLLOQUY.  THE EARLIER EVENTS, RECITED IN THE
OPINION OF THE COURT, DISCLOSE AT LEAST AMPLE GROUNDS TO JUSTIFY THE
CHASE AND OFFICIAL INTERROGATION OF THE PETITIONER BY THE GOVERNMENT
AGENTS IN THE MANNER ADOPTED.  THIS INTERROGATION QUICKLY DISCLOSED
INDISPUTABLE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH AND FOR THE ARREST.  IN MY
VIEW, THESE EARLIER EVENTS NOT ONLY JUSTIFIED THE STEPS TAKEN BY THE
GOVERNMENT AGENTS BUT THOSE EVENTS IMPOSED UPON THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS A
POSITIVE DUTY TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER, IN SOME SUCH MANNER AS THEY
ADOPTED.  IT IS ONLY BY ALERTNESS TO PROPER OCCASIONS FOR PROMPT
INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS THAT EFFECTIVE PREVENTION OF CRIME AND
ENFORCEMENT OF LAW IS POSSIBLE.  GOVERNMENT AGENTS ARE COMMISSIONED TO
REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW AND
THIS REQUIRES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION NOT ONLY WHEN THERE IS REASONABLE
GROUND FOR AN ARREST OR PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH BUT WHEN THERE IS
REASONABLE GROUND FOR AN INVESTIGATION.  THIS IS INCREASINGLY TRUE WHEN
THE FACTS POINT DIRECTLY TO A CRIME IN THE COURSE OF COMMISSION IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE AGENT.  PROMPT INVESTIGATION MAY THEN NOT ONLY DISCOVER
BUT, WHAT IS STILL MORE IMPORTANT, MAY INTERRUPT THE CRIME AND PREVENT
SOME OR ALL OF ITS DAMAGING CONSEQUENCES. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, FROM THE MOMENT THAT THE AGENTS SAW THIS
PETITIONER DRIVING HIS HEAVILY LADEN CAR IN OKLAHOMA, EVIDENTLY EN
ROUTE FROM MISSOURI, THE EVENTS JUSTIFYING AND CALLING FOR AN
INTERROGATION OF HIM RAPIDLY GAINED CUMULATIVE FORCE.  NOTHING OCCURRED
THAT EVEN TENDED TO LESSEN THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ORIGINAL BASIS FOR
THE SUSPICION OF THE AGENTS THAT A CRIME WITHIN THEIR PARTICULAR LINE
OF DUTY WAS BEING COMMITTED IN THEIR PRESENCE.  NOTHING OCCURRED TO
MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR THEM, IN LINE OF DUTY, TO MAKE THE INTERROGATION
WHICH SUGGESTED ITSELF TO THEM.  WHEN THEIR INTERROGATION OF THE
PETITIONER LED TO HIS VOLUNTARY RESPONSE AS QUOTED ABOVE, THAT RESPONSE
DEMONSTRATED AMPLE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN IMMEDIATE SEARCH OF THE
PETITIONER'S CAR FOR THE CONTRABAND LIQUOR WHICH HE HAD INDICATED MIGHT
BE FOUND THERE.  THE INTERROGATION OF THE PETITIONER, THUS MADE BY THE
AGENTS IN THEIR JUSTIFIABLE INVESTIGATION OF A CRIME REASONABLY
SUSPECTED BY THEM TO BE IN THE COURSE OF COMMISSION IN THEIR PRESENCE,
CANNOT NOW BE RESORTED TO BY THE PETITIONER IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION TO
SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE OF THAT CRIME.  GOVERNMENT AGENTS HAVE DUTIES OF
CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIME DETECTION AS WELL AS THE DUTY OF ARRESTING
OFFENDERS CAUGHT IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME OR LATER IDENTIFIED AS
HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME.  THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FIRST DUTIES ARE AS
IMPORTANT AS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE LAST.  IN THIS CASE THE PERFORMANCE
OF THE FIRST HALTED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME AND ALSO RESULTED IN
THE ARREST OF THE OFFENDER. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

WHEN THIS COURT RECENTLY HAS PROMULGATED A PHILOSOPHY THAT SOME
RIGHTS DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION ARE ENTITLED TO "A PREFERRED
POSITION," MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 115, DISSENT AT P.
166; SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558, 562, I HAVE NOT AGREED.  WE CANNOT
GIVE SOME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS A PREFERRED POSITION WITHOUT RELEGATING
OTHERS TO A DEFERRED POSITION; WE CAN ESTABLISH NO FIRSTS WITHOUT
THEREBY ESTABLISHING SECONDS.  INDICATIONS ARE NOT WANTING THAT FOURTH
AMENDMENT FREEDOMS ARE TACITLY MARKED AS SECONDARY RIGHTS, TO BE
RELEGATED TO A DEFERRED POSITION. 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT STATES:  "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE
IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL
ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR
THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

THESE, I PROTEST, ARE NOT MERE SECOND-CLASS RIGHTS BUT BELONG IN THE
CATALOG OF INDISPENSABLE FREEDOMS.  AMONG DEPRIVATIONS OF RIGHTS, NONE
IS SO EFFECTIVE IN COWING A POPULATION, CRUSHING THE SPIRIT OF THE
INDIVIDUAL AND PUTTING TERROR IN EVERY HEART.  UNCONTROLLED SEARCH AND
SEIZURE IS ONE OF THE FIRST AND MOST EFFECTIVE WEAPONS IN THE ARSENAL
OF EVERY ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT.  AND ONE NEED ONLY BRIEFLY TO HAVE DWELT
AND WORKED AMONG A PEOPLE POSSESSED OF MANY ADMIRABLE QUALITIES BUT
DEPRIVED OF THESE RIGHTS TO KNOW THAT THE HUMAN PERSONALITY
DETERIORATES AND DIGNITY AND SELF-RELIANCE DISAPPEAR WHERE HOMES,
PERSONS AND POSSESSIONS ARE SUBJECT AT ANY HOUR TO UNHERALDED SEARCH
AND SEIZURE BY THE POLICE. 

BUT THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE AGAINST SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IS ONE OF
THE MOST DIFFICULT TO PROTECT.  SINCE THE OFFICERS ARE THEMSELVES THE
CHIEF INVADERS, THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT OUTSIDE OF COURT. 

ONLY OCCASIONAL AND MORE FLAGRANT ABUSES COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
COURTS, AND THEN ONLY THOSE WHERE THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE YIELDS
INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AND THE DEFENDANT IS AT LEAST SUFFICIENTLY
COMPROMISED TO BE INDICTED.  IF THE OFFICERS RAID A HOME, AN OFFICE, OR
STOP AND SEARCH AN AUTOMOBILE BUT FIND NOTHING INCRIMINATING, THIS
INVASION OF THE PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE INNOCENT TOO OFTEN FINDS NO
PRACTICAL REDRESS.  THERE MAY BE, AND I AM CONVINCED THAT THERE ARE,
MANY UNLAWFUL SEARCHES OF HOMES AND AUTOMOBILES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE
WHICH TURN UP NOTHING INCRIMINATING, IN WHICH NO ARREST IS MADE, ABOUT
WHICH COURTS DO NOTHING, AND ABOUT WHICH WE NEVER HEAR.    COURTS CAN
PROTECT THE INNOCENT AGAINST SUCH INVASIONS ONLY INDIRECTLY AND THROUGH
THE MEDIUM OF EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OBTAINED AGAINST THOSE WHO FREQUENTLY
ARE GUILTY.  FEDERAL COURTS HAVE USED THIS METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE
AMENDMENT, IN SPITE OF ITS UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES ON LAW ENFORCEMENT,
ALTHOUGH MANY STATE COURTS DO NOT.  THIS INCONSISTENCY DOES NOT DISTURB
ME, FOR LOCAL EXCESSES OR INVASIONS OF LIBERTY ARE MORE AMENABLE TO
POLITICAL CORRECTION, THE AMENDMENT WAS DIRECTED ONLY AGAINST THE NEW
AND CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT, AND ANY REALLY DANGEROUS THREAT TO THE
GENERAL LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE CAN COME ONLY FROM THIS SOURCE.  WE
MUST THEREFORE LOOK UPON THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL
PROSECUTIONS, IF OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE AMENDMENT, AS A MEANS OF
EXTENDING PROTECTION AGAINST THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S AGENCIES.  SO A
SEARCH AGAINST BRINEGAR'S CAR MUST BE REGARDED AS A SEARCH OF THE CAR
OF EVERYMAN. 

WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE EXTENT OF ANY PRIVILEGE OF SEARCH AND
SEIZURE WITHOUT WARRANT WHICH WE SUSTAIN, THE OFFICERS INTERPRET AND
APPLY THEMSELVES AND WILL PUSH TO THE LIMIT.  WE MUST REMEMBER, TOO,
THAT FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH DIFFERS FROM SOME OF THE OTHER
RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THAT THERE IS NO WAY IN WHICH THE
INNOCENT CITIZEN CAN INVOKE ADVANCE PROTECTION.  FOR EXAMPLE, ANY
EFFECTIVE INTERFERENCE WITH FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, OR FREE SPEECH, OR
RELIGION, USUALLY REQUIRES A COURSE OF SUPPRESSIONS AGAINST WHICH THE
CITIZEN CAN AND OFTEN DOES GO TO THE COURT AND OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION. 
OTHER RIGHTS, SUCH AS THAT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY OR THE AID OF COUNSEL,
ARE WITHIN THE SUPERVISORY POWER OF THE COURTS THEMSELVES.  SUCH A
RIGHT AS JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY MAY BE
VINDICATED AFTER THE ACT IN TERMS OF MONEY. 

BUT AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE USUALLY IS A SINGLE INCIDENT,
PERPETRATED BY SURPRISE, CONDUCTED IN HASTE, KEPT PURPOSELY BEYOND THE
COURT'S SUPERVISION AND LIMITED ONLY BY THE JUDGMENT AND MODERATION OF
OFFICERS WHOSE OWN INTERESTS AND RECORDS ARE OFTEN AT STAKE IN THE
SEARCH.  THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR INJUNCTION OR APPEAL TO
DISINTERESTED INTERVENTION.  THE CITIZEN'S CHOICE IS QUIETLY TO SUBMIT
TO WHATEVER THE OFFICERS UNDERTAKE OR TO RESIST AT RISK OF ARREST OR
IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE. 

AND WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE AUTHORITY WHICH WE CONCEDE TO CONDUCT
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WITHOUT WARRANT MAY BE EXERCISED BY THE MOST
UNFIT AND RUTHLESS OFFICERS AS WELL AS BY THE FIT AND RESPONSIBLE, AND
RESORTED TO IN CASE OF PETTY MISDEMEANORS AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF THE
GRAVEST FELONIES. 

WITH THIS PROLOGUE I COME TO THE CASE OF BRINEGAR.  HIS AUTOMOBILE
WAS ONE OF HIS "EFFECTS" AND HENCE WITHIN THE EXPRESS PROTECTION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT.  UNDOUBTEDLY THE AUTOMOBILE PRESENTS PECULIAR
PROBLEMS FOR ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, IS FREQUENTLY A FACILITY FOR THE
PERPETRATION OF CRIME AND AN AID IN THE ESCAPE OF CRIMINALS.  BUT IF WE
ARE TO MAKE JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FOR THESE
REASONS, IT SEEMS TO ME THEY SHOULD DEPEND SOMEWHAT UPON THE GRAVITY OF
THE OFFENSE.  IF WE ASSUME, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A CHILD IS KIDNAPED AND
THE OFFICERS THROW A ROADBLOCK ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEARCH EVERY
OUTGOING CAR, IT WOULD BE A DRASTIC AND UNDISCRIMINATING USE OF THE
SEARCH.  THE OFFICERS MIGHT BE UNABLE TO SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE FOR
SEARCHING ANY PARTICULAR CAR.  HOWEVER, I SHOULD CANDIDLY STRIVE HARD
TO SUSTAIN SUCH AN ACTION, EXECUTED FAIRLY AND IN GOOD FAITH, BECAUSE
IT MIGHT BE REASONABLE TO SUBJECT TRAVELERS TO THAT INDIGNITY IF IT WAS
THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE A THREATENED LIFE AND DETECT A VICIOUS CRIME.  BUT
I SHOULD NOT STRAIN TO SUSTAIN SUCH A ROADBLOCK AND UNIVERSAL SEARCH TO
SALVAGE A FEW BOTTLES OF BOURBON AND CATCH A BOOTLEGGER. 

THE COURT SUSTAINS THIS SEARCH AS AN APPLICATION OF CARROLL V. UNITED
STATES, 267 U.S. 132.  I DISSENT BECAUSE I REGARD IT AS AN EXTENSION OF
THE CARROLL CASE, WHICH ALREADY HAS BEEN TOO MUCH TAKEN BY ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS AS BLANKET AUTHORITY TO STOP AND SEARCH CARS ON SUSPICION.  I
SHALL CONFINE THIS OPINION TO SHOWING THE SEVERAL WAYS IN WHICH THIS
DECISION SEEMS TO EXPAND THE ALREADY EXPANSIVE RIGHT TO STOP AND SEARCH
AUTOMOBILES. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, NATIONAL PROHIBITION LEGISLATION WAS FOUND IN THE
CARROLL CASE TO HAVE PUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY BACK OF THE SEARCH
WITHOUT WARRANT OF CARS SUSPECTED OF ITS VIOLATION.  NO SUCH
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY EXISTS IN THIS CASE.  THE COURT IS VOLUNTARILY
DISPENSING WITH WARRANT IN THIS CASE AS MATTER OF JUDICIAL POLICY,
WHILE IN THE CARROLL CASE THE COURT COULD HAVE REQUIRED A WARRANT ONLY
BY HOLDING AN ACT OF CONGRESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL N1. 

A SECOND AND IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IS THAT IN THE CARROLL CASE THE
LOWER COURT HAD FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THAT
SEARCH, WHILE IN THIS CASE TWO COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD THAT (EXCEPT FOR
EVIDENCE TURNED UP AFTER THE SEARCH, WHICH WE CONSIDER LATER) THERE WAS
NOT PROBABLE CAUSE.  IF WE ASSUME THE FACTS TO BE INDISTINGUISHABLE,
THIS IMPORTANT DISTINCTION EMERGES FROM THE DECISIONS:  CARROLL HELD
ONLY THAT THESE FACTS PERMITTED A DISTRICT COURT, IF SO CONVINCED, TO
FIND PROBABLE CAUSE FROM THEM.  THE COURT NOW HOLDS THESE FACTS REQUIRE
A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE.  THIS SHIFT FROM A PERMISSIVE TO A
MANDATORY BASIS IS A SHIFT OF NO INCONSIDERABLE SIGNIFICANCE. 

WHILE THE COURT SUSTAINED THE SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT IN THE CARROLL
CASE, IT EMPHATICALLY DECLINED TO DISPENSE WITH THE NECESSITY FOR
EVIDENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR MAKING SUCH A SEARCH.  IT SAID:  "IT
WOULD BE INTOLERABLE AND UNREASONABLE IF A PROHIBITION AGENT WERE
AUTHORIZED TO STOP EVERY AUTOMOBILE ON THE CHANCE OF FINDING LIQUOR AND
THUS SUBJECT ALL PERSONS LAWFULLY USING THE HIGHWAYS TO THE
INCONVENIENCE AND INDIGNITY OF SUCH A SEARCH.  TRAVELLERS MAY BE SO
STOPPED IN CROSSING AN INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY BECAUSE OF NATIONAL SELF
PROTECTION REASONABLY REQUIRING ONE ENTERING THE COUNTRY TO IDENTIFY
HIMSELF AS ENTITLED TO COME IN, AND HIS BELONGINGS AS EFFECTS WHICH MAY
BE LAWFULLY BROUGHT IN.  BUT THOSE LAWFULLY WITHIN THE COUNTRY,
ENTITLED TO USE THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE PASSAGE
WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR SEARCH UNLESS THERE IS KNOWN TO A COMPETENT
OFFICIAL AUTHORIZED TO SEARCH, PROBABLE CAUSE FOR BELIEVING THAT THEIR
VEHICLES ARE CARRYING CONTRABAND OR ILLEGAL MERCHANDISE."  267 U.S. 132
AT 153. 

ANALYSIS OF THE CARROLL FACTS SHOWS THAT WHILE SEVERAL FACTS ARE
COMMON TO THE TWO CASES, THE SETTINGS FROM WHICH THOSE FACTS TAKE COLOR
AND MEANING DIFFER IN ESSENTIAL RESPECTS. 

IN THE CARROLL CASE, THE PRIMARY AND THE ULTIMATE FACT THAT THE
ACCUSED WAS ENGAGED IN LIQUOR RUNNING WAS NOT SURMISE OR HEARSAY, AS IT
IS HERE.  CARROLL AND HIS COMPANION, SOME TIME BEFORE THEIR ARREST, HAD
COME TO MEET THE TWO ARRESTING OFFICERS, NOT THEN KNOWN AS OFFICIALS,
UPON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE CUSTOMERS WANTING LIQUOR. 
CARROLL PROMISED TO SELL AND DELIVER THEM THREE CASES AT $130 A CASE. 
FOR SOME REASON THERE WAS A FAILURE TO DELIVER, BUT WHEN THE OFFICERS
ARRESTED THEM THEY HAD THIS POSITIVE AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THESE
MEN WERE TRAFFICKING IN LIQUOR.  ALSO, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE
OFFICERS, WHEN BARGAINING FOR LIQUOR, SAW AND LEARNED THE NUMBER OF THE
CAR THESE BOOTLEGGERS WERE USING IN THE BUSINESS AND, AT THE TIME OF
THE ARREST, RECOGNIZED IT AS THE SAME CAR. 

THEN THIS COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THE PLACE WHENCE CARROLL,
WHEN STOPPED, WAS COMING, ON THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY, "IS ONE OF THE
MOST ACTIVE CENTERS FOR INTRODUCING ILLEGALLY INTO THIS COUNTRY
SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS FOR DISTRIBUTION INTO THE INTERIOR."  267 U.S. AT
160.  THESE FACTS PROVIDED THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE OPINION OF THIS
COURT ON THE SUBJECT OF PROBABLE CAUSE, WHICH IT SUMMED UP AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE PARTNERS IN THE ORIGINAL COMBINATION TO SELL LIQUOR IN GRAND
RAPIDS WERE TOGETHER IN THE SAME AUTOMOBILE THEY HAD BEEN IN THE NIGHT
WHEN THEY TRIED TO FURNISH THE WHISKEY TO THE OFFICERS WHICH WAS THUS
IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE FIRM EQUIPMENT.  THEY WERE COMING FROM THE
DIRECTION OF THE GREAT SOURCE OF SUPPLY FOR THEIR STOCK TO GRAND RAPIDS
WHERE THEY PLIED THEIR TRADE.  THAT THE OFFICERS WHEN THEY SAW THE
DEFENDANTS BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE CARRYING LIQUOR WE CAN HAVE NO
DOUBT, AND WE THINK IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THEY HAD REASONABLE CAUSE
FOR THINKING SO."  267 U.S. AT 160. 

NOT ONLY DID THE COURT RELY ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON INFORMATION GAINED
IN PERSONAL NEGOTIATIONS OF THE OFFICERS TO BUY LIQUOR FROM DEFENDANTS
TO SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE, BUT THE DISSENTING MEMBERS ASSERTED IT TO BE
THE ONLY CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH COULD HAVE SUBJECTED THE ACCUSED TO ANY
REASONABLE SUSPICION.  AND THAT IS THE SORT OF DIRECT EVIDENCE ON
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT IS LACKING HERE. 

IN CONTRAST, THE PROOF THAT BRINEGAR WAS TRAFFICKING IN ILLEGAL
LIQUOR RESTS ON INFERENCES FROM TWO CIRCUMSTANCES, NEITHER ONE OF WHICH
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PROVED AT A TRIAL:  ONE, IT APPEARS THAT THE
SAME OFFICERS PREVIOUSLY HAD ARRESTED BRINEGAR ON THE SAME CHARGE.  BUT
THERE HAD BEEN NO CONVICTION AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FORMER ARREST INDICATED ANY STRONG PROBABILITY OF
IT.  IN ANY EVENT, THIS EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR ARREST OF THE ACCUSED WOULD
NOT EVEN BE ADMISSIBLE IN A TRIAL TO PROVE HIS GUILT ON THIS OCCASION. 

AS A SECOND BASIS FOR INFERENCE, THE OFFICERS ALSO SAY THAT BRINEGAR
HAD THE REPUTATION OF BEING A LIQUOR RUNNER.  THE WEAKNESS OF THIS
HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS REVEALED BY CONTRASTING IT WITH THE PERSONAL
NEGOTIATIONS WHICH PROVED THAT CARROLL WAS ONE.  THE OFFICERS'
TESTIMONY OF REPUTATION WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN A TRIAL OF DEFENDANT
UNLESS HE WAS UNWISE ENOUGH TO OPEN THE SUBJECT HIMSELF BY OFFERING
CHARACTER TESTIMONY.  SEE GREER V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 559, 560. 

I DO NOT SAY THAT NO EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE TO PROVE
GUILT AT A TRIAL MAY BE CONSIDERED IN WEIGHING PROBABLE CAUSE, BUT I AM
SURPRISED THAT THE COURT IS READY TO RULE THAT INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
ALONE, AS TO VITAL FACTS WITHOUT WHICH OTHER FACTS GIVE LITTLE
INDICATION OF GUILT, ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE AS MATTER OF LAW.  THE
ONLY OTHER FACT IS THAT OFFICER MALSED STATED THAT TWICE, ON SEPTEMBER
23 AND ON SEPTEMBER 30, ABOUT SIX MONTHS BEFORE THIS ARREST, HE SAW
BRINEGAR IN A MISSOURI TOWN, WHERE LIQUOR IS LAWFUL, LOADING LIQUOR
INTO A TRUCK, NOT THE CAR IN THIS CASE.  THAT IS ALL.  THE COURT FROM
THAT DRAWS THE INFERENCE WHICH THE COURTS BELOW, FAMILIAR WE PRESUME
WITH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS, REFUSED TO DRAW, VIZ., THAT TO BE SEEN
LOADING LIQUOR INTO A TRUCK WHERE IT IS LAWFUL IS PROOF THAT DEFENDANT
IS UNLAWFULLY TRAFFICKING IN LIQUOR SOME DISTANCE AWAY.  THERE IS NOT,
AS IN THE CARROLL CASE, EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS OFFERING LIQUOR FOR SALE
TO ANYBODY AT ANY TIME.  IN THE CARROLL CASE, THE OFFER TO SELL LIQUOR
TO THE OFFICERS WOULD ITSELF HAVE BEEN A LAW VIOLATION.  IT SEEMS
RATHER FOGGY REASONING TO SAY THAT THE COURTS ARE OBLIGED TO DRAW THE
SAME CONCLUSION FROM LEGAL CONDUCT AS FROM ILLEGAL CONDUCT. 

I THINK WE CANNOT SAY THE LOWER COURTS WERE WRONG AS MATTER OF LAW IN
HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE UP TO THE TIME THE CAR WAS PUT
OFF THE ROAD AND STOPPED, AND THAT WE CANNOT SAY IT WAS PROPER TO
CONSIDER THE DEFICIENCY SUPPLIED BY WHAT FOLLOWED.  WHEN THESE OFFICERS
ENGAGED IN A CHASE AT SPEEDS DANGEROUS TO THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED, AND
TO OTHER LAWFUL WAYFARERS, AND DITCHED THE DEFENDANT'S CAR, THEY WERE
EITHER TAKING THE INITIAL STEPS IN ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE, OR THEY
WERE COMMITTING A COMPLETELY LAWLESS AND UNJUSTIFIABLE ACT.  THAT THEY
INTENDED TO SET OUT ON A SEARCH IS UNQUESTIONED, AND THERE SEEMS NO
REASON TO DOUBT THAT IN THEIR OWN MINDS THEY THOUGHT THERE WAS CAUSE
AND RIGHT TO SEARCH.  THEY HAVE DONE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE DONE,
AND DONE RIGHTFULLY, IF THEY HAD BEEN EXECUTING A WARRANT.  AT ALL
EVENTS, WHATEVER IT MAY HAVE LACKED TECHNICALLY OF ARREST, SEARCH AND
SEIZURE, IT WAS A FORM OF COERCION AND DURESS UNDER COLOR OF OFFICIAL
AUTHORITY - AND A VERY FORMIDABLE TYPE OF DURESS AT THAT. 

I DO NOT, OF COURSE, CONTEND THAT OFFICIALS MAY NEVER STOP A CAR ON
THE HIGHWAY WITHOUT THE HALTING BEING CONSIDERED AN ARREST OR A
SEARCH.  REGULATIONS OF TRAFFIC, IDENTIFICATIONS WHERE PROPER, TRAFFIC
CENSUS, QUARANTINE REGULATIONS, AND MANY OTHER CAUSES GIVE OCCASION TO
STOP CARS IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT IMPLY ARREST OR CHARGE OF
CRIME.  AND TO TRAIL OR PURSUE A SUSPECTED CAR TO ITS DESTINATION, TO
OBSERVE IT AND KEEP IT UNDER SURVEILLANCE, IS NOT IN ITSELF AN ARREST
NOR A SEARCH.  BUT WHEN A CAR IS FORCED OFF THE ROAD, SUMMONED TO STOP
BY A SIREN, AND BROUGHT TO A HALT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS ARE HERE
DISCLOSED, WE THINK THE OFFICERS ARE THEN IN THE POSITION OF ONE WHO
HAS ENTERED A HOME:  THE SEARCH AT ITS COMMENCEMENT MUST BE VALID AND
CANNOT BE SAVED BY WHAT IT TURNS UP.  JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333
U.S. 10; MCDONALD V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 451; AND SEE NUESLEIN V.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 73 APP. D.C. 85, 115 F.2D 690. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS SEARCH
BEGAN AND PROCEEDED THROUGH CRITICAL AND COERCIVE PHASES WITHOUT THE
JUSTIFICATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE.  WHAT IT YIELDED CANNOT SAVE IT.  I
WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT.    FN1  THE CARROLL CASE WAS BASED ON THE
NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT, 41 STAT. 305.  SECTION 26 OF THAT STATUTE
PROVIDED THAT WHEN AN OFFICER DISCOVERED ANY PERSON TRANSPORTING LIQUOR
IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, IN ANY VEHICLE, IT WAS THE OFFICER'S DUTY TO
SEIZE THE LIQUOR, TAKE POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE, AND ARREST ANY PERSON
FOUND IN CHARGE THEREOF.  THE OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO PROCEED AT ONCE
AGAINST ANY SUCH PERSON BUT, IF NO ONE WAS FOUND CLAIMING THE VEHICLE,
IT WAS TO BE SOLD AFTER APPROPRIATE NOTICE AND THE PROCEEDS PAID INTO
THE TREASURY.  SECTION 25 OF THE ACT AUTHORIZED SEARCH WARRANTS FOR
PRIVATE DWELLINGS BUT ONLY IF THEY WERE BEING USED IN THE ILLICIT
LIQUOR BUSINESS. 

IT HAD BEEN PROPOSED TO AMEND THE STATUTE TO FORBID SEARCH OF AN
AUTOMOBILE WITHOUT WARRANT.  AFTER DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND
THE SENATE, THAT RESTRICTION WAS FINALLY REJECTED.  IN THE CARROLL
CASE, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS PROPOSED (STANLEY) AMENDMENT WAS
CONSIDERED AT LENGTH.  267 U.S. 144-146.  THE COURT THEN CONCLUDED, 267
U.S. 147, THAT, WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT, THE ACT "LEFT THE WAY OPEN FOR
SEARCHING AN AUTOMOBILE  ... WITHOUT A WARRANT, IF THE SEARCH WAS NOT
MALICIOUS OR WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE."  AND IT STATED THE ISSUE THUS:
"THE INTENT OF CONGRESS TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE NECESSITY FOR
A SEARCH WARRANT IN THE SEARCHING OF PRIVATE DWELLINGS AND IN THAT OF
AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER ROAD VEHICLES IS N THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
PROHIBITION ACT IS THUS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF THE STANLEY AMENDMENT.  IS SUCH A DISTINCTION CONSISTENT WITH THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT?  ...  " 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

..END :





















EISLER V. UNITED STATES, 338 U.S. 189 


NO. 255.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 27, 1949. 


IN VIEW OF PETITIONER'S FLIGHT FROM THE COUNTRY AFTER THE GRANT OF HIS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF THE CAUSE
ON THE MERITS, WHICH MAY HAVE RENDERED MOOT ANY JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS,
THE CAUSE WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE DOCKET AND, AFTER THIS TERM, WILL BE
LEFT OFF THE DOCKET UNTIL A DIRECTION TO THE CONTRARY SHALL ISSUE.  P.
190. 

EISLER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR A VIOLATION OF R.S. SEC. 102, AS AMENDED, 2
U.S.C. SEC. 192.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  83 U.S. APP. D.C. 315,
170 F.2D 273.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 857.  THE CAUSE
IS REMOVED FROM THE DOCKET UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, P. 190. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER'S FLIGHT FROM THE COUNTRY AFTER THE GRANT OF HIS PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF HIS CAUSE ON THE
MERITS NECESSITATES A DECISION AS TO THE DISPOSITION NOW TO BE MADE OF
THIS CASE.  SINCE THE PETITIONER BY HIS OWN VOLITION MAY HAVE RENDERED
MOOT ANY JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS, WE MUST, AS A MATTER OF OUR OWN
PRACTICE, DECIDE WHETHER THE SUBMISSION SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI DISMISSED OR WHETHER WE SHOULD POSTPONE REVIEW
INDEFINITELY BY ORDERING THE CASE REMOVED FROM THE DOCKET, PENDING THE
RETURN OF THE FUGITIVE. 

OUR PRACTICE, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN TO ORDER SUCH CASES TO BE REMOVED
FROM THE DOCKET.  SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 94 U.S. 97; BONAHAN V.
NEBRASKA, 125 U.S. 692.  WE ADHERE TO THOSE PRECEDENTS.  ACCORDINGLY
AFTER THIS TERM THE CAUSE WILL BE LEFT OFF THE DOCKET UNTIL A DIRECTION
TO THE CONTRARY SHALL ISSUE. 

WHILE MR. JUSTICE BURTON HAS NOT PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSIDERATION OF
THE MERITS OF THIS CASE, HE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCEDURAL ACTION
BASED UPON THE MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CALLING
THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT TO THE PETITIONER'S FLIGHT FROM JUSTICE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH, IN ITS VIEW, HAVE DEPRIVED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION TO
ADJUDICATE THIS CASE.  ACCORDINGLY THE GOVERNMENT, BY WAY OF
SUGGESTION, HAS MOVED THE COURT FOR ITS DISMISSAL.  THE MOTION SHOULD
BE GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 

1.  EISLER WAS CONVICTED FOR CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS BY THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND INVOKED THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT BY A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED AUGUST
31, 1948, SEEKING THE DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS SOME OF WHICH AT LEAST
WE REGARDED AS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO WARRANT REVIEW.  WE ACCORDINGLY
GRANTED HIS PETITION.  335 U.S. 857.  THE CASE WAS ARGUED MARCH 28,
1949, AND AWAITED ONLY FINAL DISPOSITION WHEN, ON MAY 6, 1949, THE
PETITIONER FLED THE UNITED STATES.  ON MAY 13, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
REQUESTED THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE APPLICATION THROUGH THE USUAL
DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS FOR THE RETURN OF EISLER TO THE UNITED STATES. 
THAT APPLICATION WAS MADE, IT WAS RESISTED BY EISLER, AND ON MAY 27 THE
ENGLISH COURT WITH FINAL AUTHORITY IN SUCH MATTERS DISMISSED IT ON THE
GROUND THAT THE CRIME FOR WHICH EISLER'S EXTRADITION WAS SOUGHT - THE
MAKING OF FALSE STATEMENTS IN AN APPLICATION FOR AN EXIT PERMIT - WAS
NOT EXTRADITABLE.  SINCE THEN EISLER HAS FORMALLY REPUDIATED THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COUNTRY AND HAS BEEN ELECTED TO POLITICAL OFFICE
IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS ABANDONED ALL ATTEMPTS
TO SECURE HIS RETURN.  THE UPSHOT IS THAT THE ABSTRACT QUESTIONS
BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT BY EISLER ARE NO LONGER ATTACHED TO ANY
LITIGANT.  NO MATTER REMAINS BEFORE US AS TO WHICH WE COULD ISSUE
PROCESS. 

2.  VERY EARLY AFTER THE REPUBLIC WAS FOUNDED IT WAS CONFRONTED BY AN
EMERGENCY IN WHICH ITS VERY EXISTENCE WAS THREATENED.  SERIOUS
QUESTIONS TOUCHING THE LEGAL POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO DEAL WITH THE
CRISIS AROSE, AND WASHINGTON SOUGHT ANSWERS TO THESE LEGAL QUESTIONS
FROM THIS COURT.  EVEN UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SO COMPELLING, THE FIRST
CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS ASSOCIATES HAD TO DENY PRESIDENT WASHINGTON'S
REQUEST FOR AID BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION GAVE THIS COURT NO POWER TO
GIVE ANSWERS TO LEGAL QUESTIONS AS SUCH BUT MERELY THE AUTHORITY TO
DECIDE THEM WHEN A LITIGANT WAS BEFORE THE COURT.  SEE 3 JOHNSTON,
CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS OF JOHN JAY 486(1891); 10 SPARKS,
WRITINGS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON 542(1840).  THAT RECOGNITION OF THE
LIMITED POWER OF THIS COURT HAS BEEN UNQUESTIONED EVER SINCE 1793.  IT
HAS BEEN THE PRINCIPLE BY WHICH CASES FORMALLY BEFORE THE COURT HAVE
AGAIN AND AGAIN BEEN DISMISSED AS BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION.  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAVE CALLED FORTH APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE HAVE
VARIED GREATLY, BUT ALL THE INSTANCES OF ITS APPLICATION ILLUSTRATE AND
CONFIRM THE BASIC LIMITATION UNDER WHICH THIS COURT FUNCTIONS, NAMELY,
THAT IT CAN ENTERTAIN A CASE AND DECIDE IT ONLY IF THERE IS A LITIGANT
BEFORE IT AGAINST WHOM THE COURT MAY ENFORCE ITS DECISION. 

3.  IF LEGAL QUESTIONS BROUGHT BY A LITIGANT ARE TO REMAIN HERE, THE
LITIGANT MUST STAY WITH THEM.  WHEN HE WITHDRAWS HIMSELF FROM THE POWER
OF THE COURT TO ENFORCE ITS JUDGMENT, HE ALSO WITHDRAWS THE QUESTIONS
WHICH HE HAD SUBMITTED TO THE COURT'S ADJUDICATION.  THE QUESTIONS
BROUGHT BY EISLER HAVE EVAPORATED SO FAR AS THE COURT'S POWER TO DEAL
WITH THEM IS CONCERNED BECAUSE THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A LITIGANT
NO LONGER DEPEND ON THEIR ANSWER.  THE COURT THEREFORE LACKS
JURISDICTION AS IT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ANSWER WASHINGTON'S
QUESTIONS.  NOT TO DISMISS THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION CAN ONLY
MEAN THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE MUST RETAIN THE
CASE.  AND THIS, IN TURN, CAN ONLY MEAN THAT THE COURT'S EVENTUAL
ACTION MUST AWAIT THE PLEASURE OF EISLER AND OF EVERY FUTURE LITIGANT
WHO, HAVING INVOKED THE COURT'S JURISDICTION, WITHDRAWS HIMSELF BEYOND
THE MEANS OF ASSERTING IT.  EISLER'S POLITICAL AFFILIATION, OF COURSE,
DOES NOT DISTINGUISH HIM FROM OTHER LITIGANTS.  IT WAS IRRELEVANT WHEN
THE COURT TOOK HIS CASE AT A TIME THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER HIM; IT
IS EQUALLY IRRELEVANT TO RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT EISLER HAS PUT
HIMSELF DEFINITIVELY BEYOND THE COURT'S PROCESS WERE IT TO DECIDE
AGAINST HIM.  SINCE THE COURT IS WITHOUT POWER EFFECTIVELY TO DECIDE
AGAINST HIM, IT IS WITHOUT POWER TO DECIDE AT ALL.  IN SHORT, THE COURT
NO LONGER HAS JURISDICTION, AND IT WOULD BE EQUALLY WITHOUT
JURISDICTION IF EISLER WERE THE BOURBON PRETENDER. 

4.  THIS CASE HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH INSTANCES CITED AS PRECEDENT
FOR LEAVING IT OFF THE DOCKET UNTIL A DIRECTION TO THE CONTRARY SHALL
ISSUE.  SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 94 U.S. 97; BONAHAN V. NEBRASKA, 125
U.S. 692.  IN THOSE CASES CONVICTS HAD BROKEN JAIL WHILE THEIR CASES
WERE PENDING IN THIS COURT AND REMAINED AT LARGE.  AS A MATTER OF
PRACTICAL GOOD SENSE, APPARENTLY UPON INFORMAL SUGGESTION, THE COURT
SUSPENDED DISPOSITION OF THE CASES UNTIL IT SHOULD RECEIVE WORD FROM
THE SHERIFF WHO REPORTED THE ESCAPE THAT A RECAPTURE HAD BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED.  SUCH JAILBREAKS, INDEED, AS OFTEN AS NOT IMPLY A MERELY
TEMPORARY SEPARATION FROM CONFINEMENT.  BUT WHATEVER MAY BE THOUGHT OF
SUCH A LIGHT-REINED WAY OF DEALING WITH A JAILBREAK FROM OUR LOCAL
JAILS, THE SITUATION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.  HERE
WE HAVE THE MOST FORMAL KIND OF RESISTANCE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT.  IT HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED SUCCESSFUL, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HAS HAD TO YIELD.  SINCE THE COURT'S POWER TO REASSERT JURISDICTION HAS
BEEN INCONTESTABLY DENIED, THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE PETITIONER IS AN ALIEN, A COMMUNIST, AND A FUGITIVE FROM
JUSTICE.  HE WAS CONVICTED OF WILLFUL DEFAULT BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF
CONGRESS.  WE DECIDED TO HEAR THIS CASE AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE
ISSUES HE PRESENTED WERE OF IMPORTANCE.  WE HEARD ARGUMENT, READ
BRIEFS, AND ALL BUT MADE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF OUR DECISION. 

THEN THE PETITIONER LEFT THE COUNTRY.  EFFORTS AT EXTRADITION IN
GREAT BRITAIN WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.  THE PETITIONER IS NOW BEYOND THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  IT IS ARGUED THAT WE ARE
THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN THE CASE. 

WE CAN DECIDE ONLY CASES OR CONTROVERSIES.  A MOOT CASE IS NOT A
"CASE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART. III.  UNITED STATES V. EVANS, 213
U.S. 297.  BUT A MOOT CASE IS ONE IN WHICH THE PARTICULAR CONTROVERSY
CONFRONTING THE COURT HAS ENDED.  THAT IS NOT TRUE WHEN A PRISONER HAS
SIMPLY ESCAPED.  WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO ASSUME THAT ALL ESCAPED
DEFENDANTS WILL NEVER RETURN TO THE JURISDICTION.  AND THE IMPORTANCE
OF A CRIMINAL JUDGMENT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPRISONMENT OF THE
DEFENDANT.  THUS AN ALIEN CONVICTED OF CRIME IS EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION
TO THE UNITED STATES, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 136(E). 

SINCE THE QUESTION IS ONE OF JURISDICTION, THE UNLIKELIHOOD OF
PREJUDICE TO THIS PETITIONER IS IRRELEVANT.  EQUALLY IRRELEVANT ON THE
QUESTION OF MOOTNESS IS PRESIDENT WASHINGTON'S REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY
OPINION.  THAT THE CASE MAY BECOME MOOT IF A DEFENDANT DOES NOT RETURN
DOES NOT DISTINGUISH IT FROM ANY OTHER CASE WE DECIDE.  FOR SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS MAY RENDER ANY DECISION NUGATORY.  THE PETITIONER HAVING
SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO OUR JURISDICTION BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW,
HE CANNOT NOW REVOKE OR NULLIFY IT AND THUS PREVENT AN ADJUDICATION OF
THE QUESTIONS AT ISSUE MERELY BY LEAVING THE COUNTRY AND REPUDIATING
ITS AUTHORITY.  THUS I ENTIRELY AGREE WITH THOSE OF MY BRETHREN WHO
BELIEVE WE HAVE JURISDICTION. 

BUT THE COURT ADOPTS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE.  IT EXERCISES ITS
DISCRETION AND REFUSES TO DECIDE THE ISSUE.  IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, AS
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON POINTS OUT, THAT IT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LEGAL
ISSUES, NOT THE PARTIES, WHICH BRING THE CASE TO THIS COURT.  THOSE
ISSUES DID NOT LEAVE WHEN EISLER DID.  THEY REMAIN HERE FOR DECISION;
THEY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO THE PROFESSION AND TO THE PUBLIC. 

LAW IS AT ITS LOFTIEST WHEN IT EXAMINES CLAIMED INJUSTICE EVEN AT THE
INSTANCE OF ONE TO WHOM THE PUBLIC IS BITTERLY HOSTILE.  WE SHOULD BE
LOATH TO SHIRK OUR OBLIGATIONS, WHATEVER THE CREED OF THE PARTICULAR
PETITIONER.  OUR COUNTRY TAKES PRIDE IN REQUIRING OF ITS INSTITUTIONS
THE EXAMINATION AND CORRECTION OF ALLEGED INJUSTICE WHENEVER IT
OCCURS.  WE SHOULD NOT PERMIT AN AFFRONT OF THIS SORT TO DISTRACT US
FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES. 

I DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT A DECISION OF EISLER'S CASE SHOULD BE
INDEFINITELY DEFERRED, AWAITING WHAT I DO NOT KNOW.  THE CASE IS FULLY
SUBMITTED AND ALL THAT REMAINS IS FOR MEMBERS OF THE COURT TO HAND DOWN
THEIR OPINIONS AND THE DECISION.  EISLER'S PRESENCE FOR THAT WOULD BE
NEITHER NECESSARY NOR USUAL.  THE CASE HAS REACHED THIS STAGE AT
CONSIDERABLE DETRIMENT TO THE COUNTRY, SINCE THIS COURT'S GRANT OF HIS
PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS WHAT DELAYED EISLER'S COMMENCEMENT OF SENTENCE
AND AFFORDED HIM OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE.  IF EVER THERE WERE GOOD
REASONS TO GRANT HIM A REVIEW, THEY ARE EQUALLY GOOD REASONS FOR NOW
DECIDING ITS ISSUES. 

THE RULES OF THIS COURT PROVIDE THAT WE SHALL GRANT A PETITION FOR
REVIEW HERE ONLY WHERE THERE ARE "SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT REASONS
THEREFOR."  THEY LIMIT SUCH CASES TO THOSE THAT PRESENT "A QUESTION OF
GENERAL IMPORTANCE  ...  WHICH HAS NOT BEEN, BUT SHOULD BE, SETTLED BY
THIS COURT."  RULE 38. 

UNDER OUR PRACTICE, THE GRANT OF EISLER'S PETITION MEANT THAT FOUR
JUSTICES OF THIS COURT, AT LEAST, WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE QUESTIONS
HE RAISED WERE OF THIS DESCRIPTION.  IF THEY WERE THEN, THEY ARE
STILL.  HIS PETITION CHALLENGED THE POWER OF CONGRESS AND ITS
INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES TO HOLD, AND TO CONTROL THE PROCEDURES OF,
INVESTIGATIONS OF THIS NATURE.  THESE QUESTIONS ARE RECURRING ONES,
CERTAIN TO BE REPEATED, FOR THE GRANT OF A REVIEW HAS CAST DOUBT NOT
ONLY ON THE VALIDITY OF EISLER'S CONVICTION BUT UPON CONGRESSIONAL
PROCEDURES AS WELL.  NO ONE CAN KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS UNTIL THIS CASE IS
DECIDED OR UNTIL SOMEONE CAN CARRY A LIKE CASE THROUGH THE TWO LOWER
COURTS AGAIN TO GET THE QUESTION HERE. 

DECISION AT THIS TIME IS NOT URGED AS A FAVOR TO EISLER.  IF ONLY HIS
INTERESTS WERE INVOLVED, THEY MIGHT WELL BE FORFEITED BY HIS FLIGHT. 
BUT IT IS DUE TO CONGRESS AND TO FUTURE WITNESSES BEFORE ITS COMMITTEES
THAT WE HAND DOWN A FINAL DECISION.  I THEREFORE DISSENT FROM AN
EXPEDIENT THAT LENDS ADDED CREDENCE TO EISLER'S PETITION, WHICH I THINK
IS WITHOUT LEGAL MERIT.  I DO NOT THINK WE CAN RUN AWAY FROM THE CASE
JUST BECAUSE EISLER HAS. 

I SHOULD NOT WANT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS APPROVING THE USE THAT THE
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES HAS FREQUENTLY MADE OF ITS POWER. 
BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE AN UNWARRANTED ACT OF JUDICIAL USURPATION TO
STRIP CONGRESS OF ITS INVESTIGATORY POWER, OR TO ASSUME FOR THE COURTS
THE FUNCTION OF SUPERVISING CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.  I SHOULD AFFIRM
THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND LEAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS
COMMITTEES SQUARELY ON THE SHOULDERS OF CONGRESS.  FN1 

FN1  WHAT THE CONGRESS CAN WITH SAFETY DO, AFTER THIS COURT'S
DECISION IN CHRISTOFFEL V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 84, SEEMS TO PRESENT
A GOOD QUESTION. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. I.C.C., 337 U.S. 426 


NO. 330.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 78 F.SUPP. 
580, REVERSED. 


THE UNITED STATES, AS A SHIPPER, HAVING UNDERTAKEN TO PROVIDE WHARFAGE
AND HANDLING SERVICES AT CERTAIN PIERS, REQUESTED THE RAILROADS TO MAKE
AN ALLOWANCE FOR EXPENSES THUS INCURRED, SINCE THE SHIPSIDE RATES
ALLEGEDLY INCLUDED CHARGES FOR WHARFAGE AND HANDLING SERVICES.  THE
RAILROADS REFUSED TO MAKE AN ALLOWANCE AND TO PERFORM THE SERVICES. 
THE UNITED STATES THEREUPON FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT, IN REFUSING TO MAKE AN ALLOWANCE
FOR WHARFAGE AND HANDLING SERVICES, THE RAILROADS HAD EXACTED PAYMENT
OF RATES WHICH WERE UNREASONABLE, UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY, AND
OTHERWISE IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND ASKING THAT
THE COMMISSION FIND THE CHARGES UNLAWFUL AND AWARD THE GOVERNMENT
REPARATIONS.  THE COMMISSION DENIED REPARATIONS AND ORDERED THE
COMPLAINT DISMISSED.  THE UNITED STATES THEN SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION ORDER.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
AND THE UNITED STATES ITSELF WERE MADE DEFENDANTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT,
COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES, DISMISSED THE SUIT.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, HELD:  THE DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT WAS ERROR AND THE CASE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS.  PP. 428-430. 

1.  ALTHOUGH THE CASE BE THAT OF UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES ET
AL., THE PRINCIPLE THAT A PERSON MAY NOT MAINTAIN AN ACTION AGAINST
HIMSELF IS INAPPLICABLE, SINCE THERE ARE INVOLVED HERE CONTROVERSIES OF
A TYPE WHICH ARE TRADITIONALLY JUSTICIABLE.  PP. 430-431. 

2.  PROVISIONS OF LAW MAKING THE UNITED STATES A STATUTORY DEFENDANT
IN COURT ACTIONS CHALLENGING COMMISSION ORDERS DO NOT EVIDENCE A
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO BAR THE GOVERNMENT FROM CHALLENGING SUCH
ORDERS.  PP. 431-432. 

(A)  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT
TO PRESS A JUST CLAIM WHICH COULD BE VINDICATED ONLY BY CHALLENGING A
COMMISSION ORDER IN COURT.  P. 431. 

(B)  HOWEVER ANOMALOUS IT MAY BE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO APPEAR
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME CONTROVERSY, NOTHING IN THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO AMEND PRIOR STATUTES
WHICH IMPOSED PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SEEK
JUDICIAL REDRESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  PP. 431-432. 

(C)  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT CONTAINS ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR
PROTECTION OF COMMISSION ORDERS BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THE RAILROADS
WHEN, AS HERE, THEY ARE THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST; AND THE
COMMISSION AND THE RAILROADS IN THIS CASE HAVE AVAILED THEMSELVES OF
THE STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.  P. 432. 

3.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 41(28)(NOW SEC. 1336), AND THAT JURISDICTION WAS NOT BARRED IN
THIS CASE BY SEC. 9 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 9. 
PP. 432-440. 

(A)  SECTION 9 DOES NOT GIVE COMPLETE FINALITY TO A COMMISSION ORDER
MERELY BECAUSE A SHIPPER ELECTED TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE
COMMISSION.  PP. 433-440. 

(B)  A COMMISSION ORDER DISMISSING A SHIPPER'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
UNDER 49 U.S.C. SEC. 9 IS AN "ORDER" SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE UNDER 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(28)(NOW SEC. 1336).  PP. 440-441. 

4.  JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A COMMISSION ORDER DENYING REPARATIONS DOES
NOT REQUIRE A THREE-JUDGE COURT.  PP. 441-443. 

5.  THE FACT THAT THIS CASE WAS HEARD AND DETERMINED BY A DISTRICT
COURT OF THREE JUDGES, RATHER THAN BY ONE JUDGE, DOES NOT REQUIRE
DISMISSAL HERE; AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT.  PP.
443-444. 

UNITED STATES V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSED A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE
UNITED STATES TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION (269 I.C.C. 141) DENYING AN AWARD OF REPARATIONS TO THE
GOVERNMENT AS A SHIPPER.  78 F.SUPP.  580.  THE UNITED STATES TOOK A
DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 444. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IT IS CONTENDED HERE THAT THE UNITED STATES AS A SHIPPER IS BARRED
FROM CHALLENGING IN FEDERAL COURTS AN INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ORDER WHICH DENIES THE GOVERNMENT A RECOVERY IN DAMAGES FOR EXACTION OF
AN ALLEGEDLY UNLAWFUL RAILROAD RATE.  OTHER CONTENTIONS IF SUSTAINED
WOULD DENY FEDERAL COURTS ALL POWER TO ENTERTAIN AN ACTION BY ANY
SHIPPER CHALLENGING A COMMISSION ORDER DENYING DAMAGES TO THE SHIPPER. 

DURING THE WAR, EXISTING TARIFFS OF MANY RAILROADS EMBODIED WHARFAGE
CHARGES TO COMPENSATE THE RAILROADS FOR MOVING GOODS FROM RAILROAD CARS
TO PIERS AND FROM PIERS TO RAILROAD CARS.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES TOOK
OVER CERTAIN PIERS AT NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, IT BEGAN TO PERFORM THESE
WHARFAGE SERVICES FOR ITSELF AND REQUESTED THE RAILROADS TO MAKE THE
UNITED STATES AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN PERFORMING THE
SERVICES.  THE RAILROADS REFUSED TO MAKE AN ALLOWANCE.  UPON THIS
REFUSAL THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED THE RAILROADS TO PERFORM THE SERVICES
THEMSELVES.  THE RAILROADS REFUSED TO PERFORM THE SERVICES. 

THE UNITED STATES FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION A
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RAILROADS CHARGING THAT EXACTION OF PAY FOR
UNPERFORMED SERVICES WAS UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, DISCRIMINATORY,
EXCESSIVE, AND IN VIOLATION OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  FN1  THE COMPLAINT ASKED THE COMMISSION TO FIND THE
CHARGES UNLAWFUL.  FURTHER RELIEF ASKED, UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT,  FN2  WAS THAT THE GOVERNMENT BE AWARDED DAMAGES (REPARATIONS) ON
ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL EXACTIONS.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
THE CHARGES WERE NOT UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY, UNREASONABLE, OR
OTHERWISE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION DENIED
REPARATIONS AND ORDERED THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED.  UNITED STATES V.
ABERDEEN & ROCKFISH R. CO., 269 I.C.C. 141(1947). 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION ORDER.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT
THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ITS FINDINGS, THAT
THE FINDINGS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT THE
ORDER WAS BASED ON A MISAPPLICATION OF LAW AND WAS "OTHERWISE
ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND WITHOUT SUPPORT IN AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND
THE EVIDENCE."  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS MADE A
DEFENDANT.  THE UNITED STATES WAS ALSO MADE A DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF A
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT ANY ACTION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION "SHALL BE BROUGHT  ...  AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES."  28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  46, NOW SEC. 2322. 
RAILROADS THAT COLLECTED THE WHARFAGE CHARGES INTERVENED AS DEFENDANTS
UNDER AUTHORITY OF 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  45A, NOW SEC. 2323.  THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEARED FOR THE GOVERNMENT AS BOTH PLAINTIFF AND
DEFENDANT.  WITHOUT REACHING THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT
COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSED THE CAUSE ON THE THEORY THAT THE
GOVERNMENT COULD NOT MAINTAIN A SUIT AGAINST ITSELF.  THE COURT ALSO
INDICATED ITS BELIEF THAT A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
OF THE SUIT.  78 F.SUPP.  580.  THE CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL UNDER
28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  47A, NOW SEC. 1253. 

IN THIS COURT THE COMMISSION AND THE RAILROAD INTERVENOR DEFENDANTS
SUPPORT THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY THAT
COURT.  ALTERNATIVE REASONS ARE ALSO URGED.  WE HOLD THAT THE DISMISSAL
WAS ERROR AND THAT THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS. 

FIRST.  THERE IS MUCH ARGUMENT WITH CITATION OF MANY CASES TO
ESTABLISH THE LONG-RECOGNIZED GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT NO PERSON MAY SUE
HIMSELF.  PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS SOUND, FOR
COURTS ONLY ADJUDICATE JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSIES.  THEY DO NOT ENGAGE
IN THE ACADEMIC PASTIME OF RENDERING JUDGMENTS IN FAVOR OF PERSONS
AGAINST THEMSELVES.  THUS A SUIT FILED BY JOHN SMITH AGAINST JOHN SMITH
MIGHT PRESENT NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY WHICH COURTS COULD DETERMINE.  BUT
ONE PERSON NAMED JOHN SMITH MIGHT HAVE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WITH
ANOTHER JOHN SMITH.  THIS ILLUSTRATES THAT COURTS MUST LOOK BEHIND
NAMES THAT SYMBOLIZE THE PARTIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER A JUSTICIABLE
CASE OR CONTROVERSY IS PRESENTED. 

WHILE THIS CASE IS UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES, ET AL., IT
INVOLVES CONTROVERSIES OF A TYPE WHICH ARE TRADITIONALLY JUSTICIABLE. 
THE BASIC QUESTION IS WHETHER RAILROADS HAVE ILLEGALLY EXACTED SUMS OF
MONEY FROM THE UNITED STATES.  UNLESS BARRED BY STATUTE, THE GOVERNMENT
IS NOT LESS ENTITLED THAN ANY OTHER SHIPPER TO INVOKE ADMINISTRATIVE
AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION.  TO COLLECT THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL EXACTIONS FROM
THE RAILROADS THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  IN PURSUIT OF THE SAME OBJECTIVE THE
GOVERNMENT CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.  THIS
SUIT THEREFORE IS A STEP IN PROCEEDINGS TO SETTLE WHO IS LEGALLY
ENTITLED TO SUMS OF MONEY, THE GOVERNMENT OR THE RAILROADS.  THE ORDER
IF VALID WOULD DEFEAT THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM TO THAT MONEY.  BUT THE
GOVERNMENT CHARGED THAT THE ORDER WAS ISSUED ARBITRARILY AND WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  THIS CHARGE ALONE WOULD BE ENOUGH TO PRESENT A
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 262
266.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT A PERSON CANNOT
CREATE A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY AGAINST HIMSELF HAS NO APPLICATION
HERE. 

SECOND.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT MAKING THE
GOVERNMENT A STATUTORY DEFENDANT IN COURT ACTIONS CHALLENGING
COMMISSION ORDERS, SHOW A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO BAR THE GOVERNMENT
FROM CHALLENGING SUCH ORDERS.  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS CITED IN SUPPORT
OF THIS CONTENTION.  IF THE CONTENTION BE ACCEPTED, CONGRESS BY MAKING
THE GOVERNMENT A STATUTORY DEFENDANT IN SUCH CASES HAS DEPRIVED THE
UNITED STATES AS A SHIPPER OF POWERS OF SELF-PROTECTION ACCORDED ALL
OTHER SHIPPERS.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PRESS A JUST CLAIM WHICH COULD BE
VINDICATED ONLY BY A COURT CHALLENGE OF A COMMISSION ORDER.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. SAN JACINTO TIN CO., 125 U.S. 273, 279. 

IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND FOR THE
GOVERNMENT TO PRESS ITS CLAIMS AS A SHIPPER, THE COMMISSION AND
RAILROADS EMPHASIZE THE ANOMALY OF HAVING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEAR
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME CONTROVERSY.  HOWEVER ANOMALOUS, THIS
SITUATION RESULTS FROM THE STATUTES DEFINING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
DUTIES.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT REQUIRES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
APPEAR FOR THE GOVERNMENT AS A STATUTORY DEFENDANT IN CASES CHALLENGING
COMMISSION ORDERS.  28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  45A, NOW SEC. 2323. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ALSO UNDER A STATUTORY DUTY "TO DETERMINE WHEN
THE UNITED STATES SHALL SUE, TO DECIDE FOR WHAT IT SHALL SUE, AND TO BE
RESPONSIBLE THAT SUCH SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT IN APPROPRIATE CASES." 
UNITED STATES V. SAN JACINTO TIN CO., 125 U.S. 273, 279.  SEE ALSO
UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19, 26-29.  NOTHING IN THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO AMEND
PRIOR STATUTES WHICH HAD IMPOSED PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY ON THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO SEEK JUDICIAL REDRESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 

ALTHOUGH THE FORMAL APPEARANCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
GOVERNMENT AS STATUTORY DEFENDANT DOES CREATE A SURFACE ANOMALY, HIS
REPRESENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT AS A SHIPPER DOES NOT IN ANY WAY
PREVENT A FULL DEFENSE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT CONTAINS ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR PROTECTION OF COMMISSION
ORDERS BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THE RAILROADS WHEN, AS HERE, THEY ARE
THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.  FOR, WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEFENDS OR NOT, THE COMMISSION AND THE RAILROADS ARE AUTHORIZED TO
INTERPOSE ALL DEFENSES TO THE GOVERNMENT'S CHARGES AND CLAIMS THAT CAN
BE INTERPOSED TO CHARGES AND CLAIMS OF OTHER SHIPPERS.  IN THIS CASE
THE COMMISSION AND THE RAILROADS HAVE AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THIS
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.  THEY HAVE VIGOROUSLY DEFENDED THE LEGALITY OF
THE ALLOWANCES AND THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION ORDER AT EVERY STAGE
OF THE LITIGATION. 

THIRD.  28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  41(28)  FN3  PROVIDES THAT "THE
DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  ...  OF CASES BROUGHT
TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL, OR SUSPEND IN WHOLE OR IN PART ANY ORDER
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION."  THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS
ORDER IF UPHELD WILL FINALLY RELIEVE THE RAILROAD OF ANY OBLIGATIONS TO
THE GOVERNMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL CHARGES; THE ORDER
THUS FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE TYPE MADE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW BY
SEC. 41(28).  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125,
131-132, 142-143; EL DORADO OIL WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 12, 18
19. 

THE COMMISSION AND THE RAILROADS CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT SEC. 9 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 9, BARS THE UNITED STATES OR
ANY OTHER SHIPPER FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ORDER DENYING DAMAGES IN
REPARATION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  SECTION 9
PROVIDES IN PART: 

"ANY PERSON OR PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE DAMAGED BY ANY COMMON CARRIER
...  MAY EITHER MAKE COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION  ...  OR MAY BRING
SUIT  ...  FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE DAMAGES  ...  IN ANY DISTRICT COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION; BUT SUCH PERSON OR
PERSONS SHALL NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PURSUE BOTH OF SAID REMEDIES, AND
MUST IN EACH CASE ELECT WHICH ONE OF THE TWO METHODS OF PROCEDURE
HEREIN PROVIDED FOR HE OR THEY WILL ADOPT." 

THE CONTENTION OF THE COMMISSION AND THE RAILROADS AS TO SEC. 9 IS
THIS.  A SHIPPER HAS AN ALTERNATIVE.  HE MAY BRING HIS ACTION BEFORE
THE COMMISSION OR BEFORE THE COURTS.  BUT HE MUST MAKE AN ELECTION.  IF
HE ELECTS TO "BRING SUIT" IN A COURT AND IS UNSUCCESSFUL, HE RETAINS
THE CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF APPELLATE REVIEW.  IF HE ELECTS TO "MAKE
COMPLAINT TO" THE COMMISSION, AS THE GOVERNMENT DID, AND RELIEF IS
DENIED, HE IS SAID TO BE BARRED BY THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF SEC. 9
FROM SEEKING ANY JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION ORDER.  UNDER THE
CONTENTION THE ORDER IS FINAL AND NOT REVIEWABLE BY ANY COURT EVEN
THOUGH ENTERED ARBITRARILY, WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORTING EVIDENCE,
AND IN DEFIANCE OF LAW. 

SUCH A SWEEPING CONTENTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY IS OUT OF
HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL LEGISLATIVE PATTERN OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND
JUDICIAL RELATIONSHIPS.  FN4  SEE, E.G., SHIELDS V. UTAH I.C.R. CO.,
305 U.S. 177, 181-185; STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288, 307-310.  AND
THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD COMMISSION ORDERS REVIEWABLE UPON
CHARGES THAT THE COMMISSION HAD EXCEEDED ITS LAWFUL POWERS.  SEE, E.G.,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 227 U.S. 88,
91-93; CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 266.  THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.
9 DOES NOT SUGGEST AN ABANDONMENT OF THESE CONSISTENT HOLDINGS.  IT
DOES SUGGEST THAT A SHIPPER WHO ELECTS EITHER TO "MAKE COMPLAINT TO"
THE COMMISSION OR TO "BRING SUIT" IN A COURT IS THEREAFTER PRECLUDED
FROM INITIATING A SEC. 9 PROCEEDING IN THE OTHER.  IT MAY THEREFORE BE
ASSUMED THAT AFTER A SHIPPER HAS ELECTED TO INITIATE A COMMISSION
PROCEEDING FOR DAMAGES HE COULD NOT LATER INITIATE AN ORIGINAL DISTRICT
COURT ACTION FOR THE SAME DAMAGES.  BUT FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO
INITIATE HIS CLAIM IN THE COURT UNDER SEC. 9 IS ONE THING; FORFEITURE
OF HIS RIGHT UNDER 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 41(28), NOW SEC. 1336, TO
OBTAIN JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN UNLAWFUL COMMISSION ORDER IS ANOTHER. 
BE BEGUN AND TRIED TO JUDGMENT OR ORDER; IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO GIVE
COMPLETE FINALITY TO A COURT JUDGMENT OR TO A COMMISSION ORDER MERELY
BECAUSE A SHIPPER ELECTED TO PROCEED IN ONE FORUM RATHER THAN THE
OTHER.  SO WE CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 9 THAT BARS A
COURT FROM REVIEWING A REPARATION ORDER UPON ALLEGATIONS BY A SHIPPER
THAT THE ORDER WAS ENTERED IN DEFIANCE OF STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY
CONGRESS TO DETERMINE WHEN REPARATIONS ARE DUE. 

FURTHERMORE, THE SECTION'S CAREFUL PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL PROTECTION
OF RAILROADS AGAINST IMPROPER COMMISSION AWARDS ARGUES AGAINST
INTERPRETATION OF THE SAME SECTION TO DENY TO SHIPPERS ANY JUDICIAL
REVIEW WHATEVER.  UNDER THE SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION A SHIPPER COULD
RECOVER NOTHING IF THE COMMISSION DECIDED AGAINST HIM.  BUT A
COMMISSION AWARD FAVORABLE TO A SHIPPER IS NOT FINAL OR BINDING UPON
THE RAILROAD.  SUCH AN AWARD "ONLY ESTABLISHES A REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION.  IT CUTS OFF NO DEFENSE, INTERPOSES NO OBSTACLE TO A FULL
CONTESTATION OF ALL THE ISSUES, AND TAKES NO QUESTION OF FACT FROM
EITHER COURT OR JURY.  ...  NOR DOES IT IN ANY WISE WORK A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  MEEKER & CO. V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 236 U.S.
412, 430.  AND SEE PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. WEBER, 257 U.S. 85, 90-91. 
IT HARDLY SEEMS POSSIBLE TO FIND FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 9 A
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO GUARANTEE RAILROADS COMPLETE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADVERSE REPARATION ORDERS WHILE DENYING SHIPPERS ANY JUDICIAL REVIEW AT
ALL.    WHAT WE HAVE SAID WOULD DISPOSE OF THE SEC. 9 CONTENTION BUT
FOR THE ARGUMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND THE RAILROADS THAT THEIR
SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION OF THE SECTION IS REQUIRED BY THIS COURT'S
HOLDING IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 235, AND OTHER
CASES THAT FOLLOWED IT.  IN THAT CASE THE STANDARD OIL CO., A SHIPPER,
WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A COMMISSION ORDER DENYING
REPARATIONS.  JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS DENIED ON FOUR GROUNDS:  (1) THE
ORDER IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE DENYING REPARATIONS WAS "NEGATIVE" IN
FORM, AND WAS THEREFORE BEYOND JUDICIAL APPRAISAL UNDER THE "NEGATIVE
ORDER" DOCTRINE.  THIS DOCTRINE WAS WHOLLY ABANDONED IN ROCHESTER TEL.
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125.  (2) THE DECISION IN THE STANDARD
OIL CASE HELD THAT THE COMMISSION ORDER WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT OTHERWISE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
CLAIM HERE IS THAT THIS ORDER CANNOT MEET THAT TEST.  (3) THE THIRD
GROUND FOR DENIAL OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS THAT HAVING ELECTED TO TEST
ITS DAMAGE CLAIM BEFORE THE COMMISSION, STANDARD WAS PRECLUDED FROM
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  (4) A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS AN IMPROPER TRIBUNAL TO
ADJUDICATE DAMAGE CLAIMS UNDER SEC. 9. 

THE STANDARD OIL INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 9 DENYING SHIPPERS ANY
JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS MADE BY A COURT USUALLY CAREFUL TO PROTECT AGAINST
ARBITRARY OR UNLAWFUL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  AND, AS SHOWN, THE COURT
THERE FIRST SATISFIED ITSELF THAT THE COMMISSION ORDER WAS NOT THE
PRODUCT OF AN UNLAWFUL EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE COMMISSION. 
FURTHERMORE, THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" PHILOSOPHY, THEN AT ITS PEAK, CLEARLY
BARRED REVIEW OF ALL ORDERS DENYING REPARATIONS.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE
STANDARD OIL SEC. 9 INTERPRETATION BARRED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NO CLASS
OF COMMISSION ORDERS EXCEPT ORDERS ALREADY IMMUNE FROM SUCH REVIEW
UNDER THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE.  THE STANDARD OIL HOLDING WAS THUS
CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY AND ROOTED IN THE NOW REJECTED "NEGATIVE ORDER"
DOCTRINE.  FN5 

ANOTHER REASON FOR THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 9 IN THE STANDARD
OIL CASE WAS THAT STANDARD'S DAMAGE CLAIM COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED
BY A DISTRICT COURT SINCE IT INVOLVED NO QUESTION AS TO REASONABLENESS
OF RATES THAT CALLED FOR EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S PRIMARY
JURISDICTION.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS FACTOR WAS EMPHASIZED BY THIS
COURT IN APPLYING THE STANDARD OIL CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 9 IN BALTIMORE
& O.R. CO. V. BRADY, 288 U.S. 448, 457-459.  FIRST POINTING OUT THAT
THERE WAS NO QUESTION IN THAT CASE "REQUIRING THE EXERCISE OF THE
COMMISSION'S ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS," THE COURT SAID: 

"IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT, BY ELECTING TO CALL ON THE COMMISSION
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF HIS DAMAGES, PLAINTIFF WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO
MAINTAIN AN ACTION AT LAW UPON HIS CLAIM.  BUT THE CARRIERS MADE NO
SUCH ELECTION.  UNDOUBTEDLY IT WAS TO THE END THAT THEY BE NOT DENIED
THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY THAT CONGRESS SAVED THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD
IN COURT UPON THE MERITS OF CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST THEM.  THE RIGHT OF
ELECTION GIVEN TO A CLAIMANT REASONABLY MAY HAVE BEEN DEEMED AN
ADEQUATE GROUND FOR MAKING THE COMMISSION'S AWARD FINAL AS TO HIM." 

AND SEE TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 297 U.S. 500,
507-508. 

THUS, A CRUCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE COURT'S HOLDING IN THE STANDARD OIL
AND BRADY CASES WAS THAT THE SHIPPERS IN THOSE CASES COULD HAVE
COMMENCED ORIGINAL SEC. 9 ACTIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  BUT IT HAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE SINCE THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN TEXAS & P.R.
CO. V. ABILENE OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426, THAT A SHIPPER CANNOT FILE A SEC.
9 PROCEEDING IN A DISTRICT COURT WHERE HIS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
NECESSARILY INVOLVES A QUESTION OF "REASONABLENESS" CALLING FOR
EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S PRIMARY JURISDICTION.  FN6  THE
GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM HERE DOES INVOLVE SUCH A QUESTION OF
"REASONABLENESS."  FOR THE ALLOWANCES EXACTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT WERE
AUTHORIZED IN THE RAILROADS' PUBLISHED TARIFFS AND WERE THEREFORE NOT
UNLAWFUL UNLESS "UNREASONABLE."  CONSEQUENTLY THE GOVERNMENT HERE HAD
NO "RIGHT OF ELECTION" BETWEEN COMMISSION AND COURT THAT COULD BE
"DEEMED AN ADEQUATE GROUND FOR MAKING THE COMMISSION'S AWARD FINAL  ...
" BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. BRADY, SUPRA, AT 458.  FN7 

ASHLAND COAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 840, IS THE ONLY CASE IN
THIS COURT THAT RELIED ON THE STANDARD OIL DECISION AFTER WE HAD
ABANDONED THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE.  CF. ALLISON & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 296 U.S. 546.  AND IT IS DOUBTFUL IF THE SHIPPER IN THE ASHLAND
COAL CO. CASE COULD HAVE SOUGHT REPARATIONS IN A DISTRICT COURT UNDER
THE "PRIMARY JURISDICTION" DOCTRINE.  IN AFFIRMING WITHOUT ARGUMENT THE
JUDGMENT OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT IN THE ASHLAND COAL CO. CASE, THIS
COURT'S PER CURIAM OPINION CITED TWO PAGES OF THE STANDARD OIL OPINION
THAT SUPPORT THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 9 URGED HERE BY THE COMMISSION
AND RAILROADS.  IT IS A FAIR INFERENCE THAT THE PAGES WERE CITED FOR
THAT INTERPRETATION ALTHOUGH OTHER GROUNDS FOR THE COURT'S DECISION
ALSO APPEAR THERE.  ONE SUCH GROUND WAS THAT A THREE-JUDGE COURT IS AN
IMPROPER TRIBUNAL FOR THE REVIEW OF SUCH COMMISSION ORDERS.  ANOTHER
GROUND WAS THAT THERE WAS "NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED
ARBITRARILY OR WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSIONS, OR THAT IT
TRANSCENDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY POWERS."  THE THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT IN THE ASHLAND CASE IN SUSTAINING THE COMMISSION ORDER
HAD ALSO HELD THAT A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS NOT A PROPER TRIBUNAL AND
THAT THE COMMISSION ORDER WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  ASHLAND COAL & ICE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 61
F.SUPP.  708, 713. 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE ASHLAND COAL CO. PER CURIAM HOLDING NOR THE
STANDARD OIL CASE ON WHICH IT RESTED AS REQUIRING THE INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. 9 WHICH THE RAILROADS AND COMMISSION HERE URGE.  OUR ACCEPTANCE OF
THAT INTERPRETATION WOULD MEAN THAT A SHIPPER WHO SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMISSION ONLY A QUESTION OF THE REASONABLENESS OF RATES COULD HAVE AN
ADVERSE ORDER REVIEWED BY A COURT, SKINNER & EDDY CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 249 U.S. 557, 562-563, WHILE A SHIPPER WHO ASKED FOR THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION PLUS REPARATIONS COULD GET NO JUDICIAL
REVIEW AT ALL.  TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., SUPRA,
AT 507-508.  ON ANY GROUND EXCEPT THE NOW DISCARDED "NEGATIVE ORDER"
DOCTRINE, THIS WOULD APPEAR TO BE AN UNSUPPORTABLE AND TOTALLY
ILLOGICAL LIMITATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. 
FN8  SEE CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 269-270; SOUTHERN R. CO.
V. TIFT, 206 U.S. 428, 440.  ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT SEC. 9 DOES NOT
IMPAIR THE RIGHT OF SHIPPERS TO OBTAIN JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADVERSE
COMMISSION ORDERS UNDER SEC. 41(28) MERELY BECAUSE THE ORDER IS SOUGHT
AS A BASIS FOR REPARATIONS. 

FOURTH.  FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED WE HOLD THAT A COMMISSION ORDER
DISMISSING A SHIPPER'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES UNDER 49 U.S.C. SEC. 9 IS AN
"ORDER" SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE UNDER 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 41(28). 
THE REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER A DISTRICT COURT ENTERTAINING SUCH A
CHALLENGE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF ONE JUDGE OR THREE JUDGES AND WHETHER
THE JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT IN SUCH A CASE CAN BE APPEALED
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT. 

THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT FROM WHICH SEC. 41(28) WAS DERIVED
CONTAINS PROVISIONS FOR A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE SUITS BROUGHT TO SET ASIDE A COMMISSION "ORDER," AND
AUTHORIZES JUDGMENTS RENDERED IN SUCH CASES TO BE APPEALED DIRECTLY TO
THIS COURT.  FN9  FOR REASONS NOW STATED WE HOLD THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF AN ORDER DENYING REPARATIONS DOES NOT REQUIRE A THREE-JUDGE COURT. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT HERE CONSIDERED DERIVE
FROM A 1910 CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT CREATING THE COMMERCE COURT,
DEFINING ITS POWERS AND PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF ITS JUDGMENTS.  FN10
THAT COURT WAS GIVEN JURISDICTION OF ALL ACTIONS TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE
AND MODIFY COMMISSION ORDERS.  SECTION 2 PROVIDED FOR DIRECT APPEALS
FROM THE COMMERCE COURT TO THE SUPREME COURT.  THE PURPOSE OF CREATING
THE COMMERCE COURT WITH SUCH DIRECT APPEALS WAS EXPEDITION OF FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN TYPES OF COMMISSION ORDERS. 
THIS EXPEDITION WAS SOUGHT FOR ORDERS OF NATIONAL OR WIDESPREAD
INTEREST, SUCH, FOR EXAMPLE, AS RAILROAD RATE ORDERS.  CONGRESS SAW THE
NECESSITY FOR AN ACCELERATED APPELLATE PROCEDURE TO PREVENT RAILROADS
FROM NULLIFYING THE EFFECT OF SUCH ORDERS IN PROLONGED LITIGATION. 
FN11  THE COMMERCE ACT ITSELF INDICATED THAT THE SAME EXPEDITION
NECESSARY IN CASES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC GENERALLY WAS NOT NECESSARY IN
OTHER KINDS OF CASES INVOLVING "LOCAL AND ISOLATED QUESTIONS WHICH
ARISE IN THE ORDINARY COURTS."  FN12  THE ACT'S FIRST SECTION EXCLUDED
FROM THE COMMERCE COURT'S JURISDICTION POWER TO ENFORCE "ANY ORDER OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION  ...  FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY." 
FN13 

PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913 ABOLISHED THE
COMMERCE COURT AND TRANSFERRED ITS JURISDICTION TO DISTRICT COURTS
COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES.  IN CONSIDERING THIS ACT CONGRESS WAS URGED
TO BEAR IN MIND THE NECESSITY FOR PROVIDING A FORUM THAT COULD
EXPEDITIOUSLY REVIEW COMMISSION ORDERS OF WIDESPREAD IMPORTANCE.  FN14
BUT IN PASSING THE 1913 ACT CONGRESS DENIED POWER TO THREE-JUDGE COURTS
TO ENFORCE COMMISSION ORDERS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY.  FN15  AND IN A
CASE NOT INVOLVING REPARATIONS THIS COURT HELD THAT ORDERS RELATING
MERELY TO THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE OF SUFFICIENT
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE TO JUSTIFY USE OF THE THREE-JUDGE PROCEDURE.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, 233, 234-237.  BUT CF. EL
DORADO OIL WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 12, 18-19; UNITED STATES V.
JONES, 336 U.S. 641, 647.  THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT WITH 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 9, WHICH REQUIRES ENFORCEMENT OF COMMISSION REPARATION AWARDS IN
ONE-JUDGE COURTS, INDICATES THE BELIEF OF CONGRESS THAT SUCH ORDERS ARE
NOT OF SUFFICIENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCELERATED JUDICIAL
REVIEW PROCEDURE. 

WHILE THE GOVERNMENT HERE DOES NOT SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF A COMMISSION
ORDER FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY, THE ROOT OF THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNS
THE PAYMENT OF MONEY DAMAGES UNDER 49 U.S.C. SECS. 8, 9.  HAD THE
COMMISSION MADE AN AWARD TO THE GOVERNMENT IT COULD HAVE FILED A CIVIL
SUIT TO RECOVER MONEY DAMAGES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 49 U.S.C. SEC.
16(2).  THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT SUCH A SUIT "SHALL PROCEED IN ALL
RESPECTS LIKE OTHER CIVIL SUITS FOR DAMAGES  ...  " - THAT IS, BEFORE
ONE DISTRICT JUDGE.  AND AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT IN SUCH A CASE GOES
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE SAME ONE-JUDGE TRIAL AND APPEAL PROCEDURE
AVAILABLE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN AWARD ORDER WOULD APPEAR TO BE AN
EQUALLY APPROPRIATE AND ADEQUATE TRIBUNAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF VALIDITY
OF A COMMISSION ORDER DENYING REPARATIONS.  FOR ACTIONS TO ENFORCE
COMMISSION ORDERS AWARDING REPARATION, AND ACTIONS TO CHALLENGE
COMMISSION ORDERS DENYING REPARATIONS, BASICALLY INVOLVE THE SAME
PARTIES, THE SAME DISPUTES, THE SAME CLAIMS FOR MONEY DAMAGES, AND THE
SAME STATUTES.  WE THINK THE ORDERS IN BOTH INSTANCES SHOULD BE
REVIEWED IN THE SAME ONE-JUDGE TRIBUNAL. 

WE HAVE FREQUENTLY POINTED OUT THE IMPORTANCE OF LIMITING THE THREE
JUDGE COURT PROCEDURE WITHIN ITS EXPRESSLY STATED CONFINES.  FN16  WE
ARE CONFIDENT THAT IN HOLDING THAT ONE JUDGE RATHER THAN THREE SHOULD
ENTERTAIN CASES CHALLENGING COMMISSION REPARATION ORDERS WE INTERPRET
THE CONGRESSIONAL EXPEDITING PROCEDURE AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR BASIC PURPOSE. 

FIFTH.  THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION OF THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THIS
CASE.  THREE JUDGES HEARD IT.  THIS, HOWEVER, IS NO REASON FOR
DISMISSAL OF THE CAUSE.  SEE STAINBACK V. MO HOCK KE LOK PO, 336 U.S.
368, 381.  IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL ARE TRUE, THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER CANNOT STAND .  CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 264-266. 
SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT PASS ON THE MERITS OF THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE COMPLAINT, THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  49 U.S.C. SECS. 1(5)(A), 1(6), 2, 6(8), 15(13). 

FN2  49 U.S.C. SECS. 8, 9.  THE COMPLAINT ALSO SOUGHT RELIEF FROM
FUTURE EXACTIONS, BUT PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER THE PIERS
WERE RETURNED TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND THIS PRAYER WAS ABANDONED. 

FN3  THE SUBSTANCE OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(28) OF THE 1946 U.S.C. NOW
APPEARS AS SEC. 1336 OF THE 1948 CODE.  THE PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERS FIRST APPEARED IN 1910
IN AN ACT CREATING THE COMMERCE COURT.  36 STAT. 539.  CONGRESS
ABOLISHED THE COMMERCE COURT IN 1913 AND TRANSFERRED TO DISTRICT COURTS
THE COMMERCE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW COMMISSION ORDERS.  URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT, 38 STAT. 208, 219-220. 

FN4  THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 237, 243, 5 U.S.C.
SECS. 1001(D), 1009, PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 2.  ...  (D)  ORDER AND ADJUDICATION.  - 'ORDER' MEANS THE
WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE FINAL DISPOSITION (WHETHER AFFIRMATIVE,
NEGATIVE, INJUNCTIVE, OR DECLARATORY IN FORM) OF ANY AGENCY IN ANY
MATTER OTHER THAN RULE MAKING BUT INCLUDING LICENSING.  'ADJUDICATION'
MEANS AGENCY PROCESS FOR THE FORMULATION OF AN ORDER." 

"SEC. 10.  EXCEPT SO FAR AS (1) STATUTES PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW OR
(2) AGENCY ACTION IS BY LAW COMMITTED TO AGENCY DISCRETION - 

"(A)  RIGHT OF REVIEW.  - ANY PERSON SUFFERING LEGAL WRONG BECAUSE OF
ANY AGENCY ACTION, OR ADVERSELY AFFECTED OR AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ACTION
WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANY RELEVANT STATUTE, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW THEREOF."    FN5  MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO SO TREATED THE
STANDARD OIL HOLDING IN I.C.C. V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 385, 388, A
CASE DECIDED PRIOR TO THIS COURT'S REPUDIATION OF THE "NEGATIVE ORDER"
DOCTRINE.  HE THERE SAID THAT IN DENYING REPARATIONS "THE COMMISSION
SPEAKS WITH FINALITY.  ITS ORDERS PURELY NEGATIVE - NEGATIVE IN FORM
AND SUBSTANCE - ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THIS COURT OR ANY OTHER." 
AUTHORITIES FOR THIS STATEMENT WERE "NEGATIVE ORDER" CASES.  THESE SAME
CASES WERE RELIED ON BY THE COURT IN A LATER CASE THAT REFERRED WITH
APPROVAL TO THE STANDARD OIL SEC. 9 INTERPRETATION.  TERMINAL WAREHOUSE
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 297 U.S. 500, 507-508.    FN6  SEE CASES
COLLECTED IN ROCHESTER TEL. CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 139,
N. 22, AND ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 312 U.S. 195; SKINNER & EDDY
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 557, 562. 

FN7  THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT SEC. 9 DOES AUTHORIZE A SHIPPER TO
INITIATE DAMAGE CLAIMS IN A DISTRICT COURT EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM
NECESSARILY INVOLVES QUESTIONS UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION'S PRIMARY
JURISDICTION MUST BE INVOKED.  THE RAILROADS MORE CAUTIOUSLY SAY THAT
SUCH SUITS CAN BE FILED UPON AN INITIAL SHOWING BY A SHIPPER THAT IT
MIGHT WORK A HARDSHIP ON A SHIPPER FOR THE COURT TO REFUSE TO ENTERTAIN
THE CASE.  BOTH CONTENTIONS RUN COUNTER TO THIS COURT'S PREVIOUS
CASES.  PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES WERE HELD SUFFICIENT IN ONE CASE TO
JUSTIFY A COURT IN STAYING FURTHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO AWAIT
COMMISSION ACTION.  MITCHELL COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S.
247, 266-267.  THE SAME COURSE WAS FOLLOWED IN ANOTHER CASE, OVER THE
COMMISSION'S OBJECTION, WHERE THE ACTION WAS IN ASSUMPSIT, AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM DID NOT EMERGE UNTIL THE CASE WAS IN COURSE OF
LITIGATION.  TANK CAR CORP. V. TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422, 432. 

FN8  THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE WAS FIRST ADOPTED BY THIS COURT IN
PROCTER & GAMBLE V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 282, DECIDED IN 1912.  A
SHIPPER THERE BROUGHT ACTION IN THE COMMERCE COURT TO SET ASIDE A
COMMISSION ORDER DISMISSING THE SHIPPER'S COMPLAINT.  THE COMPLAINT WAS
THAT THE CHARGES WERE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE.  THE COMMERCE COURT WAS
ASKED TO ANNUL THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL, TO ENJOIN FUTURE
COLLECTION OF THE CHARGES, AND TO REQUIRE THE RAILROADS TO REPAY SUMS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY COLLECTED FROM THE SHIPPER.  THE
COMMERCE COURT REVIEWED THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION AND ON THE MERITS
DECLINED TO GRANT THE SHIPPER THE REQUESTED RELIEF.  THIS COURT HELD
THAT THIS "NEGATIVE" ORDER WAS NOT REVIEWABLE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
SHIPPER.  THE COURT'S RULING BROUGHT SHARP CRITICISM IN CONGRESS. 
CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION WAS PROPOSED, EXHAUSTIVE COMMITTEE HEARINGS WERE
HELD, DEBATE WAS TAKEN TO THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.  IN SPITE OF THE
STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO GET CONGRESS TO REPUDIATE THE "NEGATIVE ORDER"
DOCTRINE, CONGRESS IN 1913 DECLINED TO ACT.  BUT IN ALL OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND DEBATES ON THE SUBJECT, THE CRITICS OF THE
PROCTER & GAMBLE "NEGATIVE ORDER" RULE URGED WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT
REPUDIATION OF THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" RULE WOULD AFFORD SHIPPERS THE SAME
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF REPARATION AND OTHER ORDERS THEN AFFORDED TO
RAILROADS.  NOT ONCE DO WE FIND THE ARGUMENT SUGGESTED THAT 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 9 WOULD BAR SHIPPERS FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADVERSE REPARATION
ORDERS BY THE COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH THIS SECTION WAS AT THE TIME PART OF
THE ORIGINAL INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, ENACTED IN 1887, MORE THAN A
QUARTER OF A CENTURY BEFORE THIS CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION. 

THIS COURT NEVERTHELESS ABANDONED THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE IN
1938, AND IN DOING SO EFFECTIVELY OVERRULED A HOST OF PRIOR DECISIONS. 
SEE CASES COLLECTED IN FOOTNOTE TO MR. JUSTICE BUTLER'S OPINION IN THE
ROCHESTER CASE, 307 U.S. 146, 148.  THE EFFECT OF TODAY'S DECISION IS
MERELY TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE STANDARD OIL DOCTRINE, BARRING JUDICIAL
REVIEW TO SHIPPERS, CANNOT STAND CONSISTENTLY WITH THE ROCHESTER CASE
WHICH ITSELF OVERRULED THE PROCTER & GAMBLE AND OTHER "NEGATIVE ORDER"
DECISIONS.  IT WAS THEREFORE THE ROCHESTER CASE, NOT TODAY'S DECISION,
THAT OVERRULED A LINE OF CASES AND GRANTED RELIEF WHERE CONGRESS HAD
DECLINED TO AFFORD ANY.  H.R. REP. NO. 1012, 62D CONG., 2D SESS. 1
4(1912); HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS ON H.R. 7898, 63D CONG., 1ST SESS. 140-148(1913);
HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS ON H.R. 7898, 63D CONG., 1ST SESS. 305-343(1913);
HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
ON H.R. 25596 AND H.R. 25572, 62D CONG., 2D SESS. 1-298(1912); 50 CONG.
REC. 4532-4537, 4542-4545(1913). 

FN9  38 STAT. 208, 219, 220; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2325(1948).  SEE ALSO 28
U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  47. 

FN10  36 STAT. 539. 

FN11  SEE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, 45 CONG. REC. 7567
7568(1910). 

FN12  S. REP. NO. 355, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS. 1-2(1910). 

FN13  SEE PROCTER & GAMBLE V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 282; TEXAS &
P.R. CO. V. ABILENE OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426. 

FN14  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS ON H.R. 7898, 63D CONG., 1ST SESS. 293-299, 300(1913). 

FN15  IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT THAT THE NEW JUDICIAL CODE DOES NOT GIVE
A THREE-JUDGE COURT JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE VALIDITY OF
COMMISSION ORDERS "FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2321. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA, 234-237; AYRSHIRE CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 132, 136-137; STAINBACK V. MO HOCK KE LOK PO,
336 U.S. 368, 378, N. 19; PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246,
250. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

FOUR TIMES SHIPPERS HAVE ASKED THIS COURT TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO
REVIEW ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DENYING CLAIMS FOR
REPARATIONS AGAINST CARRIERS; FOUR TIMES THE UNITED STATES RESISTED THE
RIGHT TO SUCH JUDICIAL REVIEW; FOUR TIMES THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE
UNITED STATES AND HELD THAT THE COURTS WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION DENYING REPARATIONS.  TWICE THE
DECISIONS FOLLOWED FULL ARGUMENT:  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
283 U.S. 235, IN WHICH THE BAR OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO SUCH
REVIEW WAS EXPOUNDED, AND BRADY V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 804, WHICH
RELIED ON THE STANDARD OIL CASE DECIDED ONLY A FEW WEEKS BEFORE.  TWICE
THEREAFTER THE DISMISSAL BY DISTRICT COURTS, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION,
OF ATTEMPTS TO REVIEW SUCH REPARATION ORDERS WAS SUMMARILY AFFIRMED
WITHOUT ARGUMENT, SO DEFINITIVELY HAD THE STANDARD OIL CASE SETTLED THE
MATTER.  ALLISON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 296 U.S. 546, AFFIRMING 12
F.SUPP.  862; ASHLAND COAL & ICE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 840,
AFFIRMING 61 F.SUPP.  708, DECIDED LESS THAN FOUR YEARS AGO.  IN ORDER
TO RECOVER A MONEY CLAIM OF ITS OWN, THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE HAS
SUDDENLY SHIFTED A POSITION CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED BY IT FOR NEARLY
TWENTY YEARS AGAINST ALL OTHER SHIPPERS AND URGES THE RIGHT TO REVIEW
AN ORDER DENYING REPARATIONS.  INDEED, AT THE VERY SAME TIME THAT THE
GOVERNMENT WAS ARGUING BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA FOR THE RIGHT TO REVIEW AN ORDER DENYING IT REPARATIONS, THE
GOVERNMENT SUCCESSFULLY RESISTED PRECISELY THE SAME ARGUMENT BY A
PRIVATE SHIPPER IN A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.  GREAT LAKES STEEL CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 81
F.SUPP.  450.  AND THE GOVERNMENT DID SO ON THE BASIS OF THE
CONTROLLING SERIES OF CASES IN THIS COURT DECIDED ON GROUNDS WHICH WE
ARE NOW ASKED TO DISREGARD.  FN1 

WE ARE VOUCHSAFED NO EXPLANATION FOR THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD HAVE URGED FOUR TIMES UPON THIS COURT, AND CONTEMPORANEOUSLY
WITH THESE PROCEEDINGS IN ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT, THAT AN ORDER
RESULTING FROM A REPARATION PROCEEDING BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION IS NOT REVIEWABLE, AND YET SEEKS REVIEW IN THIS INSTANCE. 
THE ONLY EXPLANATION THAT LIES ON THE SURFACE IS THAT IN ALL THE OTHER
CASES THE UNITED STATES WAS RESISTING THE CLAIMS OF PRIVATE SHIPPERS,
WHILE IN THIS CASE THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS THE SHIPPER.  NO DOUBT
ENLIGHTENMENT SOMETIMES COMES THROUGH SELF-INTEREST.  BUT THIS COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, LONG MATURED IN A SERIES
OF CASES, OUGHT NOT TO SHIFT WITH A SHIFT IN THE GOVERNMENT'S
INTEREST.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION RIGHTLY PROTESTS AGAINST
IT.  TO YIELD TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEW CONTENTION IS NOT ONLY TO REVERSE
A SETTLED COURSE OF DECISION.  TO DO SO IS TO MUTILATE THE WHOLE SCHEME
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT BY DISREGARDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF
AUTHORITY CONGRESS SAW FIT TO MAKE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE
COURTS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT ACT. 

ONE WOULD SUPPOSE THAT FOUR UNIFORM DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, RENDERED
AFTER THOROUGH CONSIDERATION OF A STATUTORY SCHEME, CONSTITUTE SUCH A
BODY OF LAW AS NOT TO BE OVERRULED, WHOLLY APART FROM ANY ARGUMENT THAT
THIS COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATION IS CONFIRMED BY CONGRESS BY
REENACTMENT WITHOUT CHANGE.  THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940  FN2
REENACTED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AFTER
THIS COURT HAD RULED THREE TIMES THAT A SHIPPER WHO HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY
ASKED THE COMMISSION FOR DAMAGES IS BOUND BY ITS DETERMINATION AND
CANNOT THEREAFTER HAVE ANOTHER GO AT IT IN THE COURTS.  THE
CONSTRUCTION WHICH THESE DECISIONS HAVE MADE SHOULD BE ADHERED TO NOT
ONLY BECAUSE THE PRECISE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THIS COURT
BUT BECAUSE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT REQUIRES IT.  "WHEN JUDICIAL
REVIEW IS AVAILABLE AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE QUESTIONS (APART
FROM WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS THE CONSTITUTION MAY MAKE IN CERTAIN
SITUATIONS) THAT DEPEND ON THE PARTICULAR CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT UNDER
WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AUTHORIZED."  LABOR BOARD V. CHENEY CALIFORNIA
LUMBER CO., 327 U.S. 385, 388.  IT WILL HARDLY BE SUGGESTED THAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A REPARATION ORDER BY THE
COMMISSION.  SUCH A NOTION IS PRECLUDED BY CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236,
AND THE WHOLE UNFOLDING OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DURING THE HUNDRED YEARS
SINCE THAT DECISION.  THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE
"THE SANCTION AFFORDED BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS" IS IMPLIED IN THE
GUARANTY OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 284
5.  THEREFORE, IT IS AS TRUE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS IT IS OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THAT "CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO
DETERMINE WHAT REMEDY IT WOULD PROVIDE, THE WAY THAT REMEDY SHOULD BE
SOUGHT, THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT SHOULD BE AFFORDED, AND THE MEANS BY
WHICH IT SHOULD BE MADE EFFECTIVE."  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, SPEAKING
FOR THE COURT IN AMALGAMATED UTILITY WORKERS V. CONSOLIDATED EDISON
CO., 309 U.S. 261, 264. 

IN THE RETICULATED SCHEME FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEW RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS CREATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, CONGRESS CLEARLY
INDICATED WHERE THE JUDICIARY COMES IN AND WHERE THE JUDICIARY IS TO
KEEP OUT.  MORE PARTICULARLY, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN DETAIL FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF REPARATION CLAIMS THAT COME
BEFORE THE COMMISSION; IT HAS AFFORDED AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE AS
BETWEEN COMMISSION AND COURTS IN SOME INSTANCES; IT HAS SPECIFICALLY
PRECLUDED RESORT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHERE THE SHIPPER HAS CHOSEN RESORT
TO THE COMMISSION.  IF THE SCHEME OF LEGISLATION THAT CONGRESS HAS
DEVISED IS TO BE RESPECTED, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
DENYING IT REPARATIONS IS NOT OPEN TO THE GOVERNMENT. 

A SUMMARY OF WHAT THIS CASE INVOLVES SHOULD PRECEDE A DETAILED
ANALYSIS OF THE ACT, SO FAR AS RELEVANT TO ITS DISPOSITION. 

AT THE TIME THIS CONTROVERSY AROSE IT HAD LONG BEEN THE PRACTICE FOR
RAILROADS REACHING ATLANTIC PORTS TO ABSORB THE COST OF WHARFAGE AND
HANDLING SERVICES FURNISHED BY THEM FOR GOODS DESTINED FOR SHIPMENT
OVERSEAS.  THIS APPLIED ONLY TO SERVICES RENDERED ON SO-CALLED PUBLIC
WHARVES, EXCLUDING, THAT IS, SERVICES SO REQUIRED ON WHARVES OPERATED
BY A SHIPPER HIMSELF.  THE WHARVES IN QUESTION WERE PIERS OWNED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT LEASED BY IT FOR COMMERCIAL PEACETIME OPERATIONS AS
PUBLIC TERMINAL FACILITIES OF THE RAILROADS.  UP TO JUNE 15, 1942,
THESE PIERS WERE OPERATED BY THE TRANSPORT TRADING AND TERMINAL
CORPORATION, AS AGENT OF THE DEFENDANT RAILROADS.  WAR CONDITIONS MADE
IT NECESSARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CANCEL ITS LEASES WITH THE TERMINAL
CORPORATION AND, ON JUNE 15, 1942, IT TOOK OVER THE OPERATION OF THESE
PIERS FOR THE MOVEMENT OF MILITARY FREIGHT, ALMOST ENTIRELY OUTBOUND. 
THE RAILROADS REFUSED ALLOWANCES FOR THE COST OF SERVICES WHICH THEY
HAD THERETOFORE ABSORBED, AND DECLINED A LATER REQUEST OF THE ARMY TO
PERFORM THE HANDLING SERVICES BECAUSE THE ARMY, NOT THE RAILROADS,
CONTROLLED THE PIERS. 

CLAIMING TO BE DAMAGED BY THE REFUSAL OF THE RAILROADS TO GRANT
ALLOWANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S HANDLING OF ITS GOODS ON ITS OWN PIERS,
WHEN IT EXCLUDED THE TERMINAL CORPORATION AND TOOK OVER THE PIERS, THE
GOVERNMENT INITIATED THESE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR
REPARATIONS UNDER SEC. 8 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN3  IT FILED
ITS COMPLAINT UNDER SECS. 9 AND 13 OF THAT ACT.  FN4  CLAIMING THAT THE
RATES UNDER THE EXISTING TARIFFS WERE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE, AND THAT
IT WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OTHER SHIPPERS WERE FURNISHED
WHARFAGE AND HANDLING SERVICES WHICH IT PERFORMED AT ITS OWN EXPENSE,
THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT RELIEF AGAINST CONTINUANCE OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
OF SECS. 1(5)(A), 1(6), AND 15(13) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THE
COMPLAINT WAS SUSTAINED BY DIVISION 2, WITH ONE COMMISSIONER
DISSENTING.  UNITED STATES V. ABERDEEN & ROCKFISH R. CO., 263 I.C.C.
303.  THE FULL COMMISSION REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF DIVISION 2 AND
ORDERED THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED, FOUR COMMISSIONERS DISSENTING.  264
I.C.C. 683.  ON REARGUMENT THE FULL COMMISSION ADHERED TO ITS FINDINGS,
FIVE COMMISSIONERS DISSENTING.  FN5 269 I.C.C. 141.  AT THE TIME OF ITS
FINAL REPORT, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE OPERATION OF THE PIERS REVERTED
TO THE SITUATION EXISTING PRIOR TO JUNE 15, 1942, SO THAT THE PURPOSE
OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS DEEMED TO BE FOR
REPARATIONS ONLY.  269 I.C.C. AT 147.    INVOKING THE PROCEDURE OF THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913, THE GOVERNMENT THEN SOUGHT TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DISMISSING THE GOVERNMENT'S
COMPLAINT.  (ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 219-21, NOW 28 U.S.C.
SECS. 1253, 1336, 2101, 2284, 2321-2325.)  A DULY CONSTITUTED DISTRICT
COURT, WITH THREE JUDGES SITTING, FOUND ITSELF WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  78 F.SUPP.  580.  THIS JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED, INSOFAR AS IT HELD THAT AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DENYING
DAMAGES BY WAY OF REPARATIONS IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BEFORE THE
COMMISSION IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN THE COURTS. 

TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
IS OPEN TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, IT SHOULD RIGOROUSLY BE BORNE IN MIND THAT
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW SUCH AN ORDER MUST HAVE BEEN CONFERRED BY
CONGRESS.  TO ASSUME THAT AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION FOR WHICH
REVIEWING POWER IS NOT CONFERRED, IS PRESUMABLY REVIEWABLE BY THE
COURTS IS TO START WITH THE ANSWER OF THE PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED.  UNLESS
CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO GIVE THE COURTS OVERSIGHT OF A DETERMINATION BY
THE COMMISSION, THE COURTS HAVE NOT THE POWER OF OVERSIGHT WHERE, AS
HERE, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE IT.  IF CONGRESS HAS MADE NO
GRANT OF POWER TO COURTS TO REVIEW THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DENYING A
CLAIM FOR REPARATION, AND, IN FACT, HAS EXPLICITLY WITHHELD RESORT TO
THE COURTS AFTER SUCH DENIAL BY THE COMMISSION, IT IS WHOLLY IMMATERIAL
THAT AS TO OTHER TYPES OF ORDERS THE RIGHT TO REVIEW HAS BEEN GIVEN TO
THE COURTS, OR THAT A DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION CLOSELY RELATED
TO REPARATIONS, BUT NOT IN FACT A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES, DOES NOT BAR
ACCESS TO THE COURTS. 

WHEN DEALING WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WE ARE DEALING NOT WITH
AN EPISODIC BIT OF LEGISLATION TO WHICH THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS PRESUMABLY APPLIES.  WE ARE DEALING WITH THE OLDEST
REGULATORY SCHEME WHICH, BY SUCCESSIVE AMENDMENTS AND ENLARGEMENTS,
ESTABLISHED A COMPREHENSIVE, SELF-CONTAINED REGIME BOTH OF
ADMINISTRATION AND ADJUDICATION.  THE SCHEME AS A WHOLE OUGHT NOT TO BE
DISLOCATED TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF A PARTICULAR SITUATION. 

FIRST.  JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ORDER BY THE COMMISSION DISMISSING A
COMPLAINT FOR REPARATIONS HAS HERETOFORE BEEN URGED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE
BASIS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IN THIS CASE WAS INVOKED UNDER THAT ACT.  THIS IS THE SOLE BASIS
OF JURISDICTION URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT HERE IN ITS COMPREHENSIVE BRIEF
AND ARGUMENT, AND THE COURT REJECTS IT.  IT RIGHTLY REJECTS IT.  BUT
THE COMPELLING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS REJECTION DEMAND A FURTHER
ANALYSIS OF THE STRUCTURE AND DETAILS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS
RELATING TO ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  SUCH
ANALYSIS IS ESSENTIAL TO LAY BARE THE EQUALLY COMPELLING CONSIDERATIONS
AGAINST JURISDICTION UNDER THE GENERAL EQUITY POWERS OF THE DISTRICT
COURTS. 

CARRIERS FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY VIOLATION OF THE NEW OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED
BY THAT ACT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC REMEDIES, IT WOULD BE FAIR TO
ASSUME THAT THESE NEW RIGHTS WERE ENFORCEABLE IN THE DISTRICT COURTS
UNDER THEIR GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER SUITS "ARISING UNDER ANY ACT OF
CONGRESS REGULATING COMMERCE."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1337.  BUT THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT DID NOT STOP WITH A MERE DECLARATION OF
LIABILITY.  IT DEFINED A SPECIFIC COURSE OF PROCEDURE; IT
PARTICULARIZED THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THOSE TO WHOM NEW RIGHTS WERE
GIVEN AND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY WERE TO BE PURSUED.  "IN SUCH A CASE
THE SPECIFICATION OF ONE REMEDY NORMALLY EXCLUDES ANOTHER." 
SWITCHMEN'S UNION OF NORTH AMERICA V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320
U.S. 297, 301.  FOR CHARGING MORE THAN THE TARIFF RATE OR CHARGING A
DISCRIMINATORY RATE, THE ACT PROVIDES ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES SET FORTH
IN DETAIL IN SEC. 9.  THESE ARE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS:  "ANY PERSON
OR PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE DAMAGED BY ANY COMMON CARRIER  ...  MAY
EITHER MAKE COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED FOR, OR
MAY BRING SUIT  ...  IN ANY DISTRICT  ...  COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION; BUT SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS SHALL NOT HAVE
THE RIGHT TO PURSUE BOTH OF SAID REMEDIES, AND MUST IN EACH CASE ELECT
WHICH ONE OF THE TWO METHODS OF PROCEDURE HEREIN PROVIDED FOR HE OR
THEY WILL ADOPT."  24 STAT. 379, 382, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 9. 
WITH QUALIFICATIONS SHORTLY TO BE NOTED, A SUIT BEGUN IN A DISTRICT
COURT FOLLOWS THE COURSE OF ANY OTHER ACTION THERE.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
IF THE SHIPPER PREFERS TO PURSUE THE ALTERNATIVE COURSE - THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTE - TO OBTAIN DAMAGES FOR A VIOLATION OF THE ACT, HE
FILES HIS COMPLAINT WITH THE COMMISSION. 

AS TO A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WHETHER FOR DAMAGES OR FOR
A RATE ADJUSTMENT, SEC. 13 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE; FN6  THE ROLE OF THE
COURTS IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS IS DEFINED BY SECS. 16
FN7  AND 17(9).  FN8  SECTION 16 FIXES THE TIME FOR FILING A COMPLAINT
EITHER IN THE COURTS OR BEFORE THE COMMISSION; IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER AWARDING DAMAGES, LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN
WHICH SUCH AN ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT, AND STATING THE EFFECT TO BE
GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION'S AWARD.  SINCE 1940, THE PROVISIONS OF THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913(38 STAT. 219-21), CONFERRING ON THE
DISTRICT COURTS THE JURISDICTION IN SUITS ON ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION
THERETOFORE VESTED IN THE ABOLISHED COMMERCE COURT, WERE INCORPORATED
IN SEC. 17(9).  A FEW YEARS PREVIOUS THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913 BECAME PART OF TITLE 28 OF THE UNITED
STATES CODE. 

BY THIS SCHEME OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, CAREFULLY APPORTIONED BETWEEN
COMMISSION AND COURTS, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT INSOFAR AS ANY ORDER,
PROVIDED IT IS NOT ONE FOR MONEY DAMAGES, CAN BE ENJOINED, SET ASIDE
AND ENFORCED IT MUST BE UNDER THE PROVISIONS DEALING WITH SUITS TO
ENFORCE, ENJOIN, OR SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION, "BUT NOT
OTHERWISE."  54 STAT. 916, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 17(9).  BY THIS LIMITATION
CONGRESS HAS MADE IT AS CLEAR AS LANGUAGE CAN THAT IF AN ORDER IS NOT
WITHIN SEC. 16, BECAUSE NOT ONE FOR MONEY DAMAGES, IF REVIEW IS
AVAILABLE, IT MUST BE UNDER SEC. 17.  IF THE COMMISSION ACTION DOES NOT
FALL WITHIN SEC. 16 OR SEC. 17, IT IS NOT REVIEWABLE AT ALL.  ORDERS
UNDER SEC. 17 ARE REVIEWABLE ONLY AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT.  BUT THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT FURNISHES ONLY
PROCEDURAL DETAILS; IT MERELY DEFINES THE METHOD OF REVIEW AND NOT THE
KINDS OF CASES FOR WHICH REVIEW IS AVAILABLE.  IT DID NOT MAKE
REVIEWABLE ACTIONS PREVIOUSLY UNREVIEWABLE.  50 CONG. REC. 4536, 4542. 
CF. STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 235, 241; UNITED STATES
V. JONES, 336 U.S. 641, 647-8.  IT IS THE BODY OF LAW CONSTITUTING THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WHICH DETERMINES WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES REVIEW MAY BE HAD.  A LONG COURSE OF JUDICIAL APPLICATION
IN A FIELD OF LAW, FAIRLY TO BE CALLED TECHNICAL, HAS GRADUALLY
ASCERTAINED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF LEGISLATION
THE KIND AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ORDERS THAT ARE REVIEWABLE. 

IF THE DISMISSAL OF A REPARATION COMPLAINT IS NOT WITHIN THE PHRASE
"ANY ORDER" IN SEC. 17(9) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, IT IS ALSO
NOT WITHIN THE "ANY ORDER" PHRASE OF THE SECTIONS OF TITLE 28(SEC. 
41(28) AND SEC. 46 OF THE 1946 ED., AND SECS. 1336 AND 2324 OF THE
PRESENT TITLE 28), WHICH EMBODY THE REVIEW PROVISIONS FORMERLY IN THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913, WHICH PROVISIONS IN TURN WERE TAKEN
FROM THE COMMERCE COURT ACT.  36 STAT. 539.  ALTHOUGH SEC. 2321 OF
TITLE 28 OF THE REVISED CODE REQUIRES THAT "ANY ORDER" OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OTHER THAN ONE "FOR THE PAYMENT OF
MONEY" SHOULD BE REVIEWED ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE UNDER THE
PROVISIONS PROVIDING FOR A THREE-JUDGE COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT "THERE
ARE MANY ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION WHICH ARE NOT JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE
UNDER THE PROVISION NOW INCORPORATED IN THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT." 
UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 309. 

IN THE LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO. CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A FINAL VALUATION ORDER - NEITHER
BY VIRTUE OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, NOR UNDER ITS GENERAL EQUITY
POWERS.  THIS RESULT WAS REACHED PARTLY BECAUSE OF WANT OF EQUITY, BUT
ALSO BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND, UPON FULL CONSIDERATION, THAT NOT EVERY
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS "ANY ORDER" WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL
AUTHORIZATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  SO, ALSO, AN ORDER REFUSING
TO INCREASE THE ALLOWANCE FOR RAILROAD MAIL COMPENSATION IS NOT
REVIEWABLE UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  UNITED STATES V.
GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226; SEE ALSO GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
277 U.S. 172.  THE GROUND GIVEN IN THE GRIFFIN CASE WAS THAT, ALTHOUGH
THERE WAS A CASE OR CONTROVERSY AND FINAL ACTION, THIS TYPE OF ORDER
WAS NOT WITHIN THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT - AND THIS, AS WE REAFFIRMED
THE OTHER DAY, QUITE APART FROM THE OBSOLETE "NEGATIVE ORDER"
DOCTRINE.  UNITED STATES V. JONES, 336 U.S. 641, 647.  FINALLY - AND IT
OUGHT TO BE DECISIVE - ON FOUR OCCASIONS THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE
COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO AWARD REPARATIONS, WHEN THE SHIPPER, AS HERE,
PROCEEDED UNDER SEC. 13 OF THE ACT, IS NOT REVIEWABLE.  STANDARD OIL
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 235; BRADY V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N, 43 F.2D 847, AFFIRMED PER CURIAM AFTER ARGUMENT, BRADY V.
UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 804; ALLISON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 12
F.SUPP.  862, AFFIRMED PER CURIAM, 296 U.S. 546; ASHLAND COAL & ICE CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 61 F.SUPP.  708, AFFIRMED PER CURIAM, 325 U.S. 840. 
THESE DECISIONS WERE BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT PRECLUDES REVIEW BY THE COURTS WHEN THE SHIPPER HAD FIRST SOUGHT
DAMAGES BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

THE EXTRAORDINARY CONSEQUENCES OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT - DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, A DISTRICT COURT OF
THREE JUDGES, PRECEDENCE OVER OTHER CASES ON BOTH TRIAL AND APPEAL -
WERE TO COME INTO PLAY IN STRICTLY LIMITED SITUATIONS.  THESE CAN BE
FAIRLY SUMMARIZED AS COVERING ONLY THE KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
WHICH GENERALLY ARE "OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE BECAUSE OF THE WIDESPREAD
EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS" RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION.  UNITED STATES V.
GRIFFIN, SUPRA, 303 U.S. AT 233.  THE REPARATION ORDERS HERE INVOLVED,
AS IS TRUE OF ALL REPARATION ORDERS, SINCE THE SHIPPER MUST SHOW ACTUAL
DAMAGES, CONCERN ONLY THE SHIPPER AND THE COMMON CARRIER WHICH CHARGED
THE RATE.  AN UNDERLYING LEGAL ISSUE WHICH MAY BE OF WIDER PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE CAN, OF COURSE, BE ADJUDICATED IN A WAY WHICH PERMITS
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THUS, AN ORDER DEALING WITH FUTURE RATES IS
REVIEWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS FOR A THREE-JUDGE COURT. 

BUT THERE IS ANOTHER REASON WHY REPARATION ORDERS ARE NOT REVIEWABLE
UNDER THE THREE-JUDGE COURT PROVISIONS.  SECTION 17, INCORPORATING THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES' MODE OF REVIEW, IS NOT CONCERNED WITH REPARATION
CLAIMS BUT WITH A WHOLLY DIFFERENT MATTER.  REPARATION CLAIMS HAVE BEEN
SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT, AND, TO THE
EXTENT THAT REVIEW WAS INTENDED, IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR.  BY
THE ORIGINAL ACT, ORDERS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY WERE ENFORCEABLE IN
EQUITY.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF 1887, SEC. 16, 24 STAT. 379, 384
385.  ON THE SUGGESTION THAT THIS WAS A DENIAL OF THE COMMON CARRIER'S
RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY GUARANTEED BY THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, SEE 19
CONG. REC. 5149-50, CONGRESS PROMPTLY PROVIDED THAT A SUCCESSFUL
SHIPPER BEFORE THE COMMISSION HAD TO SUE AT LAW ON HIS AWARD.  25 STAT.
855, 859-60, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(2).  BUT THERE WAS NO
OCCASION FOR COURT REVIEW OF A RATE ORDER BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHILE GIVING THE SHIPPER A RIGHT TO DAMAGE FOR
PAST VIOLATIONS, DID NOT GIVE THE COMMISSION RATE-MAKING AUTHORITY. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. CINCINNATI, N.O. & T. PAC. R. CO.,
167 U.S. 479.  THE RATE-MAKING POWER WAS FIRST CONFERRED BY THE HEPBURN
ACT OF 1906.  34 STAT. 584, 586-587.  FOR THE REVIEW OF SUCH RATE
ORDERS CONGRESS ENACTED WHAT IS NOW SEC. 17(9).  THEN, FOR THE FIRST
TIME, THE COURTS WERE GIVEN JURISDICTION OVER A SUIT "TO ENJOIN, SET
ASIDE, ANNUL, OR SUSPEND ANY ORDER OR REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMISSION,"
AND "JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE SUCH SUITS" WAS THEREBY VESTED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE COMMON CARRIER WAS
LOCATED.  34 STAT. 592; SEE H.R. REP. NO. 591, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 4
5(1906); H.R. REP. NO. 4093, 58TH CONG., 3D SESS. 2, 5(1905); UNITED
STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 309. 

IN 1910, THIS IDENTICAL JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURTS AND CONFERRED UPON THE NEWLY CREATED COMMERCE COURT, BUT IT WAS
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED:  "NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED
AS ENLARGING THE JURISDICTION NOW POSSESSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  36 STAT. 539.  THIS PROVISION WAS INSERTED
IN THE LEGISLATION SO "THAT THE CREATION OF THIS COURT SHALL NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS GIVING TO THE COMMERCE COURT ANY GREATER JURISDICTION THAN
IS NOW POSSESSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OVER
SIMILAR MATTERS."  H.R. REP. NO. 923, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS. 7(1910); SEE
S. REP. NO. 355, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS. 4, PT. 2, 4-5(1910); SEE S. DOC.
NO. 606, VOL. 54, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS. 2(1910).  BY THIS LEGISLATION OF
1910, CONGRESS MERELY PROVIDED FOR A SHIFT OF JURISDICTION, FROM THE
OLD CIRCUIT COURTS TO THE NEW CENTRALIZED COMMERCE COURT, AND NOT AN
ENLARGEMENT OF JURISDICTION.  WHEN IN 1913 THE COMMERCE COURT WAS
ABOLISHED THE SAME JURISDICTION WAS REVESTED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS,
THE CIRCUIT COURTS HAVING BEEN ABOLISHED IN THE MEANTIME:  "THE
JURISDICTION VESTED IN SAID COMMERCE COURT  ...  (WAS) TRANSFERRED TO
AND VESTED IN THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES."  38
STAT. 219.  INDISPUTABLY CONGRESS DID NOT MAKE REVIEWABLE ORDERS WHICH
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COMMERCE COURT.  FN9    THEREFORE,
EVEN PUTTING TO ONE SIDE SEC. 9, THE DISMISSAL OF THE REPARATION
COMPLAINT WAS CLEARLY NOT WITHIN THE WORDS "ANY ORDER" IN SEC. 17(9):
(1) IF IT WERE WITHIN SEC. 17(9) IT WOULD BE REVIEWABLE ONLY BY A THREE
JUDGE COURT, BUT THAT REVIEWING DEVICE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO REPARATION
CLAIMS; (2) REPARATION CLAIMS ARE NOT WITHIN SEC. 17(9) BECAUSE THEY
HAVE BEEN TREATED BY A DIFFERENT SCHEME THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE
ACT.  IF REVIEW IS TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE ACT, IT MUST BE BECAUSE OF
PROVISIONS OTHER THAN THOSE IN SEC. 17(9). 

SECOND.  THE ONLY OTHER PROVISION IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
WHICH AFFORDS JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ORDER IS SEC. 16.  THAT SECTION,
HOWEVER, COMES INTO FORCE ONLY WHEN AN AWARD FOR DAMAGES IS MADE. 
REJECTION BY THE COMMISSION OF A MONEY CLAIM IS OUTSIDE THE EXPRESS
TERMS OF THAT SECTION AND NOT WITHIN THAT CAN FAIRLY BE IMPLIED FROM
ANY LANGUAGE IN IT.  A GENERAL ARGUMENT OF FAIRNESS IS MADE THAT SINCE
THIS SECTION PROVIDES FOR COURT REVIEW WHEN AN AWARD IS MADE WHERE THE
CARRIER LOSES, THE SHIPPER IS ENTITLED TO REVIEW WHEN THE CARRIER
WINS.  LEAVING ASIDE, TEMPORARILY, THE FACT THAT WHAT CONGRESS HAS
WRITTEN IN SEC. 9 FORECLOSES COURT REVIEW, TO YIELD TO SUCH AN
INFERENCE IN FAVOR OF A SHIPPER WHOSE CLAIM IS DENIED RAISES
INSUPERABLE DIFFICULTIES ONCE WE LEAVE THE TEXT AND SCHEME OF THE ACT
AND GO AT LARGE AS TO COURT REVIEW.  THUS THERE WOULD BE NO LIMIT ON
THE TIME IN WHICH REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S DISMISSAL OF THE
REPARATION CLAIM COULD BE BROUGHT, WHEREAS SEC. 16 FIXES A TIME LIMIT
FOR SUITS AGAINST THE CARRIER ON AWARDS BY THE COMMISSION.  43 STAT.
633, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(3)(F).  THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE
OBSTRUCTIONS IF WE ARE TO IMPLY COURT REVIEW OF ORDERS DISALLOWING
REPARATION CLAIMS BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO ALLOW SUITS ON
ORDERS GRANTING AN AWARD.  IN OTHER RESPECTS THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO
LEGISLATE FOR CONGRESS.  WHAT EFFECT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING?  IF THE SHIPPER RECEIVES AN AWARD OF DAMAGES AND SUES THE
CARRIER THEREON, SEC. 16(2) PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ARE
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE.  41 STAT. 491, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(2). 
ARE WE TO CREATE THE SAME RULE JUDICIALLY, THOUGH CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE
SO, WHEN THE SHIPPER FAILS BEFORE THE COMMISSION?  MAY THE SHIPPER
INTRODUCE NEW EVIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT COURT?  WHEN THE SHIPPER SUES
THE COMMON CARRIER, THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN MAKING AN AWARD "CUTS
OFF NO DEFENSE, INTERPOSES NO OBSTACLE TO A FULL CONTESTATION OF ALL
THE ISSUES, AND TAKES NO QUESTION OF FACT FROM EITHER COURT OR JURY." 
MEEKER & CO. V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 236 U.S. 412, 430.  BUT IF THE
UNSUCCESSFUL SHIPPER CAN SAVE UP EVIDENCE UNTIL HE GETS IN COURT, THE
ADVANTAGES OF A COMMISSION HEARING ARE DESTROYED.  WHAT WILL BE THE
SCOPE OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION?  WOULD THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINE
ONLY LIABILITY, OR ALSO THE AMOUNT TO BE RECOVERED, OR ONLY THAT THE
COMMISSION ACTED WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION IN FACT OR CONTRARY TO LAW?  THE
ANSWER TO NONE OF THESE QUESTIONS CAN BE FOUND IN SEC. 16.  YET, ONE
WOULD SUPPOSE, IF REVIEW IN THIS SITUATION IS TO BE DERIVED FROM SEC.
16, SOME GUIDES FOR ITS EXERCISE SHOULD ALSO BE FOUND IN THAT SECTION,
CONSIDERING THE PARTICULARITIES WITH WHICH IT DEFINES REVIEW IN THE
INSTANCES AUTHORIZING COURT ACTION.  THEREFORE, THIS COURT HAS HELD:
"SECTION 16(2) DOES NOT PERMIT SUIT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AWARD, AND IF
THE COMMISSION DENIES HIM RELIEF, A CLAIMANT IS REMEDILESS."  BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO. V. BRADY, 288 U.S. 448, 458. 

MONEY DAMAGES ARE PART OF THE REGULATORY SCHEME.  MITCHELL COAL &
COKE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247, 258.  BUT WHILE THE
COMMISSION MAY DETERMINE THAT RATES FOR THE FUTURE BE REDUCED, IT IS
NOT REQUIRED TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR THE HIGHER RATES IN THE PAST.  THUS
IT IS NOT AT ALL STRANGE THAT ITS ACTION BE NOT SUBJECT TO COURT REVIEW
WHERE THE SHIPPER HAS FAILED TO PERSUADE THE COMMISSION TO AWARD
DAMAGES.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BRADY, 288 U.S. 448, 458. 
ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE WHEN CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE
PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE SHIPPER WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GO TO COURT. 
THEREFORE, EVEN WITHOUT ANY EXPLICIT PROVISION IT WOULD BE A REASONABLE
INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO GRANT A REVIEW WHERE THE
SHIPPER HAS DECIDED TO SEEK HIS DAMAGES BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS PROVIDED ALTERNATE METHODS OF SECURING DAMAGES,
AND AUTHORIZED COURT REVIEW WHEN THE COMMISSION SUSTAINED A MONEY
CLAIM, BUT NOT WHEN IT DENIED SUCH A CLAIM, CONGRESS DID NOT LEAVE
MERELY TO RATIONAL INFERENCE THAT UPON DENIAL OF A MONEY AWARD BY THE
COMMISSION, THE SHIPPER COULD NOT AGAIN TRY HIS LUCK IN COURT.  BY SEC.
9 CONGRESS GAVE THE SHIPPER HIS CHOICE OF FORUM:  HE COULD ASK FOR
DAMAGES EITHER FROM THE COMMISSION OR A COURT, BUT COULD "NOT HAVE THE
RIGHT TO PURSUE BOTH OF SAID REMEDIES"; HE "MUST IN EACH CASE ELECT
WHICH ONE OF THE TWO METHODS OF PROCEDURE HEREIN PROVIDED FOR HE  ...
WILL ADOPT."  24 STAT. 382, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 9.  IF THE
SHIPPER ASKS THE COMMISSION TO AWARD HIM DAMAGES AND IT GOES AGAINST
HIM, CONGRESS HAS BARRED REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OR REVISION OF THE AMOUNT
OF THE AWARD.  BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. BRADY, 288 U.S. 448, 458-59. 
SINCE CONGRESS GAVE THE SHIPPER THE ALTERNATIVE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR
JUDICIAL RELIEF, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT CONGRESS WAS
CONSTITUTIONALLY FREE TO MAKE FINAL THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHOICE. 

THIRD.  SINCE ACCESS TO COURT REVIEW OF AN ORDER DENYING REPARATIONS
WAS BARRED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SUCH REVIEW IS NOT AVAILABLE
UNDER THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS.  28 U.S.C. SEC.
1337.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN SUGGESTED, DURING SOME SIXTY YEARS OF ACTIVE
LITIGATION OVER THIS PROBLEM, THAT FOR REVIEW OF SUCH AN ORDER RESORT
MAY BE HAD TO A COURT OF EQUITY OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  EVEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT NOW SUGGEST IT, AND
NATURALLY SO.  DUE REGARD FOR THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
PRECLUDES IT. AND FOR THESE REASONS: 

(1)  THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF SEC. 17(9) WHICH ALONE GIVE REVIEWING
POWER TO THE COURTS, SAVE IN CASES WHERE THE CARRIER HAS BEEN HELD TO
OWE MONEY, DO SO "UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE IN THE CASE
OF SUITS TO ENFORCE, ENJOIN, SUSPEND, OR SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE
COMMISSION, BUT NOT OTHERWISE."  54 STAT. 916, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 17(9). 
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT REVIEW WOULD BE "OTHERWISE" IF THE UNSUCCESSFUL
SHIPPER BE PERMITTED TO BRING AN ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1337. 
THIS REASON EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE FACT THAT SEC. 9 ALSO PROHIBITS
COURT ACTION AFTER AN ATTEMPT TO RECOVER DAMAGES IS MADE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  IT IS ALSO INDEPENDENT OF THE FACT THAT PROVISIONS OF
TITLE 28 DO NOT MAKE REVIEWABLE ORDERS FOR WHICH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE REVIEW. 

(2)  BECAUSE OF THESE PROVISIONS, REVIEW OF REPARATION CLAIMS DIFFERS
FROM THE SITUATION IN SHIELDS V. UTAH I.C.R. CO., 305 U.S. 177.  THERE
THE COURT WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH AN ENACTMENT WHICH SAID THAT IF A
PERSON SOUGHT THE COMMISSION'S AID HE COULD NOT THEREAFTER GO TO
COURT.  THE SHIELDS CASE IS INAPPOSITE ON ANOTHER GROUND.  BY
DETERMINING THAT A CERTAIN RAILROAD WAS SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, THE COMMISSION PLACED THE RAILROAD UNDER THE ACTIVE
HAZARDS OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.  EQUITY WAS INVOKED FOR ONE OF ITS
ANCIENT FUNCTIONS OF STAYING A MULTIPLICITY OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS TO
AVOID IRREPARABLE HARM.  SEE 305 U.S. AT 183, AND SWITCHMEN'S UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297, 306.  HERE
THERE IS NOT THE REMOTEST GROUND FOR APPEAL TO EQUITY.  IT IS MERELY A
MATTER OF DOLLARS AND CENTS - NOT THE HAZARDS OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION -
AND AN INSISTENCE ON HAVING TWO MODES OF RECOVERING MONEY DAMAGES WHEN
CONGRESS HAS GIVEN SHIPPERS THE CHOICE OF ONE OR THE OTHER.  THERE IS A
TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY OF THE TRADITIONAL GROUNDS FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 314-5. 

NOR IS REVIEW PERMITTED UNDER SEC. 1336 OF TITLE 28(1948), IF IT IS
DETERMINED THAT THE TYPE OF ORDER INVOLVED IS NOT OF THE NATURE CALLING
FOR A THREE-JUDGE COURT.  THE GOVERNMENT RELIED ON THE SPECIAL SCHEME
OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT AS INCORPORATED IN THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT CONFERRING JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ORDERS OF THE
COMMISSION.  THIS SCHEME REQUIRES REVIEW BY A THREE-JUDGE COURT.  THE
COURT REJECTS THAT CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT A REPARATION ORDER IS NOT
THE TYPE OF ORDER SO REVIEWABLE.  INSTEAD THE COURT FINDS JURISDICTION
IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN A PETITION TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION DENYING REPARATION IN SEC. 41(28) OF TITLE 28(1946 ED.), NOW
SEC. 1336.  BUT JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 41(28) CARRIES ALSO THE
REQUIREMENT OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT.  SEE SECS. 41-47, NOW C. 157 OF
TITLE 28 OF THE REVISED CODE.  NO JURISDICTION CAN BE DERIVED FROM SEC.
41(28) OF TITLE 28 UNLESS THE ORDER IS OF THE TYPE THAT IS REVIEWABLE
BY A THREE-JUDGE COURT.  TO REJECT THE LATTER IS NECESSARILY TO HOLD
THAT NO JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS DERIVABLE FROM SEC.
41(28) OF TITLE 28, NOW SEC. 1336.  FN10 

MOREOVER, A SUIT FILED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SEC. 41(28) OF TITLE
28 IS ONE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AS A PARTY ONLY IF IT CHOOSES TO INTERVENE.  28 U.S.C. SECS.
2322, 2323.  CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT IS REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE SUCH A SUIT
AND CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED ONLY UNDER THE CONDITIONS
REQUISITE FOR A THREE-JUDGE COURT PROCEEDING FOR WHICH THIS COURT FINDS
NO JURISDICTION, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 2321-2325.  ON THE BASIS OF THE RESULT
IN THIS CASE THE DECISION BELOW IN THE GREAT LAKES STEEL CASE, NO. 749
THIS TERM, MUST OF COURSE BE REVERSED.  AND SO THIS COURT WOULD DIRECT
THE ALLOWANCE OF A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, ALTHOUGH CONGRESS
HAS NOT GIVEN CONSENT THERETO.  THE ONLY POSSIBLE ESCAPE FROM THIS
CONCLUSION IS THAT JURISDICTION IS TO BE DENIED WHEN A PRIVATE SHIPPER
SEEKS TO GO INTO COURT AFTER THE COMMISSION HAS DISMISSED HIS COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES, AS IN THE GREAT LAKES STEEL CASE, BUT JURISDICTION SOMEHOW
OR OTHER SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS THE SHIPPER. 
THE DEFENSE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, MOREOVER, CANNOT BE AVOIDED BY
DIRECTING THAT THE SUIT PROCEED ONLY AGAINST THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY, OR THAT IT PROCEEDED UNDER AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
STATUTE, OR THAT IT ACTED BEYOND THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY A VALID
STATUTE.  IT MERELY ACTED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY AND MADE A
DETERMINATION, AS IT WAS LEGALLY BOUND TO DO, BASED UPON THE LAW AND
THE FACTS.  THE DIFFICULTY OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FORCIBLY DEMONSTRATES
AGAIN WHY A METHOD OF COURT REVIEW CANNOT BE FOUND OUTSIDE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

FOURTH.  WE NOW TURN TO SEC. 9.  THE LANGUAGE LEAVES NO ROOM FOR
DOUBT.  BUT IT IS NOW URGED (THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SO ARGUED IN
THE FOUR DECISIONS THAT WENT AGAINST PRIVATE SHIPPERS) THAT WHERE THE
DAMAGE CLAIM WAS BASED ON OTHER THAN A MERE ARITHMETICAL OVERCHARGE,
THE ELECTION AFFORDED BY SEC. 9 IS ILLUSORY.  THIS IS SO, IT IS ARGUED,
BECAUSE WHEN COMPLAINT IS MADE THAT RATES WERE UNFAIR, PREJUDICIAL OR
UNREASONABLE, THE DOCTRINE OF TEXAS & PAC. R. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL
CO., 204 U.S. 426, IS BROUGHT INTO OPERATION.  IT IS SAID THAT THE
GOVERNMENT NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO INTO COURT UNTIL THE
COMMISSION DISMISSED ITS COMPLAINT.  SUFFICIENT RESPECT IS GIVEN TO
SEC. 9, SO THE ARGUMENT RUNS, BY READING IT TO BAR "INITIATING" ANOTHER
ACTION IN THE COURT AFTER IT HAS FAILED BEFORE THE COMMISSION, NOT TO
REVIEWING THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.  SO TO ARGUE IS TO REWRITE WHAT
CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN.  CONGRESS DID NOT BAR "INITIATING"; IT BARRED
"THE RIGHT TO PURSUE."  THE COURT CONCEDES THAT SEC. 9 IS A BAR WHEN A
SHIPPER COULD HAVE GONE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO THE COURTS.  THIS WAS
SO RULED IN BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. BRADY, 288 U.S. 448.  BUT WHAT
LANGUAGE AFFORDS A BASIS FOR A DISTINCTION WHEN A DETERMINATION OF A
TRANSPORTATION ISSUE MUST BE MADE BY THE COMMISSION BEFORE THE CASE CAN
PROCEED TO JUDGMENT?  MOREOVER, THE RESULT OF THE COURT'S DECISION IS
TO MAKE THE COMMISSION'S DECISION FINAL IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THE
COMMISSION IS ACTING PURELY JUDICIALLY - MERELY A MATTER OF APPLYING
THE LAW TO THE FACTS - BUT NOT FINAL WHEN THE COMMISSION, ACTING IN THE
REALM OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTNESS, FOUND A PRACTICE LEGAL, AND
THEREFORE DENIED DAMAGES.  ADJUDICATION AND SETTLED PRACTICE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION LIKEWISE DISPROVE THIS DISCOVERY THAT THE CHOICE GIVEN BY
CONGRESS IN SEC. 9 IS A SHAM. 

THE COMMISSION MUST OFTEN PASS ON THE LEGALITY OF A PARTICULAR
PRACTICE OF A CARRIER; SUCH PROCEEDINGS MAY SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR
REPARATIONS.  UNDER PART I OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, RELATING TO RAIL
CARRIERS, THE SHIPPER MAY ASK THE COMMISSION FOR A DECLARATION THAT A
PRACTICE HAS BEEN ILLEGAL AND BASE A CLAIM OF DAMAGES ON SUCH
ILLEGALITY UNDER SEC. 8 OF THE ACT.  HIS OTHER COURSE IS TO SECURE A
COMMISSION DETERMINATION ONLY AS TO THE ILLEGALITY OF THE PRACTICE AND
NOT ASK FOR AN AWARD, RESERVING THE CLAIM OF DAMAGES FOR COURT ACTION. 
THIS MAY BE DONE IN ONE OF TWO WAYS.  HE MAY BEGIN BY FILING HIS SUIT
IN COURT AND ASK THE COURT TO HOLD THE CASE UNTIL HE HAS OBTAINED AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION FROM THE COMMISSION.  FN11  THERE IS NO
JURISDICTIONAL BAR TO SUCH A PROCEDURE.  IN TEXAS & PAC. R. CO. V.
ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426, THE COURT SAID THE CASE SHOULD BE
DISMISSED, BUT PREOCCUPATION WAS WITH THE NECESSITY FOR PRIOR
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, NOT WITH WHETHER THERE WAS JURISDICTION
IN THE SENSE OF POWER TO HOLD THE CASE UNTIL THERE HAD BEEN A
COMMISSION DETERMINATION.  CASES - DECIDED AFTER THE ABILENE CASE -
HAVE CLEARLY RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS JURISDICTION TO HOLD THE CASE,
AND THIS PROCEDURE HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN A NUMBER OF THEM.  FN12
MITCHELL COAL & COKE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247, 267;
MORRISDALE COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 304, 314-5; SEE
SMITH V. HOBOKEN R. CO., 328 U.S. 123, 133; THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN
R. CO., 328 U.S. 134, 151; SEE ALSO BELL POTATO CHIP CO. V. ABERDEEN
TRUCK LINE, 43 M.C.C. 337, 343. 

THE OTHER METHOD OPEN TO A SHIPPER WHO DESIRES TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF
THE COURT REMEDY GIVEN BY SEC. 9 IS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION AND TO ASK MERELY FOR A DECLARATION REGARDING THE LEGALITY
OF A PAST PRACTICE, BUT NOT FOR DAMAGES.  THIS COURSE IS MANIFESTED BY
THE COMPLAINTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, ASKING MERELY FOR A DECLARATION
WITHOUT ANY AD DAMNUM.  FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN JULY, 1947, AND
FEBRUARY, 1949, 46 SUCH CASES WERE FILED UNDER PART I OF THE ACT. 
UNDER PART II, 22 COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED SINCE JANUARY 1, 1948,
REQUESTING SUCH A DECLARATION AS TO THE LEGALITY OF A PRACTICE.  FN13 

THE GOVERNMENT THUS HAD A REAL CHOICE.  TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 297 U.S. 500, 507-8.  BUT, HAVING FIRST SOUGHT THE
ADVANTAGES OF A COMMISSION AWARD, IT FORECLOSED ITSELF FROM PURSUING A
JUDICIAL REMEDY WHEN ITS EXPECTATIONS FAILED.  A DOUBLE REMEDY WHICH
CONGRESS DENIED, THIS COURT OUGHT NOT TO GRANT.  THE GOVERNMENT "HAD A
CHOICE  ...  BETWEEN A REMEDY AT THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION AND A
REMEDY BY SUIT, BUT BY EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE STATUTE IT COULD NOT
HAVE THEM BOTH."  TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., SUPRA,
P. 508. 

THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY A READING OF THE STATUTE IS REENFORCED BY
THE ADJUDICATED CASES.  IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S.
235, THREE DISTINCT GROUNDS WERE GIVEN FOR AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION OF A SUIT TO REVIEW AN ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION DISMISSING A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.  ONE REASON WAS THAT
THE ORDER WAS "A NEGATIVE ORDER"; THAT REASON HAS BEEN DISPLACED BY
ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125.  BUT THE
STANDARD OIL DECISION WAS LEFT INTACT BY THE ROCHESTER DECISION, FOR
THE OPINION IN THAT CASE EXPLICITLY POINTED OUT THAT "THE MAIN BASIS"
OF THE STANDARD OIL DECISION "WAS NOT THE 'NEGATIVE ORDER' DOCTRINE BUT
(THAT) THE STATUTORY SCHEME DEALING WITH REPARATIONS" PRECLUDED REVIEW
OF AN ORDER DENYING MONEY DAMAGES.  307 U.S. AT P. 140, N. 23.  THE
"STATUTORY SCHEME" WAS THUS DEFINED IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE:  "HAVING
ELECTED TO PROCEED AND HAVING PROCEEDED TO A DETERMINATION BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, APPELLANT WAS, BY FORCE OF THIS PROVISION (SEC. 9),
PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING REPARATION UPON THE SAME CLAIMS BY THE
ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF PROCEDURE."  283 U.S. AT 241; SEE ALSO MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO FOR THE COURT IN TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA
R. CO., 297 U.S. 500, 507-8.  THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY AS A SHIPPER WAS
PRECISELY IN THE SAME SITUATION AS THE UNITED STATES IN THIS CASE; THE
UNITED STATES PURSUED THE SAME COURSE IN THIS CASE AS DID THE STANDARD
OIL COMPANY.  THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY WAS NOT "INITIATING" AN ACTION
IN THE DISTRICT COURT BUT WAS SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION, AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE UNITED STATES IS
DOING IN THIS CASE.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STANDARD OIL CASE
AND THIS CASE IS THAT IN THE EARLIER CASE THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY WAS
THE PLAINTIFF, AND IN THIS CASE IT IS THE GOVERNMENT.  WHAT THE COURT
SAID IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE.  "IT IS OF NO
IMPORTANCE THAT THE ADJUDICATION SOUGHT IS TO TAKE THE FORM OF A
DIRECTION TO THE COMMISSION TO GRANT THE PRAYER OF THE COMPLAINTS FILED
BEFORE THAT BODY, ETC., INSTEAD OF A PLENARY JUDGMENT TO THE SAME END,
FOR THE PRAYER IN THAT FORM IS NOTHING LESS THAN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID
THE STATUTE BY INDIRECTION."  283 U.S. AT P. 241. 

IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ROCHESTER CASE EXPRESSLY SAVED THAT
PHASE OF THE STANDARD OIL DECISION WHICH IS DECISIVE OF THE PROBLEM
BEFORE US NOW - "THE STATUTORY SCHEME DEALING WITH REPARATIONS" - THE
COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE ROCHESTER CASE IMPLIEDLY OVERRULED THE
STANDARD OIL CASE MEANS OF COURSE THAT TO THIS EXTENT THE COURT TODAY
OVERRULES THE ROCHESTER CASE, NOT THAT THE ROCHESTER CASE HAD OVERRULED
THE STANDARD OIL CASE, WHOLLY APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE STANDARD OIL
DECISION WAS THE BASIS OF A DECISION LONG AFTER THE ROCHESTER CASE. 
FN14  ASHLAND COAL & ICE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 840. 

AND TO WHAT END THESE DISLOCATIONS OF SO MANY DECISIONS?  WE HAVE
BEEN VOUCHSAFED NO CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY, NO REVEALED INJUSTICE
FLOWING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION THUS FAR PLACED UPON THE REPARATIONS
PROVISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, NO DIFFICULTIES IN ITS
ADMINISTRATION, NO DISCLOSURE OF NEW MATERIALS FOR THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF AN OLD STATUTE.  AND THE CURRENT OF SETTLED JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IS NOW REVERSED AGAINST
THE VIGOROUS PROTEST OF THE AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE LAW ALTHOUGH ONLY A WEEK AGO WE GREATLY RELIED ON ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE AS THE BASIS OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION. 

THE RESULT REACHED IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO
CONTROVERSIES WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE THE "PRIMARY JURISDICTION"
DOCTRINE.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN THAT CASE DID ASSUME ARGUENDO THAT THE
ISSUE INVOLVED NOTHING WHICH REQUIRED ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
BEFORE IT ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE BASIC JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION.  SEE
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 41 F.2D 836.  ON APPEAL, HOWEVER,
THIS COURT DID NOT CONFINE IN ANY WAY THE BAR IMPOSED BY SEC. 9 TO
RESORT TO A DISTRICT COURT AFTER AN UNSUCCESSFUL RESORT TO THE
COMMISSION FOR REPARATIONS.  IT READ SEC. 9 AS IT WAS WRITTEN, AS A
PROVISION FOR A CHOICE OF TRIBUNALS SO THAT, IF DAMAGES ARE SOUGHT FROM
THE COMMISSION AND DENIED BY IT, THE COURTS ARE CLOSED TO A FURTHER
CONSIDERATION OF SUCH A CLAIM. 

THE SUGGESTION AT THIS LATE DATE THAT THE ELECTION SO SPECIFICALLY
DEFINED BY SEC. 9 APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE INSTANCES IN WHICH NO NEED FOR
COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF TRANSPORTATION ISSUES MAY BE REQUIRED IS
COMPLETELY DISPELLED BY BRADY V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 804.  IN THE
BRADY CASE, DAMAGES WERE BASED ON THE CLAIM THAT THE CARRIER'S
PRACTICES WERE UNJUST, UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY PREJUDICIAL - THE EXACT
GROUNDS URGED IN THIS CASE.  THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO AWARD
REPARATIONS IN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BY BRADY AND THE SHIPPER BROUGHT
PRECISELY THE SAME KIND OF SUIT THAT THE UNITED STATES AS SHIPPER
BROUGHT HERE.  BRADY ARGUED THAT SINCE THE CONTROVERSY WAS WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S SO-CALLED "PRIMARY JURISDICTION," HE NEVER HAD THE CHOICE
OF PROCEEDING IN COURT RATHER THAN GOING TO THE COMMISSION.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED HIS SUIT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION TO REVIEW
THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION AND THIS COURT SUSTAINED THAT DENIAL OF
JURISDICTION.  IT DID SO ON THE BASIS OF THE STANDARD OIL DECISION
WHICH HAD BEEN RENDERED A MONTH BEFORE, FOR THE STANDARD OIL CASE, AS
DID THE BRADY CASE, AND AS DOES THIS CASE, INVOLVED QUESTIONS WHICH, AS
SUCH, REQUIRED PRELIMINARY COMMISSION DETERMINATION. 

THE SCOPE OF THE STANDARD OIL AND BRADY CASES IS MADE UNAMBIGUOUSLY
CLEAR BY RELIANCE ON THEM FOR THE DECISION IN ALLISON & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 296 U.S. 546, 664, AND ASHLAND COAL & ICE CO. V. UNITED STATES,
325 U.S. 840.  IN EACH CASE ISSUES WERE INVOLVED WHICH INDUBITABLY FELL
UNDER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE "PRIMARY JURISDICTION" DOCTRINE.  IN EACH
OF THESE CASES THE SHIPPER RELIED ON THE CLAIM THAT HIS CASE WAS
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE STANDARD OIL AND THE BRADY CASES.  THE SAME
DISTINCTIONS WHICH ARE NOW ADVANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT WERE THEN
ADVANCED BY THE SHIPPER BUT RESISTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT
THEN RIGHTLY INSISTED THAT THE STANDARD OIL AND THE BRADY CASES COULD
NOT BE RESTRICTED TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE "PRIMARY JURISDICTION"
DOCTRINE WAS INOPERATIVE AND THAT THE DECISION IN THOSE CASES - THAT
SEC. 9 IS UNQUALIFIED IN PRECLUDING RESORT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ALL
CASES WHERE DAMAGES HAD FIRST BEEN DENIED BY THE COMMISSION - WAS
COMPELLED BY A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 9.  THIS POSITION OF THE
GOVERNMENT WAS CONSIDERED SO INCONTESTABLE THAT THE COURT DEEMED ORAL
ARGUMENT NEEDLESS AND GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO AFFIRM.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST HAS CHANGED, BUT NOT THE FORCE OF ITS POSITION
WHEN IT WAS WITHOUT SELF-INTEREST. 

I WOULD AFFIRM. 

FN1  COMPARE BRIEF FOR UNITED STATES AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, PP. 7-22, GREAT LAKES STEEL CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 81
F.SUPP.  450, WITH BRIEF FOR UNITED STATES, PP. 14-39, UNITED STATES V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 78 F.SUPP.  780.  SINCE THE ARGUMENT OF
THIS CASE THE GREAT LAKES STEEL CASE HAS BEEN BROUGHT HERE ON APPEAL,
NO. 749, THIS TERM, AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE CONFLICT. 
SEE MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION,
GREAT LAKES STEEL CORP. V. UNITED STATES, NO. 749, THIS TERM. 

FN2  54 STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. 

FN3  24 STAT. 382, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 8. 

FN4  24 STAT. 382, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 9, 24 STAT. 383, AS
AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 13. 

FN5  IT HELD THAT THE RATES FOR EXPORT APPLIED ONLY WHEN THE WHARVES
WERE PUBLIC, WHICH THESE WHARVES WERE NOT.  THE COMMISSION ALSO POINTED
OUT THAT THE RAILROADS HAD MADE OTHER CONCESSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT;
THAT THE RATES CHARGED, TOGETHER WITH A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR THE
SERVICES NOT PROVIDED, WERE STILL BELOW THE UPPER LIMITS OF
REASONABLENESS; THAT THE WHARFAGE CHARGES HAD BEEN ABSORBED BECAUSE OF
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS.  264 I.C.C. 683, 269 I.C.C. 141. 

FN6  24 STAT. 383, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 13. 

FN7  24 STAT. 384, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 16. 

FN8  54 STAT. 916, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 17(9). 

FN9  THERE WAS NO COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS LEGISLATION; IT WAS ADDED
TO AN APPROPRIATION BILL.  SEE 50 CONG. REC. 4527-8.  MR. FITZGERALD,
THE SPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT, SAID THAT ITS SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO ABOLISH
THE COMMERCE COURT AND MAKE PROVISION FOR THE LITIGATION OVER WHICH
THAT COURT HAD JURISDICTION.  "IT DOES NOT GIVE ANY NEW RIGHT TO ANY
PARTIES."  50 CONG. REC. 4532, 4536, 4542.  THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO
ENLARGE THE REVIEW PROVISION SO AS TO GIVE SHIPPERS REVIEW WHERE
PREVIOUSLY IT DID NOT EXIST, BUT THIS AMENDMENT WAS DEFEATED AFTER
DEBATE.  50 CONG. REC. 4532, 4543-44.  IT WAS SAID:  "THE LEGISLATION
CONTAINED IN THIS BILL SIMPLY ABOLISHES A COURT THAT OUGHT NEVER TO
HAVE BEEN CREATED AND VESTS THE JURISDICTION WHICH IT NOW EXERCISES IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THAT IS ALL OF IT, AND THAT
IS ALL THERE OUGHT TO BE OF IT.  THERE OUGHT NOT TO BE ANY ATTEMPT TO
ENACT SUBSTANTIVE LAW IN THIS BILL.  THERE OUGHT NOT TO BE ANY ATTEMPT
TO HAVE AN INCREASE TO DECREASE OF THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSION, AND
THERE OUGHT NOT TO BE ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OVER THAT OF THE COMMERCE COURT. 
THE ONLY REASON WHY THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE DESIGNATED INSTEAD OF THE
CIRCUIT COURTS IS THAT THE CIRCUIT COURTS HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED SINCE THE
COMMERCE COURT WAS CREATED."  50 CONG. REC. 4536. 

FN10  IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, IT WAS HELD THAT
BECAUSE THE TYPE OF ORDER THERE INVOLVED WAS NOT THE TYPE REVIWEABLE BY
A THREE-JUDGE COURT, THE PHRASE THE "DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION 'OF CASES BROUGHT TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL OR SUSPEND
IN WHOLE OR IN PART ANY ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION',"
DID NOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE DISTRICT COURT.  303 U.S. AT 227
228.  THE QUOTED WORDS ARE THE PROVISION IN THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT
AND ARE PRECISELY THE SAME PROVISION THAT WAS CARRIED OVER TO SEC.
41(28).  WHEN WE HAD THIS GENERAL PROBLEM HERE THE OTHER DAY IN UNITED
STATES V. JONES, 336 U.S. 641, IT WAS NOT SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 41(28),
NOW SEC. 1336 OF TITLE 28.  INSTEAD, THE COURT AGREED WITH THE GRIFFIN
CASE THAT THE ORDER THERE INVOLVED WAS NOT OF A TYPE CALLING FOR A
THREE-JUDGE COURT AND THEREFORE THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 41(28), NOW SEC. 1336 OF TITLE 28, WERE NOT APPLICABLE.  THE COURT
SIGNIFICANTLY REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 41(6), NOW SEC. 1339
OF TITLE 28, THE SECTION GIVING GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER SUITS ARISING
UNDER THE POSTAL LAWS, AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOURCE OF JURISDICTION.  IN
THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE THE COMPARABLE PROVISION IS SEC. 41(8), NOW
SEC. 1337.  THE ONLY REASON WHY THE COURT NOW SEEKS TO WARP THE WHOLE
STRUCTURE OF TITLE 28 RATHER THAN TO RELY ON THE ONLY SECTION WHICH
CONCEIVABLY GIVES JURISDICTION TO A ONE-JUDGE COURT IS IN ORDER TO
ESCAPE THE EMBARRASSING FACT THAT SUCH A SUIT WOULD BE SQUARELY IN THE
FACE OF SEC. 9 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  OF COURSE EVEN THE
PROCEDURE ADOPTED IS IN THE FACE OF SEC. 9 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT AS INTERPRETED IN FOUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURT.  BUT
RELIANCE ON SEC. 41(8), NOW SEC. 1337, WOULD AT LEAST HAVE THE VIRTUE
OF ONLY MUTILATING ONE ACT - THAT IS, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT -
RATHER THAN BOTH THAT ACT AND SEC. 41(28) OF TITLE 28(1946 ED.), NOW
SEC. 1336 AND C. 157 OF TITLE 28 OF THE REVISED CODE.    FN11  FOR THE
PERIOD SINCE APRIL 28, 1948, ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN NO INSTANCES IN
WHICH THE SHIPPER HAS ASKED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE LEGALITY OF A
PRACTICE UNDER PART I OF THE ACT, IN A COMPLAINT WHICH ALSO STATED THAT
A COURT ACTION WAS BEING HELD IN ABEYANCE, THERE HAVE BEEN THIRTEEN
INSTANCES WHERE COMPLAINTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ASKING ONLY
FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE LEGALITY OF A PRACTICE BECAUSE THE
COMPLAINANT THERE WAS THE DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL ACTION IN THE COURTS. 
SINCE JANUARY, 1948, THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE PROCEEDINGS UNDER PART II OF
THE ACT IN WHICH THE SHIPPER FIRST INSTITUTED SUIT IN THE COURTS AND
THEN ASKED THAT THE SUIT BE HELD IN ABEYANCE UNTIL THE COMMISSION MADE
A DETERMINATION AS TO THE LEGALITY OF A PARTICULAR PRACTICE.  IT SHOULD
BE POINTED OUT THAT UNDER PART II OF THE ACT THE COMMISSION HAS NO
POWER TO AWARD DAMAGES; THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION, HOWEVER,
IS NEVERTHELESS APPLICABLE.  BELL POTATO CHIP CO. V. ABERDEEN TRUCK
LINE, 43 M.C.C. 337, 342-343. 

FN12  THE EL DORADO TERMINAL CO. LITIGATION DID NOT INVOLVE A CLAIM
BY A SHIPPER FOR RECOVERY OF AN OVERCHARGE BY A CARRIER.  THEREFORE,
THE DECISIONS IN GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL
CO., 308 U.S. 422, AND EL DORADO OIL WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S.
12, DID NOT INVOLVE THE STATUTORY SCHEME RELATING TO REPARATIONS.  THE
CASES HAVE NO BEARING ON THE PROBLEM HERE - NAMELY THE JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 9 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
THE EL DORADO LITIGATION WAS AN ORDINARY ACTION ON A CONTRACT. 
ENTANGLED, HOWEVER, IN THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THAT CONTRACT WAS THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF A TRANSPORTATION FACT, WHICH, WITH DUE REGARD TO THE
ABILENE DOCTRINE, MADE PRIOR DETERMINATION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION APPROPRIATE.  TO THAT END IT WAS RULED, IN THE FIRST EL
DORADO CASE, THAT THE ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE HELD FOR
SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION.  GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V.
EL DORADO TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422.  THAT RULING DOES ESTABLISH THAT
SIMPLY BECAUSE A PRIOR DETERMINATION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION IS REQUIRED BEFORE A LITIGATION CAN PROCEED TO JUDGMENT DOES
NOT DEPRIVE A DISTRICT COURT OF JURISDICTION.  THIS CIRCUMSTANCE MERELY
CALLS FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNTIL THE
APPROPRIATE FACT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
AND THEN INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE IN THE PENDING COURT CASE, INSTEAD OF
BEING ESTABLISHED INDEPENDENTLY IN COURT, AS IS USUALLY THE CASE. 
"WHILE WE REJECTED THE COMMISSION'S CONTENTION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
HAD NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASE, WE ACCEPTED ITS CONTENTION THAT
DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED PAST PRACTICES WAS FOR
THE COMMISSION."  EL DORADO OIL WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 12,
17.  THE ORDER MADE BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN RESPONSE
TO THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FIRST EL DORADO CASE WAS NOT AN ORDER OF
DISMISSAL IN A REPARATION SUIT.  PROCEDURALLY IT DID NOT MAKE VERY MUCH
DIFFERENCE, THEREFORE, WHETHER THIS ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN THE PENDING LITIGATION OR WAS
ALLOWED TO BE CONSIDERED IN A NEW PROCEEDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT.  AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURAL ELEGANCE IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR
IT TO HAVE FORMED PART OF THE THEN PENDING LITIGATION WHICH WAS
SUSPENDED PRECISELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING SUCH AN ORDER. 

IN ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 312 U.S. 195, THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION
WAS WHETHER A PARTICULAR ISSUE COULD BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OR, IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE ABILENE DOCTRINE, REQUIRED COMMISSION
DETERMINATION.  THE PREOCCUPATION OF THE CASE WAS WITH THAT ISSUE. 
AFTER HOLDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE ABILENE CASE WAS APPLICABLE, THE
COURT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT BELOW REQUIRING A RULING FROM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER THERE WAS
JURISDICTION IN THE SENSE OF POWER TO ENTERTAIN BUT HOLD THE CASE. 

FN13  THESE FIGURES ARE NOT GIVEN TO IMPLY THAT IN EVERY INSTANCE, OR
EVEN IN MOST INSTANCES, COMMISSION ACTION IS FOLLOWED BY A SUIT IN THE
COURT FOR DAMAGES.  THEIR SOLE PURPOSE IS TO SHOW THAT, BY NOT SEEKING
DAMAGES FROM THE COMMISSION, A COMPLAINANT LEAVES HIMSELF FREE, UNDER
SEC. 9, TO GO TO THE COURTS. 

THE COMMISSION PREFERS THAT THE SHIPPER FIRST FILE A SUIT IN THE
COURT BEFORE ASKING THE COMMISSION FOR A DECLARATION.  THIS PROCEDURE
HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF PREVENTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FROM RUNNING
ON THE SHIPPER WHILE AWAITING COMMISSION DECISION.  ALSO, "IN
CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS DESCRIBED, IT IS APPARENT THAT PRECAUTIONS SHOULD
BE TAKEN TO PREVENT THE FILING OF FRIVOLOUS OR MOOT COMPLAINTS. 
WITHOUT ATTEMPTING AT THIS TIME TO DEVISE A PRECISE RULE, WE THINK IT
PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS
INVOLVING PAST UNREASONABLENESS, UNJUST DISCRIMINATION, OR UNDUE
PREJUDICE UNDER PART II SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT BEFORE US PRIOR TO THE
INSTITUTION OF A SUIT IN COURT IN WHICH DAMAGES ARE SOUGHT PREDICATED
UPON THE UNLAWFULNESS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.  THE COMPLAINT SHOULD
SHOW THAT SUCH SUIT HAS BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE
APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THERE MAY BE OTHER SITUATIONS IN
WHICH WE SHOULD EXERCISE THIS JURISDICTION.  IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY
BE NOTED THAT IT IS A RECOGNIZED PRACTICE TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE COURT
PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS."  BELL POTATO CHIP CO. V. ABERDEEN TRUCK
LINE, 43 M.C.C. 337, 343. 

FN14  NO DECISION OF THIS COURT HAS EVER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY
OVERRULED THE DECISION IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE.  LEAST OF ALL CAN IT
BE SAID THAT ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125,
OVERRULED THE CASE, FOR THE OPINION WITH GREAT CARE STATED THAT THE
STANDARD OIL CASE WAS NOT OVERRULED IN ITS HOLDING THAT ORDERS
DISMISSING A CLAIM FOR REPARATIONS WERE NOT REVIEWABLE BECAUSE OF SEC.
9 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  SEE 307 U.S. AT P. 140, N. 23.  THE
COURT THERE DID ONLY WHAT THE COURT THE OTHER DAY DID IN UNITED STATES
V. JONES, 336 U.S. 641, 647-8, THAT IS, IT DECIDED THAT FOR REASONS
WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION WAS NOT REVIEWABLE.  IF ANYTHING, THE CONCLUSION IN THE
STANDARD OIL CASE WAS REINFORCED BY THE ROCHESTER DECISION IN THAT IT
WAS REAFFIRMED BY THE VERY DECISION THAT PUT THE "NEGATIVE ORDER"
DOCTRINE AND DECISIONS DEALING WITH IT UNDER THE STRICTEST SCRUTINY. 
THAT EXAMINATION REVEALED THAT ONLY ONE CASE OUT OF THE WHOLE SERIES OF
CASES EXAMINED WAS REALLY DETERMINED BY THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE. 
THAT WAS THE ONLY CASE THE COURT OVERRULED.  AND EVEN MR. JUSTICE
BUTLER, WHO FILED A SEPARATE OPINION, DID NOT SAY THAT OTHER CASES WERE
BEING OVERRULED.  HE OBJECTED, ESSENTIALLY, TO THEIR REEXAMINATION.  HE
SAID:  "THE CASE PRESENTS NO DEBATABLE QUESTION AS TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ALLEGED CONCLUSIVELY
SHOWS THAT IN PURPOSE, TERMS AND EFFECT THE FINAL ORDER CONSTITUTES NOT
MERE DETERMINATION OR DECLARATION BUT AFFIRMATIVE COMMANDS.  THERE IS
NO OCCASION TO REVIEW EARLIER DECISIONS DEALING WITH AFFIRMATIVE AND
NEGATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND OBVIOUSLY NONE TO OVERRULE ANY OF
THEM OR TO REPUDIATE OR IMPAIR THE DOCTRINE THEY ESTABLISH."  ROCHESTER
TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 146, 147-48.  THAT THE
ROCHESTER CASE DID NOT OVERRULE STANDARD OIL IS CONCLUSIVELY PROVED BY
THE FACT THAT THIS COURT RELIED ON THAT CASE LESS THAN FOUR YEARS AGO
TO AFFIRM A JUDGMENT DISMISSING A PETITION TO REVIEW AN ORDER
DISMISSING A CLAIM FOR REPARATION.  ASHLAND COAL & ICE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 840. 
..END :






















PROPPER V. CLARK, 337 U.S. 472 


NO. 390.  ARGUED MARCH 28-29, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 169
F.2D 324, AFFIRMED. 


PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED,
THE PRESIDENT PROMULGATED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389 PROHIBITING CERTAIN
TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTY OF NATIONALS OF CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
EXCEPT WHEN LICENSED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  TWO DAYS BEFORE
THIS WAS MADE APPLICABLE TO AUSTRIA BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785,
PETITIONER WAS DESIGNATED BY A NEW YORK COURT AS TEMPORARY RECEIVER OF
THE ASSETS OF AN AUSTRIAN NATIONAL (AKM).  THE ASSET WAS A DEBT OWED BY
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS (ASCAP), AND
NO LICENSE PERMITTING ITS TRANSFER WAS ISSUED.  AFTER ISSUANCE OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785, PETITIONER WAS DESIGNATED PERMANENT
RECEIVER.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN ISSUED AN ORDER
VESTING IN HIMSELF TITLE TO THE CLAIM OF AKM AGAINST ASCAP.  HELD:  IN
A SUIT BY THE CUSTODIAN AGAINST PETITIONER AND ASCAP, JUDGMENTS WERE
PROPERLY ENTERED DECLARING THAT PETITIONER HAD NO RIGHT, TITLE OR
INTEREST IN THE CLAIM AND DIRECTING ASCAP TO PAY IT TO THE CUSTODIAN. 
PP. 474-493. 

1.  THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY 7, 1940, AMENDING SEC. 5(B) OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, ISSUED APRIL
10, 1940, PUT INTO EFFECT A VALID PLAN FOR CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY
COVERED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT PROHIBITED ANY CHANGE OF TITLE TO
THE PROPERTY HERE INVOLVED BY REASON OF THE SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENT OF
PETITIONER AS PERMANENT RECEIVER.  PP. 476-486. 

(A)  THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY 7, 1940, RATIFIED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.
8389, ISSUED APRIL 10, 1940, INCLUDING THE BROAD DEFINITION OF "BANKING
INSTITUTION" AS INCLUDING "ANY PERSON HOLDING CREDITS FOR OTHERS AS A
DIRECT OR INCIDENTAL PART OF HIS BUSINESS."  PP. 478-479. 

(B)  NOT BEING DEFINED, THE TERM "CREDIT," AS USED IN THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT, THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND THE REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER, IS GIVEN ITS ORDINARY MEANING OF THE OBLIGATION DUE ON
ACCOUNTING BETWEEN PARTIES TO TRANSACTIONS.  P. 480. 

(C)  PETITIONER AND ASCAP ARE "BANKING INSTITUTIONS" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE DEFINITIONS OF THAT TERM IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST "TRANSFERS OF CREDIT BETWEEN ANY BANKING
INSTITUTIONS."  PP. 480-482. 

(D)  A TRANSFER OF THE CREDIT HERE INVOLVED FROM A LIABILITY OWED BY
ASCAP TO AKM TO A LIABILITY OWED BY ASCAP TO PETITIONER WOULD VIOLATE
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "TRANSFERS OF CREDIT."  P. 482. 

(E)  ALTHOUGH TITLE TO THE CLAIM IN QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN VESTED IN
THE CUSTODIAN WHEN PETITIONER WAS APPOINTED PERMANENT RECEIVER, THE
EXECUTIVE ORDERS PREVENTED TITLE FROM BEING TRANSFERRED TO PETITIONER,
EVEN BY JUDICIAL ACTION.  PP. 482-485. 

(F)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS.  PP. 485-486. 

2.  UNDER SEC. 977-B OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, TITLE TO THE
CLAIM DID NOT PASS TO PETITIONER BY VIRTUE OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS
TEMPORARY RECEIVER BEFORE ISSUANCE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785.  PP.
486-492. 

(A)  ALTHOUGH THE STATE STATUTE IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF VARYING
INTERPRETATIONS AND THE POINT HAS NOT BEEN RULED UPON BY THE STATE
COURTS, THIS COURT ACCEPTS THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO IT BY
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH ARE SKILLED IN
THE LAWS OF NEW YORK.  PP. 486-489. 

(B)  THIS COURT REJECTS PETITIONER'S SUGGESTION THAT A DECISION IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL THE COURTS OF NEW YORK HAVE
SETTLED THE ISSUE OF STATE LAW.  PP. 489-492. 

3.  THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE NOT PRECLUDED FROM ADJUDGING THE RIGHTS
OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN THIS CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPERTY
WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE COURT BY VIRTUE OF A STATE RECEIVERSHIP. 
PP. 492-493. 

PROPPER, RECEIVER, V. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS SUCCESSOR TO THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN UNDER SEC. 17 OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENTS
DECLARING THAT A RECEIVER APPOINTED BY A STATE COURT HAD NO RIGHT,
TITLE OR INTEREST IN A DEBT OWED TO AN AUSTRIAN NATIONAL AND DIRECTING
THE DEBTOR TO PAY THE DEBT TO THE CUSTODIAN.  70 F.SUPP.  202.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  169 F.2D 324.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO TWO ISSUES.  335 U.S. 902.  AFFIRMED, P. 493. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN  FN1  ON APRIL 22, 1946, BEGAN THIS
ACTION UNDER SEC. 17 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TO OBTAIN
THE PAYMENT, AND A DECLARATION OF TITLE IN HIM AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER AS RECEIVER, OF CERTAIN ROYALTIES OWED BY THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS (ASCAP) TO STAATLICH
GENEHMIGTE GESELLSCHAFT DER AUTOREN, KOMPONISTEN UND MUSIKVERLEGER
(AKM), AN AUSTRIAN ASSOCIATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF VESTING
ORDER NO. 2097, OFFICE OF ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, SEPTEMBER 4, 1943,
8 FED. REG. 16463, WHEREBY THE CUSTODIAN HAD VESTED IN HIMSELF TITLE TO
CERTAIN PROPERTY OF AKM, SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS FOR ROYALTIES UNDER
COPYRIGHTS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS.  BY CONTRACT
ASCAP HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY AKM TO LICENSE ON ROYALTY THE USE IN THIS
COUNTRY OF MUSICAL COPYRIGHTS BELONGING TO AKM.  ASCAP AND THE
PETITIONER, WHO IS THE STATE-APPOINTED RECEIVER OF THE ROYALTIES
INVOLVED, WERE MADE DEFENDANTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT, ON MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, ENTERED A JUDGMENT
DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NO RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE
CLAIM IN QUESTION, MARKHAM V. TAYLOR, 70 F.SUPP.  202, AND LATER, A
SECOND JUDGMENT DIRECTING ASCAP TO PAY THE DEBT TO THE CUSTODIAN.  THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, ON APPEAL BY THE
PETITIONER,  FN2  AFFIRMED.  CLARK V. PROPPER, 169 F.2D 324. 

THE PERTINENT FACTS UNDERLYING THIS CONTROVERSY ARE AS FOLLOWS:  ON
JUNE 12, 1941, ON AN EX PARTE APPLICATION BY A CREDITOR OF AKM, THE NEW
YORK SUPREME COURT APPOINTED PETITIONER TEMPORARY RECEIVER OF THAT
ASSOCIATION, PURSUANT TO SEC. 977-B OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT,
WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF THE LOCAL ASSETS OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION WHEN IT HAS CEASED TO DO BUSINESS FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER
NOT HERE IMPORTANT.  PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT ARE TO ENABLE CLAIMANTS
AGAINST THE FOREIGN CORPORATION TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS BY AN
EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE AVAILABLE ASSETS.  THE ORDER OF
APPOINTMENT DIRECTED HIM "TO TAKE, RECEIVE AND REDUCE TO HIS POSSESSION
ANY AND ALL ASSETS  ...  TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE, WITHIN THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, OF THE DEFENDANT (AKM), AND HOLD THE SAME UNTIL THE FURTHER
ORDER OF THIS COURT."  ON JUNE 14, 1941, PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(B) OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917, 40 STAT. 411, 415, AS AMENDED,  FN3
THE PRESIDENT PROMULGATED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785,  FN4  A SO-CALLED
"FREEZING ORDER," WHICH PROHIBITED CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING
AUSTRIAN PROPERTY EXCEPT AS THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY LICENSED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  ON JULY 29, 1941, PETITIONER, AS RECEIVER,
BEGAN AN ACTION IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK AGAINST ASCAP TO RECOVER THE
ROYALTIES WHICH IT OWED AKM.  FN5  ITS DISPOSITION IS AWAITING THE
OUTCOME OF THIS CASE.  ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1941, PETITIONER, UPON THE
DEFAULT OF AKM, WAS APPOINTED PERMANENT RECEIVER OF THAT ASSOCIATION'S
ASSETS.  THEREAFTER FOLLOWED THE VESTING ORDER, SEPTEMBER 4, 1943, AND
THIS SUIT, APRIL 22, 1946. 

UPON THE LIMITED GRANT OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 902,
THE ISSUES ARGUED BEFORE THIS COURT AND NOW TO BE DECIDED ARE WHETHER
THE APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER AS TEMPORARY RECEIVER ON JUNE 12, 1941,
OR HIS APPOINTMENT AS PERMANENT RECEIVER ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1941, BY
RELATION BACK, PASSED TITLE TO HIM OF THE CLAIM FOR ROYALTIES AS OF
JUNE 12, 1941.  FURTHERMORE, SINCE, AS WILL SUBSEQUENTLY APPEAR, WE
CONCLUDE THESE ISSUES AGAINST PETITIONER, WE MUST CONSIDER WHETHER THE
FREEZING ORDER BARRED A SUBSEQUENT UNLICENSED JUDICIAL TRANSFER BY THE
ORDER APPOINTING THE PETITIONER PERMANENT RECEIVER.  FN6 

FIRST.  THE APPOINTMENT AS PERMANENT RECEIVER ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1941,
CONCEDEDLY WOULD HAVE VESTED IN PETITIONER AS PERMANENT RECEIVER ALL
RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF AKM IN ITS CLAIM AGAINST ASCAP IF THE
FREEZING ORDER OF JUNE 14, 1941, HAD NOT INTERVENED AFTER PETITIONER'S
APPOINTMENT AS TEMPORARY RECEIVER ON JUNE 12, 1941.  ACCEPTING THAT
POSITION, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT AS PERMANENT RECEIVER
RELATED BACK TO THE DATE OF THE TEMPORARY RECEIVERSHIP, SO AS TO PLACE
TITLE TO THE CLAIM IN THE PERMANENT RECEIVER AS OF JUNE 12, 1941, AND
THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT AS PERMANENT RECEIVER ITSELF
VESTED TITLE IN THE PETITIONER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRIOR FREEZING
ORDER, DEPEND ALIKE UPON A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE FREEZING
ORDER MADE INVALID ANY SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF TITLE BY JUDICIAL
ACTION. 

THE VESTING ORDER HERE IN QUESTION, VESTING ORDER NO. 2097, 8 FED.
REG. 16463, WAS EXECUTED ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1943, A DATE SUBSEQUENT TO THE
APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER AS PERMANENT RECEIVER.  SO FAR AS THE PARTIES
TO THIS LITIGATION ARE CONCERNED, BY ITS SPECIFIC TERMS IT VESTED IN
THE CUSTODIAN TITLE TO THE PROPERTY OF AKM ONLY.  FN7  NOTHING
PRESENTED IN THIS CASE CALLS OUR ATTENTION TO ANY EFFORT MADE BY THE
CUSTODIAN TO VEST IN HIMSELF ANY TITLE TO THE CLAIM THAT MIGHT BE IN
THE PERMANENT RECEIVER FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS AND ULTIMATELY FOR
AKM OR THOSE ENTITLED TO ITS ASSETS ON DISTRIBUTION,  FN8  NOR DO WE
ADJUDICATE HIS RIGHT TO DO SO.  THE ORDER, SO FAR AS PERTINENT, VESTED
IN THE CUSTODIAN "ALL  ...  CLAIM (OF AKM TO) ALL RIGHT TO RECEIVE
MONIES ...  BY WAY OF ROYALTY, SHARE OF PROFITS OR OTHER EMOLUMENT,"
TOGETHER WITH "ALL CAUSES OF ACTION ...  WITH RESPECT TO" THE AFORESAID
COPYRIGHTS.  THIS CLAIM WAS A DEBT OF ASCAP TO AKM, PROPERTY OF AKM, AS
DEFINED IN THE REGULATIONS OF APRIL 10, 1940, 5 FED. REG. 1401(C), AND
JUNE 14, 1941, 6 FED. REG. 2905.  THE LATTER CITATION REFERS TO THE
REGULATION DEFINING PROPERTY, UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT,
EFFECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE VESTING ORDER.  FN9 

PRIOR TO PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT AS PERMANENT RECEIVER AND THE LATER
VESTING ORDER, THE PRESIDENT, ON JUNE 14, 1941, HAD PRESCRIBED BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785, 6 FED. REG. 2897, THAT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS
BY OR ON BEHALF OF AUSTRIAN ASSOCIATIONS SUCH AS AKM WERE PROHIBITED
UNLESS LICENSED.  NO LICENSE FOR THE JUDICIAL ORDER APPOINTING
PETITIONER AS PERMANENT RECEIVER WAS ASKED FOR OR OBTAINED. 

ORDER NO. 8785 WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE
PRESIDENT BY SEC. 5(B) OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, AS AMENDED,
PARTICULARLY BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY 7, 1940.  FN10 THE ORDER
FORBADE, SEC. 1A, "ALL TRANSFERS OF CREDIT BETWEEN ANY BANKING
INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES; ...  "  AUTHORITY DURING WAR OR
ANY OTHER PERIOD OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY TO PROHIBIT SUCH TRANSFERS WAS
GIVEN THE PRESIDENT BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION.  ORDER NO. 8785 DECLARED
"THE EXISTENCE OF A PERIOD OF UNLIMITED NATIONAL EMERGENCY." 

THE SAME RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO ISSUE RULES AND
REGULATIONS AND SPECIFICALLY TO DEFINE "BANKING INSTITUTIONS."  THE
PRESIDENT HAD ON APRIL 10, 1940, ISSUED A SIMILAR ORDER PROHIBITING
SIMILAR TRANSFERS APPLICABLE TO NATIONALS OF NORWAY AND DENMARK TO
GUARD AGAINST SUCH TRANSFERS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE GERMAN INVASION OF
THOSE COUNTRIES.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, 5 FED. REG. 1400.  IT
CONTAINED TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE SAME DEFINITION OF "BANKING
INSTITUTIONS."  SEE SEC. 11 C THEREOF.  THE ORDER AND REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER, AND THEREFORE THE DEFINITION, WERE APPROVED BY THE JOINT
RESOLUTION N11.  THE DEFINITION APPLICABLE TO TRANSACTIONS OF THIS
AUSTRIAN NATIONAL, AKM, UNDER THE FREEZING ORDER OF JUNE 14, 1941, IS
SET OUT BELOW.  FN12 WE ACCEPT THIS DEFINITION AS AUTHORIZED BY THE
RESOLUTION. 

BY THE ORDER APPOINTING A PERMANENT RECEIVER, THE CLAIM OF AKM
AGAINST ASCAP WAS DIRECTED TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM AKM TO THE
PETITIONER.  FROM ASCAP'S POINT OF VIEW IT WAS A DEBT; FROM AKM'S A
CLAIM.  THE SHIFT OF OBLIGATION CONTEMPLATED BY THE ORDER FOR A
PERMANENT RECEIVER WAS A TRANSACTION THAT INVOLVED "PROPERTY IN WHICH"
THERE WAS AN "INTEREST OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, DIRECT OR INDIRECT,"
IN ALIENS OF DESIGNATED COUNTRIES, INCLUDING AUSTRIA.  FN13  BUT THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JUNE 14, 1941, DID NOT PROHIBIT ALL TRANSACTIONS
WITHOUT LICENSE INVOLVING AUSTRIAN-OWNED PROPERTY.  IT SPECIFIED THE
PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS, HOWEVER, BY CATEGORIES SO ALL-INCLUSIVE AS TO
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO REQUIRE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING
PROPERTY OF NATIONALS OF DESIGNATED FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO BE CARRIED OUT
UNDER REGULATIONS OF THIS GOVERNMENT, EXCEPT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS SUCH
AS ARE PROVIDED FOR IN GENERAL RULING NO. 12, APRIL 21, 1942, 7 FED.
REG. 2991.  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER FORBIDS TRANSFERS OF CREDIT.  AS
"CREDIT" IS NOT DEFINED BY THE ORDER OR REGULATION, WE, IN CONSIDERING
CREDITS AS PROPERTY SUBJECT TO VESTING UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT, GIVE IT ITS ORDINARY MEANING OF THE OBLIGATION DUE ON ACCOUNTING
BETWEEN PARTIES TO TRANSACTIONS.  THIS CREDIT, OWED BY ASCAP TO AKM,
WAS IN EFFECT DIRECTED TO BE TRANSFERRED BY THE PERMANENT RECEIVER
ORDER FROM AKM TO THE PETITIONER AS RECEIVER.  THERE IS, WE THINK, NO
DOUBT THAT A VOLUNTARY TRANSFER BY A BANK OF A CREDIT IN THE
TRANSFERRING BANK FROM THE ACCOUNT OF A KNOWN AUSTRIAN TO THE ACCOUNT
OF ANOTHER BANKING INSTITUTION WOULD VIOLATE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785
AS A TRANSFER OF CREDIT BETWEEN BANKING INSTITUTIONS. 

IT REMAINS, THEN, TO DETERMINE WHETHER ASCAP AND PETITIONER ARE
BANKING INSTITUTIONS OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE
PROHIBITION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785, SEC. 1 A AGAINST "TRANSFERS OF
CREDIT BETWEEN ANY BANKING INSTITUTIONS."  A READING OF THE PRESIDENT'S
DEFINITION, NOTE 12 SUPRA, SHOWS THAT THEY DO FALL WITHIN THE WORDS
"ANY PERSON HOLDING CREDITS FOR OTHERS AS A DIRECT OR INCIDENTAL PART
OF HIS BUSINESS  ...  "  IT IS TRUE THAT TO MAKE ASCAP OR THE
PETITIONER A BANKING INSTITUTION BY DEFINITION IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE
ORDINARY CONCEPTION OF THE MEANING OF "BANKING INSTITUTION." 
PETITIONER SAYS TO SO CONSTRUE THE DEFINITION IS "UTTER FANTASY."  THE
DEFINITION, HOWEVER, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, HAS HAD CONGRESSIONAL
RATIFICATION.  FURTHERMORE, THE OBVIOUS INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO ALLOW
FLEXIBILITY IN THE TERM "BANKING INSTITUTION" BY LEAVING ITS DEFINITION
TO THE PRESIDENT SHEDS LIGHT ON ITS PURPOSE.  THE PHRASE "BANKING
INSTITUTION" USED AND DEFINED IN THE BANK HOLIDAY PROCLAMATION OF MARCH
6, 1933, 48 STAT. 1689, 1690, WAS ADOPTED BY THE EMERGENCY BANKING
RELIEF ACT OF MARCH 9, 1933, 48 STAT. 1, WITH A DELEGATION TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE POWER OF DEFINITION.  EVIDENTLY THE DELEGATION WAS TO
PERMIT HIM TO BRING ATYPICAL FORMS OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE
REACH OF THE EMERGENCY ACT.  THE ACT OF MARCH 9 WAS GRAFTED ON TO THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917 AND, WHEN THAT ACT WAS AGAIN
EXTENDED TO MEET THE FOREIGN ASSETS PROBLEM, THE PRESIDENT'S WIDE POWER
TO DEFINE "BANKING INSTITUTION" WAS A READY INSTRUMENT TO COPE WITH THE
MYRIAD CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING IN THE CONTROL OF SHIFTS OF FOREIGN
ASSETS.  THE POWER IN PEACE AND IN WAR MUST BE GIVEN GENEROUS SCOPE TO
ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE.  THROUGH THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, IN ITS
VARIOUS FORMS, THE NATION SOUGHT TO DEPRIVE ENEMIES, ACTUAL OR
POTENTIAL, OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE ADVANTAGES TO THEMSELVES OR TO
PERPETRATE WRONGS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ITS CITIZENS THROUGH THE
USE OF ASSETS THAT HAPPENED TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY.  FN14  TO DO SO HAS
NECESSITATED SOME INCONVENIENCE TO OUR CITIZENS AND OTHERS WHO, AS
HERE, ARE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY ACTIONS ADVERSE TO THE NATION'S
INTEREST.  THAT FACT, HOWEVER, CANNOT LEAD US TO NARROW THE BROAD
COVERAGE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  OUR PRIOR DECISIONS HAVE MADE THAT
CLEAR.  FN15  ASCAP AND PETITIONER, THE RECEIVER, EACH HOLD CREDITS FOR
OTHERS AS AN "INCIDENTAL PART OF (THEIR) BUSINESS," AND ARE THEREFORE
"BANKING INSTITUTIONS."  ASCAP HELD A CREDIT FOR AKM AND, AFTER THE
PERMANENT RECEIVERSHIP ORDER, WOULD HOLD THAT CREDIT FOR THE RECEIVER,
WHO IN TURN WOULD HOLD IT FOR AKM'S CREDITORS AND AKM. 

WE HOLD THAT A TRANSFER OF THIS CREDIT FROM A LIABILITY OWED BY ASCAP
TO AKM, TO A LIABILITY OWED BY ASCAP TO THE RECEIVER, WOULD VIOLATE THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS OF CREDIT. 

WE TURN NOW TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE FEDERAL EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 8785 OF JUNE 14, 1941, THE SO-CALLED "FREEZING ORDER," ON THE
SUBSEQUENT STATE COURT ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1941, APPOINTING THE
PETITIONER PERMANENT RECEIVER.  THAT EXAMINATION IS TO BE MADE WITH
RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE STATE ORDER, TITLE TO
THE AKM CLAIM AGAINST ASCAP HAD NOT BEEN VESTED IN THE CUSTODIAN.  THAT
DEVELOPMENT DID NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL THE VESTING ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 4,
1943.    IT IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT A MERE FREEZING ORDER DOES
NOT PROHIBIT A SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL ORDER TRANSFERRING TITLE TO BLOCKED
ASSETS COVERED BY THE PREVIOUS FREEZING ORDER.  WE WILL DEAL
SUBSEQUENTLY IN THIS OPINION WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TITLE TO
THE CLAIM PASSED TO THE TEMPORARY RECEIVER, UNDER NEW YORK LAW, ON HIS
APPOINTMENT.  AT THIS POINT, WE ASSUME THIS DID NOT HAPPEN AND EXAMINE
ONLY THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF A FREEZING ORDER ON THE SUBSEQUENT
JUDICIAL ORDER.  PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION
WOULD IMMOBILIZE FROZEN PROPERTY UNTIL IT SUITS THE CUSTODIAN'S
CONVENIENCE TO VEST, CONTRARY TO THE NEED FOR PROTECTION AGAINST
TRANSFERS OF FOREIGN FUNDS.  THESE NEEDS, PETITIONER SAYS, WILL BE
SERVED BY THE PROVISION AGAINST PAYMENTS TO CLAIMANTS FROM FROZEN FUNDS
WITHOUT A LICENSE.  E.O. 8785, SEC. 1B.  FN16  HE FURTHER ARGUES THAT
BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION CONGRESS DID NOT EMPOWER THE PRESIDENT TO
DEPRIVE NEW YORK OF ALL POWER TO DEAL WITH THE ASCAP DEBT IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER CIVIL PRACTICE ACT SEC. 977-B, COVERING ACTIONS OF
RECEIVERS TO LIQUIDATE LOCAL ASSETS OF DEFUNCT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT STATE LITIGATION BETWEEN LOCAL CLAIMANTS AND FOREIGN
OWNERS OR THOSE IN POSSESSION OF BLOCKED OR FROZEN ASSETS COULD PROCEED
TO A DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND THE FOREIGN
NATIONAL WITHOUT THE BLOCKED PROPERTY PASSING INTO HANDS THAT MIGHT USE
IT TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE WELFARE OF THIS NATION, SO LONG AS PAYMENT
COULD NOT BE MADE WITHOUT A LICENSE.  NOTHING IN THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT OR REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS EO NOMINE LITIGATION IN
STATE COURTS.  THE PLAN FOR PROHIBITION OF UNLICENSED TRANSACTIONS BY
FOREIGN NATIONALS COMPREHENDS BLOCKING OF TRANSFERS OF CREDITS AND
VESTING OF LOCAL ASSETS OF SUCH NATIONALS UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER.  IF TRANSACTIONS ARE BLOCKED,
VESTING MAY OR MAY NOT FOLLOW.  WHEN THE CUSTODIAN VESTS BLOCKED
PROPERTY, TITLE PASSES TO THE CUSTODIAN AND HIS AUTHORITY TO VEST AND
HOLD CANNOT BE QUESTIONED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT.  FN17  THE FREEZING ORDER OF JUNE 14, 1941, IMMOBILIZED THE
ASSETS COVERED BY ITS TERMS SO THAT TITLE TO THEM MIGHT NOT SHIFT FROM
PERSON TO PERSON, EXCEPT BY LICENSE, UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT COULD
DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE ASSETS WERE NEEDED FOR PROSECUTION OF THE
THREATENED WAR OR TO COMPENSATE OUR CITIZENS OR OURSELVES FOR THE
DAMAGES DONE BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE NATIONALS AFFECTED.  UNITED
STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1, 11; SILESIAN-AMERICAN CORP.
V. CLARK, 332 U.S. 469, 476. 

WE ASSUME THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK HELD IN SINGER V.
YOKOHAMA SPECIE BANK THAT TITLE TO BLOCKED ASSETS COULD PASS WITHOUT
LICENSE FROM A STATUTORY RECEIVER TO A CREDITOR.  FN18 AS THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT IS FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOUNDED ON FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, THE UNITED STATES HAS AUTHORITY TO
MAKE ALL LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING THE POWER INTO
EXECUTION.  THE POWER TO ENACT CARRIES WITH IT FINAL AUTHORITY TO
DECLARE THE MEANING OF THE LEGISLATION.  PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, 316
U.S. 89, 95.  FEDERAL COURTS HAVE SO HELD AS TO THIS ISSUE IN THIS
CASE, 169 F.2D 324, 327, AND IN BERNSTEIN V. N.V. NEDERLANDSCHE
AMERIKAANSCHE ETC., 173 F.2D 71, 73.  THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT IS
NATIONAL IN RANGE.  THE EFFECT OF A FEDERAL FREEZING ORDER SHOULD BE
THE SAME ON SUBSEQUENT TRANSFERS OF TITLE IN ALL STATES.  STATE LAW
DETERMINES THE EFFECT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER ON TITLE TO THE
PROPERTY ADMINISTERED, BUT FEDERAL LAW DETERMINES WHETHER THE EVENT OF
APPOINTMENT CAN FREE THE PROPERTY FROM THE PRIOR CONTROL.  CF. LYETH V.
HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 191, ET SEQ. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS ALSO THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JUNE 14, 1941, HAS BEEN TO PERMIT LITIGATION AS
TO RIGHTS IN THE FROZEN ASSETS.  THAT IS BORNE OUT BY GENERAL RULING
NO. 12 OF APRIL 21, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 2991, PROMULGATED AFTER
PETITIONER HAD BEGUN HIS SUIT AGAINST ASCAP AND REFERRING TO EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 8389, AS AMENDED JUNE 14, 1941.  THE APPLICABLE SECTION IS
SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN19  IT IS TO BE OBSERVED, HOWEVER, THAT THE
PROVISO OF SEC. (D) LIMITS THE RIGHTS A LITIGANT MAY OBTAIN TO SUCH
RIGHT AS THE OWNER OF BLOCKED PROPERTY COULD CONFER BY VOLUNTARY ACT. 
GENERAL RULING NO. 12, AS IT CAME AFTER THE SUIT BY THE RECEIVER
AGAINST ASCAP WAS STARTED AND AFTER THE ORDER APPOINTING PETITIONER AS
PERMANENT RECEIVER, IS NOT TREATED BY US AS DECISIVE IN THIS CASE.  IT
IS USEFUL ONLY AS A STATEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION AS TO
THE EFFECT OF LITIGATION WITHOUT A LICENSE. 

IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY 7, 1940, AND
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF APRIL 10, 1940, PUT INTO EFFECT A VALID PLAN FOR
CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE REGULATION THAT PROHIBITED ANY
CHANGE OF TITLE TO THAT PROPERTY BY REASON OF THE SUBSEQUENT
APPOINTMENT OF PETITIONER AS PERMANENT RECEIVER.  WE DO NOT NOW
UNDERTAKE TO SAY WHETHER EVERY DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS CONCERNING
BLOCKED PROPERTY IN UNLICENSED LITIGATION IS VOIDABLE.  WE BASE OUR
DETERMINATION ON THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO PREVENT SHIFTS IN TITLE TO
BLOCKED ASSETS AND THE PROHIBITION OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AGAINST
TRANSFERS OF SUCH A CREDIT AS THIS.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDER
PROHIBITS MORE THAN PAYMENT.  IT PROHIBITS TRANSFERS OF CREDIT.  WE DO
NOT THINK THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS ARE TO THE CONTRARY. 

SECOND.  THE PETITIONER ADVANCES THE CONTENTION, HOWEVER, THAT TITLE
TO AKM'S CLAIM AGAINST ASCAP HAD PASSED TO HIM BY HIS APPOINTMENT AS
TEMPORARY RECEIVER ON JUNE 12, 1941, PRIOR TO THE FREEZING OR BLOCKING
ORDER OF JUNE 14, 1941.  THEREFORE, PETITIONER ARGUES, AKM HAD NOTHING
THAT COULD BE FROZEN BY THE IMMOBILIZATION ORDER OR TAKEN BY THE
VESTING ORDER. 

THE PRECISE ISSUE OF STATE LAW INVOLVED, I.E., WHETHER THE TEMPORARY
RECEIVER UNDER SEC. 977-B OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT IS VESTED
WITH TITLE BY VIRTUE OF HIS APPOINTMENT, IS ONE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
DECIDED BY THE NEW YORK COURTS.  BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS FACED THIS QUESTION AND ANSWERED IT IN THE NEGATIVE.  IN
DEALING WITH ISSUES OF STATE LAW THAT ENTER INTO JUDGMENTS OF FEDERAL
COURTS, WE ARE HESITANT TO OVERRULE DECISIONS BY FEDERAL COURTS SKILLED
IN THE LAW OF PARTICULAR STATES UNLESS THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE SHOWN TO
BE UNREASONABLE.  ESTATE OF SPIEGEL V. COMMISSIONER, 335 U.S. 701, 707
708; HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154; MACGREGOR V. STATE MUTUAL CO.,
315 U.S. 280.  WE SHALL EXAMINE THE PROBLEM FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW. 

HAVING NO STATE CASE ON THE PRECISE STATUTE BEFORE IT, THE COURT OF
APPEALS TURNED TO CASES DEALING WITH TEMPORARY RECEIVERSHIPS IN EQUITY
PROCEEDINGS AND UNDER ANALOGOUS STATUTES.  THESE CASES SEEM TO HOLD
THAT TEMPORARY RECEIVERS OF NEITHER THE EQUITY  FN20  NOR STATUTORY
FN21 CLASS OBTAIN TITLE, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, MERELY A RIGHT TO
POSSESSION.  THE COURTS BELOW FOUND NOTHING IN SEC. 977-B WHICH
EVIDENCED AN INTENT THAT THE RESULT UNDER THAT SECTION SHOULD BE
OTHERWISE.  ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO EXPRESS DECLARATION OF SUCH AN
INTENT. 

THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS EASILY SUSCEPTIBLE OF VARYING
INTERPRETATIONS.  SEE SUBSECTIONS 4, 10, 11, 12 AND 19.  THESE SECTIONS
ARE NOT CLEAR AS TO THE TITLE TAKEN BY THE TEMPORARY RECEIVER OR THE
AUTHORITY GRANTED TO HIM FOR THE HOLDING OR HANDLING OF CLAIMS AGAINST
DEBTORS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE IN
SUBSECTION 12 THE STATUTE SAID THAT "ANY RECEIVER APPOINTED  ...  SHALL
HAVE ALL THE POWERS AND DUTIES  ...  POSSESSED BY AND CONFERRED UPON
RECEIVERS AND TRUSTEES BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK," THE
MEANING WAS "THAT A TEMPORARY RECEIVER UNDER THIS PROVISION TAKES THE
USUAL POWERS OF OTHER TEMPORARY RECEIVERS IN NEW YORK."  169 F.2D 324,
327.  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT OTHERWISE THE SPECIFIC AND RESTRICTED
GRANT OF POWERS TO A TEMPORARY RECEIVER BY SUBSECTION 4 WOULD BE
PURPOSELESS. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT A VESTING OF TITLE
IN THE TEMPORARY RECEIVER IS AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE TO THE EXERCISE
OF JURISDICTION IN REM OVER THE ASSETS WITHIN THE STATE OF A
NONRESIDENT ASSOCIATION WHICH IS SERVED BY PUBLICATION.  THE CONTENTION
IS THAT AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE COURT BELOW ON THE ISSUE OF STATE LAW WILL
RENDER PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 977-B SUBJECT TO AN ATTACK ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S.
714.  IN OUR OPINION THE ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT.  PENNOYER V. NEFF
MERELY HOLDS THAT A PERSONAL JUDGMENT CANNOT BE OBTAINED AGAINST A
NONRESIDENT ON SERVICE BY PUBLICATION.  IT RECOGNIZES AT P. 733 THAT
FOR AN IN REM ACTION IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE PROPERTY BE WITHIN THE
STATE, SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE COURT, AND THAT THERE BE SOME FORM
OF SERVICE WHICH IS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO GIVE NOTICE TO PARTIES
WHOSE INTERESTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE JUDGMENT.  CF. MILLIKEN V.
MEYER, 311 U.S. 457, 463.  THE FIRST REQUIREMENT CAN BE MET IN OTHER
WAYS THAN SEIZURE OF TITLE, E.G., BY AN INJUNCTION AGAINST TRANSFER OF
THE PROPERTY, PENNINGTON V. FOURTH NATIONAL BANK, 243 U.S. 269; BY AN
ATTACHMENT, HERBERT V. BICKNELL, 233 U.S. 70; OR BY PERSONAL SERVICE ON
THE PARTY HOLDING THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE, SECURITY SAVINGS BANK
V. CALIFORNIA, 263 U.S. 282.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT WHERE PROPERTY IS
IN A STATE AND COMES UNDER THE CONTROL OF A COURT, AS HERE BY
APPOINTMENT OF THE TEMPORARY RECEIVER, IT IS FAIR TO PERMIT SUBSTITUTED
SERVICE.  ANDERSON NAT. BANK V. LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233, 240, ET SEQ.;
SEE MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243 U.S. 90. 

SINCE THE DETERMINATION OF THE STATE LAW ISSUE CONCERNING THE TITLE
OF THE TEMPORARY RECEIVER BY THE COURTS BELOW IS NOT UNREASONABLE, WE
ACCEPT IT AS CORRECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE. 

A SUGGESTION APPEARS IN PETITIONER'S BRIEFS, BUT NOT IN THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THAT THE JUDGMENTS BELOW
SHOULD BE VACATED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO BE
HELD UNTIL THE PARTIES CAN SECURE FROM THE COURTS OF NEW YORK A
DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE TEMPORARY RECEIVER TOOK TITLE TO THE CLAIM
AGAINST ASCAP.  WAIVING THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE BY THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI,  FN22 WE CONSIDER THE CONTENTION IN DEFERENCE TO THE
EARNESTNESS WITH WHICH THE POINT IS PRESSED IN THE DISSENT.  FN23  IF
THE STATE LAW IS THAT TITLE PASSED TO THE TEMPORARY RECEIVER ON HIS
APPOINTMENT PRIOR TO THE FREEZING ORDER, THE CUSTODIAN, BY THE
ASSUMPTION OF THE OPINION, WOULD OBTAIN NOTHING BY HIS ORDER VESTING
AKM PROPERTY.  SUCH A RULING WOULD MAKE UNNECESSARY CONSIDERATION OF
ANY OTHER ISSUE. 

THIS SUGGESTED PROCEDURE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO AVOID A
DECISION ON A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE - SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V.
MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101; CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES, 316 U.S. 168;
RAILROAD COMM'N V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496; BUT CF. PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMM'N V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO., 317 U.S. 456, 462-63 - AND WHERE THE
ONLY ISSUE IN THE CASE WAS ONE OF STATE LAW, ALTHOUGH FEDERAL
JURISDICTION WAS BASED ON THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478.  WE HAVE REFUSED IN A DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP CASE TO ALLOW THE DIFFICULTY OF AN ISSUE OF STATE LAW TO
DETER US FROM EXERCISING OUR JURISDICTION WHEN FEDERAL DETERMINATION
WAS SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DISCRETION AND THE STATE ISSUE WAS THE ONLY
ONE IN THE CASE.  MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228.  FN24  TO
REFRAIN FROM DECIDING IT, WE THERE SAID, WOULD BE TO ENERVATE DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION. 

WHERE A CASE INVOLVES A NONCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL ISSUE, HOWEVER, THE
NECESSITY FOR DECIDING WHICH DEPENDS UPON THE DECISION ON AN UNDERLYING
ISSUE OF STATE LAW, THE PRACTICE IN FEDERAL COURTS HAS BEEN, WHEN
NECESSARY, TO DECIDE BOTH ISSUES.  THIS WAS THE COURSE WE FOLLOWED IN
MARKHAM V. ALLEN, 326 U.S. 490, 495-6, A CASE ARISING UNDER THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT, WHERE AN ISSUE WAS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE
STATUTE.  THE STATE LAW QUESTION IN ESTATE OF SPIEGEL V. COMMISSIONER,
SUPRA, WAS CONCEDEDLY DIFFICULT AND UNSETTLED; ITS DECISION ADMITTEDLY
CONTROLLED THE EXISTENCE OF A FEDERAL QUESTION, SINCE A FINDING THAT
THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER UNDER ILLINOIS LAW WOULD HAVE
FINALLY DETERMINED THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE CASE WAS DECIDED.  AND YET,
ALTHOUGH A METHOD MAY HAVE EXISTED FOR OBTAINING AN ADJUDICATION ON THE
ISSUE FROM THE ILLINOIS COURTS, 335 U.S. 632, 673-4, THIS COURT
FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE WHICH WE ADOPT HERE OF DEPENDING UPON THE
DETERMINATION OF STATE LAW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  335 U.S. 701, 707
8.  IN SO DOING, IT FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN HELVERING V. STUART, 317
U.S. 154, 161, ET SEQ. ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, A COMMON
LAW CASE, IS ITSELF A PRECEDENT AGAINST ANY GENERAL RULING THAT CASES
PROPERLY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS THAT DEPEND UPON STATE LAW SHOULD HAVE
THAT ISSUE SUBMITTED TO STATE COURTS FOR DECISION.  SEE THE LATER
DECISION IN THE SAME CASE, TOMPKINS V. ERIE R. CO., 98 F.2D 49. 

THE CASES MENTIONED ABOVE WHERE THIS COURT REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF
SINGLE ISSUES, EXCISED FROM THE CONTROVERSY, TO STATE COURTS WERE CASES
IN EQUITY.  THE DISCRETION OF EQUITY AS TO THE TERMS UPON WHICH IT
WOULD GRANT ITS REMEDIES, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR RULE TO AVOID AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION UNLESS NECESSARY, WAS RELIED
UPON TO JUSTIFY A DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL PROCEDURE.  IN THE MAGNOLIA
CASE, WE DIRECTED THAT THE TRUSTEE FILE PLENARY PROCEEDINGS TO
DETERMINE TITLE IN A STATE COURT LITIGATION NECESSARILY COMPLETE IN
ITSELF.  THE COMPLAINT HERE IN A SINGLE COUNT SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE
DEBT FROM ASCAP AND DETERMINATION OF THE CUSTODIAN'S TITLE TO THE CLAIM
VIS-A-VIS THE RECEIVER.  ASSUMING THAT QUIETING TITLE TO A CHATTEL IS
AN EQUITABLE PROCEEDING AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT CAN, BY CUTTING OUT
THE TITLE ISSUE AND BY REFUSING TO PROCEED IN THE CONTROVERSY UNLESS
OBEYED, COMPEL THE CUSTODIAN BY WHATEVER PROCEEDINGS NEW YORK MAY
PROVIDE TO LITIGATE ONLY THE NARROW ISSUE OF TITLE IN THE TEMPORARY
RECEIVER, THERE WOULD REMAIN THE PROBLEM OF CONTROL OF THE RECEIVER, BY
THREATS OF CONTEMPT ACTION, TO KEEP HIM FROM RAISING IN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS FEDERAL ISSUES SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SECURE TITLE AS
PERMANENT RECEIVER THROUGH STATE JUDICIAL ACTION AFTER THE FREEZING OR
IMMOBILIZATION ORDER.  THIS FEDERAL ISSUE WE DECIDED ABOVE. 
FURTHERMORE, AS THE STATE COURT COULD REASONABLY REQUIRE COMPLETE
ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY, THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD PERHAPS BE
COMPELLED TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT TO PROTECT ITS OWN
JURISDICTION.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2283.  OTHERWISE, IN SENDING A FRAGMENT
OF THE LITIGATION TO A STATE COURT, THE FEDERAL COURT MIGHT FIND ITSELF
BLOCKED BY RES JUDICATA, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ENTIRE FEDERAL
CONTROVERSY WOULD BE OUSTED FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHERE IT WAS
PLACED BY CONGRESS.  SEE NOTE 17, SUPRA. 

THE SUBMISSION OF SPECIAL ISSUES IS A USEFUL DEVICE IN JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS EXISTED IN THE MAGNOLIA,
SPECTOR, FIELDCREST AND PULLMAN CASES, SUPRA, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, 320 U.S. AT 236, 237, IT IS NOT TO BE USED TO
IMPEDE THE NORMAL COURSE OF ACTION WHERE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN
GRANTED JURISDICTION OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

WE REJECT THE SUGGESTION THAT A DECISION IN THIS CASE IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS SHOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL THE COURTS OF NEW YORK HAVE SETTLED THE
ISSUE OF STATE LAW. 

THIRD.  THE PETITIONER MAKES THE FURTHER POINT THAT THE JUDGMENT
BELOW DETERMINING THAT HE HAD NO RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST TO THE CLAIM
OF AKM AGAINST ASCAP IS BEYOND THE COMPETENCE OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE COURT BY
VIRTUE OF THE RECEIVERSHIP.  EVEN IF TITLE DID NOT PASS, HE ARGUES, HE,
AND THROUGH HIM THE STATE COURT, HAD POSSESSION OF THE CLAIM BY VIRTUE
OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS TEMPORARY RECEIVER BEFORE THE PROMULGATION OF THE
FREEZING ORDER.  RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE RULINGS OF CASES LIKE KLINE
V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 229, 231; PRINCESS LIDA V.
THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 456, 466; AND FARMERS' LOAN CO. V. LAKE ST. R. CO.,
177 U.S. 51, 61.  THE RULE DECLARED BY THESE CASES IS THAT WHEN ONE
COURT HAS TAKEN POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF A RES, A SECOND COURT IS
DISABLED FROM EXERCISING A POWER OVER THAT RES.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CONTROVERSY DO NOT PRESENT SUCH AN INTERFERENCE WITH STATE CONTROL
OF A RES.  WE ARE DEALING WITH A SITUATION MORE CLOSELY RESEMBLING
DETERMINATIONS OF RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE IN RES IN THE HANDS OF STATE
COURTS.  FN25  WHAT THE STATE COURT HAD, AT MOST, WAS A CLAIM AGAINST A
DEBTOR, ASCAP.  THE JUDGMENT ENABLED THE CUSTODIAN TO COLLECT THE DEBT
THAT ASCAP OWED AKM.  ALTHOUGH THIS JUDGMENT DETERMINED TITLE TO AKM'S
CLAIM AGAINST ASCAP WHEN THE ADVERSE CLAIMANT WAS A STATE RECEIVER,
THOSE FACTS DID NOT PREVENT THE FEDERAL COURT FROM GIVING A JUDICIAL
DECLARATION OF THE RIGHT TO THE CLAIM.  THE SCHEME OF THE TRADING WITH
THE ENEMY ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT FEDERAL COURTS MAY PROVIDE SUCH
DETERMINATIONS.  SEC. 17; CF. MARKHAM V. ALLEN, 326 U.S. 490, 495.  THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO PUT CONTROL OF FOREIGN ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF
THE PRESIDENT THROUGH THE CUSTODIAN, SO THAT THERE MIGHT BE A UNIFIED
NATIONAL POLICY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, ARGUES STRONGLY FOR
FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF ISSUES OF RIGHTS IN THE BLOCKED ASSETS. 
COMITY DOES NOT REQUIRE ABNEGATION TO THE EXTENT THAT A FEDERAL COURT
CANNOT ADJUDICATE RIGHTS TO THE CLAIM INVOLVED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TOM C. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, WAS DULY SUBSTITUTED AS
SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN. 

FN2  ASCAP, HAVING STIPULATED TO THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT AGAINST IT,
DID NOT APPEAL.  IT FILED A MOTION HERE TO BE MADE A PARTY.  IT WAS
PERMITTED TO ARGUE AND THERE IS NOW NO OCCASION TO GRANT THE MOTION. 
IT IS DENIED. 

FN3 BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY 7, 1940, 54 STAT. 179. 

FN4 6 FED. REG. 2897. 

FN5  FOR OPINIONS OF THE NEW YORK COURTS RELATING TO THE PETITIONER'S
ACTION AGAINST ASCAP, SEE PROPPER V. BUCK, 106 N.Y. LAW JOURNAL, NO.
101, OCTOBER 29, 1941, P. 1268, COL. 5; PROPPER V. BUCK, 263 APP. DIV.
807, 32 N.Y.S.2D 103(1ST DEPT.); PROPPER V. BUCK, 178 MISC. 76, 33
N.Y.S.2D 11(SUP.  CT. N.Y. CO.), AFFIRMED, 263 APP. DIV. 948, 34
N.Y.S.2D 134; PROPPER V. TAYLOR, 186 MISC. 70, 58 N.Y.S.2D 829(SUP. 
CT. N.Y. CO.), AFFIRMED, 270 APP. DIV. 890, 62 N.Y.S.2D 602(1ST DEPT.);
PROPPER V. TAYLOR, 186 MISC. 72, 58 N.Y.S.2D 831(SUP.  CT. N.Y. CO.),
MODIFIED, 270 APP. DIV. 890, 62 N.Y.S.2D 601(1ST DEPT.). 

FN6  THIS LATTER ISSUE WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, QUESTION PRESENTED NO. 3, AND BEFORE ARGUMENT ITS
DISCUSSION BY BRIEF AND AT THE BAR WAS FORMALLY REQUESTED BY THIS
COURT, ALTHOUGH NO ORDER TO THAT EFFECT WAS ENTERED. 

FN7  SEE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 7(C) AND
616: 

"SEC. 616.  ...  AND ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY
OR NATIONAL THEREOF SHALL VEST, WHEN, AS, AND UPON THE TERMS, DIRECTED
BY THE PRESIDENT, IN SUCH AGENCY OR PERSON AS MAY BE DESIGNATED FROM
TIME TO TIME BY THE PRESIDENT, AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE SUCH INTEREST OR PROPERTY SHALL BE HELD,
USED, ADMINISTERED, LIQUIDATED, SOLD, OR OTHERWISE DEALT WITH IN THE
INTEREST OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND SUCH
DESIGNATED AGENCY OR PERSON MAY PERFORM ANY AND ALL ACTS INCIDENT TO
THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OR FURTHERANCE OF THESE PURPOSES; ...  " 

SEE CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., 332 U.S. 480. 

FN8  COMPARE GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. SUTHERLAND, 273 U.S. 182, WHERE
THE CUSTODIAN VESTED IN HIMSELF BY ORDER ON A CORPORATION THE SHARES OF
STOCK APPEARING ON THE CORPORATION'S BOOKS IN THE NAME OF AN ALIEN
ENEMY. 

IT MAY BE THAT ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO BLOCKING MAY NOT BE SUBJECT TO
VESTING.  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED BY FIRST WAR POWERS
ACT, 55 STAT. 838, 839, TITLE III (1)(B).  COMPARE BISHOP, JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 62 HARV. L. REV. 721,
723. 

FN9  55 STAT. 838, 840, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 617. 

FN10  54 STAT. 179: 

"DURING TIME OF WAR OR DURING ANY OTHER PERIOD OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY
DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT MAY, THROUGH ANY AGENCY THAT
HE MAY DESIGNATE, OR OTHERWISE, INVESTIGATE, REGULATE, OR PROHIBIT,
UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS HE MAY PRESCRIBE, BY MEANS OF
LICENSES OR OTHERWISE, ANY TRANSACTIONS IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE, TRANSFERS
OF CREDIT BETWEEN OR PAYMENTS BY OR TO BANKING INSTITUTIONS AS DEFINED
BY THE PRESIDENT,  ...  " 

FN11  54 STAT. 179: 

"SEC. 2.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBERED 8389 OF APRIL 10, 1940, AND THE
REGULATIONS AND GENERAL RULINGS ISSUED THEREUNDER BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY ARE HEREBY APPROVED AND CONFIRMED." 

FN12  6 FED. REG. 2898, SEC. 5: 

"F.  THE TERM 'BANKING INSTITUTION' AS USED IN THIS ORDER SHALL
INCLUDE ANY PERSON ENGAGED PRIMARILY OR INCIDENTALLY IN THE BUSINESS OF
BANKING, OF GRANTING OR TRANSFERRING CREDITS, OR OF PURCHASING OR
SELLING FOREIGN EXCHANGE OR PROCURING PURCHASERS AND SELLERS THEREOF,
AS PRINCIPAL OR AGENT, OR ANY PERSON HOLDING CREDITS FOR OTHERS AS A
DIRECT OR INCIDENTAL PART OF HIS BUSINESS, OR BROKERS; AND, EACH
PRINCIPAL, AGENT, HOME OFFICE, BRANCH OR CORRESPONDENT OF ANY PERSON SO
ENGAGED SHALL BE REGARDED AS A SEPARATE 'BANKING INSTITUTION.'" 

FN13  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785, SUPRA. 

FN14  SEE UNITED STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATION OF THE
WARTIME FINANCIAL & PROPERTY CONTROLS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
(1942), PP. 1-4. 

FN15  CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U.S. 554; UNITED STATES V.
CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1; GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. SUTHERLAND,
273 U.S. 182; MARKHAM V. ALLEN, 326 U.S. 490; CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ
KORP., 332 U.S. 480. 

FN16  THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT, BECAUSE OF THE
TENTH AMENDMENT, CONSTITUTIONALLY ABROGATE THE POWER OF NEW YORK
THROUGH ITS COURTS, IN PEACETIME, TO DEAL WITH THE LOCAL ASSETS OF
DEFUNCT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  THE CHIEF RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON CLARK
V. WILLIARD, 294 U.S. 211, A CASE THAT HELD THAT, AS BETWEEN STATES,
THE STATE OF THE LOCATION OF CORPORATE ASSETS HAD CONTROL OF THEIR
DISTRIBUTION IN LIQUIDATION.  IT CANNOT BE SERIOUSLY DOUBTED THAT THE
DANGER OF WAR WAS SUFFICIENTLY GRAVE AT THE TIME OF THE FREEZING ORDER,
JUNE 14, 1941, TO JUSTIFY THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION RESPECTING AUSTRIAN
PROPERTY.  CF. SILESIAN-AMERICAN CORP. V. CLARK, 332 U.S. 469, 474
477. 

FN17  50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 7(C), 9(A).  CF CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ
KORP., 332 U.S. 480, 487; CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U.S. 554,
567-68; GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. SUTHERLAND, 273 U.S. 182, 194; BECKER
CO. V. CUMMINGS, 296 U.S. 74, 79; JOSEPHBERG V. MARKHAM, 152 F.2D 644,
649. 

FN18  293 N.Y. 542, 550, 58 N.E.2D 726, 728: 

"THE FACT THAT FEDERAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRANSACTIONS IN FOREIGN
EXCHANGE PREVENT THE PAYMENT TO STANDARD UNTIL A LICENSE UNDER
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8389, AS AMENDED, IS PROCURED DOES NOT MAKE
CONDITIONAL THE OBLIGATION OF THE NEW YORK AGENCY TO PAY.  (SEE UNITED
STATES TREASURY DEPARTMENT, GENERAL RULING NO. 12(4) UNDER EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 8389 AS AMENDED; ALSO FEUCHTWANGER V. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK,
288 N.Y. 342.)" 

CF. ID., 121 N.Y.L.J., NO. 95, MAY 16, 1949, P. 1735.  COMPARE POLISH
RELIEF COMM'N V. BANCA N. A. RUMANIEI, 288 N.Y. 332, 43 N.E.2D 345. 

FN19  "(D)  ANY TRANSFER AFFECTED BY THE ORDER AND/OR THIS GENERAL
RULING AND INVOLVED IN, OR ARISING OUT OF, ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING IN
ANY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES SHALL, SO FAR AS AFFECTED BY THE
ORDER AND/OR THIS GENERAL RULING, BE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING FOR THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION OR PROCEEDING THE
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES THEREIN LITIGATED; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO
ATTACHMENT, JUDGMENT, DECREE, LIEN, EXECUTION, GARNISHMENT, OR OTHER
JUDICIAL PROCESS SHALL CONFER OR CREATE A GREATER RIGHT, POWER, OR
PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO, OR INTEREST IN, ANY PROPERTY IN A BLOCKED
ACCOUNT THAN THE OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY COULD CREATE OR CONFER BY
VOLUNTARY ACT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE LICENSE." 

SEE ALSO PUBLIC CIRCULAR NO. 31, AUGUST 2, 1946, 11 FED. REG. 8351. 

FN20  E.G., DECKER V. GARDNER, 124 N.Y. 334, 26 N.E. 814; SEE KEENEY
V. HOME INSURANCE CO., 71 N.Y. 396, 401. 

FN21 E.G., MUTUAL BREWING CO. V. N.Y. & C.P.F. CO., 16 APP. DIV. 149,
45 N.Y.S. 101; METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. SANBORN, 34 MISC. 531, 69
N.Y.S. 1009; SEE N.Y. GENERAL CORPORATION LAW SECS. 162, 163, 168, AND
ANNOTATIONS THERETO.  PETITIONER CALLS OUR ATTENTION TO NEALIS V.
AMERICAN TUBE & IRON CO., 150 N.Y. 42, 45, 44 N.E. 944, 945, A CASE NOT
CITED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THIS CASE SAYS THAT A TEMPORARY
RECEIVER UNDER A DIFFERENT STATUTE "IS VESTED WITH TITLE AND REPRESENTS
THE CORPORATION AND ITS CREDITORS AS FULLY AS A PERMANENT RECEIVER
AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION."  P. 45.  THIS CASE, HOWEVER,
INVOLVED THE RIGHT OF A TEMPORARY RECEIVER TO SUE AND THE OPINION DEALS
WITH THAT PROBLEM RATHER THAN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A RIGHT TO OBTAIN
POSSESSION AND TITLE.  SEE IN RE WARREN E. SMITH CO., 31 APP. DIV. 39,
52 N.Y.S. 877, 884. 

FN22  CONNECTICUT R. & L. CO. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493. 

FN23  CF. WEST V. RUTLEDGE TIMBER CO., 244 U.S. 90, 100. 

FN24  WHERE THERE IS NO SUGGESTION TO HOLD AND SEND TO A STATE COURT
FOR THE RESOLUTION OF A STATE ISSUE, WE DECIDE ISSUES OF STATE LAW. 
SEE CASES IN FEDERAL COURTS UNDER DIVERSITY JURISDICTION.  WICHITA
ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 306 U.S. 103; WEST V. A.T. & T. CO.,
311 U.S. 223; FIDELITY TRUST CO. V. FIELD, 311 U.S. 169; SIX COMPANIES
V. HIGHWAY DIST., 311 U.S. 180; STONER V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 311
U.S. 464; PALMER V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109, 117. 

FN25  SEE MARKHAM V. ALLEN, 326 U.S. 490; COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V.
BRADFORD, 297 U.S. 613; CLARK V. TIBBETTS, 167 F.2D 397, 401. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS ON THE GROUND THAT ASCAP IS NOT A
BANKING INSTITUTION UNDER THE DEFINITION IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8785. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING IN PART. 

THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT CENTRAL TO DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN'S FREEZING AND VESTING ORDERS IS THE EFFECT
UNDER NEW YORK LAW OF PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT AS TEMPORARY RECEIVER ON
JUNE 13, 1941.  IT OBSERVES THAT "THE PRECISE ISSUE OF STATE LAW
INVOLVED, I.E., WHETHER THE TEMPORARY RECEIVER UNDER SEC. 977-B OF THE
NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT IS VESTED WITH TITLE BY VIRTUE OF HIS
APPOINTMENT, IS ONE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE NEW YORK
COURTS."  AND IT CONCEDES THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEVANT NEW YORK
STATUTES "IS EASILY SUSCEPTIBLE OF VARYING INTERPRETATIONS."  YET IT
PUTS ITS OWN INTERPRETATION ON THOSE STATUTES THOUGH THAT
INTERPRETATION MAY BE DISPLACED TOMORROW BY THE ONLY COURTS WHICH HAVE
POWER TO RENDER AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF NEW YORK LAW - THE
COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

IN OTHER CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US IN WHICH DECISION OF A
FEDERAL ISSUE OR THE NECESSITY FOR ITS DECISION DEPENDED ON A SERIOUSLY
DOUBTFUL QUESTION OF STATE LAW, WE HAVE DIRECTED THAT APPLICATION
SHOULD FIRST BE MADE TO THE COURTS OF THE STATE FOR FINAL DISPOSITION
OF THE STATE QUESTION.  THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S.
478; RAILROAD COMM'N OF TEXAS V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496; CHICAGO V.
FIELDCREST DAIRIES, 316 U.S. 168; SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, INC. V.
MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101; A.F. OF L. V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582.  IN EACH
OF THESE CASES THE DISCRETION OF A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY COULD
PRACTICABLY BE EXERCISED IN A WAY WHICH RETAINED ULTIMATE JURISDICTION
OF THE CASE WHILE PERMITTING ADJUDICATION OF THE STATE QUESTION IN THE
STATE COURTS.  IN EACH THERE WERE AVAILABLE STATE PROCEDURES CAPABLE OF
PROVIDING A PROMPT DECISION, AND THE LITIGATION HAD NOT ALREADY
CONSUMED SUCH AN UNCONSCIONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AS TO MAKE RECOURSE TO
THEM INEXPEDIENT.  CF. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO.,
317 U.S. 456.  THE PRESENT CASE MEETS ALL THOSE CONDITIONS, SEE N.Y.
CIV. PRAC.  ACT SEC. 473, AND SHOULD RECEIVE THE SAME DISPOSITION.   IT
IS TRUE THAT IN ALL BUT ONE OF THESE CASES RECOURSE TO THE STATE COURTS
ALSO SERVED THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING WHAT MIGHT HAVE PROVED TO BE
UNNECESSARY DECISION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  BUT SEE THOMPSON V.
MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478.  EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTAL, HOWEVER,
WAS RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING HARMONIOUS RELATIONS
BETWEEN PARALLEL SYSTEMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS IN A SITUATION
WHERE, BECAUSE STATE LAW CONTROLLED, THE STATE COURTS HAD THE LAST WORD
AND SO A FEDERAL COURT AT BEST COULD MAKE ONLY AN INFORMED GUESS.  THAT
THIS WAS A DOMINANT CONSIDERATION IN THE MIND OF THE COURT APPEARS
PLAINLY IN THE LANGUAGE OF ITS OPINIONS.  THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES ARE
ILLUSTRATIVE: 

1.  "THE LAST WORD ON THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 6445 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL
STATUTES, AND THEREFORE THE LAST WORD ON THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION IN THIS CASE, BELONGS NEITHER TO US NOR TO THE
DISTRICT COURT BUT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.  IN THIS SITUATION A
FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY IS ASKED TO DECIDE AN ISSUE BY MAKING A
TENTATIVE ANSWER WHICH MAY BE DISPLACED TOMORROW BY A STATE
ADJUDICATION.  ...  THE REIGN OF LAW IS HARDLY PROMOTED IF AN
UNNECESSARY RULING OF A FEDERAL COURT IS THUS SUPPLANTED BY A
CONTROLLING DECISION OF A STATE COURT.  ... 

"FEW PUBLIC INTERESTS HAVE A HIGHER CLAIM UPON THE DISCRETION OF A
FEDERAL CHANCELLOR THAN THE AVOIDANCE OF NEEDLESS FRICTION WITH STATE
POLICIES, WHETHER THE POLICY RELATES TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL
LAW, FENNER V. BOYKIN, 271 U.S. 240; SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295
U.S. 89; OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A SPECIALIZED SCHEME FOR LIQUIDATING
EMBARRASSED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S.
176; OR THE FINAL AUTHORITY OF A STATE COURT TO INTERPRET DOUBTFUL
REGULATORY LAWS OF THE STATE, GILCHRIST V. INTERBOROUGH CO., 279 U.S.
159; CF. HAWKS V. HAMILL, 288 U.S. 52, 61.  THESE CASES REFLECT A
DOCTRINE OF ABSTENTION APPROPRIATE TO OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM WHEREBY THE
FEDERAL COURTS, 'EXERCISING A WISE DISCRETION,' RESTRAIN THEIR
AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF 'SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS' AND FOR THE SMOOTH WORKING OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY.  SEE CAVANAUGH V. LOONEY, 248 U.S. 453, 457; DI GIOVANNI V.
CAMDEN INS. ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 73."  RAILROAD COMM'N OF TEXAS V.
PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496, 499-501. 

2.  "WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROCEDURE WHICH WE FOLLOWED IN
THE PULLMAN CASE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED HERE.  ILLINOIS HAS THE FINAL SAY
AS TO THE MEANING OF THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION.  IT ALSO HAS THE FINAL
WORD ON THE ALLEGED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE AND THE STATE ACT. 
THE DETERMINATION WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, OR WE, MIGHT MAKE COULD NOT BE ANYTHING MORE THAN A FORECAST -
A PREDICTION AS TO THE ULTIMATE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS.  ...  AS WE SAID IN THE PULLMAN CASE, 'THE RESOURCES OF
EQUITY ARE EQUAL TO AN ADJUSTMENT THAT WILL AVOID THE WASTE OF A
TENTATIVE DECISION' AND ANY 'NEEDLESS FRICTION WITH STATE POLICIES.' 
...  IT IS AN EXERCISE OF A 'SOUND DISCRETION, WHICH GUIDES THE
DETERMINATION OF COURTS OF EQUITY.'  BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO.,
(312 U.S. 45, 50).  IN THIS CASE, THAT DISCRETION CALLS FOR A REMISSION
OF THE PARTIES TO THE STATE COURTS, WHICH ALONE CAN GIVE A DEFINITIVE
ANSWER TO THE MAJOR QUESTIONS POSED.  PLAINLY, THEY CONSTITUTE THE MORE
APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THE TRIAL OF THOSE ISSUES.  SEE 54 HARV. L. REV.
1379.  CONSIDERATIONS OF DELAY, INCONVENIENCE, AND COST TO THE PARTIES,
WHICH HAVE BEEN URGED UPON US, DO NOT CALL FOR A DIFFERENT RESULT.  FOR
WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH THE MUCH LARGER ISSUE AS TO THE APPROPRIATE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES FUNCTIONING AS A
HARMONIOUS WHOLE."  CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES, 316 U.S. 168, 171
73. 

3.  "  ...  IF, AS THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT, THIS FLORIDA LAW IS
NOT SELF-EXECUTING, SUITS SEEKING TO RAISE THE DUE PROCESS QUESTION OR
ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WOULD BE PREMATURE UNTIL FLORIDA
SUPPLIED SANCTIONS FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  A DECISION TODAY ON THE MERITS
MIGHT, THEREFORE, AMOUNT TO NO MORE THAN AN ADVISORY OPINION.  ...  THE
RESOURCES OF EQUITY ARE NOT INADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM SO AS
TO AVOID UNNECESSARY FRICTION WITH STATE POLICIES, WHILE SELECTIVE
CASES GO FORWARD IN THE STATE COURTS FOR AN ORDERLY AND EXPEDITIOUS
ADJUDICATION OF THE STATE LAW QUESTIONS."  A.F. OF L. V. WATSON, 327
U.S. 582, 598-99. 

SO HERE, THOUGH NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS PRESENT, REGARD FOR THE
RESPECTIVE ORBITS OF STATE AND FEDERAL TRIBUNALS IS THE BEST OF
REASONS, AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, FOR REQUIRING A
DEFINITIVE ADJUDICATION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS RATHER THAN PROCEEDING
ON THE BASIS OF OUR OWN TENTATIVE GUESS AS TO THE MEANING OF THE NEW
YORK STATUTES.  THAT FEDERAL ISSUES MAY REMAIN IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO THE NEW YORK COURTS A SEPARABLE ISSUE OF NEW YORK
LAW.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO ASSUME THAT THEY WILL GO ON TO DECIDE
THESE FEDERAL QUESTIONS WHEN A FEDERAL COURT HAS EXPRESSLY RETAINED
JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THEM.  CF. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. PACIFIC POWER
& L. CO., 307 U.S. 156, 160. 

WE SHOULD REMAND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
RETAIN JURISDICTION PENDING SUBMISSION TO THE COURTS OF NEW YORK BY
APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS OF THE QUESTION WHETHER TITLE TO AKM'S CLAIM
AGAINST ASCAP PASSED TO PETITIONER UPON HIS APPOINTMENT AS TEMPORARY
RECEIVER. 
..END :

















POWER COMM'N V. PANHANDLE CO., 337 U.S. 498 


NO. 558.  ARGUED APRIL 22, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 172 F.2D
57, AFFIRMED. 


A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE NATURAL GAS ACT MAY SELL
THE LEASES COVERING AN ESTIMATED 12% OF ITS TOTAL GAS RESERVES WITHOUT
THE APPROVAL AND CONTRARY TO AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 
PP. 499-507. 

1.  SECTION 1(B) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, EXCLUDING "THE PRODUCTION OR
GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS" FROM THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, LEFT THE
TRANSFER OF GAS LEASES TO STATE REGULATION AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
COMMISSION'S REGULATORY POWERS.  PP. 502-505. 

2.  SECTIONS 5(B), 6(A) AND (B), 8(A), 9(A), 10(A) AND 14(B),
EMPOWERING THE COMMISSION TO MAKE INVESTIGATIONS, TO PRESCRIBE RULES
FOR THE KEEPING OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS BY NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES, AND
TO REQUIRE THEM TO FILE SUCH REPORTS AS ARE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE
COMMISSION IN THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, DO NOT REQUIRE A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  PP. 505-507. 

3.  NOR IS A DIFFERENT RESULT REQUIRED BY SECS. 7(C), 4, 5 AND 16,
AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FOR THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF NATURAL GAS, TO
DETERMINE REASONABLE RATES FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION AND SALE, AND TO DO
THE THINGS APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT - EVEN
WHEN THE LEASES INVOLVED WERE USED TO JUSTIFY THE ISSUANCE OF
CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  PP. 507-508. 

4.  NOR IS A DIFFERENT RESULT REQUIRED BY SEC. 7(B), WHICH FORBIDS
ANY NATURAL-GAS COMPANY TO ABANDON ANY OF ITS FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE
COMMISSION.  PP. 508-513. 

5.  THE CONCLUSION HERE REACHED IS SUPPORTED BY THE UNDISPUTED
FINDING BY THE DISTRICT COURT THAT IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE FOR NATURAL
GAS COMPANIES TO TRADE FREELY IN GAS LEASES AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS
NEVER BEFORE ASSERTED THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE TRANSFER OF SUCH
LEASES.  PP. 513-514. 

6.  SINCE THE COMMISSION COULD NOT STOP THE TRANSFER OF A GAS LEASE,
IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN INJUNCTION DELAYING SUCH A TRANSFER UNTIL IT
COULD COMPLETE AN INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINE ITS OWN POWER AND THE
NECESSITY FOR USING IT.  PP. 514-516. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN INJUNCTION SOUGHT BY THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION TO BAR THE SALE OF CERTAIN GAS LEASES BY A NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  172 F.2D 57.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 935. 
AFFIRMED, P. 516. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

STATED BROADLY THIS CERTIORARI BRINGS BEFORE US FOR REVIEW A PROBLEM
INVOLVING THE SCOPE OF THE POWER OVER THE GAS RESERVES OF A NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION BY THE NATURAL GAS ACT. 
52 STAT. 821, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 83.  SPECIFICALLY THE QUESTION TO BE
DECIDED IS WHETHER A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY, SUBJECT TO THE ACT, MAY SELL
THE LEASES COVERING AN ESTIMATED TWELVE PER CENT OF ITS TOTAL GAS
RESERVES WITHOUT THE APPROVAL AND CONTRARY TO AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION. 

THE ISSUE IS MADE VERY SHARPLY BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS HAVE REFUSED AN INJUNCTION, SOUGHT BY THE COMMISSION,
TO HOLD THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SALE IN ABEYANCE UNTIL THE COMMISSION,
THROUGH AN ADMITTEDLY PERMISSIBLE INVESTIGATION, CAN DETERMINE WHETHER
THE DISPOSAL OF THESE RESERVES WILL IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF PANHANDLE TO
SUPPLY ITS PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS IN THE AREA WHICH IT HAS
UNDERTAKEN TO SERVE AS A PUBLIC UTILITY.  THE COMMISSION MAY FIND THAT
PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BEST BE SERVED BY REQUIRING PANHANDLE TO RETAIN
THESE RESERVES.  THE PUBLIC INTEREST HAS STRONG APPEAL TO A COURT OF
EQUITY FOR ITS REMEDIES ONCE A LEGAL RIGHT IS FAIRLY IN CONTROVERSY. 
FN1 

RESPONDENT, PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY (HEREIN CALLED
PANHANDLE), A DELAWARE CORPORATION, TRANSPORTS AND MARKETS NATURAL GAS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY MEANS OF ITS PIPE-LINE SYSTEM WHICH RUNS FROM
TEXAS INTO MICHIGAN.  IN ADDITION IT OWNS OR CONTROLS GAS-PRODUCING
PROPERTIES IN KANSAS, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS. 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1948, PANHANDLE ORGANIZED HUGOTON PRODUCTION COMPANY
(HEREINAFTER CALLED HUGOTON), ALSO A DELAWARE CORPORATION.  ON OCTOBER
11, 1948, PURSUANT TO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES,
PANHANDLE TRANSFERRED TO HUGOTON GAS LEASES ON APPROXIMATELY 97,000
ACRES OF LAND IN KANSAS AND $675,000 IN CASH.  IN RETURN PANHANDLE
RECEIVED ALL THE OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK OF HUGOTON AND THE OPTION TO
PURCHASE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1965, ALL OR PART OF THE GAS PRODUCED
FROM THIS LAND, WHICH IS AT PRESENT UNDEVELOPED AND NOT CONNECTED WITH
ANY PIPE-LINE SYSTEM.  THE GAS RESERVES UNDER THIS ACREAGE ARE
ESTIMATED AT APPROXIMATELY 700 BILLION CUBIC FEET.  HUGOTON THEREAFTER
CONTRACTED TO SELL TO THE KANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR A PERIOD
OF FIFTEEN YEARS FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1949, TO NOVEMBER 1, 1964, THE GAS
PRODUCED FROM THESE LEASES, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT, WAS TO BE
CONSUMED WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE OF KANSAS. 

ON THE SAME DATE AS THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN PANHANDLE AND HUGOTON,
PANHANDLE DECLARED A DIVIDEND OF THE HUGOTON STOCK TO THE HOLDERS OF
ITS COMMON STOCK AT THE RATE OF ONE-HALF SHARE OF HUGOTON STOCK FOR
EACH SHARE OF COMMON STOCK OF PANHANDLE.  THE DIVIDEND WAS TO BE PAID
NOVEMBER 17, 1948, TO PANHANDLE'S STOCKHOLDERS OF RECORD ON OCTOBER 29,
1948.  NOTHING CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION INDICATES ANY CONTROL RETAINED
BY PANHANDLE OVER THE HUGOTON STOCK. 

ON OCTOBER 26, 1948, THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION (HEREINAFTER CALLED
THE COMMISSION) ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION "PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
INVOLVED IN THE FORMATION AND PROPOSED OPERATION OF THE HUGOTON
PRODUCTION COMPANY AND THE TRANSFER TO SAID COMPANY BY PANHANDLE
EASTERN OF THE NATURAL-GAS RESERVES  ...  "  BY A SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER
OF NOVEMBER 10, 1948, HUGOTON WAS JOINED AS A PARTY, A DATE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING WAS FIXED, AND HUGOTON AND PANHANDLE ORDERED TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT, AND WHY
PANHANDLE SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED FROM TRANSFERRING THE LEASES WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION AND FROM DISTRIBUTING THE HUGOTON STOCK
TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  PENDING A FINAL DETERMINATION, THE COMMISSION
ORDERED THAT THE STATUS QUO BE MAINTAINED BY PANHANDLE AND HUGOTON. 

UPON THE APPARENT REFUSAL OF PANHANDLE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, THE
COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 13, 1948, INSTITUTED THE INSTANT SUIT IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, SEEKING A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER TO COMPEL
PANHANDLE TO PROCEED NO FURTHER WITH THE STOCK DISTRIBUTION AND TO
MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE
QUESTIONS FOR WHICH THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN SET. 
THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WHICH HAS
BEEN KEPT IN EFFECT BY SUCCESSIVE ORDERS AND WHICH ENJOINED PANHANDLE
FROM ISSUING TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS THE DIVIDEND OF HUGOTON STOCK. 
PANHANDLE WAS ORDERED TO CAUSE HUGOTON TO REFRAIN FROM TRANSFERRING ANY
OF THE GAS LEASES AND FROM ISSUING OR TRANSFERRING ANY OF ITS CAPITAL
STOCK.  AFTER A HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO GRANT THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, ON THE GROUND THAT THERE HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN ANY
BASIS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE COMMISSION. 

ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 1(B) OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT, EXCLUDING "THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS"
FROM THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, LEFT THE TRANSFER OF GAS LEASES TO
STATE REGULATION AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S REGULATORY
POWERS.  172 F.2D 57.  THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS HAD
BEEN GRANTED LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS IN OPPOSITION
TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 

TO CONSIDER THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT TO THIS TRANSACTION, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S.
935. 

WITHOUT ENTERING UPON ANOTHER REVIEW OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,  FN2
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE NATURAL GAS ACT DID NOT ENVISAGE FEDERAL
REGULATION OF THE ENTIRE NATURAL-GAS FIELD TO THE LIMIT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  RATHER IT CONTEMPLATED THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL
POWER AS SPECIFIED IN THE ACT, PARTICULARLY IN THAT INTERSTATE SEGMENT
WHICH THE STATES WERE POWERLESS TO REGULATE BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FN3  THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WAS TO COMPLEMENT THAT OF THE STATE REGULATORY
BODIES.  FN4  ACCORDINGLY, CONGRESS IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT NOT ONLY
PRESCRIBED THE INTENDED REACH OF THE COMMISSION'S POWER, BUT ALSO
SPECIFIED THE AREAS INTO WHICH THIS POWER WAS NOT TO EXTEND. 


"(B)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY
OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH
DISTRIBUTION OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS." 

"THIS SECTION DETERMINES THE ACT'S COVERAGE AND DOES SO IN THE LIGHT
OF THE SITUATION EXISTING AT THE TIME.  THREE THINGS AND THREE ONLY
CONGRESS DREW WITHIN ITS OWN REGULATORY POWER, DELEGATED BY THE ACT TO
ITS AGENT, THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  THESE WERE:  (1) THE
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; (2) ITS SALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE; AND (3) NATURAL GAS COMPANIES ENGAGED
IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE."  PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA, 332 U.S. 507, 516.  THE ACT,
MOREOVER, EXPRESSLY EXEMPTS FROM ITS COVERAGE  FN5  (1) ANY OTHER
TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS; (2) THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF
NATURAL GAS; (3) THE FACILITIES USED FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION; AND (4)
THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS. 

THE COMMISSION SEEKS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES OF
PRODUCTION AND GATHERING, SUCH AS DRILLING, SPACING WELLS, OR
COLLECTING GAS, AND THE FACILITIES, SUCH AS RESERVES AND GAS LEASES,
USED THEREFOR AND ARGUES THAT ONLY THE FORMER WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE
COVERAGE OF THE ACT.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS POSITION IT IS POINTED OUT
THAT THE SECTION SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS BOTH THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION AND
THE FACILITIES USED THEREFOR, WHILE IT MAKES NO MENTION OF THE
FACILITIES USED FOR PRODUCTION OR GATHERING.  FN6  IN THE FACE OF THE
UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE ACT AND ITS LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND, WE
CANNOT ASCRIBE SUCH A NARROW MEANING TO THE WORDS, "THE PRODUCTION OR
GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS."  IN COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, 324 U.S. 581, 603, WE SAID THAT THIS PHRASE
COMPREHENDED THE PRODUCING PROPERTIES AND GATHERING FACILITIES OF A
NATURAL-GAS COMPANY.  WE NOW ADHERE TO THIS NATURAL AND CLEAR MEANING
OF THE WORDS AND THEIR OBVIOUS EXPRESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT N7. 
OF COURSE LEASES ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF PRODUCTION. 

THE COMMISSION CITES SECS. 5(B), 6(A) AND (B), 8(A), 9(A), 10(A), AND
14(B) TO SHOW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED "TO CONFER A CERTAIN MEASURE OF
AUTHORITY UPON THE COMMISSION" OVER THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF
GAS.  THESE SECTIONS EMPOWER THE COMMISSION TO MAKE INVESTIGATIONS, TO
PRESCRIBE RULES FOR THE KEEPING OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS BY THE NATURAL
GAS COMPANIES, AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE COMPANIES FILE SUCH REPORTS AS
ARE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE COMMISSION IN THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ACT.  THESE POWERS ARE INQUISITORIAL IN NATURE AND WERE DESIGNED TO
AID THE COMMISSION IN EXERCISING ITS POWERS AND "TO SERVE AS A BASIS
FOR RECOMMENDING FURTHER LEGISLATION TO THE CONGRESS."  SECTION 14(B),
QUOTED BELOW, COMES CLOSEST TO SUPPORTING THE COMMISSION'S ARGUMENT BUT
THAT CONFERS ONLY POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.  FN8  ALTHOUGH THESE
RELATIONSHIP OF PRODUCTION PROPERTIES TO OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE NATURAL
GAS BUSINESS, THEY DO NOT EVEN BY IMPLICATION SUGGEST TO US AN
EXTENSION OF THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO COVER INCIDENTS
CONNECTED WITH THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF GAS. 

IN COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, SUPRA, AT
602, THE COURT IN CONSIDERING THE MORE IMPORTANT OF THESE SECTIONS SAID
THAT THEY DESCRIBED POWERS WHICH WERE AIDS TO THE "NORMAL CONVENTIONS"
OF RATE MAKING.  WE HELD THAT THE COMMISSION IN EXERCISING ITS RATE
MAKING AUTHORITY COULD INCLUDE THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PRODUCING AND
GATHERING FACILITIES IN THE RATE BASE OF A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY.  THE
PRIMARY DUTY OF THE COMMISSION IS TO FIX JUST AND REASONABLE RATES FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR
RESALE.  FOR THIS PURPOSE THE COURT PERMITTED THE COMMISSION TO EXAMINE
AND CONSIDER THE COST OF PRODUCTION AND GATHERING.  THE USE OF SUCH
DATA FOR RATE MAKING IS NOT A PRECEDENT FOR REGULATION OF ANY PART OF
PRODUCTION OR MARKETING.  BEFORE THE COLORADO INTERSTATE DECISION, IT
WAS APPARENT THAT THE VALUE OF PRODUCING FACILITIES AND THE COST OF GAS
BOUGHT BY A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY FROM PRODUCERS WOULD BE WEIGHTY FACTORS
IN RATE MAKING WHETHER A RATE-BASE METHOD OR OTHER METHOD FOR FIXING
RATES WAS USED.  LOW VALUATION BY THE COMMISSION OF PRODUCING
PROPERTIES OR LOW-COST ALLOWANCE FOR PURCHASED GAS DISCOURAGES
EXPLORATION FOR GAS OR ITS SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN9 CONGRESS
KNEW THIS NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION
BUT EXCLUDED THE COMMISSION FROM EXERCISING ANY DIRECT CONTROL OR
REGULATION OVER THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS. 

THE COMMISSION URGES IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN
PANHANDLE AND HUGOTON FROM THE POWERS GRANTED TO IT BY SEC. 7(C) OF THE
ACT WHICH AUTHORIZES IT TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FOR THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF NATURAL GAS AND
THOSE GRANTED TO IT BY SECS. 4 AND 5 TO DETERMINE REASONABLE RATES FOR
SUCH TRANSPORTATION AND SALE.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT PANHANDLE IN
THREE APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO
CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PIPELINE FACILITIES HAD INCLUDED THE ACREAGE HERE
INVOLVED AS PART OF ITS GAS RESERVES, AND CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED UPON
THE FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT PANHANDLE HAD ADEQUATE RESERVES TO
WARRANT ITS EXPANSION.  FN10  MOREOVER PANHANDLE HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO
INCLUDE THESE RESERVES IN ITS RATE BASE AS "USED AND USEFUL PROPERTY." 
THE COMMISSION, THEREFORE, ARGUES THAT THESE GAS LEASES WHICH PANHANDLE
PROPOSES TO GRANT TO HUGOTON HAVE BEEN DEDICATED TO THE DISCHARGE OF
PANHANDLE'S PUBLIC-UTILITY OBLIGATION TO RENDER ADEQUATE SERVICE AT
REASONABLE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY RATES.  FROM THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDES THAT THESE LEASES CANNOT BE RELINQUISHED BY
PANHANDLE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH HAS THE IMPLIED
POWER TO PROTECT ITS RATE-MAKING FUNCTION AND TO INSURE THE MAINTENANCE
OF ADEQUATE SERVICE BY A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY.  SECTIONS 4, 5 AND 7 DO
NOT CONCERN THE PRODUCING OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS; RATHER THEY HAVE
REFERENCE TO THE INTERSTATE SALE AND TRANSPORTATION OF GAS AND ARE SO
LIMITED BY THEIR EXPRESS TERMS.  THUS SECS. 4(A), (B), (C), 5(A) AND
7(C) SPEAK OF "TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION" WHILE SEC. 7(A) AND (B) REFER
RESPECTIVELY TO "TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES" AND "FACILITIES SUBJECT TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION."  FN11  NOTHING IN THE SECTIONS
INDICATES THAT THE POWER GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION OVER NATURAL-GAS
COMPANIES BY SEC. 1(B) COULD HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO SWALLOW ALL THE
EXCEPTIONS OF THE SAME SECTION AND THUS EXTEND THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY OVER
COMMERCE.  THE REPETITION OF THE WORDS "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION"
MAKES CLEAR TO US THE INTENT TO KEEP THE COMMISSION'S HANDS OUT OF THE
EXCEPTED LOCAL MATTERS.  THE SAME ANSWER APPLIES TO PETITIONER'S
ARGUMENT THAT SEC. 16 GIVES IT AUTHORITY TO STOP SALES OF LEASES.  FN12
THE POWER TO DO THE THINGS APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT CAN HARDLY BE TAKEN TO RESCIND A PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN
ACTIONS. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION LEANS HEAVILY UPON SEC. 7(B), WHICH
PROVIDES THAT NO NATURAL-GAS COMPANY MAY ABANDON ANY OF ITS FACILITIES
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION WITHOUT THE PRIOR
APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.  FN13  THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT SINCE
NATURAL GAS IS THE "LIFEBLOOD" OF A PIPE-LINE SYSTEM, A COMPANY BY
DISPOSING OF ITS GAS RESERVES, UNHAMPERED BY COMMISSION CONTROL, MAY
RENDER ITSELF UNABLE TO CONTINUE SERVICE; CONSEQUENTLY ABANDONMENT OF
FACILITIES AND SERVICE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION WILL
RESULT.  THE ARGUMENT BEGS THE QUESTION.  THE SECTION, LIKE THOSE
ABOVE, COVERS ONLY "FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION." 

TO ACCEPT THESE ARGUMENTS SPRINGING FROM POWER TO ALLOW INTERSTATE
SERVICE, FIX RATES, AND CONTROL ABANDONMENT WOULD ESTABLISH WIDE
CONTROL BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION OVER THE PRODUCTION AND
GATHERING OF GAS.  IT WOULD INVITE EXPANSION OF POWER INTO OTHER PHASES
OF THE FORBIDDEN AREA.  FN14  IT WOULD BE AN ASSUMPTION OF POWERS
SPECIFICALLY DENIED THE COMMISSION BY THE WORDS OF THE ACT AS EXPLAINED
IN THE REPORT AND ON THE FLOOR OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.  FN15 THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS ACT IS REPLETE WITH EVIDENCE OF THE CARE
TAKEN BY CONGRESS TO KEEP THE POWER OVER THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING
OF GAS WITHIN THE STATES.  FN16  THIS PROBABLY OCCURRED BECAUSE THE
STATE LEGISLATURES, IN THE INTERESTS OF CONSERVATION, HAD DELEGATED
BROAD AND ELABORATE POWER TO THEIR REGULATORY BODIES OVER ALL ASPECTS
OF PRODUCING GAS.  FN17  THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS DESIGNED TO SUPPLEMENT
STATE POWER AND TO PRODUCE A HARMONIOUS AND COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION OF
THE INDUSTRY.  FN18  NEITHER STATE NOR FEDERAL REGULATORY BODY WAS TO
ENCROACH UPON THE JURISDICTION OF THE OTHER.  FN19  CONGRESS ENACTED
THIS ACT AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEMS OF PRODUCTION AND
DISTRIBUTION.  IT CONSIDERED THE STATE INTERESTS AS WELL AS THE
NATIONAL INTEREST.  IT HAD BOTH PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS IN MIND. 
LEGISLATIVE ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE TO RECONCILE THE CONFLICTING VIEWS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND AS A FACT, AND THE FINDING IS UNDISPUTED BY
THE COMMISSION, THAT, "IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE IN THE NATURAL GAS
INDUSTRY FOR COMPANIES TO TRADE FREELY IN GAS LEASES, AND THE
COMMISSION HAS NEVER HERETOFORE ASSERTED THE RIGHT TO REGULATE
TRANSFERS OF SUCH LEASES."  THUS FOR OVER TEN YEARS THE COMMISSION HAS
NEVER CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO REGULATE DEALINGS IN GAS ACREAGE.  FAILURE
TO USE SUCH AN IMPORTANT POWER FOR SO LONG A TIME INDICATES TO US THAT
THE COMMISSION DID NOT BELIEVE THE POWER EXISTED.  FN20  IN THE LIGHT
OF THAT HISTORY WE SHOULD NOT BY AN EXTRAVAGANT, EVEN IF ABSTRACTLY
POSSIBLE, MODE OF INTERPRETATION PUSH POWERS GRANTED OVER
TRANSPORTATION AND RATES SO AS TO INCLUDE PRODUCTION.  IF POSSIBLE, ALL
WHOLE.  FN21  WE CANNOT ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS THE INTENT TO GRANT SUCH
FAR-REACHING POWERS AS IMPLICIT IN THE ACT WHEN THAT BODY HAS
ENDEAVORED TO BE PRECISE AND EXPLICIT IN DEFINING THE LIMITS TO THE
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER.  FN22 

THE COMMISSION SOUGHT BY INJUNCTION TO ENFORCE ITS ORDER HALTING THE
TRANSACTION BETWEEN PANHANDLE AND HUGOTON PENDING THE OUTCOME OF ITS
INVESTIGATION.  THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT, AT ANY RATE, THE TRANSFER
SHOULD BE ENJOINED UNTIL IT CAN DETERMINE ITS OWN POWER AND THE
NECESSITY OF USING IT.  INJUNCTIVE AID WAS REQUESTED UNDER SEC. 20(A)
FN23 OF THE ACT AND THE GENERAL EQUITY POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  TO
BE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, HOWEVER, THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
COMMISSION MUST BE VALID AND BASED ON A STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER TO THE
COMMISSION.  AS WE HAVE HELD ABOVE THAT THE TRANSFER OF UNDEVELOPED GAS
LEASES IS AN ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF
NATURAL GAS AND BEYOND THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT, THE AUTHORITY OF THE
COMMISSION CANNOT REACH THE SALES.  A PROPOSED TRANSFER CANNOT BE
STOPPED BY THE COMMISSION.  IT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DELAY WHAT IT
CANNOT PREVENT.  FN24  IF THE COMMISSION IS OF THE OPINION THAT IT
SHOULD HAVE POWER TO CONTROL THE DISPOSITION OF LEASES BY NATURAL-GAS
COMPANIES, IT IS AUTHORIZED TO CALL THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS TO THAT
FACT.  FN25 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PORTER V. WARNER CO., 328 U.S. 395, 398; YAKUS V. UNITED STATES,
321 U.S. 414, 440; HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 321, 331; VIRGINIAN R.
CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552; HARRISONVILLE V. DICKEY
CLAY CO., 289 U.S. 334, 338. 

FN2  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY OUR PRIOR OPINIONS
IN PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N OF INDIANA,
332 U.S. 507, 514-521; INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMM'N, 331 U.S. 682, 689-690; COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S. 581, 601-603; FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE
NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 609-613; ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V.
CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUB. SERV. CO., 314 U.S. 498, 506-508. 

FN3  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2651, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1-3; H.R. REP.
NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1-4; S. REP. NO. 1162, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 1-3. 

FN4  SEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO., 317 U.S.
456, 467; PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 332
U.S. 507, 517-518. 

FN5  THE HOUSE REPORT ON THE ACT, AFTER QUOTING THE EXEMPTION
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1(B), SAYS: "THE QUOTED WORDS ARE NOT ACTUALLY
NECESSARY, AS THE MATTERS SPECIFIED THEREIN COULD NOT BE SAID FAIRLY TO
BE COVERED BY THE LANGUAGE AFFIRMATIVELY STATING THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COMMISSION, BUT SIMILAR LANGUAGE WAS IN PREVIOUS BILLS, AND, RATHER
THAN INVITE THE CONTENTION, HOWEVER UNFOUNDED, THAT THE ELIMINATION OF
THE NEGATIVE LANGUAGE WOULD BROADEN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT, THE COMMITTEE
HAS INCLUDED IT IN THIS BILL."  H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 3. 

FN6 ACTUALLY, IN THE WORDS OF THE HOUSE REPORT, "THAT PART OF THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION STATING THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO 'THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS' IS SURPLUSAGE BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT
DISTRIBUTION IS MADE ONLY TO CONSUMERS IN CONNECTION WITH SALES, AND
SINCE NO JURISDICTION IS GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE SALES TO
CONSUMERS THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER DISTRIBUTION,
WHETHER OR NOT LOCAL IN CHARACTER."  H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 3. 

FN7  IN A BRIEF PREPARED BY THE SOLICITOR OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION FOR THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF H.R. 11662, AN EARLIER BILL SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR TO THE NATURAL GAS ACT, THE FOLLOWING APPEARS AS PART OF THE
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL:  "THE BILL MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE
PRODUCTION OR GATHERING FACILITIES OF A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY, THIS
FUNCTION BEING PURELY LOCAL IN CHARACTER, NOR IS ANY ATTEMPT MADE TO
EXERCISE CONTROL OVER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES."  HEARINGS BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
ON H.R. 11662, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 17. 

THE SOLICITOR OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IN TESTIFYING AT THE
SAME HEARING ALSO ANSWERED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: 

"MR. COLE (MEMBER OF COMMITTEE).  DOES THIS BILL GIVE ANYWHERE THE
COMMISSION POWER OVER THE SOURCE OF NATURAL GAS IN THE DIFFERENT FIELDS
IN A MANNER WHICH WE MIGHT CALL COMPARABLE TO THAT WHICH YOUR
COMMISSION NOW HAS OVER HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS? 

"MR. DEVANE (SOLICITOR OF THE F.P.C.).  IT DOES NOT; NO. IT DOES NOT
ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE GATHERING RATES OR THE GATHERING BUSINESS. 

FN8  "(B)  THE COMMISSION MAY, AFTER HEARING, DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY
OR INADEQUACY OF THE GAS RESERVES HELD OR CONTROLLED BY ANY NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY, OR BY ANYONE ON ITS BEHALF, INCLUDING ITS OWNED OR LEASED
PROPERTIES OR ROYALTY CONTRACTS; AND MAY ALSO, AFTER HEARING, DETERMINE
THE PROPRIETY AND REASONABLENESS OF THE INCLUSION IN OPERATING
EXPENSES, CAPITAL, OR SURPLUS OF ALL DELAY RENTALS OR OTHER FORMS OF
RENTAL OR COMPENSATION FOR UNOPERATED LANDS AND LEASES.  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUCH DETERMINATIONS, THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE ANY NATURAL
GAS COMPANY TO FILE WITH THE COMMISSION TRUE COPIES OF ALL ITS LEASE
AND ROYALTY AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH GAS RESERVES." 

SEE H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 7. 

FN9  COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S.
581, 603; FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591,
610, 612. 

FN10  5 F.P.C. 544, 546, 949, 952; F.P.C. DOCKET G-876, ORDER OF JUNE
10, 1948. 

FN11  COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S.
581, 598. 

FN12  "SEC.  16.  THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE POWER TO PERFORM ANY AND
ALL ACTS, AND TO PRESCRIBE, ISSUE, MAKE, AMEND, AND RESCIND SUCH
ORDERS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS AS IT MAY FIND NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE
TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  ...  " 

FN13  "(B)  NO NATURAL-GAS COMPANY SHALL ABANDON ALL OR ANY PORTION
OF ITS FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, OR ANY
SERVICE RENDERED BY MEANS OF SUCH FACILITIES, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION
AND APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION FIRST HAD AND OBTAINED, AFTER DUE
HEARING, AND A FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY OF
NATURAL GAS IS DEPLETED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CONTINUANCE OF SERVICE
IS UNWARRANTED, OR THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY PERMIT SUCH ABANDONMENT." 

FN14  WOULD IT SOON BE CONTENDED THAT STATUTORY POWER TO REQUIRE
EXTENSION OF SERVICE, SEC. 7(A), INCLUDED POWER TO REQUIRE EXPLORATION
OR ACQUISITION OF LEASES OR ALLOCATION OF PRODUCTION TO INTERSTATE PIPE
LINES IN ORDER TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST? 

FN15  THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE ON H.R. 6586, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., WHICH BECAME THE NATURAL
GAS ACT, WAS ADOPTED WITHOUT CHANGE BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS ITS REPORT ON THE SAME BILL.  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA.
THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS ARE TAKEN FROM THE REPORT AS PARTICULARLY
PERTINENT: 

"THE BILL IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH H.R. 12680 WHICH, AS
AMENDED, WAS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE OF THE SEVENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION, WITH A
RECOMMENDATION THAT IT PASS.  IF ENACTED, THE PRESENT BILL WOULD FOR
THE FIRST TIME PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES
TRANSPORTING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT
CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION OVER THE
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE SALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC
CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE. 
THE STATES HAVE, OF COURSE, FOR MANY YEARS REGULATED SALES OF NATURAL
GAS TO CONSUMERS IN INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS.  THE STATES HAVE ALSO BEEN
ABLE TO REGULATE SALES TO CONSUMERS EVEN THOUGH SUCH SALES ARE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SUCH SALES BEING CONSIDERED LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND
IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION SUBJECT TO STATE
REGULATION.  (SEE PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
(1920), 252 U.S. 23.)  THERE IS NO INTENTION IN ENACTING THE PRESENT
LEGISLATION TO DISTURB THE STATES IN THEIR EXERCISE OF SUCH
JURISDICTION.  HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF SALES FOR RESALE, OR SO-CALLED
WHOLESALE SALES, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FOR EXAMPLE, SALES BY
PRODUCING COMPANIES TO DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES) THE LEGAL SITUATION IS
DIFFERENT.  SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE NOT LOCAL IN
CHARACTER AND, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, NOT SUBJECT
TO STATE REGULATION.  (SEE MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO. (1924), 265 U.S.
298, AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELECTRIC CO.
(1927), 273 U.S. 83.)  THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT LEGISLATION IS
TO OCCUPY THIS FIELD IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE
STATES MAY NOT ACT. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"  ...  THE BILL TAKES NO AUTHORITY FROM STATE COMMISSIONS, AND IS SO
DRAWN AS TO COMPLEMENT AND IN NO MANNER USURP STATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, AND CONTAINS PROVISIONS FOR COOPERATIVE ACTION WITH STATE
REGULATORY BODIES.  ... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"YOUR COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE TO
FILL THE GAP IN REGULATION THAT NOW EXISTS BY REASON OF THE LACK OF
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE COMMISSIONS."  H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 1-3. 

DURING THE DEBATE ON THE BILL IN THE HOUSE, ITS SPONSOR, CHAIRMAN LEA
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, MADE THE FOLLOWING
EXPLANATORY STATEMENTS:    "THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE PENDING BILL IS
TO PROVIDE FEDERAL REGULATION, IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE STATE
COMMISSIONS LACK AUTHORITY, UNDER THE INTERSTATE-COMMERCE LAW.  THIS
BILL TAKES NOTHING FROM THE STATE COMMISSIONS; THEY RETAIN ALL THE
STATE POWER THEY HAVE AT THE PRESENT TIME.  THIS BILL WOULD APPLY TO
THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO THE
SALE OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE OR PUBLIC
CONSUMPTION. 

     .         .         .         .      . 

"THE BILL DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF GAS."  81
CONG. REC. 6721. 

LIKEWISE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, CHAIRMAN WHEELER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE GAVE A SIMILAR INTERPRETATION TO THE
ACT: 

"MR. AUSTIN.  MR. PRESIDENT, MAY I ASK THE SENATOR FROM MONTANA (MR.
WHEELER) A QUESTION CONCERNING THIS BILL?  DOES THE BILL UNDERTAKE TO
REGULATE THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS, OR DOES IT UNDERTAKE TO
REGULATE THE PRODUCERS OF NATURAL GAS? 

"MR. WHEELER.  IT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE PRODUCERS OF
NATURAL GAS OR THE DISTRIBUTORS OF NATURAL GAS; ONLY THOSE WHO SELL IT
WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ... 

"MR. AUSTIN.  MR. PRESIDENT, WILL THE SENATOR YIELD FOR ONE OTHER
INQUIRY? 

"MR. WHEELER.  YES. 

"MR. AUSTIN.  IS THE BILL LIMITED IN ITS SCOPE TO THE REGULATION OF
TRANSPORTATION? 

"MR. WHEELER.  YES; IT IS LIMITED TO TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND IT AFFECTS ONLY THOSE WHO SELL GAS WHOLESALE. 

     .         .       .         .         . 

"MR. KING.  MR. PRESIDENT, I SHOULD LIKE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM
THE SENATOR AS TO THE IMPLICATIONS THAT ARISE FROM THE BILL, AND WHAT
STATES IT WOULD AFFECT.  AS AN ILLUSTRATION, IF GAS IS PRODUCED IN
WYOMING AND IS TRANSPORTED FOR CONSUMPTION INTO THE SENATOR'S STATE OR
MY STATE, WOULD THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAVE TO DO WITH SUCH AN
ACTIVITY? 

"MR. WHEELER.  NO; AND LET ME SAY TO THE SENATOR THAT, AS A MATTER OF
FACT, THE BILL DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE STATE REGULATION, IN ANY
WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM."  81 CONG. REC. 9312. 

"MR. CONNALLY.  IS IT NOT ALSO TRUE, EVEN THOUGH THE UTILITY
COMMISSIONERS ADVOCATE IT, THAT WHENEVER A FEDERAL AGENCY TAKES OVER AN
ACTIVITY SUCH AS THIS THE STATE AUTHORITIES BEGIN TO SHIFT OR LOSE
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY?  IF WE TURN THIS OVER TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY DO WILL BE REFLECTED ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY, BECAUSE THE INTERSTATE RATES WILL BE SUPERIMPOSED ON THE STATE
COMMISSIONS AND THEY MUST NECESSARILY BE GOVERNED BY THEM.  DID NOT
THAT HAPPEN TO THE RAILROADS? 

"MR. WHEELER.  THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT, BUT THIS IS AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT SITUATION. 

"MR. CONNALLY.  YES; ONE INVOLVES THE RAILROADS AND THE OTHER
INVOLVES GAS. 

"MR. WHEELER.  NO. THERE IS NO ATTEMPT AND CAN BE NO ATTEMPT UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL TO REGULATE ANYTHING IN THE FIELD EXCEPT
WHERE IT IS NOT REGULATED AT THE PRESENT TIME.  IT APPLIES ONLY AS TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ONLY TO THE WHOLESALE PRICE OF GAS."  81 CONG.
REC. 9313. 

"MR. AUSTIN.  THEN, IT WOULD LEAVE TO THE FUTURE THE RIGHT TO MEET
ANY EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE THE NATURAL
RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, OR THE STATE OF VERMONT, OR ANY
OTHER STATE? 

"MR. WHEELER.  OH, YES.  IT DOES NOT TOUCH IT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR
FORM, EXCEPT TO REQUIRE THE FURNISHING OF INFORMATION. 

"MR. AUSTIN.  I HAVE GREAT FEAR OF THESE OCCULT METHODS OF ACQUIRING
THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF OUR SEVERAL STATES."  81 CONG. REC. 9314. 

FN16  WHILE CONGRESS WAS CONSIDERING THE PASSAGE OF THE NATURAL GAS
ACT, A BILL (H.R. 5711 AND S. 1919, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) WAS
INTRODUCED IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS ON MARCH 17, 1937, WHICH PROVIDED
THAT "THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE PROCUREMENT OF NATURAL GAS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ITS TRANSMISSION THROUGH PIPE LINES AND ITS SALE, EXCHANGE,
TRANSMISSION, OR DISTRIBUTION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  "  THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WAS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE (FEDERAL POWER) COMMISSION SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL
FACILITIES FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF NATURAL GAS FOR ITS TRANSMISSION
THROUGH PIPE LINES AND ITS SALE, OR FOR EXCHANGE, OR DISTRIBUTION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND OVER THE TRANSMISSION OF NATURAL GAS IN PIPE
LINES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND OVER THE SALE, OR EXCHANGE OF NATURAL
GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND OVER ALL FACILITIES CONNECTED THEREWITH
AS PARTS OF A SYSTEM OF NATURAL-GAS TRANSMISSION OPERATED IN MORE THAN
ONE STATE." 

THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL, HOWEVER, FAILED OF ADOPTION; INSTEAD
CONGRESS ENACTED SEC. 1(B) WITH ITS SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS FROM THE
COVERAGE OF THE ACT. 

FN17  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, KANSAS GEN. STAT., SECS. 55-701 TO 55
713(1947 SUPP.); MICH. STAT. ANN., C. 97, SECS. 13.138(1)
13.140(10)(SUPP.  1947); OKLA. STAT. ANN., TIT. 52, C. 3, SECS. 81-247;
TEXAS REV. CIV. STAT., TIT. 102, ART. 6008 ET SEQ. (VERNON, 1925, WITH
SUPP. 1948); LA. GEN. STAT. SECS. 4766-4826.2. 

FN18  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO., 317 U.S. 456,
467. 

FN19  INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 331 U.S.
682, 690. 

FN20  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BUNTE BROTHERS, 312 U.S. 349, 352;
NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PROD.  CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 315. 

FN21  COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S.
581, 602. 

FN22  SECTION 5(B) READS: 

"(B)  THE COMMISSION UPON ITS OWN MOTION, OR UPON THE REQUEST OF ANY
STATE COMMISSION, WHENEVER IT CAN DO SO WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
EFFICIENT AND PROPER CONDUCT OF ITS AFFAIRS, MAY INVESTIGATE AND
DETERMINE THE COST OF THE PRODUCTION OR TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS
BY A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY IN CASES WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY
TO ESTABLISH A RATE GOVERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF SUCH
NATURAL GAS." 

WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE NATURAL GAS ACT WERE
BEING READ FOR AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, SEC. 5(B) WAS
AMENDED BY INSERTING THE ITALICIZED WORDS.  MR. BOREN, A MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, WHO SUBMITTED THIS
AMENDMENT, EXPLAINED THE PURPOSE OF IT AS FOLLOWS: 

"MR. BOREN.  MR. CHAIRMAN, MY AMENDMENT HAS BEEN AGREED TO BY THE
COMMITTEE.  I OFFER THE AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO KEEP THE JURISDICTION OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS CLEARLY DEFINED AS POSSIBLE FROM THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN CASES ARISING UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL. 

"DURING THE HEARINGS I OFFERED THIS AMENDMENT AND MADE THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT: 

"MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS OBSERVATION FOR THE RECORD
AND AS A CHALLENGE TO THE PROPONENTS OF THIS BILL:  THAT SUBSECTION B
OF SECTION 5 PROVIDES FOR A GROWTH AND FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE
INFLUENCE OF A FEDERAL BUREAU, OR COMMISSION, IN A REALM WHEREIN THIS
PROPOSAL SUBMITS ON ITS OWN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY
AND RESPONSIBILITY DOES NOT RIGHTFULLY EXIST.' 

"MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS AMENDMENT CLARIFIES THE JURISDICTION AS BETWEEN
THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND ASSURES US THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WILL NOT GO INTO A REALM WHERE THE STATE GOVERNMENT ALREADY
HAS PROPER AUTHORITY TO HANDLE THE PROBLEM. 

"THE COMMITTEE HAS APPROVED THE AMENDMENT, AND I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER
TO SAY."  81 CONG. REC. 6728. 

FN23  "SEC.  20.  (A)  WHENEVER IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COMMISSION
THAT ANY PERSON IS ENGAGED OR ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTS OR PRACTICES
WHICH CONSTITUTE OR WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS ACT, OR OF ANY RULE, REGULATION, OR ORDER THEREUNDER, IT MAY IN
ITS DISCRETION BRING AN ACTION IN THE PROPER DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, OR THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF ANY TERRITORY OR OTHER
PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, TO ENJOIN SUCH
ACTS OR PRACTICES AND TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ACT OR ANY RULE,
REGULATION, OR ORDER THEREUNDER,  ...  " 

FN24  CF. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO., 317 U.S.
456, 468. 

FN25  IN AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION BEFORE THE INSTITUTION OF THIS
LITIGATION, THERE HAD BEEN UNCERTAINTY OF OPINION IN THE COMMISSION AS
TO THE REACH OF THE ACT TOWARD SALES BY INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS AND
GATHERERS TO NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES FOR TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE REPORTS OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ON ITS NATURAL
GAS INVESTIGATION (DOCKET NO. G-580), TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS ON APRIL
28, 1948.  IN PART IV OF THE REPORT SUBSCRIBED TO BY COMMISSIONERS
SMITH AND WIMBERLY, IT IS CONCLUDED AT PP. 38 AND 40: 

"NO REASONABLE BASIS IS FOUND IN THE ACT OR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FOR A CONCLUSION THAT, ALTHOUGH THE 'ACTIVITIES' OF PRODUCTION AND
GATHERING ARE EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 1(B), SALES OF NATURAL GAS WHICH ARE
MADE AT ARM'S LENGTH BY PRODUCERS AND GATHERERS WHO DO NOT THEREAFTER
TRANSPORT IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE REGULATED.  UNLESS SUCH A
DISTINCTION IS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED, DOUBTS AND UNCERTAINTIES WILL
CONTINUE TO BE FELT AND EXPRESSED REGARDING THE POSSIBLE JURISDICTION
UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF THOSE WHO ONLY PRODUCE AND GATHER NATURAL
GAS AND THEN SELL IT TO OTHERS TRANSPORTING SUCH GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  PP. 38-39. 

"IN VIEW OF THE PRESENT UNSETTLED STATE OF THIS MATTER, IT IS
DESIRABLE, AS THE COMMISSION HAS HERETOFORE RECOMMENDED, THAT THE
CONGRESS SHOULD ADOPT APPROPRIATE AMENDATORY LEGISLATION TO MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS OR GATHERERS OF NATURAL GAS, AND THEIR
SALES THEREOF TO INTERSTATE PIPE LINES, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  SUCH ACTION WILL CONFIRM WHAT
CLEARLY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF CONGRESS WHEN IT
ENACTED THE NATURAL GAS ACT IN 1938."  PP. 40-41. 

SEE ALSO THE REPORT SUBSCRIBED TO BY COMMISSIONERS OLDS AND DRAPER,
PP. 12-14. 

CONGRESS IS NOW GIVING CONSIDERATION TO THIS PROBLEM.  SEE H.R. 79,
H.R. 1758, H.R. 982, S. 1498, AND S. 1831, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS., AND
COMMITTEE HEARINGS THEREON. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT'S JUDGMENT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE GO FAR TOWARD SCUTTLING
THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  52 STAT. 821, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 83.  IN THAT
ACT CONGRESS DECLARED IT "NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF NATURAL GAS.  MANY SECTIONS OF
THE ACT DETAILED THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION TO
REGULATE SUCH COMPANIES AND IN ADDITION SEC. 16 GRANTED BROAD
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO THE COMMISSION "TO PERFORM ANY AND ALL ACTS,
AND TO PRESCRIBE, ISSUE, MAKE, AMEND, AND RESCIND SUCH ORDERS, RULES,
AND REGULATIONS AS  ...  NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS" OF THE ACT.  TODAY'S OPINION INTERPRETS THIS ACT AS DENYING
THE COMMISSION ALL AUTHORITY TO PERFORM ANY ACTION OR ISSUE ANY ORDER
TO REGULATE AN INTERSTATE COMPANY'S INTEREST IN NATURAL-GAS
PROPERTIES.  THIS INTERPRETATION DEPRIVES THE COMMISSION OF THE POWER
TO DISCHARGE ITS CONGRESSIONALLY IMPOSED DUTY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST. 

THE COURT'S STERILIZING INTERPRETATION RESTS ON AN EXCEPTION TO
COMMISSION AUTHORITY APPEARING IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT.  FN1  THAT
EXCEPTION PROVIDES THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO "THE PRODUCTION OR
GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS."  I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THIS LANGUAGE
IS "UNAMBIGUOUS" AND THAT THIS COURT SHOULD GIVE THE LANGUAGE ITS
"NATURAL AND CLEAR MEANING."  "PRODUCTION" OF GAS WOULD THUS MEAN THE
ACT OF BRINGING FORTH GAS FROM THE EARTH, AND "GATHERING" WOULD MEAN
THE ACT OF COLLECTING GAS AFTER IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORTH.  SUCH ARE
THE "NATURAL AND CLEAR" MEANINGS WE HAD HERETOFORE ATTRIBUTED TO THESE
WORD SYMBOLS.  COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. COMM'N, 324 U.S. 581, 597
604; INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 331 U.S. 682, 689-691.  IT WAS
THE PHYSICAL ACTS INCIDENT TO THE "PRODUCTION AND GATHERING" OF GAS -
LOCAL ACTIVITIES - THAT OUR PRIOR DECISIONS EMPHASIZED CONGRESS
INTENDED TO LEAVE STATES FREE TO REGULATE.  TODAY THE COURT READS THIS
CONGRESSIONALLY GRANTED PRIVILEGE OF STATES TO REGULATE THE ACT OF
"PRODUCTION" AS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION'S
REGULATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF GAS-RESERVE PROPERTIES.  GAS RESERVES
ARE INDISPENSABLE TO PROPER SERVICE OF INTERSTATE CUSTOMERS OF AN
INTERSTATE NATURAL-GAS COMPANY.  AND IN THUS LIMITING THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION THE COURT LEAVES THE COMMISSION IMPOTENT TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN HAVING INTERSTATE COMPANIES MAINTAIN ADEQUATE GAS
RESERVES.  THIS DISABLING INTERPRETATION READS THE FEDERAL ACT AS
THOUGH IT CONTEMPLATED "INEFFECTIVE REGULATION," AN INTERPRETATION
DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO THAT WE GAVE THE ACT IN PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 332 U.S. 507, 520. 

OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ONLY IF AN INTERSTATE COMPANY IS "ABLE AND
WILLING PROPERLY TO DO THE ACTS AND TO PERFORM THE SERVICE PROPOSED AND
TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE REQUIREMENTS, RULES,
AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION THEREUNDER  ...  "  AS AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 7(D), THE COMMISSION REQUIRES APPLICANTS FOR CERTIFICATES TO SHOW
"THE GAS RESERVES WHICH ARE TO SUPPLY THE MARKET WHICH IS PROPOSED TO
BE SERVED."  FN2  AND SEC. 7(B) DENIES A COMPANY POWER TO "ABANDON ALL
OR ANY PORTION OF ITS FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION  ...  "  IF EVIDENCE WERE NEEDED TO SHOW THE IMPORTANCE
CONGRESS ATTRIBUTED TO THE GAS RESERVE FACILITIES OF A COMPANY, THAT
EVIDENCE APPEARS IN SECS. 7(B), 7(C) AND 7(E).  JURISDICTION TO
REGULATE A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REGULATE ITS GAS
RESERVES WOULD BE LIKE GRANTING JURISDICTION TO REGULATE RAILROADS
WITHOUT POWER TO REGULATE THE TRACKS, ROUTES, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ETC.  AND
WE HAVE HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS
ACT TO CONSIDER THE GAS-PRODUCING PROPERTIES IN FIXING RATES.  COLORADO
INTERSTATE CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 324 U.S. 581; PANHANDLE CO.
V. POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S. 635, 648-649.    THE RESPONDENT COMPANY HAD
ITS RATE BASE FIXED AND ITS ABILITY TO SERVE THE PUBLIC DETERMINED ON
ITS CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP OF THE VERY GAS RESERVE PROPERTIES THE COURT NOW
PERMITS IT TO SELL TO AN AFFILIATE OVER THE PROTEST OF THE COMMISSION. 
ACCORDING TO ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMMISSION'S COMPLAINT THE RESPONDENT
GAS COMPANY HAS ALREADY RECEIVED FROM ITS CUSTOMERS LARGE SUMS OF MONEY
FROM RATES WHICH REFLECTED EXPENSES INCURRED IN MAINTAINING THESE
RESERVES AND FOR EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS IN RELATION TO
THEM.  BUT UNDER THE COURT'S HOLDING TODAY, THESE PROPERTIES, INCREASED
IN VALUE BY CONSUMER CONTRIBUTIONS, CAN BE GIVEN AWAY BY THE RESPONDENT
COMPANY TO ITS NEWLY FORMED AFFILIATE.  CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE
INTENDED TO RENDER THE COMMISSION POWERLESS TO PROTECT GAS RESERVES
NECESSARY TO CONTINUED CONSUMER SERVICE AND PAID FOR BY RATES FIXED TO
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESERVES. 

FURTHERMORE THE RESERVES, COSTING ONLY $160,000, HAVE NOW APPARENTLY
BEEN CAPITALIZED BY THE RESPONDENT'S AFFILIATED "PURCHASER" AT
$10,000,000.  IF THE GAS RESERVES CONTINUE TO BE HELD BY THE RESPONDENT
COMPANY THE RATES WILL BE FIXED ON THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL $160,000
COST.  PANHANDLE CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S. 635, 648.  IT IS AT
LEAST DOUBTFUL WHETHER AFTER TODAY'S HOLDING THE COMPANY CAN BE
PREVENTED FROM HEREAFTER CHARGING RATES BASED ON THE $10,000,000
INFLATED VALUATION.  THUS THE UNWHOLESOME PRACTICES THAT THE NATURAL
GAS ACT WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO PREVENT ARE GIVEN A NEW LEASE ON
LIFE.  FOR A PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AND ONE OF THE
EVILS IT WAS AIMED TO PREVENT WAS THE HOLDING COMPANY TECHNIQUE OF
TRANSFERS AND RETRANSFERS BETWEEN PARENT CORPORATIONS, THEIR OFFSPRINGS
AND AFFILIATES.  FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591,
610. 

IT SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE PASSED AN ACT TO
REGULATE NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES WITH A WHOLLY NEUTRALIZING EXCEPTION TO
BAR REGULATION OF THE GAS RESERVES UPON WHICH THE WHOLE GAS BUSINESS
DEPENDED.  I CANNOT ATTRIBUTE SUCH A MEANINGLESS AND DECEPTIVE ACTION
TO THE CONGRESS.  WHILE THE ACT ITSELF GRANTS BROAD COMMISSION POWERS
EFFECTIVELY TO REGULATE GAS COMPANIES, THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION
DEPRIVES THE COMMISSION OF POWER ESSENTIAL TO FIXING FAIR RATES AND TO
PROTECTING CONTINUED SERVICES DURING THE LIFE OF A COMPANY'S GAS
RESERVES. 

TODAY'S OPINION REGARDS CONGRESS' ACTION LIKE THAT OF A PARENT WHO
ORDERED HIS OFFSPRING TO GO SWIMMING WITH A STERN ADMONITION NOT TO GO
NEAR THE WATER. 

I WOULD REVERSE. 

FN1  TODAY'S OPINION ALSO RELIES ON A "FINDING OF FACT" BY THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NEVER HERETOFORE "ASSERTED THE
RIGHT TO REGULATE TRANSFERS OF SUCH LEASES."  THE MAJORITY OPINION
VIEWS THIS "FINDING" AS AN EVIDENCE THAT FOR TEN YEARS "THE COMMISSION
DID NOT BELIEVE THE POWER EXISTED."  BUT THIS "FINDING" OF FACT RESTS
ONLY ON AFFIDAVITS OFFERED IN RESPECT TO A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED AS A PROP TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT.  MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT
UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME NO SUCH TRADING AS IS INVOLVED HERE HAD TAKEN
PLACE.  THE COMMISSION STATES IN ITS BRIEF THAT THE FINDING OF FACT
"DOES NOT REFLECT THE FULL PICTURE.  UNTIL THIS TIME, SUCH TRADING HAS
TAKEN PLACE WITH THE VIEW OF BLOCKING IN RESERVES AND IMPROVING
SERVICE, AND SO FAR AS THE COMMISSION IS PRESENTLY AWARE, NOT TO
ACHIEVE RESULTS WHICH WOULD DEROGATE FROM THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION." 

FN2  SEC. 57.5(F) OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER NO. 99(7 FED. REG.
6844). 
..END :











AERONAUTICAL LODGE V. CAMPBELL, 337 U.S. 521 


NO. 333.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 169 F.2D
252, REVERSED. 


AFTER HIS DISCHARGE FROM MILITARY SERVICE IN WORLD WAR II, A VETERAN
WAS REEMPLOYED BY HIS FORMER PRIVATE EMPLOYER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.
8 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  DURING HIS
MILITARY SERVICE, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIS UNION
AND THE EMPLOYER HAD BEEN MODIFIED SO AS TO GIVE UNION CHAIRMEN TOP
SENIORITY IN THE EVENT OF LAYOFFS.  WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER HIS
REEMPLOYMENT, THE VETERAN WAS LAID OFF TEMPORARILY, ALTHOUGH UNION
CHAIRMEN WHO HAD LESS TIME WITH THE COMPANY WERE RETAINED.  THE
EMPLOYER REFUSED TO COMPENSATE THE VETERAN FOR THE PERIOD OF THE
LAYOFF.  HELD:  THE VETERAN'S RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 8 OF THE ACT WERE NOT
INFRINGED.  PP. 522-529. 

AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE 727 V. CAMPBELL ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

THERE VETERANS SUED FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD OF A LAYOFF,
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
THE VETERANS.  A LABOR UNION, WHICH HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE TO
PROTECT ITS LABOR CONTRACT, APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  169 F.2D 252.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
335 U.S. 869.  REVERSED, P. 529. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE, 335 U.S. 869, TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT OF
VIEWS BETWEEN TWO COURTS OF APPEALS IN THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE
RIGHTS GIVEN TO VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II BY SEC. 8 OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, 54 STAT. 885, 890, 58
STAT. 798, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308.  THREE VETERANS BROUGHT THIS SUIT
FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD OF A LAYOFF WHILE EMPLOYED AT LOCKHEED
AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, A RESPONDENT HERE.  THE FACTS CONTROLLING THE
LEGAL CLAIMS OF ALL THREE MAY BE REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ATTENDING KIRK'S EMPLOYMENT AND LAYOFF.  FN1 

THE PETITIONER, AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE NO. 727, WAS
THE DULY RECOGNIZED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT OF THE EMPLOYEES AT
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION.  IN SEPTEMBER, 1941, THE UNION HAD
NEGOTIATED AN AGREEMENT WITH LOCKHEED COVERING THE RANGE OF SUBJECTS
TOUCHING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT TYPICAL OF SUCH AGREEMENTS IN THE
AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY.  THIS AGREEMENT WAS IN EFFECT WHEN KIRK WAS EMPLOYED
IN AUGUST, 1942, BY VEGA AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, WHICH AFTERWARDS WAS
MERGED WITH LOCKHEED.  HE JOINED THE UNION AND HAS REMAINED A MEMBER
THROUGHOUT THIS CONTROVERSY.  HE LEFT LOCKHEED TWO YEARS LATER TO ENTER
THE ARMY, FROM WHICH HE WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED IN JANUARY, 1946, AND
WAS RESTORED TO HIS JOB AT LOCKHEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 8(A) OF THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.  54 STAT. 885, 890, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP.
SEC. 308(A).  WHILE KIRK WAS IN MILITARY SERVICE HIS UNION MADE A NEW
AGREEMENT WITH LOCKHEED MODIFYING THE TERMS OF THE 1941 AGREEMENT IN
VARIOUS PARTICULARS.  CRUCIAL TO THE ISSUE HERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE
SENIORITY PROVISIONS OF THE FORMER AGREEMENT.  THE CHANGE PROVIDED THAT
"UNION CHAIRMEN WHO HAVE ACQUIRED SENIORITY SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE TOP
SENIORITY SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN CHAIRMEN."  FN2 IN PLAIN ENGLISH THIS
MEANS THAT THEREAFTER EMPLOYEES WHO SERVED AS UNION CHAIRMEN WERE
ENTITLED TO BE RETAINED IN CASE OF LAYOFFS REGARDLESS OF THEIR LENGTH
OF SERVICE IN THE PLANT. 

IN THE LATTER PART OF JUNE, 1946, AND WITHIN A YEAR AFTER KIRK'S
REEMPLOYMENT, IT WAS NECESSARY TO LAY OFF EMPLOYEES IN KIRK'S
INDUSTRIAL UNIT.  THESE LAYOFFS FOLLOWED THE CONVENTIONAL SEQUENCE OF
SENIORITY, TIME FOR MILITARY SERVICE BEING DULY CREDITED, WITH THE
EXCEPTION THAT UNION CHAIRMEN WERE RETAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1945
AGREEMENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD LESS TIME WITH THE COMPANY THAN THOSE
WHO WERE LAID OFF, VETERANS OR NOT.  KIRK WAS AMONG THOSE LAID OFF, AND
THE RETENTION AS UNION CHAIRMEN OF MEN WHO WERE JUNIOR TO HIM IS THE
BASIS OF HIS CLAIM THAT SEC. 8 OF THE ACT HAD BEEN INFRINGED.  FN3
KIRK WAS BROUGHT BACK TO WORK WITHIN A MONTH, BUT LOCKHEED REFUSED TO
PAY HIM FOR THE TIME HE WAS LAID OFF.  FOR THIS SUM HE BROUGHT THIS
SUIT.  PETITIONER UNION WAS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN ORDER TO PROTECT
ITS LABOR CONTRACT.  JUDGMENT WENT FOR KIRK, AND THE UNION ALONE TOOK
THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.  THAT COURT
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT,  FN4  169 F.2D 252, HOLDING THAT SEC. 8 OF THE
ACT FORBADE DISREGARD OF LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT, SO FAR AS VETERANS ARE
AFFECTED, IN ENFORCING PROVISIONS IN A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE
RETENTION OF UNION CHAIRMEN IN THE EVENT OF LAYOFFS, REGARDLESS OF
THEIR LENGTH OF SERVICE.  IN SO HOLDING IT RAN COUNTER TO A SERIES OF
DECISIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  GAUWEILER V.
ELASTIC STOP NUT CORP., 162 F.2D 448; KOURY V. ELASTIC STOP NUT CORP.,
162 F.2D 544; DI MAGGIO V. ELASTIC STOP NUT CORP., 162 F.2D 546, AND
PAYNE V. WRIGHT AERONAUTICAL CORP., 162 F.2D 549. 

IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THAT IT IS A CONTINUOUS
PROCESS.  NEITHER THE CONDITIONS TO WHICH IT ADDRESSES ITSELF NOR THE
BENEFITS TO BE SECURED BY IT REMAIN STATIC.  THEY ARE NOT FROZEN EVEN
BY WAR.  THUS, UNDER THE ACT THE VETERAN ACCUMULATES TIME TOWARD HIS
SENIORITY WHILE IN THE SERVICE; HE ALSO BECOMES THE BENEFICIARY OF
THOSE GAINS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF WHICH IS THE CONSTANT THRUST OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE ACT GIVES HIM THE STATUS OF
ONE WHO HAS BEEN "ON FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE" BUT UNINTERRUPTEDLY
A MEMBER OF THE WORKING FORCE ON WHOSE BEHALF SUCCESSIVE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENTS ARE MADE.  IN THIS WAY THE ACT PROTECTS THE FURLOUGHED
EMPLOYEE FROM BEING PREJUDICED BY ANY CHANGE IN THE TERMS OF A
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BECAUSE HE IS "ON FURLOUGH," BUT HE IS NOT TO BE
FAVORED AS A FURLOUGHED EMPLOYEE AS AGAINST HIS FELLOWS.  THIS IS THE
ESSENCE OF OUR DECISION IN FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP.,
328 U.S. 275. 

IN PROVIDING THAT A VETERAN SHALL BE RESTORED TO THE POSITION HE HAD
BEFORE HE ENTERED THE MILITARY SERVICE "WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY,"
SEC. 8 OF THE ACT USES THE TERM "SENIORITY" WITHOUT DEFINITION.  IT IS
THUS APPARENT THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT CREATING A SYSTEM OF SENIORITY BUT
RECOGNIZING ITS OPERATION AS PART OF THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  WE MUST THEREFORE LOOK TO THE CONVENTIONAL USES OF THE
SENIORITY SYSTEM IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF SENIORITY WHICH THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT
GUARANTEED THE VETERAN. 

BARRING LEGISLATION NOT HERE INVOLVED, SENIORITY RIGHTS DERIVE THEIR
SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE FROM UNION CONTRACTS, CONFINED AS THEY ALMOST
EXCLUSIVELY ARE TO UNIONIZED INDUSTRY.  SEE TRAILMOBILE CO. V. WHIRLS,
331 U.S. 40, 53, N. 21.  THERE ARE GREAT VARIATIONS IN THE USE OF THE
SENIORITY PRINCIPLE THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BEARING ON THE TIME
WHEN SENIORITY BEGINS, DETERMINATION OF THE UNITS SUBJECT TO THE SAME
SENIORITY, AND THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH FLOW FROM SENIORITY.  ALL THESE
VARIATIONS DISCLOSE LIMITATIONS UPON THE DOGMATIC USE OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF SENIORITY IN THE INTEREST OF THE ULTIMATE AIMS OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  THUS, PROBATIONARY CONDITIONS MUST OFTEN BE MET BEFORE
SENIORITY BEGINS TO OPERATE; SOMETIMES IT BECOMES RETROACTIVE TO THE
DATE OF EMPLOYMENT; IN OTHER INSTANCES IT IS EFFECTIVE ONLY AS FROM THE
QUALIFYING DATE; IN SOME INDUSTRIES IT IS DETERMINED ON A COMPANY
BASIS, IN OTHERS THE OCCUPATION OR THE PLANT IS TAKEN AS THE UNIT FOR
SENIORITY DETERMINATION; SOMETIMES SPECIAL PROVISIONS ARE MADE FOR
WORKERS IN KEY POSITIONS; AND THEN AGAIN THESE FACTORS ARE FOUND IN
VARYING COMBINATIONS.  SEE WILLIAMSON & HARRIS, TRENDS IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, 100-102(1945); HARBISON, SENIORITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
AS DEVELOPED THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 1-10(1941). 

TO DRAW FROM THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AN IMPLICATION THAT DATE OF
EMPLOYMENT IS THE INFLEXIBLE BASIS FOR DETERMINING SENIORITY RIGHTS AS
REFLECTED IN LAYOFFS IS TO IGNORE A VAST BODY OF LONG-ESTABLISHED
CONTROLLING PRACTICES IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF WHICH
THE SENIORITY SYSTEM TO WHICH THAT ACT REFERS IS A PART.  ONE OF THE
SAFEGUARDS INSISTED UPON BY UNIONS FOR THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS CONTINUITY IN OFFICE FOR ITS SHOP STEWARDS OR
UNION CHAIRMEN.  TO THAT END PROVISION IS MADE, AS IT WAS MADE HERE,
AGAINST LAYING THEM OFF MERELY ON THE BASIS OF TEMPORAL SENIORITY. 
BECAUSE THEY ARE UNION CHAIRMEN THEY ARE NOT REGARDED AS MERELY
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE UNION; THEY ARE IN A SPECIAL POSITION IN
RELATION TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WHOLE UNION. 
TO RETAIN THEM AS SUCH IS NOT AN ENCROACHMENT ON THE SENIORITY SYSTEM
BUT A DUE REGARD OF UNION INTERESTS WHICH EMBRACE THE SYSTEM OF
SENIORITY RIGHTS. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE DECISIVE OF THE CASE.  THE AGREEMENTS MADE
BY THE UNION WITH LOCKHEED REPRESENT FAMILIAR DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT
PRESUPPOSES AND IN THE CONTEXT OF WHICH IT MUST BE PLACED.  KIRK'S
RIGHTS, INCLUDING SENIORITY, BEFORE HE ENTERED THE SERVICE WERE DERIVED
FROM THE AGREEMENT OF 1941.  SO, LIKEWISE, WERE HIS RIGHTS, INCLUDING
SENIORITY, AS AN EMPLOYEE ON FURLOUGH DEFINED BY THE AGREEMENT OF 1945,
INASMUCH AS THAT AGREEMENT IN NO WISE DISADVANTAGED HIS POSITION
BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE MILITARY SERVICE. 

IN THE ORDINARY AND ORDERLY COURSE OF FORMULATING THE TERMS OF
EMPLOYMENT, THE 1945 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION AND LOCKHEED IN SOME
DIRECTIONS MODIFIED THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1941 AGREEMENT.  A LABOR
AGREEMENT IS A CODE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE AND,
LIKE ALL GOVERNMENT, ULTIMATELY DEPENDS FOR ITS EFFECTIVENESS ON THE
QUALITY OF ENFORCEMENT OF ITS CODE.  BECAUSE A LABOR AGREEMENT ASSUMES
THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF GRIEVANCES AT THEIR SOURCE, THE UNION CHAIRMEN
PLAY A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE WHOLE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  THEREFORE IT IS DEEMED HIGHLY DESIRABLE THAT UNION
CHAIRMEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND SKILL WHICH ARE DERIVED FROM CONTINUITY
IN OFFICE.  A PROVISION FOR THE RETENTION OF UNION CHAIRMEN BEYOND THE
ROUTINE REQUIREMENTS OF SENIORITY IS NOT AT ALL UNCOMMON AND SURELY
OUGHT NOT TO BE DEEMED ARBITRARY OR DISCRIMINATORY.  FN5  THE FACT THAT
IT MAY INVOLVE, AS IN KIRK'S CASE, THE TEMPORARY LAYOFF OF A VETERAN
WHILE A NONVETERAN CHAIRMAN WITH LESS TIME AT THE PLANT IS RETAINED, IS
WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE VETERAN'S ABSENCE IN THE SERVICE.  UNDER THE
1945 AGREEMENT CHAIRMEN WERE TO BE ELECTED ONCE A YEAR, AND UNLESS THE
ELECTION OCCURRED ON THE DAY BEFORE A VETERAN RETURNED TO THE PLANT,
HIS CHANCE OF ELECTION WOULD BE THE SAME AS THAT OF PERSONS WHO HAD
BEEN CONTINUOUSLY AT WORK IN THE PLANT. 

OF COURSE, THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT RESTRICTS A READJUSTMENT OF
SENIORITY RIGHTS DURING THE VETERAN'S ABSENCE TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF
THE VETERAN.  BUT IT WOULD BE AN UNDUE RESTRICTION OF THE PROCESS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (WITHOUT COMPENSATING GAIN TO THE VETERAN) TO
FORBID CHANGES IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARRANGEMENTS WHICH SECURE A
FIXED TENURE FOR UNION CHAIRMEN, WHEREBY VETERANS AS WELL AS
NONVETERANS ARE BENEFITED BY PROMOTING GREATER PROTECTION OF THEIR
RIGHTS AND SMOOTHER OPERATION OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS. 

ALL THIS PRESUPPOSES, OBVIOUSLY, THAT AN AGREEMENT CONTAINING THE
1945 PROVISIONS EXPRESSES HONEST DESIRES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
INTERESTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND IS NOT A SKILLFUL DEVICE OF
HOSTILITY TO VETERANS.  THERE IS NOT THE REMOTEST SUGGESTION THAT THE
1945 AGREEMENT WAS OTHER THAN WHAT IT PURPORTED TO BE - THE MEANS FOR
SECURING BOTH TO VETERANS AND TO NONVETERANS BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS
THROUGH ELECTED LEADERS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONTINGENCIES OF A LABOR
TURNOVER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ONE OF THE THREE VETERANS, JAMES L. CAMPBELL, WITHDREW FROM THE
UNION ON THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH, 1946, BUT THIS DID NOT AFFECT HIS
STATUS AS AN EMPLOYEE WITH THE COMPANY.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT
HIS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE UNION AFFECTS IN ANY MANNER HIS RIGHTS UNDER
SEC. 8 OF THE ACT, OR THAT WITHDRAWAL FROM THE UNION SHOULD CAUSE A
DIFFERENT RESULT. 

FN2  THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT SIGNED IN 1941, SO FAR AS
SENIORITY WAS CONCERNED, PROVIDED: 

"IN CASE OF A SLACK IN PRODUCTION, LAYOFFS ARE TO BE MADE PRIMARILY ON
THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SENIORITY.  DUE CONSIDERATION WILL BE
GIVEN, HOWEVER, TO (A) KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING, ABILITY, SKILL AND
EFFICIENCY, AND (B) DEPORTMENT RECORD AND OTHER FACTORS.  IF IT BECOMES
NECESSARY TO REDUCE THE WORKING FORCE IN ANY PLANT OR DEPARTMENT, A
PLAN OF LAYOFF PROCEDURE WILL BE PREPARED BY THE MANAGEMENT AND
SUBMITTED TO THE UNION FOR APPROVAL.  IF SUCH PLAN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO
THE UNION THE COMPANY AGREES TO ENTER NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNION AND
TO ATTEMPT TO ARRIVE AT A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE PLAN.  IF, HOWEVER, AT THE
END OF ONE WORKING WEEK FROM THE DATE THE COMPANY SUBMITTED ITS
ORIGINAL PLAN OF LAYOFF PROCEDURE TO THE UNION NO NEW PLAN HAS BEEN
MUTUALLY AGREED TO, THE COMPANY MAY PROCEED ACCORDING TO ITS PROPOSED
PLAN OF LAYOFF SUBJECT TO ARTICLE II, SECTION 6."  1941 AGREEMENT, ART.
III, SEC. 5. 

THE LATER AGREEMENT PROVIDED: 

"(A)  GENERAL LAYOFF PROCEDURE.  LAYOFFS SHALL BE MADE IN ORDER OF
COMPANY-WIDE SENIORITY APPLIED BY OCCUPATION WHERE ABILITY, SKILL AND
EFFICIENCY ARE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL.  HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYEES
WITH FOUR YEARS' OR MORE SENIORITY, THE COMPANY MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION,
RETAIN THEM IN ORDER OF THEIR COMPANY-WIDE SENIORITY, REGARDLESS OF
OCCUPATION, WHERE ABILITY, SKILL AND EFFICIENCY ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUAL.  ANY CLAIM OF UNJUST DISCRIMINATION IN THE EXERCISE OF SUCH
DISCRETION MAY BE TAKEN UP AS A GRIEVANCE.  EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE NOT
ACQUIRED SENIORITY RIGHTS MAY BE LAID OFF WITHOUT REGARD TO RELATIVE
LENGTH OF SERVICE.           .         .         .         .         . 

"(D)  TOP SENIORITY FOR UNION CHAIRMEN FOR PURPOSE OF LAYOFFS.  FOR
THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE TEMPORARY AND GENERAL LAYOFF PROCEDURES,
UNION CHAIRMEN WHO HAVE ACQUIRED SENIORITY SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE TOP
SENIORITY SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN CHAIRMEN.  ...  " 1945 AGREEMENT, ART.
IV, SEC. 3(A), (D). 

FN3  THESE ARE THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS: 

"(A)  ANY PERSON INDUCTED INTO THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES UNDER THIS
ACT FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE, WHO, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THOSE IN
AUTHORITY OVER HIM, SATISFACTORILY COMPLETES HIS PERIOD OF TRAINING AND
SERVICE UNDER SECTION 3(B) SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE TO THAT
EFFECT UPON THE COMPLETION OF SUCH PERIOD OF TRAINING AND SERVICE,
WHICH SHALL INCLUDE A RECORD OF ANY SPECIAL PROFICIENCY OR MERIT
ATTAINED.  ... 

     .         .         .         .   . 

"(B)  IN THE CASE OF ANY SUCH PERSON WHO, IN ORDER TO PERFORM SUCH
TRAINING AND SERVICE, HAS LEFT OR LEAVES A POSITION, OTHER THAN A
TEMPORARY POSITION, IN THE EMPLOY OF ANY EMPLOYER AND WHO (1) RECEIVES
SUCH CERTIFICATE, (2) IS STILL QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF SUCH
POSITION, AND (3) MAKES APPLICATION FOR REEMPLOYMENT WITHIN NINETY DAYS
AFTER HE IS RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE OR FROM
HOSPITALIZATION CONTINUING AFTER DISCHARGE FOR A PERIOD OF NOT MORE
THAN ONE YEAR - 

   .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  IF SUCH POSITION WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF A PRIVATE EMPLOYER, SUCH
EMPLOYER SHALL RESTORE SUCH PERSON TO SUCH POSITION OR TO A POSITION OF
LIKE SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY UNLESS THE EMPLOYER'S CIRCUMSTANCES
HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE OR UNREASONABLE TO DO SO; 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"(C)  ANY PERSON WHO IS RESTORED TO A POSITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (A) OR (B) OF SUBSECTION (B) SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN ON FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE DURING HIS
PERIOD OF TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, SHALL BE SO
RESTORED WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN
INSURANCE OR OTHER BENEFITS OFFERED BY THE EMPLOYER PURSUANT TO
ESTABLISHED RULES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO EMPLOYEES ON FURLOUGH OR
LEAVE OF ABSENCE IN EFFECT WITH THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME SUCH PERSON
WAS INDUCTED INTO SUCH FORCES, AND SHALL NOT BE DISCHARGED FROM SUCH
POSITION WITHOUT CAUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER SUCH RESTORATION."  54
STAT. 885, 890, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308. 

FN4  LOCKHEED, THE RESPONDENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, DID NOT APPEAL. 
BUT SINCE THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT MERELY FOR MONEY DAMAGES BUT ALSO
INVOLVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, THE UNION HAD
THE RIGHT TO APPEAL.  FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328
U.S. 275, 281-84. 

FN5  SEE GREENMAN, GETTING ALONG WITH UNIONS 26(1948); UNION
AGREEMENTS IN THE COTTON-TEXTILE INDUSTRY, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, BULL. 
NO. 885, P. 28(1946); THOMAS, AUTOMOBILE UNIONISM 56(1941); COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROVISIONS, SENIORITY PROVISIONS, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR 28
29(1948); COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE OFFICE, AMERICAN MANAGEMENT
ASSN., RESEARCH REP. NO. 12, P. 72.  THE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MODIFICATION
IN SENIORITY ACCORDING TO LENGTH OF SERVICE IN THE PLANT IS "THE MUTUAL
INTEREST OF UNION AND MANAGEMENT IN PRESERVING THE CONTINUITY OF THE
BARGAINING AND GRIEVANCE ADJUSTMENT PERSONNEL."  SENIORITY PROVISIONS
IN UNION AGREEMENTS, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, SERIAL NO. R. 1308, P.
7(1941).  WHILE THERE IS NOT COMPLETE AGREEMENT ON THE ADVANTAGE OF
SENIORITY FOR UNION CHAIRMEN, IT IS CERTAINLY WITHIN THE AREA OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  SEE WILLIAMSON AND HARRIS, TRENDS IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING 101-103(1945); SEE GREENMAN, GETTING ALONG WITH UNIONS 85
86(1948).  THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD RECOGNIZED "THAT THE FUNCTIONS
OF SHOP STEWARDS AND OTHER LOCAL UNION OFFICIALS WERE OF VALUE TO A
COMPANY AS WELL AS TO ITS EMPLOYEES IN SETTLING AND PREVENTING LABOR
GRIEVANCES.  FOR THIS REASON, IT USUALLY DIRECTED SENIORITY PREFERENCE
FOR UNION OFFICIALS IN DISPUTES OVER THE ISSUE."  THE TERMINATION
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, VOL. I, P.
148. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :























RAGAN V. MERCHANTS TRANSFER CO., 337 U.S. 530 


NO. 522.  ARGUED APRIL 20, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 170 F.2D
987, AFFIRMED. 


SOLELY ON GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, PETITIONER SUED IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR KANSAS TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INJURIES
SUSTAINED IN A HIGHWAY ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED LESS THAN TWO YEARS
BEFORE HIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED; BUT THE SUMMONS WAS NOT SERVED UNTIL
MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT.  THE COMPLAINT WAS
FILED AND THE SUMMONS ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE; BUT KANSAS HAS A TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
APPLICABLE TO SUCH TORT CLAIMS WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD IS NOT
TOLLED UNTIL SERVICE OF A SUMMONS.  HELD:  THE SUIT WAS BARRED BY THE
STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  PP. 531-534. 

(A)  THIS RESULT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS FROM ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64, SINCE OTHERWISE THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS UNDER LOCAL LAW
WOULD BE DIFFERENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM WHAT THEY WOULD BE IN THE
STATE COURTS.  PP. 532-533. 

(B)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERN THE MANNER IN WHICH AN ACTION IS
COMMENCED IN A FEDERAL COURT.  PP. 532-533. 

(C)  NOR IS A DIFFERENT RESULT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT LOCAL LAW
BROUGHT THE CAUSE OF ACTION TO AN END AFTER, RATHER THAN BEFORE, SUIT
WAS STARTED IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  PP. 533-534. 

(D)  IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS USUAL PRACTICE OF ACCEPTING THE
DETERMINATION OF LOCAL LAW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIS COURT ACCEPTS
THE HOLDING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT A KANSAS STATUTE PROVIDING
THAT AN ACTION IS COMMENCED WHEN SUMMONS IS SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT IS
AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE KANSAS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  P. 534. 

RAGAN V. MERCHANTS TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

HAVING JURISDICTION SOLELY ON GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PETITIONER A JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES
SUSTAINED IN A HIGHWAY ACCIDENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  170
F.2D 987.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 917.  AFFIRMED, P.
534. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED. 

THIS CASE, INVOLVING A HIGHWAY ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED ON OCTOBER 1,
1943, CAME TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR KANSAS BY REASON OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP.  PETITIONER INSTITUTED IT THERE ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1945, BY
FILING THE COMPLAINT WITH THE COURT - THE PROCEDURE SPECIFIED BY THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  FN1  AS PRESCRIBED BY THOSE RULES, A
SUMMONS WAS ISSUED.  FN2  SERVICE WAS HAD ON DECEMBER 28, 1945.  KANSAS
HAS A TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO SUCH TORT CLAIMS. 
FN3  RESPONDENT PLEADED IT AND MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  PETITIONER
CLAIMED THAT THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT TOLLED THE STATUTE. 
RESPONDENT ARGUED THAT BY REASON OF A KANSAS STATUTE  FN4  THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TOLLED UNTIL SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT STRUCK THE DEFENSE AND DENIED RESPONDENT'S
MOTION.  A TRIAL WAS HAD AND A VERDICT RENDERED FOR PETITIONER.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  170 F.2D 987.  IT RULED, AFTER A REVIEW OF
KANSAS AUTHORITIES, THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS WITHIN
THE STATUTORY PERIOD WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THAT STATE'S STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  IT ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326
U.S. 99, GOVERNED AND THAT RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION
PRESENTED.  336 U.S. 917. 

ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, WAS PREMISED ON THE THEORY THAT
IN DIVERSITY CASES THE RIGHTS ENJOYED UNDER LOCAL LAW SHOULD NOT VARY
BECAUSE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE RIGHTS WAS SOUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT
RATHER THAN IN THE STATE COURT.  IF RECOVERY COULD NOT BE HAD IN THE
STATE COURT, IT SHOULD BE DENIED IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  OTHERWISE,
THOSE AUTHORIZED TO INVOKE THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WOULD GAIN
ADVANTAGES OVER THOSE CONFINED TO STATE COURTS.  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
YORK APPLIED THAT PRINCIPLE TO STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ON THE THEORY
THAT, WHERE ONE IS BARRED FROM RECOVERY IN THE STATE COURT, HE SHOULD
LIKEWISE BE BARRED IN THE FEDERAL COURT. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT IF THE PRESENT CASE WERE IN A KANSAS COURT IT
WOULD BE BARRED.  THE THEORY OF GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK WOULD
THEREFORE SEEM TO BAR IT IN THE FEDERAL COURT, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS
HELD.  THE FORCE OF THAT REASONING IS SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED BY THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DETERMINE THE MANNER
IN WHICH AN ACTION IS COMMENCED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS - A MATTER OF
PROCEDURE WHICH THE PRINCIPLE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS DOES NOT
CONTROL.  IT IS ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT SINCE THE SUIT WAS PROPERLY
COMMENCED IN THE FEDERAL COURT BEFORE THE KANSAS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
RAN, IT TOLLED THE STATUTE. 

THAT WAS THE REASONING AND RESULT IN BOMAR V. KEYES, 162 F.2D 136,
141.  BUT THAT CASE WAS A SUIT TO ENFORCE RIGHTS UNDER A FEDERAL
STATUTE.  FN5  HERE, AS IN THAT CASE, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE
SUIT WAS PROPERLY COMMENCED IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  BUT IN THE PRESENT
CASE WE LOOK TO LOCAL LAW TO FIND THE CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH SUIT IS
BROUGHT.  SINCE THAT CAUSE OF ACTION IS CREATED BY LOCAL LAW, THE
MEASURE OF IT IS TO BE FOUND ONLY IN LOCAL LAW.  IT CARRIES THE SAME
BURDEN AND IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME DEFENSES IN THE FEDERAL COURT AS IN
THE STATE COURT.  SEE CITIES SERVICE CO. V. DUNLAP, 308 U.S. 208;
PALMER V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109, 117.  IT ACCRUES AND COMES TO AN END
WHEN LOCAL LAW SO DECLARES.  WEST V. AMERICAN TEL. & T. CO., 311 U.S.
223; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, SUPRA.  WHERE LOCAL LAW QUALIFIES OR
ABRIDGES IT, THE FEDERAL COURT MUST FOLLOW SUIT.  OTHERWISE THERE IS A
DIFFERENT MEASURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION IN ONE COURT THAN IN THE
OTHER, AND THE PRINCIPLE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS IS TRANSGRESSED. 

WE CAN DRAW NO DISTINCTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE LOCAL LAW BROUGHT THE
CAUSE OF ACTION TO AN END AFTER, RATHER THAN BEFORE, SUIT WAS STARTED
IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  IN BOTH CASES LOCAL LAW CREATED THE RIGHT WHICH
THE FEDERAL COURT WAS ASKED TO ENFORCE.  IN BOTH CASES LOCAL LAW
UNDERTOOK TO DETERMINE THE LIFE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION.  WE CANNOT GIVE
IT LONGER LIFE IN THE FEDERAL COURT THAN IT WOULD HAVE HAD IN THE STATE
COURT WITHOUT ADDING SOMETHING TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION.  WE MAY NOT DO
THAT CONSISTENTLY WITH ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE KANSAS STATUTE IN QUESTION  FN6  IS NOT AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE KANSAS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  BUT THE COURT OF
APPEALS ON A CAREFUL CANVASS OF KANSAS LAW IN AN OPINION WRITTEN BY
JUDGE HUXMAN, A DISTINGUISHED MEMBER OF THE KANSAS BAR, HAS HELD TO THE
CONTRARY.  WE ORDINARILY ACCEPT THE DETERMINATION OF LOCAL LAW BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS (SEE HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232, 237), AND WE
WILL NOT DISTURB IT HERE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  RULE 3 PROVIDES, "A CIVIL ACTION IS COMMENCED BY FILING A
COMPLAINT WITH THE COURT." 

FN2  RULE 4(A) PROVIDES: 

"UPON THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT THE CLERK SHALL FORTHWITH ISSUE A
SUMMONS AND DELIVER IT FOR SERVICE TO THE MARSHAL OR TO A PERSON
SPECIALLY APPOINTED TO SERVE IT.  UPON REQUEST OF THE PLAINTIFF
SEPARATE OR ADDITIONAL SUMMONS SHALL ISSUE AGAINST ANY DEFENDANTS." 

AN EARLIER SUMMONS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1945, AND THEREAFTER SERVED
HAD BEEN QUASHED. 

FN3  KAN. GEN. STATS. 1935, SEC. 60-306. 

FN4  ID., SEC. 60-308 PROVIDES, 

"AN ACTION SHALL BE DEEMED COMMENCED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
ARTICLE, AS TO EACH DEFENDANT, AT THE DATE OF THE SUMMONS WHICH IS
SERVED ON HIM, OR ON A CODEFENDANT WHO IS A JOINT CONTRACTOR, OR
OTHERWISE UNITED IN INTEREST WITH HIM.  WHERE SERVICE BY PUBLICATION IS
PROPER, THE ACTION SHALL BE DEEMED COMMENCED AT THE DATE OF THE FIRST
PUBLICATION.  AN ATTEMPT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION SHALL BE DEEMED
EQUIVALENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT THEREOF WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
ARTICLE WHEN THE PARTY FAITHFULLY, PROPERLY AND DILIGENTLY ENDEAVORS TO
PROCURE A SERVICE; BUT SUCH ATTEMPT MUST BE FOLLOWED BY THE FIRST
PUBLICATION OR SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS WITHIN SIXTY DAYS." 

FN5  CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43. 

FN6  NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENTS.  SEE HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN NOS.
442 AND 512, COHEN V. BENEFICIAL INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORP., POST, P. 557. 
..END :






















WOODS V. INTERSTATE REALTY CO., 337 U.S. 535 


NO. 465.  ARGUED MARCH 30-31, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 170
F.2D 694, REVERSED. 


IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT SOLELY ON GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP TO RECOVER A
BROKER'S COMMISSION FOR THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE IN THE STATE, DEFENDANT
MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT
QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE UNDER A STATE STATUTE WHICH THE
COURT OF APPEALS CONSTRUED AS NOT MAKING THE CONTRACT VOID BUT ONLY
UNENFORCIBLE IN THE STATE COURTS.  HELD:  THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 
PP. 535-538. 

WOODS V. INTERSTATE REALTY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

HAVING JURISDICTION SOLELY ON GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN A SUIT TO RECOVER A BROKER'S COMMISSION, ON THE GROUND THAT
THE PLAINTIFF, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, HAD NOT QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS
IN THE STATE AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,
168 F.2D 701; GRANTED REHEARING, 170 F.2D 74; AND REAFFIRMED ITS
REVERSAL, 170 F.2D 694.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 909. 
REVERSED, P. 538. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED. 

THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MISSISSIPPI ON THE
GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  RESPONDENT, A TENNESSEE
CORPORATION, SUED PETITIONER, A RESIDENT OF MISSISSIPPI, FOR A BROKER'S
COMMISSION ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE OF PETITIONER
IN MISSISSIPPI.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT THAT THE CONTRACT WAS VOID UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAW, SINCE
RESPONDENT WAS DOING BUSINESS IN MISSISSIPPI WITHOUT QUALIFYING UNDER A
MISSISSIPPI STATUTE N1.  IT THEREFORE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WITH
PREJUDICE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  IT REVIEWED THE MISSISSIPPI DECISIONS
UNDER THE MISSISSIPPI STATUTE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTRACT WAS NOT
VOID BUT ONLY UNENFORCIBLE IN THE MISSISSIPPI COURTS.  IT HELD IN
RELIANCE ON DAVID LUPTON'S SONS CO. V. AUTOMOBILE CLUB, 225 U.S. 489,
THAT THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT COULD NOT SUE IN THE MISSISSIPPI COURTS
DID NOT CLOSE THE DOORS OF THE FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN THAT STATE. 
ACCORDINGLY IT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  168 F.2D
701.  IT GRANTED REHEARING, 170 F.2D 74, AND REAFFIRMED ITS REVERSAL,
170 F.2D 694. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE OF THE SEEMING CONFLICT OF THAT HOLDING WITH OUR RECENT RULING
IN ANGEL V. BULLINGTON, 330 U.S. 183. 

IF THE LUPTON'S SONS CASE CONTROLS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT OF
APPEALS WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE ACTION TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE
FEDERAL COURT.  IN THAT CASE A NEW YORK STATUTE PROVIDED THAT NO
FOREIGN CORPORATION COULD "MAINTAIN ANY ACTION IN THIS STATE" WITHOUT A
CERTIFICATE THAT IT HAD QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS THERE.  THE COURT HELD
THAT A CONTRACT ON WHICH THE CORPORATION COULD NOT SUE IN THE COURTS OF
NEW YORK BY REASON OF THAT STATUTE NEVERTHELESS COULD BE ENFORCED IN
THE FEDERAL COURT IN A DIVERSITY SUIT.  THE COURT SAID, 225 U.S. P.
500, 

"THE STATE COULD NOT PRESCRIBE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF SUITORS IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND COULD NOT DEPRIVE OF THEIR PRIVILEGES
THOSE WHO WERE ENTITLED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES TO RESORT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A VALID
CONTRACT." 

WE SAID IN ANGEL V. BULLINGTON THAT THE CASE OF LUPTON'S SONS HAD
BECOME "OBSOLETE" INSOFAR AS IT WAS "BASED ON A VIEW OF DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION WHICH CAME TO AN END WITH ERIE RAILROAD V. TOMPKINS, 304
U.S. 64."  330 U.S. P. 192.  BULLINGTON HAD SUED ANGEL IN A NORTH
CAROLINA COURT FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ON THE SALE OF REALTY UNDER A
DEED OF TRUST.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA DISMISSED THE
ACTION BECAUSE OF A NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE WHICH DISALLOWED A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT IN SUCH A CASE AND WHICH THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME
COURT CONSTRUED TO BE "A LIMITATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
OF THIS STATE."  220 N.C. 18, 20, 16 S.E.2D 411, 412.  THEREAFTER
BULLINGTON SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA BY REASON OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  WE HELD THAT THAT SUIT COULD NOT BE
MAINTAINED BECAUSE (1) THE PRIOR SUIT WAS RES JUDICATA; AND (2) THE
POLICY OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS PRECLUDED MAINTENANCE IN THE FEDERAL
COURT IN DIVERSITY CASES OF SUITS TO WHICH THE STATE HAD CLOSED ITS
COURTS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE LATTER REASON WAS
ARGUMENTATORY, THE REAL BASIS OF THE DECISION BEING THAT BULLINGTON WAS
DENIED RECOVERY ON THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.  BUT WHERE A DECISION
RESTS ON TWO OR MORE GROUNDS, NONE CAN BE RELEGATED TO THE CATEGORY OF
OBITER DICTUM.  UNITED STATES V. TITLE INS. CO., 265 U.S. 472, 486;
MASSACHUSETTS V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 611, 623. 

ANGEL V. BULLINGTON IN ITS ALTERNATIVE GROUND FOLLOWED THE VIEW OF
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, 108, THAT FOR PURPOSES OF
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION A FEDERAL COURT IS, "IN EFFECT, ONLY ANOTHER
COURT OF THE STATE  ...  "  IN THAT CASE WE REQUIRED THE FEDERAL COURT
IN A DIVERSITY CASE TO APPLY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE STATE IN
EQUITY ACTIONS AND THUS TO FOLLOW LOCAL LAW, AS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN
DONE IN CASES INVOLVING BURDEN OF PROOF (CITIES SERVICE CO. V. DUNLAP,
308 U.S. 208; CF. STONER V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 311 U.S. 464);
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE (PALMER V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109, 117);
CONFLICT OF LAWS (KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487; GRIFFIN V.
MCCOACH, 313 U.S. 498); AND ACCRUAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION (WEST V.
AMERICAN TEL. & T. CO., 311 U.S. 223).  THE YORK CASE WAS PREMISED ON
THE THEORY THAT A RIGHT WHICH LOCAL LAW CREATES BUT WHICH IT DOES NOT
SUPPLY WITH A REMEDY IS NO RIGHT AT ALL FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT IN
A FEDERAL COURT IN A DIVERSITY CASE; THAT WHERE IN SUCH CASES ONE IS
BARRED FROM RECOVERY IN THE STATE COURT, HE SHOULD LIKEWISE BE BARRED
IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  THE CONTRARY RESULT WOULD CREATE DISCRIMINATIONS
AGAINST CITIZENS OF THE STATE IN FAVOR OF THOSE AUTHORIZED TO INVOKE
THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IT WAS THAT ELEMENT
OF DISCRIMINATION THAT ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS WAS DESIGNED TO
ELIMINATE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  MISS.  CODE 1942, SEC. 5319, REQUIRES A FOREIGN CORPORATION
DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE TO FILE A WRITTEN POWER OF ATTORNEY
DESIGNATING AN AGENT ON WHOM SERVICE OF PROCESS MAY BE HAD.  IT ALSO
PROVIDES, "ANY FOREIGN CORPORATION FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE
PROVISIONS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO BRING OR MAINTAIN ANY ACTION OR
SUIT IN ANY OF THE COURTS OF THIS STATE." 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENTS.  SEE HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN NOS.
442 AND 512, COHEN V. BENEFICIAL INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORP., POST, P. 557. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, REQUIRED FEDERAL COURTS IN
DIVERSITY CASES TO APPLY STATE DECISIONAL LAW AS THE RULES OF DECISION
ACT REQUIRED THEM TO APPLY STATE STATUTES. 

THAT IS WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS TRIED TO DO IN THIS CASE.  THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI HAS A STATUTE WHICH SAYS THAT IF A CORPORATION
DOES NOT QUALIFY TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE IT "SHALL NOT BE
PERMITTED TO BRING OR MAINTAIN ANY ACTION OR SUIT IN ANY OF THE COURTS
OF THIS STATE."  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVIEWED STATE COURT DECISIONS,
SOME OF WHICH ARE NOT FREE FROM AMBIGUITY, AND FOUND THAT THE LAW OF
MISSISSIPPI INTENDS TO GO NO FARTHER THAN TO WITHHOLD THE AID OF
STATEMAINTAINED COURTS FROM A NONCOMPLYING CORPORATION AND THAT THE
STATE LAW DOES NOT DEPRIVE CONTRACTS OF THEIR VALIDITY OR INTEND TO
FORECLOSE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS FROM RESORT TO FEDERAL COURTS OR TO ANY
SELF-ENFORCING REMEDIES THEY MAY HAVE. 

THIS COURT REFUSES TO GIVE THE STATUTE THAT LIMITED EFFECT.  I
UNDERSTAND IT TO RULE THAT MISSISSIPPI CANNOT ENACT A LAW CLOSING ITS
OWN COURTS TO SUCH FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WITHOUT ALSO CLOSING THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  IN THIS WE SEEM TO BE DOING THE VERY THING WE PROFESS
TO AVOID; THAT IS, GIVING THE STATE LAW A DIFFERENT MEANING IN FEDERAL
COURT THAN THE STATE COURTS HAVE GIVEN IT. 

THE MISSISSIPPI STATUTE FOLLOWS A PATTERN GENERAL AMONG THE STATES IN
REQUIRING QUALIFICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 
STATE COURTS HAVE GENERALLY HELD SUCH ACTS TO DO NO MORE THAN TO
WITHHOLD STATE HELP FROM THE NONCOMPLYING CORPORATION BUT TO LEAVE
THEIR RIGHTS OTHERWISE UNIMPAIRED.  THIS INTERPRETATION LEFT SUCH
CORPORATIONS A BASIS ON WHICH TO GET THE HELP OF ANY OTHER COURT -
FEDERAL OR STATE - THAT COULD OTHERWISE TAKE JURISDICTION, AND FREE TO
RESORT TO PLEDGED PROPERTY, OFFSET AND VARIOUS OTHER METHODS OF SELF
HELP. 

THE STATE STATUTE AS NOW INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT IS A HARSH,
CAPRICIOUS AND VINDICTIVE MEASURE.  IT EITHER REFUSES TO ENTERTAIN A
CAUSE OF ACTION, NOT IMPAIRED BY STATE LAW, OR IT HOLDS IT INVALID WITH
UNKNOWN EFFECTS ON AMOUNTS ALREADY COLLECTED.  IN EITHER CASE THE
AMOUNT OF THIS PUNISHMENT BEARS NO RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF WRONG DONE
THE STATE IN FAILURE TO QUALIFY AND PAY ITS TAXES.  THE PENALTY THUS
SUFFERED DOES NOT GO TO THE STATE, WHICH SUSTAINED THE INJURY, BUT
RESULTS IN UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF THE DEBTOR, WHO HAS SUFFERED NO INJURY
FROM THE CREDITORS' DEFAULT IN QUALIFICATION.  IF THE STATE COURT HAD
HELD ITS STATUTE TO HAVE THIS EFFECT, I SHOULD AGREE THAT FEDERAL
COURTS SHOULD SO APPLY IT; BUT THE WHOLE BASIS OF OUR DECISION IS
CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE STATE COURTS. 

I THINK THE COURT'S ACTION IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE STATE COURT'S
DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF ITS OWN STATUTE IS A PERVERSION OF THE
ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS DOCTRINE. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE COURT BELOW. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















COHEN V. BENEFICIAL LOAN CORP., 337 U.S. 541 


ARGUED APRIL 18, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 170 F.2D 44,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1291, APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN FROM AN ORDER OF A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DENYING A CORPORATION'S MOTION THAT THE
PLAINTIFF IN A STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE ACTION BE REQUIRED, PURSUANT TO
A STATE STATUTE, TO GIVE SECURITY FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES OF THE
DEFENDANTS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACTION.  PP. 545-547. 

(A)  THE MATTERS EMBRACED IN SUCH AN ORDER ARE NOT OF SUCH AN
INTERLOCUTORY NATURE AS TO AFFECT, OR TO BE AFFECTED BY, A DECISION ON
THE MERITS.  P. 546. 

(B)  THE ORDER IS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT IS A FINAL DISPOSITION OF A
CLAIMED RIGHT WHICH IS NOT AN INGREDIENT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION AND
DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION WITH IT.  PP. 546-547. 

2.  A STATE STATUTE PROVIDING THAT, IN ANY STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE
ACTION PENDING AT THE TIME OF ITS ENACTMENT OR THEREAFTER BROUGHT, IN
WHICH THE PLAINTIFF'S INTEREST AS A SHAREHOLDER IS LESS THAN 5% OF THE
VALUE OF ALL OUTSTANDING SHARES AND HAS A MARKET VALUE OF LESS THAN
$50,000, HE MAY BE REQUIRED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING TO GIVE
SECURITY FOR THE REASONABLE EXPENSES, INCLUDING COUNSEL FEES, WHICH THE
CORPORATION MAY INCUR OR FOR WHICH IT MAY BECOME LIABLE, DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 547-555. 

(A)  THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT OBLIGE A STATE TO PLACE ITS
LITIGATING AND ADJUDICATING PROCESSES AT THE DISPOSAL OF A PLAINTIFF IN
A STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE SUIT, AT LEAST WITHOUT IMPOSING STANDARDS OF
RESPONSIBILITY, LIABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY WHICH IT CONSIDERS WILL
PROTECT THE INTERESTS HE ELECTS HIMSELF TO REPRESENT.  PP. 547-551. 

(B)  THE STATUTE HERE INVOLVED DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 551. 

(C)  FOR A STATE TO CLOSE ITS COURTS TO THIS TYPE OF LITIGATION IF
THE CONDITION OF REASONABLE SECURITY IS NOT MET DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  PP. 551-552. 

(D)  THE LIMITATION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE TO STOCKHOLDERS
WHOSE INTEREST IS LESS THAN 5% AND HAS A MARKET VALUE OF LESS THAN
$50,000, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 552-553. 

(E)  ASSUMING THAT THE STATUTE WILL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS IMPOSING
LIABILITY FOR EXPENSES INCURRED BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT, OR PERHAPS BEFORE
THE GRANTING OF SECURITY IN A PARTICULAR CASE, THE PROVISION MAKING IT
APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS PENDING AT THE TIME OF ITS ENACTMENT DOES NOT
GIVE IT SUCH A RETROACTIVE EFFECT AS TO RENDER IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  PP. 553-554. 

3.  THAT A CORPORATION WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF A STOCKHOLDER'S
DERIVATIVE ACTION IN NEW JERSEY WAS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
DELAWARE DOES NOT MAKE INAPPLICABLE A NEW JERSEY STATUTE PROVIDING THAT
THE PLAINTIFF MAY BE REQUIRED TO GIVE SECURITY FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES
OF THE CORPORATION.  PP. 554-555. 

4.  A FEDERAL COURT, HAVING JURISDICTION OF A STOCKHOLDER'S
DERIVATIVE ACTION ONLY BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, MUST APPLY
A STATUTE OF THE FORUM STATE WHICH MAKES THE PLAINTIFF, IF
UNSUCCESSFUL, LIABLE FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S
FEES, OF THE DEFENSE AND PROVIDES THAT THE CORPORATION MAY REQUIRE THE
PLAINTIFF TO GIVE SECURITY FOR THEIR PAYMENT AS A CONDITION OF
PROSECUTING THE ACTION.  PP. 543-545, 555-557. 

(A)  A STATUTE WHICH SO CONDITIONS THE STOCKHOLDER'S ACTION CANNOT BE
DISREGARDED BY THE FEDERAL COURT AS A MERE PROCEDURAL DEVICE.  PP. 555
556. 

(B)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED BY RULE 23 OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SINCE THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT RULE
AND THE STATE STATUTE.  P. 556. 

COHEN, EXECUTRIX, ET AL. V. BENEFICIAL INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORP. ET AL. 

NO. 442.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 512, BENEFICIAL INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORP. V. SMITH,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME
COURT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, HAVING JURISDICTION OF A STOCKHOLDER'S
DERIVATIVE ACTION SOLELY BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, DENIED A
MOTION TO REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO POST SECURITY FOR REASONABLE
EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE DEFENSE, AS REQUIRED BY A STATUTE OF THE FORUM
STATE.  7 F.R.D. 352.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  170 F.2D 44. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 917.  AFFIRMED, P. 556. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT, HAVING
JURISDICTION OF A STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE ACTION ONLY BECAUSE THE
PARTIES ARE OF DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP, MUST APPLY A STATUTE OF THE FORUM
STATE WHICH MAKES THE PLAINTIFF, IF UNSUCCESSFUL, LIABLE FOR THE
REASONABLE EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S FEES, OF THE DEFENSE AND
ENTITLES THE CORPORATION TO REQUIRE SECURITY FOR THEIR PAYMENT. 

PETITIONERS' DECEDENT, AS PLAINTIFF, BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW JERSEY AN ACTION IN THE RIGHT OF THE BENEFICIAL
INDUSTRIAL LOAN CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN
NEW JERSEY.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE CORPORATION AND CERTAIN OF ITS
MANAGERS AND DIRECTORS.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED GENERALLY THAT SINCE
1929 THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN A CONTINUING AND SUCCESSFUL
CONSPIRACY TO ENRICH THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CORPORATION. 
SPECIFIC CHARGES OF MISMANAGEMENT AND FRAUD EXTENDED OVER A PERIOD OF
EIGHTEEN YEARS AND THE ASSETS ALLEGEDLY WASTED OR DIVERTED THEREBY WERE
SAID TO EXCEED $100,000,000.  THE STOCKHOLDER HAD DEMANDED THAT THE
CORPORATION INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR ITS RECOVERY BUT, BY THEIR
CONTROL OF THE CORPORATION, THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS PREVENTED IT FROM
DOING SO.  THIS STOCKHOLDER, THEREFORE, SOUGHT TO ASSERT THE RIGHT OF
THE CORPORATION.  ONE OF 16,000 STOCKHOLDERS, HE OWNED 100 OF ITS MORE
THAN TWO MILLION SHARES, SO THAT HIS HOLDINGS, TOGETHER WITH 150 SHARES
HELD BY THE INTERVENOR, APPROXIMATED 0.0125% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK
AND HAD A MARKET VALUE THAT HAD NEVER EXCEEDED $9,000. 

THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 1943, AND VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN
TAKEN THEREIN WHEN, IN 1945, NEW JERSEY ENACTED THE STATUTE WHICH IS
HERE INVOLVED.  FN1  ITS GENERAL EFFECT IS TO MAKE A PLAINTIFF HAVING
SO SMALL AN INTEREST LIABLE FOR THE REASONABLE EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S
FEES OF THE DEFENSE IF HE FAILS TO MAKE GOOD HIS COMPLAINT AND TO
ENTITLE THE CORPORATION TO INDEMNITY BEFORE THE CASE CAN BE
PROSECUTED.  THESE CONDITIONS ARE MADE APPLICABLE TO PENDING ACTIONS. 
THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT THEREFORE MOVED TO REQUIRE SECURITY, POINTED TO
ITS BY-LAWS BY WHICH IT MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS, AND AVERRED THAT A BOND OF $125,000 WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE STATE ENACTMENT IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO SUCH AN ACTION WHEN PENDING IN A FEDERAL COURT, 7 F.R.D.
352.  THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF A CONTRARY OPINION AND REVERSED, 170
F.2D 44, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 917. 

                            APPEALABILITY. 

AT THE THRESHOLD WE ARE MET WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT
COURT'S ORDER REFUSING TO APPLY THE STATUTE WAS AN APPEALABLE ONE. 
TITLE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1291 PROVIDES, AS DID ITS PREDECESSORS, FOR APPEAL
ONLY "FROM ALL FINAL DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS," EXCEPT WHEN
DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT IS PROVIDED.  SECTION 1292 ALLOWS APPEALS
ALSO FROM CERTAIN INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, DECREES AND JUDGMENTS, NOT
MATERIAL TO THIS CASE EXCEPT AS THEY INDICATE THE PURPOSE TO ALLOW
APPEALS FROM ORDERS OTHER THAN FINAL JUDGMENTS WHEN THEY HAVE A FINAL
AND IRREPARABLE EFFECT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT, IF CONGRESS HAD ALLOWED APPEALS ONLY FROM THOSE FINAL JUDGMENTS
WHICH TERMINATE AN ACTION, THIS ORDER WOULD NOT BE APPEALABLE. 

THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE IS TO DISALLOW APPEAL FROM ANY DECISION
WHICH IS TENTATIVE, INFORMAL OR INCOMPLETE.  APPEAL GIVES THE UPPER
COURT A POWER OF REVIEW, NOT ONE OF INTERVENTION.  SO LONG AS THE
MATTER REMAINS OPEN, UNFINISHED OR INCONCLUSIVE, THERE MAY BE NO
INTRUSION BY APPEAL.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION UPON THIS
APPLICATION WAS CONCLUDED AND CLOSED AND ITS DECISION FINAL IN THAT
SENSE BEFORE THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN. 

NOR DOES THE STATUTE PERMIT APPEALS, EVEN FROM FULLY CONSUMMATED
DECISIONS, WHERE THEY ARE BUT STEPS TOWARDS FINAL JUDGMENT IN WHICH
THEY WILL MERGE.  THE PURPOSE IS TO COMBINE IN ONE REVIEW ALL STAGES OF
THE PROCEEDING THAT EFFECTIVELY MAY BE REVIEWED AND CORRECTED IF AND
WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT RESULTS.  BUT THIS ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DID
NOT MAKE ANY STEP TOWARD FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE
AND WILL NOT BE MERGED IN FINAL JUDGMENT.  WHEN THAT TIME COMES, IT
WILL BE TOO LATE EFFECTIVELY TO REVIEW THE PRESENT ORDER, AND THE
RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE, IF IT IS APPLICABLE, WILL HAVE BEEN
LOST, PROBABLY IRREPARABLY.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE MATTERS EMBRACED IN
THE DECISION APPEALED FROM ARE NOT OF SUCH AN INTERLOCUTORY NATURE AS
TO AFFECT, OR TO BE AFFECTED BY, DECISION OF THE MERITS OF THIS CASE. 

THIS DECISION APPEARS TO FALL IN THAT SMALL CLASS WHICH FINALLY
DETERMINE CLAIMS OF RIGHT SEPARABLE FROM, AND COLLATERAL TO, RIGHTS
ASSERTED IN THE ACTION, TOO IMPORTANT TO BE DENIED REVIEW AND TOO
INDEPENDENT OF THE CAUSE ITSELF TO REQUIRE THAT APPELLATE CONSIDERATION
BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE WHOLE CASE IS ADJUDICATED.  THE COURT HAS LONG
GIVEN THIS PROVISION OF THE STATUTE THIS PRACTICAL RATHER THAN A
TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION.  BANK OF COLUMBIA V. SWEENY, 1 PET. 567, 569;
UNITED STATES V. RIVER ROUGE CO., 269 U.S. 411, 414; COBBLEDICK V.
UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 323, 328. 

WE HOLD THIS ORDER APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT IS A FINAL DISPOSITION OF A
CLAIMED RIGHT WHICH IS NOT AN INGREDIENT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION AND
DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION WITH IT.  BUT WE DO NOT MEAN THAT EVERY
ORDER FIXING SECURITY IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL.  HERE IT IS THE RIGHT TO
SECURITY THAT PRESENTS A SERIOUS AND UNSETTLED QUESTION.  IF THE RIGHT
WERE ADMITTED OR CLEAR AND THE ORDER INVOLVED ONLY AN EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY, A MATTER THE STATUTE MAKES
SUBJECT TO RECONSIDERATION FROM TIME TO TIME, APPEALABILITY WOULD
PRESENT A DIFFERENT QUESTION. 

SINCE THIS ORDER MAY BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL, THE PETITION IN NO. 512,
WHEREBY THE CORPORATION ASSERTS THE RIGHT TO COMPEL SECURITY BY
MANDAMUS, IS DISMISSED. 

                          CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

PETITIONERS DENY THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION.  THE LATTER QUESTION IS
ULTIMATELY FOR THE STATE COURTS, AND SINCE THEY HAVE MADE NO CONTRARY
DETERMINATION, WE SHALL PRESUME IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THAT
THE STATUTE CONFORMS WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION. 

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WE MUST CONSIDER, BECAUSE A FEDERAL
COURT WOULD NOT GIVE EFFECT, IN EITHER A DIVERSITY OR NONDIVERSITY
CASE, TO A STATE STATUTE THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

THE BACKGROUND OF STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION WITH WHICH THIS STATUTE
DEALS REQUIRES NO MORE THAN GENERAL NOTICE.  AS BUSINESS ENTERPRISE
INCREASINGLY SOUGHT THE ADVANTAGES OF INCORPORATION, MANAGEMENT BECAME
VESTED WITH ALMOST UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION IN HANDLING OTHER PEOPLE'S
MONEY.  THE VAST AGGREGATE OF FUNDS COMMITTED TO CORPORATE CONTROL CAME
TO BE DRAWN TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT FROM NUMEROUS AND SCATTERED
HOLDERS OF SMALL INTERESTS.  THE DIRECTOR WAS NOT SUBJECT TO AN
EFFECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY.  THAT CREATED STRONG TEMPTATION FOR MANAGERS
TO PROFIT PERSONALLY AT EXPENSE OF THEIR TRUST.  THE BUSINESS CODE
BECAME ALL TOO TOLERANT OF SUCH PRACTICES.  CORPORATE LAWS WERE LAX AND
WERE NOT SELF-ENFORCING, AND STOCKHOLDERS, IN FACE OF GRAVEST ABUSES,
WERE SINGULARLY IMPOTENT IN OBTAINING REDRESS OF ABUSES OF TRUST. 

EQUITY CAME TO THE RELIEF OF THE STOCKHOLDER, WHO HAD NO STANDING TO
BRING CIVIL ACTION AT LAW AGAINST FAITHLESS DIRECTORS AND MANAGERS. 
EQUITY% HOWEVER, ALLOWED HIM TO STEP INTO THE CORPORATION'S SHOES AND
TO SEEK IN ITS RIGHT THE RESTITUTION HE COULD NOT DEMAND IN HIS OWN. 
IT REQUIRED HIM FIRST TO DEMAND THAT THE CORPORATION VINDICATE ITS OWN
RIGHTS, BUT WHEN, AS WAS USUAL, THOSE WHO PERPETRATED THE WRONGS ALSO
WERE ABLE TO OBSTRUCT ANY REMEDY, EQUITY WOULD HEAR AND ADJUDGE THE
CORPORATION'S CAUSE THROUGH ITS STOCKHOLDER WITH THE CORPORATION AS A
DEFENDANT, ALBEIT A RATHER NOMINAL ONE.  THIS REMEDY, BORN OF
STOCKHOLDER HELPLESSNESS, WAS LONG THE CHIEF REGULATOR OF CORPORATE
MANAGEMENT AND HAS AFFORDED NO SMALL INCENTIVE TO AVOID AT LEAST
GROSSER FORMS OF BETRAYAL OF STOCKHOLDERS' INTERESTS.  IT IS ARGUED,
AND NOT WITHOUT REASON, THAT WITHOUT IT THERE WOULD BE LITTLE PRACTICAL
CHECK ON SUCH ABUSES. 

UNFORTUNATELY, THE REMEDY ITSELF PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSE,
WHICH WAS NOT NEGLECTED.  SUITS SOMETIMES WERE BROUGHT NOT TO REDRESS
REAL WRONGS, BUT TO REALIZE UPON THEIR NUISANCE VALUE.  THEY WERE
BOUGHT OFF BY SECRET SETTLEMENTS IN WHICH ANY WRONGS TO THE GENERAL
BODY OF SHARE OWNERS WERE COMPOUNDED BY THE SUING STOCKHOLDER, WHO WAS
MOLLIFIED BY PAYMENTS FROM CORPORATE ASSETS.  THESE LITIGATIONS WERE
APTLY CHARACTERIZED IN PROFESSIONAL SLANG AS "STRIKE SUITS."  AND IT
WAS SAID THAT THESE SUITS WERE MORE COMMONLY BROUGHT BY SMALL AND
IRRESPONSIBLE THAN BY LARGE STOCKHOLDERS, BECAUSE THE FORMER PUT LESS
TO RISK AND A SMALL INTEREST WAS MORE OFTEN WITHIN THE CAPACITY AND
READINESS OF MANAGEMENT TO COMPROMISE THAN A LARGE ONE. 

WE NEED NOT DETERMINE THE MEASURE OF THESE ABUSES OR THE EVILS THEY
PRODUCED ON THE ONE HAND OR PREVENTED AND REDRESSED ON THE OTHER.  THE
LEGISLATURE OF NEW JERSEY, LIKE THAT OF OTHER STATES, FN2  CONSIDERED
THEM SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SOME REMEDIAL MEASURES. 

THE VERY NATURE OF THE STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE ACTION MAKES IT ONE
IN THE REGULATION OF WHICH THE LEGISLATURE OF A STATE HAS WIDE POWERS. 
WHATEVER THEORY ONE MAY HOLD AS TO THE NATURE OF THE CORPORATE ENTITY,
IT REMAINS A WHOLLY ARTIFICIAL CREATION WHOSE INTERNAL RELATIONS
BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND STOCKHOLDERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON STATE LAW AND
MAY BE SUBJECT TO MOST COMPLETE AND PENETRATING REGULATION, EITHER BY
PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR BY SOME FORM OF STOCKHOLDER ACTION.  DIRECTORS AND
MANAGERS, IF NOT TECHNICALLY TRUSTEES, OCCUPY POSITIONS OF A FIDUCIARY
NATURE, AND NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS A STATE FROM
IMPOSING ON THEM THE STRICTEST MEASURE OF RESPONSIBILITY, LIABILITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY, EITHER AS A CONDITION OF ASSUMING OFFICE OR AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF HOLDING IT. 

LIKEWISE, A STOCKHOLDER WHO BRINGS SUIT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION DERIVED
FROM THE CORPORATION ASSUMES A POSITION, NOT TECHNICALLY AS A TRUSTEE
PERHAPS, BUT ONE OF A FIDUCIARY CHARACTER.  HE SUES, NOT FOR HIMSELF
ALONE, BUT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS COMPRISING ALL WHO ARE
SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE INTERESTS OF ALL IN THE REDRESS OF THE WRONGS
ARE TAKEN INTO HIS HANDS, DEPENDENT UPON HIS DILIGENCE, WISDOM AND
INTEGRITY.  AND WHILE THE STOCKHOLDERS HAVE CHOSEN THE CORPORATE
DIRECTOR OR MANAGER, THEY HAVE NO SUCH ELECTION AS TO A PLAINTIFF WHO
STEPS FORWARD TO REPRESENT THEM.  HE IS A SELF-CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVE
AND A VOLUNTEER CHAMPION.  THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT OBLIGE THE
STATE TO PLACE ITS LITIGATING AND ADJUDICATING PROCESSES AT THE
DISPOSAL OF SUCH A REPRESENTATIVE, AT LEAST WITHOUT IMPOSING STANDARDS
OF RESPONSIBILITY, LIABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY WHICH IT CONSIDERS WILL
PROTECT THE INTERESTS HE ELECTS HIMSELF TO REPRESENT.  IT IS NOT
WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE THAT THIS COURT HAS FOUND IT NECESSARY LONG AGO IN
THE EQUITY RULES FN3  AND NOW IN THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
FN4  TO IMPOSE PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS OF THE CLASS ACTION NOT
APPLICABLE TO ANY OTHER.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE STATE HAS PLENARY POWER
OVER THIS TYPE OF LITIGATION. 

IN CONSIDERING SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE WAY IN WHICH THE STATE HAS
EXERCISED ITS POWER IN THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE, IT SHOULD BE
UNNECESSARY TO SAY THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH OBJECTIONS WHICH GO
TO CONSTITUTIONALITY.  THE WISDOM AND THE POLICY OF THIS AND SIMILAR
STATUTES ARE INVOLVED IN CONTROVERSIES AMPLY DEBATED IN LEGAL
LITERATURE N5 BUT NOT FOR US TO JUDGE, AND HENCE NOT FOR US TO REMARK
UPON.  THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT INVALIDATE STATE LEGISLATION
BECAUSE IT FAILS TO EMBODY THE HIGHEST WISDOM OR PROVIDE THE BEST
CONCEIVABLE REMEDIES.  NOR CAN LEGISLATION BE SET ASIDE BY COURTS
BECAUSE OF THE FACT, IF IT BE SUCH, THAT IT HAS BEEN SPONSORED AND
PROMOTED BY THOSE WHO ADVANTAGE FROM IT.  FN6  IN DEALING WITH SUCH
DIFFICULT AND CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS, ONLY EXPERIENCE WILL VERIFY OR
DISCLOSE WEAKNESSES AND DEFECTS OF ANY POLICY AND TEACH LESSONS WHICH
MAY BE APPLIED BY AMENDMENT.  WITHIN THE AREA OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, THE
STATES SHOULD NOT BE RESTRAINED FROM DEVISING EXPERIMENTS, EVEN THOSE
WE MIGHT THINK DUBIOUS, IN THE EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE MAXIMUM GOOD
WHICH EQUITY SOUGHT IN CREATING THE DERIVATIVE STOCKHOLDER'S ACTION AND
AT THE SAME TIME TO ELIMINATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE ITS DEFECTS AND
EVILS.    IT IS SAID THAT THIS STATUTE TRANSGRESSES THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE BY BEING "ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND UNREASONABLE"; THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE BY SINGLING OUT SMALL STOCKHOLDERS TO BURDEN MOST
HEAVILY; THAT IT VIOLATES THE CONTRACT CLAUSE; AND THAT ITS APPLICATION
TO PENDING LITIGATION RENDERS IT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RETROACTIVE. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THIS STATUTE VIOLATES THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS ONE IN WHICH WE SEE NOT THE SLIGHTEST MERIT. 
PLAINTIFF'S SUIT IS ENTERTAINED BY EQUITY LARGELY BECAUSE HE HAD NO
CONTRACT RIGHTS ON WHICH TO BASE AN ACTION AT LAW, AND HENCE NONE WHICH
IS IMPAIRED BY THIS LEGISLATION. 

IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE STATUTE OFFENDS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WE
CAN JUDGE IT ONLY BY ITS OWN TERMS, FOR IT HAS HAD NO INTERPRETATION OR
APPLICATION AS YET.  IT IMPOSES LIABILITY AND REQUIRES SECURITY FOR
"THE REASONABLE EXPENSES, INCLUDING COUNSEL FEES, WHICH MAY BE
INCURRED" BY THE CORPORATION AND BY OTHER PARTIES DEFENDANT.  THE
AMOUNT OF SECURITY IS SUBJECT TO INCREASE IF THE PROGRESS OF THE
LITIGATION REVEALS THAT IT IS INADEQUATE, OR TO DECREASE IF IT IS
PROVED TO BE EXCESSIVE.  A STATE MAY SET THE TERMS ON WHICH IT WILL
PERMIT LITIGATIONS IN ITS COURTS.  NO TYPE OF LITIGATION IS MORE
SUSCEPTIBLE OF REGULATION THAN THAT OF A FIDUCIARY NATURE.  AND IT
CANNOT SERIOUSLY BE SAID THAT A STATE MAKES SUCH UNREASONABLE USE OF
ITS POWER AS TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT PROVIDES LIABILITY AND
SECURITY FOR PAYMENT OF REASONABLE EXPENSES IF A LITIGATION OF THIS
CHARACTER IS ADJUDGED TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE.  IT IS URGED THAT SUCH A
REQUIREMENT WILL FORECLOSE RESORT BY MOST STOCKHOLDERS TO THE ONLY
AVAILABLE JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR RIGHTS.  OF
COURSE, TO REQUIRE SECURITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY KIND OF COSTS, OR
THE NECESSITY FOR BEARING ANY KIND OF EXPENSE OF LITIGATION, HAS A
DETERRING EFFECT.  BUT WE DEAL WITH POWER, NOT WISDOM; AND WE THINK,
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS TENDENCY, IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF A STATE TO
CLOSE ITS COURTS TO THIS TYPE OF LITIGATION IF THE CONDITION OF
REASONABLE SECURITY IS NOT MET. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
IS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IT ENABLES A STOCKHOLDER WHO OWNS 5% OF A
CORPORATION'S OUTSTANDING SHARES, OR $50,000 IN MARKET VALUE, TO
PROCEED WITHOUT EITHER SECURITY OR LIABILITY AND IMPOSES BOTH UPON
THOSE WHO ELECT TO PROCEED WITH A SMALLER INTEREST.  WE DO NOT THINK
THE STATE IS FORBIDDEN TO USE THE AMOUNT OF ONE'S FINANCIAL INTEREST,
WHICH MEASURES HIS INDIVIDUAL INJURY FROM THE MISCONDUCT TO BE
REDRESSED, AS SOME MEASURE OF THE GOOD FAITH AND RESPONSIBILITY OF ONE
WHO SEEKS AT HIS OWN ELECTION TO ACT AS CUSTODIAN OF THE INTERESTS OF
ALL STOCKHOLDERS, AND AS AN INDICATION THAT HE VOLUNTEERS FOR THE LARGE
BURDENS OF THE LITIGATION FROM A REAL SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND IS NOT
PUTTING FORWARD A CLAIM TO CAPITALIZE PERSONALLY ON ITS HARASSMENT
VALUE.  THESE MAY NOT BE THE BEST WAYS OF PRECLUDING "STRIKE LAWSUITS,"
BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT A CLASSIFICATION FOR THESE PURPOSES,
BASED UPON THE PERCENTAGE OR MARKET VALUE OF THE STOCK ALLEGED TO BE
INJURED BY THE WRONGS, IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONE.  WHERE ANY
CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OR AN AMOUNT, IT IS NECESSARILY
SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY OF MANY LINES DRAWN BY
LEGISLATION THAT THEY GIVE THOSE JUST ABOVE AND THOSE JUST BELOW THE
LINE A PERFECTLY EQUAL PROTECTION.  A TAXPAYER WITH $10,000.01 OF
INCOME DOES NOT THINK IT IS EQUALITY TO TAX HIM AT A DIFFERENT RATE
THAN ONE WHO HAS $9,999.99, OR TO REQUIRE RETURNS FROM ONE JUST ABOVE
AND NOT FROM ONE JUST BELOW A CERTAIN FIGURE.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY
THAT A STOCKHOLDER WHO HAS 49.99% OF A COMPANY'S STOCK SHOULD BE UNABLE
TO ELECT ANY REPRESENTATIVE TO ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHILE ONE WHO
OWNS 50.01% MAY NAME THE ENTIRE BOARD.  IF THERE IS POWER, AS WE THINK
THERE IS, TO DRAW A LINE BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPORTION OR
AMOUNT, IT IS A RARE CASE, OF WHICH THIS IS NOT ONE, THAT A
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION MAY BE MADE TO THE PARTICULAR POINT WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS CHOSEN. 

THE CONTENTION ALSO IS MADE THAT THE PROVISION WHICH APPLIES THIS
STATUTE TO ACTIONS PENDING UPON ITS ENACTMENT, IN WHICH NO FINAL
JUDGMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED, RENDERS IT VOID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
FOR RETROACTIVITY.  WHILE BY ITS TERMS THE STATUTE APPLIES TO PENDING
CASES, IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THE MANNER OF APPLICATION; NOR DO THE NEW
JERSEY COURTS APPEAR TO HAVE SETTLED WHAT ITS EFFECT IS TO BE.  ITS
TERMS DO NOT APPEAR TO REQUIRE AN INTERPRETATION THAT IT CREATES NEW
LIABILITY AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF FOR EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE DEFENSE
PREVIOUS TO ITS ENACTMENT.  THE STATUTE WOULD ADMIT OF A CONSTRUCTION
THAT PLAINTIFF'S LIABILITY BEGINS ONLY FROM THE TIME WHEN THE ACT WAS
PASSED OR PERHAPS WHEN THE CORPORATION'S APPLICATION FOR SECURITY IS
GRANTED AND THAT SECURITY FOR EXPENSES AND COUNSEL FEES WHICH "MAY BE
INCURRED" DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED BEFORE ONE OR
THE OTHER OF THESE PERIODS.  WE WOULD NOT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSIDERING CONSTITUTIONALITY, CONSTRUE THE STATUTE IN ABSENCE OF A
STATE DECISION AS IMPOSING LIABILITY FOR EVENTS BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT. 
ON THIS BASIS ITS ALLEGED RETROACTIVITY AMOUNTS ONLY TO A STAY OF
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNLESS AND UNTIL SECURITY IS FURNISHED FOR EXPENSE
INCURRED IN THE FUTURE, AND DOES NOT EXTEND EITHER TO DESTRUCTION OF AN
EXISTING CAUSE OF ACTION OR TO CREATION OF A NEW LIABILITY FOR PAST
EVENTS. 

THE MERE FACT THAT A STATUTE APPLIES TO A CIVIL ACTION
RETROSPECTIVELY DOES NOT RENDER IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  BLOUNT V.
WINDLEY, 95 U.S. 173, 180; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. L. & N.R.
CO., 258 U.S. 13; CHASE SECURITIES CORP. V. DONALDSON, 325 U.S. 304. 
LOOKING UPON THE STATUTE AS WE HAVE INDICATED, ITS RETROACTIVE EFFECT,
IF ANY, IS CERTAINLY LESS DRASTIC AND PREJUDICIAL THAN THAT HELD NOT TO
BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THESE DECISIONS.  WE DO NOT FIND IN THE BARE
STATUTE ANY SUCH RETROACTIVE EFFECT AS RENDERS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, AND OF COURSE WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO
THE EFFECT OF AN APPLICATION OTHER THAN WE HAVE INDICATED. 

IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THIS STATUTE MAY NOT BE APPLIED IN THIS
CASE BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF ACTION DERIVES FROM A DELAWARE CORPORATION
AND HENCE DELAWARE LAW GOVERNS IT.  BUT IT IS THE PLAINTIFF WHO HAS
BROUGHT THE CASE IN NEW JERSEY.  THE TRIAL WILL VERY LIKELY INVOLVE
QUESTIONS OF CONFLICT OF LAWS AS TO WHICH THE LAW OF NEW JERSEY WILL
APPLY, KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487; GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313
U.S. 498, AND PERHAPS QUESTIONS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  THESE ARE
NOT BEFORE US NOW.  A PLAINTIFF CANNOT AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE NEW JERSEY
FORUM AND AT THE SAME TIME ESCAPE THE TERMS ON WHICH IT IS MADE
AVAILABLE, IF THE LAW IS APPLICABLE TO A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN THAT
STATE, WHICH WE LATER CONSIDER. 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT, SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS
CONCERNED, NEW JERSEY'S SECURITY STATUTE IS A VALID LAW OF THAT STATE
AND THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO WHETHER IT MUST BE APPLIED BY FEDERAL
COURTS IN THAT STATE TO SUITS BROUGHT THEREIN ON DIVERSITY GROUNDS. 

  APPLICABILITY IN FEDERAL COURT. 

THE RULES OF DECISION ACT, IN EFFECT SINCE THE FIRST CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND NOW FOUND AT 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1652, PROVIDES:  "THE
LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE CONSTITUTION OR TREATIES
OF THE UNITED STATES OR ACTS OF CONGRESS OTHERWISE REQUIRE OR PROVIDE,
SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF DECISION IN CIVIL ACTIONS IN THE COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CASES WHERE THEY APPLY."  THIS COURT IN ERIE
R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, HELD THAT JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE LAWS
OF THE STATES WITHIN ITS MEANING.  BUT ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS AND ITS
PROGENY HAVE WROUGHT A MORE FAR-REACHING CHANGE IN THE RELATION OF
STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS AND THE APPLICATION OF STATE LAW IN THE LATTER
WHEREBY IN DIVERSITY CASES THE FEDERAL COURT ADMINISTERS THE STATE
SYSTEM OF LAW IN ALL EXCEPT DETAILS RELATED TO ITS OWN CONDUCT OF
BUSINESS.  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99.  THE ONLY
SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENT THAT THIS NEW JERSEY STATUTE IS NOT APPLICABLE
HERE IS THAT ITS PROVISIONS ARE MERE RULES OF PROCEDURE RATHER THAN
RULES OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW. 

EVEN IF WE WERE TO AGREE THAT THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE IS PROCEDURAL,
IT WOULD NOT DETERMINE THAT IT IS NOT APPLICABLE.  RULES WHICH LAWYERS
CALL PROCEDURAL DO NOT ALWAYS EXHAUST THEIR EFFECT BY REGULATING
PROCEDURE.  BUT THIS STATUTE IS NOT MERELY A REGULATION OF PROCEDURE. 
WITH IT OR WITHOUT IT THE MAIN ACTION TAKES THE SAME COURSE.  HOWEVER,
IT CREATES A NEW LIABILITY WHERE NONE EXISTED BEFORE, FOR IT MAKES A
STOCKHOLDER WHO INSTITUTES A DERIVATIVE ACTION LIABLE FOR THE EXPENSE
TO WHICH HE PUTS THE CORPORATION AND OTHER DEFENDANTS, IF HE DOES NOT
MAKE GOOD HIS CLAIMS.  SUCH LIABILITY IS NOT USUAL AND IT GOES BEYOND
PAYMENT OF WHAT WE KNOW AS "COSTS."  IF ALL THE ACT DID WAS TO CREATE
THIS LIABILITY, IT WOULD CLEARLY BE SUBSTANTIVE.  BUT THIS NEW
LIABILITY WOULD BE WITHOUT MEANING AND VALUE IN MANY CASES IF IT
RESULTED IN NOTHING BUT A JUDGMENT FOR EXPENSES AT OR AFTER THE END OF
THE CASE.  THEREFORE, A PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED BY WHICH THE LIABILITY
IS INSURED BY ENTITLING THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT TO A BOND OF INDEMNITY
BEFORE THE OUTLAY IS INCURRED.  WE DO NOT THINK A STATUTE WHICH SO
CONDITIONS THE STOCKHOLDER'S ACTION CAN BE DISREGARDED BY THE FEDERAL
COURT AS A MERE PROCEDURAL DEVICE. 

IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE NO. 23
DEALS WITH PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO MAINTAIN SUCH AN ACTION IN FEDERAL
COURT AND THAT THEREFORE THE SUBJECT IS RECOGNIZED AS PROCEDURAL AND
THE FEDERAL RULE ALONE PREVAILS.  RULE 23 REQUIRES THE STOCKHOLDER'S
COMPLAINT TO BE VERIFIED BY OATH AND TO SHOW THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS A
STOCKHOLDER AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION OF WHICH HE COMPLAINS OR
THAT HIS SHARE THEREAFTER DEVOLVED UPON HIM BY OPERATION OF LAW.  IN
OTHER WORDS, THE FEDERAL COURT WILL NOT PERMIT ITSELF TO BE USED TO
LITIGATE A PURCHASED GRIEVANCE OR BECOME A PARTY TO SPECULATION IN
WRONGS DONE TO CORPORATIONS.  IT ALSO REQUIRES A SHOWING THAT AN ACTION
IS NOT A COLLUSIVE ONE TO CONFER JURISDICTION AND TO SET FORTH THE
FACTS SHOWING THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS ENDEAVORED TO OBTAIN HIS REMEDY
THROUGH THE CORPORATION ITSELF.  IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE CLASS
ACTION SHALL NOT BE DISMISSED OR COMPROMISED WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE
COURT, WITH NOTICE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS.  THESE PROVISIONS
NEITHER CREATE NOR EXEMPT FROM LIABILITIES, BUT REQUIRE COMPLETE
DISCLOSURE TO THE COURT AND NOTICE TO THE PARTIES IN INTEREST.  NONE
CONFLICT WITH THE STATUTE IN QUESTION AND ALL MAY BE OBSERVED BY A
FEDERAL COURT, EVEN IF NOT APPLICABLE IN STATE COURT. 

WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE POLICY STATED IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK,
326 U.S. 99, SHOULD NOT APPLY. 

WE HOLD THAT THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE APPLIES IN FEDERAL COURTS AND
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DECLINING TO FIX THE AMOUNT OF
INDEMNITY REASONABLY TO BE EXACTED AS A CONDITION OF FURTHER
PROSECUTION OF THE SUIT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CHAPTER 131, NEW JERSEY LAWS OF 1945, PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART
AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  IN ANY ACTION INSTITUTED OR MAINTAINED IN THE RIGHT OF ANY
DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN CORPORATION BY THE HOLDER OR HOLDERS OF SHARES, OR
OF VOTING TRUST CERTIFICATES REPRESENTING SHARES, OF SUCH CORPORATION
HAVING A TOTAL PAR VALUE OR STATED CAPITAL VALUE OF LESS THAN FIVE PER
CENTUM (5%) OF THE AGGREGATE PAR VALUE OF STATED CAPITAL VALUE OF ALL
THE OUTSTANDING SHARES OF SUCH CORPORATION'S STOCK OF EVERY CLASS  ...
UNLESS THE SHARES OR VOTING TRUST CERTIFICATES HELD BY SUCH HOLDER OR
HOLDERS HAVE A MARKET VALUE IN EXCESS OF FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($50,000.00), THE CORPORATION IN WHOSE RIGHT SUCH ACTION IS BROUGHT
SHALL BE ENTITLED, AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE FINAL
JUDGMENT, TO REQUIRE THE COMPLAINANT OR COMPLAINANTS TO GIVE SECURITY
FOR THE REASONABLE EXPENSES, INCLUDING COUNSEL FEES, WHICH MAY BE
INCURRED BY IT IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH ACTION AND BY THE OTHER PARTIES
DEFENDANT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR WHICH IT MAY BECOME SUBJECT
PURSUANT TO LAW, ITS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION, ITS BY-LAWS OR UNDER
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, TO WHICH THE CORPORATION SHALL HAVE RECOURSE IN
SUCH AMOUNT AS THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION SHALL DETERMINE UPON THE
TERMINATION OF SUCH ACTION.  THE AMOUNT OF SUCH SECURITY MAY
THEREAFTER, FROM TIME TO TIME, BE INCREASED OR DECREASED IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF SUCH ACTION UPON SHOWING
THAT THE SECURITY PROVIDED HAS OR MAY BECOME INADEQUATE OR IS
EXCESSIVE. 

"2.  IN ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT OR MAINTAINED IN THE
RIGHT OF A DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN CORPORATION BY THE HOLDER OR HOLDERS OF
SHARES, OR OF VOTING TRUST CERTIFICATES REPRESENTING SHARES, OF SUCH
CORPORATION, IT MUST BE MADE TO APPEAR THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS A
SHAREHOLDER OR THE HOLDER OF A VOTING TRUST CERTIFICATE AT THE TIME OF
THE TRANSACTION OF WHICH HE COMPLAINS OR THAT HIS SHARE OR VOTING TRUST
CERTIFICATE THEREAFTER DEVOLVED UPON HIM BY OPERATION OF LAW. 

"3.  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AND SHALL APPLY TO ALL
SUCH ACTIONS, SUITS OR PROCEEDINGS NOW PENDING IN WHICH NO FINAL
JUDGMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED, AND TO ALL FUTURE ACTIONS, SUITS AND
PROCEEDINGS." 

FN2  SEE NEW YORK GENERAL CORPORATION LAW, SEC. 61-B; 12 PA. STAT.
ANN. SEC. 1322; LAWS OF MARYLAND, 1945, C. 989; WISCONSIN STAT. SEC.
180.13(1945). 

FN3  OLD EQUITY RULE 94, 104 U.S. IX; EQUITY RULE 27, 226 U.S. 649,
656.    FN4  RULE 23(B). 

FN5  SEE HORNSTEIN, PROBLEMS OF PROCEDURE IN STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE
SUITS, 42 COL. L.R. 574; HORNSTEIN, DIRECTORS' EXPENSES IN
STOCKHOLDERS' SUITS, 43 ID. 301; KOESSLER, THE STOCKHOLDER'S SUIT:  A
COMPARATIVE VIEW, 46 ID. 238; HORNSTEIN, NEW ASPECTS OF STOCKHOLDERS'
DERIVATIVE SUITS, 47 ID. 1; CARSON, CURRENT PHASES OF DERIVATIVE
ACTIONS AGAINST DIRECTORS, 40 MICH. L.R. 1125; P. E. JACKSON,
REORGANIZATION OF THE CORPORATE CONCEPT AND THE EFFECT OF SECTION 61-B
OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL CORPORATION LAW, A5 AM. BANKR.  REV.  323;
CARSON, FURTHER PHASES OF DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AGAINST DIRECTORS, 29
CORNELL L.Q. 431; HOUSE, STOCKHOLDERS' SUITS AND THE COUDERT-MITCHELL
LAWS, 20 N.Y.U.L.Q. REV. 377; HORNSTEIN, THE DEATH KNELL OF
STOCKHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE SUITS IN NEW YORK, 32 CALIFORNIA L.R. 123;
ZLINKOFF, THE AMERICAN INVESTOR AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 61
B OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL CORPORATION LAW, 54 YALE L.J. 352.  SEE
DOUGLAS, DIRECTORS WHO DO NOT DIRECT, 47 HARV. L.R. 1305. 

FN6  DANIEL V. FAMILY INSURANCE CO., 336 U.S. 220. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS,
DISSENTING IN PART. 

THE CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH THIS SUIT IS BROUGHT IS A DERIVATIVE
ONE.  THOUGH IT BELONGS TO THE CORPORATION, THE STOCKHOLDERS ARE
ENTITLED UNDER STATE LAW TO ENFORCE IT.  THE MEASURE OF THE CAUSE OF
ACTION IS THE CLAIM WHICH THE CORPORATION HAS AGAINST THE ALLEGED
WRONGDOERS.  THIS NEW JERSEY STATUTE DOES NOT ADD ONE IOTA TO NOR
SUBTRACT ONE IOTA FROM THAT CAUSE OF ACTION.  IT MERELY PRESCRIBES THE
METHOD BY WHICH STOCKHOLDERS MAY ENFORCE IT.  EACH STATE HAS NUMEROUS
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION OF SUITS IN ITS COURTS.  THEY MAY
FAVOR THE LITIGATION OR THEY MAY AFFECT IT ADVERSELY.  BUT THEY DO NOT
FALL UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64,
UNLESS THEY DEFINE, QUALIFY OR DELIMIT THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR OTHERWISE
RELATE TO IT. 

THIS NEW JERSEY STATUTE, LIKE STATUTES GOVERNING SECURITY FOR COSTS,
REGULATES ONLY THE PROCEDURE FOR INSTITUTING A PARTICULAR CAUSE OF
ACTION AND HENCE NEED NOT BE APPLIED IN THIS DIVERSITY SUIT IN THE
FEDERAL COURT.  RULE 23 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DEFINES
THAT PROCEDURE FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I AM IN ACCORD WITH THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN
THIS CASE.  I ALSO AGREE WITH THE DISSENTING VIEWS OF MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON IN NO. 465, WOODS V. INTERSTATE REALTY CO., ANTE, P. 538,
DECIDED TODAY.  AND I HAVE NOTED MY DISSENT IN NO. 522, RAGAN V.
MERCHANTS TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO., ANTE, P. 530, ALSO DECIDED TODAY. 

WITHOUT UNDERTAKING TO DISCUSS EACH CASE IN DETAIL, I THINK THE THREE
DECISIONS TAKEN TOGETHER DEMONSTRATE THE EXTREME EXTENT TO WHICH THE
COURT IS GOING IN SUBMITTING THE CONTROL OF DIVERSITY LITIGATION IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS TO THE STATES RATHER THAN TO CONGRESS, WHERE IT PROPERLY
BELONGS.  THIS IS DONE IN THE GUISE OF APPLYING THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO.
V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  BUT IN MY OPINION IT WAS NEVER THE PURPOSE
OF THAT DECISION TO PUT SUCH MATTERS AS THOSE INVOLVED HERE OUTSIDE THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE AND TO CONFER THAT AUTHORITY EXCLUSIVELY
UPON THE STATES. 

WHAT IS BEING APPLIED IS A GLOSS ON THE ERIE RULE, NOT THE RULE
ITSELF.  THAT CASE HELD THAT FEDERAL COURTS IN DIVERSITY CASES MUST
APPLY STATE LAW, DECISIONAL AS WELL AS STATUTORY, IN DETERMINING
MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW, IN PARTICULAR AND APART FROM PROCEDURAL
LIMITATIONS UPON ITS ASSERTION - WHETHER A CAUSE OF ACTION EXISTS.  I
ACCEPT THAT VIEW GENERALLY AND INSOFAR AS IT INVOLVES A WISE RULE OF
ADMINISTRATION FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS, THOUGH I HAVE GRAVE DOUBT THAT
IT HAS ANY SOLID CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION. 

BUT THE ERIE CASE MADE NO RULING THAT IN SO DECIDING DIVERSITY CASES
A FEDERAL COURT IS "MERELY ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH IT
SITS," AND HENCE THAT IN EVERY SITUATION IN WHICH THE DOORS OF STATE
COURTS ARE CLOSED TO A SUITOR, SO MUST BE ALSO THOSE OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  NOT ONLY IS THIS NOT TRUE WHEN THE STATE BAR IS RAISED BY A
PURELY PROCEDURAL OBSTACLE.  THERE IS SOUND HISTORICAL REASON FOR
BELIEVING THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE DIVERSITY CLAUSE WAS TO
AFFORD A FEDERAL COURT REMEDY WHEN, FOR AT LEAST SOME REASONS OF STATE
POLICY, NONE WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS.  IT IS THE GLOSS
WHICH HAS BEEN PUT UPON THE ERIE RULING BY LATER DECISIONS, E.G.,
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, WHICH IN MY OPINION IS BEING
APPLIED TO EXTEND THE ERIE RULING FAR BEYOND ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE OR
INTENT AND, IN MY JUDGMENT, WITH CONSEQUENCES AND IMPLICATIONS
SERIOUSLY IMPAIRING CONGRESS' POWER, WITHIN ITS PROPER SPHERE OF
ACTION, TO CONTROL THIS TYPE OF LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE ACCEPTED DICHOTOMY IS THE FAMILIAR "PROCEDURAL-SUBSTANTIVE" ONE. 
THIS OF COURSE IS A SUBJECT OF ENDLESS DISCUSSION, WHICH HARDLY NEEDS
TO BE REPEATED HERE.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT ACTUALLY IN MANY
SITUATIONS PROCEDURE AND SUBSTANCE ARE SO INTERWOVEN THAT RATIONAL
SEPARATION BECOMES WELL-NIGH IMPOSSIBLE.  BUT, EVEN SO, THIS FACT
CANNOT DISPENSE WITH THE NECESSITY OF MAKING A DISTINCTION.  FOR, AS
THE MATTER STANDS, IT IS CONGRESS WHICH HAS THE POWER TO GOVERN THE
PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN DIVERSITY CASES, AND THE STATES
WHICH HAVE THAT POWER OVER MATTERS CLEARLY SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE. 
JUDGES THEREFORE CANNOT ESCAPE MAKING THE DIVISION.  AND THEY MUST MAKE
IT WHERE THE TWO CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS ARE SIAMESE TWINS AS WELL AS
WHERE THEY ARE NOT TWINS OR EVEN BLOOD BROTHERS.  THE REAL QUESTION IS
NOT WHETHER THE SEPARATION SHALL BE MADE, BUT HOW IT SHALL BE MADE:
WHETHER MECHANICALLY BY REFERENCE TO WHETHER THE STATE COURTS' DOORS
ARE OPEN OR CLOSED, OR BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE POLICIES WHICH CLOSE
THEM AND THEIR RELATION TO ACCOMMODATING THE POLICY OF THE ERIE RULE
WITH CONGRESS' POWER TO GOVERN THE INCIDENTS OF LITIGATION IN DIVERSITY
SUITS. 

IT IS IN THESE CLOSE CASES, THIS BORDERLAND AREA, THAT I THINK WE ARE
GOING TOO FAR.  IT IS ONE THING TO DECIDE THAT PENNSYLVANIA DOES OR
DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN TORT FOR INJURIES INFLICTED BY
SPECIFIED CONDUCT AND TO HAVE THAT DETERMINATION GOVERN THE OUTCOME OF
A DIVERSITY SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA OR NEW YORK.  FN1  IT IS ANOTHER, IN
MY VIEW, TO REQUIRE A BOND FOR COSTS OR FOR PAYMENT OF THE OPPOSING
PARTY'S EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE EVENT THE CLAIMANT IS
UNSUCCESSFUL.  WHETHER OR NOT THE LATTER IS CONCEIVED AS CREATING A NEW
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, IT IS TOO CLOSE TO CONTROLLING THE INCIDENTS OF THE
LITIGATION RATHER THAN ITS OUTCOME TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH THE FORMER. 
IT IS A MATTER WHICH IN MY OPINION LIES WITHIN CONGRESS' CONTROL FOR
DIVERSITY CASES, NOT ONE FOR STATE CONTROL OR TO BE GOVERNED BY THE
FACT THAT THE STATE SHUTS THE DOORS OF ITS COURTS UNLESS THE STATE
REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING SUCH INCIDENTS OF LITIGATION ARE COMPLIED
WITH. 

IN MY VIEW RULE 23 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DERIVED
FROM THE FORMER EQUITY RULES AND NOW HAVING THE SANCTION OF CONGRESS,
IS VALID AND GOVERNS IN THE COHEN CASE.  IF, HOWEVER, THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY HAS THE POWER TO GOVERN FEDERAL DIVERSITY SUITS WITHIN ITS
BORDERS AS TO ALL MATTERS HAVING A SUBSTANTIVE TINGE OR ASPECT, THEN IT
MAY BE QUESTIONED WHETHER, IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT WITH SOME LOCAL
POLICY, A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN THAT STATE COULD GIVE EFFECT TO THE
RULE'S REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMPLAINT AVER "THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS A
SHAREHOLDER AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION OF WHICH HE COMPLAINS OR
THAT HIS SHARE THEREAFTER DEVOLVED ON HIM BY OPERATION OF LAW  ...  "
FOR IN ANY STRICT AND ABSTRACT SENSE THAT PROVISION WOULD SEEM TO BE AS
MUCH A "SUBSTANTIVE" ONE AS THE NEW JERSEY REQUIREMENTS FOR BOND, ETC.
AND, IF SO, THEN IT WOULD SEEM HIGHLY DOUBTFUL, ON ANY AUTOMATIC OR
MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE-PROCEDURAL DICHOTOMY, THAT
EITHER CONGRESS OR THIS COURT COULD CREATE SUCH A LIMITATION ON
DIVERSITY LITIGATION, SINCE AS A SUBSTANTIVE MATTER THIS WOULD BE FOR
THE STATES TO CONTROL.  SEE 3 MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE (2D ED., 1948)
3493-3506. 

FOR MYSELF I HAVE NO DOUBT OF THE VALIDITY OF RULE 23 OR OF THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO ENACT SUCH A RULE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS A SUBSTANTIVE
ASPECT.  NOTWITHSTANDING THAT ASPECT, THE RULE IS TOO CLOSELY RELATED
TO PROCEDURAL AND OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS FOR ME TO CONCEIVE OF ITS INVALIDITY.  SO ALSO IN THE PRESENT
CASES I THINK THE STATE REGULATIONS, THOUGH EACH MAY BE REGARDED AS
HAVING A SUBSTANTIVE ASPECT, ARE TOO CLOSELY RELATED TO THE MODES AND
METHODS OF CONDUCTING LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO BE CAPABLE OF
DISPLACING CONGRESS' POWER OF REGULATION IN THOSE RESPECTS OR THE
FEDERAL COURTS' POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE RESPECTIVE
CONTROVERSIES. 

ACCORDINGLY I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS IN THE COHEN AND RAGAN
CASES AND AFFIRM THAT IN THE WOODS CASE. 

FN1  IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE DISPOSITION OF THE LOCAL LAW PROBLEM
APPARENTLY PRESENTED IN ERIE WAS NOT CONSISTENT, EITHER HERE OR ON
REMAND, WITH THE CURRENT VIEW THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IS REQUIRED
TO TREAT A DIVERSITY CASE EXACTLY AS WOULD A STATE COURT OF THE STATE
IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT IS SITTING:  THE ERIE CASE AROSE OUT OF AN
ALLEGED PENNSYLVANIA TORT, AND THIS COURT STATED THAT THE COURT OF
APPEALS HAD ERRED WHEN IT "DECLINED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF STATE LAW,"
304 U.S. AT 80 - I.E., "THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW."  IBID.  BUT THE ERIE
CASE WAS INITIATED BY TOMPKINS, "A CITIZEN OF PENNSYLVANIA  ...  IN THE
FEDERAL COURT FOR SOUTHERN NEW YORK, WHICH HAD JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE
COMPANY IS A CORPORATION OF THAT STATE."  304 U.S. AT 69.  ACCORDINGLY,
AS ERIE IS NOW CONSTRUED, THE ISSUE ON REMAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHAT LAW
A NEW YORK STATE COURT WOULD HAVE APPLIED TO THE PENNSYLVANIA TORT. 
BUT THE SOLE ISSUE DETERMINED ON REMAND WAS THE APPLICABLE PENNSYLVANIA
LAW, WITHOUT MENTION OF THE PROBABLE ATTITUDE OF THE NEW YORK COURTS. 
TOMPKINS V. ERIE R. CO., 98 F.2D 49.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER JUSTICE
BRANDEIS HAD RETIRED THAT THIS COURT HELD THAT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
WERE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW LOCAL CONFLICT OF LAWS DOCTRINE IN THE
RESOLUTION OF DIVERSITY CASES.  KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S.
487. 
..END :







WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. GLANDER, 337 U.S. 562 


ARGUED MARCH 29, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 150 OHIO ST. 229, 80
N.E.2D 863, REVERSED. 


CERTAIN FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS
IN OHIO AND WHICH OPERATED MANUFACTURING PLANTS THERE HAD THEIR
PRINCIPAL PLACES OF BUSINESS IN OTHER STATES, WHERE ALL ORDERS WERE
ACCEPTED, CREDITS EXTENDED, BOOKS KEPT AND WHERE ALL ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE WERE PAYABLE.  THE CORPORATIONS HAD PAID ALL FRANCHISE TAXES
AND ALL TAXES ON REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN OHIO.  IN
ADDITION, THE STATE LEVIED AN AD VALOREM TAX ON THEIR ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE DERIVED FROM SALES OF GOODS MANUFACTURED WITHIN THE STATE. 
THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WERE NOT USED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF
THE CORPORATIONS IN OHIO, BUT IN THEIR GENERAL BUSINESS.  ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE OF IDENTICAL NATURE WHICH WERE OWNED BY RESIDENTS AND
DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS WERE EXEMPT FROM THE TAX.  HELD: 

1.  THE TAX DENIED THE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 563-574. 

(A)  AFTER A STATE HAS CHOSEN TO ADMIT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO DO
BUSINESS WITHIN IT, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL PROTECTION WITH DOMESTIC
CORPORATIONS, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS ENTITLED TO
AN EQUALLY FAVORABLE AD VALOREM TAX BASIS.  PP. 571-572. 

(B)  THE INEQUALITY TO WHICH THE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ARE SUBJECTED
IS NOT BASED ON OHIO'S RELATION TO THE DECISIVE TRANSACTION, BUT SOLELY
ON DIFFERENCE IN RESIDENCE OF THE OWNER OF THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE.  P.
572. 

2.  THE TAX WAS NOT SAVED FROM CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY BY THE
"RECIPROCITY" PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IMPOSING IT, SINCE THE PLAN OF
RECIPROCITY IS NOT ONE WHICH BY CREDITS OR OTHERWISE PROTECTS THE
NONRESIDENT OR FOREIGN CORPORATION AGAINST THE DISCRIMINATIONS APPARENT
IN THE OHIO STATUTE.  PP. 572-574. 

WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. GLANDER, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO. 

NO. 447.  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 448, NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS CORP. V.
GLANDER, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO, ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT,
ARGUED MARCH 30, 1949. 

AN OHIO AD VALOREM TAX ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, CHALLENGED AS
VIOLATING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WAS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE SUPREME
COURT.  150 OHIO ST. 229, 80 N.E.2D 863.  ON APPEALS TO THIS COURT,
REVERSED, P. 574. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATE OF OHIO HAS LAID AN AD VALOREM TAX AGAINST CERTAIN
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF NOTES, ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND
PREPAID INSURANCE, OWNED BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  AS APPLIED TO
APPELLANTS IN THESE TWO CASES, THE TAX IS CHALLENGED AS VIOLATING THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ON SEVERAL GROUNDS WHICH MAY CONVENIENTLY BE
CONSIDERED IN A SINGLE OPINION.  FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. 

APPELLANT WHEELING STEEL CORPORATION IS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
DELAWARE, WHERE IT MAINTAINS A STATUTORY OFFICE.  OHIO HAS AUTHORIZED
IT TO DO BUSINESS IN THAT STATE AND FOUR OF ITS EIGHT MANUFACTURING
PLANTS ARE LOCATED THERE.  GENERAL OFFICES, FROM WHICH ITS ENTIRE
BUSINESS IS CONTROLLED AND CONDUCTED, ARE IN WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA. 
ITS OFFICERS THERE HAVE CUSTODY OF ITS MONEY, NOTES AND BOOKS OF
ACCOUNT.  IN TWELVE OTHER STATES, INCLUDING OHIO, IT MAINTAINS SALES
OFFICES WHICH SOLICIT AND RECEIVE ORDERS FOR ITS PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO
ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION AT THE WHEELING OFFICE, TO WHICH ALL ARE
FORWARDED.  FROM THIS OFFICE ONLY MAY CREDIT BE EXTENDED TO
PURCHASERS.  ACCOUNTS ARE BILLED AND COLLECTED FROM THE WHEELING OFFICE
AND THE SALES OFFICES HAVE NO POWERS OR DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO
COLLECTION.  ALL ACCOUNTS OR NOTES RECEIVABLE ARE PAYABLE AT WHEELING,
WHERE THE WRITTEN EVIDENCES THEREOF ARE KEPT.  PROCEEDS FROM
RECEIVABLES ARE TAKEN INTO APPELLANT'S TREASURY AT WHEELING AND THERE
APPLIED TO GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS. 

APPELLANT NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS CORPORATION IS ORGANIZED UNDER
THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA, WHERE IT HAS A STATUTORY OFFICE AND HOLDS ANNUAL
STOCKHOLDERS MEETINGS.  IT IS ADMITTED TO DO BUSINESS IN OHIO, WHERE IT
MAINTAINS A DISTILLERY, OR RECTIFYING PLANT, AND WAREHOUSE, AS IT DOES
ALSO IN SIX OTHER STATES.  PAY ROLL CHECKS FOR PLANT EMPLOYEES ARE
DRAWN ON FUNDS DEPOSITED IN BANKS IN THE LOCALITY OF THE PLANT. 
APPELLANT ALSO IS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, WHERE IT
MAINTAINS ITS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE AND CONDUCTS ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS
AND FROM WHICH ALL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE DIRECTED AND CONTROLLED. 
THE CORPORATION MAINTAINS REGIONAL SALES OFFICES IN VARIOUS OF THOSE
STATES WHICH PERMIT PRIVATE DISTRIBUTION OF LIQUOR.  IN SUCH STATES
CUSTOMERS ARE SOLICITED AND ORDERS TAKEN, SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE OR
REJECTION AT NEW YORK.  IT MAINTAINS NO SALES OFFICE IN OHIO, WHERE
DISPENSING LIQUOR IS A STATE MONOPOLY.  ORDERS FROM OHIO STATE
AUTHORITIES ARE FORWARDED DIRECTLY TO THE OFFICES IN NEW YORK AND ARE
SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION THERE.  WHEN THE NEW YORK OFFICE
ACCEPTS AN ORDER FROM ANY SOURCE, IT SENDS SHIPPING ORDERS TO VARIOUS
PLANTS, NONE OF WHICH MAKES ANY SHIPMENTS EXCEPT UPON SUCH ORDERS. 
ONLY IN NEW YORK CAN ANY CREDITS BE APPROVED AND ALL BOOKS, RECORDS AND
EVIDENCES OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE KEPT THERE.  COLLECTIONS ARE
MANAGED FROM NEW YORK, WHICH IS THE PLACE OF PAYMENT OF ALL
RECEIVABLES.  DURING THE TAX YEAR IN QUESTION, THE CORPORATION
SOLICITED AND TOOK ORDERS THROUGH AGENTS IN STATES OTHER THAN OHIO FOR
A LARGE QUANTITY OF LIQUOR SHIPPED FROM ITS PLANTS AND WAREHOUSES IN
OHIO TO CUSTOMERS ELSEWHERE. 

IT IS STIPULATED THAT APPELLANTS EACH PAID ALL FRANCHISE OR OTHER
TAXES REQUIRED BY OHIO FOR ADMISSION TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE AND
PAID ALL TAXES ASSESSED UPON REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN SAID
STATE. 

THE WHEELING COMPANY ALSO PAID TO THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, FOR THE
YEAR IN QUESTION, AD VALOREM TAXES ON ALL OF ITS RECEIVABLES, INCLUDING
THOSE SOUGHT TO BE TAXED BY OHIO, PURSUANT TO THIS COURT'S DECISION IN
WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S. 193.  NEITHER VIRGINIA NOR NEW
YORK HAS SOUGHT TO TAX THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OF NATIONAL DISTILLERS
INVOLVED HEREIN. 

THE OHIO TAX COMMISSIONER, APPLYING SECS. 5328-1 AND 5328-2 OF THE
GENERAL CODE OF OHIO,  FN1 ASSESSED FOR TAXATION IN OHIO A LARGE AMOUNT
OF NOTES AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WHICH EACH APPELLANT DERIVED FROM
SHIPMENTS ORIGINATING AT OHIO MANUFACTURING PLANTS.  THE SPECIFIC
GROUND STATED FOR ASSESSMENT WAS THAT SUCH RECEIVABLES "RESULT FROM THE
SALE OF PROPERTY FROM A STOCK OF GOODS MAINTAINED WITHIN THIS STATE." 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AFFIRMED BOTH ASSESSMENTS AND IN THE
DISTILLER'S CASE SET FORTH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED STATUTES AND POINTED OUT
WHEREIN ITS OWN VIEWS AND PRACTICES AS TO THEIR APPLICATION TO ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY DECISIONS OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT,
WHOSE INTERPRETATIONS, FOR OUR PURPOSES, BECOME A PART OF THE
STATUTES.  THE BOARD SAID: 

"  ...  ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS ABOVE NOTED,
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT BEFORE A BUSINESS SITUS
OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND OTHER INTANGIBLE PROPERTY, FOR PURPOSES OF
TAXATION, COULD BE GIVEN TO A STATE OTHER THAN THE STATE OF THE
DOMICILE OF THE TAXPAYER, IT MUST APPEAR THAT SUCH RECEIVABLES OR OTHER
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY NOT ONLY AROSE IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF
THE TAXPAYER IN SUCH OTHER STATE, BUT WERE THEREIN SO USED AS TO BECOME
AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON IN SUCH OTHER STATE; AND
THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT SUCH ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND OTHER
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY BE USED IN BUSINESS GENERALLY BY THE TAXPAYER.  AND
ON THIS VIEW THE BOARD HELD THAT THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE THERE IN
QUESTION, ALTHOUGH THEY AROSE IN THE CONDUCT OF TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS IN
THE STATES OF INDIANA AND MICHIGAN, DID NOT HAVE A BUSINESS SITUS IN
SUCH STATES, AND THAT SUCH ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WERE TAXABLE IN OHIO. 

"ON THE APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN THE
RANSOM & RANDOLPH CO. CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, THAT COURT
REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UPON THE POINT ABOVE
INDICATED.  142 O.S. 398, 404.  THAT COURT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5328-2 AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE
GENERAL CODE ABOVE NOTED, HELD THAT THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OF A
TAXPAYER WHICH AROSE IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS IN A STATE OR
STATES OTHER THAN THE STATE IN WHICH IT HAD ITS DOMICILE OR PLACE OF
RESIDENCE, HAD A BUSINESS SITUS IN SUCH OTHER STATE OR STATES IF SUCH
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OR THE AVAILS THEREOF ARE BEING APPLIED OR ARE
INTENDED TO BE APPLIED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS,
WHETHER IN THIS STATE OR ELSEWHERE.  THIS VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT AS
TO THE CONSTRUCTION TO BE PLACED UPON THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS HERE IN
QUESTION WAS LATER FOLLOWED BY THAT COURT IN ITS DECISIONS IN THE CASES
OF THE HAVERFIELD COMPANY V. EVATT, TAX COMMR., 143 O.S. 58, AND
NATIONAL CASH REGISTER COMPANY V. EVATT, TAX COMMER., 145 O.S. 597. 

"  ...  IN THIS SITUATION, AND APPLYING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS HERE
IN QUESTION AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
THIS STATE, IT FOLLOWS THAT SINCE THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OF THE
APPELLANT CORPORATION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AROSE - AS THIS BOARD
HEREBY FIND - , IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF OHIO BY
THE SALE OF ITS PRODUCTS FROM A STOCK OF GOODS LOCATED IN THIS STATE,
AND SINCE, FURTHER, SUCH ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OR THE AVAILS THEREOF WERE
USED OR WERE INTENDED TO BE USED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BUSINESS,
WHETHER IN THIS STATE OR ELSEWHERE, SUCH ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE HAVE A
BUSINESS AND TAXABLE SITUS IN THE STATE OF OHIO, AS FOUND AND
DETERMINED BY THE TAX COMMISSIONER. 

"WITH RESPECT TO A QUESTION SUCH AS THAT HERE PRESENTED, TO WIT, THAT
AS TO THE TAXATION OF THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION
ARISING IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, THE APPLICATION
OF THE ABOVE NOTED PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 5328-1, 5328-2 AND OTHER
RELATED SECTIONS OF THE GENERAL CODE, AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED
BY THE SUPREME COURT, PRESENTS, TO OUR MIND, A SERIOUS QUESTION AS TO
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SAID STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS SO CONSTRUED
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  ...
" 

THE OHIO SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED IN BOTH CASES,  FN2  WHICH WERE
BROUGHT HERE BY APPEALS.  FN3 

APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE QUESTION WHICH THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
REGARDED AS SERIOUS SHOULD BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE STATE ON THE GROUND
THAT THESE INTANGIBLES HAD NO SITUS IN OHIO TO SUSTAIN ITS POWER UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE SO TO TAX THEM AND ALSO THAT TO DO SO IMPOSES AN
UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  THEY POINT OUT THAT THE CREDITS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED HERE WERE
NOT CREATED IN OHIO, NOT PAYABLE THERE, AND NEITHER THE PAYOR NOR
PAYEE, DEBTOR NOR CREDITOR, WAS RESIDENT THERE.  MOREOVER, THE
RECEIVABLES AROSE FROM A CONTRACT FOR SALE OF GOODS, BUT THE CONTRACTS
WERE NOT MADE IN OHIO NOR PERFORMED IN OHIO, AND NEITHER BUYER NOR
SELLER RESIDED THERE.  ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT OHIO COULD NOT FOLLOW
TANGIBLE GOODS INTO A FOREIGN STATE AND TAX THEM, EITHER IN THE HANDS
OF THE VENDOR BEFORE DELIVERY OR IN THE HANDS OF A VENDEE AFTER
DELIVERY, IT IS ARGUED THAT SHE HAS NO GREATER POWER TO TAX INTANGIBLES
SUBSTITUTED IN A FOREIGN STATE FOR THEM AND HAS NO RIGHT TO TAX
INTANGIBLE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF TANGIBLE GOODS THAT HAD PASSED
BEYOND HER TAXING POWER. 

IN THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME THE TAXING
AUTHORITIES SOUGHT TO OVERCOME THIS HURDLE BY REQUIRING AN ADDITIONAL
AND MORE SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TAXED INTANGIBLES AND THE
STATE TAXING POWER.  FOR PURPOSE OF AN OHIO TAX THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS HELD INTANGIBLES TO HAVE A SITUS IN THAT STATE ONLY WHEN AND TO
THE EXTENT "SO USED AS TO BECOME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS
CARRIED ON" IN OHIO.  IT WAS THIS REQUIREMENT WHICH THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE ELIMINATED BY RANSOM & RANDOLPH CO. V. EVATT, 142 OHIO ST.
398, 52 N.E.2D 738, WHEN IT HELD THAT ANY USE OF THE INTANGIBLES IN THE
GENERAL BUSINESS WAS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THEM TAXABLE.  THUS WAS CUT THE
CONNECTION WHICH THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ORIGINALLY INVOKED TO CONFER
JURISDICTION TO TAX, AND THUS WAS RAISED THE QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY REGARDED BY THE BOARD AS SERIOUS. 

HOWEVER, WE FIND IT INAPPROPRIATE TO DECIDE THE DUE PROCESS
QUESTION.  THE STATE ACTION, WHICH IS REVIEWABLE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, IS THE COMPOSITE RESULT OF BOTH LEGISLATION AND ITS JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION.  OHIO DOES NOT ATTEMPT AND HAS NOT ASSERTED POWER TO
TAX ALL SUCH INTANGIBLES, BUT ONLY THOSE OWNED BY NONRESIDENTS AND
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  IT HAS GIVEN NO INDICATION THAT IT INTENDS TO OR
WOULD REACH OUT TO TAX SUCH INTANGIBLES AS WE HAVE HERE UNLESS IT MAY
AT THE SAME TIME EXEMPT IDENTICAL ONES OWNED BY ITS RESIDENTS AND
DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.  THE CONTRARY IS INDICATED BY SEC. 5328-2, WHICH
MAKES THE TWO INSEPARABLE.  WE DEAL WITH THE TAXING PLAN AS AN ENTIRETY
AS WE FIND IT IN OPERATION AND PASS ONLY ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THAT WHICH THE STATE HAS ASSERTED POWER AND PURPOSE TO DO. 

THE STATE ACTION AND POLICY RESULTING FROM STATUTE AND DECISIONS IS
CERTIFIED TO US BY THE APPELLEE, THE TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO, TO BE AS
FOLLOWS: 

" ...  SINCE THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN RANSOM &
RANDOLPH V. EVATT, 142 OHIO STATE 398(JANUARY 12, 1944), AND IN
OBEDIENCE THERETO, IT HAS BEEN THE POLICY AND PRACTICE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION OF OHIO TO CONSTRUE AND APPLY SECTIONS 5328-1
AND 5328-2 OF THE GENERAL CODE OF OHIO 

"(A)  SO AS TO EXEMPT FROM TAXATION IN OHIO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OF
OHIO RESIDENTS, INCLUDING DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS, WHICH ARISE 

"(1) FROM A SALE OF GOODS BY AN AGENT HAVING AN OFFICE IN ANOTHER
STATE, EVEN THOUGH SUCH GOODS BE SHIPPED FROM OHIO, OR 

"(2) FROM A SALE OF GOODS SHIPPED FROM ANOTHER STATE, EVEN THOUGH
SUCH GOODS BE SOLD BY AN AGENT HAVING AN OFFICE IN OHIO: 

"(B)  SO AS TO TAX IN OHIO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OF NON-RESIDENTS OF
OHIO, INCLUDING FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, WHICH ARISE EITHER 

"(1)  FROM A SALE OF GOODS SHIPPED FROM OHIO, EVEN THOUGH SUCH GOODS
BE SOLD BY AN AGENT HAVING AN OFFICE IN ANOTHER STATE, OR 

"(2)  FROM A SALE OF GOODS BY AN AGENT HAVING AN OFFICE IN OHIO, EVEN
THOUGH SUCH GOODS BE SHIPPED FROM ANOTHER STATE: 

"THAT THE FOREGOING HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT AS THE ONLY TESTS OF
TAXABILITY OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE IN OHIO SINCE THE DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE CASE OF RANSOM & RANDOLPH V. EVATT, 142
OHIO STATE 398, AND THAT SAID TESTS HAVE BEEN APPLIED WITHOUT DEVIATION
BOTH BY AFFIANT AND BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE, WILLIAM S. EVATT, AS
THE RESULT OF THE HOLDING IN THAT CASE." 

UNDER LONG-SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF OUR FEDERATION, OHIO WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO ADMIT THESE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO CARRY ON INTRASTATE
BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  THE STATE MAY ARBITRARILY EXCLUDE THEM OR
MAY LICENSE THEM UPON ANY TERMS IT SEES FIT, APART FROM EXACTING
SURRENDER OF RIGHTS DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  HANOVER INSURANCE CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494, 507;
CONNECTICUT GENERAL CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77, 79-80.  OHIO ELECTED,
HOWEVER, TO ADMIT THESE CORPORATIONS TO TRANSACT BUSINESSES AND OPERATE
MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE STATE.  FOR THAT PRIVILEGE THEY HAVE PAID
ALL THAT THE STATE REQUIRED BY WAY OF FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE TAX, WHICH
INCLUDES IN ITS MEASURE THE VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY OWNED AND BUSINESS
DONE IN OHIO.  SECS. 5495, 5497, 5498 AND 5499 OF THE OHIO GENERAL
CODE.  SEE INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. EVATT, 329 U.S. 461.  AFTER A
STATE HAS CHOSEN TO DOMESTICATE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, THE ADOPTED
CORPORATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL PROTECTION WITH THE STATE'S OWN
CORPORATE PROGENY, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS
ENTITLED TO AN EQUALLY FAVORABLE AD VALOREM TAX BASIS.  HANOVER
INSURANCE CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494, 510-511; POWER CO. V. SAUNDERS,
274 U.S. 490, 493, 497.  OHIO HOLDS THIS TAX ON INTANGIBLES TO BE AN AD
VALOREM PROPERTY TAX, BENNETT V. EVATT, 145 OHIO ST. 587, 62 N.E.2D
345, AND IN NO SENSE A FRANCHISE, PRIVILEGE, OCCUPATION OR INCOME TAX. 

THE OHIO STATUTORY SCHEME ASSIMILATES ITS OWN CORPORATE CREATIONS TO
NATURAL RESIDENTS AND ALL OTHERS TO NONRESIDENTS.  WHILE THIS
CLASSIFICATION IS A PERMISSIBLE BASIS FOR SOME DIFFERENT RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES, WE HAVE HELD, AS TO TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES, THAT THE
FEDERAL RIGHT OF A NONRESIDENT "IS THE RIGHT TO EQUAL TREATMENT." 
HILLSBOROUGH V. CROMWELL, 326 U.S. 620, 623. 

THE CERTIFICATE OF THE TAX COMMISSIONER DISCLOSES HOW FUNDAMENTALLY
DISCRIMINATORY IS THE APPLICATION OF THIS AD VALOREM TAX TO INTANGIBLES
WHEN OWNED BY A RESIDENT OR A DOMESTIC CORPORATION AS CONTRASTED WITH
ITS APPLICATION WHEN THOSE ARE OWNED BY A DOMESTICATED CORPORATION OR A
NONRESIDENT.  IF ON THE TAXING DATE ONE OF THESE PETITIONERS AND AN
OHIO COMPETITOR EACH OWNS AN ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE OF THE SAME AMOUNT FROM
THE SAME OUT-OF-STATE CUSTOMER FOR THE SAME KIND OF COMMODITY, BOTH
SHIPPED FROM A MANUFACTURING PLANT IN OHIO AND BOTH SOLD OUT OF OHIO BY
AN AGENT HAVING AN OFFICE OUT OF THE STATE, APPELLANT'S ACCOUNT
RECEIVABLE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO OHIO'S AD VALOREM TAX AND THE ONE HELD
BY THE COMPETING DOMESTIC CORPORATION WOULD NOT.  IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT
APPELLANTS ARE NOT ACCORDED EQUAL TREATMENT, AND THE INEQUALITY IS NOT
BECAUSE OF THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE IN OHIO'S RELATION TO THE DECISIVE
TRANSACTION, BUT SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT RESIDENCE OF THE
OWNER. 

THE STATE DOES NOT SERIOUSLY DENY THIS UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF ITS OWN
TAX BUT CLAIMS THAT RECIPROCITY PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE REESTABLISH
EQUALITY.  THOSE PROVISIONS THEREFORE REQUIRE SCRUTINY. 

THIS ENTIRE TAXING PLAN RESTS ON A STATUTORY FORMULA FOR FIXING SITUS
OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE.  THIS IS
PROVIDED BY SEC. 5328-2 OF THE CODE.  THESE INTANGIBLES "SHALL BE
CONSIDERED TO ARISE OUT OF BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN A STATE OTHER THAN
THAT IN WHICH THE OWNER THEREOF RESIDES" UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. 
THIS BASIC RULE SEPARATES THE SITUS OF INTANGIBLES FROM THE RESIDENCE
OF THEIR OWNER WHEREAS IT HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN AT SUCH RESIDENCE,
THOUGH WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS.  THE EFFECT IS THAT INTANGIBLES OF
NONRESIDENT OWNERS ARE ASSIGNED A SITUS WITHIN THE TAXING REACH OF OHIO
WHILE THOSE OF ITS RESIDENTS ARE ASSIGNED A SITUS WITHOUT.  THE PLAN
MAY BE SAID TO BE LOGICALLY CONSISTENT IN THAT, WHILE IT DRAWS ALL SUCH
INTANGIBLES OF NON-RESIDENTS WITHIN THE TAXING POWER OF OHIO, IT BY THE
SAME FORMULA EXCLUDES THOSE OF RESIDENTS.  THE EXEMPTED INTANGIBLES OF
RESIDENTS ARE OFFERED UP TO THE TAXING POWER OF OTHER STATES WHICH MAY
EMBRACE THIS DOCTRINE OF A TAX SITUS SEPARATE FROM RESIDENCE.  THIS IS
WHAT IS MEANT HERE BY RECIPROCITY, AND THE TWO PROVISIONS ARE DECLARED
INSEPARABLE; SO THAT IF THE FORMULA BY WHICH OHIO TAKES UNTO ITSELF THE
ACCOUNTS OF NONRESIDENTS IS HELD INVALID, "SUCH DECISION SHALL BE
DEEMED ALSO TO AFFECT SUCH PROVISION AS APPLIED TO PROPERTY OF A
RESIDENT." 

IT IS HARD TO SEE THAT THIS OFFER OF RECIPROCITY RESTORES TO
APPELLANTS ANY OF THE EQUALITY WHICH THE APPLICATION OF THE OHIO TAX,
CONSIDERED ALONE, SO OBVIOUSLY DENIES.  THERE IS NO INDICATION OF A
READINESS BY OTHER STATES TO COPY OHIO'S SITUS SCHEME SO AS TO TAX THAT
WHICH OHIO EXEMPTS.  THE PROFFERED EXCHANGE OF RESIDENTS FOR INTANGIBLE
TAX PURPOSES MAY NOT COMMEND ITSELF AS AN EVEN BARGAIN BETWEEN STATES. 
OHIO, BEING LARGE, POPULOUS AND HIGHLY INDUSTRIALIZED, WITH HEAVY AND
BASIC INDUSTRIES, MAY WELL HAVE MUCH MORE TO GAIN FROM A PLAN THE
EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO TAX CREDIT EXPORTS TO OTHER STATES, THAN MOST
STATES WOULD HAVE FROM A PRIVILEGE TO TAX ITS OWN EXPORTS INTO OHIO. 
IN THE SEVERAL YEARS THAT THE OHIO STATUTE HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS, NO
OTHER STATE HAS SOUGHT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE "RECIPROCITY" PROFFER. 
AND IF IT DID, THE EQUALITY OF RATES WHICH WOULD ALSO BE NECESSARY TO
EQUALIZE THE BURDEN BETWEEN NONRESIDENTS AND THEIR RESIDENT COMPETITORS
COULD BE HARDLY EXPECTED NOR IS IT PROVIDED FOR.  FAR FROM ACCEDING TO
THE SITUS DOCTRINE WHICH ALLOCATES THESE RECEIVABLES TO OHIO, THE STATE
OF WEST VIRGINIA STANDS ON THE VERY DIFFERENT SITUS DOCTRINE APPROVED
BY THIS COURT IN WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S. 193, AND UNDER
ITS AUTHORITY HAS FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION TAXED ALL OF THE RECEIVABLES
OF THE WHEELING COMPANY, INCLUDING THOSE OHIO SEEKS TO CLAIM AS HAVING
SITUS IN OHIO.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS PLAN OF "RECIPROCITY" IS NOT ONE
WHICH BY CREDITS OR OTHERWISE PROTECTS THE NONRESIDENT OR FOREIGN
CORPORATION AGAINST THE DISCRIMINATIONS APPARENT IN THE OHIO STATUTE. 
WE THINK THESE DISCRIMINATIONS DENY APPELLANTS EQUAL PROTECTION OF OHIO
LAW. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS
NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PERTINENT PARTS OF THE OHIO LAW READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 5328-1.  ...  PROPERTY OF THE KINDS AND CLASSES MENTIONED IN
TRANSACTED IN THIS STATE BY, FOR OR ON BEHALF OF A NON-RESIDENT PERSON
...  SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION; AND ALL SUCH PROPERTY OF PERSONS
RESIDING IN THIS STATE USED IN AND ARISING OUT OF BUSINESS TRANSACTED
OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE BY, FOR OR ON BEHALF OF SUCH PERSONS  ...  SHALL
NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION.  ... 

  .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 5328-2.  ...  PROPERTY OF THE KINDS AND CLASSES HEREIN
MENTIONED, WHEN USED IN BUSINESS, SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO ARISE OUT OF
BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN A STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH THE OWNER
THEREOF RESIDES IN THE CASES AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING: 

"IN THE CASE OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, WHEN RESULTING FROM THE SALE OF
PROPERTY SOLD BY AN AGENT HAVING AN OFFICE IN SUCH OTHER STATE OR FROM
A STOCK OF GOODS MAINTAINED THEREIN, OR FROM SERVICES PERFORMED BY AN
OFFICER, AGENT OR EMPLOYE CONNECTED WITH, SENT FROM, OR REPORTING TO
ANY OFFICER OR AT ANY OFFICE LOCATED IN SUCH OTHER STATE. 

     .         .         .      .         . 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE RECIPROCALLY APPLIED, TO THE
END THAT ALL PROPERTY OF THE KINDS AND CLASSES MENTIONED IN THIS
NO PROPERTY OF SUCH KINDS AND CLASSES BELONGING TO A PERSON RESIDING IN
THIS STATE AND HAVING A BUSINESS SITUS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE SHALL BE
TAXED.  IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE ASSIGNMENT OF A BUSINESS SITUS
OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE TO PROPERTY OF A PERSON RESIDING IN THIS STATE IN
ANY CASE AND UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THIS SECTION IS
INSEPARABLE FROM THE ASSIGNMENT OF SUCH SITUS IN THIS STATE TO PROPERTY
OF A PERSON RESIDING OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE IN A LIKE CASE AND UNDER
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  ...  " 

"SEC. 5325-1.  ...  MONEYS, DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS, ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE AND PREPAID ITEMS, AND OTHER TAXABLE INTANGIBLES SHALL BE
CONSIDERED TO BE 'USED' WHEN THEY OR THE AVAILS THEREOF ARE BEING
APPLIED, OR ARE INTENDED TO BE APPLIED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS,
WHETHER IN THIS STATE OR ELSEWHERE.  ... 

.         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 5638.  ...  ANNUAL TAXES ARE HEREBY LEVIED ON THE KINDS AND
CLASSES OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY, HEREINAFTER ENUMERATED, ON THE
CLASSIFIED TAX LIST IN THE OFFICES OF THE COUNTY AUDITORS AND
DUPLICATES THEREOF IN THE OFFICES OF THE COUNTY TREASURERS AT THE
FOLLOWING RATES, TO WIT: 

"  ...  MONEYS, CREDITS AND ALL OTHER TAXABLE INTANGIBLES SO LISTED,
THREE MILLS ON THE DOLLAR.  ...  " 

"SEC. 5327.  ...  THE TERM 'CREDITS' AS SO USED, MEANS THE EXCESS OF
THE SUM OF ALL CURRENT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PREPAID ITEMS (USED) IN
BUSINESS WHEN ADDED TOGETHER ESTIMATING EVERY SUCH ACCOUNT AND ITEM AT
ITS TRUE VALUE IN MONEY, OVER AND ABOVE THE SUM OF CURRENT ACCOUNTS
PAYABLE OF THE BUSINESS, OTHER THAN TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS.  ..."  OHIO
GEN. CODE ANN. (1945). 

FN2  150 OHIO ST. 229, 80 N.E.2D 863. 

FN3  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. 

THE WRITER OF THE COURT'S OPINION DEEMS IT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE
RECORD BY POINTING OUT WHY, IN WRITING BY ASSIGNMENT FOR THE COURT, HE
ASSUMED WITHOUT DISCUSSION THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT ARE AVAILABLE TO A CORPORATION.  IT WAS NOT QUESTIONED BY THE
STATE IN THIS CASE, NOR WAS IT CONSIDERED BY THE COURTS BELOW.  IT HAS
CONSISTENTLY BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
ASSURES CORPORATIONS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AT LEAST SINCE 1886,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U.S. 394, 396, AND
THAT IT ENTITLES THEM TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AT LEAST SINCE 1889,
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L.R. CO. V. BECKWITH, 129 U.S. 26, 28. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THIS PROPOSITION WAS ONCE CHALLENGED BY ONE JUSTICE. 
CONNECTICUT GENERAL CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77, 83(DISSENTING
OPINION).  BUT THE CHALLENGE DID NOT COMMEND ITSELF, EVEN TO SUCH
CONSISTENT LIBERALS AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND MR. JUSTICE STONE, AND
I HAD SUPPOSED IT WAS NO LONGER PRESSED.  SEE THE SAME JUSTICE'S
SEPARATE OPINION IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310,
322, MAKING NO MENTION OF THIS ISSUE. 

WITHOUT PRETENDING TO A COMPLETE ANALYSIS, I FIND THAT IN AT LEAST
TWO CASES DURING THIS CURRENT TERM THE SAME QUESTION WAS APPROPRIATE
FOR CONSIDERATION, AS HERE.  IN RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY V. NEW YORK, 336
U.S. 106, A CORPORATION CLAIMED TO BE DEPRIVED OF BOTH DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AND IN OTT V. MISSISSIPPI BARGE LINE, 336
U.S. 169, A CORPORATION CLAIMED TO BE DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  AT
PRIOR TERMS, IN MANY CASES THE QUESTION WAS ALSO INHERENT, FOR
CORPORATIONS MADE SIMILAR CLAIMS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE
E.G., ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 309 U.S. 157; LINCOLN LIFE
INSURANCE CO. V. READ, 325 U.S. 673; QUEENSIDE HILLS CO. V. SAXL, 328
U.S. 80.  ALTHOUGH THE AUTHOR OF THE PRESENT DISSENT WAS THE WRITER OF
EACH OF THE CITED COURT'S OPINIONS, IT WAS NOT INTIMATED THEREIN THAT
THERE WAS EVEN DOUBT WHETHER THE CORPORATIONS HAD STANDING TO RAISE THE
QUESTIONS OR WERE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION OF THE AMENDMENT.  INSTEAD, IN
EACH CASE THE AUTHOR, AS I HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE, PROCEEDED TO DISCUSS
AND DISPOSE OF THE CORPORATION'S CONTENTIONS ON THEIR MERITS, A QUITE
IMPROPER PROCEDURE, I SHOULD THINK, IF THE CORPORATION HAD NO STANDING
TO RAISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  INDEED, IF THE CORPORATION HAD
NO SUCH RIGHT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THIS COURT WOULD HAVE
JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE CASE AT ALL. 

IT MAY BE SAID THAT IN THE FOREGOING CASES OTHER GROUNDS MIGHT HAVE
BEEN FOUND UPON WHICH TO DEFEAT THE CORPORATIONS' CLAIMS, WHILE IN THE
PRESENT CASE APPARENTLY THERE IS NONE. 

HOWEVER, IN AT LEAST TWO CASES THIS COURT, JOINED BY BOTH JUSTICES
NOW ASSERTING THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, RECENTLY HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO CORPORATIONS BY STRIKING DOWN
STATE ACTION AS CONFLICTING WITH CORPORATE RIGHTS UNDER THAT
AMENDMENT.  IN TIMES-MIRROR CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, COMPANION CASE TO
BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, A NEWSPAPER CORPORATION PERSUADED
THIS COURT THAT A $500 FINE ASSESSED AGAINST IT VIOLATED ITS RIGHTS
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331,
A NEWSPAPER CORPORATION WAS CONVICTED ALONG WITH AN INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANT, AND THIS COURT SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION UPON THE GROUND THAT
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITED SUCH STATE ACTION.  IN NEITHER OF
THESE CASES WAS THE CORPORATION'S RIGHT TO RAISE THE ISSUE QUESTIONED
AND THE RESULT IN EACH CASE WAS IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE POSITION NOW
ASSERTED IN DISSENT. 

IT CANNOT BE SUGGESTED THAT IN CASES WHERE THE AUTHOR IS THE MERE
INSTRUMENT OF THE COURT HE MUST FOREGO EXPRESSION OF HIS OWN
CONVICTIONS.  MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TAUGHT US HOW JUSTICES MAY WRITE FOR
THE COURT AND STILL RESERVE THEIR OWN POSITIONS, THOUGH OVERRULED. 
HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619, 639. 

IN VIEW OF THIS RECORD I DID NOT, AND STILL DO NOT, CONSIDER IT
NECESSARY FOR THE COURT OPINION TO REVIEW THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
JUSTIFY THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE CORPORATIONS HAVE STANDING TO RAISE
THE ISSUES DECIDED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

IT HAS BEEN IMPLICIT IN ALL OF OUR DECISIONS SINCE 1886 THAT A
CORPORATION IS A "PERSON" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN
PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394, 396, SO HELD.  THE COURT WAS CRYPTIC IN ITS
DECISION.  IT WAS SO SURE OF ITS GROUND THAT IT WROTE NO OPINION ON THE
POINT, CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE ANNOUNCING FROM THE BENCH:    "THE COURT
DOES NOT WISH TO HEAR ARGUMENT ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROVISION IN
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH FORBIDS A STATE TO
DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS, APPLIES TO THESE CORPORATIONS.  WE ARE ALL OF OPINION THAT IT
DOES." 

THERE WAS NO HISTORY, LOGIC, OR REASON GIVEN TO SUPPORT THAT VIEW. 
NOR WAS THE RESULT SO OBVIOUS THAT EXPOSITION WAS UNNECESSARY. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAME A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1868. 
IN 1871 A CORPORATION CLAIMED THAT LOUISIANA HAD IMPOSED ON IT A TAX
THAT VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE NEW AMENDMENT.  MR.
JUSTICE WOODS (THEN CIRCUIT JUDGE) HELD THAT "PERSON" AS THERE USED DID
NOT INCLUDE A CORPORATION AND ADDED, "THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTION
IS STRENGTHENED BY THE HISTORY OF THE SUBMISSION BY CONGRESS, AND THE
ADOPTION BY THE STATES OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, SO FRESH IN ALL MINDS AS
TO NEED NO REHEARSAL."  INSURANCE CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 1 WOODS 85, 88. 

WHAT WAS OBVIOUS TO MR. JUSTICE WOODS IN 1871 WAS STILL PLAIN TO THE
COURT IN 1873.  MR. JUSTICE MILLER IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16
WALL.  36, 71, ADVERTED TO EVENTS "ALMOST TOO RECENT TO BE CALLED
HISTORY" TO SHOW THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT WAS TO PROTECT HUMAN
RIGHTS - PRIMARILY THE RIGHTS OF A RACE WHICH HAD JUST WON ITS
FREEDOM.  AND AS RESPECTS THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE HE STATED, "THE
EXISTENCE OF LAWS IN THE STATES WHERE THE NEWLY EMANCIPATED NEGROES
RESIDED, WHICH DISCRIMINATED WITH GROSS INJUSTICE AND HARDSHIP AGAINST
THEM AS A CLASS, WAS THE EVIL TO BE REMEDIED BY THIS CLAUSE, AND BY IT
SUCH LAWS ARE FORBIDDEN."  P. 81. 

MOREOVER WHAT WAS CLEAR TO THESE EARLIER JUDGES WAS APPARENTLY PLAIN
TO THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED TO MAKE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A PART OF OUR
CONSTITUTION.  FOR AS MR. JUSTICE BLACK POINTED OUT IN HIS DISSENT IN
CONNECTICUT GENERAL CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77, 87, THE SUBMISSION OF
THE AMENDMENT TO THE PEOPLE WAS ON THE BASIS THAT IT PROTECTED HUMAN
BEINGS.  THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION IN ITS SUBMISSION THAT IT WAS DESIGNED
TO PUT NEGROES AND CORPORATIONS INTO ONE CLASS AND SO DILUTE THE POLICE
POWER OF THE STATES OVER CORPORATE AFFAIRS.  ARTHUR TWINING HADLEY ONCE
WROTE THAT "THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS FRAMED TO PROTECT THE NEGROES
FROM OPPRESSION BY THE WHITES, NOT TO PROTECT CORPORATIONS FROM
OPPRESSION BY THE LEGISLATURE.  IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER A SINGLE ONE OF
THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO VOTED FOR IT HAD ANY IDEA THAT IT WOULD
TOUCH THE QUESTION OF CORPORATE REGULATION AT ALL."  FN1 

BOTH MR. JUSTICE WOODS IN INSURANCE CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, SUPRA, P. 88,
AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK IN HIS DISSENT IN CONNECTICUT GENERAL CO. V.
JOHNSON, SUPRA, PP. 88-89, HAVE SHOWN HOW STRAINED A CONSTRUCTION IT IS
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SO TO HOLD.  SECTION 1 OF THE AMENDMENT
PROVIDES: 

"ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO
THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE
STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE.  NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW
WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY,
OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

"PERSONS" IN THE FIRST SENTENCE PLAINLY INCLUDES ONLY HUMAN BEINGS,
FOR CORPORATIONS ARE NOT "BORN OR NATURALIZED." 

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT "CITIZENS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST
CLAUSE OF THE SECOND SENTENCE.  WESTERN TURF ASSN. V. GREENBERG, 204
U.S. 359, 363; SELOVER, BATES & CO. V. WALSH, 226 U.S. 112, 126.  FN2 

IT HAS NEVER BEEN HELD THAT THEY ARE PERSONS WHOM A STATE MAY NOT
DEPRIVE OF "LIFE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND CLAUSE OF THE SECOND
SENTENCE. 

"LIBERTY" IN THAT CLAUSE IS "THE LIBERTY OF NATURAL, NOT ARTIFICIAL,
PERSONS."  WESTERN TURF ASSN. V. GREENBERG, SUPRA, P. 363. 

BUT "PROPERTY" AS USED IN THAT CLAUSE HAS BEEN HELD TO INCLUDE THAT
OF A CORPORATION SINCE 1889 WHEN MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L.R. CO. V.
BECKWITH, 129 U.S. 26, WAS DECIDED. 

IT REQUIRES DISTORTION TO READ "PERSON" AS MEANING ONE THING, THEN
ANOTHER WITHIN THE SAME CLAUSE AND FROM CLAUSE TO CLAUSE.  IT MEANS, IN
MY OPINION, A SUBSTANTIAL REVISION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AS TO
THE MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION, THE SENSE SEEMS TO ME TO BE WITH MR.
JUSTICE WOODS IN INSURANCE CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, SUPRA, P. 88, WHERE HE
SAID, "THE PLAIN AND EVIDENT MEANING OF THE SECTION IS, THAT THE
PERSONS TO WHOM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IS SECURED ARE PERSONS
BORN OR NATURALIZED OR ENDOWED WITH LIFE AND LIBERTY, AND CONSEQUENTLY
NATURAL AND NOT ARTIFICIAL PERSONS." 

HISTORY HAS GONE THE OTHER WAY.  SINCE 1886 THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY
STRUCK DOWN STATE LEGISLATION AS APPLIED TO CORPORATIONS ON THE GROUND
THAT IT VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  FN3  EVERY ONE OF OUR
DECISIONS UPHOLDING LEGISLATION AS APPLIED TO CORPORATIONS OVER THE
OBJECTION THAT IT VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE HAS ASSUMED THAT
THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  BUT IN THOSE CASES
IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO MEET THE ISSUE SINCE THE STATE LAW WAS NOT
FOUND TO CONTAIN THE ELEMENTS OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE CONDEMNS.  BUT NOW THAT THE QUESTION IS SQUARELY
PRESENTED I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE SANTA CLARA CASE WAS WRONG AND
SHOULD BE OVERRULED. 

ONE HESITATES TO OVERRULE CASES EVEN IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL FIELD THAT
ARE OF AN OLD VINTAGE.  BUT THAT HAS NEVER BEEN A DETERRENT HERETOFORE
FN4  AND SHOULD NOT BE NOW. 

WE ARE DEALING WITH A QUESTION OF VITAL CONCERN TO THE PEOPLE OF THE
NATION.  IT MAY BE MOST DESIRABLE TO GIVE CORPORATIONS THIS PROTECTION
FROM THE OPERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  BUT THAT QUESTION IS
NOT FOR US.  IT IS FOR THE PEOPLE.  IF THEY WANT CORPORATIONS TO BE
TREATED AS HUMANS ARE TREATED, IF THEY WANT TO GRANT CORPORATIONS THIS
LARGE DEGREE OF EMANCIPATION FROM STATE REGULATION,  FN5  THEY SHOULD
SAY SO.  THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES A METHOD BY WHICH THEY MAY DO SO.
WE SHOULD NOT DO IT FOR THEM THROUGH THE GUISE OF INTERPRETATION. 

FN1  THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF PROPERTY IN AMERICA, 64
INDEPENDENT 834, 836(1908).  HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE DARTMOUTH
COLLEGE CASE (4 WHEAT.  518) AND THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IN THE SANTA CLARA CASE "HAVE HAD THE EFFECT OF PLACING THE
MODERN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION IN AN ALMOST IMPREGNABLE CONSTITUTIONAL
POSITION."  ID., P. 836. 

AS TO WHETHER THE FRAMERS OF THE AMENDMENT MAY HAVE HAD SUCH AN
UNDISCLOSED PURPOSE, SEE GRAHAM, THE "CONSPIRACY THEORY" OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 47 YALE L.J. 371. 

FN2  CF. MCGOVNEY, A SUPREME COURT FICTION, 56 HARV. L. REV. 853,
1090, 1225, DEALING WITH CORPORATIONS IN THE DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

FN3  SEE CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 134 U.S. 418; GULF,
COLORADO & SANTA FE R. CO. V. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150; COTTING V. KANSAS
CITY STOCKYARDS CO., 183 U.S. 79; CONNOLLY V. UNION SEWER PIPE CO., 184
U.S. 540; SOUTHERN R. CO. V. GREENE, 216 U.S. 400; HERNDON V. CHICAGO,
ROCK ISLAND & PAC. R. CO., 218 U.S. 135; ROACH V. ATCHISON, T. & SANTA
FE R. CO., 218 U.S. 159; ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. VOSBURG, 238 U.S.
56; GAST REALTY CO. V. SCHNEIDER GRANITE CO., 240 U.S. 55; MCFARLAND V.
AMERICAN SUGAR CO., 241 U.S. 79; ROYSTER GUANO CO. V. VIRGINIA, 253
U.S. 412; BETHLEHEM MOTORS CORP. V. FLYNT, 256 U.S. 421; KANSAS CITY
SO. R. CO. V. ROAD IMP.  DIST.  NO. 6, 256 U.S. 658; C. & N.W.R. CO. V.
NYE CO., 260 U.S. 35; SIOUX CITY BRIDGE CO. V. DAKOTA COUNTY, 260 U.S.
441; THOMAS V. KANSAS CITY SO. R. CO., 261 U.S. 481; KENTUCKY CO. V.
PARAMOUNT EXCH., 262 U.S. 544; AIR-WAY CORP. V. DAY, 266 U.S. 71;
HANOVER INS. CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494; POWER CO. V. SAUNDERS, 274
U.S. 490; LOUISVILLE GAS CO. V. COLEMAN, 277 U.S. 32; QUAKER CITY CAB
CO. V. PENNA., 277 U.S. 389; CUMBERLAND COAL CO. V. BOARD, 284 U.S. 23;
LIGGETT CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. 517; CONCORDIA INS. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 292
U.S. 535; STEWART DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294 U.S. 550; MAYFLOWER FARMS
V. TEN EYCK, 297 U.S. 266; HARTFORD CO. V. HARRISON, 301 U.S. 459. 

FN4  IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443, OVERRULED IN PART OSBORN V. UNITED
STATES BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738, A DECISION 63 YEARS OLD; LEISY V. HARDIN,
135 U.S. 100, OVERRULED PEIRCE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 5 HOW.  504, A
DECISION 42 YEARS OLD.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, OVERRULED
SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1, A DECISION 95 YEARS OLD; GRAVES V. N.Y. EX
REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, OVERRULED COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113,
A DECISION 68 YEARS OLD.  UNITED STATES V. UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S.
533, OVERRULED IN PART PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, A DECISION 75
YEARS OLD. 

FN5  THE RESTRICTIONS ON STATE POWER WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AND WHICH MAY PREVENT THE STATES FROM BURDENING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE (SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761;
MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373) OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST IT (SEE
NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416) RISE FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE AND ARE
NOT RELEVANT HERE. 
..END :

















NATIONAL INS. CO. V. TIDEWATER CO., 337 U.S. 582 


NO. 29.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 165 F.2D
531, REVERSED. 


THE ACT OF APRIL 20, 1940, C. 117, 54 STAT. 143(NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1332), CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION OF CIVIL
ACTIONS (INVOLVING NO FEDERAL QUESTION) BETWEEN CITIZENS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND CITIZENS OF A STATE.  A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CORPORATION INSTITUTED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND AN
ACTION AGAINST A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, WHEREIN THE JURISDICTION
DEPENDED SOLELY ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  HELD:  THE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED.  PP. 583-585, 604. 

NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. V. TIDEWATER TRANSFER CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CORPORATION SUED A VIRGINIA CORPORATION IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND, THE JURISDICTION DEPENDING SOLELY
ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  165 F.2D 531.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 860.  REVERSED, P. 604. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN. 

THIS CASE CALLS UP FOR REVIEW A HOLDING THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
FOR CONGRESS TO OPEN FEDERAL COURTS IN THE SEVERAL STATES TO ACTION BY
A CITIZEN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST A CITIZEN OF ONE OF THE
STATES.  THE PETITIONER, AS PLAINTIFF, COMMENCED IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND AN ACTION FOR A MONEY JUDGMENT ON A CLAIM
ARISING OUT OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT.  NO CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE
LAWS OR CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS PLEADED, JURISDICTION
BEING PREDICATED ONLY UPON AN ALLEGATION OF DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP.  THE
DIVERSITY SET FORTH WAS THAT PLAINTIFF IS A CORPORATION CREATED BY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW, WHILE THE DEFENDANT IS A CORPORATION
CHARTERED BY VIRGINIA, AMENABLE TO SUIT IN MARYLAND BY VIRTUE OF A
LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS THERE.  THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE CONCLUDED
THAT, WHILE THIS DIVERSITY MET JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
ACT OF CONGRESS,  FN1  IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH DIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CONSTITUTION AS TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION, AND SO DISMISSED.  FN2 THE
COURT OF APPEALS, BY A DIVIDED COURT, AFFIRMED.  FN3  OF TWELVE
DISTRICT COURTS THAT HAD CONSIDERED THE QUESTION UP TO THE TIME REVIEW
IN THIS COURT WAS SOUGHT, ALL EXCEPT THREE HAD HELD THE ENABLING ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL  FN4,  AND THE TWO COURTS OF APPEALS WHICH HAD SPOKEN
ON THE SUBJECT AGREED WITH THAT CONCLUSION.  FN5  THE CONTROVERSY
OBVIOUSLY WAS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR REVIEW HERE AND WRIT OF CERTIORARI
ISSUED IN THE CASE.  FN6 

THE HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY BEGINS WITH THAT OF THE REPUBLIC.  IN
DEFINING THE CASES AND CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES COULD EXTEND, THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDED THOSE "BETWEEN
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES."  FN7 IN THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789,
CONGRESS CREATED A SYSTEM OF FEDERAL COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE AND GAVE
THEM JURISDICTION OF SUITS "BETWEEN A CITIZEN OF THE STATE WHERE THE
SUIT IS BROUGHT, AND A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE."  FN8 IN 1804, THE
SUPREME COURT, THROUGH CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, HELD THAT A CITIZEN OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS NOT A CITIZEN OF A STATE WITHIN THE
MEANING AND INTENDMENT OF THIS ACT.  FN9  THIS DECISION CLOSED FEDERAL
COURTS IN THE STATES TO CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN
DIVERSITY CASES, AND FOR 136 YEARS THEY REMAINED CLOSED.  IN 1940
CONGRESS ENACTED THE STATUTE CHALLENGED HERE.  IT CONFERS ON SUCH
COURTS JURISDICTION IF THE ACTION "IS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
STATES, OR CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII, OR ALASKA, AND ANY STATE OR TERRITORY."  FN10  THE ISSUE HERE
DEPENDS UPON THE VALIDITY OF THIS ACT, WHICH, IN SUBSTANCE, WAS
REENACTED BY A LATER CONGRESS  FN11 AS PART OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 
FN12 

BEFORE CONCENTRATING ON DETAIL, IT MAY BE WELL TO PLACE THE GENERAL
ISSUE IN A LARGER PERSPECTIVE.  THIS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AFFECTS ONLY
THE MECHANICS OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE IN OUR FEDERATION.  IT DOES NOT
INVOLVE AN EXTENSION OR A DENIAL OF ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OR IMMUNITY
WHICH GOES TO MAKE UP OUR FREEDOMS.  THOSE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS DO NOT
INCLUDE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT BY A CITIZEN OF COLUMBIA OR EXEMPTION FROM
PROCESS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  DEFENDANT CONCEDES THAT IT CAN
PRESENTLY BE SUED IN SOME COURT OF LAW, IF NOT THIS ONE, AND IT GRANTS
THAT CONGRESS MAY MAKE IT SUABLE AT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IN SOME, IF
NOT THIS, FEDERAL COURT.  DEFENDANT'S CONTENTION ONLY AMOUNTS TO THIS:
THAT IT CANNOT BE MADE TO ANSWER THIS PLAINTIFF IN THE PARTICULAR COURT
WHICH CONGRESS HAS DECIDED IS THE JUST AND CONVENIENT FORUM. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH BID US STRICTLY TO APPLY THE CONSTITUTION TO
CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS WHICH INVADE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OR WHICH
REACH FOR POWERS THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY DISTURB THE BALANCE BETWEEN
THE UNION AND ITS COMPONENT STATES, ARE NOT PRESENT HERE.  IN MERE
MECHANICS OF GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION WE SHOULD, SO FAR AS THE
LANGUAGE OF THE GREAT CHARTER FAIRLY WILL PERMIT, GIVE CONGRESS FREEDOM
TO ADAPT ITS MACHINERY TO THE NEEDS OF CHANGING TIMES.  IN NO CASE
COULD THE ADMONITION OF THE GREAT CHIEF JUSTICE BE MORE APPROPRIATELY
HEEDED - "  ...  WE MUST NEVER FORGET, THAT IT IS A CONSTITUTION WE ARE
EXPOUNDING."  FN13 

OUR FIRST INQUIRY IS WHETHER, UNDER THE THIRD, OR JUDICIARY, ARTICLE
OF THE CONSTITUTION,  FN14 EXTENDING THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED
STATES TO CASES OR CONTROVERSIES "BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
STATES," A CITIZEN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS THE STANDING OF A
CITIZEN OF ONE OF THE STATES OF THE UNION.  THIS IS THE QUESTION WHICH
THE OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, BY WAY
OF DICTA IF NOT OF ACTUAL DECISION.  HEPBURN & DUNDAS V. ELLZEY, 2
CRANCH 445.  TO BE SURE, NOTHING WAS BEFORE THAT COURT EXCEPT
INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE  FN15 WHICH CONFERRED JURISDICTION
SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH NOTHING IN THE TEXT
OR CONTEXT TO SHOW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO REGARD THE DISTRICT AS A
STATE.  BUT MARSHALL RESOLVED THE STATUTORY QUESTION BY INVOKING THE
ANALOGY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE SAME TENOR AND REASONED
THAT THE DISTRICT WAS NOT A STATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND,
HENCE, WAS NOT FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  THE OPINION SUMMARILY DISPOSED
OF ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY, INCLUDING THE ONE REPEATED HERE THAT
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION INDICATE THAT "THE TERM STATE IS
SOMETIMES USED IN ITS MORE ENLARGED SENSE."  HERE, AS THERE, "ON
EXAMINING THE PASSAGES QUOTED, THEY DO NOT PROVE WHAT WAS TO BE SHOWN
BY THEM."  2 CRANCH 445, 453.  AMONG HIS CONTEMPORARIES AT LEAST, CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL WAS NOT GENERALLY CENSURED FOR UNDUE LITERALNESS IN
INTERPRETING THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DENY FEDERAL POWER AND
HE WROTE FROM CLOSE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOUNDERS AND THE
FOUNDATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE.  NOR DID HE UNDERESTIMATE
THE EQUITABLE CLAIMS WHICH HIS DECISION DENIED TO RESIDENTS OF THE
DISTRICT, FOR HE SAID THAT "IT IS TRUE THAT AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND OF THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS, IT IS EXTRAORDINARY THAT THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES, WHICH ARE OPEN TO ALIENS, AND TO THE CITIZENS OF EVERY
STATE IN THE UNION, SHOULD BE CLOSED UPON THEM.  - BUT THIS IS A
SUBJECT FOR LEGISLATIVE NOT FOR JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION."  FN16 

THE LATTER SENTENCE, TO WHICH MUCH IMPORTANCE IS ATTACHED, IS
SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS, BECAUSE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AS WELL AS
STATUTORY REVISION IS FOR LEGISLATIVE, NOT JUDICIAL, CONSIDERATION. 
BUT THE OPINION AS A WHOLE LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE COURT DID NOT THEN
REGARD THE DISTRICT AS A STATE FOR DIVERSITY PURPOSES. 

TO NOW OVERRULE THIS EARLY DECISION OF THE COURT ON THIS POINT AND
HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS A STATE WOULD, AS THAT OPINION
POINTED OUT, GIVE TO THE WORD "STATE" A MEANING IN THE ARTICLE WHICH
SETS UP THE JUDICIAL ESTABLISHMENT QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH IT
CARRIES IN THOSE ARTICLES WHICH SET UP THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS AND IN
OTHER ARTICLES OF THE INSTRUMENT.  WHILE THE WORD IS ONE WHICH CAN
CONTAIN MANY MEANINGS, SUCH INCONSISTENCY IN A SINGLE INSTRUMENT IS TO
BE IMPLIED ONLY WHERE THE CONTEXT CLEARLY REQUIRES IT.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE FOUNDERS, PRESSED BY MORE GENERAL AND IMMEDIATE
ANXIETIES, THOUGHT OF THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN CONNECTION WITH THE JUDICIARY.  THIS IS NOT STRANGE, FOR THE
DISTRICT WAS THEN ONLY A CONTEMPLATED ENTITY.  BUT, HAD THEY THOUGHT OF
IT, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AS
A STATE AND MUCH TO INDICATE THAT IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED SPECIAL
PROVISIONS TO FIT ITS ANOMALOUS RELATIONSHIP INTO THE NEW JUDICIAL
SYSTEM, JUST AS IT DID TO FIT IT INTO THE NEW POLITICAL SYSTEM. 

IN REFERRING TO THE "STATES" IN THE FATEFUL INSTRUMENT WHICH
AMALGAMATED THEM INTO THE "UNITED STATES," THE FOUNDERS OBVIOUSLY WERE
NOT SPEAKING OF STATES IN THE ABSTRACT.  THEY REFERRED TO THOSE
CONCRETE ORGANIZED SOCIETIES WHICH WERE THEREBY CONTRIBUTING TO THE
FEDERATION BY DELEGATING SOME PART OF THEIR SOVEREIGN POWERS AND TO
THOSE THAT SHOULD LATER BE ORGANIZED AND ADMITTED TO THE PARTNERSHIP IN
THE METHOD PRESCRIBED.  THEY OBVIOUSLY DID NOT CONTEMPLATE UNORGANIZED
AND DEPENDENT SPACES AS STATES.  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEING
NONEXISTENT IN ANY FORM, MUCH LESS AS A STATE, AT THE TIME OF THE
COMPACT, CERTAINLY WAS NOT TAKEN INTO THE UNION OF STATES BY IT, NOR
HAS IT SINCE BEEN ADMITTED AS A NEW STATE IS REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTED. 

WE THEREFORE DECLINE TO OVERRULE THE OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL, AND WE HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NOT A STATE
WITHIN ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN OTHER WORDS, CASES BETWEEN
CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT AND THOSE OF THE STATES WERE NOT INCLUDED IN
THE CATALOGUE OF CONTROVERSIES OVER WHICH THE CONGRESS COULD GIVE
JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS BY VIRTUE OF ART. III. 

THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT, HOWEVER, DETERMINE THAT CONGRESS LACKS
POWER UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION TO ENACT THIS
LEGISLATION.  CONGRESS, BY THE ACT IN QUESTION, SOUGHT NOT TO CHALLENGE
OR DISAGREE WITH THE DECISION OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL THAT THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NOT A STATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES.  IT WAS CAREFUL
TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH THAT DECISION BY BASING THE NEW LEGISLATION ON
POWERS THAT HAD NOT BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE FIRST CONGRESS IN PASSING
THE ACT OF 1789. 

THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECOMMENDED
THE ACT OF APRIL 20, 1940, AS "A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AND FOR THE TERRITORIES."  FN17  THIS POWER THE CONSTITUTION
CONFERS IN BROAD TERMS.  BY ART. I, CONGRESS IS EMPOWERED "TO EXERCISE
EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER, OVER SUCH DISTRICT." 
FN18 AND OF COURSE IT WAS ALSO AUTHORIZED "TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL
BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION" SUCH POWERS.  FN19
THESE PROVISIONS WERE NOT RELEVANT IN CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT OF 1789 BECAUSE IT DID NOT REFER IN TERMS TO
THE DISTRICT BUT ONLY TO STATES.  IT IS THEREFORE SIGNIFICANT THAT,
HAVING DECIDED THAT DISTRICT CITIZENS' CASES WERE NOT BROUGHT WITHIN
FEDERAL JURISDICTION BY ART. III AND THE STATUTE ENACTED PURSUANT TO
IT, THE CHIEF JUSTICE ADDED, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THAT IT WAS EXTRAORDINARY
THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE CITIZENS OF "THAT
PARTICULAR DISTRICT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS." 
SUCH LANGUAGE CLEARLY REFERS TO CONGRESS' ART. I POWER OF "EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATION IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER, OVER SUCH DISTRICT."  AND MENTION
OF THAT POWER SEEMS PARTICULARLY SIGNIFICANT IN THE CONTEXT OF
MARSHALL'S FURTHER STATEMENT THAT THE MATTER IS A SUBJECT FOR
"LEGISLATIVE NOT FOR JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION."  EVEN IF IT BE CONSIDERED
SPECULATION TO SAY THAT THIS WAS AN EXPRESSION BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE
THAT CONGRESS HAD THE REQUISITE POWER UNDER ART. I, IT WOULD BE IN THE
TEETH OF HIS LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT IT IS A DENIAL OF SUCH POWER.  THE
CONGRESS HAS ACTED ON THE BELIEF THAT IT POSSESSES THAT POWER.  WE
BELIEVE THEIR CONCLUSION IS WELL FOUNDED. 

IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT THE EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS FOR
THE WELFARE OF THE DISTRICT INCLUDES BOTH POWER AND DUTY TO PROVIDE ITS
INHABITANTS AND CITIZENS WITH COURTS ADEQUATE TO ADJUDGE NOT ONLY
CONTROVERSIES AMONG THEMSELVES BUT ALSO THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST, AS WELL
AS SUITS BROUGHT BY, CITIZENS OF THE VARIOUS STATES.  IT LONG HAS BEEN
HELD THAT CONGRESS MAY CLOTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS NOT ONLY WITH
THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF FEDERAL COURTS IN THE SEVERAL STATES BUT
WITH SUCH AUTHORITY AS A STATE MAY CONFER ON HER COURTS.  KENDALL V.
UNITED STATES, 12 PET. 524, 619; CAPITAL TRACTION CO. V. HOF, 174 U.S.
1; O'DONOGHUE V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 516.  THE DEFENDANT HERE DOES
NOT CHALLENGE THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ASSURE JUSTICE TO THE CITIZENS
OF THE DISTRICT BY MEANS OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES, OR TO EMPOWER A
FEDERAL COURT WITHIN THE DISTRICT TO RUN ITS PROCESS TO SUMMON
DEFENDANTS HERE FROM ANY PART OF THE COUNTRY.  AND NO REASON HAS BEEN
ADVANCED WHY A SPECIAL STATUTORY COURT FOR CASES OF DISTRICT CITIZENS
COULD NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED ELSEWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES TO
SIT, WHERE NECESSARY OR PROPER, TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF CONGRESS
TOWARD DISTRICT CITIZENS. 

HOWEVER, IT IS CONTENDED THAT CONGRESS MAY NOT COMBINE THIS FUNCTION,
UNDER ART. I, WITH THOSE UNDER ART. III, IN DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  TWO OBJECTIONS ARE URGED TO THIS.  ONE IS THAT NO
JURISDICTION OTHER THAN SPECIFIED IN ART. III CAN BE IMPOSED ON COURTS
THAT EXERCISE THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES THEREUNDER.  THE
OTHER IS THAT ART. I POWERS OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MUST BE
EXERCISED SOLELY WITHIN THAT GEOGRAPHIC AREA.    OF COURSE THERE ARE
LIMITS TO THE NATURE OF DUTIES WHICH CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS VESTED WITH THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER.  THE
DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS IS FUNDAMENTAL IN OUR SYSTEM.  IT
ARISES, HOWEVER, NOT FROM ART. III NOR ANY OTHER SINGLE PROVISION OF
THE CONSTITUTION, BUT BECAUSE "BEHIND THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS ARE POSTULATES WHICH LIMIT AND CONTROL."  CHIEF JUSTICE
HUGHES IN MONACO V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 313, 323.  THE PERMEATIVE
NATURE OF THIS DOCTRINE WAS EARLY RECOGNIZED DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION.  OBJECTION THAT THE PRESENT PROVISION GIVING FEDERAL COURTS
JURISDICTION OF CASES ARISING "UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION" WOULD PERMIT
USURPATION OF NONJUDICIAL FUNCTIONS BY THE FEDERAL COURTS WAS OVERRULED
AS UNWARRANTED SINCE IT WAS "GENERALLY SUPPOSED THAT THE JURISDICTION
GIVEN WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY LIMITED TO CASES OF A JUDICIARY NATURE."  2
FARRAND, RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, 430.  AND THIS STATUTE
REFLECTS THAT DOCTRINE.  IT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE OR REQUIRE EITHER THE
DISTRICT COURTS OR THIS COURT TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY LEGISLATIVE,
ADMINISTRATIVE, POLITICAL OR OTHER NONJUDICIAL FUNCTION OR TO RENDER
ANY ADVISORY OPINION.  THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED IS LIMITED TO
CONTROVERSIES OF A JUSTICIABLE NATURE, THE SOLE FEATURE DISTINGUISHING
THEM FROM COUNTLESS OTHER CONTROVERSIES HANDLED BY THE SAME COURTS
BEING THE FACT THAT ONE PARTY IS A DISTRICT CITIZEN.  NOR HAS THE
CONGRESS BY THIS STATUTE ATTEMPTED TO USURP ANY JUDICIAL POWER.  IT HAS
DELIBERATELY CHOSEN THE DISTRICT COURTS AS THE APPROPRIATE
INSTRUMENTALITY THROUGH WHICH TO EXERCISE PART OF THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS INCIDENTAL TO EXERTION OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE DISTRICT AND
ITS CITIZENS. 

UNLESS WE ARE TO DENY TO CONGRESS THE SAME CHOICE OF MEANS THROUGH
WHICH TO GOVERN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THAT WE HAVE HELD IT TO HAVE
IN EXERCISING OTHER LEGISLATIVE POWERS ENUMERATED IN THE SAME ARTICLE,
WE CANNOT HOLD THAT CONGRESS LACKED THE POWER IT SOUGHT TO EXERCISE IN
THE ACT BEFORE US. 

IT IS TOO LATE TO HOLD THAT JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS INCIDENTAL TO ART. I
POWERS OF CONGRESS CANNOT BE CONFERRED ON COURTS EXISTING UNDER ART.
III, FOR IT HAS BEEN DONE WITH THIS COURT'S APPROVAL.  O'DONOGHUE V.
UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 516.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT, ALTHOUGH
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS ARE ART. III COURTS, THEY CAN ALSO EXERCISE
JUDICIAL POWER CONFERRED BY CONGRESS PURSUANT TO ART. I. THE FACT THAT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS, AS LOCAL COURTS, CAN ALSO BE GIVEN
ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS WHICH OTHER ART. III COURTS
CANNOT EXERCISE, DOES BUT EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT, ALTHOUGH THE LATTER
ARE LIMITED TO THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER, IT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY
BE RECEIVED FROM EITHER ART. III OR ART. I, AND THAT CONGRESSIONAL
POWER OVER THE DISTRICT, FLOWING FROM ART. I, IS PLENARY IN EVERY
RESPECT. 

IT IS LIKEWISE TOO LATE TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD REACH THIS RESULT BY
OVERRULING CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL'S VIEW, UNLESS WE ARE PREPARED ALSO
TO OVERRULE MUCH MORE, INCLUDING SOME OF OUR OWN VERY RECENT
UTTERANCES.  MANY POWERS OF CONGRESS OTHER THAN ITS POWER TO GOVERN
COLUMBIA REQUIRE FOR THEIR INTELLIGENT AND DISCRIMINATING EXERCISE
DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSIES OF A JUSTICIABLE CHARACTER.  IN NO
INSTANCE HAS THIS COURT YET HELD THAT JURISDICTION OF SUCH CASES COULD
NOT BE PLACED IN THE REGULAR FEDERAL COURTS THAT CONGRESS HAS BEEN
AUTHORIZED TO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH.  WE TURN TO SOME ANALOGOUS
SITUATIONS IN WHICH WE HAVE APPROVED THE VERY COURSE THAT CONGRESS HAS
TAKEN HERE. 

CONGRESS IS GIVEN POWER BY ART. I TO PAY DEBTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THAT INVOLVES AS AN INCIDENT THE DETERMINATION OF DISPUTED CLAIMS.  WE
HAVE HELD UNANIMOUSLY THAT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY UNDER ART. I, NOT
THE ART. III JURISDICTION OVER SUITS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A
PARTY, IS THE SOLE SOURCE OF POWER TO ESTABLISH THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND
OF THE JUDICIAL POWER WHICH THAT COURT EXERCISES.  WILLIAMS V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 553.  IN THAT DECISION WE ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS THIS
SAME ART. I POWER THAT IS CONFERRED ON DISTRICT COURTS BY THE TUCKER
ACT FN20  WHICH AUTHORIZES THEM TO HEAR AND DETERMINE SUCH CLAIMS IN
LIMITED AMOUNTS.  SINCE A LEGISLATIVE COURT SUCH AS THE COURT OF CLAIMS
IS "INCAPABLE OF RECEIVING" ART. III JUDICIAL POWER, AMERICAN INSURANCE
CO. V. CANTER, 1 PET. 511, 546, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE POWER THUS
EXERCISED BY THAT COURT AND CONCURRENTLY BY THE DISTRICT COURTS FLOWS
FROM ART. I, NOT ART. III.  INDEED, MORE RECENTLY AND AGAIN
UNANIMOUSLY, THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT BY THE TUCKER ACT THE CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED THE DISTRICT COURTS TO SIT AS A COURT OF CLAIMS  FN21
EXERCISING THE SAME BUT NO MORE JUDICIAL POWER.  UNITED STATES V.
SHERWOOD, 312 U.S. 584, 591.  AND BUT A FEW TERMS AGO, IN CONSIDERING
AN ACT BY WHICH CONGRESS DIRECTED REHEARING OF A REJECTED CLAIM AND ITS
REDETERMINATION IN CONFORMITY WITH DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE ACT, CHIEF
JUSTICE STONE, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF ALL SITTING COLLEAGUES, REASONED
THAT "THE PROBLEM PRESENTED HERE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN IF CONGRESS HAD
GIVEN A LIKE DIRECTION TO ANY DISTRICT COURT TO BE FOLLOWED AS IN OTHER
TUCKER ACT CASES."  POPE V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 1, 14.  CONGRESS
HAS TAKEN US AT OUR WORD AND RECENTLY CONFERRED ON THE DISTRICT COURTS
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF TORT CLAIMS COGNIZABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT
CLAIMS ACT, 60 STAT. 842, 843, ALSO ENACTED PURSUANT TO ART. I POWERS. 
FN22  SEE BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 49. 

CONGRESS ALSO IS GIVEN POWER IN ART. I TO MAKE UNIFORM LAWS ON THE
SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES.  THAT THIS, AND NOT THE JUDICIAL POWER UNDER
ART. III, IS THE SOURCE OF OUR SYSTEM OF REORGANIZATIONS AND BANKRUPTCY
IS OBVIOUS, CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S.
648.  NOT ONLY MAY THE DISTRICT COURTS BE REQUIRED TO HANDLE THESE
PROCEEDINGS, BUT CONGRESS MAY ADD TO THEIR JURISDICTION CASES BETWEEN
THE TRUSTEE AND OTHERS THAT, BUT FOR THE BANKRUPTCY POWERS, WOULD BE
BEYOND THEIR JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF LACK OF DIVERSITY REQUIRED UNDER
ART. III.  SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, 293 U.S. 367.  IN THAT CASE, CHIEF
JUSTICE HUGHES FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT WROTE THAT, BY VIRTUE OF ITS ART.
I AUTHORITY OVER BANKRUPTCIES, THE CONGRESS COULD CONFER ON THE REGULAR
DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION OF "ALL CONTROVERSIES AT LAW AND IN
EQUITY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY, BETWEEN
TRUSTEES AS SUCH AND ADVERSE CLAIMANTS" TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED IN SEC.
23B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED.  SUCH JURISDICTION WAS THERE
UPHELD IN A PLENARY SUIT, IN A DISTRICT COURT, BY WHICH THE TRUSTEE
SOUGHT EQUITABLE RELIEF RELYING ON ALLEGATIONS RAISING ONLY QUESTIONS
OF OHIO LAW CONCERNING THE VALIDITY UNDER THAT LAW OF A SHERIFF'S LEVY
AND EXECUTION.  POSSESSION BY THE TRUSTEE NOT BEING SHOWN, AND THERE
BEING NO DIVERSITY, JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT COULD FLOW ONLY
FROM THE STATUTE.  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES NOTED THAT THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY AND SUITS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY WAS
RECOGNIZED BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE ITSELF, BUT HELD THAT "CONGRESS,
BY VIRTUE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER BANKRUPTCIES, COULD
CONFER OR WITHHOLD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUCH SUITS AND COULD
PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD HAVE
JURISDICTION.  ...  EXERCISING THAT POWER, THE CONGRESS PRESCRIBED IN
SEC. 23B THE CONDITION OF CONSENT ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT SUED BY
THE TRUSTEE.  SECTION 23B WAS THUS IN EFFECT A GRANT OF JURISDICTION
SUBJECT TO THAT CONDITION."  293 U.S. 367, 374.  HE CONCLUDED THAT THE
STATUTE GRANTED JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT "ALTHOUGH THE
BANKRUPT COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT SUIT THERE IF PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY
HAD NOT BEEN INSTITUTED  ...  "  293 U.S. 367, 377.  AND HE STATED THE
CORRECT VIEW TO BE THAT SEC. 23 CONFERRED SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION, 293
U.S. 367, 371, DISAPPROVING STATEMENTS IN AN EARLIER CASE THAT CONGRESS
LACKED POWER TO CONFER SUCH JURISDICTION.  ID. AT 377.  THUS, THE COURT
HELD THAT CONGRESS HAD POWER TO AUTHORIZE AN ART. III COURT TO
ENTERTAIN A NON-ART.  III SUIT BECAUSE SUCH JUDICIAL POWER WAS
CONFERRED UNDER ART. I. INDEED, THE PRESENT COURT HAS ASSUMED, WITHOUT
EVEN DISCUSSION, THAT CONGRESS HAS SUCH POWER.  IN WILLIAMS V.
AUSTRIAN, 331 U.S. 642, 657, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT,
SAID THAT " ...  CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE ELIMINATION OF SEC. 23(FROM
CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT) TO ESTABLISH THE JURISDICTION OF
FEDERAL COURTS TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS BROUGHT BY A REORGANIZATION
TRUSTEE, EVEN THOUGH DIVERSITY OR OTHER USUAL GROUND FOR FEDERAL
JURISDICTION IS LACKING."  THERE WAS VIGOROUS DISSENT AS TO THE MEANING
OF THE STATUTE, BUT THE DISSENTING JUSTICES REFERRED TO THE COURT'S
HOLDING THAT "A CHAPTER X TRUSTEE MAY BRING THIS PLENARY SUIT IN
PERSONAM IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT NOT THE REORGANIZATION COURT,
ALTHOUGH NEITHER DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP NOR OTHER GROUND OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION EXISTS."  331 U.S. 642, 664.  AND THE DISSENT CONTINUED:
"NO DOUBT CONGRESS COULD AUTHORIZE SUCH A SUIT.  SEE SCHUMACHER V.
BEELER, 293 U.S. 367, 374."  IBID. 

THIS ASSUMPTION BY THE COURT IN THE BEELER AND AUSTRIAN CASES, THAT
THE CONGRESS HAD POWER TO CONFER ON THE DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION OF
NONDIVERSITY SUITS INVOLVING ONLY STATE LAW QUESTIONS, MADE UNNECESSARY
ANY DISCUSSION OF THE SOURCE OF THE ASSUMED POWER.  IN VIEW OF
CONGRESS' PLENARY CONTROL OVER BANKRUPTCIES, THE COURT MAY HAVE
GROUNDED SUCH ASSUMPTION ON ART. I. OR IT MIGHT HAVE CONSIDERED THAT
THE JURISDICTION WAS BASED ON ART. III, AND STATUTES ENACTED PURSUANT
TO IT, GIVING THE DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION OVER SUITS ARISING UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  HAD THE COURT HELD
SUCH A VIEW, THIS LATTER MIGHT HAVE COMMENDED ITSELF AS THE MOST
OBVIOUS ANSWER.  CONSEQUENTLY, SILENCE IN THIS RESPECT, IN THE DECISION
OF EACH CASE, SEEMS SIGNIFICANT, PARTICULARLY IN CONTRAST WITH REPEATED
REFERENCE TO ART. I POWER IN THE BEELER CASE, AND SWEEPING LANGUAGE IN
THE AUSTRIAN CASE THAT SUCH JURISDICTION EXISTED DESPITE LACK OF
DIVERSITY "OR OTHER USUAL GROUND FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION." 
NEVERTHELESS, IT IS NOW ASSERTED, IN RETROSPECT, THAT THOSE CASES DID
ARISE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  NO JUSTIFICATION IS OFFERED
FOR THAT CONCLUSION AND THERE IS NO EFFORT TO SAY JUST WHY OR HOW THE
CASES DID SO ARISE.  THIS WOULD INDEED BE DIFFICULT IF WE STILL ADHERE
TO THE DOCTRINE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES THAT "A SUIT ARISES UNDER THE LAW
THAT CREATES THE CAUSE OF ACTION," AMERICAN WELL WORKS CO. V. LAYNE
CO., 241 U.S. 257, 260, FOR THE CAUSE OF ACTION IN EACH CASE RESTED
SOLELY ON STATE LAW. 

BUT THE MATTER DOES NOT REST ON INFERENCE ALONE.  OTHER DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT DEMONSTRATE CONCLUSIVELY THAT JURISDICTION OVER THE BEELER
AND AUSTRIAN SUITS WAS NOT AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFERRED UNDER ART.
III AND STATUTES CONCERNING SUITS ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  A MOST THOROUGHLY-CONSIDERED UTTERANCE OF THIS COURT ON THAT
SUBJECT WAS GIVEN BY MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, IN GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL
BANK, 299 U.S. 109, WHERE HE SAID, WITHOUT DISSENT, "HOW AND WHEN A
CASE ARISES 'UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES' HAS
BEEN MUCH CONSIDERED IN THE BOOKS.  SOME TESTS ARE WELL ESTABLISHED. 
TO BRING A CASE WITHIN THE STATUTE, A RIGHT OR IMMUNITY CREATED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES MUST BE AN ELEMENT, AND AN
ESSENTIAL ONE, OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION.  ...  THE RIGHT OR
IMMUNITY MUST BE SUCH THAT IT WILL BE SUPPORTED IF THE CONSTITUTION OR
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE GIVEN ONE CONSTRUCTION OR EFFECT, AND
DEFEATED IF THEY RECEIVE ANOTHER.  ...  A GENUINE AND PRESENT
CONTROVERSY, NOT MERELY A POSSIBLE OR CONJECTURAL ONE, MUST EXIST WITH
REFERENCE THERETO  ... AND THE CONTROVERSY MUST BE DISCLOSED UPON THE
FACE OF THE COMPLAINT  ...  "  299 U.S. 109, 112-113.  AFTER REVIEWING
PREVIOUS CASES, MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO REFERRED TO A THEN RECENT OPINION
BY MR. JUSTICE STONE IN WHICH HE SAID, FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, THAT
FEDERAL JURISDICTION "MAY NOT BE INVOKED WHERE THE RIGHT ASSERTED IS
NON-FEDERAL, MERELY BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO SUE IS DERIVED
FROM FEDERAL LAW, OR BECAUSE THE PROPERTY INVOLVED WAS OBTAINED UNDER
FEDERAL STATUTE.  THE FEDERAL NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED IS
DECISIVE - NOT THE SOURCE OF THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH IT."  PUERTO
RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., 288 U.S. 476, 483.  FN23  SEE ALSO SWITCHMEN'S
UNION V. BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T. R. CO., 320
U.S. 323. 

NEITHER THE AUSTRIAN NOR THE BEELER CASE MEETS THESE TESTS, REQUIRED
BEFORE A CASE CAN BE SAID TO ARISE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
ANY MORE THAN DOES THE CASE BEFORE US.  AUSTRIAN, AS TRUSTEE, SUED IN
EQUITY FOR AN ACCOUNTING BASED ON A CHARGE THAT AFFAIRS OF A STATE
CREATED CORPORATION HAD BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE OFFICERS IN VIOLATION OF
STATE LAW.  BEELER, AS TRUSTEE, SUED ON A CONTENTION THAT A LEVY ON
PROPERTY BY AN OHIO SHERIFF WAS VOID UNDER STATE LAW.  BOTH
CONTROVERSIES, LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US, CALLED FOR A DETERMINATION OF NO
LAW QUESTION EXCEPT THOSE ARISING UNDER STATE LAWS.  THE ONLY WAY IN
WHICH ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTED TO THE CASE WAS IN
OPENING THE DISTRICT COURTS TO THE TRUSTEE, UNDER ART. I POWERS OF
CONGRESS, JUST AS THE PRESENT STATUTE, UNDER THE SAME ARTICLE, OPENS
THOSE COURTS TO RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IN EACH CASE,
IN THE WORDS OF CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, THE FEDERAL LAW PROVIDED, NOT THE
RIGHT SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED, BUT ONLY THE AUTHORITY OF THE TRUSTEE
TO ESTABLISH IT.  THE FACT THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER BANKRUPTCY
GRANTED BY ART. I COULD OPEN THE COURT TO THE TRUSTEE DOES NOT MEAN
THAT SUCH SUITS ARISE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; BUT IT DOES
MEAN THAT ART. I CAN SUPPLY A SOURCE OF JUDICIAL POWER FOR THEIR
ADJUDICATION.  THE DISTINCTION IS IMPORTANT AND IT IS DECISIVE ON THIS
ISSUE.    NEITHER THE BEELER NOR THE AUSTRIAN CASE WAS ONE ARISING
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF RECENT
HOLDINGS BY THIS COURT.  UNLESS WE ARE TO DENY THE JURISDICTION IN SUCH
CASES WHICH HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN UPHELD, WE MUST RELY ON THE ART. I
POWERS OF THE CONGRESS.  WE HAVE BEEN CITED TO NO HOLDING THAT SUCH
JURISDICTION CANNOT SPRING FROM THAT ARTICLE.  UNDER ART. I THE
CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE DISTRICT COURTS NOT ONLY JURISDICTION OVER CASES
ARISING UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY LAW BUT ALSO JUDICIAL POWER OVER
NONDIVERSITY CASES WHICH DO NOT ARISE UNDER THAT OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL
LAW.  AND THIS COURT HAS UPHELD THE LATTER GRANT. 

CONSEQUENTLY, WE CAN DENY VALIDITY TO THIS PRESENT ACT OF CONGRESS,
ONLY BY SAYING THAT THE POWER OVER THE DISTRICT GIVEN BY ART. I IS
SOMEHOW LESS AMPLE THAN THAT OVER BANKRUPTCY GIVEN BY THE SAME
ARTICLE.  IF CONGRESS COULD REQUIRE THIS DISTRICT COURT TO DECIDE THIS
VERY CASE IF IT WERE BROUGHT BY A TRUSTEE, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY IT MAY
NOT REQUIRE ITS DECISION FOR A SOLVENT CLAIMANT WHEN DONE IN PURSUANCE
OF OTHER ART. I POWERS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT WHERE CONGRESS IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER
ART. I FINDS IT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THOSE ON WHOM ITS POWER IS EXERTED
WITH ACCESS TO SOME KIND OF COURT OR TRIBUNAL FOR DETERMINATION OF
CONTROVERSIES THAT ARE WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF THE
JUSTICIABLE, IT MAY OPEN THE REGULAR FEDERAL COURTS TO THEM REGARDLESS
OF LACK OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE BASIS OF THE HOLDINGS WE HAVE
DISCUSSED IS THAT, WHEN CONGRESS DEEMS THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSES IT OWES A
FORUM TO CLAIMANTS AND TRUSTEES, IT MAY EXECUTE ITS POWER IN THIS
MANNER.  THE CONGRESS, WITH EQUAL JUSTIFICATION, APPARENTLY CONSIDERS
THAT IT ALSO OWES SUCH A FORUM TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IN EXECUTION OF ITS POWER AND DUTY UNDER THE SAME ARTICLE.  WE
DO NOT SEE HOW THE ONE COULD BE SUSTAINED AND THE OTHER DENIED. 

WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT CONGRESS MAY EXERT ITS POWER TO GOVERN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY IMPOSING THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF ADJUDICATING
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSIES ON THE REGULAR FEDERAL COURTS  FN24  WHICH
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IT HAS THE POWER TO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH AND
WHICH IT MAY INVEST WITH JURISDICTION AND FROM WHICH IT MAY WITHHOLD
JURISDICTION "IN THE EXACT DEGREES AND CHARACTER WHICH TO CONGRESS MAY
SEEM PROPER FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD."  LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182,
187. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESSIONAL POWERS OVER THE DISTRICT ARE NOT TO
BE EXERCISED OUTSIDE OF ITS TERRITORIAL LIMITS ALSO IS PRESSED UPON US.
BUT THIS SAME CONTENTION HAS LONG BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT TO BE
UNTENABLE.  IN COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264, 425, 429, CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL, ANSWERING THE ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS, WHEN
LEGISLATING FOR THE DISTRICT, "WAS REDUCED TO A MERE LOCAL LEGISLATURE,
WHOSE LAWS COULD POSSESS NO OBLIGATION OUT OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE,"
SAID "CONGRESS IS NOT A LOCAL LEGISLATURE, BUT EXERCISES THIS
PARTICULAR POWER, LIKE ALL ITS OTHER POWERS, IN ITS HIGH CHARACTER, AS
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE UNION.  THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THOUGHT IT A
NECESSARY POWER, AND THEY CONFERRED IT FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.  BEING SO
CONFERRED, IT CARRIES WITH IT ALL THOSE INCIDENTAL POWERS WHICH ARE
NECESSARY TO ITS COMPLETE AND EFFECTUAL EXECUTION."  IN O'DONOGHUE V.
UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 516, 539, THIS COURT APPROVED A STATEMENT MADE
BY CIRCUIT JUDGE TAFT, LATER CHIEF JUSTICE OF THIS COURT, SPEAKING FOR
HIMSELF AND JUDGE (LATER MR. JUSTICE) LURTON, THAT "THE OBJECT OF THE
GRANT OF EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION OVER THE DISTRICT WAS, THEREFORE,
NATIONAL IN THE HIGHEST SENSE, AND THE CITY ORGANIZED UNDER THE GRANT
BECAME THE CITY, NOT OF A STATE, NOT OF A DISTRICT, BUT OF A NATION. 
IN THE SAME ARTICLE WHICH GRANTED THE POWERS OF EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION
OVER ITS SEAT OF GOVERNMENT ARE CONFERRED ALL THE OTHER GREAT POWERS
WHICH MAKE THE NATION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO BORROW MONEY ON THE
CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES.  HE WOULD BE A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST,
INDEED, WHO SHOULD DENY TO CONGRESS THE EXERCISE OF THIS LATTER POWER
IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT OF ORGANIZING AND MAINTAINING A PROPER LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AT THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT.  EACH IS FOR A NATIONAL PURPOSE,
AND THE ONE MAY BE USED IN AID OF THE OTHER.  ...  " AND, JUST PRIOR TO
ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE NOW CHALLENGED ON THIS GROUND, THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT ITSELF, SITTING EN BANC, AND RELYING ON THE
FOREGOING AUTHORITIES, HAD SAID THAT CONGRESS "POSSESSES FULL AND
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE" OF DISTRICT
CITIZENS "BY ANY AND EVERY ACT OF LEGISLATION WHICH IT MAY DEEM
CONDUCIVE TO THAT END ...  WHEN IT LEGISLATES FOR THE DISTRICT,
CONGRESS ACTS AS A LEGISLATURE OF NATIONAL CHARACTER, EXERCISING
COMPLETE LEGISLATIVE CONTROL AS CONTRASTED WITH THE LIMITED POWER OF A
STATE LEGISLATURE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND AS CONTRASTED WITH THE LIMITED
SOVEREIGNTY WHICH CONGRESS EXERCISES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
STATES, ON THE OTHER."  NEILD V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 71 APP. D.C.
306, 310, 110 F.2D 246, 250. 

WE COULD NOT OF COURSE COUNTENANCE ANY EXERCISE OF THIS PLENARY POWER
EITHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE DISTRICT IF IT WERE SUCH AS TO DRAW INTO
CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL SUBJECTS OVER WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO DELEGATION
OF POWER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  BUT, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THE
POWER TO MAKE THIS DEFENDANT SUABLE BY A DISTRICT CITIZEN IS NOT
CLAIMED TO BE OUTSIDE OF FEDERAL COMPETENCE.  IF CONGRESS HAS POWER TO
BRING THE DEFENDANT FROM HIS HOME ALL THE WAY TO A FORUM WITHIN THE
DISTRICT, THERE SEEMS LITTLE BASIS FOR DENYING IT POWER TO REQUIRE HIM
TO MEET THE PLAINTIFF PART WAS IN ANOTHER FORUM.  THE PRACTICAL ISSUE
HERE IS WHETHER, IF DEFENDANT IS TO BE SUABLE AT ALL BY DISTRICT
CITIZENS, HE MUST BE COMPELLED TO COME TO THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA OR PERHAPS TO A SPECIAL STATUTORY COURT SITTING OUTSIDE OF IT,
OR WHETHER CONGRESS MAY AUTHORIZE THE REGULAR FEDERAL COURTS TO
ENTERTAIN THE SUIT.  WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HOLDING THAT CONGRESS
IN ACCOMPLISHING AN END ADMITTEDLY WITHIN ITS POWER IS RESTRICTED TO
THOSE MEANS WHICH ARE MOST CUMBERSOME AND BURDENSOME TO A DEFENDANT. 
SINCE IT MAY PROVIDE THE DISTRICT CITIZEN WITH A FEDERAL FORUM IN WHICH
TO SUE THE CITIZENS OF ONE OF THE STATES, IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE A
FAIRER OR LESS PREJUDICED ONE THAN THE REGULAR FEDERAL COURTS SITTING
IN THE DEFENDANT'S OWN STATE.  TO VEST THE JURISDICTION IN THEM RATHER
THAN IN COURTS SITTING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WOULD SEEM LESS
HARSH TO DEFENDANTS AND MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF VENUE
THAT PREVAIL IN OUR SYSTEM UNDER WHICH DEFENDANTS ARE GENERALLY SUABLE
IN THEIR HOME FORUMS. 

THE ACT BEFORE US, AS WE SEE IT, IS NOT A RESORT BY CONGRESS TO THESE
MEANS TO REACH FORBIDDEN ENDS.  RATHER, CONGRESS IS REACHING
PERMISSIBLE ENDS BY A CHOICE OF MEANS WHICH CERTAINLY ARE NOT EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION.  NO GOOD REASON IS ADVANCED FOR THE
COURT TO DENY THEM BY IMPLICATION.  IN NO MATTER SHOULD WE PAY MORE
DEFERENCE TO THE OPINIONS OF CONGRESS THAN IN ITS CHOICE OF
INSTRUMENTALITIES TO PERFORM A FUNCTION THAT IS WITHIN ITS POWER.  FN25
TO PUT FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED JUSTICE WITHIN THE REACH OF DISTRICT
CITIZENS, IN CLAIMS AGAINST CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE, IS AN OBJECT
WHICH CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO ACCOMPLISH.  ITS OWN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED
VIEW THAT IT HAS THE POWER AND THAT IT IS NECESSARY AND PROPER TO
UTILIZE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS AS MEANS TO THIS END, IS ENTITLED
TO GREAT RESPECT.  OUR OWN IDEAS AS TO THE WISDOM OR DESIRABILITY OF
SUCH A STATUTE OR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AUTHORIZING IT ARE
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.  SUCH A LAW OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE STRICKEN DOWN
ONLY ON A CLEAR SHOWING THAT IT TRANSGRESSES CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS.  WE THINK NO SUCH SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE.  FN26  THE ACT IS
VALID. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF APRIL 20, 1940, C. 117, 54 STAT. 143.  FOR TERMS OF THE
STATUTE SEE NOTE 10. 

FN2  NO OPINION WAS FILED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH IN DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION RELIED UPON ITS FORMER DECISION
AND OPINION IN FEELY V. SIDNEY S. SCHUPPER INTERSTATE HAULING SYSTEM,
INC., 72 F.SUPP.  663. 

FN3  165 F.2D 531. 

FN4  THE ACT HAD BEEN UPHELD IN WINKLER V. DANIELS, 43 F.SUPP.  265;
GLAESER V. ACACIA MUTUAL LIFE ASSOCIATION, 55 F.SUPP.  925; AND IN DUZE
V. WOOLLEY, 72 F.SUPP.  422(WITH RESPECT TO HAWAII).  IT HAD BEEN HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE; IN CENTRAL
STATES CO-OPERATIVES V. WATSON BROS. TRANSPORTATION CO., AFFIRMED 165
F.2D 392, AND IN MCGARRY V. CITY OF BETHLEHEM, 45 F.SUPP.  385; BEHLERT
V. JAMES FOUNDATION, 60 F.SUPP.  706; OSTROW V. SAMUEL BRILLIANT CO.,
66 F.SUPP.  593; WILSON V. GUGGENHEIM, 70 F.SUPP.  417; FEELY V. SIDNEY
S. SCHUPPER INTERSTATE HAULING SYSTEM, 72 F.SUPP.  663; WILLIS V.
DENNIS, 72 F.SUPP.  853; AND IN MUTUAL BEN.  HEALTH & ACC.  ASSN.  V.
DAILEY, 75 F.SUPP.  832. 

FN5  THE ACT HAD BEEN HELD INVALID BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT IN THE INSTANT CASE, 165 F.2D 531, WITH JUDGE PARKER
DISSENTING; AND BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN
CENTRAL STATES CO-OPERATIVES V. WATSON BROS. TRANSPORTATION CO., 165
F.2D 392, WITH JUDGE EVANS DISSENTING. 

FN6  333 U.S. 860. 

FN7  U.S. CONST. ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 1. 

FN8  SEC. 11 OF THE ACT OF SEPT. 24, 1789, C. 20, 1 STAT. 73, 78. 

FN9  HEPBURN & DUNDAS V. ELLZEY, 2 CRANCH 445. 

FN10  THE EFFECT OF THE ACT WAS TO AMEND 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 
41(1) SO THAT IT READ IN PERTINENT PART:  "THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL
HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS FOLLOWS:  ...  OF ALL SUITS OF A CIVIL
NATURE, AT COMMON LAW OR IN EQUITY  ...  WHERE THE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS, THE SUM OR VALUE
OF $3,000, AND  ...  (B) IS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, OR
CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, OR
ALASKA, AND ANY STATE OR TERRITORY  ...  " 

FN11  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 869. 

FN12  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1332. 

FN13  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 407. 

FN14  U.S. CONST. ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 1. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 8. 

FN16  HEPBURN & DUNDAS V. ELLZEY, 2 CRANCH 445, 453. 

FN17  H.R. REP. NO. 1756, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 3.  THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE'S REPORT CONSISTS ONLY OF A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BILL (H.R. 8822) BE PASSED.  SENATE REPORT NO. 1399, 76TH CONG., 3D
SESS.  PASSAGE IN EACH HOUSE WAS WITHOUT DISCUSSION.  86 CONG. REC.,
PT. 3, P. 3015; 86 CONG. REC., PT. 4, P. 4286. 

FN18  U.S. CONST. ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17. 

FN19  U.S. CONST. ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 18. 

FN20  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, C. 359, 24 STAT. 505. 

FN21  THIS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS HAS
FREQUENTLY BEEN REFERRED TO IN OPINIONS OF THIS COURT WITH NO
INDICATION THAT IT PRESENTED ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM WITH RESPECT TO
THE JURISDICTION OF EITHER THE DISTRICT COURTS OR THIS COURT.  SEE, FOR
EXAMPLE, POPE V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. SHERWOOD,
312 U.S. 584; UNITED STATES V. SHAW, 309 U.S. 495; WILLIAMS V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 553; NASSAU SMELTING WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S.
101; UNITED STATES V. PFITSCH, 256 U.S. 547; TEMPEL V. UNITED STATES,
248 U.S. 121; UNITED STATES V. GREATHOUSE, 166 U.S. 601; UNITED STATES
V. JONES, 131 U.S. 1.  THE LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR THE GRANT OF
JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURTS IS DELINEATED IN BATES MFG. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 567. 

FN22  THE SUGGESTION HERE THAT CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,
ADJUDICATED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND BY THE DISTRICT COURTS SOLELY BY
VIRTUE OF THE WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND THE JURISDICTION GRANTED
UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, MAY BE CASES ARISING "UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES" IS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND SELF-DEFEATING.  THE UNANIMOUS
DECISION IN THE WILLIAMS CASE, 289 U.S. 553, HOLDS CLEARLY TO THE
CONTRARY, STATING, AT 289 U.S. 577, THAT CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE
UNITED STATES MAY BY STATUTE BE MADE A PARTY DEFENDANT "LIE WHOLLY
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER VESTED BY ART. III  ...  "  AND
SEE MONACO V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 313, 321.  MOREOVER, THE TUCKER ACT
SIMPLY OPENS THOSE COURTS TO PLAINTIFFS ALREADY POSSESSED OF A CAUSE OF
ACTION.  IF THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE CASE ONE ARISING UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE SAME IS TRUE OF THIS SUIT AND ALL OTHERS
LIKE IT.  NO ONE URGES THAT VIEW OF THE PRESENT STATUTE, NOR COULD
THEY.  SEE NOTE 23 AND TEXT. 

FN23  THE BOOKS ARE REPLETE WITH AUTHORITY ON THIS POINT.  FOR
EXAMPLE, IN SHOSHONE MINING CO. V. RUTTER, 177 U.S. 505, IT WAS SAID,
AT P. 507:  "THE SUIT MUST, IN PART AT LEAST, ARISE OUT OF A
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN REGARD TO THE OPERATION AND EFFECT
OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS UPON THE FACTS INVOLVED.  ...  "  AND AT P.
513:  "  ...  THE MERE FACT THAT A SUIT IS AN ADVERSE SUIT AUTHORIZED
BY THE STATUTES OF CONGRESS IS NOT IN AND OF ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO VEST
JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS."  AND AGAIN AT P. 507 IT IS
CONSIDERED "WELL SETTLED THAT A SUIT TO ENFORCE A RIGHT WHICH TAKES ITS
ORIGIN IN THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT NECESSARILY ONE ARISING
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  IN BANKERS
CASUALTY CO. V. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S.S.M.R. CO., 192 U.S. 371, AT P.
384:  "  ...  SUITS THOUGH INVOLVING THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES ARE NOT SUITS ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS
WHERE THEY DO NOT TURN ON A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN REGARD
TO THE OPERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS, ON THE FACTS.  ...  "
AND AT P. 385:  "WE REPEAT THAT THE RULE IS SETTLED THAT A CASE DOES
NOT ARISE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS IT
APPEARS FROM PLAINTIFF'S OWN STATEMENT, IN THE OUTSET, THAT SOME TITLE,
RIGHT, PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY ON WHICH RECOVERY DEPENDS WILL BE DEFEATED
BY ONE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
OR SUSTAINED BY THE OPPOSITE CONSTRUCTION."  IN LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
R. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 211 U.S. 149, 152, ALLEGATIONS DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH
THAT THE CASE ARISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ARE SAID TO BE INSUFFICIENT
IF THEY DO NOT SHOW THAT "THE SUIT, THAT IS, THE PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL
CAUSE OF ACTION," DOES SO ARISE.    FN24  NO QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED
HERE AS TO THE SOURCE OF THIS COURT'S APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER SUCH
CASES.  NOR DO WE SEE HOW THAT ISSUE COULD BE RAISED WITHOUT
CHALLENGING OUR PAST AND PRESENT EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OVER CASES
ADJUDICATED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS AND IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, SOLELY
UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, SEE POPE V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 1, 13-14, AND
SEE NOTES 21, 22; AND UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, SEE BROOKS V.
UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 49. 

FN25  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT. 
316, 420-421, SAID:  "THE RESULT OF THE MOST CAREFUL AND ATTENTIVE
CONSIDERATION BESTOWED UPON THIS (THE 'NECESSARY AND PROPER') CLAUSE
IS, THAT IF IT DOES NOT ENLARGE, IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRAIN THE
POWERS OF CONGRESS, OR TO IMPAIR THE RIGHT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO
EXERCISE ITS BEST JUDGMENT IN THE SELECTION OF MEASURES TO CARRY INTO
EXECUTION THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  ...  WE ADMIT,
AS ALL MUST ADMIT, THAT THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE LIMITED, AND
THAT ITS LIMITS ARE NOT TO BE TRANSCENDED.  BUT WE THINK THE SOUND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION MUST ALLOW TO THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE
THAT DISCRETION, WITH RESPECT TO THE MEANS BY WHICH THE POWERS IT
CONFERS ARE TO BE CARRIED INTO EXECUTION, WHICH WILL ENABLE THAT BODY
TO PERFORM THE HIGH DUTIES ASSIGNED TO IT, IN THE MANNER MOST
BENEFICIAL TO THE PEOPLE.  LET THE END BE LEGITIMATE, LET IT BE WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND ALL MEANS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE,
WHICH ARE PLAINLY ADAPTED TO THAT END, WHICH ARE NOT PROHIBITED, BUT
CONSIST WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION, ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL." 

FN26  IT WOULD NOT BE PROFITABLE TO REVIEW THE NUMEROUS CASES IN
WHICH, DURING THE CONSIDERATION OF OTHER PROBLEMS, THIS COURT HAS MADE
STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONGRESS' POWER TO
LEGISLATE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ITS CONTROL OVER THE
JURISDICTION OF BOTH CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE COURTS.  THE ISSUE
NOW PRESENTED SQUARELY FOR DECISION WAS NOT DECIDED IN ANY OF THEM.  WE
ADHERE TO CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL'S ADMONITION IN COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6
WHEAT.  264, 399, THAT SUCH EXPRESSIONS "OUGHT NOT TO CONTROL THE
JUDGMENT IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT WHEN THE VERY POINT IS PRESENTED FOR
DECISION." 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AGREES,
CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT.  BUT I STRONGLY DISSENT FROM THE
REASONS ASSIGNED TO SUPPORT IT IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. 

WHILE GIVING LIP SERVICE TO THE VENERABLE DECISION IN HEPBURN &
DUNDAS V. ELLZEY, 2 CRANCH 445, AND PURPORTING TO DISTINGUISH IT, THAT
OPINION IGNORES NEARLY A CENTURY AND A HALF OF SUBSEQUENT CONSISTENT
CONSTRUCTION.  FN1  IN ALL PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCE, IT WOULD OVERRULE
THAT DECISION WITH ITS LATER REAFFIRMATIONS.  PERTINENTLY IT MAY BE
ASKED, HOW AND WHERE ARE THOSE DECISIONS TO OPERATE, IF NOT JUST IN THE
SITUATION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE?  AND, IF THERE IS NO OTHER, WOULD
THEY NOT BE EFFECTIVELY OVERRULED? 

WHAT IS FAR WORSE AND MORE IMPORTANT, THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS
REVERSAL WOULD BE MADE, IF ADHERED TO BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT, WOULD
ENTANGLE EVERY DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE FIRST TIME
IN ALL OF THE CONTRADICTIONS, COMPLEXITIES AND SUBTLETIES WHICH HAVE
SURROUNDED THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE MAZE WOVEN BY
THE "LEGISLATIVE COURT - CONSTITUTIONAL COURT" CONTROVERSY RUNNING
THROUGH THIS COURT'S DECISION CONCERNING THEM.  FN2 

IN MY OPINION IT WOULD BE BETTER TO CONTINUE FOLLOWING WHAT I
CONCEIVE TO BE THE ORIGINAL ERROR OF THE HEPBURN DECISION AND ITS
PROGENY THAN THUS TO ENSNARL THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF FEDERAL COURTS. 
JURISDICTIONAL AND DOCTRINAL TROUBLES ENOUGH WE HAVE CONCERNING THEM
WITHOUT ADDING OTHERS BY RULING NOW THAT THEY HAVE THE ORIGIN AND
JURISDICTION OF "LEGISLATIVE" COURTS IN ADDITION TO THAT OF
"CONSTITUTIONAL" COURTS CREATED UNDER ARTICLE III, WITH WHICH ALONE
THEY HERETOFORE HAVE BEEN HELD ENDOWED. 

MOREOVER, HOWEVER THIS CASE MAY BE DECIDED, THERE IS NO REAL ESCAPE
FROM DECIDING WHAT THE WORD "STATE" AS USED IN ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 OF
THE CONSTITUTION MEANS.  FOR IF IT IS A LIMITATION ON CONGRESS' POWER
AS TO COURTS CREATED UNDER THAT ARTICLE, IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW IT
BECOMES NO LIMITATION WHEN CONGRESS DECIDES TO CAST IT OFF UNDER SOME
OTHER ARTICLE, EVEN ONE RELATING TO ITS AUTHORITY OVER THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  IF THIS MAY BE DONE IN THE NAME OF PRACTICAL CONVENIENCE AND
DUAL AUTHORITY, OR BECAUSE CONGRESS MIGHT FIND SOME OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL WAY TO MAKE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT SUABLE ELSEWHERE OR
TO BRING HERE FOR SUIT CITIZENS FROM ANY PART OF THE COUNTRY, THEN WHAT
IS A LIMITATION IMPOSED ON THE FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY IS NONE WHEN
CONGRESS DECIDES TO DISREGARD IT BY PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER SOME OTHER
AUTHORIZATION. 

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT SO SELF-CONTRADICTORY.  NOR ARE ITS
LIMITATIONS TO BE SO EASILY EVADED.  THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE PROBLEM IS
WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION MEANT TO CUT OUT FROM THE DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION OF COURTS CREATED UNDER ARTICLE III SUITS BROUGHT BY OR
AGAINST CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THAT QUESTION IS NOT
ANSWERED BY SAYING IN ONE BREATH THAT IT DID AND IN THE NEXT THAT IT
DID NOT. 

                                  I. 

PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE 1940 STATUTE TODAY CONSIDERED, FEDERAL
COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WERE THE ONLY FEDERAL COURTS WHICH
HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY NONFEDERAL CIVIL ACTIONS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF
THE DISTRICT AND CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  THE DOORS OF FEDERAL
COURTS IN EVERY STATE, OPEN TO SUITS BETWEEN PARTIES OF DIVERSE STATE
CITIZENSHIP BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 2(AS IMPLEMENTED BY
CONTINUOUS CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT), WERE CLOSED TO CITIZENS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE 1940 STATUTE WAS CONGRESS' FIRST EXPRESS
ATTEMPT TO REMEDY THE INEQUALITY WHICH HAS OBTAINED EVER SINCE CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL, IN HEPBURN & DUNDAS V. ELLZEY, SUPRA, CONSTRUED THE
FIRST JUDICIARY ACT TO EXCLUDE CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
MARSHALL'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1789 STATUTE WAS FOUNDED ON HIS
CONCLUSION THAT THE COMPARABLE LANGUAGE OF THE DIVERSITY CLAUSE IN
ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 - "CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES" - DID NOT EMBRACE
CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT. 

MARSHALL'S VIEW OF THE 1789 ACT, ITERATED IN HIS LATER DICTUM, NEW
ORLEANS V. WINTER, 1 WHEAT.  91, 94; CF. SERE V. PITOT, 6 CRANCH 332,
336, HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO IN JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF
LATER CONGRESSIONAL GRANTS OF JURISDICTION.  FN3  AND, BY ACCRETION,
THE RULE OF THE HEPBURN CASE HAS ACQUIRED THE FORCE OF A CONSIDERED
DETERMINATION THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, "THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NOT A STATE"  FN4  AND ITS CITIZENS ARE
THEREFORE NOT CITIZENS OF ANY STATE WITHIN THAT ARTICLE'S MEANING. 

THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON IN WORDS "REAFFIRMS" THIS VIEW OF
THE DIVERSITY CLAUSE.  NEVERTHELESS, FACED WITH AN EXPLICIT
CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND TO EXTEND JURISDICTION IN NONFEDERAL CASES TO THE
CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IT FINDS THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER
TO ADD TO THE ARTICLE III JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS SUCH
FURTHER JURISDICTION AS CONGRESS MAY THINK "NECESSARY AND PROPER,"
CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 18, TO IMPLEMENT ITS POWER OF "EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATION," CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17, OVER THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA; AND THEREBY TO ESCAPE FROM THE LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE III. 

FROM THIS REASONING I DISSENT.  FOR I THINK THAT THE ARTICLE III
COURTS IN THE SEVERAL STATES CANNOT BE VESTED, BY VIRTUE OF OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, WITH POWERS SPECIFICALLY DENIED THEM BY
THE TERMS OF ARTICLE III.  IF WE ACCEPT THE ELEMENTARY DOCTRINE THAT
THE WORDS OF ARTICLE III ARE NOT SELF-EXERCISING GRANTS OF JURISDICTION
TO THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS,  FN5 THEN I THINK THOSE WORDS MUST MARK
THE LIMITS OF THE POWER CONGRESS MAY CONFER ON THE DISTRICT COURTS IN
THE SEVERAL STATES.  AND I DO NOT THINK WE OR CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE
THOSE LIMITS THROUGH INVOCATION OF ARTICLE I WITHOUT MAKING THE
CONSTITUTION A SELF-CONTRADICTING INSTRUMENT.  IF MARSHALL CORRECTLY
READ ARTICLE III AS PREVENTING CONGRESS FROM UNLOCKING THE COURTHOUSE
DOOR TO CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT, IT SEEMS PAST BELIEF THAT ARTICLE I
WAS DESIGNED TO ENABLE CONGRESS TO PICK THE LOCK.  FOR THE DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION HERE THUS SUSTAINED IS IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THE
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION THOUGHT TO BE CLOSED TO DISTRICT CITIZENS BY
ARTICLE III:  IT IS JUSTICE ADMINISTERED IN THE SAME COURTROOM AND
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE SAME JUDGE; IT IS, PRESUMPTIVELY, JUSTICE
FASHIONED BY THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND, NOW, UNDER THE
AEGIS OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS.  FN6  THE JURISDICTION TODAY THUS
UPHELD IS NOT SIMPLY AN EXPURGATED VERSION OF A BANNED ORIGINAL; IT IS
THE REAL THING. 

TO CIRCUMVENT THE LIMITS OF ARTICLE III, IT IS SAID, AFTER FINDING A
CONTRARY AND OVERRIDING INTENT IN ARTICLE I, THAT ARTICLE III DISTRICT
COURTS IN THE SEVERAL STATES CAN ALSO BE VESTED WITH JURISDICTION
SPRINGING FROM ARTICLE I. THE ONLY EXPRESS HOLDING WHICH CONCEIVABLY
COULD LEND COMFORT TO THIS DOCTRINE OF DUAL JURISDICTION IS THIS
COURT'S CONCLUSION IN O'DONOGHUE V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 516, THAT
CERTAIN COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THERETOFORE DEEMED
LEGISLATIVE COURTS CREATED UNDER ARTICLE I,  FN7  OWE THEIR
JURISDICTION TO ARTICLE I AND ARTICLE III.  WITH THE MERITS OF THE
O'DONOGHUE DECISION IN HOLDING THAT ARTICLE III BARRED SALARY
REDUCTIONS FOR JUDGES OF THE COURTS IN QUESTION, WE ARE NOT PRESENTLY
CONCERNED.  SUFFICE IT TO POINT OUT THAT THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF THE
O'DONOGHUE DECISION NEGATIVES THE VIEW THAT FEDERAL COURTS IN THE
SEVERAL STATES SHARE THIS HYBRID HERITAGE: 

"  ...  CONGRESS DERIVES FROM THE DISTRICT CLAUSE DISTINCT POWERS IN
RESPECT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS OF THE DISTRICT WHICH CONGRESS
DOES NOT POSSESS IN RESPECT OF SUCH COURTS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT."  FN8 

THE LIMITS OF THE O'DONOGHUE DECISION ARE ONLY UNDERSCORED BY THE
DISSENTING VIEW OF CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES AND JUSTICES VAN DEVANTER AND
CARDOZO THAT ALL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS ARE SOLELY THE CREATURES
OF ARTICLE I: 

"AS THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT DO NOT REST FOR THEIR CREATION ON SEC.
1 OF ARTICLE III, THEIR CREATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OF THE
LIMITATIONS OF THAT PROVISION.  NOR WOULD THOSE LIMITATIONS, IF
CONSIDERED TO BE APPLICABLE, BE SUSCEPTIBLE OF DIVISION SO THAT SOME
MIGHT BE DEEMED OBLIGATORY AND OTHERS MIGHT BE IGNORED."  289 U.S. AT
552. 

COMFORT IS SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN, HOWEVER, FROM THIS COURT'S RATIONALE
IN WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 553, WHICH, IN SANCTIONING
SALARY REDUCTIONS FOR JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, HELD THAT THAT
COURT DID NOT DERIVE ITS JURISDICTION FROM ARTICLE III.  THAT
CONCLUSION STEMMED IN PART FROM THE PROPOSITION THAT SUITS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES ARE NOT "CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHALL
BE A PARTY," WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 2.  HENCE, IT IS
SAID, THE PERMISSIBLE INFERENCE IS THAT THE LONG-ESTABLISHED CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS OVER CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
IS LIKEWISE NOT DERIVED FROM ARTICLE III.  FN9  WE NEED NOT TODAY
DETERMINE THE NATURE OF DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION OF SUITS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT, IF SUCH SUITS ARE NOT
"CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE A PARTY," THEY ARE
PRESUMPTIVELY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE FEDERAL-QUESTION JURISDICTION
TO WHICH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S OPINION DIRECTS OUR ATTENTION - THE
ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 GRANT OF POWER OVER "CASES  ...  ARISING UNDER  ...
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  THIS IS, AT LEAST, THE CONVENTIONAL
VIEW OF DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION UNDER THE TUCKER ACT.  2 MOORE,
FEDERAL PRACTICE (2D ED., 1948) 1633. 

BUT, IN ANY EVENT, TO RELY ON WILLIAMS AS DISPOSITIVE OF THE PRESENT
CASE IS TO RELY ON A BENDING REED:  WILLIAMS AND O'DONOGHUE WERE
COMPANION CASES, ARGUED TOGETHER AND DECIDED TOGETHER; AND THE OPINIONS
WERE WRITTEN BY THE SAME JUSTICE.  ACCORDINGLY, WHAT WAS SAID IN ONE
MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT WAS SAID IN THE OTHER.  O'DONOGHUE,
AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED, EXPRESSLY REJECTED THE PROPOSITION TODAY
ANNOUNCED - THAT CONGRESS CAN VEST IN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS OUTSIDE THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JURISDICTION DERIVED FROM THE DISTRICT CLAUSE OF
ARTICLE I. 

BUT O'DONOGHUE WENT FURTHER, AND IN SO DOING UNDERMINED ANY
IMPLICATION IN WILLIAMS THAT ARTICLE III COURTS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT
COULD BE VESTED WITH ANY FORM OF NON-ARTICLE III JURISDICTION, WHEN IT
POINTED OUT THAT NO COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COULD BE GRANTED
"ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER JURISDICTION," IF, "IN CREATING AND DEFINING
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT, CONGRESS WERE LIMITED
TO ART. III, AS IT IS IN DEALING WITH THE OTHER FEDERAL COURTS ...  "
289 U.S. AT 546.  MOREOVER, THE JUSTICES WHO DISSENTED FROM THE
O'DONOGHUE RATIONALE OF DUAL JURISDICTION EXPRESSED NO DISAGREEMENT
WITH THE WILLIAMS OPINION.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CERTAINLY NO MORE
STRENGTH CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE LANGUAGE OF A CASE UPHOLDING SALARY
REDUCTIONS FOR ONE GROUP OF JUDGES THAN FROM THE HOLDING IN A CASE
STRIKING DOWN SALARY REDUCTIONS FOR ANOTHER GROUP OF JUDGES.    NOR IS
THERE MERIT IN THE VIEW THAT THE BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT
COURTS DOES NOT STEM FROM ARTICLE III.  OF COURSE IT IS TRUE THAT
ARTICLE I IS THE SOURCE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER BANKRUPTCY, AS IT
IS THE SOURCE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
TAXATION, THE COINING OF MONEY, AND OTHER POWERS CONFIDED BY THE STATES
TO THE EXCLUSIVE EXERCISE OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE.  BUT, AS MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S OPINION MAKES CLEAR, FEDERAL COURT ADJUDICATION
OF DISPUTES ARISING PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY AND OTHER LEGISLATION IS
CONVENTIONAL FEDERAL-QUESTION JURISDICTION.  AND NO CASE CITED IN ANY
OF TODAY'S OPINIONS REMOTELY SUGGESTS THE CONTRARY. 

FURTHERMORE, NO CASE CITED SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT JURISDICTION OVER A
SUIT TO COLLECT ESTATE ASSETS UNDER SEC. 23(B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
BROUGHT BY THE TRUSTEE IN A DISTRICT COURT WITH THE "CONSENT" OF THE
DEFENDANT, IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE GENERAL RULE AND IS DERIVED FROM
ARTICLE I ALONE.  TO BE SURE, ALTHOUGH THIS COURT INDICATED A CONTRARY
VIEW IN THE EARLY CASE OF LOVELL V. NEWMAN & SON, 227 U.S. 412, 426,
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES' OPINION IN SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, 293 U.S. 367,
MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT DISTRICT COURTS CAN, WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT, ENTERTAIN TRUSTEE SUITS UNDER SEC. 23(B) WHICH
THE BANKRUPT, BUT FOR THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, COULD NOT HAVE PROSECUTED IN
A FEDERAL COURT ABSENT DIVERSITY OR SOME INDEPENDENT FEDERAL QUESTION
"ARISING UNDER  ...  THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE OPINION
STATED: 

"CONFLICTING VIEWS HAVE BEEN HELD OF THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION FOR
CONSENT IN SEC. 23(B).  IN ONE VIEW, THE PROVISION RELATES MERELY TO
VENUE, THAT IS, ONLY TO A CONSENT TO THE 'LOCAL JURISDICTION.'  ...
THE OPPOSING VIEW WAS SET FORTH BY THE COURT BELOW IN TOLEDO FENCE &
POST CO. V. LYONS, 290 FED. 637, 645, AND THAT DECISION WAS FOLLOWED IN
THE INSTANT CASE.  ...  IT PROCEEDS UPON THE GROUND THAT THE CONGRESS
HAD POWER TO PERMIT SUITS BY TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS AGAINST ADVERSE CLAIMANTS, REGARDLESS OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP, AND THAT BY SEC. 23(B) THE CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE
FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD HAVE THAT JURISDICTION IN CASES WHERE THE
DEFENDANT GAVE CONSENT, AND, WITHOUT THAT CONSENT, IN CASES WHICH FELL
WITHIN THE STATED EXCEPTIONS. 

"WE THINK THAT THE LATTER VIEW IS THE CORRECT ONE."  293 U.S. AT
371. 

CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES' OPINION DOES NOT INTIMATE THAT THIS "CONSENT
JURISDICTION" ARISES SOLELY FROM ARTICLE I. QUITE THE CONTRARY, THE
OPINION BY JUDGE DENISON OUTLINING THE "VIEW" WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE
DESCRIBED AS "THE CORRECT ONE" EXPRESSLY STATED THAT SUCH SUITS ARE A
SEGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S FEDERAL-QUESTION JURISDICTION: 

"THE TRUSTEE MUST ALLEGE AND PROVE THAT VALID PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN
UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, LEADING TO A VALID ADJUDICATION, WHEREBY
TITLE PASSED, AND THAT BY VALID PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT HE WAS CHOSEN
AS TRUSTEE.  IF THE PROOF FAILS IN ANY OF THESE PARTICULARS, THE SUIT
FAILS.  THE SUIT IS ONE STEP IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSETS IN THE
EXECUTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THAT SUCH A CASE WOULD BE ONE
'ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES' WE THINK IS THE RESULT OF
WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLES.  IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER (ARTICLE 3,
SEC. 2), AND WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT TO THIS QUESTION IMPORTANT, CONGRESS
HAS NO POWER TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS
EXCEPTING AS TO SUITS WHICH DO SO ARISE; AND EVERY DECISION WHICH
UPHOLDS THE RIGHT TO SUE IN THE FEDERAL COURT BY ONE WHO MERELY
ACQUIRES TITLE THROUGH THE OPERATION OF A FEDERAL LAW IS THEREFORE, BY
NECESSARY IMPLICATION, A HOLDING THAT SUCH A SUIT 'ARISES UNDER'
FEDERAL LAWS."  TOLEDO FENCE & POST CO. V. LYONS, 290 F. 637, 641; AND
CF. BEELER V. SCHUMACHER, 71 F.2D 831, 833. 

THERE SEEMS NO REASON THEREFORE TO SUPPOSE THAT THIS COURT, IN
HOLDING "CORRECT" THE VIEW THAT DISTRICT COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER
A TRUSTEE SUIT WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BY THE BANKRUPT,
REJECTED THE EXPLICIT ARTICLE III BASIS OF THAT JURISDICTION. 

AND NEITHER RELIANCE ON GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 109;
PUERTO RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., 288 U.S. 476, AND RELATED CASES, NOR THE
SUGGESTION THAT "A SUIT ARISES UNDER THE LAW THAT CREATES THE CAUSE OF
ACTION," AMERICAN WELL WORKS V. LAYNE, 241 U.S. 257, 260, COMPELS THE
CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT AND DID NOT CLASSIFY SEC. 23(B)
SUITS TO COLLECT ESTATE ASSETS AS FEDERAL-QUESTION CASES ARISING UNDER
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  AS THIS COURT HAS HAD OCCASION TO OBSERVE, A
"'CAUSE OF ACTION' MAY MEAN ONE THING FOR ONE PURPOSE AND SOMETHING
DIFFERENT FOR ANOTHER."  UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288
U.S. 62, 67-68; AND SEE GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA, AT 117. 
SIMILARLY, AS STUDENTS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION HAVE TAKEN PAINS TO
POINT OUT, THE "SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY OF THE WORDS" IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY GRANTS OF FEDERAL-QUESTION JURISDICTION,
"DOES NOT, OF COURSE, REQUIRE, ON THAT SCORE ALONE, AN IDENTICAL
INTERPRETATION."  SHULMAN AND JAEGERMAN, SOME JURISDICTIONAL
LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL PROCEDURE, 45 YALE L.J. 393, 405, N. 47(1936). 
CONFUSION OF THE TWO IS A NATURAL, BUT NOT AN INSURMOUNTABLE, HAZARD. 
THE GULLY AND PUERTO RICO CASES WERE CONCERNED WITH THE GENERAL
STATUTORY GRANT TO DISTRICT COURTS OF JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL
QUESTIONS; THEY WERE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF
JURISDICTION, NOR WITH THE SPECIFIC STATUTORY GRANT OF JURISDICTION
FOUND IN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND APPROVED IN SCHUMACHER V. BEELER,
SUPRA. 

IT HAS NEVER HERETOFORE BEEN DOUBTED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF
POWER IS BROADER THAN THE GENERAL FEDERAL-QUESTION JURISDICTION WHICH
CONGRESS HAS FROM TIME TO TIME THOUGHT TO CONFER ON DISTRICT COURTS BY
STATUTE.  IN ONE OF THE FEDERAL LAND-GRANT CASES RELIED ON IN MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON'S OPINION, THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO MAKE THIS
DISTINCTION CLEAR: 

"BY THE CONSTITUTION (ART. 3, SEC. 2) THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES EXTENDS 'TO ALL CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY, ARISING UNDER
THIS CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES' AND TO CONTROVERSIES
'BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES.'  BY ARTICLE 4, S. 3, CL. 2,
CONGRESS IS GIVEN 'POWER TO DISPOSE OF AND MAKE ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE
UNITED STATES.'  UNDER THESE CLAUSES CONGRESS MIGHT DOUBTLESS PROVIDE
THAT ANY CONTROVERSY OF A JUDICIAL NATURE ARISING IN OR GROWING OUT OF
THE DISPOSAL OF THE PUBLIC LANDS SHOULD BE LITIGATED ONLY IN THE COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS NOT ONE OF THE POWER
OF CONGRESS, BUT OF ITS INTENT.  IT HAS SO CONSTRUCTED THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE GREAT BULK OF LITIGATION
RESPECTING RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH THOSE RIGHTS MAY IN THEIR
INCEPTION GO BACK TO SOME LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, IS IN FACT CARRIED
ON IN THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES."  SHOSHONE MINING COMPANY V.
RUTTER, 177 U.S. 505, 506. 

INDEED, WERE WE TO ADOPT THE VIEW THAT THE GULLY RULE IS A TEST
APPLICABLE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PHRASE, WE WOULD EFFECTIVELY REPUDIATE
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL'S CONCLUSION IN OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED
STATES, 9 WHEAT.  738, THAT CONGRESS CAN ALLOW A FEDERALLY CHARTERED
CORPORATION TO BRING ALL ITS LITIGATION INTO FEDERAL COURTS FOR THE
REASON THAT, SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE CORPORATION'S FEDERAL ORIGIN, ALL
SUITS TO WHICH THE CORPORATION IS A PARTY ARE SUITS "ARISING UNDER  ...
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE III.  THE
RULE OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES CASE, REITERATED IN THE PACIFIC
RAILROAD REMOVAL CASES, 115 U.S. 1; MATTER OF DUNN, 212 U.S. 374;
AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO. V. FEDERAL BANK, 256 U.S. 350; SOWELL V.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, 268 U.S. 449; AND FEDERAL BANK V. MITCHELL, 277
U.S. 213, HAS BEEN LIMITED BY STATUTE BUT NEVER BY SUBSEQUENT
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION.  THE SURVIVAL OF THE RULE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED
BY MR. JUSTICE STONE IN PUERTO RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., SUPRA AT 485, AND
BY MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO IN GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA, AT 114. 

IN SHORT, CONGRESS HAS AT NO TIME CONFERRED ON FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER ALL FEDERAL QUESTIONS, PREFERRING TO
LEAVE TRIAL OF MANY AND PERHAPS MOST SUCH QUESTIONS TO STATE
ADJUDICATION, SUBJECT TO THE ULTIMATE REVIEW OF THIS COURT.  BUT
EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF LIMITATION THERE HAVE BEEN,
AND ONE OF THESE IS THE TRUSTEE SUIT UNDER SEC. 23(B).  2 MOORE,
FEDERAL PRACTICE (2D ED., 1948) 1633. 

THUS I SEE NO WARRANT FOR GYMNASTIC EXPANSION OF THE JURISDICTION OF
FEDERAL COURTS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT.  AT LEAST AS TO THESE LATTER
COURTS SITTING IN THE STATES, I HAVE THOUGHT IT PLAIN THAT ARTICLE III
DESCRIBED AND DEFINED THEIR "JUDICIAL POWER," AND THAT WHERE "POWER
PROPOSED TO BE CONFERRED  ...  WAS NOT JUDICIAL POWER WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION  ...  (IT) WAS, THEREFORE,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND COULD NOT LAWFULLY BE EXERCISED BY THE COURTS." 
FN10 

IF ARTICLE III WERE NO LONGER TO SERVE AS THE CRITERION OF DISTRICT
COURT JURISDICTION, I SHOULD BE AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TASKS,
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPETENCE OF CONGRESS, MIGHT NOT BE ASSIGNED
TO DISTRICT COURTS.  AT ALL EVENTS, INTIMATIONS THAT DISTRICT COURTS
COULD ONLY UNDERTAKE THE DETERMINATION OF "JUSTICIABLE" CONTROVERSIES
SEEM INAPPROPRIATE, SINCE THE VERY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I TODAY RELIED ON
HAS LONG BEEN REGARDED AS THE SOURCE OF THE "LEGISLATIVE," KELLER V.
POTOMAC ELECTRIC CO., 261 U.S. 428, AND "ADMINISTRATIVE," POSTUM CEREAL
CO. V. CALIFORNIA FIG NUT CO., 272 U.S. 693, POWERS OF THE COURTS OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  MOREOVER, THE SUGGESTION THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION RECOGNIZED A CONSTRUCTIVE LIMITATION OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO "CASES OF A JUDICIARY NATURE," II FARRAND,
RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION 430-431, MERELY LAYS BARE THE
ULTIMATE FALLACY UNDERLYING REJECTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF ARTICLE
III.  FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE LIMITATION REFERRED TO IN THE CONVENTION
DEBATES IS A LIMITATION IMPOSED BY ARTICLE III, AND THE OPINION OF MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON BY HYPOTHESIS DENIES THAT ARTICLE III EXPRESSES THE
FULL MEASURE OF POWER WHICH CAN BE DELEGATED TO FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS.  IF DISTRICT COURTS ARE - AS I AGREE THEY ARE - CONFINED TO
"CASES OF A JUDICIARY NATURE," THEN TOO THEY ARE CONFINED TO CASES
"BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES," EXCEPT INSOFAR AS OTHER ARTICLE
III PROVISIONS EXPAND THE POTENTIAL GRANT OF JURISDICTION.  FOR - TO
BORROW THE WORDS OF THE O'DONOGHUE DISSENT - THE LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE
III, "IF CONSIDERED TO BE APPLICABLE, (WOULD NOT) BE SUSCEPTIBLE OF
DIVISION SO THAT SOME MIGHT BE DEEMED OBLIGATORY AND OTHERS MIGHT BE
IGNORED."  289 U.S. AT 552. 

IN VIEW OF THE RATIONALE ADOPTED BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON'S OPINION, I
DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY FOR ITS EXAMINATION OF THE LIMITS OF
THE DIVERSITY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE III.  THAT OPINION HAS, HOWEVER, MADE
CLEAR THE VIEW THAT THE DIVERSITY CLAUSE EXCLUDES CITIZENS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ALTHOUGH WHERE THAT VIEW MAY NOW BE APPLIED IT
DOES NOT POINT OUT.  IF I CONCURRED IN THAT CONCEPTION OF THE DIVERSITY
CLAUSE I WOULD VOTE TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

                                 II. 

HOWEVER, NOTHING BUT NAKED PRECEDENT, THE GREAT AGE OF THE HEPBURN
RULING, AND THE PRESTIGE OF MARSHALL'S NAME, SUPPORTS SUCH A RESULT. 
IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER ANYONE COULD BE FOUND WHO NOW WOULD WRITE INTO
THE CONSTITUTION SUCH AN UNJUST AND DISCRIMINATORY EXCLUSION OF
DISTRICT CITIZENS FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS.  ALL OF THE REASONS OF
JUSTICE, CONVENIENCE, AND PRACTICALITY WHICH HAVE BEEN SET FORTH FOR
ALLOWING DISTRICT CITIZENS A FURTIVE ACCESS TO FEDERAL COURTS, POINT TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY SHOULD ENTER FREELY AND FULLY AS OTHER
CITIZENS AND EVEN ALIENS DO. 

PRECEDENT OF COURSE IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE DISREGARDED, EVEN IN THE
GREATER FLUIDITY OF DECISION WHICH THE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION CONCEDEDLY AFFORDS.  FN11  AND MARSHALL'S SPONSORSHIP IN
SUCH MATTERS ALWAYS IS WEIGHTY.  BUT WHEN LONG EXPERIENCE HAS DISCLOSED
THE FALLACY OF A RULING, TIME HAS SHOWN ITS INJUSTICE, AND NOTHING
REMAINS BUT A TECHNICALITY THE ONLY EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO PERPETUATE
INEQUITY, HARDSHIP AND WRONG, THOSE ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THIS
COURT REPEATEDLY HAS SAID CALL FOR REEXAMINATION OF PRIOR DECISIONS. 
IF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED IN ANY CASE, THEY ARE IN THIS ONE. 

THE HEPBURN DECISION WAS MADE BEFORE TIME, THROUGH LATER DECISIONS
HERE, HAD DESTROYED ITS BASIC PREMISE AND AT THE BEGINNING OF
MARSHALL'S JUDICIAL CAREER, WHEN HE HAD HARDLY STARTED UPON HIS GREAT
WORK OF EXPOUNDING THE CONSTITUTION.  THE VERY BREVITY OF THE OPINION
AND ITS GROUNDINGS, ESPECIALLY IN THEIR AMBIGUITY, SHOW THAT THE MASTER
HAND WHICH LATER MADE HIS WORK IMMORTAL FALTERED.  FN12 

THE SOLE REASON MARSHALL ASSIGNED FOR THE DECISION WAS "A CONVICTION
THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN CONFEDERACY ONLY ARE THE STATES
CONTEMPLATED IN THE CONSTITUTION," A CONVICTION RESULTING AS HE SAID
FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE USE OF THAT WORD IN THE CHARTER TO DETERMINE
"WHETHER COLUMBIA IS A STATE IN THE SENSE OF THAT INSTRUMENT."  2
CRANCH AT 452.  "WHEN THE SAME TERM WHICH HAS BEEN USED PLAINLY IN THIS
LIMITED SENSE (AS DESIGNATING A MEMBER OF THE UNION) IN THE ARTICLES
RESPECTING THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, IS ALSO EMPLOYED
IN THAT WHICH RESPECTS THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD
AS RETAINING THE SENSE ORIGINALLY GIVEN TO IT."  IBID. 

THIS NARROW AND LITERAL READING WAS GROUNDED EXCLUSIVELY ON THREE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS: THE REQUIREMENTS THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES BE CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL STATES; THAT
THE SENATE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF TWO SENATORS FROM EACH STATE; AND THAT
EACH STATE "SHALL APPOINT, FOR THE ELECTION OF THE EXECUTIVE," THE
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF ELECTORS; ALL, BE IT NOTED, PROVISIONS RELATING TO
THE ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE OF THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT, NOT TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AS SUCH.  PUT TO ONE
SIDE WERE OTHER PROVISIONS ADVANCED IN ARGUMENT AS SHOWING "THAT THE
TERM STATE IS SOMETIMES USED IN ITS MORE ENLARGED SENSE" ON THE GROUND
THAT "THEY DO NOT PROVE WHAT WAS TO BE SHOWN BY THEM."  IBID.  BUT CF.
446-448, 450.    WHETHER OR NOT THIS ANSWER WAS ADEQUATE AT THE TIME,
FN13  OUR CONSTITUTION TODAY WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT IS IF
SUCH A NARROW AND LITERAL CONSTRUCTION OF EACH OF ITS TERMS HAD BEEN
TRANSMUTED INTO AN INFLEXIBLE RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION. 
IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED, AS BEARING ON THE VERY ISSUE BEFORE US, THAT
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF "AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE  ...
WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED" EXTENDS TO CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL.  FN14 SIMILARLY, THE WORD
"CITIZENS" HAS A BROADER MEANING IN ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, WHERE IT NOW
INCLUDES CORPORATIONS N15, THAN IT HAS IN THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE OF ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2,  FN16  OR IN THE LIKE CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN17 INSTANCES MIGHT, BUT NEED NOT, BE
MULTIPLIED. 

IN CONSTRUING THE DIVERSITY CLAUSE WE ARE FACED WITH THE APPARENT
FACT THAT THE FRAMERS GAVE NO DELIBERATE CONSIDERATION ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER TO THE DIVERSITY LITIGATION OF CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  AND INDEED, SINCE THE DISTRICT WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE WHEN THE
CONSTITUTION WAS DRAFTED, IT SEEMS IN NO WAY SURPRISING THAT THE
FRAMERS, AFTER CONFERRING ON CONGRESS PLENARY POWER OVER THE FUTURE
FEDERAL CAPITAL, MADE NO EXPRESS PROVISION FOR LITIGATING OUTSIDE THE
BOUNDARIES OF A HYPOTHETICAL CITY CONJECTURED CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN
UNBORN CITIZENS AND THEIR UNKNOWN NEIGHBORS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
I CANNOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION THAT ABSENCE OF AFFIRMATIVE INCLUSION
IS, HERE, TANTAMOUNT TO DELIBERATE EXCLUSION. 

IF EXCLUSION OF DISTRICT CITIZENS IS NOT COMPELLED BY THE LANGUAGE OF
THE DIVERSITY CLAUSE, IT LIKEWISE CANNOT BE SPELLED OUT BY INFERENCE
FROM THE HISTORIC PURPOSES OF THAT CLAUSE.  WE HAVE, NEEDLESS TO SAY,
NO CONCERN WITH THE MERITS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION; FN18  NOR NEED WE
RESOLVE SCHOLARLY DISPUTE OVER THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THOSE LOCAL
PREJUDICES WHICH, WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS DRAFTED, THE GRANT OF
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WAS DESIGNED TO NULLIFY.  FN19  OUR ONLY DUTY IS
TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL GRANT, AND WE MUST BOW TO
CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER FEDERAL ADJUDICATION OF LOCAL
ISSUES DOES MORE GOOD THAN HARM.  BUT, IN RESOLVING THE IMMEDIATE
ISSUE, WE SHOULD NOT BLINK THE FACT THAT, WHATEVER THE NEED FOR FEDERAL
JURISDICTION OVER SUITS BETWEEN LITIGANT CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL
STATES, THE SAME NEED EQUALLY COMPELS THE SAFEGUARDS OF FEDERAL TRIAL
FOR SUITS BROUGHT BY CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST
CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  CONVERSELY, IF WE ASSUME THAT TODAY'S
RULING TACITLY VALIDATES SUITS BROUGHT BY STATE CITIZENS AGAINST
CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IT WOULD SEEM THE PLAINTIFF
CITIZEN OF A STATE IS AS DESERVING OF A FEDERAL FORUM WHEN SUING A
DISTRICT DEFENDANT AS WHEN SUING A DEFENDANT IN A NEIGHBOR STATE. 

MARSHALL'S SOLE PREMISE OF DECISION IN THE HEPBURN CASE HAS FAILED,
UNDER THE STRESS OF TIME AND LATER DECISION, AS A TEST OF
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTRUCTION.  KEY WORDS LIKE "STATE," "CITIZEN," AND
"PERSON" DO NOT ALWAYS AND INVARIABLY MEAN THE SAME THING.  FN20  HIS
LITERAL APPLICATION DISREGARDED ANY POSSIBLE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
PURELY POLITICAL CLAUSES AND THOSE AFFECTING CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS,
A DISTINCTION LATER TO RECEIVE RECOGNITION. 

MOREOVER, MARSHALL HIMSELF RECOGNIZED THE INCONGRUITY OF THE
DECISION:  "IT IS TRUE THAT AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND OF
THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
CONGRESS, IT IS EXTRAORDINARY THAT THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES,
WHICH ARE OPEN TO ALIENS, AND TO THE CITIZENS OF EVERY STATE IN THE
UNION, SHOULD BE CLOSED UPON THEM."  BUT, HE ADDED, "THIS IS A SUBJECT
FOR LEGISLATIVE NOT FOR JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION."  2 CRANCH AT 453. 

WITH ALL THIS WE MAY WELL AGREE, WITH ONE RESERVATION.  IN SPITE OF
SUBSEQUENT CONTRARY INTERPRETATION AND MARSHALL'S OWN IDENTIFICATION OF
THE STATUTORY WORD "STATE" WITH THE SAME WORD IN THE CONSTITUTION, WE
CANNOT BE UNRESERVEDLY SURE THAT THE LAST-QUOTED SENTENCE REFERRED TO
THE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RATHER THAN CONGRESSIONAL
RECONSIDERATION.  IF THE FORMER HAD BEEN THE INTENT, IT SEEMS LIKELY IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN STATED IN WORDS NOT SO CHARACTERISTIC OF THE LATTER
PROCESS.  THE COURT WAS CONSTRUING THE STATUTE,  FN21  WHICH MADE NO
EXPLICIT INCLUSION OF CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT.  WHETHER, IF IT HAD
DONE SO, THE COURT'S RULING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME OR, IF A LATER ACT
HAD SOUGHT TO INCLUDE DISTRICT CITIZENS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE. 

BUT I DO NOT REST ON THIS AMBIGUITY, MORE ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE
LATER DECISIONS CLEARLY ACCEPTING THE HEPBURN DECISION AS ONE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LATER AND GENERAL
REPUDIATION OF THE DECISION'S NARROW AND LITERAL RULE FOR CONSTRUING
THE CONSTITUTION, IN WHICH MARSHALL'S OWN PART WAS NOT SMALL, HAS CUT
FROM BENEATH THE HEPBURN CASE ITS ONLY GROUNDING AND WITH IT, IN MY
JUDGMENT, THE ANOMALY IN RESULT WHICH THE RULING ALWAYS HAS BEEN.  IT
IS PERHAPS UNNECESSARY TO GO SO FAR IN CRITICIZING THE DECISION AS WAS
DONE BY A JUDGE WHO LONG AFTERWARDS BOWED TO IT.  FN22  BUT THE TIME
HAS COME WHEN THE HOPE HE EXPRESSED FOR REMOVING THIS HIGHLY UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION FROM A GROUP OF OUR CITIZENS LARGER THAN THE POPULATION
OF SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION SHOULD BE REALIZED. 

III. 

PRAGMATICALLY STATED, PERHAPS, THE PROBLEM IS NOT OF EARTH-SHAKING
PROPORTIONS.  FOR, BY PRESENT HYPOTHESIS, FEDERAL COURT DISPOSITION OF
DIVERSITY SUITS MUST BE IN ACCORD WITH LOCAL LAW IN ALL MATTERS OF
SUBSTANCE.  BUT SYMBOLICALLY THE MATTER IS OF VERY CONSIDERABLE
IMPORTANCE.  REASONABLE MEN MAY DIFFER PERHAPS OVER WHETHER OR, MORE
APPROPRIATELY, TO WHAT EXTENT CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE
POLITICAL STATUS AND EQUALITY WITH THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS.  BUT WITH
REFERENCE TO THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY IN SUCH A MATTER AS EQUAL
ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS, NONE NOW CAN BE FOUND TO DEFEND
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM SAVE STRICTLY ON THE GROUND OF PRECEDENT. 

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED TO IMPOSE SO PURPOSELESS
AND INDEFENSIBLE A DISCRIMINATION, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY HAVE BEEN GUILTY
OF UNDERSTANDABLE OVERSIGHT IN NOT PROVIDING EXPLICITLY AGAINST IT.
DESPITE ITS GREAT AGE AND SUBSEQUENT ACCEPTANCE, I THINK THE HEPBURN
DECISION WAS ILL-CONSIDERED AND WRONGLY DECIDED.  NOTHING HANGS ON IT
NOW EXCEPT THE CONTINUANCE OR REMOVAL OF A GROSS AND WHOLLY ANOMALOUS
INEQUALITY APPLIED AGAINST A SUBSTANTIAL GROUP OF AMERICAN CITIZENS,
NOT IN RELATION TO THEIR SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS, BUT IN RESPECT TO THE
FORUMS AVAILABLE FOR THEIR DETERMINATION.  THIS COURT HAS NOT HESITATED
TO OVERRIDE EVEN LONG-STANDING DECISIONS WHEN MUCH MORE BY WAY OF
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE WAS INVOLVED AND THE ACTION TAKEN WAS MUCH LESS
CLEARLY JUSTIFIED THAN IN THIS CASE, A MOST PERTINENT INSTANCE BEING
ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA. 

THAT COURSE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED HERE.  IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED DIRECTLY,
NOT DEVIOUSLY.  ALTHOUGH I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S JUDGMENT, I THINK IT
OVERRULES THE HEPBURN DECISION IN ALL PRACTICAL EFFECT.  WITH THAT I AM
IN ACCORD.  BUT I AM NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF
"LEGISLATIVE" JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE I FOR THE FIRST TIME TO THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORGANIZED
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III, AND THE CONSEQUENT IMPAIRMENT OF THE LATTER
ARTICLE'S LIMITATIONS UPON JUDICIAL POWER; AND I WOULD DISSENT FROM
SUCH A HOLDING EVEN MORE STRONGLY THAN I WOULD FROM A DECISION TODAY
REAFFIRMING THE HEPBURN RULING.  THAT EXTENSION, IN MY OPINION, WOULD
BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF TODAY'S DECISION, WERE IT ACCEPTED BY A
MAJORITY OF THE COURT.  IT IS A DANGEROUS DOCTRINE WHICH WOULD RETURN
TO PLAGUE BOTH THE DISTRICT COURTS AND OURSELVES IN THE FUTURE, TO WHAT
EXTENT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY.  THE O'DONOGHUE AND WILLIAMS DECISIONS
WOULD THEN TAKE ON AN IMPORTANCE THEY HAVE NEVER BEFORE HAD AND WERE
NEVER CONSIDERED LIKELY TO ATTAIN. 

FN1  SEE NOTES 3 AND 4 AND TEXT INFRA. 

FN2  SEE TEXT INFRA AND AUTHORITIES CITED AT NOTES 7-9. 

FN3  BARNEY V. BALTIMORE, 6 WALL.  280; HOOE V. JAMIESON, 166 U.S.
395; HOOE V. WERNER, 166 U.S. 399. 

FN4  HOOE V. JAMIESON, 166 U.S. 395, 397; CF. DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182
U.S. 244, 270. 

FN5  "OF ALL THE COURTS WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY, UNDER THEIR
GENERAL POWERS, CONSTITUTE, ONE ONLY, THE SUPREME COURT, POSSESSES
JURISDICTION DERIVED IMMEDIATELY FROM THE CONSTITUTION, AND OF WHICH
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER CANNOT DEPRIVE IT."  UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 7
CRANCH 32, 33.  AND SEE JUSTICE CHASE'S REMARKS IN TURNER V. BANK OF
NORTH AMERICA, 4 DALL.  8, 10, N. 1.  BUT CF. MARTIN V. HUNTER'S
LESSEE, 1 WHEAT.  304, 328-331.  FOR RECENT REAFFIRMATION OF THE
PREVAILING VIEW SEE KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 233
234.  AND SEE THE COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER THE
JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS PREPARED FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER BEFORE HIS
ACCESSION TO THIS BENCH.  H.R. REP. NO. 669, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. 12
14. 

FN6  304 U.S. 64.  IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES
THE APPLICATION OF LOCAL LAW IN TRADITIONAL DIVERSITY SUITS (CF. ID. AT
77-80; BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276
U.S. 518, DISSENTING OPINION AT 533; BUT CF. COHEN V. INDUSTRIAL LOAN
CORP., POST AT 541, DISSENTING OPINION AT 557), IT MAY BE WONDERED
WHETHER THAT REQUIREMENT WOULD ALSO GOVERN THE RATIONALE OF
JURISDICTION TODAY ADVANCED:  UNDER THIS RATIONALE, CONGRESS MIGHT WELL
FIND IN ARTICLE I POWER TO AUTHORIZE ARTICULATION OF A BODY OF FEDERAL
SUBSTANTIVE LAW FOR THE DECISION OF DIVERSITY CASES INVOLVING CITIZENS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

FN7  FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 281 U.S. 464;
POSTUM CEREAL CO. V. CALIFORNIA FIG NUT CO., 272 U.S. 693; KELLER V.
POTOMAC ELECTRIC CO., 261 U.S. 428.  CF. EX PARTE BAKELITE CORP., 279
U.S. 438, 450; FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION V. NELSON BROS., 289 U.S. 266,
274-276; UNITED STATES V. JONES, 336 U.S. 641, 652, N. 12. 

FN8  O'DONOGHUE V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 516, 551.  CF. PITTS V.
PEAK, 60 APP. D.C. 195, 197. 

FN9  SEE COMMENTS, 43 YALE L.J. 316, 319(1933). 

FN10  NOTE BY CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY INSERTED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
AFTER THE OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA, 13 HOW.  40, 53,
SUMMARIZING THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS IN HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 DALL.  409,
AND UNITED STATES V. YALE TODD, DECIDED WITHOUT OPINION BY THIS COURT
ON FEBRUARY 17, 1794, AND APPARENTLY UNREPORTED. 

FN11  CF. SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, 112-113.  SEE THE
TRENCHANT DISCUSSION BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS OF THE LESSER IMPACT OF
STARE DECISIS IN THE REALM OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION, BURNET V.
CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, 405-410(DISSENTING OPINION), AND
THE VIEWS OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTING IN COMMISSIONER V.
ESTATE OF CHURCH, 335 U.S. 632, 676-677.  INSTANCES IN WHICH THIS COURT
HAS OVERRULED PRIOR CONSTITUTIONAL DETERMINATIONS ARE CATALOGUED IN
BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., SUPRA AT 407, N. 2, 409, N. 4, AND IN
HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371, 401, N. 52; COMPARE MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS' COMPILATIONS IN BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., SUPRA AT
406, N. 1, AND IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN WASHINGTON V. DAWSON & CO.,
264 U.S. 219, 238, N. 21.  CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT
ON THE DEATH OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, TOOK OCCASION TO NOTE THE PRIME
ROLE PLAYED BY THE LATTER IN LIBERATING THE COURT FROM MECHANICAL
ADHERENCE TO PRECEDENT WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE AT STAKE:  "HE
NEVER LOST SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS PRIMARILY A GREAT
CHARTER OF GOVERNMENT, AND OFTEN REPEATED MARSHALL'S WORDS:  'IT IS A
CONSTITUTION WE ARE EXPOUNDING' 'INTENDED TO ENDURE FOR AGES TO COME,
AND, CONSEQUENTLY, TO BE ADAPTED TO THE VARIOUS CRISES OF HUMAN
AFFAIRS.'  HENCE, ITS PROVISIONS WERE TO BE READ NOT WITH THE NARROW
LITERALISM OF A MUNICIPAL CODE OR A PENAL STATUTE, BUT SO THAT IT HIGH
PURPOSES SHOULD ILLUMINE EVERY SENTENCE AND PHRASE OF THE DOCUMENT AND
BE GIVEN EFFECT AS A PART OF A HARMONIOUS FRAMEWORK OF GOVERNMENT. 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS, JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS
OF THE CONSTITUTION, SINCE THEY WERE BEYOND LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION,
COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS THE FINAL WORD.  THEY WERE OPEN TO
RECONSIDERATION, IN THE LIGHT OF NEW EXPERIENCE AND GREATER KNOWLEDGE
AND WISDOM."  317 U.S. XLII, XLVII. 

FN12  THE HEPBURN CASE WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE IN THOSE EARLIER YEARS
WHERE THE MASTER TOUCH WAS LACKING.  CF. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES V.
DEVEAUX, 5 CRANCH 61; HOPE INSURANCE CO. V. BOARDMAN, 5 CRANCH 57;
MARYLAND INSURANCE CO. V. WOODS, 6 CRANCH 29, 7 CRANCH 402; MCGOVNEY, A
SUPREME COURT FICTION, 56 HARV. L. REV. 853, 863-885(1943).  SEE
PARTICULARLY THE DISCUSSION AT 876-883.  BY POSITING THE CAPACITY OF A
CORPORATION TO SUE OR BE SUED UNDER THE DIVERSITY CLAUSE ON THE
CITIZENSHIP OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS, THE DEVEAUX DECISION OPENED THE WAY
FOR CORPORATIONS ULTIMATELY TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION, BUT ONLY BY THE LONG AND TORTUOUS EVOLUTION OF THE LAW
THROUGH THE STAGES FIRST OF REBUTTABLE AND FINALLY OF CONCLUSIVE
PRESUMPTION (NOW MOST OFTEN CONTRARY TO THE FACT) THAT ALL THE
SHAREHOLDERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION.  SEE
LOUISVILLE, C. & C.R. CO. V. LETSON, 2 HOW.  497.    FN13  COUNSEL FOR
THE PLAINTIFFS HAD MADE, AMONG OTHERS, TWO DIFFERENT, THOUGH CLOSELY
RELATED, ARGUMENTS.  ONE WAS THAT "STATE" AS USED IN THE DIVERSITY
CLAUSE SHOULD BE GIVEN WHAT MARSHALL CHARACTERIZED AS "THE
SIGNIFICATION ATTACHED TO IT BY WRITERS ON THE LAW OF NATIONS," A
POLITICAL ENTITY IN A BROAD AND GENERAL SENSE.  TO THIS ARGUMENT HIS
ANSWER WAS OBVIOUSLY APPROPRIATE.  BUT IN VIEW OF OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS RELIED UPON IN THE ARGUMENT, 2 CRANCH 446-448, 450, IT SEEMS
AT LEAST QUESTIONABLE THAT THE ANSWER MET THE OTHER CONTENTION, NAMELY,
THAT "THOSE TERRITORIES WHICH ARE UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN SOME RESPECTS AS INCLUDED IN THE
TERM 'STATES' AS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION."  ID. AT 446. 

FN14  THE COURT'S INITIAL DETERMINATION THAT DISTRICT RESIDENTS WERE
ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES, CALLAN V. WILSON, 127 U.S.
540, RESTED IN LARGE MEASURE ON THE MORE INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE
III, SEC. 2:  "THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT,
SHALL BE BY JURY; AND SUCH TRIAL SHALL BE HELD IN THE STATE WHERE THE
SAID CRIMES SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED; BUT WHEN NOT COMMITTED WITHIN
ANY STATE, THE TRIAL SHALL BE AT SUCH PLACE OR PLACES AS THE CONGRESS
MAY BY LAW HAVE DIRECTED."  THE COURT IN THE CALLAN CASE REJECTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THAT ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, PERMITS CONGRESS TO
DISPENSE WITH A JURY WHEN THE CRIME TAKES PLACE IN THE DISTRICT RATHER
THAN IN A STATE.  BUT ARTICLE III DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN THE SOLE
BASIS OF DECISION, FOR THE COURT SAID, 127 U.S. AT 550:  "IN REYNOLDS
V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 154, IT WAS TAKEN FOR GRANTED THAT THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION SECURED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE
TERRITORIES THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS; ...
WE CANNOT THINK THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS DISTRICT HAVE, IN THAT REGARD,
LESS RIGHTS THAN THOSE ACCORDED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORIES OF THE
UNITED STATES."  SEE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. CLAWANS, 300 U.S. 617,
624; CAPITAL TRACTION CO. V. HOF, 174 U.S. 1, 5; CF. THOMPSON V. UTAH,
170 U.S. 343, 348-349. 

BUT, THOUGH IT BE TRUE THAT "THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WAS NOT NEEDED TO
REQUIRE TRIAL BY JURY IN CASES OF CRIMES," UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299
U.S. 123, 142, NEVERTHELESS THE RECOGNIZED RIGHT OF DISTRICT RESIDENTS
TO AN "IMPARTIAL JURY" IS CONFERRED BY THE FORCE OF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT.  SEE FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 497, 498, 514.  NOR
IS THIS DISTINCTION A MERE FORM OF WORDS: IN UNITED STATES V. WOOD,
SUPRA, AT 142-143, CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, IN WEIGHING THE IMPARTIALITY
OF A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JURY, NOTED THE ARTICLE III GUARANTEE OF A
JURY TRIAL AND THEN OBSERVED: "THE SIXTH AMENDMENT PROVIDED FURTHER
ASSURANCES.  IT ADDED THAT IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS THE ACCUSED
SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT 'TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL
JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED, WHICH DISTRICT SHALL HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY
LAW, AND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO
BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; TO HAVE COMPULSORY
PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE.'" 

THUS IT HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY ASSUMED THAT IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS A
RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS POSSESSED OF SIXTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS "TO A SPEEDY  ...  TRIAL," UNITED STATES V. MCWILLIAMS, 69
F.SUPP.  812, AFFIRMED 163 F.2D 695; "TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND
CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION," CF. JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 405,
409, 411; "TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM," CURTIS V.
RIVES, 123 F.2D 936, 937; JORDON V. BONDY, 114 F.2D 599, 602, "TO HAVE
COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR," IBID.; "AND
TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE," NOBLE V. EICHER,
143 F.2D 1001; SEE WILLIAMS V. HUFF, 142 F.2D 91, 146 F.2D 867. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 12 SUPRA.  COMPARE LOUISVILLE, C. & C.R. CO. V.
LETSON, 2 HOW.  497, WITH BANK OF THE UNITED STATES V. DEVEAUX, 5
CRANCH 61. 

FN16  PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, 177.  IT IS TO BE NOTED,
HOWEVER, THAT HAMILTON'S 80TH FEDERALIST EXPRESSLY JUSTIFIED THE GRANT
OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AS EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTING THE GUARANTIES OF
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF ARTICLE IV. 

FN17  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 514, CF. ID. AT 527; GROSJEAN V.
AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 244; ORIENT INSURANCE COMPANY V.
DAGGS, 172 U.S. 557, 561. 

FN18  FOR CONTRASTING VIEWS PRIOR TO ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304
U.S. 64, COMPARE YNTEMA, THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN
CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, 19 A.B.A.J.
71(1933), AND YNTEMA AND JAFFIN, PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION, 79 U. PA. L. REV. 869(1931), WITH FRANKFURTER, A NOTE ON
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION - IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR YNTEMA, 79 U. PA. L.
REV. 1097(1931), AND FRANKFURTER, DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER
BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND STATE COURTS, 13 CORN.  L.Q. 499, 520
530(1928).  FOR POST-ERIE ANALYSES SEE SHULMAN, THE DEMISE OF SWIFT V.
TYSON, 47 YALE L.J. 1336(1938); CLARK, STATE LAW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS:
THE BROODING OMNIPRESENCE OF ERIE V. TOMPKINS, 55 YALE L.J.
267(1946). 

FN19  SEE NOTE 18, AND SEE ALSO FRIENDLY, THE HISTORIC BASIS OF
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, 41 HARV. L. REV. 483(1928); WARREN, NEW LIGHT
ON THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 37 HARV. L. REV.
49, 81-90(1923); FRANK, HISTORICAL BASES OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL
SYSTEM, 13 LAW & CONTEM.  PROB.  3, 22-28(1948). 

FN20  CF. NOTES 14-17 SUPRA AND TEXT. 

FN21  THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENDANT WERE TWO, ONE STATUTORY, THE
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL.  THEY WERE STATED AS FOLLOWS:  "EVEN IF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORISES A MORE ENLARGED
JURISDICTION THAN THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 HAS GIVEN, YET THE COURT
CAN TAKE NO JURISDICTION WHICH IS NOT GIVEN BY THE ACT.  ... 

"THIS IS NOT A CASE BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION."  2 CRANCH AT 449-450. 

FN22  AFTER NOTING THAT THE HEPBURN DECISION HAD BEEN EXTENDED BY NEW
ORLEANS V. WINTER, 1 WHEAT.  91, TO TERRITORIES AND THEIR CITIZENS, THE
OPINION IN WATSON V. BROOKS, 13 F. 540, STATED AT 543-544:  "BUT IT IS
VERY DOUBTFUL IF THIS RULING WOULD NOW BE MADE IF THE QUESTION WAS ONE
OF FIRST IMPRESSION; AND IT IS TO BE HOPED IT MAY YET BE REVIEWED AND
OVERTHROWN. 

"BY IT, AND UPON A NARROW AND TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD
'STATE,' UNSUPPORTED BY ANY ARGUMENT WORTHY OF THE ABLE AND
DISTINGUISHED JUDGE WHO ANNOUNCED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THE LARGE
AND GROWING POPULATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENS RESIDENT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AND THE EIGHT TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES ARE DEPRIVED OF
THE PRIVILEGE ACCORDED TO ALL OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS, AS WELL AS
ALIENS, OF GOING INTO THE NATIONAL COURTS WHEN OBLIGED TO ASSERT OR
DEFEND THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS AWAY FROM HOME.  INDEED, IN THE LANGUAGE OF
THE COURT IN HEPBURN V. ELLZEY, SUPRA, THEY MAY WELL SAY:  'IT IS
EXTRAORDINARY THAT THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH ARE OPEN TO
ALIENS, AND TO THE CITIZENS OF EVERY STATE IN THE UNION, SHOULD BE
CLOSED UPON THEM.'  BUT SO LONG AS THIS RULING REMAINS IN FORCE, THE
JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT MUST BE GOVERNED BY IT." 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

WHILE I AGREE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND
MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE WHICH RELATE TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER ART. I
OF THE CONSTITUTION TO VEST FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS WITH JURISDICTION
OVER SUITS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND
WITH THE VIEWS OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AS TO
THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD "STATES" IN THE DIVERSITY CLAUSE
OF ART. III, I AM CONSTRAINED TO STATE MY VIEWS INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE QUESTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL
COURT SYSTEM. 

                      I. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO EXTEND THE DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA BY VIRTUE OF ITS AUTHORITY OVER THE DISTRICT UNDER ART. I
OF THE CONSTITUTION DEPENDS, IN TURN, UPON WHETHER THE ENUMERATION IN
ART. III OF THE CASES TO WHICH THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES
SHALL EXTEND DEFINES THE OUTER LIMITS OF THAT POWER OR IS MERELY A
LISTING OF THE TYPES OF JURISDICTION WITH WHICH CONGRESS MAY INVEST
FEDERAL COURTS WITHOUT INVOKING ANY OF THE SPECIFIC POWERS GRANTED THAT
BODY BY OTHER ARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED
THAT INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS RECEIVE NO POWERS DIRECTLY FROM THE
CONSTITUTION BUT ONLY SUCH AUTHORITY AS IS VESTED IN THEM BY THE
CONGRESS.  TURNER V. BANK OF NORTH-AMERICA, 4 DALL.  8(1799); MCINTIRE
V. WOOD, 7 CRANCH 504(1813); KENDALL V. UNITED STATES, 12 PET.
524(1838); CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236(1845).  FN1  SINCE, THEREFORE,
THERE IS NO MINIMUM OF POWER PRESCRIBED FOR THE INFERIOR FEDERAL
COURTS, AND CONGRESS NEED NOT HAVE ESTABLISHED ANY SUCH COURTS,
LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182, 187(1943), THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE ENUMERATION OF CASES IN ART. III, SEC. 2 PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM OF
POWER OR PERFORMS ONLY THE VERY LIMITED OFFICE MENTIONED ABOVE.  FN2 

THE THEORY THAT SEC. 2 OF ART. III IS MERELY A SUPPLEMENT TO THE
POWERS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT,
HOWEVER, ACCEPTED AT FACE VALUE EVEN BY THOSE WHO URGE IT. FOR THEY
STILL WOULD REQUIRE THAT A CASE OR CONTROVERSY BE PRESENTED.  WE ARE
TOLD THAT 

"OF COURSE THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE NATURE OF DUTIES WHICH CONGRESS
MAY IMPOSE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS VESTED WITH THE FEDERAL
JUDICIAL POWER ...  (BUT) THIS STATUTE  ...  DOES NOT AUTHORIZE OR
REQUIRE EITHER THE DISTRICT COURTS OR THIS COURT TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY
LEGISLATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, POLITICAL OR OTHER NONJUDICIAL FUNCTION OR
TO RENDER ANY ADVISORY OPINION."  ANTE, PP. 590-591. 

BUT AS MY BROTHERS FRANKFURTER AND RUTLEDGE HAVE POINTED OUT, IF ART.
III CONTAINS MERELY A GRANT OF POWER TO CONGRESS, THERE IS NO MORE
REASON TO FIND ANY LIMITATION IN THE FACT THAT THE JUDICIAL POWER
EXTENDS ONLY TO CASES AND CONTROVERSIES THAN IN THE SPECIFIC
ENUMERATION OF THE KINDS OF CASES OR CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH IT SHALL
EXTEND.  THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN THIS POSITION, AS I SEE IT, IS THE
FAILURE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES
EMBODIED IN ART. III, AS ELSEWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, BOTH OF WHICH
WERE REPEATEDLY ADVERTED TO IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND HAVE
SINCE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION. 

THE FIRST OF THESE PRINCIPLES IS THAT THE THREE BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION ARE OF COORDINATE RANK, AND
THAT NONE MAY ENCROACH UPON THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED TO THE
OTHERS BY THAT INSTRUMENT.  THIS PRINCIPLE FOUND EXPRESSION IN THE
REQUIREMENT OF ART. III THAT THE JUDICIAL POWER SHALL EXTEND ONLY TO
CASES AND CONTROVERSIES.  OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE, HOWEVER, WAS THE SECOND
PRINCIPLE, THAT THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS A GRANT OF POWER BY THE
STATES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THAT ALL POWERS NOT SPECIFICALLY
GRANTED WERE RESERVED TO THE STATES OR TO THE PEOPLE.  FN3  THE POWERS
GRANTED THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY WERE SPELLED OUT WITH CARE AND PRECISION
IN ART. III BY A DELINEATION OF THE KINDS OF CASES TO WHICH THE
JUDICIAL POWER COULD BE EXTENDED. 

THE FIRST PRINCIPLE IS NOT NOW UNDER ATTACK, BUT PROPER PERSPECTIVE
IN VIEWING THE SECOND REQUIRES SOME EXAMINATION OF ITS ORIGIN AND
HISTORY.  THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE PRESENTED WITH, AND
REJECTED, PROPOSALS WHICH WOULD HAVE VESTED NONJUDICIAL POWERS IN THE
NATIONAL JUDICIARY.  CHARLES PINCKNEY OF SOUTH CAROLINA PROPOSED, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAT "EACH BRANCH OF THE LEGISLATURE, AS WELL AS THE SUPREME
EXECUTIVE SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT UPON IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF LAW, AND UPON SOLEMN
OCCASIONS."  FN4  EARLY IN THE CONVENTION, HOWEVER, THE PRINCIPLE THAT
THE COURTS TO BE ESTABLISHED SHOULD HAVE JURISDICTION ONLY OVER CASES
BECAME FIXED.  THUS IT WAS THAT WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS MADE ON THE FLOOR
OF THE CONVENTION THAT THE WORDS, "ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION" BE
INSERTED BEFORE "THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES," IN WHAT IS NOW ART.
III, SEC. 2, MADISON'S OBJECTION THAT IT WAS "GOING TOO FAR TO EXTEND
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT GENERALLY TO CASES ARISING UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, & WHETHER IT OUGHT NOT TO BE LIMITED TO CASES OF A
JUDICIARY NATURE" WAS MET BY THE ANSWER THAT IT WAS, IN HIS OWN WORDS,
"GENERALLY SUPPOSED THAT THE JURISDICTION GIVEN WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY
LIMITED TO CASES OF A JUDICIARY NATURE - ."  FN5 

CLEAR AS THIS PRINCIPLE IS, HOWEVER, IT WAS ATTACKED IN THIS COURT ON
PRECISELY THE SAME GROUNDS NOW ASSERTED TO SUSTAIN THE DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION HERE IN QUESTION.  IN KELLER V. POTOMAC ELECTRIC CO., 261
U.S. 428(1923), WHERE THIS COURT HAD BEFORE IT AN ACT UNDER WHICH THE
COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WERE GIVEN REVISORY POWER OVER RATES
SET BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT, THE APPELLEE
SOUGHT TO SUSTAIN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION GIVEN THIS COURT BY THE
ACT ON THE BASIS THAT "ALTHOUGH ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, THIS LIMITATION IS SUBJECT TO THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENLARGE THE JURISDICTION, WHERE SUCH ENLARGEMENT
MAY REASONABLY BE REQUIRED TO ENABLE CONGRESS TO EXERCISE THE EXPRESS
POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE CONSTITUTION."  261 U.S. AT 435. 
THERE, AS HERE, THE POWER RELIED UPON WAS THAT GIVEN CONGRESS TO
EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND TO
MAKE ALL LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY SUCH POWERS INTO EFFECT. 
BUT THIS COURT CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT
CONGRESS COULD THUS EXTEND THE JURISDICTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS,
CITING THE NOTE TO HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 DALL.  409, 410(1792); UNITED
STATES V. FERREIRA, 13 HOW.  40, NOTE, P. 52(1851), AND GORDON V.
UNITED STATES, 117 U.S. 697(1864).  THESE AND OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT CLEARLY CONDITION THE POWER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF ANY CAUSE UPON THE EXISTENCE OF A SUIT INSTITUTED
ACCORDING TO THE REGULAR COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, MARBURY V.
MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137(1803), THE POWER TO PRONOUNCE A JUDGMENT AND
CARRY IT INTO EFFECT BETWEEN PERSONS AND PARTIES WHO BRING A CASE
BEFORE IT FOR DECISION, MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, 219 U.S. 346(1911);
GORDON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE ABSENCE OF REVISORY OR APPELLATE
POWER IN ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, HAYBURN'S CASE, SUPRA; UNITED
STATES V. FERREIRA, SUPRA, AND THE ABSENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR
LEGISLATIVE ISSUES OR CONTROVERSIES, KELLER V. POTOMAC ELECTRIC CO.,
SUPRA; POSTUM CEREAL CO. V. CALIFORNIA FIG NUT CO., 272 U.S.
693(1927).  WHILE "JUDICIAL POWER," "CASES," AND "CONTROVERSIES" HAVE
SOMETIMES BEEN GIVEN SEPARATE DEFINITIONS,  FN6  THESE CONCEPTS ARE
INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED.  THE TERM "JUDICIAL POWER" WAS ITSELF
SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PHRASE, "THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT" TO
CONFORM ART. III TO THE USE OF THE TERMS "LEGISLATIVE POWERS" AND
"EXECUTIVE POWER" IN ARTS. I AND II.  FN7  IT THUS DRAWS LIFE FROM THAT
TO WHICH IT EXTENDS:  TO CASES AND CONTROVERSIES.  THAT MUCH, AT ANY
RATE, IS CLEAR.  WHETHER IT DRAWS LIFE FROM ANY CASES OR CONTROVERSIES
OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN ART. III MUST NOW BE
CONSIDERED. 

THE SECOND PRINCIPLE, THAT ANY POWERS NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THE
NATIONAL JUDICIARY BY ART. III WERE RESERVED TO THE STATES OR THE
PEOPLE, IS HERE CHALLENGED.  THE REASON SUCH AN ATTACK IS POSSIBLE AT
THIS LATE DATE IS, IRONICALLY ENOUGH, BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICIT
ACCEPTANCE OF THAT PRINCIPLE BY THE FRAMERS, BY CONGRESS, AND BY
LITIGANTS EVER SINCE.  UNLIKE THE QUESTION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH FIRST AROSE DURING WASHINGTON'S
PRESIDENCY AND SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE RISE, IN THE CASES PREVIOUSLY ADVERTED
TO, TO FREQUENT DEFINITION OF THE NATURE OF CASES AND CONTROVERSIES,
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT ART. III CONTAINS A LIMITATION ON THE
POWER OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY WAS SO COMPLETE THAT THE QUESTION DID
NOT OFTEN ARISE DIRECTLY.  NEVERTHELESS, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DEMONSTRATE
IN A NUMBER OF CONTEXTS THE TRUE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS. 

FIRST, THE EXAMINATION AND REJECTION OF VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL JUDICIARY BY THE CONVENTION
THROWS CONSIDERABLE LIGHT UPON THE COMPROMISE REACHED.  FN8  ON THE ONE
HAND WERE THOSE WHO THOUGHT THAT NO INFERIOR FEDERAL TRIBUNALS SHOULD
BE AUTHORIZED; THAT STATE COURTS SHOULD BE ENTRUSTED WITH THE DECISION
OF ALL FEDERAL QUESTIONS, SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO ONE SUPREME COURT. 
MADISON'S NOTES REVEAL THAT 

"MR. RUTLIDGE HAVG.  OBTAINED A RULE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
CLAUSE FOR ESTABLISHING INFERIOR TRIBUNALS UNDER THE NATIONAL
AUTHORITY, NOW MOVED THAT THAT PART OF THE CLAUSE  ...  SHOULD BE
EXPUNGED:  ARGUING THAT THE STATE TRIBUNALS MIGHT AND OUGHT TO BE LEFT
IN ALL CASES TO DECIDE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME NATIONAL TRIBUNAL BEING SUFFICIENT TO SECURE THE NATIONAL
RIGHTS & UNIFORMITY OF JUDGMTS:  THAT IT WAS MAKING AN UNNECESSARY
ENCROACHMENT ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATES, AND CREATING
UNNECESSARY OBSTACLES TO THEIR ADOPTION OF THE NEW SYSTEM."  FN9 

THE MOTION WAS CARRIED AND THE CLAUSE ESTABLISHING INFERIOR FEDERAL
TRIBUNALS EXCISED FROM THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION.  MADISON, HOWEVER,
IMMEDIATELY MOVED "THAT THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE BE EMPOWERED TO
INSTITUTE INFERIOR TRIBUNALS," URGING THAT SOME PROVISION FOR SUCH
COURTS WAS A NECESSITY IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM.  MADISON'S NOTES THEN
RECORD THE REACTION OF PIERCE BUTLER OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO THIS
PROPOSAL: 

"THE PEOPLE WILL NOT BEAR SUCH INNOVATIONS.  THE STATES WILL REVOLT
AT SUCH ENCROACHMENTS.  SUPPOSING SUCH AN ESTABLISHMENT TO BE USEFUL,
WE MUST NOT VENTURE ON IT.  WE MUST FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF SOLON WHO
GAVE THE ATHENIANS NOT THE BEST GOVT. HE COULD DEVISE; BUT THE BEST
THEY WD. RECEIVE."  FN10 

ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION FAVORED A WIDER
FEDERAL JURISDICTION THAN WAS ULTIMATELY AUTHORIZED.  THE CONNECTICUT
DELEGATION, LED BY ROGER SHERMAN, PROPOSED "THAT THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
UNITED STATES BE AUTHORISED TO INSTITUTE ONE SUPREME TRIBUNAL, AND SUCH
OTHER TRIBUNALS AS THEY MAY JUDGE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE AFORESAID,
AND ASCERTAIN THEIR RESPECTIVE POWERS AND JURISDICTIONS."  FN11  THIS
PROPOSAL, WHICH IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT IN ITS EFFECT FROM THE
INTERPRETATION NOW URGED UPON US, WAS NOT ADOPTED BY THE CONVENTION. 
WHEN IT BECAME ESTABLISHED THAT INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS WERE TO BE
AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE LIMITS OF THEIR JURISDICTION
IMMEDIATELY BECAME AN ISSUE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE.  THE OUTLINE OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION WAS ESTABLISHED ONLY AFTER MUCH GIVE AND TAKE,
PROPOSAL AND COUNTERPROPOSAL, AND - IN THE END - COMPROMISE.  IT WAS
EARLY PROPOSED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT FEDERAL JURISDICTION BE MADE TO
EXTEND TO "ALL PIRACIES & FELONIES ON THE HIGH SEAS, CAPTURES FROM AN
ENEMY; CASES IN WHICH FOREIGNERS OR CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES APPLYING
TO SUCH JURISDICTIONS MAY BE INTERESTED, OR WHICH RESPECT THE
COLLECTION OF THE NATIONAL REVENUE; IMPEACHMENTS OF ANY NATIONAL
OFFICERS, AND QUESTIONS WHICH MAY INVOLVE THE NATIONAL PEACE AND
HARMONY."  FN12  BUT THIS WAS ONLY ONE OF MANY PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE
EXTENT OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION,  FN13  AND NOT BEFORE MANY CONCESSIONS
AND COMPROMISES HAD BEEN MADE WAS THE ENUMERATION OF CASES NOW FOUND IN
ART. III, SEC. 2 AGREED UPON. 

THE JUDICIAL POWER WAS THUS JEALOUSLY GUARDED BY THE STATES AND
UNWILLINGLY GRANTED TO THE NATIONAL JUDICIARY.  ONLY WHEN IT COULD BE
DEMONSTRATED THAT A PARTICULAR HEAD OF JURISDICTION WAS ACUTELY NEEDED
FOR THE PURPOSES OF UNIFORMITY AND NATIONAL HARMONY WAS IT GRANTED.  IN
EVERY STATE CONVENTION FOR RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, ADVOCATES
AND OPPONENTS OF RATIFICATION CONSIDERED IN DETAIL THE KINDS OF CASES
AND CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL POWER WAS TO EXTEND. 
EACH HAD TO BE JUSTIFIED.  FN14  FAR FROM ASSUMING THAT THE JUDICIAL
POWER COULD BE, BY ANY MEANS SHORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT,
EXTENDED BEYOND THOSE CASES EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR IN ART. III, THAT
ARTICLE WAS SUBJECTED TO SEVERE ATTACKS ON THE GROUND THAT THOSE POWERS
SPECIFICALLY GIVEN WOULD DESTROY THE STATE COURTS.  A DELEGATE TO THE
VIRGINIA CONVENTION, FOR EXAMPLE, STATED THAT "MY NEXT OBJECTION TO THE
FEDERAL JUDICIARY IS, THAT IT IS NOT EXPRESSED IN A DEFINITE MANNER. 
THE JURISDICTION OF ALL CASES ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
LAWS OF THE UNION IS OF STUPENDOUS MAGNITUDE."  FN15  IF, IN ADDITION
TO JUSTIFYING EVERY PARTICLE OF POWER GIVEN TO FEDERAL COURTS BY THE
CONSTITUTION, ITS DEFENDERS HAD BEEN OBLIGED TO JUSTIFY THE COMPETENCE
OF CONGRESS - ITSELF SUSPECT BY THOSE WHO OPPOSED RATIFICATION - TO
EXTEND THAT JURISDICTION WHENEVER IT WAS THOUGHT NECESSARY TO
EFFECTUATE ONE OF THE POWERS EXPRESSLY GIVEN THAT BODY, THEIR TASK
WOULD HAVE BEEN INSUPERABLE.  THE DEBATES MAKE THAT FACT PLAIN. 

THAT THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER WAS RESTRICTED TO THOSE CLASSES OF
CASES SET FORTH IN ART. III WAS CLEARLY THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO HAD
MOST TO DO WITH ITS DRAFTING AND ACCEPTANCE.  IN THE 80TH NUMBER OF THE
FEDERALIST, HAMILTON LISTED THE TYPES OF CASES TO WHICH IT WAS THOUGHT
NECESSARY THAT THE JUDICIARY AUTHORITY OF THE NATION SHOULD EXTEND. 
ALL ARE FOUND REPRESENTED IN ART. III.  FN16  IN THE 81ST NUMBER, HE
WROTE: 

"THE AMOUNT OF THE OBSERVATIONS HITHERTO MADE ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT IS THIS:  THAT IT HAS BEEN CAREFULLY RESTRICTED TO
THOSE CAUSES WHICH ARE MANIFESTLY PROPER FOR THE COGNIZANCE OF THE
NATIONAL JUDICATURE  ..."  P. 511. 

WHILE IN NO. 82, THE FOLLOWING APPEARS: 

"THE ONLY OUTLINES DESCRIBED (FOR INFERIOR COURTS) ARE THAT THEY
SHALL BE 'INFERIOR TO THE SUPREME COURT,' AND THAT THEY SHALL NOT
EXCEED THE SPECIFIED LIMITS OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY."  P. 516. 

AND MADISON, IN A LETTER TO A CORRESPONDENT WHO HAD CONTENDED THAT
THE COMMON LAW HAD BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE CONSTITUTION AS FEDERAL
LAW, WROTE: 

"A CHARACTERISTIC PECULIARITY OF THE GOVT. OF THE U. STATES IS, THAT
ITS POWERS CONSIST OF SPECIAL GRANTS TAKEN FROM THE GENERAL MASS OF
POWER, WHEREAS OTHER GOVTS.  POSSESS THE GENERAL MASS WITH SPECIAL
EXCEPTIONS ONLY.  SUCH BEING THE PLAN OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT CANNOT
WELL BE SUPPOSED THAT THE BODY WHICH FRAMED IT WITH SO MUCH
DELIBERATION, AND WITH SO MANIFEST A PURPOSE OF SPECIFYING ITS OBJECTS,
AND DEFINING ITS BOUNDARIES, WOULD, IF INTENDING THAT THE COMMON LAW
SHD.  BE A PART OF THE NATIONAL CODE, HAVE OMITTED TO EXPRESS OR
DISTINCTLY INDICATE THE INTENTION; WHEN SO MANY FAR INFERIOR PROVISIONS
ARE SO CAREFULLY INSERTED, AND SUCH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE PUBLIC
VIEW TAKEN OF THE INSTRUMENT, WHETHER WE RECUR TO THE PERIOD OF ITS
RATIFICATION BY THE STATES, OR TO THE FEDERAL PRACTICE UNDER IT." 
FN17 

CASES IN THIS COURT WHICH SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT ART. III, SEC. 2
LIMITS THE POWER OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS ARE NOT LACKING.  IN THE
MAYOR V. COOPER, 6 WALL.  247, 252(1867), THE COURT DEFINED THE
JURISDICTION OF INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS AS FOLLOWS: 

"AS REGARDS ALL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES INFERIOR TO THIS
TRIBUNAL, TWO THINGS ARE NECESSARY TO CREATE JURISDICTION, WHETHER
ORIGINAL OR APPELLATE.  THE CONSTITUTION MUST HAVE GIVEN TO THE COURT
THE CAPACITY TO TAKE IT, AND AN ACT OF CONGRESS MUST HAVE SUPPLIED IT.
THEIR CONCURRENCE IS NECESSARY TO VEST IT.  IT IS THE DUTY OF CONGRESS
TO ACT FOR THAT PURPOSE UP TO THE LIMITS OF THE GRANTED POWER.  THEY
MAY FALL SHORT OF IT, BUT CANNOT EXCEED IT." 

AND IN A SERIES OF THREE CASES DECIDED BETWEEN 1800 AND 1809, THE
COURT REFUSED TO GIVE LITERAL EFFECT TO SEC. 11 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF
1789, WHICH HAD EXTENDED THE JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS TO SUITS
WHERE "AN ALIEN IS A PARTY," BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY ART.
III.  IN MOSSMAN V. HIGGINSON, 4 DALL.  12, 14(1800), IT WAS DECIDED
THAT "AS THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THE
FEDERAL COURTS, IS, IN THIS RESPECT, CONFINED TO SUITS BETWEEN CITIZENS
AND FOREIGNERS, WE MUST SO EXPOUND THE TERMS OF THE LAW, AS TO MEET THE
CASE, 'WHERE, INDEED, AN ALIEN IS ONE PARTY,' BUT A CITIZEN IS THE
OTHER."  THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WAS ADHERED TO IN MONTALET V.
MURRAY, 4 CRANCH 46(1807); AND IN HODGSON V. BOWERBANK, 5 CRANCH
303(1809), WHERE CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL DISMISSED THE CONTENTION THAT
"THE JUDICIARY ACT GIVES JURISDICTION TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS IN ALL
SUITS IN WHICH AN ALIEN IS A PARTY" WITH THIS ADMONITION:  "TURN TO THE
ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR THE STATUTE
CANNOT EXTEND THE JURISDICTION BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE CONSTITUTION." 

OTHER EXAMPLES MAY BE CITED OF THE COURT'S CONSISTENT ADHERENCE TO
THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES IS A
CONSTITUENT PART OF THE CONCESSIONS MADE BY THE STATES TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND MAY NOT BE EXTENDED.  SEE TURNER V. BANK OF NORTH
AMERICA, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. HUDSON AND GOODWIN, 7 CRANCH 32,
33(1812); MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN LAND AND IMPROVEMENT CO., 18 HOW. 
272, 280-281(1855); KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 233
234(1922); EX PARTE BAKELITE CORP., 279 U.S. 438, 449(1929); FEDERAL
RADIO COMMISSION V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 281 U.S. 464, 469(1930). 
OVER A CENTURY AND A HALF OF CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION OF ART. III IS
WELL SUMMED UP IN ONE SENTENCE FROM THIS COURT'S OPINION IN SHELDON V.
SILL, 8 HOW.  441, 449(1850): 

"THE CONSTITUTION HAS DEFINED THE LIMITS OF THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES, BUT HAS NOT PRESCRIBED HOW MUCH OF IT SHALL BE EXERCISED
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT; CONSEQUENTLY, THE STATUTE WHICH DOES PRESCRIBE
THE LIMITS OF THEIR JURISDICTION, CANNOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION, UNLESS IT CONFERS POWERS NOT ENUMERATED THEREIN." 

THE CASES CHIEFLY RELIED UPON BY THOSE WHO CONTEND THAT ART. III DOES
NOT DEFINE THE LIMITS OF THE JUDICIAL POWER ARE O'DONOGHUE V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 516(1933), AND WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S.
553(1933), WHICH CONCERNED REDUCTIONS IN SALARY OF JUDGES OF THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS
RESPECTIVELY.  IN THESE CASES, THIS COURT HELD THAT ART. III, SEC. 1 OF
THE CONSTITUTION FORBADE REDUCTION OF THE SALARY OF THE FORMER, WHO WAS
FOUND TO BE A JUDGE OF A "CONSTITUTIONAL" (I.E., AN INFERIOR COURT AS
USED IN ARTS. I AND III) COURT, BUT NOT OF THE LATTER, A JUDGE OF A
"LEGISLATIVE" COURT. 

TWO SEPARATE BUT RELATED POINTS CONCERNING THE O'DONOGHUE CASE SHOULD
BE EMPHASIZED.  THE FIRST IS THAT SINCE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS MAY
BE GIVEN NONJUDICIAL DUTIES, BUTTERWORTH V. HOE, 112 U.S. 50(1884);
BALDWIN CO. V. HOWARD CO., 256 U.S. 35(1921); KELLER V. POTOMAC
ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA, RELIANCE UPON THAT CASE TO SUPPORT THE ACT NOW
UNDER CONSIDERATION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE POSITION THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS MAY ONLY DECIDE "CASES" AND "CONTROVERSIES" OF A
JUDICIAL NATURE.  THE SECOND IS THAT THE RATIONALE OF THE O'DONOGHUE
CASE IS, BY ITS TERMS, LIMITED TO COURTS OF THE DISTRICT.  FOR THE
COURT SAID (AT P. 546):  "IF, IN CREATING AND DEFINING THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT, CONGRESS WERE LIMITED TO ART. III, AS IT
IS IN DEALING WITH THE OTHER FEDERAL COURTS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND
OTHER JURISDICTION SPOKEN OF COULD NOT BE CONFERRED UPON THE FORMER." 
IN VIEW OF THIS EXPRESS LIMITATION, THE O'DONOGHUE CASE LENDS NO
SUPPORT TO THE ACT NOW IN QUESTION.  TO EXTEND ITS APPLICABILITY BEYOND
THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT IS WARRANTED NEITHER BY THE LANGUAGE NOR THE
REASONING OF THAT CASE.  THE COURT IN NO WAY DIMINISHED THE AUTHORITY
OF AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. V. CANTER, 1 PET. 511(1828), WHICH HAD HELD
THAT THE COURTS OF FLORIDA TERRITORY WERE LEGISLATIVE COURTS NOT
CREATED PURSUANT TO ART. III AND INCAPABLE OF RECEIVING THE JUDICIAL
POWER SET OUT THEREIN.  SINCE TERRITORIAL COURTS CANNOT BE INVESTED
WITH ART. III POWER, THE STRICT DICHOTOMY BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS STILL EXISTS - EXCEPT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO REFER TO THE BREADTH OF CONGRESSIONAL
POWER OVER THE DISTRICT; THAT SUCH POWER IS NATIONAL IN CHARACTER
RATHER THAN MERELY LOCAL.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE TERRITORIES
IS EQUALLY BROAD, YET TERRITORIAL COURTS CANNOT BE INVESTED WITH ART.
III POWER UNDER THE O'DONOGHUE CASE.  AND SOME OF THE VERY STATEMENTS
NOW RELIED UPON AS INDICATING THE SCOPE OF CONGRESS' POWER OVER THE
DISTRICT  FN18  WERE QUOTED IN THE O'DONOGHUE CASE, BUT THE RATIONALE
OF THAT CASE WAS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO COURTS OF THE DISTRICT, AS NOTED
ABOVE.  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS WERE THERE REGARDED AS UNIQUE -
DIFFERENT IN POWERS AND MAKEUP FROM EITHER TERRITORIAL COURTS OR OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS.  EXTENSION OF THE O'DONOGHUE CASE TO ALL
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS IS CLEARLY UNWARRANTED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
ESPECIALLY IN THE FACE OF THE UNCONTRADICTED CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY
PREVIOUSLY OUTLINED. 

EXCEPT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THEREFORE, AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.
V. CANTER, SUPRA, AND A LONG LINE OF CASES IN THE SAME VEIN  FN19
PROHIBIT THE INTERMIXTURE OR COMBINATION OF THE PERSONNEL, POWERS, OR
DUTIES OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE COURTS.  WHETHER A COURT IS OF
ONE CATEGORY OR THE OTHER DEPENDS UPON WHAT POWER OF CONGRESS WAS
UTILIZED IN ITS CREATION.  IF IT WAS THE POWER TO CREATE INFERIOR
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS, THE COURT MAY EXERCISE ONLY THE JUDICIAL POWER
OUTLINED IN ART. III.  IF CONGRESS CREATES A JUDICIAL BODY TO IMPLEMENT
ANOTHER OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, THAT BODY IS A LEGISLATIVE COURT
AND MAY EXERCISE NONE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER OF ART. III.  FN20  WE HAVE
HELD THAT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHETHER A COURT IS OF ONE KIND OR
ANOTHER "LIES IN THE POWER UNDER WHICH THE COURT WAS CREATED AND IN THE
JURISDICTION CONFERRED."  EX PARTE BAKELITE CORP., SUPRA AT 459.  I
WOULD ADHERE TO THAT TEST. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID DOES NOT MEAN, OF COURSE, THAT LEGISLATIVE COURTS
CANNOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER QUESTIONS OF THE SAME NATURE AS THOSE
ENUMERATED IN ART. III, SEC. 2.  IT WAS CLEARLY CONTEMPLATED BY THE
FRAMERS THAT STATE COURTS SHOULD HAVE FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION
CONCURRENT WITH THAT EXERCISED BY INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS, YET THEY ARE
NOT CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS NOR DO THEY EXERCISE THE JUDICIAL POWER OF
ART. III.  THE LEGISLATIVE COURTS CREATED BY CONGRESS ALSO CAN AND DO
DECIDE QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES (AND, IN THE CASE OF TERRITORIAL COURTS, OTHER TYPES OF
JURISDICTION ENUMERATED IN ART. III, SEC. 2 AS WELL), BUT THAT
JURISDICTION IS NOT, AND CANNOT BE, "A PART OF THAT JUDICIAL POWER
WHICH IS DEFINED IN THE 3D ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION."  THESE COURTS
ARE "INCAPABLE OF RECEIVING IT."  AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. V. CANTER,
SUPRA AT 546; REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 154.  FN21 

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IS, IN FACT, DEPENDENT UPON
THE FACT THAT THE CASE REVIEWED IS OF A KIND WITHIN THE ART. III
ENUMERATION.  THAT ARTICLE, AFTER SETTING OUT THE CASES OF WHICH
INFERIOR COURTS MAY TAKE COGNIZANCE AND THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT, EXTENDS THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
ONLY AS FAR AS "ALL THE OTHER CASES BEFORE MENTIONED."  WE CAN NO MORE
REVIEW A LEGISLATIVE COURT'S DECISION OF A CASE WHICH IS NOT AMONG
THOSE ENUMERATED IN ART. III THAN WE CAN HEAR A CASE FROM A STATE COURT
INVOLVING PURELY STATE LAW QUESTIONS.  BUT A QUESTION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER ARISING IN A
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, A STATE COURT, OR A LEGISLATIVE COURT MAY, UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION, BE A SUBJECT OF THIS COURT'S APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 
IT WAS LONG AGO HELD THAT 

"THE APPELLATE POWER IS NOT LIMITED BY THE TERMS OF THE THIRD ARTICLE
TO ANY PARTICULAR COURTS.  THE WORDS ARE, 'THE JUDICIAL POWER (WHICH
INCLUDES APPELLATE POWER) SHALL EXTEND TO ALL CASES,' &C., AND 'IN ALL
OTHER CASES BEFORE MENTIONED THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE APPELLATE
JURISDICTION.'  IT IS THE CASE, THEN, AND NOT THE COURT, THAT GIVES THE
JURISDICTION.  IF THE JUDICIAL POWER EXTENDS TO THE CASE, IT WILL BE IN
VAIN TO SEARCH IN THE LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR ANY QUALIFICATION
AS TO THE TRIBUNAL WHERE IT DEPENDS."  MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE, 1
WHEAT.  304, 338(1816). 

THERE IS NO ANOMALY, THEREFORE, IN THE FACT THAT LEGISLATIVE COURTS,
AS WELL AS CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS, EXERCISE FEDERAL QUESTION
JURISDICTION, AND THAT THEY SOMETIMES EXERCISE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
OVER THE SAME MATTERS.  THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE FORMER CONSTITUTIONAL
COURTS, AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. V. CANTER, SUPRA; EX PARTE BAKELITE
CORP., SUPRA.  STILL LESS DOES IT MAKE THE LATTER LEGISLATIVE COURTS,
WHICH IS THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE NOW BEING CONSIDERED.  IT IS ONE
THING TO SAY THAT LEGISLATIVE COURTS MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER
SOME OF THE SAME MATTERS THAT ARE WITHIN ART. III JUDICIAL POWER.  IT
IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO HOLD THAT CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS MAY TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF CAUSES WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT POWER. 

IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL AND
LEGISLATIVE COURTS IS MEANINGLESS IF THE LATTER MAY BE INVESTED WITH
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECTS OF ART. III JUDICIAL POWER.  BUT THERE
ARE LIMITATIONS WHICH INSURE THE PRESERVATION OF THE SYSTEM OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS DISTINCT FROM LEGISLATIVE COURTS.  IN THE FIRST
PLACE, A LEGISLATIVE COURT MUST BE ESTABLISHED UNDER SOME ONE OF THE
SPECIFIC POWERS GIVEN TO CONGRESS, AND IT IS UNLIKELY THAT ALL OF THE
SUBJECTS OF THE JUDICIAL POWER COULD BE JUSTIFIED AS AN EXERCISE OF
THOSE POWERS.  FN22  FURTHERMORE, WE CANNOT IMPUTE TO CONGRESS AN
INTENT NOW OR IN THE FUTURE TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL TO LEGISLATIVE COURTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMASCULATING
THE FORMER.  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL SUGGESTED ANOTHER LIMITATION IN THE
CANTER CASE, WHEN HE SAID THAT WITHIN THE STATES, ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED SOLELY BY CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS, ALTHOUGH
THAT LIMITATION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TERRITORIES.  IT IS AT LEAST OPEN
TO QUESTION, THEREFORE, WHETHER ALL OF THE SUBJECTS OF ART. III
JUDICIAL POWER, OR ONLY FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION, MAY BE
TRANSFERRED TO LEGISLATIVE COURTS WITHIN THE STATES.  FINALLY, EX PARTE
BAKELITE CORP., SUPRA, HAS BEEN READ AS SUGGESTING THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF LEGISLATIVE COURTS IS LIMITED TO MATTERS WHICH, WHILE
PROPER SUBJECTS OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, NEED NOT BE SO DETERMINED
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  FN23  THE LEAST THAT MAY BE SAID IS THAT NO
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE SUGGESTED THAT LEGISLATIVE COURTS MAY TAKE
OVER THE ENTIRE FIELD OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. 

THERE IS A CERTAIN SURFACE APPEAL TO THE ARGUMENT THAT, IF CONGRESS
MAY CREATE STATUTORY COURTS TO HEAR THESE CASES, IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO
ADOPT THE LESS EXPENSIVE AND MORE PRACTICAL EXPEDIENT OF VESTING THAT
JURISDICTION IN THE EXISTING AND FUNCTIONING FEDERAL COURTS THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY.  NO DOUBT A SIMILAR ARGUMENT WAS PRESSED UPON THE JUDGES
IN HAYBURN'S CASE.  UNLESS EXPEDIENCY IS TO BE THE TEST OF JURISDICTION
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, HOWEVER, THE ARGUMENT FALLS OF ITS OWN WEIGHT. 
THE FRAMERS UNQUESTIONABLY INTENDED THAT THE JURISDICTION OF INFERIOR
FEDERAL COURTS BE LIMITED TO THOSE CASES AND CONTROVERSIES ENUMERATED
IN ART. III.  I WOULD NOT SACRIFICE THAT PRINCIPLE ON THE ALTAR OF
EXPEDIENCY. 

                                 II. 

THERE ARE NUMEROUS SECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH ARE CONCERNED
SOLELY WITH THE MECHANICS OF GOVERNMENT AND, OF NECESSITY, SET RATHER
ARBITRARY LIMITS UPON THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE THREE BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT.  NO DOUBT REQUIREMENTS OF THIS KIND HAVE PROVEN IN THE
PAST, AND MAY, IN THE FUTURE, PROVE UNDULY RESTRICTIVE AND
UNDESIRABLE.  YET IF A QUESTION CONCERNING ANY ONE OF THEM WERE BEFORE
US, I DO NOT SUPPOSE THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE COURT WOULD READ INTO THE
CONSTITUTION THE CHANGES THOUGHT DESIRABLE IN OUR DAY. 

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN RESPECT OF THE MOST EXPLICIT OF THESE
LIMITATIONS OF POWER AND THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE WORD "STATE" IN
ART. III IS THAT THE MEANING URGED UPON THE COURT IS NOT EXPRESSLY
CONTROVERTED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THAT IT WAS NOT THE
SPECIFIC INTENT OF THE FRAMERS TO EXTEND DIVERSITY JURISDICTION TO
SUITS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATES SEEMS
TO BE CONCEDED.  ONE WELL VERSED IN THAT SUBJECT, WRITING FOR THE COURT
WITHIN A FEW YEARS OF ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, SO HELD. 

THE QUESTION IS, THEN, WHETHER THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SECTIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION TO WHICH TIME AND EXPERIENCE WERE INTENDED TO GIVE
CONTENT, OR A PROVISION CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE MECHANICS OF
GOVERNMENT.  I THINK THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT BUT THAT IT WAS THE
LATTER.  THAT WE WOULD NOW WRITE THE SECTION DIFFERENTLY SEEMS HARDLY A
SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR AN INTERPRETATION ADMITTEDLY INCONSONANT
WITH THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS.  OURS IS NOT AN AMENDATORY FUNCTION. 

I HARDLY NEED ADD THAT I CONSIDER A FINDING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF
A STATUTE A MATTER OF GRAVE CONCERN.  NEVERTHELESS, CONGRESS CANNOT DO
THAT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS.  I THINK THAT IT HAS
ATTEMPTED TO DO SO HERE. 

FN1  SEE ALSO SHELDON V. SILL, 8 HOW.  441(1850); KLINE V. BURKE
CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226(1922); LAUF V. E.G. SHINNER & CO., 303
U.S. 323(1938); LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182(1943). 

FN2  I.E., IS AN ENUMERATION OF CASES TO WHICH CONGRESS MAY EXTEND
THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WITHOUT INVOKING OTHER OF ITS
POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 

FN3  THIS PRINCIPLE, IMPLICIT IN THE ARGUMENTS AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION, WAS MADE EXPLICIT IN THE 10TH AMENDMENT. 

FN4  2 FARRAND, RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION 341, HEREINAFTER
CITED AS FARRAND. 

FN5  ID. AT 430. 

FN6  SEE MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, 219 U.S. 346, 356(1911). 

FN7  2 FARRAND 425. 

FN8  THE PROPRIETY OF CONSIDERING THE PROPOSALS AND DEBATES OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS LONG AGO CONSIDERED BY THOSE MOST
INTIMATELY CONCERNED WITH ITS FORMULATION.  WASHINGTON, IN HIS MESSAGE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REFUSING THE DEMANDS OF THAT BODY FOR
THE PAPERS RELATING TO JAY'S TREATY, STATED:  "IF OTHER PROOFS THAN
THESE, AND THE PLAIN LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, BE NECESSARY TO
ASCERTAIN THE POINT UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEY MAY BE FOUND IN THE
JOURNALS OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION, WHICH I HAVE DEPOSITED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.  IN THOSE JOURNALS IT WILL APPEAR,
THAT A PROPOSITION WAS MADE, 'THAT NO TREATY SHOULD BE BINDING ON THE
UNITED STATES WHICH WAS NOT RATIFIED BY A LAW,' AND THAT THE
PROPOSITION WAS EXPLICITLY REJECTED."  5 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, FOURTH
CONGRESS, 1ST SESS., P. 761.  SEE ALSO THE COMMENT OF MADISON AT A
LATER DATE.  9 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 240. 

FN9  1 FARRAND 124.  SEE THE ARGUMENT OF LUTHER MARTIN BEFORE THE
MARYLAND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OPPOSING RATIFICATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN 3 FARRAND 156.  SEE ALSO 2 ELLIOT, DEBATES 408; 3 ID.
AT 562 ET SEQ. 

FN10  THIS ACCOUNT, TAKEN FROM MADISON'S NOTES, IS FOUND IN 1 FARRAND
124-125. 

FN11  3 FARRAND 616. 

FN12  1 FARRAND AT 22. 

FN13  ID. AT 231.  THE SENSE OF THE CONVENTION AT THIS POINT WAS
EXPRESSED IN YATES' NOTES AS FOLLOWS:  "GOV.  RANDOLPH OBSERVED THE
DIFFICULTY IN ESTABLISHING THE POWERS OF THE JUDICIARY - THE OBJECT
HOWEVER AT PRESENT IS TO ESTABLISH THIS PRINCIPLE, TO WIT, THE SECURITY
OF FOREIGNERS WHERE TREATIES ARE IN THEIR FAVOR, AND TO PRESERVE THE
HARMONY OF STATES AND THAT OF THE CITIZENS THEREOF.  THIS BEING ONCE
ESTABLISHED, IT WILL BE THE BUSINESS OF A SUB-COMMITTEE TO DETAIL IT;
AND THEREFORE MOVED TO OBLITERATE SUCH PARTS OF THE RESOLVE SO AS ONLY
TO ESTABLISH THE PRINCIPLE, TO WIT, THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE
NATIONAL JUDICIARY SHALL EXTEND TO ALL CASES OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
IMPEACHMENT OF NATIONAL OFFICERS, AND QUESTIONS WHICH INVOLVE THE
NATIONAL PEACE OR HARMONY.  AGREED TO UNANIMOUSLY."  1 FARRAND 238. 

FN14  SEE, E.G., MADISON'S DEFENSE OF THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE BEFORE
THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, 5 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 216-225; 2 ELLIOT,
DEBATES 109; ID. AT 409, WHERE AMONG THE RESOLUTIONS AFFECTING ART. III
WAS ONE WHICH "RESOLVED, AS THE OPINION OF THIS COMMITTEE, THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY OTHER
COURT TO BE INSTITUTED BY THE CONGRESS, OUGHT NOT, IN ANY CASE, TO BE
INCREASED, ENLARGED, OR EXTENDED, BY ANY FICTION, COLLUSION, OR MERE
SUGGESTION"; ID. AT 489-494; 3 ELLIOT, DEBATES 517-584. 

FN15  3 ELLIOT, DEBATES 565.  AND SEE PATRICK HENRY'S REMARKS, ID. AT
539-546. 

FN16  THE CASES ENUMERATED WERE THE FOLLOWING:  "1ST, TO ALL THOSE
WHICH ARISE OUT OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, PASSED IN PURSUANCE
OF THEIR JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF LEGISLATION; 2D, TO ALL
THOSE WHICH CONCERN THE EXECUTION OF THE PROVISIONS EXPRESSLY CONTAINED
IN THE ARTICLES OF UNION; 3D, TO ALL THOSE IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES
ARE A PARTY; 4TH, TO ALL THOSE WHICH INVOLVE THE PEACE OF THE
CONFEDERACY, WHETHER THEY RELATE TO THE INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND FOREIGN NATIONS, OR TO THAT BETWEEN THE STATES THEMSELVES;
5TH, TO ALL THOSE WHICH ORIGINATE ON THE HIGH SEAS, AND ARE OF
ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME JURISDICTION; AND, LASTLY, TO ALL THOSE IN WHICH
THE STATE TRIBUNALS CANNOT BE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL AND UNBIASED." 
P. 494.    FN17  9 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 199-200.  AND SEE UNITED
STATES V. HUDSON AND GOODWIN, 7 CRANCH 32(1812); ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64(1938). 

FN18  FROM GRETHER V. WRIGHT, 75 F. 742(1896).    FN19  SEE E.G.,
BENNER V. PORTER, 9 HOW.  235(1850); CLINTON V. ENGLEBRECHT, 13 WALL. 
434(1871); REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145(1878); MCALLISTER V.
UNITED STATES, 141 U.S. 174(1891); UNITED STATES V. BURROUGHS, 289 U.S.
159(1933); EX PARTE BAKELITE CORP., 279 U.S. 438(1929). 

FN20 IN WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 553(1933), THE COURT
FOUND THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD BEEN CREATED PURSUANT TO THE POWER
OF CONGRESS UNDER ART. I TO PAY THE DEBTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND HAD
BEEN GIVEN POWERS AND DUTIES INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF AN ART. III
COURT.  THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER
"CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE A PARTY" IN ART. III
INCLUDES SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WAS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY TO
THE DECISION, SINCE AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER WOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED THE
COURT OF CLAIMS INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT.  IT IS "INCAPABLE OF
RECEIVING" THE ART. III POWER.  AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. V. CANTER,
SUPRA.  FURTHERMORE, THE COURT RECOGNIZED INFERENTIALLY THAT THE COURT
OF CLAIMS DOES EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER SOME QUESTIONS OF THE KIND
ENUMERATED IN ART. III WHEN, WITH REFERENCE TO CLAIMS FOUNDED UPON THE
CONSTITUTION, IT HELD THAT "THE REQUIREMENT IS ONE IMPOSED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND EQUALLY APPLICABLE WHETHER JURISDICTION BE EXERCISED
BY A LEGISLATIVE COURT OR A CONSTITUTIONAL COURT."  289 U.S. AT 581. 
SINCE COURT OF CLAIMS JURISDICTION ALSO INCLUDES CLAIMS FOUNDED UPON
ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THAT COURT EXERCISES PARALLEL
JURISDICTION WITH THAT OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS OVER CASES ARISING
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, ALTHOUGH LIMITED
TO SUITS INVOLVING CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THIS POINTS UP
THE FACT THAT THE COURT'S DISCUSSION OF THE PHRASE, "CONTROVERSIES TO
WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE A PARTY," WAS UNNECESSARY TO THE
DECISION. 

FN21  IT IS ARGUED THAT BECAUSE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS EXERCISE
JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CONCURRENT WITH THAT
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE FORMER ARE EXERCISING JURISDICTION OF NON
ART.  III NATURE.  WHETHER OR NOT THE DICTUM IN WILLIAMS V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 553(1933) THAT SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT
WITHIN THE ART. III PHRASE, "CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES
SHALL BE A PARTY," PROVES CORRECT, SEE NOTE 20, SUPRA, SUCH ACTIONS
SEEM TO BE CLEARLY WITHIN THE ART. III FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION. 
SEE 2 MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE (1948 ED.)  1633.  OF COURSE THE FACT
THAT CONGRESS EXTENDS THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS TO SUITS
INVOLVING CERTAIN SUBJECT MATTER DOES NOT ITSELF MAKE THEM THE SUBJECT
OF FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION.  BUT THE SOVEREIGN'S IMMUNITY FROM
SUIT HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED SIMPLY AS A QUESTION OF UNAVAILABILITY OF
A FORUM.  AS HAMILTON SAID IN THE FEDERALIST, NO. 81, P. 508:  "THE
CONTRACTS BETWEEN A NATION AND INDIVIDUALS ARE ONLY BINDING ON THE
CONSCIENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN, AND HAVE NO PRETENSIONS TO A COMPULSIVE
FORCE.  THEY CONFER NO RIGHT OF ACTION, INDEPENDENT OF THE SOVEREIGN
WILL."  WHEN THE SOVEREIGN CONSENTS TO BE SUED, THEREFORE, CONSIDERABLY
MORE IS INVOLVED THAN OPENING THE COURTS TO PLAINTIFFS ALREADY
POSSESSED OF CAUSES OF ACTION.  FOR AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SAID IN
LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571, 582(1934): "THE SOVEREIGN'S
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT EXISTS WHATEVER THE CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDING OR
THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHT SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED.  IT APPLIES ALIKE TO
CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING UNDER ACTS OF CONGRESS, ...  AND TO THOSE
ARISING FROM SOME VIOLATION OF RIGHTS CONFERRED UPON THE CITIZEN BY THE
CONSTITUTION,  ...  THE CHARACTER OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION - THE FACT
THAT IT IS IN CONTRACT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM TORT - MAY BE IMPORTANT IN
DETERMINING (AS UNDER THE TUCKER ACT) WHETHER CONSENT TO SUE WAS
GIVEN.  OTHERWISE, IT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE.  FOR IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IS
AN ATTRIBUTE OF SOVEREIGNTY WHICH MAY NOT BE BARTERED AWAY." 

SINCE ANY RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IS COMPLETELY AND
WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER AN ACT OF CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE
SUIT, SEE UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA MUTUAL INVESTMENT CO., 271 U.S.
212, 217(1926), A QUESTION ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
AS THAT PHRASE IS USED IN ART. III, IS CLEARLY PRESENTED BY ANY CLAIM
AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  SINCE CONGRESS HAS DECREED THAT ALL
SUCH ACTIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT IN FEDERAL COURTS, THE QUESTION PRESENTED
IN GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 109(1936), PUERTO RICO V.
RUSSELL & CO., 288 U.S. 476(1933) AND RELATED CASES IS NOT INVOLVED. 

FN22  EXCEPT, PERHAPS, WHEN CONGRESS LEGISLATES FOR THE TERRITORIES
OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

FN23  KATZ, FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE COURTS, 43 HARV. L. REV. 894, 916
917. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

NO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, BARRING ONLY THOSE THAT DRAW ON
ARITHMETIC, AS IN PRESCRIBING THE QUALIFYING AGE FOR A PRESIDENT AND
MEMBERS OF A CONGRESS OR THE LENGTH OF THEIR TENURE OF OFFICE, ARE MORE
EXPLICIT AND SPECIFIC THAN THOSE PERTAINING TO COURTS ESTABLISHED UNDER
ARTICLE III.  "THE JUDICIAL POWER" WHICH IS "VESTED" IN THESE TRIBUNALS
AND THE SAFEGUARDS UNDER WHICH THEIR JUDGES FUNCTION ARE ENUMERATED
WITH PARTICULARITY.  THEIR TENURE AND COMPENSATION, THE CONTROVERSIES
WHICH MAY BE BROUGHT BEFORE THEM, AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF ORIGINAL AND
APPELLATE JURISDICTION AMONG THESE TRIBUNALS ARE DEFINED AND
CIRCUMSCRIBED, NOT LEFT AT LARGE BY VAGUE AND ELASTIC PHRASING.  THE
PRECISION WHICH CHARACTERIZES THESE PORTIONS OF ARTICLE III IS IN
STRIKING CONTRAST TO THE IMPRECISION OF SO MANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION DEALING WITH OTHER VERY VITAL ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT.  THIS
WAS NOT DUE TO CHANCE OR INEPTITUDE ON THE PART OF THE FRAMERS.  THE
DIFFERENCES IN SUBJECT-MATTER ACCOUNT FOR THE DRASTIC DIFFERENCES IN
TREATMENT.  GREAT CONCEPTS LIKE "COMMERCE  ...  AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES," "DUE PROCESS OF LAW," "LIBERTY," "PROPERTY" WERE PURPOSELY
LEFT TO GATHER MEANING FROM EXPERIENCE.  FOR THEY RELATE TO THE WHOLE
DOMAIN OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACT, AND THE STATESMEN WHO FOUNDED THIS
NATION KNEW TOO WELL THAT ONLY A STAGNANT SOCIETY REMAINS UNCHANGED. 
BUT WHEN THE CONSTITUTION IN TURN GIVES STRICT DEFINITION OF POWER OR
SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS UPON IT WE CANNOT EXTEND THE DEFINITION OR REMOVE
THE TRANSLATION.  PRECISELY BECAUSE "IT IS A CONSTITUTION WE ARE
EXPOUNDING," M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 407, WE OUGHT NOT TO
TAKE LIBERTIES WITH IT. 

THERE WAS DEEP DISTRUST OF A FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AS AGAINST THE
STATE JUDICIARIES, IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.  THIS DISTRUST WAS
REFLECTED IN THE EVOLUTION OF ARTICLE III.  FN1 MOREOVER, WHEN THEY
DEALT WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER AS BETWEEN THE COURTS OF
THE STATES AND THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE FRAMERS WERE
DEALING WITH A TECHNICAL SUBJECT IN A PROFESSIONAL WAY.  MORE THAN
THAT, SINCE THE JUDGES OF THE COURTS FOR WHICH ARTICLE III MADE
PROVISION NOT ONLY HAD THE LAST WORD (APART FROM AMENDING THE
CONSTITUTION) BUT ALSO ENJOYED LIFE TENURE, IT WAS AN ESSENTIAL
SAFEGUARD AGAINST CONTROL BY THE JUDICIARY OF ITS OWN JURISDICTION, TO
DEFINE THE JURISDICTION OF THOSE COURTS WITH PARTICULARITY.  THE
FRAMERS GUARDED AGAINST THE SELF-WILL OF THE COURTS AS WELL AS AGINST
THE WILL OF CONGRESS BY MARKING WITH EXACTITUDE THE OUTER LIMITS OF
FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER. 

ACCORDING TO ARTICLE III, ONLY "JUDICIAL POWER" CAN BE "VESTED" IN
THE COURTS ESTABLISHED UNDER IT.  AT LEAST THIS LIMITATION, WHICH HAS
BEEN THE LAW OF THE LAND SINCE 1792, HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 DALL.  409, IS
NOT YET CALLED INTO QUESTION.  AND SO THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT TODAY
ELICIT THIS COURT'S VIEWS ON TICKLISH PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ANY
MORE THAN WASHINGTON WAS ABLE TO DO IN 1793.  SEE THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN
SECRETARY OF STATE JEFFERSON AND CHIEF JUSTICE JAY IN 3 JOHNSTON,
CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS OF JOHN JAY, 486-89(1891), AND 10
SPARKS, WRITINGS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, 542-45(1840). 

BUT IF COURTS ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE III CAN EXERCISE WIDER
JURISDICTION THAN THAT DEFINED AND CONFINED BY ARTICLE III, AND IF THEY
ARE AVAILABLE TO EFFECTUATE THE VARIOUS SUBSTANTIVE POWERS OF CONGRESS,
SUCH AS THE POWER TO LEGISLATE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHAT
JUSTIFICATION IS THERE FOR INTERPRETING ARTICLE III AS IMPOSING ONE
RESTRICTION IN THE EXERCISE OF THOSE OTHER POWERS OF THE CONGRESS - THE
RESTRICTION TO THE EXERCISE OF "JUDICIAL POWER" - YET NOT INTERPRETING
IT AS IMPOSING THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE MOST EXPLICIT, NAMELY, THE
PARTICULARIZATION OF THE "CASES" TO WHICH "THE JUDICIAL POWER SHALL
EXTEND"? 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE CLAIM FOR WHICH ACCESS IS SOUGHT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND, ONE OF THE COURTS ESTABLISHED UNDER
ARTICLE III, IS NOT INCLUDED AMONG THE "CASES" TO WHICH THE JUDICIAL
POWER CAN BE MADE TO EXTEND.  BUT IF THE PRECISE ENUMERATION OF CASES
AS TO WHICH ARTICLE III AUTHORIZED CONGRESS TO GRANT JURISDICTION TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS DOES NOT PRECLUDE CONGRESS FROM
VESTING THESE COURTS WITH AUTHORITY WHICH ARTICLE III DISALLOWS, BY
WHAT RULE OF REASON IS CONGRESS TO BE PRECLUDED FROM BRINGING TO ITS
AID THE ADVISORY OPINIONS OF THIS COURT OR OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS? 
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE, TO
ESTABLISH UNIFORM RULES OF NATURALIZATION, TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES,
OR TO EXECUTE ANY OF THE OTHER POWERS OF CONGRESS THAT ARE NO LESS
VITAL THAN ITS POWER TO LEGISLATE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE
CONGRESS MAY BE GREATLY IN NEED OF INFORMED AND DISINTERESTED LEGAL
ADVICE.  IF CONGRESS MAY GRANT TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
AUTHORITY TO ACT IN SITUATIONS IN WHICH ARTICLE III DENIES IT, WHY MAY
NOT THIS COURT RESPOND TO CALLS UPON IT BY CONGRESS IF CONFRONTED WITH
THE CONSCIENTIOUS BELIEF OF CONGRESS THAT SUCH A CALL IS MADE UNDER THE
NECESSARY-AND-PROPER CLAUSE IN ORDER TO DEAL WISELY AND EFFECTIVELY
WITH SOME SUBSTANTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS?  AGAIN, IF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE JURISDICTION
RIGIDLY DEFINED BY ARTICLE III, WHY IS THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
RESTRICTED TO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ONLY IN "CASES AFFECTING
AMBASSADORS, OTHER PUBLIC MINISTERS AND CONSULS, AND THOSE IN WHICH A
STATE SHALL BE PARTY"?  WHY IS NOT CONGRESS JUSTIFIED IN CONFERRING
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UPON THIS COURT IN LITIGATION INVOLVING THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND
PROPER "FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION" ITS POWER "TO DECLARE WAR," OR "TO
RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES"? 

COURTS SET UP UNDER ARTICLE III TO EXERCISE THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES DO SO EITHER BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER
OR BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL POSITION OF THE PARTIES.  SO FAR AS THE
SUBJECT-MATTER IS CONCERNED, IT EXTENDS TO CASES ARISING UNDER THE
"CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TREATIES," AS WELL AS
"TO ALL CASES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION."  ARTICLE I, SEC.
8, IS AN ENUMERATION OF THE SUBJECTS IN RELATION TO WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES CONGRESS TO MAKE LAWS.  ITS EIGHTEEN DIVISIONS
OF LEGISLATIVE POWER ARE THE SOURCES OF FEDERAL RIGHTS AND SANCTIONS. 
LAWS ENACTED UNDER THEM ARE "THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES," TO WHICH
THE "JUDICIAL POWER," GRANTED BY ARTICLE III, EXTENDS.  LAWS AFFECTING
REVENUE, WAR, COMMERCE, IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION, BANKRUPTCY, AND
THE REST, AS WELL AS THE VAST RANGE OF LAWS AUTHORIZED BY THE
"NECESSARY-AND-PROPER" CLAUSE, ARE THE GENERATING SOURCES OF "ALL
CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY, ARISING UNDER  ...  THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES," AND THEREFORE COGNIZABLE BY THE COURTS ESTABLISHED UNDER
ARTICLE III.  CONGRESS CAN AUTHORIZE THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS; IT CAN
THEREFORE AUTHORIZE SUIT THEREON IN ANY DISTRICT COURT.  CONGRESS CAN
ESTABLISH POST OFFICES; IT CAN THEREFORE AUTHORIZE SUITS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE NEGLIGENT KILLING OF A CHILD BY A POST-OFFICE
TRUCK. 

INSOFAR AS THE COURTS ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE III CAN ENTERTAIN A
CASE NOT INVOLVING THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR
TREATIES, NOR CONCERNING ADMIRALTY, THEY DO SO BECAUSE OF THE STATUS OF
THE PARTIES, ENUMERATED WITH PARTICULARITY IN ARTICLE III. 

WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO
ADJUDICATE MERELY BECAUSE OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES.  POWER TO
ADJUDICATE BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, MERELY BECAUSE THEY
ARE CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, HAS NO RELATION TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHTS CREATED BY CONGRESS.  WHEN THE SOLE SOURCE OF THE RIGHT TO BE
ENFORCED IS THE LAW OF A STATE, THE RIGHT TO RESORT TO A FEDERAL COURT
IS RESTRICTED TO "CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES."  THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE
SUCH STATE-CREATED OBLIGATIONS DERIVES ITS SOLE STRENGTH FROM ARTICLE
III.  NO OTHER PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION LENDS SUPPORT.  BUT FOR
ARTICLE III, THE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS WHICH ONLY A STATE, NOT
THE UNITED STATES, CREATES WOULD BE CONFINED TO STATE COURTS.  IT IS
ARTICLE III AND NOTHING OUTSIDE IT THAT AUTHORIZES CONGRESS TO TREAT
FEDERAL COURTS AS "ONLY ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE," GUARANTY TRUST CO.
V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, 108, AND ARTICLE III ALLOWS IT TO DO SO ONLY WHEN
THE PARTIES ARE CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT "STATES."  IF CONGRESS, IN ITS
LAW-MAKING POWER OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CREATED SOME RIGHT FOR
THE INHABITANTS OF THE DISTRICT, IT COULD CHOOSE TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THAT RIGHT IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE
THE CASE WOULD BE ONE ARISING UNDER "THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES." 
BUT HERE THE CONTROVERSY IS ONE ARISING NOT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES BUT UNDER THE LAWS OF MARYLAND.  BY THE COMMAND OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THIS MARYLAND-CREATED RIGHT CAN BE ENFORCED IN A FEDERAL
COURT ONLY IF THE CONTROVERSY IS BETWEEN "CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES"
IN RELATION TO THE STATE IN WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT IS SITTING. 

THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WAS PROBABLY THE
MOST TENUOUSLY FOUNDED AND MOST UNWILLINGLY GRANTED OF ALL THE HEADS OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS WAS EMPOWERED BY ARTICLE III TO
CONFER.  IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE JURISDICTION OF
THE FEDERAL COURTS BASED MERELY ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP HAS BEEN
MORE CONTINUOUSLY UNDER FIRE THAN ANY OTHER.  FN2  INERTIA LARGELY
ACCOUNTS FOR ITS RETENTION.  BY WITHDRAWING THE MERETRICIOUS ADVANTAGES
WHICH DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AFFORDED ONE OF THE PARTIES IN SOME TYPES
OF LITIGATION, ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, HAS HAPPILY
ELIMINATED SOME PRACTICAL BUT INDEFENSIBLE REASONS FOR ITS RETENTION. 
AN ACT FOR THE ELIMINATION OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION COULD FAIRLY BE
CALLED AN ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  CONCEDEDLY, NO
GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST OR LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLE IS AT STAKE IN THE
DESIRE OF A CORPORATION WHICH HAPPENS TO HAVE BEEN CHARTERED IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO PURSUE ITS CLAIM AGAINST A CITIZEN OF MARYLAND
IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN MARYLAND ON THE THEORY THAT THE RIGHT OF THIS
ARTIFICIAL CITIZEN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CANNOT BE VINDICATED IN
THE STATE COURTS OF MARYLAND. 

BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE DISLOCATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF
JURISDICTION AMONG ITS TRIBUNALS SO CAREFULLY FORMULATED IN ARTICLE III
IS TOO HEAVY A PRICE TO PAY FOR WHATEVER ADVANTAGE THERE MAY BE TO A
CITIZEN OF THE DISTRICT, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL, TO GO TO A FEDERAL
COURT IN A PARTICULAR STATE INSTEAD OF TO THE STATE COURT IN SUING A
CITIZEN OF THAT STATE.  NOR IS IT MERELY A DISLOCATION FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ACCOMPLISHING A RESULT OF TRIVIAL IMPORTANCE IN THE PRACTICAL
AFFAIRS OF LIFE.  THE PROCESS OF REASONING BY WHICH THIS RESULT IS
REACHED INVITES A USE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WHICH BREAKS WITH THE WHOLE
HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND DISREGARDS THE WISE POLICY BEHIND
THAT HISTORY.  IT WAS BECAUSE ARTICLE III DEFINES AND CONFINES THE
LIMITS OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS WHICH ARE ESTABLISHED UNDER
ARTICLE III THAT THE FIRST COURT OF CLAIMS ACT FELL, GORDON V. UNITED
STATES, 2 WALL.  561, 117 U.S. 697.  AND IT WAS IN OBSERVANCE OF THESE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS THAT THIS COURT HAD TO DECLINE APPELLATE POWERS
SOUGHT TO BE CONFERRED BY THE CONGRESS IN AN EXERCISE OF ITS
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE DISTRICT.  KELLER V. POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER
CO., 261 U.S. 428. 

TO FIND A SOURCE FOR "THE JUDICIAL POWER," THEREFORE, WHICH MAY BE
EXERCISED BY COURTS ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION
OUTSIDE THAT ARTICLE WOULD BE TO DISREGARD THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS
MADE BY THE CONSTITUTION  FN3.  THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE - TO EXPAND "THE
JUDICIAL POWER" OF ARTICLE III TO INCLUDE A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN A
CITIZEN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND A CITIZEN OF ONE OF THE STATES
BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISION EXTENDING "THE JUDICIAL POWER" TO
CONTROVERSIES "BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES" - WOULD DISREGARD
AN EXPLICIT LIMITATION OF ARTICLE III.  FOR A HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS
"STATES" AS THERE USED MEANT "STATES" - THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS
THAT FORM THE UNION AND ALONE HAVE POWER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. 
THE WORD DID NOT COVER THE DISTRICT WHICH WAS TO BECOME "THE SEAT OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES," NOR THE "TERRITORY" BELONGING TO
THE UNITED STATES, BOTH OF WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DEALT WITH IN
DIFFERENTIATION FROM THE STATES.  A DECENT RESPECT FOR UNBROKEN HISTORY
SINCE THE COUNTRY'S FOUNDATION, FOR CONTEMPORANEOUS INTERPRETATION BY
THOSE BEST QUALIFIED TO MAKE IT, FOR THE CAPACITY OF THE DISTINGUISHED
LAWYERS AMONG THE FRAMERS TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES WITH PRECISION WHEN
DEALING WITH TECHNICAL MATTERS, UNITE TO ADMONISH AGAINST DISREGARDING
THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE III EXTENDING THE DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS "TO CONTROVERSIES  ... BETWEEN
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES," NOT TO CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN "CITIZENS
OF DIFFERENT STATES, INCLUDING THE DISTRICT AND THE TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES." 

THE FRAMERS, IN MAKING PROVISION IN REGARD TO "STATES," MEANT THE
STATES WHICH SENT THEM AS DELEGATES TO THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION AND
THE STATES WHICH WERE TO BE ADMITTED LATER.  IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED
THAT THE DISTRICT WHICH WAS TO BECOME THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT COULD EVER
BECOME A STATE.  MARSHALL HAD NO MEAN SHARE IN SECURING ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND TOOK SPECIAL INTEREST IN THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE.  HE
MERELY GAVE EXPRESSION TO THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING - THE BEST TEST OF
THE MEANING OF WORDS - WHEN HE REJECTED SUMMARILY THE NOTION THAT THE
CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT ARE INCLUDED AMONG CITIZENS OF "STATES." 

THE VERY SUBJECT-MATTER OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF ARTICLE III IS TECHNICAL
IN THE ESTEEMED SENSE OF THAT TERM.  THESE SECTIONS DO NOT DEAL WITH
GENERALITIES EXPANDING WITH EXPERIENCE.  PROVISIONS FOR THE
ORGANIZATION OF COURTS AND THEIR JURISDICTION PRESUPPOSE DEFINITENESS
AND PRECISION OF PHRASING.  THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE HEEDED AND MET BY
THOSE WHO WERE CONCERNED WITH FRAMING THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE; WILSON AND
MADISON AND MORRIS AND RUTLEDGE AND SHERMAN WERE LAWYERS OF LEARNING
AND ASTUTENESS.  THE SCOPE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER WITH WHICH THE FEDERAL
COURTS WERE TO BE ENTRUSTED WAS, AS I HAVE SAID, ONE OF THE MOST
SHARPLY DEBATED AND THOROUGHLY CANVASSED SUBJECTS IN INDEPENDENCE
HALL.  WHEN THE FRAMERS FINALLY DECIDED TO EXTEND THE JUDICIAL POWER TO
CONTROVERSIES "BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES," THEY MEANT TO BE
RESTRICTIVE IN THE USE OF THAT TERM.  THEY WERE NOT UNAWARE OF THE FACT
THAT OUTSIDE THE STATES THERE WAS THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY, AND THAT
THERE WAS TO BE A SEAT OF GOVERNMENT.  CONSIDERING THEIR
RESPONSIBILITY, THEIR PROFESSIONAL HABITS, AND THEIR ALERTNESS
REGARDING THE DETAILS OF ARTICLE III, THE PRECISE ENUMERATION OF THE
HEADS OF JURISDICTION MADE BY THE FRAMERS OUGHT TO PRECLUDE THE NOTION
THAT THEY SHARED THE LATITUDINARIAN ATTITUDE OF ALICE IN WONDERLAND
TOWARD LANGUAGE. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION RELATING TO
"STATES" APPLY TO THE DISTRICT.  IF THE MERE REPETITION OF AN
INACCURACY BEGETS TRUTH, THEN THAT STATEMENT IS TRUE, NOT OTHERWISE. 
DECISIONS CONCERNED WITH THE DISTRICT INVOLVING TRIAL BY JURY IN
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR ITS PROCEEDINGS,
AND THE POWER TO TAX RESIDENTS, REST ON PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION
NOT LIMITED TO "STATES."  THERE MAY BE A DECISION IN WHICH THE SOURCE
OF RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS AFFECTING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DERIVES
FROM A LEGAL RIGHT RELATING SOLELY TO "STATES" OR A DUTY TO WHICH ONLY
"STATES" MUST BE OBEDIENT.  I KNOW OF NO SUCH CASE. 

OF COURSE EVERY INDULGENCE MUST BE ENTERTAINED IN FAVOR OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY WHEN LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS CAN FAIRLY BE DEEMED AN
EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION, IN THE FORMULATION OF POLICY, GIVEN TO
CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION.  BUT THE CASES TO WHICH JURISDICTION MAY
BE EXTENDED UNDER ARTICLE III TO THE COURTS ESTABLISHED UNDER IT
PRECLUDE ANY CLAIM OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO ADD TO THE CASES
LISTED BY ARTICLE III OR TO CHANGE THE DISTRIBUTION AS BETWEEN ORIGINAL
AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION MADE BY THAT ARTICLE.  CONGRESS NEED NOT
ESTABLISH INFERIOR COURTS; CONGRESS NEED NOT GRANT THE FULL SCOPE OF
JURISDICTION WHICH IT IS EMPOWERED TO VEST IN THEM; CONGRESS NEED NOT
GIVE THIS COURT ANY APPELLATE POWER; IT MAY WITHDRAW APPELLATE
JURISDICTION ONCE CONFERRED AND IT MAY DO SO EVEN WHILE A CASE IS SUB
JUDICE.  EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 7 WALL.  506.  BUT WHEN THE CONSTITUTION
DEFINED THE ULTIMATE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL POWER EXERCISABLE BY COURTS
WHICH DERIVE THEIR SOLE AUTHORITY FROM ARTICLE III, IT IS BEYOND THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXTEND THOSE LIMITS.  IF THERE IS ONE SUBJECT AS
TO WHICH THIS COURT OUGHT NOT TO FEEL INHIBITED IN PASSING ON THE
VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION BY DOUBTS OF ITS OWN COMPETENCE TO JUDGE WHAT
CONGRESS HAS DONE, IT IS LEGISLATION AFFECTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  WHEN CONGRESS ON A RARE OCCASION THROUGH INADVERTENCE
OR GENEROSITY EXCEEDS THOSE LIMITATIONS, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT GOOD
NATUREDLY IGNORE SUCH A TRANSGRESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL POWERS. 

A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF THE COURT AGREES THAT EACH OF THE TWO
GROUNDS URGED IN SUPPORT OF THE ATTEMPT BY CONGRESS TO EXTEND DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION TO CASES INVOLVING CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MUST BE REJECTED - BUT NOT THE SAME MAJORITY.  AND SO, CONFLICTING
MINORITIES IN COMBINATION BRING TO PASS A RESULT - PARADOXICAL AS IT
MAY APPEAR - WHICH DIFFERING MAJORITIES OF THE COURT FIND
INSUPPORTABLE. 

FN1  THE STORY OF THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
DEVISED BY ARTICLE III IS EASILY TRACEABLE THROUGH THE ADMIRABLE INDEX
IN FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION (REV. ED., 1937); THE
DATA ARE ASSEMBLED IN PRESCOTT, DRAFTING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, CH.
17(1941); SEE ALSO FRIENDLY, THE HISTORIC BASIS OF DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION, 41 HARV. L. REV. 483(1928). 

FN2  SEE FOR EXAMPLE, HEARINGS AND S. REP. NO. 626, ON S. 3151, 70TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1928); S. REP. NO. 691, ON S. 4357, 71ST CONG., 2D
SESS. (1930); S. 937, S. 939, H.R. 10594, H.R. 11508, S. REP. NO. 530
AND S. REP. NO. 701, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1932); HEARINGS ON S. 466,
79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945).  EARLIER ATTACKS ON DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION ARE SUMMARIZED IN FRANKFURTER AND LANDIS, THE BUSINESS OF
THE SUPREME COURT, 90 ET SEQ., 136 ET SEQ. (1928). 

FN3  RELIANCE ON WILLIAMS V. AUSTRIAN, 331 U.S. 642, 657, SEEMS
SINGULARLY INAPPOSITE.  WHEN A PETITION FOR BANKRUPTCY IS FILED, THERE
MAY BE OUTSTANDING CLAIMS BY THE BANKRUPT AGAINST DEBTORS AND BY
CREDITORS AGAINST THE BANKRUPT.  OF COURSE CONGRESS HAS POWER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER ALL SUCH CLAIMS - THOSE FOR, AND THOSE AGAINST, THE
BANKRUPT ESTATE - SHOULD BE ENFORCED THROUGH THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THAT
A PARTICULAR CLAIM DISSOCIATED FROM THE FACT OF BANKRUPTCY WOULD HAVE
TO BE BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT FOR WANT OF ANY GROUND OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION IS IRRELEVANT.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
POWER TO "PASS UNIFORM LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES" CONGRESS
MAY DEEM IT DESIRABLE THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS BE UTILIZED FOR ALL THE
CLAIMS THAT PERTAIN TO THE BANKRUPT ESTATE WHETHER IN THE FEDERAL COURT
IN WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING IS PENDING OR IN A MORE CONVENIENT
FEDERAL COURT.  THE CONGERIES OF CONTROVERSIES THUS BROUGHT INTO BEING
BY REASON OF BANKRUPTCY MAY BE LODGED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BECAUSE
THEY ARISE UNDER "THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES," TO WIT, LAWS
CONCERNING THE "SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES."  IT IS A MATTER OF
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY WHETHER THERE MUST BE A CONCOURSE OF ALL CLAIMS
AFFECTING THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN WHICH THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING IS PENDING OR WHETHER AUXILIARY SUITS BE PURSUED
IN OTHER FEDERAL COURTS. 
..END :

















LABOR BOARD V. PITTSBURGH S.S. CO., 337 U.S. 656 


NO. 258.  ARGUED APRIL 19, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 167 F.2D
126, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THE WAGNER ACT, 49 STAT. 449, THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ADOPTED A TRIAL EXAMINER'S FINDINGS WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, AND ISSUED A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER AGAINST AN
EMPLOYER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE EVIDENCE, HELD THAT THE FINDINGS AND THE ORDER WERE INVALIDATED
BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S BIAS AS DISCLOSED BY HIS CREDITING BOARD
WITNESSES AND DISCREDITING WITNESSES FOR THE EMPLOYER, AND REFUSED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  HELD:  THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
REFUSING ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER, ON THE GROUND OF THE TRIAL
EXAMINER'S BIAS, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  PP. 657-660. 

2.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT WERE
ENACTED AFTER THE BOARD'S ORDER AND BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS'
DECISION.  QUESTIONS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY AND POSSIBLE EFFECT OF
EITHER OR BOTH OF THOSE ACTS WERE APPARENTLY NOT DEALT WITH BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND WERE NOT BRIEFED WITH ANY ELABORATION BEFORE THIS
COURT.  HELD:  ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE WAS SUFFICIENT UNDER
THE WAGNER ACT TO SUSTAIN THE BOARD'S FINDINGS AND ORDER, THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICABILITY
AND POSSIBLE EFFECT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND THE TAFT
HARTLEY ACT, WHICH QUESTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
BY THAT COURT.  PP. 661-662. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PITTSBURGH STEAMSHIP CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
UNDER THE WAGNER ACT, 69 N.L.R.B. 1395, WAS REFUSED ENFORCEMENT BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  167 F.2D 126.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335
U.S. 857.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 662. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1945 THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER HERE, ISSUED
ITS COMPLAINT CHARGING RESPONDENT WITH THE COMMISSION OF CERTAIN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES IN THE COURSE OF OPERATING ITS FLEET OF GREAT LAKES
BULK CARGO VESSELS.  AS DEVELOPED AT A HEARING BEFORE A TRIAL EXAMINER,
THE BOARD'S CHARGES WERE IN SUBSTANCE THAT IN 1944 RESPONDENT
INTERFERED WITH ATTEMPTS BY THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION TO ORGANIZE
RESPONDENT'S SEAMEN, WITH THE PURPOSE AND THE ULTIMATELY ACHIEVED
EFFECT OF CAUSING THE UNION'S REPUDIATION AT A BOARD-SPONSORED
ELECTION.  FN1  SPECIFICALLY, THERE WAS TESTIMONY TENDING TO SHOW THAT
LICENSED PERSONNEL (OFFICERS) ON CERTAIN OF RESPONDENT'S SHIPS BY WORD
AND DEED HAD EXPRESSED TO THEIR UNLICENSED SEAMEN BITTER HOSTILITY TO
THE UNION AND ITS MEMBERS; THAT RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT, ONE FERBERT,
HAD WRITTEN TWO LETTERS TO EVERY SEAMAN COVERTLY SUGGESTING IN
INACCURATE FASHION THE POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGES OF NMU REPRESENTATION;
AND THAT ONE SHARTLE WAS DISCHARGED FROM RESPONDENT'S EMPLOY FOR
ENGAGING IN UNION ORGANIZATION.  SOME OF THE BOARD'S TESTIMONY,
TENDERED BY UNION WITNESSES, WAS CONTROVERTED BY RESPONDENT'S
WITNESSES; AND RESPONDENT ALSO INTRODUCED TESTIMONY TENDING TO SHOW
THAT IT HAD STRICTLY ENJOINED ITS LICENSED PERSONNEL TO REMAIN WHOLLY
NEUTRAL IN THE WEEKS LEADING UP TO AND INCLUDING THE BOARD ELECTION. 

THE TRIAL EXAMINER CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT HAD INTERFERED WITH NMU
ORGANIZATION, IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 7 AND 8(1) OF THE WAGNER ACT, 29
U.S.C. SECS. 157, 158(1), AND HAD FIRED AN EMPLOYEE FOR UNION ACTIVITY,
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(3), 29 U.S.C. SEC. 158(3).  RESPONDENT'S
EXCEPTIONS TO THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S FINDINGS WERE BRIEFED AND ARGUED
BEFORE THE BOARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS USUAL PROCEDURE.  ON AUGUST
13, 1946, THE BOARD ADOPTED THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S FINDINGS WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, AND ISSUED ITS ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM ITS ANTIUNION CONDUCT AND TO REINSTATE THE WRONGFULLY
DISCHARGED SHARTLE WITH FULL SENIORITY AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOST
WAGES.  69 N.L.R.B. 1395. 

TWO MONTHS LATER RESPONDENT PETITIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS TO REVIEW
THE BOARD'S ORDER; THE BOARD FILED A COUNTERPETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
THE ORDER.  ON APRIL 5, 1948, THE COURT ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION REFUSING
ENFORCEMENT.  167 F.2D 126.  THE COURT DID NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE, IF CREDITED, WOULD SUPPORT THE FINDINGS.  INSTEAD IT HELD THE
FINDINGS AND THE ORDER BASED THEREON INVALIDATED BY THE LATENT,
PERVASIVE AND UNREMEDIED BIAS OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER - A BIAS FOUND
APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD:  "WITHOUT EXCEPTION, WHENEVER THERE
WAS A CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE, THE WITNESSES FOR THE (COMPANY) WERE HELD
TO BE UNTRUSTWORTHY AND THOSE FOR THE UNION RELIABLE.  ...  IT IS
ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE UNVARYING REPUDIATION OF EVERY WITNESS FOR THE
PETITIONER BECAUSE OF FALSITY, EVASION OR FAINT RECOLLECTION, ALONG
WITH THE CONSISTENT EXALTATION OF EVERY UNION WITNESS AS TRUTHFUL,
FORTHRIGHT AND ACCURATE, DESTROYS COMPLETELY ANY CONFIDENCE THAT MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE PLACED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER AND (STAMPS)
THEM AS ARBITRARY.  THE LABOR BOARD HAVING ADOPTED THEM IN TOTO, ITS
BLANKET PRO FORMA FINDINGS ARE IN NO BETTER POSTURE.  ...  WITH DUE
RESPECT FOR THE RULE THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD ARE BINDING UPON US
IF BASED UPON EVIDENCE, IT BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN AN ORDER UPON
THE ADOPTION OF A TRIAL EXAMINER'S REPORT WHICH, UPON ITS FACE, SO
CLEARLY BEARS THE IMPRINT OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE THAT IT LACKS ALL
SEMBLANCE OF FAIR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION."  167 F.2D AT 128-129.  TO
REVIEW THE COURT'S DETERMINATION, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S.
857. 

FIRST:  WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO REJECT THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT AN
OBJECTIVE FINDER OF FACT COULD NOT RESOLVE ALL FACTUAL CONFLICTS
ARISING IN A LEGAL PROCEEDING IN FAVOR OF ONE LITIGANT.  THE ORDINARY
LAWSUIT, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, NORMALLY DEPENDS FOR ITS RESOLUTION ON
WHICH VERSION OF THE FACTS IN DISPUTE IS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIER OF
FACT.  WHERE THE NUMBER OF FACTS IN DISPUTE INCREASES, THE ARITHMETICAL
CHANCE OF THEIR UNIFORM RESOLUTION DIMINISHES - BUT IT DOES NOT
DISAPPEAR.  YET IT IS NOT MERE ARITHMETICAL CHANCE WHICH CONTROLS OUR
PRESENT INQUIRY, FOR THE FACTS DISPUTED IN LITIGATION ARE NOT RANDOM
UNKNOWNS IN ISOLATED EQUATIONS - THEY ARE FACETS OF RELATED HUMAN
BEHAVIOR, AND THE CHISELING OF ONE FACET HELPS TO MARK THE BORDERS OF
THE NEXT.  THUS, IN THE DETERMINATION OF LITIGATED FACTS, THE TESTIMONY
OF ONE WHO HAS BEEN FOUND UNRELIABLE AS TO ONE ISSUE MAY PROPERLY BE
ACCORDED LITTLE WEIGHT AS TO THE NEXT.  ACCORDINGLY, TOTAL REJECTION OF
AN OPPOSED VIEW CANNOT OF ITSELF IMPUGN THE INTEGRITY OR COMPETENCE OF
A TRIER OF FACT.  THE GIST OF THE MATTER HAS BEEN PUT WELL BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, SPEAKING THROUGH JUDGE HUTCHESON, IN
GRANTING ENFORCEMENT OF AN NLRB ORDER: 

"THE FACT ALONE  ...  OF WHICH RESPONDENT MAKES SO MUCH, THAT
EXAMINER AND BOARD UNIFORMLY CREDITED THE BOARD'S WITNESSES AND AS
UNIFORMLY DISCREDITED THOSE OF THE RESPONDENT, THOUGH THE BOARD'S
WITNESSES WERE FEW AND THE RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES WERE MANY, WOULD NOT
FURNISH A BASIS FOR A FINDING BY US THAT SUCH A BIAS OR PARTIALITY
EXISTED AND THEREFORE THE HEARINGS WERE UNFAIR.  UNLESS THE CREDITED
EVIDENCE  ...  CARRIES ITS OWN DEATH WOUND, THAT IS, IS INCREDIBLE AND
THEREFORE, CANNOT IN LAW BE CREDITED, AND THE DISCREDITED EVIDENCE  ...
CARRIES ITS OWN IRREFUTABLE TRUTH, THAT IS, IS OF SUCH NATURE THAT IT
CANNOT IN LAW BE DISCREDITED, WE CANNOT DETERMINE THAT TO CREDIT THE
ONE AND DISCREDIT THE OTHER IS AN EVIDENCE OF BIAS."  FN2 

SUFFICE IT TO SAY IN THIS CASE THAT OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED TO
NO CREDITED TESTIMONY WHICH "CARRIES ITS OWN DEATH WOUND," AND TO NONE
DISCREDITED WHICH "CARRIES ITS OWN IRREFUTABLE TRUTH."  INDEED, CAREFUL
SCRUTINY OF THE RECORD BELIES THE VIEW THAT THE TRIAL EXAMINER DID IN
FACT BELIEVE ALL UNION TESTIMONY  FN3  OR THAT HE EVEN BELIEVED THE
UNION VERSION OF EVERY DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUE.  FN4  RATHER, THE
PRINTED TRANSCRIPT SUGGESTS THOUGHTFUL AND DISCRIMINATING EVALUATION OF
THE FACTS. 

SECOND:  A QUESTION REMAINS AS TO THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THIS
CASE.  IT IS URGED UPON US BY THE BOARD THAT, THERE BEING SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS AND ORDER, WE
SHOULD REMAND THE CASE WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER
WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY.  WITHOUT DOUBTING THE EXISTENCE HERE OF EVIDENCE
SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH UNDER THE WAGNER ACT, CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 229, TO WARRANT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS, WE ARE
NOT CERTAIN WHETHER THAT STANDARD CONTROLS THIS CASE.  FOR QUESTIONS
HAVE ARISEN WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 237, 5
U.S.C. SEC. 1001 ET SEQ., AND THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, 61 STAT. 136, 29
U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. I), SEC. 141 ET SEQ., ENACTED BETWEEN ISSUANCE
OF THE BOARD'S ORDER AND THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION, ARE APPLICABLE
TO AND, IF APPLICABLE, IN ANY WAY AFFECT BOARD PROCEDURES AND THE SCOPE
OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF BOARD ORDERS.  THE APPLICABILITY AND POSSIBLE
EFFECT OF EITHER OR BOTH OF THESE STATUTES APPARENTLY WERE NOT DEALT
WITH BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH NEITHER DISCUSSED THE STATUTES NOR
CITED CASES DISCUSSING THEM; THE STATUTES AND THEIR IMPACT HAVE NOT
BEEN BRIEFED WITH ANY ELABORATION BEFORE THIS COURT.  THESE QUESTIONS
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
ACCORDINGLY, IN ORDER TO AFFORD SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY, WE REMAND THE
CAUSE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THE QUESTION VOTED ON WAS ACCEPTANCE OF THE NMU AS COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGENT:  THE NMU WAS REJECTED BY A VOTE OF 889 TO 720. 

FN2  LABOR BOARD V. ROBBINS TIRE & RUBBER CO., 161 F.2D 798, 800; SEE
LABOR BOARD V. AUBURN FOUNDRY, 119 F.2D 331, 333. 

FN3  THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRIAL EXAMINER HAD THE FOLLOWING TO SAY
BY WAY OF FOOTNOTE TO HIS INTERMEDIATE REPORT:  "NO ATTEMPT WILL BE
MADE TO DESCRIBE ALL STATEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES CLAIMED BY COUNSEL FOR
THE BOARD TO CONSTITUTE PART OF THE RESPONDENT'S COURSE OF ANTIUNION
CONDUCT.  THUS, NO MENTION IS MADE OF THOSE INCIDENTS WHICH THE
UNDERSIGNED REGARDS AS INSUBSTANTIAL IN CHARACTER OR AS UNSUPPORTED BY
A FAIR PREPONDERANCE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE."  69 N.L.R.B. AT 1402, N.
6. 

FN4  IMPORTANT ISSUES OF FACT AROSE, FOR EXAMPLE, OVER WHETHER
RESPONDENT HAD BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR DISTRIBUTING TO THE UNLICENSED
SEAMEN (1) COPIES OF A SPEECH HOSTILE TO THE NMU DELIVERED BY A MEMBER
OF CONGRESS, (2) COPIES OF A UNION PAMPHLET ENTITLED "NMU FIGHTS JIM
CROW," WHICH THE UNION WISHED TO WITHHOLD FROM CIRCULATION FOR FEAR THE
UNLICENSED SEAMEN WOULD REACT UNFAVORABLY TO A UNION ADVOCATING RACIAL
EQUALITY.  AS TO THESE ISSUES THE TRIAL EXAMINER HAD THE FOLLOWING TO
SAY: "THE RESPONDENT ADMITTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE
FERBERT LETTERS (SEE TEXT, SUPRA), BUT DENIED THAT IT DISTRIBUTED
COPIES OF THE SPEECH AND PAMPHLET, BOTH OF WHICH, THE RECORD
ESTABLISHES, CAME THROUGH THE MAILS.  THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
IN THE RECORD SHOWING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPEECH.  THE JIM CROW PAMPHLET, WHICH SET FORTH THE
UNION'S OPPOSITION TO RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, WAS
ADMITTEDLY A PUBLICATION OF THE UNION.  WHILE THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT
THE UNION AND ITS ORGANIZERS DID NOT ISSUE OR USE THAT PAMPHLET AS PART
OF ITS CAMPAIGN TO ORGANIZE THE RESPONDENT'S VESSELS, AND SOME SUPPORT
FOR THE ASSERTION THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS
DISTRIBUTION IS TO BE FOUND IN THE EVIDENCE  ...  SHOWING THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE RESPONDENT'S SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL USED THE PAMPHLET AND ITS
SUBJECT MATTER IN PLAYING UPON THE RACIAL PREJUDICES, ANTAGONISMS AND
FEARS OF THE EMPLOYEES, THE RECORD IS LIKEWISE BARE OF SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TRACING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS DISTRIBUTION TO THE
RESPONDENT.  CONSEQUENTLY, AND IN VIEW OF THE RESPONDENT'S DISCLAIMER
OF RESPONSIBILITY, IT IS FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT CAUSE THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PAMPHLET OR THE SPEECH."  69 N.L.R.B. AT 1400. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON RESERVES OPINION AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE UNDER THE WAGNER ACT IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S DETERMINATION TO
RETURN THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :





















INTERSTATE PIPE LINE CO. V. STONE, 337 U.S. 662 


NO. 287.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 20, 1949.  - 203
MISS.  715, 35 SO.2D 73, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANT OWNS AND OPERATES PIPE LINES USED TO TRANSPORT OIL FROM
LEASE TANKS TO RAILROAD LOADING RACKS IN MISSISSIPPI.  DELIVERY OF THE
OIL TO APPELLANT BY THE OWNER IS ACCOMPANIED BY INSTRUCTIONS FOR
SHIPPING IT INTERSTATE.  THE OIL IS PUMPED FROM THE LOADING RACKS INTO
RAILROAD TANK CARS; AND, IF NO TANK CARS ARE AVAILABLE, IT IS STORED,
BUT NEVER LONGER THAN A WEEK.  IN THE BILLS OF LADING, WHICH COVERED
ONLY THE RAIL SHIPMENT, THE OWNER IS DESIGNATED AS SHIPPER AND
APPELLANT AS HIS AGENT, AND THE OUT-OF-STATE DESTINATION IS INDICATED. 
MISSISSIPPI LEVIED AGAINST APPELLANT A TAX MEASURED BY APPELLANT'S
RECEIPTS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE OIL FROM THE LEASE TANKS TO THE
LOADING RACKS.  HELD:  THE TAX DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 663-665, 668. 

INTERSTATE OIL PIPE LINE CO. V. STONE, CHAIRMAN STATE TAX COMMISSION. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

A STATE TAX LEVIED AGAINST A PIPE-LINE COMPANY WAS SUSTAINED BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT AGAINST A CLAIM OF INVALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  203 MISS.  715, 35 SO.2D 73.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 668. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND THE
FOLLOWING OPINION, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND
MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN. 

THIS APPEAL QUESTIONS THE POWER OF MISSISSIPPI, AS AFFECTED BY THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, TO IMPOSE A TAX MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE
OPERATION OF A PIPE LINE WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE. 

APPELLANT IS A DELAWARE CORPORATION WHICH HAS QUALIFIED TO DO
BUSINESS IN MISSISSIPPI AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION.  IT OWNS AND OPERATES
PIPE LINES WHICH ARE USED TO TRANSPORT OIL FROM LEASE TANKS IN VARIOUS
OIL FIELDS IN MISSISSIPPI TO LOADING RACKS ADJACENT TO RAILROADS
ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE.  FN1  FROM THESE RACKS THE OIL IS PUMPED INTO
RAILROAD TANK CARS FOR SHIPMENT OUTSIDE THE STATE.  IF THERE ARE NO
TANK CARS AVAILABLE THE OIL IS STORED IN TANKS NEAR THE RACKS.  BUT
SUCH DELAYS IN LOADING ARE USUALLY OF SHORT DURATION AND NEVER EXCEED A
WEEK, ACCORDING TO APPELLANT'S UNCONTRADICTED STATEMENT.  WHEN
DELIVERED TO APPELLANT THE OIL IS ACCOMPANIED BY SHIPPING ORDERS FROM
THE PRODUCER OR OWNER DIRECTING THAT THE OIL BE TRANSPORTED TO OUT-OF
STATE DESTINATIONS.  THERE ARE NO REFINERIES IN MISSISSIPPI.  THERE IS
NO THROUGH BILL OF LADING FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN AT THE FIELDS TO THE
DESTINATION OUTSIDE THE STATE.  APPELLANT SHIPS THE OIL BY RAIL AS
AGENT OF THE OWNER ON BILLS OF LADING SHOWING THE OWNER AS SHIPPER, THE
APPELLANT AS AGENT OF THE SHIPPER, AND INDICATING THE DESTINATION
SPECIFIED IN THE SHIPPING ORDERS ISSUED TO APPELLANT.  APPELLANT IS
PAID BY THE PRODUCER AT THE RATE PER BARREL SPECIFIED IN ITS TARIFF
FN2  FOR TRANSPORTING THE OIL FROM THE GATHERING POINT TO THE RACK, AND
IS PAID AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR LOADING THE OIL IN THE TANK CARS. 

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION, APPELLEE,
LEVIED A TAX AGAINST APPELLANT FOR THE YEARS 1944, 1945 AND THE FIRST
HALF OF 1946, IN THE SUM OF $20,296.36, MEASURED BY APPELLANT'S
RECEIPTS FOR TRANSPORTING OIL FROM THE LEASE TANKS TO THE RAILROAD
LOADING PLATFORMS, PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE
MISSISSIPPI CODE, MISS.  CODE, 1942, ANN., TIT. 40, C. 3, SEC. 10105,
AND SEC. 10109(1948 CUM. SUPP.), WHICH PROVIDE: 

"10105.  ...  THERE IS HEREBY LEVIED AND SHALL BE COLLECTED ANNUAL
PRIVILEGE TAXES, MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OR VOLUME OF BUSINESS DONE,
AGAINST THE PERSONS, ON ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, AND IN THE
AMOUNTS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE APPLICATION OF RATES AGAINST VALUES, OR
GROSS INCOME, OR GROSS PROCEEDS OF SALES, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS
FOLLOWS (SEE SECTIONS FOLLOWING):" 

"10109.  ...  UPON EVERY PERSON ENGAGING OR CONTINUING WITHIN THIS
STATE IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING A PIPE LINE FOR TRANSPORTING FOR
COMPENSATION OR HIRE FROM ONE POINT TO ANOTHER IN THIS STATE OIL OR
NATURAL GAS OR ARTIFICIAL GAS THROUGH PIPES OR CONDUITS IN THIS STATE,
THERE IS LIKEWISE HEREBY LEVIED AND SHALL BE COLLECTED A TAX, ON
ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS ENGAGED IN, EQUAL TO TWO PER CENT OF THE GROSS
INCOME OF THE BUSINESS. 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"THERE SHALL BE EXCEPTED FROM THE GROSS INCOME USED IN DETERMINING
THE MEASURE OF THE TAX IMPOSED IN THIS SECTION SO MUCH THEREOF AS IS
DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN COMMERCE BETWEEN THIS STATE AND
OTHER STATES OF THE UNITED STATES, OR BETWEEN THIS STATE AND FOREIGN
COUNTRIES WHICH THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IS PROHIBITED FROM TAXING
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  ...  "  FN3 

THE STATE TAX COMMISSION SUSTAINED THE ASSESSMENT.  THE TRIAL COURT
DISMISSED A DECLARATION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI AFFIRMED THAT JUDGMENT, OVERRULING
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT BECAUSE THE TAX WAS LEVIED ON THE PRIVILEGE
OF CONDUCTING AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS AND MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS
THEREFROM THE TAX COULD NOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT OFFENDING THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  203 MISS.  715, 35 SO.2D 73. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE OPERATION OF THESE PIPE LINES
BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE STATE WAS INTRASTATE RATHER THAN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND THAT THE TAX WAS THEREFORE "MERELY ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
OPERATING A PIPE LINE WHOLLY WITHIN THIS STATE AS A LOCAL ACTIVITY. 
...  A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS, AND
MEASURED BY A PERCENT OF GROSS INCOME AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE."  203
MISS.  AT 732, 35 SO.2D AT 81. 

APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT OPERATION OF THE PIPE LINES BETWEEN POINTS IN
MISSISSIPPI WAS IN FACT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THAT THE TAX WAS
CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI TO BE A TAX ON THE
PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING THE PIPE LINES.  FROM THESE PREMISES, TOGETHER
WITH THE MAJOR PREMISE THAT NO STATE CAN TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, APPELLANT CONCLUDES THAT THE TAX MAY NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE IMPOSED. 

WE DO NOT PAUSE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING THE
INTRASTATE PIPE LINES IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FOR, EVEN IF WE ASSUME
THAT IT IS, MISSISSIPPI HAS POWER TO IMPOSE THE TAX INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE.  FURTHER, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DISPUTE THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CONSTRUED THE STATUTE AS IMPOSING A TAX ON THE
PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING A PIPE LINE WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE, AND NOT A
TAX SOLELY UPON THE "LOCAL ACTIVITIES OF 'MAINTAINING, KEEPING IN
REPAIR, AND OTHERWISE IN MANNING THE FACILITIES'" SITUATED IN
MISSISSIPPI, MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S. 80, 92-93, OR UPON THE
GROSS RECEIPTS THEMSELVES, CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES V. MEALEY, 334 U.S.
653.  WHILE WE ARE OF COURSE BOUND BY THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN A STATE
STATUTE BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE,  FN4  WE ARE CONCERNED WITH
THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF CHALLENGED STATE TAX STATUTES, NOT WITH
THEIR DESCRIPTIVE LABELS.  FN5 

THE STATUTE IS NOT INVALIDATED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION MERELY BECAUSE, UNLIKE THE STATUTE ATTACKED IN MEMPHIS GAS
CO. V. STONE, SUPRA, IT IMPOSES A "DIRECT" TAX ON THE "PRIVILEGE" OF
ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN6  ANY NOTIONS TO THE CONTRARY
SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 142 U.S. 217,
WHICH FLATLY RULES THE CASE AT BAR.  THAT CASE SUSTAINED A STATE
STATUTE WHICH IMPOSED UPON AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD CORPORATION "AN
ANNUAL EXCISE TAX (MEASURED BY APPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS), FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF EXERCISING ITS FRANCHISES IN THIS STATE."  FN7  THE GRAND
TRUNK DECISION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THIS COURT AS RECENTLY AS THE OTHER
CONTROLLING CASE OF CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES V. MEALEY, SUPRA AT 658,
663, IN WHICH THE COURT PERMITTED NEW YORK TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM THE OPERATION OF AN INTERSTATE BUS LINE, PROVIDED THAT
TAX WAS APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO MILEAGE TRAVELED WITHIN THE STATE. 
THE MEALEY CASE IS NOT DISTINGUISHED BY SAYING THAT IT INVOLVED ONLY A
TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS AND NOT A TAX ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF, FOR
GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES HAVE LONG BEEN REGARDED AS "DIRECT" IN CASES WHICH
ARE SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT "DIRECT" TAXES ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  FN8 

SINCE ALL THE ACTIVITIES UPON WHICH THE TAX IS IMPOSED ARE CARRIED ON
IN MISSISSIPPI, THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS OBJECTION TO THE TAX.  FN9  THE
TAX DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN FAVOR OF
COMPETING INTRASTATE COMMERCE OF LIKE CHARACTER.  FN10  THE NATURE OF
THE SUBJECT OF TAXATION MAKES APPORTIONMENT UNNECESSARY; THERE IS NO
ATTEMPT TO TAX INTERSTATE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON OUTSIDE MISSISSIPPI'S
BORDERS.  NO OTHER STATE CAN REPEAT THE TAX.  FN11  FOR THESE REASONS
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THIS TAX. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  APPELLANT ALSO GATHERS OIL WHICH IS TRANSPORTED THROUGH THE
MISSISSIPPI PIPE LINES DIRECTLY INTO INTERSTATE TRUNK LINES, THROUGH
WHICH THE OIL IS CARRIED OUTSIDE THE STATE.  MISSISSIPPI HAS NOT
ATTEMPTED TO TAX THE RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SHIPMENTS OF THIS KIND. 

FN2  ALL APPELLANT'S TRANSPORTATION OF OIL IN MISSISSIPPI IS COVERED
BY TARIFFS WHICH ARE PUBLISHED AND FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AS REQUIRED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED, 49
U.S.C. SECS. 1(1), 1(3), AND 6. 

FN3  OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE MISSISSIPPI CODE NOT HERE INVOLVED
IMPOSE FRANCHISE, NET INCOME AND AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES, ALL OF
WHICH APPELLANT PAID FOR THE YEARS INVOLVED.  THIS FACT DOES NOT OF
COURSE PRECLUDE MISSISSIPPI FROM EXACTING A DIFFERENT TAX FOR THE
PROTECTION UPON WHICH ONE OR MORE OF THESE TAXES IS BASED.  E.G.,
MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S. 80, 85. 

FN4  MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT, 309 U.S. 270, 273; GUARANTY TRUST
CO. V. BLODGETT, 287 U.S. 509, 513. 

FN5  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. DEPT. OF TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340,
346, 347; NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359, 363. 

FN6  SEE CONCURRING OPINION IN FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, 259. 

FN7  NOTHING IN THE GRAND TRUNK OPINION SUGGESTS THE EXPLANATION
HAZARDED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS,
210 U.S. 217, 226, THAT THE TAX IN THE GRAND TRUNK CASE WAS SUSTAINED
ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS IMPOSED IN LIEU OF AD VALOREM TAXES.  A COPY
OF THE STATUTE REPRINTED IN THE MARGIN OF THE REPORTS DISCLOSES THAT
THE TAX WAS "IN LIEU OF ALL TAXES UPON SUCH RAILROAD, ITS PROPERTY AND
STOCK," EXCEPT THAT CITIES AND TOWNS WERE PERMITTED TO TAX NOT ONLY ALL
BUILDINGS OWNED BY THE RAILROAD BUT ALSO RAILROAD-OWNED "LANDS AND
FIXTURES" OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY.  142 U.S. 217-218, N. 1. 

FN8  SEE THE CASES DISCUSSED IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 255-257; CONCURRING OPINION IN FREEMAN V. HEWIT,
329 U.S. 249, 264-266.  AS THE CITED DISCUSSIONS POINT OUT, MOST OF THE
CASES INVALIDATING "DIRECT" TAXES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE EXPLICABLE
ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAXES WERE NOT FAIRLY APPORTIONED.  BUT CF. THE
FOLLOWING CASES, WHICH INVOLVE APPORTIONED FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE TAXES
MEASURED BY A STANDARD OTHER THAN GROSS RECEIPTS:  OZARK PIPE LINE
CORP. V. MONIER, 266 U.S. 555; ALPHA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 268 U.S. 203; CF. ANGLO-CHILEAN NITRATE SALES CORP. V.
ALABAMA, 288 U.S. 218. 

FN9  NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416, 423-424; WISCONSIN V. J.C.
PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444-445; SEPARATE OPINION IN INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO. V. DEPT. OF TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340, 352-353; CONCURRING
OPINION IN FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, 271; CONCURRING OPINION IN
MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S. 80, 96. 

FN10  BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454; HALE V. BIMCO TRADING CO.,
306 U.S. 375; GUY V. BALTIMORE, 100 U.S. 434. 

FN11  CF. GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 439-440;
ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 311-312; WESTERN LIVE STOCK V.
BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 255-257. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT BUT DO
NOT JOIN IN THE OPINION RENDERED IN SUPPORT OF IT. 

I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX IMPOSED BY
THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI WAS A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING A PIPE
LINE FOR TRANSPORTING OIL IN MISSISSIPPI IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE AND
THAT, AS SUCH, IT WAS A VALID TAX.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI,
IN THE CASE BELOW, 203 MISS.  715, 35 SO.2D 73, HELD THAT THIS TAX HAD
BEEN AUTHORIZED BY A STATUTE OF THAT STATE, MISS.  CODE ANN. SECS.
10105, 10109(1942), AND, FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THAT COURT, I
BELIEVE THAT NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE APPLICATION OF THE TAX IN THE
PRESENT INSTANCE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  ON
THAT BASIS, THERE IS NO ISSUE HERE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A TAX UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OF TRANSPORTING OIL IN MISSISSIPPI IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

MISSISSIPPI'S EFFORT TO COLLECT A PRIVILEGE TAX FROM THIS APPELLANT
FOR "OPERATING A PIPE LINE" IS UPHELD BY THIS COURT THROUGH TWO
SEPARATELY EXPRESSED THEORIES.  ONE, THAT THE ACTIVITIES TAXED ARE
WHOLLY INTRASTATE; AND THE OTHER, THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PRIVILEGE TAXED
IS FOR THE CARRYING ON OF WHOLLY INTERSTATE OPERATIONS, SUCH A
PRIVILEGE TAX IS PERMISSIBLE.  AS EACH THEORY MAY HAVE EFFECT FAR
BEYOND THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE THINK IT ADVISABLE TO STATE THE REASONS
FOR OUR DISAGREEMENT WITH BOTH. 

THE TAX WHICH MISSISSIPPI DEMANDED, AND WHICH APPELLANT IS NOW TRYING
TO RECOVER, WAS COMPUTED ONLY UPON APPELLANT'S RECEIPTS AS A COMMON
CARRIER FOR TRANSPORTING OIL FROM THE LEASE TANKS TO THE RAILROAD
LOADING PLATFORMS WITHIN THE STATE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
UPHELD THIS TAX ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIVITY PRODUCING THE RECEIPTS
WAS INTRA- RATHER THAN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AT ONE POINT IN ITS
OPINION, THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI SAID THAT THE TAX "HAD BEEN
COLLECTED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING THE PUMPING MACHINERY AND
OTHER PIPE LINE EQUIPMENT IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL IN THE MANNER
HEREINBEFORE SET FORTH  ...  "  INTERSTATE OIL PIPE LINE CO. V. STONE,
203 MISS.  715, 723, 35 SO.2D 73, 75.  SEE AN OPINION OF THREE MEMBERS
OF THIS COURT IN MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S. 80.  THE
THUS DIFFERS WIDELY FROM THE STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE MEMPHIS
CASE WITH ITS DEFINITION OF "DOING BUSINESS."  SEE STONE V. MEMPHIS
NATURAL GAS CO., 201 MISS.  670, 674-675, 29 SO.2D 268, 270.  SINCE
THIS STATUTE DID NOT APPLY TO PIPE LINES REACHING ACROSS THE STATE
LINE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT DID NOT MEAN BY THESE
WORDS TO INDICATE THAT THE PRIVILEGE TAX OF SEC. 10109 FOR "OPERATING A
PIPE LINE" WAS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING PUMPING MACHINERY OR
OTHER EQUIPMENT AS INCIDENTS APART FROM THE FLOW OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  CF. COVERDALE V. PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604.  SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE NONLIABILITY FOR THE TAX
OF PIPE LINES, ADMITTEDLY DOING AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THE TAX, IT
SAID, WAS "MERELY ON THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING A PIPE LINE WHOLLY
WITHIN THIS STATE AS A LOCAL ACTIVITY.  ...  A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
DOING AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS, AND MEASURED BY A PERCENT OF GROSS INCOME
AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE."  203 MISS.  AT 732, 35 SO.2D AT 81.  THE
OPINION EMPHASIZES THAT IN THE VIEW OF THE STATE COURT IT IS THE
INTRASTATE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSPORTATION THAT MAKES IT PERMISSIBLE TO
CHARGE THE APPELLANT A TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF "ENGAGING  ...  IN THE
BUSINESS OF OPERATING A PIPE LINE."  MISS.  CODE, 1942, ANN. (1948 CUM.
SUPP.) SEC. 10109.  FN1  IT CONSIDERED TAXABILITY OF THE TRANSPORTATION
IN THE LIGHT OF COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517, AND CHAMPLAIN CO. V.
BRATTLEBORO, 260 U.S. 366. 

FIRST.  FROM THE FACTS, SECS. 10105 AND 10109 OF THE STATUTE, AND THE
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS
STATUTE WAS DETERMINED BY THE STATE TO IMPOSE A PRIVILEGE TAX FOR
CARRYING ON THE INTRASTATE BUSINESS OF COMMON CARRIER OF OIL IN
MISSISSIPPI AND THAT THE AMOUNT OF THAT PRIVILEGE TAX WAS TO BE
DETERMINED BY A MEASURE - TWO PERCENT OF THE GROSS INCOME - OF THAT
INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  MISSISSIPPI'S INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF
ITS STATUTE IS BINDING ON THIS COURT.  FN2  A FEDERAL QUESTION AT ONCE
EMERGES - WHETHER THE SHIPMENT OF THE OIL FROM THE GATHERING POINT TO
THE RAILROAD LOADING RACKS, BOTH POINTS BEING IN MISSISSIPPI, IS INTRA-
OR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THIS WE DECIDE FOR OURSELVES FROM THE
UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THIS RECORD.  FN3  OUR FIRST INQUIRY THEN MUST BE
AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSPORTATION OF THIS OIL, WHOLLY WITHIN MISSISSIPPI
FROM ORIGIN TO RAILROAD LOADING RACKS, IS IN INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE
COMMERCE.  FN4 

IN THE ABSENCE OF A RULE WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION OR ENACTED BY
CONGRESS TO DETERMINE WHAT TRANSPORTATION IS INTERSTATE AND WHAT
INTRASTATE, THE COURTS HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF
THE TRANSPORTATION, CASE BY CASE, AS IT BECAME NECESSARY TO REACH A
JUDICIAL CONCLUSION.  IT WAS DECIDED YEARS AGO IN THE DANIEL BALL, 10
WALL.  557, AS TO NAVIGATION ON A WATERWAY WITHIN A SINGLE STATE,
DISCONNECTED FROM ANY OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LEADING TO OR FROM
OTHER STATES, THAT THE CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT DESTINED FOR OR RECEIVED
FROM PLACES OUTSIDE THE STATE OF NAVIGATION WAS INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
MADE THE BOAT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY CONGRESS.  FN5  THE WORDING OF A
JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF THE PRECISE LINE THAT MARKS THE CHANGE FROM
INTRASTATE MOVEMENT TO INTERSTATE MOVEMENT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT.  IN COE
V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517, A CASE THAT DEALT WITH THE TAXABILITY BY NEW
HAMPSHIRE OF LOGS MOVED FROM HER FORESTS TO A PLACE OF SHIPMENT IN
READINESS FOR OUT-OF-STATE TRANSPORTATION AT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE
OWNER, THIS COURT HELD THE LOGS TAXABLE.  THE THEORY WAS THAT THE FIRST
MOVEMENT WAS PRELIMINARY TO THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION,  FN6
BECAUSE OF THE DELIBERATE DETENTION TO AWAIT A SUITABLE TIME FOR
SHIPMENT ACROSS A STATE LINE.  KELLEY V. RHOADS, 188 U.S. 1, 6.  BUT
WHERE THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL DELAY, ONLY THE USE OF A "HARBOR OF
REFUGE," THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BY FLOTAGE BEGAN WHEN THE LOGS
WERE PUT INTO THE WATER.  CHAMPLAIN CO. V. BRATTLEBORO, 260 U.S. 366. 
FN7  INCIDENTAL DEALINGS WITH THE MOVING COMMODITY DO NOT BREAK THE
INTERSTATE JOURNEY N8.  RECENTLY WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF
"SPLIT" MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSPORTATION WAS
INTERSTATE.  UNITED STATES V. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO., 325 U.S. 357, 363. 
THERE A TRAVELER WENT FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VIA STREETCAR OR
BUS TO A BUS TERMINAL AND FROM THERE BY A DIFFERENT BUS TO NEARBY
VIRGINIA.  WE HELD THIS TO BE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  FN9 

COMMENT SHOULD BE MADE AS TO SEVERAL PRECEDENTS THAT MIGHT BE THOUGHT
CONTRARY TO THE RATHER DEFINITE LINE MARKING THE BEGINNING OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT APPEARS IN THE ABOVE CASES.  THESE ARE THE SO
CALLED CASUAL OR INCIDENTAL MOVEMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION WHOLLY WITHIN A
SINGLE STATE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING OR FOLLOWING RECOGNIZED INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  THEY WERE REFERRED TO IN COE V. ERROL, SUPRA, AS
HAULAGE PRELIMINARY TO CONSIGNMENT TO INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  THIS
INVOLVES THE VEHICLES THAT CARRY PASSENGERS OR FREIGHT TO OR FROM
TERMINALS IN THEIR INTERSTATE MOVEMENT.  FN10  AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY
MUST HAVE A BEGINNING AND AN END.  COMMON SENSE REJECTS AN EXTENSION OF
THE JOURNEY TO THE TRAVELER'S FRONT DOOR OR THE PRODUCER'S FARM OR
FACTORY WHEN NO THROUGH ORDER FOR CARRIAGE IS IN EFFECT.  THE EXACT
LIMITS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN SUCH FRINGE SITUATIONS ARE UNCERTAIN. 
FN11 

WE ARE OF THE VIEW, HOWEVER, THAT THE REACH OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
GOES TO THE DELIVERY TO INTERSTATE, A COMMON CARRIER, OF THE OIL BY THE
PRODUCER WITH HIS TENDER OF SHIPMENT.  THAT OFFER, WHEN ACCEPTED, BY
ITS FORM IS AN ORDER COVERING THE AMOUNT OF OIL, ORIGIN AND OUT-OF
STATE DESTINATION, AND THE ROUTE AND TARIFF UNDER WHICH SHIPMENT IS
MADE.  THE COMMODITY HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE AND WILL
CROSS STATE LINES IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS.  WE HAVE HELD THAT
SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS, GIVEN TO A FREIGHT CONDUCTOR ON A COMMON CARRIER
PRIOR TO ANY MOVEMENT, PUT A CAR INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE  FN12  WHEN
THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE FOR SHIPMENT TO AN OUT-OF-STATE DESTINATION AFTER
A PRELIMINARY TRANSIT BETWEEN POINTS IN THE STATE OF LOADING.  WHEN A
SHIPPER DELIVERS HIS COMMODITY TO A COMMON CARRIER WITH INSTRUCTIONS
FOR BILLING BY SUCH CARRIER WITHOUT PURPOSEFUL DELAY VIA ANOTHER OR
OTHER COMMON CARRIERS TO AN OUT-OF-STATE DESTINATION, WE THINK
INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS BEGUN.  SUCH AN APPLICATION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE TO TRANSPORTATION ACCORDS WITH THAT GIVEN TO REGULATION OF OTHER
PHASES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN13  THE ABSENCE OF A THROUGH BILL OF
LADING IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE SHIPMENT MIGHT BE
DIVERTED TO AN INTRASTATE DESTINATION WITHOUT CROSSING A STATE LINE BUT
THAT CANNOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCE UNTIL SUCH DIVERSION
ORDER IS GIVEN.  THE MOVEMENT IN COMMERCE HAS BEGUN BY THE ORDER AND
THE DELIVERY AND CONTINUES UNTIL THE COMMODITY IS RESTORED TO THE MASS
OF PROPERTY WITHIN A STATE BY THE TERMINATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION. 
SEE JOY OIL CO. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 337 U.S. 286. 

SECOND.  MISSISSIPPI DETERMINED THAT THIS TAX WAS A PRIVILEGE TAX FOR
CARRYING ON THE INTRASTATE BUSINESS OF COMMON CARRIER OF OIL IN
MISSISSIPPI, MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME FROM THAT
BUSINESS.  THE PRECEDING SUBDIVISION OF THIS OPINION EXPOUNDS THE
ARGUMENTS FOR OUR CONCLUSION THAT ALL THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT IN
OPERATING A PIPE LINE FOR TRANSPORTING OIL COMMITTED TO MOVE OUT-OF
STATE FROM ONE POINT TO ANOTHER IN MISSISSIPPI IS INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  THE STATUTE IN QUESTION WAS INTERPRETED BY MISSISSIPPI
AS LAYING A TAX SOLELY UPON THAT BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING OIL, NOT UPON
THE "LOCAL ACTIVITIES OF 'MAINTAINING, KEEPING IN REPAIR, AND OTHERWISE
IN MANNING THE FACILITIES'" SUCH AS ARE DISCUSSED IN THE OPINIONS IN
THE UNDECISIVE CASE OF MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S. 80, AT 92
93. 

AN OPINION HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE, ASSERTING THAT THE
MISSISSIPPI TAX COULD BE COLLECTED FROM THE PETITIONER NOTWITHSTANDING
THAT ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WITH THAT CONCLUSION
WE DISAGREE. 

SINCE APPELLANT DOES ONLY AN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS, THE
PRIVILEGE TAX EXACTED BY MISSISSIPPI IS ACTUALLY A PRIVILEGE TAX FOR
CARRYING ON THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS OF COMMON CARRIER OF OIL, MEASURED
BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THAT BUSINESS, APPORTIONED SO
AS TO INCLUDE ONLY INCOME DERIVED FROM THAT PORTION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CARRIED ON WHOLLY IN MISSISSIPPI.  THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE THE COSTS OF CARRIAGE FROM POINT OF ORIGIN -
THE FIELD TANKS - TO THE POINT OF DESTINATION - THE OUT-OF-STATE
REFINERY.  AS ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE COSTS COVERING THE CARRIAGE FROM
ORIGIN TO PIPE-LINE LOADING RACKS, BOTH POINTS IN MISSISSIPPI, IS USED
TO MEASURE THE PRIVILEGE TAX, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INTERSTATE GROSS
RECEIPTS ARE APPORTIONED TO CARRIAGE WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE.  OUR
ISSUE AT THIS POINT IS WHETHER A PRIVILEGE TAX FOR CARRYING ON A WHOLLY
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS MEASURED BY A FAIRLY APPORTIONED
PART OF GROSS RECEIPTS FOR CARRIAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE. 

PHRASED IN TERMS OF A PRIVILEGE FOR CARRYING ON AN INTERSTATE
BUSINESS, SUCH A TAX HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
THE CASES ABOUND IN STATEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF
CARRYING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF IS IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION. 
THIS IS BECAUSE IT IS A PRIVILEGE BEYOND THE POWER OF A STATE TO
GRANT.  "  ...  IT IS A RIGHT WHICH EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
(AND EVERY CORPORATION) IS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; ...  "  CRUTCHER V. KENTUCKY, 141 U.S.
47, 57; INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217 U.S. 91.  THE CASES
HOLD NOT ONLY THAT A STATE MAY NOT EXACT A TAX AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT
TO THE DOING OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS, BUT ALSO THAT IT MAY NOT LEVY
PRIVILEGE, EXCISE OR FRANCHISE TAXES ON A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON OR THE ACTUAL DOING OF SOLELY INTERSTATE
BUSINESS AFTER ITS ADMISSION TO THE STATE.  FN14  OZARK PIPE LINE CORP.
V. MONIER, 266 U.S. 555; ALPHA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS,
268 U.S. 203.  CF. ANGLO-CHILEAN NITRATE SALES CORP. V. ALABAMA, 288
U.S. 218, IN THE LIGHT OF SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148,
153.  FN15  THE DECISIONS IN THESE CASES WERE REACHED IN SPITE OF THE
FACT THAT IN EACH OF THEM THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED WAS FAIRLY
MEASURED ACCORDING TO THE CONNECTIONS OF THE CORPORATE TAXPAYER WITH
THE STATE.  THUS IN OZARK THE TAX WAS MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE
CAPITAL STOCK AND SURPLUS OF THE CORPORATION EMPLOYED IN BUSINESS IN
THE STATE, THAT PROPORTION BEING DEEMED EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE "THAT
ITS PROPERTY AND ASSETS IN THIS STATE BEARS TO ALL ITS PROPERTY AND
ASSETS WHEREVER LOCATED"; IN ALPHA BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE
"CORPORATE EXCESS" EMPLOYED WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH (DETERMINED AS IN
OZARK) AND A PERCENTAGE OF "THAT PART OF ITS NET INCOME  ...  WHICH IS
DERIVED FROM BUSINESS CARRIED ON WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH" (ALSO
DETERMINED AS IN OZARK); IN ANGLO-CHILEAN BY A PERCENTAGE OF CAPITAL
EMPLOYED IN THE STATE. 

A RECENT PRONOUNCEMENT OF THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THIS LIMITATION
ON STATE POWER.  IN AERO TRANSIT CO. V. COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495, WE
UPHELD A TAX ON MOTOR CARRIERS ONLY AFTER STRESSING THE FACT THAT THE
TAX WAS "AFFIRMATIVELY LAID FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE STATE'S
HIGHWAYS" AND WAS NOT IMPOSED UPON "THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING THE
INTERSTATE BUSINESS."  P. 504.  SEE MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. STONE,
335 U.S. 80, 88, NOTE 10.  WHERE THE CORPORATE TAXPAYER CONDUCTS
INTRASTATE AS WELL AS INTERSTATE BUSINESS, A FRANCHISE PRIVILEGE OR
EXCISE TAX ON THE FORMER IS OF COURSE PERMISSIBLE.  FN16  WE HAVE
FREQUENTLY UPHELD SUCH A TAX ALTHOUGH IT WAS MEASURED BY PROPERTY OR
RECEIPTS WHICH WERE USED IN OR ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTERSTATE BUSINESS. 
FN17 

THE GROWTH OF COMMERCE THAT IS CARRIED ON IN MORE THAN ONE STATE HAS
BROUGHT RESPONSIBILITIES TO STATES OTHER THAN THE ONE IN WHICH THE
COMMERCE MAY BE SAID TO HAVE ORIGINATED.  PRODUCERS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
THROUGH MIDDLEMEN AND INDEPENDENT DEALERS, DISTRIBUTE NATURAL
RESOURCES, AGRICULTURAL AND MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS ON A NATION-WIDE
SCALE.  TRANSPORTATION RUNS ACROSS STATE LINES.  ALL STATES ARE CALLED
UPON TO GIVE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES FOR THIS COMMERCE - SERVICE THAT
COSTS AND SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THOSE WHO PROFIT FROM ITS MAINTENANCE. 
IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AS TO THE TAXATION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THIS COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
PERMIT STATE NONDISCRIMINATORY TAXATION, FOR THE USE OF STATE
FACILITIES, UPON THE PROPERTY USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UPON
PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE AND UPON NET PROCEEDS THEREFROM.  THROUGH SUCH
TAXES, THE STATES MAY EXACT PAYMENT FOR THEIR PROTECTION AND
ENCOURAGEMENT OF COMMERCE.  JOSEPH V. CARTER & WEEKES CO., 330 U.S.
422, 429, AND CASES CITED.  WE HAVE UPHELD A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION "WHEN APPORTIONED AS TO THE MILEAGE WITHIN
THE STATE."  GREYHOUND LINES V. MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653, 663.  FN18 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE WIDE LATITUDE FOR TAXATION OF INCIDENTS CONNECTED
WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SEE MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S. 80,
THIS COURT HAS NEVER INTERPRETED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO ALLOW A STATE
TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR ONE UPON
THAT COMMERCE ITSELF.  JOSEPH V. CARTER & WEEKES CO., 330 U.S. 422. 
THIS IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL BURDEN.  OTHER TAXES MAY EQUALLY
BURDEN THE COMMERCE.  IT IS NOT BECAUSE IN TRANSPORTATION THE SAME
RESULT CANNOT BE OBTAINED BY LEVYING A TAX FOR INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES
MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS APPROPRIATELY APPORTIONED TO THE ACTIVITIES
IN THE STATE.  IT IS BECAUSE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT LEAVE TO THE STATES ANY POWER TO PERMIT OR REFUSE THE CARRYING
ON OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT LIKEWISE BARS A STATE FROM TAXING THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE DOING OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, WITH OR WITHOUT FAIR APPORTIONMENT EVEN IF NOT
DISCRIMINATORY.    MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., COMMENTED UPON IN NOTE
18, IS INAPPOSITE TO THE TAXATION HERE ATTEMPTED BY MISSISSIPPI. 
INTERSTATE DID A WHOLLY INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  GRAND TRUNK, CONCERNING A
TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF EXERCISING A FRANCHISE IN MAINE, CAN ONLY BE
RECONCILED WITH THE LATER CASES COMMENTED UPON AT NOTE 15 IF GRAND
TRUNK DID AN INTRASTATE AS WELL AS AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  A STATE
FRANCHISE TAX FOR THAT IS PERMISSIBLE.  SEE NOTES 16 AND 17, SUPRA.
THE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT EMPLOYED IN THE GRAND TRUNK CASE HAS HAD
APPROVAL AS RECENTLY AS THE GREYHOUND CASE, 334 U.S. AT 663.  THERE WAS
NO APPROVAL OF GRAND TRUNK IN GREYHOUND AS A PRECEDENT FOR A TAX ON THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  SEE P. 658. 

CONTROL OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE PASSED INTO THE HANDS OF CONGRESS AND
THUS WELDED THE FEDERATION INTO A NATION.  SO LONG AS STATES ARE
FORBIDDEN TO IMPOSE TAXES UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE
OF CARRYING IT ON, A TOLL CANNOT BE EXACTED FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE
EVEN IF A SIMILAR TAX IS BORNE BY LOCAL COMMERCE.  SO, INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO TAXATION, AS SUCH, AND THUS HAS BEEN
PROTECTED AGAINST EXACTIONS AIMED AT IT, NO MATTER HOW
NONDISCRIMINATORY.  IT MAY BE TAXED ONLY UNDER ENACTMENTS WHICH
LIKEWISE TAX INTRASTATE COMMERCE FOR LIKE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES.  IT
GETS NO ADVANTAGE OVER INTRASTATE COMMERCE FROM ANYTHING FURNISHED BY
THE STATE AND PAYS THE STATE NOTHING FOR WHAT THE SATE DOESN'T POSSESS,
THAT IS, THE POWER TO ALLOW INTERSTATE BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS. 

ALL INTERSTATE COMMERCE THUS HAS FREE ACCESS TO LOCAL MARKETS,
SUBJECT ONLY TO NONDISCRIMINATORY TAXES SUCH AS THE TAX ON APPORTIONED
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTRASTATE MILEAGE AS IN CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES V.
MEALEY, SUPRA, OR THE TAX ON DISCONNECTED LOCAL INCIDENTS AS DISCUSSED
IN THE OPINIONS IN MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, SUPRA, OR IN INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO. V. EVATT, SUPRA, OR AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST.
LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459.  SO LONG AS A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING
INTERSTATE BUSINESS OR A TAX ON THE DOING OF THAT BUSINESS IS
PROHIBITED, INTERSTATE COMMERCE REMAINS FREE FROM STATE EXACTIONS
LEVIED ON THAT COMMERCE.  YET THAT COMMERCE MUST BEAR, LIKE INTRASTATE
COMMERCE, THE COST OF THOSE FACILITIES OR PROTECTIONS, APART FROM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF, WHICH THE STATE FURNISHES OR ALLOWS WITHIN
ITS BORDERS.  SUCH HAS BEEN AND IS THE FREEDOM THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
GRANTS TO THOSE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  "HENCE, THE STATUTE WAS DESIGNED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXING
THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING A PIPE LINE FOR TRANSPORTING THE OIL FROM
ONE POINT TO ANOTHER IN THE STATE WHERE IT IS THEN DELIVERED TO AN
INTERSTATE CARRIER PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ITS ULTIMATE PASSAGE TO A
FOREIGN STATE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MOST ASSUREDLY, NO PIPE LINE
COMPANY WOULD BE DEEMED JUSTIFIED IN INSTALLING AN OIL GATHERING SYSTEM
TO TRANSPORT OIL OTHER THAN THAT DESTINED FOR ULTIMATE INTERSTATE
SHIPMENT, THERE BEING NO OIL REFINERIES HERE."  203 MISS.  AT 729, 35
SO.2D AT 77. 

FN2  SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148, 153; CF. AERO
TRANSIT CO. V. COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495, 499.  SUCH DETERMINATION MAY BE
REJECTED ONLY IF A PALPABLE EVASION FOR AVOIDING A CONTRARY RULING
UNDER FEDERAL LAW.  UNION PAC. R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 248
U.S. 67; APPLEBY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 271 U.S. 364, 379; DRIVERS UNION
V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, 312 U.S. 287, 294. 

FN3  SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, AT 154; HOOVEN & ALLISON
CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652, 658.  SEE CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, 332 U.S.
155, 158; STANDARD OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481, 483. 

FN4  THERE IS NO PROBLEM AS TO ANY DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN "IN"
COMMERCE OR "AFFECTING" COMMERCE.  MISSISSIPPI HAS DECIDED THAT THE
STATUTE APPLIES ONLY TO TRANSPORTATION "IN" INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  203
MISS.  AT 715, 35 SO.2D 73.  CF. SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 495, 542; MCLEOD V. THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491. 

FN5  "SO FAR AS SHE WAS EMPLOYED IN TRANSPORTING GOODS DESTINED FOR
OTHER STATES, OR GOODS BROUGHT FROM WITHOUT THE LIMITS OF MICHIGAN AND
DESTINED TO PLACES WITHIN THAT STATE, SHE WAS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
BETWEEN THE STATES, AND HOWEVER LIMITED THAT COMMERCE MAY HAVE BEEN,
SHE WAS, SO FAR AS IT WENT, SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS. 
SHE WAS EMPLOYED AS AN INSTRUMENT OF THAT COMMERCE; FOR WHENEVER A
COMMODITY HAS BEGUN TO MOVE AS AN ARTICLE OF TRADE FROM ONE STATE TO
ANOTHER, COMMERCE IN THAT COMMODITY BETWEEN THE STATES HAS COMMENCED. 
THE FACT THAT SEVERAL DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES ARE EMPLOYED
IN TRANSPORTING THE COMMODITY, SOME ACTING ENTIRELY IN ONE STATE, AND
SOME ACTING THROUGH TWO OR MORE STATES, DOES IN NO RESPECT AFFECT THE
CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION."  10 WALL.  AT 565. 

FN6  "WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID, HOWEVER, IN RELATION TO THE PRODUCTS
OF A STATE INTENDED FOR EXPORTATION TO ANOTHER STATE WILL INDICATE THE
VIEW WHICH SEEMS TO US THE SOUND ONE ON THAT SUBJECT, NAMELY, THAT SUCH
GOODS DO NOT CEASE TO BE PART OF THE GENERAL MASS OF PROPERTY IN THE
STATE, SUBJECT, AS SUCH, TO ITS JURISDICTION, AND TO TAXATION IN THE
USUAL WAY, UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN SHIPPED, OR ENTERED WITH A COMMON
CARRIER FOR TRANSPORTATION TO ANOTHER STATE, OR HAVE BEEN STARTED UPON
SUCH TRANSPORTATION IN A CONTINUOUS ROUTE OR JOURNEY.  ...  BUT THIS
MOVEMENT DOES NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE ARTICLES HAVE BEEN SHIPPED OR STARTED
FOR TRANSPORTATION FROM THE ONE STATE TO THE OTHER.  THE CARRYING OF
THEM IN CARTS OR OTHER VEHICLES, OR EVEN FLOATING THEM, TO THE DEPOT
WHERE THE JOURNEY IS TO COMMENCE IS NO PART OF THAT JOURNEY.  THAT IS
ALL PRELIMINARY WORK, PERFORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING THE PROPERTY
IN A STATE OF PREPARATION AND READINESS FOR TRANSPORTATION.  UNTIL
ACTUALLY LAUNCHED ON ITS WAY TO ANOTHER STATE, OR COMMITTED TO A COMMON
CARRIER FOR TRANSPORTATION TO SUCH STATE, ITS DESTINATION IS NOT FIXED
AND CERTAIN.  IT MAY BE SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF WITHIN THE STATE,
AND NEVER PUT IN COURSE OF TRANSPORTATION OUT OF THE STATE.  CARRYING
IT FROM THE FARM, OR THE FOREST, TO THE DEPOT, IS ONLY AN INTERIOR
MOVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY, ENTIRELY WITHIN THE STATE, FOR THE PURPOSE,
IT IS TRUE, BUT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE, OF PUTTING IT INTO A COURSE OF
EXPORTATION; IT IS NO PART OF THE EXPORTATION ITSELF.  UNTIL SHIPPED OR
STARTED ON ITS FINAL JOURNEY OUT OF THE STATE ITS EXPORTATION IS A
MATTER ALTOGETHER IN FIERI, AND NOT AT ALL A FIXED AND CERTAIN THING." 
116 U.S. AT 527-28. 

FN7  "THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
GIVE IMMUNITY TO MOVABLE PROPERTY FROM LOCAL TAXATION WHICH IS NOT
DISCRIMINATIVE, UNLESS IT IS IN ACTUAL CONTINUOUS TRANSIT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WHEN IT IS SHIPPED BY A COMMON CARRIER FROM ONE STATE TO
ANOTHER, IN THE COURSE OF SUCH AN UNINTERRUPTED JOURNEY IT IS CLEARLY
IMMUNE.  THE DOUBT ARISES WHEN THERE ARE INTERRUPTIONS IN THE JOURNEY
AND WHEN THE PROPERTY IN ITS TRANSPORTATION IS UNDER THE COMPLETE
CONTROL OF THE OWNER DURING THE PASSAGE.  IF THE INTERRUPTIONS ARE ONLY
TO PROMOTE THE SAFE OR CONVENIENT TRANSIT, THEN THE CONTINUITY OF THE
INTERSTATE TRIP IS NOT BROKEN.  ...  IN OTHER WORDS, IN SUCH CASES
INTERSTATE CONTINUITY OF TRANSIT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY A CONSIDERATION
OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS OF THE SITUATION.  CHIEF AMONG THESE ARE THE
INTENTION OF THE OWNER, THE CONTROL HE RETAINS TO CHANGE DESTINATION,
THE AGENCY BY WHICH THE TRANSIT IS EFFECTED, THE ACTUAL CONTINUITY OF
THE TRANSPORTATION, AND THE OCCASION OR PURPOSE OF THE INTERRUPTION
DURING WHICH THE TAX IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED."  260 U.S. AT 376-77. 

FN8  STATE TAX COMM'N V. GAS CO., 284 U.S. 41, 43(REDUCTION OF
PRESSURE AND METERING GAS). 

FN9  "AS PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT, TWICE A DAY MORE THAN 15,000
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TRAVELED BETWEEN THE VIRGINIA AGENCIES AND THEIR
HOMES VIA ONE OF THE FOUR BUS SYSTEMS.  MOST OF THEM EITHER WENT TO OR
FROM THESE BUS TERMINALS FROM OR TO THEIR HOMES OVER ANY OF TRANSIT'S
THEN AVAILABLE BUSES OR STREETCARS.  THEIR TRAVEL WAS AT CERTAIN HOURS
EACH DAY, AT WHICH SPECIAL RUSH HOUR BUSES AND CARS WERE MADE AVAILABLE
FOR THEIR CARRIAGE.  THEIR INTERSTATE JOURNEY TO WORK ACTUALLY BEGAN AT
THE TIME THEY BOARDED A TRANSIT BUS OR STREETCAR NEAR THEIR HOME, AND
ACTUALLY ENDED WHEN THEY ALIGHTED FROM THE VIRGINIA-GOING BUS AT THEIR
PLACE OF WORK.  ON RETURNING FROM WORK THEIR INTERSTATE JOURNEY
ACTUALLY BEGAN WHEN THEY BOARDED A BUS NEAR THEIR WORK AND ACTUALLY
ENDED WHEN THEY ALIGHTED FROM A TRANSIT STREETCAR OR BUS NEAR THEIR
HOME.  TRUE, THEIR INTERSTATE TRIP WAS BROKEN AT THE DISTRICT TERMINI
OF THE VIRGINIA BUSES, WHEN THEY STEPPED FROM ONE VEHICLE TO ANOTHER. 
BUT IN THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED SENSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONCEPT, THEIR
ENTIRE TRIP WAS INTERSTATE.  ...  AND THE FACT THAT, EXCEPT AS TO
TRANSIT, THEY PAID A COMBINATION OF TWO RATES, ONE FOR TRAVEL WHOLLY
WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND THE OTHER FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND
VIRGINIA, AND THE JOURNEY FROM THEIR RESIDENCES TO VIRGINIA AND BACK
AGAIN WAS TAKEN IN TWO SEGMENTS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TOTAL
INTERSTATE TRIP WAS NOT ON A 'THROUGH ROUTE.'"  325 U.S. AT 363. 

FN10  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. DETROIT, GRAND HAVEN & MILWAUKEE
R. CO., 167 U.S. 633; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. KNIGHT, 192 U.S. 21;
UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218. 

FN11  UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., SUPRA, AT 232-33; INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N V. PARKER, 326 U.S. 60, 71, NOTE 6. 

FN12  PHILADELPHIA & READING R. CO. V. HANCOCK, 253 U.S. 284, 285: 

"THE DUTIES OF THE DECEASED NEVER TOOK HIM OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA; THEY
RELATED SOLELY TO TRANSPORTING COAL FROM THE MINES.  WHEN INJURED HE
BELONGED TO A CREW OPERATING A TRAIN OF LOADED CARS FROM LOCUST GAP
COLLIERY TO LOCUST SUMMIT YARD, TWO MILES AWAY.  THE ULTIMATE
DESTINATION OF SOME OF THESE CARS WAS OUTSIDE OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THIS
APPEARED FROM INSTRUCTION CARDS OR MEMORANDA DELIVERED TO THE CONDUCTOR
BY THE SHIPPING CLERK AT THE MINE.  EACH OF THESE REFERRED TO A
PARTICULAR CAR BY NUMBER AND CONTAINED CERTAIN CODE LETTERS INDICATING
THAT SUCH CAR WITH ITS LOAD WOULD MOVE BEYOND THE STATE." 

FN13  DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282; LEMKE V. FARMERS
GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50; WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S.
564, 567. 

FN14  SINCE WE PERCEIVE NO DIFFERENCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE
BETWEEN FRANCHISE, PRIVILEGE, AND EXCISE TAXES, INSOFAR AS THEY ARE
EXACTED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING OR THE DOING OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS,
WE HAVE TREATED THEM AS IDENTICAL AS FAR AS THEIR VALIDITY UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE IS CONCERNED.  IN OZARK AND ANGLO-CHILEAN NITRATE THE
TAXES WERE CALLED FRANCHISE TAXES; IN ALPHA IT WAS LABELED AN EXCISE
TAX. 

FN15  SEE THE DISCUSSION OF THESE CASES IN THE OPINION OF REED, J.,
IN MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S. 80.  SEE ALSO NEW YORK EX REL.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. KNIGHT, 192 U.S. 21, 26; STATE TAX COMM'N V.
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 284 U.S. 41, 43. 

FN16  MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. BEELER, 315 U.S. 649; FORD MOTOR CO.
V. BEAUCHAMP, 308 U.S. 331; ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 302 U.S.
22; SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148; PACIFIC TEL.
CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 403; SEE COLLECTION OF CASES 105 A.L.R. 11,
36-56. 

FN17  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. EVATT, 329 U.S. 416; ATLANTIC
LUMBER CO. V. COMM'R, 298 U.S. 553; MATSON NAV. CO. V. STATE BD. OF
EQUALIZATION, 297 U.S. 441. 

FN18  THIS DECISION FOLLOWED A PROLONGED CONTROVERSY OVER THE
TAXABILITY OF THE PROCEEDS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MAINE V. GRAND
TRUNK R. CO., 142 U.S. 217, HAS BEEN CITED FOR THE SAME PROPOSITION,
SEE E.G., ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 329, ALTHOUGH THERE
IS IN THE REPORT OF THE CASE, P. 218, SEC. 2 OF THE ACT THERE IN
QUESTION, SUPPORT FOR MR. JUSTICE HOLMES' TREATMENT OF IT IN GALVESTON,
H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 226, AS A TAX IN LIEU OF AD
VALOREM TAXES.  SEE JOSEPH V. CARTER & WEEKES CO., 330 U.S. 422, AT
427, NOTES 5, 6 AND 7, AND CASES CITED.  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU,
303 U.S. 250, 255.  POWELL, MORE ADO ABOUT GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES, 60
HARV. L. REV. 501, 710, 747, ET SEQ.; DUNHAM, GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES ON
INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS, 47 COL. L. REV. 211, 220 ET SEQ.
..END :






















JOY CIL CO. V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 337 U.S. 286 


NO. 223.  ARGUED JANUARY 6-7, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 13, 1949.  - 321
MICH. 335, 32 N.W.2D 472, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, A CANADIAN CORPORATION, PURCHASED IN MICHIGAN 1,500,000
GALLONS OF GASOLINE, CERTIFIED THAT IT WAS PURCHASED FOR EXPORT,
SHIPPED IT BY RAIL TO DETROIT UNDER BILLS OF LADING MARKED "FOR EXPORT
TO CANADA," AND PLACED IT IN STORAGE TANKS IN DEARBORN, MICHIGAN. 
FIFTEEN MONTHS LATER, WHEN ONLY 50,000 GALLONS HAD BEEN EXPORTED TO
CANADA, DEARBORN ASSESSED AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX ON THE REMAINING
GASOLINE.  BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF SHIPPING SPACE, IT WAS MORE THAN
EIGHTEEN MONTHS AFTER STORAGE BEFORE ALL OF THE GASOLINE HAD BEEN
EXPORTED TO CANADA.  HELD:  THE TAX WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE EXPORT
IMPORT CLAUSE, ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
PP. 286-289. 

JOY OIL CO., LTD. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

AN AD VALOREM TAX ASSESSED BY A MICHIGAN MUNICIPALITY UPON A CANADIAN
CORPORATION'S STORES OF GASOLINE WAS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE SUPREME
COURT AGAINST A CLAIM OF INVALIDITY UNDER THE EXPORT-IMPORT CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  321 MICH. 335, 32 N.W.2D 472.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 812.  AFFIRMED, P. 289. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON DECEMBER 29, 1945, PETITIONER JOY OIL COMPANY, LTD., A CANADIAN
CORPORATION, PURCHASED 1,500,000 GALLONS OF GASOLINE FROM MID-WEST
REFINERIES, INC., OF GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN.  THE BILLS OF LADING
ISSUED BY THE RAILROAD TO WHICH THE GASOLINE WAS DELIVERED WERE MARKED
"FOR EXPORT TO CANADA," BUT THE GASOLINE WAS CONSIGNED TO PETITIONER AT
DETROIT.  IN ORDER TO SECURE THE BENEFITS OF LOWER EXPORT FREIGHT RATES
AND EXEMPTION FROM THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION AND MANUFACTURERS' EXCISE
TAXES, PETITIONER FURNISHED MID-WEST REFINERIES AND THE RAILROAD WITH
PRESCRIBED FORMS CERTIFYING THAT THE GASOLINE WAS PURCHASED FOR
EXPORT.  RAIL SHIPMENTS WERE BEGUN IN JANUARY AND COMPLETED IN FEBRUARY
OF 1946.  AS THE GASOLINE REACHED DETROIT IT WAS ACCUMULATED IN STORAGE
TANKS LEASED BY PETITIONER AT DEARBORN. 

ON APRIL 1, 1947, THE CITY OF DEARBORN ASSESSED AN AD VALOREM
PROPERTY TAX ON THE GASOLINE, ALL OF WHICH, EXCEPT 50,000 GALLONS,
SHIPPED TO CANADA BY TRUCK OVER THE AMBASSADOR BRIDGE, HAD THEN BEEN IN
THE DEARBORN TANKS FOR FIFTEEN MONTHS.  SHIPMENT BY TRUCK WAS HALTED BY
A FEDERAL REGULATION PROHIBITING THE TRANSPORTATION OF INFLAMMABLES
OVER ANY INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE, AND PETITIONER APPARENTLY CHOSE NOT TO
SHIP THE GASOLINE BY RAIL ACROSS THE DETROIT RIVER.  IN JULY OF 1947
PETITIONER BEGAN TO SHIP IT TO CANADA BY WATER; THE LAST TANKER LOAD
DEPARTED ON AUGUST 22, 1947.  PETITIONER EXPLAINS THE DELAY AS DUE TO
INABILITY TO OBTAIN SHIPPING SPACE AT ANY EARLIER DATE. 

PETITIONER RESISTED PAYMENT OF THE TAX ON THE GROUND THAT IT
INFRINGED ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE TAX
COMMISSION OF MICHIGAN SUSTAINED DEARBORN'S ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX, AND
THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN AFFIRMED.  321 MICH. 335, 32 N.W.2D 472. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE CASE PRESENTED A SUFFICIENTLY
IMPORTANT QUESTION IN THE ACCOMMODATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL INTERESTS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  335 U.S. 812. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH TENDED, AT THE TIME WHEN THE TAX WAS
ASSESSED, TO ESTABLISH PETITIONER'S INTENT TO EXPORT THE GASOLINE AND
THE FACT THAT THE GASOLINE WAS EVENTUALLY EXPORTED ARE NOT ENOUGH, BY
THEMSELVES, TO CONFER IMMUNITY FROM LOCAL TAXATION.  SEE, E.G., CORNELL
V. COYNE, 192 U.S. 418; EMPRESA SIDERURGICA V. COUNTY OF MERCED, 337
U.S. 154.  NOR IS IT ENOUGH THAT BY THE RAIL SHIPMENT TO DETROIT ONE
STEP IN THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION HAD BEEN TAKEN OR THAT A PART OF THE
TOTAL BULK HAD ALREADY DEPARTED FOR ITS FOREIGN DESTINATION.  IT IS OF
COURSE TRUE THAT COMMODITIES DESTINED FOR SHIPMENT BY WATER MUST BE
TRANSSHIPPED AT THE WATER'S EDGE AND SO MAY REQUIRE A BRIEF PERIOD OF
STORAGE AT THAT POINT WHICH WILL NOT BE DEEMED A DELAY SUFFICIENT TO
INTERRUPT THE CONTINUITY OF THE EXPORT PROCESS.  CARSON PETROLEUM CO.
V. VIAL, 279 U.S. 95; SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL CO. V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N, 219 U.S. 498; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. SABINE TRAM CO.,
227 U.S. 111.  BUT HERE THE PERIOD OF STORAGE AT DEARBORN WAS SO LONG
AS TO PRECLUDE HOLDING THAT THE FIRST STEP TOWARD EXPORTATION WOULD
INEVITABLY BE FOLLOWED BY OTHERS.  SEE, BY WAY OF CONTRAST, HUGHES
BROS. TIMBER CO. V. MINNESOTA, 272 U.S. 469.  WHILE IN STORAGE, THE
GASOLINE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIVERTED TO DOMESTIC MARKETS WITHOUT
DISRUPTION OF ANY EXISTING ARRANGEMENT FOR ITS TRANSSHIPMENT AND
WITHOUT EVEN BREACH OF ANY CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENT TO A FOREIGN
PURCHASER.  NEITHER THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY NOR ANY EVENT
EQUIVALENT TO ITS REDELIVERY TO A COMMON CARRIER MADE EXPORT CERTAIN
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES.  SEE RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD,
329 U.S. 69, 82. 

THE EXPORT-IMPORT CLAUSE WAS MEANT TO CONFER IMMUNITY FROM LOCAL
TAXATION UPON PROPERTY BEING EXPORTED, NOT TO RELIEVE PROPERTY
EVENTUALLY TO BE EXPORTED FROM ITS SHARE OF THE COST OF LOCAL
SERVICES.  SEE COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517, 527-28.  THE FIFTEEN-MONTH
DELAY AT DEARBORN BARRED IMMUNITY OF PETITIONER'S GASOLINE FROM THE
TAXING POWER OF THE MUNICIPALITY.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT FIFTEEN MONTHS' DELAY IN TRANSSHIPMENT OF THE
GASOLINE IN QUESTION WAS SO LONG THAT CONTINUITY OF THE PROCESS OF
EXPORTATION WAS BROKEN, BECAUSE DURING THAT PERIOD IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
DIVERTED TO DOMESTIC MARKETS.  I THINK THAT THIS RATIONALE AND THE
CONCLUSION WHICH FOLLOWS THEREFROM MARK A SUBSTANTIAL AND UNWARRANTED
DEPARTURE FROM OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS IN THIS FIELD. 

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE COURT'S OPINION REFLECTS THE VIEW THAT A LONG
DELAY IN TRANSSHIPMENT MAKES IT UNCERTAIN WHETHER THE GASOLINE WILL
EVENTUALLY BE EXPORTED, AND FURTHER, THAT A DELAY OF FIFTEEN MONTHS
MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR THIS COURT TO SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE
UNCERTAINTY IS SO GREAT THAT THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION HAS CEASED,
WHATEVER THE REASON FOR THE DELAY.  BUT THE COURT CONCEDES THAT
PETITIONER INTENDED TO EXPORT THE GASOLINE AT THE TIME THE TAX WAS
IMPOSED, AND PETITIONER'S UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT IT HAD
THAT INTENT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF DELAY, WHICH WAS CAUSED BY ITS
INABILITY TO PROCURE WATER TRANSPORTATION.  THAT INTENT WAS MANIFESTED
IN A NUMBER OF WAYS.  THE BILLS OF LADING BY WHICH THE GASOLINE MOVED
FROM GRANDVILLE AND ALMA, MICHIGAN, TO DEARBORN, A GREAT LAKES PORT,
WERE MARKED "FOR EXPORT TO CANADA"; PETITIONER CERTIFIED THAT THE
GASOLINE WAS TO BE EXPORTED IN ORDER TO SECURE AN EXEMPTION UNDER THE
FEDERAL MANUFACTURER'S EXCISE TAX AND TO QUALIFY FOR LOWER FREIGHT
RATES ACCORDED EXPORTS; IT TRANSPORTED 50,000 GALLONS OF THE GASOLINE
BY TRUCK OVER THE AMBASSADOR BRIDGE INTO CANADA UNTIL A FEDERAL
REGULATION CLOSED THE BRIDGE TO INFLAMMABLE MATERIALS; AND FINALLY,
PETITIONER EXPORTED ALL OF THE GASOLINE TO CANADA WHEN SHIPPING SPACE
BECAME AVAILABLE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO INDICATE EITHER
THAT PETITIONER AT ANY TIME DEVIATED FROM THAT EXPRESSED INTENT, OR
THAT THE DELAY WAS NOT DUE SOLELY TO LACK OF SHIPPING SPACE. 

THE COURT IS IN THE ANOMALOUS POSITION, THEREFORE, OF HOLDING AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT A FIFTEEN-MONTH DELAY IN TRANSSHIPMENT BREAKS THE
"STREAM OF EXPORT" BECAUSE OF THE RESULTING UNCERTAINTY THAT THE GOODS
WILL ULTIMATELY BE EXPORTED, WHEN ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE SHIPPER'S INTENT TO EXPORT HAS NEVER WAVERED; THAT EXPORTATION
WAS AS CERTAIN AS OF THE DATE OF THE TAX AS IT HAD BEEN FIFTEEN MONTHS
BEFORE.  THE COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE QUESTION TO BE QUITE A
DIFFERENT ONE.  WE HAVE HELD THAT 

"THE CHARACTER OF THE SHIPMENT IN SUCH A CASE DEPENDS UPON ALL THE
EVIDENTIAL CIRCUMSTANCES LOOKING TO WHAT THE OWNER HAS DONE IN THE
PREPARATION FOR THE JOURNEY AND IN CARRYING IT OUT.  THE MERE POWER OF
THE OWNER TO DIVERT THE SHIPMENT ALREADY STARTED DOES NOT TAKE IT OUT
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IF THE OTHER FACTS SHOW THAT THE JOURNEY HAS
ALREADY BEGUN IN GOOD FAITH AND TEMPORARY INTERRUPTION OF THE PASSAGE
IS REASONABLE AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE INTENDED TRANSPORTATION, AS IN
THE CHAMPLAIN CASE."  HUGHES BROTHERS TIMBER CO. V. MINNESOTA, 272 U.S.
469, 475-476(1926). 

THIS TEST WAS QUOTED WITH APPROVAL BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN
MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1, 10(1933), AND HE ADDED, "THE QUESTION
IS ALWAYS ONE OF SUBSTANCE, AND IN EACH CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO
CONSIDER THE PARTICULAR OCCASION OR PURPOSE OF THE INTERRUPTION DURING
WHICH THE TAX IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED."  SEE ALSO TO THE SAME EFFECT,
CHAMPLAIN REALTY CO. V. TOWN OF BRATTLEBORO, 260 U.S. 366, 377(1922);
CARSON PETROLEUM CO. V. VIAL, 279 U.S. 95, 102(1929); UNITED STATES V.
ERIE R. CO., 280 U.S. 98, 102(1929).  THE COURT NOW REFUSES TO LOOK AT
ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPT THE DELAY - NOT EVEN THE REASON FOR THE
DELAY. 

IT IS TRUE THAT PETITIONER COULD HAVE MOVED THE GASOLINE MORE QUICKLY
HAD IT USED THE MORE EXPENSIVE ALL-RAIL SERVICE.  BUT IN ALMOST EVERY
CASE OF DELAY A QUICKER METHOD OF MOVING THE GOODS MIGHT HAVE BEEN
DEVISED.  NO DOUBT THE LOGS HELD UP BY LOW WATER IN COE V. ERROL, 116
U.S. 517(1886), COULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN OVERLAND BY MULES OR OXEN.  AND
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE, THOUGH NOT PRACTICAL, FOR OIL TO HAVE BEEN
TRANSFERRED DIRECTLY FROM TANK CARS TO WAITING SHIPS IN CARSON
PETROLEUM CO. V. VIAL, SUPRA, YET THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE DELAY
NECESSARILY ATTENDANT UPON THE ACCUMULATION OF OIL IN TANKS AT THE
WATERFRONT TO AWAIT THE ARRIVAL OF SHIPS DID NOT CONSTITUTE
INTERRUPTION OF THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION.  THE DELAY WAS "REASONABLE
AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE INTENDED TRANSPORTATION." 

CONCEDEDLY, THE GASOLINE HERE INVOLVED WAS IN THE PROCESS OF
EXPORTATION WHEN TAXED UNLESS THE DELAY WAS ALONE ENOUGH TO BREAK THE
STREAM OF EXPORT.  IT HAD BEEN STARTED ON ITS JOURNEY WITH EVERY
INDICATION THAT IT WAS TO BE TRANSSHIPPED FOR EXPORT.  IF ACTUAL
EXPORTATION HAD FOLLOWED ITS ARRIVAL IN DEARBORN BY A FEW DAYS OR
WEEKS, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A COMMODITY IN THE
PROCESS OF EXPORTATION AND THUS EXEMPT FROM TAX.  IN THIS SITUATION,
THE COURT HAS ALWAYS, UNTIL TODAY, APPLIED "A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF
WHAT IS CONTINUITY OF THE JOURNEY, IN CASES WHERE THE COURT FINDS FROM
THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXPORT TRADE HAS BEEN ACTUALLY INTENDED AND
CARRIED THROUGH."  CARSON PETROLEUM CO. V. VIAL, SUPRA AT PP. 105-106. 
BUT THE COURT NOW TREATS AS IMMATERIAL THE FACT THAT THE PROCESS OF
EXPORTATION HAD STARTED, WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED THE DECISIVE
FACTOR, CORNELL V. COYNE, 192 U.S. 418(1904), EMPRESA SIDERURGICA V.
COUNTY OF MERCED, 337 U.S. 154(1949), AND ASSUMES THAT A DELAY OF
FIFTEEN MONTHS CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATES THAT CERTAINTY OF EXPORTATION
HAD BEEN UNDERMINED.  IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS POSSIBLE IN CASES OF THIS
KIND THAT THE OWNER OF THE GOODS MAY CHANGE HIS MIND BEFORE EXPORTATION
IS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT, AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES POINTED OUT IN SPALDING
& BROS. V. EDWARDS, 262 U.S. 66, 70(1923).  DELAY UNDOUBTEDLY INCREASES
THE POSSIBILITY, BUT IT DOES NOT WORK SUCH A CHANGE AS A MATTER OF
LAW.  THE QUESTION, INSTEAD, IS THAT PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT, NAMELY,
WHETHER "THE JOURNEY HAS ALREADY BEGUN IN GOOD FAITH AND (WHETHER)
TEMPORARY INTERRUPTION OF THE PASSAGE IS REASONABLE AND IN FURTHERANCE
OF THE INTENDED TRANSPORTATION."  HUGHES BROTHERS TIMBER CO. V.
MINNESOTA, SUPRA, AT 476. 

THE RESULT IS THAT THE COURT, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE FACT THAT
THE GASOLINE HAD BEEN STARTED ON ITS JOURNEY WITH THE INTENT THAT IT BE
TRANSSHIPPED FOR IMMEDIATE EXPORT TO CANADA, HOLDS THAT FIFTEEN MONTHS'
UNAVOIDABLE DELAY IS SO PRODUCTIVE OF UNCERTAINTY THAT THE PROCESS OF
EXPORTATION CEASES AS A MATTER OF LAW.  IT MIGHT BE POINTED OUT THAT IN
THE LEADING CASE OF COE V. ERROL, SUPRA, LOGS BEING FLOATED DOWN A
RIVER WERE HELD UP BY LOW WATER FOR ABOUT A YEAR, BUT THIS COURT DID
NOT CONSIDER THAT DELAY ENOUGH TO BREAK THE CONTINUITY OF THE
INTERSTATE JOURNEY.  THE LINE NOW SEEMS TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE BETWEEN
TWELVE AND FIFTEEN MONTHS, WHATEVER THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.  SUCH AN
ARBITRARY DEMARCATION IS HARDLY CONSONANT WITH "THE LIBERAL PROTECTION
THAT HITHERTO (EXPORTS) HAVE RECEIVED."  SPALDING & BROS. V. EDWARDS,
SUPRA, AT P. 70.  I WOULD ADHERE TO THE TEST SET OUT IN OUR PREVIOUS
DECISIONS:  WHETHER THE DELAY WAS REASONABLE UNDER ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE INTENDED TRANSPORTATION. 
..END :















STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 293 


NO. 279.  ARGUED MARCH 3-4, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 13, 1949.  - 78
F.SUPP.  850, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY AN OIL COMPANY WITH INDEPENDENT
DEALERS IN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND AUTOMOBILE ACCESSORIES, THE DEALER
AGREED TO PURCHASE EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE COMPANY ALL OF HIS REQUIREMENTS
OF ONE OR MORE OF THE PRODUCTS MARKETED BY THE COMPANY.  IN 1947 THE
CONTRACTS AFFECTED A GROSS BUSINESS OF $58,000,000, COMPRISING 6.7% OF
THE TOTAL IN A SEVEN-STATE AREA IN WHICH THE COMPANY SOLD ITS
PRODUCTS.  HELD:  THE CONTRACTS WERE VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT AND THE COMPANY WAS PROPERLY ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING OR ENTERING
INTO THEM.  PP. 294-314. 

2.  THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT OF A SHOWING THAT
THE EFFECT OF THE CONTRACTS "MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN
COMPETITION" IS HERE SATISFIED BY PROOF THAT COMPETITION HAS BEEN
FORECLOSED IN A SUBSTANTIAL SHARE OF THE LINE OF COMMERCE AFFECTED. 
PP. 299-314. 

(A)  IN VIEW OF THE WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF SUCH CONTRACTS BY THE
COMPANY'S COMPETITORS AND THE AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF
OBTAINING AN ASSURED MARKET, EVIDENCE THAT COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY HAS NOT
ACTUALLY DECLINED IS INCONCLUSIVE.  P. 314. 

(B)  THE COMPANY'S USE OF THE CONTRACTS CREATES JUST SUCH A POTENTIAL
CLOG ON COMPETITION AS IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 3 TO REMOVE WHEREVER,
WERE IT TO BECOME ACTUAL, IT WOULD IMPEDE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY.  P. 314. 

3.  THE FACT THAT NEARLY ALL THE PRODUCTS SOLD BY THE COMPANY TO
CALIFORNIA DEALERS ARE PRODUCED IN THAT STATE DOES NOT EXEMPT THE
COMPANY'S REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS WITH CALIFORNIA DEALERS AS NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SINCE THE EFFECT OF THOSE
CONTRACTS IS TO PREVENT THE CALIFORNIA DEALERS FROM DEALING WITH OUT-OF
STATE AS WELL AS LOCAL SUPPLIERS AND THUS TO LESSEN COMPETITION IN BOTH
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 314-315. 

STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS, THE
DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED AN OIL COMPANY AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY
FROM ENFORCING OR ENTERING INTO EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY CONTRACTS WITH
INDEPENDENT DEALERS IN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND AUTOMOBILE ACCESSORIES. 
78 F.SUPP.  850.  THE COMPANIES APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT. 
AFFIRMED, P. 315. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL TO REVIEW A DECREE ENJOINING THE STANDARD OIL
COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA AND ITS WHOLLYOWNED SUBSIDIARY, STANDARD
STATIONS, INC.,  FN1  FROM ENFORCING OR ENTERING INTO EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY
CONTRACTS WITH ANY INDEPENDENT DEALER IN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND
AUTOMOBILE ACCESSORIES.  78 F.SUPP.  850.  THE USE OF SUCH CONTRACTS
WAS SUCCESSFULLY ASSAILED BY THE UNITED STATES AS VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 1
OF THE SHERMAN ACT  FN2  AND SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  FN3 

THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, OWNS
PETROLEUM-PRODUCING RESOURCES AND REFINING PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA AND
SELLS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN WHAT HAS BEEN TERMED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS
THE "WESTERN AREA" - ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, IDAHO, NEVADA, OREGON, UTAH
AND WASHINGTON.  IT SELLS THROUGH ITS OWN SERVICE STATIONS, TO THE
OPERATORS OF INDEPENDENT SERVICE STATIONS, AND TO INDUSTRIAL USERS.  IT
IS THE LARGEST SELLER OF GASOLINE IN THE AREA.  IN 1946 ITS COMBINED
SALES AMOUNTED TO 23% OF THE TOTAL TAXABLE GALLONAGE SOLD THERE IN THAT
YEAR:  SALES BY COMPANY-OWNED SERVICE STATIONS CONSTITUTED 6.8% OF THE
TOTAL, SALES UNDER EXCLUSIVE DEALING CONTRACTS WITH INDEPENDENT SERVICE
STATIONS, 6.7% OF THE TOTAL; THE REMAINDER WERE SALES TO INDUSTRIAL
USERS.  RETAIL SERVICE-STATION SALES BY STANDARD'S SIX LEADING
COMPETITORS ABSORBED 42.5% OF THE TOTAL TAXABLE GALLONAGE; THE
REMAINING RETAIL SALES WERE DIVIDED BETWEEN MORE THAN SEVENTY SMALL
COMPANIES.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT STANDARD'S MAJOR COMPETITORS EMPLOY
SIMILAR EXCLUSIVE DEALING ARRANGEMENTS.  IN 1948 ONLY 1.6% OF RETAIL
OUTLETS WERE WHAT IS KNOWN AS "SPLIT-PUMP" STATIONS, THAT IS, SOLD THE
GASOLINE OF MORE THAN ONE SUPPLIER. 

EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY CONTRACTS WITH STANDARD HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO, AS OF
MARCH 12, 1947, BY THE OPERATORS OF 5,937 INDEPENDENT STATIONS, OR 16%
OF THE RETAIL GASOLINE OUTLETS IN THE WESTERN AREA, WHICH PURCHASED
FROM STANDARD IN 1947, $57,646,233 WORTH OF GASOLINE AND $8,200,089.21
WORTH OF OTHER PRODUCTS.  SOME OUTLETS ARE COVERED BY MORE THAN ONE
CONTRACT SO THAT IN ALL ABOUT 8,000 EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY CONTRACTS ARE HERE
IN ISSUE.  THESE ARE OF SEVERAL TYPES, BUT A FEATURE COMMON TO EACH IS
THE DEALER'S UNDERTAKING TO PURCHASE FROM STANDARD ALL HIS REQUIREMENTS
OF ONE OR MORE PRODUCTS.  TWO TYPES, COVERING 2,777 OUTLETS, BIND THE
DEALER TO PURCHASE OF STANDARD ALL HIS REQUIREMENTS OF GASOLINE AND
OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AS WELL AS TIRES, TUBES, AND BATTERIES.  THE
REMAINING WRITTEN AGREEMENTS, 4,368 IN NUMBER, BIND THE DEALER TO
PURCHASE OF STANDARD ALL HIS REQUIREMENTS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ONLY. 
IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT INDEPENDENT DEALERS HAD ENTERED 742 ORAL
CONTRACTS BY WHICH THEY AGREED TO SELL ONLY STANDARD'S GASOLINE.  IN
SOME INSTANCES DEALERS WHO CONTRACTED TO PURCHASE FROM STANDARD ALL
THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF TIRES, TUBES, AND BATTERIES, HAD ALSO ORALLY
AGREED TO PURCHASE OF STANDARD THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AUTOMOBILE
ACCESSORIES.  OF THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS, 2,712 WERE FOR VARYING
SPECIFIED TERMS; THE REST WERE EFFECTIVE FROM YEAR TO YEAR BUT
TERMINABLE "AT THE END OF THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF ANY CONTRACT YEAR, OR
AT THE END OF ANY SUCH YEAR, BY GIVING TO THE OTHER AT LEAST 30 DAYS
PRIOR THERETO WRITTEN NOTICE  ...  "  BEFORE 1934 STANDARD'S SALES OF
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS THROUGH INDEPENDENT SERVICE STATIONS WERE MADE
PURSUANT TO AGENCY AGREEMENTS, BUT IN THAT YEAR STANDARD ADOPTED THE
FIRST OF ITS SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS-PURCHASE CONTRACT FORMS, AND BY 1938
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS HAD WHOLLY SUPERSEDED THE AGENCY METHOD OF
DISTRIBUTION. 

BETWEEN 1936 AND 1946 STANDARD'S SALES OF GASOLINE THROUGH
INDEPENDENT DEALERS REMAINED AT A PRACTICALLY CONSTANT PROPORTION OF
THE AREA'S TOTAL SALES; ITS SALES OF LUBRICATING OIL DECLINED SLIGHTLY
DURING THAT PERIOD FROM 6.2% TO 5% OF THE TOTAL.  ITS PROPORTIONATE
SALES OF TIRES AND BATTERIES FOR 1946 WERE SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THEY
WERE IN 1936, THOUGH SOMEWHAT LOWER THAN FOR SOME INTERVENING YEARS;
THEY HAVE NEVER, AS TO EITHER OF THESE PRODUCTS, EXCEEDED 2% OF THE
TOTAL SALES IN THE WESTERN AREA. 

SINCE SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT WAS DIRECTED TO PROHIBITING SPECIFIC
PRACTICES EVEN THOUGH NOT COVERED BY THE BROAD TERMS OF THE SHERMAN
ACT,  FN4  IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER FIRST WHETHER THE ENJOINED
CONTRACTS FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE NARROWER ACT.  THE
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3 ARE: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, IN THE
COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE, TO LEASE OR MAKE A SALE OR CONTRACT FOR SALE
OF GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE, MACHINERY, SUPPLIES, OR OTHER
COMMODITIES, WHETHER PATENTED OR UNPATENTED, FOR USE, CONSUMPTION, OR
RESALE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES  ...  ON THE CONDITION, AGREEMENT, OR
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LESSEE OR PURCHASER THEREOF SHALL NOT USE OR
DEAL IN THE GOODS  ...  OF A COMPETITOR OR COMPETITORS OF THE  ...
SELLER, WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH LEASE, SALE, OR CONTRACT FOR SALE OR
SUCH CONDITION, AGREEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY
LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF
COMMERCE." 

OBVIOUSLY THE CONTRACTS HERE AT ISSUE WOULD BE PROSCRIBED IF SEC. 3
STOPPED SHORT OF THE QUALIFYING CLAUSE BEGINNING, "WHERE THE EFFECT OF
SUCH LEASE, SALE, OR CONTRACT FOR SALE  ...  " IF EFFECT IS TO BE GIVEN
THAT CLAUSE, HOWEVER, IT IS BY NO MEANS OBVIOUS, IN VIEW OF STANDARD'S
MINORITY SHARE OF THE "LINE OF COMMERCE" INVOLVED, OF THE FACT THAT
THAT SHARE HAS NOT RECENTLY INCREASED, AND OF THE CLAIMS OF THESE
CONTRACTS TO ECONOMIC UTILITY, THAT THE EFFECT OF THE CONTRACTS MAY BE
TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY.  IT IS THE
QUALIFYING CLAUSE, THEREFOR, WHICH MUST BE CONSTRUED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SHOWING AN ACTUAL OR
POTENTIAL LESSENING OF COMPETITION OR A TENDENCY TO ESTABLISH MONOPOLY
WAS ADEQUATELY MET BY PROOF THAT THE CONTRACTS COVERED "A SUBSTANTIAL
NUMBER OF OUTLETS AND A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PRODUCTS, WHETHER
CONSIDERED COMPARATIVELY OR NOT."  78 F.SUPP.  AT 875.  GIVEN SUCH
QUANTITATIVE SUBSTANTIALITY, THE SUBSTANTIAL LESSENING OF COMPETITION -
SO THE COURT REASONED - IS AN AUTOMATIC RESULT, FOR THE VERY EXISTENCE
OF SUCH CONTRACTS DENIES DEALERS OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL IN THE PRODUCTS OF
COMPETING SUPPLIERS AND EXCLUDES SUPPLIERS FROM ACCESS TO THE OUTLETS
CONTROLLED BY THOSE DEALERS.  HAVING ADOPTED THIS STANDARD OF PROOF,
THE COURT EXCLUDED AS IMMATERIAL TESTIMONY BEARING ON "THE ECONOMIC
MERITS OR DEMERITS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM AS CONTRASTED WITH A SYSTEM
WHICH PREVAILED PRIOR TO ITS ESTABLISHMENT AND WHICH WOULD PREVAIL IF
THE COURT DECLARED THE PRESENT ARRANGEMENT (INVALID)."  THE COURT
LIKEWISE DEEMED IT UNNECESSARY TO MAKE FINDINGS, ON THE BASIS OF
EVIDENCE THAT WAS ADMITTED, WHETHER THE NUMBER OF STANDARD'S
COMPETITORS HAD INCREASED OR DECREASED SINCE THE INAUGURATION OF THE
REQUIREMENTSCONTRACT SYSTEM, WHETHER THE NUMBER OF THEIR DEALERS HAD
INCREASED OR DECREASED, AND AS TO OTHER MATTERS WHICH WOULD HAVE SHED
LIGHT ON THE COMPARATIVE STATUS OF STANDARD AND ITS COMPETITORS BEFORE
AND AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THAT SYSTEM.  THE COURT CONCLUDED: 

"GRANT THAT, ON A COMPARATIVE BASIS, AND IN RELATION TO THE ENTIRE
TRADE IN THESE PRODUCTS IN THE AREA, THE RESTRAINT IS NOT INTEGRAL. 
ADMIT ALSO THAT CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION RESULTS IN LESSENING OF COSTS
AND THAT ITS ABANDONMENT MIGHT INCREASE COSTS.  ...  CONCEDE FURTHER,
THAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH, WITH THE HONEST
BELIEF THAT CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION AND CONSEQUENT CONCENTRATION OF
REPRESENTATION WERE ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE INDUSTRY AND TO THE
PUBLIC, THAT THEY HAVE CONTINUED FOR OVER FIFTEEN YEARS OPENLY,
NOTORIOUSLY AND UNMOLESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND HAVE BEEN PRACTICED
BY OTHER MAJOR OIL COMPANIES COMPETING WITH STANDARD, THAT THE NUMBER
OF STANDARD OUTLETS SO CONTROLLED MAY HAVE DECREASED, AND THE QUANTITY
OF PRODUCTS SUPPLIED TO THEM MAY HAVE DECLINED, ON A COMPARATIVE
BASIS.  NEVERTHELESS, AS I READ THE LATEST CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT,
I AM COMPELLED TO FIND THE PRACTICES HERE INVOLVED TO BE VIOLATIVE OF
BOTH STATUTES.  FOR THEY AFFECT INJURIOUSLY A SIZEABLE PART OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR,  - TO USE THE CURRENT PHRASE,  - 'AN
APPRECIABLE SEGMENT' OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

THE ISSUE BEFORE US, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT OF SHOWING
THAT THE EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENTS "MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN
COMPETITION" MAY BE MET SIMPLY BY PROOF THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF
COMMERCE IS AFFECTED OR WHETHER IT MUST ALSO BE DEMONSTRATED THAT
COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY HAS ACTUALLY DIMINISHED OR PROBABLY WILL
DIMINISH.  FN5 

SINCE THE CLAYTON ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE, THIS COURT HAS PASSED ON THE
APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 3 IN EIGHT CASES, IN FIVE OF WHICH IT UPHELD
DETERMINATIONS THAT THE CHALLENGED AGREEMENT WAS VIOLATIVE OF THAT
STATES, 258 U.S. 451; INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 298 U.S. 131; INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S.
392 - INVOLVED CONTRACTS TYING TO THE USE OF A PATENTED ARTICLE ALL
PURCHASES OF AN UNPATENTED PRODUCT USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PATENTED
ARTICLE.  THE OTHER TWO CASES - STANDARD FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON
CO., 258 U.S. 346; FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N,
312 U.S. 457 - INVOLVED REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS NOT UNLIKE THOSE HERE IN
ISSUE. 

THE STANDARD FASHION CASE, THE FIRST OF THE FIVE HOLDING THAT THE ACT
HAD BEEN VIOLATED, SETTLED ONE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 3. 
THE COURT SAID: 

"SECTION 3 CONDEMNS SALES OR AGREEMENTS WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH SALE
OR CONTRACT OF SALE 'MAY' BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION OR
TEND TO CREATE MONOPOLY.  ...  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE PURPOSE IN
USING THE WORD 'MAY' WAS TO PROHIBIT THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF THE
CONSEQUENCES DESCRIBED.  IT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT SUCH AGREEMENTS AS
WOULD UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED PROBABLY LESSEN COMPETITION, OR
CREATE AN ACTUAL TENDENCY TO MONOPOLY."  258 U.S. AT 356-57.  SEE ALSO
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37, 46, N. 14.  THE
COURT WENT ON TO ADD THAT THE FACT THAT THE SECTION "WAS NOT INTENDED
TO REACH EVERY REMOTE LESSENING OF COMPETITION IS SHOWN IN THE
REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH LESSENING MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL," BUT BECAUSE IT
DEEMED THE FINDING OF TWO LOWER COURTS THAT THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION
DID SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION AND TEND TO CREATE MONOPOLY AMPLY
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT CONTROLLED TWO-FIFTHS OF THE
NATION'S PATTERN AGENCIES, IT DID NOT PAUSE TO INDICATE WHERE THE LINE
BETWEEN A "REMOTE" AND A "SUBSTANTIAL" LESSENING SHOULD BE DRAWN. 

ALL BUT ONE OF THE LATER CASES ALSO REGARDED DOMINATION OF THE MARKET
AS SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO SUPPORT THE INFERENCE THAT COMPETITION HAD
BEEN OR PROBABLY WOULD BE LESSENED.  IN THE UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CASE,
REFERRING, INTER ALIA, TO THE CLAUSE INCORPORATED IN ALL UNITED'S
LEASES OF PATENTED MACHINERY REQUIRING THE USE BY THE LESSEE OF
MATERIALS SUPPLIED BY UNITED, THE COURT OBSERVED: 

"THAT SUCH RESTRICTIVE AND TYING AGREEMENTS MUST NECESSARILY LESSEN
COMPETITION AND TEND TO MONOPOLY IS, WE BELIEVE,  ...  APPARENT.  WHEN
IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE UNITED COMPANY OCCUPIES A DOMINATING POSITION
IN SUPPLYING SHOE MACHINERY OF THE CLASSES INVOLVED, THESE COVENANTS
SIGNED BY THE LESSEE AND BINDING UPON HIM EFFECTUALLY PREVENT HIM FROM
ACQUIRING THE MACHINERY OF A COMPETITOR OF THE LESSOR EXCEPT AT THE
RISK OF FORFEITING THE RIGHT TO USE THE MACHINES FURNISHED BY THE
UNITED COMPANY WHICH MAY BE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE PROSECUTION AND
SUCCESS OF HIS BUSINESS."  258 U.S. AT 457-58. 

IN THE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CASE, THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE
SOLE MANUFACTURERS OF A PATENTED TABULATING MACHINE REQUIRING THE USE
OF UNPATENTED CARDS.  THE LESSEES OF THE MACHINES WERE BOUND BY TYING
CLAUSES TO USE IN THEM ONLY THE CARDS SUPPLIED BY THE DEFENDANTS, WHO,
BETWEEN THEM, DIVIDED THE WHOLE OF THE $3,000,000 ANNUAL GROSS OF THIS
BUSINESS ALSO.  THE COURT CONCLUDED: 

"THESE FACTS, AND OTHERS, WHICH WE DO NOT STOP TO ENUMERATE, CAN
LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE EFFECT OF THE CONDITION IN APPELLANT'S LEASES
'MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION,' AND THAT IT TENDS TO
CREATE MONOPOLY, AND HAS IN FACT BEEN AN IMPORTANT AND EFFECTIVE STEP
IN THE CREATION OF MONOPOLY."  298 U.S. AT 136. 

THE FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD CASE INVOLVED AN ASSOCIATION OF DRESS
MANUFACTURERS WHICH SOLD MORE THAN 60% OF ALL BUT THE CHEAPEST WOMEN'S
GARMENTS.  IN REJECTING THE RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE GUILD'S USE
OF REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS WAS A "REASONABLE AND NECESSARY" MEASURE OF
PROTECTION AGAINST "THE DEVASTATING EVILS GROWING FROM THE PIRATING OF
ORIGINAL DESIGNS," THE COURT AGAIN EMPHASIZED THE PRESENCE AND THE
CONSEQUENCES OF ECONOMIC POWER:    "THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THIS
COMBINATION, ITS POTENTIAL POWER, ITS TENDENCY TO MONOPOLY, THE
COERCION IT COULD AND DID PRACTICE UPON A RIVAL METHOD OF COMPETITION,
ALL BROUGHT IT WITHIN THE POLICY OF THE PROHIBITION DECLARED BY THE
SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS."  312 U.S. AT 467-68. 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT NONE OF THESE CASES CONTROLS THE DISPOSITION
OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, FOR STANDARD'S SHARE OF THE RETAIL MARKET FOR
GASOLINE, EVEN INCLUDING SALES THROUGH COMPANY-OWNED STATIONS, IS
HARDLY LARGE ENOUGH TO CONCLUDE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT IT OCCUPIES A
DOMINANT POSITION, NOR DID THE TRIAL COURT SO FIND.  THE CASES DO
INDICATE, HOWEVER, THAT SOME SORT OF SHOWING AS TO THE ACTUAL OR
PROBABLE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE AGREEMENTS, IF ONLY THE
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THE FACT OF DOMINANT POWER, IS IMPORTANT,
AND TO THAT EXTENT THEY TEND TO SUPPORT APPELLANT'S POSITION. 

TWO OF THE THREE CASES DECIDED BY THIS COURT WHICH HAVE HELD SEC. 3
INAPPLICABLE ALSO LEND SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT SUCH A SHOWING IS
NECESSARY.  THESE ARE, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. SINCLAIR CO., 261 U.S.
463, AND PICK MFG. CO. V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 299 U.S. 3.  THE THIRD
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CURTIS PUB. CO., 260 U.S. 568 - WENT OFF ON
THE GROUND THAT THE CONTRACT INVOLVED WAS ONE OF AGENCY AND SO IS OF NO
PRESENT RELEVANCE.  THE SINCLAIR CASE INVOLVED THE LEASE OF GASOLINE
PUMPS AND STORAGE TANKS ON CONDITION THAT THE DEALER WOULD USE THEM
ONLY FOR SINCLAIR'S GASOLINE, BUT SINCLAIR DID NOT OWN PATENTS ON THE
PUMPS OR TANKS AND EVIDENTLY DID NOT OTHERWISE CONTROL THEIR SUPPLY. 
ALTHOUGH THE TRADE COMMISSION HAD FOUND THAT FEW DEALERS NEEDED MORE
THAN ONE PUMP, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT "THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT
THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF THE PRACTICE WILL BE UNDULY TO LESSEN
COMPETITION."  261 U.S. AT 475.  THE BASIS OF THIS CONCLUSION WAS THUS
SUMMARIZED: 

"MANY COMPETITORS SEEK TO SELL EXCELLENT BRANDS OF GASOLINE AND NO
ONE OF THEM IS ESSENTIAL TO THE RETAIL BUSINESS.  THE LESSEE IS FREE TO
BUY WHEREVER HE CHOOSES; HE MAY FREELY ACCEPT AND USE AS MANY PUMPS AS
HE WISHES AND MAY DISCONTINUE ANY OR ALL OF THEM.  HE MAY CARRY ON
BUSINESS AS HIS JUDGMENT DICTATES AND HIS MEANS PERMIT, SAVE ONLY THAT
HE CANNOT USE THE LESSOR'S EQUIPMENT FOR DISPENSING ANOTHER'S BRAND. 
BY INVESTING A COMPARATIVELY SMALL SUM, HE CAN BUY AN OUTFIT AND USE IT
WITHOUT HINDRANCE.  HE CAN HAVE RESPONDENT'S GASOLINE, WITH THE PUMP OR
WITHOUT THE PUMP, AND MANY COMPETITORS SEEK TO SUPPLY HIS NEEDS."  ID.
AT 474. 

THE PRESENT CASE DIFFERS OF COURSE IN THE FACT THAT A DEALER WHO HAS
ENTERED INTO A REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT WITH STANDARD CANNOT CONSISTENTLY
WITH THAT CONTRACT SELL THE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OF A COMPETITOR OF
STANDARD'S NO MATTER HOW MANY PUMPS HE HAS,  FN6  BUT THE CASE IS
SIGNIFICANT FOR THE IMPORTANCE IT ATTACHES, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING
THAT THE SUPPLIER DOMINATED THE MARKET, TO THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE
CONTRACTS.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE PICK CASE, IN WHICH THIS COURT
AFFIRMED IN A BRIEF PER CURIAM OPINION THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, CONCURRED IN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THAT THE EFFECT OF
CONTRACTS BY WHICH DEALERS AGREED NOT TO SELL OTHER AUTOMOBILE PARTS
THAN THOSE MANUFACTURED BY GENERAL MOTORS "HAD NOT BEEN IN ANY WAY
SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE
OF COMMERCE."  299 U.S. AT 4. 

BUT THEN CAME INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392. 
THAT DECISION, AT LEAST AS TO CONTRACTS TYING THE SALE OF A NONPATENTED
TO A PATENTED PRODUCT, REJECTED THE NECESSITY OF DEMONSTRATING ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES ONCE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT "THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS
AFFECTED" IS NOT "INSIGNIFICANT OR INSUBSTANTIAL" AND THAT THE EFFECT
OF THE CONTRACTS IS TO "FORECLOSE COMPETITORS FROM (A) SUBSTANTIAL
MARKET."  ID. AT 396.  UPON THAT BASIS WE AFFIRMED A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GRANTING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE LEASING OF MACHINES FOR THE
UTILIZATION OF SALT PRODUCTS ON THE CONDITION THAT THE LESSEE USE IN
THEM ONLY SALT SUPPLIED BY DEFENDANT.  IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY PLEADINGS
OR ADMISSIONS THAT DEFENDANT WAS THE COUNTRY'S LARGEST PRODUCER OF SALT
FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES, THAT IT OWNED PATENTS ON THE LEASED MACHINES,
THAT ABOUT 900 LEASES WERE OUTSTANDING, AND THAT IN 1944 DEFENDANT SOLD
ABOUT $500,000 WORTH OF SALT FOR USE IN THESE MACHINES.  IT WAS NOT
ESTABLISHED THAT EQUIVALENT MACHINES WERE UNOBTAINABLE, IT WAS NOT
INDICATED WHAT PROPORTION OF THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING SUCH MACHINES
WAS CONTROLLED BY DEFENDANT, AND IT WAS DEEMED IRRELEVANT THAT THERE
WAS NO EVIDENCE AS TO THE ACTUAL EFFECT OF THE TYING CLAUSES UPON
COMPETITION.  FN7  IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT UNLESS A DISTINCTION IS
TO BE DRAWN FOR PURPOSES OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 3 BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS AND CONTRACTS TYING THE SALE OF A NONPATENTED TO
A PATENTED PRODUCT, THE SHOWING THAT STANDARD'S REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS
AFFECTED A GROSS BUSINESS OF $58,000,000 COMPRISING 6.7% OF THE TOTAL
IN THE AREA GOES FAR TOWARD SUPPORTING THE INFERENCE THAT COMPETITION
HAS BEEN OR PROBABLY WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED.  FN8 

IN FAVOR OF CONFINING THE STANDARD LAID DOWN BY THE INTERNATIONAL
SALT CASE TO TYING AGREEMENTS, IMPORTANT ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES MAY BE
NOTED.  TYING AGREEMENTS SERVE HARDLY ANY PURPOSE BEYOND THE
SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION.  THE JUSTIFICATION MOST OFTEN ADVANCED IN
THEIR DEFENSE - THE PROTECTION OF THE GOOD WILL OF THE MANUFACTURER OF
THE TYING DEVICE - FAILS IN THE USUAL SITUATION BECAUSE SPECIFICATION
OF THE TYPE AND QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT TO BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TYING DEVICE IS PROTECTION ENOUGH.  IF THE MANUFACTURER'S BRAND OF
THE TIED PRODUCT IS IN FACT SUPERIOR TO THAT OF COMPETITORS, THE BUYER
WILL PRESUMABLY CHOOSE IT ANYWAY.  THE ONLY SITUATION, INDEED, IN WHICH
THE PROTECTION OF GOOD WILL MAY NECESSITATE THE USE OF TYING CLAUSES IS
WHERE SPECIFICATIONS FOR A SUBSTITUTE WOULD BE SO DETAILED THAT THEY
COULD NOT PRACTICABLY BE SUPPLIED.  IN THE USUAL CASE ONLY THE PROSPECT
OF REDUCING COMPETITION WOULD PERSUADE A SELLER TO ADOPT SUCH A
CONTRACT AND ONLY HIS CONTROL OF THE SUPPLY OF THE TYING DEVICE,
WHETHER CONFERRED BY PATENT MONOPOLY OR OTHERWISE OBTAINED, COULD
INDUCE A BUYER TO ENTER ONE.  SEE MILLER, UNFAIR COMPETITION 199 ET
SEQ. (1941); NOTE, 49 COL. L. REV. 241, 246(1949).  THE EXISTENCE OF
MARKET CONTROL OF THE TYING DEVICE, THEREFORE, AFFORDS A STRONG
FOUNDATION FOR THE PRESUMPTION THAT IT HAS BEEN OR PROBABLY WILL BE
USED TO LIMIT COMPETITION IN THE TIED PRODUCT ALSO. 

REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, MAY WELL BE OF ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE TO BUYERS AS WELL AS TO SELLERS, AND THUS INDIRECTLY OF
ADVANTAGE TO THE CONSUMING PUBLIC.  IN THE CASE OF THE BUYER, THEY MAY
ASSURE SUPPLY, AFFORD PROTECTION AGAINST RISES IN PRICE, ENABLE LONG
TERM PLANNING ON THE BASIS OF KNOWN COSTS,  FN9  AND OBVIATE THE
EXPENSE AND RISK OF STORAGE IN THE QUANTITY NECESSARY FOR A COMMODITY
HAVING A FLUCTUATING DEMAND.  FROM THE SELLER'S POINT OF VIEW,
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS MAY MAKE POSSIBLE THE SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF
SELLING EXPENSES, GIVE PROTECTION AGAINST PRICE FLUCTUATIONS, AND - OF
PARTICULAR ADVANTAGE TO A NEWCOMER TO THE FIELD TO WHOM IT IS IMPORTANT
TO KNOW WHAT CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ARE JUSTIFIED - OFFER THE POSSIBILITY
OF A PREDICTABLE MARKET.  SEE STOCKHAUSEN, THE COMMERCIAL AND ANTI
TRUST ASPECTS OF TERM REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS, 23 N.Y.U.L.Q. REV. 412,
413-14(1948).  THEY MAY BE USEFUL, MOREOVER, TO A SELLER TRYING TO
ESTABLISH A FOOTHOLD AGAINST THE COUNTERATTACKS OF ENTRENCHED
COMPETITORS.  SEE ID. AT 424 ET SEQ.; EXCELSIOR MOTOR MFG. & SUPPLY CO.
V. SOUND EQUIPMENT, INC., 73 F.2D 725, 728(C.A.7TH CIR.); GENERAL
TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. AMERICAN TEL. & TEL. CO., 18 F.SUPP.  650,
666(D. DEL.).  FN10 SINCE THESE ADVANTAGES OF REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS
MAY OFTEN BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR USE, THE COVERAGE BY SUCH
CONTRACTS OF A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF BUSINESS AFFORDS A WEAKER BASIS
FOR THE INFERENCE THAT COMPETITION MAY BE LESSENED THAN WOULD SIMILAR
COVERAGE BY TYING CLAUSES, ESPECIALLY WHERE USE OF THE LATTER IS
COMBINED WITH MARKET CONTROL OF THE TYING DEVICE.  A PATENT, MOREOVER,
ALTHOUGH IN FACT THERE MAY BE MANY COMPETING SUBSTITUTES FOR THE
PATENTED ARTICLE, IS AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF SUCH CONTROL. 
AND SO WE COULD NOT DISPOSE OF THIS CASE MERELY BY CITING INTERNATIONAL
SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392. 

THUS, EVEN THOUGH THE QUALIFYING CLAUSE OF SEC. 3 IS APPENDED WITHOUT
DISTINCTION OF TERMS EQUALLY TO THE PROHIBITION OF TYING CLAUSES AND OF
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS, PERTINENT CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORT, CERTAINLY AS
A MATTER OF ECONOMIC REASONING, VARYING STANDARDS AS TO EACH FOR THE
PROOF NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS OF THAT CLAUSE.  IF THIS
DISTINCTION WERE ACCEPTED, VARIOUS TESTS OF THE ECONOMIC USEFULNESS OR
RESTRICTIVE EFFECT OF REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS WOULD BECOME RELEVANT. 
AMONG THEM WOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT COMPETITION HAS FLOURISHED DESPITE
USE OF THE CONTRACTS, AND UNDER THIS TEST MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE TENDERED
BY APPELLANT IN THIS CASE WOULD BE IMPORTANT.  SEE, AS EXAMPLES OF THE
CONSIDERATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE, B.S. PEARSALL BUTTER CO. V. FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N, 292 FED. 720(C.A.7TH CIR.); PICK MFG. CO. V. GENERAL
MOTORS CORP., 80 F.2D 641, 644(C.A.7TH CIR.), AFF'D, 299 U.S. 3. 
LIKEWISE BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACTS WERE BEING USED TO
SUPPRESS COMPETITION, WOULD BE THE CONFORMITY OF THE LENGTH OF THEIR
TERM TO THE REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIELD OF COMMERCE IN WHICH
THEY WERE USED.  SEE CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N, 144 F.2D 211, 220(C.A.7TH CIR.), AFF'D, 324 U.S. 726; UNITED
STATES V. PULLMAN CO., 50 F.SUPP.  123, 127-29(E.D. PA.).  STILL
ANOTHER TEST WOULD BE THE STATUS OF THE DEFENDANT AS A STRUGGLING
NEWCOMER OR AN ESTABLISHED COMPETITOR.  PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT,
HOWEVER, WOULD BE THE DEFENDANT'S DEGREE OF MARKET CONTROL, FOR THE
GREATER THE DOMINANCE OF HIS POSITION, THE STRONGER THE INFERENCE THAT
AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN ATTAINING AND MAINTAINING THAT POSITION HAS BEEN
THE USE OF REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS TO STIFLE COMPETITION RATHER THAN TO
SERVE LEGITIMATE ECONOMIC NEEDS.  SEE STANDARD FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE
HOUSTON CO., SUPRA, 258 U.S. 346; FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N, SUPRA, 312 U.S. 457.  FN11 

YET SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES WOULD ATTEND THE ATTEMPT TO APPLY THESE
TESTS.  WE MAY ASSUME, AS DID THE COURT BELOW, THAT NO IMPROVEMENT OF
STANDARD'S COMPETITIVE POSITION HAS COINCIDED WITH THE PERIOD DURING
WHICH THE REQUIREMENTS-CONTRACT SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION HAS BEEN IN
EFFECT.  WE MAY ASSUME FURTHER THAT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACTS IS
NOT EXCESSIVE AND THAT STANDARD DOES NOT BY ITSELF DOMINATE THE
MARKET.  BUT STANDARD WAS A MAJOR COMPETITOR WHEN THE PRESENT SYSTEM
WAS ADOPTED, AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ITS POSITION WOULD HAVE
DETERIORATED BUT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THAT SYSTEM.  WHEN IT IS
REMEMBERED THAT ALL THE OTHER MAJOR SUPPLIERS HAVE ALSO BEEN USING
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS, AND WHEN IT IS NOTED THAT THE RELATIVE SHARE OF
THE BUSINESS WHICH FELL TO EACH HAS REMAINED ABOUT THE SAME DURING THE
PERIOD OF THEIR USE,  FN12  IT WOULD NOT BE FARFETCHED TO INFER THAT
THEIR EFFECT HAS BEEN TO ENABLE THE ESTABLISHED SUPPLIERS INDIVIDUALLY
TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN STANDING AND AT THE SAME TIME COLLECTIVELY, EVEN
THOUGH NOT COLLUSIVELY, TO PREVENT A LATE ARRIVAL FROM WRESTING AWAY
MORE THAN AN INSIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE MARKET.  IF, INDEED, THIS
WERE A RESULT OF THE SYSTEM, IT WOULD SEEM UNIMPORTANT THAT A SHORT-RUN
BY-PRODUCT OF STABILITY MAY HAVE BEEN GREATER EFFICIENCY AND LOWER
COSTS, FOR IT IS THE THEORY OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS THAT THE LONG-RUN
ADVANTAGE OF THE COMMUNITY DEPENDS UPON THE REMOVAL OF RESTRAINTS UPON
COMPETITION.  SEE FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N,
312 U.S. 457, 467-68; UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148
F.2D 416, 427-29(C.A.2D CIR.). 

MOREOVER, TO DEMAND THAT BARE INFERENCE BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AS
TO WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BUT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PRACTICE THAT
WAS IN FACT ADOPTED OR TO REQUIRE FIRM PREDICTION OF AN INCREASE OF
COMPETITION AS A PROBABLE RESULT OF ORDERING THE ABANDONMENT OF THE
PRACTICE, WOULD BE A STANDARD OF PROOF, IF NOT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO
MEET, AT LEAST MOST ILL-SUITED FOR ASCERTAINMENT BY COURTS.  FN13
BEFORE THE SYSTEM OF REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS WAS INSTITUTED, STANDARD
SOLD GASOLINE THROUGH INDEPENDENT SERVICE-STATION OPERATORS AS ITS
AGENTS, AND IT MIGHT REVERT TO THIS SYSTEM IF THE JUDGMENT BELOW WERE
SUSTAINED.  OR IT MIGHT, AS OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF, ADD SERVICE
STATIONS NOW OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY TO THE NUMBER MANAGED BY ITS
SUBSIDIARY, STANDARD STATIONS, INC. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
MAINTAINING OR EXTENDING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, EITHER OF THESE
ALTERNATIVES WOULD BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE AS THE USE OF REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTS, ALTHOUGH OF COURSE INSOFAR AS THEY RESULTED IN A TENDENCY TO
MONOPOLY THEY MIGHT ENCOUNTER THE ANTI-MONOPOLY PROVISIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D
416(C.A.2D CIR.).  AS APPELLANT POINTS OUT, DEALERS MIGHT ORDER
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN QUANTITIES SUFFICIENT TO MEET THEIR ESTIMATED
NEEDS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS ARE NOW
EFFECTIVE, AND EVEN THAT WOULD FORECLOSE COMPETITION TO SOME DEGREE. 
SO LONG AS THESE DIVERSE WAYS OF RESTRICTING COMPETITION REMAIN OPEN,
THEREFORE, THERE CAN BE NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE USE OF
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS HAS ACTUALLY REDUCED COMPETITION BELOW THE LEVEL
WHICH IT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE REACHED OR MAINTAINED.    WE ARE DEALING
HERE WITH A PARTICULAR FORM OF AGREEMENT SPECIFIED BY SEC. 3 AND NOT
WITH DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENTS, BY WAY OF INTEGRATION OR OTHERWISE, THAT
MAY TEND TO LESSEN COMPETITION.  TO INTERPRET THAT SECTION AS REQUIRING
PROOF THAT COMPETITION HAS ACTUALLY DIMINISHED WOULD MAKE ITS VERY
EXPLICITNESS A MEANS OF CONFERRING IMMUNITY UPON THE PRACTICES WHICH IT
SINGLES OUT.  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORITATIVELY DETERMINED THAT THOSE
PRACTICES ARE DETRIMENTAL WHERE THEIR EFFECT MAY BE TO LESSEN
COMPETITION.  IT HAS NOT LEFT AT LARGE FOR DETERMINATION IN EACH CASE
THE ULTIMATE DEMANDS OF THE "PUBLIC INTEREST," AS THE ENGLISH
LAWMAKERS, CONSIDERING AND FINDING INAPPLICABLE TO THEIR OWN SITUATION
OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE SPECIFIC PROHIBITION OF TRADE PRACTICES
LEGISLATIVELY DETERMINED TO BE UNDESIRABLE, HAVE RECENTLY CHOSEN TO DO.
FN14  THOUGH IT MAY BE THAT SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PRESENT SYSTEM
AS BUYING OUT INDEPENDENT DEALERS AND MAKING THEM DEPENDENT EMPLOYEES
OF STANDARD STATIONS, INC., WOULD BE A GREATER DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST THAN PERPETUATION OF THE SYSTEM, THIS IS AN ISSUE, LIKE THE
CHOICE BETWEEN GREATER EFFICIENCY AND FREER COMPETITION, THAT HAS NOT
BEEN SUBMITTED TO OUR DECISION.  WE ARE FACED, NOT WITH A BROADLY
PHRASED EXPRESSION OF GENERAL POLICY, BUT MERELY A BROADLY PHRASED
QUALIFICATION OF AN OTHERWISE NARROWLY DIRECTED STATUTORY PROVISION. 

IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE QUALIFYING LANGUAGE WAS
NOT ADDED UNTIL AFTER THE HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS REACHED CONFERENCE. 
THE CONFEREES RESPONSIBLE FOR ADDING THAT LANGUAGE WERE AT PAINS, IN
ANSWERING PROTESTATIONS THAT THE QUALIFYING CLAUSE SERIOUSLY WEAKENED
THE SECTION, TO DISCLAIM ANY INTENTION SERIOUSLY TO AUGMENT THE BURDEN
OF PROOF TO BE SUSTAINED IN ESTABLISHING VIOLATION OF IT.  FN15  IT
SEEMS HARDLY LIKELY THAT, HAVING WITH ONE HAND SET UP AN EXPRESS
PROHIBITION AGAINST A PRACTICE THOUGHT TO BE BEYOND THE REACH OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, CONGRESS MEANT, WITH THE OTHER HAND, TO REESTABLISH THE
NECESSITY OF MEETING THE SAME TESTS OF DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AS THAT ACT HAD BEEN INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING.  FN16  YET THE ECONOMIC
INVESTIGATION WHICH APPELLANT WOULD HAVE US REQUIRE IS OF THE SAME
BROAD SCOPE AS WAS ADUMBRATED WITH REFERENCE TO UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS
OF TRADE IN CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231. 
FN17  TO INSIST UPON SUCH AN INVESTIGATION WOULD BE TO STULTIFY THE
FORCE OF CONGRESS' DECLARATION THAT REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS ARE TO BE
PROHIBITED WHEREVER THEIR EFFECT "MAY BE" TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN
COMPETITION.  IF IN FACT IT IS ECONOMICALLY DESIRABLE FOR SERVICE
STATIONS TO CONFINE THEMSELVES TO THE SALE OF THE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OF
A SINGLE SUPPLIER, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO THOUGH NOT BOUND BY
CONTRACT, AND IF IN FACT IT IS IMPORTANT TO RETAIL DEALERS TO ASSURE
THE SUPPLY OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS BY OBTAINING THE COMMITMENT OF A
SINGLE SUPPLIER TO FULFILL THEM, COMPETITION FOR THEIR PATRONAGE SHOULD
ENABLE THEM TO INSIST UPON SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WITHOUT BINDING THEM TO
REFRAIN FROM LOOKING ELSEWHERE. 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE QUALIFYING CLAUSE OF SEC. 3 IS
SATISFIED BY PROOF THAT COMPETITION HAS BEEN FORECLOSED IN A
SUBSTANTIAL SHARE OF THE LINE OF COMMERCE AFFECTED.  IT CANNOT BE
GAINSAID THAT OBSERVANCE BY A DEALER OF HIS REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT WITH
STANDARD DOES EFFECTIVELY FORECLOSE WHATEVER OPPORTUNITY THERE MIGHT BE
FOR COMPETING SUPPLIERS TO ATTRACT HIS PATRONAGE, AND IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE AFFECTED PROPORTION OF RETAIL SALES OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IS
SUBSTANTIAL.  IN VIEW OF THE WIDESPREAD ADOPTION OF SUCH CONTRACTS BY
STANDARD'S COMPETITORS AND THE AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF
OBTAINING AN ASSURED MARKET, EVIDENCE THAT COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY HAS NOT
ACTUALLY DECLINED IS INCONCLUSIVE.  STANDARD'S USE OF THE CONTRACTS
CREATES JUST SUCH A POTENTIAL CLOG ON COMPETITION AS IT WAS THE PURPOSE
OF SEC. 3 TO REMOVE WHEREVER, WERE IT TO BECOME ACTUAL, IT WOULD IMPEDE
A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY. 

SINCE THE DECREE BELOW IS SUSTAINED BY OUR INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 3
OF THE CLAYTON ACT, WE NEED NOT GO ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT MIGHT ALSO
BE SUSTAINED BY SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

ONE LAST POINT REMAINS TO BE DISPOSED OF.  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT
ITS REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS WITH CALIFORNIA DEALERS, BECAUSE NEARLY ALL
THE PRODUCTS SOLD TO THEM ARE PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA, DO NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
EXEMPTED FROM THE DECREE.  IT FINDS SUPPORT FOR THIS CONTENTION IN
ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211, 247.  BUT THE
EFFECT OF APPELLANT'S REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS WITH CALIFORNIA RETAIL
DEALERS IS TO PREVENT THEM FROM DEALING WITH SUPPLIERS FROM OUTSIDE THE
STATE AS WELL AS WITHIN THE STATE AND IS THUS TO LESSEN COMPETITION IN
BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  APPELLANT HAS NOT SUGGESTED
THAT IF THESE DEALERS WERE NOT BOUND BY THEIR CONTRACTS WITH IT THAT
THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO PURCHASE ONLY PRODUCTS ORIGINATING WITHIN THE
STATE.  THE ADDYSTON CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, DEALT NOT WITH THE
DIMINUTION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN SUPPLIERS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE ACTION
OF ONE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE REST, WHETHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE,
BUT A COMBINATION AMONG THEM TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION.  MODIFICATION OF
THE DECREE WAS REQUIRED ONLY TO MAKE CLEAR THAT IT DID NOT REACH A
COMBINATION AMONG THE DEFENDANTS DOING BUSINESS IN A SINGLE STATE WHICH
WAS CONFINED TO TRANSACTIONS TAKING PLACE WITHIN THAT SAME STATE. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  STANDARD STATIONS, INC., HAS NO INDEPENDENT STATUS IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS; SINCE 1944 ITS ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CONFINED TO MANAGING
SERVICE STATIONS OWNED BY THE STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA. 

FN2  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE,
OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL:  ...
"  26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 50 STAT. 693, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN3  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, IN THE
COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE, TO LEASE OR MAKE A SALE OR CONTRACT FOR SALE
OF GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE, MACHINERY, SUPPLIES, OR OTHER
COMMODITIES, WHETHER PATENTED OR UNPATENTED, FOR USE, CONSUMPTION, OR
RESALE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY TERRITORY THEREOF OR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR ANY INSULAR POSSESSION OR OTHER PLACE UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR FIX A PRICE CHARGED THEREFOR, OR
DISCOUNT FROM, OR REBATE UPON, SUCH PRICE, ON THE CONDITION, AGREEMENT,
OR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LESSEE OR PURCHASER THEREOF SHALL NOT USE OR
DEAL IN THE GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE, MACHINERY, SUPPLIES, OR OTHER
COMMODITIES OF A COMPETITOR OR COMPETITORS OF THE LESSOR OR SELLER,
WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH LEASE, SALE, OR CONTRACT FOR SALE OR SUCH
CONDITION, AGREEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN
COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF COMMERCE."  38
STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 14. 

FN4  AFTER THE CLAYTON BILL, H.R. 15657, 63D CONG., 2D SESS., HAD
PASSED THE HOUSE, THE SENATE STRUCK SEC. 4, THE SECTION PROHIBITING
TYING CLAUSES AND REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS, ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH
PRACTICES WERE SUBJECT TO CONDEMNATION BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
UNDER THE THEN PENDING TRADE COMMISSION BILL.  IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION
TO RECONSIDER THIS VOTE, SENATOR REED OF MISSOURI ARGUED THAT THE TRADE
COMMISSION WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO OUTLAW AGREEMENTS OF A TYPE HELD BY
THIS COURT, IN HENRY V. A.B. DICK CO., 224 U.S. 1, NOT TO BE IN
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  SEE 51 CONG. REC. 14088, 14090-92.  THE
MOTION WAS AGREED TO.  ID. AT 14223. 

FN5  IT IS CLEAR, OF COURSE, THAT THE "LINE OF COMMERCE" AFFECTED
NEED NOT BE NATIONWIDE, AT LEAST WHERE THE PURCHASERS CANNOT, AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, TURN TO SUPPLIERS OUTSIDE THEIR OWN AREA.  ALTHOUGH
THE EFFECT ON COMPETITION WILL BE QUANTITATIVELY THE SAME IF A GIVEN
VOLUME OF THE INDUSTRY'S BUSINESS IS ASSUMED TO BE COVERED, WHETHER OR
NOT THE AFFECTED SOURCES OF SUPPLY ARE THOSE OF THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE
OR ONLY THOSE OF A PARTICULAR REGION, A PURELY QUANTITATIVE MEASURE OF
THIS EFFECT IS INADEQUATE BECAUSE THE NARROWER THE AREA OF COMPETITION,
THE GREATER THE COMPARATIVE EFFECT ON THE AREA'S COMPETITORS.  SINCE IT
IS THE PRESERVATION OF COMPETITION WHICH IS AT STAKE, THE SIGNIFICANT
PROPORTION OF COVERAGE IS THAT WITHIN THE AREA OF EFFECTIVE
COMPETITION.  CF. INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUBLISHING CO. V. PRAIRIE
FARMER PUBLISHING CO., 293 U.S. 268, 279; UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB
CO., 332 U.S. 218, 226.  THE CRITERIA OF SUBSTANTIALITY DEEMED RELEVANT
IN CASES INVOLVING A NATIONWIDE MARKET ARE THUS ALSO RELEVANT IN
MEASURING THE EFFECT OF STANDARD'S REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS IN THE SEVEN
STATE WESTERN AREA. 

FN6  STANDARD URGES THAT THE EFFECT OF ITS CONTRACTS IS SIMILARLY
CONFINED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THEY APPLY NOT TO ALL SALES BY A
DEALER BUT ONLY TO THOSE MADE THROUGH A DESIGNATED SERVICE STATION. 
PUTTING ASIDE THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT DEALERS COMMONLY
OWN MORE THAN ONE SERVICE STATION, THERE IS MARKED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
CONTRACT WHICH CONFINES AN ENTIRE RETAIL OUTLET TO THE SALE OF A SINGLE
BRAND AND A CONTRACT WHICH MERELY CONFINES THE USE OF A DISPENSING
MECHANISM TO A SINGLE BRAND:  SERVICE-STATION SITES, AND THEREFORE
RETAIL OUTLETS, ARE LIMITED IN NUMBER; THE NUMBER OF PUMPS WHICH A
DEALER MAY CHOOSE TO SET UP IS NOT, OR SO, AT LEAST, THE COURT ASSUMED
IN THE SINCLAIR CASE.  IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME, THEREFORE, THAT
COMPETITION BETWEEN SUPPLIERS IS DIRECTED RATHER TOWARD EXCLUSIVE
CONTRACTS WITH THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STRATEGICALLY LOCATED OUTLETS THAN
TOWARD EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENTS WITH DEALERS AS SUCH. 

FN7  THE COURT CONSIDERED AND FOUND INADEQUATE DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPT TO
ESTABLISH THAT THE SUCCESSFUL USE OF THE MACHINES DEPENDED UPON A
QUALITY OF SALT WHICH ONLY IT COULD SUPPLY, BUT THE COURT'S WILLINGNESS
TO CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE DOES NOT WEAKEN THE HOLDING THAT COVERAGE OF
A MORE THAN INSIGNIFICANT VOLUME OF BUSINESS BY SUCH TYING CLAUSES IS
AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR FINDING A LESSENING OF COMPETITION OR A TENDENCY
TO MONOPOLY. 

FN8  IT MAY BE NOTED IN PASSING THAT THE EXCLUSIVE SUPPLY PROVISIONS
FOR TIRES, TUBES, BATTERIES, AND OTHER ACCESSORIES WHICH ARE A PART OF
SOME OF STANDARD'S CONTRACTS WITH DEALERS WHO HAVE ALSO AGREED TO
PURCHASE THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SHOULD PERHAPS BE
CONSIDERED, AS A MATTER OF CLASSIFICATION, TYING RATHER THAN
REQUIREMENTS AGREEMENTS. 

FN9  THIS ADVANTAGE IS NOT CONFERRED BY STANDARD'S CONTRACTS, EACH OF
WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE PRICE TO BE PAID BY THE DEALER IS TO BE THE
"COMPANY'S POSTED PRICE TO ITS DEALERS GENERALLY AT TIME AND PLACE OF
DELIVERY." 

FN10  SOME MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OPPOSED SEC. 4 OF H.R. 15657, 63D
CONG., 2D SESS.  (THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT IS NOW SEC. 3) AS DENYING THIS
BENEFIT TO THE NEWCOMER, SEE 51 CONG. REC. 9267, AND REPRESENTATIVE
MCCOY OF NEW JERSEY OFFERED AN AMENDMENT, ID. AT 9398, TO MAKE THE
AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION ILLEGAL ONLY WHEN ENTERED "WITH THE INTENT OF
OBTAINING OR ESTABLISHING A MONOPOLY OR OF DESTROYING THE BUSINESS OF A
COMPETITOR," WHICH HE AND OTHERS SUPPORTED ON THIS GROUND.  SEE ID. AT
9400-02, 9409.  THE AMENDMENT WAS REJECTED.  ID. AT 9410. 

FN11  FOR AN EXPOSITION OF THE CONSIDERATIONS HERE SUMMARIZED, SEE
STOCKHAUSEN, THE COMMERCIAL AND ANTI-TRUST ASPECTS OF TERM AND
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS, 23 N.Y.U.L.Q. REV. 412, 417-31(1948). 

FN12  UPON THE REQUEST OF STANDARD, ITS SIX LARGEST COMPETITORS
FILLED OUT QUESTIONNAIRES SHOWING THE NUMBER OF RETAIL DEALERS WHO
DISTRIBUTED THEIR PRODUCTS DURING THE YEARS 1937 THROUGH 1946.  THOUGH
THEIR POSITION RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER HAS FLUCTUATED, THE FIGURES SHOW
THAT AS A GROUP THEY HAVE MAINTAINED OR IMPROVED THEIR CONTROL OF THE
MARKET.  TOGETHER WITH STANDARD, THESE SIX COMPANIES DISTRIBUTED, AS OF
1946, THROUGH 26,439 OF APPROXIMATELY 35,000 INDEPENDENT SERVICE
STATIONS IN THE WESTERN AREA. 

FN13  THE DUAL SYSTEM OF ENFORCEMENT PROVIDED FOR BY THE CLAYTON ACT
MUST HAVE CONTEMPLATED STANDARDS OF PROOF CAPABLE OF ADMINISTRATION BY
THE COURTS AS WELL AS BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND OTHER
DESIGNATED AGENCIES.  SEE 38 STAT. 734, 736, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C.
SECS. 21, 25.  OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, SHOULD
RECOGNIZE THAT AN APPRAISAL OF ECONOMIC DATA WHICH MIGHT BE PRACTICABLE
IF ONLY THE LATTER WERE FACED WITH THE TASK MAY BE QUITE OTHERWISE FOR
JUDGES UNEQUIPPED FOR IT EITHER BY EXPERIENCE OR BY THE AVAILABILITY OF
SKILLED ASSISTANCE. 

FN14  THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES (INQUIRY AND CONTROL)
ACT, 1948, ADOPTED JULY 30, 1948, PROVIDES, AS ONE MODE OF PROCEDURE,
FOR REFERENCE OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BY THE BOARD OF TRADE TO A
PERMANENT COMMISSION FOR INVESTIGATION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE "WHETHER
ANY SUCH THINGS AS ARE SPECIFIED IN THE REFERENCE  ...  OPERATE OR MAY
BE EXPECTED TO OPERATE AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  11 & 12 GEO. VI,
C. 66, SEC. 6(2).  THE ACT DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE PUBLIC
INTEREST," ALTHOUGH IN SEC. 14 IT SETS UP BROAD CRITERIA TO BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT.  IT IS NOTEWORTHY, HOWEVER, THAT, HAVING ESTABLISHED SO
BROAD A BASIS FOR INVESTIGATION, THE ACT ENTRUSTS THE TASK TO AN EXPERT
BODY WITHOUT PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THIS APPROACH WAS
REPEATEDLY CONTRASTED IN DEBATE WITH THAT OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEE
449 H.C. DEB.  2046-47, 2058, 2063(5TH SER.  1948); 157 H.L. DEB. 
350(5TH SER.  1948).  COMPARE SEC. 5(2) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
AS AMENDED, 41 STAT. 480, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(2), REFERRING TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DETERMINATION OF THE MORE DEFINED ISSUES
OF "PUBLIC INTEREST" UNDER REVIEW IN NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 24; UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S.
225.    FN15  REPRESENTATIVE FLOYD OF ARKANSAS, ONE OF THE MANAGERS ON
THE PART OF THE HOUSE, EXPLAINED THE USE OF THE WORD "SUBSTANTIALLY" AS
DERIVING FROM THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211, AND QUOTED THE PASSAGE FROM ID. AT 229 IN
WHICH IT IS SAID THAT "THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMPRISES THE RIGHT TO ENACT A LAW PROHIBITING THE CITIZEN
FROM ENTERING INTO THOSE PRIVATE CONTRACTS WHICH DIRECTLY AND
SUBSTANTIALLY, AND NOT MERELY INDIRECTLY, REMOTELY, INCIDENTALLY AND
COLLATERALLY, REGULATE TO A GREATER OR LESS DEGREE COMMERCE AMONG THE
STATES."  51 CONG. REC. 16317-18.  SENATOR CHILTON, ONE OF THE MANAGERS
ON THE PART OF THE SENATE, DENYING THAT THE CLAUSE WEAKENED THE BILL,
STATED THAT THE WORDS "WHERE THE EFFECT MAY BE" MEAN "WHERE IT IS
POSSIBLE FOR THE EFFECT TO BE."  ID. AT 16002.  SENATOR OVERMAN, ALSO A
SENATE CONFEREE, ARGUED THAT EVEN THE ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION IN A
SINGLE TOWN WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION.  ID. AT 15935. 

FN16  SEE UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, 179:
"APPLYING THE RULE OF REASON TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE, IT WAS
HELD IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE THAT AS THE WORDS 'RESTRAINT OF TRADE' AT
COMMON LAW AND IN THE LAW OF THIS COUNTRY AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION
OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT ONLY EMBRACED ACTS OR CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS OR
COMBINATIONS WHICH OPERATED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE PUBLIC INTERESTS BY
UNDULY RESTRICTING COMPETITION OR UNDULY OBSTRUCTING THE DUE COURSE OF
TRADE OR WHICH, EITHER BECAUSE OF THEIR INHERENT NATURE OR EFFECT OR
BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF THE ACTS, ETC., INJURIOUSLY
RESTRAINED TRADE, THAT THE WORDS AS USED IN THE STATUTE WERE DESIGNED
TO HAVE AN DID HAVE BUT A LIKE SIGNIFICANCE."  SEE ALSO HANDLER, A
STUDY OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS
3-9(T.N.E.C. MONOGRAPH NO. 38, 1941).  COMPARE SEC. 4 OF THE AUSTRALIAN
INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION ACT, 1906, WHICH FORBIDS COMBINATIONS ENTERED
INTO "WITH INTENT TO RESTRAIN TRADE OR COMMERCE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
PUBLIC," CONSTRUED IN ATTORNEY GENERAL V. ADELAIDE S.S. CO., (1913)
A.C. 781, AS REQUIRING PROOF OF ACTUAL ECONOMIC DETRIMENT. 

FN17  "THE TRUE TEST OF LEGALITY IS WHETHER THE RESTRAINT IMPOSED IS
SUCH AS MERELY REGULATES AND PERHAPS THEREBY PROMOTES COMPETITION OR
WHETHER IT IS SUCH AS MAY SUPPRESS OR EVEN DESTROY COMPETITION.  TO
DETERMINE THAT QUESTION THE COURT MUST ORDINARILY CONSIDER THE FACTS
PECULIAR TO THE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE RESTRAINT IS APPLIED; ITS
CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE RESTRAINT WAS IMPOSED; THE NATURE OF THE
RESTRAINT AND ITS EFFECT, ACTUAL OR PROBABLE.  THE HISTORY OF THE
RESTRAINT, THE EVIL BELIEVED TO EXIST, THE REASON FOR ADOPTING THE
PARTICULAR REMEDY, THE PURPOSE OR END SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED, ARE ALL
RELEVANT FACTS."  246 U.S. AT 238. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. 

THE ECONOMIC THEORIES WHICH THE COURT HAS READ INTO THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS HAVE FAVORED RATHER THAN DISCOURAGED MONOPOLY.  AS A RESULT OF THE
BIG BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE
MACHINERY CO., 247 U.S. 32; UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP.,
251 U.S. 417; UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., 274 U.S.
693, BIG BUSINESS HAS BECOME BIGGER AND BIGGER.  MONOPOLY HAS
FLOURISHED.  CARTELS HAVE INCREASED THEIR HOLD ON THE NATION.  THE
TRUSTS WAX STRONG.  FN1  THERE IS LESS AND LESS PLACE FOR THE
INDEPENDENT. 

THE FULL FORCE OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS HAS NOT BEEN FELT ON OUR
ECONOMY.  IT HAS BEEN DEFLECTED.  NIGGARDLY INTERPRETATIONS HAVE ROBBED
THOSE LAWS OF MUCH OF THEIR EFFICACY.  THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.  PRICE
FIXING IS ILLEGAL PER SE.  FN2  THE USE OF PATENTS TO OBTAIN MONOPOLIES
ON UNPATENTED ARTICLES IS CONDEMNED.  FN3  MONOPOLY THAT HAS BEEN BUILT
AS A RESULT OF UNLAWFUL TACTICS, E.G., THROUGH PRACTICES THAT ARE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, IS BROKEN UP.  FN4  BUT WHEN IT COMES TO
MONOPOLIES BUILT IN GENTLEMANLY WAYS - BY MERGERS, PURCHASES OF ASSETS
OR CONTROL AND THE LIKE - THE TEETH HAVE LARGELY BEEN DRAWN FROM THE
ACT. 

WE ANNOUNCED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF MONOPOLY POWER, COUPLED WITH THE
PURPOSE OR INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE, WAS UNLAWFUL.  FN5  BUT TO DATE THAT
PRINCIPLE HAS NOT SHOWN BRIGHT PROMISE IN APPLICATION.  FN6  UNDER THE
GUISE OF INCREASED EFFICIENCY BIG BUSINESS HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL FOR
EASY GROWTH.  UNITED STATES V. COLUMBIA STEEL CO., 334 U.S. 495,
REPRESENTS THE CURRENT ATTITUDE OF THE COURT ON THIS PROBLEM.  IN THAT
CASE UNITED STATES STEEL - THE GIANT OF THE INDUSTRY - WAS ALLOWED TO
FASTEN ITS TENTACLES TIGHTER ON THE ECONOMY BY ACQUIRING THE ASSETS OF
A STEEL COMPANY IN THE FAR WEST WHERE COMPETITION WAS BEGINNING TO
DEVELOP. 

THE INCREASED CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL POWER IN THE HANDS OF A FEW
HAS CHANGED HABITS OF THOUGHT.  A NEW AGE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED.  IT IS
MORE AND MORE AN AGE OF "MONOPOLY COMPETITION."  MONOPOLY COMPETITION
IS A REGIME OF FRIENDLY ALLIANCES, OF A QUICK AND EASY ACCOMMODATION OF
PRICES EVEN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, OF WHAT BRANDEIS
SAID WAS EUPHEMISTICALLY CALLED "COOPERATION."  FN7  WHILE THIS IS NOT
TRUE IN ALL FIELDS, IT HAS BECOME ALARMINGLY APPARENT IN MANY. 

THE LESSONS BRANDEIS TAUGHT ON THE CURSE OF BIGNESS HAVE LARGELY BEEN
FORGOTTEN IN HIGH PLACES.  SIZE IS ALLOWED TO BECOME A MENACE TO
EXISTING AND PUTATIVE COMPETITORS.  PRICE CONTROL IS ALLOWED TO ESCAPE
THE INFLUENCES OF THE COMPETITIVE MARKET AND TO GRAVITATE INTO THE
HANDS OF THE FEW.  BUT BEYOND ALL THAT THERE IS THE EFFECT ON THE
COMMUNITY WHEN INDEPENDENTS ARE SWALLOWED UP BY THE TRUSTS AND
ENTREPRENEURS BECOME EMPLOYEES OF ABSENTEE OWNERS.  THEN THERE IS A
SERIOUS LOSS IN CITIZENSHIP.  LOCAL LEADERSHIP IS DILUTED.  HE WHO WAS
A LEADER IN THE VILLAGE BECOMES DEPENDENT ON OUTSIDERS FOR HIS ACTION
AND POLICY.  CLERKS RESPONSIBLE TO A SUPERIOR IN A DISTANT PLACE TAKE
THE PLACE OF RESIDENT PROPRIETORS BEHOLDEN TO NO ONE.  THESE ARE THE
PRICES WHICH THE NATION PAYS FOR THE ALMOST CEASELESS GROWTH IN BIGNESS
ON THE PART OF INDUSTRY. 

THESE PROBLEMS MAY NOT APPEAR ON THE SURFACE TO HAVE RELATIONSHIP TO
THE CASE BEFORE US.  BUT THEY GO TO THE VERY HEART OF THE PROBLEM. 

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT A HOST OF FILLING STATIONS IN THE COUNTRY
ARE LOCALLY OWNED AND OPERATED.  OTHERS ARE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE
BIG OIL COMPANIES.  THIS CASE INVOLVES DIRECTLY ONLY THE FORMER.  IT
PERTAINS TO REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS THAT THE OIL COMPANIES MAKE WITH
THESE INDEPENDENTS.  IT IS PLAIN THAT A FILLING-STATION OWNER WHO IS
TIED TO AN OIL COMPANY FOR HIS SUPPLY OF PRODUCTS IS NOT AN AVAILABLE
CUSTOMER FOR THE PRODUCTS OF OTHER SUPPLIERS.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF A
FILLING-STATION OWNER WHO PURCHASES HIS INVENTORY A YEAR IN ADVANCE. 
HIS DEMAND IS WITHDRAWN FROM THE MARKET FOR THE DURATION OF THE
CONTRACT IN THE ONE CASE AND FOR A YEAR IN THE OTHER.  THE RESULT IN
EACH CASE IS TO LESSEN COMPETITION IF THE STANDARD IS DAY-TO-DAY
PURCHASES.  WHETHER IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL LESSENING OF COMPETITION WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IS A QUESTION OF DEGREE AND MAY VARY
FROM INDUSTRY TO INDUSTRY. 

THE COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY BY A FORMULA WHICH
UNDER OUR DECISIONS PROMISES TO WIPE OUT LARGE SEGMENTS OF INDEPENDENT
FILLING-STATION OPERATORS.  THE METHOD OF DOING BUSINESS UNDER
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS AT LEAST KEEPS THE INDEPENDENTS ALIVE.  THEY
SURVIVE AS SMALL BUSINESS UNITS.  THE SITUATION IS NOT IDEAL FROM
EITHER THEIR POINT OF VIEW  FN8  OR THAT OF THE NATION.  BUT THE
ALTERNATIVE WHICH THE COURT OFFERS IS FAR WORSE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW
OF BOTH. 

THE ELIMINATION OF THESE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTS SETS THE STAGE FOR
STANDARD AND THE OTHER OIL COMPANIES TO BUILD SERVICE-STATION EMPIRES
OF THEIR OWN.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT DOES MORE THAN SET THE STAGE
FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT.  IT IS AN ADVISORY OPINION AS WELL, STATING TO
THE OIL COMPANIES HOW THEY CAN WITH IMPUNITY BUILD THEIR EMPIRES.  THE
FORMULA SUGGESTED BY THE COURT IS EITHER THE USE OF THE "AGENCY"
DEVICE, WHICH IN PRACTICAL EFFECT MEANS CONTROL OF FILLING STATIONS BY
THE OIL COMPANIES (CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CURTIS CO., 260 U.S.
568), OR THE OUTRIGHT ACQUISITION OF THEM BY SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS OR
OTHERWISE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. COLUMBIA STEEL CO., SUPRA.  UNDER THE
APPROVED JUDICIAL DOCTRINE EITHER OF THOSE DEVICES MEANS INCREASING THE
MONOPOLY OF THE OIL COMPANIES OVER THE RETAIL FIELD. 

WHEN THE CHOICE IS THUS GIVEN, I DISSENT FROM THE OUTLAWRY OF THE
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT ON THE PRESENT FACTS.  THE EFFECT WHICH IT HAS ON
COMPETITION IN THIS FIELD IS MINOR AS COMPARED TO THE DAMAGE WHICH WILL
FLOW FROM THE JUDICIALLY APPROVED FORMULA FOR THE GROWTH OF BIGNESS
TENDERED BY THE COURT AS AN ALTERNATIVE.  OUR CHOICE MUST BE MADE ON
THE BASIS NOT OF ABSTRACTIONS BUT OF THE REALITIES OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL
LIFE. 

TODAY THERE IS VIGOROUS COMPETITION BETWEEN THE OIL COMPANIES FOR THE
MARKET.  THAT COMPETITION HAS LEFT SOME ROOM FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE
INDEPENDENTS.  BUT WHEN THIS INDUCEMENT FOR THEIR SURVIVAL IS TAKEN
AWAY, WE CAN EXPECT THAT THE OIL COMPANIES WILL MOVE IN TO SUPPLANT
THEM WITH THEIR OWN STATIONS.  THERE WILL STILL BE COMPETITION BETWEEN
THE OIL COMPANIES.  BUT THERE WILL BE A TRAGIC LOSS TO THE NATION.  THE
SMALL, INDEPENDENT BUSINESS MAN WILL BE SUPPLANTED BY CLERKS. 
COMPETITION BETWEEN SUPPLIERS OF ACCESSORIES (WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE) WILL DIMINISH OR CEASE ALTOGETHER.  THE OIL COMPANIES WILL
COMMAND AN INCREASINGLY LARGER SHARE OF BOTH THE WHOLESALE AND THE
RETAIL MARKETS. 

THAT IS THE LIKELY RESULT OF TODAY'S DECISION.  THE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACT WHICH IS DISPLACED IS RELATIVELY INNOCUOUS AS COMPARED WITH
THE VIRULENT GROWTH OF MONOPOLY POWER WHICH THE COURT ENCOURAGES.  THE
COURT DOES NOT ACT UNWITTINGLY.  IT CONSCIOUSLY PUSHES THE OIL INDUSTRY
IN THAT DIRECTION.  THE COURT APPROVES WHAT THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WERE
DESIGNED TO PREVENT.  IT HELPS REMAKE AMERICA IN THE IMAGE OF THE
CARTELS. 

FN1  SEE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL
ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, S. DOC. NO. 35, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1941).  FOR
MORE DETAILED ANALYSES, SEE COMPETITION AND MONOPOLY IN AMERICAN
INDUSTRY (TNEC MONOGRAPH 21, 1940) PP. 299 ET SEQ.; THE STRUCTURE OF
INDUSTRY (TNEC MONOGRAPH 27, 1941) PP. 231 ET SEQ.; THE DISTRIBUTION OF
OWNERSHIP IN THE 200 LARGEST NONFINANCIAL CORPORATIONS (TNEC MONOGRAPH
29, 1940); RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF LARGE, MEDIUM-SIZED, AND SMALL
BUSINESS (TNEC MONOGRAPH 13, 1941). 

THE MERGER AND ACQUISITION MOVEMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN EVIDENT SINCE THE
TURN OF THE CENTURY AND WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE SPIRALING
CONCENTRATION OF CORPORATE WEALTH INTO THE HANDS OF THE FEW, HAS NOT
ENDED.  WE ARE PRESENTLY IN THE MIDST OF A SIMILAR MOVEMENT.  SEE THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REPORT, THE PRESENT TREND OF CORPORATE MERGERS
AND ACQUISITIONS, SEN. DOC. NO. 17, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1947), P. 6,
WHERE IT IS SHOWN THAT "THE INCREASE IN THE MERGER MOVEMENT FOLLOWING
VJ-DAY PARALLELS VERY CLOSELY THE SHARP UPWARD MOVEMENT WHICH TOOK
PLACE AT THE END OF WORLD WAR I."  THE CAUSES WHICH HAVE RECENTLY
CONTRIBUTED TO THE GROWING BIGNESS OF BIG CORPORATIONS ARE VARIED.  SEE
LYNCH, THE CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER (1946), PP. 3-4 WHERE IT IS
SAID:  "EVEN BEFORE THE ENTRANCE OF THE UNITED STATES INTO THE WAR THE
PLACING OF DEFENSE CONTRACTS SERVED TO AUGMENT THE GROWTH OF BIGNESS IN
INDUSTRY AND TO INTENSIFY THE STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL BY SMALL CONCERNS. 
BY 1941 THE PATTERN OF DEFENSE CONTRACTS WHICH, WITH MODIFICATIONS, WAS
TO REMAIN FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.  IT IS
REPORTED THAT IN THAT YEAR FIFTY-SIX FIRMS, LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF 1
PERCENT OF THE MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE COUNTRY, WERE
AWARDED 75 PERCENT OF ALL THE CONTRACTS.  CONCENTRATION WAS EVEN MORE
MARKED WITHIN THIS GROUP, HOWEVER, INASMUCH AS SIX CORPORATIONS HELD 31
PERCENT OF THE TOTAL.  BETWEEN JUNE, 1940, AND MARCH, 1943, MORE THAN
100 MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF PRIME WARSUPPLY CONTRACTS WERE AWARDED. 
SEVENTY PERCENT OF THESE WERE HELD BY THE LEADING 100 CORPORATIONS; 10
CORPORATIONS HELD 32 PERCENT, AND THE LEADING 50 HELD 60 PERCENT. 

"STUDIES BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DURING 1943-1944
THROW ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THIS TREND TOWARD INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATION. 
AFTER PEARL HARBOR THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FIRMS IN BUSINESS DECLINED
PRECIPITOUSLY.  DESPITE THE WARTIME INDUSTRIAL BOOM, THE NUMBER OF
FIRMS WHICH DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS WAS GREATER THAN THAT REPLACED BY
NEW ENTRIES; IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE NUMBER IN BUSINESS IN 1943 WAS
NEARLY 17 PERCENT LESS THAN IN 1941.  THERE ARE NUMEROUS INDICATIONS
THAT THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SMALL BUSINESS HAS DECLINED DURING THE
WAR PERIOD AND THAT THE DOMINANCE OF BIG BUSINESS HAS BECOME MORE
MARKED.  BETWEEN 1938 AND 1942 IT APPEARS THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
WORKERS EMPLOYED BY 95 PERCENT OF THE NATION'S CORPORATIONS (THE
SMALLEST) DECLINED 23 PERCENT, WHEREAS THOSE EMPLOYED BY 5 PERCENT OF
THE CORPORATIONS (THE LARGEST) INCREASED 22 PERCENT.  A RELATED STUDY
INDICATES THAT BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1941, AND JANUARY 1, 1943, BUSINESS
FIRMS EMPLOYING FEWER THAN 125 WORKERS EACH EXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN
EMPLOYMENT OF 1 PERCENT AND AN INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF THEIR PRODUCT
(ATTRIBUTABLE PRINCIPALLY TO PRICE INCREASES) OF 16 PERCENT; DURING THE
SAME PERIOD, HOWEVER, THE INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT BY THE LARGE
ESTABLISHMENTS EMPLOYING MORE THAN 125 WORKERS WAS 62 PERCENT AND THE
INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT, 96 PERCENT." 

FN2  SEE FOR EXAMPLE UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S.
150. 

FN3  SEE FOR EXAMPLE MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT CO., 320 U.S.
661. 

FN4  SEE UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100; SCHINE THEATRES V.
UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 110; UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, 334
U.S. 131, 172.    THOSE CASES HAVE LARGELY EXPENDED THE FORCE OF
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386 - AN INDEFENSIBLE
DECISION WHEREBY THE COURT ALLOWED THOSE WHO HAD BUILT ONE OF THE
TIGHTEST MONOPOLIES IN AMERICAN HISTORY LARGELY TO RETAIN THEIR ILL
GOTTEN GAINS AND CONTINUE THEIR HOLD ON THE ECONOMY.  THE PHILOSOPHY OF
THAT DECISION CAN BE SUMMED UP IN THE WORDS BRANDEIS USED TO DESCRIBE
THE DECREE EFFECTING A SO-CALLED DISSOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN TOBACCO
CO. HE SAID THAT ITS DEFENDERS "APPEAR TO HAVE DISCOVERED IN THE
CONSTITUTION A NEW IMPLIED PROHIBITION: 'WHAT MAN HAS ILLEGALLY JOINED
TOGETHER, LET NO COURT PUT ASUNDER.'"  THE CURSE OF BIGNESS (1935), P.
103. 

FN5  SEE SCHINE THEATRES V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 129-130. 

FN6  IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT A MAJORITY OF THE
COURT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED FOR HOLDING ILLEGAL PER SE THE VERTICAL
INTEGRATION IN THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
PARAMOUNT PICTURES, SUPRA, PP. 173-174. 

FN7  OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY (1933), P. 110. 

FN8  FOR THE PLIGHT OF THE INDEPENDENT SERVICE-STATION OPERATOR SEE
CONTROL OF THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY BY MAJOR OIL COMPANIES (TNEC
MONOGRAPH NO. 39, 1941) PP. 46, 47, 52.  SEE ALSO REVIEW AND CRITICISM
ON BEHALF OF STANDARD OIL CO. (NEW JERSEY) AND SUN OIL CO. OF MONOGRAPH
NO. 39 WITH REJOINDER BY MONOGRAPH AUTHOR (TNEC MONOGRAPH 39-A, 1941). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

I AM UNABLE TO JOIN THE JUDGMENT OR OPINION OF THE COURT FOR REASONS
I WILL STATE, BUT SHORTLY. 

CONTRACT UNLAWFUL UNLESS "THE EFFECT OF SUCH LEASE, SALE, OR CONTRACT
FOR SALE OR SUCH CONDITION, AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING MAY BE TO
SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY
LINE OF COMMERCE."  38 STAT. 730, 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 14.  IT IS
INDISPENSABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE TO ESTABLISH THAT EITHER THE
ACTUAL OR THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF THE ACCUSED ARRANGEMENT IS TO
SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY. 

I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THIS REQUIREMENT WAS MET.  TO BE SURE, THE
CONTRACTS COVER "A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OUTLETS AND A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF PRODUCTS, WHETHER CONSIDERED COMPARATIVELY OR NOT."  78
F.SUPP.  850, 875.  BUT THAT FACT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY BRING THE
ACCUSED ARRANGEMENT WITHIN THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE STATUTE.  THE NUMBER
OF DEALERS AND THE VOLUME OF SALES COVERED BY THE ARRANGEMENT OF COURSE
WAS SUFFICIENT TO BE SUBSTANTIAL.  THAT IS TO SAY, THIS ARRANGEMENT
OPERATED ON ENOUGH COMMERCE TO VIOLATE THE ACT, PROVIDED ITS EFFECTS
WERE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY. 
BUT PROOF OF THEIR QUANTITY DOES NOT PROVE THAT THEY HAD THIS FORBIDDEN
QUALITY; AND THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY DID, WITHOUT PROOF, SEEMS TO ME
UNWARRANTED. 

MOREOVER, THE TRIAL COURT NOT ONLY MADE THE ASSUMPTION BUT HE DID NOT
ALLOW THE DEFENDANT AFFIRMATIVELY TO SHOW THAT SUCH EFFECTS DO NOT FLOW
FROM THIS ARRANGEMENT.  SUCH EVIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT AS WAS ADMITTED
WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN REACHING THE DECISION THAT THESE CONTRACTS ARE
ILLEGAL. 

I REGARD IT AS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE CLAYTON ACT SUBMITS SUCH ECONOMIC
ISSUES TO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  IT NOT ONLY LEAVES THE LAW VAGUE AS
A WARNING OR GUIDE, AND DETERMINED ONLY AFTER THE EVENT, BUT THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS IS NOT WELL ADAPTED TO EXPLORATION OF SUCH INDUSTRY
WIDE, AND EVEN NATION-WIDE, QUESTIONS. 

BUT IF THEY MUST DECIDE, THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY FOR THE COURTS TO
ARRIVE AT A FAIR DETERMINATION IS TO HEAR ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE FROM
BOTH PARTIES AND WEIGH NOT ONLY ITS INHERENT PROBABILITIES OF VERITY
BUT ALSO COMPARE THE EXPERIENCE, DISINTERESTEDNESS AND CREDIBILITY OF
OPPOSING WITNESSES.  THIS IS A TEDIOUS PROCESS AND NOT TOO
ENLIGHTENING, BUT WITHOUT IT A JUDICIAL DECREE IS BUT A GUESS IN THE
DARK.  THAT IS ALL WE HAVE HERE AND I DO NOT THINK IT IS AN ADEQUATE
BASIS ON WHICH TO UPSET LONG-STANDING AND WIDELY PRACTICED BUSINESS
ARRANGEMENTS. 

I SHOULD THEREFORE VACATE THIS DECREE AND DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO
COMPLETE THE CASE BY HEARING AND WEIGHING THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE AND
THAT OF DEFENDANT AS TO THE EFFECTS OF THIS DEVICE. 

HOWEVER, IF THE COURT REFUSES TO DO THAT, I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT IS PER SE AN ILLEGAL ONE UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAW,
AND THAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THE COURT SEEMS TO HOLD.  I AM NOT
CONVINCED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT AS HERE USED IS A DEVICE FOR
SUPPRESSING COMPETITION INSTEAD OF A DEVICE FOR WAGING COMPETITION.  IF
WE LOOK ONLY AT ITS EFFECT IN RELATION TO PARTICULAR RETAILERS WHO
BECOME PARTIES TO IT, IT DOES RESTRAIN THEIR FREEDOM TO PURCHASE THEIR
REQUIREMENTS ELSEWHERE AND PREVENTS OTHER COMPANIES FROM SELLING TO
THEM.  MANY CONTRACTS HAVE THE EFFECT OF TAKING A PURCHASER OUT OF THE
MARKET FOR GOODS HE ALREADY HAS BOUGHT OR CONTRACTED TO TAKE.  BUT THE
RETAILER IN THIS INDUSTRY IS ONLY A CONDUIT FROM THE OIL FIELDS TO THE
DRIVER'S TANK, A MEANS BY WHICH THE OIL COMPANIES COMPETE TO GET THE
BUSINESS OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER - THE MAN IN WHOSE AUTOMOBILE THE GAS
IS USED.  IT MEANS TO ME, IF I MUST DECIDE WITHOUT EVIDENCE, THAT THESE
CONTRACTS ARE AN ALMOST NECESSARY MEANS TO MAINTAIN THIS ALL-IMPORTANT
COMPETITION FOR CONSUMER BUSINESS, IN WHICH IT IS ADMITTED COMPETITION
IS KEEN.  THE RETAIL STATIONS, WHETHER INDEPENDENT OR COMPANY-OWNED,
ARE THE INSTRUMENTALITIES THROUGH WHICH COMPETITION FOR THIS ULTIMATE
MARKET IS WAGED. 

IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME INHERENTLY TO LESSEN THIS REAL COMPETITION
WHEN AN OIL COMPANY TRIES TO ESTABLISH SUPERIOR SERVICE BY PROVIDING
THE CONSUMER WITH A RESPONSIBLE DEALER FROM WHICH THE PUBLIC CAN
PURCHASE ADEQUATE AND TIMELY SUPPLIES OF OIL, GASOLINE AND CAR
ACCESSORIES OF SOME KNOWN AND RELIABLE STANDARD OF QUALITY.  NO.
RETAILER, WHETHER AGENT OR INDEPENDENT, CAN LONG REMAIN IN BUSINESS IF
HE DOES NOT ALWAYS, AND NOT JUST INTERMITTENTLY, HAVE GAS TO SELL. 
RETAILERS' STORAGE CAPACITY USUALLY IS LIMITED AND THEY ARE IN NO
POSITION TO ACCUMULATE LARGE STOCKS.  THEY CAN TAKE GAS ONLY WHEN AND
AS THEY CAN SELL IT.  THE GOVERNMENT CAN HARDLY FORCE SOMEONE TO
CONTRACT TO STAND BY, EVER READY TO FILL FLUCTUATING DEMANDS OF DEALERS
WHO WILL NOT IN TURN UNDERTAKE TO BUY FROM THAT SUPPLIER ALL THEIR
REQUIREMENTS.  AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO THE DRIVING PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO
RELY ON RETAILERS TO HAVE GAS TO RETAIL.  IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT THAT
THE WHOLESALER HAVE SOME INCENTIVE TO CARRY THE STOCKS AND HAVE THE
TRANSPORT FACILITIES TO MAKE THE IRREGULAR DELIVERIES CAUSED BY VARIED
CONSUMER DEMANDS. 

IT MAY BE THAT THE GOVERNMENT, IF REQUIRED TO DO SO, COULD PROVE THAT
THIS IS A BAD SYSTEM AND AN ILLEGAL ONE.  IT MAY BE THAT THE DEFENDANT,
IF PERMITTED TO DO SO, CAN PROVE THAT IT IS, IN ITS OVERALL ASPECTS, A
GOOD SYSTEM AND WITHIN THE LAW.  BUT ON THE PRESENT RECORD THE
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT MADE A CASE.  FN1 

IF THE COURTS ARE TO APPLY THE LASH OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO THE
BACKS OF BUSINESSMEN TO MAKE THEM COMPETE, WE CANNOT IN FAIRNESS ALSO
APPLY THE LASH WHENEVER THEY HIT UPON A SUCCESSFUL METHOD OF
COMPETING.  THAT, INSOFAR AS I AM PERMITTED BY THE RECORD TO LEARN THE
FACTS, APPEARS TO BE THE CASE BEFORE US.  I WOULD REVERSE. 

FN1  THE GOVERNMENT CAN DERIVE NO COMFORT FOR THIS SORT OF THING FROM
INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392.  THERE THE
DEFENDANT STARTED WITH A PATENT MONOPOLY OF THE MACHINE FOR UTILIZATION
OF ITS PRODUCT.  THE CUSTOMERS, CANNERS, WERE IN EFFECT THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS OF SALT AS SUCH.  BUT THEY COULD GET THE ADVANTAGES OF THE
INVENTION ONLY IF THEY TIED THEMSELVES TO USE NO OTHER SALT THEREIN. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. CORS, 337 U.S. 325 


NO. 132.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 13, 1949.  - 110 CT.
CL. 66, 75 F.SUPP.  235, REVERSED. 


IN MARCH, 1942, RESPONDENT PURCHASED FROM THE COAST GUARD A 47-YEAR
OLD WORN-OUT TUG.  HE REPAIRED AND IMPROVED IT AND, IN APRIL, 1942,
OBTAINED A PERMIT TO OPERATE IT AS A TOWING STEAM VESSEL IN THE COASTAL
TRADE FOR ONE YEAR.  HIS TOTAL EXPENDITURES WERE $8,574.78, PLUS HIS
OWN LABOR.  THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION REQUISITIONED THE TUG IN
OCTOBER, 1942, UNDER SEC. 902 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, AS
AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1242, AND IT WAS USED TO HEAT FUEL OIL AND PUMP
IT FROM BARGES INTO NAVAL COMBAT VESSELS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND
THAT, PRIOR TO THE TAKING, ITS MARKET VALUE HAD BEEN ENHANCED $5,000
DUE (1) TO THE GREAT INCREASE IN SHIPPING AND HARBOR TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF
THE WAR, AND (2) TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED FOR VESSELS IN THE
PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.  IT AWARDED HIM A JUDGMENT BASED UPON A FAIR
MARKET VALUE OF $15,500, HOLDING THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO NO LESS THAN
HE COULD HAVE RECEIVED ON THE MARKET FROM OTHERS THAN THE GOVERNMENT. 
HELD:  IT ERRED IN DOING SO.  PP. 325-336. 

1.  ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 902(A) OF THE
MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1242, THAT THE
OWNER OF ANY VESSEL REQUISITIONED THEREUNDER SHALL BE PAID "JUST
COMPENSATION  ...  BUT IN NO CASE SHALL THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN
OR USED BE DEEMED ENHANCED BY THE CAUSES NECESSITATING THE TAKING OR
USE," IS COTERMINOUS WITH THE JUST COMPENSATION REQUIREMENT OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 331-334. 

2.  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 902(A), ANY ENHANCEMENT OF VALUE
MUST BE DEDUCTED WHERE IT IS DUE (A) TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED OF
VESSELS WHICH HAS NECESSITATED THE TAKING, (B) TO THE PREVIOUS TAKING
OF VESSELS OF SIMILAR TYPE, OR (C) TO A PROSPECTIVE TAKING REASONABLY
PROBABLE.  P. 334. 

3.  THE ENHANCEMENT WHICH IS EXCLUDED IS THAT WHICH AROSE BEFORE AS
WELL AS AFTER THE DECLARATION OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON MAY 27, 1941. 
P. 334. 

4.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE
THIS COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY PART OF THE $15,500 WHICH IT FOUND
TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF TAKING INCLUDES ANY
DEDUCTIBLE ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE, SINCE THEY DO NOT SHOW WITH SUFFICIENT
PARTICULARITY WHAT WAS THE EFFECT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIVITIES IN THE
PARTICULAR MARKET.  PP. 334-336. 

5.  RESPONDENT PLAINLY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ANY INCREASE IN VALUE DUE
TO HIS EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS AND HIS PERFORMANCE
OF PART OF THE LABOR.  P. 336. 

UNITED STATES V. CORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED RESPONDENT A JUDGMENT FOR A VESSEL
REQUISITIONED BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION AFTER THE DECLARATION
OF AN EMERGENCY BY THE PRESIDENT.  110 CT. CL. 66, 75 F.SUPP.  235. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 810.  REVERSED, P. 336. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER SEC. 902 OF THE MERCHANT
MARINE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 2015, AS AMENDED, 53 STAT. 1255, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 1242, TO RECOVER THE BALANCE OF "JUST COMPENSATION" ALLEGED TO BE
DUE RESPONDENT FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR REQUISITIONING HIS STEAM TUG,
THE MACARTHUR, IN OCTOBER, 1942.  THE TUG WAS A COAST GUARD BOAT BUILT
IN 1895 AND USED BY IT IN HARBOR DUTIES AT BALTIMORE UNTIL 1939.  IT
WAS THEN TRANSFERRED TO THE COAST GUARD BASE AT PORTLAND, MAINE.  IN
SEPTEMBER, 1941, THE COAST GUARD ADVERTISED IT FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST
BIDDER.  RESPONDENT WAS THE HIGHEST BIDDER, PURCHASING THE TUG IN MAINE
ON MARCH 19, 1942, FOR $2,875.  THEREAFTER HE EXPENDED $5,699.78 ON
LABOR AND MATERIALS IN REPAIRING AND IMPROVING THE VESSEL, AN AMOUNT
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER HAD HE NOT PERFORMED PART
OF THE WORK HIMSELF.  IN APRIL, 1942, RESPONDENT RECEIVED FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A CERTIFICATE DESIGNATING THE VESSEL AS A TOWING
STEAM VESSEL AND AUTHORIZING HIM TO EMPLOY IT IN THE COASTAL TRADE FOR
ONE YEAR.  RESPONDENT THEN BROUGHT THE TUG TO STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK,
WHERE IT REMAINED UNTIL REQUISITIONED BY THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION ON OCTOBER 15, 1942.  A SURVEY BY THE NAVY HAD INDICATED
IT WAS SUITABLE AS A STEAM-HEATING PLANT FOR HEATING AND PUMPING FUEL
OIL FROM OIL BARGES INTO NAVAL COMBAT VESSELS.  ITS CONDITION WAS SAID
TO BE "FAIR TO GOOD"; AND ITS ORIGINAL COST WAS ESTIMATED TO BE
$45,000; ITS REPLACEMENT COST, $56,000; AND ITS PRESENT VALUE $9,000. 
IT WAS USED AS A STEAM PLANT TO HEAT OIL FOR USE IN COMBAT SHIPS. 

THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION DETERMINED THAT $9,000 WAS "JUST
COMPENSATION" FOR THE TUG AND OFFERED THAT AMOUNT TO RESPONDENT. 
RESPONDENT ACCEPTED 75 PER CENT OF THE AWARD, AS HE WAS PERMITTED TO DO
BY SEC. 902(D) OF THE ACT, AND BROUGHT SUIT TO RECOVER THE BALANCE OF
THE $20,000 WHICH HE ALLEGED WAS THE "JUST COMPENSATION" TO WHICH HE
WAS ENTITLED, PLUS INTEREST. 

ANY VESSEL REQUISITIONED BY THE COMMISSION SHALL BE PAID "JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN OR FOR THE USE OF SUCH PROPERTY,"
GOES ON TO STATE "BUT IN NO CASE SHALL THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN
OR USED BE DEEMED ENHANCED BY THE CAUSES NECESSITATING THE TAKING OR
USE."  IT IS AROUND THIS LATTER CLAUSE THAT THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY
TURNS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF
THE TAKING WAS $15,500 AND THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THAT
AMOUNT, LESS THE SUM ALREADY PAID, PLUS INTEREST.  110 CT. CL. 66, 75
F.SUPP.  235.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT DECISION IN THE SETTLEMENT OF
CLAIMS ARISING AS A RESULT OF THE REQUISITIONING PROGRAM DURING THE
PERIOD OF RECENT HOSTILITIES LED US TO GRANT THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI. 

THE UNITED STATES ADMITTED LIABILITY FOR ONLY $10,500, CLAIMING THAT
$5,000 OF THE MARKET VALUE WAS DUE TO AN ENHANCEMENT BROUGHT ABOUT BY
ITS NEED FOR VESSELS WHICH NECESSITATED THEIR TAKING.  THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FOUND THAT AT THE TIME OF THE REQUISITIONING THERE EXISTED IN
AND ABOUT THE PORT OF NEW YORK "A RISING MARKET AND A STRONG DEMAND FOR
TUGS OF ALL TYPES" DUE IN PART AT LEAST TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
REQUISITIONING PROGRAM.  IT FOUND THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE TUG HAD
BEEN ENHANCED $5,000 BY OCTOBER 15, 1942, DUE (1) TO THE GREAT INCREASE
IN SHIPPING AND HARBOR TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THE WAR AND (2) TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S NEED FOR VESSELS IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.  FN2  BUT
THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT AN OWNER OF PROPERTY TAKEN BY THE
GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO NO LESS THAN HE COULD HAVE RECEIVED ON THE
MARKET FROM OTHERS, WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS $15,500. 

THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL HAS RULED THAT SEC. 902(A) PROHIBITS THE
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE EXTENT THAT IT MAY BE BASED ON VALUES IN
EXCESS OF THOSE EXISTING ON THE DATE OF THE PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION OF
A LIMITED NATIONAL EMERGENCY (SEPTEMBER 8, 1939),  FN3  PROVIDED THAT
SUCH EXCESS BE DETERMINED AS DUE TO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS DIRECTLY CAUSED
BY THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  FN4 

THE ADVISORY BOARD ON JUST COMPENSATION  FN5  FORMULATED VARIOUS
RULES FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION IN ITS
REQUISITIONING PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: 

"FROM THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF TAKING, THERE SHOULD BE DEDUCTED ANY
ENHANCEMENT DUE, TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED OF VESSELS WHICH HAS
NECESSITATED THE TAKING, TO THE PREVIOUS TAKING OF VESSELS OF SIMILAR
TYPE, OR TO A PROSPECTIVE TAKING, REASONABLY PROBABLE, WHETHER SUCH
NEED, TAKING, OR PROSPECT, OCCURRED BEFORE OR AFTER THE DECLARATION OF
THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY OF MAY 27, 1941.  ENHANCEMENT DUE TO A GENERAL
RISE IN PRICES OR EARNINGS, WHENEVER OCCURRING, SHOULD NOT BE
DEDUCTED.  IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS RULE NEITHER THE PROCLAMATION OF
LIMITED EMERGENCY OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1939, NOR THE FACTS EXISTING AT THAT
TIME, ARE IN THEMSELVES OF SIGNIFICANCE.  THE BOARD DOES NOT DETERMINE
WHETHER ANY ENHANCEMENT AFTER MAY 27, 1941, OTHER THAN AS ENUMERATED
ABOVE AS DEDUCTIBLE, SHOULD BE EXCLUDED; SINCE THE BOARD IS ADVISED
THAT THE VALUE OF OCEANGOING VESSELS WAS HIGHER ON MAY 27, 1941, THAN
AT THE TIME OF TAKING, AND THAT ANY ENHANCEMENT SINCE MAY 27, 1941, IN
VESSELS OF OTHER TYPES, NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE FOREGOING, IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO A GENERAL RISE IN PRICES OR EARNINGS, AND SHOULD
THEREFORE NOT BE DEDUCTED." 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGREES WITH BOTH THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
AND THE ADVISORY BOARD THAT THE ENHANCEMENT WHICH IS EXCLUDED IS NOT
LIMITED TO THAT ACCRUING IN THE PERIOD AFTER THE DECLARATION OF A
NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON MAY 27, 1941  FN6  AND CONTENDS FOR A
CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE ANY ENHANCEMENT ON VALUES DUE TO THE
WAR.  IT ARGUES THAT THE ACT AS SO CONSTRUED, THOUGH DIFFERENT FROM
HITHERTO ANNOUNCED JUDICIAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF "JUST
COMPENSATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IS
NEVERTHELESS CONSTITUTIONAL. 

RESPONDENT, RELYING LARGELY ON MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 148 U.S. 312, ARGUES THAT IF THAT CONSTRUCTION IS ADOPTED IT
MAKES THE ENHANCEMENT CLAUSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH
THE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF "JUST COMPENSATION" AND IS THEREFORE
BEYOND THE COMPETENCE OF CONGRESS TO PRESCRIBE. 

FIRST.  WE NEED NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MEASURE OF
COMPENSATION WHICH CONGRESS WROTE INTO THE ACT IS IN ALL OF ITS
APPLICATIONS IDENTICAL WITH THE JUDICIAL STANDARD.  WE ARE SATISFIED
THAT ON THE PRESENT FACTS THE TWO ARE COTERMINOUS. 

THE COURT IN ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION HAS
BEEN CAREFUL NOT TO REDUCE THE CONCEPT OF "JUST COMPENSATION" TO A
FORMULA.  THE POLITICAL ETHICS REFLECTED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REJECT
CONFISCATION AS A MEASURE OF JUSTICE.  BUT THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT
CONTAIN ANY DEFINITE STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS BY WHICH THE MEASURE OF
"JUST COMPENSATION" IS TO BE DETERMINED.  UNITED STATES EX REL. T.V.A.
V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266, 279-280; UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO.,
327 U.S. 372, 377.  THE COURT IN AN ENDEAVOR TO FIND WORKING RULES THAT
WILL DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE HAS ADOPTED PRACTICAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING
THAT OF MARKET VALUE.  UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 369, 374.  BUT
IT HAS REFUSED TO MAKE A FETISH EVEN OF MARKET VALUE, SINCE THAT MAY
NOT BE THE BEST MEASURE OF VALUE IN SOME CASES.  AT TIMES SOME ELEMENTS
INCLUDED IN THE CRITERION OF MARKET VALUE HAVE IN FAIRNESS BEEN
EXCLUDED, AS FOR EXAMPLE WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS A SPECIAL VALUE TO THE
OWNER BECAUSE OF ITS ADAPTABILITY TO HIS NEEDS OR WHERE IT HAS A
SPECIAL VALUE TO THE TAKER BECAUSE OF ITS PECULIAR FITNESS FOR THE
TAKER'S PROJECT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MILLER, SUPRA, 375 AND CASES
CITED.  MOREOVER, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT LAYS OUT A PROJECT INVOLVING THE
TAKING OF LANDS, NO INCREMENT OF VALUE ARISING BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT
THAT A PARTICULAR TRACT IS CLEARLY OR PROBABLY WITHIN THE PROJECT MAY
BE ADDED.  ID., 376-379 AND CASES CITED.  ANY INCREASE IN VALUE DUE TO
THAT FACT WOULD REFLECT SPECULATION AS TO WHAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD BE
COMPELLED TO PAY AND HENCE IN FAIRNESS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE
DETERMINATION OF WHAT COMPENSATION WOULD BE JUST.  ID., 377. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS RECOGNIZED THESE RULES.  BUT IT CONCLUDED THAT
THEY REPRESENTED THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT MARKET
VALUE BE PAID, THAT THEY WERE INAPPLICABLE HERE, AND THAT THEREFORE
THERE WAS NO ENHANCEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL THAT SHOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IN MAKING THE AWARD TO RESPONDENT. 
WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE MERELY ILLUSTRATIONS OF
A PRINCIPLE WHICH EXCLUDES ENHANCEMENT OF VALUE RESULTING FROM THE
GOVERNMENT'S SPECIAL OR EXTRAORDINARY DEMAND FOR THE PROPERTY. 

THE SPECIAL VALUE TO THE CONDEMNER AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHERS WHO
MAY OR MAY NOT POSSESS THE POWER TO CONDEMN HAS LONG BEEN EXCLUDED AS
AN ELEMENT FROM MARKET VALUE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR
CO., 229 U.S. 53, 76.  IN TIME OF WAR OR OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY THE
DEMAND OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR AN ARTICLE OR COMMODITY OFTEN CAUSES THE
MARKET TO BE AN UNFAIR INDICATION OF VALUE.  THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE
GOVERNMENT CREATE A DEMAND THAT OUTRUNS THE SUPPLY.  THE MARKET,
SENSITIVE TO THE BULLISH PRESSURE, RESPONDS WITH A SPIRALING OF
PRICES.  THE NORMAL MARKET PRICE FOR THE COMMODITY BECOMES INFLATED. 
AND SO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE COMMODITY IS ENHANCED BY THE SPECIAL
NEED WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS FOR IT. 

THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE.  FOR, AS
WE HAVE SEEN, THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT AT THE TIME OF THE
REQUISITION THERE WAS "A RISING MARKET AND A STRONG DEMAND FOR TUGS OF
ALL TYPES" IN AND AROUND THE PORT OF NEW YORK, DUE IN PART AT LEAST TO
THE SHORTAGE OF TUGS RESULTING FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUISITIONING
PROGRAM. 

IT IS NOT FAIR THAT THE GOVERNMENT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE ENHANCED
PRICE WHICH ITS DEMAND ALONE HAS CREATED.  THAT ENHANCEMENT REFLECTS
ELEMENTS OF THE VALUE THAT WAS CREATED BY THE URGENCY OF ITS NEED FOR
THE ARTICLE.  IT DOES NOT REFLECT WHAT "A WILLING BUYER WOULD PAY IN
CASH TO A WILLING SELLER," UNITED STATES V. MILLER, SUPRA, 374, IN A
FAIR MARKET.  IT REPRESENTS WHAT CAN BE EXACTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT
WHOSE DEMANDS IN THE EMERGENCY HAVE CREATED A SELLERS' MARKET.  IN THIS
SITUATION, AS IN THE CASE OF LAND INCLUDED IN A PROPOSED PROJECT OF THE
GOVERNMENT, THE ENHANCED VALUE REFLECTS SPECULATION AS TO WHAT THE
GOVERNMENT CAN BE COMPELLED TO PAY.  THAT IS A HOLD-UP VALUE, NOT A
FAIR MARKET VALUE.  THAT IS A VALUE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF CREATED
AND HENCE IN FAIRNESS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY. 

SECOND.  WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS IN ACCORD WITH OUR READING OF THE
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY BOARD.  ANY ENHANCEMENT OF VALUE MUST BE
DEDUCTED WHERE IT IS DUE (A) "TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED OF VESSELS WHICH
HAS NECESSITATED THE TAKING," (B) "TO THE PREVIOUS TAKING OF VESSELS OF
SIMILAR TYPE," OR (C) "TO A PROSPECTIVE TAKING, REASONABLY PROBABLE. 
...  " 

THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED OF VESSELS WHICH HAS NECESSITATED THE TAKING IS
ITS NEED FOR THE PRECISE SHIP TAKEN, FOR THE TYPE OR CLASS OF SHIP
TAKEN, OR FOR SHIPS WHICH PERFORM THE SAME OR RELATED FUNCTIONS.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S NEED FOR CARGO VESSELS MAY AFFECT INDIRECTLY THE PRICE
LEVEL OF MANY COMMODITIES.  IT MAY, FOR EXAMPLE, AFFECT THE PRICE OF
ROWBOATS.  BUT IF THE GOVERNMENT TAKES A ROWBOAT, THE ENHANCEMENT TO BE
EXCLUDED IS THAT WHICH RESULTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIVITIES IN THE
PARTICULAR MARKET.  IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S DEMAND IN THAT MARKET THAT
IS THE MEASURE OF THE "CAUSES NECESSITATING THE TAKING OR USE" IN THIS
SITUATION.  FN7 

WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE ADVISORY BOARD THAT THE ENHANCEMENT WHICH IS
EXCLUDED IS THAT WHICH ARISES BEFORE AS WELL AS AFTER THE DECLARATION
OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY OF MAY 27, 1941.  SECTION 902(A) DOES NOT
HAVE ANY LIMITING FACTOR SO FAR AS TIME IS CONCERNED.  BUT WE CANNOT
SAY FROM THIS RECORD WHETHER ANY PART OF THE $15,500 THAT THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FOUND TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TUG AT THE TIME OF THE
TAKING INCLUDES ANY DEDUCTIBLE ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE.  THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FOUND, TO BE SURE, THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE PROSPECT OF THE
CONDEMNATION OF THE TUG AND HENCE NO ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE DUE TO THAT
REASON.  YET, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THAT IS ONLY ONE SOURCE OF THE
ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE WHICH IS DEDUCTIBLE.  THERE ARE NO FINDINGS AS TO
THE EFFECT ON THE MARKET EITHER OF THE PREVIOUS TAKING, IF ANY, OF
VESSELS OF A SIMILAR TYPE, OR OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED OF VESSELS
NECESSITATING THE TAKING, AS WE HAVE CONSTRUED IT.  THE ONLY FINDINGS
AT ALL RELEVANT TO THESE FACTORS ARE (1) THAT THE INCREASE IN MARKET
VALUES OF "NEARLY ALL VESSELS IN AND ABOUT THE PORT OF NEW YORK"
BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 8, 1939 AND MAY 27, 1941 WAS DUE TO "THE DEMAND FOR
VESSELS WHICH FOLLOWED THE OUTBREAK OF WAR IN EUROPE"; AND (2) THAT
SUCH INCREASE AFTER MAY 27, 1941, AND PARTICULARLY AFTER DECEMBER 7,
1941, WAS DUE TO "THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED FOR VESSELS, WHICH NECESSITATED
THE TAKING OF MANY VESSELS, AND TO THE GREAT INCREASE IN SHIPPING AND
IN HARBOR TRAFFIC" DURING THE WAR.  FN8  THESE FINDINGS, HOWEVER, ARE
NOT SUFFICIENTLY DISCRIMINATING.  THEY DO NOT SHOW THE EFFECT ON THE
MARKET OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED FOR THIS PARTICULAR SHIP, FOR THIS TYPE
OR CLASS OF VESSEL, OR FOR SHIPS WHICH PERFORM THE SAME OR RELATED
FUNCTIONS.  THE FINDINGS AS TO THE RISING MARKET FOR TUGS IN AND ABOUT
THE PORT OF NEW YORK TELL US THAT SOME OF THAT ENHANCEMENT IS DUE TO
THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED.  BUT WE ARE LEFT IN THE DARK AS TO HOW MUCH IT
MAY BE. 

IN SUM THE FINDINGS DO NOT TELL US WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY WHAT
WAS THE EFFECT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIVITIES IN THE PARTICULAR
MARKET.  NOR DO WE KNOW WHETHER INCREASES IN VALUE OF THE VESSEL UP TO
MARCH 19, 1942, WHEN THE UNITED STATES SOLD IT TO RESPONDENT, WERE
REFLECTED IN THE SALE PRICE.  IF THEY WERE, THE UNITED STATES HAS
RECEIVED ANY ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE THAT RESULTED FROM ITS NEED UP TO
THAT DATE. 

FINALLY, RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE ACTUAL BASIS FOR THE INCREASE IN
VALUE OF THE VESSEL BETWEEN MARCH AND OCTOBER, 1942(THE PERIOD WHEN
RESPONDENT OWNED IT) IS DUE TO CAUSES OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT'S
NEED.  HE POINTS OUT THAT HIS TOTAL MONETARY EXPENDITURE ON THE VESSEL
AMOUNTED TO $8,574.78, OF WHICH $5,699.78 REPRESENTED LABOR AND
MATERIALS.  THE LATTER AMOUNT, HOWEVER, WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY
GREATER HAD NOT RESPONDENT HIMSELF PERFORMED PART OF THE LABOR. 
RESPONDENT PLAINLY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ANY INCREASE IN VALUE DUE TO
THAT FACTOR.  MOREOVER, WHEN RESPONDENT REPAIRED AND RECONDITIONED THE
BOAT IT WAS CERTIFICATED AS A TOWING STEAM VESSEL, A SUBSTANTIALLY NEW
USE FOR THE TUG.  THESE TWO FACTORS ALONE, PLUS THE GENERAL PRICE
INCREASE, ARE SAID TO ACCOUNT FOR THE $5,000 ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE FOUND
BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

WE START WITH FINDINGS THAT TELL US THAT SOME OF THE ENHANCEMENT IN
MARKET VALUE IS DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED.  IT IS SHEER SPECULATION
TO SAY THAT THERE ARE OFFSETS AGAINST THAT ENHANCEMENT WHICH SO REDUCE
IT AS TO RENDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT AN ABSTRACT QUESTION.  CF.
ASHWANDER V. VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 324.  THE INADEQUACIES IN
THE FINDINGS ARE DUE TO THE ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT BY THE
COURT OF CLAIMS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 902(A) PROVIDES: 

"WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT SHALL PROCLAIM THAT THE SECURITY OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE MAKES IT ADVISABLE OR DURING ANY NATIONAL EMERGENCY
DECLARED BY PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT, IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR THE
COMMISSION TO REQUISITION OR PURCHASE ANY VESSEL OR OTHER WATERCRAFT
OWNED BY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES, OR FOR ANY PERIOD DURING SUCH EMERGENCY, TO
REQUISITION OR CHARTER THE USE OF ANY SUCH PROPERTY.  THE TERMINATION
OF ANY EMERGENCY SO DECLARED SHALL BE ANNOUNCED BY A FURTHER
PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT.  WHEN ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR THE USE
THEREOF IS SO REQUISITIONED, THE OWNER THEREOF SHALL BE PAID JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN OR FOR THE USE OF SUCH PROPERTY,
BUT IN NO CASE SHALL THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN OR USED BE DEEMED
ENHANCED BY THE CAUSES NECESSITATING THE TAKING OR USE.  IF ANY
PROPERTY IS TAKEN AND USED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THIS SECTION, BUT THE
OWNERSHIP THEREOF IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES, SUCH PROPERTY
SHALL BE RESTORED TO THE OWNER IN A CONDITION AT LEAST AS GOOD AS WHEN
TAKEN, LESS ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR, OR THE OWNER SHALL BE PAID AN
AMOUNT FOR RECONDITIONING SUFFICIENT TO PLACE THE PROPERTY IN SUCH
CONDITION.  THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE PAID FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
ARISING FROM A TAKING OR USE OF PROPERTY UNDER AUTHORITY OF THIS

FN2  THE FINDINGS ON THESE ISSUES WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

"AT THE TIME OF THE REQUISITION, THERE EXISTED IN AND ABOUT THE PORT
OF NEW YORK A RISING MARKET AND A STRONG DEMAND FOR TUGS OF ALL TYPES,
INCLUDING THE MACARTHUR.  THIS SITUATION WAS DUE TO THE GREATLY
INCREASED TRAFFIC IN THE HARBOR DURING THE PERIOD OF THE WAR, TO THE
FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN REQUISITIONING TUGS AND TO THE
RESULTING SHORTAGE OF TUGS.  TUGS WERE OPERATED DAY AND NIGHT IN AN
EFFORT TO HANDLE THE INCREASED BUSINESS AND, UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS
MOST TUG OWNERS WERE RELUCTANT TO SELL.  HOWEVER, FROM AUGUST 1941 TO
FEBRUARY 1943, SIX TUGBOATS WERE SOLD ON THE OPEN MARKET IN OR NEAR THE
PORT OF NEW YORK.  NONE OF THESE SALES INVOLVED A VESSEL CLOSELY
COMPARABLE TO THE MACARTHUR IN DESIGN, POWER, AND EQUIPMENT.  ...  " 

"BEGINNING ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1939, THE DATE ON WHICH THE PRESIDENT
PROCLAIMED THE EXISTENCE OF A LIMITED NATIONAL EMERGENCY, AND
CONTINUING UP TO THE DATE THAT PLAINTIFF'S VESSEL WAS REQUISITIONED,
THERE WAS A GENERAL RISE IN THE MARKET VALUES OF NEARLY ALL VESSELS IN
AND ABOUT THE PORT OF NEW YORK.  THIS INCREASE IN VALUES BETWEEN
SEPTEMBER 8, 1939 AND MAY 27, 1941, THE DATE ON WHICH THE PRESIDENT
PROCLAIMED THE EXISTENCE OF A GENERAL NATIONAL EMERGENCY, WAS DUE TO
THE DEMAND FOR VESSELS WHICH FOLLOWED THE OUTBREAK OF WAR IN EUROPE. 
AFTER MAY 27, 1941 AND PARTICULARLY AFTER DECEMBER 7, 1941, THE DATE OF
THE JAPANESE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR, THE RISE IN MARKET VALUES WAS DUE
TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED FOR VESSELS, WHICH NECESSITATED THE TAKING OF
MANY VESSELS, AND TO THE GREAT INCREASE IN SHIPPING AND IN HARBOR
TRAFFIC WHICH OCCURRED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE WAR.  THESE CONDITIONS
COMBINED TO CREATE A DEMAND FOR AND A SHORTAGE OF TUGS.  AS A RESULT,
THE MARKET VALUE OF THE MACARTHUR HAD BEEN ENHANCED BY THE SUM OF
$5,000.00 BY OCTOBER 15, 1942. 

"PRIOR TO THE TIME THE DEFENDANT REQUISITIONED THE MACARTHUR THERE
WAS NO REASONABLE PROSPECT THAT SHE WOULD BE REQUISITIONED, AND NO PART
OF THE ENHANCEMENT IN HER VALUE WAS DUE TO SUCH A PROSPECT." 

FN3  SEE 3 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 114. 

FN4  22 COMP. GEN. 497, 608. 

FN5  SEE EXEC. ORDER 9387, OCT. 15, 1943, 8 FED. REG. 14105, 3
C.F.R., 1943 SUPP. 48-49.  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER PROVIDED IN PART: 

"THE BOARD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL ESTABLISH FAIR
AND EQUITABLE STANDARDS, RULES AND FORMULAE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION IN DETERMINING THE
JUST COMPENSATION TO BE PAID FOR ALL VESSELS REQUISITIONED, PURCHASED,
CHARTERED OR INSURED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.  THE BOARD MAY PRESCRIBE
SUCH RULES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY OR
ADVISABLE IN CARRYING OUT ITS FUNCTIONS. 

"IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION WHICH SHOULD BE PAID
FOR EACH VESSEL, THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION WILL BE GUIDED BY THE
GENERAL STANDARDS, RULES AND FORMULAE ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD." 

THIS BOARD WAS COMPOSED OF LEARNED HAND, JOHN J. PARKER, AND JOSEPH
C. HUTCHESON, JR. 

FN6  3 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 234. 

FN7  WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT MEASURE OF THOSE CAUSES IN
OTHER SITUATIONS IS A QUESTION WE DO NOT REACH. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR.
JUSTICE BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER
28 U.S.C. SEC. 1255(1) BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO PRESENT CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES IMPORTANT IN THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR VESSELS REQUISITIONED
BY THE GOVERNMENT DURING THE RECENT NATIONAL EMERGENCY UNDER SEC.
902(A) OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936.  FN1 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM THAT THE SCOPE AND
VALIDITY OF THAT SECTION OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT CALL FOR
ADJUDICATION. 

THE STEAM TUG GUTHRIE WAS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AND OPERATED BY
THE COAST GUARD CONTINUOUSLY FROM 1895, WHEN SHE WAS BUILT, UNTIL
1941.  IN THAT YEAR A SPECIAL BOARD OF SURVEY APPOINTED TO DETERMINE
HER CONDITION FOUND HER IN NEED OF A NEW BOILER AND EXTENSIVE REPAIRS. 
IN VIEW OF "THE PRESENT EMERGENCY AND THE GREAT NEED OF VESSELS," THE
BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT THE NECESSARY RECONDITIONING BE UNDERTAKEN.  THE
COAST GUARD, HOWEVER, DIRECTED THAT SHE BE SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. 
RESPONDENT'S WAS THE HIGHEST BID RECEIVED, AND ON MARCH 19, 1942, THE
GUTHRIE WAS SOLD TO HIM FOR $2,875.  HE PROCEEDED TO CARRY OUT THE
REPAIRS THAT HAD BEEN INDICATED BY THE COAST GUARD SURVEY, DOING MOST
OF THE WORK HIMSELF WITH THE AID OF A CREW OF FOUR; THE REST WAS DONE
BY A SHIPYARD AT PORTLAND.  HIS TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON LABOR AND
MATERIALS WAS $5,699.78 BUT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER HAD
HE NOT BEEN EXPERIENCED IN THIS TYPE OF WORK. 

ON APRIL 20 AND 21, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE LICENSED THE GUTHRIE
AS A "TOWING STEAM VESSEL" PERMITTED TO NAVIGATE IN "BAYS, SOUNDS,
RIVERS AND HARBORS" AND ALSO AUTHORIZED RESPONDENT TO EMPLOY HER IN THE
COASTING TRADE.  RESPONDENT THEN BROUGHT HER UNDER HER OWN POWER TO NEW
YORK WHERE SHE WAS RECHRISTENED THE MACARTHUR AND WHERE SHE REMAINED
INACTIVE UNTIL SEPTEMBER, 1942, WHEN THE NAVY SURVEYED HER FOR USE AS A
STEAM-HEATING PLANT FOR HEATING AND PUMPING FUEL OIL FROM BARGES INTO
COMBAT VESSELS.  ON OCTOBER 15, 1942, THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION
REQUISITIONED THE MACARTHUR FOR THE NAVY AND LATER OFFERED RESPONDENT
$9,000 AS COMPENSATION FOR HER.  THIS FIGURE WAS BASED UPON THE COAST
GUARD SURVEY, THE NAVY SURVEY, AND THE RULES ADOPTED BY THE ADVISORY
BOARD ON JUST COMPENSATION WHICH HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO CLARIFY THE
MEASURE OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION
UNDER SEC. 902(A) OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT.  FN2  RESPONDENT
PROTESTED AGAINST THE AWARD AND, AS HE WAS ENTITLED TO DO UNDER SEC.
902(D) OF THE ACT, ACCEPTED 75% OF IT, AND BROUGHT SUIT IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT HE HAD BEEN OFFERED AND
THE AMOUNT HE ALLEGED TO BE DUE AS JUST COMPENSATION. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE MACARTHUR ON
THE DATE OF TAKING WAS $15,500.  110 CT. CL. 66.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES
NOT DISPUTE THAT THERE WAS A MARKET NOR THAT VALUE ON THE MARKET WAS AS
FOUND, BUT INSISTS THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM IT AN
AMOUNT REPRESENTING ENHANCEMENT "BY THE CAUSES NECESSITATING THE
TAKING" UNDER THE TERMS OF SEC. 902(A).  IT BASES THIS CONTENTION ON
TWO FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE FIRST IS THAT "AT THE TIME OF
THE REQUISITION, THERE EXISTED IN AND ABOUT THE PORT OF NEW YORK A
RISING MARKET AND A STRONG DEMAND FOR TUGS OF ALL TYPES, INCLUDING THE
MACARTHUR.  THIS SITUATION WAS DUE TO THE GREATLY INCREASED TRAFFIC IN
THE HARBOR DURING THE PERIOD OF THE WAR, TO THE FACT THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN REQUISITIONING TUGS AND TO THE RESULTING SHORTAGE
OF TUGS."  110 CT. CL. AT 75-76.  THE SECOND IS THAT THE MARKET VALUE
OF THE MACARTHUR HAD BEEN ENHANCED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 8, 1939, WHEN THE
PRESIDENT PROCLAIMED A LIMITED NATIONAL EMERGENCY, AND OCTOBER 15,
1942, WHEN SHE WAS REQUISITIONED, BY THE SUM OF $5,000, PART OF WHICH,
AFTER PROCLAMATION OF A GENERAL NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON MAY 27, 1941,
"WAS DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED FOR VESSELS, WHICH NECESSITATED THE
TAKING OF MANY VESSELS  ...  "  ID. AT 77.  BUT THE COURT OF CLAIMS
CONCLUDED THAT "IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ALLOCATE TO THE (GOVERNMENT'S
NEED) A DEFINITE PART OF THE INCREASE IN MARKET VALUE, BUT EVEN IF IT
WERE POSSIBLE TO DO SO, WE DO NOT THINK THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A
DEDUCTION FROM MARKET VALUE ON THIS ACCOUNT."  ID. AT 78. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT ALL OR PART
OF THE $5,000 ENHANCEMENT IN MARKET VALUE OF THE MACARTHUR SHOULD BE
DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING JUST COMPENSATION TO RESPONDENT ULTIMATELY REDUCE
TO TWO.  THE FIRST IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE DEDUCTED ANY SPECULATIVE
INCREASE OF VALUE DUE TO THE PROBABILITY OF THE TAKING.  IT IS CLEAR
THAT SUCH A DEDUCTION MUST BE MADE WHERE THE INCREASE IS TRACEABLE TO
THE PROBABILITY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD TAKE THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY
FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS SOUGHT.  UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S.
369.  BUT THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE IS IMPOSSIBLE HERE IN THE
FACE OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS' EXPLICIT FINDING THAT "PRIOR TO THE TIME
THE DEFENDANT REQUISITIONED THE MACARTHUR THERE WAS NO REASONABLE
PROSPECT THAT SHE WOULD BE REQUISITIONED, AND NO PART OF THE
ENHANCEMENT IN HER VALUE WAS DUE TO SUCH A PROSPECT."  110 CT. CL. AT
77.  IT IS ARGUABLE, HOWEVER, THAT THE RATIONALE OF THE MILLER CASE
SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO PROPERTY OF A LESS UNIQUE CHARACTER THAN LAND -
PROPERTY OF A CLASS ANY MEMBER OF WHICH WOULD FULFILL THE TAKER'S NEED
MORE OR LESS EQUALLY WELL.  AS TO SUCH PROPERTY THERE MAY BE
SPECULATIVE INCREASE IN VALUE BECAUSE OF THE DUAL EXPECTATION THAT SOME
MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WILL BE TAKEN AND THAT THE TAKER MAY BE FORCED TO
PAY, WHEN THE TIME COMES FOR THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION, SOMETHING MORE
THAN WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MARKET VALUE HAD NOT SPECULATION OCCURRED. 
SEE MCGOVERN V. NEW YORK, 229 U.S. 363, 372.  AND THIS MIGHT BE TRUE
EVEN THOUGH IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS PROBABLE THAT A PARTICULAR
MEMBER OF THE CLASS - IN THIS CASE A PARTICULAR TUG - WOULD BE TAKEN. 
FN3 

BUT THIS IS A QUESTION WE DO NOT NEED TO PASS ON NOW BECAUSE, IN
ADDITION TO THE FINDING THAT IT WAS NOT PROBABLE THAT THE MACARTHUR
WOULD BE TAKEN, THE RECORD CONTAINS EVIDENCE OF THE MOST CONCLUSIVE
KIND THAT A TAKING WAS IMPROBABLE:  THE GOVERNMENT HAD GOT RID OF THE
TUG ONLY SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE THE TAKING, WITH COMPLETE AWARENESS THAT
SHE WAS CAPABLE OF BEING ADEQUATELY RECONDITIONED.  AMONG THOSE WHOSE
DEALINGS IN TUGS ESTABLISHED MARKET VALUE, THEREFORE, WHATEVER MAY HAVE
BEEN THE TENDENCY OF THEIR ACTIVITIES TO BRING ABOUT SPECULATIVE
INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF TUGS GENERALLY, IT MUST HAVE SEEMED SO
UNLIKELY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REVERSE ITSELF AND TAKE THE
MACARTHUR BACK THAT THE MARKET VALUE FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR
THIS PARTICULAR TUG COULD HARDLY HAVE REFLECTED ENHANCEMENT DUE TO
SPECULATION AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED FOR HER.  IT MAY BE
SUGGESTED, TO BE SURE, THAT THE NEED WHICH PROMPTED THIS REVERSAL MIGHT
HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED BY ONE SHREWD ENOUGH TO FORESEE A GROWING
SHORTAGE OF TUGS MORE ACCURATELY THAN THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
GOVERNMENT'S DECISIONS IN THESE MATTERS.  BUT WHATEVER MIGHT
CONCEIVABLY BE THE EFFECT ON THE MARKET OF THE OPERATIONS OF SUCH
PERSONS, IT WOULD BE AN EFFECT SO FAR BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY OF
MEASUREMENT THAT IT WOULD BE FUTILE IN THE EXTREME TO REMAND FOR A
FINDING ON THE POINT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS REMEMBERED THAT THE
MACARTHUR WAS REQUISITIONED NOT FOR USE AS A TUG BUT AS A HEATING
PLANT. 

WE MUST REJECT, THEREFORE, SPECULATION BY PURCHASERS OF TUGS AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED AS A FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE MARKET
VALUE OF THE MACARTHUR AT THE TIME SHE WAS REQUISITIONED.  THE ONLY
OTHER WAY THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN WHICH HER MARKET VALUE COULD HAVE
BEEN INCREASED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED IS AS A RESULT OF THE INCREASE
IN DEMAND PRESUMABLY BROUGHT ABOUT BY PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT SEIZURES OF
TUGS DURING A PERIOD WHEN, AS THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND, THERE WAS A
SHORTAGE OF TUGS DUE TO A GREAT "INCREASE IN SHIPPING AND HARBOR
TRAFFIC."  IN THIS INDIRECT WAY, THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED CAN BE REGARDED
AS A "CAUSE" OF THE INCREASE IN THE MACARTHUR'S MARKET VALUE.  BECAUSE
THIS NEED COULD BE FORESEEN AT LEAST BY THE TIME OF THE DECLARATION OF
LIMITED NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1939, THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES
THAT ALL ENHANCEMENT IN THE VALUE OF VESSELS SINCE THAT DATE SHOULD
THEREFORE BE DEDUCTED FROM THEIR MARKET PRICE IN DETERMINING JUST
COMPENSATION.  IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT URGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE
DEDUCTED THAT PROPORTION OF THIS INCREASE WHICH IS ALLOCABLE TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S INTERVENTION IN THE MARKET. 

WHETHER REGARDED AS FOUNDED UPON SEC. 902(A) OF THE MERCHANT MARINE
ACT OR UPON JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES OF JUST COMPENSATION, BOTH THESE
CONTENTIONS, IN MY JUDGMENT, MUST BE REJECTED.  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
FIRST TOOK OUT OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION SOME OF THE TUGS WHICH HAD BEEN
THUS EMPLOYED, IT COULD REQUISITION THEM AT A PRICE UNINFLUENCED BY ITS
OWN NEED.  A SUBSEQUENT INCREASE IN THE MARKET VALUE, THOUGH
PRECIPITATED BY THE SHORTAGE CAUSED BY THE EARLIER TAKING, COULD BE A
DIRECT RESULT ONLY OF THE TUG OPERATORS' NEED FOR THE REMAINING TUGS,
NOT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FOR THOSE IT HAD TAKEN.  LEAVING ENHANCEMENT
ATTRIBUTABLE TO SPECULATION OUT OF ACCOUNT, AS THE RECORD OBLIGES US TO
DO, THE GOVERNMENT COULD THEN REQUISITION STILL MORE TUGS AT A MARKET
VALUE AT MOST NO HIGHER THAN THE LEVEL AT WHICH THE NEW PRICE HAD
SETTLED.  UNLIKE AN INCREASE DUE TO SPECULATION BY BUYERS OF TUGS THAT
AWARDS FOR REQUISITIONED TUGS WOULD EXCEED THE PRICE LIKELY TO BE PAID
BY COMMERCIAL OPERATORS PURCHASING TUGS FOR THEIR OWN USE, AN INCREASE
DUE TO SHORTAGE WOULD AFFECT THE PRICE TO ANY PURCHASER AND ENHANCE
VALUE TO ANY OWNER EVEN THOUGH NO FURTHER REQUISITIONS WERE ANTICIPATED
AND EVEN THOUGH NONE WERE MADE.  EXACTLY THE SAME INCREASE WOULD RESULT
WHETHER THE SHORTAGE WERE INDUCED BY THE EXPANDED BUSINESS OF A
COMMERCIAL OPERATOR OR BY GOVERNMENT REQUISITION.  IT SIMPLY IS NOT
TRUE, THEREFORE, THAT THE ENHANCED PRICE RESULTING FROM SHORTAGE IS A
PRICE WHICH THE NEED NECESSITATING THE TAKING, AS OPPOSED TO NEED OF
THE TUG OPERATORS, CREATED. 

THE NEED OF THE TUG OPERATORS, MOREOVER, NOT MERELY FOR THE TUGS THAT
HAD BEEN TAKEN, BUT FOR ADDITIONAL TUGS, WAS IN ITS TURN ONLY ONE
FACTOR IN THE COMPLEX WHICH MAKES UP DEMAND IN A PERIOD OF HIGH COSTS,
HIGH WAGES, SHORTAGES, AND INFLATION.  WE SPEAK, IN REFERRING TO THE
INTERACTING FORCES OF SUCH A PERIOD, OF THE "INFLATIONARY SPIRAL," AND
ALTHOUGH A REQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MIDST OF THIS DYNAMIC
PROCESS UNDOUBTEDLY HAS SOME EFFECT IN ACCELERATING IT, IT IS AN EFFECT
WHICH LOSES ITS ASCERTAINABLE SIGNIFICANCE BY BEING MERGED WITH
COUNTLESS OTHER FACTORS.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE PROPER SCOPE OF THE
DECLARATION IN SEC. 902(A) THAT THE VALUE OF VESSELS TAKEN DURING THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY SHALL NOT "BE DEEMED ENHANCED BY THE CAUSES
NECESSITATING THE TAKING OR USE," THE WARTIME ECONOMY ITSELF CANNOT BE
REGARDED AS SUCH A CAUSE.  EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES THAN THOSE OF GAMBLING ON THE RESULT OF AN AWARD IN WHICH
A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TAKER'S INTERVENTION IN THE MARKET AND AN
ENHANCEMENT OF PRICE MIGHT BE TRACED, ON THIS RECORD IT WOULD BE ASKING
FOR THE IMPOSSIBLE TO INSIST ON AN ATTEMPT TO TRACE ONE.  THE
GOVERNMENT HAS ADVANCED NO BASIS FOR THE UNDERTAKING; IT POINTS TO NO
EVIDENCE ALREADY OFFERED WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY IT AND SUGGESTS NONE THAT
IT MIGHT HAVE OFFERED.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SHOULD NOT REQUIRE
THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO EMBARK UPON SO MURKY A SEA OF SPECULATION.  CF.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 216, 223-24. 

IF WHAT I HAVE SAID APPEALS TO COMMON SENSE, MARKET VALUES WHICH HAVE
BEEN INCREASED AS THE RESULT OF THE INTERACTION OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN
A WARTIME ECONOMY CANNOT BE REJECTED AS THE APPLICABLE MEASURE OF JUST
COMPENSATION MERELY BECAUSE THE COMPETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT, REGARDED
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF AN EXERCISE IN TRACING ULTIMATE CAUSES, MAY
THEORETICALLY BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCREASE.  NOR IS IT
TO MAKE A FETISH OF MARKET VALUE TO AFFIRM ITS SELECTION AS A STANDARD
IN A CASE WHERE NO OTHER STANDARD THAT OFFERS THE POSSIBILITY OF
OBSERVANCE HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD.  THE RECORD RULES OUT ANY INCREASE DUE
TO SPECULATION, THE ONLY OTHER SUGGESTED FORM OF ENHANCEMENT
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED.  SINCE IT IS OUR DUTY TO AVOID
CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION, SEE THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 341,
346 ET SEQ., AND RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, 568 ET
SEQ., THE DECISION BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED WITHOUT REACHING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSTRUCTION OF SEC.
902(A). 

FN1  "WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT SHALL PROCLAIM THAT THE SECURITY OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE MAKES IT ADVISABLE OR DURING ANY NATIONAL EMERGENCY
DECLARED BY PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT, IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR THE
COMMISSION TO REQUISITION OR PURCHASE ANY VESSEL OR OTHER WATERCRAFT
OWNED BY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES, OR FOR ANY PERIOD DURING SUCH EMERGENCY, TO
REQUISITION OR CHARTER THE USE OF ANY SUCH PROPERTY.  THE TERMINATION
OF ANY EMERGENCY SO DECLARED SHALL BE ANNOUNCED BY A FURTHER
PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT.  WHEN ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR THE USE
THEREOF IS SO REQUISITIONED, THE OWNER THEREOF SHALL BE PAID JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN OR FOR THE USE OF SUCH PROPERTY,
BUT IN NO CASE SHALL THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN OR USED BE DEEMED
ENHANCED BY THE CAUSES NECESSITATING THE TAKING OR USE.  IF ANY
PROPERTY IS TAKEN AND USED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THIS SECTION, BUT THE
OWNERSHIP THEREOF IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES, SUCH PROPERTY
SHALL BE RESTORED TO THE OWNER IN A CONDITION AT LEAST AS GOOD AS WHEN
TAKEN, LESS ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR, OR THE OWNER SHALL BE PAID AN
AMOUNT FOR RECONDITIONING SUFFICIENT TO PLACE THE PROPERTY IN SUCH
CONDITION.  THE OWNER SHALL NOT BE PAID FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
ARISING FROM A TAKING OR USE OF PROPERTY UNDER AUTHORITY OF THIS

FN2  THE ADVISORY BOARD ON JUST COMPENSATION, CONSISTING OF JUDGE
LEARNED HAND, JUDGE JOHN J. PARKER, AND JUDGE JOSEPH C. HUTCHESON, JR.,
WAS APPOINTED UNDER EXEC. ORDER 9387, OCT. 15, 1943, 8 FED. REG. 14105,
3 C.F.R. 1943 SUPP. 48-49.  THE FOLLOWING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE
RULES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD: 

"RULE 4.  FROM THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF TAKING, THERE SHOULD BE
DEDUCTED ANY ENHANCEMENT DUE, TO THE GOVERNMENT'S NEED OF VESSELS WHICH
HAS NECESSITATED THE TAKING, TO THE PREVIOUS TAKING OF VESSELS OF
SIMILAR TYPE, OR TO A PROSPECTIVE TAKING, REASONABLY PROBABLE, WHETHER
SUCH NEED, TAKING, OR PROSPECT, OCCURRED BEFORE OR AFTER THE
DECLARATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY OF MAY 27, 1941.  ENHANCEMENT DUE
TO A GENERAL RISE IN PRICES OR EARNINGS, WHENEVER OCCURRING, SHOULD NOT
BE DEDUCTED.  IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS RULE NEITHER THE PROCLAMATION
OF LIMITED EMERGENCY OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1939, NOR THE FACTS EXISTING AT
THAT TIME, ARE IN THEMSELVES OF SIGNIFICANCE.  THE BOARD DOES NOT
DETERMINE WHETHER ANY ENHANCEMENT AFTER MAY 27, 1941, OTHER THAN AS
ENUMERATED ABOVE AS DEDUCTIBLE, SHOULD BE EXCLUDED; SINCE THE BOARD IS
ADVISED THAT THE VALUE OF OCEANGOING VESSELS WAS HIGHER ON MAY 27,
1941, THAN AT THE TIME OF TAKING, AND THAT ANY ENHANCEMENT SINCE MAY
27, 1941, IN VESSELS OF OTHER TYPES, NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE
FOREGOING, IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A GENERAL RISE IN PRICES OR EARNINGS, AND
SHOULD THEREFORE NOT BE DEDUCTED."  HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT
MARINE AND FISHERIES DOC. NO. 47, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN3  THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM EMERGED IN THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY AT THE
HEARING HELD BEFORE THE ADVISORY BOARD ON JUST COMPENSATION: 

"JUDGE HAND:  IT COMES TO THIS, THAT A SOCIETY WHICH FORESEES A
SHORTAGE, A CONSEQUENT SHORTAGE IN ONE KIND OF SUPPLY, MUST EITHER
PROCEED AT ONCE TO SEIZE, OR MUST SUBJECT ITSELF AND SOCIETY AT LARGE
TO THE DISADVANTAGE WHICH COMES FROM THE SHORTAGE.  BUT WHEN THE
SHORTAGE COMES, IT MAY NOT SAY 'SO FAR, AND NO FARTHER.  WE LEAVE THE
PROPERTY IN YOUR HANDS FOR USE, BUT WE ARE HELPLESS TO PREVENT YOUR
FURTHER EXPLOITATION OF SOCIETY BY YOUR SPECIAL INTEREST.' 

"IS THAT YOUR POSITION? 

"MR. MCINNIS:  I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THAT THAT IS THE LOGICAL
IMPLICATION OF MY ARGUMENT. 

"JUDGE HAND: IT DOES SEEM TO ME, IF IT IS ALL PERFECTLY CLEARLY KNOWN
IN ADVANCE, TO PUT A SOCIETY IN A RATHER HELPLESS POSITION AS AGAINST A
SMALL GROUP THAT HAS CONTROL OF ALL OF ONE VITAL COMMODITY.  YOU CAN
IMAGINE CASES WHERE THAT WOULD WORK A RESULT THAT NO ONE WOULD
SUPPORT.  YOU CAN IMAGINE THE DESTRUCTION OF A LARGE PART OF FOOD IN A
COMMUNITY WHERE THERE WAS NO IMMEDIATE RELIEF, AND, AS I UNDERSTAND
YOUR ARGUMENT, THEY EITHER HAVE TO TAKE IT NOW, OR WHEN THEY WOULD FIND
IT MORE CONVENIENT TO TAKE IT THEY SHOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT TO THE
INCREASE IN VALUE, HOWEVER CLEARLY THE OWNERS WERE ADVISED AT A GIVEN
POINT, 'THIS MARKS THE END OF THAT KIND OF PROFIT - SCARCITY PROFIT.' 

"MR. MCINNIS:  I THINK THAT IS CORRECT, JUDGE.  BUT I WOULD AGREE - 

"JUDGE HAND (INTERPOSING):  IT MIGHT BE THAT THE CONSTITUTION
PROTECTS THAT KIND OF PROFIT.  I WON'T SAY NOW."  1 REPORT OF
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD 134-135(UNITED STATES MARITIME
COMMISSION, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION, MIMEOGRAPHED, 1943). 
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. WITTEK, 337 U.S. 346 


NO. 473.  ARGUED APRIL 20-21, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 13, 1949.  - 83 U.S.
APP. D.C. 377, 171 F.2D 8, REVERSED. 


THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT OF DECEMBER 2, 1941, 55
STAT. 788, AS AMENDED, IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES AS
LANDLORD OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED DEFENSE HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  PP. 347-368. 

1.  THE ACT MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AS A
LANDLORD OF DEFENSE HOUSING AND AS A LANDLORD OF LOW-RENT HOUSING; AND,
WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPRECIATED, IT IS PRACTICALLY INCONCEIVABLE
THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE SUBJECTED ITS GOVERNMENT-OWNED LOW-RENT
HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THE CONTROL PRESCRIBED BY THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT IN ADDITION TO THE CONTROL
PRESCRIBED BY EXISTING LEGISLATION AND THAT OF THE PRESIDENTIALLY
DESIGNATED ADMINISTRATORS OF LOW-RENT HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  PP. 351-358. 

2.  THE ACT CONTAINS NO EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE UNITED STATES AS A
LANDLORD OR TO ITS APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING OF ANY KIND;
RENTAL RATES IN GOVERNMENT-OWNED DEFENSE HOUSING WERE UNDER COMPLETE
GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL; IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ENACTED AS A TEMPORARY
MEASURE SUPPLEMENTING, RATHER THAN SUPERSEDING, THE CONTRIBUTION
ALREADY BEING MADE BY THE PERMANENT FEDERAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES TOWARD
MEETING THE HOUSING CRISIS; AND THERE WAS NO NEED TO APPLY TO
GOVERNMENT-OWNED DEFENSE HOUSING THE NEW RENT CONTROL THAT IT IMPOSED
UPON PRIVATELY OWNED HOUSING.  PP. 358-363. 

3.  BOTH THE FORM AND THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT INDICATE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT SEEK BY THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT TO PLACE GOVERNMENT-OWNED
HOUSING UNDER A LOCAL RENT ADMINISTRATOR.  PP. 364-367. 

4.  THE CONCLUSION HERE REACHED IS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT THE
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT CONTROL HAS TAKEN NO PART IN THIS
PROCEEDING AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS SOUGHT AT ANY TIME TO
EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE UNITED STATES AS A LANDLORD OF EITHER
LOW-RENT HOUSING OR DEFENSE HOUSING.  P. 368. 

UNITED STATES V. WITTEK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOUND THAT THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE
UNITED STATES AND ORDERED POSSESSION OF PREMISES OWNED BY IT IN A
DEFENSE-HOUSING PROJECT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GIVEN TO THE UNITED
STATES.  THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AFFIRMED.  75 WASH. LAW REP. 982, 54 A.2D 747.  THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT REVERSED.  83 U.S. APP.
D.C. 377, 171 F.2D 8.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 931. 
REVERSED, P. 368. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE UNITED STATES, AS THE OWNER OF
BELLEVUE HOUSES, A DEFENSE-HOUSING PROJECT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
IS A "LANDLORD" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EMERGENCY RENT ACT,  FN1  WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO RIGHTS OF
OCCUPANCY AND RATES OF RENTAL.  FOR THE REASONS TO BE STATED, WE HOLD
THAT IT IS NOT. 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER HEREIN, FILED ITS AMENDED
COMPLAINT IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST
WITTEK, THE RESPONDENT, SEEKING POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES OCCUPIED BY
HIM IN THE DEFENSE-HOUSING PROJECT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KNOWN AS
BELLEVUE HOUSES.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE PREMISES WERE OWNED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THE HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS HAD BEEN
CONSTRUCTED BY THE NAVY DEPARTMENT UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 201 OF THE
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1941.  FN2
THIS SUMMARY PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 20, 31 STAT. 1193, 41
STAT. 555, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 11-735.  THE RESPONDENT'S TENANCY HAD
BEEN TERMINATED BY NOTICE TO QUIT, SERVED UPON HIM FEBRUARY 28, 1946,
AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 1219, 31 STAT. 1382, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 45-902,
AND THE UNITED STATES CLAIMED THAT HE NO LONGER HAD ANY RIGHT TO
POSSESSION.  FN3  THE RESPONDENT'S DEFENSE, NOW BEFORE US, IS THAT THE
UNITED STATES DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY OF THE ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT REQUIRED A LANDLORD TO
ESTABLISH AS A CONDITION OF SUCH LANDLORD'S RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS TO WHICH THE ACT APPLIED.  FN4  THE PARTIES
AGREED THAT THE CAUSE BE DISPOSED OF BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT UPON THE
PLEADINGS, PRETRIAL STIPULATIONS AND CERTAIN EXHIBITS.  THAT COURT
FOUND THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION, THAT THE EMERGENCY RENT ACT DID NOT
APPLY TO THE UNITED STATES AS THE LANDLORD OF THE PREMISES IN QUESTION
AND IT ORDERED POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES TO BE GIVEN TO THE UNITED
STATES.  THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  FN5  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ALLOWED AN APPEAL, LIMITED TO TWO
QUESTIONS.  FN6  IT DISPOSED OF ONE BY SUSTAINING THE JURISDICTION OF
THE MUNICIPAL COURT.  IT ANSWERED THE OTHER BY HOLDING THAT THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT DID APPLY TO THE UNITED STATES
AS THE LANDLORD IN THIS PROCEEDING.  IT ORDERED THE JUDGMENT REVERSED
AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF APPEALS.  83 U.S. APP.
D.C. 377, 171 F.2D 8.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL
IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED,
LOW-RENT HOUSING, AS WELL AS TO GOVERNMENT-OWNED, DEFENSE HOUSING, IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  336 U.S. 931. 

I. IF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT IS NOW APPLIED TO
GOVERNMENT-OWNED, DEFENSE HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT, SUCH AS BELLEVUE
HOUSES, WE ARE WARNED THAT WE SOON MAY BE COMPELLED TO HOLD THE SAME
INTERPRETATION APPLICABLE TO GOVERNMENT-OWNED, LOW-RENT HOUSING IN THE
DISTRICT. 

WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPRECIATED, IT IS PRACTICALLY
INCONCEIVABLE THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE SUBJECTED ITS GOVERNMENT-OWNED,
LOW-RENT HOUSING PROGRAM IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THE ADDITIONAL
CONTROL PRESCRIBED BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT.  YET
THE INTERPRETATION BY WHICH THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT ACT APPLICABLE TO
THE UNITED STATES AS A LANDLORD OF DEFENSE HOUSING MIGHT MAKE THE ACT
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES AS A LANDLORD OF ALL OTHER
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, INCLUDING ITS LOW-RENT HOUSING.  THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT CAME BEFORE CONGRESS, LATE IN 1941,
THROUGH AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE. 
IT WAS DESIGNED AS A MODEL, PREWAR, TEMPORARY, EMERGENCY MEASURE TO
FORESTALL THE SKYROCKETING OF RENTALS OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR
DEFENSE WORKERS THEN CONCENTRATING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS DIRECTED, AT LEAST PRIMARILY, AT PRIVATE LANDLORDS. 
FN7 IT SOUGHT TO STABILIZE HOUSING RENTALS AT ABOUT THE LEVEL OF
JANUARY 1, 1941, WHICH IT SELECTED AS "A LEVEL FIXED (SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE) BY FREE COMPETITION; ...  "  FN8 

CONGRESS TRADITIONALLY HAS RELIED HEAVILY UPON ITS COMMITTEES ON THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN DISTRICT MATTERS.  THROUGH THEM IT MUST HAVE
SEEN THIS MEASURE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS OWN LONG-TERM, LOW-RENT HOUSING
PROGRAM FOR THE DISTRICT.  IN APPRAISING THE ATTITUDE OF THESE
COMMITTEES AND OF CONGRESS TOWARD GOVERNMENT-OWNED, LOW-RENT HOUSING AS
A SUBSTITUTE FOR SUBSTANDARD HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO OVEREMPHASIZE EITHER THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE NEED OR THE LONG
STANDING CONCERN OF CONGRESS ABOUT THAT NEED.  THE SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN A FREQUENT SUBJECT OF CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE,
STUDY AND LEGISLATION SINCE THE CIVIL WAR.  THE NARROW ALLEYS IN THE
INTERIOR OF 200 OR MORE OF THE LARGE DOWNTOWN CITY BLOCKS OF THE
DISTRICT, ALTHOUGH UNFIT FOR HABITATION, HAVE BEEN NOTORIOUSLY
CONGESTED WITH A LARGE POPULATION FOR WHICH ADEQUATE HOUSING NEVER HAS
EXISTED.  THIS CONDITION HAS BEEN WIDELY PUBLICIZED AND ONLY PARTIAL
SUCCESS HAS BEEN ATTAINED THROUGH THE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE IT.  OUT OF
THIS NEED THERE HAS EVOLVED A LONG-TERM CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM TO
ELIMINATE THESE SUBSTANDARD DWELLINGS.  DUE TO AN OBVIOUS LACK OF
SUITABLE PRIVATE HOUSING, THIS PROGRAM HAS LED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT-BUILT, OWNED AND OPERATED LOW-RENT HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS.  IN 1934, CONGRESS ENACTED THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALLEY DWELLING ACT, 48 STAT. 930, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 5-103, ET SEQ.
IT AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO ACQUIRE LAND ADJACENT TO THE INHABITED
ALLEYS IN THE DISTRICT, ERECT BUILDINGS THEREON AND RENT THEM "UPON
SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS HE MAY DETERMINE:  ...  " FN9  PURSUANT TO
THIS ACT, HE DESIGNATED THE CHAIRMAN (OFFICIALLY ENTITLED THE
PRESIDENT) OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER (LATER THE DIRECTOR) OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING OF THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS TO CARRY OUT ITS PURPOSES.  HE
NAMED THE GROUP THE ALLEY DWELLING AUTHORITY.  FN10  IN 1938, HE
SUBSTITUTED THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL FOR THE THIRD OFFICIAL
CONSTITUTING THE AUTHORITY,  FN11  AND, IN 1943, HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO
THAT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL HOUSING AUTHORITY.  FN12  IT IS THIS
PRESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED AUTHORITY THAT HAS OPERATED, FOR THE UNITED
STATES, ALL OF ITS LOW-RENT HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE DISTRICT.  IT IS
THIS AUTHORITY THAT HAS FIXED THE RENTALS AND PASSED UPON THE
RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF TENANTS TO OCCUPY PREMISES IN THOSE PROJECTS.  ITS
COMPOSITION, INCLUDING TWO UNITED STATES OFFICIALS AND THE PRESIDENT OF
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT, DEMONSTRATES THE
INCONGRUITY OF AN ATTEMPT, SUCH AS IS HERE SUGGESTED, TO SUBJECT IT TO
THE CONTROL OF THE DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT CONTROL, HIMSELF
APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT.  THE
RECOGNIZED RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS AUTHORITY AS A FEDERAL HOUSING AGENCY
FURTHER APPEARS FROM THE FACT THAT, IN DUE COURSE, IT WAS CHOSEN BY THE
GOVERNMENT TO BE THE OPERATING LESSEE OF MORE THAN 5,000 GOVERNMENT
OWNED, DEFENSE-HOUSING, DWELLING UNITS, WHICH WERE BUILT BY THE UNITED
STATES IN OR NEAR THE DISTRICT, INCLUDING THE BELLEVUE HOUSES. 

THE ISSUE BEFORE US DOES NOT TURN UPON WHAT PARTICULAR AGENCY IS
OPERATING THE BELLEVUE HOUSES OR THE OTHER GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING OF
THE UNITED STATES.  THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH
WHATEVER AGENCY IT OPERATES, IS TO BE CONTROLLED IN ITS RENTAL POLICIES
BY THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT CONTROL.  IN DETERMINING THE
MEANING OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT, APPROVED
DECEMBER 2, 1941, WHICH CREATED THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT
CONTROL, IT THEREFORE IS MATERIAL TO NOTE THAT THE UNITED STATES, IN
1941, ALREADY WAS ACTING AS A LANDLORD OF MUCH GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING
IN THE DISTRICT AND THAT, IN EACH INSTANCE, IT HAD PLACED THOSE
OPERATIONS IN THE CONTROL OF A NATIONAL OR PRESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED
AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL WITH AUTHORIZATION FITTED TO THE PARTICULAR AND
VARIED PURPOSES OF THAT HOUSING.  THIS FACT IS OF CRUCIAL SIGNIFICANCE
IN CONNECTION WITH THE LOW-RENT HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT WHICH HAD BEEN
IN OPERATION FOR SEVERAL YEARS.  ITS DISTINCTLY SOCIAL WELFARE AND
RELIEF PURPOSES ALREADY WERE IN THE HANDS OF THE ALLEY DWELLING
AUTHORITY. 

BEGINNING IN 1934, THE ALLEY DWELLING AUTHORITY BUILT AND PUT INTO
OPERATION FIVE GOVERNMENT-OWNED, LOW-RENT HOUSING PROJECTS (INCLUDING
112 DWELLING UNITS) AND THREE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.  FN13 IN 1938,
TITLE II WAS ADDED TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALLEY DWELLING ACT, 52
STAT. 1188, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 5-112, ET SEQ., AND THE AUTHORITY WAS
DESIGNATED ALSO AS A PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF
THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 888, ET SEQ. SEE 42
U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  1401, ET SEQ. THIS ENABLED IT TO SECURE LOANS
TO BUILD LOW-RENT HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS AND ITS PROGRAM PROMPTLY
EXPANDED.  BY THE END OF 1941 IT HAD COMPLETED, UNDER TITLE II, SIX
MORE LOW-RENT PROJECTS, INCLUDING 1,613 DWELLING UNITS, AND THE
GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF IN THE INSTANT CASE STATES THAT IT IS NOW MANAGING,
UNDER THAT TITLE, 3,147 SUCH DWELLINGS.  THE CHARACTER OF THESE
DWELLINGS IS PLAIN FROM THE DEFINITION OF "LOW-RENT HOUSING" IN THE
HOUSING ACT.  FN14  THIS WAS PREWAR, POOR-RELIEF, LOW-RENT HOUSING,
RATHER THAN DEFENSE HOUSING.  THESE PROJECTS WERE SUBSIDIZED.  THE
RENTALS WERE KEYED TO THE INADEQUACY OF THE INCOME OF THE RESPECTIVE
TENANTS.  THE RENTALS DID NOT PURPORT TO EQUAL THE LEVEL OF THOSE FIXED
BY FREE COMPETITION FOR COMPARABLE PRIVATELY OWNED HOUSING.  IT WAS AN
IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THE OPERATING POLICY OF THESE PROJECTS THAT A
TENANT BE DISPOSSESSED, OR "GRADUATED" AS THE AUTHORITY TERMED IT,
WHENEVER THAT TENANT'S FINANCIAL NEEDS NO LONGER ENTITLED HIM TO THE
SUBSIDIZED PRIVILEGES.  THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF APPLYING TO SUCH
PROJECTS RENTALS BASED UPON LEVELS FIXED BY FREE COMPETITION AS OF
JANUARY 1, 1941, UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT, IS
EVIDENT.  THAT ACT'S POLICY OF RENT CONTROL FOSTERED THE CONTINUANCE OF
TENANCIES REGARDLESS OF THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TENANT. 
IF APPLIED TO LOW-RENT HOUSING IT WOULD GIVE VESTED RIGHTS TO RELIEF
CLIENTS ONCE INSTALLED, RATHER THAN TO NEW CLIENTS IN GREATER NEED.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS STATEMENT BY CONGRESS, IT IS NOT CONCEIVABLE
THAT CONGRESS, WITH ITS FAMILIARITY WITH THESE RELIEF OPERATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AS THE LANDLORD OF SUCH LOW-RENT, RELIEF HOUSING, WOULD
SUBJECT THE ALLEY DWELLING AUTHORITY IN THE RENTAL POLICY OF SUCH
HOUSING TO THE CONTROL OF A LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT CONTROL UNDER
AN ACT DESIGNED TO MEET THE PROBLEMS OF EMPLOYED WAR WORKERS RATHER
THAN THE PROBLEMS OF INDIGENT FAMILIES, ALREADY WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY
DEPENDENT UPON PUBLIC SUPPORT.  SUCH A SUBJECTION, HOWEVER, APPARENTLY
WOULD FOLLOW FROM THE REASONING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE USE BY
CONGRESS OF THE GENERAL TERM "LANDLORD," IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EMERGENCY RENT ACT, MUST SUBJECT THE UNITED STATES, AS THE LANDLORD OF
GOVERNMENT-OWNED, DEFENSE-HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THAT ACT.  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT MAKES NO
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AS A LANDLORD OF LOW-RENT HOUSING
AND AS A LANDLORD OF DEFENSE HOUSING.  IF THE ACT APPLIES TO THE
BELLEVUE HOUSES, IT APPARENTLY MAY BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL OF THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES AS A LANDLORD.  THEREFORE, WHILE THE
COMPLAINT IN THE INSTANT CASE DOES NOT SEEK TO DISPOSSESS A TENANT OF A
GOVERNMENT-OWNED, LOW-RENT HOUSING UNIT, WE NOTE THE WARNING OF
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL THAT, IF WE HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EMERGENCY RENT ACT IS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE SOON MAY BE
COMPELLED TO HOLD IT APPLICABLE ALSO TO THE UNITED STATES AS THE
LANDLORD OF LOW-RENT HOUSING. 

II.  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO
GOVERNMENT-OWNED, DEFENSE HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT, SUCH AS THE BELLEVUE
HOUSES. 

A. THE ACT CONTAINS NO EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE UNITED STATES AS A
LANDLORD OR TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING
OF ANY KIND.  FN15  A GENERAL STATUTE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS DOES NOT
IMPOSE THEM UPON THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF WITHOUT A CLEAR EXPRESSION OR
IMPLICATION TO THAT EFFECT.  FN16  THE TEXT, SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES
AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS DISTRICT ACT NEITHER EXPRESS NOR IMPLY
A CHANGE IN THE AUTHORITY ALREADY VESTED IN PERMANENT FEDERAL AGENCIES
IN THEIR MANAGEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT. 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT THUS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
ENACTED AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE SUPPLEMENTING, RATHER THAN SUPERSEDING,
THE CONTRIBUTION ALREADY BEING MADE BY THE PERMANENT FEDERAL HOUSING
AUTHORITIES TOWARD MEETING THE HOUSING CRISIS.  WE FIND NO EVIDENCE
THAT CONGRESS BELIEVED THAT THE MANAGERS OF ANY OF ITS HOUSING PROJECTS
IN THE DISTRICT WOULD BE "TEMPTED  ... TO DEMAND EXORBITANT RENTALS" OR
ENGAGE IN THE "RENT-GOUGING PRACTICES  ...  " AGAINST WHICH THE NEW ACT
WAS DIRECTED.  FN17  IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE NEED FOR DISTRICT RENT
CONTROL WAS NOT IN THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING, WHERE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAD COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE RENTALS, BUT
WAS IN THE OPERATION OF PRIVATELY OWNED HOUSING, WHERE NEITHER THE
FEDERAL NOR DISTRICT GOVERNMENT HAD ANY CONTROL. 

B. GOVERNMENT-OWNED, DEFENSE HOUSING DID NOT REQUIRE THE NEW RENTAL
CONTROL, IN THE DISTRICT, THAT CONGRESS IMPOSED UPON PRIVATELY OWNED
HOUSING BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT.  THE INCREASING
NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED, DEFENSE-HOUSING UNITS TESTIFIED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF CONGRESS AND OF THE ADMINISTRATION WITH SUCH PROJECTS. 
RENTAL RATES IN THEM WERE UNDER COMPLETE GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL.  AT THE
TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT,
DECEMBER 2, 1941, DEFENSE HOUSING COULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE DISTRICT,
AND ELSEWHERE, UNDER SEC. 201 OF THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL
DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1941, APPROVED SEPTEMBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT.
872, 883, OR UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, APPROVED OCTOBER 14, 1940, 54 STAT.
1125.  FN18  BELLEVUE HOUSES WERE BUILT BY THE NAVY UNDER THE FIRST OF
THOSE ACTS.  THE RENT CONTROL OF DEFENSE HOUSING UNDER THAT ACT WAS, IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE, EXPRESSLY VESTED IN THE DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY
OF WAR OR OF THE NAVY, AND THE TENANTS WERE RESTRICTED TO WAR WORKERS. 
FN19  THIS PROVISION WAS AMENDED, JUNE 28, 1941, SO AS TO GIVE TO THE
AGENCIES ADMINISTERING THAT HOUSING THE SAME POWERS AND DUTIES AS HAD
BEEN GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR AS TO DEFENSE HOUSING
CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE LANHAM ACT.  FN20  THE RENTAL POLICY UNDER THE
LANHAM ACT, AT THAT TIME, PROVIDED:  "THAT THE (FEDERAL WORKS)
ADMINISTRATOR SHALL FIX FAIR RENTALS, ON PROJECTS DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO
THIS ACT, WHICH SHALL BE WITHIN THE FINANCIAL REACH OF PERSONS ENGAGED
IN NATIONAL DEFENSE:  ...  "  SEC. 7, 54 STAT. 1127, RENUMBERED SEC.
304, 55 STAT. 363.  THIS RENTAL POLICY WAS THUS EXPRESSLY FITTED TO THE
PURPOSES OF THE DEFENSE HOUSING.  THOSE PURPOSES DID NOT CALL FOR ITS
FURTHER SUBORDINATION TO THE CONTROL OF A DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR OF
RENT CONTROL UNDER OTHER STATUTORY STANDARDS FITTED TO PRIVATE
LANDLORDS.  THIS SPECIAL DEFENSE-HOUSING RENTAL POLICY WAS FURTHER
EXPRESSLY EMPHASIZED BY CONGRESS IN ANOTHER AMENDMENT MADE APPLICABLE
TO THE LANHAM ACT DEFENSE HOUSING JANUARY 21, 1942.  FN21  THEREFORE,
WHETHER OR NOT THESE FURTHER PROVISIONS WERE ALSO TO BE APPLICABLE TO
BELLEVUE HOUSES, WHICH HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED UNDER AN EARLIER ACT, THEY
BECAME APPLICABLE TO THE MANY GOVERNMENT-OWNED, DEFENSE-HOUSING UNITS
CONSTRUCTED IN THE DISTRICT UNDER THE LANHAM ACT.  CONGRESS THUS
EVIDENCED ITS PURPOSE TO INSIST UPON SPECIAL STANDARDS OF RENTALS FOR
ITS DEFENSE HOUSING.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT IT DID SO BY ACTS APPROVED
JUNE 28, 1941, AND JANUARY 21, 1942.  ONE WAS ENACTED BEFORE, AND THE
OTHER AFTER, THE ENACTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT
ACT ON DECEMBER 2, 1941.  THIS EMPHASIS WAS REPEATED ON APRIL 10, 1942,
IN A MANNER WHICH DEMONSTRATED STILL FURTHER THAT CONGRESS, IN ITS
CONSIDERATION OF THE LANHAM ACT, HAD NOT OVERLOOKED THE SUBSTANTIAL
EXTENT TO WHICH THAT ACT RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF DEFENSE HOUSING
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  ON THAT DATE CONGRESS AMENDED THE LANHAM
ACT WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO OPERATIONS IN THE DISTRICT.  IT ADDED
TITLE IV.  THIS AUTHORIZED A $30,000,000 APPROPRIATION "TO PROVIDE
HOUSING IN OR NEAR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (INCLUDING LIVING QUARTERS
FOR SINGLE PERSONS AND FOR FAMILIES) FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES
WHOSE DUTIES ARE DETERMINED BY THE NATIONAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR TO BE
ESSENTIAL TO NATIONAL DEFENSE AND TO REQUIRE THEM TO RESIDE IN OR NEAR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  56 STAT. 212, 42 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 
1561.  THE RENTAL CONTROL PROVISIONS AMENDED ON JANUARY 21, 1942(SEE
NOTE 21, SUPRA), ALREADY WERE APPLICABLE TO SUCH HOUSING.  THE VERY
SEC. 304 WHICH CONTAINED THOSE AMENDED RENTAL CONTROL PROVISIONS WAS
FURTHER AMENDED SO AS EXPRESSLY TO INCLUDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN
THE TERM "LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES" TO WHICH LAND COULD BE CONVEYED FOR
STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC USE INCIDENTAL TO A PROJECT.  SEE 54 STAT. 1127,
55 STAT. 363, 56 STAT. 212, 42 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  1544.  FN22 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING EXPRESS PROVISIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF
RENTS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ON GOVERNMENT-OWNED, DEFENSE-HOUSING
PROJECTS, THERE IS NO GROUND FOR IMPLICATION THAT THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT CONFLICTS WITH IT. 

III.  THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 EMPHASIZES THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT DOES NOT
APPLY TO GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT. 

ALTHOUGH THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, APPROVED
JANUARY 30, 1942, EXPRESSLY EMPOWERED THE NATIONAL PRICE ADMINISTRATOR,
UNDER CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM RENTALS IN SO-CALLED
DEFENSE-RENTAL AREAS,  FN23  HE NEVER DID SO IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THAT ACT, THEREFORE, DOES NOT HAVE A DIRECT APPLICATION TO
THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE OF THAT ACT AND ITS
POLICY TOWARD THE RENT CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED, HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS, BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
HAS A BEARING UPON THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EMERGENCY RENT ACT.  THE NATIONAL ACT IS NOT ONLY CONSISTENT WITH OUR
INTERPRETATION OF THE DISTRICT ACT BUT IT LENDS SUPPORT TO THAT
INTERPRETATION.  THE NATIONAL ACT LEFT THE CONTROL OVER RENT TO LOCAL
AUTHORITIES, EXCEPT WHERE THE NATIONAL PRICE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND IT
NECESSARY TO INTERVENE.  THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR NOT TO INTERVENE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS AN
ESPECIAL COMPLIMENT TO THE EXISTING CONTROLS, BECAUSE THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA WAS A TYPICAL AREA CALLING FOR COMPETENT RENT CONTROL AND, IN
FACT, HAD BEEN DECLARED BY THE STATUTE ITSELF TO BE A "DEFENSE-RENTAL
AREA  ...  " SEC. 302(D), 56 STAT. 36, 50 U.S.C. APP. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 
942(D).  HIS SATISFACTION WITH THE CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT INDICATES
THAT THE LOCAL PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT
CONTROL, IN NOT ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE RENTALS IN GOVERNMENT-OWNED
HOUSING, HAD PRODUCED NO CONDITIONS WHICH SEEMED TO THE NATIONAL PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR TO CALL FOR FEDERAL INTERVENTION.  A STILL MORE
SIGNIFICANT POINT IS THAT, IF HE HAD INTERVENED, UNDER THE NATIONAL
ACT, HE, AND NOT THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT CONTROL, WOULD HAVE
BEEN THE ONE VESTED WITH CONTROL OVER THE RENTAL POLICY OF THE
GOVERNMENT-OWNED, HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS. 

IN CONTRAST TO THE OMISSION, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY
RENT ACT, OF ANY EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE UNITED STATES AS A LANDLORD,
THE NATIONAL ACT EXPRESSLY INCLUDED THE UNITED STATES AS A "PERSON" TO
WHOM IT APPLIED.  FN24  THUS, WITHIN TWO MONTHS AFTER THE OMISSION OF
THE UNITED STATES FROM SUCH A DEFINITION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EMERGENCY RENT ACT, CONGRESS DEMONSTRATED THAT, WHEN IT SOUGHT TO
INCLUDE CONTROL OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING UNDER CONDITIONS WHERE THE
ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES AND LOCAL CONTROLS MIGHT FAIL TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE TIMES, IT EXPRESSLY SAID SO.  THE SAME SECTION PROVIDED THAT THE
PUNISHMENTS PRESCRIBED FOR PRIVATE VIOLATORS DID NOT APPLY TO THE
UNITED STATES. 

THE NATIONAL PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, HOWEVER, NEVER PUBLISHED ANY
REGULATIONS EVEN POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, HE DID PUBLISH REGULATIONS STATING HIS GENERAL
POLICY AS TO GOVERNMENT-OWNED, HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS ELSEWHERE WHICH
MIGHT COME UNDER HIS CONTROL.  SUCH REGULATIONS STATED THAT, FOR
HOUSING CONSTRUCTED AND OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES, A STATE OR ANY
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF EITHER, THE MAXIMUM RENTS WERE TO BE THOSE
GENERALLY PREVAILING FOR COMPARABLE HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS ON THE
MAXIMUM RENT DATE "AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER OF SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS:
...  "  SIMILARLY, FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS RENTED TO ARMY OR NAVY
PERSONNEL, INCLUDING CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS, FOR WHICH RENT IS FIXED BY THE NATIONAL RENT SCHEDULE OF
THE WAR OR NAVY DEPARTMENTS, THE MAXIMUM RENTS WERE TO BE THOSE
ESTABLISHED BY SUCH RENT SCHEDULE.  FN25 

LATER, WHEN CONGRESS ENACTED THE HOUSING AND RENT ACT OF 1947, 61
STAT. 193-201, 50 U.S.C. APP. (1946 ED., SUPP. I) SECS. 1881-1901, IT
EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM THE ACT AND STRUCK OUT
THE PREVIOUS EXPRESS INCLUSION OF THE UNITED STATES AS A "PERSON"
SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  FN26 

THE EFFECT OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, THEREFORE, IS
TO EMPHASIZE, BOTH IN ITS FORM AND ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION, THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT SEEK BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT TO
PLACE GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING UNDER A LOCAL RENT ADMINISTRATOR. 

IV.  THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT CONTROL HAS NOT TAKEN PART IN
THIS PROCEEDING AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE US THAT AT ANY TIME HE
HAS SOUGHT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE UNITED STATES AS A
LANDLORD OF EITHER LOW-RENT HOUSING OR DEFENSE HOUSING. 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE
1941 AND THE UNITED STATES AS LANDLORD HAS OWNED AND OPERATED SEVERAL
THOUSAND HOUSING UNITS IN THE DISTRICT.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES
AND REGULATIONS OR THE GENERAL ORDERS OF THE OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT CONTROL SUGGESTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO
THE UNITED STATES AS A LANDLORD OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED HOUSING.  THE
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF ASSERTED CONTROL BY THE DISTRICT OFFICIAL,
COUPLED WITH THE ABSENCE OF COMPLAINT BY THE NATIONAL PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR DURING THE LIFE OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT, IS THOROUGHLY CONSISTENT WITH A WIDELY ACCEPTED INTERPRETATION OF
THE LOCAL ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCLUSION WHICH WE HAVE FOUND TO
BE FULLY JUSTIFIED BY THE LANGUAGE OF CONGRESS. 

THE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT WAS APPROVED
DECEMBER 2, 1941, 55 STAT. 788, D.C. CODE (1940, SUPP. VI) SECS. 45
1601 TO 45-1611.  IT TOOK EFFECT JANUARY 1, 1942, AND WAS TO TERMINATE
DECEMBER 31, 1945.  ID. SECS. 2(1), 1(B); SEC. 45-1602(1); AND SEE SEC.
45-1601(B).  ITS LIFE, HOWEVER, WAS EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 1946, 59
STAT. 592; TO DECEMBER 31, 1947, 60 STAT. 340; TO MARCH 31, 1948, 61
STAT. 713; TO APRIL 30, 1948, 62 STAT. 100; TO MARCH 31, 1949, 62 STAT.
205; TO APRIL 30, 1949, 63 STAT. 30; TO JUNE 30, 1950, 63 STAT. 48.  IT
HAS BEEN AMENDED IN A FEW OTHER PROVISIONS, NONE OF WHICH ARE MATERIAL
HERE. 

FN2  APPROVED SEPTEMBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 883-884.  THE MANAGEMENT
AND ADMINISTRATION OF BELLEVUE HOUSES WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT TO THE NATIONAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION UNDER AUTHORIZATION
OF THIS SECTION AND ALSO UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE LANHAM ACT, APPROVED
OCTOBER 14, 1940, 54 STAT. 1125, 1127, 42 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 
1544, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9070, 3 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 1095, 50 U.S.C.
APP. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  601 NOTE, P. 5711.  THE AUTHORITY TO OPERATE AND
MANAGE BELLEVUE HOUSES LATER WAS DELEGATED, BY LEASE, TO THE NATIONAL
CAPITAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RENTAL OF THE
PREMISES INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE AT THE TIME OF THIS PROCEEDING. 
IN MAKING THIS DELEGATION, THE UNITED STATES RELIED UPON THE SAME ACTS,
TOGETHER WITH SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1941, 55 STAT. 363, AND
AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE LANHAM ACT BY THE ACT OF JANUARY 21, 1942, 56
STAT. 11, ET SEQ. 

FN3  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE OPINIONS BELOW
REFER ALSO TO ALLEGATIONS, STIPULATIONS AND EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT
THE UNITED STATES HAD RENTED THE PREMISES IN QUESTION TO THE RESPONDENT
FOR $38.20 A MONTH, INCLUDING GAS HEATING AND OTHER UTILITY SERVICES,
BUT THAT IT HAD INCREASED SUCH RENTAL TO $43 A MONTH, BEGINNING
FEBRUARY 1, 1946.  THE UNITED STATES CLAIMED THAT THIS INCREASE WAS
ESSENTIAL IN ORDER FOR IT TO MEET A SUBSTANTIAL RISE IN OPERATING
EXPENSES, DUE TO THE NECESSARY SUBSTITUTION OF COMMERCIAL GAS TO BE
USED FOR SPACE HEATING PURPOSES IN PLACE OF SURPLUS SLUDGE GAS SUPPLIED
BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FREE OR AT NOMINAL COST.  THE UNITED STATES
ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO EXECUTE A NEW LEASE AND
REFUSED TO PAY RENT AT THE INCREASED RATE, WITH THE RESULT THAT, ON
FEBRUARY 28, 1946, IT SERVED ITS 30-DAY NOTICE TERMINATING THE
RESPONDENT'S TENANCY.  IT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THIS INCREASE IN RENT
HAD BEEN MADE UNDER ITS PREVIOUSLY CITED AUTHORITY TO OPERATE THE
PROJECT AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY
RENT ACT.  THIS INCREASE IN RENT PRESENTS (UNDER SECS. 2 TO 4 OF THAT
ACT, D.C. CODE (1940, SUPP. VI) SECS. 45-1602 TO 45-1604) THE SAME
ISSUE, BASED UPON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT TO THE UNITED STATES AS
A LANDLORD, AS IS PRESENTED (UNDER SEC. 5(B), D.C. CODE (1940, SUPP.
VI) SEC. 45-1605(B)) BY THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS PROCEEDING FOR
POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES IN QUESTION WITHOUT MAKING ANY OF THE
ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS CALLED FOR BY THAT ACT.  WE DEAL WITH THE ISSUE
AS PRESENTED UNDER SEC. 5(B) BECAUSE IT IS THERE LESS INVOLVED IN
FACTUAL CONTROVERSY THAN IT IS UNDER SECS. 2 TO 4.    FN4  "SEC.  5. 
PROHIBITIONS.   -  ... 

"(B)  NO ACTION OR PROCEEDING TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINABLE BY ANY LANDLORD AGAINST ANY
TENANT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TENANT HAS NO LEASE OR THAT HIS LEASE
HAS EXPIRED, SO LONG AS THE TENANT CONTINUES TO PAY THE RENT TO WHICH
THE LANDLORD IS ENTITLED, UNLESS - 

"(1)  THE TENANT IS (A) VIOLATING AN OBLIGATION OF HIS TENANCY (OTHER
THAN AN OBLIGATION TO PAY RENT HIGHER THAN RENT PERMITTED UNDER THIS
ACT OR ANY REGULATION OR ORDER THEREUNDER APPLICABLE TO THE HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS INVOLVED OR AN OBLIGATION TO SURRENDER POSSESSION OF
SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS) OR (B) IS COMMITTING A NUISANCE OR USING THE
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR AN IMMORAL OR ILLEGAL PURPOSE OR FOR OTHER
THAN LIVING OR DWELLING PURPOSES, OR 

"(2)  THE LANDLORD SEEKS IN GOOD FAITH TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE
PROPERTY FOR HIS IMMEDIATE AND PERSONAL USE AND OCCUPANCY AS A
DWELLING, OR 

"(3)  THE LANDLORD HAS IN GOOD FAITH CONTRACTED IN WRITING TO SELL
THE PROPERTY FOR IMMEDIATE AND PERSONAL USE AND OCCUPANCY AS A DWELLING
BY THE PURCHASER AND THAT THE CONTRACT OF SALE CONTAINS A
REPRESENTATION BY THE PURCHASER THAT THE PROPERTY IS BEING PURCHASED BY
HIM FOR SUCH IMMEDIATE AND PERSONAL USE AND OCCUPANCY, OR 

"(4)  THE LANDLORD SEEKS IN GOOD FAITH TO RECOVER POSSESSION FOR THE
IMMEDIATE PURPOSE OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERING, REMODELING, OR DEMOLISHING
THE PROPERTY AND REPLACING IT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE PLANS FOR
WHICH ALTERED, REMODELED, OR NEW CONSTRUCTION HAVING BEEN FILED WITH
AND APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR 

"(5)  THE HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS ARE NONHOUSEKEEPING, FURNISHED,
ACCOMMODATIONS LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT NOT USED AS A
ROOMING OR BOARDING HOUSE AS DEFINED BY THIS ACT AND THE REMAINING
PORTION OF WHICH DWELLING UNIT IS OCCUPIED BY THE LESSOR OR HIS
IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR 

"(6)  THE LANDLORD, BEING A RECOGNIZED SCHOOL OR AN ACCREDITED
NONPROFIT UNIVERSITY, HAS A BONA FIDE NEED FOR THE PREMISES FOR
EDUCATIONAL, RESEARCH, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR DORMITORY USE."  55 STAT.
791, 56 STAT. 759, 61 STAT. 721, D.C. CODE (1940, SUPP. VI) SEC. 45
1605(B). 

FN5  WITTEK V. UNITED STATES, 54 A.2D 747.  FOR AN EARLIER PROCEEDING
IN THE SAME CASE, SEE UNITED STATES V. WITTEK, 48 A.2D 805. 

FN6  APPEAL WAS TAKEN UNDER 56 STAT. 196, D.C. CODE (1940, SUPP. VI)
SEC. 11-773.  THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US WAS STATED AS FOLLOWS:
"WHETHER THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY
RENT ACT ON SUITS FOR POSSESSION APPLY WHERE SUCH A SUIT IS BROUGHT BY
THE UNITED STATES AS LANDLORD."  WITTEK V. UNITED STATES, 83 U.S. APP.
D.C. 377, 378, 171 F.2D 8, 9. 

FN7  "SECTION 1.  PURPOSES, TIME LIMIT.  - (A)  IT IS HEREBY FOUND
THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND THE NATIONAL-DEFENSE PROGRAM (1) HAVE
AGGRAVATED THE CONGESTED SITUATION WITH REGARD TO HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS EXISTING AT THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT; (2) HAVE LED OR WILL
LEAD TO PROFITEERING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE AND MANIPULATIVE PRACTICES
BY SOME OWNERS OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS; (3) HAVE RENDERED OR WILL
RENDER INEFFECTIVE THE NORMAL OPERATIONS OF A FREE MARKET IN HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS; AND (4) ARE MAKING IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT FOR
PERSONS WHOSE DUTIES OR OBLIGATIONS REQUIRE THEM TO LIVE OR WORK IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO OBTAIN SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS.  WHEREUPON IT IS
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT AND THE POLICY OF THE CONGRESS DURING THE
EXISTING EMERGENCY TO PREVENT UNDUE RENT INCREASES AND ANY OTHER
PRACTICES RELATING TO HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA WHICH MAY TEND TO INCREASE THE COST OF LIVING OR OTHERWISE
IMPEDE THE NATIONAL-DEFENSE PROGRAM. 

"(B)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND ALL REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND
REQUIREMENTS THEREUNDER, SHALL TERMINATE ON DECEMBER 31, 1945; ...  "
55 STAT. 788, D.C. CODE (1940, SUPP. VI) SEC. 45-1601. 

IN SEVEN STEPS THE TERMINATION DATE HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO JUNE 30,
1950.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN8  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS REFER BY IMPLICATION TO PRIVATE LANDLORDS,
RATHER THAN TO THE UNITED STATES - EITHER AS THE ESTABLISHED LANDLORD
OF THE WIDESPREAD, LOW-RENT HOUSING IN THE DISTRICT OR AS THE LANDLORD
OF THE FUTURE DEFENSE HOUSING THEN BEING DEVELOPED IN THE DISTRICT BY
THE UNITED STATES AS AN ADDITIONAL MEANS OF COMBATING THE HOUSING
SHORTAGE. 

"WITH A POPULATION INFLUX AT A HIGHER RATE THAN EVER BEFORE IN ITS
HISTORY, THE NATION'S CAPITAL TODAY IS FACED WITH A DEMAND FOR HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH THREATENS TO CREATE A SITUATION MORE SERIOUS THAN
THAT EXISTING DURING THE LAST WAR.  THE PRESENT DEMAND FOR LIVING
QUARTERS ON THE PART OF THOSE WHOM THE DEFENSE EFFORT REQUIRES TO LIVE
AND WORK IN WASHINGTON, HAS TEMPTED SOME OWNERS AND MANAGERS OF RENTAL
PROPERTIES TO DEMAND EXORBITANT RENTALS.  IT IS TRUE, AND GRATIFYING TO
NOTE, THAT A LARGE MAJORITY OF OWNERS AND MANAGERS HAVE REFRAINED FROM
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE RENTAL SITUATION CREATED BY THE NATIONAL
EMERGENCY AS IT AFFECTS THE NATION'S CAPITAL.  THIS BILL IS DESIGNED TO
PROTECT THIS GROUP AS WELL AS PRESENT AND FUTURE TENANTS IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM THE RENT-GOUGING PRACTICES OF A MINORITY OF
LANDLORDS. 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"THE MOST APPROPRIATE REGULATION OF RENTAL PROPERTIES TO MEET THE
PRESENT EMERGENCY SITUATION IS REGULATION DESIGNED TO STABILIZE THE
RENT LEVEL AT A LEVEL FIXED (SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE) BY FREE
COMPETITION; COMPETITION BEFORE IT WAS SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY AN ACUTE
HOUSING SHORTAGE AND BY RESTRICTIONS ON NEW CONSTRUCTION CAUSED BY
SHORTAGES IN CERTAIN BUILDING MATERIALS REQUIRED BY THE MILITARY NEEDS
OF THE NATION. 

 .         .         .         .         . 

"IT IS PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE THAT THE CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY ENACT
LEGISLATION OF THIS TYPE FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL - LEGISLATION THAT
MAY SERVE AS A MODEL FOR ENACTMENTS BY STATES WHICH MAY DESIRE CONTROL
FOR THOSE AREAS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS SUFFERING FROM SIMILAR RENTAL
HOUSING DISLOCATIONS CAUSED BY THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE PROGRAM."  H.R. REP. NO. 1317, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2,
6(1941). 

AND SEE S. REP. NO. 827, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3(1941).  SEE ALSO,
DISCUSSION OF THE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY
REPRESENTATIVE RANDOLPH OF WEST VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 87 CONG. REC., PT. 8, 8447-8454(1941). 

FN9 THE NATURE OF THE NEED WAS REFLECTED IN THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT. 

"  ...  TO ENABLE THE PRESIDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH,
COMFORT, MORALS, SAFETY, AND WELFARE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISCONTINUANCE
OF THE USE AS DWELLINGS OF BUILDINGS SITUATED IN ALLEYS AND TO
ELIMINATE THE HIDDEN COMMUNITIES IN INHABITED ALLEYS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, AND TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY DECLARED IN THE ACT APPROVED MAY
16, 1918, AS AMENDED, OF CARING FOR THE ALLEY POPULATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE PRESIDENT IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED,
...  - 

"(A)  TO PURCHASE, OR ACQUIRE BY CONDEMNATION OR GIFT, ANY LAND,
BUILDINGS, OR STRUCTURES, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN, SITUATED IN OR
ADJACENT TO ANY INHABITED ALLEY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ...  ; 

"(B)  ...  TO DEMOLISH, MOVE, OR ALTER ANY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES
SITUATED THEREON AND ERECT SUCH BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES THEREON AS
DEEMED ADVISABLE:  ...  ; 

"(C)  TO LEASE, RENT, MAINTAIN, EQUIP, MANAGE, EXCHANGE, SELL, OR
CONVEY ANY SUCH LANDS, BUILDINGS, OR STRUCTURES UPON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS HE MAY DETERMINE:  ..."  48 STAT. 930-931. 

SEE ALSO, 52 STAT. 1186, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 5-103. 

FN10  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6868, OCTOBER 9, 1934(PUBLISHED IN REPORT
OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD 1934
1944, P. 3), AND SEE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8033, 3 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP.
443.  THIS WAS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION CONTAINED IN 48 STAT. 931,
D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 5-104. 

FN11  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 7784-A, 3 FED. REG. 51(1938). 

FN12  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9344, 3 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 1279. 

FN13  FOR THIS AND THE OTHER FACTUAL MATERIAL RELATING TO THIS
AUTHORITY, SEE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE
TEN-YEAR PERIOD 1934-1944, SUBMITTED BY IT TO THE PRESIDENT DECEMBER
28, 1944, AND BY HIM TO CONGRESS MARCH 1, 1945, 91 CONG. REC., PT. 2,
1597(1945).  SEE ALSO, THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THIS AUTHORITY TO THE
PRESIDENT, ALL REQUIRED BY SEC. 5(A) AND (B) OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA ALLEY DWELLING ACT, 48 STAT. 932, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 5
107(A) AND (B). 

FN14  "SEC.  2.  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT - 

"(1)  THE TERM 'LOW-RENT HOUSING' MEANS DECENT, SAFE, AND SANITARY
DWELLINGS WITHIN THE FINANCIAL REACH OF FAMILIES OF LOW INCOME, AND
DEVELOPED AND ADMINISTERED TO PROMOTE SERVICEABILITY, EFFICIENCY,
ECONOMY, AND STABILITY, AND EMBRACES ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES
THERETO.  THE DWELLINGS IN LOW-RENT HOUSING AS DEFINED IN THIS ACT
SHALL BE AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR FAMILIES WHOSE NET INCOME AT THE TIME OF
ADMISSION DOES NOT EXCEED FIVE TIMES THE RENTAL (INCLUDING THE VALUE OR
COST TO THEM OF HEAT, LIGHT, WATER, AND COOKING FUEL) OF THE DWELLINGS
TO BE FURNISHED SUCH FAMILIES, EXCEPT THAT IN THE CASE OF FAMILIES WITH
THREE OR MORE MINOR DEPENDENTS, SUCH RATIO SHALL NOT EXCEED SIX TO
ONE."  50 STAT. 888, 42 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC. 1402(1). 

FN15  THIS CONTRASTS WITH THE LANGUAGE USED BY CONGRESS ABOUT TWO
MONTHS LATER IN THE RENT CONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 24-26, 36-37.  CONGRESS THERE
EXPRESSLY INCLUDED THE UNITED STATES IN THE DEFINITION OF "PERSON." 
SEE P. 365, INFRA. 

THE COURT BELOW RELIES PARTICULARLY UPON THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS OF
"LANDLORD" AND "PERSON" IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMERGENCY RENT ACT
AS BEING SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES WHEN READ IN
THE LIGHT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT: 

"SEC. 11.  DEFINITIONS.   - AS USED IN THIS ACT - 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(G)  THE TERM 'LANDLORD' INCLUDES AN OWNER, LESSOR, SUBLESSOR, OR
OTHER PERSON ENTITLED TO RECEIVE RENT FOR THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF ANY
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS. 

"(H)  THE TERM 'PERSON' INCLUDES ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS, FIRMS,
PARTNERSHIPS, CORPORATIONS, OR ASSOCIATIONS AND ANY AGENT, TRUSTEE,
RECEIVER, ASSIGNEE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE THEREOF."  55 STAT. 794
795, D.C. CODE (1940, SUPP. VI) SEC. 45-1611(G) AND (H). 

FN16  "  ...  THERE IS AN OLD AND WELL-KNOWN RULE THAT STATUTES WHICH
IN GENERAL TERMS DIVEST PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES WILL NOT BE
APPLIED TO THE SOVEREIGN WITHOUT EXPRESS WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.  IT HAS
BEEN STATED, IN CASES IN WHICH THERE WERE EXTRANEOUS AND AFFIRMATIVE
REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE SOVEREIGN SHOULD ALSO BE DEEMED SUBJECT
TO A RESTRICTIVE STATUTE, THAT THIS RULE WAS A RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
ONLY.  THOUGH THAT MAY BE TRUE, THE RULE HAS BEEN INVOKED SUCCESSFULLY
IN CASES SO CLOSELY SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT ONE, AND THE STATEMENT OF
THE RULE IN THOSE CASES HAS BEEN SO EXPLICIT, THAT WE ARE INCLINED TO
GIVE IT MUCH WEIGHT HERE."  UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330
U.S. 258, 272-273. 

SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V. WYOMING, 331 U.S. 440, 449; UNITED STATES
V. STEVENSON, 215 U.S. 190, 197; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN BELL
TELEPHONE CO., 159 U.S. 548, 554-555; UNITED STATES V. HERRON, 20
WALL.  251, 263. 

"THE MOST GENERAL WORDS THAT CAN BE DEVISED (FOR EXAMPLE, ANY PERSON
OR PERSONS, BODIES POLITIC OR CORPORATE) AFFECT NOT HIM (THE KING OF
ENGLAND) IN THE LEAST, IF THEY MAY TEND TO RESTRAIN OR DIMINISH ANY OF
HIS RIGHTS AND INTERESTS.  ...  THE RULE THUS SETTLED RESPECTING THE
BRITISH CROWN IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN
APPLIED FREQUENTLY IN THE DIFFERENT STATES, AND PRACTICALLY IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SETTLED THAT SO MUCH OF THE
ROYAL PREROGATIVES AS BELONGED TO THE KING IN HIS CAPACITY OF PARENS
PATRIOE, OR UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE, ENTERS AS MUCH INTO OUR POLITICAL STATE
AS IT DOES INTO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION."  DOLLAR
SAVINGS BANK V. UNITED STATES, 19 WALL.  227, 239. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN18  SUPPLEMENTED BY THE URGENT DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION ACT, 1941,
APPROVED MARCH 1, 1941, 55 STAT. 14, AND AMENDED BY THE ACTS OF APRIL
29, 1941, 55 STAT. 147, AND JUNE 28, 1941, 55 STAT. 361, ET SEQ. 

FN19  "  ...  IN CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION THE
SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY MAY UTILIZE SUCH OTHER
AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES AS THEY MAY DETERMINE UPON:  PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, AT
THEIR DISCRETION, ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO RENT SUCH HOUSING UNITS,
UPON COMPLETION, TO ENLISTED MEN OF THE ARMY, NAVY, MARINE CORPS WITH
FAMILIES, TO FIELD EMPLOYEES OF THE MILITARY AND NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS
WITH FAMILIES, AND TO WORKERS WITH FAMILIES WHO ARE ENGAGED, OR TO BE
ENGAGED, IN INDUSTRIES ESSENTIAL TO THE MILITARY AND NAVAL NATIONAL
DEFENSE PROGRAMS, INCLUDING WORK ON SHIPS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
MARITIME COMMISSION.  ...  "  SEC. 201, SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL
DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1941, APPROVED SEPTEMBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT.
883-884.  FOR COMPARABLE CLASSIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE TENANTS UNDER THE
LANHAM ACT, SEE SEC. 2, 54 STAT. 1126, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 11-12, 42
U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  1522.    FN20  "SEC.  5.  THE DEPARTMENTS,
AGENCIES, OR INSTRUMENTALITIES ADMINISTERING PROPERTY ACQUIRED OR
CONSTRUCTED UNDER SECTION 201 OF THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL
DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1941, SHALL HAVE THE SAME POWERS AND DUTIES
WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PROPERTY AND WITH RESPECT TO THE MANAGEMENT,
MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, AND ADMINISTRATION THEREOF AS ARE GRANTED TO
THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY ACQUIRED OR
CONSTRUCTED UNDER TITLE I OF SUCH ACT OF OCTOBER 14, 1940, AND WITH
RESPECT TO THE MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, AND ADMINISTRATION
OF SUCH PROPERTY SO ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED UNDER SUCH TITLE."  55
STAT. 363. 

TITLE I OF THE LANHAM ACT, APPROVED OCTOBER 14, 1940, CONSISTED OF
SECS. 1-3, AND IN THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1941, IT WAS GIVEN THE TITLE
"DEFENSE HOUSING."  55 STAT. 361. 

FN21  "SEC.  6.  THE SECOND PROVISO OF SECTION 304 OF SUCH (LANHAM)
ACT, AS AMENDED, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:  'PROVIDED FURTHER,
THAT THE (FEDERAL WORKS) ADMINISTRATOR SHALL FIX FAIR RENTALS, ON
PROJECTS DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO THIS (LANHAM) ACT, WHICH SHALL BE BASED
ON THE VALUE THEREOF AS DETERMINED BY HIM, WITH POWER DURING THE
EMERGENCY, IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, TO ADJUST THE RENT TO THE INCOME OF
THE PERSONS TO BE HOUSED, AND THAT RENTALS TO BE CHARGED FOR ARMY AND
NAVY PERSONNEL SHALL BE FIXED BY THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS:'."  56
STAT. 12, 42 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 1544. 

FN22  AS EVIDENCING A PURPOSE THAT GOVERNMENT-OWNED, DEFENSE HOUSING
CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE LANHAM ACT LIKEWISE REMAIN UNDER THE GENERAL
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES AND OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHEREVER SUCH HOUSING MIGHT BE LOCATED, SEC. 307
OF THE LANHAM ACT WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF APRIL 10, 1942, TO INCLUDE
EXPRESSLY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  SEE 54 STAT. 1127, 55 STAT. 363,
56 STAT. 212, 42 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  1547. 

FN23  SECS. 2(B) AND 302(D), 56 STAT. 25-26, AND 36, 58 STAT. 633
634, 59 STAT. 306-307, 50 U.S.C. APP. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  902(B). 

FN24  IT WAS MADE UNLAWFUL FOR "ANY PERSON" TO VIOLATE THE ACT OR A
REGULATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE ACT, SEC. 4, 56 STAT. 28, 50 U.S.C.
APP. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  904, AND THEN "PERSON" WAS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 302.  AS USED IN THIS ACT - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(H)  THE TERM 'PERSON' INCLUDES AN INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION,
PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZED GROUP OF PERSONS, OR
LEGAL SUCCESSOR OR REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING, AND INCLUDES
THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT, OR
ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, OR ANY AGENCY OF ANY OF THE
FOREGOING:  PROVIDED, THAT NO PUNISHMENT PROVIDED BY THIS ACT SHALL
APPLY TO THE UNITED STATES, OR TO ANY SUCH GOVERNMENT, POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION, OR AGENCY."  56 STAT. 36-37, 50 U.S.C. APP. (1946 ED.) 
SEC.  942(H). 

THE ACT ALSO PROVIDED: 

"SECTION 1.  ... 

"(C)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED
STATES, ITS TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS, AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA."  56 STAT. 23-24, 50 U.S.C. APP. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 901(C). 

FN25  "SEC.  4.  MAXIMUM RENTS.  MAXIMUM RENTS  ...  SHALL BE: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(G)  HOUSING OWNED AND CONSTRUCTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FOR HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS CONSTRUCTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF,
OR BY A STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS, OR ANY AGENCY OF THE STATE OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS, AND OWNED BY ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THE RENT GENERALLY
PREVAILING IN THE DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA FOR COMPARABLE HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS ON THE MAXIMUM RENT DATE, AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER OF
SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY CORPORATION FORMED
UNDER THE LAWS OF A STATE SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN AGENCY OF THE
UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS PARAGRAPH.  THE ADMINISTRATOR
MAY ORDER A DECREASE IN THE MAXIMUM RENT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5(C). 

"(H)  HOUSING SUBJECT TO RENT SCHEDULE OF WAR OR NAVY DEPARTMENT. 
FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS RENTED TO EITHER ARMY OR NAVY PERSONNEL,
INCLUDING CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS, FOR WHICH
THE RENT IS FIXED BY THE NATIONAL RENT SCHEDULE OF THE WAR OR NAVY
DEPARTMENT, THE RENTS ESTABLISHED BY SUCH RENT SCHEDULE."  10 FED. REG.
13529-13530. 

FOR THE EXCEPTION OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS RENTED TO ARMY OR NAVY
PERSONNEL, INCLUDING CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS, FROM PROVISIONS RESTRICTING REMOVAL OF TENANTS, SEE SEC.
6(C)(2), 10 FED. REG. 13534. 

FN26  THE HOUSING AND RENT ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 193, 197, SUPERSEDED
THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942.  IT PROVIDED: 

"SEC. 202.  AS USED IN THIS TITLE (MAXIMUM RENTS) - 

"(A)  THE TERM 'PERSON' INCLUDES AN INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION,
PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZED GROUP OF PERSONS, OR A
LEGAL SUCCESSOR OR REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING."  61 STAT.
196, 50 U.S.C. APP. (1946 ED., SUPP. I) SEC. 1892(A). 

"SEC. 209.  ... 

"(B)  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, THE UNITED
STATES OR ANY STATE OR LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY MAY MAINTAIN AN ACTION OR
PROCEEDING TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF ANY HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OPERATED
BY IT WHERE SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING IS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE OR
REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS ARE ADMINISTERED:   ...  "
61 STAT. 200-201, 50 U.S.C. APP. (1946 ED., SUPP. I) SEC. 1899(B). 

"SEC. 211.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE (MAXIMUM RENTS) SHALL BE
APPLICABLE TO THE SEVERAL STATES AND TO THE TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES BUT SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA."  61 STAT. 201, 50 U.S.C. APP. (1946 ED., SUPP. I) SEC.
1901. 
..END :


















COMMISSIONER V. WODEHOUSE, 337 U.S. 369 


NO. 84.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 13, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 13, 1949.  - 166
F.2D 986, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT, A NONRESIDENT ALIEN NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS
THEREIN, RECEIVED IN 1938 AND 1941 FROM MAGAZINE AND BOOK PUBLISHERS IN
THE UNITED STATES LUMP SUM PAYMENTS, IN ADVANCE AND IN FULL, FOR THE
AMERICAN SERIAL AND BOOK RIGHTS TO CERTAIN LITERARY WORKS OF WHICH HE
WAS THE AUTHOR AND WHICH WERE READY TO BE COPYRIGHTED.  HELD: 

1.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS
AMENDED, THE SUMS SO RECEIVED WERE INCLUDIBLE IN "GROSS INCOME FROM
SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES," AS "RENTALS OR ROYALTIES FOR THE USE
OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING IN THE UNITED STATES  ...  COPYRIGHTS
...  AND OTHER LIKE PROPERTY," AND WERE THUS TAXABLE TO RESPONDENT. 
PP. 371-374, 377-392. 

(A)  HAD THE SUMS HERE INVOLVED BEEN RECEIVED IN THE TAXABLE YEAR
1934, THEY UNQUESTIONABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXABLE TO RESPONDENT UNDER
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934; AND THEY WERE NOT RELIEVED FROM TAXATION BY
THE AMENDMENTS WHICH WERE MADE BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 AND WHICH
WERE STILL IN EFFECT IN 1938 AND 1941.  PP. 380-392. 

(B)  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 PRESERVED THE TAXABILITY OF THE SEVERAL
KINDS OF INCOME OF NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS WHICH HAD BEEN THE
SUBJECT OF WITHHOLDING AT THEIR RESPECTIVE SOURCES, INCLUDING RECEIPTS
IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTIES FOR THE USE OF COPYRIGHTS IN THE UNITED
STATES.  PP. 386-392. 

(C)  TO HAVE EXEMPTED NONRESIDENT ALIENS FROM THESE READILY
COLLECTIBLE TAXES DERIVED FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WOULD
HAVE DISCRIMINATED IN THEIR FAVOR AGAINST RESIDENT CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES WHO WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY THEIR REGULAR INCOME TAX ON
SUCH INCOME, IF TREATED AS ROYALTIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GROSS
INCOME PROVISIONS, OR AT LEAST TO PAY A TAX UPON THEM AS CAPITAL GAINS,
IF TREATED AS INCOME FROM SALES OF CAPITAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
CAPITAL GAINS PROVISIONS.  NO SUCH PURPOSE TO DISCRIMINATE CAN BE
IMPLIED.  P. 391. 

(D)  NONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1936 ACT HERE INVOLVED WERE
CHANGED BY THE 1938 ACT OR THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, EXCEPT AS TO THE
RATES OF TAX; AND THE PRINCIPAL CHANGES EVEN IN THE RATES WERE TO
PROVIDE HIGHER TAXES IN THE HIGHER BRACKETS, RATHER THAN TO REDUCE THE
TAXES ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS.  P. 392. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING THE COPYRIGHTS WERE LUMP SUM PAYMENTS, IN ADVANCE
AND IN FULL, DID NOT EXEMPT SUCH INCOME FROM TAXATION.  PP. 393-395. 

(A)  ONCE IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE RESPONDENT
WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS INCOME FOR FEDERAL
INCOME TAX PURPOSES IF THEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN ANNUAL PAYMENTS, OR
FROM TIME TO TIME, DURING THE LIFE OF THE RESPECTIVE COPYRIGHTS, IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE RECEIPT OF THOSE SAME SUMS BY HIM IN SINGLE LUMP SUMS AS
PAYMENTS IN FULL, IN ADVANCE, FOR THE SAME RIGHTS TO BE ENJOYED
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE RESPECTIVE COPYRIGHTS CANNOT, SOLELY
BY REASON OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE PAYMENT INTO ONE SUM, RENDER IT
TAX EXEMPT.  P. 393. 

(B)  THE WORDS "ANNUAL" AND "PERIODICAL" IN SECS. 211(A) AND 143(B)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 AND OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHEN TAKEN
IN THEIR CONTEXT, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
ACT AND CODE, AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THEM BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT
AND THE LOWER COURTS, DO NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT FROM THAT HERE
REACHED.  PP. 393-394. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. WODEHOUSE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF DEFICIENCIES IN A TAXPAYER'S
INCOME TAX FOR 1938 AND 1941 WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TAX COURT.  8 T.C.
637.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  166 F.2D 986.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 807.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 395. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER CERTAIN SUMS RECEIVED IN 1938 AND
1941, BY THE RESPONDENT, AS A NONRESIDENT ALIEN AUTHOR NOT ENGAGED IN
TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR
PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN, WERE REQUIRED BY THE REVENUE ACTS OF THE
UNITED STATES TO BE INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS INCOME FOR FEDERAL TAX
PURPOSES.  EACH OF THESE SUMS HAD BEEN PAID TO HIM IN ADVANCE AND
RESPECTIVELY FOR AN EXCLUSIVE SERIAL OR BOOK RIGHT THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES IN RELATION TO A SPECIFIED ORIGINAL STORY WRITTEN BY HIM
AND READY TO BE COPYRIGHTED.  THE ANSWER TURNS UPON THE MEANING OF
"GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES" AS THAT TERM WAS
USED, LIMITED AND DEFINED IN SECS. 212(A), 211 AND 119 OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1938, AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED IN 1940 AND
1941.  FN1  FOR THE REASONS HEREINAFTER STATED, WE HOLD THAT THESE SUMS
EACH CAME WITHIN THOSE KINDS OF GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES THAT WERE REFERRED TO IN THOSE ACTS AS "RENTALS OR
ROYALTIES FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING IN THE UNITED
STATES  ...  COPYRIGHTS,  ...  AND OTHER LIKE PROPERTY,"  FN2  AND
THAT, ACCORDINGLY, EACH OF THESE SUMS WAS TAXABLE UNDER ONE OR THE
OTHER OF THOSE ACTS. 

THE RESPONDENT, PELHAM G. WODEHOUSE, AT THE TIMES MATERIAL TO THIS
CASE, WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT RESIDING IN FRANCE.  HE WAS A NONRESIDENT
ALIEN OF THE UNITED STATES NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN
DURING EITHER THE TAXABLE YEAR 1938 OR 1941.  HE WAS A WRITER OF
SERIALS, PLAYS, SHORT STORIES AND OTHER LITERARY WORKS PUBLISHED IN THE
UNITED STATES IN THE SATURDAY EVENING POST, COSMOPOLITAN MAGAZINE AND
OTHER PERIODICALS. 

FEBRUARY 22, 1938, THE CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY (HERE CALLED CURTIS)
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE SATURDAY EVENING POST THE RESPONDENT'S
UNPUBLISHED NOVEL "THE SILVER COW."  THE STORY HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO
CURTIS BY THE RESPONDENT'S LITERARY AGENT, THE REYNOLDS AGENCY, AND, ON
THAT DATE, CURTIS PAID THE AGENCY $40,000 UNDER AN AGREEMENT RESERVING
TO CURTIS THE AMERICAN SERIAL RIGHTS IN THE STORY, INCLUDING IN SUCH
RIGHTS THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES, CANADA AND SOUTH AMERICA.  THE
MEMORANDUM QUOTED IN APPENDIX B, INFRA, P. 398, CONSTITUTED THE
AGREEMENT.  ALSO IN 1938, THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED $5,000 FROM
DOUBLEDAY, DORAN & COMPANY FOR THE BOOK RIGHTS IN THIS STORY.  THE
STORY WAS PUBLISHED SERIALLY IN THE SATURDAY EVENING POST, JULY 9 TO
SEPTEMBER 3, 1939. 

PURSUANT TO A LIKE AGREEMENT, THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED $40,000 FROM
CURTIS, DECEMBER 13, 1938, FOR SERIAL RIGHTS IN AND TO HIS STORY "UNCLE
FRED IN THE SPRINGTIME."  IT WAS PUBLISHED SERIALLY IN THE SATURDAY
EVENING POST, APRIL 22 TO MAY 27, 1939. 

JULY 23, 1941, HEARST'S INTERNATIONAL COSMOPOLITAN MAGAZINE, THROUGH
THE RESPONDENT'S SAME AGENT, PAID THE RESPONDENT $2,000 FOR "ALL
AMERICAN AND CANADIAN SERIAL RIGHTS (WHICH INCLUDE ALL AMERICAN AND
CANADIAN MAGAZINE, DIGEST, PERIODICAL AND NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING RIGHTS)"
TO THE RESPONDENT'S ARTICLE ENTITLED "MY YEARS BEHIND BARBED WIRE." 
THE AGREEMENT APPEARS IN APPENDIX C, INFRA, P. 400.  APPARENTLY THIS
STORY WAS PUBLISHED SHORTLY THEREAFTER. 

AUGUST 12, 1941, CURTIS, THROUGH THE SAME AGENT, PAID THE RESPONDENT
$40,000 FOR THE "NORTH AMERICAN (INCLUDING CANADIAN) SERIAL RIGHTS" TO
RESPONDENT'S NOVEL ENTITLED "MONEY IN THE BANK."  THE AGREEMENT WAS IN
THE FORM USED BY CURTIS IN 1938.  FN3  THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT STATE THAT
THIS STORY WAS PUBLISHED BUT IT SHOWS THAT CURTIS, PURSUANT TO ITS
AGREEMENTS, TOOK OUT A UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT ON EACH OF THE
RESPECTIVE STORIES NAMED IN THE FOREGOING AGREEMENTS.  AFTER EACH
STORY'S SERIAL PUBLICATION, CURTIS REASSIGNED TO THE RESPONDENT, ON THE
LATTER'S DEMAND, ALL RIGHTS IN AND TO THE STORY EXCEPTING THOSE RIGHTS
WHICH THE RESPONDENT EXPRESSLY HAD AGREED THAT CURTIS WAS TO RETAIN. 
THE RESPECTIVE SUMS WERE THUS PAID TO THE RESPONDENT, IN ADVANCE AND IN
FULL, FOR THE SERIAL OR BOOK RIGHTS WHICH HE HAD MADE AVAILABLE.  FOR
UNITED STATES INCOME TAX PURPOSES, THE RESPONDENT'S LITERARY AGENT, OR
SOME OTHER WITHHOLDING AGENT, WITHHELD FROM THE RESPONDENT, OR FROM HIS
WIFE AS HIS ASSIGNEE, A PART OF EACH PAYMENT. 

IN 1944 THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER HEREIN, GAVE
THE RESPONDENT NOTICE OF TAX DEFICIENCIES ASSESSED AGAINST HIM FOR THE
TAXABLE YEARS 1923, 1924, 1938, 1940 AND 1941.  IN THESE ASSESSMENTS,
AMONG OTHER ITEMS, THE COMMISSIONER CLAIMED DEFICIENCIES IN THE
RESPONDENT'S INCOME TAX PAYMENTS BASED UPON HIS ABOVE-DESCRIBED 1938
AND 1941 RECEIPTS.  THE RESPONDENT, IN A PETITION TO THE TAX COURT FOR
A REDETERMINATION OF SUCH DEFICIENCIES, NOT ONLY CONTESTED THE
ADDITIONAL TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST HIM, WHICH WERE BASED UPON THE FULL
AMOUNTS OF THOSE RECEIPTS, BUT HE ASKED ALSO FOR THE REFUND TO HIM OF
THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAD BEEN WITHHELD, FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, FROM EACH
SUCH PAYMENT.  THE TAX COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM FOR
ADDITIONAL TAXES FOR 1938, 1940 AND 1941, IN THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS OF
$11,806.71, $8,080.83 AND $1,854.85.  IN SPEAKING OF THE TAXES FOR 1940
AND 1941, THE TAX COURT SAID: 

"THE FIRST ISSUE, FOUND ALSO IN THE YEAR 1938, PRESENTS THE QUESTION
OF THE TAXABILITY OF LUMP SUM PAYMENTS FOR SERIAL RIGHTS TO LITERARY
WORKS.  COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER (WODEHOUSE, THE RESPONDENT HERE)
CONCEDES THAT SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ISSUE WAS RAISED AND DECIDED IN
SAX ROHMER, 5 T.C. 183; AFFD., 153 FED.(2D) 61; CERTIORARI DENIED, 328
U.S. 862. 

"IN SAX ROHMER, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT THE LUMP SUM PAYMENTS FOR SERIAL
RIGHTS WERE ROYALTIES AND, AS SUCH, WERE TAXABLE TO THE RECIPIENT.  THE
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN THE CASES AT BAR FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN AS THOSE
APPEARING IN THE SAX ROHMER CASE, AS PRESENTED TO THIS COURT AND TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS WERE REJECTED
IN BOTH COURTS AND FOR THE SAME REASONS STATED IN THE OPINIONS THEREIN,
THEY ARE REJECTED HERE."  8 T.C. 637, 653. 

AS THE RESPONDENT'S TAXES FOR 1938 AND 1941 HAD BEEN PAID TO THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE AT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, HIS PETITION FOR
REVIEW OF THE TAX COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR THOSE YEARS WAS FILED IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.  THE JUDGMENT
AGAINST HIM WAS THERE REVERSED, 166 F.2D 986, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING ON
THE AUTHORITY AND REASONING OF ROHMER V. COMMISSIONER, 153 F.2D
61(C.A.2D CIR.).  BECAUSE OF THE RESULTING CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
CIRCUITS AND ALSO BECAUSE COMPARABLE ISSUES AS TO THIS RESPONDENT'S
TAXES FOR 1940 WERE PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 807.  FN4 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT RECEIPTS OF THE TYPE BEFORE US LONG HAVE
BEEN RECOGNIZED AS RENTALS OR ROYALTIES PAID FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING IN THE UNITED STATES, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER
LIKE PROPERTY.  KEEPING IN MIND THAT, BEFORE 1936, SUCH RECEIPTS WERE
EXPRESSLY SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING AS PART OF THE TAXABLE INCOME OF
NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS, HE CONTENDS THAT THOSE RECEIPTS REMAINED
TAXABLE AND SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING IN 1938 AND 1941, AFTER THE
STANDARDS FOR TAXATION OF SUCH ALIENS HAD BEEN MADE EXPRESSLY
COTERMINOUS WITH THE STANDARDS FOR SUBJECTING THIS PART OF THEIR INCOME
TO WITHHOLDING PROCEDURES. 

IN OPPOSITION, THE RESPONDENT ARGUES, FIRST, THAT EACH SUM HE
RECEIVED WAS A PAYMENT MADE TO HIM IN RETURN FOR HIS SALE OF A PROPERTY
INTEREST IN A COPYRIGHT AND NOT A PAYMENT TO HIM OF A ROYALTY FOR
RIGHTS GRANTED BY HIM UNDER THE PROTECTION OF HIS COPYRIGHT.  BEING THE
PROCEEDS OF A SALE BY HIM OF SUCH A PROPERTY INTEREST, HE CONCLUDES
THAT THOSE PROCEEDS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN HIS TAXABLE
GROSS INCOME BECAUSE THE CONTROLLING REVENUE ACTS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO
TAX NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS, LIKE HIMSELF, UPON INCOME FROM SALES
OF PROPERTY.  SECONDLY, THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT, EVEN IF HIS
RECEIPTS WERE TO BE TREATED AS ROYALTIES, YET EACH WAS RECEIVED IN A
SINGLE LUMP SUM AND NOT "ANNUALLY" OR "PERIODICALLY," AND THAT,
THEREFORE, THEY DID NOT COME WITHIN HIS TAXABLE GROSS INCOME. 

THE PETITIONER REPLIES THAT, IN THIS CASE, WE DO NOT PROPERLY REACH
THE FINE QUESTIONS OF TITLE, OR OF SALES OR COPYRIGHT LAW, THUS RAISED
BY THE RESPONDENT AS TO THE DIVISIBILITY OF A COPYRIGHT OR AS TO THE
SALE OF SOME INTEREST IN A COPYRIGHT.  THE PETITIONER STATES THAT THE
ISSUE HERE IS ONE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.  IT IS CONFINED
PRIMARILY TO THE TAXABILITY OF THE RESPONDENT'S RECEIPTS WITHIN THE
BROAD, RATHER THAN NARROW, LANGUAGE OF CERTAIN REVENUE ACTS.  ATTENTION
MUST BE FOCUSED ON THOSE REVENUE ACTS.  IF THEIR TERMS MADE THESE
RECEIPTS TAXABLE BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS OUT
OF WHICH THE RECEIPTS ARISE, NAMELY, PAYMENTS FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING COPYRIGHTS, THEN IT IS THOSE STATUTORY DEFINITIONS,
PROPERLY READ IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR CONTEXT AND OF THEIR LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, THAT MUST DETERMINE THE TAXABILITY OF THE RECEIPTS.  HE ARGUES
THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE REVENUE ACTS DOES NOT CONDITION THE RIGHT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO ITS REVENUE UPON ANY FINE POINT OF PROPERTY LAW
BUT COVERS THESE RECEIPTS IN ANY EVENT.  TREATING THE RESPONDENT'S
RECEIPTS SIMPLY AS REPRESENTING PAYMENTS FOR THE USE OF OR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING COPYRIGHTS THE PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THEY
CONSTITUTED INCOME THAT WAS SUBJECT BOTH TO WITHHOLDING AND TO TAXATION
IN 1938 AND 1941.  HE CLAIMS FINALLY THAT THE RESPONDENT CANNOT ESCAPE
TAXATION OF SUCH RECEIPTS MERELY BY SHOWING THAT EACH PAYMENT WAS
RECEIVED BY HIM IN A LUMP SUM IN ADVANCE FOR CERTAIN USES OF A
COPYRIGHT, INSTEAD OF IN SEVERAL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE AT INTERMEDIATE
DATES DURING THE LIFE OF THE COPYRIGHT. 

                                  I. 

SUMS RECEIVED BY A NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL FOR THE USE OF A
COPYRIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTED GROSS INCOME TAXABLE TO HIM
UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

UNDER THE INCOME TAX LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, SUMS RECEIVED BY A
NONRESIDENT ALIEN AUTHOR NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN
LONG HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS INCOME FOR OUR
FEDERAL TAX PURPOSES.  SUCH RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN AN APPROPRIATE AND
READILY COLLECTIBLE SUBJECT OF TAXATION.  A REVIEW OF THE STATUTES,
REGULATIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES AND COURT DECISIONS DISCLOSES
THIS POLICY AND, AT LEAST FROM A REVENUE STANDPOINT, NO REASON HAS
APPEARED FOR CHANGING IT. 

SINCE THE EARLY DAYS OF OUR INCOME TAX LEVIES, RENTALS AND ROYALTIES
PAID FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING IN THE UNITED STATES,
PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER LIKE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN TAXED TO
NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOR MANY YEARS AT LEAST A PART OF THE TAX HAS
BEEN WITHHELD AT THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME.  TO EXEMPT THIS TYPE OF
INCOME FROM TAXATION IN 1938 OR 1941, IN THE FACE OF THIS LONG RECORD
OF ITS TAXATION, WOULD REQUIRE A CLEARNESS AND POSITIVENESS OF
LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION TO CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE THAT IS
ENTIRELY ABSENT HERE. 

THE POLICY OF THIS COURT IN THIS GENERAL FIELD OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION WAS STATED IN 1934 IN A CASE WHICH DEALT WITH THE
TAXATION OF A SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE FORM OF INCOME OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION.  IN HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS ENSKILDA BANK, 293 U.S. 84,
THE QUESTION PRESENTED WAS THAT OF THE PROPER INTERPRETATION TO BE
GIVEN TO SEC. 217(A)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, C. 27, 44 STAT. 9,
30(ANALOGOUS TO SEC. 119(A)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT.
503, NOW BEFORE US).  CERTAIN SUMS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY A FOREIGN
CORPORATION FROM THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN THE FORM OF INTEREST
UPON A REFUND OF AN OVERPAYMENT BY THAT CORPORATION OF ITS INCOME
TAXES.  THIS COURT HELD THAT SUCH INTEREST, IN TURN, CONSTITUTED
TAXABLE GROSS INCOME DERIVED BY THE FOREIGN CORPORATION FROM A SOURCE
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE IT AMOUNTED TO INTEREST UPON AN
INTEREST-BEARING OBLIGATION OF A RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  THIS INTERPRETATION WAS ADOPTED IN OPPOSITION
TO THE FOREIGN CORPORATION'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE
EXEMPTED BECAUSE IT AMOUNTED TO INTEREST ON ONE OF THE "OBLIGATIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES" AND THAT INTEREST ON SUCH AN OBLIGATION WAS
EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION BY SEC. 213(B)(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1926(ANALOGOUS TO SEC. 22(B)(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938).  THIS
COURT DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD "OBLIGATIONS" IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE ACT AND STATED THE
APPLICABLE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AS FOLLOWS: 
"THE GENERAL OBJECT OF THIS ACT IS TO PUT MONEY INTO THE FEDERAL
TREASURY; AND THERE IS MANIFEST IN THE REACH OF ITS MANY PROVISIONS AN
INTENTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO BRING ABOUT A GENEROUS ATTAINMENT
OF THAT OBJECT BY IMPOSING A TAX UPON PRETTY MUCH EVERY SORT OF INCOME
SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL POWER.  PLAINLY, THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION
CONSTITUTES INCOME DERIVED FROM A SOURCE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES; AND
THE NATURAL AIM OF CONGRESS WOULD BE TO REACH IT.  IN IRWIN V. GAVIT,
268 U.S. 161, 166, THIS COURT, REJECTING THE CONTENTION THAT CERTAIN
PAYMENTS THERE INVOLVED DID NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME, SAID:  'IF THESE
PAYMENTS PROPERLY MAY BE CALLED INCOME BY THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF
THAT WORD AND THE STATUTE HAS FAILED TO HIT THEM IT HAS MISSED SO MUCH
OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE THAT IT EXPRESSES AT THE START.  CONGRESS
INTENDED TO USE ITS POWER TO THE FULL EXTENT.  EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252
U.S. 189, 203.'  ALTHOUGH CONGRESS INTENDED, AS THE COURT HELD IN THE
VISCOSE CASE, SUPRA (56 F.2D 1033(C.A.3D CIR.)), TO INCLUDE INTEREST ON
A TAX REFUND MADE TO A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, WE ARE ASKED TO DENY SUCH
INTENTION IN RESPECT OF A COMPETING FOREIGN CORPORATION.  BUT WE SEE
NOTHING IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION TO THE UNITED
STATES, OR IN ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION, WHICH
FAIRLY SHOWS THAT SUCH A DISCRIMINATION WAS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF
CONGRESS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE NATURAL CONCLUSION IS THAT IF ANY
DISCRIMINATION HAD BEEN INTENDED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN FAVOR OF,
AND NOT AGAINST, THE DOMESTIC CORPORATION, WHICH CONTRIBUTES IN A MUCH
MORE SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE TO THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES."  ID. AT PP. 89-90. 

AND FURTHER: 

"IN THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE HAVE NOT BEEN UNMINDFUL OF THE RULE,
FREQUENTLY STATED BY THIS COURT, THAT TAXING ACTS 'ARE NOT TO BE
EXTENDED BY IMPLICATION BEYOND THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE LANGUAGE USED,'
AND THAT DOUBTS ARE TO BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND IN FAVOR
OF THE TAXPAYER.  THE RULE IS A SALUTARY ONE, BUT IT DOES NOT APPLY
HERE.  THE INTENTION OF THE LAWMAKER CONTROLS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
TAXING ACTS AS IT DOES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF OTHER STATUTES, AND THAT
INTENTION IS TO BE ASCERTAINED, NOT BY TAKING THE WORD OR CLAUSE IN
QUESTION FROM ITS SETTING AND VIEWING IT APART, BUT BY CONSIDERING IT
IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTEXT, THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE IN
WHICH IT IS FOUND, THE OCCASION AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS USE, AND OTHER
APPROPRIATE TESTS FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE WILL. 
COMPARE REIN V. LANE, L.R. 2 Q.B. CASES 144, 151.  THE INTENTION BEING
THUS DISCLOSED, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE WORD OR CLAUSE IS REASONABLY
SUSCEPTIBLE OF A MEANING CONSONANT THEREWITH, WHATEVER MIGHT BE ITS
MEANING IN ANOTHER AND DIFFERENT CONNECTION.  WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO
REJECT THE MEANING SO ESTABLISHED AND ADOPT ANOTHER LYING OUTSIDE THE
INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE LATTER WOULD RELEASE
THE TAXPAYER OR BEAR LESS HEAVILY AGAINST HIM.  TO DO SO WOULD BE NOT
TO RESOLVE A DOUBT IN HIS FAVOR, BUT TO SAY THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT
MEAN WHAT IT MEANS."  ID. AT PP. 93-94. 

A. THESE RECEIPTS UNQUESTIONABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED TO A
NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL IF RECEIVED BY HIM UNDER THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1934. 

THE BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS BEFORE US
EMPHASIZE THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO TAX THIS TYPE OF INCOME.  THEY
DISCLOSE THE FULL FAMILIARITY OF CONGRESS WITH THIS GENERAL TYPE OF
TRANSACTION.  THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF OUR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES SINCE
THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION, THE REVENUE ACTS HAVE
EXPRESSLY SUBJECTED TO TAXATION THE INCOME RECEIVED BY NONRESIDENT
ALIEN INDIVIDUALS FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  FOR EXAMPLE,
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE RECEIPTS HERE IN QUESTION WOULD HAVE BEEN
TAXABLE TO THE RESPONDENT IF THEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934, C. 277, 48 STAT. 680, ET SEQ., AND THE PRESENT
ISSUE RESOLVES ITSELF LARGELY INTO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER SUCH
RECEIPTS WERE RELIEVED FROM TAXATION BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, C.
690, 49 STAT. 1648, ET SEQ., THROUGH CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE INCOME TAX
LAWS THAT WERE MADE BY THAT ACT AND WHICH WERE STILL IN EFFECT IN 1938
AND 1941. 

UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, THE INCOME OF A NONRESIDENT ALIEN
INDIVIDUAL WAS TAXED AT THE SAME RATES AS WAS THE INCOME OF A RESIDENT
CITIZEN (SECS. 11 AND 12) BUT HIS TAXABLE GROSS INCOME WAS LIMITED
WHOLLY TO THAT WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED "FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES," SEC. 211(A).  FN5  SUCH SOURCES WERE DESCRIBED IN SEC. 119 OF
THAT ACT, AND THE MATERIAL PORTIONS OF THAT SECTION HAVE REMAINED
UNCHANGED EVER SINCE.  THEY GIVE THEIR OWN DEFINITION OF RENTALS AND
ROYALTIES.  THESE HAVE BEEN QUOTED FROM ABOVE AND THEY ARE SET FORTH IN
FULL IN APPENDIX A, INFRA, P. 397.  THE ACT OF 1934 THUS SOUGHT TO
INCLUDE AS TAXABLE GROSS INCOME ANY INCOME WHICH A NONRESIDENT ALIEN
INDIVIDUAL RECEIVED AS ROYALTIES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING ANY
COPYRIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND ALSO SOUGHT TO TAX HIS INCOME FROM
THE SALE OF ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH HE HAD PRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN
PART) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES BUT HAD SOLD WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. 
SEC. 119(A)(4) AND (E)(2).  AS A MECHANISM OF COLLECTION, THE ACT ALSO
SOUGHT TO WITHHOLD FROM NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS, AT THE SOURCE OF
PAYMENT, THE ENTIRE NORMAL TAX OF 4% COMPUTED UPON NUMEROUS
CLASSIFICATIONS OF THEIR INCOME NAMED IN SEC. 143(B).  FN6  THIS
LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE.  IT EXPRESSLY INCLUDED CERTAIN
FORMS OF INTEREST AND ALSO "RENT, SALARIES, WAGES, PREMIUMS, ANNUITIES,
COMPENSATIONS, REMUNERATIONS, EMOLUMENTS, OR OTHER FIXED OR
DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME, OF ANY
NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL, ..."  WHILE ROYALTIES WERE NOT MENTIONED
SPECIFICALLY IN THIS STATUTORY WITHHOLDING CLAUSE, THEY HAD BEEN
EXPRESSLY LISTED IN THE REGULATIONS, SINCE LONG BEFORE 1934, SO THAT
THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT THEY WERE TO BE SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING AS A
MATTER OF INTERPRETATION.  IT WAS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT INCOME DERIVED
FROM A SALE IN THE UNITED STATES, OF EITHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY,
WAS NOT INCLUDED, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION OR INTERPRETATION,
IN THE INCOME SUBJECT TO A WITHHOLDING OF THE TAX ON IT AT THE SOURCE
OF THE INCOME.  THE REGULATIONS, SINCE THE ACT OF 1924(U.S. TREAS. REG.
65, ART. 362(1924)) TO THE PRESENT TIME, HAVE CONTAINED DECISIVE
STATEMENTS ON THESE POINTS.  SUCH REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL WITH THE FOLLOWING WHICH APPEARED IN TREASURY REGULATIONS 86,
ARTICLE 143-2(1934): 

"ONLY FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL INCOME IS SUBJECT TO
WITHHOLDING.  THE ACT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES IN SUCH INCOME, INTEREST,
RENT, SALARIES, WAGES, PREMIUMS, ANNUITIES, COMPENSATIONS,
REMUNERATIONS, AND EMOLUMENTS.  BUT OTHER KINDS OF INCOME ARE INCLUDED,
AS, FOR INSTANCE, ROYALTIES. 

"...  THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SALE IN THE UNITED STATES OF
PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, IS NOT FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL
OR PERIODICAL INCOME." 

APART FROM THESE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE WITHHOLDING OF TAXES AT THE
SOURCE OF THE INCOME, THE REVENUE ACTS HAVE CONTAINED OTHER PROVISIONS,
IN SIMILAR LANGUAGE, CALLING FOR THE REPORTING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE OF MATERIAL INFORMATION AS TO CERTAIN INCOME WHICH
MIGHT BE TAXABLE.  THIS LANGUAGE HAS RECEIVED AN INTERPRETATION WHICH
IS RELATED TO AND CONSISTENT WITH THAT HERE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONS AS
TO WITHHOLDING TAXES.  FN7 

THESE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS SHOW THAT, UNDER THE ACT OF 1934,
CONGRESS SOUGHT TO TAX (AND WITHHOLD ALL OR PART OF THE TAX ON) THE
INCOME OF A NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL INSOFAR AS IT WAS DERIVED FROM
PAYMENTS FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING COPYRIGHTS IN THE
UNITED STATES.  IT ALSO SOUGHT TO TAX (ALTHOUGH IT COULD NOT GENERALLY
WITHHOLD THE TAX ON) ANY GAIN WHICH THE TAXPAYER DERIVED FROM TEE SALE
OF PERSONAL PROPERTY PRODUCED BY HIM WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES BUT SOLD
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  ACCORDINGLY, IF THE RECEIPTS NOW BEFORE US
HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE ACT OF 1934, THEY WOULD
HAVE BEEN TAXABLE WHETHER THEY WERE TREATED AS PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE
OF ROYALTIES FOR THE USE OF THE COPYRIGHTS UNDER SEC. 119(A) OR WERE
TREATED AS PAYMENTS OF A SALE'S PRICE FOR CERTAIN INTERESTS IN
COPYRIGHTS UNDER SEC. 119(E).  THE REGULATIONS HELPFULLY CARRIED THIS
ANALYSIS FURTHER.  THEY SHOWED THAT, WHILE BOTH FORMS OF INCOME WERE
TAXABLE, YET IT WAS ONLY THE ROYALTY PAYMENTS (AND NOT THE SALES'
PROCEEDS) THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE WITHHOLDING PROCEDURE.  A TREASURY
DECISION MADE IN 1933, UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS EXTENDING FROM 1921 TO
1928,  FN8  AND A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT MADE IN 1938, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, 45 STAT.
791, SUSTAIN THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS.  THE LATTER CASE WAS THAT OF
SABATINI V. COMMISSIONER, 98 F.2D 753(C.A.2D CIR.),  FN9  LATER
DISCUSSED AND APPROVED IN ROHMER V. COMMISSIONER, 153 F.2D 61,
63(C.A.2D CIR.).  INCIDENTALLY, THESE OPINIONS DECLARED NOT ONLY THAT
THE TAXES IN QUESTION WERE IMPOSED UPON THE RECEIPTS AS ROYALTIES BUT
THAT IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER SUCH ROYALTIES WERE EACH RECEIVED IN
LUMP SUMS IN FULL PAYMENT IN ADVANCE, TO COVER THE USE OF THE
RESPECTIVE COPYRIGHTS THROUGHOUT THEIR STATUTORY LIVES, OR WHETHER THE
ROYALTIES WERE RECEIVED FROM TIME TO TIME AND IN LESSER SUMS. 

B. THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 PRESERVED THE TAXABILITY OF THE SEVERAL
KINDS OF INCOME OF NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS WHICH HAD BEEN THE
SUBJECT OF WITHHOLDING AT THEIR RESPECTIVE SOURCES, INCLUDING RECEIPTS
IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTIES FOR THE USE OF COPYRIGHTS IN THE UNITED
STATES. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 DID NOT CHANGE MATERIALLY THE STATUTORY
DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES UNDER
SEC. 119.  IT DID, HOWEVER, AMEND SEC. 211(A)  FN10 MATERIALLY IN ITS
DESCRIPTION OF THE TAXABLE INCOME OF NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS. 
THESE AMENDMENTS (1) SUBSTITUTED A SPECIAL FLAT RATE OF 10% FOR THE
GENERAL NORMAL TAX AND SURTAX RATES, (2) REQUIRED THIS ENTIRE SPECIAL
TAX, IN THE USUAL CASE, TO BE WITHHELD AT THE SOURCE OF THE TAXABLE
INCOME, (3) LIMITED THE TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME OF EACH NONRESIDENT
ALIEN INDIVIDUAL TO THOSE KINDS OF INCOME TO WHICH THE WITHHOLDING
PROVISIONS ALSO APPLIED, AND (4)(EXCEPT FOR THE ADDITION OF DIVIDENDS)
INSERTED VERBATIM, AS A NEW STATEMENT OF THE TYPES OF TAXABLE INCOME OF
A NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL (NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS
THEREIN), THE LANGUAGE THAT PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN USED TO STATE THE
SPECIFIC TYPES OF INCOME TO WHICH THE WITHHOLDING PROCEDURE WAS TO
APPLY.  SEE ITS SEC. 143(B)  FN11  PARALLELING ITS AMENDED SEC.
211(A).  BY THUS RESTRICTING THE INCOME TAX TO THOSE SPECIFIC TYPES OF
INCOME TO WHICH THE WITHHOLDING PROCEDURE HAD PREVIOUSLY APPLIED,
CONGRESS AUTOMATICALLY RELIEVED NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS FROM THE
TAXATION OF THEIR INCOME FROM CERTAIN SALES OF REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY, PREVIOUSLY TAXED.  THIS AMENDMENT, ON THE OTHER HAND,
RETAINED AND INCREASED THE TAX ON THE VERY KIND OF INCOME THAT IS
BEFORE US.  IT ALSO INCREASED THE PORTION OF SUCH INCOME TO BE WITHHELD
AT ITS SOURCE TO MEET THE NEW AND HIGHER FLAT RATE OF TAX. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 CONFIRMS THE
SPECIAL MEANING THUS APPARENT ON ITS FACE.  IT EMPHASIZES THE POLICY
WHICH EXPRESSLY MARKED THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, INCLUDING
PARTICULARLY THESE AMENDMENTS.  THE PRACTICAL SITUATION WAS THAT IT HAD
BEEN DIFFICULT FOR UNITED STATES TAX OFFICIALS TO ASCERTAIN THE TAXABLE
INCOME (IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAINS) WHICH HAD BEEN DERIVED FROM
SALES OF PROPERTY AT A PROFIT BY NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS, OR BY
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, WHEN THE RESPECTIVE TAXPAYERS WERE NOT ENGAGED IN
TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE
OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN.  THIS DIFFICULTY WAS IN CONTRAST TO THE
EASE OF COMPUTING AND COLLECTING A TAX FROM CERTAIN OTHER KINDS OF
INCOME, INCLUDING PAYMENTS FOR THE USE OF PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS, FROM
WHICH THE UNITED STATES INCOME TAXES WERE BEING, WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY,
WITHHELD AT THE SOURCE.  THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE REPORTS EXPRESSED
A PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO LIMIT FUTURE TAXES ON NONRESIDENT ALIEN
INDIVIDUALS TO THOSE READILY COLLECTIBLE.  FN12  WITH A VIEW EVIDENTLY
TO SECURING SUBSTANTIALLY AS MUCH REVENUE AS BEFORE, CONGRESS THEREUPON
APPLIED A NEW FLAT RATE OF 10% TO NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS AND OF
15% TO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THIS FLAT RATE OF TAX
TO BE WITHHELD AND COLLECTED AT THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME.  THE REPORTS
REFERRED ALSO TO INCREASES IN STOCK TRANSFER TAXES WHICH MIGHT RESULT
FROM THUS REMOVING THE INCOME TAX FROM PROFITS OF NONRESIDENT ALIEN
INDIVIDUALS ON THEIR STOCK SALES.  CONGRESS RECOGNIZED A VALUE AND A
CONVENIENCE IN THUS TURNING TO THE ACCESSIBLE, FIXED AND DETERMINABLE
INCOME OF NONRESIDENT ALIENS.  THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THESE STEPS
SOUGHT TO INCREASE OR AT LEAST TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING VOLUME OF
REVENUE.  FN13  NO SUGGESTION APPEARS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED OR WISHED
TO RELIEVE FROM TAXATION THE READILY ACCESSIBLE AND LONG-ESTABLISHED
SOURCE OF REVENUE TO BE FOUND IN THE PAYMENTS MADE TO NONRESIDENT
ALIENS FOR THE USE OF PATENTS OR COPYRIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES.  MUCH
LESS WAS ANY SUGGESTION MADE THAT LUMP SUM ADVANCE PAYMENTS OF RENTALS
OR ROYALTIES SHOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
SMALLER REPEATED PAYMENTS OF RENTALS OR ROYALTIES WOULD BE TAXED AND
COLLECTED AT THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME.  TO HAVE EXEMPTED THESE
NONRESIDENT ALIENS FROM THESE READILY COLLECTIBLE TAXES DERIVED FROM
SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE DISCRIMINATED IN THEIR
FAVOR AGAINST RESIDENT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO PAY THEIR REGULAR INCOME TAX ON SUCH INCOME, IF TREATED AS
ROYALTIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR GROSS INCOME PROVISIONS, OR AT
LEAST TO PAY A TAX UPON THEM AS CAPITAL GAINS, IF TREATED AS INCOME
FROM SALES OF CAPITAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR CAPITAL GAINS
PROVISIONS.  NO SUCH PURPOSE TO DISCRIMINATE CAN BE IMPLIED. 
ACCORDINGLY, AT THE TIME IN 1936 WHEN THESE AMENDMENTS WERE BEING
ENACTED INTO SEC. 211(A), THE PROVISIONS FOR TAXING THE GROSS INCOME OF
NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 ALREADY HAD
BEEN LONG AND OFFICIALLY INTERPRETED AS COVERING RECEIPTS FROM
ROYALTIES AS EXPRESSLY AND BROADLY DEFINED IN SEC. 119(A) AND SUBJECTED
TO WITHHOLDING AT THE SOURCE OF INCOME UNDER SEC. 143(B).  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1936 AMENDMENTS IS, THEREFORE, A REFUTATION
OF ANY CLAIM THAT CONGRESS, AT THAT TIME, WAS SEEKING TO EXEMPT SUCH
TAXPAYERS FROM THOSE APPROPRIATE AND READILY COLLECTIBLE ITEMS.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, THAT HISTORY SHOWS THAT CONGRESS WAS SEEKING TO CONTINUE TO
TAX, AND EVEN TO INCREASE THE TAX UPON, THOSE KINDS OF INCOME WHICH HAD
BEEN FOUND TO BE READILY WITHHOLDABLE AT THEIR RESPECTIVE SOURCES. 
ACCORDINGLY, WHAT CONGRESS DID WAS TO INCORPORATE THE VERY LANGUAGE OF
THE WITHHOLDING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 143(B) INTO THE LANGUAGE OF THE
TAXING SEC. 211(A).  THE REGULATIONS UNDER SEC. 143(B), QUOTED ABOVE
SUBSTANTIALLY AS BEING IN EFFECT SINCE 1924, HAD ALREADY SETTLED THAT
ROYALTIES WERE INCLUDED IN SEC. 143(B).  THE TREASURY BULLETIN ALSO
SHOWED THAT LUMP SUM PAYMENTS MADE IN ADVANCE FOR LIMITED RIGHTS UNDER
COPYRIGHTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE "ROYALTIES" THUS SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING
AND TAXATION.  THE TYPE OF TRANSACTIONS AND THE KIND OF PAYMENTS WERE
THUS IDENTIFIED.  THE BROAD LANGUAGE THERE USED IS ENTITLED TO BE
INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PLAIN MEANING AND ESTABLISHED
USAGE.  THEREFORE, AFTER THE 1936 AMENDMENTS, IT BECAME EQUALLY CLEAR
THAT THESE RECEIPTS IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTIES WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY
WITHHELD AT THEIR SOURCE WERE INCLUDED IN THE SOURCES OF INCOME
SPECIFIED IN SEC. 211(A) BUT THAT PROFITS FROM SALES OF PROPERTY WERE
NOT INCLUDED IN THE SOURCES OF INCOME SPECIFIED IN SEC. 211(A) ANY MORE
THAN THEY HAD BEEN UNDER SEC. 143(A).  THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN SABATINI V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, IN
1938, IN RELATION TO THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, AND IN ROHMER V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, IN 1946, IN RELATION TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,
AS AMENDED IN 1940, REFLECTED THE SAME POINT OF VIEW. 

NONE OF THESE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1936 WERE CHANGED BY THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1938, THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR THE 1940 OR 1941
AMENDMENTS TO THAT CODE, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO THE SIZE OF THE TAX
RATES.  THE PRINCIPAL CHANGES EVEN IN THOSE RATES WERE TO PROVIDE
HIGHER TAXES IN THE HIGHER BRACKETS, RATHER THAN TO REDUCE THE TAXES ON
NONRESIDENT ALIENS.  FN14

              II. 

THE RECEIPT OF THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS BY THE RESPONDENT IN SINGLE
LUMP SUMS AS PAYMENTS IN FULL, IN ADVANCE, FOR CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THE
RESPECTIVE COPYRIGHTS DID NOT EXEMPT THOSE RECEIPTS FROM TAXATION. 

ONCE IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE RESPONDENT WOULD
HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS INCOME FOR FEDERAL
INCOME TAX PURPOSES IF THEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN ANNUAL PAYMENTS, OR
FROM TIME TO TIME, DURING THE LIFE OF THE RESPECTIVE COPYRIGHTS, IT
BECOMES EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE RECEIPT OF THOSE SAME SUMS BY HIM IN
SINGLE LUMP SUMS AS PAYMENTS IN FULL, IN ADVANCE, FOR THE SAME RIGHTS
TO BE ENJOYED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE RESPECTIVE COPYRIGHTS
CANNOT, SOLELY BY REASON OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE PAYMENT INTO ONE
SUM, RENDER IT TAX EXEMPT.  NO REVENUE ACT CAN BE INTERPRETED TO REACH
SUCH A RESULT IN THE ABSENCE OF INESCAPABLY CLEAR PROVISIONS TO THAT
EFFECT.  THERE ARE NONE SUCH HERE. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXEMPTION WAS SUGGESTED BY THE PRESENCE IN SECS.
211(A) AND 143(B) OF THE WORDS "ANNUAL" AND "PERIODICAL."  IF READ
APART FROM THEIR TEXT AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND SUPPLEMENTED BY THE
GRATUITOUS INSERTION AFTER THEM OF THE WORD "PAYMENTS," THEY MIGHT
SUPPORT THE LIMITING EFFECT HERE ARGUED FOR THEM.  HOWEVER, WHEN TAKEN
IN THEIR CONTEXT, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THOSE ACTS, AND THE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON THEM BY THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND THE LOWER COURTS, THEY HAVE NO SUCH MEANING. 
THOSE WORDS ARE MERELY GENERALLY DESCRIPTIVE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE
GAINS, PROFITS AND INCOME WHICH ARISE OUT OF SUCH RELATIONSHIPS AS
THOSE WHICH PRODUCE READILY WITHHOLDABLE INTEREST, RENTS, ROYALTIES AND
SALARIES, CONSISTING WHOLLY OF INCOME, ESPECIALLY IN CONTRAST TO GAINS,
PROFITS AND INCOME IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAINS FROM PROFITABLE SALES
OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY.  FN15 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, EACH COPYRIGHT WHICH WAS TO BE OBTAINED HAD ITS
FULL, ORIGINAL LIFE OF 28 YEARS TO RUN AFTER THE ADVANCE PAYMENT WAS
RECEIVED BY THE AUTHOR COVERING THE USE OF OR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING
CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER IT.  FIXED AND DETERMINABLE INCOME, FROM A TAX
STANDPOINT, MAY BE RECEIVED EITHER IN ANNUAL OR OTHER PAYMENTS WITHOUT
ALTERING IN THE LEAST THE NEED OR THE REASONS FOR TAXING SUCH INCOME OR
FOR WITHHOLDING A PART OF IT AT ITS SOURCE.  ONE ADVANCE PAYMENT TO
COVER THE ENTIRE 28-YEAR PERIOD OF A COPYRIGHT COMES WITHIN THE REASON
AND REACH OF THE REVENUE ACTS AS WELL AS, OR EVEN BETTER THAN, TWO OR
MORE PARTIAL PAYMENTS OF THE SAME SUM. 

ARTICLE 143-2 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, ISSUED UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1938, PROVIDED: 

"THE INCOME NEED NOT BE PAID ANNUALLY IF IT IS PAID PERIODICALLY;
THAT IS TO SAY, FROM TIME TO TIME, WHETHER OR NOT AT REGULAR
INTERVALS.  THAT THE LENGTH OF TIME DURING WHICH THE PAYMENTS ARE TO BE
MADE MAY BE INCREASED OR DIMINISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOMEONE'S WILL
OR WITH THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT DOES NOT MAKE THE PAYMENTS ANY THE
LESS DETERMINABLE OR PERIODICAL." 

SUBSTANTIALLY THIS LIBERAL LANGUAGE IN THE REGULATIONS HAS BEEN USED
IN THIS CONNECTION SINCE 1918.  (U.S. TREAS. REG. 45, ART. 362(1918).) 
SINGLE LUMP SUM PAYMENTS OF ROYALTIES WERE HELD TO BE TAXABLE UNDER THE
REVENUE ACTS OF 1921, 1924, 1926 AND 1928, I.T. 2735, XII-2 CUM. BULL. 
131(1933); UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SABATINI V. COMMISSIONER,
SUPRA; AND UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED IN 1940, ROHMER
V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA. 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE HOLD THAT THE RECEIPTS IN QUESTION WERE
REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT FOR
FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
ACCORDINGLY IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THE MATERIAL PROVISIONS WERE IDENTICAL IN THE REVENUE ACT OF
1938, ENACTED MAY 28, 1938, C. 289, 52 STAT. 447, ET SEQ., AND IN THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, ENACTED FEBRUARY 10, 1939, 53 STAT. 1, ET SEQ.
AMENDMENTS TO THESE PROVISIONS IN 1940 AND 1941 CHANGED ONLY THE RATES
OF THE TAXES.  FOR TEXT OF THE MATERIAL PROVISIONS, SEE APPENDIX A,
INFRA, PP. 395, 397, FOLLOWING THIS OPINION. 

FN2  SEC. 119(A)(4), 52 STAT. 504, 53 STAT. 54, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
119(A)(4).  FOR FULL TEXT OF THE MATERIAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 119, SEE
APPENDIX A, INFRA, P. 397. 

FN3  SEE APPENDIX B, INFRA, P. 398. 

FN4  AS THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT'S 1938 AND 1941
RECEIPTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO TAXATION, IT DID NOT REACH THE SUBSIDIARY
ISSUES WHICH HAD BEEN RAISED AS TO THE PROPER AMOUNT OF THOSE TAXES IF
THEY WERE SUSTAINED.  SIMILARLY, THE COURT BELOW DID NOT PASS UPON THE
CLAIM THAT CERTAIN OF THE ASSESSMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO THE THREE-YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RATHER THAN THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE HERE APPLIED. 
SEE SEC. 275(A) AND (C), 52 STAT. 539, 53 STAT. 86, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
275(A) AND (C).  THIS CLAIM TURNED UPON THE RECOGNITION TO BE GIVEN TO
CERTAIN ASSIGNMENTS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT TO HIS WIFE.  THOSE
ASSIGNMENTS, IF FULLY RECOGNIZED, MIGHT HAVE REDUCED THE TAX TO BE
ASSESSED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT TO AN AMOUNT LESS THAN 25% OF THE
AMOUNT ORIGINALLY STATED BY HIM IN HIS RETURN AND THUS RENDERED THE
FIVE-YEAR STATUTE INAPPLICABLE.  HOWEVER, THE EFFECT OF THOSE
ASSIGNMENTS WAS NOT PASSED UPON BY THE COURT BELOW. 

FN5  "SUPPLEMENT H - NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS 

"SEC. 211.  GROSSINCOME. 

"(A)  GENERAL RULE.  - IN THE CASE OF A NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL
GROSS INCOME INCLUDES ONLY THE GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES."  SEC. 211(A), 48 STAT. 735. 

FN6  "SEC.  143.  WITHHOLDING OF TAX AT SOURCE. 

"(A)  TAX-FREE COVENANT BONDS.  -   ... 

"(B)  NONRESIDENT ALIENS.  - ALL PERSONS, IN WHATEVER CAPACITY
ACTING, INCLUDING LESSEES OR MORTGAGORS OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY,
FIDUCIARIES, EMPLOYERS, AND ALL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED
STATES, HAVING THE CONTROL, RECEIPT, CUSTODY, DISPOSAL, OR PAYMENT OF
INTEREST (EXCEPT INTEREST ON DEPOSITS WITH PERSONS CARRYING ON THE
BANKING BUSINESS PAID TO PERSONS NOT ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN THE UNITED
STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN), RENT,
SALARIES, WAGES, PREMIUMS, ANNUITIES, COMPENSATIONS, REMUNERATIONS,
EMOLUMENTS, OR OTHER FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL GAINS,
PROFITS, AND INCOME, OF ANY NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL, OR OF ANY
PARTNERSHIP NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
AND NOT HAVING ANY OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN AND COMPOSED IN
WHOLE OR IN PART OF NONRESIDENT ALIENS,  ... DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD FROM
SUCH ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME A TAX EQUAL TO 4
PER CENTUM THEREOF:  ..."  48 STAT. 723-724. 

FN7  "SEC.  147.  INFORMATION AT SOURCE. 

"(A)  PAYMENTS OF $1,000 OR MORE.  - ALL PERSONS, IN WHATEVER
CAPACITY ACTING, INCLUDING LESSEES OR MORTGAGORS OF REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY, FIDUCIARIES, AND EMPLOYERS, MAKING PAYMENT TO ANOTHER PERSON,
OF INTEREST, RENT, SALARIES, WAGES, PREMIUMS, ANNUITIES, COMPENSATIONS,
REMUNERATIONS, EMOLUMENTS, OR OTHER FIXED OR DETERMINABLE GAINS,
PROFITS, AND INCOME  ...  OF $1,000 OR MORE IN ANY TAXABLE YEAR,  ...
SHALL RENDER A TRUE AND ACCURATE RETURN TO THE COMMISSIONER, UNDER SUCH
REGULATIONS AND IN SUCH FORM AND MANNER AND TO SUCH EXTENT AS MAY BE
PRESCRIBED BY HIM WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY,  ..."  48 STAT.
726. 

TREASURY REGULATION 86, UNDER THE ACT OF 1934, SHOWED AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THAT THIS SECTION APPLIED GENERALLY TO FIXED OR DETERMINABLE
INCOME, THAT ROYALTIES WERE INCLUDED AS FIXED AND DETERMINABLE INCOME
AND THAT INFORMATION AS TO THEM WAS NOT REQUIRED WHEN SUCH ROYALTIES
DID NOT EXCEED THE TAXPAYER'S EXEMPTIONS.  ALSO, SUCH INFORMATION AT
THE SOURCE WAS NOT REQUIRED WHERE THE INCOME HAD BEEN WITHHELD, AT THE
SOURCE, FROM A NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL AND A REPORT HAD BEEN MADE
TO THAT EFFECT.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE: 

"ART. 147-1.  ...  ALTHOUGH TO MAKE NECESSARY A RETURN OF INFORMATION
THE INCOME MUST BE FIXED OR DETERMINABLE, IT NEED NOT BE ANNUAL OR
PERIODICAL.  ..." 

"ART. 147-3.  CASES WHERE NO RETURN OF INFORMATION REQUIRED.  -
PAYMENTS OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTER, ALTHOUGH OVER $1,000, NEED NOT BE
REPORTED IN RETURNS OF INFORMATION  ...  : 

     .         .         .    .         . 

"(H)  PAYMENTS OF SALARIES, RENTS, ROYALTIES, INTEREST (EXCEPT BOND
INTEREST REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED ON OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATES), AND OTHER
FIXED OR DETERMINABLE INCOME AGGREGATING LESS THAN $2,500 MADE TO A
MARRIED INDIVIDUAL; ..." 

"ART. 147-5.  RETURN OF INFORMATION AS TO PAYMENTS TO OTHER THAN
CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS.  - IN THE CASE OF PAYMENTS OF FIXED OR
DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL INCOME TO NONRESIDENT ALIENS
(INDIVIDUAL OR FIDUCIARY),  ...  THE RETURNS FILED BY WITHHOLDING
AGENTS ON FORM 1042(REQUIRED BY ART. 143-8) SHALL CONSTITUTE AND BE
TREATED AS RETURNS OF INFORMATION.  (SEE SECTIONS 143 AND 144.)" 

FN8  THIS OPINION WAS RENDERED IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST TO THE
TREASURY FOR ADVICE AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN PAYMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE
YEARS 1921 TO 1928 BY THE TAXPAYER, A NONRESIDENT ALIEN AUTHOR, WERE
TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  THE PAYMENTS
WERE RECEIVED PURSUANT TO CONTRACTS GRANTING CERTAIN VOLUME, SERIAL AND
MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS IN CONSIDERATION OF STIPULATED ROYALTIES PAYABLE
IN VARIOUS WAYS.  SOME CONTRACTS PRESCRIBED A ROYALTY ON EACH COPY
SOLD, OTHERS A TOTAL STIPULATED SUM, AND, IN AT LEAST ONE CASE, THIS
SUM WAS PAYABLE IN SEVERAL PARTS.  THE OPINION REVIEWED THE PRACTICE OF
MANY YEARS AND GAVE A POSITIVE ANSWER TO GUIDE FUTURE PRACTICE.  THE
ANSWER WAS THAT ALL THESE RECEIPTS WERE TAXABLE INSOFAR AS THEY CAME
FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  THE OPINION CONTAINED THE
FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT STATEMENTS WHICH INDICATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE WHICH HAD BEEN APPLIED AND THEREAFTER WAS TO APPLY TO THESE

"THE FACT THAT A PAYMENT IN THE NATURE OF A RENT OR ROYALTY IS IN A
LUMP SUM RATHER THAN SO MUCH PER ANNUM, PER UNIT OF PROPERTY, PER
PERFORMANCE, PER BOOK SOLD, OR A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE RECEIPTS OR
PROFITS, DOES NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE PAYMENT AS RENT OR
ROYALTY.  (O.D. 1028, C.B. 5, 83; APPEAL OF J.M. & M.S. BROWNING CO., 6
B.T.A., 914, ACQUIESCENCE C.B. VII-1, 5.)  NOR IS IT MATERIAL WHETHER
THE ROYALTY IS PAID IN ADVANCE.  (APPEAL OF BLOEDEL'S JEWELRY, INC., 2
B.T.A., 611.)  IT IS ACCORDINGLY THE OPINION OF THIS OFFICE THAT THE
PAYMENTS IN QUESTION ARE 'RENTALS OR ROYALTIES FROM  ...  (OR) FOR THE
USE OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING  ... COPYRIGHTS  ...  AND OTHER
LIKE PROPERTY.'  SINCE THE GRANT BY THE TAXPAYER IN EACH INSTANCE IS SO
CLEARLY THE GRANT OF A PARTICULAR RIGHT IN ALL THE RIGHTS CONSTITUTING
THE TAXPAYER'S LITERARY PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT, THE CONCLUSION IS
OBVIOUS THAT THE GRANT IS A LICENSE AND NOT A SALE.    "THE APPLICABLE
REVENUE ACTS REGARD ROYALTIES FROM AMERICAN COPYRIGHTS (OR FOR THE USE
OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING IN THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHTS AND
OTHER LIKE PROPERTY) AS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES,
AND ROYALTIES FROM FOREIGN COPYRIGHTS (OR FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER LIKE
PROPERTY) AS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES. 
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE INCOME HERE IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES ROYALTIES
FROM, OR FOR THE USE OF, OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING AMERICAN
COPYRIGHTS."  I.T. 2735, XII-2 CUM. BULL.  131(1933).    FN9  "THE FACT
THAT ONE LUMP SUM WAS RECEIVED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE PROPERTY
OF THE AUTHOR INSTEAD OF A SERIES OF PAYMENTS DOES NOT ALTER THE REAL
CHARACTER OF WHAT THE TAXPAYER RECEIVED.  IT WAS PAYMENT FOR THE USE OF
HIS LITERARY PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE NAMED AND IN SO FAR AS IT WAS IN
PAYMENT FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES WAS TAXABLE AS A ROYALTY PAID IN
ADVANCE AND RECEIVED FOR THE GRANTING OF THAT PRIVILEGE.  WHILE THERE
SEEMS TO BE NO DIRECT AUTHORITY FOR THIS VIEW OF THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE, WE BELIEVE IT CORRECT IN PRINCIPLE AND THE ORDER OF THE BOARD
IN THIS RESPECT IS REVERSED."  ID. AT P. 755.  THIS DECISION
EFFECTIVELY SUPPLEMENTS THE TREASURY BULLETIN OF 1933 AND EMPHASIZES
THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IN TAXING PROCEEDS OF THE TYPE OF
TRANSACTION THAT IS BEFORE US.  IT REVERSED AN INTERMEDIATE HOLDING
MADE BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN 1935 IN SABATINI V. COMMISSIONER,
32 B.T.A. 705.  THAT INTERMEDIATE DECISION, ACCORDINGLY, WAS IN THE
PROCESS OF REVIEW WHEN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 WAS ENACTED AND,
THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ARGUED THAT CONGRESS CARRIED ITS INTERPRETATION
INTO THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  IF ANYTHING, THE CONTRARY MIGHT BE
ARGUED AS TO SABATINI V. COMMISSIONER, 98 F.2D 753(C.A.2D CIR.), WHICH
WAS DECIDED BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

FN10  "SEC.  211.  TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS. 

"(A)  NO UNITED STATES BUSINESS OR OFFICE.  - THERE SHALL BE LEVIED,
COLLECTED, AND PAID FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR, IN LIEU OF THE TAX IMPOSED
BY SECTIONS 11 AND 12, UPON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED, BY EVERY NONRESIDENT
ALIEN INDIVIDUAL NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN, FROM
SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AS INTEREST (EXCEPT INTEREST ON
DEPOSITS WITH PERSONS CARRYING ON THE BANKING BUSINESS), DIVIDENDS,
RENTS, SALARIES, WAGES, PREMIUMS, ANNUITIES, COMPENSATIONS,
REMUNERATIONS, EMOLUMENTS, OR OTHER FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR
PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME, A TAX OF 10 PER CENTUM OF SUCH
AMOUNT,  ..."  49 STAT. 1714. 

FN11  "SEC.  143.  WITHHOLDING OF TAX AT SOURCE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  NONRESIDENT ALIENS.  - ALL PERSONS, IN WHATEVER CAPACITY
ACTING, INCLUDING LESSEES OR MORTGAGORS OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY,
FIDUCIARIES, EMPLOYERS, AND ALL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED
STATES, HAVING THE CONTROL, RECEIPT, CUSTODY, DISPOSAL, OR PAYMENT OF
INTEREST (EXCEPT INTEREST ON DEPOSITS WITH PERSONS CARRYING ON THE
BANKING BUSINESS PAID TO PERSONS NOT ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN THE UNITED
STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN),
DIVIDENDS, RENT, SALARIES, WAGES, PREMIUMS, ANNUITIES, COMPENSATIONS,
REMUNERATIONS, EMOLUMENTS, OR OTHER FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR
PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME (BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY
OF THE ABOVE ITEMS CONSTITUTES GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES), OF ANY NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL, OR OF ANY
PARTNERSHIP NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
AND NOT HAVING ANY OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN AND COMPOSED IN
WHOLE OR IN PART OF NONRESIDENT ALIENS, SHALL  ...  DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD
FROM SUCH ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME A TAX EQUAL
TO 10 PER CENTUM THEREOF,  ..."  49 STAT. 1700-1701. 

FN12  "NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS 

"IT HAS ALSO BEEN NECESSARY TO RECOMMEND SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN OUR
PRESENT SYSTEM OF TAXING NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 
...  IN SECTION 211, IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE TAX ON A NONRESIDENT ALIEN
NOT ENGAGED IN A TRADE OR BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING
AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN, SHALL BE AT THE RATE OF 10
PERCENT ON HIS GROSS INCOME FROM INTEREST, DIVIDENDS, RENTS, WAGES, AND
SALARIES AND OTHER FIXED AND DETERMINABLE INCOME.  THIS TAX (IN THE
USUAL CASE) IS COLLECTED AT THE SOURCE BY WITHHOLDING AS PROVIDED FOR
IN SECTION 143.  SUCH A NONRESIDENT WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE TAX ON
CAPITAL GAINS, INCLUDING GAINS FROM HEDGING TRANSACTIONS, AS AT
PRESENT, IT HAVING BEEN FOUND IMPOSSIBLE TO EFFECTUALLY COLLECT THIS
LATTER TAX.  IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS EXEMPTION FROM TAX WILL RESULT IN
ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM THE TRANSFER TAXES AND FROM THE INCOME TAX IN
THE CASE OF PERSONS CARRYING ON THE BROKERAGE BUSINESS.  ... 

"...  IN THE CASE OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR
BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF
BUSINESS THEREIN, IT IS PROPOSED TO LEVY A FLAT RATE OF TAX OF 15
PERCENT ON THE GROSS INCOME OF SUCH CORPORATION FROM INTEREST,
DIVIDENDS, RENTS, SALARIES, WAGES, AND OTHER FIXED AND DETERMINABLE
INCOME (NOT INCLUDING CAPITAL GAINS).  THIS TAX IS TO BE COLLECTED IN
THE USUAL CASE BY WITHHOLDING AT THE SOURCE.  ... 

"IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE PROPOSED REVISION OF OUR SYSTEM OF TAXING
NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WILL BE PRODUCTIVE OF
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE, SINCE IT REPLACES A
THEORETICAL SYSTEM IMPRACTICAL OF ADMINISTRATION IN A GREAT NUMBER OF
CASES."  H.R. REP. NO. 2475, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 9-10(1936). 

TO THE SAME EFFECT, SEE S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 21,
23(1936). 

FN13  ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVE HILL OF WASHINGTON,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, SUPPORTING THESE AMENDMENTS, SAID: 

"WE HAVE PLACED A FLAT TAX OF 10 PERCENT ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS, THAT
IS, PEOPLE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT RESIDING IN THE
UNITED STATES; AND THIS 10-PERCENT TAX IS WITHHELD AT THE SOURCE.  WE
EXPECT TO GET CONSIDERABLY MORE REVENUE OUT OF BOTH NONRESIDENT ALIENS
AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS HAVING NO PLACE OF BUSINESS OR NOT ENGAGED IN
TRADE OR BUSINESS IN THIS COUNTRY, THAN WE HAVE BEEN GETTING UNDER THE
PRESENT PLAN, BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO WITHHOLD IT AT THE SOURCE, AND
NOT TAKE A CHANCE ON THEIR MAKING A REPORT OF IT, OR HAVING TO SEND OUR
REPRESENTATIVES TO SOME FOREIGN COUNTRY TO FIND WHAT THEIR NET INCOME
IS, AND SEEK TO INDUCE THEM TO PAY THEIR TAX."  80 CONG. REC.
6005(1936). 

ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, SENATOR KING OF UTAH, A MEMBER OF THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE AND IN CHARGE OF THE BILL, SAID, IN SUPPORTING THESE
AMENDMENTS: 

"THE HOUSE BILL CHANGES THE METHOD OF TAXING NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  A NONRESIDENT ALIEN NOT ENGAGED IN A TRADE OR
BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES, OR NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF
BUSINESS THEREIN, IS TAXED AT A FLAT RATE OF 10 PERCENT ON HIS INCOME
FROM INTEREST, DIVIDENDS, RENTS, WAGES, SALARIES, AND OTHER FIXED OR
DETERMINABLE INCOME, WHICH ARE COLLECTED AT THE SOURCE.  ...  THESE
NONRESIDENT ALIENS ARE EXEMPTED UNDER THE HOUSE BILL FROM THE TAX ON
CAPITAL GAINS, INCLUDING HEDGING TRANSACTIONS, IT BEING FOUND
ADMINISTRATIVELY ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO COLLECT THE CAPITAL-GAINS TAX IN
SUCH CASES.  THIS EXEMPTION WILL RESULT IN INCREASED REVENUE FROM
TRANSFER TAXES OR FROM THE INCOME TAX IN THE CASE OF PERSONS CARRYING
ON THE BROKERAGE BUSINESS."  80 CONG. REC. 8650(1936). 

FN14 PARTICULARLY IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, SEC. 211 WAS AMENDED TO
PROVIDE THAT, IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF A TAXPAYER'S INCOME OF THE
TYPES INCLUDED FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WAS MORE THAN
$21,600 DURING A TAXABLE YEAR, THEN THE REGULAR RATE OF TAX IMPOSED BY
SECS. 11 AND 12 BECAME APPLICABLE, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISO THAT IN NO
CASE IT BE LESS THAN 10% OF THE GROSS INCOME SUBJECT TO THE TAX.  SEC.
211(A) AND (C), 52 STAT. 527-528, AND SEE APPENDIX A, INFRA, P. 395. 

FN15  "...  WHILE PAYMENT ORDINARILY IS AT A CERTAIN RATE FOR EACH
ARTICLE OR CERTAIN PER CENT OF THE GROSS SALE, THAT IN ITSELF IS NOT
DETERMINATIVE.  THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE AND NOT THE
MANNER THEREOF IS THE DETERMINING FACTOR."  COMMISSIONER V. AFFILIATED
ENTERPRISES, 123 F.2D 665, 668(C.A. 10TH CIR.). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

(FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, SEE POST, P. 401.) 

                             APPENDIX A. 

MATERIAL PROVISIONS OF SECS. 212(A), 211 AND 119 OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1938 AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE: 

"SEC. 212.  GROSS INCOME. 

"(A)  GENERAL RULE.  - IN THE CASE OF A NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL
GROSS INCOME INCLUDES ONLY THE GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES."  52 STAT. 528, AND 53 STAT. 76, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 212(A). 

"SEC. 211.  TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS. 

"(A)  NO UNITED STATES BUSINESS OR OFFICE.  - 

"(1)  GENERAL RULE.  - THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND PAID FOR
EACH TAXABLE YEAR, IN LIEU OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTIONS 11 AND
12(NORMAL TAX AND SURTAX IMPOSED GENERALLY UPON INDIVIDUALS AND
APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE, UNDER PARAGRAPHS (A)(2) AND (C),
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT'S GROSS INCOME FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR EXCEEDED
THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM THERE SPECIFIED), UPON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED, BY
EVERY NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS
THEREIN, FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AS INTEREST (EXCEPT
INTEREST ON DEPOSITS WITH PERSONS CARRYING ON THE BANKING BUSINESS),
DIVIDENDS, RENTS, SALARIES, WAGES, PREMIUMS, ANNUITIES, COMPENSATIONS,
REMUNERATIONS, EMOLUMENTS, OR OTHER FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR
PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME, A TAX OF 10 PER CENTUM OF SUCH
AMOUNT,  ... 

"(2)  AGGREGATE MORE THAN $21,600.  - THE TAX IMPOSED BY PARAGRAPH
(1) SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY INDIVIDUAL IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT RECEIVED
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR FROM THE SOURCES THEREIN SPECIFIED IS MORE THAN
$21,600. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  NO UNITED STATES BUSINESS OR OFFICE AND GROSS INCOME OF MORE
THAN $21,600.  - A NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR
BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF
BUSINESS THEREIN WHO HAS A GROSS INCOME FOR ANY TAXABLE YEAR OF MORE
THAN $21,600 FROM THE SOURCES SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A)(1), SHALL BE
TAXABLE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A)(1), EXCEPT
THAT - 

"(1)  THE GROSS INCOME SHALL INCLUDE ONLY INCOME FROM THE SOURCES
SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A)(1); 

"(2)  THE DEDUCTIONS (OTHER THAN THE SO-CALLED 'CHARITABLE DEDUCTION'
PROVIDED IN SECTION 213(C)) SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF AND TO THE EXTENT
THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY ALLOCABLE TO THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE SOURCES
SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A)(1); 

"(3)  THE AGGREGATE OF THE NORMAL TAX AND SURTAX UNDER SECTIONS 11
AND 12 SHALL, IN NO CASE, BE LESS THAN 10 PER CENTUM OF THE GROSS
INCOME FROM THE SOURCES SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A)(1); AND ..."  52
STAT. 527-528. 

THE ABOVE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 212 AND 211 WERE REENACTED IN THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 53 STAT. 76, 75-76.  THE TAX RATES WERE CHANGED
BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1940, C. 419, 54 STAT. 516-517 AS FOLLOWS:  THE
SURTAXES WERE INCREASED GENERALLY IN SEC. 12(B), THE FLAT RATES WERE
INCREASED FROM 10% TO 15% AND THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM INCOME SUBJECT TO
THE FLAT RATES WAS RAISED FROM $21,600 TO $24,000 IN SEC. 211(A) AND
(C), 54 STAT. 518.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1941, C. 412, 55 STAT. 687, 688,
AGAIN INCREASED THE SURTAXES IN SEC. 12(B), INCREASED THE FLAT RATES
FROM 15% TO 27 1/2% AND DECREASED THE ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM INCOME SUBJECT
TO THE FLAT RATES FROM $24,000 TO $23,000 IN SEC. 211(A) AND (C), 55
STAT. 694.  SINCE THEN, THE NORMAL TAX AND SURTAX RATES HAVE BEEN
INCREASED STILL FURTHER, THE FLAT RATE APPLICABLE TO NONRESIDENT ALIEN
INDIVIDUALS HAS BEEN INCREASED FROM 27 1/2% TO 30% AND THE ALLOWABLE
MAXIMUM INCOME TO WHICH THE FLAT RATES APPLY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO
$15,400.  26 U.S.C. SEC. 211(A) AND (C). 

"SEC. 119.  INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN UNITED STATES. 

"(A)  GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES IN UNITED STATES.  - THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES: 

"(1)  INTEREST.  -  ... 

"(2)  DIVIDENDS.  -  ... 

"(3)  PERSONAL SERVICES.  -  ... 

"(4)  RENTALS AND ROYALTIES.  - RENTALS OR ROYALTIES FROM PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES OR FROM ANY INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY,
INCLUDING RENTALS OR ROYALTIES FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
USING IN THE UNITED STATES, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, SECRET PROCESSES AND
FORMULAS, GOOD WILL, TRADE-MARKS, TRADE BRANDS, FRANCHISES, AND OTHER
LIKE PROPERTY; AND 

"(5)  SALE OF REAL PROPERTY.  - GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME FROM THE
SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES. 

"(6)  SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.  - FOR GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME
FROM THE SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, SEE SUBSECTION (E). 

"(B)  NET INCOME FROM SOURCES IN UNITED STATES.  - FROM THE ITEMS OF
GROSS INCOME SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION THERE SHALL BE
DEDUCTED THE EXPENSES, LOSSES, AND OTHER DEDUCTIONS PROPERLY
APPORTIONED OR ALLOCATED THERETO AND A RATABLE PART OF ANY EXPENSES,
LOSSES, OR OTHER DEDUCTIONS WHICH CAN NOT DEFINITELY BE ALLOCATED TO
SOME ITEM OR CLASS OF GROSS INCOME.  THE REMAINDER, IF ANY, SHALL BE
INCLUDED IN FULL AS NET INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. 
"(C)  GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHOUT UNITED STATES.  - THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM SOURCES
WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES: 

"(1)  INTEREST OTHER THAN THAT DERIVED FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (A)(1) OF THIS SECTION; 

"(2)  DIVIDENDS OTHER THAN THOSE DERIVED FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (A)(2) OF THIS SECTION; 

"(3)  COMPENSATION FOR LABOR OR PERSONAL SERVICES PERFORMED WITHOUT
THE UNITED STATES;    "(4)  RENTALS OR ROYALTIES FROM PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES OR FROM ANY INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY,
INCLUDING RENTALS OR ROYALTIES FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
USING WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, SECRET PROCESSES
AND FORMULAS, GOOD WILL, TRADE-MARKS, TRADE BRANDS, FRANCHISES, AND
OTHER LIKE PROPERTIES; AND 

"(5)  GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME FROM THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES. 

"(D)  NET INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHOUT UNITED STATES.  -  ... 

"(E)  INCOME FROM SOURCES PARTLY WITHIN AND PARTLY WITHOUT UNITED
STATES.  -  ...  GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME FROM - 

"(1)  TRANSPORTATION OR OTHER SERVICES RENDERED PARTLY WITHIN AND
PARTLY WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES, OR 

"(2)  FROM THE SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY PRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN
PART) BY THE TAXPAYER WITHIN AND SOLD WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES, OR
PRODUCED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART) BY THE TAXPAYER WITHOUT AND SOLD WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES, 

SHALL BE TREATED AS DERIVED PARTLY FROM SOURCES WITHIN AND PARTLY
FROM SOURCES WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  GAINS, PROFITS AND INCOME
DERIVED FROM THE PURCHASE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN AND ITS SALE
WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES OR FROM THE PURCHASE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
WITHOUT AND ITS SALE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE TREATED AS
DERIVED ENTIRELY FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH SOLD,  ... 

"(F)  DEFINITIONS.  - ..."  52 STAT. 503-506, 53 STAT. 53-55, 26
U.S.C. SEC. 119. 

     APPENDIX B.

                    "THE CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY

                          INDEPENDENCE SQUARE

                             PHILADELPHIA

              FEBRUARY 22, 1938 

"PAUL R. REYNOLDS, & SON 

599 FIFTH AVENUE 

NEW YORK CITY

                      WE INCLOSE HEREWITH 

OUR CHECK FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS

  IN PAYMENT FOR 

SERIAL:  THE SILVER COW

      BY P. G. WODEHOUSE                       $40,000.00

                 "IMPORTANT 

"THIS CHECK IS OFFERED AND ACCEPTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY BUYS ALL RIGHTS IN AND OF ALL STORIES AND
SPECIAL ARTICLES APPEARING IN ITS PUBLICATIONS AND WITH THE FURTHER
UNDERSTANDING THAT EVERY NUMBER OF THESE PUBLICATIONS IN WHICH ANY
PORTION THEREOF SHALL APPEAR SHALL BE COPYRIGHTED AT ITS EXPENSE. 
AFTER PUBLICATION IN A CURTIS PERIODICAL IS COMPLETED IT AGREES TO
REASSIGN TO THE AUTHOR OR DEMAND ALL RIGHTS, EXCEPT AMERICAN (INCLUDING
CANADIAN AND SOUTH AMERICAN) SERIAL RIGHTS. 

                "MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS 

"PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR RESERVATION OF SERIAL RIGHTS (WHICH INCLUDES
PUBLICATION IN ONE INSTALLMENT) INCLUDES NEW STORY VERSIONS BASED ON
MOTION-PICTURE OR DRAMATIC SCENARIOS OF SHORT STORIES AND SERIALS THAT
HAVE APPEARED IN CURTIS PUBLICATIONS, AND THAT WE PERMIT THE USE OF
SUCH VERSIONS ONLY UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  SUCH SYNOPSIS,
SCENARIO, OR NEW STORY VERSION SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTEEN HUNDRED (1500)
WORDS IN LENGTH WHEN BASED ON A SHORT STORY APPEARING COMPLETE IN ONE
ISSUE, OR FIVE THOUSAND (5000) WORDS WHEN BASED ON A SERIAL APPEARING
IN TWO OR MORE ISSUES, OR A SERIES OF NOT LESS THAN THREE CONNECTED
SHORT STORIES FROM WHICH A SINGLE PICTURE IS TO BE MADE.  SUCH SYNOPSIS
SHALL APPEAR ONLY IN CIRCULAR MATTER, PRESS BOOKS, PRESS NOTICES, TRADE
JOURNALS AND IN MAGAZINES DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO DRAMATIC OR MOTION
PICTURE MATTER, AND SHALL IN NO EVENT APPEAR AS HAVING BEEN WRITTEN BY
THE AUTHOR.  WHEN SELLING MOTION-PICTURE OR DRAMATIC RIGHTS OF MATTER,
YOU MUST NOTIFY THE PRODUCER TO THIS EFFECT, SO THAT THERE MAY BE NO
MISUNDERSTANDING ON HIS PART AND NO INFRINGEMENT OF OUR RIGHTS

                   "THE CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY" 

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT CONTAINING THE FOREGOING MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT
ALSO INCLUDED THE STATEMENT RENDERED AND THE CHECKS ISSUED BY THE AGENT
TO THE RESPONDENT AND TO THE RESPONDENT'S WIFE FOR $17,100 EACH,
INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

                                       "MARCH 3, 1938 

"P. G. WODEHOUSE

                        IN ACCOUNT WITH

                                         PAUL R. REYNOLDS & SON 

"RECEIVED FROM SATURDAY EVENING POST FOR 

ALL AMERICAN, CANADIAN & SOUTH AMERICAN 

SERIAL RIGHTS TO 

THE SILVER COW                                          $40,000. 

COMMISSION 5%                                             2,000. 

                                                      $38,000. 

U.S. INCOME TAX 10%      3,800. 

      $34,200. 

ETHEL WODEHOUSE SHARE 1/2                 17,100. 

DRAFT HEREWITH                      $17,100." 

NO ISSUE IS BEFORE US RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT
WITHHELD OR THE DIVISION OF THE PAYMENTS BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND HIS
WIFE.  IN THE STATEMENTS RENDERED BY THE AGENT AS TO THE PAYMENTS
RECEIVED FOR SERIAL RIGHTS TO "UNCLE FRED IN THE SPRINGTIME," THE
INITIAL AMOUNT WITHHELD WAS 10% OF THE FULL PAYMENT WITHOUT DEDUCTION
OF THE AGENT'S COMMISSION. 

                             APPENDIX C.

                        "HEARST'S INTERNATIONAL

                           COSMOPOLITAN

     HEARST MAGAZINE BUILDING

                FIFTY-SEVENTH STREET AND EIGHTH AVENUE

NEW YORK CITY

    JULY 23, 1941

       JUL 24 1941 

"MR. PAUL R. REYNOLDS, SR. 

599 FIFTH AVENUE 

NEW YORK CITY 

"DEAR MR. REYNOLDS: 

"THIS WILL CONFIRM OUR PURCHASE OF THE ARTICLE ENTITLED MY YEAR
BEHIND BARBED WIRE BY P. G. WODEHOUSE FOR TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
($2,000.00).  WE ARE BUYING ALL AMERICAN AND CANADIAN SERIAL RIGHTS
(WHICH INCLUDE ALL AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MAGAZINE, DIGEST, PERIODICAL
AND NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING RIGHTS). 

"IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THE AUTHOR, AND YOU AS HIS AGENT,
WILL NOT USE OR PERMIT THE USE OF THIS ARTICLE OR ANY PART OR PARTS
THEREOF (1) IN ANY MANNER OR FOR ANY PURPOSE UNTIL THIRTY (30) DAYS
AFTER MAGAZINE PUBLICATION AND (2) IN CONNECTION WITH OR AS THE BASIS
FOR ANY MOTION AND/OR TALKING PICTURES), RADIO BROADCASTS), TELEVISION,
DRAMATIC PRODUCTIONS) OR PUBLIC PERFORMANCES) THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
UNLESS THE WORDS 'BASED ON (OR TAKEN FROM) LITERARY MATERIAL ORIGINALLY
PUBLISHED IN COSMOPOLITAN' IMMEDIATELY PRECEDE OR FOLLOW OR OTHERWISE
ACCOMPANY THE TITLE OF ANY AND ALL SUCH MOTION AND/OR TALKING PICTURES,
RADIO BROADCASTS, TELECASTS, DRAMATIC PRODUCTIONS OR PUBLIC
PERFORMANCES. 

"YOUR SIGNATURE HEREON WILL CONSTITUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN US.

                   "SINCERELY YOURS,

             "FRANCES WHITING

       FRANCES WHITING 

"ACCEPTED: 

............................ 

DATE:  .....................

         "I AM ACCEPTING THE ABOVE LETTER ON THE CONDITION THAT
PUBLICATION OF THIS ARTICLE CAN BE RELEASED IN ENGLAND SIMULTANEOUSLY
WITH PUBLICATION IN COSMOPOLITAN MAGAZINE (DESPITE THE WORDING OF (1)
IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH); 

WITH THE FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THAT COSMOPOLITAN WILL PERMIT NO
DIGEST OR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THIS ARTICLE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE AUTHOR OR HIS AGENT IN WRITING; AND WITH THE FURTHER CONDITION THAT
WE RECEIVE PAYMENT NOT LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 1941." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND
USEFUL ARTS," CONGRESS, BY GRANTING COPYRIGHTS, HAS CREATED VALUABLE
PROPERTY RIGHTS.  SEE AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. WERCKMEISTER, 207 U.S.
284; WHITE-SMITH MUSIC PUB. CO. V. APOLLO CO., 209 U.S. 1, 18, 19. 
BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO CIRCUITS WE MUST NOW FOR THE FIRST
TIME PASS ON THE AMENABILITY TO OUR REVENUE LAW OF PROCEEDS DERIVED
FROM THE TRANSFER OF SOME OF THESE INTERESTS.  A RULING OF THE TREASURY
AND A SUPPORTING DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT HAVE MADE TAXABILITY TURN ON THE NOTION THAT A COPYRIGHT IS
INDIVISIBLE.  AS A COROLLARY IT WAS ASSUMED THAT A TRANSFER OF LESS
THAN ALL THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY SEC. 1 OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW  FN1
MAKES THE TRANSACTION, REGARDLESS OF THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES, A "MERE
LICENSE."  ON THAT GROUND THE GOVERNMENT HAS HERE PRESSED ITS CLAIM OF
TAXABILITY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HAS REJECTED
THE NOTION OF INDIVISIBILITY AND CONSEQUENTLY FOUND LUMP-SUM PAYMENTS
BY A PURCHASER OF THE EXCLUSIVE SERIAL PUBLICATION RIGHTS NOT TO BE
WITHIN SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  BY THE PLAIN
IMPLICATION OF ITS SILENCE REGARDING THE BASIS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
CLAIM AND OF THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE HERETOFORE SUSTAINED IT, THIS
COURT LIKEWISE REJECTS THE NOTION OF INDIVISIBILITY WHILE CLINGING TO A
CONCLUSION HITHERTO ENTIRELY DERIVED FROM IT. 

THE CASE CALLS FOR INQUIRY INTO THE SCHEME OF TAXATION OF AMERICAN
INCOME OF ALIEN COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AS WELL AS REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
AND JUDICIAL TREATMENT OF SUCH INCOME.  TO PUT THIS DISCUSSION IN THE
PERSPECTIVE OF CONCRETENESS, HOWEVER, THE FACTS OUT OF WHICH THE
CONTROVERSY ARISES SHOULD FIRST BE STATED.  THE TRANSACTION WHICH
PRODUCED THE INCOME FOUND TAXABLE BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE YEAR 1941
IS TYPICAL OF THE OTHER TRANSACTIONS THAT YIELDED THE PROCEEDS CLAIMED
TO BE COVERED BY SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) FOR THE VARIOUS TAX YEARS HERE
INVOLVED.  FN2 

WODEHOUSE, THE WRITER OF POPULAR STORIES AND NOVELS, A NONRESIDENT
ALIEN AND "NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES,"
TRANSFERRED, ON AUGUST 12, 1941, THROUGH HIS AMERICAN LITERARY AGENT,
TO THE CURTIS PUBLISHING COMPANY FOR $40,000 "ALL RIGHTS IN AND OF ALL
STORIES AND SPECIAL ARTICLES APPEARING IN ITS PUBLICATIONS" OF A
CERTAIN NOVEL, ENTITLED, "MONEY IN THE BANK."  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED
THAT, AFTER PUBLICATION IN A CURTIS MAGAZINE, CURTIS WAS TO REASSIGN TO
WODEHOUSE "ON DEMAND ALL RIGHTS, EXCEPT NORTH AMERICAN (INCLUDING
CANADIAN) SERIAL RIGHTS."  THE DOCUMENTS INVOLVED IN EACH OF THE
VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS MAKE CLEAR BEYOND QUESTION THAT CURTIS, AS BUYER,
INTENDED TO SECURE, IF LEGALLY POSSIBLE, AN ABSOLUTE, EXCLUSIVE, AND
IRREVOCABLE TRANSFER OF THE SERIAL RIGHTS FOR ALL OF NORTH AMERICA,
INCLUDING CANADA, AND THAT WODEHOUSE, AS TRANSFEROR, INTENDED TO
TRANSFER, WITH NO DESIRE TO RETAIN ANY CONTROL WHATSOEVER, ALL THE
NORTH AMERICAN SERIAL RIGHTS OF THE NOVEL.  INDEED, TO ASSURE CURTIS
UNQUALIFIED CONTROL, WODEHOUSE AGREED TO EXERCISE OTHER RIGHTS IN A WAY
TO ASSURE CURTIS FULL PROTECTION AND ENJOYMENT IN THE SERIAL
PUBLICATION RIGHTS.  FN3 

THE TAX COURT NEVER QUESTIONED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE INTENDED
TO BE ABSOLUTE TRANSFERS.  INSTEAD, IT RELIED ON SAX ROHMER, 5 T.C.
183, AFF'D, 153 F.2D 61(C.A.2D CIR.), WHICH HAD HELD THAT AN ASSIGNMENT
OF LESS THAN SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY A COPYRIGHT
WAS NECESSARILY ONLY A LICENSE, AND THEREFORE THAT THE PROCEEDS
RECEIVED HAD TO BE REGARDED AS FOR THE USE, RATHER THAN THE SALE, OF
THE COPYRIGHT.  8 T.C. 637.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT, UPON FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE ROHMER CASE, REJECTED ITS
NOTION THAT THERE CANNOT BE A SALE OF LESS THAN THE WHOLE, AND, FINDING
NO BARRIER TO THE LAW'S RECOGNITION OF THE TRUE NATURE OF THE
TRANSACTION, NAMELY IRREVOCABLE TRANSFERS OF AN INTEREST IN PERSONAL
PROPERTY, REVERSED THE TAX COURT.  166 F.2D 986(C.A.4TH CIR.)(ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING). 

THIS COURT NOW REVERSES THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT FACING THE
QUESTION WHICH THE TREASURY, THE TAX COURT, AND THE TWO COURTS OF
APPEALS DEEMED CONTROLLING ON EACH OCCASION WHEN THE PROBLEM WAS
PRESENTED.  INSTEAD, THE COURT APPEARS TO BE GUIDED, IN HOWEVER LOW A
KEY THAT CONSIDERATION IS PITCHED, IN CONSTRUING THE APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BY THE URGENT NEED FOR
REVENUE.  TO LET THIS NEED DETERMINE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE WOULD LARGELY DISPENSE WITH EXPLICITNESS AND
TECHNICAL PRECISION IN REVENUE MEASURES.  "LONG PRIOR PRACTICE" IS
INVOKED TO SUPPORT THE FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS.  THIS RELIANCE IS
ILLUSORY.  IT COMPLETELY IGNORES THAT THE PRACTICE OF WHICH WE HAVE
BEEN ADVISED IS TENUOUS AND, IN ANY EVENT, RESTS SOLELY ON THE NOTION
OF THE INDIVISIBILITY OF COPYRIGHTS.  TO DERIVE THE EXISTENCE OF A
PRACTICE FROM A SINGLE PRONOUNCEMENT BY THE TREASURY, CONSTITUTING NOT
THE FORMULATION OF A FISCAL POLICY BUT EXPRESSING A METAPHYSICAL VIEW
OF COPYRIGHT LAW NOT ADOPTED BY THIS COURT, GIVES A VERY LOOSE MEANING
TO THE WORD "PRACTICE." 

1.  THE COMMISSIONER HERE DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY AND THE TAX COURT
SUSTAINED THE DEFICIENCY UNDER SEC. 211(C)(1).  FN4  THAT SECTION DEALS
WITH GROSS INCOMES OF MORE THAN $24,000 RECEIVED BY NONRESIDENT ALIENS
"NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES."  26 U.S.C.
SEC. 211(C)(1)(1941).  FOR THE SOURCES OF TAXABLE GROSS INCOME IT
REFERS TO SEC. 211(A)(1)(A), WHICH SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH THE TAXATION
OF NONRESIDENT ALIENS LIKE WODEHOUSE.  FN5  THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH
THE TAX WAS HERE LEVIED PROVIDES:  "THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED,
AND PAID (A TAX ON)  ...  THE AMOUNT RECEIVED  ...  FROM SOURCES WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES AS  ...  OTHER FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR
PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME ..."  26 U.S.C. SEC.
211(A)(1)(A).    2.  THE COURT DRAWS ON SEC. 119(A)(4) TO SUPPORT THE
TAX.  FN6  BUT PROCEEDS WITHIN SEC. 119(A) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED WITHIN
SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) UNLESS THE DEFINITION OF SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) IS ALSO
SATISFIED, THAT IS, UNLESS THE PROCEEDS ARE "FIXED OR DETERMINABLE
ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL INCOME."  CF. U.S. TREAS. REG. 111, SEC. 29.143
2.  THE SUBSECTIONS OF SEC. 119(A) SERVE MERELY TO DEFINE WHAT PROCEEDS
ARE TO BE DEEMED LOCALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR TAX PURPOSES; THEY
SETTLE ONLY THE GEOGRAPHIC QUESTION; SEC. 119(A) IS NOT A TAX-IMPOSING
PROVISION; OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE SERVE THAT FUNCTION. 

3.  AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS, IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGES
MADE IN 1936, MAKES THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR.  UNTIL 1936, THE TAX-IMPOSING
PROVISIONS WERE COTERMINOUS WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 119(A) IN
DEFINING THE TAXABLE GROSS INCOME OF A NONRESIDENT ALIEN.  THIS WAS SO
BECAUSE TAXABILITY WAS LIMITED ONLY BY SEC. 211(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1934 WHICH PROVIDED THAT "IN THE CASE OF A NONRESIDENT ALIEN
INDIVIDUAL GROSS INCOME INCLUDES ONLY THE GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES."  48 STAT. 735.  SUPPLEMENT H OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1934 PROVIDED FOR DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS (SECS. 212-215, 48
STAT. 736-737), BUT THERE WAS NO OTHER PROVISION FURTHER DEFINING OR
LIMITING THE TYPE OF RECEIPTS TO BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME.  SEE 48
STAT. 735-737, 684.  THUS, WHATEVER WAS GROSS INCOME FROM A SOURCE
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WAS TAXED.  BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936,
CONGRESS CHANGED THE SCHEME OF TAXING NONRESIDENT ALIENS.  49 STAT.
1714; SEE 8 MERTENS, THE LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, SEC. 45.16, ET
SEQ. (1942).  FOR THOSE WHO HAVE A PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED
STATES IT RETAINED THE SYSTEM OF TAXING ALL PROCEEDS FROM SOURCES
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  REVENUE ACT OF 1936, SEC. 211(B), 49 STAT.
1714.  AS TO SUCH ALIENS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 119 CONTINUED TO
DETERMINE WHAT RECEIPTS WERE TO BE INCLUDED.  AND THAT HAS REMAINED THE
LAW.  26 U.S.C. SEC. 211(B).  BUT AS TO THOSE WHO ARE "NOT ENGAGED IN
TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES," THE ONLY TYPE OF PROCEEDS
TO BE TAXED WERE THOSE WHICH WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SOURCES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES BUT ONLY IF THERE WERE "FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR
PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME."  SUCH HAS REMAINED THE LAW AND
CONTROLS THIS CASE.  (COMPARE 26 U.S.C. SEC. 211(A)(1)(A), THE
APPLICABLE PROVISION WHEN THE NONRESIDENT ALIEN IS NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE
OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, WITH 26 U.S.C. SEC. 211(B), THE
IN THE UNITED STATES.) 

THE SPECIFICALLY DEFINED RECEIPTS - FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR
PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, OR INCOME - ARE NOT WORDS GIVING RISE TO AN
EXEMPTION, AND AS SUCH TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  THEY ARE THE
CONTROLLING BASIS FOR TAXATION.  TO BE TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 211(A)(1)(A)
THE PROCEEDS MUST BE FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, AS SET
FORTH IN SEC. 119(A), BUT ALSO OF THE NATURE DEFINED IN SEC.
211(A)(1)(A).  SEE 54 YALE L.J. 879, 881-882(1945); 48 COL. L. REV.
967(1948); CF. U.S. TREAS. REG. 111, SEC. 29.143-2.  SINCE THE REACH OF
SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PROCEEDS FROM A SALE, RECEIPTS
FROM A SALE ARE NOT TAXABLE EVEN THOUGH SUCH PROCEEDS ARE FROM A SOURCE
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND, AS SUCH, ARE LISTED IN SEC. 119(A)(5)
(6).  THE REGULATIONS HAVE MADE THIS EXPLICIT.  U.S. TREAS. REG. 111,
SECS. 29.211-7, 29.143-2; SEE ALSO S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 21(1936); H.R. REP. NO. 2475, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 9
10(1936). 

THE CHANGES MADE IN 1936 IN THE METHOD OF TAXING INCOME OF A
NONRESIDENT ALIEN "NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES" MAKE THE TAXING PROVISIONS COTERMINOUS, NOT WITH SEC. 119(A),
BUT WITH SEC. 143(B), THE SECTION PROVIDING FOR WITHHOLDING TAXES AT
THE SOURCE.  SECTION 143(B) EMPHASIZES THAT PROCEEDS WITHIN SEC. 119(A)
DO NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 143(B) UNLESS THE ADDITIONAL
QUALIFICATION CONTAINED IN SEC. 143(B) IS ALSO MET.  SECTION 143(B)
PROVIDES THAT THE TAX SHOULD BE WITHHELD ON INCOME WHICH IS "FIXED OR
DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME (BUT ONLY
TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF THE ABOVE ITEMS CONSTITUTES GROSS INCOME FROM
SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES)  ..."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 143(B).  HERE
AGAIN, SINCE "THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SALE IN THE UNITED STATES OF
PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, IS NOT FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL
OR PERIODICAL INCOME," IT IS NOT INCLUDED.  U.S. TREAS. REG. 111, SEC.
29.143-2.  ONLY BY NOT OBSERVING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROCEEDS MUST
NOT ONLY BE FROM A SOURCE IN THE UNITED STATES BUT ALSO "ANNUAL OR
PERIODICAL" TO BE SUBJECT EITHER TO WITHHOLDING UNDER SEC. 143(B), OR
TO TAXATION UNDER SEC. 211(A)(1)(A), CAN IT BE SAID THAT PROCEEDS WHICH
PRIOR TO 1936 WERE HELD TO BE UNDER SEC. 119(A)(4) ARE IPSO FACTO
WITHIN SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) AFTER 1936 REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE
REVENUE. 

THEREFORE, INQUIRY WHICH SEEKS TO DISCOVER PRIOR PRACTICE AS AN AID
TO CONSTRUCTION SHOULD PROPERLY ADDRESS ITSELF TO WHETHER SUCH PROCEEDS
WERE WITHHELD UNDER SEC. 143(B) BEFORE 1936.  INQUIRY AS TO SEC. 119(A)
IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT IS CLEAR THAT BEFORE 1936 MANY
ITEMS WERE INCLUDED IN SEC. 119(A) WHICH WERE NOT WITHHELD UNDER SEC.
143(B).  SINCE 1936 THE ONLY PROCEEDS WHICH ARE TAXED TO A NONRESIDENT
ALIEN NOT ENGAGED IN A TRADE OR BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE THOSE
WHICH ARE "FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME," WHICH IS THE ONLY TYPE OF PROCEEDS ON WHICH TAXES WERE
WITHHELD AT THE SOURCE BEFORE AS WELL AS AFTER 1936.  THEREFORE
TREASURY PRACTICE REGARDING THE WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO THE
1936 LEGISLATION WOULD BE RELEVANT.  THERE IS A TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY
SHOWING THAT THE TREASURY BEFORE 1936 REGARDED SUCH PROCEEDS SUBJECT TO
WITHHOLDING UNDER SEC. 143(B).  AND IN THE ANALOGOUS SITUATION OF LUMP
SUM PAYMENTS FOR THE ABSOLUTE TRANSFER OF SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE PATENT LAW, COURTS HAVE HELD SUCH
PROCEEDS NOT SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING UNDER SEC. 143(B).  GENERAL ANILINE
& FILM CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 139 F.2D 759(C.A.2D CIR.); CF.
COMMISSIONER V. CELANESE CORP., 78 U.S. APP. D.C. 292, 140 F.2D 339. 

THE REGULATIONS, TO BE SURE, GIVE "ROYALTIES" AS AN EXAMPLE OF
PROCEEDS WHICH ARE WITHIN THE PHRASE "FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR
PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME."  SEE U.S. TREAS. REG. 111, SEC.
29.211-7.  BUT PROCEEDS SOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE TERM
"ROYALTIES" MUST BE OF A NATURE WHICH JUSTIFIES THAT CLASSIFICATION. 
ROYALTIES ARE WITHIN THE SECTION ONLY BECAUSE THEY MEET THE ABOVE
DESCRIPTION.  IT COMPLETELY IGNORES THE INTRINSIC CHARACTER OF
"ROYALTIES," AND THEREFORE THE BASIS OF INCLUDING THEM IN THE LARGER
CATEGORY OF "FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME," TO INFER THAT PROCEEDS WHICH DO NOT MEET THAT DESCRIPTION
BUT RESULT FROM THE USE OF ANOTHER METHOD OF REALIZING ECONOMIC GAIN
FROM A PROPERTY RIGHT - THAT OF SALE RATHER THAN A LICENSE PRODUCING A
RECURRING INCOME - ARE ALSO "ROYALTIES."  SEE 48 COL. L. REV. 967,
969(1948).  BY SUCH REASONING PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF A HOUSE WOULD
ALSO BE WITHIN SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) BECAUSE ANOTHER WAY THAT THE OWNER
COULD HAVE REALIZED GAIN ON THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE BEEN TO HAVE LEASED
IT OVER ITS LIFETIME.  FN7 

FREE JUDICIAL RENDERING OF NEEDLESSLY IMPRECISE LEGISLATION IS
SUFFICIENTLY UNDESIRABLE IN THAT IT ENCOURAGES CONGRESS TO BE
INDIFFERENT TO THE DUTY OF GIVING LAWS ATTAINABLE DEFINITENESS.  HERE
WE ARE DEALING WITH LEGISLATION THAT IS PRECISE.  YET THE COURT CHOOSES
NOT TO GIVE IT EFFECT AND IT DOES SO ON THE BASIS OF FISCAL
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH CONGRESS, BY WHAT IT ENACTED, CHOSE NOT TO WRITE
INTO LAW. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE PROBLEM HERE IS NOT TO DETERMINE WHAT
IS INCOME IN EITHER A CONSTITUTIONAL OR AN ECONOMIC SENSE.  THE
PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF A HOUSE OVER AND ABOVE ITS COST TO THE SELLER
ARE AS MUCH INCOME AS IS A JUDGE'S SALARY.  NOR IS THE PROBLEM ONE OF
DETERMINING WHETHER SOMETHING WHICH IS USUALLY REGARDED AS INCOME IS TO
ESCAPE A TAX BECAUSE THE PARTIES BY AGREEMENT ACT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO
CAUSE THE PROCEEDS TO BE RECEIVED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER.  CF. LYETH V.
HOEY, 305 U.S. 188.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE TRANSACTION AS IT
APPEARS ON THE SURFACE WAS NOT THE TRANSACTION IN TRUTH.  THE FACT THAT
THE INCIDENCES OF INCOME TAXATION MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY
ARRANGING MATTERS ONE WAY RATHER THAN ANOTHER SO LONG AS THE WAY CHOSEN
WAS THE WAY THE LAW ALLOWS, DOES NOT MAKE A TRANSACTION SOMETHING ELSE
THAN IT TRULY IS - IT DOES NOT TURN A SALE INTO A LICENSE.  HELVERING
V. GREGORY, 69 F.2D 809, 810(C.A.2D CIR.).  THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLE OF
TAX EVASION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE, EXCEPT ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS ITSELF EVADED ITS OWN TAX PURPOSES AND
THAT THE COURT MUST CLOSE WHAT CONGRESS LEFT OPEN.  IT IS TAKING TOO
MUCH LIBERTY EVEN WITH TAX PROVISIONS TO READ OUT A DEFINING CLAUSE
THAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN IN MERELY BECAUSE CONGRESS PERMITTED
DESIRABLE REVENUE TO ESCAPE THE TAX COLLECTOR'S NET.  THE ONLY JUDICIAL
PROBLEM IS WHETHER THE PROCEEDS CONSTITUTE A TYPE OF INCOME WHICH
CONGRESS HAS DESIGNATED AS TAXABLE.  THAT TYPE MUST HAVE THE
CHARACTERISTIC OF BEING "FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL
GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME."  A LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FOR AN EXCLUSIVE
PROPERTY RIGHT, TRANSFERABLE AND TRANSFERRED BY THE TAXPAYER, SIMPLY
DOES NOT MEET THAT QUALIFICATION.  UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING INHERENT
IN THE COPYRIGHT LAW TO PREVENT IT, SUCH A TRANSACTION IS THE FAMILIAR
"SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY."  U.S. TREAS. REG. 111, SEC. 29.211-7. 
SURELY IT IS A SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET.  SEE LEARNED HAND, J., IN
GOLDSMITH V. COMMISSIONER, 143 F.2D 466, 467(C.A.2D CIR.).  AS SUCH IT
IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE TAX.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY LEAVES NO DOUBT ON
THIS POINT.  FN8 

4.  SO FAR IT HAS BEEN ASSUMED THAT THESE PROCEEDS WOULD BE WITHIN
SEC. 119(A)(4).  BUT NEITHER THIS COURT NOR CONGRESS HAS EVER SAID SO;
INDEED NO COURT OTHER THAN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT,
AND THE TAX COURT (BUT ONLY AFTER ITS CONTRARY DETERMINATION WAS
REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT) HAS SAID SO.
BUT IT IS URGED THAT A "LONG PRIOR PRACTICE" OF INCLUDING UNDER SEC.
119(A)(4) PROCEEDS RECEIVED AS LUMP-SUM PAYMENTS FOR THE ABSOLUTE
TRANSFER OF SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE COPYRIGHT
LAW, AND THEREFORE TAXING THEM TO NONRESIDENT ALIENS UNDER THE PRIOR
STATUTE, PREVENTS THIS COURT FROM APPLYING SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) ACCORDING
TO THE FAIR MEANING OF ITS OWN TERMS.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT, NO MATTER
WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN ON THE STATUTE BOOKS, IT IS TO BE ASSUMED
THAT CONGRESS WOULD NOT GIVE UP A SOURCE OF REVENUE IT HAD ONCE
TAPPED.  THIS SUGGESTION IS MADE DESPITE THE FACT THAT CONGRESS SAID
THAT IT WAS CHANGING THE METHOD OF TAXING THE INCOME OF NONRESIDENT
ALIENS AND THAT IT ALSO SAID THAT CERTAIN ITEMS, PREVIOUSLY TAXED,
WOULD NOW BE EXEMPT.  S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P.
21(1936); H.R. REP. NO. 2475, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 9-10(1936). 
WHAT IS THIS LONG PRIOR PRACTICE THAT HAS ENCRUSTED THE PHRASE,
"ROYALTIES FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING IN THE UNITED
STATES, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS  ...  AND OTHER LIKE PROPERTY," WITH A
MEANING THAT CONTRADICTS ITS OWN TERMS NOT OTHERWISE DEFINED BY
CONGRESS, YET PRECLUDES THIS COURT FROM CONSTRUING IT ACCORDING TO THE
OBVIOUS PURPORT OF FAMILIAR WORDS? 

PART OF THE REVENUE LAWS SINCE 1921.  SEE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, SEC.
217(A)(4), 42 STAT. 244.  SOON AFTER ITS ENACTMENT THE BUREAU RULED
THAT RECEIPTS FROM THE ABSOLUTE TRANSFER BY A NONRESIDENT ALIEN OF THE
RIGHTS TO SERIAL PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF CERTAIN LITERARY
WORKS WERE NOT DERIVED FROM A SOURCE IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE REASON
GIVEN WAS THAT THE TRANSACTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE A LICENSE FOR USE,
BUT A SALE.  O.D. 988, 5 CUM. BULL.  117(1921); SEE ALSO I.T. 2169, IV
1 CUM. BULL.  13(1925)(SALE OF MOTION-PICTURE RIGHT TO PLAY DEEMED A
SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET).  THE RULING PREVAILED THROUGH THE SUBSEQUENT
REENACTMENT OF THE PHRASING IN SEC. 119(A)(4) IN 1924, 1926, 1928, AND
1932, SEE 43 STAT. 273; 44 STAT. 30; 45 STAT. 826, 827; 47 STAT. 208,
209.  IN 1933 THE BUREAU MADE A CONTRARY RULING WHICH EXPRESSLY REVOKED
THE ONE MADE IN 1921.  BUT THE FACTS ON WHICH THE BUREAU TOOK THIS
ACTION ARE IMPORTANT. 

THE TAXPAYER HAD RECEIVED THE INCOME IN QUESTION PURSUANT TO
CONTRACTS WITH A NUMBER OF PUBLISHERS AND PRODUCERS UNDER WHICH HE HAD
GRANTED SERIAL RIGHTS IN BOOKS ALREADY WRITTEN, RESERVING A "STIPULATED
ROYALTY PER COPY SOLD."  THE BUREAU CHARACTERIZED ALL BUT ONE OF THESE
CONTRACTS AS REQUIRING "STIPULATED SUMS  ...  TO BE PAID TO HIM AS
ROYALTIES."  MOREOVER, IN SOME OF THESE CONTRACTS YEARLY LICENSES WERE
GRANTED, RENEWABLE AT THE TAXPAYER'S OPTION, WITH STIPULATED ROYALTIES
PER COPY.  IN ONE CONTRACT A COMPANY WAS GRANTED FIRST AMERICAN AND
CANADIAN SERIAL RIGHTS IN THE TAXPAYER'S EXCLUSIVE OUTPUT OF BOTH LONG
AND SHORT STORIES FOR WHICH THE COMPANY WAS TO PAY A STIPULATED SUM OF
MONEY, AND IN ANOTHER CONTRACT THE TAXPAYER GRANTED MOTION-PICTURE
RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, THE CONSIDERATION TO BE PAID IN
INSTALLMENTS.  THE BUREAU RULED THAT THESE PROCEEDS WERE WITHIN THE
PHRASE  "...  ROYALTIES FROM  ...  (OR) FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING IN THE UNITED STATES  ...  COPYRIGHTS  ..."  26
U.S.C. SEC. 119(A)(4).    THE REASONING ON WHICH THIS CONCLUSION WAS
BASED DESERVES ATTENTION.  FN9  THIS IS THE CRUX OF IT: 

"THE TAXPAYER IN THESE CONTRACTS GRANTED THE PUBLISHERS AND PRODUCERS
LICENSES TO USE IN PARTICULAR WAYS HIS LITERARY PROPERTY AND HIS
COPYRIGHT THEREIN, AND EXACTED FROM THEM CERTAIN PAYMENTS FOR THAT
USE.  THESE WERE NOT, AND COULD NOT BE, CONTRACTS OF SALES; THEY WERE
IN FACT CONTRACTS OF LICENSE, AND THE PAYMENTS FOR SUCH LICENSES
CONSTITUTED RENTALS OR ROYALTIES SUBJECT TO TAX AS SUCH.  ... 

"...  SINCE THE GRANT BY THE TAXPAYER IN EACH INSTANCE IS SO CLEARLY
THE GRANT OF A PARTICULAR RIGHT IN ALL THE RIGHTS CONSTITUTING THE
TAXPAYER'S LITERARY PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT, THE CONCLUSION IS OBVIOUS
THAT THE GRANT IS A LICENSE AND NOT A SALE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IN OFFICE DECISION 988, SUPRA, A GRANT OF ALL RIGHTS OF SERIAL
PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES IN CERTAIN LITERARY WORKS WAS THROUGH
ERROR SAID TO BE A SALE.  SUCH A GRANT COULD ONLY BE A LICENSE.  OFFICE
DECISION 988 IS ACCORDINGLY REVOKED."  I.T. 2735, XII-2, CUM. BULL. 
131, 135(1933). 

THUS IT IS SEEN THAT ON THE BUREAU'S EARLIER CONSTRUCTION THAT THE
COPYRIGHT LAW PERMITTED A SALE, SUCH PROCEEDS WERE EXCLUDED.  O.D. 988,
5 CUM. BULL.  117(1921).  AFTER TWELVE YEARS THE BUREAU DECIDED THAT,
AS A MATTER OF COPYRIGHT LAW AND NOT BY WAY OF FORMULATING A FISCAL
POLICY, THERE COULD BE NO SALE OF SERIAL RIGHTS AND THAT SUCH A
TRANSACTION HAD TO BE TREATED AS A LICENSE, PERIODICALLY PRODUCING
INCOME.  PLAINLY THE BUREAU WAS NOT INTERPRETING TAX LAW BUT COPYRIGHT
LAW.  DEFERENCE NO DOUBT IS DUE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY'S
INTERPRETATION OF LAW DEALING WITH ITS SPECIALTY - PARTICULARLY TO
INTERPRETATIONS BY THOSE WHOSE TASK IT IS TO ADMINISTER THE REVENUE
LAWS.  BUT THE BUREAU'S EXPERTNESS DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE COPYRIGHT
LAW.  SUCH MATTERS DO NOT INVOLVE THE SUBTLETIES OF TAX CONCEPTS.  THE
DETERMINATION RATHER IS LIKE THAT OF A QUESTION OF COMMON LAW, AND SUCH
QUESTIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO BE OF A TYPE AS TO WHICH ANY
DEGREE OF FINALITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE VIEW.  CF. TRUST OF
BINGHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 325 U.S. 365, 377, 381.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE BUREAU'S DETERMINATION HAS LITTLE WEIGHT, AND
CERTAINLY DOES NOT BAR THIS COURT FROM PROPERLY CONSTRUING THE
COPYRIGHT LAW, ESPECIALLY WHERE CONGRESS HAD THOROUGHLY OVERHAULED THE
TAX PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO NON-RESIDENT ALIENS LESS THAN THREE YEARS
AFTER THE BUREAU RULING WAS MADE.  AS ONE SWALLOW DOES NOT MAKE A
SUMMER, THIS ONE RULING HARDLY ESTABLISHES A PRACTICE, AND CERTAINLY
DOES NOT DISCLOSE A CONSISTENCY WHICH DESERVES TO BE CALLED "LONG." 

BALANCED AGAINST THIS ONE BUREAU DECISION, SUCH AS IT IS, IS THE
SIGNIFICANT FACT THAT AT THE CRUCIAL TIME - IN 1936, WHEN CONGRESS
DEVISED THE PRESENT SCHEME OF TAXING NONRESIDENT ALIENS - A MORE
AUTHORITATIVE DECISION WAS EXPLICITLY TO THE CONTRARY.  THIS WAS THE
HOLDING OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN RAFAEL SABATINI, 32 B.T.A. 705. 
FN10  IN THE SABATINI CASE THE BOARD HELD THAT THE LUMP-SUM PAYMENTS
RECEIVED FOR EXCLUSIVE WORLD MOTION-PICTURE RIGHTS WERE NOT WITHIN SEC.
119(A)(4).  ABOUT SUCH PROCEEDS IT SAID: 

"THE SITUATION RESPECTING THE GRANTING OF MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS IS
QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER RIGHTS ABOVE DISCUSSED.  IN NONE OF THE
MOTION PICTURE CONTRACTS DID PETITIONER OBTAIN ANY INCOME FROM THE
REPRODUCTION AND SALE OR OTHER USE OF HIS WRITINGS IN THE UNITED STATES
AS IN THE CASE OF THE HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. AND WAGNER CONTRACTS.  HERE
THE GRANTING OF RIGHTS WAS MADE IN CONSIDERATION OF A LUMP SUM.  THE
SALE OF THESE RIGHTS TOOK PLACE IN ENGLAND (CITING A CASE), AND THERE
WAS NO SUBSEQUENT INCOME IN THE NATURE OF RENTS OR ROYALTIES FROM
SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  WE ARE ACCORDINGLY OF THE OPINION
THAT THE LUMP SUMS RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FOR THE MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS
DO NOT COME WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF INCOME FROM SOURCES
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND ARE NOT TAXABLE INCOME."  RAFAEL SABATINI,
32 B.T.A. 705, 712-13(1935), REVERSED ON THIS POINT, 98 F.2D 753,
755(C.A.2D CIR. (1938)).  FN11 

THUS AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE PRESENT SEC. 211(A)(1)(A)
THIS WAS THE AUTHORITATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE RULING AS TO SEC. 119(A)(4). 
IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS RULING MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO
CONGRESS, BUT THIS RULING REFUTES THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS A
SETTLED PRACTICE THE OTHER WAY.  TO THE EXTENT THAT IT COULD BE
CONSIDERED SETTLED, IT WAS CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S ACCOUNT OF IT.
FINALLY IT SHOWS AT LEAST THAT WHAT ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE THERE WAS
COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SETTLED. 

AFTER THE BOARD WAS REVERSED IN THE SABATINI CASE, IT OF COURSE
FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE PASSAGE OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, INCLUDING SEC. 211(A)(1)(A), IS HARDLY A GROUND
FOR IMPLYING LEGISLATIVE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED ON SEC.
119(A)(4) BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 120-21, N. 7.  WHEN THE ENTIRELY DISTINCT
PROBLEM INVOLVED IN SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) CAME BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, IT BASED ITS DECISION ON THE DETERMINATION THAT
THE PROCEEDS WERE FOR THE USE OF THE COPYRIGHT RATHER THAN A SALE. 
FN12  THAT DECISION, LIKE THE SABATINI CASE, WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON THE
DOCTRINE OF THE INDIVISIBILITY OF A COPYRIGHT.  FN13  WHEN THAT
DOCTRINE IS REJECTED, IT HAS BEEN HELD TO FOLLOW, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THAT
THE PROCEEDS ARE NOT INCLUDED.  THAT WAS THE BASIS OF DECISION IN THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT, NOW UNDER REVIEW.  MOREOVER, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS REACHED A RESULT CONTRARY TO ITS COPYRIGHT CASES
WHEN DEALING WITH THE PROCEEDS FROM THE TRANSFER OF SOME BUT NOT ALL OF
THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE PATENT STATUTE.  FN14  IT DID SO DESPITE
THE FACT THAT THE TERM "ROYALTIES" INCLUDES PROCEEDS FOR THE USE OF
PATENTS, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 119(A)(4), AND THAT, AS WILL BE SEEN, THE
THEORY OF THE INDIVISIBILITY OF A COPYRIGHT HAD ITS GENESIS IN A
DOCTRINE FIRST APPLIED IN THE PATENT FIELD. 

5.  THUS WE ARE BROUGHT TO THE QUESTION WHICH THE TREASURY, THE
COURTS AND THE PARTIES HERE HAVE REGARDED AS DETERMINATIVE OF THIS
CONTROVERSY:  MAY SERIAL RIGHTS UNDER A COPYRIGHT BE SOLD IN LAW AS
THEY CONSTANTLY ARE SOLD IN THE LITERARY MARKET?  SPECIFICALLY, IS
THERE SOME INHERENT OBSTACLE OF LAW WHICH PRECLUDES THE SALE OF SUCH
SERIAL RIGHTS FROM HAVING THE USUAL INCIDENTS OF A COMMERCIAL SALE?  IF
IT WERE IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A SALE, THEN THE PROCEEDS ARGUABLY ARE
"ROYALTIES" BECAUSE IN THAT EVENT THE TRANSFER CAN HAVE BEEN ONLY FOR
THE USE.  THERE WOULD STILL REMAIN THE DIFFICULTY OF GETTING THE LUMP
SUM PAYMENTS WITHIN THE REASONABLE MEANING OF SEC. 211(A)(1)(A).  FOR,
IT IS FAIR TO RECALL, SEC. 119(A)(4) WOULD ONLY DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PAYMENT IS FROM A SOURCE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, NOT WHETHER IT IS
TAXABLE.  THERE WOULD BE THE FURTHER DIFFICULTY OF CALLING A PAYMENT A
"ROYALTY" WHEN ITS AMOUNT BEARS ONLY THAT RELATION TO THE FUTURE
PROCEEDS OBTAINED BY THE TRANSFEREE IN EXPLOITING THE LITERARY PRODUCT
AS WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF ANY INCOME-PRODUCING
PROPERTY.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE VALUABLE RIGHT THAT, COMMERCIALLY
SPEAKING, WAS IN FACT SOLD, MAY AS A MATTER OF LAW ALSO BE TREATED AS A
SALE, THE PROCEEDS WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED.  THIS CONCLUSION, DERIVED
FROM A READING OF SEC. 211(A)(1)(A), IS MADE EXPLICIT BY THE
REGULATIONS AND THE HOUSE AND SENATE REPORTS.  SEE ANTE, PP. 410-411. 

THE NOTION THAT THE ATTRIBUTES OF LITERARY PROPERTY ARE BY NATURE
INDIVISIBLE AND THEREFORE INCAPABLE OF BEING SOLD SEPARATELY, IS
DERIVED FROM A MISAPPLICATION BY LOWER COURTS OF TWO EARLY CASES IN
THIS COURT.  THESE WERE CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHT OF THE TRANSFEREE OF
LESS THAN ALL THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY A PATENT TO SUE AN INFRINGER. 
THE INHERENT NATURE OF THE INTERESTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THEIR
COMMERCIAL NEGOTIABILITY WERE NOT INVOLVED.  THE COURT DETERMINED THE
PROCEDURAL PROBLEM BEFORE IT SO THAT THE INFRINGER WOULD NOT "BE
HARASSED BY A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS INSTEAD OF ONE," AND WOULD BE NOT
SUBJECTED TO "SUCCESSIVE RECOVERIES OF DAMAGES BY DIFFERENT PERSONS
HOLDING DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE PATENT RIGHT IN THE SAME PLACE." 
GAYLER V. WILDER, 10 HOW.  477, 494-95(U.S. 1850); WATERMAN V.
MACKENZIE, 138 U.S. 252, 255.  BUT IN ITS BEARING ON THE PROCEDURAL
POINT, ONE OF THESE CASES RECOGNIZED THE SALEABILITY OF LESS THAN ALL
OF THE PATENTED RIGHTS SO LONG AS THE TRANSFER CONSISTED OF AT LEAST
ONE OF THE THREE RIGHTS SEPARATELY LISTED IN THE PATENT STATUTE. 
WATERMAN V. MACKENZIE, SUPRA. 

WE THUS FIND SCANT ILLUMINATION OF THE INTRINSIC AND LEGAL NATURE OF
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN A COPYRIGHT IN THE PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS OF THESE
CASES.  KEENER INSIGHT INTO SUCH RIGHTS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES IN A CASE INVOLVING SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS IN THE LAW OF
COPYRIGHTS: 

"THE NOTION OF PROPERTY STARTS, I SUPPOSE, FROM CONFIRMED POSSESSION
OF A TANGIBLE OBJECT AND CONSISTS IN THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM
INTERFERENCE WITH THE MORE OR LESS FREE DOING WITH IT AS ONE WILLS. 
BUT IN COPYRIGHT PROPERTY HAS REACHED A MORE ABSTRACT EXPRESSION.  THE
RIGHT TO EXCLUDE IS NOT DIRECTED TO AN OBJECT IN POSSESSION OR OWNED,
BUT IS IN VACUO, SO TO SPEAK.  IT RESTRAINS THE SPONTANEITY OF MEN
WHERE BUT FOR IT THERE WOULD BE NOTHING OF ANY KIND TO HINDER THEIR
DOING AS THEY SAW FIT.  IT IS A PROHIBITION OF CONDUCT REMOTE FROM THE
PERSONS OR TANGIBLES OF THE PARTY HAVING THE RIGHT.  IT MAY BE
INFRINGED A THOUSAND MILES FROM THE OWNER AND WITHOUT HIS EVER BECOMING
AWARE OF THE WRONG.  IT IS A RIGHT WHICH COULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED OR
ENDURED FOR MORE THAN A LIMITED TIME, AND THEREFORE, I MAY REMARK IN
PASSING, IT IS ONE WHICH HARDLY CAN BE CONCEIVED EXCEPT AS A PRODUCT OF
STATUTE, AS THE AUTHORITIES NOW AGREE."  WHITE-SMITH MUSIC CO. V.
APOLLO CO., 209 U.S. 1, 18, 19; SEE ALSO LEARNED HAND, J., IN PHOTO
DRAMA MOTION PICTURE CO. V. SOCIAL UPLIFT FILM CORP., 213 F. 374,
378(S.D.N.Y.). 

THE "RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM INTERFERENCE WITH THE MORE OR LESS
FREE DOING WITH IT AS ONE WILLS" IS PRECISELY THE RIGHT THAT WODEHOUSE
TRANSFERRED TO CURTIS.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COPYRIGHT LAW GAVE
WODEHOUSE PROTECTION IN THE UNITED STATES, HE TRANSFERRED ALL HE HAD IN
PROPERTY OF CONSIDERABLE VALUE - THE SERIAL RIGHTS IN HIS NOVELS - AND
CURTIS ACQUIRED ALL OF IT. FOR THE DURATION OF THE MONOPOLY GRANTED BY
THE COPYRIGHT LAW, CURTIS COULD ASSERT THE MONOPOLY AGAINST THE WHOLE
WORLD, INCLUDING WODEHOUSE HIMSELF. 

NOTHING IN THE LAW OF COPYRIGHTS BARS OR LIMITS SALE OF ANY ONE OF
THE NUMEROUS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE VARIOUS SUBDIVISIONS OF
SEC. 1.  CONGRESS HAS NOT DISALLOWED SUCH SALES AND NOTHING IN THE DUE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW SUGGESTS THEIR DISALLOWANCE.  QUITE
THE CONTRARY.  SEE II LADAS, THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF LITERARY
AND ARTISTIC PROPERTY, PP. 775-792(1938).  THE SCHEME AND DETAILS OF
THE COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION MANIFEST A SEPARATE TREATMENT OF THE VARIOUS
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE.  61 STAT. 652, 17 U.S.C.
SECS. 1 ET SEQ. IT SEGREGATES THESE RIGHTS INTO SEPARATELY NUMBERED
PARAGRAPHS.  FN15  IN EACH PARAGRAPH THERE IS LISTED, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, A MORE DETAILED SUBDIVISION OF THE VARIOUS RIGHTS.  EACH
OF THESE RIGHTS IS SUBSTANTIAL AND EXISTS SEPARATELY FROM THE OTHERS,
FN16  AND HAS OF COURSE BEEN CONSIDERED A PROPERTY RIGHT.  SEE PHOTO
DRAMA MOTION PICTURE CO. V. SOCIAL UPLIFT FILM CORP., 213 F. 374,
377(S.D.N.Y.); SEE FULDA, COPYRIGHT ASSIGNMENTS AND THE CAPITAL GAINS
TAX, 58 YALE L.J. 245, 256(1949).  MOREOVER, THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE WILL
RECORD THESE PARTIAL ASSIGNMENTS, THUS PROTECTING THE TRANSFEREE AND
THEREBY INCREASING THE MARKETABILITY OF THE SEPARATE RIGHTS.  61 STAT.
652, 17 U.S.C. SEC. 30; SEE PHOTO DRAMA MOTION PICTURE CO. V. SOCIAL
UPLIFT FILM CORP., 213 F. 374, 376-377; SEE II LADAS, THE INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC PROPERTY, P. 802(1938). 

ONLY THE OTHER DAY THE HOUSE OF LORDS, DEALING WITH A SIMILAR
COPYRIGHT LAW, HELD THAT THE SUMS RECEIVED FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE
MOTION-PICTURE RIGHTS IN A NOVEL WERE PROCEEDS FROM A SALE OF PROPERTY
RATHER THAN A LICENSE AND THEREFORE NOT TAXABLE AS "ANNUAL PROFITS OR
GAINS."  WITHERS V. NETHERSOLE, (1948) 1 ALL E.R. 400.  THERE WAS
THERE, AS HERE, THE NEED TO DETERMINE IF THE PROCEEDS WERE FROM A
SALE.  THE TAXPAYER HAD TRANSFERRED FOR TEN YEARS "THE SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."  THE HOUSE OF
LORDS HELD THAT THE PROCEEDS WERE NOT "ANNUAL PROFITS OR GAINS" SINCE
THE TRANSACTION WAS AN OUTRIGHT SALE, NOT A LICENSE TO USE THE
COPYRIGHT.  THIS PORTION OF THE LATE LORD UTHWATT'S JUDGMENT IS
ESPECIALLY PERTINENT: 

"THE FACT THAT THE SAME COMMERCIAL RESULT AS THAT PRODUCED BY THE
ASSIGNMENT MIGHT EQUALLY WELL HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED BY AN APPROPRIATELY
WORDED LICENCE IS IRRELEVANT.  IT IS IRRELEVANT THAT THE CONSIDERATION
MAY BE ASSUMED TO REPRESENT THE VALUE OF THE WHOLE COPYRIGHT SO FAR AS
IT RELATES TO MOTION PICTURES FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS, BUT THE
CONSIDERATION WAS PAID, NOT IN RESPECT OF THE TEMPORARY USE OF
ANOTHER'S PROPERTY, BUT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WITH A LIMITED
LIFE.  THE TAXPAYER MAY HAVE EXPLOITED HER PROPERTY, BUT SHE DID SO
ONLY BY DIVIDING IT AND SELLING PART OF IT.  ...  THE RELEVANT FACT IS
THAT AN OWNER OF AN ASSET, ENTITLED BY LAW TO DIVIDE IT INTO TWO
DISTINCT ASSETS, HAS DONE SO BY SELLING ONE OF THOSE ASSETS FOR AN
AGREED CONSIDERATION PAYABLE IN A LUMP SUM.  A SALE, NOT IN THE WAY OF
TRADE, OF AN ASSET DOES NOT ATTRACT TAX ON THE CONSIDERATION.  WHATEVER
ELSE COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ANNUAL PROFITS AND GAINS, THE
CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT."  WITHERS V.
NETHERSOLE, (1948) 1 ALL E.R. 400, 405.    I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE
DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS REQUIRES OUR CONCURRENCE.  TO PASS IT
OVER IN SILENCE, HOWEVER, IS NOT TO ANSWER IT. 

ANOTHER CASE LIKEWISE DESERVES ATTENTION.  IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT,
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IT WAS HELD THAT A TRANSFER OF EXCLUSIVE MOTION
PICTURE RIGHTS WAS "A SALE" OF A "CAPITAL ASSET" FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SEC. 117.  GOLDSMITH V. COMMISSIONER, 143 F.2D 466(C.A.2D CIR.).  BUT
IF THE TRANSFER WAS A SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, IT COULD NOT ALSO HAVE
BEEN WITHIN SEC. 211(A)(1)(A).  SEE S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 21(1936); H.R. REP. NO. 2475, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 9
10(1936). 

TO TREAT THE TRANSFER OF ANY ONE OF THE VARIOUS RIGHTS CONFERRED BY
THE COPYRIGHT LAW AS A SALE WOULD ACCORD NOT ONLY WITH ANALYSIS OF
THEIR ESSENTIAL CHARACTER AND THE SCHEME OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW, BUT WITH
THE WAY THESE RIGHTS ARE TREATED BY AUTHORS AND PURVEYORS OF PRODUCTS
OF THE MIND FOR WHOSE PROTECTION THE COPYRIGHT LAW WAS DESIGNED BECAUSE
OF THE BELIEF THAT THE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY WOULD BE FURTHERED.  THE
VARIOUS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS HAVE DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES AND THEREFORE
DIFFERENT SIGNIFICANCE.  FOR THAT REASON THEY MAY BE SOLD SEPARATELY
AND FORM THE BASIS FOR A NEW COPYRIGHT.  THE AUTHOR "COULD SELL
SEPARATELY THE RIGHT TO DRAMATIZE AND THE RIGHT TO MAKE A MOVING
PICTURE PLAY."  PHOTO DRAMA MOTION PICTURE CO. V. SOCIAL UPLIFT FILM
CORP., 213 F. 374, 377(S.D.N.Y.), AFF'D, 220 F. 448.  SEE AS TO THE
COMMERCIAL PRACTICE, FULDA, COPYRIGHT ASSIGNMENTS AND THE CAPITAL GAINS
TAX, 58 YALE L.J. 245, 253-54(1949); SEE ALSO LADAS, THE INTERNATIONAL
PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC PROPERTY, PASSIM (1938). 

THUS IT WOULD SEEM AS A MATTER OF LEGAL DOCTRINE THAT WHERE A PERSON
TRANSFERS ABSOLUTELY TO ANOTHER, UNDER TERMS OF PAYMENT WHICH DO NOT
DEPEND ON FUTURE USE BY THE TRANSFEREE, A DISTINCT RIGHT CONFERRED BY
THE COPYRIGHT LAW GRANTING THE TRANSFEREE A MONOPOLY IN ALL THE
TERRITORY TO WHICH THE COPYRIGHT LAW ITSELF EXTENDS, LEGAL DOCTRINE
SHOULD REFLECT BUSINESS PRACTICE IN RECOGNIZING THAT THE PROCEEDS ARE
FROM "THE SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY," RATHER THAN AMOUNTS RECEIVED AS
"FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND
INCOME." 

IT IS ARGUED THAT CONGRESS DOUBTLESS INTENDED TO TAX AN ALIEN AUTHOR
FOR THE PROCEEDS OF A SALE OF SERIAL RIGHTS, BECAUSE SUCH PROCEEDS ARE
TAXABLE TO AN AMERICAN AUTHOR.  BY THIS MODE OF REASONING THE COURT
OUGHT TO HOLD THAT SINCE AN AMERICAN AUTHOR IS TAXED WHEN HE SELLS ALL
HIS RIGHTS, THE PROCEEDS DERIVED BY AN ALIEN AUTHOR FROM THE SALE OF
ALL HIS RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE ALSO TAXABLE FOR THAT IS A MUCH
LARGER SOURCE OF POTENTIAL REVENUE.  YET CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN NOT TO TAX
THE ALIEN AUTHOR FOR SUCH LARGER INCOME THAN IS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE
MERELY OF SERIAL RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH THE NATIVE AUTHOR IS SO TAXED.  IT IS
FOR CONGRESS TO MAKE DIFFERENTIATIONS BETWEEN ALIEN AND AMERICAN
AUTHORS AND WE SHOULD RESPECT THE DIFFERENTIATIONS CONGRESS HAS MADE
FOR THE SALE BOTH OF SERIAL AND TOTAL RIGHTS AS BETWEEN ALIEN AND
AMERICAN AUTHORS.  THE NEED FOR REVENUE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR WARPING
THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1936 LEGISLATION TO DENY IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION
TO A NONRESIDENT ALIEN AUTHOR FOR THE ENTIRE TRANSFER OF SOME OF THE
PROPERTY INTERESTS EXPLICITLY CONFERRED BY SEC. 1, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW
OF THE FACT THAT CONGRESS KNOWLINGLY CHOSE TO LEAVE UNTOUCHED THE MORE
SIZEABLE SOURCE OF REVENUE AVAILABLE WHERE THE NONRESIDENT ALIEN SELLS
ALL THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY SEC. 1.  WODEHOUSE MADE AN ABSOLUTE
TRANSFER OF SOME OF THOSE RIGHTS.  HE DID NOT RECEIVE ROYALTIES BUT
INSTEAD GAVE UP THAT CHANCE IN RETURN FOR A LUMP SUM, JUST AS THE
SELLER OF A HOUSE GIVES UP THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE RENT IN RETURN FOR THE
PURCHASE PRICE.  THAT TRANSACTION CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS A SALE.  AS
THE REVENUE LAWS NOW STAND, IT WAS NONTAXABLE. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

FN1  61 STAT. 652; 17 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN2  THIS PARTICULAR YEAR WAS SELECTED BECAUSE THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE WAS THEN IN EFFECT, AND THIS MAKES REFERENCE TO THE APPLICABLE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS EASIER.  IN 1941 WODEHOUSE ALSO SOLD PUBLICATION
RIGHTS IN AN ARTICLE TO HEARST'S INTERNATIONAL COSMOPOLITAN CO. THE
TRANSACTION WAS, IN EFFECT, SIMILAR TO THE ONE DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT. 

FN3  THE MEMORANDUM OF ACCEPTANCE PROVIDED IN PART: 

"PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR RESERVATION OF SERIAL RIGHTS (WHICH INCLUDES
PUBLICATION IN ONE INSTALLMENT) INCLUDES NEW STORY VERSIONS BASED ON
MOTION-PICTURE OR DRAMATIC SCENARIOS OF SHORT STORIES AND SERIALS THAT
HAVE APPEARED IN CURTIS PUBLICATIONS, AND THAT WE PERMIT THE USE OF
SUCH VERSIONS ONLY UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  SUCH SYNOPSIS,
SCENARIO, OR NEW STORY VERSION SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTEEN HUNDRED (1500)
WORDS IN LENGTH WHEN BASED ON A SHORT STORY APPEARING COMPLETE IN ONE
ISSUE, OR FIVE THOUSAND (5000) WORDS WHEN BASED ON A SERIAL APPEARING
IN TWO OR MORE ISSUES, OR A SERIES OF NOT LESS THAN THREE CONNECTED
SHORT STORIES FROM WHICH A SINGLE PICTURE IS TO BE MADE.  SUCH SYNOPSIS
SHALL APPEAR ONLY IN CIRCULAR MATTER, PRESS BOOKS, PRESS NOTICES, TRADE
JOURNALS AND IN MAGAZINES DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO DRAMATIC OR MOTION
PICTURE MATTER, AND SHALL IN NO EVENT APPEAR AS HAVING BEEN WRITTEN BY
THE AUTHOR.  WHEN SELLING MOTION-PICTURE OR DRAMATIC RIGHTS OF MATTER,
YOU MUST NOTIFY THE PRODUCER TO THIS EFFECT, SO THAT THERE MAY BE NO
MISUNDERSTANDING ON HIS PART AND NO INFRINGEMENT OF OUR RIGHTS." 

FN4  "SEC.  211.  TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS. 

"(C)  NO UNITED STATES BUSINESS OR OFFICE AND GROSS INCOME OF MORE
THAN $24,000.  - A NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR
BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF
BUSINESS THEREIN WHO HAS A GROSS INCOME FOR ANY TAXABLE YEAR OF MORE
THAN $24,000 FROM THE SOURCES SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A)(1), SHALL BE
TAXABLE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A)(1), EXCEPT
THAT - 

"(1)  THE GROSS INCOME SHALL INCLUDE ONLY INCOME FROM THE SOURCES
SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A)(1) ..."  53 STAT. 75, 76, 54 STAT. 518. 

FN5  THE SUBSECTION READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 211.  TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS. 

"(A)  NO UNITED STATES BUSINESS OR OFFICE.  - 

"(1)  GENERAL RULE.  - 

"(A)  IMPOSITION OF TAX.  - THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND
PAID FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR, IN LIEU OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTIONS 11
AND 12, UPON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED, BY EVERY NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL
NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT
HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN, FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES AS INTEREST (EXCEPT INTEREST ON DEPOSITS WITH PERSONS
CARRYING ON THE BANKING BUSINESS), DIVIDENDS, RENTS, SALARIES, WAGES,
PREMIUMS, ANNUITIES, COMPENSATIONS, REMUNERATIONS, EMOLUMENTS, OR OTHER
FIXED OR DETERMINABLE ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME,
A TAX OF 15 PER CENTUM OF SUCH AMOUNT.  ..."  53 STAT. 75, 54 STAT.
518. 

FN6  "SEC.  119.  INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN UNITED STATES. 

"(A)  GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES IN UNITED STATES.  - THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES: 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"(4)  RENTALS AND ROYALTIES.  - RENTALS OR ROYALTIES FROM PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES OR FROM ANY INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY,
INCLUDING RENTALS OR ROYALTIES FOR THE USE OF OR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
USING IN THE UNITED STATES, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, SECRET PROCESSES AND
FORMULAS, GOOD WILL, TRADE-MARKS, TRADE BRANDS, FRANCHISES, AND OTHER
LIKE PROPERTY  ..."  53 STAT. 53, 54, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 119(A)(4). 

FN7  RENT IS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED WITHIN SEC. 211(A)(1)(A); PROCEEDS
FROM THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY, HOWEVER, ARE EXCLUDED.  U.S. TREAS.
REG. 111, SEC. 29.211-7. 

FN8  THE REPORTS IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT A
RESULT OF SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) IS THAT "SUCH A NONRESIDENT ALIEN WILL NOT
BE SUBJECT TO THE TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS  ...  ."  S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 21(1936); H.R. REP. NO. 2475, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
PP. 9-10(1936); SEE FULDA, COPYRIGHT ASSIGNMENTS AND THE CAPITAL GAINS
TAX, 58 YALE L.J. 245, 259, 260-266(1949). 

FN9  "IN 13 CORPUS JURIS (1094-1095) IT IS STATED THAT A COPYRIGHT IS
AN INDIVISIBLE THING AND CAN NOT BE SPLIT UP AND PARTIALLY ASSIGNED,
EITHER AS TO TIME, PLACE, OR PARTICULAR RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES, LESS THAN
THE SUM OF ALL THE RIGHTS COMPREHENDED IN THE COPYRIGHT; THAT EXCLUSIVE
RIGHTS MAY, HOWEVER, BE GRANTED, LIMITED AS TO TIME, PLACE, OR EXTENT
OF PRIVILEGES WHICH THE GRANTEE MAY ENJOY; AND THAT THE BETTER VIEW IS
THAT SUCH LIMITED GRANTS OPERATE MERELY AS LICENSES AND NOT AS
TECHNICAL ASSIGNMENTS, ALTHOUGH OFTEN SPOKEN OF AS ASSIGNMENTS. 
(CITING TWO LOWER COURT CASES HAVING TO DO WITH PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.) 

"IT IS APPARENT FROM THE FACTS IN THIS CASE THAT IN NO INSTANCE DID
THE TAXPAYER ASSIGN HIS LITERARY PROPERTY IN ITS ENTIRETY OR HIS
COPYRIGHT THEREIN, OR HIS INDIVISIBLE RIGHTS THEREIN IN GRANTING THE
SERIAL, THE VOLUME, THE BOOK, THE SECOND SERIAL, THE DRAMATIC OR MOTION
PICTURE RIGHTS TO THE VARIOUS CONTRACTING PARTIES.  THE TAXPAYER IN
THESE CONTRACTS GRANTED THE PUBLISHERS AND PRODUCERS LICENSES TO USE IN
PARTICULAR WAYS HIS LITERARY PROPERTY AND HIS COPYRIGHT THEREIN, AND
EXACTED FROM THEM CERTAIN PAYMENTS FOR THAT USE.  THESE WERE NOT, AND
COULD NOT BE, CONTRACTS OF SALES; THEY WERE IN FACT CONTRACTS OF
LICENSE, AND THE PAYMENTS FOR SUCH LICENSES CONSTITUTED RENTALS OR
ROYALTIES SUBJECT TO TAX AS SUCH.  ... 

"...  SINCE THE GRANT BY THE TAXPAYER IN EACH INSTANCE IS SO CLEARLY
THE GRANT OF A PARTICULAR RIGHT IN ALL THE RIGHTS CONSTITUTING THE
TAXPAYER'S LITERARY PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT, THE CONCLUSION IS OBVIOUS
THAT THE GRANT IS A LICENSE AND NOT A SALE. 

     .         .         .         . . 

"IN OFFICE DECISION 988, SUPRA, A GRANT OF ALL RIGHTS OF SERIAL
PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES IN CERTAIN LITERARY WORKS WAS THROUGH
ERROR SAID TO BE A SALE.  SUCH A GRANT COULD ONLY BE A LICENSE.  OFFICE
DECISION 988 IS ACCORDINGLY REVOKED. 

"IN I.T. 1231, SUPRA, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS A SALE OF SERIAL
RIGHTS OF PUBLICATION.  SINCE IT IS HELD THAT SUCH A GRANT COULD ONLY
BE A LICENSE, I.T. 1231 IS MODIFIED TO ACCORD WITH THE VIEWS HEREIN
EXPRESSED."  I.T. 2735, XII-2, CUM. BULL.  131, 134-35(1933). 

FN10  IN THE SABATINI CASE THE TRANSFER OF THE MOTION-PICTURE RIGHTS,
AS WAS TRUE OF THE BOOK RIGHTS, TOOK PLACE IN ENGLAND, BUT THE ATTEMPT
WAS MADE TO BRING THE PROCEEDS WITHIN SEC. 119(A)(4) ON THE GROUND THAT
THE RIGHTS WERE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE UNITED STATES.  SINCE THE
PROCEEDS FROM THE BOOK RIGHTS WERE TIED TO USE IN THE UNITED STATES,
THEY WERE HELD TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN SEC. 119(A)(4).  BUT THE PROCEEDS
FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE MOTION-PICTURE RIGHTS WERE NOT INCLUDED
BECAUSE THE PROCEEDS WERE NOT TIED TO A SUBSEQUENT USE IN THE UNITED
STATES.  THERE, AS HERE, IT WAS URGED THAT THE SUBSEQUENT EXPLOITATION
OF THE COPYRIGHT BY THE TRANSFEREE IN THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THE
PROCEEDS WITHIN SEC. 119(A)(4) BECAUSE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE
TRANSFER TO HAVE BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN FOR THE USE, RATHER THAN THE
SALE, OF RIGHTS IN THE COPYRIGHT.  BUT THIS CONTENTION CAN REST ONLY ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT A COPYRIGHT IS INDIVISIBLE. 

FN11  THIS REVERSAL OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL
1938, TWO YEARS AFTER CONGRESS HAD REVISED THE PROVISIONS TAXING
NONRESIDENT ALIENS.  IN REVERSING, THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST
DETERMINED THAT THE TRANSFER OF LESS THAN ALL THE RIGHTS PRECLUDED A
SALE.  IT THEN HELD THAT THE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE INCLUDED, ADMITTING
HOWEVER THAT THERE "SEEMS TO BE NO DIRECT AUTHORITY FOR THIS VIEW OF
THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE  ..."  SABATINI V. COMMISSIONER, 98 F.2D
753, 755(C.A.2D CIR.). 

FN12  THIS CASE WAS NOT DECIDED UNTIL 1946.  ROHMER V. COMMISSIONER,
153 F.2D 61(C.A.2D CIR.). MOLNAR V. COMMISSIONER, 156 F.2D 924(C.A.2D
CIR.), IS NOT SUCH A CASE.  THE COURT THERE DEALT SOLELY WITH THE
APPORTIONMENT PROBLEM INVOLVED IN COMPUTING TAXPAYER'S INCOME WHEN THE
COPYRIGHT WAS TO BE USED IN BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER PARTS OF
THE WORLD. 

FN13  IN ROHMER V. COMMISSIONER, 153 F.2D 61(C.A.2D CIR.), THE COURT
SAID:  "WHERE A COPYRIGHT OWNER TRANSFERS TO ANY PARTICULAR TRANSFEREE
SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE ENTIRE 'BUNDLE OF RIGHTS' CONFERRED BY THE
COPYRIGHT, THEN PAYMENT THEREFOR, WHETHER IN ONE SUM OR IN SEVERAL
PAYMENTS, CONSTITUTES ROYALTIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
211(A)(1)(A).  FOR SUCH A TRANSFER IS THE GRANT OF A LICENSE.  PAYMENT
FOR THE GRANT OF SUCH A LICENSE IS MEASURED BY REFERENCE TO THE FUTURE
USE OR EXPECTED USE OF THE LICENSE BY THE LICENSEE  ...  .  IT IS LIKE
INTEREST PAID FOR SEVERAL YEARS."  P. 63.  THAT THE DOCTRINE OF
INDIVISIBILITY DETERMINED DECISION APPEARS FROM STANDARD OIL CO. V.
CLARK, 163 F.2D 917, 936, 939(C.A.2D CIR.).  THE DECISION IN SABATINI
V. COMMISSIONER, 98 F.2D 753, 755(C.A.2D CIR.), ALSO TURNED ON THE
DOCTRINE OF THE INDIVISIBILITY OF A COPYRIGHT. 

FN14  GENERAL ANILINE & FILM CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 139 F.2D
759(C.A.2D CIR.); SEE ALSO COMMISSIONER V. CELANESE CORP., 78 U.S. APP.
D.C. 292, 140 F.2D 339.  BOTH CASES ARE UNDER SEC. 143(B), THE SECTION
WITH WHICH SEC. 211(A)(1)(A) WAS MADE COTERMINOUS. 

FN15  SECTION ONE OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW PROVIDES:    "SEC. 1. 
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS AS TO COPYRIGHTED WORKS.  - ANY PERSON ENTITLED
THERETO, UPON COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE, SHALL HAVE
THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT: 

"(A)  TO PRINT, REPRINT, PUBLISH, COPY, AND VEND THE COPYRIGHTED
WORK; 

"(B)  TO TRANSLATE THE COPYRIGHTED WORK INTO OTHER LANGUAGES OR
DIALECTS, OR MAKE ANY OTHER VERSION THEREOF, IF IT BE A LITERARY WORK;
TO DRAMATIZE IT IF IT BE A NONDRAMATIC WORK; TO CONVERT IT INTO A NOVEL
OR OTHER NONDRAMATIC WORK IF IT BE A DRAMA; TO ARRANGE OR ADAPT IT IF
IT BE A MUSICAL WORK; TO COMPLETE, EXECUTE, AND FINISH IT IF IT BE A
MODEL OR DESIGN FOR A WORK OF ART; 

"(C)  TO DELIVER OR AUTHORIZE THE DELIVERY OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK IN
PUBLIC FOR PROFIT IF IT BE A LECTURE, SERMON, ADDRESS, OR SIMILAR
PRODUCTION; 

"(D)  TO PERFORM OR REPRESENT THE COPYRIGHTED WORK PUBLICLY IF IT BE
A DRAMA OR, IF IT BE A DRAMATIC WORK AND NOT REPRODUCED IN COPIES FOR
SALE, TO VEND ANY MANUSCRIPT OR ANY RECORD WHATSOEVER THEREOF; TO MAKE
OR TO PROCURE THE MAKING OF ANY TRANSCRIPTION OR RECORD THEREOF BY OR
FROM WHICH, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IT MAY IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY METHOD
BE EXHIBITED, PERFORMED, REPRESENTED, PRODUCED, OR REPRODUCED; AND TO
EXHIBIT, PERFORM, REPRESENT, PRODUCE, OR REPRODUCE IT IN ANY MANNER OR
BY ANY METHOD WHATSOEVER; AND 

"(E)  TO PERFORM THE COPYRIGHTED WORK PUBLICLY FOR PROFIT IF IT BE A
MUSICAL COMPOSITION; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR
PROFIT, AND FOR THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (A) HEREOF, TO
MAKE ANY ARRANGEMENT OR SETTING OF IT OR OF THE MELODY OF IT IN ANY
SYSTEM OF NOTATION OR ANY FORM OF RECORD IN WHICH THE THOUGHT OF AN
AUTHOR MAY BE RECORDED AND FROM WHICH IT MAY BE READ OR REPRODUCED:
..."  61 STAT. 652, 17 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN16  "A MAN HAVING GENERAL STATUTORY DRAMATIC RIGHTS LIKE KAUFFMAN
MIGHT MAKE A PLAY AND PERFORM IT UNDER HIS COMMON-LAW RIGHTS WITHOUT
PUBLICATION, OR HE MIGHT COPYRIGHT THE PLAY, AND HE WOULD STILL NOT
HAVE COPYRIGHTED OR PUBLISHED HIS MOVING PICTURE RIGHTS.  IF HE WROTE
SUCH A SCENARIO AND MADE HIS FILM, HE COULD GET A SEPARATE COPYRIGHT
UPON THAT.  OF COURSE, HE COULD SELL HIS STATUTORY OR COMMON-LAW
COPYRIGHT OF THE PLAY AND KEEP THE MOVING PICTURE COPYRIGHT, OR HE
COULD SELL EACH. 

"IT SEEMS TO ME CLEAR THAT, IF HE COULD DO THIS, HE COULD SELL
SEPARATELY THE RIGHT TO DRAMATIZE AND THE RIGHT TO MAKE A MOVING
PICTURE PLAY, DIVIDING HIS STATUTORY DRAMATIZING RIGHTS, AND THUS
GIVING EACH ASSIGNEE THE RIGHT WHEN HE HAD EXERCISED THOSE RIGHTS TO
GET HIS OWN COPYRIGHT FOR A DRAMA, OR FOR A MOVING PICTURE SHOW." 
LEARNED HAND, J., IN PHOTO DRAMA MOTION PICTURE CO. V. SOCIAL UPLIFT
FILM CORP., 213 F. 374, 377(S.D.N.Y.).  SEE ALSO WITHERS V. NETHERSOLE,
(1948) 1 ALL E.R. 400.  "THE EFFECT OF A PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF
COPYRIGHT FOR A PERIOD LESS THAN THE WHOLE TERM IS NOT TO CREATE ANY
NEW RIGHT, BUT ONLY TO DIVIDE THE EXISTING RIGHT.  IN THE RESULT, THERE
ARE TWO SEPARATE OWNERS EACH WITH A DISTINCT PROPERTY.  NEITHER HOLDS
UNDER THE OTHER."  AT P. 404. 
..END :






















YOUNG V. RAGEN, 337 U.S. 235 


NO. 50.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 6, 1949.  - ORDERS
VACATED AND CAUSES REMANDED. 


1.  CONVICTED IN AN ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT AND SENTENCED TO PRISON,
PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE SAME COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, CLAIMING DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HIS PETITION WAS DENIED
WITHOUT A HEARING ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS "INSUFFICIENT IN LAW AND
SUBSTANCE."  ON REVIEW HERE, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCEDED THAT
THE PETITION RAISED SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTIONS; ARGUED THAT HABEAS
CORPUS WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY UNDER STATE LAW WHEN THE PETITION
WAS DENIED; BUT ADMITTED THAT IT PROBABLY IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY
UNDER "ANNOUNCEMENTS" CONTAINED IN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT, THOUGH OTHER ILLINOIS TRIAL COURTS HAVE CONTINUED TO
DENY HABEAS CORPUS ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS.  HELD:  THE ORDER DENYING
HABEAS CORPUS IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE PRESENT APPLICABILITY OF THAT REMEDY IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATE
SUPREME COURT'S "ANNOUNCEMENT" IN PEOPLE V. LOFTUS, 400 ILL. 432, 81
N.E.2D 495, AND OTHER RELEVANT ILLINOIS DECISIONS.  PP. 236-240. 

(A)  MORE THAN A QUESTION OF STATE PROCEDURE IS INVOLVED WHEN A STATE
COURT OF LAST RESORT CLOSES THE DOOR TO ANY CONSIDERATION OF A CLAIM OF
DENIAL OF A FEDERAL RIGHT.  P. 238. 

(B)  THE DOCTRINE THAT FEDERAL COURTS WILL NOT GRANT HABEAS CORPUS TO
PRISONERS UNDER JUDGMENTS OF STATE COURTS UNTIL ALL STATE REMEDIES HAVE
BEEN EXHAUSTED, EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254,
PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF SOME ADEQUATE REMEDY UNDER STATE LAW.  PP.
238-239. 

2.  THE ORDERS IN SEVEN OTHER CASES IN WHICH ILLINOIS COURTS HAD
DENIED HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT HEARINGS ARE LIKEWISE VACATED AND REMANDED
FOR SIMILAR CONSIDERATION.  P. 240. 

YOUNG V. RAGEN, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANDOLPH COUNTY, ILLINOIS* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 47, MISC., EVANS V. NIERSTHEIMER, WARDEN, ON
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. CLAIR COUNTY,
ILLINOIS; NO. 106, MISC., WILLIS V. RAGEN, WARDEN, NO. 109, MISC.,
THOMPSON V. RAGEN, WARDEN, NO. 184, MISC., LEWIS V. RAGEN, WARDEN, AND
NO. 372, MISC., SHERMAN V. RAGEN, WARDEN, ET AL., ALL ON PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI TO THE CRIMINAL COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; NO. 760,
SMITH V. RAGEN, WARDEN, ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WILL
COUNTY, ILLINOIS; AND NO. 374, MISC., BANKS V. RAGEN, WARDEN, ON
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS. 

IN NO. 50, AN ILLINOIS TRIAL COURT DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING A
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RAISING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 810.  IT ALSO GRANTED CERTIORARI IN NO. 760(336
U.S. 966), AND NOW GRANTS CERTIORARI IN THE SIX OTHER CASES.  ORDERS
VACATED AND CAUSES REMANDED, P. 240. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ONCE AGAIN FACED WITH THE RECURRING PROBLEM OF DETERMINING
WHAT, IF ANY, IS THE APPROPRIATE POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE IN ILLINOIS BY
WHICH CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS MAY BE RAISED.  SEE
WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211; MARINO V. RAGEN, 332 U.S. 561;
LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS, 334 U.S. 804.  IN 1946, PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY
TO AN INDICTMENT CHARGING HIM WITH HAVING COMMITTED BURGLARY AND
LARCENY AND WAS SENTENCED TO FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS IMPRISONMENT.  A YEAR
LATER HE FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF RANDOLPH COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THE SENTENCING COURT, CONTAINING
ALLEGATIONS WHICH, IF TRUE, RAISE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
ILLINOIS CONCEDES THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING INTO THE
TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE CHARGES.  THE COURT TO WHICH THE PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS DIRECTED DENIED THE PETITION WITHOUT HOLDING
A HEARING, HOWEVER, FOR THE REASON THAT IT "IS INSUFFICIENT IN LAW AND
SUBSTANCE."  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 334 U.S.
810, TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION THUS PRESENTED. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLAINS THE CIRCUIT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE
PETITION FOR THE WRIT AS BASED UPON STATE PROCEDURAL GROUNDS:  THAT
HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR THE RELIEF OF DENIALS
OF DUE PROCESS.  HE CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT WHILE THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS
CORRECT IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF ILLINOIS LAW WHEN IT DENIED THE
PETITION, CERTAIN STATEMENTS IN THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S OPINIONS
IN PEOPLE V. LOFTUS, 400 ILL. 432, 81 N.E.2D 495; PEOPLE V. SHOFFNER,
400 ILL. 174, 79 N.E.2D 200; AND PEOPLE V. WILSON, 399 ILL. 437, 78
N.E.2D 514, ALL OF WHICH WERE HANDED DOWN SUBSEQUENT TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT'S DENIAL OF RELIEF, STRONGLY INDICATE THAT HABEAS CORPUS WOULD
NOW BE THE APPROPRIATE ILLINOIS PROCEDURE IN A CASE SUCH AS THE ONE
BEFORE US.  HIS CONTENTION IS, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT WHILE THE PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS PROPERLY DENIED WHEN ACTED UPON BELOW, THE
DECISIONS JUST CITED PROBABLY BROADEN THE SCOPE OF HABEAS CORPUS IN
ILLINOIS, SO THAT A DENIAL OF A HEARING WOULD BE ERRONEOUS IF THE
PETITION WERE AGAIN PRESENTED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. 

THE SITUATION IS FURTHER COMPLICATED, HOWEVER, BY THE FACT THAT MANY
CIRCUIT COURTS, WHOSE DECISIONS UPON HABEAS CORPUS ARE UNREVIEWABLE BY
THE STATE SUPREME COURT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, HAVE CONTINUED TO DENY
PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS SINCE THE SUPREME
COURT'S "ANNOUNCEMENT" IN PEOPLE V. LOFTUS, SUPRA.  THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S POSITION CONCERNING THESE DENIALS, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, IS
THAT THESE DECISIONS MAY BE WRONG, DEPENDING UPON WHETHER HIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE LOFTUS "ANNOUNCEMENT" IS THE CORRECT ONE, BUT
THAT WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG, THEY ARE DECISIONS SOLELY UPON A QUESTION
OF ILLINOIS PROCEDURAL LAW AND THUS DO NOT WARRANT INVOCATION OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT. 

OF COURSE WE DO NOT REVIEW STATE DECISIONS WHICH REST UPON ADEQUATE
NONFEDERAL GROUNDS, AND OF COURSE ILLINOIS MAY CHOOSE THE PROCEDURE IT
DEEMS APPROPRIATE FOR THE VINDICATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS.  LOFTUS V.
ILLINOIS, SUPRA.  BUT IT IS NOT SIMPLY A QUESTION OF STATE PROCEDURE
WHEN A STATE COURT OF LAST RESORT CLOSES THE DOOR TO ANY CONSIDERATION
OF A CLAIM OF DENIAL OF A FEDERAL RIGHT.  AND THAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE
DENIALS OF HABEAS CORPUS IN A NUMBER OF CASES NOW BEFORE THIS COURT,
FOR IN NONE OF THE CASES DOES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUGGEST THAT EITHER
OF THE OTHER TWO ILLINOIS POST-TRIAL REMEDIES, WRIT OF ERROR AND CORAM
NOBIS, IS APPROPRIATE.  UNLESS HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE,
WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE THAT ILLINOIS OFFERS NO POST-TRIAL REMEDY IN
CASES OF THIS KIND.  THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES, TO
WHICH THIS COURT HAS REQUIRED THE SCRUPULOUS ADHERENCE OF ALL FEDERAL
COURTS, SEE EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114  FN1  AND CASES CITED,
PRESUPPOSES THAT SOME ADEQUATE STATE REMEDY EXISTS.  WE RECOGNIZE THE
DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT IS FACED IN ADAPTING
AVAILABLE STATE PROCEDURES TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT PRISONERS BE GIVEN
SOME CLEARLY DEFINED METHOD BY WHICH THEY MAY RAISE CLAIMS OF DENIAL OF
FEDERAL RIGHTS.  NEVERTHELESS, THAT REQUIREMENT MUST BE MET.  IF THERE
IS NOW NO POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE BY WHICH FEDERAL RIGHTS MAY BE
VINDICATED IN ILLINOIS, WE WISH TO BE ADVISED OF THAT FACT UPON REMAND
OF THIS CASE. 

SEVEN OTHER PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI WHICH RAISE SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTIONS UNDER THE DUE-PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE
NOW BEFORE THIS COURT FOLLOWING DENIALS OF HABEAS CORPUS BY ILLINOIS
CIRCUIT COURTS OR THE CRIMINAL COURT OF COOK COUNTY.  IN NONE OF THESE
CASES WAS A HEARING HELD OR THE PETITIONER PERMITTED TO SUBMIT PROOF OF
THE TRUTH OF HIS ALLEGATIONS.  IN THREE INSTANCES, THE DENIAL OF HABEAS
CORPUS OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE SUPREME COURT'S "ANNOUNCEMENT" IN PEOPLE
V. LOFTUS, SUPRA, AS WAS TRUE IN THE CASE OF YOUNG.  A SIMILAR
DISPOSITION OF THESE PETITIONS IS THEREFORE REQUIRED. 

FOUR PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI INVOLVE DENIALS OF HABEAS CORPUS
SUBSEQUENT TO THE LOFTUS "ANNOUNCEMENT."  IT MAY WELL BE THAT THESE
DECISIONS REPRESENT THE OPINION OF FOUR ILLINOIS CIRCUIT JUDGES THAT
HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY UNDER ILLINOIS LAW DESPITE
THE LOFTUS OPINION.  OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, WE HAVE CONCLUDED,
HOWEVER, THAT THESE CASES SHOULD ALSO BE REMANDED TO THE STATE COURTS,
SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LOFTUS "ANNOUNCEMENT" WAS NOT BROUGHT TO
THEIR ATTENTION OR ITS POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANCE POINTED OUT.  AS IN THE
OTHER CASES, WE WISH TO BE ADVISED, IF A HEARING IS AGAIN DENIED,
WHETHER THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT AN
APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN ILLINOIS IN CASES RAISING QUESTIONS UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN NO. 50, YOUNG V. RAGEN, IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT AVAILABILITY OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE LIGHT
OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S "ANNOUNCEMENT" IN PEOPLE V. LOFTUS, SUPRA,
AND OTHER RELEVANT ILLINOIS DECISIONS.  THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI IN
NO. 47, MISC., EVANS V. NIERSTHEIMER; IN NO. 106, MISC., WILLIS V.
RAGEN; IN NO. 109, MISC., THOMPSON V. RAGEN; IN NO. 184, MISC., LEWIS
V. RAGEN; IN NO. 372, MISC., SHERMAN V. RAGEN ET AL.; AND IN NO. 374,
MISC., BANKS V. RAGEN, ARE GRANTED.  THE ORDERS DENYING PETITIONS FOR
WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THESE CASES, TOGETHER WITH THAT IN NO. 760,
SMITH V. RAGEN,  FN2  ARE VACATED AND THE CAUSES REMANDED FOR SIMILAR
CONSIDERATION.  ORDERS WILL BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 

FN1  EXISTING LAW AS DECLARED BY EX PARTE HAWK WAS MADE A PART OF THE
STATUTE BY THE NEW JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2254, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF A PERSON IN
CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT SHALL NOT BE GRANTED
UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, OR THAT THERE IS EITHER AN
ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE STATE CORRECTIVE PROCESS OR THE EXISTENCE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING SUCH PROCESS INEFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF THE PRISONER. 

"AN APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
ANY AVAILABLE PROCEDURE, THE QUESTION PRESENTED." 

FN2  CERTIORARI GRANTED, 336 U.S. 966.  (DOCKETED AS NO. 265, MISC.)
..END :
























WILLIAMS V. NEW YORK, 337 U.S. 241 


NO. 671.  ARGUED APRIL 21, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 6, 1949.  - 298 N.Y.
803, 83 N.E.2D 698, AFFIRMED. 


THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT A PERSON CONVICTED AFTER A FAIR TRIAL BE CONFRONTED WITH AND
PERMITTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AS TO HIS PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD
CONSIDERED BY THE JUDGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STATE STATUTE IN
DETERMINING WHAT SENTENCE TO IMPOSE PURSUANT TO BROAD DISCRETION VESTED
IN HIM UNDER STATE LAW - EVEN WHEN THE JURY RECOMMENDS LIFE
IMPRISONMENT AND THE JUDGE IMPOSES A DEATH SENTENCE.  PP. 242-252. 

(A)  IT HAS LONG BEEN THE PRACTICE TO PERMIT THE SENTENCING JUDGE TO
EXERCISE A WIDE DISCRETION AS TO THE SOURCES AND TYPES OF INFORMATION
USED TO ASSIST HIM IN DETERMINING THE SENTENCE TO BE IMPOSED WITHIN THE
LIMITS FIXED BY LAW.  P. 246. 

(B)  MODERN CONCEPTS INDIVIDUALIZING PUNISHMENT HAVE MADE IT ALL THE
MORE NECESSARY THAT A SENTENCING JUDGE NOT BE DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO
OBTAIN PERTINENT INFORMATION BY A REQUIREMENT OF RIGID ADHERENCE TO
RESTRICTIVE RULES OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY APPLICABLE TO THE TRIAL.  PP.
246-249. 

(C)  TO DEPRIVE THE SENTENCING JUDGE OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
REPORTS OF PROBATION OFFICERS WOULD UNDERMINE MODERN PENOLOGICAL
PROCEDURAL POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN CAUTIOUSLY ADOPTED THROUGHOUT THE
NATION AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND EXPERIMENTATION.  PP. 249-250. 

(D)  IN CONSIDERING THE SENTENCE TO BE IMPOSED AFTER CONVICTION, THE
SENTENCING JUDGE IS NOT RESTRICTED TO INFORMATION RECEIVED IN OPEN
COURT.  PP. 250-251. 

(E)  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN A DEATH SENTENCE IS
IMPOSED.  PP. 251-252. 

WILLIAMS V. NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

AFTER A FAIR TRIAL, APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE AND THE JURY RECOMMENDED LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  AFTER CONSIDERING
INFORMATION AS TO HIS PREVIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD WITHOUT PERMITTING HIM
TO CONFRONT OR CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES ON THAT SUBJECT, THE TRIAL
JUDGE SENTENCED HIM TO DEATH.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
AFFIRMED.  298 N.Y. 803, 83 N.E.2D 698.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 252. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A JURY IN A NEW YORK STATE COURT FOUND APPELLANT GUILTY OF MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE.  FN1  THE JURY RECOMMENDED LIFE IMPRISONMENT, BUT THE
TRIAL JUDGE IMPOSED SENTENCE OF DEATH.  FN2  IN GIVING HIS REASONS FOR
IMPOSING THE DEATH SENTENCE THE JUDGE DISCUSSED IN OPEN COURT THE
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE JURY HAD CONVICTED STATING THAT THIS EVIDENCE
HAD BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OBTAINED
THROUGH THE COURT'S "PROBATION DEPARTMENT, AND THROUGH OTHER SOURCES." 
CONSIDERATION OF THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS PURSUANT TO SEC. 482
OF NEW YORK CRIMINAL CODE WHICH PROVIDES: 

"  ...  BEFORE RENDERING JUDGMENT OR PRONOUNCING SENTENCE THE COURT
SHALL CAUSE THE DEFENDANT'S PREVIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD TO BE SUBMITTED TO
IT, INCLUDING ANY REPORTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MADE AS A RESULT OF A
MENTAL, PHYCHIATRIC OR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF SUCH PERSON, AND MAY
SEEK ANY INFORMATION THAT WILL AID THE COURT IN DETERMINING THE PROPER
TREATMENT OF SUCH DEFENDANT." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
OVER THE CONTENTION THAT AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED THE CONTROLLING PENAL
STATUTES ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES "IN THAT THE
SENTENCE OF DEATH WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY WITNESSES WITH
WHOM THE ACCUSED HAD NOT BEEN CONFRONTED AND AS TO WHOM HE HAD NO
OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OR REBUTTAL  ...  "  298 N.Y. 803,
804, 83 N.E.2D 698, 699.  BECAUSE THE STATUTES WERE SUSTAINED OVER THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1257(2). 

THE NARROW CONTENTION HERE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO SET OUT THE FACTS
AT LENGTH.  THE RECORD SHOWS A CAREFULLY CONDUCTED TRIAL LASTING MORE
THAN TWO WEEKS IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS REPRESENTED BY THREE APPOINTED
LAWYERS WHO CONDUCTED HIS DEFENSE WITH FIDELITY AND ZEAL.  THE EVIDENCE
PROVED A WHOLLY INDEFENSIBLE MURDER COMMITTED BY A PERSON ENGAGED IN A
BURGLARY.  THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT IF IT RETURNED A VERDICT
OF GUILTY AS CHARGED, WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION FOR LIFE SENTENCE, "THE
COURT MUST IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY," BUT IF SUCH RECOMMENDATION WAS
MADE, "THE COURT MAY IMPOSE A LIFE SENTENCE."  THE JUDGE WENT ON TO
EMPHASIZE THAT "THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT YOUR RECOMMENDATION." 

ABOUT FIVE WEEKS AFTER THE VERDICT OF GUILTY WITH RECOMMENDATION OF
LIFE IMPRISONMENT, AND AFTER A STATUTORY PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION
REPORT TO THE JUDGE, THE DEFENDANT WAS BROUGHT TO COURT TO BE
SENTENCED.  ASKED WHAT HE HAD TO SAY, APPELLANT PROTESTED HIS
INNOCENCE.  AFTER EACH OF HIS THREE LAWYERS HAD APPEALED TO THE COURT
TO ACCEPT THE JURY'S RECOMMENDATION OF A LIFE SENTENCE, THE JUDGE GAVE
REASONS WHY HE FELT THAT THE DEATH SENTENCE SHOULD BE IMPOSED.  HE
NARRATED THE SHOCKING DETAILS OF THE CRIME AS SHOWN BY THE TRIAL
EVIDENCE, EXPRESSING HIS OWN COMPLETE BELIEF IN APPELLANT'S GUILT.  HE
STATED THAT THE PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REVEALED MANY MATERIAL FACTS
CONCERNING APPELLANT'S BACKGROUND WHICH THOUGH RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION
OF PUNISHMENT COULD NOT PROPERLY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE JURY IN ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF GUILT.  HE REFERRED TO
THE EXPERIENCE APPELLANT "HAD HAD ON THIRTY OTHER BURGLARIES IN AND
ABOUT THE SAME VICINITY" WHERE THE MURDER HAD BEEN COMMITTED.  THE
APPELLANT HAD NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF THESE BURGLARIES ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE
HAD INFORMATION THAT HE HAD CONFESSED TO SOME AND HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED
AS THE PERPETRATOR OF SOME OF THE OTHERS.  THE JUDGE ALSO REFERRED TO
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF APPELLANT AS SHOWN BY THE PROBATION REPORT THAT
INDICATED APPELLANT POSSESSED "A MORBID SEXUALITY" AND CLASSIFIED HIM
AS A "MENACE TO SOCIETY."  THE ACCURACY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE
JUDGE AS TO APPELLANT'S BACKGROUND AND PAST PRACTICES WAS NOT
CHALLENGED BY APPELLANT OR HIS COUNSEL, NOR WAS THE JUDGE ASKED TO
DISREGARD ANY OF THEM OR TO AFFORD APPELLANT A CHANCE TO REFUTE OR
DISCREDIT ANY OF THEM BY CROSS-EXAMINATION OR OTHERWISE. 

THE CASE PRESENTS A SERIOUS AND DIFFICULT QUESTION.  THE QUESTION
RELATES TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH A
JUDGE MAY OBTAIN INFORMATION TO GUIDE HIM IN THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
UPON AN ALREADY CONVICTED DEFENDANT.  WITHIN LIMITS FIXED BY STATUTES,
NEW YORK JUDGES ARE GIVEN A BROAD DISCRETION TO DECIDE THE TYPE AND
EXTENT OF PUNISHMENT FOR CONVICTED DEFENDANTS.  HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
JUDGE'S DISCRETION WAS TO SENTENCE TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT OR DEATH.  TO
AID A JUDGE IN EXERCISING THIS DISCRETION INTELLIGENTLY THE NEW YORK
PROCEDURAL POLICY ENCOURAGES HIM TO CONSIDER INFORMATION ABOUT THE
CONVICTED PERSON'S PAST LIFE, HEALTH, HABITS, CONDUCT, AND MENTAL AND
MORAL PROPENSITIES.  THE SENTENCING JUDGE MAY CONSIDER SUCH INFORMATION
EVEN THOUGH OBTAINED OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM FROM PERSONS WHOM A
DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED TO CONFRONT OR CROSS-EXAMINE.  IT IS
THE CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION OBTAINED BY A SENTENCING JUDGE IN THIS
MANNER THAT IS THE BASIS FOR APPELLANT'S BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
TO THE NEW YORK STATUTORY POLICY. 

APPELLANT URGES THAT THE NEW YORK STATUTORY POLICY IS IN
IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WITH THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF A SECOND
PROCEDURAL POLICY GROUNDED IN THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THAT POLICY AS STATED IN IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S.
257, 273, IS IN PART THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE TRIED AND CONVICTED OF AN
OFFENSE UNLESS HE IS GIVEN REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM
AND IS AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE ADVERSE WITNESSES.  FN3  THAT
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES PROVIDE THESE SALUTARY AND TIME-TESTED
PROTECTIONS WHERE THE QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE GUILT OF A
DEFENDANT SEEMS ENTIRELY CLEAR FROM THE GENESIS AND HISTORICAL
EVOLUTION OF THE CLAUSE.  SEE, E.G., CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227,
236-237, AND AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 10. 

TRIBUNALS PASSING ON THE GUILT OF A DEFENDANT ALWAYS HAVE BEEN HEDGED
IN BY STRICT EVIDENTIARY PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS N4.  BUT BOTH BEFORE
AND SINCE THE AMERICAN COLONIES BECAME A NATION, COURTS IN THIS COUNTRY
AND IN ENGLAND PRACTICED A POLICY UNDER WHICH A SENTENCING JUDGE COULD
EXERCISE A WIDE DISCRETION IN THE SOURCES AND TYPES OF EVIDENCE USED TO
ASSIST HIM IN DETERMINING THE KIND AND EXTENT OF PUNISHMENT TO BE
IMPOSED WITHIN LIMITS FIXED BY LAW.  FN5  OUT-OF-COURT AFFIDAVITS HAVE
BEEN USED FREQUENTLY, AND OF COURSE IN THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES
SENTENCING JUDGES NATURALLY HAVE IN MIND THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE
PERSONALITIES AND BACKGROUNDS OF CONVICTED OFFENDERS.  FN6  A RECENT
MANIFESTATION OF THE HISTORICAL LATITUDE ALLOWED SENTENCING JUDGES
APPEARS IN RULE 32 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  THAT
RULE PROVIDES FOR CONSIDERATION BY FEDERAL JUDGES OF REPORTS MADE BY
PROBATION OFFICERS CONTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT A CONVICTED DEFENDANT,
INCLUDING SUCH INFORMATION "AS MAY BE HELPFUL IN IMPOSING SENTENCE OR
IN GRANTING PROBATION OR IN THE CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
...  "  FN7 

IN ADDITION TO THE HISTORICAL BASIS FOR DIFFERENT EVIDENTIARY RULES
GOVERNING TRIAL AND SENTENCING PROCEDURES THERE ARE SOUND PRACTICAL
REASONS FOR THE DISTINCTION.  IN A TRIAL BEFORE VERDICT THE ISSUE IS
WHETHER A DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF HAVING ENGAGED IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL
CONDUCT OF WHICH HE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ACCUSED.  RULES OF EVIDENCE
HAVE BEEN FASHIONED FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS WHICH NARROWLY CONFINE THE
TRIAL CONTEST TO EVIDENCE THAT IS STRICTLY RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULAR
OFFENSE CHARGED.  THESE RULES REST IN PART ON A NECESSITY TO PREVENT A
TIME-CONSUMING AND CONFUSING TRIAL OF COLLATERAL ISSUES.  THEY WERE
ALSO DESIGNED TO PREVENT TRIBUNALS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE ISSUE OF
GUILT OF A PARTICULAR OFFENSE FROM BEING INFLUENCED TO CONVICT FOR THAT
OFFENSE BY EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD HABITUALLY ENGAGED IN OTHER
MISCONDUCT.  A SENTENCING JUDGE, HOWEVER, IS NOT CONFINED TO THE NARROW
ISSUE OF GUILT.  HIS TASK WITHIN FIXED STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITS IS TO DETERMINE THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF PUNISHMENT AFTER THE
ISSUE OF GUILT HAS BEEN DETERMINED.  HIGHLY RELEVANT - IF NOT ESSENTIAL
- TO HIS SELECTION OF AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE IS THE POSSESSION OF THE
FULLEST INFORMATION POSSIBLE CONCERNING THE DEFENDANT'S LIFE AND
CHARACTERISTICS.  FN8  AND MODERN CONCEPTS INDIVIDUALIZING PUNISHMENT
HAVE MADE IT ALL THE MORE NECESSARY THAT A SENTENCING JUDGE NOT BE
DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN PERTINENT INFORMATION BY A REQUIREMENT
OF RIGID ADHERENCE TO RESTRICTIVE RULES OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY APPLICABLE
TO THE TRIAL. 

UNDOUBTEDLY THE NEW YORK STATUTES EMPHASIZE A PREVALENT MODERN
PHILOSOPHY OF PENOLOGY THAT THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD FIT THE OFFENDER AND
NOT MERELY THE CRIME.  PEOPLE V. JOHNSON, 252 N.Y. 387, 392, 169 N.E.
619, 621.  THE BELIEF NO LONGER PREVAILS THAT EVERY OFFENSE IN A LIKE
LEGAL CATEGORY CALLS FOR AN IDENTICAL PUNISHMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
PAST LIFE AND HABITS OF A PARTICULAR OFFENDER.  THIS WHOLE COUNTRY HAS
TRAVELED FAR FROM THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE DEATH SENTENCE WAS AN
AUTOMATIC AND COMMONPLACE RESULT OF CONVICTIONS - EVEN FOR OFFENSES
TODAY DEEMED TRIVIAL.  FN9 TODAY'S PHILOSOPHY OF INDIVIDUALIZING
SENTENCES MAKES SHARP DISTINCTIONS FOR EXAMPLE BETWEEN FIRST AND
REPEATED OFFENDERS.  FN10  INDETERMINATE SENTENCES THE ULTIMATE
TERMINATION OF WHICH ARE SOMETIMES DECIDED BY NON-JUDICIAL AGENCIES
HAVE TO A LARGE EXTENT TAKEN THE PLACE OF THE OLD RIGIDLY FIXED
PUNISHMENTS.  FN11  THE PRACTICE OF PROBATION WHICH RELIES HEAVILY ON
NON-JUDICIAL IMPLEMENTATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS A WISE POLICY.  FN12
EXECUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PAROLE SYSTEM RESTS ON THE DISCRETION OF
AN ADMINISTRATIVE PAROLE BOARD.  36 STAT. 819, 18 U.S.C. SECS. 714,
716, NOW SECS. 4202, 4203.  RETRIBUTION IS NO LONGER THE DOMINANT
OBJECTIVE OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.  REFORMATION AND REHABILITATION OF
OFFENDERS HAVE BECOME IMPORTANT GOALS OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE.  FN13 

MODERN CHANGES IN THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS MAKE IT MORE NECESSARY
NOW THAN A CENTURY AGO FOR OBSERVANCE OF THE DISTINCTIONS IN THE
EVIDENTIAL PROCEDURE IN THE TRIAL AND SENTENCING PROCESSES.  FOR
INDETERMINATE SENTENCES AND PROBATION HAVE RESULTED IN AN INCREASE IN
THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS EXERCISED IN FIXING PUNISHMENTS.  IN GENERAL,
THESE MODERN CHANGES HAVE NOT RESULTED IN MAKING THE LOT OF OFFENDERS
HARDER.  ON THE CONTRARY A STRONG MOTIVATING FORCE FOR THE CHANGES HAS
BEEN THE BELIEF THAT BY CAREFUL STUDY OF THE LIVES AND PERSONALITIES OF
CONVICTED OFFENDERS MANY COULD BE LESS SEVERELY PUNISHED AND RESTORED
SOONER TO COMPLETE FREEDOM AND USEFUL CITIZENSHIP.  THIS BELIEF TO A
LARGE EXTENT HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED. 

UNDER THE PRACTICE OF INDIVIDUALIZING PUNISHMENTS, INVESTIGATIONAL
TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN IMPORTANT ROLE.  PROBATION WORKERS MAKING
REPORTS OF THEIR INVESTIGATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN TRAINED TO PROSECUTE BUT
TO AID OFFENDERS.  THEIR REPORTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN A HIGH VALUE BY
CONSCIENTIOUS JUDGES WHO WANT TO SENTENCE PERSONS ON THE BEST AVAILABLE
INFORMATION RATHER THAN ON GUESSWORK AND INADEQUATE INFORMATION.  FN14
TO DEPRIVE SENTENCING JUDGES OF THIS KIND OF INFORMATION WOULD
UNDERMINE MODERN PENOLOGICAL PROCEDURAL POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN
CAUTIOUSLY ADOPTED THROUGHOUT THE NATION AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
AND EXPERIMENTATION.  WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT MOST OF THE INFORMATION
NOW RELIED UPON BY JUDGES TO GUIDE THEM IN THE INTELLIGENT IMPOSITION
OF SENTENCES WOULD BE UNAVAILABLE IF INFORMATION WERE RESTRICTED TO
THAT GIVEN IN OPEN COURT BY WITNESSES SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
AND THE MODERN PROBATION REPORT DRAWS ON INFORMATION CONCERNING EVERY
ASPECT OF A DEFENDANT'S LIFE.  FN15  THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF THIS
INFORMATION MAKE TOTALLY IMPRACTICAL IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE OPEN COURT
TESTIMONY WITH CROSS-EXAMINATION.  SUCH A PROCEDURE COULD ENDLESSLY
DELAY CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION IN A RETRIAL OF COLLATERAL ISSUES. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE SET OUT ADMONISH US AGAINST TREATING THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS A UNIFORM COMMAND THAT COURTS THROUGHOUT THE
NATION ABANDON THEIR AGE-OLD PRACTICE OF SEEKING INFORMATION FROM OUT
OF-COURT SOURCES TO GUIDE THEIR JUDGMENT TOWARD A MORE ENLIGHTENED AND
JUST SENTENCE.  NEW YORK CRIMINAL STATUTES SET WIDE LIMITS FOR MAXIMUM
AND MINIMUM SENTENCES.  FN16 UNDER NEW YORK STATUTES A STATE JUDGE
CANNOT ESCAPE HIS GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF FIXING SENTENCE.  IN
DETERMINING WHETHER A DEFENDANT SHALL RECEIVE A ONE-YEAR MINIMUM OR A
TWENTY-YEAR MAXIMUM SENTENCE, WE DO NOT THINK THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
RESTRICTS THE VIEW OF THE SENTENCING JUDGE TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED
IN OPEN COURT.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A
DEVICE FOR FREEZING THE EVIDENTIAL PROCEDURE OF SENTENCING IN THE MOLD
OF TRIAL PROCEDURE.  SO TO TREAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WOULD HINDER IF
NOT PRECLUDE ALL COURTS - STATE AND FEDERAL - FROM MAKING PROGRESSIVE
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.    IT IS
URGED, HOWEVER, THAT WE SHOULD DRAW A CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION AS TO
THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION WHERE THE DEATH SENTENCE IS
IMPOSED.  WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION.  LEAVING A SENTENCING JUDGE
FREE TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF OUT-OF-COURT INFORMATION IN MAKING SUCH A
FATEFUL CHOICE OF SENTENCES DOES SECURE TO HIM A BROAD DISCRETIONARY
POWER, ONE SUSCEPTIBLE OF ABUSE.  BUT IN CONSIDERING WHETHER A RIGID
CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER SHOULD BE CREATED, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT
THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE WHEREVER A JUDGE MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN LIFE
IMPRISONMENT AND DEATH.  AND IT IS CONCEDED THAT NO FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IF THE JUDGE HERE HAD
SENTENCED APPELLANT TO DEATH BECAUSE APPELLANT'S TRIAL MANNER IMPRESSED
THE JUDGE THAT APPELLANT WAS A BAD RISK FOR SOCIETY, OR IF THE JUDGE
HAD SENTENCED HIM TO DEATH GIVING NO REASON AT ALL.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE RENDERS A SENTENCE VOID MERELY BECAUSE A JUDGE
GETS ADDITIONAL OUT-OF-COURT INFORMATION TO ASSIST HIM IN THE EXERCISE
OF THIS AWESOME POWER OF IMPOSING THE DEATH SENTENCE. 

APPELLANT WAS FOUND GUILTY AFTER A FAIRLY CONDUCTED TRIAL.  HIS
SENTENCE FOLLOWED A HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE JUDGE.  UPON THE JUDGE'S
INQUIRY AS TO WHY SENTENCE SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED, THE DEFENDANT MADE
STATEMENTS.  HIS COUNSEL MADE EXTENDED ARGUMENTS.  THE CASE WENT TO THE
HIGHEST COURT IN THE STATE, AND THAT COURT HAD POWER TO REVERSE FOR
ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR LEGAL ERROR IN THE IMPOSITION OF THE SENTENCE. 
FN17  THAT COURT AFFIRMED.  WE HOLD THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT DENIED DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  FN18  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THE KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING, UNLESS IT IS EXCUSABLE OR
JUSTIFIABLE, IS MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, WHEN COMMITTED: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"2.  BY AN ACT IMMINENTLY DANGEROUS TO OTHERS, AND EVINCING A
DEPRAVED MIND, REGARDLESS OF HUMAN LIFE, ALTHOUGH WITHOUT A
PREMEDITATED DESIGN TO EFFECT THE DEATH OF ANY INDIVIDUAL; OR WITHOUT A
DESIGN TO EFFECT DEATH, BY A PERSON ENGAGED IN THE COMMISSION OF, OR IN
AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY, EITHER UPON OR AFFECTING THE PERSON
KILLED OR OTHERWISE  ...  "  NEW YORK PENAL LAW SEC. 1044. 

FN2  "MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH, UNLESS THE
JURY RECOMMENDS LIFE IMPRISONMENT AS PROVIDED BY SECTION TEN HUNDRED
FORTY-FIVE-A."  NEW YORK PENAL LAW SEC. 1045. 

"A JURY FINDING A PERSON GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AS
DEFINED BY SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION TEN HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR, MAY, AS A
PART OF ITS VERDICT, RECOMMEND THAT THE DEFENDANT BE IMPRISONED FOR THE
TERM OF HIS NATURAL LIFE.  UPON SUCH RECOMMENDATION, THE COURT MAY
SENTENCE THE DEFENDANT TO IMPRISONMENT FOR THE TERM OF HIS NATURAL
LIFE."  NEW YORK PENAL LAW SEC. 1045-A. 

FN3  OTHER DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS MENTIONED IN THE OLIVER CASE WERE
THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO OFFER EVIDENCE IN HIS OWN
BEHALF AND BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  APPELLANT, HOWEVER, WAS
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL BOTH WHEN TRIED AND SENTENCED, AND THE
SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT DECLINE TO PERMIT INTRODUCTION OF ANY
EVIDENCE.  IN RESPONSE TO THE JUDGE'S INQUIRY, STATEMENTS WERE MADE BY
APPELLANT AND HIS COUNSEL. 

FN4  COURTS HAVE TREATED THE RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE TO THE
TRIAL PROCEDURE AND THE SENTENCING PROCESS DIFFERENTLY.  SEE, E.G.,
SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 107, 128-129; GRAHAM V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 224 U.S. 616, 619; UNITED STATES V. DALHOVER, 96 F.2D 355,
359-360.  BUT CF. STATE V. STEVENSON, 64 W. VA. 392, 62 S.E. 688. 

FN5  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 14 AM. & ENG. ANN. CAS. 968, ET SEQ.; 77
A.L.R. 1211, ET SEQ.; 86 A.L.R. 832, ET SEQ. SEE ALSO NOTE, THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN DETERMINING SENTENCE, 9 U. OF
CHI.  L. REV. 715(1942). 

FN6  SEE POUND, CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA 178(1930). 

FN7  SEE STEPHAN V. UNITED STATES, 133 F.2D 87, 100.  SEE ALSO 18
U.S.C. SEC. 3655. 

FN8  MYERSON, VIEWS ON SENTENCING CRIMINALS, 7 LAW SOC. J. 854(1937);
GLUECK, PRINCIPLES OF A RATIONAL PENAL CODE, 41 HARV. L. REV.
453(1928); WARNER AND CABOT, ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 50
HARV. L. REV. 583, 607(1937); COMMENT, REFORM IN FEDERAL PENAL
PROCEDURE, 53 YALE L.J. 773(1944). 

FN9  2 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (LEWIS' ED.
1897) 1756-1757. 

FN10  WITH RESPECT TO THIS POLICY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
PROBATION ACT THIS COURT HAS SAID:  "IT IS NECESSARY TO INDIVIDUALIZE
EACH CASE, TO GIVE THAT CAREFUL, HUMANE AND COMPREHENSIVE CONSIDERATION
TO THE PARTICULAR SITUATION OF EACH OFFENDER WHICH WOULD BE POSSIBLE
ONLY IN THE EXERCISE OF A BROAD DISCRETION."  BURNS V. UNITED STATES,
287 U.S. 216, 220.  IN PENNSYLVANIA V. ASHE, 302 U.S. 51, 55, THIS
COURT FURTHER STATED:  "FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SENTENCES, JUSTICE
GENERALLY REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF MORE THAN THE PARTICULAR ACTS BY
WHICH THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED AND THAT THERE BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE TOGETHER WITH THE CHARACTER AND
PROPENSITIES OF THE OFFENDER."  AND SEE WOOD AND WAITE, CRIME AND ITS
TREATMENT 438-442(1941). 

FN11  WOOD AND WAITE, CRIME AND ITS TREATMENT 437(1941); ORFIELD,
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FROM ARREST TO APPEAL 556-565(1947).  SEE, E.G.,
ILL. REV. STAT. C. 38, SEC. 802(1939); CAL. PEN.  CODE (DEERING, 1941)
SEC. 1168. 

FN12  GLUECK, PROBATION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 232(1933); NATIONAL
PROBATION ASSN., DIRECTORY OF PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS 275(1947);
COOLEY, PROBATION AND DELINQUENCY (1927). 

FN13  JUDGE ULMAN WRITING ON THE TRIAL JUDGE'S DILEMMA DISCUSSES THE
PROBLEMS THAT CONFRONT THE SENTENCING JUDGE AND QUOTES FROM ONE OF HIS
COURT OPINIONS AS TO THE FACTORS THAT A JUDGE SHOULD CONSIDER IN
IMPOSING SENTENCE: 

"1ST.  THE PROTECTION OF SOCIETY AGAINST WRONG-DOERS. 

"2ND.  THE PUNISHMENT - OR MUCH BETTER - THE DISCIPLINE OF THE WRONG
DOER. 

"3RD.  THE REFORMATION AND REHABILITATION OF THE WRONG-DOER. 

"4TH.  THE DETERRENCE OF OTHERS FROM THE COMMISSION OF LIKE
OFFENSES. 

"IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT A PROPER DEALING WITH THESE FACTORS
INVOLVES A STUDY OF EACH CASE UPON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.  WAS THE CRIME
A CRIME AGAINST PROPERTY ONLY, OR DID IT INVOLVE DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE? 
WAS IT A CRIME OF SUDDEN PASSION OR WAS IT STUDIED AND DELIBERATE?  IS
THE CRIMINAL A MAN SO CONSTITUTED AND SO HABITUATED TO WAR UPON SOCIETY
THAT THERE IS LITTLE OR NO REAL HOPE THAT HE EVER CAN BE ANYTHING OTHER
THAN A MENACE TO SOCIETY - OR IS HE OBVIOUSLY AMENABLE TO
REFORMATION?"  GLUECK, PROBATION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 113(1933). 

SEE ALSO 12 ENCYC.  OF SOC. SCIENCE, PENAL INSTITUTIONS 57-64(1934). 

FN14  THE LATE FEDERAL JUDGE LEWIS B. SCHWELLENBACH IN HIS ARTICLE ON
THE DIFFICULTIES THAT CONFRONT A SENTENCING JUDGE WROTE:  "THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE LIFE OF A MAN, HIS BACKGROUND AND HIS FAMILY, IS THE
ONLY PROPER BASIS FOR THE DETERMINATION AS TO HIS TREATMENT.  THERE IS
NO SUBSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION.  THE SENTENCING JUDGE IN THE FEDERAL
COURT HAS THE TOOLS WITH WHICH TO ACQUIRE THAT INFORMATION.  FAILURE TO
MAKE FULL USE OF THOSE TOOLS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED."  SCHWELLENBACH,
INFORMATION VS. INTUITION IN THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE, 27 J. AM.
JUD.  SOC.  52(1943).  AND SEE MCGUIRE AND HOLTZOFF, THE PROBLEM OF
SENTENCE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW, 20 B.U.L. REV. 423(1940). 

FN15  A PUBLICATION CIRCULATED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURTS CONTAINS A SUGGESTED FORM FOR ALL UNITED STATES
PROBATION REPORTS AND SERVES AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THE REPORTS.  THIS FORM CONSISTS OF THIRTEEN "MARGINAL
HEADINGS."  (1) OFFENSE; (2) PRIOR RECORD; (3) FAMILY HISTORY; (4) HOME
AND NEIGHBORHOOD; (5) EDUCATION; (6) RELIGION; (7) INTERESTS AND
ACTIVITIES; (8) HEALTH (PHYSICAL AND MENTAL); (9) EMPLOYMENT; (10)
RESOURCES; (11) SUMMARY; (12) PLAN; AND (13) AGENCIES INTERESTED.  EACH
OF THE HEADINGS IS FURTHER BROKEN DOWN INTO SUB-HEADINGS.  THE FORM
REPRESENTS A FRAMEWORK INTO WHICH INFORMATION CAN BE INSERTED TO GIVE
THE SENTENCING JUDGE A COMPOSITE PICTURE OF THE DEFENDANT. 
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, THE PRESENTENCE
INVESTIGATION REPORT, PUB. NO. 101(1943). 

FN16  A FEW NEW YORK CRIMINAL STATUTES WILL ILLUSTRATE THE BROAD
STATUTORY LIMITS WITHIN WHICH THE SENTENCING JUDGE MUST FIX A
DEFENDANT'S PENALTY.  ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS PUNISHABLE BY
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT "LESS THAN TEN YEARS" NOR "MORE THAN THIRTY
YEARS."  NEW YORK PENAL LAW SEC. 2125.  RAPE IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS
"PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS."  NEW YORK
PENAL LAW SEC. 2010.  BURGLARY IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS PUNISHABLE BY
IMPRISONMENT FROM TEN TO THIRTY YEARS, BURGLARY IN THE SECOND DEGREE
"FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING FIFTEEN YEARS."  NEW YORK PENAL LAW SEC.
407. 

FN17  PEOPLE V. STEIN, 96 MISC. 507, 161 N.Y.S. 1107; PEOPLE V. FOX,
202 N.Y. 616, 96 N.E. 1126; PEOPLE V. JOHNSON, 252 N.Y. 387, 393, 169
N.E. 619, 621.  AND SEE COMMONWEALTH V. JOHNSON, 348 PA. 349, 35 A.2D
312.  AS TO ENGLISH PROCEDURE SEE 28 CR. APP. R. 89, 90-91.  ALSO SEE
NOTE, RIGHT OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS TO CHALLENGE REPORTS USED IN
DETERMINING SENTENCE, 49 COL. L. REV. 567(1949). 

FN18  WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS NOT TO BE ACCEPTED AS A HOLDING THAT THE
SENTENCING PROCEDURE IS IMMUNE FROM SCRUTINY UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  SEE TOWNSEND V. BURKE, 334 U.S. 736. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

A COMBINATION OF FACTORS IN THIS CASE IMPELS ME TO DISSENT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER BY A JURY, AND SENTENCED TO DEATH
BY THE JUDGE.  THE JURY WHICH HEARD THE TRIAL UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED
LIFE IMPRISONMENT AS A SUITABLE PUNISHMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  THEY HAD
OBSERVED HIM THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL, HAD HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED
AGAINST HIM, AND IN SPITE OF THE SHOCKING CHARACTER OF THE CRIME OF
WHICH THEY FOUND HIM GUILTY, WERE UNWILLING TO DECREE THAT HIS LIFE
SHOULD BE TAKEN.  IN OUR CRIMINAL COURTS THE JURY SITS AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY; ITS VOICE IS THAT OF THE SOCIETY
AGAINST WHICH THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.  A JUDGE, EVEN THOUGH VESTED
WITH STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO DO SO, SHOULD HESITATE INDEED TO INCREASE
THE SEVERITY OF SUCH A COMMUNITY EXPRESSION. 

HE SHOULD BE WILLING TO INCREASE IT, MOREOVER, ONLY WITH THE MOST
SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT.  THE RECORD BEFORE
US INDICATES THAT THE JUDGE EXERCISED HIS DISCRETION TO DEPRIVE A MAN
OF HIS LIFE, IN RELIANCE ON MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM IN A
PROBATION REPORT, CONSISTING ALMOST ENTIRELY OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN INADMISSIBLE AT THE TRIAL.  SOME, SUCH AS ALLEGATIONS OF
PRIOR CRIMES, WAS IRRELEVANT.  MUCH WAS INCOMPETENT AS HEARSAY.  ALL
WAS DAMAGING, AND NONE WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY BY THE DEFENDANT. 

DUE PROCESS OF LAW INCLUDES AT LEAST THE IDEA THAT A PERSON ACCUSED
OF CRIME SHALL BE ACCORDED A FAIR HEARING THROUGH ALL THE STAGES OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM.  I AGREE WITH THE COURT AS TO THE VALUE AND
HUMANENESS OF LIBERAL USE OF PROBATION REPORTS AS DEVELOPED BY MODERN
PENOLOGISTS, BUT, IN A CAPITAL CASE, AGAINST THE UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION OF A JURY, WHERE THE REPORT WOULD CONCEDEDLY NOT HAVE
BEEN ADMISSIBLE AT THE TRIAL, AND WAS NOT SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION BY THE
DEFENDANT, I AM FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE HIGH COMMANDS OF DUE
PROCESS WERE NOT OBEYED. 
..END :
























MORGANTOWN V. ROYAL INS. CO., 337 U.S. 254 


NO. 396.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 6, 1949.  - 169 F.2D
713, AFFIRMED. 


AN INSURER BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR REFORMATION OF A
POLICY OF INSURANCE, ALLEGING THAT THE POLICY, THOUGH IN TERMS COVERING
LOSS BY FIRE, WAS MUTUALLY INTENDED TO COVER ONLY LOSS BY WINDSTORM. 
THE POLICYHOLDER, WHO HAD SUFFERED A LOSS BY FIRE, FILED A COUNTERCLAIM
UPON THE POLICY TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS; AND, UNDER RULE
38(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, DEMANDED A JURY TRIAL. 
HELD:  AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING THE DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY
JURY WAS NOT APPEALABLE.  PP. 255-259. 

(A)  THE ORDER DENYING THE DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL IN THIS CASE WAS
NOT AN ORDER REFUSING AN INJUNCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 227(NOW SEC. 1292).  ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S.
379; ETTELSON V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 317 U.S. 188,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 256-258. 

(B)  NOTWITHSTANDING ITS IMPORTANCE AND ITS EFFECT ON THE LITIGATION,
THE ORDER DENYING A JURY TRIAL WAS INTERLOCUTORY IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE,
AND TO PERMIT AN APPEAL THEREFROM WOULD ENCOURAGE PIECEMEAL APPEALS. 
PP. 258-259. 

CITY OF MORGANTOWN V. ROYAL INSURANCE CO., LTD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY AN INSURER FOR REFORMATION OF A
POLICY OF INSURANCE ON THE GROUND OF MUTUAL MISTAKE, THE POLICYHOLDER
FILED A COUNTERCLAIM UPON THE POLICY TO RECOVER FOR A LOSS AND DEMANDED
A JURY TRIAL.  AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER DENYING A JURY TRIAL WAS
DISMISSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  169 F.2D 713.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 890.  AFFIRMED, P. 259. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES TWO QUESTIONS:  THE APPEALABILITY OF AN ORDER
DENYING A DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY IN A FEDERAL COURT, AND WHETHER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY APPLIES TO THE TRIAL OF AN ISSUE OF
MUTUAL MISTAKE. 

THE FACTS ARE THESE.  PETITIONER IN AUGUST OF 1947 WAS CARRYING
INSURANCE WITH RESPONDENT ON A HANGAR AT ITS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.  THE
POLICY BY ITS TERMS INSURED PETITIONER AGAINST LOSS BY FIRE OR
LIGHTNING IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,000.  ON AUGUST 20, THE HANGAR WAS
COMPLETELY DESTROYED BY FIRE.  PETITIONER FILED PROOF OF LOSS.  SHORTLY
THEREAFTER RESPONDENT INSTITUTED AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA FOR REFORMATION AND CORRECTION
OF THE POLICY.  IT ALLEGED IN SUBSTANCE THAT DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR
PETITIONER HAD CARRIED ONLY WINDSTORM INSURANCE ON THE HANGAR, IN THE
SAME AMOUNT; THAT THE POLICY CURRENTLY IN FORCE WAS INTENDED BY THE
PARTIES TO BE A RENEWAL OF THE PRIOR POLICY; THAT THE PREMIUM PAID WAS
THE SAME AS HAD BEEN PAID FOR WINDSTORM INSURANCE, AN AMOUNT MUCH LESS
THAN THE PREMIUM FOR FIRE INSURANCE; AND THE POLICY HAD BEEN WRITTEN AS
A FIRE POLICY THROUGH THE INADVERTENCE OF BOTH PARTIES AND DID NOT
EXPRESS THE INTENT OF EITHER.  IT PRAYED FOR REFORMATION TO CORRECT THE
MUTUAL MISTAKE AND FOR A DECLARATION OF NO LIABILITY FOR THE LOSS BY
FIRE.  PETITIONER ANSWERED, DENYING MISTAKE, AND FILED A COUNTERCLAIM
TO RECOVER ON THE POLICY AS WRITTEN.  RESPONDENT ANSWERED THE
COUNTERCLAIM, ALLEGING THE SAME FACTS AS IN ITS COMPLAINT.  PETITIONER
FILED A DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL UNDER RULE 38(B); RESPONDENT MOVED TO
STRIKE THE DEMAND; THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND SET THE CASE FOR
TRIAL TO THE COURT WITHOUT A JURY.  PETITIONER APPEALED FROM THIS
RULING.  ON MOTION OF RESPONDENT, THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE
APPEAL, 169 F.2D 713, AND THE CASE IS HERE ON A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 
335 U.S. 890. 

IN THIS POSTURE OF THE CASE, WE ARE FIRST CONFRONTED WITH THE
QUESTION OF THE APPEALABILITY OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER DENYING JURY
TRIAL.  NOT BEING A FINAL DECISION, IT IS APPEALABLE, IF AT ALL, ONLY
AS AN INTERLOCUTORY DECREE GRANTING OR REFUSING AN INJUNCTION UNDER
SEC. 129 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 227).  FN1  PETITIONER
URGES ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379, AND ETTELSON V.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 317 U.S. 188, UPON US AS CONCLUSIVE IN
FAVOR OF APPEALABILITY.  IN EACH OF THOSE CASES, THE PLAINTIFF HAD
COMMENCED AN ACTION TO RECOVER ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF AN INSURANCE
POLICY; IN EACH OF THEM THE INSURANCE COMPANY DENIED LIABILITY,
ALLEGING FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT OF THE POLICY, AND MOVED THAT THE
ISSUE OF FRAUD BE TRIED TO THE COURT WITHOUT A JURY.  THE TRIAL COURT
IN EACH CASE GRANTED THE MOTION, AND THIS COURT HELD ON REVIEW THAT THE
RULINGS THUS MADE WERE APPEALABLE UNDER SEC. 129. 

THE SUBSTANCE OF SEC. 129 HAS BEEN A PART OF FEDERAL LAW SINCE 1891,
26 STAT. 828, AND ITS RELATION TO OTHER ASPECTS OF PROCEDURE HAS NOT
BEEN RIGID.  SINCE 1912 THE HISTORY OF THE LAW GOVERNING PROCEDURE IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS HAS MANIFESTED A SLOW BUT CONSISTENT PROCESS OF
COALESCING OF THE PRACTICE IN THE LAW AND EQUITY SIDES OF THE COURTS. 
IN THAT YEAR THIS COURT ADOPTED NEW EQUITY RULES, OF WHICH RULE 22 AND
RULE 23 MADE A SIGNIFICANT START IN PROCEDURAL UNIFICATION.  A MAJOR
STEP OCCURRED IN 1915, WITH THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAW AND EQUITY ACT, 38
STAT. 956, WHICH ADDED SECS. 274(A) AND 274(B) TO THE JUDICIAL CODE. 
THE NET EFFECT OF THESE ADDITIONS WAS TO ALLOW TRANSFER OF ACTION BEGUN
ON EITHER SIDE OF THE COURT TO THE OTHER SIDE, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF
COMMENCING A NEW ACTION, TO PERMIT DETERMINATION OF LAW QUESTIONS
ARISING IN EQUITY ACTIONS IN THOSE ACTIONS, AND TO ALLOW EQUITABLE
DEFENSES TO BE OFFERED AND EQUITABLE RELIEF TO BE GRANTED IN AN ACTION
AT LAW. 

IN THIS STATE OF A PARTLY BLENDED LAW AND EQUITY PROCEDURE AROSE THE
ENELOW CASE, SUPRA.  THE COURT THERE HELD, WITH REGARD TO AN ORDER
DENYING TRIAL BY JURY, THAT BY ANALOGY TO PRACTICE AT COMMON LAW THE
ORDER WAS ONE GRANTING AN INJUNCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 129. 

THE COALESCING OF LAW AND EQUITY PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED IN 1938,
WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  THEIR PURPOSE,
AMONG OTHERS, WAS "TO SECURE THE JUST, SPEEDY, AND INEXPENSIVE
DETERMINATION OF EVERY ACTION," AND TO THAT END THEY PRESCRIBED
IDENTICAL PROCEDURE FOR ALL ACTIONS, WHETHER COGNIZABLE FORMERLY AT LAW
OR IN EQUITY.  AFTER THEIR ADOPTION, THE IDENTICAL PROBLEM PRESENTED BY
THE ENELOW CASE AROSE IN ETTELSON V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA.
IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE RULES HAD SO UNIFIED THE
FEDERAL PROCEDURE THAT THE TYPE OF ORDER IN QUESTION COULD NO LONGER BE
CONSIDERED AN INJUNCTION AND APPEALABLE.  WE HELD THE ORDER APPEALABLE,
SINCE THE RULES HAD NOT CHANGED ITS SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT, NOTING THAT THE
POSITION OF THE PARTIES WAS THE SAME AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF A STATE
EQUITY COURT HAD ENJOINED AN ACTION AT LAW. 

WHATEVER THE PRESENT VALIDITY OF THE ANALOGY TO COMMON-LAW PRACTICE
WHICH SUPPORTED THOSE CASES, IT IS OF NO HELP HERE.  THIS IS NOT A
SITUATION WHERE A "CHANCELLOR" IN DENYING A DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CAN
BE SAID TO BE ENJOINING A "JUDGE" WHO HAS COGNIZANCE OF A PENDING
ACTION AT LAW.  THIS IS RATHER A CASE OF A JUDGE MAKING A RULING AS TO
THE MANNER IN WHICH HE WILL TRY ONE ISSUE IN A CIVIL ACTION PENDING
BEFORE HIMSELF.  THE FICTION OF A COURT WITH TWO SIDES, ONE OF WHICH
CAN STAY PROCEEDINGS IN THE OTHER, IS NOT APPLICABLE WHERE THERE IS NO
OTHER PROCEEDING IN EXISTENCE TO BE STAYED.  THE RULING FROM WHICH THE
APPEAL IN THIS CASE WAS PROSECUTED IS AN ORDER INTERLOCUTORY IN FORM
AND SUBSTANCE.  NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULES OR THE JUDICIAL
CODE BRINGS IT WITHIN THE CLASS OF APPEALABLE DECISIONS, AND
DISTINCTIONS FROM COMMON-LAW PRACTICE WHICH SUPPORTED OUR CONCLUSIONS
IN THE ENELOW AND ETTELSON CASES SUPPLY NO ANALOGY COMPETENT TO MAKE AN
INJUNCTION OF WHAT IN ANY ORDINARY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD IS NOT
ONE. 

TRIAL BY JURY IS A VITAL AND CHERISHED RIGHT, INTEGRAL IN OUR
JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF AN INTERLOCUTORY
ORDER DENYING OR GRANTING JURY TRIAL IS SUCH THAT IT SHOULD BE
APPEALABLE.  MANY INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT, AND MAY
DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION, BUT THEY ARE NOT FOR THAT
REASON CONVERTED INTO INJUNCTIONS.  THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES TO
LITIGANTS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR CASES TRIED BY
JURIES, AND RULE 38 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXPLICITLY
IMPLEMENTS THAT GUARANTEE.  DENIAL OF THE RIGHT IN A CASE WHERE THE
DEMANDING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO IT IS OF COURSE ERROR.  THE RULINGS OF
THE DISTRICT COURTS GRANTING OR DENYING JURY TRIALS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
MOST EXACTING SCRUTINY ON APPEAL. 

BUT PIECEMEAL APPEALS HAVE NEVER BEEN ENCOURAGED.  THE GROWTH OF THE
LAW OF PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE LAST HALF-CENTURY HAS
BEEN STEADILY IN THE DIRECTION OF SIMPLICITY AND DIRECTNESS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  TO THAT END, AND WITH CAREFUL REGARD FOR
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, THIS COURT, PURSUANT TO
SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION BY CONGRESS, ADOPTED THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, ABOLISHING PROCEDURAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN LAW AND EQUITY
AND ESTABLISHING A SINGLE UNIFIED PRACTICE.  WE WOULD ILL SERVE THE
STATED PURPOSES OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WERE WE TO PERPETUATE
BY ANALOGY DISTINCTIONS WHICH THE RULES EXPRESSLY DISAVOW.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS WAS CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND ITS JUDGMENT IS
AFFIRMED. 

WITH THE CASE DISPOSED OF IN THIS MANNER, WE DO NOT REACH THE SECOND
QUESTION PRESENTED: WHETHER PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A JURY ON THE
ISSUE OF MUTUAL MISTAKE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "WHERE  ...  AN INJUNCTION IS GRANTED, CONTINUED, MODIFIED,
REFUSED, OR DISSOLVED BY AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OR DECREE, OR AN
APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE OR MODIFY AN INJUNCTION IS REFUSED, ...  AN
APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN FROM SUCH INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OR DECREE  ...  "
THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN RETAINED IN REVISED TITLE 28,
U.S.C. SEC. 1292, 62 STAT. 869. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

ON OCCASION A PROBLEM ARISES WHICH CALLS FOR A MORE DISCRIMINATING
ANALYSIS THAN IS CONVEYED BY THE PHRASE "LAW AND EQUITY ARE NOW FUSED"
TO INDICATE THE PROCEDURAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREBY AN ACTION AT LAW AND A
SUIT IN EQUITY IN RELATION TO IT MAY BE DISPOSED OF IN A SINGLE
LITIGATION.  IN THIS CASE, THE DEEPLY ROOTED HISTORICAL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN AN ACTION AT LAW AND A SUIT IN EQUITY BECOMES DECISIVE.  SINCE
I WOULD NOT REVERSE OR IMPAIR THE RULING IN ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379, AND ETTELSON V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 317
U.S. 188, I SHOULD LIKE TO ADD A FEW WORDS TO THE COURT'S OPINION, IN
WHICH I JOIN, TO MAKE CLEAR WHY THE PRESENT DECISION LEAVES THOSE
DECISIONS UNIMPAIRED. 

IN THE TWO EARLIER CASES AN ACTION AT LAW WAS BROUGHT ON AN INSURANCE
POLICY.  OF COURSE THIS ENTITLED THE PLAINTIFF TO A TRIAL BY JURY.  THE
DEFENDANT ASKED FOR A CANCELLATION OF THE POLICY BECAUSE OF FRAUD.  THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN ORDER SUSPENDING THE ACTION AT LAW, TO BE
TRIED BY A JURY, UNTIL THE LATER-BEGUN EQUITABLE PROCEEDING - TRIAL
WITHOUT A JURY - WAS CONCLUDED.  THIS COURT WAS CALLED UPON TO CONSTRUE
SEC. 129 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE ALLOWING APPEALS IN LIMITED CATEGORIES OF
INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 227, NOW SEC. 1292.  WITH DUE
REGARD TO THE ACTUALITIES OF THE SITUATION, THE COURT HELD THAT THE
STAYING OF AN ACTION AT LAW BY THE CHANCELLOR IS AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION AND AS SUCH APPEALABLE, EVEN THOUGH THE CHANCELLOR WHO
GRANTED SUCH AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER BE THE SAME JUDGE BEFORE WHOM THE
EARLIER ACTION AT LAW WAS PENDING.  THE GROUND OF THE DECISION IN THE
ENELOW CASE LEAVES NO DOUBT AS TO ITS SCOPE.  SECTION 129 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, WROTE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES FOR THE COURT, 

"  ...  CONTEMPLATES INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS OR DECREES WHICH CONSTITUTE
AN EXERCISE OF EQUITABLE JURISDICTION IN GRANTING OR REFUSING AN
INJUNCTION, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS WHICH A
COURT OF LAW, AS WELL AS A COURT OF EQUITY, MAY GRANT IN A CAUSE
PENDING BEFORE IT BY VIRTUE OF ITS INHERENT POWER TO CONTROL THE
PROGRESS OF THE CAUSE SO AS TO MAINTAIN THE ORDERLY PROCESSES OF
JUSTICE.  THE POWER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANOTHER COURT APPERTAINS
DISTINCTIVELY TO EQUITY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, AND
THE GRANT OR REFUSAL OF SUCH A STAY BY A COURT OF EQUITY OF PROCEEDINGS
AT LAW IS A GRANT OR REFUSAL OF AN INJUNCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 129.  AND, IN THIS ASPECT, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT THE TWO
CASES, THE SUIT IN EQUITY FOR AN INJUNCTION AND THE ACTION AT LAW IN
WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE STAYED, ARE BOTH PENDING IN THE SAME COURT  ...
"  293 U.S. AT 381-82. 

IN THIS CASE THE PLAINTIFF INSTITUTED A SUIT IN EQUITY FOR THE
REFORMATION OF AN INSTRUMENT.  THE INSURED, BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM,
CONTESTED THAT SUIT AND, IN ADDITION, SOUGHT RECOVERY ON THE POLICY. 
THE LATTER WAS A CONVENTIONAL ACTION AT LAW WHICH, UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, ENTITLED THE DEFENDANT TO A JURY TRIAL.  THE JUDGE
CONTINUED THIS ACTION AT LAW UNTIL THE PRIOR EQUITABLE PROCEEDING COULD
BE CONCLUDED.  THE FACTS, THEREFORE, ARE PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE OF
THOSE IN THE ENELOW CASE.  HERE THERE WAS NO INTERVENTION BY A COURT OF
EQUITY IN PROCEEDINGS AT LAW, BUT "A MERE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS WHICH A
COURT OF LAW, AS WELL AS A COURT OF EQUITY, MAY GRANT IN A CAUSE
PENDING BEFORE IT BY VIRTUE OF ITS INHERENT POWER TO CONTROL THE
PROGRESS OF THE CAUSE SO AS TO MAINTAIN THE ORDERLY PROCESSES OF
JUSTICE."  293 U.S. AT 381-82.  SINCE AN INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDING IN AN
ACTION AT LAW CANNOT POSSIBLY BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE LIMITED CLASS OF
APPEALABLE INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS UNDER THE OLD SEC. 129 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE (NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1292), THERE IS AN END TO THE
MATTER. 

A LAYMAN MAY SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE POSTPONEMENT BY A TRIAL
JUDGE OF AN ACTION AT LAW, AND THE POSTPONEMENT OF SUCH AN ACTION BY AN
EQUITABLE PROCEEDING RESULTING IN AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  BUT THE
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO ALLOW AN APPEAL FROM ONE SUCH RESULT AND NOT
FROM THE OTHER.  NONAPPEALABILITY OF INTERMEDIATE ORDERS IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS HAS BEEN A DEEP-ROOTED GENERAL PRINCIPLE LIMITING THOSE COURTS
SINCE THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.  A VERY FEW TYPES OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
ARE APPEALABLE.  THE ENELOW AND ETTELSON CASES PRESENTED AN ORDER THAT
WAS APPEALABLE BECAUSE IT WAS A STAY BY A COURT OF EQUITY OF A COMMON
LAW ACTION.  THIS IS NOT SUCH A STAY, AND IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT THE
COURT LEAVES ENELOW AND ETTELSON UNTOUCHED.    MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH
WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK IT AN UNDESIRABLE PRACTICE FOR THIS COURT TO OVERRULE PAST
CASES WITHOUT SAYING SO.  THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S HOLDING HERE IS TO
OVERRULE ETTELSON V. METROPOLITAN INS. CO., 317 U.S. 188, DECIDED BY A
UNANIMOUS COURT IN 1942.  THE COURT'S HOLDING TODAY REJECTS THE
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 129 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 227, AS
AMENDED 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1292) GIVEN THAT SECTION IN THE ETTELSON CASE
AND IN ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379.  AND TO SUPPORT
ITS NEW INTERPRETATION OF THAT SECTION THE COURT NOW ADOPTS REASONS AND
ARGUMENTS THAT WERE EXPRESSLY URGED AND EXPRESSLY REJECTED IN THE
ENELOW AND ETTELSON CASES. 

TODAY THE COURT BRUSHES ASIDE THE ENELOW AND ETTELSON CASES, IMPLYING
THAT THIS, UNLIKE EITHER OF THE OTHER TWO, IS "A CASE OF A JUDGE MAKING
A RULING AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH HE WILL TRY ONE ISSUE IN A CIVIL
ACTION PENDING BEFORE HIMSELF."  BUT THIS WAS TRUE IN THE ENELOW AND
ETTELSON CASES.  IN THE ENELOW CASE THE COURT SAID AT P. 382 THAT "IT
MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT THE TWO CASES  ...  ARE BOTH PENDING IN THE
SAME COURT, IN VIEW OF THE ESTABLISHED DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'PROCEEDINGS
AT LAW AND PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY IN THE NATIONAL COURTS AND BETWEEN THE
POWERS OF THOSE COURTS WHEN SITTING AS COURTS OF LAW AND WHEN SITTING
AS COURTS OF EQUITY.'"  THE COURT ALSO IMPLIES THAT THIS CASE CAN BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE ENELOW AND ETTELSON CASES BECAUSE THE ORDER IN
THIS CASE IS "INTERLOCUTORY IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE."  BUT THIS WAS TRUE
IN THE ENELOW AND ETTELSON CASES.  IN THE ENELOW CASE THE COURT SAID AT
P. 383, THAT "ALTHOUGH INTERLOCUTORY, IT (THE ORDER) WAS APPEALABLE
...  UNDER SEC. 129."  IN THE ENELOW CASE THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT
HELD APPEALABLE (P. 381) REQUIRED HEARING OF THE EQUITABLE ISSUE RAISED
"IN ADVANCE OF THE TRIAL BY JURY AT LAW OF ANY PURELY LEGAL ISSUES." 
THAT WAS PRECISELY THE EFFECT OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER IN THIS CASE;
IT REQUIRED HEARING OF THE EQUITABLE ISSUE OF REFORMATION IN ADVANCE OF
A TRIAL BY JURY OF THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE COUNTERCLAIM.  TODAY
THE COURT SAYS THIS ORDER IS NOT AN "INJUNCTION  ...  IN ANY ORDINARY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD  ...  "  IN THE ENELOW CASE THIS COURT SAID
THAT SUCH AN ORDER "IN EFFECT GRANTS OR REFUSES AN INJUNCTION  ...  "
(P. 383). 

THE COURT TODAY SEEMS TO REST ITS DEPARTURE FROM THE ENELOW CASE ON
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THEIR PURPOSE AS SET OUT IN
RULE 1 "TO SECURE THE JUST, SPEEDY, AND INEXPENSIVE DETERMINATION OF
EVERY ACTION."  THE ETTELSON CASE, SUPRA, CAME TO THIS COURT AFTER
ADOPTION OF THESE RULES.  THE INSURANCE COMPANY THERE SPECIFICALLY
POINTED TO RULE 1 AS A REASON WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THE
ENELOW CASE.  WE UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED THE CONTENTION.  WE POINTED OUT
AT P. 191 THAT "AS IN THE ENELOW CASE  ...  THE RESULT OF THE DISTRICT
JUDGE'S ORDER IS THE POSTPONEMENT OF TRIAL OF THE JURY ACTION BASED
UPON THE (INSURANCE) POLICIES; AND IT MAY, IN PRACTICAL EFFECT,
TERMINATE THAT ACTION.  IT IS AS EFFECTIVE IN THESE RESPECTS AS AN
INJUNCTION ISSUED BY A CHANCELLOR.  ...  THE PLAINTIFFS ARE  ...  IN NO
DIFFERENT POSITION THAN IF A STATE EQUITY COURT HAD RESTRAINED THEM
FROM PROCEEDING IN THE LAW ACTION.  NOR ARE THEY DIFFERENTLY
CIRCUMSTANCED THAN WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ENELOW CASE.  THE RELIEF
AFFORDED BY SEC. 129 IS NOT RESTRICTED BY THE TERMINOLOGY USED.  THE
STATUTE LOOKS TO THE SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT OF THE ORDER MADE." 

THUS DESPITE OUR UNANIMOUS REJECTION OF THE CONTENTION IN ETTELSON
THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HAVE DISPLACED
BOTH THE ENELOW AND ETTELSON INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 129 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE.  THE BASIS FOR OVERRULING THE ENELOW AND ETTELSON CASES APPEARS
TO BE THE COURT'S HOSTILITY TO "PIECEMEAL APPEALS" AND THE COURT'S
BELIEF THAT OVERRULING THE TWO CASES WILL PROMOTE "SIMPLICITY AND
DIRECTNESS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE."  BUT TO GRANT APPEAL HERE
WOULD NOT SUSTAIN APPEALS FROM EVERY ADVERSE RULING MADE IN THE PROCESS
OF A TRIAL.  DENIAL OF TRIAL BY JURY IS NOT TO BE CLASSIFIED WITH
ORDINARY TRIAL ERRORS, SUCH AS AN ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE. 
THE QUESTION HERE RELATES TO THE WHOLE TRIAL OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED:
WHAT TRIBUNAL SHALL HEAR AND RESOLVE THE EVIDENCE, JUDGE OR JURY?  AND
NEITHER SIMPLICITY NOR DIRECTNESS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION ARE
NECESSARILY FURTHERED BY COMPELLING TWO TRIALS WHERE ONE WOULD
SUFFICE.  MOREOVER, THERE IS MUCH TO BE SAID AGAINST THE IDEA OF
INFLEXIBLY BARRING APPEALS IN REGARD TO ALLEGED SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS THAT
MAY FATALLY INVALIDATE AN ENTIRE TRIAL PROCEDURE.* 

*MOORE AND VESTAL, PRESENT AND POTENTIAL ROLE OF CERTIFICATION IN
FEDERAL APPELLATE PROCEDURE, 35 VA. L. REV. 1(1949); SEE DISSENTING
OPINION BY JUDGE FRANK IN AMERICAN MACHINE AND METALS, INC. V. DE
BOTHEZAT IMPELLER CO., 173 F.2D 890. 

IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE DOGMA AGAINST "PIECEMEAL APPEALS" IS TO BE
UNDULY EXALTED IN THIS CASE WE SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT
THE BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEES TRIAL BY JURY IN APPROPRIATE CASES.  HAD
PETITIONER HERE FILED A COMMON-LAW SUIT ON ITS POLICY IN A STATE COURT
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO TRIAL BY JURY.  IN THAT EVENT THE
FEDERAL COURT COULD HAVE RESTRAINED TRIAL, IF AT ALL, ONLY BY AN
INJUNCTION, WHICH CONFESSEDLY WOULD HAVE BEEN APPEALABLE UNDER SEC.
129.  BUT UNDER RULES 2 AND 13(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE PETITIONER WAS COMPELLED TO SUE ON ITS POLICY BY FILING
COUNTERCLAIM IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  CF. AMERICAN MILLS CO. V. AMERICAN
SURETY CO., 260 U.S. 360, 364, 366.  BECAUSE OF THAT FEDERAL COMPULSION
THE COURT NOW PENALIZES PETITIONER BY DENYING IT A RIGHT OF APPEAL.  AS
A RESULT, PETITIONER'S ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE THE FACTS
OF ITS CASE DETERMINED BY A JURY IS AT LEAST POSTPONED.  THERE ARE MANY
PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT JUSTIFY A MORE CONSIDERATE TREATMENT
OF CONTENTIONS THAT INVOKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEE OF TRIAL BY
JURY.  SEE, E.G., SCOTT V. NEELY, 140 U.S. 106, 109, 110; INSURANCE CO.
V. BAILEY, 13 WALL.  616. 
..END :












COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. WJR, 337 U.S. 265 


NO. 495.  ARGUED APRIL 22, 1949.  - DECIDED JUNE 6, 1949.  - 84 U.S.
APP. D.C. 1, 174 F.2D 226, REVERSED. 


WITHOUT NOTICE TO RADIO STATION WJR, WHICH WAS LICENSED AS A CLASS I
STATION, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION GRANTED ANOTHER PARTY AN
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A CLASS II STATION TO BROADCAST
ON THE SAME FREQUENCY PREVIOUSLY USED EXCLUSIVELY BY WJR.  ALLEGING
THAT THE NEW STATION WOULD CAUSE "OBJECTIONABLE INTERFERENCE" WITH ITS
BROADCAST SIGNAL, WJR PETITIONED FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION
AND FOR A HEARING TO WHICH IT MIGHT BE MADE A PARTY OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, THAT FINAL ACTION ON THE APPLICATION BE POSTPONED UNTIL
THE CONCLUSION OF A PENDING "CLEAR CHANNEL" PROCEEDING, IN WHICH THE
COMMISSION WAS CONSIDERING ALLOWING WJR AND OTHER STATIONS TO INCREASE
THEIR POWER.  THE APPLICANT CHALLENGED THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF WJR'S
PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT WJR HAD NOT SET FORTH FACTS WHICH, IF
ACCEPTED AS TRUE, WOULD CONSTITUTE INTERFERENCE WITH WJR'S "NORMALLY
PROTECTED CONTOUR."  THE COMMISSION DENIED WJR'S PETITION WITHOUT ORAL
ARGUMENT.  HELD: 

1.  THE COMMISSION WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO WJR TO POSTPONE FINAL ACTION
ON THE APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT UNTIL IT HAD DISPOSED OF THE "CLEAR
CHANNEL" PROCEEDING.  P. 272. 

2.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DID NOT REQUIRE
THAT THE COMMISSION AFFORD WJR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT UPON
ITS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION.  PP. 272-285. 

(A)  PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BE AFFORDED ON EVERY
QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BEFORE A JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL,
EXCEPTING SUCH QUESTIONS AS MAY BE INVOLVED IN INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS. 
PP. 274-277. 

(B)  THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY CONGRESS IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT,
FOR DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY WJR, IS NOT LACKING IN DUE
PROCESS.  PP. 277-285. 

(C)  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 409(A) FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE
COMMISSION IN PROCEEDINGS HEARD INITIALLY BEFORE AN EXAMINER IS
INAPPLICABLE HERE, SINCE THIS PROCEEDING WAS NOT HEARD OR ASSIGNED FOR
HEARING IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BEFORE AN EXAMINER AND WJR'S CLAIMED
RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION ARISES UNDER SEC. 312(B).  PP. 277-278. 

(D)  BY SECS. 312(B) AND 4(J), CONGRESS HAS COMMITTED TO THE
COMMISSION'S DISCRETION THE QUESTIONS WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES IT WILL ALLOW OR REQUIRE ORAL ARGUMENT, EXCEPT WHERE THE
ACT EXPRESSLY REQUIRES IT.  PP. 281-282. 

(E)  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 312(B) FOR "REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW
CAUSE" IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS ALWAYS INCLUDING OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT.  PP. 282-283. 

(F)  THIS COURT CAN NOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
IN DETERMINING WJR'S PETITION ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION.  P. 284. 

3.  IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO DECLINE TO DECIDE THE
MERITS OF THE QUESTION WHETHER WJR'S PETITION STATED A LEGALLY
SUFFICIENT CASE OF (INDIRECT) MODIFICATION OF ITS LICENSE WITHIN THE
TERMS OF SEC. 312(B), AS WELL AS TO DECIDE, WITHOUT DETERMINING THAT
QUESTION, THAT WJR WAS ENTITLED TO BE MADE A PARTY TO AND PARTICIPATE
AS SUCH IN THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE APPLICATION.  P. 284. 

4.  THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DECISION OF THE
BASIC ISSUE ON THE MERITS, UNCOMPLICATED BY QUESTIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY RELATING TO THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE.  P. 285. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. WJR, THE GOODWILL STATION, INC.
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DENIED WJR'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF AN ORDER GRANTING TO ANOTHER AN APPLICATION FOR A
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A RADIO STATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND
REMANDED THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. 1, 174 F.2D
226.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 917.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 285. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MOST BROADLY STATED, THE IMPORTANT QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS
THE EXTENT TO WHICH DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, REQUIRES FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS TO ACCORD THE
RIGHT OF ORAL ARGUMENT TO ONE CLAIMING TO BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY
THEIR ACTION, MORE PARTICULARLY UPON QUESTIONS OF LAW.  LEST THIS
SPACIOUS FORM OF STATEMENT BE TAKEN AS TOO SWEEPING AND ABSTRACT TO
POSE A JUSTICIABLE ISSUE, WE THINK THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF FACT AND
DECISION OUT OF WHICH THE QUESTION HAS ARISEN MUST BE SET FORTH.  BUT
BEFORE THIS IS DONE WE SHOULD SAY THAT, AS WE UNDERSTAND THE COURT OF
APPEALS' DECISION, IT HAS RULED THAT FIFTH AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS REQUIRES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT TO BE GIVEN "ON EVERY
QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BEFORE A JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL,
INCLUDING QUESTIONS RAISED BY DEMURRER OR AS IF ON DEMURRER, EXCEPT
SUCH QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE INVOLVED IN INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS SUCH
AS ORDERS FOR THE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDENTE LITE, FOR TEMPORARY
INJUNCTIONS AND THE LIKE," 174 F.2D 226, 233, AND ON THIS BASIS HAS
REMANDED THIS CAUSE TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT. 

INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY ARE TWO RADIO STATIONS AND THE
COMMISSION, WHICH IS THE PETITIONER HERE.  ONE OF THE STATIONS IS THE
RESPONDENT WJR.  IT IS LICENSED BY THE COMMISSION AS A "CLASS I-A
STATION,"  FN1  TO BROADCAST DAY AND NIGHT FROM DETROIT, MICHIGAN, ON A
FREQUENCY OF 760 KILOCYCLES AND WITH A STRENGTH OF 50 KILOWATTS.  THE
OTHER STATION IS THE INTERVENOR, COASTAL PLAINS (FORMERLY TARBORO)
BROADCASTING COMPANY. 

PRIOR TO AUGUST 22, 1946, TARBORO FILED WRITTEN APPLICATION WITH THE
COMMISSION FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A "CLASS II STATION"  FN2  TO
BROADCAST FROM TARBORO, NORTH CAROLINA.  ON THAT DATE THE COMMISSION
GRANTED THE APPLICATION.  THE PERMIT SPECIFIED THAT THE NEW STATION WAS
TO BROADCAST DURING THE DAY FROM TARBORO AT A STRENGTH OF ONE KILOWATT
ON THE FREQUENCY OF 760 KILOCYCLES, WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN USED
EXCLUSIVELY BY WJR.  THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WAS GRANTED WITHOUT NOTICE
TO WJR AND WITHOUT ORAL HEARING OR OTHER PARTICIPATION BY IT IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

ON SEPTEMBER 10 FOLLOWING, WJR FILED WITH THE COMMISSION A WRITTEN
"PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND HEARING."  THIS ALLEGED THAT THE
PROPOSED BROADCASTING RANGE OF THE COASTAL PLAINS STATION WOULD CAUSE
"OBJECTIONABLE INTERFERENCE" WITH RESPONDENT'S BROADCAST SIGNAL. 
INTERFERENCE WAS SAID TO BE ANTICIPATED PRINCIPALLY IN CERTAIN AREAS OF
MICHIGAN WHERE "THE FIELD INTENSITY OF WJR AVERAGES 32 MICROVOLTS PER
METER OR LESS DURING THE DAYTIME HOURS,"  FN3  BUT WHERE "WJR PROVIDES
THE BEST SIGNAL AVAILABLE"; LIMITED INTERFERENCE "DURING THE WINTER
SEASON" WAS ALSO EXPECTED WITHIN "CONTOURS" OF FIELD INTENSITY "MUCH
HIGHER" THAN 32 MICROVOLTS; INTERFERENCE OF UNSPECIFIED EXTENT WAS ALSO
THOUGHT LIKELY IN NEIGHBORING STATES, THOUGH AS TO SUCH AREAS IT WAS
CONCEDED THAT "A BETTER SIGNAL IS PROVIDED BY OTHER STATIONS." 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS WJR ASKED THAT THE COMMISSION HOLD
A HEARING ON THE COASTAL PLAINS APPLICATION TO WHICH WJR MIGHT BE MADE
A PARTY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, POSTPONE FINAL ACTION ON THE COASTAL
PLAINS APPLICATION UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE THEN PENDING "CLEAR
CHANNEL" FN4  PROCEEDING.  IN THAT PROCEEDING, ESSENTIALLY LEGISLATIVE
IN CHARACTER, THE COMMISSION WAS CONSIDERING THE DESIRABILITY OF
CHANGING ITS RULES SO AS TO ALLOW WJR AND OTHER STATIONS TO INCREASE
THEIR BROADCAST STRENGTHS TO 500 KILOWATTS.  THE BASIS FOR THE
ALTERNATIVE REQUEST WAS WJR'S FEAR THAT A GRANT OF THE COASTAL PLAINS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MIGHT PREJUDICE A POSSIBLE FUTURE WJR APPLICATION
FOR INCREASED SIGNAL STRENGTH IN THE EVENT THE DECISION IN THE CLEAR
CHANNEL PROCEEDING SHOULD SO MODIFY THE COMMISSION'S RULES AS TO
FACILITATE SUCH AN APPLICATION. 

COASTAL PLAINS FILED AN OPPOSITION TO WJR'S PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, ASSERTING AMONG OTHER GROUNDS FOR DENIAL THAT WJR HAD
NOT ALLEGED THAT THE PROPOSED NEW OPERATION "WOULD CAUSE ANY
INTERFERENCE WITHIN THE NORMALLY PROTECTED SERVICE AREA OF STATION WJR"
AND HAD NEITHER ALLEGED NOR PROVED "ANY INTERFERENCE WITHIN ITS
NORMALLY PROTECTED CONTOURS."  THE OPPOSITION WAS BASED ON THE THEORY
THAT UNDER THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS WJR'S LICENSE CONFERRED NO
RIGHT TO PROTECTION AGAINST INTERFERENCE OUTSIDE ITS NORMALLY PROTECTED
CONTOURS AS SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS, THAT THE INTERFERENCE ALLEGED
WAS OUTSIDE THOSE CONTOURS, AND HENCE WJR'S PETITION WAS LEGALLY
INSUFFICIENT ON ITS FACE TO STATE ANY BASIS FOR WJR TO BE MADE A PARTY
TO OR TO BE HEARD IN THE COASTAL PLAINS PROCEEDING. 

NO RESPONSE TO THE OPPOSITION WAS FILED BY WJR AND SOME THREE MONTHS
LATER, ON DECEMBER 17, 1946, THE COMMISSION DENIED WJR'S APPLICATION IN
A WRITTEN OPINION, RENDERED WITHOUT PRIOR ORAL ARGUMENT.  THE OPINION
FIRST DISPOSED OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE: 

"STATION WJR IS A CLASS I-A STATION.  UNDER THE COMMISSION'S RULES AND
STANDARDS, CLASS I-A STATIONS ARE NORMALLY PROTECTED DAYTIME TO THE 100
MICROVOLT-PER-METER CONTOUR.  THE AREA SOUGHT BY PETITIONER TO BE
PROTECTED IS, ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEERING AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING THE
PETITION, SERVED BY STATION WJR DURING THE DAYTIME WITH A SIGNAL
INTENSITY OF 32 MICROVOLTS-PER-METER OR LESS, AND IS THEREFORE OUTSIDE
THE NORMALLY PROTECTED CONTOUR."  FN5 

AS THE COURT OF APPEALS LATER TREATED THIS RULING, IT WAS THE
EQUIVALENT OF HOLDING AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN JUDICIAL PARLANCE
ESSENTIALLY AS THOUGH RAISED UPON DEMURRER, THAT WJR'S PETITION DID NOT
STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE ANY LEGAL ISSUE CONCERNING (INDIRECT)
MODIFICATION OF WJR'S LICENSE OR RIGHTS UNDER THE LICENSE.  THE
COMMISSION ALSO DENIED WJR'S ALTERNATE REQUEST TO STAY THE COASTAL
PLAINS APPLICATION, CONCLUDING THAT POSTPONEMENT OF THE NEWLY
AUTHORIZED SERVICE OUT OF DEFERENCE TO ANY POSSIBLE "FUTURE ASSIGNMENT
OF FACILITIES" TO WJR "WOULD NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST." 

WJR THEN APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE COURT AGREED THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD NOT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO STAY THE
COASTAL PLAINS PERMIT UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE CLEAR CHANNEL
PROCEEDING.  IT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT WJR'S CLAIM OF OBJECTIONABLE
INTERFERENCE WITH ITS BROADCAST SIGNAL PRESENTED A QUESTION OF LAW AND,
BY A CLOSELY DIVIDED VOTE, IN THE BROAD LANGUAGE QUOTED ABOVE, FN6
THAT, CONCERNING THE MERITS OF THAT QUESTION, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
ASSURED TO WJR THE RIGHT OF ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 
ACCORDINGLY, IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE COMMISSION WAS RIGHT IN
ITS LEGAL CONCLUSION THAT AREAS OF SIGNAL INTENSITY LOWER THAN 100
MICROVOLTS PER METER WERE NOT WITHIN THE "NORMALLY PROTECTED CONTOUR"
OF A CLASS I-A STATION, REVERSED THE COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF WJR'S
PETITION, AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  174 F.2D 226.  TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THUS DETERMINED, WE ISSUED OUR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 917. 

AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE OUR COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO WJR TO POSTPONE FINAL
ACTION ON THE COASTAL PLAINS PERMIT UNTIL IT HAD DISPOSED OF THE CLEAR
CHANNEL PROCEEDING.  AS THE COURT POINTED OUT, WJR HAD NO VESTED RIGHT
IN THE "SUPPOSITITIOUS EVENTUALITIES" THAT THE COMMISSION AT SOME
INDETERMINATE TIME MIGHT MODIFY ITS RULES GOVERNING CLEAR CHANNEL
STATIONS.  FURTHERMORE, THE JUDICIAL REGULATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DOCKET SOUGHT BY WJR "WOULD REQUIRE (THE COURT OF APPEALS) TO DIRECT
THE ORDER IN WHICH THE COMMISSION SHALL CONSIDER ITS CASES."  AND THIS,
AS THE COURT SAID, IT "CANNOT DO."  174 F.2D AT 231.  "ONLY CONGRESS
COULD CONFER SUCH A PRIORITY."  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V.
POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 145. 

OBVIOUSLY THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IS THE COURT OF APPEALS' RULING
THAT FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS REQUIRED THE COMMISSION TO AFFORD
RESPONDENT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT UPON ITS PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF COASTAL PLAINS' APPLICATION, TOGETHER WITH ITS
GROUNDING OF THAT RULING IN THE EVEN BROADER ONE THAT SUCH AN
OPPORTUNITY IS AN INHERENT ELEMENT OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN ALL
JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL, I.E., ADMINISTRATIVE, DETERMINATIONS OF
QUESTIONS OF LAW, OUTSIDE OF SUCH QUESTIONS AS MAY ARISE UPON
INTERLOCUTORY MATTERS INVOLVING STAYS PENDENTE LITE, TEMPORARY
INJUNCTIONS AND THE LIKE. 

THAT THE SCOPE OF ITS DECISION MIGHT NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD, THE COURT
EXPRESSLY STATED:  "A RULING UPON A DEMURRER IS OBVIOUSLY NOT
INTERLOCUTORY FOR IF THE DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED THE PLEADER'S CAUSE (OR
DEFENSE) IS DISMISSED UPON THE MERITS  ...  "  FN7  MOREOVER, EXCEPT AS
TO THE INDICATED INTERLOCUTORY MATTERS, THE RIGHT OF ORAL ARGUMENT ON
QUESTIONS OF LAW ("AS WELL AS  ... THOSE OF FACT" WHEN RAISED) WAS SAID
TO BE "NOT CONDITIONAL UPON THE EX PARTE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL AS TO
WHETHER THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
ALLEGATIONS OF A COMPLAINANT."  174 F.2D AT 240. 

ACCORDINGLY, ALTHOUGH IT WAS URGED BOTH BY THE COMMISSION AND BY WJR
TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE THE "THRESHOLD" QUESTION OF LAW UPON ITS
MERITS, NAMELY, WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN DENYING WJR'S
PETITION WAS WRONG, THE COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER OR DECIDE THAT
QUESTION.  IN ITS VIEW THE QUESTION OF THE COMMISSION'S DUTY TO ACCORD
A HEARING, "I.E., TO HEAR ARGUMENT BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER THE
ALLEGATIONS OF WJR'S PETITION WERE SUFFICIENT" IN LAW, WAS "A
PROCEDURAL QUESTION QUITE SEPARATE FROM THE QUESTION ON THE MERITS
WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION, ASSUMING THEIR TRUTH,
WERE SUFFICIENT."  174 F.2D AT 240.  THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT, THE COURT THOUGHT, "CONTEMPLATES, BEFORE REVIEW IN
THIS COURT, PROPER EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S PRIMARY JURISDICTION,
I.E., VALID FIRST INSTANCE HEARINGS PROPERLY CONDUCTED FROM THE
PROCEDURAL - DUE PROCESS - STANDPOINT."  IBID.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
MAJORITY FELT THAT THE COURT "MUST THEREFORE REMAND THE CASE WITH
DIRECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW A HEARING TO WJR.  THEN IF AFTER
HEARING THE COMMISSION DECIDES THAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE INSUFFICIENT
AND DISMISSES THE PETITION  ...  AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT WILL BRING
PROPERLY BEFORE US THE QUESTION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMMISSION'S
DECISION ON THE MERITS  ...  "  IBID.  FN8

      I. 

TAKEN AT ITS LITERAL AND EXPLICIT IMPORT, THE COURT'S BROAD
CONSTITUTIONAL RULING CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  SO TAKEN, IT WOULD REQUIRE
ORAL ARGUMENT UPON EVERY QUESTION OF LAW, APART FROM THE EXCLUDED
INTERLOCUTORY MATTERS, ARISING IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY
SORT.  THIS WOULD BE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LEGAL QUESTION WERE
SUBSTANTIAL OR INSUBSTANTIAL; OF THE SUBSTANTIVE NATURE OF THE ASSERTED
RIGHT OR INTEREST INVOLVED; OF WHETHER CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED A
PROCEDURE, RELATING TO THE PARTICULAR INTEREST, REQUIRING ORAL ARGUMENT
OR ALLOWING IT TO BE DISPENSED WITH; AND REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT
FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE AVAILABLE. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF SUCH A RULING, IF ACCEPTED,
UPON THE WORK OF THE VAST AND VARIED ADMINISTRATIVE AS WELL AS JUDICIAL
TRIBUNALS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AND THE EQUALLY NUMEROUS AND
DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS AFFECTED BY THEIR FUNCTIONING; OR INDEED UPON THE
MANY AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURES
WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR DEALING ADJUDICATIVELY WITH SUCH
INTERESTS.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AS CONCEIVED
BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, HAS NEVER BEEN CAST IN SO RIGID AND ALL
INCLUSIVE CONFINEMENT. 

ON THE CONTRARY, DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS NEVER BEEN A TERM OF FIXED
AND INVARIABLE CONTENT.  FN9 THIS IS AS TRUE WITH REFERENCE TO ORAL
ARGUMENT AS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER ELEMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. 
FOR THIS COURT HAS HELD IN SOME SITUATIONS THAT SUCH ARGUMENT IS
ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR HEARING, LONDONER V. DENVER, 210 U.S. 373, IN
OTHERS THAT ARGUMENT SUBMITTED IN WRITING IS SUFFICIENT.  MORGAN V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 481.  SEE ALSO JOHNSON & WIMSATT V. HAZEN,
69 APP. D.C. 151; MITCHELL V. REICHELDERFER, 61 APP. D.C. 50. 

THE DECISIONS CITED ARE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE BROAD
GENERALIZATION MADE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IS NOT THE LAW.  RATHER IT
IS IN CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S RULINGS, IN EFFECT, THAT THE RIGHT OF
ORAL ARGUMENT AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS VARIES FROM CASE TO
CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIFFERING CIRCUMSTANCES, AS DO OTHER PROCEDURAL
REGULATIONS.  CERTAINLY THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE ORAL ARGUMENT
IN ALL CASES WHERE ONLY INSUBSTANTIAL OR FRIVOLOUS QUESTIONS OF LAW, OR
INDEED EVEN SUBSTANTIAL ONES, ARE RAISED.  EQUALLY CERTAINLY IT HAS
LEFT WIDE DISCRETION TO CONGRESS IN CREATING THE PROCEDURES TO BE
FOLLOWED IN BOTH ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS IN
THEIR CONJUNCTION.    WITHOUT IN ANY SENSE DISCOUNTING THE VALUE OF
ORAL ARGUMENT WHEREVER IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE OR, BY VIRTUE OF THE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED, WE CANNOT ACCEPT
THE BROAD FORMULA UPON WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS RESTED ITS RULING. 
TO DO SO WOULD DO VIOLENCE NOT ONLY TO OUR OWN FORMER DECISIONS BUT
ALSO, WE THINK, TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEVISE
DIFFERING ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL PROCEDURES APPROPRIATE FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF ISSUES AFFECTING INTERESTS WIDELY VARYING IN KIND. 
FN10 

IT FOLLOWS ALSO THAT WE SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE IN THIS CASE TO
GENERALIZE MORE BROADLY THAN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE UPON
WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS MAY REQUIRE
ORAL ARGUMENT.  THAT IS NOT A MATTER, UNDER OUR DECISIONS, FOR
BROADSIDE GENERALIZATION AND INDISCRIMINATE APPLICATION.  IT IS RATHER
ONE FOR CASE-TO-CASE DETERMINATION, THROUGH WHICH ALONE ACCOUNT MAY BE
TAKEN OF DIFFERENCES IN THE PARTICULAR INTERESTS AFFECTED,
CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED, AND PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS FOR
DEALING WITH THEM.  ONLY THUS MAY THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS, EXPRESSED
PURSUANT TO ITS POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO DEVISE BOTH JUDICIAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  ANY OTHER
APPROACH WOULD BE, IN THESE RESPECTS, HIGHLY ABSTRACT, INDEED LARGELY
IN A VACUUM. 

II. 

DESCENDING TO THE CONCRETE SETTING OF THIS CASE IN THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, FN11  WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
PROCEDURE CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS
RESPONDENT RAISES AFFORDS ANY SEMBLANCE OF DUE PROCESS DEFICIENCY. 

THE STATUTE ITSELF PROVIDES IN TERMS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE
COMMISSION IN A SINGLE SITUATION ONLY, NAMELY, IN PROCEEDINGS HEARD
INITIALLY BEFORE AN EXAMINER UNDER SEC. 409(A).  FN12 THAT PROVISION
HOWEVER HAS NO PERTINENCE TO THIS CASE, SINCE IT WAS NOT HEARD OR
ASSIGNED FOR HEARING IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BEFORE AN EXAMINER AND
RESPONDENT'S CLAIMED RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION ARISES UNDER SEC. 312(B). 
47 U.S.C. SEC. 312(B).  THAT SECTION AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO
MODIFY STATION LICENSES "IF IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION SUCH
ACTION WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY,"
BUT PROVIDES "THAT NO SUCH ORDER OF MODIFICATION SHALL BECOME FINAL
UNTIL THE HOLDER OF SUCH OUTSTANDING LICENSE  ...  SHALL HAVE BEEN
NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE GROUNDS OR REASONS
THEREFOR AND SHALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SUCH AN ORDER OF MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT ISSUE." 

AS BEARING ON THE MEANING OF SEC. 312(B), ACCOUNT MUST BE TAKEN ALSO
OF TWO OTHER FACTORS.  ONE IS SEC. 4(J) OF THE ACT (47 U.S.C. SEC.
154(J)), WHICH PROVIDES: "THE COMMISSION MAY CONDUCT ITS PROCEEDINGS IN
SUCH MANNER AS WILL BEST CONDUCE TO THE PROPER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS AND
TO THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  ...  ANY PARTY MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE
COMMISSION AND BE HEARD IN PERSON OR BY ATTORNEY.  ..."  THE OTHER
FACTOR CONSISTS IN THIS COURT'S DECISION IN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION V. NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., 319 U.S. 239, THE SO-CALLED
KOA CASE. 

THAT CASE HELD THAT THE GRANTING OF A LICENSE TO BROADCAST ON A
FREQUENCY AND AT A STRENGTH WHICH WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE BROADCAST
SIGNAL OF A PRIOR LICENSEE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE LATTER'S
LICENSE AS AFFORDED BY THE COMMISSION'S EXISTING RULES CONSTITUTES AN
INDIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE PRIOR OUTSTANDING LICENSE.  FROM THIS IT
WAS HELD TO FOLLOW THAT SEC. 312(B) GAVE THE PRIOR LICENSEE THE RIGHT
TO BE MADE A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING AND HENCE TO "HAVE NOTICE IN
WRITING OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE GROUNDS THEREFOR AND  ...  A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER OF MODIFICATION
SHOULD NOT ISSUE."  319 U.S. AT 245-246.  THEN FOLLOWED THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT BY VIRTUE OF KOA'S RIGHT TO BE A PARTY, IT HAD ALSO THE
RIGHT UNDER SEC. 402(B)(2), AS A "PERSON AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE INTERESTS
ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED," TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ITS PETITION TO INTERVENE AND PARTICIPATE AS A
PARTY IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT. 

IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND JUDICIAL DECISION
THAT WJR'S CLAIM OF RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMISSION'S
PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF ORAL ARGUMENT, AND OF DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS THROUGH THE DENIAL OF ITS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION ARISES
AND MUST BE CONSIDERED. 

WJR'S PETITION PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER UPON ITS FACE IT STATES
FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW (INDIRECT) MODIFICATION OF ITS LICENSE BY THE
GRANTING OF COASTAL PLAINS' APPLICATION.  THIS IN TURN DEPENDS ON
WHETHER ALLEGATIONS NOT ASSERTING INTERFERENCE WITHIN THE 100
MICROVOLTPER-METER CONTOUR OR, AS THE COMMISSION HELD, ALLEGATIONS
ASSERTING INTERFERENCE ONLY "OUTSIDE THE NORMALLY PROTECTED CONTOUR" OF
WJR'S LICENSE, SET FORTH ANY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR A CLAIM OF
RIGHT TO BE MADE A PARTY AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  AND,
AGAIN, ACCORDING TO RESPONDENT, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION TURNS ON
WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S STANDARDS OF GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE
CONCERNING STANDARD BROADCAST STATIONS CONSTITUTE A PART OF AND A
LIMITATION UPON WJR'S LICENSE.  FN13 

RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THOSE STANDARDS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, DO NOT
LIMIT ITS LICENSE OR MEASURE THE PROTECTION IT AFFORDS AGAINST
"OBJECTIONABLE INTERFERENCE"; IT NECESSARILY ARGUES IN ADDITION THAT
THE DEGREE OF INTERFERENCE ITS PETITION ALLEGES BRINGS ABOUT AN
(INDIRECT) MODIFICATION OF ITS LICENSE (CONVERSELY STATED, THAT THE
LICENSE PROTECTED IT AGAINST THE ALLEGED DEGREE OF INTERFERENCE) AND
HENCE, AS IN THE KOA CASE, THE PROPOSED GRANT OF A NEW LICENSE ENTITLES
IT UNDER SEC. 312(B) TO BE MADE A PARTY TO THE COASTAL PLAINS
PROCEEDING AND TO PARTICIPATE IN IT AS SEC. 312(B) PROVIDES. 

THIS IS THE CLAIM WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS PURPORTED EXPRESSLY TO
REFUSE TO CONSIDER OR DECIDE, PRIOR TO ORAL ARGUMENT UPON IT BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  BUT TWO THINGS MAY BE NOTED.  ONE IS THAT, CONTRARY TO THE
SITUATION HERE, IN THE KOA CASE THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSED GRANT OF A
NEW LICENSE TO STATION WHDH CONCEDEDLY CREATED INTERFERENCE AGAINST
WHICH THE EXISTING RULES OF THE COMMISSION PROTECTED THE PRIOR LICENSE
OF KOA.  FN14 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE MAJORITY'S DISCLAIMER HERE OF DECISION UPON
THE MERITS SEEMS HARDLY CONSISTENT WITH ITS OPINION'S FLAT RULING, AS
WE UNDERSTAND IT, THAT WJR'S ALLEGATIONS QUALIFIED IT AS A PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDING AND NOT, AS THE DISSENTING JUDGES THOUGHT, MERELY AS A
STRANGER SEEKING TO COME IN AS AN INTERVENOR.  FN15  FOR THAT QUESTION
HERE, VIZ., WHETHER WJR'S ALLEGATIONS ENTITLE IT TO STANDING AS A
PARTY, IS BUT ANOTHER WAY OF PHRASING THE ISSUE WHETHER ITS PETITION
STATES A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT CLAIM OF (INDIRECT) MODIFICATION, SINCE
UNDER SEC. 312(B) ONLY A PRIOR LICENSEE WHO STATES SUCH A CLAIM IS
ENTITLED TO BE MADE A PARTY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  TO
DECIDE THAT ONE HAS THE STATUS OF A PARTY IS THEREFORE TO DECIDE THE
QUESTION OF MODIFICATION VEL NON. 

IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S MANDATE, HOWEVER, WE THINK WE MUST ACCEPT ITS
DISCLAIMER.  BUT WE ALSO THINK THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCLAIMER,
ITS RULING, IF IT WAS SUCH, THAT WJR IS ENTITLED TO BE MADE A PARTY
MUST BE REJECTED AND THAT QUESTION MUST BE REGARDED AS INHERENTLY
INVOLVED IN, INDEED AS IDENTICAL WITH, THE UNDETERMINED ISSUE OF
MODIFICATION VEL NON, IF ANY EFFECT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 312(B).  FN16 

WE THINK THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT SECTION MUST BE GIVEN EFFECT. 
INDEED IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE ACT'S PROCEDURAL SCHEME AND ITS
APPLICATION IN THIS CASE HAVE NOT DEPRIVED THE RESPONDENT OF ANY
PROCEDURAL RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE DUE-PROCESS REQUIREMENT OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  THAT IS TRUE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO
AFFORD RESPONDENT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT UPON ITS ALLEGATIONS
IN THIS CASE. 

CONGRESS, WE THINK, HAS COMMITTED TO THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION, BY
THE TERMS OF SEC. 312(B) AND SEC. 4(J) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, THE
QUESTIONS WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IT WILL ALLOW OR REQUIRE
ORAL ARGUMENT, EXCEPT WHERE THE ACT ITSELF EXPRESSLY REQUIRES IT.  AS
WE HAVE NOTED, CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED ORAL ARGUMENT EXPRESSLY IN
PROCEEDINGS HEARD INITIALLY BEFORE AN EXAMINER UNDER SEC. 409(A).  BUT
NO SUCH REQUIREMENT WAS MADE BY SEC. 312(B).  WHILE THAT SECTION
REQUIRES NOTICE AND STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR ANY PROPOSED ORDER OF
MODIFICATION BEFORE SUCH ORDER "SHALL BECOME FINAL," IT DOES NOT
SPECIFY THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SHALL INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO ORAL
ARGUMENT; IT REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE HOLDER OF THE OUTSTANDING LICENSE
TO BE MODIFIED "SHALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY SUCH AN ORDER OF MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT ISSUE" BEFORE THE
ORDER BECOMES FINAL. 

IN VIEW OF THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THIS LANGUAGE AND THAT OF SEC.
409(A), IT IS HARDLY TO BE TAKEN THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE "REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE" ALWAYS TO INCLUDE OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT.  INDEED, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT AS
THAT OF SEC. 409(A), THE TERMS OF SEC. 312(B) MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT
OF THE ACT'S GENERAL PROCEDURAL AUTHORIZATION IN SEC. 4(J), WHICH
EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO "CONDUCT ITS PROCEEDINGS IN SUCH MANNER AS
WILL BEST CONDUCE TO THE PROPER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS AND TO THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE." 

IN THIS WORDING CONGRESS WAS MINDFUL NOT ONLY OF THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
BUT ALSO OF THE PROPER DISPATCH OF THE COMMISSION'S BUSINESS, A MATTER
NOT UNRELATED TO ACHIEVING THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AND LEFT LARGELY TO ITS
JUDGMENT THE DETERMINATION OF THE MANNER OF CONDUCTING ITS BUSINESS
WHICH WOULD MOST FAIRLY AND REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE THOSE ENDS. 
MOREOVER IT WAS DEALING WITH SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS INVOLVING THE USE,
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LICENSE, OF CHANNELS OF RADIO COMMUNICATION "BUT
NOT THE OWNERSHIP THEREOF," SEC. 301, AS TO WHICH MOREOVER THE ACT
EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT "NO SUCH LICENSE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CREATE
ANY RIGHT, BEYOND THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND PERIODS OF THE LICENSE." 
IBID. 

IN THIS CONNECTION IT CANNOT BE RECALLED TOO OFTEN THAT "'PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY' WAS THE TOUCHSTONE FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY" IN MATTERS RELATING TO
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND LICENSING, AND THAT THIS CRITERION "SERVES AS
A SUPPLE INSTRUMENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE EXPERT BODY
WHICH CONGRESS HAS CHARGED TO CARRY OUT ITS LEGISLATIVE POLICY." 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309
U.S. 134, 137-138.  "NECESSARILY, THEREFORE, THE SUBORDINATE QUESTIONS
OF PROCEDURE IN ASCERTAINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHEN THE COMMISSION'S
LICENSING AUTHORITY IS INVOKED - THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY, WHETHER
APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE HEARD CONTEMPORANEOUSLY OR SUCCESSIVELY, WHETHER
PARTIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN ONE ANOTHER'S PROCEEDINGS,
AND SIMILAR QUESTIONS - WERE EXPLICITLY AND BY IMPLICATION LEFT TO THE
COMMISSION'S OWN DEVISING, SO LONG, OF COURSE, AS IT OBSERVES THE BASIC
REQUIREMENTS DESIGNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRIVATE AS WELL AS PUBLIC
INTEREST."  ID. AT 138. 

WE NEED NOT GO AGAIN OVER THE GROUND WHICH WAS COVERED BY THIS
DECISION AND OTHERS.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT
SEEN FIT TO PROVIDE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IN ALL SUCH CASES AS THIS ARISING
UNDER SEC. 312(B); NOR IS THERE ANY BASIS IN THE SECTION OR THE ACT FOR
BELIEVING THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO REQUIRE IT TO DO SO.  "REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE," AS USED IN SEC. 312(B), COMPREHENDS, IN THE
LIGHT OF SEC. 4(J) AND THIS COURT'S PRIOR DECISIONS, THAT THE
COMMISSION SHALL HAVE BROAD DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHETHER AND WHEN
ORAL ARGUMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED OR PERMITTED, AS IT DOES WITH RESPECT
TO OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS.  FN17 

RESPONDENT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT IT WAS DENIED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION ANY MATTER OF FACT OR LAW IN
CONNECTION WITH ITS APPLICATION OR THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT GIVEN
ALL MATTERS SUBMITTED BY IT DUE AND FULL CONSIDERATION.  WE CANNOT SAY,
IN VIEW OF THE STATUTE AND OF THE SUBJECT MATTER INVOLVED, THAT THE
COMMISSION ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HEARING RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION ON
THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION.  FN18 

ACCORDINGLY WE THINK IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT TO DECLINE TO DECIDE
THE MERITS OF THE QUESTION WHETHER RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION STATED A
LEGALLY SUFFICIENT CASE OF (INDIRECT) MODIFICATION OF ITS LICENSE
WITHIN THE TERMS OF SEC. 312(B) AS WELL AS TO DECIDE, WITHOUT
DETERMINING THAT QUESTION, THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO BE MADE A
PARTY TO AND PARTICIPATE AS SUCH IN THE COASTAL PLAINS PROCEEDING.  AS
WE HAVE SAID, IN THE SITUATION HERE PRESENTED, THE TWO FORMS OF
STATEMENT POSE THE SAME QUESTION IN SUBSTANCE, TOGETHER WITH THE
FURTHER QUESTION, UNDER THE KOA DECISION, WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS
STANDING TO APPEAL AS A PARTY AGGRIEVED.  THE STATUTORY SEQUENCE
IDENTIFIES (1) A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT CLAIM OF MODIFICATION WITH (2)
RIGHT TO STANDING AS A PARTY AND (3) RIGHT TO APPEAL. 

THIS THREEFOLD ISSUE PRESENTS A QUESTION OF LAW RESPONDENT IS
ENTITLED TO HAVE DETERMINED.  THE DISSENTING JUDGES IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS CONSIDERED THE QUESTION INSUBSTANTIAL, BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT,
CONTRARY TO RESPONDENT'S POSITION, THAT THE COMMISSION'S STANDARDS OF
GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE APPLIED AS A LIMITATION UPON RESPONDENT'S
LICENSE AND THEREFORE EXCLUDED IT FROM PROTECTION AGAINST INTERFERENCE
SUCH AS RESPONDENT ALLEGED, I.E., OUTSIDE THE CONTOURS PRESCRIBED BY
THE STANDARDS.    THAT QUESTION, BEING ONE OF LAW, MIGHT NOW BE DECIDED
HERE.  BUT SINCE THE STATUTE, IF IT AFFORDS RESPONDENT A RIGHT OF
APPEAL, PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND SINCE
THAT COURT HAS NOT DECIDED THE BASIC ISSUE ON THE MERITS, WE THINK THE
CAUSE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DECISION OF THAT
QUESTION, UNCOMPLICATED BY QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY RELATING TO
THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE.  ACCORDINGLY THE COURT'S DECISION IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULES GOVERNING STANDARD
BROADCAST STATIONS SEC. 3.22(A): "A 'CLASS I STATION' IS A DOMINANT
STATION OPERATING ON A CLEAR CHANNEL AND DESIGNED TO RENDER PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY SERVICE OVER AN EXTENDED AREA AND AT RELATIVELY LONG
DISTANCES.  ITS PRIMARY SERVICE AREA IS FREE FROM OBJECTIONABLE
INTERFERENCE FROM OTHER STATIONS ON THE SAME AND ADJACENT CHANNELS, AND
ITS SECONDARY SERVICE AREA FREE FROM INTERFERENCE, EXCEPT FROM STATIONS
ON THE ADJACENT CHANNEL, AND FROM STATIONS ON THE SAME CHANNEL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHANNEL DESIGNATION IN SEC. 3.25 OR IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE 'ENGINEERING STANDARDS OF ALLOCATION'.  THE OPERATING POWER
SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 10 KW NOR MORE THAN 50 KW (ALSO SEE SEC. 3.25(A)
FOR FURTHER POWER LIMITATION)."  4 FED. REG. 2715. 

FN2  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULES GOVERNING STANDARD
BROADCAST STATIONS SEC. 3.22(B): "A 'CLASS II STATION' IS A SECONDARY
STATION WHICH OPERATES ON A CLEAR CHANNEL (SEE SEC. 3.25) AND IS
DESIGNED TO RENDER SERVICE OVER A PRIMARY SERVICE AREA WHICH IS LIMITED
BY AND SUBJECT TO SUCH INTERFERENCE AS MAY BE RECEIVED FROM CLASS I
STATIONS.  A STATION OF THIS CLASS SHALL OPERATE WITH POWER NOT LESS
THAN 0.25 KILOWATTS NOR MORE THAN 50 KILOWATTS.  WHENEVER NECESSARY A
CLASS II STATION SHALL USE A DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA OR OTHER MEANS TO
AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH CLASS I STATIONS AND WITH OTHER CLASS II
STATIONS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 'ENGINEERING STANDARDS OF
ALLOCATION.'"  4 FED. REG. 2715. 

FN3  FOR THE MEANING OF THE TERM "FIELD INTENSITY," AND FOR THE
RELATION OF A BROADCAST SIGNAL'S "FIELD INTENSITY" TO THE LEGAL CONCEPT
OF A LICENSED RADIO STATION'S "NORMALLY PROTECTED CONTOUR," SEE NOTE
5. 

FN4  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULES GOVERNING STANDARD
BROADCAST STATIONS SEC. 3.21(A): "A 'CLEAR CHANNEL' IS ONE ON WHICH THE
DOMINANT STATION OR STATIONS RENDER SERVICE OVER WIDE AREAS AND WHICH
ARE CLEARED OF OBJECTIONABLE INTERFERENCE, WITHIN THEIR PRIMARY SERVICE
AREAS AND OVER ALL OR A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR SECONDARY SERVICE
AREAS."  4 FED. REG. 2715. 

FN5  THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION HERE
UNDER REVIEW OFFERS A SUCCINCT EXPOSITION OF THESE TECHNICAL TERMS: 

"THIS CONCEPT OF NORMAL PROTECTION IN THE DAYTIME IS CLEAR.  THE
CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE PROTECTED AREA IS A CONTOUR LINE, WHICH IS FIXED
BY MEASUREMENT OF THE STRENGTH OF THE RADIO WAVES FROM THE PARTICULAR
STATION.  THAT STRENGTH, OR INTENSITY, IS MEASURED IN TERMS OF
MICROVOLTS (MILLIONTHS OF A VOLT) OR MILLIVOLTS (THOUSANDTHS OF A VOLT)
PER METER, ABBREVIATED AS UV/M AND MV/M RESPECTIVELY.  THE WAVE WHICH
IS MEASURED IS THE GROUNDWAVE, WHICH FOLLOWS THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH
AND EXTENDS GREATER OR LESS DISTANCES DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE
EARTH, ITS TOPOGRAPHY, AND SUCH OBSTACLES AS NOISE AND STEEL
STRUCTURES.  GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE GREATER THE DISTANCE FROM THE
STATION, THE LESS THE STRENGTH OF THE STATION SIGNAL.  THE '100 UV/M
GROUND WAVE CONTOUR' NAMED IN THE COMMISSION'S STANDARDS, IS THE
IMAGINARY LINE WHICH CONNECTS ALL POINTS AT WHICH THE GROUND WAVE OF
THE STATION IS OF 100 MICROVOLTS PER METER STRENGTH."  174 F.2D 226,
244. 

THE "COMMISSION'S STANDARDS" TO WHICH THE OPINION REFERS ARE THE
STANDARDS OF GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE CONCERNING BROADCAST STATIONS. 
UNDER THE SUBHEADING "ENGINEERING STANDARDS OF ALLOCATION," PARAGRAPH
(2)(A) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:  "THE CLASS I STATIONS IN GROUP 1 ARE THOSE
ASSIGNED TO THE CHANNELS ALLOCATED BY SECTION 3.25, PARAGRAPH
(A)(INCLUDING, INTER ALIA, THE 760 KILOCYCLE FREQUENCY ASSIGNED TO WJR,
4 FED. REG. 2716), ON WHICH DUPLICATE NIGHTTIME OPERATION IS NOT
PERMITTED, THAT IS, NO OTHER STATION IS PERMITTED TO OPERATE ON A
CHANNEL WITH A CLASS I STATION OF THIS GROUP WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE
UNITED STATES (THE CLASS II STATIONS ASSIGNED THE CHANNELS OPERATE
LIMITED TIME OR DAYTIME ONLY) AND DURING DAYTIME THE CLASS I STATION IS
PROTECTED TO THE 100 UV/M GROUND WAVE CONTOUR."  4 FED. REG. 2862. 

FN6  THE CASE WAS FIRST ARGUED BEFORE THREE JUSTICES, CHIEF JUSTICE
GRONER AND JUSTICES CLARK AND PRETTYMAN.  BY DIRECTION OF THE COURT IT
WAS REARGUED BEFORE JUSTICES STEPHENS, EDGERTON, CLARK, WILBUR K.
MILLER AND PRETTYMAN.  THE DECISION WAS RENDERED PURSUANT TO AN OPINION
OF JUSTICE STEPHENS, IN WHICH JUSTICES CLARK AND MILLER CONCURRED. 
JUSTICE PRETTYMAN FILED A DISSENTING OPINION IN WHICH JUSTICE EDGERTON
JOINED. 

FN7  THE STATEMENT, TAKEN IN ITS CONTEXT AND THE PERVADING SENSE OF
THE OPINION, RELATED NOT MERELY TO JUDICIAL RULINGS TECHNICALLY "RAISED
BY DEMURRER" BUT ALSO TO JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS " AS IF ON
DEMURRER," I.E., AS EXPRESSLY STATED LATER IN THE OPINION, TO RULINGS
"RAISED BY DEMURRER OR MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING, BY SOME LESS FORMALLY NAMED INSTRUMENT OF LIKE PURPOSE, OR
BY THE TRIBUNAL'S SUA SPONTE TREATMENT OF A PETITION AS IF UNDER
DEMURRER ...  "  174 F.2D AT 236. 

FN8  BOTH FROM THE WORDING OF THE IMMEDIATE REFERENCE, QUOTED ABOVE,
AND FROM OTHER LANGUAGE IN CONTEXT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT'S
REFERENCE TO "THE STATUTORY SCHEME SET UP IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT"
WAS NOT DESIGNED AS A RULING THAT THE STATUTORY SCHEME ITSELF,
CONSIDERED WHOLLY AS SUCH AND APART FROM ANY REQUIREMENT OF DUE
PROCESS, AFFORDS THE RIGHT OF ORAL ARGUMENT UPON ALL QUESTIONS OF LAW,
OTHER THAN THE INTERLOCUTORY EXCEPTIONS, BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 
RATHER, THE REFERENCE WAS INTENDED TO CONSTRUE THE ACT AS INCORPORATING
THE COURT'S REITERATED CONCEPTION OF DUE-PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN THIS
RESPECT, IN EFFECT AS A CONSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
IT IS CLEAR ALSO THAT IN THIS RULING THE COURT IDENTIFIED "HEARING"
WITH "ORAL ARGUMENT" INSOFAR AS DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE
CONCERNED.  WE ARE THUS CONFRONTED, SO FAR AS THE COURT'S DECISION
WENT, WITH NO QUESTION PURELY OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BUT SOLELY, AT
BOTTOM, WITH ONE OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORT AND EFFECT. 

FN9  "THE FIFTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES NO PARTICULAR FORM OF PROCEDURE;
IT PROTECTS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS."  LABOR BOARD V. MACKAY CO., 304 U.S.
333, 351.  "THE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THAT GUARANTY (FIFTH AMENDMENT
DUE PROCESS) ARE NOT TECHNICAL, NOR IS ANY PARTICULAR FORM OF PROCEDURE
NECESSARY."  INLAND EMPIRE COUNCIL V. MILLIS, 325 U.S. 697, 710.  SEE
ALSO BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 519-521; OPP COTTON MILLS V.
ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 152-153; BUTTFIELD V. STRANAHAN, 192 U.S.
470, 496-497; ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337, 342, 343;
UNITED STATES V. JU TOY, 198 U.S. 253, 263; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V.
CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226, 235; PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 596
597. 

FN10  FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE OR CONSTITUTIONALLY
REQUIRED BY WAY OF PROCEDURE, INCLUDING OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT,
IN PROTECTION OF AN ALIEN'S CLAIMS OF RIGHT TO ENTER THE COUNTRY, CF.
JOHNSON V. SHAUGHNESSY, 336 U.S. 806, MAY BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT
IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE AN ALLEGED CITIZEN'S RIGHT OF ENTRY OR
REENTRY, CF. NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 282; CARMICHAEL V.
DELANEY, 170 F.2D 239, 243-244; A CLAIMED RIGHT OF NATURALIZATION,
TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568, 576-578; A CLAIM OF JUST
COMPENSATION FOR LAND CONDEMNED, CF. ROBERTS V. NEW YORK CITY, 295 U.S.
264, 277-278; OR THE RIGHT TO DEFEND AGAINST AN INDICTMENT FOR CRIME. 

FN11  ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, C. 652, 48 STAT. 1064, 1081, 47 U.S.C.
SEC. 301 FF. 

FN12  THE SECTION READS IN PART:  "IN ALL CASES HEARD BY AN EXAMINER
THE COMMISSION SHALL HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS  ...  "  47 U.S.C. SEC.
409(A). 

FN13  THE STANDARDS, 4 FED. REG. 2862, EXPRESSLY STATE THAT "DURING
DAYTIME THE CLASS I STATION IS PROTECTED TO THE 100 UV/M GROUND WAVE
CONTOUR."  SEC. 1(2)(A).  THE COMMISSION'S STANDARDS OF GOOD
ENGINEERING PRACTICE CONCERNING STANDARD BROADCAST STATIONS WERE
ADOPTED IN 1939 AFTER FORMAL AND INFORMAL HEARINGS.  FIFTH ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (1940) 37. 

FN14  IN OTHER WORDS, THE INTERFERENCE ALLEGED WAS WITHIN THE
CONCEDED "NORMAL CONTOURS" OF KOA'S PROTECTION, NOT WITHOUT THEM. 
THERE WAS THEREFORE NO QUESTION SUCH AS IS PRESENTED HERE WHETHER THE
EXISTING STATION'S LICENSE PROTECTED IT AGAINST THE INTERFERENCE
ALLEGED.  THE KOA DECISION THEREFORE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS RULING THAT ONE
ASSERTING INTERFERENCE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ITS LICENSE PROTECTION,
AFFORDED BY THE COMMISSION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, IS ENTITLED TO BE
MADE A PARTY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE ISSUANCE
OF A NEW LICENSE CREATING ONLY SUCH INTERFERENCE. 

FN15  THE COURT'S OPINION STATED:  "WJR AS AN OUTSTANDING LICENSEE IS
NOT A MERE PERMISSIVE INTERVENER OR, AS THE MINORITY PUTS IT, AN
'OUTSIDER'."  174 F.2D AT 240.  THE STATEMENT OF THE MINORITY TO WHICH
THIS REJOINDER WAS MADE WAS:  "THE RULING (OF THE MAJORITY) IS THAT A
PETITIONER FOR INTERVENTION IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING IS ENTITLED
TO AN ORAL HEARING AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT
OR HOW LITTLE HE SAYS IN HIS PETITION.  ...  (WJR'S PETITION) WAS
BASICALLY A PETITION TO INTERVENE, AS IT ASKED THAT WJR BE MADE A PARTY
TO THE COASTAL PLAINS PROCEEDING."  ID. AT 243. 

FN16  THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT SIMPLY CONSTRUING THE STATUTE, BUT
WAS INFLUENCED THROUGHOUT ITS OPINION BY ITS BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL
GENERALIZATION CONCERNING ORAL ARGUMENT.  IN THAT VIEW NECESSARILY THE
ACT'S SPECIFIC TERMS, INCLUDING THOSE OF SEC. 312(B), SANK INTO THE
GENERALIZATION'S CONSTITUTIONAL COLORING.  IN THAT LIGHT, PERHAPS, THE
MAJORITY'S DISCLAIMER AND ITS RULING THAT WJR WAS ENTITLED TO COME IN
AS A PARTY BORE SEMBLANCE OF CONSISTENCY.  BUT WITHOUT THE COLORATION,
SEC. 312(B) IDENTIFIES SHOWING OF MODIFICATION WITH STANDING AS A
PARTY; AND, UNLESS THIS LIMITATION IS INVALID FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
REASONS, IT MUST BE GIVEN EFFECT. 

FN17  THAT IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH SEC. 4(J) ALSO PROVIDES THAT "ANY
PARTY MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND BE HEARD IN PERSON OR BY
ATTORNEY."  THAT PROVISION DOES NOT NULLIFY THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION
AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE "REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE"
AFFORDED BY SEC. 312(B) SHALL BE GIVEN.  IT ONLY ASSURES THE RIGHT TO
PARTICIPATE "IN PERSON OR BY ATTORNEY" IN THE MANNER REASONABLY FOUND
BY THE COMMISSION TO BE APPROPRIATE. 

FN18  FEDERAL RULE 78, THE TERMS OF WHICH WERE NOTED BY THE DISSENT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, 174 F.2D 226, 247, PROVIDES IN PART, AS TO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS:  "TO EXPEDITE ITS BUSINESS, THE COURT
MAY MAKE PROVISION BY RULE OR ORDER FOR THE SUBMISSION AND
DETERMINATION OF MOTIONS WITHOUT ORAL HEARING UPON BRIEF WRITTEN
STATEMENTS OF REASONS IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION."  FED. RULES CIV.
PROC., RULE 78.  SIMILAR NOTICE MAY BE TAKEN OF RULE 7(2) OF THIS COURT
WHICH, GOVERNING NOT ONLY MOTION PRACTICE IN APPELLATE CASES BUT
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO INITIATE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, PROVIDES IN PART:
"ORAL ARGUMENT WILL NOT BE HEARD ON ANY MOTION UNLESS THE COURT
SPECIALLY ASSIGNS IT THEREFOR  ...  " 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



EX PARTE COLLETT, 337 U.S. 55 


NO. 206, MISC.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1949.  -
MOTION DENIED. 


UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A), INCORPORATED IN THE REVISION OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS IS MADE APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  PP. 56-72. 

1.  THIS CONCLUSION IS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE
OF SEC. 1404(A), WHICH APPLIES GENERALLY TO "ANY CIVIL ACTION."  PP. 58
59. 

2.  IT INVOLVES NO IMPLIED REPEAL OF SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, SINCE THAT DEALS WITH THE PLACES WHERE ACTIONS MAY BE
BROUGHT ORIGINALLY, WHEREAS 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A) DEALS WITH THE RIGHT
TO TRANSFER AN ACTION PROPERLY BROUGHT.  PP. 59-61. 

3.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
REQUIRES THE SAME CONCLUSION.  PP. 61-71. 

4.  AS THUS CONSTRUED, SEC. 1404(A) IS APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS
INSTITUTED BEFORE ITS EFFECTIVE DATE BUT NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL PRIOR TO
ITS EFFECTIVE DATE.  P. 71. 

EX PARTE COLLETT. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND
PROHIBITION. 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A), A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN WHICH AN
ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT HAD BEEN BROUGHT
TRANSFERRED IT TO A DISTRICT COURT IN ANOTHER DISTRICT, ON THE GROUND
THAT THIS WOULD SERVE THE CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES AND WITNESSES AND BE
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.  PETITIONER MOVED IN THIS COURT FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION.  THE CASE WAS
ASSIGNED FOR HEARING ON THE MOTION.  335 U.S. 897.  MOTION DENIED, P.
72. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE  FN1  RENDER APPLICABLE THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS TO ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FN2
PETITIONER INSTITUTED SUCH AN ACTION AGAINST THE LOUISVILLE AND
NASHVILLE RAILROAD IN OCTOBER, 1947, IN THE COURT BELOW, THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.  NO TRIAL
WAS HAD BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PRESENT
JUDICIAL CODE.  FN3  THEREAFTER THE RAILROAD FILED A MOTION TO TRANSFER
THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. 

THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT ALL 35 WITNESSES AND THE PETITIONER
HIMSELF LIVE IN IRVINE, KENTUCKY, WHICH ALSO WAS THE SCENE OF THE
ACCIDENT; THAT IRVINE IS 420 MILES, "APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-FOUR HOURS
...  BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION," FROM EAST ST. LOUIS, WHERE THE COURT
BELOW SITS, BUT ONLY 26 MILES FROM RICHMOND AND 48 FROM LEXINGTON, IN
WHICH TWO CITIES THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY SITS.  FURTHERMORE, THE COURT BELOW DETERMINED THAT JURY
SCHEDULES AT BOTH RICHMOND AND LEXINGTON MADE EARLY TRIAL POSSIBLE. 
THUS CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSFER WOULD SERVE THE CONVENIENCE OF
PARTIES AND WITNESSES, AND WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE RAILROAD'S MOTION.  PETITIONER THEN FILED
DIRECTLY IN THIS COURT A "MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WRITS OF MANDAMUS (AGAINST THE COURT BELOW) AND
PROHIBITION (AGAINST THE KENTUCKY DISTRICT COURT) SHOULD NOT ISSUE, AND
PETITION FOR SAME."  PETITIONER MAKES NO ALLEGATION THAT THE COURT
BELOW ABUSED ITS DISCRETION; HIS SOLE CONTENTION IS THAT THE ORDER OF
TRANSFER EXCEEDED THE DISTRICT COURT'S AUTHORITY.  SINCE THAT ISSUE
SEEMED OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,  FN4  WE
ASSIGNED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON THE MOTION.  335 U.S. 897(1948). 

PRIOR TO THE CURRENT REVISION OF TITLE 28 OF THE U.S.C.  FORUM NON
CONVENIENS WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
SUITS.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44(1941); MILES V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698(1942); SEE GULF OIL CORP. V.
GILBERT, 330 U.S. 501, 505(1947).  THE NEW CODE, HOWEVER, PROVIDES THAT
"FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES AND WITNESSES, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE, A DISTRICT COURT MAY TRANSFER ANY CIVIL ACTION TO ANY OTHER
DISTRICT OR DIVISION WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT."  THIS IS SEC.
1404(A).  THE REVISER'S NOTES, WHICH ACCOMPANY EACH SECTION OF THE
CODE, HERE READ AS FOLLOWS:  "SUBSECTION (A) WAS DRAFTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, PERMITTING TRANSFER TO A
MORE CONVENIENT FORUM, EVEN THOUGH THE VENUE IS PROPER.  AS AN EXAMPLE
OF THE NEED OF SUCH A PROVISION, SEE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER,
1941, 62 S. CT. 6, 314 U.S. 44, 86 L. ED. 28, WHICH WAS PROSECUTED
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY ACT IN NEW YORK, ALTHOUGH THE
ACCIDENT OCCURRED AND THE EMPLOYEE RESIDED IN OHIO.  THE NEW SUBSECTION
REQUIRES THE COURT TO DETERMINE THAT THE TRANSFER IS NECESSARY FOR
CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES, AND FURTHER, THAT IT IS IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO DO SO."  FN5  THE PRECISE ISSUE BEFORE US IS
WHETHER, DESPITE THESE EXPRESSIONS, THE LAW REMAINS UNCHANGED. 
PETITIONER SO CONTENDS. 

FIRST.  THE COURT BELOW RELIED ON THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1404(A),
SUPRA, WHICH IT REGARDED AS "UNAMBIGUOUS, DIRECT, CLEAR."  WE AGREE. 
THE REACH OF "ANY CIVIL ACTION"  FN6  IS UNMISTAKABLE.  THE PHRASE IS
USED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, WITHOUT HINT THAT SOME SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. 
FROM THE STATUTORY TEXT ALONE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO READ THE SECTION AS
EXCISING THIS CASE FROM "ANY CIVIL ACTION." 

THE ONLY SUGGESTION PETITIONER OFFERS IN THIS REGARD IS THAT "ANY
CIVIL ACTION" EMBRACES ONLY THOSE ACTIONS FOR WHICH SPECIAL VENUE
REQUIREMENTS ARE PRESCRIBED IN SECS. 1394-1403 OF REVISED TITLE 28,
FN7  SINCE THESE SECTIONS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDE SEC. 1404(A), AND ALL ARE
WITHIN THE VENUE CHAPTER (SECS. 1391-1406, INCLUSIVE) OF THE CODE.  TO
ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED COMPLETELY TO DISREGARD
THE CONGRESSIONAL ADMONITION THAT "NO INFERENCE OF A LEGISLATIVE
CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE DRAWN BY REASON OF THE CHAPTER IN TITLE 28  ...
IN WHICH ANY ANY SECTION IS PLACED  ..."  FN8  FURTHERMORE,
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT PROVES TOO MUCH:  SECS. 1391-1393, WHICH ALSO ARE
IN THE VENUE CHAPTER AND ALSO REFER TO "ANY CIVIL ACTION," WOULD BE
READ AS APPLYING ONLY TO ACTIONS FOR WHICH SPECIAL VENUE REQUIREMENTS
ARE ESTABLISHED IN NEIGHBORING SECTIONS OF THE CODE, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE
OBVIOUSLY INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO BE THE GENERAL VENUE SECTIONS
APPLICABLE TO ORDINARY ACTIONS.  IT SEEMS MORE REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT
SEC. 1404(A) IN TERMS APPLIES GENERALLY, I.E., TO "ANY CIVIL ACTION." 

SECOND.  ALTHOUGH PETITIONER WISHES TO RESTRICT THE LITERAL MEANING
OF "ANY CIVIL ACTION," HE WOULD EXPAND THE SENSE OF "MAY TRANSFER  ...
TO ANY OTHER DISTRICT OR DIVISION WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT"
BEYOND THE EXACT SCOPE OF THOSE WORDS.  OBVIOUSLY, THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE
GIVES NO CLUE AS TO WHERE THE ACTION "MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT."  YET
THE ESSENCE OF PETITIONER'S POSITION IS THAT THE ORDER BELOW,
TRANSFERRING HIS SUIT, EFFECTS A REPEAL OF SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WHICH GRANTED HIM THE RIGHT TO SUE IN ANY
DISTRICT "IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE DOING BUSINESS AT THE TIME OF
COMMENCING SUCH ACTION."  FN9 

OF THE CODE DEALS WITH THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER AN ACTION PROPERLY
BROUGHT.  THE TWO SECTIONS DEAL WITH TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
PROBLEMS.  FN10  SECTION 1404(A) DOES NOT LIMIT OR OTHERWISE MODIFY ANY
RIGHT GRANTED IN SEC. 6 OF THE LIABILITY ACT OR ELSEWHERE TO BRING SUIT
IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT.  AN ACTION MAY STILL BE BROUGHT IN ANY COURT,
STATE OR FEDERAL, IN WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT PREVIOUSLY. 

THE CODE, THEREFORE, DOES NOT REPEAL SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  WE AGREE WITH PETITIONER THAT CONGRESS HAD NO SUCH
INTENTION, AS DEMONSTRATED BY ITS FAILURE TO LIST THE SECTION IN THE
METICULOUSLY PREPARED SCHEDULE OF STATUTES REPEALED.  FN11  WE CANNOT
AGREE THAT THE ORDER BEFORE US EFFECTUATES AN IMPLIED REPEAL.  THE
INAPPLICABILITY OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS TO LIABILITY ACT SUITS DERIVES
FROM THE KEPNER DECISION.  AND THERE THIS COURT EXPRESSLY STATED THAT
"IF IT IS DEEMED UNJUST, THE REMEDY IS LEGISLATIVE  ...  "  314 U.S. AT
54.  THAT OPINION DISCUSSES SEC. 6 OF THE LIABILITY ACT, TO BE SURE,
BUT THIS COURT DID NOT AND COULD NOT SUGGEST THAT THE LEGISLATIVE
ANSWER HAD NECESSARILY TO BE ADDRESSED TO THAT SECTION.  SINCE THE
WORDS SELECTED BY CONGRESS FOR SEC. 6 DENOTE NOTHING, ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER, RESPECTING FORUM NON CONVENIENS, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO REPEAL
THAT SECTION, EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY; CONGRESS CHOSE TO REMOVE ITS
JUDICIAL GLOSS VIA ANOTHER STATUTE.  DISCUSSION OF THE LAW OF IMPLIED
REPEALS IS, THEREFORE, IRRELEVANT. 

THIRD.  PETITIONER'S CHIEF ARGUMENT PROCEEDS NOT FROM ONE SIDE OR THE
OTHER OF THE LITERAL BOUNDARIES OF SEC. 1404(A), BUT FROM ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO
REFER TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHERE THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS
CLEAR.  "THE PLAIN WORDS AND MEANING OF A STATUTE CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY
A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH, THROUGH STRAINED PROCESSES OF DEDUCTION
FROM EVENTS OF WHOLLY AMBIGUOUS SIGNIFICANCE, MAY FURNISH DUBIOUS BASES
FOR INFERENCE IN EVERY DIRECTION."  GEMSCO V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 244,
260(1945).  THIS CANON OF CONSTRUCTION HAS RECEIVED CONSISTENT
ADHERENCE IN OUR DECISIONS.  FN12 

NEVERTHELESS, WE NEED NOT REST OUR DECISION ON IT SOLELY.  FOR THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DOES NOT SUPPORT PETITIONER'S POSITION. 
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THESE TWIN PREMISES:  CONGRESS
INTENDED NO "CONTROVERSIAL CHANGE" TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE CODE; AND
SEC. 1404(A) IS SUCH A CHANGE. 

TO ESTABLISH THE FORMER PREMISE, PETITIONER CITES A NUMBER OF
STATEMENTS BY LEGISLATIVE LEADERS IN CHARGE OF THE CODE REVISION.  FOR
EXAMPLE, REPRESENTATIVE KEOGH, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
REVISION OF THE LAWS WHICH INITIATED THE WORK, SAID AT THE HEARING
BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE, "THE POLICY THAT WE ADOPTED
...  WAS TO AVOID WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND WHENEVER POSSIBLE THE ADOPTION
IN OUR REVISION OF WHAT MIGHT BE DESCRIBED AS CONTROVERSIAL SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES OF LAW."  FN13  AND SENATOR DONNELL, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERING THE CODE, SAID ON THE FLOOR THAT "
...  THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS PRIMARILY TO REVISE AND CODIFY AND TO
ENACT INTO POSITIVE LAW, WITH SUCH CORRECTIONS AS WERE DEEMED BY THE
COMMITTEE TO BE OF SUBSTANTIAL AND NONCONTROVERSIAL NATURE."  FN14  BUT
THESE STATEMENTS CLEARLY ARE NOT UNEQUIVOCAL PROMISES THAT NO CHANGES
WOULD BE MADE.  THE LEGISLATION WAS ANNOUNCED TO BE A REVISION AS WELL
AS A CODIFICATION.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE CHANGES IN LAW RETAINED IN
THE CODE WERE NOT CONSIDERED AS "CONTROVERSIAL" BY THESE CONGRESSIONAL
SPOKESMEN. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT OFFER ANY DEFINITION OF "CONTROVERSIAL," BUT HE
DOES POINT TO ONE CONCRETE EXAMPLE OF WHAT HE REGARDS AS A
"CONTROVERSIAL" MEASURE.  THIS IS THE JENNINGS BILL,  FN15  WHICH WAS
UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE HOUSE IN THE SPRING OF 1947, AS WAS THE CODE
REVISION.  FN16  THE JENNINGS BILL AND SEC. 1404(A) OF THE CODE MEET
THE SAME PROBLEM, THE ALLEGED ABUSES IN THE SELECTION OF FORUMS FOR
LIABILITY ACT SUITS.  FN17  BUT THE JENNINGS BILL WAS FAR MORE DRASTIC
THAN SEC. 1404(A).  THE JENNINGS BILL WOULD IN LARGE PART HAVE REPEALED
SEC. 6 OF THE LIABILITY ACT.  IT WOULD HAVE DELIMITED THE AVAILABLE
FORUM FOR ACTIONS BROUGHT IN STATE AS WELL AS FEDERAL COURTS.  FN18  IT
WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE RIGHT TO SUE IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE
RAILROAD DID BUSINESS.  INITIALLY, THIS APPLIED ONLY TO FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT PLAINTIFFS, BUT IN FINAL DRAFT THE JENNINGS
BILL GENERALLY RESTRICTED ALL, INCLUDING PASSENGERS, WHO MIGHT SUE
RAILROADS FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.  INASMUCH AS NONE OF THESE CHANGES IN
THE LAW WAS CONTAINED IN THE CODE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SEC. 1404(A)
MIGHT WELL BE CONSIDERED "NONCONTROVERSIAL" BY THE SAME CONGRESS WHICH
WOULD REGARD THE JENNINGS BILL AS "CONTROVERSIAL."  FN19 

MOREOVER, EVEN IF WE COULD DISTILL FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE JENNINGS BILL A USABLE CONCEPT OF "CONTROVERSIAL CHANGE," ITS
APPLICATION WOULD DESTROY PETITIONER'S CASE.  FOR PETITIONER CONCEDES
THAT IN FACT SEC. 1404(A) DID NOT AROUSE CONTROVERSY; HE SUBMITS THE
JENNINGS BILL AS CONTRAST.  HIS ARGUMENT IS OBVIOUSLY BASED NOT ON THE
ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 1404(A), BUT ON NECESSARILY VAGUE
SPECULATION AS TO WHAT CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE DONE HAD IT FULLY REALIZED
THAT FORUM NON CONVENIENS WAS HENCEFORTH TO BE APPLICABLE IN FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SUITS.  THE REQUISITE ASSUMPTION, THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT APPRECIATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ITS ACTION WHEN IT
RATIFIED THE CODE AND SEC. 1404(A) THEREIN, IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS
SHOWN BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH IS OF RECORD.  THE LACK OF
CONTROVERSY REFLECTED AWARE AGREEMENT AND NOT THE INERTIA OF
IGNORANCE. 

THIS WAS SCARCELY HASTY, ILL-CONSIDERED LEGISLATION.  TO THE
CONTRARY, IT RECEIVED CLOSE AND PROLONGED STUDY.  FIVE YEARS OF
CONGRESSIONAL ATTENTION SUPPORTS THE CODE.  FN20  AND FROM THE START,
CONGRESS OBTAINED THE MOST EMINENT EXPERT ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE.  THE
SPADEWORK WAS ENTRUSTED TO TWO LAWBOOK-PUBLISHING FIRMS, THE STAFFS OF
WHICH HAD UNIQUE EXPERIENCE IN STATUTORY CODIFICATION AND REVISION. 
FN21  THEY FORMED AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, INCLUDING DISTINGUISHED JUDGES
AND MEMBERS OF THE BAR, AND OBTAINED THE SERVICES OF SPECIAL
CONSULTANTS.  FN22 FURTHERMORE, AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS APPOINTED BY
THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE N23.  AND TO ASSIST WITH MATTERS RELATING TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE STONE APPOINTED AN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CONSISTING OF HIMSELF AND JUSTICES FRANKFURTER AND
DOUGLAS.  FN24 

THAT THESE EXPERTS ASSISTED IN DRAFTING THE CODE DOES NOT MEAN THAT
CONGRESS BLINDLY APPROVED WHAT OUTSIDERS DID.  THIS IS DEMONSTRATED,
FOR EXAMPLE, BY THE STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ROBSION, CHAIRMAN OF
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE, AT THE HEARING CONDUCTED BY HIS
SUBCOMMITTEE IN 1947.  "WE SHALL DO THE SAME AS WE DID LAST YEAR  ...
JUST READ THEM LINE BY LINE AND HAVE YOU AND OTHER EXPERT CONDIFIERS
AND OTHER PERSONS GO OVER THE BILL WITH US."  FN25    PETITIONER ALMOST
SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THIS VERY CAREFUL COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION VITIATES
THE LEGISLATION.  BUT THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM IS INTEGRAL IN TYPICAL
LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE; CONGRESS COULD NOT FUNCTION WITHOUT IT.  FN26  A
CANON OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD DISCOUNT STATUTORY WORDS PRO TANTO,
THE GREATER THE EXPERTISE OR THE MORE METICULOUS THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION DEVOTED THERETO, OR THE LONGER AND MORE COMPLEX THE
LEGISLATION, WOULD BE ABSURD, NOT LEAST BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE MOCKERY
OF THE TECHNIQUES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION WHICH HAVE HERETOFORE
BEEN USED BY THE COURTS. 

THE EXPERTS AND THE COMMITTEES DID NOT ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE
PROPOSED REVISIONS.  "THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE LAWS IN THE
PREPARATION OF THOSE PRELIMINARY DRAFTS SOUGHT TO GIVE THEM THE WIDEST
POSSIBLE CIRCULATION.  WE MADE CERTAIN THAT EVERY MEMBER OF THE
LEGISLATURE GOT ONE; WE MADE CERTAIN THAT THEY WERE SENT TO EVERY
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY; THAT THEY WERE SENT TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL JUDICIARY; THAT THEY WERE SENT TO THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF
THE LEADING STATE AND LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATIONS; THAT THEY WERE SENT TO
EVERYONE WHO EVER EVIDENCED ANY INTEREST IN THE WORK AT ALL."  FN27
INDICATIVE OF THE SUCCESS IN PUBLICIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE IS
THE FACT THAT THERE WAS SPECIFIC TREATMENT OF SEC. 1404(A) AND ITS
APPLICABILITY TO FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SUITS IN A NUMBER OF
LEGAL PERIODICALS.  FN28 

THE INITIAL APPEARANCE OF SEC. 1404(A) WAS IN THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE
CODE, ADOPTED BY THE MEETING OF MAY, 1945.  ITS TEXT HAS REMAINED
UNCHANGED.  IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A REVISER'S NOTE, WHICH RECITED THAT
"SUBSECTION (A) IS NEW.  IT WAS DRAFTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A MEMORANDUM
OF MAR. 7, 1945, FROM THE AUTHOR OF MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE, STATING
THAT RECOGNITION SHOULD BE GIVEN THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS
...  "  FN29  THE BALANCE OF THAT NOTE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS
THE PRESENT REVISER'S NOTE; IT EXPRESSLY CITED THE KEPNER CASE, AN
ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AS DEMONSTRATING THE
NEED FOR SEC. 1404(A).  AND THE REVISER'S NOTES WERE BEFORE THE
CONGRESS AT EVERY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE STEP. 

A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE CODE WAS PRINTED LATE IN 1945 FOR THE USE
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE LAWS.  IN THIS DRAFT, THE
REVISER'S NOTES APPEAR DIRECTLY BELOW EACH RELATED SECTION OR
SUBSECTION.  SECTION 1404(A) AND ITS NOTE WERE IN THIS DRAFT, WHICH, AS
NOTED ABOVE, WAS GIVEN VERY WIDE CIRCULATION. 

JULY 24, 1946, THE HOUSE ORDERED TO BE PRINTED THE REPORT SUBMITTED
BY REPRESENTATIVE KEOGH OF NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
REVISION OF THE LAWS, ON THE CODIFICATION OF TITLE 28.  FN30  THIS
REPORT CONSISTED OF A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND A FULL PRINTING OF THE
REVISER'S NOTES.  SECTION 1404(A) APPEARS IN THAT REPORT, TOGETHER WITH
ITS NOTE.  THERE WAS NO FURTHER ACTION ON THE CODE IN THE SEVENTY-NINTH
CONGRESS. 

IN THE EIGHTIETH CONGRESS, UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT
OF 1946,  FN31 THE CODE REVISION PASSED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND WAS ASSIGNED TO A SUBCOMMITTEE OF WHICH
REPRESENTATIVE ROBSION OF KENTUCKY WAS CHAIRMAN.  AT THE HEARING BEFORE
THIS SUBCOMMITTEE, PROFESSOR JAMES WILLIAM MOORE OF YALE UNIVERSITY,
SPECIAL CONSULTANT TO THE REVISERS, IN SUMMARIZING THE CODE PROPOSALS,
TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE "CHANGES OF IMPORTANCE" IN THE LAW OF VENUE
AND SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED SEC. 1404.  FN32  IN APRIL, 1947, THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORTED THE BILL WITH A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION
THAT IT BE PASSED.  FN33  THIS REPORT AGAIN FULLY REPRINTED THE
REVISER'S NOTES.  IN THIS REPORT, THE SECTION ENTITLED "EXAMPLES OF
CHANGES IN LAW," WHICH HAD APPEARED IN THE REPORT ON THE REVISION IN
THE PRECEDING SESSION OF CONGRESS, EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO THE REVISER'S
NOTES FOR SECS. 1391-1406.  FN34 

AFTER THIS PAINSTAKING CONSIDERATION, WITH ITS REFERENCES TO SEC.
1404(A), THE HOUSE INITIALLY PASSED THE BILL ON JULY 7, 1947.  FN35  AT
THAT TIME AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT CONSIDERATION IN THE SENATE, THE TAX
COURT PROVISIONS OCCASIONED THE MOST DISCUSSION; BUT OTHER SPECIFIC
1404(A) BY ONE WITNESS AT THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE, ALTHOUGH HIS INTEREST WAS NOT IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT ISSUE.  FN36  NO CHANGE IN SEC. 1404(A) WAS INCLUDED IN
THE SENATE AMENDMENTS; AND THE REVISION OF TITLE 28 WAS ENACTED BY THE
CONGRESS IN JUNE, 1948.  FN37 

THUS, AT ALMOST EVERY STAGE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE, ATTENTION
WAS DIRECTED TO THE FACT OF CHANGE, AND IN MOST INSTANCES SPECIFIC
MENTION WAS MADE OF SEC. 1404(A).  AT NO STAGE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FIRST
FORMAL PRINTING DID SEC. 1404(A) AND ITS ACCOMPANYING REVISER'S NOTE
FAIL TO APPEAR.  FROM THE START, SEC. 1404(A) REMAINED THE SAME, AND
THE REFERENCE IN THE NOTE TO A FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT CASE AS
SHOWING THE NEED FOR PERMITTING THE APPLICATION OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS
REMAINED UNCHANGED.  NOW TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS DID NOT APPRECIATE WHAT
IT WAS ENACTING IN THAT SECTION WOULD DEFY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  WE
MUST FLATLY REJECT PETITIONER'S THESIS THAT THIS SECTION WAS SO
OBSCURED THAT ITS ENACTMENT IS MEANINGLESS.  WE CANNOT BLIND OURSELVES
TO THE HEARINGS, TO THE EXPERTS, TO THE COMMITTEE REPORTS, TO THE
REVISER'S NOTES AND THEIR INCORPORATION IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS - TO A
HISTORY OF THE MOST METICULOUS CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION. 

FOURTH.  PETITIONER SUGGESTS THAT HIS ACTION MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED
BECAUSE IT WAS INSTITUTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CODE. 
CLEARLY, SEC. 1404(A) IS A REMEDIAL PROVISION APPLICABLE TO PENDING
ACTIONS.  AND "NO ONE HAS A VESTED RIGHT IN ANY GIVEN MODE OF PROCEDURE
...  "  CRANE V. HAHLO, 258 U.S. 142, 147(1922).  FN38 

FIFTH.  SINCE THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION MUST BE
DENIED BECAUSE OF THE VIEW WE MUST TAKE AS TO THE MEANING OF SEC.
1404(A) AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO THIS CASE, WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER
DENIAL MIGHT BE PLACED ON OTHER GROUNDS ALSO.  "MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION
AND INJUNCTION AGAINST JUDGES ARE DRASTIC AND EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES. 
...  AS EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES, THEY ARE RESERVED FOR REALLY
EXTRAORDINARY CAUSES."  EX PARTE FAHEY, 332 U.S. 258, 259, 260(1947). 
FN39 

WHAT WE HOLD IS THAT THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE STATUTORY WORDS AND THE
CONSISTENT COURSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ARE OPPOSED TO
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT WE MUST DISREGARD SEC. 1404(A) BECAUSE
CONGRESS KNEW NOT WHAT IT DID.  IF PETITIONER'S SHOWING COULD SUSTAIN A
DECISION THAT THIS SECTION WAS NOT REALLY ENACTED AFTER ALL, LITTLE LAW
WOULD REMAIN. 

THE MOTION IS DENIED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 869:  "AN ACT TO REVISE, CODIFY,
AND ENACT INTO LAW TITLE 28 OF THE U.S.C. ENTITLED 'JUDICIAL CODE AND
JUDICIARY.'" 

FN2  35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED BY 36 STAT. 291, AND 53 STAT. 1404, 45
U.S.C. SECS. 51-59. 

FN3  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 869, 992, SEC. 38. 

FN4  AT LEAST FIVE DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS DEALING WITH THE
RELATIONSHIP OF SEC. 1404(A) TO FELA SUITS HAVE BEEN REPORTED.  FOUR
HAVE HELD THAT THE SECTION IS APPLICABLE.  HAYES V. CHICAGO, R.I. &
P.R. CO. (AND SEVEN OTHER CASES), 79 F.SUPP.  821(1948); WHITE V.
THOMPSON, 80 F.SUPP.  411(1948); NUNN V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R.
CO., 80 F.SUPP.  745(1948); SCOTT V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 81
F.SUPP.  815(1948); CF. BRAINARD V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 81
F.SUPP.  211(1948); PERRY V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 82 F.SUPP. 
912(1948)(IN BOTH, MOTION TO TRANSFER DENIED, IN EXERCISE OF
"DISCRETIONARY POWERS"); CHAFFIN V. CHESAPEAKE & O.R. CO., 80 F.SUPP. 
957(1948); RICHER V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 80 F.SUPP.  971(1948). 
ONE REPORTED DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE CODE SECTION IS INAPPLICABLE TO
SUCH SUITS.  PASCARELLA V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 81 F.SUPP. 
95(1948). 

FN5  H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. A 132(1947); H.R. REP.
NO. 2646, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. A 127(1946). 

FN6  THE REVISER'S NOTES MAKE CLEAR THAT THE PHRASE WAS SUBSTITUTED
FOR "SUIT," FORMERLY USED IN VARIOUS VENUE STATUTES, IN THE LIGHT OF
RULE 2 OF THE FED. RULES CIV. PROC.:  "THERE SHALL BE ONE FORM OF
ACTION TO BE KNOWN AS 'CIVIL ACTION'." 

FN7  SECTION 1394 DEALS WITH ANY CIVIL ACTION "BY A NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATION TO ENJOIN THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY"; SEC. 1395,
PROCEEDINGS "FOR THE RECOVERY OF A PECUNIARY FINE" AND "FOR THE
FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY" UNDER VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SEC. 1396, "ANY
CIVIL ACTION FOR THE COLLECTION OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES"; SEC. 1397,
"OF INTERPLEADER"; SEC. 1398, "ANY CIVIL ACTION TO ENFORCE, SUSPEND OR
SET ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION"; SEC. 1399, "FOR THE PARTITION OF LANDS, WHERE THE UNITED
STATES IS ONE OF THE TENANTS IN COMMON OR JOINT TENANTS"; SEC. 1400,
ACTIONS "RELATING TO COPYRIGHTS" OR "FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT"; SEC.
1401, "BY A STOCKHOLDER ON BEHALF OF HIS CORPORATION"; SEC. 1402,
"AGAINST THE UNITED STATES"; AND SEC. 1403, "TO CONDEMN REAL ESTATE FOR
THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN8  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 869, 991, SEC. 33. 

FN9  "UNDER THIS CHAPTER AN ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE
DEFENDANT, OR IN WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, OR IN WHICH THE
DEFENDANT SHALL BE DOING BUSINESS AT THE TIME OF COMMENCING SUCH
ACTION.  ...  "  45 U.S.C. SEC. 56.  FOR A BRIEF HISTORICAL SKETCH, SEE
BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44, 49-50(1941). 

FN10  IN ALMOST EVERY STATE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VENUE AND FOR
TRANSFER ARE TREATED IN DIFFERENT STATUTORY SECTIONS.  BRIEF FOR NEW
YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. AS AMICUS CURIAE, PP. 11-12, KILPATRICK V.
TEXAS & PAC. R. CO., POST, P. 75.  SEE, E.G., N.Y. CIVIL PRACTICE ACT,
SECS. 182, 187. 

FN11  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 869, 992, SEC. 39.  CONGRESS DID
LIST THE PERTINENT STATUTES, WHEN CODE PROVISIONS IN FACT CHANGED THE
BASIC VENUE REQUIREMENTS.  FOR EXAMPLE, SECS. 1394, 1395, 1396 AND
1400, RESPECTIVELY, PRESCRIBE A NEW DEFINITION OF APPROPRIATE FORUMS
FOR ACTIONS AGAINST THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, INVOLVING FINES
AND FORFEITURES, INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES AND PATENT AND COPYRIGHT SUITS;
AND THE FOLLOWING STATUTES ARE THEREFORE LISTED AS REPEALED:  28 U.S.C.
SEC. 110; 28 U.S.C. SECS. 104, 107, 108; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 105; 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 109 AND 17 U.S.C. SEC. 35. 

FN12  E.G., PACKARD MOTOR CAR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 330 U.S. 485,
492(1947); UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, 310 U.S.
534, 543(1940) AND CASES THERE CITED. 

THE RULE AS TO STATUTORY REVISIONS IS THE SAME.  CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 527, 530(1942); BATE REFRIGERATING CO.
V. SULZBERGER, 157 U.S. 1, 45(1895); UNITED STATES V. BOWEN, 100 U.S.
508, 513(1880). 

FN13  HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1600
AND H.R. 2055, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 6(1947).  HE ALSO TESTIFIED AS
FOLLOWS:  "  ...  WE PROCEEDED UPON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT SINCE THAT WAS
PRIMARILY A RESTATEMENT OF EXISTING LAW, WE SHOULD NOT ENDANGER ITS
ACCOMPLISHMENT BY THE INCLUSION IN THE WORK OF ANY HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL
CHANGES IN LAW."  AND, IN RESPONSE TO THE CHAIRMAN'S QUESTION, "AND
THIS BILL DOES NOT INCLUDE CONTROVERSIAL MATTERS?"  REP. KEOGH REPLIED
THAT "WE HAVE SOUGHT TO AVOID AS FAR AS POSSIBLE  ...  ANY SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES THAT DID NOT MEET WITH UNANIMITY OF OPINION."  IBID., 11. 

FN14  94 CONG. REC. 7928(1948).  THE SENATOR HAD JUST GIVEN AN
ILLUSTRATION OF "VARIOUS CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE." 

FN15  H.R. 1639, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.:  "A BILL TO AMEND THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SO AS TO LIMIT VENUE  ...  "  AS ULTIMATELY
REPORTED TO THE HOUSE, IT REPEALED ALL OF SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, EXCEPT THE LAST SENTENCE PROHIBITING REMOVAL
OF ACTIONS BROUGHT IN STATE COURTS TO FEDERAL COURTS; AND ADDED THE
FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH TO THE THEN GENERAL VENUE STATUTE, SEC. 51 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 112:  "A CIVIL SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR
WRONGFUL DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURIES AGAINST ANY INTERSTATE COMMON
CARRIER BY RAILROAD MAY BE BROUGHT ONLY IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES OR IN A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, IN THE
DISTRICT OR COUNTY (PARISH), RESPECTIVELY, IN WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION
AROSE, OR WHERE THE PERSON SUFFERING DEATH OR INJURY RESIDED AT THE
TIME IT AROSE:  PROVIDED, THAT IF THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE SERVED WITH
PROCESS ISSUING OUT OF ANY OF THE COURTS AFOREMENTIONED, THEN AND ONLY
THEN, THE ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR IN A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, AT ANY PLACE
WHERE THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE DOING BUSINESS AT THE TIME OF THE
INSTITUTION OF SAID ACTION."  H.R. REP. NO. 613, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
PT. 1, 9-10(1947). 

FN16  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HELD HEARINGS ON THE CODE,
BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1, ON MAR. 7, 1947, AND FOUR HEARINGS ON THE
JENNINGS BILL, BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 4, FROM MAR. 28 TO APRIL 18,
1947.  CONGRESSMAN JENNINGS HIMSELF WAS A MEMBER OF SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1,
CONSIDERING THE CODE.  CONGRESSMAN DEVITT, A MEMBER OF SUBCOMMITTEE NO.
4, CONSIDERING THE JENNINGS BILL, TESTIFIED IN FAVOR OF THE CODE;
HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1600 AND H.R.
2055(CODE), 80TH CONG. 1ST SESS. 3(1947); HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 3214(CODE), 80TH CONG., 2D SESS.
16(1948). 

THE UNANIMOUS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT FAVORING THE CODE WAS
PUBLISHED IN APRIL, 1947.  H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
THE DIVIDED REPORT ON THE JENNINGS BILL WAS SUBMITTED IN JUNE.  H.R.
REP. NO. 613, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (IN THREE PARTS).    ON JULY 7,
1947, THE HOUSE PASSED THE PROPOSED REVISION BY A VOTE OF 342 TO 23. 
93 CONG. REC. 8392.  TEN DAYS LATER, THE JENNINGS BILL WAS PASSED BY
203 TO 188.  93 CONG. REC. 9193-4. 

FN17  SEE, E.G., HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON
H.R. 1639, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 6-12, 17-22, 31-8(1947); H.R. REP. NO.
613, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PT. 1, 3-6; PT. 2, 1-2, 4(1947). 

FN18  AS ONE OF ITS THREE GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION TO THE JENNINGS BILL,
THE MINORITY REPORT STATED, "THE BILL RESTRICTS STATE COURTS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, DEPRIVES THEM OF THEIR PREROGATIVES TO
REQUIRE CHANGE OF VENUE OF LAWSUITS WHERE NECESSARY, AND TRANSCENDS THE
PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS GOVERNING THE JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS." 
H.R. REP. NO. 613, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PT. 2, 1(1947). 

DOUBT WAS EXPRESSED THAT CONGRESS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL POWER SO TO
AFFECT STATE COURTS.  SEE, E.G., LETTER OF ACTING THE ASSISTANT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON
S. 1567 AND H.R. 1639(JENNINGS BILL), 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 215(1948). 

FN19  FURTHERMORE, PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT SUGGESTS AT MOST THAT SEC.
1404(A) WAS AS "CONTROVERSIAL" AS THE JENNINGS BILL, AS OF JULY, 1947. 
THEREAFTER, HOWEVER, BOTH THE CODE AND THE JENNINGS BILL WERE REFERRED
TO THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHICH HELD HEARINGS ON BOTH.  THE
SAME THREE SENATORS COMPOSED THE SUBCOMMITTEE HOLDING THESE HEARINGS:
SEN. E. H. MOORE, CHAIRMAN AT THE HEARINGS ON THE JENNINGS BILL IN
JANUARY, 1948; SEN. DONNELL, CHAIRMAN AT THE HEARINGS ON THE CODE IN
APRIL AND JUNE, 1948; AND SEN. MCGRATH.  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
TWO PROPOSALS WAS EXPRESSLY CALLED TO THEIR ATTENTION.  SEE HEARINGS
BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 1567 AND H.R.
1639(JENNINGS BILL), 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 111-112(1948).  THE COMMITTEE
REPORTED THE CODE FAVORABLY, ALBEIT WITH AMENDMENTS; BUT THE JENNINGS
BILL WAS NOT REPORTED. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT ONLY THE TAX COURT PROVISIONS WERE REGARDED BY THE
SENATE COMMITTEE AS SUFFICIENTLY "CONTROVERSIAL" TO BE DELETED.  SEE S.
REP. NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2(1948); 94 CONG. REC. 7927(1948). 

FN20  JUNE 28, 1943, CONGRESS APPROPRIATED $100,000 "FOR PRELIMINARY
WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE PREPARATION OF A NEW EDITION OF THE U.S.C.
INCLUDING THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS  ...  " 57 STAT. 230. 

FN21  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2-3(1947). 

FN22  "THIS PUBLIC-SPIRITED GROUP (THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE) CONSISTED
OF JUDGE FLOYD E. THOMPSON, FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION; HON.
JUSTIN MILLER, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; JUDGE JOHN B. SANBORN, JUDGE OF
THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT; HON.
WALTER P. ARMSTRONG, OF THE MEMPHIS BAR AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION; AND HON. JOHN DICKINSON, OF THE PHILADELPHIA
BAR, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"THIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS ABLY ASSISTED BY JUDGE JOHN J. PARKER,
SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, WHO RENDERED VALUABLE SERVICE AS A JUDICIAL
CONSULTANT.  THE COMMITTEE WAS ALSO ASSISTED BY TWO SPECIAL CONSULTANTS
EACH AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE:  JUDGE ALEXANDER
HOLTZOFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA; AND PROF. JAMES W. MOORE, OF YALE UNIVERSITY."  H.R. REP.
NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3(1947).  SEE ALSO HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1600 AND H.R. 2055, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 7-8, 12-14, 17-18, 24-26(1947). 

FN23  CIRCUIT JUDGE MARIS WAS CHAIRMAN, AND DISTRICT JUDGES GALSTON
AND W. F. SMITH ALSO SERVED ON THE COMMITTEE.  LOC.  CIT. SUPRA, NOTE
22.  SEE 1944 REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 24; 1945 ID. 17-18;
1948 ID. 41. 

FN24  H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 4(1947). 

FN25  HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1600
AND H.R. 2055, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 23(1947). 

FN26  "CONGRESSIONAL GOVERNMENT IS COMMITTEE GOVERNMENT  ...  THE
HOUSE SITS, NOT FOR SERIOUS DISCUSSION, BUT TO SANCTION THE CONCLUSIONS
OF ITS COMMITTEES AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE.  IT LEGISLATES IN ITS
COMMITTEE-ROOMS; NOT BY THE DETERMINATIONS OF MAJORITIES, BUT BY THE
RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIALLY-COMMISSIONED MINORITIES; SO THAT IT IS NOT FAR
FROM THE TRUTH TO SAY THAT CONGRESS IN SESSION IS CONGRESS ON PUBLIC
EXHIBITION, WHILST CONGRESS IN ITS COMMITTEE-ROOMS IS CONGRESS AT
WORK."  WOODROW WILSON, CONGRESSIONAL GOVERNMENT, PP. XVI, 79(15TH ED.
1900).  NOR HAS THIS CHANGED.  "THE COMMITTEES ARE THE WORKSHOPS OF
CONGRESS.  COMMITTEE WORK IS THE CORE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  ...
IT IS THE CENTER OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY WHERE THE LAW-MAKING AND
SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS ARE LARGELY PERFORMED."  GALLOWAY,
CONGRESS AT THE CROSSROADS 53(1946).  AND SEE BRYCE, THE AMERICAN
COMMONWEALTH C. XV (NEW ED. 1931); CHAMBERLAIN, LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES,
CC. V-VI (1936); KEFAUVER AND LEVIN, A TWENTIETH-CENTURY CONGRESS 114
153(1947); LUCE, LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE, CC. IV-VIII (1922); WALKER, THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, C. 11(1948). 

FN27  HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1600
AND H.R. 2055, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8(1947). 

FN28  EXPRESSLY RECITING THE REFERENCE TO THE KEPNER CASE IN THE
REVISER'S NOTES:  BRAUCHER, THE INCONVENIENT FEDERAL FORUM, 60 HARV. L.
REV. 908, 933(JULY, 1947); NOTE, NEW LIMITATIONS ON CHOICE OF FEDERAL
FORUM, 15 U. OF CHI.  L. REV. 332, 341, N. 54(WINTER (MARCH), 1948);
COMMENT, FORUM NON CONVENIENS, A NEW FEDERAL DOCTRINE, 56 YALE L.J.
1234, 1249, N. 115(AUG., 1947).  AND SEE BARRETT, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM
NON CONVENIENS, 35 CALIF. L. REV. 380, 421(SEPT., 1947); NOTE, 32 MINN.
L. REV. 633, 636, N. 29(MAY, 1948).  CF. NOTE, 23 IND. L.J. 82, 87, N.
26(OCT., 1947)(QUOTING SEC. 1404(A) BUT NOT REFERRING TO THE REVISER'S
NOTES). 

OF COURSE THE FACT THAT THE JUDICIAL CODE WAS BEING REVISED WAS
PUBLICIZED IN DISCUSSIONS NOT DIRECTLY BEARING ON THE INSTANT ISSUE;
E.G., WECHSLER, FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND THE REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 13 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  216(1948); ZINN, REVISION OF FEDERAL
JUDICIAL CODE, 48 LAW NOTES, NOS. 3-4, 11(1944)(EARLIEST REFERENCE);
NOTE, THE PROPOSED REVISION OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CODE, 60 HARV. L.
REV. 424(1947). 

FN29  THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OF SEC. 1404(A) IN THE MIND
OF THE AUTHOR OF THE MEMORANDUM.  SEE 3 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE
2141(2D ED. 1948), STATING THAT THE CODE "PROVIDES FOR A TRANSFER  ...
OF ANY ACTION TO A PROPER AND MORE CONVENIENT FORUM" (ITALICS IN
ORIGINAL), WITH A FOOTNOTE (107) CITING SEC. 1404(A) AND DECLARING THAT
"ANY ACTION IN SEC. 1404(A) INCLUDES SUITS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL VENUE
STATUTES, AS SUITS FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND SUITS UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AS WELL AS ACTIONS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL
VENUE STATUTE."  AND SEE ARTICLES BY A MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
APPOINTED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, AND BY THE CHIEF REVISER:
GALSTON, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW FEDERAL JUDICIAL CODE, 8 F.R.D.
201, 206(1948); BARRON, THE JUDICIAL CODE 1948 REVISION, 8 F.R.D. 439,
442(1949). 

FN30  H.R. REP. NO. 2646, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1946). 

FN31  60 STAT. 812, 826-27(1946). 

FN32  HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1600
AND H.R. 2055, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 29(1947). 

FN33  H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1947). 

FN34  IBID., 6. 

FN35  93 CONG. REC. 8392(1947). 

FN36  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 3214,
80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 73-74(1948). 

FN37  94 CONG. REC. 7927-30, 8297, 8438, 8498-8501(1948). 

WHILE IT LACKS RELEVANCE TO OUR HOLDING AS TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION
AND EXPRESSION IN JUNE, 1948, THE PRESENTATION OF AN UP-TO-DATE REPORT
OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE CODE REVISION REQUIRES NOTING
THAT OVER 60 ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 28 HAVE ALREADY BECOME
LAW.  ACT OF MAY 24, 1949, 63 STAT. 89, 99-107, SECS. 64A-127.  SEE 95
CONG. REC. 3814-20, 5826-27, 6283-84; H.R. REP. NO. 352, 81ST CONG.,
1ST SESS. 11-20, 38-51(1949); S. REP. NO. 303, 81ST CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1949).  WHILE SEC. 1406 IS AMENDED BY ADDING "SHALL DISMISS, OR IF IT
BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE" BEFORE "SHALL TRANSFER" (63 STAT. 101,
SEC. 81), NO CHANGE WHATEVER WAS SUGGESTED OR MADE IN SEC. 1404(A). 

FN38  GWIN V. UNITED STATES, 184 U.S. 669(1902); NATIONAL EXCHANGE
BANK OF BALTIMORE V. PETERS, 144 U.S. 570(1892); SHERMAN V. GRINNELL,
123 U.S. 679(1887); MCBURNEY V. CARSON, 99 U.S. 567, 569(1878). 

FN39  EX PARTE MARS, INC., 320 U.S. 710(1943); ROCHE V. EVAPORATED
MILK ASSN., 319 U.S. 21(1943), AND CASES THERE CITED.  CF. UNITED
STATES ALKALI EXPORT ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 196(1945), AND
CASES THERE CITED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN UNITED
STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, POST, P. 84. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE* . 

*(THIS IS ALSO A CONCURRENCE IN THE RESULT IN NO. 233, MISC.,
KILPATRICK V. TEXAS & P.R. CO., POST, P. 75, AND NO. 269, MISC., UNITED
STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, POST, P. 78.) 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT.  BUT IN DOING SO I FEEL IMPELLED TO SAY TWO
THINGS. 

ONE IS THAT IN MY VIEW SEC. 1404(A), TAKEN BROADLY TO INCLUDE "ANY
CIVIL ACTION," DOES EFFECT A PARTIAL REPEAL OF SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND OF THE OTHER STATUTES MENTIONED BY MR.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS, INCLUDING THE VENUE PROVISIONS (SEC. 12) OF THE
CLAYTON ACT INVOLVED IN OUR DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY
LINES, 334 U.S. 573. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE CLAYTON ACT VENUE
PROVISIONS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CHANGE SEC. 1404(A) IS SAID TO HAVE
MADE WAS MORE THAN THE MERE REMOVAL OF A JUDICIAL GLOSS.  I THINK WE
SHOULD NOT NOW IMPUGN THE VALIDITY OF OUR DECISIONS IN NATIONAL CITY
LINES, SUPRA, AND IN KEPNER AND MILES  FN1  BY CHARACTERIZING EACH AS A
MERE "JUDICIAL GLOSS" UPON THE PERTINENT STATUTE.  THOSE DECISIONS IN
MY OPINION WERE TRUE REFLECTIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AS STATED IN
THE RESPECTIVE STATUTES AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE CHANGES MADE IN THEM BY
SEC. 1404(A) WERE IN THE NATURE OF REPEALS, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
PLAINTIFFS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE PRE-EXISTING
STATUTES TO HAVE THEIR CAUSES OF ACTION TRIED IN THE FORUMS WHERE THEY
WERE PROPERLY BROUGHT. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THOSE CHANGES, ALTHOUGH ENTIRELY WITHIN
CONGRESS' POWER TO MAKE, WERE NEITHER INSUBSTANTIAL NOR
NONCONTROVERSIAL, IN VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ORIGINAL
PROVISIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  NOR
DO I THINK THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 1404(A) DEMONSTRATES EITHER
THE INSUBSTANTIAL OR THE NONCONTROVERSIAL NATURE OF THE CHANGES IN SEC.
1404(A), ALTHOUGH THEY SEEM TO HAVE BEEN SO TREATED BY THOSE IN CHARGE
OF THE BILL.  FN2  IT IS TO BE NOTED, MOREOVER, THAT SPECIFIC ATTENTION
WAS DRAWN TO THE EFFECT OF SEC. 1404(A) UPON SEC. 6 OF THE EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT THROUGH REFERENCE TO THE KEPNER AND MILES DECISIONS, BUT
NO LIKE SPECIFIC REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF THE
CLAYTON ACT AND THE NATIONAL CITY LINES DECISION. 

THESE MATTERS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO CONCUR IN THE VIEW THAT
CONGRESS WAS IN FACT "FULLY INFORMED AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SEC.
1404(A)."  THIS, HOWEVER, IS A MATTER AFFECTING CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURE
AND THE MANNER OF CONDUCTING LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS.  ACCORDINGLY,
NOTWITHSTANDING MY DOUBTS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO GO SO FAR, I
ACQUIESCE IN THE COURT'S DECISIONS. 

FN1  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44; MILES V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698. 

FN2  "AT THE SAME TIME GREAT CARE HAS BEEN EXERCISED TO MAKE NO
CHANGES IN THE EXISTING LAW WHICH WOULD NOT MEET WITH SUBSTANTIALLY
UNANIMOUS APPROVAL."  S. REP. NO. 1559, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2.  "  ...
I MAY SAY THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS PRIMARILY TO REVISE AND
CODIFY AND TO ENACT INTO POSITIVE LAW, WITH SUCH CORRECTIONS AS WERE
DEEMED BY THE (SENATE JUDICIARY) COMMITTEE TO BE OF SUBSTANTIAL AND
NONCONTROVERSIAL NATURE."  94 CONG. REC. 7928.  FOR SIMILAR EXPRESSIONS
BY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SEE HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1600 AND H.R. 2055, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 6, 11.  A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TOLD THE HOUSE
THAT THE ONLY "CONTROVERSIAL ASPECTS" OF THE 1947 DRAFT OF THE CODE
WERE CERTAIN SUBSEQUENTLY DELETED PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE TAX COURT. 
93 CONG. REC. 8390.  BUT CF. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY PENDING JENNINGS BILL, CITATIONS TO WHICH ARE MADE IN
THE COURT'S OPINION. 
..END :








KILPATRICK V. TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO., 337 U.S. 75 


NO. 233, MISC.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1949.  -
MOTION DENIED. 


UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A), INCORPORATED IN THE REVISION OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS IS MADE APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  EX PARTE COLLETT, ANTE, P. 55.  PP. 75-78. 

KILPATRICK V. TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR
CERTIORARI. 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A), A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN WHICH AN
ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT HAD BEEN BROUGHT
TRANSFERRED IT TO A DISTRICT COURT IN ANOTHER DISTRICT.  PETITIONER
MOVED IN THIS COURT FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  THE CASE
WAS ASSIGNED FOR HEARING ON THE MOTION.  335 U.S. 897.  MOTION DENIED,
P. 78. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS LITIGATION HAS A RATHER INVOLVED HISTORY.  IN 1946, WHILE IN THE
EMPLOY OF RESPONDENT RAILROAD, PETITIONER WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED IN AN
ACCIDENT AT BIG SPRING, TEXAS.  PETITIONER PROMPTLY BROUGHT SUIT UNDER
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT  FN1  IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  THAT COURT
DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE RAILROAD COULD NOT PROPERLY
BE SERVED IN THAT DISTRICT.  72 F.SUPP.  635(1947).  PETITIONER
APPEALED FROM THIS DISMISSAL; AND, SOME DAYS AFTER TAKING THE APPEAL,
INSTITUTED AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS.  AN ANSWER WAS FILED IN THE LATTER ACTION AND A NUMBER OF
DEPOSITIONS WERE TAKEN. 

IN MARCH, 1948, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HELD THAT
THE RAILROAD WAS SUBJECT TO SERVICE IN NEW YORK.  166 F.2D 788. 
THEREUPON PETITIONER MOVED TO DISMISS HIS TEXAS ACTION.  WHEN THE
DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO DISMISS, PETITIONER APPEALED AND ALSO APPLIED
FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT.  THAT COURT DECLINED TO ISSUE THE WRIT.  167 F.2D 471(1948). 
IN NO. 275, PETITIONER REQUESTS THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTION.  AND IN NO. 119
MISC., WE ARE ASKED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION DIRECTING THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS NOT TO PROCEED WITH
THE TRIAL.  WE ARE ADVISED THAT COUNSEL HAVE ARRANGED THAT FURTHER
PROGRESS OF THE TEXAS TRIAL SHALL BE HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING OUR
DECISION.  WE ARE THIS DAY DENYING THOSE PETITIONS.  SEE POST, P. 912. 

WHEN THE NEW YORK CAUSE WAS RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER WE
HAD DENIED THE RAILROAD'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE COURT
OF APPEALS' DETERMINATION THAT IT MIGHT BE SUED THERE, 335 U.S.
814(1948), PETITIONER MOVED FOR A PREFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF TRIAL. 
THE COURT BELOW, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, DENIED THIS MOTION.  RESPONDENT FILED A CROSS
MOTION FOR AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE ACTION TO THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.  THIS MOTION WAS
GRANTED.  THE ORDER OF TRANSFER RELIES ON THE AUTHORITY OF 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 1404(A),  FN2  AND CITES HAYES V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 79
F.SUPP.  821(1948), AND NUNN V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 80
F.SUPP.  745(1948).  TO NULLIFY THIS ORDER, PETITIONER MOVED THIS COURT
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  WE ASSIGNED THE CASE FOR HEARING
ON THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE.  335 U.S. 897(1948). 

IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION, PETITIONER URGES THAT THE GENERAL PURPOSES
OF THE 1948 REVISION OF TITLE 28 BY THE CONGRESS INDICATE NO INTENTION
TO "EMASCULATE" THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE VENUE AFFORDED UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT; THAT "ANY CIVIL ACTION," AS USED IN SEC.
1404(A) OF THE CODE, REFERS ONLY TO CIVIL ACTIONS SPECIFIED IN THE
VENUE CHAPTER OF TITLE 28(SECS.  1391-1406, INCLUSIVE); AND THAT THE
COURT BELOW "IGNORED THE KNOWN TEMPER OF LEGISLATIVE OPINION" AS
REVEALED CHIEFLY BY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON THE JENNINGS BILL. 

WE FAIL TO SEE ANYTHING IN THESE CONTENTIONS WHICH CAN DISTINGUISH
THIS CASE FROM EX PARTE COLLETT, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE, P. 55.  IN
THAT OPINION WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 6
OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ARE ONE THING AND THE TRANSFER
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1404(A) OF THE PRESENT JUDICIAL CODE ANOTHER; THAT
"ANY CIVIL ACTION" MEANS WHAT IT SAYS; AND THAT CONGRESS WAS FULLY
INFORMED AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SEC. 1404(A).  FOR THESE REASONS, WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ACTED WITHIN ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  THE MOTION MUST BE DENIED. 

FN1  35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED BY 36 STAT. 291, AND 53 STAT. 1404, 45
U.S.C. SECS. 51-59. 

FN2 "FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES AND WITNESSES, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE, A DISTRICT COURT MAY TRANSFER ANY CIVIL ACTION TO ANY OTHER
DISTRICT OR DIVISION WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT."  THIS PROVISION
BECAME EFFECTIVE SEPT. 1, 1948.  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 869,
992, SEC. 38. 

(FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURRING IN THE RESULT, SEE
ANTE, P. 72.) 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN UNITED
STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, POST, P. 84. 
..END :
















UNITED STATES V. NAT. CITY LINES, 337 U.S. 78 


NO. 269, MISC.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1949.  -
MOTION DENIED. 


UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A), INCORPORATED IN THE REVISION OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS IS MADE APPLICABLE TO CIVIL SUITS BY THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST
CORPORATIONS UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  EX PARTE COLLETT, ANTE, P. 55;
KILPATRICK V. TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO., ANTE, P. 75.  PP. 79-84. 

UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, INC. ET AL. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1404(A), A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAD INSTITUTED A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST CERTAIN CORPORATIONS
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT TRANSFERRED IT TO A DISTRICT COURT IN ANOTHER
DISTRICT.  80 F.SUPP.  734.  THE GOVERNMENT MOVED IN THIS COURT FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED
FOR HEARING ON THE MOTION.  335 U.S. 897.  MOTION DENIED, P. 84. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE 1948 REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
(TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE) EXTENDS THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS TO ANTITRUST SUITS.  THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT IN THIS
CIVIL SUIT ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT CORPORATIONS HAVE CONSPIRED TO
OBTAIN CONTROL OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES IN AT LEAST 44 CITIES
IN 16 STATES IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY, IN ORDER TO RESTRAIN
AND MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN BUSSES AND THE PETROLEUM AND
OTHER SUPPLIES INCIDENT THERETO, IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, 26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2. 

THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT AN ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW, THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
ATTEMPTING TO EFFECTUATE A TRANSFER OF THE CASE FROM LOS ANGELES TO
CHICAGO, HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT.  WHEN RESPONDENTS' MOTION WAS
FIRST GRANTED, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE ACTION, 7 F.R.D.
456(1947), INASMUCH AS THE FEDERAL COURTS THEN LACKED STATUTORY POWER
TO TRANSFER CASES.  WE REVERSED, HOLDING THAT FORUM NON CONVENIENS WAS
NOT APPLICABLE IN ANTITRUST SUITS.  UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY
LINES, 334 U.S. 573(JUNE 7, 1948).  AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PRESENT JUDICIAL CODE,  FN1  RESPONDENTS FILED A
NEW MOTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, CITING SEC.
1404(A), WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:  "FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES AND
WITNESSES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, A DISTRICT COURT MAY TRANSFER
ANY CIVIL ACTION TO ANY OTHER DISTRICT OR DIVISION WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT."  AGAIN THE DISTRICT COURT BELOW GRANTED THE MOTION.  IT
ORDERED THE CASE TRANSFERRED.  80 F.SUPP.  734(1948).  THE GOVERNMENT
THEREUPON SUBMITTED IN THIS COURT A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  WE ASSIGNED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON THIS
MOTION.  335 U.S. 897(1948). 

IN TAKING THE POSITION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED AUTHORITY TO
ENTER ITS ORDER OF TRANSFER, THE GOVERNMENT HAS ADVANCED MANY OF THE
ARGUMENTS WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED TODAY - AND REJECTED - IN EX
PARTE COLLETT, ANTE, P. 55, AND KILPATRICK V. TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO.,
ANTE, P. 75, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT WERE NOW SUBJECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED SEC. 1404(A) TO APPLY ONLY TO ACTIONS THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF
WHICH WERE FORMERLY CONTAINED IN TITLE 28, RATHER THAN TO "ANY CIVIL
ACTION" (THE VENUE REQUIREMENTS IN ANTITRUST CASES ARE DEFINED IN 15
U.S.C. SEC. 22; IN LIABILITY ACT CASES, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 56); AND THAT
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ESTABLISHES VERY CLEARLY THAT CONGRESS HAD NO
DESIRE SUBSTANTIALLY TO CHANGE THE LAW - INDEED, THE GOVERNMENT URGES
US TO DISREGARD THE REVISER'S NOTES WHICH WERE PRINTED IN THE HOUSE
REPORTS.  FN2  WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS POSITION FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED
IN OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS TODAY.  THE REVISER'S NOTES ARE SO OBVIOUSLY
AUTHORITATIVE IN PERCEIVING THE MEANING OF THE CODE THAT THE GOVERNMENT
ITSELF, IN DISCUSSING A SECTION OTHER THAN SEC. 1404(A), REFERS TO THEM
IN ITS BRIEF IN THIS CASE.  AND WE HAVE ALREADY HAD OCCASION TO LOOK TO
THE REVISER'S NOTES.  STAINBACK V. MO HOCK KE LOK PO, 336 U.S. 368,
376, N. 12(1949). 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE REVISER'S NOTES TO SEC. 1404(A), ALTHOUGH CITING
A FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DECISION, MAKE NO REFERENCE TO THE
ANTITRUST LAWS OR TO OUR PREVIOUS DECISION IN THIS LITIGATION.  THE
GOVERNMENT THEREFORE URGES THAT OUR DISPOSITION OF THE LIABILITY ACT
CASES IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  WE DISAGREE.  THE NOTES CITE THE LIABILITY
ACT DECISION "AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE NEED OF SUCH A PROVISION." 
OBVIOUSLY, AN EXAMPLE IS NOT A COMPLETE CATALOGUE.  THE USE OF AN
EXAMPLE IMPLIES NO PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE MEANING OF THE STATUTORY
PHRASE "ANY CIVIL ACTION" PRECISELY TO THE ILLUSTRATION SELECTED. 
QUITE THE CONTRARY, THE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE NOTED DEMONSTRATES THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO EFFECTUATE CHANGES IN THE LAW, IN ORDER TO EXPAND
THE TRANSFERABILITY OF CASES.  AND THE CHANGE IN ANTITRUST PRACTICE
SEEMS NO MORE RADICAL THAN THE CHANGE IN FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT PRACTICE:  BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44(1941), CITED
IN THE REVISER'S NOTE, WAS DECIDED OVER SIX YEARS BEFORE OUR INITIAL
DECISION IN THIS CASE, 334 U.S. 573(1948), WHICH WAS THE FIRST RULING
BY THIS COURT THAT FORUM NON CONVENIENS WAS INAPPLICABLE IN ANTITRUST
SUITS. 

ALTHOUGH NO EXPLANATION IS NEEDED FOR THE LACK OF CONGRESSIONAL
REFERENCE TO OUR FORMER DECISION, SIMPLE CHRONOLOGY MAY BE CONSULTED. 
THE REVISER'S NOTES APPEARED IN HOUSE REPORT NO. 308, 80TH CONGRESS,
1ST SESS., WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN APRIL, 1947.  THE CODE REVISION WAS
INITIALLY PASSED BY THE HOUSE IN JULY, 1947.  FN3  WITH AMENDMENTS, THE
REVISION WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE ON JUNE 12, 1948,  FN4  AND BY THE
HOUSE ON JUNE 16, 1948.  FN5  OUR DECISION IN THE FIRST NATIONAL CITY
LINES CASE, 334 U.S. 573, WAS HANDED DOWN ON JUNE 7, 1948.  CLEARLY,
THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS EXPRESSLY TO CONSIDER THIS DECISION PROVES
NOTHING. 

NOR WAS THERE ANYTHING IN OUR DECISION WHICH REQUIRED UNIQUE
CONGRESSIONAL DISCUSSION, IN THE FACE OF THE UNMISTAKABLE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE AND REVISER'S NOTES.  WE EXPRESSLY HELD THAT "CONGRESS'
MANDATE REGARDING VENUE AND THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IS BINDING
UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS," 334 U.S. AT 588-89, AND THAT DECISION IN THIS
FIELD MUST REST ON "THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AND THE EFFECT OF THE
LANGUAGE USED  ...  ," SUPRA, AT 597.  NOTHING IN OUR PREVIOUS OPINION
INTIMATES THAT WE COULD FAIL TO RESPECT WHATEVER MODIFICATION OF THE
LAW CONGRESS MIGHT ENACT. 

MOREOVER, THIS CHANGE IN THE LAW MUST HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO THE
GOVERNMENT IN TIME FOR IT TO HAVE ADDRESSED THE PROTESTS WHICH WE HAVE
HEARD TO THE CONGRESS.  THIS WAS ADMITTED ON THE ORAL ARGUMENT; IT
COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN DENIED.  WHEN THIS LITIGATION WAS
PREVIOUSLY BEFORE US, NATIONAL CITY'S BRIEF, AT PP. 25-26 AND 45,
EXPRESSLY CALLED ATTENTION TO THE IMMINENT PROBABILITY THAT SEC.
1404(A) WOULD BE ENACTED AND WOULD BE HELD APPLICABLE TO ANTITRUST
SUITS.  THIS BRIEF WAS FILED HERE ON APRIL 26, 1948.  NOT UNTIL JUNE 7,
1948, WAS THE FINAL HEARING ON THE JUDICIAL CODE REVISION HELD BEFORE
THE SENATE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE.  FURTHERMORE, THE CODE PROPOSALS
WERE EXTENSIVELY PUBLICIZED.  SEE EX PARTE COLLETT, ANTE, AT PP. 67
68.  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN PARTICULAR WAS INFORMED:  EACH UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY RECEIVED A COPY OF THE DRAFTS; FN6  A DEPARTMENT
SPOKESMAN TESTIFIED AT THE HOUSE HEARING; FN7  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS
ASKED FOR AN OPINION BY THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE N8.  THE PLAIN
INFERENCE IS EITHER THAT THE GOVERNMENT TOOK NO ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
THE FORTHCOMING ALTERATION OF THE RULE THAT FORUM NON CONVENIENS WAS
INAPPLICABLE TO ANTITRUST SUITS, OR THAT A PROTEST WAS MADE WHICH
CONGRESS DISREGARDED.  NEITHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD OFFER THE SLIGHTEST
JUSTIFICATION FOR OVERRIDING THE UNEQUIVOCAL WORDS OF SEC. 1404(A) AND
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT CONGRESS INDEED MEANT
WHAT IT SAID. 

FOR THESE REASONS, WE CAN FIND NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS CASE AND
THE OTHERS DECIDED TODAY.  WE HOLD THAT SEC. 1404(A) IS APPLICABLE
HERE.  THE MOTION IS DENIED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 869, 992, SEC. 38. 

THERE HAS BEEN APPARENTLY BUT ONE OTHER REPORTED CASE DEALING WITH
THE INSTANT ISSUE.  IT IS IN ACCORD WITH THE HOLDING BELOW.  UNITED
STATES V. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO., 83 F.SUPP.  233(1949). 

SEE, GENERALLY, NOTE, VENUE IN ANTITRUST CASES:  APPLICABILITY OF THE
NEW DISCRETIONARY TRANSFER PROVISION, 58 YALE L.J. 482(1949). 

FN2  THE NOTE TO SEC. 1404(A) APPEARS AT H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. A132(1947) AND H.R. REP. NO. 2646, 79TH CONG., 2D
SESS. A127(1946).  IT READS AS FOLLOWS:  "SUBSECTION (A) WAS DRAFTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, PERMITTING
TRANSFER TO A MORE CONVENIENT FORUM, EVEN THOUGH THE VENUE IS PROPER. 
AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE NEED OF SUCH A PROVISION, SEE BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO. V. KEPNER, 1941, 62 S. CT. 6, 314 U.S. 44, 86 L. ED. 28, WHICH WAS
PROSECUTED UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY ACT IN NEW YORK,
ALTHOUGH THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED AND THE EMPLOYEE RESIDED IN OHIO.  THE
NEW SUBSECTION REQUIRES THE COURT TO DETERMINE THAT THE TRANSFER IS
NECESSARY FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES, AND FURTHER,
THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO DO SO." 

FN3  93 CONG. REC. 8392(1947). 

FN4  94 CONG. REC. 7930(1948). 

FN5 94 CONG. REC. 8501(1948). 

FN6  HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1600
AND H.R. 2055, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8(1947). 

FN7  STATEMENT OF SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BAYNTON,
IBID., 33-34.  "WITH RESPECT TO THE BILL TO CODIFY TITLE 28, THE
DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN GATHERING MEMORANDA FROM ALL ITS VARIOUS DIVISIONS
AND FROM UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS WITH THE HOPE OF MAKING A
COMPREHENSIBLE REPORT ON THAT BILL.  WE HAVE THAT MATERIAL."  ID., 34. 

FN8  LETTER FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL TOM C. CLARK TO CONGRESSMAN
MICHENER, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, APRIL 17, 1947,
H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 8(1947).  THE LETTER DECLARES
THAT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE REVISION ARE "COMMENDABLE AND DESIRABLE,"
AND CONTINUES AS FOLLOWS:  "YOU WILL REMEMBER THE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN
MEMBERS OF THE STAFF OF THE COMMITTEE AND OF THE DEPARTMENT LAST MONTH
AT WHICH THE DEPARTMENT MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO MINOR
CORRECTIONS OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS THEN IN THE DRAFT OF THE BILL BEING
CONSIDERED BY YOUR COMMITTEE. 

"I AM ADVISED THAT THIS CONFERENCE AGREED UPON A NUMBER OF
CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES AND THAT THESE CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES HAVE NOW
BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE BILL WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION OF THE (TAX COURT)
PORTION  ...  "  SEE 93 CONG. REC. 8385(1947). 

(FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURRING IN THE RESULT, SEE
ANTE, P. 72.) 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THERE ARE DIFFICULTIES FOR ME HOWEVER THE CASE IS DECIDED.  BUT I
HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE FAIRER RESULT IS REACHED IF THE AMBIGUITIES AND
DOUBTS, FULLY CANVASSED AND DISCLOSED IN THE COURT'S OPINIONS IN THIS
CASE AND IN EX PARTE COLLETT, ANTE, P. 55, DECIDED THIS DAY, ARE
RESOLVED BY READING SEC. 1404(A) AS MAKING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS APPLICABLE TO ANY CIVIL ACTION AS TO WHICH THE VENUE
PROVISIONS ARE CODIFIED IN REVISED TITLE 28.  THAT GIVES FULL EFFECT TO
THE WORDS "ANY CIVIL ACTION" IN THE FIELD IN WHICH CONGRESS WAS
LEGISLATING.  AND IT AUTHORIZES, AS RESPECTS THAT GROUP OF CASES, A
TRANSFER TO ANOTHER DISTRICT IN LIEU OF OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL AS HAD
PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED.  THAT CONSTRUCTION SAVES SEC. 1404(A), THE VENUE
PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT AND OUR DECISION IN UNITED STATES V.
NATIONAL CITY LINES, INC., 334 U.S. 573, FROM MUTILATION.  I AM
RELUCTANT TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS TOOK THE MORE DRASTIC COURSE IN A
MERE REVISION OF THE CODE.  SO TO HOLD WOULD MAKE A BASIC CHANGE NOT
ONLY IN THE TWO STATUTES INVOLVED IN THESE CASES BUT IN THE SHERMAN
ACT, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 4, 5; THE JONES ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688; THE SUITS
IN ADMIRALTY ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 782; MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 1128D; THE SECURITIES ACT, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 77A, 77V; THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 78A, 78AA; THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 79, 79Y; THE INVESTMENT COMPANY
ACT, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 80A-1, 80A-43; AND PERHAPS IN OTHER STATUTES TOO. 

..END :



HYNES V. GRIMES PACKING CO., 337 U.S. 86 


NO. 24.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1949.  - 165 F.2D
323, DECREE VACATED AND CASE REMANDED. 


UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
ISSUED PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 128, DESIGNATING AS AN INDIAN RESERVATION,
FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE NATIVE INHABITANTS OF KARLUK, ALASKA,
CERTAIN DESCRIBED LANDS AND THE WATERS ADJACENT THERETO EXTENDING
"3,000 FEET FROM THE SHORE LINE AT MEAN LOW TIDE."  CLAIMING AUTHORITY
UNDER THE WHITE ACT, 43 STAT. 464, WHICH PRESCRIBED DRASTIC PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS, THE SECRETARY PROMULGATED A REGULATION PROHIBITING
COMMERCIAL FISHING IN THE WATERS OF THE RESERVATION EXCEPT BY NATIVES
OR THEIR LICENSEES.  COMPANIES WHICH FOR YEARS HAD ENGAGED IN CANNING
FISH TAKEN FROM THESE WATERS, WHICH DEPENDED ON THAT SOURCE OF SUPPLY
FOR PROFITABLE OPERATIONS, AND WHICH HAD A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN
THEIR BUSINESS, SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN PERMANENTLY THE
EXCLUSION OF THEIR FISHERMEN FROM THE RESERVATION, ON THE GROUND OF THE
INVALIDITY OF THE LAND ORDER AND THE REGULATION.  NAMED AS SOLE
DEFENDANT WAS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA OF THE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.  HELD: 

1.  THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY
DEFENDANT TO THE SUIT, SINCE A DECREE REQUIRING THE DEFENDANT AND HIS
SUBORDINATES TO CEASE THEIR INTERFERENCE WILL AFFORD ALL THE RELIEF
SOUGHT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OR ANY OF HIS
SUBORDINATES TO TAKE ANY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  PP. 96-97. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT.  PP. 97
100. 

(A)  THE FACTS SUFFICIENTLY SHOW THAT THE COMPLAINANTS ARE WITHOUT AN
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW AND WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY UNLESS THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATION IS RESTRAINED.  PP. 97-100. 

(B)  ALTHOUGH CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, EVEN UNDER AN INVALID STATUTE,
WILL ORDINARILY NOT BE RESTRAINED, A CIVIL ACTION WILL LIE IN
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAKE AN INJUNCTION NECESSARY EFFECTUALLY
TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS.  PP. 98-99. 

3.  THE SECRETARY'S INCLUSION IN THE KARLUK RESERVATION OF THE WATERS
DESCRIBED IN THE LAND ORDER WAS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT MAY 1,
1936.  PP. 100-116. 

(A)  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, AUTHORIZING
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO DESIGNATE AS A RESERVATION ANY "PUBLIC
LANDS WHICH ARE ACTUALLY OCCUPIED" BY INDIANS IN ALASKA, DID NOT
PRECLUDE THE INCLUSION OF COASTAL WATERS IN THE KARLUK RESERVATION. 
PP. 110-116. 

(B)  THE FACT THAT TIDELANDS ARE EMBRACED WITHIN THE AREA DESIGNATED
AS THE KARLUK RESERVATION IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  PP. 114-115. 

(C)  A STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZED PERMANENT DISPOSITION OF FEDERAL
PROPERTY WOULD BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED TO AVOID INCLUSION OF FISHERIES BY
IMPLICATION.  P. 104. 

(D)  THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WAS WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO
CONVEY TO THE INDIANS ANY PERMANENT TITLE OR RIGHT IN THE LANDS OR
WATERS OF THE KARLUK RESERVATION.  PP. 101-106. 

(E)  INDIAN RESERVATIONS IN ALASKA, ESTABLISHED OR ENLARGED UNDER
SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, ARE SUBJECT TO THE UNFETTERED WILL OF
CONGRESS.  P. 106. 

(F)  NON-REVOCABILITY IN THE CASE OF THE KARLUK RESERVATION CAN NOT
BE PREDICATED ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, WHICH MUST
BE CONSTRUED AS EFFECTIVE ONLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN SPECIFIC
RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF INDIAN RIGHTS TO CONTROL ABSOLUTELY
TRIBAL LANDS.  PP. 106-107. 

(G)  REFERENCES TO GENERAL LEGISLATION ON PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA,
APPEARING IN A LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PRINTED IN THE
HOUSE AND SENATE REPORTS ON THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF MAY 1,
1936, CAN NOT BE REGARDED AS AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR ADJUDGING POWER IN
THE SECRETARY TO DISPOSE FINALLY OF SUCH LANDS.  PP. 108-110. 

4.  THE REGULATION PROHIBITING COMMERCIAL FISHING IN THE WATERS OF
THE KARLUK RESERVATION EXCEPT BY NATIVES OR THEIR LICENSEES WAS VOID AS
A WHOLE, BECAUSE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISO OF THE WHITE ACT THAT "NO
EXCLUSIVE OR SEVERAL RIGHT OF FISHERY SHALL BE GRANTED."  PP. 116-123. 

(A)  THE GENERAL PROHIBITION AND THE EXCEPTION IN THE REGULATION ARE
NOT SEPARABLE, AND THE REGULATION MAY NOT BE UPHELD AS IMPOSING A
PROHIBITION APPLICABLE TO EVERYONE.  P. 118. 

(B)  THE WHITE ACT, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE
THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA ON A NON-MONOPOLISTIC BASIS, AUTHORIZES THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESERVES OR CLOSED AREAS IN RESERVATIONS CREATED
UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936.  PP. 118-119. 

(C)  SECTION 8 OF THE WHITE ACT DOES NOT MAKE EXCLUSIVE THE POWER OF
THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE TO LICENSE FISHING.  P. 121. 

(D)  LICENSES FOR FISHING MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR IN AREAS REGULATED UNDER THE WHITE ACT; BUT SUCH LICENSES MAY
BE ONLY REGULATORY IN CHARACTER AND, WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE
SECRETARY, MUST HAVE THEIR COST FIXED SO AS NOT TO EXCEED THE ESTIMATED
COST OF REASONABLE POLICING OF THE AREA.  PP. 121-122. 

(E)  THE WHITE ACT DOES NOT EMPOWER THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
RAISE GENERAL FUNDS FOR NATIVE WELFARE OR GENERAL CONSERVATION PURPOSES
FROM WHITE ACT PRESERVES.  P. 122. 

(F)  THE PROVISO OF SEC. 1 OF THE WHITE ACT "THAT NO EXCLUSIVE OR
SEVERAL RIGHT OF FISHERY SHALL BE GRANTED" APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL
FISHING BY NATIVES AS WELL AS BY FISHING COMPANIES, NONRESIDENTS OF
ALASKA OR OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND SO APPLIES WHETHER THOSE NATIVES
ARE OR ARE NOT RESIDENTS ON A RESERVATION.  PP. 122-123. 

(G)  THE ADOPTION OF A CORPORATE CHARTER AND A CONSTITUTION BY THE
NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK UNDER SECS. 16 AND 17 OF THE WHEELER-HOWARD
ACT CAN NOT EXPAND THE POWER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UNDER THE
WHITE ACT.  P. 122. 

(H)  THE SANCTIONS OF THE WHITE ACT MAY NOT BE EMPLOYED TO PROTECT
THE KARLUK RESERVATION AGAINST TRESPASS.  PP. 122-123. 

5.  IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE FOREGOING HOLDINGS ESTABLISH A NEW
BASIS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CONCLUSIONS, THE DECREES OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, GRANTING A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND OF THE INVALIDITY OF BOTH THE REGULATION AND
THE LAND ORDER, ARE VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTIONS AS TO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 123-127. 

HYNES, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, V. GRIMES PACKING CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

SEVERAL COMPANIES WHICH WERE ENGAGED IN THE CANNING OF FISH IN ALASKA
BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A FEDERAL REGULATION PROHIBITING COMMERCIAL FISHING IN
THE WATERS OF THE KARLUK RESERVATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  67 F.SUPP.  43.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
165 F.2D 323.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 866.  DECREES
VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, P. 127. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON MAY 22, 1943, ISSUED PUBLIC LAND
ORDER 128.  IT IS SET OUT IN FULL BELOW.  FN1  IN THIS CASE THE
SIGNIFICANT PART OF NO. 128 IS THAT THE SECRETARY INCLUDED IN THE
RESERVATION, BY PARAGRAPH 2, ADJACENT TIDELANDS AND COASTAL WATERS
ALONG THE ENTIRE SHORE LINE OF THE UPLANDS THAT TOUCHED SHELIKOF STRAIT
BETWEEN KODIAK ISLAND AND THE ALASKA PENINSULA.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE
SECRETARY TO UTILIZE PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN THE DESIGNATION OF THIS
RESERVATION OUT OF PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA FLOWS FROM A DELEGATION TO
THE SECRETARY OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER TO WITHDRAW OR RESERVE PUBLIC LANDS
AND REVOKE OR MODIFY PRIOR RESERVATIONS.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9146, OF
APRIL 24, 1942, 1 C.F.R., CUM. SUPP. 1149.  THE PRESIDENTIAL POWER OVER
RESERVATIONS IS MADE SPECIFIC BY THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910.  FN2
ANOTHER STATUTORY PROVISION, HOWEVER, IS THE PRINCIPAL BASIS FOR ORDER
128.  THIS IS SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, 49 STAT. 1250.  THIS
ACT WAS PASSED TO EXTEND TO ALASKA THE BENEFITS OF THE WHEELER-HOWARD
ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, 48 STAT. 984, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGNATION
OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS IN ALASKA.  AS SEC. 2 IS IMPORTANT IN OUR
DISCUSSION, THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS ARE SET OUT IN FULL: 

"SEC. 2.  THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO
DESIGNATE AS AN INDIAN RESERVATION ANY AREA OF LAND WHICH HAS BEEN
RESERVED FOR THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF INDIANS OR ESKIMOS BY SECTION 8
OF THE ACT OF MAY 17, 1884(23 STAT. 26), OR BY SECTION 14 OR SECTION 15
OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891(26 STAT. 1101), OR WHICH HAS BEEN
HERETOFORE RESERVED UNDER ANY EXECUTIVE ORDER AND PLACED UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OR ANY BUREAU THEREOF,
TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL PUBLIC LANDS ADJACENT THERETO, WITHIN THE
TERRITORY OF ALASKA, OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC LANDS WHICH ARE ACTUALLY
OCCUPIED BY INDIANS OR ESKIMOS WITHIN SAID TERRITORY: PROVIDED, THAT
THE DESIGNATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OF ANY SUCH AREA OF
LAND AS A RESERVATION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY UPON ITS APPROVAL BY THE
VOTE, BY SECRET BALLOT, OF A MAJORITY OF THE INDIAN OR ESKIMO RESIDENTS
THEREOF WHO VOTE AT A SPECIAL ELECTION DULY CALLED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR UPON THIRTY DAYS' NOTICE:  ...  " 

THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK HELD A MEETING ON MAY 23, 1944, AND
ACCEPTED "THE PROPOSED INDIAN RESERVATION FOR THIS VILLAGE.  THE
ADOPTION OF SAID RESERVATION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 46 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. 
11 OF THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS WERE ABSENT."  SEE NOTE 26, INFRA.  UNDER
SEC. 19 OF THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT THE ALASKAN ABORIGINES ARE CLASSIFIED
AS INDIANS. 

ON MARCH 22 AND AUGUST 27, 1946, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
AMENDED THE ALASKA FISHERIES GENERAL REGULATIONS, 50 C.F.R., 1946
SUPP., SEC. 208.23, THAT RELATED TO THE COMMERCIAL FISHING FOR SALMON
IN THE KODIAK AREA FISHERIES BY THE ADDITION OF A SUBSECTION (R),
READING AS FOLLOWS: 

"(R)  ALL WATERS WITHIN 3,000 FEET OF THE SHORES OF KARLUK
RESERVATION (PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 128, MAY 22, 1943), BEGINNING AT A
POINT ON THE EAST SHORE OF SHELIKOF STRAIT, ON KODIAK ISLAND, LATITUDE
57 DEGREE 32'30" N., THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SHORE TO A POINT
57 DEGREE 39'40". 

"THE FOREGOING PROHIBITION SHALL NOT APPLY TO FISHING BY NATIVES IN
POSSESSION OF SAID RESERVATION, NOR TO FISHING BY OTHER PERSONS UNDER
AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SAID NATIVES (49 STAT. 1250; 48 U.S.C. 358A). 
SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE GRANTED ONLY BY OR PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE OF THE
NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK, APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR
HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE."  11 FED. REG. 3105, 9528. 

THE AUTHORITY FOR THE REGULATION IS GIVEN AS 34 STAT. 263 AND 478, AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 6, 1924, 43 STAT. 464, AN ACT FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA, KNOWN AS THE WHITE ACT.  FN3  AS
THE CONTROLLING SECTION OF THIS STATUTE ALSO IS IMPORTANT, IT IS SET
OUT HERE,  FN4 44 STAT. 752: 

"SECTION 1.  THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING AND CONSERVING THE
FISHERIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN ALL WATERS OF ALASKA THE SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FROM TIME TO TIME MAY SET APART AND RESERVE FISHING AREAS IN
ANY OF THE WATERS OF ALASKA OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS
JURISDICTION, AND WITHIN SUCH AREAS MAY ESTABLISH CLOSED SEASONS DURING
WHICH FISHING MAY BE LIMITED OR PROHIBITED AS HE MAY PRESCRIBE.  UNDER
THIS AUTHORITY TO LIMIT FISHING IN ANY AREA SO SET APART AND RESERVED
THE SECRETARY MAY (A) FIX THE SIZE AND CHARACTER OF NETS, BOATS, TRAPS,
OR OTHER GEAR AND APPLIANCES TO BE USED THEREIN; (B) LIMIT THE CATCH OF
FISH TO BE TAKEN FROM ANY AREA; (C) MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS AS TO TIME,
MEANS, METHODS, AND EXTENT OF FISHING AS HE MAY DEEM ADVISABLE.  FROM
AND AFTER THE CREATION OF ANY SUCH FISHING AREA AND DURING THE TIME
FISHING IS PROHIBITED THEREIN IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO FISH THEREIN OR
TO OPERATE THEREIN ANY BOAT, SEINE, TRAP, OR OTHER GEAR OR APPARATUS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING FISH; AND FROM AND AFTER THE CREATION OF ANY
SUCH FISHING AREA IN WHICH LIMITED FISHING IS PERMITTED SUCH FISHING
SHALL BE CARRIED ON ONLY DURING THE TIME, IN THE MANNER, TO THE EXTENT,
AND IN CONFORMITY WITH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE SECRETARY
PRESCRIBES UNDER THE AUTHORITY HEREIN GIVEN:  PROVIDED, THAT EVERY SUCH
REGULATION MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE SHALL BE OF GENERAL
APPLICATION WITHIN THE PARTICULAR AREA TO WHICH IT APPLIES, AND THAT NO
EXCLUSIVE OR SEVERAL RIGHT OF FISHERY SHALL BE GRANTED THEREIN, NOR
SHALL ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO TAKE,
PREPARE, CURE, OR PRESERVE FISH OR SHELLFISH IN ANY AREA OF THE WATERS
OF ALASKA WHERE FISHING IS PERMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.  ...
"  (SEE FOR DEFINITION OF "SEVERAL," 2 BL. COM. 39-40.) 

THESE ARE THE STATUTES AND ORDERS THAT CREATED THE SITUATION THAT LED
TO THIS LITIGATION. 

THE ISSUANCE OF THE WHITE ACT REGULATION OF MARCH 22, 1946, BROUGHT
CONCERN TO THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INTERESTS OF ALASKA.  THIS WAS
BECAUSE OF ITS DRASTIC PENALTIES.  SEE NOTE 49, INFRA.  THE NATIVE
VILLAGE OF KARLUK SPOKEN OF IN ORDER NO. 128 ESTABLISHING THE
RESERVATION IS SITUATED ON THE KARLUK RIVER, LONG RECOGNIZED AS ONE OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT SALMON SPAWNING STREAMS OF ALASKA.  THE NATIVES LIVE
AT ITS MOUTH ON SHELIKOF STRAIT.  THERE THE SALMON MUST CONGREGATE FROM
THE STRAIT TO ENTER THE CHANNEL OF THE RIVER LEADING TO THEIR SPAWNING
GROUNDS IN THE INTERIOR OF KODIAK ISLAND.  THE WATERS INCLUDED IN THE
RESERVATION ARE THOSE STRETCHING EIGHT MILES ALONG THE COAST NORTH AND
SOUTH OF THE MOUTH, 3,000 FEET INTO THE STRAIT.  THUS THE BEST OF THE
KARLUK SALMON FISHERY IS PUT INTO THE RESERVATION BY ORDER NO. 128. 
FN5  FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOCALITY, A SKETCH MAP IS APPENDED. 

(FORM OMITTED) 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE KARLUK FISHERY WILL BE APPRECIATED BY REFERENCE
TO A FEW OF THE FACTS IN CONNECTION WITH IT.  WHEN RUSSIA CEDED ALASKA
TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1867, 15 STAT. 539, KARLUK WAS ALREADY WELL
KNOWN AS AN ABUNDANT SALMON FISHERY.  FN6  BY 1885 THE SALMON CANNERIES
WERE FLOURISHING AND BANCROFT REPORTS THE KARLUK PACK AT 36,000 CASES
OUT OF A TOTAL OF 65,000.  FN7 THE PRODUCTION CONTINUED LARGE.  FN8
THE RED SALMON WAS MOST PROLIFIC.  THERE WERE VARIATIONS IN THE CATCH
BUT IT WAS ALWAYS VALUABLE.  FN9  IN LATER YEARS, THE FLUCTUATIONS
CONTINUED AND OTHER VARIETIES INCREASED RELATIVELY.  FN10 

NONE OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES HAVE PACKING PLANTS AT KARLUK.  ALL
ARE, HOWEVER, ON KODIAK ISLAND, WHICH IS AROUND 100 MILES LONG AND 50
BROAD, AND WITHIN FISHING DISTANCE OF THE RESERVATION WATERS.  THERE IS
A FISH REFRIGERATION PLANT ON THE RIVER.  THESE CANNERS HAVE CANNED
FISH FROM THESE WATERS FOR FROM SEVEN TO TWENTY-FOUR YEARS.  THE
PERCENTAGE OF EACH CANNER'S PACK THAT COMES FROM THE RESERVED WATERS IS
SO LARGE THAT THE TRIAL COURT FOUND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE PACKERS
IF THEY COULD NOT OBTAIN THE CATCH OF THE RESERVATION.  "...  NO OTHER
REPLACEMENT SOURCE OF SUCH SALMON FOR THEIR CANNERIES ON KODIAK ISLAND
IS AVAILABLE TO THEM."  THE CANNERS' INVESTMENT IS SUBSTANTIAL, RUNNING
FROM TWO TO FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS RESPECTIVELY.  THE FISHING IS
DONE BY MEN WHO OWN THEIR OWN THREE- TO FOUR-MAN BOATS, USE SIMILAR
COMPANY BOATS OR OPERATE UNDER BOAT-BUYING CONTRACTS.  PRICES FOR THE
CATCH VARY FOR THESE CLASSIFICATIONS.  THESE PACKERS EMPLOY OVER FOUR
HUNDRED FISHERMEN, CHIEFLY RESIDENTS OF ALASKA, AND OVER SIX HUNDRED
CANNERY EMPLOYEES, CHIEFLY NONRESIDENTS. 

THE FISHING SEASON AT KARLUK BEGINS AROUND JUNE 1 AND CONTINUES
INTERMITTENTLY, DEPENDING UPON THE RUN OF FISH, UNTIL SEPT. 30.  AFTER
THE ISSUANCE OF SEC. 208.23(R) RESTRICTING THE FISHERY AT KARLUK
RESERVATION TO KARLUK NATIVES AND LICENSEES, RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THIS
ACTION AGAINST THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA OF THE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO PERMANENTLY ENJOIN THE EXCLUSION OF THEIR
FISHERMEN FROM THE RESERVATION ON THE GROUND THAT NEITHER REGULATION
SEC. 208.23(R) NOR PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 128 LEGALLY CLOSED THE FISHERY
OF THE COASTAL WATERS TO RESPONDENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND HELD INVALID BOTH THE REGULATION AND THE LAND
ORDER.  67 F.SUPP.  43.  ON THE SAME GROUNDS THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE ORDER FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  165
F.2D 323. 

                      I. 

(A)  AT THE OUTSET THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY WHO MUST BE JOINED AS A PARTY
DEFENDANT IN ORDER TO GIVE THE DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION OF THIS
SUIT.  IN WILLIAMS V. FANNING, 332 U.S. 490, THE TEST AS TO WHETHER A
SUPERIOR OFFICIAL CAN BE DISPENSED WITH AS A PARTY WAS STATED TO BE
WHETHER "THE DECREE WHICH IS ENTERED WILL EFFECTIVELY GRANT THE RELIEF
DESIRED BY EXPENDING ITSELF ON THE SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL WHO IS BEFORE
THE COURT."  P. 494.  SUCH IS THE PRECISE SITUATION HERE.  NOTHING IS
REQUIRED OF THE SECRETARY; HE DOES NOT HAVE TO PERFORM ANY ACT, EITHER
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.  RESPONDENTS MERELY SEEK AN INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING PETITIONER FROM INTERFERING WITH THEIR FISHING.  NO
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED OF PETITIONER, AND IF HE AND HIS
SUBORDINATES CEASE THEIR INTERFERENCE, RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN ACCORDED
ALL THE RELIEF WHICH THEY SEEK.  THE ISSUES OF THE INSTANT SUIT CAN BE
SETTLED BY A DECREE BETWEEN THESE PARTIES WITHOUT HAVING THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR AS A PARTY TO THE LITIGATION. 

(B)  PETITIONER, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA OF THE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT, IS CHARGED WITH
THE DUTY OF ENFORCING THE ACTS OF CONGRESS RELATING TO THE FISHERIES OF
ALASKA AND REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT SINCE MARCH 22, 1946, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEC. 208.23(R) OF THE
ALASKA FISHERIES GENERAL REGULATIONS, PETITIONER HAS CONTINUALLY
THREATENED THE SEIZURE OF ALL BOATS AND EQUIPMENT USED TO FISH IN THE
WATERS COVERED BY THIS REGULATION TO RESPONDENTS' SUBSTANTIAL AND
IRREPARABLE LOSS, AND THAT THE SEASONAL RUN OF SALMON IN THE
RESERVATION WATERS WAS ESSENTIAL FOR RESPONDENTS' PROFITABLE
OPERATION.  FROM THE FOLLOWING FACTS IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THERE IS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE FINDINGS. 

AFTER THE PROMULGATION OF THE FISHERY REGULATION, SEC. 208.23(R), THE
WARDEN FOR THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ON KODIAK ISLAND, ONE OF
PETITIONER'S SUBORDINATE AGENTS, REPEATEDLY INFORMED OFFICIALS OF THE
CANNERIES THAT THE REGULATION WOULD BE ENFORCED AND THAT THE NECESSARY
STEPS WOULD BE TAKEN TO PROSECUTE ANY VIOLATIONS.  HE COMMUNICATED TO
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CANNERIES THE CONTENTS OF A TELEGRAM IN
WHICH PETITIONER DIRECTED THAT A CASE TO TEST THE REGULATION BE
ARRANGED FOR THE OPENING DAY OF THE FISHING SEASON.  THE CONTENTS OF
THIS TELEGRAM WERE RELAYED TO THE HEADQUARTERS IN SEATTLE OF THE ALASKA
SALMON INDUSTRY, INC., A TRADE ASSOCIATION OF THE CANNED SALMON PACKERS
OF WHICH ALL BUT ONE OF RESPONDENTS ARE MEMBERS.  THENCE THE
INFORMATION WAS DISTRIBUTED TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES.  THE KODIAK
WARDEN THEN REITERATED TO THE CANNERY OPERATORS ON THAT ISLAND HIS
INTENTION TO ENFORCE THE REGULATION EVEN THOUGH HIS FORCE AND EQUIPMENT
WERE INADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE. 

THEREAFTER TWO OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN SERVICE WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL
AGENTS FOR THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO ASSIST IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE FISHING REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT.  THEY
ARRIVED AT KARLUK JUNE 24, 1946.  THESE TWO DEPUTIES WERE ARMED AND
MAINTAINED A BOAT PATROL IN THE WATERS OF THE RESERVATION.  THEY
CHECKED THE NAMES OF BOATS FISHING IN THE WATERS OF THE RESERVATION
AGAINST THE PERMITS ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OF KARLUK.  NO BOATS WERE
ALLOWED INSIDE THE AREA WHICH HAD BEEN RESTRICTED FOR BEACH SEINING BY
VOTE OF THE INDIAN MEETING OF MAY 23, 1944,  FN11  AND WHICH WAS MARKED
OFF BY BUOYS.    IF RESPONDENTS SHOW THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE
REMEDY AT LAW AND WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY UNLESS THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE ALLEGED INVALID REGULATION IS RESTRAINED, A CIVIL COURT WILL
ENJOIN.  FN12  WHILE ORDINARILY CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS WILL NOT BE
RESTRAINED EVEN UNDER AN INVALID STATUTE,  FN13  A CIVIL ACTION WILL
LIE IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAKE AN INJUNCTION NECESSARY TO
EFFECTUALLY PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS.  FN14 

THE FACTS HERETOFORE DETAILED AS TO THE INVESTMENTS OF RESPONDENTS IN
CANNERIES AND FISHING EQUIPMENT AND THEIR ESTABLISHED ACTIVITIES IN THE
WATERS OF THE RESERVATION MAKE CLEAR THE SERIOUS EFFECT ON THEM OF
EXCLUSION FROM THE RESERVATION.  IT IS NOT A THREAT OF A SINGLE
PROSECUTION, AS IN THE SPIELMAN CASE, BUT AN OUSTING OF RESPONDENTS AND
THEIR EMPLOYEES FROM THE FISHING GROUNDS UNLESS EACH INDIVIDUAL PERSON
TAKES A FISHING LICENSE.  UNDER THE FINDINGS THE RESPONDENTS COULD NOT
OPERATE PROFITABLY IF PROHIBITED FROM FISHING IN THE RESERVATION AREA. 
MANY FISHERMEN MAY STAY AWAY FROM THE GROUNDS FOR FEAR OF PUNISHMENT. 
IN THE PURSUIT OF THEIR OTHERWISE LAWFUL BUSINESS RESPONDENTS ARE
THREATENED WITH CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SHOULD THEY FISH IN THE WATERS OF
THE KARLUK RESERVATION WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE NATIVE VILLAGE.  FOR
THE VIOLATION OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATION UNDER THE WHITE ACT, SEVERE
PENALTIES ARE IMPOSED, INCLUDING FINE, IMPRISONMENT, THE SUMMARY
SEIZURE OF BOATS, HAUL, GEAR, EQUIPMENT, AND THEIR FORFEITURE TO THE
UNITED STATES.  FN15 THESE SANCTIONS DENY TO RESPONDENTS AN ADEQUATE
REMEDY AT LAW, FOR TO CHALLENGE THE REGULATION IN AN ORDINARY CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING IS TO HAZARD A LOSS AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF A LICENSE FEE AND
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FISHING RULES OF THE NATIVES.  YET TO STAY OUT OF
THE RESERVATION PREVENTS THE PROFITABLE OPERATION OF THE CANNERIES.  IN
SUCH A SITUATION A MAJORITY OF THE COURT THINKS THAT THE "DANGER OF
IRREPARABLE LOSS IS BOTH GREAT AND IMMEDIATE" AND PROPERLY CALLS FORTH
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF EQUITY.  FN16

                                 II. 

RESPONDENTS SOUGHT THIS INJUNCTION FORBIDDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AIMED AT EXCLUDING THEM FROM FISHING IN THE COASTAL WATERS OF KARLUK
RESERVATION ON THE GROUND THAT PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 128, NOTE 1,
SUPRA, WAS INVALID AS A WHOLE AND PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF THE INCLUSION
OF TIDELANDS AND COASTAL WATERS BY SEC. 2 OF THE ORDER. 

RESPONDENTS ATTACK IN THEIR COMPLAINT THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE
ORDER BECAUSE "NO PART OF THE LAND AREA INVOLVED HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER AND PLACED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936, AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF MAY 1,
1936."  THIS POSITION HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED OR DECIDED.  FN17  THE FINAL
ORDER FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST PETITIONER DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY RULING
ON THAT POINT. 

NOR DO WE THINK THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
ESTABLISH THE KARLUK RESERVATION, PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128, BY VIRTUE OF
THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE AREA BY THE NATIVES UNDER SEC. 8 OF THE
ACT OF MAY 17, 1884, 23 STAT. 26, OR SECS. 14 OR 15 OF THE ACT OF MARCH
3, 1891, 26 STAT. 1101, NEED BE DECIDED.  WHILE THE POINT IS REFERRED
TO IN THE BRIEFS, NO SUCH ISSUE WAS TENDERED BY THE COMPLAINT; NO SUCH
POINT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR; THE QUESTION WAS
SPECIFICALLY PRETERMITTED BY THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, 165
F.2D AT 325; IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND IS NOT RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENTS TO
REQUIRE AFFIRMANCE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DECREE. 

(A)  THE VALIDITY OF PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128 DEPENDS IN THIS CASE ON
THE SCOPE OF THE POWER GRANTED TO THE SECRETARY TO ESTABLISH THIS
RESERVATION BY THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, SUPRA,
AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO DESIGNATE AS A RESERVATION
"ANY OTHER PUBLIC LANDS WHICH ARE ACTUALLY OCCUPIED BY INDIANS OR
ESKIMOS WITHIN SAID TERRITORY."  AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER IS
PRESUMPTIVELY VALID.  FN18 

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE SECRETARY ACTED UNDER A STATUTE, SEC. 2, ACT OF
MAY 1, 1936, AND THROUGH DELEGATION OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY.  FN19
THIS DELEGATION IN TURN RESTED ON THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, 36 STAT.
847.  FN20  THIS CHAIN OF DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR THE ALLOCATION OF
PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA RETAINS FOR FUTURE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THE
POWER FOR THE ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY, LAND AND WATER,
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RESERVATION.  WITHDRAWALS UNDER THE ACT OF
JUNE 25, 1910, ARE "TEMPORARY" AND "UNTIL REVOKED BY HIM OR BY AN ACT
OF CONGRESS." 

THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, "TO CONSERVE AND DEVELOP
INDIAN LANDS AND RESOURCES," WHICH WAS EXTENDED TO THE TERRITORY OF
ALASKA BY SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO RESTORE TO TRIBAL OWNERSHIP ONLY THE REMAINING SURPLUS
LANDS OF ANY INDIAN RESERVATION THERETOFORE OPENED FOR SALE OR OTHER
DISPOSITION.  FN21  IT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF RESERVATION OF
ANY KIND.  ITS ONLY REFERENCE TO ACQUISITION OF LANDS BY OR FOR INDIANS
IS IN SEC. 5 WHERE APPROPRIATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
THIS SECTION IS INAPPLICABLE HERE. 

OPINION, PAGE 91, SUPRA, GIVES NO POWER TO THE SECRETARY TO DISPOSE
FINALLY OF FEDERAL LANDS.  BY THE NEW SECTION HE IS AUTHORIZED SIMPLY
"TO DESIGNATE AS AN INDIAN RESERVATION" ANY OTHER PUBLIC LANDS WHICH
ARE ACTUALLY OCCUPIED BY INDIANS OR ESKIMOS WITHIN SAID TERRITORY. 
THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE VARIOUS ACTS, IN THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
OR IN LAND ORDER 128, FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE
SECRETARY HAS OR HAS CLAIMED POWER TO CONVEY ANY PERMANENT TITLE OR
RIGHT TO THE INDIANS IN THE LANDS OR WATERS OF KARLUK RESERVATION. 
RATHER THE CONTRARY IS TRUE.  IN THE ACT OF MAY 14, 1898, 30 STAT. 409,
48 U.S.C. SEC. 411, "EXTENDING THE HOMESTEAD LAWS AND PROVIDING FOR
RIGHT OF WAY FOR RAILROADS IN THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES," THERE IS THE EXPRESS PROVISO THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE
ACT "SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS IMPAIRING IN ANY DEGREE THE TITLE OF ANY
STATE THAT MAY HEREAFTER BE ERECTED OUT OF THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA, OR
ANY PART THEREOF, TO TIDE LANDS AND BEDS OF ANY OF ITS NAVIGABLE
WATERS, OR THE RIGHT OF SUCH STATE TO REGULATE THE USE THEREOF, NOR THE
RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO RESUME POSSESSION OF SUCH LANDS, IT BEING
DECLARED THAT ALL SUCH RIGHTS SHALL CONTINUE TO BE HELD BY THE UNITED
STATES IN TRUST FOR THE PEOPLE OF ANY STATE OR STATES WHICH MAY
HEREAFTER BE ERECTED OUT OF SAID TERRITORY.  THE TERM 'NAVIGABLE
WATERS,' AS HEREIN USED, SHALL BE HELD TO INCLUDE ALL TIDAL WATERS UP
TO THE LINE OF ORDINARY HIGH TIDE AND ALL NONTIDAL WATERS NAVIGABLE IN
FACT UP TO THE LINE OF ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK."  INDEED THE UNITED
STATES AFFIRMS IN ITS BRIEF THAT KARLUK RESERVATION IS MERELY A
RESERVATION "FOR A PARTICULAR GOVERNMENTAL USE," NOT A DISPOSAL OF THE
AREA.  THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT IS LIKE SIOUX TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 316
U.S. 317, NOT LIKE UNITED STATES V. HOLT BANK, 270 U.S. 49. 

AN INDIAN RESERVATION CREATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
CONVEYS NO RIGHT OF USE OR OCCUPANCY TO THE BENEFICIARIES BEYOND THE
PLEASURE OF CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENT.  SUCH RIGHTS MAY BE TERMINATED
BY THE UNILATERAL ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT LEGAL LIABILITY
FOR COMPENSATION IN ANY FORM EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS HAS PERMITTED SUIT ON
THE CLAIM.  SIOUX TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 317; SEE UNITED
STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339 AT 347.  FN22  WHEN A
RESERVATION IS ESTABLISHED BY A TREATY RATIFIED BY THE SENATE OR A
STATUTE, THE QUALITY OF THE RIGHTS THEREBY SECURED TO THE OCCUPANTS OF
THE RESERVATION DEPENDS UPON THE LANGUAGE OR PURPOSE OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  FN23  SINCE CONGRESS, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION,
SEC. 3 OF ART. IV, HAS THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF THE LANDS OF THE UNITED
STATES, IT MAY CONVEY TO OR RECOGNIZE SUCH RIGHTS IN THE INDIANS, EVEN
A TITLE EQUAL TO FEE SIMPLE, AS IN ITS JUDGMENT IS JUST.  SHOSHONE
INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 335, 339, 340.  WHEN CONGRESS
INTENDS TO DELEGATE POWER TO TURN OVER LANDS TO THE INDIANS
PERMANENTLY, ONE WOULD EXPECT TO AND DOUBTLESS WOULD FIND DEFINITE
INDICATIONS OF SUCH A PURPOSE.  FN24 

IN THE PRESENT CASE A DETERMINATION OF THE POWER DELEGATED TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BY THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934,
AND SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, IS IMPORTANT.  IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR THE REASON THAT A STATUTE THAT AUTHORIZES PERMANENT DISPOSITION OF
FEDERAL PROPERTY WOULD BE MOST STRICTLY CONSTRUED TO AVOID INCLUSION OF
FISHERIES BY IMPLICATION.  PETITIONER ARGUES FOR A HOLDING THAT THE
POWER GRANTED COVERS WATER AS WELL AS LAND.  IF THAT POWER WERE BROAD
ENOUGH TO ENABLE THE SECRETARY TO DESIGNATE NONREVOCABLE OR PERMANENT
RESERVATIONS OF ALL ALASKA FISHING GROUNDS FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF
NATIVES LIVING IN VILLAGES ADJACENT TO THE FISHERIES, IT MIGHT PLACE IN
HIS HANDS THE POWER TO GRANT THE NATIVES THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHER
FISHERMEN FROM THE FISHERIES.  IN THIS PRESENT CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT
MIGHT MEAN THAT THE NATIVE RESIDENTS OF THE KARLUK RESERVATION WOULD
HAVE THE PERPETUAL USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THIS VALUABLE KARLUK FISHERY
FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR LICENSEES.  FN25 ON MAY 23, 1944, A YEAR AFTER
PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128, THE PETITIONER SHOWS THAT THERE WERE 57
RESIDENTS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE FOR APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE
RESERVATION.  FN26  AS INDICATED BY THE CASES HEREINBEFORE CITED, A
RECOGNITION OF SUCH OWNERSHIP IN INDIANS MIGHT REQUIRE JUST
COMPENSATION TO THEM OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE FISHERY, IF THE UNITED
STATES SHOULD DESIRE HEREAFTER TO REOPEN THE AREA TO THE PUBLIC UNDER
ITS REGULATIONS.  THERE IS MUCH LESS REASON TO READ SUCH POWER OF
PERMANENT DISPOSITION BY THE SECRETARY INTO SEC. 2 THAN THERE WAS TO
READ IT INTO THE PRESIDENT'S "IMPLIED GRANT OF POWER" TO CREATE
RESERVATIONS.  UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO., 236 U.S. 459, 475.  IT
WOULD TAKE SPECIFIC AND UNAMBIGUOUS LEGISLATION TO CAUSE US TO RULE
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
ALIENATE THE ALASKA FISHERIES PERMANENTLY FROM PUBLIC CONTROL.  FN27
THE ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO AUTHORIZE THE DESIGNATION
OF WATER OR FISHERIES AS A PART OF AN INDIAN RESERVATION HAS BEHIND IT
THE UNARTICULATED PREMISE THAT THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE COMPLETE
POWER TO PROTECT, IMPROVE AND REGULATE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL OUR PEOPLE
THESE UNRIVALLED SEA FISHERIES WITH THEIR WEALTH OF FOOD.  IT LOSES
MUCH OF ITS FORCE BY OUR CONCLUSION THAT ALASKAN INDIAN RESERVATIONS
ESTABLISHED OR ENLARGED UNDER SEC. 2 ARE SUBJECT TO THE UNFETTERED WILL
OF CONGRESS.  FN28 

(B)  AN ARGUMENT THAT THE RESERVATION IS A NONREVOCABLE GRANT CAN BE
MADE.  UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, SEC. 16, APPLICABLE TO ALASKA,
SEE SEC. 13, AN INDIAN TRIBE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT A CONSTITUTION AND
BY-LAWS FOR ITS GOVERNMENT.  THIS WAS DONE BY THE KARLUK RESERVATION
INDIANS.  THERE IS A PHRASE IN THE SECTION THAT HAS COLOR OF
RECOGNITION OF OWNERSHIP OF TRIBAL LANDS IN THE INDIANS.  IT READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"IN ADDITION TO ALL POWERS VESTED IN ANY INDIAN TRIBE OR TRIBAL
COUNCIL BY EXISTING LAW, THE CONSTITUTION ADOPTED BY SAID TRIBE SHALL
ALSO VEST IN SUCH TRIBE OR ITS TRIBAL COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS AND
POWERS:  ...  TO PREVENT THE SALE, DISPOSITION, LEASE, OR ENCUMBRANCE
OF TRIBAL LANDS, INTERESTS IN LANDS, OR OTHER TRIBAL ASSETS WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE TRIBE; ...  " 48 STAT. 987.  FN29 

WE THINK, HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE BREADTH OF THE COVERAGE OF THE
WHEELER-HOWARD ACT THAT THIS LANGUAGE WOULD BE EFFECTIVE ONLY WHERE
THERE HAS BEEN SPECIFIC RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF INDIAN
RIGHTS TO CONTROL ABSOLUTELY TRIBAL LANDS. 

PERSUASIVE OF THIS CONCLUSION IS THAT THE BILL WHEN ORIGINALLY
PROPOSED BY INTERIOR PROVIDED IN SEC. 7 OF TITLE III THAT "TITLE TO ANY
LAND ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE TAKEN
IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES IN TRUST FOR THE INDIAN TRIBE OR
COMMUNITY FOR WHOM THE LAND IS ACQUIRED, BUT TITLE MAY BE TRANSFERRED
BY THE SECRETARY TO SUCH COMMUNITY UNDER THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN
THIS ACT."  THE ITALICIZED WORDS WERE OMITTED WHEN THIS SECTION WAS
INCORPORATED INTO SEC. 5 OF THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT.  SEE HEARINGS
BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R.
7902, P. 9. 

TURNING TO SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT
FOR THE NONREVOCABILITY OF A RESERVATION CREATED UNDER SEC. 2 OF THAT
ACT COMES FROM A LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PRINTED IN THE
HOUSE AND SENATE REPORTS ON THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT IN QUESTION. 
FN30  THE REPORTS, SPEAKING OF SEC. 2, SAID: 

"THIS PROVISION IN REALITY CARRIES OUT THE PROMISE OF THIS GOVERNMENT
CONTAINED IN ITS ACT APPROVED ON MAY 17, 1884(23 STAT. 26), AS
FOLLOWS: 

"'PROVIDED, THAT THE INDIANS OR OTHER PERSONS IN SAID DISTRICT SHALL
NOT BE DISTURBED IN THE POSSESSION OF ANY LANDS ACTUALLY IN THEIR USE
OR OCCUPATION OR NOW CLAIMED BY THEM BUT THE TERMS UNDER WHICH SUCH
PERSONS MAY ACQUIRE TITLE TO SUCH LANDS IS RESERVED FOR FUTURE
LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS.'"  H.R. REP. NO. 2244, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
P. 3. 

THE PERTINENT PART OF THE LETTER IS SET OUT BELOW.  FN31  THE
LEGISLATION WAS, OF COURSE, A FULFILLMENT OF THE AID FORESHADOWED IN
THE STATUTES REFERRED TO IN THE LETTER.  SUCH REFERENCES TO GENERAL
LEGISLATION ON PUBLIC LANDS IN THE HUGE TERRITORY OF ALASKA, HOWEVER,
CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR COURTS TO DECLARE THAT POWER
WAS GIVEN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO DISPOSE FINALLY OF ALASKA
LANDS.  THE FIRST SECTION OF THE ACT OF MAY 1 WAS A MERE AMENDMENT OF
THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT TO BRING ALASKA UNDER ITS COVERAGE.  THE WHEELER
HOWARD ACT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS. 
INTENDED TO PERMIT THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ALASKA NATIVES SO THAT THEY
COULD AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE EARLIER ACT.  FN32  IT CANNOT BE SAID, WE
THINK, THAT SUCH RESERVATIONS MAY BE PERMANENT OR NONREVOCABLE.  A
READING OF SEC. 2 WILL SHOW THAT THERE ARE NO WORDS WITH THE
CONNOTATION OF RECOGNITION OR CONVEYANCE OF TITLE.  THERE ARE NO WORDS,
SUCH AS APPEAR IN OTHER STATUTES,  FN33  RESERVING THE RIGHT OF
EXPLORATION, DISCOVERY AND CLAIM FOR PRECIOUS METALS AND VALUABLE
MINERALS.  THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE REPORTS OR THE DEBATES THAT
SHOW A DEFINITE INTENTION OF ANYONE TO PART WITH PUBLIC PROPERTY TO
ESTABLISH AN ALASKAN INDIAN COMMUNAL SYSTEM.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES,
WE THINK THE LAND AND WATER RESERVATIONS CREATED UNDER SEC. 2 ARE
RESERVATIONS AT WILL. 

(C)  WE ARE CONVINCED THAT SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936,
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO INCLUDE IN THE KARLUK
RESERVATION THE WATERS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 2 OF PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO.
128.  TO INTERPRET THE CLAUSE "OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC LANDS WHICH ARE
ACTUALLY OCCUPIED BY INDIANS OR ESKIMOS WITHIN SAID TERRITORY" TO
DESCRIBE ONLY LAND ABOVE MEAN LOW TIDE IS TOO RESTRICTIVE IN VIEW OF
THE HISTORY AND HABITS OF ALASKA NATIVES AND THE COURSE OF
ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IN THAT TERRITORY.  THE TITLE TO THE
UPLANDS AND WATERS IN QUESTION IS IN THE UNITED STATES.  FN34  THE
FISHERIES AS WELL AS THE UPLANDS ARE SUBJECT TO ITS PRESENT CONTROL. 
FN35  IN 1868 CONGRESS EXTENDED OUR LAWS RELATING TO CUSTOMS, COMMERCE
AND NAVIGATION OVER THE "MAINLAND, ISLANDS, AND WATERS OF THE
TERRITORY."  15 STAT. 240.  THE SEAL ISLANDS AND THE WATERS ADJACENT
THERETO WERE PROMPTLY MADE A RESERVATION FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
EXPLOITATION OF THE SEAL FISHERY.  15 STAT. 348, 16 STAT. 180.  A CIVIL
GOVERNMENT FOR THE NEW TERRITORY WAS SET UP IN 1884.  23 STAT. 24.  IN
THAT ACT APPEARED THE PROVISO REFERRED TO SUPRA, N. 31, IN THE LETTER
OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  BY SEC. 12 A COMMISSION WAS
EMPOWERED TO REPORT UPON THE CONDITION OF THE INDIANS.  FN36  ON JUNE
30, 1885, THE COMMISSION REPORTED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AS
TO THE FISHERIES IN THE WORDS IN THE MARGIN BELOW.  FN37 

BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 3, 1891, SUPRA,
NOTE 28, THE CONGRESS SET APART THE "BODY OF LANDS KNOWN AS ANNETTE
ISLANDS" IN ALASKA FOR A RESERVATION FOR THE METLAKAHTLA INDIANS. 
NOTHING WAS SAID AS TO FISHING RIGHTS.  A PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION OF
APRIL 28, 1916, RESERVED TO THEM THE SURROUNDING WATERS WITHIN 3,000
FEET.  39 STAT. 1777.  FN38  AFTER THE PROCLAMATION A PROCEEDING WAS
BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES RELYING UPON THE STATUTE AND PROCLAMATION
TO OUST A FISH TRAP OF THE ALASKA PACIFIC FISHERIES FROM THE WATERS
MENTIONED IN THE PROCLAMATION.  SUCH A DECREE WAS OBTAINED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT AND AFFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT ON THE GROUND "THAT THE RESERVATION OF ANNETTE ISLAND
BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS, AND OF ITS SURROUNDING WATERS BY THE
PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION, IS FULLY SUSTAINED."  ALASKA PACIFIC
FISHERIES V. UNITED STATES, 240 F. 274, 283.  FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE
PROCLAMATION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON HIS POWER TO RESERVE LANDS FOR
RESERVATIONS WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORITY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST
OIL CO., SUPRA.  THIS COURT AFFIRMED THE DECREE AS TO THE WATERS WITHIN
3,000 FEET OF THE SHORE LINES.  ALTHOUGH IN THE BRIEF A VIGOROUS ATTACK
WAS MADE ON THE POWER TO ISSUE THE PROCLAMATION COVERING THE WATERS,
THE PROCLAMATION WAS NOT REFERRED TO IN THE UNANIMOUS OPINION HERE. 
THIS COURT FELT COMPELLED TO DECIDE THAT THE FISHERIES WERE INCLUDED IN
THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE BY THE PURPOSE TO ASSIST THE INDIANS TO
TRAIN THEMSELVES.  FISHING WAS SAID TO GIVE VALUE TO THE ISLANDS.  "THE
USE OF THE ADJACENT FISHING GROUNDS WAS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL.  WITHOUT
THIS THE COLONY COULD NOT PROSPER IN THAT LOCATION."  ALASKA PACIFIC
FISHERIES V. UNITED STATES, 248 U.S. 78, 89. 

THE CONDITIONS AS TO THE WATERS AROUND THE ANNETTE ISLANDS CLOSELY
PARALLEL THOSE OF OTHER ALASKA AREAS ACTUALLY OCCUPIED BY NATIVES.  THE
ANNETTE ISLANDS CASE WAS RELIED UPON BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
FOR HIS AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE THE FISHERIES UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF
MAY 1, 1936.  56 INT. DEPT. 110.  THE ALASKA ABORIGINES, LIKE THE
METLAKAHTLANS, ARE FISHERMEN.  THEY, TOO, DEPEND UPON THE WATERS FOR A
LARGE PART OF THEIR SUPPORT.  FOR THEM THE ADJACENT FISHERIES ARE AS
IMPORTANT AS, PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT THAN, THE FORESTS, THE FUR-BEARING
ANIMALS OR THE MINERALS. 

RESPONDENTS URGE UPON US THE CASES IN THIS AND OTHER COURTS WHICH
HAVE HELD THAT THE PHRASE "PUBLIC LANDS," THE TERM NOW UNDER
CONSIDERATION, USED IN SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, DOES NOT
INCLUDE ANY AREA EXTENDING BELOW MEAN HIGH TIDE.  FN39  AS THE
RESPONDENTS STATE, THIS CASE TURNS NOT ON TIDELANDS, THE AREA BETWEEN
MEAN HIGH AND MEAN LOW TIDES, BUT ON WHETHER THE SECRETARY COULD
INCLUDE COASTAL WATERS IN THE RESERVATION, I.E., THE AREA "3,000 FEET
FROM THE SHORE LINE AT MEAN LOW TIDE."  AS WE UNDERSTAND RESPONDENTS'
ARGUMENT AND AS WE SEE THIS CASE, THE QUESTION OF TIDELANDS IS NOT
SIGNIFICANT.  REFERENCE TO MANN V. TACOMA LAND CO., 153 U.S. 273, 283,
WILL MAKE CLEAR RESPONDENTS' POSITION.  BEFORE THE ADMISSION OF
WASHINGTON TO STATEHOOD, NOVEMBER 11, 1889, 26 STAT. 1552, THE UNITED
STATES ISSUED LAND SCRIP TO MANN FOR LOCATION ON "UNOCCUPIED AND
UNAPPROPRIATED PUBLIC LANDS" AND THE HOLDER MADE LOCATION ON TIDELANDS
AND RECEIVED THE REGISTER'S CERTIFICATE THEREFOR.  WHEN MANN SOUGHT TO
RESTRAIN TRESPASS ON THE LAND SO OBTAINED, THIS COURT HELD:  "IT IS
SETTLED THAT THE GENERAL LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS IN RESPECT TO PUBLIC
LANDS DOES NOT EXTEND TO TIDE LANDS.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT
AUTHORIZING THE VALENTINE SCRIP, OR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH GAVE
OCCASION FOR ITS PASSAGE, TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE." 
P. 284.  RESPONDENTS ASSERT THAT THE REFERENCE TO PUBLIC LANDS IN SEC.
2 SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN THE SAME MANNER, SINCE THE FEDERAL LAND LAWS
APPLY TO ALASKA  FN40  AS DO THE REASONS FOR EXCLUDING WATERS SEAWARD
OF MEAN HIGH TIDE.  FN41 

THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT THE CASES RELATING TO THE LIMITS OF
"PUBLIC LANDS" ARE CASES WHERE FINAL DISPOSITION, NOT TEMPORARY USE, OF
THE LANDS APPEARED.  WHEN ONE DEALS WITH A STATUTE SO LARGE IN PURPOSE
AS TO JUSTIFY THE ABOVE-QUOTED COMMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
THAT IT "PROVIDES A METHOD BY WHICH THE FINANCIAL AID PROVISIONS OF THE
INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT MAY BE EXTENDED TO THOSE INDIANS AND ESKIMOS
OF ALASKA WHO OCCUPY ESTABLISHED VILLAGES," ONE MAY NOT FULLY
COMPREHEND THE STATUTE'S SCOPE BY EXTRACTING FROM IT A SINGLE PHRASE,
SUCH AS "PUBLIC LANDS," AND GETTING THE PHRASE'S MEANING FROM THE
DICTIONARY OR EVEN FROM DISSIMILAR STATUTES.  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF
MAY 1, 1936, IS BUT ONE OF A SERIES OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO ALASKA
NATIVES, LANDS AND FISHERIES.  IT MUST "BE TAKEN AS INTENDED TO FIT
INTO THE EXISTING SYSTEM" AND INTERPRETED IN THAT ASPECT.  FN42  THERE
IS NOTHING THAT WE HAVE FOUND IN THE STATUTE OR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
TO JUSTIFY THE SIGNIFICANCE PUT UPON THE USE OF THE WORDS "PUBLIC
LANDS" IN THE CLAUSE OF SEC. 2 UNDER DISCUSSION INSTEAD OF "LANDS" USED
IN THE PRECEDING CLAUSES.  IF A DIFFERENTIATION WAS INTENDED, SURELY IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE DEFINITELY EXPRESSED. 

TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FISHERIES TO THE
ALASKA NATIVES, THE TEMPORARY CHARACTER OF THE RESERVATION, THE ANNETTE
ISLANDS CASE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS
TO ASSIST THE NATIVES BY THE ALASKA AMENDMENT TO THE WHEELER-HOWARD
ACT, WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WAS
AUTHORIZED TO INCLUDE THE WATERS IN THE RESERVATION.  NO INJUNCTION
THEREFORE MAY BE OBTAINED BECAUSE OF THE INVALIDITY OF ORDER NO. 128. 

              III. 

SUBDIVISION II OF THIS OPINION HAS BEEN DIRECTED TOWARD THE
DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936,
EXTENDING THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT TO ALASKA.  WE WERE LED TO HOLD THAT
ORDER 128, SET OUT IN FULL IN NOTE 1, SUPRA, VALIDLY INCLUDED IN THE
RESERVATION THE WATERS TO A DISTANCE OF 3,000 FEET FROM ITS SHORES.  IN
HIS HANDLING OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE KARLUK NATIVES AS AFFECTED BY THEIR
NEED FOR A RESERVATION AND FISHING RIGHTS, THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TOOK ANOTHER STEP UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SEC. 1 OF ANOTHER
ACT, THE WHITE ACT.  THE SECTION IS SET OUT AT LENGTH IN THE TEXT
BEGINNING ON PAGE 92 OF THIS OPINION.  THE ACT WAS FOR THE PROTECTION
OF THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA.  SECTION 1 AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY TO SET
APART FISHING AREAS IN ANY OF THE WATERS OF ALASKA AND ESTABLISH IN
THOSE PRESERVES CLOSED SEASONS "DURING WHICH FISHING MAY BE LIMITED OR
PROHIBITED." 

PURSUANT TO THIS STATUTE DETAILED REGULATIONS WERE ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND THEY HAVE BEEN CONTINUED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR SINCE REOGANIZATION PLAN NO. II, NOTE 4, SUPRA.  FN43  ONE
AREA ESTABLISHED WAS THE KODIAK AREA WHICH INCLUDED THE WATERS HERE IN
QUESTION.  FN44  AMONG THE WATERS AT FIRST CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL SALMON
FISHING WERE THE KARLUK RIVER SPAWNING WATERS AND THOSE WITHIN 100
YARDS OF ITS MOUTH.  FN45  LATER THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, STILL
ACTING SOLELY UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE WHITE ACT, ADDED THE WATERS OF THE
KARLUK RESERVATION TO THE PROHIBITED AREAS.  FN46  AN EXCEPTION WAS
MADE IN THE REGULATION TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST FISHING IN THE
RESERVATION WATERS.  THE PRECISE LANGUAGE OF THE ENTIRE SUBSECTION (R)
OF THE REGULATION, $208.23, IS ON PAGE 92 OF THIS OPINION.  WE REPEAT
HERE THE EXCEPTION: 

"THE FOREGOING PROHIBITION SHALL NOT APPLY TO FISHING BY NATIVES IN
POSSESSION OF SAID RESERVATION, NOR TO FISHING BY OTHER PERSONS UNDER
AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SAID NATIVES (49 STAT. 1250; 48 U.S.C. 358A). 
SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE GRANTED ONLY BY OR PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE OF THE
NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK, APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR
HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE."  THE CITATION TO 49 STAT. 1250 IS
TO THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF THE
RESERVATION.  PERHAPS IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE CREATION OF THE
RESERVATION JUSTIFIED THIS EXCEPTION IN THE WHITE ACT REGULATION BUT WE
DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ANY SUPPORT FROM THAT ACT IS CLAIMED FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WHITE ACT PRESERVE. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE EXCEPTION PERMITTING FISHING BY NATIVES IN
POSSESSION OF THE RESERVATION AND THEIR LICENSEES IS CHALLENGED BY
RESPONDENTS BECAUSE OF A PROVISO IN SEC. 1 OF THE WHITE ACT, READING: 

"PROVIDED, THAT EVERY SUCH REGULATION MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE SHALL BE OF GENERAL APPLICATION WITHIN THE PARTICULAR AREA TO
WHICH IT APPLIES, AND THAT NO EXCLUSIVE OR SEVERAL RIGHT OF FISHERY
SHALL BE GRANTED THEREIN, NOR SHALL ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BE
DENIED THE RIGHT TO TAKE, PREPARE, CURE, OR PRESERVE FISH OR SHELLFISH
IN ANY AREA OF THE WATERS OF ALASKA WHERE FISHING IS PERMITTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.  ...  " 

RESPONDENTS ALLEGED THAT THE EXCEPTION FOR FISHING BY NATIVES AND
THEIR LICENSEES MADE SEC. 208.23(R) WHOLLY ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISO OF SEC. 1 OF THE WHITE ACT AS TO
EXCLUSIVE OR SEVERAL RIGHT OF FISHERY.  THE DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS
AGREED WITH THIS ARGUMENT AND THE DISTRICT COURT SAID THAT THE
REGULATION MUST BE VIEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY, 67 F.SUPP.  43, 49.  WE
AGREE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THE CLOSING OF THE AREA FROM
THE EXCEPTION AND THUS HOLD THE CLOSING APPLICABLE TO EVERYONE.  A
RIGHT TO FISH LOCALLY IS TOO IMPORTANT TO THE NATIVES IN ALASKA FOR US
TO CONCLUDE FROM THIS RECORD THAT THE SECRETARY WOULD HAVE PROMULGATED
THE PROHIBITION TO FISH FOR SALMON IN RESERVATION WATERS WITHOUT THE
EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF THE NATIVES.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT, HOWEVER, THAT THE
WHITE ACT AUTHORIZES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WHITE ACT PRESERVES OR CLOSED
AREAS IN RESERVATIONS CREATED, AS THE KARLUK RESERVATION, UNDER SEC. 2
OF THE ACT EXTENDING THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT TO ALASKA.  NO IMPLICATIONS
CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE BROAD AND CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE WHITE ACT THAT
RESERVATION WATERS, HOWEVER VALUABLE FOR FISHING OR FISH PROPAGATION,
MUST BE LEFT UNPROTECTED FROM RUTHLESS EXPLOITATION. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID HERETOFORE IN THIS OPINION AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF
FISHERIES AND THEIR CONSERVATION TO ALASKA NATIVES WITH REFERENCE TO
THE KARLUK RIVER AREA IN PARTICULAR NEED NOT BE REPEATED.  THE QUOTED
"(C) MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS AS TO TIME, MEANS, METHODS, AND EXTENT OF
FISHING AS HE MAY DEEM ADVISABLE."  THEN FOLLOWS THE PROVISO THAT EVERY
SUCH REGULATION SHALL BE OF GENERAL APPLICATION AND THAT NO EXCLUSIVE
OR SEVERAL RIGHT OF FISHING SHALL BE GRANTED THEREIN.  THIS SECTION WAS
ENACTED TO CORRECT ALLEGED ABUSES THAT AROSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ACT "FOR THE PROTECTION AND REGULATION OF THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA,"
APPROVED JUNE 26, 1906, 34 STAT. 478.  BY SEC. 6 OF THE EARLIER ACT,
STREAMS OR LAKES COULD BE SET ASIDE AS PERMANENT PRESERVES BUT NOT
COASTAL WATERS.  ALTHOUGH THE 1906 ACT DID NOT DELEGATE REGULATORY
POWERS IN THE AMPLITUDE OF THE WHITE ACT, FISHING RESERVATIONS IN
TERRITORIAL WATERS WERE CREATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER AND REGULATIONS WERE
ISSUED THEREUNDER.  FN47  THE POLICY BEHIND THESE REGULATIONS AND THEIR
ADMINISTRATION WAS TO RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO FISH COMMERCIALLY TO THOSE
WHO HAD FORMERLY FISHED IN THESE AREAS.  SEE FISHERIES SERVICE BULLETIN
NO. 92, JAN. 2, 1923.  CONGRESS DID NOT PROPOSE THAT THESE RICH FISHING
GROUNDS SHOULD BE MONOPOLIZED BY THIS DEFINED GROUP.  THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE WHITE ACT ONLY EMPHASIZES WHAT THE STATUTE CLEARLY SAYS,
THAT IS, NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES IN ALASKAN FISHING PRESERVES.  FN48  THE
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE WHITE ACT GAVE STERN WARNING TO
PROSPECTIVE VIOLATORS.  FN49    FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE FISHERIES,
IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY MUST BE PERMITTED. 
"THE WATERS OF ALASKA ARE SO VAST AND THE LOCAL CONDITIONS SO VARIED
THAT IT IS UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PRESCRIBE BY LEGISLATION IN DETAIL THE
PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO MEET EACH SITUATION.  TO ATTEMPT TO DO SO WOULD
BE TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSES SOUGHT.  THIS CAN BE DONE BY PLACING BROAD
POWERS AND A WIDE DISCRETION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH HAVING CHARGE
OF THE SUBJECT."  S. REP. NO. 449 ON H.R. 8143(WHICH BECAME THE WHITE
ACT), 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.  COMPARE DOW V. ICKES, 74 APP. D.C.
319, 323, 123 F.2D 909, 913. 

ALTHOUGH SEC. 8 OF THE WHITE ACT  FN50  LEFT A POWER IN THE
TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE OF ALASKA TO IMPOSE TAXES OR LICENSES FOR
FISHING, WE DO NOT READ SEC. 8 AS LIMITING THE POWER TO LICENSE FISHING
TO THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE.  THE SECTION DOES NOT MAKE THE
LEGISLATIVE POWER EXCLUSIVE.  SINCE SEC. 1 OF THE WHITE ACT NOT ONLY
AUTHORIZES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FISHING PRESERVES BUT ALSO REQUIRES
THAT THE FISHING BE CARRIED ON "IN CONFORMITY WITH SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS THE SECRETARY PRESCRIBES UNDER THE AUTHORITY HEREIN
GIVEN,"  FN51  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LICENSES FOR FISHING MAY BE
REQUIRED IN AREAS REGULATED UNDER THE WHITE ACT.  WE THINK, HOWEVER,
THESE LICENSES MAY BE ONLY REGULATORY IN CHARACTER AND, WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY, MUST HAVE THEIR COST FIXED SO AS NOT TO
EXCEED THE ESTIMATED APPROXIMATE COST OF REASONABLE POLICING OF THE
AREA.  WE DO NOT READ THE WHITE ACT AS EMPOWERING THE SECRETARY TO
RAISE GENERAL FUNDS FOR NATIVE WELFARE OR GENERAL CONSERVATION PURPOSES
FROM WHITE ACT PRESERVES. 

AS SEC. 208.23(R) WITH ITS EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF THE NATIVES IN
POSSESSION OF KARLUK RESERVATION AND THEIR LICENSEES IS BASED UPON SEC.
1 OF THE WHITE ACT, WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT ITS PROVISO, "THAT NO
EXCLUSIVE OR SEVERAL RIGHT OF FISHERY SHALL BE GRANTED THEREIN,"
APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL FISHING BY NATIVES EQUALLY WITH FISHING
COMPANIES, NONRESIDENTS OF ALASKA OR OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND SO
APPLIES WHETHER THOSE NATIVES ARE OR ARE NOT RESIDENTS ON A
RESERVATION.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE WHITE ACT THAT AUTHORIZES THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO GRANT RESERVATION OCCUPANTS THE PRIVILEGE
OF EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL FISHING RIGHTS.  IT SEEMS ALSO CLEAR TO US THAT
THE ADOPTION OF A CORPORATE CHARTER AND A CONSTITUTION BY THE NATIVE
VILLAGE OF KARLUK UNDER SECS. 16 AND 17 OF THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT,
DISCUSSED AT PP. 106-107, SUPRA, CAN ADD NOTHING TO THE POWER OF THE
SECRETARY UNDER THE WHITE ACT.  "EXCLUSIVE," AS USED IN SEC. 1 OF THE
WHITE ACT, FORBIDS NOT ONLY A GRANT TO A SINGLE PERSON OR CORPORATION
BUT TO ANY SPECIAL GROUP OR NUMBER OF PEOPLE.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
SET OUT ABOVE SHOWS THIS.  THE OFFENDING REGULATIONS WHICH BROUGHT
ABOUT THE ENACTMENT OF THE PROVISO IN SEC. 1 OF THE WHITE ACT WERE
ADMINISTERED SO AS TO LIMIT FISHING TO THOSE WHO HAD BEEN USING THE
FISHERIES BEFORE THE REGULATIONS.  THE WHITE ACT FISHING PRESERVES WERE
NOT INTENDED TO FURNISH A MONOPOLY TO A FAVORED FEW.  WHATEVER MAY BE
THE POWERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OR THE NATIVES AS TO
REGULATING THE ENTRANCE OF PERSONS OTHER THAN NATIVES IN POSSESSION OF
KARLUK RESERVATION INTO OR ON THE AREA OF LAND AND WATER IN THAT
RESERVATION,  FN52  THEY ARE NOT BROAD ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE
WHITE ACT SANCTIONS TO PROTECT THE RESERVATION AGAINST TRESPASS.  WHITE
ACT SANCTIONS ARE FOR WHITE ACT VIOLATIONS.  THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR BY SEC. 208.23(R) HAS DECIDED UPON THE CONSERVATION OF
FISHERIES IN THE DESCRIBED WATERS OF THE KARLUK RESERVATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE WHITE ACT, WITH AN EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF THE
NATIVES THAT SEEMS TO REST ON THE FACT THAT THE NATIVES ARE ON A
RESERVATION THAT INCLUDES THE WHITE ACT CONSERVATION AREA.  THIS CANNOT
BE DONE.  THE WELFARE OF THE 57 ELECTORS OF KARLUK RESERVATION AND
THEIR FAMILIES IS IMPORTANT.  THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, HOWEVER,
CANNOT GIVE THEM SUCH PREFERENCES AS ARE HERE GIVEN UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF THE WHITE ACT.  OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE EQUALLY ENTITLED TO THE
BENEFITS FROM WHITE ACT PRESERVES.  FN53  WE HOLD THAT THE REGULATION
SEC. 208.23(R) IS VOID AS A WHOLE BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE PROVISO OF
THE WHITE ACT.  SEE P. 93. 

                                 IV. 

THERE ARE PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE KARLUK
RESERVATION AND THE PROTECTION OF THE FISHING PRESERVES THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COURTS OR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.  OUR
HOLDING THAT COASTAL WATERS MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE RESERVATION WATERS
AND THAT THE WHITE ACT CANNOT BE USED TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN THE
INDIANS ESTABLISHES A DIFFERENT BASIS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL
CONCLUSIONS.  THE 1945 ORDINANCE MUST BE CONSIDERED; IT APPEARS IN THE
MARGIN.  FN54  IT STATES THAT PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128 RESTRICTS THE RIGHT
TO FISH COMMERCIALLY IN THE RESERVATION WATERS TO KARLUK INHABITANTS. 
THIS ORDINANCE ANTEDATES THE REGULATION.  SEE P. 91, SUPRA.  IT
EVIDENTLY IS BASED ON THE THEORY THAT THE CREATION OF THE RESERVATION
GAVE EXCLUSIVE FISHING RIGHTS TO THE NATIVES IN POSSESSION.  PERMITS
REQUIRED THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR HIS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.  FN55  AN EXAMPLE OF THE PERMIT IS PRINTED
BELOW.  FN56  WE KNOW NOTHING FROM THE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR THE $2
FEE FOR RESIDENTS OR THE $40 FEE FOR NONRESIDENTS OR THEIR RELATION TO
THE COST OF POLICING THE AREA.  SEE HAAVIK V. ALASKA PACKERS
ASSOCIATION, 263 U.S. 510.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, AFTER ONCE APPROVING AN
ORDINANCE THE DEPARTMENT'S ONLY DIRECT CONTROL OVER THE ORDINANCE IS BY
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS.  FN57 

THIS IS AN EQUITABLE PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE RESPONDENTS SEEK
PROTECTION AGAINST UNLAWFUL ACTION BY PETITIONER, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
OF THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. 
THE INTERESTS OF RESPONDENTS, THE INDIANS OF KARLUK RESERVATION, AND
THE EFFORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ADMINISTER ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES FAIRLY TO FISHERMEN AND INDIANS ARE INVOLVED.  FN58
THESE ARE QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY WHICH EQUITY IS ALERT TO PROTECT. 
FN59 THIS COURT IS FAR REMOVED FROM THE LOCALITY AND CANNOT HAVE THE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN THE CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST THAT IS POSSESSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THEREFORE WE
THINK IT APPROPRIATE FOR US TO REFRAIN FROM NOW ENTERING A FINAL ORDER
DISPOSING DEFINITIVELY OF THE CONTROVERSY.  WITH OUR CONCLUSION ON THE
LAW AS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RESERVATION AND THE INVALIDITY OF
THE REGULATION BEFORE THEM, THE DEPARTMENT AND THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE
A REASONABLE TIME, SUBJECT TO THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE
NEW PROPOSALS, TO ADJUST THEIR AFFAIRS SO AS TO COMPLY WITH OUR
DETERMINATIONS. 

WE THEREFORE VACATE THE DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS AND REMAND THIS PROCEEDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
DIRECTIONS TO ALLOW THIRTY DAYS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF OUR MANDATE FOR
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE EFFECT OF
OUR DECISION.  UNLESS STEPS ARE TAKEN IN THIS PROCEEDING THE DISTRICT
COURT, ON THE EXPIRATION OF THIRTY DAYS, SHALL ENTER A DECREE ENJOINING
THE DEFENDANT HYNES AND ALL ACTING IN CONCERT WITH HIM, SUBSTANTIALLY
AS ORDERED IN THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION ENTERED NOVEMBER 6, 1946.  FN60
IF TIMELY STEPS ARE TAKEN, THE DISTRICT COURT WILL, OF COURSE, BE FREE
TO ENTER SUCH ORDERS AS IT MAY DEEM PROPER AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THE PRESENT DECISION.  PENDING THE ENTRY OF FURTHER ORDERS BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENTERED JULY 18, 1946, SHALL
APPLY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENTS.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  8 FED. REG. 8557:

                                "ALASKA 

"MODIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER DESIGNATING LANDS AS INDIAN
RESERVATION 

"BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, C.
421, 36 STAT. 847, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912, C. 369, 37
STAT. 497(U.S.C., TITLE 43, SECS. 141-143), AND THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936,
C. 254, 49 STAT. 1250(U.S.C., TITLE 48, SEC. 358A), AND PURSUANT TO
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9146 OF APRIL 24, 1942:  IT IS ORDERED, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"1.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8344 OF FEBRUARY 10, 1940, WITHDRAWING
KODIAK AND OTHER ISLANDS, ALASKA, FOR CLASSIFICATION AND IN AID OF
LEGISLATION, IS HEREBY MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE
DESIGNATION AS AN INDIAN RESERVATION OF THE FOLLOWING-DESCRIBED AREA: 

"BEGINNING AT THE END OF A POINT OF LAND ON THE SHORE OF SHELIKOF
STRAIT ON KODIAK ISLAND, SAID POINT BEING ABOUT ONE AND ONE-QUARTER
MILES EAST OF ROCKY POINT AND IN APPROXIMATE LATITUDE 57 DEGREE 39'40"
N., LONGITUDE 154 DEGREE 12'20" W.; 

"THENCE SOUTH APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MILES TO LATITUDE 57 DEGREE 32'30"
N.; 

"THENCE WEST APPROXIMATELY TWELVE AND ONE-HALF MILES TO THE
CONFLUENCE OF THE NORTH SHORE OF STURGEON RIVER WITH THE EAST SHORE OF
SHELIKOF STRAIT; 

"THENCE NORTHEASTERLY FOLLOWING THE EASTERLY SHORE OF SHELIKOF STRAIT
TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 35,200 ACRES. 

"2.  THE AREA DESCRIBED ABOVE AND THE WATERS ADJACENT THERETO
EXTENDING 3,000 FEET FROM THE SHORE LINE AT MEAN LOW TIDE, ARE HEREBY
DESIGNATED AS AN INDIAN RESERVATION FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE
NATIVE INHABITANTS OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK, ALASKA, AND
VICINITY: PROVIDED, THAT SUCH DESIGNATION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY UPON
ITS APPROVAL BY THE VOTE OF THE INDIAN AND ESKIMO RESIDENTS OF THE AREA
INVOLVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 1, 1936, SUPRA:
AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL AFFECT ANY
VALID EXISTING CLAIM OR RIGHT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THAT SECTION." 

FN2  THE FIRST SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS, 36 STAT. 847: 

"THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY, AT ANY TIME IN HIS DISCRETION, TEMPORARILY
WITHDRAW FROM SETTLEMENT, LOCATION, SALE, OR ENTRY ANY OF THE PUBLIC
LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA AND RESERVE
THE SAME FOR WATER-POWER SITES, IRRIGATION, CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS, OR
OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE ORDERS OF WITHDRAWALS, AND
SUCH WITHDRAWALS OR RESERVATIONS SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE UNTIL REVOKED BY
HIM OR BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS." 

THERE IS A SECOND SECTION DESIGNED TO KEEP THE RESERVATIONS FREE FOR
MINERAL EXPLORATION AND UTILIZATION. 

FN3  THERE IS AN AMENDMENT, IMMATERIAL HERE, SEE 44 STAT. 752. 

FN4  UNDER REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. II THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WHITE ACT WAS TRANSFERRED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1939.  53 STAT. 1431,
SEC. 4(E). 

FN5  THE RIVER ITSELF AND ALL WATERS WITHIN 100 YARDS OF ITS MOUTH
ARE CLOSED TO ALL COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHING.  50 C.F.R., 1946 SUPP.,
SEC. 208.23(D). 

FN6  BANCROFT, HISTORY OF ALASKA, 1730-1885, P. 228, N. 12. 

FN7  ID., P. 743. 

FN8  H.R. MISC. DOC. NO. 211, 51ST CONG., 1ST SESS., REPORT ON THE
SALMON AND SALMON RIVERS OF ALASKA, P. 20: 

"THE NUMBER OF SALMON ACTUALLY CAUGHT IN KARLUK BAY, NEAR THE RIVER
MOUTH AND IN THE LOWER PORTION OF THE RIVER, IS SO LARGE AS TO MAKE A
TRUE STATEMENT CONCERNING THEM SEEM INCREDIBLE.  IN 1888 THE CANNERIES
PUT UP OVER 200,000 CASES, AVERAGING ABOUT 13 RED SALMON TO THE CASE,
OR MORE THAN 2,500,000 FISH.  IN 1889 THE NUMBER OF FISH PUT UP WAS
STILL LARGER, REACHING PROBABLY 250,000 CASES, CONTAINING MORE THAN
3,000,000 SALMON.  AS THE NUMBER OF FISH ARRIVING AT KARLUK BAY FOR A
LONG PERIOD OF YEARS HAS BEEN KNOWN TO BE FAR GREATER THAN IN ANY OF
THE OTHER BAYS OF SOUTHERN ALASKA, IT IS PROBABLE THAT MOST OF THESE
SALMON WERE PRESENT AT KARLUK FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCENDING THE RIVER TO
SPAWN.  NOW THE NUMBER OF SPAWNING FISH SEEN IN THE RIVER, THE LAKES,
AND THEIR CONNECTING RIVERS WAS COMPARATIVELY VERY SMALL, INDEED OUT OF
ALL PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER TAKEN ON THE BEACH." 

FN9  THE HIGHEST REPORTED BY THE STATISTICAL REVIEW OF THE ALASKA
SALMON FISHERIES, JUNE 13, 1930, BUREAU OF FISHERIES BULLETIN, VOL.
XLVI, P. 666, WAS NEARLY 4,000,000 FISH IN 1901 AND THE LOWEST ABOUT
400,000 IN 1927.  THE REPORT SAID: 

"MANY INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KARLUK RED-SALMON FISHERY HAVE BEEN MADE,
MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT IT, COMMERCIAL INTERESTS HAVE BATTLED FOR
EXCLUSIVE CONTROL AND DOMINATION OF IT, AND DIRE PROPHECIES HAVE BEEN
HEARD CONCERNING ITS ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION.  BECAUSE OF THESE THINGS,
KARLUK HAS UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN GIVEN MORE CLOSE ATTENTION THAN ANY OTHER
FISHERY IN ALASKA.  ...  " 

FN10  UNCHALLENGED FIGURES BY PLAINTIFFS SHOW LARGE CATCHES.  A TABLE
FROM THE LARGEST OPERATOR IS PRINTED FOR ILLUSTRATION. 

"THE TOTAL CATCH OF FISH TAKEN WITHIN THE AREA NOW INCLUDED IN THE
KARLUK INDIAN RESERVATION DURING THE YEARS SPECIFIED  ...  :

             COHO    CHUM       PINK    KING      RED       TOTAL 

1941.......    1058      632       9893     134    59958      71675 

1942.......     397    14556     225323      57    58042     298375 

1943.......      83      825       2380     161    60273      63722 

1944.......      33     5803     219300      69    63535     288740 
1945.......       4      150        554      84    50907  51699 

1946.......     137     8660    1024596      44    25381    1058818" 

FN11  "MINUTES OF MEETING 

     .      .         .         .         . 

"A MEETING WAS CALLED BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE SAME EVENING WITH MR.
PETERS MR. WATROUS OF JUNEAU AND MR. LERAAS PRESENT.  FOLLOWING
DISCUSSION AND ACTION: 

"1.  THE PROBLEMS OF SETTING ASIDE AN AREA FOR BEACH SEINING WERE
DISCUSSED.  IT WAS AGREED THAT 1000 YD. FROM THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER UP
THE SPIT AND FROM THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER TO JULIA FORT POINT
APPROXIMATELY 500 YD. ON THE IMPROVEMENT SIDE, PLACING MARKERS OR BUOYS
500 YD. OUT FROM MEAN LOW WATER MARK BE THE RESTRICTED AREA FOR KARLUK
BEACH SEINING ONLY.  PURSE SEINING COULD BE DONE OUTSIDE THIS
RESTRICTED AREA THIS YEAR OR UNTIL FURTHER ACTION BY THE COUNCIL." 

FN12  SEE TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197, 214; PETROLEUM
EXPLORATION, INC. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 304 U.S. 209, 217-19. 

FN13  WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387; EX PARTE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200. 

FN14  PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341; PACKARD V. BANTON, 264 U.S. 140;
TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605,
620, SECOND.  CF. WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387, 400; SPIELMAN MOTOR
SALES CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89; STAINBACK V. MO HOCK KE LOK PO, 336
U.S. 368. 

FN15  43 STAT. 466, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 226. 

FN16  PARKER V. BROWN, SUPRA, 349.  SEIZURE OF A FISHERMAN'S BOAT IS
A DRASTIC SANCTION.  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ALASKAN
FISHERIES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, 76TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 45-47. 

FN17  67 F.SUPP.  43; 165 F.2D 323. 

FN18  THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 300 U.S. 55, 69; PACIFIC
STATES CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 185; WAMPLER V. LECOMPTE, 282 U.S.
172, 175; MARTIN V. MOTT, 12 WHEAT.  19, 32. 

FN19  EXECUTIVE ORDER 9146, 1 C.F.R., CUM. SUPP., P. 1149: 

"BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME BY THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910,
C. 421, 36 STAT. 847, AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I HEREBY
AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO SIGN ALL ORDERS WITHDRAWING
OR RESERVING PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ALL ORDER REVOKING
OR MODIFYING SUCH ORDERS:  ...  " 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 8344, 1 C.F.R., CUM. SUPP., 618, REFERRED TO IN
PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128, TEMPORARILY WITHDREW KODIAK ISLAND FROM
SETTLEMENT, LOCATION, SALE OR ENTRY FOR CLASSIFICATION. 

FN20  SO FAR AS MATERIAL THAT ACT IS SET OUT IN NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN21  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO APPRAISE THE EFFECT OF SUCH RESTORATION. 
TRIBAL OWNERSHIP MAY VARY FROM AN UNRECOGNIZED INDIAN TITLE, SEE
NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF SHOSHONE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 335,
338, 340, TO LAND SO SET APART TO AN INDIAN TRIBE BY DEFINITIVE TREATY
AS TO REQUIRE COMPENSATION TO THE TRIBE, IF THE UNITED STATES
THEREAFTER APPROPRIATED LANDS WITHIN THE AREA.  SEE SHOSHONE TRIBE V.
UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 486; 44 STAT. 1349.  THE EFFECT OF
RESTORATION UNDER THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT WILL DEPEND UPON THE
PROVISIONS OF LAW UNDER WHICH THE SEPARATE RESERVATIONS EXIST.  COMPARE
COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, C. 5, SEC. 5A, P. 94. 

FN22  POSSIBLE CLAIMS UNDER THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION ACT OF
AUGUST 13, 1946, ARE NOT COVERED BY THIS STATEMENT.  SEE 60 STAT. 1049,
1050, SEC. 2(5).  IT REFERS TO CLAIMS "BASED UPON FAIR AND HONORABLE
DEALINGS THAT ARE NOT RECOGNIZED BY ANY EXISTING RULE OF LAW OR
EQUITY.  NO CLAIM ACCRUING AFTER THE DATE OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS ACT
SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION." 

FN23  UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304 U.S. 111, 116; SHOSHONE
TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 485, 486, 492, FIRST; UNITED
STATES V. CREEK NATION, 295 U.S. 103, 109; UNITED STATES V. HOLT STATE
BANK, 270 U.S. 49, 58; UTE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 169, 176,
ET SEQ.; ARENAS V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 419; OPINIONS ON REMAND,
UNITED STATES V. ARENAS, 158 F.2D 730; ARENAS V. UNITED STATES, 60
F.SUPP.  411. 

FN24  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE ARENAS CASE, 322 U.S. 419, THE STATUTE
READ: 

"SEC. 5.  THAT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ALLOTMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN
THE PRECEDING SECTION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HE SHALL CAUSE
PATENTS TO ISSUE THEREFOR IN THE NAME OF THE ALLOTTEES, WHICH SHALL BE
OF THE LEGAL EFFECT AND DECLARE THAT THE UNITED STATES DOES AND WILL
HOLD THE LAND THUS ALLOTTED FOR THE PERIOD OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, IN
TRUST FOR THE SOLE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN TO WHOM SUCH ALLOTMENT
SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE, OR, IN CASE OF HIS DECEASE, OF HIS HEIRS
ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THAT AT THE
EXPIRATION OF SAID PERIOD THE UNITED STATES WILL CONVEY THE SAME BY
PATENT TO THE SAID INDIAN, OR HIS HEIRS AS AFORESAID, IN FEE,
DISCHARGED OF SAID TRUST AND FREE OF ALL CHARGE OR INCUMBRANCE
WHATSOEVER.  SOEVER. 

FN25  ONE GETS A SENSE OF ITS VALUE FROM THE CATCH OF A SINGLE
OPERATOR.  NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN26  WE UNDERSTAND, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT A FACT OF WEIGHT, THAT THE
NUMBER INCLUDES BOTH MEN AND WOMEN OVER TWENTY-ONE.  49 STAT. 1251;
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK, ALASKA,
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, GPO (1939); CONSTITUTION, ART. V, SEC. 1;
CERTIFICATE OF ADOPTION, P. 4; 48 STAT. 986-87, SECS. 13 AND 16. 

THE POPULATION OF KARLUK AROUND 1880 WAS 302.  REPORT ON THE
POPULATION, INDUSTRIES, AND RESOURCES OF ALASKA BY IVAN PETROFF, P. 29,
H.R. MISC. DOC. NO. 42, PT. 8, 47TH CONG., 2D SESS. IN 1920 IT WAS 99;
IN 1929 IT WAS 192; IN 1939 IT WAS 189.  16TH CENSUS OF THE UNITED
STATES (1940), POPULATION, VOL. 1, NUMBER OF INHABITANTS, P. 1193. 

FN27  IN THE ACT OF MAY 14, 1898, 30 STAT. 409, WHICH EXTENDED THE
HOMESTEAD LAND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ALASKA, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED THAT "NO ENTRY SHALL BE ALLOWED EXTENDING MORE THAN EIGHTY
RODS ALONG THE SHORE OF ANY NAVIGABLE WATER, AND ALONG SUCH SHORE A
SPACE OF AT LEAST EIGHTY RODS SHALL BE RESERVED FROM ENTRY BETWEEN ALL
SUCH CLAIMS, AND THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE SO CONSTRUED AS
TO AUTHORIZE ENTRIES TO BE MADE, OR TITLE TO BE ACQUIRED, TO THE SHORE
OF ANY NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN SAID DISTRICT:  ...  " 

FN28  COMPARE THE STATUTE CREATING THE METLAKAHTLA RESERVATION, 26
STAT. 1101: 

"SEC. 15.  THAT UNTIL OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW THE BODY OF LANDS
KNOWN AS ANNETTE ISLANDS, SITUATED IN ALEXANDER ARCHIPELAGO IN
SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DIXON'S ENTRANCE, BE, AND THE
SAME IS HEREBY, SET APART AS A RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF THE
METLAKAHTLA INDIANS, AND THOSE PEOPLE KNOWN AS METLAKAHTLANS WHO HAVE
RECENTLY EMIGRATED FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA TO ALASKA, AND SUCH OTHER
ALASKAN NATIVES AS MAY JOIN THEM, TO BE HELD AND USED BY THEM IN
COMMON, UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH
RESTRICTIONS, AS MAY (BE) PRESCRIBED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR."  SEE 34 STAT. 1411 AND 48 STAT. 667. 

SEE A DISCUSSION OF THE LIMITED POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO CREATE EVEN
TEMPORARY RESERVATIONS FOR INDIAN IMMIGRANTS.  18 OP. ATTY. GEN. 557. 

WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OPINION IN MILLER V. UNITED STATES,
159 F.2D 997, WHERE IT IS HELD, P. 1001, THAT THE INDIAN RIGHT OF
OCCUPANCY OF ALASKA LANDS IS COMPENSABLE.  WITH ALL RESPECT TO THE
LEARNED JUDGES, FAMILIAR WITH ALASKA LAND LAWS, WE CANNOT EXPRESS
AGREEMENT WITH THAT CONCLUSION.  THE OPINION UPON WHICH THEY CHIEFLY
RELY, UNITED STATES V. ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS, 329 U.S. 40, IS NOT AN
AUTHORITY FOR THIS POSITION.  THAT OPINION DOES NOT HOLD THE INDIAN
RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY COMPENSABLE WITHOUT SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION
TO MAKE PAYMENT.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. 10.95 ACRES OF LAND IN
JUNEAU, 75 F.SUPP.  841. 

FN29  IN HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS., ON S. 3645, THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF JUNE 18,
1934, P. 247, THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE AS TO THE MEANING OF
THESE WORDS: 

"SENATOR O'MAHONEY.  BUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE IS THAT THE
CONSTITUTION SHALL VEST IN SOME PERSON - WHAT?  THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS
AND POWERS.  AND THEN YOU UNDERTAKE TO ENUMERATE THOSE POWERS.  THE
FIRST ONE THAT YOU ENUMERATE IS THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY COUNSEL.  THE
SECOND ONE IS THE RIGHT TO PREVENT INDIVIDUALS FROM SELLING AND
DISPOSING OF THEIR PROPERTY.  THEN YOU COME TO A THIRD ONE AND IT IS TO
REPRESENT THE TRIBE, AND THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE HANGING UP IN THE AIR. 

"THE CHAIRMAN.  THE SECOND ONE YOU STATED INCORRECTLY. 

"SENATOR O'MAHONEY.  HAVE I? 

"THE CHAIRMAN.  IT IS NOT TO PREVENT THEM FROM SELLING INDIVIDUAL
LANDS; IT IS TRIBAL LANDS. 

"SENATOR O'MAHONEY.  YES, THAT IS RIGHT; TRIBAL LANDS." 

FN30  H.R. REP. NO. 2244 ON H.R. 9866, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP.
NO. 1748 ON S. 4420, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN31 "AN EVEN MORE IMPORTANT REASON FOR THE DESIGNATION OF
RESERVATIONS IN ALASKA IS THAT BY DOING SO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
WILL HAVE FULFILLED IN PART ITS MORAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE
PROTECTION OF THE ECONOMIC RIGHTS OF THE ALASKA NATIVES.  IN AT LEAST
TWO ACTS OF CONGRESS THIS OBLIGATION IS SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED.  THE
ACT APPROVED ON MAY 17, 1884(23 STAT. 26), CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING
LANGUAGE:  'PROVIDED, THAT THE INDIANS OR OTHER PERSONS IN SAID
DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED IN THE POSSESSION OF ANY LANDS ACTUALLY
IN THEIR USE OR OCCUPATION OR NOW CLAIMED BY THEM BUT THE TERMS UNDER
WHICH SUCH PERSONS MAY ACQUIRE TITLE TO SUCH LANDS IS RESERVED FOR
FUTURE LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS.' 

"THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891(26 STAT. 1100), CONTAINS SIMILAR LANGUAGE:
'THAT NONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAST TWO PRECEDING SECTIONS OF THIS
ACT SHALL BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO WARRANT THE SALE OF ANY LANDS BELONGING
TO THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL CONTAIN COAL OR THE PRECIOUS METALS,
OR ANY TOWNSITE, OR WHICH SHALL BE OCCUPIED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSES, OR WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED FOR SUCH PURPOSES, OR TO
WHICH THE NATIVES OF ALASKA HAVE PRIOR RIGHTS BY VIRTUE OF ACTUAL
OCCUPATION.'  LANDS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BY VIRTUE OF THESE ACTS,
SEGREGATED FOR NATIVES OF ALASKA HAVE NOT BEEN SO SEGREGATED.  THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 OF H.R. 9866 WILL AID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN
RECTIFYING THIS CONDITION, AND IN PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE
NATIVES IN THE FUTURE.  SECTION 2 OF THE BILL WHICH GIVES TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR POWER TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS AS INDIAN
RESERVATIONS IS, THEREFORE, A LOGICAL SEQUENCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY REGARDING INDIAN LANDS IN ALASKA AND PROVIDES A METHOD BY WHICH
THE FINANCIAL AID PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT MAY BE
EXTENDED TO THOSE INDIANS AND ESKIMOS OF ALASKA WHO OCCUPY ESTABLISHED
VILLAGES." 

FN32  THIS APPEARS FROM THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM THE SECRETARY'S
LETTER: 

"INDIAN TRIBES DO NOT EXIST IN ALASKA IN THE SAME SENSE AS IN
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.  SECTION 19 OF THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT
DEFINES THE WORD 'TRIBE' AS REFERRING TO 'ANY INDIAN TRIBE, ORGANIZED
BAND, PUEBLO, OR THE INDIANS RESIDING ON ONE RESERVATION.'  WITH A FEW
EXCEPTIONS THE LANDS OCCUPIED BY NATIVES OF ALASKA HAVE NOT BEEN
DESIGNATED AS RESERVATIONS.  IN ORDER, THEREFORE, TO DEFINE AN ALASKAN
TRIBE IT IS NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY IT WITH THE LAND IT OCCUPIES AND IN
TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, 'RESERVATION.'  IN ADDITION, IF
NATIVE COMMUNITIES OF ALASKA ARE TO SET UP SYSTEMS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO STIPULATE THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF THEIR
JURISDICTIONS.  RESERVATIONS SET UP BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WILL ACCOMPLISH THIS."  THIS, WITH THE PROVISO OF THE FIRST SECTION,
WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE LANDS TO BE IDENTIFIED AND TO
PERMIT THE WHEELER-HOWARD BENEFITS TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE ALASKA
NATIVES. 

FN33  36 STAT. 847, SEC. 2. 

FN34  TREATY WITH RUSSIA, PROCLAIMED JUNE 20, 1867, 15 STAT. 539, 541
542: 

ART. II.  "IN THE CESSION OF TERRITORY AND DOMINION MADE BY THE
PRECEDING ARTICLE ARE INCLUDED THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN ALL PUBLIC LOTS
AND SQUARES, VACANT LANDS, AND ALL PUBLIC BUILDINGS, FORTIFICATIONS,
BARRACKS, AND OTHER EDIFICES WHICH ARE NOT PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
PROPERTY.  ...  " 

ART. III.  "THE INHABITANTS OF THE CEDED TERRITORY, ACCORDING TO
THEIR CHOICE, RESERVING THEIR NATURAL ALLEGIANCE, MAY RETURN TO RUSSIA
WITHIN THREE YEARS; BUT IF THEY SHOULD PREFER TO REMAIN IN THE CEDED
TERRITORY, THEY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF UNCIVILIZED NATIVE TRIBES, SHALL
BE ADMITTED TO THE ENJOYMENT OF ALL THE RIGHTS, ADVANTAGES, AND
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED
AND PROTECTED IN THE FREE ENJOYMENT OF THEIR LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND
RELIGION.  THE UNCIVILIZED TRIBES WILL BE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS AND
REGULATIONS AS THE UNITED STATES MAY, FROM TIME TO TIME, ADOPT IN
REGARD TO ABORIGINAL TRIBES OF THAT COUNTRY." 

FN35  ALASKA PACIFIC FISHERIES V. UNITED STATES, 248 U.S. 78, 87;
SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152 U.S. 1, 47, AND CASES CITED; MANN V. TACOMA LAND
CO., 153 U.S. 273, 283.  SEE ALSO TULEE V. WASHINGTON, 315 U.S. 681. 
IN KNIGHT V. U.S. LAND ASSOCIATION, 142 U.S. 161, THE COURT SAID, P.
183:  "UPON THE ACQUISITION OF THE TERRITORY FROM MEXICO THE UNITED
STATES ACQUIRED THE TITLE TO TIDE LANDS EQUALLY WITH THE TITLE TO
UPLAND; BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMER THEY HELD IT ONLY IN TRUST FOR
THE FUTURE STATES THAT MIGHT BE ERECTED OUT OF SUCH TERRITORY."  IN
ALASKA PACIFIC FISHERIES V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE STATEMENT IS
MADE, P. 87, "THAT CONGRESS HAD POWER TO MAKE THE RESERVATION INCLUSIVE
OF THE ADJACENT WATERS AND SUBMERGED LAND AS WELL AS THE UPLAND NEEDS
LITTLE MORE THAN STATEMENT.  ALL WERE THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND WITHIN A DISTRICT WHERE THE ENTIRE DOMINION AND SOVEREIGNTY RESTED
IN THE UNITED STATES AND OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAD COMPLETE LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY."  COMPARE ALSO BORAX, LTD. V. LOS ANGELES, 296 U.S. 10, 15. 
FN36  23 STAT. 27: 

"SEC. 12.  THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SHALL SELECT TWO OF THE
OFFICERS TO BE APPOINTED UNDER THIS ACT, WHO, TOGETHER WITH THE
GOVERNOR, SHALL CONSTITUTE A COMMISSION TO EXAMINE INTO AND REPORT UPON
THE CONDITION OF THE INDIANS RESIDING IN SAID TERRITORY, WHAT LANDS, IF
ANY, SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR THEIR USE, WHAT PROVISION SHALL BE MADE FOR
THEIR EDUCATION WHAT RIGHTS BY OCCUPATION OF SETTLERS SHOULD BE
RECOGNIZED, AND ALL OTHER FACTS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE
CONGRESS TO DETERMINE WHAT LIMITATIONS OR CONDITIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED
WHEN THE LAND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE EXTENDED TO SAID
DISTRICT; AND TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF SAID COMMISSION THE SUM OF TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS IS HEREBY APPROPRIATED OUT OF ANY MONEYS IN THE
TREASURY NOT OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED." 

FN37  "THE GENERAL LAND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE EXTENDED
OVER THE TERRITORY AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE.  THE NATIVES CLAIM ONLY THE
LAND ON WHICH THEIR HOUSES ARE BUILT AND SOME GARDEN PATCHES NEAR THEIR
VILLAGES; THEY ASK OR EXPECT NOTHING MORE.  A DEED FOR THEIR LOTS IN
SEVERALTY WOULD BE A VERY HIGHLY PRIZED DOCUMENT BY THEM.  THE
FISHERIES OCCUPIED BY THEM BEFORE THE ADVENT OF THE WHITES SHOULD ALSO
BE SECURED TO THEM AGAINST ENCROACHMENT.  THEY ASK ONLY THE SAME RIGHTS
AND PROTECTION GIVEN THE WHITE MAN." 

FN38  "NOW, THEREFORE, I, WOODROW WILSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, BY VIRTUE OF THE POWER IN ME VESTED BY THE LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES, DO HEREBY MAKE KNOWN AND PROCLAIM THAT THE WATERS
WITHIN THREE THOUSAND FEET FROM THE SHORE LINES AT MEAN LOW TIDE OF
ANNETTE ISLAND, HAM ISLAND, WALKER ISLAND, LEWIS ISLAND, SPIRE ISLAND,
HEMLOCK ISLAND, AND ADJACENT ROCKS AND ISLETS, LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA
SEGREGATED BY THE BROKEN LINE UPON THE DIAGRAM HERETO ATTACHED AND MADE
A PART OF THIS PROCLAMATION; ALSO THE BAYS OF SAID ISLANDS, ROCKS, AND
ISLETS, ARE HEREBY RESERVED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE METLAKAHTLANS AND
SUCH OTHER ALASKAN NATIVES AS HAVE JOINED THEM OR MAY JOIN THEM IN
RESIDENCE ON THESE ISLANDS, TO BE USED BY THEM UNDER THE GENERAL
FISHERIES LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AS ADMINISTERED BY
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE. 

"WARNING IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO ALL UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS NOT TO
FISH IN OR USE ANY OF THE WATERS HEREIN DESCRIBED OR MENTIONED." 

A PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION HAD THERETOFORE, 1892, SET APART AFOGNAK
ISLAND, ALASKA, AND ITS ADJACENT BAYS AND TERRITORIAL WATERS AS A
PUBLIC RESERVATION FOR FISH CULTURE WITHOUT SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO
RESERVE WATERS.  27 STAT. 1052. 

FN39  BORAX, LTD. V. LOS ANGELES, 296 U.S. 10, 17, 22.  THIS CASE
TURNED ON THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONVEY TIDELAND SEAWARD OF
THE LINE OF MEAN HIGH TIDE AFTER CALIFORNIA'S ADMISSION TO THE UNION. 
PUBLIC LANDS THERE COULD NOT INCLUDE TIDELANDS AS THEY PASSED TO
CALIFORNIA WHEN SHE BECAME A STATE.  THE CASES CITED IN THE BORAX CASE
TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT AS TO PUBLIC LANDS ARE CASES THAT HAVE NOTHING
TO DO WITH TIDELANDS OR COASTAL WATERS BUT DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE
LANDS IN QUESTION WERE SUBJECT TO DISPOSAL AS PROPERTY OF THE UNITED
STATES, I.E., PUBLIC LANDS.  SEE NEWHALL V. SANGER, 92 U.S. 761, 763;
BARKER V. HARVEY, 181 U.S. 481, 490; UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. HARRIS,
215 U.S. 386, 388. 

FN40  ACT OF MAY 14, 1898, C. 299, 30 STAT. 409, 48 U.S.C. SEC.
371(HOMESTEAD LAWS); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899, C. 424, 30 STAT. 1098, 48
U.S.C. SEC. 351(PUBLIC LAND SURVEYS); ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, C. 2537, 34
STAT. 1232, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 365(LAND DISTRICTS). 

FN41  SEE ALSO MILLER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, NOTE 28; HECKMAN V.
SUTTER, 128 F. 393. 

FN42  CF. UNITED STATES V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 291 U.S. 386,
397. 

FN43  ALASKA FISHERIES GENERAL REGULATIONS, 50 C.F.R., C. II, P.
2333. 

FN44  ID., P. 2355; 3 FED. REG. 393. 

FN45  ID., P. 2359. 

FN46  11 FED. REG. 3105, 9528. 

FN47  EXECUTIVE ORDER OF FEB. 17, 1922, CREATING THE ALASKA PENINSULA
FISHERIES RESERVATION; EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 3752 OF NOV. 3, 1922,
CREATING THE SOUTHWESTERN ALASKA FISHERIES RESERVATION.  REGULATIONS
ISSUED UNDER THESE TWO EXECUTIVE ORDERS ARE PRINTED IN THE FISHERIES
SERVICE BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, DEPT. OF COMMERCE, NO. 92,
JAN. 2, 1923. 

FN48  65 CONG. REC. 5974; 65 CONG. REC. 9520-21; 65 CONG. REC. 9681
ET SEQ.; H.R. REP. NO. 357, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2; S. REP. NO.
449, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5; HOUSE HEARINGS, COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT
MARINE AND FISHERIES, FISHERIES OF ALASKA (1924), ON H.R. 2714, JANUARY
31-FEBRUARY 8, 1924, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 21, ET SEQ. NOTE THAT
THIS IS A DIFFERENT BILL THAN H.R. 8143 WHICH BECAME THE WHITE ACT BUT
THE SUBJECT WAS THE SAME.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 357, SUPRA, P. 1.  DOW V.
ICKES, 74 APP. D.C. 319, 123 F.2D 909. 

FN49  43 STAT. 466: 

"SEC. 6.  ANY PERSON, COMPANY, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION VIOLATING
ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR OF SAID ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED JUNE 26,
1906, OR OF ANY REGULATION MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF EITHER, SHALL,
UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE PUNISHED BY A FIND NOT EXCEEDING $5,000 OR
IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF NOT MORE THAN NINETY DAYS IN THE COUNTY
JAIL, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT; AND IN CASE OF THE
VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 OF SAID ACT APPROVED JUNE 26, 1906, AS AMENDED,
THERE MAY BE IMPOSED A FURTHER FINE NOT EXCEEDING $250 FOR EACH DAY THE
OBSTRUCTION THEREIN DECLARED UNLAWFUL IS MAINTAINED.  EVERY BOAT,
SEINE, NET, TRAP, AND EVERY OTHER GEAR AND APPLIANCE USED OR EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT OR IN VIOLATION OF SAID ACT APPROVED JUNE 26,
1906, AND ALL FISH TAKEN THEREIN OR THEREWITH, SHALL BE FORFEITED TO
THE UNITED STATES, AND SHALL BE SEIZED AND SOLD UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE COURT IN WHICH THE FORFEITURE IS DECLARED, AT PUBLIC AUCTION, AND
THE PROCEEDS THEREOF, AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENSES OF SALE, SHALL BE
DISPOSED OF AS OTHER FINES AND FORFEITURES UNDER THE LAWS RELATING TO
ALASKA.  PROCEEDINGS FOR SUCH FORFEITURE SHALL BE IN REM UNDER THE
RULES OF ADMIRALTY. 

"THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF
FISHERIES, DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS PEACE OFFICERS AND SHALL HAVE THE SAME POWERS OF ARREST
OF PERSONS AND SEIZURE OF PROPERTY FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AS
HAVE UNITED STATES MARSHALS OR THEIR DEPUTIES." 

FN50  43 STAT. 467: 

"SEC. 8.  NOTHING IN THIS ACT CONTAINED, NOR ANY POWERS HEREIN
CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, SHALL ABROGATE OR CURTAIL THE
POWERS GRANTED THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE OF ALASKA TO IMPOSE TAXES OR
LICENSES, NOR LIMIT OR CURTAIL ANY POWERS GRANTED THE TERRITORIAL
LEGISLATURE OF ALASKA BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED AUGUST 24, 1912,
'TO CREATE A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA, TO CONFER
LEGISLATIVE POWER THEREON, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.'" 

FN51  SEE SEC. 1 OF THE WHITE ACT, PP. 92-93, SUPRA. 

FN52  SEE 27 STAT. 631, RELATING TO REPRESENTATION OF INDIANS BY THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEYS; COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN
LAW, PP. 252-53; POWERS OF INDIAN TRIBES, SOLICITOR OF THE INTERIOR,
NATHAN R. MARGOLD, OCTOBER 25, 1934, M27781 PP. 55-58.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. CANDELARIA, 271 U.S. 432; UNITED STATES V. BERRIGAN, 2 ALASKA
442; UNITED STATES V. CADZOW, 5 ALASKA 125. 

FN53  DOW V. ICKES, 74 APP. D.C. 319, 326, 123 F.2D 909, 916:  "IT
PROHIBITS MONOPOLY, BUT IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT REASONABLE DISCRIMINATIONS
REQUIRED BY THE PURPOSE OF CONSERVATION AND LIMITATIONS INHERENT IN THE
TYPE OF FISHING TO WHICH THE SECRETARY'S JUDGMENT MUST BE APPLIED." 

FN54  "AN ORDINANCE.  WHEREAS, UNDER PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128, OF MAY
22, 1943, CREATING THE KARLUK RESERVATION, THE RIGHT TO FISH
COMMERCIALLY IN THE WATERS OF SAID RESERVATION IS RESTRICTED TO THE
INHABITANTS OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK AND VICINITY, AND; 

"WHEREAS, NON-RESIDENTS DESIRE TO CONTINUE THEIR FISHING OPERATIONS
IN THE WATERS OF SAID RESERVATION; 

"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE
OF KARLUK, A FEDERAL CORPORATION CHARTERED UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 18,
1934, AS AMENDED; 

"SECTION 1.  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, PARTNERSHIP,
FIRM, ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION, TO FISH FOR, TAKE OR CATCH ANY FISH,
OR TO OPERATE ANY FISHING VESSEL, GEAR OR EQUIPMENT, WITHIN THE WATERS
OF THE KARLUK RESERVATION EXCEPT UNDER A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE NATIVE
VILLAGE OF KARLUK, FOR WHICH THE FEE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  FOR RESIDENTS OF THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA $1.00 

"(B)  FOR NON-RESIDENTS OF THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA $25.00 

"PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT A PERSON TO QUALIFY FOR A RESIDENT (CLASS A)
PERMIT MUST HAVE RESIDED IN THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA FOR THREE
CONSECUTIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THEIR APPLICATION, OR REQUEST,
FOR A PERMIT. 

"SECTION 2.  THE POSSESSION OF FISH UPON ANY VESSEL WITHIN SAID
WATERS WITHOUT A PERMIT SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A
VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE. 

"SECTION 3.  ANY VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A
FINE OF NOT EXCEEDING FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.) 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"APPROVED THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY, 1945." 

THE 1946 ORDINANCE MADE THE FEE $2.00 FOR RESIDENTS OF ALASKA AND
$40.00 FOR NONRESIDENTS. 

KARLUK HAD RECEIVED ITS CORPORATE CHARTER, CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS
AUGUST 23, 1939.  OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS, OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.  SEE SECS. 16 AND 17, 48 STAT. 987, 988. 

FN55  SECTION 5 OF THE CORPORATE CHARTER OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF
KARLUK PROVIDES THAT "IN USING ITS POWERS THE CORPORATION MUST NOT DO
THE FOLLOWING THINGS: 

     .   .         .         .         . 

"MAKE LEASES, PERMITS OR CONTRACTS COVERING ANY LANDS OR WATERS SET
ASIDE AS A RESERVE FOR THE VILLAGE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE." 

FN56            "COMMERCIAL FISHING PERMIT 

"KARLUK INDIAN RESERVATION, KARLUK, ALASKA, JUNE 30, 1946. 

"PURSUANT TO AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE
OF KARLUK, ALASKA, DATED MAY 31, 1946, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GIVEN BY
THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK TO RAY HARMON OF KODIAK, ALASKA, TO ENTER
THE WATERS AND LAND OF THE KARLUK RESERVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ENGAGING IN COMMERCIAL FISHING FOR SALMON, S.J.F. & P. CO., DURING THE
PERIOD: 

"JUNE 1946 TO SEPTEMBER 1946. 

"THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PRINTED ON THE BACK
HEREOF. 

                                      EWAN M. NAUMOFF

                                        ISSUING OFFICER

                                       PRESIDENT KARLUK

                                          TITLE 

I ACCEPT:                                    APPROVED: 

RAY HARMON                                H. C. BINGHAM

  PERMITTEE                                APPROVING OFFICER 

BOAT NO. OR NAME:  CAROLINE               ASST. TEACHER A.N.S. 

FISHING FOR:  SAN JUAN UGANIK BAY, ALASKA    TITLE 

(CANNERY)    NAME$08RADDRESS

                              "CONDITIONS 

"THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY IF APPROVED BY THE GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT
OF THE INDIAN SERVICE IN ALASKA OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE,
AND IS REVOCABLE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE ISSUING OFFICER.  IT IS NOT
TRANSFERABLE AND MUST BE CARRIED ON THE PERSON OF THE PERMITTEE WHEN
ENGAGED IN FISHING AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER, AND MUST BE EXHIBITED TO ANY
PERSON REQUESTING TO SEE IT.  THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED BY THE
PERMITTEE ON THE EXPRESS CONDITION THAT THE PERMITTEE WILL COMPLY WITH
ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING FISHING ON THE
KARLUK INDIAN RESERVATION, ALASKA.  THE PERMITTEE IS WARNED NOT TO
INTERFERE WITH THE FISHING ACTIVITIES OF THE INDIANS OF THE KARLUK
INDIAN RESERVATION NOR USE, DISTURB, OR DESTROY ANY PROPERTY BELONGING
TO SAID INDIANS." 

FN57  ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK
PROVIDES THAT "CHANGES IN THIS CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS MAY BE MADE IF
THE CHANGES ARE APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND BY A
MAJORITY VOTE OF THE VILLAGE MEMBERS VOTING IN AN ELECTION CALLED BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AT WHICH AT LEAST 30 PER CENT OF THE
VOTING MEMBERSHIP TAKE PART." 

FN58  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE PREPARATION OF
REGULATIONS, COMPARE ADDISON V. HOLLY HILL CO., 322 U.S. 607.  SEE ALSO
THE STATEMENTS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IN HEARINGS BEFORE
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R.
7902(WHEELER-HOWARD ACT). 

FN59  VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552;
HARRISONVILLE V. DICKEY CLAY CO., 289 U.S. 334, 338, NOTE 2. 

FN60  COMPARE ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. FLORIDA, 295 U.S. 301, 314-15;
BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315, 333; ADDISON V. HOLLY HILL CO.,
322 U.S. 607, 620. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY AGREE, DISSENTING IN PART. 

             I. 

JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS ASIDE, I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE
COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128, 8 FED. REG. 8557,  FN1
IS VALID AND WAS EFFECTIVE, ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS, TO INCLUDE IN THE
RESERVATION FOR THE KARLUK INDIANS THE TIDELANDS AND COASTAL WATERS
THEREIN DESCRIBED.  THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY
AUTHORIZATIONS RECITED IN THE ORDER AND PARTICULARLY THE ACT OF MAY 1,
1936, 49 STAT. 1250, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 358A.  WHEN APPROVED BY THE INDIANS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISO OF THE LATTER ACT, ORDER 128 WITHDREW
THE AREA COVERED FROM ANY GENERAL OR PUBLIC RIGHT OF ACCESS FOR FISHING
OR OTHER PURPOSES INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF THE RESERVATION AND SET
ASIDE THAT AREA FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN OCCUPANTS AND
INHABITANTS.  CF. ALASKA PACIFIC FISHERIES V. UNITED STATES, 248 U.S.
78.  THE NECESSARY EFFECT WAS TO FORBID OTHERS TO ENTER THE AREA FOR
PURPOSES INCONSISTENT WITH THE RESERVATION'S OBJECTS, THUS MAKING
PERSONS SO ENTERING TRESPASSERS AND SUBJECT TO SUCH REMEDIES AS THE LAW
MAY AFFORD TO PREVENT OR REDRESS THEIR WRONGFUL ENTRY.    BY HIS 1946
AMENDMENTS TO THE ALASKA FISHERIES GENERAL REGULATIONS, 50 C.F.R., 1946
SUPP., SEC. 208.23(R), THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR REINFORCED HIS
PRIOR ACTION IN SETTING ASIDE THE KARLUK RESERVATION, PROHIBITING
FISHING WITHIN THE COASTAL WATERS INCLUDED IN PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128,
EXCEPT "BY NATIVES IN POSSESSION OF SAID RESERVATION" AND "BY OTHER
PERSONS UNDER AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SAID NATIVES  ...  BY OR PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF KARLUK" APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OR
HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.  FN2  THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN
PURSUANT TO 34 STAT. 263, 478, AS AMENDED BY THE WHITE ACT OF JUNE 6,
1924, 43 STAT. 464, AS AMENDED JUNE 18, 1926, 44 STAT. 752. 

THAT ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF "PROTECTING AND CONSERVING THE FISHERIES
OF THE UNITED STATES IN ALL WATERS OF ALASKA," CONFERRED UPON THE
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE (NOW INTERIOR), BROAD POWERS TO "SET APART AND
RESERVE FISHING AREAS IN ANY OF THE WATERS OF ALASKA OVER WHICH THE
UNITED STATES HAS JURISDICTION" AND WITHIN SUCH AREAS TO "ESTABLISH
CLOSED SEASONS DURING WHICH FISHING MAY BE LIMITED OR PROHIBITED AS HE
MAY PRESCRIBE."  SEE DOW V. ICKES, 74 APP. D.C. 319.  EFFECTIVE PENAL
PROVISIONS BY WAY OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AND FOR SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE
OF OFFENDING BOATS, GEAR AND APPLIANCES WERE ENACTED TO PREVENT OR
REDRESS VIOLATION OF THE REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE'S
AUTHORIZATION.  FN3 

THE PROMULGATION OF AMENDED REGULATIONS SEC. 208.23(R), PURSUANT TO
THE WHITE ACT'S PROVISIONS, REINFORCED THE EFFECT OF PUBLIC LAND ORDER
128 IN WITHDRAWING THE AREA COVERED BY THE LATTER FROM PUBLIC OR COMMON
RIGHT OF ENTRY FOR FISHING AND OTHER PURPOSES.  BUT IT HAD ALSO THE
FURTHER EFFECT OF NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC THAT TRESPASS UPON THE RESERVED
AREA BY PERSONS NOT ENTITLED TO ENTER AND USE IT WOULD BE MET WITH THE
WHITE ACT SANCTIONS  FN4  FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER AND THE AMENDED
REGULATIONS. 

ALTHOUGH HOLDING PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128 VALID AND EFFECTIVE TO
ESTABLISH THE RESERVATION FOR THE INDIANS' EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT, THE COURT
FINDS AMENDED REGULATIONS SEC. 208.23(R) "VOID AS A WHOLE."  THE CHIEF
CONSEQUENCE HELD TO FOLLOW IS THAT THE WHITE ACT SANCTIONS CANNOT BE
APPLIED TO ENFORCE THE REGULATIONS OR TO PREVENT OR REDRESS TRESPASS
UPON THE RESERVATION BY OTHERS THAN THE INDIANS IN POSSESSION OR THEIR
LICENSEES. 

WITH THIS CONCLUSION I CANNOT AGREE.  THE AMENDED REGULATIONS'
INVALIDITY IS SAID TO FOLLOW SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE EXCEPTION PERMITTING
NATIVES AND THEIR LICENSEES TO FISH IN RESERVATION WATERS.  THIS IS
SAID TO VIOLATE THE WHITE ACT PROVISO, WHICH FORBIDS ANY "EXCLUSIVE OR
SEVERAL RIGHT OF FISHERY" AND DENIAL TO ANY CITIZEN OF THE RIGHT TO
FISH IN ANY WATERS WHERE FISHING IS PERMITTED BY THE SECRETARY'S
REGULATIONS.  IN OTHER WORDS, BECAUSE THE SECRETARY ALLOWS THE INDIANS
TO FISH IN THE RESERVATION WATERS HE MUST ALLOW ALL OTHERS TO DO SO ON
EQUAL TERMS, OTHERWISE HIS REGULATIONS BECOME TOTALLY VOID AND THE
WHITE ACT SANCTIONS UNAVAILABLE FOR PROTECTION OF THE RESERVATIONS AND
THE INDIANS' RIGHTS. 

THIS VIEW, IT SEEMS TO ME, RESTS UPON TWO FALLACIES.  ONE IS THAT THE
TWO STATUTES, OF 1936 AND 1924, ARE IN IRRECONCILABLE COLLISION AND THE
SECRETARY CANNOT EXERCISE THE POWERS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE 1936 ACT AND
BY THE WHITE ACT CONSISTENTLY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE
SAME WATERS.  THE OTHER FALLACY IS A COROLLARY, NAMELY, THAT THE WHITE
ACT PROVISO APPLIES WHEREVER THE WHITE ACT PROHIBITIONS AND SANCTIONS
MAY BE MADE APPLICABLE, EVEN THOUGH THE AREA IS A VALID INDIAN
RESERVATION. 

I DO NOT THINK THE TWO STATUTES ARE IN SUCH INESCAPABLE INCONSISTENCY
AS FORBIDS THEIR SIMULTANEOUS AND HARMONIOUS APPLICATION IN SETTING
ASIDE AND PROTECTING RESERVATIONS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE AND BENEFIT OF
THE NATIVE INDIAN POPULATION.  INDEED THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND
PURPOSES DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO SERVE COMMON OBJECTS IN
THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF ALASKAN FISHERIES. 

THE WHITE ACT WAS ADOPTED IN 1924.  ITS PRIMARY OBJECT WAS TO
PRESERVE THE FISHERIES OF ALASKA FROM THE DESTRUCTIVE PRIVATE
EXPLOITATION THEN TAKING PLACE.  THAT EVIL DID NOT ARISE FROM ANY
PREVIOUS, EXISTING, OR ANTICIPATED POLICY OF SETTING ASIDE RESERVATIONS
FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF THE NATIVES.  IT AROSE EXCLUSIVELY FROM
QUITE THE CONTRARY POLICY OF PERMITTING WIDESPREAD COMMERCIAL
EXPLOITATION BY SPECIALLY FAVORED GROUPS, NOT OF INDIANS BUT OF OTHERS
WHO SOUGHT AND SECURED MONOPOLISTIC PRIVILEGES AND FAVORS IN FISHING. 
THERE WERE THEREFORE TWIN EVILS AT WHICH THE WHITE ACT STRUCK.  ONE WAS
THE RAPID AND VIRTUALLY UNRESTRAINED DEPLETION AND DESTRUCTION OF THE
FISHERIES; THE OTHER, THE EXPANDING CREATION OF COMMERCIAL MONOPOLIES
FOSTERED BY PREEXISTING POLICY IN REGULATING THE INDUSTRY.  65 CONG.
REC. 9520-9521; SEE ALSO 65 CONG. REC. 9680-9682; H.R. REP. NO. 357,
68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2; S. REP. NO. 449, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 5;
HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES ON
H.R. 2714, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

THE WHITE ACT, ACCORDINGLY, WAS NOT MERELY AND EXCLUSIVELY AN
ANTIMONOPOLY STATUTE.  IT WAS BOTH A CONSERVATION MEASURE AND ONE TO
OUTLAW PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL MONOPOLY.  THE CONSERVATION FEATURES WERE
CONTAINED IN THE BASIC GENERAL PROVISIONS GIVING THE SECRETARY HIS
BROAD POWERS OF CONTROL OVER FISHING.  THE MORE SPECIFIC ANTIMONOPOLY
FEATURES WERE INCLUDED IN THE PROVISO.  THE LATTER WERE IMPORTANT.  BUT
THEY DID NOT OVERRIDE OR MINIMIZE THE MORE GENERAL PROVISIONS, APART
FROM THE PROVISO, GIVING THE SECRETARY POWER TO REGULATE THE INDUSTRY
IN THE INTEREST OF "PROTECTING AND CONSERVING THE FISHERIES OF THE
UNITED STATES IN ALL WATERS OF ALASKA."  THE PROVISO MERELY LIMITED THE
MANNER IN WHICH HIS POWER WAS TO BE EXERCISED IN THE SITUATIONS TO
WHICH THE PROVISO WAS APPLICABLE. 

SO THE QUESTIONS ARISE WHETHER THE PROVISO WAS INTENDED TO HAVE ANY
EFFECT IN WATERS VALIDLY SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS, EXECUTIVE ORDER, OR THE
SECRETARY AS RESERVATIONS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF THE NATIVE
POPULATION AND, CORRELATIVELY, WHETHER THE POLICY OF THE PROVISO WAS
MEANT TO FORBID THE APPLICATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE WHITE ACT,
INCLUDING ITS PROHIBITIONS AND SANCTIONS, IN THE PROTECTION AND
CONSERVATION OF SUCH RESERVATIONS.  IN OTHER WORDS, WAS THE GENERAL
POLICY OF THE WHITE ACT IN CONFLICT WITH THE POLICY EXISTING AT ITS
ENACTMENT CONCERNING ALASKAN INDIAN RESERVATIONS OR LATER UNDER THE
1936 ACT, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT THE TWO POLICIES OR STATUTES BE KEPT
ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT IN THEIR APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION
AND TO FORBID THEM TO BE APPLIED CONJOINTLY IN EXECUTING THEIR COMMON
CONSERVING AND PROTECTING OBJECTS? 

CERTAINLY THE WHITE ACT PROVISO HAD NO PURPOSE TO THROW OPEN VALIDLY
CREATED INDIAN RESERVATIONS TO FISHING BY ALL COMERS.  ITS AIM WAS NOT
TO DESTROY SUCH RESERVATIONS OR TO OPEN THEM TO GENERAL, COMMON RIGHTS
OF FISHING.  IN VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CITED ABOVE, WHICH IS
CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED BY SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION N5,
THE PROVISO CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS EXPRESSING ANY POLICY HOSTILE TO
CREATING SUCH RESERVATIONS WITH EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF FISHING FOR THE
NATIVE POPULATION AND PROTECTING THEM AGAINST WRONGFUL INVASION.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THE STATUTE, INCLUDING THE PROVISO, WAS STRONGLY
SUPPORTED BY THE DELEGATES IN CONGRESS FROM ALASKA AND OTHERS
REPRESENTING THE NATIVE INTERESTS  FN6  AS AGAINST THOSE OF COMMERCIAL
EXPLOITATION TOWARD WHICH THE ACT WAS AIMED.  THERE WERE NUMEROUS
INDIAN RESERVATIONS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE LEGISLATION, CF.
ALASKA PACIFIC FISHERIES V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AFFORDING THE NATIVES
EXCLUSIVE FISHING RIGHTS.  BUT THE EXTENSIVE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
DISCLOSES NO PROTEST, COMPLAINT OR CONCERN ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF THEM. 
INDEED IT GIVES STRONG REASON FOR BELIEVING THAT THE NATIVE INTERESTS
JOINED WITH OTHERS IN OPPOSING CONTINUANCE OF THE POLICY OF
MONOPOLISTIC COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION AND IN SUPPORT OF THE WHITE ACT,
INCLUDING THE PROVISO, AS A NECESSARY METHOD OF PREVENTING THE IMMINENT
DESTRUCTION OF THE NATIVES' HISTORIC MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD BY THAT FORM
OF EXPLOITATION, AND NOT AT ALL BY REASON OF ANY EVILS ARISING OUT OF
EXCLUSIVE FISHING RIGHTS GRANTED TO THE NATIVE POPULATION IN
RESERVATIONS VALIDLY CREATED FOR ITS BENEFIT. 

CONSEQUENTLY, FAR FROM REPRESENTING AN ATTITUDE OR PURPOSE OF
HOSTILITY TOWARD A POLICY OF INDIAN RESERVATIONS WITH EXCLUSIVE NATIVE
RIGHTS OF FISHING, THE WHITE ACT CONSTITUTED AN EFFECTIVE STEP TOWARD
CONSERVING THE ALASKAN FISHERIES, UNDER THE SECRETARY'S BROAD
REGULATORY POWERS, FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS WELL AS FOR THE PREVENTION OF
MONOPOLY IN OPEN FISHING AREAS WHERE NO RESERVATIONS EXISTED. 

IT FOLLOWS, IN MY VIEW, THAT THE WHITE ACT PROVISO HAS, AND WAS
INTENDED TO HAVE, NO APPLICATION TO VALIDLY CREATED INDIAN
RESERVATIONS, EITHER TO FORBID THE SECRETARY TO EXCLUDE OTHERS THAN
NATIVES FROM FISHING IN THE RESERVATION WATERS OR TO COMPEL HIM, IF HE
ALLOWS THE NATIVES TO FISH, TO PERMIT ALL OTHER CITIZENS TO DO SO ON
EQUAL TERMS.  THE PROVISO HAD NO PURPOSE SO TO RESTRICT HIS POWERS IN
RELATION TO RESERVATION AREAS.  IT WAS DIRECTED SOLELY AGAINST ABUSES
BY OTHER THAN NATIVE INTERESTS IN WATERS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN AREAS SET
ASIDE FOR THE NATIVES' EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT. 

BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, IN MY OPINION, THAT BECAUSE THE PROVISO IS
INAPPLICABLE THE SECRETARY IS FORBIDDEN TO EXERCISE HIS REGULATORY AND
ENFORCING POWERS UNDER THE WHITE ACT IN PROTECTION OF RESERVATIONS AND
THE NATIVES' EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS IN THEM OR THAT HE CANNOT UTILIZE THOSE
POWERS AND THE WHITE ACT SANCTIONS CONJOINTLY WITH HIS AUTHORITY UNDER
THE 1936 ACT TO CREATE RESERVATIONS AND PROTECT THEM AGAINST UNLAWFUL
INVASION.  THE WHITE ACT PROVISO ASIDE AS INAPPLICABLE IN PURPOSE AND
INTENT TO THE SPECIFIC SITUATION, I.E., ONE INVOLVING A VALIDLY CREATED
RESERVATION, NOTHING IN EITHER STATUTE FORBIDS HIS DOING SO.  EACH IS
IN TERMS A CONSERVATION MEASURE, HAVING THE COMMON OBJECT OF PRESERVING
AND PROTECTING THE ALASKAN FISHERIES FROM UNRESTRICTED EXPLOITATION AND
DESTRUCTION BY COMMERCIAL INTEREST.  THAT COMMUNITY OF PURPOSE IS NOT
AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE ONE ACT SECURES THIS PROTECTION FOR THE
PUBLIC GENERALLY, THE OTHER FOR THE SPECIAL BENEFIT OF THE NATIVE
POPULATION.  THAT DIFFERENCE MERELY MEANS THAT TWO INTERESTS REQUIRE
AND ARE GIVEN PROTECTION AGAINST A THIRD, NOT THAT THE LATTER ACQUIRES
IMMUNITY AGAINST PROTECTION AFFORDED EITHER OR BOTH OF THE OTHER TWO. 

ACCORDINGLY, IN MY OPINION, THE WHITE ACT PROVISO BEING INAPPLICABLE
TO WATERS INCLUDED IN A VALID INDIAN RESERVATION, THE TWO STATUTES MAY
BE APPLIED TO SERVE THEIR BASIC COMMON OBJECTS OF CONSERVING AND
PROTECTING FISHERIES IN ALL ALASKAN WATERS, INCLUDING THOSE SET APART
AS VALID INDIAN RESERVATIONS, AS AGAINST THE PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL
EXPLOITATION AND MONOPOLY WHICH THE WHITE ACT AND THE ACT OF 1936 WERE
INTENDED TO PREVENT.  THE STATUTES SHOULD BE SONSTRUED, AND CONGRESS, I
THINK, INTENDED THEM TO BE CONSTRUED, SO AS TO WORK TOGETHER
HARMONIOUSLY, NOT IRRECONCILABLY, TO ACHIEVE THIS OBJECT. 

I THEREFORE CANNOT REGARD AMENDED REGULATIONS SEC. 208.23(R) AS "VOID
AS A WHOLE."  THE REGULATIONS ARE VALID, IN MY JUDGMENT, AND
ENFORCEABLE BY APPLICATION OF THE WHITE ACT SANCTIONS, EXCEPT POSSIBLY
IN ONE RESPECT.  THIS IS THE FEATURE BY WHICH THE SECRETARY HAS
DELEGATED TO THE VILLAGE OF KARLUK THE AUTHORITY BY ORDINANCE TO
LICENSE OTHERS THAN NATIVES OF THE VILLAGE TO FISH ON TERMS FIXED BY
THE ORDINANCE SUBJECT TO THE SECRETARY'S APPROVAL.  CONCEIVABLY THAT
POWER MIGHT BE EXERCISED BY THE VILLAGE, THROUGH LICENSING OTHERS THAN
NATIVE INHABITANTS, IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THE SPIRIT OF THE
WHITE ACT PROVISO, I.E., BY LICENSING FAVORED COMMERCIAL INTERESTS SO
AS TO CREATE ESSENTIALLY THE TYPE OR TYPES OF MONOPOLY OR FAVORITISM
THE PROVISO INTENDED TO FORBID. 

IT IS ONE THING OF COURSE FOR THE SECRETARY TO GIVE THE NATIVES
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF FISHING IN THE RESERVATION'S WATERS.  IT MAY BE
ENTIRELY ANOTHER FOR HIM TO DELEGATE TO THEM THE LICENSING OF OTHERS,
EVEN RETAINING THE POWER TO APPROVE THE LICENSING ORDINANCE AS AMENDED
REGULATIONS SEC. 208.23(R) DOES. 

 II. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE REGULATIONS UPON THE
VILLAGE TO LICENSE OTHERS IS VALID IS A QUESTION, HOWEVER, WHICH I
THINK IT NEITHER NECESSARY NOR APPROPRIATE TO ANSWER IN THIS
PROCEEDING, FOR REASONS AFFECTING THE EXISTENCE AND PROPRIETY OF
EXERCISING EQUITY JURISDICTION IN THIS CAUSE, NOW TO BE STATED. 

I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THE EXISTENCE OF EQUITY JURISDICTION ON THE SHOWING
MADE BY THIS RECORD.  BUT IN ANY EVENT I DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE
EXERCISED TO AFFORD RESPONDENTS THE RELIEF THEY HAVE SOUGHT.  THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, WHOSE REGULATIONS AND AUTHORITY ARE AT
STAKE, HAS NOT BEEN MADE A PARTY TO THE SUIT.  NOR HAS THE VILLAGE OF
KARLUK, WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS VITALLY INTERESTED.  MOREOVER, THE
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THREATENED ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS BY
WHITE ACT SANCTIONS SEEM QUESTIONABLY SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS
FOR EQUITABLE INTERVENTION, IN VIEW OF CIRCUMSTANCES APPEARING IN THE
RECORD AND ASSERTED IN BRIEFS FILED HERE QUESTIONING THEIR
SUFFICIENCY. 

BUT, IF ALL THESE FACTORS ARE PUT TO ONE SIDE, ONE OTHER REMAINS
WHICH IN MY OPINION PRECLUDES GRANTING THE EQUITABLE RELIEF RESPONDENTS
SEEK.  THEIR CLAIM WAS FOUNDED IN THE COMPLAINT, AS I THINK IT HAD TO
BE, NOT ONLY UPON THE ALLEGED INVALIDITY OF AMENDED REGULATIONS SEC.
208.23(R), BUT ALSO UPON THE ASSERTED INVALIDITY OF PUBLIC LAND ORDER
128.  HOWEVER, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THE LATTER ATTACK, FOR
THE COURT HOLDS THAT PUBLIC LAND ORDER 128 IS VALID AND WAS EFFECTIVE
TO CREATE THE KARLUK RESERVATION ACCORDING TO THAT ORDER'S TERMS. 
THIS RULING CUTS ALL VALID GROUND FROM BENEATH RESPONDENTS' CLAIM TO
AID FROM A COURT OF EQUITY.  WITH IT, THEY COME NOT AS PERSONS ENTITLED
OF RIGHT TO ENTER THE RESERVATION AND FISH, BUT SOLELY AS TRESPASSERS
HAVING NO RIGHT OF ENTRY, BUT SEEKING ONLY TO AVERT THE INCIDENCE OF
POSSIBLE REMEDIES FOR THREATENED WRONGFUL ENTRY.  IN EFFECT THE COURT'S
DECISION IS THAT RESPONDENTS, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE NOT PUT FORWARD THEIR
CASE IN THIS LIGHT, ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE IT SO DETERMINED AND TO HAVE
EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH PREVENTS POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF WHITE ACT
SANCTIONS AGAINST THEM.  I CANNOT AGREE THAT PERSONS SO SITUATED HAVE
STANDING TO INVOKE THE ASSISTANCE OF A COURT OF EQUITY.  ACCORDINGLY I
THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE SHOULD BE REMANDED
WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS IT. 

FN1  SET FORTH AT NOTE 1 OF THE COURT'S OPINION. 

FN2  SEE TEXT OF THE AMENDED REGULATION AS QUOTED IN THE COURT'S
OPINION AT P. 92. 

FN3  REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE COURT'S OPINION AT PP. 92-93 FOR THE
PERTINENT LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND AT NOTE 49 FOR THE ACT'S PENAL
PROVISIONS. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 49, MAJORITY OPINION. 

FN5  SEE, E.G., DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR
PROTECTION OF FISHERIES OF ALASKA (DEPT. CIRCULAR NO. 251, 13TH ED.),
DEC. 22, 1926; OP. OF SOLICITOR, DEPT. OF INTERIOR, 56 I.D. 110. 

FN6  SEE THE LEGISLATIVE DEBATES, REPORTS AND HEARINGS CITED IN THE
TEXT, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS IN PART I OF THIS OPINION. 
..END :















SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 137 


NO. 292.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 7, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1949.  - 169 F.2D
856, REVERSED. 


IN A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT AND FOR
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942,
PETITIONER CLAIMED IMMUNITY UNDER SEC. 202 OF THE LATTER ACT, WHICH
INCORPORATES THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF
1893.  THE CHARGES INVOLVED MISUSE OF PRIORITIES FOR MATERIALS AND
CONSPIRACY TO SELL GOODS AT ABOVE-CEILING PRICES.  THE CLAIM OF
IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION WAS BASED ON TESTIMONY GIVEN BY PETITIONER
BEFORE AN EXAMINER OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION IN RESPONSE TO
SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THAT OFFICE.  HELD: 

1.  PETITIONER HAVING CLAIMED AND RELIED ON HIS PRIVILEGE FROM THE
BEGINNING OF HIS EXAMINATION, AND HIS TESTIMONY, IN PART AT LEAST,
HAVING BORNE DIRECTLY ON THE SUBSEQUENT CHARGES, HE WAS ENTITLED TO
IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION.  PP. 146-149. 

2.  PETITIONER'S IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION ON FACTS CONCERNING WHICH
HE WAS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY WAS NOT WAIVED IN THIS CASE BY A SUBSEQUENT
"VOLUNTARY STATEMENT."  PP. 149-152. 

(A)  ALTHOUGH THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION MAY BE WAIVED,
A WAIVER IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED.  PP. 149-150. 

(B)  A WITNESS CAN NOT PROPERLY BE HELD AFTER CLAIM TO HAVE WAIVED
HIS PRIVILEGE AND CONSEQUENT IMMUNITY UPON VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN
EVIDENCE.  P. 150. 

3.  AS TO THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE, PETITIONER TESTIFIED CONCERNING
TRANSACTIONS, MATTERS AND THINGS SUBSTANTIALLY CONNECTED WITH PARTS OF
THE CONSPIRACY; HIS TESTIMONY WAS NOT WHOLLY EXCULPATORY; AND HE WAS
ENTITLED TO THE CLAIMED IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION.  PP. 152-153. 

SMITH V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S CONVICTION ON CHARGES OF VIOLATING THE SECOND WAR POWERS
ACT AND OF CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF
1942 WAS AFFIRMED IN PART BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  169 F.2D 856.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 882.  REVERSED, P. 153. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, GEORGE SMITH, TOGETHER WITH DAISART SPORTSWEAR, INC., AND
ANOTHER PERSON, WAS CHARGED BY THE UNITED STATES IN TWO INFORMATIONS OF
FORTY-ONE COUNTS EACH WITH VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 301 OF THE SECOND WAR
POWERS ACT  FN1  AND PRIORITIES REGULATIONS NOS. 1 AND 3.  FN2  THE
FIRST INFORMATION CHARGED PETITIONER AND HIS CO-DEFENDANTS WITH THE
INTENTIONAL MISUSE OF PRIORITY RATINGS IN FORTY-ONE INSTANCES IN ORDER
TO PURCHASE CERTAIN COTTON AND RAYON MATERIALS AND THE SECOND
INFORMATION CHARGED THEM WITH THE UNLAWFUL UTILIZATION OF THE TEXTILES
SO OBTAINED.  THE SAME DEFENDANTS WERE ALSO INDICTED IN THE SAME COURT
FOR CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942  FN3
AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER BY SELLING FINISHED PIECE GOODS ABOVE
THE ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM PRICE AND BY KEEPING FALSE RECORDS OF THEIR
TRANSACTIONS.  THE TWO INFORMATIONS AND THE INDICTMENT WERE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; AFTER TRIAL BEFORE A JURY PETITIONER
WAS FOUND GUILTY ON THE INDICTMENT AND ON THIRTY-FIVE COUNTS OF EACH OF
THE INFORMATIONS.  ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION AS TO THE INDICTMENT AND TWENTY-THREE
COUNTS OF EACH OF THE INFORMATIONS, BUT REVERSED AS TO TWELVE COUNTS OF
EACH OF THE TWO INFORMATIONS.  UNITED STATES V. DAISART SPORTSWEAR, 169
F.2D 856. 

DURING 1944 AND 1945 THE PETITIONER, SMITH, WAS THE SOLE OWNER AND
OFFICER OF DAISART SPORTSWEAR, INC. (HEREINAFTER CALLED DAISART), A
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE FABRICATION, PURCHASE, AND SALE OF TEXTILE
GOODS.  ITS ACTUAL OPERATION WAS AS A CONTRACTOR WORKING ON THE GOODS
OF OTHERS.  AS PART OF ITS BUSINESS DAISART WAS TO FURNISH METALS
DISINTEGRATING CORPORATION WITH CLOTH BAGS FOR FILTERING AND PACKING
THE METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURED BY METALS DISINTEGRATING UNDER CONTRACTS
WITH THE ARMY AND NAVY.  THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD HAD GRANTED METALS
DISINTEGRATING HIGH PREFERENCE RATINGS TO SECURE THE MATERIALS
NECESSARY TO FULFILL ITS GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.  BECAUSE OF ITS
INABILITY TO PROVIDE THE PARTICULAR CLOTH USED TO MAKE POWDER BAGS,
WHICH WAS OF A GREYISH WHITE DUCK COLOR, VERY SIMILAR TO THE CANVAS
USED IN TENTS, METALS DISINTEGRATING GAVE DAISART HIGH BLANKET
PREFERENCE RATINGS WHICH DAISART WAS TO APPLY OR EXTEND  FN4  TO
PURCHASE ALL THE PIECE GOODS NEEDED TO MANUFACTURE THE BAGS. 

THERE IS EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A JURY IN FINDING THE FOLLOWING
FACTS.  THROUGH THE USE OF THESE TOP PRIORITIES PETITIONER OBTAINED
PIECE GOODS FOR HIS COMPANY, AND IN THE ORDERS HE CERTIFIED THAT THE
GOODS WERE TO BE MANUFACTURED INTO POWDER BAGS.  OVER TWO AND A HALF
MILLION SQUARE YARDS OF MATERIAL WERE THUS INVOICED TO AND PAID FOR BY
DAISART.  METALS DISINTEGRATING, HOWEVER, PURCHASED FROM DAISART ONLY
11,987 POWDER BAGS, CONSISTING OF 48,920 SQUARE YARDS OF MATERIAL. 
MOREOVER THESE PIECE GOODS WHICH PETITIONER OBTAINED BY MEANS OF
PREFERENCE RATINGS CONSISTED OF FABRICS OF A WIDE VARIETY OF COLORS AND
FINISHES.  THEY WERE RESOLD BY DAISART, OFTEN STILL IN THEIR ORIGINAL
PACKING, TO MANUFACTURERS OF CIVILIAN CLOTHING AT PRICES FAR IN EXCESS
OF THE MAXIMUM ESTABLISHED BY LAW.  IN THESE TRANSACTIONS PETITIONER
AND HIS CORPORATION IN CONSPIRACY WITH THE OTHER PERSON INDICTED USED
FICTITIOUS NAMES, GAVE FALSE DESCRIPTIONS OF GOODS AND PRICES, AND
FALSIFIED INVOICES, BUT THE MONEY PAID FOR THE GOODS ARRIVED BY
CIRCUITOUS AND DEVIOUS ROUTES INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF EITHER
PETITIONER OR DAISART SPORTSWEAR, INC. 

SUCH EVIDENCE IS AMPLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN PETITIONER'S CONVICTION
ON THE INFORMATIONS AND INDICTMENT, BUT HE INSISTS THAT HE IS IMMUNE
FROM PROSECUTION FOR THE ACTS OF WHICH HE STANDS CONVICTED.  HE BASES
HIS CLAIM TO IMMUNITY ON SEC. 202 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF
1942, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 23, 58 STAT. 632, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SUCH STUDIES AND
INVESTIGATIONS, TO CONDUCT SUCH HEARINGS, AND TO OBTAIN SUCH
INFORMATION AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO ASSIST HIM IN
PRESCRIBING ANY REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER THIS ACT, OR IN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT AND REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND
PRICE SCHEDULES THEREUNDER. 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"(C)  FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING ANY INFORMATION UNDER SUBSECTION
(A), THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY BY SUBPENA REQUIRE ANY OTHER PERSON TO
APPEAR AND TESTIFY OR TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, OR BOTH, AT ANY
DESIGNATED PLACE. 

     .     .         .         .         . 

"(G)  NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THIS SECTION BECAUSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
BUT THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF FEBRUARY
11, 1893(U.S.C., 1934 EDITION, TITLE 49, SEC. 46), SHALL APPLY WITH
RESPECT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS SUCH PRIVILEGE." 

THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1893, 27 STAT. 443, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 46, PROVIDES: 

"THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM ATTENDING AND TESTIFYING OR
FROM PRODUCING BOOKS, PAPERS, TARIFFS, CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS AND
DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, OR IN OBEDIENCE TO
THE SUBPOENA OF THE COMMISSION,  ...  ON THE GROUND OR FOR THE REASON
THAT THE TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE, REQUIRED OF
HIM, MAY TEND TO CRIMINATE HIM OR SUBJECT HIM TO A PENALTY OR
FORFEITURE.  BUT NO PERSON SHALL BE PROSECUTED OR SUBJECTED TO ANY
PENALTY OR FORFEITURE FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY TRANSACTION, MATTER OR
THING, CONCERNING WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY, OR PRODUCE EVIDENCE,
DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE, BEFORE SAID COMMISSION, OR IN OBEDIENCE TO
ITS SUBPOENA,  ...  PROVIDED, THAT NO PERSON SO TESTIFYING SHALL BE
EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT FOR PERJURY COMMITTED IN SO
TESTIFYING." 

PETITIONER'S PLEA OF IMMUNITY AROSE OUT OF HIS TESTIFYING BEFORE AN
EXAMINER OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION IN RESPONSE TO SUBPOENAS
ISSUED BY THAT OFFICE.  IN AUGUST, 1945, INVESTIGATORS OF THE WAR
PRODUCTION BOARD BEGAN AN INQUIRY INTO THE TRANSACTIONS OF DAISART
SPORTSWEAR, INC. TWO SUBPOENAS WERE ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION SUMMONING PETITIONER INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN OFFICER OF
DAISART TO APPEAR BEFORE AN OFFICIAL OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION.  THE SUBPOENAS DIRECTED PETITIONER TO PRODUCE ALL
RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS "PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASE, SALE, MANUFACTURE,
FABRICATION AND/OR FINISHING PIECE GOODS, MATERIALS, FABRICS FROM
JANUARY 1, 1945, UP TO THE PRESENT TIME."  ON APRIL 30, 1946, PURSUANT
TO THE SUBPOENAS, PETITIONER APPEARED WITH COUNSEL BEFORE AN EXAMINER
OF THE O.P.A. AFTER A RULING, UNCHALLENGED BY RESPONDENT, THAT THE
APPEARANCE WAS UNDER THE COMPULSION OF A VALID SUBPOENA, PETITIONER WAS
SWORN IN AS A WITNESS AND ADVISED ERRONEOUSLY THAT HE COULD NOT BE
COMPELLED TO MAKE ANY SELF-INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS AND FURTHER ADVISED
THAT HE HAD CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES.  THIS WAS AN OBVIOUS
REFERENCE TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION AS RECOGNIZED BY SEC. 202 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT OF 1942, QUOTED ABOVE. 

AFTER A FEW QUESTIONS OF A PRELIMINARY NATURE, PETITIONER STATED:  "I
WANT TO CLAIM PRIVILEGE AS TO ANYTHING THAT I SAY."  THEREAFTER, IN
ANSWER TO QUESTIONS BY THE EXAMINER, PETITIONER EXPLAINED THAT THE
RECORDS REQUIRED BY THE SUBPOENAS HAD EITHER BEEN DESTROYED, LOST, OR
MISPLACED.  HE TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS THE SOLE OWNER AND OFFICER OF
DAISART SPORTSWEAR, INC., WHICH UNTIL IT WENT OUT OF BUSINESS IN
OCTOBER, 1945, WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE, PURCHASE, AND SALE OF
TEXTILES AND ALLIED PRODUCTS.  IN CARRYING ON THIS BUSINESS, THE
MATERIAL OUT OF WHICH PRODUCTS WERE MADE WAS OFTEN FURNISHED TO DAISART
BY THE ORGANIZATION, A SO-CALLED MANUFACTURER, FOR WHOM DAISART
CONTRACTED TO MAKE THE PRODUCT.  SMITH THEN TESTIFIED THAT FROM VARIOUS
OPERATIONS DAISART SOLD SURPLUS FABRICS AND TEXTILES; THAT FOR METALS
DISINTEGRATING COMPANY, DAISART MADE BAGS AND THAT FOR CERTAIN
MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS DAISART HAD TO ACQUIRE MATERIALS AND FABRICS. 
HE DENIED THAT DAISART BOUGHT ANY MATERIAL FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
RESELLING IT AND STATED THAT DAISART SOLD ONLY MATERIAL WHICH WAS
SURPLUSAGE FROM ITS VARIOUS OPERATIONS.  AS EXAMPLES OF HIS COMPANY'S
OPERATIONS, PETITIONER SAID THAT DAISART WAS A CONTRACTOR FOR FIVE
COMPANIES WHICH HE SPECIFICALLY NAMED AND FOR MANY OTHERS WHOSE NAMES
HAD SLIPPED HIS MIND, AND THAT DAISART ALSO MANUFACTURED AMMUNITION
BAGS AS A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR METALS DISINTEGRATING COMPANY, WHICH HAD A
PRIME CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  IN REPLY TO THE QUESTION AS TO HOW
DAISART ARRIVED AT ITS SELLING PRICE WITH RESPECT TO THE MATERIAL IT
SOLD, PETITIONER ANSWERED:  "SINCE IT WAS SURPLUS, IT WAS SOLD AT THE
PRICE BILLED TO ME PLUS FREIGHT AND HAULAGE AND LESS DISCOUNT ALLOWED
TO ME." 

PETITIONER GAVE THE NAMES OF "A. STEINMAN & CO.," "L. LAZARUS & CO.,"
AND "SOUTHEASTERN COTTONS" AS THREE OF THE FIRMS FROM WHOM DAISART
PURCHASED MATERIALS AND FABRICS, STATED THAT DAISART RECEIVED INVOICES
FROM THE SUPPLIERS FOR ITS PURCHASES, AND THAT DAISART PAID FOR ITS
PURCHASES BY CHECK AT ALL TIMES.  HE DISCLOSED THE FIDELITY UNION TRUST
COMPANY OF NEWARK, N.J., AS THE BANK WHERE DAISART MAINTAINED ITS
ACCOUNT, AND GAVE THE NAME OF THE ACCOUNTANT WHO HAD THE SOCIAL
SECURITY AND BANK STATEMENTS OF DAISART.  HE TESTIFIED THAT THESE
RECORDS WOULD REFLECT THE TOTAL OVERALL BUSINESS OF DAISART, INCLUDING
THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF ALL MATERIALS.  ACCORDING TO PETITIONER,
DAISART USUALLY RECEIVED THE MATERIAL FROM THE MANUFACTURER WITH WHOM
IT WAS CONTRACTING, AND DAISART MERELY SUPPLIED LABOR AND TRIMMING. 
THE MANUFACTURER DID NOT BILL DAISART FOR THE MATERIAL, BUT SIMPLY
SHIPPED IT FOR USE BY DAISART, WHO IN TURN BILLED THE MANUFACTURER FOR
THE FINISHED GARMENTS.  IT WAS TACITLY UNDERSTOOD THAT IF DAISART COULD
SAVE ANY OF THE MATERIAL, IT COULD DO AS IT PLEASED WITH THAT EXCESS
MATERIAL.  PETITIONER SAID THAT THE WASTE FROM THE MAKING OF AMMUNITION
BAGS APPROXIMATED THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY USED IN THE BAGS, AND THAT METALS
DISINTEGRATING KNEW THIS FACT BUT NEVER MADE ANY CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO
THE WASTE. 

AFTER THE FOREGOING EVIDENCE, THERE OCCURRED THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY
BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE EXAMINER: 

"QUESTION (BY O.P.A. EXAMINER):  SO THAT WITH RESPECT TO DAISART
SPORTSWEAR INC., CONTRACTING ACTIVITIES ON AMMUNITION BAG MATERIALS,
WERE SHIPPED BY THE MANUFACTURER WITHOUT BILL? 

"ANSWER (BY PETITIONER):  IT WAS NOT.  METALS DISINTEGRATING COMPANY
BEING A FOREIGN CONCERN AND BEING UNABLE TO FURNISH THIS MATERIAL, THEY
ASKED ME TO PURCHASE MATERIALS FOR THEM.  THEY WERE AWARE THAT I CANNOT
DO THAT WITHOUT PROPER PRIORITIES.  THOSE PRIORITIES WERE FORTHCOMING
IN A BLANKET SUM.  NO STIPULATED AMOUNT AND I WAS FURTHER TOLD TO
MAINTAIN A CONSTANT STOCK FOR ANY ORDERS THEY MAY CALL.  I MEAN DAISART
SPORTSWEAR INC., FOR ANY ORDERS THEY MAY CALL FOR.  THEIR ORDERS CAME
TO ME SOMETIMES DATED AND NEVER IN ANY SET SIZE OR SPECIFIED FORM. 
THEY CHARGED FROM DAY TO DAY.  I THEN WENT ABOUT PURCHASING MATERIAL
FOR THEIR WORK.  WHEN AND IF I HAD A SURPLUS, I WOULD NOTIFY THEM AND
ASK THEM IF THEY HAD ANYTHING IMMEDIATELY ON HAND AS I AM OVERSTOCKED,
AT WHICH TIME THEY TOLD ME THEY HAD NOT AND TO DISPOSE OF IT. 

"QUESTION:  THIS IS A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT.  YOU DO NOT CLAIM IMMUNITY
WITH RESPECT TO THAT STATEMENT? 

"ANSWER:  NO. 

"QUESTION:  I ASSUME THAT ANYTHING YOU TELL US, MR. SMITH, IS SUBJECT
TO VERIFICATION?  YOU STATE THAT AFTER A TIME METALS DISINTEGRATING
COMPANY, ALTHOUGH IT HAD A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT, WAS NOT IN A
POSITION TO FURNISH YOU WITH THE MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR DAISART TO
MANUFACTURE THIS ITEM? 

"ANSWER:  RIGHT. 

"QUESTION:  AND THAT BECAUSE OF THAT SITUATION, DAISART WAS REQUIRED
TO OBTAIN PRIORITIES SO THAT DAISART COULD OBTAIN THE MATERIALS AND
THAT IT DID SO? 

"ANSWER: IN A BLANKET AMOUNT. 

"QUESTION:  AND THAT PURSUANT TO THAT PRIORITY, DAISART THEREAFTER
ACQUIRED MATERIALS, SOME OF WHICH WERE USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
AMMUNITION BAGS FOR METALS, AND SOME OF IT WAS DISPOSED OF BY DAISART,
IS THAT CORRECT? 

"ANSWER:  YES. 

"QUESTION:  AND THOSE DISPOSALS BY DAISART FORMED A GOOD PART OF THE
SALES OF FABRICS MADE BY DAISART? 

"ANSWER:  THEY DID." 

WHEN THE PROSECUTION DURING THE TRIAL SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE O.P.A. OFFICIAL, PETITIONER
MOVED FOR A DISMISSAL OF THE INFORMATIONS AND THE INDICTMENT AGAINST
HIM UPON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BY
THE PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 FOR THE ACTS CONCERNING WHICH HE WAS
QUESTIONED.  PETITIONER ASSERTED THAT THE HEARING BEFORE THE O.P.A.
OFFICIAL COVERED ESSENTIALLY THE SAME MATTERS WHICH FORMED THE BASIS
FOR THE INFORMATIONS AND THE INDICTMENT.  THE TRIAL JUDGE RESERVED
DECISION ON THE MOTION AND RECEIVED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TESTIMONY IN
EVIDENCE AGAINST PETITIONER AND THE CORPORATION.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE
COURT RULED THAT THE TRANSCRIPT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AGAINST PETITIONER,
BUT WAS ONLY ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION, AND THE JURY
WAS SO INSTRUCTED.  THE TRIAL COURT ALSO OVERRULED THE MOTION FOR A
DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST PETITIONER AND STATED THAT "THE
TESTIMONY DOES NOT PROVE ANY PART OR FEATURE OF THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME, NOR WILL IT TEND TO A CONVICTION WHEN COMBINED WITH PROOF OF
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH OTHERS MAY SUPPLY."  THIS THE TRIAL COURT
THOUGHT WAS THE TEST.  CONVICTION FOLLOWED ON 35 COUNTS OF EACH OF THE
TWO INFORMATIONS AND ON THE INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY.  PETITIONER WAS
SENTENCED TO PAY $10,000 ON EACH COUNT, A TOTAL OF $710,000 IN FINES
AND TO IMPRISONMENT IN SUCH A WAY THAT HE WOULD HAVE THREE YEARS TO
SERVE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER ON TWELVE
COUNTS OF EACH OF THE TWO INFORMATIONS ON THE GROUND THAT BECAUSE HE
HAD "NOT WAIVED IMMUNITY IN RESPECT TO HIS EARLIER DISCLOSURE THAT A.
STEINAM & CO., L. LAZARUS & CO., AND SOUTHEASTERN COTTONS WERE SELLERS
TO THE CORPORATION, HE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED ON THE COUNTS BASED ON
TRANSACTIONS WITH THOSE COMPANIES."  169 F.2D AT 861.  THESE WERE THE
THREE COMPANIES SPECIFICALLY NAMED BY PETITIONER IN HIS TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE EXAMINER OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION.  THIS
REVERSAL REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER BY
$240,000, BUT NOT HIS SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE REST OF THE SENTENCES ON THE INFORMATIONS AND
THE INDICTMENT.  IT HELD THAT PETITIONER'S CLAIM TO IMMUNITY BY REASON
OF HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE EXAMINER WAS CLEAR AND GOOD BUT FOR THE
STATEMENT MADE BY PETITIONER SET OUT ABOVE.  THIS THE COURT THOUGHT WAS
VOLUNTARY AND WAIVED ALL IMMUNITY ON THE FACTS THEREIN STATED AND THAT
THESE WERE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS IN THE CONVICTIONS.  169 F.2D AT 860,
862.  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED IN PART ON THE GROUND THAT BY HIS TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE O.P.A. OFFICIAL PETITIONER HAD ACQUIRED IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION FOR THE TRANSACTIONS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BY CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 882. 

FIRST.  THE EVOLUTION OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY IN DEALING WITH
IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN RETURN FOR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN
ADEQUATELY DISCUSSED RECENTLY BY THIS COURT.  UNITED STATES V. MONIA,
317 U.S. 424(1943), AND SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 1(1948). 
THROUGH COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR OFFENSES
DISCLOSED BY THE EVIDENCE MUST BE GIVEN A PERSON COMPELLED TO TESTIFY
AFTER CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  TO MEET THAT
REQUIREMENT CONGRESS AMENDED THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, 24 STAT. 383, SEC. 12, THAT PROTECTED A WITNESS FROM USE
AGAINST HIM OF EVIDENCE SO GIVEN IN ANY SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE WITNESS SHOULD NOT BE "PROSECUTED  ...  FOR
OR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY TRANSACTION, MATTER OR THING, CONCERNING WHICH HE
MAY TESTIFY  ...  "  P. 141, SUPRA.  THIS REMISSION OF RESPONSIBILITY
FOR CRIMINAL ACTS MET THE "ABSOLUTE" TEST OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591. 
IF A WITNESS COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED ON FACTS CONCERNING WHICH HE
TESTIFIED, THE WITNESS COULD NOT FAIRLY SAY HE HAD BEEN COMPELLED IN A
CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.  HE MIGHT SUFFER
DISGRACE AND HUMILIATION BUT SUCH UNFORTUNATE RESULTS TO HIM ARE
OUTSIDE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  ID., P. 598.  CF. PP. 630-631. 
THIS COMPULSORY TESTIMONY STATUTE WAS FURTHER AMENDED IN 1906 TO
PROVIDE THAT THE IMMUNITY SHOULD EXTEND ONLY TO A NATURAL PERSON
TESTIFYING UNDER OATH IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA.  34 STAT. 798.  THE
MONIA CASE, SUPRA, DECIDED IN 1943 THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR A
WITNESS TO CLAIM HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER THE
COMPULSORY TESTIMONY STATUTE AS THUS AMENDED.  THIS CONCLUSION WAS
REACHED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE IMMUNITY STATUTE, P. 430, DESPITE A
CONTRARY RULE REQUIRING A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE UNDER THE SELF
INCRIMINATION PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  SEE VAJTAUER V.
COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103, 113.  CF. HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S.
131. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DECISIONS ADJUSTING A WITNESS' DUTY OF
TESTIMONY TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
CONGRESS HAS BEEN ENABLED, THROUGH THE USE OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY
ACT OF 1893 AS A MODEL, TO LEGISLATE SO AS TO FORCE FROM THE LIPS OF
THE GUILTY TESTIMONY BELIEVED NECESSARY TO ADMINISTER A VARIETY OF
ACTS.  FN5  BY THE DATE OF THE MONIA DECISION, CONGRESS HAD,
FORESIGHTEDLY, ADDED TO THE STANDARD IMMUNITY CLAUSE, DRAWN FROM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE PROVISION THAT THE WITNESS MUST CLAIM HIS
PRIVILEGE.  FN6  BY THIS ADDITION THE STATUTE ON COMPULSORY TESTIMONY
AS TO THIS REQUIREMENT WAS PUT ON A PARITY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  IT IS SUCH A SUPPLEMENTED
IMMUNITY STATUTE THAT WE ARE CALLED UPON TO APPLY IN THIS CASE. 

PETITIONER WAS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AT THE EXAMINATION UNDER THE
PRICE CONTROL ACT.  FN7  HE WAS SUBPOENAED AND PUT UNDER OATH.  AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE EXAMINATION, HE RAISED A QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY
OF THE SUBPOENA SO AS TO ASSURE HIMSELF THAT HE WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY
PRESENT.  HE PROMPTLY DECLARED:  "I WANT TO CLAIM PRIVILEGE AS TO
ANYTHING THAT I SAY."  IN RESPONSE TO THE EXAMINER'S QUERIES AS TO HIS
AND DAISART'S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, PETITIONER THEREAFTER MADE THE
STATEMENTS SET OUT AT PP. 142 TO 145, SUPRA.  THESE STATEMENTS AS TO
THE ORGANIZATION OF HIS BUSINESS, HIS USE OF PRIORITIES, HIS SUPPLIERS
AND CUSTOMERS, HIS BANKING CONNECTIONS AND THE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE
SELLING PRICE OF SURPLUS MATERIALS ARE CLEARLY MORE THAN SUGGESTIONS
FROM WHICH IT MIGHT BE IMAGINED EVIDENCE AS TO HIS OPERATIONS COULD BE
OBTAINED.  BROWN V. WALKER, SUPRA, AT 599.  SOME, AT LEAST, OF THE
DISCLOSURES, SUCH AS THE USE OF BLANKET PRIORITIES OF METALS
DISINTEGRATING TO PROCURE TEXTILES AND THE METHOD OF FIXING PRICES ON
SURPLUS SALES, BORE DIRECTLY ON THE SUBSEQUENT CHARGES OF MISUSE OF
PRIORITIES AND THE GOODS OBTAINED THEREBY AS WELL AS THE CHARGE OF
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE FACTS BROUGHT OUT IN
HIS EXAMINATION ARE NOT FACTS DISASSOCIATED FROM HIS PROSECUTION AS IN
HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 131, BUT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT ARE PERTINENT TO THE PROSECUTION AND
"CONCERNING WHICH" PETITIONER TESTIFIED.  FN8  THE FACTS WERE LINKS IN
THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEST THE CONCLUSION
THAT PART OF THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE EXAMINER CONCERNS THE CRIMINAL
CHARGES. 

SECOND.  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT PETITIONER'S IMMUNITY
FROM PROSECUTION ON FACTS CONCERNING WHICH HE WAS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY
WAS WAIVED BY A SUBSEQUENT VOLUNTARY STATEMENT.  THIS STATEMENT AS
GIVEN IN QUESTION AND ANSWER FORM IS SET OUT ABOVE AT P. 144.  FN9
PRIVILEGE CAN BE WAIVED AND WITH THE WAIVER THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY
DISAPPEARS.  FN10  SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE REMISSION OF PENALTIES IS
TO FORCE OUT EVIDENCE THAT IS PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION, A WAIVER OF THAT PROTECTION MAKES THE TESTIMONY
AVAILABLE FOR PROSECUTION OF THE WITNESS.  NOR DO WE SEE ANY REASON WHY
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE TO ALL OR ANY PART OF TESTIMONY MAY NOT BE
WITHDRAWN.  ALTHOUGH THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION MUST BE
CLAIMED, WHEN CLAIMED IT IS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THEREAFTER
ONLY ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS SUFFICIENT
TO COMPEL THE DESIRED TESTIMONY.  WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
HOWEVER, IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED.  FN11  A WITNESS CANNOT
PROPERLY BE HELD AFTER CLAIM TO HAVE WAIVED HIS PRIVILEGE AND
CONSEQUENT IMMUNITY UPON VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN EVIDENCE. 

IT IS PLAIN HERE THAT PETITIONER RELIED FROM THE BEGINNING OF HIS
EXAMINATION UPON HIS PRIVILEGE.  THE UNITED STATES HAD NOTICE THAT THE
WITNESS SOUGHT PROTECTION AGAINST PROSECUTION FOR ANY FACTS TO WHICH HE
WAS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY.  THE GOVERNMENT HAD THEN TO DECIDE WHETHER TO
PAY THE PRICE TO SECURE THE FACTS OF THE SUSPECTED CRIMINAL OPERATION. 
FN12  JUST BEFORE THE QUESTION THAT OPENED THE COLLOQUY QUOTED AT P.
144, THE EXAMINATION HAD ELICITED THAT DAISART OFTEN CONTRACTED WITH
MANUFACTURERS TO DO WORK ON GOODS BOUGHT AND FURNISHED BY THE
MANUFACTURER.  THEN CAME THE QUESTION ABOVE QUOTED, PP. 143-144, AS TO
THE PRACTICE ON THE AMMUNITIONBAG CONTRACT.  THE ANSWER, WE THINK, WAS
RESPONSIVE.  THEN CAME THE QUESTION:  "THIS IS A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. 
YOU DO NOT CLAIM IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THAT STATEMENT?"  AND THE
ANSWER, "NO."  WHETHER THE "NO" APPLIED TO THE FIRST OR SECOND SENTENCE
IS NOT KNOWN.  IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE, IT SEEMS
UNLIKELY THAT PETITIONER WOULD WAIVE THE PRIVILEGE AND TESTIFY,
VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT PROTECTION AGAINST PROSECUTION, AS TO THE
DETAILS OF HIS OPERATIONS WITH METALS DISINTEGRATING, THE SOURCE OF THE
BLANKET PRIORITIES THAT LAY AT THE BASE OF THE CHARGES BY INFORMATION
AND INDICTMENT.  NO QUESTION IS MADE AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
TRANSCRIPTION.  WITHOUT ANY EFFORT TO CLARIFY THE "NO," THE EXAMINER
WENT AHEAD AND HAD THE WITNESS RESTATE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE LONG ANSWER
QUOTED ON P. 144 WITHOUT ANY FURTHER INTIMATION THAT THE SUBSEQUENT
ANSWERS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE EXAMINER TO BE VOLUNTARY.  FN13  WE DO
NOT THINK UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS EQUIVOCAL "NO" IS A WAIVER OF
THE PREVIOUS DEFINITE CLAIM OF GENERAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION. 

THE TRIAL COURT EXCLUDED THE ENTIRE STATEMENT BEFORE THE EXAMINER,
INCLUDING THE QUESTION JUST DISCUSSED, AS EVIDENCE AGAINST PETITIONER. 
SINCE THAT COURT DID NOT THINK THE STATEMENT CONTAINED TESTIMONY
PROVING ANY PART OR FEATURE OF THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME AND DID NOT
TEND TO A CONVICTION WHEN COMBINED WITH PROOF OF OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH OTHERS MIGHT SUPPLY, IT REFUSED THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED
ACQUITTAL. 

FURTHERMORE, BEFORE THE QUESTION WAS ASKED THE ANSWER TO WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT ARGUES IS A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT, PETITIONER, TESTIFYING
UNDER UNQUESTIONED PRIVILEGE WITH IMMUNITY, GAVE THE INFORMATION THAT
IS DETAILED ABOVE AT PP. 141 TO 143, INCLUSIVE.  WITHOUT RESTATING THE
ENTIRE SUBSTANCE OF THE TESTIMONY, WE THINK THE STATEMENTS CONCERNING
THE NECESSITY OF DAISART TO ACQUIRE FABRICS FOR MANUFACTURING, TOGETHER
WITH INFORMATION AS TO THE NAMES OF THE SUPPLIERS, THE NAME OF
DAISART'S BANK AND AS TO THE MANNER OF DAISART'S RECEIPTS,
DISBURSEMENTS AND SALES PRICES, WERE SUFFICIENT TO GIVE PETITIONER THE
IMMUNITY CLAIMED. 

THIRD.  FINALLY THE GOVERNMENT PRESSES UPON US THE ARGUMENT THAT, AS
TO THE INDICTMENT, THE TESTIMONY PETITIONER GAVE AT THE EXAMINATION
UNDER THE PRICE CONTROL ACT WAS WHOLLY SELF-EXONERATING AND THEREFORE
DID NOT SECURE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BY THE INDICTMENT.  THE
CONTENTION IS THAT SINCE THE IMMUNITY GRANTED BY SEC. 202(G) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT WAS AN EXCHANGE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND SINCE THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT
INCRIMINATING, IT THEREFORE CANNOT BE USED TO SECURE IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE PRICE CONTROL ACT.  SEE
SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 1; 8 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, SEC. 2282. 

THE INDICTMENT WAS FOR CONSPIRACY TO SELL FINISHED PIECE GOODS IN
EXCESS OF PRICES FIXED UNDER THE PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE POSITION OF
THE GOVERNMENT IS THAT THE ONLY TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE CHARGE OF THE
INDICTMENT IS THAT PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT HE SOLD THE GOODS AT
PRICES WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS.  FN14  BUT THE INDICTMENT ALSO
CHARGED AS A PART OF THE CONSPIRACY A PLAN THROUGH FALSE INVOICES TO
SECURE PAYMENTS FOR THE GOODS BY CHECKS TO FICTITIOUS PERSONS WHICH THE
CONSPIRATORS CASHED. 

A GLANCE AT THE DETAILS OF THE TESTIMONY SET OUT AT PP. 142 THROUGH
145, SUPRA, WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY AT THE
EXAMINATION WENT BEYOND THE EXCULPATORY LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE SALE
PRICE.  PETITIONER TESTIFIED AS TO THE BUSINESS ORGANIZATION OF
DAISART, ITS ACQUISITION OF MATERIALS THROUGH THE PRIORITIES FURNISHED
BY METALS DISINTEGRATING FROM NAMED FIRMS ON THEIR INVOICES AND ITS
PAYMENT FOR THESE GOODS AT ALL TIMES BY CHECK.  DAISART'S BANK WAS
NAMED.  SINCE THE ARGUMENT ON THIS POINT RELATES ONLY TO EXCULPATORY
STATEMENTS AND NOT TO WAIVERS, IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT ALL
TESTIMONY CONTAINED IN THE ANSWER PRINTED ON P. 144, ABOVE, IS TO BE
TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.  CERTAINLY MANY OF THESE DISCLOSURES
FURNISHED LEADS THAT COULD HAVE UNCOVERED EVIDENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  PETITIONER TESTIFIED CONCERNING
TRANSACTIONS, MATTERS AND THINGS SUBSTANTIALLY CONNECTED WITH PARTS OF
THE CONSPIRACY FOR WHICH HE WAS INDICTED - FOR EXAMPLE, THE TESTIMONY
THAT HE BOUGHT MATERIAL UNDER INVOICE FROM A NAMED SUPPLIER AND PAID
FOR IT BY CHECK ON A NAMED BANK.  THIS EVIDENCE, BEING SUBSTANTIALLY
CONNECTED WITH THE CONSPIRACY, WAS AMPLE TO GIVE IMMUNITY FROM THE
CONSPIRACY PROSECUTION.  THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF FEBRUARY 11,
1893, GIVES IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION ON ACCOUNT "OF ANY TRANSACTION,
MATTER OR THING, CONCERNING WHICH" THE WITNESS IS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY
IN RETURN FOR SUCH EVIDENCE.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER,
IF ONLY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS GIVEN CONCERNING MATTERS PERTINENT TO
THE CRIMINAL CHARGE, THE STATUTE WOULD GRANT IMMUNITY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  56 STAT. 176, 177; 58 STAT. 827; 60 STAT. 868.    FN2  32
C.F.R., CUM. SUPP. SECS. 944.1-944.21; 32 C.F.R., CUM. SUPP. SEC.
944.23. 

FN3  56 STAT. 23 ET SEQ., AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 767, 58 STAT. 632, 59
STAT. 306, 60 STAT. 664. 

FN4  A FOOTNOTE TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, 169 F.2D 856
AT 859, STATES:  "THESE TERMS ARE EXPLAINED IN UNITED STATES V.
BRADFORD, 2 CIR., 160 F.2D 729, CERTIORARI DENIED 331 U.S. 829, 67 S.
CT. 1351.  A PREFERENCE RATING IS APPLIED BY THE ORIGINAL RECIPIENT TO
OBTAIN COMMODITIES FROM A SUPPLIER WHO THEN EXTENDS (USES) THE RATING
TO SECURE THE NEEDED COMMODITIES FROM SUBSUPPLIERS." 

FN5  SEE SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 6; HEIKE V. UNITED
STATES, 227 U.S. 131, 142.    FN6  UNITED STATES V. MONIA, SUPRA, AT
429; CF. P. 442, ET SEQ. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. MONIA, SUPRA, AT 429. 

FN8  IN THE HEIKE CASE, THE ACCUSED HAD TESTIFIED IN A GRAND JURY
INVESTIGATION AS TO VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  SUCH TESTIMONY DID
NOT EARN THE IMMUNITY OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1903, 32 STAT. 854,
904, ON A SUBSEQUENT INDICTMENT FOR A FRAUD ON THE REVENUE BY THE
SECRET INTRODUCTION OF SPRINGS IN SCALES TO CAUSE THEM TO INDICATE LESS
THAN THE ACTUAL WEIGHT.  A TABLE OF ANNUAL MELTINGS OF SUGAR HAD BEEN
GIVEN AT THE MONOPOLY INVESTIGATION BY HEIKE.  THIS COURT SAID:  "THE
TABLE OF MELTINGS BY THE YEAR HAD NO BEARING ON THE FRAUDS, AS IT WAS
NOT CONFINED TO THE SUGAR FRAUDULENTLY WEIGHED AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR
HOW THE NUMBER OF POUNDS WAS MADE UP.  THE MERE FACT THAT A PART OF THE
SUGAR EMBRACED IN THE TABLE WAS THE SUGAR FALSELY WEIGHED DID NOT MAKE
THE TABLE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE FRAUDS.  THE SAME CONSIDERATION SHOWS
THAT IT DID NOT TEND TO INCRIMINATE THE WITNESS.  IT NEITHER LED NOR
COULD HAVE LED TO A DISCOVERY OF HIS CRIME."  227 U.S. AT 143. 

SEE UNITED STATES V. MONIA, 317 U.S. 424, 430; BROWN V. WALKER, 161
U.S. 591, 599; UNITED STATES V. WEISMAN, 111 F.2D 260; UNITED STATES V.
MOLASKY, 118 F.2D 128, 134. 

FN9  THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT IS THAT VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS ARE NOT
PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE AND DO NOT EARN IMMUNITY.  IT IS SUGGESTED, TOO,
THAT THE ANSWERS WERE NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTION AND THAT A WITNESS
CANNOT VOLUNTEER FACTS AND SECURE IMMUNITY ANY MORE THAN HE CAN SECURE
REMISSION OF PENALTIES BY APPEARING AS A WITNESS WITHOUT COMPULSION. 
FURTHER, THE GOVERNMENT RELIES UPON THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE
ABOVE STATEMENT AS A WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE, NOT ONLY AS TO FACTS INCLUDED
IN THE STATEMENT BUT ALSO AS TO SIMILAR FACTS THAT THE WITNESS HAD
DISCLOSED PREVIOUSLY UNDER COMPULSION AFTER CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.  THIS
POSITION IS BASED ON THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHERE IT WAS
SAID:  "EVEN WHERE THIS TESTIMONY REPEATED PREVIOUS ANSWERS WHICH WOULD
HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE WITNESS' INITIAL GENERAL CLAIM OF IMMUNITY, WE
SEE NO REASON WHY A WITNESS CANNOT QUALIFY AND LIMIT HIS CLAIM AS THE
EXAMINATION PROCEEDS, JUST AS HE CAN MAKE NEW CLAIMS AS TO ISSUES HE
HAS NOT WAIVED."  169 F.2D AT 861. 

FN10  RAFFEL V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 494, 496, AND CASES CITED;
VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103, 113; UNITED STATES V. MONIA,
317 U.S. 424, 427; JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189, 195. 

FN11  HODGES V. EASTON, 106 U.S. 408, 412; OHIO BELL TEL. CO. V.
COMM'N, 301 U.S. 292, 306; AETNA INS. CO. V. KENNEDY, 301 U.S. 389,
394; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 464. 

FN12  UNITED STATES V. MONIA, 317 U.S. 424, 430. 

FN13  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. ST. PIERRE, 128 F.2D 979, 980:  "NOR
IS IT MATERIAL THAT APPELLANT STATED AT SEVERAL POINTS THAT HE HAD
COMMITTED NO FEDERAL CRIME; SUCH A CONTRADICTION, ESPECIALLY BY A
NERVOUS OR EXCITABLE WITNESS WOULD NOT OVERCOME A CLEAR CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE IF HE WAS OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGE." 

FN14  THE TESTIMONY REFERRED TO IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"QUESTION:  CAN YOU TELL ME HOW DAISART SPORTSWEAR INC., ARRIVED AT
ITS SELLING PRICE WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS THAT IT SOLD? 

"ANSWER:  SINCE IT WAS SURPLUS, IT WAS SOLD AT THE PRICE BILLED TO ME
PLUS FREIGHT AND HAULAGE AND LESS DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO ME. 

"QUESTION:  IN OTHER WORDS, DAISART SPORTSWEAR INC., SOLD AT COST
PLUS FREIGHT LESS ANY DISCOUNTS, CASH OR OTHERWISE, RECEIVED BY DAISART
SPORTSWEAR INC.? 

"ANSWER:  CORRECT." 
..END :






















EMPRESA SIDERURGICA V. MERCED CO., 337 U.S. 154 


NO. 327.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1949.  - 32 CAL.2D
68, 194 P.2D 527, AFFIRMED. 


A CEMENT PLANT IN CALIFORNIA WAS SOLD TO A FOREIGN PURCHASER FOR
EXPORT.  AN EXPORT LICENSE WAS OBTAINED AND A LETTER OF CREDIT IN FAVOR
OF THE SELLER DEPOSITED HERE.  TITLE PASSED AND POSSESSION WAS TAKEN
FOR THE PURCHASER.  A COMMON CARRIER WAS EMPLOYED TO DISMANTLE THE
PLANT AND PREPARE IT FOR SHIPMENT.  AS THE DISMANTLING PROCEEDED,
SHIPMENTS WERE LABELED WITH THE PURCHASER'S NAME AS CONSIGNEE AND
DELIVERED TO A RAIL CARRIER.  WHEN 12% HAD BEEN SHIPPED, 10% HAD BEEN
PREPARED FOR SHIPMENT, 34% HAD BEEN DISMANTLED BUT NOT PREPARED FOR
SHIPMENT AND 44% HAD NOT BEEN DISMANTLED, A MUNICIPALITY, ACTING UNDER
A CALIFORNIA STATUTE, LEVIED A PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ON THE PORTION
WHICH HAD NOT ACTUALLY BEEN SHIPPED.  HELD:  THIS WAS NOT A TAX ON AN
EXPORT CONTRARY TO ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 155
157. 

(A)  THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION BEGINS UPON ENTRANCE OF THE ARTICLES
INTO THE EXPORT STREAM.  P. 157. 

(B)  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT ON THE TAX DATE THERE WAS A PURPOSE AND
PLAN TO EXPORT THE PROPERTY; NOR THAT IN DUE COURSE THE PLAN WAS FULLY
EXECUTED.  P. 157. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT THE DISMANTLER WAS A LICENSED CARRIER FOR
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE AND THAT ITS EMPLOYMENT INCLUDED THE
LOADING OF THE PROPERTY ON RAILROAD CARS FOR SHIPMENT TO THE SEABOARD
DOES NOT HERE REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT.  P. 157. 

EMPRESA SIDERURGICA, S.A., ET AL. V. COUNTY OF MERCED ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

IN A SUIT FOR REFUND OF A MUNICIPAL PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX PAID UNDER
PROTEST, A STATE COURT GRANTED JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT REVERSED.  32 CAL.2D 68, 194 P.2D 527.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 157. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THERE WAS A CEMENT PLANT IN MERCED COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, WHICH WAS SOLD
TO PETITIONER - A CORPORATION OF COLOMBIA - FOR EXPORT TO SOUTH
AMERICA.  AN EXPORT LICENSE WAS OBTAINED AND A LETTER OF CREDIT IN
FAVOR OF THE SELLER DEPOSITED HERE.  TITLE PASSED AND POSSESSION WAS
TAKEN FOR THE PURCHASER.  A COMPANY, WHICH WAS A COMMON CARRIER, WAS
EMPLOYED TO DO THE DISMANTLING AND PACKAGING FOR SHIPMENT.  AS THE
DISMANTLING PROCEEDED, SHIPMENTS WERE LABELED WITH APPELLANT'S NAME AS
CONSIGNEE AND DELIVERED TO A RAIL CARRIER. 

RESPONDENT, ACTING UNDER A CALIFORNIA STATUTE,  FN1  LEVIED A
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE TAX YEAR 1945-1946.  THE
TAX DATE WAS MARCH 5, 1945.  ON THAT DATE 12 PER CENT OF THE PLANT HAD
BEEN SHIPPED OUT OF THE COUNTY.  THAT PORTION WAS RELIEVED OF THE TAX. 
THE BALANCE WAS TAXED.  THAT INCLUDED THE 10 PER CENT WHICH HAD BEEN
DISMANTLED AND CRATED OR PREPARED FOR SHIPMENT, 34 PER CENT WHICH HAD
BEEN DISMANTLED BUT NOT CRATED OR PREPARED FOR SHIPMENT, AND 44 PER
CENT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISMANTLED.  BUT BEFORE THE END OF JANUARY,
1946, ALL THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN SHIPPED BY RAIL TO A PORT AND WAS EN
ROUTE TO SOUTH AMERICA BY OCEAN CARRIER. 

ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES IN PART THAT,
"NO STATE SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, LAY ANY IMPOSTS
OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY FOR EXECUTING IT'S INSPECTION LAWS  ...  "  APPELLANT CLAIMED
THAT THIS TAX WAS LAID ON AN EXPORT AND WAS THEREFORE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IT PAID THE TAX UNDER PROTEST AND BROUGHT THIS SUIT
TO RECOVER IT.  THE TRIAL COURT, HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE PLANT WAS AN
EXPORT ON THE TAX ASSESSMENT DAY, GRANTED JUDGMENT FOR APPELLANT.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA REVERSED.  32 CAL.2D 68, 194 P.2D 527.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2). 

"  ...  GOODS DO NOT CEASE TO BE PART OF THE GENERAL MASS OF PROPERTY
IN THE STATE, SUBJECT, AS SUCH, TO ITS JURISDICTION, AND TO TAXATION IN
THE USUAL WAY, UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN SHIPPED, OR ENTERED WITH A COMMON
CARRIER FOR TRANSPORTATION TO ANOTHER STATE, OR HAVE BEEN STARTED UPON
SUCH TRANSPORTATION IN A CONTINUOUS ROUTE OR JOURNEY."  COE V. ERROL,
116 U.S. 517, 527.  THAT TEST WAS FASHIONED TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF A NONDISCRIMINATORY STATE TAX.  BUT AS WE
NOTED IN RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329 U.S. 69, 79, IT IS
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO CASES ARISING EITHER UNDER ART. I, SEC. 10, CL.
2(THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE) OR UNDER ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 5, WHICH
PROHIBITS CONGRESS FROM LAYING ANY TAX ON "ARTICLES EXPORTED FROM ANY
STATE."  FN2 

UNDER THAT TEST IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THERE IS AN INTENT TO EXPORT,
OR A PLAN WHICH CONTEMPLATES EXPORTATION, OR AN INTEGRATED SERIES OF
EVENTS WHICH WILL END WITH IT.  SEE TURPIN V. BURGESS, 117 U.S. 504;
CORNELL V. COYNE, 192 U.S. 418.  THE TAX IMMUNITY RUNS TO THE PROCESS
OF EXPORTATION AND THE TRANSACTIONS AND DOCUMENTS EMBRACED IN IT.
FAIRBANK V. UNITED STATES, 181 U.S. 283; UNITED STATES V. HVOSLEF, 237
U.S. 1; THAMES & MERSEY INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 237 U.S. 19. 
DELIVERY OF PACKAGES TO AN EXPORTING CARRIER FOR SHIPMENT ABROAD
(SPALDING & BROS. V. EDWARDS, 262 U.S. 66) AND THE DELIVERY OF OIL INTO
THE HOLD OF THE SHIP FURNISHED BY THE FOREIGN PURCHASER TO CARRY THE
OIL ABROAD (RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, SUPRA) HAVE BEEN HELD
SUFFICIENT.  IT IS THE ENTRANCE OF THE ARTICLES INTO THE EXPORT STREAM
THAT MARKS THE START OF THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION.  THEN THERE IS
CERTAINTY THAT THE GOODS ARE HEADED FOR THEIR FOREIGN DESTINATION AND
WILL NOT BE DIVERTED TO DOMESTIC USE.  NOTHING LESS WILL SUFFICE. 

SO IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT ON THE TAX DATE THERE WAS A
PURPOSE AND PLAN TO EXPORT THIS PROPERTY.  NOR IS IT SUFFICIENT THAT IN
DUE COURSE THAT PLAN WAS FULLY EXECUTED.  PART OF THE PLANT THAT IS
TAXED WAS DISMANTLED, BUT IT HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED TO ANY CARRIER FOR
EXPORT OR OTHERWISE STARTED ON ITS JOURNEY ON THE TAX DATE.  IT MIGHT
STILL HAVE BEEN DIVERTED INTO THE DOMESTIC MARKET.  THE FACT THAT ANY
SUCH DIVERSION WOULD ENTAIL A BREACH OF CONTRACT, THAT A PART OF THE
PLANT HAD ALREADY STARTED ON ITS EXPORT JOURNEY, THAT AN EXPORT LICENSE
HAD BEEN OBTAINED AND A LETTER OF CREDIT DEPOSITED IN THIS COUNTRY
INCREASES THE EXPECTATION ON THE TAX DATE THAT EXPORTATION OF THE
ENTIRE PLANT WOULD EVENTUATE.  BUT THAT PROSPECT, NO MATTER HOW BRIGHT,
DOES NOT START THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION.  ON THE TAX DATE THE
MOVEMENT TO FOREIGN SHORES HAD NEITHER STARTED NOR BEEN COMMITTED. 

SOME RELIANCE IS APPARENTLY PLACED ON THE FACT THAT THE DISMANTLER
WAS A LICENSED CARRIER FOR INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE AND THAT ITS
EMPLOYMENT INCLUDED THE LOADING OF THE PROPERTY ON RAILROAD CARS FOR
SHIPMENT TO THE SEABOARD.  BUT THE DISMANTLER HAD NOT IN THIS CASE
STARTED THE MOVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE RAIL CARRIER.  HENCE WE
NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THAT INTERMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION WOULD BE
PART OF THE EXPORT PROCESS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  REV. AND TAX.  CODE (DEERING, 1939), DIV. I, SECS. 103, 106,
201, 202(E), 405. 

FN2  THE MEANING OF "EXPORT" IS THE SAME UNDER THE TWO CLAUSES.  SEE
RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329 U.S. 69, 83 AND CASES CITED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THOUGH FIGURES OF SPEECH MAY AID ANALYSIS, THEY DO NOT DISPENSE WITH
THE NEED FOR IT.  WHEN A STATE SEEKS TO TAX WHAT IS TO LEAVE THE UNITED
STATES, WE MAY AGREE THAT ITS PRIVILEGE TO DO SO CEASES WHEN THE EXPORT
ENTERS "THE EXPORT STREAM."  BUT THE PROBLEM FOR DECISION IS TO
DETERMINE WHEN THAT POINT HAS BEEN REACHED.  THE EXPORT-IMPORT CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION (ART. I, SEC. 10) EMBODIES ONE PHASE OF THE
ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE UNION; IT CAN BE APPLIED ONLY
BY CONSIDERING THE BEARING OF A PARTICULAR EXERTION OF STATE POWER ON
THE FULFILLMENT OR FRUSTRATION OF ITS PURPOSE.  A MECHANISTIC FORMULA,
WHETHER DERIVED FROM PHRASES IN COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517, OR
ELSEWHERE CULLED, ADVANCES US LITTLE TOWARD THE SOLUTION OF SUCH A
CONCRETE PROBLEM. 

THE CASE BEFORE US IS PECULIARLY ILL-FITTED FOR MECHANICAL
DISPOSITION; IT PRESENTS UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO UNUSUAL
CONTENTIONS.  IT INVOLVES THE SALE TO A COLOMBIAN PURCHASER OF WHAT THE
CONTRACT OF SALE DESCRIBES AS "ALL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, REMOVABLE
STRUCTURES, REMOVABLE FACILITIES, SPARE PARTS, SUPPLIES AND
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS COMPRISING" THE YOSEMITE PORTLAND CEMENT PLANT
LOCATED AT MERCED, CALIFORNIA, BUT "EXCLUDING THE LAND UPON WHICH THE
PLANT IS SITUATED" AND VARIOUS OTHER SPECIFIED ITEMS.  THE APPELLANT
URGES THAT THE OBJECTS OF THIS SALE, WHICH ARE COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO
BY THE CONTRACT AS "THE CEMENT PLANT," SHOULD BE REGARDED AS
INTERDEPENDENT PARTS OF AN ORGANIC WHOLE LIKE A 200-INCH TELESCOPE OR A
CYCLOTRON.  SINCE NO SUCH PART HAS A SEPARATE USEFULNESS COMPARABLE TO
ITS USEFULNESS AS A SUPPORTING MEMBER OF THE STRUCTURE OR AS A LINK IN
THE PRODUCTIVE PROCESS FOR WHICH THE STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED, SHIPMENT OF
PART - IN THIS CASE 14 OF AN EVENTUAL TOTAL OF 123 CARLOADS - MAKES
VIRTUALLY CERTAIN THAT THE REST WILL FOLLOW.  IN THE CASE OF SUCH AN
EXPORT, SO RUNS THE ARGUMENT, IT IS A DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FULLY
EQUIVALENT TO THE CERTAINTY MARKED BY DELIVERY TO A COMMON CARRIER OF A
BULK CARGO, LIKE OIL OR GRAIN OR TIMBER, FOR WHATEVER PART OF A CARGO
OF THE LATTER SORT HAS NOT ACTUALLY LEFT THE COUNTRY CAN EVEN THEN BE
DIVERTED AND SEPARATELY SOLD WITHOUT LOSS IN VALUE EITHER TO THE
DIVERTED OR TO THE EXPORTED PART.  IT IS THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY,
MOREOVER, AND NOT CONFORMITY TO A PRESCRIBED RITUAL LIKE DELIVERY TO A
CARRIER, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT: 

"THE CERTAINTY THAT THE GOODS ARE HEADED TO SEA AND THAT THE PROCESS
OF EXPORTATION HAS STARTED MAY NORMALLY BE BEST EVIDENCED BY THE FACT
THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO A COMMON CARRIER FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
BUT THE SAME DEGREE OF CERTAINTY MAY EXIST THOUGH NO COMMON CARRIER IS
INVOLVED."  RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329 U.S. 69, 82. 

THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY ON AN
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH LEAVES IN DOUBT WHETHER THE ITEMS
COMPRISING THE "CEMENT PLANT" WERE ACTUALLY INTERDEPENDENT, AS
APPELLANT CONTENDS, OR CONSISTED MERELY OF A COLLECTION OF MACHINES AND
OTHER PIECES OF EQUIPMENT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN INDIVIDUALLY INSTALLED
WITHOUT LOSS OF USEFULNESS IN ANY OTHER CEMENT PLANT.  TENDING TO
ESTABLISH APPELLANT'S POSITION ARE PROVISIONS OF THE DISMANTLING
CONTRACT WHICH INDICATE THAT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS TO BE CAREFULLY
TAKEN APART LIKE A CHINESE PUZZLE SO THAT IT COULD BE FITTED TOGETHER
AGAIN IN COLOMBIA EXACTLY THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE.  "CONTRACTOR SHALL
TAKE AT LEAST ONE PHOTOGRAPH OF EACH MACHINE OR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT
BEFORE DISMANTLING SAID MACHINE OR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, AND SHALL ALSO
TAKE AT LEAST ONE PHOTOGRAPH AFTER SUCH MACHINE OR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT
IS DISMANTLED."  "ALL SEPARATIONS SHALL BE MADE AT THE POINT OF
JOINDER, AND THERE SHALL BE NO CUTTING OR DISASSEMBLING OF ANY PART OF
THE CEMENT PLANT WHICH WILL HAVE AS ITS EFFECT THE WEAKENING OF THE
STRUCTURE OR PARTS WHEN SUCH STRUCTURE OR PARTS ARE REASSEMBLED  ...  "
"THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MATCH-MARK ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
...  " 

TENDING TO LOOK THE OTHER WAY IS AN ITEMIZED LIST OF ALL THE ITEMS TO
BE EXPORTED WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE EXPORT LICENSE ISSUED TO
APPELLANT BY THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD.  THOSE ITEMS, RANGING FROM
THOUSAND-TON KILNS AND LOCOMOTIVES TO FRICTION TAPE, SEEM TO BE THINGS
OF A SORT WHICH ARE INDEPENDENTLY USEFUL; EACH IS ASSIGNED A DOLLAR
VALUE AND THE TOTAL OF ALL THESE SEPARATE VALUES EXACTLY EQUALS THE
SALE PRICE OF THE "PLANT."  APPELLEE INSISTS, MOREOVER, THAT SO MANY
PARTS OF THE ORIGINAL PLANT WERE EXCEPTED FROM THE CONTRACT OF SALE
THAT WHAT WAS SOLD CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AN ORGANIC UNIT. 

THE SUPERIOR COURT RESOLVED THIS ISSUE OF FACT IN FAVOR OF THE
INTERPRETATION URGED BY APPELLANT AND REACHED A CONCLUSION BASED ON
THAT INTERPRETATION: 

"I THINK THAT THE PAYMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AND PROCEEDING TO CHANGE
IT FROM PARTS IN PLACE OF A COMPLETE BUILDING, INTO A MASS OF
DISCONNECTED MATERIALS MADE THE COMPLETION OF THE EXPORTATION
ECONOMICALLY IMPERATIVE.  THIS WAS NOT A MERE PREPARATION OF THE PLANT
FOR EXPORTATION; BY SUCH ACTION AND CHANGE THE PARTS HAD 'BEEN STARTED
UPON SUCH TRANSPORTATION' WITH THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY DEMANDED BY COE
VS.  ERROL AND THE MANY CASES WHICH HAVE ENDORSED IT.  ... 

"IF THE EXPORTATION OF THE MATERIALS OF THE PLANT WAS NOT BEFORE
ASSURED, THAT BECAME CERTAIN WHEN THE TWELVE PER CENT OF THE CORPUS OF
THE BUILDING HAD BEEN SENT ABROAD.  ... WHATEVER POSSIBILITY THERE
MIGHT HAVE BEEN THAT AFTER PLAINTIFF HAD TORN THE PLANT DOWN AND
CARRIED THE PARTS OFF THE PREMISES THAT IT WOULD SELL THEM OR RE-ERECT
THEM INTO A PLANT IN CALIFORNIA WOULD BE RENDERED EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE
WHEN IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD KEPT HERE ONLY A PART OF THE MATERIALS OF
THE PLANT WHICH OF COURSE COULD NOT BE SOLD AS THE MATERIALS FROM WHICH
A PLANT COULD BE BUILT OR USED TO REASSEMBLE THE OLD ONE." 

THE APPELLANT PRESENTED THE SAME CONTENTIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA.  WITHOUT EXPLICITLY REJECTING THESE CONTENTIONS, IT
REFERRED TO THE OBJECTS OF EXPORT AND OF TAXATION MERELY AS "THE
MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT OF A CEMENT PLANT" AND ALLUDED TO THE
ABOVEQUOTED PORTION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT'S OPINION ONLY AS "ANOTHER
BASIS FOR THE DECISION."  ITS OPINION IS OPEN, THEREFORE, TO TWO VERY
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS. 

1.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA MAY HAVE EXERCISED A RIGHT UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW TO DRAW ITS OWN INFERENCES FROM UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND
THUS HAVE FOUND THAT WHAT WAS CALLED A "PLANT" WAS REALLY ONLY A
COLLECTION OF MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT.  IF THAT IS WHAT IT DID, WE
WOULD NOT, OF COURSE, REINSTATE THE FINDINGS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
MERELY IN ORDER TO RAISE AN INTERESTING QUESTION UNDER THE EXPORT
IMPORT CLAUSE.  AFFIRMANCE WOULD BE AMPLY SUPPORTED BY BARE CITATION OF
CASES HOLDING THAT INTENT TO EXPORT, NO MATTER HOW FIRM, IS NOT BY
ITSELF ENOUGH TO CONFER IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION. 

2.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA MAY HAVE TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ONLY
DELIVERY TO A CARRIER OF EACH SUCCESSIVE PART EVEN OF AN ORGANIC WHOLE
REMOVED THAT PART FROM THE STATE'S TAXING POWER.  THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN
IN EFFECT TO SAY, "UPON THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE SUPERIOR COURT, IT
MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE TAXING POWER OF THE COUNTY OF MERCED THAT
PARTS OF THIS INTEGRATED PLANT HAD LEFT THE COUNTRY SINCE THE COUNTY IS
MERELY TAXING THE REMAINING PARTS."  SURELY THIS IS A DOUBTFUL
PROPOSITION; IT PRESENTS, AT ANY RATE, A DIFFICULT QUESTION OF THE
ADJUSTMENT OF LOCAL NEEDS TO THE PROTECTION OF EXPORTS FROM LOCAL
INTERFERENCE.    BETWEEN THESE TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
SITUATION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, THEREFORE, LIES THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SIMPLE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND A VERY
TROUBLESOME ONE.  SINCE THE RECORD LEAVES IN DOUBT WHETHER THE
TROUBLESOME QUESTION IS PRESENTED, TO ASSUME THAT IT IS PRESENTED AND
THEN TO PASS UPON IT WOULD BE TO EMBRACE UNNECESSARILY WHAT MAY BE A
HYPOTHETICAL ISSUE.  WE SHOULD, THEREFORE, REMAND THE CASE FOR THE
RESOLUTION OF THE CRUCIAL QUESTION OF FACT UPON WHICH DEPENDS WHAT
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE.  CF. HAMMOND V.
SCHAPPI BUS LINE, INC., 275 U.S. 164. 
..END :






URIE V. THOMPSON, 337 U.S. 163 


NO. 129.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1949. 


1.  THE COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND THE
BOILER INSPECTION ACT IS NOT CONFINED TO INJURIES RESULTING FROM
ACCIDENTS BUT INCLUDES INJURIES IN THE NATURE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES,
SUCH AS SILICOSIS.  PP. 173-175, 180-196. 

(A)  NEGLIGENCE OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD WHICH RESULTS IN A
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN CONTRACTING SILICOSIS AS A RESULT OF INHALING SILICA
DUST GIVES RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  PP. 173-175,
180-187. 

(B)  FAILURE OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD TO MAINTAIN SANDERS ON ITS
LOCOMOTIVES IN GOOD CONDITION, PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT, IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE AND GIVES RISE TO A CAUSE OF
ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IN FAVOR OF A
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN WHO CONTRACTED SILICOSIS FROM INHALING SILICA DUST
AS A RESULT OF THE MALFUNCTIONING OF THE SANDERS.  PP. 187-195. 

2.  A COMPLAINT WHICH SUFFICIENTLY CHARGED AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD
WITH KNOWINGLY HAVING USED, IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES, A DANGEROUS SAND
MATERIAL LIKELY TO CAUSE SILICOSIS AND IN FACT CAUSING COMPLAINANT TO
CONTRACT IT AND BECOME PERMANENTLY DISABLED, DUE IN PART TO FAULTY
ADJUSTMENT OF SANDERS AND FAILURE TO USE DUE CARE IN ADJUSTING THEM,
WAS SUFFICIENT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  PP. 175
180. 

3.  THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT VESTS IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION RULE-MAKING POWER ADEQUATE TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES AGAINST
DISEASE AS WELL AS AGAINST ACCIDENTS; AND INJURY RESULTING FROM
VIOLATIONS OF THESE RULES IS COMPENSABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  PP. 193-194. 

4.  THAT PETITIONER'S CONTRACTION OF SILICOSIS RESULTED FROM THE
INHALATION OF SILICA DUST OVER A PERIOD OF THIRTY YEARS AND HE MAY HAVE
HAD SILICOSIS WITHOUT KNOWING IT FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE HE
SUED FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, DID
NOT BAR HIS CLAIM WHEN THE TIME WHICH ELAPSED BETWEEN HIS DISCOVERY OF
HIS CONDITION AND THE FILING OF SUIT DID NOT EXCEED THREE YEARS, THE
PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS THEN PRESCRIBED BY THAT ACT.  PP. 168-171. 

5.  PETITIONER SUED FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, ALLEGING THAT HE HAD CONTRACTED SILICOSIS AS A RESULT OF
THE RAILROAD'S NEGLIGENCE AND WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY VIOLATION OF THE
BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE
COMPLAINT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF
NEGLIGENCE WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ALONE; BUT IT REMANDED THE CASE FOR TRIAL,
BECAUSE IT THOUGHT THAT THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A BREACH OF
THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  PETITIONER AMENDED HIS COMPLAINT TO CHARGE
SPECIFICALLY VIOLATIONS OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT; THE JURY FOUND IN
HIS FAVOR; AND HE OBTAINED A JUDGMENT.  ON A SECOND APPEAL, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT REVERSED THIS JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT APPLIES ONLY TO ACCIDENTAL INJURIES AND NOT TO
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES.  HELD: 

(A)  ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION WAS NEITHER RAISED NOR CONSIDERED ON THE
SECOND APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THE SUFFICIENCY OF
PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE INVOLVED IN THE FIRST APPEAL
IS REVIEWABLE HERE, SINCE THE FIRST JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT
WAS NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT.  PP. 171-172. 

(B)  COMPLAINANT DID NOT WAIVE THAT QUESTION BY AMENDING HIS
COMPLAINT TO STATE A CLAIM SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT
OR BY PROCEEDING WITH TRIAL ON THAT THEORY.  P. 172. 

6.  LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE CANNOT BAR THIS COURT'S INDEPENDENT
CONSIDERATION OF ALL SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTIONS ACTUALLY DETERMINED
IN EARLIER STAGES OF LITIGATION BY A STATE COURT WHOSE FINAL
ADJUDICATION IS BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW.  PP. 172-173.   MR. JUSTICE
BURTON JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

URIE V. THOMPSON, TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

A STATE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO A COMPLAINT SEEKING
RECOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT FOR INJURIES
INCURRED BY CONTRACTING SILICOSIS AS A RESULT OF A RAILROAD'S
NEGLIGENCE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR
TRIAL, HOLDING THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS SUFFICIENT TO ALLEGE A BREACH OF
THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  352 MO. 211, 176 S.W.2D 471.  AFTER
AMENDING HIS COMPLAINT SO AS TO ALLEGE SPECIFICALLY A VIOLATION OF THE
BOILER INSPECTION ACT, COMPLAINANT OBTAINED A JUDGMENT IN THE TRIAL
COURT.  ON A SECOND APPEAL, THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED, HOLDING
THAT THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT WAS INAPPLICABLE TO INJURIES SUSTAINED
EXCEPT THROUGH ACCIDENTS.  357 MO. 738, 210 S.W.2D 98.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 809.  REVERSED, P. 196. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRIMARY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT AND THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT  FN1  INCLUDES INJURIES IN
THE NATURE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE, HERE SILICOSIS, OR IS CONFINED
EXCLUSIVELY TO INJURIES INFLICTED BY ACCIDENT.  AFTER HAVING BEEN TWICE
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI,
335 U.S. 809, FOR REVIEW OF ITS FINAL DECISION ON THE SECOND APPEAL
THAT RECOVERY MAY NOT BE HAD FOR OTHER THAN ACCIDENTAL INJURIES.  A
STATEMENT OF THE COURSE TAKEN BY THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS,
AS WELL AS OF THE FACTS, BECOMES NECESSARY FOR RESOLVING THE ISSUES
PRESENTED. 

IN 1941 PETITIONER TOM URIE FILED SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT AGAINST RESPONDENT THOMPSON, TRUSTEE OF THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC RAILROAD.  ACCORDING TO PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS, HE HAD BEEN
EMPLOYED AS A FIREMAN ON STEAM LOCOMOTIVES OF THE INTERSTATE MISSOURI
PACIFIC FOR ROUGHLY THIRTY YEARS.  IN 1940 HE HAD BEEN FORCED TO CEASE
WORK BY A PULMONARY DISEASE DIAGNOSED AS SILICOSIS.  THIS PERMANENTLY
DISABLING AFFLICTION HAD BEEN CAUSED BY CONTINUOUS INHALATION OF SILICA
DUST BLOWN OR SUCKED INTO THE CABS OF THE LOCOMOTIVES ON WHICH HE HAD
WORKED.  THE INJURIOUS CONCENTRATION OF SILICA DUST IN THE AIR BREATHED
BY PETITIONER AROSE FROM THE RAILROAD'S USE IN ITS LOCOMOTIVES' SANDING
BOXES OF SAND MATERIALS CONTAINING 80 TO 90 PER CENT OF SILICA OR
SILICON DIOXIDE AND THE EMISSION BY THE LOCOMOTIVES' FAULTILY ADJUSTED
"SANDERS" FN2  OF SUCH SAND MATERIALS IN EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS BEYOND THOSE
NEEDED TO PROVIDE TRACTION FOR LOCOMOTIVE WHEELS.  RESPONDENT THOMPSON,
TRUSTEE OF THE RAILROAD SINCE 1933, "KNEW, OR BY THE EXERCISE OF DUE
CARE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN," OF THE DANGER OF SILICOSIS ARISING FROM THE
CONDITIONS OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT.  FN3 

THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED RESPONDENT'S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT.  ON
APPEAL THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ACTION COULD NOT BE
MAINTAINED BY VIRTUE OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ALONE, FOR
THE REASON THAT RESPONDENT COULD NOT HAVE "ANTICIPATED PLAINTIFF'S
INJURY, AND  ...  THEREFORE  ...  THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE FACTS
SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT."  352 MO. 211, 219.  THE COURT FELT,
HOWEVER, THAT THE CLAIMED MALFUNCTIONING OF THE LOCOMOTIVES' SANDERS
WAS IN SUBSTANCE AN ALLEGATION OF BREACH OF SEC. 2 OF THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT AND THAT, SINCE PROOF OF BREACH OF THE LATTER ACT WOULD
SUPPORT A RECOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WITHOUT
REGARD TO RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE, LILLY V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 317
U.S. 481, 485-486, PETITIONER HAD STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION. 
FURTHERMORE, THE COURT HELD THAT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT'S
THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 56, DID NOT BAR
PETITIONER'S CLAIM SINCE HIS "CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED IN MAY, 1940,
WHEN HE BECAME INCAPACITATED  ...  "  352 MO. AT 222.  ACCORDINGLY THE
COURT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR TRIAL. 

ON REMAND PETITIONER AMENDED HIS COMPLAINT TO CHARGE SPECIFICALLY
VIOLATIONS OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  SECTION 2 OF THAT ACT, AS
AMENDED, MAKES IT "UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CARRIER TO USE OR PERMIT TO BE USED
ON ITS LINE ANY LOCOMOTIVE UNLESS SAID LOCOMOTIVE, ITS BOILER, TENDER,
AND ALL PARTS AND APPURTENANCES THEREOF ARE IN PROPER CONDITION AND
SAFE TO OPERATE IN THE SERVICE TO WHICH THE SAME ARE PUT, THAT THE SAME
MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE ACTIVE SERVICE OF SUCH CARRIER WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB  ...  "  45 U.S.C. SEC. 23.  FN4  THE
VIOLATIONS ALLEGED WERE (1) THAT THE SANDERS WERE BROKEN OR FAULTILY
ADJUSTED SO AS TO RELEASE TOO MUCH SAND AND (2) THAT THE LOCOMOTIVE
DECKS AND CABS WERE IN A BAD STATE OF REPAIR, ADMITTING DUST THROUGH
VARIOUS CRACKS AND OPENINGS IN THE CAB'S FLOOR AND ELSEWHERE WHICH
OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SEALED OFF. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED TO A JURY, UNDER INSTRUCTIONS THAT NEGLIGENCE WAS
NOT IN ISSUE AND THAT PETITIONER SHOULD PREVAIL IF HE PROVED THAT HE
HAD CONTRACTED SILICOSIS BY REASON OF RESPONDENT'S BREACH OF AN
"ABSOLUTE AND CONTINUING DUTY TO HAVE SUCH LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES AND ALL
THEIR PARTS AND APPURTENANCES THEREOF, IN PROPER CONDITION AND SAFE TO
OPERATE  ...  WITHOUT UNNECESSARY PERIL TO THE LIFE OF TOM URIE  ...  "
THE JURY FOUND FOR PETITIONER IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000. 

UPON RESPONDENT'S APPEAL THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT ENTERED ON THIS VERDICT.  357 MO. 738.  NOTING THAT ON THE
FORMER REVIEW IT DID NOT "TREAT WITH A CONTENTION THAT 'SILICOSIS' IS
NOT AN EVIL AT WHICH THE ACT IS AIMED," ID. AT 746, THE COURT CONCLUDED
THAT THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT "IS AIMED AT PROMOTING SAFETY FROM
ACCIDENTAL INJURY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM INJURY DUE TO THE GRADUAL
INHALATION OF HARMFUL DUSTS."  ID. AT 749.  IT WAS TO REVIEW THE STATE
SUPREME COURT'S SUCCESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY AND BOILER INSPECTION ACTS THAT OUR WRIT WAS ISSUED. 

                                  I. 

TWO PRELIMINARY CONTENTIONS FIRST ENGAGE OUR ATTENTION.  WE ARE MET
AT THE OUTSET BY THE QUESTION WHETHER, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM UNDER EITHER ACT, THAT CLAIM IS
BARRED AS TO BOTH ACTS BY OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

URIE FILED SUIT ON NOVEMBER 25, 1941.  UNDER THE TERMS OF THE THEN
PREVAILING THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,  FN5  THE COURT COULD NOT
ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM IF URIE'S "CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED" BEFORE NOVEMBER
25, 1938.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT URIE, HAVING BEEN EXPOSED TO SILICA
DUST SINCE APPROXIMATELY 1910, MUST UNWITTINGLY HAVE CONTRACTED
SILICOSIS LONG BEFORE 1938, AND HENCE THAT HIS "CAUSE OF ACTION" MUST
BE DEEMED TO HAVE "ACCRUED" LONGER THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE
INSTITUTION OF THIS ACTION.  ALTERNATIVELY IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT EACH
INHALATION OF SILICA DUST WAS A SEPARATE TORT GIVING RISE TO A FRESH
"CAUSE OF ACTION," AND THAT URIE IS THEREFORE LIMITED TO A CLAIM FOR
INHALATIONS BETWEEN NOVEMBER 25, 1938, AND THE SPRING DAY IN 1940 WHEN
HE BECAME INCAPACITATED.  FN6 

IN OUR VIEW, HOWEVER, NEITHER OF THE OUTLINED CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CAN BE SUSTAINED.  FOR, IF WE ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO INCLUDE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES IN THE CATEGORY OF
INJURIES COMPENSABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY AND BOILER
INSPECTION ACTS, SUCH MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF THE "ACCRUAL" OF
PETITIONER'S INJURY - WHETHER BREATH BY BREATH, OR AT ONE UNRECORDED
MOMENT IN THE PROGRESS OF THE DISEASE - CAN ONLY SERVE TO THWART THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE. 

IF URIE WERE HELD BARRED FROM PROSECUTING THIS ACTION BECAUSE HE MUST
BE SAID, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO HAVE CONTRACTED SILICOSIS PRIOR TO
NOVEMBER 25, 1938, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION
AFFORDED URIE ONLY A DELUSIVE REMEDY.  IT WOULD MEAN THAT AT SOME PAST
MOMENT IN TIME, UNKNOWN AND INHERENTLY UNKNOWABLE EVEN IN RETROSPECT,
URIE WAS CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE SLOW AND TRAGIC DISINTEGRATION
OF HIS LUNGS; UNDER THIS VIEW URIE'S FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS A DISEASE WHOSE SYMPTOMS HAD NOT YET
OBTRUDED ON HIS CONSCIOUSNESS WOULD CONSTITUTE WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO
COMPENSATION AT THE ULTIMATE DAY OF DISCOVERY AND DISABILITY. 

NOR CAN WE ACCEPT THE THEORY THAT EACH INTAKE OF DUSTY BREATH IS A
FRESH "CAUSE OF ACTION."  IN THE PRESENT CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, APPLICATION
OF SUCH A RULE WOULD, ARGUABLY, LIMIT PETITIONER'S DAMAGES TO THAT
AGGRAVATION OF HIS PROGRESSIVE INJURY TRACEABLE TO THE LAST EIGHTEEN
MONTHS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  MOREOVER PETITIONER WOULD HAVE BEEN WHOLLY
BARRED FROM SUIT HAD HE LEFT THE RAILROAD, OR MERELY BEEN TRANSFERRED
TO WORK INVOLVING NO EXPOSURE TO SILICA DUST, MORE THAN THREE YEARS
BEFORE DISCOVERING THE DISEASE WITH WHICH HE WAS AFFLICTED.  FN7 

WE DO NOT THINK THE HUMANE LEGISLATIVE PLAN INTENDED SUCH
CONSEQUENCES TO ATTACH TO BLAMELESS IGNORANCE.  NOR DO WE THINK THOSE
CONSEQUENCES CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE TRADITIONAL PURPOSES OF
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, WHICH CONVENTIONALLY REQUIRE THE ASSERTION OF
CLAIMS WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME AFTER NOTICE OF THE INVASION
OF LEGAL RIGHTS.  THE RECORD BEFORE US IS CLEAR THAT URIE BECAME TOO
ILL TO WORK IN MAY OF 1940 AND THAT DIAGNOSIS OF HIS CONDITION WAS
ACCOMPLISHED IN THE FOLLOWING WEEKS.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT URIE
SHOULD HAVE KNOWN HE HAD SILICOSIS AT ANY EARLIER DATE.  "IT FOLLOWS
THAT NO SPECIFIC DATE OF CONTACT WITH THE SUBSTANCE CAN BE CHARGED WITH
BEING THE DATE OF INJURY, INASMUCH AS THE INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE
EXPOSURE ARE THE PRODUCT OF A PERIOD OF TIME RATHER THAN A POINT OF
TIME; CONSEQUENTLY THE AFFLICTED EMPLOYEE CAN BE HELD TO BE 'INJURED'
ONLY WHEN THE ACCUMULATED EFFECTS OF THE DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCE MANIFEST
THEMSELVES ...  "  ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORP. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT
COMMISSION, 124 CAL. APP. 378, 381.  THE QUOTED LANGUAGE, USED IN A
STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASE, SEEMS TO US APPLICABLE IN EVERY
RELEVANT PARTICULAR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED.  ACCORDINGLY WE AGREE
WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT ON THE FIRST
APPEAL OF THIS CASE, THAT URIE'S CLAIM, IF OTHERWISE MAINTAINABLE, IS
NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  FN8 

WE MAY READILY DISPOSE OF ANOTHER PRELIMINARY QUESTION CONCERNING THE
ISSUES WHICH ARE NOW PROPERLY BEFORE US.  RESPONDENT ARGUES, SOMEWHAT
SURPRISINGLY, THAT THE SUFFICIENCY OF PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL CLAIM FOR
NEGLIGENCE INVOLVED IN THE FIRST APPEAL IS NOT PROPERLY HERE, SINCE IT
WAS NEITHER RAISED NOR CONSIDERED ON THE SECOND APPEAL TO THE MISSOURI
SUPREME COURT.  THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT PETITIONER HAS BROUGHT THE
CLAIM TO THIS COURT AT HIS FIRST OPPORTUNITY; AND IT WAS NOT NECESSARY
FOR HIM TO RELITIGATE THAT CLAIM A SECOND TIME THROUGH THE STATE COURTS
IN ORDER TO PRESERVE IT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION ON REVIEW OF THE FINAL
JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CAUSE. 

FROM THE OPINIONS OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT WE KNOW JUDICIALLY  FN9
THAT ITS JUDGMENT NEGATING THE GENERAL CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE WAS COUPLED
WITH ITS SUBSEQUENTLY REPUDIATED CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER HAD STATED
A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT AND THAT,
CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR TRIAL, NOT FOR
DISMISSAL.  THE JUDGMENT THEREFORE WAS NOT FINAL; IT WAS INTERLOCUTORY
AND NOT REVIEWABLE HERE WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR JURISDICTIONAL
STATUTE.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(B)(NOW SEC. 1257(3)).  FN10 

ALTHOUGH THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE FIRST APPEAL
PRECLUDED REVIEW HERE AT THAT TIME OF THE RULING ADVERSE TO PETITIONER,
URIE DID NOT WAIVE THAT QUESTION BY AMENDING HIS COMPLAINT, IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE COURT'S MANDATE, TO STATE HIS CLAIM MORE
SPECIFICALLY IN TERMS OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT OR BY PROCEEDING
WITH TRIAL ON THAT THEORY.  AS THE CASE THEN STOOD, THIS WAS HIS ONLY
REMAINING CHANCE FOR SUCCESS UNLESS HE WAS TO WAIVE IT, ASK FOR FINAL
JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED AGAINST HIM ON THE GENERAL NEGLIGENCE ISSUE, AND
RELY SOLELY UPON SECURING REVIEW OF THAT JUDGMENT AND REVERSAL BY THIS
COURT. 

WHATEVER THE EFFECT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S RULING FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS,  FN11  IT COULD NOT IMPOSE SUCH AN
ALTERNATIVE UPON PETITIONER.  LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE CANNOT BAR THIS
COURT'S INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION OF ALL SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTIONS
ACTUALLY DETERMINED IN EARLIER STAGES OF THE LITIGATION BY THE COURT
WHOSE FINAL ADJUDICATION IS BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW.  ZECKENDORF V.
STEINFELD, 225 U.S. 445, 454; MESSENGER V. ANDERSON, 225 U.S. 436,
444.  EVEN SO, WE THINK SOUND PRACTICE WOULD SEE TO IT THAT SUCH
QUESTIONS WERE EXPRESSLY PRESERVED IN THE LATER STAGES OF REVIEW.  BUT,
AS THIS COURT HAS HAD OCCASION HERETOFORE TO OBSERVE, ITS POWER TO
PROBE ISSUES DISPOSED OF ON APPEALS PRIOR TO THE ONE UNDER REVIEW IS,
IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, A "NECESSARY CORRELATIVE" OF THE RULE WHICH
LIMITS IT TO THE EXAMINATION OF FINAL JUDGMENTS.  LOUISIANA NAVIGATION
CO. V. OYSTER COMMISSION, 226 U.S. 99, 102.  FN12 

ACCORDINGLY, EVEN IF IT SHOULD BE HELD THAT PETITIONER HAS STATED NO
CLAIM UNDER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, THE JUDGMENT NOW IN REVIEW
CANNOT STAND UNLESS THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT RIGHTLY CONCLUDED, ON
THE FIRST APPEAL, THAT PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT STATED NO CAUSE
OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT,
CONSIDERED APART FROM ANY EFFECT OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  THAT
QUESTION IS PROPERLY PRESENTED AND TO IT WE NOW TURN. 
               II. 


"EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD WHILE ENGAGING IN COMMERCE  ...
SHALL BE LIABLE IN DAMAGES TO ANY PERSON SUFFERING INJURY WHILE HE IS
EMPLOYED BY SUCH CARRIER IN SUCH COMMERCE  ...  FOR SUCH INJURY OR
DEATH RESULTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE
OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES OF SUCH CARRIER, OR BY REASON OF ANY
DEFECT OR INSUFFICIENCY, DUE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS CARS, ENGINES,
APPLIANCES, MACHINERY, TRACK, ROADBED, WORKS, BOATS, WHARVES, OR OTHER
EQUIPMENT."  45 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

THE SECTION DOES NOT DEFINE NEGLIGENCE, LEAVING THAT QUESTION TO BE
DETERMINED, AS THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT SAID, "BY THE COMMON LAW
PRINCIPLES AS ESTABLISHED AND APPLIED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS."  352 MO.
AT 218.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, HAS NO APPLICATION. 
WHAT CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE FOR THE STATUTE'S PURPOSES IS A FEDERAL
QUESTION, NOT VARYING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIFFERING CONCEPTIONS OF
NEGLIGENCE APPLICABLE UNDER STATE AND LOCAL LAWS FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 
FEDERAL DECISIONAL LAW FORMULATING AND APPLYING THE CONCEPT GOVERNS
FN13.  HENCE THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT'S DECISION ON THE FIRST APPEAL,
THAT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE, IS
SUBJECT TO OUR INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS GOVERNED
CONCLUSIVELY BY THE STATE COURT DECISIONS WHICH ALONE WERE CITED IN
SUPPORT OF THE DETERMINATION. 

OF COURSE IF SILICOSIS CAUSED BY THE EMPLOYMENT IS NOT AN "INJURY"
WITHIN THE STATUTE'S INTENDED COVERAGE, NO CAUSE OF ACTION COULD BE
STATED FOR THAT INJURY UNDER THE STATUTE, EVEN THOUGH THE ALLEGATIONS
OF FAULT AND CAUSATION WERE WHOLLY SUFFICIENT.  THE MISSOURI SUPREME
COURT'S FIRST DECISION, HOWEVER, ASSUMED THAT SILICOSIS FELL WITHIN THE
STATUTE'S BROAD TERM "INJURY," AND HELD THAT IT WOULD NOT "BE
REASONABLE TO HOLD, UNDER THE FACTS ADMITTED BY THE DEMURRER, THAT
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED PLAINTIFF'S INJURY  ...  "  352 MO.
AT 219.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT RULED THAT NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE ACT HAD BEEN STATED. 

UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SILICOSIS WHEN CAUSED BY THE EMPLOYMENT IS A
COMPENSABLE EMPLOYEE "INJURY," THE ADEQUACY OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM TURNS
SOLELY ON WHETHER HIS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ALLEGED FACTS RAISING A
TRIABLE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE.  WE THINK THAT UNDER THE STANDARDS
HERETOFORE SET AND FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT,  FN14  THE FACTS ALLEGED IN
THE COMPLAINT AND TAKEN AS ADMITTED BY THE DEMURRER CLEARLY STATED A
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE. 

THOSE FACTS HAVE BEEN BRIEFLY, THOUGH ONLY PARTIALLY, SUMMARIZED
ABOVE.  THEY CHARGED THAT RESPONDENT USED IN THE LOCOMOTIVES' SANDERS A
SAND MATERIAL CONTAINING A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF SILICA OR SILICON
DIOXIDE; THAT OFTEN THE MATERIAL WOULD COME TO THE RAILS FROM THE
SANDERS IN EXCESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY QUANTITIES AND WOULD THERE BE
GROUND TO DUST; THAT THE DUST CONTAINING "SUCH USUAL AND UNUSUAL
QUANTITY OF SILICON DIOXIDE WOULD COME" INTO THE ENGINE CABS AND,
"FREQUENTLY OF UNUSUAL QUANTITY," WOULD BE BREATHED BY PETITIONER; AND
THAT RESPONDENT "KNEW, OR BY THE EXERCISE OF DUE CARE SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN," THAT THE SAND CONTAINED THE HIGH PERCENTAGE OF SILICON DIOXIDE;
THAT "THE DUST WOULD FORM AND FREQUENTLY OF EXCESSIVE QUANTITY BECAUSE
OF SAID SANDERS," COME INTO THE CAB AND BE BREATHED BY PETITIONER; AND
THAT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME THE BREATHING WAS "DANGEROUS TO THE HEALTH
AND LIFE AND WOULD LIKELY CAUSE TO THE PLAINTIFF THE CONDITION
RESULTING TO THE PLAINTIFF."  THE COMPLAINT THEN STATED THE FURTHER
ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN15  TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING
PARAGRAPH: 

"PLAINTIFF FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE SANDING DEVICES ON SAID ENGINES
WERE ALL OF THE USUAL AND CUSTOMARY TYPE AND USED FOR THE USUAL AND
CUSTOMARY PURPOSE AND IF ORDINARY CARE WAS EXERCISED IN KEEPING THEM
ADJUSTED SUCH LARGE QUANTITIES OF SUCH SANDY SILICA MATERIAL WOULD NOT
ESCAPE; THAT PLAINTIFF DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER THE SAME KIND OF SAND
CONTAINING SUCH HIGH QUALITY OF SILICA WAS USED BY OTHER RAILROADS
OPERATING OVER OR THROUGH SUCH PARTS OF THE COUNTRY OF MISSOURI; THAT
SUCH SANDING DEVICES OPERATED IN THE SAME MANNER BY THE SAME MEANS AS
DEVICES ON LOCOMOTIVES OF OTHER RAILROADS, AND IF KEPT IN NORMAL AND
REGULAR WORKING CONDITION WOULD NOT ALLOW SUCH LARGE QUANTITIES OF
SILICA DUST TO FORM AS ABOVE STATED." 

THESE AND OTHER ALLEGATIONS SUFFICIENTLY CHARGED RESPONDENT WITH
KNOWINGLY HAVING USED, IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES DUE IN PART TO FAULTY
ADJUSTMENT OF THE SANDERS AND RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO USE DUE CARE IN
ADJUSTING THEM, A DANGEROUS SAND MATERIAL LIKELY TO CAUSE SILICOSIS AND
IN FACT CAUSING PETITIONER TO CONTRACT IT AND BECOME PERMANENTLY
DISABLED.  THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE CLEARLY ADEQUATE FOR STATING A CAUSE
OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE RESULTING IN INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE AND THE APPLICABLE JUDICIAL STANDARDS TO WHICH WE HAVE
REFERRED.  ALL THE USUAL ELEMENTS ARE COMPREHENDED, INCLUDING WANT OF
DUE OR ORDINARY CARE, PROXIMATE CAUSATION OF THE INJURY, AND INJURY
WITHIN OUR ASSUMPTION FOR PRESENT PURPOSES OF STATUTORY COVERAGE. 

TO SUSTAIN THE CONTRARY VIEW, HOWEVER, THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
SEEMS TO HAVE RULED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT RESPONDENT HAD ADHERED TO
THE CUSTOMARY STANDARDS OF THE TRADE, STRESSING THE ADMISSION IN
PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT THAT THE SANDING DEVICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
FAULTILY ADJUSTED WERE OF THE KIND ORDINARILY USED THROUGHOUT THE
RAILROAD INDUSTRY.  CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S APPARENT CONCLUSION, THIS
OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT AN ADMISSION THAT RESPONDENT HAD COMPLIED WITH THE
USUAL STANDARDS OF THE TRADE.  THERE WAS NEITHER ADMISSION BY
PETITIONER NOR EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT RESPONDENT'S SANDERS
WERE "ALL OF THE USUAL AND CUSTOMARY TYPE" WHICH, IF KEPT PROPERLY
ADJUSTED BY ORDINARY CARE, WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED SUCH LARGE AND
EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES OF SILICA DUST TO ESCAPE, CONCENTRATE IN THE CAB,
AND BE BREATHED BY PETITIONER.  THERE WAS NO ADMISSION THAT OTHER
RAILROADS GENERALLY OR IN THE REGION CUSTOMARILY USED SUCH HIGH SILICA
CONTENT MATERIALS FOR SANDING PURPOSES OR THAT, IF THEY DID, THEY DID
NOT TAKE STEPS TO MINIMIZE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL EFFECTS.  MOREOVER,
ASSUMING THE PREMISE THAT MAINTENANCE OF TRADE STANDARDS NEGATIVES
NEGLIGENCE, WE CANNOT GRASP ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CONTEXT ABSENT ANY
INDICATION THAT FAULTILY ADJUSTED SANDING DEVICES ARE THE RULE RATHER
THAN THE EXCEPTION ON AMERICAN STEAM LOCOMOTIVES. 

BUT WE ALSO REJECT THE PREMISE, FOR WE THINK THAT NEGLIGENCE, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, ATTACHED IF
RESPONDENT "KNEW, OR BY THE EXERCISE OF DUE CARE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN,"
THAT PREVALENT STANDARDS OF CONDUCT WERE INADEQUATE TO PROTECT
PETITIONER AND SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES.  CF. HILL V. ATLANTIC
COAST LINE R. CO., 336 U.S. 911, REVERSING 229 N.C. 236.  SEE ALSO
SADOWSKI V. LONG ISLAND R. CO., 292 N.Y. 448, 456-457.  FN16
RESPONDENT'S KNOWLEDGE, ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, OF THE ALLEGED
INADEQUACIES OF THE SANDING EQUIPMENT WAS A JURY QUESTION.  WHETHER
PETITIONER WAS THEN OR NOW WOULD BE ABLE TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF
PROVING RESPONDENT'S KNOWLEDGE WE NEED NOT SURMISE, THOUGH THE EVIDENCE
ADDUCED BY PETITIONER AT TRIAL UNDER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT -
INDICATING THAT OTHERS BESIDES PETITIONER HAD OBSERVED AND REPORTED
DEFECTS IN RESPONDENT'S LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT - UNDERSCORES OUR
INSISTENCE THAT ISSUES OF FACT ARE MATTERS FOR THE JURY.  FN17 

ACCORDINGLY WE THINK THE STATE COURT'S RULING THAT THE FACTS STATED
IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WERE INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CHARGE OF
NEGLIGENCE ON RESPONDENT'S PART, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT CONSIDERED APART FROM THE EFFECT OF THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT, WAS WRONG AND MUST BE OVERRULED.  WHAT WAS SAID BY THE
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS IN SADOWSKI V. LONG ISLAND R. CO., SUPRA AT
455-456, IN SUSTAINING A RECOVERY FOR SILICOSIS UNDER THE ACT, FITS
VERY CLOSELY THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND REPRESENTS, IN OUR OPINION, THE
CORRECT VIEW: 

"ORDINARY CARE MUST BE IN PROPORTION TO THE DANGER TO BE AVOIDED AND
THE CONSEQUENCES THAT MIGHT REASONABLY BE ANTICIPATED FROM THE NEGLECT
(RAILROAD CO. V. JONES, 95 U.S. 439; BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT RY.,
SUPRA (319 U.S. 350)).  IT MUST BE COMMENSURATE WITH KNOWN DANGERS. 
DEFENDANT CREATED THE PLACE IN WHICH THE WORK WAS DONE AND SUPERVISED
THE DOING OF THE WORK BY PLAINTIFF AND WAS AWARE FOR A PERIOD OF AT
LEAST SIXTEEN YEARS OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS
REQUIRED TO WORK AND OF THE MEANS AND METHODS BY WHICH ITS WORK WAS
ACCOMPLISHED.  IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS INJURIOUS
TO THE LUNGS AND DANGEROUS TO HEALTH TO WORK IN SILICA DUST, A FACT
WHICH DEFENDANT WAS BOUND TO KNOW."  FN18 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER SILICOSIS IS AN "INJURY" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THAT TERM AS USED IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 
IT IS A NOVEL ONE FOR THIS COURT.  BUT WE THINK SILICOSIS IS WITHIN THE
STATUTE'S COVERAGE WHEN IT RESULTS FROM THE EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE. 
CONSIDERATIONS ARISING FROM THE BREADTH OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, THE
ACT'S HUMANITARIAN PURPOSES, ITS ACCEPTED STANDARD OF LIBERAL
CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE OBJECTS, THE ABSENCE OF
ANYTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATING A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT
TO REQUIRE A RESTRICTED INTERPRETATION OR EXPRESSLY TO EXCLUDE SUCH
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE, AND THE TREND OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES DEALING
WITH THE QUESTION, COMBINE TO SUPPORT THIS CONCLUSION. 

WE RECOGNIZE OF COURSE THAT, WHEN THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED, CONGRESS'
ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED PRIMARILY UPON INJURIES AND DEATH RESULTING FROM
ACCIDENTS ON INTERSTATE RAILROADS.  FN19 OBVIOUSLY THESE WERE THE MAJOR
CAUSES OF INJURY AND DEATH RESULTING FROM RAILROAD OPERATIONS.  BUT
ACCIDENTAL INJURIES WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES LIKELY TO OCCUR.  AND
NOTHING IN EITHER THE LANGUAGE OR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DISCLOSES
EXPRESSLY ANY INTENT TO EXCLUDE FROM THE ACT'S COVERAGE ANY INJURY
RESULTING "IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE" OF THE CARRIER.  IF
SUCH AN INTENT CAN BE FOUND, IT MUST BE READ INTO THE ACT BY SHEER
INFERENCE. 

THE LANGUAGE IS AS BROAD AS COULD BE FRAMED:  "ANY PERSON SUFFERING
INJURY WHILE HE IS EMPLOYED"; "SUCH INJURY OR DEATH RESULTING IN WHOLE
OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR
EMPLOYEES OF SUCH CARRIER"; "BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT OR INSUFFICIENCY,
DUE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS CARS, ENGINES, APPLIANCES," ETC.  ON ITS
FACE, EVERY INJURY SUFFERED BY ANY EMPLOYEE WHILE EMPLOYED BY REASON OF
THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE WAS MADE COMPENSABLE.  THE WORDING WAS NOT
RESTRICTIVE AS TO THE EMPLOYEES COVERED; THE CAUSE OF INJURY, EXCEPT
THAT IT MUST CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CARRIER; OR THE
PARTICULAR KIND OF INJURY RESULTING. 

TO READ INTO THIS ALL-INCLUSIVE WORDING A RESTRICTION AS TO THE KINDS
OF EMPLOYEES COVERED, THE DEGREE OF NEGLIGENCE REQUIRED, OR THE
PARTICULAR SORTS OF HARMS INFLICTED, WOULD BE CONTRADICTORY TO THE
WORDING, THE REMEDIAL AND HUMANITARIAN PURPOSE, AND THE CONSTANT AND
ESTABLISHED COURSE OF LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT FOLLOWED BY THIS
COURT.  FN20 

WE RECOGNIZE, WITH RESPONDENT, THAT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT IS FOUNDED ON COMMON-LAW CONCEPTS OF NEGLIGENCE AND INJURY, SUBJECT
TO SUCH QUALIFICATIONS AS CONGRESS HAS IMPORTED INTO THOSE TERMS.  IF
RESPONDENT WERE RIGHT IN SUGGESTING THAT THE COMMON LAW DOES NOT
RECOGNIZE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AS A CATEGORY OF COMPENSABLE INJURY, HE
WOULD LEND SUBSTANCE TO THE ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS' USE OF THE WORD
"INJURY" WAS LESS BROAD THAN THE WORD'S SURFACE CONNOTATION INDICATES. 
HOWEVER, ALTHOUGH THE CONTRARY VIEW HAS BEEN ADVANCED, FN21  WE ARE
SATISFIED THAT THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH HAVE ATTACHED TO TORT RECOVERY
FOR OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE INHERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF THE WRONG BUT IN
THE DIFFICULTY OF PROVING NEGLIGENCE.  FOR, AS THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
OBSERVED WITH REFERENCE TO SILICOSIS, "IN THE EARLY PERIOD OF
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT THERE WAS LITTLE MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE
ORIGIN OF DISEASES PECULIAR TO THE VARIOUS EMPLOYMENTS  ...  "  TRIFF
V. NATIONAL BRONZE & ALUMINUM FOUNDRY CO., 135 OHIO ST. 191, 195.  WE
DO NOT DOUBT THAT AT "COMMON LAW THE INCURRING OF A DISEASE OR HARM TO
HEALTH IS SUCH A PERSONAL WRONG AS TO WARRANT A RECOVERY IF THE OTHER
ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY FOR TORT ARE PRESENT."  FN22 

VIEWING THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AS A NEGLIGENCE STATUTE,
WE THINK THAT ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE COVERAGE ACCORDED OCCUPATIONAL
DISEASES IN STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTES CANNOT CONTROL THE
PRESENT INQUIRY.  AND YET WE MAY NOTE IN PASSING THAT DECISIONS UNDER
SUCH STATUTES, TO WHATEVER EXTENT THEY MAY BE THOUGHT RELEVANT, OFFER
LITTLE SUPPORT TO RESPONDENT'S NARROW VIEW OF THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION
BEFORE US.  TRUE IT IS THAT THE BRITISH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF
1897, 60 & 61 VICT.  C. 37, ALTHOUGH COVERING ANTHRAX CONTRACTED BY
CLAIMANT FROM A PARTICULAR AND IDENTIFIABLE PROCESSING OF WOOL, TURVEY
V. BRINTONS, LTD., (1904) 1 K.B. 328, AFFIRMED (1905) A.C. 230, WAS
HELD TO EXCLUDE GRADUAL LEAD POISONING.  STEEL V. CAMMELL, LAIRD & CO.,
(1905) 2 K.B. 232.  BUT IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT THE STATUTE THERE
CONSTRUED PROVIDED FOR COMPENSATION ONLY IN CASES OF "PERSONAL INJURY
BY ACCIDENT," A LIMITATION MUCH STRESSED BY THE OPINIONS IN STEEL V.
CAMMELL, LAIRD & CO., SUPRA.  AND SEE WALKER V. LILLESHALL COAL CO.,
(1900) 1 Q.B. 488.  DECISIONS IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE UNIFORMLY FOLLOWED
THE EARLY BRITISH RULE IN CONSTRUING SUCH TERMS AS "ACCIDENT" AND
"ACCIDENTAL INJURY," AS WELL AS "PERSONAL INJURY BY ACCIDENT."  FN23 
BUT DECISIONS CONSTRUING "PERSONAL INJURY" - MORE NEARLY AKIN TO THE
SIMPLE "INJURY" OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT - ARE IN
CONFLICT.  THUS THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO EXCLUDED OCCUPATIONAL
DISEASES IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
OF THE STATUTE CONSIDERED, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE
"NO DIFFICULT MATTER TO BRING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE WORDS 'PERSONAL
INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT' OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES
INCURRED IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT."  INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION V. BROWN, 92
OHIO ST. 309, 312-313; CF. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION V. ROTH, 98 OHIO ST.
34.  THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT, RELYING ON ITS COMMON-LAW VIEW THAT
"TYPICAL" OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES WERE NOT COMPENSABLE, LIKEWISE EXCLUDED
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES FROM ITS "PERSONAL INJURY" STATUTE.  MILLER V.
AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO., 90 CONN. 349.  BUT AGAINST THIS LINE OF
AUTHORITY MAY BE SET THE VIEW OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS, SPEAKING BY CHIEF JUSTICE RUGG, WHICH HELD THAT
BLINDNESS CAUSED BY NOXIOUS INDUSTRIAL VAPORS WAS A "PERSONAL INJURY"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE.  HURLE'S CASE, 217
MASS. 223. 

CONSONANT WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE IS THE ONE COMPENSATION ACT
THE MEANING OF WHICH MAY BE THOUGHT DIRECTLY TO BEAR ON CONGRESSIONAL
USE OF THE WORD "INJURY" IN THE FEDERAL NEGLIGENCE STATUTE WITH WHICH
WE ARE TODAY CONCERNED.  THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT OF MAY
30, 1908, 35 STAT. 556, APPROVED LESS THAN TWO MONTHS AFTER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, PROVIDED COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN CLASSES OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES "INJURED IN THE COURSE OF  ... EMPLOYMENT."  UNDER
THIS STATUTE COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED FOR, INTER ALIA, INHALATION OF
DUST AND FINE SCALE,  FN24  LEAD POISONING,  FN25  CARDIAC HYPERTROPHY
CAUSED BY INHALATION OF ETHER,  FN26 AND THROAT TUBERCULOSIS AGGRAVATED
BY BRASS POISONING.  FN27  IN SHORT, THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASES
OFFER LITTLE COMFORT TO RESPONDENT'S VIEW OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT. 

WHILE NO DECISION OF THIS COURT INVOLVING THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT HAS DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH SILICOSIS, THE NEW YORK COURT
OF APPEALS, AS WE HAVE INDICATED ABOVE, HAS SUSTAINED RECOVERY UNDER
THE ACT FOR THAT DISEASE WHEN RESULTING FROM THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE. 
THIS WAS DONE IN CIRCUMSTANCES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
ALLEGED IN PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, EXCEPT THAT THE FACTS
INVOLVED NO POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT. 
SADOWSKI V. LONG ISLAND R. CO., SUPRA.  MOREOVER, OTHER STATE AND
FEDERAL DECISIONS HAVE AUTHORIZED RECOVERY UNDER THE ACT FOR INJURIES
NOT CAUSED BY ACCIDENTAL OR VIOLENT MEANS.  THESE INCLUDE SHELTON V.
THOMSON, 148 F.2D 1; 157 F.2D 709, WHERE RECOVERY WAS PERMITTED FOR
CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING; B. & O.R. CO. V. BRANSON, 128 MD. 678,
REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 242 U.S. 623, IN WHICH RECOVERY WAS ALLOWED
FOR PAINT POISONING.  CF. C.R.I. & P.R. CO. V. CHEEK, 105 OKLA. 91. 
NOT ALL OF THESE DECISIONS COULD BE SUSTAINED IF THE STATUTORY TERM
"INJURY" WERE HELD TO REQUIRE THAT THE HARM SUFFERED FROM THE
EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE MUST BE CONFINED TO THAT INFLICTED BY "EXTERNAL,
VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL" MEANS OR BE AN "ACCIDENTAL INJURY," AS
RESPONDENT'S NARROW VIEW OF THE STATUTE'S COVERAGE SEEMS TO
CONTEMPLATE. 

WE WOULD BE MOST HESITANT TO ADOPT A CONSTRUCTION OF "INJURY" AS USED
IN THIS ACT WHICH WOULD OVERRULE THE DECISIONS LAST CITED OR SERIOUSLY
IMPAIR THEIR AUTHORITY.  WE THINK THEY WERE MADE IN THE SPIRIT THE
STATUTE CONTEMPLATED FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION AND APPLICATION.  THAT
SPIRIT IS ONE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH IMPORTING NICE DISTINCTIONS IN
APPLYING THE ACT'S BROAD AND GENERAL TERMS OR CUTTING DOWN THEIR FULL
SCOPE BY INFERENCE OR IMPLICATION. 

IN OUR VIEW, WHEN THE EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE IMPAIRS OR DESTROYS AN
EMPLOYEE'S HEALTH BY REQUIRING HIM TO WORK UNDER CONDITIONS LIKELY TO
BRING ABOUT SUCH HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES, THE INJURY TO THE EMPLOYEE IS
JUST AS GREAT WHEN IT FOLLOWS, OFTEN INEVITABLY, FROM A CARRIER'S
NEGLIGENT COURSE PURSUED OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME AS WHEN IT
COMES WITH THE SUDDENNESS OF LIGHTNING.  SILICOSIS IS AS MUCH "INJURY,"
LEADING IN TIME AS CERTAINLY TO PERMANENT DISABILITY, AS SCALDING FROM
A BOILER'S EXPLOSION.  WE DO NOT THINK THE MERE DIFFERENCE IN THE TIME
REQUIRED FOR DIFFERENT ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE TO TAKE EFFECT AND DISCLOSE
THEIR HARMFUL, DISABLING CONSEQUENCES WOULD JUSTIFY EXCLUDING THE ONE
TYPE OF INJURY FROM THE ACT'S COVERAGE OR THAT SUCH AN EXCLUSION WOULD
BE CONSISTENT WITH ITS LANGUAGE, PURPOSES, OR UNVARYING STANDARDS OF
CONSTRUCTION. 

ACCORDINGLY IT FOLLOWS, AS THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT ASSUMED ON THE
FIRST APPEAL, THAT PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT DID NOT FAIL IN
STATING A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
FOR WANT OF ALLEGATION OF SUFFICIENT INJURY.  PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED
TO GO TO TRIAL AT THAT TIME WITHOUT RESTRICTION REQUIRING HIM TO SHOW
VIOLATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT. 

THIS CONCLUSION, IF IT WERE ALL THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE CASE, WOULD
COMPEL REVERSAL OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION AND REMAND FOR
TRIAL UPON THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.  HOWEVER, IT REMAINS TO CONSIDER THE
EFFECT OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT AND WHETHER THE VERDICT RENDERED
FOR PETITIONER UNDER THAT ACT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAND. 

                                 III. 

BY VIRTUE OF THE COURSE TAKEN BY THE CASE IN THE STATE COURTS, THE
MISSOURI SUPREME COURT DID NOT SQUARELY HOLD THAT SILICOSIS WAS NOT AN
INJURY WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
CONSIDERED APART FROM THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  AS THE CASE TOOK
SHAPE THAT QUESTION DID NOT ARISE ON THE FIRST APPEAL.  AND BY VIRTUE
OF THE RULING ON THE REMAND FOR TRIAL, THAT THE ONLY CAUSE OF ACTION
STATED WAS THAT ARISING UNDER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, THE COURT ON
THE SECOND APPEAL TREATED THE QUESTION WHETHER SILICOSIS WAS A
COMPENSABLE INJURY SUBSTANTIALLY AS IF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT WAS A
WHOLLY INDEPENDENT STATUTE, UNRELATED IN THE SCOPE OF ITS COVERAGE, FOR
PURPOSES OF EMPLOYEES' SUITS FOR BREACH OF ITS PROVISIONS, TO THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT'S TERMS, I.E., AS IF THE QUESTION AROSE SOLELY
UNDER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT. 

BUT BY ITS OWN TERMS THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, LIKE THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACTS,  FN28  DOES NOT PURPORT TO CONFER ANY RIGHT OF ACTION
UPON INJURED EMPLOYEES.  IT MERELY MAKES VIOLATION OF ITS PROHIBITIONS
"UNLAWFUL."  FN29  YET IT HAS BEEN HELD CONSISTENTLY THAT THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT SUPPLEMENTS THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT BY
IMPOSING ON INTERSTATE RAILROADS "AN ABSOLUTE AND CONTINUING DUTY" TO
PROVIDE SAFE EQUIPMENT.  LILLY V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., SUPRA AT 485;
SOUTHERN R. CO. V. LUNSFORD, 297 U.S. 398, 401; CF. BALTIMORE & O.R.
CO. V. GROEGER, 266 U.S. 521, 528-529. 

THIS CONCLUSION STEMS, NOT FROM ANY EXPRESS STATUTORY LANGUAGE, BUT
BY IMPLICATION FROM SECS. 3 AND 4 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 53, 54, WHICH BAR PLEADINGS OF, RESPECTIVELY,
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK "IN ANY CASE WHERE THE
VIOLATION BY SUCH COMMON CARRIER OF ANY STATUTE ENACTED FOR THE SAFETY
OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURY OR DEATH OF SUCH EMPLOYEE." 
FN30  BUT IT IS SEC. 1 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AND NOT
SECS. 3 AND 4, WHICH EXPRESSLY CREATES A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
NEGLIGENCE; AND BY THE SAME TOKEN IT IS SEC. 1 WHICH IS THE BASIS OF AN
EMPLOYEE'S SUIT FOR VIOLATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION OR SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACTS.  FOR WHERE SEC. 1 "REFERS TO 'ANY DEFECT OR
INSUFFICIENCY, DUE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS CARS, ENGINES,
APPLIANCES,' ETC., IT CLEARLY IS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO TREAT A
VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT AS 'NEGLIGENCE' - WHAT IS
SOMETIMES CALLED NEGLIGENCE PER SE."  SAN ANTONIO & A.P.R. CO. V.
WAGNER, 241 U.S. 476, 484. 

IN THIS VIEW THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS, TOGETHER WITH THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT, ARE SUBSTANTIVELY IF NOT IN FORM AMENDMENTS TO THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  THEY DISPENSE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF
EMPLOYEES' SUITS, WITH THE NECESSITY OF PROVING THAT VIOLATIONS OF THE
SAFETY STATUTES CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE; AND MAKING PROOF OF SUCH
VIOLATIONS IS EFFECTIVE TO SHOW NEGLIGENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW.  THUS
TAKEN, AS HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE, THE BOILER INSPECTION AND
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS STATUTES WHOLLY SEPARATE
FROM AND INDEPENDENT OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  THEY ARE
RATHER SUPPLEMENTAL TO IT, HAVING THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF
FACILITATING EMPLOYEE RECOVERY, NOT OF RESTRICTING SUCH RECOVERY OR
MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE. 

REGARDED IN THIS LIGHT, THE BOILER INSPECTION AND SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACTS WOULD TAKE ON HIGHLY INCONGRUOUS CHARACTER IF, AT THE VERY TIME
THEY WERE EXPEDITING EMPLOYEE RECOVERY UNDER THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT BY SUBSTITUTING THE COMPARATIVELY LIGHT BURDEN OF PROVING VIOLATION
OF THEIR PROHIBITIONS FOR THE HEAVIER ONE OF PROVING NEGLIGENCE, THEY
WERE ALSO CONTRACTING THE SCOPE OF COMPENSABLE INJURIES AND TO THAT
EXTENT DEFEATING RECOVERY ALTOGETHER.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO ACT SO INCONSISTENTLY OR THAT, BY DISPENSING WITH THE
EMPLOYEE'S BURDEN OF PROVING NEGLIGENCE IN CERTAIN CLASSES OF
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SUITS, IT HAD ANY PURPOSE TO WITHDRAW FROM
THAT ACT'S COVERAGE ANY INJURY CAUSED BY THE EMPLOYMENT WHICH WAS
COVERED BY ITS TERMS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC SHOWING THAT
CONGRESS HAD IN MIND SUCH A RESTRICTIVE AND INCONSISTENT OBJECT, WE ARE
NOT FREE TO CREATE ONE BY INFERENCE, MORE ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS DERIVED
FROM APPROACHING THE PROBLEM AS IF THE BOILER INSPECTION AND SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACTS WERE WHOLLY INDEPENDENT OF AND SEPARATE IN DESIGN AND
PURPOSE FROM THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE UNDERLYING THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT IS
BASICALLY THE SAME AS THAT UNDERLYING THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS AND THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  IN REQUIRING THAT THE BOILER, AND, NOT LONG
AFTER, THAT THE ENTIRE LOCOMOTIVE, BE MAINTAINED "IN PROPER CONDITION
AND SAFE TO OPERATE," CONGRESS BY ITS OWN STATEMENT WAS ATTEMPTING TO
INSURE THAT SUCH EQUIPMENT "BE EMPLOYED IN  ...  ACTIVE SERVICE  ...
WITHOUT UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB  ...  "  45 U.S.C. SEC. 23. 
CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS, AS FOR EXAMPLE THE
USE OF THE AUTOMATIC COUPLER, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 2, ARE MADE MANDATORY BY
EXPRESS STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  OTHERS, LIKE THOSE OF THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT, SIMPLY OUTLINE A GENERAL STANDARD WHICH MAY BE MORE
SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATED IN RULES ENUNCIATED BY THE CARRIERS SUBJECT TO
THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 28,
OR DIRECTLY PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION, NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST
LINE R. CO., 272 U.S. 605, 611-613, ON THE BASIS OF PROPER FINDINGS. 
UNITED STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., 293 U.S. 454.  VIOLATIONS OF THE
COMMISSION'S RULES ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTE, GIVING RISE NOT ONLY
TO DAMAGE SUITS BY THOSE INJURED, LILLY V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., SUPRA,
BUT ALSO TO MONEY PENALTIES RECOVERABLE BY THE UNITED STATES.  45
U.S.C. SEC. 34. 

AS WITH THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT THE PRIME
PURPOSE OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT WAS THE PROTECTION OF RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES AND PERHAPS ALSO OF PASSENGERS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, CF.
FAIRPORT, P. & E.R. CO. V. MEREDITH, 292 U.S. 589, FROM INJURY DUE TO
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT.  THE SAFETY OF ALL THOSE AFFECTED BY RAILROADING
WAS UPPERMOST IN THE LEGISLATIVE MIND.  BUT AGAIN, AS WITH THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT PROTECTION OF
EMPLOYEE HEALTH IS NOT EMBRACED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN.  FN31
INDEED, AS TO THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, THIS COURT HAS TWICE HAD
OCCASION TO MAKE CLEAR ITS CONTRARY VIEW, NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE
R. CO., SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., SUPRA AT 458-459. 

IN THE NAPIER CASE THE QUESTION FOR DECISION WAS THE VALIDITY OF
WISCONSIN AND GEORGIA REGULATIONS REQUIRING LOCOMOTIVES TO BE EQUIPPED
WITH, RESPECTIVELY, CAB CURTAINS AND AN AUTOMATIC FIRE DOOR.  EACH
STATE REGULATION WAS CHALLENGED AS AN INVASION OF POWER OVER INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHICH CONGRESS, THROUGH ENACTMENT AND AMENDMENT OF THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT, HAD SEEN FIT TO EXERCISE.  EACH REGULATION WAS DEFENDED
AS BEING DIRECTED TO PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH, RATHER THAN THE SAFETY,
OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES.  THE UNANIMOUS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS, STRUCK DOWN BOTH REGULATIONS "BECAUSE THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT, AS WE CONSTRUE IT, WAS INTENDED TO OCCUPY THE FIELD. 
THE BROAD SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION LEADS TO
THAT CONCLUSION.  BECAUSE THE STANDARD SET BY THE COMMISSION MUST
PREVAIL, REQUIREMENTS BY THE STATES ARE PRECLUDED, HOWEVER, COMMENDABLE
OR HOWEVER DIFFERENT THEIR PURPOSE."  272 U.S. AT 613. 

THIS LAST-QUOTED SENTENCE MERELY RECOGNIZED THAT THERETOFORE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD NOT REGULATED WITH AN EYE TO
EMPLOYEE HEALTH; IT DID NOT AND DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT EMPLOYEE
HEALTH WAS THOUGHT NOT TO BE WITHIN THE COMPASS OF THE ACT, AS OTHER
LANGUAGE IN NAPIER, 272 U.S. AT 611-613, MAKES AMPLY CLEAR: 

"THE REQUIREMENTS HERE IN QUESTION ARE, IN THEIR NATURE, WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO THE COMMISSION.  AN AUTOMATIC
FIREDOOR AND AN EFFECTIVE CAB CURTAIN MAY PROMOTE SAFETY.  KEEPING
FIREMEN AND ENGINEERS IN GOOD HEALTH, LIKE PREVENTING EXCESSIVE FATIGUE
THROUGH LIMITING THE HOURS OF SERVICE, CLEARLY DOES SO, ALTHOUGH
INDIRECTLY  ...    "IF THE PROTECTION NOW AFFORDED BY THE COMMISSION'S
RULES IS DEEMED INADEQUATE, APPLICATION FOR RELIEF MUST BE MADE TO IT.
THE COMMISSION'S POWER IS AMPLE." 

THUS THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT VESTS IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION RULE-MAKING POWER ADEQUATE TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES AGAINST
DISEASE AS WELL AS AGAINST ACCIDENT; AND THE POWER TO MAKE RULES FOR
EMPLOYEE HEALTH HAS BEEN EXERCISED.  FN32 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE
COMMISSION'S RULE-MAKING POWER IS CONFINED TO SAFEGUARDING AGAINST
ACCIDENTAL INJURY; NOR ARE WE FREE TO LAY DOWN A RULE OF LAW WHICH
WOULD SO RESTRICT THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.  SINCE WE ARE UNABLE TO
FIND IN THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT'S TERMS, PURPOSES OR LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY EITHER EXPLICIT PROVISION OR ANY SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR INFERRING
ONE CUTTING DOWN THE SCOPE OF RECOVERY ALLOWED UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE INJURY FOR WHICH
RECOVERY MAY BE HAD FOR VIOLATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT IS NO
NARROWER IN SCOPE THAN THE INJURY FOR WHICH RECOVERY IS AUTHORIZED
UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

WE HOLD THAT PETITIONER'S INJURY IS ONE COMPENSABLE UNDER THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT.  WE HOLD FURTHER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRIAL
INSTRUCTIONS AND SUCH EVIDENCE AS APPEARS IN THE RECORD BEFORE US,
FN33  THAT THE JURY WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING (1) THAT RESPONDENT
BREACHED THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT (AS MORE SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATED IN
I.C.C. RULE 120, GOVERNING SANDERS)  FN34  AND (2) THAT SUCH BREACH WAS
A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PETITIONER'S INJURY. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER STATED A VALID CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT INJURY
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ON HIS FIRST APPEAL AND THAT
PETITIONER STATED ON BOTH APPEALS AND PROVED ON HIS SECOND A VALID
CLAIM FOR INJURY FLOWING FROM VIOLATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT. 
THE RECORD BEFORE US REVEALS NO ERROR IN THE JURY'S VERDICT FOR
PETITIONER, WHICH WAS BASED ON THE SECOND THEORY OF THE CASE; THE
DAMAGES AWARDED ARE CONSISTENT WITH EITHER THEORY.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED
AND DISPOSED OF THE VARIOUS GROUNDS OF AFFIRMANCE URGED BY RESPONDENT;
GROUNDS NOT URGED, WHETHER ON THE RECORD BEFORE US OR ON SUCH
SUPPLEMENTAL PORTIONS OF THE STATE COURT RECORD AS RESPONDENT MIGHT
HAVE ASKED US TO REVIEW, ARE WAIVED.  ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REINSTATE THE
JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT FOR PETITIONER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  RESPECTIVELY 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ. AND 45 U.S.C. SEC. 23 ET
SEQ. 

FN2  "SANDER" IS, COLLOQUIALLY, THE NAME GIVEN BY RAILROAD MEN TO THE
ENTIRE APPARATUS APPURTENANT TO A LOCOMOTIVE WHICH STORES SAND AND
PIPES IT TO THE RAILS, AS NEEDED, TO PROVIDE TRACTION.  THE APPARATUS
IS MANDATORY EQUIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, I.C.C. RULE 120, 49
C.F.R. SEC. 91.120; I.C.C. RULE 235, 49 C.F.R. SEC. 91.235.  FOR
SUCCINCT DESCRIPTIONS OF A COMPRESSED-AIR POWERED SANDING APPARATUS,
SEE THE SUCCESSIVE OPINIONS IN ANDERSON V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 89
F.2D 629 AND 96 F.2D 796. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 9. 

FN4  THE SECTION CONTINUES, "AND UNLESS SAID LOCOMOTIVE, ITS BOILER,
TENDER, AND ALL PARTS AND APPURTENANCES THEREOF HAVE BEEN INSPECTED
FROM TIME TO TIME  ...  AND ARE ABLE TO WITHSTAND SUCH TEST OR TESTS AS
MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED
FOR."  45 U.S.C. SEC. 23, 36 STAT. 913, 38 STAT. 1192, 43 STAT. 659. 

AND ITS APPURTENANCES, 36 STAT. 913.  IT WAS BROADENED IN 1915 TO
INCLUDE THE ENTIRE LOCOMOTIVE AND TENDER, 38 STAT. 1192; AND SEE THE
1924 AMENDMENT.  43 STAT. 659. 

THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, TO WHICH THE DEMURRER INVOLVED IN THE
FIRST APPEAL APPLIED, DID NOT MENTION SPECIFICALLY EITHER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OR THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, BUT SET FORTH
FACTS GENERALLY FROM WHICH THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S CONCLUSIONS
CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF THOSE ACTS WERE DRAWN. 

FN5  45 U.S.C. SEC. 56.  THE FORMER TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,
35 STAT. 66, WAS LENGTHENED TO THREE YEARS BY THE 1939 AMENDMENT.  53
STAT. 1404. 

FN6  CF. PIECZONKA V. PULLMAN CO., 89 F.2D 353, 356-357. 

FN7  SEE PIECZONKA V. PULLMAN CO., 89 F.2D 353, 356-357. 

FN8  COMPARE THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS' SIMILAR APPLICATION, TO A
SILICOSIS CLAIM, OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT'S STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  SADOWSKI V. LONG ISLAND R. CO., 292 N.Y. 448, 457-458. 

FN9 THE OPINION RENDERED ON THE FIRST APPEAL, 352 MO. 211,
EXTENSIVELY QUOTES THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT'S ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING
NEGLIGENCE, ID. AT 215-216; AND A COPY OF THAT COMPLAINT APPEARING IN
THE PRESENT RECORD SHOWS THAT THE QUOTATIONS COMPREHEND SUBSTANTIALLY
ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THAT RESPECT.  THE PRESENT RECORD DOES NOT
INCLUDE A COPY OF THE TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE FIRST
APPEAL; BUT THAT DEFICIENCY IS MERELY FORMAL, IF IT IS A DEFICIENCY IN
ANY SENSE, SINCE THE OPINIONS ON BOTH APPEALS SUPPLY US WITH FULL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF THAT JUDGMENT. 

FN10  "AS ITS JUDGMENT UPON THE FIRST WRIT WAS MERELY FOR A REVERSAL
OF THE COURT BELOW AND FOR A  ...  TRIAL, SUCH JUDGMENT, NOT BEING
FINAL, COULD NOT BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF A WRIT  ...  FROM THIS COURT." 
UNITED STATES V. DENVER & R.G.R. CO., 191 U.S. 84, 93.  SEE COE V.
ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, 237 U.S. 413, 418-419; GOSPEL ARMY V. LOS
ANGELES, 331 U.S. 543, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN11  CF. CREASON V. HARDING, 344 MO. 452, 463-464. 

FN12  IF IT WERE OTHERWISE, OUR CORRECTIVE HAND COULD BE STAYED BY
ANY LOCAL PROCEDURE WHICH CHOSE TO RESOLVE ALL SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
QUESTIONS IN AN INTERMEDIATE PHASE OF LITIGATION.  THE PRESENT CASE
LENDS POINT TO LANGUAGE USED BY THIS COURT IN DISMISSING A WRIT OF
ERROR TO A STATE COURT FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT:  "WHEN THE
LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURTS IS BROUGHT TO A CONCLUSION, THE CASE MAY
BE BROUGHT HERE UPON THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS ALREADY RAISED AS WELL AS
ANY THAT MAY BE RAISED HEREAFTER; FOR ALTHOUGH THE STATE COURTS, IN THE
PROCEEDINGS STILL TO BE TAKEN, PRESUMABLY WILL FEEL THEMSELVES BOUND BY
THE DECISION HERETOFORE MADE BY THE (STATE) SUPREME COURT ...  AS
LAYING DOWN THE LAW OF THE CASE, THIS COURT WILL NOT BE THUS BOUND." 
GRAYS HARBOR CO. V. COATS-FORDNEY CO., 243 U.S. 251, 256-257. 
ACCORDINGLY, EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT NO FEDERAL QUESTION OF
SUBSTANCE WAS DECIDED ON THE SECOND APPEAL AND THAT THE "BASIS FOR OUR
JURISDICTION MUST BE FOUND, IF AT ALL, IN THE DECISION AND OPINION OF
THE STATE SUPREME COURT UPON A PRIOR APPEAL IN THE SAME CASE,"
PETITIONER URIE HAS "INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT AT THE
FIRST OPPORTUNITY OPEN TO (HIM), AND THE FEDERAL QUESTION, HAVING BEEN
CONSIDERED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, IS PROPERLY HERE."  GANT V.
OKLAHOMA CITY, 289 U.S. 98, 100.  SEE, GENERALLY, BOSKEY, FINALITY OF
STATE COURT JUDGMENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CODE, 43 COL. L. REV.
1002, 1007, 1016. 

FN13  BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO., 319 U.S. 350, 352; CHESAPEAKE
& OHIO R. CO. V. KUHN, 284 U.S. 44, 46-47; ST. LOUIS & I.M.R. CO. V.
MCWHIRTER, 229 U.S. 265, 277; SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223
U.S. 1, 54-55, 57-58.  CF. SCHLEMMER V. BUFFALO, R. & P.R. CO., 205
U.S. 1. 

FN14  SEE, E.G., ELLIS V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 329 U.S. 649; WESTERN
& ATL. RAILROAD V. HUGHES, 278 U.S. 496.  CF. BRADY V. SOUTHERN R. CO.,
320 U.S. 476; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V. COOGAN, 271 U.S. 472. 

FN15  "(2)  DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO FURNISH PLAINTIFF  A
REASONABLY SAFE PLACE IN WHICH TO WORK IN THAT THE LOCOMOTIVES ON WHICH
PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO WORK AS FIREMAN WERE SUPPLIED WITH SAND FOR
THE SANDERS THEREOF WHICH CONTAINED A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF SILICA OR
SILICON DIOXIDE AS ABOVE, AND DEFENDANT KNEW SUCH FACT AND STILL
DEFENDANT USED SAME AND USED SAID ENGINES UNDER THE CONDITIONS ABOVE
DESCRIBED. 

"(3)  ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS USING SANDY SUBSTANCE CONTAINING
SUCH QUANTITY OF SILICA, AND USING SAID LOCOMOTIVES THAT WOULD CAUSE
AND ALLOW LARGE QUANTITIES OF SILICA DUST CONTAINING SILICA TO BE
CREATED AND COME INTO THE CAB AND BE INHALED, YET DEFENDANT NEGLIGENTLY
FAILED TO WARN THE PLAINTIFF AND NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO FURNISH HIM WITH
A RESPIRATOR OR DEVICE TO PREVENT THE INHALATION OF SAID SILICA DUST." 

FN16  THE DECISION IN SADOWSKI V. LONG ISLAND R. CO., 292 N.Y. 448,
SUSTAINING A RECOVERY FOR SILICOSIS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS, WHICH ARE RELEVANT
TO THE APPARENT RULING OF THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT WITH RESPECT TO
COMPLIANCE WITH CUSTOMARY TRADE STANDARDS:  "EVIDENCE THAT SOME
RAILROADS FURNISHED NO SUCH CONTRIVANCES AS PLAINTIFF CLAIMED WERE
NECESSARY FOR THE USE OF MEN WORKING UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIONS OR
FURNISHED SIMILAR PLACES TO WORK FOR MEN DOING WORK SIMILAR TO THAT
REQUIRED OF PLAINTIFF DOES NOT ESTABLISH, AS MATTER OF LAW, THAT NO
SUCH CONTRIVANCES OR NO DIFFERENT PLACE IN WHICH TO WORK OR NO
DIFFERENT APPLIANCES TO CARRY ON THE WORK WERE REQUIRED IN THE CASE AT
BAR IN THE EXERCISE OF ORDINARY CARE.  THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF FACT
WAS NOT WHAT PARTICULAR PROTECTIVE MEANS SOMEONE ELSE USED IN SIMILAR
WORK.  IT WAS WHETHER OR NOT, UNDER THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS DESCRIBED
IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENDANT FURNISHED PLAINTIFF A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE
IN WHICH TO WORK AND SUCH PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH HIS WORK
AGAINST THE INHALATION OF SILICA DUST AS WOULD BE EXPECTED OF A PERSON
IN THE EXERCISE OF ORDINARY CARE UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS."  292 N.Y. AT
456-457. 

FN17  AFTER QUOTING PETITIONER'S ADMISSION REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE
MISSOURI SUPREME COURT'S OPINION STATED:  "THE IMPLICATION FROM THIS
ALLEGATION IS THAT THE SANDERS AS SUCH WERE NOT DEFECTIVE, BUT THAT THE
TROUBLE WAS MALADJUSTMENT.  JUST WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE ADJUSTMENT IS
NOT ALLEGED, AND PLAINTIFF DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE SITUATION IS ONE FOR
THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR RULE."  352 MO. AT 219. 

THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE COURT WAS, IN EFFECT, EITHER A RULE OF LAW
THAT USING MALADJUSTED SANDERS COULD NOT BE NEGLIGENCE EVEN THOUGH
CAUSED, AS PETITIONER EXPRESSLY ALLEGED, BY RESPONDENT'S WANT OF DUE
CARE; OR ALTERNATIVELY A RULING, AS MATTER OF LAW, THAT TO CONSTITUTE A
SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF NEGLIGENCE THE ALLEGATION OF MALADJUSTMENT MUST
SPECIFICALLY STATE THE TYPES AND CAUSES OF IT.  NEITHER CONCLUSION
ACCORDS WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL STANDARDS IN SUCH CASES.  IF THE LATTER
WAS THE COURT'S INTENTION, THE MATTER WAS AT MOST ONE FOR PERMITTING
AMENDMENT OR CURE BY PROOF; IF THE FORMER, THE CONCLUSION RAN IN THE
TEETH BOTH OF FEDERAL AND OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS FOR SHOWING
NEGLIGENCE. 

FN18  NOR DO WE FIND MERIT IN RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT URIE,
PRIOR TO THE 1939 AMENDMENT ABOLISHING ASSUMPTION OF RISK AS A DEFENSE
TO ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE SUITS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 54, 53 STAT. 1404, AMENDING 35 STAT. 66, ASSUMED
THE RISK OF INJURY.  NOTHING IN URIE'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT REMOTELY
SUGGESTS SUCH KNOWLEDGE ON HIS PART OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF CONTRACTING
SILICOSIS AS WOULD JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT URIE "ANTICIPATED AND
DECIDED TO CHANCE THE PARTICULAR RISK  ...  "  OWENS V. UNION PACIFIC
R. CO., 319 U.S. 715, 723.  ACCORDINGLY WE ARE NOT CALLED ON TO
DETERMINE WHETHER ANY RETROACTIVE EFFECT IS TO BE GIVEN THE 1939
AMENDMENT, WHICH THIS COURT HAS DESCRIBED AS REQUIRING THAT "CASES
TRIED UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT  ...  BE HANDLED AS THOUGH NO DOCTRINE OF
ASSUMPTION OF RISK HAD EVER EXISTED."  TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R.
CO., 318 U.S. 54, 64.  SPECIFICALLY WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER, EVEN
ASSUMING THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT INTENDED TO COVER INJURIES ACCRUING
BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT BUT SUED ON THEREAFTER (AN OPEN QUESTION IN THIS
COURT, SEE OWENS V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA AT 725), THE AMENDMENT
NONETHELESS COVERS INJURIES WHICH, LIKE URIE'S, ACCRUED AND WERE SUED
ON THEREAFTER BUT WHERE THE BEGINNING OF ALLEGED ASSUMPTION OF RISK MAY
HAVE ANTEDATED THE AMENDMENT. 

FN19  SEE 42 CONG. REC. 4265, 4426-4439, 4526-4551, 4755; H.R. REP.
NO. 1386, 60TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 460, 60TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN20  "THE ACT IS NOT TO BE NARROWED BY REFINED REASONING  ...  IT IS
TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY TO FULFILL THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS
ENACTED  ...  "  JAMISON V. ENCARNACION, 281 U.S. 635, 640.  SIMILARLY,
THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, "LIKE THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, IS TO BE
LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PRIME PURPOSE, THE PROTECTION
OF EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS BY REQUIRING THE USE OF SAFE EQUIPMENT."  LILLY
V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 317 U.S. 481, 486. 

FN21  SEE, E.G., CELL V. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO., 281 MICH. 564, 566;
BUT CF. ID. AT 567-568. 

FN22  HURLE'S CASE, 217 MASS. 223, 224; SEE HOOD & SONS V. MARYLAND
CASUALTY CO., 206 MASS. 223; CF. GENTRY V. SWANN CHEMICAL CO., 234 ALA.
313, 317-318.  SEE BANKS, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY FOR OCCUPATIONAL
DISEASES, 16 ROCKY MT. L. REV. 60, 61-64. 

FN23  SEE, E.G., JEFFREYES V. SAGER CO., 198 APP. DIV. 446, AFFIRMED
233 N.Y. 535; IWANICKI V. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, 104
ORE.  650.  RESTRICTIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE TERM "ACCIDENT" AND ITS
VARIANTS HAVE GENERALLY BEEN FOLLOWED BY AGITATION, NOW LARGELY
SUCCESSFUL, FOR LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY EXTENDING COMPENSATION TO
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE.  SEE, E.G., PERRY, OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE
LEGISLATION, 5 NEWARK L. REV. 83; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE COMPENSATION, 26
AM. LAB.  LEG.  REV. 2; ANDREWS, THE TRAGEDY OF SILICOSIS, ID. AT 3. 
FOR LOCAL STUDIES OF THE PROBLEMS POSED SEE OWENS, DISEASES AND
INJURIES TO HEALTH UNDER THE WISCONSIN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1945
WIS. L. REV. 357; 3 JOHN MARSHALL L. Q. 241. 

FN24  CLAIM OF EDWARD EDMONDS, JUNE 23, 1913, OPINIONS OF SOLICITOR,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1915) 259.    FN25  CLAIM OF WILLARD E. JULE,
JULY 28, 1913, OPINIONS OF SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1915)
261; CF. CLAIM OF C.M. ARATA, DEC. 31, 1913, ID. AT 264(LEAD POISONING
AND BRONCHITIS). 

FN26  CLAIM OF BASIL E. CLARK, APR. 11, 1914, OPINIONS OF SOLICITOR,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1915) 270. 

FN27  CLAIM OF EDWARD DEVINE, FEB. 9, 1915, OPINIONS OF SOLICITOR,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1915) 277.  WHETHER THE EARLIER DECISION THAT
PNEUMONIA WAS NOT COMPENSABLE, CLAIM OF JOHN SHEERAN, APR. 25, 1910, 28
OP. ATTY. GEN. 254, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOREGOING CASES, OR WITH
CASES AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR "THE BENDS," CLAIM OF WM. MURRAY, NOV.
3, 1911, OPINIONS OF SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1915) 239, OR
SUNSTROKE, CLAIM OF J. J. WALSH, MAR. 16, 1911, ID. AT 231, WE NEED NOT
DETERMINE; CONGRESS' DISSATISFACTION WITH THE DISTINCTION IS CLEAR FROM
THE COURSE OF SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION: 

WHEN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT OF MAY 30, 1908, WAS
SUPERSEDED IN 1916 BY THE BROADER AND STILL EXTANT GENERAL FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION SYSTEM, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 751 ET SEQ., THE STATUTE AS
ORIGINALLY ENACTED PROVIDED COMPENSATION FOR "DISABILITY" OR "PERSONAL
INJURY" WITHOUT FURTHER QUALIFICATION OR DEFINITION.  39 STAT. 742. 
PROPOSALS SPECIFICALLY TO INCLUDE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE WERE REJECTED,
AT LEAST IN PART, FOR THE REASONS THAT AT THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS "THERE
WAS CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY IN DEFINING THE TERM 'OCCUPATIONAL
DISEASE'; AND IT WAS ALSO CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION THAT IN QUITE A
NUMBER OF CASES IN A NUMBER OF STATES THE COURT HELD THIS LANGUAGE
WHICH WE HAVE IN THE BILL WOULD COVER OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES IN CERTAIN
CASES - AT LEAST A NUMBER OF THEM  ...  "  53 CONG. REC. 10899.  IN
1924 THE 1916 ACT WAS AMENDED, 43 STAT. 389, "TO CORRECT TWO RULINGS OF
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  " H.R. REP. NO. 280,
68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1.  ONE OF THE RULINGS REMEDIED WAS THAT
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES WERE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE 1916 ACT; THE OTHER
RULING WAS THAT THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL HAD POWER TO REVIEW DECISIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION.  AS TO THE
FIRST OF THESE ERRORS, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IN REPORTING OUT
THE 1924 AMENDMENT, EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO ITS 1916 REPORT, H.R. REP.
NO. 678, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 7, TO SHOW THAT IN DRAFTING THE 1916 ACT
"THE COMMITTEE INTENDED TO REMEDY THE INADEQUACY OF THE ACT OF MAY 30,
1908, WITH REFERENCE TO 'OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES.'"  H.R. REP. NO. 280,
68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3.  SEE 65 CONG. REC. 8154. 

FN28  45 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. 

FN29  SEE NOTE 4 AND TEXT. 

FN30  IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WHILE NOT A BAR TO THE ACTION IS
AVAILABLE IN DIMINUTION OF DAMAGES, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 53, 35 STAT. 65,
66.  ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS,
SEABOARD AIR LINE V. HORTON, 233 U.S. 492, 503, UNTIL ITS ABOLITION IN
1939.  45 U.S.C. SEC. 54, 53 STAT. 1404, AMENDING 35 STAT. 66.  SEE
TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54. 

THE QUOTED STATUTORY PHRASE WAS HELD TO ACKNOWLEDGE CREATION OF A
CAUSE OF ACTION "UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT" FOR
PERSONAL INJURY TO AN EMPLOYEE DUE TO VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACTS, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ., SINCE, "BY THE PHRASE 'ANY STATUTE
ENACTED FOR THE SAFETY OF EMPLOYEES' THE CONGRESS EVIDENTLY INTENDED TO
EMBRACE ITS SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS."  MOORE V. C. & O.R. CO., 291 U.S.
205, 210.  SIMILARLY AN EMPLOYEE INJURY SUIT ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE
BOILER INSPECTION ACT IS BROUGHT "UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT ...  "  LILLY V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 317 U.S. 481, 485. 

FN31  RESPONDENT PLACES SOME RELIANCE ON THE PROPOSITION THAT
CONGRESSIONAL LIMITATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT TO ACCIDENTAL
INJURY MUST BE INFERRED FROM THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE CARRIER TO
REPORT EVERY LOCOMOTIVE "ACCIDENT" RESULTING IN "SERIOUS INJURY."  45
U.S.C. SEC. 32.  WE SEE NO REASON TO THINK THAT A POLICY REQUIRING THE
REPORTING OF ALL INJURIES THE CAUSES OF WHICH ARE READILY IDENTIFICABLE
IN TERMS OF TIME AND PLACE COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT OTHER INJURIES,
THE ORIGINS OF WHICH MAY BE REMOTE AND ILL-DEFINED AT THE MOMENT OF
DIAGNOSIS, SHOULD NOT BE COMPENSABLE WHEN THE CARRIER'S UNDERLYING
RESPONSIBILITY BECOMES A MATTER OF DEMONSTRABLE FACT.  IT IS TO BE
NOTED, FURTHERMORE, THAT AN ARGUMENT SIMILAR TO RESPONDENT'S WAS
REJECTED WITH REFERENCE TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO INCLUDE OCCUPATIONAL
DISEASES IN THE 1916 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, H.R. REP. NO.
280, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3, AND, ALTHOUGH ADVANCED WITH REFERENCE TO
THE 1908 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, CLAIM OF A.E. CLARK, DEC.
17, 1908, OPINIONS OF SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1915) 188,
190, DID NOT BAR COMPENSATION OF THE QUESTIONABLY "ACCIDENTAL" INJURIES
DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT AT NOTES 24-27 SUPRA. 

FN32  E.G., THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLOSING "UNNECESSARY OR EXCESSIVE
OPENINGS IN LOCOMOTIVE CABS," IMPOSED BY I.C.C. RULE 116(G), 49 C.F.R.
SEC. 91.116(G), AFTER THE NAPIER DECISION, WAS, AS THE OPINION
ANNOUNCING THE RULE MAKES PLAIN, DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF
FIREMEN AND ENGINEERS FROM WIND, SNOW AND RAIN.  WISCONSIN R.R. COMM'N
V. A. & R.R. CO., 142 I.C.C. 199.  THE RULE, NOT SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO
THE PRESENT CASE SINCE LIMITED TO THE WINTER MONTHS, WAS FORMULATED
AFTER EXTENDED HEARINGS IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE MISSOURI PACIFIC,
LIKE ALMOST EVERY OTHER MAJOR AMERICAN RAILROAD, WAS A NAMED PARTY
DEFENDANT.  WISCONSIN R.R. COMM'N V. A. & R.R. CO., SUPRA, TRANSCRIPT
OF RECORD, COMPLAINT OF RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN, P. 17.  IN
THE LIGHT OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS OF INTEREST TO NOTE THAT THE
ENGINEERS' BROTHERHOOD AND THE FIREMEN'S BROTHERHOOD, INTERVENERS IN
SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED RULE, ALLEGED NEED FOR PROTECTION FROM, INTER
ALIA, "EXCESSIVE  ...  SAND AND DUST STORMS."  TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD,
SUPRA, JOINT PETITION OF INTERVENTION OF ALVANLEY JOHNSTON AND D. B.
ROBERTSON, P. 3; AMENDED JOINT PETITION OF INTERVENTION OF ALVANLEY
JOHNSTON AND D. B. ROBERTSON, P. 3.  NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN ADDUCED TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION, TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD,
SUPRA, BRIEF FOR INTERVENING BROTHERHOODS, PP. 14-15, ALTHOUGH THERE
WAS EVIDENCE OF SEVERE WINTER WIND IN MISSOURI, TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD,
SUPRA, AT 2056, AND IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, ID. AT 2136, 2369,
4541, 5005, 6088, 6350.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION NOTED IN
ITS OPINION THAT "THE AMENDMENTS TO RULE 116 SHOULD BE REGARDED AS
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE NOT INTENDED TO TAKE CARE OF THE MOST
EXTREME CONDITIONS."  142 I.C.C. 199, 210. 

FN33  THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEFORE US IS THE PARTIAL SUMMARY OF
PETITIONER'S CASE BY THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT ON THE SECOND APPEAL:
"BRUCE BRILL, A WITNESS FOR PLAINTIFF, TESTIFIED HE HAD WORKED AT THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC ROUNDHOUSE AT JOPLIN FOR ABOUT 18 YEARS AND UNTIL
NOVEMBER 4, 1942; THAT THE 'ENGINES THAT CAME IN  ...  I WOULD SAY MOST
OF THEM, AT LEAST THREE OUT OF FIVE, WOULD HAVE THE SANDERS REPORTED IN
BAD ORDER  ...  MAYBE IT WAS A BROKEN NIPPLE, SOMETHING IN THE DOME, OR
A LOOSE CONNECTION.'  A BROKEN NIPPLE WOULD CAUSE THE SAND TO DRIBBLE
ON TO THE RAILS UNDER THE DRIVERS, AND THE 'SPEED WOULD SUCK IT UP INTO
THE CAB AFTER IT WAS GROUND UNDER THE WHEELS.'  THE DUST WOULD BE
SUCKED IN 'THROUGH THE DECK AND AROUND THE BOILER HEAD OR OPENINGS IN
THE GRATE SHAKERS.'  WHEN THE WITNESS CLEANED OUT THE CABS HE FOUND
SAND PARTICLES AND ROADBED DUST.  ... PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED THE (SAND)
DUST WOULD 'COME UP THROUGH THE OPENINGS IN THE CAB FLOORS, AROUND THE
GRATE SHAKER RIGGINGS AND THE STOKER HEAD IN THE DECK OF THE ENGINE ON
EACH SIDE OF THE FIRE DOOR AGAINST THE BOILER HEAD.  ...  SOMETIMES
THERE WOULD BE WIDE CRACKS BETWEEN THE BOILER HEAD AND THE DECK FLOOR
WHERE THE BOLTS WERE BROKEN OFF AND IT WAS WORN AND LOOSE.  THE DECK
BOARDS WOULD BE CRACKED AND SOMETIMES SLIVERED OUT, AND IT WOULD COME
THROUGH ANY OPENINGS LIKE THAT; ...  WOULD COLLECT ON THE LIGHTS; ...
WOULD GET OUR CLOTHING VERY DUSTY; ...  MAKE YOUR MOUTH AND NOSE VERY
DRY.'"  357 MO. AT 744-745. 

FN34  I.C.C. RULE 120, 49 C.F.R. SEC. 91.120, APPLICABLE TO STEAM
LOCOMOTIVES, PROVIDES: "LOCOMOTIVES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH PROPER
SANDING APPARATUS, WHICH SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN SAFE AND SUITABLE
CONDITION FOR SERVICE, AND TESTED BEFORE EACH TRIP.  SAND PIPES MUST BE
SECURELY FASTENED IN LINE WITH THE RAILS." 

IT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE THAT RULE 120 MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY
CALLED TO THE JURY'S ATTENTION.  LILLY V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 317 U.S.
481, 488-489.  IT IS URGED UPON US THAT RULE 120 WAS DESIGNED TO INSURE
AN ADEQUATE AUXILIARY BRAKING SYSTEM RATHER THAN TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES
AGAINST SILICOSIS, AND HENCE THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING RESPONDENT'S BREACH
OF THE RULE AND THE GOVERNING STATUTE, PETITIONER CANNOT COMPLAIN OF AN
INJURY FLOWING FROM THE BREACH WHICH WAS NOT THE INJURY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION SOUGHT TO GUARD AGAINST.  WE DO NOT DISPUTE THE
NARROW SCOPE OF RULE 120; NOR DO WE DOUBT THAT CONVENTIONAL TORT
DOCTRINE IMPOSES ABSOLUTE LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF A STATUTORY DUTY
ONLY WHERE THE INJURY IS ONE THE STATUTE WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.  SEE,
E.G., DICAPRIO V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 231 N.Y. 94; BUT CF. THE
REMARKS OF MR. JUSTICE BREWER IN ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. REESMAN,
60 F. 370, 373.  BUT WE THINK THE LIABILITY IMPOSED BY THE BOILER
INSPECTION ACT IS OF BROADER CHARACTER AND THAT THE CORRECT RULE IS THE
ONE LAID DOWN IN LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V. LAYTON, 243 U.S. 617, 621,
WHICH THIS COURT HAS HAD REPEATED OCCASION TO APPLY IN CONNECTION WITH
THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS:  "THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACTS AND THE
AUTHORITIES WE HAVE CITED MAKE IT ENTIRELY CLEAR THAT THE LIABILITY IN
DAMAGES TO EMPLOYEES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW SPRINGS FROM
ITS BEING MADE UNLAWFUL TO USE CARS NOT EQUIPPED AS REQUIRED,  - NOT
FROM THE POSITION THE EMPLOYEE MAY BE IN OR THE WORK WHICH HE MAY BE
DOING AT THE MOMENT WHEN HE IS INJURED.  THIS EFFECT CAN BE GIVEN TO
THE ACTS AND THEIR WISE AND HUMANE PURPOSE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED ONLY BY
HOLDING, AS WE DO, THAT CARRIERS ARE LIABLE TO EMPLOYEES IN DAMAGES
WHENEVER THE FAILURE TO OBEY THESE SAFETY APPLIANCE LAWS IS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY TO THEM WHEN ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF
DUTY."  SEE DAVIS V. WOLFE, 263 U.S. 239, 243; CORAY V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO., 335 U.S. 520, 522-523; BRADY V. TERMINAL R. ASSN., 303
U.S. 10, 16; SWINSON V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O.R. CO., 294 U.S. 529,
531; FAIRPORT, P. & E.R. CO. V. MEREDITH, 292 U.S. 589.  CF.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V. GOTSCHALL, 244 U.S. 66; ST. LOUIS &
S.F.R. CO. V. CONARTY, 238 U.S. 243. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN PART. 

AT THE RISK OF WEARISOME REITERATION IT IS RELEVANT TO SAY AGAIN THAT
THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE IS AN ANTIQUATED AND UNCIVILIZED
BASIS FOR WORKING OUT RIGHTS AND DUTIES FOR DISABILITIES AND DEATHS
INEVITABLY DUE TO THE CONDUCT OF MODERN INDUSTRY.  IN THE CONSCIOUS OR
UNCONSCIOUS ENDEAVOR NOT TO HAVE THE HUMAN COST OF INDUSTRY FALL WITH
CRUEL INJUSTICE UPON WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES, THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE
GIVES RISE TO ENDLESS CASUISTRY.  SO LONG AS THE GAMBLE OF AN
OCCASIONAL HEAVY VERDICT IS NOT REPLACED BY THE SECURITY OF A MODERN
SYSTEM OF INSURANCE, COURTS MUST CONTINUE TO APPLY THE NOTION OF
NEGLIGENCE IN SITUATIONS FOR WHICH IT WAS NEVER INTENDED.  THEREFORE,
IF A CLAIM IS MADE THAT AN INJURY IS CAUSALLY RELATED TO A CARRIER'S
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF CARE APPROPRIATE FOR EMPLOYMENT ON A
RAILROAD, THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ENTITLES AN EMPLOYEE TO
ESTABLISH THAT CLAIM TO A JURY'S SATISFACTION.  DAMAGES ARE RECOVERABLE
UNDER THAT ACT FOR SUFFERING "INJURY."  THAT TERM, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS
SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO INCLUDE BODILY INJURY WHICH NOWADAYS IS MORE
SPECIFICALLY CHARACTERIZED AS "OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE."  ACCORDINGLY, I
AGREE THAT RECOVERY MAY BE HAD UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT FOR SILICOSIS, WHERE THE FACTS SUSTAIN SUCH A CLAIM, AS IS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE CASE OF SADOWSKI V. LONG ISLAND R. CO., 292 N.Y.
448, 55 N.E.2D 497. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, I AGREE WITH THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT THAT
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES CANNOT BE FITTED INTO THE CATEGORY OF "ACCIDENTS"
FOR WHICH THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT DEVISED A SCHEME OF REGULATION AND
A BASIS OF LIABILITY.  36 STAT. 913, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 22
34.  I THINK I APPRECIATE THE HUMANE IMPULSE WHICH SEEKS TO BRING
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES WITHIN SUCH A REGIME.  BUT DUE REGARD FOR THE
LIMITS OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION PRECLUDES SUCH FREE-HANDED
APPLICATION OF A STATUTE TO SITUATIONS OUTSIDE ITS LANGUAGE AND ITS
PURPOSE.  TO DO SO, MOREOVER, IS, I BELIEVE, A DISSERVICE TO THE HUMANE
ENDS WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO BE PROMOTED.  LEGISLATION IS NEEDED WHICH WILL
EFFECTIVELY MEET THE SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS WHICH UNDERLIE THE INCIDENCE OF
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE.  SEE NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES)
ACT, 1946, 9 & 10 GEO. 6, 488, PARTICULARLY PART IV.  THE NEED FOR SUCH
LEGISLATION BECOMES OBSCURED AND THE DRIVE FOR IT RETARDED IF
ENCOURAGEMENT IS GIVEN TO THE THOUGHT THAT THERE ARE NOW ADEQUATE
REMEDIES FOR OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES IN CALLINGS SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL
CONTROL.  THE RESULT OF THE PRESENT DECISION IS TO SECURE FOR THIS
PETITIONER THE JUDGMENT WHICH THE JURY AWARDED HIM.  IT DOES NOT SECURE
A PROPER SYSTEM FOR DEALING WITH OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES. 

I WOULD REVERSE THIS JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF MISSOURI FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, AND
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. PENN MFG. CO., 337 U.S. 198 


NO. 253.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 10, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1949.  - 110
CT. CL. 374, 75 F.2D 319, REVERSED. 


IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO GIVE A JUDGMENT TO A
MANUFACTURER AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR LOSS OF ANTICIPATED PROFITS
UNDER A CONTRACT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF GUN MOUNTS FOR THE NAVY WHICH
WAS CANCELLED A FEW DAYS AFTER IT WAS AWARDED, WHEN THE COURT FAILED TO
MAKE ANY AFFIRMATIVE FINDING THAT THE MANUFACTURER WAS READY AND ABLE
TO PERFORM ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND WHEN IT MADE AFFIRMATIVE
FINDINGS WHICH PRECLUDED ANY INFERENCE THAT SUCH READINESS AND CAPACITY
EXISTED.  PP. 199, 210-214. 

(A)  IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL TENDERS OF THE REQUIRED GUN MOUNTS, THE
MANUFACTURER'S READINESS AND CAPACITY TO DELIVER THEM IN THE QUANTITIES
AND AT THE TIMES REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT WAS ESSENTIAL TO ITS RIGHT TO
RECEIVE PAYMENTS UNDER THE CONTRACT.  PP. 210-211. 

(B)  THE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS IN THIS CASE ADD UP TO AN INESCAPABLE
ULTIMATE FINDING THAT THE MANUFACTURER WAS NEITHER READY NOR ABLE TO
MAKE THE DELIVERIES REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT.  PP. 202-203, 212-213. 

(C)  A FINDING THAT, "IF THE PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO PERFORM
ITS CONTRACT, IT WOULD HAVE MADE A NET PROFIT OF NOT LESS THAN
$80,000," WAS NO MORE THAN A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNT OF ITS
REASONABLY ANTICIPATED PROFITS (IF THE CONTRACT WERE COMPLETED) AND
CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A FINDING THAT IT WAS READY AND ABLE TO MAKE THE
DELIVERIES UPON WHICH SUCH PROFITS DEPENDED.  P. 213. 

(D)  THE MERE HOPE OF BEING ABLE TO OBTAIN FROM THE GOVERNMENT
GRATUITOUS EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR CONCESSIONS IN THE NUMBERS OF GUN
MOUNTS TO BE DELIVERED CANNOT JUSTIFY AN AWARD OF MONEY DAMAGES FOR
LOSS OF UNEARNED ANTICIPATED PROFITS DEPENDENT UPON SUCH GRATUITOUS
EXTENSIONS OR CONCESSIONS.  PP. 213-214. 

UNITED STATES V. PENN FOUNDRY & MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED A JUDGMENT TO A MANUFACTURER FOR LOSS OF
ANTICIPATED PROFITS UNDER A CONTRACT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF GUN MOUNTS
FOR THE NAVY WHICH WAS CANCELLED A FEW DAYS AFTER IT WAS AWARDED.  110
CT. CL. 374, 75 F.2D 319.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S.
857.  REVERSED, P. 214. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION WHICH WAS BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY THE
RESPONDENT, PENN FOUNDRY AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES FOR LOSS OF ANTICIPATED PROFITS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
CAUSED BY THE LATTER'S CANCELLATION OF A CONTRACT FOR GUN MOUNTS FOR
THE NAVY.  THE CANCELLATION OCCURRED A FEW DAYS AFTER THE CONTRACT HAD
BEEN AWARDED BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE RESPONDENT ON FEBRUARY 23,
1942.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY
THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN ITS JUDGMENT REQUIRING
THE UNITED STATES TO PAY FOR SUCH LOSS.  110 CT. CL. 374, 75 F.SUPP. 
319.  WE HOLD THAT THEY ARE NOT.  WE SO HOLD BECAUSE OF (1) THE ABSENCE
OF ANY FINDING OF THE READINESS AND CAPACITY OF THE RESPONDENT TO
PERFORM CERTAIN OF ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS UPON WHICH ITS PROFITS
WERE CONTINGENT AND (2) THE PRESENCE OF CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS
WHICH PRECLUDE THE DRAWING OF ANY SUFFICIENT INFERENCE OF SUCH
READINESS AND CAPACITY FROM THE OTHER FINDINGS. 

THE RECORD INCLUDES ONLY THE PLEADINGS AND ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS
FILED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND THAT COURT'S SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSION OF LAW, OPINION, JUDGMENT AND REFUSAL TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL. 
WE DO NOT HAVE BEFORE US THE REPORT WHICH ITS COMMISSIONER MADE TO THE
COURT OF CLAIMS OR THE TESTIMONY UPON WHICH HE OR THAT COURT RELIED. 
WHILE ADDITIONAL CLAIMS WERE MADE BY THE RESPONDENT IN ITS ORIGINAL
PETITION TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND WHILE THE UNITED STATES ORIGINALLY
CONTESTED THE BINDING FORCE OF THE CONTRACT, THE ERRORS SPECIFIED IN
THE PRESENT PROCEEDING QUESTION ONLY THE RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT TO
RECOVER $80,000 AS DAMAGES FOR ITS ALLEGED LOSS OF ANTICIPATED
PROFITS.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE RELATION OF THE
RESULT IN THIS CASE TO CLAIMS UNDER MANY WAR CONTRACTS CANCELLED BY THE
UNITED STATES.  335 U.S. 857. 

THE FINDINGS OF FACT SHOW THE FOLLOWING: 

IN 1911, THE RESPONDENT BOUGHT A MANUFACTURING PLANT CONSISTING OF
SIX BUILDINGS IN WAYNESBORO, VIRGINIA.  THE MAIN BUILDINGS, EACH 57 X
100 FEET, HAD BEEN BUILT IN 1890 AND WERE REFERRED TO RESPECTIVELY AS
THE MACHINE SHOP, THE FOUNDRY AND THE BLACKSMITH SHOP.  AT ONE TIME THE
RESPONDENT MANUFACTURED CIRCULAR SAWS AND, AT ANOTHER, DID WORK ON
BRAKE SHOES.  SINCE 1931, THE PLANT HAD BEEN USED ONLY FOR MINOR
ENGAGEMENTS, REQUIRING NOT MORE THAN FOUR OR FIVE EMPLOYEES.  IT HAD
BEEN IDLE FOR SOME YEARS WHEN, LATE IN 1940 OR EARLY IN 1941, THE
RESPONDENT'S OFFICERS BECAME DESIROUS OF ENGAGING IN THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE PROGRAM.  MOST OF THOSE OFFICERS WERE THEN IN OTHER BUSINESSES
AT OR NEAR PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA.  ONE STOCKHOLDER AND DIRECTOR WAS
IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS IN WAYNESBORO.  HE HAD BEEN THE LOCAL
MANAGER OF THE PLANT WHEN IT WAS IN OPERATION AND HAD CONTINUED
THEREAFTER AS SUCH AND AS THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE COMPANY. 

IN JANUARY, 1941, THE RESPONDENT ENGAGED AN ADDITIONAL MAN AS
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND, ON FEBRUARY 24, 1942, AN ENGINEER AS
GENERAL MANAGER.  IN APRIL, 1941, IT SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO THE NAVY
FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF 500 3-INCH 50-CALIBER GUN MOUNTS.  IN JULY, A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GUN MOUNT SECTION OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT
INSPECTED THE PLANT.  FOLLOWING A CONFERENCE IN SEPTEMBER, THE
RESPONDENT WAS ASKED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO FURNISH INFORMATION AS TO
FINANCIAL ABILITY, COMMITMENTS OF SUBCONTRACTORS, AND A DETAILED STUDY
OF THE MACHINE TOOL OPERATIONS, PREDICATED UPON A POSSIBLE AWARD OF 150
3-INCH 50-CALIBER MOUNTS.  IN OCTOBER AND DECEMBER, THE RESPONDENT
SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND SLIGHTLY MODIFIED ITS PROPOSALS. 
DECEMBER 22, THE RESPONDENT'S PROPOSAL AS TO PRICES, QUANTITIES,
DELIVERY SCHEDULE, PAYMENTS AND OPTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL MOUNTS WAS
ACCEPTED AS SATISFACTORY AND THE RESPONDENT AGREED TO SECURE A LETTER
FROM A SURETY COMPANY INDICATING THAT A BOND OF THE NATURE REQUIRED BY
THE NAVY'S BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS WOULD BE FURNISHED. 

THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED A "LETTER OF INTENT," DATED DECEMBER 29,
1941, SIGNED BY THE PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY AS CONTRACTING
OFFICER AND APPROVED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.  IT STATED
THAT IT WAS ANTICIPATED THAT THE NAVY DEPARTMENT WOULD PLACE AN ORDER
WITH THE RESPONDENT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF 150 GUN MOUNTS.  IT
SPECIFIED THE DELIVERY OF TWO COMPLETE MOUNTS IN MAY, 1942, THREE IN
JUNE, FIVE IN JULY, AND THEREAFTER AT A MINIMUM RATE OF TEN MOUNTS PER
MONTH.  THE LETTER ALSO AUTHORIZED THE RESPONDENT TO PURCHASE MATERIALS
AND SPARE PARTS, SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASING
OFFICER, AND TO PROCEED WITH THE PRODUCTION OF THE MOUNTS IN
ANTICIPATION OF THE PLACING OF THE ORDER FOR THEIR PRODUCTION. 
HOWEVER, UNDER DATE OF JANUARY 7, 1942, THE GOVERNMENT HELD UP THIS
AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE RESPONDENT
FURNISHED THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE FIRM COMMITMENT OF AN APPROVED SURETY
COMPANY TO ACT AS SURETY ON A PERFORMANCE BOND.  JANUARY 10, THE
RESPONDENT ACCEPTED THE LETTER OF INTENT.  JANUARY 29, THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE NECESSARY LETTER FROM A SURETY COMPANY HAD
NOT BEEN RECEIVED AND THAT FAILURE PROMPTLY TO SUBMIT SUCH A LETTER
MIGHT RESULT IN THE TERMINATION OF THE LETTER OF INTENT.  FEBRUARY 3,
THE RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVES SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM A SURETY
COMPANY INDICATING THAT THAT COMPANY THOUGHT THAT A BOND IN CONNECTION
WITH A CONTRACT OF THIS SIZE WOULD HAVE TO BE REINSURED AND THAT,
UNLESS SOME CHANGE WERE MADE IN THE FINANCIAL SETUP, REINSURANCE WOULD
BE DECLINED.  IT ADDED, HOWEVER, THAT, IF EITHER OF TWO SUGGESTED PLANS
RELATIVE TO REFINANCING WERE ACCOMPLISHED AND IF THE RESPONDENT
FURNISHED CERTAIN INFORMATION AS TO NEW KEY PERSONNEL TO BE ENGAGED BY
THE RESPONDENT, THEN THE REINSURANCE COULD BE OBTAINED AND THE SURETY
COMPANY COULD EXECUTE A BOND.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT DISCLOSE A
DIFFERENCE IN THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE REACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
REPRESENTATIVE TO THIS LETTER.  THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE
GOVERNMENT'S REQUIREMENT IN THIS REGARD EVER WAS MET. 

MUCH IN THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT NOS. 5-8 IS VITAL TO THE ISSUE
BEFORE US: 

"5.  ON JANUARY 16 AND 17, 1942, PLAINTIFF'S PLANT WAS VISITED BY
INSPECTORS OF THE PHILADELPHIA INSPECTION DISTRICT OF THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT TO INSTRUCT PLAINTIFF'S PERSONNEL AS TO THE NAVY INSPECTION
REQUIREMENTS.  AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO ONE AT THE PLANT EXCEPT THE
WATCHMAN AND THE LOCAL MANAGER.  NO WORK AT ALL WAS BEING PERFORMED AT
THE TIME.  ON FEBRUARY 19, 1942, A PRODUCTION SPECIALIST FROM THE WAR
PRODUCTION BOARD VISITED THE PLANT.  HIS DUTIES WERE TO ASSIST
PRODUCTION IN FACTORIES IN THE PRODUCTION OF NAVAL ORDNANCE.  AT THAT
TIME ONLY THE WATCHMAN WAS AT THE PLANT.  THE PRODUCTION SPECIALIST
INSPECTED THE PLANT WITH THE LOCAL MANAGER, WHO WAS CALLED FROM HIS
REAL ESTATE OFFICE, AND ALSO TALKED WITH MR. JOHNSON (THE NEW ASSISTANT
TO THE PRESIDENT), WHO WAS CALLED TO WAYNESBORO FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
REPORTS OF THESE VISITS WERE GIVEN TO THE NAVY DEPARTMENT.  AT THAT
TIME THE COMPANY WAS NOT PREPARED TO UNDERTAKE WORK OF THE CHARACTER
PROPOSED BY THE CONTRACT, AND WOULD NOT FOR AN INDEFINITE TIME BE
PREPARED SUCCESSFULLY TO COMPLETE A CONTRACT FOR 150 GUN MOUNTS. 
PLAINTIFF'S FOUNDRY WAS INCAPABLE OF PRODUCTION OF THE CAST STEEL
FORGINGS REQUIRED FOR THE GUN MOUNTS.  IT WAS PLAINTIFF'S PLAN, AS
SHOWN BY ITS PROPOSAL TO THE GOVERNMENT, TO SUBCONTRACT FOR THESE
CASTINGS, AS WELL AS FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE WORK.  PLAINTIFF HAD
CONTACTED CERTAIN PRODUCERS, WHO WERE WILLING TO FURNISH CASTINGS AND
OTHER PARTS, BUT NO CONTRACTS FOR THE CASTINGS OR ANY OTHER PARTS HAD
BEEN MADE BY PLAINTIFF.  THERE WAS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THE
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE OBTAINED THESE PARTS FROM SUBCONTRACTORS. 
PLAINTIFF PLANNED TO USE AROUND 150 MECHANICS, SKILLED, SEMI-SKILLED,
AND UNSKILLED, IN THE MACHINING AND ASSEMBLING OF THE GUN MOUNTS. 
PLAINTIFF HAD EXPECTED TO SECURE FORMER RAILROAD SHOP MECHANICS
RESIDING NEAR WAYNESBORO AS THE BULK OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE
CONSTRUCTION OF GUN MOUNTS IS DIFFICULT AND EXACTING WORK. 
MANUFACTURERS EXPERIENCED IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR WORK WITH LARGE
ORGANIZATIONS AND TRAINED MECHANICS REQUIRED FROM SEVEN MONTHS TO ONE
YEAR FROM THE TIME OF RECEIVING NOTICE TO PROCEED UNTIL THE FIRST GUN
MOUNTS WERE PRODUCED.  PLAINTIFF HAD NO MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION AND
NO FORCE OF TRAINED PERSONNEL TO TRAIN UNSKILLED EMPLOYEES. 
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED GENERAL MANAGER WAS AT THIS TIME A REGULAR
EMPLOYEE OF ANOTHER COMPANY IN OHIO.  HE HAD BEEN ASSISTING PLAINTIFF
IN ITS PLANS UNDER THE EXPECTATION THAT HE WOULD SEVER HIS CONNECTION
WITH THE OTHER COMPANY AND BECOME PLAINTIFF'S GENERAL MANAGER.  A
CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND THE ENGINEER UNDER THE TERMS OF WHICH
THE ENGINEER WAS ENGAGED AS GENERAL MANAGER WAS EXECUTED ON FEBRUARY
24, 1942. 

"6.  UNDER DATE OF FEBRUARY 23, 1942, THE NAVY DEPARTMENT MAILED TO
PLAINTIFF A NOTICE OF AWARD OF CONTRACT, NO. LL96553, FOR GUN MOUNTS,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,087,555, WHICH NOTICE OF AWARD WAS RECEIVED BY THE
PLAINTIFF ON FEBRUARY 24, 1942.  ON FEBRUARY 24, 1942, AFTER IT HAD
RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF AWARD, PLAINTIFF RECEIVED A TELEGRAM AS
FOLLOWS: 

"NOTICE OF AWARD CONTRACT NOS 96553 FORWARDED IN ERROR RETURN FOR
CANCELLATION NO AWARD TO YOU ACKNOWLEDGE REFERRING SYMBOL SPF - 

"RAY SPEAR PAYMASTER GENERAL NAVY 

"ON MARCH 5, 1942, THE NAVY DEPARTMENT PREPARED AND MAILED TO
PLAINTIFF A LETTER AS FOLLOWS: 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"AS IT IS APPARENT THAT YOU CANNOT SECURE A BOND TO INSURE FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, NO CONTRACT WILL BE ISSUED TO YOU, AND THE
LETTER OF INTENT LL-NOS-96553(SPC), DATED 29 DECEMBER 1941, IS HEREBY
CANCELLED. 

"SINCE NO AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GIVEN YOU TO INCUR ANY EXPENSES UNDER
THE LETTER OF INTENT, THERE CAN BE NO LIABILITY ON THE GOVERNMENT BY
REASON OF THE CANCELLATION OF THE LETTER OF INTENT. 

"PLEASE RETURN THE ORIGINAL AND ALL COPIES OF THE LETTER OF INTENT,
UNSIGNED, TO THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS FOR CANCELLATION. 

"7.  ...  THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT ANY EXPENDITURES OR
EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN RELIANCE ON THE LETTER OF INTENT OR NOTICE OF
AWARD OF CONTRACT. 

"8.  IF THE PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO PERFORM ITS CONTRACT, IT
WOULD HAVE MADE A NET PROFIT OF NOT LESS THAN $80,000."  110 CT. CL. AT
PP. 378-381. 

WE ARE BOUND BY THE FOREGOING FINDINGS IN TESTING THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION OF LAW AND JUDGMENT THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER $80,000 FOR THE LOSS OF ANTICIPATED BUT UNEARNED PROFITS. 
UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328 U.S. 256, 267; UNITED STATES V. SEMINOLE
NATION, 299 U.S. 417, 422; UNITED STATES V. ESNAULT-PELTERIE, 299 U.S.
201, 205, 206; CROCKER V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 74, 78; STONE V.
UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 380, 382, 383. 

THE RESTRICTED SCOPE OF THE ERRORS SOUGHT TO BE REACHED BY THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HAS ELIMINATED ALL QUESTIONS AS TO THE BINDING
FORCE OF THE CONTRACT.  FN1  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, ARGUES THAT,
UNDER THE THEN EXISTING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS, IT HAD A RIGHT TO
CANCEL THE CONTRACT AT ITS OPTION WITHOUT INCURRING LIABILITY FOR THE
RESPONDENT'S ALLEGED LOSS OF ANTICIPATED PROFITS CAUSED BY SUCH
CANCELLATION.  FN2  IT ARGUES ALSO THAT THE PRACTICE OF INSERTING, IN
EACH CONTRACT FOR WAR SUPPLIES, AN EXPRESS PROVISION PERMITTING SUCH A
CANCELLATION BY THE UNITED STATES HAD DEVELOPED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT
WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE PROVISIONS AS CONSTITUTING A PART OF THE FORMAL
CONTRACT WHICH THE GOVERNMENT STATED WAS TO FOLLOW THE AWARD MADE TO
THE RESPONDENT, FEBRUARY 23, 1942.  FN3  IT IS NOT NECESSARY, HOWEVER,
TO SUSTAIN THOSE CLAIMS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE DISPOSITION WHICH WE
ARE MAKING OF THIS CASE. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES FURTHER THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES CLAIMED
BY THE RESPONDENT IS NOT ESTABLISHED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY BY THE
FINDINGS OF FACT.  THE ONLY FINDING AS TO THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DAMAGES IS
THE ULTIMATE FINDING OF FACT NO. 8, WHICH SAYS THAT "IF THE PLAINTIFF
HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO PERFORM ITS CONTRACT, IT WOULD HAVE MADE A NET
PROFIT OF NOT LESS THAN $80,000."  FN4 THERE ARE NO FINDINGS OF
EVIDENTIARY OR PRIMARY FACTS ON THE SUBJECT OF DAMAGES OR THE
COMPUTATION OF ANTICIPATED NET PROFITS.  THE TOTAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE
TO THE RESPONDENT FOR FULL PERFORMANCE OF ITS PART OF THE CONTRACT WAS
FIXED BY THE AWARD AT $2,087,555.  ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF THE GROSS
RECEIPTS ANTICIPATED BY THE RESPONDENT IS NOT A REMOTE OR SPECULATIVE
ESTIMATE OF THE KIND OFTEN ENCOUNTERED IN CLAIMS FOR ANTICIPATED
PROFITS.  THIS COURT LONG HAS RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES
FOR THE LOSS OF ANTICIPATED PROFITS WHEN THEY RESULT FROM A BREACH OF
CONTRACT AND WHEN THERE IS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THEM WITH
REASONABLE CERTAINTY.  FN5  HOWEVER, FINDING NO. 8 AS TO THE
ANTICIPATED NET PROFITS IN THE INSTANT CASE STANDS ALONE.  ITS
SUFFICIENCY IS OPEN TO ARGUMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDINGS AS TO
THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION.  THE RESPONDENT SEEKS SUPPORT FOR IT IN THE
INDIRECT LIGHT THROWN UPON IT BY THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW. 
HOWEVER, EVEN IF THAT OPINION MAY BE RESORTED TO TO HELP INTERPRET,
ALTHOUGH NOT TO SUPPLEMENT, THE COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT, IT DOES NOT
MATERIALLY STRENGTHEN THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION.  FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER
RECITING CERTAIN OF THE RESPONDENT'S HANDICAPS IN SUPPLYING THE GUN
MOUNTS, TO SAY NOTHING OF SUPPLYING THEM AT A NET PROFIT, THE OPINION
SAYS (P. 387):    "WE THINK THAT THE CONSIDERATION AND TOLERANCE WITH
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT, DURING THE TIME HERE IN QUESTION, TREATED
CONTRACTORS ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN PRODUCING DEFENSE MATERIAL, IF THE
CONTRACTOR IN GOOD FAITH DID HIS BEST TO PERFORM, IS AN INDICATION THAT
THE PLAINTIFF, IF ALLOWED TO PERFORM, WOULD PROBABLY HAVE SUCCEEDED IN
MAKING A PROFIT. 

"ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MUST BE SAID THAT THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE HAD
PROBLEMS AND DIFFICULTIES THAT AN ACTIVE, GOING CONCERN WOULD NOT HAVE
HAD, AND THOSE DIFFICULTIES WOULD PROBABLY HAVE ADVERSELY AFFECTED ITS
PROFITS.  ON THE WHOLE WE CAN DO ONLY WHAT A JURY WOULD DO IN A SIMILAR
CASE.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PLAINTIFF WOULD PROBABLY HAVE MADE NET
PROFITS OF ABOUT 4% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT PRICE, AND WE AWARD IT
$80,000." 

THE OPINION CONTRIBUTES NOTHING ON THE SUBJECT OF COSTS EXCEPT AN
EMPHASIS UPON THE BURDEN OF THEM.  THE OPINION POINTS ONLY TO A
SUGGESTED RULE OF THUMB AS A MEANS OF ESTIMATING THE RESPONDENT'S
ANTICIPATED NET PROFITS.  IT SUGGESTS THAT THE NET PROFITS, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, SHOULD BE "ABOUT 4% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT
PRICE,  ...  " 

WHETHER OR NOT A REEXAMINATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS BEFORE
THE COURT BELOW MIGHT CURE THIS UNCERTAINTY WE CANNOT TELL.  WE CAN
CONCLUDE ONLY THAT, ON THE LIMITED FINDINGS BEFORE US, THE AMOUNT, IF
ANY, OF THE RESPONDENT'S ANTICIPATED NET PROFIT RESTS UPON THAT COURT'S
ROUGH ESTIMATE RATHER THAN UPON ITS FINDINGS OF EVIDENTIARY FACTS.  WE
DO NOT, HOWEVER, DECIDE THE CASE ON THAT ISSUE.  MORE FUNDAMENTAL TO
THE RESPONDENT'S CASE THAN THE AMOUNT OF ITS ANTICIPATED PROFITS IS THE
NEED FOR PROOF OF THE HIGHLY MATERIAL FACTS OF ITS WILLINGNESS,
READINESS AND CAPACITY TO MANUFACTURE AND DELIVER THE REQUIRED GUN
MOUNTS IN THE QUANTITIES AND AT THE TIMES SPECIFIED. 

1.  THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE READINESS AND CAPACITY OF THE
RESPONDENT TO DELIVER THE GUN MOUNTS IN THE QUANTITIES AND AT THE TIMES
REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT.  - IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL TENDERS OF THE
REQUIRED GUN MOUNTS, SUCH READINESS AND CAPACITY ARE ESSENTIAL FACTS
MATERIAL TO THE RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS UNDER THE
CONTRACT.  WITHOUT A RIGHT TO SUCH PAYMENTS THE RESPONDENT COULD
REALIZE NO PROFITS.  SEE RESTATEMENT, CONTRACTS SECS. 284, 280(1), 281,
318(C), 395, 397(1932).  THIS ISSUE GOES DEEPER THAN THAT OF THE
REQUIRED REASONABLE CERTAINTY OF THE AMOUNT OF THE ANTICIPATED NET
PROFITS CLAIMED AS DAMAGES.  IN A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE THIS COURT HAS
ALLOWED RECOVERY FOR THE LOSS OF ANTICIPATED PROFITS, IT HAS EMPHASIZED
ITS FINDING OF A DEMONSTRATED WILLINGNESS, READINESS AND CAPACITY, ON
THE PART OF THE CLAIMANT, TO PERFORM THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH, IF
PERFORMED, WOULD HAVE ENTITLED THE CLAIMANT TO PAYMENT UNDER THE
CONTRACT.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN UNITED STATES V. PURCELL ENVELOPE CO., 249
U.S. 313, THE UNITED STATES, WITHOUT ADEQUATE CAUSE TO DO SO, CANCELLED
A RECENTLY MADE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE, FROM THE PURCELL ENVELOPE
COMPANY, A FOUR-YEARS' SUPPLY OF ENVELOPES AND WRAPPERS FOR THE POST
OFFICE DEPARTMENT FOR $2,460,556.22.  THIS COURT AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDING THE COMPANY $185,331.76 FOR ITS LOSS OF
ANTICIPATED NET PROFITS WHICH IT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IF IT HAD BEEN
ALLOWED TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT.  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT SAID (P.
316):  "THE ENVELOPE COMPANY HAD, HOWEVER, ALREADY MADE ARRANGEMENTS
AND CONTRACTS FOR THE SUPPLYING TO IT OF THE NECESSARY MATERIALS TO
FULFILL THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND WAS READY AND WILLING AT ALL
TIMES TO FULLY PERFORM IT ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS."  AGAIN (P. 319):
"THERE IS NO CHARGE OF DEFAULT AGAINST THE ENVELOPE COMPANY, NO CHARGE
OF INABILITY TO PERFORM ITS CONTRACT,  ...  "  AND FINALLY (P. 321):
"THE COURT (OF CLAIMS) IN ITS OPINION EXPRESSLY DECLARES THAT THE
FINDINGS SHOWED THAT THE ENVELOPE COMPANY HAD FULFILLED ALL THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL AND WAS READY AND WILLING TO
FURNISH THE ENVELOPES AND WRAPPERS  ...  "  SEE ALSO, HINCKLEY V.
PITTSBURGH STEEL CO., 121 U.S. 264, 276; SMOOT'S CASE, 15 WALL.  36,
44; UNITED STATES V. SPEED, 8 WALL.  77, 84. 

IN ITS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE
UNITED STATES SPECIFIED THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRED IN FAILING TO
MAKE THE FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT PROVED THAT IT COULD HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY PERFORMED THE CONTRACT AND MADE A PROFIT THEREON.  WHETHER
OR NOT IT WAS ERROR TO FAIL TO MAKE SUCH AN EXPRESS FINDING OF THE
RESPONDENT'S FAILURE OF PROOF, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS WHOLLY ABSENT
FROM THE COURT'S FINDINGS ANY EXPRESS STATEMENT THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS
READY AND CAPABLE OF PERFORMING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT.  IT
DID CONSTITUTE ERROR TO RENDER JUDGMENT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES BY THE
RESPONDENT IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT MATERIAL FACT.  THERE REMAINS ONLY
THE QUESTION WHETHER AN INFERENCE OF THE REQUIRED READINESS AND
CAPACITY OF THE RESPONDENT TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
CONTRACT CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE OTHER FINDINGS. 

2.  THE PRESENCE OF CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS PRECLUDES THE
DRAWING OF ANY SUFFICIENT INFERENCE OF THE RESPONDENT'S READINESS AND
CAPACITY TO DELIVER THE GUN MOUNTS IN THE QUANTITIES AND AT THE TIMES
REQUIRED.  - THE RESPONDENT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  FINDING OF FACT
NO. 5, QUOTED IN FULL, SUPRA, AT PP. 202-203, TELLS THE STORY.  THE
AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS THERE MADE ADD UP TO AN INESCAPABLE
ULTIMATE FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT EITHER READY OR CAPABLE OF
MAKING THE REQUIRED DELIVERIES OF TWO COMPLETE GUN MOUNTS IN MAY, 1942,
THREE IN JUNE, FIVE IN JULY AND THEREAFTER AT A MINIMUM RATE OF TEN GUN
MOUNTS A MONTH.  FEBRUARY 19, ABOUT THREE AND ONE-THIRD MONTHS BEFORE
THE FIRST DELIVERY WAS DUE, PRODUCTION WAS NOT UNDER WAY, EVEN IN A
PRELIMINARY STAGE. 

"AT THAT TIME THE COMPANY WAS NOT PREPARED TO UNDERTAKE WORK OF THE
CHARACTER PROPOSED BY THE CONTRACT, AND WOULD NOT FOR AN INDEFINITE
TIME BE PREPARED SUCCESSFULLY TO COMPLETE A CONTRACT FOR 150 GUN
MOUNTS.  ...  MANUFACTURERS EXPERIENCED IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR WORK WITH
LARGE ORGANIZATIONS AND TRAINED MECHANICS REQUIRED FROM SEVEN MONTHS TO
ONE YEAR FROM THE TIME OF RECEIVING NOTICE TO PROCEED UNTIL THE FIRST
GUN MOUNTS WERE PRODUCED.  PLAINTIFF HAD NO MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION
AND NO FORCE OF TRAINED PERSONNEL TO TRAIN UNSKILLED EMPLOYEES." 
FINDING NO. 5, 110 CT. CL. AT P. 379. 

THE FINDINGS OF FACT SHOW ALSO THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS MADE
TO THE RESPONDENT IN THE GOVERNMENT'S LETTER OF MARCH 5, 1942, AFTER
THE GOVERNMENT'S INSISTENCE UPON A PERFORMANCE BOND: "AS IT IS APPARENT
THAT YOU CANNOT SECURE A BOND TO INSURE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF THE
CONTRACT, NO CONTRACT WILL BE ISSUED TO YOU,  ...  "  FINDING NO. 6,
ID. AT P. 380.  THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT EVER MET OR WAS
CAPABLE OF MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT. 

AS AGAINST THESE DEVASTATING FINDINGS, ONLY FINDING OF FACT NO. 8
EVEN SUGGESTS THE RESPONDENT'S READINESS AND CAPACITY TO PERFORM THE
OBLIGATIONS NECESSARY TO ENTITLE IT TO COMPENSATION UNDER THE
CONTRACT.  IT SAYS:  "IF THE PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO PERFORM
ITS CONTRACT, IT WOULD HAVE MADE A NET PROFIT OF NOT LESS THAN
$80,000."  ID. AT P. 381. 

THIS IS NO MORE THAN A ROUGH ESTIMATE BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF WHAT
WOULD BE THE AMOUNT OF THE RESPONDENT'S REASONABLY ANTICIPATED PROFITS
IF THE CONTRACT WERE COMPLETED.  IT IS NOT A FINDING THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS READY AND CAPABLE OF MAKING THE DELIVERIES UPON WHICH
SUCH PROFITS MUST DEPEND.  THE STRIKING FACT IS THAT THE OTHER FINDINGS
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOW THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREPARED TO
MAKE THOSE DELIVERIES AND THAT THIS WAS DUE TO THE RESPONDENT'S OWN
LACK OF CAPACITY TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS.  TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BELOW, THIS ULTIMATE FINDING OF FACT NO. 8 WOULD HAVE TO
BE READ AS ITSELF SUPPLYING THE MISSING FINDING OF THE RESPONDENT'S
READINESS AND CAPACITY TO PERFORM ITS FULL OBLIGATIONS.  IN THAT ROLE
IT FAILS UTTERLY.  IT NOT ONLY CONTAINS NO EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS ON THE
SUBJECT BUT IF IT IS REGARDED AS IMPLYING THEM THEY COME INTO DIRECT
CONFLICT WITH THE EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS OF FACT, NOS. 5 AND 6, TO THE
CONTRARY. 

THE POSSIBILITY, SUGGESTED IN THE OPINION, OF SECURING FROM THE
GOVERNMENT GRATUITOUS EXTENSIONS OF TIME OR CONCESSIONS IN THE NUMBERS
OF GUN MOUNTS TO BE DELIVERED MAY HAVE JUSTIFIED THE RESPONDENT'S HOPE
THAT IT MIGHT ULTIMATELY PRODUCE, WITH INEXPERIENCED LABOR IN ITS
REHABILITATED PLANT, THE NEW PRODUCTS CALLED FOR BY THE CONTRACT.  SUCH
A POSSIBILITY, HOWEVER, CANNOT JUSTIFY THE AWARD OF MONEY DAMAGES BY
THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO EQUAL A LOSS OF UNEARNED ANTICIPATED PROFITS
DEPENDENT UPON SUCH POSSIBLE GRATUITOUS EXTENSIONS OR CONCESSIONS. 
EVEN ASSUMING THE WILLINGNESS OF THE RESPONDENT TO PERFORM ITS
OBLIGATIONS, PROOF OF ITS ESSENTIAL READINESS AND CAPACITY TO DO SO IS
MISSING. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACCORDINGLY IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH DIRECTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE
UNITED STATES.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF SAYS IN A FOOTNOTE THAT "THE FINDING OF
THE COURT BELOW THAT A BINDING CONTRACT WAS CONSUMMATED IS, IN OUR
VIEW, OF DOUBTFUL SOUNDNESS."  HOWEVER, IN THE SAME BRIEF, THE
GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT "THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT QUESTION IN THIS COURT
THE COURT OF CLAIMS' HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE OF AWARD SENT BY THE AWARD
CREATED A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RESPONDENT ON
FEBRUARY 23, 1943(1942)."  THE COURT OF CLAIMS SAID IN ITS OPINION:
"WE THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE PLAINTIFF, AND
THAT NO MISTAKE OF THE KIND WHICH WOULD VITIATE A CONTRACT OCCURRED." 
110 CT. CL. AT P. 385.  IN ITS SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS TO BE URGED, AND
IN ITS STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY ITS PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT QUESTION THE BINDING FORCE OF
THE CONTRACT.  "ONLY THE QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI WILL BE CONSIDERED."  RULE 38, P2, OF
THIS COURT. 

FN2  TITLE II, FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, C. 593, 55 STAT. 839,
SEC. 201, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 611; EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9001, 3 C.F.R.
CUM. SUPP. 1054-1056.  SEE ALSO, CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1944, C.
358, 58 STAT. 649, 41 U.S.C. SEC. 101, ET SEQ.; ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1946,
C. 864, 60 STAT. 902, 41 U.S.C. SEC. 106 NOTE; REGULATION NO. 7, OFFICE
OF CONTRACT SETTLEMENT, 32 C.F.R. 1944 SUPP., SEC. 8006.3(C), P. 3065;
OFFICE OF CONTRACT SETTLEMENT, A HISTORY OF WAR CONTRACT TERMINATIONS
AND SETTLEMENTS P. 27(JULY, 1947).  AS TO COMPARABLE LEGISLATION
AFFECTING CONTRACTS FOR SUPPLIES IN WORLD WAR I, SEE ACT OF JUNE 15,
1917, C. 29, 40 STAT. 182; ACT OF MARCH 2, 1919, C. 94, 40 STAT. 1272;
DE LAVAL STEAM TURBINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 61; BARRETT CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 227; COLLEGE POINT BOAT CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 267 U.S. 12; RUSSELL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 514. 

FN3  SEE LETTER FROM JAMES FORRESTAL, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
OCTOBER 10, 1943, HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACT
TERMINATION OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS ON S. 1268, S.
1280 AND S.J. RES. 80, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 270-273(1943), IN WHICH HE
SAID (P. 271): 

"THE NAVY DEPARTMENT COMMENCED IN THE SUMMER OF 1941 THE
CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT TERMINATION AS IT MIGHT AFFECT PROCUREMENT. 
AT THAT TIME THERE WERE FEW ACTUAL TERMINATIONS IN CONTEMPLATION. 
CONTRACTORS WERE, NEVERTHELESS, QUESTIONING THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO
TERMINATE CONTRACTS AND FAIR PROVISIONS PERMITTING SUCH TERMINATION
WITHOUT CAUSE AND DEFINING THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN SUCH EVENT WERE
DEEMED NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THE URGENTLY NEEDED PROCUREMENT AND TO
MINIMIZE DIFFICULTIES IN THE EVENT OF CHANGING NEEDS.  A CONTRACT
CLAUSE ENDEAVORING TO MEET THE PROCUREMENT PROBLEM AND SAFEGUARD THE
INTERESTS OF BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CONTRACTORS WAS THEN ADOPTED
AND, EXCEPT IN RESPECT OF THE SHIP CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (A SPECIAL
PROBLEM), IS IN GENERAL FORM AND SUBSTANCE IN USE IN NAVY CONTRACTS
TODAY." 

SEE ALSO, MEMORANDUM OF THE INDUSTRIAL READJUSTMENT BRANCH, SUBMITTED
BY JAMES FORRESTAL, AS UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, JANUARY 11, 1944,
IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT IN THE NAVY - 

"STANDARD TERMINATION CLAUSES FOR FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS WERE
DEVELOPED LATE IN 1941, AND IN GENERAL FORM AND SUBSTANCE HAVE BEEN
INSERTED IN MOST CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO SINCE THAT TIME EXCEPT FOR SHIP
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, WHICH CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE PROBLEM.  THE
DEPARTMENT HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO MODIFY OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS BY THE
INSERTION OF SUCH CLAUSES."  APPENDIX II, ID. AT P. 553(1944). 

FN4  THE SCOPE OF OUR REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS A
LIMITED ONE.  THE EARLY PRACTICE AND RULES ARE DISCUSSED IN LUCKENBACH
S.S. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 533, 536-540.  AT THE TIME OF ALL
THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE
AUTHORITY OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW CAUSES UPON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WAS SET FORTH EXPRESSLY IN THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, C.
229, 43 STAT. 939, SEC. 3(B), AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1939, C.
140, 53 STAT. 752, WHICH BECAME 28 U.S.C. SEC. 288(B).  IT PROVIDED: 
"(B)  IN ANY CASE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS,  ...  IT SHALL BE COMPETENT
FOR THE SUPREME COURT, UPON THE PETITION OF EITHER PARTY, WHETHER
GOVERNMENT OR CLAIMANT, TO REQUIRE, BY CERTIORARI, THAT THE CAUSE BE
CERTIFIED TO IT FOR REVIEW AND DETERMINATION OF ALL ERRORS ASSIGNED,
WITH THE SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY, AND WITH LIKE EFFECT, AS IF THE
CAUSE HAD BEEN BROUGHT THERE BY APPEAL.  IN SUCH EVENT, THE COURT OF
CLAIMS SHALL INCLUDE IN THE PAPERS CERTIFIED BY IT THE FINDINGS OF
FACT, THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE, AS WELL AS
SUCH OTHER PARTS OF THE RECORD AS ARE MATERIAL TO THE ERRORS ASSIGNED,
TO BE SETTLED BY THE COURT.           .         .         .         .
. 

"IN SUCH CASES THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW, IN
ADDITION TO OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW, ERRORS ASSIGNED TO THE EFFECT THAT
THERE IS A LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF FACT;
THAT AN ULTIMATE FINDING OR FINDINGS ARE NOT SUSTAINED BY THE FINDINGS
OF EVIDENTIARY OR PRIMARY FACTS; OR THAT THERE IS A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY
FINDING OF FACT ON A MATERIAL ISSUE." 

THE FOREGOING EXPRESSLY CONTROLLED THE PRACTICE UNTIL REPEALED BY THE
NEW JUDICIAL CODE, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948.  THE NEW CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 1255, SAID MERELY: 

"CASES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT BY
THE FOLLOWING METHODS: 

"(1)  BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED ON PETITION OF THE UNITED STATES
OR THE CLAIMANT; ...  " 

THE REVISER'S NOTES TO THAT SECTION SAID: 

"PROVISIONS FOR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW, IN ADDITION TO OTHER QUESTIONS
OF LAW, 'ERRORS ASSIGNED TO LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF
FACTS; THAT AN ULTIMATE FINDING OR FINDINGS ARE NOT SUSTAINED BY
FINDINGS OF EVIDENTIARY OR PRIMARY FACTS; OR THAT THERE IS A FAILURE TO
MAKE A FINDING OF FACT ON A MATERIAL ISSUE,' WERE OMITTED AS
UNNECESSARY."  H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. A107(1947). 

FN5  AFTER DISCUSSING THE GENERAL RULE AGAINST THE RECOVERY OF REMOTE
AND SPECULATIVE ANTICIPATED PROFITS, THIS COURT SAID IN HOWARD V.
STILLWELL & BIERCE MFG. CO., 139 U.S. 199, 206: 

"BUT IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE PROFITS WHICH WOULD HAVE
BEEN REALIZED HAD THE CONTRACT BEEN PERFORMED, AND WHICH HAVE BEEN
PREVENTED BY ITS BREACH, ARE INCLUDED IN THE DAMAGES TO BE RECOVERED IN
EVERY CASE WHERE SUCH PROFITS ARE NOT OPEN TO THE OBJECTION OF
UNCERTAINTY OR OF REMOTENESS, OR WHERE FROM THE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
TERMS OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF, OR THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
IT WAS MADE, IT MAY BE REASONABLY PRESUMED THAT THEY WERE WITHIN THE
INTENT AND MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF BOTH PARTIES AT THE TIME IT WAS
ENTERED INTO.  UNITED STATES V. BEHAN, 110 U.S. 338, 345, 346, 347;
WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. HALL, 124 U.S. 444, 454, 456; PHILADELPHIA,
WILMINGTON & BALTIMORE RAILROAD CO. V. HOWARD, 13 HOW.  307." 

SEE ALSO, ANVIL MINING CO. V. HUMBLE, 153 U.S. 540, 550; CINCINNATI
GAS CO. V. WESTERN SIEMENS CO., 152 U.S. 200, 206; UNITED STATES V.
BEHAN, 110 U.S. 338, 344; UNITED STATES V. SPEED, 8 WALL.  77, 84;
MASTERTON V. THE MAYOR OF BROOKLYN, 7 HILL (N.Y.)  61, 71; RESTATEMENT,
CONTRACTS SEC. 331(1932). 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR IN THE REVERSAL AND
DISSENT FROM THE ORDER TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED
STATES.  IN THEIR OPINION, RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
MEET THE STATED REQUIREMENTS OF PROOF. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY,
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE AGREE, CONCURRING. 

IT IS CLEAR AND UNDISPUTED THAT THE CONTRACT WHICH THE PARTIES MADE
WAS TO BE REDUCED TO FORMAL TERMS.  BOTH THE "LETTER OF INTENT"  FN1
AND THE "OFFICIAL AWARD"  FN2  BY THEIR EXPRESS TERMS STATE THAT A
"FORMAL CONTRACT" WAS CONTEMPLATED.  THAT CIRCUMSTANCE RAISES
DIFFICULTIES FOR RESPONDENT WHICH NEITHER IT NOR THE COURT OF CLAIMS
NOR THIS COURT HAS SURMOUNTED. 

DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME RELEVANT HERE, THE NAVY (APART FROM
EXCEPTIONS INAPPLICABLE TO THE TYPE OF CONTRACT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE)
HAD "STANDARD TERMINATION CLAUSES FOR FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS" WHICH "IN
GENERAL FORM AND SUBSTANCE" WERE INSERTED "IN MOST CONTRACTS."  FN3
THEY PROVIDED THAT IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION "FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF
THE GOVERNMENT" THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE PAID "FOR ALL COSTS, INCLUDING
A PROPER ALLOCATION OF OVERHEAD EXPENSES TO THE CONTRACT, INCURRED UP
TO THE TIME OF TERMINATION, PLUS AN ALLOWANCE OF 6% OR 7% PROFIT ON ALL
SUCH COSTS EXCEPT PURCHASES OF MATERIALS AND UNFINISHED GOODS, FOR
WHICH THE CONTRACTOR WAS REIMBURSED AT COST."  FN4 

THAT POLICY OF THE NAVY, REVEALED AS IT WAS IN OFFICIAL
COMMUNICATIONS TO CONGRESS, IS A MATTER OF WHICH WE CAN TAKE JUDICIAL
NOTICE.  WE HAVE HERETOFORE AMPLIFIED FINDINGS OF FACTS BY REPORTS OF
THE SECRETARY OF WAR.  TEMPEL V. UNITED STATES, 248 U.S. 121, 130.  THE
OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS WHICH DISCLOSE THE POLICY OF THE NAVY IN THIS
CASE, LIKE REPORTS, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF AGENCIES  FN5  OR OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS TO CONGRESS,  FN6  ARE EQUALLY RELIABLE AND
AUTHORITATIVE AND NEED NO FURTHER PROOF. 

RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, HAS NOT CARRIED THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED FROM THE APPLICATION OF THAT POLICY.  IT HAS NOT
SHOWN THAT ITS CONTRACT FALLS IN AN EXEMPT CLASS.  IT HAS NOT SHOWN
THAT WHAT WAS USUAL OR CUSTOMARY FOR OTHER CONTRACTS OF THIS TYPE WOULD
NOT BE WRITTEN INTO THE FORMALIZED AGREEMENT TO WHICH ITS CONTRACT WITH
THE GOVERNMENT WAS TO BE REDUCED.  IT HAS NOT SHOWN HOW IT COULD ESCAPE
APPLICATION OF THE NAVY'S GENERAL POLICY AND BE GRANTED THE FAVOR OF A
CONTRACT WITHOUT A TERMINATION CLAUSE. 

YET UNLESS IT CAN MAKE THAT SHOWING, IT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY "CLEAR
AND DIRECT PROOF," AS UNITED STATES V. BEHAN, 110 U.S. 338, 344,
REQUIRES, THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO MAKE THE PROFITS WHICH IT
CLAIMS AS DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THE CONTRACT.  FOR THE CUSTOMARY
TERMINATION CLAUSE RELIEVED THE PROMISOR OF ANY LIABILITY FOR UNEARNED
PROFITS OF THE CHARACTER CLAIMED HERE.  SINCE RESPONDENT DID NOT SHOW
THAT AT LEAST IN ALL PROBABILITY ITS CONTRACT WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE OF
THAT PROVISION, IT FAILED AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE CASE TO CARRY THE
BURDEN WHICH RESTED ON IT. 

FN1  THE "LETTER OF INTENT" INDICATED THE MANNER IN WHICH RESPONDENT
COULD APPROVE THE PROPOSAL, "THEREBY CONSTITUTING THIS LETTER A
CONTRACT UNTIL THE EXECUTION OF A FORMAL CONTRACT  ...  " 

FN2  THE "OFFICIAL AWARD" STATED THAT THE NAVY'S ACCEPTANCE OF
RESPONDENT'S PROPOSAL WAS AUTHORITY TO COMMENCE PERFORMANCE "WITHOUT
WAITING FOR THE FORMAL CONTRACT." 

FN3  MEMORANDUM FROM JAMES FORRESTAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY,
JAN. 11, 1944, SENATE HEARINGS ON S. 1268, S. 1280, AND S.J. RES. 80,
78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 551, 553, WHERE IT IS SAID: 

"STANDARD TERMINATION CLAUSES FOR FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS WERE
DEVELOPED LATE IN 1941, AND IN GENERAL FORM AND SUBSTANCE HAVE BEEN
INSERTED IN MOST CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO SINCE THAT TIME EXCEPT FOR SHIP
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, WHICH CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE PROBLEM.  THE
DEPARTMENT HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO MODIFY OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS BY THE
INSERTION OF SUCH CLAUSES.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO ESTIMATE THE TIME WHICH
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO INCORPORATE SUCH A CLAUSE BY AMENDMENT IN ALL
CONTRACTS.  HOWEVER, IT IS DOUBTED THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD BE
ADMINISTRATIVELY FEASIBLE EXCEPT UPON THE INITIATIVE OF THE
CONTRACTOR." 

AND SEE LETTER OF THE ACTING SECRETARY, OCT. 10, 1943, ID., 270-271. 

FN4  SEE RECORD P. 177 IN POWNALL V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 742, AND
RECORD P. 227 IN ALEXANDER WOOL COMBING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S.
742.  AND SEE H.R. HEARINGS ON H.R. 3022, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 27.  AT
THE TIME, TITLE II OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, SEC. 201, 55 STAT. 839,
50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 611, WAS IN EFFECT EMPOWERING THE PRESIDENT TO
AUTHORIZE ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY EXERCISING FUNCTIONS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR EFFORT UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY
HIM "TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS AND INTO AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS OF
CONTRACTS HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER MADE  ...  WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE MAKING, PERFORMANCE, AMENDMENT, OR
MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS WHENEVER HE DEEMS SUCH ACTION WOULD
FACILITATE THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR  ...  "  BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 9001,
DATED DEC. 27, 1941, 6 FED. REG. 6787, 3 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 1054, THE
PRESIDENT DELEGATED THIS AUTHORITY TO VARIOUS AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE
NAVY DEPARTMENT.  HE ALSO AUTHORIZED THE NAVY "BY AGREEMENT" TO MODIFY
OR AMEND OR SETTLE "CLAIMS" UNDER CONTRACTS AND PROVIDED THAT THE
AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS "MAY BE WITH OR WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AND
MAY BE UTILIZED TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THINGS AS ANY ORIGINAL CONTRACT
COULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED HEREUNDER, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIME OR
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MAKING OF OR THE FORM OF THE CONTRACT AMENDED OR
MODIFIED, OR OF THE AMENDING OR MODIFYING CONTRACT, AND IRRESPECTIVE OF
RIGHTS WHICH MAY HAVE ACCRUED UNDER THE CONTRACT, OR THE AMENDMENTS OR
MODIFICATIONS THEREOF." 

FN5  SEE LILLY V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 317 U.S. 481, 488; LABOR BOARD
V. ATKINS & CO., 331 U.S. 398, 406-407. 

FN6  SEE LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160, 166-170. 
..END :




LABOR BOARD V. CROMPTON MILLS, 337 U.S. 217 


NO. 197.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1949.  - 167 F.2D
662, REVERSED. 


1.  AN EMPLOYER PRODUCING GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE ENGAGED IN
EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS AS TO MANY MATTERS, INCLUDING RATES OF PAY, WITH
A UNION DULY CERTIFIED AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF
MOST OF ITS PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES AT A CERTAIN PLANT. 
IT OFFERED A SMALL WAGE INCREASE, WHICH WAS REJECTED, AND THE
NEGOTIATIONS REACHED SOMETHING OF AN IMPASSE.  TWELVE DAYS LATER, THE
EMPLOYER, WITHOUT CONSULTING THE UNION, PUT INTO EFFECT A SUBSTANTIALLY
GREATER GENERAL WAGE INCREASE APPLICABLE TO MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES
REPRESENTED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS.  HELD:  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS
ACTION CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS.
8 AND 9 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  PP. 218-219, 223-225. 

2.  AFTER HEARINGS, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MADE CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDERED THE EMPLOYER NOT ONLY TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM GRANTING GENERAL WAGE INCREASES WITHOUT CONSULTING THE UNION BUT
ALSO TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, UPON REQUEST, AS TO RATES OF PAY, HOURS
OF WORK, AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, TO POST CERTAIN NOTICES
AND TO REPORT STEPS TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER.  ITS PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT WAS DENIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  HELD: 

(A)  A DECREE SHOULD BE ENTERED ENFORCING SO MUCH OF THE BOARD'S
ORDER AS IS SUPPORTED BY ITS FINDINGS OF FACT BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  PP. 218-219, 220-221. 

(B)  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING
AN ORDER REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM REFUSING TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY BY TAKING ACTION, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH
THE AUTHORIZED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES,
WITH RESPECT TO GENERAL RATES OF PAY WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT
FROM, OR GREATER THAN, ANY WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAS PROPOSED DURING ITS
NEGOTIATIONS WITH SUCH REPRESENTATIVE.  P. 225. 

(C)  THERE WERE NO FINDINGS BY THE BOARD THAT ESTABLISHED ANY OTHER
LACK OF GOOD FAITH OR LACK OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER; AND THERE IS NO
REASON FOR ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF THE ENFORCEMENT DECREE BEYOND THAT
FEATURE, AND LITTLE, IF ANY, NEED FOR ORDERS REQUIRING EITHER SPECIFIC
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE EMPLOYER OR THE POSTING OF ANY
NOTICES BY IT.  PP. 226-227. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ISSUED AN ORDER REQUIRING AN
EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND TO
TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONS.  70 N.L.R.B. 206.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS DENIED A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT.  167 F.2D 662.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 812.  REVERSED, P. 227. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WAS CERTIFIED,
UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,  FN1  TO REPRESENT ALL
EMPLOYEES WORKING IN A CERTAIN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT.  THEIR
EMPLOYER ENGAGED IN EXTENDED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THIS REPRESENTATIVE AS
TO MANY MATTERS, INCLUDING RATES OF PAY.  DECEMBER 19, 1945, THE
NEGOTIATIONS REACHED SOMETHING OF AN IMPASSE.  THE QUESTION HERE
PRESENTED IS WHETHER THIS EMPLOYER ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
WHEN, ON JANUARY 1, 1946, IT PUT INTO EFFECT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1945,
WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, A
GENERAL INCREASE IN THE RATES OF PAY APPLICABLE TO MOST OF THE
EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN REPRESENTED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS.  THIS INCREASE
WAS A SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER ONE THAN ANY WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAD OFFERED
DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS.  FOR THE REASONS TO BE STATED, WE HOLD THAT,
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS ACTION CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE AND THAT A DECREE SHOULD BE ENTERED ENFORCING AN ORDER
PROHIBITING SUCH CONDUCT.  THE CASE ALSO RAISES QUESTIONS AS TO THE
NATURE OF THE IMPASSE WHICH WAS REACHED AND AS TO THE PROPER SCOPE AND
TERMS OF THE ENFORCEMENT DECREE. 

AUGUST 13, 1945, THE TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, FOLLOWING AN ELECTION UNDER THE STATUTE, WAS
CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR
ABOUT 800 EMPLOYEES OF CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS, RESPONDENT HEREIN. 
THESE EMPLOYEES INCLUDED MOST OF ITS PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES AT GRIFFIN, GEORGIA, WHERE IT MANUFACTURED COTTON AND OTHER
GOODS.  MUCH OF THE MATERIAL ENTERING INTO THOSE GOODS AND MOST OF THE
FINISHED GOODS THERE PRODUCED WERE BOUGHT, SOLD OR TRANSPORTED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SO THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, IF ANY,
CONCEDEDLY AFFECTED SUCH COMMERCE.  FROM AUGUST 31, 1945, AT LEAST
UNTIL DECEMBER 19, A COMMITTEE OF THIS UNION ENGAGED IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING WITH THE RESPONDENT ON NUMEROUS APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS,
INCLUDING RATES OF PAY.  MANY TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WERE REACHED. 

JANUARY 1, 1946, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE
BARGAINING COMMITTEE, THE EMPLOYER ANNOUNCED A GENERAL AND SUBSTANTIAL
INCREASE IN THE RATES OF PAY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AMOUNTING TO ABOUT TWO
TO SIX CENTS AN HOUR, EFFECTIVE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1945.  THIS INCREASE
APPLIED TO MOST, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT. 
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ITS POSTING OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THIS INCREASE,
THE EMPLOYER TOLD THE EMPLOYEE MEMBERS OF THE BARGAINING COMMITTEE
ABOUT IT.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE EMPLOYER MAILED AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF IT
TO ONE OF THE TWO NONEMPLOYEE MEMBERS OF THE BARGAINING COMMITTEE. 

JANUARY 31, 1946, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER
HEREIN, IN RESPONSE TO CHARGES MADE BY THE UNION, FILED A COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE EMPLOYER, ALLEGING SEVERAL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  FN2
THESE INCLUDED THE ABOVEDESCRIBED INCREASE IN RATES OF PAY.  AFTER
HEARINGS BEFORE A TRIAL EXAMINER AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT EXAMINER'S
INTERMEDIATE REPORT, THE EMPLOYER'S EXCEPTIONS AND BRIEF RELATING TO
THAT REPORT AND THE ENTIRE RECORD AND ORAL ARGUMENTS, THE BOARD, ON
AUGUST 21, 1946, ISSUED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  70 N.L.R.B. 206. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DENIED A PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT.  167 F.2D 662.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LABOR RELATIONS STATUTES, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 812. 

THE PRECISE ISSUE PRESENTED IS WHAT DECREE, IF ANY, SHOULD BE ISSUED
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  FN3  IF A DECREE IS TO BE ISSUED, ITS
SCOPE AND TERMS SHOULD BE BASED UPON SUCH PART, OR ALL, OF THE BOARD'S
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AS IS SUPPORTED BY ITS FINDINGS OF FACT.  THOSE
FINDINGS ARE BINDING UPON US TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE SUSTAINED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  FN4  WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE MATERIAL FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE BOARD AS
TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND, THEREFORE, SEE NO NEED TO SET FORTH THAT
EVIDENCE HERE.  THE PRIMARY ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION IS, RATHER, THE EXTENT
TO WHICH THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORT ITS CEASE AND DESIST
ORDER AND JUSTIFY A DECREE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT ORDER. 

THE CONTROLLING SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE BOARD ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"AS FULLY DISCUSSED IN THE INTERMEDIATE REPORT, THE RESPONDENT,
DURING THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNION, REFUSED TO ACCEDE TO
THE UNION'S WAGE DEMANDS AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL THEIR LAST CONFERENCE ON
DECEMBER 19, 1945, THAT THE RESPONDENT MADE ITS FIRST AND ONLY
COUNTERPROPOSAL OF APPROXIMATELY 1 TO 1 1/2 CENTS AN HOUR RAISE, WHICH
THE UNION REJECTED.  THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT MADE NO FURTHER EFFORT
TO SETTLE THE WAGE DISPUTE BUT, INSTEAD, ON JANUARY 1, 1946, ONLY 12
DAYS LATER, GRANTED ITS EMPLOYEES A SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER INCREASE THAN
THAT PREVIOUSLY OFFERED TO THE UNION, WITHOUT CONSULTING THE UNION OR
AFFORDING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH RESPECT THERETO.  IN OUR
OPINION, SUCH ACTION TAKEN AS (SO) SOON AFTER THE UNION WAS ATTEMPTING
THROUGH THE BARGAINING PROCESS TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
RESPONDENT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ON WAGES, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS, AND IS
MANIFESTLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 
NOR ARE WE IMPRESSED WITH THE RESPONDENT'S ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION FOR
ITS ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNION BROKE OFF NEGOTIATIONS ON
DECEMBER 19 AND THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS THEREFORE RELIEVED OF THE
OBLIGATION TO DEAL WITH IT.  CONCEDEDLY, THE RESPONDENT NEVER PROPOSED
TO THE UNION AS A POSSIBLE BASIS OF AGREEMENT A WAGE INCREASE
COMPARABLE TO THAT GRANTED ON JANUARY 1, 1946.  MOREOVER, THE RECORD
FAILS TO SUPPORT THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE UNION'S
REPRESENTATIVES ASSUMED AN UNEQUIVOCAL POSITION AT THE LAST MEETING
WHICH FORECLOSED FURTHER BARGAINING CONCERNING WAGES OR OTHER TERMS OR
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND, AS DID
THE TRIAL EXAMINER, THAT THE RESPONDENT, BY ITS ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
THE WAGE INCREASE, FAILED TO PERFORM ITS STATUTORY DUTY TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION AND THEREBY INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED,
AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN
THE ACT."  70 N.L.R.B. AT PP. 206-207.  FN5 

I. THE EMPLOYER ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WHEN, WITHOUT
CONSULTING THE EMPLOYEES' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, IT PUT
INTO EFFECT, FOR MOST OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN REPRESENTED IN THE
BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS, A GENERAL INCREASE IN RATES OF PAY WHICH WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER THAN ANY THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD OFFERED. 

THE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE BOARD, COUPLED WITH THE FINDINGS ADOPTED
BY IT FROM THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S REPORT, LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT AS TO
THE ADEQUACY OF THE FACTS UPON WHICH ITS CEASE AND DESIST ORDER WAS
BASED.  FOR SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS ADOPTED FROM THE EXAMINER'S REPORT,
SEE APPENDIX B, INFRA, PP. 230-234.  THE FACTS SO FOUND DISTINGUISH
THIS CASE FROM ANY IN WHICH NO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE HAS
BEEN CERTIFIED OR OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES IN AN
APPROPRIATE UNIT.  FN6  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE WISH OF THE EMPLOYEES
TO BE CONSULTED AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY AS TO THE TERMS OF ANY
GENERAL WAGE INCREASE IS ESTABLISHED BY THE FINDINGS AND THE
NEGOTIATIONS.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. COLUMBIAN ENAMELING & STAMPING CO.,
306 U.S. 292, 297.  WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A CASE WHERE THE BARGAINING HAD
COME TO A COMPLETE TERMINATION CUTTING OFF THE OUTSTANDING INVITATION
OF THE CERTIFIED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO BARGAIN AS TO
ANY NEW ISSUE ON SUCH A MATTER AS RATES OF PAY.  CF. LABOR BOARD V.
SANDS MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332.  THE OPENING WHICH A RAISE IN PAY MAKES
FOR THE CORRECTION OF EXISTING INEQUITIES AMONG EMPLOYEES AND FOR THE
POSSIBLE SUBSTITUTION OF SHORTER HOURS, VACATIONS OR SICK LEAVES, IN
LIEU OF SOME PART OF THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN PAY, SUGGESTS THE
INFINITE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BARGAINING THAT ARE INHERENT IN AN ANNOUNCED
READINESS OF AN EMPLOYER TO INCREASE GENERALLY THE PAY OF ITS
EMPLOYEES.  THE OCCASION IS SO APPROPRIATE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO INFER AN INTENT TO CUT OFF THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
BARGAINING AND YET BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

WE DO NOT HERE HAVE A UNILATERAL GRANT OF AN INCREASE IN PAY MADE BY
AN EMPLOYER AFTER THE SAME PROPOSAL HAS BEEN MADE BY THE EMPLOYER IN
THE COURSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BUT HAS BEEN LEFT UNACCEPTED OR
EVEN REJECTED IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.  SUCH A GRANT MIGHT WELL CARRY NO
DISPARAGEMENT OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCEEDINGS.  INSTEAD OF
BEING REGARDED AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, IT MIGHT BE WELCOMED BY THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE REST OF THE
NEGOTIATIONS.  SEE IN THE MATTER OF W.W. CROSS & CO., 77 N.L.R.B. 1162;
IN THE MATTER OF EXPOSITION COTTON MILLS CO., 76 N.L.R.B. 1289; IN THE
MATTER OF SOUTHERN PRISON CO., 46 N.L.R.B. 1268. 

WE HOLD THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST IS JUSTIFIED,
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ORDER
REQUIRES THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM REFUSING TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY BY TAKING ACTION, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH THE
AUTHORIZED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES, WITH
RESPECT TO GENERAL RATES OF PAY WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM,
OR GREATER THAN, ANY WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAS PROPOSED DURING ITS
NEGOTIATIONS WITH SUCH REPRESENTATIVE.  THE NEED FOR THIS ORDER DEPENDS
IN PART UPON THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE ACTION BY THE EMPLOYER, ON
JANUARY 1, 1946, TAKEN SO SOON AFTER THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 1945,
SHOWED THAT "THE RESPONDENT  WAS NOT ACTING IN GOOD FAITH DURING THE
NEGOTIATIONS, AND IS MANIFESTLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."  70 N.L.R.B. AT P. 207.  SEE MAY DEPT. STORES
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 326 U.S. 376; MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 321 U.S. 678; LABOR BOARD V. NEWARK MORNING LEDGER CO., 120 F.2D
262; JEFFERY-DEWITT INSULATOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 91 F.2D 134.  FN7 

II.  THE DECREE OF ENFORCEMENT SHOULD NOT EXTEND FURTHER THAN
NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE TAKING OF THE PROHIBITED ACTION BY THE
EMPLOYER. 

THERE ARE NO FINDINGS BY THE BOARD THAT ESTABLISH A LACK OF GOOD
FAITH OR LACK OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER OTHER THAN IN THE CONNECTION
ABOVE DISCUSSED.  THE BOARD DECLINED TO UPHOLD THE TRIAL EXAMINER IN
HIS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO SEVERAL ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES OTHER THAN THIS ONE.  THE BOARD'S OWN FINDING AS TO THE
EMPLOYER'S INTERFERENCE WITH, AND RESTRAINT AND COERCION OF, ITS
EMPLOYEES IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO THIS ONE ITEM.  IT READS: 

"UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND, AS DID THE TRIAL EXAMINER, THAT
THE RESPONDENT, BY ITS ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE WAGE INCREASE, FAILED
TO PERFORM ITS STATUTORY DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION
AND THEREBY INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES IN
THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN THE ACT."  ID. AT P. 207. 

ACCORDINGLY, THERE APPEARS NO REASON FOR ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF THE
ENFORCEMENT DECREE BEYOND THAT FEATURE, AND LITTLE, IF ANY, NEED FOR
ORDERS REQUIRING EITHER SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE
EMPLOYER OR THE POSTING OF ANY NOTICES BY IT.  FN8 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS
SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEC. 9 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 453, 29
U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  159; IN THE MATTER OF CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS,
62 N.L.R.B. 1346. 

FN2  UNDER SECS. 7, 8(1) AND (5), AND 10 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 452-455, 29 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SECS.  157,
158(1) AND (5), AND 160. 

FN3  FOR THE BOARD'S ORDER, SEE APPENDIX A, INFRA, PP. 227-229. 

FN4  "THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 454, 29 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  160(E). "THE
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO QUESTIONS OF FACT IF SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE."  SEC. 10(E), AS AMENDED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
ACT, 1947, 61 STAT. 148, 29 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. I) SEC. 160(E). 

"WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT CONGRESS, BY PROVIDING, SEC. 10(C), (E)
AND (F), OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THAT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS
'AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE,'
PRECLUDES THE COURTS FROM WEIGHING EVIDENCE IN REVIEWING THE BOARD'S
ORDERS, AND IF THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THE
COURTS ARE NOT FREE TO SET THEM ASIDE, EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD COULD HAVE
DRAWN DIFFERENT INFERENCES."  LABOR BOARD V. NEVADA CONSOLIDATED COPPER
CORP., 316 U.S. 105, 106-107.    SEE ALSO, MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V.
LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 678, 681, N. 1; CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 229; WASHINGTON, V. & M. COACH CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
301 U.S. 142, 146-147.    FN5  IN ADDITION TO ITS OWN FINDINGS, QUOTED
IN THE TEXT, THE BOARD ADOPTED, IN GENERAL TERMS, ALL OF THE FINDINGS
OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER, WITH CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS NOT
HERE MATERIAL.  A NUMBER OF SUCH ADOPTED FINDINGS, WHICH ARE OF
SIGNIFICANCE IN SECURING A FULL APPRECIATION OF THE BASIS FOR THE
BOARD'S ORDER, ARE SET FORTH IN APPENDIX B, INFRA, PP. 230-234. 

THE INCREASE IN PAY WAS EXPLAINED BY HERBERT A. PICKFORD, MANAGER OF
THE RESPONDENT, AS FOLLOWS IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE TRIAL EXAMINER: 

"Q.  MR. PICKFORD, EXPLAIN WHY YOU MADE THE WAGE INCREASE ON JANUARY
1, 1946.  - A. WE HAD HEARD THE END OF THE PREVIOUS WEEK THAT NUMEROUS
MILLS THROUGHOUT THE STATE HAD MADE WAGE ADJUSTMENTS, AND WE HEARD
THROUGH RUMOR, MORE OR LESS THROUGH THE GRAPE VINE, THAT LOCAL MILLS
WERE PLANNING TO MAKE WAGE ADJUSTMENTS.  I CHECKED INTO THAT RUMOR WITH
VARIOUS MILLS AND FOUND THAT WAGE ADJUSTMENTS WERE GOING TO BE MADE,
ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T GET ANY SPECIFIC DATES AS TO WHEN THEY WOULD BE
MADE. 

"WE HAD STEADFASTLY SAID THROUGHOUT OUR BARGAINING CONFERENCES THAT
IF AND WHEN WAGE INCREASES IN OUR AREA WERE MADE, WE WOULD BE AMONGST
THE FIRST, AS WE HAD ALWAYS BEEN, TO MAKE SUCH INCREASES.  AND WHEN WE
HEARD THAT WAGE INCREASES WERE TO TAKE PLACE, WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN OUR
POSITION AS BEING AMONGST THE FIRST TO MAKE THE INCREASE AND ALSO
MAINTAIN OUR POSITION IN THE LOCAL LABOR MARKET BY MAKING AN INCREASE
OURSELVES. 

"Q.  DO YOU KNOW, MR. PICKFORD, WHAT WAGE INCREASES WERE MADE BY ANY
OF THE OTHER MILLS IN GRIFFIN?  - A. I DO NOT KNOW THE DEFINITE FIGURES
ASIDE FROM WHAT I SAW IN THE PAPER. 

"Q.  DID YOU JOIN WITH ANY MILLS IN MAKING ANY ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT A
WAGE INCREASE?  - A. NO; WE DID NOT.  WE MADE OUR ANNOUNCEMENT
INDEPENDENTLY OF ANYONE ELSE, AS WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE." 

FN6  "SEC.  8.  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER
 

     .         .         . .         . 

"(5)  TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
HIS EMPLOYEES, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(A)."  49 STAT.
452-453, AND ALSO IN 61 STAT. 140-141, 29 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. I)
SEC. 158. 

"SEC. 9.  (A)  REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED OR SELECTED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A
UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES, SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:  ..."  49 STAT. 453, AND
ALSO IN 61 STAT. 143, 29 U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. I) SEC. 159(A). 

FN7  EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYER, SINCE JANUARY 1, 1946, MAY HAVE
CARRIED ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN GOOD FAITH AS TO RATES OF PAY AND
OTHER MATTERS, A DECREE ENFORCING THE ORIGINAL ORDER AGAINST MAKING A
GENERAL INCREASE WITHOUT CONSULTING THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES IS JUSTIFIABLE.  "...  AN ORDER OF THE CHARACTER MADE
BY THE BOARD, LAWFUL WHEN MADE, DOES NOT BECOME MOOT BECAUSE IT IS
OBEYED OR BECAUSE CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE NEED FOR IT
MAY BE LESS THAN WHEN MADE."  LABOR BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND
LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 271.  SEE ALSO, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. GOODYEAR
TIRE & RUBBER CO., 304 U.S. 257. 

FN8  "...  THE BREADTH OF THE ORDER, LIKE THE INJUNCTION OF A COURT,
MUST DEPEND UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, THE PURPOSE BEING TO
PREVENT VIOLATIONS, THE THREAT OF WHICH IN THE FUTURE IS INDICATED
BECAUSE OF THEIR SIMILARITY OR RELATION TO THOSE UNLAWFUL ACTS WHICH
THE BOARD HAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE EMPLOYER IN THE
PAST.  ...  WE HOLD ONLY THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT
GIVE THE BOARD AN AUTHORITY, WHICH COURTS CANNOT RIGHTLY EXERCISE, TO
ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE MERELY BECAUSE
THE VIOLATION OF ONE HAS BEEN FOUND.  TO JUSTIFY AN ORDER RESTRAINING
OTHER VIOLATIONS IT MUST APPEAR THAT THEY BEAR SOME RESEMBLANCE TO THAT
WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAS COMMITTED OR THAT DANGER OF THEIR COMMISSION IN
THE FUTURE IS TO BE ANTICIPATED FROM THE COURSE OF HIS CONDUCT IN THE
PAST.  THAT JUSTIFICATION IS LACKING HERE."  LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS
PUB. CO., 312 U.S. 426, 436-437, AND SEE PP. 438-439. 

SEE ALSO, MAY DEPT. STORES CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 326 U.S. 376, 392-393;
J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332, 341-342. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN PART I OF THIS OPINION, BUT THINK THE BOARD'S ORDER SHOULD BE
ENFORCED WITHOUT MODIFICATION. 

                             APPENDIX A. 

ORDER OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN THE MATTER OF CROMPTON
HIGHLAND MILLS, INC., AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, CASE
NO. 10-C-1812.   - DECIDED AUGUST 21, 1946. 

                                "ORDER 

"UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE CASE, AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(C) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE RESPONDENT, CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS, INC.,
GRIFFIN, GEORGIA, AND ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
SHALL: 

"1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM: 

"(A)  REFUSING TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO, AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT'S
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES AT THE GRIFFIN PLANT, INCLUDING
WATCHMEN, BUT EXCLUDING OFFICE, CLERICAL, TECHNICAL, AND LABORATORY
EMPLOYEES, SECTION MEN IN THE SPINNING ROOM, HEAD LOOM FIXERS IN THE
WEAVE ROOM, HEAD FIXERS IN THE CARD ROOM, ALL SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES OF
THE GRADE OF SECOND HAND AND ABOVE, AND ALL OTHER SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
WITH AUTHORITY TO HIRE, PROMOTE, DISCHARGE, DISCIPLINE, OR OTHERWISE
EFFECT CHANGES IN THE STATUS OF EMPLOYEES, OR EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND
SUCH ACTION, BY TAKING ACTION, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH SAID
ORGANIZATION, WITH RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT,
AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. 

"(B)  IN ANY MANNER INTERFERING WITH THE EFFORTS OF TEXTILE WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH IT AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT DESCRIBED
ABOVE. 

"2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, WHICH THE BOARD FINDS
WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT: 

"(A)  UPON REQUEST, BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH TEXTILE WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA, CIO, AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL ITS EMPLOYEES
IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT DESCRIBED ABOVE WITH RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY,
WAGES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; 

"(B)  POST AT ITS PLANT AT GRIFFIN, GEORGIA, COPIES OF THE NOTICE
ATTACHED HERETO, MARKED 'APPENDIX A.'  COPIES OF SUCH NOTICE, TO BE
FURNISHED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE TENTH REGION, SHALL, AFTER
BEING DULY SIGNED BY THE RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVE, BE POSTED BY THE
RESPONDENT IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT THEREOF, AND MAINTAINED BY IT FOR
SIXTY (60) CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES,
INCLUDING ALL PLACES WHERE NOTICES TO EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY
POSTED.  REASONABLE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT TO INSURE
THAT SAID NOTICES ARE NOT ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL; 

"(C)  NOTIFY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE TENTH REGION (ATLANTA,
GEORGIA), IN WRITING, WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER,
WHAT STEPS THE RESPONDENT HAS TAKEN TO COMPLY HEREWITH."  70 N.L.R.B.
AT PP. 208-209. 

"APPENDIX A

                       "NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES 

"PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT: 

"WE WILL BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
CIO, AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING
UNIT DESCRIBED BELOW, WITH RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT, AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. 

"WE WILL NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES,
HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF OUR EMPLOYEES
IN THE BARGAINING UNIT DESCRIBED BELOW, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO. 

"WE WILL NOT IN ANY MANNER INTERFERE WITH THE EFFORTS OF TEXTILE
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR
EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT DESCRIBED BELOW, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH
US. 

"THE BARGAINING UNIT IS:  ALL PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES AT
OUR GRIFFIN PLANT, INCLUDING WATCHMEN, BUT EXCLUDING OFFICE, CLERICAL,
TECHNICAL AND LABORATORY EMPLOYEES, SECTION MEN IN THE SPINNING ROOM,
HEAD LOOM FIXERS IN THE WEAVE ROOM, HEAD FIXERS IN THE CARD ROOM, ALL
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES OF THE GRADE OF SECOND HAND AND ABOVE, AND ALL
OTHER SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WITH AUTHORITY TO HIRE, PROMOTE, DISCHARGE,
DISCIPLINE, OR OTHERWISE EFFECT CHANGES IN THE STATUS OF EMPLOYEES, OR
EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND SUCH ACTION. 

                    "CROMPTON-HIGHLAND MILLS, INC.

               "BY .................................

                   (REPRESENTATIVE.)    (TITLE.) 

"DATED.............. 

"THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE HEREOF, AND
MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL."  ID.
AT PP. 210-211. 

                 APPENDIX B. 

QUOTATIONS FROM THE "FINDINGS OF FACT" AS TO - "III.  THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES, A. THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN" AS STATED IN THE
INTERMEDIATE REPORT OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER, ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND PRINTED BY THE BOARD FOLLOWING ITS DECISION
AND ORDER. 

"NO FURTHER CONFERENCE WAS HELD UNTIL DECEMBER 19, WHEN A MEETING WAS
HELD AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNION. 

"THE ISSUES UPON WHICH THE PARTIES WERE STILL IN DISAGREEMENT AT THIS
TIME INVOLVED WAGES, WORK ASSIGNMENTS, INSURANCE PROVISIONS, SEVERANCE
PAY, VACATIONS, UNION SECURITY, ARBITRATION, UNION ACTIVITY UPON
COMPANY TIME, AND THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONTRACT, IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT
SOUGHT TO DEFINE THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT AS THE RESPONDENT AND THE
'EMPLOYEES' IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT, AS OPPOSED TO THE UNION'S POSITION
THAT THE UNION BE DENOMINATED AS PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.  ON THE ISSUE
OF UNION SECURITY, ALTHOUGH THE UNION HAD OFFERED TO COMPROMISE FOR
MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP, THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO GRANT ANY FORM OF
SECURITY.  AS TO WAGES, ALTHOUGH IT HAD ORIGINALLY REJECTED THE UNION'S
PROPOSALS FOR ANY WAGE INCREASE, IT PROPOSED WHAT AMOUNTED TO AN
INCREASE OF ABOUT ONE OR ONE AND ONE-HALF CENTS PER HOUR AT THIS TIME. 

"ON JANUARY 1, 1946, THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE,
EMPLOYED AT THE PLANT, WERE SUMMONED TO THE OFFICE OF PLANT MANAGER
PICKFORD AND INFORMED THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS GRANTING A GENERAL WAGE
INCREASE TO ALL EMPLOYEES,  FN18  AMOUNTING TO ABOUT 2 TO 6 CENTS PER
HOUR.  PICKFORD READ TO THE COMMITTEE THE FOLLOWING LETTER UNDER THAT
DATE, ADDRESSED TO UNION DIRECTOR DOUTY: 

"IN THE COURSE OF OUR EXTENDED CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WE HAVE
REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU THAT OUR MILL WOULD BE AMONG THE FIRST TO MAKE WAGE
ADJUSTMENTS IN THIS LOCALITY.  WE HAVE LEARNED THAT CERTAIN OF THE
MILLS IN THIS LOCALITY ARE ABOUT TO ADJUST THEIR WAGES AND WE ARE,
THEREFORE, MAKING COMPARABLE ADJUSTMENTS IN OUR WAGE RATES EFFECTIVE
MONDAY, DECEMBER 31ST, 1945.  A COPY OF THE NOTICE WHICH HAS BEEN
POSTED IN THE MILL TODAY OUTLINING THE VARIOUS RATE ADJUSTMENTS IS
ATTACHED HERETO. 

"ATTACHED TO THE LETTER WERE NOTICES DIRECTED TO THE RESPECTIVE
DEPARTMENTS LISTING THE VARIOUS WAGE INCREASES.  THE LETTER WAS
RECEIVED BY DOUTY THE NEXT DAY.  WHILE THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE WAS IN
PICKFORD'S OFFICE, COPIES OF THE NOTICES ANNOUNCING THE WAGE INCREASES
WERE BEING POSTED ON THE BULLETIN BOARDS IN THE RESPECTIVE
DEPARTMENTS. 

"IT WILL BE SEEN FROM THE FOREGOING THAT NEITHER THE UNION NOR THE
NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE WAS CONSULTED FROM DECEMBER 19, THE DATE OF THE
LAST CONFERENCE, TO JANUARY 1, 1946, THE DATE OF THE GRANTING OF THE
WAGE INCREASE.  NOR WAS THE COMMITTEE CONSULTED ON THE LATTER DATE. 
THE RESPONDENT MERELY PRESENTED IT WITH A FAIT ACCOMPLI, WITHOUT
AFFORDING THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH RESPECT TO THE
AMOUNT OF THE INCREASE, THE EMPLOYEES TO WHOM THE INCREASE WOULD BE
APPLICABLE,  FN19  THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INCREASE OR ANY OF THE
FACTORS NORMALLY ENVISAGED IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS. 

"IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED, NOR DOES THE RESPONDENT DENY, THAT THE
GRANTING OF THE WAGE INCREASE AT THAT TIME, CONSTITUTED UNILATERAL
ACTION.  ... 

     .         .      .         .         . 

"WHILE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE UNION WAS INSISTENT IN ITS DEMAND FOR
SOME FORM OF UNION SECURITY DURING ITS NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
RESPONDENT, THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT
THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION THAT THE UNION HAD, IN EFFECT, PRESENTED AN
ULTIMATUM THAT NO CONTRACT WOULD BE CONSUMMATED WHICH DID NOT AFFORD
UNION SECURITY.  AS HAS ALREADY BEEN INDICATED, UNION SECURITY WAS ONLY
ONE OF SEVERAL MATTERS, ASIDE FROM THE WAGE QUESTION, UPON WHICH
AGREEMENT HAD NOT YET BEEN REACHED.  IF, AS THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS, IT
HAD LEFT NO DOUBT AS TO ITS POSITION ON THE ISSUE OF UNION SECURITY IN
THE CONFERENCES OF OCTOBER 17 AND 18, AND IT WAS CONVINCED THAT THE
UNION WAS ADAMANT ON THIS ISSUE, IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THE PARTIES
WOULD HAVE CONFERRED ON NOVEMBER 7 AND 8, AND AGAIN ON DECEMBER 19,
WHEN THE UNION SUBMITTED A WRITTEN WAGE PROPOSAL.    "IT IS CLEAR,
THEREFORE, AND THE UNDERSIGNED FINDS, THAT, ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES HAD
REACHED A TEMPORARY IMPASSE ON DECEMBER 19 ON SOME ISSUES, PRINCIPALLY
WAGES, UNION SECURITY, AND CHECK-OFF, THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR
CONCLUDING THAT THE UNION HAD ABANDONED NEGOTIATIONS AT THIS TIME. 
MOREOVER, EVEN IF THE PARTIES HAD REACHED AN IMPASSE IN THEIR
NEGOTIATIONS, THIS OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT AFFECT THE UNION'S STATUS AS
MAJORITY REPRESENTATIVE.  THE PRINCIPLE THAT 'A BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP
ONCE RIGHTLY ESTABLISHED MUST BE PERMITTED TO EXIST AND FUNCTION FOR A
REASONABLE PERIOD IN WHICH IT CAN BE GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE TO SUCCEED,'
IS WELL-ESTABLISHED.  FN20  EQUALLY CLEAR IS THE PROPOSITION THAT THE
GRANTING OF A UNILATERAL WAGE INCREASE OR OTHER CONCESSION BY AN
EMPLOYER TO HIS EMPLOYEES WHILE THE DESIGNATED UNION IS ATTEMPTING TO
BARGAIN CONCERNING THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER, CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF
THE EMPLOYER'S DUTY TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  FN21 IT IS NOT A
QUESTION, CONTRARY TO THE RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT, OF GIVING THE UNION
CREDIT FOR A WAGE INCREASE WHICH IT DID NOT OBTAIN, BUT RATHER OF THE
CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT IN GRANTING THE INCREASE IN DEROGATION OF THE
UNION'S STATUS AS STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE, BY DEPRIVING THE UNION OF
ITS RIGHT TO BARGAIN WITH RESPECT TO SUCH INCREASE. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"UPON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, AND UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD, THE
UNDERSIGNED CONCLUDES AND FURTHER FINDS THAT, BY FAILING AND REFUSING
TO FURNISH THE UNION WITH ESSENTIAL AND PERTINENT INFORMATION RELATING
TO THE RESPONDENT'S WAGE STRUCTURE UNDER ITS 'POINT PLAN,' JOB
SPECIFICATIONS, WORK ASSIGNMENTS, AND INFORMATION APPERTAINING THERETO,
AND BY GRANTING ITS EMPLOYEES A UNILATERAL WAGE INCREASE ON JANUARY 1,
1946, THE RESPONDENT HAS FROM AUGUST 31, 1945, TO DECEMBER 19, 1945,
AND THEREAFTER TO DATE, INCLUDING JANUARY 1, 1946, FAILED AND REFUSED
TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION AS THE EXCLUSIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ABOVE
DESCRIBED, AND HAS THEREBY INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED ITS
EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE ACT."  70
N.L.R.B. AT PP. 220-221, 222, 223-224. 

THE BOARD LEFT NO DOUBT THAT IT RELIED SOLELY ON THE GRANTING OF THE
WAGE INCREASE, WHEN IT ISSUED ITS DECISION AND ORDER IN THIS CASE. 
THIS APPEARS FROM THE FOLLOWING EXPRESS STATEMENT IN THE BOARD'S
DECISION AND ORDER: 

"1.  THE TRIAL EXAMINER FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT, IN VIOLATION OF
THE UNION AS THE STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES
BY REFUSING TO FURNISH THE UNION WITH CERTAIN DETAILED INFORMATION
RELATING TO THE INCENTIVE WAGE PLAN AND BY GRANTING A WAGE INCREASE TO
ITS EMPLOYEES WITHOUT CONSULTING THE UNION.  ALTHOUGH WE AGREE WITH THE
TRIAL EXAMINER'S CONCLUSION, WE, HOWEVER, REST OUR DETERMINATION SOLELY
ON THE LATTER GROUND."  ID. AT P. 206. 

FN18  "AS WILL BE SEEN, CERTAIN EMPLOYEES WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
WAGE INCREASE." 

FN19 "THE INCREASE DID NOT AFFECT JANITORS, SWEEPERS, SCRUBBERS,
OUTSIDE HELP, AND VARIOUS OTHER CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES INCLUDED IN THE
UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE UNION." 

FN20  "SEE FRANKS BROS. CO. V. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 702, 705." 

FN21  "SEE ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY V. N.L.R.B., 131 F.(2D) 485, 487,
(C.C.A. 7), ENF'G. 39 N.L.R.B. 1286, 1295-1299; MAY DEPARTMENT STORES
V. N.L.R.B., 326 U.S. 376.  SEE ALSO, MAJORITY RULE IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, BY RUTH WEYAND, COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW, VOL. XLV, 579-583, AND
FOOTNOTES AT 581, FOR AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
ON, THE POWER OF A STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE TO BAR UNILATERAL CHANGES
BY EMPLOYER." 
..END :

















TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1 


NO. 272.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1949.  - 400 ILL.
23, 79 N.E.2D 39, REVERSED. 


IN A MEETING WHICH ATTRACTED CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC ATTENTION, PETITIONER
ADDRESSED A LARGE AUDIENCE IN AN AUDITORIUM OUTSIDE OF WHICH WAS AN
ANGRY AND TURBULENT CROWD PROTESTING AGAINST THE MEETING.  HE CONDEMNED
THE CONDUCT OF THE CROWD OUTSIDE AND VIGOROUSLY CRITICIZED VARIOUS
POLITICAL AND RACIAL GROUPS.  NOTWITHSTANDING EFFORTS OF A CORDON OF
POLICE TO MAINTAIN ORDER, THERE WERE SEVERAL DISTURBANCES IN THE
CROWD.  PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF AN ORDINANCE
FORBIDDING ANY "BREACH OF THE PEACE," AND THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED
THE JURY THAT ANY MISBEHAVIOR WHICH "STIRS THE PUBLIC TO ANGER, INVITES
DISPUTE, BRINGS ABOUT A CONDITION OF UNREST, OR CREATES A DISTURBANCE"
VIOLATES THE ORDINANCE.  PETITIONER DID NOT EXCEPT TO THAT INSTRUCTION,
BUT HE DID MAINTAIN AT ALL TIMES THAT, AS APPLIED TO HIS CONDUCT, THE
ORDINANCE VIOLATED HIS RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  HE WAS CONVICTED ON A GENERAL VERDICT AND HIS CONVICTION
WAS AFFIRMED BY AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE.  HELD: 

1.  AS CONSTRUED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND APPLIED TO PETITIONER, THE
ORDINANCE VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
PP. 4-5. 

2.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT PETITIONER TOOK NO EXCEPTION TO THE
INSTRUCTION AND THAT, THROUGHOUT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE STATE
COURTS ASSUMED THAT THE ONLY CONDUCT PUNISHABLE AND PUNISHED UNDER THE
ORDINANCE WAS CONDUCT CONSTITUTING "FIGHTING WORDS," SINCE THE VERDICT
WAS A GENERAL ONE AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PETITIONER'S CONVICTION
WAS NOT BASED UPON THE INSTRUCTION QUOTED ABOVE.  STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359.  PP. 5-6. 

TERMINIELLO V. CHICAGO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT OF VIOLATING A CITY
ORDINANCE FORBIDDING ANY BREACH OF THE PEACE.  THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE
COURT AFFIRMED.  332 ILL. APP. 17, 74 N.E.2D 45.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS AFFIRMED.  400 ILL. 23, 79 N.E.2D 39.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 890.  REVERSED, P. 6. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER AFTER JURY TRIAL WAS FOUND GUILTY OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT IN
VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINANCE OF CHICAGO  FN1  AND FINED.  THE CASE
GREW OUT OF AN ADDRESS HE DELIVERED IN AN AUDITORIUM IN CHICAGO UNDER
THE AUSPICES OF THE CHRISTIAN VETERANS OF AMERICA.  THE MEETING
COMMANDED CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC ATTENTION.  THE AUDITORIUM WAS FILLED TO
CAPACITY WITH OVER EIGHT HUNDRED PERSONS PRESENT.  OTHERS WERE TURNED
AWAY.  OUTSIDE OF THE AUDITORIUM A CROWD OF ABOUT ONE THOUSAND PERSONS
GATHERED TO PROTEST AGAINST THE MEETING.  A CORDON OF POLICEMEN WAS
ASSIGNED TO THE MEETING TO MAINTAIN ORDER; BUT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO
PREVENT SEVERAL DISTURBANCES.  THE CROWD OUTSIDE WAS ANGRY AND
TURBULENT. 

PETITIONER IN HIS SPEECH CONDEMNED THE CONDUCT OF THE CROWD OUTSIDE
AND VIGOROUSLY, IF NOT VICIOUSLY, CRITICIZED VARIOUS POLITICAL AND
RACIAL GROUPS WHOSE ACTIVITIES HE DENOUNCED AS INIMICAL TO THE NATION'S
WELFARE. 

THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THAT "BREACH OF THE PEACE" CONSISTS OF ANY
"MISBEHAVIOR WHICH VIOLATES THE PUBLIC PEACE AND DECORUM"; AND THAT THE
"MISBEHAVIOR MAY CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF THE PEACE IF IT STIRS THE
PUBLIC TO ANGER, INVITES DISPUTE, BRINGS ABOUT A CONDITION OF UNREST,
OR CREATES A DISTURBANCE, OR IF IT MOLESTS THE INHABITANTS IN THE
ENJOYMENT OF PEACE AND QUIET BY AROUSING ALARM."  PETITIONER DID NOT
TAKE EXCEPTION TO THAT INSTRUCTION.  BUT HE MAINTAINED AT ALL TIMES
THAT THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED TO HIS CONDUCT VIOLATED HIS RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT (332 ILL. APP. 17, 74 N.E.2D
45) AND BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.  396 ILL. 41, 71 N.E.2D 2; 400
ILL. 23, 79 N.E.2D 39.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

THE ARGUMENT HERE HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE
CONTENT OF PETITIONER'S SPEECH WAS COMPOSED OF DERISIVE, FIGHTING
WORDS, WHICH CARRIED IT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEES.  SEE CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 310.  WE DO NOT REACH THAT QUESTION, FOR
THERE IS A PRELIMINARY QUESTION THAT IS DISPOSITIVE OF THE CASE. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE STATUTORY WORDS "BREACH OF THE PEACE" WERE
DEFINED IN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY TO INCLUDE SPEECH WHICH "STIRS THE
PUBLIC TO ANGER, INVITES DISPUTE, BRINGS ABOUT A CONDITION OF UNREST,
OR CREATES A DISTURBANCE  ...  "  THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORDINANCE IS
A RULING ON A QUESTION OF STATE LAW THAT IS AS BINDING ON US AS THOUGH
THE PRECISE WORDS HAD BEEN WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE.  SEE HEBERT V.
LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 317; WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507, 514. 

THE VITALITY OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS IN OUR SOCIETY
DEPENDS ON FREE DISCUSSION.  AS CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES WROTE IN DE JONGE
V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 365, IT IS ONLY THROUGH FREE DEBATE AND FREE
EXCHANGE OF IDEAS THAT GOVERNMENT REMAINS RESPONSIVE TO THE WILL OF THE
PEOPLE AND PEACEFUL CHANGE IS EFFECTED.  THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY AND
TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY OF IDEAS AND PROGRAMS IS THEREFORE ONE OF THE
CHIEF DISTINCTIONS THAT SETS US APART FROM TOTALITARIAN REGIMES. 

ACCORDINGLY A FUNCTION OF FREE SPEECH UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
IS TO INVITE DISPUTE.  IT MAY INDEED BEST SERVE ITS HIGH PURPOSE WHEN
IT INDUCES A CONDITION OF UNREST, CREATES DISSATISFACTION WITH
CONDITIONS AS THEY ARE, OR EVEN STIRS PEOPLE TO ANGER.  SPEECH IS OFTEN
PROVOCATIVE AND CHALLENGING.  IT MAY STRIKE AT PREJUDICES AND
PRECONCEPTIONS AND HAVE PROFOUND UNSETTLING EFFECTS AS IT PRESSES FOR
ACCEPTANCE OF AN IDEA.  THAT IS WHY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THOUGH NOT
ABSOLUTE, CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA, PP. 571-572, IS
NEVERTHELESS PROTECTED AGAINST CENSORSHIP OR PUNISHMENT, UNLESS SHOWN
LIKELY TO PRODUCE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF A SERIOUS SUBSTANTIVE
EVIL THAT RISES FAR ABOVE PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE, ANNOYANCE, OR UNREST. 
SEE BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 262; CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S.
367, 373.  THERE IS NO ROOM UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION FOR A MORE
RESTRICTIVE VIEW.  FOR THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD LEAD TO STANDARDIZATION OF
IDEAS EITHER BY LEGISLATURES, COURTS, OR DOMINANT POLITICAL OR
COMMUNITY GROUPS. 

THE ORDINANCE AS CONSTRUED BY THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY INVADED THIS
PROVINCE.  IT PERMITTED CONVICTION OF PETITIONER IF HIS SPEECH STIRRED
PEOPLE TO ANGER, INVITED PUBLIC DISPUTE, OR BROUGHT ABOUT A CONDITION
OF UNREST.  A CONVICTION RESTING ON ANY OF THOSE GROUNDS MAY NOT
STAND. 

THE FACT THAT PETITIONER TOOK NO EXCEPTION TO THE INSTRUCTION IS
IMMATERIAL.  NO EXCEPTION TO THE INSTRUCTIONS WAS TAKEN IN STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359.  BUT A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BASED ON A
GENERAL VERDICT UNDER A STATE STATUTE WAS SET ASIDE IN THAT CASE,
BECAUSE ONE PART OF THE STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE STATUTE HAD
BEEN CHALLENGED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE INSTRUCTION WAS FRAMED IN
ITS LANGUAGE.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE ATTACK ON THE STATUTE AS A WHOLE
WAS EQUALLY AN ATTACK ON EACH OF ITS INDIVIDUAL PARTS.  SINCE THE
VERDICT WAS A GENERAL ONE AND DID NOT SPECIFY THE GROUND UPON WHICH IT
RESTED, IT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED.  FOR ONE PART OF THE STATUTE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS
NOT CONVICTED UNDER THAT PART. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT CASE CONTROLS THIS ONE.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE
GLOSS WHICH ILLINOIS PLACED ON THE ORDINANCE GIVES IT A MEANING AND
APPLICATION WHICH ARE CONCLUSIVE ON US.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER
AS CONSTRUED IT IS DEFECTIVE IN ITS ENTIRETY.  AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED
IT AT LEAST CONTAINS PARTS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE VERDICT WAS
A GENERAL ONE; AND WE DO NOT KNOW ON THIS RECORD BUT WHAT IT MAY REST
ON THE INVALID CLAUSES. 

THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED IN THE CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS PASSED ON BY
THE ILLINOIS COURTS AND SUSTAINED BY THEM OVER THE OBJECTION THAT AS SO
READ IT VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES
DID NOT DISPUTE ITS CONSTRUCTION MAKES THE ADJUDICATION NO LESS RIPE
FOR OUR REVIEW, AS THE STROMBERG DECISION INDICATES.  WE CAN ONLY TAKE
THE STATUTE AS THE STATE COURTS READ IT. FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW IT IS
IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE STATE LAW QUESTION AS TO ITS MEANING WAS
CONTROVERTED OR ACCEPTED.  THE PINCH OF THE STATUTE IS IN ITS
APPLICATION.  IT IS THAT QUESTION WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS BROUGHT
HERE.  TO SAY THEREFORE THAT THE QUESTION ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE IS
WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE GAVE A WRONG CHARGE IS WHOLLY TO MISCONCEIVE
THE ISSUE. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THROUGHOUT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ILLINOIS
COURTS ASSUMED THAT THE ONLY CONDUCT PUNISHABLE AND PUNISHED UNDER THE
ORDINANCE WAS CONDUCT CONSTITUTING "FIGHTING WORDS."  THAT EMPHASIZES,
HOWEVER, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RULE OF THE STROMBERG CASE.  PETITIONER
WAS NOT CONVICTED UNDER A STATUTE SO NARROWLY CONSTRUED.  FOR ALL
ANYONE KNOWS HE WAS CONVICTED UNDER THE PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE (AS
CONSTRUED) WHICH, FOR EXAMPLE, MAKE IT AN OFFENSE MERELY TO INVITE
DISPUTE OR TO BRING ABOUT A CONDITION OF UNREST.  WE CANNOT AVOID THAT
ISSUE BY SAYING THAT ALL ILLINOIS DID WAS TO MEASURE PETITIONER'S
CONDUCT, NOT THE ORDINANCE, AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.  PETITIONER
RAISED BOTH POINTS - THAT HIS SPEECH WAS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION;
THAT THE INCLUSION OF HIS SPEECH WITHIN THE ORDINANCE WAS A VIOLATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  WE WOULD, THEREFORE, STRAIN AT TECHNICALITIES TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ORDINANCE AS CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED TO PETITIONER WAS NOT BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COURTS.  THE RECORD
MAKES CLEAR THAT PETITIONER AT ALL TIMES CHALLENGED THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ORDINANCE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED TO HIM. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  "ALL PERSONS WHO SHALL MAKE, AID, COUNTENANCE, OR ASSIST IN
MAKING ANY IMPROPER NOISE, RIOT, DISTURBANCE, BREACH OF THE PEACE, OR
DIVERSION TENDING TO A BREACH OF THE PEACE, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE
CITY  ...  SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND UPON
CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE SEVERALLY FINED NOT LESS THAN ONE DOLLAR
NOR MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH OFFENSE."  MUNICIPAL CODE OF
CHICAGO, 1939, SEC. 193-1. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, DISSENTING. 

I DISSENT.  THE COURT TODAY REVERSES THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
BECAUSE IT DISCOVERS IN THE RECORD ONE SENTENCE IN THE TRIAL COURT'S
INSTRUCTIONS WHICH PERMITTED THE JURY TO CONVICT ON AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BASIS.  THE OFFENDING SENTENCE HAD HERETOFORE GONE COMPLETELY
UNDETECTED.  IT APPARENTLY WAS NOT EVEN NOTICED, MUCH LESS EXCEPTED TO,
BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL AT THE TRIAL.  NO OBJECTION WAS MADE TO IT
IN THE TWO ILLINOIS APPELLATE TRIBUNALS WHICH REVIEWED THE CASE.  NOR
WAS IT MENTIONED IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OR THE BRIEFS IN THIS
COURT.  IN SHORT, THE OFFENDING SENTENCE IN THE CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS
NO PART OF THE CASE UNTIL THIS COURT'S INDEPENDENT RESEARCH FERRETED IT
OUT OF A LENGTHY AND SOMEWHAT CONFUSED RECORD.  I THINK IT TOO PLAIN
FOR ARGUMENT THAT A REVERSAL ON SUCH A BASIS DOES NOT ACCORD WITH ANY
PRINCIPLE GOVERNING REVIEW OF STATE COURT DECISIONS HERETOFORE
ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT.  CERTAINLY, STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S.
359(1931), AS MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DEMONSTRATES, OFFERS NO PRECEDENT
FOR TODAY'S ACTION. 

IT WILL NOT DO TO SAY THAT, BECAUSE THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURTS
AFFIRMED THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION IN THE FACE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
ATTACK, THEY NECESSARILY MUST HAVE APPROVED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
CHICAGO ORDINANCE CONTAINED IN THE UNNOTICED INSTRUCTION.  THE FACT IS
THAT THE ILLINOIS COURTS CONSTRUED THE ORDINANCE AS PUNISHING ONLY THE
USE OF "FIGHTING WORDS."  THEIR OPINIONS PLAINLY SHOW THAT THEY
AFFIRMED BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT THE PETITIONER'S SPEECH HAD BEEN
FOUND BY THE JURY TO COME WITHIN THAT CATEGORY.  FN1  THEIR ACTION WAS
NOT, AND CANNOT HERE BE TAKEN TO BE, AN APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE "AS
CONSTRUED" BY THE INSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE
CASE WAS TREATED ON APPEAL, BOTH BY COUNSEL AND BY THE COURTS, AS IF NO
SUCH INSTRUCTION EXISTED.  THIS COURT CAN REVERSE THE CONVICTION
BECAUSE OF THE INSTRUCTION ONLY IF WE ARE TO SAY THAT EVERY TIME A
STATE COURT AFFIRMS A CONVICTION IT NECESSARILY MUST APPROVE OF EVERY
UNNOTICED AND UNOBJECTED TO ERROR WHICH WE MAY DISCOVER IN THE RECORD. 
IF SUCH IS THE DOCTRINE OF THIS CASE, I FEEL COMPELLED TO REGISTER MY
EMPHATIC DISSENT. 

THE INSTRUCTION INFORMED THE JURY THAT THEY COULD RETURN A VERDICT OF
GUILTY IF THEY FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER'S SPEECH WAS ONE WHICH "STIRS
THE PUBLIC TO ANGER, INVITES DISPUTE, BRINGS ABOUT A CONDITION OF
UNREST, OR CREATES A DISTURBANCE."  IF THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL, WHO
CAREFULLY MADE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE
PROCEEDINGS BELOW, HAD BROUGHT ANY ISSUE HERE AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THAT INSTRUCTION I WOULD AGREE WITH THE COURT'S DECISION. 
BUT THE RECORD GIVES ME NO BASIS ON WHICH TO BELIEVE THAT THE ILLINOIS
COURTS WOULD NOT ALSO HAVE SO DECIDED IF THAT ISSUE HAD BEEN PRESENTED
TO THEM. 

THE COURT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DOES NOT REACH THE ISSUE WHICH THE
PARTIES ARGUED HERE - WHETHER A PROPERLY INSTRUCTED JURY COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY HAVE FOUND FROM THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
THAT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WORDS IN THE PETITIONER'S SPEECH
WERE "FIGHTING WORDS" TO THOSE INSIDE THE HALL WHO HEARD THEM. 
CERTAINLY, THE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE VIOLENT OPPOSITION OF
THOSE OUTSIDE THE HALL, WHO DID NOT HEAR THE SPEECH, COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY WARRANT THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER IN ORDER TO
KEEP THE STREETS FROM BECOMING IDEOLOGICAL BATTLEGROUNDS.  SINCE
NEITHER OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IS DECIDED BY THE COURT, I THINK
THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN MY PROVINCE TO INDICATE ANY OPINION CONCERNING
THEM.  SEE RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, 568(1947). 

FN1  THE OPINIONS ARE REPORTED AT 332 ILL. APP. 17, 74 N.E.2D 45, AND
AT 400 ILL. 23, 79 N.E.2D 39.  SEE, PARTICULARLY, 332 ILL. APP. AT PP.
23 AND 38; 400 ILL. AT P. 33. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE COURSE OF THE 130 YEARS IN WHICH STATE
PROSECUTIONS HAVE COME HERE FOR REVIEW, THIS COURT IS TODAY REVERSING A
SENTENCE IMPOSED BY A STATE COURT ON A GROUND THAT WAS URGED NEITHER
HERE NOR BELOW AND THAT WAS EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT. 

THE IMPROMPRIETY OF THAT PART OF THE CHARGE WHICH IS NOW MADE THE
BASIS OF REVERSAL WAS NOT RAISED AT THE TRIAL NOR BEFORE THE APPELLATE
COURT OF ILLINOIS.  THE FACT THAT COUNSEL FOR TERMINIELLO WHOLLY
IGNORED IT IS EMPHASIZED BY THE OBJECTIONS THAT HE DID MAKE IN RELATION
TO OTHER INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN AND NOT GIVEN.  ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS, COUNSEL STILL FAILED TO CLAIM AS ERROR THAT WHICH
THIS COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION NOW FINDS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
IT WAS NOT MENTIONED BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT IN ITS CAREFUL
OPINION DISPOSING OF OTHER CLAIMS AND IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
ELABORATE PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THAT COURT.  THUS AN OBJECTION, NOT
RAISED BY COUNSEL IN THE ILLINOIS COURTS, NOT MADE THE BASIS OF THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HERE - NOT INCLUDED IN THE "QUESTIONS
PRESENTED," NOR IN THE "REASONS RELIED ON FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE
WRIT" - AND EXPLICITLY DISAVOWED AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT, IS USED TO
UPSET A CONVICTION WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THREE COURTS OF
ILLINOIS.    RELIANCE ON STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, FOR
WHAT IS DONE TODAY IS WHOLLY MISPLACED.  NEITHER EXPRESSLY NOR BY
IMPLICATION HAS THAT DECISION ANY BEARING UPON THE ISSUE WHICH THE
COURT'S OPINION IN THIS CASE RAISES, NAMELY, WHETHER IT IS OPEN FOR
THIS COURT TO REVERSE THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE ON A POINT WHICH WAS
NOT BROUGHT BEFORE THAT COURT, DID NOT ENTER INTO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED
BY THAT COURT, AND AT NO STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT WAS
INVOKED AS ERROR BY THE STATE COURT WHOSE REVERSAL IS HERE SOUGHT.  THE
STROMBERG CASE PRESENTED PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE SITUATION.  IN THAT
CASE THE CLAIM WHICH HERE PREVAILED WAS A GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
URGED BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA COURT; UPON ITS REJECTION BY THAT COURT IT
WAS MADE THE BASIS OF APPEAL TO THIS COURT; IT WAS HERE URGED AS THE
DECISIVE GROUND FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT. 

THE STROMBERG CASE DEALT WITH A STATUTE WHICH PROSCRIBED CONDUCT IN A
THREEFOLD WAY.  THE INFORMATION UPON WHICH A VERDICT OF GUILTY WAS
SECURED WAS COUCHED IN THE THREEFOLD TERMS OF THE STATUTE, AND IN THAT
FORM SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  A GENERAL VERDICT FOLLOWED.  IT WAS URGED
THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FINALLY AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT, THAT
ONE OF THE PROSCRIPTIONS OF THE STATUTE WAS INVALID UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THAT VIEW WAS SUSTAINED.  ALL THAT THE CASE HOLDS IS THAT WHERE THE
VALIDITY OF A STATUTE IS SUCCESSFULLY ASSAILED AS TO ONE OF THREE
CLAUSES OF A STATUTE AND ALL THREE CLAUSES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY,
THE GENERAL VERDICT HAS AN INFIRMITY BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT
THE JURY CONVICTED ON THE VALID PORTIONS OF THE STATUTE AND NOT ON THE
INVALID.  THERE WAS NO QUESTION IN THAT CASE OF SEARCHING THE RECORD
FOR AN ALLEGED ERROR THAT AT NO TIME WAS URGED AGAINST THE STATE
JUDGMENT BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW. 

IN THE STROMBERG CASE AN ERROR THAT WAS PROPERLY URGED WAS
SUSTAINED.  IN THIS CASE A CLAIM THAT WAS NOT URGED BUT WAS DISAVOWED
IS TRANSMUTED INTO A CLAIM DENIED. 

ONLY THE UNINFORMED WILL DERIDE AS A MERELY TECHNICAL POINT OBJECTION
TO WHAT THE COURT IS DOING IN THIS CASE.  THE MATTER TOUCHES THE VERY
BASIS OF THIS COURT'S AUTHORITY IN REVIEWING THE JUDGMENTS OF STATE
COURTS.  WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO MEDDLE WITH SUCH A JUDGMENT UNLESS
SOME CLAIM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES HAS
BEEN MADE BEFORE THE STATE COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT WE ARE REVIEWING AND
UNLESS THE CLAIM HAS BEEN DENIED BY THAT COURT.  FN1  HOW COULD THERE
HAVE BEEN A DENIAL OF A FEDERAL CLAIM BY THE ILLINOIS COURTS, I.E.,
THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE OFFENDED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN
WHAT HE TOLD THE JURY, WHEN NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE?  THE RELATION OF
THE UNITED STATES AND THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE STATES AND
THE COURTS OF THE STATES IS A VERY DELICATE MATTER.  IT IS TOO DELICATE
TO PERMIT SILENCE WHEN A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT IS REVERSED IN
DISREGARD OF THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO LEAVE UNTOUCHED AN ADJUDICATION
OF A STATE UNLESS THAT ADJUDICATION IS BASED UPON A CLAIM OF A FEDERAL
RIGHT WHICH THE STATE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND TO RECOGNIZE. 
IF SUCH A FEDERAL CLAIM WAS NEITHER BEFORE THE STATE COURT NOR
PRESENTED TO THIS COURT, THIS COURT UNWARRANTABLY STRAYS FROM ITS
PROVINCE IN LOOKING THROUGH THE RECORD TO FIND SOME FEDERAL CLAIM THAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE STATE COURT AND, IF SO
BROUGHT, FRONTED, AND THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, BUT WAS NOT, URGED HERE. 
THIS IS A COURT OF REVIEW, NOT A TRIBUNAL UNBOUNDED BY RULES.  WE DO
NOT SIT LIKE A KADI UNDER A TREE DISPENSING JUSTICE ACCORDING TO
CONSIDERATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL EXPEDIENCY. 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDOUBTEDLY MEANS FREEDOM TO EXPRESS VIEWS THAT
CHALLENGE DEEP-SEATED, SACRED BELIEFS AND TO UTTER SENTIMENTS THAT MAY
PROVOKE RESENTMENT.  BUT THOSE INDULGING IN SUCH STUFF AS THAT TO WHICH
THIS PROCEEDING GAVE RISE ARE HARDLY SO DESERVING AS TO LEAD THIS COURT
TO SINGLE THEM OUT AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE FIRST DEPARTURE FROM THE
RESTRICTIONS THAT BIND THIS COURT IN REVIEWING JUDGMENTS OF STATE
COURTS.  ESPECIALLY ODD IS IT TO BESTOW SUCH FAVOR NOT FOR THE SAKE OF
LIFE OR LIBERTY, BUT TO SAVE A SMALL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY - $100, THE
AMOUNT OF THE FINE IMPOSED UPON THE PETITIONER IN A PROCEEDING WHICH IS
CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL, UNDER THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS, AND THUS SUBJECT ONLY
TO LIMITED REVIEW.  CITY OF CHICAGO V. TERMINIELLO, 400 ILL. 23, 29, 79
N.E.2D 39, 43.  THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT FINES OF THIS NATURE ARE
NOT WITHIN PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION GOVERNING FEDERAL CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS.  SEE HEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 213 U.S. 103. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF COURSE CANNOT BE MEASURED BY
DOLLARS AND CENTS.  A GREAT PRINCIPLE MAY BE AT STAKE, AS IN THE CASE
OF THE SHIP MONEY, THOUGH THE ISSUE ARISE OVER THE PAYMENT OF A FEW
SHILLINGS' TAX.  WERE THE COURT TO SUSTAIN THE CLAIM URGED THROUGHOUT
THESE PROCEEDINGS, IN ILLINOIS AND HERE, NAMELY, THAT A LAW IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN IT FORBIDS TERMINIELLO'S HARANGUE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS UTTERANCE, IT WOULD BE IMMATERIAL THAT ONLY $100
IS INVOLVED.  BUT TO INJECT AN ERROR INTO THE RECORD IN ORDER TO AVOID
THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE - FOR CERTAINLY RELIEF
FROM THE PAYMENT OF A FINE OF $100 COULD NOT ALONE HAVE INDUCED THIS
COURT TO EXCOGITATE A DEFECT IN THE JUDGMENT WHICH COUNSEL THOUGHTFULLY
REJECTED AND WHICH THREE STATE COURTS DID NOT CONSIDER - HARDLY RAISES
THE OBJECTION TO THE DIGNITY OF SUCH A PRINCIPLE.  IF THE COURT
REFRAINED FROM TAKING PHRASES OUT OF THEIR ENVIRONMENT AND FINDING IN
THEM A SELF-GENERATED OBJECTION, IT COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE
APPROVED OF THEM EVEN AS ABSTRACT PROPOSITIONS. 

ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE REACHED BY THE COURT, I SHARE MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON'S VIEWS.  FOR I ASSUME THAT THE COURT DOES NOT MEAN TO REJECT,
EXCEPT MERELY FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT
GUIDES SCRUTINY OF A CHARGE ON APPEAL.  I ASSUME, THAT IS, THAT A
CHARGE IS NOT TO BE DEEMED A BIT OF ABSTRACTION IN A NON-EXISTING
WORLD; THE FUNCTION WHICH A CHARGE SERVES IS TO GIVE PRACTICAL GUIDANCE
TO A JURY IN PASSING ON THE CASE THAT WAS UNFOLDED BEFORE IT - THE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THEIR PARTICULAR SETTING. 

FN1  "OUR POWER OF REVIEW IN THIS CASE IS LIMITED NOT ONLY TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WAS
DENIED, MURDOCK V. CITY OF MEMPHIS, 20 WALL.  590; HAIRE V. RICE, 204
U.S. 291, 301; BUT TO THE PARTICULAR CLAIMS DULY MADE BELOW, AND
DENIED.  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. DUVALL, 225 U.S. 477, 485-488.  WE
LACK HERE THE POWER OCCASIONALLY EXERCISED ON REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS OF
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS TO CORRECT IN CRIMINAL CASES VITAL ERRORS,
ALTHOUGH THE OBJECTION WAS NOT TAKEN IN THE TRIAL COURT.  WIBORG V.
UNITED STATES, 163 U.S. 632, 658-660; CLYATT V. UNITED STATES, 197 U.S.
207, 221-222.  THIS IS A WRIT OF ERROR TO A STATE COURT.  BECAUSE WE
MAY NOT ENQUIRE INTO THE ERRORS NOW ALLEGED, I CONCUR IN AFFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT."  CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274
U.S. 357, 380. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN THIS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT REVERSES THIS CONVICTION BY REITERATING GENERALIZED
APPROBATIONS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH WITH WHICH, IN THE ABSTRACT, NO ONE
WILL DISAGREE.  DOUBTS AS TO THEIR APPLICABILITY ARE LULLED BY
AVOIDANCE OF MORE THAN PASSING REFERENCE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
TERMINIELLO'S SPEECH AND JUDGING IT AS IF HE HAD SPOKEN TO PERSONS AS
DISPASSIONATE AS EMPTY BENCHES, OR LIKE A MODERN DEMOSTHENES PRACTICING
HIS PHILIPPICS ON A LONELY SEASHORE. 

BUT THE LOCAL COURT THAT TRIED TERMINIELLO WAS NOT INDULGING IN
THEORY.  IT WAS DEALING WITH A RIOT AND WITH A SPEECH THAT PROVOKED A
HOSTILE MOB AND INCITED A FRIENDLY ONE, AND THREATENED VIOLENCE BETWEEN
THE TWO.  WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT IT MIGHT FIND
TERMINIELLO GUILTY OF INDUCING A BREACH OF THE PEACE IF HIS BEHAVIOR
STIRRED THE PUBLIC TO ANGER, INVITED DISPUTE, BROUGHT ABOUT UNREST,
CREATED A DISTURBANCE OR MOLESTED PEACE AND QUIET BY AROUSING ALARM, HE
WAS NOT SPEAKING OF THESE AS HARMLESS OR ABSTRACT CONDITIONS.  HE WAS
ADDRESSING HIS WORDS TO THE CONCRETE BEHAVIOR AND SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES
DISCLOSED BY THE EVIDENCE.  HE WAS SAYING TO THE JURY, IN EFFECT, THAT
IF THIS PARTICULAR SPEECH ADDED FUEL TO THE SITUATION ALREADY SO
INFLAMED AS TO THREATEN TO GET BEYOND POLICE CONTROL, IT COULD BE
PUNISHED AS INDUCING A BREACH OF PEACE.  WHEN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
NOT RECITED BY THE COURT IS THROWN UPON THE COURT'S OPINION, IT
DISCLOSES THAT UNDERNEATH A LITTLE ISSUE OF TERMINIELLO AND HIS HUNDRED
DOLLAR FINE LURK SOME OF THE MOST FAR-REACHING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
THAT CAN CONFRONT A PEOPLE WHO VALUE BOTH LIBERTY AND ORDER.  THIS
COURT SEEMS TO REGARD THESE AS ENEMIES OF EACH OTHER AND TO BE OF THE
VIEW THAT WE MUST FOREGO ORDER TO ACHIEVE LIBERTY.  SO IT FIXES ITS
EYES ON A CONCEPTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH SO RIGID AS TO TOLERATE NO
CONCESSION TO SOCIETY'S NEED FOR PUBLIC ORDER. 

AN OLD PROVERB WARNS US TO TAKE HEED LEST WE "WALK INTO A WELL FROM
LOOKING AT THE STARS."  TO SHOW WHY I THINK THE COURT IS IN SOME DANGER
OF DOING JUST THAT, I MUST BRING THESE DELIBERATIONS DOWN TO EARTH BY A
LONG RECITAL OF FACTS. 

TERMINIELLO, ADVERTISED AS A CATHOLIC PRIEST, BUT REVEALED AT THE
TRIAL TO BE UNDER SUSPENSION BY HIS BISHOP, WAS BROUGHT TO CHICAGO FROM
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, TO ADDRESS A GATHERING THAT ASSEMBLED IN RESPONSE
TO A CALL SIGNED BY GERALD L. K. SMITH, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
SAID: 

"  ...  THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HATE FATHER COUGHLIN HATE FATHER
TERMINIELLO.  THEY HAVE PERSECUTED HIM, HOUNDED HIM, THREATENED HIM,
BUT HE HAS REMAINED UNAFFECTED BY THEIR ANTI-CHRISTIAN CAMPAIGN AGAINST
HIM.  YOU WILL HEAR ALL SORTS OF REPORTS CONCERNING FATHER
TERMINIELLO.  BUT REMEMBER THAT HE IS A PRIEST IN GOOD STANDING AND A
FEARLESS LOVER OF CHRIST AND AMERICA." 

THE JURY MAY HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THIS CALL ATTEMPTED TO CAPITALIZE
THE HATREDS THIS MAN HAD STIRRED AND FORESHADOWED, IF IT DID NOT INTEND
TO INVITE, THE KIND OF DEMONSTRATION THAT FOLLOWED. 

TERMINIELLO'S OWN TESTIMONY SHOWS THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH HE
SPOKE.  SO FAR AS MATERIAL IT FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  WE GOT THERE (THE MEETING PLACE) APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN OR
TWENTY MINUTES PAST EIGHT.  THE CAR STOPPED AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE. 
THERE WAS A CROWD OF THREE OR FOUR HUNDRED CONGREGATED THERE SHOUTING
AND CURSING AND PICKETING.  ... 

"WHEN WE GOT THERE THE PICKETS WERE NOT MARCHING; THEY WERE BODY TO
BODY AND COVERED THE SIDEWALK COMPLETELY, SOME ON THE STEPS SO THAT WE
HAD TO FORM A FLYING WEDGE TO GET THROUGH.  POLICE ESCORTED US TO THE
BUILDING, AND I NOTICED FOUR OR FIVE OTHERS THERE. 

"THEY CALLED US 'GOD DAMNED FASCISTS, NAZIS, OUGHT TO HANG THE SO AND
SOS.'  WHEN I ENTERED THE BUILDING I HEARD THE HOWLS OF THE PEOPLE
OUTSIDE.  ...  THERE WERE FOUR OR FIVE PLAIN CLOTHES OFFICERS STANDING
AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE STAGE AND THREE OR FOUR AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE
BACK DOOR. 

"THE OFFICERS THREATENED THAT IF THEY BROKE THE DOOR AGAIN THEY WOULD
ARREST THEM AND EVERY TIME THEY OPENED THE DOOR A LITTLE TO LOOK OUT
SOMETHING WAS THROWN AT THE OFFICERS, INCLUDING ICE-PICKS AND ROCKS. 

"A NUMBER OF TIMES THE DOOR WAS BROKEN, WAS PARTLY BROKEN THROUGH. 
THERE WERE DOORS OPEN THIS WAY AND THEY PARTLY OPENED AND THE OFFICERS
LOOKED OUT TWO OR THREE TIMES AND EACH TIME ICE-PICKS, STONES AND
BOTTLES WERE THROWN AT THE POLICE AT THE DOOR.  I TOOK MY PLACE ON THE
STAGE, BEFORE THIS I WAS ABOUT TEN OR FIFTEEN MINUTES IN THE BODY OF
THE HALL. 

"I SAW A NUMBER OF WINDOWS BROKEN BY STONES OR MISSILES.  I SAW THE
BACK DOOR BEING FORCED OPEN, PUSHED OPEN. 

"THE FRONT DOOR WAS BROKEN PARTLY OPEN AFTER THE DOORS WERE CLOSED. 
THERE WERE ABOUT SEVEN PEOPLE SEATED ON THE STAGE.  SMITH OPENED THE
MEETING WITH PRAYER, THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND SINGING
OF AMERICA.  THERE WERE OTHER SPEAKERS WHO SPOKE BEFORE ME AND BEFORE I
SPOKE I HEARD THINGS HAPPENING IN THE HALL AND COMING FROM THE
OUTSIDE. 

"I SAW ROCKS BEING THROWN THROUGH WINDOWS AND THAT CONTINUED
THROUGHOUT AT LEAST THE FIRST HALF OF THE MEETING, PROBABLY LONGER, AND
AGAIN ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO FORCE THE FRONT DOOR, RATHER THE FRONT DOOR
WAS FORCED PARTLY.  THE HOWLING CONTINUED ON THE OUTSIDE, CURSING COULD
BE HEARD AUDIBLY IN THE HALL AT TIMES.  POLICE WERE RUSHING IN AND OUT
OF THE FRONT DOOR PROTECTING THE FRONT DOOR, AND THERE WAS A GENERAL
COMMOTION, ALL KINDS OF NOISES AND VIOLENCE - ALL FROM THE OUTSIDE. 

"BETWEEN THE TIME THE FIRST SPEAKER SPOKE AND I SPOKE, STONES AND
BRICKS WERE THROWN IN ALL THE TIME.  I STARTED TO SPEAK ABOUT 35 OR 40
MINUTES AFTER THE MEETING STARTED, A LITTLE LATER THAN NINE O'CLOCK. 
...  " 

THE COURT BELOW, IN ADDITION TO THIS RECITAL, HEARD OTHER EVIDENCE,
THAT THE CROWD REACHED AN ESTIMATED NUMBER OF 1,500.  PICKET LINES
OBSTRUCTED AND INTERFERED WITH ACCESS TO THE BUILDING.  THE CROWD
CONSTITUTED "A SURGING, HOWLING MOB HURLING EPITHETS" AT THOSE WHO
WOULD ENTER AND "TRIED TO TEAR THEIR CLOTHES OFF."  ONE YOUNG WOMAN'S
COAT WAS TORN OFF AND SHE HAD TO BE ASSISTED INTO THE MEETING BY
POLICEMEN.  THOSE INSIDE THE HALL COULD HEAR THE LOUD NOISES AND HEAR
THOSE ON THE OUTSIDE YELL, "FASCISTS," "HITLERS" AND CURSE WORDS LIKE
"DAMN FASCISTS."  BRICKS WERE THROWN THROUGH THE WINDOWPANES BEFORE AND
DURING THE SPEAKING.  ABOUT 28 WINDOWS WERE BROKEN.  THE STREET WAS
BLACK WITH PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES FOR AT LEAST A BLOCK EITHER WAY;
BOTTLES, STINK BOMBS AND BRICKBATS WERE THROWN.  POLICE WERE UNABLE TO
CONTROL THE MOB, WHICH KEPT BREAKING THE WINDOWS AT THE MEETING HALL,
DROWNING OUT THE SPEAKER'S VOICE AT TIMES AND BREAKING IN THROUGH THE
BACK DOOR OF THE AUDITORIUM.  ABOUT 17 OF THE GROUP OUTSIDE WERE
ARRESTED BY THE POLICE.    KNOWING OF THIS ENVIRONMENT, TERMINIELLO
MADE A LONG SPEECH, FROM THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD OF WHICH I OMIT
RELATIVELY INNOCUOUS PASSAGES AND ADD EMPHASIS TO WHAT SEEMS ESPECIALLY
PROVOCATIVE: 

"FATHER TERMINIELLO:  NOW, I AM GOING TO WHISPER MY GREETINGS TO YOU,
FELLOW CHRISTIANS.  I WILL INTERPRET IT.  I SAID, 'FELLOW CHRISTIANS,'
AND I SUPPOSE THERE ARE SOME OF THE SCUM GOT IN BY MISTAKE, SO I WANT
TO TELL A STORY ABOUT THE SCUM: 

"  ...  AND NOTHING I COULD SAY TONIGHT COULD BEGIN TO EXPRESS THE
CONTEMPT I HAVE FOR THE SLIMY SCUM THAT GOT IN BY MISTAKE. 

"  ...  THE SUBJECT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU TONIGHT ABOUT IS THE
ATTEMPT THAT IS GOING ON RIGHT OUTSIDE THIS HALL TONIGHT, THE ATTEMPT
THAT IS GOING ON TO DESTROY AMERICA BY REVOLUTION.  ... 

"MY FRIENDS, IT IS NO LONGER TRUE THAT IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE.  IT IS
HAPPENING HERE, AND IT ONLY DEPENDS UPON YOU, GOOD PEOPLE, WHO ARE HERE
TONIGHT, DEPENDS UPON ALL OF US TOGETHER, AS MR. SMITH SAID.  THE TIDE
IS CHANGING, AND IF YOU AND I TURN AND RUN FROM THAT TIDE, WE WILL ALL
BE DROWNED IN THIS TIDAL WAVE OF COMMUNISM WHICH IS GOING OVER THE
WORLD. 

"  ...  I AM NOT GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE MENACE OF COMMUNISM,
WHICH IS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED, IN RUSSIA, WHERE FROM EIGHT TO FIFTEEN
MILLION PEOPLE WERE MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD BY THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN, AND
MILLIONS MORE THROUGH EASTERN EUROPE AT THE CLOSE OF THE WAR ARE BEING
MURDERED BY THESE MURDEROUS RUSSIANS, HURT, BEING RAPED AND SENT INTO
SLAVERY.  THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT FOR YOU, THAT HOWLING MOB OUTSIDE. 

"I KNOW I WAS TOLD ONE TIME THAT MY WINTER QUARTERS WERE READY FOR ME
IN SIBERIA.  I WAS TOLD THAT.  NOW, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE FIFTY-SEVEN
VARIETIES THAT WE HAVE IN AMERICA, AND WE HAVE FIFTY-SEVEN VARIETIES OF
PINKS AND REDS AND PASTEL SHADES IN THIS COUNTRY; AND ALL OF IT CAN BE
TRACED BACK TO THE TWELVE YEARS WE SPENT UNDER THE NEW DEAL, BECAUSE
THAT WAS THE BUILD-UP FOR WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD TODAY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"NOW, RUSSIA PROMISED US WE WOULD GA BACK TO THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER
OF RUSSIA.  PRIMARILY, IT WAS BACK ABOUT 1929.  THEY QUOTED THE WORDS
OF GEORGE E. DIMITROFF, WHO AT THAT TIME WAS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF
THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.  I ONLY QUOTE YOU THIS ONE PASSAGE.  I
COULD QUOTE THOUSANDS OF PARAGRAPHS FOR YOU.  LET ME QUOTE YOU:  'THE
WORLDWIDE NATURE OF OUR PROGRAM IS NOT MERE TALK, BUT AN ALL EMBRACING
BLOOD-SOAKED REALITY.'  THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT FOR US, A BLOOD-SOAKED
REALITY BUT IT WAS PROMISED TO US BY THE CRYSTAL GAZERS IN WASHINGTON;
AND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY THE 'CRYSTAL GAZERS', I PRESUME. 

"FIRST OF ALL, WE HAD QUEEN ELEANOR.  MR. SMITH SAID, 'QUEEN ELEANOR
IS NOW ONE OF THE WORLD'S COMMUNISTS.  SHE IS ONE WHO SAID THIS -
IMAGINE, COMING FROM THE SPOUSE OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR TWELVE LONG YEARS - THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID:  'THE WAR IS BUT
A STEP IN THE REVOLUTION.  THE WAR IS BUT ONE STEP IN THE REVOLUTION,
AND WE KNOW WHO STARTED THE WAR.' 

"THEN WE HAVE HENRY ADOLPH WALLACE, THE SIXTY MILLION JOB MAGICIAN. 
YOU KNOW WE ONLY NEED FIFTY-FOUR MILLION JOBS IN AMERICA AND EVERYBODY
WOULD BE WORKING.  HE WANTS SIXTY MILLION JOBS, BECAUSE SOME OF THE
BUREAUCRATS WANT TWO JOBS APIECE.  HERE HE IS, WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT
REVOLUTION: 'WE ARE IN FOR A PROFOUND REVOLUTION.  THOSE OF US WHO
REALIZE THE INEVITABLENESS OF THE REVOLUTION, AND ARE ANXIOUS THAT IT
BE GRADUAL AND BLOODLESS INSTEAD OF SOMEWHAT BLOODY.  OF COURSE, IF
NECESSARY, WE WILL HAVE IT MORE BLOODY.' 

"AND THEN CHIEF JUSTICE STONE HAD THIS TO SAY:  'A WAY HAS BEEN FOUND
FOR THE EFFECTIVE SUPPRESSION OF SPEECHES AND PRESS AND RELIGION,
DESPITE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE,' - FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, FROM THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"NOW, MY FRIENDS, THEY ARE PLANNING ANOTHER RUSE; AND IF IT EVER
HAPPENS TO THIS COUNTRY, GOD HELP AMERICA.  THEY ARE GOING TO TRY TO
PUT INTO MR. EDGAR HOOVER'S POSITION A MAN BY THE NAME OF GEORGE
SWARZWALD.  I THINK EVEN THOSE WHO WERE UNEDUCATED ON SO-CALLED
SEDITION CHARGES, THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN THIS
DEPARTMENT, THAT CHRIST-LIKE MEN AND WOMEN WHO REALIZE TODAY WHAT IS
GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY, MEN WHO ARE IN THIS AUDIENCE TODAY, WHO WANT
TO KNOW THE NAMES OF THOSE PEOPLE, BEFORE THEY ARE OUTSIDE, THEY WANT
TO KNOW THE NAMES IF ANY.  DID YOU HEAR ANY TONIGHT THAT YOU
RECOGNIZE?  MOST OF THEM PROBABLY ARE IMPORTED.  THEY ARE IMPORTED FROM
RUSSIA, CERTAINLY.  IF YOU KNOW THE NAMES, PLEASE SEND THEM TO ME
IMMEDIATELY.  ... 

" ...  DIDN'T YOU EVER READ THE MORGENTHAU PLAN FOR THE STARVATION OF
LITTLE BABIES AND PREGNANT WOMEN IN GERMANY?  WHATEVER COULD A CHILD
THAT IS BORN HAVE TO DO WITH HITLER OR ANYONE ELSE AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE WAR?  WHY SHOULD EVERY CHILD IN GERMANY TODAY NOT LIVE TO BE MORE
THAN TWO OR THREE MONTHS OF AGE?  BECAUSE MORGENTHAU WANTS IT THAT WAY,
AND SO DID F.D.R.  ... YOU WILL KNOW WHO IS BEHIND IT WHEN I TELL YOU
THE STORY OF A DOCTOR IN AKRON, OHIO.  HE BOASTED TO A FRIEND OF MINE
WITHIN THE LAST FEW DAYS, WHILE HE WAS IN THE SERVICE OF THIS COUNTRY
AS A DOCTOR, HE AND OTHERS OF HIS KIND MADE IT A PRACTICE - NOW, THIS
WAS NOT ONLY ONE MAN - MADE IT A PRACTICE TO AMPUTATE THE LIMBS OF
EVERY GERMAN THEY CAME IN CONTACT WITH WHENEVER THEY COULD GET AWAY
WITH IT; SO, THAT THEY COULD NEVER CARRY A GUN.  IMAGINE MEN OF THAT
CALIBER, SWORN TO SERVE THIS BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY OF OURS, WHY SHOULD WE
TOLERATE THEM? 

"MY FRIENDS, THIS MOMENT SOMEONE REMINDED ME OF THE PLAN TO STERILIZE
THEM.  THE NURSES, THEY TELL ME ARE GOING TO INJECT DISEASES IN THEM,
SYPHILIS AND OTHER DISEASES IN EVERY ONE THAT CAME THERE ALL OF ONE
RACE, ALL NON-CHRISTIANS.  ... 

"NOW, WE ARE GOING TO GET THE THREATS OF THE PEOPLE OF ARGENTINE, THE
PEOPLE OF SPAIN.  WE HAVE NOW DECLARED, ACCORDING TO OUR OFFICIALS, TO
HAVE DECLARED FRANCO TO HAVE TAKEN THE PLACE OF HITLER.  FRANCO WAS THE
SAVIOR OF WHAT WAS LEFT OF EUROPE. 

"NOW, LET ME SAY, I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT - I ALMOST SAID, ABOUT THE
JEWS.  OF COURSE, I WOULD NOT WANT TO SAY THAT.  HOWEVER, I AM GOING TO
TALK ABOUT SOME JEWS.  I HOPE THAT - I AM A CHRISTIAN MINISTER.  WE
MUST TAKE A CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE.  I DON'T WANT YOU TO GO FROM THIS HALL
WITH HATRED IN YOUR HEART FOR ANY PERSON, FOR NO PERSON.  ... 

"NOW, THIS DANGER WHICH WE FACE - LET US CALL THEM ZIONIST JEWS IF
YOU WILL, LET'S CALL THEM ATHEISTIC, COMMUNISTIC JEWISH OR ZIONIST
JEWS, THEN LET US NOT FEAR TO CONDEMN THEM.  YOU REMEMBER THE APOSTLES
WHEN THEY WENT INTO THE UPPER ROOM AFTER THE DEATH OF THE MASTER, THEY
WENT IN THERE, AFTER LOCKING THE DOORS; THEY CLOSED THE WINDOWS.  (AT
THIS TIME THERE WAS A VERY LOUD NOISE AS IF SOMETHING WAS BEING THROWN
INTO THE BUILDING.) 

"DON'T BE DISTURBED.  THAT HAPPENED, BY THE WAY, WHILE MR. GERALD
SMITH WAS SAYING 'OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN;' (JUST THEN A ROCK WENT
THROUGH THE WINDOW.)  DO YOU WONDER THEY WERE PERSECUTED IN OTHER
COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD?  ... 

"YOU KNOW I HAVE ALWAYS MADE A STUDY OF THE PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY OF
MOB REACTION.  IT IS EXEMPLIFIED OUT THERE.  REMEMBER THERE HAS TO BE A
LEADER TO THAT MOB.  HE IS NOT OUT THERE.  HE IS PROBABLY ACROSS THE
STREET, LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW.  THERE MUST BE CERTAIN THINGS, MONEY,
OTHER THINGS, IN ORDER TO HAVE SUCCESSFUL MOB ACTION; THERE MUST BE
RHYTHM.  THERE MUST BE SOME TO BEAT A CADENCE.  THOSE MOBS ARE
CHANTING; THAT IS THE CAVEMAN'S CHANT.  THEY WERE TRAINED TO DO IT.
THEY WERE TRAINED THIS AFTERNOON.  THEY ARE BEING LED; THERE WILL BE
VIOLENCE. 

"THAT IS WHY I SAY TO YOU, MEN, DON'T YOU DO IT.  WALK OUT OF HERE
DIGNIFIED.  THE POLICE WILL PROTECT YOU.  PUT THE WOMEN ON THE INSIDE,
WHERE THERE WILL BE NO HURT TO THEM.  JUST WALK; DON'T STOP AND ARGUE. 
...  THEY WANT TO PICKET OUR MEETINGS.  THEY DON'T WANT US TO PICKET
THEIR MEETINGS.  IT IS THE SAME KIND OF TOLERANCE, IF WE SAID THERE WAS
A BEDBUG IN BED, 'WE DON'T CARE FOR YOU,' OR IF WE LOOKED UNDER THE BED
AND FOUND A SNAKE AND SAID, 'I AM GOING TO BE TOLERANT AND LEAVE THE
SNAKE THERE.'  WE WILL NOT BE TOLERANT OF THAT MOB OUT THERE.  WE ARE
NOT GOING TO BE TOLERANT ANY LONGER. 

"WE ARE STRONG ENOUGH.  WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE TOLERANT OF THEIR
SMEARS ANY LONGER.  WE ARE GOING TO STAND UP AND DARE THEM TO SMEAR US.
... 

"SO, MY FRIENDS, SINCE WE SPENT MUCH TIME TONIGHT TRYING TO QUIET THE
HOWLING MOB, I AM GOING TO BRING MY THOUGHTS TO A CONCLUSION, AND THE
CONCLUSION IS THIS.  WE MUST ALL BE LIKE THE APOSTLES BEFORE THE COMING
OF THE HOLY GHOST.  WE MUST NOT LOCK OURSELVES IN AN UPPER ROOM FOR
FEAR OF THE JEWS.  I SPEAK OF THE COMMUNISTIC ZIONISTIC JEW, AND THOSE
ARE NOT AMERICAN JEWS.  WE DON'T WANT THEM HERE; WE WANT THEM TO GO
BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM. 

     . .         .         .         . 

"MR. SMITH:  I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT MISS PURCELL WOULD PLEASE GO
BACK TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND CONTACT THE POLICE OFFICER IN
CHARGE OF THE DETAIL.  WE ARE GOING TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING IF AND WHEN
MISS PURCELL COMES BACK AND REPORTS TO ME THAT THE ONE IN CHARGE OF THE
DETAIL BELIEVES IT IS SAFE FOR US TO GO OUT ON THE STREET.  I AM SURE
IT IS.  SIT STILL.  WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYBODY MOVE.  IF THERE
ARE ANY CHISELERS THAT WANT TO GO, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE UP AN OFFERING
FOR FATHER TERMINIELLO. 

"(THERE WAS FURTHER DISCUSSION TO STIMULATE THIS OFFERING WHICH WAS
NOT REPORTED.)" 

SUCH WAS THE SPEECH.  EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT IT STIRRED THE AUDIENCE
NOT ONLY TO CHEER AND APPLAUD BUT TO EXPRESSIONS OF IMMEDIATE ANGER,
UNREST AND ALARM.  ONE CALLED THE SPEAKER A "GOD DAMNED LIAR" AND WAS
TAKEN OUT BY THE POLICE.  ANOTHER SAID THAT "JEWS, NIGGERS AND
CATHOLICS WOULD HAVE TO BE GOTTEN RID OF."  ONE RESPONSE WAS, "YES, THE
JEWS ARE ALL KILLERS, MURDERERS.  IF WE DON'T KILL THEM FIRST, THEY
WILL KILL US."  THE ANTI-JEWISH STORIES ELICITED EXCLAMATIONS OF "OH." 
AND "ISN'T THAT TERRIBLE."  AND SHOUTS OF "YES, SEND THE JEWS BACK TO
RUSSIA," "KILL THE JEWS," "DIRTY KIKES," AND MUCH MORE OF UGLY TENOR. 
THIS IS THE SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE KIND OF ANGER, UNREST AND ALARM,
COUPLED WITH THAT OF THE MOB OUTSIDE, THAT THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THE
JURY MIGHT FIND TO BE A BREACH OF PEACE INDUCED BY TERMINIELLO.  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT IS SPEAKING OF THE SAME OCCASION,
BUT IT IS THE ONLY ONE INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION. 

TERMINIELLO, OF COURSE, DISCLAIMS BEING A FASCIST.  DOUBTLESS MANY OF
THE INDOOR AUDIENCE WERE NOT CONSCIOUSLY SUCH.  HIS SPEECH, HOWEVER,
FOLLOWED, WITH FIDELITY THAT IS MORE THAN COINCIDENTAL, THE PATTERN OF
EUROPEAN FASCIST LEADERS. 

THE STREET MOB, ON THE OTHER HAND, INCLUDED SOME WHO DENY BEING
COMMUNISTS, BUT TERMINIELLO TESTIFIED AND OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE
DEMONSTRATION WAS COMMUNIST-ORGANIZED AND COMMUNIST-LED.  HE OFFERED
LITERATURE OF LEFT-WING ORGANIZATIONS CALLING MEMBERS TO MEET AND
"MOBILIZE" FOR INSTRUCTION AS PICKETS AND EXHORTING FOLLOWERS:  "ALL
OUT TO FIGHT FASCIST SMITH." 

AS THIS CASE DECLARES A NATION-WIDE RULE THAT DISABLES LOCAL AND
STATE AUTHORITIES FROM PUNISHING CONDUCT WHICH PRODUCES CONFLICTS OF
THIS KIND, IT IS UNREALISTIC NOT TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE NATURE, METHODS
AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FORCES INVOLVED.  THIS WAS NOT AN ISOLATED,
SPONTANEOUS AND UNINTENDED COLLISION OF POLITICAL, RACIAL OR
IDEOLOGICAL ADVERSARIES.  IT WAS A LOCAL MANIFESTATION OF A WORLD-WIDE
AND STANDING CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO ORGANIZED GROUPS OF REVOLUTIONARY
FANATICS, EACH OF WHICH HAS IMPORTED TO THIS COUNTRY THE STRONG-ARM
TECHNIQUE DEVELOPED IN THE STRUGGLE BY WHICH THEIR KIND HAS DEVASTATED
EUROPE.  INCREASINGLY, AMERICAN CITIES HAVE TO COPE WITH IT.  ONE
FACTION ORGANIZES A MASS MEETING, THE OTHER ORGANIZES PICKETS TO HARASS
IT; EACH ORGANIZES SQUADS TO COUNTERACT THE OTHER'S PICKETS; PARADE IS
MET WITH COUNTERPARADE.  EACH OF THESE MASS DEMONSTRATIONS HAS THE
POTENTIALITY, AND MORE THAN A FEW THE PURPOSE, OF DISORDER AND
VIOLENCE.  THIS TECHNIQUE APPEALS NOT TO REASON BUT TO FEARS AND MOB
SPIRIT; EACH IS A SHOW OF FORCE DESIGNED TO BULLY ADVERSARIES AND TO
OVERAWE THE INDIFFERENT.  WE NEED NOT RESORT TO SPECULATION AS TO THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH THESE TACTICS ARE CALCULATED NOR AS TO THEIR
CONSEQUENCES.  RECENT EUROPEAN HISTORY DEMONSTRATES BOTH. 

HITLER SUMMED UP THE STRATEGY OF THE MASS DEMONSTRATION AS USED BY
BOTH FASCISM AND COMMUNISM: "WE SHOULD NOT WORK IN SECRET CONVENTICLES,
BUT IN MIGHTY MASS DEMONSTRATIONS, AND IT IS NOT BY DAGGER AND POISON
OR PISTOL THAT THE ROAD CAN BE CLEARED FOR THE MOVEMENT BUT BY THE
CONQUEST OF THE STREETS.  WE MUST TEACH THE MARXISTS THAT THE FUTURE
MASTER OF THE STREETS IS NATIONAL SOCIALISM, JUST AS IT WILL SOME DAY
BE THE MASTER OF THE STATE."  1 NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION (GPO,
1946) 204, 2 ID. 140, DOCS.  2760-PS, 404-PS, FROM "MEIN KAMPF."  FIRST
LAUGHED AT AS AN EXTRAVAGANT FIGURE OF SPEECH, THE BATTLE FOR THE
STREETS BECAME A TRAGIC REALITY WHEN AN ORGANIZED STURMABTEILUNG BEGAN
TO GIVE PRACTICAL EFFECT TO ITS SLOGAN THAT "POSSESSION OF THE STREETS
IS THE KEY TO POWER IN THE STATE."  IBID., ALSO DOC. 2168-PS.    THE
PRESENT OBSTACLE TO MASTERY OF THE STREETS BY EITHER RADICAL OR
REACTIONARY MOB MOVEMENTS IS NOT THE OPPOSING MINORITY.  IT IS THE
AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHICH REPRESENT THE FREE CHOICE OF
DEMOCRATIC AND LAW-ABIDING ELEMENTS OF ALL SHADES OF OPINION, BUT WHO,
WHATEVER THEIR DIFFERENCES, SUBMIT THEM TO FREE ELECTIONS WHICH
REGISTER THE RESULTS OF THEIR FREE DISCUSSION.  THE FASCIST AND
COMMUNIST GROUPS, ON THE CONTRARY, RESORT TO THESE TERROR TACTICS TO
CONFUSE, BULLY AND DISCREDIT THOSE FREELY CHOSEN GOVERNMENTS.  VIOLENT
AND NOISY SHOWS OF STRENGTH DISCOURAGE PARTICIPATION OF MODERATES IN
DISCUSSIONS SO FRAUGHT WITH VIOLENCE, AND REAL DISCUSSION DRIES UP AND
DISAPPEARS.  AND PEOPLE LOSE FAITH IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WHEN THEY
SEE PUBLIC AUTHORITY FLOUTED AND IMPOTENT AND BEGIN TO THINK THE TIME
HAS COME WHEN THEY MUST CHOOSE SIDES IN A FALSE AND TERRIBLE DILEMMA
SUCH AS WAS POSED AS BEING AT HAND BY THE CALL FOR THE TERMINIELLO
MEETING:  "CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM OR WORLD COMMUNISM - WHICH?" 

THIS DRIVE BY TOTALITARIAN GROUPS TO UNDERMINE THE PRESTIGE AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF LOCAL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS IS ADVANCED WHENEVER
EITHER OF THEM CAN WIN FROM THIS COURT A RULING WHICH PARALYZES THE
POWER OF THESE OFFICIALS.  THIS IS SUCH A CASE.  THE GROUP OF WHICH
TERMINIELLO IS A PART CLAIMS THAT HIS BEHAVIOR, BECAUSE IT INVOLVED A
SPEECH, IS ABOVE THE REACH OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.  IF THE MILD ACTION
THOSE AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN IS FORBIDDEN, IT IS PLAIN THAT HEREAFTER
THERE IS NOTHING EFFECTIVE LEFT THAT THEY CAN DO.  IF THEY CAN DO
NOTHING AS TO HIM, THEY ARE EQUALLY POWERLESS AS TO RIVAL TOTALITARIAN
GROUPS.  TERMINIELLO'S VICTORY TODAY CERTAINLY FULFILLS THE MOST
EXTRAVAGANT HOPES OF BOTH RIGHT AND LEFT TOTALITARIAN GROUPS, WHO WANT
NOTHING SO MUCH AS TO PARALYZE AND DISCREDIT THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC
AUTHORITY THAT CAN CURB THEM IN THEIR BATTLE FOR THE STREETS. 

I AM UNABLE TO SEE THAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE TRANSGRESSED THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  ILLINOIS IMPOSED NO PRIOR CENSORSHIP OR
SUPPRESSION UPON TERMINIELLO.  ON THE CONTRARY, ITS SUFFERANCE AND
PROTECTION WAS ALL THAT ENABLED HIM TO SPEAK.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT
THE MOTIVE IN PUNISHING HIM IS TO SILENCE THE IDEOLOGY HE EXPRESSED AS
OFFENSIVE TO THE STATE'S POLICY OR AS UNTRUE, OR HAS ANY PURPOSE OF
CONTROLLING HIS THOUGHT OR ITS PEACEFUL COMMUNICATION TO OTHERS.  THERE
IS NO CLAIM THAT THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TERMINIELLO ARE DESIGNED TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIM OR THE FACTION HE REPRESENTS OR THE IDEAS THAT
HE BESPEAKS.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM IS A
MERE PRETEXT TO GIVE THE SEMBLANCE OF LEGALITY TO A COVERT EFFORT TO
SILENCE HIM OR TO PREVENT HIS FOLLOWERS OR THE PUBLIC FROM HEARING ANY
TRUTH THAT IS IN HIM. 

A TRIAL COURT AND JURY HAS FOUND ONLY THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF VIOLENCE
AND DISORDER IN WHICH IT WAS MADE, THIS SPEECH WAS A PROVOCATION TO
IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE AND THEREFORE CANNOT CLAIM CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY FROM PUNISHMENT.  UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS IT HAS BEEN
UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED, AT LEAST UNTIL MOST RECENTLY, THE STATE WAS
WITHIN ITS POWERS IN TAKING THIS ACTION. 

RIOTING IS A SUBSTANTIVE EVIL, WHICH I TAKE IT NO ONE WILL DENY THAT
THE STATE AND THE CITY HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO PREVENT AND
PUNISH.  WHERE AN OFFENSE IS INDUCED BY SPEECH, THE COURT HAS LAID DOWN
AND OFTEN REITERATED A TEST OF THE POWER OF THE AUTHORITIES TO DEAL
WITH THE SPEAKING AS ALSO AN OFFENSE.  "THE QUESTION IN EVERY CASE IS
WHETHER THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF SUCH A
NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THEY WILL BRING
ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS THAT CONGRESS (OR THE STATE OR CITY) HAS A
RIGHT TO PREVENT."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249
U.S. 47, 52.  NO ONE VENTURES TO CONTEND THAT THE STATE ON THE BASIS OF
THIS TEST, FOR WHATEVER IT MAY BE WORTH, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PUNISHING
TERMINIELLO.  IN THIS CASE THE EVIDENCE PROVES BEYOND DISPUTE THAT
DANGER OF RIOTING AND VIOLENCE IN RESPONSE TO THE SPEECH WAS CLEAR,
PRESENT AND IMMEDIATE.  IF THIS COURT HAS NOT SILENTLY ABANDONED THIS
LONGSTANDING TEST AND SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE AN
UNEXPRESSED BUT MORE STRINGENT TEST, THE ACTION OF THE STATE WOULD HAVE
TO BE SUSTAINED. 

ONLY RECENTLY THIS COURT HELD THAT A STATE COULD PUNISH AS A BREACH
OF THE PEACE USE OF EPITHETS SUCH AS "DAMNED RACKETEER" AND "DAMNED
FASCIST," ADDRESSED TO ONLY ONE PERSON, AN OFFICIAL, BECAUSE LIKELY TO
PROVOKE THE AVERAGE PERSON TO RETALIATION.  BUT THESE ARE MILD IN
COMPARISON TO THE EPITHETS "SLIMY SCUM," "SNAKES," "BEDBUGS," AND THE
LIKE, WHICH TERMINIELLO HURLED AT AN ALREADY INFLAMED MOB OF HIS
ADVERSARIES.  MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WRITING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN
CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572, SAID: 

"THERE ARE CERTAIN WELL-DEFINED AND NARROWLY LIMITED CLASSES OF
SPEECH, THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN THOUGHT
TO RAISE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM.  THESE INCLUDE THE LEWD AND
OBSCENE, THE PROFANE, THE LIBELOUS, AND THE INSULTING OR 'FIGHTING'
WORDS - THOSE WHICH BY THEIR VERY UTTERANCE INFLICT INJURY OR TEND TO
INCITE AN IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE.  IT HAS BEEN WELL OBSERVED
THAT SUCH UTTERANCES ARE NO ESSENTIAL PART OF ANY EXPOSITION OF IDEAS,
AND ARE OF SUCH SLIGHT SOCIAL VALUE AS A STEP TO TRUTH THAT ANY BENEFIT
THAT MAY BE DERIVED FROM THEM IS CLEARLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE SOCIAL
INTEREST IN ORDER AND MORALITY.  'RESORT TO EPITHETS OR PERSONAL ABUSE
IS NOT IN ANY PROPER SENSE COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION OR OPINION
SAFEGUARDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND ITS PUNISHMENT AS A CRIMINAL ACT
WOULD RAISE NO QUESTION UNDER THAT INSTRUMENT.'  CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 309-310." 

IN THE LATTER CASE MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT ALSO
SAID: 

"THE OFFENSE KNOWN AS BREACH OF THE PEACE EMBRACES A GREAT VARIETY OF
CONDUCT DESTROYING OR MENACING PUBLIC ORDER AND TRANQUILITY.  IT
INCLUDES NOT ONLY VIOLENT ACTS BUT ACTS AND WORDS LIKELY TO PRODUCE
VIOLENCE IN OTHERS.  NO ONE WOULD HAVE THE HARDIHOOD TO SUGGEST THAT
THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH SANCTIONS INCITEMENT TO RIOT OR THAT
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CONNOTES THE PRIVILEGE TO EXHORT OTHERS TO PHYSICAL
ATTACK UPON THOSE BELONGING TO ANOTHER SECT.  WHEN CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER OF RIOT, DISORDER, INTERFERENCE WITH TRAFFIC UPON THE PUBLIC
STREETS, OR OTHER IMMEDIATE THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, PEACE, OR ORDER,
APPEARS, THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PREVENT OR PUNISH IS OBVIOUS."  310
U.S. 296, 308. 

HOW THIS PRESENT DECISION, DENYING STATE POWER TO PUNISH CIVILLY ONE
WHO PRECIPITATED A PUBLIC RIOT INVOLVING HUNDREDS OF FANATIC FIGHTERS
IN A MOST VIOLENT MELEE, CAN BE SQUARED WITH THOSE UNANIMOUS STATEMENTS
OF LAW, IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO ME.  AND THE COURT RECENTLY CITED THESE
TWO STATEMENTS AS INDICATING THAT "THE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF FIRST
AMENDMENT IN SOME INSTANCES ARE SUBJECT TO THE ELEMENTAL NEED FOR ORDER
WITHOUT WHICH THE GUARANTEES OF CIVIL RIGHTS TO OTHERS WOULD BE A
MOCKERY."  UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75, 95. 

HOWEVER, THESE WHOLESOME PRINCIPLES ARE ABANDONED TODAY AND IN THEIR
PLACE IS SUBSTITUTED A DOGMA OF ABSOLUTE FREEDOM FOR IRRESPONSIBLE AND
PROVOCATIVE UTTERANCE WHICH ALMOST COMPLETELY STERILIZES THE POWER OF
LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO KEEP THE PEACE AS AGAINST THIS KIND OF TACTICS. 

BEFORE GIVING THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
THIS EFFECT, WE SHOULD RECALL THAT OUR APPLICATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO ILLINOIS RESTS ENTIRELY ON AUTHORITY WHICH THIS COURT HAS
VOTED TO ITSELF.  THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WITH
EMPHASIS SUPPLIED, READS:  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...  ABRIDGING
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH."  THIS RESTRAINS NO AUTHORITY EXCEPT CONGRESS. 
READ AS LITERALLY AS SOME WOULD DO, IT RESTRAINS CONGRESS IN TERMS SO
ABSOLUTE THAT NO LEGISLATION WOULD BE VALID IF IT TOUCHED FREE SPEECH,
NO MATTER HOW OBSCENE, TREASONABLE, DEFAMATORY, INCITING OR PROVOKING. 
IF IT SEEMS STRANGE THAT NO EXPRESS QUALIFICATIONS WERE INSERTED IN THE
AMENDMENT, THE ANSWER MAY BE THAT LIMITATIONS WERE THOUGHT TO BE
IMPLICIT IN THE DEFINITION OF "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" AS THEN UNDERSTOOD. 
OR IT MAY HAVE BEEN THOUGHT UNNECESSARY TO DELEGATE TO CONGRESS ANY
POWER OVER ABUSES OF FREE SPEECH.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS THEN A
NEW AND EXPERIMENTAL AUTHORITY, REMOTE FROM THE PEOPLE, AND IT WAS
SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH A LIMITED CLASS OF NATIONAL PROBLEMS.  INASMUCH
AS ANY BREACHES OF PEACE FROM ABUSE OF FREE SPEECH TRADITIONALLY WERE
PUNISHABLE BY STATE GOVERNMENTS, IT WAS NEEDLESS TO RESERVE THAT POWER
IN A PROVISION DRAFTED TO EXCLUDE ONLY CONGRESS FROM SUCH A FIELD OF
LAW-MAKING. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBADE STATES TO DENY THE CITIZEN "DUE
PROCESS OF LAW."  BUT ITS TERMS GAVE NO NOTICE TO THE PEOPLE THAT ITS
ADOPTION WOULD STRIP THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF POWER TO DEAL WITH SUCH
PROBLEMS OF LOCAL PEACE AND ORDER AS WE HAVE HERE.  NOR WAS IT HINTED
BY THIS COURT FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY THAT THE AMENDMENT MIGHT HAVE ANY
SUCH EFFECT.  IN 1922, WITH CONCURRENCE OF THE MOST LIBERTY-ALERT
JUSTICES OF ALL TIMES - HOLMES AND BRANDEIS - THIS COURT DECLARED
FLATLY THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT LIMIT THE POWER OF THE STATE OVER
FREE SPEECH.  PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. CHEEK, 259 U.S. 530, 543.  IN
LATER YEARS THE COURT SHIFTED ITS DOGMA AND DECREED THAT THE
CONSTITUTION DOES THIS VERY THING AND THAT STATE POWER IS BOUND BY THE
SAME LIMITATION AS CONGRESS.  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652.  I HAVE
NO QUARREL WITH THIS HISTORY.  SEE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319
U.S. 624.  I RECITE THE METHOD BY WHICH THE RIGHT TO LIMIT THE STATE
HAS BEEN DERIVED ONLY FROM THIS COURT'S OWN ASSUMPTION OF THE POWER,
WITH NEVER A SUBMISSION OF LEGISLATION OR AMENDMENT INTO WHICH THE
PEOPLE COULD WRITE ANY QUALIFICATION TO PREVENT ABUSE OF THIS LIBERTY,
AS BEARING UPON THE RESTRAINT I CONSIDER AS BECOMING IN EXERCISE OF
SELFGIVEN AND UNAPPEALABLE POWER. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT PROVISIONS ADOPTED BY THE PEOPLE WITH
AWARENESS THAT THEY APPLIED TO THEIR OWN STATES HAVE UNIVERSALLY
CONTAINED QUALIFYING TERMS.  THE CONSTITUTION OF ILLINOIS IS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS PUT IN NEARLY ALL STATE CONSTITUTIONS
AND READS (ART. II, SEC. 4):  "EVERY PERSON MAY FREELY SPEAK, WRITE AND
PUBLISH ON ALL SUBJECTS, BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABUSE OF THAT
LIBERTY."  THAT IS WHAT I THINK IS MEANT BY THE CRYPTIC PHRASE "FREEDOM
OF SPEECH," AS USED IN THE FEDERAL COMPACT, AND THAT IS THE RULE I
THINK WE SHOULD APPLY TO THE STATES. 

THIS ABSENCE FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF ANY EXPRESSED POWER TO DEAL
WITH ABUSE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS ENABLED THE COURT TO SOAR ALOOF
FROM ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE ABUSES WHICH CREATE PROBLEMS FOR THE
STATES AND TO INDULGE IN DENIALS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY, SOME OF WHICH SEEM
TO ME IMPROVIDENT IN THE LIGHT OF FUNCTIONS WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
MUST BE RELIED ON TO PERFORM FOR OUR FREE SOCIETY.  QUITE APART FROM
ANY OTHER MERITS OR DEFECTS, RECENT DECISIONS HAVE ALMOST COMPLETELY
IMMUNIZED THIS BATTLE FOR THE STREETS FROM ANY FORM OF CONTROL. 

STREETS AND PARKS MAINTAINED BY THE PUBLIC CANNOT LEGALLY BE DENIED
TO GROUPS "FOR COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS."  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496;
JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413.  CITIES MAY NOT PROTECT THEIR STREETS
FROM ACTIVITIES WHICH THE LAW HAS ALWAYS REGARDED SUBJECT TO CONTROL,
AS NUISANCES.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308
U.S. 147.  CITIES MAY NOT PROTECT THE STREETS OR EVEN HOMES OF THEIR
INHABITANTS FROM THE AGGRESSIONS OF ORGANIZED BANDS OPERATING IN LARGE
NUMBERS.  DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, 319 U.S. 157.  AS IN THIS CASE, THE
FACTS ARE SET FORTH FULLY ONLY IN THE DISSENT, P. 166.  SEE ALSO MARTIN
V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141.  NEITHER A PRIVATE PARTY NOR A PUBLIC
AUTHORITY CAN INVOKE OTHERWISE VALID STATE LAWS AGAINST TRESPASS TO
EXCLUDE FROM THEIR PROPERTY GROUPS BENT ON DISSEMINATING PROPAGANDA. 
MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S. 501; TUCKER V. TEXAS, 326 U.S. 517. 
PICKETING IS LARGELY IMMUNIZED FROM CONTROL ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS
FREE SPEECH, THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, AND POLICE MAY NOT
REGULATE SOUND TRUCKS AND LOUD-SPEAKERS, SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S.
558, THOUGH THE COURT FINDS THEM AN EVIL THAT MAY BE PROHIBITED
ALTOGETHER.  KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77.  AND ONE-THIRD OF THE COURT
HAS GONE FURTHER AND DECLARED THAT A POSITION "THAT THE STATE MAY
PREVENT ANY CONDUCT WHICH INDUCES PEOPLE TO VIOLATE THE LAW, OR ANY
ADVOCACY OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, CANNOT BE SQUARED WITH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT  ...  " AND IT IS ONLY WE WHO CAN DECIDE WHEN THE LIMIT IS
PASSED.  MUSSER V. UTAH, 333 U.S. 95, 102.  WHATEVER THE MERITS OF ANY
ONE OF THESE DECISIONS IN ISOLATION, AND THERE WERE SOUND REASONS FOR
SOME OF THEM, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THEIR CUMULATIVE EFFECT HAS BEEN
A SHARP HANDICAP ON MUNICIPAL CONTROL OF THE STREETS AND A DRAMATIC
ENCOURAGEMENT OF THOSE WHO WOULD USE THEM IN A BATTLE OF IDEOLOGIES. 

I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD CARRY THIS HANDICAP FURTHER, AS WE DO TODAY,
BUT SHOULD ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLES HERETOFORE ANNOUNCED TO SAFEGUARD
OUR LIBERTIES AGAINST ABUSE AS WELL AS AGAINST INVASION.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE NECESSARY TO RECALL THESE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES, BUT IT HAS BEEN A
LONG TIME SINCE SOME OF THEM WERE EVEN MENTIONED IN THIS COURT'S
WRITING ON THE SUBJECT AND RESULTS INDICATE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN
OVERLOOKED. 

I BEGIN WITH THE OFT-FORGOTTEN PRINCIPLE WHICH THIS CASE
DEMONSTRATES, THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH EXISTS ONLY UNDER LAW AND NOT
INDEPENDENTLY OF IT.  WHAT WOULD TERMINIELLO'S THEORETICAL FREEDOM OF
SPEECH HAVE AMOUNTED TO HAD HE NOT BEEN GIVEN ACTIVE AID BY THE
OFFICERS OF THE LAW?  HE COULD REACH THE HALL ONLY WITH THEIR HELP,
COULD TALK ONLY BECAUSE THEY RESTRAINED THE MOB, AND COULD MAKE HIS
GETAWAY ONLY UNDER THEIR PROTECTION.  WE WOULD DO WELL TO RECALL THE
WORDS OF CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569,
574:  "CIVIL LIBERTIES, AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IMPLY THE
EXISTENCE OF AN ORGANIZED SOCIETY MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER WITHOUT
WHICH LIBERTY ITSELF WOULD BE LOST IN THE EXCESSES OF UNRESTRAINED
ABUSES.  ...  "    THIS CASE DEMONSTRATES ALSO THAT THIS COURT'S
SERVICE TO FREE SPEECH IS ESSENTIALLY NEGATIVE AND CAN CONSIST ONLY OF
REVIEWING ACTIONS BY LOCAL MAGISTRATES.  BUT IF FREE SPEECH IS TO BE A
PRACTICAL REALITY, AFFIRMATIVE AND IMMEDIATE PROTECTION IS REQUIRED;
AND IT CAN COME ONLY FROM NONJUDICIAL SOURCES.  IT DEPENDS ON LOCAL
POLICE, MAINTAINED BY LAW-ABIDING TAXPAYERS, AND WHO, REGARDLESS OF
THEIR OWN FEELINGS, RISK THEMSELVES TO MAINTAIN SUPREMACY OF LAW. 
TERMINIELLO'S THEORETICAL RIGHT TO SPEAK FREE FROM INTERFERENCE WOULD
HAVE NO REALITY IF CHICAGO SHOULD WITHDRAW ITS OFFICERS TO SOME OTHER
OTHER WAY WHEN THE CROWD THREATENS TERMINIELLO.  CAN SOCIETY BE
EXPECTED TO KEEP THESE MEN AT TERMINIELLO'S SERVICE IF IT HAS NOTHING
TO SAY OF HIS BEHAVIOR WHICH MAY FORCE THEM INTO DANGEROUS ACTION? 

NO ONE WILL DISAGREE THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL, PERMANENT AND OVERRIDING
POLICY OF POLICE AND COURTS SHOULD BE TO PERMIT AND ENCOURAGE UTMOST
FREEDOM OF UTTERANCE.  IT IS THE LEGAL RIGHT OF ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN TO
ADVOCATE PEACEFUL ADOPTION OF FASCISM OR COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM OR
CAPITALISM.  HE MAY GO FAR IN EXPRESSING SENTIMENTS WHETHER PRO-SEMITIC
OR ANTI-SEMITIC, PRO-NEGRO OR ANTI-NEGRO, PRO-CATHOLIC OR ANTI
CATHOLIC.  HE IS LEGALLY FREE TO ARGUE FOR SOME ANTI-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT TO SUPERSEDE BY CONSTITUTIONAL METHODS THE ONE WE HAVE.  IT
IS OUR PHILOSOPHY THAT THE COURSE OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY
A CONSENSUS OF THE GOVERNED.  THIS PROCESS OF REACHING INTELLIGENT
POPULAR DECISIONS REQUIRES FREE DISCUSSION.  HENCE WE SHOULD TOLERATE
NO LAW OR CUSTOM OF CENSORSHIP OR SUPPRESSION. 

BUT WE MUST BEAR IN MIND ALSO THAT NO SERIOUS OUTBREAK OF MOB
VIOLENCE, RACE RIOTING, LYNCHING OR PUBLIC DISORDER IS LIKELY TO GET
GOING WITHOUT HELP OF SOME SPEECH-MAKING TO SOME MASS OF PEOPLE.  A
STREET MAY BE FILLED WITH MEN AND WOMEN AND THE CROWD STILL NOT BE A
MOB.  UNITY OF PURPOSE, PASSION AND HATRED, WHICH MERGES THE MANY MINDS
OF A CROWD INTO THE MINDLESSNESS OF A MOB, ALMOST INVARIABLY IS
SUPPLIED BY SPEECHES.  IT IS NAIVE, OR WORSE, TO TEACH THAT ORATORY
WITH THIS OBJECT OR EFFECT IS A SERVICE TO LIBERTY.  NO MOB HAS EVER
PROTECTED ANY LIBERTY, EVEN ITS OWN, BUT IF NOT PUT DOWN IT ALWAYS
WINDS UP IN AN ORGY OF LAWLESSNESS WHICH RESPECTS NO LIBERTIES. 

IN CONSIDERING ABUSE OF FREEDOM BY PROVOCATIVE UTTERANCES IT IS
NECESSARY TO OBSERVE THAT THE LAW IS MORE TOLERANT OF DISCUSSION THAN
ARE MOST INDIVIDUALS OR COMMUNITIES.  LAW IS SO INDIFFERENT TO SUBJECTS
OF TALK THAT I THINK OF NONE THAT IT SHOULD CLOSE TO DISCUSSION. 
RELIGIOUS, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL TOPICS THAT IN OTHER TIMES OR COUNTRIES
HAVE NOT BEEN OPEN TO LAWFUL DEBATE MAY BE FREELY DISCUSSED HERE. 

BECAUSE A SUBJECT IS LEGALLY ARGUABLE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MEAN THAT
PUBLIC SENTIMENT WILL BE PATIENT OF ITS ADVOCACY AT ALL TIMES AND IN
ALL MANNERS.  SO IT HAPPENS THAT, WHILE PEACEFUL ADVOCACY OF COMMUNISM
OR FASCISM IS TOLERATED BY THE LAW, BOTH OF THESE DOCTRINES AROUSE
PASSIONATE REACTIONS.  A GREAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE DO NOT AGREE THAT
INTRODUCTION TO AMERICA OF COMMUNISM OR FASCISM IS EVEN DEBATABLE. 
HENCE MANY SPEECHES, SUCH AS THAT OF TERMINIELLO, MAY BE LEGALLY
PERMISSIBLE BUT MAY NEVERTHELESS IN SOME SURROUNDINGS BE A MENACE TO
PEACE AND ORDER.  WHEN CONDITIONS SHOW THE SPEAKER THAT THIS IS THE
CASE, AS IT DID HERE, THERE CERTAINLY COMES A POINT BEYOND WHICH HE
CANNOT INDULGE IN PROVOCATIONS TO VIOLENCE WITHOUT BEING ANSWERABLE TO
SOCIETY. 

DETERMINATION OF SUCH AN ISSUE INVOLVES A HEAVY RESPONSIBILITY. 
COURTS MUST BEWARE LEST THEY BECOME MERE ORGANS OF POPULAR
INTOLERANCE.  NOT EVERY SHOW OF OPPOSITION CAN JUSTIFY TREATING A
SPEECH AS A BREACH OF PEACE.  NEITHER SPEAKERS NOR COURTS ARE OBLIGED
ALWAYS AND IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES TO YIELD TO PREVAILING OPINION AND
FEELING.  AS A PEOPLE GROW IN CAPACITY FOR CIVILIZATION AND LIBERTY
THEIR TOLERANCE WILL GROW, AND THEY WILL ENDURE, IF NOT WELCOME,
DISCUSSION EVEN ON TOPICS AS TO WHICH THEY ARE COMMITTED.  THEY REGARD
CONVICTIONS AS TENTATIVE AND KNOW THAT TIME AND EVENTS WILL MAKE THEIR
OWN TERMS WITH THEORIES, BY WHOMEVER AND BY WHATEVER MAJORITIES THEY
ARE HELD, AND MANY WILL BE PROVED WRONG.  BUT ON OUR WAY TO THIS
IDEALISTIC STATE OF TOLERANCE THE POLICE HAVE TO DEAL WITH MEN AS THEY
ARE.  THE CROWD MIND IS NEVER TOLERANT OF ANY IDEA WHICH DOES NOT
CONFORM TO ITS HERD OPINION.  IT DOES NOT WANT A TOLERANT EFFORT AT
MEETING OF MINDS.  IT DOES NOT KNOW THE FUTILITY OF TRYING TO MOB AN
IDEA.  RELEASED FROM THE SENSE OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT WOULD
RESTRAIN EVEN THE WORST INDIVIDUALS IN IT IF ALONE AND BRAVE WITH THE
COURAGE OF NUMBERS, BOTH RADICAL AND REACTIONARY MOBS ENDANGER LIBERTY
AS WELL AS ORDER.  THE AUTHORITIES MUST CONTROL THEM AND THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO PLACE SOME CHECKS UPON THOSE WHOSE BEHAVIOR OR SPEECH CALLS
SUCH MOBS INTO BEING.  WHEN THE RIGHT OF SOCIETY TO FREEDOM FROM
PROBABLE VIOLENCE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO
DEFY OPPOSING OPINION, PRESENTS A PROBLEM THAT ALWAYS TESTS WISDOM AND
OFTEN CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE AND VIGOROUS ACTION TO PRESERVE PUBLIC ORDER
AND SAFETY. 

I DO NOT THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DENIES TO
THE STATES AND THE MUNICIPALITIES POWER TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM IN THE
LIGHT OF LOCAL CONDITIONS, AT LEAST SO LONG AS DANGER TO PUBLIC ORDER
IS NOT INVOKED IN BAD FAITH, AS A COVER FOR CENSORSHIP OR SUPPRESSION. 
THE PREAMBLE DECLARES DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY AS WELL AS LIBERTY TO BE AN
OBJECT IN FOUNDING A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND I DO NOT THINK THE
FOREFATHERS WERE NAIVE IN BELIEVING BOTH CAN BE FOSTERED BY THE LAW. 

CERTAIN PRACTICAL REASONS REINFORCE THE LEGAL VIEW THAT CITIES AND
STATES SHOULD BE SUSTAINED IN THE POWER TO KEEP THEIR STREETS FROM
BECOMING THE BATTLEGROUND FOR THESE HOSTILE IDEOLOGIES TO THE
DESTRUCTION AND DETRIMENT OF PUBLIC ORDER.  THERE IS NO OTHER POWER
THAT CAN DO IT.  THEIRS ARE THE ONLY POLICE THAT ARE ON THE SPOT.  THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO POLICE FORCE.  THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION IS, AND SHOULD REMAIN, NOT A POLICE BUT AN INVESTIGATIVE
SERVICE.  TO DATE THE ONLY FEDERAL AGENCY FOR PRESERVING AND RESTORING
ORDER WHEN LOCAL AUTHORITY FAILS HAS BEEN THE ARMY.  AND WHEN THE
MILITARY STEPS IN, THE COURT TAKES A LESS LIBERAL VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF
THE INDIVIDUAL AND SUSTAINS MOST ARBITRARY EXERCISES OF MILITARY
POWER.  SEE KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214.  EVERY FAILURE OF
LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH RIOT PROBLEMS RESULTS IN A DEMAND FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEDERAL POLICE OR INTERVENTION BY FEDERAL
AUTHORITY.  IN MY OPINION, LOCALLY ESTABLISHED AND CONTROLLED POLICE
CAN NEVER DEVELOP INTO THE MENACE TO GENERAL CIVIL LIBERTIES THAT IS
INHERENT IN A FEDERAL POLICE. 

THE WAYS IN WHICH MOB VIOLENCE MAY BE WORKED UP ARE SUBTLE AND
VARIOUS.  RARELY WILL A SPEAKER DIRECTLY URGE A CROWD TO LAY HANDS ON A
VICTIM OR CLASS OF VICTIMS.  AN EFFECTIVE AND SAFER WAY IS TO INCITE
MOB ACTION WHILE PRETENDING TO DEPLORE IT, AFTER THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF
ANTONY, AND THIS WAS NOT LOST ON TERMINIELLO.  AND WHETHER ONE MAY BE
THE CAUSE OF MOB VIOLENCE BY HIS OWN PERSONIFICATION OR ADVOCACY OF
IDEAS WHICH A CROWD ALREADY FEARS AND HATES, IS NOT SOLVED MERELY BY
GOING THROUGH A TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPEECH TO PICK OUT "FIGHTING WORDS." 
THE MOST INSULTING WORDS CAN BE NEUTRALIZED IF THE SPEAKER WILL SMILE
WHEN HE SAYS THEM, BUT A BELLIGERENT PERSONALITY AND AN AGGRESSIVE
MANNER MAY KINDLE A FIGHT WITHOUT USE OF WORDS THAT IN COLD TYPE SHOCK
US.  TRUE JUDGMENT WILL BE AIDED BY OBSERVATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANT, AS WAS POSSIBLE FOR THIS JURY AND TRIAL COURT BUT IMPOSSIBLE
FOR US. 

THERE ARE MANY APPEALS THESE DAYS TO LIBERTY, OFTEN BY THOSE WHO ARE
WORKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAUNT DEMOCRACY WITH ITS STUPIDITY IN
FURNISHING THEM THE WEAPONS TO DESTROY IT AS DID GOEBBELS WHEN HE SAID:
"WHEN DEMOCRACY GRANTED DEMOCRATIC METHODS FOR US IN THE TIMES OF
OPPOSITION, THIS (NAZI SEIZURE OF POWER) WAS BOUND TO HAPPEN IN A
DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.  HOWEVER, WE NATIONAL SOCIALISTS NEVER ASSERTED THAT
WE REPRESENTED A DEMOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW, BUT WE HAVE DECLARED OPENLY
THAT WE USED DEMOCRATIC METHODS ONLY IN ORDER TO GAIN THE POWER AND
THAT, AFTER ASSUMING THE POWER, WE WOULD DENY TO OUR ADVERSARIES
WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION THE MEANS WHICH WERE GRANTED TO US IN THE
TIMES OF (OUR) OPPOSITION."  1 NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION (GPO,
1946) 202, DOC. 2412-PS. 

INVOCATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES AS PART OF THE STRATEGY FOR
OVERTHROWING THEM PRESENTS A DILEMMA TO A FREE PEOPLE WHICH MAY NOT BE
SOLUBLE BY CONSTITUTIONAL LOGIC ALONE. 

BUT I WOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS SUGGESTING THAT THE UNITED STATES
CAN OR SHOULD MEET THIS DILEMMA BY SUPPRESSION OF FREE, OPEN AND PUBLIC
SPEAKING ON THE PART OF ANY GROUP OR IDEOLOGY.  SUPPRESSION HAS NEVER
BEEN A SUCCESSFUL PERMANENT POLICY; ANY SURFACE SERENITY THAT IT
CREATES IS A FALSE SECURITY, WHILE CONSPIRATORIAL FORCES GO
UNDERGROUND.  MY CONFIDENCE IN AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS AND IN THE SOUND
SENSE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS SUCH THAT IF WITH A STROKE OF THE PEN I
COULD SILENCE EVERY FASCIST AND COMMUNIST SPEAKER, I WOULD NOT DO IT.
FOR I AGREE WITH WOODROW WILSON, WHO SAID: 

"I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AMONG THOSE WHO BELIEVED THAT THE GREATEST
FREEDOM OF SPEECH WAS THE GREATEST SAFETY, BECAUSE IF A MAN IS A FOOL,
THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO ENCOURAGE HIM TO ADVERTISE THE FACT BY
SPEAKING.  IT CANNOT BE SO EASILY DISCOVERED IF YOU ALLOW HIM TO REMAIN
SILENT AND LOOK WISE, BUT IF YOU LET HIM SPEAK, THE SECRET IS OUT AND
THE WORLD KNOWS THAT HE IS A FOOL.  SO IT IS BY THE EXPOSURE OF FOLLY
THAT IT IS DEFEATED; NOT BY THE SECLUSION OF FOLLY, AND IN THIS FREE
AIR OF FREE SPEECH MEN GET INTO THAT SORT OF COMMUNICATION WITH ONE
ANOTHER WHICH CONSTITUTES THE BASIS OF ALL COMMON ACHIEVEMENT." 
ADDRESS AT THE INSTITUTE OF FRANCE, PARIS, MAY 10, 1919.  2 SELECTED
LITERARY AND POLITICAL PAPERS AND ADDRESSES OF WOODROW WILSON (1926)
333. 

BUT IF WE MAINTAIN A GENERAL POLICY OF FREE SPEAKING, WE MUST
RECOGNIZE THAT ITS INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE WILL BE SPORADIC LOCAL
OUTBREAKS OF VIOLENCE, FOR IT IS THE NATURE OF MEN TO BE INTOLERANT OF
ATTACKS UPON INSTITUTIONS, PERSONALITIES AND IDEAS FOR WHICH THEY
REALLY CARE.  IN THE LONG RUN, MAINTENANCE OF FREE SPEECH WILL BE MORE
ENDANGERED IF THE POPULATION CAN HAVE NO PROTECTION FROM THE ABUSES
WHICH LEAD TO VIOLENCE.  NO LIBERTY IS MADE MORE SECURE BY HOLDING THAT
ITS ABUSES ARE INSEPARABLE FROM ITS ENJOYMENT.  WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT
IT IS THE FREE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITIES THAT ASK US TO TRUST THEM TO
MAINTAIN PEACE WITH LIBERTY AND THAT THE FACTIONS ENGAGED IN THIS
BATTLE ARE NOT INTERESTED PERMANENTLY IN EITHER.  WHAT WOULD IT MATTER
TO TERMINIELLO IF THE POLICE BATTER UP SOME COMMUNISTS OR, ON THE OTHER
HAND, IF THE COMMUNISTS BATTER UP SOME POLICEMEN?  EITHER RESULT MAKES
GRIST FOR HIS MILL; EITHER WOULD HELP PROMOTE HYSTERIA AND THE DEMAND
FOR STRONG-ARM METHODS IN DEALING WITH HIS ADVERSARIES.  AND WHAT, ON
THE OTHER HAND, HAVE THE COMMUNIST AGITATORS TO LOSE FROM A BATTLE WITH
THE POLICE? 

THIS COURT HAS GONE FAR TOWARD ACCEPTING THE DOCTRINE THAT CIVIL
LIBERTY MEANS THE REMOVAL OF ALL RESTRAINTS FROM THESE CROWDS AND THAT
ALL LOCAL ATTEMPTS TO MAINTAIN ORDER ARE IMPAIRMENTS OF THE LIBERTY OF
THE CITIZEN.  THE CHOICE IS NOT BETWEEN ORDER AND LIBERTY.  IT IS
BETWEEN LIBERTY WITH ORDER AND ANARCHY WITHOUT EITHER.  THERE IS DANGER
THAT, IF THE COURT DOES NOT TEMPER ITS DOCTRINAIRE LOGIC WITH A LITTLE
PRACTICAL WISDOM, IT WILL CONVERT THE CONSTITUTIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS
INTO A SUICIDE PACT. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE CONVICTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



UNION NATIONAL BANK V. LAMB, 337 U.S. 38 


NO. 500.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1949.  - 358 MO. 65,
213 S.W.2D 416, REVERSED. 


1.  A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE DETERMINING A CLAIM OF
RIGHT UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IS REVIEWABLE HERE NOT BY APPEAL BUT BY CERTIORARI; AND
THE PAPERS WHEREON AN APPEAL HAS BEEN IMPROVIDENTLY TAKEN IN SUCH A
CASE MAY BE TREATED AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  28 U.S.C.
SECS. 1257(3), 2103.  PP. 39-40. 

2.  WHERE THE LAST DAY OF THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH A REVIEW BY THIS
COURT ON APPEAL OR CERTIORARI MAY BE APPLIED FOR FALLS ON A SUNDAY OR
LEGAL HOLIDAY, AN APPLICATION MADE ON THE NEXT DAY WHICH IS NOT A
SUNDAY OR LEGAL HOLIDAY IS TIMELY UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101(C) AND RULE
6(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  PP. 40-41. 

3.  IN 1927 PETITIONER OBTAINED A COLORADO JUDGMENT AGAINST
RESPONDENT, WHICH WAS REVIVED IN COLORADO IN 1945 ON PERSONAL SERVICE
UPON RESPONDENT IN MISSOURI.  SUIT WAS THEN BROUGHT IN MISSOURI ON THE
REVIVED COLORADO JUDGMENT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, THOUGH
ASSUMING THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS VALID IN COLORADO, REFUSED TO ENFORCE IT
BECAUSE, UNDER MISSOURI LAW, THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
REVIVED IN 1945.  HELD:  THE DECISION OF THE MISSOURI COURT THAT,
WHATEVER THE EFFECT OF REVIVOR UNDER COLORADO LAW, THE COLORADO
JUDGMENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN MISSOURI, IS
ERRONEOUS.  ROCHE V. MCDONALD, 275 U.S. 449.  PP. 41-45. 

4.  THE QUESTION OF THE STATUS OF THE 1945 JUDGMENT UNDER COLORADO
LAW, AND THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SERVICE ON WHICH THE COLORADO
JUDGMENT WAS REVIVED SATISFIED DUE PROCESS, WHICH WERE NOT PASSED UPON
BY THE MISSOURI COURT, WILL BE OPEN ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE.  P. 44. 

UNION NATIONAL BANK V. LAMB. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI REFUSED ENFORCEMENT OF A COLORADO
JUDGMENT.  358 MO. 65, 213 S.W.2D 416.  TREATING THE APPEAL PAPERS AS A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THIS COURT GRANTS CERTIORARI AND REVERSES THE
JUDGMENT.  PP. 40-41, 45. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MISSOURI HAS A STATUTE WHICH LIMITS THE LIFE OF A JUDGMENT TO TEN
YEARS AFTER ITS ORIGINAL RENDITION OR TEN YEARS AFTER ITS REVIVAL.  FN1
MISSOURI ALSO PROVIDES THAT NO JUDGMENT CAN BE REVIVED AFTER TEN YEARS
FROM ITS RENDITION.  FN2  THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL
JUDGMENTS WHETHER RENDERED BY A MISSOURI COURT OR BY ANY OTHER COURT. 

PETITIONER HAS A COLORADO JUDGMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT.  IT WAS
OBTAINED IN 1927 AND REVIVED IN COLORADO  FN3  IN 1945 ON PERSONAL
SERVICE UPON RESPONDENT IN MISSOURI.  SUIT WAS THEN BROUGHT IN MISSOURI
ON THE REVIVED COLORADO JUDGMENT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI,
THOUGH ASSUMING THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS VALID IN COLORADO, REFUSED TO
ENFORCE IT BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT UNDER MISSOURI'S LAW COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN REVIVED IN 1945.  IT HELD THAT THE LEX FORI GOVERNS THE
LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS AND THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, ART. IV, SEC. 1, DID NOT REQUIRE MISSOURI TO RECOGNIZE
COLORADO'S MORE LENIENT POLICY AS RESPECTS REVIVAL OF JUDGMENTS.  358
MO. 65, 213 S.W.2D 416. 

1.  PETITIONER SOUGHT TO BRING THE CASE HERE BY APPEAL.  BUT WE
POSTPONED THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION TO THE MERITS.  CERTIORARI, NOT
APPEAL, IS THE ROUTE BY WHICH THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT HAS BEEN GIVEN A FOREIGN JUDGMENT IS BROUGHT HERE.  ROCHE V.
MCDONALD, 275 U.S. 449; MORRIS V. JONES, 329 U.S. 545.  HENCE WE TREAT
THE PAPERS AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2103, AND GRANT
IT. 

2.  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI WAS HANDED DOWN JULY
12, 1948, AND THE MOTION FOR REHEARING OR FOR TRANSFER TO THE COURT EN
BANC  FN4  WAS DENIED SEPTEMBER 13, 1948.  THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY
THE MISSOURI COURT ON DECEMBER 13, 1948.  THAT WAS WITHIN THREE MONTHS
AND THEREFORE TIMELY PRIOR TO THE REVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  BUT
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101(C), EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, REDUCED THAT
PERIOD TO NINETY DAYS.  THE NINETIETH DAY WAS DECEMBER 12, 1948, WHICH
WAS A SUNDAY.  THERE IS A CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS WHETHER AN ACT WHICH BY
STATUTE IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE WITHIN A STATED PERIOD MAY BE DONE A DAY
LATER WHEN THE LAST DAY OF THE PERIOD FALLS ON SUNDAY.  FN5  THUS
STREET V. UNITED STATES, 133 U.S. 299, TREATING SUNDAY AS A DIES NON
UNDER A STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO TRANSFER ARMY
OFFICERS FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND TO FILL VACANCIES IN THE ACTIVE LIST ON
OR BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1871, ALLOWED THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON THE
FOLLOWING DAY.  WE THINK THE POLICY OF THAT DECISION IS APPLICABLE TO
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101(C).  RULE 6(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE LAST DAY FOR PERFORMANCE OF AN ACT FALLS ON A
SUNDAY OR A LEGAL HOLIDAY, PERFORMANCE ON THE NEXT DAY WHICH IS NOT A
SUNDAY OR LEGAL HOLIDAY IS TIMELY.  FN6  THAT RULE PROVIDES THE METHOD
FOR COMPUTATION OF TIME PRESCRIBED OR ALLOWED NOT ONLY BY THE RULES OR
BY ORDER OF COURT BUT BY "ANY APPLICABLE STATUTE."  SINCE THE RULE HAD
THE CONCURRENCE OF CONGRESS,  FN7  AND SINCE NO CONTRARY POLICY IS
EXPRESSED IN THE STATUTE GOVERNING THIS REVIEW, WE THINK THAT THE
CONSIDERATIONS OF LIBERALITY AND LENIENCY WHICH FIND EXPRESSION IN RULE
6(A) ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101(C).  THE APPEAL
THEREFORE DID NOT FAIL FOR LACK OF TIMELINESS. 

3.  ROCHE V. MCDONALD IS DISPOSITIVE OF THE MERITS.  ROCHE HAD A
WASHINGTON JUDGMENT AGAINST MCDONALD.  HE BROUGHT SUIT ON THAT JUDGMENT
IN OREGON.  HE OBTAINED A JUDGMENT IN OREGON AT A TIME WHEN THE
ORIGINAL JUDGMENT HAD BY WASHINGTON LAW EXPIRED AND COULD NOT BE
REVIVED.  ROCHE THEN SUED IN WASHINGTON ON THE OREGON JUDGMENT.  THE
COURT REVERSED THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON WHICH HAD HELD THAT FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT NEED NOT BE GIVEN THE OREGON JUDGMENT SINCE IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN VOID AND OF NO EFFECT IF RENDERED IN WASHINGTON.  THE COURT
HELD THAT ONCE THE COURT OF THE SISTER STATE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE
PARTIES AND OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ITS JUDGMENT WAS VALID AND COULD NOT
BE IMPEACHED IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM, EVEN THOUGH IT COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN OBTAINED THERE.  THAT DECISION WAS IN LINE WITH FAUNTLEROY V. LUM,
210 U.S. 230 AND CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290.  FOR IN THOSE
CASES THE COURT HAD HELD THAT THE STATE OF THE FORUM COULD NOT DEFEAT
THE FOREIGN JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT WAS OBTAINED BY A PROCEDURE HOSTILE TO
OR INCONSISTENT WITH THAT OF THE FORUM OR BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON A
CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH THE FORUM ITSELF WOULD NOT HAVE RECOGNIZED. 

ANY OTHER RESULT WOULD DEFEAT THE AIM OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE AND THE STATUTE ENACTED PURSUANT TO IT.  FN8  IT IS WHEN A CLASH
OF POLICIES BETWEEN TWO STATES EMERGES THAT THE NEED OF THE CLAUSE IS
THE GREATEST.  IT AND THE STATUTE WHICH IMPLEMENTS IT ARE INDEED
DESIGNED TO RESOLVE SUCH CONTROVERSIES.  MORRIS V. JONES, SUPRA.  THERE
IS NO ROOM FOR AN EXCEPTION, AS ROCHE V. MCDONALD MAKES PLAIN, WHERE
THE CLASH OF POLICIES RELATES TO REVIVED JUDGMENTS RATHER THAN TO THE
NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING CLAIM AS IN FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, SUPRA.  IT IS
THE JUDGMENT THAT MUST BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  IN NEITHER CASE
CAN ITS INTEGRITY BE IMPAIRED, SAVE FOR ATTACKS ON THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT THAT RENDERED IT. 

CASES OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AGAINST A CAUSE OF ACTION ON A
JUDGMENT (M'ELMOYLE V. COHEN, 13 PET. 312) INVOLVE DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS AS CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, SUPRA, P. 300, LONG AGO POINTED
OUT.  THEY DO NOT UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDGMENT ON WHICH SUIT
IS BROUGHT.  IN THIS CASE IT IS THE 1945 COLORADO JUDGMENT THAT CLAIMS
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN MISSOURI.  NO MISSOURI STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
IS TENDERED TO CUT OFF A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON JUDGMENTS OF THAT
VINTAGE. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT UNDER COLORADO LAW THE 1945 COLORADO
JUDGMENT IS NOT A NEW JUDGMENT AND THAT THE REVIVOR DID NO MORE THAN
EXTEND THE STATUTORY PERIOD IN WHICH TO ENFORCE THE OLD JUDGMENT.  FN9
IT IS SAID THAT THOSE WERE THE ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH THE MISSOURI COURT
PROCEEDED.  BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD TO AND SUBTRACT FROM ITS OPINION
TO GIVE IT THAT MEANING.  FOR WHEN IT PLACED REVIVED JUDGMENTS ON THE
SAME BASIS AS ORIGINAL JUDGMENTS, IT DID SO BECAUSE OF MISSOURI NOT
COLORADO LAW.  FN10 

THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE COLORADO LAW ALSO MAKES THAT CONCLUSION
PLAIN.  THE COLORADO AUTHORITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN CITED TO US INDEED
SEEM TO HOLD JUST THE OPPOSITE.  THUS LA FITTE V. SALISBURY, 43 COLO.
248, 95 P. 1065, HOLDS THAT A REVIVED JUDGMENT HAS THE EFFECT OF A NEW
ONE.  FN11  WE ARE REFERRED TO NO COLORADO AUTHORITIES TO THE
CONTRARY. 

BUT SINCE THE STATUS OF THE 1945 JUDGMENT UNDER COLORADO LAW WAS NOT
PASSED UPON BY THE MISSOURI COURT, WE DO NOT DETERMINE THE QUESTION. 
FOR THE SAME REASON WE DO NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE SERVICE ON WHICH THE
COLORADO JUDGMENT WAS REVIVED SATISFIED DUE PROCESS.  SEE OWENS V.
HENRY, 161 U.S. 642.  BOTH OF THOSE QUESTIONS WILL BE OPEN ON REMAND OF
THE CAUSE. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT WE FOLLOW THE COURSE TAKEN IN MINNESOTA V.
NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551, AND VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE
CAUSE TO THE MISSOURI COURT SO THAT IT MAY FIRST PASS ON THESE
QUESTIONS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ONLY IF IT WERE UNCERTAIN WHETHER THAT
COURT ADJUDICATED A FEDERAL QUESTION.  THAT COURSE IS SINGULARLY
INAPPROPRIATE HERE SINCE IT IS PLAIN THAT THE MISSOURI COURT HELD THAT,
WHATEVER THE EFFECT OF REVIVOR UNDER COLORADO LAW, THE COLORADO
JUDGMENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN MISSOURI.  THAT
HOLDING IS A RULING ON A FEDERAL QUESTION AND IT CANNOT STAND IF, AS
ASSUMED, THE COLORADO JUDGMENT HAD THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A NEW ONE. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  1 REV. STAT. MO. 1939, SEC. 1038. 

FN2  1 REV. STAT. MO. 1939, SEC. 1271. 

FN3  1 COLO. STAT. ANN. 1935, C. 6, RULE 54(H); 3 ID., C. 93, SEC.
2. 

FN4  SEE GORMAN V. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, 316 U.S. 98. 

FN5  PRO:  STREET V. UNITED STATES, 133 U.S. 299; SHERWOOD BROS. V.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 72 APP. D.C. 155, 113 F.2D 162; WILSON V.
SOUTHERN R. CO., 147 F.2D 165.  CONTRA:  JOHNSON V. MEYERS, 54 F. 417;
MEYER V. HOT SPRINGS IMP.  CO., 169 F. 628; SIEGELSCHIFFER V. PENN. 
MUT.  LIFE INS. CO., 248 F. 226; LARKIN PACKER CO. V. HINDERLITER TOOL
CO., 60 F.2D 491; WALTERS V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 76 F.2D 599. 

FN6  RULE 6(A) PROVIDES:  "IN COMPUTING ANY PERIOD OF TIME PRESCRIBED
OR ALLOWED BY THESE RULES, BY ORDER OF COURT, OR BY ANY APPLICABLE
STATUTE, THE DAY OF THE ACT, EVENT, OR DEFAULT AFTER WHICH THE
DESIGNATED PERIOD OF TIME BEGINS TO RUN IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED.  THE
LAST DAY OF THE PERIOD SO COMPUTED IS TO BE INCLUDED, UNLESS IT IS A
SUNDAY OR A LEGAL HOLIDAY, IN WHICH EVENT THE PERIOD RUNS UNTIL THE END
OF THE NEXT DAY WHICH IS NEITHER A SUNDAY NOR A HOLIDAY.  WHEN THE
PERIOD OF TIME PRESCRIBED OR ALLOWED IS LESS THAN 7 DAYS, INTERMEDIATE
SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS SHALL BE EXCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION.  A HALF
HOLIDAY SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS OTHER DAYS AND NOT AS A HOLIDAY." 

FN7  SEE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 723C,
NOW SEC. 2072; RULE 86, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; SIBBACH V. WILSON &
CO., 312 U.S. 1. 

FN8  ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:  "FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS,
AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE.  AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY
GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND
PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE EFFECT THEREOF." 

THE ACT OF CONGRESS ENACTED PURSUANT TO THE CLAUSE (28 U.S.C. SEC.
1738), IN PART READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF ANY COURT OF ANY SUCH STATE,
TERRITORY OR POSSESSION, OR COPIES THEREOF, SHALL BE PROVED OR ADMITTED
IN OTHER COURTS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES AND
POSSESSIONS BY THE ATTESTATION OF THE CLERK AND SEAL OF THE COURT
ANNEXED, IF A SEAL EXISTS, TOGETHER WITH A CERTIFICATE OF A JUDGE OF
THE COURT THAT THE SAID ATTESTATION IS IN PROPER FORM. 

"SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR COPIES THEREOF, SO
AUTHENTICATED, SHALL HAVE THE SAME FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN EVERY COURT
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS AS THEY
HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE, TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN." 

FN9  THERE IS NO CONCESSION THAT UNDER COLORADO LAW REVIVAL DOES NOT
MAKE A NEW JUDGMENT.  PETITIONER MERELY ARGUES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF
DUE PROCESS ARE LESS EXACTING IN CASE OF A REVIVED, AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM AN ORIGINAL, JUDGMENT. 

FN10  THE MISSOURI COURT STATED, 358 MO. P. 70, 213 S.W.2D P. 419: 

"DEFINITELY, IT IS THE LAW OF THIS STATE THAT A FOREIGN JUDGMENT,
ABSENT REVIVAL, OR A PAYMENT THEREON AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 1038, IS
BARRED IN 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ORIGINAL RENDITION REGARDLESS
OF WHAT THE LIMITATION PERIOD MAY BE UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE
THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED.  NORTHWESTERN BREWERS SUPPLY CO. V. VORHEES
(356 MO. 699, 203 S.W.2D 422).  AND THE ONLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION TO
DRAW IS THAT A REVIVED JUDGMENT, DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN, ABSENT A PAYMENT
AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 1038, IS BARRED UNDER SAID SECTION UNLESS THE
REVIVAL WAS WITHIN 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL RENDITION OR, IF
SUCH IS THE CASE, WITHIN 10 YEARS FROM THE LAST REVIVAL.  IN OTHER
WORDS, A FOREIGN JUDGMENT, ORIGINAL OR REVIVED, HAS THE SAME STANDING
IN MISSOURI, NO BETTER, NO WORSE, THAN A DOMESTIC JUDGMENT.  THIS DOES
NOT RUN COUNTER TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE ENFORCEMENT OF A FOREIGN
JUDGMENT GOES TO THE REMEDY ONLY AND THAT IS A MATTER FOR THE LAW OF
THE FORUM." 

NORTHWESTERN BREWERS SUPPLY CO. V. VORHEES, WHICH THE COURT CITES,
DID NOT INVOLVE A REVIVED JUDGMENT.  IT MERELY HELD THAT A WISCONSIN
JUDGMENT SUED ON IN MISSOURI WAS SUBJECT TO MISSOURI'S STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  THE FACT THAT THE MISSOURI COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE HELD
THAT THE REVIVED COLORADO JUDGMENT WAS GOVERNED BY THAT RULE THROWS NO
LIGHT ON THE STATUS OF THE REVIVED JUDGMENT UNDER COLORADO LAW. 

FN11  1 COLO. STAT. ANN. 1935, C. 6, RULE 54(H) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"A REVIVED JUDGMENT MUST BE ENTERED WITHIN 20 YEARS AFTER THE ENTRY
OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH IT REVIVES, AND MAY BE ENFORCED AND MADE A LIEN
IN THE SAME MANNER AND FOR LIKE PERIOD AS AN ORIGINAL JUDGMENT." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT FINDS THAT ROCHE V. MCDONALD, 275 U.S. 449, IS "DISPOSITIVE
OF THE MERITS" OF THIS CASE.  I AGREE THAT THAT CASE DEMANDS THE REMAND
OF THIS ONE; MORE THAN THAT CAN BE FOUND ONLY BY MISCONCEIVING WHAT
THIS CASE IS ABOUT OR WHAT ROCHE V. MCDONALD DECIDED. 

1.  ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS THE COURTS OF
EACH STATE TO GIVE "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT  ...  TO THE  ...  JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE," AND WE HAVE INTERPRETED THIS COMMAND
SO STRAITLY AS TO MEAN THAT THE STATE OF THE FORUM CANNOT GO BEHIND THE
JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE TO ESTABLISH SUCH AN ALLEGATION AS THAT THE
JUDGMENT WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD, CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290, OR
THAT THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR WAS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, TITUS V.
WALLICK, 306 U.S. 282.  WE HAVE EVEN REQUIRED A STATE WHICH PROHIBITED
THE ENFORCEMENT OF GAMBLING CONTRACTS TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO
ANOTHER STATE'S JUDGMENT UPON SUCH A CONTRACT WHEN THE CONTRACT ITSELF
WAS ENTERED IN THE STATE WHICH REGARDED IT AS ILLEGAL.  FAUNTLEROY V.
LUM, 210 U.S. 230.  SEE ALSO KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, 252 U.S. 411;
MORRIS V. JONES, 329 U.S. 545. 

2.  CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY LYING BEHIND THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE, HOWEVER, ARE BY NO MEANS SO FORCIBLY PRESENTED WHERE THE ISSUE
IS SIMPLY WHETHER THE FORUM MUST RESPECT THE LIMITATION PERIOD ATTACHED
TO A FOREIGN JUDGMENT OR WHETHER IT MAY APPLY ITS OWN.  THIS COURT HAS
ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT A STATE MAY REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT OF
ANOTHER STATE BROUGHT LATER THAN ITS OWN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERMITS
EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN ENFORCEABLE IN THE STATE
WHICH RENDERED IT.  M'ELMOYLE V. COHEN, 13 PET. 312; BACON V. HOWARD,
20 HOW.  22. 

3.  CONVERSELY, WHERE THE ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT BY STATE A IS
SOUGHT IN STATE B, WHICH HAS A LONGER LIMITATION PERIOD THAN STATE A,
STATE B IS PLAINLY FREE TO ENTER ITS OWN JUDGMENT UPON THE BASIS OF
STATE A'S ORIGINAL JUDGMENT, EVEN THOUGH THAT JUDGMENT WOULD NO LONGER
BE ENFORCEABLE IN STATE A. IF ENFORCEMENT OF STATE B'S NEW JUDGMENT IS
THEN SOUGHT IN STATE A, STATE A CANNOT REFUSE TO ENFORCE IT WITHOUT
VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATE WHERE ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT
IS SOUGHT CANNOT LOOK BEHIND THE JUDGMENT.  THAT WAS THE SITUATION IN
ROCHE V. MCDONALD, 275 U.S. 449, AND SO WE THERE HELD. 

4.  THE PRESENT SITUATION IS THIS:  COLORADO ENTERED A JUDGMENT IN
1927 WHICH IN 1945 WAS THERE REVIVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLORADO'S
PROCEDURE.  IN 1945 THE 1927 JUDGMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENFORCED IN
MISSOURI BECAUSE BARRED BY THAT STATE'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE 1945 PROCEEDINGS GAVE RISE TO A JUDGMENT
ENFORCEABLE IN MISSOURI THUS DEPENDS, OBVIOUSLY, ON WHETHER THOSE
PROCEEDINGS CREATED A NEW COLORADO JUDGMENT, OR WHETHER THEY MERELY HAD
THE EFFECT OF EXTENDING THE COLORADO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE OLD
JUDGMENT.  ONLY IN THE FORMER CASE WOULD ROCHE V. MCDONALD BE
"DISPOSITIVE OF THE MERITS"; IN THE LATTER, IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT
M'ELMOYLE V. COHEN, SUPRA, 13 PET. 312, AND BACON V. HOWARD, SUPRA, 20
HOW.  22, WOULD BE CONTROLLING.  FUNDAMENTAL, THEREFORE, TO THE ISSUE
OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IS AN INITIAL DETERMINATION AS TO THE EFFECT
IN COLORADO OF ITS REVIVER PROCEEDINGS. 

5.  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI IS NOT UNEQUIVOCAL. 
IT COULD HARDLY, HOWEVER, HAVE ASSUMED THE LAW OF COLORADO TO BE THAT
REVIVER PROCEEDINGS CREATE A NEW JUDGMENT, FOR IT CHIEFLY RELIED UPON A
DECISION OF ITS OWN ACCORDING FULL RECOGNITION TO ROCHE V. MCDONALD AND
OTHER CASES INVOKING THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE FORUM CANNOT LOOK BEHIND A
JUDGMENT BROUGHT THERE FOR ENFORCEMENT.  SEE NORTHWESTERN BREWERS
SUPPLY CO. V. VORHEES, 356 MO. 699, 703, 203 S.W.2D 422, 424.  SURELY
WE OUGHT NOT TO ATTRIBUTE TO A STATE COURT A FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT SHOWS AWARENESS OF THESE
DECISIONS.  FN1  THE MORE OBVIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE MISSOURI
COURT'S OPINION IS THAT IT ASSUMED THE EFFECT OF THE COLORADO
PROCEEDINGS TO BE WHAT THE FACE OF THE COLORADO STATUTE IMPLIES,
NAMELY, TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT
N2.  WE SHOULD AFFIRM, THEREFORE, BUT FOR LANGUAGE WHICH SUGGESTS A
THIRD VIEW:  THAT BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
UNENFORCEABLE IN MISSOURI AT THE TIME OF THE REVIVER PROCEEDINGS, THOSE
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT NO MATTER WHAT
THEIR EFFECT UNDER COLORADO LAW.  IF IN FACT THE COLORADO PROCEEDINGS
HAD RESULTED IN A NEW JUDGMENT, THIS VIEW WOULD HAVE DISREGARDED ROCHE
V. MCDONALD.  BUT A STATE COURT MAY REACH THE RIGHT RESULT DESPITE AN
AWKWARD FORMULATION OF THE ISSUE BEFORE IT. PETITIONER, TO BE ENTITLED
TO REDRESS, MUST ESTABLISH THAT COLORADO GAVE IT A JUDGMENT WHICH
MISSOURI FLOUTED, AND IT FAILS TO DO SO UNLESS IT SHOWS THAT UNDER
COLORADO LAW A JUDGMENT OF REVIVER IS A NEW JUDGMENT. 

6.  THE COURT DOES NOT FIND THAT PETITIONER HAS SUSTAINED THIS
BURDEN, AND WE SHOULD NEITHER INITIATE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF
COLORADO LAW NOR REST UPON PHRASES IN A SINGLE DECISION THAT DOES NOT
EXPLICITLY ADJUDICATE THE QUESTION.  YET THE COURT CONCLUDES, "IN THIS
CASE IT IS THE 1945 COLORADO JUDGMENT THAT CLAIMS FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
IN MISSOURI.  NO MISSOURI STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TENDERED TO CUT OFF
A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON JUDGMENTS OF THAT VINTAGE."  BUT THE VERY
QUESTION OF COLORADO LAW IN ISSUE IS WHETHER THE 1945 PROCEEDINGS DID
IN FACT CREATE A NEW JUDGMENT ENTITLED TO CLAIM FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. 
SINCE IN THE VIEW MOST FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER
THE COURTS OF MISSOURI HAVE RESOLVED THIS ISSUE AGAINST PETITIONER OR
LEFT IT UNDECIDED, WE SHOULD NOT BY AFFIRMING FORECLOSE ALL OPPORTUNITY
FOR PETITIONER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRUE EFFECT OF THE REVIVER
PROCEEDINGS WAS TO GRANT IT A NEW JUDGMENT.  BUT NEITHER SHOULD WE
FORECLOSE THE ISSUE IN PETITIONER'S FAVOR. 

IN VIEW OF THE UNRESOLVED ELEMENTS OF THE SITUATION, THE PROCEDURE
OUTLINED IN MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551, 557, SHOULD BE
FOLLOWED IN DISPOSING OF THIS CASE.  ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD VACATE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI AND REMAND THE CASE FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

FN1  THE IMPROBABILITY THAT THIS WAS THE VIEW OF THE MISSOURI COURTS
IS EMPHASIZED BY THE FACT THAT SUCH A VIEW WOULD INEVITABLY INJECT INTO
THE CASE AN ISSUE WHICH IN FACT THEY PUT ASIDE AS IRRELEVANT:  THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF PERSONAL SERVICE UPON DEFENDANT IN MISSOURI TO OBTAIN
JURISDICTION IN COLORADO TO SUPPLANT THE OLD JUDGMENT BY A NEW ONE. 
SEE OWENS V. HENRY, 161 U.S. 642. 

FN2  "  ...  FROM AND AFTER TWENTY YEARS FROM THE ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGMENT IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE, THE SAME SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS
SATISFIED IN FULL, UNLESS REVIVED AS PROVIDED BY LAW."  3 COLO. STAT.
ANN. 1935, C. 93, SEC. 2. 
..END :



BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 337 U.S. 49 


ARGUED MARCH 2, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1949.  - 169 F.2D 840,
REVERSED. 


1.  THAT A PERSON WAS A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES AT THE TIME OF THE
ACCIDENT DOES NOT PREVENT RECOVERY OF A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT FOR HIS DEATH OR INJURY (NOT
INCIDENT TO HIS SERVICES IN THE ARMED FORCES) RESULTING FROM THE
NEGLIGENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  PP. 50-53. 

2.  THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE AMOUNT PAYABLE UNDER
SERVICEMEN'S BENEFIT LAWS SHOULD NOT BE DEDUCTED, OR TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION, WHEN A SERVICEMAN OBTAINS A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT.  PP. 53-54. 

BROOKS V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 388.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 389, BROOKS, ADMINISTRATOR, V. UNITED STATES, ALSO
ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT, 60 STAT. 842, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 
931(NOW SEC. 2674), FOR THE DEATH OF ONE MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES AND
THE INJURY OF ANOTHER (NOT INCIDENT TO THEIR SERVICE) RESULTING FROM
THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  169 F.2D 840.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S.
901.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 54. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT
CLAIMS ACT, 60 STAT. 842, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  931, NOW 28
U.S.C. SEC. 2674.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
ARMED FORCES CAN RECOVER UNDER THAT ACT FOR INJURIES NOT INCIDENT TO
THEIR SERVICE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH
CAROLINA ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, RENDERING AN
UNREPORTED OPINION, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
REVERSED, IN A DIVIDED DECISION.  169 F.2D 840.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE
HERE ON CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE AS AN INTERPRETATION OF
THE ACT.  335 U.S. 901. 

THE FACTS ARE THESE.  WELKER BROOKS, ARTHUR BROOKS, AND THEIR FATHER,
JAMES BROOKS, WERE RIDING IN THEIR AUTOMOBILE ALONG A PUBLIC HIGHWAY IN
NORTH CAROLINA ON A DARK, RAINY NIGHT IN FEBRUARY, 1945.  ARTHUR WAS
DRIVING.  HE CAME TO A FULL STOP BEFORE ENTERING AN INTERSECTION, AND
PROCEEDED ACROSS THE NEARER LANE OF THE INTERSECTING ROAD.  SECONDS
LATER THE CAR WAS STRUCK FROM THE LEFT BY A UNITED STATES ARMY TRUCK,
DRIVEN BY A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE ARMY.  ARTHUR BROOKS WAS KILLED;
WELKER AND HIS FATHER WERE BADLY INJURED. 

WELKER AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF ARTHUR'S ESTATE BROUGHT ACTIONS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE
TRIED THE CAUSES WITHOUT A JURY AND FOUND NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE
TRUCK DRIVER.  THE GOVERNMENT MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT
WELKER AND HIS DECEASED BROTHER WERE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, AND WERE THEREFORE BARRED FROM
RECOVERY.  THE COURT DENIED THE MOTION, ENTERED A $25,425 JUDGMENT FOR
THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE, AND A $4,000 JUDGMENT FOR WELKER.  FN1  ON
APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT PERSUADED THE COURT OF
APPEALS TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT, JUDGE PARKER DISSENTING. 

WE AGREE WITH JUDGE PARKER.  THE STATUTE'S TERMS ARE CLEAR.  THEY
PROVIDE FOR DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION OVER ANY CLAIM FOUNDED ON
NEGLIGENCE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  WE ARE NOT PERSUADED
THAT "ANY CLAIM" MEANS "ANY CLAIM BUT THAT OF SERVICEMEN."  THE STATUTE
DOES CONTAIN TWELVE EXCEPTIONS.  SEC. 421.  NONE EXCLUDE PETITIONERS'
CLAIMS.  ONE IS FOR CLAIMS ARISING IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.  A SECOND
EXCLUDES CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF COMBATANT ACTIVITIES OF THE MILITARY OR
NAVAL FORCES, OR THE COAST GUARD, DURING TIME OF WAR.  THESE AND OTHER
EXCEPTIONS ARE TOO LENGTHY, SPECIFIC, AND CLOSE TO THE PRESENT PROBLEM
TO TAKE AWAY PETITIONERS' JUDGMENTS.  WITHOUT RESORTING TO AN AUTOMATIC
MAXIM OF CONSTRUCTION, SUCH EXCEPTIONS MAKE IT CLEAR TO US THAT
CONGRESS KNEW WHAT IT WAS ABOUT WHEN IT USED THE TERM "ANY CLAIM."  IT
WOULD BE ABSURD TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT HAVE THE SERVICEMEN IN
MIND IN 1946, WHEN THIS STATUTE WAS PASSED.  THE OVERSEAS AND COMBATANT
ACTIVITIES EXCEPTIONS MAKE THIS PLAIN. 

MORE THAN THE LANGUAGE AND FRAMEWORK OF THE ACT SUPPORT THIS VIEW. 
THERE WERE EIGHTEEN TORT CLAIMS BILLS INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS BETWEEN
1925 AND 1935.  FN2  ALL BUT TWO  FN3  CONTAINED EXCEPTIONS DENYING
RECOVERY TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.  WHEN THE PRESENT TORT CLAIMS
ACT WAS FIRST INTRODUCED, THE EXCEPTION CONCERNING SERVICEMEN HAD BEEN
DROPPED.  FN4  WHAT REMAINED FROM PREVIOUS BILLS WAS AN EXCLUSION OF
ALL CLAIMS FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE WORLD WAR
VETERANS' ACT OF 1924 - 43 STAT. 607, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 421, COMPENSATION
FOR INJURY OR DEATH OCCURRING IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR.  H.R. 181, 79TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.  WHEN H.R. 181 WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE LEGISLATIVE
REORGANIZATION ACT, THE LAST VESTIGE OF THE EXCLUSION FOR MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES DISAPPEARED.  SEE ALSO NOTE, 1 SYRACUSE L. REV. 87, 93
94. 

THE GOVERNMENT ENVISAGES DIRE CONSEQUENCES SHOULD WE REVERSE THE
JUDGMENT.  FN5  A BATTLE COMMANDER'S POOR JUDGMENT, AN ARMY SURGEON'S
SLIP OF HAND, A DEFECTIVE JEEP WHICH CAUSES INJURY, ALL WOULD GROUND
TORT ACTIONS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  BUT WE ARE DEALING WITH AN
ACCIDENT WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BROOKS' ARMY CAREERS,
INJURIES NOT CAUSED BY THEIR SERVICE EXCEPT IN THE SENSE THAT ALL HUMAN
EVENTS DEPEND UPON WHAT HAS ALREADY TRANSPIRED.  WERE THE ACCIDENT
INCIDENT TO THE BROOKS' SERVICE, A WHOLLY DIFFERENT CASE WOULD BE
PRESENTED.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO IT, BUT WE MAY NOTE THAT ONLY
IN ITS CONTEXT DO DOBSON V. UNITED STATES, 27 F.2D 807, BRADEY V.
UNITED STATES, 151 F.2D 742, AND JEFFERSON V. UNITED STATES, 77
F.SUPP.  706, HAVE ANY RELEVANCE.  SEE THE SIMILAR DISTINCTION IN 31
U.S.C. SEC. 223B.  INTERPRETATION OF THE SAME WORDS MAY VARY, OF
COURSE, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES, FOR THOSE CONSEQUENCES MAY PROVIDE
INSIGHT FOR DETERMINATION OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  LAWSON V. SUWANNEE
FRUIT & STEAMSHIP CO., 336 U.S. 198.  THE GOVERNMENT'S FEARS MAY HAVE
POINT IN REFLECTING CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO LEAVE INJURIES INCIDENT TO
SERVICE WHERE THEY WERE, DESPITE LITERAL LANGUAGE AND OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS TO THE CONTRARY.  THE RESULT MAY BE SO OUTLANDISH THAT
EVEN THE FACTORS WE HAVE MENTIONED WOULD NOT PERMIT RECOVERY.  BUT THAT
IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US. 

PROVISIONS IN OTHER STATUTES FOR DISABILITY PAYMENTS TO SERVICEMEN,
AND GRATUITY PAYMENTS TO THEIR SURVIVORS, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 701, INDICATE
NO PURPOSE TO FORBID TORT ACTIONS UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT.  UNLIKE
THE USUAL WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION STATUTE, E.G., 33 U.S.C. SEC. 905,
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE TORT CLAIMS ACT OR THE VETERANS' LAWS WHICH
PROVIDES FOR EXCLUSIVENESS OF REMEDY.  UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL
CO., 332 U.S. 301, INDICATES THAT, SO FAR AS THIRD PARTY LIABILITY IS
CONCERNED.  NOR DID CONGRESS PROVIDE FOR AN ELECTION OF REMEDIES, AS IN
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 757.  THUS DAHN
V. DAVIS, 258 U.S. 421, AND CASES FOLLOWING THAT DECISION, ARE NOT IN
POINT.  COMPARE PARR V. UNITED STATES, 172 F.2D 462.  WE WILL NOT CALL
EITHER REMEDY IN THE PRESENT CASE EXCLUSIVE, NOR PRONOUNCE A DOCTRINE
OF ELECTION OF REMEDIES, WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE SO.  COMPARE 31
U.S.C. SEC. 224B, SPECIFICALLY REPEALED BY THE TORT CLAIMS ACT, SEC.
424(A).  IN THE VERY ACT WE ARE CONSTRUING, CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR
EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE REMEDY IN THREE INSTANCES, SECS. 403(D), 410(B),
AND 423, AND OMITTED ANY PROVISION WHICH WOULD GOVERN THIS CASE. 

BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE AMOUNT PAYABLE UNDER SERVICEMEN'S
BENEFIT LAWS SHOULD NOT BE DEDUCTED, OR TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, WHEN
THE SERVICEMAN OBTAINS JUDGMENT UNDER THE TORT CLAIMS ACT.  WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT, OR DISCUSSION OF THE MATTER IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS, WE NOW SEE NO INDICATION THAT CONGRESS MEANT THE
UNITED STATES TO PAY TWICE FOR THE SAME INJURY.  CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF
TORT DAMAGES MAY BE THE EQUIVALENT OF ELEMENTS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN
PROVIDING DISABILITY PAYMENTS.  IT WOULD SEEM INCONGRUOUS, AT FIRST
GLANCE, IF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE TO PAY IN TORT FOR HOSPITAL
EXPENSES IT HAD ALREADY PAID, FOR EXAMPLE.  AND WHATEVER THE LEGAL
THEORY BEHIND A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION, THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS MIGHT
APPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S GRATUITY DEATH PAYMENT TO ARTHUR BROOKS'
SURVIVORS, ALTHOUGH NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED
A SEPARATE TRANSACTION, UNRELATED TO AN ACTION IN TORT OR OTHER
BENEFITS. 

BUT THE STATUTORY SCHEME AND THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS
MAY DICTATE A CONTRARY RESULT.  THE POINT WAS NOT ARGUED IN THE CASE AS
IT CAME TO US FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE COURT BELOW DOES NOT
APPEAR TO HAVE PASSED UPON IT; IT WAS UNNECESSARY, IN THE VIEW THEY
TOOK OF THE CASE.  WE DO NOT KNOW FROM THIS RECORD WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT OBJECTED TO THIS PORTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT -
NOR CAN WE TELL FROM THIS RECORD WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD
CONSIDER A GENERAL OBJECTION TO THE JUDGMENT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW IT TO
CONSIDER THIS PROBLEM.  FINALLY, WE ARE NOT SURE HOW MUCH DEDUCTING THE
DISTRICT JUDGE DID.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WE ARE IN NO POSITION TO PASS
UPON THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTING OTHER BENEFITS IN THE CASE'S PRESENT
POSTURE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE LANGUAGE, FRAMEWORK AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE TORT CLAIMS ACT REQUIRE A HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS' ACTIONS WERE
WELL FOUNDED.  BUT WE REMAND TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ITS
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM OF REDUCING DAMAGES PRO TANTO, SHOULD IT
DECIDE THAT SUCH CONSIDERATION IS PROPER IN VIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT AND THE PARTIES' ALLEGATIONS OF ERROR.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 

FN1  JAMES BROOKS, THE FATHER, ALSO RECOVERED JUDGMENT IN HIS OWN
RIGHT.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEST HIS RECOVERY. 

FN2  H.R. 12178, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H.R. 12179, 68TH CONG., 2D
SESS.; S. 1912, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 6716, 69TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; H.R. 8914, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 9285, 70TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; S. 4377, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS.; H.R. 15428, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS.;
H.R. 16429, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS.; H.R. 17168, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS.;
H.R. 5065, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. 211, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. 4567,
72D CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. 1833, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 129, 73D
CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 8561, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; H.R. 2028, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. 1043, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN3  H.R. 8561, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; H.R. 12178, 68TH CONG., 2D
SESS. 

FN4  OTHER BILLS AFTER THOSE MENTIONED IN NOTE 2, ABOVE, ALSO OMITTED
THIS EXCEPTION.  SEE, E.G., H.R. 5373, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R.
1356, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "CONGRESSIONAL
AWARENESS" OF THE DOBSON AND BRADEY DECISIONS, INFRA.  THE PRESENT TORT
CLAIMS ACT CONTAINS EXCEPTIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY
COVERED BY THOSE CASES.  SEC. 421(D). 

FN5  THE GOVERNMENT'S OTHER ARGUMENTS ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE ARE
SLEEVELESS.  THEY WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT,
SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BY JUDGE DOBIE, BELOW, 169 F.2D
840. 
..END :




JOHNSON V. SHAUGHNESSY, 336 U.S. 806 


NO. 506.  ARGUED APRIL 19-20, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 9, 1949.  - 170 F.2D
1009, REVERSED. 


1.  A BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 17 OF THE
IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 153, IS BOUND TO
ACCEPT AS FINAL A CERTIFICATE THAT AN ALIEN IS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE OF A
CLASS EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES BY SEC. 3, 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 136(D), WHERE SUCH CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY A MEDICAL APPEAL
BOARD AFTER A FAIR HEARING IN CONFORMITY WITH SEC. 16, 8 U.S.C. SEC.
152, AND REGULATIONS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PRESCRIBED PURSUANT
THERETO.  P. 809. 

2.  A REPORT OF A MEDICAL APPEAL BOARD APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 16
OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 152, TO REVIEW
A FINDING OF TWO MEDICAL OFFICERS THAT AN ALIEN SEEKING ADMISSION TO
THE UNITED STATES IS MENTALLY DEFECTIVE, DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS WHERE IT FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE APPEAL
BOARD BASED ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION "ON ITS MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF
THE ALIEN" AND MERELY SHOWS THAT IT CONSIDERED THE APPEAL AND, AFTER
"TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION" THE CERTIFICATE OF THE MEDICAL OFFICERS WHO
MADE THE ORIGINAL EXAMINATION AND THE TESTIMONY OF AN ALIENIST EMPLOYED
BY THE ALIEN, CONCURRED IN THE REPORT OF THE MEDICAL OFFICERS WHO MADE
THE FIRST EXAMINATION.  PP. 809-812. 

(A)  THE APPEAL BOARD COULD NOT REST ITS FINDING THAT THE ALIEN WAS A
MENTAL DEFECTIVE ON THE CERTIFICATE OF THE ORIGINAL EXAMINING OFFICERS,
SINCE THE ACT AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND RE
EXAMINATION.  P. 812. 

(B)  THE STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL BOARD THAT IT HAD "CONSIDERED THE
APPEAL" CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A CERTIFICATION THAT THE ALIEN HAD BEEN
GIVEN AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION.  P. 6. 

3.  ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL BOARD'S
REPORT COULD BE CURED BY ADDITIONAL DATA IN THE RECORD, THE DATA IN THE
RECORD IN THIS CASE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CURE THE DEFECT.  PP. 812
815. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. JOHNSON V. SHAUGHNESSY, ACTING DISTRICT DIRECTOR
OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE
DETENTION OF AN ALIEN UNDER AN EXCLUSION ORDER ISSUED BY A BOARD OF
SPECIAL INQUIRY UNDER THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 AS AMENDED, THE
DISTRICT COURT DISCHARGED THE WRIT AND ORDERED THE ALIEN REMANDED TO
THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES.  82 F.SUPP.  36.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  170 F.2D 1009.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S.
924.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 815. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE AT STOCKHOLM ISSUED TO PETITIONER AN
IMMIGRATION VISA TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES AS A SWEDISH QUOTA
IMMIGRANT.  ON THE GROUND THAT SHE WAS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE, AUTHORITIES
OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE DECLINED TO ADMIT HER
INTO THIS COUNTRY AND ORDERED HER DETENTION AT ELLIS ISLAND PENDING
DEPORTATION TO SWEDEN.  SHE FILED THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING
CONTENDING THAT SHE WAS NOT A MENTAL DEFECTIVE AND CHALLENGING IN
SEVERAL RESPECTS THE LEGALITY OF THE EXCLUSION ORDER.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DISCHARGED THE WRIT AND ORDERED PETITIONER REMANDED TO THE
IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES.  82 F.SUPP.  36.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  170 F.2D 1009.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED
BECAUSE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WERE RAISED CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF
THE IMMIGRATION LAWS. 

THIS COUNTRY CERTAIN CLASSES OF ALIENS DEEMED UNDESIRABLE.  AMONG THOSE
EXCLUDED ARE PERSONS "WHO ARE FOUND TO BE AND ARE CERTIFIED BY THE
EXAMINING SURGEON AS BEING MENTALLY  ...  DEFECTIVE  ...  "  39 STAT.
874, 875, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 136(D).  SECTION 16 OF THE ACT  FN1  PROVIDES
THAT MENTAL EXAMINATIONS OF ARRIVING ALIENS SHALL BE MADE BY NOT LESS
THAN TWO UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE MEDICAL OFFICERS
ESPECIALLY TRAINED IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF INSANITY AND MENTAL DEFECTS. 
THE SAME SECTION AUTHORIZES AN APPEAL TO A SPECIAL BOARD OF MEDICAL
OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE FOR ANY ALIEN WHO IS CERTIFIED BY
THE TWO MEDICAL OFFICERS AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE.  FINALLY SEC. 17 OF THE
ACT AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 153, PROVIDES THAT BOARDS OF SPECIAL
INQUIRY SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THESE BOARDS OF
SPECIAL INQUIRY ARE GRANTED "AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ALIEN
WHO HAS BEEN DULY HELD SHALL BE ALLOWED TO LAND OR SHALL BE DEPORTED." 
IT WAS A BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY OF THIS KIND THAT ORDERED PETITIONER
EXCLUDED FROM THE UNITED STATES. 

FIRST.  TWO MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE SIGNED A
CERTIFICATE THAT PETITIONER WAS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE.  ON APPEAL A BOARD
OF THREE PUBLIC HEALTH MEDICAL OFFICERS AFFIRMED THE FINDING OF THIS
CERTIFICATE.  LATER WHEN HER CASE WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY A BOARD OF
SPECIAL INQUIRY OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
PETITIONER ASKED FOR TIME TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
SHE WAS NOT A MENTAL DEFECTIVE.  THE BOARD REFUSED TO HEAR SUCH
EVIDENCE HOLDING THAT IT WAS BOUND BY SEC. 17 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT TO
ACCEPT AS FINAL THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATION THAT SHE WAS A MENTAL
DEFECTIVE.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THIS HOLDING WAS ERROR WHICH
INVALIDATES THE EXCLUSION ORDER.  WE HOLD THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
CORRECTLY REJECTED THIS CONTENTION. 

DECISION OF A BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY SHALL BE BASED UPON THE
CERTIFICATE OF THE EXAMINING MEDICAL OFFICER AND  ... SHALL BE FINAL AS
TO THE REJECTION OF ALIENS AFFECTED WITH  ...  ANY MENTAL  ...
DISABILITY WHICH WOULD BRING SUCH ALIENS WITHIN ANY OF THE CLASSES
EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER SECTION THREE OF
THIS ACT."  WE AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  "A CERTIFICATE BY THE MEDICAL BOARD IF ITS ACTION CONFORMED
TO THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS AND ITS DECISION WAS MADE AFTER A FAIR
HEARING WAS PLAINLY INTENDED TO BE CONCLUSIVE."  170 F.2D 1009, 1012. 
THIS CONCLUSION IS PARTICULARLY COMPELLING IN THE LIGHT OF THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY REFERRED TO IN THAT COURT'S OPINION.  WE THEREFORE
TURN TO THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES TO CONSIDER THE CONTENTION THAT THEY
WERE NOT ISSUED AS THE RESULT OF THE KIND OF EXAMINATIONS REQUIRED BY
THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS, AND THAT THE CERTIFICATES THEMSELVES
FAILED TO CONFORM TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 

SECOND.  PETITIONER ATTACKS THE VALIDITY OF BOTH THE INITIAL MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE AND THAT OF THE APPELLATE MEDICAL BOARD, CONTENDING THAT
THEY PROVIDE AN INADEQUATE BASIS FOR EXCLUDING HER FROM THE UNITED
STATES.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES IS UNDERSCORED BY
OUR HOLDING THAT CONGRESS HAS MADE THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE
CERTIFICATES FINAL ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN ALIEN IS SO MENTALLY
DEFECTIVE THAT ADMISSION INTO THE COUNTRY MUST BE DENIED.  CONGRESS HAS
TAKEN NOTE OF THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF THIS MEDICAL DETERMINATION BY
PRESCRIBING CERTAIN MINIMUM PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE MUST FOLLOW, SUCH AS SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS OF EXAMINING
DOCTORS, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF DOCTORS THAT MUST EXAMINE THE APPLYING
ALIEN, AND THE RIGHT OF AN ALIEN TO HAVE AN INITIAL ADVERSE CERTIFICATE
REVIEWED BY A SPECIAL BOARD OF DOCTORS.  IN ORDER THAT FURTHER
SAFEGUARDS MIGHT BE PROVIDED, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE SURGEON GENERAL
OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE TO PRESCRIBE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE TO BE OBSERVED IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT
SERVICE'S EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER MEDICAL QUESTIONS. 

PURSUANT TO THIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY THE SURGEON GENERAL ISSUED
REGULATIONS WHICH DETAIL THE MANNER IN WHICH MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS SHALL
BE HELD AND THE TYPE OF CERTIFICATES BY WHICH EXAMINING DOCTORS AND
BOARDS SHALL REPORT THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.  AS SHOWN BY THE
DISSENTING OPINION BELOW, SERIOUS CHALLENGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE MEDICAL APPEAL BOARD AS WELL AS
TO THE INITIAL MEDICAL CERTIFICATE IN WHICH TWO DOCTORS CERTIFIED
PETITIONER TO BE A MENTAL DEFECTIVE.  FN2  THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE
INITIAL CERTIFICATE, HOWEVER, PROBABLY COULD HAVE BEEN RENDERED
HARMLESS BY A PROPER EXAMINATION AND CERTIFICATE BY THE MEDICAL BOARD
OF APPELLATE REVIEW.  SINCE OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE APPELLATE REVIEW
FAILED TO MEET THE REQUISITE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE AND
REGULATIONS, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE CHALLENGES DIRECTED AGAINST THE
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE STANDING ALONE. 

REGULATIONS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE PROVIDE THE WAY IN WHICH
MEDICAL APPEAL BOARDS SHALL BE CONVENED AND DETAIL A PROCEDURE FOR THE
BOARDS TO FOLLOW.  THE REGULATIONS IMPOSE A DUTY ON SUCH BOARDS "TO RE
EXAMINE AN ALIEN"; THEY FURTHER PROVIDE THAT "RE-EXAMINATION SHALL
INCLUDE  ...  A MEDICAL EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD"; THAT THE "FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD SHALL BE BASED ON ITS MEDICAL EXAMINATION
OF THE ALIEN"; AND THAT "THE BOARD SHALL REPORT ITS FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS TO THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE  ...  "  FN3  THE REPORT OF THE
MEDICAL APPEAL BOARD HERE SHOWS ONLY THAT IT "CONSIDERED THE APPEAL
...  AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CERTIFICATE OF MAR. 11,
1948 AND THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY DR. CARLTON SIMON, REPORTS THAT IT
CONCURS WITH THE ABOVE DATED CERTIFICATE."  THE REPORT OF THIS MEDICAL
BOARD THEREFORE WHOLLY FAILED TO SHOW ANY COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 34.13(G) THAT THE BOARD BASE ITS "FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS  ...  ON ITS MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ALIEN  ...  "  WE
THINK THE RECORD MAKES CLEAR THAT THE APPEAL BOARD MADE NO SUCH MEDICAL
EXAMINATION AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS. 

THE REPORT ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE APPELLATE BOARD BASED ITS CONCLUSION
ON TWO CONSIDERATIONS: (1) THE INITIAL CERTIFICATE OF THE TWO PUBLIC
HEALTH DOCTORS; (2) TESTIMONY GIVEN BY DR. CARLTON SIMON.  BUT THE
APPELLATE BOARD COULD NOT REST ITS FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS A MENTAL
DEFECTIVE ON THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE WITHOUT DENYING PETITIONER THE
INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND RE-EXAMINATION WHICH CONGRESS AND THE SURGEON
GENERAL HAD PRESCRIBED.  NOR COULD THE APPELLATE BOARD RELIEVE ITSELF
OF ITS DUTY TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT RE-EXAMINATION BY RELYING ON THE
TESTIMONY OF DR. SIMON.  MOREOVER, DR. SIMON TESTIFIED THAT PETITIONER
WAS NOT A MENTAL DEFECTIVE.  HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT SHE WAS "NORMAL." 
IT HARDLY SEEMS NECESSARY TO ADD THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLATE
BOARD THAT IT HAD "CONSIDERED THE APPEAL," CANNOT BE TREATED AS A
CERTIFICATION THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN GIVEN AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL
EXAMINATION.  WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE APPELLATE BOARD'S CERTIFICATE
IS AN INADEQUATE BASIS ON WHICH TO REST THE EXCLUSION ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT ADDITIONAL DATA IN THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT THE BOARD DID RE-EXAMINE THE PETITIONER.  WE MAY ASSUME
WITHOUT DECIDING THAT THE DEFECTS IN THE APPELLATE BOARD'S REPORT COULD
BE CURED BY ADDITIONAL RECORD DATA, BUT WE FIND NO SUCH DATA IN THE
RECORD SUFFICIENT TO CURE THE DEFECT.  THE DATA ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
RELIES IS CONTAINED IN A STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF EVIDENCE GIVEN BY
PETITIONER AND DR. SIMON, PETITIONER'S WITNESS.  PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE,
LIKE THAT OF DR. SIMON, WAS AN EMPHATIC DENIAL OF ANY CONDITION WHICH
COULD JUSTIFY HER CLASSIFICATION AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE.  THE
STENOGRAPHIC REPORT THUS FALLS FAR SHORT OF SHOWING THAT THE MEDICAL
APPEAL BOARD MADE AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER'S
MENTAL QUALITIES.  THAT REPORT TENDS TO CONFIRM THE FACT THAT THE
BOARD'S CONCLUSIONS WERE RESTED ONLY ON THE REPORT OF THE INITIAL
EXAMINATION BY THE TWO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE DOCTORS AND ON A REPORT OF
THE PHYSICIAN OF THE SHIP ON WHICH PETITIONER CAME TO THIS COUNTRY. 
THIS MAKES NECESSARY A SHORT STATEMENT CONCERNING THIS REPORT BY THE
SHIP'S DOCTOR AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE RECORD DISCLOSES
THAT REPORT WAS MADE. 

APPARENTLY THE SECOND DAY AFTER PETITIONER HAD COMMENCED HER VOYAGE
TO AMERICA THE SHIP'S DOCTOR VISITED HER.  HE FOUND HER WEAK AND
DIZZY.  SHE STATED THAT "SHE COULD NOT STAND THE SEA" AND WOULD NOT GO
TO THE DINING ROOM.  THE DOCTOR'S IMPRESSION AFTER HIS FIRST VISIT WAS
THAT SHE WAS SEASICK.  THE NEXT DAY, ACCORDING TO THE DOCTOR'S REPORT,
SHE ADMITTED HALLUCINATIONS, STATING THAT AT NIGHT SHE HEARD CRIES AND
SAW FACES, SAID SHE HAD GIVEN THE CONSUL "WRONG INFORMATION," AND
THOUGHT THIS SINFUL.  AT THIS TIME THE SHIP'S DOCTOR WROTE DOWN HIS
"IMPRESSION OF AN INCIPIENT PSYCHOSIS" AND TRANSFERRED HER TO THE
ISOLATION WARD OF THE SHIP'S HOSPITAL.  THE NEXT DAY ACCORDING TO THE
DOCTOR, PETITIONER STATED THAT SHE HAD BEEN TREATED FOR INSANITY AT HER
HOME IN SWEDEN FOR A SIX-MONTH PERIOD TWO YEARS BEFORE.  ON THE LAST
DAY OF THE SEA TRIP, THE SHIP'S DOCTOR REPORTED THAT SHE HAD CLEARED UP
"REMARKABLY," THAT SHE HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF "A LOT OF STRANGE THINGS
SHE HAD SAID BEFORE," WAS SLEEPING WELL, DENIED HAVING ANY
HALLUCINATIONS, AND LOOKED "CONSIDERABLY BETTER." 

IN HER EVIDENCE BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD PETITIONER STATED THAT SHE
SPOKE "TERRIBLY BAD ENGLISH"; THAT PRIOR TO BOARDING THE SHIP SHE HAD
BEEN TO A NUMBER OF PARTIES AND WAS VERY TIRED WHEN SHE CAME ABOARD;
THAT AFTER COMING ABOARD AND DURING THE VOYAGE SHE HAD TAKEN BROMIDES
AND SLEEPING TABLETS; AND THAT IN HER CONDITION SHE JUST SLEPT AND SAID
"YES" TO EVERY QUESTION THE DOCTOR ASKED. 

FROM THE FOREGOING IT APPEARS THAT THE DATA RELIED ON BY THE
GOVERNMENT WAS TOTALLY INADEQUATE TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLATE MEDICAL
BOARD "RE-EXAMINED" PETITIONER.  THE SUM TOTAL OF THAT DATA IS
TESTIMONY GIVEN BY PETITIONER AND HER MEDICAL SPECIALIST TO THE EFFECT
THAT PETITIONER WAS MENTALLY NORMAL, PLUS PETITIONER'S ADMISSIONS THAT
WHILE SEASICK AND UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS SHE HAD SAID THINGS THAT
PROMPTED THE SHIP'S DOCTOR AT ONE TIME TO SUSPECT "INCIPIENT
PSYCHOSIS." 

SO FAR AS THE MEDICAL FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE HERE SHOW, THE DAILY
REPORTS MADE BY THE SHIP'S DOCTOR WHILE PETITIONER WAS A PASSENGER
CONSTITUTE THE ONLY AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER IS OR WAS A
MENTAL DEFECTIVE.  THE PUBLIC HEALTH REGULATIONS PLAINLY PROHIBIT THE
ISSUANCE OF EXCLUSION ORDERS RESTING ON NOTHING BUT A SINGLE EPISODE
REPORTED BY A NON-PUBLIC-HEALTH DOCTOR.  FOR CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT
BEFORE ALIENS SUSPECTED OF MENTAL DEFECTS ARE EXCLUDED, FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS SHALL BE MADE BY PUBLIC HEALTH DOCTORS BASED ON THEIR OWN
EXAMINATIONS MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS DEFINED OR
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.  MEDICAL CERTIFICATES BARRING ALIENS ARE EVEN
THEN TO BE ISSUED "ONLY IF THE PRESENCE OF SUCH  ... DEFECT IS CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED."  42 CODE FED. REG. SEC. 34.4(1947 SUPP.).  AND SUCH
CERTIFICATES "SHALL IN NO CASE BE ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO AN ALIEN
HAVING ONLY MENTAL SHORTCOMINGS DUE TO IGNORANCE, OR SUFFERING ONLY
FROM A MENTAL CONDITION ATTRIBUTABLE TO REMEDIAL PHYSICAL CAUSES, OR
FROM A PSYCHOSIS OF A TEMPORARY NATURE CAUSED BY A TOXIN, DRUG, OR
DISEASE."  42 CODE FED. REG. SEC. 34.7(1947 SUPP.).  SO FAR AS APPEARS
FROM THE APPELLATE CERTIFICATE HERE, THE BOARD MADE NO EXAMINATION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE SHIP EPISODE, AS REPORTED BY THE PHYSICIAN, WAS
THE RESULT OF PETITIONER'S IGNORANCE OF ENGLISH PLUS TEMPORARY DEBILITY
OR WAS THE RESULT OF A MENTAL DEFECT JUSTIFYING EXCLUSION.  EVEN THE
REPORT OF THE SHIP PHYSICIAN CONTAINED NO FINDING ON THIS POINT, AND IT
IS NOT AMISS TO ADD THAT THE VERIFIED PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
CONTAINS AN UNDENIED ALLEGATION THAT THE SHIP'S DOCTOR HAS NOW STATED
THAT "IN HIS OPINION THE ALIEN IS NOT MENTALLY DEFECTIVE."    OUR
HOLDING THAT THE APPELLATE BOARD'S MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND ADDITIONAL
DATA ARE INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE EXCLUSION ORDER MAKES IT UNNECESSARY
TO DECIDE OTHER QUESTIONS RELATING TO APPLICABILITY OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT TO HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF SPECIAL
INQUIRY.  60 STAT. 237, 239, 5 U.S.C. SECS. 1001, 1004. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AFFORDING PETITIONER A PROPER HEARING AND
MEDICAL EXAMINATION BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  39 STAT. 885, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 152. 

FN2 DURING THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY COUNSEL
FOR PETITIONER STATED TO THIS BOARD "THAT FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE
RECORD IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY POSITIVE FINDING OF MENTAL
DEFECTIVENESS APPEARS IN THE RECORD OF THE SHIP'S SURGEON  ...  "
COUNSEL INSISTED THAT PETITIONER WAS SUFFERING FROM NO "MENTAL
DISTURBANCE WHATSOEVER."  IN HER BEHALF HE ASKED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PRODUCE FURTHER MEDICAL TESTIMONY.  IN RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST THE
BOARD'S CHAIRMAN ASKED COUNSEL WHETHER PETITIONER WOULD BE ABLE TO BEAR
THE EXPENSES OF HER CONTINUED DETENTION SHOULD THE BOARD GRANT HER
REQUEST FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE FURTHER MEDICAL TESTIMONY. 
COUNSEL REPLIED THAT HE BELIEVED SHE COULD.  THE BOARD IMMEDIATELY
THEREAFTER CLOSED THE HEARING, MADE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDERED HER
EXCLUDED. 

THE DISSENTING OPINION STATED:  "I WOULD REVERSE THE ORDER AND DIRECT
THAT THE WRIT BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF INADEQUACY OF THE ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE OF THE EXAMINING SURGEONS AND TOTAL FAILURE OF THE
REVIEWING BOARD OF MEDICAL OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS." 
170 F.2D 1009, 1014. 

FN3  "(C)  RE-EXAMINATION SHALL INCLUDE: 

"(1)  A MEDICAL EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD; 

"(2)  A REVIEW OF ALL RECORDS SUBMITTED; 

"(3)  USE OF ANY LABORATORY OR DIAGNOSTIC METHODS OR TESTS DEEMED
ADVISABLE; AND 

"(4)  CONSIDERATION OF STATEMENTS REGARDING THE ALIEN'S PHYSICAL OR
MENTAL CONDITION MADE BY A REPUTABLE PHYSICIAN AFTER HIS EXAMINATION OF
THE ALIEN. 

     .         .         .       .         . 

"(E)  AN ALIEN BEING RE-EXAMINED MAY INTRODUCE AS WITNESSES BEFORE
THE BOARD SUCH PHYSICIANS OR MEDICAL EXPERTS AS THE BOARD MAY IN ITS
DISCRETION PERMIT, AT HIS OWN COST AND EXPENSE,  ...  " 42 CODE FED.
REG. SEC. 34.13(1947 SUPP.). 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON
JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THIS COURT AFFIRMS THE DECISION THAT A PROPER MEDICAL FINDING OF A
PHYSICAL DEFECT WHICH EXCLUDES AN ALIEN FROM ENTRANCE INTO THE UNITED
STATES IS FINAL AND NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER INQUIRY.  WITH THE COURT'S
RULING ON THIS POINT, I AGREE. 

(1)  THE REVERSAL OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS
FOUNDED ON THE COURT'S PREMISE THAT THE REPORT OF THE REVIEWING BOARD
OF MEDICAL OFFICERS "SHOWS THAT THE APPELLATE BOARD BASED ITS
CONCLUSION ON TWO CONSIDERATIONS:  (1) THE INITIAL CERTIFICATE OF THE
TWO PUBLIC HEALTH DOCTORS; (2) TESTIMONY GIVEN BY DR. CARLTON SIMON (A
PSYCHIATRIST CHOSEN BY THE ALIEN)."  THE COURT THEN CONCLUDES THAT "THE
APPELLATE BOARD COULD NOT REST ITS FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS A MENTAL
DEFECTIVE ON THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE WITHOUT DENYING PETITIONER THE
INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND RE-EXAMINATION WHICH CONGRESS AND THE SURGEON
GENERAL HAD PRESCRIBED."  THAT IS TO SAY, THE REPORT, AS THE COURT
PHRASES IT, "MAKES CLEAR THAT THE APPEAL BOARD MADE NO SUCH MEDICAL
EXAMINATION AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS."  FN1  MY READING OF
THE OPINION IS THAT THE COURT THINKS THE RECORD AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS A
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE AND REGULATION SEC. 34.13(G) AND (H)
AS TO FINDINGS AND EXAMINATION.  FN2 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT A MEDICAL APPEAL BOARD MUST CERTIFY THAT
THE ALIEN HAD BEEN EXAMINED.  FN3  I ASSUME, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE COURT
INTENDED TO REQUIRE SPECIFIC CERTIFICATION BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF THE
STEPS LEADING TO ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IT WOULD HAVE MADE SUCH A
HOLDING DEFINITIVE. 

I DISAGREE WITH THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT.  A STRONG
PRESUMPTION EXISTS THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS PERFORM THEIR DUTY.  IF THE
REPORT HAD ADDED THE PHRASE, "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS,"
AFTER THE WORD "CONSIDERED," THERE COULD BE NO DOUBT AS TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE REPORT.  THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY UNTIL
REBUTTED REQUIRES COURTS TO ADOPT SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.  FN4  THE
STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF MEDICAL OFFICERS THAT IT "HAS CONSIDERED THE
APPEAL" MEANS TO ME THAT THE BOARD HAS PROCEEDED CONFORMABLY TO THE
STATUTE AND REGULATIONS. 

(2)  THERE IS A GRAVER ERROR IN THE COURT'S HOLDING, HOWEVER, WHICH
MAY INTERFERE WITH SOUND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  ALTHOUGH PETITIONER
WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, NO OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THE REPORT WAS
MADE DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  THIS CASE HERETOFORE HAS
CENTERED AROUND THE ISSUE OF FINALITY DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT.  EVEN
IN THE SEVERAL HEARINGS OF HER EFFORT TO GET RELIEF BY HABEAS CORPUS,
PETITIONER HAS NEVER ASSERTED, IN THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, THAT SHE WAS
NOT EXAMINED BY THE PHYSICIANS OF THE MEDICAL REVIEW BOARD.  THIS IS
MADE PLAIN BY THE COURT'S STATEMENT OF THE GENERALIZED OBJECTIONS ON
OTHER GROUNDS TO THE REPORT OF THE MEDICAL REVIEW BOARD, SEE OPINION AT
NOTE 2, AND FROM THE AFFIDAVITS AND OBJECTIONS APPEARING IN THE
RECORD.  THE DISSENTING JUDGE, 170 F.2D 1009, 1013, DID NOT REFER TO
THE FAILURE TO EXAMINE PETITIONER.  HE SPOKE ONLY OF THE FAILURE OF THE
BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY AND THE MEDICAL BOARD TO REQUIRE ADEQUATE AND
REVEALING CERTIFICATES AND REPORTS.  EVEN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
DOES NOT PRESENT THE QUESTION.  THE BRIEF DOES NOT DISCUSS IT. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY MUST BE EXHAUSTED BY FAIR EFFORT TO CORRECT
ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS BEFORE RESORT TO HABEAS CORPUS OR OTHER JUDICIAL
REMEDIES.  FN5  TO PERMIT OCCASIONAL REVERSAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
ON POINTS NOT BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE AGENCY HAMPERS
ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINE AND, IF ADOPTED AS A RULE OF LAW, WOULD
DISORGANIZE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  AFTERTHOUGHT CANNOT TAKE THE
PLACE OF REQUIRED OBJECTION.  THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE RULES OF
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE DEFEAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  FN6  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THIS RECORD TO INDICATE THAT DISABILITIES OF PETITIONER, OR
DIFFICULTIES OF PROCEDURE OR PRACTICE, THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW RULE OF
LAW OR ANY OTHER CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCE HAS AFFECTED THE COURSE OF
PETITIONER'S PLEAS.  SHE HAS HAD ADVANTAGE OF EVERY METHOD OF RELIEF
KNOWN TO THE LAW BUT HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO BRING FORWARD THE GROUND UPON
WHICH THIS COURT REVERSES. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HAD OBJECTION BEEN MADE TO THE FORM OF THE REPORT
OF THE BOARD OF MEDICAL OFFICERS AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF
SPECIAL INQUIRY, APRIL 6, 1948, A PROMPT ELABORATION OF THE REPORT
COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED OR, IF NO EXAMINATION SUCH AS IS REQUIRED BY
THE REGULATIONS HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE
PROMPTLY.  PROPER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE REQUIRES THAT OBJECTION TO
CERTIFICATES BE MADE AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS
DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY. 
A LITIGANT'S UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE DOES NOT JUSTIFY
CAPRICIOUS JUDICIAL INTERVENTION ON BEHALF OF AN INDIVIDUAL. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

FN1 THE REPORT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST OF THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND
THE ORDER OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN CHARGE, THE FOLLOWING BOARD OF
MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, HAS CONSIDERED THE
APPEAL REGARDING SUBJECT-NAMED ALIEN MAY GUNBORG JOHNSON AND AFTER
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CERTIFICATE OF MAR. 11, 1948 AND THE
TESTIMONY GIVEN BY DR. CARLTON SIMON, REPORTS THAT IT CONCURS WITH THE
ABOVE DATED CERTIFICATE." 

FN2  39 STAT. 885, AS AMENDED, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 152: 

"SEC. 16.  THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF ALL ARRIVING ALIENS
SHALL BE MADE BY MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE WHO SHALL CONDUCT ALL MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS AND SHALL CERTIFY,
FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND THE BOARDS OF
SPECIAL INQUIRY HEREINAFTER PROVIDED FOR, ANY AND ALL PHYSICAL AND
MENTAL DEFECTS OR DISEASES OBSERVED BY SAID MEDICAL OFFICERS IN ANY
SUCH ALIEN; ...  ANY ALIEN CERTIFIED FOR INSANITY OR MENTAL DEFECT MAY
APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE, WHICH SHALL BE CONVENED BY THE SURGEON GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, AND SAID ALIEN MAY INTRODUCE
BEFORE SUCH BOARD ONE EXPERT MEDICAL WITNESS AT HIS OWN COST AND
EXPENSE.  ...  " 

42 C.F.R. SEC. 34.13(1947 SUPP.).  "RE-EXAMINATION; CONVENING OF
BOARDS; EXPERT WITNESSES; REPORTS.  (A)  THE SURGEON GENERAL, OR WHEN
AUTHORIZED, A MEDICAL OFFICER IN CHARGE, SHALL CONVENE A BOARD OF
MEDICAL OFFICERS TO RE-EXAMINE AN ALIEN 

     .         .         .        .         . 

"(2)  UPON AN APPEAL BY THE ALIEN FROM A CERTIFICATE OF INSANITY OR
MENTAL DEFECT, ISSUED AT A PORT OF ENTRY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  RE-EXAMINATION SHALL INCLUDE: 

"(1)  A MEDICAL EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD; 

"(2)  A REVIEW OF ALL RECORDS SUBMITTED; 

"(3)  USE OF ANY LABORATORY OR DIAGNOSTIC METHODS OR TESTS DEEMED
ADVISABLE; AND 

"(4)  CONSIDERATION OF STATEMENTS REGARDING THE ALIEN'S PHYSICAL OR
MENTAL CONDITION MADE BY A REPUTABLE PHYSICIAN AFTER HIS EXAMINATION OF
THE ALIEN. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(G)  THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD SHALL BE BASED ON ITS
MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ALIEN AND ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO IT
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD OF ITS PROCEEDINGS. 

"(H)  THE BOARD SHALL REPORT ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO THE
IMMIGRATION SERVICE, AND SHALL ALSO GIVE PROMPT NOTICE THEREOF TO THE
ALIEN IF THE RE-EXAMINATION HAS BEEN HELD UPON HIS APPEAL.  THE BOARD'S
REPORT TO THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE SHALL SPECIFICALLY AFFIRM, MODIFY, OR
REJECT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF PRIOR EXAMINING MEDICAL
OFFICERS." 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD WAS MADE A
PART OF THE REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY AS REQUIRED BY THE
REGULATION. 

FN3  "IT HARDLY SEEMS NECESSARY TO ADD THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE
APPELLATE BOARD THAT IT HAD 'CONSIDERED THE APPEAL,' CANNOT BE TREATED
AS A CERTIFICATION THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN GIVEN AN INDEPENDENT
MEDICAL EXAMINATION." 

FN4  LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 63, 73:  "IT IS THE SETTLED
GENERAL RULE THAT ALL NECESSARY PREREQUISITES TO THE VALIDITY OF
OFFICIAL ACTION ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AND THAT WHERE
THE CONTRARY IS ASSERTED IT MUST BE AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN." 

STEARNS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 54, 63, AND AUTHORITIES CITED;
UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1, 14. 

FN5  WE REFUSED TO REVIEW AN ISSUE NOT RAISED BEFORE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IN UNEMPLOYMENT COMMISSION V. ARAGON, 329 U.S. 143,
155:  "A REVIEWING COURT USURPS THE AGENCY'S FUNCTION WHEN IT SETS
ASIDE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION UPON A GROUND NOT THERETOFORE
PRESENTED AND DEPRIVES THE COMMISSION OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE
MATTER, MAKE ITS RULING, AND STATE THE REASONS FOR ITS ACTION."  TRI
STATE BROADCASTING CO. V. F.C.C., 107 F.2D 956, 958.  CF. MYERS V.
BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 51, NOTE 9; BLAIR V. OESTERLEIN CO., 275
U.S. 220. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT CONTEMPLATES PRESENTATION BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OF EVERY ISSUE THAT MAY BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW BY HABEAS CORPUS OR APPELLATE PROCESS.  60 STAT. 237,
SECS. 7(C), 8(B)(2), 10(B), (C) AND (E).  THE RULE AGAINST RAISING
QUESTIONS ON JUDICIAL REVIEW THAT WERE NOT RAISED IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS HAS GENERAL APPLICATION, SEE CALDARONE V. ZONING BOARD OF
REVIEW, 74 R.I. 196, 199, 60 A.2D 158, 159; REISBERG V. BOARD OF
STANDARDS AND APPEALS, 81 N.Y.S.2D 511, 513; GENERAL TRANSP.  CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 65 F.SUPP.  981, 984. 

FN6  CF. HORMEL V. HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552, 557. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. WALLACE CO., 336 U.S. 793 


NO. 416.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 1949.  - DECIDED MAY 2, 1949.  - REVERSED. 


IN A GRAND JURY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE INDICTMENT OF
APPELLEES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO
PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA OBTAINED AND SERVED IN
A PROPER MANNER, AND THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT IT WAS NOT SO BROAD
AND SWEEPING AS TO CONSTITUTE AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 
LATER THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED AND THE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND
PHOTOSTATIC COPIES THEREOF WERE ORDERED RETURNED TO APPELLEES, SOLELY
BECAUSE WOMEN WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE GRAND JURY.  IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING
CHARGING APPELLEES WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE DISTRICT
COURT DENIED A MOTION AND QUASHED A SUBPOENA TO REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF
THE SAME DOCUMENTS, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.  IN A TRIAL IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING, THE GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCED SUCH EVIDENCE AS IT HAD, INDICATED THAT THIS WAS
INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE OF THE EXCLUSION OF THE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS, BUT
REQUESTED THE COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  THE TRIAL
COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  HELD: 

1.  DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE NO WOMEN WERE ON THE GRAND
JURY WAS NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR HOLDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS
BARRED FROM MAKING USE OF THE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS IN A FUTURE VALID
PROCEEDING.  SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 795-800. 

2.  FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO APPEAL FROM THE ORDERS IN THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING DISMISSING THE INDICTMENT AND REQUIRING THE RETURN
OF THE DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOSTATIC COPIES THEREOF DID NOT BAR THE
GOVERNMENT BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA FROM HAVING THE DOCUMENTS
PRODUCED IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING.  PP. 800-801. 

3.  ANOTHER ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT "PRECLUDING AND RESTRAINING
THE UNITED STATES FROM USING IN ANY WAY OR FOR ANY PURPOSE ANY
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM OR CONTAINED IN" ANY
OF THE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING AND DID NOT BAR THEIR USE IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING.  PP. 801
803. 

4.  THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL PROCEEDING WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO FILING ANOTHER SUIT DID NOT MAKE THE CAUSE UNAPPEALABLE, FOR DENIAL
OF RELIEF AND DISMISSAL OF THE CASE ENDED THIS SUIT SO FAR AS THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS CONCERNED.  PP. 794-795, N. 1. 

UNITED STATES V. WALLACE & TIERNAN CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
RHODE ISLAND. 

IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE
DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO REQUIRE THE PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN BOOKS AND
DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED BEFORE A GRAND JURY IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING AND ORDERED RETURNED BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY WAS IMPROPERLY
CONSTITUTED.  IT DISMISSED THE CIVIL PROCEEDING WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  ON
APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 803. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE BASIC QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION
OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BARS THE UNITED STATES FROM
UTILIZING CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS CIVIL ANTITRUST
PROCEEDING INSTITUTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF RHODE
ISLAND.  SUBSIDIARY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS INVOLVE THE DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA.  FN1  WE PROCEED AT ONCE TO CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPORTANT
BASIC QUESTION SINCE FOR REASONS LATER GIVEN WE REJECT THE SUBSIDIARY
RES JUDICATA CONTENTIONS. 

FIRST.  WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO UTILIZE THE DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE IN THIS CIVIL PROCEEDING CAN BE BEST UNDERSTOOD BY AN
IMMEDIATE REFERENCE TO THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385.  APPELLEES HERE CONTEND THAT THE
SILVERTHORNE HOLDING IS A COMPLETE AND PERMANENT BAR TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE, TO THE USE OF
THE DOCUMENTS TO OBTAIN OTHER EVIDENCE, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. 

THE FACTS IN THE SILVERTHORNE CASE AS FOUND BY THIS COURT WERE THESE:
THE SILVERTHORNES HAVING BEEN INDICTED WERE ARRESTED AT THEIR HOMES
EARLY IN THE MORNING AND DETAINED IN CUSTODY FOR SOME HOURS.  WHILE SO
DETAINED GOVERNMENT OFFICERS "WITHOUT A SHADOW OF AUTHORITY" WENT TO
THE OFFICE OF THEIR COMPANY AND MADE A CLEAN SWEEP OF ALL THE BOOKS,
PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS FOUND THERE.  "ALL THE EMPLOYEES WERE TAKEN OR
DIRECTED TO GO TO THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE UNITED
STATES TO WHICH ALSO THE BOOKS, &C., WERE TAKEN AT ONCE."  THE DISTRICT
COURT ORDERED ALL BOOKS, ETC., RETURNED ON A FINDING THAT THE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES. 
PHOTOGRAPHS AND COPIES OF THE PAPERS HAVING BEEN MADE, A NEW INDICTMENT
WAS RETURNED BASED UPON THE KNOWLEDGE THUS OBTAINED.  SUBPOENAS WERE
THEN ISSUED CALLING FOR PRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL PAPERS.  UPON
REFUSAL TO PRODUCE, ONE OF THE SILVERTHORNES WAS IMPRISONED FOR
CONTEMPT. 

THIS COURT VIEWED THE WHOLE PERFORMANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND
SEIZURE OF THE SILVERTHORNE BOOKS AND PAPERS AS AN "OUTRAGE," PLANNED
OR AT LEAST RATIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT
WAS HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NEITHER ENTITLED TO USE THE ORIGINAL
DOCUMENTS NOR ANY KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED FROM THE ORIGINALS, THE
PHOTOSTATS, OR THE COPIES.  THE RULE ANNOUNCED WAS THAT EVIDENCE OR
KNOWLEDGE "GAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN WRONG" IS NOT MERELY
FORBIDDEN TO BE "USED BEFORE THE COURT BUT THAT IT SHALL NOT BE USED AT
ALL."  OTHER CASES IN THIS COURT HAVE APPLIED THE SAME RULE.  FN2  IT
IS AN EXTRAORDINARY SANCTION, JUDICIALLY IMPOSED, TO LIMIT SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES TO THOSE CONDUCTED IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMANDS OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US, HOWEVER, UNITED STATES OFFICERS DID NOT GO TO
THE APPELLEES' OFFICES AND SEIZE THEIR DOCUMENTS.  OFFICERS SERVED A
COURT SUBPOENA ON APPELLEES CALLING ON THEM TO PRODUCE CERTAIN
DESIGNATED DOCUMENTS FOR USE IN A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION.  APPELLEES
CHALLENGED THE SUBPOENA ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS SO BROAD AND SWEEPING
AS TO CONSTITUTE AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT AT ALL TIMES HAS REJECTED THIS
CONTENTION, AND APPELLEES DO NOT URGE IT HERE.  THUS IT CANNOT BE
THOUGHT THAT THE FORM OF THE SUBPOENA OR THE METHOD OF ITS ENFORCEMENT
CONSTITUTES EVEN A "CONSTRUCTIVE" SEARCH OR SEIZURE BARRED AS
"UNREASONABLE" BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  OKLAHOMA PRESS CO. V. WALLING,
327 U.S. 186, 202-208.  AND UP TO THIS POINT NOTHING THAT HAPPENED IN
THIS CASE IS EVEN REMOTELY ANALOGOUS TO THE SITUATION THAT EVOKED THIS
COURT'S CONDEMNATION IN THE SILVERTHORNE CASE.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND AND APPELLEES HERE URGE THAT SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS CASE
CALL FOR APPLICATION OF THE SILVERTHORNE RULE.  THOSE DEVELOPMENTS WERE
AS FOLLOWS: 

THE GRAND JURY BEFORE WHICH THE DOCUMENTS WERE PRODUCED RETURNED AN
INDICTMENT AGAINST APPELLEES AND OTHERS CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1
AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN3  SHORTLY AFTER WE DECIDED BALLARD V.
UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 187, THE DISTRICT COURT ON MOTION OF APPELLEES
DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT PRACTICE OF
INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDING WOMEN FROM THE GRAND JURY
PANEL RENDERED THE GRAND JURY AN ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED BODY.  ON THE
SAME DAY THE COURT GRANTED APPELLEES' MOTION FOR RETURN OF THE
PREVIOUSLY IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS.  LATER THE COURT ORDERED THE GOVERNMENT
TO RETURN A NUMBER OF PHOTOSTATS THAT HAD BEEN MADE OF THE ORIGINAL
DOCUMENTS.  IN AN OPINION DISCUSSING RETURN OF THE PHOTOSTATS THE
DISTRICT COURT REAFFIRMED ITS BELIEF THAT THE "SUBPOENAS DID NOT
VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE
THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED FOR PRESENTATION TO A LEGAL GRAND JURY."  THE
COURT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT "WHEN THE GRAND JURY TURNED OUT TO BE
ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED AND THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED  ...  THE
SUBPOENAS AMOUNTED TO UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IN VIOLATION
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT  ...  " 

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT A CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO HAVE THE GRAND JURY A
"TRULY REPRESENTATIVE" CROSS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY, WE HELD IN THE
BALLARD CASE, SUPRA, THAT EXCLUSION OF WOMEN FROM THE GRAND JURY
REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF AN INDICTMENT.  THE EFFECT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S HOLDING HERE WAS TO ADD TO THE BALLARD REQUIREMENT FOR
DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT A FURTHER EXTRAORDINARY SANCTION DEVISED BY
THIS COURT TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  FOR HERE
THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL CULPABILITY IN ISSUANCE OR SERVICE OF THE
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM.  THE SOLE ULTIMATE REASON FOR THE DISTRICT
COURT'S APPLICATION OF THE SILVERTHORNE RULE WAS THAT NO WOMEN WERE ON
THE GRAND JURY, A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT BEARS ONLY A REMOTE IF NOT WHOLLY
THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIP TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT
THE SILVERTHORNE RULE REQUIRES SUCH A RESULT. 

ASIDE FROM THE LIMITED EXTENT TO WHICH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLIES
TO THE SUBPOENA PROCESS, SEE OKLAHOMA PRESS CO. V. WALLING, 327 U.S.
186, THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY THE SILVERTHORNE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE.  THAT RULE STEMS
FROM THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT COMMAND RESTS "UPON THE DESIRABILITY OF HAVING MAGISTRATES
RATHER THAN POLICE OFFICERS DETERMINE WHEN SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ARE
PERMISSIBLE AND WHAT LIMITATIONS SHOULD BE PLACED UPON SUCH
ACTIVITIES."  TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699, 705; SEE ALSO
MCDONALD V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 451, 455-456.  THE SILVERTHORNE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY FROM A MAGISTRATE. 
AND THE SEIZURE WAS SO SWEEPING IN NATURE THAT IT PROBABLY COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY A SEARCH WARRANT.  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 383, 393-394.  THE SILVERTHORNE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AS EXPLAINED IN
THAT CASE AND OTHERS IS DESIGNED TO SAFEGUARD THE PRIVACY OF PEOPLE,
AND TO PREVENT SEIZURE OF THEIR PAPERS AND PROPERTY EXCEPT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH VALID JUDICIAL PROCESS.  AS TERSELY STATED IN THE
SILVERTHORNE CASE THE RULE'S PURPOSE IS TO PREVENT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
FROM BEING REDUCED TO "A FORM OF WORDS." 

ONLY BY ENGAGING IN THE MOST EXAGGERATED APPREHENSIONS CAN THE ACTION
OF THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS IN THIS CASE BE CONSIDERED A THREAT TO THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THEY WENT TO THE COURT FOR THEIR SUBPOENA.  THE
COURT APPROVED IT.  THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT THE SUBPOENA WAS OBTAINED OR
SERVED IN AN IMPROPER MANNER OR THAT ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICER COMMITTED A
WRONG IN THE WAY THE DOCUMENTS WERE HANDLED OR RETURNED.  AT LEAST MANY
OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE SERIOUS MONOPOLY OFFENSES
CHARGED AGAINST APPELLEES.  THAT THERE WERE NO WOMEN ON THE GRAND JURY
DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO ANY INVASION OF APPELLEES' PRIVACY.  DISMISSAL OF
THE INDICTMENT COULD NOT TRANSFORM WHAT HAD BEEN PROPER OFFICIAL
CONDUCT INTO THE TYPE OF CONDUCT CONDEMNED IN THE SILVERTHORNE AND
OTHER CASES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT A METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE TO SUPPORT A
STRAINED ANALOGY BETWEEN THE SITUATION HERE AND THAT IN THE
SILVERTHORNE AND OTHER CASES.  THAT ARGUMENT IS THAT THE "ILLEGAL"
GRAND JURY WAS ONLY A "SO-CALLED" GRAND JURY, AND THAT THE CONSIDERED
JUDICIAL COMMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS BEFORE IT MUST BE TREATED AS
THOUGH THE COURT HAD ORDERED PRODUCTION OF PAPERS BEFORE A GROUP OF
APPELLEES' COMPETITORS.  THIS ARGUMENT HAS A SUPERFICIAL PLAUSIBILITY
ON THE WORD LEVEL, BUT IF OUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANCE RATHER
THAN SYMBOLS THE SPECIOUSNESS OF THE ARGUMENT IS EXPOSED. 

WHATEVER INJURY APPELLEES MAY HAVE SUFFERED RESULTED FROM THE ABSENCE
OF WOMEN ON THE GRAND JURY AND THAT INJURY HAS BEEN REMEDIED BY FREEING
APPELLEES FROM PROSECUTION UNDER THE INDICTMENT.  FURTHERMORE THE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE HERE, IF SUCH IT CAN BE CALLED IN ANY TRUE SENSE,
WAS NOT THE KIND THAT HAS PROMPTED THIS COURT TO HOLD THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAS BY WRONGFUL CONDUCT OF ITS OFFICERS FORFEITED ALL
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE USE OF EVIDENCE UNLAWFULLY SEIZED.  WE DECLINE TO
EXTEND THE SILVERTHORNE RULE TO SUCH AN EXTENT.  THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
IMPORTANT AS IT IS IN OUR SOCIETY, DOES NOT CALL FOR IMPOSITION OF
JUDICIAL SANCTIONS WHERE ENFORCING OFFICERS HAVE FOLLOWED THE LAW WITH
SUCH PUNCTILIOUS REGARD AS THEY HAVE HERE.  WE HOLD THAT DISMISSAL OF
THE GRAND JURY BECAUSE NO WOMEN WERE ON IT IS NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR
HOLDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS BARRED FROM MAKING USE OF THE SUMMONED
DOCUMENTS. 

SECOND.  AT THE SAME TIME THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THE INDICTMENT
DISMISSED IT ALSO ORDERED THAT THE DOCUMENTS BE RETURNED TO THE
DEFENDANTS.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT APPEAL FROM THE ORDER DISMISSING
THE INDICTMENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. HARK, 320 U.S. 531, 535-36.  IT
IS CONTENDED THAT BY ITS FAILURE TO APPEAL, THE GOVERNMENT IS BARRED BY
THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA FROM CHALLENGING THE DISMISSAL AND RETURN
ORDERS. 

ASSUMING THAT THE GOVERNMENT BY FAILURE TO APPEAL IS BARRED FROM
CHALLENGING THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE GRAND JURY WAS ILLEGALLY
CONSTITUTED AND THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE PROPERLY ORDERED RETURNED, IT
BY NO MEANS FOLLOWS THAT THESE ORDERS PERMANENTLY BARRED THE GOVERNMENT
FROM ANY FUTURE USE OF THE DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE.  FOR THE GOVERNMENT
FORFEITED NO RIGHTS TO USE THE DOCUMENTS IN A FUTURE VALID PROCEEDING
BY FAILING TO APPEAL FROM THE DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT - A DISMISSAL
IT BELIEVED TO BE SUPPORTED BY OUR HOLDING IN THE BALLARD CASE.  AND
DISMISSAL OF THE PENDING INDICTMENT AFTER HOLDING THE GRAND JURY
ILLEGAL CREATED A SITUATION WHERE APPELLEES WERE ENTITLED TO RETURN OF
THEIR PAPERS AS A MATTER OF COURSE.  CONSEQUENTLY AN APPEAL FROM THE
RETURN ORDER ALONE, EVEN IF SUCH AN APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN, WOULD
HAVE AVAILED THE GOVERNMENT NOTHING.  FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS WE HOLD
THAT ORDERS DISMISSING THE INDICTMENT AND REQUIRING RETURN OF THE
DOCUMENTS DID NOT AFFECT THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO HAVE THE DOCUMENTS
PRODUCED IN THESE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. 

FOR THE SAME REASONS WE HOLD THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO DEMAND
PRODUCTION IN THIS CIVIL CASE WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S
LATER ORDER REQUIRING RETURN OF PHOTOSTATIC COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS. 
RETURN OF THE PHOTOSTATS, LIKE RETURN OF THE ORIGINALS, NECESSARILY
FOLLOWED FROM THE DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT.  THIS WAS RECOGNIZED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT WHEN IN DIRECTING RETURN OF THE PHOTOSTATS THE COURT
SAID, "SINCE THESE MOTIONS STEM FROM INDICTMENT NO. 6055, THE CLERK IS
ORDERED TO MAKE THE MOTIONS, THE HEARINGS THEREON, AND THIS OPINION
PART OF THE RECORD OF SAID INDICTMENT." 

THIRD.  FOR THEIR CLAIM OF RES JUDICATA APPELLEES ALSO RELY ON A
THIRD ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT "PRECLUDING AND RESTRAINING THE
UNITED STATES FROM USING IN ANY WAY OR FOR ANY PURPOSE ANY KNOWLEDGE,
INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM OR CONTAINED IN ANY OF THE
AFORESAID ILLEGALLY SEIZED PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS."  THIS ORDER WAS
ENTERED PRIOR TO THE COURT'S ACTION IN THIS CIVIL PROCEEDING IN WHICH
IT QUASHED THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND REFUSED TO ORDER PRODUCTION OF
THE DOCUMENTS.  APPELLEES CONTEND THAT THIS ORDER WAS A "DECREE OF
JUDICIAL OUTLAWRY" AGAINST ANY FUTURE GOVERNMENT USE OF THE PAPERS OR
KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED FROM THEM; THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE BUT DID
NOT APPEAL FROM THE ORDER; THAT FOR THIS REASON THE "DECREE OF JUDICIAL
OUTLAWRY" HAD BECOME FINAL AND BINDING UPON THE GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME
IT ASKED FOR PRODUCTION IN THIS PROCEEDING.  THE GOVERNMENT DENIES THAT
THE ORDER HAD OR WAS INTENDED TO HAVE THE BROAD PROSCRIPTIVE EFFECT
URGED BY RESPONDENTS.  IN ADDITION, THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE
ORDER WAS INTERLOCUTORY AND THEREFORE NOT APPEALABLE.  ON THIS LATTER
PREMISE THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON "FAMILIAR LAW THAT ONLY A FINAL
JUDGMENT IS RES JUDICATA AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES."  MERRIAM CO. V.
SAALFIELD, 241 U.S. 22, 28.    TO SOME EXTENT BOTH PHASES OF THE
CONTENTION - SCOPE OF THE ORDER AND ITS APPEALABILITY - DEPEND UPON
WHETHER THE PROCEEDING WAS HANDLED BY THE COURT AS AN INDEPENDENT
PLENARY PROCEEDING OR ONE TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AT A FORTHCOMING TRIAL. 
FOR A JUDGMENT IN AN INDEPENDENT PLENARY PROCEEDING FOR RETURN OF
PROPERTY AND ITS SUPPRESSION AS EVIDENCE IS FINAL AND APPEALABLE AND
THE SCOPE OF RELIEF IN SUCH A CASE MAY EXTEND FAR BEYOND ITS EFFECT ON
A PENDING TRIAL; BUT A DECISION ON A MOTION TO RETURN OR SUPPRESS
EVIDENCE IN A PENDING TRIAL MAY BE NO MORE THAN A PROCEDURAL STEP IN A
PARTICULAR CASE AND IN SUCH EVENT THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION WOULD NOT
EXTEND BEYOND THAT CASE.  WHETHER A MOTION IS TO BE TREATED AS
INDEPENDENT AND PLENARY OR AS MERELY A PROCEDURAL STEP IN A PENDING
TRIAL MUST BE DETERMINED BY PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE COGEN V.
UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 221.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE WE THINK SHOW THAT
THE ORDER NOW CONSIDERED WAS NOT ONE OF PERMANENT GENERAL "OUTLAWRY"
AGAINST ALL USE OF THE DOCUMENTS INVOLVED, BUT AN ORDER TO PREVENT
THEIR USE IN A PARTICULAR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING THEN PENDING. 

AFTER THE COURT HAD DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE NO WOMEN WERE ON
THE JURY, THE GOVERNMENT FILED IN THE SAME DISTRICT COURT AN
INFORMATION CHARGING THE SAME OFFENSE.  THE DEFENDANTS FILED A MOTION
IN THE INFORMATION PROCEEDING (1) TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION; (2) IN
THE ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISS AND EXPUNGE THOSE FACTS OF THE INFORMATION
BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED FROM THE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS; (3) TO
PRECLUDE AND RESTRAIN THE UNITED STATES FROM USING IN ANY WAY OR FOR
ANY PURPOSE KNOWLEDGE OR EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM OR CONTAINED IN THE
DOCUMENTS.  THE COURT DENIED (1) AND (2) BUT GRANTED (3).  THE MOTION,
COURT OPINION, AND COURT ORDER BORE THE TITLE AND NUMBER (6070) OF THE
CRIMINAL INFORMATION PROCEEDING.  DURING THE ARGUMENT COLLOQUIES TOOK
PLACE BETWEEN COURT AND COUNSEL WHICH EMPHASIZED THAT THE MOTION
RELATED TO "CRIMINAL 6070." 

THE MOTION WAS ARGUED AT LENGTH BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE. 
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE COURT'S ORDER ON THE
MOTION WOULD NOT BE APPEALABLE.  SEE COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309
U.S. 323; UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER, 145 F.2D 1015.  HE THEREFORE
ASKED THE COURT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE FORM OF THE ORDER, EXPRESSING
APPREHENSIONS THAT COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES WOULD LATER ARGUE THAT THE
ORDER ENTERED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING WAS BROAD ENOUGH TO BAR USE OF
THE DOCUMENTS IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.  GOVERNMENT COUNSEL INDICATED
HIS PLANS SUBSEQUENTLY TO PRESENT THE ISSUE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT
TO USE THE DOCUMENTS IN THIS CIVIL PROCEEDING, TAKING THE POSITION THAT
AN APPEAL WOULD THEN LIE.  HE THEREFORE ASKED THE COURT TO AWAIT ENTRY
OF ANY ORDER UNTIL HIS PLANS COULD BE CARRIED OUT.  APPELLEES' COUNSEL
TOLD THE COURT THAT "THE PLANS WHICH MR. KELLEHER HAS CONCERN CIVIL
6055.  THIS IS CRIMINAL 6070."  AND THE COURT TOLD GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
THAT THE PRECLUSION ORDER WOULD PRECLUDE USE OF THE DOCUMENTS "ONLY IN
THIS (CRIMINAL) ACTION."  THE COURT FURTHER SAID TO GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
THAT IF THE COURT MADE A WRONG ORDER "THEN YOU CAN GO AHEAD AS YOU
CONTEND OR PLAN TO GO AHEAD IN YOUR CIVIL ACTION."  FINALLY, JUST
BEFORE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON THE ORDER, THE COURT TOLD
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, "I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS GOING TO PREJUDICE YOU IN
SOME OTHER CASE, AND THIS COURT IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH 6070(CRIMINAL
INFORMATION CHARGE) AT THIS TIME, AS I UNDERSTAND IT." 

WE HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING UP TO THE PRECLUSION ORDER MUST
BE DEEMED A PART OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, SEE COGEN V. UNITED
STATES, 278 U.S. 221, 227; THAT THE ORDER DID NOT PRECLUDE USE OF THE
DOCUMENTS EXCEPT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS; AND THAT THIS ORDER DOES NOT
STAND AS A BAR TO CONSIDERATION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DOCUMENTS
FOR USE AS EVIDENCE IN THIS CIVIL CASE. 

OTHER CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND FOUND TO BE
WITHOUT MERIT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  APPELLEES HAVE MOVED TO DISMISS THIS APPEAL TAKEN BY THE UNITED
STATES UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1903, 32
STAT. 823, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, AS AMENDED, ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, SEC.
17, 62 STAT. 869, 989.  THE DECISION APPEALED FROM WAS AS FOLLOWS:
"THE GOVERNMENT'S 'REQUEST' FOR JUDGMENT AND RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN THE
COMPLAINT IS DENIED AND JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED DISMISSING THE ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  IT IS SO ORDERED." 

THIS JUDGMENT FOLLOWED THE COURT'S ACTION IN DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S
MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ESSENTIAL TO PROVE THE GOVERNMENT'S
CASE.  THE RECORD FAILS TO SUSTAIN APPELLEES' CONTENTION THAT THE
GOVERNMENT INVITED THE COURT TO ENTER THIS ORDER DENYING RELIEF AND
DISMISSING THE ACTION.  THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
FILING ANOTHER SUIT DOES NOT MAKE THE CAUSE UNAPPEALABLE, FOR DENIAL OF
RELIEF AND DISMISSAL OF THE CASE ENDED THIS SUIT SO FAR AS THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS CONCERNED.  WECKER V. NATIONAL ENAMELING CO., 204 U.S. 176,
181-182.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, 334 U.S. 573,
577, AND BOWLES V. BEATRICE CREAMERY CO., 146 F.2D 774.  THE MOTION TO
DISMISS THE APPEAL IS OVERRULED. 

FN2  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383; JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES,
333 U.S. 10; GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344; BYARS V.
UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298;
UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452; TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES,
334 U.S. 699; AND CF. HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145; ZAP V.
UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 624; DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582. 

FN3  26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED 50 STAT. 693, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2. 
..END :





















UNITED STATES V. URBUTEIT, 336 U.S. 804 


NO. 640.  DECIDED MAY 2, 1949.  - 172 F.2D 386, REVERSED. 


IN REVERSING THE DECISION BELOW IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING UNDER
THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT AND REMANDING THE CASE TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS, 335 U.S. 355, THIS COURT DECIDED THAT THE SEPARATE
SHIPMENT OF CERTAIN MACHINES AND CERTAIN LEAFLETS RELATIVE TO THEIR
ALLEGED DIAGNOSTIC AND CURATIVE VALUE WAS IMMATERIAL BECAUSE THE
MOVEMENT OF THE MACHINES AND LEAFLETS CONSTITUTED A SINGLE INTERRELATED
ACTIVITY; BUT IT LEFT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE FALSITY OF THE ADVERTISING AS
TO THE DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITIES OF THE MACHINES WAS ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN
THEIR CONDEMNATION EVEN THOUGH ERROR IN EXCLUSION OF OTHER EVIDENCE
WERE CONCEDED.  HELD:  THE UNITED STATES WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON
THE LATTER QUESTION; AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO FOLLOW THE
MANDATE OF THIS COURT WHEN IT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR DETERMINATION OF A QUESTION AS TO WHICH OF THE SHIPMENTS MIGHT BE
CONSIDERED A SINGLE INTERRELATED ACTIVITY.  PP. 804-806. 

UNITED STATES V. URBUTEIT. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

AFTER THE DECISION OF THIS COURT, REVERSING THE DECISION BELOW AND
REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, 335 U.S. 355, THE LATTER
COURT REMANDED IT TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  172
F.2D 386.  CERTIORARI GRANTED AND JUDGMENT REVERSED, P. 806. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS PETITION IS WHETHER THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOLLOWED OUR MANDATE ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE IN 335 U.S. 355. 

THE CASE WHEN IT WAS HERE EARLIER THIS TERM APPEARED IN THE FOLLOWING
POSTURE: 

A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT (52 STAT. 1040, 1044, 21
U.S.C. SEC. 334).  SIXTEEN MACHINES WITH ALLEGED DIAGNOSTIC AND
CURATIVE CAPABILITIES HAD BEEN SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
LEAFLETS DESCRIBING THE USES OF THE MACHINE HAD BEEN SHIPPED AT A
SEPARATE TIME.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD HELD THAT THE SEPARATE
SHIPMENTS OF THE MACHINES AND LEAFLETS PRECLUDED A CONCLUSION THAT THE
LEAFLETS HAD ACCOMPANIED THE DEVICE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
THEREFORE THE TRANSACTION WAS OUTSIDE THE REACH OF THE ACT.  WE
REVERSED THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HELD THAT THE SEPARATE SHIPMENT OF
THE MACHINES AND LEAFLETS CONSTITUTED A SINGLE INTERRELATED ACTIVITY. 

ON REMAND THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT BECAUSE THERE WERE
SEVERAL SHIPMENTS OF MACHINES AND A SINGLE SHIPMENT OF ADVERTISING
MATTER, IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHICH SHIPMENTS MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE
INTERRELATED ACTIVITY.  THEREFORE, IT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR A DETERMINATION OF THIS FACT.  172 F.2D 386. 

WHEN THE CASE WAS HERE BEFORE, WE DECIDED THAT THE FACT OF SEPARATE
SHIPMENTS OF MACHINES AND LEAFLETS WAS IMMATERIAL.  THE CONTROLLING
FACTORS WERE WHETHER THE LEAFLETS WERE DESIGNED FOR USE WITH THE
MACHINE AND WHETHER THEY WERE SO USED.  SINCE THE FUNCTION OF THE
LEAFLETS AND THE PURPOSE OF THEIR SHIPMENT WERE ESTABLISHED, NOTHING
MORE WAS NEEDED TO SHOW THAT THE MOVEMENTS OF THE MACHINES AND LEAFLETS
CONSTITUTED A SINGLE INTERRELATED ACTIVITY.  MOREOVER, THE CASE IS NOT
COMPLICATED BY SHIPMENTS OF MACHINES AND LEAFLETS TO DIFFERENT
PERSONS.  ONE KELSCH WAS THE RECIPIENT OF BOTH. 

ON REMAND THE COURT OF APPEALS ADHERED TO ITS FORMER RULING THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDED EVIDENCE AS TO THE THERAPEUTIC OR
CURATIVE VALUE OF THE MACHINES.  WHEN THE CASE WAS HERE BEFORE WE DID
NOT DISTURB THAT RULING.  BUT WE DID LEAVE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
CONSIDERATION A FURTHER QUESTION - WHETHER THE EVIDENCE AS RESPECTS THE
FALSITY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITIES OF
THE MACHINES WAS ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE CONDEMNATION EVEN THOUGH ERROR
IN EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE WERE CONCEDED.  THE UNITED STATES IS
ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THAT QUESTION. 

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS GRANTED AND THE JUDGMENT REVERSED. 
..END :


















WADE V. HUNTER, 336 U.S. 684 


NO. 427.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1949.  - 169 F.2D
973, AFFIRMED. 


IN PETITIONER'S TRIAL BY A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL OF A DIVISION OF THE
THIRD ARMY, THEN ADVANCING RAPIDLY IN GERMANY, THE COURT HEARD EVIDENCE
AND ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, CLOSED TO CONSIDER THE CASE, REOPENED THE
SAME DAY, AND CONTINUED THE CASE IN ORDER TO HEAR CIVILIAN WITNESSES
NOT THEN AVAILABLE.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE THIRD
ARMY TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO THE FIFTEENTH ARMY FOR A NEW TRIAL, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE TACTICAL SITUATION AND THE DISTANCE TO THE RESIDENCE OF
SUCH WITNESSES MADE IT IMPRACTICABLE FOR THE THIRD ARMY TO CONDUCT THE
COURT-MARTIAL.  THE FIFTEENTH ARMY CONVENED A COURT-MARTIAL, WHICH
OVERRULED PETITIONER'S PLEA OF FORMER JEOPARDY AND TRIED AND CONVICTED
HIM.  HELD:  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY
PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DID NOT BAR HIS TRIAL BEFORE THE
SECOND COURT-MARTIAL.  PP. 685-692. 

1.  THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
MEAN THAT EVERY TIME A DEFENDANT IS PUT TO TRIAL BEFORE A COMPETENT
TRIBUNAL HE IS ENTITLED TO GO FREE IF THE TRIAL FAILS TO END IN A FINAL
JUDGMENT.  P. 688. 

2.  A TRIAL MAY BE DISCONTINUED WHEN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
MANIFEST A NECESSITY FOR SO DOING AND WHEN FAILURE TO DISCONTINUE WOULD
DEFEAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  UNITED STATES V. PEREZ, 9 WHEAT.  579. 
PP. 689-690. 

3.  WHEN THIS MAY BE DONE WITHOUT BARRING ANOTHER TRIAL DEPENDS UPON
ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE AND NOT UPON THE
MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF AN ABSTRACT FORMULA.  P. 691. 

4.  IN THIS CASE, THE RECORD WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE TACTICAL
SITUATION BROUGHT ABOUT BY A RAPIDLY ADVANCING ARMY RESULTED IN
WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGES FROM THE FIRST COURT-MARTIAL; AND, IN THE
ABSENCE OF CHARGES OF BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL,
COURTS SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO REVIEW HIS ON-THE-SPOT DECISION THAT THE
TACTICAL SITUATION REQUIRED TRANSFER OF THE CASE.  PP. 691-692. 

WADE V. HUNTER, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ORDERED
PETITIONER'S RELEASE ON THE GROUND THAT HIS CONVICTION BY COURT-MARTIAL
HAD VIOLATED THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  72
F.SUPP.  755.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  169 F.2D 973.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 907.  AFFIRMED, P. 692. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT A PERSON SHALL
NOT "BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB" FOR THE SAME OFFENSE. 
THE PETITIONER, NOW IN PRISON UNDER A COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTION FOR A
SERIOUS OFFENSE, CONTENDS HE IS ENTITLED TO HIS FREEDOM BECAUSE ANOTHER
COURT-MARTIAL HAD PREVIOUSLY PUT HIM IN JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE. 
THE FIRST COURT-MARTIAL WAS DISSOLVED BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY BEFORE
THE COURT REACHED A DECISION.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT'S DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROVISION, IF APPLICABLE TO MILITARY
COURTS, DID NOT BAR THE SECOND COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTION HERE BECAUSE,
AS THE GOVERNMENT VIEWS THE RECORD, DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRST COURT
MARTIAL WAS DICTATED BY A PRESSING MILITARY TACTICAL SITUATION.  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH THESE CONTENTIONS ARISE ARE AS FOLLOWS. 

MARCH 13, 1945, AMERICAN TROOPS OF THE 76TH INFANTRY DIVISION ENTERED
KROV, GERMANY.  THE NEXT AFTERNOON TWO GERMAN WOMEN WERE RAPED BY TWO
MEN IN AMERICAN UNIFORMS.  SEVERAL DAYS LATER PETITIONER AND ANOTHER
AMERICAN SOLDIER WERE ARRESTED UPON CHARGES THAT THEY COMMITTED THESE
OFFENSES.  TWO WEEKS LATER, MARCH 27, THE TROOPS HAD ADVANCED ABOUT 22
MILES FARTHER INTO GERMANY TO A PLACE CALLED PFALZFELD.  ON THAT DATE
AT PFALZFELD PETITIONER AND THE OTHER SOLDIER WERE PUT ON TRIAL BEFORE
A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL CONVENED BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF
THE 76TH INFANTRY DIVISION TO WHICH DIVISION THE TWO SOLDIERS WERE
ATTACHED.  FN1  AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, THE
COURT-MARTIAL CLOSED TO CONSIDER THE CASE.  LATER THAT DAY THE COURT
MARTIAL REOPENED AND ANNOUNCED THAT THE COURT WOULD BE CONTINUED UNTIL
A LATER DATE TO BE FIXED BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE.  THE REASON FOR THE
CONTINUANCE WAS THE DESIRE OF THE COURT-MARTIAL TO HEAR OTHER WITNESSES
NOT THEN AVAILABLE BEFORE DECIDING THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE
ACCUSED.  FN2 

A WEEK LATER THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE 76TH DIVISION WITHDREW THE
CHARGES FROM THE COURT-MARTIAL DIRECTING IT TO TAKE NO FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  THE GENERAL THEN TRANSMITTED THE CHARGES TO THE
COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE THIRD ARMY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRIAL BY
A NEW COURT-MARTIAL.  THE REASON FOR TRANSFERRING THE CHARGES AS
EXPLAINED IN A COMMUNICATION TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE THIRD
ARMY WAS: 

"THE CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY REFERRED FOR TRIAL BY GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL
AND TRIAL WAS COMMENCED.  TWO WITNESSES, THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF THE
VICTIM OF THE ALLEGED RAPE, WERE UNABLE TO BE PRESENT DUE TO SICKNESS,
AND THE COURT CONTINUED THE CASE SO THAT THEIR TESTIMONY COULD BE
OBTAINED.  DUE TO THE TACTICAL SITUATION THE DISTANCE TO THE RESIDENCE
OF SUCH WITNESSES HAS BECOME SO GREAT THAT THE CASE CANNOT BE COMPLETED
WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME." 

THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE THIRD ARMY CONCLUDED THAT THE "TACTICAL
SITUATION" OF HIS COMMAND AND ITS "CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE" FROM KROV
MADE IT IMPRACTICABLE FOR THE THIRD ARMY TO CONDUCT THE COURT-MARTIAL. 
ACCORDINGLY, HE IN TURN TRANSMITTED THE CHARGES TO THE FIFTEENTH ARMY
STATING THAT THIS ACTION WAS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF THE
AMERICAN ARMY IN EUROPE TO ACCELERATE PROMPT TRIALS "IN THE IMMEDIATE
VICINITY OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSES."  PURSUANT TO THIS TRANSMITTAL, THE
FIFTEENTH ARMY COMMANDING GENERAL CONVENED A COURT-MARTIAL AT A POINT
ABOUT FORTY MILES FROM KROV.  PETITIONER, REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, FILED
A PLEA IN BAR ALLEGING THAT HE HAD BEEN PUT IN JEOPARDY BY THE FIRST
COURT-MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS AND COULD NOT BE TRIED AGAIN.  HIS PLEA WAS
OVERRULED, THE CASE WAS TRIED, AND A CONVICTION FOLLOWED.  HE WAS
SENTENCED TO A DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE, FORFEITURE OF ALL PAY AND
ALLOWANCES, AND LIFE IMPRISONMENT, WHICH IMPRISONMENT WAS LATER REDUCED
TO TWENTY YEARS.  FN3 

AFTER EXHAUSTING HIS RIGHT TO MILITARY REVIEW, PETITIONER BROUGHT
THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  THAT COURT
ORDERED HIS RELEASE, HOLDING THAT HIS PLEA OF FORMER JEOPARDY SHOULD
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.  72 F.SUPP.  755.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  169 F.2D 973.  WE HOLD THAT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROVISION
DID NOT BAR PETITIONER'S TRIAL BEFORE THE SECOND COURT-MARTIAL.  FN4 

THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S DOUBLE
JEOPARDY PROVISION HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CHIEFLY IN CIVIL RATHER THAN
MILITARY COURT PROCEEDINGS.  PAST CASES HAVE DECIDED THAT A DEFENDANT,
PUT TO TRIAL BEFORE A JURY, MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE KIND OF "JEOPARDY"
THAT BARS A SECOND TRIAL FOR THE SAME OFFENSE EVEN THOUGH HIS TRIAL IS
DISCONTINUED WITHOUT A VERDICT.  SEE KEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S.
100, 128; CF. PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 322-323.  THE SAME
MAY BE TRUE WHERE A JUDGE TRYING A CASE WITHOUT A JURY FAILS FOR SOME
REASON TO ENTER A JUDGMENT.  MCCARTHY V. ZERBST, 85 F.2D 640, 642.  THE
DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT
MEAN THAT EVERY TIME A DEFENDANT IS PUT TO TRIAL BEFORE A COMPETENT
TRIBUNAL HE IS ENTITLED TO GO FREE IF THE TRIAL FAILS TO END IN A FINAL
JUDGMENT.  SUCH A RULE WOULD CREATE AN INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN MANY CASES IN WHICH THERE IS NO SEMBLANCE
OF THE TYPE OF OPPRESSIVE PRACTICES AT WHICH THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY
PROHIBITION IS AIMED.  THERE MAY BE UNFORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
ARISE DURING A TRIAL MAKING ITS COMPLETION IMPOSSIBLE, SUCH AS THE
FAILURE OF A JURY TO AGREE ON A VERDICT.  IN SUCH EVENT THE PURPOSE OF
LAW TO PROTECT SOCIETY FROM THOSE GUILTY OF CRIMES FREQUENTLY WOULD BE
FRUSTRATED BY DENYING COURTS POWER TO PUT THE DEFENDANT TO TRIAL
AGAIN.  AND THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHERE A TRIAL JUDGE HAS
DISCOVERED FACTS DURING A TRIAL WHICH INDICATED THAT ONE OR MORE
MEMBERS OF A JURY MIGHT BE BIASED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR THE
DEFENDANT.  IT IS SETTLED THAT THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE IN THIS EVENT IS
TO DISCHARGE THE JURY AND DIRECT A RETRIAL.  FN5  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IS
ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT A DEFENDANT'S VALUED RIGHT TO HAVE HIS TRIAL
COMPLETED BY A PARTICULAR TRIBUNAL MUST IN SOME INSTANCES BE
SUBORDINATED TO THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN FAIR TRIALS DESIGNED TO END IN
JUST JUDGMENTS. 

WHEN JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT A PARTICULAR TRIAL BE DISCONTINUED IS A
QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE DECIDED BY PERSONS CONVERSANT WITH FACTORS
RELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION.  THE GUIDING RULE OF FEDERAL COURTS FOR
DETERMINING WHEN TRIALS SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED WAS OUTLINED BY THIS
COURT IN UNITED STATES V. PEREZ, 9 WHEAT.  579.  IN THAT CASE THE TRIAL
JUDGE WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT OR THE GOVERNMENT DISCHARGED THE
JURY BECAUSE ITS MEMBERS WERE UNABLE TO AGREE.  THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED
THAT HE COULD NOT BE TRIED AGAIN AND PRAYED FOR HIS DISCHARGE AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT.  IN ANSWERING THE CLAIM THIS COURT SAID AT P. 580: 

"  ...  WE THINK, THAT IN ALL CASES OF THIS NATURE, THE LAW HAS
INVESTED COURTS OF JUSTICE WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DISCHARGE A JURY FROM
GIVING ANY VERDICT, WHENEVER, IN THEIR OPINION, TAKING ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION, THERE IS A MANIFEST NECESSITY FOR THE
ACT, OR THE ENDS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE WOULD OTHERWISE BE DEFEATED.  THEY
ARE TO EXERCISE A SOUND DISCRETION ON THE SUBJECT; AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO DEFINE ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH WOULD RENDER IT PROPER TO
INTERFERE.  TO BE SURE, THE POWER OUGHT TO BE USED WITH THE GREATEST
CAUTION, UNDER URGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, AND FOR VERY PLAIN AND OBVIOUS
CAUSES; AND, IN CAPITAL CASES ESPECIALLY, COURTS SHOULD BE EXTREMELY
CAREFUL HOW THEY INTERFERE WITH ANY OF THE CHANCES OF LIFE, IN FAVOUR
OF THE PRISONER.  BUT, AFTER ALL, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORDER THE
DISCHARGE; AND THE SECURITY WHICH THE PUBLIC HAVE FOR THE FAITHFUL,
SOUND, AND CONSCIENTIOUS EXERCISE OF THIS DISCRETION, RESTS, IN THIS,
AS IN OTHER CASES, UPON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGES, UNDER THEIR
OATHS OF OFFICE.  ... " 

THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN THE PEREZ CASE HAS BEEN THE BASIS FOR ALL LATER
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  FN6  IT ATTEMPTS TO LAY
DOWN NO RIGID FORMULA.  UNDER THE RULE A TRIAL CAN BE DISCONTINUED WHEN
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES MANIFEST A NECESSITY FOR SO DOING, AND WHEN
FAILURE TO DISCONTINUE WOULD DEFEAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  WE SEE NO
REASON WHY THE SAME BROAD TEST SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN DECIDING
WHETHER COURT-MARTIAL ACTION RUNS COUNTER TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S
PROVISION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  MEASURED BY THE PEREZ RULE TO WHICH
WE ADHERE, PETITIONER'S SECOND COURT-MARTIAL TRIAL WAS NOT THE KIND OF
DOUBLE JEOPARDY WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THERE IS NO CLAIM HERE THAT THE COURT-MARTIAL WENT BEYOND ITS POWERS
IN TEMPORARILY CONTINUING THE TRIAL TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF OTHER
WITNESSES.  FN7  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT VIEWED THE RECORD AS SHOWING
THAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF DISSOLVING THE COURT-MARTIAL WAS TO GET MORE
WITNESSES.  THIS PURPOSE, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD, WAS NOT THE KIND OF
"IMPERIOUS" OR "URGENT NECESSITY" THAT CAME WITHIN THE RECOGNIZED
EXCEPTION TO THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROVISION.  SEE CORNERO V. UNITED
STATES, 48 F.2D 69.  WE ARE URGED TO APPLY THE CORNERO INTERPRETATION
OF THE "URGENT NECESSITY" RULE HERE.  WE ARE ASKED TO ADOPT THE CORNERO
RULE UNDER WHICH PETITIONER CONTENDS THE ABSENCE OF WITNESSES CAN NEVER
JUSTIFY DISCONTINUANCE OF A TRIAL.  SUCH A RIGID FORMULA IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE PEREZ DECISION TO WHICH
WE ADHERE.  THOSE PRINCIPLES COMMAND COURTS IN CONSIDERING WHETHER A
TRIAL SHOULD BE TERMINATED WITHOUT JUDGMENT TO TAKE "ALL CIRCUMSTANCES
INTO ACCOUNT" AND THEREBY FORBID THE MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF AN
ABSTRACT FORMULA.  THE VALUE OF THE PEREZ PRINCIPLES THUS LIES IN THEIR
CAPACITY FOR INFORMED APPLICATION UNDER WIDELY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES
WITHOUT INJURY TO DEFENDANTS OR TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

FURTHERMORE, THIS RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE TACTICAL
SITUATION BROUGHT ABOUT BY A RAPIDLY ADVANCING ARMY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR
WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGES FROM THE FIRST COURT-MARTIAL.  THIS APPEARS
IN THE FIRST ORDER OF TRANSMITTAL OF THE CHARGES.  THAT ORDER WAS MADE
BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE 76TH DIVISION WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR
CONVENING THE COURT-MARTIAL AND WHO WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOST
EFFECTIVE MILITARY EMPLOYMENT OF THAT DIVISION IN CARRYING OUT THE PLAN
FOR THE INVASION OF GERMANY.  THERE IS NO INTIMATION IN THE RECORD THAT
THE TACTICAL SITUATION DID NOT REQUIRE THE TRANSFER ORDER.  THE COURT
MARTIAL WAS COMPOSED OF OFFICERS OF THE INVADING ARMY DIVISION. 
MOMENTOUS ISSUES HUNG ON THE INVASION AND WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THESE
COURT-MARTIAL OFFICERS WERE NOT NEEDED TO PERFORM THEIR MILITARY
FUNCTIONS.  IN THE PEREZ CASE WE SAID THAT THE SOUND DISCRETION OF A
PRESIDING JUDGE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TO THE NECESSITY OF DISCONTINUING
A TRIAL.  THIS CASE PRESENTS EXTRAORDINARY REASONS WHY THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COMMANDING GENERAL SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS.  AT LEAST IN
THE ABSENCE OF CHARGES OF BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE COMMANDING
GENERAL, COURTS SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO REVIEW HIS ON-THE-SPOT DECISION
THAT THE TACTICAL SITUATION REQUIRED TRANSFER OF THE CHARGES. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CHARGES WERE UNDER THE 92D ARTICLE OF WAR, 10 U.S.C. SEC.
1564. 

FN2  "LAW MEMBER:  THE COURT DESIRES THAT FURTHER WITNESSES BE CALLED
INTO THE CASE, AND TO ALLOW TIME TO SECURE THESE WITNESSES, THIS CASE
WILL BE CONTINUED.  WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AS WITNESSES BROUGHT BEFORE
THE COURT, THE PARENTS OF THIS PERSON MAKING THE ACCUSATION, ROSA
GLOWSKY, AND ALSO THE SISTER-IN-LAW THAT WAS IN THE ROOM WHO COULD
FURTHER ASSIST IN THE IDENTIFICATION OR IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED.  THE
COURT WILL BE CONTINUED UNTIL A LATER DATE SET BY THE T. (RIAL) J.
(UDGE) A. (DVOCATE)." 

FN3  THE OTHER SOLDIER WAS ACQUITTED BY THE COURT-MARTIAL.  THE
ACTING ARMY JUDGE ADVOCATE IN REVIEWING PETITIONER'S CONVICTION SAID:
"FOUR WITNESSES, ALL GERMAN, POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THE ACCUSED WADE. 
THE SAME WITNESSES FAILED TO IDENTIFY" THE OTHER SOLDIER. 

FN4  OUR HOLDING THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT DID NOT BAR TRIAL BY THE SECOND COURT-MARTIAL MAKES IT
UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS DISCUSSED IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF:  (1) TO WHAT EXTENT A COURT-MARTIAL'S OVERRULING OF
A PLEA OF FORMER JEOPARDY IS SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK IN HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.  SEE CARTER V. MCCLAUGHRY, 183 U.S. 365, 390; AND
CF. GRAFTON V. UNITED STATES, 206 U.S. 333, 352-353; SUNAL V. LARGE,
332 U.S. 174, AND CASES COLLECTED IN N. 8, P. 179.  (2) THE VALIDITY OF
THE FORTIETH ARTICLE OF WAR, 41 STAT. 795, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1511.  THAT
ARTICLE PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "NO PERSON SHALL, WITHOUT HIS
CONSENT, BE TRIED A SECOND TIME FOR THE SAME OFFENSE; BUT NO PROCEEDING
IN WHICH AN ACCUSED HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY BY A COURT-MARTIAL UPON ANY
CHARGE OR SPECIFICATION SHALL BE HELD TO BE A TRIAL IN THE SENSE OF
THIS ARTICLE UNTIL THE REVIEWING AND, IF THERE BE ONE, THE CONFIRMING
AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE TAKEN FINAL ACTION UPON THE CASE."    FN5  SIMMONS
V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 148, 154; THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 155
U.S. 271, 273-274. 

FN6  SEE, E.G., SIMMONS V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 148; LOGAN V.
UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263, 297-298; KEERL V. MONTANA, 213 U.S. 135,
137; LOVATO V. NEW MEXICO, 242 U.S. 199.    FN7  THE MANUAL FOR COURTS
MARTIAL, PAR. 75A (1928), RECOMMENDS THAT WHERE THE "  ...  EVIDENCE
APPEARS TO BE INSUFFICIENT FOR A PROPER DETERMINATION OF ANY ISSUE OR
MATTER BEFORE IT, THE COURT MAY AND ORDINARILY SHOULD, TAKE APPROPRIATE
ACTION WITH A VIEW TO OBTAINING SUCH AVAILABLE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS
IS NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE FOR SUCH DETERMINATION.  THE COURT MAY, FOR
INSTANCE, REQUIRE THE TRIAL JUDGE ADVOCATE TO RECALL A WITNESS, TO
SUMMON NEW WITNESSES, OR TO MAKE INVESTIGATION OR INQUIRY ALONG CERTAIN
LINES WITH A VIEW TO DISCOVERING AND PRODUCING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE AGREE, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT IN THE MILITARY COURTS, AS IN THE
CIVIL, JEOPARDY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ATTACHES WHEN
THE COURT BEGINS THE HEARING OF EVIDENCE.  I AGREE ALSO THAT A VALID
CHARGE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE FIRST COURT-MARTIAL WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW
CONCERNED, AND THAT THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER
AND OF THE PERSON OF THE PETITIONER. 

IN THE FIRST COURT-MARTIAL EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED; IN FACT, BOTH
SIDES HAD COMPLETED THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR CASES AND HAD SUBMITTED
ORAL ARGUMENT, AND THE COURT HAD CLOSED TO CONSIDER ITS DECISION.  THE
COURT WAS LATER OPENED ON ITS OWN MOTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING
THE TESTIMONY OF THREE NAMED WITNESSES, WHO WERE EXPECTED TO SHED LIGHT
ON THE QUESTION OF IDENTIFICATION. 

THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE UNIT COMPRISING PETITIONER AND THE
COURT-MARTIAL THAT WAS TRYING HIM WITHDREW THE CHARGES AND DISSOLVED
THE COURT-MARTIAL, AND TRANSMITTED THE PAPERS TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL
OF THE THIRD ARMY, "WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF TRIAL BY GENERAL COURT
MARTIAL."  THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL
OF THE FIFTEENTH ARMY, WHO REFERRED THE CASE FOR TRIAL BY GENERAL COURT
MARTIAL.  PETITIONER WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED, AFTER THE COURT-MARTIAL
HAD OVERRULED A PLEA OF FORMER JEOPARDY BASED ON THE PRIOR PROCEEDING. 
THE COMMANDING GENERAL, FIFTEENTH ARMY, ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF HIS
STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE, APPROVED THE FINDING OF GUILTY AND REDUCED THE
PERIOD OF CONFINEMENT FROM LIFE TO TWENTY YEARS.  THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED
FOR REVIEW TO BOARD OF REVIEW NO. 4, CONSISTING OF THREE JUDGE
ADVOCATES IN THE BRANCH OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH THE
EUROPEAN THEATER.  THIS BOARD, SITTING IN PARIS, CLOSE TO THE SCENE OF
MILITARY OPERATIONS, FILED A UNANIMOUS OPINION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
PLEA IN BAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED FN1  AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE
RECORD OF TRIAL WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS AND
SENTENCE.  THE ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL FILED A DISSENTING
OPINION, AND THE SENTENCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL,
EUROPEAN THEATER.  IN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED
STATES, THE DISTRICT COURT AGREED WITH THE BOARD OF REVIEW THAT THE
PLEA OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING. 

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WADE WAS PLACED IN JEOPARDY BY HIS FIRST
TRIAL.  THIS COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THE DECISION OF HIS COMMANDING
OFFICER, ASSESSING THE TACTICAL MILITARY SITUATION, IS SUFFICIENT TO
DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO BE FREE FROM BEING
TWICE SUBJECTED TO TRIAL FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.  WITH THIS READING OF
THE CONSTITUTION I CANNOT AGREE.  THE HARASSMENT TO THE DEFENDANT FROM
BEING REPEATEDLY TRIED IS NOT LESS BECAUSE THE ARMY IS ADVANCING.  THE
GUARANTEE OF THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS NOT TO BE
ERODED AWAY BY A TIDE OF PLAUSIBLE-APPEARING EXCEPTIONS.  THE COMMAND
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT ALLOW TEMPORIZING WITH THE BASIC RIGHTS
IT DECLARES.  ADAPTATIONS OF MILITARY JUSTICE TO THE EXIGENCIES OF
TACTICAL SITUATIONS IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE COMMANDER IN THE FIELD,
BUT THE PRICE OF SUCH EXPEDIENCY IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION. 
I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

FN1  THE OPINION OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:
"WE SEE NOTHING WHICH RENDERS THE ABSENCE OF WITNESSES, AS SHOWN BY THE
RECORD OF TRIAL IN THIS CASE, AN EMERGENT SITUATION IN EXCEPTION TO THE
RULE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THEIR WITNESSES MAY LIE BEYOND THE REACH
OF PROCESS, IF PROCESS ISSUES WITNESSES MAY NOT RESPOND, ORAL PROMISES
TO APPEAR MAY NOT BE KEPT, AND THEY MAY BECOME ILL DURING TRIAL; BUT
SUCH DIFFICULTIES IN PROOF ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR A TERMINATION OF TRIAL
AND A SECOND PROSECUTION.  IMPERIOUS NECESSITY MEANS A SUDDEN AND
OVERWHELMING EMERGENCY, UNCONTROLLABLE AND UNFORESEEABLE, INFECTING THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS AND RENDERING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL IMPOSSIBLE. 
IT DOES NOT MEAN EXPEDIENCY."  TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD, P. 75. 
..END :














HUMPHREY V. SMITH, 336 U.S. 695 


NO. 457.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1949.  - 170 F.2D
61, REVERSED. 


1.  IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW COURT-MARTIAL JUDGMENTS,
COURTS CANNOT PASS ON THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF PERSONS CONVICTED BY
COURTS-MARTIAL.  P. 696. 

2.  FAILURE TO CONDUCT A PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION IN THE MANNER
PRESCRIBED BY THE 70TH ARTICLE OF WAR DOES NOT DEPRIVE A GENERAL COURT
MARTIAL OF JURISDICTION NOR SUBJECT ITS JUDGMENT TO INVALIDATION IN A
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING.  PP. 696-701. 

HUMPHREY, WARDEN, V. SMITH. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF A
CONVICTION BY A COURT-MARTIAL, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DENIED RELIEF. 
72 F.SUPP.  935.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  170 F.2D 61.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  336 U.S. 908.  REVERSED, P. 701. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT, BERNARD W. SMITH, AN AMERICAN SOLDIER, WAS CONVICTED
BY AN ARMY COURT-MARTIAL FOR RAPE OF ONE WOMAN AND ASSAULT WITH INTENT
TO RAPE ANOTHER IN VIOLATION OF THE 92D AND 93D ARTICLES OF WAR.  10
U.S.C. SECS. 1564 AND 1565.  HIS PUNISHMENT WAS DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE,
FORFEITURE OF ALL PAY AND ALLOWANCES, AND IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.  ARMY
REVIEWING AUTHORITIES APPROVED THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, BUT THE
PRESIDENT REDUCED THE PUNISHMENT TO SIXTEEN YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.  THIS
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT CHALLENGING
THE VALIDITY OF THE CONVICTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED RELIEF.  72
F.SUPP.  935.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ORDERING RESPONDENT'S
DISCHARGE.  170 F.2D 61.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE PETITION
RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING IMPORTANT PHASES OF COURT-MARTIAL STATUTORY
POWERS AND THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTIONS. 

WE MAY AT ONCE DISPOSE OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED ON THE EVIDENCE OFFERED.  THAT EVIDENCE WAS IN
SHARP DISPUTE.  BUT OUR AUTHORITY IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS TO
REVIEW COURT-MARTIAL JUDGMENTS DOES NOT PERMIT US TO PASS ON THE GUILT
OR INNOCENCE OF PERSONS CONVICTED BY COURTS-MARTIAL N1. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE COURT-MARTIAL WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
TRY RESPONDENT.  IF SO THE COURT-MARTIAL EXCEEDED ITS LAWFUL AUTHORITY
AND ITS JUDGMENT CAN BE INVALIDATED DESPITE THE LIMITED POWERS OF A
COURT IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.  FN2  THE SOUNDNESS OF THIS
CONTENTION DEPENDS UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE 70TH ARTICLE OF WAR,
THE PERTINENT PART OF WHICH IS SET OUT BELOW.  FN3  IT PROVIDES THE
MANNER IN WHICH PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATIONS SHALL BE MADE PRELIMINARY TO
TRIALS OF SOLDIERS BEFORE GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL.  A PART OF THE
LANGUAGE IS THAT "NO CHARGE WILL BE REFERRED TO A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL
FOR TRIAL UNTIL AFTER A THOROUGH AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION THEREOF
SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE."  THE CONTENTION IS THAT THIS REQUIREMENT IS
JURISDICTIONAL IN NATURE; THAT THE KIND OF PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION
PRESCRIBED IS AN INDISPENSABLE PREREQUISITE TO EXERCISE OF GENERAL
COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION; AND THAT ABSENT SUCH PRIOR INVESTIGATION A
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS WHOLLY VOID. 

HERE THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION.  THE CLAIM IS THAT IT WAS NEITHER
"THOROUGH" NOR "IMPARTIAL" AS THE 70TH ARTICLE REQUIRES.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, SO HELD, AND ITS REVERSAL WAS RESTED ON
THAT FINDING.  THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT THERE WAS UNFAIRNESS IN THE
COURT-MARTIAL TRIAL ITSELF. 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE REQUIRED
BY ARTICLE 70 CAN PROPERLY BE CONSTRUED AS AN INDISPENSABLE
PREREQUISITE TO EXERCISE OF ARMY GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION. 
THE ARTICLE DOES SERVE IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
COURT-MARTIAL PROCEDURES AND DOES PROVIDE SAFEGUARDS TO AN ACCUSED. 
ITS LANGUAGE IS CLEARLY SUCH THAT A DEFENDANT COULD OBJECT TO TRIAL IN
THE ABSENCE OF THE REQUIRED INVESTIGATION.  IN THAT EVENT THE COURT
MARTIAL COULD ITSELF POSTPONE TRIAL PENDING THE INVESTIGATION.  AND THE
MILITARY REVIEWING AUTHORITIES COULD CONSIDER THE SAME CONTENTION,
REVERSING A COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTION WHERE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
ARTICLE 70 HAS SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED AN ACCUSED.  FN4  BUT WE ARE NOT
PERSUADED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE OTHERWISE VALID COURT-MARTIAL
JUDGMENTS WHOLLY VOID BECAUSE PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATIONS FALL SHORT OF
THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 70.  THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT REQUIRED
ANALOGOUS PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE FOR NAVY COURTS-MARTIAL IS AN INDICATION
THAT THE INVESTIGATORY PLAN WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE EXALTED TO THE
JURISDICTIONAL LEVEL. 

NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ARTICLE SUPPORTS THE
CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT A CONVICTION AFTER A FAIR TRIAL
SHOULD BE NULLIFIED BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH AN INVESTIGATION WAS
CONDUCTED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF CHARGES.  ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSES WERE
TO INSURE ADEQUATE PREPARATION OF CASES, TO GUARD AGAINST HASTY, ILL
CONSIDERED CHARGES, TO SAVE INNOCENT PERSONS FROM THE STIGMA OF
UNFOUNDED CHARGES, AND TO PREVENT TRIVIAL CASES FROM GOING BEFORE
GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL.  WAR DEPARTMENT, MILITARY JUSTICE DURING THE
WAR, 63(1919).  ALL OF THESE PURPOSES RELATE SOLELY TO ACTIONS REQUIRED
IN ADVANCE OF FORMAL CHARGES OR TRIAL.  ALL THE PURPOSES CAN BE FULLY
ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT SUBJECTING COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTIONS TO JUDICIAL
INVALIDATION WHERE PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE. 

SHORTLY AFTER ENACTMENT OF ARTICLE 70 IN 1920 THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL OF THE ARMY DID HOLD THAT WHERE THERE HAD BEEN NO PRE-TRIAL
INVESTIGATION, COURT-MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS WERE VOID AB INITIO.  FN5  BUT
THIS HOLDING HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY REPUDIATED IN LATER HOLDINGS OF THE
JUDGE ADVOCATE N6.  THIS LATER INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN THAT THE PRE
TRIAL REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 70 ARE DIRECTORY, NOT MANDATORY, AND IN
NO WAY AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT-MARTIAL.  THE WAR
DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION WAS POINTEDLY CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF
CONGRESS IN 1947 AFTER WHICH CONGRESS AMENDED ARTICLE 70 BUT LEFT
UNCHANGED THE LANGUAGE HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION.  FN7 

WE HOLD THAT A FAILURE TO CONDUCT PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATIONS AS
REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 70 DOES NOT DEPRIVE GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL OF
JURISDICTION SO AS TO EMPOWER COURTS IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS TO
INVALIDATE COURT-MARTIAL JUDGMENTS.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THIS
INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 70 RENDERS IT MEANINGLESS, PRACTICALLY MAKING
IT A DEAD LETTER.  THIS CONTENTION MUST REST ON THE PREMISE THAT THE
ARMY WILL COMPLY WITH THE 70TH ARTICLE OF WAR ONLY IF COURTS IN HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS CAN INVALIDATE ANY COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTION WHICH
DOES NOT FOLLOW AN ARTICLE 70 PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE.  WE CANNOT ASSUME
THAT JUDICIAL COERCION IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPEL THE ARMY TO OBEY THIS
ARTICLE OF WAR.  IT WAS THE ARMY ITSELF THAT INITIATED THE PRE-TRIAL
INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE AND RECOMMENDED CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT OF
ARTICLE 70.  FN8  A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE ARMY WILL REQUIRE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARTICLE 70 INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURE TO THE END THAT
ARMY WORK SHALL NOT BE UNNECESSARILY IMPEDED AND THAT ARMY PERSONNEL
SHALL NOT BE WRONGED AS THE RESULT OF UNFOUNDED AND FRIVOLOUS COURT
MARTIAL CHARGES AND TRIALS.  FN9 

THIS COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTION RESULTING FROM A TRIAL FAIRLY CONDUCTED
CANNOT BE INVALIDATED BY A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT THE PRE-TRIAL
INVESTIGATION WAS NOT CARRIED ON IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE 70TH
ARTICLE OF WAR.  FN10  REVERSED. 

FN1  CARTER V. MCCLAUGHRY, 183 U.S. 365, 381; AND SEE IN RE
YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, 8-9, AND CASES CITED. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. COOKE, 336 U.S. 210; COLLINS V. MCDONALD, 258
U.S. 416, 418; SEE IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, 8-9. 

FN3  "NO CHARGE WILL BE REFERRED TO A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL FOR TRIAL
UNTIL AFTER A THOROUGH AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION THEREOF SHALL HAVE
BEEN MADE.  THIS INVESTIGATION WILL INCLUDE INQUIRIES AS TO THE TRUTH
OF THE MATTER SET FORTH IN SAID CHARGES, FORM OF CHARGES, AND WHAT
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE SHOULD BE MADE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
DISCIPLINE.  AT SUCH INVESTIGATION FULL OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO
THE ACCUSED TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM IF THEY ARE
AVAILABLE AND TO PRESENT ANYTHING HE MAY DESIRE IN HIS OWN BEHALF
EITHER IN DEFENSE OR MITIGATION, AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL
EXAMINE AVAILABLE WITNESSES REQUESTED BY THE ACCUSED.  IF THE CHARGES
ARE FORWARDED AFTER SUCH INVESTIGATION, THEY SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN ON BOTH SIDES."  41
STAT. 759, 802, AS AMENDED 50 STAT. 724; 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1542.  SEE ALSO
ACT OF JUNE 24, 1948, SECS. 222, 231, 244, 62 STAT. 604, 633, 639,
642. 

FN4  MILITARY REVIEWING AUTHORITIES DO NOT REVISE COURT-MARTIAL
CONVICTIONS FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE UNLESS IT APPEARS
TO THEM THAT SUCH FAILURE HAS INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED THE SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED.  CM 229477, FLOYD, 17 B.R. 149, 153-156(1943). 
THE ASSISTANT JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL TESTIFYING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON
ARMED SERVICES STATED:  "IF IT APPEARED IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL THAT THE MAN HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHT, SUCH AS THE PRESENTATION OF TESTIMONY IN HIS OWN BEHALF, OR
SOMETHING OF THAT KIND, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO SAY THAT THE
ERROR INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND THAT THE
SENTENCE SHOULD THEREFORE BE VACATED.  THE CASE OF REAL INJURY WOULD BE
RARE.  ORDINARILY GUILT OR INNOCENCE IS AND SHOULD BE DETERMINED AT THE
TRIAL AND NOT BY WHAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE TRIAL."  HEARINGS BEFORE
SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 11, LEGAL, OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ON
H.R. 2575, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2059-2060(1947). 

FN5  CM 161728, CLARK.  SEE ALSO TO THE SAME EFFECT CM 182225,
KELLER; CM 183183, CLAYBAUGH. 

FN6  SEE FLOYD, SUPRA, N. 4; CMETO 4570, HAWKINS, 13 B.R. (ETO) 57,
71-75(1945); CM 323486, RUCKMAN, 72 B.R. 267, 272-274(1947). 

FN7  ACT OF JUNE 24, 1948, SECS. 222, 231, 244, 62 STAT. 604, 633,
639, 642.  IN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE HEARINGS WAR DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTATIVES WERE SUBJECTED TO CONSIDERABLE QUESTIONING AS TO
WHETHER PRE-TRIAL REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE MADE JURISDICTIONAL PRE
REQUISITES.  ONE OF MANY STATEMENTS SUPPORTING THE WAR DEPARTMENT'S
VIEW WAS THAT OF UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR ROYALL, WHO TESTIFIED: 

"HOWEVER, OUR BILL DOES NOT MAKE IT A JURISDICTIONAL FACTOR, BUT IT
DOES CONTEMPLATE A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION.  IN THE STATES IN WHICH I
HAVE PRACTICED LAW, PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS ARE NEVER A
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT.  I KNOW THEY ARE NOT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
...  WE WOULD BE DEPARTING RADICALLY FROM ACCEPTED JUDICIAL PRACTICE,
GENERALLY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, IF WE MADE THAT A
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT.  THAT IS REALLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
DURHAM BILL AND THIS, AS I UNDERSTAND."  THIS STATEMENT AND OTHERS IN
OPPOSITION TO RAISING PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATIONS TO A JURISDICTIONAL
LEVEL APPEAR AT THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THE HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE
NO. 11, LEGAL, OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ON H.R. 2575, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 1924-1925, 2058-2061, 2064-2065, 2146, 2152
2153(1947). 

FN8  WAR DEPARTMENT, MILITARY JUSTICE DURING THE WAR, 63(1919); H.R.
REP. NO. 940, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2(1920). 

FN9  SECRETARY ROYALL IN REFERRING TO THE PROCEDURE TOLD THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE:  "WE BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY IN IT AND WE WILL PROVIDE FOR IT
AS STRONGLY AS WE CAN, WITHOUT MAKING IT GROUNDS FOR A TECHNICAL
APPEAL."  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 11, LEGAL, OF HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES ON H.R. 2575, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
2152(1947). 

FN10  DISTRICT COURTS AND COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE NOT BEEN IN AGREEMENT
ON THE QUESTION.  HENRY V. HODGES, 76 F.SUPP.  968, 970-974; ANTHONY V.
HUNTER, 71 F.SUPP.  823, 830-831; HICKS V. HIATT, 64 F.SUPP.  238, 242;
WAITE V. OVERLADE, 164 F.2D 722, 723-724; DE WAR V. HUNTER, 170 F.2D
993, 995-997. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION UNDER THE SEVENTIETH ARTICLE OF WAR PERFORMS
A DUAL FUNCTION.  IT SAVES THE ARMY'S TIME BY ELIMINATING FRIVOLOUS
CASES; IT PROTECTS AN ACCUSED FROM THE IGNOMINY OF A GENERAL COURT
MARTIAL WHEN THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM ARE GROUNDLESS.  THESE POLICIES,
OF COURSE, MEAN MORE THAN THE PROTECTION OF THE RESPONDENT IN THIS
CASE.  THEIR PRIMARY SERVICE APPEARS WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS CLEARLY
INNOCENT.  IF THE ARTICLE IS IGNORED, AND THE COURT MARTIAL FINDS THE
DEFENDANT INNOCENT, THE ERROR CAN NEVER BE CORRECTED - THE OFFICERS'
TIME HAS BEEN WASTED AND THE DEFENDANT'S RECORD IS FOREVER BESMIRCHED
BY THE WORDS "GENERAL COURT MARTIAL."  YET IF THE PRISONER IS FOUND
GUILTY, THERE IS STILL NO SANCTION.  FOR MILITARY AUTHORITIES WILL NOT
SET ASIDE A CONVICTION UNLESS THE VERY ACCUSED ASKING REVERSAL HAS BEEN
PREJUDICED.  AND IF THE TRIAL HAS BEEN FAIR, AND RESULTED IN
CONVICTION, WHO WILL SAY THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BECAUSE
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WAS WANTING? 

UNLESS A CIVILIAN COURT IS ABLE TO ENFORCE THE REQUIREMENT, THEN, IT
IS NOT A REQUIREMENT AT ALL, BUT ONLY A SUGGESTION WHICH SHOULD BE
OBSERVED.  TODAY THE COURT ADOPTS THE LATTER ALTERNATIVE.  IT HOLDS
THAT THE ERROR OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH A.W. 70 IS NOT JURISDICTIONAL.  IT
MAKES A.W. 70 A VIRTUAL DEAD LETTER. 

I CANNOT IMPUTE SO BLAND A RULE TO THE CONGRESS.  AND NO EVIDENCE OF
SUCH STERILITY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION.  WHAT THE EIGHTIETH
CONGRESS THOUGHT ABOUT THE PROBLEM IS IRRELEVANT, OF COURSE, FOR A.W.
70 WAS THE PRODUCT OF THE SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS, IN 1920, AND RESPONDENT
WAS TRIED IN 1944, LONG BEFORE THE EIGHTIETH CONGRESS CONVENED.  HAD
RESPONDENT'S TRIAL TAKEN PLACE IN 1948, THE RESULT MIGHT BE ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT.  THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE INDICATES CLEARLY THAT THE SIXTY
SIXTH CONGRESS CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION VITAL BEFORE
TRIAL.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARTICLE IS THAT OF COMMAND - "NO CHARGE
WILL BE REFERRED" WITHOUT INVESTIGATION.  THE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE
1920 STATUTE, AFTER REFERRING TO AN INVESTIGATION OF UNFAIRNESS IN
ADMINISTERING MILITARY JUSTICE, AND CONCLUDING THAT "THE PERSONAL
ELEMENT ENTERED TOO LARGELY INTO THESE CASES," LISTED TWENTY-THREE
CHANGES IN THE LAW.  THE SECOND CHANGE MENTIONED WAS THIS:  "SPEEDY BUT
THOROUGH AND IMPARTIAL PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WILL BE HAD IN ALL
CASES."  H.R. REP. NO. 940, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2(1920). 

IN 1924, JUST FOUR YEARS AFTER A.W. 70 BECAME THE LAW, THE BOARD OF
REVIEW CONSTRUED THE LANGUAGE DIRECTLY OPPOSITE TO THE COURT'S PRESENT
INTERPRETATION.  IT HELD THAT THE ERROR WAS JURISDICTIONAL.  CM 161728,
CLARK.  TWO LATER HOLDINGS, BOTH IN 1928, CONFIRMED THIS VIEW.  CM
182225, KELLER; CM 183183, CLAYBAUGH.  IN KELLER, THE INVESTIGATION
TOOK PLACE, BUT WAS NOT "THOROUGH."  THE BOARD HELD THAT A THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION WAS "AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED BY STATUTE." 
AND IN 1937 CONGRESS REENACTED THE SAME LANGUAGE WE ARE CONSTRUING NOW,
THE SAME LANGUAGE THE BOARD OF REVIEW EXPOUNDED IN 1924 AND 1928.  50
STAT. 724.  IT SEEMS EXTRAORDINARY TO SAY THAT REVERSALS OF THE PRIOR
RULINGS IN 1943, CM 229477, FLOYD, 17 B.R. 149, SHOULD GOVERN WHEN
CONGRESS HAS APPARENTLY ACQUIESCED IN THE FIRST, AND CONTEMPORARY,
INTERPRETATIONS. 

CONGRESSIONAL BELIEF IN THE IMPORTANCE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
SHOULD NOT NOW BE FRUSTRATED BY A HOLDING THAT NONCOMPLIANCE CANNOT BE
ATTACKED BY HABEAS CORPUS.  I AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE DID NOT MEET THE PROPER
STANDARD, AND WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :


















GRIFFIN V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 704 


NO. 417.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15-16, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1949.  -
REMANDED. 


1.  PETITIONER, CLAIMING SELF-DEFENSE, WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH. 
ON A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE,
HE RELIED ON EVIDENCE THAT AT THE TIME OF THE KILLING THE DECEASED HAD
AN OPEN KNIFE IN HIS POCKET.  THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE MOTION ON THE
GROUND THAT, SINCE PETITIONER DID NOT KNOW THAT THE DECEASED WAS
CARRYING A KNIFE, THE EVIDENCE WAS INADMISSIBLE.  AN APPEAL WAS
DISMISSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT OPINION.  HELD:  THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DECIDE, IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE, WHAT RULE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD PREVAIL IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  PP. 705-718. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE THAT THE
GROUND OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL BE LEFT TO INFERENCE.  PP. 707
708. 

3.  THERE IS NO "FEDERAL RULE" AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OF
UNCOMMUNICATED THREATS IN A MURDER CASE IN WHICH SELF-DEFENSE IS
CLAIMED; AND, EVEN IF THERE WERE, IT WOULD NOT FOLLOW THAT THAT RULE
MUST ALSO BE THE RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  PP. 712-713. 

4.  INASMUCH AS CONGRESS MAY ENACT SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF CRIMINAL LAW
EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO FORMULATE RULES OF
EVIDENCE APPROPRIATE FOR THE DISTRICT, SO LONG AS THE RULES ADOPTED DO
NOT OFFEND STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  PP. 713-717. 

5.  THE FORMULATION OF RULES OF EVIDENCE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IS A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW TO BE DETERMINED, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, BY THE HIGHEST APPELLATE COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT.  PP. 716-717. 

6.  THIS COURT SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW
WITHOUT THE AID OF SOME EXPRESSION OF THE VIEWS OF JUDGES OF THE LOCAL
COURTS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE INTRICACIES AND TRENDS OF LOCAL LAW
AND PRACTICE; AND ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WILL THIS COURT REVIEW A
DETERMINATION OF SUCH A QUESTION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  P. 718. 

GRIFFIN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  AN APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT WITHOUT OPINION.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 866.  REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS,
P. 718. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE UNDER SEC. 1254(1) OF TITLE 28 OF THE
U.S.C. TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA OF AN APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON
THE GROUND OF EVIDENCE DISCOVERED AFTER THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN
CONVICTED OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  335 U.S. 866.  THE DECISIVE
ISSUE IS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT EVIDENCE.  THE QUESTION ARISES NOT
THROUGH ITS EXCLUSION AT TRIAL BUT ON A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IN ORDER
TO BE ABLE TO INTRODUCE IT AS NEWLY DISCOVERED. 

THE PETITIONER, BAXTER GRIFFIN, WAS CONVICTED OF THE MURDER OF LEE
HUNTER.  THE KILLING WAS THE OUTCOME OF A QUARREL.  ADMITTING THAT HE
SHOT HUNTER, GRIFFIN CLAIMED THAT HE DID SO IN SELF-DEFENSE.  HIS STORY
WAS THAT THE DECEASED AND HE WERE PLAYING A CARD GAME CALLED BLACKJACK,
THAT HUNTER DEMANDED A LARGER SHARE OF THE POT THAN WAS HIS RIGHT, AND
THAT UPON HIS REFUSAL TO PAY, HUNTER "JUMPED UP AND STARTED AROUND THE
TABLE, WITH HIS HAND IN HIS POCKET, AND TOLD ME HE WOULD KICK MY TEETH
OUT OF MY HEAD."  ON CROSS-EXAMINATION GRIFFIN ADDED THAT HUNTER
THREATENED TO KILL HIM.  ACCORDINGLY, SO HIS STORY CONTINUED, GRIFFIN
SHOT HUNTER AS HUNTER ADVANCED TOWARD HIM WITH HIS HAND IN HIS POCKET. 
THIS VERSION OF THE OCCURRENCE WAS CONTRADICTED BY FIVE GOVERNMENT
WITNESSES.  EACH TESTIFIED THAT PETITIONER STARTED THE ARGUMENT, AND
THAT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CARD GAME WHICH, ACCORDING TO THEIR
ACCOUNT, WAS OVER BEFORE THE FRACAS BEGAN.  ACCORDING TO THEM, THIS IS
WHAT HAPPENED:  GRIFFIN MADE SOME REMARK TO HUNTER ABOUT TAKING
HUNTER'S WIFE AND BABY AROUND TO GRIFFIN'S HOUSE; HUNTER REPLIED THAT
HE WOULD KICK PETITIONER'S TEETH DOWN HIS THROAT; GRIFFIN THEREUPON
LEFT THE HOUSE AND RETURNED WITHIN TEN MINUTES WITH A GUN, AND ON HIS
RETURN SHOT HUNTER, WHO HAD MADE NO MOVE FROM THE SPOT WHERE HE WAS
STANDING.  GRIFFIN ADMITTED THAT HE SAW NOTHING IN HUNTER'S HAND AT THE
TIME HE SHOT HUNTER.  ON THE EVIDENCE, AS SUMMARIZED, THE JURY ON MARCH
28, 1947, FOUND GRIFFIN GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE; ON APRIL
18, 1947, HE WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH; ON DECEMBER 8, 1947, THE
CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED, 83 U.S. APP. D.C. 20, 164 F.2D 903; ON MARCH
15, 1948, THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 333 U.S. 857. 

ON MAY 7, 1948, A LITTLE MORE THAN A MONTH BEFORE THE DAY SET FOR
EXECUTION, GRIFFIN BEGAN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A NEW TRIAL.  IT
WAS BASED ON AFFIDAVITS OF HIS THEN COUNSEL WHO AVERRED THAT IT HAD
RECENTLY COME TO HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ATTENDANT AT THE MORGUE HAD
FOUND AN OPENED PENKNIFE IN THE TROUSERS' POCKET OF THE DECEASED AND
THAT THE PROSECUTOR KNEW OF THIS AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL BUT FAILED TO
INTRODUCE THIS CIRCUMSTANCE IN EVIDENCE OR MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE
DEFENSE.  THE AFFIDAVITS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT
PLAYING CARDS WERE ON THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTING, A FACT
WHICH WOULD, HAD IT BEEN KNOWN TO THE DEFENSE, HAVE TENDED TO
CORROBORATE GRIFFIN'S STATEMENT THAT THE CARD GAME WAS IN PROGRESS AT
THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING.  AN EXTENDED HEARING WAS HAD ON THE MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THE ALLEGATION REGARDING SCATTERED PLAYING CARDS ON
THE FLOOR AT THE TIME OF THE FATAL SHOOTING WAS ADEQUATELY MET, AND
THIS GROUND FOR A NEW TRIAL NEED NOT DETAIN US. 

AS TO GRIFFIN'S DISCOVERY, AFTER HIS CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED, OF THE
UNDISCLOSED KNIFE IN THE POCKET OF THE DECEASED, THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDED THAT IT KNEW OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL AND
DESPITE THAT KNOWLEDGE NEITHER INTRODUCED THE FACT IN EVIDENCE NOR FELT
ANY DUTY TO MAKE IT KNOWN TO THE DEFENSE.  THE GOVERNMENT JUSTIFIED
THIS ON THE GROUND THAT IN ITS VIEW THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE KNIFE WAS
INADMISSIBLE, SINCE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS PRESENCE IN THE POCKET OF THE
DECEASED HAD NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO GRIFFIN EITHER BY SIGHT OR
OTHERWISE.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE TOOK THIS VIEW OF THE LAW AND DENIED THE
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  IN AN UNREPORTED OPINION, HE STATED, "THE
QUESTION WHETHER A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED IN ATTACKING AN ASSAILANT IN
SELF-DEFENSE MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE FACTS WHICH WERE PRESENTED TO
THE PERSON WHO PLEADS SELF-DEFENSE.  HE (GRIFFIN) DID NOT KNOW, IT
APPEARS, THAT THE DECEASED HAD AN OPEN KNIFE IN HIS POCKET, AND
THEREFORE ITS EXISTENCE IS IRRELEVANT."  AN APPEAL HAVING BEEN TAKEN,
THE GOVERNMENT MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT "THE
ISSUES RAISED BY APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WERE FULLY EXPLORED
IN THE COURT BELOW AND THAT THE DISPOSITION MADE OF THEM BY THE TRIAL
COURT WAS MANIFESTLY CORRECT."  THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY A UNANIMOUS
COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDED OVER BY A JUDGE THAN WHOM NO ONE IS MORE
ALERT IN PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. 

UNFORTUNATELY, THE COURT OF APPEALS EVIDENTLY THOUGHT THAT THE GROUND
FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL WAS TOO CLEAR TO REQUIRE EXPLICATION.  IT
DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT AN EXPRESSION OF VIEWS REGARDING THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE CLAIM FOR A NEW TRIAL
RESTS.  IT MAY WELL HAVE DONE SO ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE DISTRICT
EVIDENCE OF THIS NATURE IS INADMISSIBLE.  THAT THIS WAS THE REASON FOR
THE DISMISSAL IS THE VIEW OF SOME MEMBERS OF THIS COURT.  THE OPINION
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ON A LATER APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF A PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY GRIFFIN LENDS SUPPORT TO SUCH AN INTERPRETATION OF
THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL NOW UNDER REVIEW.  SEE GRIFFIN V.
CLEMMER, 83 U.S. APP. D.C. 351, 169 F.2D 961.  FN1  BUT SOLICITUDE FOR
LIFE BARS RELIANCE ON SUCH AN INFERENCE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE ISSUE ON
HABEAS CORPUS IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THAT ON APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  IT SEEMS TO US MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT
OF APPEALS TO ADDRESS ITSELF DIRECTLY TO THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY. 
THIS IS SO IN ORDER TO RULE OUT THE INFERENCE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
MAY, IN APPLYING UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 327 U.S. 106, HAVE DEEMED
THE DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE BASIS OF NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE SOLELY A MATTER FOR THE TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION. 

WERE THE COURT OF APPEALS TO DECLARE THAT THE CONTROVERTED EVIDENCE
WAS ADMISSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LAW PREVAILING IN THE DISTRICT, IT
WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER FURTHER WHETHER IT WOULD NOT BE TOO DOGMATIC, ON
THE BASIS OF MERE SPECULATION, FOR ANY COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE JURY
WOULD NOT HAVE ATTACHED SIGNIFICANCE TO THE EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE
DEFENDANT HAD THE EVIDENCE BEEN BEFORE IT. IF THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD
DECIDED THAT THE DISPUTED EVIDENCE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA ON A CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE AND ON THAT GROUND HAD SUSTAINED
THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN END
OF THE MATTER.  IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT THIS COURT WOULD HAVE
GRANTED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE RULING SINCE THE
DETERMINATION WOULD HAVE BEEN A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW AS ARE THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE PREVAILING IN THE STATE COURTS. 

WE ARE TOLD, HOWEVER, THAT A RULING WHICH DID NOT PERMIT THE
INTRODUCTION OF "UNCOMMUNICATED THREATS" WOULD CONSTITUTE "EGREGIOUS
ERROR" TO BE CORRECTED BY THIS COURT.  FISHER V. UNITED STATES, 328
U.S. 463, 476.  WIGMORE IS VOUCHED AS AUTHORITY THAT UNCOMMUNICATED
THREATS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN "VIRTUALLY ALL COURTS."  BUT WIGMORE
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS THE WORDS QUOTED WITH A SERIES OF QUALIFICATIONS
AND LIMITATIONS WHICH PROVE THAT THERE ARE FEW QUESTIONS OF
ADMISSIBILITY IN TRIALS FOR MURDER THAT HAVE OCCASIONED A GREATER
CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS.  SEE 1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE SEC. 111(3D ED., 1940). 
FN2  BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, MOST JURISDICTIONS HOLD THAT EVIDENCE OF
UNCOMMUNICATED THREATS IS INADMISSIBLE WHERE THERE IS CLEAR PROOF THAT
THE DEFENDANT TOOK THE INITIATIVE, OR WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
THE DECEASED WAS THE AGGRESSOR OTHER THAN THE PROFFERED UNCOMMUNICATED
THREATS.  WERE THIS THE RULE IN THE DISTRICT, THE DISMISSAL OF THE
APPEAL MAY WELL HAVE BEEN RESTED ON IT, SINCE THERE WAS WEIGHTY PROOF
THAT THE PETITIONER WAS THE AGGRESSOR.  INDEED, FOR ALL WE KNOW THE
COURT OF APPEALS MIGHT HAVE HAD IN MIND A RULE CONCERNING
UNCOMMUNICATED THREATS THAT WOULD ADMIT THEM AND YET GUARD AGAINST THE
DANGER OF FABRICATION BY PLACING UPON THE TRIAL JUDGE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF EXCLUDING SUCH ALLEGED THREATS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT
IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF SATISFACTORY TO HIM OF SOME HOSTILE
MANIFESTATION BY THE DECEASED RELEVANT TO THE KILLING.  AT LEAST ONE
STATE HAS SOME SUCH RULE.  STATE V. CARTER, 197 LA. 155, 158, 1 SO.2D
62, 63.  THIS IS NOT TO REJECT AS UNREASONABLE A RULE, FOLLOWED BY SOME
COURTS, THAT WOULD LET THE EVIDENCE IN, EVEN WHERE ALL OTHER WITNESSES
OPPOSE A DEFENDANT'S VERSION OF THE KILLING. 

ONE THING IS CLEAR.  THERE IS NO "FEDERAL RULE" ON THIS SUBJECT.  THE
DECISION IN WIGGINS V. UTAH, 93 U.S. 465, DOES NOT PURPORT TO LAY DOWN
A GENERAL RULE, NOR DOES IT EVEN FORMULATE THE EVIDENTIARY PROBLEM NOW
IN CONTROVERSY.  IN THAT CASE, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO
OTHER IDENTIFICATION OF THE AGGRESSOR, PROOF WAS OFFERED THAT THE
DECEASED HAD EXHIBITED A PISTOL A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE SHOOTING AND
HAD SAID, THOUGH OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE ACCUSED, THAT "HE WOULD KILL
DEFENDANT BEFORE HE WENT TO BED THAT NIGHT," AND THIS COURT NATURALLY
HELD THAT THIS EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED.  IT DID SO BECAUSE
"IT WOULD HAVE TENDED STRONGLY TO SHOW WHERE THAT FIRST SHOT CAME FROM,
AND HOW THAT PISTOL, WITH ONE CHAMBER EMPTIED, CAME TO BE FOUND ON THE
GROUND."  WIGGINS V. UTAH, SUPRA AT 470. 

BUT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE "FEDERAL RULE" IS THAT THE EVIDENCE
DESCRIBED IN THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE, IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT IT MUST ALSO BE THE RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
THIS COURT, IN ITS DECISIONS, AND CONGRESS, IN ITS ENACTMENT OF
STATUTES, HAVE OFTEN RECOGNIZED THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ONE RULE FOR THE
DISTRICT AND ANOTHER FOR OTHER JURISDICTIONS SO FAR AS THEY ARE SUBJECT
TO FEDERAL LAW.  THUS, THE "FEDERAL RULE" IN FIRST-DEGREE MURDER CASES
IS THAT, UNLESS THE JURY BY UNANIMOUS VOTE AGREES THAT THE PENALTY
SHOULD BE DEATH, THE COURT MUST FIX THE SENTENCE AT IMPRISONMENT FOR
LIFE.  35 STAT. 1151, 1152, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 567, NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC.
1111(1948), ANDRES V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 740.  BUT A DEFENDANT
CONVICTED OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER IN THE DISTRICT CANNOT LOOK TO THE
JURY TO SOFTEN THE PENALTY; HE MUST BE GIVEN THE DEATH SENTENCE.  31
STAT. 1321, 43 STAT. 799, D.C. CODE SEC. 22-2404, JOHNSON V. UNITED
STATES, 225 U.S. 405.  FURTHERMORE, THE COURT'S DECISION IN FISHER V.
UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 463, MAKES CLEAR THAT WHEN WE REFUSED TO
REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT WE WERE NOT ESTABLISHING
ANY "FEDERAL RULE" IN INTERPRETING THE MURDER STATUTES WHICH APPLY IN
PLACES OTHER THAN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS
JURISDICTION.  IN FACT, THIS COURT HAS BEEN AT PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT
"CONGRESS  ...  RECOGNIZED THE EXPEDIENCY OF SEPARATE PROVISIONS"
PERTAINING TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPLICABLE EXCLUSIVELY TO THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE CRIMINAL CODE GOVERNING
OFFENSES AMENABLE TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION ELSEWHERE.  JOHNSON V. UNITED
STATES, 225 U.S. 405, 418. 

MANY STATUTES REFLECT THIS DISTINCTIVE POSITION OF THE DISTRICT IN
MATTERS OF CRIMINAL LAW.  COMPARE 35 STAT. 1149, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
516("FEDERAL" ADULTERY STATUTE), NOW REPEALED, 18 U.S.C. P. 2415(1948),
WITH 31 STAT. 1332, D.C. CODE SEC. 22-301(DISTRICT ADULTERY STATUTE);
COMPARE 35 STAT. 1143, 18 U.S.C. SECS. 2031, 2032(1948)("FEDERAL" RAPE
STATUTE) WITH 31 STAT. 1322, 41 STAT. 567, 43 STAT. 798, D.C. CODE SEC.
22-2801(DISTRICT RAPE STATUTE); COMPARE 35 STAT. 1144, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
2111(1948)("FEDERAL" ROBBERY STATUTE) WITH 31 STAT. 1322, D.C. CODE
SEC. 22-2901(DISTRICT ROBBERY STATUTE); COMPARE 35 STAT. 1144, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 466("FEDERAL" LARCENY STATUTE), NOW REPEALED, 18 U.S.C. P.
2415(1948),  FN3  WITH 31 STAT. 1324, D.C. CODE SEC. 22-2201(DISTRICT
LARCENY STATUTE).  IN FACT, IT REQUIRES TWO VOLUMES TO CONTAIN "ALL THE
GENERAL AND PERMANENT LAWS RELATING TO OR IN FORCE IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, ON JANUARY 3, 1941, EXCEPT SUCH LAWS AS ARE OF APPLICATION IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY REASON OF BEING LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
GENERAL AND PERMANENT IN THEIR NATURE."  SEE PREFACE TO DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CODE (1940 ED.).  IF CONGRESS CAN ENACT SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF
CRIMINAL LAW EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,  FN4  THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OUGHT NOT TO BE DENIED
OPPORTUNITY TO FORMULATE RULES OF EVIDENCE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
DISTRICT, SO LONG AS THE RULES CHOSEN DO NOT OFFEND STATUTORY OR
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.    THE POSITION OF SPOUSES AS WITNESSES
STRIKINGLY ILLUSTRATES THAT THE DISTRICT STANDS APART FROM THE RULE OF
EVIDENCE PREVAILING GENERALLY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE FEDERAL
COURTS HAVE HELD THAT ONE SPOUSE CANNOT TESTIFY AGAINST THE OTHER
UNLESS THE DEFENDANT SPOUSE WAIVES THE PRIVILEGE.  MILES V. UNITED
STATES, 103 U.S. 304; BASSETT V. UNITED STATES, 137 U.S. 496; CF.
UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 137 F.2D 1006, 1008(C.A.2D CIR.).  SINCE
THIS COURT IN THE FUNK CASE LEFT OPEN THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS RULE
SHOULD BE CHANGED, FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371, 373, IT
PRESUMABLY IS STILL THE "FEDERAL RULE" FOR THE LOWER COURTS.  IN THE
DISTRICT, HOWEVER, THE RULE HAS LONG BEEN OTHERWISE.  HALBACK V. HILL,
49 APP. D.C. 127, 261 F. 1007; BUFORD V. BUFORD, 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 169,
170, 156 F.2D 567, 568; CF. DOBBINS V. UNITED STATES, 81 U.S. APP. D.C.
218, 157 F.2D 257; 31 STAT. 1358, D.C. CODE SEC. 14-306.  ANOTHER
EXAMPLE IS AFFORDED BY THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE JUST CITED ALSO
PROVIDED THAT ONE SPOUSE COULD TESTIFY IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER IN CASES
IN THE DISTRICT WHEN THE "FEDERAL RULE" WAS STILL TO THE CONTRARY. 
COMPARE JIN FUEY MOY V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 189; HENDRIX V. UNITED
STATES, 219 U.S. 79, BOTH OVERRULED IN FUNK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE PROBLEM OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE SET FORTH IN THE
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IS SERIOUS AND ITS WISE SOLUTION FULL OF
DIFFICULTY.  THE PROBLEM WAS APPARENTLY NOT EXPLORED BELOW, AND AT THE
BAR OF THIS COURT COUNSEL DID NOT GIVE IT THE CONSIDERATION APPROPRIATE
FOR DETERMINATION OF A FEDERAL ISSUE OF GENERAL IMPORTANCE.  IT WAS NOT
EVEN ARGUED IN THEIR BRIEFS.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT FOR US
TO ANNOUNCE A RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  NOTHING THAT HAS BEEN
SAID CONCERNING THE VARIOUS POSSIBLE CHOICES IS INTENDED AS AN
EXPRESSION OF PREFERENCE AMONG THE COMPETING RULES ABOUT THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF UNCOMMUNICATED THREATS, NOR AS THE SLIGHTEST
RESTRICTION UPON THE FREEDOM OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO MAKE ITS OWN
CHOICE.  WE PURPOSELY WITHHOLD ANY EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON THE MERITS
OF ANY OF THE PERMISSIBLE VIEWS ON ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS EVIDENCE. 
CERTAINLY NOTHING IN OUR DECISIONS FORECLOSES THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM
SELECTING ANY ONE IN THE RANGE OF CHOICES OPEN TO IT, EACH ONE HAVING
SOME RATIONAL BASIS.  THAT COURT HAS HERETOFORE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS THE
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR DETERMINING THE LOCAL RULES OF EVIDENCE; IT ALSO
IS A COURT THAT HAS ACTIVE EXPERIENCE WITH THE JUST AND PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING TRIALS FOR MURDER, PLAINLY OUTSIDE THE
PREOCCUPATION OF THIS COURT. 

IT IS PRECISELY FOR SUCH REASONS THAT FOR A DECADE THE COURT HAS
DECLINED TO REVIEW ALL CONVICTIONS FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WITH A SINGLE EXCEPTION, AND IN EVERY ONE OF
THESE CASES SOME LOCAL RULE OF EVIDENCE WAS AT LEAST IN PART INVOLVED. 
THE APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 719, GIVES A SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL ISSUES
INVOLVED IN THE FOURTEEN CASES IN WHICH WE DENIED A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  THIS COURSE OF DISPOSITION MANIFESTS UNIFORMITY OF RESPECT
BY THIS COURT FOR DISTRICT RULINGS ON EVIDENCE.  FN5  REFERENCE TO THIS
COURSE OF DISPOSITION OF ATTEMPTS TO SECURE REVIEW HERE FOR CONVICTIONS
OF MURDER IN THE DISTRICT IN NO WISE DISREGARDS OUR REPEATED ADMONITION
THAT DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IMPORTS NOTHING AS TO THE
MERITS OF A LOWER COURT DECISION.  THESE DENIALS DO NOT REMOTELY IMPLY
APPROVAL OF THE VARIOUS RULINGS ON EVIDENCE MADE IN THESE CASES BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT.  WHAT THEY DO ESTABLISH IS THAT IT
HAS BECOME SETTLED PRACTICE FOR THIS COURT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE
FORMULATION OF RULES OF EVIDENCE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS A
MATTER PURELY OF LOCAL LAW TO BE DETERMINED - IN THE ABSENCE OF
SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION - BY THE HIGHEST APPELLATE COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT. 

PREVIOUS TO THIS CASE, THERE WAS, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, A SINGLE
EXCEPTION TO THIS COURT'S CONSISTENT REFUSAL, FOR THE PAST DECADE, TO
BRING HERE FOR REVIEW A CONVICTION FOR MURDER IN THE DISTRICT.  FN6
THE DISPOSITION OF THE EXCEPTION POWERFULLY UNDERLINES THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE NECESSITY FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO PASS INITIALLY ON THIS
ISSUE.  THE CONVICTION IN THAT CASE WAS AFFIRMED ESSENTIALLY ON THE
PRINCIPLE THAT THE LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE GOVERNING CRIMINAL
TRIALS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS IN THE KEEPING OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT AND IS NOT TO BE EXERCISED BY THIS COURT. 
"THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL LAW IN MATTERS NOT AFFECTED BY
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS OR A GENERAL FEDERAL LAW IS A MATTER
PECULIARLY OF LOCAL CONCERN.  ...  MATTERS RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
IN THE DISTRICT ARE ENTRUSTED TO THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT.  OUR
POLICY IS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE LOCAL RULES OF LAW WHICH THEY
FASHION, SAVE IN EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS WHERE EGREGIOUS ERROR HAS BEEN
COMMITTED."  SUCH WERE THE VIEWS WHICH DETERMINED DECISION IN FISHER V.
UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 463, 476.  WHILE THE FISHER CASE EVOKED
DISSENT, IT WAS A DECISION RENDERED AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD
FULLY DECLARED ITS VIEWS OF THE LAW, AND NONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS
THAT MOVED THE DISSENTERS IN THAT CASE IS EVEN REMOTELY PRESENT IN THE
CASE NOW BEFORE US. 

WE MUST THEREFORE REMAND THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO DECIDE, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHAT RULE SHOULD PREVAIL
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD CONSTITUTE AN
UNWARRANTED DEPARTURE FROM A WISE RULE OF PRACTICE IN OUR CONSIDERATION
OF CASES COMING HERE FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT.  "THERE
ARE COGENT REASONS WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE TO DECIDE
QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW WITHOUT THE AID OF SOME EXPRESSION OF THE VIEWS
OF JUDGES OF THE LOCAL COURTS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE INTRICACIES AND
TRENDS OF LOCAL LAW AND PRACTICE.  WE DO NOT ORDINARILY DECIDE SUCH
QUESTIONS WITHOUT THAT AID WHERE THEY MAY CONVENIENTLY BE DECIDED IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE COURT WHOSE SPECIAL FUNCTION IT IS TO RESOLVE
QUESTIONS OF THE LOCAL LAW OF THE JURISDICTION OVER WHICH IT PRESIDES. 
HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232, 237, AND CASES CITED.  ONLY IN
EXCEPTIONAL CASES WILL THIS COURT REVIEW A DETERMINATION OF SUCH A
QUESTION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT."  BUSBY V. ELECTRIC
UTILITIES EMPLOYEES UNION, 323 U.S. 72, 74-75.  REMANDED. 

FN1  IN GRIFFIN V. CLEMMER, 83 U.S. APP. D.C. 351, 169 F.2D 961, THE
COURT OF APPEALS HAD BEFORE IT AN APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ALLEGING THAT GRIFFIN'S DETENTION WAS
ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE CONVICTION WAS PROCURED BY UNFAIR CONDUCT ON THE
PART OF THE PROSECUTOR.  THIS WAS FILED BY GRIFFIN AFTER THE COURT OF
APPEALS HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR A
NEW TRIAL BUT BEFORE THIS COURT GRANTED THIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 
THE CLAIM OF UNFAIRNESS WAS BASED ON THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE
FINDING OF THE PENKNIFE ON HUNTER.  IN EFFECT THIS WAS A CLAIM OF LACK
OF JURISDICTION IN THE COURT, ACCORDING TO THE DOCTRINE OF JOHNSON V.
ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DEEMED THE EVIDENCE TO BE
IRRELEVANT TO THAT PROCEEDING.  IT IS TOO PRECARIOUS TO TREAT THIS AS A
HOLDING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE. 

FN2  IT IS PERTINENT TO QUOTE AT LENGTH WIGMORE'S STATEMENTS ON THIS
SUBJECT: 

"THIS EVIDENCE (UNCOMMUNICATED THREATS) IS NOW CONCEDED TO BE
ADMISSIBLE, BY VIRTUALLY ALL COURTS.  BUT THE FOLLOWING DISCRIMINATIONS
MUST BE NOTED: 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"(3)  THERE IS MUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSE OF THIS SORT OF EVIDENCE. 
NOT ONLY MAY IT BE MANUFACTURED; BUT, EVEN WHEN GENUINE, IT MAY BE
EMPLOYED IMPROPERLY TO HELP THE DEFENDANT BY WAY OF JUSTIFICATION,  -
IN CERTAIN COMMUNITIES AT LEAST, WHERE THE COURTS HAVE BEEN COMPELLED
REPEATEDLY TO MAKE CLEAR THE LAW THAT A THREAT TO SHOOT ANOTHER IS NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LATTER TO KILL ON SIGHT.  FOR THESE REASONS
VARIOUS LIMITATIONS HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED: 

"(A)  THE EVIDENCE OF THREAT IS INADMISSIBLE WHERE THERE IS CLEAR
EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS THE AGGRESSOR.  MOST JURISDICTIONS
ADOPT THIS RULE, AND NONE SEEM TO NEGATIVE IT. 

"(B)  FURTHERMORE, THE THREAT IS ONLY ADMISSIBLE (AS MOST COURTS
PROVIDE) WHERE THERE IS SOME OTHER EVIDENCE OF AN AGGRESSION BY THE
DECEASED.  THIS IS USUALLY EXPRESSED BY SAYING THAT THERE MUST HAVE
BEEN SOME 'DEMONSTRATION OF HOSTILITY,' OR, MORE SHORTLY, SOME 'OVERT
ACT,' BY THE DECEASED.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY WHETHER THIS LIMITATION
ORIGINATED IN THE "RES GESTOE" NOTION (INFRA) OR IN A RULE OF CRIMINAL
LAW THAT AN OVERT ACT IS A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF
SELF-DEFENCE, OR MERELY IN A GENERAL POLICY OF PREVENTING THE ABUSE OF
THIS EVIDENCE.  AT ANY RATE, IT SEEMS A SATISFACTORY LIMITATION,
PROVIDED THE MULTIPLICATION OF QUIBBLES AS TO 'OVERT ACTS' IS AVOIDED
BY LEAVING THE WHOLE MATTER IN THE HANDS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE; FOR IT
PREVENTS THE DEFENDANT FROM TRYING TO USE THE THREATS AS A MERE PRETEXT
FOR JUSTIFYING THE KILLING OF ONE WHO WAS MAKING NO ACTUAL ATTEMPT TO
INJURE HIM. 

"(C)  ANOTHER CONDITION, SOMETIMES SUGGESTED, BUT INCONSISTENT WITH
AND MORE STRINGENT THAN THE PRECEDING ONE, IS THAT THE THREAT SHOULD BE
RECEIVED ONLY WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE AS TO WHO WAS THE
AGGRESSOR, I.E. WHEN THERE WERE NO EYE-WITNESSES.  PERHAPS IN PRACTICE
A COMBINATION OF (B) AND (C) WOULD BE THE BEST; I.E. TO ADMIT THE
EVIDENCE WHEN BY EYE-WITNESSES THERE WAS SOME OTHER EVIDENCE OF THE
DECEASED'S AGGRESSION, OR WHEN THERE WERE NO EYE-WITNESSES TO THE
AFFAIR. 

"(4)  ANOTHER AND ADDITIONAL USE, INDEPENDENT OF THE PRECEDING,
RECEIVES THE UNCOMMUNICATED THREAT IN 'CONFIRMATION' OR 'CORROBORATION'
OF COMMUNICATED THREATS.  THIS IS USUALLY COUPLED WITH ONE OF THE
PRECEDING LIMITATIONS AS AN ALTERNATIVE CONDITION OF ADMISSION. 

"(5)  THE DOCTRINE OF "RES GESTAE" IS SOMETIMES INVOKED AS THE GROUND
OF RECEIVING THE EVIDENCE; AND THE SAME NOTION UNDERLIES THE OCCASIONAL
SUGGESTION THAT THE THREATS 'CHARACTERIZE' THE DECEASED'S CONDUCT. 
THIS EMPLOYMENT OF "RES GESTAE" AS A VEIL FOR OBSCURITY OF THOUGHT IS
ELSEWHERE EXAMINED (POST, SEC. 1795); AND IT IS ENOUGH HERE TO SAY THAT
IT HAS NO POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE, AND CANNOT BE
MADE TO FIT ITS RULES; THE SOONER SUCH PHRASES ARE ABANDONED, THE
BETTER FOR CLEARNESS OF LEGAL THOUGHT. 

"(6)  IN SOME JURISDICTIONS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN THE EXACT
RULE.  PREVIOUS PRECEDENTS ARE IGNORED, INCONSISTENT TESTS LAID DOWN IN
SUCCEEDING RULINGS, DECISIONS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CITED TO THE
EXCLUSION OF LOCAL PRECEDENTS; AND THE OFTENER THE MATTER COMES UP FOR
A RULING, THE MORE IT IS OBSCURED. 

"(7)  THE PROSECUTION MAY OF COURSE REBUT THE EVIDENCE OF THREATS BY
COUNTER-TESTIMONY OF THE DECEASED'S PEACEFUL PLANS.  IT WOULD SEEM ALSO
THAT, WHENEVER THE DECEASED'S AGGRESSION IS IN ISSUE, THE PROSECUTION
COULD BEGIN WITH ITS EVIDENCE OF PEACEFUL PLANS.  THE PROSECUTION MAY
ALSO, ON THE PRINCIPLE OF SEC. 63, ANTE, REBUT BY EVIDENCE OF THE
DECEASED'S PEACEFUL CHARACTER. 

"(8)  THERE MAY BE SUNDRY OTHER CASES IN WHICH THE THREATS OF A
DECEASED PERSON WOULD BE RELEVANT APART FROM THE PRESENT DOCTRINES. 

"(9)  THE THREATS OF A THIRD PERSON MAY ALSO BE ADMITTED, WHERE IT IS
DESIRED TO SHOW THAT HE, AND NOT THE ACCUSED, WAS THE AGGRESSOR. 

"(10)  IN OTHER ISSUES IN WHICH THE AGGRESSION OF THE PLAINTIFF OR
PROSECUTING WITNESS IS MATERIAL, HIS THREATS ARE ADMISSIBLE ON THE
FOREGOING PRINCIPLES. 

"(11)  OTHER CONDUCT OF THE DECEASED, NOT AMOUNTING TO THREATS, BUT
INDICATING A MOTIVE TO ATTACK (ON THE PRINCIPLE OF SEC. 390, POST) MAY
BE ADMITTED, BY THE LOGIC OF THE PRESENT RULE, WITHOUT SHOWING PRIOR
COMMUNICATION TO THE DEFENDANT."  1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, SEC. 111(3D ED.,
1940). 

FN3  THE REPEAL OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON ADULTERY AND LARCENY
DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THEIR ILLUSTRATIVE SIGNIFICANCE. 

FN4  "  ...  THERE IS CERTAINLY NOTHING ANOMALOUS IN PUNISHING THE
CRIME OF MURDER DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS.  IT IS BUT THE
APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION TO CONDITIONS.  BUT IF IT BE ANOMALOUS, VERY
LITTLE ARGUMENT CAN BE DRAWN FROM IT TO SOLVE THE QUESTIONS IN
CONTROVERSY.  THE DIFFERENCE EXISTED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS BETWEEN THE
DISTRICT AND OTHER PLACES UNDER NATIONAL JURISDICTION, FOR, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, THE QUALIFIED VERDICT HAS NOT EXISTED IN THE DISTRICT SINCE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE DISTRICT CODE, AND DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE CRIMINAL
CODE WAS ENACTED.  ... 

"CONGRESS CERTAINLY IN ENACTING THE DISTRICT CODE, RECOGNIZED THE
EXPEDIENCY OF SEPARATE PROVISIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IT WAS
SAID AT THE BAR AND NOT DENIED THAT THE DISTRICT CODE WAS NOT ONLY THE
WORK OF THE LAWYERS OF THE DISTRICT, HAVING IN MIND THE NEEDS OF THE
DISTRICT, BUT OF ITS CITIZENS AS WELL, EXPRESSED THROUGH VARIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS AND BODIES OF THEM.  IN YIELDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONGRESS MADE NO NEW PRECEDENT.  IT HAD GIVEN LOCAL CONTROL TO THE
TERRITORIES, AND IT ENACTED A SEPARATE CODE FOR ALASKA."  JOHNSON V.
UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 405, 417-418. 

FN5  TO COMPARE THIS IMPRESSIVE COURSE OF DISPOSITION WITH THE FACT
THAT WE HAVE GRANTED LITTLE OVER 5% OF PETITIONS IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
BEHALF OF CONVICTS IS TO TREAT STATISTICS AS THOUGH THEY WERE MERELY
FIGURES WITHOUT MEANING.  THE MASS OF THESE IN FORMA PAUPERIS
PETITIONS, USUALLY DRAWN BY LAYMEN, ARE PATHETICALLY TRIVIAL AND
FRIVOLOUS ENDEAVORS BY THOSE INCARCERATED TO PROCURE THEIR FREEDOM
AFTER ALL OTHER HOPE HAS FADED.  TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM THIS 5% FIGURE
IS TO TREAT AS FUNGIBLE DENIALS OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE NO FEDERAL
QUESTION IS RAISED, DENIALS BECAUSE THE STATE REMEDIES WERE NOT
EXHAUSTED, AND DENIALS FOR OTHER UNRELATED JURISDICTIONAL REASONS.  THE
FOURTEEN PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WERE OF
A WHOLLY DIFFERENT NATURE.  THEY WERE ALL CASES IN WHICH THE PETITIONER
WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND IN WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAD CONSIDERED SERIOUSLY ERRORS CLAIMED TO HAVE
OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL - THEY WERE ALL ADJUDICATIONS ON
THE MERITS.  OUR CONSISTENT DENIALS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE MUTE
EVIDENCE, NOT OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, BUT OF DEFERENCE TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON RULES OF EVIDENCE PREVAILING
IN THE DISTRICT.    FN6  THE SITUATION IN ENGLAND REGARDING APPEALS IN
CRIMINAL CASES IS NOT WITHOUT ILLUMINATION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF
ABSTENTION BY THIS COURT IN CRIMINAL CASES ALREADY DECIDED BY TWO
COURTS.  BETWEEN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BY
THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT OF 1907 AND THE END OF 1947, THERE HAVE BEEN
585 APPEALS IN MURDER CASES TO THAT COURT.  IN THE SAME PERIOD THERE
HAVE BEEN ONLY FOUR APPEALS FROM THAT COURT TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 
SUCH APPEALS CAN ONLY BE TAKEN IF "THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
OR THE PROSECUTOR OR DEFENDANT OBTAINS THE CERTIFICATE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL INVOLVES A
POINT OF LAW OF EXCEPTIONAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, AND THAT IT IS DESIRABLE
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT A FURTHER APPEAL SHOULD BE BROUGHT."  THE
CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT, 1907, 7 EDW.  VII, C. 23. 

WE ARE INDEBTED FOR THE ABOVE FIGURES TO THE KINDNESS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ENGLAND, THE RT. HON. SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS. 

(FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, SEE POST, P. 721.) 

             GRIFFIN V. UNITED STATES. 

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SUMMARY OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO REVIEW 

DEATH SENTENCES ON CONVICTION FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER SINCE 1938. 
(CHART OMITTED) 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

BAXTER GRIFFIN HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO DIE FOR THE MURDER OF LEE
HUNTER.  HIS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE KILLING WAS SELF-DEFENSE.  HE HAS
FOUND THAT HUNTER HAD AN OPEN KNIFE IN HIS POCKET WHEN HE WAS SHOT.  HE
SEEKS A NEW TRIAL ON THE BASIS OF THAT NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  THE
FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT EVIDENCE WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT A NEW
TRIAL. 

IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT IT IS ADMISSIBLE.  UNCOMMUNICATED THREATS AND
DESIGNS ON THE DEFENDANT CANNOT SHOW HIS MOTIVE IN KILLING, BUT THEY
MAY DEMONSTRATE THAT A DESIGN ON THE DEFENDANT DID IN FACT EXIST.  THIS
IS THE RULE IN "VIRTUALLY ALL COURTS."  1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.,
1940), SEC. 111, P. 547.  IT IS CERTAINLY THE FEDERAL RULE.  WIGGINS V.
UTAH, 93 U.S. 465; TRAPP V. NEW MEXICO, 225 F. 968.  AND IT IS A
THOROUGHLY DESIRABLE RULE.  A DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO PRESENT
THE JURY WITH EVIDENCE LENDING CREDENCE TO HIS THEORY OF THE CASE. 
GRIFFIN'S CASE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE POLICY BEHIND THE RULE:  FOR
THE OPEN KNIFE IS THE ONLY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF HIS SELF-DEFENSE
TESTIMONY. 

THERE CAN BE LITTLE QUESTION THAT THE OPEN KNIFE IS AN ELEMENT IN THE
PROOF OF A DESIGN ON THE DEFENDANT, AND IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE RULE
STATED ABOVE.  BUT SOME COURTS HAVE MADE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE, THREE
OF WHICH MIGHT BE CONSIDERED RELEVANT IN THIS CASE.  WIGMORE, SUPRA,
SEC. 111(3).  THE EXCEPTIONS HAVE A CENTRAL FOUNDATION:  DISTRUST OF
THE JURY'S ABILITY TO EVALUATE THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE.  MANY RULES OF
EXCLUSION ARE BOTTOMED ON THIS DISTRUST, OF COURSE.  BUT IT IS CLEARLY
MISPLACED WHEN DIRECTED AT THE JURY'S CAPABILITY IN WEIGHING THE VALUE
OF UNCOMMUNICATED THREATS IN A MURDER TRIAL.  THE EVIDENCE IS SIMPLE;
IT IS NOT CALCULATED TO INFLAME; IT IS FAR MORE DIFFICULT TO FABRICATE
THAN ARE COMMUNICATED THREATS; THE PROSECUTION CAN EASILY QUESTION ITS
IMPORTANCE; AND IT PROVIDES SOLID SUPPORT FOR A DEFENDANT'S SELF
DEFENSE THEORY.  WHILE IN GRIFFIN'S CASE THE EVIDENCE IS STRONGER FOR
THE PROSECUTION THAN IT WAS IN WIGGINS', SUPRA, THAT DIFFERENCE IS NOT
A DISTINCTION.  THE VERY PLEA OF SELF-DEFENSE RAISES DOUBT ON THAT
QUESTION.  DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY, SUPPORTING HIS PLEA, RAISES FURTHER
DOUBT. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS EVIDENCE MIGHT CHANGE THE JURY'S VERDICT.  TO
MAKE ADMISSIBILITY DEPEND UPON MECHANICAL AND OFTEN ILLOGICAL
VARIATIONS IN THE SIZE OF THE DOUBT IN A JUDGE'S MIND IS AN INVASION OF
THE JURY'S FUNCTION.  "IT IS PERTINENT HERE TO REMARK, THAT BOTH THE
EFFECT OF (THE WITNESSES') TESTIMONY AND (THEIR) CREDIBILITY WERE TO BE
WEIGHED BY THE JURY."  WIGGINS V. UTAH, SUPRA, AT 469. 

THE COURT MAKES LITTLE ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE EXCLUSION OF THIS
EVIDENCE.  INSTEAD, IT CITES FISHER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 463. 
THE FISHER CASE DECLINED TO UPSET AN EVIDENCE RULE THAT HAD "LONG BEEN
THE LAW OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA":  THAT "MENTAL DEFICIENCY WHICH
DOES NOT SHOW LEGAL IRRESPONSIBILITY" IS NOT "A RELEVANT FACTOR IN
DETERMINING WHETHER AN ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST OR
SECOND DEGREE."  THE COURT STATED THE GENERAL RULE THAT "MATTERS
RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE DISTRICT ARE ENTRUSTED TO THE COURTS
OF THE DISTRICT" IN A CASE IN WHICH A REVERSAL WOULD HAVE BEEN A
"RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM COMMON LAW CONCEPTS" AND THUS "MORE PROPERLY A
SUBJECT FOR THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER OR AT LEAST FOR THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT."  328 U.S. AT 471, 473, 476. 

IN FISHER, THE COURT CONSIDERED THE JUDICIARY'S CASE-BY-CASE METHOD
ILL SUITED FOR THE SWEEPING CHANGES WHICH WERE AND ARE NECESSARY IN THE
LAW OF INSANITY.  IT RECOGNIZED THAT AN INDIRECT ATTACK ON THE PROBLEM,
BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF ONE'S PAST LIFE AS RELEVANT IN PREMEDITATION,
MIGHT LEAD TO THE TRIAL OF ONE'S WHOLE LIFE RATHER THAN OF THE SPECIFIC
OFFENSE CHARGED. 

DESPITE THE RADICAL NATURE OF THE CHANGE, THREE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT
THOUGHT THAT THE JUDICIARY SHOULD MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO CORRECT THE
INJUSTICE OF THE COMMON-LAW RULES.  THOSE ARGUMENTS WERE REJECTED.  BUT
THEY WERE REJECTED ONLY UPON THE LIMITED BASIS TO WHICH I HAVE
REFERRED. 

TODAY THE COURT EXTENDS THE FISHER RULE.  IT CALLS FISHER A HOLDING
THAT NO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE REVIEWABLE IN THIS
COURT.  THE FISHER CASE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR SUCH A PROPOSITION.  THERE
IS NO WARRANT FOR IT IN STATUTE.  AND OUR DENIAL OF THIRTEEN PETITIONS
FOR CERTIORARI IN DEATH CASES IN THE DISTRICT IN THE LAST TEN YEARS
CANNOT ESTABLISH SUCH A PROPOSITION.  IN THE LAST TEN COMPLETE TERMS OF
COURT, ONLY 5.1% OF ALL PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI IN FORMA PAUPERIS HAVE
BEEN GRANTED.  AND THE PERCENTAGE OF PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, OTHER
THAN IN FORMA PAUPERIS, GRANTED IN THE SAME PERIOD HAS FLUCTUATED
BETWEEN 14.9 AND 22.7.  FN1  WHEN WE DENY NINETEEN OUT OF TWENTY
PETITIONS IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND FOUR OUT OF FIVE OF THE OTHER
PETITIONS, THE DENIAL OF PETITIONS IN THIRTEEN CAPITAL CASES IN TEN
YEARS REFLECTS NO GREATER POLICY IN THOSE CASES THAN IT DOES IN ANY
OTHER CLASS OF CASES.  THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE WHEN THE SAMPLE -
FIFTEEN CASES - IS SO SMALL COMPARED TO THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE
ASKED TO REVIEW, AND WHEN THE SAMPLE CONSIDERS ONLY MURDER CASES. 
"NOTHING IS SO FALLACIOUS AS FACTS, EXCEPT FIGURES."  FOR FIGURES WHICH
DO NOT REVEAL THE PECULIAR FACTS OF EACH CASE CANNOT REFLECT A POLICY
OF ANY KIND. 

SELF-LIMITATION OF OUR APPELLATE POWERS MAY BE A WORTHY THING, BUT IT
IS NOT ATTRACTIVE TO ME WHEN THE BEHEST OF CONGRESS IS OTHERWISE. 
CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THIS COURT THE ULTIMATE POWER TO REVIEW DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA TRIALS.  NO MATTER HOW THE DECISION IS PHRASED, THE COURT'S
POWER IN THE PREMISES IS SUCH THAT IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVIDENCE
RULE IT ASKS THE COURT OF APPEALS TO EXPOUND.  THERE IS NO "RADICAL
DEPARTURE FROM COMMON LAW" RULES IN GRIFFIN'S CASE, AS THERE WAS IN
FISHER'S.  WE SHOULD DECLARE THE EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE. 

IF THE EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE
GRANTED.  A CONTRARY DETERMINATION WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
FN2  FOR THERE IS MANIFESTLY A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY  FN3  THAT THE
JURY WOULD LESSEN THE VERDICT OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER. 

FN1  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES COURTS 1948, TABLE A 1. 

FN2  SEE UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 327 U.S. 106. 

FN3  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE "REASONABLE POSSIBILITY"
STANDARD IS PROPER, AT LEAST IN A CAPITAL CASE.  COMPARE WAGNER V.
UNITED STATES, 118 F.2D 801; EVANS V. UNITED STATES, 122 F.2D 461;
WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 122 F.2D 675; BERRY V. GEORGIA, 10 GA. 511. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



CALIFORNIA V. ZOOK, 336 U.S. 725 


NO. 355.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1949.  - 87 CAL.
APP.2D SUPP. 921, 197 P.2D 851, REVERSED. 


1.  A CALIFORNIA STATUTE PROHIBITS THE SALE OR ARRANGEMENT OF ANY
TRANSPORTATION OVER THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE IF THE
TRANSPORTING CARRIER HAS NO PERMIT FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT HAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
PROVISION RESPECTING CARRIERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  RESPONDENTS
OPERATE A TRAVEL BUREAU IN LOS ANGELES, AND RECEIVE COMMISSIONS FOR
ARRANGING "SHARE-EXPENSE" PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION IN PRIVATE
AUTOMOBILES.  STATE LINES ARE CROSSED IN MANY OF THE TRIPS. 
RESPONDENTS WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE STATE STATUTE.  HELD:  THE
STATE STATUTE, AS SO APPLIED, IS NOT INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 726-738. 

2.  THE FACT THAT A FEDERAL LAW AND A STATE LAW AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ARE IDENTICAL DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY INVALIDATE THE STATE LAW;
THE QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED, BY A JUDGMENT UPON THE PARTICULAR CASE,
IS WHETHER THE STATE LAW CONFLICTS WITH NATIONAL POLICY AND WHETHER
CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE ITS JURISDICTION EXCLUSIVE.  PP. 728-731. 

3.  NORMALLY, CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO DISPLACE LOCAL LAWS MUST BE
CLEARLY MANIFESTED; AND, IF THE CLAIM IS CONFLICT IN TERMS, IT MUST
CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE FEDERAL PROVISIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE
OF THE STATE.  P. 733. 

4.  THE TRADITION OF "USUAL POLICE POWERS" IS OF AID IN DETERMINING
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AS TO EXCLUDING STATE ACTION ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AT LEAST WHEN CONGRESS HAS LEGISLATED; AND STATES CLEARLY
HAVE AN INTEREST IN REGULATING THE USE OF THEIR OWN HIGHWAYS.  PP. 734
735. 

5.  IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO CONFLICT IN TERMS BETWEEN THE FEDERAL
AND CALIFORNIA STATUTES, AND NO POSSIBILITY OF SUCH CONFLICT, SINCE THE
STATE STATUTE MAKES FEDERAL LAW THE LAW OF THE STATE IN THIS MATTER. 
P. 735. 

6.  THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THIS CASE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
SUBSTITUTE A UNIFORM FEDERAL LAW FOR DIVERSE STATE LAWS, FOR THERE WAS
LITTLE STATE LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT WHEN CONGRESS ACTED.  PP. 735
736. 

7. THE STATE STATUTE IS NOT RENDERED INVALID BY THE FACT THAT IT
IMPOSES HEAVIER PENALTIES THAN THE FEDERAL ACT NOR BY THE POSSIBILITY
OF DOUBLE PUNISHMENT.  PP. 731-733, 735-738. 

8.  DIFFICULTIES CONFRONTING STATE REGULATION OF OTHER PHASES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CAN NOT JUSTIFY EXCLUSION OF THE STATE REGULATION
HERE INVOLVED.  P. 736. 

9.  THE VALIDITY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE HERE INVOLVED, WHICH DOES
NOT CONFLICT WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION POLICY, IS NOT
AFFECTED BY AN EARLIER STATE STATUTE WHICH DID CONFLICT WITH THAT
POLICY.  P. 737. 

10.  SO FAR AS CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS FOR HIRE IS CONCERNED, THE STATE MAY PUNISH AS IT HAS IN THE
PRESENT CASE FOR THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ITS INHABITANTS; THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MAY PUNISH FOR THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  P. 738. 

CALIFORNIA V. ZOOK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

RESPONDENTS WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING A CALIFORNIA PENAL STATUTE. 
THE CONVICTION WAS REVERSED, AND THE COMPLAINT WAS ORDERED DISMISSED,
BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD.  87
CAL. APP.2D SUPP. 921, 197 P.2D 851.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
335 U.S. 883.  REVERSED, P. 738. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A CALIFORNIA STATUTE PROHIBITS THE SALE OR ARRANGEMENT OF ANY
TRANSPORTATION OVER THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE IF THE
TRANSPORTING CARRIER HAS NO PERMIT FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  FN1  THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT HAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME PROVISION.  FN2  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE ACT AS APPLIED
IN THIS CASE IS INVALID IN VIEW OF THE FEDERAL ACT. 

RESPONDENTS OPERATE A TRAVEL BUREAU IN LOS ANGELES, AND RECEIVE
COMMISSIONS FOR ARRANGING "SHARE-EXPENSE" PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION IN
AUTOMOBILES.  OWNERS OF PRIVATE CARS DESIRING PASSENGERS FOR A TRIP
REGISTER WITH RESPONDENTS' AGENCY, AS DO PROSPECTIVE PASSENGERS.  STATE
LINES ARE CROSSED IN MANY OF THE TRIPS.  UNTIL 1942 THE FEDERAL ACT
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED SUCH "CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL"
TRANSPORTATION.  FN3  BUT IN THAT YEAR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION REMOVED THE EXEMPTION N4, AS THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT EMPOWERED
IT TO DO.  FN5  BOTH THE CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL STATUTES NOW REQUIRE
RESPONDENTS TO SELL TRANSPORTATION ONLY IN CARRIERS HAVING PERMITS FROM
THE I.C.C. 

RESPONDENTS WERE PROSECUTED UNDER THE STATE ACT.  THEY ADMITTED THEIR
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, BUT DEMURRED TO THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT ON THE SOLE
GROUND THAT THE STATE STATUTE ENTERED AN EXCLUSIVE CONGRESSIONAL
DOMAIN.  THE TRIAL COURT DISAGREED, AND ENTERED A JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION, BUT THE APPELLATE COURT  FN6  UPHELD RESPONDENTS'
CONTENTION, AND ORDERED THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED.  87 CAL. APP.2D SUPP.
921, 197 P.2D 851.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 883. 

CERTAIN FIRST PRINCIPLES ARE NO LONGER IN DOUBT.  WHETHER AS
INFERENCE FROM CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE, OR AS A NEGATIVE IMPLICATION FROM
THE GRANT OF POWER ITSELF, WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY ACTED WE
HAVE ACCEPTED THE COOLEY CASE'S BROAD DELINEATION OF THE AREAS OF STATE
AND NATIONAL POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  COOLEY V. PORT WARDENS,
12 HOW.  299; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 768.  SEE
RIBBLE, STATE AND NATIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE, CH. 10.  ABSENT
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, THE FAMILIAR TEST IS THAT OF UNIFORMITY VERSUS
LOCALITY:  IF A CASE FALLS WITHIN AN AREA IN COMMERCE THOUGHT TO DEMAND
A UNIFORM NATIONAL RULE, STATE ACTION IS STRUCK DOWN.  IF THE ACTIVITY
IS ONE OF PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL INTEREST, STATE ACTION IS SUSTAINED. 
MORE ACCURATELY, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE INTEREST IS
OUTWEIGHED BY A NATIONAL INTEREST IN THE UNHAMPERED OPERATION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THERE IS NO LONGER ANY QUESTION THAT CONGRESS CAN REDEFINE THE AREAS
OF LOCAL AND NATIONAL PREDOMINANCE, PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V.
BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, SUPRA, AT 769,
DESPITE THEORETICAL INCONSISTENCY WITH THE RATIONALE OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AS A LIMITATION IN ITS OWN RIGHT.  THE WORDS OF THE CLAUSE - A
GRANT OF POWER - ADMIT OF NO OTHER RESULT.  WHEN CONGRESS ENTERS THE
FIELD BY LEGISLATION, WE TRY TO DISCOVER TO WHAT EXTENT IT INTENDED TO
EXERCISE ITS POWER OF REDEFINITION; HERE WE ARE CLOSER TO AN INTENT
THAT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED WITH ASSURANCE, ALTHOUGH WE MAY EMPLOY
PRESUMPTIONS GROUNDED IN EXPERIENCE IN DOUBTFUL CASES. 

BUT WHETHER CONGRESS HAS OR HAS NOT EXPRESSED ITSELF, THE FUNDAMENTAL
INQUIRY, BROADLY STATED, IS THE SAME:  DOES THE STATE ACTION CONFLICT
WITH NATIONAL POLICY?  THE COOLEY RULE AND ITS LATER APPLICATION,
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, SUPRA, THE QUESTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
"OCCUPATION OF THE FIELD," AND THE SEARCH FOR CONFLICT IN THE VERY
TERMS OF STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES ARE BUT THREE SEPARATE
PARTICULARIZATIONS OF THIS INITIAL PRINCIPLE. 

WE RESTATE THE FAMILIAR BECAUSE RESPONDENTS WOULD HAVE US PRONOUNCE
AN ADDITIONAL RULE:  THAT WHEN CONGRESS HAS MADE SPECIFIED ACTIVITY
UNLAWFUL, "COINCIDENCE IS AS INEFFECTIVE AS OPPOSITION," AND STATE LAWS
"AIDING" ENFORCEMENT ARE INVALID.  RESPONDENTS SEEM TO ARGUE THAT THIS
IS AS FUNDAMENTAL AS THE RULE OF CONFLICT WITH NATIONAL AUTHORITY, AND
THAT IT RESTS UPON WHOLLY INDEPENDENT PREMISES. 

BUT RESPONDENTS SEIZE UPON ONLY ONE PART OF THE FAMILIAR PHRASE IN
CHARLESTON & W.C.R. CO. V. VARNVILLE FURNITURE CO., 237 U.S. 597, 604. 
WE SAID THAT WHEN "CONGRESS HAS TAKEN THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT-MATTER IN
HAND COINCIDENCE IS AS INEFFECTIVE AS OPPOSITION  ...  "  SEE ALSO,
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 250 U.S. 566, 569;
MISSOURI P.R. CO. V. PORTER, 273 U.S. 341, 346.  RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT
ASSUMES THE STATED PREMISE - THAT CONGRESS HAS "TAKEN THE PARTICULAR
SUBJECT-MATTER IN HAND," TO THE EXCLUSION OF STATE LAWS.  THE COURT
COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO ENUNCIATE A MECHANICAL RULE, TO BE APPLIED
WHATEVER THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. 
NEITHER THE LANGUAGE NOR THE FACTS OF THE CASES CITED SUPPORT AN
APPROACH IN SUCH MARKED CONTRAST WITH THIS COURT'S CONSISTENT
DECISIONAL BASES.  THE VARNVILLE CASE STRUCK DOWN A SOUTH CAROLINA
STATUTE WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF HOLDING A CONNECTING CARRIER LIABLE FOR
GOODS DAMAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHEN CONGRESS HAD DETERMINED THAT
THE INITIAL CARRIER SHOULD BEAR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY; THE
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CASE HELD INVALID A STATE MEASURE REQUIRING A
SPECIFIED TYPE OF REAR PLATFORM DIFFERENT FROM THE DETAILED
SPECIFICATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; AND IN THE PORTER
CASE, THE COURT THOUGHT CONGRESS INTENDED TO LEAVE THE TERMS OF A
UNIFORM BILL OF LADING TO THE I.C.C., AND THAT STATE LAWS ON THE
SUBJECT WERE MEANT TO BE INEFFECTIVE.  SEE CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V.
PATTERSON, 315 U.S. 148, 157-159. 

THE "COINCIDENCE" RATIONALE IS ONLY AN APPLICATION OF THE FIRST
PRINCIPLE OF CONFLICT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.  THE PHRASE ITSELF SIMPLY
STATES THAT FAMILIAR RULE.  IF STATE LAWS ON COMMERCE ARE IDENTICAL
WITH THOSE OF CONGRESS, THE COURT MAY FIND CONGRESSIONAL MOTIVE TO
EXCLUDE THE STATES:  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED CERTAIN LIMITED PENALTIES,
"AND A STATE LAW IS NOT TO BE DECLARED A HELP BECAUSE IT ATTEMPTS TO GO
FARTHER THAN CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO GO," VARNVILLE, SUPRA, AT 604 -
THAT IS, IF CONGRESS HAS "OCCUPIED THE FIELD."  BUT THE FACT OF
IDENTITY DOES NOT MEAN THE AUTOMATIC INVALIDITY OF STATE MEASURES. 
COINCIDENCE IS ONLY ONE FACTOR IN A COMPLICATED PATTERN OF FACTS
GUIDING US TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  FN7  AS THE COURT STATED IN THE
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CASE, AT 569, THE "QUESTION WHETHER CONGRESS AND
ITS COMMISSIONS ACTING UNDER IT HAVE SO FAR EXERCISED THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION THAT BELONGS TO IT AS TO EXCLUDE THE STATE, MUST BE
ANSWERED BY A JUDGMENT UPON THE PARTICULAR CASE."  STATEMENTS
CONCERNING THE "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" OF CONGRESS BEG THE ONLY
CONTROVERSIAL QUESTION:  WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE ITS
JURISDICTION EXCLUSIVE. 

THIS HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED.  FOX V. OHIO, 5 HOW.  410, ANNOUNCED
UNCERTAINLY WHAT UNITED STATES V. MARIGOLD, 9 HOW.  560, LATER MADE
CLEAR:  THAT "THE SAME ACT MIGHT, AS TO ITS CHARACTER AND TENDENCIES,
AND THE CONSEQUENCES IT INVOLVED, CONSTITUTE AN OFFENCE AGAINST BOTH
THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, AND MIGHT DRAW TO ITS COMMISSION THE
PENALTIES DENOUNCED BY EITHER, AS APPROPRIATE TO ITS CHARACTER IN
REFERENCE TO EACH."  9 HOW.  AT 569.  FN8  SEE EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100
U.S. 371, 390; UNITED STATES V. LANZA, 260 U.S. 377, 384.  AND SEE
UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 208. 

ASBELL V. KANSAS, 209 U.S. 251, IS A FURTHER ILLUSTRATION.  A KANSAS
STATUTE PROVIDED CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR THE IMPORTATION OF CATTLE FROM
ANY POINT SOUTH OF THE STATE, EXCEPT FOR IMMEDIATE SLAUGHTER, WITHOUT
APPROVAL OF THE PROPER STATE OFFICIALS OR THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY
OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT, 32 STAT. 791, 792,
ALLOWED CATTLE TO BE TRANSPORTED INTO A STATE IF INSPECTED AND PASSED
BY AN INSPECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT BROUGHT CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.  YET WE
AFFIRMED A CONVICTION UNDER THE STATE LAW.  WE SAID THAT "IF THE STATE
LAW CONFLICTS WITH IT (FEDERAL LAW) THE STATE LAW MUST YIELD.  BUT THE
LAW OF KANSAS NOW BEFORE US RECOGNIZES THE SUPREMACY OF THE NATIONAL
LAW AND CONFORMS TO IT."  209 U.S. AT 258.  AND SEE THE SIMILAR PROBLEM
AND SIMILAR ANSWER BY BRANDEIS, J., FOR THE COURT IN DICKSON V. UHLMANN
GRAIN CO., 288 U.S. 188. 

TO LIMIT OUR INQUIRY TO RESPONDENTS' SINGLE STANDARD WOULD RESTRICT
US TO UNREALITY.  FOR CONGRESS IS OFTEN EXPLICIT WHEN IT WISHES STATE
LAWS TO CONCLUDE FEDERAL PROSECUTION, TO AVOID THE DOUBLE PUNISHMENT
POSSIBLE IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 659,
DEFINING THE CRIME OF STEALING FROM AN INTERSTATE CARRIER; 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 660, MISAPPLICATION OF FUNDS BY AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF A
CARRIER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE.  AND WHEN STATE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS SO
HELPFUL TO FEDERAL OFFICIALS ARE TO BE EXCLUDED, CONGRESS MAY SAY SO,
AS IN THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. I),
SEC. 160(A).  THAT CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY SAVED STATE LAWS IN SOME
INSTANCES, SEE, E.G., THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77R,
INDICATES NO GENERAL POLICY SAVE CLARITY. 

RESPONDENTS' AUTOMATIC "COINCIDENCE MEANS INVALIDITY" THEORY, APPLIED
IN AN AREA AS IMBUED WITH THE STATE'S INTEREST AS IS THIS ONE, SEE
INFRA, WOULD LEAD US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A STATE MAY NOT MAKE A
DEALER IN PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES RESPECT ITS LAWS ON THE
FRAUDULENT NONPAYMENT OF AN OBLIGATION, IF THAT FRAUD OCCURRED AFTER AN
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 499B (4), FOR CONGRESS HAS NOT
EXPRESSLY SAVED SUCH PROSECUTIONS.  WE WOULD HOLD, TOO, THAT EXTORTION
OR ROBBERY FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1951 OR 18
U.S.C. SEC. 2117 IS IMMUNE FROM STATE ACTION; THAT THE WRECKING OF A
BRIDGE OVER AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD IS AN "EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL" OFFENSE,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 1992; THAT THE TRANSMITTAL OF A RANSOM NOTE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CANNOT BE PUNISHED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 875.  AND SEE 18 U.S.C. SECS. 331, 472, 479.  IN SHORT, WE WOULD
BE SETTING ASIDE GREAT NUMBERS OF STATE STATUTES TO SATISFY A
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE WHICH WOULD BE ONLY THE PRODUCT OF THIS COURT'S
IMAGINATION.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT EACH OF THE PROBLEMS UNDER THE
STATUTES CITED MAY NOT BE RESOLVED BY EXAMINATION OF THE WHOLE CASE. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED TO OVERRIDE STATE LAWS
IDENTICAL WITH ITS OWN WHEN IT, THROUGH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, REGULATED SHARE-EXPENSE PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE
TRANSPORTATION, OR WHETHER IT INTENDED TO LET STATE LAWS STAND.  WHILE
THE STATUTE SAYS NOTHING EXPRESSLY ON THIS POINT AND WE ARE AIDED BY NO
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DIRECTLY IN POINT,  FN9  WE KNOW THAT NORMALLY
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO DISPLACE LOCAL LAWS MUST BE CLEARLY
MANIFESTED.  H.P. WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79, AND CASES
CITED; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598, 614; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302
U.S. 1, 11, 14; MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346.  OR IF THE CLAIM IS
CONFLICT IN TERMS, IT "MUST BE CLEAR THAT THE FEDERAL PROVISIONS ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF THE STATE TO JUSTIFY THE THWARTING OF STATE
REGULATION."  CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V. PATTERSON, SUPRA, AT 156.  SEE
ALSO HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52, AT 67. 

GENERAL PROPOSITIONS DERIVED FROM THE WHOLE SWEEP OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE ARE OFTEN HELPFUL, AND WE THINK THOSE JUST STATED ARE PERSUASIVE
INDICATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE US.  BUT THE
QUITE SEPARATE COMMERCE CLAUSE DEGREE QUESTIONS CAN BE RESOLVED ONLY BY
CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITY REGULATED.  THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FOUND THESE DANGERS PRESENT IN THE BUSINESS OF
SHARE-EXPENSE PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION:  ABANDONMENT OF PASSENGERS
BEFORE REACHING THE PROMISED DESTINATION; PERSONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED
BY PASSENGERS BECAUSE OF IRRESPONSIBLE DRIVERS, WITH ATTENDANT DELAY
AND EXPENSE; DELAYS CAUSED BY ARREST AND DETENTION OF DRIVERS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF TRAFFIC LAWS; CROWDED CONDITIONS IN AUTOMOBILES BY REASON
OF AN EXCESSIVE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS AND THEIR BAGGAGE; AND "ANNOYANCE,
ANXIETY, OR FRIGHT CAUSED BY RECKLESS AND IMPROPER DRIVING BY THE
AUTOMOBILE OPERATORS, BY THE BAD MECHANICAL CONDITION OF THE VEHICLES
USED, BY THE FATIGUE OF DRIVERS OPERATING THE AUTOMOBILES FOR LONG
PERIODS WITHOUT ADEQUATE REST, OR BY THE IMPROPER CONDUCT OF THE
DRIVERS OR OTHER PASSENGERS."  EVIDENCE OF THESE EVILS LED THE I.C.C.
TO REMOVE THE EXEMPTION WHICH HAD COVERED THESE RESPONDENTS.  EX PARTE
NO. MC-35, 33 M.C.C. 69, 73, 74.  SEE ALSO REPORT OF FEDERAL
COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION ON THE REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION
AGENCIES OTHER THAN RAILROADS AND ON PROPOSED CHANGES IN RAILROAD
REGULATION (WASHINGTON, 1934), SEN. DOC. 152, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P.
226, MENTIONING THE FINANCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THESE CARRIERS.  AND
SEE CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109.    OF COURSE WE NO LONGER
LIMIT THE STATES TO THEIR "TRADITIONAL" POLICE POWERS IN CONSIDERING A
STATUTE'S VALIDITY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE LINCOLN FEDERAL
LABOR UNION V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO., 335 U.S. 525.  BUT THE
TRADITION OF "USUAL POLICE POWERS" IS STILL OF AID IN DETERMINING
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO EXCLUDE STATE ACTION ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AT
LEAST WHEN CONGRESS HAS LEGISLATED.  MANY OF THE EVILS DISCUSSED BY THE
I.C.C., ABOVE, ARE OF THE OLDEST WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE POLICE POWER:
PROTECTION AGAINST FRAUD AND PHYSICAL HARM TO A STATE'S RESIDENTS.  AND
CONSISTENT WITH THE MANY CASES GIVING THE STATE'S INTEREST IN ITS OWN
HIGHWAYS MORE WEIGHT THAN THE NATIONAL INTEREST AGAINST "BURDENING"
COMMERCE,  FN10  WE HAVE HELD THAT THE HIGHWAY REGULATION INVOLVED IN
THIS CASE IS ALLOWABLE STATE ACTION BEFORE CONGRESS ACTED.  CALIFORNIA
V. THOMPSON, SUPRA.  REMOVAL OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT'S EXEMPTION SINCE
THE THOMPSON CASE DOES NOT CHANGE OUR CONCLUSION. 

THE CASE WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF THERE WERE CONFLICT IN THE PROVISIONS
OF THE FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA STATUTES.  BUT THERE IS NO CONFLICT IN
TERMS, AND NO POSSIBILITY OF SUCH CONFLICT, FOR THE STATE STATUTE MAKES
FEDERAL LAW ITS OWN IN THIS PARTICULAR.  THE CASE MIGHT ALSO BE
DIFFERENT WERE THERE VARIEGATED STATE LAWS ON THIS SUBJECT IN 1941,
WHEN THE I.C.C. REMOVED THE FEDERAL EXEMPTION.  WE MIGHT THEN INFER
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO DISPLACE LOCAL LAWS AND ESTABLISH A UNIFORM
RULE BEYOND WHICH STATES MAY NOT GO.  SEE SOUTHERN R. CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 236 U.S. 439.  WHATEVER THE RESULT IN THAT CLASS OF CASES,
IT WOULD BE STARTLING TO DISCOVER CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION TO "DISPLACE"
STATE LAWS WHEN THERE WERE NO STATE LAWS TO DISPLACE WHEN CONGRESS
ACTED.  AND THAT IS NEARLY THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE.  WHEN THE
I.C.C. REMOVED THE FEDERAL EXEMPTION, IT MENTIONED TWELVE CITIES, OTHER
THAN LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO, IN WHICH THE PROBLEM WAS
PARTICULARLY ACUTE.  FN11  OF THESE TWELVE CITIES, ONLY TWO WERE
LOCATED IN STATES WHICH ATTEMPTED REGULATION OF THE KIND OF
TRANSPORTATION WE ARE NOW CONSIDERING N12.  SUCH STRIKING ABSENCE OF
STATE LAW IN STATES WHERE THE PROBLEM WAS RECOGNIZED AS SERIOUS BY THE
I.C.C. CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES A PURPOSE TO PROVIDE RATHER THAN DISPLACE
LOCAL RULES - TO FILL A VOID RATHER THAN NATIONALIZE A SINGLE RULE. 
AND WE SEE NOTHING TO SHOW THAT A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA MIGHT NOT PROPERLY BEGET A MORE SERIOUS PENALTY, IF THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE DEEMED IT WISE.  I.C.C. RECOGNITION THAT THE
PROBLEM IS MORE ACUTE IN SOME STATES THAN IN OTHERS MAY WELL INDICATE
ACCEPTANCE OF THAT PROPOSITION. 

IT IS SAID THAT I.C.C. RECOGNITION OF THE DIFFICULTIES FACING STATE
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 33 M.C.C. AT 76, BECAUSE OF CASES
SUCH AS BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, SUPRA, IS OF IMPORTANCE HERE.  BUT THIS
CASE CONCERNS ONLY THE STATE'S MECHANISMS FOR ENFORCING A STATUTE
IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THOUGH ROOTED IN
DIFFERENT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS.  WE CANNOT PREDICATE EXCLUSION UPON
THE SIMPLE RECOGNITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFICULTIES NOT PRESENT IN
THE CAUSE BEFORE US.  SINCE THE I.C.C. ORDER WAS ISSUED AFTER
CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, ONE WOULD EXPECT THE FEDERAL AGENCY TO BE
SPECIFIC IF IT INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE STATE LAWS.  AND WE DO NOT SEE HOW
A PREVIOUS CALIFORNIA STATUTE CONFLICTING WITH I.C.C. POLICY, CF. 1933
CAL. STAT., C. 390, SEC. 1, P. 1012, AND FRANK BROKER APPLICATION, 8
M.C.C. 15, CAN HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ONLY CALIFORNIA STATUTE WE
ARE CONSIDERING - A MEASURE WHICH DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH I.C.C.
POLICY.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE I.C.C. INTENDED TO DEPRIVE
ITSELF OF EFFECTIVE AID FROM LOCAL OFFICERS EXPERIENCED IN THE KIND OF
ENFORCEMENT NECESSARY TO COMBAT THIS EVIL - AID OF PARTICULAR
IMPORTANCE IN VIEW OF THE I.C.C.'S SMALL STAFF.  SEE 61ST ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE I.C.C. (1947), P. 122; 62D ANNUAL REPORT OF THE I.C.C. (1948),
P. 109.  FN13 

THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL CASE ON "NORMAL CONGRESSIONAL INTENT."  IT
IS CALIFORNIA'S ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH A REAL DANGER TO ITS RESIDENTS. 
WE KNOW THAT COINCIDENCE, WITH ITS CONSEQUENT POSSIBILITY OF DOUBLE
PUNISHMENT, IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED.  IN MANY CASES IT
MAY BE A PERSUASIVE INDICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  BUT WE MUST
LOOK AT THE WHOLE CASE.  IN THIS CASE THE FACTORS INDICATING EXCLUSION
OF STATE LAWS ARE OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SMALL NUMBER OF
LOCAL REGULATIONS AND THE STATE'S NORMAL POWER TO ENFORCE SAFETY AND
GOOD-FAITH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USE OF ITS OWN HIGHWAYS.  "THE STATE
AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS HERE APPLICABLE HAVE THEIR SEPARATE SPHERES OF
OPERATION."  UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, SUPRA, 322 U.S. AT 208. 
FN14  SO FAR AS CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS FOR HIRE IS CONCERNED, THE STATE MAY PUNISH AS IT HAS IN THE
PRESENT CASE FOR THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ITS INHABITANTS; THE NATION
MAY PUNISH FOR THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THERE IS
NO CONFLICT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CALIF. STATS. 1947, C. 1215, SECS. 2, 4, PP. 2724, 2725,
DEERING'S CALIF. PENAL CODE (1947 SUPP.), SECS. 654.1, 654.3.  THE
STATUTE MAKES IT CRIMINAL TO SELL TRANSPORTATION IN A CARRIER WHICH HAS
FAILED TO SECURE A PERMIT FROM EITHER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION OR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
OUR ONLY CONCERN IS WITH THE CORRESPONDENCE OF STATE AND FEDERAL
LEGISLATION. 

FN2  49 U.S.C. SECS. 301, 303(B)(SEE NOTE 5, INFRA), 49 STAT. 543 ET
SEQ., 54 STAT. 919, 921.  THE ACT IS LIMITED TO CARRIERS OPERATING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 302(B). 

FN3  49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(B)(9). 

FN4  WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION IS ARRANGED "BY A THIRD-PARTY
INTERMEDIARY WHO ENGAGES IN MAKING SUCH TRANSACTIONS FOR COMPENSATION
OR AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS."  EX PARTE NO. MC-35, 33 M.C.C.
69, 81. 

FN5  THE I.C.C. ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS IN DRAKE V. UNITED STATES, NOVEMBER 18,
1942(SEE LEVIN V. UNITED STATES, 3 FEDERAL CARRIERS CASES (CCH) 2297). 
WE AFFIRMED.  LEVIN V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 728. 

FN6  THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  THERE IS NO FURTHER REVIEW IN THE STATE
COURTS.  ART. VI, SECS. 4, 4B, CALIF. CONST.; PEOPLE V. REED, 13 CAL.
APP.2D 39, 56 P.2D 240. 

FN7  COMPARE MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. HARRIS, 234 U.S. 412, WITH
NORTHERN P.R. CO. V. WASHINGTON, 222 U.S. 370; PEOPLE V. COMPAGNIE
GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 107 U.S. 59, 63; OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV.
CO. V. WASHINGTON, 270 U.S. 87; AND CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V. PATTERSON,
315 U.S. 148.  IN THESE CASES WE MADE OUR DECISION CONCERNING
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT BY CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTORS WE CONSIDERED
RELEVANT.  WE DID NOT RESORT TO A MECHANICAL RULE. 

THE TEXT ALSO SEEMS TO SUPPLY THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR THE TWO
CASES CITED IN VARNVILLE, AT 604, TO SUPPORT THE FAMILIAR QUOTATION ON
"COINCIDENCE."  SOUTHERN R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 236 U.S. 439, AND
CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. HARDWICK FARMERS ELEVATOR CO., 226 U.S.
426.  AND SEE JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 101, 105. 

FN8  THE FOX AND MARIGOLD CASES WERE CONCERNED WITH CONGRESSIONAL
POWER OVER FORGERIES, BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THE PRINCIPLE
IS THE SAME. 

FN9  AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED:  THERE WAS AN EXEMPTION OF CASUAL
OPERATIONS WHEN THE STATUTE WAS PASSED.  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA, AND TEXT. 
DISCUSSION IN DEBATE AND HEARINGS IS LARGELY DESCRIPTIVE.  SEE, E.G.,
HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 5262 AND H.R. 6016, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP.
47, 97, 183, 188-191, 208, 262; HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 1629, S. 1632, AND S. 1635, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 69, 70, 87, 97, 119, 186-188, 215, 390.  THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS ARE NOT HELPFUL. 

THERE IS, HOWEVER, AN EXPRESSION OF DEFERENCE TO STATE ACTION ON
INTRASTATE COMMERCE, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 302(B), AS STRENGTHENED ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE, 79 CONG. REC. 5735-5737.  SEE 79 CONG. REC. 12197;
49 U.S.C. SEC. 305(A). 

FN10  E.G., SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303
U.S. 177; CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554, 557; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309
U.S. 598, 614; HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610; H.P. WELCH CO. V.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10.  SEE
THE DISTINCTION OF BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S. 307, AND BUSH & SONS V.
MALOY, 267 U.S. 317, IN BRADLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 289
U.S. 92 AT 95.  SEE KAUPER, STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE MOTOR
CARRIERS, 31 MICH. L. REV. 920, 1097. 

FN11  "THE TRAVEL-BUREAU BUSINESS IS QUITE EXTENSIVE IN MANY CITIES,
PARTICULARLY THOSE IN THE WESTERN AND SOUTHWESTERN STATES, NOTABLY AT
KANSAS CITY, MO., WICHITA, KANS., OKLAHOMA CITY AND TULSA, OKLA.,
DALLAS, FORTH WORTH, SAN ANTONIO, HOUSTON, AND EL PASO, TEX., LOS
ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., PORTLAND, OREG., SEATTLE, WASH., AND
DENVER, COLO.  THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT SUCH OPERATIONS EXIST AT
OTHER CITIES, INCLUDING CHICAGO, ILL., AND NEW YORK, N.Y.  AT ONE TIME,
THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 50 BUREAUS IN OPERATION IN LOS ANGELES ALONE. 
...  "  33 M.C.C. AT 71-72. 

FN12  LETTERS FROM MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSIONS IN WESTERN AND
SOUTHWESTERN STATES SHOW THAT IN 1941 THERE WAS NO REGULATION, OR
ATTEMPT AT REGULATION, COVERING KANSAS CITY, OKLAHOMA CITY, TULSA,
DALLAS, FORT WORTH, SAN ANTONIO, HOUSTON, EL PASO, PORTLAND, OR
SEATTLE.  ONLY IN WICHITA AND DENVER WAS REGULATION ATTEMPTED, AND ITS
EXTENT IN WICHITA IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR. 

IN 1941 THERE WAS LIKEWISE NO REGULATION OR ATTEMPT AT REGULATION OF
ANY KIND IN ARIZONA, MONTANA, NEW MEXICO, OR UTAH, ALTHOUGH WYOMING
ATTEMPTED SOME MEASURE OF CONTROL.  IDAHO'S ONLY REQUIREMENT WAS A
REGISTRATION FEE. 

FN13  RESPONDENTS IGNORE PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES WHEN THEY RELY UPON
THE SOUTHERN R. CO. CASE, SUPRA, WHICH INVALIDATED STATE REGULATION OF
GRAB-IRONS ON RAILROAD CARS MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
INDIVIDUAL STATE'S INTEREST IN THE MANNER ITS RESIDENTS USE ITS OWN
HIGHWAYS CAN HARDLY BE COMPARED WITH THE TIME-HONORED I.C.C. CONTROL
OVER THE NATION'S TRADITIONAL AVENUES OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, THE
RAILROADS.  A CASE CLOSER TO THE ONE BEFORE US IS ASBELL V. KANSAS,
SUPRA.  TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE QUESTION IS ONE OF DEGREE DOES NOT
RESOLVE THE SHARP DIFFERENCES IN EXTREME REVEALED BY THE SOUTHERN R.
CO. CASE AND THE ONE NOW BEFORE US. 

FN14  "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DEALT WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE
CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERAGE IS CARRIED ON.  MINNESOTA, HOWEVER, IS
LEGITIMATELY CONCERNED WITH SAFEGUARDING THE INTERESTS OF ITS OWN
PEOPLE  ...  "  ID. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

MY BROTHER BURTON HAS SET FORTH IN CONVINCING DETAIL HOW THE
REGULATION OF "TRAVEL BUREAUS" FOR ARRANGING TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS BY MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS TAKEN
OVER BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY, AFTER EXPERIENCE HAD DISCLOSED THE
INADEQUACY OF STATE REGULATION.  WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ONLY SERVES TO
EMPHASIZE MY AGREEMENT WITH HIS CONCLUSION. 

IN CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, THIS COURT RECOGNIZED THAT
POSITIVE INTERVENTION OF CONGRESS WAS REQUIRED TO DISPLACE THE RESERVE
POWER OF THE STATE TO PROMOTE SAFETY AND HONESTY IN THE BUSINESS OF
ARRANGING FOR MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION EVEN BEYOND STATE LINES.  AS
TO SUCH BUSINESS THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE "AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES" WAS AN EXCLUDING, NOT AN EXCLUSIVE, POWER - STATE
ACTION WAS NOT BARRED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BUT ONLY BY APPROPRIATE
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  STATE ACTION IS DISPLACED ONLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT CONGRESS CHOOSES TO DISPLACE IT.  ONE WOULD SUPPOSE THAT, WHEN
CONGRESS HAS PROSCRIBED DEFINED CONDUCT AND ATTACHED SPECIFIC
CONSEQUENCES TO VIOLATIONS OF SUCH OUTLAWRY, THE STATES WERE NO LONGER
FREE TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES BY MAKING THE SAME
MISCONDUCT ALSO A STATE OFFENSE.  AND THAT IS THIS CASE. 

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS SINCE THE
PROBLEM OF DETERMINING WHEN STATE REGULATION HAS BEEN DISPLACED BY
FEDERAL ENACTMENT CAME BEFORE THIS COURT, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT. 
1, THE COURT TODAY DECIDES THAT THE STATES CAN IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL
PUNISHMENT FOR A FEDERAL OFFENSE UNLESS CONGRESS IN SO MANY WORDS
FORBIDS THE STATES TO DO IT.  WHEN CONGRESS DEALS WITH A SPECIFIC EVIL
IN A SPECIFIC WAY, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED SANCTIONS, IT IS NOT REASONABLE
TO REQUIRE CONGRESS TO ADD, "AND HEREAFTER THE STATES MAY NOT ALSO
PUNISH FOR THIS VERY OFFENSE," TO PRECLUDE THE STATES FROM OUTLAWING
THE SAME SPECIFIC EVIL UNDER DIFFERENT SANCTIONS.  FN1  TO DO SO WOULD
IMPUTE TO CONGRESS THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSING UPON A NATIONWIDE RULE THE
CRAZY-QUILT OF DIVERSITY - ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL - IN STATE LEGISLATION,
WHEN THE FEDERAL POLICY WAS ADOPTED BY CONGRESS PRECISELY BECAUSE IT
CONCLUDED THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATES, UNDER THEIR PERMISSIVE
POWER, DEALT WITH THE EVIL WAS UNSATISFACTORY.  SUCH AN INFERENCE IS A
STRAINED AND STRANGE WAY OF INTERPRETING THE MIND OF CONGRESS.  IT ALSO
DISREGARDS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES, NAMELY, AVOIDANCE OF
DOUBLE PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME ACT EVEN THOUGH SUCH DOUBLE PUNISHMENT
MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE.  SEE JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318
U.S. 101, 105. 

OF COURSE THE SAME PHYSICAL ACT MAY OFFEND A STATE POLICY AND ANOTHER
POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.  ASSAULTING A UNITED STATES MARSHAL WOULD
OFFEND A STATE'S POLICY AGAINST STREET BRAWLS, BUT IT MAY ALSO BE AN
OBSTRUCTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL LAW.  SCORES OF SUCH
INSTANCES, INEVITABLE IN A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WILL READILY SUGGEST
THEMSELVES.  THAT WAS THE KIND OF A SITUATION PRESENTED BY UNITED
STATES V. MARIGOLD, 9 HOW.  560.  PASSING COUNTERFEIT CURRENCY MAY, IN
ONE ASPECT, BE "A PRIVATE CHEAT PRACTISED BY ONE CITIZEN OF OHIO UPON
ANOTHER," AND THEREFORE INVOKE A STATE'S CONCERN IN "PROTECTING HER
CITIZENS AGAINST FRAUDS," 9 HOW.  568, 569, BUT THE SAME PASSING
BECOMES OF VITAL CONCERN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT TENDS TO
DEBASE THE CURRENCY.  SUCH A SITUATION IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THIS
CASE.  IT MERITS REPETITION TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOW REVERSING A STATE
COURT FOR HOLDING THAT THE VERY SAME CONDUCT FOR THE DISOBEDIENCE OF
WHICH FEDERAL REGULATION IMPOSES A MAXIMUM FINE OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED IN A STATE COURT UNDER A
STATE LAW IMPOSING A LARGER FINE AND, PERCHANCE, A PRISON SENTENCE. 

THE TALK ABOUT "CONFLICT" AS A BASIS FOR DISPLACING STATE BY FEDERAL
ENACTMENT IS RELEVANT ONLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO
"CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS REGULATION AND OCCUPY ONLY A LIMITED FIELD," WHILE
STATE REGULATION IS "OUTSIDE THAT LIMITED FIELD," AND YET AN INFERENCE
OF NEGATION OF STATE ACTION IS SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN.  SEE KELLY V.
WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10.  EVEN IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THIS COURT HAS
DRAWN INFERENCES OF IMPLIED EXCLUSION OF STATE ACTION ALTHOUGH IN NO
SENSE OF THE WORD WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN PHYSICAL CLASH BETWEEN STATE
AND FEDERAL REGULATION SO AS TO PRECLUDE CONCURRENCE OF VITALITY FOR
BOTH REGULATIONS.  SEE, E.G., CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V. PATTERSON, 315
U.S. 148; HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538.  IN THIS CASE WE HAVE THE VERY
CONDUCT THERETOFORE LEFT TO STATE REGULATION TAKEN OVER BY FEDERAL
REGULATION, AND YET THE COURT SUPERIMPOSES UPON THE DISPLACING FEDERAL
REGULATION THE STATE REGULATION WHICH WAS CONSCIOUSLY DISPLACED.  THAT
A COURT WHICH ONLY ON APRIL 4, 1949, DECIDED H.P. HOOD & SONS V. DU
MOND, 336 U.S. 525, AS IT DID, SHOULD NOW DECIDE THIS CASE AS IT DOES,
PRESENTS INDEED A PROBLEM FOR RECONCILIATION. 

FN1  THE VARIETY OF SANCTIONS NOW ENFORCEABLE IS REFLECTED IN THE
FOLLOWING STATUTES: 

UNITED STATES:  FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $100 FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE AND
NOT MORE THAN $500 FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE.  49 STAT. 564, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 322(A). 

CALIFORNIA:  FINE OF NOT OVER $250 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT OVER 90
DAYS OR BOTH, AND ON THE SECOND CONVICTION, IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT LESS
THAN 30 DAYS OR MORE THAN 180 DAYS.  FOR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS,
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT LESS THAN 90 DAYS AND NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR. 
CAL. PEN.  CODE SEC. 654.3(DEERING, 1947 SUPP.). 

WASHINGTON:  FINE OF NOT OVER $250 OR NOT OVER 90 DAYS IN JAIL;
APPARENTLY ADDITIONAL OFFENSES DO NOT INCREASE THE PUNISHMENT.  WASH.
REV. STAT. ANN. SEC. 2266(1940), SECS. 6397-19, 6397-20(1941 SUPP.). 

WYOMING:  FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $25, NOR MORE THAN $100, OR
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OR BOTH.  WYOMING COMP. STAT.
ANN. SECS. 60-1309, 60-1362(1945).  THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE SECTIONS
TO A SITUATION OF THE PRESENT TYPE IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER SEC. 654.1 OF THE PENAL CODE OF
CALIFORNIA  FN1  IS INVALID AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF LOS ANGELES.  THE RESPONDENTS, ZOOK
AND CRAIG, WERE CONVICTED OF MAKING A SALE, IN 1948, IN CALIFORNIA, OF
INTERSTATE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION TO TEXAS, ON AN INDIVIDUAL FARE BASIS,
OVER THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF CALIFORNIA, UNDER CONDITIONS WHEREBY THE
TRANSPORTATION WAS TO BE SUPPLIED BY A CARRIER HAVING NO CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY OR OTHER PERMIT FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA, OR FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF
THE UNITED STATES.  SUCH A SALE WAS ADJUDGED CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF
SEC. 654.1 BUT THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA HELD THAT THAT SECTION WAS INVALID AS THUS APPLIED TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE FACE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND OF ORDERS ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THAT ACT
MAKING PRECISELY SUCH A SALE A FEDERAL OFFENSE.  WE AGREE WITH THE
COURT BELOW THAT CALIFORNIA COULD NOT, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS,
LAWFULLY THUS SHARE THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION BEING EXERCISED BY
CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES AND WE FIND HERE NO SUCH
CONSENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WE DO FIND HERE, UNDER ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT CONGRESS HAS EXERCISED ITS POWER OF REGULATION OF
THIS PRECISE FORM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATES
AND IN CONFLICT WITH THE REGULATION ATTEMPTED HERE BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. 

FROM 1933 UNTIL 1947 THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION ON THIS SUBJECT
EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  IT PROVIDED THAT THE STATE LEGISLATION WAS TO BE
APPLICABLE TO INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS ONLY "UNTIL SUCH TIME AS
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL ACT,  ...  "  FN2  OR IN "THE
ABSENCE OF ACTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS OR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.   ...  "  FN3  CALIFORNIA THUS RECOGNIZED NOT ONLY THE
POSSIBILITY BUT THE PROPRIETY OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF THIS FORM OF
COMMERCE TO THE EXTENT OF ITS INTERSTATE OPERATIONS.  IN 1935 FN4  AND
IN 1940  FN5  CONGRESS, ON ITS PART, EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED A FEDERAL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH REGULATION.  IT ASSUMED JURISDICTION OVER THE
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES AND OVER
SAFETY OF OPERATIONS AND STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT.  AS TO OTHER
REGULATIONS, CONGRESS TEMPORARILY AND CONDITIONALLY EXEMPTED THIS KIND
OF TRANSPORTATION FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  IN DOING SO,
HOWEVER, IT AUTHORIZED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE
FROM TIME TO TIME TO WHAT EXTENT, IF ANY, THE EXEMPTION SHOULD BE
REMOVED.  IN 1942, AFTER A THOROUGH STUDY, THAT COMMISSION LARGELY
REMOVED THE EXEMPTION.  FN6 THUS, BY EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS, THE
REGULATION OF THE INTERSTATE OPERATIONS OF THIS TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION
WAS VESTED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AFTER A DETERMINATION
BY THAT COMMISSION THAT SUCH AN APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAW WAS
NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF CONGRESS. 

1947, CONTAINED NO PROVISION DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THIS FIELD.  IT MENTIONED ONLY "TRANSPORTATION
...  OVER THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  ...  "  THE
STATE COURT BELOW NEVERTHELESS INTERPRETED THE SECTION AS SEEKING TO
INCLUDE INTERSTATE AS WELL AS INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION AND THEN HELD
THAT IT WAS INVALID INSOFAR AS IT APPLIED TO INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  FN7  WE ACCEPT THE STATE COURT'S INTERPRETATION AND
THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS ONLY THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED
TO INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION N8.  IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE INTERPRETATION
GIVEN TO THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE BY THE COURT BELOW, THE ISSUE MIGHT BE
DISPOSED OF BY LIMITING THAT STATUTE, LIKE ITS PREDECESSOR, TO
INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION. 

THE COMPLAINT IS PRINTED IN THE MARGIN.  FN9  ITS SUFFICIENCY IS THE
PRECISE ISSUE PRESENTED TO US ON THE DEMURRER WHICH THE COURT BELOW HAS
ORDERED SUSTAINED.  IN THAT COURT, THE RESPONDENTS SUCCESSFULLY
ASSERTED THE INVALIDITY OF THE STATE STATUTE IN THE FACE OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT APPLICABLE TO THE SAME OFFENSE.  THE PETITIONER
CONCEDES THAT THE TWO LAWS SOUGHT TO FORBID AND PUNISH THE SAME ACTS,
BUT CONTENDS THAT THIS WAS A PERMISSIBLE DUPLICATION. 

AGREEING THAT THE TWO STATUTES FORBID THE SAME ACTS, OUR FIRST DUTY
IS TO SEE HOW FAR THIS IDENTITY OF LEGISLATIVE EFFECT EXTENDS.  OUR
REMAINING DUTY THEN IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATE LAW IS VALID IN
THE FACE OF THE FEDERAL LAW ON THE SAME SUBJECT. 

THE SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY BETWEEN THE STATUTES ENDS WITH THEIR
DEFINITIONS OF THE OFFENSE.  ONLY THE FEDERAL ACT REQUIRES A BROKER'S
LICENSE AND THE GENERAL EXEMPTIONS FROM THE RESPECTIVE ACTS ARE IN
GREAT CONFLICT.  FN10  THE PENALTIES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.  FN11
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE INSTANT CASE EACH RESPONDENT WAS FINED $150 MORE
UNDER THE STATE LAW THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW
FOR WHAT APPARENTLY WAS A FIRST OFFENSE UNDER EACH ACT.  UNDER THE
STATE LAW THE COURT ALSO HAD AN OPTION TO IMPOSE A JAIL SENTENCE,
WHEREAS NO SUCH OPTION WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO IT UNDER THE
FEDERAL LAW.  THE FEDERAL LAW ALSO PROVIDED FOR A FINE UP TO $500 FOR
EACH OFFENSE AFTER THE FIRST.  UNDER THE STATE LAW, CONVICTIONS AFTER
THE FIRST WERE PUNISHABLE SOLELY BY IMPRISONMENT.  ACCORDINGLY, WHILE
THE OFFENSE HERE CHARGED WAS ONE WHICH VIOLATED BOTH THE STATE AND
FEDERAL STATUTES, THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
SANCTIONS AVAILABLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE STATUTES.  THIS
CONFLICT IS BY NO MEANS CONCLUSIVE OF THIS CASE BUT IT IS ENTITLED TO
CONSIDERATION AS INDICATING THE ABSENCE, RATHER THAN THE PRESENCE, OF
AN IMPLIED CONSENT BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE INTRUSION OF THE STATE
LAW INTO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION MADE AVAILABLE TO THE UNITED STATES
BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT UNDER BOTH THE
STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES WOULD, IN THIS INSTANCE, OFTEN RESULT IN
GREATER PUNISHMENT THAN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED BY THE FEDERAL LAW.  WE
CANNOT READILY ASSUME CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO STATE LEGISLATION THAT
MAKES AN EXPRESSLY STATED CONGRESSIONAL "MAXIMUM" PENALTY NO LONGER A
MAXIMUM PENALTY. 

THE ISSUE REQUIRES ANSWERS TO TWO QUESTIONS:  I. DID THE CALIFORNIA
CODE INVADE THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS WAS EXERCISING
THROUGH ITS INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT?  II.  IF SO, WAS THE CONVICTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CODE INVALID ON THE GROUND THAT CONGRESS HAD TAKEN
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT OFFENSE AND HAD NOT CONSENTED TO SHARE
ITS JURISDICTION WITH CALIFORNIA AS HERE PROPOSED?  FOR THE REASONS TO
BE STATED, WE BELIEVE THE ANSWER TO EACH OF THOSE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE
YES. 

                                  I. 

THE CALIFORNIA CODE INVADED THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS
WAS EXERCISING THROUGH ITS INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

THE PETITIONER'S CONCESSION THAT THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS SIMULTANEOUSLY
VIOLATED THE TERMS OF BOTH STATUTES SHARPLY DISTINGUISHES THE ISSUE
HERE FROM THOSE OFTEN PRESENTED IN THIS GENERAL FIELD OF CONTROVERSY. 
(1) WE DO NOT HAVE HERE THE MUCH LITIGATED ISSUE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF
STATE STATUTES PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING ACTS COMMITTED IN
THE COURSE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT IN A FIELD OF THAT COMMERCE WHERE
CONGRESS HAS TAKEN NO ACTION.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, CONGRESS HAS TAKEN
JURISDICTION BY STATUTE NOT ONLY IN THIS GENERAL FIELD BUT OVER THE
PRECISE TYPE OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS
THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE STATE LEGISLATION AND OF THE COMPLAINT IN
THIS CASE.  (2) SIMILARLY, WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A CASE WHERE A STATE HAS
APPLIED ITS PROHIBITORY OR OTHERWISE REGULATORY MEASURES TO SOME
INTRASTATE TRANSACTION TAKING PLACE BEFORE OR AFTER, AND SEPARABLE
FROM, THE TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OVER WHICH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN JURISDICTION.  (3) WE DO NOT HAVE HERE AN ATTEMPT
BY A STATE TO SUPPLEMENT FEDERAL CONTROL OVER SOME ACTIVITY RELATED TO
BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  (4) ALSO, WE
DO NOT HAVE HERE A CASE WHERE CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY CONSENTED TO SHARE
WITH THE STATES THE PLENARY AND SUPREME AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO TAKE
JURISDICTION OVER THE REGULATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
QUESTION.  (5) ON THE OTHER HAND, WE DO HAVE HERE THE SIGNIFICANT
SITUATION OF A STATE ATTEMPTING, BY A NEW STATE LAW, TO REACH AND
PUNISH, ADDITIONALLY, A TRANSACTION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE FACE
OF THE ACTIVE EXERCISE OF SUBSTANTIALLY CONFLICTING FEDERAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME TRANSACTION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS
CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO SUCH ATTEMPTED DUPLICATION OF JURISDICTION. 
THIS IS IN CONTRAST TO AN ATTEMPT BY A STATE TO HELP ENFORCE, AS SUCH,
AN ALREADY EXISTING FEDERAL STATUTE COVERING THE OFFENSE. 

WE START NOT MERELY WITH THE INHERENT RIGHT OF A STATE TO EXERCISE
ITS POLICE POWER OVER ACTS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.  WE START ALSO WITH
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS BY WHICH THE SUPREME LEGISLATIVE POWER OF
THE RESPECTIVE STATES HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN12 

ONCE CONGRESS HAS LAWFULLY EXERCISED ITS LEGISLATIVE SUPREMACY IN ONE
OF ITS ALLOTTED FIELDS AND HAS NOT ACCOMPANIED THAT EXERCISE WITH AN
INDICATION OF ITS CONSENT TO SHARE IT WITH THE STATES, THE BURDEN OF
OVERCOMING THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL LAW IN THAT FIELD IS UPON ANY
STATE SEEKING TO DO SO. 

AN EARLY STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE INVOLVED WAS MADE BY MR.
JUSTICE STORY IN PRIGG V. PENNSYLVANIA, 16 PET. 539, 617-618.  FN13
THAT STATEMENT WAS APPROVED AND ENLARGED UPON BY MR. JUSTICE J. R.
LAMAR IN SOUTHERN R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N OF INDIANA, 236 U.S. 439,
IN A CASE ARISING UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IN WHICH, ON
REASONING APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE, AN INDIANA STATUTE WAS HELD
INVALID BECAUSE IT REQUIRED HANDHOLDS ON THE SIDES OR ENDS OF RAILROAD
CARS OPERATING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN INDIANA IN SUBSTANTIAL
DUPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT REQUIRING HANDHOLDS ON
BOTH THE SIDES AND ENDS OF SUCH CARS.  THERE MR. JUSTICE LAMAR SAID: 

"BUT THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE OFFENDER MAY, FOR ONE ACT, BE PROSECUTED
IN TWO JURISDICTIONS HAS NO APPLICATION WHERE ONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS
HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER AND THEREFORE THE
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO PUNISH.  SUCH IS THE CASE HERE WHERE CONGRESS, IN
THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HAS
LEGISLATED AS TO THE APPLIANCES WITH WHICH CERTAIN INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
THAT COMMERCE MUST BE FURNISHED IN ORDER TO SECURE THE SAFETY OF
EMPLOYES.  UNTIL CONGRESS ENTERED THAT FIELD THE STATES COULD LEGISLATE
AS TO EQUIPMENT IN SUCH MANNER AS TO INCIDENTALLY AFFECT WITHOUT
BURDENING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT CONGRESS COULD PASS THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE EQUIPMENT OF CARS
MOVING ON INTERSTATE ROADS WAS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THE NATURE OF THAT POWER IS SUCH THAT WHEN
EXERCISED IT IS EXCLUSIVE, AND IPSO FACTO, SUPERSEDES EXISTING STATE
LEGISLATION ON THE SAME SUBJECT.  CONGRESS OF COURSE COULD HAVE
'CIRCUMSCRIBED ITS REGULATIONS' SO AS TO OCCUPY A LIMITED FIELD. 
SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533.  ATLANTIC LINE V. GEORGIA, 234 U.S.
280, 293.  BUT SO FAR AS IT DID LEGISLATE, THE EXCLUSIVE EFFECT OF THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT DID NOT RELATE MERELY TO DETAILS OF THE STATUTE
AND THE PENALTIES IT IMPOSED, BUT EXTENDED TO THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF
EQUIPPING CARS WITH APPLIANCES INTENDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF
EMPLOYES.  THE STATES THEREAFTER COULD NOT LEGISLATE SO AS TO REQUIRE
GREATER OR LESS OR DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT; NOR COULD THEY PUNISH BY
IMPOSING GREATER OR LESS OR FIFFERENT PENALTIES.  ... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE TEST, HOWEVER, IS NOT WHETHER THE STATE LEGISLATION IS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE DETAILS OF THE FEDERAL LAW OR SUPPLEMENTS IT, BUT
WHETHER THE STATE HAD ANY JURISDICTION OF A SUBJECT OVER WHICH CONGRESS
HAD EXERTED ITS EXCLUSIVE CONTROL."  ID. AT PP. 446, 448. 

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID IN CHARLESTON & W. CAR.  R. CO. V. VARNVILLE
CO., 237 U.S. 597, 604: 

"WHEN CONGRESS HAS TAKEN THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT-MATTER IN HAND
COINCIDENCE IS AS INEFFECTIVE AS OPPOSITION, AND A STATE LAW IS NOT TO
BE DECLARED A HELP BECAUSE IT ATTEMPTS TO GO FARTHER THAN CONGRESS HAS
SEEN FIT TO GO." 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER REEMPHASIZED THIS IN SWEEPING TERMS IN MISSOURI
PAC. R. CO. V. PORTER, 273 U.S. 341, 346, BY CONCLUDING THE OPINION OF
THE COURT AS FOLLOWS: 

"ITS (CONGRESS') POWER TO REGULATE SUCH (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE AND ALL
ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES IS SUPREME; AND, AS THAT POWER HAS BEEN EXERTED,
STATE LAWS HAVE NO APPLICATION.  THEY CANNOT BE APPLIED IN COINCIDENCE
WITH, AS COMPLEMENTARY TO OR AS IN OPPOSITION TO, FEDERAL ENACTMENTS
WHICH DISCLOSE THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO ENTER A FIELD OF REGULATION
THAT IS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION." 

SEE ALSO, ERIE R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 233 U.S. 671, 683; SECOND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 55. 

RELATED TO THIS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS, ESTABLISHED BY
ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS THE GENERAL POLICY AGAINST
SUBJECTING ANYONE TO PUNISHMENT MORE THAN ONCE FOR THE COMMISSION OF A
SINGLE ACT.  UNLESS CARE IS TAKEN TO PREVENT THIS, SUCH DOUBLE
PUNISHMENT MAY RESULT FROM THE OVERLAPPING OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE
JURISDICTIONS.  HOWEVER, ITS UNFAIRNESS TO THE INDIVIDUAL, AS WELL AS
ITS CUMBERSOMENESS FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES, SUGGESTS THAT IT SHOULD
NOT BE READ INTO LEGISLATION IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR LANGUAGE
DEMONSTRATING A PURPOSE TO PERMIT IT.  IN A CASE WHICH RELATED TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT MIGHT DUPLICATE OR BUILD UPON
A STATE LAW, THIS COURT SAID: 

"  ...  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROVISION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT STAND AS A BAR TO FEDERAL PROSECUTION THOUGH A
STATE CONVICTION BASED ON THE SAME ACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED.  ...
THAT CONSIDERATION GIVES ADDITIONAL WEIGHT TO THE VIEW THAT WHERE
CONGRESS IS CREATING OFFENSES WHICH DUPLICATE OR BUILD UPON STATE LAW,
COURTS SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO EXPAND THE DEFINED OFFENSES BEYOND THE
CLEAR REQUIREMENTS OF THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE."  JEROME V. UNITED
STATES, 318 U.S. 101, 105. 

SO HERE WE SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO READ INTO A FEDERAL STATUTE
CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO STATE LEGISLATION WHICH AUTHORIZED PROSECUTION
AND PUNISHMENT BY THE STATE IN ADDITION TO FEDERAL PROSECUTION AND
PUNISHMENT. 

WHERE THERE IS LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO SHARE THE EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL JURISDICTION, APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE CAN MAKE THAT INTENT
CLEAR.  AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE OF SUCH AUTHORIZATION IS IN THE
EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT, NOW REPEALED.  IT WAS THERE PROVIDED THAT "THE
CONGRESS AND THE SEVERAL STATES SHALL HAVE CONCURRENT POWER TO ENFORCE
THIS ARTICLE BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION."  (U.S. CONST.) MORE RECENTLY,
CLEAR LANGUAGE WAS USED BY CONGRESS TO INSURE THE VALIDITY OF STATE
COOPERATION IN THE "MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT," APPROVED FEBRUARY
18, 1929: 

"SEC. 17.  THAT WHEN ANY STATE SHALL, BY SUITABLE LEGISLATION, MAKE
PROVISION ADEQUATELY TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND ALL
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE MAY SO
CERTIFY, AND THEN AND THEREAFTER SAID STATE MAY COOPERATE WITH THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT AND THE
REGULATIONS THEREUNDER."  45 STAT. 1225, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 715P. 

STILL CLOSER TO THE PRESENT SITUATION IS THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE
CONGRESS THAT PASSED THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935.  IN "THE WHALING
TREATY ACT" IT SAID: 

"SEC. 12.  THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT THE
SEVERAL STATES AND TERRITORIES FROM MAKING OR ENFORCING LAWS OR
REGULATIONS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SAID CONVENTION
(FOR THE REGULATION OF WHALING) OR OF THIS ACT, OR FROM MAKING OR
ENFORCING LAWS OR REGULATIONS WHICH SHALL GIVE FURTHER PROTECTION TO
WHALES  ...  " 49 STAT.  1248, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 912.  FN14 

THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, DID NOT OVERLOOK THE SUBJECT OF
EXCLUSIVE STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER THE RESPECTIVE FIELDS OF
INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE TOUCHED BY THE ACT.  IT DID NOT,
HOWEVER, APPROVE JOINT AND CONFLICTING CONTROL BY BOTH AT THE SAME
TIME.  IT EXPRESSLY VESTED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THE
REGULATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR CARRIERS
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WITH EQUAL CLARITY IT EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED THAT PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT SHOULD NOT AFFECT
THE POWERS OF TAXATION OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  IT THUS DEALT WITH AND
PRESERVED TO THE STATES THEIR FULL POWERS TO TAX WITHOUT ADDED
RESTRICTION BECAUSE OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT'S RELATION TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE STATE POWERS OF TAXATION WERE THUS DISTINGUISHED FROM
THOSE OF REGULATION BECAUSE THE POWER OF REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WAS VESTED EXPRESSLY IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
ALSO, IN RELATION TO THE REGULATION OF INTRASTATE COMMERCE, CONGRESS
PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT "SHALL
BE CONSTRUED  ...  TO AUTHORIZE A MOTOR CARRIER TO DO AN INTRASTATE
BUSINESS ON THE HIGHWAYS OF ANY STATE, OR TO INTERFERE WITH THE
EXCLUSIVE EXERCISE BY EACH STATE OF THE POWER OF REGULATION OF
INTRASTATE COMMERCE BY MOTOR CARRIERS ON THE HIGHWAYS THEREOF."  SEC.
202(C), 49 STAT. 543, LATER DESIGNATED SEC. 202(B), 54 STAT. 920, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 302(B).  FOR FULL TEXT OF ORIGINAL SEC. 202(B) AND (C),
LATER DESIGNATED SEC. 202(A) AND (B), SEE APPENDIX B (2), INFRA, P.
781. 

CONGRESS THUS DEALT DIRECTLY WITH THE PROBLEM OF STATE AND FEDERAL
REGULATION OF MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION, EITHER INTERSTATE OR
INTRASTATE IN CHARACTER.  CONGRESS INDICATED NO CONSENT TO SHARE WITH
OTHERS ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IF IT HAD INTENDED TO DO SO, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PLACE
TO EXPRESS SUCH AN INTENT.  THE LANGUAGE USED REFLECTED NOT MERELY AN
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO THE SHARING OF ITS JURISDICTION
OVER ANY FORM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ON THE CONTRARY, ESPECIALLY WHEN
READ WITH SEC. 203(B)(9), IT EVIDENCED A CONSCIOUS CONGRESSIONAL
DISSENT FROM ANY SUCH SHARING OF ITS JURISDICTION OVER THIS FORM OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE DESCRIBED IN THIS LEGISLATION.  SECTION 203(B)(9)
STATED A POSITIVE INSISTENCE UPON FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE PRECISE
FIELD WHICH CONCERNS US HERE.  IT PROVIDED THAT THE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION BECOME EFFECTIVE WHENEVER AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOUND THE NECESSITY FOR IT.  IN THIS
NARROW FIELD, CONGRESS THUS EXPRESSLY LEFT TEMPORARILY ON TRIAL THE
SUBSTANTIALLY EXCLUSIVE STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH
WAS ALREADY IN EFFECT.  THIS EXPRESS TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION
CREATED A SPECIAL SITUATION IN WHICH THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO STATE
REGULATION WAS TO BE CONTINUED OR CUT OFF BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  IT DID NOT SUGGEST ANY SHARING OR DUPLICATION OF CONTROL
BY THE COMMISSION AND THE STATE.  THIS TEMPORARY SURVIVAL OF STATE
CONTROL WAS EXPRESSLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY TERMINATED BY THE ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN 1942.  THAT ORDER CALLED FOR A
POSITIVE DISCONTINUANCE OF STATE CONTROL, COUPLED WITH A POSITIVE
VESTING OF JURISDICTION IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OVER THIS
PARTICULAR TYPE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE PROCEDURE THUS TAKEN TO
SUBSTITUTE FEDERAL FOR STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS THE
VERY OPPOSITE OF A PROCEDURE PERMISSIVE OF JOINT OR DUPLICATING FEDERAL
AND STATE CONTROL.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A MORE DELIBERATE
AND OBVIOUS SUBSTITUTION OF ONE FOR THE OTHER.  THE AREA AVAILABLE FOR
SUCH SUBSTITUTION OF FEDERAL FOR STATE CONTROL WAS CLEARLY DEFINED AND
SET ASIDE IN SEC. 203(B)(9) AND THEN PUT INTO EFFECT BY ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  EX PARTE NO. 35, 33 M.C.C. 69, 49
C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 210.1.  FOR AN EXAMPLE OF A SUBSTITUTION OF
EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL REGULATION FOR EXCLUSIVE STATE REGULATION OF CERTAIN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTIVITIES IN THE WAREHOUSING FIELD, SEE RICE V.
SANTA FE ELEVATOR CORP., 331 U.S. 218. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE FINAL QUESTION OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. 
DID CONGRESS IMPLIEDLY CONSENT TO THIS ATTEMPTED SHARING OF ITS
ESTABLISHED JURISDICTION WITHIN THE NARROW LIMITS OF SEC. 203(B)(9)? 

                                 II. 

THE CONVICTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CODE WAS INVALID BECAUSE CONGRESS
HAD TAKEN EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT OFFENSE AND HAD NOT
CONSENTED TO SHARE ITS JURISDICTION WITH CALIFORNIA. 

IT IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS TO SAY THAT A STATE, WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF CONGRESS, MAY DUPLICATE OR SHARE IN THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS.  IF THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS HAS BECOME
EXCLUSIVE, THE STATE'S JURISDICTION MUST, BY HYPOTHESIS, BE DERIVED
THEREAFTER FROM CONGRESS OR CEASE TO EXIST.  IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO
EXPRESS CONSENT BY CONGRESS TO SHARE WITH THE STATES THE FEDERALLY
PROTECTED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS TYPE OF TRANSACTION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE QUESTION REMAINS, HOWEVER, WHETHER, UNDER ALL
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONGRESS SHALL BE HELD TO HAVE IMPLIEDLY CONSENTED
TO SHARE ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WITH CALIFORNIA.  THE TEXT OF THE
LEGISLATION AND THE COURSE OF EVENTS, WHICH LED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO TAKE JURISDICTION, NOT ONLY DISCLOSE AN ABSENCE OF ANY BASIS FOR A
CLAIM THAT CONGRESS IMPLIEDLY CONSENTED TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION
BUT PRESENT OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF A DELIBERATE, CAREFUL AND
UNCONDITIONAL ASSUMPTION BY CONGRESS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION,
CONSCIOUSLY EXCLUSIVE OF THE INADEQUATE STATE REGULATION THERETOFORE
FOUND TO EXIST.  SEE THE REFERENCE, SUPRA, TO ORIGINAL SEC. 202(B) AND
(C) OF THE ACT DEALING WITH THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AND OF THE STATES.  FOR FULL TEXT, SEE SEC. 202(A) AND (B)
IN APPENDIX B (2), INFRA, P. 781.  IN ADDITION, WE SHALL NOW CONSIDER
IN DETAIL THE ACTION TAKEN UNDER THE INFORMED GUIDANCE OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPRESS TERMS OF
SEC. 203(B). 

THE PRECISE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IS NOT THE IDENTITY, SIMILARITY,
DIVERSITY, OR EVEN REPUGNANCE, OF THE TWO STATUTES.  THE FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUE IS THAT OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO
THE SHARING OF ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  THE DEGREE OF IMMEDIATE OR
POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATUTES HAS A MATERIAL RELATION TO THE
ISSUE OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.  CLEAR CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATUTES
WOULD BE PRACTICALLY CONCLUSIVE AGAINST THE STATE.  THE LESS THE
CONFLICT, THE LESS OBVIOUS IS THE BASIS FOR THE OBJECTION OF CONGRESS
TO SHARING ITS JURISDICTION WITH THE STATE.  HOWEVER, EVEN A COMPLETE
ABSENCE OF CONFLICT, RESULTING IN A MERE DUPLICATION OF OFFENSES, WOULD
NOT REMOVE ALL BASIS FOR OBJECTION AND WOULD NOT NECESSARILY ESTABLISH
THE REQUIRED CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE INHERENT
OBJECTIONABILITY OF THE DOUBLE PUNISHMENT OF AN OFFENDER FOR A SINGLE
ACT ALWAYS ARGUES AGAINST ITS IMPLIED AUTHORIZATION.  SIMILARLY, THE
DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN DIVERSE LEGISLATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT POLICIES
ALWAYS ARGUE AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW STATE OFFENSES, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM STATE COOPERATION IN PROSECUTING EXISTING FEDERAL
OFFENSES.  HERE THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
PRESCRIBED STATE PENALTIES AND THE FEDERAL PENALTIES, ALTHOUGH THE
PROHIBITED ACTS WERE THE SAME.  LIKEWISE, THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO STATUTES IN THE EXCEPTIONS TO THEIR
APPLICATION AND IN SUCH RELATED PROVISIONS AS THOSE FOR THE LICENSING
OF THE TRAVEL BUREAUS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE CARRIERS.  FURTHERMORE,
SEC. 203(B) EXPRESSLY LEFT IT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE THE EXTENT, IF ANY, TO WHICH THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION SHOULD
BE APPLIED. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE MOST IMPRESSIVE MATERIAL, EMPHASIZING THE
UNWILLINGNESS OF CONGRESS TO SHARE ITS EXCLUSIVE CONTROL WITH A CONTROL
THROUGH STATE LEGISLATION, IS FOUND IN THE LEGISLATIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE
AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED TO THE TAKING OF COMPLETE
JURISDICTION BY CONGRESS.  WHEN FEDERAL JURISDICTION WAS THUS TAKEN, IN
1942, IT WAS CLEAR TO CONGRESS THAT THERE EXISTED HIGHLY UNSATISFACTORY
STATE REGULATION OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION.  THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE OF A SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN THE ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS.  THE
COURSE OF EVENTS TELLS THE STORY.  IT SUGGESTS NO CONSENT BY CONGRESS
TO A DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE CONTROL.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT
DEMONSTRATES THE EXISTENCE OF AMPLE REASONS FOR TAKING AND RETAINING
EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER THIS KIND OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE EFFECTIVE INTEGRATION OF OUR
FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS WHEN EACH IS GIVEN EXCLUSIVE CONTROL
OVER DESIGNATED ACTIVITIES, RATHER THAN SIMULTANEOUS, DUAL AND
CONFLICTING CONTROL OVER THE SAME ACTIVITIES.    1.  JUNE 5, 1931.  - A
CALIFORNIA STATUTE WAS APPROVED DEFINING MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION
AGENTS (COMPARABLE TO TRAVEL BUREAUS ARRANGING SHARE-THE-EXPENSE
TRIPS), AND PROVIDING FOR THE STATE'S REGULATION, SUPERVISION AND
LICENSING OF SUCH AGENTS.  THIS ACT REFERRED EXPRESSLY TO
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN CALIFORNIA AND TO TRANSPORTATION
TO THE BORDER OF THAT STATE WHEN ONE OF THE POINTS TO BE REACHED WAS
OUTSIDE THE STATE.  IT EXPRESSLY PERMITTED THESE STATE-LICENSED
TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES TO ARRANGE FOR MOTOR TRANSPORTATION BY A MOTOR
CARRIER NOT HOLDING A VALID CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY ISSUED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA.  IN
SUBSTANCE, THE ACT THUS RECOGNIZED AND LICENSED TRAVEL BUREAUS
ARRANGING FOR SHARE-THE-EXPENSE INTERSTATE, AS WELL AS INTRASTATE,
MOTOR TRIPS BY UNLICENSED CARRIERS.  1931 CAL. STAT., C. 638, SEC. 1,
P. 1362, ET SEQ. 

2.  MAY 15, 1933.  - ANOTHER CALIFORNIA STATUTE REPEALED THE ACT OF
JUNE 5, 1931.  THE NEW STATUTE DECLARED IT TO BE THE POLICY OF
CALIFORNIA TO REGULATE AND CONTROL MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENTS
ACTING AS "INTERMEDIARIES BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND THOSE MOTOR CARRIERS
OF PASSENGERS OPERATING, AS COMMON CARRIERS OR OTHERWISE, OVER THE
PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE, FOR COMPENSATION, THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED
BY LAW TO OBTAIN, OR THAT HAVE NOT OBTAINED, A CERTIFICATE FROM THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  ...  "  1933 CAL.
STAT., C. 390, SEC. 1, P. 1012.  THIS STATUTE, LIKE THAT OF 1931,
RECOGNIZED AND PRESCRIBED LICENSES FOR THE TRAVEL BUREAUS DEALING IN
SHARE-THE-EXPENSE INTERSTATE, AS WELL AS INTRASTATE, MOTOR TRIPS BY
UNLICENSED CARRIERS.  THIS STATUTE AND THIS DECLARATION REMAINED IN
EFFECT UNTIL 1947.  IT WAS DURING THIS SAME TIME THAT THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, AFTER INVESTIGATION, DECLARED THAT IT FOUND THAT
SUCH OPERATIONS, AT LEAST AS APPLIED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WERE
CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.  THE COMMISSION'S EXTENDED INVESTIGATION
RESULTED, IN 1942, IN THE DELIBERATE APPLICATION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT TO THESE INTERSTATE OPERATIONS UNDER EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF
CONGRESS.  THE FEDERAL LAW THEREUPON EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED SUCH
TRANSPORTATION BY UNLICENSED CARRIERS, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND ALSO
PROHIBITED TRAVEL BUREAUS OR BROKERS FROM SELLING OR ARRANGING SUCH
UNLICENSED TRIPS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE CONFLICT IN POLICY THUS
BECAME CLEAR, AT LEAST BY 1942. 

THE RELATION OF THE 1933 CALIFORNIA ACT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
ITS CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL POLICY STATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION IS EMPHASIZED BY THE FOREGOING DECLARATION OF STATE POLICY
WHICH REMAINED IN THE STATE ACT FROM 1933 UNTIL 1941:  "UNTIL SUCH TIME
AS CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL ACT, THE PUBLIC WELFARE REQUIRES
SUCH REGULATION AND CONTROL OF SUCH INTERMEDIARIES BETWEEN THE PUBLIC
AND INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS AS WELL AS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND
INTRASTATE MOTOR CARRIERS."  ID. AT P. 1012. 

THE CALIFORNIA ACT ALSO INCLUDED, UNTIL 1941, THE FOLLOWING:  "THE
PROVISION OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH
TRANSPORTATION SO SOLD, OR OFFERED TO BE SOLD, IS INTERSTATE OR
INTRASTATE."  ID. AT P. 1013.  IN GENERAL, THE ACT AMPLIFIED THE PLAN
OF THE 1931 ACT.  IT REQUIRED THE BONDING AND LICENSING OF MOTOR
CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENTS (OR TRAVEL BUREAUS) ARRANGING FOR
UNLICENSED INTERSTATE, AS WELL AS INTRASTATE, MOTOR CARRIER
TRANSPORTATION.  BOTH STATE ACTS CONTAINED A SECTION PROVIDING
EXPLICITLY FOR THE SEPARABILITY OF ANY SECTION, SUBSECTION, SENTENCE,
CLAUSE OR PHRASE WHICH MIGHT BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

3.  AUGUST 9, 1935.  - FOLLOWING AN EXTENDED SURVEY OF THE RAPIDLY
INCREASING VOLUME OF INTERSTATE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION, THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT, 1935, WAS ENACTED BY CONGRESS AS PART II OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, THE MOST IMPORTANT
FEATURE OF THIS ACT WAS ITS PROVISION FOR THE PARTIAL AND CONDITIONAL
EXEMPTION FROM ITS OPERATION OF THE KIND OF MOTOR CARRIER
TRANSPORTATION HERE INVOLVED.  SECTION 203(B)(9) EXCLUDED FROM ITS
OPERATION, EXCEPT FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, "THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR
RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION BY ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS." 
49 STAT. 546.  THIS EXCLUSION OF CASUAL AND OCCASIONAL MOTOR CARRIERS
WAS ONLY A CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION, EXPRESSIVE OF FEDERAL CONCERN OVER
THE APPARENT INADEQUACY OF THE STATE CONTROL OVER CASUAL AND OCCASIONAL
TRANSPORTATION INVOLVING INTERSTATE TRIPS.  THE CONDITION APPLIED TO
THE EXCLUSION WAS - 

"(B)  NOTHING IN THIS PART (PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT),
...  SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE  ...  (CLAUSES (1) TO (7) INCL.);
NOR, UNLESS AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE (INTERSTATE COMMERCE) COMMISSION
SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME FIND THAT SUCH APPLICATION IS NECESSARY TO
CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF CONGRESS ENUNCIATED IN SECTION 202,  FN15
SHALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204
RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES
AND SAFETY OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT APPLY TO:  (8)  ...
OR (9)  ...  (CASUAL, OCCASIONAL OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION AS QUOTED
ABOVE)."  49 STAT. 545-546. 

THE CLOSE RELATION BETWEEN THE COMMISSION, THE POLICY OF CONGRESS
ENUNCIATED IN THE ACT AND THE FEDERAL CONTROL OVER THE CASUAL AND
OCCASIONAL MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS HAS BEEN
EMPHASIZED THUS FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, TO
THE PRESENT. 

THIS PROVISION CONDITIONALLY EXEMPTED FROM FEDERAL CONTROL NOT ONLY
THE CASUAL AND OCCASIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ITSELF BUT, BY
RENDERING SUCH TRANSPORTATION NOT "SUBJECT TO" PART II OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, IT ALSO CONDITIONALLY EXEMPTED, FROM THE
FEDERAL BROKERAGE LICENSE REQUIREMENTS, THE TRAVEL BUREAUS WHICH SOLD
OR ARRANGED FOR SUCH CASUAL AND OCCASIONAL UNLICENSED AND UNREGULATED
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  FN16 

4.  JUNE 14, 1938.  - FRANK BROKER APPLICATION, 8 M.C.C. C.C. 15. 
DIVISION 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION MADE AN IMPORTANT
RULING ON THIS APPLICATION.  FEBRUARY 11, 1936, THE APPLICANT, DOING
BUSINESS AS FRANK'S TRAVEL BUREAU, OF DALLAS, TEXAS, FILED AN
APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 211 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, FOR A
BROKER'S LICENSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRANGING MOTOR TRANSPORTATION OF
PERSONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FOR FIVE YEARS THE APPLICANT HAD
OPERATED A "TRAVEL BUREAU" IN DALLAS, TEXAS.  THE NATURE OF HIS
BUSINESS WAS TO BRING TOGETHER PERSONS DESIRING TO TRAVEL FROM DALLAS
TO ANY POINT AS FAR WEST AS LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, OR AS FAR EAST AS
NEW YORK, NEW YORK.  THE APPLICANT ALSO SOLD TICKETS, ON A COMMISSION,
FOR CERTAIN COMPETING LICENSED MOTOR CARRIERS.  THE COMMISSION HELD
THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A BROKER'S LICENSE
UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO SELL TICKETS FOR THE
LICENSED CARRIERS.  THE REST OF THE APPLICANT'S INTERSTATE BUSINESS,
HOWEVER, WAS THAT OF A TYPICAL TRAVEL BUREAU, ARRANGING FOR
TRANSPORTATION BY UNLICENSED CARRIERS.  THE COMMISSION'S OPINION
DISCUSSED THIS ACTIVITY AT LENGTH AND REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT THROWS
LIGHT ON THE FUTURE POLICY OF THE COMMISSION AND ON THE FUTURE COURSE
OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION.  IT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
COMMISSION, WHEN TAKING ITS STAND AGAINST THIS TYPE OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION, DID SO, AT LEAST IN CALIFORNIA, IN THE FACE OF A
CONTRARY STATE POLICY WHICH THEN FAVORED THE CONTINUANCE, RATHER THAN
THE PROHIBITION, OF SUCH OPERATIONS.  THE COMMISSION FINALLY ISSUED THE
BROKER'S LICENSE BUT ONLY UPON THE EXPRESS CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT
WOULD DISCONTINUE HIS TRAVEL BUREAU OPERATIONS IN ARRANGING FOR THE
ABOVE-DESCRIBED UNLICENSED INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION WHICH THE
COMMISSION FOUND TO BE NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IT SAID (PP. 19
20): 

"THE RECORD CONVINCES US THAT APPLICANT'S METHOD OF DOING THAT
PORTION OF HIS BUSINESS, NAMELY THE BRINGING TOGETHER OF PROSPECTIVE
PASSENGERS AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, NOT MOTOR CARRIERS, IN ORDER THAT
THEY MAY ENTER INTO AN ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY THE PASSENGER FOR
COMPENSATION IS TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE BY THE
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  APPLICANT'S LIMITED
KNOWLEDGE OF THE PASSENGER AND OWNER-DRIVER, AND HIS INABILITY TO
SECURE AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO EACH, OF NECESSITY
MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF EITHER.  AS A
RESULT OF THIS PRACTICE AN UNSCRUPULOUS PASSENGER OR OWNER-DRIVER IS
GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFRAUD HONEST CITIZENS.  UNDER SECTION
204(A)(4) OF THE ACT, WE ARE AUTHORIZED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO
ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PRACTICES OF A
BROKER.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO REQUIRE
APPLICANT TO DISCONTINUE HIS PRACTICE OF SECURING PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
NOT ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AS CARRIERS, TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS FOR
COMPENSATION IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND THE LICENSE GRANTED
HEREIN WILL BE SUBJECT TO THIS CONDITION AND LIMITATION. 

"WE FIND THAT APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING, AND ABLE TO PERFORM THE
BROKERAGE SERVICE PROPOSED AND TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
AND OUR REQUIREMENTS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER; THAT THE
PROPOSED SERVICE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION AND LIMITATION STATED IN THE
NEXT PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
THE POLICY DECLARED IN SECTION 202(A)  FN17 OF THE ACT; AND THAT A
BROKERAGE LICENSE SHOULD BE ISSUED TO HIM." 

5.  FEBRUARY 6, 1939.  - MICHAUX BROKER APPLICATION, 11 M.C.C. 317. 
DIVISION 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DENIED THIS
APPLICATION, FILED IN JUNE, 1936, FOR A BROKER'S LICENSE UNDER THE
FEDERAL ACT.  THE APPLICANT SOUGHT TO CARRY ON AN INTERSTATE TRAVEL
BUREAU OPERATION IN CHICAGO.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT, IF THE
OPERATION WERE STRICTLY LIMITED TO ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION BY CASUAL OR OCCASIONAL CARRIERS, "THE TRANSPORTATION
WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE ACT."  (ID. AT P. 318.)  THE APPLICANT,
ACCORDINGLY, WOULD NOT REQUIRE A BROKER'S LICENSE FOR THAT ACTIVITY. 
THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, SAID (P. 318):  "THE EXTENT OF APPLICANT'S
PAST OPERATIONS GIVES RISE TO DOUBT THAT SUCH A VOLUME OF BUSINESS
COULD BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT THE EMPLOYMENT OF SOME PERSONS REGULARLY
ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS AN
OCCUPATION."  HE DISCLAIMED INTENTION TO ENGAGE IN SUCH OPERATIONS IN
THE FUTURE.  THE COMMISSION THEREUPON DENIED HIS REQUEST FOR A BROKER'S
LICENSE FOR THOSE OPERATIONS BECAUSE NO SUCH LICENSE WAS REQUIRED FOR
THEM.  THE COMMISSION WARNED HIM OF THE PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL
OPERATIONS AND DENIED HIS APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD "NOT
SHOWN THAT HIS OPERATION AS BROKER WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST OR WITH THE POLICY DECLARED IN SECTION 202(A)  FN18  OF THE
ACT,  ...  "  (P. 318.)  HIS OPERATIONS AS THUS DESCRIBED AND CONDEMNED
WERE OF A TYPE COMPARABLE TO THOSE PREVIOUSLY CONDEMNED BY THE
COMMISSION IN ITS DECISION ON THE FRANK BROKER APPLICATION, SUPRA, BUT
APPROVED IN CALIFORNIA'S STATUTORY DECLARATION OF A CONTRARY POLICY
THEN IN EFFECT. 

6.  MAY 1, 1940, AND MAY 17, 1940.  FN19  - THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION ENTERED UPON ITS IMPORTANT INVESTIGATIONS KNOWN,
RESPECTIVELY, AS EX PARTE NO. MC-35, 33 M.C.C. 69, AND EX PARTE NO. 36,
32 M.C.C. 267.  THE FIRST WAS MADE - 

"INTO THE PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR
RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE
EXEMPTION OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 203(B)(9) OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT SHOULD BE REMOVED TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING
APPLICABLE ALL PROVISIONS OF PART II OF THE ACT TO SUCH TRANSPORTATION
...  (WHEN SOLD UNDER TRAVEL BUREAU PRACTICES)."  EX PARTE NO. MC-35,
33 M.C.C. 69, 70. 

THE SECOND WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE SUBJECT OF RULES AND
REGULATIONS TO GOVERN BROKERS OF PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO
PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THE FIRST INVESTIGATION LATER
DISCLOSED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE - 

"BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES DURING THE LATTER PART OF 1939 AND THE EARLY PART OF 1940
RECEIVED AN AVERAGE OF 8 COMPLAINTS DAILY INVOLVING TRAVEL BUREAUS.  AT
OTHER CITIES, ABANDONED PASSENGERS, WHO WERE USUALLY FOUND TO BE
WITHOUT FUNDS, WERE ASSISTED BY PRIVATE OR PUBLIC CHARITY.  IN GENERAL,
THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES FOR SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AS BETTER
BUSINESS BUREAUS, AND TRAVELERS' AID SOCIETIES, BASED UPON A KNOWLEDGE
ACQUIRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES, CORROBORATES THAT OF
PASSENGERS WHO TESTIFIED WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFICULTIES THEY
ENCOUNTERED WHILE TRAVELING BY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION ARRANGED THROUGH
TRAVEL BUREAUS. 

"THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF ELEEMOSYNARY
AND QUASIPUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS WHO TESTIFIED FAVOR THE REMOVAL OF THE
EXEMPTION IN SECTION 203(B)(9) OF THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, AND
RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS FOR COMPENSATION, WHEN SUCH
TRANSPORTATION IS ARRANGED THROUGH TRAVEL BUREAUS, AND BELIEVE THAT
REGULATION BY THIS COMMISSION OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS NECESSARY. 
THEIR OPINIONS ARE BASED PRINCIPALLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THIS TYPE OF
TRANSPORTATION AS NOW CONDUCTED IS THE CAUSE OF INCONVENIENCE AND
HARDSHIP TO THE TRAVELING PUBLIC USING SUCH TRANSPORTATION, FOR WHICH
ADEQUATE REDRESS CANNOT BE OBTAINED, THAT NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF STATE
AND LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS OCCUR IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, THAT
STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS ARE UNABLE PROPERLY TO REGULATE SUCH
OPERATIONS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION IS INTERSTATE, AND THAT, BECAUSE OF THE PRESENT
PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSPORTATION, AN UNREASONABLE
BURDEN IS PLACED UPON PRIVATE AND PUBLIC CHARITIES IN CARING FOR
PASSENGERS ABANDONED OR INJURED WHILE TRAVELING BY THIS MEANS OF
TRANSPORTATION."  ID. AT PP. 75-76.    7.  SEPTEMBER 18, 1940.   -
AMENDMENTS WERE ENACTED TO PART II, INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  ALTHOUGH
THE FINAL REPORT IN EX PARTE NO. MC-35 WAS NOT MADE UNTIL 1942, SOME OF
THE CONDITIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE WERE REFLECTED IN AN AMENDMENT MADE TO
SEC. 203(B)(9) IN 1940.  FN20  CONGRESS STILL LEFT THE CASUAL
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS GENERALLY UNLICENSED AND UNREGULATED BY THE
COMMISSION.  YET, THROUGH THIS 1940 AMENDMENT, CONGRESS DID EXPRESSLY
PROVIDE THAT, AT LEAST WHEN THE SALES OR ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CASUAL OR
OCCASIONAL INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION WERE MADE BY A LICENSED BROKER,
THEN THOSE SALES AND ARRANGEMENTS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED "SUBJECT TO"
THE ACT.  THE EFFECT OF THIS WAS TO PROHIBIT BROKERS LICENSED UNDER THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FROM ALSO CONDUCTING AN UNLICENSED
TRAVEL BUREAU BUSINESS.  THIS WAS, THEREFORE, AN EXPRESS CONGRESSIONAL
RECOGNITION OF THE POLICY ANNOUNCED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE FRANK
BROKER APPLICATION, SUPRA. 

IN SUBSTANCE THIS AMOUNTED TO A CONGRESSIONAL ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION, IN 1940, IN CONFLICT WITH A PART OF THE EXISTING
CALIFORNIA POLICY WHICH APPROVED AND ATTEMPTED TO REGULATE THESE
TRANSACTIONS NOT ONLY IN INTRASTATE BUT ALSO IN INTERSTATE
TRANSACTIONS.  THIS ACTION OF CONGRESS, CONFORMING TO THE COMMISSION'S
DECLARATION OF POLICY IN THE BROKER APPLICATION CASES, SUBSTITUTED THIS
FEDERAL PROHIBITION IN PLACE OF STATE REGULATION OF THESE INTERSTATE
ACTIVITIES.  THIS ATTITUDE WAS STRONGLY REENFORCED IN 1942 AND THERE
HAS BEEN NO CONTRARY FEDERAL ACTION AT ANY TIME.  SEE ALSO, COPES
BROKER APPLICATION, 27 M.C.C. 153, 155-156, 169-172, DECIDED BY THE
FULL COMMISSION, DECEMBER 20, 1940. 

8.  APRIL 28, 1941.  - CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109.  THIS
CASE OVERRULED DI SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34.  IT HELD THAT THE
1933 CALIFORNIA ACT, AT LEAST PRIOR TO 1940, WAS VALID, BUT THE COURT
MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT DID SO BECAUSE CONGRESS HAD NOT THEN TAKEN
JURISDICTION OVER TRAVEL BUREAU OR BROKERAGE OPERATIONS IN SELLING OR
ARRANGING FOR CASUAL OR OCCASIONAL INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT IS FULL OF
RESERVATIONS AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE THE CONTRARY EFFECT OF THE TAKING OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER THESE TRANSACTIONS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE COURT
SAID: 

"CONGRESS HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO REGULATE THE ACTS FOR WHICH
RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OR THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION TO WHICH THEY
RELATED.  ...  HENCE WE ARE CONCERNED HERE ONLY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THOSE WHO, WITHIN THE STATE, AID OR
PARTICIPATE IN A FORM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS
NOT UNDERTAKEN TO EXERCISE ITS REGULATORY POWER."  ID. AT P. 112, AND
SEE PP. 114 AND 115. 

9.  JUNE 2, 1941.  - THE 1933 CALIFORNIA ACT, WHICH HAD BEEN SLIGHTLY
REVISED IN 1935, WAS SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDED.  THE AMENDMENT STRUCK OUT
THE EXPRESS APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO INTERSTATE AS WELL AS INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  WHILE THE ACT EVIDENTLY STILL APPLIED, THROUGH ITS
GENERAL LANGUAGE, TO BOTH TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION, THE OMISSION
REFLECTED THE STATE'S ANTICIPATION OF THE COMING FEDERAL CONTROL OVER
THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS.  THIS ANTICIPATION WAS EXPRESSLY STATED IN
AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 2 LIMITING THE STATE'S REGULATION OF THESE
INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS TO A PERIOD IN "THE ABSENCE OF ACTION ON THE
PART OF CONGRESS OR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REGULATING OR
REQUIRING LICENSES OF MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENTS ACTING AS
SUCH FOR MOTOR CARRIERS CARRYING PASSENGERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...
"  FN21  THIS DEMONSTRATED CALIFORNIA'S RECOGNITION OF THE LACK OF THE
NECESSITY FOR, OR EVEN THE LACK OF PROPRIETY IN ITS ATTEMPTING TO
EXERCISE, STATE CONTROL IN THE FACE OF FEDERAL CONTROL.  THIS PROVISION
WAS LATER HELD BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA TO CUT OFF
COMPLETELY AND VOLUNTARILY THE STATE CONTROL AFTER THE ANTICIPATED
FEDERAL ACTION WAS TAKEN IN 1942.  PEOPLE V. VAN HORN, 76 CAL. APP.2D
753, 174 P.2D 12. 

10.  MARCH 21, 1942.  - THIS IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DATE IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS.  IT MARKED THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, EFFECTIVE MAY 15, 1942, IN EX PARTE NO. MC-35, 33
M.C.C. 69, 49 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 210.1.  FN22  THAT ORDER EXPRESSLY
REMOVED THE ABOVE-MENTIONED EXEMPTION WHICH THERETOFORE HAD EXCLUDED
FROM REGULATION, UNDER PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE
CASUAL, OCCASIONAL AND RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR
VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION AS PROVIDED IN SEC.
203(B)(9).  THIS ORDER REMOVED THAT EXEMPTION "TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY
TO MAKE APPLICABLE ALL PROVISIONS OF PART II OF THE ACT TO SUCH
TRANSPORTATION WHEN SOLD  ...  OR ARRANGED FOR, BY ANY PERSON WHO
SELLS,  ...  OR ARRANGES FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION FOR COMPENSATION OR AS
A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS."  FN23 IT THUS EXPRESSLY BROUGHT
UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL THE INTERSTATE PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION ARRANGED
FOR THROUGH TRAVEL BUREAUS AND IT ALSO BROUGHT THOSE TRAVEL BUREAUS
THEMSELVES UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL.  IT REQUIRED A LICENSE OR PERMIT TO
BE SECURED FOR THE TRIP AND A BROKER'S LICENSE TO BE SECURED BY THE
BUREAU.  SECS. 203(B)(9) AND 211(A), 49 STAT. 546, 554, 54 STAT. 921,
49 U.S.C. SECS. 303(B)(9) AND 311(A).  THE FEDERAL CONTROL WAS
COEXTENSIVE WITH THE PROBLEM AND CAREFULLY ADJUSTED TO IT.  THERE WAS
NO NEED, DESIRE OR WILLINGNESS EXPRESSED TO ACCEPT DUPLICATE PARALLEL
STATE CONTROL OF THESE INTERSTATE OPERATIONS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT
WAS EXPRESSLY STATED THAT IT WAS THE INABILITY OF THE STATE AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS PROPERLY TO REGULATE SUCH INTERSTATE OPERATIONS THAT
CONVINCED THE COMMISSION OF THE NECESSITY OF FEDERAL CONTROL.  EX PARTE
NO. MC-35, SUPRA, P. 76. 

THE INTENT OF CONGRESS AND OF ITS SPECIALLY QUALIFIED INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION TO TAKE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THESE INTERSTATE
OPERATIONS AND TO SUPERSEDE THE EXISTING STATE REGULATION HAD BEEN
INDICATED IN THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 203(B)(9), MADE SEPTEMBER 18, 1940. 
IT WAS DEMONSTRATED BEYOND QUESTION IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT IN EX
PARTE NO. MC-35, SUPRA.  THAT REPORT SUMMARIZED TWO YEARS OF NATIONWIDE
INVESTIGATIONS.  IT DEALT WITH THE TRAVEL BUREAU PROBLEM ESPECIALLY
UPON AN INTERSTATE BASIS.  IT MADE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO INTERSTATE
OPERATIONS BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS.  TYPICAL EXCERPTS FROM THE
REPORT HAVE BEEN QUOTED SUPRA, PP. 765-767.  BEARING FURTHER UPON THE
UNSUITABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL OVER THE INTERSTATE FEATURES
OF THIS KIND OF TRANSPORTATION AND UPON THE NEED FOR A MORE UNIFORM AND
COMPLETE FEDERAL CONTROL, THE REPORT SAID: 

"THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE EXEMPTION MAY IN
SOME INSTANCES WORK A HARDSHIP UPON CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL
TRANSPORTERS OF PASSENGERS AND UPON PERSONS TRAVELING AS PASSENGERS BY
THAT MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, AS WELL AS UPON TRAVEL BUREAUS.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD RESULT
FROM THE PROPER REGULATION OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION.  IF IT WERE PROPERLY
REGULATED, PASSENGERS USING SUCH TRANSPORTATION WOULD NOT ENCOUNTER
MANY OF THE DIFFICULTIES ARISING AT PRESENT.  IN THEIR TESTIMONY,
BRIEFS, AND EXCEPTIONS, SEVERAL TRAVEL BUREAUS ADMIT THAT REASONABLE
RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE OPERATIONS OF TRAVEL BUREAUS IN
THEIR APPROPRIATE AND LEGITIMATE FIELD ARE DESIRABLE AND NECESSARY. 
CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, AND RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS CANNOT
BE REGULATED UNLESS THE EXEMPTION IN SECTION 203(B)(9) IS AT LEAST
PARTIALLY REMOVED.  THE ACT DOES NOT GIVE US POWER, WITHOUT THE REMOVAL
OF THE EXEMPTION REFERRED TO, TO PRESCRIBE REASONABLE RULES AND
REGULATIONS GOVERNING, OR TO REGULATE IN ANY OTHER MANNER THE
OPERATIONS OF, TRAVEL BUREAUS.  PROPER REGULATION OF TRAVEL BUREAUS
ENGAGED IN LEGITIMATE OPERATIONS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED ONLY BY AMENDMENT
OF THE ACT."  ID. AT P. 80.  SEE ALSO, PP. 76-81. 

THE VALIDITY AND BINDING EFFECT OF THIS ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,
NOVEMBER 18, 1942.  SEE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, IN
LEVIN V. UNITED STATES, SUB NOM., T.A. DRAKE ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET
AL., 3 FED. CAR.  CAS.  (CCH) $* 80,100, JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, PER CURIAM,
319 U.S. 728. 

11.  NOVEMBER 8, 1946.  - PEOPLE V. VAN HORN, 76 CAL. APP.2D 753, 174
P.2D 12.  THERE COULD BE NO DOUBT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD THUS
TAKEN JURISDICTION OVER THE REGULATION OF TRAVEL BUREAUS ENGAGED IN
SELLING OR ARRANGING MOTOR TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
THAT THE FEDERAL STATUTE PROHIBITED SUCH TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT A
FEDERAL LICENSE OR PERMIT.  THE EFFECT OF THIS ACTION AS RELATING TO
CALIFORNIA WAS TESTED IN 1945.  THE OPERATOR OF A TRAVEL BUREAU
ARRANGING FOR CASUAL INTERSTATE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN SAN DIEGO
AND POINTS OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF THE 1933
CALIFORNIA ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF 1941.  THE APPELLATE
DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THAT STATE, IN PEOPLE V. VAN HORN,
SUPRA, THEREUPON HELD THAT THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE NO LONGER APPLIED TO
SUCH INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE, UNDER ITS 1941 AMENDMENT, THAT ACT
WAS MADE TO APPLY ONLY IN "THE ABSENCE OF ACTION ON THE PART OF
CONGRESS OR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REGULATING OR REQUIRING
LICENSES OF MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENTS ACTING AS SUCH FOR
MOTOR CARRIERS CARRYING PASSENGERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ...  "  1941
CAL. STAT., C. 539, SEC. 2, P. 1863.  THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT, SINCE
1942, THAT CONDITION HAD BEEN MET.  ACCORDINGLY, ALTHOUGH CALIFORNIA
FORMERLY HAD REGULATED THESE TRANSACTIONS, IT WAS HELD THAT IT HAD
VOLUNTARILY ABANDONED SUCH REGULATION IN FAVOR OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  FN24 

12.  JULY 8, 1947.  - THE PRESENT CALIFORNIA STATUTE WAS APPROVED. 
IT REPEALED THE ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED IN 1935 AND 1941.  WHILE THE
APPLICATION OF THE NEW ACT TO INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS IS NOT EXPRESS,
IT WAS INTERPRETED BY THE COURT BELOW AS BEING THUS APPLICABLE.  FN25
IT MAY INDICATE, THEREFORE, A CHANGE IN THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF
CALIFORNIA TOWARD INTRASTATE OPERATIONS AND AN ATTEMPTED CHANGE TOWARD
INTERSTATE OPERATIONS BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN THE
POLICY OF CONGRESS. 

JURISDICTION OVER THESE INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS WAS ASSUMED BY
CONGRESS AFTER THROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE NEED FOR SUCH ACTION.  THAT
LEGISLATION ENACTED WAS SUPREME AND THEREFORE EXCLUSIVE.  THIS DOES NOT
MEAN THAT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH THE STATES IF CONGRESS HAD
SO PROVIDED.  WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT IT DOES MEAN THAT, IN ORDER FOR
THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO HAVE BEEN SO SHARED, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN
SOME EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONSENT BY CONGRESS TO DO SO.  THE POSITION OF
CONGRESS WAS PERFECTLY CLEAR IN 1942.  THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE OF A
CHANGE IN IT. 

IN APPENDIX C, INFRA, P. 784, THERE ARE PLACED IN CONVENIENT
JUXTAPOSITION THE PRINCIPAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE WHICH
DEMONSTRATE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION
AND POLICIES, CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

(1)  CONFLICTS INHERENT IN THE STATUTORY TEXTS. 

(2)  EMPHASIS EXPRESSLY PLACED UPON THE MUTUAL EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE
STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 

(3)  CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES WHICH LED TO THE
TAKING OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER TRAVEL BUREAUS AND SHARE-THE
EXPENSE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION ENGAGED IN CASUAL INTERSTATE OPERATIONS. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRAVERTING EVIDENCE, THE ABOVE LIST OF
CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTS A CONVINCING ARGUMENT AGAINST THE CONCLUSION
THAT CONGRESS, IN THIS INSTANCE, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY
CONSENTED TO SHARE WITH CALIFORNIA THE REGULATION OF CASUAL, OCCASIONAL
OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

WHILE IT MAY BE UNCERTAIN WHERE THE LINE OF EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION IMPINGES UPON THAT OF THE STATES IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION BY CONGRESS, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT,
WHEN CONGRESS HAS ASSERTED ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, IT IS FOR
CONGRESS TO INDICATE THE EXTENT, IF ANY, TO WHICH A STATE MAY THEN
SHARE IT.  TO WHATEVER EXTENT THAT THIS IS NOT SO, FEDERAL LAW WILL
HAVE LOST ITS CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY OVER STATE LAW. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

             APPENDIX A.

                     THE CALIFORNIA ACT OF 1947. 

"AN ACT TO REPEAL 'AN ACT TO DEFINE MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION
AGENT; TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION, SUPERVISION AND LICENSING
THEREOF, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SAID ACT AND PENALTIES
FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; AND REPEALING AN ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT TO
DEFINE MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENT; TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REGULATION, SUPERVISION AND LICENSING THEREOF, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF SAID ACT AND PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF,"
APPROVED JUNE 5, 1931, AND ALL ACTS OR PARTS OF ACTS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT,' APPROVED MAY 15, 1933, AND TO ADD SECTIONS
654.1, 654.2, AND 654.3 TO THE PENAL CODE, RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION
OF PERSONS. 

     "(APPROVED BY GOVERNOR JULY 8, 1947.  FILED WITH SECRETARY OF

                         STATE JULY 8, 1947.)    "THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 1.  THE ACT CITED IN THE TITLE HEREOF IS REPEALED. 

"SEC. 2.  SECTION 654.1 IS ADDED TO THE PENAL CODE, TO READ: 

"654.1.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, ACTING INDIVIDUALLY OR
AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF A CORPORATION, OR AS A MEMBER OF A
COPARTNERSHIP OR AS A COMMISSION AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF ANOTHER PERSON,
FIRM OR CORPORATION, TO SELL OR OFFER FOR SALE OR, TO NEGOTIATE,
PROVIDE OR ARRANGE FOR, OR TO ADVERTISE OR HOLD HIMSELF OUT AS ONE WHO
SELLS OR OFFERS FOR SALE OR NEGOTIATES, PROVIDES OR ARRANGES FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF A PERSON OR PERSONS ON AN INDIVIDUAL FARE BASIS OVER
THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNLESS SUCH
TRANSPORTATION IS TO BE FURNISHED OR PROVIDED SOLELY BY, AND SUCH SALE
IS AUTHORIZED BY, A CARRIER HAVING A VALID AND EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, OR OTHER VALID AND EXISTING PERMIT FROM THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR FROM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES, AUTHORIZING THE
HOLDER OF SUCH CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT TO PROVIDE SUCH TRANSPORTATION. 

"SEC. 3.  SECTION 654.2 IS ADDED TO THE PENAL CODE, TO READ: 

"654.2.  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 654.1 OF THE PENAL CODE SHALL NOT
APPLY TO THE SELLING, FURNISHING OR PROVIDING OF TRANSPORTATION OF ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS 

"(1)  WHEN NO COMPENSATION IS PAID OR TO BE PAID, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION; 

"(2)  TO THE FURNISHING OR PROVIDING OF TRANSPORTATION TO OR FROM
WORK, OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FARM WORK ON ANY FARM OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; 

"(3)  TO THE FURNISHING OR PROVIDING OF TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM
WORK OF EMPLOYEES OF ANY NONPROFIT COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZED
PURSUANT TO ANY LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; 

"(4)  TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF A SINGLE MUNICIPALITY OR OF CONTIGUOUS MUNICIPALITIES; 

"(5)  TO TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OVER A ROUTE WHOLLY OR PARTLY
WITHIN A NATIONAL PARK OR STATE PARK WHERE SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS SOLD
IN CONJUNCTION WITH OR AS PART OF A RAIL TRIP OR TRIP OVER A REGULARLY
OPERATED MOTOR BUS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OR LINE; 

"(6)  TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY A PERSON WHO IS DRIVING
HIS OWN VEHICLE AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OTHER THAN HIMSELF
AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY WHEN TRANSPORTING SUCH PERSONS TO OR FROM
THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND WHEN THE OWNER OF SUCH VEHICLE IS DRIVING
TO OR FROM HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT; PROVIDED THAT ARRANGEMENTS FOR ANY
SUCH TRANSPORTATION PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION
SHALL BE MADE DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE OWNER OF SUCH VEHICLE AND THE PERSON
WHO USES OR INTENDS TO USE SUCH TRANSPORTATION. 

"SEC. 4.  SECTION 654.3 IS ADDED TO THE PENAL CODE, TO READ: 

"654.3.  VIOLATION OF SECTION 654.1 SHALL BE A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON
FIRST CONVICTION THE PUNISHMENT SHALL BE A FINE OF NOT OVER TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY DOLLARS ($250), OR IMPRISONMENT IN JAIL FOR NOT OVER 90 DAYS, OR
BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  UPON SECOND CONVICTION THE PUNISHMENT
SHALL BE IMPRISONMENT IN JAIL FOR NOT LESS THAN 30 DAYS AND NOT MORE
THAN 180 DAYS.  UPON A THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION THE PUNISHMENT
SHALL BE CONFINEMENT IN JAIL FOR NOT LESS THAN 90 DAYS AND NOT MORE
THAN ONE YEAR, AND A PERSON SUFFERING THREE OR MORE CONVICTIONS SHALL
NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO PROBATION, THE PROVISIONS OF ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING."  1947 CAL. STAT., C. 1215, PP. 2723-2725. 

                             APPENDIX B.

      (1)  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY. 

"IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF
THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES
OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO
ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF
EACH; TO PROMOTE SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND
FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS; TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
REASONABLE CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST
DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES, OR UNFAIR OR
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; TO COOPERATE WITH THE SEVERAL STATES
AND THE DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THEREOF; AND TO ENCOURAGE FAIR WAGES
AND EQUITABLE WORKING CONDITIONS; - ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING,
COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER,
HIGHWAY, AND RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE.  ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE
ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW TO CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE
DECLARATION OF POLICY."  INSERTED BEFORE PART I OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C., NOTE PRECEDING SEC. 1. 

THE FOREGOING "NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY" HAS, FOR MANY
PURPOSES, SUPERSEDED THE DECLARATION OF THE POLICY OF CONGRESS
ENUNCIATED IN THE ORIGINAL SEC. 202 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, TO
WHICH A CROSS REFERENCE WAS MADE EXPRESSLY IN SEC. 203(B), 49 STAT.
545.  THIS CROSS REFERENCE PRESCRIBED THAT, IN ORDER TO MAKE PART II OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT APPLICABLE TO THE KIND OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION DESCRIBED IN SEC. 203(B)(9), THE COMMISSION MUST "FIND
THAT SUCH APPLICATION IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF CONGRESS
ENUNCIATED IN SECTION 202,  ... "  THE POLICY OF CONGRESS THUS REFERRED
TO AS BEING ENUNCIATED IN SEC. 202 WAS CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL FORM
OF SEC. 202(A), 49 STAT. 543.  IT READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 202.  (A)  IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF CONGRESS
TO REGULATE TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR CARRIERS IN SUCH MANNER AS TO
RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF, AND FOSTER SOUND
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN, SUCH TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG SUCH CARRIERS IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST; PROMOTE ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT
SERVICE BY MOTOR CARRIERS, AND REASONABLE CHARGES THEREFOR, WITHOUT
UNJUST DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES, AND UNFAIR OR
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; IMPROVE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN, AND
COORDINATE TRANSPORTATION BY AND REGULATION OF, MOTOR CARRIERS AND
OTHER CARRIERS; DEVELOP AND PRESERVE A HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
PROPERLY ADAPTED TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES AND
OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE; AND COOPERATE WITH THE SEVERAL STATES AND THE
DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THEREOF AND WITH ANY ORGANIZATION OF MOTOR
CARRIERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS PART." 

THE FOREGOING ORIGINAL SEC. 202(A) WAS REPEALED, SEPTEMBER 18, 1940,
54 STAT. 920.  AT THE SAME TIME THE DESIGNATION OF THE ORIGINAL SEC.
202(B) AND (C) WERE CHANGED RESPECTIVELY TO SEC. 202(A) AND (B).  (BOTH
OF THESE SUBSECTIONS ARE MATERIAL AND THEY ARE PRINTED IN APPENDIX B
(2), INFRA.) 

ACCORDINGLY, SEC. 202 OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
CEASED TO CONTAIN ANY STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL "POLICY OF CONGRESS"
CORRESPONDING TO THAT CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL FORM OF SEC. 202(A). 
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE VERY SAME ACT WHICH THUS REMOVED THIS
DECLARATION OF POLICY FROM PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
INSERTED "BEFORE PART I" OF THAT ACT A NEW PARAGRAPH ENTITLED "NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY."  THIS IS THE PARAGRAPH QUOTED ABOVE FROM 54
STAT. 899.  IN THE CODIFICATION OF TITLE 49, A REFERENCE TO THIS NEW
PARAGRAPH WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ORIGINAL REFERENCE TO SEC. 202.  THE
CODIFIED CLAUSE THUS REQUIRED THE COMMISSION TO "FIND THAT SUCH
APPLICATION IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
POLICY DECLARED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,  ...  "  49 U.S.C. SEC.
303(B), INSTEAD OF "THE POLICY OF CONGRESS ENUNCIATED IN SECTION 202,
...  "  WE HAVE ADOPTED THAT INTERPRETATION IN THIS OPINION. 

    (2)  MATERIAL PROVISIONS OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE

                          ACT. 

"SEC. 202.  (A)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART APPLY TO THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE AND TO THE PROCUREMENT OF AND THE
PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION, AND THE REGULATION OF
SUCH TRANSPORTATION, AND OF THE PROCUREMENT THEREOF, AND THE PROVISION
OF FACILITIES THEREFOR, IS HEREBY VESTED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

"(B)  NOTHING IN THIS PART SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE POWERS OF
TAXATION OF THE SEVERAL STATES OR TO AUTHORIZE A MOTOR CARRIER TO DO AN
INTRASTATE BUSINESS ON THE HIGHWAYS OF ANY STATE, OR TO INTERFERE WITH
THE EXCLUSIVE EXERCISE BY EACH STATE OF THE POWER OF REGULATION OF
INTRASTATE COMMERCE BY MOTOR CARRIERS ON THE HIGHWAYS THEREOF."  49
STAT. 543, AS AMENDED, 54 STAT. 920, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 302(A) AND (B). 

"SEC. 203.  ... 

"(B)  NOTHING IN THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204
RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES
AND SAFETY OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
INCLUDE (1) MOTOR VEHICLES EMPLOYED SOLELY IN TRANSPORTING SCHOOL
CHILDREN AND TEACHERS TO OR FROM SCHOOL; OR (2) TAXICABS, OR OTHER
MOTOR VEHICLES PERFORMING A BONA FIDE TAXICAB SERVICE, HAVING A
CAPACITY OF NOT MORE THAN SIX PASSENGERS AND NOT OPERATED ON A REGULAR
ROUTE OR BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI; OR (3) MOTOR VEHICLES OWNED OR OPERATED
BY OR ON BEHALF OF HOTELS AND USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF HOTEL PATRONS BETWEEN HOTELS AND LOCAL RAILROAD OR OTHER COMMON
CARRIER STATIONS; OR (4) MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED, UNDER AUTHORIZATION,
REGULATION, AND CONTROL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, PRINCIPALLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING PERSONS IN AND ABOUT THE NATIONAL PARKS
AND NATIONAL MONUMENTS; OR (4A) MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLLED AND OPERATED
BY ANY FARMER WHEN USED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS THEREOF, OR IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUPPLIES
TO HIS FARM; OR (5) MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLLED AND OPERATED BY A
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AS DEFINED IN THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT,
APPROVED JUNE 15, 1929, AS AMENDED, OR BY A FEDERATION OF SUCH
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS, IF SUCH FEDERATION POSSESSES NO GREATER
POWERS OR PURPOSES THAN COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS SO DEFINED; OR (6)
MOTOR VEHICLES USED IN CARRYING PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ORDINARY
LIVESTOCK, FISH (INCLUDING SHELL FISH), OR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
(NOT INCLUDING MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS THEREOF), IF SUCH MOTOR VEHICLES
ARE NOT USED IN CARRYING ANY OTHER PROPERTY, OR PASSENGERS, FOR
COMPENSATION; OR (7) MOTOR VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPERS; OR (7A) THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR
PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE WHEN INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION BY
AIRCRAFT; NOR, UNLESS AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL FROM
TIME TO TIME FIND THAT SUCH APPLICATION IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
POLICY OF CONGRESS ENUNCIATED IN SECTION 202,  FN26  SHALL THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 RELATIVE
TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY
OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT APPLY TO: (8) THE TRANSPORTATION
OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE WHOLLY
WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY OR BETWEEN CONTIGUOUS MUNICIPALITIES OR WITHIN A
ZONE ADJACENT TO AND COMMERCIALLY A PART OF ANY SUCH MUNICIPALITY OR
MUNICIPALITIES, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS UNDER A COMMON
CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT FOR A CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OR
SHIPMENT TO OR FROM A POINT WITHOUT SUCH MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPALITIES,
OR ZONE, AND PROVIDED THAT THE MOTOR CARRIER ENGAGED IN SUCH
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER REGULAR OR IRREGULAR ROUTE OR ROUTES
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ALSO LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN THE INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF SUCH INTERSTATE
ROUTE OR ROUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF EACH STATE HAVING
JURISDICTION; OR (9) THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE
OR FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION BY ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS,
UNLESS, IN THE CASE OF TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS, SUCH
TRANSPORTATION IS SOLD OR OFFERED FOR SALE, OR PROVIDED OR PROCURED OR
FURNISHED OR ARRANGED FOR, BY A BROKER, OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON WHO
SELLS OR OFFERS FOR SALE TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED BY A PERSON LAWFULLY
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER A
CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THIS PART OR UNDER A PENDING
APPLICATION FOR SUCH A CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT."  49 STAT. 545-546, AS
AMENDED BY 52 STAT. 1029, 1237, 54 STAT. 921, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(B). 

"SEC. 211.  (A)  NO PERSON SHALL FOR COMPENSATION SELL OR OFFER FOR
SALE TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THIS PART OR SHALL MAKE ANY CONTRACT,
AGREEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT TO PROVIDE, PROCURE, FURNISH, OR ARRANGE FOR
SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SHALL HOLD HIMSELF OR ITSELF OUT BY
ADVERTISEMENT, SOLICITATION, OR OTHERWISE AS ONE WHO SELLS, PROVIDES,
PROCURES, CONTRACTS, OR ARRANGES FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION, UNLESS SUCH
PERSON HOLDS A BROKER'S LICENSE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO ENGAGE IN
SUCH TRANSACTIONS:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH PERSON SHALL ENGAGE
IN TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THIS PART UNLESS HE HOLDS A CERTIFICATE OR
PERMIT AS PROVIDED IN THIS PART.  IN THE EXECUTION OF ANY CONTRACT,
AGREEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT TO SELL, PROVIDE, PROCURE, FURNISH, OR
ARRANGE FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR SUCH PERSON
TO EMPLOY ANY CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE WHO OR WHICH IS NOT THE LAWFUL
HOLDER OF AN EFFECTIVE CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT ISSUED AS PROVIDED IN THIS
PART:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH
SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY CARRIER HOLDING A CERTIFICATE OR A PERMIT UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART OR TO ANY BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF
SUCH MOTOR CARRIER, SO FAR AS CONCERNS TRANSPORTATION TO BE FURNISHED
WHOLLY BY SUCH CARRIER OR JOINTLY WITH OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS HOLDING
LIKE CERTIFICATES OR PERMITS, OR WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD,
EXPRESS, OR WATER."  49 STAT. 554, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 311(A).    "SEC.
222.  (A)  ANY PERSON KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY VIOLATING ANY PROVISION
OF THIS PART, OR ANY RULE, REGULATION, REQUIREMENT, OR ORDER
THEREUNDER, OR ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CERTIFICATE, PERMIT, OR
LICENSE, FOR WHICH A PENALTY IS NOT OTHERWISE HEREIN PROVIDED, SHALL,
UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $100 FOR THE FIRST
OFFENSE AND NOT MORE THAN $500 FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE.  EACH DAY OF
SUCH VIOLATION SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE OFFENSE."  49 STAT. 564, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 322(A). 

                             APPENDIX C.

           SUMMARY OF CONFLICTS BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL

               LEGISLATION AND POLICIES.  (1)  CONFLICTS INHERENT

           IN THE STATUTORY TEXTS.            CALIFORNIA

           STATUTE.              (SEE APPENDIX A, SUPRA.) (A)

           PERSONS AFFECTED AND ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED. 

654.1.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, ACTING INDIVIDUALLY OR
AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF A CORPORATION, OR AS A MEMBER OF A
COPARTNERSHIP OR AS A COMMISSION AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF ANOTHER PERSON,
FIRM OR CORPORATION, TO SELL OR OFFER FOR SALE OR, TO NEGOTIATE,
PROVIDE OR ARRANGE FOR, OR TO ADVERTISE OR HOLD HIMSELF OUT AS ONE WHO
SELLS OR OFFERS FOR SALE OR NEGOTIATES, PROVIDES OR ARRANGES FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF A PERSON OR PERSONS ON AN INDIVIDUAL FARE BASIS OVER
THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNLESS SUCH
TRANSPORTATION IS TO BE FURNISHED OR PROVIDED SOLELY BY, AND SUCH SALE
IS AUTHORIZED BY, A CARRIER HAVING A VALID AND EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, OR OTHER VALID AND EXISTING PERMIT FROM THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR FROM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES, AUTHORIZING THE
HOLDER OF SUCH CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT TO PROVIDE SUCH TRANSPORTATION. 

(IN ADDITION TO THE TEXTUAL VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL
PROHIBITIONS, THIS MEASURE DIFFERS FROM THE FEDERAL MEASURE BECAUSE
THIS MERELY PROHIBITS TRAVEL BUREAU OPERATIONS AS SUCH UNLESS THE
CARRIER HAS A STATE OR FEDERAL LICENSE OR PERMIT AND IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT THE BROKER SELLING OR ARRANGING FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
MUST BE A LICENSED BROKER.) 

                           (B)  EXEMPTIONS. 

654.2.  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 654.1 OF THE PENAL CODE SHALL NOT
APPLY TO THE SELLING, FURNISHING OR PROVIDING OF TRANSPORTATION OF ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS 

(1)  WHEN NO COMPENSATION IS PAID OR TO BE PAID, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION; 

(2)  TO THE FURNISHING OR PROVIDING OF TRANSPORTATION TO OR FROM
WORK, OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN FARM WORK ON ANY FARM OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; 

(3)  TO THE FURNISHING OR PROVIDING OF TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM
WORK OF EMPLOYEES OF ANY NONPROFIT COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZED
PURSUANT TO ANY LAW OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; 

(4)  TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF A SINGLE MUNICIPALITY OR OF CONTIGUOUS MUNICIPALITIES; 

(5)  TO TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OVER A ROUTE WHOLLY OR PARTLY
WITHIN A NATIONAL PARK OR STATE PARK WHERE SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS SOLD
IN CONJUNCTION WITH OR AS PART OF A RAIL TRIP OR TRIP OVER A REGULARLY
OPERATED MOTOR BUS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OR LINE; 

(6)  TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY A PERSON WHO IS DRIVING
HIS OWN VEHICLE AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OTHER THAN HIMSELF
AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY WHEN TRANSPORTING SUCH PERSONS TO OR FROM
THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AND WHEN THE OWNER OF SUCH VEHICLE IS DRIVING
TO OR FROM HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT; PROVIDED THAT ARRANGEMENTS FOR ANY
SUCH TRANSPORTATION PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION
SHALL BE MADE DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE OWNER OF SUCH VEHICLE AND THE PERSON
WHO USES OR INTENDS TO USE SUCH TRANSPORTATION. 

                (C)  PENALTIES. 

654.3.  VIOLATION OF SECTION 654.1 SHALL BE A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON
FIRST CONVICTION THE PUNISHMENT SHALL BE A FINE OF NOT OVER TWO HUNDRED
FIFTY DOLLARS ($250), OR IMPRISONMENT IN JAIL FOR NOT OVER 90 DAYS, OR
BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  UPON SECOND CONVICTION THE PUNISHMENT
SHALL BE IMPRISONMENT IN JAIL FOR NOT LESS THAN 30 DAYS AND NOT MORE
THAN 180 DAYS.  UPON A THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION THE PUNISHMENT
SHALL BE CONFINEMENT IN JAIL FOR NOT LESS THAN 90 DAYS AND NOT MORE
THAN ONE YEAR, AND A PERSON SUFFERING THREE OR MORE CONVICTIONS SHALL
NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO PROBATION, THE PROVISIONS OF ANY LAW TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING. 

                        FEDERAL STATUTE. 

     (SEE APPENDIX B(2), SUPRA.)

           (A)  PERSONS AFFECTED AND ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED. 

SEC. 203.  (A)  AS USED IN THIS PART - 

(1)  THE TERM "PERSON" MEANS ANY INDIVIDUAL, FIRM, CORPARTNERSHIP,
CORPORATION, COMPANY, ASSOCIATION, OR JOINT-STOCK ASSOCIATION; AND
INCLUDES ANY TRUSTEE, RECEIVER, ASSIGNEE, OR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
THEREOF.  49 STAT. 544, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(A)(1). 

SEC. 211.  (A)  NO PERSON SHALL FOR COMPENSATION SELL OR OFFER FOR
SALE TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THIS PART OR SHALL MAKE ANY CONTRACT,
AGREEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT TO PROVIDE, PROCURE, FURNISH, OR ARRANGE FOR
SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SHALL HOLD HIMSELF OR ITSELF OUT BY
ADVERTISEMENT, SOLICITATION, OR OTHERWISE AS ONE WHO SELLS, PROVIDES,
PROCURES, CONTRACTS, OR ARRANGES FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION, UNLESS SUCH
PERSON HOLDS A BROKER'S LICENSE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION TO ENGAGE IN
SUCH TRANSACTIONS:  PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH PERSON SHALL ENGAGE
IN TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THIS PART UNLESS HE HOLDS A CERTIFICATE OR
PERMIT AS PROVIDED IN THIS PART.  IN THE EXECUTION OF ANY CONTRACT,
AGREEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT TO SELL, PROVIDE, PROCURE, FURNISH, OR
ARRANGE FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR SUCH PERSON
TO EMPLOY ANY CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE WHO OR WHICH IS NOT THE LAWFUL
HOLDER OF AN EFFECTIVE CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT ISSUED AS PROVIDED IN THIS
PART:  ... 

(IN ADDITION TO THE TEXTUAL VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL
PROHIBITIONS, THIS DIFFERS FROM THE STATE MEASURE BECAUSE THIS MEASURE
NOT ONLY PROHIBITS INTERSTATE TRAVEL BUREAU OPERATIONS AS SUCH UNLESS
THE CARRIER HOLDS A FEDERAL LICENSE OR PERMIT, BUT IT ALSO REQUIRES
THAT THE BROKER SELLING OR ARRANGING FOR THE TRANSPORTATION MUST HOLD A
FEDERAL BROKER'S LICENSE.) 

                           (B)  EXEMPTIONS. 

SEC. 211.  (A)  ...  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY CARRIER HOLDING A CERTIFICATE OR
A PERMIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART OR TO ANY BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE
OR AGENT OF SUCH MOTOR CARRIER, SO FAR AS CONCERNS TRANSPORTATION TO BE
FURNISHED WHOLLY BY SUCH CARRIER OR JOINTLY WITH OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS
HOLDING LIKE CERTIFICATES OR PERMITS, OR WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY
RAILROAD, EXPRESS, OR WATER. 

SEC. 203.  ... 

(B)  NOTHING IN THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204
RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES
AND SAFETY OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
INCLUDE (1) MOTOR VEHICLES EMPLOYED SOLELY IN TRANSPORTING SCHOOL
CHILDREN AND TEACHERS TO OR FROM SCHOOL; OR (2) TAXICABS, OR OTHER
MOTOR VEHICLES PERFORMING A BONA FIDE TAXICAB SERVICE, HAVING A
CAPACITY OF NOT MORE THAN SIX PASSENGERS AND NOT OPERATED ON A REGULAR
ROUTE OR BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI; OR (3) MOTOR VEHICLES OWNED OR OPERATED
BY OR ON BEHALF OF HOTELS AND USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF HOTEL PATRONS BETWEEN HOTELS AND LOCAL RAILROAD OR OTHER COMMON
CARRIER STATIONS; OR (4) MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED, UNDER AUTHORIZATION,
REGULATION, AND CONTROL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, PRINCIPALLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING PERSONS IN AND ABOUT THE NATIONAL PARKS
AND NATIONAL MONUMENTS; OR (4A) MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLLED AND OPERATED
BY ANY FARMER WHEN USED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS THEREOF, OR IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUPPLIES
TO HIS FARM; OR (5) MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLLED AND OPERATED BY A
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AS DEFINED IN THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT,
APPROVED JUNE 15, 1929, AS AMENDED, OR BY A FEDERATION OF SUCH
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS, IF SUCH FEDERATION POSSESSES NO GREATER
POWERS OR PURPOSES THAN COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS SO DEFINED; OR (6)
MOTOR VEHICLES USED IN CARRYING PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ORDINARY
LIVESTOCK, FISH (INCLUDING SHELL FISH), OR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
(NOT INCLUDING MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS THEREOF), IF SUCH MOTOR VEHICLES
ARE NOT USED IN CARRYING ANY OTHER PROPERTY, OR PASSENGERS, FOR
COMPENSATION; OR (7) MOTOR VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPERS; OR (7A) THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR
PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE WHEN INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION BY
AIRCRAFT; NOR, UNLESS AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL FROM
TIME TO TIME FIND THAT SUCH APPLICATION IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
POLICY OF CONGRESS ENUNCIATED IN SECTION 202, SHALL THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 RELATIVE TO
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY OF
OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT APPLY TO:  (8)  THE TRANSPORTATION
OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE WHOLLY
WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY OR BETWEEN CONTIGUOUS MUNICIPALITIES OR WITHIN A
ZONE ADJACENT TO AND COMMERCIALLY A PART OF ANY SUCH MUNICIPALITY OR
MUNICIPALITIES, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS UNDER A COMMON
CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT FOR A CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OR
SHIPMENT TO OR FROM A POINT WITHOUT SUCH MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPALITIES,
OR ZONE, AND PROVIDED THAT THE MOTOR CARRIER ENGAGED IN SUCH
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER REGULAR OR IRREGULAR ROUTE OR ROUTES
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ALSO LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN THE INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF SUCH INTERSTATE
ROUTE OR ROUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF EACH STATE HAVING
JURISDICTION; OR (9) THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE
OR FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION BY ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS,
UNLESS, IN THE CASE OF TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS, SUCH
TRANSPORTATION IS SOLD OR OFFERED FOR SALE, OR PROVIDED OR PROCURED OR
FURNISHED OR ARRANGED FOR, BY A BROKER, OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON WHO
SELLS OR OFFERS FOR SALE TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED BY A PERSON LAWFULLY
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER A
CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THIS PART OR UNDER A PENDING
APPLICATION FOR SUCH A CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT. 

                          (C)  PENALTIES. 

SEC. 222.  (A)  ANY PERSON KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY VIOLATING ANY
PROVISION OF THIS PART, OR ANY RULE, REGULATION, REQUIREMENT, OR ORDER
THEREUNDER, OR ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CERTIFICATE, PERMIT, OR
LICENSE, FOR WHICH A PENALTY IS NOT OTHERWISE HEREIN PROVIDED, SHALL,
UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $100 FOR THE FIRST
OFFENSE AND NOT MORE THAN $500 FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE.  EACH DAY OF
SUCH VIOLATION SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE OFFENSE. 

     (2)  EMPHASIS EXPRESSLY PLACED UPON THE MUTUAL EXCLUSIVENESS

            OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS ASSIGNING

  INTRASTATE REGULATION TO THE STATES, AND INTERSTATE REGULATION

              TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UPON

                      ITS FINDING IT NECESSARY. 

1933 CALIFORNIA ACT. 

THE STATE POLICY OF REGULATION OF MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENTS
AND UNLICENSED SHARE-THE-EXPENSE MOTOR CARRIERS WAS TO APPLY TO
INTERSTATE, AS WELL AS INTRASTATE, TRANSPORTATION "UNTIL SUCH TIME AS
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL ACT,  ..."  P. 760, SUPRA. 

1941 CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. 

THE STATE REGULATION OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION WAS LIMITED TO
A PERIOD IN "THE ABSENCE OF ACTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS OR THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REGULATING OR REQUIRING LICENSES OF
MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENTS ACTING AS SUCH FOR MOTOR CARRIERS
CARRYING PASSENGERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ...."  P. 769, SUPRA. 

1947 CALIFORNIA ACT. 

THIS REPEALED THE 1933 ACT, AS AMENDED IN 1941, AND MENTIONED ONLY
"TRANSPORTATION  ...  OVER THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA  ..."  APPENDIX A, SUPRA.  THIS COULD BE INTERPRETED, AS
LIMITED TO INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION BUT IT WAS INTERPRETED, BY THE
COURT BELOW, AS AN INVALID ATTEMPT TO INVADE THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION
OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FEDERAL ACT - MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, PART II, INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT. 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE  ...  AND THE REGULATION OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION,  ...
IS HEREBY VESTED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION."  SEC. 202(A),
APPENDIX B(2), SUPRA. 

"NOTHING IN THIS PART SHALL BE CONSTRUED ...  TO INTERFERE WITH THE
EXCLUSIVE EXERCISE BY EACH STATE OF THE POWER OF REGULATION OF
INTRASTATE COMMERCE BY MOTOR CARRIERS ON THE HIGHWAYS THEREOF."  SEC.
202(B), APPENDIX B(2), SUPRA. 

NOTHING IN THIS PART WAS TO INCLUDE THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR
RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION BY ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN SUCH
TRANSPORTATION AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS "UNLESS AND TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME FIND THAT SUCH
APPLICATION IS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF CONGRESS ENUNCIATED
IN SECTION 202,  ..."  SEC. 203(B), APPENDIX B(2), SUPRA. 

FEDERAL ACT - 1940 AMENDMENT TO PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT. 

THIS PARTLY REMOVED THE EXEMPTION OF THE FEDERAL ACT FROM THE CASUAL,
OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTERS OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE REMOVAL APPLIED TO CASES, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE
THE TRANSPORTATION WAS SOLD OR ARRANGED FOR BY A BROKER.  NOTE 20,
SUPRA.    FEDERAL ORDER - 1942 ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

THIS FURTHER REMOVED THE EXEMPTION FROM THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR
RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTERS OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTERS OF PERSONS OR
PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS FEDERAL ORDER BROUGHT THESE
INTERSTATE OPERATIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT AND UNDER THE REGULATIONS
OF THE COMMISSION.  BY VIRTUE OF THE SELF-TERMINATING PROVISIONS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ACT, THIS ORDER CUT OFF THE STATE REGULATION OF THESE
INTERSTATE OPERATIONS.  NOTE 23, SUPRA.

        (3)  CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL POLICIES WHICH
    LED TO THE TAKING OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER TRAVEL

          BUREAUS AND SHARE-THE-EXPENSE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION

           ENGAGED IN CASUAL INTERSTATE OPERATIONS. 

THE 1931 CALIFORNIA ACT RECOGNIZED AND LICENSED TRAVEL BUREAUS
ARRANGING SHARE-THE-EXPENSE INTERSTATE, AS WELL AS INTRASTATE, MOTOR
TRIPS BY UNLICENSED CARRIERS.  PP. 759-760, SUPRA. 

THE 1933 CALIFORNIA ACT CONTINUED THIS POLICY AS TO INTERSTATE AS
WELL AS INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION.  IT STATED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
APPLICATION TO INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION WOULD CONTINUE ONLY UNTIL SUCH
TIME AS THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TOOK ACTION.  PP. 760-761,
SUPRA. 

THE 1941 CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS EMPHASIZED THE LIMITATION UPON STATE
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  PP. 769-770, SUPRA. 

IN 1942, THE ANTICIPATED FEDERAL ACTION AUTOMATICALLY CUT OFF THE
CALIFORNIA REGULATION OF THESE INTERSTATE OPERATIONS.  PP. 770-774,
SUPRA. 

IN 1935 AND 1940, PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT GAVE WARNING
THAT FEDERAL CONTROL WOULD BE TAKEN WHEN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION FOUND IT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF
CONGRESS.  PP. 761-762, 767-768, SUPRA. 

IN 1940, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BEGAN ITS EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE OPERATIONS OF TRAVEL BUREAUS AND
SHARE-THE-EXPENSE INTERSTATE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION.  PP. 765-767, SUPRA.
IN 1942, THESE RESULTED IN THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT SUCH
OPERATIONS, AS APPLIED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WERE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
POLICY.  IT DECLINED TO ISSUE A LICENSE EVEN TO A REGULAR
TRANSPORTATION BROKER UNLESS HE AGREED TO REFRAIN FROM SUCH
OPERATIONS.  IT EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS WERE
UNABLE TO REGULATE SUCH OPERATIONS BECAUSE A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION WAS INTERSTATE. 

IN 1942, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDER LARGELY REMOVED THE
STATUTORY EXEMPTION OF THESE TRAVEL BUREAUS AND OPERATIONS FROM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND FEDERAL CONTROL HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY
EXERCISED OVER THEM SINCE THAT DATE.  PP. 770-773, SUPRA. 

FN1  SEE APPENDIX A, INFRA, P. 776. 

FN2  1933 CAL. STAT., C. 390, SEC. 1, P. 1012. 

FN3  1941 CAL. STAT., C. 539, SEC. 2, P. 1863. 

FN4  SEC. 203(B), 49 STAT. 545-546, OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935,
WHICH BECAME PART II, INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 STAT. 543, 54 STAT.
919. 

FN5  SEC. 203(B)(9) OF PART II, INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT.
921, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(B)(9).  FOR TEXT, SEE APPENDIX B (2), INFRA, P.
783. 

FN6  EX PARTE NO. MC-35, 33 M.C.C. 69, 49 C.F.R., CUM. SUPP. SEC.
210.1. 

FN7  "THE POINT MADE ON APPEAL IS THAT THE ACTS CHARGED AND PROVED
AGAINST DEFENDANTS WERE DONE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT FOR THAT
REASON AND BECAUSE OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LEGISLATION, THE STATE LAW CANNOT
BE APPLIED TO THOSE ACTS.  WE FIND THIS CONTENTION WELL FOUNDED.  ... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"RESPONDENT (THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) CONCEDES AND EVEN
DEMONSTRATES THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE FEDERAL LAW
AND SECTION 654.1, PENAL CODE, FORBID AND PUNISH THE SAME ACTS, BUT
CONTENDS THAT THIS IS PERMISSIBLE AND DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE STATE
LAW, EVEN AS APPLICABLE TO ACTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IF WE LOOK TO
THE RULE IN CALIFORNIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A CITY ORDINANCE IS IN
CONFLICT WITH A STATE LAW AND FOR THAT REASON VOID, THE CITY BEING
LIMITED BY OUR CONSTITUTION TO SUCH POLICE REGULATIONS 'AS DO NOT
CONFLICT WITH GENERAL LAWS,' WE FIND IT ESTABLISHED THAT 'THERE IS A
CONFLICT WHERE THE ORDINANCE AND THE GENERAL LAW PUNISH PRECISELY THE
SAME ACTS.'  ...  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THIS IS NOT THE RULE
APPLICABLE AS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION, BUT ON REVIEW OF
THE AUTHORITIES WE CONCLUDE THAT THE RULE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
MATTERS HAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME EFFECT AS THAT ABOVE STATED.  OF
SUCH A CASE, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SAID LONG AGO:  'THIS
LEGISLATION (ENACTED BY CONGRESS) COVERS THE SAME GROUND AS THE NEW
YORK STATUTE, AND THEY CANNOT CO-EXIST.'  (NEW YORK V. COMPAGNIE
GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE (1883), 107 U.S. 59, 63(2 S. CT. 87, 27 L. ED.
383, 385).)  ... 

     .      .         .         .         . 

"WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT SECTION 654.1, PENAL CODE, CANNOT BE
VALIDLY APPLIED TO TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND SINCE THE
COMPLAINT HEREIN EXPRESSLY LIMITS ITSELF TO SUCH TRANSPORTATION, IT
STATES NO OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE SECTION AND THE DEMURRER SHOULD
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED."  PEOPLE V. ZOOK, 87 CAL. APP.2D SUPP. 921, 922,
925, 197 P.2D 851, 852, 854. 

FN8  PEOPLE V. ZOOK, SUPRA.  THE MATERIAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS
INCLUDE:  THE PENAL CODE OF CALIFORNIA, SECS. 654.1-654.3, ADDED BY
1947 CAL. STAT. C. 1215, PP. 2723-2725.  FOR TEXT, SEE APPENDIX A,
INFRA, P. 776.  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, INSERTED BEFORE PART I
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C., NOTE PRECEDING
SEC. 1.  FOR TEXT, SEE APPENDIX B (1), INFRA, P. 778.  PART II,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SECS. 202(A), JURISDICTION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION; 202(B), POWERS OF STATES; 203(B)(9), PARTIAL AND
CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION OF CASUAL AND OCCASIONAL TRANSPORTATION; 211(A),
LICENSES, CERTIFICATES, PERMITS; 222(A), PENALTIES; 49 STAT. 543, ET
SEQ., AS AMENDED BY 52 STAT. 1029, 1237, 54 STAT. 920, ET SEQ.; 49
U.S.C. SECS. 302(A) AND (B), 303(B)(9), 311(A), 322(A).  FOR TEXT, SEE
APPENDIX B (2), INFRA, P. 781.  49 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 210.1, AS TO
REMOVAL OF EXEMPTION AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 203(B)(9) OF PART II,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FOR TEXT, SEE NOTE 23, INFRA, P. 770. 

FN9                  "COMPLAINT - FILED JANUARY 8, 1948 

"PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, THIS 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1948, E.W.
HIVELY OF LOS ANGELES CITY, WHO, FIRST BEING DULY SWORN, COMPLAINS AND
SAYS:  THAT ON OR ABOUT THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1948, AT AND IN LOS
ANGELES CITY, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A
MISDEMEANOR, TO-WIT:  VIOLATION OF SECTION 654.1 OF THE PENAL CODE OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WAS COMMITTED BY BERL B. ZOOK AND WILMER K.
CRAIG (WHOSE TRUE NAME TO AFFIANT IS UNKNOWN), WHO AT THE TIME AND
PLACE LAST AFORESAID, DID WILFULLY AND UNLAWFULLY, AT 925 WEST 7TH
STREET, IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, SELL, AND OFFER TO SELL,
NEGOTIATED, PROVIDED AND ARRANGED FOR, AND ADVERTISED AND HELD
THEMSELVES OUT AS PERSONS WHO SELL AND OFFER TO SELL AND NEGOTIATE,
PROVIDE AND ARRANGE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS ON AN INDIVIDUAL
FARE BASIS OVER THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY A
CARRIER OTHER THAN A CARRIER HAVING A VALID AND EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY OR OTHER VALID AND EXISTING PERMIT FROM THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR FROM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZING SUCH
HOLDER OF A CERTIFICATE OR OTHER PERMIT TO PROVIDE SUCH TRANSPORTATION
OF PASSENGERS IN THAT THE SAID BERL B. ZOOK AND WILMER K. CRAIG, HELD
THEMSELVES OUT AS PERSONS WILLING TO SELL AND NEGOTIATE FOR THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED TRANSPORTATION AND SOLD TO JAMES A. MOSS AND DOROTHY MAE
ELBAG, TRANSPORTATION FROM LOS ANGELES TO FORT WORTH, TEXAS, OVER A
CARRIER WHICH WAS NOT LICENSED IN ANY MANNER BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO CARRY PASSENGERS FOR
COMPENSATION OR HIRE AND NEGOTIATED FOR THE SALE OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION
AND ARRANGED FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION. 

"ALL OF WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FORM OF THE STATUTE IN SUCH CASES
MADE AND PROVIDED, AND AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  SAID COMPLAINANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT A
WARRANT MAY BE ISSUED FOR THE ARREST OF SAID DEFENDANT ...... ......
(WHOSE TRUE NAME ............... TO AFFIANT IS UNKNOWN) AND THAT
............... HE ............... MAY BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW. 

"SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1948,
E.W. HIVELY. 

"URBAN F. EMMA, CLERK OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF LOS ANGELES CITY, IN
SAID COUNTY AND STATE.  BY G. LANDER (SEAL.)  DEPUTY CLERK. 

"(FILE ENDORSEMENT OMITTED)

               "ISSUED BY RAY L. CHESEBRO, CITY ATTORNEY

              "BY BOYD A. TAYLOR, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY." 

THE RESPONDENTS DEMURRED TO THIS COMPLAINT.  THE DEMURRER WAS
OVERRULED BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA.  THE RESPONDENTS, UPON A STIPULATED STATEMENT OF FACTS,
WERE CONVICTED AND SENTENCED BY THAT COURT.  THEIR MOTION IN ARREST OF
JUDGMENT WAS DENIED.  THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, REVERSED
THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT WITH
DIRECTIONS TO SUSTAIN THE DEMURRER.  THE APPEAL FROM THE ORDER IN
ARREST OF JUDGMENT WAS DISMISSED. 

FN10  CF. SEC. 654.2 OF THE PENAL CODE OF CALIFORNIA WITH SEC. 203(B)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT; SEE SEC. 211(A) AS TO BROKER'S LICENSE
AND, GENERALLY, APPENDICES A AND B, INFRA, PP. 776, 778.  FOR A
DETAILED JUXTAPOSITION OF THE CONFLICT, SEE APPENDIX C, INFRA, P. 784. 

FN11  UNDER SEC. 654.3 OF THE PENAL CODE OF CALIFORNIA, ASSUMING THIS
TO BE THE RESPONDENTS' FIRST OFFENSE, EACH RESPONDENT WAS SUBJECT TO A
MAXIMUM FINE OF $250 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT OVER 30 DAYS, OR BOTH.  IN
THE INSTANT CASE THE COURT FINED EACH RESPONDENT $250 AND REQUIRED
THAT, IN DEFAULT OF THE PAYMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE FINES BEFORE 5 P.M.
ON THE DATE OF JUDGMENT, THEY WERE TO BE IMPRISONED IN THE CITY JAIL IN
THE PROPORTION OF ONE DAY'S IMPRISONMENT FOR EACH $2 OF THE FINES UNTIL
PAID, NOT EXCEEDING 125 DAYS.  FOR A SECOND CONVICTION THE PUNISHMENT
PRESCRIBED IS LIMITED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT LESS THAN 30 DAYS AND NOT
MORE THAN 180 DAYS.  UPON A THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION THE
PUNISHMENT IS LIMITED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT LESS THAN 90 DAYS AND NOT
MORE THAN ONE YEAR, WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION.  VIOLATIONS OF
THE CORRESPONDING SEC. 211(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT ARE
PUNISHABLE, UNDER SEC. 222(A), BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $100 FOR THE
FIRST OFFENSE AND NOT MORE THAN $500 FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE.  EACH
DAY OF VIOLATION CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE OFFENSE. 

FN12  "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO REGULATE COMMERCE  ...
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, ...  "  (U.S. CONST. ART. I, SEC. 8.) 

"THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE
MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; ...  SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND;
AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." 
(ID. ART. VI.) 

FN13  "  ...  IT WOULD SEEM, UPON JUST PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION,
THAT THE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS, IF CONSTITUTIONAL, MUST SUPERSEDE ALL
STATE LEGISLATION UPON THE SAME SUBJECT; AND BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION
PROHIBIT IT.  FOR IF CONGRESS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE A
PARTICULAR SUBJECT, AND THEY DO ACTUALLY REGULATE IT IN A GIVEN MANNER,
AND IN A CERTAIN FORM, IT CANNOT BE THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE A
RIGHT TO INTERFERE; AND, AS IT WERE, BY WAY OF COMPLEMENT TO THE
LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS, TO PRESCRIBE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS, AND WHAT
THEY MAY DEEM AUXILIARY PROVISIONS FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.  IN SUCH A
CASE, THE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS, IN WHAT IT DOES PRESCRIBE,
MANIFESTLY INDICATES THAT IT DOES NOT INTEND THAT THERE SHALL BE ANY
FARTHER LEGISLATION TO ACT UPON THE SUBJECT-MATTER.  ITS SILENCE AS TO
WHAT IT DOES NOT DO, IS AS EXPRESSIVE OF WHAT ITS INTENTION IS AS THE
DIRECT PROVISIONS MADE BY IT.  THIS DOCTRINE WAS FULLY RECOGNISED BY
THIS COURT, IN THE CASE OF HOUSTON V. MOORE, 5 WHEAT.  REP.  1, 21, 22;
WHERE IT WAS EXPRESSLY HELD, THAT WHERE CONGRESS HAVE EXERCISED A POWER
OVER A PARTICULAR SUBJECT GIVEN THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS NOT
COMPETENT FOR STATE LEGISLATION TO ADD TO THE PROVISIONS OF CONGRESS
UPON THAT SUBJECT; FOR THAT THE WILL OF CONGRESS UPON THE WHOLE SUBJECT
IS AS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY WHAT IT HAD NOT DECLARED, AS BY WHAT IT
HAS EXPRESSED."  ID. AT PP. 617-618. 

FN14  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE SUPREMACY OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION HERE DISCUSSED PUTS A LIMITATION UPON THE LEGISLATIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATES IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.  IT
DOES NOT RESTRICT COOPERATION OF THE STATES IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
FEDERAL STATUTES.  SUCH COOPERATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IS AN APPROPRIATE
ACCOMPANIMENT OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY UNDER THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THIS COOPERATION DOES NOT, HOWEVER, REQUIRE
THE CREATION OF SEPARATE STATE OFFENSES PARALLELING OR NEARLY
PARALLELING THE FEDERAL OFFENSES.  IT CALLS, RATHER, FOR COOPERATION IN
ENFORCING THE EXISTING FEDERAL OFFENSES. 

THE PETITIONER, IN AID OF ITS ARGUMENT, HAS POINTED TO THE
DECLARATION OF POLICY AS ORIGINALLY STATED IN THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT,
1935.  THERE IS NO AID FOR THE PETITIONER THERE.  THAT DECLARATION
CONTAINED THE GENERAL PHRASE, "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY
OF CONGRESS TO ...  COOPERATE WITH THE SEVERAL STATES AND THE DULY
AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THEREOF AND WITH ANY ORGANIZATION OF MOTOR
CARRIERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS PART."  49 STAT.
543.  FOR FULL TEXT, SEE APPENDIX B (1), INFRA, P. 778.  WHEN THIS
DECLARATION WAS REPEALED IN 1940 AND LARGELY INCORPORATED IN A
STATEMENT OF THE "NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY," PRECEDING PART I OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, CONGRESS ADDED LANGUAGE EMPHASIZING THE
FEDERAL RATHER THAN THE STATE FEATURES OF THE POLICY.  THE MATERIAL
CLAUSES THEN READ:    "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF THE CONGRESS  ...  TO COOPERATE WITH THE
SEVERAL STATES AND THE DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THEREOF; ...  ALL TO
THE END OF DEVELOPING, COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER, HIGHWAY, AND RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER
MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES,
OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE.  ... "  54 STAT.
899.  FOR FULL TEXT AND COMMENT, SEE APPENDIX B (1), INFRA, P. 778. 

IT WAS BECAUSE THE COMMISSION, IN 1942, FOUND IT NECESSARY IN ORDER
TO CARRY OUT THIS NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY THAT IT WITHDREW THE
EXEMPTION IN SEC. 203(B)(9) WHICH IS NOW BEFORE US AND WHICH
THERETOFORE, TO A LARGE EXTENT, HAD KEPT INTERSTATE TRAVEL BUREAUS AND
INTERSTATE SHARE-THE-EXPENSE OPERATORS EXEMPT FROM THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT. 

FN15  SEE APPENDIX B (1), INFRA, P. 779. 

FN16  SEC. 211(A), 49 STAT. 547, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 311(A).  FOR TEXT,
SEE APPENDIX B (2), INFRA, P. 783. 

FN17  SEE APPENDIX B (1), INFRA, P. 779. 

FN18  SEE APPENDIX B (1), INFRA, P. 779. 

FN19  ORDERS DIRECTING INVESTIGATIONS, 5 FED. REG. 1830, 1845. 

FN20  CLAUSE (9) OF SEC. 203(B) WAS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS, THE
NEW LANGUAGE BEING ITALICIZED: 

"(9)  THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION BY ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION
BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS, UNLESS, IN THE
CASE OF TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS, SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS SOLD OR
OFFERED FOR SALE, OR PROVIDED OR PROCURED OR FURNISHED OR ARRANGED FOR,
BY A BROKER, OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON WHO SELLS OR OFFERS FOR SALE
TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED BY A PERSON LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER A CERTIFICATE OR
PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THIS PART OR UNDER A PENDING APPLICATION FOR SUCH A
CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT."  54 STAT. 921, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(B)(9). 

FN21  "SEC.  2.  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT CITED IN THE TITLE HEREOF IS
HEREBY AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

 .         .         .         .         . 

"IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS OR THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION REGULATING OR REQUIRING LICENSES OF MOTOR CARRIER
TRANSPORTATION AGENTS ACTING AS SUCH FOR MOTOR CARRIERS CARRYING
PASSENGERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (IN THIS PARAGRAPH REFERRED TO AS
'INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENTS') THIS ACT SHALL APPLY
TO AND REGULATE SUCH INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENTS TO
THE SAME EXTENT AND IN THE SAME MANNER THAT IT REGULATES OR REQUIRES
THE LICENSING OF MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION AGENTS ACTING AS SUCH FOR
MOTOR CARRIERS CARRYING PASSENGERS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE (IN THIS
PARAGRAPH REFERRED TO AS 'INTRASTATE MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION
AGENTS')."  1941 CAL. STAT., C. 539, PP. 1862, 1863, AMENDING 1933 CAL.
STAT., C. 390, WHICH WAS THE ACT CITED IN THE TITLE OF THIS 1941 ACT. 

FN22  IT WAS PRECEDED, ON FEBRUARY 3, 1942, BY THE REPORT AND ORDER
IN EX PARTE NO. MC-36, 32 M.C.C. 267, EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1942, 49
C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 200.300.  THAT ORDER PRESCRIBED THE KIND OF
INFORMATION THAT MUST BE RECORDED, UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL, BY EVERY
PASSENGER BROKER LICENSED UNDER SEC. 211 OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT. 

FN23      "ORDER 

"AT A SESSION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, DIVISION 5, HELD
AT ITS OFFICE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ON THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, A.D.
1942. 

"EX PARTE NO. MC-35 

"EXEMPTION OF CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE 

"IT APPEARING, THAT BY ORDER OF MAY 1, 1940, THE COMMISSION, DIVISION
5, ENTERED INTO AN INVESTIGATION INTO PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO THE
CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING WHETHER THE EXEMPTION OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION AS PROVIDED IN
TO MAKE APPLICABLE ALL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO SUCH TRANSPORTATION
WHEN IT IS SOLD, OR OFFERED FOR SALE, OR PROVIDED, OR PROCURED, OR
FURNISHED, OR ARRANGED FOR BY ANY PERSON WHO HOLDS HIMSELF OR ITSELF
OUT AS ONE WHO SELLS, OR OFFERS FOR SALE TRANSPORTATION WHOLLY OR
PARTIALLY SUBJECT TO THE ACT, OR WHO NEGOTIATES FOR, OR HOLDS HIMSELF
OUT BY SOLICITATION, ADVERTISEMENT, OR OTHERWISE, AS ONE WHO SELLS,
PROVIDES, FURNISHES, CONTRACTS, OR ARRANGES FOR, SUCH TRANSPORTATION; 

"AND IT FURTHER APPEARING, THAT A FULL INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTERS
AND THINGS INVOLVED HAS BEEN MADE AND THAT THE DIVISION, ON THE DATE
HEREOF, HAS MADE AND FILED A REPORT CONTAINING ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS THEREON, WHICH REPORT IS HEREBY REFERRED TO AND MADE A PART
HEREOF: 

"IT IS ORDERED, THAT THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS BE, AND IT IS
HEREBY, AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING: 

"TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION AND RAILROADS 

"CHAPTER 1- INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION 

"SUBCHAPTER B - CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE 

"PART 210 - EXEMPTIONS 

"SEC. 210.  1 CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS FOR COMPENSATION WHEN SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS SOLD OR
ARRANGED BY ANYONE FOR COMPENSATION.  THE PARTIAL EXEMPTION FROM
REGULATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT OF THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, AND RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR
COMPENSATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 203(B)(9) OF THE ACT BE, AND IT IS
HEREBY, REMOVED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO MAKE APPLICABLE ALL
PROVISIONS OF PART II OF THE ACT TO SUCH TRANSPORTATION WHEN SOLD OR
OFFERED FOR SALE, OR PROVIDED OR PROCURED OR FURNISHED OR ARRANGED FOR,
BY ANY PERSON WHO SELLS, OFFERS FOR SALE, PROVIDES, FURNISHES,
CONTRACTS, OR ARRANGES FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION FOR COMPENSATION OR AS A
REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS.  (SEC. 203(B)(9), 49 STAT. 546, 54
STAT. 919, 921; 49 U.S.C. 303(B)(9)). 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT THIS ORDER SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE MAY
15, 1942. 

"AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER BE GIVEN TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC AFFECTED THEREBY BY PUBLISHING IT IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER AND BY DEPOSITING COPIES THEREOF IN THE OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. 

"BY THE COMMISSION, DIVISION 5. 

(SIGNED) "W. P. BARTEL

 "SECRETARY." 

WE ARE INDEBTED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR THE FULL
TEXT OF THE ABOVE ORDER.  THE AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS MADE BY THIS ORDER APPEARS IN 49 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC.
210.1. 

FN24  SEE ALSO, PEOPLE V. EDMONDSON, DECIDED MARCH 15, 1946, BY THE
APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA.  THE OPINION OF THAT COURT IS NOT OFFICIALLY REPORTED BUT
APPEARS IN 1946 L.A. CRIM. APP. 2160.  CERT. DENIED, OCTOBER 14, 1946,
329 U.S. 716. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA, P. 730. 

FN26 SEE APPENDIX B (1), SUPRA.
..END :














POWER COMM'N V. INTERSTATE GAS CO., 336 U.S. 577 


ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 18, 1949.  - 166 F.2D 796,
REVERSED. 


AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS
ACT DIRECTED A NATURAL GAS COMPANY TO REDUCE ITS RATES ON INTERSTATE
SALES OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE.  PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE COURT OF
APPEALS ISSUED A STAY ORDER PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COMPANY PAID INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT THE MONTHLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING RATES
AND THE LOWER RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE RATE ORDER WAS
FINALLY SUSTAINED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED THE FUND DISTRIBUTED
TO THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES WHICH WERE THE IMMEDIATE PURCHASERS.  HELD: 

1.  APART FROM THE CASE OF A PIPE-LINE COMPANY CLAIMING THAT ITS
RATES HAVE BEEN SO LOW THAT IT IS ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF LAW TO SHARE
IN THE REFUND AND THE CASE OF A PIPE-LINE COMPANY WHICH HAS PASSED ON
TO ITS CUSTOMERS THE RATE REDUCTIONS FROM THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO LOOK BEYOND THE PIPE-LINE
COMPANIES FOR THE RIGHTFUL CLAIMANTS OF THE FUND.  PP. 580-583. 

(A)  SINCE THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES THEMSELVES ARE ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OR SALE AT WHOLESALE OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND ARE THUS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, THEIR CLAIMS TO THE FUND ARE DETERMINABLE SOLELY WITH
REFERENCE TO FEDERAL LAW.  CENTRAL STATES CO. V. MUSCATINE, 324 U.S.
138, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 580-581. 

(B)  THE FACT THAT THE FUND CONSISTED OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PIPE
LINE COMPANIES DOES NOT ENTITLE THEM TO THE FUND AS OF RIGHT.  P. 581. 

(C)  THE AIM OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS TO PROTECT ULTIMATE CONSUMERS
OF NATURAL GAS FROM EXCESSIVE CHARGES.  P. 581. 

(D)  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURT TO CORRECT WHAT HAS BEEN
WRONGFULLY DONE BY VIRTUE OF ITS PROCESS CAN NOT BE DISCHARGED BY
PAYMENT OF THE FUND TO THOSE WHO SHOW NO LOSS BY REASON OF THE COURT'S
ACTION.  P. 582. 

(E)  THE FUND HAVING BEEN CREATED BY THE COURT THROUGH EXERCISE OF
EQUITY POWERS, ITS DISPOSITION SHOULD BE MADE IN ACCORD WITH EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES.  PP. 582-583. 

2.  IF DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND IS TO BE MADE TO CLAIMANTS OTHER THAN
THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES, AND IF LOCAL LAW PROVIDES A STANDARD FOR
DETERMINING WHICH OF TWO OR MORE CLAIMANTS WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO
THE BENEFITS OF THE RATE REDUCTION, THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD APPLY SUCH
LOCAL LAW.  P. 583. 

3.  IF CLEAR AND SPEEDY STATE REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE, THE FEDERAL
COURT MIGHT HOLD THE FUND UNTIL THOSE HAVING THE FINAL SAY ON THE STATE
LAW QUESTIONS HAVE SPOKEN.  P. 583. 

4.  BUT IN ABSENCE OF SUCH A SHOWING, THE FEDERAL COURT IN THE
INTEREST OF DISPATCH SHOULD PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE QUESTIONS, RELYING
ON SUCH SOURCES OF LOCAL LAW AS MAY BE AVAILABLE, INCLUDING INFORMATION
FROM STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES.  P. 584. 

5.  THE FEDERAL COURT MAY IN ITS DISCRETION DISBURSE THE FUNDS
DIRECTLY TO EITHER THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES OR THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS OR WORK OUT AN ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEME WHEREBY THE DISTRIBUTION
IS MADE PURSUANT TO DIRECTIVES OF STATE AGENCIES.  P. 584. 

6.  DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER INVOLVING
THE EXERCISE OF AN INFORMED JUDGMENT BY THE FEDERAL COURT AND SHOULD
HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY AND DISPATCH WHICH CHARACTERIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS.  P. 584. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL. V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. ET AL. 

NO. 109.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 188, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI V.
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. ET AL.; NO. 209, MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS & WATER
DIVISION V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. ET AL.; AND NO. 212, ILLINOIS
COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. ET AL., ALSO
ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

PENDING REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION DIRECTING
A NATURAL GAS COMPANY TO REDUCE ITS INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES, THE
COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED A STAY ORDER UNDER WHICH A FUND REPRESENTING
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RATES CHARGED AND THE LOWER RATES ORDERED
ACCUMULATED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT.  THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
HAVING BEEN FINALLY SUSTAINED, 156 F.2D 949, 331 U.S. 682, THE COURT OF
APPEALS ORDERED DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND TO THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES
WHICH WERE THE IMMEDIATE PURCHASERS FROM THE NATURAL GAS COMPANY.  166
F.2D 796.  PETITIONERS HERE HAD INTERVENED IN OPPOSITION TO
DISTRIBUTION TO THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 808.  REVERSED, P. 584. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, HERE ON CERTIORARI, INVOLVES THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF A
FUND ACCUMULATED UNDER A STAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
PENDING REVIEW OF A RATE ORDER ISSUED BY PETITIONER.  THAT ORDER
REDUCED THE RATES FOR NATURAL GAS ON SALES BY INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS
CO. TO MISSISSIPPI RIVER FUEL CORP., SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CO., AND
UNITED GAS PIPE LINE CO. FOR RESALE TO MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO., AND ON
SALES BY INTERSTATE TO MEMPHIS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
ORDER, 156 F.2D 949, AND WE AFFIRMED ITS JUDGMENT, 331 U.S. 682. 

INTERSTATE DEPOSITED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT PENDING REVIEW THE
MONTHLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAYMENTS UNDER EXISTING RATES AND THOSE
REQUIRED UNDER THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  INTERSTATE HAS NOW MOVED
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR A DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND.  THE PIPE-LINE
COMPANIES - MISSISSIPPI, SOUTHERN, UNITED,  FN1  AND MEMPHIS - CLAIMED
THE FUND AND ASKED THAT IT BE DISTRIBUTED TO THEM.  PETITIONER AND
CERTAIN STATE AND MUNICIPAL AGENCIES ALSO INTERVENED, OPPOSING
DISTRIBUTION TO THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES AND CLAIMING THAT IT SHOULD BE
MADE TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS OF THE GAS OR TO SUCH OTHERS AS MAY BE
EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO IT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, RELYING ON CENTRAL
STATES CO. V. MUSCATINE, 324 U.S. 138, ORDERED THE FUND TO BE PAID TO
THOSE FROM WHOM INTERSTATE WRONGFULLY EXACTED THE PAYMENTS, VIZ., THE
PIPE-LINE COMPANIES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO SUCH RIGHTS AS OTHERS MAY
HAVE TO HOLD THOSE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED.  166
F.2D 796. 

FIRST.  HERE, UNLIKE CENTRAL STATES CO. V. MUSCATINE, SUPRA, THE
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES THAT SEEK RETURN OF THE FUND CREATED FROM THEIR
PAYMENTS OF THE EXCESSIVE RATES ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, SINCE THEY ARE NATURAL GAS COMPANIES ENGAGED
IN THE TRANSPORTATION OR SALE AT WHOLESALE OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498. 
THE CLAIMS OF THESE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES TO THE FUND ARE THEREFORE
DETERMINABLE SOLELY WITH REFERENCE TO FEDERAL LAW, SINCE THE NATURAL
GAS ACT, 52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717, IS DESIGNED TO REGULATE THE
SEGMENT OF THE INDUSTRY OCCUPIED BY SUCH DISTRIBUTORS.  SEE INTERSTATE
NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 331 U.S. 682, 689-690;
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 610. 
WE MAY NOT THEREFORE SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS UNLESS
IT IS CLEAR AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW THAT THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES ARE
ENTITLED TO THE FUND. 

THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM STATED IN THEIR PETITIONS FOR INTERVENTION IS
THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE FUND AS OF RIGHT, SINCE IT WAS CREATED BY
THEIR PAYMENTS.  BUT WE WOULD BE UNMINDFUL OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT
AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS UNDER IT, IF WE SO RULED. 
THE AIM OF THE ACT WAS TO PROTECT ULTIMATE CONSUMERS OF NATURAL GAS
FROM EXCESSIVE CHARGES.  SEE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL
GAS CO., SUPRA, AT 610, 612.  THEY WERE THE INTENDED BENEFICIARIES OF
RATE REDUCTIONS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL COMMISSION, THOUGH STATE
MACHINERY MIGHT HAVE TO BE INVOKED TO OBTAIN LOWER RATES AT THE
CONSUMER LEVEL.  THE RATES CHARGED A WHOLESALER ARE PART OF ITS COSTS,
REFLECTED IN ITS RATE BASE.  REDUCTION OF THOSE COSTS NORMALLY WILL
LEAD IN DUE COURSE TO REDUCTION IN ITS RESALE RATES, UNLESS WE ARE TO
ASSUME THAT THE PASSAGE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS AN EXERCISE IN
FUTILITY.  IT IS OF COURSE CONCEIVABLE THAT A WHOLESALER MIGHT BE
WARRANTED IN KEEPING ALL OR A PART OF THE RATE REDUCTION UNDER THE
STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT.  BUT A COURT WOULD
NOT BE WARRANTED IN ASSUMING THAT THE RATES WHICH HAVE BEEN CHARGED ARE
SO LOW AS TO BE UNREASONABLE.  NO SUCH PRESUMPTION ATTENDS RATES WHICH
HAVE BEEN FIXED PURSUANT TO RATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION.  NOR CAN WE
MAKE ANY SUCH PRESUMPTION AS RESPECTS RATES FIXED BY THE UTILITIES
THEMSELVES WITHOUT THE COMPULSION OF A RATE ORDER.  FOR EXPERIENCE DOES
NOT INDICATE THAT UTILITIES ARE WONT TO CHARGE THEMSELVES OUT OF
BUSINESS. 

THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES IN THEIR PETITIONS FOR INTERVENTION MAKE NO
CLAIM THAT THEIR RATES HAVE BEEN SO LOW THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THESE
REFUNDS AS A MATTER OF LAW.  WERE THAT ISSUE TENDERED, THE COURT WOULD
NEED TO RESOLVE IT AND COULD CALL UPON THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOR
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO IT.  MOREOVER, IF THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES
PASSED ON TO THEIR CUSTOMERS THE RATE REDUCTIONS FROM THE DATE OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER (AS MISSISSIPPI ALLEGES IT DID), THEY WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO A RETURN OF THE PAYMENTS THEY MADE INTO THE FUND.  THEY
WOULD THEN HAVE DONE ALL THAT WAS IN THEIR POWER TO EFFECTUATE THE
POLICY OF THE ACT IN THIS REGARD.  BUT APART FROM THOSE EXCEPTIONS, IT
IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO LOOK BEYOND THOSE COMPANIES FOR THE
RIGHTFUL CLAIMANTS OF THE FUND.  IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURT
WHICH DISTRIBUTES THE FUND ACCUMULATED UNDER ITS STAY ORDER "TO CORRECT
THAT WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY DONE BY VIRTUE OF ITS PROCESS."  UNITED
STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 197.  THAT RESPONSIBILITY PLAINLY
CANNOT BE DISCHARGED BY PAYMENT OF THE FUND TO THOSE WHO SHOW NO LOSS
BY REASON OF THE COURT'S ACTION. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE FEDERAL COURT COULD NOT BY-PASS THE PIPE-LINE
COMPANIES WITHOUT UNDERTAKING TO PASS ON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE
RATES WHICH THEY HAVE CHARGED - A MATTER BEYOND ITS COMPETENCE EXCEPT
ON REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION.  BUT IT IS NOT RATE-MAKING TO
DETERMINE THE EQUITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES TO THE
FUND.  THE FEDERAL COURT, THROUGH EXERCISE OF ITS POWER UNDER SEC. 19
OF THE ACT, ISSUED THE STAY ORDER UNDER WHICH THE FUND WAS
ACCUMULATED.  WHEN A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY GRANTS RELIEF BY WAY OF
INJUNCTION IT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT ALL THE INTERESTS WHOM
ITS INJUNCTION MAY AFFECT.  INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S.
153.  IT ASSUMES THE DUTY TO MAKE DISPOSITION OF THE FUND IN ACCORD
WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, SUPRA, AT 191.  IF
IN A PARTICULAR CASE THE COURT REACHES THE QUESTION OF REASONABLENESS
OF RATES, IT DOES SO ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF DISTRIBUTING THE FUND FOR
WHOSE CREATION IT ALONE WAS RESPONSIBLE.  IT DOES NOT FIX OR PRESCRIBE
RATES FOR THE PAST OR THE FUTURE.  THE REASONABLENESS OF RATES CHARGED
BY THE COMPANIES WHO CLAIM THE FUND IS WHOLLY ANCILLARY TO THE PROBLEM
OF DETERMINING WHAT CLAIMANTS ARE EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO SHARE IN IT.
SEE ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. FLORIDA, 295 U.S. 301; UNITED STATES
V. MORGAN, SUPRA. 

SECOND.  THE PROBLEM IS SOMEWHAT MORE COMPLICATED IF DISTRIBUTION OF
THE FUND IS TO BE MADE TO CLAIMANTS OTHER THAN THE PIPE-LINE
COMPANIES.  THE LATTER SELL GAS TO AT LEAST TWO TYPES OF CUSTOMERS -
INDUSTRIAL USERS OVER WHOSE RATES THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS NO
JURISDICTION N2 AND OVER WHICH STATE REGULATORY BODIES MAY OR MAY NOT,
DEPENDING ON LOCAL LAW; AND NUMEROUS DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES SELLING TO
CUSTOMERS IN EIGHT STATES.  IF THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES HAD PASSED THE
RATE REDUCTIONS ON TO THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES, THOSE REDUCTIONS MAY
OR MAY NOT HAVE REACHED THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS.  WE LIKEWISE DO NOT
KNOW WHETHER THE REDUCTIONS WOULD HAVE REACHED THE INDUSTRIAL USERS
EITHER BY TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS OR BY VIRTUE OF THE ASSERTION OF
REGULATORY AUTHORITY. 

IF IN THIS SITUATION LOCAL LAW PROVIDES A STANDARD FOR DETERMINING
WHICH OF TWO OR MORE CLAIMANTS WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS
OF THE RATE REDUCTION, THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD APPLY IT.  IF CLEAR AND
SPEEDY STATE REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE, THE FEDERAL COURT MIGHT HOLD THE
FUND UNTIL THOSE HAVING THE FINAL SAY ON THE STATE LAW QUESTIONS HAVE
SPOKEN.  CF. THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478, 483;
SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101.  BUT IN ABSENCE OF SUCH
A SHOWING THE FEDERAL COURT IN THE INTEREST OF DISPATCH SHOULD PROCEED
TO DETERMINE THE QUESTIONS, RELYING ON SUCH SOURCES OF LOCAL LAW AS MAY
BE AVAILABLE, INCLUDING INFORMATION FROM STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES. 
THE FEDERAL COURT MAY IN ITS DISCRETION DISBURSE THE FUNDS DIRECTLY TO
EITHER THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES OR THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS OR
WORK OUT AN ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEME WHEREBY THE DISTRIBUTION IS MADE
PURSUANT TO DIRECTIVES OF STATE AGENCIES. 

IN CONCLUSION, THE TASK OF THE FEDERAL COURT IN DISTRIBUTING THE FUND
ACCUMULATED BY VIRTUE OF ITS STAY ORDER IS TO UNDO THE WRONG WHICH ITS
PROCESS CAUSED.  THE BASIC PROBLEM, THEREFORE, IS NOT TO FIX RATES BUT
TO DETERMINE WHO SUFFERED A LOSS AS A RESULT OF THE COURT'S ACTION IN
GRANTING THE STAY.  WHAT IN FACT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED AS A CONSEQUENCE
OF FEDERAL OR STATE LAW IF THE STAY HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED, NO ONE CAN
KNOW FOR A CERTAINTY.  BUT THE FEDERAL COURT MUST MAKE ITS
PROGNOSTICATION, WHETHER AN EXCURSION INTO FEDERAL OR STATE LAW
QUESTIONS IS ENTAILED.  DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND SHOULD NOT INVOLVE
PROLONGED LITIGATION.  IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER INVOLVING THE
EXERCISE OF AN INFORMED JUDGMENT BY THE FEDERAL COURT AND SHOULD HAVE
THE FLEXIBILITY AND DISPATCH WHICH CHARACTERIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  UNITED CLAIMED AN ALLOCABLE SHARE ON BEHALF OF MEMPHIS TO WHICH
IT HAD RESOLD THE GAS WHICH IT HAD PURCHASED FROM INTERSTATE. 

FN2  SEC. 1(B). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

WHILE AGREEING IN SUBSTANCE WITH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' OPINION,
BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT OF VIEWS TO WHICH THE CASE HAS GIVEN RISE I
DEEM IT DESIRABLE TO SPELL OUT WITH PARTICULARITY WHAT I REGARD AS THE
CONTROLLING CONSIDERATIONS. 

1.  THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNS THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF A FUND
IMPOUNDED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS BY VIRTUE OF THE COURT'S SUSPENSION
OF A RATE REDUCTION ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  INTERSTATE
PAID INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT THE SUMS COLLECTED BY IT IN EXCESS
OF THE RATES FIXED BY THE COMMISSION.  AFTER THE ORDER WAS FINALLY
SUSTAINED INTERSTATE MOVED THE COURT FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND TO
THE THREE COMPANIES WHICH, AS CUSTOMERS OF INTERSTATE, PAID THE
UNLAWFULLY EXACTED AMOUNTS.  THE MOTION WAS SUPPORTED BY THE THREE
PURCHASERS FROM INTERSTATE; IT WAS RESISTED BY THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION WHICH ASKED THAT DISTRIBUTION BE MADE TO THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS; IT WAS ALSO RESISTED BY THE CITY OF JACKSON AND BY THE
REGULATORY COMMISSIONS OF ILLINOIS AND MISSOURI, WHICH LIKEWISE URGED
THAT DISTRIBUTION BE MADE TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES.  ONE OF INTERSTATE'S PURCHASERS, UNITED GAS
PIPE LINE COMPANY, ALTHOUGH INTERVENING AS A CLAIMANT, ADVISED THE
COURT THAT IT WOULD PASS ON ITS SHARE OF THE REFUND TO THE MEMPHIS
NATURAL GAS COMPANY, TO WHICH UNITED HAD RESOLD THE GAS PURCHASED FROM
INTERSTATE. 

2.  THE COURT BELOW THUS HAD BEFORE IT CLAIMS UPON THE FUND BY TWO
IMMEDIATE PURCHASERS FROM INTERSTATE, WHICH ASSERTED THEIR RIGHT TO THE
AMOUNTS PAID INTO THE FUND BY THEM, BY A THIRD PURCHASER FROM
INTERSTATE WHICH MADE CLAIM UPON THE FUND BUT MERELY AS A CONDUIT FOR
ITS PASSAGE TO A SUBPURCHASER, AND BY PUBLIC AGENCIES - NATIONAL, STATE
AND MUNICIPAL - WHICH URGED THAT THE ENTIRE FUND BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS. 

THE RESPONDENTS - INTERSTATE AND THE THREE IMMEDIATE PURCHASERS FROM
IT - BASICALLY RELY ON SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. DARNELL-TAENZER LUMBER
CO., 245 U.S. 531, IN URGING THAT THE FUND SHOULD GO TO THE IMMEDIATE
DEPOSITORS FROM WHOM IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY EXACTED. 
THEY DEEM THAT CASE TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF OUR DECISION IN CENTRAL
STATES ELECTRIC CO. V. CITY OF MUSCATINE, 324 U.S. 138.  THE GOVERNMENT
ON THE OTHER HAND ASKS THAT THE MUSCATINE CASE BE OVERRULED AND THAT
THE FUND SHOULD GO TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS. 

IN THE MUSCATINE CASE THIS COURT REJECTED THE NOTION THAT AS BETWEEN
A UTILITY LIKE INTERSTATE AND ITS IMMEDIATE PURCHASERS A RATE REDUCTION
MAKES THE DISTRIBUTORS MERE CONDUITS OF THE REDUCTION FOR THE EXCLUSIVE
BENEFIT OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS.  IN SHORT, THE RATIONALE OF THE
MUSCATINE CASE IS THAT THAT WHICH IS IN FACT NOT TRUE IN THE PROCESS OF
RATE-FIXING OUGHT NOT TO BE ERECTED INTO A PRINCIPLE OF LAW MERELY
BECAUSE THE EFFECT OF A RATE REDUCTION IS POSTPONED THROUGH AN EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AFFORDED BY THE CONGRESS.    3.  IT
WOULD, THEREFORE, APPEAR TO BE CLEAR THAT THE JUDICIAL DUTY IS TO DEAL
FAIRLY WITH A TRUST FUND HELD TO AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
TO THE END THAT IT MAY BE DISTRIBUTED ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WOULD HAVE
TAKEN PLACE HAD THE POWER COMMISSION'S ORDER GONE INTO EFFECT AT ONCE. 
THE TASK, THEN, FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS IS TO RECONSTRUCT, AS FAR AS
IT CAN POSSIBLY BE DONE, WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD NO FUND ACCRUED. 
REASONS OF EQUITY PRODUCED THE FUND; EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS MUST
DETERMINE ITS DISTRIBUTION.  THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE IS THAT OF UNJUST
ENRICHMENT.  SINCE THE TASK OF THE COURT IS TO PLACE THE PARTIES IN THE
POSITION IN WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THERE NOT BEEN A
POSTPONEMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RATE REDUCTION, IT IS NOW THE
DUTY OF THE COURT TO MAKE THAT RETROSPECTIVE DETERMINATION NOT BY
UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTIONS ERECTED INTO RIGID LEGAL RULES, BUT BY AN
ASCERTAINMENT OF WHAT ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE HAPPENED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY
HAD PURCHASERS FROM INTERSTATE OBTAINED THEIR GAS AT THE LOWER RATE. 

4.  A UTILITY IS ENTITLED TO CHARGE A REASONABLE RATE.  IT WOULD BE
DEALING WITH A FICTION AND NOT A FACT TO HOLD AS A MATTER OF LAW EITHER
THAT THE IMMEDIATE PURCHASERS FROM INTERSTATE SHOULD KEEP THE BENEFIT
OF THE REDUCED RATE OR THAT IT SHOULD ALL GO TO THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS.  WHETHER THE THREE PURCHASERS OR THE INTERVENING
DISTRIBUTORS ARE ENTITLED TO ANY PART OF THE REDUCTION DEPENDS ON THE
ASCERTAINABLE CONDITION OF THE THREE PURCHASERS FROM INTERSTATE AND THE
INTERMEDIATE PURCHASERS FROM THEM.  A MERELY COMPENSATORY RATE BELOW
WHICH NO RATE MAY BE FIXED BY A REGULATORY COMMISSION MAY NOT BE A
REASONABLE RATE.  SEE BRANDEIS, J., IN SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO.
V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 262 U.S. 276, 296.  FOR VARIOUS REASONS A
UTILITY MAY CHARGE, AS IS WELL KNOWN, LESS THAN WHAT AS A MATTER OF LAW
IT COULD BE COMPELLED TO CHARGE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MAY CHARGE THE
MAXIMUM OF WHAT IS REASONABLE. 

TO DISTRIBUTE THE ENTIRE FUND AMONG THE IMMEDIATE PURCHASERS FROM
INTERSTATE MAY GIVE THEM A COMPLETE WINDFALL, SINCE THEY MIGHT HAVE
BEEN COMPELLED, UNDER THEIR DUTY TO CHARGE ONLY A REASONABLE RATE, TO
REDUCE THEIR RATES SO AS TO KEEP NONE OF THE INTERSTATE REDUCTIONS. 
SINCE ALL THESE PURCHASERS ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE POWER
COMMISSION, THE POWER COMMISSION COULD HAVE ORDERED SUCH RATE
REDUCTIONS IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  ON THE OTHER HAND, TO TAKE IT ALL AWAY
FROM THEM NOW MIGHT WORK AN INJUSTICE BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN
ALLOWED TO KEEP AT LEAST PART OF THE REDUCTION.  AS TO THE INTERMEDIATE
PURCHASERS THAT WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, THE
ALLOWABLE RETENTION OF ANY PART OF A REDUCED RATE FROM A DISTRIBUTOR
WOULD HAVE TURNED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY ON STATE LAW.  TO DENY BOTH THESE
CLASSES OF THE INTERMEDIATE PURCHASERS THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH JUST
CLAIM AGAINST THE FUND AND TO DISTRIBUTE IT ALL AMONG THE CONSUMERS,
MOREOVER, WOULD INEVITABLY LEAVE A SIZABLE UNCLAIMED AMOUNT, AND THIS,
OF COURSE, WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE DEPOSITORS AS THE RESIDUARY CLAIMANT
- IT WOULD HAVE TO GO, THAT IS, TO INTERSTATE, THE ONE PARTY LEAST
ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE FUND. 

THESE ARBITRARY ALTERNATIVES - TO DISTRIBUTE THE WHOLE FUND TO THE
IMMEDIATE PURCHASERS FROM INTERSTATE OR TO DISTRIBUTE IT ALL TO THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS - HAVE AT LEAST THE SUPPORT OF LOGIC THOUGH NOT OF
JUSTICE.  A SUGGESTED COMPROMISE - TO GO BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE
PURCHASERS AND AT THE SAME TIME STOP SHORT WITH THOSE PURCHASERS OVER
WHOM THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY - IS SAID TO BE
JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT A FEDERAL COURT CANNOT ENGAGE IN RATE
REGULATION.  THIS SUGGESTION HAS THE SUPPORT NEITHER OF LOGIC NOR OF
JUSTICE.  IF A FEDERAL COURT IS BARRED FROM INQUIRING, BECAUSE SUCH AN
INQUIRY AMOUNTS IN EFFECT TO RATE REGULATION, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE
CONSEQUENCES TO ALL THOSE AFFECTED HAD THE REDUCTION OF INTERSTATE'S
RATE GONE INTO IMMEDIATE EFFECT, RATES ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION SHOULD BE NO MORE OPEN TO SUCH AN INQUIRY THAN ARE
THOSE BEYOND THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION.  AND IF IT WOULD BE UNJUST TO
LET AN IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTEE WHICH HAD PASSED ON THE HIGHER RATE TO ITS
PURCHASERS RETAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE REDUCTION, IT WOULD BE EQUALLY
UNJUST TO LET ANY SUCCEEDING DISTRIBUTEE WHICH HAD DONE THE SAME THING
ENJOY THE BENEFIT MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS THE LAST DISTRIBUTEE SUBJECT TO
THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. 

AT ALL EVENTS, IN PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT A COURT OF EQUITY IS
NOT EXERCISING THE FUNCTIONS OF RATE-MAKING; IT IS NEITHER AWARDING
REPARATIONS FOR THE PAST NOR FIXING A FUTURE SCHEDULE AS DOES A RATE
REGULATING BODY.  GRANTING THAT A FEDERAL COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER
TO REGULATE RATES, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IN DISCHARGING THE DUTY TO
DISTRIBUTE A FUND OF ITS OWN CREATION IT IS BARRED FROM AN INQUIRY
WHICH HAS SOME ASPECTS - THOUGH I BELIEVE VERY MINOR ONES - THAT WOULD
ALSO APPEAR IN A RATE PROCEEDING.  IN SHORT, ISSUES THAT MAY BE
PERTINENT TO A RATE INVESTIGATION BEFORE A REGULATORY COMMISSION ARE
NOT THEREFORE BEYOND THE POWER OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY WHEN THEY ARISE IN A
TOTALLY DIFFERENT RELATION. 

5.  ACCORDINGLY, THE TASK FOR THE COURT BELOW IS TO DETERMINE IN 1949
HOW THE INTERSTATE RATE REDUCTION WOULD HAVE AFFECTED ALL THE
INTERMEDIATE DISTRIBUTORS IN '43 AND '44 HAD IT NOT BEEN SUSPENDED BY
THE COURT'S INJUNCTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS INHERENT POWERS TO
BRING TO ITS AID ALL EFFECTIVE MEANS TO DISCHARGE THIS TASK.  THIS
COURT, IN EX PARTE PETERSON, 253 U.S. 300, SHOWED THE RESOURCES
AVAILABLE TO OUR DISTRICT COURTS EVEN IN AN ACTION AT LAW WHEN DUE
REGARD MUST BE HAD FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT.  THE
MORE CLEARLY AVAILABLE ARE PROCEDURES FOR DOING JUSTICE WHERE A COURT
OF EQUITY IS CALLED UPON TO DISTRIBUTE A TRUST FUND OF ITS OWN
CREATION. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD ASK THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOR AN ADVISORY REPORT AS TO WHAT THE
COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE DETERMINED HAD IT IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR
THE REDUCTION OF THE RATES OF INTERSTATE EXERCISED ITS POWER TO BRING
IN ALL THE PARTIES.  THERE IS NOTHING NOVEL IN THIS.  DISTRICT COURTS
MAY CALL UPON THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO HELP SHAPE DECREES IN
SHERMAN LAW CASES.  TO BE SURE, THE CLAYTON ACT EXPLICITLY SO
PROVIDES.  BUT A COURT OF EQUITY HAS INHERENT POWERS TO INVITE SUCH
HELP FROM A GREAT AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT.  WHILE THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION COULD, IF IT CHOSE, DECLINE TO RENDER THAT HELP, IT IS
INCONCEIVABLE THAT IT WOULD DO SO.  AS TO THE INTERMEDIATE PURCHASERS,
SUBJECT NOT TO THE POWER COMMISSION BUT TO STATE OR CITY REGULATION,
THE LOCAL AGENCIES COULD BE SIMILARLY RESORTED TO FOR AID IN THE
ULTIMATE PROBLEM BEFORE THE LOWER COURT OF DISTRIBUTING A COMMINGLED
FUND AS TO WHICH NONE OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES CAN FAIRLY BE SAID, AS
A MATTER OF LAW, TO HAVE AN OBVIOUS, DEMONSTRATED CLAIM. 

VARIOUS OBSTACLES ARE CONCEIVED TO STAND IN THE WAY OF THE LOWER
COURT'S FULFILLMENT OF THIS TASK.  BUT IT IS, TO SAY THE LEAST,
PREMATURE TO CONJURE UP ABSTRACT DIFFICULTIES WHICH, AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, MAY EVAPORATE IN THE LIGHT OF THE INFORMED ADVICE WHICH THESE
VARIOUS REGULATORY AGENCIES MAY BE ABLE TO FURNISH READILY ON THE BASIS
OF THEIR AVAILABLE RECORDS OF THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE UTILITIES
SUBJECT TO THEM.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO DISTRIBUTE THE FUND BY SOME
MAKESHIFT RULE OF THUMB IF WHAT IS CONCEDEDLY A RULE OF INTRINSIC
FAIRNESS SHOULD BE FOUND JUDICIALLY UNENFORCEABLE.  ACCORDINGLY, I
WOULD REMAND THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS TO TAKE STEPS CONSISTENT
WITH THE FOREGOING VIEWS. 

BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND I VIEW THIS CASE IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT THAN DO
ANY OF OUR BRETHREN BUT WE HAVE JOINED IN THE JUDGMENT AND THE OPINION
OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS BECAUSE WE DEEM IT IMPORTANT THAT INSTRUCTIONS
TO THE COURT BELOW CARRY THE CONCURRENCE OF A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT. 
WE AGREE WITH MUCH BUT NOT ALL OF THAT OPINION AND WHERE OUR VIEWS
DIFFER WE ARE CLOSER TO THAT OPINION THAN TO OTHER VIEWS EXPRESSED
HERE.  WE REPEAT OUR CONCURRENCE SO THAT THERE MAY BE NO
MISUNDERSTANDING BUT WISH ALSO TO EXPRESS FOR THE RECORD OUR INDIVIDUAL
VIEWS. 

THE WAY THIS CASE APPEARS TO US IS THIS: 

1.  THE THREE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES WHOSE EXCESSIVE PAYMENTS MADE UP
THIS FUND MAY NOT, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE IMPOUNDING ORDER, HAVE AN
ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO RECOVER IT.  HOWEVER, SINCE THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE
MONEY WAS ILLEGALLY EXACTED FROM THEM, IT WOULD SEEM TO MAKE AT LEAST A
PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RETURNING IT TO THEIR POSSESSION.  THE MINIMUM TO
WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED IS A CHANCE TO BE HEARD AS TO WHATEVER CLAIM
THEY MAY HAVE TO IT.  AS THESE COMPANIES ARE SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL
NATURAL GAS ACT, A FEDERAL COURT MIGHT PROPERLY WEIGH THEIR CLAIMS
UNDER FEDERAL LAW. 

2.  ASSUMING, HOWEVER, WHAT IS NOT IMPROBABLE, THAT NONE OF THE PIPE
LINE COMPANIES ESTABLISHES A CLAIM TO THE FUND, THE NEXT IN RIGHT TO
RECEIVE IT WOULD BE THEIR CUSTOMERS, THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES. 
THE LATTER ARE UNDER PROTECTION OF FEDERAL LAW AS TO THE RATES WHICH
MAY BE EXACTED FROM THEM BY THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES BUT ARE IN NO
RESPECT UNDER FEDERAL LAW AS TO THE RATES THEY MAY CHARGE CUSTOMERS. 
IF ALL OF THE FEDERAL POWER EXERTED IN THE NATURAL GAS ACT HAD BEEN
EXERCISED BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, IT COULD NOT REACH OR
CONTROL THEIR CUSTOMER RELATIONS.  WE DO NOT SEE, THEREFORE, HOW A
FEDERAL COURT IN THIS LITIGATION CAN DERIVE FROM THE ACT ANY GREATER
POWER TO ENTER THE LOCAL FIELD WITH REFUNDS THAN THE POWER COMMISSION
HAD TO ENTER IT FOR RATE-MAKING.  THERE ARE MANY LEGAL AND PRACTICAL
REASONS WHY THE COURT'S FUNCTION SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDED BEYOND THE
POINT WHERE CONGRESS ENDED THE FUNCTIONS OF THE POWER COMMISSION. 

3.  THE MANNER AND AMOUNT BY WHICH ANY REPAYMENTS TO DISTRIBUTING
COMPANIES WOULD BE REFLECTED IN REDUCED RATES TO CONSUMERS, AND
THEREFORE IN REBATES, IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR STATE LAW.  TWENTY-ONE OF
THESE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES ARE INVOLVED AND THEY OPERATE IN EIGHT
STATES, EACH WITH ITS OWN PRINCIPLES TO GOVERN LOCAL RATE-MAKING AND
SEPARATE AUTHORITIES TO APPLY THEM.  WE SOLVE NO PROBLEM BY SAYING THAT
COMPUTATION OF THIS REFUND IS NOT RATE-MAKING.  OF COURSE IT IS NOT,
BUT IT IS SO LIKE UNTO IT THAT NO ONE SUGGESTS THAT ANY BODY OF LAW
EXCEPT THAT OF RATE-MAKING IS APPLICABLE.  DISGUISE IT WITH WHAT
SOPHISTRY WE WILL, THE DISPOSITION OF REFUNDS AS BETWEEN OPERATING
COMPANIES AND CUSTOMERS MUST BE GENERALLY BASED ON THE LOCAL LAW OF
RATE-MAKING OR ON NO LAW AT ALL.  SOME OF THESE COMPANIES AND THEIR
CUSTOMERS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT; OTHERS ARE IN THE SIXTH, SEVENTH AND
EIGHTH CIRCUITS.  I KNOW OF NO LEGAL OR PRACTICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR
REQUIRING THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO UNDERTAKE
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER OF THE LAWS OF
EIGHT STATES, SEVERAL OF THEM BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION. 

4.  THE APPLICATION OF THESE FUNDS, IF THEY ARE HELD TO GO TO THE
LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES, PRESENT DIFFICULT QUESTIONS OF POLICY
WHICH IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES TO RESOLVE IN THEIR OWN
WAYS.  THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE TO RESOLVE THEM, EVEN IF
THEY WERE LESS COMPLEX.  THESE PROBLEMS ARE NOT SOLVED OR EVADED BY
SAYING THAT REFUNDS SHALL GO TO CONSUMERS RATHER THAN TO THE
COMPANIES.  IT OVERSIMPLIFIES THESE PROBLEMS TO TREAT CONSUMERS IN THE
ABSTRACT AS A CLASS ALL ALIKE.  AND IT DOES NOT DISPOSE OF THE PROBLEMS
TO DECLARE THAT REFUNDS SHOULD BE ON "EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES" AS IF THERE
WERE A DEFINED AND ACCEPTED BODY OF PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY ON THIS
SUBJECT.  EQUITY IN THE HISTORICAL SENSE - EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE - HAS
NO GUIDANCE TO GIVE BEYOND MAXIMS, SUCH, FOR EXAMPLE, AS "EQUALITY IS
EQUITY."  BUT HERE, WHAT IS EQUALITY?  OF COURSE, WHAT NO DOUBT IS
MEANT IS THAT THE COURT SHOULD APPLY A SORT OF NATURAL JUSTICE BASED ON
POPULAR NOTIONS OF RIGHT DEALING.  BUT THIS DOES NOT ANSWER SOME OF THE
CONCRETE QUESTIONS WHICH SOMEONE MUST FACE IN FINAL DISPOSITION OF
THESE FUNDS.  I SHALL MENTION BUT FEW. 

AT THE VERY OUTSET ONE IS FACED WITH THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT IS AN
"EQUITABLE" BASIS OF REFUND AS BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND DOMESTIC
CONSUMERS.  DIRECT SALES TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS BY THE THREE PIPE-LINE
COMPANIES AMOUNTED TO 63% OF THE TOTAL FOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER FUEL
COMPANY, 18% IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, AND 11% FOR
UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY.  IN ADDITION TO THIS, OTHER INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMERS MAY BE SERVED BY LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES.  THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION PROPOSAL, WHICH THIS COURT SEEMS TO THINK SHOULD
PREVAIL, IS THAT REFUNDS BOTH TO INDUSTRIAL AND DOMESTIC CONSUMERS BE
CALCULATED BY DIVIDING THE MONEY IN PROPORTION TO FEET OF GAS SOLD TO
EACH ONE.  ON THIS BASIS, THE POWER COMMISSION'S EXHIBIT PROPOSES A
REFUND TO DIRECT INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS ALONE OF OVER A MILLION DOLLARS
FROM THIS FUND.  THE COMMISSION DOES NOT TELL US THE PRICES PAID BY
VARIOUS CLASSES OF CONSUMERS.  BUT IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT, FOR A
VARIETY OF REASONS, INDUSTRIES GET A MUCH LOWER PRICE PER M.C.F. THAN
DOMESTIC USERS.  IF WE ASSUME IT IS 50%, THEN THE REFUND WOULD REPAY
INDUSTRIALS TWICE AS LARGE A PROPORTION OF WHAT THEY HAVE PAID FOR GAS
PER M.C.F. AS IT WOULD HOUSEHOLD USERS.  IS THIS "EQUITY"?  IN MY
DISSENT IN FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S.
591, I POINTED OUT THE UNECONOMIC USE OF GAS IN INDUSTRY AND THE WASTE
AND EXHAUSTION OF IRREPLACEABLE NATURAL RESOURCES THAT IT CAUSES, AND
THE GREAT DIFFERENTIAL THAT EXISTS BETWEEN THEIR LOW CONTRACT PRICE AND
THE PRICE PAID BY DOMESTIC USERS.  I HAVE GREAT DOUBT WHETHER THE
INDUSTRIAL USERS HAVE ANY JUST BASIS FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS REFUND;
BUT IF THEY COULD, AND THEY CERTAINLY ARE ENTITLED TO TRY, THEIR SHARE
SHOULD NOT BE GREATER THAN THEIR PROPORTION OF THE REVENUES
CONTRIBUTED, RATHER THAN OF THEIR PROPORTION OF THE CONSUMPTION.  THE
LATTER MEASURES ONLY THE BENEFITS THEY ALREADY HAVE DERIVED FROM
EXHAUSTING THE NATION'S SUPPLIES, NOT AT ALL WHAT THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED
TO THE FUND.  THIS COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER THESE EQUITIES, AS DID
ALSO THE POWER COMMISSION, IN THE HOPE CASE.  WHY NOT THEN LEAVE THE
STATES FREE TO SOLVE THE ISSUE?  SOME OF THE STATES MAY HAVE AN
INTELLIGENT POLICY WITH REFERENCE TO THE RAPID DEPLETION OF OUR GAS
RESERVES, VIS-A-VIS DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION, AND THE
RELATION OF PRICE TO UNECONOMIC USES.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
NONE. 

THE POWER COMMISSION HAS FURNISHED A TABULATION SHOWING THE SHARE OF
EACH LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY UNDER ITS THEORY.  BUT IT HAS NOT
PROVIDED ANY OF THE DATA WHICH WOULD DISCLOSE THE MAGNITUDE AND
COMPLEXITY OF THE TASK IT IS ASKING US TO VISIT UPON THE COURT OF
APPEALS BY DIRECTING IT TO GO BEYOND THIS AND DISTRIBUTE EACH COMPANY'S
SHARE AMONG ITS CONSUMERS.  BY REFERENCE TO MOODY'S MANUAL, HOWEVER, WE
CAN LEARN THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS SERVED BY EACH COMPANY. 
THEN BY APPLYING THE POWER COMMISSION'S TABULATION OF THE SHARE OF
REFUNDS, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT REFUNDS FOR SOME COMPANIES WOULD BE SO
TRIVIAL THAT A STATE SUPERVISING AUTHORITY MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT TO COVER
THIS REFUND INTO THE CURRENT REVENUES OF THE OPERATING COMPANY FOR
WHATEVER EFFECT IT MIGHT HAVE ON ITS PRESENT OR FUTURE RATES WOULD BE A
MORE SENSIBLE PROCEDURE THAN TO SPEND IT IN EXPENSE OF SPECIAL
PROCEEDINGS TO REFUND TO CONSUMERS.  FOR INSTANCE, ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA
GAS CO. SERVES 142,481 CUSTOMERS IN 109 COMMUNITIES.  THE POWER
COMMISSION ALLOCATES IT $20,911, OR AN AVERAGE 15[ PER CONSUMER.  THE
ILLINOIS POWER SERVES 116,000 CUSTOMERS IN 56 COMMUNITIES AND IS
ALLOCATED $50,065, OR ABOUT 43[ PER CONSUMER.  BIRMINGHAM GAS SERVES
61,000 CONSUMERS IN 9 COMMUNITIES AND IS ALLOCATED $30,133, MAKING AN
AVERAGE REFUND OF ABOUT 49[. 

THE FOREGOING ESTIMATE OF CONSUMER REFUNDS ASSUMES AN EQUAL AMOUNT TO
EACH CONSUMER.  ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE BASIS, AND I SHOULD THINK, A FAIRER
ONE WHERE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS WERE INVOLVED, WOULD BE A REFUND IN RATIO
TO THE BILLS PAID FOR GAS.  THE POWER COMMISSION, HOWEVER, IF
CONSISTENT, WOULD USE ANOTHER METHOD AND REFUND IN PROPORTION TO THE
FEET OF GAS PURCHASED BY THE CONSUMER.  DIFFERENT LOCAL CONDITIONS
PRECIPITATE SOME NICE QUESTIONS IN APPLYING ANY FAIR METHOD AS BETWEEN
CONSUMERS.  FROM MOODY'S MANUAL, FOR EXAMPLE, WE LEARN THAT ONE OF THE
LARGEST OF THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES, THE ATLANTA GASLIGHT CO., WHICH
SERVES APPROXIMATELY 133,000 CONSUMERS IN 28 COMMUNITIES, HAS A
GRADUATED SCALE OF RATES, SO THAT CONSUMERS PAY DIFFERENT RATES FOR GAS
CONSUMED IN DIFFERENT QUANTITY BRACKETS.  I SHOULD THINK THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF ITS SCHEDULE WOULD BE THAT A VERY LARGE CONSUMER WOULD MAKE
AN AVERAGE PAYMENT MUCH LESS PER THOUSAND FEET THAN WOULD A MODERATE
HOUSEHOLD CONSUMER.  EQUALITY OF REFUND MAY NOT BE EQUALITY OF
TREATMENT.  IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN EQUALITARIAN GENERALITIES TO GET
THIS CASH INTO CONSUMERS' HANDS.  IS NOT THE MANNER OF REFUND UNDER
SUCH LOCAL CONDITIONS ONE TO BE WORKED OUT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES RATHER
THAN THE FEDERAL COURT OF A DISTANT CIRCUIT? 

THE PROBLEMS DO NOT END HERE.  CONSUMERS DURING WHAT PERIOD ARE
ENTITLED TO REFUND?  CERTAINLY THE RATE REDUCTION WHICH CAUSED THIS
FUND TO ACCUMULATE COULD NOT IN NORMAL COURSE HAVE REACHED LOCAL RETAIL
CONSUMERS UNTIL SOMETIME AFTER REDUCTION IN WHOLESALE RATES, AND THE
PERIOD WOULD DIFFER ACCORDING TO LOCAL CONDITIONS.  THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
ARE ENTITLED TO REFUND, FOR WHATEVER PERIOD MAY BE ADOPTED, MUST BE
IDENTIFIED AND QUESTIONS SETTLED AS WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE REFUND OF A
DECEASED CONSUMER, WHAT BECOMES OF THE SHARE OF ONE WHO HAS REMOVED OR
IS UNKNOWN.  DISPUTES BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT, HUSBAND AND WIFE,
AND MANY OTHER QUESTIONS WILL ARISE; ALL OF WHICH ARE FOR LOCAL
AUTHORITIES. 

FOR THESE REASONS IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL
COURT END WHEN IT HAS GRANTED THESE REFUNDS TO THE LAST PURCHASER WHOSE
PURCHASE PRICE THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY CAN LAWFULLY REDUCE.  THIS WOULD
BE THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES.  FROM THERE ON IT IS A LOCAL PROBLEM
WITH WHICH NEITHER THE POWER COMMISSION NOR THE COURT HAS ANY
LEGITIMATE CONCERN.  THE MACHINERY OF SOME OF THE STATES MAY BE
SOMEWHAT INADEQUATE FOR DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM, BUT THAT DOES NOT, IN
OUR VIEW, WARRANT USURPATION OF THEIR FUNCTIONS. 

HOWEVER, FOR REASONS STATED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS OPINION, MR.
JUSTICE BURTON AND I HAVE JOINED THE JUDGMENT AND OPINION OF THE
COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. 

I CONCUR IN REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, BUT
DISSENT FROM THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN THAT COURT FOR DISPOSITION OF THE
IMPOUNDED FUNDS.  IN THE FIRST PLACE I THINK THOSE DIRECTIONS REST ON
ERRONEOUS LEGAL PRINCIPLES.  SECONDLY, WITHOUT PRECISE DEFINITION OF
ISSUES OR STANDARDS, THE DIRECTIONS IMPOSE AN ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TASK ON
THE COURT OF APPEALS, A TASK WHICH IS BOUND TO DISSIPATE A LARGE PART
OF THE FUNDS IN DIVERSE, PROTRACTED, INVOLVED AND CONFUSED LITIGATION. 
FURTHERMORE, I SEE LITTLE ASSURANCE THAT THE FUND'S REMNANT AT THE END
OF THIS LITIGATION COULD EVER REACH THE CONSUMERS WHO ARE IN MY
JUDGMENT THE EQUITABLE AND LEGAL BENEFICIARIES OF THE FUNDS. 

ACTING PURSUANT TO THE NATURAL GAS ACT,  FN1  THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION ORDERED THE INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS COMPANY TO REDUCE ITS
RATES TO CERTAIN WHOLESALE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES.  CHALLENGING THIS ORDER
AS ILLEGAL, THE WHOLESALE COMPANIES SOUGHT AND OBTAINED FROM A DISTRICT
COURT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE RATE REDUCTION ORDER. 
BY REASON OF THE INJUNCTION THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES WERE COMPELLED TO
CONTINUE TO PAY THE HIGHER GAS RATES.  BUT THE COURT REQUIRED THE
NATURAL GAS COMPANY TO MAKE MONTHLY PAYMENT INTO COURT OF AMOUNTS EQUAL
TO THE RATE REDUCTION.  FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS THESE FUNDS HAVE BEEN
COLLECTED AND PAID INTO COURT.  WHEN THIS CASE WAS SUBMITTED THE TOTAL
AMOUNT COLLECTED WAS IN EXCESS OF TWO AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS.  THE
RATE REDUCTION ORDER WAS SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT  FN2  AND CONSEQUENTLY
INTERSTATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO AND ASSERTS NO CLAIM TO THE FUND.  THE
WHOLESALE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES CLAIM IT ON THE GROUND THAT BUT FOR THE
INJUNCTION THEY WOULD HAVE OBTAINED THE GAS AT THE LOWER RATE.  FN3 THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AND CERTAIN STATE AGENCIES HERE CONTEND THAT
SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS TO PROVIDE BENEFITS TO THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS THE TOTAL IMPOUNDED FUNDS SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO
THE CONSUMERS. 

FIRST.  I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THE AIM OF THE FEDERAL ACT WAS TO
PROTECT ULTIMATE CONSUMERS OF GAS FROM EXCESSIVE CHARGES.  TO PROTECT
THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER, HOWEVER, THE ACT WENT NO FURTHER THAN TO FIX THE
INTERSTATE RATES OF PRODUCERS AND WHOLESALERS.  CONGRESS INTENDED THAT
THESE FEDERAL RATE REDUCTIONS WOULD LOWER THE COSTS OF GAS TO LOCAL
RETAILERS THUS ENABLING STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES TO FIX LOWER CONSUMER
RATES ON THE FEDERALLY FIXED LOWER WHOLESALE RATES.  CONSEQUENTLY,
WHERE COURTS LEAVE THE ACT'S SCHEME FREE TO FUNCTION, ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS OF GAS GET NO BENEFITS FROM THE FEDERALLY REDUCED PRODUCER
RATES UNTIL AND UNLESS STATE OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES FIX REDUCED RATES FOR
COMPANIES WHOSE SALES FALL WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS. 
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES RATE RELATIONSHIPS AND COST CONSEQUENCES AS
BETWEEN CONSUMERS AND DEALERS UNDER STATE JURISDICTION WOULD RAISE
QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW ONLY.  BUT HERE, THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE
VALID FEDERAL RATE REDUCTION WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE PLACE.  THE
INJUNCTION PLACED AN INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO STATE REDUCTION OF
WHOLESALE OR RETAIL RATES ON THE BASIS OF THE FEDERAL RATE REDUCTION
ORDER.  THUS THE COURT'S STAY BLOCKED THE CONGRESSIONAL MECHANISM
INTENDED TO PRODUCE LOWER CONSUMER RATES.  CENTRAL STATES CO. V.
MUSCATINE, 324 U.S. 138, 149(DISSENTING OPINION).  FURTHERMORE, NO
PRACTICAL REMEDY IS AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS OR STATE OR FEDERAL
REGULATORY AGENCIES TO DETERMINE RETROACTIVELY WHAT IS A PROPER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS.  THE JUDICIAL STAY THEREFORE
EFFECTUALLY FRUSTRATED THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO PROVIDE A TIMELY
OPPORTUNITY FOR STATE OR NATIONAL REGULATORY AGENCIES TO ACCORD
CONSUMERS THE ACT'S BENEFITS.  CONSEQUENTLY, RIGHTS IN THE FUND AS
BETWEEN ULTIMATE CONSUMERS AND THE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES MUST BE
DETERMINED UNDER THE NEW SITUATION CREATED BY THE FEDERAL COURT. 

SECOND.  DIFFERING FROM THE COURT, I THINK THAT DISTRIBUTION OF THE
FUND IN THIS NEW SITUATION IS WHOLLY A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW AND THAT
THE FUND SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT A FUTILE EFFORT TO DETERMINE THE
EXTENT CONSUMER RATES MIGHT HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY STATE OR NATIONAL
REGULATORY AGENCIES HAD THEY BEEN LEFT FREE TO ACT ON THE REDUCED RATE
COST OF GAS.  IT WAS A FEDERAL COURT ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL
LAW THAT CREATED THE FUND.  AND HAVING DEPRIVED CONSUMERS OF AN
OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE REDUCED RATES CONGRESS INTENDED THEM TO HAVE AS
THE RESULT OF AN INTEGRATED FEDERAL-STATE COURSE OF CONDUCT, IT BECAME
THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COURT TO ADMINISTER THIS FUND UNDER FEDERAL
RULES THAT WOULD AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE AFFORD THESE CONGRESSIONALLY
INTENDED BENEFITS TO CONSUMERS.  NOTHING SHORT OF THIS WILL ACCORD WITH
THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE OR WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THE
COURT MUST BE GOVERNED IN ADMINISTERING THE FUND.  INLAND STEEL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153; UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183. 

ALL GAS THE WHOLESALE PRICE OF WHICH WAS AFFECTED BY THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER HAD ITS ULTIMATE PRICE TO THE CONSUMER FIXED BY LAW OR BY
AGREEMENT OF PARTIES.  FN4  IN NEITHER EVENT CAN IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE
PRICE PAID FAILED TO GIVE THE SELLER A REASONABLE VALUE.  UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE RATES WERE FIXED BY LAW OR CONTRACT ON THE BASIS
OF THE HIGH WHOLESALE RATE, NEITHER STATUTES NOR EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES
REQUIRE THE COURT OF APPEALS TO SEEK STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE UNDER WHICH GAS MERCHANTS VOLUNTARILY HAD ALREADY
SOLD THEIR PRODUCT TO RETAILERS AND CONSUMERS.  ALL REGULATORY STATUTES
PERMIT UTILITIES TO COMPLAIN OF UNREASONABLE RATES, AND THE FAILURE OF
THESE UTILITIES TO PROSECUTE CLAIMS FOR EXCESS RATES UNTIL THIS
WINDFALL WAS IN SIGHT SHOULD BAR THEM FROM MAKING RETROACTIVE CLAIMS
NOW.  AND OF COURSE, WHERE THE PRICE WAS FIXED BY VOLUNTARY CONTRACTS,
THE COURT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO RE-EXAMINE THOSE CONTRACTS ON THE
NAIVE ASSUMPTION THAT CONSUMERS TOOK AN UNCONSCIONABLE ADVANTAGE OF THE
PIPE-LINE COMPANIES. 

MY BELIEF IS THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE THE ONLY WAY EVEN
PARTIALLY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO AFFORD CONSUMER
RELIEF IS BY DISTRIBUTING THIS FUND TO THE CONSUMERS.  THIS ITSELF WILL
IMPOSE A TEDIOUS, ONEROUS, AND PERHAPS EXPENSIVE BURDEN ON THE COURT
AND THE CONSUMERS.  SUCH A BURDEN, HOWEVER, IS ONE OF THE PRICES TO BE
PAID FOR THE PRACTICE OF JUDICIAL SUSPENSION OF RATE ORDERS.  BUT THE
BURDEN IN DISTRIBUTION TO CONSUMERS WOULD BE SMALL IN COMPARISON TO
THAT IMPOSED BY REQUIRING THE COURT IN 1949 AND 1950 TO MAKE EXPENSIVE
AND EXTENSIVE EXPLORATIONS TO SPECULATE ON WHAT RATES STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES WOULD HAVE FOUND REASONABLE IN SEPARATE YEARS
FROM 1943 TO 1947.  FN5  NEITHER THE PROCEDURE I SUGGEST NOR THAT
ADOPTED BY THE COURT CAN ACHIEVE WITH SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY THE RESULT
THAT WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED HAD THE COURT NOT SUSPENDED THE RATE REDUCTION
ORDER.  BUT UNDER THE COURT'S PLAN TO REQUIRE THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
RECONSTRUCT HYPOTHETICAL RATE SITUATIONS IN SEVERAL STATES A MAJOR PART
OF THE FUNDS MIGHT BE DISSIPATED IN A COSTLY BUT VAIN SEARCH FOR AN
UNATTAINABLE GOAL.  FN6  CONSUMERS AT LEAST CAN GET A SUBSTANTIAL PART
OF THE FUNDS UNDER THE PROCEDURE I SUGGEST.  FN7  NOR CAN I SEE ANY
POSSIBLE INTRUSION INTO STATE FUNCTIONS BY FOLLOWING SUCH A COURSE. 

NEITHER STATE LAWS NOR STATE COURTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TANGLED
SITUATION HERE.  I CANNOT SEE WHERE IT COULD POSSIBLY OFFEND THE STATES
OR ENCROACH ON THEIR POWER FOR THE FEDERAL COURT TO DISTRIBUTE THESE
FUNDS TO THE VERY STATE PEOPLE THE FEDERAL LAW WAS PASSED TO PROTECT. 
AND THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES HERE ARGUING FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS
FUND TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, CITIZENS OF THEIR STATES, ARE
APPARENTLY UNABLE TO DETECT IN DISTRIBUTION TO THESE CONSUMERS ANY
INVASION OF STATE RIGHTS BY THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

THIS SEEMS AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVERSE CENTRAL STATES CO. V.
MUSCATINE, 324 U.S. 138.  I REGRET TO SEE THAT HOLDING SURVIVE EVEN IN
PART. 

FN1  52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717. 

FN2  INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 331 U.S.
682. 

FN3  ONE PIPE-LINE COMPANY CLAIMS TO HAVE PASSED ON THE RATE
REDUCTION TO ITS CUSTOMERS WHICH IF PROVED WOULD PUT IT IN AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT CATEGORY. 

FN4  AS THE COURT POINTS OUT, INDUSTRIAL PURCHASERS' RATES MAY NOT
HAVE BEEN FIXED BY LAW BUT BY CONTRACTS. 

FN5  HOW IS THIS REASONABLENESS TO BE DETERMINED, ON THE FAIR VALUE
THEORY, THE REPRODUCTION COST THEORY, OR SOME OTHER THEORY?  AND HOW
MANY MORE YEARS WOULD IT TAKE THE COURT TO COMPLETE THE SEVERAL
EXTENSIVE INQUIRIES REQUIRED TO REACH ITS CONCLUSIONS AS TO
REASONABLENESS OF THE PRICES CHARGED BY THE SEVERAL COMPANIES IN THE
SEVERAL STATES WHERE THEY SOLD GAS?  SEE MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER
CO., 302 U.S. 419, 428-439(DISSENTING OPINION).    FN6  IT IS
INTERESTING TO NOTE THE UNCHALLENGED ASSERTION IN THE GOVERNMENT BRIEF
THAT ALTHOUGH IN CENTRAL STATES CO. V. MUSCATINE, 324 U.S. 138, "THIS
COURT REQUIRED THAT THE WAY BE LEFT OPEN FOR THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS TO
UTILIZE THE REMEDIES, IF ANY, PROVIDED BY LOCAL LAW, NO SUCH PROCEEDING
HAS BEEN BROUGHT."  THE ILLUSION THAT STATE RELIEF IS SOMEHOW AVAILABLE
TO THE CONSUMERS HERE SEEMS TO PERSIST DESPITE THE REALITIES THAT
CONSUMERS IN THE CENTRAL STATES CASE, SIMILARLY SITUATED TO THE
CONSUMERS HERE, HAVE NOT RECEIVED A DIME FROM THE "AVAILABLE" STATE
REMEDIES.    FN7  APPREHENSION IS EXPRESSED IN THIS COURT THAT THE
PROCEDURE I SUGGEST WOULD RESULT IN MAKING THE PRODUCING COMPANY THE
RESIDUARY BENEFICIARY OF FUNDS NOT CLAIMED BY CONSUMERS.  SUCH AN
APPREHENSION IS NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE THE COURT OF APPEALS CAN DIRECT ANY
UNCLAIMED CONSUMER FUNDS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO WHATEVER COMPANY MIGHT
SHOW A SUPERIOR EQUITY. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :

















T.W.A. V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, 336 U.S. 601 


NO. 387.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8-9, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 18, 1949.  - 83
U.S. APP. D.C. 358, 169 F.2D 893, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY, UNDER THE CIVIL
AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938 AS AMENDED, TO FIX A NEW MAIL RATE FOR AIR
CARRIERS AND TO MAKE IT RETROACTIVE FOR A PERIOD IN WHICH A FINAL RATE
PREVIOUSLY FIXED BY THE BOARD WAS IN EFFECT AND UNCHALLENGED BY THE
INITIATION OF THE MAIL RATE PROCEEDING.  PP. 602-608. 

2.  SECTION 406(A) OF THE ACT, WHICH EMPOWERS THE BOARD TO FIX RATES
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL BY AIRCRAFT AND "TO MAKE SUCH RATES
EFFECTIVE FROM SUCH DATE AS IT SHALL DETERMINE TO BE PROPER," IS NOT TO
BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO MAKE A RATE RETROACTIVE TO A
DATE EARLIER THAN THE DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE RATE PROCEEDING. 
PP. 604-607. 

TRANSCONTINENTAL & WESTERN AIR, INC. V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

A PETITION TO THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD BY AN AIR TRANSPORT COMPANY
TO FIX A NEW RATE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL WAS DISMISSED INSOFAR
AS THE PETITION SOUGHT TO HAVE THE NEW RATE MADE RETROACTIVE TO A DATE
EARLIER THAN THE DATE OF THE PETITION.  8 C.A.B. 685.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  83 U.S. APP. D.C. 358, 169 F.2D 893.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 884.  AFFIRMED, P. 608. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD HAS
AUTHORITY TO FIX A NEW MAIL RATE FOR AIR CARRIERS AND TO MAKE IT
RETROACTIVE FOR A PERIOD IN WHICH A FINAL RATE PREVIOUSLY FIXED BY THE
BOARD WAS IN EFFECT AND UNCHALLENGED BY THE INITIATION OF A MAIL RATE
PROCEEDING.  THE ANSWER TURNS PRIMARILY ON THE MEANING OF SEC. 406(A)
OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938 AS AMENDED, 52 STAT. 998, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 486(A), WHICH EMPOWERS THE BOARD TO FIX AND DETERMINE THE
FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
MAIL BY AIRCRAFT AND "TO MAKE SUCH RATES EFFECTIVE FROM SUCH DATE AS IT
SHALL DETERMINE TO BE PROPER  ...  "  FN1 

THE BOARD IN AN ORDER DATED OCTOBER 26, 1945, FIXED A MAIL RATE OF 45
CENTS PER MAIL TON-MILE FOR PETITIONER.  FN2  FROM THAT DATE UNTIL
MARCH 14, 1947, PETITIONER WAS PAID AT THAT RATE FOR ITS AIR CARRIER
SERVICES.  DURING THAT TIME NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY PETITIONER OR BY THE
GOVERNMENT TO INITIATE A CHANGE IN THAT RATE.  ON MARCH 14, 1947,
PETITIONER FILED A PETITION WITH THE BOARD ALLEGING THAT ITS MAIL RATE
HAD NOT BEEN FAIR AND REASONABLE SINCE JANUARY 1, 1946, AND REQUESTING
THE BOARD TO FIX A FAIR AND REASONABLE RATE "FROM AND AFTER JANUARY 1,
1946."  AFTER HEARING, THE BOARD BY A DIVIDED VOTE RULED THAT IT HAD NO
AUTHORITY TO FIX A MAIL RATE FOR A PERIOD PRIOR TO MARCH 14, 1947, AND
DISMISSED THE PETITION INSOFAR AS IT SOUGHT THAT RELIEF.  8 C.A.B.
685.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE BOARD.  83 U.S.
APP. D.C. 358, 169 F.2D 893.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION TO THE CARRIERS AND PUBLIC ALIKE. 

THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 406(A), WHICH EMPOWERS THE BOARD TO "FIX AND
DETERMINE" AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING "THE FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES OF
COMPENSATION" FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL BY AIRCRAFT,  FN3  READS
LIKE A TYPICAL PUBLIC UTILITY RATE-MAKING AUTHORITY.  BOTH SUBDIVISIONS
(A) AND (B) OF SEC. 406, TO BE SURE, REFLECT SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF
RATE-MAKING WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO AIR CARRIERS.  THAT IS TRUE OF THE
METHODS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 406(A) FOR ASCERTAINING THE RATES OF
COMPENSATION - "AIRCRAFT-MILE, POUND-MILE, WEIGHT, SPACE, OR ANY
COMBINATION THEREOF, OR OTHERWISE  ... "  SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR RATE
MAKING ARE ALSO PRESCRIBED.  THE BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO CONSIDER "THE
CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO TRANSPORTATION BY AIRCRAFT AND TO THE PARTICULAR
AIR CARRIER OR CLASS OF AIR CARRIERS" IN FIXING DIFFERENT RATES FOR
DIFFERENT AIR CARRIERS OR CLASSES OF AIR CARRIERS AND DIFFERENT CLASSES
OF SERVICE.  SEC. 406(B).  AND THE BOARD IN DETERMINING THE RATE IS
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO CONSIDER "THE NEED OF EACH SUCH AIR CARRIER
FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL SUFFICIENT TO INSURE
THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH SERVICE, AND, TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER REVENUE
OF THE AIR CARRIER, TO ENABLE SUCH AIR CARRIER UNDER HONEST,
ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT, TO MAINTAIN AND CONTINUE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AIR TRANSPORTATION TO THE EXTENT AND OF THE CHARACTER
AND QUALITY REQUIRED FOR THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE POSTAL
SERVICE, AND THE NATIONAL DEFENSE."  SEC. 406(B). 

CONSIDERABLE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THIS LAST PROVISION FOR THE VIEW
THAT THE BOARD HAS AUTHORITY UNDER THE "MAKE EFFECTIVE" CLAUSE TO ORDER
SUCH RETROACTIVE ADJUSTMENTS OF RATES AS THE "NEED" OF THE AIR CARRIER
MAKES APPROPRIATE.  BUT SUCH A STANDARD HAS ITS COUNTERPARTS IN OTHER
LEGISLATION DEALING WITH RATE-MAKING  FN4  AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY
MARK A DEPARTURE FROM THE CUSTOMARY PATTERN OF FIXING RATES
PROSPECTIVELY.  YET, UNLESS WE FOUND A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO MAKE A
RADICAL BREAK WITH TRADITION, WE WOULD BE MOST RELUCTANT TO GIVE THE
"MAKE EFFECTIVE" CLAUSE THE BROAD MEANING WHICH PETITIONER URGES.  FOR
THE RATES OF CARRIERS AND OTHER UTILITIES FIXED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES,
WHILE USUALLY PROSPECTIVE, ARE SOMETIMES MADE RETROACTIVE TO THE DATE
OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE RATE-MAKING PROCEEDING.  SEE UNITED STATES
V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 279 U.S. 73.  BUT, SO FAR AS WE ARE AWARE,
THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN RETROACTIVE TO AN EARLIER DATE. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
BREAK WITH THESE TRADITIONS OF RATE-MAKING N5.  MOREOVER, THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES THAT THE "MAKE EFFECTIVE" CLAUSE WAS
INSERTED ONLY TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE RATES COULD BE MADE RETROACTIVE TO
THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION.  FN6  FINALLY THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AND
ITS UNDERLYING POLICY SEEM TO US TO PRECLUDE THE MORE EXPANSIVE READING
OF THE CLAUSE URGED ON US BY PETITIONER. 

PETITIONER'S READING OF THE ACT WOULD IN PRACTICAL EFFECT HAVE THE
TENDENCY TO TRANSFORM IT INTO A COST-PLUS SYSTEM OF REGULATION, A
CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD NOT HARMONIZE WITH THE APPARENT DESIGN OF THE
ACT.  THUS SEC. 406(B) AUTHORIZES THE BOARD TO FIX RATES FOR "CLASSES
OF AIR CARRIERS."  N7  IT IS PLAIN THAT THE UNIFORM RATE FOR THE CLASS
IS AN IMPORTANT REGULATORY DEVICE.  FOR SEC. 2(D) OF THE ACT LOOKS TO
THE SOUND DEVELOPMENT OF AN AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THROUGH
COMPETITION.  FN8  A UNIFORM RATE FORCES CARRIERS WITHIN A GIVEN CLASS
TO COMPETE IN SECURING REVENUE AND IN REDUCING OR CONTROLLING COSTS. 
IF THE BOARD HAD AUTHORITY ON THE BASIS OF THE CARRIER'S NEEDS TO MAKE
RATES RETROACTIVE TO ANY POINT OF TIME, THERE WOULD BE A POWERFUL
INCENTIVE TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THE UNIFORM RATE, NOT TO LIVE WITHIN IT. 

IN SUM A CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO REVISE RATES
RETROACTIVELY TO ANY POINT OF TIME WOULD BE A REAL INNOVATION WHICH
SHOULD HAVE A MORE SOLID BASIS THAN OUR OWN PREDILECTIONS.  WE CANNOT
BUT FEEL THAT IF THE RATE-MAKING POWER WERE TO BE PUT TO SUCH A NOVEL
USE, THE PURPOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE CLEAR.  IT IS TOO UNPRECEDENTED A
DEPARTURE FROM THE CONVENTIONS OF RATE-MAKING TO REST ON MERE
INFERENCE. 

IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD APPARENTLY CONSIDERS PAST OPERATING
LOSSES IN FIXING RATES  FN9 AND THAT THEREFORE IT IS A MATTER OF NO
GREAT CONSEQUENCE IF THE RATES ARE MADE RETROACTIVE TO ONE DATE RATHER
THAN ANOTHER.  BUT THE POWER TO FIX RATES TO RECOUP PAST LOSSES IS A
DISTINCT QUESTION NOT BEFORE US.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 406 PROVIDES: 

"(A)  THE AUTHORITY IS EMPOWERED AND DIRECTED, UPON ITS OWN
INITIATIVE OR UPON PETITION OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL OR AN AIR
CARRIER, (1) TO FIX AND DETERMINE FROM TIME TO TIME, AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING, THE FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL BY AIRCRAFT, THE FACILITIES USED AND USEFUL
THEREFOR, AND THE SERVICES CONNECTED THEREWITH (INCLUDING THE
TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL BY AN AIR CARRIER BY OTHER MEANS THAN AIRCRAFT
WHENEVER SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS INCIDENTAL TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
MAIL BY AIRCRAFT OR IS MADE NECESSARY BY CONDITIONS OF EMERGENCY
ARISING FROM AIRCRAFT OPERATION), BY EACH HOLDER OF A CERTIFICATE
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL BY AIRCRAFT, AND TO MAKE SUCH
RATES EFFECTIVE FROM SUCH DATE AS IT SHALL DETERMINE TO BE PROPER; (2)
TO PRESCRIBE THE METHOD OR METHODS, BY AIRCRAFT-MILE, POUND-MILE,
WEIGHT, SPACE, OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF, OR OTHERWISE, FOR
ASCERTAINING SUCH RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR EACH AIR CARRIER OR CLASS
OF AIR CARRIERS; AND (3) TO PUBLISH THE SAME; AND THE RATES SO FIXED
AND DETERMINED SHALL BE PAID BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL FROM
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL BY AIRCRAFT. 

     .         .         .         . . 

"(B)  IN FIXING AND DETERMINING FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES OF
COMPENSATION UNDER THIS SECTION, THE AUTHORITY, CONSIDERING THE
CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO TRANSPORTATION BY AIRCRAFT AND TO THE PARTICULAR
AIR CARRIER OR CLASS OF AIR CARRIERS, MAY FIX DIFFERENT RATES FOR
DIFFERENT AIR CARRIERS OR CLASSES OF AIR CARRIERS, AND DIFFERENT
CLASSES OF SERVICE.  IN DETERMINING THE RATE IN EACH CASE, THE
AUTHORITY SHALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, AMONG OTHER FACTORS, THE
CONDITION THAT SUCH AIR CARRIERS MAY HOLD AND OPERATE UNDER
CERTIFICATES AUTHORIZING THE CARRIAGE OF MAIL ONLY BY PROVIDING
NECESSARY AND ADEQUATE FACILITIES AND SERVICE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
MAIL; SUCH STANDARDS RESPECTING THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF SERVICE TO
BE RENDERED BY AIR CARRIERS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY OR PURSUANT TO LAW;
AND THE NEED OF EACH SUCH AIR CARRIER FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL SUFFICIENT TO INSURE THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH
SERVICE, AND, TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER REVENUE OF THE AIR CARRIER, TO
ENABLE SUCH AIR CARRIER UNDER HONEST, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT
MANAGEMENT, TO MAINTAIN AND CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AIR
TRANSPORTATION TO THE EXTENT AND OF THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY REQUIRED
FOR THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE." 

THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD TOOK THE PLACE OF THE AUTHORITY ON JUNE
30, 1940.  SEE 54 STAT. 1235. 

FN2  SEE 6 C.A.B. 595. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN4  SEE SEC. 1 OF TITLE I OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54
STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C., NOTE PRIOR TO SEC. 1:  "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO
BE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT  ...  TO  ... FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE SEVERAL CARRIERS; ...  ALL
TO THE END OF DEVELOPING, COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER, HIGHWAY, AND RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER
MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES,
OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE.  ALL OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW
TO CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE DECLARATION OF POLICY." 

FN5  THE OTHER RATE-MAKING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT LIKEWISE FOLLOW THE
CONVENTIONAL PATTERN.  SEE SEC. 1002(D) AND (E). 

FN6  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN ITS ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AIR MAIL ACT OF 1934 AS AMENDED, 48 STAT. 933, 935, 49 STAT. 614, 616,
HAD ASSERTED THE POWER TO MAKE ITS ORDERS EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE OF
INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDING.  BUT THERE WAS A SHARP DIVERGENCE OF
VIEWS WITHIN THE COMMISSION OVER ITS AUTHORITY TO DO SO.  SEE AIR MAIL
COMPENSATION, 216 I.C.C. 166, 222 I.C.C. 602.  THE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES SEEMED PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THAT PROBLEM IN THEIR
CONSIDERATION OF THE "MAKE EFFECTIVE" CLAUSE IN THE BILLS WHICH
PRECEDED THE ONES RESULTING IN THE ACT.  SEE SENATE HEARINGS, COMMITTEE
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ON S. 2 AND S. 1760, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 179,
180, 239, 291, 343, 483-485, 523.  AND SEE H.R. HEARINGS, COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, ON H.R. 5234 AND H.R. 4652, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 325-327.  THE POLICY OF ADHERING TO CONVENTIONAL RATE
MAKING IS SUGGESTED BY H.R. REP. NO. 911, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 18, AND
BY THE STATEMENTS OF SENATOR TRUMAN WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE BILL IN
THE SENATE.  81 CONG. REC. 9202, 9203, 9204. 

THIS HISTORY IS RELEVANT TO OUR PROBLEM, FOR THOUGH IT RELATES TO THE
1937 BILL WHICH WAS NOT PASSED, THE "MAKE EFFECTIVE" CLAUSE
CRYSTALLIZED AT THAT TIME AND APPEARED IN THE 1938 BILL WHICH WAS
ENACTED.  THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE LATTER BILL IS SILENT ON THE
"MAKE EFFECTIVE" CLAUSE, THOUGH THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE FROM IT, H.R.
REP. NO. 2635, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 71-72, BY ITS BRIEF EXPOSITION OF
THE POWER CONFERRED SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT DEPART FROM THE
CONVENTIONAL PATTERN OF RATE-MAKING WHEN IT ENACTED THE MEASURE: 

"THIS SECTION (SEC. 406) EMPOWERS THE AUTHORITY TO FIX MAIL RATES AND
SETS FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO GUIDE THE AUTHORITY IN FIXING
SUCH RATES AND ENABLES THE AUTHORITY TO ADJUST RATES SO THAT THE POLICY
OF CONGRESS MAY BE PROPERLY CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF EACH CARRIER OR
CLASS OF CARRIERS ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE." 

FN7  SEC. 406(B) SUPRA, NOTE 1. 

FN8  SECTION 2 PROVIDES: 

"IN THE EXERCISE AND PERFORMANCE OF ITS POWERS AND DUTIES UNDER THIS
ACT, THE (BOARD) SHALL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AS
BEING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY - 

     .  .         .         .         . 

"(D)  COMPETITION TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO ASSURE THE SOUND
DEVELOPMENT OF AN AIR-TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PROPERLY ADAPTED TO THE
NEEDS OF THE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE
POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE  ...  " 

FN9  AFTER THE PRESENT CASE WAS ARGUED IN THIS COURT, THE CIVIL
AERONAUTICS BOARD, ON FEBRUARY 21, 1949, AWARDED A TEMPORARY MAIL RATE
INCREASE TO TWA EFFECTIVE MARCH 14, 1947, TO COMPENSATE IT FOR LOSSES
SUSTAINED PRIOR THERETO AS THE RESULT OF GROUNDING THE CONSTELLATION
AIRCRAFT.  AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., MAIL RATE INCREASES, C.A.B.
DOCKET NO. 2849, SERIAL NO. E-2484(FEB.  21, 1949).  THAT ACTION DOES
NOT RENDER THE PRESENT CASE MOOT, FOR THE NEW TEMPORARY MAIL RATE
COVERS ONLY A PART OF THE LOSSES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A RATE INCREASE
WAS SOUGHT HERE.  NOR DO WE HAVE IN THIS CASE ANY QUESTION CONCERNING
THE POWER OF THE BOARD OVER TEMPORARY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM FINAL,
MAIL RATES.  SEE ESSAIR, INC., TEMPORARY MAIL RATE, 6 C.A.B. 687, 690
691; IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., C.A.B. DOCKET NO. 3037,
SERIAL NO. E-1271, MARCH 5, 1948. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD ASKS US TO HOLD THAT IT IS DENIED BY ITS
ORGANIC ACT ANY POWER RETROACTIVELY TO FIX RATES FOR CARRYING AIR
MAIL.  IT HAS NOT CONVINCED ME THAT IT HAS NO POWER, WHATEVER IT SHOULD
WISELY DO WITH IT AS MATTER OF POLICY. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE OF THE COURT'S OPINION IS THAT THE FUNCTION
OF THE BOARD IN FIXING THE AIR-MAIL RATE IS ANALOGOUS TO RATE-MAKING
FOR A RAILROAD OR A PUBLIC UTILITY.  THE TWO TYPES OF RATES ARE NOT
COMPARABLE.  "RATE" AS APPLIED TO THE GOVERNMENT'S AIR-MAIL PAYMENTS IS
AN EUPHEMISM TO EMBRACE A SUBSIDY AS WELL AS COMPENSATION.  THE STATUTE
REQUIRES THE BOARD, IN FIXING THE "RATE" FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL, TO
TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE "NEED OF EACH SUCH AIR CARRIER FOR
COMPENSATION  ...  TO INSURE THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH SERVICE,  ...  AND
TO ENABLE SUCH AIR CARRIER  ...  TO MAINTAIN AND CONTINUE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AIR TRANSPORTATION TO THE EXTENT AND OF THE CHARACTER
AND QUALITY REQUIRED FOR THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE POSTAL
SERVICE, AND THE NATIONAL DEFENSE."  SEC. 406(B).  THESE CONSIDERATIONS
ARE INAPPROPRIATE IN APPLYING ORDINARY UTILITY RATE-MAKING PRINCIPLES. 
MOREOVER, UTILITY RATES APPLY TO A MULTITUDE OF CUSTOMERS; THE AIR-MAIL
RATE IS PAID BY ONLY ONE - THE GOVERNMENT.  UTILITY SERVICES MUST BE
PAID FOR CURRENTLY; AIR-MAIL PAYMENTS CAN BE AND ARE BEING PAID IN LUMP
SUMS ON ACCOUNT OF ITEMS LONG PAST. 

CONGRESS, IN THE ACT BEFORE US, SET UP A SCHEME FOR DEALING WITH EACH
ACCORDING TO ITS SEPARATE NATURE.  THE RATE FOR PUBLIC CARRIAGE OF
PASSENGERS AND GOODS BY AIR LINES, OF COURSE, CANNOT BE FIXED
RETROACTIVELY ON THE BASIS OF EXPERIENCE, FOR THE PUBLIC MUST KNOW AT
THE TIME THEY TAKE SERVICE WHAT THEY ARE TO PAY FOR IT AND THE CARRIER
MUST COLLECT THEN OR NEVER.  THE ACT RECOGNIZES THIS NECESSITY WITH
RESPECT TO PASSENGERS AND CARGO.  RATES FOR TRANSPORTING THEM ARE
REQUIRED BY SEC. 403 TO BE EMBODIED IN FILED AND PUBLISHED TARIFFS,
WHICH MAY BE ALTERED ONLY AFTER HEARING AND NOTICE AND ONLY
PROSPECTIVELY.  SECTION 1002 PROVIDES THAT THE BOARD MAY INSTITUTE
PROCEEDINGS TO MODIFY THESE RATES AND MAY, AFTER PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES,
SET THE RATES THEREAFTER TO BE CHARGED.  THUS, WHEN CONGRESS WAS
DEALING WITH UTILITY RATES FOR PASSENGERS AND SHIPPERS, IT PERMITTED
ONLY PROSPECTIVE CHANGES, AND SAID SO. 

BUT CONGRESS BELIEVED THAT, IN THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
AND COMMERCIAL AVIATION, IT HAD TO SUBSIDIZE PIONEERING AIR LINES AND
UNDERWRITE REVENUES ABOVE THOSE TO BE REALIZED FROM PASSENGER AND CARGO
CARRIAGE.  A FEASIBLE WAY TO DO IT WAS THROUGH AIR-MAIL PAYMENTS.  ITS
PLAN TO THAT EFFECT WAS DETAILED IN SEC. 406.  BUT AS TO THIS SUBSIDY
RATE, IT ENACTED NO PROHIBITION AGAINST RETROACTIVITY AND, IF IT HAD,
IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE BOARD WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO GO BACK
EVEN TO THE DATE OF THE PETITION.  ON THE CONTRARY, HOWEVER, SEC.
406(A) EMPOWERS AND DIRECTS THE BOARD TO DETERMINE THE AIR-MAIL RATE
AND "TO MAKE SUCH RATES EFFECTIVE FROM SUCH DATE AS IT SHALL DETERMINE
TO BE PROPER."  I SEE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HOLDING THAT THIS LANGUAGE
MEANS ANYTHING LESS THAN JUST WHAT IT SAYS, OR FOR HOLDING THAT TWO
SUCH OPPOSITE KINDS OF PAYMENTS MUST BE GOVERNED BY IDENTICAL RULES. 

THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, HOWEVER, ASKS US TO HOLD THAT THE SAME
RULES AS TO RETROSPECTIVE RATES ARE "APPLICABLE EQUALLY TO MAIL,
PASSENGER AND PROPERTY RATES UNDER THE ACT."  IT URGES THAT ITS
PROVISIONS DO NOT "CONVERT THE BOARD'S PRIMARY FUNCTION OF FIXING RATES
OF COMPENSATION FOR THE FUTURE INTO A DUTY TO AWARD AMOUNTS OF
COMPENSATION FOR THE PAST" AND THAT, IF IT SETS TOO LOW A RATE, "THE
CARRIER HAS NO REDRESS SAVE A NEW HEARING AND THE FIXING OF A MORE
ADEQUATE RATE FOR THE FUTURE."  IT CONTENDS FOR APPLICATION OF
DECISIONS BY WHICH THIS COURT "HAS REFUSED TO REQUIRE THE
CAPITALIZATION OF PAST LOSSES IN THE RATE BASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FIXING FUTURE RATES" OR TO ALLOW "CURRENT REIMBURSEMENT OUT OF NEW
RATES OF DEFICIENCIES ARISING FROM A FAILURE TO EARN A REASONABLE
RETURN IN PAST YEARS, OR THE CAPITALIZATION OF COSTS OF MAINTAINING
EXCESS CAPACITY DURING THE EARLY PERIOD OF OPERATION."  AND THE BOARD
ARGUED THAT IT HAS ADHERED TO SUCH RULES AND ADVANCES POLICY REASONS
WHY WE SHOULD HOLD THAT IT IS WITHOUT POWER TO DO OTHERWISE. 

I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RECONCILE THE POSITION WHICH THE BOARD TOOK
BEFORE THIS COURT AT ITS ARGUMENT ON FEBRUARY 8 AND 9 WITH WHAT APPEARS
TO BE ITS ALMOST CONTEMPORANEOUS ACTION.  ON FEBRUARY 21, 1949, THE
BOARD HANDED DOWN AN ORDER IN WHICH IT ALLOWED TO THIS VERY PETITIONER,
IN A LUMP SUM, $2,748,000 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 14, 1947, TO DECEMBER 31,
1948, AND $33,333 IN A LUMP SUM EACH MONTH THEREAFTER.  IT SAID, "THE
ABOVE PAYMENTS FOR EACH OF THESE CARRIERS ARE IN ADDITION TO, AND NOT
INCLUSIVE OF, THE MAIL RATES PROVIDED FOR IN PREVIOUS TEMPORARY OR
FINAL MAIL RATE ORDERS, FOR THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS STATED."  THE TWA
LUMP SUM OF $2,748,000 WAS TO MAKE THEM WHOLE FOR THE YEAR 1948 AND
ALSO TO PAY THEIR "GROUNDING LOSSES" FOR 1946, A YEAR PRIOR TO THE
FILING OF ITS PETITION, WHICH THE BOARD ASKS US TO HOLD AS THE LIMIT OF
BACKWARD OPERATION OF RATES.  THE BOARD SAID: 

"IN 1946, TWA INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL COSTS BECAUSE OF THE GROUNDING OF
THE CONSTELLATION AIRCRAFT.  SIMILAR COSTS WERE INCURRED BY UNITED AND
AMERICAN IN 1947 AND 1948 WHEN THE DC-6 WAS GROUNDED.  THESE COSTS ARE
MERELY ANOTHER FORM OF DEVELOPMENTAL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
INTRODUCTION OF A NEW AIRCRAFT TYPE.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY ARE, IN
THESE CASES, OF SUCH MAGNITUDE AS TO IMPOSE A FINANCIAL BURDEN UPON THE
CARRIERS OF SUCH SEVERITY AS TO OBSTRUCT THEIR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT. 
UNDER OUR STATUTORY MANDATE TO DEVELOP AIR TRANSPORTATION WE SHOULD
UNDERWRITE SUCH COSTS IN SOME APPROPRIATE MANNER." 

AT THE SAME TIME THE BOARD ISSUED A STATEMENT OF POLICY.  AS TO THE
GROUNDING COSTS WHICH THE BOARD HAD ARGUED TO THIS COURT IT HAD NO
POWER TO REIMBURSE RETROACTIVELY, IT SAID THAT IT HAD ORIGINALLY FELT
THEY WOULD NOT BE HIGH ENOUGH TO REQUIRE SPECIAL MAIL-PAY ALLOWANCE FOR
THEIR "REIMBURSEMENT."  BUT IT CONTINUED: "EXPERIENCE HAS NOT SUPPORTED
THIS VIEW" AND IT IS "DESIRABLE TO MAKE SPECIAL MAIL-RATE PROVISION FOR
ESTABLISHED LOSSES OF THIS CHARACTER."  IT ANNOUNCED THAT THIS
PETITIONER, AMONG OTHERS, IS BEING PAID FOR GROUNDING LOSSES.  "IN
ADDITION, IN VIEW OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 406(B) OF THE ACT,
DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE BOARD HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE TEMPORARY MAIL RATES
FOR UNITED AND TWA SHOULD BE INCREASED TO AN EXTENT SUFFICIENT TO MEET
THE REMAINDER OF THEIR APPROXIMATE BREAKEVEN NEEDS FOR THE YEAR 1948. 
WITH RESPECT TO THE ENTIRE RETROACTIVE PERIOD AND THE FUTURE, THE BOARD
WILL DETERMINE FINAL RATES AFTER FORMAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH WILL GIVE
CONSIDERATION TO THE FULL REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE TWO
CARRIERS." 

WHAT I GET FROM THE BOARD'S ORDERS AND STATEMENTS IS THAT IT IS
ACTING IN A SPIRIT COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO ITS ARGUMENT TO THIS COURT
AND TO THIS COURT'S OPINION, EVEN IF THERE MAY BE A TECHNICAL
CONSISTENCY, WHICH I DOUBT.  IT APPEARS TO HAVE AUTHORIZED
CAPITALIZATION OF LOSSES FOR PERIODS BEFORE ANY RATE PETITION WAS FILED
AND THE AMORTIZATION OF THOSE LOSSES FROM SUBSIDY PAYMENTS AFTERWARD. 
I FIND FAR LESS STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR SUCH A DEVICE FOR CARRYING
LOSSES FORWARD INTO CURRENT RATES THAN FOR FORTHRIGHT FIXING OF
EFFECTIVE RATES FROM SUCH PRIOR DATE AS SHALL BE PROPER.  IF THE NEED
FOR RETROACTIVITY IS SO IMPERATIVE THAT IT MUST BE MET BY EVASION, THE
POLICY ARGUMENTS OF THE BOARD AGAINST CONSTRUING THE STATUTE TO PERMIT
RETROACTIVITY FAIL.  I DO NOT KNOW THAT THESE MATTERS OF POLICY SHOULD
INFLUENCE THE COURT IN ANY EVENT, BUT IF THEY DO, MY OWN PREDILECTIONS,
UNLIKE THE COURT'S, FAVOR FIXING THE SUBSIDY ON EXPERIENCE RATHER THAN
ON PROPHECY.  IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE PRACTICE, I SEE NO
REASON WHY THE STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED SO AS TO CARRY OUT WHAT
ITS LANGUAGE CONVEYS AND WHY THE SUBSIDY RATES SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED
AS ALWAYS TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO REVISION EITHER TO MEET UNFORESEEN
CONTINGENCIES OR TO RECAPTURE EXCESSIVE PAYMENTS.  THE COMMISSION WOULD
NO MORE BE BOUND TO REIMBURSE EXTRAVAGANT MANAGEMENT OR IMPROVIDENT
OUTLAY AFTER IT HAS OCCURRED THAN TO ALLOW FOR IT IN ADVANCE.  IN FACT,
EXCESSIVE EXPENSE WOULD PROBABLY BE EASIER TO DETECT IN ACTUAL
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS THAN IN ESTIMATES. 

BUT IF I WERE TO CONSIDER ACCEPTING THE BOARD'S ARGUMENT, I WOULD AT
LEAST SET THIS CASE FOR REARGUMENT AND REQUIRE A CANDID EXPLANATION OF
WHAT APPEARS TO BE A MATERIAL DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WHAT THE BOARD HAS
LED THIS COURT TO HOLD AND THE PREMISES ON WHICH IT SEEMS ACTUALLY TO
BE PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :


















NYE & NISSEN V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 613 


NO. 228.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 18, 1949.  - 168 F.2D
846, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONERS ARE A CORPORATION AND ITS PRESIDENT.  AN INDICTMENT
CHARGED THEM (AND THREE EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION), IN THE FIRST
COUNT, WITH CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES FROM 1938 TO 1945,
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE (NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 371);
AND, IN SIX SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS, WITH FILING FALSE INVOICES WITH AN
AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 35 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE (NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1001).  THE CASE INVOLVED FRAUDULENT PRACTICES
IN THE SALE OF EGGS AND CHEESE TO THE ARMY, NAVY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES.  PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED ON ALL COUNTS.  HELD: 

1.  AS TO THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONER, THERE WAS NO FATAL VARIANCE
BETWEEN THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED AND THE PROOF, SINCE THE EVIDENCE AMPLY
SUPPORTED A FINDING BY THE JURY OF A SINGLE CONSPIRACY CONTINUING
DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD.  PP. 616-617. 

2.  EVIDENCE OF THE PRESENTATION OF FALSE INVOICES OTHER THAN AND IN
ADDITION TO THOSE CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE ON THE ISSUE
OF INTENT.  P. 618. 

3.  THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE JURY
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONER AIDED AND ABETTED THE COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS; AND, SINCE THE CASE WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THAT THEORY AND THE CHARGE OF THE TRIAL COURT
TO THE JURY WAS ADEQUATE, THE CONVICTION MUST BE AFFIRMED.  PINKERTON
V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 618-620. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES
WAS ALSO EVIDENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 619. 

(B)  WHERE A CONSPIRACY AS WELL AS A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE IS CHARGED,
IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE SO FAR AS AIDING AND ABETTING IS CONCERNED
WHETHER THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED PURSUANT TO THE
CONSPIRACY.  PP. 619-620. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT, AS TO SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES CHARGED, A CASE MIGHT
CONCEIVABLY BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON EITHER THE CONSPIRACY THEORY OR
ON THE THEORY OF AIDING AND ABETTING, IS IRRELEVANT; IT IS SUFFICIENT
IF THE PROOF ADDUCED AND THE BASIS ON WHICH IT WAS SUBMITTED ARE
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT.  P. 620. 

NYE & NISSEN, A CORPORATION, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS, A CORPORATION AND ITS PRESIDENT, WERE CONVICTED ON ALL
COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT CHARGING THEM AND OTHERS WITH CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
(NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 371), AND WITH FILING FALSE INVOICES WITH AN AGENCY
OF THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 35 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE (NOW
18 U.S.C. SEC. 1001).  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  168 F.2D 846. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 852.  AFFIRMED, P. 620. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NYE & NISSEN IS A CORPORATION WHICH DURING THE YEARS COVERED BY THE
INDICTMENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING AND SELLING EGGS,
BUTTER, AND CHEESE IN SAN FRANCISCO.  THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD MONCHARSH
WAS PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION, ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS, AND THE OWNER
OF ONE-THIRD OF THE STOCK OF THE HOLDING COMPANY WHICH HAD SOLE
OWNERSHIP OF NYE & NISSEN.  MONCHARSH'S MOTHER OWNED A ONE-THIRD
INTEREST IN THE HOLDING COMPANY, WHILE THE OTHER THIRD WAS OWNED BY ONE
BAUM WHO LIVED IN NEW YORK.  BERMAN AND GODDARD WERE BROTHERS-IN-LAW OF
MONCHARSH - THE FORMER BEING CITY SALES MANAGER OF NYE & NISSEN IN
CHARGE OF THE COMPANY'S RETAIL SALESMEN, THE LATTER BEING SHIPPING AND
RECEIVING CLERK.  MENGES WAS ANOTHER EMPLOYEE. 

DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1938 TO 1944, NYE & NISSEN MADE LARGE SALES OF
ITS PRODUCTS TO THE ARMY AND NAVY AND, AFTER DECEMBER, 1943, TO
OPERATORS OF VARIOUS VESSELS HAVING GENERAL AGENCY CONTRACTS WITH THE
WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION. 

AN INDICTMENT IN SEVEN COUNTS WAS RETURNED ON JUNE 20, 1945, AGAINST
NYE & NISSEN, MONCHARSH, BERMAN, GODDARD AND MENGES.  THE FIRST COUNT
CHARGED THE DEFENDANTS WITH HAVING CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES FROM 1938 TO 1945, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 88,  FN1  NOW SEC. 371, BY DESIGNATED FRAUDULENT
PRACTICES TO WHICH WE WILL REFER.  THE OTHER SIX COUNTS CHARGED THE
DEFENDANTS WITH VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 35 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 80,  FN2  NOW SEC. 1001, BY MISREPRESENTING IN INVOICES PRESENTED
TO THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION IN APRIL AND MAY, 1944, THE WEIGHTS,
GRADES, AND PRICES OF SPECIFIED SALES OF EGGS AND CHEESE. 

MENGES WAS ACQUITTED.  BERMAN AND GODDARD WERE FOUND GUILTY ON ALL
COUNTS, SENTENCED TO A YEAR AND A DAY ON EACH COUNT, THE TERMS TO RUN
CONCURRENTLY, AND FINED $700.  THEY DID NOT APPEAL.  NYE & NISSEN WAS
FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS AND FINED $5,000 ON EACH.  MONCHARSH WAS
CONVICTED ON ALL COUNTS AND SENTENCED TO TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT ON THE
FIRST AND TO FIVE YEARS ON EACH OF THE OTHER SIX, ALL SEVEN TERMS TO
RUN CONCURRENTLY.  HE WAS ALSO FINED $5,000 ON EACH COUNT.  ON APPEAL
THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION OF NYE & NISSEN AND MONCHARSH WERE
AFFIRMED.  168 F.2D 846.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF DOUBTS WHETHER THE CONVICTION OF MONCHARSH
ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS COULD BE SUSTAINED UNDER THE THEORY OF
PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, ON WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS
SEEMED TO RELY. 

TWO PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED.  IT IS ARGUED IN THE FIRST
PLACE THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE PREJUDICIAL TO MONCHARSH BETWEEN THE
CONSPIRACY CHARGED AND THE PROOF, IN THAT THE EVIDENCE TENDED TO SHOW
THE EXISTENCE OF TWO SEPARATE CONSPIRACIES OF DIFFERENT CHARACTERS AND
INVOLVING DIFFERENT PERSONS.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE CONSPIRACY
CHARGED WAS A CONTINUING ONE FROM 1938 TO 1945, AND INVOLVED THE
CIRCUMVENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S INSPECTION SYSTEM WITH RELATION TO
THE SALE OF EGGS.  IT IS SAID THAT THE PROOF SHOWED TWO SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT CONSPIRACIES - THE FIRST EMBRACING BERMAN, GODDARD, MONCHARSH
AND MENGES IN AN UNDERTAKING TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES BY IMPEDING
AND IMPAIRING THE GOVERNMENT'S INSPECTION SYSTEM WITH RELATION TO THE
SALES OF EGGS TO THE ARMY AND NAVY FROM 1938 TO 1942; THE SECOND
EMBRACING BERMAN AND GODDARD ALONE IN AN AGREEMENT IN 1943 AND 1944, TO
FILE FALSE VOUCHERS WITH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  WE NEED NOT
TAKE THE SPACE TO RELATE WHY UNDER THAT THEORY MONCHARSH IS SAID TO
HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED, BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE
SEEMS TO US TO LACK MERIT.  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THE
BASIS OF A SINGLE CONSPIRACY THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD ALLEGED IN THE
INDICTMENT.  THAT WAS PROPER, FOR AS WE READ THE INDICTMENT IT CHARGED
A SINGLE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN VARIOUS WAYS:  BY
GRADING AND SELLING TO AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT INFERIOR PRODUCTS
THROUGH FRAUDS PRACTICED UPON ITS INSPECTORS AND REPRESENTATIVES; BY
IMPEDING AND DEFEATING THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN THE
INSPECTION, GRADING, WEIGHING, AND PURCHASE OF EGGS, BUTTER, AND
CHEESE; BY UTILIZING VARIOUS SCHEMES TO CIRCUMVENT AND AVOID THE
STANDARDS, GRADES, WEIGHTS, AND SPECIFICATIONS TO WHICH THE ORDERS WERE
SUBJECT; AND BY MISREPRESENTING THE GRADE, WEIGHT, AND PRICE OF EGGS,
BUTTER, AND CHEESE.  THE FACT THAT CERTAIN TYPES OF FRAUDULENT
PRACTICES OCCURRED DURING ONE PERIOD AND OTHER TYPES AT DIFFERENT
PERIODS IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  THE CIRCUMVENTION OF THE INSPECTION
SYSTEM AND THE PRESENTATION OF FALSE INVOICES WERE PART AND PARCEL OF
THE SAME CONSPIRACY AS CHARGED AND PROVED.  THERE WAS AN ABUNDANCE OF
EVIDENCE, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD
CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS ONE CONTINUOUS AND PERSISTENT CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD.  IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT THE JURY MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT BEGINNING
IN 1943 OR THEREABOUTS MONCHARSH SEVERED HIMSELF FROM THE CONSPIRACY
AND THAT HIS SUBORDINATES CARRIED IT FORWARD ON THEIR OWN.  BUT WE
COULD NOT REVERSE THEM IF THAT THEORY TAXED THEIR CREDULITY. 

IT IS ARGUED IN THE SECOND PLACE THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
ADMITTING AGAINST MONCHARSH EVIDENCE OF CRIMES SIMILAR TO THOSE CHARGED
IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS TO PROVE THE GUILTY INTENT WITH WHICH THE
SUBSTANTIVE ACTS WERE COMMITTED.  EACH OF THE SIX SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS
CHARGED THE PRESENTATION OF A SEPARATE FALSE INVOICE.  THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED THE PRESENTATION OF ELEVEN OTHER FALSE INVOICES.  THIS WAS PART
OF THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSPIRACY COUNT.  THE TRIAL
COURT ALSO ADMITTED IT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE "FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF PROVING GUILTY INTENT, MOTIVE, OR GUILTY KNOWLEDGE" OF THE
DEFENDANTS.  EVIDENCE THAT SIMILAR AND RELATED OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED
IN THIS PERIOD TENDED TO SHOW A CONSISTENT PATTERN OF CONDUCT HIGHLY
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF INTENT.  FN3 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IN THE CASE PERTAINS TO THE CHARGE CONCERNING
THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THEM. 

IN PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, A CONSPIRACY AND SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSES WERE CHARGED.  WE HELD THAT A CONSPIRATOR COULD BE HELD GUILTY
OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE EVEN THOUGH HE DID NO MORE THAN JOIN THE
CONSPIRACY, PROVIDED THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND AS A PART OF IT.  A VERDICT ON THAT
THEORY REQUIRES SUBMISSION OF THOSE FACT ISSUES TO THE JURY.  THAT WAS
NOT DONE HERE.  HENCE MONCHARSH ARGUES THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO A NEW
TRIAL. 

THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT ARGUMENT IS THAT THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO
THE JURY ON AN EQUALLY VALID THEORY.  THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THAT ONE
"WHO AIDS, ABETS, COUNSELS, COMMANDS, INDUCES, OR PROCURES THE
COMMISSION OF AN ACT IS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ACT AS IF HE COMMITTED
IT DIRECTLY."  THAT THEORY IS WELL ENGRAINED IN THE LAW.  SEE SEC. 332
OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 550, FN4  NOW SEC. 2; UNITED
STATES V. JOHNSON, 319 U.S. 503, 518; UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320
U.S. 277, 281.  IN ORDER TO AID AND ABET ANOTHER TO COMMIT A CRIME IT
IS NECESSARY THAT A DEFENDANT "IN SOME SORT ASSOCIATE HIMSELF WITH THE
VENTURE, THAT HE PARTICIPATE IN IT AS IN SOMETHING THAT HE WISHES TO
BRING ABOUT, THAT HE SEEK BY HIS ACTION TO MAKE IT SUCCEED."  L. HAND,
J., IN UNITED STATES V. PEONI, 100 F.2D 401, 402. 

THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE TYING MONCHARSH TO THE SIX FALSE INVOICES
INVOLVED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS.  YET THERE IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE WHOLLY ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE JURY THAT
MONCHARSH AIDED AND ABETTED IN THE COMMISSION OF THOSE OFFENSES.  THUS
THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS THE PROMOTER OF A LONG AND PERSISTENT
SCHEME TO DEFRAUD, THAT THE MAKING OF FALSE INVOICES WAS A PART OF THAT
PROJECT, THAT THE MAKERS OF THE FALSE INVOICES WERE MONCHARSH'S
SUBORDINATES, THAT HIS FAMILY WAS THE CHIEF OWNER OF THE BUSINESS, THAT
HE WAS THE MANAGER OF IT, THAT HIS CHIEF SUBORDINATES WERE HIS BROTHERS
IN-LAW, THAT HE HAD CHARGE OF THE OFFICE WHERE THE INVOICES WERE MADE
OUT. 

THOSE ACTIVITIES EXTENDED THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD WHEN THE SUBSTANTIVE
CRIMES WERE COMMITTED.  THEY CONSTITUTE AMPLE EVIDENCE IN A RECORD
REEKING WITH FRAUD THAT MONCHARSH WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESENTATION
OF THE SIX FALSE INVOICES.  THE FACT THAT SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE MAY
HAVE SERVED DOUBLE DUTY BY ALSO SUPPORTING THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY IS
OF COURSE IMMATERIAL. 

WE SEE THEREFORE NO REASON TO EXCULPATE HIM AS AN AIDER AND ABETTOR. 
THERE WAS NO INADEQUACY IN THE CHARGE TO THE JURY ON THAT THEORY.  NOR
WAS THE SUBMISSION IN CONFLICT WITH PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
THE RULE OF THAT CASE DOES SERVICE WHERE THE CONSPIRACY WAS ONE TO
COMMIT OFFENSES OF THE CHARACTER DESCRIBED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS. 
AIDING AND ABETTING HAS A BROADER APPLICATION.  IT MAKES A DEFENDANT A
PRINCIPAL WHEN HE CONSCIOUSLY SHARES IN ANY CRIMINAL ACT WHETHER OR NOT
THERE IS A CONSPIRACY.  AND IF A CONSPIRACY IS ALSO CHARGED, IT MAKES
NO DIFFERENCE SO FAR AS AIDING AND ABETTING IS CONCERNED WHETHER THE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE IS DONE PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY.  PINKERTON V.
UNITED STATES IS NARROW IN ITS SCOPE.  AIDING AND ABETTING RESTS ON A
BROADER BASE; IT STATES A RULE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS
WHICH ONE ASSISTS ANOTHER IN PERFORMING.  THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR
CASE MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON EITHER THEORY IS
IRRELEVANT.  IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE PROOF ADDUCED AND THE BASIS ON
WHICH IT WAS SUBMITTED WERE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE EITHER TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN ANY
MANNER OR FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PARTIES DO ANY ACT
TO EFFECT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH OF THE PARTIES TO SUCH
CONSPIRACY SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE
THAN TWO YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN2  "WHOEVER SHALL MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE OR PRESENT OR CAUSE TO
BE PRESENTED, FOR PAYMENT OR APPROVAL, TO OR BY ANY PERSON OR OFFICER
IN THE CIVIL, MILITARY, OR NAVAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY
DEPARTMENT THEREOF, OR ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER, ANY CLAIM UPON OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF, OR ANY
CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER,
KNOWING SUCH CLAIM TO BE FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR FRAUDULENT; OR WHOEVER
SHALL KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FALSIFY OR CONCEAL OR COVER UP BY ANY
TRICK, SCHEME, OR DEVICE A MATERIAL FACT, OR MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE
ANY FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS, OR MAKE OR USE
OR CAUSE TO BE MADE OR USED ANY FALSE BILL, RECEIPT, VOUCHER, ROLL,
ACCOUNT, CLAIM, CERTIFICATE, AFFIDAVIT, OR DEPOSITION, KNOWING THE SAME
TO CONTAIN ANY FRAUDULENT OR FICTITIOUS STATEMENT OR ENTRY IN ANY
MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OF ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN3  SEE 2 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SECS. 302-304; 1 WHARTON,
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (11TH ED., 1935) SECS. 349-352. 

FN4  "WHOEVER DIRECTLY COMMITS ANY ACT CONSTITUTING AN OFFENSE
DEFINED IN ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, OR AIDS, ABETS, COUNSELS,
COMMANDS, INDUCES, OR PROCURES ITS COMMISSION, IS A PRINCIPAL." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

SCARCELY MORE THAN A RECITAL OF THE HISTORY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS WILL
EXPOSE THE REASONS WHY I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE COURT. 

MONCHARSH, WITH THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, WAS INDICTED ON SEVEN COUNTS. 
THE FIRST COUNT CHARGED CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES.  THE
OTHER SIX COUNTS CHARGED THE PRESENTATION OF FALSE INVOICES TO THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY
AS TO THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION OF GUILTY ON THE
CONSPIRACY COUNT; IT ALSO CORRECTLY DEFINED WHAT IS NECESSARY TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD AIDED AND ABETTED COMMISSION OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE REMAINING COUNTS.  ON APRIL 6, 1946,
THE JURY FOUND MONCHARSH GUILTY AS CHARGED ON ALL COUNTS.  HE APPEALED,
CHALLENGING, INTER ALIA, THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO EACH. 
TO SUSTAIN ON APPEAL THE CONVICTION FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES, THE
GOVERNMENT CHOSE NOT TO INSIST UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN A FINDING BY THE JURY THAT MONCHARSH HAD AIDED AND ABETTED THE
COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  IT URGED INSTEAD THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN PINKERTON V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 640, DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  THE COURT OF APPEALS,
REGARDING THAT CASE AS CONTROLLING, WAS ELOQUENTLY SILENT AS TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF AIDING AND
ABETTING. 

THIS COURT NOW FINDS THAT THE THEORY OF THE PINKERTON CASE CANNOT
SUPPORT THE CONVICTION.  I AGREE THAT IT CANNOT.  THE CHARGE TO THE
JURY IN THAT CASE MADE EXPLICIT THAT IN ORDER TO SUPPLY THE LACK OF
DIRECT EVIDENCE OF PARTICIPATION IN THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, THE JURY
COULD REGARD THEIR FINDING, IF THEY MADE ONE, THAT A CONSPIRACY EXISTED
AS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION ON THOSE COUNTS, BUT IT COULD DO
SO ONLY "PROVIDED THE ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS WERE
ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY  ...  "  328 U.S. 640,
645-46, N. 6.  HERE ALSO DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS LACKING, BUT THERE WAS NO
SUCH CHARGE, AND SO I JOIN THE COURT IN REJECTING THE APPLICABILITY OF
THE PINKERTON THEORY. 

THE COURT THUS RECOGNIZES THAT THE PINKERTON DOCTRINE IS AVAILABLE
ONLY IF (1) THERE IS A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CONDUCT OF THE CONSPIRACY
AND THE COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, AND (2) THE JURY HAS
BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING GUILT OF CONSPIRACY CANNOT
BE USED AS A BASIS FOR CONVICTION UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS UNLESS IT
HAS FOUND THE NECESSARY CONNECTION TO EXIST.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE
REQUIREMENTS LIES IN THIS:  ONLY WHEN A JURY HAS BEEN PROPERLY
INSTRUCTED AS TO THE RELEVANT STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED TO THE EVIDENCE
DOES A BASIS EXIST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT THE VERDICT WAS PRESENTED TO IT.  SEE BOLLENBACH V. UNITED
STATES, 326 U.S. 607, 613-615.  THE RELEVANT QUESTION IS NOT WAS THE
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT, BUT WAS IT SUFFICIENT TO FULFILL THE REQUIRED
STANDARDS. 

IF THIS WERE ALL, WE SHOULD REVERSE EVEN THOUGH THE RECORD CONTAINED
EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED A FINDING THAT THE ACTS REFERRED TO
IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS WERE ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY.  BUT THERE REMAINS THE POSSIBILITY OF AFFIRMING ON THE
GROUND THAT THE RECORD NEVERTHELESS CONTAINS EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS UPON THE THEORY OF AIDING
AND ABETTING, SINCE THE TRIAL COURT DID SUBMIT THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS
TO THE JURY ON A LEGALLY PROPER EXPOSITION OF THAT THEORY AND THE JURY
APPARENTLY FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE FULFILLED THE STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED.  BUT THE DEFENDANT CHALLENGES THE JURY'S RIGHT SO TO FIND;
HE INSISTS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH HIS
RESPONSIBILITY AS AN AIDER AND ABETTOR.  AS THE CASE CAME BEFORE THE
COURT OF APPEALS IT DID NOT FEEL CALLED UPON TO MEET THIS CHALLENGE. 
THIS WAS EVIDENTLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD SHIFTED ITS
POSITION - A SHIFT DOUBTLESS INDUCED BY THE FACT THAT THE PINKERTON
DECISION, RENDERED AFTER THE CASE WENT TO THE JURY, OFFERED A TEMPTING
SHORT-CUT BY WHICH TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT. 

IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE JURY'S FINDING OF GUILT
ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS.  BUT THAT QUESTION CAN BE ANSWERED ONLY BY
FACING PETITIONER'S CHALLENGE TO THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. 
THIS CHALLENGE IS HARDLY MET BY EXAMINING BITS AND PIECES OF THE RECORD
OR BY RELIANCE ON ATMOSPHERIC EMANATIONS OF GUILT.  THE WHOLE RECORD
MUST BE CANVASSED, AND THE STATE OF THIS COURT'S BUSINESS PRECLUDES
SUCH AN UNDERTAKING.  IT IS A TASK ESPECIALLY TO BE AVOIDED IN VIEW OF
THE PROVISION OF THE EVARTS ACT OF 1891, UNDERLINED BY THE JUDICIARY
ACT OF 1925, MAKING CRIMINAL APPEALS FINAL IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS,
RESERVING TO THIS COURT TO GRANT FURTHER REVIEW IN THOSE RARE INSTANCES
WHERE A SERIOUS ISSUE OF LAW OR A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COURTS OF
APPEALS PRESENTS AN ISSUE OF TRUE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.  THE QUESTION OF
EVIDENTIARY SUFFICIENCY HERE AT ISSUE EXEMPLIFIES PRECISELY THOSE
BURDENSOME FEATURES WHICH LED CONGRESS TO FREE THIS COURT FROM SUCH A
WASTEFUL RESPONSIBILITY.  THE RECORD COMPRISES TWELVE VOLUMES,
INCLUDING 4,630 PAGES.  IT IS NOT CONCEIVABLE THAT THE CASE WOULD HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT HERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CANVASSING SUCH A RECORD.  WE
SHOULD NOT NOW UNDERTAKE THE TASK MERELY BECAUSE THE NEED TO DO SO IS
UNEXPECTEDLY PRESENTED, NOR DO WE CONTRIBUTE TO SOUND JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION BY ADOPTING A CONCLUSION, ON A NECESSARILY PARTIAL
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS ITSELF, THOUGH IT
MUST HAVE EXAMINED THE RECORD, REFRAINED FROM ADOPTING.  FN1  OUR DUTY
IS NOT TO SUSTAIN MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A GENERAL SENSE THAT CRIME HAS
BEEN COMMITTED; OUR DUTY IS TO SUSTAIN ONLY IF THE APPLICABLE
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.  NOW THAT THE THEORY HAS
BEEN REJECTED WHICH MADE IT UNNECESSARY FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
PASS ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE OF AIDING
AND ABETTING, WE SHOULD REMAND THE CASE SO THAT IT MAY DO SO.  BATES V.
UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 15. 

PLAINLY THE COURT CANNOT UNDERTAKE THE TASK FROM WHICH CONGRESS HAS
HAPPILY RELIEVED IT.  BY FAILING TO DO SO, HOWEVER, IT LEAVES ROOM FOR
DOUBT WHETHER IT HAS REGARDED THE CONVICTION FOR CONSPIRACY AS THE
DAMNING FACT WHICH ESTABLISHES GUILT OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES. 
GRANTED THAT EVIDENCE TENDING TO ESTABLISH GUILT OF THE CONSPIRACY MAY
ALSO BE RELEVANT TO ESTABLISH ASSOCIATION WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES,
IT IS WHOLLY IMMATERIAL, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN INSTRUCTION AS THAT
GIVEN IN THE PINKERTON CASE, THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY
OF CONSPIRACY.  YET THE COURT POINTS TO THE "EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS THE
PROMOTER OF A LONG AND PERSISTENT SCHEME TO DEFRAUD," AND ADDS THAT
"THOSE ACTIVITIES EXTENDED THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD WHEN THE SUBSTANTIVE
CRIMES WERE COMMITTED."  THE FORMER STATEMENT ON ITS FACE IS NO MORE
THAN A WAY OF SAYING THAT HE WAS CONVICTED OF A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD,
AND SURELY THE FACT THAT THIS SCHEME WAS CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE
COMMISSION OF UNRELATED CRIMES DOES NOT SUPPLY THE LACK OF AN
INSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD MAKE GUILT OF PARTICIPATION IN IT AVAILABLE AS
PROOF OF AIDING AND ABETTING THOSE CRIMES. 

THE INSTRUCTION GIVEN IN THE PINKERTON CASE WAS NEEDED TO INFORM THE
JURY OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THEY MIGHT USE A FINDING THAT THE
DEFENDANTS WERE GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF
GUILT OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  AN INSTRUCTION AS TO AIDING AND
ABETTING SERVES NO SUCH FUNCTION, FOR IT LEAVES WHOLLY AT LARGE THE
BEARING OF THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  FOR
THE SAME REASONS, THEREFORE, THAT IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED, IN THE ABSENCE
OF SUCH AN INSTRUCTION AS THAT GIVEN IN THE PINKERTON CASE, THAT THE
ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS WERE ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF
THE UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY, SO IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE ACTS
CONSTITUTING THE CONSPIRACY WERE FOUND BY THE JURY TO BE ACTS AIDING
AND ABETTING THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  WITHOUT MORE, THE AIDING AND
ABETTING INSTRUCTION WAS SUFFICIENT ONLY TO ENTITLE THE JURY TO DRAW
INFERENCES SUPPLYING THE LACK OF EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S DIRECT
PARTICIPATION IN THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES FROM THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE OFFERED TO ESTABLISH COMMISSION OF THOSE OFFENSES.  LACKING A
PINKERTON INSTRUCTION, THE FINDING THAT A CONSPIRACY EXISTED CANNOT BE
USED TO FILL OUT THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

I AM LEFT IN DOUBT, THEREFORE, WHETHER IN LIEU OF A CHARGE TO THE
JURY THE COURT IS FABRICATING A RULE OF LAW.  THE COURT ITSELF SEEMS TO
DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT, BECAUSE OF HIS POSITION AND
CONNECTION WITH THE CONSPIRACY, MUST INEVITABLY HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED AS
AN AIDER AND ABETTOR IN THE COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES.  FOR
AN APPELLATE COURT TO DRAW SUCH AN INFERENCE IS TO MAKE IT A RULE OF
LAW THAT THE SAME INFERENCE MUST BE DRAWN IN EVERY SIMILAR CASE.  IT IS
TO CREATE, IN OTHER WORDS, A PRESUMPTION THAT WHENEVER A HAS BEEN FOUND
GUILTY OF CONSPIRING WITH B AND C TO BRING X, Y AND Z TO PASS, AND A
AND B COMMIT THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES L, M AND N, DURING THE LIFE OF
THIS CONSPIRACY, C IS AN AIDER AND ABETTOR WITH A AND B IN THE
COMMISSION OF L, M AND N. 

CLARITY AS TO THE GROUND ON WHICH A CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS SUSTAINED
IS INDISPENSABLE TO ANGLO-AMERICAN NOTIONS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; IT IS
NO LESS INDISPENSABLE FOR THE GUIDANCE OF DISTRICT COURTS IN FUTURE
PROSECUTIONS FOR CONSPIRACY.  SUCH PROSECUTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE TO
REACH A COMBINATION UNITED TO ACCOMPLISH DEFINED CRIMINAL PURPOSES; THE
CONCEPT OF CONSPIRACY IS NOT AN INVITATION TO CIRCUMVENT THE SAFEGUARDS
IN THE PROSECUTION OF CRIME WHICH ARE THE SPECIAL BOAST OF OUR
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BY MAKING IT A DEVICE TO ESTABLISH GUILT, NOT ON THE
BASIS OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT BY ASSOCIATION, AND WE SHOULD BE
AT PAINS TO FORESTALL THE IMPLICATION THAT WE HAVE SO EXTENDED IT.  MY
BROTHER JACKSON HAS IMPRESSIVELY SHOWN THE GRAVE DANGERS OF ABUSE TO
WHICH CONSPIRACY CHARGES SO READILY LEND THEMSELVES.  KRULEWITCH V.
UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 440, 445.  THEY ARE DANGERS WHICH THE
CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES HAS STRIKINGLY POINTED OUT, AND
LONG BEFORE THAT JUDGES WHO HAD OBSERVED THESE ABUSES IN PRACTICE HAD
WARNED AGAINST THEM. 

"THERE SEEMS TO BE AN INCREASING TENDENCY IN RECENT YEARS FOR PUBLIC
PROSECUTORS TO INDICT FOR CONSPIRACIES WHEN CRIMES HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED.  A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME MAY BE A SUFFICIENTLY
SERIOUS OFFENSE TO BE PROPERLY PUNISHED; BUT, WHEN A CRIME HAS BEEN
ACTUALLY COMMITTED BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS, THERE IS USUALLY NO PROPER
REASON WHY THEY SHOULD BE INDICTED FOR THE AGREEMENT TO COMMIT THE
CRIME, INSTEAD OF FOR THE CRIME ITSELF.  ...  PROSECUTORS SEEM TO THINK
THAT BY THIS PRACTICE ALL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND MANY OF THE RULES
OF EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROTECTION OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH
CRIME CAN BE DISREGARDED.  BUT THERE IS NO MYSTERIOUS POTENCY IN THE
WORD 'CONSPIRACY.'  IF A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME HAS BEEN CARRIED
OUT, AND THE CRIME COMMITTED, THE CRIME, IN MY OPINION, CANNOT BE MADE
SOMETHING ELSE BY BEING CALLED A CONSPIRACY,"  UNITED STATES V. KISSEL,
173 F. 823, 828(C.C.S.D.N.Y.). 

NEITHER CAN A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ONE CRIME BE MADE TO ESTABLISH
ANOTHER CRIME BY RESORT TO THE DOCTRINE OF AIDING AND ABETTING. 

AS TO OTHER ISSUES CANVASSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, AMONG THEM THE
ADMISSION OF PROOF OF SIMILAR CRIMES TO SHOW INTENT, I DO NOT MEAN TO
IMPLY AGREEMENT WITH ITS VIEWS.  FOR THE REASONS I HAVE STATED, I
BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

FN1  THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
MAKE CLEAR HOW FIRMLY IT PLACED ITS DECISION UPON THE PINKERTON
DOCTRINE RATHER THAN UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE. 

"  ... HERE THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY WITH AN INSTRUCTION
UNDER 18 U.S.C.A. SEC. 550 THAT 'ONE WHO AIDS, ABETS, COUNSELS,
COMMANDS, INDUCES, OR PROCURES THE COMMISSION OF AN ACT IS AS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ACT AS IF HE COMMITTED IT DIRECTLY.'  IT IS THE
GIST OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IN THIS RESPECT THAT UNLESS THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS
WHICH WERE GIVEN, THE VERDICT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON THE GROUND THAT
THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT UNDER A THEORY AS TO WHICH THE JURY WAS
UNINSTRUCTED. 

"NO AUTHORITY IS CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE POINT SO RAISED AND OUR
SEARCH FAILS TO REVEAL ANY FEDERAL CASE IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY
CONSIDERED.  ... 

"WHATEVER THE ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM MAY BE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT THE VERDICT OF THE JURY ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS DID NOT
DISREGARD OR GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN. 
APPELLANTS' CONTENTION TO THE CONTRARY IS ANSWERED BY THE PINKERTON
CASE ITSELF. 

"SO LONG AS THE CONSPIRACY EXISTED, THE MEMBERS ACTED FOR EACH OTHER
IN CARRYING IT FORWARD.  THE CRIMINAL INTENT TO COMMIT SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSES IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL PROJECT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE
FORMATION OF THE CONSPIRACY."  168 F.2D AT 854. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED FOR SEVEN OFFENSES.  THE FIRST WAS A
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT BETWEEN 1938 AND 1945.  THE
REMAINING COUNTS CHARGED SIX SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF THAT FRAUD.  SERIOUS
ATTACK HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS COURT ON THE PETITIONERS' CONVICTIONS
UNDER THE SIX SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS.  THE COURT UPHOLDS THOSE
CONVICTIONS.  IT FINDS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT
PETITIONERS AIDED OR ABETTED THE PERPETRATION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSES; AND SINCE 18 U.S.C. SEC. 2 MAKES AN AIDER OR ABETTOR A
PRINCIPAL, THE PETITIONERS ARE GUILTY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES. 

THE TRIAL LASTED NEARLY THREE MONTHS.  THE JUDGE'S CHARGE TO THE JURY
BEGAN WITH AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONSPIRACY COUNT, AND OFFERED SEVERAL
DEFINITIONS OF THE TERM "CONSPIRACY."  SOME WERE TRADITIONAL.  BUT ONE
WAS THIS:  "IF A PERSON, UNDERSTANDING THE UNLAWFUL CHARACTER OF A
TRANSACTION, ENCOURAGES, ADVISES, OR IN ANY MANNER, WITH A PURPOSE TO
FORWARD THE ENTERPRISE OR SCHEME, ASSISTS IN THE PROSECUTION, HE
BECOMES A CONSPIRATOR."  LATER IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE CONSPIRACY COUNT,
A DEFINITION OF "ABETTING" WAS GIVEN.  IT WAS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY
THIS STATEMENT:  "IN THIS CONNECTION" THE ACTS AND DECLARATIONS OF A
CONSPIRATOR ARE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST OTHER CONSPIRATORS.    THE JUDGE
THEN PASSED TO THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  AND HE CHARGED:  "ONE WHO
AIDS, ABETS, COUNSELS, COMMANDS, INDUCES, OR PROCURES THE COMMISSION OF
AN ACT IS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ACT AS IF HE COMMITTED IT DIRECTLY." 
THE JURORS WERE NOT TOLD WHAT THE TERMS "COUNSEL" OR "INDUCE"
SIGNIFIED.  ABETTING, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES, WAS NOT
DEFINED.  MOST IMPORTANT, THE JURORS WERE NOT TOLD HOW TO USE A BELIEF
THAT CONSPIRACY EXISTED AS EVIDENCE IN ITSELF OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
CRIMES.  THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO SKETCH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ABETTING,
COUNSELING, INDUCING, AND CONSPIRING. 

YET THE CONVICTIONS ARE UPHELD IN THIS COURT ON THE THEORY THAT THE
JURY FOUND AIDING OR ABETTING.  IN THIS COURT, THEN, AIDING OR ABETTING
FRAUD BECOMES THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE.  FINDING SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE VERDICT ON THIS THEORY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS, THE COURT
HOLDS THAT FAILURE TO INSTRUCT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSPIRACY
AND AIDING OR ABETTING IS UNIMPORTANT. 

I CANNOT AGREE.  CONVICTION OF THE GUILTLESS BYSTANDER IS, OF COURSE,
THE GREAT DANGER WHEN CONSPIRACY COUNTS AND SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS ARE
TRIED TOGETHER.  A LETTER IS WRITTEN, A CALL IS MADE, AND THE
FOUNDATION IS LAID.  THE JURY IS SUBJECT TO THE TEMPTATION OF
GENERALIZING; ITS CONFUSION MAKES THAT TEMPTATION HARDER TO RESIST. 
PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, AS INTERPRETED TODAY,
ATTEMPTED TO PLACE LIMITATIONS ON THIS PROCESS.  A CONSPIRACY'S MERE
JOINER IS NOT GUILTY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE UNLESS THE SUBSTANCE
WAS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY AND IN FURTHERANCE OF IT.  THE TRIAL JUDGE
MUST SO WARN THE JURY. 

THE POLICY WHICH REQUIRED CAUTIONS IN THE PINKERTON CASE REQUIRES THE
SAME CAUTIONS HERE.  THIS VOLUMINOUS RECORD, AND THE JUDGE'S
INSTRUCTIONS IN PARTICULAR, ARE REPLETE WITH POSSIBILITIES OF CONFUSION
FOR THE JUROR.  THE COURT STATES THAT THE CRIME OF AIDING OR ABETTING
THE COMMISSION OF A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE IS "WELL ENGRAINED IN THE
LAW."  AND SO IT IS.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 2; UNITED STATES V. PEONI, 100
F.2D 401. 

ATTORNEYS MAY HAVE AN ACCURATE IDEA WHAT ACTION CONSTITUTES AIDING,
ABETTING, COUNSELING, INDUCING, OR PROCURING.  COUNSELING, IN THIS
CONTEXT, MEANS ADVISING, OR RECOMMENDING.  ALTHOUGH "CONSPIRACY" MEANS
A VARIETY OF THINGS, SEE KRULEWITCH V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 440,
CONCURRING OPINION, WE REALIZE THAT THE CONCEPT OF AT LEAST IMPLICIT
AGREEMENT MAY MARK IT SOMEWHAT APART FROM COUNSELING, FOR EXAMPLE, OR
INDUCING.  SEE THOMAS V. UNITED STATES, 57 F.2D 1039, 1042; UNITED
STATES V. MACK, 112 F.2D 290, 292. 

PRECISE USE OF WORDS IS PART OF THE LAWYER'S CRAFT.  BUT WE EXPECT
TOO MUCH OF A JUROR WHEN WE ASK HIM TO MAKE INTELLIGENT DISTINCTIONS
AFTER A THREE-MONTH TRIAL AND AFTER INSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS THOSE I HAVE
QUOTED ABOVE - IN AN AREA OF LAW WHICH IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH FOR THE
SEASONED ATTORNEY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SALL, 116 F.2D 745, OVERRULED
IN PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

IN THIS CASE AN INTELLIGENT VERDICT ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS SEEMS
SCARCELY POSSIBLE.  THE JURY MAY HAVE USED THE PROOF OF CONSPIRACY AS
PROOF IN ITSELF OF THE OTHER OFFENSES - THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES OF
AIDING OR ABETTING FRAUD ON THE GOVERNMENT.  AS THE COURT INTERPRETS
PINKERTON, IT IS BEYOND QUESTION THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE IMPROPER,
WITHOUT A WARNING THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME MUST BE COMMITTED IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND AS A PART OF IT.  WE DO NOT KNOW, WE
CANNOT KNOW, WHAT EVIDENCE WAS DETERMINATIVE OF GUILT IN THE JURY
ROOM. 

AN APPELLATE COURT HAS NO BUSINESS DECIDING FOR ITSELF THAT THERE IS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT, WHEN THE TRIERS OF FACT MAY HAVE
CONSIDERED IMPROPER EVIDENCE THEIR BASIS FOR THE FINDING OF GUILT.  THE
PRESENCE OF PROPER EVIDENCE HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATEVER.  AT THE VERY
LEAST, THE JUDGE SHOULD INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE REAL PARTICIPATION CONTEMPLATED IN AIDING OR ABETTING, AND
THE MORE REMOTE PLOTTING EMBRACED BY SIMPLE "CONSPIRACY," UNITED STATES
V. PEONI, SUPRA, AT 402, ALTHOUGH ONE MAY BE BOTH CONSPIRATOR AND
ABETTOR. 

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION IS A DANGER IN ANY CONSPIRACY PROSECUTION.  ITS
CONSEQUENCES ARE MORE SERIOUS WHEN A SUBSTANTIVE CRIME IS ALSO
CHARGED.  BUT WHEN THE MAGIC WORDS "COUNSELING" OR "INDUCING" ARE
INJECTED TO "DEFINE" THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES, THE DANGER AND ITS
CONSEQUENCES REACH A NEW HIGH.  IT IS HARD TO ASSESS THE EFFECT OF A
TRIAL JUDGE'S CHARGE UPON A JURY'S UNSOPHISTICATED BELIEF IN
DEFENDANTS' BAD CONDUCT.  BUT IT IS OUR DUTY TO DO WHAT WE CAN BY WAY
OF WARNING.  CLARITY IS INDISPENSABLE. 

THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF MONCHARSH AND NYE & NISSEN IS RELATIVELY
UNIMPORTANT.  THE EFFECT OF TODAY'S DECISION ON FUTURE TRIALS, HOWEVER,
WILL BE SERIOUS INDEED.  THE COURT GIVES FURTHER COMFORT TO THE DRAGNET
THEORY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :






















DEFENSE CORP. V. LAWRENCE CO., 336 U.S. 631 


NO. 298.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 18, 1949.  - 168
F.2D 199, VACATED AND REMANDED. 


THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 30, 1945, 59 STAT. 310, DISSOLVED THE
DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION (D.S.C.)  AS OF JULY 1, 1945, TRANSFERRED
ALL OF ITS FUNCTIONS, ASSETS AND LIABILITIES TO THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION (R.F.C.), AND PROVIDED THAT NO SUIT BY OR AGAINST
D.S.C. SHOULD ABATE BY REASON THEREOF BUT THAT R.F.C. MIGHT BE
SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY AT ANY TIME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS AFTER THE DATE
OF ENACTMENT.  IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY D.S.C. AGAINST RESPONDENTS BEFORE
ITS DISSOLUTION, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR
LESS THAN TWELVE MONTHS AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE RESOLUTION.  ON AN
APPEAL NOTED BEFORE, BUT ARGUED AND DECIDED AFTER, EXPIRATION OF THE
TWELVE MONTHS, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, ALTHOUGH THE R.F.C. HAD
NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS PLAINTIFF.  ON RECONSIDERATION, THE COURT OF
APPEALS DENIED A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE R.F.C., VACATED ITS JUDGMENT OF
AFFIRMANCE, AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE ACTION.  HELD:  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO
DISMISS THE APPEAL.  PP. 632-640. 

1.  THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE R.F.C. AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TWELVE
MONTHS WAS OUT OF TIME.  P. 636. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT, HAVING BEEN ENTERED WITHIN TWELVE
MONTHS AFTER PASSAGE OF THE RESOLUTION, WAS VALID WHEN ENTERED.  PP.
636-637. 

3.  THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
MERITS OF THE CAUSE, SINCE RESPONDENTS CALLED FOR REVIEW AFTER THE
PERIOD ALLOWED FOR SUBSTITUTION HAD EXPIRED.  P. 638. 

4.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT ROBBED OF ITS VITALITY
BY THE ABATEMENT OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS.  P. 638. 

5.  THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
MERITS DOES NOT AFFECT THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE
ERRONEOUS ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 639. 

6.  AFTER DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL, R.F.C., AS THE REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST, MAY BRING ACTION ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  P.
639. 

DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORP. ET AL. V. LAWRENCE WAREHOUSE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

WITHIN A YEAR AFTER PASSAGE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 30, 1945,
59 STAT. 310, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A JUDGMENT FOR DEFENSE
SUPPLIES CORPORATION IN A SUIT FOR DAMAGES INSTITUTED BEFORE PASSAGE OF
THE JOINT RESOLUTION.  67 F.SUPP.  16.  ON AN APPEAL ARGUED AND DECIDED
MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER PASSAGE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION, THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED, ALTHOUGH R.F.C. HAD NOT BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS
PLAINTIFF.  164 F.2D 773.  ON RECONSIDERATION, THE COURT OF APPEALS
DENIED A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE R.F.C., VACATED THE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN
FAVOR OF DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION, AND ORDERED THE ACTION
DISMISSED.  168 F.2D 199.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S.
857.  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATED WITH DIRECTIONS TO
DISMISS THE APPEAL.  P. 640. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO ASSESS THE EFFECT OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLIES
CORPORATION'S DISSOLUTION ON AN ACTION TO WHICH IT WAS A PARTY AT THE
TIME OF DISSOLUTION.  PETITIONERS ARE THE DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION
AND THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.  BOTH ARE ARMS OF THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  FN1 

DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION BROUGHT ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENTS IN
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, IN
FEBRUARY, 1944, ALLEGING RESPONDENTS' NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF
AUTOMOBILE TIRES OWNED BY DEFENSE SUPPLIES AND STORED BY RESPONDENTS. 
RESPONDENTS DENIED THEIR NEGLIGENCE.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE TRIED THE
CAUSE WITHOUT A JURY IN FEBRUARY, 1945.  HE ORDERED THE CASE SUBMITTED
ON JULY 16, 1945, AND IN JANUARY, 1946, FOUND NEGLIGENCE AND ORDERED
JUDGMENT FOR DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,975.15
AND COSTS, 67 F.SUPP.  16; ENGROSSED FINDINGS AND FINAL JUDGMENT WERE
ENTERED IN APRIL, 1946.  RESPONDENTS FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL ON JUNE 14,
1946; THE APPEAL WAS ARGUED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT IN OCTOBER, 1947, AND IN DECEMBER THE COURT AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT BELOW.  164 F.2D 773.  IN JANUARY, 1948, REHEARING WAS
DENIED. 

THEN RESPONDENTS DISCOVERED THAT DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION "DID
NOT EXIST."  CONGRESS HAD DISSOLVED THE THERETOFORE SUCCESSFUL LITIGANT
AS OF JULY 1, 1945, BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 30, 1945, 59 STAT.
310, AND TRANSFERRED ALL ITS ASSETS TO THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION - AFTER TRIAL, BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT, IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, GRANTED RESPONDENTS' SECOND
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENIED A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AS OUT OF TIME; AND VACATED THE
JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION, ORDERING
THE ACTION DISMISSED.  168 F.2D 199.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON
CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 857, BECAUSE OF ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH GAYNOR V.
METALS RESERVE CO., 166 F.2D 1011, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

OUR DECISION RESTS UPON INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE DISSOLVING
DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION.  FOR ALTHOUGH OUR CONCEPTION OF A
CORPORATION CENTERS UPON LEGISLATIVE GRANT RATHER THAN SPONTANEOUS
EXISTENCE, SEE PETROGRADSKY M.K. BANK V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 253 N.Y.
23, 30-31, 170 N.E. 479, 481-482, THE COURTS HAVE GENERALLY TREATED A
CORPORATION'S DEMISE MUCH AS THEY HAVE THAT OF A NATURAL LITIGANT. 
MUMMA V. POTOMAC CO., 8 PET. 281, 287; NATIONAL BANK V. COLBY, 21
WALL.  609; PENDLETON V. RUSSELL, 144 U.S. 640; OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS
CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 273 U.S. 257.  THE PARALLEL HAS NOT BEEN THE SUBJECT
OF UNIVERSAL ADMIRATION, SEE MARCUS, SUABILITY OF DISSOLVED
CORPORATIONS, 58 HARV. L. REV. 675; AND IS BY NO MEANS EXACT, SHAYNE V.
EVENING POST PUBLISHING CO., 168 N.Y. 70, 78, 61 N.E. 115, 117; BRUUN
V. KATZ DRUG CO., 351 MO. 731, 173 S.W.2D 906.  BUT AT LEAST ONE FACET
OF THE ANALOGY HAS SEEMED TOO CLEAR TO PERMIT CHANGE WITHOUT AN
"INDEPENDENT LIFT OF POWER"  FN2  FROM THE CONGRESS.  WHETHER PHRASED
IN TERMS OF ADHERENCE TO PRECEDENT, CONGRESSIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF THAT
PRECEDENT,  FN3  OR THE "IMPOSSIBILITY" OF PROCEEDING "WITHOUT A
DEFENDANT,"  FN4  MOST COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE DISSOLUTION OF A
CORPORATION WORKS AN ABATEMENT OF PENDING ACTIONS.  FN5 

BUT A TIME-HONORED FEATURE OF THE CORPORATE DEVICE IS THAT A
CORPORATE ENTITY MAY BE UTTERLY DEAD FOR MOST PURPOSES, YET HAVE ENOUGH
LIFE REMAINING TO LITIGATE ITS ACTIONS.  ALL THAT IS NECESSARY IS A
STATUTE SO PROVIDING.  OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA; PEASE V.
RATHBUN-JONES ENGINEERING CO., 243 U.S. 273, 277.  UNLESS THE STATUTORY
TERMS ARE OBSERVED, HOWEVER, THE CONSEQUENCES OF TOTAL DISSOLUTION
ATTACH, AND, IF WE FOLLOW OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA,
AND CASES CITED, THE ACTIONS ABATE. 

THE CONTROLLING STATUTE IS SET OUT IN FULL IN THE MARGIN.  FN6  THE
FIRST SECTION DISSOLVES SEVERAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS, INCLUDING
DEFENSE SUPPLIES, AND TRANSFERS ALL THEIR ASSETS AND AUTHORITY TO THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.  SECTION 2 PROVIDES THAT "NO SUIT,
ACTION, OR OTHER PROCEEDING LAWFULLY COMMENCED BY OR AGAINST ANY OF
SUCH CORPORATIONS SHALL ABATE  ...  , BUT THE COURT, ON MOTION OR
SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FILED AT ANY TIME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS AFTER"
JULY 1, 1945, SHOWING NECESSITY FOR SURVIVAL, "MAY ALLOW THE SAME TO BE
MAINTAINED BY OR AGAINST" RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE.  THE QUESTION
PRESENTED NOW IS WHETHER THE FAILURE TO SUBSTITUTE BY JULY 1, 1946,
DEPRIVES PETITIONER DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION OF ITS $42,000
JUDGMENT. 

FIRST.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE WAS OUT OF TIME.  THE STATUTE
PROVIDES FOR SUBSTITUTION DURING THE YEAR AFTER JULY 1, 1945, AND
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE'S MOTION WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT BELOW ON
MARCH 2, 1948.  WE DO NOT THINK CONGRESS INTENDED A GESTURE OF FUTILITY
WHEN IT STATED A TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD FOR SUBSTITUTION. 

SECOND.  BUT THE COURT READ THE SUBSTITUTION PROVISION AS
CONDITIONING THE ACTION'S CONTINUANCE: UNLESS RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
BECAME THE LITIGANT, THE ACTION ABATED.  IT THEREFORE HELD THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR DEFENSE
SUPPLIES AFTER JULY 1, 1945, AND VACATED THE JUDGMENT SO ENTERED. 

WE DISAGREE.  THE STATUTE STATES CATEGORICALLY THAT "NO ACTION SHALL
ABATE."  FOLLOWING THAT COMMAND, PROVISION IS MADE FOR SUBSTITUTING
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE.  IF RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE IS NOT SUBSTITUTED
WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE ACTION BY OR AGAINST DEFENSE SUPPLIES IS, OF
COURSE, AT AN END AND THE PARTIES ARE LEFT IN STATUS QUO; BUT THERE IS
NOTHING TO SHOW THAT DURING THE YEAR IN WHICH RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
MAY BE SUBSTITUTED, ACTION BY OR AGAINST DEFENSE SUPPLIES CANNOT
CONTINUE IN DEFENSE SUPPLIES' NAME.  IF CONGRESS STATES THAT NO ACTION
SHALL ABATE, WE FAIL TO SEE WHY WE SHOULD MAKE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE A
PROVISO.  AND SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ITS JUDGMENT DURING THE
YEAR ALLOWED FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION, WE CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS VALID WHEN ENTERED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT LECRONE V. MCADOO, 253 U.S. 217;
PAYNE V. INDUSTRIAL BOARD, 258 U.S. 613; AND UNITED STATES EX REL.
CLAUSSEN V. CURRAN, 276 U.S. 590, DICTATED A CONTRARY RESULT.  THEY DO
NOT.  THEY RATHER DEMONSTRATE THE VALIDITY OF OUR INTERPRETATION.  THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE CONSTRUED IN THE LECRONE AND PAYNE CASES WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT UNDER SCRUTINY NOW,  FN7  AND THE COURT
HELD ONLY THAT THE ACTIONS WERE "AT AN END" IN THIS COURT AFTER THE
YEAR GIVEN FOR SUBSTITUTION HAD EXPIRED - THAT AFTER THAT YEAR, WE HAD
NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE MERITS.  THE COURT DID NOT SUGGEST THAT
THE COURTS BELOW HAD ENTERED THEIR JUDGMENTS IMPROPERLY.  IT SIMPLY
DISMISSED THE WRITS OF ERROR.  FN8  BUT IN 1925 THE STATUTE WAS
AMENDED.  THE COMMAND, "NO ACTION SHALL ABATE," WAS OMITTED; THE NEW
PROVISION MADE IT UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT
WAS CONDITIONAL UPON SUBSTITUTION.  FN9  AND WHEN CALLED UPON TO
INTERPRET THE NEW STATUTE, WE WENT FURTHER THAN WE HAD IN PAYNE AND
LECRONE.  WE VACATED THE JUDGMENTS BELOW, AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH A DIRECTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSE AS ABATED.  UNITED STATES
EX REL. CLAUSSEN V. CURRAN, SUPRA. 

THREE CONCLUSIONS FOLLOW FROM OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE, PLUS
THE PAYNE AND LECRONE INTERPRETATIONS OF A STATUTE WITH NEARLY
IDENTICAL LANGUAGE.  THE FIRST IS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE MERITS OF THE CAUSE, SINCE RESPONDENTS
CALLED FOR REVIEW AFTER THE PERIOD GIVEN FOR SUBSTITUTION HAD EXPIRED. 
IN ADDITION, THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT WAS VALID WHEN ENTERED, SINCE
IT WAS ENTERED DURING THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.  AND FINALLY THE JUDGMENT
WAS NOT ROBBED OF ITS VITALITY BY THE ABATEMENT OF APPELLATE
PROCEEDINGS.  THE LATTER CONCLUSION ADHERES TO THE FAMILIAR RULE THAT A
JUDGMENT AGAINST OR IN FAVOR OF A CORPORATION IS NOT ERASED BY
SUBSEQUENT DISSOLUTION.  PENDLETON V. RUSSELL, SUPRA, AT 646.  SEE 47
A.L.R. 1385, N. 1.  THERE IS NO GOOD SENSE IN DEPARTING FROM THAT
PRINCIPLE BECAUSE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED IN THIS CASE BEFORE THE
CORPORATION ENDED FOR ALL PURPOSES.  FOR EVEN IF THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN
STAYED - A FACT THAT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD BEFORE US - THE STAY
WOULD HAVE BEEN CONDITIONAL UPON PERFECTING THE APPEAL.  AND WE DO NOT
THINK RESPONDENTS ARE IN A POSITION TO OBJECT THAT THEY COULD NOT
PERFECT AN APPEAL BECAUSE THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD NO JURISDICTION,
WHEN RESPONDENTS COULD HAVE REMEDIED THE DEFECT BY A MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION. 

WE HAVE HELD, ABOVE, THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD NO JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE MERITS.  LECRONE AND PAYNE SHOW THAT WE LIKEWISE HAVE NO
JURISDICTION SO FAR AS THE MERITS ARE CONCERNED.  BUT THAT, OF COURSE,
DOES NOT AFFECT OUR POWER TO SET ASIDE THE ERRONEOUS ACTION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  OUR SUPERVISORY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WOULD BE OF
LITTLE VALUE IF THE INJUSTICE CAUSED BY THE DECISION BELOW WERE TO
STAND UNCORRECTED.  WE ARE NOT SO CONSTRICTED.  THE CLAUSSEN CASE,
SUPRA, INDICATES THAT.  AND WALLING V. REUTER, INC., 321 U.S. 671, 676,
AND CASES CITED, IS CONCLUSIVE AGAINST RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DEPRIVING PETITIONER
DEFENSE SUPPLIES OF ITS VALID JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AND WE
VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REMAND TO THAT COURT
WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE, AS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, RULE
17(A), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; SEE HEISEN V. SMITH, 138 CAL.
216, 219, 71 P. 180, 181, MAY THEN BRING ACTION ON THE JUDGMENT.  RULE
81(B); MITCHELL V. ST. MAXENT'S LESSEE, 4 WALL.  237, 242-243; FREEMAN,
JUDGMENTS (5TH ED.), SEC. 1091, P. 2268; TOWN OF FLETCHER V. HICKMAN,
165 F. 403; THOMAS V. THOMAS, 14 CAL.2D 355, 358, 94 P.2D 810, 812. 
SCIRE FACIAS REVIVAL, WHILE OFTEN CONSIDERED MERELY A CONTINUATION OF
THE ORIGINAL SUIT, UNITED STATES V. PAYNE, 147 U.S. 687, 690, IS A
SEPARATE ACTION FOR THIS PURPOSE, AND IN THE SETTING OF THIS STATUTE. 
SEE BROWNE V. CHAVEZ, 181 U.S. 68.  FN10 VACATED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 601 ET SEQ.;
DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION, SEE FOOTNOTE 6, INFRA. 

FN2  L. HAND, J., IN ANOTHER CONTEXT, HELVERING V. PROCTOR, 140 F.2D
87 AT 89. 

FN3  THE STATUTE DISSOLVING DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION, FOOTNOTE 6,
INFRA, IS AN EXAMPLE. 

FN4  MUMMA V. POTOMAC CO., SUPRA; PEORA COAL CO. V. ASHCRAFT, 123 W.
VA. 586, 595, 17 S.E.2D 444, 448. 

FN5  THE PROBLEM IS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF SURVIVAL OF CAUSES OF
ACTION.  FIX V. PHILADELPHIA BARGE CO., 290 U.S. 530. 

FN6  "RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, ALL FUNCTIONS, POWERS, DUTIES, AND
AUTHORITY OF THE CORPORATIONS HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED, ARE HEREBY
TRANSFERRED, TOGETHER WITH ALL THEIR DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT,
RECORDS, ASSETS, AND LIABILITIES OF EVERY KIND AND NATURE, TO
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AND SHALL BE PERFORMED, EXERCISED,
AND ADMINISTERED BY THAT CORPORATION IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME
EXTENT AND EFFECT AS IF ORIGINALLY VESTED IN RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION, AND THE DESIGNATED CORPORATIONS ARE HEREBY DISSOLVED:
DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION, METALS RESERVE COMPANY, RUBBER RESERVE
COMPANY, AND DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION, CREATED BY RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1940(54 STAT. 572),
AND DISASTER LOAN CORPORATION, CREATED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11,
1937(50 STAT. 19), ARE HEREBY DESIGNATED AS THE CORPORATIONS TO WHICH
THIS JOINT RESOLUTION APPLIES. 

"SEC. 2.  THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION SHALL ASSUME AND BE
SUBJECT TO ALL LIABILITIES, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF CONTRACT OR
OTHERWISE, OF THE CORPORATIONS DISSOLVED BY THIS JOINT RESOLUTION.  NO
SUIT, ACTION, OR OTHER PROCEEDING LAWFULLY COMMENCED BY OR AGAINST ANY
OF SUCH CORPORATIONS SHALL ABATE BY REASON OF THE ENACTMENT OF THIS
JOINT RESOLUTION, BUT THE COURT, ON MOTION OR SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION
FILED AT ANY TIME WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH
ENACTMENT, SHOWING A NECESSITY FOR THE SURVIVAL OF SUCH SUIT, ACTION,
OR OTHER PROCEEDING TO OBTAIN A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVED, MAY ALLOW THE SAME TO BE MAINTAINED BY OR AGAINST THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.    "SEC. 3.  THIS JOINT RESOLUTION
SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 1, 1945."  59 STAT. 310. 

FN7  "BE IT ENACTED  ...  THAT NO SUIT, ACTION, OR OTHER PROCEEDING
LAWFULLY COMMENCED BY OR AGAINST THE HEAD OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR BUREAU
OR OTHER OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, OR IN
RELATION TO THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES, SHALL ABATE BY REASON
OF HIS DEATH, OR THE EXPIRATION OF HIS TERM OF OFFICE, OR HIS
RETIREMENT, OR RESIGNATION, OR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, BUT, IN SUCH EVENT,
THE COURT, ON MOTION OR SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FILED, AT ANY TIME WITHIN
TWELVE MONTHS THEREAFTER, SHOWING A NECESSITY FOR THE SURVIVAL THEREOF
TO OBTAIN A SETTLEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED, MAY ALLOW THE SAME TO
BE MAINTAINED BY OR AGAINST HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE  ...  "  30 STAT.
822. 

FN8  MR. MCADOO RESIGNED AS SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ON NOVEMBER 22,
1918.  THE RESIGNATION WAS TO BE EFFECTIVE WHEN HIS SUCCESSOR TOOK
OFFICE.  NEW YORK TIMES, NOV. 23, 1918, P. 1, COL. 8.  CARTER GLASS
TOOK OFFICE AS SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ON DECEMBER 16, 1918.  NEW
YORK TIMES, DEC. 17, 1918, P. 17, COL. 2.  THE WRIT IN LECRONE V.
MCADOO WAS DISMISSED ON JUNE 1, 1920. 

JOHN BARTON PAYNE RESIGNED AS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS IN APRIL,
1921.  WHO WAS WHO IN AMERICA (CHICAGO, 1943), P. 946.  THE WRIT IN
PAYNE V. INDUSTRIAL BOARD WAS DISMISSED ON MAY 1, 1922. 

FN9  "BE IT ENACTED  ...  SEC. 11.  (A) THAT WHERE, DURING THE
PENDENCY OF AN ACTION, SUIT, OR OTHER PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST
AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR THE
CANAL ZONE, OR OF A TERRITORY OR AN INSULAR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED
STATES, ...  SUCH OFFICER DIES, RESIGNS, OR OTHERWISE CEASES TO HOLD
SUCH OFFICE, IT SHALL BE COMPETENT FOR THE COURT WHEREIN THE ACTION,
SUIT, OR PROCEEDING IS PENDING, WHETHER THE COURT BE ONE OF FIRST
INSTANCE OR AN APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, TO PERMIT THE CAUSE TO BE CONTINUED
AND MAINTAINED BY OR AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE OF SUCH OFFICER,
IF WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER HIS DEATH OR SEPARATION FROM THE OFFICE IT
BE SATISFACTORILY SHOWN TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL NEED
FOR SO CONTINUING AND MAINTAINING THE CAUSE AND OBTAINING AN
ADJUDICATION OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED."  43 STAT. 936, 941. 

FN10 THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE
WHETHER PRINCIPLES OF ESTOPPEL MIGHT NOT FORECLOSE RESPONDENTS' ATTACK
UPON THE FAILURE TO SUBSTITUTE.  COMPARE HABICH V. FOLGER, 20 WALL.  1;
PEASE V. RATHBUN-JONES ENGINEERING CO., SUPRA, AT 277; WITH UNITED
STATES EX REL. CLAUSSEN V. CURRAN, SUPRA; AND MUMMA V. POTOMAC CO.,
SUPRA.  NOR NEED WE DETERMINE WHETHER THE ENTRY OF A NUNC PRO TUNC
ORDER BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD HAVE PROPERLY AVOIDED THE PROBLEM
OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  COMPARE JACKSON V. SMIETANKA, 272 F. 970,
WITH MITCHELL V. OVERMAN, 103 U.S. 62; QUON QUON POY V. JOHNSON, 273
U.S. 352, 359; SHAKMAN V. UNITED STATES CREDIT SYSTEM CO., 92 WIS. 366,
377-378, 66 N.W. 528, 532; STATE V. WALDO BANK, 20 ME. 470. 
..END :











UNITED STATES V. JONES, 336 U.S. 641 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 2-3, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 18, 1949.  - 110 CT. CL.
330, 77 F.SUPP.  197, REVERSED. 


1.  AFTER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD TWICE DENIED
APPLICATIONS BY A RAILROAD FOR INCREASED COMPENSATION FOR CARRYING THE
MAIL, ON THE GROUND THAT THE GENERAL RATES FIXED BY THE COMMISSION
UNDER THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT, 39 U.S.C. SECS. 523-568, AND ALREADY
PAID WERE "FAIR AND REASONABLE" AS APPLIED TO SUCH RAILROAD, THE COURT
OF CLAIMS AWARDED THE RAILROAD A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION.  HELD:  THIS AMOUNTED TO A REVIEW AND REVISION OF THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND ORDERS AND WAS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS.  PP. 651-653, 662-671. 

(A)  CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSLY EMPOWERED THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO
REVIEW RATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION EITHER TO SET THEM ASIDE OR TO
RENDER A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOUND DUE UPON A
DETERMINATION OF THE INVALIDITY OF SUCH AN ORDER; AND TO INFER AN
INTENTION TO CONFER SUCH JURISDICTION WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE
LIMITATIONS CONGRESS HAS PLACED UPON REVIEW OF SUCH ORDERS WHEREVER
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED AS WELL AS TO THE WHOLE HISTORY AND PRACTICE OF
CONGRESS IN CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  PP. 651
653. 

(B)  NO SUCH JURISDICTION WAS INTENDED TO BE SUGGESTED BY THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S.
226, 238.  PP. 666-671. 

(C)  IN THIS CASE, THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS NOT "GIVEN EFFECT" TO THE
COMMISSION'S RATE ORDER, BUT, IN THE GUISE OF FINDING "ERROR OF LAW,"
HAS SET IT ASIDE TOGETHER WITH THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, HAS
SUBSTITUTED "FINDINGS" OF ITS OWN, AND, IN EFFECT, HAS MADE A NEW ORDER
BY ITS JUDGMENT.  PP. 653, 662-665, 669. 

(D)  THE SAME RESULT WOULD FOLLOW IF THIS SUIT COULD BE REGARDED AS
ONE FOR JUST COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, SINCE RESPONDENT
HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS CONFISCATORY AND SINCE
THE ENTRY OF A MONEY JUDGMENT BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS WOULD SHORT
CIRCUIT THE COMMISSION IN THE RATE-MAKING PROCESS.  PP. 670-671. 

(E) WHERE THE COMMISSION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS
AUTHORITY OR OTHERWISE ILLEGALLY, A MORE APPROPRIATE REMEDY WOULD BE A
SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT AS ONE ARISING UNDER THE POSTAL LAWS, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 1339, SINCE, UNLIKE THE COURT OF CLAIMS, A DISTRICT COURT
IS NOT CONFINED TO RENDERING A MONEY JUDGMENT BY WAY OF RELIEF AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES BUT, IF IT FOUND A RATE ORDER INVALID, WOULD HAVE
POWER UNDER ITS GENERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE
COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 671-673. 

2.  AFTER REVIEWING THE EXTENDED LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF
APPLICATION TO THIS CARRIER OF THE COMMISSION'S GENERAL ORDERS FIXING
RATES FOR TRANSPORTING MAIL, THIS COURT FINDS (1) THAT THE CARRIER HAS
NOT SUSTAINED ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED
ARBITRARILY OR UNREASONABLY, AND (2) THAT THE GENERAL RATES FIXED BY
THE COMMISSION'S 1928 ORDER ARE, UPON THE RECORD MADE, FAIR AND
REASONABLE AS APPLIED TO THIS CARRIER.  PP. 653-666. 

UNITED STATES V. JONES, RECEIVER. 

NO. 135.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 198, JONES, RECEIVER, V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN A SUIT BY THE RECEIVER OF A RAILROAD, THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED
A JUDGMENT FOR INCREASED COMPENSATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL,
NOTWITHSTANDING FINDINGS AND ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION (192 I.C.C. 779; 214 I.C.C. 66) DENYING ANY INCREASE BEYOND
THE AMOUNTS ALREADY PAID FOR THAT SERVICE UNDER THE GENERAL RATES FIXED
BY THE COMMISSION.  110 CT. CL. 330, 77 F.SUPP.  197.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 883.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 673. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CONTROVERSY BEGAN IN 1931, WHEN RESPONDENT'S  FN1  PREDECESSORS
AS RECEIVERS OF THE GEORGIA & FLORIDA RAILROAD FILED AN APPLICATION
WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR A REEXAMINATION OF RATES
THEN APPLICABLE TO IT FOR TRANSPORTING THE MAILS.  SINCE THEN, IN ONE
FORM OR ANOTHER, THE DISPUTE HAS FOUND ITS WAY BACK AND FORTH THROUGH
THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS, FINALLY TO COME HERE NOW FOR THE SECOND
TIME.  SEE UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226. 

THROUGH ALL THESE YEARS THE CARRIER AND THE COMMISSION HAVE BEEN AT
ODDS OVER WHETHER THE RAILROAD IS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASE IN THE RATES
PRESCRIBED FOR ITS SERVICE FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING APRIL 1, 1931, AND
ENDING, AS COVERED BY THE PRESENT SUIT, FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  THE CASE IS
NOW HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS, 335 U.S. 883, WHICH HAS
RENDERED A JUDGMENT AWARDING RESPONDENT $186,707.06 AS INCREASED
COMPENSATION DUE FOR THE YEARS 1931 TO 1938, GRIFFIN V. UNITED STATES,
110 CT. CL. 330, CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION
DENYING ANY INCREASE BEYOND THE AMOUNTS ALREADY PAID FOR THAT SERVICE
UNDER THE RATES FIXED BY IT. RAILWAY MAIL PAY, GEORGIA & FLORIDA R.
CO., 192 I.C.C. 779; ID., 214 I.C.C. 66. 

                             I. 

A STATEMENT OF THE BACKGROUND AND COURSE OF THE LITIGATION WILL AID
IN UNDERSTANDING THE RATHER COMPLICATED PROBLEMS PRESENTED, BOTH ON THE
MERITS AND AFFECTING JURISDICTION. 

IN 1916 CONGRESS ENACTED THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT.  39 U.S.C. SECS.
523-568.  THIS EMBODIED A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR REGULATING
TRANSPORTATION OF THE MAILS BY RAILROAD COMMON CARRIERS.  SUCH CARRIERS
WERE REQUIRED TO TRANSPORT THE MAILS PURSUANT TO THE ACT'S PROVISIONS. 
THESE INCLUDED THAT THE CARRIERS SHOULD BE COMPENSATED AT "FAIR AND
REASONABLE RATES" TO BE FIXED AND DETERMINED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THE RATES WERE TO BE ESTABLISHED ONLY AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING.  BUT AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM THE ENTRY OF A RATE ORDER THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL OR A CARRIER WAS AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR A
REEXAMINATION OF THE ORDER.  39 U.S.C. SECS. 541, 542, 544-554. 

THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE "THE METHOD OR METHODS BY
WEIGHT, OR SPACE, OR BOTH, OR OTHERWISE, FOR ASCERTAINING SUCH RATE,"
39 U.S.C. SEC. 542, AND FOR THE SAME PURPOSE "TO MAKE SUCH
CLASSIFICATION OF CARRIERS AS MAY BE JUST AND REASONABLE AND, WHERE
JUST AND EQUITABLE, FIX GENERAL RATES APPLICABLE TO ALL CARRIERS IN THE
SAME CLASSIFICATION."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 549.  OTHER SECTIONS SPECIFY AND
DEFINE FOUR CLASSES OF SERVICE, NAMELY, FULL RAILWAY POST-OFFICE CAR
SERVICE, APARTMENT SERVICE, STORAGE-CAR SERVICE AND CLOSED-POUCH
SERVICE.  39 U.S.C. SECS. 525-530.  FN2 ONLY APARTMENT SERVICE AND
CLOSED-POUCH SERVICE ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

ON DECEMBER 23, 1919, AFTER EXTENDED INVESTIGATION AND HEARINGS, THE
COMMISSION ENTERED ITS FIRST GENERAL MAIL RATE ORDER.  RAILWAY-MAIL
PAY, 56 I.C.C. 1.  THIS ADOPTED THE SPACE BASIS FOR DETERMINING "FAIR
AND REASONABLE RATES."  ON JULY 10, 1928, IN PROCEEDINGS FOR
REEXAMINATION THE COMMISSION GRANTED A GENERAL INCREASE OF 15% OVER THE
PREEXISTING RATES.  RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 144 I.C.C. 675.  THE GEORGIA &
FLORIDA RAILROAD ACCEPTED THESE GENERAL RATES UNTIL APRIL 1, 1931. 

AT THAT TIME IT APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION FOR A REEXAMINATION OF THE
RATES AS APPLIED TO ITSELF.  THE APPLICATION WAS HEARD AND DETERMINED
BY DIVISION 5.  ON MAY 10, 1933, THE COMMISSION DENIED ANY INCREASE,
HOLDING THE GENERAL RATES ESTABLISHED BY THE ORDER OF JULY 10, 1928,
FAIR AND REASONABLE AS APPLIED TO THIS CARRIER.  RAILWAY MAIL PAY,
GEORGIA & FLORIDA R. CO., 192 I.C.C. 779.  THIS ORDER IS IN SUBSTANCE,
THOUGH NOT TECHNICALLY, THE ONE NOW INVOLVED. 

AFTER THE COMMISSION HAD DENIED RECONSIDERATION, THE RAILROAD SUED IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  A SPECIAL THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS
CONVENED, CF. THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, FORMER 28 U.S.C. SECS.
41(28), 47; HELD THE ORDER UNLAWFUL; AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE
COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  THIS DECREE WAS FILED ON JANUARY
23, 1935. 

THEREUPON THE FULL COMMISSION CONDUCTED FURTHER HEARINGS AND IN A
REPORT FILED FEBRUARY 4, 1936, AGAIN FOUND THE RATES PREVIOUSLY FIXED
TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE GEORGIA & FLORIDA
RAILROAD.  THE ORDER THEREFORE DENIED ANY INCREASE.  RAILWAY MAIL PAY,
GEORGIA & FLORIDA R. CO., 214 I.C.C. 66. 

AGAIN THE CARRIER RESORTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, FILING A
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.  AND AGAIN THAT COURT, COMPOSED OF THE SAME THREE
JUDGES, HELD THE COMMISSION'S ORDER UNLAWFUL IN A DECREE FILED ON
FEBRUARY 23, 1937.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT,
WHICH, IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA, HELD THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT
OF A TYPE REVIEWABLE UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  FN3
ACCORDINGLY, ON FEBRUARY 28, 1938, THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT WAS
REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL AND WITHOUT DETERMINATION
OF THE CAUSE ON THE MERITS. 

AFTER NEARLY FOUR YEARS THE RECEIVERS RENEWED THE LITIGATION BY
FILING THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE AMENDED PETITION SETS
FORTH IN SOME DETAIL THE HISTORY OF THE PREVIOUS STAGES OF CONTROVERSY
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS.  THE CARRIER'S BASIC CLAIMS ON
THE MERITS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS.  THEY
ARE, IN EFFECT, (1) THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS DENYING ANY INCREASE
ARE CONFISCATORY, IN THAT THE RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL RATE
ORDER OF JULY 10, 1928, AND CONTINUED IN EFFECT SPECIFICALLY AS TO THIS
CARRIER BY THE ORDERS OF MAY 10, 1933, AND FEBRUARY 4, 1936, DO NOT
AFFORD JUST COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ON THE GROUND THAT
THEY DO NOT PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF THE COST OF THE SERVICE RENDERED
PLUS A REASONABLE RETURN UPON INVESTED CAPITAL ALLOCATED TO THAT
SERVICE; AND (2) THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS DO NOT AFFORD THE "FAIR
AND REASONABLE" COMPENSATION REQUIRED BY THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT.  FN4
BOTH CLAIMS REST UPON ATTACKS MADE ON THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AS
BEING UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT AND ON ITS CONCLUSIONS AS
BEING CONTRARY TO THAT EVIDENCE. 

TO SUSTAIN JURISDICTION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, RESPONDENT RESTS UPON
SEC. 145 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 250, NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1491, AND UPON STATEMENTS MADE IN PART FOURTH OF THE OPINION IN UNITED
STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. AT 238.  FN5

                II. 

ALTHOUGH THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT CONTAINS NO EXPLICIT PROVISION FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FIXING
RATES OF PAY FOR TRANSPORTING THE MAILS PURSUANT TO AUTHORIZATIONS OF
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL FOR SUCH SERVICE, IT HAD BEEN THOUGHT, UNTIL THE
DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA, THAT SUCH ORDERS WERE OF
THE KIND REVIEWABLE UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  THE EFFECT OF
THAT DECISION, HOWEVER, WAS TO RULE OUT SUCH ORDERS AS THOSE NOW IN
QUESTION FROM THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY THE LATTER ACT. 

WHILE THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" BASIS FOR THE COURT'S RULING IS NO LONGER
EFFECTIVE, ROCHESTER TEL. CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, THE
ALTERNATIVE GROUNDING REMAINS IN FULL FORCE.  303 U.S. AT 234.  FN6
SINCE THE VERY ORDERS NOW IN ISSUE WERE INVOLVED IN THE GRIFFIN CASE,
IT IS SETTLED THAT THE RAILROAD OR ITS RECEIVERS HAD NO RECOURSE TO A
DISTRICT COURT, UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, FOR SECURING REVIEW
OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS OR RELIEF OF THE TYPE NOW SOUGHT. 

THE COURT IN THE GRIFFIN CASE, HOWEVER, WAS NOT CONTENT TO REST
MERELY WITH THIS NEGATIVE JURISDICTIONAL RULING.  IN PART FOURTH OF THE
OPINION THE COURT WENT ON TO SAY THAT ITS RULING DID NOT "PRECLUDE
EVERY CHARACTER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW."  303 U.S. AT 238.  THE OPINION
THEN SUGGESTED THREE POSSIBLE OTHER METHODS, TWO IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS
AND ONE IN THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

WITHOUT DOUBT IT WAS DUE TO THESE SUGGESTIONS THAT RESPONDENT'S
PREDECESSORS CHOSE TO BRING THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE
LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE HAS ASSUMED SUCH
IMPORTANCE, IN VIEW OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE RECEIVERS' CHOICE IN
FOLLOWING THEM, THAT IT SEEMS WISE HERE TO QUOTE IN FULL WHAT THE COURT
SAID: 

"IF THE COMMISSION MAKES THE APPROPRIATE FINDING OF REASONABLE
COMPENSATION BUT FAILS, BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED ERROR OF LAW, TO ORDER
PAYMENT OF THE FULL AMOUNT WHICH THE RAILROAD BELIEVES IS PAYABLE UNDER
THE FINDING, THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS JURISDICTION OF AN ACTION FOR THE
BALANCE, AS THE CLAIM ASSERTED IS ONE FOUNDED UPON A LAW OF CONGRESS. 
MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 603.  COMPARE UNITED
STATES V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 279 U.S. 73, AFFIRMING 65 CT. CL.
115, 121.  AND SINCE RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE IS COMPULSORY, THE COURT OF
CLAIMS WOULD, UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE TUCKER ACT, HAVE
JURISDICTION ALSO OF AN ACTION FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IF AN ORDER
IS CONFISCATORY.  UNITED STATES V. GREAT FALLS MFG. CO., 112 U.S. 645;
NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION & TRADING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 253 U.S.
330, 333; JACOBS V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 13, 16.  MOREOVER, AS
DISTRICT COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OF EVERY SUIT AT LAW OR IN EQUITY
'ARISING UNDER THE POSTAL LAWS,' 28 U.S.C., SEC. 41(6), SUIT WOULD LIE
UNDER THEIR GENERAL JURISDICTION IF THE COMMISSION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE
ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS AUTHORITY, OR OTHERWISE ILLEGALLY.  COMPARE
POWELL V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 276, 288, 289."  303 U.S. AT 238. 

RESPONDENT AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE AT ODDS OVER WHETHER THE
CARRIER'S CLAIMS NOW ASSERTED FALL UNDER THE FIRST OR THE SECOND CLASS
OF CASES OF WHICH THIS COURT SAID THE COURT OF CLAIMS WOULD HAVE
JURISDICTION.  RESPONDENT INSISTS, BOTH IN THE COMPLAINT AND IN THE
BRIEF FILED HERE, THAT HIS CLAIM IS GROUNDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS ARE CONFISCATORY AND HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING
THE CARRIER OF ITS PROPERTY AND SERVICES WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION DUE
UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS THAT IT
WAS EXERCISING ANY JURISDICTION OVER CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.  THIS WAS
DONE IN DENYING THE CARRIER'S CLAIM TO INTEREST ON THE AWARD.  FN7  IN
THE COURT'S VIEW THEREFORE THE JURISDICTION WHICH IT WAS EXERTING FELL
WITHIN THE FIRST CLASS OF CASES STATED IN THE GRIFFIN OPINION TO BE
WITHIN THE COURT OF CLAIMS' JURISDICTION, NAMELY, WHERE THE COMMISSION
MAKES THE APPROPRIATE FINDING OF REASONABLE COMPENSATION BUT FAILS,
BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED ERROR OF LAW, TO ORDER PAYMENT OF THE FULL AMOUNT
THE CARRIER BELIEVES PAYABLE UNDER THE FINDING. 

THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS DID NOT
EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER THIS CATEGORY.  IT DISPUTES THAT THE COURT
"GAVE EFFECT," AS THE COURT STATED,  FN8  TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OR
ORDERED PAYMENT OF ANY BALANCE DUE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S FINDING. 
RATHER, THE GOVERNMENT URGES, THE COURT FLOUTED THAT ORDER, SUBSTITUTED
ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNING THE APPROPRIATE ORDER
TO BE ENTERED, AND IN EFFECT ENTERED A WHOLLY NEW AND DIFFERENT ORDER
FROM THAT MADE BY THE COMMISSION, TOGETHER WITH A MONEY JUDGMENT GIVING
ITS OWN VIEW EFFECT. 

ORDINARILY IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR US TO TAKE THE COURT OF CLAIMS
AT ITS WORD AND ACCEPT ITS STATED VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE
JURISDICTION IT WAS EXERTING.  BUT THE THREE DIFFERING VIEWS OF ITS
ACTION TAKEN BY ITSELF, BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND BY THE RESPONDENT,
TOGETHER WITH THE DIFFICULTIES EACH RAISES ON THE RECORD FOR DISPOSING
OF THE CAUSE, COMPEL US TO EXAMINE THOSE CLAIMS. 

IF, AS THE COURT ASSERTS, IT WAS "GIVING EFFECT" TO THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER AND DOING SO WITHOUT SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THE
COMMISSION'S AS TO WHAT WAS A "FAIR AND REASONABLE RATE," THERE SHOULD
BE LITTLE DIFFICULTY IN SUSTAINING THE JURISDICTION; FN9  THAT IS,
UNLESS RESPONDENT IS RIGHT IN HIS CONTENTION THAT THE COURT WAS CALLED
UPON TO AND, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS DISCLAIMER, IN FACT DID ADJUDICATE HIS
CLAIM FOR JUST COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IN THAT EVENT
AND ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AWARD WAS PROPER ON THE MERITS, REVERSAL
WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER THAT THE COURT MIGHT MAKE APPROPRIATE
ALLOWANCE FOR INTEREST.  FN10 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRECT IN THE VIEW THAT THE
COURT DID NOT GIVE EFFECT TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, BUT INSTEAD
DISREGARDED THAT ORDER AND SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THE
COMMISSION'S CONCERNING WHAT CONSTITUTED A "FAIR AND REASONABLE RATE,"
THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE GRIFFIN STATEMENTS WERE INTENDED TO
GIVE THAT POWER TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER EITHER CATEGORY OF
JURISDICTION THE OPINION SAID THAT COURT MIGHT HAVE. 
              III. 

THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT GIVES THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE "FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES."  THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSION'S RATE ORDERS IN "CASES BROUGHT TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL
OR SUSPEND" SUCH ORDERS.  NO POWER WAS GIVEN THE REVIEWING COURT TO
REVISE THEM WHEN FOUND INVALID, OR TO RENDER JUDGMENT FOR ANY AMOUNT
THOUGHT TO BE DUE UNDER SUCH A REVISION. 

IT WOULD BE STRANGE, INDEED ANOMALOUS IN THE EXTREME, IF THIS COURT
BY ITS GRIFFIN PRONOUNCEMENTS INTENDED TO CONFER ON THE COURT OF
CLAIMS, BY IMPLICATION IN THE CASES THERE HELD NOT REVIEWABLE UNDER THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, A BROADER, MORE CONCLUSIVE AND FINAL POWER OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW THAN THAT ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR LIKE ORDERS WITHIN
ITS PURVIEW.  THE ASSUMPTION IS HARDLY TENABLE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
SUCH A RESULT WHEN IT ENACTED THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT OR THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT OR BOTH.  CONGRESS IN NO INSTANCE HAS EXPRESSLY
EMPOWERED THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO REVIEW RATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION,
FN11  EITHER TO SET THEM ASIDE OR TO RENDER A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR
ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOUND DUE UPON A DETERMINATION OF AN ORDER'S
INVALIDITY.  TO INFER SUCH AN INTENTION WOULD BE CONTRARY NOT ONLY IN
SPIRIT TO THE LIMITATIONS CONGRESS HAS PLACED UPON REVIEW OF SUCH
ORDERS WHEREVER EXPRESSLY PROVIDED, BUT ALSO TO THE WHOLE HISTORY AND
PRACTICE OF CONGRESS IN CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THE COURT OF
CLAIMS. 

THUS, WHEN THESE VERY ORDERS WERE TWICE BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT,
UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION, THAT COURT FOUND THE
ORDERS INVALID.  BUT IN EACH INSTANCE IT REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE
COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO RENDER A
MONEY JUDGMENT FOR THE CARRIER. 

NECESSARILY THIS RESTRAINT REFLECTED THE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS
PLACED UPON THE COURT BY THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  BUT THOSE
LIMITATIONS THEMSELVES REFLECTED ANOTHER POLICY, QUITE APART FROM AND
IN ADDITION TO THAT GIVING EFFECT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS OF
ARTICLE III.  FN12 THE LIMITATIONS EXEMPLIFY SETTLED CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY CONCERNING THE RELATIONS OF RATE-MAKING BODIES AND REVIEWING
COURTS.  NOT ONLY IS RATE MAKING ESSENTIALLY LEGISLATIVE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE.  THE POLICY OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IS ONE HAVING REGARD FOR
THE EXPERTISE OF SPECIAL AGENCIES CHARGED WITH PERFORMING THE RATE
MAKING FUNCTION AND FOR THE INHERENT ACTUAL, AS WELL AS LEGAL,
DISABILITY OF COURTS TO EXECUTE THAT FUNCTION.  SUCH DOCTRINES OR
POLICIES AS THOSE OF "PRIMARY JURISDICTION"  FN13  AND EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES  FN14  LIE AT THE VERY ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. 
AND THIS IS AS TRUE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, WHICH
IS NOT RESTRICTED BY ARTICLE III, AS IT IS OF COURTS SO LIMITED.  FN15 

HARDLY CAN IT BE CONCEIVED THEREFORE THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED EXPRESSLY FOR REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S RATE-MAKING ORDERS BY
THE COURT OF CLAIMS; OR THAT, IF IT HAD DONE SO, IT WOULD HAVE
AUTHORIZED A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR SUCH AMOUNT AS THAT COURT IN ITS OWN
JUDGMENT CONSIDERED THE RATE SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED. 

IT IS EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT, WE THINK, THAT WHEN THE THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT TWICE SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IT DID SO ON
GROUNDS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE USED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN
THIS CASE FOR HOLDING THE ORDER INVALID.  IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT THE
DISTRICT COURT DID BY WAY OF EXAMINING THE ORDERS ON THEIR MERITS,
FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL, THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS DONE IN THIS CASE. 
INDEED, IT HAS GONE MUCH FURTHER, SINCE IT HAS RENDERED A MONEY
JUDGMENT FOR THE CARRIER COVERING THE PERIOD 1931-1938, HAVING THE
EFFECT IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF A NEW AND FINAL ORDER. 

                                 IV. 

A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS AND OF THE EFFECTS OF
THE ACTION TAKEN REGARDING THEM, BOTH BY THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
AND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, CAN BE HAD ONLY BY READING AND COMPARING
THE REPORTS AND OPINIONS.  FN16  THE LIMITATIONS OF SPACE PREVENT
SUMMARIZING THEIR CONTENT HERE IN SUBSTANTIAL DETAIL.  BUT THE GIST OF
THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS MAY BE
INDICATED. 

WE NOTE, TO BEGIN WITH, THAT THE COURT AWARDED TO THE RESPONDENT
$186,707.06, OR SOME 87 PER CENT MORE THAN THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE UNDER
THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS.  THIS IN ITSELF SHOWS THE WIDE DISCREPANCY
BETWEEN THE COMMISSION'S VIEW AND THE COURT'S CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF
A "FAIR AND REASONABLE RATE." 

MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION'S TASK IN FIXING THAT RATE WAS BOTH GIGANTIC
AND COMPLEX.  IT WAS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE CLASSIFICATION OF CARRIERS
WHERE "JUST AND REASONABLE" AND, "WHERE JUST AND EQUITABLE," TO "FIX
GENERAL RATES APPLICABLE TO ALL CARRIERS IN THE SAME CLASSIFICATION." 
39 U.S.C. SEC. 549.  THAT AUTHORITY OF COURSE WAS NOT TO BE IGNORED IN
APPLYING THE REQUIREMENT FOR COMPENSATION OF CARRIERS AT "FAIR AND
REASONABLE RATES."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 542.  THE TWO WERE NOT ENTIRELY
SEPARATE, BUT WERE MERELY DIFFERENT PRONGS OF THE SAME FORK. 

IN ITS FIRST GENERAL RATE PROCEEDING THE COMMISSION CLASSIFIED THE
NATION'S CARRIERS, FOR MAIL-PAY COMPENSATION PURPOSES, PLACING THE
GEORGIA & FLORIDA RAILROAD IN CLASS I. FN17  IT ALSO DECIDED GENERALLY
UPON THE SPACE BASIS AS AN APPROPRIATE METHOD OF DETERMINING FAIR AND
REASONABLE COMPENSATION.  56 I.C.C. 1. 

RAILROAD ACCOUNTING, HOWEVER, DOES NOT, AND CONCEDEDLY CANNOT,
ACCURATELY REFLECT ACTUAL OPERATING COSTS OF EACH TYPE OF SERVICE
RENDERED, OR THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN RENDERING
EACH SERVICE.  THE COMMISSION THEREFORE SOUGHT A METHOD OR METHODS FOR
MAKING SUCH ALLOCATIONS TENTATIVELY AS THE INITIAL STAGE OF PERFORMING
ITS RATE-MAKING FUNCTION.  THIS REQUIRED, FIRST, SEGREGATING FREIGHT
SERVICE FROM PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE; THEN DIVIDING THE LATTER INTO
THREE CATEGORIES:  PASSENGER SERVICE PROPER (INCLUDING BAGGAGE
SERVICE), EXPRESS SERVICE, AND MAIL SERVICE. 

THE PROBLEM AROSE BOTH IN THE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING IN THE FIRST
GENERAL RATE ORDER, 56 I.C.C. 1, AND IN THOSE RESULTING IN THE GENERAL
RATE INCREASE OF 1928.  144 I.C.C. 675.  IN THE LATTER THE INITIAL
SEPARATION OF TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES BETWEEN FREIGHT AND PASSENGER
SERVICES WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES GOVERNING SUCH
SEPARATION ON LARGE STEAM RAILWAYS.  ID. AT 685-688.  BUT, FOR
DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE IN RESPECT TO THE FURTHER ALLOCATION
AND APPORTIONMENT OF PASSENGER-TRAIN SERVICE AMONG ITS THREE
COMPONENTS, THE COMMISSION, HAVING DETERMINED UPON THE SPACE BASIS FOR
THIS INITIAL STAGE IN FIXING "FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES," WAS FACED
WITH THE PROBLEM OF WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH UNUSED SPACE. 

THAT PROBLEM PRESENTS THE CRUX OF THIS CASE, AS IT DID OF THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION.  IN THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE 1928 ORDER,
THREE GENERAL PLANS WERE GIVEN PRIMARY CONSIDERATION FOR DISTRIBUTING
SPACE.  THEY ARE DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT LAST CITED.  SEE ID. AT 681,
689.  IN GENERAL THEY WERE ALIKE IN ALLOCATING FULL-CAR  FN18  SPACE TO
THE SERVICE IT PERFORMED.  BUT THEY DIFFERED WIDELY IN ALLOCATING
UNUSED SPACE IN SO-CALLED COMBINATION CARS AND MIXED CARS.  FN19
WITHOUT GOING INTO FURTHER DETAIL HERE, SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT PLAN 3
ALLOCATED THE LARGEST AMOUNTS OF UNUSED SPACE TO PASSENGER AND EXPRESS
SERVICE AND CORRESPONDINGLY THE SMALLEST AMOUNT TO MAIL SERVICE; PLAN
2, MORE NEARLY APPROXIMATING THE CARRIER'S PROPOSALS, WORKED OUT IN
INVERSE PROPORTIONS; AND PLAN 1 LAY BETWEEN THE TWO.  SEE 144 I.C.C. AT
681, 689. 

THE DIFFERENCES IN RESULTS FOLLOWING FROM USE OF THE VARIOUS PLANS
WERE HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT, MAKING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NET RETURN AND
NET DEFICIT, OR DEFICITS OF DIFFERENT SIZES, DEPENDING UPON WHICH PLAN
WAS USED.  FN20  IN EACH PLAN AFTER THE ULTIMATE SPACE RATIOS WERE
DETERMINED BY COMPLICATED STATISTICAL STUDIES, THEY WERE APPLIED TO
TOTAL PASSENGER-TRAIN SERVICE EXPENSE TO DETERMINE EXPENSE RATIOS FOR
THE THREE CONSTITUENT SERVICES.  AND THOSE EXPENSE RATIOS WERE ALSO
USED TO APPORTION INVESTMENT IN ROAD AND EQUIPMENT ASSIGNED TO
PASSENGER-TRAIN SERVICE. 

THE COMMISSION REJECTED PLAN 3 BECAUSE, IT SAID, THAT PLAN HAD
DEPARTED FROM THE CAR-OPERATING UNIT WHICH IT HAD ADOPTED FOR MAKING
SPACE ALLOCATIONS.  144 I.C.C. 689-691.  WHILE NOT SPECIFICALLY
ELIMINATING PLAN 1 FROM CONSIDERATION FOR PURPOSES OF COMPARISON, THE
COMMISSION PRIMARILY RESTED ITS ALLOCATIONS OF SPACE FOR PURPOSES OF
TENTATIVE OR PRELIMINARY APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS AND CAPITAL ON PLAN 2. 
ID. AT 691. 

IN UTILIZING THE RATIOS DERIVED FROM USING PLAN 2, HOWEVER, THE
COMMISSION EXPRESSLY STATED: 

"IN CONNECTION WITH THE COST STUDIES UNDER ANY OF THE PLANS FOR
DIVIDING THE TRAIN SPACE, IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT IN
COMPUTATIONS OF THIS CHARACTER WHERE THE DIRECT ALLOCATIONS ARE
RELATIVELY SMALL AND THE GREAT BULK OF EXPENSES AND INVESTMENT ARE
NECESSARILY DIVIDED, SUBDIVIDED, APPORTIONED, AND REAPPORTIONED UPON
VARIOUS THEORIES AND ASSUMPTIONS, THE RESULTS CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN
ACCURATE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE COSTS OF SERVICE.  AT BEST, THEY ARE
APPROXIMATIONS TO BE GIVEN SUCH WEIGHT AS SEEMS PROPER IN VIEW OF ALL
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND THE THEORIES
UNDERLYING THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE VARIOUS STEPS IN THE COMPUTATIONS." 
144 I.C.C. AT 691-692. 

THE COMMISSION PROCEEDED TO CONSIDER THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY THE USE
OF THE PLAN 2 FORMULA IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CONSIDERATIONS DEEMED RELEVANT, INCLUDING COMPARISON WITH RESULTS
OBTAINED UPON THE BASIS OF THE TOTAL EQUATED 60-FOOT-CAR MILES (SEE 144
I.C.C. AT 692), THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH INCENTIVE TO LIMIT THE
AMOUNT OF SPACE UTILIZED FOR PASSENGER, BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS SERVICES AS
EXISTED IN THE CASE OF MAIL SERVICE, ID. AT 693, AND OTHER FACTORS. 
THE COMMISSION THEN CONCLUDED: 

"GIVING CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE FIGURES BASED UPON THE RESPECTIVE
COST STUDIES; TO THE FACT THAT NONE OF THESE FIGURES EXCEPT THOSE IN
THE CARRIERS' EXHIBITS, INCLUDES ANY CHARGE AGAINST THE PASSENGER-TRAIN
SERVICE FOR ITS PROPORTION OF THE COST OF HANDLING NONREVENUE FREIGHT;
GIVING SPECIAL WEIGHT TO THE FIGURES BASED ON THE PLAN FOR THE DIVISION
OF TRAIN SPACE FOLLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING AND SUBSEQUENT
REEXAMINATIONS; AND MAKING ALLOWANCE FOR WEAKNESSES OF THEORIES AND
METHODS, AN INCREASE OF 15 PER CENT IN MAIL REVENUES FOR THE CARRIERS
AS A WHOLE IN THIS GROUP IS JUSTIFIED."  144 I.C.C. AT 695. 

THIS INCREASE, VERY MUCH SMALLER THAN A USE OF THE RESULTS OBTAINED
BY UNQUALIFIED APPLICATION OF PLAN 2 WOULD HAVE PRODUCED, RESULTED IN
GENERAL RATES OF 14.5 CENTS PER MILE OF SERVICE IN A "15-FOOT APARTMENT
CAR" AND 4.5 CENTS PER MILE OF SERVICE IN A "3-FOOT CLOSED-POUCH
SERVICE SPACE."  THOSE RATES BECAME APPLICABLE TO THE GEORGIA & FLORIDA
RAILROAD, WERE ACCEPTED BY IT FROM 1928 TO 1931, AND ARE THE RATES NOW
IN QUESTION. 

IN THIS SUIT AND IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS SINCE 1931, NO ATTACK HAS
BEEN MADE ON THE VALIDITY OF THESE RATES AS GENERAL RATES APPLICABLE TO
CLASS I CARRIERS.  BUT THE 1931 PROCEEDINGS CHALLENGED THEIR VALIDITY
AS APPLIED TO THIS PARTICULAR CARRIER.  THIS HAS BEEN THE BONE OF
CONTENTION THROUGHOUT THE SUBSEQUENT PHASES OF CONTROVERSY. 

WHEN IN 1931 THE CARRIER'S APPLICATION FOR REEXAMINATION WAS FILED,
THE COMMISSION BY ITS DIVISION 5 FIRST PROCEEDED TO MAKE A COST STUDY
OF THE RAILROAD'S INDIVIDUAL OPERATIONS, CONDUCTED ALONG THE SAME LINES
AS THE COST STUDIES IN ITS GENERAL RATE HEARINGS.  A TEST PERIOD OF 28
DAYS FROM SEPTEMBER 28 TO OCTOBER 25, 1931, WAS SELECTED FOR OBTAINING
SPACE AND OTHER DATA.  SPACE RATIOS WERE DETERMINED ON THE DATA
SECURED, APPLIED TO EXPENSES, AND THE RESULTING EXPENSE RATIOS USED TO
APPORTION INVESTMENT, ALL UNDER PLAN 2.  AFTER ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO
REFLECT THE YEAR'S OPERATIONS FOR 1931, THE PLAN 2 FORMULA WORKED OUT
TO SHOW A NET OPERATING DEFICIT FOR MAIL SERVICE OF $4,945, WHICH,
TOGETHER WITH A RETURN OF 5.75 PER CENT ON THE CAPITAL ALLOCATED BY THE
FORMULA TO MAIL SERVICE, BROUGHT THE CARRIER'S CLAIM FOR INCREASED
COMPENSATION FOR THAT YEAR TO $31,227.  192 I.C.C. 779, 781.  TO MEET
THIS, AN INCREASE OF 87.40 PER CENT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. 

AS IN THE GENERAL RATE INVESTIGATIONS AND FOR THE SAME REASONS, THE
DIVISION WAS UNWILLING TO REST EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY
THE COMPUTATIONS UNDER PLAN 2, AND WENT ON TO CONSIDER OTHER FACTORS
WHICH IT DEEMED RELEVANT IN DETERMINING THE FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS
OF THE RATES.  IT FOUND THAT OF THE THREE COMPONENT SERVICES IN
PASSENGER-TRAIN SERVICE, "THE MAIL SERVICE MAKES THE BEST SHOWING WITH
RESPECT TO REVENUE."  N21  THE DIVISION FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE
PERIOD 1929 TO 1931, MAIL REVENUES HAD BEEN MORE STABLE THAN REVENUES
FROM OTHER PASSENGER-TRAIN SERVICES, PASSENGER SERVICE PROPER HAVING
DECREASED 67 PER CENT, EXPRESS SERVICE 64 PER CENT, AND MAIL SERVICE 12
PER CENT.  CONSIDERATION ALSO WAS GIVEN TO THE SPECIAL FACTS SHOWN
RELATING TO USE OF UNUSED SPACE. 

POINTING OUT THAT THE CARRIER'S CLAIM WAS BASED ON THE SPECIAL COST
STUDY AND THE FACT THAT "BECAUSE OF ITS LOW TRAFFIC DENSITY AND LOW
EARNINGS PER MILE OF ROAD, IT IS NOT COMPARABLE WITH MANY CLASS I ROADS
WHICH RECEIVE THE SAME RATES OF PAY," THE DIVISION REITERATED THAT "THE
COST STUDY IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE AN ACCURATE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE
ACTUAL COST OF SERVICE.  IT IS AN APPROXIMATION TO BE GIVEN SUCH WEIGHT
AS SEEMS PROPER IN VIEW OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE RAILWAY MAIL
PAY, SUPRA."  192 I.C.C. AT 783.  IT THEN CONCLUDED:    "THE COMPARISON
OF MAIL REVENUE WITH OTHER REVENUE RECEIVED FOR SERVICES IN PASSENGER
TRAIN OPERATIONS SHOWS THAT MAIL WITH RELATION TO THE OTHER SERVICES IS
BEARING ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE EXPENSES OF OPERATION AND IS CONTRIBUTING
RELATIVELY MORE THAN THE OTHER SERVICES FOR THE SPACE FURNISHED. 
APPLICANT RECEIVES THE SAME RATES AS THOSE RECEIVED BY OTHER ROADS FOR
THE SAME KIND OF SERVICE.  MANY OF THESE OTHER ROADS ARE, AS APPLICANT
POINTS OUT, ROADS WHICH ARE VERY MUCH LARGER AND WHICH HAVE GREATER
TRAFFIC AND LOWER UNIT OPERATING COSTS.  ON THE OTHER HAND MANY ARE IN
MUCH THE SAME SITUATION AS THE APPLICANT IN RESPECT OF PASSENGER-TRAIN
OPERATIONS.  THE DATA SUBMITTED FAIL TO JUSTIFY GIVING THE APPLICANT
RATES HIGHER THAN THOSE NOW PAID OTHER RAILWAY COMMON CARRIERS FOR LIKE
SERVICE. 

"WE FIND THAT THE RATES OF PAY NOW RECEIVED BY APPLICANT FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL, ESTABLISHED IN RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 144 I.C.C.
675, FOR RAILROADS OVER 100 MILES IN LENGTH, ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE. 
THE APPLICATION FOR INCREASED COMPENSATION IS DENIED."  IBID. 

WHEN THE CAUSE WAS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION BY THE GEORGIA DISTRICT
COURT IN 1935, THE FULL COMMISSION REOPENED THE PROCEEDING AND HELD A
FURTHER HEARING AT WHICH FURTHER EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED.  IN REMANDING
THE CAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT HAD STRESSED THE COMPUTED FINDING UNDER
PLAN 2 THAT "THE DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE UPON THE SPACE RATIOS SHOWS
THAT THE OPERATING RATIO FOR MAIL SERVICE WAS 102.79"  FN22  OR, AS THE
COURT ADDED, "THAT FOR EVERY DOLLAR APPLICANTS RECEIVED FOR
TRANSPORTING MAILS THEY EXPENDED ONE DOLLAR AND 2.79 CENTS."  THE COURT
THEN ASSERTED THAT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY DIVISION
5 "DO NOT REFUTE OR IMPAIR THE FACT THAT THE COMPENSATION ALLOWED THIS
RAILROAD FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL DOES NOT EQUAL THE COST OF SO
DOING." 

COUNSEL FOR THE CARRIER STRESSED THIS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AS "AN
ADJUDICATION" THAT THE PREVIOUS RATES OF PAY WERE "TOTALLY
INADEQUATE."  BUT THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE APPARENT DISTRICT COURT
INFERENCE THAT ABANDONMENT OF MAIL SERVICE WOULD SAVE THE CARRIER
MONEY: "CONSIDERING THE CHARACTER OF THE EXPENSES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY
IT IS CLEAR THAT NO SUCH SAVING COULD BE MADE.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
OPERATING-RATIO FIGURE HAS BEEN OVEREMPHASIZED.  RELATIVE COSTS DERIVED
FROM A SERIES OF STUDIES OF EXPENDITURES FOR OPERATIONS COMMON TO A
NUMBER OF SERVICES CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO ABSOLUTE COSTS BY USING A
SINGLE-FIGURE RELATION DERIVED FROM SUCH STUDIES."  214 I.C.C. AT 69. 

THE COMMISSION THEN AGAIN REPEATED ITS INSISTENCE THAT COST COMPUTED
UNDER SUCH A FORMULA AS PLAN 2 "IS A HYPOTHETICAL COST AND NOT AN
ACTUAL COST," IBID.; THAT IN OTHER MAIL-PAY PROCEEDINGS CONSIDERATION
HAD BEEN GIVEN TO OTHER FACTORS; FN23  AND, AGAIN TAKING SUCH FACTORS
INTO ACCOUNT, CONCLUDED UPON THE AUGMENTED RECORD THAT THE RATES THEN
APPLICABLE TO THE CARRIER WERE FAIR AND REASONABLE.  214 I.C.C. AT 70
76. 

ON RETURN OF THE CAUSE, THE DISTRICT COURT DISCLAIMED ENTERTAINING THE
VIEW "THAT THE HYPOTHETICAL COST IS 'NECESSARILY CONCLUSIVE.'"  RATHER,
THE COURT SAID, "IT IS MERELY THE FAIREST METHOD THAT HAS BEEN
DEVISED."  IT HELD INAPPLICABLE TO THE CARRIER THE CONSIDERATIONS
UTILIZED BY THE COMMISSION TO QUALIFY THE RESULTS COMPUTED BY THE COST
FORMULA, SUCH AS "COMPARISONS WITH COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM OTHER
SERVICES IN PASSENGER TRAIN CARS"; AND "COMPARISONS PER CAR-MILE AND
PER CAR-FOOT MILE OF THE COMPUTED COST OF MAIL SERVICE AND THE REVENUE
FROM AUTHORIZED MAIL SERVICE WITH THE COMPUTED COST OF CORRESPONDING
UNITS IN PASSENGER-TRAIN SERVICE AS A WHOLE."  THE COURT ACCORDINGLY
AGAIN FOUND THE COMMISSION'S ORDER UNLAWFUL AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO
IT A SECOND TIME FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

IT IS OBVIOUS, FROM THE FOREGOING ACCOUNT, THAT THE BASIC DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT LAY IN WHETHER THE
COMMISSION'S STATISTICAL AND MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATIONS UNDER PLAN 2
ALONE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS DETERMINATIVE OF COSTS AND THUS OF FAIR AND
REASONABLE RATES  FN24 OR WHETHER THOSE COMPUTATIONS WERE RIGHTLY TAKEN
BY THE COMMISSION AS MERELY TENTATIVE ESTIMATES OR APPROXIMATIONS,
APPLICABLE IN THE INITIAL STAGE OF RATE DETERMINATION, BUT SUBJECT TO
QUALIFICATION BY COMPARISON WITH RESULTS OBTAINED UNDER OTHER PLANS
AND, IN THE FINAL STAGE, BY CONSIDERATION OF OTHER FACTORS FOUND
PERTINENT IN THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT. 

THIS IS EXACTLY THE QUESTION WHICH WAS CRUCIAL IN THE JUDGMENT
RENDERED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  IN ITS OPINION, MUCH MORE EXTENDED
THAN EITHER OF THOSE RENDERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IT SAID: 

"UNDER FINDING 16 HEREIN, IT IS SHOWN THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT PLAINTIFF WOULD REQUIRE AN
INCREASE IN ITS MAIL REVENUE OF 87.4% IN ORDER TO SECURE FOR ITSELF,
UNDER PLAN 2 ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION, A RETURN OF 5.75% THERETOFORE
FIXED BY THE COMMISSION, ON ITS INVESTMENTS IN ROAD AND EQUIPMENT
ENGAGED IN MAIL TRAFFIC.  ...  THE COMMISSION HAS, BY ITS USE OF PLAN
NO. 2, ADJUDGED IT TO BE A FAIR AND REASONABLE BASIS.  AND OUT OF THAT
BASIS THERE HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED, BY FORMULAE PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSION, WHAT IS THE FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR
PLAINTIFFS' CARRIAGE OF THE MAILS BEGINNING THE FIRST OF APRIL 1931,
AND ENDING AT THE CLOSE OF FEBRUARY 1938.  FAIR AND REASONABLE
COMPENSATION CANNOT BE BOTH A DEFICIT AND THE AMOUNT OF $186,707.06 SO
FOUND.  IT IS, WE CONCLUDE, THE LATTER."  110 CT. CL. AT 366-367, 369. 

THE COURT THEN QUOTED THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUDING LANGUAGE IN 192
I.C.C. 779, 783, SET OUT ABOVE IN THE TEXT, AND SAID: 

"WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE 'APPROXIMATION' (PLAN 2) SHOULD BE
GIVEN GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE COMMISSION AFFORDS IT, BECAUSE, AS WE
HAVE SAID, AND THE COMMISSION IN EFFECT ADMITS, THERE IS NO SUCH THING
AS CERTAINTY IN ACTUAL COST.  APPROXIMATE, OR AS IT IS CALLED,
'COMPUTED' COST MUST BE RELIED UPON, AND AS A MATTER OF LAW MUST BE
DECISIVE.  THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE, AT LEAST NO SATISFYING
ALTERNATIVE.  OF COURSE THERE WERE OTHER METHODS OF COMPUTING COST, BUT
THE COMMISSION, PUT TO THE CHOICE, SELECTED PLAN NO. 2."  110 CT. CL.
AT 370. 

THEN FOLLOWED REJECTION OF THE FACTORS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION
IN QUALIFYING THE COMPUTATIONS OBTAINED UNDER PLAN 2 AS "NOT CONVINCING
OR EVEN PERSUASIVE."  ID. AT 372.  ACCORDING TO THE COURT:  "IT WAS FOR
THE COMMISSION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE GENERAL RATES PRESCRIBED GAVE
THE PLAINTIFFS A FAIR AND REASONABLE RETURN.  THIS THE COMMISSION
FAILED TO DO.  MORE THAN THAT, THE COMMISSION HAS BY ITS FINDINGS,
USING ITS ADOPTED PLAN AND ITS OWN METHODS AS APPLIED TO PLAINTIFFS'
CIRCUMSTANCES, PROVED THAT PLAINTIFFS HAVE BEEN UNDERPAID $186,707.06
IN FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION." 
IBID. 

IN VIEW OF THESE GROUNDINGS, THE COURT'S DECISION TIED THE COMMISSION
EXCLUSIVELY AND FINALLY TO THE RESULTS WHICH IT HAD OBTAINED BY USING
PLAN 2 IN THE INITIAL STAGE OF THE RATE-MAKING PROCESS.  IT REJECTED
THE COMMISSION'S REPEATED ASSERTION, IN BOTH THE GENERAL RATE HEARINGS
AND THE SPECIAL HEARINGS GIVEN THIS CARRIER, THAT THE COST STUDIES
UNDER PLAN 2(OR ANY OTHER SUCH PLAN) COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS AN ACCURATE
ASCERTAINMENT OF ACTUAL COSTS OF SERVICE AND SHOULD BE GIVEN ONLY SUCH
WEIGHT AS SEEMED PROPER IN VIEW OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE COURT
LIKEWISE REJECTED AS "NOT CONVINCING OR EVEN PERSUASIVE" THE NUMEROUS
FACTORS THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED NOT ONLY PROPER, BUT HIGHLY IMPORTANT
TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN QUALIFYING THE COMPUTED RESULTS UNDER PLAN
2. 

IN DOING ALL THIS THE COURT SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THE
COMMISSION'S CONCERNING THE RELEVANCE OF FACTS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
IN FIXING A FAIR AND REASONABLE RATE; THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THOSE
FACTS, INCLUDING THE COMPUTATIONS UNDER PLAN 2 AS WELL AS THE OTHER
FACTS UTILIZED TO CHECK AND QUALIFY THEM; AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON
THE WHOLE CASE. 

IN THE LATTER RESPECT THE COURT DISREGARDED NOT ONLY THE GENERAL RULE
WHICH GIVES ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS IN SUCH MATTERS PRESUMPTIVE
WEIGHT,  FN25  BUT ALSO THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE ITSELF.  AS HAS BEEN
NOTED THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO
CLASSIFY CARRIERS AND "WHERE JUST AND EQUITABLE, FIX GENERAL RATES
APPLICABLE TO ALL CARRIERS IN THE SAME CLASSIFICATION."  39 U.S.C. SEC.
549.  WHILE THIS GENERAL AUTHORITY DID NOT PRECLUDE EXAMINATION OF THE
GENERAL RATE'S APPLICATION TO A PARTICULAR CARRIER, IT GAVE THAT RATE
PRIMA FACIE VALIDITY AS TO ALL WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION.  INDEED,
CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION COULD NOT CONSIDER
RATES PAID TO OTHER CARRIERS OR THEIR EFFECTS, THE STATUTE REQUIRED THE
COMMISSION TO TAKE THOSE RATES INTO ACCOUNT.  IBID.  THE BURDEN OF
PROOF WAS THEREFORE CLEARLY UPON THE CARRIER TO SHOW THAT THE GENERAL
RATE WAS UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE AS APPLIED TO IT AND NOT, AS THE COURT
HELD, UPON THE COMMISSION TO SHOW THAT THAT RATE AS APPLIED WAS FAIR
AND REASONABLE. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED ARBITRARILY OR UNREASONABLY
IN RESPECT TO ITS USE OF PLAN 2 OR OF THE FACTORS USED IN CHECKING THE
PLAN'S RESULTS AND QUALIFYING THEM.  CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION, PLAN 2 WAS NEVER INTENDED OR ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSION AS
FURNISHING A FINAL AND EXCLUSIVE BASIS FOR FIXING RATES.  CERTAINLY IT
WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE TO USE SUCH A PLAN, WHICH PROCEEDED
STEP BY STEP UPON "VARIOUS THEORIES AND ASSUMPTIONS," AS MERELY A
PRELIMINARY AND WHOLLY TENTATIVE STEP IN THE PROCESS OF RATE MAKING; OR
TO CHECK ITS RESULTS AGAINST THOSE PRODUCED BY OTHER SUCH PLANS
DIFFERING IN DETAIL OF THEORIES AND ASSUMPTIONS EMPLOYED; OR TO QUALIFY
THE COMPUTATIONS BY THE FACTORS WHICH THE COMMISSION TOOK INTO ACCOUNT
IN THE FINAL STAGES OF JUDGMENT. 

IN HOLDING THE INITIAL FORMULA CONCLUSIVE, THE COURT HAS DISREGARDED
THE COMMISSION'S INFORMED CONTRARY JUDGMENT IN MATTERS COMMITTED TO ITS
SPECIAL COMPETENCE.  THIS THE COURT DID IN THE GUISE OF "GIVING EFFECT"
TO THE COMMISSION'S "FINDING," NAMELY, ITS PRELIMINARY COMPUTATIONS
UNDER PLAN 2, AND BY DISREGARDING ALL ELSE THE COMMISSION TOOK INTO
ACCOUNT AS "ERROR OF LAW."  THE "FINDING" WAS IN FACT NO FINDING AT
ALL, BUT ONLY A PRELIMINARY FIGURE.  AND THE MATTERS THROWN OUT AS
"ERROR OF LAW" WERE MATTERS OF FACT AND EXPERT JUDGMENT, NOT LEGAL
QUESTIONS. 

WE THINK THE CARRIER HAS NOT SUSTAINED ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE
COMMISSION ACTED ARBITRARILY OR UNREASONABLY AND WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
GENERAL RATES FIXED BY ITS 1928 ORDER ARE, UPON THE RECORD MADE, FAIR
AND REASONABLE AS APPLIED TO THE GEORGIA & FLORIDA RAILROAD.  BUT FOR
THE MATTER OF JURISDICTION, THIS DETERMINATION WOULD END THE CASE.  BUT
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION REMAINS AND IS IMPORTANT.  MOREOVER, THE
DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS IS RELEVANT TO ITS DISPOSITION. 

                                  V. 

IN SUSTAINING ITS JURISDICTION, THE COURT OF CLAIMS STATED:  "AS THE
SUPREME COURT HAS SAID, THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO RENDER JUDGMENT
OF RECOVERY FOR AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE FAIR AND REASONABLE
COMPENSATION UNDER THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION, UNPAID THROUGH
FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION, BECAUSE OF AN ERROR OF LAW, TO ORDER PAYMENT
THEREOF."  110 CT. CL. AT 366.  THAT LANGUAGE ON ITS FACE SEEMS FULLY
IN ACCORD WITH THE GRIFFIN PRONOUNCEMENT.  AS WILL BE RECALLED, IT WAS:
"IF THE COMMISSION MAKES THE APPROPRIATE FINDING OF REASONABLE
COMPENSATION BUT FAILS, BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED ERROR OF LAW, TO ORDER
PAYMENT OF THE FULL AMOUNT WHICH THE RAILROAD BELIEVES IS PAYABLE UNDER
THE FINDING, THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS JURISDICTION OF AN ACTION FOR THE
BALANCE, AS THE CLAIM ASSERTED IS ONE FOUNDED UPON A LAW OF CONGRESS." 

ON ITS FACE THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE REVISION OF THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OR OF THE RATE IT PRESCRIBES BY THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  THE CLAIM OF WHICH IT IS SAID TO HAVE JURISDICTION IS ONE FOR
"THE FULL AMOUNT WHICH THE RAILROAD BELIEVES IS PAYABLE UNDER THE
FINDING," SOME PART OF WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS FAILED TO ORDER PAID BY
REASON OF AN ERROR OF LAW.  THERE WAS NO INTIMATION OF AUTHORITY FOR
THE COURT TO REEXAMINE THE FACTS OR TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT
CONCERNING THE FACTS TO BE CONSIDERED OR THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THEM IN
DETERMINING THE RATE.  TRUE, THE WORDING READS "APPROPRIATE" FINDING. 
BUT WE CANNOT CONSTRUE THAT SINGLE WORD TO MEAN THAT THIS COURT
INTENDED THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO REOPEN THE ENTIRE QUESTION OF THE
ORDER'S APPROPRIATENESS AND SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT, EITHER ON THE
RECORD MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR ON INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, FOR THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ON THAT QUESTION. 

SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS SUSTAINED BY NONE OF THE CASES CITED IN THE
GRIFFIN OPINION TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT  FN26  AND IS DIRECTLY
CONTRARY TO PREVIOUS DECISIONS BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS WITH REFERENCE TO
ITS POWER TO REVIEW SUCH ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION.  FN27  MOREOVER, TO
CONCEIVE THE GRIFFIN STATEMENT AS SANCTIONING THE BROAD AUTHORITY
ASSUMED BY THE COURT WOULD BE, FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED, TO GIVE IT
BY IMPLICATION A JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS NEVER EXPRESSLY
CONFERRED. 

WE THINK THE GRIFFIN LANGUAGE CONTEMPLATED A MUCH NARROWER
JURISDICTION.  THE PURPOSE WAS, IN OUR JUDGMENT, TO INDICATE THAT
REVIEW MIGHT BE HAD OF THE CARRIER'S CLAIM WHENEVER IT DOES NOT RUN IN
THE TEETH OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OR ORDER OR SEEK REVISION OF
THAT ORDER.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE CLAIM MUST BE ONE CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER FIXING THE RATE, BUT ASSERTING UNDERPAYMENT BY
REASON OF SOME ERROR OF LAW IN ITS APPLICATION WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE
THE COMMISSION'S FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR FIXING A NEW RATE.  THIS
VIEW IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN GRIFFIN TO
SUSTAIN THE FIRST CATEGORY OF JURISDICTION SAID TO RESIDE IN THE COURT
OF CLAIMS.  IT IS THE VIEW WE THINK THIS COURT MEANT TO BE TAKEN.    AS
WE HAVE POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, HERE THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THOUGH
ASSERTING THE CONTRARY, HAS NOT "GIVEN EFFECT" TO THE RATE ORDER, BUT
IN THE GUISE OF FINDING "ERROR OF LAW" HAS SET IT ASIDE, TOGETHER WITH
THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS; HAS SUBSTITUTED "FINDINGS" OF ITS OWN; AND
HAS MADE, IN EFFECT, A NEW ORDER BY ITS JUDGMENT.  IT FOLLOWS, IN OUR
VIEW OF WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE GRIFFIN STATEMENT, THAT THE COURT OF
CLAIMS HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT INVOLVES NO SUCH
"ERROR OF LAW" AS THAT STATEMENT CONTEMPLATED, BUT RELATES ONLY TO
QUESTIONS ESSENTIALLY OF FACT GOING TO THE ORDER'S APPROPRIATENESS ON
THE MERITS.  THE CASE IS WHOLLY UNLIKE MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 603; UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO.,
279 U.S. 73, AND OTHER CASES CITED IN THE GRIFFIN OPINION. 

THE SAME RESULT WOULD FOLLOW IF, CONTRARY TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS'
DISCLAIMER, THE SUIT COULD BE REGARDED AS ONE FOR JUST COMPENSATION
UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AS RESPONDENT INSISTS IT WAS.  FOR THE
REASONS ALREADY STATED, RESPONDENT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER WAS CONFISCATORY IN ITS EFFECTS.  MOREOVER, JURISDICTIONALLY
SPEAKING, NONE OF THE CASES CITED BY THE GRIFFIN OPINION TO SUSTAIN THE
SECOND CATEGORY  FN28  OF JURISDICTION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS INVOLVED
ANY PROBLEM OF REVIEWING RATE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  ALL RELATED TO QUESTIONS OF COMPENSATION RESULTING FROM
TAKINGS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE, IN WHICH THE ONLY QUESTIONS
DETERMINED WERE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN OR THAT VALUE COUPLED
WITH THE RIGHT TO INTEREST ON THE AWARD.  FN29  WHILE RESPONDENT
CONTENDS THAT THE EFFECT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HERE HAS BEEN TO
DEPRIVE IT OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION AND JUSTIFIES THE
COURT OF CLAIMS' AWARD ON THAT BASIS, THE COURT DID NOT SO GROUND ITS
DECISION AND, AS WE HAVE SAID, RESPONDENT HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY SUCH
CASE. 

MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS
JURISDICTION ONLY TO RENDER A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
AND NONE TO REMAND TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION A RATE
ORDER WHICH IT MIGHT FIND CONFISCATORY, WE DO NOT THINK THE GRIFFIN
RULING CAN BE TAKEN TO HAVE CONTEMPLATED THAT UPON SUCH A FINDING, MADE
AFTER REVIEWING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE MERITS, THE COURT OF
CLAIMS COULD FORECLOSE THE COMMISSION FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE
ORDER AND RENDER FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT BY WHICH IT HAD FOUND
THE ORDER CONFISCATORY.  THIS NOT ONLY WOULD SHORT-CIRCUIT THE
COMMISSION IN THE RATE-MAKING PROCESS, BUT WOULD INVOLVE SUBSTITUTING
THE COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR THE COMMISSION'S AS TO THE AMOUNT OF ANY NEW
RATE WHICH MIGHT BE FIXED.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE DO NOT THINK THIS CASE
FALLS WITHIN EITHER CATEGORY OF JURISDICTION INDICATED BY THE GRIFFIN
STATEMENT AS POSSIBLY AVAILABLE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THERE REMAINS THE THIRD REMEDY SUGGESTED IN THE GRIFFIN OPINION,
NAMELY, BY SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AS ONE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY
"ARISING UNDER THE POSTAL LAWS," FORMER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(6)(CF.
PRESENT 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1339), WHERE THE COMMISSION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE
ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS AUTHORITY, OR OTHERWISE ILLEGALLY.  STRICTLY
SPEAKING, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS REMEDY WOULD
HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENT, SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. 

HOWEVER, NOTWITHSTANDING SOME OBVIOUS DIFFICULTIES IN MAKING DISTRICT
COURT JURISDICTION AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN SUCH A PROCEEDING AS THIS,
FN30  THAT JURISDICTION POSSESSES ONE OUTSTANDING ADVANTAGE OVER REVIEW
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  IT IS THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE NOT
CONFINED, AS IS THE COURT OF CLAIMS, TO RENDERING A MONEY JUDGMENT BY
WAY OF RELIEF AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  UNDER THEIR GENERAL EQUITY
JURISDICTION THEY WOULD HAVE POWER, ON FINDING A RATE ORDER INVALID,
WHETHER AS CONFISCATORY OR AS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTE, TO REMAND
THE CAUSE TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  IN THIS RESPECT
THE REVIEW AFFORDED AND THE RELIEF GIVEN WOULD MORE NEARLY APPROXIMATE
THAT GIVEN BY THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT IN SIMILAR CASES REVIEWABLE
UNDER ITS TERMS. 

SINCE THE GRIFFIN CASE WAS DECIDED, CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED THE SO
CALLED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT,  FN31  WHICH BY SEC. 10, ENTITLED
"JUDICIAL REVIEW," PROVIDES: 

"EXCEPT SO FAR AS (1) STATUTES PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW OR (2) AGENCY
ACTION IS BY LAW COMMITTED TO AGENCY DISCRETION - 

"(A)  ...  ANY PERSON SUFFERING LEGAL WRONG BECAUSE OF ANY AGENCY
ACTION, OR ADVERSELY AFFECTED OR AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ACTION WITHIN THE
MEANING OF ANY RELEVANT STATUTE, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
THEREOF. 

"(B)  ... THE FORM OF PROCEEDING FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW SHALL BE ANY
SPECIAL STATUTORY REVIEW PROCEEDING RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER IN
ANY COURT SPECIFIED BY STATUTE OR, IN THE ABSENCE OR INADEQUACY
THEREOF, ANY APPLICABLE FORM OF LEGAL ACTION (INCLUDING ACTIONS FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS OR WRITS OF PROHIBITORY OR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
OR HABEAS CORPUS) IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.  ...  "  5
U.S.C. SEC. 1009. 

THIS PROVISION, WE THINK, ADDS FORCE TO THE SUGGESTION MADE IN THE
GRIFFIN CASE CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IN
RELATION TO REVIEW OF RATE ORDERS LIKE THOSE NOW IN QUESTION.  SUCH
REVIEW UNDER THE EQUITY OR DECLARATORY JURISDICTION OF THOSE COURTS
WOULD SEEM TO AFFORD A REMEDY CONSONANT WITH SEC. 10 OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND ALSO MORE NEARLY LIKE THAT AFFORDED BY
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, THOUGH WITHOUT ITS EXPEDITING FEATURES. 
THE RELIEF AFFORDED, UNLIKE THAT REQUIRED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, COULD
THUS BE LIMITED TO SETTING ASIDE OR ENJOINING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
AND REMANDING THE CAUSE TO IT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, AS IS DONE IN
LIKE CASES REVIEWABLE BY THREE-JUDGE COURTS.  CONSISTENTLY WITH THAT
JURISDICTION ALSO THE REVIEW COULD BE CONFINED TO THE RECORD MADE
BEFORE THE COMMISSION  FN32  RATHER THAN ONE COMPILED BY INDEPENDENT
EVIDENCE NOT PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION OR CONSIDERED BY IT. 

THESE SUGGESTIONS, AS WE HAVE SAID, ARE NOT STRICTLY NECESSARY FOR
DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE.  BUT WE THINK THEM APPROPRIATE IN ORDER TO
PREVENT A RECURRENCE IN THE FUTURE AND IN OTHER CASES OF LONG AND
CHIEFLY JURISDICTIONAL LITIGATION SUCH AS THIS CAUSE HAS INVOLVED WITH
PROFIT TO NO ONE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS IT.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THE PRESENT RECEIVER, ALFRED W. JONES, WAS SUBSTITUTED AS
RESPONDENT IN NO. 135 BY ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED DECEMBER 6, 1948. 
335 U.S. 883.  HE IS REFERRED TO AS "RESPONDENT" IN THIS OPINION,
ALTHOUGH HE IS ALSO THE PETITIONER IN NO. 198. 

FN2  FULL RAILWAY POST-OFFICE CAR SERVICE INVOLVES SERVICE IN WHICH
AN ENTIRE CAR OF SPECIFIED LENGTH AND EQUIPMENT IS AUTHORIZED. 
APARTMENT-CAR SERVICE INVOLVES AUTHORIZED USE OF THIRTY- OR FIFTEEN
FOOT APARTMENTS PARTITIONED OFF FROM THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE CAR. 
CLOSED-POUCH SERVICE INVOLVES HANDLING BY RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WHERE FULL
OR APARTMENT RAILWAY POST-OFFICE CARS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED AND WHERE
SPACE AUTHORIZATIONS ARE FOR UNITS OF SEVEN FEET AND THREE FEET IN
SPACE, UNENCLOSED, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CAR. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 6. 

FN4  THE AMENDED PETITION AND THE BRIEF ASSIGN BOTH GROUNDS. 
NEVERTHELESS, RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT HIS CASE IS IN FACT GROUNDED UPON
THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS.  INDEED, SO STRONGLY DOES RESPONDENT INSIST
UPON THIS POINT OF VIEW THAT, WITHOUT CHALLENGING THE AWARD OR ITS
AMOUNT, EXCEPT FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, HE HAS SOUGHT AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI IN NO. 198, IN EFFECT TO HAVE THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS GROUNDED SOLELY ON THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FOOTING AS THE
BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING HIS CLAIM OF ACCRUED INTEREST.  SEE NOTE 7
INFRA. 

FN5  AS HAS BEEN STATED, THE COURT OF CLAIMS, ACCEPTING JURISDICTION,
RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT FOR $186,707.06.  ITS
DETERMINATION WAS BASED UPON THE VARIOUS REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION
ABOVE CITED, ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED BY THE COURT'S COMMISSIONER
WHICH WAS NOT BEFOFE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  HE MADE
EXTENSIVE SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT BASED IN PART UPON THIS EVIDENCE
WHICH WERE ADOPTED BY THE COURT AND FILED, TOGETHER WITH ITS OPINION. 
110 CT. CL. 330.  BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE RESPONDENT APPLIED FOR
CERTIORARI AND BOTH PETITIONS WERE GRANTED.  SEE NOTE 4. 

FN6  THIS WAS IN BRIEF THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT BE ASSUMED TO HAVE
MADE THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT APPLICABLE
TO SUCH ORDERS AS THE ONE HERE INVOLVED, SINCE "THERE IS NO WIDE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN ITS SPEEDY DETERMINATION"; "NO DANGER OF TEMPORARILY
INTERRUPTING THE MAIL SERVICE THROUGH THE IMPROVIDENT ISSUE OF AN
INJUNCTION BY A SINGLE JUDGE"; AND "ONLY THE METHOD OR AMOUNT OF
PAYMENTS CURRENTLY TO BE MADE WOULD BE AFFECTED." 

FN7  THE OPINION, QUOTING THE COURT OF CLAIMS' LANGUAGE IN AN EARLIER
RAILWAY MAIL PAY CASE, NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 65 CT.
CL. 115, 128-129, AFFIRMED 279 U.S. 73, STATED:  "'WE DO NOT THINK THE
PLAINTIFF CAN HAVE JUDGMENT FOR INTEREST ON THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS.  WE
ARE NOT DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION BUT ARE GIVING EFFECT TO AN
AUTHORIZED ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  IN SUCH CASE
THE STATUTE FORBIDS THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST.  SEC. 177, JUDICIAL
CODE, AS AMENDED.'"  110 CT. CL. AT 373.  CF. NOTES 10 AND 29 INFRA. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 7. 

FN9  SEE THE CASES CITED AT NOTE 26 INFRA. 

FN10  CF. JACOBS V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 13. 

FN11  SEE THE CASES CITED AT NOTE 27 INFRA. 

FN12  WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FORBID NON-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COURTS CREATED PURSUANT TO THAT ARTICLE TO EXERCISE LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTIONS SUCH AS RATE MAKING.  CF. KELLER V. POTOMAC ELECTRIC CO., 261
U.S. 428; POSTUM CEREAL CO. V. CALIFORNIA FIG NUT CO., 272 U.S. 693;
PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 211 U.S. 210, 226. 

FN13  TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426;
CF. ROCHESTER TEL. CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 139; MYERS V.
BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41.  SEE 51 HARV. L. REV. 1251. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 291 U.S. 457, 463
464(AND CF. CONCURRING OPINION, ID. AT 465); MYERS V. BETHLEHEM
SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 50-52.  SEE BERGER, EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, 48 YALE L.J. 981; 44 MICH. L. REV. 1035. 

FN15  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED AT NOTE 27 INFRA. 

FN16  THE OPINIONS OF THE THREE-JUDGE COURT RENDERED WHEN THIS
CONTROVERSY WAS TWICE BEFORE IT ARE NOT REPORTED. 

FN17  CLASS I INCLUDED ALL RAILROADS OF MORE THAN 100 MILES IN
LENGTH.  AT THE GENERAL RATE HEARINGS THE GEORGIA & FLORIDA RAILROAD
WAS REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF ANOTHER CLASS AND SEEMS TO HAVE
CONTENDED THAT IT SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED WITH OR TREATED AS THOUGH IT
WERE A MEMBER OF THAT CLASS.  BUT NO QUESTION CONCERNING ITS
CLASSIFICATION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEGUN IN 1931 OR
AFTERWARD. 

FN18  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN19  COMBINATION CARS INCLUDE SPACE SEPARATED BY PARTITIONS INTO
"APARTMENTS," CF. NOTE 2, WITH EACH APARTMENT DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO A
DIFFERENT USE.  MIXED CARS CONTAIN NO PARTITIONS OR "APARTMENTS," BUT
ARE USED FOR SEVERAL DIFFERENT SERVICES, E.G., BAGGAGE, EXPRESS AND
MAIL-POUCH SERVICES.  SEE NOTE 2; 144 I.C.C. AT 679. 

FN20  SEE RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 144 I.C.C. AT 688-689.  PLAN 3, THE
COMMISSION SAID IN THAT GENERAL RATE PROCEEDING, WOULD RESULT IN A "NET
RAILWAY OPERATING INCOME FROM MAIL OF $18,759,056 INSTEAD OF A DEFICIT
OF $1,104,744 UNDER PLAN 2, AND A NET INCOME OF $12,844,643 UNDER PLAN
1," ID. AT 689, GIVING A NET RETURN UNDER PLAN 3 OF 5.94 PER CENT BUT
REQUIRING AN INCREASED RATE OF 26.48 PER CENT UNDER PLAN 2 AND OF 7.43
PER CENT UNDER PLAN 1 TO MEET THE COMPUTED DEFICITS AND GIVE A NET
RETURN OF 5.75 PER CENT ON THE INVESTED CAPITAL ALLOCATED TO MAIL. 

FN21  THE REPORT CONTINUED:  "THE TOTAL MAIL REVENUE OF $35,728 FOR
THE YEAR 1931 ON A SPACE RATIO OF 12.96 WAS ONLY $594 LESS THAN THE
TOTAL REVENUE FROM PASSENGER SERVICE PROPER, INCLUDING BAGGAGE, AND
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE, WITH A SPACE RATIO OF 80.35  ...  THE
DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE UPON THE SPACE RATIOS SHOWS THAT THE OPERATING
RATIO FOR MAIL SERVICE WAS 102.79 AS COMPARED WITH 630.41 FOR PASSENGER
PROPER, INCLUDING BAGGAGE, ETC., AND 249.67 FOR EXPRESS."  192 I.C.C.
AT 781-782. 

FN22  SEE NOTE 21. 

FN23  "IN OTHER MAIL-PAY PROCEEDINGS, IN WHICH SPACE AUTHORIZED AND
PAID FOR WAS FOUND TO BE THE SPACE THAT SHOULD BE CHARGED TO MAIL IN
COST STUDIES SIMILAR TO THAT HERE, CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO OTHER
FACTORS AS WELL, SUCH AS THE AMOUNT AND CHARACTER OF THE UNUSED SPACE
REPORTED AS OPERATED (RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 85 I.C.C. 157, 170, 123 I.C.C.
33, 39); THE ACTUAL SPACE OCCUPIED BY MAIL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
AUTHORIZED SPACE, DETERMINED BY THE MAIL LOAD CARRIED, BASED UPON A
COUNT OF BAGS AND OF PACKAGES OUTSIDE OF BAGS, AND, IN SOME INSTANCES,
BY THE WEIGHT (RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 95 I.C.C. 493, 500, 511, 120 I.C.C.
439, 446); COMPARISONS WITH COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM OTHER SERVICES
IN PASSENGER-TRAIN CARS (RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 144 I.C.C. 675, 706);
COMPARISONS WITH FREIGHT RATES (RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 144 I.C.C. 675, 705,
151 I.C.C. 734, 742); COMPARISONS PER CAR-MILE AND PER CAR-FOOT MILE OF
THE COMPUTED COST OF MAIL SERVICE AND THE REVENUE FROM AUTHORIZED MAIL
SERVICE WITH THE COMPUTED COST OF CORRESPONDING UNITS IN PASSENGER
TRAIN SERVICE AS A WHOLE (RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 144 I.C.C. 675, 699); AND
THE CHARACTER OF THE SERVICE PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSPORTING
THE MAIL (RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 56 I.C.C. 1, 8, ELECTRIC RAILWAY MAIL PAY,
58 I.C.C. 455, 464, 98 I.C.C. 737, 755)."  214 I.C.C. AT 69-70. 

FN24  IT IS TO BE RECALLED THAT THE EXPENSE RATIOS BASED UPON THE
SPACE RATIOS ACCEPTED UNDER PLAN 2 WERE APPLIED ALSO TO CAPITAL
ALLOCATED TO PASSENGER-TRAIN SERVICE TO APPORTION THAT CAPITAL AMONG
THE THREE COMPONENT SERVICES MAKING UP PASSENGER-TRAIN SERVICE.    FN25
SEE, E.G., SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO R. CO., 305 U.S. 177, 184-185.  CF.
NORTON V. WARNER CO., 321 U.S. 565, 568-569. 

FN26  CITED IN THE TEXT, 303 U.S. AT 238, WERE MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 603, UPHOLDING THE COURT OF CLAIMS' VIEW ON
DEMURRER THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING 39 U.S.C. SEC. 536, NOT ONLY
INTENDED TO BUT HAD POWER TO PROVIDE THAT LAND-GRANT RAILROADS WERE TO
RECEIVE ONLY 80% OF WHATEVER MAIL PAY RATE THE COMMISSION SHOULD SET
NOT ONLY FOR MERE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL (E.G., CLOSED-POUCH SPACE) BUT
FOR SPACE IN WHICH POSTAL EMPLOYEES SORTED MAIL (E.G., APARTMENT MAIL
CARS), AND UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 279 U.S. 73,
AFFIRMING THE COURT OF CLAIMS' CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION HAD POWER
TO MAKE MAIL RATE REVISIONS APPLICABLE AS OF THE DATE OF THE CARRIER'S
REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION OF RATES RATHER THAN AS OF THE DATE OF THE
COMMISSION ORDER RAISING THE RATE. 

COURT OF CLAIMS MAIL PAY DECISIONS CITED IN A FOOTNOTE, 303 U.S. AT
238, N. 10, INCLUDED: CHICAGO & E.I.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 63 CT. CL.
585; NEVADA COUNTY N.G.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 65 CT. CL. 327; CHICAGO
& E.I.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 72 CT. CL. 407; MACON, D. & S.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 78 CT. CL. 251; 79 CT. CL. 298.  IN EACH OF THESE CASES
THE CLAIMANT CARRIER RECOVERED COMPENSATION IN EXCESS OF THAT ALLOWED
IT BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, BUT IN EACH CASE THE DISPUTE CENTERED
AROUND THE MEANING OF A COMMISSION RATE ORDER OR THE COMMISSION'S POWER
TO ENTER THE ORDER MADE; IN NONE WAS THERE ANY CHALLENGE TO THE RATE
ITSELF:  THUS, IN THE FIRST CHICAGO & E.I.R. CO. CASE, SUPRA, THE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH 39 U.S.C.
SEC. 535, ORDERED COMPENSATION FOR THE RETURN TO THEIR DEPARTURE POINTS
OF MAIL STORAGE CARS.  IN THE SECOND CHICAGO & E.I.R. CO. CASE, SUPRA,
THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER "CLOSED-POUCH SPACE" WAS A "LESSER UNIT"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF A RATE ORDER SETTING COMPENSATION FOR A "STORAGE
CAR OR LESSER UNIT."  THE NEVADA COUNTY N.G.R. CO. CASE, SUPRA, WAS A
COMPANION TO NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 65 CT. CL. 115,
AFFIRMED 279 U.S. 73, HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION HAD POWER TO ORDER A
RATE INCREASE EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION FOR SUCH
INCREASE.  SIMILARLY, THE TWO OPINIONS IN MACON, D. & S.R. CO., SUPRA,
HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD POWER RETROACTIVELY TO RECLASSIFY THE
CLAIMANT CARRIER IN A HIGHER COMPENSATION BRACKET AS OF A DATE PRIOR TO
THE CARRIER'S APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION SO AS TO IMPOSE ON THE
UNITED STATES LIABILITY FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FROM THAT
RETROACTIVELY DETERMINED DATE OF RECLASSIFICATION. 

WITH THE PREFATORY ADMONITION, "COMPARE," THE GRIFFIN FOOTNOTE, 303
U.S. AT 238 N. 10, CITED TWO OTHER COURT OF CLAIMS RAILWAY MAIL PAY
DECISIONS, PERE MARQUETTE R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 59 CT. CL. 538, AND
NEW JERSEY & N.Y.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 80 CT. CL. 243:  THESE
DECISIONS HELD THE COURT POWERLESS TO FIX MAIL PAY RATES OR
CLASSIFICATIONS, BOTH FUNCTIONS BEING FOUND TO BE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE
PURVIEW OF THE COMMISSION.  SEE NOTE 27 INFRA. 

FN27  IN PERE MARQUETTE R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 59 CT. CL. 538, THE
CARRIER SOUGHT COMPENSATION FOR MAIL CAR SPACE FURNISHED BY THE CARRIER
WHERE THAT SPACE WAS NEITHER AUTHORIZED BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
NOR IN FACT USED FOR MAIL TRANSPORTATION, AND WHERE THE COMMISSION HAD
NOT ORDERED COMPENSATION; THE COURT OF CLAIMS SAID, ID. AT 545, IN
DISMISSING THE PETITION: 

"THE ACT OF JULY 28, 1916, CLEARLY INTENDED THAT ALL QUESTIONS OF THE
COMPENSATION TO BE PAID RAILROAD COMPANIES FOR CARRYING THE MAILS
SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE
COMMISSION HAVING ACTED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY, HAVING FIXED
THE REASONABLE COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED, THIS
COURT CAN NOT REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION AND UNDERTAKE TO FIX
A DIFFERENT COMPENSATION FROM THAT ARRIVED AT BY THE COMMISSION.  IF
THE PLAINTIFF HAS PERFORMED ANY SERVICE WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS FAILED
TO PROVIDE FOR IN ITS ORDER FIXING COMPENSATION, THEN THE PLAINTIFF'S
REMEDY IS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND NOT IN THIS
COURT." 

IN NEW JERSEY & N.Y.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 80 CT. CL. 243, THE
COURT OF CLAIMS DISMISSED A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION BASED ON A
CLASSIFICATION WHICH HAD BEEN DENIED THE CARRIER BY THE COMMISSION; THE
DISMISSAL WAS GROUNDED ON THE PROPOSITION THAT "THIS COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION TO CLASSIFY RAILROADS OR TO FIX THE COMPENSATION FOR THE
CARRYING OF THE MAILS."  80 CT. CL. AT 248.  OF THE CASES ALLOWING
MONEY JUDGMENTS FOR COMPENSATION, DISCUSSED IN NOTE 26 SUPRA, THE COURT
OBSERVED THAT THERE "THE RECOVERY IN THIS COURT MERELY CARRIED INTO
EFFECT THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION, THAT IS TO SAY, THIS COURT DID
NOT UNDERTAKE TO MAKE A CLASSIFICATION OR TO FIX A RATE OF
COMPENSATION."  80 CT. CL. AT 248.  CF. DENVER & RIO GRANDE R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 50 CT. CL. 382, 391. 

FN28  "AND SINCE RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE IS COMPULSORY, THE COURT OF
CLAIMS WOULD, UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE TUCKER ACT, HAVE
JURISDICTION ALSO OF AN ACTION FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IF AN ORDER
IS CONFISCATORY.  UNITED STATES V. GREAT FALLS MFG. CO., 112 U.S. 645;
NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION & TRADING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 253 U.S.
330, 333; JACOBS V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 13, 16."  303 U.S. AT 238. 

FN29  AS TO INTEREST COMPARE THE GREAT FALLS CASE WITH THE JACOBS
CASE, BOTH CITED IN NOTE 28. 

FN30  OUR ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN CALLED TO ATTACKS ON RAILWAY MAIL
RATE ORDERS BASED ON THIS GRANT OF JURISDICTION; BUT IT MAY BE NOTED
THAT DISTRICT COURT SUITS TO ENJOIN THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S FRAUD
ORDERS ARE COMMONPLACE.  SEE, E.G., WILLIAMS V. FANNING, 332 U.S. 490,
492, N. 2. 

FN31  5 U.S.C. SECS. 1001-1011. 

FN32  SEE TAGG BROS. V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420, 444, N. 4.  CF.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190, 227; SHIELDS
V. UTAH IDAHO R. CO., 305 U.S. 177, 185. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :











RICE V. RICE, 336 U.S. 674 


NO. 117.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 18, 1949.  - 134
CONN. 440, 58 A.2D 523, AFFIRMED. 


AFTER BEING DOMICILED IN CONNECTICUT, RESPONDENT'S HUSBAND WENT TO
NEVADA, WHERE HE OBTAINED A DIVORCE DECREE WITHOUT PERSONAL SERVICE
UPON, OR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS BY, HER.  HE IMMEDIATELY
MARRIED PETITIONER, BUT DIED SHORTLY THEREAFTER WITHOUT HAVING RETURNED
TO CONNECTICUT.  IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT TO DETERMINE THE
WIDOWHOOD STATUS OF THE PARTIES, THE CONNECTICUT COURTS, HAVING PLACED
UPON RESPONDENT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT DECEDENT HAD NOT OBTAINED A
BONA FIDE DOMICILE IN NEVADA, WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY ADEQUATE EVIDENCE
AFTER A FULL TRIAL, DECLINED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE NEVADA DECREE. 
HELD:  HAVING GIVEN PROPER WEIGHT TO THE CLAIMS OF POWER BY THE NEVADA
COURT, THE COURTS OF CONNECTICUT DID NOT DENY FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO
THE NEVADA DECREE.  PP. 674-676. 

RICE V. RICE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT. 

IN A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, A CONNECTICUT COURT ADJUDGED A
NEVADA DIVORCE DECREE VOID FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE STATE SUPREME
COURT OF ERRORS AFFIRMED.  134 CONN. 440, 58 A.2D 523.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 842.  AFFIRMED, P. 676. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION HERE IS WHETHER THE COURTS OF CONNECTICUT
GAVE TO A NEVADA DIVORCE DECREE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIRED BY
ART. IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  RESPONDENT BROUGHT THE ACTION IN
A CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT, SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A
DECREE OF DIVORCE ENTERED AGAINST HER AND IN FAVOR OF HER HUSBAND, THE
LATE HERBERT N. RICE, BY A NEVADA COURT IS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT BECAUSE HE WAS NOT DOMICILED IN THAT STATE AT THE TIME THE
DECREE WAS ENTERED.  PETITIONER, WHO HAD MARRIED HERBERT N. RICE
FOLLOWING HIS DIVORCE, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF HIS ESTATE WERE JOINED
AS DEFENDANTS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTION WAS TO DETERMINE THE
WIDOWHOOD STATUS OF THE PARTIES AND TO DECIDE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE
INHERITANCE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE DECEDENT, WHO DIED INTESTATE. 

AFTER A FULL TRIAL, JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT, AND
THE COURT'S FINDING THAT HERBERT N. RICE HAD NEVER ESTABLISHED A BONA
FIDE DOMICILE IN NEVADA WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.  134 CONN. 440, 58 A.2D 523.  WE GRANTED THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 842, TO CONSIDER PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION THAT THE CONNECTICUT COURTS DID NOT FAIRLY DISCHARGE THE
DUTY OF RESPECT OWED THE NEVADA DECREE UNDER THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN
WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226, AND ESENWEIN V. COMMONWEALTH,
325 U.S. 279. 

UPON FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD, THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF ERRORS, AND THE ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL, WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
THE CONNECTICUT COURTS GAVE PROPER WEIGHT TO THE CLAIMS OF POWER BY THE
NEVADA COURT, THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE DECEDENT HAD NOT
ACQUIRED A DOMICILE IN NEVADA WAS PLACED UPON RESPONDENT, THAT THIS
ISSUE OF FACT WAS FAIRLY TRIED ACCORDING TO APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE, AND
THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE CONNECTICUT COURTS ARE AMPLY SUPPORTED IN
EVIDENCE.  OUR STATEMENT IN THE ESENWEIN OPINION, 325 U.S. AT 281, THAT
"IT IS NOT FOR US TO RETRY THE FACTS, AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT IN
REACHING THEIR CONCLUSION THE (CONNECTICUT) COURTS DID NOT HAVE WARRANT
IN EVIDENCE AND DID NOT FAIRLY WEIGH THE FACTS," IS APPROPRIATE HERE. 

SHERRER V. SHERRER, 334 U.S. 343, AND COE V. COE, 334 U.S. 378,
DECIDED BY THIS COURT LAST TERM, ARE NOT IN POINT.  NO PERSONAL SERVICE
WAS MADE UPON RESPONDENT, NOR DID SHE IN ANY WAY PARTICIPATE IN THE
NEVADA PROCEEDINGS.  SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED IN THE PRESENT
ACTION FROM CHALLENGING THE FINDING OF THE NEVADA COURT THAT HERBERT N.
RICE WAS, AT THE TIME OF THE DIVORCE, DOMICILED IN THAT STATE. 
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

SINCE THIS CASE INVOLVES ONLY REAPPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE, AND WE DECLINE
TO DO THAT, IT IS HARD TO SEE A REASON FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI UNLESS
IT WAS TO RECORD IN OUR REPORTS AN EXAMPLE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH, IN
THE LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS, "CONFUSION NOW HATH MADE HIS
MASTERPIECE."  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER PROPERTY OWNED IN CONNECTICUT BY
ONE WHO HAS OBTAINED A NEVADA DIVORCE AND REMARRIED IN THAT STATE CAN
BE TAKEN FROM HIS ACTING WIDOW AND BESTOWED UPON THE WOMAN SHE
SUPERSEDED.  THE FACTS ARE THESE: 

AFTER TWENTY YEARS OF MARRIED LIFE IN CONNECTICUT WITH LILLIAN, RICE
ARRIVED AT RENO, NEVADA, ON MARCH 23, 1944, AND BEGAN A DIVORCE ACTION
ON MAY 5.  THE COMPLAINT AND PROCESS WERE HANDED TO LILLIAN AT HER HOME
IN CONNECTICUT.  SHE WAS NOT SERVED WITH PROCESS IN NEVADA.  SHE WAS
TEACHING SCHOOL IN CONNECTICUT, NEVER HAD LIVED IN NEVADA, AND DID NOT
APPEAR PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY IN THE ACTION, WHICH SHE CLAIMS WAS A
SURPRISE MANEUVER ON THE PART OF RICE. 

RICE HAD RENTED A FURNISHED ROOM IN RENO AND TESTIFIED THAT HE
INTENDED TO REMAIN THERE "INDEFINITELY."  HE WAS AWARDED A DIVORCE FROM
LILLIAN ON JUNE 13 AND WIRED HERMOINE, WHO ARRIVED THERE ON JULY 3. 
THEY WERE IMMEDIATELY MARRIED AND NEVER RETURNED TO CONNECTICUT.  THEY
RETAINED THE ROOM IN RENO, WHICH THEY OCCUPIED FROM TIME TO TIME, AND
BOTH OBTAINED WAR EMPLOYMENT IN CALIFORNIA WHERE SIX MONTHS LATER RICE
DIED. 

LILLIAN BROUGHT AN ACTION IN CONNECTICUT TO HAVE HERSELF DECLARED HIS
WIDOW INSOFAR AS CONNECTICUT REAL ESTATE WAS CONCERNED.  THE COURT
REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER RICE ESTABLISHED A GOOD FAITH
DOMICILE IN NEVADA AND HELD THAT HE HAD NOT AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO
MAINTAIN AN ACTION THERE FOR DIVORCE.  THE QUESTION COMES HERE AS TO
WHETHER THIS HOLDING BY CONNECTICUT COURTS GAVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
TO THE NEVADA DECREE OF DIVORCE AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, THIS COURT RODE
ROUGHSHOD OVER THE PRECEDENTS AND HELD THAT A STATE COURT, WITHOUT
PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE DEFENDANT, CAN ON SHORT RESIDENCE
GRANT A DIVORCE WHICH IS VALID AND ENTITLED TO FAITH AND CREDIT IN ALL
STATES.  IF RICE COULD HAVE RELIED ON THAT PRONOUNCEMENT, HIS DIVORCE
FROM LILLIAN AND HIS MARRIAGE TO HERMOINE WOULD BE WITHOUT LEGAL FLAW,
AND THE LATTER'S WIDOWHOOD CLEAR. 

BUT IN THE SECOND CASE OF WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226,
THE COURT HELD THAT JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS BY THE NEVADA COURT IN SUCH
A CASE DO NOT PRECLUDE REEXAMINATION AND A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ON THE
PART OF ANOTHER STATE.  AND IN ESTIN V. ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541, THE COURT
HELD THAT THE SECOND STATE IS FREE TO ARRIVE AT ITS OWN DETERMINATION
AS TO PLAINTIFF'S DOMICILE IN DETERMINING PROPERTY RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH
REQUIRED, UNDER THE WILLIAMS CASES OR EITHER OF THEM, TO RECOGNIZE THE
DIVORCE JUDGMENT AS TERMINATING THE MARRIAGE.  NOW COMES RICE V. RICE
TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THESE DOCTRINES. 

CONGRESS, AS IT IS EMPOWERED TO DO BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, HAS ENACTED THAT JUDGMENTS "SHALL HAVE SUCH
FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES,
AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE FROM WHENCE THE
SAID RECORDS ARE OR SHALL BE TAKEN."  1 STAT. 122.  THERE IS NO DOUBT
THAT UNDER THE LAW AND USAGE OF NEVADA, HERMOINE WAS WIFE AND WIDOW OF
RICE, AND ON ITS FACE THE STATUTE WOULD SEEM TO REQUIRE THAT SHE BE
RECOGNIZED AS SUCH ELSEWHERE.  BUT THINGS SOMETIMES ARE NOT WHAT THEY
SEEM. 

IN ORDER TO HAVE ANYTHING WHICH COURTS OF THE WESTERN WORLD RECOGNIZE
AS A JUDGMENT, EXCEPT IN AN ACTION IN REM, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE
RENDERING COURT HAVE WITHIN ITS POWER BOTH THE PARTY WHO SEEKS RELIEF
AND THE ONE AGAINST WHOM RELIEF IS SOUGHT. 

THIS COURT, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS ON
THE DEFENDANT ORDINARILY IS NECESSARY TO A VALID JUDGMENT IN A PERSONAL
ACTION, HELD IN THE FIRST WILLIAMS CASE THAT A STATE COULD BRING A
NONRESIDENT DEFENDANT WITHIN ITS POWER MERELY BY PUBLICATION OR OUT-OF
STATE SERVICE OF ITS SUMMONS.  IT OVERRULED FORMER DECISIONS TO
INTRODUCE WHAT IT HAS APTLY CHARACTERIZED IN SHERRER V. SHERRER, 334
U.S. 343, 349 N. 11, AND 356, AS THE "EX PARTE DIVORCE."  TO ME EX
PARTE DIVORCE IS A CONCEPT AS PERVERSE AND UNREALISTIC AS AN EX PARTE
MARRIAGE.  THE VICE OF THE SYSTEM SANCTIONED IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, IS THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES MAY LEAVE THE STATE
WHERE BOTH FOR YEARS HAVE MADE THEIR HOME, SEEK A FORUM OF HIS CHOICE,
AND PRETTY MUCH ON HIS OWN TERMS ALTER THE PATTERN OF TWO LIVES WITHOUT
AFFORDING THE OTHER EVEN A DECENT CHANCE TO BE HEARD - AS THIS CASE
ILLUSTRATES.  LILLIAN EITHER HAD TO LEAVE HER TEACHING AND MEANS OF
SUPPORT TO FOLLOW HER HUSBAND TWO THOUSAND MILES FROM ANY PLACE WHERE
SHE EVER HAD LIVED, OR LET HER MARRIAGE GO BY DEFAULT.  IF SHE CHOSE TO
FOLLOW AND CONTEST UNDER NEVADA LAW, SHE HAD LITTLE REAL CHANCE TO
SUCCEED.  BUT THIS COURT HAD CALLED THIS DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOR
LILLIAN. 

HERMOINE RELIED ON THE NEVADA COURT, WHICH DID ONLY WHAT THIS COURT
AUTHORIZED IT TO DO - GRANT AN EX PARTE DIVORCE.  SHE MARRIED A MAN
WHOM THIS COURT SAYS NEVADA HAD A RIGHT TO MAKE FREE BY SUCH PROCESS. 
SHE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BELIEVE HER MARRIAGE COMPLETE AND VALID IN ALL
PLACES AND FOR ALL PURPOSES.  CERTAINLY UNDER THE LAW OF NEVADA WHERE
SHE CONTINUED TO RESIDE IT WAS VALID, AND THIS COURT HAD HELD THE OUT
OF-STATE SERVICE SUFFICIENT TO EMPOWER NEVADA TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF
LILLIAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISSOLVING HER MARRIAGE.  BUT NOW WE SAY
THAT CONNECTICUT MAY FIND THAT RICE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DOMICILED IN
NEVADA TO GIVE THAT STATE POWER TO ACT ON HIS COMPLAINT.  THIS PRESENTS
A STUDY IN CONTRASTS. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT NEVADA DOES HAVE POWER TO DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGE OF
A WOMAN WHO NEVER WAS THERE IN HER LIFE, NEVER INVOKED ITS LAW OR ITS
COURTS, DID NOT SUBMIT HERSELF TO ITS JURISDICTION, REFUSED TO ANSWER
ITS SUMMONS, AND TOOK NO BENEFITS FROM ITS JUDGMENTS. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, WE SAY THAT COURTS OF ANY STATE MAY FIND THAT
NEVADA DOES NOT GET POWER TO DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGE OF A MAN WHO WENT TO
THAT STATE AND NEVER CAME BACK, WHO INVOKED ITS LAW, WENT INTO ITS
COURT AND SUBMITTED HIMSELF TO ITS JURISDICTION, TESTIFIED HE WAS
DOMICILED THERE, AND DURING THE REST OF HIS LIFE HELD QUARTERS WITHIN
THAT STATE. 

BUT EVEN UNDER THE TWO WILLIAMS CASES, A QUICK NEVADA DIVORCE WAS
EITHER CONCLUSIVE (FIRST WILLIAMS CASE) OR VULNERABLE (SECOND WILLIAMS
CASE) IN ITS ENTIRETY.  HOWEVER, IN ADDITION TO THE RIGHTS GROUPED
UNDER THE TERM CONSORTIUM, WHICH ARE TERMINATED BY DIVORCE, THERE ARE
SUBSIDIARY RIGHTS OF A PROPERTY NATURE SUCH AS SUPPORT, ALIMONY,
DISTRIBUTIVE INTERESTS IN PERSONALTY, DOWER AND INHERITANCE.  THESE
PRESENTED DIFFICULTIES IN CASE OF THE DIVORCE ON CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE
OF PROCESS ON A NONRESIDENT DEPENDENT IN WHICH THERE WAS NO REAL CHANCE
TO DEFEND.  SO THE COURT IMPROVISED THE CONCEPT OF "DIVISIBLE" DIVORCE,
ESTIN V. ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541, 549, A DIVORCE GOOD TO END A MARRIAGE BUT
INVALID TO AFFECT DEPENDENT PROPERTY RIGHTS. 

I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONNECTICUT COURT, BUT FOR THE FIRST
WILLIAMS CASE AND ITS PROGENY, MIGHT PROPERLY HAVE HELD THAT THE RICE
DIVORCE DECREE WAS VOID FOR EVERY PURPOSE BECAUSE IT WAS RENDERED BY A
STATE COURT WHICH NEVER OBTAINED JURISDICTION OF THE NONRESIDENT
DEFENDANT AND WHICH HAD NO POWER TO REACH INTO ANOTHER STATE AND SUMMON
HER BEFORE IT. 

BUT IF WE ADHERE TO THE HOLDINGS THAT THE NEVADA COURT HAD POWER OVER
HER FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLASTING HER MARRIAGE AND OPENING THE WAY TO A
SUCCESSOR, I DO NOT SEE THE JUSTICE OF INVENTING A COMPENSATING
CONFUSION IN THE DEVICE OF A DIVISIBLE DIVORCE BY WHICH THE PARTIES ARE
HALF-BOUND AND HALF-FREE AND WHICH PERMITS RICE TO HAVE A WIFE WHO
CANNOT BECOME HIS WIDOW AND TO LEAVE A WIDOW WHO WAS NO LONGER HIS
WIFE.  LILLIAN'S STANDING AS THE RELICT OF RICE IS INVULNERABLE, WHILE
HER STANDING AS HIS WIFE COULD BE BLASTED BY A NEVADA DECREE IN AN
ACTION TO WHICH SHE DID NOT NEED TO EVEN BECOME A PARTY. 

THIS COURT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE CONTRADICTIONS AND
CONFLICTS RESULTING FROM OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM OR FROM OUR CRAZY QUILT OF
DIVORCE LAWS, BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY COMPOUNDING THOSE DIFFICULTIES BY
REPUDIATING THE USUAL REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN DIVORCE
CASES AND COMPENSATING FOR IT BY REPUDIATING THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE.  MY DISSENTING VIEWS IN THE WILLIAMS AND ESTIN CASES WOULD LEAD
ME TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS DIVORCE WAS
ALWAYS AND IN ALL PLACES INVALID ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION OF THE DEFENDANT.  HOWEVER, IF IT WAS VALID ON THAT GROUND
AND NOTHING BUT A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE OF DOMICILE BY THE SECOND
STATE COURT IS INVOLVED, WE SHOULD NOT GRANT WRITS IN THIS CLASS OF
CASES; BUT IF I AM TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE HERE, I THINK THE NEVADA
COURT'S FINDING OF JURISDICTION WAS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF
DOMICILE, NOT OVERCOME BY ANY NEW EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CONNECTICUT
COURT, AND THE NEVADA JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AS
THE CONGRESS HAS COMMANDED. 
..END :

















FOUNTAIN V. FILSON, 336 U.S. 681 


NO. 542.  DECIDED APRIL 18, 1949.  - 84 U.S. APP. D.C. - , 171 F.2D 999,
REVERSED. 


RESPONDENTS SUED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR A DECLARATION OF A
RESULTING TRUST IN CERTAIN NEW JERSEY REALTY AND FOR "OTHER RELIEF." 
THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
ON THE GROUND THAT NEW JERSEY LAW WOULD NOT PERMIT THE IMPOSITION OF A
RESULTING TRUST IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED IN THE COMPLAINT AND
ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THIS ACTION BUT
REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER A
PERSONAL MONEY JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS.  HELD:  THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN DIRECTING ENTRY OF A PERSONAL MONEY JUDGMENT AND IN THUS
DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISPUTE THE FACTS MATERIAL TO
THAT CLAIM.  PP. 681-683. 

FOUNTAIN V. FILSON ET UX. 

ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

ON APPEAL FROM A SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT DENYING A
DECLARATION OF A RESULTING TRUST IN REALTY, THE COURT OF APPEALS
SUSTAINED THIS ACTION BUT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
DIRECTIONS TO ENTER A PERSONAL MONEY JUDGMENT.  84 U.S. APP. D.C. - ,
171 F.2D 999.  ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THIS COURT GRANTS
CERTIORARI, REVERSES THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AND REMANDS
THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, P. 683. 

PER CURIAM. 

MR. AND MRS. FILSON BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLAIMING A $6,000 INTEREST IN CERTAIN NEW JERSEY
REALTY.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT MR. AND MRS. FOUNTAIN, THE
DEFENDANTS, ACQUIRED TITLE TO THIS REALTY SUBJECT TO A RESULTING TRUST
IN FAVOR OF THE FILSONS IN THAT AMOUNT.  THE FOUNTAINS ANSWERED.  THEY
DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF A RESULTING TRUST AND ALSO DENIED THE EXISTENCE
OF ANY OBLIGATION TO THE FILSONS.  THE DOCUMENTS COVERING THE TRANSFER
OF THE REALTY AND CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS OF THE PARTIES WERE FILED.  MRS.
FOUNTAIN, HER HUSBAND HAVING DIED, THEN MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
UNDER RULE 56 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  THE SOLE BASIS
OF THE MOTION WAS THE CLAIM THAT NEW JERSEY LAW WOULD NOT PERMIT THE
IMPOSITION OF A RESULTING TRUST UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED IN
THE COMPLAINT AND THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS.  THE MOTION WAS GRANTED
AND JUDGMENT FOR MRS. FOUNTAIN WAS ENTERED. 

ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CAME TO
THREE CONCLUSIONS.  FIRST, IT AGREED THAT UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW NO
RESULTING TRUST COULD ARISE.  SECOND, IT CONCLUDED THAT THE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN MRS. FOUNTAIN'S FAVOR WAS NEVERTHELESS ERRONEOUS, BECAUSE
THE COMPLAINT CONTAINED A GENERAL PRAYER FOR "OTHER RELIEF" AND ALLEGED
FACTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A PERSONAL JUDGMENT FOR $6,000 COULD HAVE
BEEN RECOVERED EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A RESULTING TRUST IN THE REALTY. 
FINALLY, THE COURT OF APPEALS PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE THE DEPOSITIONS
WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT
THEY SHOWED THE EXISTENCE OF A PERSONAL OBLIGATION AND THE CASE WAS,
THEREFORE, REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER A
PERSONAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE FILSONS FOR $6,000.  84 U.S. APP.
D.C. - , 171 F.2D 999.  MRS. FOUNTAIN'S TIMELY MOTION FOR A
MODIFICATION OF THIS ORDER IN ORDER TO PERMIT A TRIAL AS TO THE
EXISTENCE OF THE PERSONAL OBLIGATION WAS DENIED. 

MRS. FOUNTAIN'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, WHICH ATTACKS ONLY THE THIRD
PORTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS' RULING ABOVE STATED, IS GRANTED AND
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED.  WE NEED NOT PASS ON
THE PROPRIETY OF AN ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY A DISTRICT COURT IN
FAVOR OF ONE PARTY AFTER THE OPPOSITE PARTY HAS MOVED FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR, WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO
ANY FACT MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE BEING LITIGATED.  FOR HERE THE ORDER WAS
MADE ON APPEAL ON A NEW ISSUE AS TO WHICH THE OPPOSITE PARTY HAD NO
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A DEFENSE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.  IN GLOBE
LIQUOR CO. V. SAN ROMAN, 332 U.S. 571(1948), AND CONE V. WEST VIRGINIA
PAPER CO., 330 U.S. 212(1947), WE HELD THAT JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING
THE VERDICT COULD NOT BE GIVEN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS IN FAVOR OF A
PARTY WHO HAD LOST IN THE TRIAL COURT AND WHO HAD NOT THERE MOVED FOR
SUCH RELIEF.  ONE OF THE REASONS FOR SO HOLDING WAS THAT OTHERWISE THE
PARTY WHO HAD WON IN THE TRIAL COURT WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ANY
OPPORTUNITY TO REMEDY THE DEFECT WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT DISCOVERED
IN HIS CASE.  HE WOULD HAVE HAD SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY IF A PROPER MOTION
HAD BEEN MADE BY HIS OPPONENT IN THE TRIAL COURT.  THE SAME PRINCIPLE
INTERDICTS, A FORTIORI, THE APPELLATE COURT ORDER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
HERE.  SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN, UNDER RULE 56, ONLY IF THERE IS
NO DISPUTE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT.  THERE WAS NO OCCASION IN THE TRIAL
COURT FOR MRS. FOUNTAIN TO DISPUTE THE FACTS MATERIAL TO A CLAIM THAT A
PERSONAL OBLIGATION EXISTED, SINCE THE ONLY CLAIM CONSIDERED BY THAT
COURT ON HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS THE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS A
RESULTING TRUST.  WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE TRIAL
COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL JUDGMENT IT WAS ERROR
FOR IT TO DEPRIVE MRS. FOUNTAIN OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISPUTE THE FACTS
MATERIAL TO THAT CLAIM BY ORDERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST HER.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS, THEREFORE, REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AS HERE MODIFIED.  REVERSED. 
..END :























CHICAGO ETC. R. CO. V. ACME FREIGHT, 336 U.S. 465 


NO. 65.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 4, 1949.  - 166 F.2D
778, REVERSED. 


UNDER PART IV OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND SPECIFICALLY 49
U.S.C. SEC. 1013, A FREIGHT FORWARDER IS A SHIPPER (RATHER THAN AN
INITIAL CARRIER) VIS-A-VIS THE RAILROADS, AND MUST FILE LOSS OR DAMAGE
CLAIMS AGAINST THEM WITHIN THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE
RAILROAD BILL OF LADING.  PP. 466-489. 

1.  THE LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 1013 CLEARLY
INDICATE THAT FORWARDERS WERE NOT GIVEN THE RIGHT-OVER UNDER 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 20(12) AGAINST THE RAILROADS.  PP. 470-476. 

2. A CONTRARY CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE
PREVIOUSLY EXISTING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORWARDERS AND CARRIERS
REGULATED BY PARTS I, II AND III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHICH
RELATIONSHIP PART IV ACCEPTED AND CONTINUED.  PP. 476-479. 

3.  THE FACTORS WHICH MAKE THE CARMACK AMENDMENT WORKABLE AS BETWEEN
CARRIERS ARE TOTALLY ABSENT WHEN THE RIGHT-OVER GIVEN BY 49 U.S.C. SEC.
20(12) IS SOUGHT TO BE EXTENDED TO FREIGHT FORWARDERS.  PP. 479-483. 

4.  EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT.  PP.
483-489. 

(A)  THE ACT LEAVES FREIGHT FORWARDERS OF THE KIND REGULATED BY PART
IV IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME POSITION THEY PREVIOUSLY HELD WITH RESPECT
TO THEIR LIABILITY TO SHIPPERS AND THEIR RIGHTS AGAINST UNDERLYING
CARRIERS.  PP. 484-487. 

(B)  THAT SEC. 20(11) FORBIDS FORWARDERS TO LIMIT TO LESS THAN NINE
MONTHS THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS MUST BE FILED BY THEIR SHIPPERS
AND THAT FORWARDERS MUST FILE THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE RAILROADS WITHIN
THE SAME PERIOD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT.  THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS THE EXPERIENCE AND AUTHORITY TO
PRESCRIBE THE PROPER CORRECTIVE FOR THIS INCONSISTENCY.  PP. 488-489. 

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. ACME
FAST FREIGHT, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HELD
THAT UNDER 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1013 A FREIGHT FORWARDER MUST FILE LOSS OR
DAMAGE CLAIMS AGAINST A RAILROAD WITHIN THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD SPECIFIED
BY A RAILROAD BILL OF LADING.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  166 F.2D
778.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 807.  REVERSED, P. 489. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1942, CONGRESS ENACTED WHAT IS POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE FREIGHT
FORWARDER ACT.  THIS LEGISLATION, WHICH APPEARS AS PART IV  FN1  OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WAS DESIGNED TO DEFINE FREIGHT FORWARDERS, TO
PRESCRIBE CERTAIN REGULATIONS GOVERNING FORWARDER OPERATIONS, AND TO
BRING THIS ESSENTIAL TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL HISTORY
CULMINATING IN THE ACT NEED NOT NOW BE DETAILED.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO HEIGHTS TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344(1940); ACME FAST FREIGHT,
INC. V. UNITED STATES, 30 F.SUPP.  968, AFF'D 309 U.S. 638(1940). 

FREIGHT FORWARDERS CONSOLIDATE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD FREIGHT INTO
CARLOADS FOR SHIPMENT BY RAIL, TRUCK, OR WATER.  THEIR CHARGES
APPROXIMATE RAIL LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES; THEIR EXPENSES AND PROFITS
ARE DERIVED FROM THE SPREAD BETWEEN THE CARLOAD AND L.C.L. RATES. 
FORWARDERS ARE UTILIZED BY L.C.L. SHIPPERS BECAUSE OF THE SPEED AND
EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH THEY HANDLE SHIPMENTS, THE UNITY OF
RESPONSIBILITY OBTAINED, AND CERTAIN SERVICES WHICH FORWARDERS MAKE
AVAILABLE.  FN2 

FORWARDERS ARE REQUIRED BY SEC. 413 OF THE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1013,
TO ISSUE BILLS OF LADING TO THEIR CUSTOMERS, COVERING THE INDIVIDUAL
PACKAGE SHIPMENT FROM TIME OF RECEIPT UNTIL DELIVERY TO THE ULTIMATE
CONSIGNEE.  WHEN THE FREIGHT IS CONSOLIDATED INTO CARLOADS, THE
RAILROAD GIVES THE FORWARDER ITS BILL OF LADING IN WHICH THE FORWARDER
IS DESIGNATED AS BOTH CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE.  THE CONTENTS ARE NOTED
AS "ONE CARLOAD OF MIXED MERCHANDISE" AND USUALLY MOVE UNDER AN "ALL
COMMODITY" CARLOAD RATE.  THE DESTINATION SET OUT IN THE RAILROAD BILL
OF LADING IS THE FORWARDER'S BREAK-BULK POINT.  AT THAT POINT THE
CARLOAD IS BROKEN UP; SOME SHIPMENTS MAY BE DISTRIBUTED LOCALLY, SOME
SENT BY TRUCK TO OFF-LINE DESTINATIONS, AND SOME CONSOLIDATED INTO
CARLOADS FOR RESHIPMENT TO FURTHER BREAKBULK POINTS.  THE RAILROAD HAS
NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE CAR, THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
SHIPPERS, OR THE ULTIMATE DESTINATIONS OF THE CONSIGNMENTS.  THE
FORWARDER HAS AN UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO SELECT THE CARRIER AND ROUTE FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE FREIGHT. 

THE FORWARDER THUS HAS SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF BOTH CARRIER
AND SHIPPER.  IN ITS RELATIONS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS, A FORWARDER IS
SUBJECTED BY THE ACT TO MANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO COMMON CARRIERS UNDER PARTS I, II, AND III OF THE ACT. 
IN ITS RELATIONS WITH THESE CARRIERS, HOWEVER, THE STATUS OF THE
FORWARDER IS STILL THAT OF SHIPPER.  IT IS THIS DUALITY OF CHARACTER
THAT RAISES THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE. 

AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11)  FN4  AND (12),  FN5  SHALL APPLY TO
FREIGHT FORWARDERS "IN THE CASE OF SERVICE SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER"
(PART IV), AND THAT THE FREIGHT FORWARDER SHALL BE DEEMED BOTH THE
RECEIVING AND DELIVERING TRANSPORTATION COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
SUCH SEC. 20(11) AND (12).  INCORPORATION OF THE CARMACK AMENDMENT
REQUIRES, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THAT THE FORWARDER ISSUE BILLS OF LADING
TO ITS SHIPPERS, COVERING TRANSPORTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SHIPMENTS TO
THEIR ULTIMATE DESTINATIONS.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT UNDER
SEC. 20(11), THE FORWARDER IS LIABLE TO ITS SHIPPER FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE
TO THE FREIGHT EXACTLY AS IF IT WERE AN INITIAL CARRIER SUBJECT TO
PARTS I, II, AND III.  WE ARE NOW ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE RIGHT
OVER GIVEN BY SEC. 20(12) TO AN INITIAL CARRIER AGAINST ITS CONNECTING
CARRIERS APPLIES IN THE CASE OF FORWARDERS WHO HAVE PAID LOSS AND
DAMAGE CLAIMS TO THEIR SHIPPERS AND SEEK RECOMPENSE FROM THE CARRIER
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS. 

IN THIS ACTION, RESPONDENT FREIGHT FORWARDER SOUGHT A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT THAT IT IS NOT BOUND BY THE NINE-MONTH LIMITATION PERIOD
PROVIDED IN THE RAILROAD BILL OF LADING FOR THE FILING OF LOSS OR
DAMAGE CLAIMS.  IF SEC. 1013, BY ITS INCORPORATION OF SEC. 20(11) AND
(12), MAKES THE FORWARDER AN INITIAL CARRIER WITH A RIGHT-OVER AGAINST
THE CARRIER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS OR DAMAGE, THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD
IS NOT APPLICABLE.  IF, HOWEVER, THE FORWARDER IS STILL A SHIPPER VIS-A
VIS THE RAILROADS, IT MUST FILE ITS CLAIMS WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED
IN THE RAILROAD BILL OF LADING.  FN6  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD, ON AN
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS, THAT THE FORWARDER MUST FILE ITS CLAIMS
WITHIN THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT REVERSED, HOLDING THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 1013 ALONE
FORWARDERS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED CARRIERS AND AS SUCH ARE ENTITLED TO
THE RIGHT-OVER GIVEN BY SEC. 20(12).  166 F.2D 778.  WE GRANTED THE
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 807, TO RESOLVE THIS
IMPORTANT QUESTION UNDER PART IV OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

FIRST.  THE RAILROADS CONTEND THAT PART IV OF THE ACT WAS NOT
INTENDED TO CHANGE THE SHIPPER-CARRIER RELATIONSHIP THAT HAD FOR MANY
YEARS EXISTED BETWEEN FORWARDER AND RAILROAD.  THEIR POSITION IS THAT
WHILE THE PREVIOUSLY PREVAILING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OWED BY THE
FORWARDER TO THE PUBLIC WERE CHANGED BY THE ACT, THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ACT AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY NEGATIVE THE FORWARDER'S CLAIM TO
CARRIER STATUS.  THEY READ THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1013, THAT "THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 20(11) AND (12) OF THIS TITLE  ...  SHALL APPLY
WITH RESPECT TO FREIGHT FORWARDERS, IN THE CASE OF SERVICE SUBJECT TO
THIS CHAPTER  ...  ," TO MEAN THAT, WHILE THE FORWARDER IS LIABLE TO
ITS SHIPPERS UNDER SEC. 20(11) FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE NO MATTER WHOSE THE
ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY, ITS RIGHT-OVER UNDER SEC. 20(12) IS LIMITED TO
LOSSES OR DAMAGE OCCURRING IN "SERVICE SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER" - I.E.,
IN THE BUSINESS OF FORWARDING FREIGHT.  THUS LIMITED, THE RIGHT-OVER
WOULD APPLY AS AGAINST OTHER FREIGHT FORWARDERS WITH WHOM JOINT LOADING
AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 1004(D) WERE IN EFFECT, AND AGAINST MOTOR
CARRIERS WHO ARE PERMITTED BY SEC. 1013 TO ISSUE BILLS OF LADING ON
BEHALF OF THE FORWARDERS.  THE RIGHT-OVER WOULD NOT, HOWEVER, APPLY
AGAINST RAILROADS, WATER CARRIERS, AND LINE-HAUL MOTOR CARRIERS. 

"SERVICE SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER" IS DEFINED IN SEC. 1002 AS "ANY OR
ALL OF THE SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHICH ANY PERSON UNDERTAKES TO PERFORM OR PROVIDE AS A FREIGHT
FORWARDER  ...  "  WHILE USE OF THE WORD, "PROVIDE," LENDS SOME SUPPORT
TO RESPONDENT'S THESIS THAT THE DEFINITION SHOULD BE READ BROADLY TO
INCLUDE THE SERVICE PERFORMED BY COMMON CARRIERS FOR THE FORWARDERS,
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT INDICATES THE CONTRARY.  IT DEFINES "SERVICE
SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER" AS: 

"THE TERM USED THROUGHOUT PART IV WHEN REFERRING TO THE BUSINESS OR
OPERATIONS OF FREIGHT FORWARDERS WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO REGULATE.  THE
DEFINITION IS INTENDED TO BE BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER EVERYTHING THE
FREIGHT FORWARDER DOES, IN CONNECTION WITH FORWARDING BY SURFACE
FACILITIES, IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING OUT HIS UNDERTAKING TO THE
SHIPPER WHOM HE SERVES.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH, OF
COURSE, TO BRING UNDER REGULATION, UNDER PART IV, THE SERVICE PERFORMED
BY THE CARRIERS WHOSE SERVICES THE FREIGHT FORWARDER UTILIZES IN
PERFORMING HIS UNDERTAKING."  FN7 

THE EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY THE PHRASE IS EMPHASIS ON THE FREIGHT
FORWARDER'S ACTIVITIES, NOT UPON THE SERVICE PERFORMED BY UNDERLYING
CARRIERS.  SINCE THE FORWARDER CONTRACTS WITH ITS SHIPPER TO DELIVER
THE SHIPMENT SAFELY TO ITS ULTIMATE DESTINATION, ITS UNDERTAKING IS
OBVIOUSLY PART OF THE "SERVICE SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER."  BUT INCLUSION
OF THAT PHRASE IN SEC. 1013 INDICATES A LIMITATION OF APPLICABILITY OF
THE RIGHT-OVER UNDER SEC. 20(12) TO THE FORWARDER'S BUSINESS, WHICH, WE
ARE TOLD BY THE HOUSE REPORT, DOES NOT INCLUDE "THE SERVICE PERFORMED
BY THE CARRIERS WHOSE SERVICES THE FREIGHT FORWARDER UTILIZES IN
PERFORMING HIS UNDERTAKING." 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PHRASE, "SERVICE SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER," IN
THE FREIGHT FORWARDER ACT IS ACCENTUATED BY A CONTEMPORANEOUS AMENDMENT
TO PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHICH PERTAINS TO MOTOR
CARRIERS.  THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT HAD MADE SEC. 20(11) APPLICABLE TO
MOTOR CARRIERS BUT HAD OMITTED SEC. 20(12).  AS A PART OF THE FREIGHT
FORWARDER LEGISLATION, CONGRESS AMENDED SEC. 219 OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT TO MAKE SEC. 20(12) APPLICABLE TO MOTOR CARRIERS.  IT DID
SO WITHOUT INCLUDING THE QUALIFYING PHRASE.  THE AMENDMENT READS
SIMPLY: 

"SEC. 219.  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 20(11) AND (12) OF THIS ACT,
TOGETHER WITH SUCH OTHER PROVISIONS OF SUCH PART (INCLUDING PENALTIES)
AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH PROVISIONS, SHALL APPLY
WITH RESPECT TO COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE WITH LIKE FORCE AND
EFFECT AS IN THE CASE OF THOSE PERSONS TO WHICH SUCH PROVISIONS ARE
SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE."  56 STAT. 300. 

UNLESS WE ARE TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING SEC. 1013,
INCLUDED THE PHRASE, "IN THE CASE OF SERVICE SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER,"
FOR NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME APPROVING A SIMILAR
THE EFFECT CONTENDED FOR BY PETITIONERS.  RESPONDENT SUGGESTS NO
OTHER. 

THAT MEANING IS SUPPORTED BY THE EXPLANATION OF SEC. 1013 GIVEN BY
REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON, A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WHICH DRAFTED THE
INTERPRETATION BY A CONTRARY STATEMENT IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT. 
THIS REPORT STATES FLATLY THAT "IN CASE THE LOSS OF OR DAMAGE TO THE
PROPERTY TRANSPORTED OCCURS ON THE LINE OF A CARRIER WHOSE SERVICE THE
FREIGHT FORWARDER UTILIZES, THE FREIGHT FORWARDER WILL HAVE THE RIGHT
OF SUBROGATION AGAINST THE CARRIER UNDER SECTION 20(12)."  FN8 

WE ARE WARNED, HOWEVER, THAT THE REPORT IS TO BE DISCOUNTED IN SOME
PARTICULARS.  REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON PREFACED HIS SECTION-BY-SECTION
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL WITH THIS SIGNIFICANT STATEMENT: 

"IN SOME RESPECTS THE REPORT WHICH ACCOMPANIES THIS BILL IS NOT AS
COMPLETE AS IT MIGHT BE.  DUE TO LIMITATIONS OF TIME THE REPORT WAS NOT
SUBMITTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OR SUBCOMMITTEE, AND
THEREFORE IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO INCLUDE IN THESE REMARKS SOME
FURTHER EXPLANATIONS WHICH MAY BE HELPFUL TO THE MEMBERS IN THEIR
CONSIDERATION OF THE MEASURE.  IN A FEW INSTANCES, WHICH WILL BE
MENTIONED LATER, THE REPORT MAY NOT BE SO PHRASED AS TO CONVEY FULLY
THE SENSE OF WHAT WAS INTENDED."  FN9 

THAT HE HAD SEC. 1013 SPECIFICALLY IN MIND IS CLEARLY SHOWN BY HIS
REMARKS EXPLAINING THAT SECTION: 

"IN ITS EXPLANATION OF SECTION 413(SEC.  1013), THE REPORT WHICH
ACCOMPANIED THE BILL IS NOT STRICTLY ACCURATE IN INTERPRETING THE
INTENDED LEGAL EFFECT OF MAKING SECTION 20(11) AND (12) OF PART I
APPLICABLE TO FREIGHT FORWARDERS.  IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT,
INSOFAR AS A GIVEN SERVICE TO ITS SHIPPER IS COVERED BY THE PUBLISHED
RATE OF A FREIGHT FORWARDER, THE LATTER IS THE ONLY PERSON TO WHICH
SUCH SHIPPER IS ENTITLED TO LOOK FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES, AND IT IS IN
THIS SENSE THAT THE FORWARDER IS TO 'BE DEEMED BOTH THE RECEIVING AND
DELIVERING TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.'  IF DAMAGE TO A SHIPMENT OCCURS ON
THE LINE OF A COMMON CARRIER WHOSE SERVICES ARE BEING UTILIZED BY THE
FORWARDER, THE FORWARDER HAS NO RIGHT OF SUBROGATION UNDER SECTION
20(12), SINCE ITS OWN SHIPPER NEVER HAD ANY RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST
SUCH CARRIER.  THE FORWARDER'S RECOVERY AGAINST THE CARRIER WOULD BE
UPON THE BILL OF LADING ISSUED TO IT BY SUCH CARRIER AND UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE THERETO.  THE REFERENCE TO PARAGRAPH (12)
OF SECTION 20 WAS INCLUDED IN SECTION 413(SEC.  1013) TO COVER A
COMBINATION OF SERVICES PERFORMED DIRECTLY FOR THE OWNER OF THE GOODS,
SUCH AS WOULD OCCUR WHERE THE SERVICES OF TWO OR MORE FORWARDERS WERE
INVOLVED."  FN10 

IN WEIGHING THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THIS STATEMENT AND THE
COMMITTEE REPORT, A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL FACTS ASSUME IMPORTANCE.  THE
BILL UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS REPORTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  FN11  CONGRESSMAN
WOLVERTON, WHO WAS THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, SPOKE
IN BEHALF OF THE BILL AND PRESENTED THE ONLY EXTENDED EXPOSITION OF ITS
PROVISIONS.  HIS EXPLANATION OF ITS MEANING WAS NOT CHALLENGED OR
CONTRADICTED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE.  ON THE CONTRARY, HIS PART
IN ITS DRAFTING WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE,  FN12
AND HIS REMARKS HAVE BEEN QUOTED AS AUTHORITY BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN13    IN THIS POSTURE OF EVENTS, THE COMMITTEE
REPORT CAN BE GIVEN LITTLE WEIGHT.  A REPORT NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED
TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND EXPRESSLY CONTRADICTED WITHOUT
CHALLENGE ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE BY A RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE CAN HARDLY BE CONSIDERED AUTHORITATIVE.  THE COMMITTEE OF
CONFERENCE, OF WHICH REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON WAS A MEMBER, ADOPTED
SEC. 1013 EXACTLY AS IT APPEARED IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENT.  IT BORE, AT
THAT TIME, THE GLOSS PLACED UPON IT ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.  FN14
UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANNOT CONSTRUE THE STATUTE TO GIVE
FORWARDERS THE RIGHT-OVER AGAINST UNDERLYING CARRIERS UNDER SEC.
20(12). 

SECOND.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD, MOREOVER, BE OUT OF HARMONY WITH
THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORWARDERS AND CARRIERS
REGULATED BY PARTS I, II, AND III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, A
RELATIONSHIP WHICH PART IV UNQUESTIONABLY ACCEPTED AND CONTINUED. 
PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE FORWARDER ACT, THIS COURT HELD IN A
NUMBER OF CASES THAT FORWARDERS ARE SHIPPERS INSOFAR AS CARRIERS ARE
CONCERNED, AND THAT THE LATTER CANNOT DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF OR
AGAINST FORWARDERS, NOR ENTER INTO JOINT OR PROPORTIONAL RATES WITH
THEM ABSENT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 220 U.S. 235(1911); GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V.
O'CONNOR, 232 U.S. 508(1914); LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
243 U.S. 444(1917); UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS TRUCKING CO.,
SUPRA; ACME FAST FREIGHT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP WAS NOT ALTERED BY THE ENACTMENT
OF PART IV.  NOWHERE IN THE ACT ARE FREIGHT FORWARDERS REFERRED TO AS
CARRIERS.  CONGRESS DEFINED THE TERM "FREIGHT FORWARDER" IN SEC.
1002(5) TO MEAN ANY PERSON WHICH "OTHERWISE THAN AS A CARRIER SUBJECT
TO" PART I, II, OR III OF THIS TITLE CONSOLIDATES GOODS FOR SHIPMENT,
ETC.  IN ONE SECTION WHERE, BY INADVERTENCE, FORWARDERS WERE REFERRED
TO AS CARRIERS, AN AMENDMENT WAS PASSED LESS THAN TWO MONTHS LATER
STRIKING OUT "CARRIER" AND SUBSTITUTING "FREIGHT FORWARDER."  FN15  THE
STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE  FN16  LEAVE
NO DOUBT THAT IT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS TO ALTER THE
FORWARDERS' STATUS AS SHIPPERS VIS-A-VIS CARRIERS BY RAIL, HIGHWAY, AND
WATER. 

THE FACT THAT CONGRESS STUDIOUSLY AVOIDED CHARACTERIZING FORWARDERS
AS CARRIERS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SUBJECTING THEM TO MANY OF THE
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SUCH CARRIERS, SERVES TO EMPHASIZE THE
DISTINCTION DRAWN BY THE ACT.  THE REASON FOR THIS DISTINCTION HAS
ALREADY BEEN SUGGESTED.  IN THEIR RELATIONS WITH SHIPPERS, FORWARDERS
UNQUESTIONABLY PERFORM FUNCTIONS AND HAVE DUTIES SIMILAR TO THE
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF COMMON CARRIERS.  THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE NOT
ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF EXPRESS COMPANIES, WHICH ARE COMMON
CARRIERS BY DEFINITION, UNDER SEC. 1(3) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(3).  NEVERTHELESS, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT FORWARDERS
OCCUPY A DIFFERENT POSITION IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH THE CARRIERS WHOSE
SERVICES THEY UTILIZE.  FN17  FOR THAT REASON, THEY REFUSED TO SANCTION
THE JOINT RATES THAT FORWARDERS HAD ESTABLISHED WITH CERTAIN MOTOR
CARRIERS.  SEE ACME FAST FREIGHT, INC. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
ACCORDING TO REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON'S STATEMENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE, "IT WOULD BE ILLOGICAL AND ANOMALOUS TO PERMIT THE MAKING OF SO
CALLED JOINT RATES IN SUCH A SITUATION.  THE MAINTENANCE OF A JOINT
RATE BY A CARRIER AND A SHIPPER WOULD BE AN ABSURDITY.  IF NEVERTHELESS
PERMITTED, IT WOULD ENABLE SUCH SHIPPER TO RECEIVE REBATES THROUGH THE
MEDIUM OF DIVISIONS OF THE JOINT RATE."  FN18  CARRIERS SUBJECT TO
PARTS I, II, AND III WERE PERMITTED BY SEC. 1008 TO ESTABLISH SO-CALLED
"ASSEMBLING AND DISTRIBUTION" RATES, WHICH WERE DESIGNED TO GIVE THE
FORWARDER THE BENEFIT OF RATES LOWER THAN THOSE AVAILABLE TO OTHER
SHIPPERS, BECAUSE OF SAVINGS TO THE CARRIERS EFFECTED BY SOME SERVICES
PERFORMED BY THE FORWARDER.  THIS WAS THOUGHT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
POSITION OF THE FORWARDER AS SHIPPER, HOWEVER, AND SUCH RATES COULD NOT
BE LOWERED BEYOND AN AMOUNT WHICH WOULD REFLECT THE SAVINGS.  IT IS
SIGNIFICANT, TOO, THAT THESE RATES WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO LINE-HAUL OR
CARLOAD FREIGHT, BUT ONLY TO THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY CARRIERS IN
BRINGING LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENTS FROM OFF-LINE POINTS TO THE
FORWARDER'S CONCENTRATION POINT AND FROM BREAK-BULK POINT TO FINAL
DESTINATION N19.  IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR BEYOND ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING SHIPPER-CARRIER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
FORWARDERS AND THOSE CARRIERS REGULATED BY PARTS I, II, AND III OF THE
ACT. 

THIRD.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHILE CONCEDING THAT FORWARDERS ARE
STILL SHIPPERS VIS-A-VIS CARRIERS UNDER THE ACT, HELD THAT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF SEC. 1013 ALONE, THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS INITIAL
CARRIERS, WHILE THE RAILROADS, MOTOR VEHICLES, AND BOATS WHOSE SERVICES
ARE UTILIZED BY FORWARDERS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED CONNECTING CARRIERS. 
RESPONDENT GOES FARTHER.  IT CONTENDS NOT ONLY THAT THE LIABILITY
PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM RAIL BILL OF LADING ISSUED TO THE FORWARDER
FOR HIS CARLOAD SHIPMENT MAY BE DISREGARDED, BUT THAT THE RAILROAD NEED
NOT ISSUE ITS BILL OF LADING AT ALL.  IN ITS VIEW, MISSOURI, KANSAS &
TEXAS R. CO. V. WARD, 244 U.S. 383(1917), WHICH STRUCK DOWN CONDITIONS
IN THE BILL OF LADING ISSUED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY A CONNECTING
CARRIER, IS DECISIVE OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE
RAIL BILL OF LADING HERE IN CONTROVERSY. 

WE DO NOT AGREE, NOR CAN WE BELIEVE THAT THE CONTENTION IS SERIOUSLY
MADE.  THE UNDERLYING CARRIER'S HAUL INVOLVES A DIFFERENT SHIPMENT, A
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION, A DIFFERENT ORIGIN, A DIFFERENT DESTINATION,
AND A DIFFERENT CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE THAN ARE INVOLVED IN THE
FORWARDER'S UNDERTAKING.  FURTHERMORE, RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION LEADS TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT RAILROADS, WHOSE BILLS OF LADING HAVE LONG BEEN
PRESCRIBED BY THE I.C.C. AND FILED WITH RAIL TARIFFS, MUST TRANSPORT
FREIGHT ON BILLS OF LADING SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT WILL BY THE FORWARDER
AND POSSIBLY DIFFERENT IN MANY RESPECTS FROM THE UNIFORM RAIL BILL. 
SEE E.G., CHAIN DELIVERIES EXPRESS, INC., 260 I.C.C. 149, 151(1943). 
THAT CERTAINLY HAS NOT BEEN THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE I.C.C. SINCE
ENACTMENT OF PART IV,  FN20  NOR WAS THE CONTENTION ACCEPTED BY EITHER
OF THE COURTS BELOW IN THIS CASE. 

THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER, GRANTING THAT BOTH FORWARDER AND
UNDERLYING CARRIER MUST ISSUE BILLS OF LADING, THE LIABILITY PROVISIONS
OF BILLS ISSUED BY THE LATTER ARE TO BE CONSIDERED NULL AND VOID WHEN
FORWARDER FREIGHT IS BEING HAULED.  WE THINK THAT THE WHOLE SCHEME OF
THE ACT, ITS LANGUAGE AND HISTORY, NEGATIVE THAT PROPOSITION.  AS HAS
BEEN NOTED, THE FORWARDER REMAINS A SHIPPER IN ITS RELATIONS WITH
UNDERLYING CARRIERS UNDER THE ACT.  IT IS A SHIPPER TO WHOM CARRIERS
ARE FORBIDDEN TO GIVE ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE IN ANY
RESPECT WHATSOEVER, UNDER THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  SEC.
1004(C).  ON THE OTHER HAND, FORWARDERS, LIKE OTHER SHIPPERS, MAY
DISCRIMINATE AS THEY CHOOSE BETWEEN CARRIERS.  SEC. 1004(B). 

IF THE LIABILITY PROVISIONS OF THE CARRIER BILL OF LADING ARE
INAPPLICABLE, OTHER DIFFICULTIES ARE PRESENTED.  SINCE THEY ARE NOT
BOUND TO USE THE UNIFORM BILL OF LADING, FORWARDERS MAY ADOPT A
LIMITATION PERIOD FOR THE SUBMISSION OF CLAIMS LONGER THAN NINE MONTHS,
THE MINIMUM PERIOD PERMITTED BY SEC. 20(11).  SINCE THE RAIL BILL OF
LADING, WHICH PRESCRIBES A NINE-MONTH PERIOD, WOULD APPLY TO ALL
SHIPPERS OTHER THAN SHIPPERS BY FREIGHT FORWARDER, THE FORMER WOULD
THUS BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST CONTRARY TO SEC. 1004(C). 

SIMILARLY, A SHIPPER BY FREIGHT FORWARDER MIGHT WISH TO CONTRACT FOR
COMMON-LAW LIABILITY BY PAYING THE HIGHER TARIFF TO THE FORWARDER, AS
HE MUST BE PERMITTED TO DO UNDER SEC. 20(11).  CINCINNATI, N.O. &
T.P.R. CO. V. RANKIN, 241 U.S. 319(1916).  THE FORWARDER, ON THE OTHER
HAND, PAYS THE LOWER DECLARED VALUE RATE TO THE RAILROAD FOR THE
CARLOAD SHIPMENT.  IF THE SHIPMENT WERE LOST OR DAMAGED, THE SHIPPER
COULD UNDOUBTEDLY RECOVER ITS ACTUAL VALUE FROM THE FORWARDER, BUT
UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THE LATTER WOULD BE CONFINED TO RECOVERY
FROM THE RAILROAD OF A PROPORTIONAL PART OF THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE
CARLOAD SHIPMENT.  SECTION 20(12) PROVIDES, HOWEVER, THAT THE RIGHT
OVER IS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS, DAMAGE, OR INJURY AS MAY BE
EVIDENCED BY ANY RECEIPT, JUDGMENT, OR TRANSCRIPT THEREOF.  UNDER
RESPONDENT'S THEORY, ITS BILL OF LADING WOULD BE CONTROLLING, AND THE
FORWARDER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO FULL RECOVERY DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT
HAD CONTRACTED WITH THE CARRIER AT THE REDUCED RATE.  THIS RESULT IS
CLEARLY CONTRARY TO GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. O'CONNOR, SUPRA, WHICH WAS
RELIED ON BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

IN ADDITION, THE FACTORS WHICH CONGRESS FELT MADE THE ORIGINAL
CARMACK AMENDMENT WORKABLE ARE TOTALLY ABSENT IN THE CASE OF FREIGHT
FORWARDERS.  CONGRESSMAN RICHARDSON, IN EXPLAINING ITS PURPOSE TO THE
HOUSE, SAID: 

"THE REASONS INDUCING US TO DO THAT (MAKE THE INITIAL CARRIER LIABLE
FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE) WAS THAT THE INITIAL CARRIER HAS A THROUGH-ROUTE
CONNECTION WITH THE SECONDARY CARRIER, ON WHOSE ROUTE THE LOSS
OCCURRED, AND A SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THEM WILL BE AN EASY MATTER, WHILE
THE SHIPPER WOULD BE AT HEAVY EXPENSE IN THE INSTITUTION OF A SUIT.  IF
A JUDGMENT IS OBTAINED AGAINST THE INITIAL CARRIER, NO DOUBT EXISTS BUT
THE SECONDARY CARRIER WOULD PAY IT AT ONCE.  WHY?  BECAUSE THE
ARRANGEMENT, THE CONCERT, THE COOPERATION, THE THROUGH-ROUTE COURTESIES
BETWEEN THEM WOULD BE BROKEN UP IF PROMPT PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE.  WE
HAVE DONE THAT IN CONFERENCE."  FN21  SEE ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V.
RIVERSIDE MILLS, 219 U.S. 186, 201(1911). 

THE RAILROADS HAVE DONE EXACTLY AS WAS SUGGESTED.  ELABORATE FREIGHT
CLAIM RULES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED COVERING THE INVESTIGATION,
SETTLEMENT, AND DEFENSE OF CLAIMS AND THE ALLOCATION OF LIABILITY
BETWEEN CARRIERS WHEN, AS IS FREQUENTLY THE CASE, RESPONSIBILITY FOR
LOSS OR DAMAGE CANNOT BE PRECISELY ASCERTAINED.  ARBITRATION BOARDS
SETTLE DISPUTES ARISING BETWEEN CARRIERS UNDER THE RULES.  AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, THE RIGHT-OVER GIVEN BY SEC. 20(12) IS VERY LITTLE
USED BY CARRIERS, AND INDEED IT IS OF NO VALUE WHEN RESPONSIBILITY
CANNOT DEFINITELY BE PLACED UPON ANY ONE CARRIER. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MADE SEC. 20(12) WORKABLE AS APPLIED TO
RAILROADS ARE NOT, HOWEVER, APPLICABLE TO FREIGHT FORWARDERS.  THEY
ENTER INTO NO "ARRANGEMENTS," "CONCERTS," "COOPERATION," OR "THROUGH
ROUTE COURTESIES" WITH RAILROADS.  AS SHIPPERS THEY ARE FORBIDDEN BY
LAW TO DO SO. FURTHERMORE, THE FORWARDER WILL ALWAYS BE IN THE POSITION
OF A RECEIVING OR DELIVERING CARRIER SEEKING THE RIGHT-OVER AGAINST
"CONNECTING" CARRIERS, NEVER IN THE POSITION OF A CARRIER AGAINST WHOM
THE RIGHT-OVER IS ASSERTED.  A RAILROAD AGAINST WHICH A CLAIM HAS BEEN
FILED AS RECEIVING OR DELIVERING CARRIER WILL ORDINARILY REPRESENT THE
CONNECTING CARRIER AS IF NO RIGHT-OVER EXISTED, SINCE IT MUST DEPEND IN
OTHER CASES UPON SIMILAR REPRESENTATION BY OTHER ROADS.  DETAILS OF
SUCH REPRESENTATION ARE, IN FACT, PRESCRIBED BY THE FREIGHT CLAIM
RULES, WHICH ARE SUBSCRIBED TO BY NEARLY ALL RAILROADS.  BUT THE
FORWARDER IS ALWAYS ITS OWN REPRESENTATIVE, AND AS BETWEEN ITS
CUSTOMER, THE SHIPPER, AND AN UNDERLYING CARRIER ALLEGEDLY RESPONSIBLE
FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE, THE FORWARDER'S TENDENCY WOULD NATURALLY BE TO
PLACATE THE FORMER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LATTER IF THE RIGHT-OVER
EXISTED AND WAS APPLICABLE.  THESE FACTS ARE, WE FEEL, PERSUASIVE THAT
CONGRESS MEANT THE RIGHT-OVER GIVEN IN SEC. 1013 TO EXTEND NO FARTHER
THAN TO ACTIONS AGAINST THOSE WITH WHOM FORWARDERS ARE PERMITTED TO
ENTER INTO COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS - I.E., AGAINST THOSE TO WHOM THE
FORWARDER DOES NOT BEAR THE RELATION OF SHIPPER. 

FOURTH.  TWO ARGUMENTS ARE MADE AS TO THE INEQUITY THAT WILL RESULT
FROM REQUIRING FORWARDERS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
20(11) WITHOUT GIVING THEM THE RIGHTS OF INITIAL CARRIERS UNDER SEC.
20(12).  IT IS SAID THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO MAKE THE
FORWARDER AN INSURER OF FREIGHT WHILE REQUIRING AT THE SAME TIME THAT
IT FILE AND PROVE CLAIMS AGAINST CARRIERS AS IF IT WERE AN ORDINARY
SHIPPER.  SECONDLY, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE FORWARDER MUST, UNDER SEC.
20(11), ALLOW AT LEAST NINE MONTHS FOR THE FILING OF CLAIMS BY
SHIPPERS, AND IF THE FORWARDER IS SUBJECT TO A SIMILAR LIMITATION
PERIOD, THERE WILL NECESSARILY BE SOME CLAIMS FILED BY SHIPPERS AT THE
END OF THE PERIOD WHICH THE FORWARDER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REFILE
AGAINST THE CARRIER IN TIME. 

THE FIRST CONTENTION IS THE RESULT OF A SERIOUS MISCONCEPTION AS TO
THE LIABILITY OF FREIGHT FORWARDERS PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF PART IV.
THIS MISCONCEPTION IS BASED ON A FAILURE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TWO
VERY DIFFERENT KINDS OF "FORWARDERS."  FN22  THE TERM WAS ORIGINALLY
APPLIED TO PERSONS WHO ARRANGE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION BY COMMON CARRIER
OF THE SHIPPER'S GOODS.  THE FORWARDER DID NOT NECESSARILY CONSOLIDATE
THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIGNMENTS INTO CARLOAD LOTS, AND ITS DUTIES, AS AGENT
OF THE SHIPPER, WENT NO FARTHER THAN PROCURING TRANSPORTATION BY
CARRIER AND HANDLING THE DETAILS OF SHIPMENT.  FORWARDERS OF THIS TYPE
CHARGED FEES FOR THEIR SERVICES, WHICH THE SHIPPER PAID IN ADDITION TO
THE FREIGHT CHARGES OF THE CARRIER UTILIZED FOR THE ACTUAL
TRANSPORTATION. 

LATER, A DIFFERENT TYPE OF FORWARDING SERVICE WAS OFFERED.  THIS
FORWARDER PICKED UP THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENT AT THE SHIPPER'S
PLACE OF BUSINESS AND ENGAGED TO DELIVER IT SAFELY AT ITS ULTIMATE
DESTINATION.  THE FREIGHT FORWARDER CHARGED A RATE COVERING THE ENTIRE
TRANSPORTATION AND MADE ITS PROFIT BY CONSOLIDATING THE SHIPMENT WITH
OTHERS IN CARLOAD QUANTITIES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SPREAD BETWEEN
CARLOAD AND L.C.L. RATES.  IT HELD ITSELF OUT NOT MERELY TO ARRANGE
WITH COMMON CARRIERS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS, BUT RATHER TO
DELIVER THEM SAFELY TO THE CONSIGNEE.  THE SHIPPER SELDOM IF EVER KNEW
WHICH CARRIER WOULD BE UTILIZED IN THE CARRIAGE OF HIS SHIPMENT. 
THIS DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTION WAS RECOGNIZED VERY EARLY BY THE COURTS,
AND DIFFERING STANDARDS OF LIABILITY WERE IMPOSED.  WHEN GOODS HANDLED
BY AN AGENT-FORWARDER WERE LOST OR DAMAGED, IT WAS LIABLE TO THE
SHIPPER ONLY FOR ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE IN SELECTING
A CARRIER.  FN23  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SHIPMENT HAD BEEN
ENTRUSTED TO A FORWARDER OF THE SECOND TYPE - I.E., ONE WHO CONTRACTED
TO DELIVER THE GOODS TO THE CONSIGNEE AT RATES SET BY ITSELF - THE
FORWARDER WAS SUBJECTED TO COMMON CARRIER LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE
WHETHER IT OR AN UNDERLYING CARRIER HAD BEEN AT FAULT.  FN24  THE FACT
THAT THE FORWARDER DID NOT OWN THE CARRIERS WHOSE SERVICES IT UTILIZED
WAS HELD TO BE IMMATERIAL.  ITS UNDERTAKING WAS TO DELIVER THE SHIPMENT
SAFELY AT THE DESTINATION.  COMMON CARRIER LIABILITY WAS THE PENALTY
FOR FAILURE OF FULFILMENT OF THAT UNDERTAKING. 

THE FREIGHT FORWARDER ACT ENCOMPASSES ONLY THE SECOND TYPE OF
FORWARDER DESCRIBED ABOVE.  SECTION 1002(A)(5) DEFINES "FREIGHT
FORWARDER" AS 

"ANY PERSON WHICH  ...  HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO
TRANSPORT OR PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY  ...  AND WHICH, IN THE
ORDINARY AND USUAL COURSE OF ITS UNDERTAKING, (A) ASSEMBLES AND
CONSOLIDATES OR PROVIDES FOR ASSEMBLING AND CONSOLIDATING SHIPMENTS OF
SUCH PROPERTY, AND PERFORMS OR PROVIDES FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF BREAK
BULK AND DISTRIBUTING OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
SHIPMENTS, AND (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
SUCH PROPERTY FROM POINT OF RECEIPT TO POINT OF DESTINATION, AND (C)
UTILIZES, FOR THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH
SHIPMENTS, THE SERVICES OF A CARRIER OR CARRIERS SUBJECT TO CHAPTERS 1,
8, OR 12 OF THIS TITLE."  FN25 

AS TO THIS GROUP, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THE LIABILITY OF COMMON
CARRIER TO ITS SHIPPERS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE RULE.  BY MAKING SEC.
20(11) APPLICABLE TO THESE FORWARDERS, CONGRESS DID TWO THINGS:  (1)
REQUIRED FORWARDERS TO ISSUE BILLS OF LADING; FN26  AND (2) MADE A
MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW WHAT HAD BEEN UNIFORMLY ADOPTED BY THE STATES AS
THE RULE OF LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE.  AS APPLIED TO RAILROADS, THE
CARMACK AMENDMENT MADE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, SINCE IT PREVENTED THE
INITIAL CARRIER FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT GIVEN BY DECISION IN A
MAJORITY OF STATES TO LIMIT ITS LIABILITY TO LOSS OR DAMAGE OCCURRING
ON ITS OWN LINES.  BUT THAT RIGHT HAD NEVER BEEN GRANTED TO FORWARDERS
OF THE TYPE REGULATED BY PART IV.  THEIR LIABILITY HAS, FROM THE
BEGINNING, BEEN EXTENDED TO LOSS OR DAMAGE TO THE CONSIGNMENT OCCURRING
AT ANY TIME BETWEEN PICK-UP AT THE POINT OF ORIGIN AND DELIVERY AT
DESTINATION.  AS SHIPPERS, THEY HAVE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS HAD A RIGHT OF
ACTION AGAINST THE UNDERLYING CARRIER AT FAULT.  THE DEFENSE THAT THE
GOODS ARE NOT THOSE OF THE FORWARDER IS NOT OPEN TO THE CARRIER, SINCE,
AS WE HAVE HELD, THE CARRIER IS NOT CONCERNED WITH QUESTIONS OF
OWNERSHIP, BUT MUST TREAT THE FORWARDER AS SHIPPER.  INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., SUPRA. 

THE ACT THUS LEAVES THE FREIGHT FORWARDER IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
POSITION IT HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD WITH RESPECT TO ITS LIABILITY TO
SHIPPERS AND ITS RIGHTS AGAINST UNDERLYING CARRIERS.  THE HEARINGS,
COMMITTEE REPORTS AND DEBATES ARE BARE OF ANY SUGGESTION THAT
FORWARDERS NEEDED RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY FILE THEIR
CLAIMS AGAINST CARRIERS LIKE OTHER SHIPPERS.  THEY HAVE DONE SO FOR
OVER A CENTURY.  THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO DO SO SINCE ENACTMENT OF THE
FREIGHT FORWARDER ACT.  SEE, E.G., MERCHANT SHIPPERS ASSN. V. KELLOGG
EXPRESS & DRAYING CO., 28 CAL.2D 594, 170 P.2D 923(1946); J. R. KELLY
FREIGHT FORWARDER APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 315, 318(1944); HUGH F.
GANNON, INC., FREIGHT FORWARDER APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 219,
220(1944).  WE WOULD REQUIRE A MUCH CLEARER SHOWING THAN HAS BEEN MADE
TO FIND THAT CONGRESS INTENDED, WITHOUT INCREASING THE LIABILITIES OF
FORWARDERS REGULATED BY THE ACT, TO GIVE THEM A RIGHT-OVER AGAINST
RAILROADS, SHIP LINES, AND LINE-HAUL MOTOR CARRIERS AS INITIAL CARRIERS
UNDER SEC. 20(12).  FN27 

IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 20(11) FORWARDERS ARE
NOW FORBIDDEN TO LIMIT THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS MUST BE FILED BY
SHIPPERS TO LESS THAN NINE MONTHS.  IF FORWARDERS MUST, IN TURN, FILE
CLAIMS WITH CARRIERS WITHIN NINE MONTHS, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT IN
THE CASE OF CLAIMS FILED AGAINST A FORWARDER DURING THE LAST DAY OR TWO
OF THE PERIOD, IT WILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO REFILE THE CLAIM WITH
THE PROPER CARRIER AND WILL THUS HAVE NO RECOURSE AFTER HAVING PAID THE
CLAIM.  THIS OBJECTION OBVIOUSLY APPLIES TO AN INSIGNIFICANT PROPORTION
OF THE TOTAL CLAIMS.  FURTHERMORE, IF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE MATTER TO BE OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE, IT HAS
THE EXPERIENCE AND AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE THE PROPER CORRECTIVE.  IN
ANY EVENT, THIS SINGLE INCONSISTENCY IS HARDLY SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY
THE CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT SEC. 1013 BE INTERPRETED TO
MAKE THE FORWARDER AN INITIAL CARRIER WITH RIGHT-OVER AGAINST COMMON
CARRIERS WHO MUST TREAT THE FORWARDER AS A SHIPPER FOR ALL PURPOSES. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  56 STAT. 284, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1001 ET SEQ. 

FN2  FOR A FULL DESCRIPTION OF FREIGHT FORWARDER PRACTICES, SEE
UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344(1940);
FREIGHT FORWARDING INVESTIGATION, 229 I.C.C. 201; BILLS OF LADING OF
FREIGHT FORWARDERS, 259 I.C.C. 277. 

FN3  "SEC.  1013.  BILLS OF LADING AND DELIVERY OF PROPERTY.  THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 20(11) AND (12) OF THIS TITLE, TOGETHER WITH SUCH
OTHER PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 1 OF THIS TITLE (INCLUDING PENALTIES) AS
MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH PROVISIONS, SHALL APPLY
WITH RESPECT TO FREIGHT FORWARDERS, IN THE CASE OF SERVICE SUBJECT TO
THIS CHAPTER, WITH LIKE FORCE AND EFFECT AS IN THE CASE OF THOSE
PERSONS TO WHICH SUCH PROVISIONS ARE SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE, AND THE
FREIGHT FORWARDER SHALL BE DEEMED BOTH THE RECEIVING AND DELIVERING
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 20(11) AND (12) OF
THIS TITLE.  WHEN THE SERVICES OF A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE
SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 8 OF THIS TITLE ARE UTILIZED BY A FREIGHT FORWARDER
FOR THE RECEIVING OF PROPERTY FROM A CONSIGNOR IN SERVICE SUBJECT TO
THIS CHAPTER, SUCH CARRIER MAY, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE FREIGHT
FORWARDER, EXECUTE THE BILL OF LADING OR SHIPPING RECEIPT FOR THE
FREIGHT FORWARDER.  WHEN THE SERVICES OF A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR
VEHICLE SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 8 OF THIS TITLE ARE UTILIZED BY A FREIGHT
FORWARDER FOR THE DELIVERY OF PROPERTY TO THE CONSIGNEE NAMED IN THE
FREIGHT FORWARDER'S BILL OF LADING, SHIPPING RECEIPT, OR FREIGHT BILL,
THE PROPERTY MAY, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE FREIGHT FORWARDER, BE
DELIVERED ON THE FREIGHT BILL, AND RECEIPTED FOR ON THE DELIVERY
RECEIPT, OF THE FREIGHT FORWARDER." 

FN4  SO FAR AS PERTINENT HERE, SEC. 20(11) PROVIDES:  "LIABILITY OF
INITIAL AND DELIVERING CARRIER FOR LOSS; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY;
NOTICE AND FILING OF CLAIM.  ANY COMMON CARRIER, RAILROAD, OR
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER
RECEIVING PROPERTY FOR TRANSPORTATION  ...  SHALL ISSUE A RECEIPT OR
BILL OF LADING THEREFOR, AND SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE LAWFUL HOLDER
THEREOF FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE, OR INJURY TO SUCH PROPERTY CAUSED BY IT
OR BY ANY COMMON CARRIER, RAILROAD, OR TRANSPORTATION COMPANY TO WHICH
SUCH PROPERTY MAY BE DELIVERED OR OVER WHOSE LINE OR LINES SUCH
PROPERTY MAY PASS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR WITHIN AN ADJACENT
FOREIGN COUNTRY WHEN TRANSPORTED ON A THROUGH BILL OF LADING,  ...  AND
ANY SUCH COMMON CARRIER, RAILROAD, OR TRANSPORTATION COMPANY SO
RECEIVING PROPERTY FOR TRANSPORTATION  ...  SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE
LAWFUL HOLDER OF SAID RECEIPT OR BILL OF LADING OR TO ANY PARTY
ENTITLED TO RECOVER THEREON, WHETHER SUCH RECEIPT OR BILL OF LADING HAS
BEEN ISSUED OR NOT  ...  :  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NOTHING IN THIS
ANY REMEDY OR RIGHT OF ACTION WHICH HE HAS UNDER THE EXISTING LAW  ...
" 

FN5  SECTION 20(12) PROVIDES:  "RECOVERY BY INITIAL OR DELIVERING
CARRIER FROM CONNECTING CARRIER.  THE COMMON CARRIER, RAILROAD, OR
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY ISSUING SUCH RECEIPT OR BILL OF LADING, OR
DELIVERING SUCH PROPERTY SO RECEIVED AND TRANSPORTED SHALL BE ENTITLED
TO RECOVER FROM THE COMMON CARRIER, RAILROAD, OR TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
ON WHOSE LINE THE LOSS, DAMAGE, OR INJURY SHALL HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED,
THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOSS, DAMAGE, OR INJURY AS IT MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY
TO THE OWNERS OF SUCH PROPERTY, AS MAY BE EVIDENCED BY ANY RECEIPT,
JUDGMENT, OR TRANSCRIPT THEREOF." 

FN6  PETITIONERS ALSO MAKE THE CONTENTION THAT EVEN ASSUMING THE
FORWARDER IS AN INITIAL CARRIER WITH RIGHT-OVER UNDER SEC. 20(12), THE
LIMITATION PERIOD PROVIDED IN SEC. 2(B) OF THE RAILROAD BILL OF LADING
IS EFFECTIVE TO MODIFY THAT RIGHT.  THEY POINT TO NUMEROUS
MODIFICATIONS OF THE RIGHT-OVER IN THE FREIGHT CLAIMS RULES APPLICABLE
TO RAILROADS INTER SE.  AND SEE ARTICLE I (A) OF PRINCIPLES AND
PRACTICES FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND DISPOSITION OF FREIGHT CLAIMS. 
UNDER THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REACH THAT
QUESTION. 

FN7  H.R. REP. NO. 1172, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 6. 

FN8  ID. AT 15. 

FN9  87 CONG. REC. 8216. 

FN10  87 CONG. REC. 8220. 

FN11  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT, ALTHOUGH THE DEBATE TECHNICALLY
CONCERNED A BILL ALREADY PASSED BY THE SENATE (S. 210), THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE HAD STRUCK EVERYTHING
FOLLOWING THE ENACTING CLAUSE, SO THE MEASURE ACTUALLY UNDER
CONSIDERATION WAS A HOUSE AMENDMENT.  THIS AMENDMENT WAS MADE THE BASIS
OF THE BILL REPORTED BY THE CONFERENCE, AND SEC. 1013 WAS CARRIED OVER
INTACT FROM THE HOUSE AMENDMENT.  THE CONFERENCE REPORT WAS ADOPTED BY
BOTH HOUSES WITH LITTLE DEBATE. 

FN12  "MR. LEA.  ...  THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY (MR. WOLVERTON),
AS THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, GAVE UNSTINTED WORK TO THESE PROBLEMS
AND WITH AN ABILITY OF WHICH EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE IS WELL
AWARE.  I APPRECIATE HIS GOOD SUPPORT OF THIS MEASURE TODAY AS WELL AS
THE FINE CONTRIBUTIONS HE HAS MADE TO OTHER IMPORTANT MEASURES WE HAVE
BROUGHT TO THE HOUSE IN RECENT YEARS."  87 CONG. REC. 8227.  LATER,
DURING DEBATE ON THE BILL REPORTED BY THE CONFERENCE, CHAIRMAN LEA
SAID:  "I PARTICULARLY COMMEND THE SERVICES OF THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
JERSEY (MR. WOLVERTON) WHO HAS GIVEN MUCH OF HIS TIME, EXPERIENCE, AND
ABILITY TO THIS MEASURE.  IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THIS COUNTRY THAT THIS
BODY HAS MEMBERS SO WELL QUALIFIED BY EXPERIENCE AND ABILITY TO GIVE
SUCH SERVICE TO THE NATION."  88 CONG. REC. 4064. 

FN13  PACIFIC COAST WHOLESALERS' ASSOCIATION, INVESTIGATION OF
STATUS, 269 I.C.C. 504, 513. 

FN14  IN DEBATE ON THE BILL REPORTED OUT OF CONFERENCE,
REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON GAVE A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE CHANGES
MADE BY THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO S. 210. 
HE DID NOT COMMENT SPECIFICALLY ON THE SECTIONS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN
CHANGED IN CONFERENCE, BUT SAID:  "IN GENERAL, THE BALANCE OF THE BILL
NOW PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT WHICH WAS PASSED BY
THE HOUSE ON OCTOBER 23, 1941.  AT THAT TIME I EXPLAINED AND COMMENTED
ON ITS PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS, AND, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE RETAINED
IN THE PRESENT MEASURE, WHAT I THERE SAID OF THEM STILL REMAINS
APPLICABLE."  88 CONG. REC. 4068. 

FN15  IN EXPLANATION OF THIS AMENDMENT (S. 2642) TO SEC. 1017(B),
SENATOR REED SAID:  "WHEN WE PASSED THE SO-CALLED FREIGHT FORWARDERS'
LEGISLATION THERE WAS SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A FREIGHT
FORWARDER WAS A COMMON CARRIER.  THE SENATE BILL OFFERED NO DIFFICULTY
WITH THAT SUBJECT.  WE DID NOT TREAT A FREIGHT FORWARDER AS A COMMON
CARRIER.  WE PASSED SENATE BILL 210, WHICH WENT TO THE HOUSE AND WAS
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  IN THE
HOUSE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF BILLS DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT.  THE HOUSE
STRUCK OUT EVERYTHING AFTER THE ENACTING CLAUSE AND SUBSTITUTED ONE OF
ITS OWN BILLS. 

"WHEN THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE FINISHED ITS WORK WE THOUGHT WE HAD A
PERFECT BILL.  LATER IT WAS FOUND THAT THE DRAFTING SERVICE HAD MADE A
MISTAKE AS TO ONE WORD, SO SENATE BILL 2642 WAS INTRODUCED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CORRECTING THAT ERROR.  AT ONE PLACE IN THE BILL WHICH WAS
PASSED REFERENCE WAS MADE TO A FREIGHT FORWARDER AS A CARRIER.  WE
DESIRE TO CORRECT THAT REFERENCE."  88 CONG. REC. 6115. 

FN16  MR. YOUNGDAHL:  "CLOSE ANALYSIS DEVELOPED THAT IN MANY RESPECTS
FREIGHT FORWARDERS, AS REGARDS THEIR RELATIONS WITH THE ACTUAL
CARRIERS, ARE PROPERLY TO BE CONSIDERED NOT AS CARRIERS BUT AS
SHIPPERS, AND BECAUSE OF THIS ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE IN CHARACTER IT
BECAME NECESSARY TO RECOMMEND A FORM OF LEGISLATION IN KEEPING WITH
THAT CHARACTER.  ONLY SO, COULD GROSS DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST OTHER
SHIPPERS BE AVOIDED."  87 CONG. REC. 8223. 

MR. WOLVERTON:  "EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY ASSUME OR INCUR THE OBLIGATIONS
OF A COMMON CARRIER TOWARD THEIR OWN SHIPPERS, FORWARDERS NEVERTHELESS
STAND IN THE ROLE OF SHIPPERS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTUAL CARRIERS WHOSE
SERVICES THEY UTILIZE."  88 CONG. REC. 4065.  SEE ALSO, TO THE SAME
EFFECT, J.R. KELLY FREIGHT FORWARDER APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 315, 321. 
AND SEE FREIGHT FORWARDING INVESTIGATION, 229 I.C.C. 201, 297-304. 

FN17  THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN EXPRESS COMPANIES AND UNDERLYING
CARRIERS IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN FORWARDERS AND
SUCH CARRIERS IS CLEARLY INDICATED IN A LETTER FROM THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION TO CHAIRMAN LEA OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, WHICH APPEARS AT P. 42 OF THE HEARINGS
BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE ON H.R. 2764, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE
COMMISSION THERE SAID, P. 43:  "THERE IS A VAST DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
RELATIONS OF FORWARDERS AND THE EXPRESS AGENCY TO THE UNDERLYING
CARRIERS.  THE EXPRESS AGENCY HAS AN IDENTICAL CONTRACT WITH EACH
RAILROAD, WHICH WOULD NOT BE TRUE OF THE FORWARDER.  THE PROFITS, IF
ANY, ACCRUE TO THE RAILROADS, WHEREAS UNDER THE FORWARDER ARRANGEMENT
THE PROFITS WOULD ACCRUE, AS THEY DO NOW UNDER THE JOINT RATES, TO THE
FORWARDERS.  THE ROUTING OF EXPRESS SHIPMENTS, ALTHOUGH IN THE CONTROL
OF THE EXPRESS AGENCY, MUST OF NECESSITY DEPEND PRIMARILY UPON
AVAILABLE TRAIN SERVICE RATHER THAN UPON SOLICITATION BY, OR
CONCESSIONS FROM, THE TRANSPORTING CARRIER, WHEREAS CONCESSIONS IN THE
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO THE CARRIER WOULD BE THE MOST IMPORTANT
FACTOR IN THE CASE OF THE FORWARDER.  THUS, THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
LED TO THE ADOPTION OF LAWS PROHIBITING UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AND UNDUE
PREJUDICE AND PREFERENCE AS BETWEEN LARGE AND INFLUENTIAL SHIPPERS ON
THE ONE HAND, AND SMALLER SHIPPERS ON THE OTHER, ARE PRACTICALLY ABSENT
IN EXPRESS SERVICE, BUT ARE HIGHLY PROMINENT IN FORWARDER SERVICE." 

FN18  87 CONG. REC. 8218. 

FN19  UNDER SEC. 1009, FORWARDERS WERE PERMITTED TO CONTINUE
OPERATION UNDER JOINT RATES PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED WITH MOTOR CARRIERS
FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF PART IV.  THIS
PROVISION WAS THOUGHT NECESSARY "IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE
PERIOD OF ADJUSTMENT WITHIN WHICH RATES AND CHARGES MAY BE ESTABLISHED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION (1008)."  SECTION 1009 WAS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 19, 1946, 60 STAT. 21, TO PERMIT THE
FILING OF JOINT RATES BETWEEN FORWARDERS AND MOTOR CARRIERS UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. 

FN20  SEE E.G., TWIN CITY SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION FREIGHT FORWARDER
APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 307, 309. 

FN21  40 CONG. REC. 9580. 

FN22  SEE 1 HUTCHINSON ON CARRIERS (3D ED.)  SECS.  71, 80-84; BUNGE,
LAW OF DRAYMEN, FREIGHT FORWARDERS AND WAREHOUSEMEN, P. 111. 

FN23  KRENDER V. WOOLCOTT, 1 HILT.  (N.Y.)  223(1856); HEATH V.
JUDSON FREIGHT FORWARDING CO., 47 CAL. APP. 426, 190 P. 839(1920);
MANSFIELD V. CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO., 199 F. 95(1912). 

FN24  THE DISTINCTION IS MADE IN A NUMBER OF CASES, OF WHICH THE
FOLLOWING IS TYPICAL: 

"THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT FORWARDERS, BUT CARRIERS.  ...  A SIMPLE
ENGAGEMENT TO FORWARD GOODS AT NEW YORK, MARKED FOR A PARTICULAR
DESTINATION, IS DISCHARGED BY SHIPPING THE GOODS, BY THE USUAL OR MOST
DIRECT CONVEYANCE, TO THE PLACE DESIGNATED; BUT AN AGREEMENT TO FORWARD
THEM FROM NEW YORK TO THE PLACE OF DESTINATION, THE CHARGE FOR FREIGHT
FOR THE WHOLE DISTANCE BEING SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT, IS VERY
DIFFERENT.  IT IS AN AGREEMENT TO CARRY THEM FOR THAT DISTANCE, OR TO
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SAFE CARRIAGE AND DELIVERY AT THE PLACE
DESIGNATED IN THE AGREEMENT."  KRENDER V. WOOLCOTT, 1 HILT.  (N.Y.) 
223, 227(1856).  SEE ALSO, CHRISTENSON V. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., 15
MINN. 270(1870); BARE V. AMERICAN FORWARDING CO., 146 ILL. APP.
388(1909); KETTENHOFEN V. GLOBE TRANSFER & STORAGE CO., 70 WASH. 645,
127 P. 295(1912); HIGHWAY FREIGHT FORWARDING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 108 PA. SUPER.  CT. 178, 164 A. 835(1933). 

FN25  FOR DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM OF ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE THROUGH TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY FREIGHT FORWARDERS, SEE
JUDSON-SHELDON CORP. APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 473; UNIVERSAL
TRANSCONTINENTAL CORP. APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 521; J. NELSON KAGARISE
APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 745.  CF. UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN UNION
TRANSPORT, INC., 327 U.S. 437(1946). 

FN26  SECTION 20(11), OF COURSE, ALSO INCLUDES THE CUMMINS
AMENDMENTS, 38 STAT. 1196 AND 39 STAT. 441, WHICH RELATE TO LIMITATION
OF LIABILITY TO THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE SHIPMENT.  THE SECTION ADDS
NO NEW LIABILITY, HOWEVER, TO THAT PREVIOUSLY BORNE BY THE FORWARDER. 

FN27  THE COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON'S
ANALYSIS OF SEC. 1013 AS BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS PREMISE THAT THE
SHIPPER BY FREIGHT FORWARDER NEVER HAD ANY RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE
CARRIER, AND THEREFORE THE FORWARDER CAN HAVE NO RIGHT OF SUBROGATION
UNDER SEC. 20(12).  THE COURT FELT THAT THIS RATIONALE INDICATES A
WITHDRAWAL OF THE SHIPPER'S COMMON-LAW RIGHT OF RECOVERY AGAINST THE
RESPONSIBLE CARRIER, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PLACING OF THE FORWARDER IN
THE POSITION OF AN INSURER WITH NO RIGHT AGAINST THE CARRIER
RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE. 

WE DO NOT SO READ THAT ANALYSIS.  OF COURSE SHIPPERS BY FREIGHT
FORWARDER HAVE FOR MANY YEARS BEEN PERMITTED TO SUE UNDERLYING CARRIERS
FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE OCCASIONED BY THE LATTER.  NEW JERSEY STEAM
NAVIGATION CO. V. MERCHANTS' BANK, 6 HOW.  344(1848); GREAT NORTHERN R.
CO. V. O'CONNOR, 232 U.S. 508(1914).  THE THEORY OF THESE ACTIONS WAS
THAT THE SHIPPER IS THE UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL OF ITS AGENT, THE
FORWARDER, IN THE LATTER'S CONTRACT WITH THE CARRIER.  THE FORWARDER,
AS AGENT OF AN UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL, COULD, OF COURSE, SUE ON THE
CONTRACT.  MERCHANT SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION V. KELLOGG EXPRESS & DRAYING
CO., 28 CAL.2D 594, 170 P.2D 923.  SEE BUNGE, LAW OF DRAYMEN, FREIGHT
FORWARDERS AND WAREHOUSEMEN, P. 117.  SEE ALSO RESTATEMENT OF AGENCY,
SECS. 322, 364.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN A SHIPPER SUED A CONNECTING
CARRIER FOR LOSS OF GOODS DELIVERED TO AN INITIAL CARRIER BY RAILROAD,
IT DID SO AS A DISCLOSED PRINCIPAL.  THE INITIAL CARRIER, LIKE THE
FORWARDER, ACTED AS AGENT TO CONTRACT WITH THE CONNECTING CARRIER FOR
CARRIAGE OF GOODS ON THE LATTER'S LINES, BUT SINCE IT ACTED FOR A
DISCLOSED PRINCIPAL, IT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.  SEE BICHLMEIR
V. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S.S.M.R. CO., 159 WIS. 404, 150 N.W.
508(1915); 1 ROBERTS, FEDERAL LIABILITIES OF CARRIERS, SEC. 386.  SEE
ALSO RESTATEMENT OF AGENCY SEC. 320. 

WHEN THE CARMACK AMENDMENT WAS PASSED, THE THEORY OF THE LIABILITY
IMPOSED UPON THE INITIAL CARRIER WAS THAT IT BECAME A PRINCIPAL AND ALL
ITS CONNECTING CARRIERS AGENTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS. 
NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. WALL, 241 U.S. 87(1916); ATLANTIC COAST LINE
R. CO. V. RIVERSIDE MILLS, 219 U.S. 186(1911).  SINCE THE INITIAL
CARRIER, UNLIKE THE FORWARDER, DID NOT HAVE A CONTRACT RIGHT OF ACTION
AGAINST ITS CONNECTING CARRIERS (I.E. WAS NOT A SHIPPER), SEC. 20(12)
WAS PASSED TO INSURE THAT THE BURDEN WOULD FALL ON THE CARRIER
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS.  THE FORWARDER, HOWEVER, IS A PARTY TO THE
CONTRACT WITH THE CARRIER.  IT HAS NO NEED FOR SUBROGATION TO THE
SHIPPER'S RIGHTS, AS REPRESENTATIVE WOLVERTON INDICATED.  ITS RECOVERY
AGAINST THE CARRIER HAS ALWAYS BEEN UPON "THE BILL OF LADING ISSUED TO
IT BY SUCH CARRIER AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE
THERETO."  THAT RIGHT REMAINS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND M.R JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT FOR REASONS STATED BY JUDGE FRANK, WRITING
FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS.  SEE 166 F.2D 778. 
..END :




















GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE CO., 336 U.S. 490 


NO. 182.  ARGUED JANUARY 4-5, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 4, 1949.  - 357 MO.
671, 210 S.W.2D 55, AFFIRMED. 


A STATE COURT ENJOINED OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF A UNION OF ICE PEDDLERS
FROM PEACEFULLY PICKETING APPELLEE'S PLACE OF BUSINESS, FINDING THAT
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE PICKETING WAS TO INDUCE APPELLEE TO AGREE NOT
TO SELL ICE TO NON-UNION PEDDLERS.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED,
HOLDING THAT PICKETING FOR THIS PURPOSE VIOLATED A STATE STATUTE
FORBIDDING AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  HELD:  THE STATE LAW, AS
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THIS CASE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, AND THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 491-504. 

1.  STATES HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO PROHIBIT DEALERS AND THEIR
AIDERS AND ABETTORS FROM COMBINING TO RESTRAIN FREEDOM OF TRADE.  P.
495. 

2.  THE GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS STEMMING FROM THE
FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DO NOT
IMMUNIZE MEMBERS OF LABOR UNIONS FROM SUCH A VALID STATE LAW.  PP. 495
497. 

3.  NOR DO THEY PREVENT STATE COURTS FROM ENJOINING PEACEFUL
PICKETING BY MEMBERS OF A LABOR UNION IN VIOLATION OF SUCH A VALID
STATE LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE PICKETING INVOLVES DISSEMINATION OF TRUTHFUL
INFORMATION ABOUT A LABOR DISPUTE.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88;
CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 497-504. 

(A)  THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS DOES NOT IMMUNIZE
SPEECH OR WRITING USED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF A
VALID CRIMINAL STATUTE.  P. 498. 

(B)  THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE JUSTIFIED RESTRAINT OF THE PICKETING,
SINCE IT WAS ENGAGED IN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF INDUCING A VIOLATION OF
A VALID STATE LAW.  PP. 501-504. 

(C)  THE STATE, AND NOT THE LABOR UNION, HAS PARAMOUNT CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO REGULATE AND GOVERN THE MANNER IN WHICH CERTAIN TRADE
PRACTICES MAY BE CARRIED ON.  P. 504. 

GIBONEY ET AL. V. EMPIRE STORAGE & ICE CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

A STATE TRIAL COURT ENJOINED OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF A LABOR UNION
FROM PICKETING APPELLEE'S PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ORDER TO FORCE APPELLEE
TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF MO.
REV. STAT. ANN., SEC. 8301.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  357 MO.
671, 210 S.W. ID 55.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 504. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257 RAISES QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF A STATE TO APPLY ITS ANTI-TRADE
RESTRAINT LAW  FN1  TO LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES, AND TO ENJOIN UNION
MEMBERS FROM PEACEFUL PICKETING CARRIED ON AS AN ESSENTIAL AND
INSEPARABLE PART OF A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
STATE LAW.  THE PICKETING OCCURRED IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.  THE
INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED BY A MISSOURI STATE COURT. 

THE APPELLANTS ARE MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE ICE AND COAL DRIVERS
AND HANDLERS LOCAL UNION NO. 953, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR.  ITS MEMBERSHIP INCLUDES ABOUT 160 OF 200 RETAIL
ICE PEDDLERS WHO DRIVE THEIR OWN TRUCKS IN SELLING ICE FROM DOOR TO
DOOR IN KANSAS CITY.  THE UNION BEGAN EFFORTS TO INDUCE ALL THE
NONUNION PEDDLERS TO JOIN.  ONE OBJECTIVE OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL DRIVE
WAS TO BETTER WAGE AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF PEDDLERS AND THEIR
HELPERS.  MOST OF THE NONUNION PEDDLERS REFUSED TO JOIN THE UNION.  TO
BREAK DOWN THEIR RESISTANCE THE UNION ADOPTED A PLAN WHICH WAS DESIGNED
TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR NONUNION PEDDLERS TO BUY ICE TO SUPPLY THEIR
RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN KANSAS CITY.  PURSUANT TO THE PLAN THE UNION SET
ABOUT TO OBTAIN FROM ALL KANSAS CITY WHOLESALE ICE DISTRIBUTORS
AGREEMENTS THAT THEY WOULD NOT SELL ICE TO NONUNION PEDDLERS. 
AGREEMENTS WERE OBTAINED FROM ALL DISTRIBUTORS EXCEPT THE APPELLEE,
EMPIRE STORAGE AND ICE COMPANY.  EMPIRE REFUSED TO AGREE.  THE UNION
THEREUPON INFORMED EMPIRE THAT IT WOULD USE OTHER MEANS AT ITS DISPOSAL
TO FORCE EMPIRE TO COME AROUND TO THE UNION VIEW.  EMPIRE STILL REFUSED
TO AGREE.  ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS PROMPTLY PICKETED BY UNION MEMBERS
ALTHOUGH THE ONLY COMPLAINT REGISTERED AGAINST EMPIRE, AS INDICATED BY
PLACARDS CARRIED BY THE PICKETS, WAS ITS CONTINUED SALE OF ICE TO
NONUNION PEDDLERS. 

THUS THE AVOWED IMMEDIATE PURPOSE OF THE PICKETING WAS TO COMPEL
EMPIRE TO AGREE TO STOP SELLING ICE TO NONUNION PEDDLERS.  MISSOURI
STATUTES, SET OUT IN NOTE 1, MAKE SUCH AN AGREEMENT A CRIME PUNISHABLE
BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000 AND BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE
PENITENTIARY FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.  FURTHERMORE, UNDER SEC.
8308 OF THE MISSOURI REVISED STATUTES ANN. (1939), HAD EMPIRE MADE THE
AGREEMENT, THE ICE PEDDLERS COULD HAVE BROUGHT ACTIONS FOR TRIPLE
DAMAGES FOR ANY INJURIES THEY SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE AGREEMENT. 

ABOUT 85% OF THE TRUCK DRIVERS WORKING FOR EMPIRE'S CUSTOMERS WERE
MEMBERS OF LABOR UNIONS.  THESE UNION TRUCK DRIVERS REFUSED TO DELIVER
GOODS TO OR FROM EMPIRE'S PLACE OF BUSINESS.  HAD ANY ONE OF THEM
CROSSED THE PICKET LINE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO FINE OR
SUSPENSION BY THE UNION OF WHICH HE WAS A MEMBER. 

BECAUSE OF THE FOREGOING FACTS SHOWN EITHER BY ADMISSIONS, BY
UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, OR BY UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS, THE PICKETING HAD AN
INSTANTANEOUS ADVERSE EFFECT ON EMPIRE'S BUSINESS.  IT WAS REDUCED 85%.
IN THIS DILEMMA, EMPIRE WAS FACED WITH THREE ALTERNATIVES:  IT COULD
CONTINUE TO SELL ICE TO NONUNION PEDDLERS, IN WHICH EVENT IT WOULD BE
COMPELLED TO WAGE A FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL AGAINST OVERWHELMING ODDS; IT
COULD STOP SELLING ICE TO NONUNION PEDDLERS THEREBY RELIEVING ITSELF
FROM FURTHER CONFLICT WITH THE UNION, IN WHICH EVENT IT WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION FOR CRIME AND SUITS FOR TRIPLE DAMAGES; IT COULD
INVOKE THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW.  THE LAST ALTERNATIVE WAS ADOPTED. 

EMPIRE'S COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT THE CONCERTED EFFORTS OF UNION MEMBERS
TO RESTRAIN EMPIRE FROM SELLING TO NONUNION MEMBERS WAS A VIOLATION OF
THE ANTI-TRADE-RESTRAINT STATUTE AND THAT AN AGREEMENT BY EMPIRE TO
REFUSE TO MAKE SUCH SALES WOULD VIOLATE THE SAME STATUTE.  IT PRAYED
FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE PICKETING.  IN ANSWERING, APPELLANTS
ASSERTED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PICKET EMPIRE'S PREMISES IN ORDER TO
FORCE IT TO DISCONTINUE SALE OF ICE TO NONUNION PEDDLERS.  THEY
CONTENDED THAT THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO WAS "GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS" BECAUSE THERE WAS "A LABOR DISPUTE EXISTING"
BETWEEN APPELLANTS AND APPELLEE, AND BECAUSE THE PICKETERS PUBLICIZED
ONLY THE TRUTHFUL INFORMATION THAT APPELLEE WAS "SELLING ICE TO
PEDDLERS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE SAID DEFENDANTS' UNION." 

THE TRIAL COURT HEARD EVIDENCE, MADE FINDINGS AND ISSUED AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE APPELLANTS FROM "PLACING PICKETS OR
PICKETING AROUND OR ABOUT THE BUILDINGS" OF EMPIRE. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  357 MO. 671, 210 S.W.2D 55.  IT
AGREED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE CONDUCT OF
APPELLANTS WAS PURSUANT TO A LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMBINATION USED TO
COMPEL EMPIRE TO STOP SELLING ICE TO NONUNION PEDDLERS AND THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE PICKETING WAS TO FORCE EMPIRE TO BECOME A PARTY TO SUCH
COMBINATION.  IT HELD THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES WERE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 8301 OF THE MISSOURI STATUTES AND FURTHER HELD THAT
THE INJUNCTION TO PREVENT PICKETING FOR SUCH UNLAWFUL PURPOSE DID NOT
CONTRAVENE THE APPELLANTS' RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. 

IN THIS COURT APPELLANTS DO NOT RAISE PROBLEMS SIMILAR TO THOSE
DISCUSSED IN NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, RELATING TO CENSORSHIP
PRIOR TO PUBLICATION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SANCTIONS TO BE IMPOSED
AFTER PUBLICATION, NOR ARE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE FORM, LANGUAGE, OR
SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTION.  SEE MILK WAGON DRIVERS V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES,
312 U.S. 287, 297-298, ALSO DISSENTING OPINION, 299-303.  ATTACKING THE
MISSOURI STATUTE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, APPELLANTS BROADLY CHALLENGE
THE POWER OF THE STATE TO ISSUE ANY INJUNCTION AGAINST THEIR CONDUCT
SINCE, THEY ASSERT, THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THEIR COMBINATION AND
PICKETING WAS TO IMPROVE WAGE AND WORKING CONDITIONS.  ON THIS PREMISE
THEY ARGUE THAT THEIR RIGHT TO COMBINE, TO PICKET, AND TO PUBLISH MUST
BE DETERMINED BY FOCUSING ATTENTION EXCLUSIVELY UPON THEIR LAWFUL
PURPOSE TO IMPROVE LABOR CONDITIONS, AND THAT THEIR VIOLATION OF THE
STATE ANTI-TRADE-RESTRAINT LAWS MUST BE DISMISSED AS MERELY INCIDENTAL
TO THIS LAWFUL PURPOSE. 

FIRST.  THAT STATES HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO PROHIBIT COMPETING
DEALERS AND THEIR AIDERS AND ABETTORS FROM COMBINING TO RESTRAIN
FREEDOM OF TRADE IS BEYOND QUESTION.  WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387, 403
404.  IN SPEAKING OF THE MISSOURI STATUTORY ANTECEDENT OF THE STATUTE
HERE CHALLENGED, THIS COURT SAID:  "THE PURPOSE OF SUCH STATUTES IS TO
SECURE COMPETITION AND PRECLUDE COMBINATIONS WHICH TEND TO DEFEAT IT.
...  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH
PRECLUDES A STATE FROM ADOPTING AND ENFORCING SUCH POLICY.  TO SO
DECIDE WOULD BE STEPPING BACKWARDS."  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
MISSOURI, 234 U.S. 199, 209.  AGREEMENTS AND COMBINATIONS NOT TO SELL
TO OR BUY GOODS FROM PARTICULAR PERSONS, OR TO DICTATE THE TERMS UNDER
WHICH TRANSPORTATION WILL BE SUPPLIED, ARE WELL RECOGNIZED TRADE
RESTRAINT PRACTICES WHICH BOTH STATE AND NATIONAL LEGISLATION CAN AND
DO PROHIBIT.  GRENADA LBR.  CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 217 U.S. 433, 440-441;
EASTERN STATES LBR.  ASSN.  V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600, 612-614;
FASHION GUILD V. TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457, 465; UNITED STATES V.
FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 324-325. 

SECOND.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE MISSOURI STATUTE CAN BE
APPLIED VALIDLY TO COMBINATIONS OF BUSINESSMEN WHO AGREE NOT TO SELL TO
CERTAIN PERSONS, IT CANNOT BE APPLIED CONSTITUTIONALLY TO COMBINATIONS
OF UNION WORKERS WHO AGREE IN THEIR SELF-INTEREST TO USE THEIR JOINT
POWER TO PREVENT SALES TO NONUNION WORKERS.  THIS CONTENTION APPEARS TO
BE GROUNDED ON THE GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS STEMMING
FROM THE FOURTEENTH AND FIRST AMENDMENTS.  ASIDE FROM THE ELEMENT OF
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION THROUGH PEACEFUL PICKETERS, LATER DISCUSSED,
IT IS DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE HOW IT COULD BE THOUGHT THAT THESE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES AFFORD LABOR UNION MEMBERS A PECULIAR
IMMUNITY FROM LAWS AGAINST TRADE RESTRAINT COMBINATIONS, UNLESS, AS
APPELLANTS CONTEND, LABOR UNIONS ARE GIVEN SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION DENIED ALL OTHER PEOPLE.  FN2 

THE OBJECTIVE OF UNIONS TO IMPROVE WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS HAS
SOMETIMES COMMENDED ITSELF TO CONGRESS AND TO STATE LEGISLATURES.  TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE STATES OR CONGRESS, FOR THIS OR OTHER REASONS, HAVE
SEEN FIT TO EXEMPT UNIONS FROM ANTITRUST LAWS, THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED
LEGISLATIVE POWER TO GRANT THE EXEMPTIONS.  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO.
V. MISSOURI, 234 U.S. 199; ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. UNION, 325 U.S. 797,
810-811; UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, 232-234; AND SEE
TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE STATUTES HAVE
NOT GRANTED EXEMPTIONS, WE HAVE DECLARED THAT VIOLATIONS OF ANTITRUST
LAWS COULD NOT BE DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT A PARTICULAR ACCUSED
COMBINATION WOULD NOT INJURE BUT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP MANUFACTURERS,
LABORERS, RETAILERS, CONSUMERS, OR THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL.  FASHION
GUILD V. TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457, 467-468.  MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS
AGO THIS COURT SAID (INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, AT
209):  "IT IS TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO ASSERT AGAINST STATUTES WHICH
FORBID COMBINATIONS OF COMPETING COMPANIES THAT A PARTICULAR
COMBINATION WAS INDUCED BY GOOD INTENTIONS  ...  "  SEE ALSO UNITED
STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 220-221; MANDEVILLE
FARMS V. SUGAR CO., 334 U.S. 219, 242-243. 

THE FOREGOING HOLDINGS REST ON THE PREMISE THAT LEGISLATIVE POWER TO
REGULATE TRADE AND COMMERCE INCLUDES THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT
GROUPS, IF ANY, SHALL BE REGULATED, AND WHETHER CERTAIN REGULATIONS
WILL HELP OR INJURE BUSINESSMEN, WORKERS, AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL. 
FN3  IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION MISSOURI HAS DECIDED TO APPLY ITS LAW
WITHOUT EXCEPTION TO ALL PERSONS WHO COMBINE TO RESTRAIN FREEDOM OF
TRADE.  WE ARE WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MODIFY OR UPSET
MISSOURI'S DETERMINATION THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO MAKE
COMBINATIONS OF WORKERS SUBJECT TO LAWS DESIGNED TO KEEP THE CHANNELS
OF TRADE WHOLLY FREE AND OPEN.  TO EXALT ALL LABOR UNION CONDUCT IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE ABOVE ALL STATE CONTROL WOULD GREATLY REDUCE THE
TRADITIONAL POWERS OF STATES OVER THEIR DOMESTIC ECONOMY AND MIGHT
CONCEIVABLY MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO ENFORCE THEIR ANTI-TRADE
RESTRAINT LAWS.  SEE ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. UNION, 325 U.S. 797, 810. 
MORE THAN THAT, IF FOR THE REASONS HERE CONTENDED STATES CANNOT SUBJECT
UNION MEMBERS TO SUCH ANTI-TRADE-RESTRAINT LAWS AS MISSOURI'S, NEITHER
CAN CONGRESS.  THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT SO GREATLY IMPAIRED THE STATES'
OR NATION'S POWER TO GOVERN. 

THIRD.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE INJUNCTION AGAINST PICKETING
ADJACENT TO EMPIRE'S PLACE OF BUSINESS IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ABRIDGMENT OF FREE SPEECH BECAUSE THE PICKETERS WERE ATTEMPTING
PEACEFULLY TO PUBLICIZE TRUTHFUL FACTS ABOUT A LABOR DISPUTE.  SEE
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 102, AND ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. UNION,
325 U.S. 797, 807, NOTE 12.  BUT THE RECORD HERE DOES NOT PERMIT THIS
PUBLICIZING TO BE TREATED IN ISOLATION.  FOR ACCORDING TO THE
PLEADINGS, THE EVIDENCE, THE FINDINGS, AND THE ARGUMENT OF THE
APPELLANTS, THE SOLE IMMEDIATE OBJECT OF THE PUBLICIZING ADJACENT TO
THE PREMISES OF EMPIRE, AS WELL AS THE OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE
APPELLANTS AND THEIR ALLIES, WAS TO COMPEL EMPIRE TO AGREE TO STOP
SELLING ICE TO NONUNION PEDDLERS.  THUS ALL OF APPELLANTS' ACTIVITIES -
THEIR POWERFUL TRANSPORTATION COMBINATION, THEIR PATROLLING, THEIR
FORMATION OF A PICKET LINE WARNING UNION MEN NOT TO CROSS AT PERIL OF
THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP, THEIR PUBLICIZING - CONSTITUTED A SINGLE AND
INTEGRATED COURSE OF CONDUCT, WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF MISSOURI'S
VALID LAW.  IN THIS SITUATION, THE INJUNCTION DID NO MORE THAN ENJOIN
AN OFFENSE AGAINST MISSOURI LAW, A FELONY. 

IT RARELY HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM FOR
SPEECH AND PRESS EXTENDS ITS IMMUNITY TO SPEECH OR WRITING USED AS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF A VALID CRIMINAL STATUTE.  WE
REJECT THE CONTENTION NOW.  NOTHING THAT WAS SAID OR DECIDED IN ANY OF
THE CASES RELIED ON BY APPELLANTS CALLS FOR A DIFFERENT HOLDING. 

NEITHER THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, NOR CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310
U.S. 106, BOTH DECIDED THE SAME DAY, SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION THAT
CONDUCT OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL IS ALWAYS IMMUNE FROM STATE REGULATION
BECAUSE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THAT CONDUCT IS CARRIED ON BY DISPLAY OF
PLACARDS BY PEACEFUL PICKETERS.  IN BOTH THESE CASES THIS COURT STRUCK
DOWN STATUTES WHICH BANNED ALL DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION BY PEOPLE
ADJACENT TO CERTAIN PREMISES, POINTING OUT THAT THE STATUTES WERE SO
BROAD THAT THEY COULD NOT ONLY BE UTILIZED TO PUNISH CONDUCT PLAINLY
ILLEGAL BUT COULD ALSO BE APPLIED TO BAN ALL TRUTHFUL PUBLICATIONS OF
THE FACTS OF A LABOR CONTROVERSY.  BUT IN THE THORNHILL OPINION, AT PP.
103-104, THE COURT WAS CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE
PROVINCE OF STATES "TO SET THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE CONTEST OPEN TO
INDUSTRIAL COMBATANTS."  SEE LINCOLN LABOR UNION V. NORTHWESTERN IRON &
METAL CO., 335 U.S. 525, 536; ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S.
740, 748-751.  FURTHER EMPHASIZING THE POWER OF A STATE "TO SET THE
LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE CONTEST OPEN TO INDUSTRIAL COMBATANTS" THE COURT
CITED WITH APPROVAL THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN DUPLEX
PRINTING CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, AT 488.  ON THAT PAGE THE
OPINION STATED:    "THE CONDITIONS DEVELOPED IN INDUSTRY MAY BE SUCH
THAT THOSE ENGAGED IN IT CANNOT CONTINUE THEIR STRUGGLE WITHOUT DANGER
TO THE COMMUNITY.  BUT IT IS NOT FOR JUDGES TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH
CONDITIONS EXIST, NOR IS IT THEIR FUNCTION TO SET THE LIMITS OF
PERMISSIBLE CONTEST AND TO DECLARE THE DUTIES WHICH THE NEW SITUATION
DEMANDS.  THIS IS THE FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WHICH, WHILE LIMITING
INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP RIGHTS OF AGGRESSION AND DEFENSE, MAY SUBSTITUTE
PROCESSES OF JUSTICE FOR THE MORE PRIMITIVE METHOD OF TRIAL BY
COMBAT." 

AFTER EMPHASIZING STATE POWER OVER INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS, THE COURT IN
THE THORNHILL OPINION WENT ON TO SAY, AT P. 104, THAT STATES MAY NOT
"IN DEALING WITH THE EVILS ARISING FROM INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES  ...
IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS FREELY INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS ...  "  THIS STATEMENT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS CONTEXT.  IT
WAS DIRECTED TOWARD A SWEEPING STATE PROHIBITION WHICH THIS COURT FOUND
TO EMBRACE "NEARLY EVERY PRACTICABLE, EFFECTIVE MEANS WHEREBY THOSE
INTERESTED - INCLUDING THE EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY AFFECTED - MAY ENLIGHTEN
THE PUBLIC ON THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF A LABOR DISPUTE."  THAT THE
GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE LIMITATION OF A STATE'S POWER TO IMPAIR FREE
SPEECH WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE FACT SITUATION PRESENTED HERE
IS FURTHER INDICATED BY THE CASES CITED WITH APPROVAL IN NOTE 21 OF THE
THORNHILL OPINION.  FN4 

APPELLANTS ALSO RELY ON CARPENTERS UNION V. RITTER'S CAFE, 315 U.S.
722, AND BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769, DECIDED THE SAME
DAY.  NEITHER LENDS SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTION THAT PEACEFUL PICKETING
IS BEYOND LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.  THE COURT'S OPINION IN THE RITTER CASE
APPROVINGLY QUOTED A PART OF THE THORNHILL OPINION WHICH RECOGNIZED
BROAD STATE POWERS OVER INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS.  IN THE WOHL CASE, THE
COURT'S OPINION AT P. 775 FOUND NO "VIOLENCE, FORCE OR COERCION, OR
CONDUCT OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL OR OPPRESSIVE" AND SAID THAT "A STATE IS NOT
REQUIRED TO TOLERATE IN ALL PLACES  ...  EVEN PEACEFUL PICKETING BY AN
INDIVIDUAL."  A CONCURRING OPINION IN THE WOHL CASE, AT PP. 776-777,
POINTED OUT THAT PICKETING MAY INCLUDE CONDUCT OTHER THAN SPEECH,
CONDUCT WHICH CAN BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION.  NO
OPINIONS RELIED ON BY PETITIONERS ASSERT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN
PICKETERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SPEECH OR PRESS TO VIOLATE VALID LAWS
DESIGNED TO PROTECT IMPORTANT INTERESTS OF SOCIETY.  FN5 

WE THINK THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE AND THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE
MISSOURI COURTS JUSTIFY RESTRAINT OF THE PICKETING WHICH WAS DONE IN
VIOLATION OF MISSOURI'S VALID LAW FOR THE SOLE IMMEDIATE PURPOSE OF
CONTINUING A VIOLATION OF LAW.  IN HOLDING THIS, WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE
ESSENTIAL IMPORTANCE TO OUR SOCIETY OF A VIGILANT PROTECTION OF FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND PRESS.  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 263.  STATES
CANNOT CONSISTENTLY WITH OUR CONSTITUTION ABRIDGE THOSE FREEDOMS TO
OBVIATE SLIGHT INCONVENIENCES OR ANNOYANCES.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308
U.S. 147, 162.  BUT PLACARDS USED AS AN ESSENTIAL AND INSEPARABLE PART
OF A GRAVE OFFENSE AGAINST AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC LAW CANNOT IMMUNIZE THAT
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT FROM STATE CONTROL.  VIRGINIA ELECTRIC CO. V. BOARD,
319 U.S. 533, 539; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 536, 537, 538, 539
540.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE PUBLICATION HERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
RESTRAINED BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SEPARATING THE PICKETING
CONDUCT INTO ILLEGAL AND LEGAL PARTS.  THOMAS V. COLLINS, SUPRA, AT
547.  FOR THE PLACARDS WERE TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF AN UNLAWFUL
COMBINATION, AND THEIR SOLE, UNLAWFUL IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE WAS TO INDUCE
EMPIRE TO VIOLATE THE MISSOURI LAW BY ACQUIESCING IN UNLAWFUL DEMANDS
TO AGREE NOT TO SELL ICE TO NONUNION PEDDLERS.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE
AGREEMENTS AND COURSE OF CONDUCT HERE WERE AS IN MOST INSTANCES BROUGHT
ABOUT THROUGH SPEAKING OR WRITING.  BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN DEEMED AN
ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR PRESS TO MAKE A COURSE OF CONDUCT
ILLEGAL MERELY BECAUSE THE CONDUCT WAS IN PART INITIATED, EVIDENCED, OR
CARRIED OUT BY MEANS OF LANGUAGE, EITHER SPOKEN, WRITTEN, OR PRINTED. 
SEE E.G., FOX V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273, 277; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568.  SUCH AN EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF SPEECH AND PRESS WOULD MAKE IT PRACTICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE EVER TO ENFORCE LAWS AGAINST AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE AS WELL AS MANY OTHER AGREEMENTS AND CONSPIRACIES DEEMED
INJURIOUS TO SOCIETY. 

THE INTEREST OF MISSOURI IN ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ANTITRUST LAWS CANNOT
BE CLASSIFIED AS AN EFFORT TO OUTLAW ONLY A SLIGHT PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE
OR ANNOYANCE.  THE MISSOURI POLICY AGAINST RESTRAINTS OF TRADE IS OF
LONG STANDING AND IS IN MOST RESPECTS THE SAME AS THAT WHICH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS FOLLOWED FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY.  IT IS
CLEARLY DRAWN IN AN ATTEMPT TO AFFORD ALL PERSONS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
TO BUY GOODS.  THERE WAS CLEAR DANGER, IMMINENT AND IMMEDIATE, THAT
UNLESS RESTRAINED, APPELLANTS WOULD SUCCEED IN MAKING THAT POLICY A
DEAD LETTER INSOFAR AS PURCHASES BY NONUNION MEN WERE CONCERNED. 
APPELLANTS' POWER WITH THAT OF THEIR ALLIES WAS IRRESISTIBLE.  AND IT
IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANTS WERE DOING MORE THAN EXERCISING A RIGHT OF
FREE SPEECH OR PRESS.  BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769, 776
777.  THEY WERE EXERCISING THEIR ECONOMIC POWER TOGETHER WITH THAT OF
THEIR ALLIES TO COMPEL EMPIRE TO ABIDE BY UNION RATHER THAN BY STATE
REGULATION OF TRADE.  FN6 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID EMPHASIZES THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH IT CAN
BE ASSUMED THAT INJURY FROM APPELLANTS' CONDUCT WOULD BE LIMITED TO
THIS SINGLE APPELLEE.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 104-105. 
MISSOURI, ACTING WITHIN ITS POWER, HAS DECIDED THAT SUCH RESTRAINTS OF
TRADE AS PETITIONERS SOUGHT ARE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE WHOLE
PUBLIC.  THIS DECISION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE GENERAL IDEAS UNDERLYING
ALL ANTI-TRADE-RESTRAINT LAWS.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO OVERRULE THIS
CLEARLY ADOPTED STATE POLICY. 

WHILE THE STATE OF MISSOURI IS NOT A PARTY IN THIS CASE, IT IS PLAIN
THAT THE BASIC ISSUE IS WHETHER MISSOURI OR A LABOR UNION HAS PARAMOUNT
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE AND GOVERN THE MANNER IN WHICH CERTAIN
TRADE PRACTICES SHALL BE CARRIED ON IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.  MISSOURI
HAS BY STATUTE REGULATED TRADE ONE WAY.  THE APPELLANT UNION MEMBERS
HAVE ADOPTED A PROGRAM TO REGULATE IT ANOTHER WAY.  THE STATE HAS
PROVIDED FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS STATUTORY RULE BY IMPOSING CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.  THE UNION HAS PROVIDED FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS RULE
BY SANCTIONS AGAINST UNION MEMBERS WHO CROSS PICKET LINES.  SEE
ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 19; FASHION GUILD V.
TRADE COMM'N, SUPRA, AT 465; ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 175 U.S. 211, 242.  WE HOLD THAT THE STATE'S POWER TO GOVERN IN
THIS FIELD IS PARAMOUNT, AND THAT NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTIES OF SPEECH OR PRESS COMPELS A STATE TO APPLY OR NOT TO APPLY
ITS ANTI-TRADE-RESTRAINT LAW TO GROUPS OF WORKERS, BUSINESSMEN OR
OTHERS.  OF COURSE THIS COURT DOES NOT PASS ON THE WISDOM OF THE
MISSOURI STATUTE.  WE HOLD ONLY THAT AS HERE CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IT
DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE DECLARED A CONSPIRACY 

"ANY PERSON WHO SHALL CREATE, ENTER INTO, BECOME A MEMBER OF OR
PARTICIPATE IN ANY POOL, TRUST, AGREEMENT, COMBINATION, CONFEDERATION
OR UNDERSTANDING WITH ANY PERSON OR PERSONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR
COMPETITION IN THE IMPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, PURCHASE
OR SALE OF ANY PRODUCT OR COMMODITY IN THIS STATE, OR ANY ARTICLE OR
THING BOUGHT OR SOLD WHATSOEVER, SHALL BE DEEMED AND ADJUDGED GUILTY OF
A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, AND SHALL BE PUNISHED AS PROVIDED
IN THIS ARTICLE."  MO. REV. STAT. ANN. SEC. 8301(1939). 

AND SEC. 8305 PROVIDES THAT ANYONE VIOLATING SEC. 8301 "SHALL BE
ADJUDGED GUILTY OF A FELONY, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY NOT EXCEEDING FIVE YEARS,
OR BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY A
FINE OF NOT LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS NOR MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT."  MO. REV. STAT. ANN.
SEC. 8305(1939). 

FN2  APPELLANTS SAY, AFTER QUOTING FROM A CONCURRING OPINION IN
UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, 243, "WE BELIEVE, THEREFORE,
THAT IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT A STATE MAY NOT APPLY EITHER STATUTORY
OR COMMON LAW POLICIES CONCERNING RESTRAINT OF TRADE TO ILLEGALIZE
COMBINATIONS AMONG WORKINGMEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING WAGE
COMPETITION THROUGHOUT A TRADE OR INDUSTRY."  AND PETITIONERS FURTHER
ARGUE THAT A STATE MAY NOT "MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR AN EMPLOYER TO
ACQUIESCE IN UNION DEMANDS THAT HE REFRAIN FROM SUPPLYING GOODS TO
NONUNION PEDDLERS  ...  " 

FN3  IN THE INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. CASE, 234 U.S. 199, THE THEN
MISSOURI STATUTE WAS CONSTRUED AS INAPPLICABLE TO COMBINATIONS OF
PURCHASERS AND LABORERS.  FOR THIS REASON THE STATUTE WAS CHALLENGED AS
DENYING EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  REPLYING TO THE CHALLENGE, THIS
COURT SAID AT P. 210:  "WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER POLICY TO
HAVE MADE SUCH COMPREHENSIVE CLASSIFICATION IT IS NOT OUR PROVINCE TO
DECIDE.  IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER A COMBINATION OF WAGE EARNERS OR
PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES CALLED FOR REPRESSION BY LAW UNDER THE
CONDITIONS IN THE STATE WAS FOR THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE TO
DETERMINE." 

FN4  EASTERN STATES LUMBER DEALERS V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600,
WAS CITED IN NOTE 21.  IN THAT CASE THE LUMBER ASSOCIATION WAS A
COMBINATION OF RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS FOUND BY THE COURT TO HAVE
CONSPIRED TO PREVENT WHOLESALE DEALERS FROM SELLING DIRECTLY TO
CONSUMERS OF LUMBER.  THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE INJUNCTION WAS THE
DISTRIBUTION AND DISSEMINATION OF TRUTHFUL INFORMATION BY THE
ASSOCIATION TO ITS MEMBERS IN AN OFFICIAL REPORT.  THIS COURT SUSTAINED
THE DECREE WHICH BROADLY ENJOINED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS TRUTHFUL
INFORMATION. 

THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 21 OF THE THORNHILL OPINION INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING, STRONGLY EMPHASIZING STATES' POWERS TO REGULATE THEIR
INTERNAL INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND REJECTING CONTENTIONS THAT
CHALLENGED REGULATIONS VIOLATED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  SENN V. TILE
LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468; WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S.
379; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; DORCHY V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306;
AIKENS V. WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194; HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366. 
ANOTHER CASE CITED IN NOTE 21 OF THE THORNHILL OPINION WAS ETHYL
GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436.  IT ALSO INVOLVED A
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS, AND ONCE AGAIN THIS COURT
SUSTAINED THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ENJOIN TRADE PRACTICES DEEMED
IN VIOLATION OF THOSE LAWS.  THE ONLY OTHER CASE CITED IN NOTE 21,
LABOR BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS CO., 308 U.S. 241, SUSTAINED AN ORDER
AGAINST AN EMPLOYER WHICH RESTRAINED IT FROM USING ITS INFLUENCE OVER
EMPLOYEES TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR ACTIVITIES. 

FN5  BOTH PARTIES HERE RELY ON THE RITTER CASE.  EMPIRE CONTENDS THAT
THIS COURT AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE TEXAS COURTS ON THE BASIS OF THE
STATE'S ANTITRUST LAW.  APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THIS COURT UPHELD THE
TEXAS INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE BUSINESS PICKETED DID NOT BEAR
A SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE RELATION TO THE LABOR DISPUTE TO JUSTIFY PICKETING
AT THAT PLACE.  SINCE THE COURT RELIED ON THIS GROUND, APPELLANTS
CONTEND THAT THE COURT IMPLIEDLY REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE
INJUNCTION WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE
ANTITRUST LAWS.  THIS COURT'S OPINION IN THE RITTER CASE, AS WELL AS
THE DISSENTS, DID EMPHASIZE QUESTIONS OTHER THAN THE ANTITRUST ACT
CONTENTIONS.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF TEXAS HAD NOT MENTIONED THE
TEXAS ANTITRUST LAWS IN ITS FIRST OR SECOND OPINION IN THE RITTER
CASE.  138 S.W.2D 223, 149 S.W.2D 694.  A THIRD OPINION, DENYING
REHEARING, DID MAKE REFERENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME TO THE STATE'S
ANTITRUST LAWS, BUT DID NOT DEFINITELY POINT OUT IN WHAT WAY THE
PICKETERS' CONDUCT VIOLATED ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THESE LAWS.  149
S.W.2D 694, 699.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NOTHING THAT WAS SAID IN
THE RITTER OPINION STANDS FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT SPEECH AND WRITINGS,
UTILIZED AS A PART OF CONDUCT ENGAGED IN ONLY TO BREAK A VALID ANTI
TRADE-RESTRAINT LAW, RENDER THAT COURSE OF CONDUCT IMMUNE FROM STATE
CONTROL. 

FN6  "PICKETING BY AN ORGANIZED GROUP IS MORE THAN FREE SPEECH, SINCE
IT INVOLVES PATROL OF A PARTICULAR LOCALITY AND SINCE THE VERY PRESENCE
OF A PICKET LINE MAY INDUCE ACTION OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER, QUITE
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE IDEAS WHICH ARE BEING DISSEMINATED. 
HENCE THOSE ASPECTS OF PICKETING MAKE IT THE SUBJECT OF RESTRICTIVE
REGULATION."  BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL, SUPRA, AT 776-777. 

THE OPINION IN THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 537-538 STATED:  "
...  WHEN TO THIS PERSUASION OTHER THINGS ARE ADDED WHICH BRING ABOUT
COERCION, OR GIVE IT THAT CHARACTER, THE LIMIT OF THE RIGHT HAS BEEN
PASSED.  ...  BUT SHORT OF THAT LIMIT THE EMPLOYER'S FREEDOM CANNOT BE
IMPAIRED.  THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS NO LESS THE EMPLOYEES' CONVERSE
RIGHT.  OF COURSE ESPOUSAL OF THE CAUSE OF LABOR IS ENTITLED TO NO
HIGHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION THAN THE ESPOUSAL OF ANY OTHER LAWFUL
CAUSE.  IT IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTION."    A CONCURRING OPINION
IN THOMAS V. COLLINS, AT 543-544, STATED THIS:  "BUT ONCE HE USES THE
ECONOMIC POWER WHICH HE HAS OVER OTHER MEN AND THEIR JOBS TO INFLUENCE
THEIR ACTION, HE IS DOING MORE THAN EXERCISING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THAT IS TRUE WHETHER HE BE AN
EMPLOYER OR AN EMPLOYEE.  BUT AS LONG AS HE DOES NO MORE THAN SPEAK HE
HAS THE SAME UNFETTERED RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT SIDE OF AN ISSUE HE
ESPOUSES." 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. KNIGHT, 336 U.S. 505 


NO. 406.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 4, 1949.  - 169 F.2D
1001, REVERSED. 


1.  RESPONDENT WAS INDICTED FOR AIDING AND ABETTING A TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY TO APPROPRIATE PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE IN
VIOLATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND FOR CONSPIRING TO DO SO.  THE CASE
HINGED ON WHETHER CERTAIN FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE TRUSTEE AND HIS
COUNSEL, AND FOR WHICH THEY DID NOT ACCOUNT, WERE FUNDS OF THE ESTATE
OR GIFTS BY A THIRD PARTY FROM HIS OWN PROPERTY.  THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT EITHER VIEW.  THE JURY FOUND RESPONDENT GUILTY AND
HE WAS SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED HIS
CONVICTION AND DIRECTED ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL.  HELD:  THE
COURT OF APPEALS' REVERSAL WAS AN IMPROPER INTERFERENCE WITH THE JURY
FUNCTION, AND ITS JUDGMENT IS REVERSED.  PP. 506-509. 

2.  ALL OF THE CONSIDERATION WHICH IS PAID FOR A BANKRUPT'S ASSETS
BECOMES PART OF THE ESTATE; AND NO DEVICE OR ARRANGEMENT, HOWEVER
SUBTLE, CAN SUBTRACT OR DIVERT ANY OF IT.  PP. 508-509. 

3.  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT REQUIRED IN THIS CASE BY THE CLAIM THAT
THE FUNDS IN QUESTION WERE PAID BY THE PURCHASER OF THE ASSETS AT A
TIME WHEN THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS IN THE ESTATE HAD
BEEN FIXED AND ALL ALLOWANCES HAD BEEN DETERMINED.  P. 509. 

UNITED STATES V. KNIGHT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED FOR AIDING AND ABETTING A VIOLATION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT AND FOR CONSPIRACY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  169
F.2D 1001.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 901.  REVERSED, P.
509. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ROBERT MICHAEL WAS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE CENTRAL FORGING CO.
AND DONALD REIFSNYDER WAS HIS COUNSEL.  MAXI MANUFACTURING CO. WAS A
COMPETITOR OF CENTRAL AND ONE OF ITS CREDITORS.  GEORGE FENNER AND
RESPONDENT HARRY S. KNIGHT WERE ATTORNEYS FOR MAXI.  AFTER NEGOTIATIONS
WHICH IT IS UNNECESSARY TO RELATE HERE, A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER
CH. X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 52 STAT. 883, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 501 ET SEQ.,
WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT AND ACCEPTED BY MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS OF THE
CREDITORS.  UNDER THIS PLAN MAXI WAS TO ACQUIRE ALL THE ASSETS OF
CENTRAL; THE STOCKHOLDERS OF CENTRAL WERE TO RECEIVE NOTHING; THE
SECURED CREDITORS OF CENTRAL WERE TO RECEIVE 20 PER CENT AND ITS
UNSECURED CREDITORS 5 PER CENT OF THEIR CLAIMS IN BONDS OF MAXI; AND
ALL TAXES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES OF THE REORGANIZATION WERE TO BE PAID IN
FULL IN CASH BY THE TRUSTEE.  THE CASH REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAN WERE TO
BE FURNISHED BY MAXI. 

THE AMOUNT OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND THE NATURE OF MAXI'S COMMITMENT
ARE SOURCES OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  MICHAEL AND REIFSNYDER
CONCEDEDLY OBTAINED FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE REORGANIZATION FOR
WHICH THEY DID NOT ACCOUNT.  IT IS THE THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION THAT
THOSE FUNDS WERE PART OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE.  IT IS THE THEORY OF
THE DEFENSE THAT THEY WERE GIFTS BY MAXI OF ITS OWN PROPERTY. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE (INCLUDING MICHAEL'S TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE AND
ONE CONSTRUCTION OF RESPONDENT'S TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE SAME
TRANSACTIONS IN AN EARLIER CONTEMPT CASE AGAINST MICHAEL) THAT MAXI
AGREED TO PAY $26,404.33 IN CASH FOR CENTRAL'S NET CURRENT ASSETS IN
ADDITION TO THE $17,000 IN BONDS.  IF THIS VERSION OF THE TRANSACTION
WERE BELIEVED, THERE WAS A SCHEME TO VALUE THE ASSETS OF CENTRAL AT
$3,000 LESS THAN $26,404.33 AND TO DIVERT THE $3,000 TO MICHAEL'S AND
REIFSNYDER'S OWN ENDS. 

THERE WAS ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS PHASE OF THE PLAN WHICH IS ALSO
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, VIZ. THAT MAXI WAS TO PAY IN CASH ALL EXPENSES
OF THE REORGANIZATION PROVIDED THEY DID NOT EXCEED $26,404.33.  IN THIS
VIEW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $26,404.33 AND THE EXPENSES ALLOWED BY THE
COURT, $23,404.33, WAS MAXI'S TO DO WITH AS IT PLEASED. 

THE COURT CONFIRMED THE PLAN AND ORDERED THE TRANSFER OF ALL OF
CENTRAL'S ASSETS TO MAXI ON RECEIPT OF THE BONDS AND ON PAYMENT OF THE
COSTS AND EXPENSES AS ALLOWED BY THE COURT, "WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE
FUNDS AS SET FORTH IN THE TRUSTEE'S REPORT FILED APRIL 15, 1942."  THAT
REPORT LISTED THE NET CURRENT ASSETS OF CENTRAL AT $23,404.33.  THERE
WAS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE VALUE OF THOSE ASSETS HAD BEEN FALSIFIED IN
THE REPORT BY DEDUCTING $3,000 FROM THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE. 

THE EXPENSES APPROVED BY THE COURT AND PAID BY MAXI INCLUDED
ALLOWANCES FOR THE FEES AND EXPENSES OF MICHAEL AND REIFSNYDER.  KNIGHT
ARRANGED FOR MAXI ALSO TO DRAW A CHECK FOR $3,000 TO FENNER WHICH
FENNER CASHED AND, AFTER DEDUCTING $500 FOR INCOME TAX, PAID OVER TO
MICHAEL AND REIFSNYDER WHO NEVER ACCOUNTED TO THE COURT FOR IT. 

KNIGHT AND FENNER WERE INDICTED FOR AIDING AND ABETTING MICHAEL TO
APPROPRIATE PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE IN VIOLATION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, 30 STAT. 554, AS AMENDED, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 52(A),  FN1
AND FOR CONSPIRING WITH MICHAEL AND OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.  KNIGHT AND
FENNER WERE FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY ON ALL COUNTS.  KNIGHT WAS FINED
$1,000.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED HIS CONVICTION AND DIRECTED
ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  169 F.2D
1001.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RULING IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT MAXI AGREED TO PAY $26,404.33 FOR
THE NET CURRENT ASSETS OF CENTRAL AND THAT KNIGHT WAS PARTY TO A SCHEME
TO DIVERT $3,000 OF THAT CONSIDERATION TO THE PERSONAL ENDS OF MICHAEL
AND REIFSNYDER.  IT WAS THEREFORE AN IMPROPER INTERFERENCE WITH THE
JURY'S FUNCTION FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO REJECT THAT THEORY OF THE
CASE AND TO ACCEPT ONE WHICH TO IT SEEMED MORE CREDIBLE.  SEE GLASSER
V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 80; KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S.
750, 763-764. 

BUT EVEN IF, AS THE DEFENSE URGES, MAXI ONLY AGREED TO PAY EXPENSES
UP TO $26,404.33, THE RESULT IS THE SAME.  MAXI IN FACT PAID THAT
AMOUNT.  IT WAS PAID IN CONNECTION WITH THE REORGANIZATION.  IT WAS
PAID FOR SERVICES ALLEGEDLY RENDERED BY MICHAEL AND REIFSNYDER IN THE
PROCEEDINGS.  IT WAS PAID SECRETLY AND IN A DEVIOUS WAY.  THE ASSETS OF
THE ESTATE WHICH WERE TRANSFERRED TO MAXI WERE WORTH $26,404.33.  THIS
IS A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING THAT $26,404.33 WAS IN FACT PAID FOR THE
ASSETS AND THAT THE FORM OF THE ARRANGEMENT SERVED ONLY TO SYPHON A
PART OF THE CONSIDERATION TO MICHAEL AND REIFSNYDER WITHOUT COURT
APPROVAL. 

ALL THE CONSIDERATION WHICH IS PAID FOR A BANKRUPT'S ASSETS BECOMES
PART OF THE ESTATE.  NO DEVICE OR ARRANGEMENT, HOWEVER SUBTLE, CAN
SUBTRACT OR DIVERT ANY OF IT.  IT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION,
NOT ITS FORM, WHICH CONTROLS.  IF THAT REQUIREMENT WERE NOT RIGIDLY
ENFORCED, CONTROL OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION  FN2  AND CONTROL OF
ALLOWANCES  FN3  WOULD PASS FROM THE COURT TO THE PARTIES.  THAT WOULD
SUBVERT THE STATUTORY SCHEME. 

THIS CONSEQUENCE IS SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED HERE BY THE ARGUMENT THAT
WHEN THE $3,000 WAS DIVERTED TO MICHAEL AND REIFSNYDER, THE RIGHTS OF
CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS IN THE ESTATE HAD BEEN FIXED AND ALL THE
ALLOWANCES HAD BEEN DETERMINED.  IT IS THEREFORE SAID THAT THERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN NO RIGHTFUL CLAIMANTS TO THE MONEY HAD IT BEEN PAID INTO
COURT.  BY THAT PROCEDURE PARTIES WOULD ARROGATE TO THEMSELVES THE
CONTROL OVER THE ESTATE WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED TO THE BANKRUPTCY
JUDGE.  FN4  REVERSED. 

FN1  "A PERSON SHALL BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF NOT
TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR BOTH,
UPON CONVICTION OF THE OFFENSE OF HAVING KNOWINGLY AND FRAUDULENTLY
APPROPRIATED TO HIS OWN USE, EMBEZZLED, SPENT, OR UNLAWFULLY
TRANSFERRED ANY PROPERTY OR SECRETED OR DESTROYED ANY DOCUMENT
BELONGING TO THE ESTATE OF A BANKRUPT WHICH CAME INTO HIS CHARGE AS
TRUSTEE, RECEIVER, CUSTODIAN, MARSHAL, OR OTHER OFFICER OF THE COURT." 

FN2  EVEN AFTER CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
221 OF CH. X, IT MAY BE ALTERED OR MODIFIED PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURE
PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 222. 

FN3  SEE SECS. 241-244 OF CH. X; LEIMAN V. GUTTMAN, 336 U.S. 1. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPEAKING THROUGH ONE OF THE MOST CONSCIENTIOUS
AND EXPERIENCED OF JUDGES, THUS SUMMARIZED THE PROBLEM OF THE CASE: 

"THE WHOLE TRANSACTION WAS HIGHLY REPREHENSIBLE AND IT MAY WELL HAVE
INVOLVED THE COMMISSION OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.  INDEED UNDER ANOTHER
INDICTMENT DEFENDANT MICHAEL PLEADED GUILTY TO ANOTHER CHARGE GROWING
OUT OF THESE OCCURRENCES.  THE QUESTION BEFORE US, HOWEVER, IS NOT
WHETHER THE DEFENDANT KNIGHT COMMITTED ANY CRIME BUT ONLY WHETHER HE
AIDED AND ABETTED MICHAEL TO VIOLATE SECTION 29, SUB. A, IN THE MANNER
DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT."  169 F.2D 1001, 1005.  THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CHARGES MADE IN THE
INDICTMENT AND THAT THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GRANTED.  AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT THE GOVERNMENT DISAVOWED THE
PRESENCE OF ANY QUESTION OF LAW IN THE CASE EXCEPT THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE RECORD WARRANTED SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY AS THE DISTRICT
COURT THOUGHT, AND AS THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT NOT.  THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDED UNRESERVEDLY THAT THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS DECISION TURNS
ENTIRELY ON THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE.  WE OUGHT NOT TO BE
CALLED UPON TO CANVASS A RECORD OF 870 PAGES TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY VIEWED THE FACTS IN RELATION TO THE CHARGE, OR
WHETHER THE APPRAISAL MADE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT.  I DO NOT
PROPOSE TO DO SO.  ONE APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE FACTS SHOULD SUFFICE,
EVEN WHEN THE REVIEW GOES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. 

IT HAVING APPEARED, AFTER THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, THAT
THE CASE MERELY INVOLVES WEIGHING EVIDENCE, I THINK THE WRIT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED AS HAVING BEEN IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 
..END :




















FARRELL V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 511 


NO. 267.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1949.  - DECIDED APRIL 4, 1949.  - 167 F.2D
781, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SEAMAN SERVING ON A MERCHANT VESSEL, OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE
UNITED STATES IN WARTIME AND DOCKED AT A CONQUERED PORT IN THE WAR
AREA, WAS INJURED WHILE RETURNING TO THE SHIP AFTER OVERSTAYING SHORE
LEAVE.  HE WAS TREATED IN GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS UNTIL DISCHARGED AS
COMPLETELY DISABLED.  THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER CURE,
ALTHOUGH MEDICAL ATTENTION MIGHT BE REQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME TO
RELIEVE RECURRING CONDITIONS.  HELD:  THE LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND
CURE DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE TIME WHEN THE MAXIMUM CURE POSSIBLE HAS
BEEN EFFECTED, AND PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE SO LONG AS
HE IS DISABLED OR FOR LIFE.  PP. 512-519. 

2.  THE SHIP'S ARTICLES WHICH PETITIONER SIGNED PROVIDED FOR A
FOREIGN VOYAGE FROM THE UNITED STATES AND RETURN AND FOR A TERM "NOT
EXCEEDING" TWELVE MONTHS.  HELD:  HE WAS ENTITLED TO WAGES ONLY UNTIL
THE COMPLETION OF THE VOYAGE AND NOT FOR TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF
SIGNING.  PP. 519-521. 

FARRELL V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY BY PETITIONER AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND
OTHERS, THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDED PETITIONER LESS THAN THE AMOUNTS HE
HAD CLAIMED FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE AND FOR WAGES.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  167 F.2D 781.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335
U.S. 869.  AFFIRMED, P. 521. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A SEAMAN, BROUGHT SUIT IN ADMIRALTY TO RECOVER DAMAGES
UNDER THE JONES ACT, 41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688, AND
MAINTENANCE, CURE AND WAGES UNDER MARITIME LAW.  THE ISSUE OF
NEGLIGENCE WAS DECIDED AGAINST HIM BY BOTH COURTS BELOW AND THE CLAIM
IS ABANDONED HERE.  PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW OTHER ISSUES WAS
GRANTED.  335 U.S. 869. 

                      I. MAINTENANCE AND CURE. 

THE FACTS WHICH OCCASION MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR THIS SEAMAN ARE NOT
IN DISPUTE.  THE CLAIMANT, 22 YEARS OF AGE AND IN GOOD HEALTH, WAS A
MEMBER OF THE MERCHANT MARINE.  HE WAS IN THE SERVICE OF THE S.S. JAMES
E. HAVILAND, A MERCHANT VESSEL OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE UNITED STATES
AS A CARGO AND TROOP SHIP.  ON FEBRUARY 5, 1944, SHE WAS DOCKED AT
PALERMO, SICILY, AND FARRELL WAS GRANTED SHORE LEAVE WHICH REQUIRED HIS
RETURN TO THE SHIP BY 6 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.  HE OVERSTAYED HIS LEAVE
AND ABOUT EIGHT O'CLOCK BEGAN, IN RAIN AND DARKNESS, TO MAKE HIS WAY TO
THE SHIP.  HE BECAME LOST AND WAS MISDIRECTED TO THE WRONG GATE, BY
WHICH HE ENTERED THE SHORE-FRONT AREA ABOUT A MILE FROM WHERE THE SHIP
LAY MOORED.  THE AREA GENERALLY WAS BLACKED OUT BUT PETITIONER'S
COMPANION, FORTY OR FIFTY FEET AWAY, SAW HIM FALL OVER A GUARD CHAIN
INTO A DRYDOCK WHICH WAS LIGHTED SUFFICIENTLY FOR NIGHT WORK THEN IN
PROGRESS.  FARRELL WAS GRIEVOUSLY INJURED. 

HE WAS TREATED WITHOUT EXPENSE TO HIMSELF IN VARIOUS GOVERNMENT
HOSPITALS UNTIL JUNE 30, 1944, WHEN HE WAS DISCHARGED AT NORFOLK,
VIRGINIA, AS COMPLETELY DISABLED.  HE IS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY BLIND
AND SUFFERS POSTTRAUMATIC CONVULSIONS WHICH PROBABLY WILL BECOME MORE
FREQUENT AND ARE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER CURE.  FROM TIME TO
TIME HE WILL REQUIRE SOME MEDICAL CARE TO EASE ATTACKS OF HEADACHES AND
EPILEPTIC CONVULSIONS.  THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT THE DUTY OF A
SHIPOWNER TO FURNISH MAINTENANCE AND CURE DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE
TIME WHEN THE MAXIMUM CURE POSSIBLE HAS BEEN EFFECTED.  PETITIONER
CONTENDS THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE AS LONG AS HE IS DISABLED,
WHICH IN THIS CASE IS FOR LIFE. 

ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN ANY STATUTE OR AMERICAN ADMIRALTY
DECISIONS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE FOR
LIFE.  BUT AN ARGUMENT IS BASED UPON THE ANCIENT AUTHORITY OF CLEIRAC,
JUGMENS D'OLERON, ARTS. 6 AND 7 AND NOTES BY CLEIRAC; CONSOLATO DEL
MARE, CC. 182, 137; 2 PARD COLL.  MAR.  152; TO WHICH AMERICAN
AUTHORITIES HAVE PAID CONSIDERABLE RESPECT.  SEE STORY, CIRCUIT
JUSTICE, IN REED V. CANFIELD, FED. CAS. NO. 11,641, P. 429.  A
TRANSLATION OF THE NOTE RELIED UPON READS: 

"IF IN DEFENDING HIMSELF, OR FIGHTING AGAINST AN ENEMY OR CORSAIRS, A
MARINER IS MAIMED, OR DISABLED TO SERVE ON BOARD A SHIP FOR THE REST OF
HIS LIFE, BESIDES THE CHARGE OF HIS CURE, HE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS
LONG AS HE LIVES AT THE COST OF THE SHIP AND CARGO.  VIDE THE HANSEATIC
LAW, ART. 35."  1 PETERS' ADMIRALTY DECISIONS (1807), APPENDIX, P. XV. 

ARTICLE 35 OF THE LAWS OF THE HANSE TOWNS REFERRED TO READS: 

"ART. XXXV.  THE SEAMEN ARE OBLIGED TO DEFEND THEIR SHIP AGAINST
ROVERS, ON PAIN OF LOSING THEIR WAGES; AND IF THEY ARE WOUNDED, THEY
SHALL BE HEALED AND CURED AT THE GENERAL CHARGE OF THE CONCERNED IN A
COMMON AVERAGE.  IF ANYONE OF THEM IS MAIMED AND DISABLED, HE SHALL BE
MAINTAINED AS LONG AS HE LIVES BY A LIKE AVERAGE."  IBID., P. CIV. 

WE NEED NOT ELABORATE UPON THE MEANINGS OR WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO
THESE MEDIEVAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF MARITIME LAW.  AS THEY SHOW, THEY WERE
WRITTEN WHEN PIRATES WERE NOT OPERATIC CHARACTERS BUT WERE REAL-LIFE
PERILS OF THE SEA.  WHEN THEY BORE DOWN ON A SHIP, ALL WAS LOST UNLESS
THE SEAMAN WOULD HAZARD LIFE AND LIMB IN DESPERATE DEFENSE.  IF THEY
SAVED THE SHIP AND CARGO, IT WAS SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF SALVAGE AND
FOR THEIR SACRIFICE IN THE EFFORT A CONTRIBUTION ON PRINCIPLES OF
AVERAGE MAY HAVE BEEN JUSTLY DUE.  PERHAPS MORE THAN HUMANITARIAN
CONSIDERATIONS, INDUCEMENT TO STAND BY THE SHIP GENERATED THE DOCTRINE
THAT SAVING THE SHIP AND HER CARGO FROM PIRATES ENTITLES THE SEAMAN TO
LIFELONG MAINTENANCE IF HE IS DISABLED IN THE STRUGGLE. 

BUT CONSTRUE THE OLD-TIME LAW WITH WHAT LIBERALITY WE WILL, IT CANNOT
BE MADE TO COVER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  THIS SHIP WAS NOT BESET BUT
WAS SNUG AT BERTH IN A HARBOR THAT HAD CAPITULATED TO THE UNITED STATES
AND HER ALLIED FORCES SIX MONTHS BEFORE.  NO SEA ROVERS, PIRATES OR
CORSAIRS APPEARED TO HAVE MENACED HER.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE SHIP WAS
ENGAGED IN WARLIKE OPERATIONS AND WAS A LEGITIMATE TARGET FOR ENEMY
AIRCRAFT OR NAVAL VESSELS, WHICH MADE HER SERVICE A WAR RISK, BUT AT
THAT TIME AND PLACE NO ENEMY ATTACK WAS IN PROGRESS OR IMMINENT.  EVEN
IF WE PASS ALL THIS AND ASSUME THE SHIP ALWAYS TO HAVE BEEN IN
POTENTIAL DANGER AND IN NEED OF DEFENSE, THIS SEAMAN AT THE TIME OF HIS
INJURY HAD TAKEN LEAVE OF HER AND HE IS IN NO POSITION TO CLAIM THAT HE
WAS A SACRIFICE TO HER SALVATION.  FAR FROM HELPING TO MAN THE SHIP AT
THE MOMENT, HE WAS UNABLE TO FIND HER; HE WAS LOST ASHORE AND NOT ABLE
ADEQUATELY TO TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF.  HOWEVER PATRIOTIC HIS MOTIVE IN
ENLISTING IN THE SERVICE AND HOWEVER READY HE MAY HAVE BEEN TO RISK
HIMSELF FOR HIS COUNTRY, WE CAN FIND NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR AWARDING
LIFETIME MAINTENANCE AGAINST THE SHIP ON THE THEORY THAT HE WAS WOUNDED
OR MAIMED WHILE DEFENDING HER AGAINST ENEMIES. 

IT IS CLAIMED, HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE BASIS FOR A LIFETIME AWARD DOES
NOT EXIST, THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE BEYOND THE
PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE COURTS BELOW.  THIS IS BASED LARGELY UPON
STATEMENTS IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORP. V.
TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525.  THERE THE QUESTION AS STATED BY THE COURT WAS
WHETHER THE DUTY OF A SHIPOWNER TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR A
SEAMAN FALLING ILL OF AN INCURABLE DISEASE WHILE IN ITS EMPLOY, EXTENDS
TO THE PAYMENT OF A LUMP-SUM AWARD SUFFICIENT TO DEFRAY THE COST OF
MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR THE REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE.  THE COURT LAID
ASIDE CASES WHERE INCAPACITY IS CAUSED BY THE EMPLOYMENT AND SAID, "WE
CAN FIND NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT, IF THE DISEASE PROVES TO BE
INCURABLE, THE DUTY EXTENDS BEYOND A FAIR TIME AFTER THE VOYAGE IN
WHICH TO EFFECT SUCH IMPROVEMENT IN THE SEAMAN'S CONDITION AS
REASONABLY MAY BE EXPECTED TO RESULT FROM NURSING, CARE, AND MEDICAL
TREATMENT.  THIS WOULD SATISFY SUCH DEMANDS OF POLICY AS UNDERLIE THE
IMPOSITION OF THE OBLIGATION.  BEYOND THIS WE THINK THERE IS NO DUTY,
AT LEAST WHERE THE ILLNESS IS NOT CAUSED BY THE SEAMAN'S SERVICE." 

IT IS CLAIMED THAT WHEN THE COURT RESERVED OR DISCLAIMED ANY JUDGMENT
AS TO CASES WHERE THE INCAPACITY IS CAUSED "BY THE EMPLOYMENT" OR "BY
THE SEAMAN'S SERVICE" IT RECOGNIZED OR CREATED SUCH CASES AS A SEPARATE
CLASS FOR A DIFFERENT MEASURE OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  WE THINK NO
SUCH DISTINCTION EXISTS OR WAS PREMISED IN THE CALMAR CASE.  IN AGUILAR
V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724, THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT LOGICALLY
AND HISTORICALLY THE DUTY OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE DERIVES FROM A
SEAMAN'S DEPENDENCE ON HIS SHIP, NOT FROM HIS INDIVIDUAL DESERTS, AND
ARISES FROM HIS DISABILITY, NOT FROM ANYONE'S FAULT.  WE THERE REFUSED
TO LOOK TO THE PERSONAL NATURE OF THE SEAMAN'S ACTIVITY AT THE MOMENT
OF INJURY TO DETERMINE HIS RIGHT TO AWARD.  ASIDE FROM GROSS MISCONDUCT
OR INSUBORDINATION, WHAT THE SEAMAN IS DOING AND WHY AND HOW HE
SUSTAINS INJURY DOES NOT AFFECT HIS RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE,
HOWEVER DECISIVE IT MAY BE AS TO CLAIMS FOR INDEMNITY OR FOR DAMAGES
FOR NEGLIGENCE.  HE MUST, OF COURSE, AT THE TIME BE "IN THE SERVICE OF
THE SHIP," BY WHICH IS MEANT THAT HE MUST BE GENERALLY ANSWERABLE TO
ITS CALL TO DUTY RATHER THAN ACTUALLY IN PERFORMANCE OF ROUTINE TASKS
OR SPECIFIC ORDERS. 

IT HAS BEEN THE MERIT OF THE SEAMAN'S RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE
THAT IT IS SO INCLUSIVE AS TO BE RELATIVELY SIMPLE, AND CAN BE
UNDERSTOOD AND ADMINISTERED WITHOUT TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS.  IT HAS
FEW EXCEPTIONS OR CONDITIONS TO STIR CONTENTIONS, CAUSE DELAYS, AND
INVITE LITIGATIONS.  THE SEAMAN COULD FORFEIT THE RIGHT ONLY BY CONDUCT
WHOSE WRONGFUL QUALITY EVEN SIMPLE MEN OF THE CALLING WOULD RECOGNIZE -
INSUBORDINATION, DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDERS, AND GROSS MISCONDUCT.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, THE MASTER KNEW HE MUST MAINTAIN AND CARE FOR EVEN THE
ERRING AND CARELESS SEAMAN, MUCH AS A PARENT WOULD A CHILD.  FOR ANY
PURPOSE TO INTRODUCE A GRADUATION OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES BASED ON SOME
RELATIVE PROXIMITY OF THE ACTIVITY AT TIME OF INJURY TO THE
"EMPLOYMENT" OR THE "SERVICE OF THE SHIP," WOULD ALTER THE BASIS AND BE
OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND FUNCTION OF THE DOCTRINE AND WOULD
OPEN THE DOOR TO THE LITIGIOUSNESS WHICH HAS MADE THE LANDMAN'S REMEDY
SO OFTEN A PROMISE TO THE EAR TO BE BROKEN TO THE HOPE. 

NOR IS IT AT ALL CLEAR TO US WHAT THIS PARTICULAR LITIGANT COULD GAIN
FROM INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTINCTION FOR WHICH CONTENTION IS MADE.  IF
WE SHOULD CONCEDE THAT LARGER MEASURE OF MAINTENANCE IS DUE THOSE WHOSE
INJURY IS CAUSED BY THE NATURE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, IT WOULD SEEM
FARFETCHED TO HOLD IT APPLICABLE HERE.  CLAIMANT WAS DISOBEDIENT TO HIS
ORDERS AND FOR HIS PERSONAL PURPOSES OVERSTAYED HIS SHORE LEAVE.  HIS
FALL INTO A DRYDOCK THAT WAS SUFFICIENTLY LIGHTED FOR WORKMEN TO BE
CARRUING ON REPAIRS TO A SHIP THEREIN WAS DUE TO NO NEGLIGENCE BUT HIS
OWN.  THESE MATTERS HAVE NOT BEEN INVOKED TO FORFEIT OR REDUCE HIS
USUAL SEAMAN'S RIGHT, BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
WOULD WARRANT ENLARGEMENT OF IT.  WE HOLD THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO THE
USUAL MEASURE OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE AT THE SHIP'S EXPENSE, NO LESS
AND NO MORE, AND TURN TO ASCERTAINMENT OF ITS BOUNDS. 

THE LAW OF THE SEA IS IN A PECULIAR SENSE AN INTERNATIONAL LAW, BUT
APPLICATION OF ITS SPECIFIC RULES DEPENDS UPON ACCEPTANCE BY THE UNITED
STATES.  THE PROBLEM OF THE SICK OR INJURED SEAMAN HAS CONCERNED EVERY
MARITIME COUNTRY AND, IN 1936, THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION AT GENEVA SUBMITTED A DRAFT CONVENTION
TO THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER STATES.  IT WAS RATIFIED BY THE SENATE
AND WAS PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT AS EFFECTIVE FOR THE UNITED STATES
ON OCTOBER 29, 1939.  54 STAT. 1693.  ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPH 1, THEREOF,
PROVIDES:  "THE SHIPOWNER SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF
MEDICAL CARE AND MAINTENANCE UNTIL THE SICK OR INJURED PERSON HAS BEEN
CURED, OR UNTIL THE SICKNESS OR INCAPACITY HAS BEEN DECLARED OF A
PERMANENT CHARACTER." 

WHILE ENACTMENT OF THIS GENERAL RULE BY CONGRESS WOULD SEEM
CONTROLLING, IT IS NOT AMISS TO POINT OUT THAT THE LIMITATION THUS
IMPOSED WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE FAMILIAR WITH
THE LAWS OF THE SEA AND SYMPATHETIC WITH THE SEAMAN'S PROBLEMS. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ISSUED A SUMMARY OF THE CONVENTION CONTAINING
THE FOLLOWING ON THIS SUBJECT:  "THE SHIPOWNER IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH
MEDICAL CARE AND MAINTENANCE, INCLUDING BOARD AND LODGING, UNTIL THE
DISABLED PERSON HAS BEEN CURED OR THE DISABILITY HAS BEEN DECLARED
PERMANENT."  ROBINSON, ADMIRALTY, P. 300. 

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ORGANIZED SEAMEN HAVE RECOGNIZED AND ADVISED
CONGRESS OF THIS TRADITIONAL LIMITATION ON MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  WHEN
CONGRESS HAS HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION SUBSTITUTION OF A SYSTEM OF
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 44 STAT. 1424, AS AMENDED, 33 U.S.C.
SECS. 901-950, ORGANIZED SEAMEN, AS WE HAVE HERETOFORE NOTED, HAVE
STEADFASTLY OPPOSED THE CHANGE.  HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328
U.S. 707, 715.  IN DOING SO THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE MARITIME
UNION ADVISED THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THAT MAINTENANCE EXTENDED DURING "(A) THE PERIOD THAT A
SEAMAN RECEIVES TREATMENT AT A HOSPITAL EITHER AS AN IN-PATIENT OR AN
OUT-PATIENT; AND (B) DURING A PERIOD OF CONVALESCENCE, AND UNTIL THE
MAXIMUM CURE IS OBTAINED."  FN1  ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE, AFTER DEFINING
IT TO INCLUDE HOSPITALIZATION, SAID, "IN ADDITION A SEAMAN IS ENTITLED
TO RECOVER MAINTENANCE WHILE OUTSIDE OF THE HOSPITAL UNTIL HIS PHYSICAL
CONDITION BECOMES FIXED."  FN2 

THAT THE DUTY OF THE SHIP TO MAINTAIN AND CARE FOR THE SEAMAN AFTER
THE END OF THE VOYAGE ONLY UNTIL HE WAS SO FAR CURED AS POSSIBLE, SEEMS
TO HAVE BEEN THE DOCTRINE OF THE AMERICAN ADMIRALTY COURTS PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONVENTION BY CONGRESS,  FN3  DESPITE OCCASIONAL
AMBIGUITY OF LANGUAGE OR RESERVATION AS TO POSSIBLE SITUATIONS NOT
BEFORE THE COURT.  IT HAS BEEN THE RULE OF ADMIRALTY COURTS SINCE THE
CONVENTION.  FN4 

MAINTENANCE AND CURE IS NOT THE ONLY RECOURSE OF THE INJURED SEAMAN. 
IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE HE MAY OBTAIN INDEMNITY OR COMPENSATION FOR
INJURY DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OR UNSEAWORTHINESS AND MAY RECOVER, BY TRIAL
BEFORE COURT AND JURY, DAMAGES FOR PARTIAL OR TOTAL DISABILITY.  BUT
MAINTENANCE AND CURE IS MORE CERTAIN IF MORE LIMITED IN ITS BENEFITS. 
IT DOES NOT HOLD A SHIP TO PERMANENT LIABILITY FOR A PENSION, NEITHER
DOES IT GIVE A LUMP-SUM PAYMENT TO OFFSET DISABILITY BASED ON SOME
CONCEPTION OF EXPECTANCY OF LIFE.  INDEED THE CUSTOM OF PROVIDING
MAINTENANCE AND CURE IN KIND AND CONCURRENTLY WITH ITS NEED HAS HAD THE
ADVANTAGE OF REMOVING ITS BENEFITS FROM DANGER OF BEING WASTED BY THE
PROVERBIAL IMPROVIDENCE OF ITS BENEFICIARIES.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT
CONTEND THAT IF FARRELL RECEIVES FUTURE TREATMENT OF A CURATIVE NATURE
HE MAY NOT RECOVER IN A NEW PROCEEDING THE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR SUCH
TREATMENT AND FOR MAINTENANCE WHILE RECEIVING IT.    THE NEED OF THIS
SEAMAN FOR PERMANENT HELP IS GREAT AND HIS PLIGHT MOST UNFORTUNATE. 
BUT AS THE EVIDENCE HAS AFFORDED NO BASIS FOR SUPPLYING THAT NEED BY
FINDING NEGLIGENCE, NEITHER DOES THE CASE AFFORD A BASIS FOR DISTORTION
OF THE DOCTRINE OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  THIS SEAMAN WAS IN THE
SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES OF RELIEF WHILE
NOT IMPOSSIBLE ARE NOT PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THE COURTS. 

  II.  WAGES. 

THE TWO COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD THE PETITIONER ENTITLED TO WAGES UNTIL
THE COMPLETION OF THE VOYAGE AT THE PORT OF NEW YORK ON MARCH 28,
1944.  THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO WAGES FOR TWELVE
MONTHS FROM DECEMBER 16, 1943, THE DATE HE JOINED THE VESSEL.  THE
ARTICLES OF THE HAVILAND, SIGNED BY PETITIONER, WERE ON A PRINTED FORM
WHICH LEFT A VACANT SPACE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING FOOTNOTE:  "HERE THE
VOYAGE IS TO BE DESCRIBED, AND THE PLACES NAMED AT WHICH THE SHIP IS TO
TOUCH; OR, IF THAT CANNOT BE DONE, THE GENERAL NATURE AND PROBABLE
LENGTH OF THE VOYAGE IS TO BE STATED, AND THE PORT OR COUNTRY AT WHICH
THE VOYAGE IS TO TERMINATE."  THE HAVILAND'S ARTICLES, FOR SECURITY
REASONS DURING THE WAR, DID NOT DESCRIBE THE VOYAGE IN SUCH TERMS BUT
PROVIDED, "FROM THE PORT OF PHILADELPHIA, TO A POINT IN THE ATLANTIC
OCEAN TO THE EASTWARD OF PHILA.  AND THENCE TO SUCH PORTS AND PLACES IN
ANY PART OF THE WORLD AS THE MASTER MAY DIRECT OR AS MAY BE ORDERED OR
DIRECTED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY DEPARTMENT, COMMISSION
OR AGENCY THEREOF  ...  AND BACK TO A FINAL PORT OF DISCHARGE IN THE
UNITED STATES, FOR A TERM OF TIME NOT EXCEEDING 12(TWELVE) CALENDAR
MONTHS."  IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE GENERAL CUSTOM IN SHIPS, OTHER
THAN THE COASTWISE TRADE, IS TO SIGN ON FOR A VOYAGE RATHER THAN FOR A
FIXED PERIOD.  BUT IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE LAST CLAUSE OF THIS
CONTRACT OBLIGATED THE PETITIONER TO SERVE FOR TWELVE CALENDAR MONTHS,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TERMINATION OF THE VOYAGE, AND THEREFORE GAVE HIM
THE RIGHT TO WAGES FOR A SIMILAR PERIOD.  THE CONTRACT IS NOT AN
UNCOMMON FORM AND COMPLIED WITH WAR-TIME REQUIREMENTS AS TO VOYAGE
CONTRACTS.  FN5  WE THINK, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CUSTOM OF THE INDUSTRY
AND THE CONDITION OF THE TIMES, THERE IS NOTHING AMBIGUOUS ABOUT IT AND
THAT IT OBLIGATED THE PETITIONER ONLY FOR THE VOYAGE ON WHICH THE SHIP
WAS ENGAGED WHEN HE SIGNED ON AND THAT, WHEN IT TERMINATED AT A PORT OF
DISCHARGE IN THE UNITED STATES, HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO
REIMBARK FOR A SECOND VOYAGE.  THE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD APPEARS AS A
LIMITATION UPON THE DURATION OF THE VOYAGE AND NOT AS A STATED PERIOD
OF EMPLOYMENT.  WE THINK THE COURT BELOW MADE NO ERROR IN DETERMINING
THE WAGES. 

FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND
FISHERIES, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 6726 AND H.R. 6881, P. 83. 

FN2  ID., P. 131. 

FN3  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WENSLEYDALE, 41 F. 829; THE BOUKER NO. 2,
241 F. 831; SKOLAR V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 60 F.2D 893; THE POINT
FERMIN, 70 F.2D 602. 

FN4  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, LINDGREN V. SHEPARD S.S. CO., 108 F.2D 806;
THE JOSEPHINE & MARY, 120 F.2D 459; LUKSICH V. MISETICH, 140 F.2D 812. 

FN5  7 FED. REG. 2477. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I. WAGES.  - THE ARTICLES BOUND FARRELL TO A VOYAGE ON THE VESSEL
WHICH WAS EN ROUTE TO "A POINT IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN TO THE EASTWARD OF
PHILA.  AND THENCE TO SUCH PORTS AND PLACES IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD AS
THE MASTER MAY DIRECT OR AS MAY BE ORDERED OR DIRECTED BY THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY DEPARTMENT, COMMISSION OR AGENCY THEREOF  ...
AND BACK TO A FINAL PORT OF DISCHARGE IN THE UNITED STATES, FOR A TERM
OF TIME NOT EXCEEDING 12(TWELVE) CALENDAR MONTHS."  IF THIS WERE A
COASTWISE VOYAGE, THERE WOULD BE LITTLE QUESTION THAT FARRELL COULD
RECOVER HIS WAGES FOR THE ENTIRE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD.  SEE ENOCHASSON
V. FREEPORT SULPHUR CO., 7 F.2D 675; JONES V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 155
F.2D 992, 996.  I AGREE WITH JUDGE KIRKPATRICK THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF
THOSE CASES IS LIKEWISE APPLICABLE TO FOREIGN VOYAGES.  SHIELDS V.
UNITED STATES, 73 F.SUPP.  862, 866.  ANY DIFFERENCE IS NOT APPARENT. 
IN EACH THE SEAMAN BINDS HIMSELF FOR THE PERIOD.  THE OBLIGATIONS TO
PAY WAGES SHOULD BE COTERMINOUS WITH THAT RESPONSIBILITY.  ENOCHASSON
V. FREEPORT SULPHUR CO., SUPRA.  THE NUMBER OF VOYAGES MADE IS
THEREFORE IMMATERIAL.  IT IS THE EXTENT OF THE VOYAGE THAT COULD BE
DEMANDED THAT IS CONTROLLING. 

II.  MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  - CALMAR S.S. CORP. V. TAYLOR, 303 U.S.
525, INVOLVED MAINTENANCE AND CURE  FN1  FOR AN INCURABLE DISEASE WHICH
MANIFESTED ITSELF DURING THE SEAMAN'S EMPLOYMENT BUT WAS NOT CAUSED BY
IT.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE SHIPOWNER'S LIABILITY ENDED WHEN THE
SEAMAN WAS CURED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, RESERVING THE QUESTION WHETHER A
DIFFERENT RULE WOULD APPLY IF THE INCAPACITY AROSE FROM THE
EMPLOYMENT.  P. 530.  THE QUESTION RESERVED IS NOW PRESENTED, FOR AN
INJURY RECEIVED ON RETURNING TO A SHIP FROM SHORE LEAVE IS PLAINLY
INCURRED IN THE SERVICE.  AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724;
REED V. CANFIELD, FED. CAS. NO. 11,641.  JUSTICE STORY WAS OF THE VIEW
THAT THE SHIP REMAINED LIABLE UNTIL THE CURE WAS COMPLETED.  REED V.
CANFIELD, SUPRA. THAT WAS IN 1832.  INTERVENING DECISIONS IN THE LOWER
COURTS QUALIFIED THAT VIEW.  IT WAS HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE
AND CURE EXTENDED TO A REASONABLE TIME BEYOND THE END OF THE VOYAGE. 
FN2  THE PROBLEM OF WHAT WAS A REASONABLE TIME REMAINED.  THE TEST
ADOPTED BY THE COURT IS THAT IT EXTENDS THROUGH THE PERIOD WHEN THE
MAXIMUM CURE WITHIN THE REACH OF MEDICAL SCIENCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED. 

BUT THAT TEST IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DISCRIMINATING. 

EVEN THOUGH A MAXIMUM CURE HAS BEEN EFFECTED, TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
STATES OF BEING MAY RESULT WHEN THE INJURED MAN IS LEFT TOTALLY
DISABLED. 

(1)  HE MAY BE TOTALLY DISABLED BUT NO LONGER IN NEED OF MEDICAL AID
TO CARE FOR THE CONDITION CREATED BY THE INJURY NOR WITHOUT MEANS OF
PROVIDING MAINTENANCE.  THAT IS NOT THE PRESENT CASE, AT LEAST SO FAR
AS MEDICAL CARE IS CONCERNED.  AND WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS TO
MAINTENANCE AND CURE ONE SO SITUATED HAS. 

(2)  ONE INJURED IN THE SERVICE OF A SHIP MAY NOT ONLY BE PERMANENTLY
DISABLED AFTER REACHING THE POINT OF MAXIMUM CURE.  HE MAY ALSO BE IN
NEED OF FUTURE MEDICAL AID TO SUSTAIN THAT CONDITION AND BE WITHOUT
MEANS OF MAINTENANCE.  THESE NEEDS MAY EXTEND TO END OF LIFE.  THAT IS
THE PRESENT CASE, AT LEAST SO FAR AS MEDICAL CARE IS CONCERNED.  FN3
IN THIS SITUATION PAYMENTS TO GIVE CONTINUING NEEDED CARE OF WOUNDS
HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, EVEN THOUGH A MAXIMUM CURE HAS BEEN EFFECTED.  THE
JOSEPHINE & MARY, 120 F.2D 459, 462, 464.  CF. SAUNDERS V. LUCKENBACH
CO., 262 F. 845, 847. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE AN AWARD FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE TO COVER A SIX
MONTH PERIOD AFTER DISCHARGE FROM THE HOSPITAL WAS ALLOWED. 
NEVERTHELESS EVEN THOUGH FARRELL'S EXPENSES OF CARE MAY BE CONTINUING,
THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REFUSED ANY FURTHER AWARD.  I DO NOT BELIEVE
THAT THESE FUTURE EXPENSES SHOULD BE ANY LESS A CHARGE ON THE SHIP THAN
PAST EXPENSES.  TO CONCLUDE AS THE COURT NOW DOES THAT THEY ARE NOT IS
TO IGNORE IN PART THE SALUTARY POLICY SUPPORTING THE DOCTRINE OF
MAINTENANCE AND CURE. 

MAINTENANCE AND CURE IS AN ANCIENT DOCTRINE.  IT REFLECTS IN PART THE
CONCERN WHICH THE STATE HAS HAD FROM AN EARLY DATE IN A POOR AND
IMPROVIDENT CLASS OF WORKERS.  SEE MR. JUSTICE STORY IN HARDEN V.
GORDON, FED. CAS. NO. 6,047.  IT ALSO RECOGNIZES THE IMPERATIVE
NECESSITY OF THE NATION TO MAINTAIN IN PEACE AND WAR A MERCHANT
MARINE.  IF MEN ARE TO GO DOWN TO THE SEA IN SHIPS AND FACE THE PERILS
OF THE OCEAN, THOSE WHO EMPLOY THEM MUST BE SOLICITOUS OF THEIR
WELFARE.  MAINTENANCE AND CURE IS AN INDUCEMENT ON THE PART OF MASTERS
AND OWNERS TO BE SOLICITOUS OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF
SEAMEN WHILE THEY ARE IN THE SERVICE.  IT GIVES A DEGREE OF SECURITY,
THOUGH INJURY OR SICKNESS BE INCURRED.  IT GIVES SERVICE IN THE
MERCHANT MARINE A DIGNITY EQUAL TO THE IMPORTANT FUNCTION IT PERFORMS. 
IT REFLECTS "THE GREAT PUBLIC POLICY OF PRESERVING THIS IMPORTANT CLASS
OF CITIZENS FOR THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE AND MARITIME DEFENCE OF THE
NATION."  ID. AT P. 483. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE INJURIES OF SEAMEN ARISING OUT OF THE SERVICE WERE
MADE A CHARGE AGAINST THE ENTERPRISE TO THE EXTENT AT LEAST OF
MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  THEIR MAINTENANCE AND CURE WAS INDEED PART OF
THE COST OF THE BUSINESS.  IT IS NONETHELESS A LEGITIMATE COST THOUGH
THE EXPENSE CONTINUES BEYOND THE TIME WHEN A MAXIMUM CURE HAS BEEN
EFFECTED.  FN4 

FN1  MAINTENANCE INCLUDES FOOD AND LODGING; AND CURE MEANS CARE.  THE
BOUKER NO. 2, 241 F. 831, 835. 

FN2  THE BOUKER NO. 2, SUPRA; THE MARS, 149 F. 729; THE EASTERN DAWN,
25 F.2D 322; THE TROY, 121 F. 901; GEISTLINGER V. INTERNATIONAL
MERCANTILE MARINE CO., 295 F. 176. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT SAID:  "HE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE SPELLS
AND TO HAVE PAIN IN THE AREA OF THE FRACTURE.  HE WILL NEED TREATMENT
AND MEDICAL CARE FROM TIME TO TIME AND PROBABLY SOME CARE FOR THE REST
OF HIS LIFE.  HE WAS ALWAYS A HEALTHY INDIVIDUAL BEFORE HIS ACCIDENT
AND NEVER SHOWED ANY SIGNS OF EPILEPSY BEFORE THEN.  THE MEDICAL
TESTIMONY ALSO SHOWS THAT HIS CONDITION OF BLINDNESS IS PERMANENT, THAT
IN ALL LIKELIHOOD HIS CONVULSIVE ATTACKS WILL CONTINUE, AND POSSIBLY
BECOME MORE FREQUENT, AND WITHOUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF A FURTHER CURE. 
THE ATTACKS AND HEADACHES MENTIONED WILL REQUIRE SOME CARE FROM TIME TO
TIME WHENEVER THEY PERSIST." 

FN4  THE SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY CONVENTION OF 1936, 54 STAT. 1693,
DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONTRARY RESULT.  ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPH 1, PROVIDES: 

"THE SHIPOWNER SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF MEDICAL CARE
AND MAINTENANCE UNTIL THE SICK OR INJURED PERSON HAS BEEN CURED, OR
UNTIL THE SICKNESS OR INCAPACITY HAS BEEN DECLARED OF A PERMANENT
CHARACTER." 

BUT ART. 12 CONTAINS A POWER TO DEPART FROM THAT STANDARD IN THIS
TYPE OF CASE.  IT PROVIDES: 

"NOTHING IN THIS CONVENTION SHALL AFFECT ANY LAW, AWARD, CUSTOM OR
AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHIPOWNERS AND SEAMEN WHICH ENSURES MORE FAVOURABLE
CONDITIONS THAN THOSE PROVIDED BY THIS CONVENTION." 
..END :







HOOD & SONS V. DU MOND, 336 U.S. 525 


NO. 92.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13-14, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 4, 1949.  - 297
N.Y. 209, 78 N.E.2D 476, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER, A DISTRIBUTOR OF MILK IN MASSACHUSETTS OPERATING THREE
RECEIVING PLANTS LICENSED UNDER THE AGRICULTURE & MARKETS LAW OF NEW
YORK, APPLIED TO THE NEW YORK COMMISSIONER FOR A LICENSE FOR AN
ADDITIONAL PLANT.  THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE
PROPOSED EXPANSION OF PETITIONER'S FACILITIES WOULD REDUCE THE SUPPLY
OF MILK FOR LOCAL MARKETS AND WOULD RESULT IN DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION
IN A MARKET ALREADY ADEQUATELY SERVED.  HELD:  THE NEW YORK LAW, SO
APPLIED, VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP.
526-545. 

1.  A STATE MAY NOT PROMOTE ITS OWN LOCAL ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES BY
CURTAILING THE VOLUME OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PP. 530-539. 

2.  THE FACT THAT PETITIONER IS LICENSED TO OPERATE ITS EXISTING
PLANTS WITHOUT CONDITION OR LIMITATION AS TO THE QUANTITIES OF MILK IT
MAY PURCHASE, DOES NOT JUSTIFY DENIAL OF THE LICENSE FOR AN ADDITIONAL
PLANT.  PP. 539-540. 

3.  THE STATE'S DENIAL OF THE LICENSE ON THE GROUNDS ASSIGNED IS NOT
CONSISTENT WITH NOR AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AGREEMENT ACT.  PP. 540-545. 

H. P. HOOD & SONS, INC. V. DU MOND, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND
MARKETS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, ALBANY COUNTY. 

PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF ITS LICENSE UNDER THE
NEW YORK AGRICULTURE & MARKETS LAW WAS DENIED BY THE STATE
COMMISSIONER, WHOSE ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS OVER OBJECTIONS TO ITS VALIDITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  297 N.Y. 209, 78 N.E.2D 476.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 808.  REVERSED, P. 545. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CONCERNS THE POWER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO DENY
ADDITIONAL FACILITIES TO ACQUIRE AND SHIP MILK IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WHERE THE GROUNDS OF DENIAL ARE THAT SUCH LIMITATION UPON INTERSTATE
BUSINESS WILL PROTECT AND ADVANCE LOCAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS. 

H.P. HOOD & SONS, INC., A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, HAS LONG
DISTRIBUTED MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS TO INHABITANTS OF BOSTON.  THAT CITY
OBTAINS ABOUT 90% OF ITS FLUID MILK FROM STATES OTHER THAN
MASSACHUSETTS.  DAIRIES LOCATED IN NEW YORK STATE SINCE ABOUT 1900 HAVE
BEEN AMONG THE SOURCES OF BOSTON'S SUPPLY, THEIR CONTRIBUTION HAVING
VARIED BUT DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS APPROXIMATING 8%. THE AREA IN
WHICH HOOD HAS BEEN DENIED AN ADDITIONAL LICENSE TO MAKE INTERSTATE
PURCHASES HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS A PART OF THE BOSTON MILKSHED FROM
WHICH BOTH THE HOOD COMPANY AND A COMPETITOR HAVE SHIPPED TO BOSTON. 

THE STATE COURTS HAVE HELD AND IT IS CONCEDED HERE THAT HOOD'S ENTIRE
BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, PRESENT AND PROPOSED, IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THIS HOOD HAS CONDUCTED FOR SOME TIME BY MEANS OF THREE RECEIVING
DEPOTS, WHERE IT TAKES RAW MILK FROM FARMERS.  THE MILK IS NOT
PROCESSED IN NEW YORK BUT IS WEIGHED, TESTED AND, IF NECESSARY, COOLED
AND ON THE SAME DAY SHIPPED AS FLUID MILK TO BOSTON.  THESE EXISTING
PLANTS HAVE BEEN OPERATED UNDER LICENSE FROM THE STATE AND ARE NOT IN
QUESTION HERE AS THE STATE HAS LICENSED HOOD TO CONTINUE THEM.  THE
CONTROVERSY CONCERNS A PROPOSED ADDITIONAL PLANT FOR THE SAME KIND OF
OPERATION AT GREENWICH, NEW YORK.  FN1 

ARTICLE 21 OF THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW OF NEW YORK  FN2
FORBIDS A DEALER TO BUY MILK FROM PRODUCERS UNLESS LICENSED TO DO SO BY
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS.  FOR THE LICENSE HE MUST
PAY A SUBSTANTIAL FEE AND FURNISH A BOND TO ASSURE PROMPT PAYMENT TO
PRODUCERS FOR MILK.  UNDER SEC. 258, THE COMMISSIONER MAY NOT GRANT A
LICENSE UNLESS SATISFIED "THAT THE APPLICANT IS QUALIFIED BY CHARACTER,
EXPERIENCE, FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND EQUIPMENT TO PROPERLY CONDUCT
THE PROPOSED BUSINESS."  FN3  THE HOOD COMPANY CONCEDEDLY HAS MET ALL
THE FOREGOING TESTS AND LICENSE FOR AN ADDITIONAL PLANT WAS NOT DENIED
FOR ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S DENIAL WAS BASED ON FURTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS
LICENSE WILL NOT TEND TO A DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION IN A MARKET ALREADY
ADEQUATELY SERVED, AND THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE IS IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST." 

UPON THE HEARING PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE, MILK DEALERS COMPETING WITH
HOOD AS BUYERS IN THE AREA OPPOSED LICENSING THE PROPOSED GREENWICH
PLANT.  THEY COMPLAINED THAT HOOD, BY REASON OF CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
IT SOLD IN BOSTON, HAD COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES UNDER APPLICABLE FEDERAL
MILK ORDERS, BOSTON HEALTH REGULATIONS, AND OPA CEILING PRICES.  THERE
WAS ALSO EVIDENCE OF A TEMPORARY SHORTAGE OF SUPPLY IN THE TROY, NEW
YORK MARKET DURING THE FALL AND WINTER OF 1945-46.  THE COMMISSIONER
WAS URGED NOT TO ALLOW HOOD TO COMPETE FOR ADDITIONAL SUPPLIES OF MILK
OR TO TAKE ON PRODUCERS THEN DELIVERING TO OTHER DEALERS. 

THE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT HOOD, IF LICENSED AT GREENWICH, WOULD
PERMIT ITS PRESENT SUPPLIERS, AT THEIR OPTION, TO DELIVER AT THE NEW
PLANT RATHER THAN THE OLD ONES AND FOR A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER THIS WOULD
MEAN SHORTER HAULS AND SAVINGS IN DELIVERY COSTS.  THE NEW PLANT ALSO
WOULD ATTRACT TWENTY TO THIRTY PRODUCERS, SOME OF WHOSE MILK HOOD
ANTICIPATES WILL OR MAY BE DIVERTED FROM OTHER BUYERS.  OTHER LARGE
MILK DISTRIBUTORS HAVE PLANTS WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA AND DEALERS
SERVING TROY OBTAIN MILK IN THE LOCALITY.  HE FOUND THAT TROY WAS
INADEQUATELY SUPPLIED DURING THE PRECEDING SHORT SEASON. 

IN DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR EXPANDED FACILITIES, THE COMMISSIONER
STATES HIS GROUNDS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF APPLICANT IS PERMITTED TO EQUIP AND OPERATE ANOTHER MILK PLANT IN
THIS TERRITORY, AND TO TAKE ON PRODUCERS NOW DELIVERING TO PLANTS OTHER
THAN THOSE WHICH IT OPERATES, IT WILL TEND TO REDUCE THE VOLUME OF MILK
RECEIVED AT THE PLANTS WHICH LOSE THOSE PRODUCERS, AND WILL TEND TO
INCREASE THE COST OF HANDLING MILK IN THOSE PLANTS. 

"IF APPLICANT TAKES PRODUCERS NOW DELIVERING MILK TO LOCAL MARKETS
SUCH AS TROY, IT WILL HAVE A TENDENCY TO DEPRIVE SUCH MARKETS OF A
SUPPLY NEEDED DURING THE SHORT SEASON. 

"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PRODUCER IS WITHOUT A MARKET FOR HIS
MILK.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PRODUCERS NOT NOW DELIVERING MILK
TO APPLICANT WOULD RECEIVE ANY HIGHER PRICE, WERE THEY TO DELIVER THEIR
MILK TO APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PLANT. 

"THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE TO APPLICANT WHICH WOULD PERMIT IT TO
OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL PLANT, WOULD TEND TO A DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION IN
A MARKET ALREADY ADEQUATELY SERVED, AND WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  FN4 

DENIAL OF THE LICENSE WAS SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS  FN5
OVER CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS DULY URGED UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
FN6  AND, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED, WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BY CERTIORARI.  FN7 

PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MILK ARE SO INTIMATELY RELATED TO
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE THAT THE NEED FOR REGULATION TO PROTECT THOSE
INTERESTS HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AND IS, FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDPOINT, HARDLY CONTROVERSIAL.  ALSO, THE ECONOMY OF THE INDUSTRY IS
SO ECCENTRIC THAT ECONOMIC CONTROLS HAVE BEEN FOUND AT ONCE NECESSARY
AND DIFFICULT.  THESE HAVE EVOLVED DETAILED, INTRICATE AND
COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS, INCLUDING PRICEFIXING.  THEY HAVE BEEN MUCH
LITIGATED BUT WERE GENERALLY SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT AS WITHIN THE
POWERS OF THE STATE OVER ITS INTERNAL COMMERCE AS AGAINST THE CLAIM
THAT THEY VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN8 NEBBIA V. NEW YORK,
291 U.S. 502; HEGEMAN FARMS CORP. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 163; BORDEN'S
CO. V. TEN EYCK, 297 U.S. 251.  BUT SEE MAYFLOWER FARMS V. TEN EYCK,
297 U.S. 266.  AS THE STATES EXTENDED THEIR EFFORTS TO CONTROL VARIOUS
PHASES OF EXPORT AND IMPORT ALSO, QUESTIONS WERE RAISED AS TO
LIMITATIONS ON STATE POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

PENNSYLVANIA ENACTED A LAW INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO PROTECT PRODUCERS
WHICH WERE VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THIS NEW YORK ACT.  A CONCERN WHICH
OPERATED A RECEIVING PLANT IN PENNSYLVANIA FROM WHICH IT SHIPPED MILK
TO THE NEW YORK CITY MARKET CHALLENGED THE ACT UPON GROUNDS THUS
DEFINED BY THIS COURT:  "THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE ACT, IF
CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE IT TO OBTAIN A LICENSE, TO FILE A BOND FOR THE
PROTECTION OF PRODUCERS, AND TO PAY THE FARMERS THE PRICES PRESCRIBED
BY THE BOARD, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATES AND BURDENS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  MILK BOARD V. EISENBERG CO., 306 U.S. 346, 350.  THIS
COURT, SPECIFICALLY LIMITING ITS JUDGMENT TO THE ACT'S PROVISIONS WITH
RESPECT TO LICENSE, BOND AND REGULATION OF PRICES TO BE PAID TO
PRODUCERS, ID. AT 352, CONSIDERED THEIR EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
"INCIDENTAL AND NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION, IN THE ABSENCE OF
REGULATION BY CONGRESS."  ID. AT 353. 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY BEGINS WHERE THE EISENBERG DECISION LEFT
OFF.  NEW YORK'S REGULATIONS, DESIGNED TO ASSURE PRODUCERS A FAIR PRICE
AND A RESPONSIBLE PURCHASER, AND CONSUMERS A SANITARY AND MODERNLY
EQUIPPED HANDLER, ARE NOT CHALLENGED HERE BUT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 
IT IS ONLY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS, IMPOSED FOR THE AVOWED PURPOSE AND
WITH THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF CURTAILING THE VOLUME OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO AID LOCAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS, THAT ARE IN QUESTION HERE,
AND NO SUCH MEASURES WERE ATTEMPTED OR SUCH ENDS SOUGHT TO BE SERVED IN
THE ACT BEFORE THE COURT IN THE EISENBERG CASE.  FN9 

OUR DECISION IN A MILK LITIGATION MOST RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSY DEALS WITH THE CONVERSE OF THE PRESENT SITUATION.  BALDWIN
V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511.  IN THAT CASE, NEW YORK PLACED CONDITIONS AND
LIMITATIONS ON THE LOCAL SALE OF MILK IMPORTED FROM VERMONT DESIGNED IN
PRACTICAL EFFECT TO EXCLUDE IT, WHILE HERE ITS ORDER PROPOSES TO LIMIT
THE LOCAL FACILITIES FOR PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL MILK SO AS TO WITHHOLD
MILK FROM EXPORT.  THE STATE AGREED THEN, AS NOW, THAT THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE PROHIBITS IT FROM DIRECTLY CURTAILING MOVEMENT OF MILK INTO OR
OUT OF THE STATE.  BUT IN THE EARLIER CASE, IT CONTENDED THAT THE SAME
RESULT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY CONTROLLING DELIVERY, BOTTLING AND SALE
AFTER ARRIVAL, WHILE HERE IT SAYS IT CAN DO SO BY CURTAILING FACILITIES
FOR ITS PURCHASE AND RECEIPT BEFORE IT IS SHIPPED OUT.  IN NEITHER CASE
IS THE MEASURE SUPPORTED BY HEALTH OR SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS BUT SOLELY
BY PROTECTION OF LOCAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS, SUCH AS SUPPLY FOR LOCAL
CONSUMPTION AND LIMITATION OF COMPETITION.  THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY
REJECTED THE STATE'S CONTENTION IN THE SEELIG CASE AND HELD THAT THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, PROHIBITS
SUCH REGULATIONS FOR SUCH ENDS. 

THE OPINION WAS BY MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, EXPERIENCED IN THE MILK
PROBLEMS OF NEW YORK AND FAVORABLY DISPOSED TOWARD THE EFFORTS OF THE
STATE TO CONTROL THE INDUSTRY.  HEGEMAN FARMS CORP. V. BALDWIN, 293
U.S. 163; BORDEN'S CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, CONCURRENCE AT 213;
MAYFLOWER FARMS V. TEN EYCK, 297 U.S. 266, DISSENT AT 274.  IT
RECOGNIZED, AS DO WE, BROAD POWER IN THE STATE TO PROTECT ITS
INHABITANTS AGAINST PERILS TO HEALTH OR SAFETY, FRAUDULENT TRADERS AND
HIGHWAY HAZARDS, EVEN BY USE OF MEASURES WHICH BEAR ADVERSELY UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT IT LAID REPEATED EMPHASIS UPON THE PRINCIPLE
THAT THE STATE MAY NOT PROMOTE ITS OWN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES BY
CURTAILMENT OR BURDENING OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE CONSTITUTION, SAID MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO FOR THE UNANIMOUS COURT,
"WAS FRAMED UPON THE THEORY THAT THE PEOPLES OF THE SEVERAL STATES MUST
SINK OR SWIM TOGETHER, AND THAT IN THE LONG RUN PROSPERITY AND
SALVATION ARE IN UNION AND NOT DIVISION."  FN10  HE REITERATED THAT THE
ECONOMIC OBJECTIVE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ANY HEALTH, SAFETY AND FAIR
DEALING PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION, WAS THE ROOT OF ITS INVALIDITY.  THE
ACTION OF THE STATE WOULD "NEUTRALIZE THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF FREE
TRADE AMONG THE STATES."  FN11  "SUCH A POWER, IF EXERTED, WILL SET A
BARRIER TO TRAFFIC BETWEEN ONE STATE AND ANOTHER AS EFFECTIVE AS IF
CUSTOMS DUTIES, EQUAL TO THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL, HAD BEEN LAID UPON THE
THING TRANSPORTED."  FN12  "IF NEW YORK, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE
ECONOMIC WELFARE OF HER FARMERS, MAY GUARD THEM AGAINST COMPETITION
WITH THE CHEAPER PRICES OF VERMONT, THE DOOR HAS BEEN OPENED TO
RIVALRIES AND REPRISALS THAT WERE MEANT TO BE AVERTED BY SUBJECTING
COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES TO THE POWER OF THE NATION."  N13  AND
AGAIN, "NEITHER THE POWER TO TAX NOR THE POLICE POWER MAY BE USED BY
THE STATE OF DESTINATION WITH THE AIM AND EFFECT OF ESTABLISHING AN
ECONOMIC BARRIER AGAINST COMPETITION WITH THE PRODUCTS OF ANOTHER STATE
OR THE LABOR OF ITS RESIDENTS.  RESTRICTIONS SO CONTRIVED ARE AN
UNREASONABLE CLOG UPON THE MOBILITY OF COMMERCE.  THEY SET UP WHAT IS
EQUIVALENT TO A RAMPART OF CUSTOMS DUTIES DESIGNED TO NEUTRALIZE
ADVANTAGES BELONGING TO THE PLACE OF ORIGIN.  THEY ARE THUS HOSTILE IN
CONCEPTION AS WELL AS BURDENSOME IN RESULT."  FN14 

THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER OF THE STATE TO SHELTER ITS PEOPLE
FROM MENACES TO THEIR HEALTH OR SAFETY AND FROM FRAUD, EVEN WHEN THOSE
DANGERS EMANATE FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND ITS LACK OF POWER TO
RETARD, BURDEN OR CONSTRICT THE FLOW OF SUCH COMMERCE FOR THEIR
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, IS ONE DEEPLY ROOTED IN BOTH OUR HISTORY AND OUR
LAW. 

WHEN VICTORY RELIEVED THE COLONIES FROM THE PRESSURE FOR SOLIDARITY
THAT WAR HAD EXERTED, A DRIFT TOWARD ANARCHY AND COMMERCIAL WARFARE
BETWEEN STATES BEGAN.  "  ...  EACH STATE WOULD LEGISLATE ACCORDING TO
ITS ESTIMATE OF ITS OWN INTERESTS, THE IMPORTANCE OF ITS OWN PRODUCTS,
AND THE LOCAL ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES OF ITS POSITION IN A
POLITICAL OR COMMERCIAL VIEW."  THIS CAME "TO THREATEN AT ONCE THE
PEACE AND SAFETY OF THE UNION."  STORY, THE CONSTITUTION, SECS. 259,
260.  SEE FISKE, THE CRITICAL PERIOD OF AMERICAN HISTORY, 144; WARREN,
THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTION, 567.  THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR WHICH
VIRGINIA INITIATED THE MOVEMENT WHICH ULTIMATELY PRODUCED THE
CONSTITUTION WAS "TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE TRADE OF THE UNITED
STATES; TO EXAMINE THE RELATIVE SITUATIONS AND TRADE OF THE SAID
STATES; TO CONSIDER HOW FAR A UNIFORM SYSTEM IN THEIR COMMERCIAL
REGULATIONS MAY BE NECESSARY TO THEIR COMMON INTEREST AND THEIR
PERMANENT HARMONY" AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
VIRGINIA IN JANUARY OF 1786 NAMED COMMISSIONERS AND PROPOSED THEIR
MEETING WITH THOSE FROM OTHER STATES.  DOCUMENTS, FORMATION OF THE
UNION, H.R. DOC. NO. 398, 12 H. DOCS., 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 38. 
THE DESIRE OF THE FOREFATHERS TO FEDERALIZE REGULATION OF FOREIGN AND
INTERSTATE COMMERCE STANDS IN SHARP CONTRAST TO THEIR JEALOUS
PRESERVATION OF THE STATE'S POWER OVER ITS INTERNAL AFFAIRS.  NO OTHER
FEDERAL POWER WAS SO UNIVERSALLY ASSUMED TO BE NECESSARY, NO OTHER
STATE POWER WAS SO READILY RELINQUISHED.  THERE WAS NO DESIRE TO
AUTHORIZE FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH SOCIAL CONDITIONS OR LEGAL
INSTITUTIONS OF THE STATES.  EVEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS WERE
FRAMED ONLY AS A LIMITATION UPON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS.  THE STATES
WERE QUITE CONTENT WITH THEIR SEVERAL AND DIVERSE CONTROLS OVER MOST
MATTERS BUT, AS MADISON HAS INDICATED, "WANT OF A GENERAL POWER OVER
COMMERCE LED TO AN EXERCISE OF THIS POWER SEPARATELY, BY THE STATES,
WCH NOT ONLY PROVED ABORTIVE, BUT ENGENDERED RIVAL, CONFLICTING AND
ANGRY REGULATIONS."  3 FARRAND, RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION,
547. 

THE NECESSITY OF CENTRALIZED REGULATION OF COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES
WAS SO OBVIOUS AND SO FULLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE FEW WORDS OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE WERE LITTLE ILLUMINATED BY DEBATE.  BUT THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CLAUSE WAS NOT LOST AND ITS EFFECT WAS IMMEDIATE
AND SALUTARY.  WE ARE TOLD BY SO RESPONSIBLE AN AUTHORITY AS MR.
JEFFERSON'S FIRST APPOINTEE TO THIS COURT THAT "THERE WAS NOT A STATE
IN THE UNION, IN WHICH THERE DID NOT, AT THAT TIME, EXIST A VARIETY OF
COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS; CONCERNING WHICH IT IS TOO MUCH TO SUPPOSE,
THAT THE WHOLE GROUND COVERED BY THOSE REGULATIONS WAS IMMEDIATELY
ASSUMED BY ACTUAL LEGISLATION, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNION.  BUT
WHERE WAS THE EXISTING STATUTE ON THIS SUBJECT, THAT A STATE ATTEMPTED
TO EXECUTE?  OR BY WHAT STATE WAS IT EVER THOUGHT NECESSARY TO REPEAL
THOSE STATUTES?  BY COMMON CONSENT, THOSE LAWS DROPPED LIFELESS FROM
THEIR STATUTE BOOKS, FOR WANT OF THE SUSTAINING POWER, THAT HAD BEEN
RELINQUISHED TO CONGRESS."  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, CONCURRING
OPINION AT 226. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS ONE OF THE MOST PROLIFIC SOURCES OF NATIONAL
POWER AND AN EQUALLY PROLIFIC SOURCE OF CONFLICT WITH LEGISLATION OF
THE STATE.  WHILE THE CONSTITUTION VESTS IN CONGRESS THE POWER TO
REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES, IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT THE STATES MAY
OR MAY NOT DO IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, NOR HOW TO DRAW
THE LINE BETWEEN WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES. 
PERHAPS EVEN MORE THAN BY INTERPRETATION OF ITS WRITTEN WORD, THIS
COURT HAS ADVANCED THE SOLIDARITY AND PROSPERITY OF THIS NATION BY THE
MEANING IT HAS GIVEN TO THESE GREAT SILENCES OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, IS AN EXPLICIT, IMPRESSIVE, RECENT
AND UNANIMOUS CONDEMNATION BY THIS COURT OF ECONOMIC RESTRAINTS ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BUT IT DOES NOT STAND
ALONE.  THIS COURT CONSISTENTLY HAS REBUFFED ATTEMPTS OF STATES TO
ADVANCE THEIR OWN COMMERCIAL INTERESTS BY CURTAILING THE MOVEMENT OF
ARTICLES OF COMMERCE, EITHER INTO OR OUT OF THE STATE, WHILE GENERALLY
SUPPORTING THEIR RIGHT TO IMPOSE EVEN BURDENSOME REGULATIONS IN THE
INTEREST OF LOCAL HEALTH AND SAFETY.  AS MOST STATES SERVE THEIR OWN
INTERESTS BEST BY SENDING THEIR PRODUCE TO MARKET, THE CASES IN WHICH
THIS COURT HAS BEEN OBLIGED TO DEAL WITH PROHIBITIONS OR LIMITATIONS BY
STATES UPON EXPORTS OF ARTICLES OF COMMERCE ARE NOT NUMEROUS.  HOWEVER,
IN A LEADING CASE, OKLAHOMA V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO., 221 U.S. 229,
THE COURT DENIED CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY TO A STATUTE BY WHICH
OKLAHOMA, BY REGULATION OF GAS COMPANIES AND PIPE LINES, SOUGHT TO
RESTRICT THE EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS.  THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN A STATE
RECOGNIZES AN ARTICLE TO BE A SUBJECT OF COMMERCE, IT CANNOT PROHIBIT
IT FROM BEING A SUBJECT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THAT THE RIGHT TO
ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT THE GIFT OF A STATE, AND THAT A
STATE CANNOT REGULATE OR RESTRAIN IT. 

LATER WEST VIRGINIA, BY ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE, UNDERTOOK REGULATION
OF PIPE-LINE COMPANIES INTENDED TO KEEP WITHIN WEST VIRGINIA ALL
NATURAL GAS THERE PRODUCED THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED FOR LOCAL NEEDS. 
THIS COURT HELD THAT THE STATE COULD NOT ACCORD TO ITS OWN CONSUMERS A
PREFERRED RIGHT OF PURCHASE OVER CONSUMERS IN OTHER STATES AND IN
LANGUAGE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE BEFORE US NOW SAID, "MUCH OF THE
BUSINESS IS INTERSTATE AND HAS GROWN UP THROUGH A COURSE OF YEARS. 
WEST VIRGINIA ENCOURAGED AND SANCTIONED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PART OF
THE BUSINESS AND HAS PROFITED GREATLY BY IT.  HER PRESENT EFFORT,
RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD, IS TO SUBORDINATE THAT PART TO THE LOCAL BUSINESS
WITHIN HER BORDERS.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS IN EFFECT AN ATTEMPT TO
REGULATE THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE LOCAL
CONSUMERS.  BUT THIS SHE MAY NOT DO."  PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA,
262 U.S. 553, AT 597, 598. 

IN FOSTER PACKING CO. V. HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 1, THE COURT CITED THESE
TWO CASES AS AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT "A STATE IS WITHOUT
POWER TO PREVENT PRIVATELY OWNED ARTICLES OF TRADE FROM BEING SHIPPED
AND SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO
SATISFY LOCAL DEMANDS OR BECAUSE THEY ARE NEEDED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE."  278 U.S. 1, 10.  THE COURT ALSO POINTED OUT THAT "THE PURPOSE
(OF THE STATUTE THERE INVOLVED) IS NOT TO RETAIN THE SHRIMP FOR THE USE
OF THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA; IT IS TO FAVOR THE CANNING OF THE MEAT AND
THE MANUFACTURE OF BRAN IN LOUISIANA  ...  "  ID., AT 13.  THUS IN THE
FOSTER CASE, AND IN THE COMPANION CASE JOHNSON V. HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 16,
ALTHOUGH THE ARTICLES SOUGHT TO BE REGULATED WERE SHRIMP AND OYSTERS,
WHICH UNDER ORDINARY CONDITIONS MIGHT NOT BE CONSIDERED SUBJECTS OF
COMMERCE, THE COURT INVALIDATED STATE ENACTMENTS ATTEMPTING TO PROMOTE
LOCAL INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IN PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, CALIFORNIA'S RESTRICTIONS ON SALES
OF RAISINS WITHIN THE STATE TO THOSE WHO WERE THERE PROCESSING AND
PACKING THEM WERE ATTACKED AS INVALID BECAUSE APPROXIMATELY 95% OF THE
CROP WOULD FIND ITS WAY INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AFTER PROCESSING AND
PACKING.  HOWEVER, THE COURT SAID:  "  ...  NO CASE HAS GONE SO FAR AS
TO HOLD THAT A STATE COULD NOT LICENSE OR OTHERWISE REGULATE THE SALE
OF ARTICLES WITHIN THE STATE BECAUSE THE BUYER, AFTER PROCESSING AND
PACKING THEM, WILL, IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, SELL AND SHIP
THEM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ...  THE REGULATION IS THUS APPLIED TO
TRANSACTIONS WHOLLY INTRASTATE BEFORE THE RAISINS ARE READY FOR
SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  317 U.S. 341, AT 361.  THIS
REGULATION OF SALE TO LOCAL PROCESSORS WAS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE
WHICH WERE HELD INVALID IN LEMKE V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50, AND
SHAFER V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 268 U.S. 189, BECAUSE THE REGULATION IN
THE EARLIER CASES WAS "OF THE BUSINESS OF THOSE WHO PURCHASED GRAIN
WITHIN THE STATE FOR IMMEDIATE SHIPMENT OUT OF IT."  IBID. IN THOSE
CASES, THE REGULATION WAS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF.  ANOTHER
ELEMENT IN THE PARKER CASE WHICH LED THE COURT TO SUSTAIN THE
CALIFORNIA REGULATION WAS THAT IT WAS ONE WHICH THE POLICY OF CONGRESS
WAS TO AID AND ENCOURAGE, AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE HAD APPROVED
THE STATE PROGRAM BY LOANS. 

THE MOST RECENT CASE OF THIS KIND, TOOMER V. WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385,
INVOLVED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A SOUTH CAROLINA REQUIREMENT THAT THE
OWNERS OF SHRIMP BOATS FISHING OFF ITS SHORES DOCK AT A SOUTH CAROLINA
PORT AND UNLOAD, PACK AND STAMP THEIR CATCH WITH A TAX STAMP BEFORE
SHIPPING OR TRANSPORTING IT TO ANOTHER STATE.  IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT
THE EFFECT OF THIS SECTION OF THE STATUTE WAS TO DIVERT TO SOUTH
CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE GO TO OTHER
STATES, AND THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT "THE NECESSARY TENDENCY OF THE
STATUTE IS TO IMPOSE AN ARTIFICIAL RIGIDITY ON THE ECONOMIC PATTERN OF
THE INDUSTRY."  334 U.S. 385, 403-404.  IT WAS HELD THAT THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE WAS VIOLATED BY SUCH A PROVISION. 

THIS PRINCIPLE THAT OUR ECONOMIC UNIT IS THE NATION, WHICH ALONE HAS
THE GAMUT OF POWERS NECESSARY TO CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY, INCLUDING THE
VITAL POWER OF ERECTING CUSTOMS BARRIERS AGAINST FOREIGN COMPETITION,
HAS AS ITS COROLLARY THAT THE STATES ARE NOT SEPARABLE ECONOMIC UNITS. 
AS THE COURT SAID IN BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 541, 527, "WHAT IS
ULTIMATE IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONE STATE IN ITS DEALINGS WITH ANOTHER
MAY NOT PLACE ITSELF IN A POSITION OF ECONOMIC ISOLATION."  IN SO
SPEAKING IT BUT FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATE MAY NOT USE ITS
ADMITTED POWERS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ITS PEOPLE AS A
BASIS FOR SUPPRESSING COMPETITION.  IN BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S.
307, THE COURT STRUCK DOWN A STATE ACT BECAUSE, IN THE LANGUAGE OF MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS, "ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE IS NOT REGULATION WITH A VIEW TO
SAFETY OR TO CONSERVATION OF THE HIGHWAYS, BUT THE PROHIBITION OF
COMPETITION."  THE SAME ARGUMENT HERE ADVANCED, THAT LIMITATION OF
COMPETITION WOULD ITSELF CONTRIBUTE TO SAFETY AND CONSERVATION, AND
THEREFORE INDIRECTLY SERVE AN END PERMISSIBLE TO THE STATE, WAS THERE
DECLARED "NOT SOUND."  267 U.S. 307, 315.  IT IS NO BETTER HERE.  THIS
COURT HAS NOT ONLY RECOGNIZED THIS DISABILITY OF THE STATE TO ISOLATE
ITS OWN ECONOMY AS A BASIS FOR STRIKING DOWN PAROCHIAL LEGISLATIVE
POLICIES DESIGNED TO DO SO, BUT IT HAS RECOGNIZED THE INCAPACITY OF THE
STATE TO PROTECT ITS OWN INHABITANTS FROM COMPETITION AS A REASON FOR
SUSTAINING PARTICULAR EXERCISES OF THE COMMERCE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
REACH MATTERS IN WHICH STATES WERE SO DISABLED.  CF. STEWARD MACHINE
CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548; CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S.
495; HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619. 

THE MATERIAL SUCCESS THAT HAS COME TO INHABITANTS OF THE STATES WHICH
MAKE UP THIS FEDERAL FREE TRADE UNIT HAS BEEN THE MOST IMPRESSIVE IN
THE HISTORY OF COMMERCE, BUT THE ESTABLISHED INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE
STATES ONLY EMPHASIZES THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING INTERSTATE MOVEMENT
OF GOODS AGAINST LOCAL BURDENS AND REPRESSIONS.  WE NEED ONLY CONSIDER
THE CONSEQUENCES IF EACH OF THE FEW STATES THAT PRODUCE COPPER, LEAD,
HIGH-GRADE IRON ORE, TIMBER, COTTON, OIL OR GAS SHOULD DECREE THAT
INDUSTRIES LOCATED IN THAT STATE SHALL HAVE PRIORITY.  WHAT FANTASTIC
RIVALRIES AND DISLOCATIONS AND REPRISALS WOULD ENSUE IF SUCH PRACTICES
WERE BEGUN.  OR SUPPOSE THAT THE FIELD OF DISCRIMINATION AND
RETALIATION BE INDUSTRY.  MAY MICHIGAN PROVIDE THAT AUTOMOBILES CANNOT
BE TAKEN OUT OF THAT STATE UNTIL LOCAL DEALERS' DEMANDS ARE FULLY MET? 
WOULD SHE NOT HAVE EVERY ARGUMENT IN THE FAVOR OF SUCH A STATUTE THAT
CAN BE OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF NEW YORK'S LIMITING SALES OF MILK FOR OUT
OF-STATE SHIPMENT TO PROTECT THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF HER COMPETING
DEALERS AND LOCAL CONSUMERS?  COULD OHIO THEN POUNCE UPON THE RUBBER
TIRE INDUSTRY, ON WHICH SHE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL GRIP, TO RETALIATE FOR
MICHIGAN'S AUTO MONOPOLY? 

OUR SYSTEM, FOSTERED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IS THAT EVERY FARMER AND
EVERY CRAFTSMAN SHALL BE ENCOURAGED TO PRODUCE BY THE CERTAINTY THAT HE
WILL HAVE FREE ACCESS TO EVERY MARKET IN THE NATION, THAT NO HOME
EMBARGOES WILL WITHHOLD HIS EXPORTS, AND NO FOREIGN STATE WILL BY
CUSTOMS DUTIES OR REGULATIONS EXCLUDE THEM.  LIKEWISE, EVERY CONSUMER
MAY LOOK TO THE FREE COMPETITION FROM EVERY PRODUCING AREA IN THE
NATION TO PROTECT HIM FROM EXPLOITATION BY ANY.  SUCH WAS THE VISION OF
THE FOUNDERS; SUCH HAS BEEN THE DOCTRINE OF THIS COURT WHICH HAS GIVEN
IT REALITY. 

THE STATE, HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT DENIAL OF THE LICENSE FOR A NEW
PLANT DOES NOT RESTRICT OR OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BECAUSE
PETITIONER HAS BEEN LICENSED AT ITS OTHER PLANTS WITHOUT CONDITION OR
LIMITATION AS TO THE QUANTITIES IT MAY PURCHASE.  HENCE, IT IS SAID,
ALL THAT HAS BEEN DENIED PETITIONER IS A LOCAL CONVENIENCE - THAT OF
BEING ABLE TO BUY AND RECEIVE AT GREENWICH QUANTITIES OF MILK IT IS
FREE TO BUY AT EAGLE BRIDGE AND SALEM.  IT SUGGESTS THAT, BY INCREASED
EFFICIENCY OR ENLARGED CAPACITY AT ITS OTHER PLANTS, PETITIONER MIGHT
SUFFICIENTLY INCREASE ITS SUPPLY THROUGH THOSE FACILITIES. 

THE WEAKNESS OF THIS CONTENTION IS THAT A BUYER HAS TO BUY WHERE
THERE IS A WILLING SELLER, AND THE PECULIARITIES OF THE MILK BUSINESS
NECESSITATE LOCATION OF A RECEIVING AND COOLING STATION FOR NEARBY
PRODUCERS.  THE COMMISSIONER HAS NOT MADE AND THERE IS NOTHING TO
PERSUADE US THAT HE COULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS THAT PETITIONER CAN OBTAIN
SUCH ADDITIONAL SUPPLIES THROUGH ITS EXISTING FACILITIES; INDEED HE
FOUND THAT "APPLICANT HAS EXPERIENCED SOME DIFFICULTY DURING THE FLUSH
SEASON BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY OF THE PLANT FACILITIES TO HANDLE THE
MILK BY 9:00 A.M.," THE TIME ITS RECEIPT IS REQUIRED BY BOSTON HEALTH
AUTHORITIES UNLESS IT IS COOLED BY THE FARMER BEFORE DELIVERY, AND A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF IT IS NOT. 

BUT THE ARGUMENT ALSO ASKS US TO ASSUME THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER
WILL NOT OPERATE IN THE WAY HE FOUND THAT IT WOULD AS A REASON FOR
MAKING IT.  HE FOUND THAT PETITIONER, AT ITS NEW PLANT, WOULD DIVERT
MILK FROM THE PLANTS OF SOME OTHER LARGE HANDLERS IN THE VICINITY,
WHICH PLANTS "CAN HANDLE MORE MILK."  THIS COMPETITION HE DID NOT
APPROVE.  HE ALSO FOUND IT WOULD TEND TO DEPRIVE LOCAL MARKETS OF
NEEDED SUPPLIES DURING THE SHORT SEASON.  IN THE FACE OF AFFIRMATIVE
FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSED PLANT WOULD INCREASE PETITIONER'S SUPPLY, WE
CAN HARDLY BE ASKED TO ASSUME THAT DENIAL OF THE LICENSE WILL NOT DENY
PETITIONER ACCESS TO SUCH ADDED SUPPLIES.  WHILE THE STATE POWER IS
APPLIED IN THIS CASE TO LIMIT EXPANSION BY A HANDLER OF MILK WHO
ALREADY HAS BEEN ALLOWED SOME PURCHASING FACILITIES, THE ARGUMENT FOR
DOING SO, IF SUSTAINED, WOULD BE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE TO EXCLUDE AN
ENTIRELY NEW FOREIGN HANDLER FROM COMING INTO THE STATE TO PURCHASE. 

THE STATE, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT SUCH RESTRAINT OR OBSTRUCTION AS
ITS ORDER IMPOSES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE BECAUSE THE STATE REGULATION COINCIDES WITH, SUPPLEMENTS AND IS
PART OF THE FEDERAL REGULATORY SCHEME.  THIS CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS
HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF "THE FIELD" BUT SHARED IT WITH THE STATE, IT IS
TO BE NOTED, REVERSES THE CONTENTION USUALLY MADE IN COMPARABLE CASES,
WHICH IS THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT FULLY OCCUPIED THE FIELD AND HENCE THE
STATE MAY FILL THE VOID.    CONGRESS, AS A PART OF ITS AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT,  FN15  AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
TO ISSUE ORDERS REGULATING THE HANDLING OF SEVERAL AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING MILK, WHEN THEY ARE WITHIN THE REACH OF ITS
COMMERCE POWER.  AS TO MILK, IT SETS UP, SEC. 8C (5), 7 U.S.C. SEC.
608C (5), A RATHER COMPLICATED SYSTEM OF FIXING PRICES TO BE PAID TO
PRODUCERS THROUGH EQUALIZATION POOLS WHICH DISTRIBUTE THE TOTAL VALUE
OF ALL MILK SOLD IN A SPECIFIED MARKET AMONG THE PRODUCERS SUPPLYING
THAT MARKET.  THIS FEDERAL REGULATION WAS SUSTAINED AND EXPLAINED IN
UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533; H. P. HOOD &
SONS V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 588; SEE ALSO STARK V. WICKARD, 321
U.S. 288.  SECTION 10 OF THE FEDERAL ACT  FN16  ALSO AUTHORIZES FEDERAL
OFFICIALS TO ENGAGE IN CONFERENCES, JOINT HEARINGS AND COOPERATION WITH
THE STATE AUTHORITIES. 

NEW YORK STATE, IN ITS PRESENT AND ANTECEDENT STATUTES, HAS
AUTHORIZED ITS STATE AUTHORITIES TO CONFER WITH FEDERAL OFFICIALS ON
MILK CONTROL PROBLEMS  FN17  AND A SERIES OF CONFERENCES AND JOINT
HEARINGS HAVE BEEN HELD.  THE TWO AUTHORITIES FORMALIZED THEIR
COLLABORATION IN 1938 BY SIGNING A "MEMORANDUM OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
COOPERATION TO BE OBSERVED IN THE FORMULATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
COMPLEMENTARY ORDERS FOR MILK FOR MARKETING AREAS LOCATED WITHIN THE
STATE OF NEW YORK TO BE ISSUED CONCURRENTLY BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS." 

BUT NO FEDERAL APPROVAL OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHALLENGED FEATURES
OF THIS ORDER APPEARS IN ANY OF THESE PROVISIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS.  THE
"MEMORANDUM OF THE PRINCIPLES OF COOPERATION" RELATES ONLY TO MARKETING
AREAS IN NEW YORK, WHILE THE MARKETING AREA SERVED BY HOOD IS ENTIRELY
OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK AND IS CONTROLLED BY FEDERAL ORDER NO. 4,
APPLICABLE TO THE GREATER BOSTON MARKET.  FN18  FEDERAL ORDER NO. 27 IS
APPLICABLE TO THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN MARKET  FN19  AND IT IS AS TO
THIS ORDER THAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS RECOGNIZED BY THE MEMORANDUM
AS ENTITLED TO CONSULTATION.  THERE IS NO SUCH FINANCIAL SUPPORT AS WAS
GIVEN IN PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION CONTEMPLATES AND PERMITS A WIDE LATITUDE
IN WHICH THE STATE MAY EXERCISE ITS POLICE POWER OVER THE LOCAL
FACILITIES FOR HANDLING MILK.  WE ASSUME, THOUGH IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
DECIDE, THAT THE FEDERAL ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE A STATE FROM PLACING
RESTRICTIONS AND OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE WAY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR THE
ENDS AND PURPOSES ALWAYS HELD PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
BUT HERE THE CHALLENGE IS ONLY TO A DENIAL OF FACILITIES FOR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE UPON THE SOLE AND SPECIFIC GROUNDS THAT IT WILL SUBJECT OTHERS
TO COMPETITION AND TAKE SUPPLIES NEEDED LOCALLY, AN END, AS WE HAVE
SHOWN, ALWAYS HELD TO BE PRECLUDED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  WE HAVE NO
DOUBT THAT CONGRESS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST COULD PROHIBIT OR CURTAIL
SHIPMENTS OF MILK IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UNLESS AND UNTIL LOCAL
DEMANDS ARE MET.  NOR DO WE KNOW OF ANY REASON WHY CONGRESS MAY NOT, IF
IT DEEMS IT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, AUTHORIZE THE STATES TO PLACE
SIMILAR RESTRAINTS ON MOVEMENT OF ARTICLES OF COMMERCE.  AND THE
PROVISIONS LOOKING TO STATE COOPERATION MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT
THE STATE IN IMPOSING REGULATIONS APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES,
EVEN IF THEY OTHERWISE MIGHT RUN COUNTER TO THE DECISIONS THAT
COINCIDENCE IS AS FATAL AS CONFLICT WHEN CONGRESS ACTS.  SEE BETHLEHEM
STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 330 U.S. 767.  IT
IS, OF COURSE, A QUITE DIFFERENT THING IF CONGRESS THROUGH ITS AGENTS
FINDS SUCH RESTRICTIONS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ADVANCE THE NATIONAL
WELFARE, THAN IF A LOCALITY IS HELD FREE TO IMPOSE THEM BECAUSE IT,
JUDGING ITS OWN CAUSE, FINDS THEM IN THE INTEREST OF LOCAL PROSPERITY. 

WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE FEDERAL ACT WAS PASSED EXPRESSLY TO
OVERCOME "DISRUPTION OF THE ORDERLY EXCHANGE OF COMMODITIES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AND CONDITIONS FOUND TO "BURDEN AND OBSTRUCT THE
NORMAL CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE," 7 U.S.C. SEC. 601, IT SEEMS
CLEAR THAT WE CAN NOT SUSTAIN THE STATE'S ARGUMENT THAT ITS
RESTRICTIONS HERE INVOLVED SUPPLEMENT AND FURTHER THE FEDERAL SCHEME. 

MOREOVER, WE CAN HARDLY ASSUME THAT THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF THIS
ORDER ADVANCE THE FEDERAL SCHEME OF REGULATION BECAUSE CONGRESS FORBIDS
INCLUSION OF SUCH A POLICY IN A FEDERAL MILK ORDER.  SECTION 8C (5)(G)
OF THE ACT PROVIDES: 

"NO MARKETING AGREEMENT OR ORDER APPLICABLE TO MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS
IN ANY MARKETING AREA SHALL PROHIBIT OR IN ANY MANNER LIMIT, IN THE
CASE OF THE PRODUCTS OF MILK, THE MARKETING IN THAT AREA OF ANY MILK OR
PRODUCT THEREOF PRODUCED IN ANY PRODUCTION AREA IN THE UNITED STATES." 
FN20 

WHILE THERE MAY BE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER THIS
AUTHORIZES THE FEDERAL ORDER TO LIMIT, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT,
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF MILK, SEE BAILEY FARM DAIRY CO. V. ANDERSON, 157
F.2D 87, 96; BAILEY FARM DAIRY CO. V. JONES, 61 F.SUPP.  209, 221 - A
QUESTION UPON WHICH WE EXPRESS NO OPINION - IT IS CLEAR THAT THE POLICY
OF THE PROVISION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE'S CONTENTION THAT IT
MAY, IN ITS OWN INTEREST, IMPOSE SUCH A LIMITATION AS A COINCIDENT OR
SUPPLEMENT TO FEDERAL REGULATION. 

THE ONLY FEDERAL RESTRICTION OF HANDLERS' PURCHASES FROM NEW
PRODUCERS, FOUND IN SEC. 8C (5)(B), AUTHORIZES INCLUSION, IN ORDERS
CONCERNING MILK OR MILK PRODUCTS, OF A CLAUSE PROVIDING THAT FOR
DELIVERIES MADE DURING THE FIRST SIXTY DAYS A NEW PRODUCER SHALL BE
PAID ONLY THE MINIMUM PRICE APPLICABLE FOR MILK OF THE PARTICULAR USE
CLASSIFICATION, SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS NOT RELEVANT HERE.  FN21  THIS
PROVISION WAS INCLUDED IN THE 1935 AMENDMENT,  FN22  "TO PREVENT
ASSAULTS UPON THE PRICE STRUCTURE BY THE SPORADIC IMPORTATION OF MILK
FROM NEW PRODUCING AREAS, WHILE PERMITTING THE ORDERLY AND NATURAL
EXPANSION OF THE AREA SUPPLYING ANY MARKET  ...  "  S. REP. NO. 1011,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11.  AND, IT WAS ADDED, "THIS IS THE ONLY
LIMITATION UPON THE ENTRY OF NEW PRODUCERS - WHEREVER LOCATED - INTO A
MARKET, AND IT CAN REMAIN EFFECTIVE ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIED ...
PERIOD."  IBID.  THE BILL ORIGINALLY PROVIDED FOR A NINETY-DAY MINIMUM
PRICE PERIOD BUT IN CONFERENCE THE LESS RESTRICTIVE SIXTY-DAY PERIOD
WAS ADOPTED.  H.R. REP. NO. 1757, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 21.  FN23 

THESE SECTIONS AND REPORTS INDICATE THAT IT IS THE DELIBERATE POLICY
OF THE CONGRESS TO PREVENT FEDERAL OFFICERS FROM PLACING BARRIERS IN
THE WAY OF THE INTERSTATE FLOW OF MILK.  WHILE A STATUTORY PROHIBITION
AGAINST FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH CERTAIN PHASES OF IT MAY NOT ALWAYS
IMPLY THAT THE STATE TOO IS PRECLUDED, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A STATE
LIMITATION ON EXPORT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS OWN CONSUMERS IS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THIS FEDERAL ACT.  THE PURPOSE AS EXPRESSED IN SEC. 1, 7
U.S.C. SEC. 601, IS TO AVOID CONDITIONS WHICH BURDEN AND OBSTRUCT THE
NORMAL CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE OBJECT OF THE FEDERAL
PROGRAM TO RAISE AND STABILIZE THE PRICE OF PRODUCTS WAS TO STIMULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER AVOWS ITSELF TO
HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.  IT CAN CLAIM NEITHER FEDERAL SPONSORSHIP NOR
CONGRESSIONAL SANCTION. 

SINCE THE STATUTE AS APPLIED VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND IS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION PURSUANT TO THAT CLAUSE, IT CANNOT
STAND.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS DESCRIBED THE GEOGRAPHICAL
SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S PRESENT AND PROPOSED PLANTS AS
FOLLOWS:  "THE EXTENSION WOULD HAVE PERMITTED PETITIONER TO OPERATE A
MILK RECEIVING PLANT AT GREENWICH, NEW YORK, IN ADDITION TO
PETITIONER'S OTHER SIMILAR PLANTS ALREADY LICENSED AND OPERATING AT
EAGLE BRIDGE, SALEM AND NORFOLK, IN THIS STATE.  EAGLE BRIDGE IS IN
RENSSELAER COUNTY AND SALEM AND GREENWICH ARE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY,
RENSSELAER COUNTY BEING ADJACENT TO WASHINGTON COUNTY ON THE SOUTH, AND
BOTH THESE COUNTIES BEING ON THE EASTERLY EDGE OF NEW YORK STATE,
BORDERING ON MASSACHUSETTS AND VERMONT.  PETITIONER'S NORFOLK
ESTABLISHMENT IS IN ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY IN ANOTHER PART OF NEW YORK
STATE, AND SERVES A DIFFERENT AREA AND A DIFFERENT GROUP OF MILK
PRODUCERS.  THE PRESENT EAGLE BRIDGE AND SALEM DEPOTS, HOWEVER, ARE
QUITE CLOSE TOGETHER AND THE PROPOSED GREENWICH PLANT, FOR WHICH A
LICENSE HAS BEEN REFUSED, IS TEN MILES FROM SALEM AND TWELVE MILES FROM
EAGLE BRIDGE."  297 N.Y. 209, 212; 78 N.E.2D 476, 477. 

FN2  LAWS OF 1934, C. 126. 

FN3  SECTION 258-C PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A PERSON NOT NOW ENGAGED IN BUSINESS
AS A MILK DEALER EXCEPT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF A NOW EXISTING
BUSINESS, AND NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO AUTHORIZE THE EXTENSION OF
AN EXISTING BUSINESS BY THE OPERATION OF AN ADDITIONAL PLANT OR OTHER
NEW OR ADDITIONAL FACILITY, UNLESS THE COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT
THE APPLICANT IS QUALIFIED BY CHARACTER, EXPERIENCE, FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY AND EQUIPMENT TO PROPERLY CONDUCT THE PROPOSED BUSINESS,
THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE WILL NOT TEND TO A DESTRUCTIVE
COMPETITION IN A MARKET ALREADY ADEQUATELY SERVED, AND THAT THE
ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  ...  " 

FN4  THIS FINDING FOLLOWS THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  SEE NOTE 3. 

FN5  297 N.Y. 209, 78 N.E.2D 476. 

FN6  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 3, GRANTING CONGRESS POWER "TO
REGULATE COMMERCE  ... AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES  ...  " 

FN7  335 U.S. 808. 

FN8  "  ...  NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY,
OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

FN9  THE COURT SAID:  "THE COMMONWEALTH (OF PENNSYLVANIA) DOES NOT
ESSAY TO REGULATE OR TO RESTRAIN THE SHIPMENT OF THE RESPONDENT'S MILK
INTO NEW YORK  ...  "  306 U.S. 346, 352. 

FN10  294 U.S. 511, 523. 

FN11  ID., 526. 

FN12  ID., 521. 

FN13  ID., 522. 

FN14  ID., 527. 

FN15 ACT OF JUNE 3, 1937, C. 296, 50 STAT. 246, AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C.
SEC. 601 ET SEQ. 

FN16  7 U.S.C. SEC. 610(I). 

FN17  SEE LAWS OF 1937, C. 798, SEC. 258-N. 

FN18  7 C.F.R. SECS. 904-904.202(1947 SUPP.). 

FN19  7 C.F.R. SECS. 927-927.202(1947 SUPP.). 

FN20  7 U.S.C. SEC. 608C (5)(G). 

FN21  SEE 7 U.S.C. SEC. 608C (5)(B). 

FN22  THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1935, 49 STAT. 750, AMENDED THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 31.  SECTION 8C FIRST
APPEARED IN THE 1935 ACT, WHICH WAS AMENDED AND REENACTED BY THE 1937
ACT, 50 STAT. 246, CITED IN NOTE 15. 

FN23  SEE ALSO H.R. REP. NO. 1241, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 7-11. 
AND SEE DEBATES AT 79 CONG. REC. 9461-63; 9572-73; 9602-04; 11134-41;
AND 13022. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

IN THIS CASE THE COURT SETS UP A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL FORMULA FOR
INVALIDATION OF STATE LAWS REGULATING LOCAL PHASES OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  I BELIEVE THE NEW YORK LAW IS INVULNERABLE TO CONSTITUTIONAL
ATTACK UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL RULES WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT HAVE
LONG ACCEPTED.  THE NEW FORMULA SUBJECTS STATE REGULATIONS OF LOCAL
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES TO GREATER CONSTITUTIONAL HAZARDS THAN THEY HAVE
EVER HAD TO MEET BEFORE.  THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW FORMULA, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, WILL NOT MERELY LEAVE A LARGE AREA OF LOCAL BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES FREE FROM STATE REGULATION.  ALL LOCAL ACTIVITIES THAT FALL
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS NEW FORMULA WILL BE FREE FROM ANY REGULATORY
CONTROL WHATEVER.  FOR IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT CONGRESS COULD PASS
UNIFORM NATIONAL LEGISLATION CAPABLE OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPLICATION TO
ALL THE LOCAL PHASES OF INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE 48
STATES.  SEE ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, 328 U.S. 440, 449, 459-460.  IT
IS EQUALLY INCONCEIVABLE THAT CONGRESS WOULD ATTEMPT TO CONTROL SUCH
DIVERSE LOCAL ACTIVITIES THROUGH A "SWARM OF STATUTES ONLY LOCALLY
APPLICABLE AND UTTERLY INCONSISTENT."  KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1,
21. 

FIRST.  NEW YORK HAS A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF REGULATIONS TO CONTROL
THE PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF MILK.  THEIR OVER-ALL PURPOSES
ARE TWO:  (1) TO PROMOTE HEALTH BY MAINTAINING AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY AND
AN ORDERLY DISTRIBUTION OF UNCONTAMINATED MILK; (2) TO PROMOTE THE
GENERAL WELFARE BY SAVING FARMER MILK-PRODUCERS FROM IMPOVERISHMENT AND
INSOLVENCY.  THE STATE LEGISLATURE CONCLUDED THAT ACHIEVEMENT OF THESE
GOALS DEMANDED ELIMINATION OF DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION AMONG MILK
DEALERS.  THE LEGISLATURE BELIEVED THAT WHILE CUTTHROAT COMPETITION
AMONG PURCHASER DEALERS TEMPORARILY RAISES THE PRICE OF FARMERS' MILK,
THE END RESULT OF THE PRACTICE IN NEW YORK HAD BEEN ECONOMIC DISTRESS
FOR THE FARMERS.  AFTER DESTRUCTIVE DEALER COMPETITION HAD DRIVEN
FINANCIALLY WEAK DEALERS FROM THE CONTEST, THE MORE OPULENT SURVIVORS
HAD PUSHED PRODUCERS' PRICES FAR BELOW PRODUCTION COSTS.  NEBBIA V. NEW
YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 515-516, GIVES A GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF THE PLIGHT
OF THESE FARMERS PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THESE REGULATIONS AND MAKES
CLEAR THAT THE CHIEF INCENTIVE FOR THE REGULATIONS WAS THE PROMOTION OF
HEALTH AND THE GENERAL WELFARE BY FINANCIAL REHABILITATION OF THE
FARMERS.  AND DESPITE DUE-PROCESS OBJECTIONS, THE NEBBIA CASE SUSTAINED
THE STATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO APPLY ITS LAW TO NEW YORK DEALERS
IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND GENERAL WELFARE
OF THE STATE'S PEOPLE.    THAT PART OF THE REGULATORY PLAN CHALLENGED
HERE BARS ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FOR ADDITIONAL MILK-HANDLING PLANTS IF
NEW PLANTS WOULD "TEND TO DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION IN A MARKET ALREADY
ADEQUATELY SERVED" OR WOULD BE CONTRARY TO "THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  IN
DETERMINING WHETHER A MILK MARKET IS "ADEQUATELY SERVED," THE STATE
FOLLOWS A PLAN SIMILAR TO THE FEDERAL LAW IN THAT BOTH DIVIDE THE
COUNTRY INTO "MARKETING AREAS."  UNDER THIS PLAN, THE STATE LEGISLATURE
DID NOT ATTEMPT TO PRESCRIBE ONE RULE APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE
STATE LIMITING THE NUMBER OF MILK DEALERS OR THE NUMBER OF THEIR
PLANTS.  A SINGLE RULE OF THIS KIND WOULD HAVE LACKED THE NECESSARY
FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE VARYING NEEDS OF MARKETS IN DIFFERENT
PARTS OF THE STATE.  SO A STATE COMMISSIONER WAS AUTHORIZED TO HOLD
HEARINGS AND MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER EXISTING PLANTS
COULD ADEQUATELY SUPPLY A GIVEN LOCAL PRODUCER'S MARKET OR WHETHER NEW
PLANTS WOULD BRING ABOUT THE DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION AMONG DEALERS THAT
THE LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.  THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS AND
ORDERS WERE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THERE IS NO CHALLENGE TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE NEW YORK LAW AS APPLIED TO NEW YORK MILK
DEALERS WHO SELL MILK IN NEW YORK. 

SECOND.  PETITIONER, A MILK DEALER, HAS TWO PLANTS IN NEW YORK.  IT
BUYS MILK, COOLS IT, AND SHIPS IT TO BOSTON.  IT APPLIED TO THE
COMMISSIONER FOR A LICENSE TO OPERATE A THIRD PLANT IN THE SAME LOCAL
MARKET AREA.  AFTER EVIDENCE THE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT PETITIONER'S
TWO PLANTS PLUS THE OTHERS IN THE VICINITY WERE ADEQUATE OUTLETS FOR
ALL THE MILK PRODUCED IN THAT VICINITY; SOME OF THE DEALERS IN THE AREA
HAD PLANT CAPACITIES ALREADY IN EXCESS OF THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY. 
PETITIONER WAS ONE OF THESE.  FROM THIS THE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT
MORE PLANTS WOULD BRING ABOUT THE KIND OF DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION
AGAINST WHICH THE LAW WAS AIMED.  THAT FINDING IS NOT CHALLENGED.  NOR
IS IT CHARGED THAT THE ORDER WAS PROMPTED BY DESIRE TO PREVENT NEW YORK
MILK FROM GOING TO BOSTON. 

THERE WAS A FINDING THAT THE DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION INCIDENT TO THE
OPERATION OF A NEW PLANT PROBABLY WOULD REDUCE THE VOLUME OF MILK
PURCHASED BY SOME EXISTING DEALERS WHO SUPPLIED MILK TO CERTAIN NEW
YORK CITIES.  ONE OF THESE CITIES HAD RECENTLY SUFFERED A MILK
SHORTAGE.  BUT THIS FINDING NEITHER PROVES NOR IMPLIES THAT
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION WAS DENIED TO KEEP MILK FROM GOING TO BOSTON
OR TO AID LOCAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS.  IN GAUGING THE EFFECT OF AN ORDER
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL MILK PLANTS IN A PURCHASING AREA,
IT SEEMS ESSENTIAL TO INTELLIGENT ADMINISTRATION THAT THE COMMISSIONER
CONSIDER THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY IN THAT AREA IN RELATION TO THE CONSUMER
DEMAND ON DEALERS AS SELLERS.  FOR IF EXISTING AREA PLANTS ALREADY ARE
UNABLE TO BUY ENOUGH MILK TO SUPPLY THEIR CONSUMER DEMANDS, NEW PLANTS,
STRIVING TO BUY A PORTION OF THE SHORT SUPPLY, WILL INEVITABLY
INTENSIFY COMPETITION AMONG PURCHASING DEALERS, THUS BRINGING ONE KIND
OF DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION THE NEW YORK LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT. 
CONSEQUENTLY, IN DETERMINING WHETHER NEW PLANTS WOULD TEND TO
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION, THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT IGNORE A FUNDAMENTAL
ECONOMIC TRUTH - THE INTERRELATION OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND.  WHETHER THE
NEW PLANTS WOULD SERVICE TROY, BOSTON, OR ELSEWHERE, THE EFFECT NEW
PLANTS WOULD HAVE ON THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY TO EXISTING CONSUMERS IS A
RELEVANT CONSIDERATION.  AND THE NEW YORK LAW REQUIRES THAT
CONSIDERATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE
CONSUMERS. 

HAD A DEALER SUPPLYING NEW YORK CUSTOMERS APPLIED FOR A LICENSE TO
OPERATE A NEW PLANT, THE COMMISSIONER WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPELLED UNDER
THE ACT TO PROTECT PETITIONER'S PLANTS SUPPLYING BOSTON CONSUMERS IN
THE SAME MANNER THAT THIS ORDER WOULD HAVE PROTECTED NEW YORK
CONSUMERS.  IN PROTECTING INTER-OR INTRA-STATE DEALERS FROM DESTRUCTIVE
COMPETITION WHICH WOULD ENDANGER THE MILK FARMERS' PRICE STRUCTURE OR
THE CONTINUED SUPPLY OF HEALTHFUL MILK TO THE CUSTOMERS OF EXISTING
DEALERS, THE COMMISSIONER WOULD BE FAITHFUL TO THE ACT'S AVOWED
PURPOSES.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE SHOULD NOT BE STRETCHED TO FORBID NEW
YORK'S FAIR ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE HEALTHFUL MILK SUPPLY OF CONSUMERS,
EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THE CONSUMERS IN THIS CASE HAPPEN TO LIVE IN TROY,
NEW YORK.  AND UNLESS THIS COURT IS WILLING TO CHARGE AN UNFAIRNESS TO
THE COMMISSIONER THAT HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED BY PETITIONER OR SHOWN BY
THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT CANNOT ATTRIBUTE TO THE COMMISSIONER AN
INVIDIOUS PURPOSE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE
BUSINESS IN ORDER TO BENEFIT LOCAL INTRASTATE COMPETITORS AND THEIR
LOCAL CONSUMERS.  OF COURSE IF THIS WERE A CASE INVOLVING SUCH
DISCRIMINATION, RELIEF COULD BE OBTAINED UNDER THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED
IN BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THIS STATE ACT IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY, THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY SHOWS IT WAS NOT SO INTENDED, AND THE COMMISSIONER HAS NOT
ADMINISTERED IT WITH A HOSTILE EYE.  THE ACT MUST STAND OR FALL ON THIS
BASIS NOTWITHSTANDING THE OVERTONES OF THE COURT'S OPINION.  IF
PETITIONER AND OTHER INTERSTATE MILK DEALERS ARE TO BE PLACED ABOVE AND
BEYOND THIS LAW, IT MUST BE DONE SOLELY ON THIS COURT'S NEW
CONSTITUTIONAL FORMULA WHICH BARS A STATE FROM PROTECTING ITSELF
AGAINST LOCAL DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES SO FAR AS THEY ARE
INDULGED IN BY DEALERS WHO SHIP THEIR MILK INTO OTHER STATES. 

THIRD.  THE NUMBER OF PLANTS PETITIONER CAN HAVE IN THE NEW YORK
MARKET IS OF CONCERN TO PETITIONER, TO NEW YORK, AND TO THE NATION. 
PETITIONER'S BUSINESS INTEREST, HOWEVER, UNDER THE NEBBIA RULE MUST BE
SUBORDINATED TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  NEW YORK'S CONCERN DERIVES FROM
ITS INTEREST IN THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF ITS PEOPLE DEEMED BY THE
LEGISLATURE OF NEW YORK TO BE THREATENED BY COMPETITIVE TRADE PRACTICES
OF DEALERS WHO BUY AND SELL MILK PRODUCED IN THE STATE.  THAT ITS
CONCERN IS GREAT IS MANIFESTED BY THE STATE LAW, ITS BACKGROUND, ITS
PURPOSES, AND ITS ADMINISTRATION.  THE NATIONAL CONCERN, REFLECTED IN
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, FLOWS FROM FEDERAL SOLICITUDE FOR FREEDOM OF TRADE
AMONG THE STATES.  THAT SOLICITUDE IS GREAT. 

RECONCILIATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL INTERESTS IN REGULATION OF
COMMERCE ALWAYS HAS BEEN A PERPLEXING PROBLEM.  THE CLAIMS OF NEITHER
CAN BE IGNORED IF DUE REGARD BE ACCORDED THE WELFARE OF STATE AND
NATION.  FOR IN THE LONG RUN THE WELFARE OF EACH IS DEPENDENT UPON THE
WELFARE OF BOTH.  INJURY TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE STATES IS
BOUND TO PRODUCE AN INJURIOUS REACTION ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND VICE
VERSA.  THE MANY LOCAL ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE PARTS OF INTERSTATE
TRANSACTIONS HAVE GIVEN RISE TO MUCH CONFUSION.  THE BASIC PROBLEM HAS
ALWAYS BEEN WHETHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO
REGULATE SUCH LOCAL ACTIVITIES, WHETHER THE POWER OF EITHER IS
EXCLUSIVE OR CONCURRENT, WHETHER THE STATE HAS POWER TO REGULATE UNTIL
CONGRESS EXERCISES ITS SUPREME POWER, AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THIS COURT SHOULD INVALIDATE STATE
REGULATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  THIS
LAST QUESTION IS THE ONE HERE INVOLVED. 

FOURTH.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, DECIDED IN 1824, HELD INVALID
A NEW YORK STATUTE REGULATING COMMERCE WHICH CONFLICTED WITH AN ACT OF
CONGRESS.  THE COURT THERE LEFT UNDECIDED THE QUESTION STRONGLY URGED
THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF ITSELF FORBADE NEW YORK TO REGULATE
COMMERCE.  IN 1847 THIS UNDECIDED QUESTION WAS DISCUSSED BY CHIEF
JUSTICE TANEY.  FN1  HIS VIEW WAS THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF ITSELF
DID NO MORE THAN GRANT POWER TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE
STATES; THAT UNTIL CONGRESS ACTED STATES COULD REGULATE THE COMMERCE;
AND THAT THIS COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO STRIKE DOWN STATE REGULATIONS
UNLESS THEY CONFLICTED WITH A VALID FEDERAL LAW.  THIS THE CHIEF
JUSTICE THOUGHT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE CONSTITUTION'S FRAMERS,
DRAWING HIS INFERENCE OF THEIR INTENT FROM HIS BELIEF THAT THEY KNEW "A
MULTITUDE OF MINOR REGULATIONS MUST BE NECESSARY, WHICH CONGRESS AMID
ITS GREAT CONCERNS COULD NEVER FIND TIME TO CONSIDER AND PROVIDE ...  "
FN2 

IN 1852 THIS COURT REJECTED IN PART THE TANEY INTERPRETATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299.  THE
OPINION THERE STATED THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PER SE FORBADE STATES TO
REGULATE COMMERCE UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES BUT LEFT THEM FREE TO DO SO
UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE DIVIDING LINE WAS NOT PRECISELY DRAWN,
BUT THE COURT OUTLINED BROAD PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE FUTURE DETERMINATIONS
OF THE SIDE OF THE LINE ON WHICH COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS WOULD BE HELD
TO FALL.  IN DOING SO, IT APPARENTLY TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE TANEY'S 1847 BELIEF THAT ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF ALL STATE
REGULATION OF COMMERCE WOULD CREATE AN AREA IMMUNE FROM ANY REGULATION
AT ALL.  FOR IN THE COOLEY CASE THE COURT HELD AT P. 319 THAT THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE PER SE ONLY PROHIBITED STATE REGULATION OF LOCAL
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTIVITIES WHICH "ARE IN THEIR NATURE NATIONAL, OR
ADMIT ONLY OF ONE UNIFORM SYSTEM."  IT WAS ALSO HELD AT P. 320 THAT THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE LEFT STATES FREE TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACTIVITIES WHERE DIVERSE CONDITIONS INCIDENT TO DIFFERENT CUSTOMS,
HABITS AND TRADE PRACTICES, COULD BEST BE TREATED AND REGULATED BY
DIFFERENT REGULATIONS "DRAWN FROM LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE, AND
CONFORMED TO LOCAL WANTS."  THUS CAUTIOUSLY DID THE COURT ENTER THIS
NEW FIELD OF JUDICIAL POWER.  IT DECIDED NO MORE THAN THAT THIS COURT
IN PASSING UPON STATE REGULATIONS OF COMMERCE WOULD ALWAYS WEIGH THE
CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF STATE AND NATION.  MOREOVER, IMPLICIT IN THE
RULE, AS SHOWN BY WHAT THE COURT SAID, WAS A DETERMINED PURPOSE NOT TO
LEAVE AREAS IN WHICH INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES COULD BE INSULATED FROM ANY
REGULATION AT ALL. 

FIFTH.  THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE COOLEY RULE HAVE BEEN ENTANGLED
AND SOMETIMES OBSCURED WITH MUCH LANGUAGE.  IN THE MAIN, HOWEVER, THOSE
PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN THE ASSERTED GROUNDS FOR DETERMINATION OF ALL
COMMERCE CASES DECIDED BY THIS COURT FROM 1852 UNTIL TODAY.  PERTINENT
QUOTATIONS FROM SOME OF THESE CASES APPEAR IN MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S
DISSENTING OPINION AND HE REFERS TO OTHERS.  MANY OF THE CASES HAVE
USED THE WORDS "RESTRAINTS," "OBSTRUCTIONS," "IN COMMERCE," "ON
COMMERCE," "BURDENS," "DIRECT BURDENS," "UNDUE BURDENS," "UNREASONABLE
BURDENS," "UNFAIR BURDENS," "INCIDENTAL BURDENS," ETC., BUT SUCH WORDS
HAVE ALMOST ALWAYS BEEN USED, AS THE OPINIONS REVEAL, TO AID IN
APPLICATION OF THE COOLEY BALANCE-OF-INTERESTS RULE.  FN3 

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SPORADIC DEVIATIONS FROM THE COOLEY PRINCIPLE AS
ILLUSTRATED BY DI SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34.  THE POWERFUL
DISSENTS OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND MR. JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRED IN BY
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, POINTED OUT THE DI SANTO DEVIATION.  THE NECESSITY
FOR DELICATE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONFLICTING STATE AND FEDERAL CLAIMS WAS
POINTED OUT.  IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT DECISION ON SUCH AN ISSUE REQUIRED
A CONSIDERATION OF FACTS SUCH AS THE NATURE OF THE REGULATION, THE
CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS, THE REGULATION'S ACTUAL EFFECT ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS POINTED OUT THE DANGERS IN DEVIATING
FROM THESE PRINCIPLES, AND, PERHAPS WITH PROPHETIC INSIGHT AS TO THE
FUTURE FATE OF THE DI SANTO CASE, CITED A LONG LIST OF CASES IN WHICH
SUCH DEVIATIONS HAD REQUIRED THIS COURT LATER TO OVERRULE OR EXPLAIN
AWAY THE PRIOR DEVIATIONS.  P. 43, N. 4.  IN CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON,
313 U.S. 109, 115-116, THIS COURT EXPLAINED AWAY THE DI SANTO CASE.  IT
COULD NOT STAND, SO SAID THE COURT, BECAUSE IT WAS A DEPARTURE FROM THE
PRINCIPLE THAT HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED EVER SINCE COOLEY V. BOARD OF
WARDENS, SUPRA. 

IN THIS COURT, CHALLENGES TO THE COOLEY RULE ON THE GROUND THAT THE
RULE WAS AN INEFFECTIVE PROTECTOR OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM STATE
REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN CONFINED TO DISSENTS AND CONCURRING OPINIONS. 
FN4  DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390, 400-401; BOB-LO EXCURSION CO.
V. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28, 37-38, 41, 42, 45; INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES V.
SCHEELE, 331 U.S. 70, 85, 95.  IN THE DUCKWORTH CASE BY APPLICATION OF
THE COOLEY RULE THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT SUSTAINED A STATE REGULATION
OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  A CONCURRING OPINION EXPRESSED THE VIEW
THAT THE COURT'S OPINION WRITTEN BY CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, ROOTED AS IT
WAS IN THE COOLEY PRINCIPLE, "LET COMMERCE STRUGGLE FOR CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION TO MAKE IT FREE," AND EXPRESSED THE WRITER'S UNWILLINGNESS TO
FOLLOW THE COURT'S "TREND"  FN5  BEYOND THE "PLAIN REQUIREMENTS" OF
EXISTING CASES, AT P. 401. 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THIS DUCKWORTH CONCURRING OPINION WHICH THE COURT
REJECTED, CAN ALONE SUPPORT THE HOLDING AND OPINION TODAY.  THAT
PHILOSOPHY COMMENDS ITSELF TO MANY THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE.  SOME PEOPLE
BELIEVE IN THIS PHILOSOPHY BECAUSE OF FEAR THAT JUDICIAL TOLERATION OF
ANY STATE REGULATIONS OF LOCAL PHASES OF COMMERCE WILL BRING ABOUT WHAT
THEY CALL "BALKANIZATION" OF TRADE IN THE UNITED STATES - TRADE
BARRIERS SO HIGH BETWEEN THE STATES THAT THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CANNOT FLOW OVER THEM.  FN6  OTHER PEOPLE BELIEVE IN THIS
PHILOSOPHY BECAUSE OF AN INSTINCTIVE HOSTILITY TO ANY GOVERNMENTAL
REGULATION OF "FREE ENTERPRISE"; THIS GROUP PREFERS A LAISSEZ FAIRE
ECONOMY.  FN7  TO THEM THE SPECTRE OF "BUREAUCRACY" IS MORE FRIGHTENING
THAN "BALKANIZATION." 

THE COOLEY BALANCING-OF-INTERESTS PRINCIPLE WHICH THE COURT ACCEPTED
AND APPLIED IN THE DUCKWORTH CASE IS TODAY SUPPLANTED BY THE PHILOSOPHY
OF THE DUCKWORTH CONCURRING OPINION WHICH THOUGH PRESENTED IN THE
DUCKWORTH CASE GAINED NO ADHERENTS.  FN8  FOR THE NEW YORK STATUTE IS
KILLED BY A MERE AUTOMATIC APPLICATION OF A NEW MECHANISTIC FORMULA. 
THE COURT APPRAISES NOTHING, UNLESS ITS STRETCHING OF THE OLD COMMERCE
CLAUSE INTERPRETATION RESULTS FROM A REAPPRAISAL OF THE POWER AND DUTY
OF THIS COURT UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  NUMEROUS CASES, FOR EXAMPLES
PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, AND MILK BOARD V. EISENBERG CO., 306
U.S. 346, WHICH MADE JUDICIAL APPRAISALS UNDER THE COOLEY RULE, ARE
GENTLY LAID TO REST.  THEIR INTERMENT IS TACTFULLY ACCOMPLISHED,
WITHOUT CEREMONY, EULOGY, OR REPORT OF THEIR DEMISE.  THE GROUND
BENEATH THEM HAS BEEN DEFTLY EXCAVATED BY A SOOTHING PROCESS WHICH
LIMITS THEM TO THEIR FACTS, THEIR PRECISE FACTS, THEIR "PLAIN
REQUIREMENTS."  THE VACANCY LEFT BY THE COOLEY PRINCIPLE WILL BE MORE
THAN FILLED, HOWEVER, BY THE NEW FORMULA WHICH WITHOUT BALANCING
INTERESTS, AUTOMATICALLY WILL RELIEVE MANY BUSINESSES FROM STATE
REGULATION.  THIS COURT WILL THEREBY BE RELIEVED OF MUCH TROUBLE IN
ATTEMPTING TO RECONCILE STATE AND FEDERAL INTERESTS.  STATE REGULATORY
AGENCIES TOO WILL BE RELIEVED OF A LARGE SHARE OF THEIR TRADITIONAL
DUTIES WHEN THEY DISCOVER THAT BAD LOCAL BUSINESS PRACTICES ARE NOW
JUDICIALLY IMMUNIZED FROM STATE REGULATION.  BUT IT IS DOUBTFUL IF THE
RELIEF ACCORDED WILL PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE STATE OR NATION SINCE
CONGRESS CANNOT POSSIBLY UNDERTAKE THE MONUMENTAL TASK OF SUPPRESSING
ALL PERNICIOUS LOCAL BUSINESS PRACTICES. 

SIXTH.  THE COURT STRONGLY RELIES ON BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S.
511.  THE CRUCIAL FACTS OF THAT CASE WERE THESE.  NEW YORK LAW FIXED A
MINIMUM PRICE FOR MILK BOUGHT BY NEW YORK DEALERS FROM NEW YORK
FARMERS.  VERMONT'S LEGISLATIVE POLICY LEFT VERMONT FARMERS AND MILK
DEALERS FREE TO FIX MILK PRICES BY BARGAINING.  SEELIG, A NEW YORK
DEALER, SOLD MILK IN NEW YORK WHICH HAD BEEN BOUGHT FROM VERMONT
FARMERS AT PRICES BELOW THAT FIXED FOR NEW YORK FARMERS BY NEW YORK
LAW.  NEW YORK LAW FORBADE SALE OF SEELIG'S MILK IN NEW YORK BECAUSE
THE VERMONT FARMERS HAD NOT RECEIVED THE NEW YORK FIXED PRICE FOR THEIR
MILK.  NEW YORK'S OBJECT WAS TO SAVE ITS FARMERS FROM COMPETITION WITH
VERMONT MILK.  AND THE COURT SAW THE NEW YORK LAW AS A DISCRIMINATORY
"BARRIER TO TRAFFIC BETWEEN ONE STATE AND ANOTHER AS EFFECTIVE AS IF
CUSTOMS DUTIES, EQUAL TO THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL, HAD BEEN LAID UPON THE
THING TRANSPORTED."  BALDWIN V. SEELIG, SUPRA, AT 521.  THE EFFECT OF
THE LAW, THEREFORE, WAS PRECISELY THE SAME AS THOUGH IN ORDER TO
PROTECT ITS FARMERS FROM COMPETITION WITH VERMONT MILK, NEW YORK HAD
IMPOSED SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER TAXES ON SELLERS OF VERMONT PRODUCED
ARTICLES THAN IT IMPOSED ON SELLERS OF NEW YORK PRODUCED ARTICLES. 
UNDER MANY PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE NOT PERMITTED.  SEE BEST & CO. V.
MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454. 

EVEN THOUGH THE COURT REGARDED THE BALDWIN V. SEELIG LAW AS
DISCRIMINATORY, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WERE ADDED TO WEIGHT THE SCALES ON
THE SIDE OF INVALIDATION.  ITS IMPACT ON VERMONT ECONOMY AND VERMONT
LEGISLATIVE POWER WAS WEIGHED.  TO WHATEVER EXTENT IT IS DESIRABLE TO
REFORM THE ECONOMIC STANDARDS OF VERMONT, "THE LEGISLATURE OF VERMONT
AND NOT THAT OF NEW YORK MUST SUPPLY THE FITTING REMEDY."  BALDWIN V.
SEELIG, SUPRA, AT 524.  THIS IS A DUE PROCESS CONCEPT.  FN9  IN
EMPHASIZING THE DUE PROCESS OBJECTIONABLE PHASE OF NEW YORK'S LAW, THE
COURT WAS WELL WITHIN THE COOLEY PHILOSOPHY.  FN10  FURTHERMORE UNDER
THE COOLEY RULE, ASIDE FROM DUE PROCESS, A STATE'S REGULATION THAT
IMMEDIATELY BEARS UPON NOTHING BUT ACTIVITIES WHOLLY WITHIN ITS
BOUNDARIES IS FAR LESS VULNERABLE THAN ONE WHICH CASTS BURDENS ON
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF ANOTHER STATE.  FN11 

IT WAS BECAUSE NEW YORK ATTEMPTED TO PROJECT ITS LAW INTO VERMONT
THAT EVEN ITS ADMITTED HEALTH PURPOSE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO OUTWEIGH
VERMONT'S INTEREST IN CONTROLLING ITS OWN LOCAL AFFAIRS.  BALDWIN V.
SEELIG, SUPRA, P. 524.  ADDED TO THIS WAS THE COURT'S APPRAISAL OF THE
LAW AS A PLAIN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT WOULD
INESCAPABLY ERECT A BARRIER TO SUPPRESS COMPETITIVE SALES OF VERMONT
MILK IN NEW YORK, THUS LEADING TO RETALIATORY "RIVALRIES AND
REPRISALS," AT P. 522.  QUITE DIFFERENTLY HERE NEW YORK HAS NOT
ATTEMPTED TO REGULATE THE PRICE OF MILK IN MASSACHUSETTS OR THE MANNER
IN WHICH IT WILL BE DISTRIBUTED THERE; IT HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO PUT
PRESSURE ON MASSACHUSETTS TO REFORM ITS ECONOMIC STANDARDS; ITS LAW IS
NOT HOSTILE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN CONCEPTION OR OPERATION; ITS
PURPOSE TO CONSERVE HEALTH AND PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AMONG NEW
YORK PRODUCERS IS NOT STRETCHED TO THE BREAKING POINT BY AN ARGUMENT
THAT NEW YORK CANNOT SAFELY AID ITS OWN PEOPLE'S HEALTH UNLESS
PERMITTED TO TRESPASS UPON THE POWER OF MASSACHUSETTS TO REGULATE LOCAL
AFFAIRS IN MASSACHUSETTS.  NOR IS THIS NEW YORK LAW, FAIRLY
ADMINISTERED AS IT HAS BEEN, THE KIND THAT BREEDS "RIVALRIES AND
REPRISALS."  THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS THAT BROUGHT ABOUT
INVALIDATION OF THE LAW CONSIDERED IN THE BALDWIN CASE ARE TOO
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE HERE CONSIDERED TO REST TODAY'S HOLDING ON THE
BALDWIN DECISION. 

SEVENTH.  MILK BOARD V. EISENBERG CO., 306 U.S. 346, WOULD CONTROL
THIS CASE BUT FOR THE COURT'S LIMITING THAT CASE TO ITS PRECISE FACTS. 
THAT LAW REQUIRED A STATE LICENSE OF ALL PERSONS WHO HANDLED OR
PURCHASED MILK WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH FOR SALE WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE
COMMONWEALTH.  IT REQUIRED ALL DEALERS, INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE, TO
KEEP RECORDS AND TO MAKE BONDS.  DEALERS WHO SOLD THEIR PRODUCTS WITHIN
OR WITHOUT THE STATE WERE REQUIRED TO PAY STATE-FIXED PRICES.  THE
STATE GRANTED OR DENIED LICENSES ON THE ACT'S ENUMERATED TERMS AND
SUSPENDED OR REVOKED THEM FOR CAUSE.  AVOWED PURPOSES OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA LAW WERE IDENTICAL WITH THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE NEW
YORK LAW.  LIKE NEW YORK THE METHOD CHOSEN TO ACHIEVE THESE PURPOSES
WAS PROTECTION OF MILK FARMERS FROM WHAT WERE DEEMED TO BE THE EVIL
CONSEQUENCES OF CUTTHROAT COMPETITION.  THE LAW WAS APPLIED AGAINST
INTERSTATE DEALERS IN PENNSYLVANIA, WHO LIKE PETITIONER IN NEW YORK,
BOUGHT, WEIGHED, TESTED, AND COOLED MILK IN PENNSYLVANIA PREPARATORY TO
SHIPMENT OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

THE EISENBERG CASE THUS SUSTAINED THE POWER OF A STATE TO REQUIRE
LICENSES FROM INTERSTATE DEALERS AND TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THEIR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TRANSACTIONS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE LEGITIMATE
STATE POLICIES.  AND THE CONDITIONS PENNSYLVANIA IMPOSED WERE
BURDENSOME, AS THIS COURT RECOGNIZED.  THEY ERECTED OBSTACLES WHICH
WERE BOUND TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF INTERSTATE DEALERS.  THE LIMITED
NUMBER OF INTERSTATE DEALERS WHO COULD GET AND HOLD STATE LICENSES WERE
COMPELLED TO INCUR EXPENSES THAT ADDED TO THE COSTS OF STATE-FIXED MILK
PRICES THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PAY AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE
STATE'S ALLOWING THEM TO BUY AND SHIP OUT ANY MILK AT ALL. 
PENNSYLVANIA IMPOSED THESE BURDENS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO PROMOTE
HEALTH AND TO PROTECT ITS FARMERS FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF DESTRUCTIVE
COMPETITION AMONG DEALERS.  THIS NEW YORK LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE
HEALTH AND TO PROTECT NEW YORK FARMERS FROM DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION IN
NEW YORK. 

IT REQUIRES MORE THAN INVOCATION OF THE SPECTRE OF "BALKANIZATION"
AND EULOGY OF THE CONSTITUTION'S FRAMERS TO PROVE THAT THERE IS A
GNAT'S HEEL DIFFERENCE IN THE BURDENS IMPOSED ON COMMERCE BY THE TWO
LAWS.  IT CANNOT EVEN BE SAID THAT ONE REGULATION WAS "ON COMMERCE" AND
ONE WAS NOT (WHATEVER "ON COMMERCE" MEANS), FOR BOTH AFFECTED THE
CAPACITY OF DEALERS TO BUY MILK FOR INTERSTATE SALES.  THERE IS THIS
DIFFERENCE.  THE HANDICAP OF STATE-FIXED HIGH-PRICED MILK, BIG BONDS,
AND LARGE BOOK-KEEPING EXPENSES WOULD PROBABLY REDUCE THE VOLUME OF
INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS FAR MORE THAN THE NEW YORK LIMITATION OF NEW
PLANTS IN PARTICULAR LOCALITIES.  TRUE, THIS NEW YORK REGULATION MIGHT
REDUCE THE VOLUME OF MILK THIS PARTICULAR DEALER MIGHT GET AND SHIP. 
BUT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS NOT WRITTEN TO LET ONE PARTICULAR DEALER'S
INTERESTS DESTROY A STATE'S ORDERLY MARKETING SYSTEM. 

THERE HAS CERTAINLY BEEN NO PROOF HERE THAT NEW YORK IS WRONG IN
BELIEVING THAT ITS LAW WILL REHABILITATE FARMERS, INDUCE MORE OF THEM
TO GET AND STAY IN THE MILK BUSINESS, AND THUS PROVIDE A GREATER NEW
YORK PRODUCTION OF BETTER MILK AVAILABLE FOR SALE BOTH IN AND OUT OF
NEW YORK.  SHOULD THIS RESULT FOLLOW, INTERSTATE COMMERCE WILL NOT BE
BURDENED, IT WILL BE HELPED.  AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HERE AS IN THE
EISENBERG CASE, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT PIT ITS LEGAL JUDGMENT AGAINST A
LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT IS IN HARMONY WITH THE VIEWS OF PERSONS WHO
HAVE DEVOTED THEIR LIVES TO A PRACTICAL STUDY OF THE MILK PROBLEM. 

EIGHTH.  I THINK THAT CONGRESS AND ITS AUTHORIZED FEDERAL AGENCY HAVE
KNOWINGLY ACQUIESCED IN, IF THEY HAVE NOT ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED AND
APPROVED, ENACTMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEW YORK LAW HERE HELD
INVALID.  THE NEW YORK LAW AUTHORIZES ITS ADMINISTRATOR TO ACT IN
COOPERATION WITH FEDERAL MILK-CONTROL AUTHORITIES AND AFTER
CONSULTATION TO MAKE SUCH SUPPLEMENTARY ORDERS AS MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN
ACCOMPLISHING THE JOINT STATE-FEDERAL PROGRAM.  SO ALSO, 7 U.S.C. SEC.
610(I) AUTHORIZES AND DIRECTS THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO CONFER
AND HOLD JOINT HEARINGS WITH THE AUTHORITIES OF ANY STATE IN ORDER TO
"OBTAIN UNIFORMITY IN THE FORMULATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT
OF FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF THE
HANDLING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES  ...  "  THE SECTION FURTHER
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY TO "ISSUE ORDERS ...  COMPLEMENTARY TO ORDERS
OR OTHER REGULATIONS ISSUED BY SUCH (STATE) AUTHORITIES; AND TO MAKE
AVAILABLE TO SUCH STATE AUTHORITIES THE RECORDS AND FACILITIES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ...  " 

IN THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS CONGRESS MANIFESTED ITS PURPOSE TO
SUBJECT THE MILK INDUSTRY TO TWO COOPERATING AUTHORITIES:  (1) STATE
LEGISLATURES AND THEIR SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES, AND (2) THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  CONGRESS DID FAR MORE THAN DIRECT A FORMAL,
POLITE COOPERATION BETWEEN NEW YORK AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 
RECOGNIZING THE COMPELLING NECESSITY FOR A STATE-FEDERAL INTEGRATED
REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR THE MILK INDUSTRY, CONGRESS WAS CAREFUL TO LEAVE
THE DOOR OPEN FOR THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND STATE AUTHORITIES
WORKING TOGETHER TO FORMULATE MUTUALLY COMPLEMENTARY ORDERS IN THE
FIELD.  THESE COMPLEMENTARY STATE-FEDERAL LAWS AND ORDERS WERE TO BE
AIMED AT PRECISELY THE SAME EVILS BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY
CHAOTIC COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE MILK INDUSTRY.  THE OBJECTIVE OF
BOTH LAWS WAS TO HELP IMPOVERISHED FARMERS.  48 STAT. 31, 7 U.S.C. SEC.
601. 

THIS RECORD DOES NOT REVEAL THE EXTENT TO WHICH THERE WAS STATE
FEDERAL COOPERATION IN CONNECTION WITH ENACTMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE
NEW YORK LAW HERE INVOLVED.  ABSENCE OF A FULL SHOWING OF SUCH
COOPERATION IS DOUBTLESS DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE PETITIONER TO RAISE
ANY COMMERCE QUESTIONS IN THE HEARING BEFORE THE NEW YORK
COMMISSIONER.  THIS IN ITSELF SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO CAUSE THIS COURT, AT
THE VERY LEAST, TO FOLLOW MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S SUGGESTION AND
REMAND THE CASE.  THIS WOULD AFFORD THE STATE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP
THE FACTS CONCERNING FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION.  NEW YORK'S LAW
SHOULD NOT BE CONDEMNED ON THE BASIS OF ABSTRACT RHETORIC ABOUT THE
"FATHERS" AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SURELY A STATE IS STILL ENTITLED TO
PRESENT ITS SIDE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY, THOUGH PERHAPS
TODAY'S NEW RULE MAKES IT AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY. 

NEW YORK HAS PRESENTED SOME EVIDENCE IN ITS BRIEF OF SUCH STATE
FEDERAL COOPERATION.  WITHOUT SUCH SHOWING WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT THE
SECRETARY HAS FOLLOWED CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIONS.  IF SUCH AN ASSUMPTION
BE NOT MADE WE CANNOT IGNORE THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN SELECTING THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN MILK. 
CONGRESS HAS EVEN GIVEN HIM POWER TO LIMIT MILK SHIPMENTS AS BETWEEN
DIFFERENT FEDERAL MARKETING AREAS.  FN12  THIS IS HARDLY CONSISTENT
WITH A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO DENY THE SECRETARY POWER TO APPROVE
THIS STATE REGULATION AND ORDER COMPLEMENTARY TO HIS OWN BASIC
PROGRAM.  AND HERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER TO SHOW THAT FAIR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEW YORK LAW WOULD LIMIT THE TOTAL VOLUME OF NEW
YORK MILK AVAILABLE FOR SHIPMENT INTO OTHER STATES.  THE BASIC PURPOSE
OF THE NEW YORK LAW LIKE THAT OF THE FEDERAL LAW WAS TO PROTECT
PRODUCERS FROM LOW PRICES ON THE THEORY THAT THIS PROTECTION WOULD
INSURE AN ADEQUATE MILK SUPPLY FOR INTER- AS WELL AS INTRA-STATE
SHIPMENTS. 

FROM THE FOREGOING, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COURT NOW STEPS IN WHERE
CONGRESS WANTED IT TO STAY OUT.  THE COURT PUTS ITSELF IN THE POSITION
OF GUARDIAN OF INTERSTATE TRADE IN THE MILK INDUSTRY.  CONGRESS, WITH
FULL CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DO SO, SELECTED THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE TO DO THIS JOB.  MAYBE THIS COURT WOULD BE A BETTER
GUARDIAN, BUT IT MAY BE DOUBTED THAT AUTHORITY FOR THE COURT TO
UNDERTAKE THE TASK CAN BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION - EVEN IN ITS
"GREAT SILENCES."  AT ANY RATE, I HAD SUPPOSED THAT THIS COURT WOULD
NOT FIND CONFLICT WHERE CONGRESS EXPLICITLY HAS COMMANDED COOPERATION. 
FN13 

THE SOLE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF TODAY'S HOLDING IS THAT PETITIONER WILL
BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE A NEW MILK PLANT IN NEW YORK.  THIS CONSEQUENCE
STANDING ALONE IS OF NO GREAT IMPORTANCE.  BUT THERE ARE OTHER
CONSEQUENCES OF IMPORTANCE.  IT IS ALWAYS A SERIOUS THING FOR THIS
COURT TO STRIKE DOWN A STATEWIDE LAW.  IT IS MORE SERIOUS WHEN THE
STATE LAW FALLS UNDER A NEW RULE WHICH WILL INESCAPABLY NARROW THE AREA
IN WHICH STATES CAN REGULATE AND CONTROL LOCAL BUSINESS PRACTICES FOUND
INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  THE GRAVITY OF STRIKING DOWN STATE
REGULATIONS IS IMMEASURABLY INCREASED WHEN IT RESULTS AS HERE IN
LEAVING A NO-MAN'S LAND IMMUNE FROM ANY EFFECTIVE REGULATION WHATEVER. 
IT IS DANGEROUS TO ASSUME THAT THE AGGRESSIVE CUPIDITY OF SOME NEED
NEVER BE CHECKED BY GOVERNMENT IN THE INTEREST OF ALL. 

THE JUDICIALLY DIRECTED MARCH OF THE DUE PROCESS PHILOSOPHY AS AN
EMANCIPATOR OF BUSINESS FROM REGULATION APPEARED ARRESTED A FEW YEARS
AGO.  THAT APPEARANCE WAS ILLUSORY.  THAT PHILOSOPHY CONTINUES ITS
MARCH.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND COMMERCE CLAUSE HAVE BEEN USED LIKE
SIAMESE TWINS IN A NEVER-ENDING STREAM OF CHALLENGES TO GOVERNMENT
REGULATION.  SEE FOR EXAMPLE, PACIFIC TEL. CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S.
403, 420.  THE REACH OF ONE TWIN MAY APPEAR TO BE LONGER THAN THAT OF
THE OTHER, BUT EITHER CAN EASILY BE TURNED TO REMEDY THIS APPARENT
HANDICAP.    BOTH THE COMMERCE AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES SERVE HIGH
PURPOSES WHEN CONFINED WITHIN THEIR PROPER SCOPE.  BUT A STRETCHING OF
EITHER OUTSIDE ITS SPHERE CAN PARALYZE THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS,
RENDERING THE PEOPLE'S LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES IMPOTENT TO PERFORM
THEIR DUTY OF PROVIDING APPROPRIATE RULES TO GOVERN THIS DYNAMIC
CIVILIZATION.  BOTH CLAUSES EASILY LEND THEMSELVES TO INORDINATE
EXPANSIONS OF THIS COURT'S POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. 
FN14  FOR UNDER THE PREVAILING DUE PROCESS RULE, APPEALS CAN BE MADE TO
THE "FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE" WHICH OUR "FATHERS"
WISHED TO PRESERVE.  IN COMMERCE CLAUSE CASES REFERENCE CAN
APPROPRIATELY BE MADE TO THE FAR-SEEING WISDOM OF THE "FATHERS" IN
GUARDING AGAINST COMMERCIAL AND EVEN SHOOTING WARS AMONG THE STATES. 
SUCH ARGUMENTS HAVE STRONG EMOTIONAL APPEALS AND WHEN SKILLFULLY
UTILIZED THEY SOMETIMES OBSCURE THE VISION. 

THE BASIC QUESTION HERE IS NOT THE GREATNESS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
CONCEPT, BUT WHETHER ALL LOCAL PHASES OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS ARE TO BE
JUDICIALLY IMMUNIZED FROM STATE LAWS AGAINST DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE
BUSINESS PRACTICES SUCH AS THOSE PROHIBITED BY NEW YORK'S LAW.  OF
COURSE, THERE REMAINS THE BARE POSSIBILITY CONGRESS MIGHT ATTEMPT TO
FEDERALIZE ALL SUCH LOCAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN THE FORTY-EIGHT
STATES.  WHILE I HAVE DOUBT ABOUT THE WISDOM OF THIS NEW YORK LAW, I DO
NOT CONCEIVE IT TO BE THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO REVISE THAT STATE'S
ECONOMIC JUDGMENTS.  ANY DOUBT I MAY HAVE CONCERNING THE WISDOM OF NEW
YORK'S LAW IS FAR LESS, HOWEVER, THAN IS MY SKEPTICISM CONCERNING THE
ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REACH OUT AND EFFECTIVELY REGULATE
ALL THE LOCAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES. 

I WOULD LEAVE NEW YORK'S LAW ALONE. 

FN1  THE LICENSE CASES, 5 HOW.  504, 578-579.  AND SEE FRANKFURTER,
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, 50-58(1937). 

FN2  STATE LEGISLATION WHICH PATENTLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS LONG BEEN HELD TO CONFLICT WITH THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE ITSELF.  THE WRITER HAS ACQUIESCED IN THIS INTERPRETATION, ADAMS
MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 331-332, ALTHOUGH AGREEING WITH THE
VIEWS OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS NOT INTENDED
TO GRANT COURTS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE EVEN TO THIS EXTENT.  THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE WOULD SEEM TO ME A MORE APPROPRIATE SOURCE OF
JUDICIAL POWER IN RESPECT TO SUCH DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. 

FN3  DOWLING, INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND STATE POWER, 27 VA. L. REV.
1(1940); AND SEE FOR ILLUSTRATION SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325
U.S. 761, 768-769; UNITED STATES V. UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533,
547-549; CLOVERLEAF CO. V. PATTERSON, 315 U.S. 148, 154-155; CALIFORNIA
V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113; MILK BOARD V. EISENBERG CO., 306 U.S.
346; S.C. HWY.  DEPT.  V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 184-191;
HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V. ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155; KIDD V. PEARSON, 128
U.S. 1.  AND SEE CASES COLLECTED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, IN HIS
DISSENTING OPINION IN DI SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, 39-40. 

FN4  THE WRITER'S VIEW HAS BEEN THAT THE COOLEY RULE RESULTED IN THIS
COURT'S INVALIDATING STATE STATUTES THAT SHOULD BE LEFT OPERATIVE
UNLESS CONGRESS SHOULD STRIKE THEM DOWN.  SEE DISSENTING OPINION IN
SOUTHERN PAC. CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 784-796.  BUT SINCE MY
VIEWS WERE REJECTED, I JOINED IN DISPOSITION OF MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328
U.S. 373, 386-388, BY APPLICATION OF THE COOLEY RULE. 

FN5  DOWLING, INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND STATE POWER, 27 VA. L. REV.
1(1940); BRADEN, UMPIRE TO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, 10 U. OF CHI.  L. REV.
27(1942). 

FN6  BANE, INTERSTATE TRADE BARRIERS, 16 IND. L.J. 121(1940); AND SEE
THE COLLECTION OF ARTICLES ON THE SUBJECT OF TRADE BARRIERS IN 9 GEO.
WASH. L. REV. 755(1941). 

FN7 MELDER, THE ECONOMICS OF TRADE BARRIERS, 16 IND. L.J. 127,
131(1940); REYNOLDS, THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
CARRIERS BETWEEN THE NATION AND THE STATES, 379(1928). 

FN8  BARNETT, INTERSTATE COMMERCE - STATE CONTROL, 21 ORE.  L. REV.
385, 391-392(1942); NOTE, 26 MINN. L. REV. 654, 655(1942). 

FN9  ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578; CF. HOOPESTON CO. V.
CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313, 318-319; HARTFORD IND. CO. V. DELTA CO., 292 U.S.
143, 149-150. 

FN10  MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373, 386; AND COMPARE DISSENTING
OPINION AT PP. 391, 394; BOB-LO EXCURSION CO. V. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28,
37, N. 16, 40, 41-42. 

FN11  SOUTHERN PAC. CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 767-768, N. 2; S.C.
HWY.  DEPT.  V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 184-186. 

FN12  7 U.S.C. SEC. 608C (5)(G).  THIS SECTION RESTRICTS THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE'S POWER IN TWO RESPECTS:  (1) IT FORBIDS HIM
TO "PROHIBIT" SHIPMENT OF "MILK" FROM ONE FEDERAL MARKETING AREA TO
ANOTHER.  (2) IT FORBIDS HIM TO "LIMIT" MARKET-TO-MARKET SHIPMENT OF
"MILK PRODUCTS."  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF THE ACT IN
WHICH THIS PROVISION APPEARED EXPLAINED TO THE HOUSE THAT A FAILURE TO
GRANT THE SECRETARY POWER TO "LIMIT" MILK SHIPMENTS "WOULD ABSOLUTELY
WRECK THE WHOLE MILK PROGRAM."  79 CONG. REC. 9572-9573.  SEE ALSO 79
CONG. REC. 13022, 13023; BAILEY FARM DAIRY CO. V. ANDERSON, 157 F.2D 87
96; BAILEY FARM DAIRY CO. V. JONES, 61 F.SUPP.  209, 221-224. 

FN13  UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 209; PARKER V.
BROWN, 317 U.S. 341; TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, 454; RICE V.
BD. OF TRADE, 331 U.S. 247, 255; PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328
U.S. 408, 433-436. 

FN14  OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WITH VAGUE CONTOURS ARE
AVAILABLE AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE JUDICIARY TO PROTECT BUSINESS FROM
LEGISLATIVE REGULATION.  APPEALING PHASES OF THESE VAGUE CONTOUR
PROVISIONS CAN BE JUDICIALLY INTEGRATED TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF
TECHNIQUES TO ACCOMPLISH A SINGLE PURPOSE, THE PROTECTION OF BUSINESS
AGAINST LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS OBNOXIOUS TO COURTS.  UNDER SUCH A
CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY COURTS CAN INVALIDATE BUSINESS REGULATIONS ON
SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OR THEY CAN PUT OBSTACLES IN THE PATH OF
ENFORCEMENT MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SUPPRESS BUSINESS PRACTICES
OUTLAWED BY VALID LEGISLATION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

IF THE COURT'S OPINION HAS MEANING BEYOND DECIDING THIS CASE IN
ISOLATION, ITS EFFECT IS TO HOLD THAT NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT TO THE
INTERNAL ECONOMY OF A STATE MAY BE THE PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTIVE
COMPETITION, AND NO MATTER HOW UNIMPORTANT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AFFECTED, A STATE CANNOT AS A MEANS OF PREVENTING SUCH COMPETITION DENY
AN APPLICANT ACCESS TO A MARKET WITHIN THE STATE IF THAT APPLICANT
HAPPENS TO INTEND THE OUT-OF-STATE SHIPMENT OF THE PRODUCT THAT HE
BUYS.  I FEEL CONSTRAINED TO DISSENT BECAUSE I CANNOT AGREE IN TREATING
WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A PROBLEM OF STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN COMPETING
INTERESTS AS AN EXERCISE IN ABSOLUTES.  NOR DOES IT SEEM TO ME THAT
SUCH A PROBLEM SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF ON A RECORD FROM WHICH WE CANNOT
TELL WHAT WEIGHTS TO PUT IN WHICH SIDE OF THE SCALES. 

IN THE INTEREST OF CLARITY, THE CONTROLLING FACTS IN THIS CASE MAY
THUS BE FAIRLY SUMMARIZED. 

HOOD, THE PETITIONER, IS A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION ENGAGED IN
SUPPLYING THE BOSTON MARKET WITH FLUID MILK.  IN NEW YORK STATE, ON THE
BORDER OF VERMONT AND MASSACHUSETTS, IT OPERATES TWO MILK-RECEIVING
PLANTS TO WHICH MILK IS DELIVERED BY LOCAL PRODUCERS AND WHENCE IT IS
SHIPPED TO BOSTON WITHOUT PROCESSING.  THESE TWO PLANTS - AT EAGLE
BRIDGE AND SALEM - ARE QUITE CLOSE TOGETHER.  ON JANUARY 30, 1946, HOOD
APPLIED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS OF NEW YORK FOR
AN EXTENSION OF ITS NEW YORK LICENSE TO PURCHASE MILK WHICH WOULD
PERMIT IT TO OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL RECEIVING PLANT AT GREENWICH, NEW
YORK.  GREENWICH IS TEN MILES FROM SALEM AND TWELVE MILES FROM EAGLE
BRIDGE.  HOOD PROPOSED TO DIVERT TO THE PLANT AT GREENWICH MILK
DELIVERIES OF PRODUCERS LIVING IN THAT VICINITY WHO WERE THEN
DELIVERING TO ITS MORE DISTANT PLANTS AT EAGLE BRIDGE AND SALEM AND TO
TAKE ON AT GREENWICH TWENTY OR THIRTY ADDITIONAL PRODUCERS THEN
DELIVERING TO COMPETING DEALERS IN THE VICINITY OF GREENWICH. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS DENIED HOOD'S APPLICATION
FOR EXTENSION OF ITS LICENSE.  IN SO DOING, IT RESTED ITS DECISION UPON
THE FOLLOWING "CONCLUSIONS": 

"IF APPLICANT IS PERMITTED TO EQUIP AND OPERATE ANOTHER MILK PLANT IN
THIS TERRITORY, AND TO TAKE ON PRODUCERS NOW DELIVERING TO PLANTS OTHER
THAN THOSE WHICH IT OPERATES, IT WILL TEND TO REDUCE THE VOLUME OF MILK
RECEIVED AT THE PLANTS WHICH LOSE THOSE PRODUCERS, AND WILL TEND TO
INCREASE THE COST OF HANDLING MILK IN THOSE PLANTS. 

"IF APPLICANT TAKES PRODUCERS NOW DELIVERING MILK TO LOCAL MARKETS
SUCH AS TROY, IT WILL HAVE A TENDENCY TO DEPRIVE SUCH MARKETS OF A
SUPPLY NEEDED DURING THE SHORT SEASON.  ... 

"THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE TO APPLICANT WHICH WOULD PERMIT IT TO
OPERATE AN ADDITIONAL PLANT, WOULD TEND TO A DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION IN
A MARKET ALREADY ADEQUATELY SERVED, AND WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST." 

HOOD INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK TO
REVIEW THE ORDER WHICH WERE TRANSFERRED WITHOUT HEARING TO THE
APPELLATE DIVISION.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER'S ACTION IN A PER CURIAM OPINION, AND LEAVE TO APPEAL TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS GRANTED.  THAT COURT CONSIDERED HOOD'S CLAIM
THAT THE ORDER VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND DENIED IT ON THE GROUND
THAT "ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS
INCIDENTAL ONLY."  297 N.Y. 209, 215, 78 N.E.2D 476, 478-79. 

SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES RELEVANT TO DECISION OF THIS CASE ARE SETTLED
BEYOND DISPUTE.  ONE OF THESE IS THAT THE PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTIVE
COMPETITION IS A PERMISSIBLE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER.  NEBBIA V.
NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307
U.S. 533; SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 395.  ANOTHER IS
THAT A STATE IS NOT BARRED FROM LICENSING AN ACTIVITY MERELY BECAUSE IT
IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN1  EVEN MORE BASIC IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT AS
TO MATTERS WHICH DO NOT DEMAND THAT REGULATION BE UNIFORMLY PRESENT OR
UNIFORMLY ABSENT, SEE COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, THE
STATE MAY IMPOSE ITS OWN REQUIREMENTS "EVEN THOUGH THEY MATERIALLY
INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY
DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 188.  AND ONLY RECENTLY, BE IT
NOTED, THIS COURT HAS CHARACTERIZED THE BUYING OF MILK FOR OUT-OF-STATE
SHIPMENT AS AN "ESSENTIALLY LOCAL" BUSINESS.  MILK CONTROL BOARD V.
EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346, 352. 

BEHIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "SUBSTANTIAL" AND "INCIDENTAL" BURDENS
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A RECOGNITION THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF
FEDERAL REGULATION, IT IS SOMETIMES - OF COURSE NOT ALWAYS - OF GREATER
IMPORTANCE THAT LOCAL INTERESTS BE PROTECTED THAN THAT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BE NOT TOUCHED. 

"WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERTED ITS POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE,
AND STATE REGULATION OF MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN IS SO RELATED TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT IT ALSO OPERATES AS A REGULATION OF THAT
COMMERCE, THE RECONCILIATION OF THE POWER THUS GRANTED WITH THAT
RESERVED TO THE STATE IS TO BE ATTAINED BY THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE
COMPETING DEMANDS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED." 
PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 362. 

"BUT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT CUT THE STATES OFF FROM ALL
LEGISLATIVE RELATION TO FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SOUTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177; WESTERN LIVE
STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250.  SUCH COMMERCE INTERPENETRATES THE
STATES, AND NO UNDISPUTED GENERALITY "  ...  IN THE NECESSARY
ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN LOCAL CAN DELIMIT IN ADVANCE THE INTERACTING
AREAS OF STATE AND NATIONAL POWER WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT BY LEGISLATION
FORECLOSED STATE ACTION.  THE INCIDENCE OF THE PARTICULAR STATE
ENACTMENT MUST DETERMINE WHETHER IT HAS TRANSGRESSED THE POWER LEFT TO
THE STATES TO PROTECT THEIR SPECIAL STATE INTERESTS ALTHOUGH IT IS
RELATED TO A PHASE OF A MORE EXTENSIVE COMMERCIAL PROCESS."  UNION
BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 209-10. 

"  ...  IN THE NECESSARY ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN LOCAL NEEDS AND THE
OVERRIDING REQUIREMENT OF FREEDOM FOR THE NATIONAL COMMERCE, THE
INCIDENCE OF A PARTICULAR TYPE OF STATE ACTION MAY THROW THE BALANCE IN
SUPPORT OF THE LOCAL NEED BECAUSE INTERFERENCE WITH THE NATIONAL
INTEREST IS REMOTE OR UNSUBSTANTIAL.  A POLICE REGULATION OF LOCAL
ASPECTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A POWER OFTEN ESSENTIAL TO A STATE IN
SAFEGUARDING VITAL LOCAL INTERESTS.  AT LEAST UNTIL CONGRESS CHOOSES TO
ENACT A NATION-WIDE RULE, THE POWER WILL NOT BE DENIED TO THE STATE." 
FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, 253. 

SEE ALSO SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KING, 217 U.S. 524, 533; ILLINOIS NATURAL
GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUB. SERV. CO., 314 U.S. 498, 506.  FN2 

THE COURT'S OPINION DEEMS THE DECISION IN BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S.
511, AS MOST RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  BUT IT IS THE
ESSENTIAL TEACHING OF THAT CASE THAT "CONSIDERATIONS OF DEGREE"
DETERMINE THE LINE OF DECISION BETWEEN WHAT A STATE MAY AND WHAT A
STATE MAY NOT REGULATE, WHEN WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE REGULATED IS PART OF
THE SHUTTLE-WORK OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ID. AT 525.  WHAT WAS THERE
HELD AND ALL THAT WAS HELD WAS ACCURATELY DEFINED IN MILK CONTROL BOARD
V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346, 353:  "IN BALDWIN V. G.A.F.
SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, THIS COURT CONDEMNED AN ENACTMENT AIMED SOLELY AT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ATTEMPTING TO AFFECT AND REGULATE THE PRICE TO BE
PAID FOR MILK IN A SISTER STATE, AND WE INDICATED THAT THE ATTEMPT
AMOUNTED IN EFFECT TO A TARIFF BARRIER SET UP AGAINST MILK IMPORTED
INTO THE ENACTING STATE."  THE NAKEDNESS OF NEW YORK'S PURPOSE TO REACH
INTO VERMONT WAS ILL-CONCEALED BY THE TENUOUS JUSTIFICATION THAT IF
VERMONT FARMERS GOT CHEAP PRICES FOR THEIR MILK THEY WOULD BE TEMPTED
TO SAVE THE EXPENSE OF SANITARY PRECAUTIONS AND THEREBY AFFECT THE
HEALTH OF NEW YORK CONSUMERS.  "IF NEW YORK, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE
ECONOMIC WELFARE OF HER FARMERS, MAY GUARD THEM AGAINST COMPETITION
WITH THE CHEAPER PRICES OF VERMONT, THE DOOR HAS BEEN OPENED TO
RIVALRIES AND REPRISALS THAT WERE MEANT TO BE AVERTED BY SUBJECTING
COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES TO THE POWER OF THE NATION."  294 U.S. AT
522.  BUT GUARDING AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE COMPETITION IS A VERY DIFFERENT
THING FROM CURBING COMPETITION FROM WHATEVER SOURCE.  A TARIFF BARRIER
BETWEEN STATES, MOREOVER, PRESUPPOSES A PURPOSE TO PREFER THOSE WHO ARE
WITHIN THE BARRIER; WHERE NO SUCH PREFERENCE APPEARS THERE CAN BE NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR REPRISALS AND THERE IS CONSEQUENTLY LITTLE
PROBABILITY OF THEM.  IN THE DETERMINATION THAT AN EXTENSION OF
PETITIONER'S LICENSE WOULD TEND TO DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION, THE FACT
THAT PETITIONER INTENDED THE OUT-OF-STATE SHIPMENT OF WHAT IT BOUGHT
WAS, SO FAR AS THE RECORD TELLS US, WHOLLY IRRELEVANT; UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, ANY OTHER APPLICANT, NO MATTER WHERE HE MEANT TO SEND
HIS MILK, WOULD PRESUMABLY ALSO HAVE BEEN REFUSED A LICENSE. 

AS I SEE THE CENTRAL ISSUE, THEREFORE, IT IS WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE
IN DEGREE BETWEEN DENYING ACCESS TO A MARKET FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
SANITARY OR BOOK-KEEPING REGULATIONS AND DENYING IT FOR THE SAKE OF
PREVENTING DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION FROM DISRUPTING THE MARKET IS GREAT
ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY A DIFFERENCE IN RESULT.  BUT FOR THAT DIFFERENCE IN
DEGREE, THE JUDGMENT BELOW WOULD FULLY REST ON THE EISENBERG CASE.  IF,
ON THE OTHER HAND, PETITIONER'S COMPETITORS WERE LIKE ITSELF ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S. 307, AND BUSH & SONS
CO. V. MALOY, 267 U.S. 317, WOULD BE POWERFUL PRECEDENTS IN FAVOR OF
REVERSAL.  SEE ALSO LEMKE V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50; SHAFER V.
FARMERS GRAIN CO., 268 U.S. 189. 

THIS CASE FALLS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THESE MOST NEARLY DECISIVE
AUTHORITIES.  IT IS CLOSER TO THE BUCK AND BUSH CASES THAN TO THE
EISENBERG CASE IN THAT THE DENIAL OF A LICENSE TO ENTER A MARKET
BECAUSE THE MARKET IS "ADEQUATELY SERVED" IMPOSES A DISQUALIFICATION
BEYOND THE POWER OF THE APPLICANT TO REMOVE.  IN THAT RESPECT THE
EFFECT UPON THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE IS MORE ENDURING THAN IS THE CASE
WHERE ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS COMPLIANCE WITH A LOCAL REGULATION.  THE
STATE'S INTEREST IN RESTRICTING COMPETITION, MOREOVER, IS LESS OBVIOUS
THAN ITS INTEREST IN PRESERVING HEALTH OR INSURING PROBITY IN BUSINESS
DEALINGS.  YET THE COMMERCE INVOLVED IN THE BUCK AND BUSH CASES - THE
OPERATION OF BUSSES BETWEEN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, AND PORTLAND, OREGON -
WAS EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE.  HERE, HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY
OF HOOD'S COMPETITORS SENT MILK OUT OF THE STATE, AND, IN FACT, ONLY
ABOUT 8% OF NEW YORK'S ENTIRE PRODUCTION OF MILK IS SENT OUT.  FN3  IN
THIS RESPECT THE CASE RESEMBLES THE EISENBERG CASE, IN WHICH IT
APPEARED THAT ONLY SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 10% OF THE MILK PRODUCED IN
PENNSYLVANIA WAS EXPORTED.  306 U.S. AT 350.  IN UPHOLDING THE STATE'S
LICENSING POWER IN THAT CASE, THE COURT REMARKED THAT THIS PERCENTAGE
WAS "ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF THE MILK PRODUCED BY FARMERS IN
PENNSYLVANIA" AND CONCLUDED THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE "THE EFFECT OF THE
LAW ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INCIDENTAL."  ID. AT 353.  BUT COMPARISON
COULD BE CARRIED FURTHER AND STILL THE SIMILARITIES AND DISSIMILARITIES
OF THE FACTS IN THE RECORD BEFORE US TO THE EISENBERG CASE AND THE BUCK
AND BUSH CASES WOULD BE INCONCLUSIVE.  IN AN AREA WHERE DIFFERENCES OF
DEGREE DEPEND ON SLIGHT DIFFERENCES OF FACT, PRECEDENT ALONE IS AN
INADEQUATE GUIDE. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT NEW YORK CAN HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE
RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION GREAT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SHUTTING ITS DOORS
TO ONE WHO WOULD BUY ITS PRODUCTS FOR SHIPMENT TO ANOTHER STATE.  THIS
MUST MEAN THAT THE PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND THE PROMOTION OF FAIR
DEALING ARE OF A DIFFERENT ORDER, SOMEHOW, THAN THE PREVENTION OF
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION.  BUT THE FIXING OF PRICES WAS A MAIN OBJECT OF
THE REGULATION UPHELD IN THE EISENBERG CASE, AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ONE
OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS OF MAINTAINING A PRICE STRUCTURE IS TO
CONTROL COMPETITION.  FN4 THE MILK INDUSTRY IS PECULIARLY SUBJECT TO
INTERNECINE WARFARE, AS THIS COURT RECOGNIZED IN SUSTAINING AGAINST DUE
PROCESS ATTACK THE PRECURSOR OF NEW YORK'S PRESENT MILK-CONTROL LAW. 
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502.  A PICTURE OF RUTHLESS AND WASTEFUL
COMPETITION WAS PAINTED IN THAT CASE AS IN EACH OF THE OTHER CASES IN
WHICH THE COURT HAS UPHELD THE REGULATION OF THE MILK INDUSTRY.  UNITED
STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533; H. P. HOOD & SONS V.
UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 588; UNITED STATES V. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315
U.S. 110.  AND, SO FAR AS APPEARS, STATE ACTION TO MAINTAIN THE PRICE
STRUCTURE IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMPLEMENTARY REGULATION BY THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE IS NO LESS NECESSARY FOR THE DAIRY INDUSTRY THAN FOR THE
RAISIN INDUSTRY.  COMPARE PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341; SEE UNITED
STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, INC., 307 U.S. 533, 548-49.  IN VIEW
OF THE IMPORTANCE THAT WE HAVE HITHERTO FOUND IN REGULATION OF THE
ECONOMY OF AGRICULTURE, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR
ASSIGNING, AS A MATTER OF LAW, SO MUCH HIGHER A PLACE TO MILK DEALERS'
STANDARDS OF BOOK-KEEPING THAN TO THE ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF THEIR
INDUSTRY. 

AS MATTERS NOW STAND, HOWEVER, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT
THE RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION AMONG DEALERS IN MILK DOES IN FACT
CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR ECONOMIC WELL-BEING AND, THROUGH THEM, TO THAT OF
THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY.  AND IF WE ASSUME THAT SOME CONTRIBUTION IS MADE,
WE CANNOT GUESS HOW MUCH.  WHY, WHEN THE STATE HAS FIXED A MINIMUM
PRICE FOR PRODUCERS, DOES IT TAKE STEPS TO KEEP COMPETING DEALERS FROM
INCREASING THE PRICE BY BIDDING AGAINST EACH OTHER FOR THE EXISTING
SUPPLY?  IS IT CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM EXCESSIVE
PRICES?  OR IS IT CONCERNED WITH SEEING THAT MARGINAL DEALERS, FORCED
BY COMPETITION TO PAY MORE AND CHARGE LESS, ARE NOT DRIVEN EITHER TO
CUT CORNERS IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THEIR PLANTS OR TO CLOSE THEM DOWN
ENTIRELY?  MIGHT THESE CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW FROM OPERATION AT LESS THAN
CAPACITY?  WHAT PROPORTION OF CAPACITY IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE
MARGINAL DEALER TO STAY IN BUSINESS?  COULD HOOD'S POTENTIAL
COMPETITORS IN THE GREENWICH AREA MAINTAIN EFFICIENT AND SANITARY
STANDARDS OF OPERATION ON A LOWER MARGIN OF PROFIT?  HOW WOULD THEIR
CLOSING DOWN AFFECT PRODUCERS?  WOULD THE COMPETITION OF HOOD AFFECT
DEALERS OTHER THAN THOSE IN THAT AREA?  HOW MANY OF THOSE DEALERS ARE
ALSO ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE?  HOW MUCH OF A STRAIN WOULD BE PUT
ON THE PRICE STRUCTURE MAINTAINED BY THE STATE BY A HOLDING THAT IT
CANNOT REGULATE THE COMPETITION OF DEALERS BUYING FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE
MARKET?  IS THIS A SITUATION IN WHICH STATE REGULATION, BY
SUPPLEMENTING FEDERAL REGULATION, IS OF BENEFIT TO INTERSTATE AS WELL
AS TO INTRASTATE COMMERCE? 

WE SHOULD, I SUBMIT, HAVE ANSWERS AT LEAST TO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS
BEFORE WE CAN SAY EITHER HOW SERIOUSLY INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS BURDENED
BY NEW YORK'S LICENSING POWER OR HOW NECESSARY TO NEW YORK IS THAT
POWER.  THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEALERS WITH WHOM HOOD SEEKS TO COMPETE IS
TOO INEXPLICIT TO SUPPLY THE ANSWERS.  SINCE THE NEEDED INFORMATION IS
NEITHER ACCESSIBLE TO JUDICIAL NOTICE NOR WITHIN ITS PROPER SCOPE, I
BELIEVE WE SHOULD SEEK FURTHER LIGHT BY REMANDING THE CASE TO THE
COURTS OF THE STATE.  IT IS A COURSE WE HAVE FREQUENTLY TAKEN UPON
RECORDS NO MORE UNSATISFACTORY THAN THIS ONE.  COMPARE CHASTLETON CORP.
V. SINCLAIR, 264 U.S. 543; HAMMOND V. SCHAPPI BUS LINE, 275 U.S. 164;
BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194; POLK CO. V.
GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5; GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66; MAYO V. CANNING CO.,
309 U.S. 310 - ALL CASES REMANDED TO AVOID CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION
WITHOUT ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT FACTS. 

NOR SHOULD WE NOW DISPOSE OF THE CASE UPON THE CLAIM THAT NEW YORK
CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY KEEPING ITS MILK FOR
ABSORPTION BY "LOCAL MARKETS SUCH AS TROY."  IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM
RELIANCE IS PLACED ON OKLAHOMA V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO., 221 U.S. 229,
AND PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262 U.S. 553, AND THERE IS MUCH
FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT THAT IF A STATE CANNOT KEEP FOR ITS OWN USE A
NATURAL RESOURCE LIKE GAS, AS IT CAN KEEP ITS WILD GAME, GEER V.
CONNECTICUT, 161 U.S. 519; SEE NEW YORK EX REL. SILZ V. HESTERBERG, 211
U.S. 31, 41, THEN A FORTIORI IT CANNOT PREFER ITS OWN INHABITANTS IN
THE CONSUMPTION OF A PRODUCT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE
BUT FOR ITS COMMERCIAL VALUE.  BUT COMPARE HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY
CO., 260 U.S. 245; OLIVER IRON MINING CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172.  IT IS
ONLY AS TO THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE, AT ANY RATE, THAT I CAN SEE THE
RELEVANCE OF BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, AS DEALING WITH WHAT IS
CHARACTERIZED AS "THE CONVERSE OF THE PRESENT SITUATION."  SUPPORT IS
ALSO SOUGHT IN FOSTER-FOUNTAIN PACKING CO. V. HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 1, AND
TOOMER V. WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385, BUT IN THESE CASES WHAT THE STATE HAD
DONE WAS TO HALT FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOCAL PROCESSORS A PRODUCT ALREADY
MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHOUT ENTIRELY WITHHOLDING THE PRODUCT
FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

BROADLY STATED, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A STATE CAN WITHHOLD FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE A PRODUCT DERIVED FROM LOCAL RAW MATERIALS UPON A
DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY THAT THERE IS A LOCAL NEED
FOR IT.  FOR ME IT HAS NOT BEEN PUT TO REST BY PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST
VIRGINIA, SUPRA. MORE NARROWLY, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE CAN
PREFER THE CONSUMERS OF ONE COMMUNITY TO CONSUMERS IN OTHER STATES AS
WELL AS TO CONSUMERS IN OTHER PARTS OF ITS OWN TERRITORY.  IT IS
ARGUABLE, MOREOVER, THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS ACTUATED NOT BY
PREFERENCE FOR NEW YORK CONSUMERS, BUT BY THE AIM OF STABILIZING THE
SUPPLY OF ALL THE LOCAL MARKETS, INCLUDING BOSTON AS WELL AS TROY,
SERVED BY THE NEW YORK MILKSHED.  IT MAY ALSO BE THAT HE HAD IN MIND
THE POTENTIALLY HARMFUL COMPETITIVE EFFECT OF EFFORTS BY DEALERS
SUPPLYING THE TROY MARKET TO REPAIR, BY ATTRACTING NEW PRODUCERS, THE
AGGRAVATION OF TROY'S SHORTAGE WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM THE DIVERSION TO
BOSTON OF PART OF TROY'S SUPPLY.  THESE TOO ARE MATTERS AS TO WHICH
MORE LIGHT WOULD BE NEEDED IF IT WERE NOW NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE
QUESTION. 

IN THE VIEW I TAKE OF THE ISSUE OF DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION, HOWEVER,
THIS QUESTION NEED NOT NOW BE DECIDED.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY FROM A
READING OF THE OPINIONS BELOW THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDING THAT
EXTENSION OF HOOD'S LICENSE WOULD TEND TO DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION WOULD
NOT BY ITSELF HAVE BEEN A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR HIS ORDER; AND IT IS A
BASIS WHICH EVIDENCE ADDUCED UPON REMAND MIGHT PUT UPON SOLID
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND.  A DECISION AT THIS STAGE OF THE QUESTION OF
PREFERMENT OF LOCAL NEEDS, ASSUMING THAT THE RECORD PRESENTS IT, WOULD
PROVE TO BE PURELY ADVISORY, THEREFORE, IF WHEN THE CASE CAME BACK TO
THE STATE COURT, IT FOUND THE ORDER ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE
JUSTIFICATION OF PREVENTING DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION.  IT MAY BE
ANSWERED, TO BE SURE, THAT THE STATE WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT THE LATTER JUSTIFICATION WAS ADEQUATE IN THE ABSENCE OF
AN INDICATION BY THIS COURT THAT THE FORMER - THE RETENTION OF LOCALLY
NEEDED MILK - IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID.  AND SUCH AN INDICATION
WOULD AMOUNT TO DECISION OF THE VERY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE PROFESSEDLY
LEFT OPEN.  TO WHICH MY REPLY WOULD BE THAT IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT
THING TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTY OF A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AND TO
POINT OUT CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WOULD NOT ARISE THAN IT IS TO
DECIDE THE ISSUE. 

MY CONCLUSION, ACCORDINGLY, IS THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBANY COUNTY FOR ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEWS
I HAVE STATED. 

FN1  AMONG CONSIDERATIONS OF STATE CONCERN WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND
SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW STATE LICENSING ARE THE MAINTENANCE OF SANITARY
CONDITIONS, MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S.
346; AND ADEQUATE PRICES, SEE BRIEF OF PETITIONER IN MILK CONTROL BOARD
V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, SUPRA, AT PP. 20-21; CONTROL OF THE
TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR, ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132;
DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390; THE PREVENTION OF "FRAUD AND
OVERREACHING" BY TRANSPORTATION AGENTS, CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313
U.S. 109, 113; "SAFEGUARDING THE INTERESTS OF ITS (THE STATE'S) OWN
PEOPLE IN BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH CORPORATIONS NOT OF ITS OWN CHARTERING
BUT WHO DO BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS," UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN,
322 U.S. 202, 208; AND PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM "FRAUD,
MISREPRESENTATION, INCOMPETENCE AND SHARP PRACTICE" ON THE PART OF
INSURANCE AGENTS, ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, 328 U.S. 440, 447. 

FN2  EVERY CASE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT A LOCAL REGULATION AMOUNTS
TO A PROHIBITED "BURDEN" ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BELONGS AT SOME POINT
ALONG A GRADUATED SCALE.  CONSIDERING ONLY THOSE DECIDED SINCE MILK
CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346, AT ONE END ARE
THE TAX CASES; SINCE A STATE HAS OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE, THE NEED FOR
A TAX "ON" INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS HARD TO JUSTIFY.  IT IS TO BE
EXPECTED, THEREFORE, THAT STATE REVENUE LAWS SHOULD CONSTITUTE THE
LARGEST GROUP OF LAWS INVALIDATED AS "BURDENING" COMMERCE.  AND SO THEY
DO.  MCCARROLL V. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES, 309 U.S. 176; MCGOLDRICK V.
GULF OIL CORP., 309 U.S. 414; MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327;
NIPPERT V. CITY OF RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416; FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S.
249; JOSEPH V. CARTER & WEEKES CO., 330 U.S. 422; CENTRAL GREYHOUND
LINES V. MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653, 662.  YET THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASING
RECOGNITION OF THE STATES' INTEREST IN SEEING THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE
"PAYS ITS WAY," AND A CONSEQUENT DISPOSITION TO CLASSIFY THE OBJECT OF
THE TAX AS INTRASTATE.  MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33;
MCGOLDRICK V. FELT & TARRANT CO., 309 U.S. 70; MCGOLDRICK V. COMPAGNIE
GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 309 U.S. 430; NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.,
312 U.S. 359; NELSON V. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 312 U.S. 373; NORTHWEST
AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292; GENERAL TRADING CO. V. STATE TAX
COMM'N, 322 U.S. 335; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340; INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES V. SCHEELE, 331 U.S. 70;
CF. AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. BOARD OF R. COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495. 
BY THE SAME PRINCIPLE, A REGULATION WHICH MAKES A GOOD DEAL OF TROUBLE
FOR AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD MUST BE STRUCK DOWN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
VERY CONVINCING SHOWING THAT THE REGULATION IS A REASONABLE RESPONSE TO
A SERIOUS LOCAL NEED.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761;
MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373.  BUT A MORE IMPRESSIVE SHOWING OF
SUCH A CONTRIBUTION ON THE ONE HAND AND A LESS PERSUASIVE DEMONSTRATION
OF INCONVENIENCE OF THE OTHER HAS BROUGHT ABOUT THE OPPOSITE RESULT. 
TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
TRAINMEN, 318 U.S. 1; BOB-LO EXCURSION CO. V. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28. 
WHERE MOTOR CARRIERS ARE CONCERNED, A STATE IS REGARDED AS HAVING A
PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN ITS HIGHWAYS WHICH JUSTIFIES A GENERALLY MORE
AGGRESSIVE ASSERTION OF ITS SELF-INTEREST.  WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE,
306 U.S. 79; CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583; MAURER V.
HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598.  AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS OWN CITIZENS THROUGH
MAINTENANCE OF HIGH STANDARDS OF BUSINESS DEALING BY SUCH REGULATIONS
AS THOSE INVOLVED IN CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109; UNION
BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202; AND ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, 328
U.S. 440, IS A MATTER OF LOCAL CONCERN THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN ALMOST AS
MUCH LATITUDE AS THE PROTECTION OF HEALTH, CLASON V. INDIANA, 306 U.S.
439.  BUT AT THE OPPOSITE EXTREME FROM REVENUE MEASURES, PERHAPS, IS
CONTROL OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR, IN THE NAME OF
WHICH QUITE CONFINING HOBBLES HAVE BEEN PUT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND SUSTAINED UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE
TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT.  ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132;
DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390; CARTER V. VIRGINIA, 321 U.S. 131. 

FN3  FOR THIS INFORMATION I AM INDEBTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

FN4  THUS, IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF 1920, CONGRESS GAVE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION POWER TO LIMIT COMPETITION BOTH BY
WITHHOLDING CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND BY
PERMITTING CONSOLIDATIONS BEYOND THE REACH OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND AT
THE SAME TIME GAVE IT POWER TO PRESCRIBE MINIMUM RATES; THE TWO FORMS
OF CONTROL SUPPLEMENT EACH OTHER.  SEE 41 STAT. 477-478, AS AMENDED, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 1(18), (19), (20); 41 STAT. 480-481, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 5(11); 41 STAT. 484-85, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(1); BIKLE,
POWER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE MINIMUM RATES,
36 HARV. L. REV. 5, 26; SEE ALSO MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, DISSENTING IN
NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262, 280, 308-10, AND
AUTHORITIES THERE CITED.  COMPARE THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT, 50 STAT. 693,
15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 
..END :







NATIONAL CARBIDE CORP. V. COMM'R, 336 U.S. 422 


ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1949.  - 167 F.2D 304,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  PETITIONERS WERE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF A PARENT CORPORATION
WHICH UTILIZED THEM AS OPERATING COMPANIES IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE
OF PRODUCTS.  THEY OPERATED STRICTLY IN ACCORD WITH CONTRACTS WITH THE
PARENT WHICH PROVIDED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE SUBSIDIARIES WERE EMPLOYED
AS AGENTS OF THE PARENT, THAT THE PARENT WOULD FURNISH WORKING CAPITAL,
AND THAT ALL PROFITS IN EXCESS OF SIX PERCENT ON THEIR CAPITALIZATION
(WHICH WAS NOMINAL) WOULD BE PAID TO THE PARENT.  TITLE TO THE ASSETS
UTILIZED BY THE SUBSIDIARIES WAS HELD BY THEM, AND ADVANCES BY THE
PARENT OF WORKING CAPITAL WERE SHOWN ON THE BOOKS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES
AS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO THE PARENT.  HELD:  FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL
INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1938, INCOME EARNED BY THE
SUBSIDIARIES AND PAID OVER TO THE PARENT CORPORATION WAS TAXABLE TO THE
SUBSIDIARIES AND NOT ONLY TO THE PARENT CORPORATION.  PP. 424-439. 

2.  A CORPORATION FORMED OR OPERATED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES MUST SHARE
THE TAX BURDEN DESPITE SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY, IN PRACTICAL OPERATION,
WITH ITS OWNER.  COMPLETE OWNERSHIP OF THE CORPORATION, AND THE CONTROL
PRIMARILY DEPENDENT UPON SUCH OWNERSHIP, ARE NO LONGER OF SIGNIFICANCE
IN DETERMINING TAXABILITY.  P. 429. 

3.  SO FAR AS THE BASIS FOR THE RESULT REACHED IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO. V. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, WAS THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CORPORATIONS BECAUSE OF COMPLETE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF ONE BY THE
OTHER, THAT BASIS HAS BEEN REPUDIATED BY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT.  MOLINE PROPERTIES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 436; BURNET
V. COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., 287 U.S. 415.  PP. 428-430. 

4.  OWNERSHIP OF A CORPORATION AND THE CONTROL INCIDENT THERETO CAN
HAVE NO DIFFERENT TAX CONSEQUENCES WHEN CLOTHED IN THE GARB OF AGENCY
THAN WHEN WORN AS A REMOVABLE CORPORATE VEIL.  P. 430. 

5.  SO FAR AS CONTROL IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN
PRINCIPLE BETWEEN THAT EXERCISED BY THE PARENT OVER THE SUBSIDIARIES IN
THIS CASE AND THAT EXERCISED BY THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER OF THE CORPORATION
IN THE CASE OF MOLINE PROPERTIES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  PP. 433
434. 

6.  IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE THAT FINANCING OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES WAS CARRIED OUT BY MEANS OF BOOK INDEBTEDNESSES IN LIEU OF
INCREASED BOOK VALUE OF THE SUBSIDIARIES' STOCK.  PP. 434-435. 

7. THAT THE CONTRACTS REQUIRED THE SUBSIDIARIES TO PAY TO THE PARENT
ALL BUT A NOMINAL AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS DOES NOT MAKE THEM "AGENCY"
CONTRACTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  PP. 435
436. 

8.  WHILE A CORPORATION WHICH PERFORMS THE USUAL FUNCTIONS OF AN
AGENT FOR ITS OWNER-PRINCIPAL MAY HANDLE THE LATTER'S PROPERTY AND
INCOME WITHOUT BEING TAXABLE THEREFOR, THESE SUBSIDIARIES ARE NOT TRUE
AGENTS OF, OR TRUSTEES FOR, THEIR PARENT.  PP. 437-439. 

9.  WHERE A CORPORATION CHOOSES TO AVOID THE BURDENS OF PRINCIPALSHIP
BY UTILIZING SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS TO CONDUCT CERTAIN BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES, IT CAN NOT ESCAPE THE TAX CONSEQUENCE OF THAT CHOICE, NO
MATTER HOW BONA FIDE ITS MOTIVES OR LONG-STANDING ITS ARRANGEMENTS. 
PP. 438-439. 

NATIONAL CARBIDE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

NO. 151.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 152, AIR REDUCTION SALES CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, AND NO. 153, PURE CARBONIC, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED AGAINST EACH OF THE PETITIONERS
DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME TAX AND DECLARED VALUE EXCESS PROFITS TAX FOR
1938.  THE TAX COURT DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE NO DEFICIENCIES.  8
T.C. 594.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  167 F.2D 304.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 810.  AFFIRMED, P. 439. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE THREE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF AIR REDUCTION
CORPORATION (AIRCO).  THEY SEEK A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER
DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME AND DECLARED VALUE EXCESS PROFITS TAXES FOR THE
YEAR 1938 FOUND BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ARE PROPERLY
CHARGEABLE TO THEM.  THEIR CONTENTION IS THAT THEY ARE CORPORATE AGENTS
OF AIRCO, THAT THE INCOME FROM THEIR OPERATIONS IS INCOME OF AIRCO, AND
THAT INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES MUST BE DETERMINED ON THAT BASIS. 

BY A SERIES OF COMBINATIONS AND DISSOLUTIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED
SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES, AIRCO HAD, PRIOR TO 1938, REDUCED THE NUMBER OF
ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO FOUR.  ALL OPERATED STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CONTRACTS WITH AIRCO.  FN1  THE SUBSIDIARIES WERE UTILIZED BY AIRCO AS
OPERATING COMPANIES IN THE FOUR MAJOR FIELDS OF OPERATION IN WHICH IT
WAS ENGAGED.  AIR REDUCTION SALES COMPANY CARRIED ON THE MANUFACTURE
AND SALE OF THE GASEOUS CONSTITUENTS OF AIR; NATIONAL CARBIDE
CORPORATION, THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF CALCIUM CARBIDE; PURE
CARBONIC, INC., THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF CARBON DIOXIDE; AND WILSON
WELDER & METALS CO., THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF WELDING MACHINES,
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES.  FN2 

THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN AIRCO AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES PROVIDED, IN
SUBSTANCE, THAT THE LATTER WERE EMPLOYED AS AGENTS TO MANAGE AND
OPERATE PLANTS DESIGNED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE PRODUCTS ASSIGNED TO
EACH, AND AS AGENTS TO SELL THE OUTPUT OF THE PLANTS.  AIRCO WAS TO
FURNISH WORKING CAPITAL, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT AND OFFICE FACILITIES FOR
ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  THEY IN TURN AGREED TO PAY AIRCO ALL PROFITS IN
EXCESS OF SIX PERCENT ON THEIR OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK, WHICH IN EACH
CASE WAS NOMINAL IN AMOUNT.  FN3 TITLE TO THE ASSETS UTILIZED BY THE
SUBSIDIARIES WAS HELD BY THEM, AND AMOUNTS ADVANCED BY AIRCO FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ASSETS AND WORKING CAPITAL WERE SHOWN ON THE BOOKS OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES AS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO AIRCO.  THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF
EACH COMPANY THUS APPROXIMATED THE AMOUNT OWED TO AIRCO.  NO INTEREST
RAN ON THESE ACCOUNTS. 

AIRCO AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES WERE ORGANIZED HORIZONTALLY INTO SIX
OVERRIDING DIVISIONS: CORPORATE, OPERATIONS, SALES, FINANCIAL,
DISTRIBUTION, AND RESEARCH.  OFFICERS HEADING EACH DIVISION WERE, IN
TURN, OFFICERS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES.  TOP OFFICIALS OF AIRCO HELD
SIMILAR POSITIONS IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES.  DIRECTORS OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES MET ONLY TO RATIFY THE ACTIONS OF THE DIRECTORS AND
OFFICERS OF AIRCO. 

AIRCO CONSIDERED THE PROFITS TURNED OVER TO IT BY THE SUBSIDIARIES
PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACTS AS ITS OWN INCOME AND REPORTED IT AS SUCH. 
PETITIONERS REPORTED AS INCOME ONLY THE SIX PER CENT RETURN ON CAPITAL
THAT EACH WAS ENTITLED TO RETAIN.  SIMILARLY, IN DECLARING THE VALUE OF
THEIR CAPITAL STOCK FOR DECLARED VALUE EXCESS PROFITS TAX PURPOSES, THE
SUBSIDIARIES REPORTED ONLY THE NOMINAL AMOUNTS AT WHICH THE STOCK WAS
CARRIED ON THE BOOKS OF EACH.  THE COMMISSIONER NOTIFIED PETITIONERS OF
SUBSTANTIAL INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX DEFICIENCIES IN THEIR 1938
RETURNS, HAVING TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THEY ARE TAXABLE ON THE INCOME
TURNED OVER TO AIRCO AS WELL AS THE NOMINAL AMOUNTS RETAINED.  THE TAX
COURT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE INCOME FROM PETITIONERS' OPERATIONS IN
EXCESS OF SIX PER CENT OF THEIR CAPITAL STOCK WAS INCOME AND PROPERTY
OF AIRCO.  THREE JUDGES DISSENTED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT REVERSED.  167 F.2D 304.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 810, BECAUSE OF THIS CONFLICT OF OPINION AND THE
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN COURTS AS TO THE CONTINUING VITALITY OF SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330(1918). 

PETITIONERS' CONTENTION IS, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT OUR DECISION IN MOLINE
PROPERTIES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 436(1943), WHICH HELD THAT
THE TAX LAWS REQUIRE TAXATION OF THE CORPORATE ENTITY IF IT ENGAGES IN
"BUSINESS ACTIVITY," EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED THE SITUATION IN WHICH THE
CORPORATION IS THE AGENT OF ITS OWNER; THAT SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
LOWE, SUPRA, DEFINES THE CONTENT OF "AGENCY" FOR TAX PURPOSES; AND
THAT, AS THE TAX COURT FOUND, THIS COURT'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CORPORATIONS IN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE IS
"APTLY DESCRIPTIVE" OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AIRCO AND PETITIONERS. 
IT MUST FOLLOW, ACCORDING TO PETITIONERS, THAT INCOME RECEIVED BY THEM
AND TRANSMITTED TO AIRCO IS TAXABLE ONLY TO AIRCO. 

RESPONDENT DOES NOT QUARREL WITH THE FIRST AND THIRD PROPOSITIONS. 
THE COLLISION OCCURS AT THE SECOND.  THE ISSUE AS PRESENTED BY
PETITIONERS IS, THEREFORE, WHETHER THE PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIP
DESCRIBED IN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE - AND THE SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT
BETWEEN AIRCO AND PETITIONERS - CONTAINS THE "USUAL INCIDENTS OF AN
AGENCY RELATIONSHIP," AS THAT PHRASE WAS USED IN MOLINE PROPERTIES,
INC. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA. 

PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE ESTABLISHED A
CONCEPT OF AGENCY THAT HAS SURVIVED OUR LATER DECISIONS MAY BE DEALT
WITH RATHER SUMMARILY.  THAT CASE TREATED INCOME EARNED BY A WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INCOME
TAX ACT OF 1913, AS HAVING ACCRUED TO ITS PARENT PRIOR TO THAT DATE
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF FUNDS BY DECLARATION OF
DIVIDENDS OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT THERETO.  THE THEORY OF THE CASE WAS THAT
THE TWO CORPORATIONS COULD BE TREATED AS IDENTICAL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THE 1913 ACT, BECAUSE OF THE COMPLETE DOMINATION AND CONTROL EXERCISED
BY THE PARENT OVER ITS SUBSIDIARY. 

BY THIS DECISION, THIS COURT IS SAID TO HAVE "LOOKED BEYOND THE
CORPORATE FORM,"  FN4  AND IGNORED "THE SEPARATE ENTITY OF A
CORPORATION."  FN5  WHATEVER THE DIALECTICS EMPLOYED, COURTS AND
COMMENTATORS HAVE AGREED THAT PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY WERE TREATED AS ONE
CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TAXES THERE IN QUESTION; TRANSFER
OF EARNINGS TO THE PARENT WAS MERELY "A PAPER TRANSACTION."  THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE DID NOT, AND DID NOT PURPORT TO, REST ON ANY
PRINCIPLE OF AGENCY.  THE ONLY REFERENCE TO THE SUBSIDIARY (CENTRAL
PACIFIC) AS AN AGENT IS MADE IN THIS CONTEXT: 

"...  THE CENTRAL PACIFIC AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC WERE IN SUBSTANCE
IDENTICAL BECAUSE OF THE COMPLETE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL WHICH THE
LATTER POSSESSED OVER THE FORMER, AS STOCKHOLDER AND IN OTHER
CAPACITIES.  WHILE THE TWO COMPANIES WERE SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES, YET
IN FACT, AND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THEY WERE MERGED, THE FORMER
BEING BUT A PART OF THE LATTER, ACTING MERELY AS ITS AGENT AND SUBJECT
IN ALL THINGS TO ITS PROPER DIRECTION AND CONTROL."  247 U.S. AT 337. 

IT IS THUS CLEAR BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE SUBSIDIARY WAS NOT REFERRED TO
AS AN AGENT OF THE PARENT IN THE USUAL OR TECHNICAL SENSE.  "AGENCY"
AND "PRACTICAL IDENTITY," AS THOSE WORDS ARE USED IN THE SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CASE, ARE UNQUESTIONABLY OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.  FN6
THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORATIONS BECAUSE OF COMPLETE
OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF ONE BY THE OTHER WAS THE BASIS FOR THE RESULT
REACHED, WHATEVER ITS ARTICULATION. 

THAT BASIS HAS BEEN REPUDIATED BY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT.  WHATEVER THE VITALITY OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. LOWE ON ITS
SPECIAL FACTS, WE HAVE HELD THAT A CORPORATION FORMED OR OPERATED FOR
BUSINESS PURPOSES MUST SHARE THE TAX BURDEN DESPITE SUBSTANTIAL
IDENTITY, IN PRACTICAL OPERATION, WITH ITS OWNER.  COMPLETE OWNERSHIP
OF THE CORPORATION, AND THE CONTROL PRIMARILY DEPENDENT UPON SUCH
OWNERSHIP - THE IMPORTANT INGREDIENTS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE -
ARE NO LONGER OF SIGNIFICANCE IN DETERMINING TAXABILITY.  MOLINE
PROPERTIES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA; BURNET V. COMMONWEALTH
IMPROVEMENT CO., 287 U.S. 415(1932).  FN7 

IN BOTH OF THE CASES LAST CITED, THE AGENCY ARGUMENT NOW URGED UPON
US WAS MADE AND REJECTED.  IN BOTH CASES, SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. LOWE,
SUPRA, WAS RELIED UPON BY THE TAXPAYERS.  IN BOTH, WE FOUND THAT THE
CONTENTION THAT THE CORPORATION WAS THE AGENT OF ITS OWNER WAS SIMPLY
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SUBSIDIARY HAD NO CORPORATE IDENTITY DISTINCT
FROM ITS STOCKHOLDERS IN A DIFFERENT FORM.  IT IS TRUE THAT PETITIONERS
HERE DO NOT ASK THAT THEY BE IGNORED COMPLETELY FOR TAX PURPOSES.  THEY
ARE WILLING TO PAY TAXES ON THE NOMINAL AMOUNTS THEY RETAIN AS AIRCO'S
"AGENTS."  BUT THIS FACT SERVES TO EMPHASIZE THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE, UPON WHICH THEY RELY.  THERE, AS IN COMMONWEALTH
IMPROVEMENT CO. AND MOLINE PROPERTIES CASES, THE DECISION TURNED UPON
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CORPORATE ENTITY WAS OR WAS NOT TO BE
COMPLETELY IGNORED FOR TAX PURPOSES.  IF THE CENTRAL PACIFIC HAD BEEN
ACCORDED ANY TAX STATUS IN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE, IT UNQUESTIONABLY
WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED ON THE ENTIRE INCOME IT RECEIVED.  IN FACT, IT
WAS SO TAXED UPON ALL INCOME RECEIVED AFTER MARCH 1, 1913; ONLY INCOME
RECEIVED PRIOR THERETO WAS CONSIDERED INCOME OF THE PARENT DIRECTLY. 
FN8 

WE THINK, THEREFORE, THAT PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT
BECAUSE BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
LOWE, SUPRA.  THE AGENCY ARGUMENT, TO QUOTE THE OPINION IN MOLINE
PROPERTIES, "IS BASICALLY THE SAME ARGUMENT OF IDENTITY IN A DIFFERENT
FORM.  ...  THE QUESTION OF AGENCY OR NOT DEPENDS UPON THE SAME LEGAL
ISSUES AS DOES THE QUESTION OF IDENTITY PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED."  FN9
OWNERSHIP OF A CORPORATION AND THE CONTROL INCIDENT THERETO CAN HAVE NO
DIFFERENT TAX CONSEQUENCES WHEN CLOTHED IN THE GARB OF AGENCY THAN WHEN
WORN AS A REMOVABLE CORPORATE VEIL. 

BUT IT IS NECESSARY TO GO FARTHER.  THE TAX COURT DID NOT, AS
PETITIONERS SEEM TO THINK, CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY WERE AGENTS
OF AIRCO AS DIFFERENT FROM OR HAVING ANY GREATER VALIDITY THAN THE
ARGUMENT OF IDENTITY OF AIRCO AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  THE COURT, IN
CHARACTERIZING PETITIONERS AS AIRCO'S AGENTS, USED THAT TERM EXACTLY AS
IT HAD BEEN USED IN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC, COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO.,
AND MOLINE PROPERTIES CASES.  ACCORDING TO THE TAX COURT'S OPINION: 

"THE ISSUE WHICH (WAS DECIDED) IN THIS PROCEEDING IS WHETHER, AS THE
RESPONDENT HAS DETERMINED, THE INCOME FROM THE OPERATIONS OF THE THREE
PETITIONERS BELONGED NOT TO AIRCO, THE PARENT, BUT TO THE PETITIONERS,
AND WAS TAXABLE TO THEM; OR WHETHER, AS THE THREE PETITIONERS CONTEND,
THE INCOME FROM THE OPERATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS IN 1938, EXCLUSIVE OF
THE SMALL AMOUNTS PAID TO PETITIONERS UNDER THE CONTRACTS, BELONGED AND
WAS TAXABLE TO AIRCO, THE PARENT COMPANY, BOTH BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS
WERE IN FACT INCORPORATED DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS, OR BRANCHES OF
AIRCO'S BUSINESS AND BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS OPERATED PURSUANT TO
EXPRESS CONTRACT WITH AIRCO."  FN10 

THE THEORY UPON WHICH THE TAX COURT EXPUNGED THE DEFICIENCIES
APPARENTLY WAS THAT SINCE THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. CASE WAS NOT
EXPRESSLY OVERRULED BY MOLINE PROPERTIES, THE "BUSINESS PURPOSE" RULE
LAID DOWN IN THE LATTER IS NOT ABSOLUTE, BUT THAT THE CORPORATE ENTITY
MAY BE DISREGARDED (OR THE CORPORATION TREATED AS AN AGENT OF ITS
OWNER) FOR TAX PURPOSES WHEN THE FACTS OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE
CORPORATION APPROXIMATE THOSE PRESENTED BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS DISAGREED.  IT HELD THAT UNDER OUR DECISIONS, WHEN
A CORPORATION CARRIES ON BUSINESS ACTIVITY THE FACT THAT THE OWNER
RETAINS DIRECTION OF ITS AFFAIRS DOWN TO THE MINUTEST DETAIL, PROVIDES
ALL OF ITS ASSETS AND TAKES ALL OF ITS PROFITS CAN MAKE NO DIFFERENCE
TAX-WISE.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT "EVEN THOUGH SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
V. LOWE, SUPRA, SET UP A DIFFERENT TEST, WE REGARD IT AS PRO TANTO NO
LONGER CONTROLLING."  FN11 

THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IS CLEARLY REQUIRED BY OUR
LATER DECISIONS.  OUR RELUCTANCE TO ERASE SOUTHERN PACIFIC FROM THE
BOOKS HAS BEEN DUE NOT TO ANY BELIEF THAT IT LAYS DOWN A CORRECT RULE
FOR TAX PURPOSES GENERALLY, BUT TO THE FACT THAT IT CONCERNS "VERY
PECULIAR FACTS" WHICH MAKE IT CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM LATER CASES
INVOLVING THE TAX STATUS OF A SUBSIDIARY OR OTHER WHOLLY OWNED
CORPORATION.  FN12  FOR THAT REASON, WE HAVE, INSTEAD, HELD THAT IT
LAYS DOWN NO RULE FOR TAX PURPOSES.  BURNET V. COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT
CO., SUPRA AT P. 419; MOLINE PROPERTIES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA AT
P. 439.  THAT THE CONCEPT OF IDENTITY OF THE CORPORATION WITH ITS OWNER
SET OUT IN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH LATER
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT MAY BE DEMONSTRATED BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE
FACTS ENUMERATED AND RELIED UPON BY THE TAX COURT, WHICH BASED SUCH
RELIANCE ON THE EMPHASIS PLACED UPON SIMILAR FACTS IN THE SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CASE.  THESE FACTS RELATE TO THE OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, AND RIGHT
TO INCOME RESERVED BY THE PARENT.    SO FAR AS CONTROL IS CONCERNED, WE
CAN SEE NO DIFFERENCE IN PRINCIPLE BETWEEN AIRCO'S CONTROL OF
PETITIONERS AND THAT EXERCISED OVER MOLINE PROPERTIES, INC., BY ITS
SOLE STOCKHOLDER.  UNDOUBTEDLY THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CORPORATIONS OWNED
BY SOLE STOCKHOLDERS ARE "DUMMIES" IN THE SENSE THAT THEIR POLICIES AND
DAY-TO-DAY ACTIVITIES ARE DETERMINED NOT AS DECISIONS OF THE
CORPORATION BUT BY THEIR OWNERS ACTING INDIVIDUALLY.  WE CAN SEE NO
SIGNIFICANCE, THEREFORE, IN FINDINGS OF FACT SUCH AS, "THE AIRCO BOARD
HELD REGULAR MEETINGS AND EXERCISED COMPLETE DOMINATION AND CONTROL
OVER THE BUSINESS OF AIRCO AND EACH OF THE PETITIONERS," AND "THE
CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIRMAN, AND PRESIDENT OF AIRCO WERE IN CHARGE OF THE
ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF EACH PETITIONER AND
CARRIED OUT THE POLICIES AND DIRECTIVES WITH RESPECT TO EACH PETITIONER
AS PROMULGATED BY THE AIRCO BOARD."  FN13  WE REVERSED THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS IN MOLINE PROPERTIES IN THE FACE OF ITS FINDING THAT "FULL
BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP WAS IN THOMPSON (THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER), WHO
CONTINUED TO MANAGE AND REGARD THE PROPERTY AS HIS OWN INDIVIDUALLY." 
FN14 

SOME STRESS WAS PLACED BY THE TAX COURT, AND BY PETITIONERS IN
ARGUMENT HERE, UPON THE FORM OF OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS ADOPTED BY AIRCO
AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  PETITIONERS' CAPITAL STOCK WAS, AS HAS BEEN
STATED, NOMINAL IN AMOUNT.  ASSETS OF CONSIDERABLE VALUE, TO WHICH
TITLE WAS HELD BY THE SUBSIDIARIES, WERE BALANCED BY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
TO AIRCO ON THE BOOKS OF EACH.  THE TAX COURT THOUGHT IT MATERIAL THAT
"ALL ASSETS HELD BY EACH PETITIONER WERE FURNISHED TO IT BY AIRCO,
WHICH PAID FOR THEM WITH ITS OWN CASH OR STOCK.  AIRCO SUPPLIED ALL THE
WORKING CAPITAL OF EACH PETITIONER." 

IF AIRCO HAD SUPPLIED ASSETS TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES IN RETURN FOR STOCK
VALUED AT AMOUNTS EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS, NO QUESTION COULD
BE RAISED AS TO THE REALITY OF OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS BY THE
SUBSIDIARIES.  AIRCO WOULD THEN HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION COMPARABLE, SO
FAR AS OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS OF PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED, TO THAT OF
THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER IN MOLINE PROPERTIES.  WE THINK THAT IT CAN MAKE
NO DIFFERENCE THAT FINANCING OF THE SUBSIDIARIES WAS CARRIED OUT BY
MEANS OF BOOK INDEBTEDNESSES IN LIEU OF INCREASED BOOK VALUE OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES' STOCK.  A CORPORATION MUST DERIVE ITS FUNDS FROM THREE
SOURCES:  CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS, LOANS, AND PROFITS FROM OPERATIONS. 
THE FACT THAT AIRCO, THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER, PREFERRED TO SUPPLY FUNDS TO
ITS SUBSIDIARIES PRIMARILY BY THE SECOND METHOD, RATHER THAN EITHER OF
THE OTHER TWO,  FN15  DOES NOT MAKE THE INCOME EARNED BY THEIR
UTILIZATION INCOME TO AIRCO.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE FUNDS
SUPPLIED TO PETITIONERS BY AIRCO WERE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS RATHER THAN
LOANS.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THE VERY FACTORS WHICH, AS
PETITIONERS CONTEND, SHOW THAT AIRCO "SUPPLIED" AND "FURNISHED" THEIR
ASSETS ALSO INDICATE THAT PETITIONERS WERE THE RECIPIENTS OF CAPITAL
CONTRIBUTIONS RATHER THAN LOANS.  FN16 

NOR DO THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN AIRCO AND PETITIONERS BY WHICH THE
LATTER AGREED TO PAY ALL PROFITS ABOVE A NOMINAL RETURN TO THE FORMER,
ON THAT ACCOUNT, BECOME "AGENCY" CONTRACTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR
DECISIONS.  THE TAX COURT FELT THAT THE FACT THAT AIRCO WAS ENTITLED TO
THE PROFITS BY CONTRACT SHOWS THAT THE INCOME "BELONGED TO AIRCO" AND
SHOULD NOT, FOR THAT REASON, BE TAXED TO PETITIONERS.  OUR DECISIONS
REQUIRING THAT INCOME BE TAXED TO THOSE WHO EARN IT, DESPITE
ANTICIPATORY AGREEMENTS DESIGNED TO PREVENT VESTING OF THE INCOME IN
THE EARNERS, FORECLOSE THIS RESULT.  LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111(1930);
HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331(1940); UNITED STATES V. JOLIET &
CHICAGO R. CO., 315 U.S. 44(1942); COMMISSIONER V. SUNNEN, 333 U.S.
591(1948).  OF COURSE ONE OF THE DUTIES OF A COLLECTION AGENT IS TO
TRANSMIT THE MONEY HE RECEIVES TO HIS PRINCIPAL ACCORDING TO THEIR
AGREEMENT.  FN17  BUT THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS WERE REQUIRED BY
CONTRACT TO TURN OVER THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THEM TO AIRCO, AFTER
DEDUCTING EXPENSES AND NOMINAL PROFITS, IS NO SURE INDICATION THAT THEY
WERE MERE COLLECTION AGENTS.  SUCH AN AGREEMENT IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT
WITH THE CORPORATION-SOLE STOCKHOLDER RELATIONSHIP WHETHER OR NOT ANY
AGENCY EXISTS, AND WITH OTHER RELATIONSHIPS AS WELL.  FN18 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID DOES NOT FORECLOSE A TRUE CORPORATE AGENT OR
TRUSTEE FROM HANDLING THE PROPERTY AND INCOME OF ITS OWNER-PRINCIPAL
WITHOUT BEING TAXABLE THEREFOR.  WHETHER THE CORPORATION OPERATES IN
THE NAME AND FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL, BINDS THE PRINCIPAL BY
ITS ACTIONS, TRANSMITS MONEY RECEIVED TO THE PRINCIPAL, AND WHETHER
RECEIPT OF INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SERVICES OF EMPLOYEES OF THE
PRINCIPAL AND TO ASSETS BELONGING TO THE PRINCIPAL  FN19  ARE SOME OF
THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A TRUE AGENCY
EXISTS.  IF THE CORPORATION IS A TRUE AGENT, ITS RELATIONS WITH ITS
PRINCIPAL MUST NOT BE DEPENDENT UPON THE FACT THAT IT IS OWNED BY THE
PRINCIPAL, IF SUCH IS THE CASE.  ITS BUSINESS PURPOSE MUST BE THE
CARRYING ON OF THE NORMAL DUTIES OF AN AGENT.  FN20  ABSENCE OF THE
FACTORS MENTIONED ABOVE, AND THE ESSENTIALITY OF OWNERSHIP OF THE
CORPORATION TO THE EXISTENCE OF ANY "AGENCY" RELATIONSHIP IN THE MOLINE
PROPERTIES, COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASES,
INDICATE THE FALLACY OF THE AGENCY ARGUMENT MADE IN THOSE CASES. 

THE SAME FALLACY IS APPARENT IN THE CONTENTION THAT PETITIONERS ARE
AGENTS OF AIRCO.  THEY CLAIM THAT THEY SHOULD BE TAXABLE ON NET INCOME
AGGREGATING ONLY $1,350, DESPITE THE FACT THAT DURING THE TAX YEAR
(1938) THEY OWNED ASSETS WORTH NEARLY 20 MILLION DOLLARS, HAD NET SALES
OF APPROXIMATELY 22 MILLION DOLLARS, AND EARNED NEARLY FOUR AND ONE
HALF MILLION DOLLARS NET.  THEIR EMPLOYEES NUMBER IN THE THOUSANDS.  WE
HAVE PASSED THE QUESTION WHETHER AIRCO'S INTEREST IN THESE ASSETS IS
THAT OF OWNER OF THE SUBSIDIARIES OR LENDER, BUT WHATEVER THE ANSWER,
THEY DO NOT BELONG TO AIRCO AS PRINCIPAL.  THE ENTIRE EARNINGS OF
PETITIONERS, EXCEPT FOR TRIFLING AMOUNTS, ARE TURNED OVER TO AIRCO NOT
BECAUSE THE LATTER COULD COMMAND THIS INCOME IF PETITIONERS WERE OWNED
BY THIRD PERSONS, BUT BECAUSE IT OWNS AND THUS COMPLETELY DOMINATES THE
SUBSIDIARIES.  AIRCO, FOR SUFFICIENT REASONS OF ITS OWN, WISHED TO
AVOID THE BURDENS OF PRINCIPALSHIP.  FN21  SEE MOLINE PROPERTIES, INC.
V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA; SHELDON BUILDING CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 118
F.2D 835(1941).  COMPARE FORSHAY V. COMMISSIONER, 20 B.T.A. 537(1930). 
IT CANNOT NOW ESCAPE THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THAT CHOICE, NO MATTER HOW
BONA FIDE ITS MOTIVES OR LONGSTANDING ITS ARRANGEMENTS.  WHEN WE
REFERRED TO THE "USUAL INCIDENTS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP" IN THE
MOLINE PROPERTIES CASE, WE MEANT JUST THAT - NOT THE IDENTITY OF
OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL DISCLOSED BY THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER ARGUMENTS MADE BY PETITIONERS AND FIND
THEM TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE SUBSTANCE OF A TYPICAL SUBSIDIARY-PARENT CONTRACT IS AS
FOLLOWS:  "AIRCO HEREBY EMPLOYS SALES AS ITS AGENT TO MANAGE AND
OPERATE, DURING THE TERM OF THIS CONTRACT, ALL PLANTS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF OXYGEN, ACETYLENE AND OTHER GASES AND FOR THE MANUFACTURE
OF APPARATUS AND CONTAINERS FOR THE UTILIZATION AND TRANSPORTATION OF
SUCH GASES  ...  ; AND LIKEWISE EMPLOYS SALES AS ITS AGENT TO MARKET
AND SELL, DURING THE TERM OF THIS CONTRACT, THE OUTPUT OF ALL SUCH
PLANTS.  ...  AIRCO AGREES (1) TO GIVE SALES THE USE OF ALL CYLINDERS,
CONTAINERS, MOTOR TRUCKS, EQUIPMENT, AND SHIPPING FACILITIES, WHICH IT
NOW OWNS OR MAY HEREAFTER ACQUIRE; (2) TO SUPPLY SUCH WORKING CAPITAL
AS SALES MAY NEED; (3) TO PROVIDE SUCH EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT (BUT NOT
ACCOUNTING, BOOKKEEPING AND CLERICAL SERVICE), AND OFFICE ACCOMMODATION
AND FACILITIES, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER CONDUCT OF SALES
BUSINESS  ...  SALES AGREES (1) TO MANAGE AND OPERATE ...  ALL OF SAID
PLANTS; (2) TO MAINTAIN THE SAME IN FIRST CLASS CONDITION, CHARGING
NECESSARY REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS TO OPERATING EXPENSE AND SETTING
ASIDE AND CHARGING TO OPERATING EXPENSE PROPER RESERVES FOR
DEPRECIATION  ...  (3) TO DISTRIBUTE, MARKET AND SELL, THE PRODUCT
MANUFACTURED IN SAID PLANTS AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE  ...  (4) TO PAY
ALL EXPENSES OF SUCH OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND SELLING, AND TO
DISCHARGE ALL EXPENSES OR LIABILITIES INCURRED THEREIN OR THEREBY AND
TO COLLECT ALL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OR OTHER PROCEEDS RESULTING
THEREFROM; (5) TO CREDIT MONTHLY ON ITS BOOKS TO AIRCO ALL PROFITS
ACCRUING TO IT FROM THE OPERATION OF ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS OVER AND ABOVE
AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO SIX PER CENT (6%) PER ANNUM ON ITS OUTSTANDING
CAPITAL STOCK, WHICH SAID AMOUNT IT IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO DEDUCT AND
RETAIN, AND IT HEREBY AGREES TO ACCEPT AS FULL COMPENSATION FOR ITS
SERVICES HEREUNDER; AND (6) TO PAY OVER TO AIRCO UPON DEMAND ANY
PROFITS BECOMING DUE AND CREDITED TO AIRCO AS AFORESAID." 

FN2  WILSON WELDER HAD A NET DEFICIT DURING THE YEAR HERE INVOLVED
AND IS NOT A PETITIONER IN THIS ACTION. 

FN3  SALES HAD OUTSTANDING 125 SHARES OF STOCK OF $100 PAR VALUE;
CARBIDE'S OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK WAS 50 SHARES OF $100 PAR VALUE;
CARBONIC ALSO HAD 50 SHARES OF $100 PAR VALUE. 

FN4  MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1948 ED.), VOL. 10A, P.
237. 

FN5  FINKELSTEIN, THE CORPORATE ENTITY AND THE INCOME TAX, 44 YALE
L.J. 436, 448. 

FN6  IN BALLANTINE, SEPARATE ENTITY OF PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY
CORPORATIONS, 14 CAL. L. REV. 12, 18, THE WRITER DISCUSSES THIS USE OF
THE AGENCY CONCEPT AS FOLLOWS:  "WHAT IS MEANT BY SUCH TERMS AS
'ADJUNCT,' 'AGENCY,' 'INSTRUMENTALITY,' 'CREATURE' OR 'MOUTHPIECE'? 
WHAT CONDITIONS MUST EXIST TO WARRANT A COURT IN TREATING THE A
CORPORATION AS THE MERE ADJUNCT OF THE B CORPORATION?  THE WORD
'AGENCY' IS OFTEN USED AS A SYNONYM OF 'ADJUNCT,' WHATEVER THAT MAY
MEAN, AND AS DESCRIPTIVE OF A RELATION VARIOUSLY DEFINED IN THE CASES
AS 'ALTER EGO,' 'ALIAS,' 'DEVICE,' 'DUMMY,' 'BRANCH,' 'TOOL,'
'CORPORATE DOUBLE,' 'BUSINESS CONDUIT,' 'INSTRUMENTALITY,' ETC., BUT
ALL IN THE SENSE OF 'MEANS' THROUGH WHICH A CORPORATION'S OWN BUSINESS
IS ACTIVELY PROSECUTED." 

FN7  THE CASE OTHER THAN SOUTHERN PACIFIC RELIED UPON BY THE TAX
COURT WAS MUNSON STEAMSHIP LINE V. COMMISSIONER, 77 F.2D 849.  THAT
CASE WAS EXPLAINED IN MOLINE PROPERTIES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA,
AS DEPENDING UPON A PARTICULAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE WHICH JUSTIFIED
DISREGARDING THE SEPARATE ENTITY. 

FN8  PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT P, NO. 452, OCTOBER TERM 1917, IS AN INCOME
TAX STATEMENT OF THE SUBSIDIARY, CENTRAL PACIFIC CO., SHOWING PAYMENT
OF INCOME TAXES ON $3,333,846.18, ITS TOTAL NET INCOME FOR 1913 LESS
ONE-SIXTH (I.E., MAKING AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE
INCOME TAX LAW WENT INTO EFFECT MARCH 1). 

FN9  319 U.S. AT 440-441. 

FN10  8 T.C. 594, 611.  AFTER ENUMERATING THE FACTS CONSIDERED
PERTINENT, THE COURT CONCLUDED: "IT IS TRUE, OF COURSE, THAT, TAKEN
SEPARATELY, SOME OF THE FOREGOING FACTS WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT IN
THEMSELVES TO MAKE INOPERATIVE THE GENERAL RULE THAT CORPORATIONS ARE
SEPARATE JURISTIC PERSONS AND ARE TO BE SO TREATED FOR TAX PURPOSES. 
WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN ALL THESE FACTS ARE VIEWED TOGETHER THEY
BRING PETITIONERS WITHIN THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. LOWE, SUPRA."  ID. AT 614. 

IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHOSE OPINION WAS
WRITTEN BY ITS CHIEF JUDGE, DID NOT SO MUCH AS MENTION THE AGENCY
ARGUMENT NOW MADE BY PETITIONERS.  ITS ONLY REFERENCES TO AGENCY WERE
ISOLATED QUOTATIONS FROM THE TAX COURT'S OPINION AND THE CONTRACTS
QUOTED IN FOOTNOTE 1.  THE COURT'S OPINION PHRASES THE QUESTION AS
"WHEN A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF A PARENT CORPORATION SHALL BE
TREATED FOR PURPOSES OF INCOME TAXATION AS A SEPARATE TAXABLE PERSON,
AND WHEN AS MERELY A PART OF THE CORPORATE ACTIVITIES OF THE PARENT." 
167 F.2D 304, 305. 

FN11  ID. AT 307. 

FN12  TWO BASIC DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE AND
SUBSEQUENT CASES (EXCEPT GULF OIL CO. V. LEWELLYN, 248 U.S. 71(1918),
WHICH FOLLOWED SOUTHERN PACIFIC) ARE IMMEDIATELY APPARENT.  FIRST, THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE INVOLVED TAXATION OF THE PARENT-OWNER RATHER THAN
THE SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION; SECOND, THE QUESTION WAS WHEN THE INCOME
HAD BEEN EARNED, RATHER THAN WHO HAD EARNED IT.  THE IMPORTANCE OF
THESE DISTINCTIONS IS INDICATED BY THE FACT THAT THE SUBSIDIARY PAID
INCOME TAXES UPON INCOME RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO MARCH 1, 1913(SEE
FOOTNOTE 8, SUPRA), AND THAT THE PARENT DID NOT DISPUTE ITS TAX
LIABILITY FOR DIVIDENDS FROM POST-1913 EARNINGS OF THE SUBSIDIARY.  THE
DECISION IS BASED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF 1913. 
THE COURT FELT THAT IT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE ACT TO TAX EARNINGS
PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, AND THAT THE CENTRAL PACIFIC'S
PRE-1913 INCOME HAD ACTUALLY ACCRUED TO THE PARENT BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ACT.  THE OPINION STATES THAT "THE CASE TURNS UPON ITS VERY
PECULIAR FACTS, AND IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM OTHERS IN WHICH THE
QUESTION OF THE IDENTITY OF A CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER WITH HIS
CORPORATION HAS BEEN RAISED."  247 U.S. AT 338-339.  BY ITS VERY TERMS,
THE DECISION IS LIMITED TO ITS PRECISE FACTS. 

FN13  MUCH OF THE TESTIMONY INTRODUCED BY PETITIONERS HAD TO DO WITH
THE INTERCORPORATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AIRCO AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, THE
USE OF CERTAIN FACILITIES BY TWO OR MORE OF THE SUBSIDIARIES, THE
DUTIES OF VARIOUS OFFICERS WHO HELD POSITIONS WITH AIRCO AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES, AND THE SERVICES PERFORMED FOR ALL OF THE SUBSIDIARIES BY
CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS OF AIRCO.  SO FAR AS THIS TESTIMONY SHOWS THE
INTEGRATION OF THE CORPORATE SYSTEM AND ITS DIRECTION BY AIRCO, IT IS,
AS WE HAVE INDICATED, IMMATERIAL.  SO FAR AS IT INDICATES THAT THE
SUBSIDIARIES RECEIVED THE USE OF EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES FOR WHICH THEY
WERE NOT CHARGED, IT IS RELEVANT AS SHOWING THAT THEIR INCOME WAS
DISTORTED TO THAT EXTENT, BUT IT DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE INCOME
RECEIVED "BELONGED" TO AIRCO AT THE TIME OF ITS RECEIPT.  THE
COMMISSIONER MADE ALLOWANCE FOR THIS DISTORTION BY ALLOCATING OVER
$400,000 OF THE EXPENSES REPORTED BY AIRCO TO PETITIONERS UNDER THE
AUTHORITY GIVEN HIM BY SEC. 45 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 45.    FN14  45 B.T.A. 647, 650.    FN15  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, A
CONSIDERABLE PART OF THE ASSETS OF PETITIONERS WAS SUPPLIED OUT OF
PROFITS FROM THEIR OPERATIONS.  EVEN THOUGH ASSETS WERE PURCHASED
DIRECTLY OUT OF THE EARNINGS OF A SUBSIDIARY, HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT
WITHDRAWN WAS ENTERED IN THE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BY THE SUBSIDIARY AND IN
THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OF AIRCO, SINCE SUBSTANTIALLY ALL PROFITS OF
THE SUBSIDIARIES WERE, BY CONTRACT, PAYABLE ONLY TO THE PARENT. 

FN16  SINCE PETITIONERS WERE REQUIRED TO PAY ALL PROFITS EXCEPT VERY
SMALL AMOUNTS TO AIRCO EACH YEAR, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM
TO PAY THE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TO AIRCO.  SEE NOTE 15.  MR. C. E. ADAMS,
CHAIRMAN OF AIR REDUCTION CORPORATION, TESTIFIED THAT THE ASSETS OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES REPRESENTED BY THE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE COULD BE REALIZED BY
AIRCO ONLY UPON DISSOLUTION OF THE SUBSIDIARIES.  IN OTHER WORDS, THERE
WAS NEVER ANY EXPECTATION THAT THE ACCOUNTS WOULD BE PAID PRIOR TO
DISSOLUTION.  SINCE NO INTEREST RAN ON THESE ACCOUNTS, THE "LOANS" WERE
IDENTICAL, EXCEPT IN NAME, WITH CONTRIBUTIONS OF CAPITAL.  SEE AMERICAN
CIGAR CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 66 F.2D 425; HOYT V. COMMISSIONER, 145 F.2D
634; VAN CLIEF V. HELVERING, 135 F.2D 254; READING CO. V. COMMISSIONER,
132 F.2D 306.  LEVY AND SIMONDS, STOCKHOLDER ADVANCES TO CORPORATIONS -
ARE THEY LOANS OR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS?  25 TAXES 127, 128, STATE THAT
"INTENTION TO LEND AND EXPECTATION OF REPAYMENT ARE NECESSARY TO THE
EXISTENCE OF A VALID DEBT."  THE FACT THAT NO INTEREST RAN ON THESE
"LOANS" IS, OF COURSE, FURTHER INDICATION THAT THEY ARE CAPITAL
CONTRIBUTIONS.  BERRY MOTOR CAR CO., B.T.A. MEMO.  OP. DKT. 99962, JAN.
25, 1941. 

TITLE TO GAS CYLINDERS USED BY PETITIONERS, AMOUNTING IN VALUE TO
ABOUT $13,000,000, WAS RETAINED BY AIRCO, BUT THE CYLINDERS WERE USED
BY THE SUBSIDIARIES WITHOUT CHARGE.  WHETHER THESE, TOO, WERE CAPITAL
CONTRIBUTIONS WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE IN THIS CASE.  FREE USE
OF THE CYLINDERS BY PETITIONERS, IF THEY WERE MERELY ON LOAN, MAY HAVE
DISTORTED THE SUBSIDIARIES' INCOME BEYOND THE ALLOCATIONS MADE BY THE
COMMISSIONER, BUT THAT PROBLEM IS NOT BEFORE US. 

FN17  RESTATEMENT OF AGENCY, SEC. 427. 

FN18  IN UNITED STATES V. JOLIET & CHICAGO R. CO., 315 U.S. 44(1942),
A LESSEE RAILROAD AGREED TO PAY RENTAL PAYMENTS TO THE LESSOR'S
STOCKHOLDERS DIRECTLY.  THE LESSOR THEREAFTER CARRIED ON NO ACTIVE
BUSINESS.  IT WAS NEVERTHELESS HELD TAXABLE ON THE INCOME RECEIVED BY
ITS STOCKHOLDERS, SINCE THEY RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS ONLY BECAUSE THEY
HELD ITS STOCK. 

FN19  ART. 22(A)-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, PROMULGATED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1938, PROVIDES: 

"ART. 22(A)-1.  WHAT INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME.  - GROSS INCOME
INCLUDES IN GENERAL COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES, BUSINESS INCOME, PROFITS FROM SALES OF AND DEALINGS IN
PROPERTY, INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, AND GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME
DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER, UNLESS EXEMPT FROM TAX BY LAW.  (SEE
CAPITAL, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED, PROVIDED IT BE UNDERSTOOD
TO INCLUDE PROFIT GAINED THROUGH A SALE OR CONVERSION OF CAPITAL
ASSETS.  ..."  SEE EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 207(1920);
MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. V. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509, 519(1921). 

IN THE CASE OF A SUBSIDIARY WHO SUPPLIES THE LABOR AND THE CAPITAL
WITH WHICH THE INCOME IS EARNED, AS IS TRUE OF PETITIONERS HERE, IT CAN
HARDLY BE CONTENDED THAT IT DID NOT EARN THE INCOME. 

FN20  OF COURSE EVEN A CORPORATION WHICH SATISFIES THE USUAL TESTS OF
AGENCY MAY BE DISREGARDED BY THE COMMISSIONER IF IT IS A SHAM OR
UNREAL.  HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473(1940); GREGORY V. HELVERING,
293 U.S. 465(1935).  ESCAPING TAXATION IS NOT A "BUSINESS" ACTIVITY. 
SEE NATIONAL INVESTORS CORP. V. HOEY, 144 F.2D 466. 

FN21  THE TWO MAIN PURPOSES FOR THE ADOPTION BY AIRCO OF THE
CORPORATE SUBSIDIARY METHOD OF OPERATION, AS RELATED BY MR. C. E.
ADAMS, CHAIRMAN OF AIR REDUCTION CORP., WERE THESE: 

"FRANKLY, IN 1918 AND STILL, AIR REDUCTION, INC., WAS AND IS A NEW
YORK CORPORATION.  EVEN AT THAT EARLY DATE IT BECAME EVIDENT, AS I
ALREADY SAID, WE WERE GOING TO HAVE PLANTS SCATTERED ALL OVER THE
UNITED STATES.  WE DIDN'T WANT TO DOMICILE THE PARENT COMPANY IN 48
STATES OF THE UNION AND HAVE US SUBJECT TO SERVICE IN ALL THOSE STATES,
THAT IS, HAVE THE PARENT COMPANY SUBJECT TO SERVICE IN ALL THOSE
STATES, AND THAT WAS DISTINCTLY A REASON FOR USING THIS CORPORATE SETUP
IN CONNECTION WITH OPERATIONS TO BE RUN AS DIVISIONS, JUST AS THE
CONTRACT SETS FORTH. 

"NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, OUT IN THE FIELD
AND ON THE FIRING LINE, TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE, AN OFFICER, WE WILL
SAY, OF PURE CARBONIC, WHEN TROUBLE ARISES WITH A CUSTOMER, A VICE
PRESIDENT OF PURE CARBONIC, WHO IS NOT AN OFFICER OF AIR REDUCTON,
INC., AT ALL, WHO GOES IN AND STRAIGHTENS THAT OUT WITH THAT CUSTOMER,
INCREASES HIS CUDOS, HELPS HIM WITH ALL HIS NEGOTIATING EFFORTS, WITH
THEIR COMPETITORS ON THE OUTSIDE." 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT AIRCO WAS ATTEMPTING TO AVOID THE STATUS OF
PRINCIPAL VIS-A-VIS ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  AS PRINCIPAL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBJECT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS THROUGH ITS AGENTS; AS OWNER OF THE
SUBSIDIARY IT WAS NOT.  SEE PETERSON V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 205
U.S. 364, 391(1907); CANNON MFG. CO. V. CUDAHY CO., 267 U.S.
333(1925).  THE PURPOSE OF HAVING OFFICERS OF SUBSIDIARIES WHO COULD
DEAL DIRECTLY WITH CUSTOMERS DOES NOT INDICATE AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP. 
ON THE CONTRARY, THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE ORGANIZATION ADOPTED WAS TO
LEAD CUSTOMERS TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE DEALING WITH TOP MEN IN THE
COMPANY ACTUALLY MANUFACTURING AND SELLING THE PRODUCTS THEY
PURCHASED. 
..END :





















KRULEWITCH V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 440 


NO. 143.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1949.  - 167
F.2D 943, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR INDUCING A
WOMAN (THE COMPLAINING WITNESS) TO GO FROM NEW YORK TO FLORIDA FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION, TRANSPORTING HER FROM NEW YORK TO MIAMI FOR
THAT PURPOSE, AND CONSPIRING WITH ANOTHER WOMAN TO COMMIT THOSE
OFFENSES.  AT HIS TRIAL, THERE WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER HIS
OBJECTION TESTIMONY CONCERNING A STATEMENT MADE BY THE CO-CONSPIRATOR
TO THE COMPLAINING WITNESS MORE THAN SIX WEEKS AFTER THE TRANSPORTATION
TO MIAMI HAD BEEN COMPLETED, WHICH IMPLIED THAT PETITIONER WAS GUILTY
AND SUGGESTED CONCEALING HIS GUILT.  HELD: 

1.  THE HEARSAY DECLARATION ATTRIBUTED TO THE CO-CONSPIRATOR WAS NOT
ADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT.  PP. 441-443. 

2.  NOR WAS IT ADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS IN FURTHERANCE OF
A CONTINUING SUBSIDIARY PHASE OF THE CONSPIRACY - I.E., AN IMPLIED
AGREEMENT TO CONCEAL THE CRIME.  PP. 443-444. 

3.  SINCE IT CANNOT BE SAID ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE THAT THE
ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF THE HEARSAY DECLARATION MAY NOT HAVE TIPPED THE
SCALES AGAINST PETITIONER, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A HARMLESS ERROR
UNDER 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  391; AND THE CONVICTION IS REVERSED. 
PP. 444-445. 

KRULEWITCH V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF VIOLATIONS OF
THE MANN ACT AND OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THOSE OFFENSES, 18 U.S.C.
SECS. 88, 398, 399(NOW 18 U.S.C. SECS. 371, 2421, 2422).  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  167 F.2D 943.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335
U.S. 811.  REVERSED, P. 445. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT INDICTMENT CHARGED IN THREE COUNTS THAT
PETITIONER AND A WOMAN DEFENDANT HAD (1) INDUCED AND PERSUADED ANOTHER
WOMAN TO GO ON OCTOBER 20, 1941, FROM NEW YORK CITY TO MIAMI, FLORIDA,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION, IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 399(NOW
SEC. 2422); (2) TRANSPORTED OR CAUSED HER TO BE TRANSPORTED FROM NEW
YORK TO MIAMI FOR THAT PURPOSE, IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 398(NOW
SEC. 2421); AND (3) CONSPIRED TO COMMIT THOSE OFFENSES IN VIOLATION OF
18 U.S.C. SEC. 88(NOW SEC. 371).  TRIED ALONE, THE PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED ON ALL THREE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  167 F.2D 943.  AND SEE DISPOSITION OF PRIOR APPEAL, 145 F.2D
76.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITING OUR REVIEW TO CONSIDERATION OF
ALLEGED ERROR IN ADMISSION OF CERTAIN HEARSAY TESTIMONY AGAINST
PETITIONER OVER HIS TIMELY AND REPEATED OBJECTIONS. 

THE CHALLENGED TESTIMONY WAS ELICITED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM ITS
COMPLAINING WITNESS, THE PERSON WHOM PETITIONER AND THE WOMAN DEFENDANT
ALLEGEDLY INDUCED TO GO FROM NEW YORK TO FLORIDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROSTITUTION.  THE TESTIMONY NARRATED THE FOLLOWING PURPORTED
CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE COMPLAINING WITNESS AND PETITIONER'S ALLEGED
CO-CONSPIRATOR, THE WOMAN DEFENDANT. 

"SHE ASKED ME, SHE SAYS, 'YOU DIDN'T TALK YET?'  AND I SAYS, 'NO.' 
AND SHE SAYS, 'WELL, DON'T,' SHE SAYS, 'UNTIL WE GET YOU A LAWYER.' 
AND THEN SHE SAYS, 'BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY.'  AND I CAN'T PUT IT
IN EXACT WORDS.  BUT SHE SAID, 'IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR US TWO GIRLS TO
TAKE THE BLAME THAN KAY (THE DEFENDANT) BECAUSE HE COULDN'T STAND IT,
HE COULDN'T STAND TO TAKE IT.'" 

THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED CONVERSATION WAS MORE THAN A MONTH AND A HALF
AFTER OCTOBER 20, 1941, THE DATE THE COMPLAINING WITNESS HAD GONE TO
MIAMI.  WHATEVER ORIGINAL CONSPIRACY MAY HAVE EXISTED BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND HIS ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR TO CAUSE THE COMPLAINING
WITNESS TO GO TO FLORIDA IN OCTOBER, 1941, NO LONGER EXISTED WHEN THE
REPORTED CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN DECEMBER, 1941.  FOR ON THIS LATTER
DATE THE TRIP TO FLORIDA HAD NOT ONLY BEEN MADE - THE COMPLAINING
WITNESS HAD LEFT FLORIDA, HAD RETURNED TO NEW YORK, AND HAD RESUMED HER
RESIDENCE THERE.  FURTHERMORE, AT THE TIME THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE,
THE COMPLAINING WITNESS, THE ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR, AND THE PETITIONER
HAD BEEN ARRESTED.  THEY APPARENTLY WERE CHARGED IN A UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA WITH THE OFFENSE OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS HERE
CONVICTED.  FN1 

IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE CENTRAL AIM OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY -
TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESS TO FLORIDA FOR PROSTITUTION -
HAD EITHER NEVER EXISTED OR HAD LONG SINCE ENDED IN SUCCESS OR FAILURE
WHEN AND IF THE ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR MADE THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO
HER.  CF. LEW MOY V. UNITED STATES, 237 F. 50.  THE STATEMENT PLAINLY
IMPLIED THAT PETITIONER WAS GUILTY OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE WAS ON
TRIAL.  IT WAS MADE IN PETITIONER'S ABSENCE AND THE GOVERNMENT MADE NO
EFFORT WHATEVER TO SHOW THAT IT WAS MADE WITH HIS AUTHORITY.  THE
TESTIMONY THUS STANDS AS AN UNSWORN, OUT-OF-COURT DECLARATION OF
PETITIONER'S GUILT.  THIS HEARSAY DECLARATION, ATTRIBUTED TO A CO
CONSPIRATOR, WAS NOT MADE PURSUANT TO AND IN FURTHERANCE OF OBJECTIVES
OF THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, BECAUSE IF MADE, IT WAS
AFTER THOSE OBJECTIVES EITHER HAD FAILED OR HAD BEEN ACHIEVED.  UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HEARSAY DECLARATION ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED
CO-CONSPIRATOR WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE ON THE THEORY THAT IT WAS MADE IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL TRANSPORTATION UNDERTAKING. 
FISWICK V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 211, 216-217; BROWN V. UNITED
STATES, 150 U.S. 93, 98-99; GRAHAM V. UNITED STATES, 15 F.2D 740, 743. 

ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES THAT THE CHIEF OBJECTIVE OF THE
CONSPIRACY - TRANSPORTATION FOR PROSTITUTION PURPOSES - HAD ENDED IN
SUCCESS OR FAILURE BEFORE THE REPORTED CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE, IT
NEVERTHELESS ARGUES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF THE HEARSAY DECLARATION AS ONE
IN FURTHERANCE OF A CONTINUING SUBSIDIARY OBJECTIVE OF THE CONSPIRACY. 
ITS ARGUMENT RUNS THIS WAY.  CONSPIRATORS ABOUT TO COMMIT CRIMES ALWAYS
EXPRESSLY OR IMPLICITLY AGREE TO COLLABORATE WITH EACH OTHER TO CONCEAL
FACTS IN ORDER TO PREVENT DETECTION, CONVICTION AND PUNISHMENT.  THUS
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT EVEN AFTER THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL OBJECTIVES OF A
CONSPIRACY HAVE SUCCEEDED OR FAILED, AN IMPLICIT SUBSIDIARY PHASE OF
THE CONSPIRACY ALWAYS SURVIVES, THE PHASE WHICH HAS CONCEALMENT AS ITS
SOLE OBJECTIVE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ADOPTED THIS VIEW.  IT VIEWED THE
ALLEGED HEARSAY DECLARATION AS ONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS CONTINUING
SUBSIDIARY PHASE OF THE CONSPIRACY, AS PART OF "THE IMPLIED AGREEMENT
TO CONCEAL."  167 F.2D 943, 948.  IT CONSEQUENTLY HELD THE DECLARATION
PROPERLY ADMITTED. 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION.  THERE ARE MANY LOGICAL
AND PRACTICAL REASONS THAT COULD BE ADVANCED AGAINST A SPECIAL
EVIDENTIARY RULE THAT PERMITS OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS OF ONE
CONSPIRATOR TO BE USED AGAINST ANOTHER.  BUT HOWEVER COGENT THESE
REASONS, IT IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THAT WHERE MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
OBJECTIVES OF A GOING CONSPIRACY, SUCH STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE AS
EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE.  THIS PREREQUISITE TO ADMISSIBILITY,
THAT HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY SOME CONSPIRATORS TO BE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST
OTHERS MUST BE MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED, HAS BEEN
SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVED BY FEDERAL COURTS.  THE GOVERNMENT NOW ASKS US TO
EXPAND THIS NARROW EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AND HOLD ADMISSIBLE A
DECLARATION, NOT MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL
TRANSPORTATION CONSPIRACY CHARGED, BUT MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF AN
ALLEGED IMPLIED BUT UNCHARGED CONSPIRACY AIMED AT PREVENTING DETECTION
AND PUNISHMENT.  NO FEDERAL COURT CASE CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS
SO HOSPITABLE A RECEPTION TO THE USE OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE TO CONVICT IN
CONSPIRACY CASES.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENTION DOES FIND SUPPORT IN SOME
BUT NOT ALL OF THE STATE COURT OPINIONS CITED IN THE GOVERNMENT BRIEF. 
FN2  BUT IN NONE OF THEM DOES THERE APPEAR TO BE RECOGNITION OF ANY
SUCH BROAD EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE AS THAT HERE URGED.  THE RULE
CONTENDED FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE FAR-REACHING RESULTS.  FOR
UNDER THIS RULE PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENTS COULD GENERALLY BE MADE IN
CONSPIRACY CASES THAT MOST OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
TENDED TO SHIELD CO-CONSPIRATORS.  WE ARE NOT PERSUADED TO ADOPT THE
GOVERNMENT'S IMPLICIT CONSPIRACY THEORY WHICH IN ALL CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY CASES WOULD CREATE AUTOMATICALLY A FURTHER BREACH OF THE
GENERAL RULE AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALLEGED CO
CONSPIRATOR WAS MERELY CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE, THAT WITHOUT THE STATEMENT
THE CASE AGAINST PETITIONER WAS SO STRONG THAT WE SHOULD HOLD THE ERROR
HARMLESS UNDER 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  391.  IN KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 750, WE SAID THAT ERROR SHOULD NOT BE HELD HARMLESS
UNDER THE HARMLESS ERROR STATUTE IF UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD
THE COURT IS LEFT IN GRAVE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE ERROR HAD
SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE IN BRINGING ABOUT A VERDICT.  WE HAVE SUCH DOUBT
HERE.  THE FLORIDA DISTRICT COURT GRAND JURY FAILED TO INDICT.  AFTER
INDICTMENT IN NEW YORK PETITIONER WAS TRIED FOUR TIMES WITH THE
FOLLOWING RESULTS:  MISTRIAL; CONVICTION; MISTRIAL; CONVICTION WITH
RECOMMENDATION FOR LENIENCY.  THE REVOLTING TYPE OF CHARGES MADE
AGAINST THIS PETITIONER BY THE COMPLAINING WITNESS MAKES IT DIFFICULT
TO BELIEVE THAT A JURY CONVINCED OF A STRONG CASE AGAINST HIM WOULD
HAVE RECOMMENDED LENIENCY.  THERE WAS CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF THE
COMPLAINING WITNESS ON CERTAIN PHASES OF THE CASE.  BUT AS TO ALL VITAL
PHASES, THOSE INVOLVING THE SORDID CRIMINAL FEATURES, THE JURY WAS
COMPELLED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN BELIEVING THE PETITIONER OR THE COMPLAINING
WITNESS.  THE RECORD PERSUADES US THAT THE JURY'S TASK WAS DIFFICULT AT
BEST.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF THE HEARSAY
DECLARATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE WEIGHT THAT TIPPED THE SCALES AGAINST
PETITIONER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE FLORIDA GRAND JURY FAILED TO INDICT AND THE CASES THERE WERE
CLOSED WITHOUT PROSECUTION IN FEBRUARY, 1942.  THE NEW YORK INDICTMENTS
WERE NOT RETURNED UNTIL JANUARY, 1943. 

FN2  COMMONWEALTH V. SMITH, 151 MASS. 491, 24 N.E. 677; PEOPLE V.
MOL, 137 MICH. 692, 707, 100 N.W. 913, 918; HOOPER V. STATE, 187 ARK.
88, 92, 58 S.W.2D 434, 435; STATE V. GAUTHIER, 113 ORE.  297, 307, 231
P. 141, 145; STATE V. EMORY, 116 KAN. 381, 384, 226 P. 754, 756; CARTER
V. STATE, 106 GA. 372, 376, 32 S.E. 345, 346-347; WATSON V. STATE, 166
MISS.  194, 213, 146 SO. 122, 127; BALDWIN V. STATE, 46 FLA. 115, 120
121, 35 SO. 220, 222; STATE V. STRAIT, 279 S.W. 109(MO.). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT AND OPINION OF THE
COURT. 

THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES A PRESENT DRIFT IN THE FEDERAL LAW OF
CONSPIRACY WHICH WARRANTS SOME FURTHER COMMENT BECAUSE IT IS
CHARACTERISTIC OF THE LONG EVOLUTION OF THAT ELASTIC, SPRAWLING AND
PERVASIVE OFFENSE.  ITS HISTORY EXEMPLIFIES THE "TENDENCY OF A
PRINCIPLE TO EXPAND ITSELF TO THE LIMIT OF ITS LOGIC."  FN1  THE
UNAVAILING PROTEST OF COURTS AGAINST THE GROWING HABIT TO INDICT FOR
CONSPIRACY IN LIEU OF PROSECUTING FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE ITSELF,
OR IN ADDITION THERETO, FN2  SUGGESTS THAT LOOSE PRACTICE AS TO THIS
OFFENSE CONSTITUTES A SERIOUS THREAT TO FAIRNESS IN OUR ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE. 

THE MODERN CRIME OF CONSPIRACY IS SO VAGUE THAT IT ALMOST DEFIES
DEFINITION.  FN3  DESPITE CERTAIN ELEMENTARY AND ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS,
FN4  IT ALSO, CHAMELEON-LIKE, TAKES ON A SPECIAL COLORATION FROM EACH
OF THE MANY INDEPENDENT OFFENSES ON WHICH IT MAY BE OVERLAID.  FN5  IT
IS ALWAYS "PREDOMINANTLY MENTAL IN COMPOSITION" BECAUSE IT CONSISTS
PRIMARILY OF A MEETING OF MINDS AND AN INTENT.  FN6 

THE CRIME COMES DOWN TO US WRAPPED IN VAGUE BUT UNPLEASANT
CONNOTATIONS.  IT SOUNDS HISTORICAL UNDERTONES OF TREACHERY, SECRET
PLOTTING AND VIOLENCE ON A SCALE THAT MENACES SOCIAL STABILITY AND THE
SECURITY OF THE STATE ITSELF.  "PRIVY CONSPIRACY" RANKS WITH SEDITION
AND REBELLION IN THE LITANY'S PRAYER FOR DELIVERANCE.  CONSPIRATORIAL
MOVEMENTS DO INDEED LIE BACK OF THE POLITICAL ASSASSINATION, THE COUP
D'ETAT, THE PUTSCH, THE REVOLUTION, AND SEIZURES OF POWER IN MODERN
TIMES, AS THEY HAVE IN ALL HISTORY.  FN7 

BUT THE CONSPIRACY CONCEPT ALSO IS SUPERIMPOSED UPON MANY CONCERTED
CRIMES HAVING NO POLITICAL MOTIVATION.  IT IS NOT INTENDED TO QUESTION
THAT THE BASIC CONSPIRACY PRINCIPLE HAS SOME PLACE IN MODERN CRIMINAL
LAW, BECAUSE TO UNITE, BACK OF A CRIMINAL PURPOSE, THE STRENGTH,
OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES OF MANY IS OBVIOUSLY MORE DANGEROUS AND
MORE DIFFICULT TO POLICE THAN THE EFFORTS OF A LONE WRONGDOER.  FN8  IT
ALSO MAY BE TRIVIALIZED, AS HERE, WHERE THE CONSPIRACY CONSISTS OF THE
CONCERT OF A LOATHSOME PANDERER AND A PROSTITUTE TO GO FROM NEW YORK TO
FLORIDA TO PLY THEIR TRADE (SEE 145 F.2D 76 FOR DETAILS) AND IT WOULD
APPEAR THAT A SIMPLE MANN ACT PROSECUTION WOULD VINDICATE THE MAJESTY
OF FEDERAL LAW.  HOWEVER, EVEN WHEN APPROPRIATELY INVOKED, THE
LOOSENESS AND PLIABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE PRESENT INHERENT DANGERS WHICH
SHOULD BE IN THE BACKGROUND OF JUDICIAL THOUGHT WHEREVER IT IS SOUGHT
TO EXTEND THE DOCTRINE TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF A PARTICULAR CASE. 

CONSPIRACY IN FEDERAL LAW AGGRAVATES THE DEGREE OF CRIME OVER THAT OF
UNCONCERTED OFFENDING.  THE ACT OF CONFEDERATING TO COMMIT A
MISDEMEANOR, FOLLOWED BY EVEN AN INNOCENT OVERT ACT IN ITS EXECUTION,
IS A FELONY AND IS SUCH EVEN IF THE MISDEMEANOR IS NEVER CONSUMMATED. 
FN9  THE MORE RADICAL PROPOSITION ALSO IS WELL-ESTABLISHED THAT AT
COMMON LAW AND UNDER SOME STATUTES A COMBINATION MAY BE A CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY EVEN IF IT CONTEMPLATES ONLY ACTS WHICH ARE NOT CRIMES AT
ALL WHEN PERPETRATED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR BY MANY ACTING SEVERALLY. 
FN10 

THUS THE CONSPIRACY DOCTRINE WILL INCRIMINATE PERSONS ON THE FRINGE OF
OFFENDING WHO WOULD NOT BE GUILTY OF AIDING AND ABETTING OR OF BECOMING
AN ACCESSORY, FOR THOSE CHARGES ONLY LIE WHEN AN ACT WHICH IS A CRIME
HAS ACTUALLY BEEN COMMITTED.  FN11 

ATTRIBUTION OF CRIMINALITY TO A CONFEDERATION WHICH CONTEMPLATES NO
ACT THAT WOULD BE CRIMINAL IF CARRIED OUT BY ANY ONE OF THE
CONSPIRATORS IS A PRACTICE PECULIAR TO ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW.  "THERE CAN
BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THIS WIDE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY
ORIGINATES IN THE CRIMINAL EQUITY ADMINISTERED IN THE STAR CHAMBER." 
FN12  IN FACT, WE ARE ADVISED THAT "THE MODERN CRIME OF CONSPIRACY IS
ALMOST ENTIRELY THE RESULT OF THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSPIRACY WAS
TREATED BY THE COURT OF STAR CHAMBER."  FN13  THE DOCTRINE DOES NOT
COMMEND ITSELF TO JURISTS OF CIVIL-LAW COUNTRIES,  FN14  DESPITE
UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION THAT AN ORGANIZED SOCIETY MUST HAVE LEGAL WEAPONS
FOR COMBATTING ORGANIZED CRIMINALITY.  MOST OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE
DEVISED WHAT THEY CONSIDER MORE DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH TO
PROSECUTE CRIMINAL GANGS, SECRET ASSOCIATIONS AND SUBVERSIVE
SYNDICATES.  FN15    A RECENT TENDENCY HAS APPEARED IN THIS COURT TO
EXPAND THIS ELASTIC OFFENSE AND TO FACILITATE ITS PROOF.  IN PINKERTON
V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, IT SUSTAINED A CONVICTION OF A
SUBSTANTIVE CRIME WHERE THERE WAS NO PROOF OF PARTICIPATION IN OR
KNOWLEDGE OF IT, UPON THE NOVEL AND DUBIOUS THEORY THAT CONSPIRACY IS
EQUIVALENT IN LAW TO AIDING AND ABETTING. 

DOCTRINES OF CONSPIRACY ARE NOT ONLY INVOKED FOR CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION, BUT ALSO IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR DAMAGES OR FOR
INJUNCTION, AND IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS TO APPLY REGULATORY
STATUTES.  THEY HAVE BEEN RESORTED TO BY MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND ON AT
LEAST ONE NOTABLE OCCASION WHEN CIVIL COURTS WERE OPEN AT THE TIME AND
PLACE TO PUNISH THE OFFENSE.  FN16  THIS CONSPIRACY CONCEPT WAS
EMPLOYED TO PROSECUTE LABORERS FOR COMBINING TO RAISE THEIR WAGES AND
FORMED THE BASIS FOR ABUSE OF THE LABOR INJUNCTION.  FN17  THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT FOUND IT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THAT CONCERTED LABOR
ACTIVITIES OTHERWISE LAWFUL WERE NOT RENDERED UNLAWFUL BY MERE
CONCERT.  FN18  BUT IN OTHER FIELDS CONCERT MAY STILL BE A CRIME THOUGH
IT CONTEMPLATES ONLY ACTS WHICH EACH COULD DO LAWFULLY ON HIS OWN. 

THE INTERCHANGEABLE USE OF CONSPIRACY DOCTRINE IN CIVIL AS WELL AS
PENAL PROCEEDINGS OPENS IT TO THE DANGER, ABSENT IN THE CASE OF MANY
CRIMES, THAT A COURT HAVING IN MIND ONLY THE CIVIL SANCTIONS WILL
APPROVE LAX PRACTICES WHICH LATER ARE IMPORTED INTO CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS.  IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS THIS COURT FRANKLY HAS MADE THE END
A TEST OF THE MEANS, SAYING, "TO REQUIRE A GREATER SHOWING WOULD
CRIPPLE THE ACT," UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, IN
DISPENSING WITH THE NECESSITY FOR SPECIFIC INTENT TO PRODUCE A RESULT
VIOLATIVE OF THE STATUTE.  FURTHER, THE COURT HAS DISPENSED WITH EVEN
THE NECESSITY TO INFER ANY DEFINITE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH THAT IS THE
GIST OF THE OFFENSE.  "IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY MAY
BE AND OFTEN IS FORMED WITHOUT SIMULTANEOUS ACTION OR AGREEMENT ON THE
PART OF THE CONSPIRATORS.   ...  "  UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP.,
316 U.S. 265, 275.  ONE MIGHT GO ON FROM THE REPORTS OF THIS AND LOWER
COURTS AND PUT TOGETHER THEIR DECISIONS CONDONING ABSENCE OF PROOF TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MINIMUM OF PROOF REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY
IS EXTREMELY LOW, AND WE MAY EXPECT OUR PRONOUNCEMENTS IN CIVIL CASES
TO BE FOLLOWED IN CRIMINAL ONES ALSO. 

OF COURSE, IT IS FOR PROSECUTORS RATHER THAN COURTS TO DETERMINE WHEN
TO USE A SCATTER-GUN TO BRING DOWN THE DEFENDANT, BUT THERE ARE
PROCEDURAL ADVANTAGES FROM USING IT WHICH ADD TO THE DANGER OF
UNGUARDED EXTENSION OF THE CONCEPT. 

AN ACCUSED, UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, HAS THE RIGHT TO TRIAL "BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED."  THE LEVERAGE OF A CONSPIRACY CHARGE LIFTS THIS
LIMITATION FROM THE PROSECUTION AND REDUCES ITS PROTECTION TO A
PHANTOM, FOR THE CRIME IS CONSIDERED SO VAGRANT AS TO HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE ANY ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS DID ANY ONE
OF THE ACTS, HOWEVER INNOCENT, INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH ITS OBJECT.  FN19
THE GOVERNMENT MAY, AND OFTEN DOES, COMPEL ONE TO DEFEND AT A GREAT
DISTANCE FROM ANY PLACE HE EVER DID ANY ACT BECAUSE SOME ACCUSED
CONFEDERATE DID SOME TRIVIAL AND BY ITSELF INNOCENT ACT IN THE CHOSEN
DISTRICT.  CIRCUMSTANCES MAY EVEN ENABLE THE PROSECUTION TO FIX THE
PLACE OF TRIAL IN WASHINGTON, D.C., WHERE A DEFENDANT MAY LAWFULLY BE
PUT TO TRIAL BEFORE A JURY PARTLY OR EVEN WHOLLY MADE UP OF EMPLOYEES
OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT ACCUSES HIM.  CF. FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES, 335
U.S. 497. 

WHEN THE TRIAL STARTS, THE ACCUSED FEELS THE FULL IMPACT OF THE
CONSPIRACY STRATEGY.  STRICTLY, THE PROSECUTION SHOULD FIRST ESTABLISH
PRIMA FACIE THE CONSPIRACY AND IDENTIFY THE CONSPIRATORS, AFTER WHICH
EVIDENCE OF ACTS AND DECLARATIONS OF EACH IN THE COURSE OF ITS
EXECUTION ARE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST ALL.  BUT THE ORDER OF PROOF OF SO
SPRAWLING A CHARGE IS DIFFICULT FOR A JUDGE TO CONTROL.  AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, THE ACCUSED OFTEN IS CONFRONTED WITH A HODGEPODGE OF ACTS AND
STATEMENTS BY OTHERS WHICH HE MAY NEVER HAVE AUTHORIZED OR INTENDED OR
EVEN KNOWN ABOUT, BUT WHICH HELP TO PERSUADE THE JURY OF EXISTENCE OF
THE CONSPIRACY ITSELF.  IN OTHER WORDS, A CONSPIRACY OFTEN IS PROVED BY
EVIDENCE THAT IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY UPON ASSUMPTION THAT CONSPIRACY
EXISTED.  THE NAIVE ASSUMPTION THAT PREJUDICIAL EFFECTS CAN BE OVERCOME
BY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, CF. BLUMENTHAL V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S.
539, 559, ALL PRACTICING LAWYERS KNOW TO BE UNMITIGATED FICTION.  SEE
SKIDMORE V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 167 F.2D 54. 

THE TRIAL OF A CONSPIRACY CHARGE DOUBTLESS IMPOSES A HEAVY BURDEN ON
THE PROSECUTION, BUT IT IS AN ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT SITUATION FOR THE
DEFENDANT.  THE HAZARD FROM LOOSE APPLICATION OF RULES OF EVIDENCE IS
AGGRAVATED WHERE THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES MASS TRIALS.  FN20
MOREOVER, IN FEDERAL PRACTICE THERE IS NO RULE PREVENTING CONVICTION ON
UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF ACCOMPLICES, AS THERE ARE IN MANY
JURISDICTIONS, AND THE MOST COMFORT A DEFENDANT CAN EXPECT IS THAT THE
COURT CAN BE INDUCED TO FOLLOW THE "BETTER PRACTICE" AND CAUTION THE
JURY AGAINST "TOO MUCH RELIANCE UPON THE TESTIMONY OF ACCOMPLICES." 
CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470, 495. 

A CO-DEFENDANT IN A CONSPIRACY TRIAL OCCUPIES AN UNEASY SEAT.  THERE
GENERALLY WILL BE EVIDENCE OF WRONG-DOING BY SOMEBODY.  IT IS DIFFICULT
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE HIS OWN CASE STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS IN THE
MINDS OF JURORS WHO ARE READY TO BELIEVE THAT BIRDS OF A FEATHER ARE
FLOCKED TOGETHER.  IF HE IS SILENT, HE IS TAKEN TO ADMIT IT AND IF, AS
OFTEN HAPPENS, CO-DEFENDANTS CAN BE PRODDED INTO ACCUSING OR
CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER, THEY CONVICT EACH OTHER.  THERE ARE MANY
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN DEFENDING AGAINST A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY
WHICH I WILL NOT ENUMERATE.  FN21 

AGAINST THIS INADEQUATELY SKETCHED BACKGROUND, I THINK THE DECISION
OF THIS CASE IN THE COURT BELOW INTRODUCED AN OMINOUS EXPANSION OF THE
ACCEPTED LAW OF CONSPIRACY.  THE PROSECUTION WAS ALLOWED TO INCRIMINATE
THE DEFENDANT BY MEANS OF THE PROSTITUTE'S RECITAL OF A CONVERSATION
WITH DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR, WHO WAS NOT ON TRIAL.  THE
CONVERSATION WAS SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE
WAS ACCOMPLISHED, AFTER THE DEFENDANT, THE CO-CONSPIRATOR AND THE
WITNESS HAD ALL BEEN ARRESTED, AND AFTER THE WITNESS AND THE OTHER TWO
HAD A FALLING OUT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED ITS ADMISSION UPON
GROUNDS STATED AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  WE THINK THAT IMPLICIT IN A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE LAW IS
AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE CONSPIRATORS TO CONCEAL THE VIOLATION AFTER AS
WELL AS BEFORE THE ILLEGAL PLAN IS CONSUMMATED.  THUS THE CONSPIRACY
CONTINUES, AT LEAST FOR PURPOSES OF CONCEALMENT, EVEN AFTER ITS PRIMARY
AIMS HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.  THE STATEMENTS OF THE CO-CONSPIRATOR HERE
WERE MADE IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT THE APPELLANT BY CONCEALING HIS ROLE
IN THE CONSPIRACY.  CONSEQUENTLY, THEY FELL WITHIN THE IMPLIED
AGREEMENT TO CONCEAL AND WERE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
APPELLANT.  CF. UNITED STATES V. GOLDSTEIN, 2 CIR., 135 F.2D 359;
MURRAY V. UNITED STATES, 7 CIR., 10 F.2D 409, CERTIORARI DENIED, 271
U.S. 673  ...  WHILE BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 5 CIR., 17 F.2D 741, IS BY
IMPLICATION DIRECTLY TO THE CONTRARY, WE DECLINE TO FOLLOW IT." 

I SUPPOSE NO PERSON PLANNING A CRIME WOULD ACCEPT AS A COLLABORATOR
ONE ON WHOM HE THOUGHT HE COULD NOT RELY FOR HELP IF HE WERE CAUGHT,
BUT I DOUBT THAT THIS FACT WARRANTS AN INFERENCE OF CONSPIRACY FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  OF COURSE, IF AN UNDERSTANDING FOR CONTINUOUS AID HAD BEEN
PROVEN, IT WOULD BE EMBRACED IN THE CONSPIRACY BY EVIDENCE AND THERE
WOULD BE NO NEED TO IMPLY SUCH AN AGREEMENT.  ONLY WHERE THERE IS NO
CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING IS THERE NEED FOR ONE TO
BE IMPLIED. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE ANY LOGICAL LIMIT TO THE "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY,"
EITHER AS TO DURATION OR MEANS, NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT ONE COULD
OVERCOME THE IMPLICATION BY EXPRESS AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT NO SUCH
UNDERSTANDING EXISTED, NOR ANY WAY IN WHICH AN ACCUSED AGAINST WHOM THE
PRESUMPTION IS ONCE RAISED CAN TERMINATE THE IMPUTED AGENCY OF HIS
ASSOCIATES TO INCRIMINATE HIM.  CONSPIRATORS, LONG AFTER THE
CONTEMPLATED OFFENSE IS COMPLETE, AFTER PERHAPS THEY HAVE FALLEN OUT
AND BECOME ENEMIES, MAY STILL INCRIMINATE EACH OTHER BY DELIBERATELY
HARMFUL, BUT UNSWORN DECLARATIONS, OR UNINTENTIONALLY BY CASUAL
CONVERSATIONS OUT OF COURT.  ON THE THEORY THAT THE LAW WILL IMPUTE TO
THE CONFEDERATES A CONTINUING CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE, ONE
CONCEIVABLY COULD BE BOUND BY ANOTHER'S UNAUTHORIZED AND UNKNOWN
COMMISSION OF PERJURY, BRIBERY OF A JUROR OR WITNESS, OR EVEN PUTTING
AN INCORRIGIBLE WITNESS WITH DAMAGING INFORMATION OUT OF THE WAY. 

MOREOVER, THE ASSUMPTION OF AN INDEFINITELY CONTINUING OFFENSE WOULD
RESULT IN AN INDETERMINATE EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  IF
THE LAW IMPLIES AN AGREEMENT TO COOPERATE IN DEFEATING PROSECUTION, IT
MUST IMPLY THAT IT CONTINUES AS LONG AS PROSECUTION IS A POSSIBILITY,
AND PROSECUTION IS A POSSIBILITY AS LONG AS THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT IT
IS IMPLIED TO CONTINUE. 

I DO NOT SEE THE SLIGHTEST WARRANT FOR JUDICIALLY INTRODUCING A
DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED CRIMES OR CONSTRUCTIVE CONSPIRACIES.  IT EITHER
ADDS A NEW CRIME OR EXTENDS AN OLD ONE.  TRUE, THE MODERN LAW OF
CONSPIRACY WAS LARGELY EVOLVED BY THE JUDGES.  BUT IT IS WELL AND
WISELY SETTLED THAT THERE CAN BE NO JUDGE-MADE OFFENSES AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES AND THAT EVERY FEDERAL PROSECUTION MUST BE SUSTAINED BY
STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  FN22  NO STATUTE AUTHORIZES FEDERAL JUDGES TO
IMPLY, PRESUME OR CONSTRUCT A CONSPIRACY EXCEPT AS ONE MAY BE FOUND
FROM EVIDENCE.  TO DO SO SEEMS TO APPROXIMATE CREATION OF A NEW OFFENSE
AND ONE THAT I WOULD THINK OF DOUBTFUL CONSTITUTIONALITY EVEN IF IT
WERE CREATED BY CONGRESS.  FN23  AND, AT ALL EVENTS, IT IS ONE
FUNDAMENTALLY AND IRRECONCILABLY AT WAR WITH OUR PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE. 

THERE IS, OF COURSE, STRONG TEMPTATION TO RELAX RIGID STANDARDS WHEN
IT SEEMS THE ONLY WAY TO SUSTAIN CONVICTIONS OF EVILDOERS.  BUT
STATUTES AUTHORIZE PROSECUTION FOR SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES FOR MOST EVIL
DOING WITHOUT THE DANGERS TO THE LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE
INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS THAT ARE INHERENT IN CONSPIRACY
CHARGES.  WE SHOULD DISAPPROVE THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED OR CONSTRUCTIVE
CRIME IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN EVERY MANIFESTATION.  AND I THINK THERE
SHOULD BE NO STRAINING TO UPHOLD ANY CONSPIRACY CONVICTION WHERE
PROSECUTION FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE IS ADEQUATE AND THE PURPOSE
SERVED BY ADDING THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE SEEMS CHIEFLY TO GET PROCEDURAL
ADVANTAGES TO EASE THE WAY TO CONVICTION. 

ALTHOUGH A REVERSAL AFTER FOUR TRIALS IS, OF COURSE, REGRETTABLE, I
CANNOT OVERLOOK THE ERROR AS A HARMLESS ONE.  BUT I SHOULD CONCUR IN
REVERSAL EVEN IF LESS SURE THAT PREJUDICE RESULTED, FOR IT IS BETTER
THAT THE CRIME GO UNWHIPPED OF JUSTICE THAN THAT THIS THEORY OF IMPLIED
CONTINUANCE OF CONSPIRACY FIND LODGMENT IN OUR LAW, EITHER BY
AFFIRMANCE OR BY TOLERANCE.  FEW INSTRUMENTS OF INJUSTICE CAN EQUAL
THAT OF IMPLIED OR PRESUMED OR CONSTRUCTIVE CRIMES.  THE MOST ODIOUS OF
ALL OPPRESSIONS ARE THOSE WHICH MASK AS JUSTICE. 

FN1  THE PHRASE IS JUDGE CARDOZO'S - THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS, P. 51. 

FN2  THE CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES, PRESIDED OVER BY CHIEF
JUSTICE TAFT, IN 1925 REPORTED: 

"WE NOTE THE PREVALENT USE OF CONSPIRACY INDICTMENTS FOR CONVERTING A
JOINT MISDEMEANOR INTO A FELONY; AND WE EXPRESS OUR CONVICTION THAT
BOTH FOR THIS PURPOSE AND FOR THE PURPOSE - OR AT LEAST WITH THE EFFECT
- OF BRINGING IN MUCH IMPROPER EVIDENCE, THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE IS
BEING MUCH ABUSED. 

"ALTHOUGH IN A PARTICULAR CASE THERE MAY BE NO PRECONCERT OF PLAN,
EXCEPTING THAT NECESSARILY INHERENT IN MERE JOINT ACTION, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO EXCLUDE THAT SITUATION FROM THE ESTABLISHED DEFINITIONS OF
CONSPIRACY; YET THE THEORY WHICH PERMITS US TO CALL THE ABORTED PLAN A
GREATER OFFENSE THAN THE COMPLETED CRIME SUPPOSES A SERIOUS AND
SUBSTANTIALLY CONTINUED GROUP SCHEME FOR COOPERATIVE LAW BREAKING.   WE
OBSERVE SO MANY CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THIS
SUBSTANTIAL BASE THAT WE FEAR THE CREATION OF A GENERAL IMPRESSION,
VERY HARMFUL TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, THAT THIS METHOD OF PROSECUTION IS
USED ARBITRARILY AND HARSHLY.  FURTHER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN
CONSPIRACY CASES MAKE THEM MOST DIFFICULT TO TRY WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
AN INNOCENT DEFENDANT."  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
1925, PP. 5-6. 

FIFTEEN YEARS LATER JUDGE LEARNED HAND OBSERVED:  "  ...  SO MANY
PROSECUTORS SEEK TO SWEEP WITHIN THE DRAG-NET OF CONSPIRACY ALL THOSE
WHO HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED IN ANY DEGREE WHATEVER WITH THE MAIN
OFFENDERS.  THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES OF GREAT OPPRESSION IN SUCH A
DOCTRINE IS VERY PLAIN, AND IT IS ONLY BY CIRCUMSCRIBING THE SCOPE OF
SUCH ALL COMPREHENSIVE INDICTMENTS THAT THEY CAN BE AVOIDED."  UNITED
STATES V. FALCONE, 109 F.2D 579, 581. 

FN3  HARNO, INTENT IN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, 89 U. OF PA. L. REV. 624:
"IN THE LONG CATEGORY OF CRIMES THERE IS NONE, NOT EXCEPTING CRIMINAL
ATTEMPT, MORE DIFFICULT TO CONFINE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF DEFINITIVE
STATEMENT THAN CONSPIRACY." 

AN ENGLISH AUTHOR - WRIGHT, THE LAW OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES AND
AGREEMENTS, P. 11 - GIVES UP WITH THE REMARK:  "BUT NO INTELLIGIBLE
DEFINITION OF 'CONSPIRACY' HAS YET BEEN ESTABLISHED."    FN4  JUSTICE
HOLMES SUPPLIED AN OVERSIMPLIFIED WORKING DEFINITION IN UNITED STATES
V. KISSEL, 218 U.S. 601, 608:  "A CONSPIRACY IS A PARTNERSHIP IN
CRIMINAL PURPOSES."  THIS WAS RECENTLY RESTATED "A CONSPIRACY IS A
PARTNERSHIP IN CRIME."  PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, 644. 
THE LATTER IS INACCURATE, SINCE CONCERT IN CRIMINAL PURPOSES, RATHER
THAN CONCERT IN CRIME, ESTABLISHES THE CONSPIRACY. 

CARSON OFFERS THE FOLLOWING RESUME OF AMERICAN CASES:  "IT WOULD
APPEAR THAT A CONSPIRACY MUST BE A COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS
BY SOME CONCERTED ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH SOME CRIMINAL OBJECT; OR SOME
OBJECT NOT CRIMINAL BY CRIMINAL MEANS; OR, SOME OBJECT NOT CRIMINAL BY
MEANS WHICH ARE NOT CRIMINAL, BUT WHERE MISCHIEF TO THE PUBLIC IS
INVOLVED; OR, WHERE NEITHER THE OBJECT NOR THE MEANS ARE CRIMINAL, OR
EVEN UNLAWFUL, BUT WHERE INJURY AND OPPRESSION TO INDIVIDUALS ARE THE
RESULT."  THE LAW OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES AND AGREEMENTS, AS FOUND IN
THE AMERICAN CASES, P. 123. 

FN5  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE: 

8 U.S.C. SEC. 47, CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS; (1)
PREVENTING OFFICER FROM PERFORMING DUTIES; (2) OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE,
INTIMIDATING PARTY, WITNESS, OR JUROR; (3) DEPRIVING PERSONS OF RIGHTS
OR PRIVILEGES.  10 U.S.C. SEC. 1566, CONSPIRACY BY PERSONS IN MILITARY
SERVICE TO DEFRAUD THE U.S. 12 U.S.C. SEC. 1138D (F), CONSPIRACY
INVOLVING FARM CREDIT BANKS, ADMINISTRATION, ETC.  15 U.S.C.:  SECS. 1
3, CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE; SEC. 8, CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF
IMPORT TRADE.  18 U.S.C. AS REVISED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62
STAT. 928 ET SEQ., EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948:  SEC. 2384, SEDITIOUS
CONSPIRACY; SECS. 2385, 2387, CONSPIRACY TO IMPAIR LOYALTY OF ARMED
FORCES OR ADVOCATE OVERTHROW OF U.S. GOVERNMENT BY FORCE; SEC. 241,
CONSPIRACY TO INJURE PERSON IN EXERCISE OF CIVIL RIGHTS; SEC. 372,
CONSPIRACY TO PREVENT OFFICER FROM PERFORMING DUTIES; SEC. 286,
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT BY OBTAINING PAYMENT OF A FALSE
CLAIM; SEC. 371, CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES; SECS. 1501
1506, CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE; SECS. 752, 1792, CONSPIRACY TO
CAUSE RIOTS AT FEDERAL PENAL INSTITUTIONS; SEC. 1201, CONSPIRACY TO
TRANSPORT KIDNAPPED PERSON IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; SEC. 2314,
CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT STOLEN PROPERTY AND COUNTERFEITING INSTRUMENTS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; SEC. 1951, CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE ANTI
RACKETEERING ACT; SEC. 2192, CONSPIRACY TO INCITE MUTINY ON SHIPBOARD;
SEC. 2271, CONSPIRACY TO CAST AWAY VESSEL.  22 U.S.C. SEC. 234,
CONSPIRACY TO INJURE PROPERTY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.  31 U.S.C. SEC.
231, CONSPIRACY TO OBTAIN PAYMENT OF FALSE CLAIMS.  34 U.S.C. SEC.
749A, CONSPIRACY TO BID COLLUSIVELY ON CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL AIRCRAFT. 
38 U.S.C. SEC. 715, CONSPIRACY TO FALSIFY PENSION CLAIMS.  50 U.S.C.
SEC. 34, CONSPIRACY TO DISCLOSE NATIONAL DEFENSE INFORMATION OR COMMIT
ESPIONAGE.  50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311, CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SELECTIVE
SERVICE ACT. 

FN6  HARNO, INTENT IN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, 89 U. OF PA. L. REV. 624,
632. 

FN7  SEE SENTURIA, CONSPIRACY, POLITICAL, IV ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI.
238(1931). 

ON CONSPIRACY PRINCIPLES GERMAN COURTS, ON MAY 30, 1924, ADJUDGED THE
NAZI PARTY TO BE A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION.  IT ALSO HELD IN 1928 THAT
THE LEADERSHIP CORPS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY WAS A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION
AND IN 1930 ENTERED JUDGMENT OF CRIMINALITY AGAINST THE UNION OF RED
FRONT FIGHTERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  SEE NOTE 15. 

FN8  8 HOLDSWORTH, HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 383.  MILLER, CRIMINAL
LAW, P. 110. 

FN9  18 U.S.C.A. SEC. 371.  UNTIL RECENTLY, THE PUNISHMENT FOR SUCH A
FELONY COULD HAVE BEEN FAR IN EXCESS OF THAT PROVIDED FOR THE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE.  HOWEVER, THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, C. 645, 62
STAT. 683, 701, PROVIDES THAT IN SUCH A CASE THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE
CONSPIRACY SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PROVIDED FOR SUCH MISDEMEANOR. 

FN10  THIS IS THE FEDERAL LAW APPLICABLE TO ANTITRUST PROSECUTIONS. 
FOR THE HISTORY OF THIS CONCEPTION AND ITS PERVERSION, PARTICULARLY IN
LABOR CASES, SEE SAYRE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, 35 HARV. L. REV. 393.  ON
THE ABUSE OF CONSPIRACY SEE O'BRIAN, LOYALTY TESTS AND GUILT BY
ASSOCIATION, 61 HARV. L. REV. 592, AND NOTE, THE CONSPIRACY DILEMMA:
PROSECUTION OF GROUP CRIME OR PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, 62
HARV. L. REV. 276. 

FN11  THIS STATEMENT, OF COURSE, LEAVES OUT OF ACCOUNT THE SUBJECT OF
ATTEMPTS WITH WHICH CONSPIRACY IS SAID TO BE ALLIED.  8 HOLDSWORTH,
HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 382. 

FN12  ID., 382. 

FN13  ID., 379. 

FN14  "IT IS UTTERLY UNKNOWN TO THE ROMAN LAW; IT IS NOT FOUND IN
MODERN CONTINENTAL CODES; FEW CONTINENTAL LAWYERS EVER HEARD OF IT.  IT
IS A FORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT IS NOT ENCRUSTED SO DEEP IN OUR
JURISPRUDENCE BY PAST DECISIONS OF OUR COURTS THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO
SLOUGH IT OFF ALTOGETHER.  IT IS A DOCTRINE WHICH HAS PROVED ITSELF THE
EVIL GENIUS OF OUR LAW WHEREVER IT HAS TOUCHED IT."  SAYRE, CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY, 35 HARV. L. REV. 393, 427. 

FN15  COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE
FRENCH REPUBLIC, AND THE SOVIET UNION, AND GERMAN DEFENDANTS, INDULGED
IN SOME COMPARISONS OF THE RELEVANT LAWS OF SEVERAL NATIONS BEFORE THE
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL AT NURNBERG IN CONNECTION WITH
ORGANIZATIONS THERE ACCUSED AS CRIMINAL.  8 TRIAL OF MAJOR WAR
CRIMINALS (GPO 1947), PP. 353, ET SEQ.; 2 NAZI CONSPIRACY AND
AGGRESSION (GPO 1946), P. 1; JACKSON, THE NURNBERG CASE, P. 95. 

FN16  THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN AND THE TRIAL OF THE
CONSPIRATORS, NEW YORK, 1865.  SEE, HOWEVER, EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4
WALL.  2. 

FN17  SEE SAYRE, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, 35 HARV. L. REV. 393, 403. 

FN18  INTERNATIONAL UNION, U.A.W.A. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
BOARD, ANTE, P. 245. 

FN19  HYDE V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 347.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND JUSTICES HUGHES, LURTON AND LAMAR, WROTE A
VIGOROUS PROTEST WHICH DID NOT HESITATE TO BRAND THE DOCTRINE AS
OPPRESSIVE AND AS "ONE OF THE WRONGS THAT OUR FOREFATHERS MEANT TO
PREVENT."  225 U.S. 347, 387. 

FN20  AN EXAMPLE IS AFFORDED BY ALLEN V. UNITED STATES, 4 F.2D 688. 
AT THE HEIGHT OF THE PROHIBITION FRENZY, SEVENTY-FIVE DEFENDANTS WERE
TRIED ON CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY.  A NEWSPAPER REPORTER TESTIFIED TO
GOING TO A DRINKING PLACE WHERE HE TALKED WITH A WOMAN, BEHIND THE BAR,
WHOSE NAME HE COULD NOT GIVE.  THERE WAS NOT THE SLIGHTEST
IDENTIFICATION OF HER NOR SHOWING THAT SHE KNEW OR WAS KNOWN BY ANY
DEFENDANT.  BUT IT WAS HELD THAT BEING BACK OF THE BAR SHOWED HER TO BE
A CO-CONSPIRATOR AND, HENCE, HER STATEMENTS WERE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST
ALL.  HE WAS ALLOWED TO RELATE INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE BY HER. 

FN21 FOR COURTROOM TECHNIQUE EMPLOYED IN THE TRIAL OF CONSPIRACY
CASES BY BOTH PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE, SEE O'DOUGHERTY, PROSECUTION AND
DEFENSE UNDER CONSPIRACY INDICTMENTS, 9 BROOKLYN L. REV. 263.  HIS
SURVEY, WHICH ACCORDS WITH OUR OBSERVATION, WILL HARDLY CONVINCE ONE
THAT A TRIAL OF THIS KIND IS THE HIGHEST EXEMPLIFICATION OF THE WORKING
OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. 

FN22  UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 7 CRANCH 32; UNITED STATES V. WORRALL,
2 DALL.  384; UNITED STATES V. COOLIDGE, 1 WHEAT.  415; UNITED STATES
V. EATON, 144 U.S. 677, 687; UNITED STATES V. BATHGATE, 246 U.S. 220,
225.  SEE, HOWEVER, WARREN, NEW LIGHT ON THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 37 HARV. L. REV. 49, 73. 

FN23  CF. TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

WHILE I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT THAT THE HEARSAY
TESTIMONY IN QUESTION WAS NOT PROPERLY ADMISSIBLE, I REGARD ITS
ADMISSION, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AS AN ABSOLUTELY
HARMLESS ERROR. 

IN SPEAKING OF HARMLESS ERRORS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE ADMISSION OF
EVIDENCE, THIS COURT HAS SAID: 

"ERRORS OF THIS SORT IN CRIMINAL CAUSES CONCEIVABLY MAY BE ALTOGETHER
HARMLESS IN THE FACE OF OTHER CLEAR EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE SAME ERROR
MIGHT TURN SCALES OTHERWISE LEVEL, AS CONSTANTLY APPEARS IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE POLICY OF SEC. 269* TO QUESTIONS OF THE ADMISSION OF
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE."  KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 750, 763. 

*SECTION 269 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS THEN IN EFFECT, AND AS IN
EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL OF THE INSTANT CASE AND OF THE ENTRY OF
THE JUDGMENT BELOW, PROVIDED: 

"SEC. 269.  ...  ON THE HEARING OF ANY APPEAL, CERTIORARI, WRIT OF
ERROR, OR MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, IN ANY CASE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, THE
COURT SHALL GIVE JUDGMENT AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD
BEFORE THE COURT, WITHOUT REGARD TO TECHNICAL ERRORS, DEFECTS, OR
EXCEPTIONS WHICH DO NOT AFFECT THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES." 
40 STAT. 1181, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 391. 

RULE 52(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS
CONTINUOUSLY IN EFFECT DURING AND SINCE THE TIME OF THE TRIAL OF THE
INSTANT CASE AND AS STILL IN EFFECT, PROVIDES: 

"RULE 52.  HARMLESS ERROR AND PLAIN ERROR. 

"(A)  HARMLESS ERROR.  ANY ERROR, DEFECT, IRREGULARITY OR VARIANCE
WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS SHALL BE DISREGARDED.  ...  " 

AGAIN, IN DETERMINING WHETHER ERROR IN THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE
SHOULD RESULT IN A REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, WE SAID THAT THE QUESTION IS
- 

"WHAT EFFECT THE ERROR HAD OR REASONABLY MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE HAD
UPON THE JURY'S DECISION.  ... 

     .         .     .         .         . 

"IF, WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THE CONVICTION IS SURE THAT THE ERROR
DID NOT INFLUENCE THE JURY, OR HAD BUT VERY SLIGHT EFFECT, THE VERDICT
AND THE JUDGMENT SHOULD STAND, EXCEPT PERHAPS WHERE THE DEPARTURE IS
FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL NORM OR A SPECIFIC COMMAND OF CONGRESS."  ID. AT
PP. 764-765. 

THE ISSUE BEFORE US INVOLVES NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OR SPECIFIC
COMMAND OF CONGRESS.  THE TRIAL WAS A LONG ONE CONCERNING PERSONAL
CONDUCT INVOLVING SIMPLE ISSUES OF FACT.  THE RECORD OF IT COVERS MORE
THAN 800 PAGES.  THE JURY MUST HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THE
ISSUES AND WITH THE DEGREE OF DEPENDABILITY, IF ANY, TO BE PLACED UPON
THE ORAL TESTIMONY OF THE PETITIONER AND OF THE TWO WITNESSES INVOLVED
IN THE CONVERSATION THAT IS BEFORE US AS REPORTED BY ONE OF THEM.  THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS CUMULATIVE, REPETITIVE AND
CORROBORATED TO SUCH A POINT THAT I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE VERDICT OR
THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES COULD HAVE BEEN APPRECIABLY AFFECTED BY SUCH
WEIGHT AS THE JURY MAY HAVE ATTACHED TO THIS REPORTED SNATCH OF
CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE OF SUCH NEGLIGIBLE DEPENDABILITY AS WAS
DEMONSTRATED HERE.  AFTER THIS EXTENDED FOURTH TRIAL, TO SET ASIDE THIS
JURY'S VERDICT MERELY BECAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR BIT OF HEARSAY
TESTIMONY SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN UNREALISTIC PROCEDURE THAT TENDS TO MAKE
A TRAVESTY OF THE JURY SYSTEM WHICH IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR DESERVED. 
I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 
..END :














U.S. V. WOMEN'S SPORTSWEAR ASSN., 336 U.S. 460 


NO. 37.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28-MARCH 1, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1949.  -
75 F.SUPP.  112, REVERSED. 


WOMEN'S SPORTSWEAR JOBBERS IN BOSTON, SELLING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ABOUT 80% OF THEIR ANNUAL PRODUCTION APPROXIMATING $8,800,000, AGREED
BY CONTRACT TO EMPLOY ONLY THOSE STITCHING CONTRACTORS WHO WERE
UNIONIZED AND ALSO MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR TRADE ASSOCIATION, AND TO
DIVIDE ALL THEIR WORK AMONG ASSOCIATION MEMBERS WHO, AS TO PRICE AND
QUALITY, WERE COMPARABLE WITH NONMEMBERS.  HELD: 

1.  THE INTENT AND EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY TO
RESTRICT COMPETITION, PRICES AND MARKETS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 461-463. 

2.  THE EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT BEING TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER OR NOT THE STITCHING CONTRACTORS
THEMSELVES MAY HAVE BEEN ENGAGED ONLY IN INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  PP. 464
465. 

3.  INCLUSION IN THE CONTRACT OF A PROVISION WHICH LIMITED THE WORK
TO UNION SHOPS WHICH WERE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE TRADE ASSOCIATION DID NOT
IMMUNIZE THE AGREEMENT FROM ATTACK UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
PP. 463-464. 

UNITED STATES V. WOMEN'S SPORTSWEAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. 

IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 1 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT AND FOR OTHER RELIEF, THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER TRIAL,
DENIED THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  75 F.SUPP.  112.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, REVERSED, P. 465. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER TRIAL, HAS DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S PLEA FOR
AN INJUNCTION, AND OTHER RELIEF, AGAINST APPELLEES UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT.  FN1  75 F.SUPP.  112.  THE CAUSE IS BROUGHT HERE BY DIRECT
APPEAL, AS CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED.  FN2  DEFENDANTS BELOW AND
APPELLEES HERE ARE AN UNINCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATION, ITS OFFICERS
AND MEMBERS.  THERE IS NO SERIOUS CONTROVERSY AS TO FACTS.  OUR REVIEW
MUST DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ESTABLISH THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO
THE RELIEF WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED. 

WE FIRST SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES ON WHICH RESTRAINTS
ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN EXERTED CONSTITUTE COMMERCE AMONG STATES.  THE
INDUSTRY INVOLVED IS WOMEN'S SPORTSWEAR.  IT IS CARRIED ON BY JOBBERS,
WHO MAINTAIN SALES OFFICES IN NEW YORK AND ENGAGE IN NATION-WIDE
COMPETITION FOR ORDERS, CHIEFLY BY MEANS OF TRAVELING SALESMEN WHO
SOLICIT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  UPON RECEIVING AN ORDER, THE JOBBER
BUYS THE FABRICS AND CUTS THEM TO THE CUSTOMER'S FANCY.  IN MOST CASES
HE THEN SENDS THE CUT MATERIAL TO A CONTRACTOR WHO DOES THE STITCHING,
PUTS ON SUCH ACCESSORIES AS THE BUTTONS AND THE BOWS, AND RETURNS THE
COMPLETED GARMENTS TO THE JOBBER, WHO PROMPTLY SHIPS THEM TO THE
CUSTOMER. 

THAT THE JOBBERS MAINTAIN A CURRENT OF COMMERCE, SUBSTANTIAL IN
VOLUME AND INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER, SEEMS CLEAR.  THE BOSTON AREA RANKS
FIFTH IN THIS COUNTRY'S PRODUCTION OF WOMEN'S SPORTSWEAR.  ITS JOBBERS
OBTAIN ABOUT 80% OF THE CLOTH USED FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE OF
MASSACHUSETTS.  AT LEAST 80% OF THE FINISHED SPORTSWEAR IS SOLD AND
SHIPPED TO CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE OF THAT STATE.  THUS THE INDUSTRY IN
MASSACHUSETTS SUBSISTS ON A CONSTANT INFLUX OF CLOTH AND OUTGO OF
GARMENTS WHICH PASS THROUGH THE HANDS OF THE STITCHING CONTRACTORS FOR
AN ESSENTIAL OPERATION. 

OUR NEXT INQUIRY IS WHETHER THE ACCUSED COMBINATION, WHICH IS MADE UP
OF STITCHING CONTRACTORS, HAS IMPOSED UPON THIS INTERSTATE TRADE
RESTRAINTS OF A CHARACTER AND MAGNITUDE TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT. 
THE ASSOCIATION IS MADE UP OF MEMBERS WHO HANDLE AT LEAST 50% OF ALL
SPORTSWEAR PRODUCED IN BOSTON.  THE COST OF THIS CONTRACTOR'S OPERATION
IS ABOUT 25% OF THE JOBBER'S SALE PRICE, AND ITS VARIATIONS ARE
REFLECTED IN WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRICES.  THE ASSOCIATION'S EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TOOK STEPS TO INDUCE JOBBERS TO ENTER INTO A WRITTEN
AGREEMENT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO EMPLOY ONLY MEMBERS OF THE
ASSOCIATION, REFRAIN FROM DEALING WITH NONMEMBERS, AND ACCEPT NO SECRET
PRICE REBATES.  WHEN THE JOBBERS HESITATED, STOPPAGE OF PRODUCTION WAS
THREATENED; AND WHEN THEY REFUSED BECAUSE THEY WERE ADVISED THAT IT
WOULD VIOLATE ANTITRUST LAWS, THE ASSOCIATION ORDERED CONTRACTORS TO
STOP WORK FOR THREE JOBBERS, WHICH WAS DONE, AND WORK FOR THEM WAS NOT
RESUMED UNTIL THE JOBBERS OBTAINED A STATE COURT INJUNCTION.  THE
PROPOSED AGREEMENT WAS THEN REVISED AND ULTIMATELY WAS SIGNED BY TWENTY
ONE JOBBERS WHO HANDLE A GROSS ANNUAL VOLUME OF ABOUT $8,800,000, THAT
BEING A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE BOSTON OUTPUT. 

THE AGREEMENT IN FINAL FORM, TOGETHER WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS
MAKING, IS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  TERMS
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE REQUIRE JOBBERS TO GIVE ALL OF THEIR WORK TO
AVAILABLE ASSOCIATION MEMBERS WHO ARE IN GOOD STANDING WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, PROVIDED SUCH CONTRACTORS
ARE "COMPARABLE" AS TO PRICE AND QUALITY OF WORK WITH NONMEMBER
CONTRACTORS HAVING CONTRACTS WITH THE SAME UNION.  THE JOBBER IS TO
FURNISH A WRITTEN ORDER SPECIFYING PRICE AND IS FORBIDDEN TO RECEIVE
SECRET REBATES.  A JOBBER CAN GIVE WORK TO A NONMEMBER ONLY IN
CONTINUANCE OF AN EXISTING RELATIONSHIP.  THE JOBBER WILL GIVE NO NEW
CONTRACT TO ANY STITCHER WHO CEASES TO BE A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION. 
THE ASSOCIATION AGREES TO ASSIST THE JOBBER IN GETTING SUFFICIENT
CONTRACTORS AS THE AMOUNT OF HIS WORK "MAY EQUITABLY REQUIRE," AND THE
JOBBER AGREES THAT HE WILL DIVIDE HIS WORK "AS EQUALLY AND EQUITABLY AS
POSSIBLE AMONG THE ASSOCIATION CONTRACTORS ENGAGED BY HIM."  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSOCIATION WAS TO
MAINTAIN THE STANDARD OF PRICES.  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO RECITES EVIDENCE
SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSOCIATION POLICED THE MEMBERSHIP TO PREVENT PRICE
COMPETITION AND EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP "NEW COMERS IN THE TRADE." 

IN THE LIGHT OF ITS ORIGIN AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INDUSTRY, IT
SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE INTENT AND EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT IS
SUBSTANTIALLY TO RESTRICT COMPETITION AND TO CONTROL PRICES AND
MARKETS.  IT PROHIBITS THE JOBBERS FROM AWARDING WORK TO OTHERS (WITH
MINOR EXCEPTIONS) UNLESS THEIR PRICES ARE NOT "COMPARABLE" TO THOSE OF
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS.  IT EFFECTS FOR ASSOCIATION MEMBERS A VIRTUAL
MONOPOLY OF WORK AT "COMPARABLE" PRICES.  WORK GIVEN TO MEMBERS MUST BE
ALLOCATED "EQUITABLY," NOT BY REFERENCE TO PRICE OR QUALITY OF WORK. 
AND IT APPARENTLY CONTEMPLATES BOYCOTT BY THE ASSOCIATION OF JOBBERS
WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THESE TERMS.  THAT SUCH A CONTRACT RESTRAINS
TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS OBVIOUS, EVEN IF THE
RESTRAINTS IN ACTUAL PRACTICE UNDER IT DO NOT GO BEYOND ITS EXPRESS
TERMS, WHICH THE EVIDENCE INDICATES TO BE LIKELY. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT INCLUSION OF THE LABOR PROVISIONS MAKES THE
AGREEMENT IMMUNE FROM ATTACK UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  THE STITCHING
CONTRACTOR, ALTHOUGH HE FURNISHES CHIEFLY LABOR, ALSO UTILIZES THE
LABOR THROUGH MACHINES AND HAS HIS RENTALS, CAPITAL COSTS, OVERHEAD AND
PROFITS.  HE IS AN ENTREPRENEUR, NOT A LABORER.  CF. COLUMBIA RIVER
PACKERS ASSOCIATION V. HINTON, 315 U.S. 143.  THE LABOR PROVISIONS WERE
INCORPORATED INTO THE SECOND PROPOSAL AFTER THE FIRST WAS REJECTED AS
VIOLATING THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND SEEM TO GIVE NOTHING TO LABOR THAT IT
WAS NOT ALREADY GETTING FOR ITSELF FROM OTHER AS WELL AS FROM THESE
MANUFACTURERS.  THE RESTRAINTS HERE WENT BEYOND LIMITING WORK TO UNION
SHOPS; IT LIMITED IT TO THOSE UNION SHOPS ALSO MEMBERS OF THE
ASSOCIATION.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE UNION
PARTICIPATED IN MAKING THE AGREEMENT.  AND IF IT DID, BENEFITS TO
ORGANIZED LABOR CANNOT BE UTILIZED AS A CAT'S-PAW TO PULL EMPLOYERS'
CHESTNUTS OUT OF THE ANTITRUST FIRES.  ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. LOCAL UNION
NO. 3, 325 U.S. 797. 

THE TRIAL COURT APPEARS TO HAVE DISMISSED THE CASE CHIEFLY ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ACCUSED ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS WERE NOT THEMSELVES
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE NATURE OF
THEIR OPERATION CONSIDERED ALONE, BUT IT DOES NOT MATTER.  RESTRAINTS,
TO BE EFFECTIVE, DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPLIED ALL ALONG THE LINE OF
MOVEMENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE SOURCE OF THE RESTRAINT MAY BE
INTRASTATE, AS THE MAKING OF A CONTRACT OR COMBINATION USUALLY IS; THE
APPLICATION OF THE RESTRAINT MAY BE INTRASTATE, AS IT OFTEN IS; BUT
NEITHER MATTERS IF THE NECESSARY EFFECT IS TO STIFLE OR RESTRAIN
COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  IF IT IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT FEELS THE
PINCH, IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW LOCAL THE OPERATION WHICH APPLIES THE
SQUEEZE. 

THE MANIFEST PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION WAS TO
RESTRAIN THE JOBBERS FROM FREE CHOICE AMONG STITCHING CONTRACTORS ON
EQUAL TERMS.  THE BUSINESS AFFECTED BY THE RESTRAINT IS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE VOLUME AFFECTED IS SUBSTANTIAL.  WHILE THE RESTRAINT OF
THE FINAL CONTRACT IS MORE MODERATE THAN THE ONE FIRST ATTEMPTED AND
ITS DOLLAR-AND-CENTS EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO
APPRAISE, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT JUDGMENT CANCELING THE CONTRACT
AND ENJOINING CARRYING OUT OF THE PLAN IT EMBODIES. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1890, C. 647, 26 STAT. 209, AS
AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN2  15 U.S.C. SEC. 29; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101. 
..END :
















STAINBACK V. MO HOCK KE LOK PO, 336 U.S. 368 


ARGUED JANUARY 11-12, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 14, 1949.  - 74 F.SUPP. 
852, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (NOW 28 U.S.C. SECS. 2281, 1253,
ETC.), WHICH REQUIRED THAT A SUIT TO ENJOIN STATE OFFICERS FROM
ENFORCING A STATE STATUTE ON THE GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BE HEARD
AND DETERMINED BY A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, AND WHICH
AUTHORIZED A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A FINAL DECREE IN SUCH
SUIT, HELD NOT APPLICABLE TO THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII.  PP. 374-380. 

2.  A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR HAWAII
IN A SUIT HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THREE JUDGES, ALTHOUGH NOT APPEALABLE
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT BECAUSE OF THE INAPPLICABILITY OF JUDICIAL CODE
SEC. 266(NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253), WAS NEVERTHELESS REVIEWABLE IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND COULD BE CONSIDERED HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THAT
COURT.  PP. 380-381. 

3.  A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR HAWAII,
ERRONEOUSLY CONSTITUTED OF THREE JUDGES UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
266(NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2281), ENJOINED TERRITORIAL OFFICERS FROM
ENFORCING AN ACT OF THE TERRITORY ON THE GROUND OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  A DIRECT APPEAL WAS ERRONEOUSLY TAKEN TO THIS
COURT; AN APPEAL WAS ALSO TAKEN TO THE COURT OF APPEALS; AND THIS COURT
WAS PETITIONED TO REVIEW THE CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS BY CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT.  HELD: AS THE RECORD, ARGUMENTS AND BRIEFS HERE AND
THE OPINIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT FULLY PRESENT THE CASE DECIDED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, AND TO AVOID FURTHER FUTILE PROCEEDINGS, THIS COURT
GRANTS CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS BEFORE
JUDGMENT.  PP. 370-371. 

4.  CLAIMING THAT IT WAS INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
CERTAIN CHINESE SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS, A CHINESE SCHOOL, AND A TEACHER OF
CHINESE IN CHINESE LANGUAGE SCHOOLS SUED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR HAWAII TO ENJOIN OFFICERS OF THE TERRITORY FROM ENFORCING AN
ACT OF THE TERRITORY WHICH FORBIDS THE TEACHING OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES TO
CHILDREN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE SOLE SANCTION FOR ITS
ENFORCEMENT WAS BY INJUNCTION, IN A SUIT FOR WHICH THE DEFENSE OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE.  THE ACT HAD NOT BEEN CONSTRUED
BY THE HAWAIIAN COURTS.  HELD:  ASSUMING THE EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL AND
EQUITABLE JURISDICTION, THE DISTRICT COURT, AS A MATTER OF ITS
DISCRETION, SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION.  PP. 381-384. 

5.  WHERE EQUITABLE INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND TERRITORIAL ACTS IS
SOUGHT IN FEDERAL COURTS, JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION OF ACTS OF IMPORTANCE
PRIMARILY TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OR TERRITORY SHOULD, AS A MATTER
OF DISCRETION, BE LEFT BY THE FEDERAL COURTS TO THE COURTS OF THE
LEGISLATING AUTHORITY, UNLESS EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES COMMAND A
DIFFERENT COURSE.  PP. 383-384. 

STAINBACK, GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, ET AL. V. MO HOCK KE
LOK PO, AN ELEEMOSYNARY CORPORATION, ET AL. 

NO. 52.  APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF HAWAII* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 474, STAINBACK, GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII, ET AL. V. MO HOCK KE LOK PO, AN ELEEMOSYNARY CORPORATION, ET
AL., ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENTS SUED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF HAWAII TO ENJOIN OFFICERS OF THE TERRITORY FROM ENFORCING AN ACT OF
THE TERRITORY CHALLENGED AS INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
THE SUIT WAS HEARD AND DETERMINED BY A COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
GRANTED THE INJUNCTION.  74 F.SUPP.  852.  THE DEFENDANTS TOOK A DIRECT
APPEAL TO THIS COURT (NO. 52) AND AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
THEY ALSO PETITIONED THIS COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE CASE IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS BY CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT (NO. 474).  IN NO. 52, THE APPEAL
IS DISMISSED; IN NO. 474, CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  P. 384. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPEAL IN NO. 52, STAINBACK, GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII,
ET AL. V. MO HOCK KE LOK PO, AN ELEEMOSYNARY CORPORATION, ET AL., AND
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN NO. 474, A CASE WITH THE SAME
SHORT TITLE, SEEK REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII.  THIS JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED BY A
SPECIAL THREE-JUDGE COURT THAT WAS CALLED PURSUANT TO JUDICIAL CODE
SEC. 266, AND BY THAT SECTION'S PROVISION WAS BROUGHT DIRECTLY HERE ON
MAY 7, 1948, IN CASE NO. 52.  TO GUARD AGAINST A FRUSTRATION OF REVIEW
BY THIS COURT'S REFUSAL TO ACCEPT JURISDICTION, A TIMELY APPEAL BY THE
APPELLANTS HERE IN NO. 52 HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THEM IN NO. 474 TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.  NO JUDGMENT ON THAT APPEAL HAS
BEEN ENTERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; AND APPELLANTS THERE, THE
GOVERNOR OF HAWAII ET AL., PETITIONED HERE ON DECEMBER 21, 1948, FOR
THE ALLOWANCE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1254(1). 
FN1 

A JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266 WAS
APPLICABLE IN THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII ARISES IN NO. 52.  IT WAS
POSTPONED BY ORDER OF THIS COURT ON JUNE 1, 1948, TO THE HEARING OF
THAT CASE ON THE MERITS.  THIS COURT POSTPONED ACTION ON THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI IN NO. 474 UNTIL THE HEARING OF NO. 52 ON THE MERITS. 
AS THE RECORD, ARGUMENTS AND BRIEFS HERE AND THE OPINIONS BELOW FULLY
PRESENT THE CASE DECIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, TO AVOID FURTHER FUTILE
PROCEEDINGS WE NOW GRANT THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS BEFORE ITS DECREE AND PROCEED IN NO. 474 TO A REVIEW
OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAWAII.  THE OPINIONS APPEAR
IN 74 F.SUPP.  852, MO HOCK KE LOK PO V. STAINBACK. 

RESPONDENTS HERE WERE PLAINTIFFS IN THE TRIAL COURT.  THEY ARE
CHINESE SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS, A CHINESE SCHOOL, ALL GIVING INSTRUCTION
IN CHINESE, AND A TEACHER OF CHINESE IN CHINESE LANGUAGE SCHOOLS. 
AFTER DECEMBER 7, 1941, THESE SCHOOLS CLOSED AND HAVE NOT REOPENED. 
PRIOR TO THAT DATE THEY HAD MORE THAN 2,000 PUPILS, SEVERAL HUNDRED OF
WHOM WERE IN THE FIRST AND SECOND GRADE, AND NUMEROUS TEACHERS.  UNDER
JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266 THEY SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST OFFICERS OF
THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII CHARGED BY LAW WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN
ACT OF THE TERRITORY "REGULATING THE TEACHING OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES TO
CHILDREN,"  FN2  FROM ENFORCING IT IN ANY PARTICULAR AGAINST THE
TEACHING OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES TO THE RESPONDENTS' PUPILS. 

THE ACT WAS GROUNDED ON A LEGISLATIVE FINDING "THAT THE STUDY AND
PERSISTENT USE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES BY CHILDREN OF AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE
IN THEIR EARLY AND FORMATIVE YEARS DEFINITELY DETRACT FROM THEIR
ABILITY PROPERLY TO UNDERSTAND AND ASSIMILATE THEIR NORMAL STUDIES IN
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE."  REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII (1945), SEC. 1871. 
"SCHOOL" WAS DEFINED AS ANY TEACHING REGULARLY OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS
IN A GROUP.  FN3  REQUIREMENTS FOR PUPILS AND TEACHERS IN FOREIGN
LANGUAGE SCHOOLS WERE SET OUT.  FN4  VISITATION OF THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE
SCHOOLS BY APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES WAS
AUTHORIZED.  SEC. 1875.  THE ONLY SANCTION FOR ENFORCEMENT IS BY
INJUNCTION.  FN5  THIS LACK OF COERCION BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT AND THE
LIMITATION OF ENFORCEMENT TO INJUNCTION ARE IMPORTANT FACTORS IN OUR
CONCLUSION UPON NO. 474. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THE
ACT DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF SCHOOLS OF THE RIGHT TO MANAGE THEIR PROPERTY BY
CONTRACTING WITH INSTRUCTORS AND PARENTS FOR THE TEACHING OF CHINESE,
AND THE PLAINTIFF TEACHER OF CHINESE OF HIS RIGHT TO FOLLOW HIS
OCCUPATION.  FN6  SEE FARRINGTON V. TOKUSHIGE, 273 U.S. 284, 299.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A SWEEPING PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN ACT.  AS OUR CONCLUSIONS
ARE BASED SOLELY UPON PROCEDURAL ISSUES, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE
FACTS OR OF THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE MERITS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. 

THE COMPLAINT ASKED FOR AND OBTAINED A THREE-JUDGE COURT UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266.  FN7  THE MINUTE ENTRIES OF
PROCEEDINGS AND TRIAL AND THE OPINION RE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 266,
JUDICIAL CODE, 74 F.SUPP.  AT 858, SHOW SUGGESTIONS THAT A SPECIAL
DISTRICT COURT UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266 CANNOT BE CALLED FOR
HAWAII.  THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION LAID BARE THE PROBLEM WITH
COMMENDABLE FRANKNESS.  IT LIES AT THE THRESHOLD OF ANY CONSIDERATION
OF THIS APPEAL.  FN8 

WITHIN THE PRESENT DECADE, THIS COURT SUMMARIZED IN PHILLIPS V.
UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF SEC. 266 AND
EXTRACTED FROM ITS HISTORY AND THE PRECEDENTS FOR THE SECTION'S
APPLICATION A CONGRESSIONAL REQUIREMENT OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION TO
PROTECT OUR APPELLATE DOCKET WHILE ASSURING THE STATES THAT
EXCEPTIONALLY CAREFUL JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION WOULD GUARD THEM AGAINST
ALL ASSAULTS, THROUGH FEDERAL COURTS, AGAINST THEIR LEGISLATIVE
STATUTES OR ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD ORDERS BY APPLICATIONS FOR INJUNCTION
WHEN THOSE ASSAULTS WERE BASED ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 250
51.  WHILE WE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT SINCE THE PHILLIPS CASE AIR
CARRIAGE HAS BROUGHT HAWAII CLOSER TO THE CONTINENT,  FN9  THE
INTERFERENCE WITH THE NORMAL ADJUDICATORY AND APPELLATE PROCESSES OF
THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND OUR DOCKET PERSISTS.  THE POWER TO CALL
A PANEL OF JUDGES UNDER SEC. 266 IN HAWAII IS TO BE EXAMINED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE PHILLIPS CASE. 

HAWAII IS STILL A TERRITORY BUT A TERRITORY IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES GENERALLY ARE APPLICABLE.  31 STAT. 141,
SEC. 5, AS AMENDED 48 U.S.C. SEC. 495; DUNCAN V. KAHANAMOKU, 327 U.S.
304, 317.  NOT ONLY ITS FEDERAL COURTS BUT ALSO ITS TERRITORIAL COURTS
ARE OF COURSE SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.  48 U.S.C. SEC.
631, ET SEQ. THE ORGANIC ACT FOR HAWAII, SEC. 86,  FN10  PROVIDED IN
1900: 

"THAT THERE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED IN SAID TERRITORY A DISTRICT COURT
TO CONSIST OF ONE JUDGE, ...  SAID COURT SHALL HAVE, IN ADDITION TO THE
ORDINARY JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES,
JURISDICTION OF ALL CASES CONGNIZABLE IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND SHALL PROCEED THEREIN IN THE SAME MANNER AS A CIRCUIT
COURT; ...  "  31 STAT. 158. 

WHEN INCORPORATED INTO THE CODE, THIS COURT WAS GIVEN "THE
JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND SHALL PROCEED
THEREIN IN THE SAME MANNER AS A DISTRICT COURT."  48 U.S.C. SEC. 642. 
IT NOW HAS THAT JURISDICTION.  FN11  THE ONLY CHANGE THAT COULD BE
CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT IS THE MORE DEFINITE INTEGRATION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR HAWAII INTO THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM BY DEFINITION.  FN12
AS JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT ON APPEAL DEPENDS UPON WHETHER OR NOT A
SPECIAL THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS PROPERLY CALLED  FN13  AND NOT UPON THE
POWER OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266, WE NEED NOT
ANALYZE THE METHOD OF REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF
HAWAII.  FN14 

OUR ISSUE IS NARROWED TO THE INQUIRY OF WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED
THAT JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266 SHOULD APPLY IN THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD REQUIRE ITS APPLICATION IN A SIMILAR
SUIT IN A STATE.  CONGRESS IN DISCUSSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MANN
ELKINS ACT, WHICH AMENDMENT EVOLVED INTO THIS SECTION, CONSIDERED THE
GEOGRAPHICAL DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN THE REQUIREMENT OF A THREE-JUDGE
COURT AND THE BURDEN THUS PLACED ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIAL SYSTEM, BUT DECIDED THAT SUCH CONSIDERATIONS WERE OUTWEIGHED
BY THE DESIRABILITY OF HAVING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE
PASSED ON BY A COURT COMPARABLE TO THE COURT OF LAST RESORT OF THE
STATE.  45 CONG. REC. 7253-57.  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT NOWHERE IN SEC.
266 IS MENTION MADE OF TERRITORIES NOR AS FAR AS HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR
ATTENTION IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND REPORTS RELATING TO THIS

WHILE, OF COURSE, GREAT RESPECT IS TO BE PAID TO THE ENACTMENTS OF A
TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE BY ALL COURTS AS IT IS TO THE ADJUDICATIONS OF
TERRITORIAL COURTS,  FN15  THE PREDOMINANT REASON FOR THE ENACTMENT OF
JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266 DOES NOT EXIST AS RESPECTS TERRITORIES.  THIS
REASON WAS A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO AVOID UNNECESSARY INTERFERENCE
WITH THE LAWS OF A SOVEREIGN STATE.  FN16 IN OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT, THE POSITION OF THE STATE AS SOVEREIGN OVER MATTERS NOT
RULED BY THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A DEFERENCE TO STATE LEGISLATIVE
ACTION BEYOND THAT REQUIRED FOR THE LAWS OF A TERRITORY.  FN17 A
TERRITORY IS SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION.  FN18 

WHEN THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF JUDICIAL
CODE SEC. 266 AND THAT OF PROTECTION OF THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT IS
ALSO CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NECESSARY INTERFERENCE WITH THE
NORMAL OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM BY THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE THREEJUDGE REQUIREMENT IN HAWAII, WE ARE NOT PERSUADED THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED SEC. 266 TO COVER HAWAII.  SEE 45 CONG. REC. 7253
57.  DESPITE ITS GENERALITY THE WORDS OF SEC. 266 HAVE BEEN STRICTLY
CONSTRUED SO THAT "STATUTE OF A STATE" DOES NOT INCLUDE ORDINANCES;
"OFFICER OF SUCH STATE" MEANS ONE WITH AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE OR
ADMINISTER A STATE-WIDE POLICY.  FN19 

IT IS NOT MERELY THE ABSENCE OF THE WORD "TERRITORY" FROM SEC. 266
THAT LEADS US TO THIS CONCLUSION.  WE RECOGNIZE THAT IN SOME SITUATIONS
THE WORD "STATE" INCLUDES TERRITORY.  ANDRES V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S.
740.  IN THAT CASE WE THOUGHT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WOULD BE
FRUSTRATED BY A HOLDING THAT THE WORD "STATE" IN A FEDERAL STATUTE
PROVIDING FOR EXECUTION OF A CRIMINAL IN "THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE
LAWS OF THE STATE WITHIN WHICH THE SENTENCE IS IMPOSED" DID NOT INCLUDE
"TERRITORY."  THERE WE HELD STATE INCLUDED TERRITORY.  FN20 HERE THE
PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO PROTECT STATE SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT FURTHERED BY
AN INTERPRETATION OF STATE TO INCLUDE TERRITORY. 

A FORMER OPINION OF THIS COURT LENDS STRENGTH TO THIS
INTERPRETATION.  IN FARRINGTON V. TOKUSHIGE, 273 U.S. 284, DECIDED IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF HAWAII ON JULY 21, 1925, A
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION FORBIDDING TERRITORIAL OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING A
TERRITORIAL STATUTE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THE ONE HERE INVOLVED WAS
GRANTED BY A SINGLE DISTRICT JUDGE ON THE GROUND OF THE INVALIDITY OF
THE TERRITORIAL STATUTE UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED ON THE SAME GROUND, 11
F.2D 710, AND SO DID THIS COURT ON CERTIORARI.  NO QUESTION WAS RAISED
IN ANY COURT AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 266
THAT NO SUCH INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST A STATE WITHOUT THREE
JUDGES.  IF SEC. 266 APPLIED TO HAWAII, THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF
INJUNCTION WAS ENTERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AND
THIS COURT WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER THE APPEAL.  WHILE IT IS
SOMETIMES SAID THAT ACTION, WHERE THE POWER TO ACT IS UNQUESTIONED, CAN
HARDLY BE SAID TO BE A PRECEDENT FOR A FUTURE CASE,  FN21  WHERE AS
HERE THE RESPONSIBILITY WAS ON THE COURTS TO SEE THAT THE THREE-JUDGE
RULE WAS FOLLOWED, WE THINK IT SIGNIFICANT THAT NO ONE SOUGHT TO APPLY
SEC. 266 TO HAWAII.  FN22 

WE HOLD THAT JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO HAWAII, THAT
WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN CASE NO. 52 AND THAT THE APPEAL THEREIN
MUST BE DISMISSED. 

WE TURN NOW TO NO. 474, HERE ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT BEFORE THE ENTRY OF A DECREE IN THAT
COURT.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2101(D).  WHAT WE HAVE SAID CONCERNING THE FINAL
JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAWAII ESTABLISHES THAT THE JUDGMENT
WAS ENTERED BY A COURT IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
266.  NEVERTHELESS THIS ORDER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  FN23  IT IS THE FINAL ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT ALTHOUGH
ERRONEOUSLY HEARD BY THREE JUDGES INSTEAD OF ONE AND NOT APPEALABLE
DIRECTLY HERE BECAUSE NOT COVERED BY SEC. 266.  BUT AS A FINAL ORDER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, IT IS REVIEWABLE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS N24, AND
CAN BE CONSIDERED HERE.    ANOTHER PROCEDURAL MATTER LEADS US TO REFUSE
CONSIDERATION OF CASE NO. 474 ON THE MERITS.  RESPONDENTS IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUGHT AND OBTAINED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A TERRITORIAL LAW BY A PROCEEDING UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC.
41(1) ON THE PLEA THAT THE LAW VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE RESPONDENTS BY THE LAW WERE DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY
AND OF PROPERTY.  FN25  THE ALLEGATIONS OF IRREPARABLE INJURY CONSIST
OF AN ASSERTION THAT IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO INCUR A COMPARATIVELY
LARGE LIABILITY FOR BUILDING REPAIRS AND EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS ON THE
PART OF THE RESPONDENT SCHOOLS BEFORE THE ACT WILL BE VIOLATED, SUMS
THAT WILL BE LOST IF THE ACT CAN BE ENFORCED CONSTITUTIONALLY.  THE
TEACHER CLAIMS TO SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY BECAUSE HE CANNOT FOLLOW
HIS OCCUPATION.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO ALL
RESPONDENTS IN THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, WE ASSUME THERE IS BOTH
FEDERAL AND EQUITABLE JURISDICTION.  FN26  FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO
PROBLEM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  FN27  THERE IS NONE.  THE SOLE SANCTION, SEE NOTE 5
SUPRA, IS BY THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY IN TERRITORIAL
COURTS WHEREBY THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES OF PROHIBITORY AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTIONS ARE UTILIZED TO STOP VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  THE
RESPONDENTS HERE, IF SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT, WOULD HAVE SUCH
DEFENSES AS THE LAWS OF THE TERRITORY ALLOW, INCLUDING OF COURSE
DEFENSES BASED UPON THE PRESENT ISSUES OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

WE ARE OF THE VIEW, HOWEVER, THAT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR HAWAII, AS A MATTER OF ITS DISCRETION, SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO GRANT
THIS INJUNCTION.  THE COMPLAINT CALLED FOR BROAD CONSIDERATION OF THE
APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO FOREIGN LANGUAGE SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS.  IT
HAD NOT BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE HAWAIIAN COURTS.  JUDGE MCLAUGHLIN
POINTED OUT IN HIS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON A MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION BEFORE THE REQUEST FOR A THREE-JUDGE COURT THAT THIS LAW 

"  ... CARRIES NO CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR INFRACTIONS.  ENFORCEMENT IS
IN EQUITY IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE TERRITORY.  PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO
REASON TO FEAR A COURT OF EQUITY, AND THERE IS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WOULD BE FULLY PROTECTED IN THE EQUITY
COURTS OF THE TERRITORY AND THAT AN APPEAL, IF NEED BE, EVENTUALLY
COULD BE HAD TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT." 

THE STATEMENT APPLIES AS WELL TO THE FINAL INJUNCTION.  ENTIRELY
ASIDE FROM THE QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY OF AN INJUNCTION IN ANY COURT,
FN28  TERRITORIAL LIKE STATE COURTS ARE THE NATURAL SOURCES FOR THE
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE ACTS OF THEIR LEGISLATURES AND
EQUALLY OF THE PROPRIETY OF INTERFERENCE BY INJUNCTION.  FN29  WE THINK
THAT WHERE EQUITABLE INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AND TERRITORIAL ACTS IS
SOUGHT IN FEDERAL COURTS, JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION OF ACTS OF IMPORTANCE
PRIMARILY TO THE PEOPLE OF A STATE OR TERRITORY SHOULD, AS A MATTER OF
DISCRETION, BE LEFT BY THE FEDERAL COURTS TO THE COURTS OF THE
LEGISLATING AUTHORITY UNLESS EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES COMMAND A
DIFFERENT COURSE.  WE FIND NO SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. 

THE APPEAL IN NO. 52 IS DISMISSED. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 474 IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. 

FN1  "SEC.  1254.  COURTS OF APPEALS; CERTIORARI; APPEAL; CERTIFIED
QUESTIONS 

"CASES IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT
BY THE FOLLOWING METHODS: 

"(1)  BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED UPON THE PETITION OF ANY PARTY TO
ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASE, BEFORE OR AFTER RENDITION OF JUDGMENT OR
DECREE; ...  " 

FN2  SESSION LAWS OF HAWAII 1943, ACT 104; REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII
1945, C. 31. 

FN3  "SEC.  1872.  DEFINITIONS.  AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER: 

"'SCHOOL' MEANS ANY PERSON, FIRM, GROUP OF PERSONS, UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, ESTABLISHMENT, OR INSTITUTION, WHICH TEACHES,
WITH OR WITHOUT FEES, COMPENSATION OR OTHER CHARGES THEREFOR, ANY
LANGUAGE OTHER THAN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, AS A COURSE OF STUDY, TO TWO
OR MORE PERSONS AS A GROUP, AS A REGULAR AND CUSTOMARY PRACTICE." 

FN4  "NO CHILD SHALL BE TAUGHT A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN ANY SCHOOL
UNLESS HE SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:  (A)
THAT HE SHALL HAVE PASSED THE FOURTH GRADE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL OR ITS
EQUIVALENT, AND SHALL PASS FROM TIME TO TIME IN EACH SUCCEEDING GRADE A
STANDARD TEST IN ENGLISH COMPOSITION AND READING CONDUCTED BY OR UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION ATTAINING A SCORE
NOT LOWER THAN NORMAL FOR HIS GRADE; OR (B) THAT HE SHALL HAVE PASSED
THE EIGHTH GRADE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL OR ITS EQUIVALENT; OR (C) THAT HE
SHALL HAVE ATTAINED THE AGE OF FIFTEEN YEARS."  R.L. HAW.  1945, SEC.
1873. 

"NO SCHOOL SHALL PERMIT THE TEACHING OF ANY FOREIGN LANGUAGE TO ANY
CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF FIFTEEN UNLESS THE TEACHER SHALL HAVE BEEN
EXAMINED AND CERTIFIED BY A BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF THREE PERSONS
APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TO BE REASONABLY
WELL VERSED IN THE USAGE AND IDIOM OF BOTH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND THE
FOREIGN LANGUAGE TO BE TAUGHT BY SUCH TEACHER.  ...  "  R.L. HAW. 
1945, SEC. 1874. 

FN5  "SEC.  1876.  INJUNCTIVE ENFORCEMENT.  IN THE EVENT ANY SCHOOL
OR ANY PERSON SHALL BE FOUND TO BE VIOLATING, OR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH
ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF, THIS CHAPTER, OR THERE SHALL BE REASONABLE
CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH SCHOOL OR PERSON IS VIOLATING, OR FAILING TO
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF, THIS CHAPTER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AT
HIS OWN INSTANCE OR AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTION, SHALL INSTITUTE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY IN THE
CIRCUIT IN WHICH THE VIOLATION OCCURS TO ENJOIN THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY
ACTS OR PRACTICES FORBIDDEN BY THIS CHAPTER, OR TO REQUIRE SUCH SCHOOL
OR PERSON TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER. 
JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF ALL ACTIONS UNDER THIS SECTION IS
HEREBY CONFERRED UPON EACH CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND EACH SUCH JUDGE SHALL
HAVE POWER TO ISSUE SUCH ORDERS AND DECREES, BY WAY OF INJUNCTION,
MANDATORY INJUNCTION OR OTHERWISE, AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO ENFORCE THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER.  IN THE EVENT ANY RESPONDENT OR RESPONDENTS
SHALL FAIL OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH ANY SUCH ORDER OR DECREE, THE
COURT, IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER POWERS HEREBY GRANTED, SHALL HAVE POWER
TO ENJOIN THE OPERATION AND CONDUCT OF SUCH SCHOOL UNTIL AND UNLESS
THIS CHAPTER IS COMPLIED WITH OR SATISFACTORY ASSURANCE IS GIVEN THAT
THIS CHAPTER WILL BE COMPLIED WITH.  THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OF EACH COUNTY
SHALL, AT THE REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CONDUCT SUCH PROCEEDING
IN BEHALF OF THE TERRITORY.  ALL SUCH SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THE
NAME OF THE TERRITORY BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL."  R.L. HAW.  1945. 

FN6  THERE WAS A FURTHER ALLEGATION OF A DENIAL TO PLAINTIFFS OF
RIGHTS UNDER 8 U.S.C. SECS. 41, 42, 43.  THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT OR RELIED UPON IN BRIEF OR ARGUMENT HERE.  WE DO NOT
CONSIDER IT. 

FN7  28 U.S.C. SEC. 380(SEE REDISTRIBUTION WITHOUT CHANGE OF
IMPORTANCE IN THIS CASE, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1253, 2101, 2281, 2284, AS
REVISED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 928, 964, 968, EFFECTIVE
SEPTEMBER 1, 1948): 

"NO INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SUSPENDING OR RESTRAINING THE
ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF ANY STATUTE OF A STATE BY
RESTRAINING THE ACTION OF ANY OFFICER OF SUCH STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OR EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE,  ...  SHALL BE ISSUED OR GRANTED  ...
UNLESS THE APPLICATION FOR THE SAME SHALL BE PRESENTED TO A JUSTICE OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO A CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT
JUDGE, AND SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THREE JUDGES, ...  WHENEVER
SUCH APPLICATION AS AFORESAID IS PRESENTED TO A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT, OR TO A JUDGE, HE SHALL IMMEDIATELY CALL TO HIS ASSISTANCE TO
HEAR AND DETERMINE THE APPLICATION TWO OTHER JUDGES:  ...  AN APPEAL
MAY BE TAKEN DIRECT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE
ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION IN SUCH CASE.  ...  THE REQUIREMENT RESPECTING THE PRESENCE
OF THREE JUDGES SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THE FINAL HEARING IN SUCH SUIT IN
THE DISTRICT COURT; AND A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT MAY BE
TAKEN FROM A FINAL DECREE GRANTING OR DENYING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN
SUCH SUIT." 

AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT IN THE COMPLAINT, FILED JUNE
26, 1947, BUT THE RECORD PRESENTED TO US DOES NOT SHOW THAT ONE WAS
ISSUED ALTHOUGH THE FINAL INJUNCTION WAS NOT ISSUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 11,
1948.  AN OPINION ON THE APPLICABILITY OF JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266, FILED
OCTOBER 22, 1947, SAYS THAT "ALL PERTINENT ADJECTIVE PREREQUISITES
SPECIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN AYRSHIRE COLLIERIES CORPORATION V.
UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 132,  ...  AND IN FARRINGTON V. T. TOKUSHIGE,
SUPRA, NECESSARY TO MAKE OPERATIVE THREE JUDGE PARTICIPATION IN THE
INSTANT SUIT HAVE OCCURRED.  AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION HAS BEEN
SOUGHT AND PASSED TO A HEARING IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT HONOLULU AND A
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION OF TRANSCENDING LIMITATIONS OF THE 5TH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED IN THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT."  74 F.SUPP.  858, 859. 

DESPITE APPELLANTS' SUGGESTION THAT THE APPLICATION FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS NOT PRESSED, WE THINK THAT IN VIEW OF THIS
LANGUAGE IT WOULD BE HYPERCRITICAL FOR US TO DISMISS THIS APPEAL FOR
FAILURE OF THE RECORD TO SHOW MORE DEFINITELY THAT THE PRAYER FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT WAS PRESSED.  BUT SEE HEALY V. RATTA, 289 U.S.
701, WHERE THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE IN THIS COURT SHOWS RECEIPT OF A
SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD CONTAINING A FORMAL WAIVER OF PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY
RELIEF.  AYRSHIRE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 140; STRATTON V.
ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO., 282 U.S. 10.  COMPARE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253 AND 28
U.S.C. (1946 ED., SUPP. II) PP. 1444, 1453, SHOWING REPEAL AND
REDISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266.  WE THEREFORE ASSUME THAT THE
QUOTED STATEMENT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OPINION ESTABLISHES THAT THE
REQUEST FOR AN INTERLOCUORY INJUNCTION WAS PRESSED ON THAT COURT. 

FN8  STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO., 282 U.S. 10, 13; PHILLIPS V.
UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 248. 

FN9  AIR TRAVEL TO HAWAII IS RECOGNIZED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS AS A NECESSARY TRAVEL EXPENSE FOR JUDGES
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 604(7). 

FN10  31 STAT. 158. 

FN11  28 U.S.C. SECS. 451, 91, 1331-59; SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41; SEC.
8, ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62 STAT. 986.  NOTE ARRANGEMENT FOR ALASKA,
ID., SEC. 9, AT P. 986. 

FN12  SEE REVISER'S NOTES TO 28 U.S.C. SECS. 1291, 1292.  CF. MOOKINI
V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 201. 

FN13  RORICK V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF EVERGLADES DRAINAGE
DISTRICT, 307 U.S. 208, 212. 

FN14  REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR HAWAII WAS
ALLOWED IN THE ORGANIC ACT BY SEC. 86 TO THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
THE SAME MANNER AS FROM THE THEN CIRCUIT COURTS TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS.  THIS WAS ADJUSTED TO CONFORM TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURTS BY JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 128 AS AMENDED.  SEE 48 U.S.C.
SEC. 645.  SINCE THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN, THE REVISION OF THE U.S.C.
TITLE 28, SECS. 1291, 1294, HAS BECOME EFFECTIVE.  UNDER JUDICIAL CODE
SEC. 266 THIS COURT HAD DIRECT REVIEW, JUDICIAL CODE SECS. 128, 238, AT
THE TIME OF APPEAL AND STILL HAS.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253 AS REVISED
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948. 

FN15  WAIALUA CO. V. CHRISTIAN, 305 U.S. 91, 108; DE CASTRO V. BOARD
OF COMM'RS, 322 U.S. 451, 455. 

FN16  EX PARTE COLLINS, 277 U.S. 565, 567-569. 

FN17  ALTHOUGH JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266 ORIGINATED IN 1910, 36 STAT.
539, 557, IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1937 THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT TO HEAR APPLICATIONS FOR INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ACTS OF CONGRESS WAS ENACTED.  50 STAT. 751, 752. 

FN18  CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2. 

FN19  TO THE CASES ON STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 266 CITED IN
PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, ADD CITY OF CLEVELAND V. UNITED
STATES, 323 U.S. 329; SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89; PUBLIC
NAT. BANK OF NEW YORK V. KEATING, 29 F.2D 621; CITY OF DES MOINES V.
DES MOINES GAS CO., 264 F. 506; CALHOUN V. CITY OF SEATTLE, 215 F. 226;
CUMBERLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. CITY OF MEMPHIS, 198 F. 955. 

FN20  SEE ALSO TALBOTT V. SILVER BOW COUNTY, 139 U.S. 438; WYNNE V.
UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 234, 242; YEUNG V. TERRITORY OF HAWAII, 132
F.2D 374, 377. 

FN21  UNITED STATES V. MORE, 3 CRANCH 159, 172; SNOW V. UNITED
STATES, 118 U.S. 346, 354; CROSS V. BURKE, 146 U.S. 82, 87; LOUISVILLE
TRUST CO. V. KNOTT, 191 U.S. 225, 236; ARANT V. LANE, 245 U.S. 166,
170. 

FN22 STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO., 282 U.S. 10, 13.  SEE ALSO
BENEDICTO V. WEST INDIA & PANAMA TELEGRAPH CO., 256 F. 417.  COMPARE
PORTO RICO LIGHT & POWER CO. V. COLOM, 106 F.2D 345, 354-55. 

THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THAT ANY QUESTION BY REASON OF THE
TOKUSHIGE CASE AS TO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THAT COURT AND THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURTS OF THE STATES SO FAR AS THEIR POWERS UNDER SEC.
266 IS CONCERNED, HAD BEEN "EXPRESSLY AND CLEARLY REMOVED BY SUBSEQUENT
SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.  TITLE 48, SECTION 646, U.S.C.A.,
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES 1, 65(E), 28 U.S.C.A. FOLLOWING

WE DO NOT THINK THAT EITHER THE SECTION OR THE RULES HAVE ANY EFFECT
UPON THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 266 TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN HAWAII.  48 U.S.C. SEC. 646(NOW COVERED BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2072, SEE
NOTE 26 INFRA) MADE THE RULES APPLICABLE TO HAWAII, BUT THE RULES DO
NOT AFFECT THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 266 TO HAWAII. 
RULE 1 STATES THE SCOPE OF THE RULES.  RULE 65(E), INSOFAR AS IT HAS
ANY POSSIBLE BEARING, SAYS MERELY THAT "THESE RULES DO NOT MODIFY  ...
THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, C. 754, SEC. 3, RELATING TO ACTIONS TO
ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ACTS OF CONGRESS."  SECTION 3 OF C. 754, 50
STAT. 751, IS THE SECTION THAT PROVIDES FOR A SPECIAL DISTRICT COURT
WHERE AN INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION OR
EXECUTION OF, OR TO SET ASIDE, ANY ACT OF CONGRESS ON THE GROUND THAT
IT IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN THIS
PRESENT PROCEEDING WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS BUT WITH
AN ACT OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.  FN23
HEALY V. RATTA, 289 U.S. 701; 292 U.S. 263, 264; 67 F.2D 554, 556;
WILENTZ V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, 306 U.S. 573, 582; COMMISSION V. BRASHEAR
LINES, 312 U.S. 621, 626. 

FN24  28 U.S.C. SEC. 225(A), NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1291.  SEE GULLY V.
INTERSTATE NAT. GAS CO., 292 U.S. 16, 19; OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. PACKING
CO., 292 U.S. 386, 392; RORICK V. COMMISSIONERS, 307 U.S. 208, 213. 
CF. JAMESON & CO. V. MORGENTHAU, 307 U.S. 171, 174; GARMENT WORKERS V.
DONNELLY CO., 304 U.S. 243, 251-252. 

FN25  AS INDICATED ABOVE, NOTE 6, RESPONDENTS ALSO RELIED UPON A
DENIAL OF EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER 8 U.S.C. SECS. 41, 42 AND 43.  NO MORE
DEFINITE ALLEGATION APPEARS.  THE HEARING DEVELOPED NOTHING TO INDICATE
ANY PURPOSE OR ACTION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY RACE OR GROUP IN
THE LAW OR ITS ADMINISTRATION.  THE ACT COVERED ALL FOREIGN LANGUAGES. 
WE, THEREFORE, CONFINE OURSELVES TO THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE.  SEE SNOWDEN
V. HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1. 

FN26  NOTWITHSTANDING THE FUSION OF LAW AND EQUITY BY THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE SUBSTANTIVE PRINCIPLES OF COURTS OF CHANCERY
REMAIN UNAFFECTED.  RULES 1 AND 2; 48 STAT. 1064, SECS. 1 AND 2; (NOTE
48 U.S.C., 1946 ED., SEC. 646; REPEALED BY ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, 62
STAT. 992; CF. 28 U.S.C. SEC. 451) ABBE V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO.,
171 F.2D 387, 388; BERESLAVSKY V. CAFFEY, 161 F.2D 499; BERESLAVSKY V.
KLOEB, 162 F.2D 862; BYRAM V. VAUGHN, 68 F.SUPP.  981, 984.  COMPARE
SIBBACH V. WILSON & CO., 312 U.S. 1, 9-10.  SEE HILLSBOROUGH V.
CROMWELL, 326 U.S. 620, 622. 

ATLAS INS. CO. V. SOUTHERN, INC., 306 U.S. 563, 568: 

"SECTION 11 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 78, PROVIDED THAT
THE CIRCUIT COURTS SHOULD HAVE 'COGNIZANCE  ...  OF ALL SUITS OF A
CIVIL NATURE AT COMMON LAW OR IN EQUITY' IN CASES APPROPRIATELY BROUGHT
IN THOSE COURTS.  THIS PROVISION IS PERPETUATED IN SEC. 24(1) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), (NOW SECS. 1331 ET SEQ.) WHICH
DECLARES THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH
SUITS.  THE 'JURISDICTION' THUS CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL COURTS TO
ENTERTAIN SUITS IN EQUITY IS AN AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER IN EQUITY SUITS
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES WHICH HAD BEEN
DEVISED AND WAS BEING ADMINISTERED BY THE ENGLISH COURT OF CHANCERY AT
THE TIME OF THE SEPARATION OF THE TWO COUNTRIES.  ...  THIS CLAUSE OF
THE STATUTE DOES NOT DEFINE THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS AS
FEDERAL COURTS, IN THE SENSE OF THEIR POWER OR AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND
DECIDE, BUT PRESCRIBES THE BODY OF DOCTRINE WHICH IS TO GUIDE THEIR
DECISIONS AND ENABLE THEM TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN ANY GIVEN INSTANCE A
SUIT OF WHICH A DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION AS A FEDERAL COURT IS
AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY POWERS OF A
COURT OF EQUITY.  ...  " 

FN27  CF. MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525; MOORE'S FEDERAL
PRACTICE, VOL. 1, PP. 108, 208; GRAUMAN V. CITY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 31
F.SUPP.  172; H.R. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. A 236 ON 28
U.S.C. SEC. 384. 

FN28  SEE SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89, 95. 

FN29  WAIALUA CO. V. CHRISTIAN, 305 U.S. 91, 108; BEAL V. MISSOURI
PACIFIC R. CORP., 312 U.S. 45; WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387; DOUGLAS V.
JEANNETTE, 319 U.S. 157; BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315, 333, N.
29; MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228, 235.  COMPARE SPECTOR MOTOR
CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOINS,
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART. 

AS TO NO. 52, I JOIN THE COURT'S OPINION. 

AS TO NO. 474, I WOULD LEAVE THE APPEAL NOW PENDING IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TO ITS ADJUDICATION THERE AND NOT GRANT
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  THE POWER WHICH CONGRESS HAS GIVEN TO
THIS COURT TO SHORT-CIRCUIT THE COURTS OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE
EXERCISED EXCEPT FOR SOME COMPELLING REASON OF WISE JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.  NO REASON IS HERE PRESENT THAT WOULD NOT BE EQUALLY
AVAILABLE IN ALMOST EVERY CASE WHICH, EVEN THOUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE MAY BE INVOLVED, CANNOT COME HERE DIRECTLY, BUT MUST FIRST GO TO
A COURT OF APPEALS.  CONGRESS DECIDED NOT TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH DIRECT
APPEALS HERE AND WE SHOULD NOT EXERCISE OUR DISCRETIONARY POWER TO
GRANT WHAT CONGRESS HAS WITHHELD.  THIS DISCRETIONARY POWER SHOULD COME
INTO PLAY ONLY FOR THOSE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH CONGRESS
DESIGNED IT. 

AFTER FINDING THAT WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DIRECTLY THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAWAII, THE COURT IN EFFECT ALLOWS SUCH
DIRECT REVIEW BY NOT REQUIRING THE APPEAL NOW PENDING IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS TO RUN ITS NORMAL COURSE OF ADJUDICATION IN THAT COURT.  THIS
IS JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE HAS BEEN FULLY PRESENTED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT AND HERE.  BUT IF WE WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT HERE AN
APPEAL UNDECIDED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS MERELY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN
ADJUDICATED ON ITS MERITS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THERE IS NO MORE
REASON FOR DOING SO WHEN A DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
BEEN IMPROVIDENTLY SOUGHT HERE.  MOREOVER, THE COURT IS NOT DISPOSING
OF THE CASE ON ITS MERITS.  BY LIFTING THE CASE OUT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS THE COURT IS ASSUMING THE BURDEN OF CANVASSING ISSUES NOT DEALT
WITH BELOW.  THIS ENTAILS THE STUDY OF NEW QUESTIONS AND THE TASK OF
OPINION WRITING.  THESE ARE PRECISELY THE BURDENS FROM WHICH THE COURT
ASKED TO BE SAVED AND FROM WHICH CONGRESS SAVED THE COURT BY THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925.  IF THE REGULAR COURSE OF PROCEEDING WERE
FOLLOWED AND THE MATTER WERE TO BE DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT OF APPEALS,
AS IT IS NOW BEING DISPOSED OF HERE, THE NECESSITY FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION HERE MIGHT NEVER ARISE BEYOND THAT INVOLVED IN FINDING NO
REASON FOR GRANTING A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WERE ONE TO BE APPLIED
FOR.  DRAINS ON THE COURT'S TIME THROUGH JURISDICTIONAL MISCONCEPTIONS
SHOULD BE STRONGLY DISCOURAGED.  WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE HONORED PRACTICE
OF THIS COURT IN DISMISSING A PROCEEDING THAT SHOULD NOT BE HERE AB
INITIO, EVEN THOUGH THE COURT'S TIME AND EFFORT HAD BEEN EXPENDED AFTER
FULL ARGUMENT IN CONCLUDING THAT A CASE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
HERE.  FN1 

IF THE ATTEMPT HAD BEEN MADE TO BRING NO. 474 HERE PREMATURELY IT
WOULD SURELY HAVE FAILED.  IT SHOULD NOT SUCCEED BECAUSE NO. 52 WAS
IMPROPERLY BROUGHT HERE.  ACCORDINGLY I AGREE WITH THE COURT IN
DISMISSING NO. 52 FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, AND IN NO. 474 I WOULD DENY
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

FN1  WRITS OF CERTIORARI GRANTED BECAUSE OF AN APPARENT CONFLICT
BETWEEN COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE EXISTENCE OF
SUCH CONFLICT DID NOT SURVIVE ARGUMENT.  AND FOR THESE REASONS.  "IF IT
BE SUGGESTED THAT AS MUCH EFFORT AND TIME AS WE HAVE GIVEN TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE ALLEGED CONFLICT WOULD HAVE ENABLED US TO DISPOSE
OF THE CASE BEFORE US ON THE MERITS, THE ANSWER IS THAT IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT THAT WE BE CONSISTENT IN NOT GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
EXCEPT IN CASES INVOLVING PRINCIPLES THE SETTLEMENT OF WHICH IS OF
IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THAT OF THE PARTIES, AND
IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A REAL AND EMBARRASSING CONFLICT OF OPINION AND
AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL.  THE PRESENT CASE
CERTAINLY COMES UNDER NEITHER HEAD."  LAYNE & BOWLER CORP. V. WESTERN
WELL WORKS, INC., 261 U.S. 387, 393. 
..END :




BLACK DIAMOND V. STEWART & SONS, 336 U.S. 386 


ARGUED JANUARY 3-4, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 14, 1949.  - 167 F.2D 308,
REVERSED. 


A VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AND CHARTERED UNDER A BAREBOAT
CHARTER TO AN AMERICAN CORPORATION COLLIDED WITH A BRITISH VESSEL IN
TERRITORIAL WATERS OF BELGIUM.  THE BRITISH VESSEL SANK WITH ALL OF HER
CARGO; HER CHIEF STEWARD WAS KILLED; AND THE AMERICAN VESSEL DAMAGED
THE BANK OF THE RIVER.  OWNERS OF THE BRITISH VESSEL SUED THE CHARTERER
OF THE AMERICAN VESSEL IN ENGLAND, CLAIMING DAMAGES OF $1,000,000. 
OWNERS OF THE CARGO OF THE BRITISH VESSEL SUED THE UNITED STATES AND
THE CHARTERER OF THE AMERICAN VESSEL IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR
CLAIMS AGGREGATING NEARLY $1,000,000.  ALLEGING THAT THE VALUE OF THE
AMERICAN VESSEL WAS ABOUT $1,000,000, THAT THE TOTAL CLAIMS WOULD
EXCEED THAT AMOUNT, AND THAT THEIR LIABILITY UNDER BELGIAN LAW WAS
LIMITED TO $325,000, THE UNITED STATES AND THE CHARTERER PETITIONED THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY UNDER R.S. SEC. 4285, AS
AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 185.  THE UNITED STATES POSTED NO BOND AND THE
CHARTERER POSTED A BOND OF ONLY $325,000.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED
THE PETITION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  HELD:  THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION BUT SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED
THE CHARTERER (BUT NOT THE UNITED STATES) TO POST A BOND OF $1,000,000,
TO GUARD AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY THAT AMERICAN LAW, AND NOT BELGIAN
LAW, MIGHT BE FOUND TO CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY.  PP. 388-399. 

1.  R.S. SEC. 4285 IS APPLICABLE, BECAUSE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
POTENTIAL CLAIMS EXCEEDS THE FUND AVAILABLE FOR THEIR SATISFACTION,
WHETHER THAT FUND BE MEASURED BY THE LAW OF BELGIUM OR OF THE UNITED
STATES.  PP. 393-394. 

2.  UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2408 AND 46 U.S.C. SEC. 743, THE UNITED
STATES IS NOT REQUIRED TO POST A BOND IN A PROCEEDING UNDER R.S. SEC.
4285.  P. 394. 

3.  IN VIEW OF THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION ON PROCEEDINGS UNDER R.S.
SEC. 4285, THE COURT OF APPEALS, INSTEAD OF AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL,
SHOULD HAVE REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN ORDER TO GIVE
THE CHARTERER AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A LARGER BOND, SINCE THE DEFECT
WAS NOT JURISDICTIONAL.  P. 395. 

4.  IF THE BELGIAN LAW IS NOT MERELY PROCEDURAL BUT ATTACHES TO THE
RIGHT OF RECOVERY AND IF IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY OVERRIDING
DOMESTIC POLICY, IT IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.  PP. 395-396. 

5.  THE BELGIAN LAW HAVING BEEN PLEADED, IT MUST BE PROVED AS A FACT
EVEN THOUGH IT IS DERIVED FROM THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION OF AUGUST 25,
1924, LIMITING THE LIABILITY OF OWNERS OF SEAGOING VESSELS.  PP. 396
397. 

6.  UPON REMAND, THE QUESTION OF WHAT LAW GOVERNS THE SUBSTANTIVE
LIMIT OF LIABILITY SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN ADVANCE OF THE PROOF OF
INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS.  PP. 397-398. 

7.  IF BELGIAN LAW IS FOUND TO CONTROL, A $325,000 BOND WOULD
SUFFICE; BUT, IF AMERICAN LAW IS FOUND TO CONTROL, A $1,000,000 BOND
WOULD BE REQUIRED.  P. 398. 

8.  THE DISTRICT COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO PRESERVE THE
STATUS QUO PENDING APPEAL, SHOULD REQUIRE THE CHARTERER TO POST A BOND
FOR THE VALUE OF THE SHIP AND FREIGHT.  PP. 398-399. 

BLACK DIAMOND STEAMSHIP CORP. V. ROBERT STEWART & SONS, LTD. ET AL. 

NO. 121.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 130, UNITED STATES V. ROBERT STEWART & SONS, LTD.
ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A PETITION OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE CHARTERER OF ONE OF ITS VESSELS FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
UNDER R.S. SEC. 4285, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 185.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  167 F.2D 308.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335
U.S. 809.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 399. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE BROUGHT THESE CASES HERE BECAUSE THEY CALL FOR DETERMINATION OF
IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF ADMIRALTY LAW.  335 U.S.
809.  THEY BRING FOR REVIEW A DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF A PETITION FOR LIMITED
LIABILITY BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BY THE UNITED STATES AS OWNER AND THE BLACK
DIAMOND STEAMSHIP CORPORATION AS BAREBOAT CHARTERER OF THE S.S. NORWALK
VICTORY.  167 F.2D 308. 

THE FACTS CONTROLLING OUR DECISION ARE BRIEFLY THESE.  ON APRIL 28,
1947, THE NORWALK VICTORY, WHILE PROCEEDING DOWN THE SCHELDE RIVER IN
THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF BELGIUM, COLLIDED WITH THE BRITISH STEAMER
MERGANSER.  THE MERGANSER SANK WITH ALL HER CARGO; HER CHIEF STEWARD
WAS KILLED; IN BACKING AWAY FROM THE MERGANSER THE NORWALK VICTORY
STRUCK AND DAMAGED THE BANK OF THE SCHELDE.  SOON AFTER THE COLLISION
THE OWNERS OF THE MERGANSER BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST BLACK DIAMOND IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND CLAIMING DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,000,000.  THAT IS THE ONLY PROCEEDING WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT
ABROAD.  ON OCTOBER 14, 1947, THE OWNERS OF THE CARGO LOST IN THE
SINKING OF THE MERGANSER BROUGHT SUIT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK; AGGREGATE CLAIMS THUS FAR FILED TOTAL NEARLY $1,000,000. 

IN THEIR PETITION FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, BROUGHT UNDER R.S.
SEC. 4285, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 1480, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 185,  FN1  THE
UNITED STATES AND BLACK DIAMOND ALLEGE THE POSSIBILITY THAT IN ADDITION
TO THE SUIT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE SUITS BY THE CARGO
OWNERS IN NEW YORK, THERE MAY BE SUITS IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES BY OTHER CARGO OWNERS, BY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
MERGANSER'S CHIEF STEWARD, AND BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT FOR DAMAGES TO
THE BANK OF THE SCHELDE AND FOR THE COST OF REMOVING THE WRECK OF THE
MERGANSER FROM THE RIVER.  THESE CLAIMS, THEY SAY, WOULD EXCEED THE
VALUE OF THE NORWALK VICTORY, WHICH IS ABOUT $1,000,000.  BUT THE
PETITIONERS, DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF R.S. SEC. 4283, AS AMENDED, 49
STAT. 1479, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 183, FN2  DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF
THEIR SHIP AS THE LIMIT OF THEIR LIABILITY.  THEY INSIST, RATHER, THAT
THEIR LIABILITY IS LIMITED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE
UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES RELATING TO THE LIMITATION OF THE
LIABILITY OF OWNERS OF SEAGOING VESSELS, SIGNED AT BRUSSELS ON AUGUST
25, 1924.  FN3  THE CONVENTION WAS RATIFIED BY BELGIUM ON JUNE 2, 1930,
AND TOOK EFFECT ON JUNE 2, 1931; IT IS ALLEGED, THEREFORE, TO HAVE BEEN
PART OF THE TERRITORIAL LAW OF BELGIUM AT THE TIME OF THIS COLLISION IN
BELGIAN WATERS.  ON THE BASIS OF THIS CONVENTION, THE PETITIONERS
ASSERT THEIR MAXIMUM LIABILITY TO BE $325,028.79. 

ACCORDINGLY, BLACK DIAMOND ACCOMPANIED ITS PETITION FOR LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY WITH A BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $325,028.79.  THE UNITED STATES,
STANDING UPON 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2408 FN4  AND SEC. 3 OF THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT, 41 STAT. 526, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 743,  FN5
FILED NO BOND.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HOLDING THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF
LIMITING LIABILITY RELATES "NOT TO THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS GIVING RISE
TO THE LIABILITY, BUT TO THE REMEDY, AND THAT IS GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF
THE FORUM," DISMISSED THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT BLACK DIAMOND HAD
NOT COMPLIED WITH R.S. SEC. 4285 BY FILING A BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF THE
VALUE OF THE SHIP - $1,000,000.  THE STANDING OF THE UNITED STATES
(WHICH WAS NOT SEPARATELY REPRESENTED AT THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING)
WAS NOT CONSIDERED. 

UPON APPEAL, THE PETITIONERS WERE FOUND TO BE IN "A DILEMMA FROM
WHICH THEY CANNOT ESCAPE."  167 F.2D AT 309.  READING THE PETITION AS
ALLEGING THAT THE BELGIAN LIMITATION ATTACHED TO THE CLAIMANTS'
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT TO RECOVER, AND TREATING THAT ALLEGATION AS PROVED
FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PETITION, THE COURT
ACCEPTED ARGUENDO THE SUM OF $325,000 AS "THE LIMIT OF ALL THEIR
(PETITIONERS') LIABILITIES."  IBID.  BUT THOUGH THE COURT OF APPEALS
LOOKED TO THE LEX LOCI DELICTI FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE LIMIT OF LIABILITY,
ITS NEXT STEP WAS TAKEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER
WHICH A PETITION PRAYING FOR THE INJUNCTION OF OTHER PROCEEDINGS AND A
FORUM CONCURSUS MAY BE FILED ARE MATTERS OF PROCEDURE GOVERNED BY THE
LEX FORI.  IT IS A CONDITION IMPOSED BY THE LEX FORI, THE COURT'S
REASONING CONTINUED, THAT A PETITION FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT
AVAILABLE TO A SHIPOWNER UNLESS THE AGGREGATE OF KNOWN AND PROBABLE
CLAIMS AGAINST HIM IS GREATER THAN THE VALUE OF HIS SHIP.  AS
ESTABLISHING THIS PROPOSITION, THE COURT CITED THE AQUITANIA, 20 F.2D
457(C.A.2D CIR.); CURTIS BAY TOWING CO. V. TUG KEVIN MORAN, 159 F.2D
273(C.A.2D CIR.); AND THE GEORGE W. FIELDS, 237 F. 403(S.D.N.Y.).  AND
IT HELD THESE CASES APPLICABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE MAXIMUM LIABILITY
IMPOSED BY BELGIAN LAW WAS LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE NORWALK VICTORY. 

BUT THE LOWER COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS FINALLY ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE BELGIAN LIMITATION WAS IN FACT CONTROLLING
BECAUSE, IF IT WERE NOT, PETITIONERS WOULD BE IMPALED ON THE OTHER HORN
OF THE DILEMMA:  IF THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF THE FORUM RATHER THAN THAT
OF BELGIUM APPLIED, THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY, BY R.S. SEC. 4283, WOULD BE
THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL.  SINCE THE PROCEDURAL LAW OF THE FORUM,
MOREOVER, REQUIRES THE POSTING OF A BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL
LIABILITY, AND SINCE THE BOND PROPOSED BY PETITIONERS WAS FOR LESS THAN
A THIRD OF THAT AMOUNT, UPON THIS HYPOTHESIS ALSO THEY WERE DISENTITLED
TO PROCEED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL OF
THE PETITION. 

IF THE COURT OF APPEALS' RELIANCE UPON THE AQUITANIA, CURTIS BAY
TOWING CO. V. TUG KEVIN MORAN, AND THE GEORGE W. FIELDS, SUPRA, WAS, AS
WE ARE CONVINCED, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES MISPLACED, WE ESCAPE ITS
DILEMMA WITHOUT WANTING IN RESPECT FOR THE WISDOM OF THAT MOST
EXPERIENCED OF ADMIRALTY COURTS.  THOSE CASES, IT IS TRUE, HOLD THAT
WHERE THE AGGREGATE CLAIMS AGAINST A SHIPOWNER CAN BY NO POSSIBILITY
EXCEED THE VALUE OF HIS SHIP, A PROCEEDING UNDER R.S. SEC. 4285 WILL
NOT LIE.  BUT THE VALUE OF THE SHIP WAS RELEVANT IN THOSE CASES ONLY
BECAUSE UNDER THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WAS ASSUMED TO BE
APPLICABLE, THAT WAS THE LIMIT OF THE OWNER'S LIABILITY.  SINCE THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALL POTENTIAL CLAIMS IN EACH CASE WAS ONLY A FRACTION
OF THAT LIMIT, THE FUND AVAILABLE FOR THEIR SATISFACTION WAS MORE THAN
AMPLE.  THERE WAS NO REASON, THEREFORE, FOR PERMITTING THE PETITIONERS
TO INVOKE A FORUM CONCURSUS.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
POTENTIAL CLAIMS EXCEEDS THE FUND AVAILABLE FOR THEIR SATISFACTION,
WHETHER THAT FUND BE MEASURED BY THE LAW OF BELGIUM OR OF THE UNITED
STATES, THERE EXISTS JUST SUCH A SITUATION AS R.S. SEC. 4285 WAS
DESIGNED TO MEET. 

"UNLESS SOME PROCEEDING OF THIS KIND WERE ADOPTED WHICH SHOULD BRING
ALL THE PARTIES INTERESTED INTO ONE LITIGATION, AND ALL THE CLAIMANTS
INTO CONCOURSE FOR A PRO RATA DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMMON FUND, IT IS
MANIFEST THAT IN MOST CASES THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT COULD NEVER BE
REALIZED.  CASES MIGHT OCCUR, IT IS TRUE, IN WHICH THE SHIP OWNERS
COULD AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THOSE BENEFITS, BY WAY OF DEFENCE ALONE, AS
WHERE BOTH SHIP AND FREIGHT ARE TOTALLY LOST, SO THAT THE OWNERS ARE
RELIEVED FROM ALL LIABILITY WHATEVER.  BUT EVEN IN THAT CASE, IN THE
ABSENCE OF A REMEDY BY WHICH THEY COULD OBTAIN A DECREE OF EXEMPTION AS
TO ALL CLAIMANTS, THEY WOULD BE LIABLE TO A DIVERSITY OF SUITS, BROUGHT
PERHAPS IN DIFFERENT STATES, AFTER LONG PERIODS OF TIME, WHEN THE
WITNESSES HAVE BEEN DISPERSED, AND ISSUING IN CONTRARY RESULTS BEFORE
DIFFERENT TRIBUNALS; WHILST IN THE ORDINARY CASES, WHERE A LIMITED
LIABILITY TO SOME EXTENT EXISTS, BUT TO AN AMOUNT LESS THAN THE
AGGREGATE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES, SO AS TO REQUIRE A CONCOURSE OF CLAIMANTS
AND A PRO RATA DISTRIBUTION, THE PROSECUTION OF SEPARATE SUITS, IF
ALLOWED TO PROCEED, WOULD RESULT IN A SUBVERSION OF THE WHOLE OBJECT
AND SCHEME OF THE STATUTE."  PROVIDENCE & N.Y.S.S. CO. V. HILL MFG.
CO., 109 U.S. 578, 594-95. 

INDEED, IF THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECOVERABLE IS FIXED BY BELGIAN LAW, THE
NEED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A MONITION UNDER ADMIRALTY RULE 51, THE
INJUNCTION OF OTHER SUITS, AND A FORUM CONCURSUS IS OBVIOUSLY GREATER
THAN IT IS UNDER THE HIGHER SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATION OF OUR OWN LAW. 
THUS ONE OF THE HORNS OF PETITIONERS' DILEMMA DISAPPEARS; WE MUST,
ACCORDINGLY, REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND THE CASES FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

SINCE THE CASES ARE GOING BACK, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONFRONT THE OTHER
HORN OF THE DILEMMA.  IN THAT BRANCH OF ITS REASONING, THE COURT OF
APPEALS ASSUMED THAT THE POSTING OF TOO SMALL A BOND WOULD REQUIRE THE
DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION.  THE COURT'S ATTENTION APPARENTLY WAS NOT
DIRECTED TO THE STATUS OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH, BY THE PLAIN IMPORT OF
28 U.S.C. SEC. 2408  FN6  AND 41 STAT. 525, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
743,  FN7  RELIEVES IT OF THE DUTY TO POST A BOND IN ORDER TO BE
ENTITLED TO PROCEED UNDER R.S. SEC. 4285.  AND PERHAPS IT IS WELL TO
ADD, IN PASSING, THAT, IN VIEW OF THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION  FN8  ON
PROCEEDING UNDER THAT STATUTE, REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN ORDER TO
GIVE BLACK DIAMOND AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A LARGER BOND WOULD HAVE BEEN
A BETTER COURSE, SINCE THE DEFECT WAS NOT JURISDICTIONAL, THAN
AFFIRMANCE OF DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION.  SEE LANGNES V. GREEN, 282
U.S. 531, 541-42; CURTIS BAY TOWING CO. V. TUG KEVIN MORAN, 159 F.2D
273, 276; CF. BIGLER V. WALLER, 12 WALL.  142, 149; DAVIS V. WAKELEE,
156 U.S. 680.  WE ADD THIS OBSERVATION BECAUSE, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, AFFIRMANCE COULD ONLY HAVE HAD THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING
THE PETITIONERS ALTOGETHER OF THE PRIVILEGE OF A LIMITATION PROCEEDING,
NO MATTER WHAT THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND THEY WERE WILLING TO POST.  IT
THREW THEM BACK UPON THE DUBIOUS ADVANTAGE OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
AS A PARTIAL DEFENSE TO SUCCESSIVE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY IN WHICH THE
RECOVERIES, THOUGH SEPARATELY LESS THAN THE APPLICABLE LIMIT, MIGHT IN
THE AGGREGATE FAR EXCEED IT.  AND SUCH WOULD BE THE EFFECT WERE WE ALSO
TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 

HAVING DECIDED THAT THE CASE MUST BE REMANDED BECAUSE THE PETITION
WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED, WE TURN TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE ARE ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE BELGIAN LIMITATION WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE
BY OUR COURTS.  ON THIS POINT WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS - AND
DISAGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT - THAT IF, INDEED, THE BELGIAN
LIMITATION ATTACHES TO THE RIGHT, THEN NOTHING IN THE TITANIC, 233 U.S.
718, STANDS IN THE WAY OF OBSERVING THAT LIMITATION.  THE COURT IN THAT
CASE WAS DEALING WITH "A LIABILITY ASSUMED ALREADY TO EXIST ON OTHER
GROUNDS."  ID. AT 733.  BUT IF IT IS THE LAW OF BELGIUM THAT THE WRONG
CREATES NO GREATER LIABILITY THAN THAT RECOGNIZED BY THE CONVENTION OF
1924, WE CANNOT, WITHOUT MORE, REGARD OUR OWN STATUTES AS EXPANDING THE
RIGHT TO RECOVER.  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD DISREGARD THE SETTLED
PRINCIPLE THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME OVERRIDING DOMESTIC POLICY
TRANSLATED INTO LAW, THE RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR A TORT DEPENDS UPON AND
IS MEASURED BY THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE TORT OCCURRED.  SMITH V.
CONDRY, 1 HOW.  28, 33; SLATER V. MEXICAN NATIONAL R. CO., 194 U.S.
120; CUBA R. CO. V. CROSBY, 222 U.S. 473; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
V. BROWN, 234 U.S. 542. 

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CONVENTION MERELY PROVIDES PROCEDURAL
MACHINERY BY WHICH CLAIMS OTHERWISE CREATED ARE BROUGHT INTO CONCOURSE
AND SCALED DOWN TO THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF A LIMITED FUND, WE
WOULD RESPECT THE EQUALLY WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT THE FORUM IS NOT
GOVERNED BY FOREIGN RULES OF PROCEDURE.  SEE PRITCHARD V. NORTON, 106
U.S. 124; DAVIS V. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451.  WE LEAVE OPEN THE CHOICE
BETWEEN THESE OPPOSING HYPOTHESES.  NOR DO WE MEAN TO IMPLY THAT THESE
APPARENTLY CLEAR-CUT ALTERNATIVES ARE EXHAUSTIVE.  A LIMIT WHICH
ATTACHES NOT TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT OF RECOVERY BUT TO THE AGGREGATE
CLAIMS ARISING FROM A GIVEN TORT CAN BE SAID TO BE "ATTACHED TO THE
RIGHT" ONLY IN A SPECIAL SENSE OF THAT PHRASE, AND A RULE WHICH
OPERATES TO CUT DOWN THE AMOUNT RECOVERABLE BY A CLAIMANT CANNOT BE
FITTED WITHIN ANY BUT A VERY BROAD DEFINITION OF THE TERM "PROCEDURE." 
WHETHER THEY ARE IN FACT CONSIDERATIONS OF DOMESTIC POLICY WHICH
DESERVE TO BE MEASURED AGAINST APPLICATION OF THE LEX LOCI DELICTI AND
WHETHER SUCH CONSIDERATIONS ARE AS SIGNIFICANT WHERE THE FOREIGN
LIMITATION IS LOWER THAN OUR OWN AS WHERE IT IS HIGHER - THESE TOO ARE
QUESTIONS NOT NOW BEFORE US IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CASE IS HERE
MERELY ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE PETITION FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 
SINCE BELGIAN LAW MAY BE ENFORCEABLE BY OUR COURTS, THAT LAW, HAVING
BEEN PLEADED, MUST BE ESTABLISHED.  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT HAS ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS HELD INTERNATIONAL RULES WHICH HAD PASSED INTO THE
"GENERAL MARITIME LAW" TO BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL NOTICE.  THE SCOTIA,
14 WALL.  170; THE BELGENLAND, 114 U.S. 355, 370; RICHELIEU & ONTARIO
NAV. CO. V. BOSTON MARINE INS. CO., 136 U.S. 408, 422; THE NEW YORK,
175 U.S. 187.  BUT WHERE LESS WIDELY RECOGNIZED RULES OF FOREIGN
MARITIME LAW HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, THE COURT HAS ADHERED TO THE GENERAL
PRINCIPLE THAT FOREIGN LAW IS TO BE PROVED AS A FACT.  LIVERPOOL STEAM
CO. V. PHENIX INS. CO., 129 U.S. 397; SEE TALBOT V. SEEMAN, 1 CRANCH 1,
38; THE SCOTIA, 14 WALL.  170, 188.  SEE ALSO THE DECISIONS OF THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS CITED IN 3 BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY 11, N. 36(6TH
ED., KNAUTH, 1940).  ALTHOUGH WE WOULD NO DOUBT BE FREE TO NOTICE THE
TERMS OF THE LIMITATION CONVENTION ITSELF EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT SET
FORTH AMONG THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION, THEIR LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE SURFACE.  "MANY DOUBTS ARE LEFT UNRESOLVED BY
THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE US."  SLATER V. MEXICAN NATIONAL R. CO., SUPRA,
194 U.S. AT 130.  RESPONDENTS, INDEED, IN THEIR EFFORT TO SHOW THAT THE
CONVENTION LAYS DOWN PURELY "PROCEDURAL" REQUIREMENTS, RELY UPON
"PERSONAL CONSULTATIONS WITH THREE ACTIVE MARITIME LAWYERS OF ANTWERP"
WHICH ARE NO PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE US.  "SUBSTANCE" AND
"PROCEDURE," MOREOVER, ARE NOT LEGAL CONCEPTS OF INVARIANT CONTENT, SEE
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, 109, AND ON THE BASIS OF WHAT
IS BEFORE US WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM CHOOSING ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES
RATHER THAN THE OTHER. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO ADD, MOREOVER, THAT THE QUESTION OF WHAT LAW
GOVERNS THE SUBSTANTIVE LIMIT OF LIABILITY SHOULD BE DETERMINED UPON
REMAND IN ADVANCE OF THE PROOF OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS.  A PROCEEDING TO
LIMIT LIABILITY IS IPSO FACTO A PROCEEDING TO LIMIT RECOVERY, AND THE
AMOUNT OF THE APPLICABLE LIMIT, LIKE THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL AND
FREIGHT, IS A QUESTION AFFECTING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE RES FROM WHICH
RECOVERY IS SOUGHT.  IT IS A QUESTION, THEREFORE, WHICH LIES AT THE
THRESHOLD OF ALL CLAIMS, IS EQUALLY RELEVANT TO ALL, AND SHOULD
ACCORDINGLY BE DISPOSED OF BEFORE ANY. 

ONE LAST POINT REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED - THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND TO
BE REQUIRED OF BLACK DIAMOND UPON REMAND OF NO. 121.  A LITERAL READING
OF THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF R.S. SEC. 4285 WOULD COMPEL THE
POSTING OF A BOND IN "A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OR VALUE OF THE
INTEREST OF SUCH OWNER IN THE VESSEL AND FREIGHT," IN THIS INSTANCE
ABOUT $1,000,000.  BUT WE THINK THAT THIS PROVISION, AS PART OF A TOTAL
LEGISLATIVE SCHEME, SHOULD BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
LIMITATION IMPOSED BY R.S. SEC. 4283, FOR IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE WORDS
"AMOUNT OR VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF SUCH OWNER" IN SEC. 4285 WERE
CARRIED OVER FROM AND ARE RELEVANT SOLELY TO THE IDENTICAL LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 4283 LAYING DOWN THE LIMIT WHICH RECOVERY AGAINST THE OWNER "SHALL
NOT  ...  EXCEED."  THE WHOLE TENOR OF R.S. SEC. 4285 - THE OPTION OF
DEPOSITING CASH OR "APPROVED SECURITY," THE DISCRETION GRANTED THE
COURT TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL DEPOSITS IF "NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4283," AND THE ALTERNATIVE OF TRANSFERRING THE
VESSEL AND FREIGHT TO A TRUSTEE - IS ONE OF CONCERN WITH PROTECTING THE
ASSETS FROM WHICH THE CLAIMANTS' SATISFACTION MUST ULTIMATELY COME. 

IF, THEREFORE, BELGIAN LAW RATHER THAN R.S. SEC. 4283 SHOULD BE FOUND
TO GOVERN THE SUBSTANTIVE LIMIT OF LIABILITY, NO PURPOSE WOULD BE
SERVED, SO FAR AS PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT ARE CONCERNED, BY
DEMANDING SECURITY IN EXCESS OF THAT LIMIT.  BUT THE CHOICE OF LAW
PRESENTS A KNOTTY PROBLEM, AND WE CANNOT OVERLOOK THE CONTINGENCIES OF
APPELLATE REVIEW.  IF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD FIND BELGIAN LAW
CONTROLLING, IT MIGHT, UNDER OUR INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 4285, EXACT A
BOND OF ONLY $325,000.  IF, HOWEVER, A CONTRARY VIEW SHOULD ULTIMATELY
PREVAIL, THE REQUISITE AMOUNT OF THE BOND WOULD HAVE BEEN $1,000,000. 
THE DISTRICT COURT, THEREFORE, SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THAT CONTINGENCY BY
REQUIRING BLACK DIAMOND TO POST A BOND FOR THE VALUE OF THE SHIP AND
FREIGHT, NOT BECAUSE SEC. 4285 DEMANDS IT, BUT AS AN EXERCISE OF ITS
POWER TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO PENDING APPEAL.  SEE SCRIPPS-HOWARD
RADIO, INC. V. F.C.C., 316 U.S. 4, 9-10. 

SO, FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION, THE CASE IS
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  "SEC.  4285.  THE VESSEL OWNER, WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER A
CLAIMANT SHALL HAVE GIVEN TO OR FILED WITH SUCH OWNER WRITTEN NOTICE OF
CLAIM, MAY PETITION A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER, AS AMENDED, AND THE OWNER (A) SHALL DEPOSIT WITH THE COURT,
FOR THE BENEFIT OF CLAIMANTS, A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OR VALUE OF THE
INTEREST OF SUCH OWNER IN THE VESSEL AND FREIGHT, OR APPROVED SECURITY
THEREFOR, AND IN ADDITION SUCH SUMS, OR APPROVED SECURITY THEREFOR, AS
THE COURT MAY FROM TIME TO TIME FIX AS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4283, AS AMENDED, OR (B) AT HIS OPTION SHALL
TRANSFER, FOR THE BENEFIT OF CLAIMANTS, TO A TRUSTEE TO BE APPOINTED BY
THE COURT HIS INTEREST IN THE VESSEL AND FREIGHT, TOGETHER WITH SUCH
SUMS, OR APPROVED SECURITY THEREFOR, AS THE COURT MAY FROM TIME TO TIME
FIX AS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4283, AS
AMENDED.  UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION ALL
CLAIMS AND PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE OWNER WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER IN
QUESTION SHALL CEASE." 

FN2  "SEC.  4283.  (A)  THE LIABILITY OF THE OWNER OF ANY VESSEL,
WHETHER AMERICAN OR FOREIGN, FOR ANY EMBEZZLEMENT, LOSS, OR DESTRUCTION
BY ANY PERSON OF ANY PROPERTY, GOODS, OR MERCHANDISE SHIPPED OR PUT ON
BOARD OF SUCH VESSEL, OR FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE, OR INJURY BY COLLISION,
OR FOR ANY ACT, MATTER, OR THING, LOSS, DAMAGE, OR FORFEITURE, DONE,
OCCASIONED, OR INCURRED, WITHOUT THE PRIVITY OR KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH OWNER
OR OWNERS, SHALL NOT, EXCEPT IN THE CASES PROVIDED FOR IN SUBSECTION
(B) OF THIS SECTION, EXCEED THE AMOUNT OR VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF SUCH
OWNER IN SUCH VESSEL, AND HER FREIGHT THEN PENDING." 

FN3  THE PERTINENT PARTS OF THE CONVENTION, PUBLISHED IN U.S. DEPT.
OF STATE TREATY INFORMATION BULL.  NO. 20, P. 13(1931), ARE:

                              "ARTICLE 1 

"THE LIABILITY OF THE OWNER OF A SEAGOING VESSEL IS LIMITED TO AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL, THE FREIGHT, AND THE
ACCESSORIES OF THE VESSEL, IN RESPECT OF - 

"1.  COMPENSATION DUE TO THIRD PARTIES BY REASON OF DAMAGE CAUSED,
WHETHER ON LAND OR ON WATER, BY THE ACTS OR FAULTS OF THE MASTER, CREW,
PILOT, OR ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE SERVICE OF THE VESSEL; 

"2.  COMPENSATION DUE BY REASON OF DAMAGE CAUSED EITHER TO CARGO
DELIVERED TO THE MASTER TO BE TRANSPORTED, OR TO ANY GOODS AND PROPERTY
ON BOARD; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"5.  ANY OBLIGATION TO REMOVE THE WRECK OF A SUNKEN VESSEL, AND ANY
OBLIGATIONS CONNECTED THEREWITH; 

     . .         .         .         . 

"PROVIDED THAT, AS REGARDS THE CASES MENTIONED IN NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4,
AND 5 THE LIABILITY REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING PROVISIONS SHALL NOT
EXCEED AN AGGREGATE SUM EQUAL TO 8 POUNDS STERLING PER TON OF THE
VESSEL'S TONNAGE. 

     .         .         .         .         .

                           "ARTICLE 4 

"THE FREIGHT REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1, INCLUDING PASSAGE MONEY, IS
DEEMED, AS RESPECTS VESSELS OF EVERY DESCRIPTION, TO BE A LUMP SUM
FIXED AT ALL EVENTS AT 10 PER CENT OF THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL AT THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE VOYAGE.  ... 

     .         .         .        .         .

                              "ARTICLE 7 

"WHERE DEATH OR BODILY INJURY IS CAUSED BY THE ACTS OR FAULTS OF THE
CAPTAIN, CREW, PILOT, OR ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE SERVICE OF THE VESSEL,
THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL IS LIABLE TO THE VICTIMS OR THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES IN AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY PROVIDED
FOR IN THE PRECEDING ARTICLES UP TO 8 POUNDS STERLING PER TON OF THE
VESSEL'S TONNAGE.  ... 

.         .         .         .         .

            "ARTICLE 10 

"WHERE THE PERSON WHO OPERATES THE VESSEL WITHOUT OWNING IT OR THE
PRINCIPAL CHARTERER IS LIABLE UNDER ONE OF THE HEADS ENUMERATED IN
ARTICLE 1, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONVENTION ARE APPLICABLE TO HIM. 

              "ARTICLE 11 

"FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRESENT CONVENTION,
'TONNAGE' IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN THE CASE OF STEAMERS AND OTHER MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VESSELS,
NET TONNAGE, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS
TONNAGE ON ACCOUNT OF ENGINE-ROOM SPACE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING
THE NET TONNAGE.  ...  " 

FN4 "SEC.  2408.  SECURITY NOT REQUIRED OF UNITED STATES 

"SECURITY FOR DAMAGES OR COSTS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED OF THE UNITED
STATES, ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY THEREOF OR ANY PARTY ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF ANY SUCH DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY ON THE ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
OR THE INSTITUTION OR PROSECUTION OF ANY PROCEEDING.  ...  " 

FN5  "SEC.  743.  PROCEDURE IN CASES OF LIBEL IN PERSONAM. 

"  ...  NEITHER THE UNITED STATES NOR SUCH CORPORATION SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO GIVE ANY BOND OR ADMIRALTY STIPULATION ON ANY PROCEEDING
BROUGHT HEREUNDER." 

FN6  SEE FOOTNOTE 4 ANTE. 

FN7  SEE FOOTNOTE 5 ANTE. 

FN8  SEE FOOTNOTE 1 ANTE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I SUSPECT THIS DECISION WILL CAUSE CONFUSION IN PRACTICAL APPLICATION
OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS GOVERNING LIMITATION PROCEEDINGS IN ADMIRALTY. 

THE ACT IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE AMERICAN CAPITAL TO RISK ITSELF IN
SHIPPING VENTURES WHERE "SHIPS ARE BUT BOARDS, SAILORS BUT MEN:  ...
AND THEN THERE IS THE PERIL OF WATERS, WINDS, AND ROCKS."  IN ORDER
THAT DISASTER AT SEA MIGHT NOT JEOPARDIZE THE SHIPOWNER'S OTHER ASSETS,
CONGRESS LIMITED HIS LIABILITY TO THE "VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF SUCH
OWNER IN SUCH VESSEL, AND HER FREIGHT THEN PENDING."  R.S. SEC. 4283,
AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 1479, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 183.  FN1  THIS LIMITATION
SERVES MUCH THE SAME PURPOSE FOR MARITIME VENTURES THAT THE CORPORATE
FICTION SERVES FOR THE LANDSMAN'S ENTERPRISES. 

THE STATUTE ALSO PROVIDES A SKELETON PROCEEDING, FILLED IN BY OUR
RULES, FOR AFFIRMATIVELY EFFECTING THIS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WHEN
CATASTROPHE THREATENS CLAIMS THAT EXCEED THE VALUE OF SHIP AND
FREIGHT.  TO A LANDLOCKED MIND IT HAS SOME ANALOGY TO VOLUNTARY
BANKRUPTCY.  IT IS, IN EFFECT, A TURN-OVER OF THE ASSETS AT RISK TO
SATISFY CREDITORS.  THE OWNER MAY, AFTER PETITIONING THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, EITHER TRANSFER TO A TRUSTEE HIS INTEREST
IN THE VESSEL AND FREIGHT, TOGETHER WITH ENOUGH TO MAKE UP THE
LIMITATION, AND BE QUIT OF FURTHER RESPONSIBILITY, OR HE MAY KEEP HIS
SHIP AND SAIL ON, PROVIDED HE SHALL DEPOSIT WITH THE COURT "A SUM EQUAL
TO THE AMOUNT OR VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF SUCH OWNER IN THE VESSEL AND
FREIGHT, OR APPROVED SECURITY THEREFOR."  R.S. SEC. 4285, AS AMENDED,
49 STAT. 1480, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 185. 

OUR STATUTE IS CLEAR:  SEC. 4283 FIXES THE MAXIMUM LIABILITY AT SHIP
PLUS FREIGHT AND SEC. 4285 SETS THE MINIMUM SECURITY AT THE SAME
FIGURE.  TO PROVIDE ANY OTHER LIMIT OF LIABILITY OR SECURITY IS TO
REWRITE BOTH SECTIONS.  AS WRITTEN, THE TWO SECTIONS PROVIDE AND ARE
DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A PROVISIONAL REMEDY TO LET THE SHIP GO HER WAY
WHILE THE CREDITORS ARE SECURED AS WELL AS IF SHE WERE HELD IN CUSTODY
TO PAY THEIR CLAIMS. 

OUR OWN RULES IN ADMIRALTY, AS AMENDED JUNE 21, 1948, PRESCRIBE THE
PRACTICE FOR APPLYING THIS LIMITATION WHEN THE SHIPOWNER TAKES THE
INITIATIVE UNDER R.S. SEC. 4285.  THE PROCEEDING IS CONDUCTED IN TWO
STAGES.  IN THE FIRST OR PRELIMINARY STAGE THE OWNER PETITIONS FOR
RELIEF FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY, IS REQUIRED EITHER TO SURRENDER HIS
INTEREST IN THE SHIP AND HER FREIGHT OR TO STIPULATE, WITH ADEQUATE
BOND, TO PAY INTO COURT ITS VALUE.  THE STATUTE SAYS, "UPON COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION ALL CLAIMS AND PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE OWNER WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER IN QUESTION SHALL CEASE." 
AT THIS POINT AN IMPORTANT CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING
OCCURS. 

THE PROCEEDING CONTINUES AS A PROCEEDING IN REM AGAINST EITHER THE
SHIP OR THE FUND AS THE RES. OUR RULES PROVIDE THAT WHEN PETITIONER
COMPLIES WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AS TO SURRENDER OR BOND, THE COURT
SHALL ISSUE A MONITION REQUIRING ALL PERSONS ASSERTING CLAIMS TO FILE
THE SAME AND MAY ALSO ISSUE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE FURTHER PROSECUTION
OF SUITS AGAINST EITHER THE OWNER OR THE VESSEL.  RULE 51.  THE COURT
THEN ADJUDICATES THE CLAIMS AND APPORTIONS THE AVAILABLE FUND AMONG
THEM.  RULE 52.  THE OWNER IS AT LIBERTY TO CONTEST HIS LIABILITY OR
THE LIABILITY OF THE VESSEL "PROVIDED HE SHALL HAVE COMPLIED" WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SURRENDER OR DEPOSIT AS ABOVE SET FORTH.  RULE 53. 

WE THINK SUCH COMPLIANCE IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO OBTAINING A
FORUM CONCURSUS TO ADJUDICATE LIABILITY.  AS THE PETITIONER IN THIS
CASE DID NOT POST THE SECURITY NOR SURRENDER THE SHIP AS REQUIRED, THE
COURT BELOW PROPERLY DISMISSED THE PETITION AND REFUSED TO ENTER THE
SECOND OR ADJUDICATING STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING. 

THIS COURT APPARENTLY HOLDS THAT COMPLIANCE IS NOT A CONDITION
PRECEDENT AND THAT INSTEAD OF THE VESSEL'S VALUE SOME OTHER MEASURE OF
LIABILITY MIGHT BE ADEQUATE.  WHILE IT REQUIRES THE PRESCRIBED BOND IN
THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT DOES SO, AS WE READ ITS OPINION, ONLY AS A
MATTER OF DISCRETION AND BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE FINAL
DECISION ON THE FOREIGN LAW ISSUE ON APPEAL.  IT SEEMS TO AUTHORIZE A
FOREIGN LAW LIMITATION ON LIABILITY TO BE APPLIED BEFORE A FORUM
CONCURSUS TAKES PLACE, WHILE WE THINK ANY ISSUE AS FOREIGN LAW
LIABILITY IS TO BE APPLIED ONLY IN THE LATTER STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
WHEN THE GENERAL ISSUES AS TO LIABILITY ARE TO BE DETERMINED. 
CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE THAT MARITIME USAGES THE WORLD
OVER HAVE IMPOSED SOME LIMITATION UPON SHIP-OWNERS' LIABILITY AND THAT
SEVERAL BASES FOR ITS ASCERTAINMENT HAVE EXISTED.  SOME SYSTEMS HAVE
ADMITTED NO PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE OWNER, CONFINING LIABILITY TO THE
SHIP ITSELF; OTHERS HAVE LIMITED THE OWNER'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ON
HIS ABANDONMENT OF THE SHIP AND FREIGHT.  STILL OTHERS HAVE LIMITED
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PAYMENT OF A SUM COMPUTED ON THE SHIP'S
TONNAGE.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, HAS DELIBERATELY IMPOSED AND ADHERED TO
OUR OWN MEASURE OF LIABILITY BASED ON THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE INTEREST
IN THE SHIP AND HER FREIGHT.  WE THINK THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR
RELEASING THE OWNER FROM LIABILITY, OR RELEASING THE SHIP, WHICH ARE
THE STEPS NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION, UNTIL THE OWNER HAS COMPLIED WITH
PROVISIONS WHICH FULLY PROTECT THIS AMERICAN MEASURE OF LIABILITY. 

IN THIS CASE, THE REASON THE OWNERS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE AMERICAN
LIMITATION PROVISION IS THAT THEY AVER THAT ON THE SCHELDE, WHERE THE
COLLISION OCCURRED, BELGIAN LAW GRANTED A MUCH MORE DRASTIC LIMITATION,
UNDER WHICH THEIR LIABILITY IS ONLY ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THAT IMPOSED BY
OUR LAW.  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT RELEASE OF THE OWNER AND SHIP, AND
INVOCATION OF A FORUM CONCURSUS, COULD NOT BE GRANTED ON THIS BASIS. 
BUT IT HELD THAT IF THEY HAD COMPLIED WITH PROVISIONS OF AMERICAN LAW
NECESSARY TO REACH THE QUESTION OF THE AMOUNT OF AGGREGATE LIABILITY,
THEY WERE AT LIBERTY TO INTERPOSE THE BELGIAN LAW AS A DEFENSE.  THE
COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THIS QUESTION OF FACT - WHAT IS THE FOREIGN LAW? 
- SHOULD BE DETERMINED AS A PART OF THE PRELIMINARY STEP IN THE CASE
AND THAT THE BOND MAY BE LIMITED THEREBY.  WE THINK THIS IS NOT THE
SCHEME OF THE STATUTE AND THE RULES AND THAT, EXCEPT FOR ISSUES
SUBSIDIARY TO THE COURT'S FIXING OF THE SECURITY REQUIRED UNDER RULE
51, ALL MATTERS OF FACT, GOING TO THE SUBSTANCE OF LIABILITY, ARE TO BE
HEARD ONLY AT THE LATER STAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 

THE LIMITATION FIGURE IS ESTABLISHED PRELIMINARILY, NOT BECAUSE IT
REPRESENTS THE RES, BUT BECAUSE THE STATUTE AND RULES PRESCRIBE THAT
FORMULA AND PROCEDURE FOR FIXING BOTH THE MAXIMUM LIABILITY AND MINIMUM
SECURITY REQUIRED OF THE OWNER.  AND IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE AMOUNT OF
CLAIMS THAT MAY BE PROVED - UNTIL THE LATTER ARE DETERMINED AND A
PROPORTION ESTABLISHED THERE IS NO NEED TO KNOW, FOR THAT PURPOSE, WHAT
LIMIT OF LIABILITY APPLIES.  INDEED, UNLESS IT IS INTENDED TO ALSO
CHANGE THE RULE WHERE THE STATUTORY LIMITATION UNDER R.S. SEC. 4283 IS
SET UP AS A DEFENSE, IT MAY BE ASSERTED AFTER TRIAL ON THE MERITS AND
AFTER JUDGMENT.  THE BENEFACTOR, 103 U.S. 239.  AND BY THE TERMS OF
RULE 55, THE PROVISIONS OF RULES 51-54 REGULATING LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY PROCEEDINGS ARE MADE APPLICABLE EVEN TO THE COURTS OF
APPEALS. 

ADMIRALTY PRACTICE IS A UNIQUE SUSTEM OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND
PROCEDURE WITH WHICH MEMBERS OF THIS COURT ARE SINGULARLY DEFICIENT IN
EXPERIENCE.  THE COURT BELOW IS PERHAPS THE MOST EXPERIENCED IN THIS
COUNTRY.  THE ISSUE ON WHICH WE REVERSE IT IS NOT ONE OF ULTIMATE
RIGHTS OF PARTIES BUT ONE OF PRACTICE, THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHICH CANNOT
BE FORESEEN.  I SHOULD LEAVE THE PROBLEM, AT LEAST AT THIS STAGE, WHERE
THE COURT OF APPEALS LEFT IT, WITH A MINOR EXCEPTION. 

OF COURSE, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS EXEMPT FROM
GIVING ANY SECURITY, BUT THAT IS AN OVERSIGHT THAT IT HARDLY NEEDED TO
COME HERE TO CORRECT.  IT SHOULD HAVE THE LIMITATION WHICH CONGESS HAS
PRESCRIBED. 

EXCEPT FOR THAT DETAIL, I WOULD AFFIRM. 

IT MAY BE THAT PETITIONER SHOULD NOW BE ALLOWED TO AMEND AND FILE THE
REQUIRED BOND EQUAL TO THE SHIP'S VALUE AND PROCEED.  IT HAS NOT SO FAR
ASKED TO DO SO, INSISTING INSTEAD UPON WHAT IT THOUGHT TO BE ITS LEGAL
RIGHT TO PROCEED WITHOUT COMPLIANCE.  THIS QUESTION, TOO, MAY BE LEFT
TO THE COURTS BELOW. 

FN1  "THE LIABILITY OF THE OWNER OF ANY VESSEL, WHETHER AMERICAN OR
FOREIGN, FOR ANY EMBEZZLEMENT, LOSS, OR DESTRUCTION BY ANY PERSON OF
ANY PROPERTY, GOODS, OR MERCHANDISE SHIPPED OR PUT ON BOARD OF SUCH
VESSEL, OR FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE, OR INJURY BY COLLISION, OR FOR ANY
ACT, MATTER, OR THING, LOSS, DAMAGE, OR FORFEITURE, DONE, OCCASIONED,
OR INCURRED, WITHOUT THE PRIVITY OR KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH OWNER OR OWNERS,
SHALL NOT  ...  EXCEED THE AMOUNT OR VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF SUCH
OWNER IN SUCH VESSEL, AND HER FREIGHT THEN PENDING." 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE JACKSON THAT, WHEN CONGRESS GAVE SHIPOWNERS
THE PRIVILEGE OF LIMITING THEIR LIABILITY AND CONDITIONED THAT
PRIVILEGE, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, UPON TURNING OVER THE VESSEL AND FREIGHT
FOR THE BENEFIT OF CLAIMANTS OR DEPOSITING WITH THE COURT CASH OR
APPROVED SECURITY OF EQUIVALENT VALUE, IT MEANT EXACTLY WHAT IT WROTE
INTO THE STATUTE CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF THE SECURITY TO BE GIVEN. 

NOTHING IN THE STATUTE'S WORDING, PURPOSE, OR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS
CITED OR EXISTS TO JUSTIFY REWRITING "A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OR
VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF SUCH OWNER IN THE VESSEL AND FREIGHT,"  FN1
SO AS TO MAKE THAT WORDING READ "A SUM EQUAL TO ONE-THIRD THE VALUE OF
THE INTEREST OF SUCH OWNER WHEN THAT AMOUNT POSSIBLY BUT BY NO MEANS
CERTAINLY WILL BE THE LIMIT OF HIS SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITY AFTER THE
CLAIMS AGAINST HIM ARE FINALLY DETERMINED." 

THE MOST APPEALING ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD TO SUPPORT THIS STATUTORY
DISTORTION IS PETITIONERS' WHOLLY SPECIOUS PLEA OF RESULTING
"INJUSTICE" IF THE JUDICIAL REVISION IS NOT MADE.  THE PLEA IS FOUNDED
ALTOGETHER UPON PETITIONERS' ASSUMPTION THAT THEIR VIEW OF THE EXTENT
OF THEIR AGGREGATE POSSIBLE LIABILITY WILL PREVAIL, WHEN THE TIME COMES
FOR DECIDING THAT QUESTION. 

PETITIONERS' VIEW IS THAT THE LEX LOCI DELICTI GOVERNS BOTH THE
EXISTENCE AND THE EXTENT OF THEIR LIABILITY IN THIS CASE.  THAT LAW IS
THE LAW OF BELGIUM, BECAUSE THE COLLISION HERE INVOLVED TOOK PLACE IN
BELGIAN WATERS.  MOREOVER, SINCE BELGIUM RATIFIED THE BRUSSELS
CONVENTION OF AUGUST 25, 1924,  FN2  THAT CONVENTION IS CLAIMED TO BE
CONTROLLING OF THE RESULTING SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITY.  THIS, BECAUSE THE
AGGREGATE LIMIT THE CONVENTION PRESCRIBES COMES TO ONLY SOME $325,000
IN THIS CASE AND THAT LIMIT, SO IT IS ARGUED, ATTACHES TO THE RIGHT OF
RECOVERY AS PART OF THE RIGHT, NOT MERELY AS A MATTER OF REMEDY.  SEE
SLATER V. MEXICAN NATIONAL R. CO., 194 U.S. 120.  CF. SMITH V. CONDRY,
1 HOW.  28, 33; CUBA R. CO. V. CROSBY, 222 U.S. 473; AMERICAN BANANA
CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S. 347. 

HENCE, IT IS URGED, PETITIONER BLACK DIAMOND SATISFIED THE
REQUIREMENTS OF REV. STAT. SEC. 4285, AS AMENDED, FOR LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY, WHEN IT DEPOSITED AN APPROVED BOND FOR $325,000, RATHER THAN
ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000, THE VALUE OF THE OWNER'S INTEREST IN
THE VESSEL AND FREIGHT, AS SEC. 4285 IN TERMS REQUIRES.  THE CONCLUSION
IS GROUNDED ON THE "INJUSTICE" WHICH PETITIONERS SAY WOULD RESULT IF
ONE SUBSTANTIVELY LIABLE FOR ONLY $325,000 WERE REQUIRED TO POST BOND
IN THREE TIMES THAT AMOUNT IN ORDER TO HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF
LIMITATION.  THIS, IT IS SAID, WOULD MEAN FORCING SUCH AN OWNER TO PAY
BOND PREMIUMS THREE TIMES LARGER THAN NECESSARY TO DISCHARGE ALL HIS
LIABILITIES, AN "INJUSTICE" IT IS ARGUED CONGRESS CANNOT HAVE
CONTEMPLATED NOTWITHSTANDING ITS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE. 

EVEN IF PETITIONERS' ASSUMPTION CONCERNING THEIR ULTIMATE LIABILITY
SHOULD TURN OUT TO BE TRUE, THE STATUTORY COMMAND IS CLEAR AND
UNEQUIVOCAL:  TURN OVER THE SHIP AND THE FREIGHT OR THEIR VALUE AS THE
PRICE OF LIMITATION.  IN THIS COMMAND CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED NOT AT ALL
WITH THE EXTENT OF AGGREGATE CLAIMS OR LIABILITIES.  IT WAS CONCERNED
ONLY WITH AFFORDING THE OWNER A CHANCE TO LIMIT HIS LIABILITIES, BUT AT
THE SAME TIME ALLOWING THIS PRIVILEGE ONLY ON PRECISE AND FIXED
CONDITIONS FOR GIVING SECURITY TO HIS CREDITORS IN THE AMOUNT
SPECIFIED.  THIS WAS UNRELATED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE LIABILITIES IN THE
AGGREGATE, WHETHER ABOVE OR BELOW THE MAXIMUM FIXED BY THE STATUTE. 
FN3 

THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE SAME MAXIMUM AND THE SAME SECURITY FOR
CLAIMANTS, REGARDLESS OF THE ALTERNATIVE MODE CHOSEN FOR GIVING THE
SECURITY, IS SHOWN BY THE VERY ALTERNATIVES THEMSELVES.  THEY ARE
EQUIVALENTS.  THERE WAS NO INTENT TO PERMIT LESS SECURITY TO BE GIVEN
WHEN THE OWNER ELECTS TO GIVE THE STATUTORY SUBSTITUTES THAN WHEN HE
TURNS OVER THE SHIP.  CORRELATIVELY THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO GIVE HIM
THE LIMITATION FOR LESS COST OR ON MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TERMS IN THE ONE
CASE THAN IN THE OTHER.  THE PROVISION FOR SUBSTITUTING MONEY OR
SECURITY FOR THE SHIP HAD NO PURPOSE OR FUNCTION TO CORRELATE THE BOND
REQUIRED WITH THE AMOUNT OF THE ULTIMATE AGGREGATE SUBSTANTIVE
LIABILITIES, WHICH SELDOM CAN BE KNOWN IN ADVANCE OF THEIR FINAL
DETERMINATION.  THE ALTERNATIVE MODE'S PURPOSE WAS ONLY TO PERMIT THE
OWNER TO RELEASE THE SHIP AND CONTINUE IT IN ACTIVE BUSINESS USE,
PROVIDED HE SUBSTITUTED ITS EQUIVALENT IN VALUE, NOT SOME LESSER SUM,
FOR IT. 

IT IS QUITE TRUE THAT THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED FOR SHIPOWNERS' BENEFIT
AND FOR ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE INDUSTRY, BY ENABLING OWNERS TO LIMIT
THEIR LIABILITY.  BUT IN DOING THIS AND THEREBY CUTTING DOWN THE RIGHTS
OF CLAIMANTS TO RECOVERY, CONGRESS WAS NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE LATTER. 
FOR SATISFYING THEIR UNRESTRICTED CLAIMS IT SUBSTITUTED A FUND INSTEAD
OF THE OWNER'S GENERAL AND UNLIMITED LIABILITY.  THAT FUND WAS THE
VESSEL'S VALUE OR ITS EQUIVALENT.  NOR WAS THIS A SUBORDINATE FEATURE
OF THE SCHEME OF LIMITATION.  IT WAS THE VERY HEART OF THAT SCHEME,
AND, IN MY OPINION, WAS INTENDED TO CREATE A GENERAL AND UNIFORM POLICY
FOR APPLICATION IN AMERICAN COURTS.  IN CUTTING DOWN CLAIMANTS' RIGHTS
OF RECOVERY TO THE FUND PRESCRIBED, CONGRESS WAS NOT GIVING THE OWNER
THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT TO CUT FURTHER THE SECURITY PROVIDED FOR THEIR
PAYMENT, BY EITHER ASSUMING OR PLEADING THAT HIS ULTIMATE AGGREGATE
LIABILITIES WOULD BE BELOW THAT FUND. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE FINAL CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS THAT THERE IS NO
INJUSTICE WHATEVER HERE, THERE IS ONLY AN IMAGINED ONE, IN REQUIRING
BLACK DIAMOND TO DEPOSIT IN COURT CASH OR SECURITY IN THE FULL AMOUNT
OF $1,000,000 REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE'S TERMS.  THE AGGREGATE OF
PETITIONERS' LIABILITIES HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED, NOR CAN IT BE UNTIL
THE FURTHER AND PROBABLY EXTENDED PROCEEDINGS FOR THAT PURPOSE HAVE
BEEN CONCLUDED.  MEANWHILE, IT MUST REMAIN UNCERTAIN, AS IT HAS DURING
ALL THE LITIGATION TO THIS DATE, WHETHER PETITIONERS' OR RESPONDENT'S
VIEW ON THAT MATTER ULTIMATELY WILL PREVAIL.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS NOW
AS LIKELY THAT PETITIONERS' LIABILITIES EVENTUALLY WILL BE FOUND TO BE
$1,000,000 AS IT IS THAT THEY WILL BE FIXED ACCORDING TO PETITIONERS'
VIEW OF THE BELGIAN LAW AND OURS.  INDEED, THE COURT'S OPINION SETS
FORTH CONSIDERATIONS CASTING GRAVE DOUBT ON WHETHER PETITIONERS' THEORY
OF THE SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATION CAN PREVAIL. 

IN THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS PETITIONERS ACTUALLY ARE ASKING US TO GAMBLE
WITH THEM, AND AGAINST RESPONDENT AND OTHER CLAIMANTS, ON THE ULTIMATE
COMPUTATION OF PETITIONERS' AGGREGATE LIABILITIES.  AND IN THIS
PETITIONERS ARE ASKING US TO PUT UPON THE CLAIMANTS THE RISK THAT
PETITIONERS WILL TURN OUT TO BE RIGHT.  THAT RISK, UNDER THE STATUTE'S
POLICY, SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY.  LIKEWISE, UNDER THAT POLICY, THE COST
OF THAT RISK IS PUT UPON PETITIONER BLACK DIAMOND.  IN REDUCING
CLAIMANTS' RIGHTS OF RECOVERY TO THE VALUE OF THE SHIP OR ITS
EQUIVALENT, CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN THAT THE CLAIMANTS SHOULD TAKE THE
RISK OF NOT HAVING THAT VALUE AVAILABLE TO SATISFY THEIR CLAIMS IF THE
AGGREGATE SHOULD EVENTUALLY BE HELD TO BE THE AMOUNT OF THE SPECIFIED
FUND.  NOR DID IT MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT VALUE FOR SECURITY IF
THE SHIP WERE TURNED OVER FOR THEIR BENEFIT, BUT SHOULD BEAR EITHER THE
LOSS OR THE RISK IF THE SHIPOWNER ELECTED TO SUBSTITUTE CASH OR OTHER
SECURITY, WITH THE COURT'S APPROVAL, IN A SMALLER AMOUNT IN ORDER TO
KEEP HIS VESSEL RUNNING. 

IN THE EVENT PETITIONERS TURN OUT TO BE WRONG AND, AS SEEMS LIKELY IN
THAT EVENT, VALID CLAIMS SHOULD AMOUNT TO $1,000,000 OR MORE, UNDER THE
VIEW PETITIONERS WOULD HAVE US TAKE, THE CLAIMANTS WOULD HAVE CERTAIN
SECURITY TO APPLY ON WHAT IS DUE THEM FOR ONLY $325,000.  PETITIONER
BLACK DIAMOND THEN EITHER WILL HAVE LIMITED ITS LIABILITY TO THAT
AMOUNT, TO THE CLAIMANTS' LOSS AND CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE'S PROVISION;
OR, IF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD THEN SEE FIT TO APPLY THE AUTHORITY
GIVEN IT TO REQUIRE FURTHER SECURITY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF SEC.
4283, AS AMENDED, FN4  IT WILL HAVE CAST THE BURDEN OF BLACK DIAMOND'S
SOLVENCY ON THE CLAIMANTS FOR THE PROBABLY EXTENDED PERIOD OF
LITIGATION NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF
PETITIONERS' SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITIES. 

I DO NOT THINK THE STATUTE MEANT THE CLAIMANTS TO BEAR EITHER SUCH A
LOSS OR SUCH A RISK.  ITS POLICY IS TO EXCHANGE LIMITATION FOR
SECURITY.  THE SECURITY SPECIFIED IS NOT CONTINGENT OR TO BE SUPPLIED
IN THE FUTURE.  IT IS A PRESENT EXCHANGE, IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE, TO
GIVE THE SHIPOWNER IMMUNITY TO LIABILITY BEYOND THE FUND EXACTED AND,
AT THE SAME TIME, TO RELIEVE CLAIMANTS OF ANY RISK THAT THE FUND WILL
NOT BE AVAILABLE IF THEIR VALID CLAIMS EVENTUALLY EQUAL OR EXCEED IT.
TO ALLOW SECURITY IN LESS THAN THE STATUTORY AMOUNT TO BE GIVEN, ON THE
CHANCE THAT VALID CLAIMS MAY TURN OUT TO BE LESS THAN THE FUND,
VITIATES THAT CLEAR STATUTORY OBJECT AND COMMAND.  THE ONLY PURPOSE OF
REQUIRING THE APPROVED SUBSTITUTED SECURITY TO BE DEPOSITED IN COURT IS
TO ASSURE THAT CLAIMANTS WILL NOT BEAR THE RISK OF LOSS OF THE FUND
PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THEIR CLAIMS.    PETITIONERS' CLAIM
OF "INJUSTICE" IS THEREFORE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  BLACK DIAMOND SEEKS TO
SHIFT TO ITS CREDITORS THE RISK WHICH THE LANGUAGE AND POLICY OF THE
STATUTE PLACE ON IT.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PERMIT SECURITY CONTINGENT
UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS OR TO BE GIVEN IN THE
FUTURE.  THE SECURITY IS TO BE GIVEN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF
LIMITATION AND IS TO STAND IN THE COURT'S CONTROL AND AT THE STATUTORY
AMOUNT UNTIL THE CLAIMS ARE FINALLY ADJUDICATED.  BLACK DIAMOND SEEKS
TO HAVE THE STATUTORY LIMITATION WITHOUT PAYING THE STATUTORY PRICE. 
IF THAT WERE ALLOWED, THE INJUSTICE WOULD FALL UPON THE CLAIMANTS, NOT
UPON BLACK DIAMOND. 

NO CASE HAS BEEN CITED WHICH HOLDS THAT THE STATUTORY LIMITATION CAN
BE OBTAINED BY GIVING SECURITY IN LESS THAN THE STATUTORY AMOUNT.  NOR
NEED WE NOW EXPRESS OPINION UPON THE PROBLEM CONSIDERED IN CASES LIKE
THE AQUITANIA, 20 F.2D 457, AND CURTIS BAY TOWING CO. V. TUG KEVIN
MORAN, 159 F.2D 273.  FN5 

IN MY VIEW PETITIONER BLACK DIAMOND HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE
STATUTE.  STRICTLY THEREFORE IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE STATUTORY
LIMITATION.  BUT BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS NOVEL, THE TIME FOR
INSTITUTING ANOTHER LIMITATION PROCEEDING HAS PASSED, AND FILING OF
SECURITY NOW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE'S COMMAND WOULD BETTER
SERVE ITS OBJECTS THAN DISMISSING THE CAUSE, I WOULD REVERSE THE
JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO PERMIT THE
FILING OF THE STATUTORY SECURITY, IF BLACK DIAMOND CAN AND PROMPTLY
WILL COMPLY WITH THAT REQUIREMENT.  THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT THE
STATUTE, SEC. 4285, REQUIRES SECURITY TO BE GIVEN BY TURNING OVER THE
SHIP OR ITS VALUE IN ORDER TO SECURE THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, NOT
MERELY AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO
PENDING APPEAL FROM DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES CONCERNING WHETHER THE
BELGIAN SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATION APPLIES.  THE STATUTORY SECURITY, IF
GIVEN, SHOULD REMAIN IN FORCE UNTIL ALL CLAIMS HAVE BEEN FILED AND
FINALLY ADJUDICATED. 

FN1  REV. STAT. SEC. 4285, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 1480, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
185.  THE FULL TEXT OF THE SECTION IS QUOTED IN NOTE 1 OF THE MAJORITY
OPINION. 

FN2  INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES
RELATING TO THE LIMITATION OF THE LIABILITY OF OWNERS OF SEAGOING
VESSELS, SIGNED AT BRUSSELS ON AUGUST 25, 1924.  SEE NOTE 3 OF THE
MAJORITY OPINION. 

FN3  BUT CF. THE CASES CITED IN THE TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 5. 

FN4 WHETHER THE SHIP IS TURNED OVER FOR THE CREDITOR'S BENEFIT OR
OTHER ACCEPTABLE SECURITY IS SUBSTITUTED, SEC. 4285, AS AMENDED,
AUTHORIZES THE COURT TO REQUIRE "IN ADDITION SUCH SUMS, OR APPROVED
SECURITY THEREFOR, AS THE COURT MAY FROM TIME TO TIME FIX AS NECESSARY
TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF" SEC. 4283, AS AMENDED.  46 U.S.C. SEC.
185. 

FN5  HOLDING, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID IN THIS CASE, THAT THE
LIMITATION PROCEEDING IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF KNOWN AND
PROBABLE CLAIMS IS LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE SHIP. 
..END :




















COMMISSIONER V. PHIPPS, 336 U.S. 410 


NO. 83.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 14, 1949.  - 167
F.2D 117, REVERSED. 


IN 1936 A PARENT CORPORATION MADE A TAX-FREE LIQUIDATION OF FIVE OF
ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES BY DISTRIBUTING TO ITSELF ALL OF THEIR
ASSETS, SUBJECT TO THEIR LIABILITIES, AND REDEEMING AND CANCELING ALL
OF THEIR STOCK.  AT THAT TIME, ONE SUBSIDIARY HAD EARNINGS AND PROFITS
OF $90,362 ACCUMULATED SINCE FEBRUARY 28, 1913, AND THE OTHER FOUR HAD
DEFICITS AGGREGATING $3,147,803.  NOT COUNTING THE EARNINGS OR DEFICITS
OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES, THE PARENT HAD AT THE END OF THAT YEAR EARNINGS
AND PROFITS OF $2,129,957 ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913.  IN 1937
IT HAD EARNINGS OF $390,387.  DURING 1937 THE PARENT MADE A PRO RATA
CASH DISTRIBUTION OF $802,284 TO ITS PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  HELD:
THIS DISTRIBUTION IN ITS ENTIRETY WAS A DIVIDEND UNDER SEC. 115 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936 AND CONSTITUTED ORDINARY INCOME.  PP. 411-421. 

1.  THE RULE OF COMMISSIONER V. SANSOME, 60 F.2D 931, IS GROUNDED NOT
ON A THEORY OF CONTINUITY OF THE CORPORATE ENTERPRISE BUT ON THE
NECESSITY TO PREVENT ESCAPE OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS FROM TAXATION.  PP.
414-417. 

2.  HARTER V. HELVERING, 79 F.2D 12, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 417-418. 

3.  UNDER THE SANSOME RULE, EXPLICITLY RATIFIED BY CONGRESS, TAX-FREE
REORGANIZATIONS DO NOT DISTURB THE STATUS OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS
OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION.  PP. 418-421. 

4.  IN THIS CASE, TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF THE SUBSIDIARIES' DEFICITS
FROM THE PARENT'S EARNINGS WOULD, IN EFFECT, RECOGNIZE LOSSES THE TAX
EFFECTS OF WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED SHOULD BE DEFERRED. 
P. 421. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. PHIPPS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE TAX COURT HELD THAT PART OF A CASH DISTRIBUTION TO STOCKHOLDERS BY
A PARENT CORPORATION WHICH HAD ABSORBED FIVE SUBSIDIARIES IN A TAX-FREE
LIQUIDATION WAS NOT A DIVIDEND TAXABLE AS INCOME UNDER SEC. 115 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936, BECAUSE THE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF
THE PARENT CORPORATION, PLUS THOSE OF ONE OF THE SUBSIDIARIES, WERE
ERASED BY THE AGGREGATE DEFICITS OF THE OTHER FOUR SUBSIDIARIES.  8
T.C. 190.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  167 F.2D 117.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 807.  REVERSED, P. 421. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES A TAX-FREE LIQUIDATION BY A PARENT CORPORATION OF
SOME OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  AT THE TIME OF THE LIQUIDATION THE PARENT
HAD EARNINGS AND PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION, AND THE
SUBSIDIARIES HAD AN AGGREGATE NET DEFICIT.  THE ISSUE NOW BEFORE US IS
WHETHER THE RULE OF COMMISSIONER V. SANSOME, 60 F.2D 931, REQUIRES THE
SUBTRACTION OF THE SUBSIDIARIES' DEFICIT FROM THE PARENT'S EARNINGS AND
PROFITS, IN DETERMINING WHETHER A SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION BY THE PARENT
CONSTITUTED DIVIDENDS OR A RETURN OF CAPITAL TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS. 

THE SANSOME CASE, SUPRA, AROSE FROM A TAX-FREE REORGANIZATION IN
WHICH THE TRANSFEROR CORPORATION HAD A SURPLUS IN EARNINGS AND PROFITS
AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION.  IT WAS THERE HELD THAT THOSE EARNINGS AND
PROFITS, FOR PURPOSES OF A SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION BY THE TRANSFEREE
CORPORATION TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS, RETAIN THEIR STATUS AS EARNINGS OR
PROFITS AND ARE TAXABLE TO THE RECIPIENTS AS DIVIDENDS.  THE RULE HAS
BEEN HELD TO INCLUDE LIQUIDATIONS OF A SUBSIDIARY BY ITS PARENT. 
ROBINETTE V. COMMISSIONER, 148 F.2D 513; U.S. TREAS. REG. 101, ART. 115
11, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 AND MADE RETROACTIVE, 52
STAT 447. 

THE FACTS WERE STIPULATED, AND SO FOUND BY THE TAX COURT.  SO FAR AS
RELEVANT, THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:  IN DECEMBER, 1936, NEVADA-CALIFORNIA
ELECTRIC CORPORATION LIQUIDATED FIVE OF ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
BY DISTRIBUTING TO ITSELF ALL OF THEIR ASSETS, SUBJECT TO THEIR
LIABILITIES, AND BY REDEEMING AND CANCELING ALL OF THEIR OUTSTANDING
STOCK.  NO GAIN OR LOSS ON THE LIQUIDATION WAS RECOGNIZED FOR INCOME
TAX PURPOSES UNDER SEC. 112(B)(6) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  FN1  ON
THE DATE OF LIQUIDATION, ONE OF THE SUBSIDIARIES HAD EARNINGS AND
PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$90,362.77.  THE FOUR OTHERS HAD DEFICITS WHICH AGGREGATED
$3,147,803.62.  ON DECEMBER 31, 1936, THE PARENT HAD EARNINGS AND
PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,129,957.81, WHICH AMOUNT DOES NOT REFLECT THE EARNINGS OR DEFICITS
OF THE SUBSIDIARIES.  IN 1937, NEVADA-CALIFORNIA HAD EARNINGS OF
$390,387.02.  IN THE YEARS 1918 TO 1933 INCLUSIVE THE PARENT AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES FILED CONSOLIDATED INCOME TAX RETURNS.  FN2 

RESPONDENT WAS THE OWNER OF 2,640 SHARES OF THE PREFERRED STOCK OF
NEVADA-CALIFORNIA.  DURING 1937 THAT CORPORATION MADE A PRO RATA CASH
DISTRIBUTION TO ITS PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $802,284,
OF WHICH RESPONDENT RECEIVED $18,480.  THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT
THE DISTRIBUTION WAS A DIVIDEND UNDER SEC. 115 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1936  FN3  AND CONSTITUTED ORDINARY INCOME IN ITS ENTIRETY. 

OF THE 1937 DISTRIBUTION, APPROXIMATELY 49% WAS CHARGEABLE TO
EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR.  CONSEQUENTLY, RESPONDENT
CONCEDED IN THE TAX COURT THAT THAT PERCENTAGE OF HER SHARE, OR ABOUT
NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS, WAS TAXABLE AS A DIVIDEND UNDER SEC. 115(A)(2). 
THE TAX COURT HELD IN HER FAVOR THAT THE BALANCE WAS NOT A TAXABLE
DIVIDEND OUT OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS, ON THE THEORY THAT ALL OF NEVADA
CALIFORNIA'S ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS, PLUS THE ACCUMULATED
EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE SUBSIDIARY THAT HAD A SURPLUS, WERE ERASED
BY THE AGGREGATE DEFICITS OF THE OTHER FOUR SUBSIDIARIES.  FN4  8 T.C.
190.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED COURT, 167 F.2D 117. 
WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 335 U.S. 807, BECAUSE
OF ITS IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS, AND
BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN CRANSON V. UNITED STATES, 146
F.2D 871. 

COMMISSIONER V. SANSOME, 60 F.2D 931, AROSE THUS:  A CORPORATION SOLD
OUT ALL ITS ASSETS TO B CORPORATION, BOTH ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
NEW JERSEY.  B CORPORATION ASSUMED ALL LIABILITIES AND ISSUED ITS STOCK
TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION, WITHOUT CHANGE IN THE PROPORTIONS
OF THEIR HOLDINGS.  THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THAT THE CHARTER OF B
CORPORATION GAVE IT SLIGHTLY BROADER POWERS.  AT THE TIME OF THE
REORGANIZATION, A CORPORATION HAD ON ITS BOOKS A LARGE SURPLUS AND
UNDIVIDED PROFITS.  THE NEW CORPORATION MADE NO PROFIT AND THE COMPANY
SOON DISSOLVED.  THE LIQUIDATING DISTRIBUTIONS IN 1923, THE YEAR WHEN
THE DISSOLUTION WAS BEGUN, DID NOT EXHAUST THE AMOUNT OF ACCUMULATED
PROFITS OF THE PREDECESSOR CORPORATION, AND THE COMMISSIONER CONTENDED
THAT THOSE DISTRIBUTIONS WERE TAXABLE TO THE STOCKHOLDERS AS DIVIDENDS
AND NOT, AS CLAIMED BY THEM, AS A RETURN OF CAPITAL.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AGREED WITH THE COMMISSIONER, AND HELD
THAT SINCE THE REORGANIZATION WAS NONTAXABLE UNDER SEC. 202(C)(2) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, THE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE
TRANSFEROR RETAINED THEIR CHARACTER AS SUCH FOR TAX PURPOSES IN THE
HANDS OF THE TRANSFEREE AND WERE CONSEQUENTLY TAXABLE ON DISTRIBUTION
AS ORDINARY INCOME UNDER SEC. 201 OF THE SAME ACT.  FN5  THE VIEW OF
THE COURT WAS THUS EXPRESSED BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND:  "HENCE WE HOLD
THAT A CORPORATE REORGANIZATION WHICH RESULTS IN NO 'GAIN OR LOSS'
UNDER SECTION 202(C)(2)(42 STAT. 230) DOES NOT TOLL THE COMPANY'S LIFE
AS CONTINUED VENTURE UNDER SECTION 201, AND THAT WHAT WERE 'EARNINGS OR
PROFITS' OF THE ORIGINAL, OR SUBSIDIARY, COMPANY REMAIN, FOR PURPOSES
OF DISTRIBUTION, 'EARNINGS OR PROFITS' OF THE SUCCESSOR, OR PARENT, IN
LIQUIDATION."  60 F.2D 931, 933.  THE RULE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY
FOLLOWED JUDICIALLY  FN6  AND HAS RECEIVED EXPLICIT CONGRESSIONAL
APPROVAL.  FN7 

THE RATIONALE OF THE SANSOME DECISION AS A "CONTINUED VENTURE"
DOCTRINE HAS BEEN OFTEN REPEATED IN THE CASES, AND IN SOME OF THEM THE
FACT THAT THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION HAS DIFFERED FROM THE PREDECESSOR
MERELY IN IDENTITY OR FORM  FN8  HAS LENT IT PLAUSIBILITY.  OTHER
CASES, HOWEVER, DEMONSTRATE THAT THE "CONTINUED VENTURE" ANALYSIS DOES
NOT ACCURATELY INDICATE THE BASIS OF THE DECISIONS.  THE RULE THAT
EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF A CORPORATION DO NOT LOSE THEIR CHARACTER AS
SUCH BY VIRTUE OF A TAX-FREE REORGANIZATION OR LIQUIDATION HAS BEEN
APPLIED WHERE MORE THAN ONE CORPORATION HAS BEEN ABSORBED OR
LIQUIDATED,  FN9  WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A "SPLIT-OFF" REORGANIZATION,
FN10  AND WHERE THE REORGANIZATION HAS RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES
IN THE PROPRIETARY INTERESTS.  FN11 

IN COMMISSIONER V. MUNTER, 331 U.S. 210, THIS COURT REVERSED A
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT WHICH HAD HELD
IN FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYER ON THE GROUND THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
SUCCESSOR CORPORATION WAS SO DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE TWO
PREDECESSORS THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT CONTINUITY OF THE CORPORATE
ENTITY TO APPLY THE SANSOME DOCTRINE.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT STATED
OUR UNANIMOUS VIEW OF THE BASIS OF THE RULE:  "A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE
INCOME TAX LAWS HAS LONG BEEN THAT CORPORATE EARNINGS AND PROFITS
SHOULD BE TAXED WHEN THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED TO THE STOCKHOLDERS WHO OWN
THE DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION.  ...  THUS UNLESS THOSE EARNINGS AND
PROFITS ACCUMULATED BY THE PREDECESSOR CORPORATIONS AND UNDISTRIBUTED
IN THIS REORGANIZATION ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE
SUCCESSOR CORPORATION AND TAXABLE UPON DISTRIBUTION BY IT, THEY WOULD
ESCAPE THE TAXATION WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED.  ...  THE CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE TO TAX ALL STOCKHOLDERS WHO RECEIVE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CORPORATE
EARNINGS AND PROFITS CANNOT BE FRUSTRATED BY ANY REORGANIZATION WHICH
LEAVES EARNINGS AND PROFITS UNDISTRIBUTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART."  331
U.S. AT 214, 215.  SEE MURCHISON'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 641,
642; PUTNAM V. UNITED STATES, 149 F.2D 721, 726; SAMUEL L. SLOVER, 6
T.C. 884, 886.  WE CONCLUDE FROM THE CASES THAT THE SANSOME RULE IS
GROUNDED NOT ON A THEORY OF CONTINUITY OF THE CORPORATE ENTERPRISE BUT
ON THE NECESSITY TO PREVENT ESCAPE OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS FROM
TAXATION. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN HARTER
V. HELVERING, 79 F.2D 12, IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS VIEW.  IN THAT
CASE THE SITUATION WAS AS FOLLOWS:  A CORPORATION AND B CORPORATION,
EACH OF WHICH HAD ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS, MERGED TO FORM C
CORPORATION.  BY THE OPERATION OF THE SANSOME RULE, THE EARNINGS AND
PROFITS RETAINED THEIR CHARACTER AS SUCH IN THE HANDS OF C. SOME TIME
LATER, D CORPORATION ACQUIRED ALL THE STOCK OF C, AND THEREAFTER
LIQUIDATED IT IN A TRANSACTION IN WHICH NO GAIN OR LOSS WAS
RECOGNIZED.  AT THE TIME OF THE LIQUIDATION OF C CORPORATION, D
CORPORATION, THE PARENT, HAD A DEFICIT IN EARNINGS AND PROFITS.  THE
COURT HELD, IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS AVAILABLE
TO D CORPORATION AFTER THE LIQUIDATION FOR DISTRIBUTION AS DIVIDENDS,
THAT ITS DEFICIT SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND
PROFITS ACQUIRED FROM ITS SUBSIDIARY.  IT IS VIGOROUSLY CONTENDED THAT
THE LOGIC OF THE HARTER CASE COMPELS THE ALLOWANCE OF A DEDUCTION OF
THE DEFICITS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES FROM THE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND
PROFITS OF THE PARENT.  WE BELIEVE THIS VIEW TO BE THE PRODUCT OF
INADEQUATE ANALYSIS.  FN12  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HARTER SITUATION
AND THE PROBLEM BEFORE US MAY PERHAPS BE CLARIFIED BY COMPARING THEM
TAXWISE IF NEITHER LIQUIDATION HAD OCCURRED.  BRIEFLY STATED, IN THE
CASE OF A DISTRIBUTION TO A CORPORATION WITH A DEFICIT FROM EITHER
CURRENT OR PRIOR LOSSES, THE CORPORATION RECEIVING THE DISTRIBUTION HAS
NO TAXABLE INCOME OR EARNINGS OR PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR CURRENT
DISTRIBUTION UNTIL CURRENT INCOME EXCEEDS CURRENT LOSSES, AND NO
ACCUMULATED EARNINGS OR PROFITS UNTIL ITS ACTUAL DEFICIT FROM PRIOR
LOSSES IS ERASED.  SEE 1 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1942)
SEC. 9.30, AND CASES CITED THEREIN N. 44 ET SEQ. IN THE INSTANT
SITUATION, HOWEVER, THE PARENT DID HAVE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND
PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION AS DIVIDENDS, ABSENT THE
LIQUIDATION.  CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO TAX SUCH EARNINGS AND PROFITS ON
THEIR DISTRIBUTION CANNOT BE PREVENTED BY THE FACT OF AN INTERVENING
REORGANIZATION OR LIQUIDATION.  FN13 

THE OPERATION OF THE SANSOME RULE ON THE TAXATION OF CORPORATE
DISTRIBUTIONS IS BROUGHT INTO HIGH RELIEF BY CONSIDERATION OF THE
ECONOMIC RELATION BETWEEN A PARENT CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARY. 
CONGRESS REQUIRES THAT EARNINGS AND PROFITS, CURRENT OR ACCUMULATED, BE
TAXED TO THE RECIPIENTS THEREOF AS DIVIDENDS ON THEIR DISTRIBUTION. 
FN14  IF A SUBSIDIARY HAS A SURPLUS IN EARNINGS AND PROFITS, THE PARENT
HAS A CHOICE OF TWO METHODS BY WHICH IT MAY "REALIZE" THIS SURPLUS.  IT
MAY CAUSE THE SUBSIDIARY TO DECLARE A DIVIDEND, OR IT MAY LIQUIDATE ITS
INTEREST OR PART OF ITS INTEREST IN THE SUBSIDIARY.  IN THE FORMER
CASE, THE DISTRIBUTION WOULD OF COURSE BE TAXABLE AS ORDINARY INCOME TO
THE PARENT INSOFAR AS THAT DISTRIBUTION, PLUS THE PARENT'S OTHER
INCOME, REPRESENTED NET INCOME TO IT.  IF THE PARENT USES THE SECOND
METHOD, TWO ALTERNATIVES AGAIN ARE AVAILABLE:  THE LIQUIDATION MAY TAKE
THE FORM OF A SALE OUTRIGHT, OR MAY BE PERFORMED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
OF THE REORGANIZATION SECTIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OR ITS
PREDECESSOR ACTS.  IF THE FORMER, GAIN IS OF COURSE REALIZED, AND IS
ALSO RECOGNIZED FOR TAX PURPOSES.  WE NOTE IN PASSING, IN THIS
CONNECTION, THAT SUCH GAIN WILL CORRESPOND, IF AT ALL, ONLY BY
COINCIDENCE WITH THE AMOUNT OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE SUBSIDIARY. 
IF THE LATTER, CONGRESS HAS DETERMINED THAT THE GAIN SHALL NOT BE
RECOGNIZED AT THAT TIME, BUT THAT SUCH RECOGNITION SHALL BE DEFERRED. 
IF THE SUBSIDIARY HAS A DEFICIT IN EARNINGS AND PROFITS, THE DEFICIT
MAY BE "REALIZED" BY THE PARENT ONLY BY LIQUIDATION, AND THE SAME TWO
ALTERNATIVES ARE PRESENT AS WHEN THE SUBSIDIARY HAS A SURPLUS:  SALE,
AND REORGANIZATION WITHIN SEC. 112.  AGAIN, IN THE FORMER CASE, LOSS IS
REALIZED AND ALSO RECOGNIZED.  AND IN THE CASE OF A REORGANIZATION OR
LIQUIDATION IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CODE, THE RECOGNITION OF LOSS IS
DEFERRED BY CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE TO A LATER TIME. 

IF THE ASSETS OF THE PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY ARE COMBINED VIA A TAX
FREE REORGANIZATION OR LIQUIDATION, THE EFFECT OF THE SANSOME RULE IS
SIMPLY THIS:  A DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXABLE AS
DIVIDENDS ABSENT THE REORGANIZATION OR LIQUIDATION DOES NOT LOSE THAT
CHARACTER BY VIRTUE OF THE TAX-FREE TRANSACTION.  RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION THAT THE LOGIC OF THE SANSOME RULE REQUIRES SUBTRACTING THE
DEFICIT OF THE SUBSIDIARY FROM THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE PARENT
AS A COROLLARY OF CARRYING OVER THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE
SUBSIDIARY HAS A SUPERFICIAL PLAUSIBILITY; BUT THE PLAUSIBILITY
DISAPPEARS WHEN IT IS NOTED THAT THE TAXPAYER WOULD THUS OBTAIN AN
ADVANTAGE TAXWISE THAT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE ABSENT THE LIQUIDATION,
SINCE THERE IS NO WAY TO "DECLARE" A DEFICIT, AND THUS NO METHOD OF
LOSS REALIZATION OPEN TO THE PARENT PARALLEL TO A DECLARATION OF
DIVIDENDS AS A MODE OF REALIZING THE PROFITS OF A SUBSIDIARY.    IT IS
URGED UPON US THAT THE DEFICITS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES SHOULD BE
SUBTRACTED FROM THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE PARENT IN ORDER TO MAKE
THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE LIQUIDATION CORRESPOND WITH CORPORATE
ACCOUNTING PRACTICE.  THE ANSWER IS BRIEF.  THE SANSOME RULE ITSELF, AS
APPLIED TO EARNINGS AND PROFITS, HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO BE
CONTROLLED BY ORDINARY CORPORATE ACCOUNTING CONCEPTS; ITS UNIFORM
EFFECT IS TO TREAT FOR TAX PURPOSES AS EARNINGS OR PROFITS ASSETS WHICH
ARE PROPERLY CONSIDERED CAPITAL FOR MANY IF NOT MOST CORPORATE
PURPOSES, AND IT HAS LONG BEEN A COMMONPLACE OF TAX LAW THAT SIMILAR
DIVERGENCES OFTEN OCCUR.  SEE COMMISSIONER V. WHEELER, 324 U.S. 542,
546; PUTNAM V. UNITED STATES, 149 F.2D 721, 726; 1 MERTENS, OP. CIT.
SEC. 9.33; RUDICK, OP. CIT. 878-906.  FN15 

CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSED ITS PURPOSE TO TAX ALL STOCKHOLDERS WHO
RECEIVE DISTRIBUTIONS OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS.  IN ORDER TO FACILITATE
SIMPLIFICATION OF CORPORATE FINANCIAL STRUCTURES, IT HAS FURTHER
PROVIDED THAT CERTAIN INTERCORPORATE TRANSACTIONS SHALL BE FREE OF
IMMEDIATE TAX CONSEQUENCES TO THE CORPORATIONS.  THERE HAS BEEN
JUDICIALLY SUPERIMPOSED BY THE SANSOME RULE, WITH THE SUBSEQUENT
EXPLICIT RATIFICATION OF CONGRESS, THE DOCTRINE THAT TAX-FREE
REORGANIZATIONS SHALL NOT DISTURB THE STATUS OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS
OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION.  NEVADA-CALIFORNIA AT THE TIME OF
THE 1937 DISTRIBUTION TO RESPONDENT HAD SUCH EARNINGS AND PROFITS. 
SINCE WE BELIEVE THAT TO ALLOW DEDUCTION FROM THESE EARNINGS OF THE
DEFICITS OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES WOULD BE IN EFFECT TO RECOGNIZE LOSSES THE
TAX EFFECTS OF WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED SHOULD BE
DEFERRED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  112.  RECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS. 

"(A)  GENERAL RULE.  - UPON THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE GAIN OR LOSS, DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 111, SHALL
BE RECOGNIZED, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION. 

"(B)  EXCHANGES SOLELY IN KIND.  - 

     .         .         .         .    . 

"(6)  PROPERTY RECEIVED BY CORPORATION ON COMPLETE LIQUIDATION OF
ANOTHER.  - NO GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE RECOGNIZED UPON THE RECEIPT BY A
CORPORATION OF PROPERTY DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLETE LIQUIDATION OF ANOTHER
CORPORATION.  ..."  49 STAT. 1648, 1678-79. 

FN2  IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN WHAT YEARS OCCURRED THE SUBSIDIARIES'
LOSSES WHICH RESULTED IN THEIR DEFICITS, OR TO WHAT EXTENT THEY WERE
SET OFF AGAINST THE NET INCOME OF THE PARENT IN CONSOLIDATED RETURN
YEARS.  TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH SET-OFFS DID EXIST, THE BASIS OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES' STOCK TO NEVADA-CALIFORNIA HAD BEEN REDUCED AND THE
LOSSES REALIZED BY THE PARENT AND AVAILED OF FOR TAX PURPOSES PRIOR TO
THE LIQUIDATION.  U.S. TREAS. REG. 94, ART. 113(B)-1, PROMULGATED UNDER
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936. 

FN3  "SEC.  115.  DISTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS. 

"(A)  DEFINITION OF DIVIDEND.  - THE TERM 'DIVIDEND' WHEN USED IN
THIS TITLE (EXCEPT IN SECTION 203(A)(3) AND SECTION 207(C)(1), RELATING
TO INSURANCE COMPANIES) MEANS ANY DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A CORPORATION TO
ITS SHAREHOLDERS, WHETHER IN MONEY OR IN OTHER PROPERTY, (1) OUT OF ITS
EARNINGS OR PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913, OR (2) OUT OF
THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR (COMPUTED AS OF THE CLOSE
OF THE TAXABLE YEAR WITHOUT DIMINUTION BY REASON OF ANY DISTRIBUTIONS
MADE DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR), WITHOUT REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF THE
EARNINGS AND PROFITS AT THE TIME THE DISTRIBUTION WAS MADE. 

"(B)  SOURCE OF DISTRIBUTIONS.  - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT EVERY
DISTRIBUTION IS MADE OUT OF EARNINGS OR PROFITS TO THE EXTENT THEREOF,
AND FROM THE MOST RECENTLY ACCUMULATED EARNINGS OR PROFITS.  ANY
EARNINGS OR PROFITS ACCUMULATED, OR INCREASE IN VALUE OF PROPERTY
ACCRUED, BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913, MAY BE DISTRIBUTED EXEMPT FROM TAX,
AFTER THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913,
HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED, BUT ANY SUCH TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTION SHALL BE
APPLIED AGAINST AND REDUCE THE ADJUSTED BASIS OF THE STOCK PROVIDED IN

FN4  RESPONDENT AGREES THAT THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE
SUBSIDIARY WITH A SURPLUS BECOME, BY VIRTUE OF THE SANSOME RULE,
EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE PARENT, WHATEVER THE ULTIMATE TREATMENT OF
THE DEFICITS OF THE OTHER SUBSIDIARIES. 

FN5  SECTION 201 OF THE 1921 ACT SPECIFIES WHAT CORPORATE
DISTRIBUTIONS ARE TAXABLE AS DIVIDENDS; SEC. 202(C)(2) PROVIDES FOR THE
NONRECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS FROM CERTAIN CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS. 

FN6  COMMISSIONER V. MUNTER, 331 U.S. 210; UNITED STATES V.
KAUFFMANN, 62 F.2D 1045; MURCHISON'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D
641; HARTER V. HELVERING, 79 F.2D 12; GEORDAY ENTERPRISES, LTD. V.
COMMISSIONER, 126 F.2D 384; REED DRUG CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 130 F.2D
288; ROBINETTE V. COMMISSIONER, 148 F.2D 513; PUTNAM V. UNITED STATES,
149 F.2D 721.  SEE ALSO COUDON V. TAIT, 61 F.2D 904, WHICH WAS DECIDED
A FEW MONTHS AFTER SANSOME AND REACHED THE SAME RESULT INDEPENDENTLY. 

FN7  THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON SEC. 115(H) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936, S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 19(1939
1 CUM. BULL.  (PART 2) 678, 690), RECOGNIZED THE RULE OF THE SANSOME
CASE, AND SAID THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THAT ACT INTENDED NO CHANGE
IN EXISTING LAW, BUT WAS ADDED ONLY IN THE INTEREST OF CLARITY.  U.S.
TREAS. REG. 94, ART. 115-11, PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1936 ACT,
INCORPORATES THE SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORT.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938
AMENDED SEC. 115(H) ONLY BY EXTENDING ITS APPLICATION TO DISTRIBUTIONS
OF "PROPERTY OR MONEY" AS WELL AS OF "STOCK OR SECURITIES"; THE EFFECT
WAS TO MAKE SEC. 115(H) HARMONIZE WITH SEC. 112(B)(6) AND (7); AND
TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1938 ACT, WAS AMENDED
TO CONFORM.  THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE CONTAINS THE SECTION
SUBSTANTIALLY UNCHANGED. 

THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, TO ELABORATE THE LAW WITH REGARD TO THE
EFFECT OF TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS ON EARNINGS AND PROFITS.  THE REPORTS
ACCOMPANYING THE BILL IN CONGRESS, H.R. REP. NO. 2894, 76TH CONG., 3D
SESS., P. 41(1940-2 CUM. BULL.  496, 526), AND S. REP. NO. 2114, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS., P. 25(1940-2 CUM. BULL.  528, 546-547), BOTH RECOGNIZE
THE APPLICATION OF "THE PRINCIPLE UNDER WHICH THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS
OF THE TRANSFEROR BY REASON OF THE TRANSFER BECOME THE EARNINGS AND
PROFITS OF THE TRANSFEREE."  IBID., P. 25.  THE REPORTS DO NOT MENTION
DEFICITS. 

FN8  SEE, E.G., MURCHISON'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, REED DRUG CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES V. KAUFFMANN, ALL SUPRA, N. 6. 

FN9  HARTER V. HELVERING, BAKER V. COMMISSIONER, 80 F.2D 813. 

FN10  BARNES V. UNITED STATES, 22 F.SUPP.  282; ESTATE OF MCCLINTIC,
47 B.T.A. 188; STELLA K. MANDEL, 5 T.C. 684. 

FN11  COMMISSIONER V. MUNTER, SUPRA. 

FN12  SEE NOTE, THE EFFECT OF TAX-FREE REORGANIZATIONS ON SUBSEQUENT
CORPORATE DISTRIBUTIONS, 48 COL. L. REV. 281; ATLAS, THE CASE OF THE
DISAPPEARING EARNINGS AND PROFITS, IN SEVENTH ANNUAL INSTITUTE OF
FEDERAL TAXATION, 1155; CF. 1 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION
(1942) SEC. 9.58; 1 MONTGOMERY, FEDERAL TAXES - CORPORATIONS AND
PARTNERSHIPS 1948-49, 154(1948); GREEN, RECENT TRENDS UNDER THE SANSOME
RULE, IN SIXTH ANNUAL INSTITUTE ON FEDERAL TAXATION, 338; CF. RUDICK,
"DIVIDENDS" AND "EARNINGS OR PROFITS" UNDER THE INCOME TAX LAW:
CORPORATE NON-LIQUIDATING DISTRIBUTIONS, 89 U. PA. L. REV. 865, 896. 

FN13  SENIOR INVESTMENT CORP., 2 T.C. 124, DID NOT INVOLVE THE
QUESTION BEFORE US, BUT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE APPLICABILITY, FOR
PURPOSES OF COMPUTING SURTAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS, OF SECS.
26(C)(1) AND 26(C)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, THE LATTER AS AMENDED
BY SEC. 501(A)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, TO THE TRANSFEROR
CORPORATION IN A TAX-FREE REORGANIZATION.  49 STAT. 1664; 56 STAT. 798,
954.  THE QUESTION OF "INHERITANCE" OF A DEFICIT WAS NOT IN ISSUE.  SEE
GREEN, SUPRA, NOTE 12, AT 341. 

FN14  THE OPERATION OF THE SANSOME RULE IS RESTRICTED, OF COURSE, TO
EARNINGS AND PROFITS WHICH ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO ITS
OWN STOCKHOLDERS BY THE TRANSFEROR CORPORATION IN A TAX-FREE
REORGANIZATION.  COMMISSIONER V. MUNTER, 331 U.S. 210, 215-16; SAMUEL
L. SLOVER, 6 T.C. 884.  CF. U.S. TREAS. REG. 111, SEC. 29.112(B)(6)-4
AS TO THE EFFECT OF A TAX-FREE REORGANIZATION ON MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS
OF THE TRANSFEROR CORPORATION. 

FN15  ON THE MERITS, RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT IS NOT CONVINCING.  IT
FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONCEPT OF
SURPLUS OR DEFICIT, WHICH IS A SUMMARY OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE
CORPORATION REPORTING IT, AND THE CONCEPT OF GAIN OR LOSS, WHICH
REPORTS THE EFFECT OF THE TAX-FREE TRANSACTION ITSELF.  SO VARIOUS ARE
THE POSSIBLE PERMUTATIONS AND COMBINATIONS OF THE ECONOMIC FACTORS THAT
EQUIVALENCE OF SURPLUS OR DEFICIT IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY
WITH THE GAIN OR LOSS TO THE PARENT WOULD BE MERE COINCIDENCE. 
CONSIDER FOR EXAMPLE THE CASE WHERE A CORPORATION ACQUIRES ALL THE
STOCK OF ANOTHER WHICH AT THE TIME HAS A LARGE DEFICIT.  IF THE
SUBSIDIARY IS SOON LIQUIDATED, THE DEFICIT WILL STILL BE LARGE, AND THE
PARENT MAY REALIZE LITTLE OR NO LOSS ON THE LIQUIDATION.  SEE THE FIRST
TWO TEXTS CITED NOTE 12, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :





FOLEY BROS. V. FILARDO, 336 U.S. 281 


NO. 91.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1949.  - 297 N.Y.
217, 78 N.E.2D 480, REVERSED. 


THE EIGHT HOUR LAW, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 324, AS AMENDED BY 40 U.S.C. SEC.
325A, WHICH PROVIDES, IN EFFECT, THAT EVERY CONTRACT TO WHICH THE
UNITED STATES IS A PARTY SHALL CONTAIN A PROVISION THAT NO LABORER OR
MECHANIC DOING ANY PART OF THE WORK CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONTRACT SHALL
BE REQUIRED OR PERMITTED TO WORK MORE THAN EIGHT HOURS IN ANY ONE DAY
UPON SUCH WORK UNLESS HE IS COMPENSATED AT THE RATE OF ONE AND ONE-HALF
TIMES THE BASIC RATE OF PAY FOR ALL WORK IN EXCESS OF EIGHT HOURS PER
DAY, IS NOT APPLICABLE TO WORK DONE UNDER A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR THE UNITED
STATES IN IRAQ AND IRAN.  PP. 282-291. 

1.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT THAT INDICATES A
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO EXTEND ITS COVERAGE BEYOND PLACES OVER WHICH
THE UNITED STATES HAS SOVEREIGNTY OR SOME MEASURE OF LEGISLATIVE
CONTROL.  VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377, DISTINGUISHED. 
PP. 285-286. 

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT REVEALS THAT CONGRESS WAS
CONCERNED WITH DOMESTIC LABOR CONDITIONS.  PP. 286-288. 

3.  ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ACT TEND TO SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSIONS HERE REACHED.  PP. 288-291. 

FOLEY BROS., INC. ET AL. V. FILARDO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY. 

IN A SUIT BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR OVERTIME PAY FOR WORK DONE IN
EXCESS OF EIGHT HOURS PER DAY FOR AN AMERICAN CONTRACTOR ON A
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN IRAQ AND IRAN UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED
STATES, A TRIAL COURT OF NEW YORK GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  THE
APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED.  272 APP. DIV. 446, 71 N.Y.S.2D 592.  THE
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  297 N.Y. 217, 78 N.E.2D 480.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 808.  REVERSED, P. 291. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EIGHT HOUR LAW  FN1
APPLIES TO A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND A PRIVATE
CONTRACTOR FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. 

THIS ACT PROVIDES THAT 

"EVERY CONTRACT MADE TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES  ...  IS A PARTY  ...
SHALL CONTAIN A PROVISION THAT NO LABORER OR MECHANIC DOING ANY PART
OF THE WORK CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONTRACT, IN THE EMPLOY OF THE
CONTRACTOR OR ANY SUBCONTRACTOR  ...  SHALL BE REQUIRED OR PERMITTED TO
WORK MORE THAN EIGHT HOURS IN ANY ONE CALENDAR DAY UPON SUCH WORK; ...
" 37 STAT. 137, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 324. 

PENALTIES ARE SPECIFIED FOR VIOLATIONS.  IN 1940 THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST WORKDAYS OF LONGER THAN EIGHT HOURS WAS MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW, THE WAGES OF EVERY
LABORER AND MECHANIC EMPLOYED BY ANY CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR
ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY CONTRACT OF THE CHARACTER SPECIFIED
IN SECTIONS 324 AND 325 OF THIS TITLE, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON A BASIC DAY
RATE OF EIGHT HOURS PER DAY AND WORK IN EXCESS OF EIGHT HOURS PER DAY
SHALL BE PERMITTED UPON COMPENSATION FOR ALL HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF
EIGHT HOURS PER DAY AT NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE BASIC
RATE OF PAY."  54 STAT. 884, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 325A. 

IN 1941 PETITIONERS CONTRACTED ON A COST-PLUS BASIS TO BUILD CERTAIN
PUBLIC WORKS ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE EAST AND NEAR EAST,
PARTICULARLY IN IRAQ AND IRAN.  PETITIONERS AGREED IN THE CONTRACT TO
"OBEY AND ABIDE BY ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, AND
OTHER RULES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."  THE PROVISIONS OF THE
EIGHT HOUR LAW WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT.  IN 1942
PETITIONERS HIRED RESPONDENT, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, TO WORK ON THE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS A COOK AT SIXTY DOLLARS A WEEK.  THIS CONTRACT
OF EMPLOYMENT CONTAINED NO PROVISION CONCERNING HOURS OF WORK OR
OVERTIME.  PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT, RESPONDENT WENT TO IRAQ AND IRAN
WHERE HE FREQUENTLY WORKED MORE THAN EIGHT HOURS A DAY DURING THE YEARS
1942 AND 1943. 

UPON THE REFUSAL OF HIS REQUEST FOR OVERTIME PAY FOR WORK IN EXCESS
OF EIGHT HOURS PER DAY, HE BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST PETITIONERS IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, CLAIMING THAT THE ACT ENTITLED HIM TO ONE
AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE BASIC RATE OF PAY FOR SUCH WORK.  THE COURT
DENIED PETITIONERS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE CASE AND FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT, THEREBY OVERRULING THE CONTENTION THAT THE ACT DID NOT APPLY
TO CONTRACTS WHICH WERE TO BE PERFORMED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  JUDGMENT
WAS ENTERED ON A JURY VERDICT FOR RESPONDENT.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION
REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE EIGHT HOUR LAW AS AMENDED DID NOT
CONFER A RIGHT OF ACTION ON AN EMPLOYEE FOR OVERTIME PAY.  272 APP.
DIV. 446, 71 N.Y.S.2D 592.  CONSEQUENTLY IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE
QUESTION NOW BEFORE US.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,
HOLDING THAT THE ACT APPLIED TO THIS CONTRACT.  297 N.Y. 217, 78 N.E.2D
480.  REFERRING TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE QUOTED ABOVE, IT
CONCLUDED, "WORDS OF SUCH INCLUSIVE REACH CANNOT PROPERLY BE READ TO
EXCLUDE CONTRACTS FOR GOVERNMENT JOBS ABROAD."  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
TO SETTLE THIS IMPORTANT QUESTION CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THE EIGHT
HOUR LAW.  335 U.S. 808. 

SINCE THE QUESTION IS ONE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, THE ACT AS IT
NOW EXISTS, 40 U.S.C. SECS. 321-326, IS OUR STARTING POINT.  IN
PERTINENT PART IT PROVIDES FOR THE LIMITATION TO EIGHT HOURS PER DAY OF
THE WORKING TIME OF LABORERS AND MECHANICS EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OR ANY CONTRACTOR THEREOF ON A PUBLIC WORK OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEC.
321.  THE SAME SECTION MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO REQUIRE OR PERMIT WORK IN
EXCESS OF EIGHT HOURS PER DAY EXCEPT IN EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCIES.  AN
INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THIS MANDATE IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE
BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.  SEC. 322.  THE INSERTION IN "EVERY
CONTRACT" MADE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF THIS RESTRICTION
ON HOURS OF WORK IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 324.  THE CONTRACTS MUST STIPULATE
A MONETARY PENALTY FOR VIOLATION, WHICH PENALTY TAKES THE FORM OF A
WITHHOLDING BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MONEYS OTHERWISE DUE THE CONTRACTOR
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.  SEC. 324.  FINALLY THE RESTRICTION IS
LIFTED AS TO EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS BY SEC. 325A, SUPRA, PP.
282-283, ON CONDITION THAT HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF EIGHT BE PAID FOR
AT THE OVERTIME RATE. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS NOT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXTEND THE
EIGHT HOUR LAW TO WORK PERFORMED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  PETITIONERS
CONCEDE THAT SUCH POWER EXISTS.  CF. BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284
U.S. 421; UNITED STATES V. BOWMAN, 260 U.S. 94.  THE QUESTION IS RATHER
WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE THE LAW APPLICABLE TO SUCH WORK.  WE
CONCLUDE, FOR THE REASONS EXPRESSED BELOW, THAT SUCH WAS NOT THE
INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATORS. 

FIRST.  THE CANON OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH TEACHES THAT LEGISLATION OF
CONGRESS, UNLESS A CONTRARY INTENT APPEARS, IS MEANT TO APPLY ONLY
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, BLACKMER V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 437, IS A VALID APPROACH WHEREBY UNEXPRESSED
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT MAY BE ASCERTAINED.  IT IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT CONGRESS IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH DOMESTIC CONDITIONS.  WE FIND
NOTHING IN THE ACT ITSELF, AS AMENDED, NOR IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THE BELIEF THAT CONGRESS ENTERTAINED ANY INTENTION
OTHER THAN THE NORMAL ONE IN THIS CASE.  THE SITUATION HERE IS
DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377,
WHERE WE HELD THAT BY SPECIFICALLY DECLARING THAT THE ACT COVERED
"POSSESSIONS" OF THE UNITED STATES, CONGRESS DIRECTED THAT THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT APPLIED BEYOND THOSE AREAS OVER WHICH THE UNITED
STATES HAS SOVEREIGNTY AND WAS IN EFFECT IN ALL "POSSESSIONS."  THIS
COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE LEASEHOLD THERE INVOLVED WAS A "POSSESSION"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE EIGHT HOUR LAW, HERE IN QUESTION, THAT
GIVES ANY INDICATION OF A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO EXTEND ITS COVERAGE
BEYOND PLACES OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS SOVEREIGNTY OR HAS SOME
MEASURE OF LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.  THERE IS NOTHING BROUGHT TO OUR
ATTENTION INDICATING THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE
RESPECTIVE SOVEREIGNTIES ANY AUTHORITY, LEGISLATIVE OR OTHERWISE, OVER
THE LABOR LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF IRAN OR IRAQ.  WE WERE ON THEIR TERRITORY
BY THEIR LEAVE, BUT WITHOUT THE TRANSFER OF ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS TO US. 

THE SCHEME OF THE ACT ITSELF BUTTRESSES OUR CONCLUSION.  NO
DISTINCTION IS DRAWN THEREIN BETWEEN LABORERS WHO ARE ALIENS AND THOSE
WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  UNLESS WE WERE TO READ SUCH A
DISTINCTION INTO THE STATUTE WE SHOULD BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE, UNDER
RESPONDENT'S REASONING, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO REGULATE THE WORKING
HOURS OF A CITIZEN OF IRAN WHO CHANCED TO BE EMPLOYED ON A PUBLIC WORK
OF THE UNITED STATES IN THAT FOREIGN LAND.  SUCH A CONCLUSION WOULD BE
LOGICALLY INESCAPABLE ALTHOUGH LABOR CONDITIONS IN IRAN WERE KNOWN TO
BE WHOLLY DISSIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHOLLY BEYOND
THE CONTROL OF THIS NATION.  AN INTENTION SO TO REGULATE LABOR
CONDITIONS WHICH ARE THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY SHOULD
NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO CONGRESS IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEARLY EXPRESSED
PURPOSE.  SEE ATTORNEY GENERAL STONE'S CONCLUSION TO THIS EFFECT IN 34
OP. ATTY. GEN. 257, WHERE HE STATED THAT THE LAW DID NOT APPLY TO ALIEN
LABORERS ENGAGED IN ALTERING THE AMERICAN EMBASSY IN LONDON.  THE
ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN CITIZEN AND ALIEN LABOR INDICATES TO
US THAT THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO THOSE PLACES WHERE
THE LABOR CONDITIONS OF BOTH CITIZEN AND ALIEN EMPLOYEES ARE A PROBABLE
CONCERN OF CONGRESS.  SUCH PLACES DO NOT INCLUDE FOREIGN COUNTRIES SUCH
AS IRAQ AND IRAN.  FN2 

SECOND.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE EIGHT HOUR LAW REVEALS THAT
CONCERN WITH DOMESTIC LABOR CONDITIONS LED CONGRESS TO LIMIT HOURS OF
WORK.  THE GENESIS OF THE PRESENT STATUTE WAS THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1868,
15 STAT. 77, WHICH WAS APPARENTLY AIMED AT UNEMPLOYMENT RESULTING FROM
DECREASED CONSTRUCTION IN GOVERNMENT NAVY YARDS.  CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE,
40TH CONG., 2D SESS., PART I, P. 335.  IN 1892, WHEN THE COVERAGE OF
THIS ACT WAS EXTENDED TO EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS AND WHEN
CRIMINAL PENALTIES WERE ADDED, 27 STAT. 340, THE CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE
CONGRESS WERE DOMESTIC UNEMPLOYMENT, THE INFLUX OF CHEAP FOREIGN LABOR,
AND THE NEED FOR IMPROVED LABOR CONDITIONS IN THIS COUNTRY.  H.R. REP.
NO. 1267, 52D CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE NEW LEGISLATION WAS
TO REMEDY THE DEFECTS IN THE ACT OF 1868.  23 CONG. REC. 5723. 

THE ACT WAS AMENDED IN 1912 TO INCLUDE "EVERY CONTRACT."  THE
INSERTION OF THE WORD "EVERY" WAS DESIGNED TO REMEDY A
MISINTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO WORK
PERFORMED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.  48 CONG. REC.
381, 385, 394-95.  NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUPPORTS THE
CONCLUSION OF RESPONDENT AND THE COURT BELOW THAT "EVERY CONTRACT" MUST
OF NECESSITY, BY VIRTUE OF THE BROADNESS OF THE LANGUAGE, INCLUDE
CONTRACTS FOR WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  FN3  A
CONTRARY INFERENCE MUST BE DRAWN, WE THINK, FROM A 1913 AMENDMENT WHICH
EXTENDED THE LAW TO COVER PERSONS EMPLOYED "TO PERFORM SERVICES SIMILAR
TO THOSE OF LABORERS AND MECHANICS IN CONNECTION WITH DREDGING OR ROCK
EXCAVATION IN ANY RIVER OR HARBOR OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  37 STAT. 726, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 321.  THIS COURT
HAD HELD THAT SUCH DREDGERS WERE NOT COVERED BY THE PHRASE "LABORERS
AND MECHANICS" IN THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING LAW.  ELLIS V. UNITED STATES,
206 U.S. 246.  IN ITS ATTEMPT TO SECURE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT FOR
DREDGERS ON THE ONE HAND AND LABORERS AND MECHANICS ON THE OTHER,
CONGRESS WOULD HARDLY HAVE INTENDED FOR COVERAGE OVER THE LATTER CLASS
TO EXTEND TO THE FAR CORNERS OF THE GLOBE WHILE COVERAGE OVER THE
FORMER WAS LIMITED TO WORK PERFORMED IN RIVERS OR HARBORS "OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." 

THE 1940 AMENDMENT WHICH PERMITTED WORK IN EXCESS OF EIGHT HOURS PER
DAY UPON PAYMENT OF OVERTIME, 54 STAT. 884, PASSED WITHOUT ANY
DISCUSSION INDICATIVE OF GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE.  86 CONG. REC. 11216
11217. 

THIRD.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EIGHT HOUR LAW IN
ITS VARIOUS PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT AFFORD NO TOUCHSTONE BY WHICH ITS
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE CAN BE DETERMINED.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8623 OF
DECEMBER 31, 1940, 3 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 850, ISSUED PURSUANT TO SEC. 326
OF THE ACT, SUSPENDED THE LAW AS TO LABORERS AND MECHANICS EMPLOYED
DIRECTLY BY THE GOVERNMENT AT ATLANTIC BASES LEASED FROM GREAT
BRITAIN.  SUCH A SUSPENSION INDICATED, TO BE SURE, A CONCLUSION ON THE
PART OF THE PRESIDENT THAT THE STATUTE APPLIED, OR MIGHT APPLY, TO
THESE BASES.  SUCH ACTION, HOWEVER, MAY WELL HAVE BEEN PREDICATED ON
THE PREMISE THAT THE LEASES WITH THE PROVISIONS DISCUSSED IN OUR
VERMILYA-BROWN DECISION WERE SUFFICIENTLY SUBJECT TO OUR CONTROL SO
THAT THE EIGHT HOUR LAW WOULD APPLY TO THEM.  THOUGH NUMEROUS EXECUTIVE
ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED WHICH SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF THE ACT IN THE
UNITED STATES, ALASKA, HAWAII, MIDWAY ISLAND, WAKE ISLAND, ETC., WE
HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND, NOR HAS OUR ATTENTION BEEN DIRECTED, TO ANY
ORDERS PURPORTING TO SUSPEND ITS OPERATION IN COUNTRIES NOT SUBJECT TO
OUR LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.  FN4  THE ORDER DESERVES NO WEIGHT AS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE ACT'S APPLICABILITY TO LOCALITIES
UNQUESTIONABLY AND COMPLETELY BEYOND THE DIRECT LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN 1905 ATTORNEY GENERAL MOODY, IN A LETTER TO THE
SECRETARY OF WAR, EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT THE EIGHT HOUR LAW APPLIED
TO PUBLIC WORKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CANAL ZONE.  25 OP. ATTY. GEN.
441.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS OPINION HE TREATED THE CANAL ZONE AS
FOREIGN TERRITORY.  ID., AT 444.  NO DISTINCTION WAS DRAWN BETWEEN
CITIZEN AND ALIEN LABORERS.  IF WE ACCEPT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
ASSUMPTION AS TO THE STATUS OF THE CANAL ZONE,  FN5  HIS OPINION IS IN
LINE WITH RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE LAW IS APPLICABLE TO WORK
PERFORMED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  THE OPINION, HOWEVER, PROVES TOO
MUCH.  ALTHOUGH ATTORNEY GENERAL MOODY DENIED THAT INCONGRUOUS RESULTS
WOULD FLOW FROM HIS INTERPRETATION, IT WOULD BE ANOMALOUS, AS WE HAVE
SAID, FOR AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE HOURS OF A CITIZEN OF IRAN
AT WORK ON A GOVERNMENT PROJECT THERE.  ATTORNEY GENERAL STONE SO
INDICATED IN 1924 WHEN HE ADVISED THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT THE EIGHT
HOUR LAW DID NOT APPLY TO ENGLISH WORKERS ENGAGED IN ALTERING THE
AMERICAN EMBASSY IN LONDON.  34 OP. ATTY. GEN. 257.  SINCE THE STATUTE
CONTAINS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN LABORERS BASED ON CITIZENSHIP, ATTORNEY
GENERAL STONE'S REASONING THAT ALIENS ARE NOT COVERED POINTS TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO CONTRACTS WHICH ARE TO BE
PERFORMED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL HAS EXPRESSED
AGREEMENT WITH THIS CONCLUSION BY STATING THAT "THE EIGHT-HOUR LAW OF
JUNE 19, 1912, WAS NOT INTENDED TO AND DOES NOT APPLY TO CONTRACTS
NECESSARILY ENTERED INTO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES WHICH MAY REQUIRE OR INVOLVE THE EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN
LABORERS OR MECHANICS IN THEIR PERFORMANCE."  19 COMP. GEN. 516, 518. 
FN6 

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY REQUIRES THE INCLUSION IN EVERY
GOVERNMENT PUBLIC-WORKS CONTRACT OF THE EIGHT-HOUR PROVISION, THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY HAS APPROVED A STANDARD FORM FOR CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS WHICH CONTAINS EIGHT-HOUR PROVISIONS BUT WHICH PROVIDES THAT
THE USE OF THE FORM WILL NOT BE REQUIRED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  U.S.
STANDARD FORM NO. 23, 41 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 12.23, PP. 4520, 4522.  THE
INCLUSION OF SUCH PROVISIONS IS ALSO REQUIRED BY WAR DEPARTMENT
PROCUREMENT REGULATION NO. 3, $* 346, IN "ALL CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE EIGHT HOUR LAW."  YET NEITHER THE INSTANT CONTRACT
NOR OTHERS COVERING OFF-CONTINENT OPERATIONS CONTAIN THE EIGHT HOUR LAW
CLAUSE.  FN7  SIMILARLY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE "DOES NOT CONSIDER IT
LEGALLY NECESSARY TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS OF THE EIGHT HOUR LAW IN
CONTRACTS TO BE PERFORMED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES."  LETTER OF NOVEMBER 8,
1948, SIGNED BY THE ACTING LEGAL ADVISER "FOR THE ACTING SECRETARY OF
STATE," TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ACT, ALTHOUGH
NOT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AT THE PRECISE PROBLEM BEFORE US, TEND TO
SUPPORT PETITIONERS' CONTENTION AS TO ITS RESTRICTED GEOGRAPHICAL
SCOPE. 

SINCE WE DECIDE THAT THE EIGHT HOUR LAW IS INAPPLICABLE TO A CONTRACT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY OVER WHICH
THE UNITED STATES HAS NO DIRECT LEGISLATIVE CONTROL, IT IS UNNECESSARY
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE LAW, EITHER DIRECTLY OR VIA THE THIRD PARTY
BENEFICIARY CONTRACT ROUTE, GIVES AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS COVERED BY IT A
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER FOR OVERTIME WAGES.  REVERSED. 

FN1  27 STAT. 340, AS AMENDED, 40 U.S.C. SECS. 321-326. 

FN2  SINCE IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THIS DECISION, WE DO NOT REACH A
CONCLUSION AS TO THE PRECISE GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF THE EIGHT HOUR
LAW. 

FN3  "  ...  WORDS HAVING UNIVERSAL SCOPE, SUCH AS 'EVERY CONTRACT IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE,' 'EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE,' ETC., WILL BE
TAKEN AS A MATTER OF COURSE TO MEAN ONLY EVERY ONE SUBJECT TO SUCH
LEGISLATION, NOT ALL THAT THE LEGISLATOR SUBSEQUENTLY MAY BE ABLE TO
CATCH."  AMERICAN BANANA CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S. 347, 357. 

FN4  SEE, HOWEVER, EXECUTIVE ORDERS 9251, 3 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 1216,
AND 9898, 3 C.F.R. 1947 SUPP. 172, IN WHICH THE GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF
THE SUSPENSIONS IS NOT SPECIFIED. 

FN5  SEE, HOWEVER, THE ISTHMIAN CANAL CONVENTION, PROCLAIMED ON
FEBRUARY 26, 1904, 33 STAT. 2234, WHEREBY THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN
GRANTED ALL THE RIGHTS, POWER AND AUTHORITY OF A SOVEREIGN IN THE
ZONE. 

FN6  SEE ALSO 29 OP. ATTY. GEN. 488, 492 ET SEQ. 

FN7  ILLUSTRATIVE CONTRACTS FROM WHICH THE CLAUSE IS OMITTED ARE:  W
1098 ENG - 1525, JUNE 8, 1942(LABRADOR AND BAFFIN ISLAND); W 1098 ENG -
1375, JUNE 3, 1942(CUBA); W 1098 ENG - 1350, APRIL 24, 1942(BAHAMAS); W
1098 ENG - 108, NOVEMBER 10, 1941(NORTH AFRICA AND PALESTINE); W 1098
ENG - 2, AUGUST 2, 1941(GREENLAND); W 958 ENG - 54, FEBRUARY 8,
1941(NEWFOUNDLAND); W 958 ENG - 50, FEBRUARY 4, 1941(BERMUDA). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS,
CONCURRING. 

BECAUSE THE DECISION IN VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377,
WAS ONE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, I WOULD FEEL BOUND BY IT WERE IT
NOT STILL OPEN BECAUSE RENDERED AT THIS TERM.  IF I FELT BOUND BY IT, I
WOULD BE OBLIGED TO DISSENT IN THIS CASE. 

WE ARE HERE CONFRONTED BY A STATUTE WHICH IN TERMS COVERS "EVERY
CONTRACT MADE TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES  ...  IS A PARTY."  37 STAT.
137, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 324.  YET THE COURT CONSTRUES IT AS INAPPLICABLE
EVEN TO THE WORK OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER A CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND A CORPORATION DOMICILED IN THE UNITED
STATES BECAUSE "AN INTENTION SO TO REGULATE LABOR CONDITIONS WHICH ARE
THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY SHOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO
CONGRESS IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEARLY EXPRESSED PURPOSE."  FOR THIS
CONCLUSION RELIANCE IS PUT UPON AN OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL STONE
WHICH REFUSED TO INTERPRET THE STATUTE AS APPLYING TO WORK DONE UPON
THE AMERICAN EMBASSY AT LONDON ON THE GROUND THAT "THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE STATUTORY PROVISION WOULD DISTURB THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN CONTRACTORS AND LABORERS AND MECHANICS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY." 
34 OP. ATTY. GEN. 257, 260.  SUPPORT IS ALSO FOUND IN AN OPINION OF THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL WHICH REACHES A SIMILAR CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS
THAT "SUCH AN APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE MIGHT EASILY LEAD TO SERIOUS
DIFFICULTIES IN EFFECTING CONTRACTS FOR NECESSARY SERVICES IN COUNTRIES
WHERE SOCIAL AND BUSINESS CONDITIONS AND CUSTOMS DIFFER WIDELY FROM OUR
OWN."  19 COMP. GEN. 516, 518. 

SUCH CONSIDERATIONS, I AGREE, OUGHT PROPERLY TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER
THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE EIGHT HOUR LAW AS GUIDES TO ITS
INTERPRETATION.  SEE AMERICAN SECURITY CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 224
U.S. 491.  WE SHOULD NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT DECLARATION OF
POLICY, ASSUME THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO IMPOSE OUR DOMESTIC STANDARDS OF
EMPLOYMENT UPON PEOPLES WHO ARE NOT GENERALLY SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY
POWER OF CONGRESS.  SEE 29 OP. ATTY. GEN. 488, 492-93.  BUT I COULD NOT
REGARD THESE CONSIDERATIONS AS CONTROLLING IF I FELT BOUND BY THE
DECISION OF THE COURT IN THE VERMILYA-BROWN CASE.  THAT CASE EXTENDED
TO FOREIGN CONDITIONS OF LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT INDISTINGUISHABLE IN EFFECT FROM THOSE OF THE EIGHT HOUR LAW, AND
IT WAS AN EXTENSION MORE DIFFICULT THAN THAT WHICH THE COURT AVOIDS
HERE BOTH BECAUSE NOT APPARENTLY COMPELLED BY THE LITERAL TERMS OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND BECAUSE THAT ACT IS NOT CONFINED IN ITS
APPLICATION TO CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY. 
UNIFORMITY IN THE TERMS OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, INDEED, IS A MATTER SO
MUCH MORE NEARLY WITHIN THE USUAL SCOPE OF CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN THAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL MOODY REQUIRED NO EXPLICIT SHOWING OF CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EIGHT HOUR LAW APPLIED TO CONTRACTS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PANAMA CANAL, EVEN UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
CANAL ZONE WAS TO BE REGARDED AS FOREIGN TERRITORY.  25 OP. ATTY. GEN.
441. 

BUT THERE ARE OTHER RESPECTS IN WHICH THE VERMILYA-BROWN CASE
PRESENTED MORE COMPELLING REASONS THAN WE HAVE HERE FOR REFUSING TO
ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS AN INTENTION TO REGULATE THE CONDITIONS OF WORK
OF FOREIGN EMPLOYEES.  HERE WE ARE REQUIRED ONLY TO CONSTRUE A PHRASE,
"EVERY CONTRACT MADE TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES  ...  IS A PARTY,"
WHICH IS PECULIAR TO ITS OWN CONTEXT.  IN THE VERMILYA-BROWN CASE,
HOWEVER, THE COURT HELD THAT OUR LEASED BASES FELL WITHIN THE TERM
"POSSESSIONS," AND THAT IS A TERM WHICH CONGRESS HAS USED AT LEAST
SIXTY-EIGHT TIMES.  SEE VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, DISSENTING
OPINION, 335 U.S. AT 398, N. 11.  AND AS ILLUSTRATING THE READINESS
WITH WHICH THE VERMILYA-BROWN CASE CAN BE REGARDED AS CONTROLLING THE
INTERPRETATION OF ALL THE STATUTES IN WHICH THE TERM OCCURS, SEE SPELAR
V. UNITED STATES, 171 F.2D 208, APPLYING THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT TO
A LEASED BASE IN NEWFOUNDLAND.  THE VERMILYA-BROWN CASE, MOREOVER,
BRUSHES ASIDE OFFICIAL APPREHENSIONS ABOUT THE INTERFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES IN FOREIGN CONDITIONS OF LABOR FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN
THOSE WHICH HAVE INFLUENCED JUDGMENT HERE.  ALL WE HAVE TO GUIDE US IN
THE PRESENT CASE ARE GENERAL STATEMENTS IN OPINIONS OF TWO ATTORNEYS
GENERAL AND A COMPTROLLER GENERAL WHICH REQUIRED NO SPECIALIZED
INFORMATION ABOUT WORKING CONDITIONS ABROAD, THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE
STANDARD CONTRACTS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND THE
WAR DEPARTMENT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OPINIONS, AND A LETTER FROM
THE STATE DEPARTMENT WHICH SAYS MERELY THAT THE DEPARTMENT "DOES NOT
CONSIDER IT LEGALLY NECESSARY TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS OF THE EIGHT HOUR
LAW IN CONTRACTS TO BE PERFORMED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES." 

IN THE VERMILYA-BROWN CASE, HOWEVER, THE COURT HAD BEFORE IT A LETTER
ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHICH SAID: 

"ANY HOLDING THAT THE BASES OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF GREAT
BRITAIN ON 99 YEAR LEASES ARE 'POSSESSIONS' OF THE UNITED STATES IN A
POLITICAL SENSE WOULD NOT IN THE DEPARTMENT'S VIEW BE CALCULATED TO
IMPROVE OUR RELATIONS WITH THAT GOVERNMENT.  MOREOVER, SUCH A HOLDING
MIGHT VERY WELL BE DETRIMENTAL TO OUR RELATIONS WITH OTHER FOREIGN
COUNTRIES IN WHICH MILITARY BASES ARE NOW HELD OR IN WHICH THEY MIGHT
IN THE FUTURE BE SOUGHT." 

THE STATE DEPARTMENT SPEAKS AUTHORITATIVELY ON THE INTERNATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT IN OBSERVING AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER
NATIONS, AND THUS IT SPOKE IN THIS LETTER.  IT ALSO HAS KNOWLEDGE, TO
WHICH COURTS CANNOT PRETEND, OF THE BEARING OF SUCH OBSERVANCE ON
PROPITIOUS NEGOTIATIONS OF FUTURE AGREEMENTS.  THE LETTER REFLECTS THAT
KNOWLEDGE.  EVEN CLOISTERED JUDGES, HOWEVER, NEED NOT BE IGNORANT OF
THE FACT THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ITS INTEREST IN SECURING
BASES ON TERRITORY NOT OURS. 

OUR DECISION IN THE VERMILYA-BROWN CASE IN DISREGARD OF THIS WEIGHTY
CONCERN OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS FOLLOWED BY A PETITION FOR
REHEARING IMPRESSIVELY SUPPORTED BY ALL THE ACTIVELY RESPONSIBLE
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE STATE DEPARTMENT REITERATED
ITS VIEW THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE LEASED BASES AMONG THE "POSSESSIONS"
OF THE UNITED STATES WAS "UNFORTUNATE" AND ADDED THAT THE DEPARTMENT
"DOES NOT SHARE THE ASSURANCE OF THE COURT THAT THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
OF BERMUDA OR OTHER COLONIAL LEGISLATURES MIGHT NOT UNDERTAKE
LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO CONTROL LABOR
RELATIONS ON THE BASES.  IT IS AT LEAST WORTHY OF NOTE IN THIS
CONNECTION THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES HAVE ARISEN IN THE BASES BY
REASON OF THE APPLICATION TO CONTRACTORS' EMPLOYEES OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAWS OF BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND THE COLONIES
CONCERNED." 

THE PETITION FOR REHEARING ALSO BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT
A LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY WHICH READ IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"DURING THE PAST NINE YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES, ARMY CONTRACTING OFFICERS HAVE DISCOVERED (WHETHER THE
EMPLOYMENT WAS HANDLED DIRECTLY OR THROUGH A CPFF CONTRACTOR) THAT IN
HIRING NATIVE WORKMEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN MANY COUNTRIES WILL
IMPOSE MAXIMUM WAGE STANDARDS WHICH DARE NOT BE VIOLATED.  THESE
STANDARDS ARE SOMETIMES FIXED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION WITH THE FORCE
OF STATUTE, AND OTHER TIMES BY POLICY WHICH HAS THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF
LAW.  SUCH GOVERNMENTS EXPLAIN THAT TO PAY NATIVE WORKMEN ACCORDING TO
AMERICAN WAGE STANDARDS WOULD SERIOUSLY DISRUPT THE LOCAL ECONOMY. 
ALSO, IN MANY INDUSTRIALLY UNDEVELOPED COUNTRIES, LOCAL OFFICIALS
ADVISE THAT 'EXCESSIVE' WAGES TO COMMON LABORERS WOULD JEOPARDIZE THE
AVAILABILITY OF SUCH LABORERS AND IMPOSE SERIOUS POLICE PROBLEMS UPON
THE STATE.  (IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STRUCTURE
OF MANY AREAS, ORGANIZED ALONG TRIBAL LINES, PRECLUDES A DIRECT DEALING
WITH INDIVIDUAL LABORERS.)  IT APPEARS DOUBTFUL THAT THE COURT HAS BEEN
SUFFICIENTLY APPRISED OF THIS SPECIAL PROBLEM.  THE PAYMENT OF
STATUTORY OVERTIME TO AMERICAN PERSONNEL AT CONTRACTORS' OVERSEAS
CONSTRUCTION SITES WILL BE A MINOR PROBLEM IN COMPARISON WITH PAYING OF
STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME TO NATIVE WORKMEN IN THE FACE OF
MILITANT OPPOSITION BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.  (IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
AMONG AMERICAN PERSONNEL ALL LABORERS AND MECHANICS, SKILLED AND SEMI
SKILLED ARTISANS AND CRAFTSMEN, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PAID ON HOURLY RATES
WITH OVERTIME BENEFITS FAR EXCEEDING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS  ...  )" 

THE ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY EXPRESSED SIMILAR VIEWS: 

"IT HAS BEEN AND IS THE POLICY OF THIS DEPARTMENT TO EMPLOY LOCAL
LABOR AT THE LEASED BASES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE AND TO MAKE
ITS WAGE AND LABOR PRACTICES WITH RESPECT THERETO CONFORM AS NEARLY AS
POSSIBLE TO THE USUAL WAGE AND LABOR PRACTICES OF THE PARTICULAR
LOCALITY.  APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO THE
PARTICULAR AREAS INVOLVED MAY WELL CREATE CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD
ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COOPERATION HERETOFORE GIVEN NAVY CONTRACTORS BY
LOCAL AUTHORITIES.  THE CONTINUED COOPERATION OF SUCH AUTHORITIES IS,
OF COURSE, HIGHLY DESIRABLE." 

THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR, WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
ENFORCING THE VERMILYA-BROWN DECISION, WROTE THAT "EVEN IF I SHOULD BE
ABLE TO REACH SOUND CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT IN
THESE AREAS, I CANNOT HELP BUT FORESEE FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE
DIFFICULTIES IN ATTEMPTING TO APPLY THE ACT IN 'POSSESSIONS' OVER WHICH
THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT EXERCISE FULL SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY
WHERE FOREIGN EMPLOYERS AND ALIEN LABOR ARE INVOLVED."  IN VIEW BOTH OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S VERY SPECIAL RELATION TO THIS MATTER AND OF THE
PERSUASIVENESS OF HIS VIEWS, HIS LETTER IS PRINTED AS AN APPENDIX TO
THIS OPINION. 

IF, IN THE FACE OF THESE STATEMENTS BY EXECUTIVE OFFICERS CHARGED
WITH, AND EXPERIENCED IN, THE ADMINISTRATION OF OUR LEASED BASES, THE
COURT COULD REACH A CONTRARY INTERPRETATION OF THE BROAD TERM
"POSSESSIONS," IT MUST BE MANIFEST WHY I COULD NOT, WERE I BOUND BY
PRECEDENT, JOIN IN READING THE NARROW PHRASE "EVERY CONTRACT MADE TO
WHICH THE UNITED STATES  ...  IS A PARTY" IN A WAY WHICH DEPARTED FROM
ITS LITERAL TERMS WHEN THE ONLY REASON FOR SUCH A DEPARTURE IS
RELUCTANCE TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS AN INTENTION TO INTERFERE IN "LABOR
CONDITIONS WHICH ARE THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY." 
                       APPENDIX

      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

             WAGE AND HOUR AND PUBLIC CONTRACTS DIVISIONS
    WASHINGTON 25, D.C., DECEMBER 23, 1948. 

                   THE HONORABLE PHILIP B. PERLMAN,

                SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

                        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

                         WASHINGTON 25, D.C. 

DEAR MR. PERLMAN:  BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 22, 1948, YOU ADVISE THAT
YOU INTEND TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR REHEARING TO BE FILED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE RECENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN VERMILYA
BROWN COMPANY V. CONNELL, NO. 22, THIS TERM, DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1948. 
YOU STATE THAT YOU WILL PRESENT TO THE COURT THE VIEWS OF THE
DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, ARMY, AND NAVY.  ON BEHALF OF THESE DEPARTMENTS,
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, YOU WILL URGE THE COURT TO RECONSIDER
ITS HOLDING THAT THE WORD "POSSESSION," AS USED IN THE PHRASE "STATE,
TERRITORY OR POSSESSION" IN SECTION 3(C) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT, IS NOT A TERM OF ART, AND THAT THE BERMUDA DEFENSE AREA LEASED TO
US IN 1940 BY GREAT BRITAIN IS WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE STATUTE AS A
"POSSESSION."  YOU REQUEST THAT I FORWARD TO YOU MY VIEWS CONCERNING
THE EFFECT WHICH THIS HOLDING MAY HAVE ON ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT. 

I THINK IT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID THAT MY PREDECESSORS AND I, IN
CONSIDERING THE TERRITORIAL ASPECTS OF WAGE-HOUR COVERAGE IN THE PAST,
HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF SOVEREIGN
CONTROL WERE IMPLICIT IN THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE, "ANY TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES," AS THAT PHRASE IS USED IN THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTROLLING COURT DECISIONS, IT
WAS NECESSARY FOR US TO INTERPRET THE PHRASE FOR OUR GUIDANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  IN DOING SO, WE NOT ONLY STUDIED THE
PROVISIONS OF OTHER STATUTES IN WHICH THESE TERMS WERE USED AND
AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS CONSTRUING SUCH LANGUAGE IN
SITUATIONS WHICH WERE THOUGHT TO BE COMPARABLE, BUT GAVE PARTICULAR
WEIGHT TO AUTHORITATIVE EXPRESSIONS OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER
PROPER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES ON THE QUESTION OF WHAT AREAS ARE VIEWED
AS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES EXERCISES
FULL SOVEREIGN RIGHTS.  ON THIS BASIS WE EXPRESSED THE OPINION IN
INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 2, FIRST ISSUED IN NOVEMBER, 1938, AND IN
CHAPTER V, PART 776, TITLE 29 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
(SECTION 776.1(C)) WHICH REPLACED THIS BULLETIN IN JULY, 1947, THAT
ALASKA, HAWAII, PUERTO RICO, THE CANAL ZONE, GUAM, GUANO ISLANDS,
SAMOA, AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS WERE TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 

WHEN THE QUESTION OF THE STATUS OF THE LEASED BASES OF THE TYPE
INVOLVED IN THE VERMILYA-BROWN CASE WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION
IN 1942 AND 1943, WE EXPRESSED THE VIEW, IN THE OPINIONS QUOTED IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, THAT THESE BASES WERE NOT
TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT.  THIS VIEW WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED AFTER IT APPEARED THAT
THE MATTER WAS BEING LITIGATED IN THE COURTS AND CONSULTATION WITH
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS INDICATED THAT THAT DEPARTMENT HAD MADE NO
RULING (THE LETTER FROM THAT DEPARTMENT WHICH IS APPENDIX A TO YOUR
BRIEF NOT HAVING BEEN WRITTEN AT THAT TIME).  THIS MODIFICATION OF OUR
POSITION IS REFLECTED BY THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE WHICH WAS USED TO
ADVISE INQUIRIES:  "UNTIL THE QUESTION HAS BEEN SETTLED BY COURT
DECISIONS, CONGRESSIONAL OR EXECUTIVE ACTION, OR INTERPRETATIONS ISSUED
BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OR OTHER PROPER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, THE
DIVISIONS ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO ASSERT WHETHER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES WORKING AT BASES LEASED FROM THE
BRITISH." 

AS A RESULT OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE VERMILYA-BROWN
CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE STATUS OF A GIVEN AREA AS A "TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES" FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT IS SUBJECT TO
DETERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE USED BY
THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, ON WHICH WE HAVE PLACED
PARTICULAR RELIANCE IN THE PAST.  I ANTICIPATE THAT AT LEAST TWO MAJOR
PROBLEMS WILL CONFRONT ME AS A RESULT OF THE COURT'S RULING. 

FIRST, IN ORDER TO PERFORM MY STATUTORY DUTIES UNDER THE ACT, IT WILL
BE NECESSARY FOR ME TO DECIDE INITIALLY, PENDING AUTHORITATIVE GUIDANCE
FROM THE COURTS, WHETHER OTHER DEFENSE BASE AREAS COME WITHIN THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE COVERING TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  IF, AS WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW FROM THE COURT'S DECISION, I WOULD
NOT BE AIDED IN THIS BY THE VIEWS OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AS TO WHETHER
SUCH AREAS ARE TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS IN THE POLITICAL SENSE, OR
UNDER TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF SOVEREIGNTY, I SHALL BE CALLED UPON TO
ENTER A FIELD OF INTERPRETATION IN WHICH OUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH
THE ACT OFFERS NO RELIABLE GUIDES, AND WHICH MAY INVOLVE THE MEANING OF
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON WHICH THIS AGENCY WOULD ORDINARILY SEEK THE
ADVICE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT.  ADEQUATE STANDARDS FOR GUIDANCE IN
DECIDING SUCH QUESTIONS FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT ARE,
IN MY OPINION, NOT AVAILABLE TO ME EITHER IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE, ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, OR IN THE VERMILYA-BROWN DECISION
ITSELF.  THE DIFFICULTY, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, OF REACHING SOUND
CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING COVERAGE IN BASES SUCH AS OKINAWA, GREECE,
ICELAND, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND, THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, TUNISIA, AND
ARABIA IS APPARENT.  MY POSITION WILL BE EVEN MORE DIFFICULT IN
CONNECTION WITH CLASSIFIED MILITARY BASE AREAS. 

SECOND, EVEN IF I SHOULD BE ABLE TO REACH SOUND CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE ACT IN THESE AREAS, I CANNOT HELP BUT FORESEE
FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES IN ATTEMPTING TO APPLY THE ACT
IN "POSSESSIONS" OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT EXERCISE FULL
SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY WHERE FOREIGN EMPLOYERS AND ALIEN LABOR
ARE INVOLVED.  EVEN IF SUCH DIFFICULTIES MAY NOT BE INSUPERABLE, VEXING
PROBLEMS OF COURTS WITH PROPER JURISDICTION AND VENUE TO APPLY THE
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS IN SUCH CASES ARE, IT SEEMS TO ME, BOUND
TO ARISE IF WE ARE TO UNDERTAKE ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT IN THESE BASES. 
AND, AS YOU WILL APPRECIATE, NEITHER THE APPROPRIATION FOR, NOR THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION WERE DEVISED IN
CONTEMPLATION OF ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS IN OUTPOSTS SUCH AS THESE. 

IT HAS, OF COURSE, NOT BEEN POSSIBLE FOR US TO EXPLORE FULLY THESE
AND OTHER POSSIBLE PROBLEMS WHICH MIGHT CONFRONT US AS A RESULT OF THE
VERMILYA-BROWN DECISION, IN THE LIMITED TIME AVAILABLE TO US BY REASON
OF THE PERIOD FOR FILING PETITIONS FOR REHEARING.  IF THE COURT SHOULD
GRANT A REHEARING IN THE CASE, I SHALL BE GLAD TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO YOU
THE RESULTS OF OUR FURTHER EXPLORATION OF THESE QUESTIONS IN ORDER THAT
YOU MAY FULLY APPRISE THE COURT OF MY VIEWS CONCERNING THE PROBABLE
EFFECTS OF THE PRESENT DECISION IN TERMS OF THE OVER-ALL ADMINISTRATION
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

VERY TRULY YOURS,

                            WM. R. MCCOMB,

                                 ADMINISTRATOR. 
..END :







ALGOMA PLYWOOD CO. V. WIS. BOARD, 336 U.S. 301 


NO. 216.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1949.  - 252
WIS. 549, 32 N.W.2D 417, AFFIRMED. 


IN 1942 THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFIED A UNION AS
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR EMPLOYEES OF A MANUFACTURER PRODUCING
GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN 1943, UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THE WAR LABOR BOARD, THE EMPLOYER AGREED TO A
MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE IN ITS CONTRACT WITH THE UNION, WHICH
WAS EXTENDED FROM YEAR TO YEAR TO APRIL, 1947.  IN JANUARY, 1947, AN
EMPLOYEE WAS DISCHARGED FOR REFUSAL TO PAY UNION DUES AND FILED A
COMPLAINT WITH THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD CHARGING
VIOLATION OF WIS. STAT. SEC. 111.06(1)(C) 1, WHICH, IN EFFECT, FORBIDS
ENFORCEMENT OF A MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE UNLESS THE CONTRACT
CONTAINING IT IS APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A
REFERENDUM CONDUCTED BY THE STATE BOARD.  NO SUCH REFERENDUM HAD BEEN
CONDUCTED FOR THESE EMPLOYEES.  THE STATE BOARD ORDERED THE
MANUFACTURER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE MAINTENANCE
OF-MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE, TO OFFER THE EMPLOYEE REINSTATEMENT, AND TO
REIMBURSE HIM FOR LOSS OF PAY.  HELD:  THE ORDER IS NOT IN CONFLICT
WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OR THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
ACT.  PP. 303-315. 

1.  THE STATE BOARD WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF POWER TO ISSUE ITS ORDER BY
SEC. 10(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WHICH GRANTS THE
NATIONAL BOARD EXCLUSIVE POWER TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN
ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE LISTED IN SEC. 8.  PP. 305-307. 

2.  NOR WAS IT DEPRIVED OF POWER TO ISSUE ITS ORDER BY SEC. 8(3),
WHICH FORBIDS EMPLOYERS TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN A
UNION BUT PROVIDES THAT NOTHING IN THE ACT OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL STATUTE
SHALL PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER FROM MAKING AN AGREEMENT WITH A UNION TO
REQUIRE MEMBERSHIP THEREIN AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IF THE UNION IS
THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES.  PP. 307-312. 

(A)  THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF SEC. 8(3).  PP. 307-310. 

(B)  IT IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY RULING BY THE COURTS OR THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  P. 310. 

(C)  NOR IS IT IN CONFLICT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE OF THE
WAR LABOR BOARD IN PRESCRIBING MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP CLAUSES TO
SETTLE WARTIME DISPUTES, SINCE THAT PRACTICE WAS BASED UPON THE WAR
POWERS RATHER THAN UPON SEC. 8(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
AND THE WAR LABOR BOARD HAD CEASED TO EXIST WHEN THE STATE BOARD ISSUED
ITS ORDER.  PP. 310-312. 

3.  NOR DOES THE STATE STATUTE OR THE STATE BOARD'S ACTION THEREUNDER
CONFLICT WITH SEC. 10(A) OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT.  PP.
313-314. 

4.  THE CERTIFICATION OF THE UNION BY THE NATIONAL BOARD DID NOT OUST
THE STATE BOARD FROM JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN PRACTICES FORBIDDEN BY
STATE LAW AND NOT GOVERNED BY FEDERAL LAW.  PP. 314-315. 

ALGOMA PLYWOOD & VENEER CO. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED AN EMPLOYER TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO A MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE IN
A CONTRACT WITH A UNION CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND TO
REIMBURSE FOR LOSS OF PAY AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAD BEEN DISCHARGED FOR
REFUSAL TO PAY UNION DUES.  A STATE CIRCUIT COURT MODIFIED THE ORDER BY
STRIKING THE AWARD OF BACK PAY BUT OTHERWISE AFFIRMED IT.  14 LABOR
CASES (C.C.H.)  NO. 64,253.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED THE
ORDER AS ORIGINALLY ISSUED.  252 WIS. 549, 32 N.W.2D 417.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 812.  AFFIRMED, P. 315. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ALGOMA PLYWOOD & VENEER CO. MANUFACTURES IN KEWAUNEE COUNTY,
WISCONSIN, THE PRODUCTS FOR WHICH IT IS NAMED.  NINETY-FIVE PER CENT OF
ITS OUTPUT IS SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN 1942 THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD HELD AN ELECTION AT THE PLANT, THE OUTCOME OF WHICH WAS
THE CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL 1521 OF THE CARPENTERS AND JOINERS UNION AS
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES, ABOUT 650 IN
NUMBER.  IN 1943, UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THE
WAR LABOR BOARD, ALGOMA AGREED TO A MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE IN
ITS CONTRACT WITH LOCAL 1521.  THAT CLAUSE WAS CARRIED OVER FROM YEAR
TO YEAR AND WAS PART OF THE CONTRACT EFFECTIVE FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWING
APRIL 29, 1946.  ONE VICTOR MOREAU REFUSED TO PAY DUES, AND ON JAN. 7,
1947, THE UNION NOTIFIED HIM THAT UNLESS HE PAID UP BY JAN. 13, HE
WOULD BE DISCHARGED.  ON JAN. 14, 1947, IN THE PRESENCE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANY AND THE UNION, HE SAID THAT HE WOULD
RATHER QUIT THAN PAY DUES TO THE UNION.  AND SO THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF
THE COMPANY TOLD HIM TO COLLECT HIS PAY AND GO HOME. 

ON JAN. 27, 1947, MOREAU FILED WITH THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD A COMPLAINT CHARGING THE COMPANY WITH AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE UNDER WIS. STAT. SEC. 111.06(1)(C) 1, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER  ...  TO
ENCOURAGE  ...  MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION  ...  BY
DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRING, TENURE OR OTHER TERMS OR CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT; PROVIDED, THAT AN EMPLOYER SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED FROM
ENTERING INTO AN ALL-UNION AGREEMENT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS
EMPLOYES IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT, WHERE AT LEAST TWO THIRDS OF
SUCH EMPLOYES VOTING  ...  SHALL HAVE VOTED AFFIRMATIVELY BY SECRET
BALLOT IN FAVOR OF SUCH ALL-UNION AGREEMENT IN A REFERENDUM CONDUCTED
BY THE BOARD.  ...  " 

NO REFERENDUM HAD BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE ALGOMA PLANT.  THE BOARD,
ACCORDINGLY, ON APRIL 30, 1947, ORDERED THE COMPANY TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE, TO OFFER
MOREAU REINSTATEMENT, AND TO MAKE HIM WHOLE FOR ANY LOSS OF PAY.  THE
COMPANY AND THE UNION PETITIONED THE WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT OF
KEWAUNEE COUNTY FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER, AND THE BOARD PETITIONED FOR
ITS ENFORCEMENT.  IN ITS JUDGMENT OF NOV. 21, 1947, THE CIRCUIT COURT
MODIFIED THE ORDER BY STRIKING THE AWARD OF BACK PAY, BUT OTHERWISE
AFFIRMED IT.  ON MAY 11, 1948, THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT INSOFAR AS IT SUSTAINED THE JURISDICTION
OF THE BOARD TO ISSUE ITS CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND TO REQUIRE AN
OFFER OF REINSTATEMENT BUT DIRECTED ENFORCEMENT OF THE BACK-PAY AWARD. 
252 WIS. 549, 32 N.W.2D 417. 

AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE COMPANY AND THE UNION CONTESTED
THE JURISDICTION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ON THE GROUND OF THE
EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNDER SEC.
10(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 453, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
160(A), AND ASSERTED THE REPUGNANCY OF WIS. STAT. SEC. 111.06(1)(C) 1
TO SEC. 8(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 452, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 158(3).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257(3)
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT BEARING OF THESE ISSUES UPON THE DISTRIBUTION
OF POWER IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  335 U.S. 812. 

THE DISCHARGE OF MOREAU AND THE ORDERS OF THE WISCONSIN BOARD
PRECEDED THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN
AS THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, 61 STAT. 136, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 141 ET SEQ.  THE
JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR KEWAUNEE COUNTY AND THE SUPREME
COURT OF WISCONSIN WERE RENDERED AFTER IT CAME INTO FORCE.  IF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT GAVE AFFIRMATIVE PROTECTION TO THE
EMPLOYER IN DISCHARGING AN EMPLOYEE UNDER A UNION-SECURITY AGREEMENT
FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN UNION MEMBERSHIP, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO
DECIDE WHETHER ADOPTION OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT RETROACTIVELY REMOVED
THAT PROTECTION AND WHETHER IT EQUALLY GAVE EFFECT TO A REINSTATEMENT
ORDER, AN AWARD OF BACK PAY, AND A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER WHICH WOULD
PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN INVALID.  SINCE, HOWEVER, WE DO NOT FIND CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE WISCONSIN LAW UNDER WHICH THE ORDERS WERE ISSUED AND EITHER
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OR THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, WE ARE
RELIEVED FROM DEFINING THE RESPECTIVE APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL
ACTS. 

IN SEEKING TO SHOW THAT THE WISCONSIN BOARD HAD NO POWER TO MAKE THE
CONTESTED ORDERS, PETITIONER POINTS FIRST TO SEC. 10(A) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WHICH IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  IT ARGUES
THAT THE GRANT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OF "EXCLUSIVE"
POWER TO PREVENT "ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE" THEREBY DISPLACED STATE
POWER TO DEAL WITH SUCH PRACTICES, PROVIDED OF COURSE THAT THE PRACTICE
WAS ONE AFFECTING COMMERCE.  BUT THIS ARGUMENT IMPLIES TWO EQUALLY
UNTENABLE ASSUMPTIONS.  ONE REQUIRES DISREGARD OF THE PARENTHETICAL
PHRASE "(LISTED IN SECTION 8)"; THE OTHER DEPENDS UPON ATTACHING TO THE
TO PREVENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES NOT LISTED IN SECTION 8." 

THE TERM "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE" IS NOT A TERM OF ART HAVING AN
INDEPENDENT SIGNIFICANCE WHICH TRANSCENDS ITS STATUTORY DEFINITION. 
THE STATES ARE FREE (APART FROM PRE-EMPTION BY CONGRESS) TO
CHARACTERIZE ANY WRONG OF ANY KIND BY AN EMPLOYER TO AN EMPLOYEE,
WHETHER STATUTORILY CREATED OR KNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW, AS AN "UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE."  AT THE TIME WHEN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS
ADOPTED, THE COURTS OF MANY STATES, AT LEAST UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES,
DENIED VALIDITY TO UNION-SECURITY AGREEMENTS.  SEE 1 TELLER, LABOR
DISPUTES AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SEC. 170(1940).  HERE WISCONSIN HAS
ATTACHED CONDITIONS TO THEIR ENFORCEMENT AND HAS CALLED THE VOLUNTARY
OBSERVANCE OF SUCH A CONTRACT WHEN THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MET
AN "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE."  HAD THE SPONSORS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT MEANT TO DENY EFFECT TO STATE POLICIES INCONSISTENT WITH
THE UNRESTRICTED ENFORCEMENT OF UNION-SHOP CONTRACTS, SURELY THEY WOULD
HAVE MADE THEIR PURPOSE MANIFEST.  SO FAR AS APPEARS FROM THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS, HOWEVER, SEC. 10(A) WAS DESIGNED, AS ITS LANGUAGE DECLARES,
MERELY TO PRECLUDE CONFLICT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF REMEDIES FOR THE
PRACTICES PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 8.  THE HOUSE REPORT, AFTER SUMMARIZING
THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION, ADDS, "THE BOARD IS THUS MADE THE
PARAMOUNT AGENCY FOR DEALING WITH THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES DESCRIBED
IN THE BILL."  H.R. REP. NO. 969, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 21.  SEE ALSO
THE IDENTICAL LANGUAGE OF H.R. REP. NO. 972, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 21
AND H.R. REP. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 23.  AND THE SENATE
REPORT DESCRIBES THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION AS "INTENDED TO DISPEL THE
CONFUSION RESULTING FROM DISPERSION OF AUTHORITY AND TO ESTABLISH A
SINGLE PARAMOUNT ADMINISTRATIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN
CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL AMERICAN LAW REGARDING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."  S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 15. 

THE CONTENTION THAT SEC. 10(A) OF THE WAGNER ACT SWEPT ASIDE STATE
LAW RESPECTING THE UNION SHOP MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED.  IF ANY
PROVISION OF THE ACT HAD THAT EFFECT, IT COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN SEC.
8(3), WHICH EXPLICITLY DEALS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN A UNION AS A CONDITION
OF EMPLOYMENT.  WE NOW TURN TO CONSIDERATION OF THAT SECTION. 

AN EMPLOYER 

"BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY
TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP
IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT  ...  OR
IN ANY OTHER STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER
FROM MAKING AN AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION  ...  TO REQUIRE AS
A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP THEREIN, IF SUCH LABOR
ORGANIZATION IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED IN
SUCH AGREEMENT WHEN MADE." 

IT IS ARGUED, THEREFORE, THAT A STATE CANNOT FORBID WHAT SEC. 8(3)
AFFIRMATIVELY PERMITS.  THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT SEC. 8(3) MERELY
DISCLAIMS A NATIONAL POLICY HOSTILE TO THE CLOSED SHOP OR OTHER FORMS
OF UNION-SECURITY AGREEMENT.  THIS IS THE OBVIOUS INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN
FROM THE CHOICE OF THE WORDS "NOTHING IN THIS ACT  ...  OR IN ANY OTHER
STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES," AND IT IS CONFIRMED BY THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY. 

THE SENATE REPORT ON THE BILL WHICH WAS TO BECOME THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT SEC. 8(3): 

"THE PROVISO ATTACHED TO THE THIRD UNFAIR-LABOR PRACTICE DEALS WITH
THE QUESTION OF THE CLOSED SHOP.  PROPAGANDA HAS BEEN WIDE-SPREAD THAT
THIS PROVISO ATTACHES SPECIAL LEGAL SANCTIONS TO THE CLOSED SHOP OR
SEEKS TO IMPOSE IT UPON ALL INDUSTRY.  THIS PROPAGANDA IS ABSOLUTELY
FALSE.  THE REASON FOR THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISO IS AS FOLLOWS:
ACCORDING TO SOME INTERPRETATIONS, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 7(A) OF THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, ASSURING THE FREEDOM OF EMPLOYEES 'TO
ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING', WAS DEEMED TO ILLEGALIZE THE CLOSED SHOP.  THE COMMITTEE
FEELS THAT THIS WAS NOT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS WHEN IT WROTE SECTION
7(A); THAT IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS TODAY; AND THAT IT IS NOT
DESIRABLE TO INTERFERE IN THIS DRASTIC WAY WITH THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL
STATES ON THIS SUBJECT. 

"BUT TO PREVENT SIMILAR MISCONCEPTIONS OF THIS BILL, THE PROVISO IN
QUESTION STATES THAT NOTHING IN THIS BILL, OR IN ANY OTHER LAW OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR IN ANY CODE OR AGREEMENT APPROVED OR PRESCRIBED
THEREUNDER, SHALL BE HELD TO PREVENT THE MAKING OF CLOSED-SHOP
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE BILL
DOES NOTHING TO FACILITATE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS OR TO MAKE THEM LEGAL
IN ANY STATE WHERE THEY MAY BE ILLEGAL; IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
STATUS QUO ON THIS DEBATABLE SUBJECT BUT LEAVES THE WAY OPEN TO SUCH
AGREEMENTS AS MIGHT NOW LEGALLY BE CONSUMMATED  ...  "  S. REP. NO.
573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 11-12. 

THE HOUSE REPORT CONTAINS SIMILAR LANGUAGE: 

"THE PROVISO TO THE THIRD UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, DEALING WITH THE
MAKING OF CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS, HAS BEEN WIDELY MISREPRESENTED.  THE
PROVISO DOES NOT IMPOSE A CLOSED SHOP ON ALL INDUSTRY; IT DOES NOT GIVE
NEW LEGAL SANCTIONS TO THE CLOSED SHOP.  ALL THAT IT DOES IS TO
ELIMINATE THE DOUBTS AND MISCONSTRUCTIONS IN REGARD TO THE EFFECT OF
OF SUCH DOUBTS AND MISCONSTRUCTIONS UNDER THIS BILL, BY PROVIDING THAT
NOTHING IN THE BILL OR IN SECTION 7(A) OR IN ANY OTHER STATUTE OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL ILLEGALIZE A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT BETWEEN AN
EMPLOYER AND A LABOR ORGANIZATION, PROVIDED SUCH ORGANIZATION HAS NOT
BEEN ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THE
BILL AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND IS THE CHOICE OF A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 9(A), IN THE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING UNIT COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT WHEN MADE.  THE BILL DOES
NOTHING TO LEGALIZE THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT IN THE STATES WHERE IT
MAY BE ILLEGAL; BUT THE COMMITTEE IS CONFIDENT THAT IT WOULD NOT BE THE
DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO ENACT A GENERAL BAN UPON CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS
IN THE STATES WHERE THEY ARE LEGAL.  AND IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT
NO CLOSED SHOP MAY BE EFFECTED UNLESS IT IS ASSENTED TO BY THE
EMPLOYER."  H.R. REP. NO. 969, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 17.  SEE ALSO THE
IDENTICAL LANGUAGE IN H.R. REP. NO. 972, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 17, AND
H.R. REP. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 19-20. 

IN HIS MAJOR SPEECH TO THE SENATE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, SENATOR
WAGNER SAID: 

"WHILE OUTLAWING THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS INTERFERED WITH BY THE
EMPLOYER, THIS BILL DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CLOSED SHOP OR EVEN
ENCOURAGE IT. THE MUCH-DISCUSSED CLOSED-SHOP PROVISO MERELY STATES THAT
NOTHING IN ANY FEDERAL LAW SHALL BE HELD TO ILLEGALIZE THE CONFIRMATION
OF VOLUNTARY CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS."  79
CONG. REC. 7570. 

THE SENATOR WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION AS
DISPELLING MISUNDERSTANDING OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT, 48 STAT. 198, DENIED EITHER ADVOCACY OR DISAPPROVAL OF
THE CLOSED SHOP, THEN ADDED:    "THE VIRULENT PROPAGANDA TO THE EFFECT
THAT THIS BILL ENCOURAGES THE CLOSED SHOP IS OUTRAGEOUS IN VIEW OF THE
FACT THAT IN TWO RESPECTS IT ACTUALLY NARROWS THE NOW-EXISTING LAW IN
REGARD TO THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT."  IBID. 

LATER, DURING DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, SENATOR WAGNER
ANSWERED A QUESTION FROM THE FLOOR ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISO IN
THE FOLLOWING WORDS: 

"THE PROVISION WILL NOT CHANGE THE STATUS QUO.  THAT IS THE LAW
TODAY; AND WHEREVER IT IS THE LAW TODAY THAT A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT
CAN BE MADE, IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE LAW.  BY THIS BILL WE DO NOT
CHANGE THAT SITUATION."  ID. AT 7673. 

EQUALLY CONCLUSIVE IS THE ANSWER BY REPRESENTATIVE CONNERY, MANAGER
OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE, TO A STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE TABER IN
SUPPORT OF AN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE ENTIRELY STRICKEN THE
PROVISO.  REPRESENTATIVE TABER CHARGED THAT THE PROVISO WOULD MAKE IT
POSSIBLE FOR 51% OF THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY ORGANIZATION TO BRING ABOUT
THE DISCHARGE OF THE OTHER 49%.  REPRESENTATIVE CONNERY SAID: 

"MR. CHAIRMAN, I MERELY RISE TO SAY THIS IN OPPOSITION:  THE CLOSED
SHOP PROPOSITION IN THIS BILL DOES NOT REFER TO ANY STATE WHICH HAS ANY
LAW FORBIDDING THE CLOSED SHOP.  IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THAT IN ANY
WAY."  ID. AT 9726. 

NO RULING BY THE COURTS OR THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE
AGENCY ENTRUSTED WITH ADMINISTRATION OF THE WAGNER ACT, HAS ADOPTED A
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 8(3) IN DISREGARD OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  IT
IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN THE SECTION BY THE
WAR LABOR BOARD SUPPORTS PETITIONER'S POSITION.  THE BOARD, IT IS TRUE,
IN VIEW OF THE PRACTICAL DESIRABILITY OF THE MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP
CLAUSE IN SETTLING WARTIME DISPUTES OVER UNION SECURITY FOUND AUTHORITY
TO ORDER CONTRACTS CONTAINING SUCH CLAUSES DESPITE INCONSISTENT STATE
LAW.  IT FOUND SUCH AUTHORITY, HOWEVER, NOT IN SEC. 8(3) BUT IN THE
CONCLUSION THAT "ITS POWER TO DIRECT THE PARTIES TO ABIDE BY THE
MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP PROVISION IN SUCH A CASE AS THIS ONE STEMS
DIRECTLY FROM THE WAR POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT." 
GREENEBAUM TANNING CO., 10 WAR LAB.  REP.  527, 534.  FN2  THE SUPREME
COURT OF WISCONSIN ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGED THE SUPREMACY OF THE WAR POWER
IN A DECISION SUSPENDING AN ORDER DIRECTING THE REINSTATEMENT OF AN
EMPLOYEE DISCHARGED UNDER A MAINTENANCE-OF-MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE ORDERED BY
THE WAR LABOR BOARD.  INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPERMAKERS V.
WISCONSIN E.R. BOARD, 245 WIS. 541, 15 N.W.2D 806.  WHEN THE ORDERS OF
THE WISCONSIN BOARD IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE ENTERED, THE WAR LABOR
BOARD HAD CEASED TO EXIST, EXEC. ORDER NO. 9672, 11 FED. REG. 221, AND,
WITH THE OCCASION THAT HAD CALLED IT INTO BEING, THE NECESSITY FOR
SUPPRESSION OF STATE LAW HAD ALSO COME TO AN END.  FN3 

SINCE WE WOULD BE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, IN REJECTING THE
LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 8(3) PLACED UPON IT AT THE TIME OF
ITS ENACTMENT, IT IS NOT EVEN NECESSARY TO INVOKE THE PRINCIPLE THAT IN
CASES OF CONCURRENT POWER OVER COMMERCE STATE LAW REMAINS EFFECTIVE SO
LONG AS CONGRESS HAS NOT MANIFESTED AN UNAMBIGUOUS PURPOSE THAT IT
SHOULD BE SUPPLANTED.  SEE, E.G., SINNOT V. DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227;
MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. HABER, 169 U.S. 613.  NOR NEED WE, IF
CONGRESS IN ENACTING SEC. 8(3) DID NOT MEAN TO ENLARGE THE RIGHT TO
BARGAIN FOR UNION SECURITY, CONSIDER CONTENTIONS BASED ON HILL V.
FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538, TO THE EFFECT THAT IN GUARANTEEING THE RIGHT TO
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ALSO GUARANTEED
THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT UPON ANY TERMS WHICH ARE COMMONLY THE SUBJECT OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

WE COME NOW TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT EXPRESSES A
POLICY INCONSISTENT WITH SEC. 111.06(1)(C) 1 OF THE WISCONSIN
EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT. 

MARGIN,  FN4  CONTAINS IMPORTANT CHANGES, BUT NONE REQUIRING
MODIFICATION OF THE CONCLUSIONS WE HAVE REACHED AS TO THE CORRESPONDING
REINFORCES THOSE CONCLUSIONS; THAT IS THE PHRASE "INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF THIS ACT."  THESE WORDS MUST MEAN THAT
CESSION OF JURISDICTION IS TO TAKE PLACE ONLY WHERE STATE AND FEDERAL
LAWS HAVE PARALLEL PROVISIONS.  WHERE THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS DO NOT
OVERLAP, NO CESSION IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE STATE'S JURISDICTION IS
UNIMPAIRED.  THIS READING IS CONFIRMED BY THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISO IN
WHICH THE PHRASE IS CONTAINED:  TO MEET SITUATIONS MADE POSSIBLE BY
BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK S.L.R.B., 330 U.S. 767, WHERE NO STATE
AGENCY WOULD BE FREE TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF CASES OVER WHICH THE
NATIONAL BOARD HAD DECLINED JURISDICTION.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 245, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 40; S. REP. NO. 105, MINORITY VIEWS, PART 2, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 38. 

OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT MAKE IT EVEN CLEARER THAN
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT THAT THE STATES ARE LEFT FREE TO
PURSUE THEIR OWN MORE RESTRICTIVE POLICIES IN THE MATTER OF UNION
SECURITY AGREEMENTS.  BECAUSE SEC. 8(3) OF THE NEW ACT FORBIDS THE
CLOSED SHOP AND STRICTLY REGULATES THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A UNION
SHOP AGREEMENT MAY BE ENTERED, SEC. 14(B) WAS INCLUDED TO FORESTALL THE
INFERENCE THAT FEDERAL POLICY WAS TO BE EXCLUSIVE.  IT READS: 

"NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS REQUIRING MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR
ORGANIZATION AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN ANY STATE OR TERRITORY IN
WHICH SUCH EXECUTION OR APPLICATION IS PROHIBITED BY STATE OR
TERRITORIAL LAW." 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE EFFECT OF THIS SECTION IS TO DISPLACE
STATE LAW WHICH "REGULATES" BUT DOES NOT WHOLLY "PROHIBIT" AGREEMENTS
REQUIRING MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS A CONDITION OF
EMPLOYMENT.  BUT IF THERE COULD BE ANY DOUBT THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE
"APPLICATION" OF A UNION-SECURITY CONTRACT, SUCH AS DISCHARGING AN
EMPLOYEE, WHICH UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES "IS PROHIBITED" BY THE STATE,
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION WOULD DISPEL IT.  SEE S. REP.
NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 5-7; H.R. REP. NO. 245, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 9, 34, 40, 44; H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 60;
93 CONG. REC. 3554, 3559, 4904, 6383-84, 6446; H.R. 3020, 80TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., AS REPORTED, SEC. 13. 

IT REMAINS TO CONSIDER WHETHER CERTIFICATION OF THE UNION BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN 1942 THEREBY FOREVER OUSTED
JURISDICTION OF THE WISCONSIN BOARD TO ENJOIN PRACTICES FORBIDDEN BY
WISCONSIN LAW.  SINCE THE ENUMERATION BY THE WAGNER ACT AND THE TAFT
HARTLEY ACT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL BOARD HAS
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION DOES NOT PREVENT THE STATES FROM ENFORCING THEIR
OWN POLICIES IN MATTERS NOT GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL LAW, SUCH FREEDOM
OF ACTION BY A STATE CANNOT BE LOST BECAUSE THE NATIONAL BOARD HAS ONCE
HELD AN ELECTION UNDER THE WAGNER ACT.  THE CHARACTER OF ACTIVITIES
LEFT TO STATE REGULATION IS NOT CHANGED BY THE FACT OF CERTIFICATION. 
CERTIFICATION, IT IS TRUE, MAKES CLEAR THAT THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION
ARE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LAW, BUT THAT IS NOT DISPUTED.  SO FAR AS THE
RELATIONSHIP OF STATE AND NATIONAL POWER IS CONCERNED, CERTIFICATION
AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN AN ASSERTION THAT AS TO THIS EMPLOYER THE STATE
SHALL NOT IMPOSE A POLICY INCONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY, HILL V.
FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538, OR THE NATIONAL BOARD'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT
POLICY, BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK S.L.R.B., 330 U.S. 767; LA
CROSSE TELEPHONE CORP. V. WISCONSIN E.R.B., 336 U.S. 18.  INDEED, THE
EXPRESS DISCLAIMER IN SEC. 8(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF
INTENTION TO INTERFERE WITH STATE LAW AND THE PERMISSION GRANTED THE
STATES BY SEC. 14(B) OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT TO CARRY OUT POLICIES
INCONSISTENT WITH THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT ITSELF, WOULD BE PRACTICALLY
MEANINGLESS IF SO EASILY AVOIDED.  FOR THESE PROVISIONS CAN HAVE
APPLICATION, OBVIOUSLY, ONLY WHERE STATE AND FEDERAL POWER ARE
CONCURRENT; IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE TO DISCLAIM THE ASSERTION OF
FEDERAL POLICY OVER AREAS WHICH THE COMMERCE POWER DOES NOT REACH. 

SINCE, THEREFORE, THE EFFECT GIVEN THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT
BY THE JUDGMENT BELOW DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE ENACTED POLICIES OF
CONGRESS, THAT JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  10.  (A)  THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED, AS HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED, TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE (LISTED IN SECTION 8) AFFECTING COMMERCE.  THIS POWER SHALL BE
EXCLUSIVE, AND SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT
OR PREVENTION THAT HAS BEEN OR MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT, CODE,
LAW, OR OTHERWISE." 

FN2  ALTHOUGH SOME LANGUAGE IN THE GREENEBAUM OPINION SEEMS TO POINT
TO AN INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 8(3) INCONSISTENT WITH ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, SEE 10 WAR LAB.  REP.  AT 542-43, THE BOARD ADOPTED AS ITS OWN
THE CONCLUSION OF ITS GENERAL COUNSEL, MR. LLOYD K. GARRISON, REACHED
IN A FULL-DRESS OPINION WHICH REVIEWED THAT HISTORY.  10 WAR LAB. 
REP.  AT 541.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL HAD SAID:  "THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY FROM ORDERING
MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP IN SUITABLE CASES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING
DISPUTES AND STABILIZING INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN TIME OF WAR."  12 WAR
LAB.  REP.  IX, XXII.  THE NEXT TWO CASES ORDERING A MAINTENANCE-OF
MEMBERSHIP CONTRACT WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED BY STATE LAW
DID NOT MENTION THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  FAIRBANKS, MORSE &
CO., 11 WAR LAB.  REP.  217; VILTER MFG. CO., 11 WAR LAB.  REP.  332.
IN LATER CASES, THE BOARD ADHERED TO ITS RELIANCE UPON THE WAR POWER. 
U.S. VANADIUM CORP., 13 WAR LAB.  REP.  527; INGALLS IRON WORKS CO., 17
WAR LAB.  REP.  190; CUDAHY BROS. CO., 19 WAR LAB.  REP.  124. 

FN3  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WAR LABOR BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF THE
IMPACT OF FEDERAL POWER ON STATE LAW MUST BE VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FACT THAT IT WAS AN AGENCY OF THE WAR ADMINISTRATION ORGANIZED NOT TO
INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION BUT TO PREVENT INTERRUPTION OF PRODUCTION. 
SEE EXEC. ORDER NO. 9017, 7 FED. REG. 237.  THAT THE TWO ROLES ARE
QUITE DISTINCT IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE POLICY OF THE WAR LABOR BOARD OF
THE FIRST WORLD WAR WHICH OUTLAWED "YELLOWDOG" CONTRACTS FOR THE
DURATION OF THAT WAR, THEREBY IN EFFECT NULLIFYING THIS COURT'S THEN
RECENT DECISION IN HITCHMAN COAL & COKE CO. V. MITCHELL, 245 U.S. 229. 
SEE SMITH & WESSON CO., WAR LAB.  BD. DOCKET NO. 273; GREGG, THE
NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD, 33 HARV. L. REV. 39, 54.  THE DIFFERENCE IN
ROLES IS AGAIN EMPHASIZED BY THE RULING OF THE WAR LABOR POLICIES BOARD
OF 1918 THAT ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS SHOULD CONTAIN A CLAUSE
PROHIBITING THE USE OF CHILD LABOR, ALTHOUGH HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247
U.S. 251, INVALIDATING SUCH A CHILD-LABOR PROVISION, WAS DECIDED WITHIN
A FEW WEEKS AFTER THAT BOARD WAS ESTABLISHED.  SEE 6TH ANN. REP. OF THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR 114(1918); 7TH ANN. REP. OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
126(1919); REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL LABOR STANDARDS 43(PREPARED IN 1918
BY THE WAR LABOR POLICIES BOARD, UNDATED). 

FN4  "SEC.  10.  (A) THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED,
TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
(LISTED IN SECTION 8) AFFECTING COMMERCE.  THIS POWER SHALL NOT BE
AFFECTED BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT OR PREVENTION THAT HAS BEEN
OR MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT, LAW, OR OTHERWISE:  PROVIDED, THAT
THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED BY AGREEMENT WITH ANY AGENCY OF ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY TO CEDE TO SUCH AGENCY JURISDICTION OVER ANY CASES IN ANY
INDUSTRY (OTHER THAN MINING, MANUFACTURING, COMMUNICATIONS, AND
TRANSPORTATION EXCEPT WHERE PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL IN CHARACTER) EVEN
THOUGH SUCH CASES MAY INVOLVE LABOR DISPUTES AFFECTING COMMERCE, UNLESS
THE PROVISION OF THE STATE OR TERRITORIAL STATUTE APPLICABLE TO THE
DETERMINATION OF SUCH CASES BY SUCH AGENCY IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR HAS RECEIVED A CONSTRUCTION
INCONSISTENT THEREWITH." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE DECISION JUST RENDERED HOLDS THAT THE STATE OF WISCONSIN CAN
COMPEL THE PETITIONER TO PAY UNEARNED BACK WAGES TO AN EMPLOYEE FOUND
TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BY PETITIONER UNDER THE TERMS OF A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRED SUCH DISCHARGE.  THE PETITIONER HAD
ORIGINALLY ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT IN RESPONSE TO IRRESISTIBLE
PRESSURE BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  252 WIS. 549, 559, 32 N.W.2D
417.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE CONTRACT WAS MADE WERE THESE: 

FROM 1938 TO 1943 THE COMPANY AND THE UNION WERE IN AN ALMOST
CONSTANT WRANGLE.  THE CHIEF BONE OF CONTROVERSY THROUGHOUT THIS FIVE
YEAR PERIOD WAS THE UNION'S DEMAND FOR A "CLOSED SHOP."  PETITIONER
RESOLUTELY FOUGHT FOR AN "OPEN SHOP."  IN 1938 THE UNION TOOK ITS CAUSE
TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  AFTER A LONG HEARING OF WHICH
THE CLOSED SHOP ISSUE WAS A PROMINENT PHASE, THAT BOARD IN 1940 ORDERED
PETITIONER TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION ON THE PENDING ISSUES.  ALGOMA
PLYWOOD CO., 26 N.L.R.B. 975, 980, 1002(1940).  THE COURT OF APPEALS,
REFERRING TO THE CLOSED SHOP QUESTION AS THE "MAIN STUMBLING BLOCK"
BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE UNION, REFUSED TO ENFORCE THE ORDER ON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THE UNION REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES.  LABOR BOARD V. ALGOMA PLYWOOD CO., 121 F.2D
602, 606, 611.  THEREAFTER, EARLY IN 1942, PETITIONER APPEALED TO THE
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION.  THE UNION
WENT TO THE NATIONAL BOARD; PETITIONER WITHDREW ITS STATE BOARD
APPLICATION; THE NATIONAL BOARD CONDUCTED AN ELECTION; THE UNION WON,
AND THE OLD CLOSED SHOP CONTROVERSY WAS RENEWED WITH INCREASED
INTENSITY.    THE UNION APPEALED TO THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD TO
SETTLE THE CLOSED SHOP DISPUTE.  THAT BOARD, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PUT PRESSURE ON PETITIONER TO YIELD
TO THE UNION'S DEMANDS.  PETITIONER WAS INFORMED THAT UNLESS IT AGREED
TO A MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE, WHICH WAS AT THE TIME FORBIDDEN
BY WISCONSIN LAW, THE CLAUSE "WOULD BE PUT IN BY THE WAR LABOR BOARD
ANYHOW" SINCE INCLUSION OF SUCH PROVISIONS WAS A PART OF THAT BOARD'S
NATIONAL POLICY.  THUS FIRED AT FROM ONE SIDE BY THE STATE AND FROM THE
OTHER SIDE BY POWERFUL FEDERAL AGENCIES, PETITIONER HAD TO FLEE TO ONE
SIDE OR THE OTHER.  NEITHER SIDE OFFERED A SAFE SANCTUARY.  IN WEIGHING
THE CONFLICTING CONSIDERATIONS, PETITIONER NOT UNREASONABLY FOUND THE
SCALES TIPPED ON THE UNITED STATES' SIDE.  HAD PETITIONER REFUSED THE
DEMANDS OF THE FEDERAL AGENCY, THE GOVERNMENT COULD AND MIGHT HAVE
SEIZED AND OPERATED ITS PLANTS.  FN1  FURTHERMORE, PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES MIGHT HAVE STOPPED WORK.  IN RESPONSE TO ITS BEST JUDGMENT,
THOUGH CONTRARY TO ITS OWN STRONG DESIRES, PETITIONER FINALLY YIELDED
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DEMANDS AND AGREED TO THE UNION'S TERMS. 
JANUARY 23, 1943, A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED WHICH
CONTAINED THE CONTROVERSIAL MAINTENANCE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE AND
AN AUTOMATIC EXTENSION CLAUSE.  THIS CONTRACT WAS APPROVED BY THE WAR
LABOR BOARD.  THE CONTROVERSIAL CLAUSE WAS EXTENDED AUTOMATICALLY FROM
YEAR TO YEAR AND WAS IN EFFECT WHEN THE ALLEGED DISCHARGE TOOK PLACE. 
THE COURT APPARENTLY CONCEDES THAT THIS CLAUSE OF THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING CONTRACT WAS VALID WHEN PETITIONER ENTERED INTO IT UNDER
FEDERAL COMPULSION.  IN MY JUDGMENT IT WAS EQUALLY VALID WHEN THE
EMPLOYEE WAS DISCHARGED UNDER IT.  IT SEEMS AT LEAST A QUESTIONABLE
INTERPRETATION OF FEDERAL STATUTORY POLICY FOR THIS COURT - A FEDERAL
TRIBUNAL - TO HOLD THAT A STATE IS FREE TO IMPOSE A MONEY PENALTY ON
THIS COMPANY FOR ACTING IN OBEDIENCE TO A CONTRACT WHICH A FEDERAL
AGENCY VALIDLY COMPELLED IT TO MAKE.  FN2

 I. 

THE COURT'S CONCESSION THAT THE CONTRACT WAS VALID WHEN MADE RESTS ON
THE PREMISE THAT THE STATUTE CREATING THE WAR LABOR BOARD STEMMED FROM
THE WAR POWER OF CONGRESS AND THAT UNDER THIS POWER THE WAR LABOR BOARD
COULD, AS IT DID, FORCE PETITIONER TO MAKE THE CONTRACT.  GREENEBAUM
TANNING CO., 10 WAR LAB.  REP.  527.  BUT, SAYS THE COURT, WHEN
WISCONSIN ENTERED THE BACK-PAY ORDER, THE WAR LABOR BOARD HAD CEASED TO
EXIST AND ON ITS DISSOLUTION ON JANUARY 4, 1946, WISCONSIN BECAME
POSSESSED OF THE POWER TO ORDER PETITIONER TO BREAK HIS CONTRACT.  IN
OTHER WORDS, THE HOLDING SEEMS TO BE THAT THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE WAR
LABOR BOARD AUTOMATICALLY AND INSTANTLY EMPOWERED THE STATES TO IMPAIR
AND NULLIFY ALL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO UNDER
AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME FEDERAL POLICY EMBODIED IN THE NATIONAL WAR
LABOR BOARD ACT.  FOR SEVERAL REASONS, I CANNOT AGREE. 

1.  THE TERMINATION OF THE WAR LABOR BOARD WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, NO. 9672.  11 FED. REG. 221.  BUT
THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT INDICATES A PURPOSE TO
AUTHORIZE INVALIDATION OF CONTRACTS MADE UNDER THE BOARD'S DIRECTIONS. 
A CONTRARY PURPOSE IS INDICATED.  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHED THE
NATIONAL WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD.  AS THE NAME OF THAT BOARD
INDICATES, IT WAS ESTABLISHED TO EXERCISE FUNCTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH
WAGE DISPUTES WHICH MIGHT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NATIONAL ECONOMY.  FOR
THE LIMITED PURPOSES ENUMERATED IN THE ORDER THE NEW BOARD WAS VESTED
WITH ALL THE "POWERS, FUNCTIONS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE NATIONAL
WAR LABOR BOARD.  ...  "  WHILE SCOPE FOR OPERATION OF THESE POWERS WAS
WITHIN MORE NARROW LIMITS THAN HAD BEEN THE SCOPE OF THE WAR LABOR
BOARD'S POWERS, THE CREATION OF THIS NEW BOARD NEGATIVES ANY POSSIBLE
CONTENTION THAT DISSOLUTION OF THE WAR LABOR BOARD SHOWED AN INTENTION
TO PERMIT STATES TO INVALIDATE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED LEGAL CONTRACTS
APPROVED BY THE WAR LABOR BOARD IN THE INTERESTS OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE. 
AND FAR FROM INDICATING A PRESIDENTIAL BELIEF THAT WAGE STABILIZATION
AND INDUSTRIAL PEACE WERE NO LONGER ESSENTIAL IN THE WAR EMERGENCY
PERIOD, THE NEW EXECUTIVE ORDER, AS HAD THE OLD, RESTED ON THE WAR
POWER AND THE STATUTES THAT HAD STEMMED FROM IT.  THE WAR LABOR BOARD
WAS CREATED TO IMPLEMENT A CONGRESSIONAL WAR POLICY EXPRESSED IN PART
IN THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT.  57 STAT. 163.  THE BOARD'S DISSOLUTION
COULD NOT DETRACT FROM THE FORCE OF THE STATUTE OR FROM THE
CONGRESSIONAL WAR POWER.  SEE KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 14. 
THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER RECOGNIZED THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS
THAT CALLED FOR THE FURTHER EXERCISE OF WAR POWERS.  IT WAS PROMULGATED
JANUARY 4, 1946.  THE LAST AUTOMATIC EXTENSION OF THE COMPELLED
CONTRACT WAS APRIL 4, 1946.  THIS AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED CONTRACT WAS
THE BASIS FOR THE DISCHARGE.  UNDER THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES I
CANNOT AGREE THAT DISSOLUTION OF THE WAR LABOR BOARD AUTHORIZED
WISCONSIN TO PUNISH PETITIONER FOR ITS CONTINUED OBSERVANCE OF THE
CONTRACT. 

2.  THAT THE PRESIDENT CORRECTLY ASSUMED THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF
WAR POWERS AFTER THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES SEEMS BEYOND QUESTION IN
THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160,
166-170.  THE HOLDING IN THE LUDECKE CASE WAS THAT THE WAR HAD NOT AT
THAT TIME OFFICIALLY ENDED AND THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL WAR POWER STILL
EXISTED IN MAY, 1947.  THIS WAS LONG AFTER THE DISSOLUTION OF THE WAR
LABOR BOARD AND THE EMPLOYEE'S DISCHARGE.  IN LIGHT OF THE 1947 LUDECKE
HOLDING IT SEEMS ODD THAT DISSOLUTION OF THE WAR LABOR BOARD SHOULD NOW
BE HELD AN ADEQUATE REASON FOR PERMITTING A STATE IN 1947 TO INVALIDATE
CONTRACTS PREVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO IN OBEDIENCE TO FEDERAL COMMANDS MADE
UNDER A VALID FEDERAL LAW ROOTED IN THE WAR POWER.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
THE COURT'S HOLDING TODAY CAN BE JUSTIFIED IF AT ALL ONLY BY ADOPTING
THE HOLDING OF THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE.  THAT COURT
SUPPORTED THE STATE PENALTY IMPOSED ON PETITIONER BY CONCLUDING THAT
THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD'S ACTION WAS ULTRA VIRES.  ITS REASONING
WAS THAT NATIONAL WAR POWERS HAD "ENDED" IN 1946.  252 WIS. AT 560, 32
N.W.2D 522.  BUT IN THE LUDECKE CASE THIS COURT HELD THOSE POWERS STILL
EXISTED IN 1947.  THE RESULT HERE IS ALL THE MORE INEXPLICABLE WHEN IT
IS CONSIDERED THAT WHOLESALE INVALIDATION OF THOSE FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED
CONTRACTS COULD RESULT IN SERIOUS INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS AT A TIME WHEN
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIPS WERE EXTREMELY STRAINED DUE TO THE TRANSITION
FROM A WAR TO A PEACE ECONOMY.  WOODS V. MILLER CO., 333 U.S. 138,
144. 

3.  I SUPPOSE IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO
FORCE CONTRACTS UNDER THE WAR POWER CARRIES WITH IT AUTHORITY TO
PROVIDE THAT (AT LEAST DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE WAR POWER) THE
OBLIGATIONS ASSUMED UNDER THOSE CONTRACTS SHOULD BE FAITHFULLY OBSERVED
AND THAT THE CONTRACTS SHOULD BE INVULNERABLE TO STATE ATTACK.  IN THIS
VIEW AFTER THE WAR LABOR BOARD CEASED TO EXIST AND BEFORE PEACE HAD
BEEN OFFICIALLY DECLARED, CONGRESS UNDER THE WAR POWER DOUBTLESS COULD
HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE UNDER ENUMERATED CONTINGENCIES FOR STATES TO
INVALIDATE CONTRACTS SUCH AS THIS ONE.  BUT NO SUGGESTION HAS BEEN MADE
THAT ANY STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF CONGRESS CAN BE STRETCHED FAR ENOUGH TO
FIND SUCH CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  SINCE NO SUCH INTENT HAS BEEN
MANIFESTED, IT SEEMS FAIR TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT SUCH
CONTRACTS SHOULD REMAIN IMMUNE FROM STATE ATTACK AND CONTINUE IN FORCE
UNLESS TERMINATED UNDER THEIR VALID PROVISIONS.  I WOULD THEREFORE HOLD
THAT PETITIONER WAS OBLIGATED TO CONTINUE TO OBSERVE THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT UNTIL TERMINATED ACCORDING TO ITS PROVISIONS. 

THE CONTRACT HAD NOT TERMINATED WHEN THE WAR LABOR BOARD CEASED TO
EXIST.  IT HAD BEEN GIVEN CONTINUED VITALITY UNDER ITS OWN ORIGINAL
TERMS, TERMS WHICH MUST BE INTERPRETED UNDER CONTROLLING FEDERAL LAW
AUTHORIZING THE CONTRACT'S CREATION.  I MAY ASSUME AT THIS POINT THAT
THE CONTRACT WAS INVULNERABLE TO STATE IMPAIRMENT OR NULLIFICATION ONLY
BECAUSE OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY STEMMING FROM THE WAR POWER.  EVEN
SO AND DESPITE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE WAR LABOR BOARD, I THINK THE
STATE WAS WITHOUT POWER TO PENALIZE PETITIONER FOR OBSERVANCE OF THE
CONTRACT, AT LEAST DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE WAR HAD NOT
OFFICIALLY ENDED. 

                                 II. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE WISCONSIN STATUTE AS HERE APPLIED DEPRIVES
PETITIONER AND HIS EMPLOYEES OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL RIGHT IF SEC.
8(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT  FN3 AUTHORIZED UNION
MEMBERSHIP MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS WITHOUT REGARD TO CONTRARY STATE
POLICIES.  FOR GIVEN THAT INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 8(3), THE WISCONSIN
ACT WOULD NOT ONLY IMPAIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS PROTECTED BY
SEC. 8(3); FN4  IT WOULD ALSO STAND "AS AN OBSTACLE TO THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT AND EXECUTION OF THE FULL PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF
CONGRESS."  HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538, 542; BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V.
NEW YORK LABOR BD., 330 U.S. 767, 775-776. 

THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD BEGAN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER ELEVEN YEARS AFTER PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  DURING THAT ENTIRE ELEVEN-YEAR PERIOD IT SEEMS TO HAVE
BEEN GENERALLY ASSUMED THAT SEC. 8(3) WAS AN UNEQUIVOCAL FEDERAL
AUTHORIZATION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROVISIONS OF THE TYPE HERE
MADE.  THIS COURT HAD NOTICED THAT SUCH PROVISIONS WERE "FREQUENT
SUBJECTS OF NEGOTIATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES," AND HAD
STRONGLY INDICATED THAT IT WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER
TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THEM.  NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 360.  BOTH THE COURTS AND THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD HAVE HELD THAT EFFORTS OF EMPLOYERS TO FRUSTRATE THE
RIGHT OF UNIONS TO BARGAIN FOR EXCLUSIVE UNION EMPLOYMENT CONSTITUTED A
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT FOR WHICH EMPLOYERS COULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE.  FN5 

THE ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THE NATIONAL
WAR LABOR BOARD IN FORCING THIS PETITIONER TO ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE OF
MEMBERSHIP PROVISION IN ITS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT THE
RESULT OF AN ISOLATED OR HAPHAZARD INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE ACTION FORCED UPON PETITIONER WAS
PURSUANT TO A THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED AND WELL-ESTABLISHED POLICY OF THE
NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD.  FN6  BOTH THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD AND
THE CONCILIATION DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WERE
CHARGED WITH SPECIAL DUTIES IN REGARD TO LABOR DISPUTES BY THE WAR
LABOR DISPUTES ACT OF JUNE 25, 1943, 57 STAT. 163, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS.
1501-1511.  AND THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT REQUIRED BOTH THESE FEDERAL
AGENCIES TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  IN ORDER THAT THESE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES MIGHT BE BETTER ABLE TO
CARRY OUT THEIR STATUTORY DUTY OF CONFORMING TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED.  IT
CONSISTED OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD.  THIS COMMITTEE
WAS VESTED WITH POWER TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POLICY QUESTIONS AND
OTHER PROBLEMS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE DUTIES OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD.  THIS POWER WAS
EXERCISED.  REP. N.L.R.B. 74(1943). 

AS EARLY AS APRIL, 1942, THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD IN THE LITTLE
STEEL COMPANIES' CONTROVERSY, 1 WAR LAB.  REP.  325, ASSERTED ITS POWER
TO REQUIRE THAT CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP BE
INSERTED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  IT REACHED THE
CONCLUSION, SEE PP. 354-356, THAT SUCH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROVISIONS
WERE VALID BECAUSE THEY FELL WITHIN THE PROVISO OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  FROM THEN ON UNTIL 1945, WHEN ITS LAST
DECISIONS WERE MADE, THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD CONTINUED TO REQUIRE
MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP CONTRACTS.  FN7 

THE MOST EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN
THIS CASE OCCURRED IN THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD'S OPINION IN
GREENEBAUM TANNING CO., 10 WAR LAB.  REP.  527.  GREENEBAUM TANNING
CO., A WISCONSIN BUSINESS, WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THEREFORE WAS COVERED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IN THE
GREENEBAUM CASE, THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD HAD TO DECIDE WHETHER IT
COULD ENFORCE A MAINTENANCE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP CONTRACT IN WISCONSIN
CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE VERY WISCONSIN STATUTE RELIED ON BY
THE WISCONSIN BOARD IN THIS CASE.  IT WAS DECIDED OVER THE STRENUOUS
OBJECTION OF THE COMPANY THAT THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD HAD POWER TO
ENFORCE CONTRACTS SUCH AS PETITIONER MADE HERE, DESPITE THE CONFLICTING
WISCONSIN STATUTE N8.  THE BOARD FOUND ITS POWER TO OVERRIDE THE STATE
LAW IN THE WAR POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT, THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, AND
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD POINTED
OUT IN THE GREENEBAUM DECISION THAT, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, IT HAD FIRST CONSIDERED WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD THE QUESTIONS OF THE POWER OF THESE BOARDS IN CASES
SUCH AS THE GREENEBAUM CASE.  IN HOLDING THAT SEC. 8(3) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT GRANTED THE EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO
MAKE MAINTENANCE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENTS, THE BOARD AT P. 543
STATED:  "THE BOARD IS SATISFIED THAT, WERE IT NOT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF
THE WAR EMERGENCY, THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE HAD
THE RIGHT TO DEMAND MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP IN FAVOR OF THE
DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF A MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES.  THIS RIGHT IS
GRANTED TO THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND IS
A RIGHT WHICH COULD BE ENFORCED IN PEACE-TIME BY THE STRIKE.  IF THE
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT REQUIRES MORE THAN A MAJORITY OF
EMPLOYEES TO VOTE FOR MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP UNDER THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MUST BE SUBORDINATED TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT."    THE FOREGOING IS EVIDENCE THAT UP TO
THE TIME THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1947, SEC. 8(3)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES AS AN UNEQUIVOCAL AUTHORIZATION FOR MAINTENANCE OF UNION
MEMBERSHIP CONTRACTS.  THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT EXPRESSLY GRANTED THE
STATES MORE LEEWAY IN REGARD TO ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR OWN POLICIES AS TO
CONTRACTS OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED.  61 STAT. 136, 151, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
164.  AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS NOW CONSTRUED THE NEW
FEDERAL ACT AS PRECLUDING SUCH CONTRACTS TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT THEY
ARE PRECLUDED BY STATE LAW.  FN9 BUT IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS
INTERPRETATION RESTED ENTIRELY ON THE LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT.  THE BOARD DID NOT INDICATE ANY BELIEF THAT
THIS PHASE OF THE NEW TAFT-HARTLEY ACT WAS A MERE CLARIFICATION OF THE
OLD ACT. 

THUS, UP TO 1943, WHEN PETITIONER ORIGINALLY MADE THIS CONTRACT, AND
UP TO 1946 WHEN IT WAS AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED, ALL INDICATIONS WERE THAT
SEC. 8(3) AUTHORIZED THE TYPE OF CONTRACT WHICH FEDERAL AUTHORITIES
PRACTICALLY COMMANDED PETITIONER TO ACCEPT.  THERE SEEMED TO BE NO
REASON THEN WHY PETITIONER OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYER SHOULD ANTICIPATE THAT
SEC. 8(3) WOULD BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT STATES TO NULLIFY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING RIGHTS WHICH THAT SECTION WAS GENERALLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE
RECOGNIZED.  IT IS APPARENT FROM THIS RECORD THAT PETITIONER ENTERED
INTO THE CONTRACT AND PERMITTED ITS AUTOMATIC RENEWAL IN THE BELIEF
THAT SEC. 8(3) DEPRIVED THE STATE OF POWER TO ENFORCE ITS POLICY AND
THAT PETITIONER'S RELUCTANT ACTION WAS DUE TO PRESSURE INCIDENT TO THE
THEN ACCEPTED INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 8(3). 

NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT NOW, AFTER SEC. 8(3) IS NO LONGER THE LAW,
GIVES IT AN ENTIRELY NEW AND APPARENTLY WHOLLY UNANTICIPATED
INTERPRETATION.  WHETHER SUCH NEW INTERPRETATION WILL AFFECT THE PAST
CONDUCT OF ANY PERSONS OTHER THAN THE PARTIES TO THIS ACTION WE DO NOT
KNOW.  WE DO KNOW THAT A NEW INTERPRETATION WILL IMPOSE PENALTIES ON
THIS EMPLOYER FOR CONDUCT PRESSED UPON IT BY FEDERAL LABOR AUTHORITIES
UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL ACT. 

THE NEW INTERPRETATION GIVEN SEC. 8(3) BY THE COURT RESTS ON THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO LEAVE STATES FREE TO BAR THE TYPE OF CONTRACT HERE
INVOLVED.  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND LEGISLATIVE COMMENTS ON THE
NATIONAL ACT SET OUT IN THE COURT'S OPINION DO LEND STRONG SUPPORT TO
THIS CONTENTION.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, I WOULD
JOIN IN THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 8(3) IF WE WERE INTERPRETING
THAT SECTION ON A CLEAN SLATE.  BUT WE ARE NOT.  THE SECTION HAS A
HISTORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION COUNTER TO THE ONE THAT THE
COURT GIVES IT TODAY.  THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 8(3)  FN10 IS REASONABLY
SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE INTERPRETATION THE SECTION WAS GIVEN BY THE
CONCILIATION DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND BY
THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD, AN INTERPRETATION TO WHICH THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPEARS TO HAVE ASSENTED.  AND, AS PREVIOUSLY
POINTED OUT, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HELD THIS VERY
PETITIONER GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR ITS REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN WITH ITS WISCONSIN EMPLOYEES ON THEIR DEMAND FOR A CLOSED
SHOP.  ALGOMA PLYWOOD CO., SUPRA AT 994, 998.  THIS N.L.R.B. FINDING
WAS IN 1940, A YEAR AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE WISCONSIN ACT HERE HELD
CONTROLLING.  I THINK A CHANGE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 8(3)
SHOULD NOT BE MADE AT THIS LATE DATE, WHEN THE SECTION IS NO LONGER THE
LAW, MERELY TO INVALIDATE A CONTRACT MADE UNDER FEDERAL COMPULSION AND
FOUNDED ON A JUSTIFIABLE BELIEF THAT SEC. 8(3) AUTHORIZED THE
CONTRACT.  I WOULD NOT MAKE A TRAP OF THIS SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION BY SUBJECTING THIS EMPLOYER TO PENAL DAMAGES FOR HIS
GOOD FAITH RELIANCE ON IT. SEE LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322
U.S. 111, 123. 

I WOULD REVERSE THIS JUDGMENT. 

FN1  THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF A VIOLATION OF A BOARD ORDER IS
ILLUSTRATED BY UNITED STATES V. MONTGOMERY WARD, 150 F.2D 369.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI AND ORDERED THE JUDGMENT VACATED ON THE GROUND
THAT THE CAUSE HAD BECOME MOOT.  326 U.S. 690.  IN THIS CASE MONTGOMERY
WARD REFUSED TO CARRY OUT AN ORDER OF THE WAR LABOR BOARD.  ONE OF THE
SUBJECTS OF THE ORDER WAS A MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE SIMILAR TO
THE ONE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  THE ACTION IN THIS MONTGOMERY WARD CASE
WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF AN ORDER OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIRECTING SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTIES
OF MONTGOMERY WARD BECAUSE OF THE REFUSAL OF THAT COMPANY TO OBEY THE
BOARD'S ORDER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE
ORDER.  SEE ALSO NATIONAL WAR LABOR BD. V. MONTGOMERY WARD, 79 U.S.
APP. D.C. 200, 144 F.2D 528; AND UNITED STATES V. MONTGOMERY WARD, 58
F.SUPP.  408. 

FN2  THE WISCONSIN TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO IMPOSE THIS "PENALTY" ON
PETITIONER.  IT FOUND THE "EQUITIES" ON PETITIONER'S SIDE.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE COMPULSION UNDER WHICH PETITIONER HAD ACTED
COULD NOT RELIEVE HIM FROM THE STATE PENALTY WHICH WAS IMPOSED TO
"RETARD THE EMPLOYER'S INCLINATION TO YIELD TO THIS COMPULSION IN THE
FUTURE."  252 WIS. 549, 561, 32 N.W.2D 417, 423.  IN OTHER WORDS THE
PENALTY WAS IMPOSED AS A WARNING TO PETITIONER AND OTHERS THAT
CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL POLICY WOULD SUBJECT THEM TO
PENALTIES IN WISCONSIN. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 10, P. 326. 

FN4  SEE ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT BOARD, 315 U.S.
740, 751. 

FN5  LABOR BOARD V. REED & PRINCE MFG. CO., 118 F.2D 874, 883;
PENINSULAR & OCCIDENTAL S.S. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 98 F.2D 411, 414.  IN
1944 THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HELD THAT AN EMPLOYER WAS
GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WHERE IT REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE WITH
THE UNION'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE ON THE SUBJECT OF A
CONTRACT PROVIDING THAT NONE BUT UNION MEMBERS SHOULD BE EMPLOYED.  THE
BOARD HELD THAT SUCH A REFUSAL WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  IN THE
MATTER OF TAMPA ELECTRIC CO., 56 N.L.R.B. 1270, 1273.  AND SEE ALGOMA
PLYWOOD CO., 26 N.L.R.B. 975, 994. 

FN6  SEE FOR EXAMPLE, LITTLE STEEL COMPANIES, 1 WAR LAB.  REP.  325;
AND INDUSTRIAL COTTON MILLS CO., 25 WAR LAB.  REP.  136. 

FN7  DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., 28 WAR LAB.  REP.  51(1945). 

FN8  IN ALL OF THE CASES BELOW, THE WAR LABOR BOARD REQUIRED
INSERTION OF THE MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE DESPITE LOCAL STATE
STATUTES WHICH PROHIBITED SUCH AGREEMENTS.  VILTER MFG. CO., 11 WAR
LAB.  REP.  332; U.S. VANADIUM CORP., 13 WAR LAB.  REP.  527; INGALLS
IRON WORKS CO., 21 WAR LAB.  REP.  27; ST. JOE PAPER CO., 25 WAR LAB. 
REP.  421. 

FN9  GIANT FOOD SHOPPING CENTER (1948), 77 N.L.R.B. (NO. 153).  THE
TAFT-HARTLEY ACT CANNOT JUSTIFY THIS ORDER OF THE WISCONSIN BOARD
BECAUSE THE ACT WAS PASSED AFTER THE ORDER WAS ISSUED. 

FN10  "SEC.  8.  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER
- 

     .         .      .         .         . 

"(3)  BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR
ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN THIS
ACT,  ...  OR IN ANY CODE OR AGREEMENT APPROVED OR PRESCRIBED
THEREUNDER, OR IN ANY OTHER STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL
PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER FROM MAKING AN AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION
...  TO REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP THEREIN, IF
SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 9(A), IN THE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT
COVERED BY SUCH AGREEMENT WHEN MADE."  49 STAT. 449, 452, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 158(3). 
..END :


















NEW YORK V. SAPER, 336 U.S. 328 


ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1949.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1949.  - 168 F.2D 268, 272,
AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF 1926 AND
THE CHANDLER ACT OF 1938, TAX CLAIMS AGAINST A BANKRUPT BEAR INTEREST
ONLY UNTIL THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY, NOT UNTIL PAYMENT.  PP. 329-341. 

CITY OF NEW YORK V. SAPER, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY. 

NO. 168.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 260, STATE OF NEW YORK V. CARTER, TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY, AND NO. 201, UNITED STATES V. CARTER, TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN NO. 168, THE DISTRICT COURT IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING ALLOWED
INTEREST ON A TAX CLAIM OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO THE DATE OF
PAYMENT.  75 F.SUPP.  458.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  168 F.2D
268.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 811.  AFFIRMED, P. 341. 

IN NOS. 200 AND 201, THE DISTRICT COURT IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING
ALLOWED INTEREST ON TAX CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF
NEW YORK ONLY TO THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY.  73 F.SUPP.  685.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  168 F.2D 272.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
335 U.S. 812.  AFFIRMED, P. 341. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ULTIMATE ISSUE IN THESE THREE CASES IS WHETHER TAX CLAIMS AGAINST
A BANKRUPT BEAR INTEREST UNTIL THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY,  FN1  AS HELD BY
THE COURT BELOW,  FN2  OR UNTIL PAYMENT, AS PREVIOUSLY HELD BY ANOTHER
COURT OF APPEALS.  FN3  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI  FN4  TO RESOLVE THE
CONFLICT, THE MATTER BEING OF CONSIDERABLE PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE  FN5
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN6 

IF THE QUESTION WERE ONE OF FIRST IMPRESSION TO BE DECIDED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE PRESENT STATUTE ALONE, WE SHOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN
AFFIRMING THE COURT BELOW.  MORE THAN FORTY YEARS AGO MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES WROTE FOR THIS COURT THAT THE RULE STOPPING INTEREST AT
BANKRUPTCY HAD THEN BEEN FOLLOWED FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY AND A HALF. 
HE SAID THE RULE WAS NOT A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE COMMAND OR STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION BUT, RATHER, A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE ENGLISH
BANKRUPTCY  FN7  SYSTEM WHICH WE COPIED.  SEXTON V. DREYFUS, 219 U.S.
339, 344.  OUR PRESENT STATUTE CONTAINS NO PROVISION EXPRESSLY
REPUDIATING THAT PRINCIPLE OR ALLOWING AN EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF TAX
CLAIMS.  EVERY LOGICAL IMPLICATION FROM RELEVANT PROVISIONS IS TO THE
CONTRARY.  SECTION 63(A)(1), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 103(A)(1) ALLOWS INTEREST
ON JUDGMENTS AND WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS FN8  ONLY TO DATE OF BANKRUPTCY. 
DATE ON DEBTS REDUCED TO JUDGMENT  FN9  AFTER BANKRUPTCY.  FN10  NO
PROVISION PERMITS POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST ON OTHER CLAIMS IN GENERAL
OR TAX CLAIMS IN PARTICULAR.  SECTION 57(J), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 93(J),
FORBIDDING ALLOWANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL PENALTIES OR FORFEITURES, PERMITS
FN11 ALLOWANCE OF LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THE ACTS PENALIZED, WITH ACTUAL
COSTS AND "SUCH INTEREST AS MAY HAVE ACCRUED THEREON ACCORDING TO
LAW."  HOWEVER, ON ITS FACE THIS APPEARS TO DELIMIT EVEN SUCH ALLOWABLE
DEBTS AS OF THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY AND TO ALLOW NO MORE INTEREST THAN
DOES SEC. 63 WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIMS THERE SPECIFIED.  MOREOVER,
THERE IS NO INTEREST EXCEPT THAT WHICH ACCRUES ACCORDING TO LAW - IT IS
EXACTLY SUCH INTEREST THAT THE "FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE" CUTS OFF AS OF
BANKRUPTCY.  SECTION 57(N), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 93(N) REQUIRES GOVERNMENTAL
CLAIMS TO BE PROVED IN THE SAME MANNER AND WITHIN THE SAME TIME AS
OTHER DEBTS AND ONLY FOR CAUSE SHOWN MAY A REASONABLE EXTENSION BE
GRANTED.  TAX CLAIMS ARE TREATED THE SAME AS OTHER DEBTS EXCEPT FOR THE
FOURTH PRIORITY OF PAYMENT, SEC. 64(A), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 104(A), AND THE
PROVISION MAKING TAXES NONDISCHARGEABLE, SEC. 17, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 35. 
BUT EACH OF THESE SECTIONS IS SILENT AS TO INTEREST. 

THE LONG-STANDING RULE AGAINST POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST THUS APPEARS
IMPLICIT IN OUR CURRENT BANKRUPTCY ACT.  TO READ INTO SUCH A STATUTE AN
EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE WOULD BE UNWARRANTED AND, AS AN ORIGINAL
PROPOSITION, WE SHOULD DECLINE TO DO SO.  HOWEVER, THE ISSUE COMES HERE
AFTER FORTY YEARS OF BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE ACT OF 1898
FOLLOWED BY TEN YEARS UNDER THE 1938 CHANDLER AMENDMENTS.  PETITIONERS
CONTEND THAT JUDICIAL DECISIONS DURING THOSE PERIODS HAVE NOW BEEN
INCORPORATED INTO A LEGISLATIVE POLICY ALLOWING INTEREST ON TAX CLAIMS
TO PAYMENT, THEREBY PRODUCING A RULE OF LAW BEYOND FURTHER JUDICIAL
SCRUTINY. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT DECISIONS UNDER THE ACT OF 1898 DEFINITELY
ESTABLISHED SUCH A RULE.  AND PETITIONERS CHALLENGE THE LOWER COURT'S
HOLDING, DESPITE THOSE DECISIONS, THAT THE CONGRESS THROUGH THE
CHANDLER ACT COMPLETED THE ASSIMILATION OF TAXES TO DEBTS AND
MANIFESTED AN INTENTION THAT SUCH CLAIMS BE TREATED, INTEREST-WISE, THE
SAME AS OTHER DEBTS.  THEY ASSERT THAT THE PRE-CHANDLER ACT ALLOWANCE
OF INTEREST TO DATE OF PAYMENT WAS GROUNDED IN JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF
SEC. 57(J), APPROVED AT LEAST SUB SILENTIO BY THIS COURT IN UNITED
STATES V. CHILDS, 266 U.S. 304, AND ADOPTED BY CONGRESSIONAL
REENACTMENT OF THAT SECTION IN THE CHANDLER ACT.  THEY ALSO CONTEND
THAT EVEN AFTER THE CHANDLER ACT THE LOWER COURTS, AND THIS COURT IN
MEILINK V. UNEMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, 314 U.S. 564, AFFIRMED THE ALLEGED
PRIOR INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 57(J).  IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT IS SAID,
THE COURTS CANNOT MODIFY WHAT HAS NOW BECOME LEGISLATIVE POLICY EVEN
THOUGH ORIGINALLY IT MAY HAVE BEEN A JUDICIALLY DEVELOPED RULE AND ONE
WHICH NOW, AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, WE SHOULD REJECT. 

AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE ADMITTED THAT IN PRACTICE UNDER THE ACT OF
1898 THE LOWER COURTS GENERALLY DID ALLOW INTEREST ON TAX CLAIMS UNTIL
PAID.  THE PARTIES AND THE LOWER COURTS TRACE THAT PRACTICE TO IN RE
KALLAK, 147 F. 276, AND CASES FOLLOWING THAT DECISION.  BUT WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THOSE CASES SUPPORT PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THE PRE
CHANDLER ALLOWANCE OF POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST REFLECTS A CONSTRUCTION
OF SEC. 57(J).  THE KALLAK OPINION ITSELF REFUTES THAT CONTENTION
INSOFAR AS IT MAY BE BASED ON THAT LINE OF CASES.  THE COURT THERE
FIRST DECIDED THAT SINCE SEC. 64(A) OF THE ACT OF 1898  FN12  GAVE
TAXES ABSOLUTE PRIORITY OVER CLAIMS OF EVERY KIND, "PUBLIC TAXES DO NOT
CONSTITUTE A 'CLAIM' IN BANKRUPTCY."  147 F. 276, 277.  THE STATUTE DID
NOT REQUIRE THAT TAXES BE PROVED BUT THAT THE TRUSTEE SHOULD SEEK THEM
OUT AND PAY THEM IN FULL.  IN VIEW OF THAT REQUIREMENT AND SINCE TAXES
WERE NOT CLAIMS, THE COURT SAW NO REASON WHY THE RULE STOPPING INTEREST
ON ORDINARY CLAIMS SHOULD APPLY.  THE COURT FOUND THAT RULE WAS BASED
ON CONSIDERATIONS OF EXPEDIENCY AND PRACTICAL CONVENIENCE NOT PRESENT
IN THE CASE OF TAXES.  FIRST, IT SAID THAT ALLOWANCE OF SUCH INTEREST
AT THE VARYING RATES APPLICABLE TO THE DIFFERENT CLAIMS SHARING THE
ESTATE WOULD PREVENT DEFINITE DETERMINATION OF EACH CLAIMANT'S
PROPORTIONATE SHARE.  SECONDLY, SUCH RECURRING READJUSTMENTS WOULD
COMPLICATE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE.  SINCE NEITHER DIFFICULTY
WOULD RESULT FROM ALLOWING POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST ON TAXES NOT
SHARING THE FUND WITH OTHER OBLIGATIONS, THE RULE AGAINST SUCH INTEREST
WAS HELD TO BE INAPPLICABLE.  THIS CONCLUSION WAS GROUNDED ENTIRELY IN
REASONS OF PRACTICAL CONVENIENCE.  IF THE CASE INVOLVED CONSTRUCTION OF
ANY PART OF THE ACT OF 1898, IT CLEARLY WAS SEC. 64(A) WITH ITS
REQUIREMENTS OF ABSOLUTE PRIORITY IN PAYMENT OF "ALL TAXES LEGALLY DUE
AND OWING," WHICH, TOGETHER WITH THE DISPENSATION FROM PROOF, THE COURT
CONSIDERED AS INDICATING THAT TAXES ENJOYED A STATUS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
FROM THAT ACCORDED ORDINARY CLAIMS.  THOSE PROVISIONS WERE CONSIDERED
CONTROLLING, WHILE SEC. 57(J) WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE OPINION. 
CONSEQUENTLY THE LATTER SECTION'S REENACTMENT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A
LEGISLATIVE ADOPTION OF ANY "JUDICIAL GLOSS" ON THAT SECTION RESULTING
FROM THE KALLAK LINE OF CASES.  THE ONLY SECTION RELIED UPON IN KALLAK,
SEC. 64(A), HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY AMENDED TO DEPRIVE TAXES OF THEIR
PREFERRED STATUS, FIRST BY THE AMENDMENT OF 1926, AND LATER BY THE
CHANDLER ACT.  THE FORMER FN13  EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT TAXES YIELD
PRIORITY TO ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES AND CERTAIN WAGES, NEITHER OF WHICH
BEAR INTEREST.  THE LATTER AMENDMENTS FINALIZED THE SUBORDINATION OF
TAXES TO OTHER PRIORITY ITEMS.  THEY ALSO WROTE INTO SEC. 57(N) THE
REQUIREMENT OF PROOF, FORMERLY DISPENSED WITH UNDER SEC. 64(A). 
CONSEQUENTLY THE ARGUMENT BASED ON ALLEGED CHANDLER ACT RECOGNITION OF
LOWER COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF SEC. 57(J) SEEMS ENTIRELY WITHOUT
FORCE.  AND, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT ENACTMENT DID SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 64(A) WHICH WERE DECISIVE IN KALLAK AND SIMILAR
CASES.  FN14 

PETITIONERS RELY MOST HEAVILY, HOWEVER, UPON THIS COURT'S DECISION IN
UNITED STATES V. CHILDS, 266 U.S. 304, REVERSING IN RE J. MENIST & CO.,
290 F. 947.  IT IS URGED THAT THIS DECISION REFLECTED A CONSTRUCTION BY
THIS COURT OF SEC. 57(J) WHICH THE CONGRESS ADOPTED IN ENACTING THE
CHANDLER AMENDMENTS.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS CONTENTION SURVIVES
SCRUTINY OF THAT CASE OR THAT IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE CHANDLER ACT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS STATED THAT THE ONLY
ISSUE BEFORE IT WAS "WHETHER AN EXACTION OF 1 PER CENT. A MONTH AS THE
PRICE OF DELAY AMOUNTS TO A PENALTY."  290 F. 947, 949.  IT DECIDED
THAT ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF 6% PER ANNUM WOULD BE A PENALTY BARRED BY
SEC. 57(J).  IT IS TRUE THAT COURT ALSO STATED THE ALLOWABLE INTEREST
COULD RUN UNTIL PAYMENT.  HOWEVER, THAT STATEMENT WAS ALSO BASED ON THE
"HIGHLY PREFERRED" STATUS OF TAXES AND THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 64(A)
THAT ABSOLUTE PRIORITY BE GIVEN TO "ALL TAXES LEGALLY DUE AND OWING." 
COULD NOT BE ALLOWED BUT THAT 6% WAS A "PECUNIARY LOSS" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THAT SECTION, AND ALLOWABLE AS SUCH, IN FULL.  BUT THE
GOVERNMENT CHALLENGED IN THIS COURT ONLY THE HOLDING THAT THE 12%
INTEREST WAS A PENALTY BARRED BY SEC. 57(J).  THIS COURT REVERSED AS TO
THAT POINT AND THE OPINION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS THE ONLY ISSUE
CONSIDERED AND DECIDED HERE.  THE QUESTION WHETHER INTEREST COULD RUN
TO PAYMENT, ALTHOUGH DISCUSSED IN RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS, WAS
NOT THE ISSUE WHICH INDUCED THE COURT TO BRING THE CASE HERE, AND IT IS
NOT DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE CASE REPRESENTS
EVEN A SUB-SILENTIO APPROVAL OF ALLOWANCE OF POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST. 
EVEN ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, SUCH APPROVAL TO BE IMPLICIT IN THE DECISION,
IT WOULD NOT HELP PETITIONERS, RELYING SOLELY ON REENACTMENT OF SEC.
57(J), SINCE WE HAVE SHOWN THE LOWER COURT'S HOLDING WAS BASED LARGELY
ON PROVISIONS OF SEC. 64(A) WHICH HAVE SINCE BEEN CHANGED BY THE ACT OF
1926 AND THE CHANDLER ACT. 

OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CITED BY PETITIONERS ON THIS POINT DO
NOT HELP THEIR CAUSE AND REQUIRE LITTLE DISCUSSION.  DAYTON V. STANARD,
241 U.S. 588, APPROVED PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO INDIVIDUALS WHO, DURING
THE COURSE OF A BANKRUPTCY, PAID OFF TAX LIENS BINDING PROPERTY OF THE
BANKRUPT.  THE COURT'S DECISION WAS ONLY THAT SUCH PARTIES, WHOSE TAX
DEEDS WERE INVALIDATED BECAUSE AT THE TIME THEY WERE ISSUED THE
PROPERTY WAS IN CUSTODIA LEGIS, COULD BE REIMBURSED OUT OF THE ESTATE'S
GENERAL FUND FOR BOTH THEIR ADVANCES AND INTEREST AT THE LEGAL RATE. 
THIS WAS SIMPLE EQUITY SINCE THE CLAIMANTS HAD PAID TAXES WHICH THE
THEN SEC. 64(A) REQUIRED THE TRUSTEE TO SEEK OUT AND PAY IN FULL.  NEW
YORK V. JERSAWIT, 263 U.S. 493, IS CLEARLY A HOLDING LIMITED TO THE
DETERMINATION THAT THE CLAIM THERE ASSERTED WAS A PENALTY NOT ALLOWABLE
UNDER SEC. 57(J).  THE CASE WAS SO DESCRIBED IN THE CHILDS OPINION, 266
U.S. 304, 309, AND THE DISCUSSION THERE CONFIRMS OUR CONCLUSION THAT
THE LATTER DECISION WAS SIMILARLY LIMITED TO THAT POINT.  CODER V.
ARTS, 213 U.S. 223, STATES AS A SUBSIDIARY POINT ONLY THAT, WHERE THE
ESTATE WAS ADEQUATE, INTEREST COULD PROPERLY BE ALLOWED ON A MORTGAGE
WHICH THE COURT HAD HELD NOT TO BE A VOIDABLE PREFERENCE. 

IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT WHEN THE CHANDLER AMENDMENTS WERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION IN CONGRESS THE REPORTED CASES ESTABLISHED ONLY THAT
LOWER COURTS WERE ALLOWING INTEREST ON TAX CLAIMS UNTIL PAYMENT, EITHER
AS A MATTER OF PRACTICAL CONVENIENCE OR BECAUSE SEC. 64(A) GAVE THOSE
CLAIMS ABSOLUTE PRIORITY AND DISPENSED WITH PROOF.  THERE WAS NO BASIS
FOR BELIEF THAT THE LOWER COURTS, MUCH LESS THIS COURT, HAD APPLIED ANY
JUDICIAL GLOSS TO SEC. 57(J) REQUIRING SIMILAR PREFERRED TREATMENT,
INTEREST-WISE, FOR TAX CLAIMS.  IF ANY CONCLUSION COULD HAVE BEEN DRAWN
FROM THE CASES IT WAS THAT SEC. 64(A) MIGHT HAVE JUSTIFIED A JUDICIAL
BELIEF THAT TAXES NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED, FOR ANY PURPOSE, THE SAME AS
OTHER DEBTS.  AND, AS WE HAVE SEEN, BOTH SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS OF THAT
CONSEQUENTLY, REENACTMENT OF SEC. 57(J) DOES NOT SUPPORT PETITIONERS'
POSITION ON THIS ISSUE.  THIS CONCLUSION IS CONFIRMED BY THE COMPLETE
LACK OF ANY INDICATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT CONGRESS
CONSIDERED SEC. 57(J) IN THIS CONNECTION.  PETITIONERS ARE IN FACT
ASSERTING THAT ADDING TO AN ALLEGED SUB-SILENTIO RULING HERE ON SEC.
57(J) CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE IN REENACTING THAT SECTION PRECIPITATED A
LEGISLATIVE COMMAND THAT POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST BE ALLOWED ON TAX
CLAIMS WHICH, AT THE SAME TIME, WERE DELIBERATELY BEING REDUCED TO THE
LEVEL OF OTHER DEBTS.  MERE STATEMENT OF THE PROPOSITION INDICATES ITS
REJECTION.    THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT BY THE 1926 AMENDMENT
AND THE CHANDLER ACT, CONGRESS ASSIMILATED TAXES TO OTHER DEBTS FOR ALL
PURPOSES, INCLUDING DENIAL OF POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST.  WE THINK THIS
IS A SOUND AND LOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT AFTER THOSE AMENDMENTS
TO SECS. 64(A) AND 57(N).  CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL
RULE AGAINST POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST  FN15  AS WELL AS SEC. 63'S
LIMITATIONS OF INTEREST ON OTHER CLAIMS TO DATE OF BANKRUPTCY, THEY
COMPEL OUR CONCLUSION, ALREADY STATED, THAT THE STATUTE AS AMENDED DID
NOT CONTEMPLATE ANY EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF TAX CLAIMS.    PETITIONERS'
FINAL CONTENTION IS THAT EVEN AFTER THE CHANDLER ACT THE LOWER COURTS
CONTINUED TO ALLOW POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST, THAT THIS COURT IN MEILINK
V. UNEMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, 314 U.S. 564, APPROVED THE PRACTICE, AND
THAT CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION OF THAT INTERPRETATION IS REFLECTED IN
AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO MODIFY SEC. 57(J).  IT MAY BE ADMITTED THAT
LOWER COURTS, OTHER THAN THE ONE WHOSE JUDGMENT IS NOW BEING REVIEWED,
DID CONTINUE TO ALLOW SUCH INTEREST AFTER THE 1938 AMENDMENT.  FN16
BUT THIS COURT HAS NOT, IN THE MEILINK CASE OR OTHERWISE, PASSED ON THE
QUESTION.  THAT CASE INVOLVED THE SAME ISSUE THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED IN
CHILDS:  WHETHER OR NOT THE INTEREST THERE CHALLENGED WAS IN FACT A
PENALTY PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 57(J) WHICH HAD BEEN LEFT SUBSTANTIALLY
UNCHANGED BY THE CHANDLER ACT.  WE DECIDED ONLY THAT QUESTION. 

BUT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT DECISION, PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT CONGRESS
HAS CONSIDERED THE LOWER COURTS' POST-CHANDLER ACT DECISIONS AS A
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION WHICH CAN BE OVERRULED ONLY BY LEGISLATION. 
THE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON A COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING A BILL
APPROVED BY THE HOUSE DURING THE 80TH CONGRESS BUT NOT ACTED UPON IN
THE SENATE.  AMONG BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENTS PROPOSED IN THIS BILL WAS
ONE DESIGNED "BOTH TO CLARIFY AND MODIFY" SEC. 57(J).  THE CHANGE, IT
WAS SAID IN THE HOUSE REPORT, WAS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE SECTION
REFERRED TO INTEREST ON THE "PECUNIARY LOSS" AND THAT SUCH INTEREST
STOPS AT BANKRUPTCY.  THE CLARIFYING CLAUSE WAS "INTENDED TO OVERRULE
AN OBSOLETE RULE" AS TO INTEREST ON DELINQUENT TAXES.  IT WAS STATED
THAT ALTHOUGH SECS. 64(A) AND 57(N) AS AMENDED BY THE CHANDLER ACT
RENDERED THE REASONING OF THE KALLAK CASE OBSOLETE, NEVERTHELESS ITS
RULE HAD NOT BEEN CHANGED AND LEGISLATION WAS NECESSARY, CITING DAVIE
V. GREEN, 133 F.2D 451, THE CASE WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THE DECISION NOW
BEING REVIEWED.  THE TEXT OF THE SECTION OF THE REPORT DEVOTED TO THIS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS PRINTED IN THE MARGIN.  FN17 WE BELIEVE A FAIR
READING OF IT LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMITTEE BELIEVED, NOT
THAT THE CHANDLER ACT EITHER ALLOWED POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST OR LEFT
THE MATTER OPEN, BUT THAT THE COURTS IN ALLOWING SUCH INTEREST WERE
IGNORING THE NECESSARY AND INTENDED IMPLICATIONS FROM THE CHANDLER
AMENDMENTS TO SECS. 57(N) AND 64(A).  THE COURT BELOW DID NOT HAVE THIS
REPORT BEFORE IT, BUT IN A WELL-CONSIDERED OPINION REACHED THE SAME
CONCLUSION.  WE BELIEVE THAT CONCLUSION IS CONFIRMED BY THE REPORT AND
THAT PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS FIND NO SUPPORT IN EITHER THE CHANDLER
ACT OR THIS ABORTIVE ATTEMPT AT CLARIFICATION.  FN18 

THE CASE THUS PRESENTS ONLY THE CONFLICT BETWEEN TWO COURTS OF
APPEALS AS TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE CURRENT STATUTE.  WE
AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW AND RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BY AFFIRMING ITS
JUDGMENTS.  FN19  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TERMS "DATE OF BANKRUPTCY" AND "BANKRUPTCY," WITH REFERENCE
TO TIME, MEAN THE DATE WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED, 30 STAT. 544, AS
AMENDED 52 STAT. 840-841, AND ARE USED ACCORDINGLY IN THIS OPINION. 

FN2  IN NO. 168 THE DISTRICT JUDGE ALLOWED NEW YORK CITY INTEREST TO
THE DATE OF PAYMENT, 75 F.SUPP.  458, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, 168 F.2D 268.  IN NOS. 200-201, THE DISTRICT JUDGE ALLOWED
THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK INTEREST ONLY TO THE DATE
OF BANKRUPTCY, 73 F.SUPP.  685, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 168
F.2D 272. 

FN3  DAVIE V. GREEN, 133 F.2D 451. 

FN4  335 U.S. 811, 812. 

FN5  THOSE MOST IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED WITH ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT
HAVE FREQUENTLY EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION OVER THE INROADS TAXES AND
INTEREST THEREON MAKE IN THE FUND AVAILABLE FOR CREDITORS.  FOR
DISCUSSIONS OF THAT AND SIMILAR PRACTICAL PROBLEMS SEE 14 J.N.A. REF.
BANKR.  3; 17 ID. 129; 18 ID. 17; 19 ID. 31; 21 ID. 106; 22 ID. 41; 44
COM. L.J. 411; AND 45 ID. 370.  SEE ALSO JUDGE BRIGHT'S OPINION BELOW,
73 F.SUPP.  685, AND REFEREES' COMMENTS IN MATTER OF DORSEY, 46 AM.
B.R. (N.S.)  146, AND MATTER OF D.O. SUMMERS CO., 45 AM. B.R. (N.S.) 
123.  THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF TAX CLAIMS AND INTEREST IS DISCUSSED AT
LENGTH IN 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED., 1941, AND 1948 CUM. SUPP.)
PP57.22, 57.30, 63.16, 63.26, 64.404, 64.407, 64.408.  COMMENTS APPEAR
IN 61 HARV. L. REV. 354; 21 TEMP.  L.Q. 428; 29 VA. L. REV. 206; 34 ID.
835; 23 N.Y.U.L.Q. REV. 516. 

FN6  BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, C. 541, 30 STAT. 544, AS AMENDED BY THE
CHANDLER ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, C. 575, 52 STAT. 840, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 1
ET SEQ. 

FN7  IN ENGLAND THE PRACTICE WAS WELL ESTABLISHED, 2 BLACKSTONE,
COMMENTARIES *488; BROMLEY V. GOODERE, 1 ATK.  75; EX PARTE BENNET, 2
ATK.  527; AND APPLIED TO MORTGAGES AS WELL AS UNSECURED DEBTS, EX
PARTE BADGER, 4 VES.  JR. 165; EX PARTE RAMSBOTTOM, 2 MONT. & AYR.  79;
EX PARTE PENFOLD, 4 DE G. & SM. 282; EX PARTE LUBBOCK, 9 JUR.  (N.S.) 
854; IN RE SAVIN, L.R. 7 CH. 760, 764; EX PARTE BATH, 22 CH. DIV. 450,
454; QUARTERMAINE'S CASE, (1892) 1 CH. 639; IN RE BONACINO, 1 MANSON
59.  TWO EXCEPTIONS WERE RECOGNIZED:  IF THE ALLEGED "BANKRUPT" PROVED
SOLVENT, CREDITORS RECEIVED POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST BEFORE ANY SURPLUS
REVERTED TO THE DEBTOR, BROMLEY V. GOODERE, 1 ATK.  75; EX PARTE MILLS,
2 VES.  JR. 295; EX PARTE CLARKE, 4 VES.  JR. 676; AND IF SECURITIES
HELD BY A CREDITOR AS COLLATERAL PRODUCED INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS DURING
BANKRUPTCY SUCH AMOUNTS WERE APPLIED TO POST-BANKRUPTCY INTEREST, EX
PARTE RAMSBOTTOM, 2 MONT. & AYR.  79; EX PARTE PENFOLD, 4 DE G. & SM.
282; QUARTERMAINE'S CASE, (1892) 1 CH. 639.  THESE EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN
CARRIED OVER INTO OUR SYSTEM.  SEE AMERICAN IRON CO. V. SEABOARD AIR
LINE, 233 U.S. 261, 267; SEXTON V. DREYFUS, 219 U.S. 339, 346. 

FN8  "DEBTS OF THE BANKRUPT MAY BE PROVED AND ALLOWED AGAINST HIS
ESTATE WHICH ARE FOUNDED UPON (1) A FIXED LIABILITY, AS EVIDENCED BY A
JUDGMENT OR AN INSTRUMENT IN WRITING, ABSOLUTELY OWING AT THE TIME OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION BY OR AGAINST HIM, WHETHER THEN PAYABLE OR
NOT, WITH ANY INTEREST THEREON WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN RECOVERABLE AT
THAT DATE OR WITH A REBATE OF INTEREST UPON SUCH AS WERE NOT THEN
PAYABLE AND DID NOT BEAR INTEREST ...." 

FN9  "...  (5) PROVABLE DEBTS REDUCED TO JUDGMENTS AFTER THE FILING
OF THE PETITION AND BEFORE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BANKRUPT'S
APPLICATION FOR A DISCHARGE, LESS COSTS INCURRED AND INTEREST ACCRUED
AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND UP TO THE TIME OF THE ENTRY OF
SUCH JUDGMENTS ...." 

FN10  ALTHOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 63(A)(1) REQUIRING A REBATE OF
UNEARNED INTEREST, AND OF SEC. 63(A)(5) ELIMINATING CERTAIN POST
BANKRUPTCY INTEREST, MAY IN PRACTICE BE OPERATIVE BUT INFREQUENTLY,
THEY REFLECT A PRINCIPLE OF LONG STANDING.  SEE 2 BLACKSTONE,
COMMENTARIES *488. 

FN11  "DEBTS OWING TO THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE OR SUBDIVISION
THEREOF AS A PENALTY OR FORFEITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED, EXCEPT FOR THE
AMOUNT OF THE PECUNIARY LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE ACT, TRANSACTION, OR
PROCEEDING OUT OF WHICH THE PENALTY OR FORFEITURE AROSE, WITH
REASONABLE AND ACTUAL COSTS OCCASIONED THEREBY AND SUCH INTEREST AS MAY
HAVE ACCRUED THEREON ACCORDING TO LAW." 

FN12  "SEC.  64.  DEBTS WHICH HAVE PRIORITY.  - A THE COURT SHALL
ORDER THE TRUSTEE TO PAY ALL TAXES LEGALLY DUE AND OWING BY THE
BANKRUPT TO THE UNITED STATES, STATE, COUNTY, DISTRICT, OR MUNICIPALITY
IN ADVANCE OF THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS TO CREDITORS ....  B THE DEBTS
TO HAVE PRIORITY  ...  AND TO BE PAID IN FULL OUT OF BANKRUPT ESTATES,
AND THE ORDER OF PAYMENT SHALL BE ((1) COSTS OF PRESERVING THE ESTATE
(2) CERTAIN FILING FEES (3) ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES INCLUDING
ATTORNEY'S FEES (4) WAGES AS SPECIFIED (5) DEBTS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY
UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS) ...."  30 STAT. 544, 563. 

FN13  SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF MAY 27, 1926, C. 406, 44 STAT. 662, 666. 

FN14  IN RE ASHLAND EMERY & CORUNDUM CO., 229 F. 829, RELIES ENTIRELY
ON SEC. 64(A) AND THE KALLAK CASE.  IN RE CLARK REALTY CO., 253 F. 938,
DISCUSSES SEC. 64(A) BUT NOT SEC. 57(J) AND RELIES, ERRONEOUSLY, ON
DAYTON V. STANARD, 241 U.S. 588, AS TO WHICH SEE TEXT.  IN RE J. MENIST
& CO., 290 F. 947, RELYING ON SEC. 64(A), IS DISCUSSED IN THE TEXT.  IN
RE A.E. FOUNTAIN, INC., 295 F. 873, DOES NOT DISCUSS THE ISSUE,
DECIDING ONLY THAT TAXES BEAR SIMPLE INTEREST.  HORNE V. BOONE COUNTY,
44 F.2D 920, DISCUSSES ONLY WHETHER THE LEVY THERE WAS PENALTY OR
INTEREST.  IN RE MARTIN, 75 F.2D 618, DOES NOT DISCUSS THE ISSUE.  IN
RE SEMON, 11 F.SUPP.  18, MODIFIED 80 F.2D 81, WAS BASED ON THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1928 AND THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED ONLY THAT THE LEVY THERE
WAS NOT A PENALTY.  IN RE BEARDSLEY & WOLCOTT MFG. CO., 82 F.2D 239,
ALSO INVOLVED ONLY THE PENALTY ISSUE.  COMPARE IN RE WILLIAM F. FISHER
& CO., 148 F. 907, DENYING THE CLAIMED INTEREST BECAUSE SEC. 64(A)
CONTAINED NO PROVISION ALLOWING IT; AND DICTUM AS TO INTEREST IN
MCCORMICK V. PURITAN COAL MIN. CO., 41 F.2D 213, 214. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 7 AND TEXT; AND SEE THOMAS V. WESTERN CAR CO., 149
U.S. 95; SEXTON V. DREYFUS, 219 U.S. 339; AMERICAN IRON CO. V. SEABOARD
AIR LINE, 233 U.S. 261. 

FN16  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN RE L. GANDOLFI & CO., 42 F.SUPP.  706; IN
RE FLAYTON, 42 F.SUPP.  1002; DAVIE V. GREEN, 133 F.2D 451.  BUT SEE
REFEREE'S DECISION, IN MATTER OF UNION BEVERAGE CO., 50 AM. B.R.
(N.S.)  825, 829.  AND SEE DISCUSSION BY THE COURT BELOW IN HAMMER V.
TUFFY, 145 F.2D 447, 449, AND IN UNITED STATES V. ROTH, 164 F.2D 575,
577-578. 

FN17  "11.  SECTION 11(A) OF THE BILL IS INTENDED BOTH TO CLARIFY AND
MODIFY SECTION 57J OF THE ACT.  THE CHANGE IN 57JC) IS TO MAKE CLEAR
THAT THE LIMITATION ON INTEREST 'UP TO THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY' RELATES
ONLY TO INTEREST ON THE 'PECUNIARY LOSS,' AND FURTHER THAT SUCH
INTEREST STOPS AT THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY.  THE ADDITION OF CLAUSE (2)
IN THE BILL IS INTENDED TO OVERRULE AN OBSOLETE RULE AS TO INTEREST ON
DELINQUENT TAX DEBTS.  INTEREST ON GENERAL UNSECURED DEBTS, ON
UNSECURED GOVERNMENT DEBTS OTHER THAN TAXES, AND ON DEBTS ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY UNDER SECTION 64A, IS SUSPENDED AT THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY SO
THAT, EXCEPT IN THE RARE CASE OF A SOLVENT ESTATE, INTEREST IS
ALLOWABLE ONLY TO SUCH DATE.  (SEC. 63A; ADAMS V. NAPA CANTINA WINERIES
(C.C.A., 9TH CIR.), 36 AM. B.R. (N.S.)  8; IN RE GANDOLFI & CO., INC.
(S.D., N.Y.), 51 AM. B.R. (N.S.)  521(GOVERNMENTAL DEBTS AND OTHER
DEBTS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY); 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY, 14TH ED., 1835 ET
SEQ.; 2 REMINGTON ON BANKRUPTCY, 4TH ED., SECS. 771, 795.)  HOWEVER,
INTEREST ON DELINQUENT TAX DEBTS IS ALLOWABLE TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT
(IN RE KALLAK (D.C., N.D., 1906), 17 AM. B.R. 414; IN RE ASHLAND EMERY
AND CORUNDUM CO. (D.C., MASS., 1916), 36 AM. B.R. 194; IN RE CLARK
REALTY CO. (C.C.A., 7TH CIR., 1918), 42 AM. B.R. 403; SUB SILENTIO,
UNITED STATES V. CHILDS, 266 U.S. 304, 307(1924), 5 AM. B.R. (N.S.) 
5).  ALTHOUGH, UNDER THE CHANDLER ACT, A TAX DEBT IS REQUIRED TO BE
PROVED (SEC. 57N) AND ITS ORDER OF PRIORITY RANKS BELOW ALL
ADMINISTRATION COSTS AND EXPENSES, WAGES AND COSTS AND EXPENSES OF
CREDITORS SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSING A SETTLEMENT OR DISCHARGE, OR PROCURING
A CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE (SEC. 64A (1), (2), (3)), THEREBY RENDERING
OBSOLETE THE REASONING IN THE KALLAK CASE, NEVERTHELESS ITS RULE HAS
NOT BEEN CHANGED, AND THEREFORE REQUIRES THIS STATUTORY MODIFICATION. 
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION SEE IN RE D.O. SUMMERS (REF., N.D., OHIO, 1939),
46(45) AM. B.R. (N.S.)  123; IN RE DORSEY (REF., W.D., WASH., 1940), 46
AM. B.R. (N.S.)  146; (DAVISE) V. GREEN (C.C.A. 1ST CIR., 1943), 52 AM.
B.R. (N.S.)  603.  AND ON OVERRULING THE KALLAK CASE SEE IN RE UNION
FABRICS, INC., (S.D., N.Y., 1947), 73 F.SUPP.  685, APPEAL PENDING. 

"THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE HAS MORE THAN ONCE EXPRESSLY APPROVED THIS
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 57J.  ITS MOST RECENT REAFFIRMATION OF ITS
POSITION WAS IN OCTOBER 1946.  (SEE REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE,
OCTOBER 1946, P. 15.)  THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
COURTS HAS STATED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 11 OF THE BILL IS
SATISFACTORY ON THIS SCORE."  H.R. REP. NO. 2083, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
P. 5. 

FN18  THE UNITED STATES CITES, AS CONFIRMING THE CONSTRUCTION IT HAS
PLACED ON SEC. 57(J), FEDERAL TAXING STATUTES BEGINNING WITH THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1924 WHICH DIRECT THAT UPON NONPAYMENT OF THE TAX THERE
SHALL BE ADDED, AS PART OF THE TAX, INTEREST AT THE SPECIFIED RATE FROM
DUE DATE TO DATE OF PAYMENT.  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FEDERAL TAXES
ORDINARILY BEAR INTEREST EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE.  SEE BILLINGS
V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261, 284-288.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK EITHER
SUCH A RULE OR STATUTORY PROVISION COULD BE PERMITTED TO NEGATIVE THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT'S REQUIREMENT IN THAT RESPECT IF THE LATTER BE TO THE
CONTRARY, AS WE THINK IT IS.  THAT ACT WAS EARLY HELD TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION "THE WHOLE RANGE OF INDEBTEDNESS OF THE BANKRUPT,
NATIONAL, STATE AND INDIVIDUAL," GUARANTEE CO. V. TITLE GUARANTY CO.,
224 U.S. 152, 160, AND TO HAVE BEEN PASSED "WITH THE UNITED STATES IN
THE MIND OF CONGRESS," DAVIS V. PRINGLE, 268 U.S. 315, 317.  WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924 AND SIMILAR ENACTMENTS WERE INTENDED TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WITH AN EFFECT
CLEARLY CONTRARY TO SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS SUCH AS THE ACT OF 1926 AND THE
CHANDLER ACT.  THIS WOULD INDEED BE A STRANGE WAY TO REQUIRE, AS IT
WOULD, THAT FEDERAL TAX CLAIMS BE PREFERRED OVER STATE AND MUNICIPAL
CLAIMS WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT ITSELF TREATS ALL TAX CLAIMS EQUALLY. 
THIS CONTENTION, STANDING BY ITSELF, OR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENT
BASED ON SEC. 57(J), CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.    FN19  SINCE WE HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER THE ALLEGED LEGISLATIVE TREATMENT OF THIS ISSUE
NOR PRIOR RULINGS OF THIS COURT SUPPORT THE CONTRARY RESULT, THIS
DECISION INVOLVES NO CONSIDERATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS. 
IF IT DID, THE RESPONSIBLE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, HELVERING
V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 119, WOULD DICTATE THAT THE EXPRESS
PRINCIPLES AND LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHANDLER ACT PREVAIL OVER
EARLIER INCONCLUSIVE LOWER COURT HOLDINGS AND CONGRESSIONAL FAILURE TO
CORRECT THEM. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN DAVIE V. GREEN,
133 F.2D 451. 
..END :






OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. TEXAS CO., 336 U.S. 342 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1949.  - REVERSED. 


1.  A LESSEE OF MINERAL RIGHTS IN ALLOTTED AND RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS
IN OKLAHOMA HAS NO IMMUNITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FROM
NONDISCRIMINATORY STATE GROSS PRODUCTION TAXES AND STATE EXCISE TAXES
ON PETROLEUM PRODUCED FROM SUCH LANDS.  PP. 343-367. 

2.  OVERRULING CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292;
INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 240 U.S. 522; HOWARD
V. GIPSY OIL CO., 247 U.S. 503; LARGE OIL CO. V. HOWARD, 248 U.S. 549;
AND OKLAHOMA V. BARNSDALL REFINERIES, 296 U.S. 521.  HELVERING V.
MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376, HELD CONTROLLING AND NOT
LIMITED TO INCOME TAXES.  PP. 364-365. 

3.  NO QUESTION IS HERE PRESENTED AS TO THE IMMUNITY FROM STATE
TAXATION OF THE INDIAN LANDS THEMSELVES OR OF THE INDIANS' SHARE OF
PRODUCTION, SINCE ONLY THE INTERESTS OF LESSEES WERE ASSESSED.  PP.
347(N. 14), 353. 

4.  A CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF SUCH A LESSEE IS NOT TO BE INFERRED
FROM ACTS OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZING A STATE GROSS PRODUCTION TAX ON
MINERALS PRODUCED FROM THE LANDS OF CERTAIN INDIANS, SINCE THE PURPOSE
OF THOSE STATUTES WAS TO REMOVE IMMUNITIES OF THE INDIANS THEMSELVES. 
PP. 366-367. 

5.  CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY ENUNCIATED IN
THE CASES HEREIN OVERRULED IS NOT TO BE INFERRED FROM MERE
CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.  P. 367. 

OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION V. TEXAS COMPANY. 

NO. 40.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 41, OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM
CO., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

STATE GROSS PRODUCTION TAXES AND STATE EXCISE TAXES ON PETROLEUM
PRODUCED FROM ALLOTTED AND RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS BY RESPONDENTS, WHO
WERE LESSEES OF MINERAL RIGHTS IN THE LANDS, WERE HELD INVALID BY THE
OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT.  THIS COURT DISMISSED APPEALS BY THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION AND GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 870.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 367. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IS WHETHER A LESSEE OF MINERAL RIGHTS IN
ALLOTTED AND RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS IS IMMUNIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION
AGAINST PAYMENT OF NONDISCRIMINATORY STATE GROSS PRODUCTION TAXES AND
STATE EXCISE TAXES ON PETROLEUM PRODUCED FROM SUCH LANDS.  IN EFFECT
THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THIS COURT'S PREVIOUS DECISIONS IN HOWARD V. GIPSY
OIL CO., 247 U.S. 503; LARGE OIL CO. V. HOWARD, 248 U.S. 549; AND
OKLAHOMA V. BARNSDALL REFINERIES, 296 U.S. 521, INVALIDATING SUCH TAXES
AS APPLIED TO LIKE LESSEES, HAVE BEEN SO UNDERMINED BY LATER DECISIONS,
IN PARTICULAR HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376, THAT
THEY SHOULD NOW BE OVERRULED. 

WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS,  FN1  THE LANDS FROM WHICH WAS EXTRACTED THE
PETROLEUM SOUGHT TO BE TAXED ARE HELD IN TRUST BY THE UNITED STATES,
PURSUANT TO ALLOTMENTS MADE UNDER THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT,  FN2  FOR
VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE POTTAWATOMIE, APACHE, COMANCHE, AND OTOE AND
MISSOURIA TRIBES.  FN3  ALL THE LANDS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA AND AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES THEY WERE RESTRICTED N4 AGAINST
ALIENATION BY THE INDIAN CESTUI OWNERS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  FN5  HE APPROVED EACH OF THE LEASES NOW IN
QUESTION.  THE RESPONDENTS TEXAS COMPANY (NO. 40) AND MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM COMPANY (NO. 41) ACQUIRED THEIR LEASES BEFORE OKLAHOMA LEVIED
THE ASSESSMENTS NOW IN ISSUE, EITHER AS ORIGINAL LESSEES OR BY
ASSIGNMENT FROM NON-INDIANS WHO WERE SUCH LESSEES.  THE COMPANIES THUS
BECAME OWNERS OF ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
LEASES, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE ONE-EIGHTH ROYALTY INTEREST RESERVED TO THE
INDIAN LESSORS, AND WERE SUCH OWNERS AT THE TIMES OF THE RESPECTIVE
ASSESSMENTS.  IT MAY BE TAKEN THAT THEY HAVE OPERATED THE LEASES IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR  FN6  AND OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,  FN7  EXCEPT FOR THE
PAYMENT OF THE STATE TAXES IN QUESTION.  FN8 

THE OKLAHOMA GROSS PRODUCTION TAX REQUIRES PAYMENT OF FIVE PER CENT
OF THE GROSS VALUE OF PRODUCTION, INCLUDING ROYALTY INTERESTS.  IT IS
IMPOSED ON EVERY PERSON ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION IN OKLAHOMA OF
PETROLEUM, CRUDE OIL OR OTHER MINERAL OIL, AND NATURAL GAS AND
CASINGHEAD GAS.  THE TAX IS EXACTED IN LIEU OF ALL TAXES BY THE STATE
AND ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS ON PROPERTY RIGHTS IN MINERALS AND
MINERAL RIGHTS, PRODUCING LEASES, MACHINERY USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY
OIL OR GAS WELL, THE OIL AND GAS DURING THE TAX YEAR IN WHICH IT IS
PRODUCED, AND ANY INVESTMENT IN ANY LEASES, MINERALS, OR OTHER
PROPERTY.  THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION TO
RAISE OR LOWER THE RATE OF TAX TO EQUATE THE AMOUNT PAYABLE WITH THE
AMOUNT WHICH WOULD BE PAYABLE IF THE GENERAL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX
WERE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE PRODUCERS SUBJECT TO
TAXATION.  THE BOARD'S RATE CHANGES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT.  FN9  IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE PROVISIONS, THE TAX HAS
BEEN CONSTRUED CONSISTENTLY BY THE STATE COURTS TO BE A TAX ON THE
LESSEE'S PROPERTY, NOT AN OCCUPATION OR EXCISE TAX.  FN10 

THE PETROLEUM EXCISE TAX REQUIRES PAYMENT OF ONE MILL, FORMERLY ONE
EIGHTH OF ONE CENT,  FN11 PER BARREL ON EVERY BARREL OF PETROLEUM
PRODUCED IN OKLAHOMA.  THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED FIRST IN 1933 TO DEFRAY
THE EXPENSES OF ADMINISTERING THE STATE'S NEWLY ADOPTED PRORATION LAW
FN12  AND HAS BEEN REENACTED AT EACH SUBSEQUENT SESSION OF THE
LEGISLATURE.  FN13  THE TAX, UNLIKE THE GROSS PRODUCTION TAX, IS
CONSTRUED BY THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT AS AN EXCISE TAX ON THE
PRODUCTION OF OIL.  BARNSDALL REFINERIES V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION,
171 OKLA. 145, AFFIRMED, 296 U.S. 521. 

IN NO. 40 THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, PETITIONER HERE, ASSESSED BOTH
GROSS PRODUCTION AND PETROLEUM EXCISE TAXES AGAINST THE TEXAS COMPANY
FOR PRODUCTION, LESS ROYALTIES TO THE INDIAN LESSORS,  FN14  DURING
SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 1942.  IN NO. 41 THE COMMISSION
LIKEWISE ASSESSED BOTH TAXES, LESS ROYALTIES, ON THE MAGNOLIA COMPANY'S
PRODUCTION FOR VARIOUS PERIODS BETWEEN JUNE 1, 1942, AND MARCH 1,
1946.  THE ORDERS WERE ENTERED AFTER THE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND WERE THUS HEARD BY IT. 

IN NO. 40 THE TEXAS COMPANY PAID THE TAXES UNDER PROTEST AND BROUGHT
SUIT TO RECOVER THEM IN AN OKLAHOMA TRIAL COURT.  AFTER HEARING, THAT
COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S DEMURRER TO THE COMPANY'S AMENDED
PETITION AND ORDERED IT DISMISSED.  APPEAL WAS DULY TAKEN TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT.  IN NO. 41, FOLLOWING A DIFFERENT STATUTORY PROCEDURE,
THE MAGNOLIA COMPANY APPEALED FROM THE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST IT DIRECTLY
TO THAT COURT. 

IN BOTH CASES THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA, WITH ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, HELD THE ASSESSMENTS INVALID.  THE DECISIONS RESTED FLATLY
ON THE GROUND THAT THE LESSEE WAS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND AS SUCH, UNDER PRIOR AND CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT, PARTICULARLY IN THE LARGE OIL, GIPSY OIL, AND BARNSDALL
REFINERIES CASES, SUPRA, NOT SUBJECT TO THE TAXES IN QUESTION N15.  IN
THE TEXAS COMPANY CASE THE COURT EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED HELVERING V.
MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., SUPRA, ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION IN
THAT CASE RELATED TO INCOME TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST THE LESSEE THERE
SITUATED AS WERE THE LESSEES HERE.  THE OPINION, INDICATING THE
WRITER'S PERSONAL VIEW THAT RECONSIDERATION OF THE EARLIER DECISIONS
WELL MIGHT BE SOUGHT, NEVERTHELESS STATED: 

"BUT IT IS THOUGHT BEYOND THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO NOW ENGAGE IN
SUCH RECONSIDERATION, IN VIEW OF THE CITED DECISIONS OF THE HIGHER
AUTHORITY WHICH THUS FAR WHOLLY SUSTAIN THE CLAIM OF (THE TEXAS
COMPANY) TO IMMUNITY FROM THE TAX HERE INVOLVED. 

"UPON QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, CITIZENS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS HAVE THE
RIGHT TO RELY UPON DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND UPON SUCH QUESTIONS IT IS OUR FIXED DUTY TO FOLLOW SUCH DECISIONS,
LEAVING TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS OR SUPREME COURT THE MAKING OF
THE NECESSARY CHANGES IN SUCH LEGAL RULES." 

FROM THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS  FN16  THE OKLAHOMA TAX
COMMISSION FILED APPEALS IN THIS COURT.  WE DISMISSED THE APPEALS FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  BUT TREATING THEM AS APPLICATIONS FOR
CERTIORARI,  FN17  WE GRANTED THE WRITS AND CONSOLIDATED THE CASES FOR
ARGUMENT.  333 U.S. 870.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL WAS REQUESTED TO FILE A
BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE. 

    I. 

BUT FOR THE COURSE OF DECISION HERE FROM CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V.
HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292, DECIDED IN 1914, TO OKLAHOMA V. BARNSDALL
REFINERIES, 296 U.S. 521, DECIDED IN 1936, THE PROBLEMS OF TAXATION AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY THESE CASES PRESENT WOULD SEEM SUBJECT TO
SOLUTION ON WELL-SETTLED OR FAIRLY OBVIOUS LEGAL PRINCIPLES. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY A PRIVATE PERSON
AND USED BY HIM IN PERFORMING SERVICES FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
SUBJECT TO STATE AND LOCAL AD VALOREM TAXES.  FN18  AND THE OIL AND GAS
PRODUCED IS, OF COURSE, SUBJECT TO SUCH TAXATION.  INDIAN TERRITORY
ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 288 U.S. 325.  BOTH BY
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE STATUTE'S EXPLICIT PROVISIONS AND BY THE
CONSISTENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT, FN19  THAT
STATE'S SO-CALLED GROSS PRODUCTION TAX IN ITS PRESENTLY APPLICABLE FORM
IS A TAX ON THE LESSEE'S PROPERTY USED IN CARRYING OUT ITS CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ON THE OIL AND GAS DURING
THE TAX YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS PRODUCED.  THE TAX IS LEVIED EXPRESSLY IN
LIEU OF ALL PROPERTY TAXES WHICH THE STATE MIGHT CONSTITUTIONALLY
IMPOSE IN AD VALOREM FORM, THE GROSS PRODUCTION LEVY BEING A TENTATIVE
MEASURE FOR THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY.  TO GUARD AGAINST THAT
MEASURE'S BEING UTILIZED TO LAY IN EFFECT A TAX NOT ACTUALLY OF THAT
CHARACTER, THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION IS AUTHORIZED, INDEED IS
REQUIRED UPON COMPLAINT, TO EQUATE THE AMOUNT PAYABLE WITH WHAT WOULD
BE PAYABLE IF THE GENERAL AD VALOREM TAX WERE ASSESSED AGAINST THE
PROPERTY OF THE PRODUCING LESSEES SUBJECT TO TAXATION, WITH PROVISION
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S ACTION. 

UNEMBARRASSED BY SOME OF THIS COURT'S PRIOR DECISIONS, THEREFORE,
OKLAHOMA'S SO-CALLED GROSS PRODUCTION TAX WOULD SEEM TO BE SUSTAINED BY
THE WELL-ESTABLISHED LINE OF DECISIONS CITED ABOVE.  FN20 

MOREOVER, EVEN IF THE STATUS OF RESPONDENTS AS FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES, IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THEY USE THE TERM, WERE FULLY
CONCEDED, IT SEEMS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE HOW ANY SUBSTANTIAL
INTERFERENCE WITH PERFORMING THEIR FUNCTIONS AS SUCH IN DEVELOPING THE
LEASEHOLDS COULD BE THOUGHT TO FLOW FROM REQUIRING THEM TO PAY THE
SMALL TAX OKLAHOMA EXACTS TO SATISFY THEIR SHARES OF THE STATE'S
EXPENSE IN MAINTAINING AND ADMINISTERING ITS PRORATION PROGRAM.  THAT
SYSTEM WORKS FOR RESPONDENTS' BENEFIT IN PERFORMING THEIR PRODUCING
FUNCTION, AS IT DOES FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OTHER PRODUCERS, BY
STABILIZING PRODUCTION, ELIMINATING WASTE, AND PREVENTING RUNAWAY
COMPETITION IN AN INDUSTRY NOTORIOUS FOR THOSE EVILS IN THE ABSENCE OF
SOME SUCH CONTROL.  CF. RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO.,
310 U.S. 573; REPUBLIC GAS CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 334 U.S. 62, DISSENTING
OPINION PART III, 89.  INDEED RESPONDENTS DO NOT CLAIM THEY ARE EXEMPT
FROM THE PLAN'S REGULATORY FEATURES.  THEY CLAIM ONLY THAT THEY ARE
CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM CONTRIBUTING TO THE PLAN'S SUPPORT.  AS A
MATTER ENTIRELY FRESH, THE CONTENTION WOULD NOT SEEM WEIGHTY. 

                                 II. 

BUT NEITHER ISSUE IS FRESH.  EACH IS COMPLICATED BY THIS COURT'S
PRIOR DECISIONS SQUARELY RULING THAT THE TAXES ARE INVALID AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTRUSIONS BY THE STATE UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF
FEDERAL FUNCTIONS.  THOSE DECISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLICITLY
OVERRULED.  BUT IT IS STRONGLY URGED THAT OUR LATER DECISIONS,
ESPECIALLY IN HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., SUPRA, HAVE
STRICKEN THE FOUNDATION FROM BENEATH THE GIPSY OIL, LARGE OIL AND
BARNSDALL REFINERIES DECISIONS, SUPRA, SO THAT THE LATTER NO LONGER CAN
STAND IN REASON AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE FORMER. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT'S MORE RECENT PRONOUNCEMENTS HAVE BEATEN A
FAIRLY LARGE RETREAT FROM ITS FORMERLY PREVAILING IDEAS CONCERNING THE
BREADTH OF SO-CALLED INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITIES FROM TAXATION, A
RETREAT WHICH HAS RUN IN BOTH DIRECTIONS - TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF
IMMUNITY OF PRIVATE PERSONS SEEKING TO CLOTHE THEMSELVES WITH
GOVERNMENTAL CHARACTER FROM BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE TAXATION.  THE
HISTORY OF THE IMMUNITY, BY AND LARGE IN BOTH ASPECTS, REPRESENTS A
RISING OR EXPANDING CURVE, TAPERING OFF INTO A FALLING OR CONTRACTING
ONE. 

OUR PRESENT PROBLEM LIES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.  IT REQUIRES
RECONSIDERATION OF FORMER DECISIONS SPECIFICALLY IN POINT, TOGETHER
WITH LATER ONES DEVIATING IN RATIONALE.  IT IS OF SUBSTANTIAL
IMPORTANCE BOTH FOR THE STATES' POWERS OF TAXATION AND FOR THE SUBJECTS
ON WHICH THEY MAY IMPINGE.  MOREOVER, EVEN THOUGH THE IMMEDIATE
QUESTIONS ARE CLOSELY RELATED TO FEDERAL POLICIES CONCERNING INDIAN
LANDS, THEY ARE EQUALLY TANGENT TO CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING OTHER TYPES
OF SITUATION RAISING QUESTIONS OF IMMUNITY.  FOR THESE REASONS IT WILL
NOT BE AMISS TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF TWO
CONFLICTING COURSES OF DECISION. 

BEFORE WE TURN TO THE SURVEY, HOWEVER, TWO DELIMITATIONS OF THE
SPECIFIC ISSUES SHOULD BE MADE. 

THESE CASES PRESENT NO QUESTION CONCERNING THE IMMUNITY OF THE INDIAN
LANDS THEMSELVES FROM STATE TAXATION.  THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT
ULTIMATE LIABILITY FOR THE TAXES MAY FALL UPON THE OWNER OF THE LAND. 
CF. WILSON V. COOK, 327 U.S. 474, DISSENTING OPINION, 489.  NOR, AS HAS
BEEN NOTED, DO THE CASES INVOLVE CHALLENGES TO THE IMMUNITY FROM STATE
TAXATION OF ROYALTY OIL, THE INDIAN'S SHARE OF PRODUCTION.  FN21

                                 III. 

DESPITE THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PROSPECT OF TAXATION BY THE STATE
MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT THE UNITED STATES MIGHT RECEIVE FROM THE SALE OF
ITS PROPERTY, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT PROPERTY PURCHASED BY A
PRIVATE PERSON FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECOMES A PART OF THE
GENERAL MASS OF PROPERTY IN THE STATE AND MUST BEAR ITS FAIR SHARE OF
THE EXPENSES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.  THE THEORETICAL BURDEN WHICH STATE
AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXATION THUS IMPOSES UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IS REGARDED AS TOO REMOTE AND INDIRECT TO JUSTIFY TAX IMMUNITY FOR
PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM THAT GOVERNMENT.  NEW BRUNSWICK V. UNITED
STATES, 276 U.S. 547; FORBES V. GRACEY, 94 U.S. 762; TUCKER V.
GERGUSON, 22 WALL.  527; SEE WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET. 449, 468. 
ALSO SUBJECT TO LOCAL AD VALOREM TAXATION, AS HAS BEEN NOTED ABOVE,
FN22  IS PROPERTY OWNED BY A PRIVATE PARTY AND USED BY HIM IN
PERFORMING SERVICES FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  WHERE OIL PRODUCED BY
A PRIVATE LESSEE FROM RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS WAS OWNED SOLELY BY THE
LESSEE AND HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE LEASED LANDS AND STORED IN THE
LESSEE'S TANKS, IT WAS HELD SUBJECT TO STATE AD VALOREM TAXATION. 
INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 288
U.S. 325.  FN23  AND EQUIPMENT USED BY A LESSEE OF RESTRICTED INDIAN
LANDS HAS BEEN HELD SUBJECT TO THE SAME SORT OF EXACTION.  TABER V.
INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO., 300 U.S. 1.  CF. THOMAS V. GAY,
169 U.S. 264, SUSTAINING A STATE TAX ON CATTLE GRAZING ON TRIBAL LANDS
LEASED FROM INDIANS BY THE NON-INDIAN OWNER OF THE CATTLE. 

ANOMALOUS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE RULINGS WAS THE EVOLUTION OF A LINE
OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CONDEMNING FORMS OF TAXATION WHICH WOULD
HAVE IMPOSED NO MORE DIRECT OR SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN UPON THE UNITED
STATES THAN WOULD AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX APPLIED TO PROPERTY
PURCHASED FROM THE UNITED STATES.  PRIVATE LESSEES OF RESTRICTED OR
TRIBAL INDIAN LANDS CAME TO BE HELD "FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES" LIKE
THE LANDS THEMSELVES, AND SO IMMUNE FROM VARIOUS FORMS OF STATE
TAXATION RANGING FROM A GROSS PRODUCTION TAX ON PRODUCTION FROM THE
LEASED LANDS TO A TAX UPON THE LESSEE'S NET INCOME.  THE THEORY OF THE
COURT WAS THE ONE WHICH WAS REJECTED IN DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS CASES: A
STATE TAX ON THE LESSEE, THE LEASE, OR THE PROFITS FROM THE LEASE WOULD
BE "A DIRECT HAMPER UPON THE EFFORT OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE THE
BEST TERMS THAT IT CAN FOR ITS WARDS."  GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S.
501, 506.  ALTERNATIVELY, "A TAX UPON THE LEASES IS A TAX UPON THE
POWER TO MAKE THEM, AND COULD BE USED TO DESTROY THE POWER TO MAKE
THEM."  INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 240 U.S.
522, 530. 

THE HISTORY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A PROGRESSION "FROM EXEMPTION OF
THE GROSS INCOME OF THE LESSEE OF INDIAN LANDS  ...  THROUGH EXEMPTION
OF NET RECEIPTS TO SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF THE TAXING POWERS OF
OKLAHOMA."  COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW 257, N. 29(1942). 
THE DEVELOPMENT IS AN OUTGROWTH AND A PROGRESSIVE EXTENSION OF EARLY
RULINGS THAT TRIBAL LANDS THEMSELVES ARE IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION. 
FN24  MORE IMMEDIATELY IT STEMS FROM THE LATER RULING THAT ALLOTTED
INDIAN LANDS HELD IN TRUST BY THE UNITED STATES WERE "AN
INSTRUMENTALITY EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE BENEFIT AND
CONTROL OF THIS DEPENDENT RACE," AND SO WERE IMMUNE FROM STATE
TAXATION.  UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432, 437-439. 

IN 1908 OKLAHOMA IMPOSED, IN ADDITION TO AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES, A
GROSS PRODUCTION TAX, THE PROGENITOR OF THE PRESENT TAX BEARING THAT
LABEL, ON OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINERALS PRODUCED WITHIN THE STATE.  OKLA.
LAWS, 1908, C. 71, ART. II, SEC. 6.  THE OKLAHOMA COURT HELD THAT THE
1910 REENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE  FN25  IMPOSED A PROPERTY TAX. 
MCALESTER-EDWARDS COAL CO. V. TRAPP, 43 OKLA. 510.  BUT THE STATUTE, AS
APPLIED TO A LESSEE OF RESTRICTED INDIAN COAL LANDS, WAS HELD BY THIS
COURT TO BE AN OCCUPATIONAL TAX AND SO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON
THE LESSEE, WHO WAS HELD TO BE AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, SUPRA. NEXT THE COURT
HELD THE LEASE ITSELF A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY IMMUNE FROM STATE
TAXATION.  INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA. 

THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE REVISED THE GROSS PRODUCTION TAX STATUTE IN
1915 AND AGAIN IN 1916, A PRINCIPAL CHANGE BEING THE PROVISION THAT THE
TAX WAS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER AD VALOREM TAXES.  FN26 THE REVISED TAX
WAS HELD BY THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT TO BE A PROPERTY TAX.  FN27  BUT
THIS COURT REJECTED THAT CONSTRUCTION SUB SILENTIO AND INVALIDATED THE
TAX IN MEMORANDUM OPINIONS CITING ONLY THE CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. CASE
(235 U.S. 292) AND THE INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. CASE (240
U.S. 522).  HOWARD V. GIPSY OIL CO., 247 U.S. 503; LARGE OIL CO. V.
HOWARD, 248 U.S. 549. 

SUSPICIONS THAT THIS COURT HAD OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT UNDER THE
REVISED STATUTE THE GROSS PRODUCTION TAX WAS IN LIEU OF RATHER THAN IN
ADDITION TO ALL OTHER AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES, FN28  WERE DISPELLED
BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES' REMARK IN GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA AT 504
505, THAT THE STATUTORY CHANGE HAD BEEN NOTICED AND REGARDED AS
IMMATERIAL.  FN29  IF A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX WAS A BURDEN ON THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT "SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS,
IT COULD NOT BE SAVED BECAUSE IT WAS IN LIEU OF A TAX UPON PROPERTY OR
WAS SO CHARACTERIZED."  SEE JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S.
134, 158. 

THE HIGH-WATER MARK OF IMMUNITY FOR NON-INDIAN LESSEES OF RESTRICTED
AND ALLOTTED INDIAN LANDS CAME IN 1922 WHEN THE GILLESPIE DECISION,
SUPRA, INVALIDATED AN OKLAHOMA NET INCOME TAX UPON INCOME DERIVED BY A
LESSEE FROM SALES OF HIS SHARE OF OIL PRODUCED FROM RESTRICTED LANDS. 

THE NON-INDIAN LESSEE'S IMMUNITY WAS LAST SUSTAINED HERE BY OKLAHOMA
V. BARNSDALL REFINERIES, SUPRA.  THAT DECISION HELD, ON APPLICATION OF
A RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL WAIVERS, THAT CONGRESS'
EXPRESS WAIVER OF IMMUNITY FROM GROSS PRODUCTION TAXES ON OIL PRODUCED
FROM THE SPECIFIED INDIAN LANDS DID NOT EXTEND TO PETROLEUM EXCISE
TAXES.  THE STATE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY
BUT PITCHED ITS ARGUMENT ON THE GROUND OF STATUTORY EXEMPTION.  FN30 

THE INSTRUMENTALITY DOCTRINE HAS BEEN APPLIED TO CONFER A CORRELATIVE
IMMUNITY UPON PRIVATE LESSEES OF STATEOWNED LANDS.  THE TEXAS RULE THAT
OIL AND GAS LEASES ARE PRESENT SALES TO THE LESSEES OF THE OIL AND GAS
IN PLACE CAUSED THIS COURT TO SUSTAIN THE IMPOSITION OF THE FEDERAL
INCOME TAX UPON INCOME OF THE LESSEE DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND
GAS PRODUCED FROM LANDS LEASED FROM THAT STATE.  IT WAS OBSERVED THAT "
...  THE REMOTE AND INDIRECT EFFECTS UPON THE ONE GOVERNMENT OF SUCH A
NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX BY THE OTHER HAVE NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED ADEQUATE
GROUNDS FOR THUS AIDING THE ONE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TAXING POWER OF
THE OTHER."  GROUP NO. 1 OIL CORP. V. BASS, 283 U.S. 279, 282. 

ALTHOUGH THIS DECISION MAY BE TAKEN TO MARK A TURNING POINT IN
EXPANSION OF THE LESSEE'S IMMUNITY, IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY PERMITTED TO
IMPAIR THE GILLESPIE RATIONALE.  A TAX ON INCOME WOULD BE NO GREATER
BURDEN WHERE, UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW, "TITLE" TO THE OIL DID NOT
"PASS" UNTIL THE OIL WAS REMOVED FROM THE GROUND.  AND ALTHOUGH
JUSTICES BRANDEIS, STONE, ROBERTS AND CARDOZO CONTENDED THAT THE
GILLESPIE DECISION COULD NOT STAND CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES
WHICH HAD BEEN REAFFIRMED IN THE GROUP NO. 1 OIL CASE, A MAJORITY OF
ONE IN BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, PROVIDED A
COROLLARY TO THE RULE OF THE GILLESPIE CASE.  THIS WAS DONE BY HOLDING
THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS BARRED FROM TAXING THE INCOME OF A
LESSEE OF STATE LANDS AS THE STATE WAS BARRED FROM TAXING THE INCOME OF
THE LESSEE OF FEDERAL LANDS. 

A PARALLEL IMMUNITY FROM STATE OCCUPATIONAL OR PRIVILEGE TAXES WAS
ONCE ACCORDED PRIVATE CONTRACTORS WITH, OR AGENCIES OF, THE GOVERNMENT,
WILLIAMS V. TALLADEGA, 226 U.S. 404, NOTWITHSTANDING THE VENERABLE RULE
THAT THE PROPERTY OF SUCH A CONTRACTOR OR AGENCY IS LIABLE TO STATE
PROPERTY TAXATION.  SEE THE CASES CITED SUPRA IN NOTE 18.  DECISIONS
CURTAILING THIS IMMUNITY WERE PRESAGED BY METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL(,
269 U.S. 514.  IT HELD SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION INCOME
RECEIVED BY A CONSULTING ENGINEER FROM A STATE FOR SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH TEMPORARY WORK.  EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT WAS ALWARD V.
JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 509, 514, WHICH SUSTAINED A STATE TAX MEASURED BY
GROSS RECEIPTS ON THE PROPERTY OF A STAGE LINE ENGAGED IN CARRYING THE
MAILS.  FN31 

LATER THIS COURT SUSTAINED A STATE TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF A
CONTRACTOR WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO.,
302 U.S. 134; SILAS MASON CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 186; A STATE
TAX ON THE NET INCOME OF SUCH A CONTRACTOR, ATKINSON V. TAX COMMISSION,
303 U.S. 20; STATE SALES AND USE TAXES ON PURCHASES OF MATERIALS USED
BY A CONTRACTOR IN PERFORMING A COST-PLUS CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED
STATES, ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1; CURRY V. UNITED STATES,
314 U.S. 14; AND A STATE SEVERANCE TAX IMPOSED ON A CONTRACTOR WHO
SEVERED AND PURCHASED TIMBER FROM LANDS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES,
WILSON V. COOK, 327 U.S. 474.  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT 

"  ...  THE CONSTITUTION, UNAIDED BY CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION,  ...
(DOES NOT PROHIBIT) A TAX EXACTED FROM THE CONTRACTORS MERELY BECAUSE
IT IS PASSED ON ECONOMICALLY, BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT OR
OTHERWISE, AS A PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST TO THE GOVERNMENT.  SO
FAR AS SUCH A NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAX UPON THE CONTRACTOR ENTERS
INTO THE COST OF THE MATERIALS TO THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IS BUT A NORMAL
INCIDENT OF THE ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY OF TWO
INDEPENDENT TAXING SOVEREIGNTIES.  THE ASSERTED RIGHT OF THE ONE TO BE
FREE OF TAXATION BY THE OTHER DOES NOT SPELL IMMUNITY FROM PAYING THE
ADDED COSTS, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TAXATION OF THOSE WHO FURNISH SUPPLIES
TO THE GOVERNMENT AND WHO HAVE BEEN GRANTED NO TAX IMMUNITY."  ALABAMA
V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1, 8-9. 

THE OPPORTUNITY TO REEXAMINE THE GILLESPIE AND CORONADO CASES AROSE
IN 1938 IN HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376, THE
DECISION UPON WHICH THE OKLAHOMA COMMISSION RELIES MOST STRONGLY TO
SECURE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASES.  THE MOUNTAIN
PRODUCERS CASE INVOLVED THE APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW
TO A CESTUI OF AN EXPRESS TRUST WHICH RECEIVED THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE
OF OIL TAKEN FROM SCHOOL LANDS OWNED BY THE STATE OF WYOMING.  THE
COURT DECLINED TO DISTINGUISH THE GILLESPIE AND CORONADO DECISIONS ON
THE NARROW GROUND AVAILABLE, THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS A CESTUI OF
A TRUST WHICH RECEIVED THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE OIL RATHER THAN
THE LESSEE ITSELF.  303 U.S. AT 383.  FN32 

RATHER THE COURT SOUGHT BROADER GROUNDING, WHICH LAY IN
RECONSIDERATION OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE GILLESPIE AND CORONADO
DECISIONS.  THE OPINION STATED: 

"THE GROUND OF THE DECISION IN THE GILLESPIE CASE, AS STATED BY MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES IN SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, WAS THAT 'A TAX UPON THE
LEASES' WAS 'A TAX UPON THE POWER TO MAKE THEM, AND COULD BE USED TO
DESTROY THE POWER TO MAKE THEM' (240 U.S. P. 530) AND THAT A TAX 'UPON
THE PROFITS OF THE LEASES' WAS 'A DIRECT HAMPER UPON THE EFFORT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO MAKE THE BEST TERMS THAT IT CAN FOR ITS WARDS.'  (257
U.S. AT 506.)  IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPANDING NEEDS OF STATE AND NATION,
THE INQUIRY HAS BEEN PRESSED WHETHER THIS CONCLUSION HAS ADEQUATE BASIS
...  "  303 U.S. AT 384. 

NOTHING THAT IT HAD HELD THAT THE GILLESPIE RULING SHOULD BE LIMITED
STRICTLY TO CASES CLOSELY ANALOGOUS,  FN33  AND ASSERTING THAT "THE
DISTINCTIONS THUS MAINTAINED HAVE ATTENUATED ITS TEACHING AND RAISED
GRAVE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER IT SHOULD LONGER BE SUPPORTED," 303 U.S. AT
384-385, THE COURT WENT ON TO SAY: 

"IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS WE HAVE HAD OCCASION TO DECLARE THE COMPETING
PRINCIPLE, BUTTRESSED BY THE MOST COGENT CONSIDERATIONS, THAT THE POWER
TO TAX SHOULD NOT BE CRIPPLED 'BY EXTENDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION TO THOSE SUBJECTS WHICH FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL
APPLICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY LAWS, AND WHERE NO DIRECT BURDEN IS
LAID UPON THE GOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTALITY AND THERE IS ONLY REMOTE, IF
ANY, INFLUENCE UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.' 
WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216, 225, AND ILLUSTRATIONS THERE CITED." 
303 U.S. AT 385. 

THAT COMPETING PRINCIPLE THE COURT FOUND APPLICABLE TO THE CASE
BEFORE IT AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE DECISIONS IN THE GILLESPIE AND
CORONADO CASES BE OVERRULED.  REJECTING AS INSUBSTANTIAL THE
DISTINCTION BASED ON THE PASSAGE OF TITLE TO THE OIL AT THE TIME OF
MAKING THE LEASE, COMPARE GROUP NO. 1 OIL CORP. V. BASS, SUPRA, WITH
BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., SUPRA, AND AFTER REVIEWING VARIOUS
OTHER DECISIONS DENYING THE IMMUNITY WHEN CLAIMED BY PRIVATE PERSONS,
303 U.S. AT 385-386, THE COURT SAID: 

"THESE DECISIONS IN A VARIETY OF APPLICATIONS ENFORCE WHAT WE DEEM TO
BE THE CONTROLLING VIEW - THAT IMMUNITY FROM NON-DISCRIMINATORY
TAXATION SOUGHT BY A PRIVATE PERSON FOR HIS PROPERTY OR GAINS BECAUSE
HE IS ENGAGED IN OPERATIONS UNDER A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT OR LEASE CANNOT
BE SUPPORTED BY MERELY THEORETICAL CONCEPTIONS OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  REGARD MUST BE HAD TO SUBSTANCE AND DIRECT
EFFECTS."  303 U.S. AT 386. 

               IV. 

RESPONDENTS STRONGLY URGE THAT THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS DECISION IS NOT
CONTROLLING OR EFFECTIVE TO REQUIRE REVERSAL IN THESE CASES, SINCE IT
INVOLVED A TAX ON NET INCOME RATHER THAN GROSS PRODUCTION AND EXCISE
TAXES.  AND THEY INSIST THAT A SHARP LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN BETWEEN WHAT
THEY CALL LESSEES PERFORMING A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AND INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS DOING WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  FN34  THE LATTER
DISTINCTION IS LARGELY, IF NOT ALTOGETHER VERBAL, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
FACT SITUATIONS IN THESE CASES.  AS FOR THE FORMER DIFFERENCE, ALTHOUGH
THE COURT EXPLICITLY OVERRULED ONLY THE GILLESPIE AND CORONADO CASES,
THE GROUNDINGS OF THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS DECISION DO NOT PERMIT
LIMITING ITS EFFECTS TO SO NARROW AN APPLICATION.  FN35 

THE LANGUAGE LAST QUOTED ABOVE IS AS APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASES
AS IT WAS TO THE GILLESPIE AND CORONADO DECISIONS.  THE TAXES HERE ARE
NONDISCRIMINATORY.  THE RESPONDENTS ARE "PRIVATE PERSONS" WHO SEEK
IMMUNITY "FOR THEIR PROPERTY OR GAINS BECAUSE THEY ARE ENGAGED IN
OPERATIONS UNDER A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT OR LEASE."  THE FUNCTIONS THEY
PERFORM IN OPERATING THE LEASES ARE HARDLY MORE GOVERNMENTAL IN
CHARACTER THAN THOSE PERFORMED BY LESSEES OF SCHOOL LANDS OR, INDEED,
BY MANY CONTRACTORS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  THE LESSEES IN THE MOUNTAIN
PRODUCERS CASE STOOD IDENTICALLY WITH THE RESPONDENTS IN ALL THESE
RESPECTS.    MOREOVER THE BURDENS OF THE TAXES HERE, IF ANY OF A
CHARACTER LIKELY TO INTERFERE WITH RESPONDENTS IN CARRYING OUT THE
TERMS OF THEIR LEASES, ARE AS APPROPRIATELY TO BE JUDGED BY "REGARD
...  TO SUBSTANCE AND DIRECT EFFECTS," AND AS INAPPROPRIATELY TO BE
DETERMINED "BY MERELY THEORETICAL CONCEPTIONS OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT," AS WERE THOSE IN THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS
CASE.  FN36  TRUE, AS RESPONDENTS SAY, A NET INCOME TAX MAY BE A STEP
FARTHER REMOVED FROM INTERFERING EFFECT THAN A GROSS PRODUCTION TAX OR
AN EXCISE TAX ON PRODUCTION.  BUT THIS ALL DEPENDS UPON THE RATE AT
WHICH EACH TAX IS LEVIED. 

TO THE ADAPTATION OF MARSHALL'S OFT-QUOTED APHORISM MADE BY MR.
JUSTICE MCKENNA IN INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA,
240 U.S. AT 530, AND FOLLOWED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN GILLESPIE V.
OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. AT 505, NAMELY, THAT "A TAX UPON THE LEASES IS A TAX
UPON THE POWER TO MAKE THEM, AND COULD BE USED TO DESTROY THE POWER TO
MAKE THEM," CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CASE DID NOT
EXPLICITLY MAKE THE REJOINDER GIVEN BY HOLMES IN ANOTHER CONNECTION,
"THE POWER TO TAX IS NOT THE POWER TO DESTROY WHILE THIS COURT SITS." 
PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218, 223.  BUT THIS WAS THE EFFECT
OF THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS DECISION, WHEN IN A SINGLE PARAGRAPH IT
CHALLENGED BOTH THE APHORISM AND THE ASSUMPTION THAT "A TAX UPON THE
PROFITS OF THE LEASES" WAS "A DIRECT HAMPER UPON THE EFFORT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO MAKE THE BEST TERMS THAT IT CAN FOR ITS WARDS." 

THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CASE WAS NOT DECIDED ON NARROW, MERELY
TECHNICAL OR PRESUMPTIVE GROUNDS.  ITS VERY FOUNDATION WAS A
REPUDIATION OF THOSE INSUBSTANTIAL BASES FOR SECURING BROAD PRIVATE TAX
EXEMPTIONS, UNJUSTIFIED BY ACTUAL INTERFERING OR DESTRUCTIVE EFFECTS
UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATIONS TO OR WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT,
STATE OR NATIONAL.  THE DECISION CAME AS THE RESULT OF EXPERIENCE AND
OF OBSERVATION OF THE CONSTANT WIDENING OF THE EXEMPTING PROCESS FROM
TAX TO TAX TO TAX. 

SINCE THAT DECISION, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN REVERSED
IN DIRECTION.  TRUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY REMAINS FOR THE MOST
PART.  BUT, SO FAR AS CONCERNS PRIVATE PERSONS CLAIMING IMMUNITY FOR
THEIR ORDINARY BUSINESS OPERATIONS (EVEN THOUGH IN CONNECTION WITH
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES), NO IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY CAN REST
ON THE MERELY HYPOTHETICAL INTERFERENCES WITH GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS
HERE ASSERTED TO SUSTAIN EXEMPTION.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE BROAD
GROUNDINGS OF THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS DECISION AND OF LATER DECISIONS,
WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE GIPSY OIL, LARGE OIL AND BARNSDALL REFINERIES
DECISIONS REMAIN IMMUNE TO THE EFFECTS OF THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS
DECISION AND OTHERS WHICH HAVE FOLLOWED IT.  THEY "ARE OUT OF HARMONY
WITH CORRECT PRINCIPLE," AS WERE THE GILLESPIE AND CORONADO DECISIONS
AND, ACCORDINGLY, THEY SHOULD BE, AND THEY NOW ARE, OVERRULED.  THIS
ACCORDS WITH THE RESULT REACHED IN SANTA RITA OIL CO. V. STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION, 112 MONT. 359.  MOREOVER, SINCE THE DECISIONS IN CHOCTAW,
O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, SUPRA, AND INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL
CO. V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, REST UPON THE SAME FOUNDATIONS AS THOSE
UNDERLYING THE GIPSY OIL, LARGE OIL AND BARNSDALL REFINERIES DECISIONS,
INDEED SUPPLIED THOSE FOUNDATIONS, WE THINK THEY TOO SHOULD BE, AND
THEY NOW ARE, OVERRULED. 

WE DO NOT IMPLY, BY THIS DECISION, THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE POWER
TO IMMUNIZE THESE LESSEES FROM THE TAXES WE THINK THE CONSTITUTION
PERMITS OKLAHOMA TO IMPOSE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ACTION.  FN37  THE
QUESTION WHETHER IMMUNITY SHALL BE EXTENDED IN SITUATIONS LIKE THESE IS
ESSENTIALLY LEGISLATIVE IN CHARACTER.  BUT CONGRESS HAS NOT CREATED AN
IMMUNITY HERE BY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION,  FN38  AND "THE IMMUNITY FORMERLY
SAID TO REST ON CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATION CANNOT NOW BE RESURRECTED IN
THE FORM OF STATUTORY IMPLICATION."  OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 598, 604.  AND SEE GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE,
306 U.S. 466, 480:  "  ...  IF IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO GROUND FOR
IMPLYING A CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, THERE IS EQUALLY A WANT OF ANY
GROUND FOR ASSUMING ANY PURPOSE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO CREATE AN
IMMUNITY." 

THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT APPEARS TO SUGGEST, THOUGH THE OPINIONS DO
NOT FLATLY SO STATE, AS A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE SUPPORT FOR ITS
CONCLUSION IN THESE CASES THAT "CONGRESS HAS ACTED ON THE THEORY THAT
SUCH IMMUNITY EXISTS IN THE CASE OF LEASES OF THIS CHARACTER UNLESS
WAIVED," THAT IS, SEVERAL CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS PERMIT OKLAHOMA TO
IMPOSE A GROSS PRODUCTION TAX ON MINERALS PRODUCED FROM THE LANDS OF
THE OSAGES,  FN39  THE KAWS,  FN40  THE QUAPAWS,  FN41  AND THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES,  FN42  AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF TAXES DUE ON ACCOUNT
OF THE INDIANS' ROYALTY INTEREST.  BUT CONGRESS' PURPOSE IN ENACTING
THESE STATUTES WAS THE REMOVAL OF THE IMMUNITIES OF THE INDIANS
THEMSELVES, IMMUNITIES WHICH ARE NOT CHALLENGED IN THESE CASES; THE
ACTION WAS OCCASIONED BY THE FAVORABLE ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE
PARTICULAR INDIANS.  FN43  THE RESULTING REMOVAL OF THE IMMUNITY OF
PRIVATE LESSEES OF THOSE INDIAN LANDS WAS AN INCIDENTAL EFFECT OF THIS
LEGISLATION. 

FINALLY, WE REFUSE TO INFER FROM MERE CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE APPROVAL
OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY ENUNCIATED IN THE CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO.,
INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL (240 U.S. 522), GIPSY OIL, LARGE OIL
AND BARNSDALL REFINERIES DECISIONS, SUPRA.  CONGRESS' SILENCE PRIOR TO
THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS DECISION DID NOT PRECLUDE THIS COURT FROM
CURTAILING THE LESSEE'S IMMUNITY IN THAT CASE; AND CONGRESS SEEMS TO
HAVE ACCEPTED THAT DECISION WITH EQUANIMITY.  CF. GIROUARD V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 61, 69-70; GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306
U.S. 466, 479-480.  FN44  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  INTERESTS IN THE LANDS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT HOLD
TITLE ARE OF TWO KINDS: (1) UNDIVIDED INTERESTS ACQUIRED BY NON
INDIANS; (2) AN INTEREST (WHICH IS STILL RESTRICTED) CONVEYED TO THE
SON OF AN ALLOTTEE BY APPROVED NONCOMPETENT INDIAN DEEDS, PURSUANT TO
THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1907, 34 STAT. 1018, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 405. 

FN2  FEBRUARY 8, 1887, 24 STAT. 388, AS AMENDED, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 331
ET SEQ. 

FN3  THE ALLOTMENTS WERE MADE TO MEMBERS OF THE APACHE AND COMANCHE
TRIBES PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT APPROVED BY CONGRESS ON JUNE 6, 1900,
31 STAT. 676.  MEMBERS OF THE CITIZEN BAND OF THE POTTAWATOMIE TRIBE
WERE ALLOTTED LAND PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT OF MARCH 3, 1891, 26 STAT.
1016.  ALLOTMENTS WERE MADE TO THE OTOE AND MISSOURIA INDIANS UNDER THE
GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT WITHOUT SPECIAL AGREEMENT.  MILLS, OKLAHOMA
INDIAN LAND LAWS SEC. 438(1924). 

THE NATURE OF THE INDIANS' INTEREST HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:  "
...  THE UNITED STATES RETAINED THE LEGAL TITLE, GIVING THE INDIAN
ALLOTTEE A PAPER OR WRITING, IMPROPERLY CALLED A PATENT, SHOWING THAT
AT A PARTICULAR TIME IN THE FUTURE, UNLESS IT WAS EXTENDED BY THE
PRESIDENT, HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A REGULAR PATENT CONVEYING THE
FEE."  UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432, 436. 

FN4  WITH THESE EXCEPTIONS:  (1) IN A SINGLE IMMATERIAL INSTANCE IN
NO. 40, AN UNDIVIDED 7/16TH INTEREST IN ONE OF THE LEASES WAS ALIENABLE
AND WAS OWNED BY NON-INDIANS.  THE TEXAS COMPANY PAID WITHOUT PROTEST
THE TAXES LEVIED AGAINST IT WHICH WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS 7/16TH
INTEREST.  (2) IN NO. 41, AN UNDIVIDED 1/4TH INTEREST IN THE LANDS
SUBJECT TO ONE OF THE LEASES AND AN UNDIVIDED 1/3D INTEREST IN THE LAND
SUBJECT TO ANOTHER LEASE WERE OWNED BY NON-INDIANS.  THE EFFECT OF THE
DECISION OF THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT WAS TO DENY THE PORTION OF THE
ASSESSMENTS APPLICABLE TO THESE INTERESTS.  HOWEVER, IT WAS CONCEDED AT
THE ARGUMENT HERE THAT THE ASSESSMENTS WERE VALID INSOFAR AS THEY
APPLIED TO INTERESTS IN LANDS OWNED, WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE, BY
NON-INDIAN OWNERS OR BY INDIAN OWNERS NOT UNDER RESTRICTION. 

FN5  24 STAT. 389, 390, AS AMENDED, 25 U.S.C. SECS. 348, 349.  SEE
COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW 108-109(1942).  LEASES OF
ALLOTTED LAND FOR MINING PURPOSES MAY BE MADE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UNDER 35 STAT. 783, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 396. 

FN6  52 STAT. 348, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 396D; 30 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SECS.
221.1-221.67. 

FN7  52 OKLA. STAT. SECS. 81-286.17(CONSERVATION OF OIL AND GAS),
SECS. 291-303(REGULATION AND INSPECTION OF WELLS)(CUM.  SUPP.  1947);
ORDER NO. 1299 - CAUSE NO. 2935, THIRTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF
CORPORATION COMM'N OF OKLA., 1944, P. 84. 

THE ASSUMPTION STATED IN THE TEXT IS MADE, ALTHOUGH IN NO. 41 THE
COMMISSION EXCLUDED, AS IRRELEVANT, EVIDENCE TENDERED TO SHOW
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS, AND IN NO. 40 NO
EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WAS INTRODUCED. 

FN8  THE THREE OIL AND GAS LEASES INVOLVED IN NO. 40 WERE MADE BY
MEMBERS OF THE APACHE TRIBE TO NON-INDIAN LESSEES WHO ASSIGNED THEIR
INTERESTS TO THE TEXAS COMPANY.  IN NO. 41, IN WHICH EIGHT LEASES ARE
INVOLVED, THE INDIAN LESSORS ARE MEMBERS OF THE APACHE, COMANCHE,
CITIZEN POTTAWATOMIE, AND OTOE AND MISSOURIA TRIBES. 

UNDIVIDED INTERESTS IN THE LANDS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LEASES WERE HELD
BY NON-INDIANS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT.  SEE NOTES 1 AND 4. 

FN9  68 OKLA. STAT. SEC. 821(1941).  THE (GENERAL) SCHEME OF THE TAX
IS AS FOLLOWS:  THE TAX FALLS DUE ON THE FIRST DAY OF EACH CALENDAR
MONTH AS TO PRODUCTION DURING THE PRECEDING MONTH.  THE PURCHASER PAYS
THE TAX ON OIL OR GAS SOLD AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION AND IS AUTHORIZED
TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAID WHEN SETTLING WITH THE PRODUCER (AND
WITH THE ROYALTY OWNER IN CASES IN WHICH THE TAX APPLIES TO HIM, SEE
NOTE 14).  IF THE TAX BECOMES DUE BEFORE THE OIL IS SOLD, THE PRODUCER
IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE TAX FOR HIMSELF (AND, IN CASES WHERE THE TAX
APPLIES TO ROYALTIES, SEE NOTE 14, FOR THE ROYALTY OWNER, AND IS
PERMITTED TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAID ON ROYALTY OIL WHEN SETTLING
WITH THE ROYALTY OWNER).  68 ID. SEC. 833.  THE TAX IS A FIRST AND
PARAMOUNT LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE PERSON LIABLE FOR THE TAX. 
68 ID. SEC. 836. 

OF THE PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM THE TAX, 78 PER CENT IS PA&D INTO THE
STATE TREASURY TO BE USED FOR THE GENERAL EXPENSES OF STATE
GOVERNMENT.  TEN PER CENT IS PAID TO THE COUNTY TREASURER OF THE COUNTY
IN WHICH THE OIL OR GAS WAS PRODUCED, AND IS USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE OF COUNTY HIGHWAYS.  TEN PER CENT IS PAID TO THE COUNTY
TREASURER FOR DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE COUNTY'S SCHOOL DISTRICTS.  THE
REMAINING TWO PER CENT IS PLACED TO THE CREDIT OF THE OKLAHOMA TAX
COMMISSION AND IS USED FOR COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.  68
ID. SEC. 827(CUM.  SUPP.  1947). 

FN10  BUT SEE NOTE 27 AND TEXT INFRA. 

FN11  THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX WAS ONE-EIGHTH OF ONE CENT PER BARREL FOR
THE PERIOD PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1943, OKLA. LAWS, 1941, TIT. 68, C. 26, AND
ONE MILL PER BARREL AFTER THAT DATE, OKLA. LAWS, 1943, TIT. 68, C. 26. 
THE TEXAS COMPANY WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE FORMER ACT.  MAGNOLIA WAS
ASSESSED UNDER BOTH ACTS. 

FN12  OKLA. LAWS, 1933, C. 131, AS AMENDED, 52 OKLA. STAT. 81 ET SEQ.
(CUM. SUPP. 1947). 

FN13  OKLA. LAWS, 1933, C. 132; OKLA. LAWS, 1935, C. 59, ART. 2;
OKLA. LAWS, 1937, C. 59, ART. 2; OKLA. LAWS, 1939, C. 66, ART. 7; OKLA.
LAWS, 1941, TIT. 68, C. 26; OKLA. LAWS, 1943, TIT. 68, C. 26; OKLA.
LAWS, 1945, TIT. 68, C. 26; OKLA. LAWS, 1947, TIT. 68, C. 26.  THE
PRESENT STATUTE APPEARS AT 68 OKLA. STAT. SEC. 1220.1 ET SEQ. (CUM.
SUPP. 1947). 

THE TAX RECEIPTS, COLLECTED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF THE
GROSS PRODUCTION TAX, PRESENT 68 OKLA. STAT. SEC. 1220.1(CUM.  SUPP. 
1947), ARE DEPOSITED TO THE CREDIT OF THE "CONSERVATION FUND" AND THE
"INTERSTATE OIL COMPACT FUND OF OKLAHOMA."  68 ID. 1220.3. 

FN14  ALTHOUGH THE OKLAHOMA STATUTES IN THEIR GENERAL APPLICATION LAY
THE TAXES ON GROSS PRODUCTION, INCLUDING ROYALTIES, CF. NOTES 9 AND 13,
THEY PROVIDE, WITH RESPECT TO THE GROSS PRODUCTION TAX, THAT THE
PRODUCER, IN HIS REQUIRED MONTHLY STATEMENT TO THE OKLAHOMA TAX
COMMISSION, STATE "WHERE SUCH ROYALTY IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM
TAXATION BY LAW, THE FACTS ON WHICH SUCH CLAIM OF EXEMPTION IS BASED." 
68 OKLA. STAT. SEC. 821(1941).  THIS PROVISION IS MADE APPLICABLE TO
THE PETROLEUM EXCISE TAX BY THE FIRST SECTION OF EACH OF THE SEVERAL
ENACTMENTS ESTABLISHING AND CONTINUING THAT EXACTION.  SEE NOTE 13
SUPRA.  ONLY THE INTERESTS OF THE LESSEES WERE ASSESSED IN THESE
CASES. 

FN15  THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT RENDERED SEPARATE, UNREPORTED
OPINIONS.  THE PRINCIPAL OPINION, FILED IN THE TEXAS COMPANY CASE, WAS
FOLLOWED IN THE LATER ONE FILED IN THE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CASE. 
REHEARING WAS DENIED IN BOTH CASES. 

THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TEXAS COMPANY CASE PROVIDED FOR REVERSAL
OF THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT, WITH DIRECTIONS TO OVERRULE THE
COMMISSION'S DEMURRER "AND PROCEED CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEWS HERE
EXPRESSED."  ON MOTION OF COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION THIS WAS MODIFIED
TO PROVIDE THAT "THE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT  ...  IS REVERSED" AND THAT
"FINAL JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED FOR PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT FOR THE SUM SUED FOR," THUS ELIMINATING ALL QUESTION
CONCERNING THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 15 SUPRA. 

FN17  PURSUANT TO FORMER SEC. 237(C) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS
AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(C), PRESENT 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2103. 

FN18  THOMSON V. PACIFIC R. CO., 9 WALL.  579; RAILROAD CO. V.
PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5; CENTRAL PACIFIC R. CO. V. CALIFORNIA, 162 U.S.
91; GROMER V. STANDARD DREDGING CO., 224 U.S. 362, 371; CHOCTAW, O. &
G. R. CO. V. MACKEY, 256 U.S. 531, 535-537.    FN19  SEE NOTE 27 AND
TEXT. 

FN20  BUT SEE TEXT INFRA, PART III.  UNLESS THE MEASURE OF A TAX IS
FAIRLY TO BE CONSIDERED AS DESIGNED TO CONCEAL OR DISTORT UNDULY ITS
TRUE NATURE, THE TAX IS NOT TO BE INVALIDATED BECAUSE THE MEASURE IS
NOT ONE CUSTOMARILY EMPLOYED IF AS APPLIED IT ACHIEVES FAIRLY THE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS AVOWEDLY LAID, THAT PURPOSE OF COURSE BEING ONE
WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ACCOMPLISH.  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST.
LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459; HOPE GAS CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284; UTAH POWER &
LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165.  MOREOVER, ORDINARILY THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO A STATE STATUTE BY THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT
CAPABLE OF DECIDING THE QUESTION IS TAKEN AS BINDING ON THIS COURT. 
SEE E.G., KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS V. MEYER, 265 U.S. 30, 32-33; GUARANTY
TRUST CO. V. BLODGETT, 287 U.S. 509, 513; HARTFORD ACCIDENT CO. V.
NELSON CO., 291 U.S. 352, 358.  CF. GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V.
TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 227; HANOVER INSURANCE CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S.
494, 509-510; CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363, 367-368. 

FN21  SEE NOTE 14 SUPRA.  CF. CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363,
HOLDING THAT OIL ROYALTIES RECEIVED BY INDIAN LESSORS FROM NONTAXABLE
ALLOTTED LANDS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO A STATE GROSS PRODUCTION TAX, THE
TAX BEING REGARDED AS ON THE LESSOR'S INTEREST RATHER THAN ON THE
SEVERED OIL.  BUT ROYALTY INCOME IS SUBJECT TO STATE AND FEDERAL NET
INCOME TAXES.  CHOTEAU V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 691; SUPERINTENDENT OF FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES V. COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S. 418; LEAHY V. STATE
TREASURER, 297 U.S. 420. 

FN22  AT NOTE 18. 

FN23  DISTINGUISHING JAYBIRD MINING CO. V. WEIR, 271 U.S. 609, ON THE
GROUND THAT THERE THE INTEREST OF THE INDIAN LESSOR HAD NOT BEEN
PREPAID OR SEGREGATED. 

FN24  SEE THE KANSAS INDIANS, 5 WALL.  737; THE NEW YORK INDIANS, 5
WALL.  761.  THOSE EARLY DECISIONS SEEM TO REST ON THE BASIS THAT THE
INDIAN TRIBES POSSESSED MANY ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY. 

AS TO THE IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION OF LANDS ACQUIRED BY
INDIVIDUAL INDIANS BY TREATY OR UNDER THE GENERAL HOMESTEAD LAWS RATHER
THAN UNDER THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT, SEE COHEN, OP. CIT. SUPRA NOTE 5,
AT 257-258, 259-260. 

LANDS OUTSIDE A RESERVATION PURCHASED WITH RESTRICTED INDIAN FUNDS
FROM A PERSON WHO DID NOT HOLD THE LAND TAX EXEMPT WERE HELD SUBJECT TO
STATE TAXES IN SHAW V. GIBSON-ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575.  BUT
CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED SUCH LANDS FROM TAXATION.  ACT OF JUNE
20, 1936, 49 STAT. 1542, AS AMENDED, 50 STAT. 188(TO LIMIT THE
EXEMPTION TO HOMESTEADS), 25 U.S.C. SEC. 412A.  SEE COHEN, OP. CIT.
SUPRA, AT 260-261.  THIS LEGISLATION WAS SUSTAINED AND APPLIED IN BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER, 318 U.S. 705. 

FN25  OKLA. LAWS, 1910, C. 44, SEC. 6, ADDING A PROVISION PERMITTING
THE PRODUCER TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF ROYALTIES PAID FOR THE BENEFIT OF
AN INDIAN TRIBE. 

FN26  OKLA. LAWS, 1915, C. 107, ART. 2, SUBD. A; OKLA. LAWS, 1916, C.
39.  FURTHER AMENDMENTS WERE MADE BY OKLA. LAWS, 1933, C. 103, AND BY
OKLA. LAWS, 1935, C. 66, ART. 4.  SEE NOTE 9 AND TEXT SUPRA. 

FN27  LARGE OIL CO. V. HOWARD, 63 OKLA. 143, REVERSED PER CURIAM, 248
U.S. 549.  IN RE GROSS PRODUCTION TAX OF WOLVERINE OIL CO., 53 OKLA.
24, WHICH HAD HELD THAT THE 1915 ACT WAS AN OCCUPATIONAL RATHER THAN A
PROPERTY TAX, WAS DISTINGUISHED BECAUSE OF CHANGES MADE BY THE 1916
ACT.  THE WOLVERINE CASE WAS SPECIFICALLY OVERRULED IN IN RE SKELTON
LEAD & ZINC CO.'S GROSS PRODUCTION TAX, 1919, 81 OKLA. 134; ACCORD,
BERGIN OIL & GAS CO. V. HOWARD, 82 OKLA. 176.  THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME
COURT HAS SINCE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE TAX IS A PROPERTY TAX IN
LIEU OF ALL OTHER AD VALOREM TAXES.  E.G., IN RE PROTEST OF BENDELARI,
AGENT, 82 OKLA. 97.  AND SEE MERIWETHER V. LOVETT, 166 OKLA. 73; STATE
V. INDIAN ROYALTY CO.(, 177 OKLA. 238; PETEET V. CARMICHAEL, 191 OKLA.
593. 

FN28  THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT ASSUMED FOR A TIME THAT THE
STATUTORY DIFFERENCE WAS OVERLOOKED BY THIS COURT AND THAT AN OPPOSITE
RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN REACHED HAD THE DIFFERENCE BEEN NOTICED.  IN RE
SKELTON LEAD & ZINC CO.'S GROSS PRODUCTION TAX, 1919, 81 OKLA. 134; IN
RE PROTEST OF BENDELARI, AGENT, 82 OKLA. 97. 

FN29  THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT CAPITULATED IN ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R.
R. CO. V. MCCURDY, 86 OKLA. 148. 

FN30  SEE NOTE 39 INFRA. 

FN31  CF. THE CONTEMPORARY CASE OF WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216,
HOLDING CAPITAL GAIN RESULTING FROM RESALE OF MUNICIPAL BONDS TAXABLE
UNDER THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW. 

FN32  CF. BURNET V. A.T. JERGINS TRUST, 288 U.S. 508, 516, IN WHICH A
CITY LEASED OIL AND GAS LAND TO A PRIVATE TRUST, WHICH WAS HELD LIABLE
FOR A FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON ITS SHARE OF THE RECEIPTS, THE COURT
STATING THAT "THE DOCTRINE OF GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA IS TO BE APPLIED
STRICTLY AND ONLY IN CIRCUMSTANCES CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO THOSE WHICH IT
DISCLOSED." 

FN33  CITING BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, WHICH
THE OPINION CHARACTERIZED AS "A COROLLARY" TO THE GILLESPIE CASE.  303
U.S. AT 383.  THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX IN THE CORONADO CASE WAS LEVIED
UPON THE LESSEE OF STATE SCHOOL LANDS.  CF. NOTE 32 SUPRA. 

FN34  AMONG THE CASES WHICH ONE OR THE OTHER OF RESPONDENTS ATTEMPTS
TO DISTINGUISH ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX WAS IMPOSED ON AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR RATHER THAN A "TRUE FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY" ARE:  JAMES V.
DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134; BUCKSTAFF CO. V. MCKINLEY, 308
U.S. 358; ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1; AND WILSON V. COOK, 327
U.S. 474. 

IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT CASES SUSTAINING TAXES ON THE PROPERTY OF A
FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY, E.G., RAILROAD CO. V. PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5;
ALWARD V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 509; INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO.
V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 288 U.S. 325, ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
VIEW THEY ASK US TO TAKE.  CF. PART I SUPRA. 

FN35  THE INCONGRUITY OF THE DOCTRINE RESPONDENTS ASK US TO
PERPETUATE IS UNDERSCORED BY DECISIONS SUBSEQUENT TO THE MOUNTAIN
PRODUCERS CASE WITHDRAWING INCOME TAX IMMUNITY FOR STATE AND FEDERAL
OFFICIAL SALARIES.  HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405; GRAVES V. NEW
YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466. 

SEE GENERALLY, POWELL, THE WANING OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX
IMMUNITIES, 58 HARV. L. REV. 633; POWELL, THE REMNANT OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX IMMUNITIES, 58 HARV. L. REV. 757. 

FN36  RESPONDENTS MERELY ASSERT HYPOTHETICALLY THAT IMPOSITION OF THE
TAXES MIGHT IN SOME INSTANCES MAKE THE MARGIN BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND
UNSUCCESSFUL OPERATION.  LEASES APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR PROVIDED FOR THE SAME RENTAL AND ROYALTY PAYMENTS BOTH BEFORE
AND AFTER THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS DECISION.  25 C.F.R. SEC. 189.16.  AND
RENTAL AND ROYALTY PAYMENTS PROVIDED FOR BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR ARE THE SAME FOR LANDS ALLOTTED UNDER THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT
ACT AS THEY ARE FOR LANDS OF MEMBERS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, 25
C.F.R. SECS. 183.24, 189.16.  PRODUCTION FROM THE LATTER LANDS HAS BEEN
SUBJECT TO OKLAHOMA'S GROSS PRODUCTION TAX SINCE 1928.  SEE NOTE 42
INFRA.  THE GOVERNMENT, IN ITS BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE, STATES THAT,
BECAUSE DIFFERENCES IN THE VALUE OF DIFFERENT TRACTS OF LAND WOULD BE
REFLECTED IN THE BONUSES WHICH LESSEES ARE WILLING TO PAY, AN EXACT
COMPARISON OF BONUSES IS IMPOSSIBLE. 

FN37  SEE JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 160-161;
PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS CORP., 308 U.S. 21, 32-33; MARICOPA COUNTY V.
VALLEY BANK, 318 U.S. 357, 361; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER, 318
U.S. 705, 715-719; OKLAHOMA TAC COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S.
598, 606-607; MAYO V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 441, 446; SMITH V. DAVIS,
323 U.S. 111, 116-119. 

FN38  SEE COHEN, OP. CIT. SUPRA NOTE 5, AT 255-256. 

FN39  41 STAT. 1250.  AS HAS BEEN STATED, OKLAHOMA V. BARNSDALL
REFINERIES, 296 U.S. 521, HELD THAT THIS STATUTE DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE
IMPOSITION OF THE STATE'S PETROLEUM EXCISE TAX.  SEE TEXT AT NOTE 30
SUPRA. 

FN40  43 STAT. 176. 

FN41  41 STAT. 1248, AS AMENDED, 50 STAT. 68. 

FN42  45 STAT. 496. 

FN43  H.R. REP. NO. 1377, 66TH CONG., 3D SESS. 4; H.R. REP. NO. 1278,
66TH CONG., 3D SESS. 2-3; S. REP. NO. 704, 66TH CONG., 3D SESS. 3(ALL
RELATING TO THE OSAGE ACT, NOTE 39 SUPRA); H.R. REP. NO. 269, 68TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 3; S. REP. NO. 433, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3(BOTH
RELATING TO THE KAW ACT, NOTE 40 SUPRA); H.R. REP. NO. 431, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 234, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2(BOTH RELATING TO
THE QUAPAW ACT, NOTE 41 SUPRA); H.R. REP. NO. 1193, 70TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 5; S. REP. NO. 982, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 4-5(BOTH RELATING TO
THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES ACT, NOTE 42 SUPRA). 

FN44  RESPONDENTS ALSO URGE THAT THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE HAS
RECOGNIZED THE IMMUNITY THEY ASSERT HERE BY AUTHORIZING THE REFUND OF
"PAYMENT MADE IN ERROR ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRODUCTION BEING DERIVED FROM
RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  68 OKLA.
STAT. SEC. 832(1941).  ALTHOUGH RESPONDENTS TELL US THAT THIS ARGUMENT
WAS URGED UPON THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT, THAT COURT DID NOT MENTION
THIS POSSIBLE STATE GROUND BUT RESTED ITS DECISION EXCLUSIVELY ON THE
FEDERAL GROUND.  WE DO NOT PURPORT TO DECIDE WHETHER OKLAHOMA LAW
AFFORDS THE EXEMPTION WHICH FEDERAL LAW DENIES. 

SEE NOTE 4 AS TO THE ASSESSMENTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNDIVIDED
INTERESTS IN LANDS HELD BY NON-INDIANS IN NO. 41. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :














HIRSHBERG V. COOKE, 336 U.S. 210 


NO. 231.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1949.  - 168
F.2D 503, REVERSED. 


1.  A NAVY COURT-MARTIAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY AN ENLISTED MAN
FOR A VIOLATION OF ART. 8 OF THE ARTICLES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
NAVY, 34 U.S.C. SEC. 1200, ART. 8, COMMITTED DURING A PRIOR ENLISTMENT
TERMINATED BY AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE, EVEN THOUGH HE REENLISTED ON THE
DAY FOLLOWING HIS DISCHARGE.  PP. 211-219. 

2.  THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF 34 U.S.C. SEC. 1200, ART. 14(ELEVENTH), SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZING TRIAL AFTER DISCHARGE OF OFFENDERS AGAINST ART. 14.  PP.
214-216. 

3.  IT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY LONG-STANDING ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION, INCLUDING 31 OP. ATTY. GEN. 521.  PP. 216-217. 

4.  34 U.S.C. SEC. 591, AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, TO ADOPT AND ALTER REGULATIONS AND
ORDERS FOR THE CONTROL OF THE NAVY, DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE NAVY TO
EXTEND ITS COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION BEYOND THE LIMITS CONGRESS HAD
FIXED.  PP. 217-218. 

5.  NOR CAN A NAVY REGULATION CLAIMED TO GRANT JURISDICTION IN CASES
SUCH AS THIS BE SUSTAINED AS A REVISION OF THE LONG-STANDING
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF ART. 8.  PP. 218-219. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. HIRSHBERG V. COOKE, COMMANDING OFFICER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED BY A NAVAL COURT-MARTIAL FOR AN OFFENSE
COMMITTED DURING A PRIOR ENLISTMENT.  IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HELD THE JUDGMENT VOID AND ORDERED HIS RELEASE
FROM CUSTODY.  73 F.SUPP.  990.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  168
F.2D 503.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 842.  COOKE WAS
SUBSTITUTED AS THE PARTY RESPONDENT.  335 U.S. 882.  REVERSED, P. 219. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE STATUTORY
JURISDICTION OF GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL OF THE NAVY. 

IN 1942 THE PETITIONER WAS SERVING A SECOND ENLISTMENT IN THE NAVY. 
UPON THE SURRENDER OF THE UNITED STATES FORCES ON CORREGIDOR PETITIONER
BECAME A WAR PRISONER OF JAPAN.  AFTER LIBERATION IN SEPTEMBER, 1945,
PETITIONER WAS BROUGHT BACK TO THE UNITED STATES AND HOSPITALIZED.  HE
WAS RESTORED TO DUTY IN JANUARY, 1946.  MARCH 26, 1946, HE WAS GRANTED
AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE BECAUSE OF EXPIRATION OF HIS PRIOR ENLISTMENT. 
THE NEXT DAY HE RE-ENLISTED, OBLIGATING HIMSELF TO SERVE FOUR YEARS
"SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE NAVY AS ARE OR SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CONGRESS  ...  OR OTHER
COMPETENT AUTHORITY  ...  " 

ABOUT A YEAR LATER, PETITIONER WAS SERVED WITH CHARGES DIRECTING HIS
TRIAL BY A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL OF THE NAVY.  THE SPECIFICATIONS
INCLUDED CHARGES THAT DURING HIS PRIOR ENLISTMENT THE PETITIONER HAD
MALTREATED TWO OTHER NAVAL ENLISTED MEN WHO WERE ALSO JAPANESE
PRISONERS OF WAR AND WHO WERE MEMBERS OF GROUPS OF PRISONERS WORKING
UNDER PETITIONER'S CHARGE.  PETITIONER FILED A PLEA IN BAR OF THE
TRIAL, ONE GROUND BEING THAT THE COURT-MARTIAL WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
TO TRY HIM FOR ALLEGED OFFENSES COMMITTED DURING A PRIOR ENLISTMENT AT
THE END OF WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE.  HIS PLEA WAS
OVERRULED.  HE WAS ACQUITTED ON SOME SPECIFICATIONS BUT WAS CONVICTED
ON OTHERS THAT CHARGED MALTREATMENT.  HIS SENTENCE WAS TEN MONTHS
CONFINEMENT, REDUCTION FROM CHIEF SIGNALMAN TO APPRENTICE SEAMAN, AND
DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE FROM THE NAVY. 

PETITIONER THEN BROUGHT THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT CHARGING THAT THE COURT-MARTIAL JUDGMENT WAS VOID
BECAUSE OF WANT OF STATUTORY POWER TO CONVICT HIM FOR AN OFFENSE
COMMITTED IF AT ALL DURING HIS PRIOR ENLISTMENT.  FN1  THAT COURT
SUSTAINED PETITIONER'S CONTENTION AND ORDERED HIS RELEASE FROM
CUSTODY.  73 F.SUPP.  990.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING.  168 F.2D 503.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION, WHICH APPEARED TO AFFECT THE COURTMARTIAL POWERS OF THE
ARMY AS WELL AS THE NAVY, CAUSED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  335 U.S.
842. 

ASIDE FROM NAVAL REGULATIONS TO WHICH REFERENCE WILL LATER BE MADE,
COURT-MARTIAL AUTHORITY TO TRY AND TO PUNISH PETITIONER FOR HIS PRIOR
ENLISTMENT CONDUCT PRIMARILY DEPENDS ON THE LANGUAGE IN ARTICLE
8(SECOND) OF THE ARTICLES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NAVY (34 U.S.C.
SEC. 1200, ART. 8), WHICH PARTICULARLY PROVIDES THAT "SUCH PUNISHMENT
AS A COURT-MARTIAL MAY ADJUDGE MAY BE INFLICTED ON ANY PERSON IN THE
NAVY  ...  GUILTY OF  ...  MALTREATMENT OF, ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO HIS
ORDERS ...  "  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THIS LANGUAGE GIVEN ITS
LITERAL MEANING AUTHORIZED THE COURT-MARTIAL TO TRY AND TO PUNISH
PETITIONER FOR CONDUCT DURING A PRIOR ENLISTMENT.  IT IS POINTED OUT
THAT PETITIONER WAS "IN THE NAVY" WHEN THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED AND
WHEN HE WAS TRIED; THIS LANGUAGE IT IS ARGUED BRINGS HIS CASE UNDER THE
ARTICLE.  IN AID OF THIS INTERPRETATION THE GOVERNMENT EMPHASIZES THAT
DURING THE WHOLE PERIOD OF TIME INVOLVED, PETITIONER WAS CONTINUOUSLY
"IN THE NAVY" EXCEPT FOR AN INTERVAL OF A FEW HOURS BETWEEN HIS
HONORABLE DISCHARGE AND HIS RE-ENLISTMENT.  THIS LATTER CIRCUMSTANCE WE
THINK CANNOT JUSTIFY THE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION URGED.  FOR IF THAT
INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT, COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION WOULD BE
SATISFIED IF A SAILOR WAS MERELY "IN THE NAVY" WHEN THE OFFENSE WAS
COMMITTED AND WHEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT-MARTIAL, REGARDLESS OF THE
DURATION OF ANY INTERIM PERIOD OUT OF THE NAVAL SERVICE, PROVIDED THE
PROSECUTION WAS NOT BARRED BY THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD PROVIDED
BY 34 U.S.C. SEC. 1200, ART. 61. 

THE CONCESSIONS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN URGING SUCH A LITERAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ARTICLE EXPOSE THE WHIMSICAL AND UNCERTAIN NATURE
OF THE DISTINCTIONS THAT WOULD MARK THE BOUNDARIES OF COURT-MARTIAL
POWERS.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT HAD PETITIONER NOT RE-ENLISTED IN THE NAVY
AFTER HIS 1946 DISCHARGE, NO NAVY COURT-MARTIAL COULD HAVE TRIED HIM
FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED DURING HIS PRIOR NAVAL SERVICE.  THUS, UNDER THE
CONSTRUCTION HERE URGED, NAVAL COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION FOR A PRIOR
ENLISTMENT OFFENSE IS MADE WHOLLY TO DEPEND ON WHETHER THE NAVAL
OFFENDER EITHER VOLUNTARILY RE-ENTERS THE NAVY OR IS DRAFTED INTO ITS
SERVICE.  AND PUNISHMENT OF THE GRAVEST NATURE MIGHT BE IMPOSED ON A
NAVAL VOLUNTEER OR DRAFTEE WHICH NO COURT-MARTIAL COULD HAVE IMPOSED
BUT FOR SUCH A VOLUNTARY OR FORCED ENTRY INTO THE NAVY.  FOR UNDER THIS
INTERPRETATION HAD THE SAME NAVAL OFFENDER RE-ENTERED HIS COUNTRY'S
SERVICE BY WAY OF THE ARMY RATHER THAN THE NAVY, EITHER BY CHOICE OR BY
ACCIDENT OF DRAFT ASSIGNMENT, NO COURT-MARTIAL, EITHER NAVY OR ARMY,
COULD HAVE PUNISHED HIM.  JURISDICTION TO PUNISH RARELY, IF EVER, RESTS
UPON SUCH ILLOGICAL AND FORTUITOUS CONTINGENCIES.  WE THEREFORE MUST
LOOK BEYOND THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE ARTICLE, AMBIGUOUS AT BEST, IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS COURT-MARTIAL ACTED WITHIN ITS POWER. 
SEE RUNKLE V. UNITED STATES, 122 U.S. 543, 555, 556; EX PARTE REED, 100
U.S. 13, 23. 

WHILE NOT ITSELF DETERMINATIVE OF THE QUESTION HERE, 34 U.S.C. SEC.
1200, ART. 14(ELEVENTH), HAS GREATLY INFLUENCED THE ARMY AND NAVY IN
DETERMINING THEIR COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY SERVICE PERSONNEL
FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED IN PRIOR ENLISTMENTS.  THAT ARTICLE PROVIDES
THAT WHERE ANY PERSON PREVIOUSLY DISCHARGED OR DISMISSED FROM THE NAVY
HAS "WHILE IN THE NAVAL SERVICE" BEEN GUILTY OF CERTAIN TYPES OF FRAUD
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, SUCH PERSON "SHALL CONTINUE TO BE LIABLE TO BE
ARRESTED AND HELD FOR TRIAL AND SENTENCE BY A COURT MARTIAL, IN THE
SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF HE HAD NOT RECEIVED SUCH
DISCHARGE NOR BEEN DISMISSED." 

ARTICLE 14(ELEVENTH) STEMS FROM AN ACT OF CONGRESS PASSED IN 1863,
PARTICULARLY DESIGNED TO PUNISH FRAUDS AGAINST THE MILITARY BRANCHES OF
THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCUREMENT OF SUPPLIES FOR WAR
ACTIVITIES.  12 STAT. 696.  THAT THE ATTENTION OF THE 1863 CONGRESS WAS
DIRECTLY FOCUSED UPON THE POWERS THAT COULD AND SHOULD BE VESTED IN
COURTS-MARTIAL IS MADE CLEAR BY THE DEBATES AND BY THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS DELETED FROM THE BILL AS PROPOSED SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WHICH
WOULD HAVE MADE CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BEFORE
MILITARY AND NAVAL COURTS-MARTIAL.  CONG. GLOBE, 37TH CONG., 3D SESS.
952-958(1863), AND APPENDIX TO CONG. GLOBE, 37TH CONG., 3D SESS.
199(1863).  SEE EX PARTE HENDERSON, 11 FED. CAS. 1067, NO. 6,349(C.C.D.
KY. 1878).  AND SEE UNITED STATES EX REL. MARCUS V. HESS, 317 U.S. 537,
539-545.  BUT AFTER ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS WHICH WOULD
FURTHER HAVE EXPANDED COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION, CONGRESS LEFT IN THE
BILL SEC. 3, NOW NAVAL ARTICLE 14(ELEVENTH), WHICH MAKES NAVAL
PERSONNEL GUILTY OF SERVICE FRAUDS SUBJECT TO COURT-MARTIAL AFTER
DISCHARGE OR DISMISSAL.  THE SAME 1863 PROVISION HAS ALSO BEEN MADE
APPLICABLE TO ARMY PERSONNEL BY ARTICLE OF WAR 94, 10 U.S.C. SEC.
1566. 

CONGRESS IN THIS 1863 ACT PLAINLY RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS A
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COURT-MARTIAL POWER TO TRY MEN IN THE
SERVICE AND TO TRY FORMER SERVICEMEN AFTER THEIR DISCHARGE.  THE
GOVERNMENT CORRECTLY ARGUES THAT THE ATTENTION OF THE 1863 CONGRESS WAS
NOT FOCUSED ON THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE, NAMELY, THE EXTENT OF A
MILITARY COURT'S STATUTORY POWER TO PUNISH A MAN PRESENTLY "IN THE
SERVICE" FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED IN A PRIOR ENLISTMENT PERIOD FROM
WHICH HE HAS BEEN DISCHARGED.  BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE 1863
CONGRESS DID ACT ON THE IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION THAT WITHOUT A GRANT OF
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY MILITARY COURTS WERE WITHOUT POWER TO TRY
DISCHARGED OR DISMISSED SOLDIERS FOR ANY OFFENSES COMMITTED WHILE IN
THE SERVICE.  ACTING ON THIS ASSUMPTION, CONGRESS GRANTED SUCH A POWER
TO COURTS-MARTIAL BUT ONLY IN THE VERY LIMITED CATEGORY OF OFFENSES
THERE DEFINED - FRAUDS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  FN2  SINCE THE 1863
ACT, CONGRESS HAS NOT PASSED ANY MEASURE THAT DIRECTLY EXPANDED COURT
MARTIAL POWERS OVER DISCHARGED SERVICEMEN, WHETHER THEY RE-ENLISTED OR
NOT. 

OBVIOUSLY ARTICLE 8(SECOND), WHICH SUBJECTS TO COURT-MARTIAL
JURISDICTION PERSONS "IN THE NAVY," SUPPORTS AN ARGUMENT THAT
PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY THIS COURT-MARTIAL.  IT IS EQUALLY
OBVIOUS THAT THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 8(SECOND) PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF
ARTICLE 14(ELEVENTH) SUPPORTS AN ARGUMENT THAT THIS COURT-MARTIAL COULD
NOT TRY PETITIONER FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED PRIOR TO HIS HONORABLE
DISCHARGE.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MANNER IN WHICH COURT-MARTIAL
JURISDICTION HAS LONG BEEN EXERCISED BY THE ARMY AND NAVY IS ENTITLED
TO GREAT WEIGHT IN INTERPRETING THE ARTICLES. 

THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF A NAVAL COURT-MARTIAL OVER
DISCHARGED PERSONNEL WAS SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN 1919.  THE PRECISE QUESTION OF WHETHER RE
ENLISTMENT COULD REVIVE JURISDICTION OF A MILITARY COURT WAS NOT
CONSIDERED, BUT AS TO THE POWER OF MILITARY COURTS OVER DISCHARGED
PERSONNEL IN GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT A
PERSON DISCHARGED FROM THE NAVY BEFORE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED
AGAINST HIM "FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ARTICLES GOVERNING THE NAVY,
EXCEPTING ARTICLE 14" COULD NOT "THEREAFTER BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL  ...
FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS, THOUGH COMMITTED WHILE HE WAS IN THE SERVICE."  31
OP. ATTY. GEN. 521, 529.  THIS CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RELIED ON STATEMENTS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERALS OF THE ARMY AND
NAVY THAT THEIR OFFICES HAD "FROM THE BEGINNING AND UNIFORMLY HELD THAT
A PERSON SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE CEASES TO BE AMENABLE" TO MILITARY
AND NAVAL JURISDICTION.  PREVIOUS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S 1919
OPINION NEITHER THE NAVY NOR ARMY HAD EVER CLAIMED COURT-MARTIAL POWER
TO TRY THEIR PERSONNEL FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED PRIOR TO AN HONORABLE
DISCHARGE WHERE PROCEEDINGS HAD NOT BEEN INSTITUTED BEFORE DISCHARGE. 
SEE WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS 93(2D ED. 1920).  THE
GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE ARMY HAS ALWAYS SO CONSTRUED ITS COURT
MARTIAL JURISDICTION WHENEVER THE QUESTION AROSE.  AND THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDES THAT THE NAVY ALSO FOLLOWED THIS VIEW OF ITS JURISDICTION
UNTIL 1932.  FN3  MANY HOLDINGS AND OPINIONS OF ARMY AND NAVY
AUTHORITIES ARE CITED TO SUPPORT THESE CONCESSIONS.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
BRIEF QUOTES THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE BY THE NAVY DEPARTMENT IN ONE OF
THE CASES WHICH CONSIDERED THE PRECISE ISSUE RAISED HERE.  THE CASE
APPEARS IN CMO 12-1921, P. 11. 

"EXCEPT IN CASES OF OFFENSES IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE
ARTICLES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NAVY, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY OF LAW
GIVING JURISDICTION TO A COURT-MARTIAL TO TRY AN ENLISTED MAN FOR AN
OFFENSE COMMITTED IN A PRIOR ENLISTMENT FROM WHICH HE HAS AN HONORABLE
DISCHARGE, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT HE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY REENLISTED
IN THE NAVAL SERVICE AND WAS SERVING UNDER SUCH REENLISTMENT AT THE
TIME THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WAS ASSERTED." 

ACCEPTING AS WE DO THE LONG-STANDING ARMY AND NAVY INTERPRETATION OF
THE ARTICLES PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO, AN INTERPRETATION WHICH
NECESSARILY WOULD DENY JURISDICTION TO THE COURT-MARTIAL HERE, THERE
REMAINS THE CONTENTION THAT THE NAVY HAS BY A RECENT CONGRESSIONALLY
AUTHORIZED REGULATION ACQUIRED SUCH JURISDICTION FOR ITS COURTS
MARTIAL.  34 U.S.C. SEC. 591 AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, TO ADOPT AND ALTER REGULATIONS AND
ORDERS FOR CONTROL OF THE NAVY.  THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT A
REGULATION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS AUTHORITY HAS BEEN PROMULGATED,
FN4  AND THAT IT VESTED THE NECESSARY POWER IN THIS COURT-MARTIAL TO
TRY PETITIONER.  THIS AUTHORIZED REGULATION, IT IS CONTENDED, HAD THE
FORCE OF LAW, EX PARTE REED, 100 U.S. 13, 22, AND CONSEQUENTLY
SUPPLANTS THE PRIOR STATUTES WHICH, AS INTERPRETED, HAD DENIED THE
JURISDICTION HERE ASSERTED.  THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE ARGUMENT AS TO
WHETHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE NAVY REGULATION WAS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO
ENDOW IT WITH THE FORCE OF LAW.  PASSING OVER THIS ARGUMENT, HOWEVER,
WE ARE NOT ABLE TO AGREE THAT THE NAVY COULD IN THIS MANNER ACQUIRE THE
EXPANDED COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION IT CLAIMED.  FOR WE CANNOT CONSTRUE
34 U.S.C. SEC. 591 AS PERMITTING THE NAVY TO EXTEND ITS COURT-MARTIAL
JURISDICTION BEYOND THE LIMITS CONGRESS HAD FIXED.  UNITED STATES V.
SYMONDS, 120 U.S. 46, 49-50.    THE REGULATION STANDS NO BETTER IF IT
BE CONSIDERED MERELY AS AN EVIDENCE OF A REVISED NAVAL INTERPRETATION
OF THE ARTICLE.  THIS REVISED NAVAL INTERPRETATION WAS GIVEN IN 1932. 
BEFORE THAT TIME, BOTH ARMY AND NAVY HAD FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY
ACTED ON THE IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION THAT DISCHARGED SERVICEMEN, WHETHER
REENLISTED OR NOT, WERE NO LONGER SUBJECT TO COURT-MARTIAL POWER.  THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HAD PROCEEDED ON THE SAME
ASSUMPTION.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. KELLY, 15 WALL.  34, 36.  UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, LITTLE WEIGHT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE 1932 SEPARATE
EFFORT OF THE NAVY TO CHANGE THE LONG-ACCEPTED UNDERSTANDING OF ITS
STATUTORY COURT-MARTIAL POWER.  FOR SHOULD THIS BELATED NAVAL
INTERPRETATION BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT, THERE WOULD BE LEFT OUTSTANDING
AN ARMY INTERPRETATION OF ITS STATUTORY COURT-MARTIAL POWERS DIRECTLY
OPPOSED TO THAT OF THE NAVY.  SINCE THE ARMY AND NAVY COURT-MARTIAL
POWERS DEPEND ON SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME STATUTORY FOUNDATIONS, THE
OPPOSING INTERPRETATIONS CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT, UNLESS IT BE ASSUMED
THAT CONGRESS HAS LEFT EACH FREE TO DETERMINE ITS OWN COURT-MARTIAL
BOUNDARIES.  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED A DELEGATION OF
SUCH BROAD POWER IN AN AREA WHICH SO VITALLY AFFECTS THE RIGHTS AND
LIBERTIES OF THOSE WHO ARE NOW, HAVE BEEN, OR MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE NATION'S ARMED FORCES.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION TO TRY PETITIONER DEPENDS ON A PART
OF ARTICLE 8(SECOND), WHICH REACHES ONLY CONDUCT OF AN OFFENDER CHARGED
WITH "MALTREATMENT OF, ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO HIS ORDERS."  BEFORE THE
COURT-MARTIAL AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT THE
COURT-MARTIAL WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN HIS CASE BECAUSE THE ALLEGED
MALTREATMENT WAS OF NAVAL ENLISTED MEN WHO WERE NOT "SUBJECT TO HIS
ORDERS" BY VIRTUE OF HIS UNITED STATES NAVY OBLIGATIONS, BUT THAT
WHATEVER AUTHORITY HE THEN HAD OVER THE OTHER NAVY MEN CAME FROM DUTIES
ASSIGNED HIM BY THE JAPANESE AS A PRISONER OF WAR.  BOTH THE DISTRICT
COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED THIS SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION
OF THE ARTICLE, AND THE CONTENTION IS NOT URGED HERE. 

FN2  THE DISCUSSION OF THE 1863 ACT SHOWED THAT CONGRESS RATHER
GRUDGINGLY CONCEDED THIS COMPARATIVELY SLIGHT EXPANSION OF THE COURT
MARTIAL POWER APPARENTLY PROMPTED BY REPORTS OF PARTICULARLY ABHORRENT
RECENT FRAUDS BY WAR CONTRACTORS, SUCH AS THE SUPPLY OF SHELLS TO THE
ARMY "FILLED NOT WITH THE PROPER EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS FOR USE, BUT WITH
SAW-DUST."  CONG. GLOBE, 37TH CONG., 3D SESS. 955(1863).  THIS ACTION
OF THE 1863 CONGRESS DOES NOT SUPPORT AN ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS HAS
BEEN QUICK IN RESPONSE TO APPEALS FOR EXPANSION OF COURT-MARTIAL
JURISDICTION.  SEE DUNCAN V. KAHANAMOKU, 327 U.S. 304; EX PARTE
MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2. 

FN3  SINCE 1932 THE NAVY HAS CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO ITS REVISED
INTERPRETATION OF ART. 8(SECOND).  IN 1934 THE NAVY DEPARTMENT
INCORPORATED THIS REVISED INTERPRETATION IN AN OFFICIAL NAVY
PUBLICATION, NAVAL COURTS AND BOARDS, AND THIS INTERPRETATION BECAME
SEC. 334(A) OF NAVAL COURTS AND BOARDS (1937 ED.). 

FN4  THE REGULATION APPEARING IN THE 1937 NAVAL COURTS AND BOARDS
SEC. 334 CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: 

"  ...  EXCEPT FOR OFFENSES PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 14, A.G.N., A
COURT MARTIAL MAY NOT TRY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN FORMALLY SEPARATED
FROM THE NAVY AND IS NO LONGER IN THE SERVICE UNLESS PROCEEDINGS WERE
INSTITUTED AGAINST HIM WHILE HE WAS IN THE SERVICE.  WERE INSTITUTED
AGAINST HIM WHILE HE WAS IN THE SERVICE....  SIMILARLY, THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT HAS PASSED CASES AS LEGAL IN WHICH ENLISTED MEN HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED BY COURT MARTIAL OF OFFENSES COMMITTED IN A PREVIOUS
ENLISTMENT, ALTHOUGH SUCH OFFENSES WERE NOT PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 14,
A.G.N." 
..END :









DANIEL V. FAMILY INS. CO., 336 U.S. 220 


NO. 297.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1949.  - 79
F.SUPP.  62, REVERSED. 


1.  AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, A SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE FORBIDDING LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THEIR AGENTS TO ENGAGE IN THE UNDERTAKING
BUSINESS AND FORBIDDING UNDERTAKERS TO SERVE AS AGENTS FOR LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANIES DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 220-225. 

2.  THAT AN "INSURANCE LOBBY" MAY HAVE SECURED THE ENACTMENT OF THE
STATUTE HAS NO BEARING ON ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.  P. 224. 

3.  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SOUTH CAROLINA IS NOT ENTITLED TO CALL THE
FUNERAL INSURANCE BUSINESS AN EVIL NOR THAT THE STATUTE HAS NO RELATION
TO SUCH AN EVIL.  PP. 224-225. 

DANIEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. V. FAMILY SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE CO.
ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

A THREE-JUDGE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF A SOUTH
CAROLINA STATUTE FORBIDDING A COMBINATION OF THE LIFE INSURANCE AND
UNDERTAKING BUSINESSES, ON THE GROUND THAT IT CONTRAVENED THE DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  79
F.SUPP.  62.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 225. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE. 

A SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE PROVIDES THAT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND
THEIR AGENTS MAY NOT OPERATE AN UNDERTAKING BUSINESS, AND UNDERTAKERS
MAY NOT SERVE AS AGENTS FOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.  CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS ARE PROVIDED.  ACT NO. 787, S.C. ACTS OF 1948, P. 1947.  FN1
RESPONDENTS BROUGHT ACTION BEFORE A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT IN THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, SEEKING AN INJUNCTION FORBIDDING
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 380, NOW 28 U.S.C.
SECS. 2281, 2284.  THE COURT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, UPHELD RESPONDENTS'
CONTENTIONS THAT THE STATUTE, AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, DID NOT PROVIDE
THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION ISSUED, 79 F.SUPP.  62, AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 380, NOW
28 U.S.C. SECS. 1253, 2281. 

THE RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY IS INCORPORATED AND LICENSED TO DO
BUSINESS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AND CONFORMS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE CODE OF
INSURANCE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY ACT NO. 232, S.C. ACTS OF 1947, P.
322.  THE OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE ITS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS.  IT ISSUES
LIFE INSURANCE WITH CASH BENEFITS RANGING FROM $125 TO $750.  THE
AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING POLICIES HAD REACHED A TOTAL OF $838,375 IN MAY
OF 1948, COMPARED TO NOTHING IN FEBRUARY OF THE SAME YEAR.  MOST OF THE
COMPANY'S AGENTS ARE UNDERTAKERS.  PARTIES TO THE INSURANCE CONTRACT
CONTEMPLATE USE OF THE POLICY'S PROCEEDS TO PAY FUNERAL EXPENSES.  A
"FACILITY OF PAYMENT" CLAUSE MIGHT JUSTIFY PAYMENT OF PROCEEDS TO AN
UNDERTAKER FOR THE INSURED'S FUNERAL.  AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL,
RESPONDENT COMPANY WAS THE ONLY CONCERN IN SOUTH CAROLINA SELLING
"FUNERAL INSURANCE" AS AN ESTABLISHED PRACTICE. 

FOR MANY YEARS SOUTH CAROLINA HAS PROHIBITED THE PAYMENT OF INSURANCE
PROCEEDS IN MERCHANDISE OR SERVICES.  ACT NO. 205, S.C. ACTS OF 1929,
P. 234; S.C. CODE OF 1942, SEC. 7984; ACT NO. 232, S.C. ACTS OF 1947,
SEC. 65, P. 350.  POSSIBILITIES OF FRAUD, MISUNDERSTANDING IN
VALUATION, AND THE COMPARATIVELY USELESS CHARACTER OF THE MERCHANDISE
DELIVERED OR SERVICES RENDERED MAKE RESPONDENTS READILY CONCEDE THE
DESIRABILITY OF THIS BAN.  OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR STATUTES.  FN2 

THE SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE MIGHT WELL HAVE CONCLUDED THAT FUNERAL
INSURANCE, ALTHOUGH PAID IN CASH, CARRIES THE SAME EVILS THAT ARE
PRESENT IN POLICIES PAYABLE IN MERCHANDISE OR SERVICES: THE
BENEFICIARY'S TENDENCY TO DELIVER THE POLICY'S PROCEEDS TO THE AGENT
UNDERTAKER FOR WHATEVER FUNERAL THE MONEY WILL BUY, WHETHER OR NOT AN
EXPENSIVE CEREMONY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE SURVIVORS.  FN3
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN INFLUENTIAL INCLUDE THE LIKELIHOOD
OF OVERREACH ON THE PART OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND THE POSSIBILITIES
OF MONOPOLY CONTROL DETAILED IN AFFIDAVITS INTRODUCED IN THE COURT
BELOW. 

THE SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE IS NOT ALONE IN SEEING EVILS IN THIS
KIND OF INSURANCE, AND IN INVOKING ITS POLICE POWERS TO COMBAT THEM. 
SEE THE SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN N.Y. INSURANCE LAW, SEC. 165(C); FLA.
STAT. (1941), SEC. 639.02; GA. CODE ANN. SEC. 56-9920; PAGE'S OHIO
GENERAL CODE, SEC. 666(1946)(SEE ROBBINS V. HENNESSEY, 86 OHIO ST. 181,
99 N.E. 319); MD. ANN. CODE, ART. 48A, SEC. 110(1939).  AND SEE THE
SUMMARY OF CRITICAL ARGUMENTS IN BUSINESS WEEK, OCTOBER 20, 1945, PP.
48, 51. 

YET THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THE STATUTE IS "ARBITRARY AND
DISCRIMINATIVE AND DESIGNED TO DESTROY, AND WILL DESTROY, THE PLAINTIFF
INSURANCE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS  ...  "  "IT SEEMS OBVIOUS FROM THE
RECORD THAT THIS LEGISLATION HAD ITS GENESIS IN THE DESIRE OF THE
EXISTING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO ELIMINATE THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY AS A
COMPETITOR.  ...  "  79 F.SUPP.  AT 70, 65.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT'S POLICIES ARE ACTUARIALLY SOUND; THAT FUNERAL INSURANCE IS
DESIRABLE; AND THAT THE OTHER SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE REGULATIONS ARE
"AMPLE" TO CORRECT ANY EVILS RESULTING FROM RESPONDENTS' BUSINESS.  THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE STATUTE NOW BEFORE US IS SO UNREASONABLE THAT
IT OFFENDS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 

FIRST.  IT IS SAID THAT THE "INSURANCE LOBBY" OBTAINED THIS STATUTE
FROM THE SOUTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE.  BUT A JUDICIARY MUST JUDGE BY
RESULTS, NOT BY THE VARIED FACTORS WHICH MAY HAVE DETERMINED
LEGISLATORS' VOTES.  WE CANNOT UNDERTAKE A SEARCH FOR MOTIVE IN TESTING
CONSTITUTIONALITY.  SEE HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, OVERRULED IN
UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100.  COMPARE BAILEY V. DREXEL
FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S. 20, AND UNITED STATES V. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S.
287, WITH SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 393. 
COMPARE UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, WITH STEWARD MACHINE CO.
V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 592, AND CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES,
301 U.S. 308. 

SECOND.  DESPITE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, RESPONDENTS SEE NO EVIL TO
BE CORRECTED BY THIS LEGISLATION.  WE ARE ASKED TO AGREE WITH
RESPONDENTS AND CALL THE STATUTE ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE. 

LOOKING THROUGH THE FORM OF THIS PLEA TO ITS ESSENTIAL BASIS, WE
CANNOT FAIL TO RECOGNIZE IT AS AN ARGUMENT FOR INVALIDITY BECAUSE THIS
COURT DISAGREES WITH THE DESIRABILITY OF THE LEGISLATION.  WE REHEARSE
THE OBVIOUS WHEN WE SAY THAT OUR FUNCTION IS THUS MISCONCEIVED.  WE ARE
NOT EQUIPPED TO DECIDE DESIRABILITY; AND A COURT CANNOT ELIMINATE
MEASURES WHICH DO NOT HAPPEN TO SUIT ITS TASTES IF IT SEEKS TO MAINTAIN
A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.  THE FORUM FOR THE CORRECTION OF ILL-CONSIDERED
LEGISLATION IS A RESPONSIVE LEGISLATURE. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT SOUTH CAROLINA IS NOT ENTITLED TO CALL THE FUNERAL
INSURANCE BUSINESS AN EVIL.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE STATUTE HAS NO
RELATION TO THE ELIMINATION OF THOSE EVILS.  THERE OUR INQUIRY MUST
STOP.  FN4 

THIS RATIONALE DID NOT FIND EXPRESSION IN LIGGETT CO. V. BALDRIDGE,
278 U.S. 105, ON WHICH RESPONDENTS RELY.  ACCORDING TO THE MAJORITY IN
LIGGETT, "A STATE CANNOT, 'UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC,
ARBITRARILY INTERFERE WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS OR PROHIBIT LAWFUL
OCCUPATIONS OR IMPOSE UNREASONABLE AND UNNECESSARY RESTRICTIONS UPON
THEM.'"  278 U.S. AT 113.  BUT A PRONOUNCED SHIFT OF EMPHASIS SINCE THE
LIGGETT CASE HAS DEPRIVED THE WORDS "UNREASONABLE" AND "ARBITRARY" OF
THE CONTENT FOR WHICH RESPONDENTS CONTEND.  SEE LINCOLN FEDERAL LABOR
UNION V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO., 335 U.S. 525, WHERE THE CASES
ARE REVIEWED. 

THE LIGGETT CASE, HOWEVER, WAS CONCERNED WITH A STATUTE FAR DIFFERENT
FROM THE ONE WE ARE CONSIDERING NOW.  PENNSYLVANIA REQUIRED DRUG STORE
OWNERS TO BE LICENSED PHARMACISTS.  BECAUSE THE STATUTE WAS DIRECTED AT
OWNERS, WHO MIGHT HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL BRANCHES
OF MODERN DRUG STORES, A DIVIDED COURT THOUGHT THE MEASURE
UNREASONABLE.  THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE WAS CLEARLY LESS ADAPTED TO THE
RECOGNIZED EVIL THAN THE PROVISION NOW BEFORE US.  THE LIGGETT CASE, ON
ITS FACTS, IS NOT AUTHORITY FOR THE INVALIDATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA
MORTUARY ACT. 

THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE, ON ITS FACE, DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  NEITHER DOES IT OFFEND THE
AMENDMENT AS APPLIED TO THESE RESPONDENTS.  FN5  WE REVERSE THE
JUDGMENT BELOW.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SECTION 1:  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES NOT
OWN OR OPERATE UNDERTAKING BUSINESS.  - IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION, EXCEPT FRATERNAL
BENEFIT SOCIETIES LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS STATE TO OWN, MANAGE,
SUPERVISE, OR OPERATE OR MAINTAIN A MORTUARY OR UNDERTAKING
ESTABLISHMENT, OR TO PERMIT ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES TO OWN,
OPERATE OR MAINTAIN ANY SUCH FUNERAL OR UNDERTAKING BUSINESS. 

"SECTION 2:  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OR SICK OR FUNERAL BENEFIT
COMPANY NOT CONTRACT WITH UNDERTAKER CONDUCT FUNERAL OF PERSON INSURED
BY IT. - IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, SICK OR
FUNERAL BENEFIT COMPANY, OR ANY COMPANY, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION
ENGAGED IN A SIMILAR BUSINESS TO CONTRACT OR AGREE WITH ANY FUNERAL
DIRECTOR, UNDERTAKER OR MORTUARY TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH FUNERAL
DIRECTOR, UNDERTAKER, OR MORTUARY SHALL CONDUCT THE FUNERAL OF ANY
PERSON INSURED BY SUCH COMPANY, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION. 

"SECTION 3:  UNDERTAKER AND HIS EMPLOYEES NOT ACT AS AGENT FOR LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY.  - IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY FUNERAL DIRECTOR,
UNDERTAKER, OR MORTUARY, OR ANY AGENT, OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF TO
BE LICENSED AS AGENT, SOLICITOR OR SALESMAN FOR ANY LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE. 

"SECTION 4:  PENALTIES.  - ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND EACH VIOLATION
THEREOF SHALL BE A SEPARATE OFFENSE, AND UPON CONVICTION SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND ($1,000.00) DOLLARS OR BY
IMPRISONMENT AT HARD LABOR FOR NOT EXCEEDING SIX (6) MONTHS, OR BOTH
SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURTS.  ...
" 

FN2  SEE FLA. STAT. (1941), SEC. 639.04; ME. REV. STAT., C. 56, SEC.
138(1944); KY. REV. STAT., SEC. 303.120(1946); ILL. REV. STAT., C. 73,
SEC. 956(1947). 

FN3  "YOU COME TO THE PLACE OF BUSINESS, THE MORTUARY, TO PAY IT.
MONTH IN AND MONTH OUT.  THE INDUCEMENT FOR A FUNERAL DIRECTOR TO ALIGN
HIMSELF WITH THIS IS THE FACT THAT IT WILL FREEZE THIS BUSINESS TO
HIM.  HE DOESN'T HAVE TO, LET ME HASTEN TO SAY.  YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL
THAT FUNERAL DIRECTOR, BUT IF HE CONTINUOUSLY BEATS A PATH TO HIS DOOR
TO PAY HIS INSURANCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT THAT IF HE HAS ANY
DECENT EMPLOYEES, THEY ARE GOING TO CONVINCE THE MAN THE THING TO DO IS
TO COME TO THEM.  NOW, IS THAT A HEALTHY SITUATION?"  PROCEEDINGS OF
THE SENATE BANKING AND INSURANCE COMMITTEE, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
MARCH 31, 1948, NO. 1382, IN RE "THE MORTUARY BILL."  R. 85. 

FN4  OUR DEFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT IS PARTICULARLY
PRONOUNCED IN A FIELD AS TRADITIONALLY WELL REGULATED AS INSURANCE. 
SEE OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 65, 66; LA TOURETTE V. MCMASTER, 248
U.S. 465, 467, 468; PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408,
416, N. 13. 

FN5  THAT RESPONDENT COMPANY IS THE ONLY CONCERN NOW AFFECTED BY THE
STATUTE DOES NOT, OF COURSE, MEAN A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION.  THE
STATUTE IS DRAWN IN GENERAL TERMS; THE COMPANY'S SUCCESS MIGHT WELL
INDUCE OTHERS TO ENTER THE BUSINESS.  SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION BELOW,
79 F.SUPP.  AT 73, 74.  AND SEE MASON V. MISSOURI, 179 U.S. 328. 
..END :












LABOR BOARD V. STOWE SPINNING CO., 336 U.S. 226 


NO. 46.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9-10, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1949.  -
165 F.2D 609, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD COULD PROPERLY FIND THAT IT WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 8(1) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, FOR AN
EMPLOYER TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A LABOR ORGANIZATION BY DENYING IT THE
USE OF A COMPANY-OWNED MEETING HALL WHICH WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE
MEETING HALL IN A COMPANY TOWN.  THE BOARD HAD FOUND THAT THE USE OF
THE HALL HAD BEEN FREELY GIVEN TO OTHER GROUPS AND THAT THE EMPLOYER'S
SOLE PURPOSE IN DENYING THE USE OF IT TO THE LABOR ORGANIZATION WAS TO
IMPEDE SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY ITS EMPLOYEES. 
PP. 227-233. 

(A)  IN THE SETTING OF THIS CASE, IT CAN NOT BE SAID AS A MATTER OF
LAW THAT THE GRANT OF THE USE OF THE MEETING HALL TO THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION WOULD VIOLATE THE PROVISION OF SEC. 8(2) FORBIDDING
EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION.  PP. 230-232. 

(B)  SUCH INTERFERENCE WITH THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY RIGHTS AS IS
CONTEMPLATED BY THE RESULT IN THIS CASE DOES NOT DENY ANY RIGHT OF THE
EMPLOYER UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P.
232. 

2.  THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN THIS CASE,
REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM REFUSING THE USE OF THE
MEETING HALL TO THE COMPLAINANT OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION, IS TOO
BROAD AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD; AND IT MUST BE
MODIFIED SO AS TO RESTRAIN THE EMPLOYER FROM TREATING A LABOR
ORGANIZATION'S APPLICATION FOR USE OF THE HALL ON A DIFFERENT BASIS
FROM THOSE OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED.  PP. 232-233. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. STOWE SPINNING CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED ENFORCEMENT OF THAT PART OF AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 70 N.L.R.B. 614, WHICH REQUIRED AN
EMPLOYER TO GRANT TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION THE USE OF A MEETING HALL IN
A COMPANY TOWN.  165 F.2D 609.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  334
U.S. 831.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 233. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
JUSTIFIED THE FINDING OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  A UNION ORGANIZER
WAS REFUSED THE USE OF A COMPANY-OWNED MEETING HALL, AND THE UNION
COMPLAINED TO THE BOARD.  AFTER THE USUAL PROCEEDINGS, THE BOARD FOUND
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HAD BEEN COMMITTED, 70 N.L.R.B. 614.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER, 165 F.2D 609,
AND THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI.  A SUBSIDIARY PROBLEM IS THE
BREADTH OF THE ORDER WE ARE ASKED TO ENFORCE. 

FIRST.  WE ARE ASKED TO OVERRULE THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT IT IS AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE  FN1 TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A UNION BY DENYING
IT THE ONLY AVAILABLE MEETING HALL IN A COMPANY TOWN WHEN THE BOARD
FINDS THAT THE "SOLE PURPOSE" OF THE DISCRIMINATORY DENIAL IS "TO
IMPEDE, PREVENT, AND DISCOURAGE SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING BY THE (COMPANY'S) EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7
OF THE ACT." 

NORTH BELMONT, NORTH CAROLINA, IS THE HOME OF THE FOUR RESPONDENTS'
MILLS.  INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES AND FAMILY TIES MAKE THE FOUR EQUAL
ONE FOR OUR PURPOSES.  FN2  EACH OF THE MILLS OWNS A LARGE NUMBER OF
HOUSES IN NORTH BELMONT WHICH ARE RENTED TO EMPLOYEES.  AT A CENTRAL
LOCATION ARE A SCHOOL, A THEATRE, AND A BUILDING HOUSING A POST OFFICE,
ALL OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE MILL OWNERS.  IN SUM, NORTH BELMONT IS A
COMPANY TOWN. 

IN DECEMBER, 1944, HARRIS, A UNION ORGANIZER, APPEARED IN NORTH
BELMONT AND BEGAN THE FIRST ORGANIZATION DRIVE SINCE THE TEXTILE STRIKE
TEN YEARS EARLIER.  HE DECIDED TO BEGIN WITH EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT
STOWE.  A MEETING HALL WAS NEEDED FOR THE ACTIVITY, AND THE POST OFFICE
BUILDING WAS THE ONLY CHOICE OPEN TO THE ORGANIZER - HE WAS REFUSED
PERMISSION TO USE THE SCHOOL BUILDING, AND WAS TOLD THAT THE THEATRE
COULD BE USED ONLY FOR MOTION PICTURES.  MOST OF THE POST OFFICE
BUILDING WAS ERECTED BY RESPONDENTS FOR THE PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF
AMERICA, A "PATRIOTIC SECRET ORDER TO WHICH ANY MALE CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER" CAN BELONG.  MANY OF
RESPONDENTS' EMPLOYEES ARE MEMBERS; RESPONDENTS CHECK OFF MONTHLY
DUES. 

THE ORDER'S PRESIDENT, BAXTER BLACK, TOLD HARRIS THAT THE PROPOSED
MEETING MIGHT BE HELD IN THE HALL ON THE PAYMENT OF A JANITOR'S FEE. 
HARRIS EMPHASIZED THAT HE WAS WILLING TO PAY FOR THE USE OF THE HALL. 
IT IS CLEAR HE WAS NOT ASKING SPECIAL FAVORS.  CIRCULARS WERE PRINTED
ANNOUNCING THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE MEETING.  THEREUPON D. P. STOWE,
FOR THE FOUR EMPLOYER-OWNERS, RESCINDED THE PERMISSION GRANTED -
BECAUSE HARRIS WAS A TEXTILE ORGANIZER.  WHILE THE BUILDING SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN ERECTED ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ONLY THE PATRIOTIC ORDER
MIGHT USE IT, THAT CONDITION WAS NEVER ENFORCED UNTIL HARRIS' UNION
AFFILIATION REACHED THE EARS OF THE OWNERS.  UNTIL THEN THE ORDER HAD
HANDLED ITS OWN AFFAIRS; BLACK HAD BEEN SURE THAT HIS PERMISSION WAS
THE FINAL WORD ON THE MATTER. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE REFUSAL "TO PERMIT USE OF THE HALL  ...
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSTITUTED UNLAWFUL DISPARITY OF TREATMENT
AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNION."  THE UNION'S COMPLAINT ALSO
CHARGED THAT SEVERAL EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF UNION
ACTIVITY, AND AGAIN THE BOARD FOUND FOR THE UNION.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCED THE REINSTATEMENT ORDER, BUT REFUSED ENFORCEMENT OF
THE ORDER RELATING TO THE USE OF THE HALL.  ON THE LATTER DETERMINATION
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI N3 TO RESOLVE AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH PRIOR
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

COMPANY RULES IN REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. LABOR BOARD AND LABOR
BOARD V. LE TOURNEAU COMPANY OF GEORGIA, 324 U.S. 793, FORBADE UNION
SOLICITATION ON COMPANY PROPERTY.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE BOARD
FOUND THAT THESE RULES OFFENDED THE ACT, AND WE UPHELD THE BOARD. 
STOWE TELLS US THAT ITS CASE IS FAR REMOVED FROM THE PRINCIPLES
ESTABLISHED IN THOSE DECISIONS:  THE BOARD IS NOW INVADING PRIVATE
PROPERTY UNCONNECTED WITH THE PLANT, FOR A PRIVATE PURPOSE, IN THE VERY
TEETH OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  "FROM MAGNA CHARTA ON DOWN," WE ARE
WARNED, "THE INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN GUARANTEED AGAINST DISSEISIN OF HIS
PROPERTY."  A PRIVATELY OWNED HALL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PARKING LOT
INVOLVED IN LE TOURNEAU'S CASE. 

IN THE SENSE SUGGESTED BY STOWE, THE BOARD FINDING GOES FURTHER THAN
THOSE UPHELD PREVIOUSLY BY THIS COURT.  BUT IN A LARGER SENSE IT DOES
NOT.  WE MENTION NOTHING NEW WHEN WE NOTICE THAT UNION ORGANIZATION IN
A COMPANY TOWN MUST DEPEND, EVEN MORE THAN USUAL, ON A HANDS-OFF
ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF MANAGEMENT.  FN4  AND IT IS CLEAR THAT ONE OF
MANAGEMENT'S CHIEF WEAPONS, IN ATTEMPTING TO STIFLE ORGANIZATION, IS
THE DENIAL OF A PLACE TO MEET.  FN5  WE CANNOT EQUATE A COMPANY
DOMINATED NORTH CAROLINA MILL TOWN WITH THE VAST METROPOLITAN CENTERS
WHERE A NUMBER OF HALLS ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN EASY REACH OF PROSPECTIVE
UNION MEMBERS.  WE WOULD BE IGNORING THE OBVIOUS WERE WE TO HOLD THAT A
COMMON MEETING PLACE IN A COMPANY TOWN IS NOT AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE
COMPANY'S BUSINESS.  THE QUESTION IS OF COURSE ONE OF DEGREE.  BUT
ISOLATED PLANTS MUST DRAW LABOR, AND AN ELEMENT IN THAT DRAWING POWER
IS A COMMUNITY HALL OF SOME KIND.  FN6  IN THE BACKGROUND OF
DISCRIMINATION FOUND BY THE BOARD IN THIS CASE, WE CANNOT SAY THAT ITS
CONCLUSION SHOULD BE UPSET.  FN7  AS WE WILL POINT OUT BELOW, THE BOARD
MAY WEIGH THE EMPLOYER'S EXPRESSED MOTIVE IN DETERMINING THE EFFECT ON
EMPLOYEES OF MANAGEMENT'S OTHERWISE EQUIVOCAL ACT. 

STOWE CONTENDS THAT ITS DENIAL OF FACILITIES TO THE UNION WAS IN
ACCORD WITH SEC. 8(2) OF THE ACT, PROHIBITING EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE
WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION.  ONE
BOARD MEMBER AGREED, CITING A NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH THE BOARD HAD
MADE A GRANT OF COMPANY FACILITIES THE BASIS FOR UNFAIR PRACTICE
FINDINGS.  BUT STOWE WOULD HAVE THE CASES HOLD MORE THAN THEY DO.  IN
EACH OF THEM, GRANTING SUCH FACILITIES TO THE UNION WAS ONLY ONE FACET
IN A PATTERN OF DOMINATION FOUND BY THE BOARD.  FN8  THE OPINION OF THE
BOARD IN THIS CASE STATES THAT THE "MERE GRANTING OF A MEETING PLACE TO
A UNION BY AN EMPLOYER UNDER THE CONDITIONS PRESENT HERE WOULD NOT  ...
IN AND OF ITSELF CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL ASSISTANCE TO THAT UNION  ...  "
WE HAVE SAID THAT THE WAGNER ACT "LEFT TO THE BOARD THE WORK OF
APPLYING THE ACT'S GENERAL PROHIBITORY LANGUAGE IN THE LIGHT OF THE
INFINITE COMBINATIONS OF EVENTS WHICH MIGHT BE CHARGED AS VIOLATIVE OF
ITS TERMS."  REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 324 U.S. AT
798.  SECTIONS 8(1) AND 8(2) OF THE ACT WOULD SEEM TO RUN INTO EACH
OTHER IN THE SITUATION BEFORE US, WERE WE TO FORGET THAT THE BOARD IS
THE AGENCY WHICH WEIGHS THE RELEVANCE OF FACTUAL DATA.  PRESUMPTIONS
SUCH AS THOSE EMPLOYED IN THE PEYTON PACKING COMPANY CASE, 49 N.L.R.B.
828, AT 843-844,  FN9  MAY BE IMPORTANT IN CASES LIKE THIS ONE.  WHILE
THE WAGNER ACT DOES NOT ASK PUNISHMENT FOR EVIL INTENT, REPEATED ACTS
OF DISCRIMINATION MAY ESTABLISH A NATURAL TENDENCY TO VIEW
JUSTIFICATIONS OF OTHER LABOR PRACTICES WITH SOME SKEPTICISM. 
CALCULATING A CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON EMPLOYEES IS NOT A JOB FOR THIS
COURT.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE BOARD WAS WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW IN
VIEW OF THE SETTING. 

THE PHILOSOPHY EXPRESSED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT AFFECT THE
VIEW WE TAKE.  THE WAGNER ACT WAS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, AND CERTAINLY CAN AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO STOP AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE AS IMPORTANT AS THE ONE WE ARE CONSIDERING.  RESPONDENTS ARE
UNQUESTIONABLY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ACT.  IT IS NOT "'EVERY INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT IS
WITHIN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT  ...  INCONVENIENCE, OR EVEN SOME
DISLOCATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, MAY BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD
THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.'"  324 U.S. AT 802.  FN10 

WE ARE ASKED TO READ THE DECREE IN ITS BACKGROUND, AND REJECT WHAT IS
CALLED A STRAINED CONSTRUCTION.  IMPLICIT IN THE ORDER, WE ARE TOLD, IS
THE WORD "REASONABLE."  PERHAPS THIS IS TRUE.  THE WORDS OF EVEN A
JUDICIAL DECREE MUST BE READ IN THEIR SETTING.  BUT VIOLATION OF THE
ORDER BRINGS THE SWIFT RETRIBUTION OF CONTEMPT, WITHOUT THE NORMAL
SAFEGUARDS OF A FULL-DRESS PROCEEDING.  SOME NOTICE OF THE PRIOR
PROCEEDING MUST BE TAKEN IN A CONTEMPT ACTION - THE VERY WORD
"REASONABLE" INVITES A GLANCE AT WHAT HAS GONE BEFORE.  BUT TOO GREAT
DEPENDENCE ON THE FORMER ACTION PLACES DEFENDANTS UNDER A RESTRAINT
THAT MAKES THE ORDER ITSELF A USELESS FORMALITY.  AGAIN THE QUESTION IS
OF DEGREE. 

IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE BOARD DID NOT FIND THAT THE VERY DENIAL OF
THE HALL WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  IT FOUND THAT THE REFUSAL BY
THESE RESPONDENTS WAS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE THE HALL HAD BEEN GIVEN
FREELY TO OTHERS, AND BECAUSE NO OTHER HALLS WERE AVAILABLE FOR
ORGANIZATION.  NOW THE BOARD ASKS US TO ENFORCE AN ORDER THAT SIMPLY
DOES NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS.  WE MUST REQUIRE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE MAKING
IT CLEAR THAT THE MERE DENIAL OF FACILITIES WILL NOT SUBJECT
RESPONDENTS TO PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT.  WHAT THE BOARD FOUND, AND ALL
WE ARE CONSIDERING HERE, IS DISCRIMINATION.  THE DECREE SHOULD BE
MODIFIED TO ORDER RESPONDENTS TO REFRAIN FROM ANY ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD
CAUSE A UNION'S APPLICATION TO BE TREATED ON A DIFFERENT BASIS THAN
THOSE OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. 

WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE COURT OF APPEALS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE
BOARD FOR AMENDMENT OF ITS ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE BOARD'S FINDINGS AND
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1 UNDER THE WAGNER ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 151, 158(1). 

FN2  THE BOARD FOUND THAT "A. C. LINEBERGER IS PRESIDENT OF THE
RESPONDENTS PERFECTION, ACME, AND LINFORD; J. HAROLD LINEBERGER IS VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE RESPONDENTS PERFECTION AND LINFORD, AND SECRETARY
TREASURER OF THE RESPONDENT ACME; D. P. STOWE IS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
RESPONDENT ACME AND SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE RESPONDENT PERFECTION. 
THE OFFICERS OF THE RESPONDENT STOWE ARE C. T. STOWE, PRESIDENT; C. P.
STOWE, VICE PRESIDENT; AND R. L. STOWE, SECRETARY-TREASURER, ALL OF
WHOM ARE COUSINS OF D. P. STOWE." 

FN3  STOWE'S PETITION WAS DENIED, 334 U.S. 831; THE REINSTATEMENT
ORDER IS NOT BEING REVIEWED IN THIS COURT. 

FN4  SEE LAHNE, THE COTTON MILL WORKER (NEW YORK, 1944), PP. 50-51. 

FN5  SEE MACDONALD, SOUTHERN MILL HILLS (NEW YORK, 1928), P. 34;
BLANSHARD, LABOR IN SOUTHERN COTTON MILLS (NEW YORK, 1927), P. 64. 

FN6  SEE NOTES 4 AND 5. 

FN7 RESPONDENTS DO NOT CONTEST THE BOARD FINDING THAT ANTIUNION BIAS
WAS THE CAUSE FOR THEIR REFUSAL OF THE HALL.  AND FOUR EMPLOYEES WERE
DISCHARGED FOR UNION ACTIVITY.  SEE 165 F.2D 609, 614.  EVEN IN THE
REPUBLIC AND LE TOURNEAU CASES NO SUCH DISCRIMINATION WAS SHOWN.  324
U.S. AT 797, 801. 

FN8  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, BERKSHIRE KNITTING MILLS V. LABOR BOARD, 139
F.2D 134(COMPANY UNION GIVEN USE OF HALL DENIED TO OUTSIDE UNION);
LABOR BOARD V. CARLISLE LUMBER CO., 94 F.2D 138(COMPANY UNION GIVEN
PREFERENCE OVER BOARD-CERTIFIED BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE); LABOR BOARD
V. NORFOLK SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CORP., 109 F.2D 128(RECOGNITION OF
INSIDE UNION WITHOUT ASCERTAINING EMPLOYEES' WISHES - INSIDE UNION
GIVEN USE OF COMPANY ROOMS); LABOR BOARD V. LANE COTTON MILLS, 111 F.2D
814(REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH CERTIFIED UNION COUPLED WITH USE OF
RECREATION ROOM BY COMPANY UNION).  AND SEE CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 118 F.2D 295; MATTER OF STANDARD OIL OF CALIFORNIA, 61 N.L.R.B.
1251; MATTER OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO., 44 N.L.R.B. 404,
ENFORCED 319 U.S. 533. 

FN9  CITED AND QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN THE REPUBLIC CASE AT 803,
804. 

FN10  WE POINTED OUT THAT NEITHER THE REPUBLIC NOR LE TOURNEAU CASES
"IS LIKE A MINING OR LUMBER CAMP WHERE THE EMPLOYEES PASS THEIR REST AS
WELL AS THEIR WORK TIME ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES, SO THAT UNION
ORGANIZATION MUST PROCEED UPON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES OR BE SERIOUSLY
HANDICAPPED."  324 U.S. AT 799. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE THINK THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE UPHELD THE
BOARD'S UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGE. 

SECOND. STOWE'S FINAL CONTENTION, THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER IS TOO
BROAD, IS MORE SERIOUS.  STOWE IS ORDERED TO "CEASE AND DESIST FROM
...  REFUSING TO PERMIT THE USE OF THE PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF AMERICA
HALL BY ITS EMPLOYEES OR EMPLOYEES OF (THE OTHER RESPONDENTS) OR BY
TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C.I.O., OR ANY OTHER LABOR
ORGANIZATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELF-ORGANIZATION OR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING."  THERE ARE NONE OF THE USUAL QUALIFICATIONS ON THE FACE OF
THE ORDER; FN11  ONE CONSTRUCTION WOULD PERMIT UNIONS TO USE THE HALL
AT ALL TIMES, WHATEVER THE LEGITIMATE ACTIVITY OF THE PATRIOTIC ORDER. 
FN11  COMPARE LABOR BOARD V. LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORP., 167 F.2D
147, 150, WHERE THE BOARD RECOGNIZED THAT THE EMPLOYER MIGHT IMPOSE
"LAWFUL AND REASONABLE CONDITIONS." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I FIND MYSELF UNABLE TO JOIN THE COURT'S OPINION BECAUSE I HAVE A
DIFFERENT VIEW AS TO THE NATURE OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE INVOLVED
WHICH LEADS ME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION AS TO THE REMEDY THAT THE
BOARD MAY PRESCRIBE. 

THE EMPLOYERS' PLANT WAS LOCATED IN A COMPANY-OWNED TOWN.  IT
CONTAINED ONLY THREE BUILDINGS SUITABLE FOR USE FOR A PUBLIC MEETING. 
THE UNION NEEDED A MEETING PLACE AND SOUGHT TO USE ANY ONE OF THE
THREE. 

ONE IS A MOTION PICTURE THEATER OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE EMPLOYERS
BUT OPERATED BY A LESSEE.  THE UNION WAS REFUSED ITS USE UPON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR MOTION PICTURES. 

ANOTHER WAS A SCHOOL BUILDING PUBLICLY OWNED BUT CONTROLLED BY A
SCHOOL BOARD COMPOSED ENTIRELY FROM OFFICERS OF THE EMPLOYERS.  THE
UNION SOUGHT TO USE THE SCHOOLHOUSE BUT, AFTER SOME NEGOTIATIONS, WAS
TOLD BY ITS CUSTODIAN THAT AN OFFICER OF ONE OF THE EMPLOYERS HAD
ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO PERMIT SUCH USE. 

THE THIRD WAS A BUILDING OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE EMPLOYERS,
OCCUPIED BY THE POST OFFICE AND A GROCERY STORE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND
BY A MEETING HALL ON THE SECOND.  THIS HALL FOR SOME TIME HAD BEEN THE
QUARTERS OF THE PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF AMERICA, A FRATERNAL
ORGANIZATION WHICH IN PRACTICE HAD EXERCISED FULL CONTROL OVER IT AND
HAD PERMITTED VARIOUS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO USE IT FOR COMMUNITY
PURPOSES.  ITS OFFICERS CONSENTED TO THE UNION'S USE OF THE HALL ON THE
PAYMENT OF A NOMINAL JANITOR'S FEE.  BEFORE THE SCHEDULED MEETING,
HOWEVER, AN OFFICER OF THE EMPLOYERS TOLD THE HEAD OF THE FRATERNAL
ORDER THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE USE OF THE HALL AND CAUSED
THE PERMISSION TO BE WITHDRAWN.  WHILE THE TENURE OF THE FRATERNAL
ORGANIZATION IS SOMEWHAT SHADOWY, IT APPEARS THAT IT HAD BEEN GIVEN AT
LEAST SUCH CONTROL OF THE USE OF THE HALL THAT ITS CONSENT WOULD HAVE
CONSTITUTED A LICENSE SO THAT THE UNION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
TRESPASSING. 

BUT FOR THE INTERFERENCE OF THE EMPLOYERS, EITHER THE SCHOOLHOUSE OR
THE PATRIOTIC SONS HALL MIGHT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED.  I AGREE WITH THE
COURT THAT THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYERS'
ACTION IN PREVENTING THE UNION FROM OBTAINING THIS PLACE OF ASSEMBLY
CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  BUT I DO NOT THINK THIS FINDING
IS OR CAN BE BASED ON DISCRIMINATION.  THE EMPLOYERS, HAVING PERMITTED
THE PATRIOTIC SONS TO CONTROL USE OF THE HALL, COULD NOT PROPERLY
INTERFERE AND COMMAND REVERSAL OF THE SONS' APPROVAL OF THE UNION'S
APPLICATION.  ON THESE FACTS, SUCH CONDUCT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE, EVEN THOUGH NO OTHER ORGANIZATION HAD EVER BEEN ALLOWED
TO USE THE HALL.  THE INTERFERENCE TO OUST THE UNION WAS ENOUGH WITHOUT
A DISCRIMINATION, WHICH COULD HARDLY OCCUR UNLESS SOME OTHER UNION HAD
BEEN ALLOWED TO USE THE HALL.  CONSEQUENTLY, I THINK THE BOARD COULD
REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO NOTIFY THE PATRIOTIC SONS THAT IT HAS BEEN
UNFAIR IN THE OBJECTIONS HERETOFORE MADE AND THAT IT WILL MAKE NO
OBJECTIONS IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT THE PATRIOTIC SONS ARE FREE TO ALLOW
SUCH TEMPORARY USE IF THEY SEE FIT. 

BUT THE BOARD'S ORDER GOES BEYOND THIS.  IT HAS ORDERED THAT THE
EMPLOYERS TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO PLACE THE HALL OF THE PATRIOTIC
SONS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE UNION.  IT IS ONE THING TO FORBID THE
EMPLOYERS TO BRING PRESSURE ON THE CUSTODIAN OF THE HALL TO SHUT OUT
THE UNION; IT IS ANOTHER THING TO ORDER THEM TO BRING PRESSURE ON THE
CUSTODIAN TO ADMIT THE UNION, OR TO ORDER THE EMPLOYERS TO REPOSSESS
THE HALL AND TURN IT OVER TO THE UNION.  IF THE EMPLOYERS WERE
CONTROLLING THE HALL DIRECTLY, I WOULD HAVE SERIOUS DOUBTS WHETHER
DENIAL OF UNION USE OF THE HALL COULD BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND
EQUALLY SERIOUS DOUBTS WHETHER IT WOULD NOT BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UNDER SEC. 8(2) OF THE ACT TO ALLOW IT.  NEITHER THE COMPLAINING UNION
NOR ANY OTHER HAS YET BEEN CHOSEN AS BARGAINING AGENT FOR THESE
EMPLOYEES.  FOR THE EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE THIS UNION A HALL, BY DIRECT
PERMISSION OR BY INDIRECT PRESSURE ON THE PATRIOTIC SONS, MAY READILY
CONVEY TO EMPLOYEES AN IMPRESSION OF FAVORING THE UNION THUS INDULGED. 
AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT, THE POLICY OF THE ACT AS HERETOFORE
APPLIED IS ONE OF PREVENTING THE EMPLOYER FROM EXTENDING FINANCIAL AID
OR SUPPORT TO ANY UNION.  I THINK, IN THE LONG RUN, INTERPRETATION OF
THE ACT TO REQUIRE A COMPLETE HANDS-OFF ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF
EMPLOYERS WILL BETTER EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT THAN AN
OCCASIONAL DEPARTURE FROM IT TO REQUIRE SOME KIND OF AID TO A UNION AS
AN EXPEDIENT FOR CORRECTING OR PUNISHING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 

IF THE ACT PERMITTED IMPOSING SUCH A PENALTY UPON THE EMPLOYERS, IT
WOULD PERHAPS BE APPROPRIATE TO COMPEL THEM TO PROVIDE A MEETING HALL
IN LIEU OF THOSE IT KEPT THE UNION FROM OBTAINING.  HOWEVER, IT IS WELL
ESTABLISHED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT SEC. 10(C) OF THE ACT IS
REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE.  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305
U.S. 197; REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7.  IN BOTH
CASES, CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES SAID FOR THE COURT "THIS AUTHORITY TO ORDER
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO CONFER A PUNITIVE
JURISDICTION ENABLING THE BOARD TO INFLICT UPON THE EMPLOYER ANY
PENALTY IT MAY CHOOSE BECAUSE HE IS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT
MIGHT BE EFFECTUATED BY SUCH AN ORDER."  305 U.S. 197, 235, AND 311
U.S. 7, 11. 

CONSEQUENTLY, I THINK THE ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PROVIDE THAT
THE EMPLOYER SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM INTERFERING IN ANY MANNER WITH
THE DISCRETION OF THE PATRIOTIC SONS WITH RESPECT TO USE OF THE HALL
AND THAT APPROPRIATE NOTICES SHALL BE POSTED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE CONTROLLING POINT FOR DECISION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE BOARD
WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE FOUR RESPONDENT COMPANIES
INTERFERED WITH RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE WAGNER ACT.  SECTION
7 PROVIDES THAT "EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION,
TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS  ...  "  49 STAT. 452. 
THE BOARD'S COMPLAINT CHARGED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(1)
AGAINST THE FOUR RESPONDENT COMPANIES BY THEIR INTERFERENCE WITH THE
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7.  THE FORM OF INTERFERENCE WAS THE REFUSAL
OF THE USE OF A HALL JOINTLY OWNED BY RESPONDENTS TO EMPLOYEES OF ONE
OF THEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELF-ORGANIZATION.  IF THE FOUR RESPONDENTS
VIOLATED SEC. 7, DID THE BOARD HAVE POWER TO REDRESS THAT VIOLATION BY
ENTERING SEC. 1(B) AND SEC. 2(C) OF ITS ORDER AGAINST STOWE AND SIMILAR
ORDERS AGAINST THE OTHER THREE RESPONDENTS?  SECTION 1(B) ORDERED THE
RESPONDENTS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM 

"REFUSING TO PERMIT THE USE OF THE PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF AMERICA
HALL BY ITS EMPLOYEES OR EMPLOYEES OF ACME SPINNING COMPANY, PERFECTION
SPINNING COMPANY OR LINFORD MILLS, INC., OR BY TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, C.I.O., OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SELF-ORGANIZATION OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING;" 

AND SEC. 2(C) ORDERED RESPONDENTS TO 

"UPON REQUEST, GRANT TO ITS EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES OF ACME SPINNING
COMPANY, PERFECTION SPINNING COMPANY, OR LINFORD MILLS, INC., AND TO
TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O., OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION,
THE USE OF THE PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF AMERICA HALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF
SELF-ORGANIZATION OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING;" 

THE BOARD DECIDED THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE HALL VIOLATED SEC. 7 AND
CONCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW: 

"3.  BY INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, AND COERCING THEIR EMPLOYEES
IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT, THE
RESPONDENTS STOWE SPINNING COMPANY, ACME SPINNING COMPANY, PERFECTION
SPINNING COMPANY, AND LINFORD MILLS, INC., HAVE ENGAGED IN AND ARE
ENGAGING IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 8(1)
OF THE ACT." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCURATELY SUMMARIZED THE BOARD'S ACTION IN
THESE WORDS: 

"IT (THE BOARD) MADE THE FINDING THAT THE OWNER'S REFUSAL 'TO PERMIT
USE OF THE HALL FOR PURPOSES OF SELF ORGANIZATION IN A LABOR UNION
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTED UNLAWFUL DISPARITY OF TREATMENT AND
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNION.'  IT POINTED OUT THAT FOREMOST AMONG
THE METHODS UNIVERSALLY UTILIZED BY EMPLOYEES IN SELF ORGANIZATION IS
THE EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY.  IT
HELD THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE RESPONDENTS' ACTION WAS TO IMPEDE,
PREVENT AND DISCOURAGE THE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS BASIC
RIGHT AND THAT BY REFUSING THE UNION PERMISSION TO USE THE ONLY
AVAILABLE MEETING PLACE IN THE COMMUNITY, THE RESPONDENTS IN FACT
DEPRIVED THE EMPLOYEES OF STOWE OF THE RIGHT."  LABOR BOARD V. STOWE
SPINNING CO., 165 F.2D 609, 611. 

IN REVERSING THE BOARD THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID: 

"  ...  THE EMPLOYER HAS NOT INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED OR COERCED
ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS.  EVEN THOUGH IT WAS
EVIDENT TO THE WORKERS THAT THE ACTION OF THE OWNERS OF THE HALL WAS
INSPIRED BY HOSTILITY TO THE UNION, THE REFUSAL DID NOT AMOUNT TO
UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT OR COERCION."  ID., 611. 

A DETERMINATION THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW IT IS OR IT IS NOT AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE FOR RESPONDENTS TO REFUSE THE USE OF THEIR HALL FOR
UNION ORGANIZATION PURPOSES WILL DECIDE THIS CASE. 

THE FINDINGS SHOW THAT THE CENTER OF THE VILLAGE OF NORTH BELMONT IS
APPROXIMATELY 2 1/2 MILES FROM THE CENTER OF THE TOWN OF BELMONT.  IN
THE VILLAGE THERE ARE FOUR TEXTILE MILLS AND ABOUT EACH TEXTILE MILL A
NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT BELONG TO THE CORPORATIONS THAT OWN THE
RESPECTIVE MILLS.  AT A CENTRAL LOCATION IN THE VILLAGE, REACHED BY
WHAT WE ASSUME ARE PUBLIC ROADS AND STREETS, ARE THE SCHOOL, A THEATER,
AND A COMBINED POST OFFICE AND STORE; ABOVE THE POST OFFICE AND STORE
IS THE MEETING HALL IN QUESTION.  THESE FACILITIES, EXCEPT THE SCHOOL,
ARE OWNED JOINTLY BY THE FOUR CORPORATIONS THAT OWN THE MILLS.  NEITHER
THE RECORD NOR THE FINDINGS SHOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS PRIVATELY
OWNED REALTY IN THE VILLAGE BELONGING TO OTHERS THAN THE TEXTILE MILLS,
BUT WE ASSUME THAT THERE IS NONE. 

RESPONDENTS PROVIDED THE HALL AS A MEETING PLACE FOR THE PATRIOTIC
ORDER SONS OF AMERICA.  THE BOARD FOUND, 70 N.L.R.B. 614, 621: 

"AS TO THE ARRANGEMENTS UNDER WHICH THE P.O.S. OF A. WAS PERMITTED
USE OF THIS COMPANY-OWNED PROPERTY, STOWE CREDIBLY TESTIFIED WITHOUT
CONTRADICTION THAT 'IT WAS BUILT ESPECIALLY FOR THE PATRIOTIC SONS OF
AMERICA TO HOLD THEIR MEETINGS IN AND WAS NOT TO BE RENTED TO ANYBODY
ELSE.'  HE ALSO TESTIFIED:  '  ...  WE TOLD THE PATRIOTIC SONS OF
AMERICA THAT WE WERE GOING TO LET THEM USE THE BUILDING FREE OF RENT,
BUT WERE NOT GOING TO ALLOW IT TO BE RENTED FOR ANY (OTHER)
PURPOSES.'" 

UNDER SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT THE MEMBERS OF THE FRATERNAL ORDER WERE
LICENSEES, WHO WERE PERMITTED TO USE THE HALL ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE
OWNER'S CONSENT.  THERE WAS THE FURTHER BOARD STATEMENT, QUOTED BELOW,
AS TO THE USE OF THE HALL.  FN1 

IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD HOW FAR THIS VILLAGE CENTER IS
FROM THE RESPECTIVE MILLS.  IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THE PATRIOTIC
ORDER SONS OF AMERICA HALL IS NOT CONNECTED WITH THE MILL OPERATIONS,
NOR IS ITS USE OPEN TO EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT BY ANY OF
THE MILLS.  THERE IS A DISTINCT LINE OF CLEAVAGE AS TO THE RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYEES BETWEEN FACILITIES AND MEANS OF PRODUCTION OPEN TO THE USE OF
EMPLOYEES THROUGH THEIR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND OTHER PROPERTY OF THE
EMPLOYER THAT MAY BE USED BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE OWNER ONLY
THROUGH SOME CONTRACT, LICENSE, OR PERMISSION, NOT A PART OF AN
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.  THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE DISCLOSES THAT MEMBERSHIP
IN THE FRATERNAL ORDER IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE MILLS,
AND THAT IT INCLUDES OTHERS. 

THE ERROR INTO WHICH THE BOARD FELL CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO USE THE
PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF AMERICA HALL IS, IT SEEMS TO US, THAT IT
THOUGHT THE "DISPARITY OF TREATMENT AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE
UNION" INVOLVED IN THE REFUSAL OF THE HALL WAS A VIOLATION OF THE
EMPLOYEES'"RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS."  N2  SEC. 7.  IT IS ONLY WHEN THERE IS A VIOLATION
THROUGH AN INTERFERENCE WITH OR A RESTRAINING OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES'
RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 7 THAT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FINDING MAY BE
PREDICATED ON THE EMPLOYER'S ACTS.  THE EMPLOYER IS NOT REQUIRED TO AID
EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE.  THE LAW FORBIDS ONLY INTERFERENCE. 

EMPLOYMENT IN A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE GIVES AN EMPLOYEE NO RIGHTS IN
THE EMPLOYER'S OTHER PROPERTY, DISCONNECTED FROM THAT ENTERPRISE.  AS
TO SUCH PROPERTY, THE EMPLOYER STANDS ON THE SAME FOOTING AS ANY OTHER
PROPERTY OWNER.  AS INDICATED ABOVE, THAT IS THE CONDITION AS TO THE
PATRIOTIC ORDER SONS OF AMERICA HALL.  THE REFUSAL OF THIS OWNER TO
ALLOW THE HALL'S USE FOR UNION ORGANIZATION IS NOT AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE UNDER SECS. 7 AND 8 ANY MORE THAN A REFUSAL BY ANY OTHER
PRIVATE OWNER WOULD BE.  AS FAR AS THE HALL IS CONCERNED, THE RELATION
OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE DOES NOT EXIST BETWEEN THE MILL OWNERS AND THE
MILL WORKERS.  THERE CANNOT BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AS TO THE USE
OF THIS HALL UNDER THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

PERHAPS THE RULING OF THIS COURT IN MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S. 501,
APPROACHES CLOSER TO THIS PROBLEM THAN ANY OTHER CASE.  THERE ALABAMA
PUNISHED A DISTRIBUTOR OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE FOR TRESPASS WHEN SHE
INSISTED ON PASSING OUT THE PAMPHLETS ON A PRIVATE SIDEWALK, USED BY
THE OWNERS' PERMISSION TO ENTER STORES AND THE POST OFFICE.  THIS COURT
REVERSED AND HELD THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE LAW OF TRESPASS VIOLATED
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THIS COURT HELD, P. 509:  "INSOFAR AS THE
STATE HAS ATTEMPTED TO IMPOSE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT ON APPELLANT FOR
UNDERTAKING TO DISTRIBUTE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IN A COMPANY TOWN, ITS
ACTION CANNOT STAND."  CERTAIN EXPRESSIONS, SET OUT BELOW,  FN3  OCCUR
IN THE OPINION AS TO THE RIGHT TO USE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR SPEECH,
PRESS AND ASSEMBLY BUT THEY MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS IN
THE MARSH CASE.  SO READ, OR HOWEVER READ, THEY CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS
A HOLDING THAT THE NATURAL RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION OR OF ASSEMBLY,
GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION, IS A DELUSION UNLESS ORGANIZERS AND
EVANGELISTS CAN COMMANDEER PRIVATE BUILDINGS FOR USE IN THE PROPAGATION
OF THEIR IDEAS.  THE MARSH CASE, IN MY VIEW, GOES NO FURTHER THAN TO
SAY THAT THE PUBLIC HAS THE SAME RIGHTS OF DISCUSSION ON THE SIDEWALKS
OF COMPANY TOWNS THAT IT HAS ON THE SIDEWALKS OF MUNICIPALITIES. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS RECORD THAT INDICATES A SITUATION SUCH AS
EXISTS IN EMPLOYER-OWNED LUMBER CAMPS OR MINING PROPERTIES.  WHERE AN
EMPLOYER MAINTAINS LIVING, RECREATION AND WORK PLACES ON SUCH BUSINESS
PREMISES OPEN TO EMPLOYEES BY VIRTUE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, IT HAS BEEN
HELD THAT EXCLUSION OF UNION ORGANIZERS FROM CONTACT WITH THE EMPLOYEES
IS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND THAT THE BOARD'S ORDERING THE EMPLOYER
TO GRANT UNION REPRESENTATIVES ACCESS IN NON-WORKING HOURS TO THE
EMPLOYEES UNDER REASONABLE REGULATIONS IS A PROPER MEANS TO EFFECTUATE
THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  LABOR BOARD V. LAKE SUPERIOR LUMBER CORP.,
167 F.2D 147.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE EMPLOYEES DO NOT
LIVE ON THE PREMISES OF THEIR EMPLOYER A UNION ORGANIZER HAS TO BE
ADMITTED TO THOSE PREMISES.  THE PRESENT SITUATION DIFFERS FROM THE
EMPLOYER-CONTROLLED AREAS WHERE EMPLOYEES BOTH LIVE AND WORK IN THAT
HERE UNION ORGANIZERS MAY SOLICIT THE EMPLOYEES ON THE STREETS OR IN
THEIR HOMES OR AT PUBLIC MEETING HOUSES WITHIN A FEW MILES OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT.  EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ISOLATED BEYOND THE HOURS OF LABOR FROM
AN ORGANIZER NOR IS AN ORGANIZER DENIED ACCESS TO THE EMPLOYEES.  AFTER
AN ORGANIZER HAS CONVINCED AN EMPLOYEE OF THE VALUE OF UNION
ORGANIZATION, THAT EMPLOYEE CAN DISCUSS UNION RELATIONS WITH HIS FELLOW
EMPLOYEES DURING NON-WORKING HOURS IN THE MILL.  THIS GIVES OPPORTUNITY
FOR UNION MEMBERSHIP PROLIFERATION.  REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD AND LABOR BOARD V. LE TOURNEAU COMPANY OF GEORGIA, 324 U.S. 793. 

THE PRESENT CASE DIFFERS FROM THE LE TOURNEAU AND REPUBLIC CASES IN
THAT IN THOSE CASES THE PROBLEM CONCERNED THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYER TO
MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE BY FORBIDDING EMPLOYEES TO FOSTER BY PERSONAL
SOLICITATION UNION ORGANIZATION ON THE GROUNDS OR IN THE PLANT OF THE
COMPANY DURING THE EMPLOYEES' NON-WORKING TIME.  WE HELD THAT, UNLESS
THERE WERE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT JUSTIFIED SUCH A REGULATION TO
SECURE DISCIPLINE AND PRODUCTION, THE EMPLOYER MUST ALLOW SUCH
DISCUSSION.  REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA. 

THE BOARD NOW SEEKS AN EXTENSION OF THIS RULE.  IT IS ARGUED THAT
WHERE THE ONLY READILY AVAILABLE MEETING PLACE IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE EMPLOYER, THE BOARD MAY REQUIRE HIM TO PERMIT HIS
EMPLOYEES TO USE THAT MEETING PLACE FOR PRESENTATION OF ARGUMENTS FOR
UNIONIZATION.  EVEN WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS ALLOWED OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
TO USE HIS PROPERTY, I DO NOT THINK THAT THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE
GUARANTEEING EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND TO FORM LABOR UNIONS
PERMIT SUCH AN EXTENSION.  EMPLOYMENT FURNISHES NO BASIS FOR EMPLOYEE
RIGHTS TO THE CONTROL OF PROPERTY FOR UNION ORGANIZATION WHEN THE
PROPERTY IS NOT A PART OF THE PREMISES OF THE EMPLOYER, USED IN HIS
BUSINESS.  SO TO CONSTRUE THE STATUTE RAISES SERIOUS PROBLEMS UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WOULD THE THEATER, ALSO OWNED BY THE MILL
PROPRIETORS, BE SUBJECT TO THE UNION'S USER?  WOULD THAT CONSTRUCTION
AS APPLIED IN THE FINDING AND PARTICULARLY IN THE EARLIER QUOTED
JUST COMPENSATION OR FORCE PRIVATE OWNERS TO DEVOTE THEIR PROPERTY TO
PRIVATE PURPOSES, I.E., UNION ORGANIZATION?  DEFINITE LEGISLATIVE
LANGUAGE ONLY WOULD AUTHORIZE SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THIS STATUTE. 
UNITED STATES V. C.I.O., 335 U.S. 106, 120-21. 

LABOR UNIONS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY OF AN
EMPLOYER NOT DIRECTLY A PART OF THE EMPLOYMENT FACILITIES, THAT AN
EMPLOYER HAS.  THE BOARD CANNOT REQUIRE THAT SUCH MEETING PLACES BE
FURNISHED FOR EMPLOYEES BY AN EMPLOYER UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  TO
REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO ALLOW LABOR UNION MEETINGS IN OR ON PROPERTY
ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED IN SPACE AND USE FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES IS TOO EXTRAVAGANT AN EXTENSION OF THE MEANING
OF THE ACT FOR ME TO BELIEVE IT IS WITHIN ITS LANGUAGE OR THE PURPOSE
OF CONGRESS. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

FN1  "AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, SINCE 1937, THE HALL HAS BEEN USED,
ACCORDING TO THE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF BLACK, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS FOR
COMMUNITY AND EMPLOYEE MEETINGS.  VARIOUS CHURCHES HAVE USED THE HALL
FOR BANQUETS; 'LADIES AID' SOCIETIES HAVE GATHERED THERE; THE NORTH
BELMONT SCHOOL HAD THE USE OF THE HALL FOR AT LEAST ONE CHRISTMAS
PARTY; AND FOR SEVERAL WEEKS EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENTS ATTENDED A
'SAFETY SCHOOL' HELD IN THE HALL.  THAT NO OTHER FRATERNAL ORDER MET
THERE IS EXPLAINED BY THE FACT, ESTABLISHED BY STOWE'S TESTIMONY, THAT
THE P.O.S. OF A. IS THE ONLY SUCH ORGANIZATION IN NORTH BELMONT. 
FURTHERMORE, BLACK'S CREDIBLE TESTIMONY IS UNDISPUTED THAT IT WAS THE
PRACTICE, WHEN ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WANTED TO USE THE HALL, FOR THE
P.O.S. OF A. 'LODGE' ITSELF TO PASS UPON THE REQUEST.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, EXCEPT THE UNION, WAS EVER
REFUSED USE OF THE HALL, EITHER BY THE P.O.S. OF A. OR BY THE
RESPONDENTS."  70 N.L.R.B. 614, 621. 

FN2  THE BOARD SAID:  "MOREOVER, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RESPONDENTS'
MOTIVE, WE ARE CONVINCED, AND FIND UPON THE CONSIDERATION STATED ABOVE,
THAT BY REFUSING TO PERMIT THEIR EMPLOYEES TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO
MEET ON COMPANY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING A UNION
MEETING, WHEN NO OTHER SUITABLE PROPERTY IN THE COMMUNITY WAS AVAILABLE
FOR THE PURPOSE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH ABOVE, THE
RESPONDENTS HAVE PLACED AN UNREASONABLE IMPEDIMENT ON FREEDOM OF
COMMUNICATION AND OF ASSEMBLY ESSENTIAL TO THE EXERCISE OF EMPLOYEES'
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SECTION 7 OF THE ACT.  BY THEIR CONDUCT IN
REVOKING THE GRANT OF PRIVILEGE TO USE THE HALL AND THUS DENYING THE
USE OF THE HALL TO THE UNION, THE RESPONDENTS STOWE, ACME, PERFECTION,
AND LINFORD INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED THEIR EMPLOYEES IN
THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT, IN
VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(1) THEREOF."  ID., 624. 

FN3  "OWNERSHIP DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN ABSOLUTE DOMINION.  THE MORE AN
OWNER, FOR HIS ADVANTAGE, OPENS UP HIS PROPERTY FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC
IN GENERAL, THE MORE DO HIS RIGHTS BECOME CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE
STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO USE IT.  ...  HAD THE
CORPORATION HERE OWNED THE SEGMENT OF THE FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY WHICH RUNS
PARALLEL TO THE 'BUSINESS BLOCK' AND OPERATED THE SAME UNDER A STATE
FRANCHISE, DOUBTLESS NO ONE WOULD HAVE SERIOUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE
CORPORATION'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE HIGHWAY GAVE IT POWER TO
OBSTRUCT THROUGH TRAFFIC OR TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  ...  AND EVEN HAD THERE BEEN NO EXPRESS FRANCHISE BUT MERE
ACQUIESCENCE BY THE STATE IN THE CORPORATION'S USE OF ITS PROPERTY AS A
SEGMENT OF THE FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY, OPERATION OF ALL THE HIGHWAY,
INCLUDING THE SEGMENT OWNED BY THE CORPORATION, WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN
PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC FUNCTION AND DISCRIMINATION WOULD CERTAINLY
HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL. 

"WE DO NOT THINK IT MAKES ANY SIGNIFICANT CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE
AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER AND THOSE OF THE
PUBLIC THAT HERE THE STATE, INSTEAD OF PERMITTING THE CORPORATION TO
OPERATE A HIGHWAY, PERMITTED IT TO USE ITS PROPERTY AS A TOWN, OPERATE
A 'BUSINESS BLOCK' IN THE TOWN AND A STREET AND SIDEWALK ON THAT
BUSINESS BLOCK."  P. 506-507. 

     .         .         .      .         . 

"IN OUR VIEW THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS TO THE
PREMISES WHERE THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY, HERE INVOLVED, TOOK PLACE,
WERE HELD BY OTHERS THAN THE PUBLIC, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
STATE'S PERMITTING A CORPORATION TO GOVERN A COMMUNITY OF CITIZENS SO
AS TO RESTRICT THEIR FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH
RESTRAINT BY THE APPLICATION OF A STATE STATUTE."  P. 509. 
..END :















AUTO. WORKERS V. WIS. BOARD, 336 U.S. 245 


NOS. 14 AND 15.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17-18, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28,
1949.  - 250 WIS. 550, 27 N.W.2D 875, AFFIRMED. 


NEGOTIATIONS FOR A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN AN
EMPLOYER, ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND A LABOR UNION, CERTIFIED
UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES, BECAME DEADLOCKED.  IN ORDER TO BRING
PRESSURE ON THE EMPLOYER, THE UNION ADOPTED A PLAN WHEREBY UNION
MEETINGS WERE CALLED AT IRREGULAR TIMES DURING WORKING HOURS, WITHOUT
ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYER OR ANY NOTICE AS TO WHETHER OR WHEN THE
EMPLOYEES WOULD RETURN.  IN A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 5 MONTHS, 27 SUCH
WORK STOPPAGES OCCURRED.  THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT INFORMED DURING THIS
PERIOD OF ANY SPECIFIC DEMANDS WHICH THESE TACTICS WERE DESIGNED TO
ENFORCE NOR WHAT CONCESSIONS IT COULD MAKE TO AVOID THEM.  IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT, THE WISCONSIN
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ISSUED AN ORDER WHICH WAS CONSTRUED AND
UPHELD BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT AS FORBIDDING THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS AND MEMBERS OF THE UNION FROM ENGAGING IN CONCERTED EFFORT
TO INTERFERE WITH PRODUCTION BY THOSE METHODS.  HELD:  IT WAS WITHIN
THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PROHIBIT THE PARTICULAR COURSE OF CONDUCT
DESCRIBED.  PP. 247-265. 

1.  UPON REVIEW HERE, THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE STATE BOARD'S
ORDER BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT IS CONCLUSIVE.  PP. 250-251. 

2.  AS THUS APPLIED, THE STATE STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE THE PURPOSE OR
EFFECT OF IMPOSING ANY FORM OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN VIOLATION OF
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 251. 

3.  THE STATUTE AS APPLIED DOES NOT INVADE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND
PUBLIC ASSEMBLAGE GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  LINCOLN
LABOR UNION V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO., 335 U.S. 525; AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. AMERICAN SASH & DOOR CO., 335 U.S. 538.  PP. 251
252. 

4.  THE STATUTE AS APPLIED DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 252. 

5.  THIS RECURRENT OR INTERMITTENT UNANNOUNCED STOPPAGE OF WORK TO
WIN UNSTATED ENDS WAS NEITHER FORBIDDEN BY FEDERAL STATUTE NOR WAS IT
LEGALIZED AND APPROVED THEREBY, AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DENYING TO
THE STATE THE POWER, IN GOVERNING HER INTERNAL AFFAIRS, TO REGULATE AN
ACTIVITY HAVING SUCH AN OBVIOUSLY COERCIVE EFFECT.  PP. 252-265. 

(A)  NEITHER BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT NOR BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT HAS CONGRESS CLEARLY MANIFESTED AN INTENTION
TO EXCLUDE THE STATE POWER SOUGHT TO BE EXERCISED IN THIS CASE.  PP.
252-254. 

(B)  THERE IS NO EXISTING OR POSSIBLE CONFLICT OR OVERLAPPING BETWEEN
THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE BOARDS, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL
BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE, APPROVE OR FORBID THE UNION
CONDUCT IN QUESTION.  PP. 252-254. 

(C)  THE ORDER OF THE STATE BOARD DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT THAT EMPLOYEES
SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN "CONCERTED ACTIVITIES" FOR THE
PURPOSE OF "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION." 
PP. 254-258. 

(D)  NOR DOES THE ORDER OF THE STATE BOARD CONFLICT WITH SEC. 13 OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NOTHING IN THAT
ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO "INTERFERE WITH OR IMPEDE OR DIMINISH"
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE - EVEN WHEN READ IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEFINITION
OF "STRIKE" IN THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT.  PP. 258-265. 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, U.A.W.A., A.F. OF L., LOCAL 232, ET AL. V.
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

IN A PROCEEDING UNDER STATE LAW, THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
BOARD ORDERED A LABOR UNION AND MEMBERS THEREOF TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM INSTIGATING CERTAIN INTERMITTENT AND UNANNOUNCED WORK STOPPAGES IN
THE PLANTS OF AN EMPLOYER ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEPARATE
PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED IN THE STATE COURTS BY THE BOARD TO ENFORCE
THE ORDER AND BY THE UNION AND INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS TO OBTAIN REVIEW. 
THE STATE SUPREME COURT, REVERSING JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIAL COURT, UPHELD
THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER.  250 WIS. 550, 27 N.W.2D 875.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 853.  AFFIRMED, P. 265. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CERTAIN LABOR LEGISLATION OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN,  FN1  AS APPLIED
BY ITS SUPREME COURT, IS CHALLENGED BECAUSE IT IS SAID TO TRANSGRESS
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS AND BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE  FN2  AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT  FN3  AND THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
ACT OF 1947.  FN4 

THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN HELD  FN5  THAT ITS ACT AUTHORIZES THE
STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD TO ORDER A LABOR UNION TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM INSTIGATING CERTAIN INTERMITTENT AND UNANNOUNCED WORK
STOPPAGES WHICH IT HAD CAUSED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:
BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION OPERATES TWO MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN ENGAGING APPROXIMATELY 2,000 EMPLOYEES.  THESE ARE
REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL UNION, AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
A.F. OF L., LOCAL NO. 232, AS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT, IT HAVING
BEEN DULY CERTIFIED AS SUCH BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  UNDER SUCH
CERTIFICATION, THE UNION HAD NEGOTIATED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS, THE LAST OF WHICH EXPIRED ON JULY 1, 1944.  NEGOTIATION OF
A NEW ONE REACHED A DEADLOCK AND BARGAINING SESSIONS CONTINUED FOR SOME
TIME WITHOUT SUCCESS. 

ON NOVEMBER 3, 1945, ITS LEADERS SUBMITTED TO THE UNION MEMBERSHIP A
PLAN FOR A NEW METHOD OF PUTTING PRESSURE UPON THE EMPLOYER.  THE
STRATAGEM CONSISTED OF CALLING REPEATED SPECIAL MEETINGS OF THE UNION
DURING WORKING HOURS AT ANY TIME THE UNION SAW FIT, WHICH THE EMPLOYEES
WOULD LEAVE WORK TO ATTEND.  IT WAS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE PLAN THAT
THIS SHOULD BE WITHOUT WARNING TO THE EMPLOYER OR NOTICE AS TO WHEN OR
WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES WOULD RETURN.  THE DEVICE WAS ADOPTED AND THE
FIRST SURPRISE CESSATION OF WORK WAS CALLED ON NOVEMBER 6, 1945;
THEREAFTER, AND UNTIL MARCH 22, 1946, SUCH ACTION WAS REPEATED ON
TWENTY-SIX OCCASIONS.  THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT INFORMED DURING THIS PERIOD
OF ANY SPECIFIC DEMANDS WHICH THESE TACTICS WERE DESIGNED TO ENFORCE
NOR WHAT CONCESSIONS IT COULD MAKE TO AVOID THEM.  FN6 

THIS PROCEDURE WAS PUBLICLY DESCRIBED BY THE UNION LEADERS AS A NEW
TECHNIQUE FOR BRINGING PRESSURE UPON THE EMPLOYER.  IT WAS, AND IS,
CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT THESE TACTICS WERE INTENDED TO AND DID INTERFERE
WITH PRODUCTION AND PUT STRONG ECONOMIC PRESSURE ON THE EMPLOYER, WHO
WAS DISABLED THEREBY FROM MAKING ANY DEPENDABLE PRODUCTION PLANS OR
DELIVERY COMMITMENTS.  AND IT WAS SAID THAT "THIS CAN'T BE SAID FOR THE
STRIKE.  AFTER THE INITIAL SURPRISE OF THE WALKOUT, THE COMPANY KNOWS
WHAT IT HAS TO DO AND PLANS ACCORDINGLY."  IT WAS COMMENDED AS A
PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD AVOID HARDSHIPS THAT A STRIKE IMPOSES ON
EMPLOYEES AND WAS CONSIDERED "A BETTER WEAPON THAN A STRIKE." 

THE EMPLOYER DID NOT RESORT TO ANY PRIVATE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES SUCH
AS DISCHARGE OF THE EMPLOYEES; INSTEAD, IT SOUGHT A MUCH LESS DRASTIC
REMEDY BY PLEA TO THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC AUTHORITY UNDER WISCONSIN LAW
FN7  TO INVESTIGATE AND ADJUDGE THE UNION'S CONDUCT UNDER THE LAW OF
THE STATE.  AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES, THE BOARD ORDERED THE
UNION TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM "(A) ENGAGING IN ANY CONCERTED EFFORTS
TO INTERFERE WITH PRODUCTION BY ARBITRARILY CALLING UNION MEETINGS AND
INDUCING WORK STOPPAGES DURING REGULARLY SCHEDULED WORKING HOURS; OR
ENGAGING IN ANY OTHER CONCERTED EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH PRODUCTION OF
THE COMPLAINANT EXCEPT BY LEAVING THE PREMISES IN AN ORDERLY MANNER FOR
THE PURPOSE OF GOING ON STRIKE."  FN8 

TWO COURT PROCEEDINGS RESULTED FROM THE BOARD'S ORDER:  ONE BY THE
BOARD TO OBTAIN ENFORCEMENT AND THE OTHER BY THE UNION TO OBTAIN
REVIEW.  THEY ARE HERE CONSIDERED, AS THEY WERE BELOW, TOGETHER. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SUSTAINED THE BOARD'S ORDER BUT
SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITED THE EFFECT OF ITS OTHERWISE GENERAL
PROHIBITIONS.  IT HELD THAT WHAT THE ORDER DOES, AND ALL THAT IT DOES,
IS TO FORBID INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS AND MEMBERS OF THE UNION FROM
ENGAGING IN CONCERTED EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH PRODUCTION BY DOING THE
ACTS INSTANTLY INVOLVED.  AS WE HAVE HERETOFORE POINTED OUT, THE
CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON SUCH AN ORDER BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT IS
CONCLUSIVE ON US. ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
BOARD, 315 U.S. 740.  OUR ONLY QUESTION IS, THEREFORE, WHETHER IT IS
BEYOND THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PROHIBIT THE PARTICULAR COURSE OF
CONDUCT DESCRIBED.  FN9 

THE UNION CONTENDS THAT THE STATUTE AS THUS APPLIED VIOLATES THE
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT IN THAT IT IMPOSES A FORM OF COMPULSORY SERVICE OR
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.  HOWEVER, NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR THE ORDER
MAKES IT A CRIME TO ABANDON WORK INDIVIDUALLY (COMPARE POLLOCK V.
WILLIAMS, 322 U.S. 4) OR COLLECTIVELY.  NOR DOES EITHER UNDERTAKE TO
PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT ANY EMPLOYEE FROM LEAVING THE SERVICE OF THE
EMPLOYER, EITHER FOR REASON OR WITHOUT REASON, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT
NOTICE.  THE FACTS AFFORD NO FOUNDATION FOR THE CONTENTION THAT ANY
ACTION OF THE STATE HAS THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF IMPOSING ANY FORM OF
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. 

IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE STATUTE AS APPLIED INVADES RIGHTS OF
FREE SPEECH AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLAGE GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  WE RECENTLY CONSIDERED A SIMILAR CONTENTION IN CONNECTION
WITH OTHER STATE ACTION CONCERNING LABOR RELATIONS.  LINCOLN FEDERAL
LABOR UNION V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO., AND WHITAKER V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 335 U.S. 525, AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. AMERICAN
SASH & DOOR CO., 335 U.S. 538.  FOR REASONS THERE STATED, THESE
CONTENTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT. 

NO SERIOUS QUESTION IS PRESENTED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION STANDING ALONE.  IT NEVER HAS BEEN THOUGHT TO PREVENT THE
STATE LEGISLATURES FROM LIMITING "INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP RIGHTS OF
AGGRESSION AND DEFENSE" OR FROM SUBSTITUTING "PROCESSES OF JUSTICE FOR
THE MORE PRIMITIVE METHOD OF TRIAL BY COMBAT."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
DISSENTING, DUPLEX CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 488; SEE ALSO DORCHY
V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306, 311, CITED WITH APPROVAL, THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 103; AND SEE HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' LOCAL
V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, 315 U.S. 437. 

THE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE IS WHETHER CONGRESS HAS PROTECTED THE UNION
CONDUCT WHICH THE STATE HAS FORBIDDEN, AND HENCE THE STATE LEGISLATION
MUST YIELD.  WHEN THE ORDER OF THE STATE BOARD AND THE DECISION OF THE
STATE SUPREME COURT WERE MADE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49
STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 151-166, WAS IN EFFECT AND QUESTIONS OF
CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL LAW WERE RAISED AND DECIDED WITH
REFERENCE TO IT.  HOWEVER, THE ORDER IMPOSES A CONTINUING RESTRAINT
WHICH IT IS CONTENDED NOW CONFLICTS WITH THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 136, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 141-197, WHICH AMENDED THE
EARLIER STATUTE.  WE THEREFORE CONSIDER THE STATE ACTION IN RELATION TO
BOTH FEDERAL ACTS. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT IN EITHER OF THESE ACTS TO DECLARE EITHER A
GENERAL POLICY OR TO STATE SPECIFIC RULES AS TO THEIR EFFECTS ON STATE
REGULATION OF VARIOUS PHASES OF LABOR RELATIONS OVER WHICH THE SEVERAL
STATES TRADITIONALLY HAVE EXERCISED CONTROL.  CF. SECURITIES ACT OF
1933, SEC. 18, 48 STAT. 74, 85, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77R; SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934, SEC. 28, 48 STAT. 881, 903, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 78BB; UNITED
STATES WAREHOUSE ACT, BEFORE AND AFTER 1931 AMENDMENT, 39 STAT. 486,
490, 46 STAT. 1465, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 269.  HOWEVER, AS TO COERCIVE TACTICS
IN LABOR CONTROVERSIES, WE HAVE SAID OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT WHAT IS EQUALLY TRUE OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947,
THAT "CONGRESS DESIGNEDLY LEFT OPEN AN AREA FOR STATE CONTROL" AND THAT
THE "INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO EXCLUDE STATES FROM EXERCISING THEIR
POLICE POWER MUST BE CLEARLY MANIFESTED."  ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V.
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 750, 749.  WE
THEREFORE TURN TO ITS LEGISLATION FOR EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS HAS
CLEARLY MANIFESTED AN EXCLUSION OF THE STATE POWER SOUGHT TO BE
EXERCISED IN THIS CASE. 

CONGRESS MADE IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT NO EXPRESS
DELEGATION OF POWER TO THE BOARD TO PERMIT OR FORBID THIS PARTICULAR
UNION CONDUCT, FROM WHICH AN EXCLUSION OF STATE POWER COULD BE
IMPLIED.  THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT DECLARED IT TO BE AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A UNION TO INDUCE OR ENGAGE IN A STRIKE OR
CONCERTED REFUSAL TO WORK WHERE AN OBJECT THEREOF IS ANY OF CERTAIN
ENUMERATED ONES.  SEC. 8(B)(4), 61 STAT. 140, 141; 29 U.S.C. SEC.
158(B)(4).  NEVERTHELESS THE CONDUCT HERE DESCRIBED IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY
THIS ACT AND NO PROCEEDING IS AUTHORIZED BY WHICH THE FEDERAL BOARD MAY
DEAL WITH IT IN ANY MANNER.  WHILE THE FEDERAL BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO
FORBID A STRIKE, WHEN AND BECAUSE ITS PURPOSE IS ONE THAT THE FEDERAL
ACT MADE ILLEGAL, IT HAS BEEN GIVEN NO POWER TO FORBID ONE BECAUSE ITS
METHOD IS ILLEGAL - EVEN IF THE ILLEGALITY WERE TO CONSIST OF ACTUAL OR
THREATENED VIOLENCE TO PERSONS OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY.  POLICING OF
SUCH CONDUCT IS LEFT WHOLLY TO THE STATES.  IN THIS CASE THERE WAS ALSO
EVIDENCE OF CONSIDERABLE INJURY TO PROPERTY AND INTIMIDATION OF OTHER
EMPLOYEES BY THREATS AND NO ONE QUESTIONS THE STATE'S POWER TO POLICE
COERCION BY THOSE METHODS.  FN10 

IT SEEMS TO US CLEAR THAT THIS CASE FALLS WITHIN THE RULE ANNOUNCED
IN ALLEN-BRADLEY  FN11  THAT THE STATE MAY POLICE THESE STRIKE
ACTIVITIES AS IT COULD POLICE THE STRIKE ACTIVITIES THERE, BECAUSE
"CONGRESS HAS NOT MADE SUCH EMPLOYEE AND UNION CONDUCT AS IS INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL BOARD."  THERE IS NO
EXISTING OR POSSIBLE CONFLICT OR OVERLAPPING BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY OF
THE FEDERAL AND STATE BOARDS, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL BOARD HAS NO
AUTHORITY EITHER TO INVESTIGATE, APPROVE OR FORBID THE UNION CONDUCT IN
QUESTION.  THIS CONDUCT IS GOVERNABLE BY THE STATE OR IT IS ENTIRELY
UNGOVERNED. 

THIS CASE IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK STATE
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 330 U.S. 767, ON WHICH PETITIONERS RELY.  THERE
THE STATE BOARD UNDERTOOK TO DETERMINE THE BARGAINING UNIT IN AN
INDUSTRY, AN IDENTICAL QUESTION WHICH THE FEDERAL BOARD WAS AUTHORIZED
TO DETERMINE, AND THE TWO HAD DELIBERATELY LAID DOWN CONTRARY POLICIES
TO GOVERN DECISIONS OF THIS SAME MATTER.  IN THAT CASE, OF COURSE, THE
FEDERAL POLICY WAS NECESSARILY GIVEN EFFECT AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND.  SEE ALSO LA CROSSE TELEPHONE CORPORATION V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD, ANTE, P. 18. 

BUT IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL LABOR LEGISLATION CONFERS
UPON OR RECOGNIZES AND DECLARES IN UNIONS AND EMPLOYEES CERTAIN RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES IN CONNECTION WITH STRIKES AND CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES, AND THAT THESE ARE DENIED BY THE STATE'S PROHIBITION AS
LAID DOWN IN THIS CASE.  IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT WHAT CONGRESS
CONSTITUTIONALLY HAS GIVEN, THE STATE MAY NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY TAKE
AWAY.  HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538. 

THE ARGUMENT IS THAT TWO PROVISIONS, FOUND IN SECS. 7 AND 13 OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, NOT RELEVANTLY CHANGED BY THE LABOR
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, GRANT TO THE UNION AND ITS MEMBERS
THE RIGHT TO PUT PRESSURE UPON THE EMPLOYER BY THE RECURRENT AND
UNANNOUNCED STOPPAGE OF WORK.  BOTH ACTS PROVIDE THAT "EMPLOYEES SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR
OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION."  FN12
BECAUSE THE ACTS FORBIDDEN BY THE WISCONSIN JUDGMENT ARE CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES AND HAD A PURPOSE TO ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, IT IS SAID TO FOLLOW THAT THEY ARE FEDERALLY
AUTHORIZED AND THEREBY IMMUNIZED FROM STATE CONTROL. 

IT IS URGED HERE THAT WE ARE BOUND TO HOLD THESE ACTIVITIES PROTECTED
BY SEC. 7 BECAUSE THAT HAS BECOME THE SETTLED INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT
BY THE BOARD CHARGED WITH ITS ADMINISTRATION.  THIS CONTENTION IS BASED
ON DECISIONS BY THE BOARD IN AMERICAN MFG. CONCERN, 7 N.L.R.B. 753;
HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 9 N.L.R.B., 676; THE GOOD COAL CO., 12 N.L.R.B.
136; ARMOUR & CO., 25 N.L.R.B. 989; CUDAHY PACKING CO., 29 N.L.R.B.
837; AND MT. CLEMENS POTTERY COMPANY, 46 N.L.R.B. 714.  WE DO NOT THINK
IT CAN FAIRLY BE SAID THAT EVEN THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THOSE CASES
AMOUNTS TO A FIXED BOARD INTERPRETATION THAT ALL WORK STOPPAGES ARE
FEDERALLY PROTECTED CONCERTED ACTIVITIES.  IN THOSE CASES, BUT IN A
CONTEXT OF ANTIUNION ANIMUS ON THE EMPLOYER'S PART, THE BOARD CONDEMNED
AS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES SUMMARY DISCHARGES ATTEMPTED IN RETALIATION
FOR ISOLATED WORK STOPPAGES REFLECTING TEMPORARY REBELLION OVER RULES
OR CONDITIONS OF WORK.  THE DRASTIC REMEDY OF DISCHARGE, SO OUTWEIGHING
ANY POSSIBLE DAMAGE IN THOSE CASES TO THE EMPLOYER AND SO TAINTED BY
ANTIUNION MOTIVES, LED TO THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES PROSCRIBED BY THE ACT.  THE BOARD, HOWEVER, MADE IT CLEAR IN
THE HARNISCHFEGER AND ARMOUR CASES THAT SUCH A CONCLUSION DOES NOT
NECESSARILY FOLLOW A FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYEES' ACTIVITIES WERE
CONCERTED: 

"  ...  SECTION 7 OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY GUARANTEES EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT
TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION.  WE DO NOT INTERPRET THIS
TO MEAN THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN EMPLOYER TO DISCHARGE AN EMPLOYEE
FOR ANY ACTIVITY SANCTIONED BY A UNION OR OTHERWISE IN THE NATURE OF
COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY.  THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS, WE THINK, WHETHER THIS
PARTICULAR ACTIVITY WAS SO INDEFENSIBLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS TO
WARRANT THE RESPONDENT, UNDER THE ACT, IN DISCHARGING THE STEWARDS FOR
THIS TYPE OF UNION ACTIVITY.  WE DO NOT THINK IT WAS."  FN13 

IN VIEW OF THAT STATEMENT, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE DO NOT BRING
IT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE ACT AS ADMINISTERED BY THE BOARD.  HERE
THE EMPLOYER HAS RESORTED TO NO RETALIATORY MEASURES AND ITS MOTIVE IN
ASKING HELP FROM THE STATE IS NOT EVEN ALLEGED TO BE ANTIUNION BUT
MERELY A DESIRE TO KEEP ITS PLANT IN OPERATION.  THE REMEDY SOUGHT
AGAINST REPEATED DISRUPTION OF PRODUCTION IS NOT SUMMARY DISMISSAL BUT
INVOCATION OF A STATUTORY PROCEDURE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE STATE FOR THE
ADJUDICATION AND RESOLUTION OF SUCH DIFFICULTIES.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE DO
NOT FIND ANY FIXED BOARD POLICY TO APPLY THE ACT TO SUCH FACTS AS WE
HAVE HERE.  THE QUOTED STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD'S TWO OPINIONS
INDICATES LACK OF BELIEF THAT IT WAS CREATING ANY SUCH RULE. 

HOWEVER, IN NO EVENT COULD THE BOARD ADOPT SUCH A BINDING PRACTICE AS
TO THE SCOPE OF SEC. 7 IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONSTRUCTION, WITH WHICH WE
AGREE, GIVEN TO SEC. 7 BY THE COURTS OF APPEALS, AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW
BOARD ORDERS.  IN SIMILAR CASES THEY HAVE DENIED COMPARABLE WORK
STOPPAGES THE PROTECTION OF THAT SECTION.  C.G. CONN, LTD. V. LABOR
BOARD, 108 F.2D 390; LABOR BOARD V. CONDENSER CORP., 128 F.2D 67; HOME
BENEFICIAL LIFE INS. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 159 F.2D 280; AND SEE LABOR
BOARD V. DRAPER CORP., 145 F.2D 199; LABOR BOARD V. INDIANA DESK CO.,
149 F.2D 987.  TO HOLD THAT THE ALLEGED FIXED BOARD INTERPRETATION HAS
IRREVOCABLY LABELED ALL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES "PROTECTED" WOULD BE IN
THE TEETH OF THE BOARD'S OWN LANGUAGE AND WOULD DENY ANY EFFECT TO THE
COURTS OF APPEALS' DECISIONS.  THE LATTER DECISIONS AND OUR OWN, LABOR
BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP., 306 U.S. 240; SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 316 U.S. 31; LABOR BOARD V. SANDS MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332; ALLEN
BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, 315 U.S. 740;
AND SEE HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' LOCAL V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD, 315 U.S. 437, CLEARLY INTERDICT ANY RULE BY THE BOARD
THAT EVERY TYPE OF CONCERTED ACTIVITY IS BEYOND THE REACH OF THE
STATES' ADJUDICATORY MACHINERY.  THE BARE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 7 CANNOT BE
CONSTRUED TO IMMUNIZE THE CONDUCT FORBIDDEN BY THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND
THEREFORE THE INJUNCTION AS CONSTRUED BY THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH SEC. 7 OF THE FEDERAL ACT. 

IN THE LIGHT OF LABOR MOVEMENT HISTORY, THE PURPOSE OF THE QUOTED
PROVISION OF THE STATUTE BECOMES CLEAR.  THE MOST EFFECTIVE LEGAL
WEAPON AGAINST THE STRUGGLING LABOR UNION WAS THE DOCTRINE THAT
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES WERE CONSPIRACIES, AND FOR THAT REASON ILLEGAL. 
WEAPON AWAY FROM THE EMPLOYER IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS WHICH AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NO LONGER CAN ANY STATE, AS TO RELATIONS WITHIN
REACH OF THE ACT, TREAT OTHERWISE LAWFUL ACTIVITIES TO AID UNIONIZATION
AS AN ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDERTAKEN BY MANY
PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT.  FN14  BUT BECAUSE LEGAL CONDUCT MAY NOT BE
MADE ILLEGAL BY CONCERT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHERWISE ILLEGAL ACTION
IS MADE LEGAL BY CONCERT. 

RELIANCE ALSO IS PLACED UPON SEC. 13 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, WHICH PROVIDED, "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO
INTERFERE WITH OR IMPEDE OR DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE." 
49 STAT. 449, 457.  THE 1947 AMENDMENT CARRIES THE SAME PROVISION BUT
THAT ACT INCLUDES A DEFINITION.  SECTION 501(2) SAYS THAT WHEN USED IN
THE ACT "THE TERM 'STRIKE' INCLUDES ANY STRIKE OR OTHER CONCERTED
STOPPAGE OF WORK BY EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING A STOPPAGE BY REASON OF THE
EXPIRATION OF A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT) AND ANY CONCERTED SLOW
DOWN OR OTHER CONCERTED INTERRUPTION OF OPERATIONS BY EMPLOYEES."  61
STAT. 161. 

THIS PROVISION, AS CARRIED OVER INTO THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
ACT, DOES NOT PURPORT TO CREATE, ESTABLISH OR DEFINE THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE.  ON ITS FACE IT IS NARROWER IN SCOPE THAN SEC. 7 - THE LATTER
WOULD BE OF LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE IF "STRIKE" IS A BROADER TERM THAN
"CONCERTED ACTIVITY."  UNLESS WE READ INTO SEC. 13 WORDS WHICH CONGRESS
OMITTED AND A SENSE WHICH CONGRESS SHOWED NO INTENTION OF INCLUDING,
ALL THAT THIS PROVISION DOES IS TO DECLARE A RULE OF INTERPRETATION FOR
THE ACT ITSELF WHICH WOULD PREVENT ANY USE OF WHAT ORIGINALLY WAS A
NOVEL PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO QUALIFY OR IMPEDE WHATEVER RIGHT TO
STRIKE EXISTS UNDER OTHER LAWS.  IT DID NOT PURPORT TO MODIFY THE BODY
OF LAW AS TO THE LEGALITY OF STRIKES AS IT THEN EXISTED.  THIS COURT
LESS THAN A DECADE EARLIER HAD STATED THAT LAW TO BE THAT THE STATE
CONSTITUTIONALLY COULD PROHIBIT STRIKES AND MAKE A VIOLATION CRIMINAL. 
IT HAD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED THE LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS THAT
"NEITHER THE COMMON LAW, NOR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, CONFERS THE
ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO STRIKE."  DORCHY V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306, 311. 
DISSENTING VIEWS MOST FAVORABLE TO LABOR IN OTHER CASES HAD CONCEDED
THE RIGHT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO MARK THE LIMITS OF TOLERABLE
INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  DUPLEX CO. V. DEERING, 254
U.S. 443, 488.  THIS COURT HAS ADHERED TO THAT VIEW.  THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 103.  THE RIGHT TO STRIKE, BECAUSE OF ITS MORE
SERIOUS IMPACT UPON THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IS MORE VULNERABLE TO
REGULATION THAN THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND SELECT REPRESENTATIVES FOR
LAWFUL PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH THIS COURT HAS
CHARACTERIZED AS A "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" AND WHICH, AS THE COURT HAS
POINTED OUT, WAS RECOGNIZED AS SUCH IN ITS DECISIONS LONG BEFORE IT WAS
GIVEN PROTECTION BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  LABOR BOARD V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1, 33. 

AS TO THE RIGHT TO STRIKE, HOWEVER, THIS COURT, QUOTING THE LANGUAGE
OF SEC. 13, HAS SAID, 306 U.S. 240, 256, "BUT THIS RECOGNITION OF 'THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE' PLAINLY CONTEMPLATES A LAWFUL STRIKE,  - THE EXERCISE
OF THE UNQUESTIONED RIGHT TO QUIT WORK," AND IT DID NOT OPERATE TO
LEGALIZE THE SIT-DOWN STRIKE, WHICH STATE LAW MADE ILLEGAL AND STATE
AUTHORITIES PUNISHED.  LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP., 306 U.S. 240. 
NOR, FOR EXAMPLE, DID IT MAKE LEGAL A STRIKE THAT RAN AFOUL OF FEDERAL
LAW, SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 316 U.S. 31; NOR ONE IN
VIOLATION OF A CONTRACT MADE PURSUANT THERETO, LABOR BOARD V. SANDS
MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332; NOR ONE CREATING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY, UNITED
STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258. 

THAT CONGRESS HAS CONCURRED IN THE VIEW THAT NEITHER SEC. 7 NOR SEC.
13 CONFERS ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN EVERY KIND OF STRIKE OR OTHER
CONCERTED ACTIVITY DOES NOT REST UPON MERE INFERENCE; INDEED THE RECORD
INDICATES THAT, HAD THE COURTS NOT MADE THESE INTERPRETATIONS, THE
CONGRESS WOULD HAVE GONE AS FAR OR FARTHER IN THE DIRECTION OF LIMITING
THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE HANDLING THE BILL WHICH
BECAME THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, ON JUNE 3, 1947 ADVISED THE
HOUSE TO RECEDE FROM ITS DISAGREEMENT WITH THE SENATE AND TO ACCEPT THE
PRESENT TEXT UPON GROUNDS THERE STATED UNDER THE RUBRIC "RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYEES."  H.R. REP. NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 38.  THE
COMMITTEE POINTED OUT THAT "THE COURTS HAVE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THE RULE
THAT UNDER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, EMPLOYEES ARE NOT GIVEN ANY RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL
OR OTHER IMPROPER CONDUCT.  IN ITS MOST RECENT DECISIONS THE BOARD HAS
BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY THE COURTS. 
...  "  AND "IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE
BILL EXCEPTING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, UNLAWFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES,
AND VIOLATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS FROM THE PROTECTION
OF SECTION 7 WERE UNNECESSARY.  MOREOVER, THERE WAS REAL CONCERN THAT
THE INCLUSION OF SUCH A PROVISION MIGHT HAVE A LIMITING EFFECT AND MAKE
IMPROPER CONDUCT NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTION
OF THE ACT."  THE FULL TEXT OF THIS SECTION OF THE REPORT IS PRINTED IN
THE MARGIN.  FN15 

THUS, THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT AMENDMENTS WAS NOT
TO GRANT A DISPENSATION FOR THE STRIKE BUT TO OUTLAW STRIKES WHEN
UNDERTAKEN TO ENFORCE WHAT THE ACT CALLS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, AN END
WHICH WOULD BE DEFEATED IF WE SUSTAIN THE UNION'S CLAIM IN THIS
RESPECT.  BY SEC. 8(B)(4), STRIKES TO ATTAIN NAMED OBJECTIVES ARE MADE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; AND BY SEC. 10(A),  FN16  THE BOARD IS
AUTHORIZED TO PREVENT THEM.  THE DEFINITION PLAINLY ENOUGH WAS DESIGNED
TO ENABLE THE BOARD TO ORDER A UNION TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM A STRIKE
SO MADE ILLEGAL, WHETHER IT CONSISTED OF A STRIKE IN THE USUAL OR
CONVENTIONAL MEANING OR CONSISTED OF SOME OF THE OTHER PRACTICES
MENTIONED IN THE DEFINITION.  HOWEVER, IF WE ADD THE DEFINITION TO SEC.
13, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE EFFECT OF THE ACT ON STATE POWERS.  IT STILL
GIVES THE FEDERAL BOARD NO AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT OR TO SUPERVISE THE
ACTIVITY WHICH THE STATE BOARD HAS HERE STOPPED NOR TO ENTERTAIN ANY
PROCEEDING CONCERNING IT, BECAUSE IT IS THE OBJECTIVES ONLY AND NOT THE
TACTICS OF A STRIKE WHICH BRING IT WITHIN THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL
BOARD.  AND SEC. 13 PLUS THE DEFINITION ONLY PROVIDES THAT "NOTHING IN
THIS ACT  ...  SHALL BE CONSTRUED SO AS EITHER TO INTERFERE WITH OR
IMPEDE" THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN THESE ACTIVITIES.  WHAT OTHER ACTS OR
OTHER STATE LAWS MIGHT DO IS NOT ATTEMPTED TO BE REGULATED BY THIS
FEDERAL POWER TO CONTROL THE ACTIVITIES IN QUESTION NOR ANY IMMUNITY
FROM THE EXERCISE OF STATE POWER IN REFERENCE TO THEM, IT CAN HAVE NO
EFFECT ON THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO RESORT TO ITS OWN RESERVED POWER
OVER COERCIVE CONDUCT AS IT HAS DONE IN THIS INSTANCE. 

IF WE WERE TO READ SEC. 13 AS WE ARE URGED TO DO, TO MAKE THE STRIKE
AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND THE DEFINITION TO EXTEND THE RIGHT TO ALL OTHER
VARIATIONS OF THE STRIKE,  FN17  THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO LEGALIZE BEYOND
THE POWER OF ANY STATE OR FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO CONTROL NOT ONLY THE
INTERMITTENT STOPPAGES SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE BUT ALSO THE SLOWDOWN AND
PERHAPS THE SIT-DOWN STRIKE AS WELL.  CF. ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V.
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 751.  AND THIS IS
NOT ALL; THE MANAGEMENT ALSO WOULD BE DISABLED FROM ANY KIND OF SELF
HELP TO COPE WITH THESE COERCIVE TACTICS OF THE UNION EXCEPT TO SUBMIT
TO ITS UNDECLARED DEMANDS.  TO DISMISS OR DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEES FOR
EXERCISING A RIGHT GIVEN THEM UNDER THE ACT OR TO INTERFERE WITH THEM
OR THE UNION IN PURSUING IT IS MADE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND IF THE
RIGHTS HERE ASSERTED ARE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT, IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW THE MANAGEMENT CAN TAKE ANY STEPS
TO RESIST OR COMBAT THEM WITHOUT INCURRING THE SANCTIONS OF THE ACT. 
IT IS CERTAIN THAT SUCH A RESULT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE WHOLE
PURPOSE DISCLOSED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT AMENDMENTS TO
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  NOR DO WE THINK SUCH IS THE RESULT
OF ANY FAIR INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT OF THE ACT. 

WE THINK THAT THIS RECURRENT OR INTERMITTENT UNANNOUNCED STOPPAGE OF
WORK TO WIN UNSTATED ENDS WAS NEITHER FORBIDDEN BY FEDERAL STATUTE NOR
WAS IT LEGALIZED AND APPROVED THEREBY.  SUCH BEING THE CASE, THE STATE
POLICE POWER WAS NOT SUPERSEDED BY CONGRESSIONAL ACT OVER A SUBJECT
NORMALLY WITHIN ITS EXCLUSIVE POWER AND REACHABLE BY FEDERAL REGULATION
ONLY BECAUSE OF ITS EFFECTS ON THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH CONGRESS
MAY REGULATE.  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1; BETHLEHEM
STEEL CO. V. BOARD, 330 U.S. 767. 

WE FIND NO BASIS FOR DENYING TO WISCONSIN THE POWER, IN GOVERNING HER
INTERNAL AFFAIRS, TO REGULATE A COURSE OF CONDUCT NEITHER MADE A RIGHT
UNDER FEDERAL LAW NOR A VIOLATION OF IT AND WHICH HAS THE COERCIVE
EFFECT OBVIOUS IN THIS DEVICE. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYE INDIVIDUALLY OR
IN CONCERT WITH OTHERS: (A) TO COERCE OR INTIMIDATE AN EMPLOYE IN THE
ENJOYMENT OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THOSE GUARANTEED IN SECTION
111.04, OR TO INTIMIDATE HIS FAMILY, PICKET HIS DOMICILE, OR INJURE THE
PERSON OR PROPERTY OF SUCH EMPLOYE OR HIS FAMILY.  ...  (E) TO CO
OPERATE IN ENGAGING IN, PROMOTING OR INDUCING PICKETING (NOT
CONSTITUTING AN EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED FREE SPEECH),
BOYCOTTING OR ANY OTHER OVERT CONCOMITANT OF A STRIKE UNLESS A MAJORITY
IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT OF THE EMPLOYES OF AN EMPLOYER AGAINST
WHOM SUCH ACTS ARE PRIMARILY DIRECTED HAVE VOTED BY SECRET BALLOT TO
CALL A STRIKE.  ...  (H) TO TAKE UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION OF PROPERTY OF
THE EMPLOYER OR TO ENGAGE IN ANY CONCERTED EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH
PRODUCTION EXCEPT BY LEAVING THE PREMISES IN AN ORDERLY MANNER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF GOING ON STRIKE."  WIS. STAT. (1947) C. 111, SEC.
111.06(2).    FN2  U.S. CONST., ART. 1, SEC. 8, CL. 3, GIVING THE
CONGRESS POWER "TO REGULATE COMMERCE  ... AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES  ...
" 

FN3  49 STAT. 449; 29 U.S.C. SECS. 151-166. 

FN4  61 STAT. 136; 29 U.S.C. SECS. 141-197.    FN5  250 WIS. 550, 27
N.W.2D 875.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONERS WERE
GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN SECS. 111.06(2)(A), (E)
AND (H) OF THE WISCONSIN STATUTES.  THOSE PROVISIONS ARE SET OUT IN
NOTE 1. 

FN6  PETITIONERS SUGGEST THAT THE STOPPAGES WERE INITIATED TO FORCE
THE EMPLOYER TO COMPLY WITH A WAR LABOR BOARD DIRECTIVE.  HOWEVER, THE
STOPPAGES BEGAN SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE THAT DIRECTIVE REACHED EITHER THE
UNION OR THE EMPLOYER.  BY THE LATTER DATE, THE NATIONAL BOARD HAD BEEN
ABOLISHED.  CONSEQUENTLY THE ISSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIVE WOULD NOT SEEM
TO THROW ANY LIGHT ON THE UNION'S MOTIVES OR TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE
STATE BOARD'S JURISDICTION. 

FN7  THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD WAS CREATED BY THE 1939 ACT.  SEE
WIS. STAT. (1947) C. 111, SEC. 111.03.  THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION OVER
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IS DELINEATED IN SEC. 111.07. 

FN8  THE BOARD ALSO ORDERED PETITIONERS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM 

"(B) COERCING OR INTIMIDATING EMPLOYES BY THREATS OF VIOLENCE OR
OTHER PUNISHMENT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INTERFERING WITH PRODUCTION OR THAT WILL INTERFERE WITH THE LEGAL
RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYES."  THIS PROVISION OF THE ORDER, BASED ON
EVIDENCE OF SOME VIOLENCE AND THREATS, IS NOT CHALLENGED HERE. 

FN9  IN THE CONSOLIDATED CASE BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MILWAUKEE
COUNTY, THAT COURT DENIED ENFORCEMENT OF PARAGRAPH (A) OF THE BOARD'S
ORDER FORBIDDING THE WORK STOPPAGES, BUT UPHELD PARAGRAPH (B) ENJOINING
VIOLENCE AND THREATS.  SEE NOTE 8.  THE SUPREME COURT APPROVED THE
ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.  REVIEW OF THAT COURT'S ACTION IN UPHOLDING
PARAGRAPH (A) IS SOUGHT IN THESE PETITIONS BY THE UNION AND NINE OF ITS
OFFICERS, SEVEN OF WHOM ARE EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT CORPORATION, AND
ALL OF WHOM ARE MEMBERS OF THE UNION'S BARGAINING COMMITTEE. 

FN10  SEE NOTES 8 AND 9. 

FN11  ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD,
315 U.S. 740, 749. 

FN12  SEC. 7 OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 452.  THE
LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947 ADDED A PROVISO THAT EMPLOYEES
ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM ANY OR ALL ACTIVITIES MENTIONED IN
THIS SECTION, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RIGHT TO REFRAIN MIGHT
CONFLICT WITH AN AGREEMENT REQUIRING MEMBERSHIP IN A UNION AS A
CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  61 STAT. 140. 

FN13  9 N.L.R.B. 676, 686; 25 N.L.R.B. 989, 996. 

FN14  WITH RESPECT TO ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO STATE CONTROL, SEC.
111.04 OF THE WISCONSIN STATUTES PROVIDES THAT EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION, THE RIGHT TO FORM, JOIN AND ASSIST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR
OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN LAWFUL, CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION. 
INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR COERCE HIS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SEC. 111.04, AND LISTS OTHER UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES WHICH THE BOARD IS ALSO EMPOWERED TO PREVENT. 

FN15  "BOTH THE HOUSE BILL AND THE SENATE AMENDMENT IN AMENDING THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT PRESERVED THE RIGHT UNDER SECTION 7 OF
THAT ACT OF EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST
ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION, AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING AND TO ENGAGE IN OTHER CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID
OR PROTECTION.  THE HOUSE BILL, HOWEVER, MADE TWO CHANGES IN THAT
SET FORTH WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO COMMIT OR
PARTICIPATE IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, UNLAWFUL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES,
OR VIOLATIONS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS.  SECOND, IT WAS
SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH THAT EMPLOYEES WERE ALSO TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO
REFRAIN FROM SELF-ORGANIZATION, ETC., IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO. 

"THE FIRST CHANGE IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT MADE BY THE HOUSE BILL WAS
INSERTED BY REASON OF EARLY DECISIONS OF THE BOARD TO THE EFFECT THAT
THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 7 PROTECTED CONCERTED ACTIVITIES REGARDLESS OF
THEIR NATURE OR OBJECTIVES.  AN OUTSTANDING DECISION OF THIS SORT WAS
THE ONE INVOLVING A 'SIT DOWN' STRIKE WHEREIN THE BOARD ORDERED THE
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WHO ENGAGED IN THIS UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY. 
LATER THE BOARD ORDERED THE REINSTATEMENT OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES WHOSE
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTED MUTINY.  IN BOTH OF THE ABOVE
INSTANCES, HOWEVER, THE DECISION OF THE BOARD WAS REVERSED BY THE
SUPREME COURT.  MORE RECENTLY, A DECISION OF THE BOARD ORDERING THE
REINSTATEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD ENGAGED IN MASS PICKETING WAS
REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (INDIANA DESK CO. V. N.L.R.B.,
149 FED.(2D) 987)(1944). 

"THUS THE COURTS HAVE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THE RULE THAT UNDER THE
EXISTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
EMPLOYEES ARE NOT GIVEN ANY RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL OR OTHER
IMPROPER CONDUCT.  IN ITS MOST RECENT DECISIONS THE BOARD HAS BEEN
CONSISTENTLY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY THE COURTS.  FOR
EXAMPLE, IN THE AMERICAN NEWS COMPANY CASE (55 N.L.R.B. 1302)(1944) THE
BOARD HELD THAT EMPLOYEES HAD NO RIGHT WHICH WAS PROTECTED UNDER THE
ACT TO STRIKE TO COMPEL AN EMPLOYER TO VIOLATE THE WAGE STABILIZATION
LAWS.  AGAIN, IN THE SCULLIN STEEL CASE (65 N.L.R.B. 1294) AND IN THE
DYSON CASE (DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 1947), THE BOARD HELD THAT STRIKES IN
VIOLATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS WERE NOT CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES PROTECTED BY THE ACT, AND REFUSED TO REINSTATE EMPLOYEES
DISCHARGED FOR ENGAGING IN SUCH ACTIVITIES.  IN THE SECOND THOMPSON
PRODUCTS CASE (DECIDED FEBRUARY 21, 1947) THE BOARD HELD THAT STRIKES
TO COMPEL THE EMPLOYER TO VIOLATE THE ACT AND RULINGS OF THE BOARD
THEREUNDER WERE NOT CONCERTED ACTIVITIES PROTECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF
THE EFFECT OF OVERRULING SUCH DECISIONS OF THE BOARD AS THAT IN MATTER
OF BERKSHIRE KNITTING MILLS (46 N.L.R.B. 955(1943)), WHEREIN THE BOARD
ATTEMPTED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT IT CONSIDERED AS MAJOR CRIMES AND
MINOR CRIMES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHAT EMPLOYEES WERE
ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT. 

"BY REASON OF THE FOREGOING, IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE BILL EXCEPTING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, UNLAWFUL
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, AND VIOLATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
FROM THE PROTECTION OF SECTION 7 WERE UNNECESSARY.  MOREOVER, THERE WAS
REAL CONCERN THAT THE INCLUSION OF SUCH A PROVISION MIGHT HAVE A
LIMITING EFFECT AND MAKE IMPROPER CONDUCT NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED
SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTION OF THE ACT. 

"IN ADDITION, OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT DEAL WITH
THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM IN GENERAL TERMS.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE
DECLARATION OF POLICY TO THE AMENDED NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, IT IS STATED IN THE NEW PARAGRAPH
DEALING WITH IMPROPER PRACTICES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, THEIR OFFICERS,
AND MEMBERS, THAT THE 'ELIMINATION OF SUCH PRACTICES IS A NECESSARY
CONDITION TO THE ASSURANCE OF THE RIGHTS HEREIN GUARANTEED.'  THIS IN
AND OF ITSELF DEMONSTRATES A CLEAR INTENTION THAT THESE UNDESIRABLE
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES ARE NOT TO HAVE ANY PROTECTION UNDER THE ACT, AND
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE BOARD IN THE PAST HAS ACCORDED PROTECTION TO
SUCH ACTIVITIES, THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT MAKES SUCH PROTECTION NO
LONGER POSSIBLE.  FURTHERMORE, IN SECTION 10(C) OF THE AMENDED ACT, AS
PROPOSED IN THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT, IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT
NO ORDER OF THE BOARD SHALL REQUIRE THE REINSTATEMENT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL
OR THE PAYMENT TO HIM OF ANY BACK PAY IF SUCH INDIVIDUAL WAS SUSPENDED
OR DISCHARGED FOR CAUSE, AND THIS, OF COURSE, APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTS CONSTITUTING THE CAUSE FOR DISCHARGE WERE
COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH A CONCERTED ACTIVITY.  AGAIN, INASMUCH AS
AGREEMENT, REQUIRES THAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE IN THE
DISTRICT COURTS SHALL, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, BE FOLLOWED AND APPLIED
BY THE BOARD, PROOF OF ACTS OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT CANNOT HEREAFTER BE
LIMITED TO PROOF OF CONFESSION OR CONVICTION THEREOF. 

"THE SECOND CHANGE MADE BY THE HOUSE BILL IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT
(WHICH IS CARRIED INTO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT) ALSO HAS AN IMPORTANT
BEARING ON THE KINDS OF CONCERTED ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY
EMPLOYEES ARE ALSO TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM JOINING IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES WITH THEIR FELLOW EMPLOYEES IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO
SO.  TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8(B)(1) OF THE
CONFERENCE AGREEMENT (WHICH WILL BE HEREAFTER DISCUSSED), WHEREIN IT IS
MADE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR ITS AGENTS TO
RESTRAIN OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN
ACTIVITIES WHICH THE BOARD, PARTICULARLY IN ITS EARLY DAYS, REGARDED AS
PROTECTED BY THE ACT WILL NO LONGER BE TREATED AS HAVING THAT
PROTECTION, SINCE OBVIOUSLY PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN OR SUPPORT UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES WILL NOT ENJOY IMMUNITY UNDER THE ACT." 

FN16  61 STAT. 136, 146, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(A). 

FN17  TO CALL THESE STOPPAGES A STRIKE WE WOULD HAVE TO IGNORE
PETITIONERS' OWN CONCEPTION OF THIS ACTIVITY.  AS WE HAVE SHOWN, THEY
ADOPTED THIS TECHNIQUE PRECISELY BECAUSE IT WAS BELIEVED TO BE "BETTER
THAN A STRIKE."  SEE TEXT, PP. 249-250. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THIS STRIKE WAS LEGAL UNDER THE WAGNER ACT IN 1945 AND 1946 AND ITS
LEGALITY WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF
1947.  I THINK, THEREFORE, THAT THE EFFORT OF WISCONSIN TO MAKE IT
UNLAWFUL MUST FAIL BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL POLICY. 

ADMIT OF DOUBT OR AMBIGUITY: "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED SO
AS TO INTERFERE WITH OR IMPEDE OR DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE."  THE COURT HELD IN LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP., 306 U.S.
240, 256, THAT BY THIS PROVISION CONGRESS "RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE,  - THAT THE EMPLOYEES COULD LAWFULLY CEASE WORK AT THEIR OWN
VOLITION BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE EMPLOYER TO MEET THEIR
DEMANDS."  THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF PROTECTION OF STRIKES AS
ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IS NOW CONVERTED INTO A CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF
HANDS-OFF. 

IF THE STATES CAN OUTLAW THIS STRIKE, I SEE NO REASON WHY THEY CANNOT
ADOPT REGULATIONS WHICH DETERMINE THE MANNER IN WHICH STRIKES MAY BE
CALLED IN THESE INTERSTATE INDUSTRIES.  CAN THEY IN PRACTICAL EFFECT
OUTLAW STRIKES BY REQUIRING A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE WORKERS IN ORDER TO
CALL ONE?  THE FEDERAL BOARD IS NOT AUTHORIZED, IT IS SAID, TO FORBID
OR CONTROL STRIKES BECAUSE OF THE METHOD BY WHICH THEY ARE CALLED OR
THE WAY IN WHICH THEY ARE UTILIZED.  IF THAT IS THE CRITERION, AS THE
COURT DECLARES, THEN THE MANNER OF CALLING OF STRIKES IS LEFT WHOLLY TO
THE STATES.  THE RIGHT TO STRIKE, WHICH CONGRESS HAS SANCTIONED, CAN IN
THAT WAY BE UNDERMINED BY STATE ACTION.  THE FEDERAL POLICY THUS
BECOMES A FORMULA OF EMPTY WORDS. 

THAT CONCLUSION IS MADE ALL THE MORE SURPRISING WHEN SEC. 13 OF THE
ACT IS READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEC. 7 WHICH PROVIDES, "EMPLOYEES SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR
OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION."  FN1  SECTION
7 READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEC. 13 MUST MEAN THAT ONE OF THE "CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES" IN WHICH EMPLOYEES MAY ENGAGE IS TO STRIKE IN THESE
INTERSTATE INDUSTRIES.  IN ALL OF LABOR'S HISTORY NO "CONCERTED
ACTIVITY" HAS BEEN MORE CONSPICUOUS AND IMPORTANT THAN THE STRIKE; AND
NONE WAS THOUGHT TO BE MORE ESSENTIAL TO RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  MOREOVER, THE STRIKE HISTORICALLY AND IN THE
PRESENT CASES WAS USED TO MAKE EFFECTIVE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
POWER WHICH SEC. 7 OF THE WAGNER ACT GUARANTEES.  THE RIGHT TO STRIKE,
RECOGNIZED BY SEC. 13, IS THUS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
MANAGEMENT POLICY. 

RELATIONS BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 750, TO CHALLENGE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
WISCONSIN'S REGULATION OF PICKETING, THREATS, AND VIOLENCE IN
CONNECTION WITH LABOR DISPUTES.  WE DISALLOWED THE DEFENSE, HOLDING
THAT THOSE MATTERS WERE PROBLEMS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE TRADITIONAL
POLICE POWER OF THE STATES AND REMAINED THERE AFTER PASSAGE OF THE
FEDERAL ACT BECAUSE IT HAD NOT UNDERTAKEN TO REGULATE THEM. 

THE WAGNER ACT, TO BE SURE, DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO GIVE THE FEDERAL
AGENCY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF CALLING STRIKES OR THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THEY MAY BE CALLED.  TO THAT EXTENT THESE CASES HAVE COMMON
GROUND WITH THE ALLEN-BRADLEY DECISION.  BUT THERE THE SIMILARITY
ENDS.  IN ALLEN-BRADLEY THE CONGRESS HAD NOT EXPRESSED A POLICY ON
PICKETING, THREATS OR VIOLENCE IN CONNECTION WITH LABOR DISPUTES.  IN
THIS CASE, AS SEC. 13 READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEC. 7 MAKES PLAIN, IT
HAS ADOPTED A POLICY ON STRIKES.    IT IS THE PRESENCE OF A CONFLICTING
FEDERAL POLICY THAT DETERMINES WHETHER STATE ACTION MUST GIVE WAY UNDER
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE,  FN2  EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE NO ACTUAL OR
POTENTIAL COLLISION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES. 
RICE V. SANTA FE ELEVATOR CORP., 331 U.S. 218.  IN HILL V. FLORIDA, 325
U.S. 538, A STATE REGULATION OF THE LICENSING OF BUSINESS AGENTS OF
UNIONS SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL ACT WAS HELD TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE
WAGNER ACT NOT BECAUSE THE FEDERAL BOARD HAD ANY LICENSING JURISDICTION
BUT BECAUSE THE STATE LAW INTERFERED WITH THE FREEDOM OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT.  THE PRESENT CASES FOLLOW A
FORTIORI, IF THE STRIKE IS INCLUDED IN THE "CONCERTED ACTIVITIES"
GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7. 

THE CONCERTED ACTIVITIES IN THESE CASES WERE AS OLD AS LABOR'S
STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE AND WERE AIMED AT (AS WELL AS A PART OF) THE
PURPOSES WHICH SEC. 7 OF THE FEDERAL ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT.  FN3
THEREFORE THE LEGALITY OF THE METHODS USED IS EXCLUSIVELY A QUESTION OF
FEDERAL LAW.  FN4 

FN1  IT WAS HELD IN LABOR BOARD V. PETER C.K. SWISS CHOC.  CO., 130
F.2D 503, 505, 506, THAT THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN A SYMPATHETIC STRIKE OR
A SECONDARY BOYCOTT WAS A CONCERTED ACTIVITY PROTECTED BY SEC. 7 PRIOR
TO THE 1947 AMENDMENTS.  IT WAS ALSO HELD IN LABOR BOARD V. REMINGTON
RAND, INC., 94 F.2D 862, 871, THAT A STRIKE BECAUSE OF AN EMPLOYER'S
REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WAS PROTECTED BY SEC. 13, AND EMPLOYEES SO ENGAGED
COULD RECOVER THEIR POSITIONS EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF WORKERS HIRED TO
REPLACE THEM DURING THE STRIKE. 

FN2  ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

FN3  ALTHOUGH THIS LITIGATION IS CONTROLLED BY THE WAGNER ACT, THERE
IS NOTHING IN THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947 THAT SUGGESTS
THAT CONGRESS WISHED TO WITHDRAW ITS PROTECTION FROM THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SPECIALLY PROVIDED BY THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
ACT.  SEE S. REP. NO. 105, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 28(1947).  IT MAKES
SOME STRIKES UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  61 STAT. 141, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
158(B).  BUT THE STRIKES SO CONDEMNED CONCEDEDLY DO NOT INCLUDE THE
KIND WE HAVE IN THE PRESENT CASES.  THE AMENDMENTS TO SECS. 7 AND 13,
29 U.S.C. SECS. 157, 163, DO NOT RESTRICT THE RIGHT AS IT PREVIOUSLY
EXISTED.  MOREOVER, THE 1947 LEGISLATION COMPREHENSIVELY DEFINES A
STRIKE, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 142, AS "ANY CONCERTED SLOW-DOWN OR OTHER
CONCERTED INTERRUPTION OF OPERATIONS BY EMPLOYEES," WHICH IS BROAD
ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THE ACTIVITY WHICH WISCONSIN HAS CONDEMNED HERE. 

FN4  THE COURT HERETOFORE HAS HELD THAT THE MEASURE OF THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE IN THESE INTERSTATE INDUSTRIES IS A QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW. 
LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP., 306 U.S. AT 255-257.  THUS SEC. 2(3) OF
THE WAGNER ACT DEFINED EMPLOYEE TO "INCLUDE ANY INDIVIDUAL WHOSE WORK
HAS CEASED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY CURRENT
LABOR DISPUTE  ...  "  49 STAT. 450, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 152(3).  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION THE COURT HAS HELD THAT PARTICIPATION IN A
STRIKE DID NOT REMOVE WORKERS FROM THE PROTECTION OF THE ACT AND THAT
THEY RETAINED THE STATUS OF EMPLOYEES.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. MACKAY CO.,
304 U.S. 333, 345-347.  THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS A "LABOR DISPUTE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(3) NECESSARILY INVOLVES A CONSIDERATION OF
WHETHER THE STRIKE WAS OR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED.  SEE LABOR BOARD V.
STACKPOLE CARBON CO., 105 F.2D 167, 176. 

DETERMINATION OF THE LEGALITY OF STRIKES IN INTERSTATE INDUSTRIES BY
FEDERAL LAW IS NECESSARY IF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IS TO BE UNIFORM AND HARMONIOUS.  THE STATUS
OF WORKERS AS EMPLOYEES WILL DETERMINE WHAT RELIEF THEY MAY BE ENTITLED
TO UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT.  SEE PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313
U.S. 177.  REINSTATEMENT RIGHTS MAY INDEED DEPEND ON WHETHER A WORKER
HAS LOST HIS STATUS AS AN EMPLOYEE THROUGH ACTIVITIES NOT COMPREHENDED
IN THE FEDERAL PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO STRIKE.  LABOR BOARD V.
FANSTEEL CORP., SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

TO INTERFERE WITH PRODUCTION AND TO ENFORCE THEIR BARGAINING DEMANDS,
EMPLOYEES OF BRIGGS AND STRATTON CALLED TWENTY-SEVEN UNION MEETINGS
DURING WORKING HOURS WITHOUT ADVANCE NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYER.  EMPLOYEES
LEFT THEIR WORK AND RETURNED LATER IN THE DAY, OR THE FOLLOWING DAY. 
WISCONSIN HAS MADE THIS CONCERTED ACTIVITY UNLAWFUL.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE STATE'S ACTION VIOLATES THE FEDERAL GUARANTEE CONTAINED IN
SEC. 7 OF THE WAGNER AND TAFT-HARTLEY ACTS: "EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT TO  ...  ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION." 

WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE PHRASE "CONCERTED ACTIVITIES" DOES NOT
MAKE EVERY UNION ACTIVITY A FEDERAL RIGHT.  WE HAVE HELD THAT VIOLENCE
BY STRIKERS IS NOT PROTECTED, ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, 315 U.S. 740; THAT A SIT-DOWN STRIKE, LABOR
BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP., 306 U.S. 240, A MUTINY, SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 316 U.S. 31, AND A STRIKE IN VIOLATION OF A CONTRACT,
LABOR BOARD V. SANDS MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332, MUST BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE
LITERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 7. 

BUT THE COURT, BY ITS REASONING AND ITS QUOTATION FROM A
CONGRESSIONAL REPORT, NOW MAKES INTERMITTENT WORK STOPPAGES THE
EQUIVALENT OF MUTINY, CONTRACT-BREAKING, AND THE SIT-DOWN STRIKE.  IT
STRETCHES THE "OBJECTIVES AND MEANS" TEST TO INCLUDE A FORM OF PRESSURE
WHICH IS PEACEFUL AND DIRECT.  IN EFFECT, IT ADOPTS THE EMPLOYER'S PLEA
THAT IT CANNOT PLAN PRODUCTION SCHEDULES, CANNOT NOTIFY ITS CUSTOMERS
AND SUPPLIERS, CANNOT DETERMINE ITS OUTPUT WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY
AND THAT THESE INCONVENIENCES WITHDRAW THIS ACTIVITY FROM SEC. 7 OF THE
NATIONAL STATUTES.  THE MAJORITY AND THE WISCONSIN COURT CALL THE
WEAPON OBJECTIONABLE, THEN, ONLY BECAUSE IT IS EFFECTIVE.  TO IMPUTE
THIS RATIONALE TO THE CONGRESS WHICH ENACTED THE WAGNER ACT IS, IN MY
OPINION, JUDICIAL LEGISLATION OF AN EXTREME FORM. 

THE COURT CHOOSES TO IGNORE THE CONSISTENT POLICY OF THE AGENCY
CHARGED WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IN INTERPRETING AND ADMINISTERING
SEC. 7.  THE NATIONAL BOARD HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT WORK STOPPAGES OF
THIS NATURE ARE "PARTIAL STRIKES" AND "CONCERTED ACTIVITIES" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 7.  CUDAHY PACKING COMPANY, 29 N.L.R.B. 837, 863;
ARMOUR & COMPANY, 25 N.L.R.B. 989; THE GOOD COAL COMPANY, 12 N.L.R.B.
136, 146; AMERICAN MFG. CONCERN, 7 N.L.R.B. 753, 758; HARNISCHFEGER
CORPORATION, 9 N.L.R.B. 676, 685; MT. CLEMENS POTTERY COMPANY, 46
N.L.R.B. 714, 716.  IN EACH OF THESE SIX CASES, THE BOARD'S
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 7 IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THAT REACHED BY THE
COURT IN THE CASE BEFORE US.  IN EACH CASE THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT
WORK STOPPAGES OR "PARTIAL STRIKES" CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 7.  TO IGNORE THE BOARD'S CONSISTENT RULINGS IN THIS
CASE IS A NEW AND UNIQUE DEPARTURE FROM THE RULE OF DEFERENCE TO
SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION.  THE FACT THAT THE STOPPAGES IN
THE BOARD CASES WERE FEWER IN NUMBER THAN THOSE AT BRIGGS AND STRATTON
IS NOT, OF COURSE, A CONTROLLING DIFFERENCE - UNLESS WE ARE TO SAY THAT
THE STOPPAGES ARE NOT PROTECTED BY SEC. 7 BECAUSE THEY ARE EFFECTIVE
FROM THE UNION'S POINT OF VIEW. 

WISCONSIN'S ACTION CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH SEC. 7, AND ACCORDINGLY, I
WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :












GRAVER MFG. CO. V. LINDE CO., 336 U.S. 271 


NOS. 184 AND 185.  ARGUED JANUARY 5-6, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28,
1949.  - 167 F.2D 531, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  CERTAIN FLUX CLAIMS OF JONES PATENT NO. 2,043,960, FOR AN ELECTRIC
WELDING PROCESS AND FOR FLUXES, OR COMPOSITIONS, TO BE USED THEREWITH,
HELD VALID AND INFRINGED.  PP. 273-276. 

(A)  THIS COURT, BEING A COURT OF LAW RATHER THAN A COURT FOR
CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN FACT FINDING, CANNOT UNDERTAKE TO REVIEW
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY TWO COURTS BELOW IN THE ABSENCE OF A
VERY OBVIOUS AND EXCEPTIONAL SHOWING OF ERROR.  PP. 274-275. 

(B)  WHILE THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY IS ONE OF MEETING
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE, THE FACTS FOUND BY THE TWO COURTS
BELOW WITH RESPECT TO THESE CLAIMS WARRANT A CONCLUSION BY THIS COURT
AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THOSE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.  P.
275. 

(C)  THE TWO COURTS BELOW FOUND THAT THESE CLAIMS WERE INFRINGED AND
THIS COURT FINDS NO CAUSE FOR REVERSAL.  PP. 275-276. 

2.  CERTAIN OTHER FLUX CLAIMS OF THE SAME PATENT HELD INVALID AS
BEING TOO BROAD AND COMPREHENDING MORE THAN THE INVENTION.  PP. 276
277. 

(A) WHILE VAIN REPETITION IS NO MORE TO BE ENCOURAGED IN PATENTS THAN
IN OTHER DOCUMENTS, AND CLAIMS LIKE OTHER STATEMENTS MAY INCORPORATE
OTHER MATTERS BY REFERENCE, THEIR TEXT MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO
"PARTICULARLY POINT OUT AND DISTINCTLY CLAIM" AN IDENTIFIABLE INVENTION
OR DISCOVERY.  P. 277. 

(B)  WHEN CLAIMS OVERCLAIM THE INVENTION TO THE POINT OF INVALIDITY
AND ARE FREE FROM AMBIGUITY WHICH MIGHT JUSTIFY RESORT TO THE
SPECIFICATIONS, THEY ARE NOT TO BE SAVED BECAUSE THE LATTER ARE LESS
INCLUSIVE.  P. 277. 

3.  ALL PROCESS CLAIMS OF THE SAME PATENT HELD INVALID.  PP. 277
279. 

4.  BOTH COURTS BELOW HAVING FOUND THAT THE PATENT HAD NOT BEEN
ABUSED SO AS TO FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT
BASED ON THE CLAIMS HELD VALID, THIS COURT AFFIRMS THEIR JUDGMENT ON
THAT POINT.  PP. 279-280. 

GRAVER TANK & MFG. CO., INC. ET AL. V. LINDE AIR PRODUCTS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
CERTAIN CLAIMS WERE VALID AND INFRINGED AND HAD NOT BEEN FORFEITED BY
MISUSE, BUT THAT CERTAIN OTHER CLAIMS WERE INVALID.  75 U.S.P.Q. 231. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  167 F.2D
531.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 810.  JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED INSOFAR AS IT REVERSES THAT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT AND JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT REINSTATED IN TOTO.  P. 280. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WRITS OF CERTIORARI HAVE BEEN GRANTED, 335 U.S. 810, TO REVIEW TWO
JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT INVOLVING THE
SAME PATENT.  WHAT WE SHALL CALL THE JONES PATENT WAS NO. 2,043,960,
ISSUED TO LLOYD THEODORE JONES AND OTHERS, FOR AN ELECTRIC WELDING
PROCESS AND FOR FLUXES, OR COMPOSITIONS, TO BE USED THEREWITH.  THE
PATENT IS NOW OWNED BY THE LINDE AIR PRODUCTS COMPANY, WHICH BROUGHT AN
ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT AGAINST THE LINCOLN AND TWO GRAVER COMPANIES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD FOUR OF THE FLUX CLAIMS VALID AND INFRINGED
AND CONCLUDED THAT THE PATENT OWNER HAD NOT MISUSED THE PATENT SO AS TO
FORFEIT ITS CLAIMS TO RELIEF THEREFOR.  IT HELD CERTAIN OTHER FLUX
CLAIMS AND ALL OF THE PROCESS CLAIMS INVALID.  75 U.S.P.Q. 231. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS THAT FOUR FLUX CLAIMS WERE
VALID AND INFRINGED AND THAT THE PATENT HAD NOT BEEN ABUSED, BUT
REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT AND HELD VALID THE PROCESS CLAIMS AND THE
REMAINING CONTESTED FLUX CLAIMS.  167 F.2D 531. 

THE PETITIONERS CONTEND NOT ONLY THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS' JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE REVERSED, BUT THAT WE SHOULD ALSO REVERSE THE DISTRICT
COURT'S FINDING OF PARTIAL VALIDITY AND SHOULD DECLARE THE PATENT
ENTIRELY INVALID AND NOT INFRINGED. 

AT THE TRIAL THE ELECTRIC WELDING PRIOR ART AND THE NATURE OF THE
JONES INVENTION WERE EXPLORED AT LENGTH, AND OPINIONS OF THE TWO COURTS
BELOW, ALREADY IN THE BOOKS, ADEQUATELY DISCUSS THE TECHNOLOGY OF THAT
ART AND THE SCIENTIFIC FEATURES OF THE CLAIMS INVOLVED.  WE SHALL
CONFINE THIS OPINION TO A STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES WHICH LEAD
TO OUR DECISION.  *GI.  FLUX CLAIMS 18, 20, 22 AND 23, HELD VALID, AND

 INFRINGED, BY TWO COURTS BELOW. 

ELECTRIC WELDING WAS AN ESTABLISHED ART BEFORE THIS INVENTION BUT ONE
WITH SERIOUS LIMITATIONS WHICH THE INDUSTRY SOUGHT TO OVERCOME.  THE
KNOWN METHOD WAS SLOW AND LABORIOUS AND PERMITTED WELDING OF ONLY
RELATIVELY THIN PLATES.  IT WAS OF DIFFERENT TYPES, BUT EACH HAD SUCH
DEFICIENCIES AS A DAZZLING OPEN ARC, SMOKE AND SPLATTER, WHICH MADE
OPERATION UNPLEASANT AND SOMEWHAT HAZARDOUS. 

THREE SCIENTIFICALLY TRAINED INDIVIDUALS, JONES, KENNEDY AND
ROTERMUND, SET OUT PURPOSELY TO DISCOVER A CURE FOR THE DEFICIENCIES
AND INADEQUACIES IN THE METHOD OF FLUX WELDING, THEN THE MOST
SUCCESSFUL METHOD KNOWN.  THEY COLLABORATED FOR SOME SIX MONTHS IN
CONDUCTING A SERIES OF ABOUT 500 EXPERIMENTS IN THE COURSE OF WHICH
THEY COMPOUNDED 75 DIFFERENT FLUX COMPOSITIONS.  THEY FINALLY PRODUCED
THE INVENTION FOR WHICH A PATENT WAS SOUGHT. 

THE TRIAL COURT NOTED THAT THE RESULTS PRODUCED BY THEIR INVENTION
CONTRASTED WITH THOSE POSSIBLE UNDER ALL PRIOR METHODS IN THAT "THERE
IS NO GLARE, NO OPEN ARC, NO SPLATTER, AND VERY LITTLE, IF ANY, SMOKE
IN THE JONES, ET AL. METHOD." 

"THE TRULY REMARKABLE DIFFERENCE, HOWEVER, BETWEEN WHAT JONES,
KENNEDY AND ROTERMUND INVENTED AND WHAT HAD GONE ON BEFORE IS PERHAPS
BEST MANIFESTED BY THE PERFORMANCE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THEIR INVENTION. 
FOR INSTANCE, ONLY THROUGH ITS USE CAN PLATES AS THICK AS TWO AND ONE
HALF INCHES BE WELDED IN A SINGLE PASS.  FURTHERMORE, THE WELDING
SPEEDS MADE POSSIBLE BY IT DWARF THOSE OF ANY OTHER METHOD, AND THE
WELDS PRODUCED BY IT ARE OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY IN CONTRAST TO THE
GREAT AMOUNT OF POROSITY CONTAINED IN THE WELDS PRODUCED BY THE SO
CALLED CLAY FLUX PROCESS." 

THE TRIAL COURT CONTINUED:  "SINCE THE PATENTEES DID INVENT SOMETHING
PATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR ART OF ELECTRIC WELDING, THE COLLATERAL
QUESTIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THEIR INVENTION, AND WHAT ARE ITS
BOUNDARIES, BECOME PERTINENT."  HE CONCLUDED THAT WHAT WAS REALLY
INVENTED WAS THAT WHICH WAS CLAIMED AND BOUNDED BY THE COMPOSITION
CLAIMS NOS. 18, 20, 22 AND 23.  HIS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION WERE
AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WE ARE NOW ASKED TO HOLD THAT THERE
HAS BEEN NO SUCH INVENTION. 

RULE 52(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES IN PART:
"FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND
DUE REGARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES."  TO NO TYPE OF CASE IS THIS
LAST CLAUSE MORE APPROPRIATELY APPLICABLE THAN TO THE ONE BEFORE US,
WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS LARGELY THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS AS TO WHICH A
TRIAL COURT MAY BE ENLIGHTENED BY SCIENTIFIC DEMONSTRATIONS.  THIS
TRIAL OCCUPIED SOME THREE WEEKS, DURING WHICH, AS THE RECORD SHOWS, THE
TRIAL JUDGE VISITED LABORATORIES WITH COUNSEL AND EXPERTS TO OBSERVE
ACTUAL DEMONSTRATIONS OF WELDING AS TAUGHT BY THE PATENT AND OF THE
WELDING ACCUSED OF INFRINGING IT, AND OF VARIOUS STAGES OF THE PRIOR
ART. HE VIEWED MOTION PICTURES OF VARIOUS WELDING OPERATIONS AND TESTS
AND HEARD MANY EXPERTS AND OTHER WITNESSES.  HE WROTE A CAREFUL AND
SUCCINCT OPINION AND MADE FINDINGS COVERING ALL THE FACTUAL ISSUES. 

THE RULE REQUIRES THAT AN APPELLATE COURT MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR THE
ADVANTAGES POSSESSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN APPRAISING THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF CONFLICTING TESTIMONY AND REVERSE ONLY "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS"
FINDINGS.  THESE ARE MANIFESTLY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THEM SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
- INDEED FOUND THE EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUPPORT OF THE PATENT EVEN IN
MATTERS NOT FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT.  A COURT OF LAW, SUCH AS THIS
COURT IS, RATHER THAN A COURT FOR CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN FACT FINDING,
CANNOT UNDERTAKE TO REVIEW CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY TWO COURTS
BELOW IN THE ABSENCE OF A VERY OBVIOUS AND EXCEPTIONAL SHOWING OF
ERROR.  GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. V. RAY-O-VAC CO., 321 U.S. 275;
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. PACE, 320 U.S. 698; WILLIAMS MFG. CO. V. UNITED
SHOE MACHINERY CORP., 316 U.S. 364; BAKER V. SCHOFIELD, 243 U.S. 114,
118. 

NO SUCH SHOWING IS MADE.  WHILE THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF
PATENTABILITY IS ONE OF MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE, R.S.
SEC. 4886, AS AMENDED, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 31, THE FACTS AS FOUND WITH
RESPECT TO THESE FOUR FLUX CLAIMS WARRANT A CONCLUSION HERE THAT AS
MATTER OF LAW THOSE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.  ACCORDINGLY,
WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT INSOFAR AS IT HOLDS CLAIMS NUMBERED 18, 20, 22
AND 23 DEFINE AN INVENTION FOR WHICH PATENT HAS VALIDLY ISSUED. 

TURNING TO THE QUESTION OF INFRINGEMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT THE LINCOLN ELECTRIC CO. MADE, AND THE OTHER PETITIONERS USED AND
SOLD, A FLUX SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT SET FORTH IN THE VALID
COMPOSITION CLAIMS OF THE PATENT IN SUIT AND WHICH COULD BE MADE BY A
PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART MERELY BY FOLLOWING ITS TEACHINGS.  THE
PETITIONERS INTRODUCED NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THEIR ACCUSED FLUX WAS
DERIVED EITHER FROM THE PRIOR ART, BY INDEPENDENT EXPERIMENT OR FROM
ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN THE TEACHINGS OF THE PATENT IN SUIT.  THE COURT
FOUND INFRINGEMENT OF EACH OF THE FOUR CLAIMS AND CONCLUDED THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE
INFRINGEMENT AND TO AN ACCOUNTING FOR PROFITS AND DAMAGES.  THESE
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND WE
FIND NO CAUSE FOR REVERSAL. 

           II.  FLUX CLAIMS HELD INVALID BY THE DISTRICT COURT

           AND VALID BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD INVALID CLAIMS TO A FLUX FOR USE IN THE
PROCESS, NUMBERED 24, 26 AND 27.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AS TO
THESE AND HELD THEM VALID.  REMAINING FLUX CLAIMS, NUMBERED 19, 21, 25,
28 AND 29, WERE NOT IN ISSUE, AND CLAIM 27 WE CONSIDER ALONG WITH THE
PROCESS CLAIMS. 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AS
TO THESE FINDINGS COMES TO THIS:  THE TRIAL COURT LOOKED AT CLAIMS 24
AND 26 ALONE AND DECLINED TO INTERPRET THE TERMS "SILICATES" AND
"METALLIC SILICATES" THEREIN AS BEING LIMITED OR QUALIFIED BY
SPECIFICATIONS TO MEAN ONLY THE NINE METALLIC SILICATES WHICH HAD BEEN
PROVED OPERATIVE.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE CLAIMS
THEREFORE WERE TOO BROAD AND COMPREHENDED MORE THAN THE INVENTION.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE
RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE APPLICANTS FOR THE PATENT INTENDED BY THESE
CLAIMS TO ASSERT A MONOPOLY BROADER THAN NINE METALLIC SILICATES NAMED
IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSTRUED THE CLAIMS AS
THUS NARROWED AND LIMITED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS. 

THE STATUTE MAKES PROVISION FOR SPECIFICATION SEPARATELY FROM THE
CLAIMS AND REQUIRES THAT THE LATTER "SHALL PARTICULARLY POINT OUT AND
DISTINCTLY CLAIM THE PART, IMPROVEMENT, OR COMBINATION WHICH HE CLAIMS
AS HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY."  R.S. SEC. 4888, AS AMENDED, 35 U.S.C.
SEC. 33.  IT WOULD ACCOMPLISH LITTLE TO REQUIRE THAT CLAIMS BE
SEPARATELY WRITTEN IF THEY ARE NOT TO BE SEPARATELY READ.  WHILE VAIN
REPETITION IS NO MORE TO BE ENCOURAGED IN PATENTS THAN IN OTHER
DOCUMENTS, AND CLAIMS LIKE OTHER STATEMENTS MAY INCORPORATE OTHER
MATTER BY REFERENCE, THEIR TEXT MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO "PARTICULARLY
POINT OUT AND DISTINCTLY CLAIM" AN IDENTIFIABLE INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY.  WE HAVE FREQUENTLY HELD THAT IT IS THE CLAIM WHICH MEASURES
THE GRANT TO THE PATENTEE.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, MILCOR STEEL CO. V.
FULLER CO., 316 U.S. 143, 145; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CO., 304
U.S. 364, 369; ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477, 487. 
WHILE THE CASES MORE OFTEN HAVE DEALT WITH EFFORTS TO RESORT TO
SPECIFICATIONS TO EXPAND CLAIMS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LATTER FAIL
EQUALLY TO PERFORM THEIR FUNCTION AS A MEASURE OF THE GRANT WHEN THEY
OVERCLAIM THE INVENTION.  WHEN THEY DO SO TO THE POINT OF INVALIDITY
AND ARE FREE FROM AMBIGUITY WHICH MIGHT JUSTIFY RESORT TO THE
SPECIFICATIONS, WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THEY ARE NOT TO
BE SAVED BECAUSE THE LATTER ARE LESS INCLUSIVE.  CF. GENERAL ELECTRIC
CO. V. WABASH CO., 304 U.S. 364, 373-374; SEE MCCLAIN V. ORTMAYER, 141
U.S. 419, 424-425; CIMIOTTI UNHAIRING CO. V. AMERICAN FUR REFINING CO.,
198 U.S. 399, 410. 

WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY APPLIED THIS PRINCIPLE TO
CLAIMS 24 AND 26. 

                        III.  PROCESS CLAIMS. 

ALL PROCESS CLAIMS WERE HELD INVALID BY THE DISTRICT COURT; THOSE
NUMBERED 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 AND 9, BECAUSE THEY MAKE NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE
TO THE ESSENTIAL CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS OF THE WELDING COMPOSITION TO BE
USED IN THE CLAIMED WELDING PROCESS, A CONCLUSION WITH WHICH WE AGREE. 
PROCESS CLAIM 2 WAS HELD INVALID FOR THE REASON APPLICABLE TO FLUX
CLAIMS 24 AND 26, WITH WHICH WE ALSO AGREE.  OTHERS, NAMELY 5, 6, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16 AND 17, AND COMPOSITION CLAIM 27 WERE HELD INVALID
BECAUSE THEY ERRONEOUSLY IMPORT THAT THE SOLE CONDUCTIVE MEDIUM THROUGH
WHICH ELECTRIC CURRENT PASSES FROM THE ELECTRODE TO THE BASE METAL IS
THE WELDING COMPOSITION, WHICH IS IN A MOLTEN STATE, AND THAT NO
ELECTRIC ARC PHENOMENON IS PRESENT. 

THE COURT FOUND THAT THE PROCEDURAL STEPS IN THE PROCESS TAUGHT BY
THE PATENT ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THOSE FOLLOWED IN PRIOR
AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC WELDING PROCESSES AND THAT THE ONLY INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY RESIDES IN THE USE OF A DIFFERENT WELDING COMPOSITION.  IT
SUSTAINED THE PATENT FOR THE COMPOSITION, AS WE HAVE SHOWN, BUT DENIED
ITS VALIDITY INSOFAR AS IT CLAIMED THE OLD PROCEDURE. 

THE TRIAL COURT GAVE EXTENSIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE PROCESS CLAIMS. 
IT AGREED THAT A RADICALLY NEW PROCESS WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IF IT
COULD BE SAID THAT THE ELECTRIC CURRENT PASSED BETWEEN THE ELECTRODE
AND THE BASE METAL THROUGH A WELDING COMPOSITION IN A LIQUID STATE AND
THAT NO ELECTRIC ARC IS PRESENT.  ALL OF THE PREVIOUS ART HAD USED THE
ELECTRIC ARC.  BUT WITH FULL APPRECIATION OF THE CRITICAL NATURE OF THE
INQUIRY AND AFTER LONG LITIGATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE ART, THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT NO SUCH FINDING OF DEPARTURE FROM THE PRIOR ART
COULD BE MADE AND SAID THAT THE EVIDENCE IS PERSUASIVE THAT NO SUCH
BASIC DIFFERENCE IN PHENOMENA IS PRESENT IN THE JONES METHOD. 

THE DISTRICT COURT REINFORCED ITS CONCLUSION BY POINTING OUT THAT THE
INVENTORS THEMSELVES INITIALLY DID NOT CONCEIVE THEIR INVENTION TO
EMBODY ANY SUCH RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN PHENOMENA AND THAT THEIR
FIRST APPLICATION FOR A PATENT WAS REPLETE WITH REFERENCES TO THE
PRESENCE AND USE OF AN ELECTRIC ARC IN THE NEW METHOD.  IT WAS ONLY
AFTER THEY HAD ASSIGNED THEIR RIGHTS TO THE RESPONDENT THAT THE
SUGGESTION OF A BASICALLY NEW PHENOMENON, OTHER THAN AN ARC, WAS MADE. 
JUST WHAT HAPPENS IN THE JONES METHOD ADMITS OF CONTROVERSY, FOR THERE
IS NO VISUAL EVIDENCE OF AN ELECTRIC ARC AFTER THE WELDING OPERATION
COMMENCES BECAUSE WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURS BETWEEN THE ELECTRODE AND THE
METAL BASE IS HIDDEN FROM VIEW BY THE FLUX.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY WITH COMPLETE CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS NOT AN
ARC AND ONE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESSES GAVE SUBSTANTIAL
SUPPORT TO THE IDEA THAT THE ARC IS STILL PRESENT, ALTHOUGH IT IS
SHIELDED BY THE FLUX IN THE JONES PATENT. 

THE SAME DEFERENCE IS DUE TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH
OVERTURN CLAIMS AS TO THOSE WHICH SUSTAIN THEM.  TECHNICIANS MAY AND
PROBABLY WILL CONTINUE TO DEBATE WITH PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENTS ON EACH SIDE
AS TO WHAT THIS OBSCURE PROCESS REALLY IS.  BUT THE RECORD IN THIS
CASE, WHILE NOT ESTABLISHING TO A CERTAINTY THAT THE FINDINGS ARE
RIGHT, FALL FAR SHORT OF CONVINCING US THAT THEY ARE CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS.  WE THINK THAT THE RULES THAT GOVERN REVIEW ENTITLE THE
TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSIONS TO PREVAIL AND THAT THE PROCESS CLAIMS ARE
INVALID UNDER THE STATUTE. 

              IV.  ABUSE OF PATENT. 

CONTENTIONS ARE MADE THAT THE PATENT HAS BEEN ABUSED THROUGH EFFORTS
TO BROADEN THE PATENT MONOPOLY BY REQUIRING THE PURCHASE OF
UNPATENTABLE MATERIAL FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH IT.  THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT IMPOSE ON LICENSEES, EITHER
AS A CONDITION OF A LICENSE OR OTHERWISE, ANY REQUIREMENT, CONDITION,
AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE PURCHASE OR USE OF UNPATENTABLE
COMMODITIES AND THAT ITS LICENSEES ARE FREE TO BUY AND USE ANY
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT FROM ANY SOURCE.  THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT AN
APPEARANCE OF SUCH FREEDOM IS NOT CONCLUSIVE IF IT CONCEALS A
SUBTERFUGE AND THAT THERE IS A REAL, ALTHOUGH INFORMAL, RESTRAINT.  BUT
EXAMINING THE CONDUCT OF THE PLAINTIFF, IT FOUND NO SUCH OBSTACLE TO
THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT ON THAT PART OF THE
PATENT WHICH WAS VALID.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, AND WE ACCEPT
THE CONCLUSION OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW ON THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, INSOFAR
AS IT REVERSES THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT BE IN ALL THINGS REINSTATED.  TO
THAT EXTENT THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE AND IN PARTS II, III
AND IV OF THE COURT'S OPINION.  BUT MY CONCURRENCE IN THE HOLDING THAT
CLAIMS 18, 20, 22 AND 23 ARE VALID DOES NOT REST MERELY ON FINDINGS OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THOSE CLAIMS WERE
VALID.  WHILE ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS OF THOSE TWO COURTS ON WHAT I
CONSIDER TO BE QUESTIONS OF FACT, IT IS MY VIEW THAT DETERMINATION OF
THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY CANNOT PROPERLY BE CLASSIFIED AS
A FINDING OF FACT.  I WOULD ADHERE TO THIS COURT'S EARLIER
PRONOUNCEMENT THAT "WHETHER THE THING PATENTED AMOUNTS TO A PATENTABLE
INVENTION" IS A QUESTION OF LAW TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURTS AS SUCH. 
MAHN V. HARWOOD, 112 U.S. 354, 358; AND SEE DISSENTING OPINIONS IN
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. V. RAY-O-VAC CO., 321 U.S. 275, 280, NOTE 1,
AND WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP., 316 U.S.
364, 383. 

I AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT THE FACTS FOUND HERE JUSTIFY THE HOLDING THAT
CLAIMS 18, 20, 22, AND 23 DO SHOW PATENTABLE DISCOVERY WHEN MEASURED BY
THE STANDARDS ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT IN CUNO ENGINEERING CORP. V.
AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., 314 U.S. 84.  FOR THIS REASON I CONCUR IN
AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HELD THESE CLAIMS VALID. 
..END :






















WIS. POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 176 


NO. 237.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1949.  - 168
F.2D 285, AFFIRMED. 


1.  DAIRIES, ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN THE COLLECTION, PASTEURIZATION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF FRESH MILK, PURCHASED AND USED ELECTRICITY IN VARIOUS
WAYS IN THEIR GENERAL OPERATIONS, INCLUDING AN UNDETERMINED AMOUNT USED
IN PASTEURIZING MILK.  HELD:  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIED TO THESE DAIRIES
THROUGH SINGLE METERS, OR THROUGH MORE THAN ONE METER BUT WITHOUT
DIFFERENTIATION AS TO USE, IS SOLD FOR "COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION" (AND
NOT FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES), WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3411 OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AND IS TAXABLE AGAINST THE VENDOR UNDER THAT

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS SECTION INDICATES THAT THE TERM
"COMMERCIAL" WAS MEANT TO APPLY TO THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS IN WHICH
THE ENERGY IS CONSUMED, AND NOT TO THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE TO WHICH EACH
MEASURABLE UNIT OF ELECTRICITY IS DEVOTED.  PP. 181-182. 

3.  THE CONTROLLING FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
TAX IS THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON AT A GIVEN
LOCATION.  PP. 182-184. 

4.  THOUGH THE PROCESS OF PASTEURIZING, SEPARATELY VIEWED, MAY BE
ASSUMED TO BE INDUSTRIAL, THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED
BY THE DAIRY PLANTS HERE INVOLVED WAS ESSENTIALLY COMMERCIAL,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE INCLUSION OF PASTEURIZATION AMONG THEIR MANY
ACTIVITIES.  PP. 184-185. 

5.  THE CONCLUSION HERE REACHED AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TAX IS
SUPPORTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION.  PP. 181-187. 

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A REFUND OF TAXES ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED UNDER SEC. 3411 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED RECOVERY.  69 F.SUPP.  743. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  168 F.2D 285.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 842.  AFFIRMED, P. 187. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING ELECTRIC ENERGY TO
THE PUBLIC, SEEKS THE REFUND OF TAXES PAID BY IT PURSUANT TO SEC. 3411
OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THAT SECTION, IN PERTINENT PART,
PROVIDES FOR A TAX 

"...  UPON ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOLD FOR DOMESTIC OR COMMERCIAL
CONSUMPTION  ...  EQUIVALENT TO 3 PER CENTUM  FN1  OF THE PRICE FOR
WHICH SO SOLD, TO BE PAID BY THE VENDOR UNDER SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY,
SHALL PRESCRIBE."  FN2 

NOTE THAT THE STATUTE TAXES ENERGY FOR DOMESTIC OR COMMERCIAL
CONSUMPTION.  THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR TAXATION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY
USED FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES.  FN3 

THE PURCHASERS OF THE ELECTRIC POWER HERE INVOLVED ARE 27 DAIRY
PLANTS WHICH ARE ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN THE COLLECTION, PASTEURIZATION,
AND DISTRIBUTION OF FRESH MILK.  THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE
CASE IS WHETHER THE USE OF ELECTRICITY BY THESE DAIRIES IS COMMERCIAL
CONSUMPTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OR INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMPTION, A USE NOT COVERED BY THE STATUTE. 

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DAIRY PLANTS ARE SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR SO THAT
THEY CAN BE TREATED AS ONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESCRIBING THEIR METHODS
OF OPERATION.  THE PLANTS ARE BUILDINGS EQUIPPED WITH MILK-HANDLING
MACHINERY AND FACILITIES LOCATED EITHER OFF THE DAIRY FARMS, OR ON THE
DAIRY FARM ITSELF AS AN ACTIVITY APART FROM MILK PRODUCTION.  CONTRACTS
FOR THE PURCHASE OF RAW MILK ARE NEGOTIATED WITH NEARBY FARMS.  FN4
THIS MILK IS DELIVERED IN TRUCKS OF THE PRODUCERS OR OF THE DAIRY
PLANT, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO THE PLANT WHERE IT IS RECEIVED, WEIGHED,
TESTED FOR BUTTERFAT CONTENT, COOLED, AND MIXED AND STANDARDIZED SO AS
TO ACHIEVE THE PROPER BUTTERFAT CONTENT.  NEXT IT IS PASTEURIZED. 
PASTEURIZATION CONSISTS OF HEATING THE MILK TO 143 DEGREES-145 DEGREES
F., MAINTAINING IT AT THAT LEVEL FOR ABOUT THIRTY MINUTES, AND THEN
SUBJECTING IT TO SUDDEN COOLING TO A POINT BETWEEN 38 DEGREES AND 40
DEGREES F. FN5  THE PROCESS IS DESIGNED TO KILL PATHOGENIC BACTERIA
WITHOUT DESTROYING THE NATURAL CREAMING PROPERTIES OR THE TASTE OF THE
MILK.  THEN THE MILK IS DRAWN INTO BOTTLES OR CANS WHICH HAVE BEEN
WASHED, STERILIZED, AND COOLED.  FINALLY IT IS STORED IN REFRIGERATED
ROOMS TO PERMIT THE CREAM LINE TO FORM AND TO AWAIT DELIVERY.  FN6
MOST OF IT IS DELIVERED TO CUSTOMERS IN THE DAIRY PLANT'S TRUCKS OR
WAGONS.  IN SOME INSTANCES A SMALL PROPORTION IS SOLD AT THE PLANT
ITSELF. 

ELECTRIC POWER IS EMPLOYED BY THE PURCHASING DAIRY PLANTS IN A NUMBER
OF WAYS.  IT IS USED TO LIGHT THE PLANTS, INCLUDING THE GARAGE SPACE
FOR THE COLLECTING AND DISTRIBUTING TRUCKS.  IT DRIVES ELECTRIC MOTORS
WHICH PUMP REFRIGERANTS, DELIVER MILK TO AND FROM THE PASTEURIZER AND
TO THE BOTTLING MACHINES, OPERATE THE HOMOGENIZER, THE BOTTLING
MACHINE, THE CREAM SEPARATOR, AND THE MACHINERY USED IN WASHING,
STERILIZING AND CONVEYING BOTTLES.  THE ELECTRICITY USED BY SOME OF THE
PLANTS IS MEASURED THROUGH A SINGLE METER, THAT OF OTHERS THROUGH TWO
OR MORE METERS, BUT IN NO CASE ARE THE METERS SO CONNECTED TO THE
INCOMING POWER LINE AS TO ENABLE THE ENERGY SUPPLIED FOR ONE PURPOSE TO
BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THAT SUPPLIED FOR ANOTHER.  WE DO NOT HAVE
BEFORE US A SITUATION WHERE PASTEURIZATION UTILIZES ELECTRICAL ENERGY
THAT IS MEASURED BY A METER EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR PASTEURIZATION. 

PASTEURIZATION IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE USE OF SPECIAL EQUIPMENT
DESIGNED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  MOST OF THE ELECTRICITY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
PROCESS IS DEVOTED TO THE ICE MACHINES WHICH PERFORM THE RAPID COOLING
OF THE MILK AFTER THE INITIAL HEATING.  SINCE THE SAME COOLING UNITS
PERFORM THE COOLING WHICH IS NECESSARY BEFORE AND AFTER PASTEURIZATION,
HOWEVER, THE ELECTRICITY WHICH THEY CONSUME FOR PASTEURIZATION ALONE
CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED.  PASTEURIZATION EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING THE
INCREASED COOLING EQUIPMENT NECESSARY THEREFOR, ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 15
OR 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL COST OF PLANT EQUIPMENT, EXCLUDING TRUCKS
AND OTHER VEHICLES.  ABOUT ONE-TENTH OF THE COST OF PLANT OPERATION,
EXCLUDING THE COST OF THE RAW MILK AND COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
DISTRIBUTION, IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PASTEURIZATION. 

PETITIONER PAID THE TAX ON ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOLD TO THE DAIRY PLANTS
DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL, 1940, TO JULY, 1943, AND THEN BROUGHT
SUIT TO RECOVER IT ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ENERGY WAS SOLD NOT FOR
COMMERCIAL BUT FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION.  THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN HELD THAT THE SALES WERE
FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, AND
THEREFORE THAT THE TAX WAS VALID.  69 F.SUPP.  743.  THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  168 F.2D 285.  IT
SUMMARIZED ITS VIEWS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WE AGREE WITH (DISTRICT) JUDGE DUFFY THAT THE WORDING AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PREDOMINANT
CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY A CONSUMER OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY
IS WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER THE ELECTRICITY SOLD HAS BEEN SOLD FOR
'COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION'; HENCE WE ARE CONTENT TO ADOPT HIS OPINION AS
THAT OF THIS COURT."  ID. AT 286. 

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAD HELD IN
UNITED STATES V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO, 143 F.2D 79, THAT
ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOLD TO DAIRY PLANTS OPERATING SUBSTANTIALLY AS THESE
WAS SOLD FOR INDUSTRIAL RATHER THAN COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION, AND
CONSEQUENTLY WAS NOT TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 3411.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN
THIS CASE IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN CIRCUITS
AND TO SETTLE THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE AS IT APPLIES TO THE BUSINESS
OF THIS GENERAL TYPE OF DAIRY PLANT.  335 U.S. 842. 

THE TAX NOW EMBODIED IN SEC. 3411 WAS ORIGINALLY IMPOSED UPON THE
CONSUMER OF ELECTRICITY BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 266. 
THIS ACT WAS AMENDED IN 1933 TO MAKE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX FALL
DIRECTLY UPON THE VENDOR.  48 STAT. 254, 256.  NO CHANGE OF ANY
SIGNIFICANCE FOR OUR PURPOSES HAS OCCURRED SINCE THE ORIGINAL ENACTMENT
OF THIS PROVISION. 

ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WORD
"INDUSTRIAL," IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT
"COMMERCIAL" WAS USED IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO "INDUSTRIAL."  FN7 WHILE
ELECTRICITY SOLD FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION IS TAXED, THAT SOLD FOR
INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION IS NOT.  THUS OUR TASK RESOLVES ITSELF TO A
DETERMINATION OF THE CATEGORY IN WHICH THE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY
BY THESE DAIRY PLANTS SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED.  WE SHALL NOT UNDERTAKE THE
DIFFICULT AND HERE NEEDLESS TASK OF GENERAL DEFINITION WHICH
DIFFERENTIATES FOR THIS STATUTORY CLAUSE BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL IN OTHER LINES OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY.  THAT IS A PROBLEM
PRIMARILY FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE SECTION, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE
SPECIFIC AND VARYING FACTS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES THAT THE TERM "COMMERCIAL" WAS
MEANT TO APPLY TO THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS IN WHICH THE ENERGY IS
CONSUMED, AND NOT TO THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE TO WHICH EACH MEASURABLE UNIT
OF ELECTRICITY IS DEVOTED.  FN8  WHERE IT IS DELIVERED THROUGH A SINGLE
METER AT ONE LOCATION, ENERGY UTILIZED TO OPERATE SEWING MACHINES FOR A
MINOR MANUFACTURING UNIT, E.G., SHIRTS, IN A DEPARTMENT STORE, WOULD BE
DEEMED POWER SOLD FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT FALL
WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY IF SOLD TO A CONSUMER WHO DID NOTHING
BUT MANUFACTURE SHIRTS.  SINCE ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE SECTION
WOULD ENTAIL THE ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLE ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTY OF
CLASSIFYING ALL THE ELECTRICITY SOLD TO A PLANT ACCORDING TO THE
SPECIFIC OPERATIONS TO WHICH SUCH POWER WAS DEVOTED BY THE CONSUMER,
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTROLLING FACTOR IS THE GENERAL NATURE OF A
BUSINESS AT A LOCATION ACCORDS WITH THE NATURAL MEANING TO BE GIVEN THE
WORDS EMPLOYED BY CONGRESS TO EXPRESS ITS PURPOSE. 

THE REGULATIONS INTERPRET THE SECTION IN LINE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.  U.S. TREAS. REG. 46(1940 ED.)  SEC.  316.190(AS AMENDED BY
T.D. 5099), PRESENTLY APPLICABLE, PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART: 

"SCOPE OF TAX.  - THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTION 3411(A) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, APPLIES, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINAFTER, TO
ALL ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOLD FOR DOMESTIC OR COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION AND
NOT FOR RESALE. 

"THE TERM 'ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOLD FOR DOMESTIC OR COMMERCIAL
CONSUMPTION' DOES NOT INCLUDE (1) ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOLD FOR INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMPTION, E.G., FOR USE IN MANUFACTURING, MINING, REFINING,
SHIPBUILDING, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, IRRIGATION, ETC., OR (2) THAT SOLD
FOR OTHER USES WHICH LIKEWISE CAN NOT BE CLASSED AS DOMESTIC OR
COMMERCIAL, SUCH AS THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY USED BY ELECTRIC AND GAS
COMPANIES, WATERWORKS, TELEGRAPH, TELEPHONE, AND RADIO COMMUNICATION
COMPANIES, RAILROADS, OTHER SIMILAR COMMON CARRIERS, EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS NOT OPERATED FOR PRIVATE PROFIT, CHURCHES, AND CHARITABLE
INSTITUTIONS IN THEIR OPERATIONS AS SUCH.  HOWEVER, ELECTRICAL ENERGY
IS SUBJECT TO TAX IF SOLD FOR CONSUMPTION IN COMMERCIAL PHASES OF
INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER BUSINESSES, SUCH AS IN OFFICE BUILDINGS, SALES AND
DISPLAY ROOMS, RETAIL STORES, ETC., OR IN DOMESTIC PHASES, SUCH AS IN
DORMITORIES OR LIVING QUARTERS MAINTAINED BY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS,
CHURCHES, CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, OR OTHERS. 

"WHERE ELECTRICAL ENERGY IS SOLD TO A CONSUMER FOR TWO OR MORE
PURPOSES, THROUGH SEPARATE METERS, THE SPECIFIC USE FOR WHICH THE
ENERGY IS SOLD THROUGH EACH METER, I.E., WHETHER FOR DOMESTIC OR
COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION, OR FOR OTHER USE, SHALL DETERMINE ITS TAXABLE
STATUS.  WHERE THE CONSUMER HAS ALL THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY CONSUMED AT A
GIVEN LOCATION FURNISHED THROUGH ONE METER, THE PREDOMINANT CHARACTER
OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON AT SUCH LOCATION SHALL DETERMINE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF CONSUMPTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS TAX."  FN9 

THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS REGULATION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ALL
ELECTRICAL ENERGY FURNISHED TO A PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT
THROUGH A SINGLE METER IS SUBJECT TO THE TAX ALTHOUGH PORTIONS OF SUCH
ENERGY ARE DEVOTED TO PURPOSES WHICH, CONSIDERED SEPARATELY, MIGHT BE
CLASSIFIED AS INDUSTRIAL.  FN10  WHILE THE REGULATION DOES NOT DEAL
WITH THE POINT, WE THINK IT OBVIOUS FROM THE LAST QUOTED PARAGRAPH THAT
WHERE THE ENERGY IS FURNISHED AT A SINGLE LOCATION THROUGH VARIOUS
METERS, ALTHOUGH NONE OF THEM ARE SHOWN TO CARRY CURRENT FOR
PREDOMINANTLY INDUSTRIAL USES, THE SAME RULE WOULD BE APPLIED.  THE
LAST SENTENCE OF THE REGULATION ADDS A QUALIFICATION, HOWEVER, WHICH
DIRECTS OUR ATTENTION, NOT NECESSARILY TO THE NATURE OF A BUSINESS AS A
WHOLE, BUT TO THE NATURE AS A WHOLE OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON "AT A
GIVEN LOCATION." 

WE ACCEPT THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE QUOTED REGULATION AS PROPER UNDER
THE STATUTE.  FN11  AS APPLIED TO THESE PLANTS WE THINK THAT THE
ELECTRICITY FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER WAS "SOLD FOR COMMERCIAL
CONSUMPTION" AND CONSEQUENTLY WAS PROPERLY TAXED.  ADMITTEDLY THE
ACTIVITIES OF THESE CONSUMERS WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL IF THEY
DID NOT PASTEURIZE THE MILK PRIOR TO ITS SALE.  SUCH BUSINESS WOULD
ACCURATELY BE CALLED THE DISTRIBUTION OF FRESH MILK.  THE BUTTER AND
CREAM EXTRACTION APPEARS INCIDENTAL.  WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A
"CREAMERY" IN THE SENSE OF A BUTTER OR CHEESE FACTORY.  WE AGREE WITH
THE COURTS BELOW THAT THE ADDITION OF PASTEURIZATION TO THE OTHER
ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED ABOVE DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE DAIRY
PLANTS' BUSINESS FROM COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL ANY MORE THAN WOULD THE
COOKING OF FOOD FOR SALE IN A RESTAURANT, OR THE CLEANING OF RAW FOOD
PRODUCTS PRIOR TO DISTRIBUTION OR SALE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT
"PASTEURIZATION PLAYS A MINOR PART IN THE TOTAL BUSINESS OF THE
DAIRIES," AND THAT "THE PREDOMINANT BUSINESS OF THE DAIRIES HERE
INVOLVED  ...  IS, AND WAS, THAT OF FLUID MILK DEALERS AND
DISTRIBUTORS."  FN12 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE TEST APPLIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS,
"WHETHER THE PREDOMINANT CHARACTER OF THE ENTERPRISE CARRIED ON BY SUCH
CONSUMER IS COMMERCIAL," IS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE REGULATION IN
THAT IT DIRECTS ATTENTION TO THE BUSINESS AS A WHOLE RATHER THAN TO THE
ACTIVITIES AT A GIVEN LOCATION.  WHILE THE LANGUAGE QUOTED IS
SUSCEPTIBLE TO THIS CRITICISM, THE VARIATION IS HARMLESS BECAUSE THE
PLANT ITSELF IS THE LOCATION OR THE FOCAL POINT OF ALL THE RELEVANT
ACTIVITIES OF EACH OF THESE CONSUMERS OF ELECTRICITY.  PASTEURIZATION
DOES NOT OCCUR AT A SEPARATE LOCATION, BUT AT THE SAME PLANT WHERE THE
MILK IS RECEIVED, WEIGHED, TESTED, COOLED, HOMOGENIZED, SEPARATED AND
BOTTLED.  THE MILK IS BROUGHT TO THIS PLANT WHEN PURCHASED, AND FROM
THE PLANT IT IS DISTRIBUTED TO CUSTOMERS.  THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE
SALES OR DELIVERIES OCCUR OFF THE PREMISES DOES NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL
FACT THAT ALL ACTIVITIES OCCUR IN OR PIVOT AROUND THE PLANT.    THUS,
THOUGH PASTEURIZING, WE ASSUME, IS PROCESSING AND THOUGH PROCESSING
SEPARATELY VIEWED MAY BE CONCEDED TO BE INDUSTRIAL,  FN13  WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THESE DAIRY PLANTS IS ESSENTIALLY
COMMERCIAL.  THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION REACHED IN UNITED STATES V. PUBLIC
SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO, 143 F.2D 79, MAY BE ASCRIBED TO THE FACT THAT
THERE THE COURT APPARENTLY LOOKED TO THE USE TO WHICH THE ELECTRICAL
ENERGY WAS DEVOTED RATHER THAN TO THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS AT A GIVEN
LOCATION.  FN14    RULINGS OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE SUPPORT
OUR CONCLUSION.  IN 1932, S.T. 518 STATED THAT, 

"ELECTRICAL ENERGY FURNISHED FOR CONSUMPTION BY BOTTLING WORKS, MILK
COMPANIES, OR CREAMERIES ENGAGED IN THE PASTEURIZATION AND BOTTLING OF
MILK, AND IN THE MANUFACTURE OF BUTTER, BUTTERMILK, CHOCOLATE MILK, AND
COTTAGE CHEESE, IS NOT FURNISHED FOR DOMESTIC OR COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION
..."  FN15 

APPARENTLY, HOWEVER, THE BUREAU INTENDED THIS RULING TO APPLY ONLY TO
THOSE PLANTS WHOSE BUSINESS WAS PREDOMINANTLY PASTEURIZATION AND THE
MANUFACTURE OF MILK BY-PRODUCTS, BECAUSE S.T. 637, ISSUED THE FOLLOWING
YEAR, CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: 

"A DAIRY WHICH OBTAINS MILK AND CONVERTS IT INTO USE FOR RETAIL
PURPOSES IS HELD TO BE ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS COMMERCIAL IN CHARACTER. 
ELECTRICAL ENERGY USED IN SUCH OPERATIONS WILL BE SUBJECT TO TAX." 
FN16 

IN CLARIFICATION OF THESE TWO RULINGS THE BUREAU EXPLAINED: 

"ELECTRICAL ENERGY FURNISHED A COMMERCIAL DAIRY OR MILK COMPANY WHICH
MERELY PRODUCES OR PURCHASES RAW MILK IN BULK AND PASTEURIZES IT FOR
SALE EITHER IN BULK OR BOTTLED QUANTITIES, WHOSE ACTIVITIES CONSIST
PRINCIPALLY IN THE HANDLING, DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF MILK, IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO THE TAX. 

"IT IS ONLY ELECTRICAL ENERGY THAT IS FURNISHED FOR DIRECT
CONSUMPTION BY DAIRIES WHICH IN ADDITION TO PASTEURIZING AND BOTTLING
MILK ARE ALSO ENGAGED IN ALL THE ESSENTIAL MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DAIRY PRODUCTS, SUCH AS THE
MANUFACTURING OF BUTTER, CHEESE AND OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS, FOR SALE ON
THE OPEN MARKET AS AN ARTICLE OF COMMERCE, THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
TAX."  FN17 

THUS WE HOLD THAT ELECTRICAL ENERGY SUPPLIED TO THESE DAIRY PLANTS
THROUGH SINGLE METERS, OR THROUGH MORE THAN ONE BUT WITHOUT
DIFFERENTIATION AS TO USE, IS ENERGY SOLD FOR COMMERCIAL CONSUMPTION. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AMENDED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1941, C. 412, 55 STAT. 687, 707,
SEC. 521(A)(19), TO CHANGE THE THREE PERCENT TAX TO THREE AND ONE-THIRD
PERCENT. 

FN2  26 U.S.C. SEC. 3411. 

FN3  SEE, INFRA, P. 180, ET SEQ. 

FN4  A FEW OF THE CONSUMERS OF ELECTRICITY HERE INVOLVED PRODUCE
THEIR OWN MILK. 

FN5  ONE OF THE PLANTS PASTEURIZES BY THE SO-CALLED "FLASH METHOD,"
HEATING THE MILK TO 161 DEGREES F. FOR 16 SECONDS AND RAPIDLY COOLING
IT TO 32 DEGREES F. 

FN6  A MINOR PROPORTION OF THE MILK PURCHASED BY THESE PLANTS IS
MANUFACTURED INTO BUTTER, CHEESE, OR OTHER BY-PRODUCTS.  AN UNDISCLOSED
AMOUNT OF THIS MILK IS SEPARATED FROM THE CREAM IT CONTAINS; SOME IS
ALSO HOMOGENIZED. 

FN7  H.R. CONFERENCE REP. NO. 1492, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 22;
SENATOR HARRISON, 77 CONG. REC. 3212-14,3215. 

FN8  THE LEGISLATIVE EXPLANATIONS TREAT OF BUSINESS CONSUMERS AS
UNITS AND DO NOT DIFFERENTIATE AS TO USE WITHIN THE UNITS. 

SENATOR HARRISON, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WHICH
REPORTED THE BILL, SAID: 

"I AM TELLING SENATORS NOTHING NEW WHEN I REMIND THEM THAT WE HAD A
FIGHT HERE IN 1932 OVER THE IMPOSITION OF THIS TAX.  THE SENATE IMPOSED
A 3-PERCENT ELECTRIC-ENERGY TAX, AND IT WAS FINALLY ADOPTED, TO BE
COLLECTED FROM THE CONSUMER OF ELECTRIC ENERGY.  WE APPLIED THAT ONLY
ON DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY; THAT IS, ELECTRIC ENERGY USED IN
STORES AND DWELLINGS THAT ARE CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL AND DOMESTIC. 
THERE WAS NO TAX IN THE 1932 ACT IMPOSED UPON ENERGY EMPLOYED IN
INDUSTRY."  77 CONG. REC. 3212-13. 

SENATOR COUZENS, A MEMBER OF A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE FINANCE
COMMITTEE, WHICH WAS CONSTITUTED TO CONSIDER THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY TAX,
SAID:  "I MEAN THEY ELIMINATED THAT FEATURE OF THE TAX; THEY ELIMINATED
THE TAX ON ELECTRICAL ENERGY SOLD TO MANUFACTURING PLANTS AND LEFT THE
TAX ON ELECTRICITY USED COMMERCIALLY, THAT IS BY STORES AND ON
ELECTRICITY USED FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES ...."  77 CONG. REC. 3218. 

FN9  THIS REGULATION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IN ITS EARLIER
VERSIONS.  U.S. TREAS. REG. 42, ART. 40(1932); T.D. 4342, XI-2 CUM.
BULL.  495(1932); T.D. 4393, XII-2 CUM. BULL.  322(1933).  THE QUOTED
VERSION, HOWEVER, OMITTED THE WORD "PROCESSING," WHICH WAS FORMERLY
INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF ACTIVITIES EXEMPLIFYING INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMPTION.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER THIS DELETION SIGNIFICANT FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS CASE. 

FN10  CF. ST. LOUIS REFRIGERATING & COLD STORAGE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 95 CT. CL. 694, 43 F.SUPP.  476; FULTON MARKET COLD STORAGE CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 95 CT. CL. 710, 43 F.SUPP.  485. 

FN11  WE DO NOT INTEND BY THESE WORDS OF LIMITATION TO APPROVE OR
DISAPPROVE OTHER PROVISIONS.  THERE ARE AMBIGUITIES IN THIS SECTION OF
THE REGULATION.  IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SEPARATE
METERS, IT HOLDS THAT ENERGY USED IN THE COMMERCIAL PHASES OF AN
INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS IS TAXABLE.  THE REVERSE WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW AS TO
INDUSTRIAL PHASES OF A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.  YET THE THIRD PARAGRAPH
ALLOWS THE AVOIDANCE OF SUCH A TAX ON INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY BY THE
EMPLOYMENT OF SEPARATE METERS. 

FN12  FOR STATE CASES TO THE EFFECT THAT THIS BUSINESS IS PRIMARILY
COMMERICAL, SEE E.G. CITY OF LOUISVILLE V. EWING VON-ALLMEN D. CO., 268
KY. 652, 105 S.W.2D 801; PEOPLE EX REL. E.S. DAIRY CO. V. SOHMER, 218
N.Y. 199, 112 N.E. 755; RICHMOND V. DAIRY CO., 156 VA. 63, 157 S.E.
728.  BUT SEE DAIRY ASSN. V. BD. OF TAX ADMIN., 302 MICH. 643, 5 N.W.2D
516. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN14  "THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY WAS NOT USED IN THE COMMERCIAL PHASE OF
THE DAIRYING ENTERPRISE, BUT IN THE PROCESSING OR INDUSTRIAL PHASE OF
THE ENTERPRISE."  143 F.2D 79, 82. 

FN15  XI-2 CUM. BULL.  498(1932). 

FN16  XII-1 CUM. BULL.  409, 410(1933). 

FN17  BUREAU LETTER, DATED MAY 13, 1933(SYMBOLS MT:  ST:  BHF)(333
C.C.H. P6266), 4 C.C.H. STANDARD FEDERAL TAX REPORTER P2633G
.175(1949). 
..END :









MCCOMB V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 336 U.S. 187 


NO. 110.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14-15, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1949.  -
167 F.2D 448, REVERSED. 


A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT ENJOINED RESPONDENTS FROM VIOLATING THE MINIMUM WAGE,
OVERTIME, AND RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  RESPONDENTS TOOK
NO APPEAL.  THREE YEARS LATER THE ADMINISTRATOR INSTITUTED A CIVIL
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE DECREE AND PRAYING THAT
RESPONDENTS, IN ORDER TO PURGE THEMSELVES OF CONTEMPT, BE REQUIRED TO
MAKE PAYMENT OF UNPAID STATUTORY WAGES TO THE EMPLOYEES AFFECTED. 
HELD: 

1.  THE FACT THAT THE VIOLATIONS OF THE DECREE WERE NOT "WILLFUL"
DOES NOT ABSOLVE RESPONDENTS FROM LIABILITY FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT.  P.
191. 

(A)  THE GRANT OR WITHHOLDING OF RELIEF IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT
PROCEEDING IS NOT WHOLLY DISCRETIONARY.  THE PRIVATE OR PUBLIC RIGHTS
THAT THE DECREE SOUGHT TO PROTECT ARE AN IMPORTANT MEASURE OF THE
REMEDY.  P. 191. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE UNLAWFUL PLAN OR SCHEME WHICH RESPONDENTS
ADOPTED WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED BY THE DECREE DOES NOT RENDER
THEM IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  PP. 191
193. 

3.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER TO ORDER RESPONDENTS, IN ORDER TO
PURGE THEIR CONTEMPT, TO PAY TO THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES AMOUNTS OF WAGES
WHICH WERE UNPAID IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  PP. 193-195. 

(A)  ALTHOUGH THE DECREE DID NOT COMPUTE THE WEEKLY AND MONTHLY
AMOUNT DUE EACH EMPLOYEE UNDER THE CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT, AND
DID NOT CONTAIN THE NAMES OF THE PAYEES, IT DID PROVIDE A FORMULA,
COUCHED IN TERMS OF THE ACT, WHEREBY THE AMOUNTS COULD READILY BE
ASCERTAINED.  P. 194. 

(B)  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT A SUIT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BY THE
EMPLOYEES TO COLLECT THE AMOUNTS DUE; OR THAT IN THIS PROCEEDING THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS THE COMPLAINANT AND THE BACK WAGES GO TO THE
EMPLOYEES.  PP. 194-195. 

MCCOMB, WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR, V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A
CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST RESPONDENTS, ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF A
DECREE WHICH ENJOINED RESPONDENTS FROM VIOLATING THE MINIMUM WAGE,
OVERTIME, AND RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF CIVIL CONTEMPT
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO "WILLFUL" VIOLATION OF THE DECREE, AND THAT IT HAD
NO POWER ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE
WITH ITS FORMER DECREE BY ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF UNPAID STATUTORY
WAGES.  IT CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AS AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT SEEKING A BROADENING OF THE PREVIOUS DECREE AND
ENTERED SUCH AN INJUNCTION.  69 F.SUPP.  599.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  167 F.2D 448.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S.
809.  REVERSED, P. 195. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF WALLING V.
JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564, WHICH WE DECIDED JANUARY 18,
1943.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD HELD THAT NONE OF RESPONDENTS' EMPLOYEES
IN SPECIFIED CLASSES WERE COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  52
STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201.  WE SUSTAINED A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS WHICH REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT, MODIFYING IT
SLIGHTLY TO INCLUDE A LARGER CLASS OF EMPLOYEES THAN THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS HAD HELD TO BE COVERED. 

ON REMAND THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHOUT A FURTHER HEARING, ENTERED A
DECREE ENJOINING RESPONDENTS FROM VIOLATING THE ACT IN ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING PARTICULARS:  (1) BY PAYING THE DESIGNATED CLASSES OF
EMPLOYEES LESS THAN 30[ AN HOUR FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT TO
OCTOBER 24, 1945, OR LESS THAN 40[ AN HOUR THEREAFTER, EXCEPT AS
PERMITTED BY ORDERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 8 OR SEC. 14 OF THE
ACT; (2) BY EMPLOYING SUCH EMPLOYEES FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN 40
HOURS UNLESS THEY RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF 40
HOURS IN THE WORKWEEK AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES
THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED; AND (3) BY FAILING TO KEEP
AND PRESERVE RECORDS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, PARTICULARLY
RECORDS OF THE HOURS WORKED EACH WORKDAY AND EACH WORKWEEK BY EACH OF
THE EMPLOYEES AND OF THE TOTAL WAGES PAID TO EACH FOR EACH WORKWEEK. 

RESPONDENT TOOK NO APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER.  THIS WAS IN 1943.  IN
1946 THE ADMINISTRATOR INSTITUTED THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING ALLEGING
THAT RESPONDENTS HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE, OVERTIME, AND
RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT IN MANY SPECIFIED RESPECTS. 
HE PRAYED THAT RESPONDENTS BE REQUIRED TO TERMINATE THEIR CONTINUING
VIOLATIONS AND IN ORDER TO PURGE THEMSELVES OF THEIR CONTEMPTS TO MAKE
PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS OF UNPAID WAGES DUE THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE.  IT
FOUND THAT (1) RESPONDENTS HAD SET UP A COMPLETELY FALSE AND FICTITIOUS
METHOD OF COMPUTING COMPENSATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE HOURS ACTUALLY
WORKED WHICH WERE UNLAWFUL UNDER THE ACT; (2) RESPONDENTS HAD ADOPTED A
PLAN WHICH GAVE THE EMPLOYEES A WAGE INCREASE IN THE GUISE OF A BONUS
AND YET EXCLUDED THAT INCREASE FROM THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COMPUTING OVERTIME; (3) RESPONDENTS HAD CLASSIFIED SOME
EMPLOYEES AS EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES IN PLAIN VIOLATION
OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ADOPTED UNDER SEC. 13(A)(1) OF
THE ACT; AND (4) ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS HAD EMPLOYED PIECEWORKERS IN
EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM WORKWEEK WITHOUT PAYING THEM OVERTIME
COMPENSATION.  FN1 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT A CIVIL CONTEMPT REQUIRED A "WILFUL"
VIOLATION OF A DECREE; AND THAT THERE WAS IN THIS CASE NO SHOWING OF
ANY "WILFUL" VIOLATION OF ANY "SPECIFIC" PROVISION OF THE FORMER DECREE
"PROHIBITING THE DOING OF ANY SPECIFIC THING."  THE DISTRICT COURT
FURTHER HELD THAT IT HAD NO POWER ON THE APPLICATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS FORMER DECREE BY ORDERING
THE PAYMENT OF UNPAID STATUTORY WAGES.  IT ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE
APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AS AN AMENDED COMPLAINT SEEKING A
BROADENING OF THE PREVIOUS DECREE AND ENTERED SUCH AN INJUNCTION.  69
F.SUPP.  599. 

ALL PARTIES APPEALED.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED
THE JUDGMENT.  IT RULED THAT RESPONDENTS HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF
THE DECREE COUCHED IN TERMS OF THE ACT IN THE RESPECTS FOUND BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  IT ALSO HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WARRANTED IN
CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS NO "WILFUL CONTEMPT" SINCE NEITHER THE LAW
NOR THE INJUNCTION SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO OR CONDEMNED THE PRACTICES
WHICH WERE FOUND TO VIOLATE THE ACT.  167 F.2D 448. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE ACT. 

FIRST.  THE ABSENCE OF WILFULNESS DOES NOT RELIEVE FROM CIVIL
CONTEMPT.  CIVIL AS DISTINGUISHED FROM CRIMINAL CONTEMPT IS A SANCTION
TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER OF THE COURT OR TO COMPENSATE FOR
LOSSES OR DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY REASON OF NONCOMPLIANCE.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258, 303-304; PENFIELD CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 330 U.S. 585, 590; MAGGIO V. ZEITZ,
333 U.S. 56, 68.  SINCE THE PURPOSE IS REMEDIAL, IT MATTERS NOT WITH
WHAT INTENT THE DEFENDANT DID THE PROHIBITED ACT.  FN2  THE DECREE WAS
NOT FASHIONED SO AS TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD ITS BENEFITS DEPENDENT ON THE
STATE OF MIND OF RESPONDENTS.  IT LAID ON THEM A DUTY TO OBEY SPECIFIED
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.  AN ACT DOES NOT CEASE TO BE A VIOLATION OF
A LAW AND OF A DECREE MERELY BECAUSE IT MAY HAVE BEEN DONE INNOCENTLY. 
THE FORCE AND VITALITY OF JUDICIAL DECREES DERIVE FROM MORE ROBUST
SANCTIONS.  AND THE GRANT OR WITHHOLDING OF REMEDIAL RELIEF IS NOT
WHOLLY DISCRETIONARY WITH THE JUDGE, AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS WROTE FOR
A UNANIMOUS COURT IN UNION TOOL CO. V. WILSON, 259 U.S. 107, 111-112. 
THE PRIVATE OR PUBLIC RIGHTS THAT THE DECREE SOUGHT TO PROTECT ARE AN
IMPORTANT MEASURE OF THE REMEDY. 

SECOND.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE DECREE DIRECTED RESPONDENTS TO OBEY
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DEALING WITH MINIMUM WAGES, OVERTIME, AND THE
KEEPING OF RECORDS.  THERE WAS NO APPEAL FROM IT. BY ITS TERMS IT
ENJOINED ANY PRACTICES WHICH WERE VIOLATIONS OF THOSE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS.  DECREES OF THAT GENERALITY ARE OFTEN NECESSARY TO PREVENT
FURTHER VIOLATIONS WHERE A PROCLIVITY FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT HAS BEEN
SHOWN.  SEE MAY STORES CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 326 U.S. 376, 390, 391;
UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 186. 
RESPONDENTS' RECORD OF CONTINUING AND PERSISTENT VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT
WOULD INDICATE THAT THAT KIND OF A DECREE WAS WHOLLY WARRANTED IN THIS
CASE.  YET IF THERE WERE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES OR IF THE DECREE WAS
TOO BURDENSOME IN OPERATION, THERE WAS A METHOD OF RELIEF APART FROM AN
APPEAL.  RESPONDENTS COULD HAVE PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A
MODIFICATION, CLARIFICATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORDER.  SEE REGAL
KNITWEAR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 324 U.S. 9, 15.  BUT RESPONDENTS DID NOT
TAKE THAT COURSE EITHER.  THEY UNDERTOOK TO MAKE THEIR OWN
DETERMINATION OF WHAT THE DECREE MEANT.  THEY KNEW THEY ACTED AT THEIR
PERIL.  FOR THEY WERE ALERTED BY THE DECREE AGAINST ANY VIOLATION OF
SPECIFIED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

IT DOES NOT LIE IN THEIR MOUTHS TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE AN IMMUNITY
FROM CIVIL CONTEMPT BECAUSE THE PLAN OR SCHEME WHICH THEY ADOPTED WAS
NOT SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED.  SUCH A RULE WOULD GIVE TREMENDOUS IMPETUS
TO THE PROGRAM OF EXPERIMENTATION WITH DISOBEDIENCE OF THE LAW WHICH WE
CONDEMNED IN MAGGIO V. ZEITZ, SUPRA, AT 69.  THE INSTANT CASE IS AN
EXCELLENT ILLUSTRATION OF HOW IT COULD OPERATE TO PREVENT
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PERSISTENT CONTUMACY.  CIVIL CONTEMPT IS AVOIDED
TODAY BY SHOWING THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED BY RESPONDENTS WAS NOT
ENJOINED.  HENCE A NEW DECREE IS ENTERED ENJOINING THAT PARTICULAR
PLAN.  THEREAFTER THE DEFENDANTS WORK OUT A PLAN THAT WAS NOT
SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED.  IMMUNITY IS ONCE MORE OBTAINED BECAUSE THE NEW
PLAN WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED.  AND SO A WHOLE SERIES OF WRONGS IS
PERPETRATED AND A DECREE OF ENFORCEMENT GOES FOR NAUGHT. 

THAT RESULT NOT ONLY PROCLAIMS THE NECESSITY OF DECREES THAT ARE NOT
SO NARROW AS TO INVITE EASY EVASION; IT ALSO EMPHASIZES THE DANGER IN
THE ATTITUDE EXPRESSED BY THE COURTS BELOW THAT THE REMEDIAL BENEFITS
OF A DECREE WILL BE WITHHELD WHERE THE PRECISE ARRANGEMENT WORKED OUT
TO DISCHARGE THE DUTY TO PAY WHICH BOTH THE STATUTE AND THE DECREE
IMPOSED WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED. 

WE NEED NOT IMPEACH THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURTS THAT RESPONDENTS
HAD NO PURPOSE TO EVADE THE DECREE, IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT THEIR
VIOLATIONS OF IT WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.  THEY TOOK A
CALCULATED RISK WHEN UNDER THE THREAT OF CONTEMPT THEY ADOPTED MEASURES
DESIGNED TO AVOID THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACT.  RESPONDENTS ARE
NOT UNWITTING VICTIMS OF THE LAW.  HAVING BEEN CAUGHT IN ITS TOILS,
THEY WERE ENDEAVORING TO EXTRICATE THEMSELVES.  THEY KNEW FULL WELL THE
RISK OF CROSSING THE FORBIDDEN LINE.  ACCORDINGLY WHERE AS HERE THE AIM
IS REMEDIAL AND NOT PUNITIVE, THERE CAN BE NO COMPLAINT THAT THE BURDEN
OF ANY UNCERTAINTY IN THE DECREE IS ON RESPONDENTS' SHOULDERS. 

THIRD.  WE HAVE NO DOUBTS CONCERNING THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
TO ORDER RESPONDENTS, IN ORDER TO PURGE THEMSELVES OF CONTEMPT, TO PAY
THE DAMAGES CAUSED BY THEIR VIOLATIONS OF THE DECREE.  WE CAN LAY TO
ONE SIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHEN SUING TO RESTRAIN
VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT, IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE OF RESTITUTION FOR
UNPAID WAGES.  CF. PORTER V. WARNER HOLDING CO., 328 U.S. 395.  WE ARE
DEALING HERE WITH THE POWER OF A COURT TO GRANT THE RELIEF THAT IS
NECESSARY TO EFFECT COMPLIANCE WITH ITS DECREE.  THE MEASURE OF THE
COURT'S POWER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IS DETERMINED BY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FULL REMEDIAL RELIEF.  THEY MAY ENTAIL THE DOING OF A
VARIETY OF ACTS, SUCH AS THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS.  PENFIELD CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, SUPRA.  THEY MAY ALSO REQUIRE THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY AS IN THE ALIMONY CASES.  SEE GOMPERS V. BUCKS S. & R.
CO., 221 U.S. 418, 442; ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358, 364-365. 

THE DECREE THAT WAS VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE RELATES TO THE
PAYMENT OF WAGES AND OVERTIME PAY REQUIRED BY SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE
ACT.  IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, COMPUTE THE WEEKLY AND MONTHLY AMOUNT THAT
IS DUE EACH EMPLOYEE UNDER THE CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT.  NOR
DOES IT CONTAIN THE NAMES OF THE PAYEES.  BUT IT PROVIDES THE FORMULA
BY WHICH THE AMOUNTS CAN BE SIMPLY COMPUTED.  IF IT HAD GONE ONE STEP
FURTHER AND MADE THE COMPUTATION, LISTING THE AMOUNTS DUE EACH
EMPLOYEE, THE CASE WOULD THEN BE ON ALL FOURS WITH THE ALIMONY CASES. 
YET THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CHANGING PAYROLLS AND FLUCTUATING RATES OF
PAY MAKE THAT IMPRACTICAL IN THIS TYPE OF CASE DOES NOT MARK A MATERIAL
DIFFERENCE. 

THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT WAS THAT RESPONDENTS MAKE PAYMENTS OF
WAGES TO THEIR EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A PRESCRIBED FORMULA.  IF THE
COURT IS POWERLESS TO REQUIRE THE PRESCRIBED PAYMENTS TO BE MADE, IT
HAS LOST THE MOST EFFECTIVE SANCTION FOR ITS DECREE AND A PREMIUM HAS
BEEN PLACED ON VIOLATIONS.  THE FACT THAT ANOTHER SUIT MIGHT BE BROUGHT
TO COLLECT THE PAYMENTS  FN3  IS, OF COURSE, IMMATERIAL.  FOR THE COURT
NEED NOT SIT SUPINELY BY WAITING FOR SOME LITIGANT TO TAKE THE
INITIATIVE.  VINDICATION OF ITS AUTHORITY THROUGH ENFORCEMENT OF ITS
DECREE DOES NOT DEPEND ON SUCH WHIMSICAL OR FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. 
THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR IS THE COMPLAINANT FN4  AND THAT THE
BACK WAGES GO TO THE EMPLOYEES IS NOT MATERIAL.  IT IS THE POWER OF THE
COURT WITH WHICH WE ARE DEALING - THE POWER OF THE COURT TO ENFORCE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE INJUNCTION WHICH THE ACT AUTHORIZES,  FN5  WHICH
THE COURT HAS ISSUED, AND WHICH RESPONDENTS HAVE LONG DISOBEYED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  IT ALSO FOUND VIOLATIONS OF THE RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE
DECREE, SOME OF WHICH IT HELD TO BE TRIVIAL AND OTHERS OF WHICH HAD
BEEN DISCONTINUED. 

FN2  SEE 2 HIGH ON INJUNCTIONS (4TH ED., 1905) SECS. 1416 ET SEQ. 

FN3  SECTION 16(B) AUTHORIZES SUITS BY EMPLOYEES TO RECOVER WAGES AND
OVERTIME UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD. 

FN4  IT IS THE ADMINISTRATOR WHO IS DIRECTED AND AUTHORIZED BY SEC.
11(A) OF THE ACT TO BRING ACTIONS TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT OF
THE CHARACTER INVOLVED HERE.  CF. INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
306 U.S. 153, 157; UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 193-194;
COMMISSION V. BRASHEAR LINES, 312 U.S. 621, 628-630. 

FN5  SEE SEC. 17. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

OBEDIENCE MUST OF COURSE BE SECURED FOR THE COMMAND OF A COURT.  TO
SECURE SUCH OBEDIENCE IS THE FUNCTION OF A PROCEEDING FOR CONTEMPT. 
BUT COURTS SHOULD BE EXPLICIT AND PRECISE IN THEIR COMMANDS AND SHOULD
ONLY THEN BE STRICT IN EXACTING COMPLIANCE.  TO BE BOTH STRICT AND
INDEFINITE IS A KIND OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY.    IN SUCH A CASE AS THIS,
ONLY AFTER AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER HAS BEEN FORMULATED AND A COURT HAS
ADJUDICATED THAT THE ORDER IS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S STATUTORY
AUTHORITY DOES THE COMMAND OF A COURT COME INTO EXISTENCE, DISOBEDIENCE
OF WHICH MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT.  FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT AS SUCH, ONE MAY BE MADE TO SUFFER CIVIL PENALTIES OR
IMPRISONMENT, BUT THE LATTER ONLY AFTER CONVICTION BY A JURY.  FOR
VIOLATION OF THE COMMAND OF AN INJUNCTION ISSUED UNDER THE ACT,
HOWEVER, HE MAY NOT ONLY BE EXPOSED TO MORE SEVERE CIVIL PENALTIES THAN
THE ACT BY ITS OWN TERMS IMPOSES, BUT MADE TO SUFFER IMPRISONMENT
WITHOUT BENEFIT OF JURY TRIAL.  IT IS FOR SUCH REASONS THAT THIS COURT
HAS INDICATED AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT A STATUTE CANNOT PROPERLY BE MADE
THE BASIS OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS MERELY BY INCORPORATING A REFERENCE
TO ITS BROAD TERMS INTO A COURT ORDER.  SEE, E.G., SWIFT & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 396; NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 200 U.S. 361, 404; LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS
PUBLISHING COMPANY, 312 U.S. 426, 435.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS BECOME
INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT AS THERE IS INCREASING USE OF INJUNCTIONS FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND STATUTORY DUTIES. 

THESE ARE GENERAL PRINCIPLES BUT THEIR APPLICATION GOVERNED THE
DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND OF THE COURT OF APPEALS; THEY
SHOULD CONTROL THE DECISION HERE.  THE TWO LOWER COURTS FOUND THAT
WHILE THE PRACTICES NOW COMPLAINED OF BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THEY WERE NOT ON ANY FAIR CONSIDERATION
COVERED BY THE INJUNCTION, CONTEMPT OF WHICH IS NOW CHARGED.  THE
INJUNCTION UNDERLYING THIS PROCEEDING TAKES EIGHT PAGES OF A PRINTED
RECORD AND PARTICULARIZES IN GREAT DETAIL THE VIOLATIONS WHICH WERE
ENJOINED.  IT ALSO CONTAINS OMNIBUS CLAUSES PROHIBITING VIOLATIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  ON FULL CONSIDERATION, THE DISTRICT
COURT TREATED THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJUDICATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT "AS
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT SEEKING A BROADENING OF THE INJUNCTIVE ORDERS
HERETOFORE ENTERED IN THIS CASE, AND WILL ENTER IN AMENDED JUDGMENT
ENJOINING DEFENDANTS FROM VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT AS ADJUDICATED IN THIS MEMORANDUM OPINION."  69 F.SUPP. 
599, 608.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AGREED WITH THIS VIEW OF THE DISTRICT
COURT (WITH A MINOR MODIFICATION NOT HERE RELEVANT).  167 F.2D 448.  IN
SHORT, BOTH COURTS FOUND NO CONTEMPT.  THEY DID SO BECAUSE THERE WAS
LACKING THAT CLEARNESS OF COMMAND IN THE COURT'S ORDER WHICH WARRANTED
A FINDING OF ITS DISOBEDIENCE, IF DUE REGARD WERE PAID TO THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INJUNCTION AS THE STARTING POINT OF THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS.  AT THE LEAST, SUCH WAS A WARRANTABLE INTERPRETATION OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, AND WE ARE DISENTITLED TO SET OUR
INTERPRETATION AGAINST THEIRS. 

IN REVERSING THE CONCLUSION OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS THAT THERE WAS NO
CONTEMPT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DISOBEDIENCE OF THE INJUNCTION, THE COURT
IS RENDERING A DECISION OF FAR-REACHING IMPORT TO THE LAW OF
INJUNCTIONS.  TODAY'S RULING HAPPENS TO CONCERN AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
AN EMPLOYER.  TOMORROW IT MAY BE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST EMPLOYEES, AS IT
WAS YESTERDAY AND TOO OFTEN IN THE PAST.  ONE OF THE GRIEVANCES WHICH
LED TO THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS THE GENERALITY OF THE TERMS OF
LABOR INJUNCTIONS.  AMBIGUITY LURKS IN GENERALITY AND MAY THUS BECOME
AN INSTRUMENT OF SEVERITY.  BEHIND THE VAGUE INCLUSIVENESS OF AN
INJUNCTION LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US IS THE HAZARD OF RETROSPECTIVE
INTERPRETATION AS THE BASIS OF PUNISHMENT THROUGH CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS.  THE TWO LOWER COURTS, IN FINDING THAT GENERALLY TO ENJOIN
OBEDIENCE TO A LAW IS TOO VAGUE A FOUNDATION FOR PROCEEDINGS IN
CONTEMPT, WERE AVOIDING THE VERY EVIL WITH WHICH LABOR INJUNCTIONS WERE
JUSTLY CHARGED.  AND OF COURSE IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT THE
ALLOWABLE VAGUENESS OF AN INJUNCTION VARIES WITH THE USE TO WHICH THE
INJUNCTION IS PUT.  THIS COURT OUGHT NOT TO ENCOURAGE INJUNCTIONS
COUCHED IN SUCH INDEFINITE TERMS BY SETTING ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE
COURTS BELOW THAT THE INJUNCTION DID NOT FORBID WITH EXPLICITNESS
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A FINDING OF CONTEMPT. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :





















LAWSON V. SUWANNEE S.S. CO., 336 U.S. 198 


NO. 56.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1949.  - 166
F.2D 13, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN EMPLOYEE, WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY LOST THE SIGHT OF HIS RIGHT EYE
THROUGH CAUSES UNCONNECTED WITH INDUSTRY OR HIS EMPLOYMENT, SUFFERED AN
INJURY IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AS A RESULT WHEREOF HE LOST THE
SIGHT OF HIS LEFT EYE, AND THEREBY BECAME TOTALLY DISABLED WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT. 
HELD:  UNDER SEC. 8(F)(1) OF THE ACT, THE EMPLOYER WAS LIABLE ONLY FOR
PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY (LOSS OF THE LEFT EYE), AND THE REMAINDER
OF THE COMPENSATION DUE FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY WAS PAYABLE OUT
OF THE SPECIAL FUND ESTABLISHED BY SEC. 44 OF THE ACT.  PP. 199-206. 

2.  THE TERM "DISABILITY" IN SEC. 8(F)(1) IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A
TERM OF ART BUT RATHER IN A BROADER AND MORE USUAL CONCEPT.  PP. 200
202. 

3.  SECTION 8(F)(1) IS NOT TO BE READ AS CREATING A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN A WORKER PREVIOUSLY INJURED IN INDUSTRY AND ONE HANDICAPPED BY
A NON-INDUSTRIAL CAUSE.  PP. 202-206. 

4.  THE CONTENTION AGAINST THE CONCLUSION HERE REACHED, THAT THE
STATUTORY FUND WILL SOON BE INSOLVENT IF BURDENED WITH LIABILITY IN THE
CASE OF NON-INDUSTRIAL PREVIOUS INJURY, CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED.  PP. 205
206. 

LAWSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, V. SUWANNEE FRUIT & STEAMSHIP CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

AN AWARD BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO PAY
COMPENSATION FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY OF AN EMPLOYEE.  ON REVIEW
THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT RESPONDENT WAS LIABLE ONLY FOR PERMANENT
PARTIAL DISABILITY.  68 F.SUPP.  616.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
166 F.2D 13.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 857.  AFFIRMED,
P. 206. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASE, UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 44 STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET
SEQ. A NARROW AND DIFFICULT QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
CONFRONTS US. 

JOHN DAVIS LOST THE SIGHT OF HIS RIGHT EYE IN AN ACCIDENT UNCONNECTED
WITH INDUSTRY OR HIS EMPLOYMENT.  HE WAS LATER HIRED BY RESPONDENT.  AN
INJURY OCCURRED DURING THIS EMPLOYMENT, AND HE IS NOW BLIND IN BOTH
EYES.  THE PARTIES AGREE THAT HE IS TOTALLY DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE ACT; THEY ALSO AGREE THAT THE EMPLOYER IS LIABLE FOR
COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF THE LEFT EYE.  THE DISPUTE IS NARROWED TO
THIS QUESTION:  SHOULD THE EMPLOYER OR THE STATUTORY SECOND INJURY
FUND, ADMINISTERED BY PETITIONER, BE LIABLE FOR THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
TO EQUAL COMPENSATION FOR TOTAL DISABILITY? 

PETITIONER CONCLUDED THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS LIABLE.  THE EMPLOYER
SECURED A REVERSAL OF THIS DETERMINATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, 68 F.SUPP.  616,  FN1 AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  166 F.2D 13.  BECAUSE THIS DECISION CONFLICTED WITH THAT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN NATIONAL HOMEOPATHIC
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION V. BRITTON, 79 U.S. APP. D.C. 309, 147 F.2D 561,
CERT. DENIED 325 U.S. 857, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

INJURY WHICH OF ITSELF WOULD ONLY CAUSE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY
BUT WHICH, COMBINED WITH A PREVIOUS DISABILITY, DOES IN FACT CAUSE
PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY, THE EMPLOYER SHALL PROVIDE COMPENSATION
ONLY FOR THE DISABILITY CAUSED BY THE SUBSEQUENT INJURY:  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT IN ADDITION TO COMPENSATION FOR SUCH PERMANENT PARTIAL
DISABILITY, AND AFTER THE CESSATION OF THE PAYMENTS FOR THE PRESCRIBED
PERIOD OF WEEKS, THE EMPLOYEE SHALL BE PAID THE REMAINDER OF THE
COMPENSATION THAT WOULD BE DUE FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY.  SUCH
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID OUT OF THE SPECIAL FUND
ESTABLISHED IN SECTION 44."  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THIS SECTION IS
"CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, AND THEREFORE NEEDS NO CONSTRUCTION.  WHEN READ
IN ITS ORDINARY SENSE IT CAN HAVE BUT ONE MEANING":  LIABILITY FOR THE
SECOND INJURY FUND. 

BUT THE WORD "DISABILITY" IS DEFINED IN THE STATUTE.  SECTION 2
PROVIDES THAT "WHEN USED IN THIS ACT  ...  , (10) 'DISABILITY' MEANS
INCAPACITY BECAUSE OF INJURY  ...  "  THE WORD "INJURY" IS, IN TURN,
DEFINED AS "ACCIDENTAL INJURY OR DEATH ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE
OF EMPLOYMENT  ... "  SEC. 2(2).  IF THESE DEFINITIONS ARE READ INTO
THE SECOND INJURY PROVISION, THEN, IT READS AS FOLLOWS:  "IF AN
EMPLOYEE RECEIVE AN INJURY WHICH OF ITSELF WOULD ONLY CAUSE PERMANENT
PARTIAL DISABILITY BUT WHICH, COMBINED WITH A PREVIOUS INCAPACITY
BECAUSE OF ACCIDENTAL INJURY OR DEATH ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE
OF EMPLOYMENT, DOES IN FACT CAUSE PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY, THE
EMPLOYER SHALL PROVIDE COMPENSATION ONLY FOR THE DISABILITY CAUSED BY
THE SUBSEQUENT INJURY."  BECAUSE DAVIS' PREVIOUS INJURY WAS
NONINDUSTRIAL, THIS READING POINTS TO LIABILITY FOR THE EMPLOYER. 

IF CONGRESS INTENDED TO USE THE TERM "DISABILITY" AS A TERM OF ART, A
SHORTHAND WAY OF REFERRING TO THE STATUTORY DEFINITION, THE EMPLOYER
MUST PAY TOTAL COMPENSATION.  IF CONGRESS INTENDED A BROADER AND MORE
USUAL CONCEPT OF THE WORD, THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE AFFIRMED. 
STATUTORY DEFINITIONS CONTROL THE MEANING OF STATUTORY WORDS, OF
COURSE, IN THE USUAL CASE.  BUT THIS IS AN UNUSUAL CASE.  IF WE READ
THE DEFINITION INTO SEC. 8(F)(1) IN A MECHANICAL FASHION, WE CREATE
OBVIOUS INCONGRUITIES IN THE LANGUAGE, AND WE DESTROY ONE OF THE MAJOR
PURPOSES OF THE SECOND INJURY PROVISION:  THE PREVENTION OF EMPLOYER
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HANDICAPPED WORKERS.  WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
CONGRESS WOULD NOT HAVE INTENDED SUCH A RESULT. 

CHIEF JUSTICE GRONER, DISSENTING IN THE NATIONAL HOMEOPATHIC CASE, 79
U.S. APP. D.C. AT 313, 147 F.2D AT 565, NOTICED THAT THE "INTER
REPLACEMENTS OF WORDS" WE HAVE SET OUT ABOVE "PRODUCES A MANIFEST
INCONGRUITY, FOR ...  IT WOULD LITERALLY RESULT IN THIS:  '  ...
PREVIOUS INCAPACITY BECAUSE OF ACCIDENTAL INJURY OR DEATH' - AND IF TO
AVOID THIS IT BE ARGUED THAT ONLY A PORTION OF THE DEFINITION OF INJURY
SHOULD BE INSERTED, THE RESULT WOULD BE TO CHANGE OR AT LEAST TO LIMIT
THE STATUTORY DEFINITION ONLY TO PRODUCE A DESIRED RESULT, WHICH NO ONE
WOULD URGE OR DEFEND.  IT IS EVIDENT, THEREFORE," THAT THE DEFINITION
OF DISABILITY WAS "NOT MADE WITH WATCH-LIKE PRECISION" AND SHOULD NOT
BE SO APPLIED IN SEC. 8(F)(1).  IF THE INTENT OF CONGRESS HAD BEEN TO
LIMIT THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS SUBSECTION IN THE FASHION FOR WHICH
PETITIONER CONTENDS, "IT COULD EASILY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THIS BY THE
INSERTION OF THE WORD 'COMPENSABLE' BETWEEN THE WORDS 'PREVIOUS' AND
'DISABILITY'  ...  "  AND SEE ATLANTIC CLEANERS AND DYERS V. UNITED
STATES, 286 U.S. 427. 

MORE IMPORTANT, PERHAPS, IS THE DISSERVICE WE WOULD DO TO THE PURPOSE
OF THE SECOND INJURY PROVISION.  WE MUST LOOK TO THE EXPLANATION OF
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT BEHIND THE SUBSECTION.  A WITNESS AT A HEARING ON
THE MEASURE OUTLINED HIS REASONS FOR FAVORING THE PROVISION IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER:  "THE SECOND INJURY PROPOSITION IS AS MUCH TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THE EMPLOYER AND HIS INTERESTS AS IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE EMPLOYEE.  IT PROTECTS THAT EMPLOYER WHO HAS HIRED, SAY, A ONE-EYED
WORKER WHO GOES AND LOSES HIS OTHER EYE AND BECOMES A TOTAL
DISABILITY.  THE EMPLOYER WITHOUT THIS SORT OF THING WOULD HAVE TO PAY
TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY COMPENSATION.  THEN, ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS
ALSO PROTECTS THE WORKER WITH ONE EYE FROM BEING DENIED EMPLOYMENT ON
ACCOUNT OF HIS BEING AN EXTRA RISK.  NOW, BY SIMPLY TAKING THIS UP IN
THIS WAY IT IS POSSIBLE TO PROTECT BOTH THE EMPLOYER AND TO PROTECT THE
ONE-EYED EMPLOYEE ALSO."  FN3 

PETITIONER RELIES ON THE STATEMENT OF ANOTHER WITNESS BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE, WHO FAVORED INCLUSION OF THE SECOND INJURY PROVISIONS
BECAUSE "THEY HAVE BECOME A COMMONPLACE  ...  IN STATE COMPENSATION
LEGISLATION AND OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ACT."  FN4  AND PETITIONER
STATES THAT "WE MAY APPROPRIATELY REFER, THEREFORE, TO THE SECOND
INJURY PROVISIONS IN OTHER STATUTES AND TO THE EVALUATIONS MADE BY
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD FOR GUIDANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE
MANNER IN WHICH OPPOSING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED." 
BUT OUR SEARCH FOR GUIDANCE IN THE SOURCES SUGGESTED BY PETITIONER
CONVINCES US THAT PETITIONER'S THEORIES ARE NOT WELL-FOUNDED. 

FROM THE ATTITUDE OF EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, ONE WOULD NOT EXPECT
CONGRESS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TWO TYPES OF HANDICAPPED WORKERS.  THE
ANNUAL CONVENTIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIAL
ACCIDENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PROVIDE THE MOST HELPFUL CONSIDERATIONS
OF THE PROBLEM.  AT THE 1931 CONVENTION, MR. JOSEPH PARKS OF THE
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION SPOKE AS FOLLOWS OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LEGISLATION WITHOUT A SECOND INJURY PROVISION:  "I LITTLE KNEW THAT
THIS GREAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION  ...  WOULD BECOME AN INSTRUMENT OF
PERSECUTION, AS I MAY CALL IT, OF MEN WHO ARE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED,
BUT THAT IS WHAT IT HAS BECOME.  MEN WHO ARE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED ARE
BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN OUR COMMONWEALTH."  FN5 

THIS ATTITUDE HAS BEEN ECHOED BY MR. CHARLES SHARKEY OF THE UNITED
STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS; FN6  MISS FRANCES PERKINS, THEN
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER IN NEW YORK; FN7  AND OTHERS.  FN8  PERHAPS THE
MOST IMPRESSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE FORCE BEHIND THESE STATEMENTS IS THAT
OFFERED BY MR. I. K. HUBER OF OKLAHOMA.  NEASE V. HUGHES STONE CO., 114
OKLA. 170, 244 P. 778, HELD THE EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR TOTAL COMPENSATION
FOR LOSS OF THE SECOND EYE.  AFTER THE DECISION, MR. HUBER REPORTS,
"THOUSANDS OF ONE-EYED, ONE-LEGGED, ONE-ARMED, ONE-HANDED MEN IN THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA WERE LET OUT AND CAN NOT GET EMPLOYMENT COMING UNDER
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW OF OKLAHOMA.  UNDER THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAW OF OKLAHOMA....  THOSE  ...  COURT DECISIONS PUT US IN
BAD SHAPE.  ...  THE DECISION DISPLACED BETWEEN SEVEN AND EIGHT
THOUSAND MEN IN LESS THAN 30 DAYS IN OKLAHOMA."  FN9 

A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A WORKER PREVIOUSLY INJURED IN INDUSTRY AND ONE
HANDICAPPED BY A CAUSE OUTSIDE OF INDUSTRY HAS NO LOGICAL FOUNDATION IF
WE ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE FUND IS THAT OF AID TO
THE HANDICAPPED.  THIS IS THE CONCLUSION OF MR. FRED WILCOX, THEN
CHAIRMAN OF THE WISCONSIN COMMISSION:  FN10  "WISCONSIN TAKES NO
ACCOUNT OF WHERE THE INJURED MAN MAY HAVE GOTTEN HIS FIRST INJURY.  IT
MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHERE HE GOT IT.  IT IS JUST AS SERIOUS TO HIM,
WHEN HE HAS THE SECOND INJURY, AS IF HE HAD GOTTEN THE FIRST ONE IN
INDUSTRY."  WE CANNOT ATTRIBUTE THE ILLOGIC OF PETITIONER'S POSITION TO
CONGRESS. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS REINFORCED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE UNDER THE
NEW YORK STATUTE.  THE FEDERAL STATUTE IS BASED UPON NEW YORK LAW. 
FN11  IN NEW YORK "THE COMMISSION HOLDS THAT IF THE MAN LOSES HIS
SECOND EYE IN AN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT IT IS IMMATERIAL HOW HE LOST THE
FIRST EYE.  THE LOSS OF EYESIGHT IN ONE EYE MAY HAVE BEEN CONGENITAL;
IT MAY HAVE OCCURRED WHEN THE CHILD WAS TWO YEARS OLD, OR IT MAY HAVE
OCCURRED AFTER HE WAS GROWN, BUT NOT IN AN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT. 
NEVERTHELESS, AT THE TIME HE LOSES HIS SECOND EYE, HE HAS SUFFERED
TOTAL DISABILITY."  FN12 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT NEW YORK LAW IS TO THE CONTRARY, CITING LA
BELLE V. BRITTON STONE & SUPPLY CORP., 247 APP. DIV. 843, 286 N.Y.S.
347, AND BERVILACQUA V. CLARK, 225 APP. DIV. 190, 232 N.Y.S. 502.  THE
LA BELLE CASE IS INADEQUATELY REPORTED; THE BERVILACQUA CASE DID NOT
CONSIDER THE PRECISE POINT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND WAS DISTINGUISHED
BY THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN 1937 WHEN HE ADVISED THE DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR TO CONTINUE ITS ESTABLISHED PRACTICE.  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, STATE OF NEW YORK, FOR 1937(ALBANY, 1938), P. 270. 

PETITIONER'S MOST STRENUOUS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE FUND WILL SOON BE
INSOLVENT IF WE OPEN LIABILITY TO A NONINDUSTRIAL PREVIOUS INJURY, AND
THAT THEREFORE CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE CONTEMPLATED THE RESULT WE
REACH.  FN13  PETITIONER'S WORRIES SEEM EXAGGERATED IN THE LIGHT OF
WISCONSIN AND NEW YORK EXPERIENCE.  FROM 1919 TO 1933,  FN14
WISCONSIN'S FUND HAD ONLY 50 SECOND INJURY CASES CHARGED AGAINST IT.
SECOND-INJURY FUNDS AS EMPLOYMENT AIDS TO THE HANDICAPPED, U.S.
DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS (1944), P. 7.  FROM 1919 TO 1943, ONLY 99
CASES WERE CHARGED AGAINST THE NEW YORK FUND.  ID., P. 5.  IN 1930 MISS
FRANCES PERKINS TOLD HER ASSOCIATES THAT THE PROBLEM IS "NOT SO LARGE
...  AS IT APPEARS."  FN15 

ON THE BASIS OF THE INCONGRUITY INVOLVED IN APPLYING THE DEFINITION
MECHANICALLY, THE UNMISTAKABLE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND, AND
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE STATUTE ON WHICH THE FEDERAL ACT IS
BASED, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE TERM "DISABILITY" WAS NOT USED AS A TERM OF
ART IN SEC. 8(F)(1), AND THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  UNDER SEC. 21 OF THE STATUTE. 

FN3  HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ON S. 3170, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1926), P. 208. 

FN4  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY ON S. 3170, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1926) P. 43. 

FN5  UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL.  NO. 564(1932),
P. 278. 

FN6  UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL.  NO. 577(1933),
P. 146. 

FN7  UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL.  NO. 536(1931),
P. 254. 

FN8  "WE ARE DEALING WITH A CONDITION AND NOT A THEORY.  IF THE MAN
IS FOUND WITH SOME DEFECT WHICH, IF HE MEETS WITH AN ACCIDENT, IS
LIKELY TO BE AGGRAVATED AND MADE MORE SEVERE AND THUS INCREASE THE COST
TO THE EMPLOYER WHOSE EXPERIENCE RATING GOES UP AS A RESULT, THEN HE
DOES NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THAT RISK; AND THAT POOR FELLOW IS MET WITH THE
ALTERNATIVE OF BEING DEPRIVED OF A MEANS OF EARNING A LIVELIHOOD OR OF
WAIVING HIS RIGHTS TO COMPENSATION."  IBID., P. 256.  AND SEE
DISCUSSION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS AND DISEASES, UNITED STATES DIVISION
OF LABOR STANDARDS, BULL.  NO. 94(1948), P. 104; UNITED STATES BUREAU
OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL.  NO. 602(1934), P. 11, FF., ESPECIALLY P.
15; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL.  NO. 577(1933), PP.
154, 155.    FN9  UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL.  NO.
536(1931), PP. 268, 272.  MR. FRED WILCOX, FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE
WISCONSIN COMMISSION, SAID:  "FUNDAMENTALLY, THERE IS NO MORAL REASON
WHY THE EMPLOYER OF A MAN, WHEN HE GETS HIS SECOND INJURY, SHOULD NOT
PAY THE FULL CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THAT INJURY  ...  BUT THAT IS NOT THE
WAY THINGS WORK OUT.  THE EMPLOYER ESCAPES THE BURDEN AND LETS THE
INJURED MAN BEAR IT, AND HE SITS AT HOME WITHOUT A JOB.  ...  THE
EMPLOYER IS GOING TO BE AFRAID TO TAKE THEM ON BECAUSE OF SOME ADDED
RESPONSIBILITY.  ...  WE ALLOWED THE EMPLOYEE WHO LOST HIS SECOND EYE
TO HAVE TWICE AS MUCH COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF THE SECOND EYE AS
FOR THE LOSS OF THE FIRST EYE.  BUT WHAT ABOUT IT?  DID ANYONE EVER GET
ANY COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF A SECOND EYE?  NO; HE NEVER GOT A
JOB.  HE NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO LOSE HIS SECOND EYE IN AN INDUSTRY - TO
BE BLUNT IN STATING THE FACTS.  EMPLOYERS WOULD NOT HIRE HIM, BECAUSE
THEY WOULD TAKE ON TWICE AS MUCH LIABILITY AS THEY HAD BEFORE."  UNITED
STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL.  NO. 577(1933), PP. 157, 158. 

FN10  ID. 

FN11  H.R. REP. NO. 1190, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.  SEE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORP., LTD. V. MONAHAN, 91 F.2D 130;
HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. HOAGE, 66 APP. D.C. 154, 85 F.2D
411. 

FN12  UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL.  NO. 577(1933),
P. 154. 

FN13  PAYMENTS ARE MADE FROM THE SPECIAL FUND ESTABLISHED IN SEC. 44
OF THE ACT.  EMPLOYERS PAY $1,000 INTO THE FUND FOR NONCOMPENSABLE
DEATHS, HALF OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR SECOND INJURIES.  ALL PENALTIES
AND FINES COLLECTED ARE ALSO PAID INTO THE FUND.  SEC. 44(C). 

FN14  IN 1933 THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT DECIDED RUEHLOW V.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 213 WIS. 240, 251 N.W. 451, WHICH REVERSED THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE OUTLINED BY MR. WILCOX, SUPRA. COMPARE LEHMAN
V. SCHMAHL, 179 MINN. 388, 229 N.W. 553. 

FN15  UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULL.  NO. 536(1931),
P. 260.  AT P. 259, MR. L.W. HATCH OF NEW YORK IS REPORTED AS FOLLOWS:
"MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID, 'OH, WELL, IF YOU MAKE A SECOND-INJURY FUND
TAKE CARE OF EVERY CASE IN WHICH A PRIOR CONDITION WAS A MATERIAL
FACTOR IN THE MAN'S DISABILITY YOU WILL BANKRUPT THE STATE OR THE
TAXPAYERS WILL BE CALLED UPON TO BEAR AN ENORMOUS BURDEN.'  THE
EVIDENCE SO FAR AS WE HAVE GONE DOES NOT INDICATE ANY SUCH SITUATION." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :














REYNOLDS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 336 U.S. 207 


NO. 234.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1949.  - 251
ALA. 27, 36 SO.2D 102, AFFIRMED. 


A COMPLAINT IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE CAUSED
THE DECEASED TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL WORK OF THE SAME KIND AS HE NORMALLY
PERFORMED.  IT WAS NOT ALLEGED THAT THIS ADDITIONAL WORK CONTAINED ANY
HAZARDS OTHER THAN THOSE USUAL TO THE OCCUPATION.  THE STATE COURT
SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE INJURY DID
NOT RESULT PROXIMATELY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FROM THE DEFENDANT'S
NEGLIGENCE.  HELD:  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  PP. 207-209. 

REYNOLDS, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

THE STATE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED RESPONDENT'S DEMURRER TO THE
COMPLAINT IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY PETITIONER UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  251 ALA. 27, 36
SO.2D 102.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 852.  AFFIRMED, P.
209. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT IN AN ALABAMA STATE COURT.  AS PERMITTED BY THE PRACTICE
IN THAT STATE, ALL THE FACTS WHICH THE PETITIONER EXPECTED TO PROVE TO
ESTABLISH HER CAUSE OF ACTION WERE SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT SO THAT
ANY OBJECTIONS TO A VERDICT IN HER FAVOR BASED ON EVIDENCE OF THOSE
FACTS COULD BE DISPOSED OF PRIOR TO TRIAL.  THE RESPONDENT DEMURRED TO
THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS AS THUS SET FORTH DID NOT
CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TRIAL
COURT AND ITS ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA.  FN1
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN2 

IT APPEARS FROM THE COMPLAINT THAT THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND WAS A
BRAKEMAN WHOSE DUTIES CUSTOMARILY REQUIRED HIM TO CROSS BETWEEN CARS ON
MOVING FREIGHT TRAINS.  ON ONE SUCH CROSSING HE FELL AND WAS KILLED. 
THIS CROSSING OCCURRED AS PART OF A REQUIRED JOURNEY FROM THE CABOOSE
TO A CAR FROM WHICH A SIGNAL WAS TO BE GIVEN.  THE SIGNAL ORDINARILY
WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FROM THE SIXTH CAR FROM THE CABOOSE.  THE
COMPLAINT CHARGED, HOWEVER, THAT BECAUSE THE RAILROAD HAD NEGLIGENTLY
ALLOWED CANES TO GROW ALONGSIDE THE ROADBED THE DECEASED COULD NOT
SAFELY SIGNAL FROM THE SIXTH CAR AND SO HAD TO CROSS TO THE SEVENTH IN
ORDER TO GIVE THE REQUIRED SIGNAL.  ON THIS ADDITIONAL CROSSING HE WAS
KILLED.  THE COMPLAINT ALSO CHARGED THAT THE DECEASED WOULD NOT HAVE
HAD TO MAKE THIS PARTICULAR JOURNEY AT ALL IF THE RAILROAD HAD PROVIDED
A COMPETENT ASSISTANT BRAKEMAN.  NEITHER THE JOURNEY NOR THE CROSSING
ON WHICH THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED WAS ALLEGED TO BE ANY MORE HAZARDOUS
THAN THAT USUALLY UNDERTAKEN BY RAILROAD BRAKEMEN. 

THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT CONCEDED THAT THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY
CHARGED NEGLIGENCE IN THE FAILURE TO REMOVE THE CANES AND IN THE
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A COMPETENT FELLOW SERVANT.  IT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT
THE FACTS ALLEGED DID NOT SHOW THAT THE ACCIDENT RESULTED PROXIMATELY,
IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FROM THAT NEGLIGENCE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA ERRED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  251 ALA. 27, 36 SO.2D 102(1948). 

FN2  335 U.S. 852(1948). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IS OF OPINION THAT THIS IS ALSO A CASE IN
WHICH THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  SEE
WILKERSON V. MCCARTHY, 336 U.S. 53, 64(CONCURRING OPINION).  HOWEVER,
INASMUCH AS THE CASE DOES NOT CALL FOR AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF
THE RECORD IN ORDER TO APPRAISE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY, BUT MERELY TURNS
ON THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE PLEADINGS, HE JOINS IN THE COURT'S
DISPOSITION OF IT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR.
JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENT.  SEE LILLIE V. THOMPSON, 332 U.S. 459;
ANDERSON V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 333 U.S. 821. 
..END :




















CALLAWAY V. BENTON, 336 U.S. 132 


NO. 21.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 1949.  - 165
F.2D 877, AFFIRMED. 


A RAILROAD IN REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT HAD
FOR MANY YEARS LEASED AND OPERATED THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER RAILROAD,
WHICH WAS SOLVENT AND NOT IN REORGANIZATION.  UNDER THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, THE LESSOR WAS GIVEN THE ALTERNATIVE OF SELLING ALL
OF ITS PROPERTY TO THE REORGANIZED COMPANY ON SPECIFIED TERMS OR HAVING
ITS LEASE DISAFFIRMED AND ITS PROPERTY RETURNED.  A MAJORITY OF THE
LESSOR'S STOCKHOLDERS VOTED TO ACCEPT THE OFFER, BUT A SUBSTANTIAL
MINORITY VOTED TO REJECT IT. IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY MINORITY
STOCKHOLDERS, A STATE COURT ISSUED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS FROM SELLING THE PROPERTY OR CERTIFYING THE
COMPANY'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER TO THE COMMISSION, ON THE GROUND THAT
STATE LAW REQUIRED UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS TO SUCH A
SALE.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ENJOINED FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE STATE
ACTION AND DECLARED THE STATE COURT'S TEMPORARY INJUNCTION NULL AND
VOID AS IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION.  HELD:  UNDER THE NARROW FACTS
PRESENTED HERE, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ERRED IN ENJOINING THE STATE COURT
SUIT LEADING TO A DETERMINATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW WITH
RESPECT TO THE SALE OF THE ENTIRE ASSETS OF THE LESSOR.  PP. 134-151. 

1.  SINCE THE LESSOR WAS NOT BEING REORGANIZED ALONG WITH THE LESSEE
AND THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION GAVE THE LESSOR THE UNFETTERED RIGHT TO
ACCEPT OR REJECT THE OFFER TO PURCHASE ALL ITS PROPERTY, THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE OFFER COULD BE ACCEPTED BY LESS THAN A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF
THE LESSOR'S SHAREHOLDERS WAS A QUESTION OF STATE, NOT FEDERAL, LAW. 
PP. 136-141. 

(A)  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT GIVES NO CLUE AS TO WHAT PROPORTION OF THE
LESSOR'S STOCKHOLDERS MUST VOTE TO ACCEPT THE OFFER IF STATE LAW IS NOT
CONTROLLING.  P. 139. 

(B)  THE MAJORITY VOTE PROVISION OF SEC. 5(11) OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, SINCE THIS IS NOT A
PROCEEDING UNDER THAT ACT.  PP. 139-140. 

(C)  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT DOES NOT GIVE THE COMMISSION OR THE COURT THE
RIGHT TO REQUIRE ACCEPTANCE BY A LESSOR NOT IN REORGANIZATION OF AN
OFFER FOR THE PURCHASE OF ITS PROPERTY, AND NO SUCH POWER WAS ASSERTED
BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE.  P. 141. 

2.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO
DECIDE THIS QUESTION OF STATE LAW.  PP. 141-149. 

(A)  WHILE SEC. 77(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT GIVES THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY, IT DOES
NOT GIVE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL
CONTROVERSIES THAT IN SOME WAY AFFECT THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE.  P. 142. 

(B)  THE INTEREST HERE INVOLVED WAS NOT A PART OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
DEBTOR BUT THE LESSOR'S REVERSION IN FEE; AND THE ISSUE CONCERNED THE
RIGHTS OF THE LESSOR'S STOCKHOLDERS INTER SESE TO SELL THEIR
REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.  PP. 142-143. 

(C)  THE LESSOR NOT BEING IN REORGANIZATION, ITS INTERNAL MANAGEMENT
WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  PP. 144-146. 

(D)  THE PURCHASE OF FORMERLY LEASED PROPERTIES DOES NOT INVOLVE
RIGHTS ASSERTED BY THE LESSOR AGAINST THE DEBTOR; IT IS A CREDITOR IN
THE PROCEEDINGS ONLY BY VIRTUE OF ITS CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEBTOR UNDER
THE LEASE AND FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE.  PP. 146-147. 

(E)  THE JURISDICTION ASSERTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OVER A SOLVENT
LESSOR NOT IN REORGANIZATION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY PROVISION OF SEC.
77.  PP. 146-148. 

3.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS BANK V.
CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 648, AND OTHER CASES DEALING WITH
THE POWER OF AN EQUITY COURT TO PREVENT THE DEFEAT OR IMPAIRMENT OF ITS
JURISDICTION DO NOT SUPPORT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S INJUNCTION AGAINST
THE STATE COURT ACTION AND ITS DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE THERE
INVOLVED.  PP. 149-151. 

CALLAWAY, TRUSTEE, ET AL. V. BENTON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF A PROCEEDING TO
REORGANIZE A RAILROAD UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT ENJOINED
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT TO DETERMINE THE RIGHTS INTER SESE
UNDER STATE LAW OF STOCKHOLDERS OF ANOTHER RAILROAD NOT IN
REORGANIZATION TO SELL TO THE RAILROAD BEING REORGANIZED CERTAIN
PROPERTY LEASED TO AND OPERATED BY THE LATTER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  165 F.2D 877.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S.
853.  AFFIRMED, P. 151. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY, WHOSE TRUSTEE IS THE
PETITIONER HERE, AND ITS PREDECESSOR HAVE LEASED AND OPERATED THE
PROPERTY OF THE SOUTH WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY SINCE 1869.  THE CENTRAL
WENT INTO RECEIVERSHIP IN 1932, AND IN 1940 ENTERED REORGANIZATION
UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  49 STAT. 911, 11 U.S.C. SEC.
205.  SOUTH WESTERN'S LEASE WAS ADOPTED SUCCESSIVELY BY CENTRAL'S
RECEIVER AND TRUSTEES.  IT HAS, IN CONSEQUENCE, REMAINED SOLVENT, AND
NO PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION HAS EVER BEEN FILED IN ITS BEHALF. 

UNDER THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF THE CENTRAL APPROVED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND BY THE DISTRICT COURT, SOUTH WESTERN
IS GIVEN THE ALTERNATIVE OF SELLING ITS PROPERTY TO THE REORGANIZED
COMPANY IN RETURN FOR A FIXED AMOUNT OF BONDS OF THE LATTER, OR OF
HAVING THE LEASE DISAFFIRMED BY THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY RETURNED. 
FN1  SOUTH WESTERN APPEARED SPECIALLY IN THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
AND ASKED THAT ITS LEASE BE ADOPTED BY THE REORGANIZED COMPANY, BUT ON
THE BASIS OF STUDIES AND ESTIMATES NOT NOW OPEN TO CHALLENGE, THE
COMMISSION REJECTED THE PROPOSAL AND FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OFFERED FOR
ITS PROPERTIES APPEARS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND TO EQUAL THE VALUE OF
THE TRANSPORTATION PROPERTY, AND (IS) APPROVED."  FN2 

FOLLOWING COMMISSION AND COURT APPROVAL OF THE PLAN, SOUTH WESTERN'S
OFFICERS, REVERSING THEIR PREVIOUS STAND, URGED ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER
BY ITS STOCKHOLDERS AND SIGNIFIED THEIR INTENTION OF CONVEYING THE
COMPANY'S PROPERTY TO THE CENTRAL IF A MAJORITY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS
VOTED TO ACCEPT.  THEREUPON THE RESPONDENTS, WHO ARE INDIVIDUAL
STOCKHOLDERS OF SOUTH WESTERN, BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF BIBB COUNTY, GEORGIA, WHERE SOUTH WESTERN'S PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS
LOCATED, ASKING FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST SOUTH WESTERN, ITS OFFICERS
AND DIRECTORS, RESTRAINING THEM FROM CERTIFYING THE COMPANY'S
ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OR FROM
SELLING THE RAILROAD'S PROPERTY TO THE REORGANIZED DEBTOR IF, UPON A
VOTE OF THE STOCKHOLDERS, A "MERE MAJORITY" OF THE STOCK WAS VOTED IN
FAVOR OF THE PLAN.  THE BASIS OF THE PETITION FOR INJUNCTION WAS THE
CONTENTION THAT UNDER THE LAWS OF GEORGIA, WHERE SOUTH WESTERN WAS
INCORPORATED, THE ENTIRE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY CANNOT BE SOLD EXCEPT
UPON UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE STOCKHOLDERS. 

BEFORE A DECISION WAS REACHED IN THE STATE COURT ACTION, A MEETING OF
SOUTH WESTERN'S STOCKHOLDERS WAS HELD AT WHICH THE OFFER OF PURCHASE
INCORPORATED IN THE CENTRAL'S PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WAS CONSIDERED. 
30,137 SHARES WERE VOTED IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTANCE AGAINST 9,057 SHARES
FAVORING REJECTION.  PETITIONER, ACTING AS TRUSTEE OF THE CENTRAL,
WHICH WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE STATE COURT SUIT, THEN FILED A PETITION IN
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ASKING THAT RESPONDENTS AND OTHER STOCKHOLDERS OF
SOUTH WESTERN BE ENJOINED FROM FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE STATE COURT
ACTION, AND A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ENTERED AS PRAYED. 
THEREUPON THE STATE COURT, OF ITS OWN MOTION, ENTERED AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF SOUTH WESTERN FROM
SELLING ITS PROPERTY, ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH A SALE UNDER GEORGIA LAW
REQUIRES UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.  PETITIONER THEN
AMENDED HIS PETITION IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT BY BRINGING TO ITS
ATTENTION THE INJUNCTIVE ORDER OF THE STATE COURT, AND, AFTER HOLDING
HEARINGS, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE STATE ACTION AND DECLARED THE
STATE COURT'S TEMPORARY INJUNCTION NULL AND VOID AS IN EXCESS OF ITS
JURISDICTION.  UPON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  165
F.2D 877.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI  FN3
BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT. 

FIRST.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S INJUNCTION WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON THE
PREMISE THAT THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION REQUIRES THE INCLUSION OF SOUTH
WESTERN'S LINES WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY.  THE
STATE ACTION IS SAID TO BE AN ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS "TO
PREVENT THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN AS RESPECTS SOUTH WESTERN." 
AGAIN, THE COURT HELD THAT "THE QUESTION OF THE CONSOLIDATION, MERGER
AND SALE, AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS SOUTH WESTERN MAY CONVEY ITS
PROPERTY TO THE REORGANIZED COMPANY, IN CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN, IS
NOT A QUESTION OF STATE LAW; IT IS A QUESTION OF BANKRUPTCY LAW - A
QUESTION WHICH ARISES UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT."  THE COURT'S CONCLUSION WAS, THEREFORE, THAT ALTHOUGH
THE QUESTION WHETHER A GEORGIA RAILROAD CORPORATION CAN CONVEY ALL OF
ITS PROPERTIES WITHOUT UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS WOULD
ORDINARILY BE ONE OF STATE LAW COGNIZABLE IN THE STATE'S COURTS, UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DECISION WAS ONE FOR THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
APPLYING FEDERAL LAW. 

WE DO NOT AGREE.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE PLAN AND THE FACTORS WHICH THE
COMMISSION TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT THE AMOUNT OFFERED
SOUTH WESTERN FOR ITS PROPERTIES INDICATE CLEARLY THAT, SO FAR AS THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN CONTEMPLATES ACQUISITION OF THE LESSOR RAILROAD,
THE ORDINARY RULES OF OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE WERE INTENDED TO APPLY. 
THAT HAS INVARIABLY BEEN THE PRACTICE.  AS A CONSEQUENCE, WE HAVE HELD
THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH MAY BE OFFERED A LESSOR IS A QUESTION OF
"BUSINESS JUDGMENT"; THAT "IF THE COMMISSION DEEMS IT DESIRABLE TO KEEP
THE LEASED LINE IN THE SYSTEM, IT MUST NECESSARILY HAVE RATHER BROAD
DISCRETION IN PROVIDING MODIFICATIONS OF THE LEASE WHERE, AS HERE, THE
LESSOR IS NOT BEING REORGANIZED ALONG WITH THE DEBTOR.  FOR UNDER THAT
ASSUMPTION THE MODIFICATION MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY ATTRACTIVE TO INSURE
ACCEPTANCE BY THE LESSOR OR ITS CREDITORS."  GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 550(1943). 
THE PLAN ITSELF RECITES THAT THE LEASED LINES ARE TO BE ACQUIRED ONLY
"IF THEY CAN BE ACQUIRED ON THE TERMS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH."  FN4
OTHERWISE, THE LEASE IS TO BE DISAFFIRMED AND THE PROPERTY RETURNED TO
THE LESSOR.  IN ADDITION, THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH STATEMENTS BY THE
COMMISSION, THE COURT, AND THE PARTIES THAT SOUTH WESTERN'S
STOCKHOLDERS ARE TO HAVE THE CHOICE OPEN TO ANY OFFEREE:  AN UNFETTERED
RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT.  FN5 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CAN SEE NO REASON WHY THE ORDINARY
INCIDENTS OF A SALE OF THE ASSETS OF A CORPORATION SHOULD NOT BE
APPLICABLE.  ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE IS, OF COURSE, THE
QUESTION OF THE PROPORTION OF A CORPORATION'S STOCK WHICH MUST BE VOTED
IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE OFFER OF PURCHASE IN ORDER TO MAKE ITS
ACCEPTANCE EFFECTIVE.  SINCE, AS THE DISTRICT COURT HELD, THIS WOULD
ORDINARILY BE A QUESTION OF GEORGIA LAW, WE BELIEVE THAT SUBSTITUTION
OF ANY OTHER RULE OF LAW IS ERRONEOUS.  FN6 

NOT THE LEAST OF THE DIFFICULTIES WITH A CONTRARY RESULT IS THE FACT
THAT THE BANKRUPTCY ACT GIVES NO CLUE TO WHAT PROPORTION OF THE
LESSOR'S STOCKHOLDERS MUST VOTE TO ACCEPT THE OFFER IF STATE LAW IS NOT
CONTROLLING.  SECTION 77(E) PROVIDES THAT CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN
REQUIRES ACCEPTANCE BY CREDITORS HOLDING TWO-THIRDS IN AMOUNT OF THE
TOTAL ALLOWED CLAIMS OF EACH CLASS VOTING ON THE PLAN, BUT THAT THE
JUDGE MAY CONFIRM THE PLAN IN ANY EVENT "IF HE IS SATISFIED AND FINDS,
AFTER HEARING, THAT IT MAKES ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR FAIR AND EQUITABLE
TREATMENT FOR THE INTERESTS OR CLAIMS OF THOSE REJECTING IT."  BUT
NEITHER THE TWO-THIRDS VOTE PROVISION NOR THE SO-CALLED "CRAM-DOWN"
PROVISION APPLIES TO A LESSOR NOT IN REORGANIZATION OR ITS
STOCKHOLDERS.  THEY APPLY TO "CREDITORS OF EACH CLASS WHOSE CLAIMS HAVE
BEEN FILED AND ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION," WHICH OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT INCLUDE A
LESSOR-OFFEREE.  FN7  AND, ALTHOUGH SOUTH WESTERN IS A "CREDITOR" UNDER
THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF SEC. 77(B), ITS STOCKHOLDERS, INDIVIDUALLY, ARE
NOT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SOUGHT TO FIND A FEDERAL RULE PERMITTING
ACCEPTANCE BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS IN THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5(11) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN8  BUT THAT
LINE AS PART OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  THE COMMISSION CAN
UNDOUBTEDLY CARRY ON SEC. 5 PROCEEDINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH SEC. 77
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS, SEE UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S.
225(1939), BUT THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE.  THE
COMMISSION PREFERRED, INSTEAD, TO CARRY OUT THE CONSOLIDATION UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF SEC. 77(B)(5) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT
THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION MAY INCLUDE "THE MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION OF
THE DEBTOR WITH ANOTHER CORPORATION OR CORPORATIONS."  THAT POWER FLOWS
FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE THAN THE POWER OVER CONSOLIDATIONS UNDER THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  WHILE SOME OF THE FINDINGS REQUIRED OF THE
COMMISSION UNDER THE TWO ACTS ARE SIMILAR, AND SEC. 77(F) PROVIDES THAT
CONSOLIDATION AND MERGER OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS AND PURPOSES OF CHAPTER 1 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THEIR PROCEDURAL AND JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS DO NOT OVERLAP.  FN9  IT MAY BE NOTED, IN ADDITION, THAT
SEC. 5(11) CONTAINS A PROVISO THAT THE MAJORITY VOTE PROVISION SHALL
NOT APPLY IF "A DIFFERENT VOTE IS REQUIRED UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW,
IN WHICH CASE THE NUMBER SO REQUIRED SHALL ASSENT."  WHETHER THAT
PROVISO IS OPERATIVE WHEN A STATE'S LAW REQUIRES UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF
THE SHAREHOLDERS IS A QUESTION WE NEED NOT DECIDE. 

NOTHING THAT WE HAVE SAID DEROGATES IN ANY WAY FROM DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT UPHOLDING THE POWER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS, TO OVERRIDE STATE LAWS
INTERPOSING OBSTACLES IN THE PATH OF OTHERWISE LAWFUL PLANS OF
REORGANIZATION.  WE HAVE RECENTLY REAFFIRMED THAT POWER IN CASES
ARISING UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN10  NOR IS THE AMBIT OF
FEDERAL POWER LESS BROAD IN CASES ARISING UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES.  SECTION 77(F) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDES THAT THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION SHALL BE PUT INTO EFFECT, "THE
LAWS OF ANY STATE OR THE DECISION OR ORDER OF ANY STATE AUTHORITY TO
THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  THE STATUTE DOES NOT, HOWEVER, GIVE THE
COMMISSION OR COURT THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ACCEPTANCE BY A LESSOR NOT IN
REORGANIZATION OF AN OFFER FOR THE PURCHASE OF ITS PROPERTY, AND NO
SUCH POWER HAS BEEN ASSERTED BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE.  THE PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION IN EFFECT HANDS SOUTH WESTERN A CONTRACT OF SALE. 
WHETHER OR NOT SOUTH WESTERN SIGNS THE CONTRACT MUST DEPEND NOT ONLY
UPON ITS BUSINESS JUDGMENT, BUT ALSO UPON THE CHARTER OF THE COMPANY
AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ITS INCORPORATION.  THERE IS THEREFORE NO
OCCASION TO OVERRIDE STATE LAW.  THE PLAN IMPLICITLY ACCEPTS IT AS
CONTROLLING.  THE FACT THAT THE LAW MAY MAKE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER
LESS LIKELY THAN WOULD BE THE CASE IF THE OFFEREE WERE INCORPORATED
ELSEWHERE DOES NOT CHANGE THE PICTURE.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO LEAVE TO INDIVIDUAL JUDGES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER STATE
LAWS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED OR DISREGARDED, PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308
U.S. 79(1939), OR TO MAKE THE CRITERION TO BE APPLIED THE EFFECT OF THE
LAW UPON THE PROSPECTS OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE OFFEREE. 

SECOND.  THE DISTRICT COURT FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN IF GEORGIA LAW
GOVERNS THE QUESTION OF THE AUTHORITY OF SOUTH WESTERN'S OFFICERS TO
SELL ITS PROPERTIES THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO
DECIDE THE STATE LAW QUESTION.  WE HAVE HELD THAT A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY
HAS EXCLUSIVE AND NONDELEGABLE CONTROL OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN
ESTATE IN ITS POSSESSION.  THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S.
478(1940); ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & T. CO., 282 U.S. 734(1931).  THERE CAN
BE NO QUESTION, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS DID NOT GIVE THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL CONTROVERSIES THAT IN SOME WAY
AFFECT THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE.  FN11  ONE EXCEPTION IS FOUND IN THE
EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.  FN12 WHAT IT DID GIVE IS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED.  SEC.
77(A).  THE INTEREST HELD BY THE DEBTOR IN SOUTH WESTERN'S LINES WAS A
LEASEHOLD ESTATE.  SUCH AN ESTATE IS THE DEBTOR'S "PROPERTY" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  ANY CONTROVERSY INVOLVING THAT ESTATE WOULD HAVE
BEEN WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 
HERE, HOWEVER, THE QUESTION INVOLVES NOT THE DEBTOR'S LEASEHOLD, BUT
THE REVERSION IN FEE HELD BY SOUTH WESTERN AS LESSOR.  SOUTH WESTERN
WAS NOT IN REORGANIZATION JOINTLY WITH ITS LESSEE, NOR COULD IT HAVE
BEEN REORGANIZED IN THE CENTRAL'S PROCEEDINGS.  FN13  THE CONTROVERSY
WHICH RESPONDENTS INITIATED IN THE STATE COURT, AND WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURT DECIDED AFTER HAVING ENJOINED THE STATE PROCEEDINGS, REQUIRES A
DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS OF SOUTH WESTERN INTER
SE TO SELL THEIR REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.  WE THINK THAT
THE INTEREST HERE INVOLVED IS NOT PART OF THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR,
AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ASSERTION OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WAS
ERROR. 

IN EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610(1934), WE SAID (AT P. 615):  "ALL
PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF A BANKRUPT OF WHICH HE CLAIMS THE
OWNERSHIP PASSES, UPON THE FILING OF A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY, INTO THE
CUSTODY OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.  TO PROTECT ITS JURISDICTION FROM
INTERFERENCE, THAT COURT MAY ISSUE AN INJUNCTION."  IN THE BALDWIN CASE
THIS COURT UPHELD THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION UNDER
SEC. 77 TO ADJUDICATE THE QUESTION OF FORFEITURE BY THE DEBTOR OF AN
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY - CLEARLY A PART OF THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR
OF WHICH IT CLAIMED OWNERSHIP.  SEE THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO.,
SUPRA.  IN WARREN V. PALMER, 310 U.S. 132(1940), WHERE THE DEBTOR UNDER
SEC. 77, THE NEW HAVEN RAILROAD, WAS LESSEE OF PROPERTY BUT HAD
REJECTED THE LEASE AND WAS OPERATING THE PROPERTY FOR THE ACCOUNT OF
THE LESSOR UNDER SEC. 77(C)(6), WE HELD THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAD
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO FIX THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIT RESULTING FROM
SUCH OPERATION AND TO DECLARE IT A LIEN UPON THE PROPERTY OF THE
LESSOR.  SINCE THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY COVERED BY THE REJECTED LEASE WAS
WITHIN THE CUSTODY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, THE FACT THAT LEGAL TITLE
REMAINED IN THE LESSOR WAS THOUGHT TO BE IMMATERIAL.  CLEARLY, CONTROL
OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY MUST REMAIN IN THE COURT WHICH HAS THE
ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATING IT.  AND IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
ESTATE OF THE DEBTOR FROM DISSIPATION THROUGH LOSSES SUFFERED IN THE
OPERATION OF THE LESSOR'S PROPERTY, RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSSES AND PROVISION FOR THEIR
RECOUPMENT FROM THE LESSOR WAS PROPERLY LODGED IN THE COURT SUPERVISING
THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DEBTOR. 

EQUALLY CLEAR, HOWEVER, IS THE FACT THAT THE INTERNAL MANAGEMENT OF
THE LESSOR IS NOT PROPERLY SUBJECT TO THE COURT'S CONTROL.  THE ANOMALY
OF PETITIONER'S POSITION IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACTS OF THE CASE JUST
DISCUSSED.  THE NEW HAVEN REORGANIZATION WAS PROCEEDING IN A
CONNECTICUT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, WHILE THE LESSOR RAILROAD, THE
BOSTON & PROVIDENCE, WAS IN REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 IN A
MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT.  THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF THE NEW
HAVEN, LIKE THE CENTRAL'S PLAN IN THIS CASE, CONTEMPLATED THE PURCHASE
OF THE LESSOR'S PROPERTY.  SINCE THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE REORGANIZATION
COURT HAD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ITS PROPERTY, IT CAN HARDLY BE
CONTENDED THAT THE NEW HAVEN REORGANIZATION COURT COULD ASSUME
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE QUESTIONS ARISING, FOR EXAMPLE,
BETWEEN DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CREDITORS OF THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE AS TO
WHETHER THE NEW HAVEN'S OFFER SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.  SUCH A RESULT WOULD
BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT'S EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY OF THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE UNDER SEC.
77(A).  FN14  INSOFAR AS THE POWER OF THE COURT REORGANIZING THE LESSEE
RESTS ON ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR, THE FACT
THAT THE LESSOR HERE IS NOT IN REORGANIZATION IN ANOTHER COURT IS
IMMATERIAL. 

FURTHER SUPPORT FOR THIS POSITION IS FOUND IN OUR DECISION IN GROUP
OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., SUPRA.
THE MILWAUKEE REORGANIZATION, IN ONE OF ITS ASPECTS, PRESENTED A
SITUATION ANALOGOUS TO THE ONE NOW BEFORE US:  THE LESSEE WAS IN
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77, BUT NO PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INSTITUTED
FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE LESSOR OF SOME OF ITS LINES, THE CHICAGO,
TERRE HAUTE & SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.  THE REORGANIZATION PLAN
PROVIDED FOR A NEW LEASE TO BE OFFERED THE TERRE HAUTE, WHICH REQUIRED
THAT THE LATTER SCALE DOWN ITS BONDED INDEBTEDNESS SO THAT THE INTEREST
THEREON, WHICH WAS THE RENTAL UNDER THE LEASE, WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY
REDUCED.  THE PLAN DID NOT, HOWEVER, DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE FOUR
CLASSES OF BONDS OF THE LESSOR WITH RESPECT TO THE EARNING POWER AND
CHARACTER OF THE SECURITY OF EACH, AS IS REQUIRED IN THE REORGANIZATION
OF PROPERTIES OF THE DEBTOR.  CERTAIN BONDHOLDERS ACCORDINGLY ATTACKED
THE PLAN AS UNFAIR, BECAUSE IT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE
RESPECTIVE PRIORITIES OF THESE BOND ISSUES.  BUT WE SAID (P. 546):
"THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT OBJECTION IS THAT THE TERRE HAUTE PROPERTIES
HAVE NOT BEEN TREATED BY THE COMMISSION OR THE DISTRICT COURT AS A PART
OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE DEBTOR FOR REORGANIZATION PURPOSES.  NOR HAS
ANY QUESTION BEEN RAISED OR ARGUED HERE AS TO THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION OR THE DISTRICT COURT SO TO TREAT THEM.  THE COMMISSION AND
THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THE PROBLEM SOLELY AS ONE OF REJECTION OR
AFFIRMANCE OF A LEASE."  IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IN THE CASE BEFORE
US, THE INTEREST OF SOUTH WESTERN WAS SIMILARLY CONSIDERED.  FN15 

OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77 LEND NO SUPPORT TO PETITIONER'S
CONTENTIONS.  SECTION 77(B), WHICH MAKES SOUTH WESTERN A CREDITOR IN
THE PROCEEDINGS, DOES NOT, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, GIVE THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT ANY CONTROL OVER ITS INTERNAL ORGANIZATION.  IT IS NOT A CREDITOR
WHICH CAN BE BOUND BY THE PLAN WITHOUT ITS ASSENT, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT
OF ITS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE AND FOR AMOUNTS DUE IT
FROM THE LESSEE.  FN16  SECTION 77(B)(1) PROVIDES THAT THE PLAN MAY
ALTER THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS, WHILE SEC. 77(B)(5) REQUIRES THAT THE
PLAN PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEANS FOR ITS EXECUTION, WHICH MAY INCLUDE MERGER
OR CONSOLIDATION OF THE DEBTOR WITH ANOTHER CORPORATION.  THIS
SUBSECTION ALSO PERMITS REJECTION OF EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED
LEASES. 

THE BANKRUPTCY POWER UNQUESTIONABLY GIVES THE COMMISSION AND COURT,
WORKING WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE ACT, FULL AND COMPLETE POWER NOT
ONLY OVER THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY, BUT ALSO, AS A COROLLARY, OVER
ANY RIGHTS THAT MAY BE ASSERTED AGAINST IT.  THESE RIGHTS MAY BE
ALTERED IN ANY WAY THOUGHT NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE SOUND FINANCIAL AND
OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR THE REORGANIZED COMPANY, SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  THE PURCHASE OF FORMERLY LEASED PROPERTIES
DOES NOT INVOLVE RIGHTS ASSERTED AGAINST THE DEBTOR, HOWEVER.  FN17
THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT "THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION GRANTED THE
REORGANIZATION COURT BY SEC. 77(A) IS THAT WHICH BANKRUPTCY COURTS HAVE
CUSTOMARILY POSSESSED."  MEYER V. FLEMING, 327 U.S. 161, 164(1946). 
FN18  WE CONCEIVE THE JURISDICTION ASSERTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OVER
A SOLVENT LESSOR NOT IN REORGANIZATION TO BE AN EXTENSION OF THESE
TRADITIONAL POWERS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT. 

A SERIOUS PRACTICAL PROBLEM WOULD ARISE IF THE CONSEQUENCE OF
REJECTION OF THE OFFER AND RETURN OF THE PROPERTIES TO SOUTH WESTERN
WOULD BE CESSATION OF RAILROAD SERVICE ON THE FORMERLY LEASED LINES. 
CONGRESS HAS FORESEEN THAT DIFFICULTY, HOWEVER.  UNDER SEC. 77(C)(6),
IF THE LESSOR IS UNABLE TO OPERATE THE LEASED LINES FOLLOWING REJECTION
OF THE LEASE, THE DUTY DEVOLVES UPON THE LESSEE TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE
THE LEASED LINES FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR,  FN19  AND SUCH
OPERATION MAY CONTINUE AFTER COMPLETION OF THE REORGANIZATION OF THE
LESSEE.  FN20  WE NEED NOT SPECULATE UPON THE EVENTUAL DISPOSITION OF
SOUTH WESTERN'S PROPERTIES.  UNTIL SOME FINAL DISPOSITION IS MADE,
HOWEVER, WE ARE ASSURED THAT SERVICE WILL BE MAINTAINED ON ITS LINES,
AND THAT THE DEBTOR WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED BECAUSE OF THE DUTY THRUST
UPON IT.  PALMER V. WEBSTER & ATLAS NATIONAL BANK, 312 U.S. 156(1941). 

THIRD.  IT IS ARGUED THAT CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK V.
CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 648(1935), AND OTHER CASES APPLYING
SIMILAR PRINCIPLES SUPPORT THE DISTRICT COURT'S INJUNCTION OF THE STATE
ACTION AND ITS DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE THERE INVOLVED.  THE QUESTION
SPECIFICALLY BEFORE THE COURT IN THE ROCK ISLAND CASE WAS THIS:  "UNDER
SEC. 77 DOES THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ENJOIN THE SALE OF
THE COLLATERAL HERE IN QUESTION IF A SALE WOULD SO HINDER, OBSTRUCT AND
DELAY THE PREPARATION AND CONSUMMATION OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AS
PROBABLY TO DEFEAT IT?"  THE AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE COURT
RESTED UPON THE INHERENT POWERS OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO PREVENT THE
DEFEAT OR IMPAIRMENT OF ITS JURISDICTION, UPON SEC. 262 OF THE OLD
JUDICIAL CODE, WHICH AUTHORIZED UNITED STATES COURTS "TO ISSUE ALL
WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY
FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS," AND UPON SEC.
2(15) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 11(15), WHICH GIVES
BANKRUPTCY COURTS THE POWER TO "MAKE SUCH ORDERS, ISSUE SUCH PROCESS,
AND ENTER SUCH JUDGMENTS, IN ADDITION TO THOSE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
FOR, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT."  52 STAT. 843. 

RELIANCE UPON THESE CASES IS BASED, HOWEVER, UPON THE FALLACY
PREVIOUSLY ADVERTED TO.  THE ACTION IN THE GEORGIA COURTS IN THIS CASE
DOES NOT EMBARRASS OR DELAY THE FORMULATION OR PROMULGATION OF A PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION.  THE PLAN HAS BEEN FORMULATED AND APPROVED.  IT
LEAVES OPEN TO SOUTH WESTERN THE ALTERNATIVE OF SELLING ITS PROPERTIES
TO THE REORGANIZED DEBTOR OR OF FACING DISAFFIRMANCE OF THE LEASE AND
THE RISKS OF SEPARATE OPERATION OF ITS LINES.  NO SUGGESTION HAS BEEN
MADE THAT A FINAL DECISION OF THE STATE LAW QUESTION WILL BE
UNREASONABLY DELAYED.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT BELIEVE
THAT THE ROCK ISLAND DECISION PROVIDES ANY SUPPORT FOR THE DISTRICT
COURT'S ACTION.  FN21  AS WE HELD IN THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN R. CO.,
328 U.S. 134(1946) AT 142:  "FORFEITURE OF LEASES BY THE COURT IN
ADVANCE OF A DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION WHICH IS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE DEBTOR MAY
SERIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED TO IT."  SEE ALSO SMITH V. HOBOKEN R. CO., 328 U.S.
123(1946).  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT PREVAIL AT A LATER STAGE OF
THE PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, WHEN, PURSUANT TO A PLAN FORMULATED BY THE
COMMISSION, THE LEASE IS FORFEITED AND AN OFFER OF PURCHASE SUBSTITUTED
IN LIEU THEREOF.  UNLESS THE OFFER IS A SHAM AND THE LESSOR'S
DISCRETION ILLUSORY, THE PLAN MAY BE EFFECTIVELY CONSUMMATED WHETHER
THE OFFEREE ACCEPTS OR NOT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT MERELY POSTPONE
ACTION WHICH WOULD HAVE HINDERED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN; IT TOOK
TO ITSELF THE DECISION OF A QUESTION WHICH THE PLAN LEFT OPEN FOR
DECISION ELSEWHERE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT, UNDER THE NARROW FACTS PRESENTED HERE, THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT ERRED IN ENJOINING THE STATE COURT SUIT LEADING TO A
DETERMINATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF GEORGIA LAW WITH RESPECT TO SALE
OF THE ENTIRE ASSETS OF SOUTH WESTERN.  THIS QUESTION WAS ALREADY IN
LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURT WHEN FIRST RAISED IN THE FEDERAL COURT. 
TITLE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2283 FORBIDS THIS EXERCISE OF POWER, SINCE, AS WE
HOLD, THE CONTROVERSY DOES NOT INVOLVE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND THE ASSERTION OF
JURISDICTION BY THE STATE COURT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN22  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  WITH RESPECT TO SOUTH WESTERN'S PROPERTY, THE PLAN READS AS
FOLLOWS:  "PRIOR TO OR UPON CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN THE DEBTOR SHALL
ALSO ACQUIRE, IF THEY CAN BE ACQUIRED ON THE TERMS HEREINAFTER SET
FORTH, PROPERTIES AT PRESENT LEASED TO THE DEBTOR BY THE SOUTH WESTERN
RAILROAD COMPANY  ...  IF ANY OF THESE PROPERTIES SHALL NOT BE ACQUIRED
AS A RESULT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN BY THE LEASED-LINE SECURITY
HOLDERS, THEN AND IN THAT EVENT THE LEASE OR LEASES OF ANY LINE OR
LINES NOT SO ACQUIRED SHALL BE DISAFFIRMED AS OF SUCH TIME AT OR PRIOR
TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT.  THE METHOD OF
ACQUISITION, WHETHER THROUGH PURCHASE, MERGER, OR CONSOLIDATION, SHALL,
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT, BE DETERMINED
BY THE TRUSTEE OR BY THE REORGANIZATION MANAGERS WHEN THEY BEGIN TO
FUNCTION. 

"IF THE LEASED LINES ARE ACQUIRED, THE RAILROADS OF EACH OF THE THREE
AND THE PERSONAL PROPERTY APPURTENANT THERETO AND ALL OF THE REAL
ESTATE OWNED BY EACH LESSOR SHALL BE CONVEYED TO THE REORGANIZED
COMPANY; EACH OF SAID LESSORS SHALL WAIVE ANY DAMAGES TO WHICH IT HAS
BECOME OR SHALL BECOME ENTITLED ON ACCOUNT OF ANY BREACH OF LEASE; AND
THE SOUTH WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY SHALL WAIVE ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT TO
EQUIPMENT.  SUCH CONVEYANCES AND WAIVERS SHALL IN EACH INSTANCE BE ON
THE SOLE CONSIDERATION OF THE DELIVERY TO EACH OF THE RESPECTIVE
LESSORS OF THE SECURITIES PROPOSED TO BE ALLOCATED TO IT, AS
HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED."  261 I.C.C. 501, 515. 

FN2  261 I.C.C. 263, 309. 

FN3  333 U.S. 853. 

FN4  261 I.C.C. 515. 

FN5  IN ITS REPORT APPROVING THE PLAN, THE COMMISSION SAID (261
I.C.C. AT P. 308):  "THE LESSOR (SOUTH WESTERN) INSISTS THAT IT HAS THE
RIGHT TO SEVERANCE IF IT CARES TO EXERCISE IT, AND SUCH A RIGHT WILL BE
RECOGNIZED IN THE APPROVED PLAN."  THE DISTRICT COURT, IN APPROVING THE
PLAN, COMMENTED THAT "IF THE LESSORS DO NOT ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL TO
ACQUIRE THEIR LINES THEY ARE, ON DISAFFIRMANCE, AT LIBERTY TO TAKE
THEIR PROPERTIES BACK," WHILE COUNSEL FOR THE TRUSTEE STATED AT A
MEETING OF SOUTH WESTERN'S STOCKHOLDERS, "THE PLAN MAKES AN OFFER TO
YOU GENTLEMEN; THAT IS ALL IT DOES."    FN6  THIS PRECISE PROBLEM HAS
RECEIVED LITTLE ATTENTION FROM COMMENTATORS.  IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN
THE COMMITTEE REPORTS OR IN DEBATE WHEN SEC. 77 AND ITS 1935 AMENDMENTS
WERE PASSED.  HOWEVER, THE POSITION OF THE LEASED LINE, A MAJORITY OF
WHOSE STOCK IS NOT OWNED BY THE DEBTOR AND WHICH IS NOT IN
REORGANIZATION, IS ANALYZED BY MECK, THE PROBLEMS OF THE LEASED LINE, 7
LAW AND CONTEMP.  PROB.  509, 518, AS FOLLOWS:  "UPON REJECTION OF THE
LEASE, ALTHOUGH THE LEASED LINE REMAINS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE LESSEE'S
TRUSTEES, IT IS NOT PART OF THE LESSEE'S ESTATE AND SECURITY HOLDERS
HAVING INTERESTS IN IT CANNOT BE BOUND IN THE LESSEE'S REORGANIZATION. 
CONSEQUENTLY, IF THE LESSEE'S PLAN PROVIDES FOR A MODIFIED LEASE OR
MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION, SUCH A PROVISION IS LITTLE MORE THAN AN OFFER
TO THE LESSOR.  ACCEPTANCE OF THIS OFFER WILL BE DETERMINED, NOT BY
SUBMITTING THE LESSEE'S PLAN TO THE LESSOR'S SECURITY HOLDERS, PURSUANT
TO SECTION 77, BUT ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE LESSOR
IS INCORPORATED."  IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE RIGHTS OF
BONDHOLDERS OF THE LESSOR MAY BE AFFECTED, AS WAS THE CASE WITH TERRE
HAUTE BONDHOLDERS IN THE MILWAUKEE RAILROAD REORGANIZATION (SEE GROUP
OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S.
523, AND DISCUSSION INFRA), NEARLY UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF SUCH
BONDHOLDERS MAY BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE CHANGES CAN BE MADE EFFECTIVE. 
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TOOK THAT POSITION IN THE MILWAUKEE
CASE AND PROVIDED THAT THE OFFER TO TERRE HAUTE SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED
ACCEPTED UNLESS SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF ITS BONDHOLDERS VOTED TO ACCEPT. 
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO. REORGANIZATION, 239 I.C.C. 485, 536-538;
240 I.C.C. 257, 270-271.  SEE ALSO 318 U.S. AT 532-533. 

FN7 SEE IN RE NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 54 F.SUPP.  631, AT 638. 

FN8  54 STAT. 905, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(11). 

FN9  SEE IN RE CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 168 F.2D 587, WHERE THE
STATE OF TEXAS MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER SUBSECTIONS 2(B), (C), AND (F) OF
SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IN PROCEEDINGS FOR MERGER OR
CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROADS ARE MANDATORY IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

FN10  SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. DANIEL, 333 U.S. 118; SCHWABACHER
V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 182; TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 522. 

FN11  ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 132;
GARDNER V. NEW JERSEY, 329 U.S. 565.  SEE THOMPSON V. TERMINAL SHARES,
INC., 104 F.2D 1.  EVEN WHEN THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVES PROPERTY WITHIN
THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, THAT COURT MAY, IN
ITS DISCRETION, POSTPONE ACTION PENDING ADJUDICATION OF THE QUESTION IN
ANOTHER COURT.  EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610; THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478; ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS V. PITNEY, 326
U.S. 561.  SEE FOUST V. MUNSON S.S. LINES, 299 U.S. 77.  CF. RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496; CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES,
316 U.S. 168.  WHETHER, IF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAD HAD EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE, IT SHOULD HAVE WITHHELD DECISION OF THE
STATE LAW QUESTION PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE STATE COURT ACTION, WE
NEED NOT DECIDE. 

FN12  SEC. 77(J). 

FN13  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77, AS AMENDED IN 1935, A LESSOR
RAILROAD CAN BE REORGANIZED IN CONNECTION WITH, OR AS A PART OF THE
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF THE DEBTOR-LESSEE ONLY IF A MAJORITY OF ITS
CAPITAL STOCK IS OWNED BY THE DEBTOR.  SEC. 77(A).  WHEN SEC. 77 WAS
FIRST ENACTED IN 1933, A LESSOR COULD ALSO BE REORGANIZED IN THE
LESSEE'S PROCEEDINGS IF THE DEBTOR OPERATED SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE LESSOR, BUT THIS PROVISION WAS NOT REENACTED, EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE FEDERAL
COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION, WHOSE PROPOSALS FORMED THE BASIS OF THE
1935 AMENDMENTS.  REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION,
1934.  H.R. DOC. NO. 89, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 230.  SEE FRIENDLY,
AMENDMENT OF THE RAILROAD REORGANIZATION ACT, 36 COL. L. REV. 27, 49;
MECK AND MASTEN, RAILROAD LEASES AND REORGANIZATION, 49 YALE L.J. 626,
653. 

FN14  A SIMILAR QUESTION AROSE IN ANOTHER PHASE OF THE NEW HAVEN
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE BY THE DEBTOR OF
THE BOSTON TERMINAL, WHICH WAS IN REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 IN
ANOTHER COURT.  THE OBLIGATIONS OWED BY THE NEW HAVEN TO THE TERMINAL
COMPANY WERE FIXED BY A MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE, BUT THESE OBLIGATIONS
WERE REPUDIATED BY THE NEW HAVEN'S PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, WHICH
OFFERED THE TERMINAL NEW TERMS FOR THE USE OF ITS FACILITIES BY THE
DEBTOR.  IN CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE TERMINAL'S BONDHOLDERS
THAT THE PLAN VIOLATED THE NEW HAVEN'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE STATE LAW,
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT MADE THIS STATEMENT:  "THE
PLAN ENABLES NEW HAVEN TO REJECT WHAT IN EFFECT AMOUNTS TO A BURDENSOME
LEASE.  THE PLAN, HOWEVER, DOES NOT COMPEL BOSTON TERMINAL TO FURNISH
THE SERVICE AT THE RENTAL OFFERED; IF BOSTON TERMINAL DOES NOT CHOOSE
TO ACCEPT THE OFFER, IT CAN, AS A CREDITOR, FILE PROOF OF CLAIM AGAINST
NEW HAVEN FOR ANY DAMAGES TO WHICH IT MAY BE ENTITLED.  IT IS ARGUED
THAT BOSTON TERMINAL HAS NO POWER UNDER ITS CHARTER TO ACCEPT THE
OFFER.  THIS SEEMS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS
POWER TO APPROVE A PLAN MAKING THE OFFER.  MOREOVER, THE REORGANIZATION
TRUSTEE OF BOSTON TERMINAL MAY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT
EITHER FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS OR THROUGH AN
AMENDMENT OF THE BOSTON TERMINAL ACT.  THE PLAN COULD NOT, AND DOES NOT
ATTEMPT TO, AMEND THE CHARTER OF THE TERMINAL COMPANY; BUT IT DOES
AMEND, AS IT CAN, THE CHARTER OF THE NEW HAVEN."  IN RE NEW YORK, N.H.
& H.R. CO., 147 F.2D 40, 52. 

FN15  IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE TERRE HAUTE COULD HAVE BEEN
REORGANIZED IN THE MILWAUKEE PROCEEDINGS IF INSOLVENT OR UNABLE TO MEET
ITS DEBTS, SINCE THE MILWAUKEE OWNED SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE TERRE
HAUTE'S STOCK.  SEE NOTE 13, SUPRA.  THE LESSOR'S BONDHOLDERS WERE
THEREFORE MORE LIKE HOLDERS OF THE DEBTOR'S BONDS THAN ARE STOCKHOLDERS
OF AN INDEPENDENTLY OWNED LESSOR.  THIS ARGUMENT WAS MADE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION BY AN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS GROUP COMMITTEE, WHICH
CONTENDED THAT THE ASSETS OF TERRE HAUTE SHOULD BE TREATED AS ASSETS OF
THE DEBTOR FOR PURPOSES OF REORGANIZATION.  THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE
ARGUMENT, SAYING:  "WE AGREE WITH THE GROUP OF TERRE HAUTE BONDHOLDERS
THAT THEY ARE NOT SUCH CREDITORS OF THE DEBTOR AS WOULD BE BOUND AS A
CLASS BY A CONFIRMED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WHICH DIVESTED THEM OF
THEIR EXISTING LIENS UPON THE TERRE HAUTE PROPERTIES."  239 I.C.C. 485,
535.  SEE SWAINE, A DECADE OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 77
OF THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT, 56 HARV. L. REV. 1193, 1217. 

FN16  THE DUAL STATUS OF A LESSOR WHOSE LEASE HAS BEEN, OR WILL BE,
REJECTED AND TO WHOM AN OFFER OF PURCHASE OR MODIFICATION IS MADE IS
EXPLAINED BY MECK, THE PROBLEMS OF THE LEASED LINE, 7 LAW AND CONTEMP. 
PROB.  509, 516, AS FOLLOWS:  "THE PLAN IN THEORY MUST DEAL WITH THE
LESSOR IN AT LEAST TWO CAPACITIES:  AS AN UNSECURED CREDITOR AND AS
OWNER OF THE LEASED LINE.  IN THE FORMER CAPACITY THE LESSOR WILL
RECEIVE THE SAME TREATMENT AS OTHER UNSECURED CREDITORS.  IN THE
LATTER, HOWEVER, THE LESSOR WILL BE TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
VALUE OF THE LINE TO THE LESSEE."  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN17  THE OFFER OF PURCHASE MAY, AS WAS TRUE IN THIS CASE, INCLUDE A
PROVISION REQUIRING THE LESSOR-OFFEREE TO RENOUNCE THE CLAIMS IT COULD
OTHERWISE ASSERT AGAINST THE DEBTOR, INCLUDING CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF THE
LEASE AND FOR AMOUNTS DUE THE LESSOR UNDER THE LEASE OR OTHER
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  261 I.C.C. 515.  THESE FACTORS ARE
TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT TO BE OFFERED UNDER
THE PLAN.  SEE 261 I.C.C. AT 272 AND 295. 

FN18  CF. IN RE ADOLF GOBEL, INC., 80 F.2D 849, INVOLVING SEC. 77B
PROCEEDINGS, AND GREENBAUM V. LEHRENKRAUSS CORP., 73 F.2D 285, AN
EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP. 

FN19  SECTION 77(C)(6) PROVIDES:  "IF A LEASE OF A LINE OF RAILROAD
IS REJECTED, AND IF THE LESSEE, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE, SHALL
ELECT NO LONGER TO OPERATE THE LEASED LINE, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
LESSOR AT THE END OF A PERIOD TO BE FIXED BY THE JUDGE TO BEGIN THE
OPERATION OF SUCH LINE, UNLESS THE JUDGE, UPON THE PETITION OF THE
LESSOR, SHALL DECREE AFTER HEARING THAT IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE AND
CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THE LESSOR TO OPERATE THE SAID
LINE, IN WHICH EVENT IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE LESSEE TO CONTINUE
OPERATION ON OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR UNTIL THE ABANDONMENT OF
SUCH LINE IS AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 OF TITLE 49, AS AMENDED." 

FN20  OPERATION OF THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE RAILROAD FOR ITS ACCOUNT
IS NOW BEING CARRIED ON BY THE REORGANIZED NEW HAVEN PENDING COMPLETION
OF REORGANIZATION OF THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE.  SEE IN RE NEW YORK, N.H.
& H.R. CO., 169 F.2D 337. 

FN21  CF. IN RE NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 102 F.2D 923; GUARANTY
TRUST CO. V. HENWOOD, 86 F.2D 347; CENTRAL HANOVER BANK V. CALLAWAY,
135 F.2D 592. 

FN22 KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226; EX PARTE BALDWIN,
291 U.S. 610; MANDEVILLE V. CANTERBURY, 318 U.S. 47. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THIS DECISION PERMITS CONTROL OVER THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION TO BE
TAKEN FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT
CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77 AND ALLOWS A STATE COURT TO UNDO
WHAT THOSE FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE APPROVED. 

THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THE DISTRICT COURT
PROVIDES FOR THE "CONSOLIDATION, MERGER OR PURCHASE" OF THE PROPERTIES
OF SOUTH WESTERN IN LIEU OF CONTINUED OPERATION UNDER THE LEASE, "IF
THE LEASED PROPERTIES CAN BE ACQUIRED ON THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE
PLAN." 

THE TERMS OF THE ACQUISITION ARE SET FORTH IN THE PLAN.  IF THE
LEASED LINES ARE ACQUIRED, SOUTH WESTERN SHALL WAIVE ANY DAMAGES ON
ACCOUNT OF BREACH OF THE LEASE AND IN RESPECT OF EQUIPMENT.  SECURITIES
ALLOCATED TO SOUTH WESTERN SHALL NOT BEAR INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS FOR ANY
PERIOD PRIOR TO THE ACQUISITION.  THE PLAN ALSO DETERMINES THE AMOUNT
OF THE ALLOTMENT TO SOUTH WESTERN WHICH THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT
APPROVED AS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" AND "EQUAL THE VALUE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION PROPERTY." 

ON FEBRUARY 11, 1947, THE COMMISSION SUBMITTED THE PLAN TO ALL
CREDITORS, INCLUDING SOUTH WESTERN, FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION ON OR
BEFORE MIDNIGHT MARCH 28, 1947.  ON MARCH 13, 1947, THE DIRECTORS OF
SOUTH WESTERN ACCEPTED THE PLAN SUBJECT TO THE ASSENT OF THE HOLDERS OF
A MAJORITY OF ITS STOCK.  THE STOCKHOLDERS MET ON MARCH 28, 1947, AND
ACCEPTED THE PLAN BY A VOTE OF 30,137 TO 9,057.  ACCORDINGLY SOUTH
WESTERN MAILED ITS BALLOT APPROVING THE PLAN TO THE COMMISSION. 

THE RESULT OF THE BALLOTING WAS CERTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE
COURT.  THEREAFTER THE COURT HAD A HEARING AND CONFIRMED THE PLAN,
SPECIFICALLY RESERVING FOR LATER ADJUDICATION THE QUESTION WHETHER IT
HAD POWER TO ENJOIN ACTION IN A STATE COURT WHICH ATTEMPTED TO ANNUL
THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN BY SOUTH WESTERN.  SUBSEQUENTLY IT HELD A
HEARING, OVERRULED OBJECTIONS OF THE MINORITY OF SOUTH WESTERN'S
STOCKHOLDERS AND HELD THAT THE ACCEPTANCE BY SOUTH WESTERN WAS VALID
UNDER GEORGIA LAW.  IT ACCORDINGLY ISSUED THE INJUNCTION INVOLVED IN
THIS CASE. 

IT SEEMS PLAIN TO ME THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE REORGANIZATION COURT
HAD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, TO DETERMINE
THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN TENDERED BY
THE OFFICERS OF SOUTH WESTERN.  THE VALIDITY OF THE ACCEPTANCE IS, OF
COURSE, A QUESTION OF STATE LAW.  BUT IT HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED BY CONGRESS
TO THESE FEDERAL AGENCIES. 

THE PLAN MUST FIRST BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND THEN CERTIFIED
TO THE COURT.  SEC. 77(D)(E).  THE COURT, AFTER HEARING, PASSES ON THE
PLAN; AND IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PLAN, IT CERTIFIES THAT FACT TO THE
COMMISSION.  SEC. 77(E).  THE COMMISSION THEN SUBMITS THE PLAN TO
CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS (SEC. 77(E)), THE LESSOR AND ITS SECURITY
HOLDERS BEING INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF CREDITOR.  SEC. 77(B).  SEE
GROUP OF INVESTORS V. MILWAUKEE R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 549.  THE
COMMISSION MUST THEN DETERMINE THE RESULT OF THE BALLOTING AND CERTIFY
TO THE JUDGE "THE RESULTS OF SUCH SUBMISSION."  SEC. 77(E).  THE COURT
THEN "SHALL CONFIRM" THE PLAN IF SATISFIED (1) THAT THE REQUISITE
PERCENTAGE OF EACH CLASS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS HAS BEEN
OBTAINED AND (2) "THAT SUCH ACCEPTANCES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE OR PROCURED
BY ANY MEANS FORBIDDEN BY LAW."  SEC. 77(E).  ON CONFIRMATION OF THE
PLAN BY THE COURT, THE PLAN AND ORDER OF CONFIRMATION "SHALL, SUBJECT
TO THE RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW," BE BINDING UPON THE DEBTOR AND
STOCKHOLDERS AND "ALL CREDITORS SECURED OR UNSECURED, WHETHER OR NOT
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PLAN, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEIR CLAIMS SHALL
HAVE BEEN FILED, AND, IF FILED, WHETHER OR NOT APPROVED, INCLUDING
CREDITORS WHO HAVE NOT, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO HAVE, ACCEPTED IT."  SEC.
77(F). 

DEBTOR OR ANY OTHER CORPORATION ORGANIZED TO CARRY OUT THE PLAN "SHALL
HAVE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO, AND SHALL PUT INTO EFFECT AND CARRY
OUT THE PLAN AND THE ORDERS OF THE JUDGE RELATIVE THERETO, UNDER AND
SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION AND THE CONTROL OF THE JUDGE, THE LAWS OF
ANY STATE OR THE DECISION OR ORDER OF ANY STATE AUTHORITY TO THE
CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  AND SEC. 77(J), WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT
MATERIAL HERE, GIVES THE COURT POWER TO ENJOIN OR STAY THE COMMENCEMENT
OF ANY SUIT AGAINST THE DEBTOR UNTIL AFTER FINAL DECREE.  FN1    THE
CONTROL OF THE COURT OVER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN AND OVER ITS
CONFIRMATION IS ONE OF THE HISTORIC INSTANCES OF THE "EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION" VESTED IN THE COURT BY SEC. 77(A).  THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT IS ONE WHICH HERETOFORE WE
HAVE ZEALOUSLY GUARDED AGAINST ENCROACHMENTS BY STATE COURTS.  SEE
THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN R. CO., 328 U.S. 134.  THAT EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IS NOT RESTRICTED TO PROTECTION OF THE COURT'S POSSESSION
OF THE PROPERTY AND OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS.  SECTION 77(E) GIVES THE
REORGANIZATION COURT THE SOLE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
ACCEPTANCES OF THE PLAN HAVE BEEN MADE OR PROCURED "BY ANY MEANS
FORBIDDEN BY LAW."  IN THIS CASE THAT PLAINLY MEANS THAT THE
REORGANIZATION COURT ALONE HAD THE POWER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE
REQUISITE VOTE OF THE DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF SOUTH WESTERN HAD
BEEN CAST IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN.  ONCE IT DETERMINED THAT LAWFUL
CORPORATE ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN BY SOUTH WESTERN, THEN SEC. 77(F) BOUND
ALL OF SOUTH WESTERN'S STOCKHOLDERS, SINCE THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE
DEFINITION OF CREDITORS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  SEE GROUP OF
INVESTORS V. MILWAUKEE R. CO., SUPRA.  AND THEN THE REORGANIZATION
COURT HAD THE EXPRESS POWER UNDER SEC. 77(F) TO PUT THE PLAN INTO
EFFECT - "THE LAWS OF ANY STATE OR THE DECISION OR ORDER OF ANY STATE
AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." 

THIS IS PRECISELY ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT,
IF ITS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IS TO BE MAINTAINED, MUST HAVE THE POWER
TO ENJOIN ACTION IN STATE COURTS.  IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED TO HAVE
THAT AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO PROTECT ITS DECREE.  SEE LOCAL LOAN CO. V.
HUNT, 292 U.S. 234.  AND THE POLICY REFLECTED IN OLD SEC. 265 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE - NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2283 - WHICH FROWNED ON THE STAY OF
STATE PROCEEDINGS BY FEDERAL COURTS, HAS FOR YEARS RECOGNIZED
BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION AS AN EXCEPTION.  SEE TOUCEY V. N.Y. LIFE INS.
CO., 314 U.S. 118, 132.  IT WAS IN RECOGNITION OF THE NECESSITY FOR
THAT POWER THAT CONGRESS WROTE SUBDIVISION (J) INTO SEC. 77. 

IF A STATE COURT CAN HOLD INVALID ACCEPTANCES WHOSE VALIDITY HAS BEEN
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT, THEN THE FEDERAL
AGENCIES HAVE LOST MUCH OF THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS
GRANTED THEM.  THERE ARE MYRIAD QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW UNDERLYING THE
CONSUMMATION OF EVERY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  THERE IS THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE NEW COMPANY IS VALIDLY ORGANIZED; WHETHER PROXIES ARE
EXECUTED IN PURSUANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CODE; WHETHER THE
CHARTER OF A CORPORATION CAN CONTAIN CERTAIN KINDS OF PROVISIONS,
AUTHORIZE CERTAIN TYPES OF SECURITIES, ETC., ETC.  IF STATE COURTS CAN
INTRUDE WITH INJUNCTIONS ON SUCH STATE LAW QUESTIONS, THE EXCLUSIVE
COMMAND OF THE FEDERAL AGENCIES OVER THE REORGANIZATION PROCESS IS
LOST, ITS EFFICIENCY IS UNDERMINED, AND MINORITIES ARE GIVEN LEVERAGES
WHICH THE SCHEME OF SEC. 77 EXPLICITLY DENIES. 

FN1 THIS SUBSECTION PROVIDES IN PART:  "IN ADDITION TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 29 OF THIS TITLE FOR THE STAYING OF PENDING SUITS AGAINST
THE DEBTOR, THE JUDGE MAY ENJOIN OR STAY THE COMMENCEMENT OR
CONTINUATION OF SUITS AGAINST THE DEBTOR UNTIL AFTER FINAL DECREE  ...
"
..END :



















FISHER V. PACE, 336 U.S. 155 


NO. 45.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 1949.  - 146
TEX. 328, 206 S.W.2D 1000, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PROCEEDING IN A TEXAS STATE COURT,
COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT, IN HIS ARGUMENT TO THE JURY, PERSISTED IN
REFERRING TO MATTERS WHICH, UNDER TEXAS LAW AND AS THE JUDGE TWICE
ADMONISHED HIM, WERE OUTSIDE THE ISSUES FOR THE JURY, AND HE WAS
SUMMARILY FINED $25 FOR CONTEMPT.  AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN COUNSEL AND
THE JUDGE FOLLOWED, DURING WHICH THE FINE WAS INCREASED TO $50, THEN A
3-DAY JAIL SENTENCE WAS ADDED, AND FINALLY A SENTENCE OF $100 FINE AND
3 DAYS IN JAIL WAS IMPOSED.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE
SENTENCE.  HELD:  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, COUNSEL WAS NOT DENIED
DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 156-163. 

2.  THE INHERENT POWER OF COURTS TO PUNISH SUMMARILY FOR CONTEMPTS
COMMITTED IN THEIR PRESENCE IS ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVE THEIR AUTHORITY
AND TO PREVENT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FROM FALLING INTO
DISREPUTE; AND SUCH SUMMARY PROCEDURE AFFORDS DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP.
159-160. 

3.  THE MILDLY PROVOCATIVE LANGUAGE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT EXCUSE
COUNSEL'S SHOW OF CONTEMPT FOR JUDGE AND COURT WHICH THE RECORD IN THIS
CASE MANIFESTS.  P. 163. 

FISHER V. PACE, SHERIFF. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. 

IN A STATE COURT IN WHICH HE WAS PARTICIPATING AS COUNSEL IN THE
TRIAL OF A WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASE, PETITIONER WAS SUMMARILY
CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR A CONTEMPT OF COURT.  IN A HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING, THE STATE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CONVICTION.  146 TEX.
328, 206 S.W.2D 1000.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 827. 
AFFIRMED, P. 163. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WHILE PARTICIPATING AS COUNSEL IN THE TRIAL OF A CAUSE THE
PETITIONER, JOE J. FISHER, WAS ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT COMMITTED IN
THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY,
TEXAS.  THE PETITIONER'S CLIENT WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION UNDER
THE STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW.  THE CASE WAS BEING TRIED BEFORE
A JURY AND THE PARTIES HAD STIPULATED AS TO THE AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE OF
THE CLAIMANT AND THE RATE OF COMPENSATION PER WEEK.  THE ONLY REMAINING
QUESTIONS TO BE DETERMINED WERE AS TO THE EXTENT AND DURATION OF THE
INCAPACITY RESULTING FROM AN INJURY TO THE CLAIMANT'S FOOT.  SEVEN
SPECIAL ISSUES, DESIGNED TO FURNISH AN ANSWER TO THESE PROBLEMS AND
LIMITED TO THEM, WERE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. 

THEREAFTER PETITIONER BEGAN HIS OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY DURING
WHICH THE FOLLOWING OCCURRENCE TOOK PLACE, AS SHOWN BY THE TRIAL
COURT'S ORDER OF CONTEMPT AND COMMITMENT:

          "OPENING ARGUMENT TO JURY OF PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY,

                     JOE J. FISHER 

"NOW, BEAR IN MIND, GENTLEMEN, THAT THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A SPECIFIC
INJURY.  A GENERAL INJURY IS AN INJURY TO THE ENTIRE BODY.  THIS IS
WHAT IS KNOWN AS A SPECIFIC INJURY, AND IT IS CONFINED TO THE LEFT
FOOT.  WE HAVE SPECIFIC INJURIES WHERE YOU HAVE INJURIES TO THE EYE, TO
YOUR HAND, AND TO YOUR FOOT; THIS IS AN INJURY TO THE FOOT, TO THE LEFT
FOOT; AND THE LAW STATES THE AMOUNT OF MAXIMUM COMPENSATION WHICH A
PERSON CAN RECEIVE FOR SUCH AN INJURY, THAT IS, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY
FIVE WEEKS.  THAT IS THE MOST COMPENSATION ANDERSON GODFREY COULD
RECEIVE, WOULD BE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE WEEKS, BECAUSE HIS INJURY
IS CONFINED TO HIS LEFT FOOT.  THAT IS ALL WE ARE ASKING.  NOW, THAT
MEANS ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE WEEKS TIMES THE AVERAGE WEEKLY
COMPENSATION RATE. 

"BY MR. COX:  YOUR HONOR PLEASE - 

"BY THE COURT:  WAIT A MINUTE. 

"BY MR. COX:  THE JURY IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE COMPUTATION; IT HAS
ONLY ONE SERIES OF ISSUES.  THAT IS NOT BEFORE THE JURY. 

"BY THE COURT: THAT HAS ALL BEEN AGREED UPON. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  I THINK IT IS MATERIAL, YOUR HONOR, TO TELL THE JURY
WHAT THE AVERAGE WEEKLY COMPENSATION IS OF THIS CLAIMANT SO THEY CAN
TELL WHERE HE IS. 

"BY THE COURT:  THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN DOLLARS AND CENTS. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  THEY ARE INTERESTED TO THIS EXTENT - 

"BY THE COURT:  DON'T ARGUE WITH ME.  GO AHEAD.  I WILL GIVE YOU YOUR
EXCEPTION TO IT. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  NOTE OUR EXCEPTION. 

"BY THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT. 

"(BY MR. FISHER:)  THIS NEGRO, AS I STATED, CAN ONLY RECOVER ONE
HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE WEEKS COMPENSATION, AT WHATEVER COMPENSATION
THE RATE WILL FIGURE UNDER THE LAW. 

"BY MR. COX:  I AM OBJECTING TO THAT DISCUSSION, YOUR HONOR, AS TO
WHAT THE PLAINTIFF CAN RECOVER. 

"BY THE COURT:  GENTLEMEN.  MR. FISHER, YOU KNOW THE RULE, AND I HAVE
SUSTAINED HIS OBJECTION. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  I AM ASKING - 

"BY THE COURT:  DON'T ARGUE WITH ME.  GENTLEMEN, DON'T GIVE ANY
CONSIDERATION TO THE STATEMENT OF MR. FISHER. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  NOTE OUR EXCEPTION.  I THINK I HAVE A RIGHT TO
EXPLAIN WHETHER IT IS A SPECIFIC INJURY OR GENERAL INJURY. 

"BY THE COURT:  I WILL DECLARE A MISTRIAL IF YOU MESS WITH ME TWO
MINUTES AND A HALF, AND FINE YOU BESIDES. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  THAT IS ALL RIGHT.  WE TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE CONDUCT
OF THE COURT. 

"BY THE COURT:  THAT IS ALL RIGHT; I WILL FINE YOU $25.00. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  IF THAT WILL GIVE YOU ANY SATISFACTION. 

"BY THE COURT:  THAT IS $50.00; THAT IS $25.00 MORE.  MR. SHERIFF
COME GET IT.  PAY THE CLERK $50.00. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  YOU MEAN FOR TRYING TO REPRESENT MY CLIENT? 

"BY THE COURT:  NO, SIR; FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.  DON'T ARGUE WITH
ME. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  I AM MAKING NO EFFORT TO COMMIT CONTEMPT, BUT MERELY
TRYING TO REPRESENT THE PLAINTIFF AND STATING IN THE ARGUMENT - 

"BY THE COURT:  DON'T TELL ME.  MR. SHERIFF, TAKE HIM OUT OF THE
COURTROOM.  GO ON OUT OF THE COURTROOM.  I FINE YOU THREE DAYS IN
JAIL. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  IF THAT WILL GIVE YOU ANY SATISFACTION; YOU KNOW YOU
HAVE ALL THE ADVANTAGE BY YOU BEING ON THE BENCH. 

"BY THE COURT:  THAT WILL BE A HUNDRED DOLLAR FINE AND THREE DAYS IN
JAIL.  TAKE HIM OUT. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  I DEMAND A RIGHT TO STATE MY POSITION BEFORE THE
AUDIENCE. 

"BY THE COURT:  DON'T LET HIM STAND THERE.  TAKE HIM OUT." 

THE SHERIFF HELD THE PETITIONER IN CUSTODY UPON THE VERBAL ORDER OF
THE COURT UNTIL AN AMENDED ORDER IN CONFORMITY WITH TEXAS LAW,  FN1
SETTING FORTH IN FULL THE ABOVE PROCEEDINGS TOGETHER WITH A FORMAL
COMMITMENT, WAS FILED LATER THE SAME DAY.  UPON HIS APPLICATION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS TO SECURE HIS
RELEASE FROM THE COMMITMENT, THE JUDGMENT FOR CONTEMPT WAS UPHELD AND
THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED ANY RELIEF BY THAT COURT AND WAS REMANDED TO
THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF TO UNDERGO THE PUNISHMENT ADJUDGED BY THE
TRIAL COURT.  EX PARTE FISHER, 146 TEX. 328, 206 S.W.2D 1000.  AS THE
APPLICATION ALLEGED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER ITS APPLICATION TO THIS CONVICTION FOR
CONTEMPT.  334 U.S. 827.  THE CLAIMED DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS CONSISTS OF
AN ALLEGED REFUSAL TO REVIEW THE FACTS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER A CONTEMPT
WAS COMMITTED AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF THE FACTS WERE REVIEWED, DUE
PROCESS WAS DENIED BECAUSE NO FACTS CONSTITUTING CONTEMPT APPEAR. 

HISTORICALLY AND RATIONALLY THE INHERENT POWER OF COURTS TO PUNISH
CONTEMPTS IN THE FACE OF THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF OF FACTS AND
WITHOUT AID OF JURY IS NOT OPEN TO QUESTION.  FN2  THIS ATTRIBUTE OF
COURTS IS ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVE THEIR AUTHORITY AND TO PREVENT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FROM FALLING INTO DISREPUTE.  SUCH SUMMARY
CONVICTION AND PUNISHMENT ACCORDS DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  FN3 

THERE MUST BE ADEQUATE FACTS TO SUPPORT AN ORDER FOR CONTEMPT IN THE
FACE OF THE COURT.  CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER THE
STATE SUPREME COURT EVALUATED THE FACTS TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND HELD
THAT THERE WAS.  THE OPINION OF THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT STATES THAT THE
COURT SET OUT TO REVIEW THE FACTS "FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING
WHETHER THEY CONSTITUTED ACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONFER JURISDICTION UPON
THE COURT" TO ENTER THE CONTEMPT ORDER.  FN4  IN OTHER WORDS, THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE PROPOSED TO SATISFY ITSELF THAT THERE WAS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO VALIDATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT AND TO INSURE
THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT "RESTRAINED OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW."  AFTER A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AS DISCLOSED BY THE
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT, THE CONCLUSION WAS REACHED THAT THE
CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONER WAS CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE POWER
OF THE COURT TO PUNISH SUMMARILY THE CONTEMPT COMMITTED IN ITS
PRESENCE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS MUST BE AFFIRMED.  IN A
CASE OF THIS TYPE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD CANNOT CONVEY TO US THE
COMPLETE PICTURE OF THE COURTROOM SCENE.  IT DOES NOT DEPICT SUCH
ELEMENTS OF MISBEHAVIOR AS EXPRESSION, MANNER OF SPEAKING, BEARING, AND
ATTITUDE OF THE PETITIONER.  RELIANCE MUST BE PLACED UPON THE FAIRNESS
AND OBJECTIVITY OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE.  THE OCCURRENCE MUST BE VIEWED
AS A UNIT IN ORDER TO APPRAISE PROPERLY THE MISCONDUCT, AND THE
RELATIONSHIP OF THE PETITIONER AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT MUST NOT BE
LOST SIGHT OF.  FN5 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT ITS PRACTICE OF SUBMITTING
SPECIAL ISSUES TO THE JURY WAS ADOPTED IN ORDER TO REMOVE FROM THE
JURY'S CONSIDERATION THE EFFECT ON THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF THE CASE OF
THEIR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF DISPUTED FACTS.  FN6  IN THIS CASE, THE
JURY MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO FIND A LONG INCAPACITY OR A SEVERE INJURY IF
THEY KNEW THE AMOUNT OF RECOVERY WAS LIMITED BY THE EMPLOYEE'S WAGE AND
RATE OF COMPENSATION.  COUNSEL ARE REQUIRED TO CONFINE THEIR ARGUMENTS
TO THE EVIDENCE AND MUST NOT TOUCH UPON MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE JURY.  FN7  YET HERE, PETITIONER, A MEMBER OF THE
TEXAS BAR, IGNORED THIS RULE AND AT THE OUTSET OF HIS ADDRESS TO THE
JURY EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF PERMISSIBLE ARGUMENT BY TRYING TO TELL THE
JURY THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION WHICH THEIR ANSWERS TO THE SPECIAL ISSUES
WOULD ALLOW HIS CLIENT.  ON OBJECTION OF THE OPPOSING COUNSEL
PETITIONER WAS STOPPED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, BUT IN THE FACE OF THE
COURT'S DECISION HE PERSISTED IN TRYING TO TELL THE JURY THE EFFECT OF
THEIR ANSWERS.  HE SWITCHED HIS EXPLANATION OF THE STIPULATED AMOUNT OF
RECOVERY FROM THE WORDS "ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE WEEKS TIMES THE
AVERAGE WEEKLY COMPENSATION RATE" TO "ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE WEEKS
COMPENSATION, AT WHATEVER COMPENSATION THE RATE WILL FIGURE UNDER THE
LAW."  THE CHANGE OBVIOUSLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE JURY INFORMATION ON THE
LIMITATION TO THE AMOUNT OF RECOVERY - A FACTOR HELD BY THE TRIAL JUDGE
INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE SPECIAL ISSUES.  IN ADDITION TO THIS STUBBORN
EFFORT TO BRING EXCLUDED MATTER TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE JURY, THE
PETITIONER TWICE REFUSED TO HEED THE COURT'S ADMONITION NOT TO ARGUE
THE POINT.  AS THE SUPREME COURT SAID, 

"IT WAS THE DUTY AND POWER OF THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THE TRIAL OF THE
COMPENSATION SUIT TO DETERMINE THE TYPE, MANNER AND CHARACTER OF THE
ARGUMENT BEFORE THE JURY.  OF COURSE HIS RULINGS THEREON WERE SUBJECT
TO REVIEW IN THE APPELLATE COURTS, BUT HE HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THEM
WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG.  IF THEY ARE ERRONEOUS THE INJURED PARTY HAS
THE PLAIN, SIMPLE AND ADEQUATE REMEDY OF APPEAL.  IT WAS THUS THE DUTY
OF COUNSEL TO ABIDE BY HIS DECISIONS EVEN IF ERRONEOUS; AND IF ANY
RIGHTS OF HIS CLIENTS WERE VIOLATED THE REMEDY WAS BY EXCEPTION AND
APPEAL.  ANY OTHER PROCEDURE WOULD RESULT IN MOCKERY OF OUR TRIAL
COURTS AND WOULD DESTROY EVERY CONCEPT OF ORDERLY PROCESS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE."  FN8 

THIS JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT TURNED ON THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF
TEXAS LAW AND PRACTICE.  WE SEE NOTHING IN THEIR OPINION OR CONCLUSION
THAT INDICATES ANY DISREGARD OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS.  THE CONDUCT OF A
JUDGE SHOULD BE SUCH AS TO COMMAND RESPECT FOR HIMSELF AS WELL AS FOR
HIS OFFICE.  WE CANNOT SAY, HOWEVER, THAT MILDLY PROVOCATIVE LANGUAGE
FROM THE BENCH PUTS A CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AROUND AN ATTORNEY SO
AS TO ALLOW HIM TO SHOW THE CONTEMPT FOR JUDGE AND COURT MANIFESTED BY
THIS RECORD, PARTICULARLY THE LAST FEW SENTENCES OF THE ALTERCATION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  EX PARTE KEARBY, 35 TEX. CRIM. REP. 531, 34 S.W. 635; EX PARTE
RAY, 101 TEX. CRIM. REP. 432, 276 S.W. 709. 

FN2  4 BL. COMM. 286; EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289, 302-304, 313-14;
EX PARTE SAVIN, 131 U.S. 267, 277; EILENBECKER V. DISTRICT COURT, 134
U.S. 31, 36-37; COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517, 534-36; IN RE
OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257, 274-75. 

FN3  EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289, 313:  "WE HAVE SEEN THAT IT IS A
SETTLED DOCTRINE IN THE JURISPRUDENCE BOTH OF ENGLAND AND OF THIS
COUNTRY, NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE LIBERTY OF THE
CITIZEN, THAT FOR DIRECT CONTEMPTS COMMITTED IN THE FACE OF THE COURT,
AT LEAST ONE OF SUPERIOR JURISDICTION, THE OFFENDER MAY, IN ITS
DISCRETION, BE INSTANTLY APPREHENDED AND IMMEDIATELY IMPRISONED,
WITHOUT TRIAL OR ISSUE, AND WITHOUT OTHER PROOF THAN ITS ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT OCCURRED; AND THAT, ACCORDING TO AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF
AUTHORITIES, REACHING BACK TO THE EARLIEST TIMES, SUCH POWER, ALTHOUGH
ARBITRARY IN ITS NATURE AND LIABLE TO ABUSE, IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO
THE PROTECTION OF THE COURTS IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS. 
WITHOUT IT, JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS WOULD BE AT THE MERCY OF THE DISORDERLY
AND VIOLENT, WHO RESPECT NEITHER THE LAWS ENACTED FOR THE VINDICATION
OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHTS, NOR THE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF
ADMINISTERING THEM." 

SEE ALSO COOKE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 534; EX PARTE HUDGINGS, 249
U.S. 378, 383. 

FN4  THIS RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN TEXAS.  EX PARTE TESTARD, 101
TEX. 250, 106 S.W. 319; EX PARTE DULANEY, 146 TEX. 108, 203 S.W.2D
203.  FOR OTHER CASES SEE THE OPINION IN THE INSTANT CASE, EX PARTE
FISHER, 146 TEX. 328, 333, 206 S.W.2D 100, 1003. 

FN5  CLARK V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 1, 12. 

FN6  EX PARTE FISHER, 146 TEX. 328, 334-335, 206 S.W.2D 1000, 1004
1005. 

FN7  RULE 269, VERNON'S TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; RAMIREZ V.
ACKER, 134 TEX. 647, 138 S.W.2D 1054. 

FN8 146 TEX. 328, 335, 206 S.W.2D 1000, 1005; CF. UNITED STATES V.
UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258, 293, 302-303.    MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT COMMITTED IN OPEN COURT WAS
RECOGNIZED LONG AGO AS A MEANS OF VINDICATING THE DIGNITY AND AUTHORITY
OF THE COURT.  SEE EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289, 301-304 AND CASES
CITED.  BUT ITS EXERCISE MUST BE NARROWLY CONFINED LEST IT BECOME AN
INSTRUMENT OF TYRANNY.  CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT IN COOKE V. UNITED STATES,
267 U.S. 517, 539, WARNED THAT ITS EXERCISE BY A FEDERAL COURT IS "A
DELICATE ONE AND CARE IS NEEDED TO AVOID ARBITRARY OR OPPRESSIVE
CONCLUSIONS."  THE SAME RESTRAINT IS NECESSARY UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SCHEME WHEN STATE COURTS ARE CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO TAKE A PERSON BY THE
HEELS AND FINE OR IMPRISON HIM FOR CONTEMPT WITHOUT A TRIAL OR AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND.  IN BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252;
PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331; AND CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367,
WE NARROWLY RESTRICTED THE POWER TO PUNISH SUMMARILY FOR CONSTRUCTIVE
CONTEMPTS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN FREEDOM OF PRESS AND OF SPEECH IN THEIR
PREFERRED POSITION.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE COURTROOM DESERVES THE
SAME PROTECTION. 

FISHER'S CONVICTION IS SUSTAINED BECAUSE IT IS SAID THAT HE PERSISTED
IN TRYING TO TELL THE JURY WHAT THE JUDGE HELD TO BE IMPROPER.  I DO
NOT SO READ THE RECORD.  THE JUDGE SUSTAINED AN OBJECTION TO FISHER'S
ATTEMPT TO GET THE AVERAGE WEEKLY COMPENSATION OF THE INJURED PERSON
BEFORE THE JURY, AS APPEARS FROM THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY: 

"BY MR. COX:  THE JURY IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE COMPUTATION; IT HAS
ONLY ONE SERIES OF ISSUES.  THAT IS NOT BEFORE THE JURY. 

"BY THE COURT:  THAT HAS ALL BEEN AGREED UPON. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  I THINK IT IS MATERIAL, YOUR HONOR, TO TELL THE JURY
WHAT THE AVERAGE WEEKLY COMPENSATION IS OF THIS CLAIMANT SO THEY CAN
TELL WHERE HE IS. 

"BY THE COURT:  THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN DOLLARS AND CENTS. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  THEY ARE INTERESTED TO THIS EXTENT - 

"BY THE COURT:  DON'T ARGUE WITH ME.  GO AHEAD.  I WILL GIVE YOU YOUR
EXCEPTION TO IT. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  NOTE OUR EXCEPTION. 

"BY THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT." 

FISHER NEVER AGAIN TRIED TO GET THE AMOUNT OF WEEKLY COMPENSATION OF
THE INJURED PERSON INTO THE RECORD.  HE ABIDED BY THE RULING OF THE
JUDGE.  WHAT NEXT HAPPENED WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"BY MR. FISHER:  THIS NEGRO, AS I STATED, CAN ONLY RECOVER ONE
HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE WEEKS COMPENSATION, AT WHATEVER COMPENSATION
THE RATE WILL FIGURE UNDER THE LAW. 

"BY MR. COX:  I AM OBJECTING TO THAT DISCUSSION, YOUR HONOR, AS TO
WHAT THE PLAINTIFF CAN RECOVER. 

"BY THE COURT:  GENTLEMEN.  MR. FISHER, YOU KNOW THE RULE, AND I HAVE
SUSTAINED HIS OBJECTION. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  I AM ASKING - 

"BY THE COURT:  DON'T ARGUE WITH ME.  GENTLEMEN, DON'T GIVE ANY
CONSIDERATION TO THE STATEMENT OF MR. FISHER. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  NOTE OUR EXCEPTION.  I THINK I HAVE A RIGHT TO
EXPLAIN WHETHER IT IS A SPECIFIC INJURY OR GENERAL INJURY." 

FISHER'S STATEMENT THAT, "THIS NEGRO, AS I STATED, CAN ONLY RECOVER
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE WEEKS COMPENSATION, AT WHATEVER
COMPENSATION THE RATE WILL FIGURE UNDER THE LAW," DID NOT MENTION THE
MATTER OF "DOLLARS AND CENTS" THAT THE JUDGE HELD IRRELEVANT.  IT WAS
NOT A NEW ATTEMPT BY FISHER TO GET THE "AVERAGE WEEKLY COMPENSATION"
BEFORE THE JURY.  YET THE RECORD CAN BE READ AS MEANING THAT THEY WERE
THE ONLY SPECIFIC MATTERS ON WHICH THE JUDGE HAD RULED.  AS JUSTICE
SHARP, DISSENTING IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, STATED, "THIS STATEMENT
DOES NOT INDICATE THAT RELATOR WAS DISOBEYING THE RULING OF THE COURT,
BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, SHOWS THAT HE WAS TRYING TO OBEY SAME."  IT ALSO
MEANS TO ME THAT HE WAS SEEKING TO PERFECT THE RECORD SO AS TO PRESERVE
ALL OF HIS POINTS. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE STATEMENT WAS IMPROPER UNDER TEXAS PRACTICE.  BUT
IT TOOK A RULING OF THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT TO MAKE IT SO, AND EVEN
THEN JUSTICE SHARP DISSENTED.  IF TEXAS LAW ON THE POINT IS SO
UNCERTAIN THAT THE HIGHEST JUDGES OF THE STATE DISAGREE AS TO WHAT IS
THE PERMISSIBLE PRACTICE, IS A LAWYER TO BE LAID BY THE HEELS FOR
PRESSING THE POINT?  YET IT WAS FOR PRESSING THE POINT OF LAW ON WHICH
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS DIVIDED THAT FISHER WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH ELEMENTS OF MISBEHAVIOR AS EXPRESSION,
MANNER OF SPEAKING, BEARING, AND ATTITUDE OF FISHER MAY HAVE GIVEN THE
WORDS A CONTEMPTUOUS FLAVOR THAT THE COLD RECORD DOES NOT REVEAL.  I DO
NOT THINK FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD BE SO READILY SACRIFICED, EVEN IN A
COURTROOM.  IF THAT WERE THE OFFENSE, IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT
THE JUDGE MAKE IT THE GROUND OF HIS RULING.  CERTAINLY THE JUDGE DID
NOT PURPORT TO FINE AND IMPRISON FISHER FOR THE MANNER OF MAKING THE
OBJECTION, FOR THE TONE OF HIS VOICE, OR FOR HIS FACIAL EXPRESSION. 
THE DISPUTE WAS MERELY OVER THE BOUNDS OF PERMISSIBLE COMMENT BEFORE A
JURY.  FISHER HAVING BEEN STOPPED AT ONE POINT TRIED ANOTHER STRATEGY. 
HE WAS ACTING THE ROLE OF A RESOURCEFUL LAWYER.  THE DECISION WHICH
PENALIZES HIM FOR THAT ZEAL SANCTIONS CENSORSHIP INSIDE A COURTHOUSE
WHERE THE IDEALS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHOULD FLOURISH. 

THERE IS FOR ME ONLY ONE FAIR INFERENCE FROM THE RECORD - THAT THE
JUDGE PICKED A QUARREL WITH THIS LAWYER AND USED HIS HIGH POSITION TO
WREAK VENGEANCE ON HIM.  IT IS SHOWN, I THINK, BY THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE CRITICAL COLLOQUY: 

"BY THE COURT:  I WILL DECLARE A MISTRIAL IF YOU MESS WITH ME TWO
MINUTES AND A HALF, AND FINE YOU BESIDES. 

"BY MR. FISHER:  THAT IS ALL RIGHT.  WE TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE CONDUCT
OF THE COURT. 

"BY THE COURT:  THAT IS ALL RIGHT; I WILL FINE YOU $25.00." 

THIS LAWYER WAS THE VICTIM OF THE PIQUE AND HOT-HEADEDNESS OF A
JUDICIAL OFFICER WHO IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A SERENITY THAT KEEPS HIM
ABOVE THE BATTLE AND THE CROWD.  THAT IS AS MUCH A PERVERSION OF THE
JUDICIAL FUNCTION AS IF THE JUDGE WHO SAT HAD A PECUNIARY INTEREST IN
THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION.  TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S. 510. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

PETITIONER TOLD THE JURY THREE TIMES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT HIS
CLIENT WAS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE
WEEKS.  HE THEN BEGAN DISCUSSION OF THE "AVERAGE WEEKLY COMPENSATION,"
AND THE COURT TOLD HIM THAT THE JURY WAS "NOT INTERESTED IN DOLLARS AND
CENTS."  TO THIS RULING HE EXCEPTED, BELIEVING THAT THE AMOUNT OF
POSSIBLE RECOVERY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY.  HE THEN REPEATED
WHAT HE HAD SAID THREE TIMES BEFORE, WITHOUT OBJECTION, ON A DIFFERENT
SUBJECT, AND WAS TOLD THAT HE SHOULD NOT "MESS WITH" THE COURT.  QUITE
NATURALLY, HE OBJECTED TO THE COURT'S CONDUCT; TEXAS DECISIONS MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT REMARKS "CALCULATED TO REFLECT UPON THE COUNSEL AND
PREJUDICE HIS CLIENT'S CASE WITH THE JURY  ...  CONSTITUTE REVERSIBLE
ERROR."  DALLAS CONSOL.  ELECTRIC ST. R. CO. V. MCALLISTER, 41 TEX.
CIV. APP. 131, 137, 90 S.W. 933.  BUT PETITIONER WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT. 
AND AS HE OBJECTED, HIS PENALTY WAS SUCCESSIVELY RAISED.  FINALLY THE
COURT TOLD THE SHERIFF:  "DON'T LET HIM STAND THERE.  TAKE HIM OUT." 

A TRIAL JUDGE MUST BE GIVEN WIDE LATITUDE IN PUNISHING INTERFERENCE
WITH THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  SEE EX PARTE TERRY, 128
U.S. 289; COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517.  BUT THE SUMMARY NATURE
OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, THE RISK OF IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT JURY, TRIAL,
OR FULL HEARING, MAKE THIS THE MOST DRASTIC WEAPON ENTRUSTED TO THE
TRIAL JUDGE.  TO SANCTION THE PROCEDURE WHEN IT IS PATENT THAT THERE
HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE TRIAL, WHEN A JUDGE HAS
USED HIS POSITION AND POWER TO SUCCESSIVELY INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR
SIMPLE OBJECTIONS, IS, I BELIEVE, A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE
CONTEMPT POWER IS AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY, AN EXCEPTION TO OUR
TRADITION OF FAIR AND COMPLETE HEARINGS.  ITS USE SHOULD BE CAREFULLY
RESTRICTED TO CASES OF ACTUAL OBSTRUCTION.  IN MY OPINION, THIS RECORD
OF PETTY DISAGREEMENT DOES NOT APPROACH THAT SERIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WHICH JUSTIFIES USE OF THE CONTEMPT WEAPON. 
WHATEVER THE SITUATIONS MAKING THIS WEAPON NECESSARY, IT IS PLAIN TO ME
THAT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. 

AN APPELLATE COURT CAN RARELY CORRECT ABUSE SUCH AS THIS.  "IF THE
JUDGE INTENDS TO BE UNFAIR, THE TRIAL WILL BE A FARCE NO MATTER HOW
MANY DETAILED RULES WE PROVIDE FOR HIM."  MCELROY, SOME OBSERVATIONS
CONCERNING THE DISCRETIONS REPOSED IN TRIAL JUDGES BY THE AMERICAN LAW
INSTITUTE'S CODE OF EVIDENCE, MODEL CODE OF EVIDENCE, PP. 356, 358.  A
PRINTED RECORD CANNOT REVEAL INFLECTIONS AND GESTURES, THE TENOR OF A
JUDGE'S CONDUCT OF A TRIAL - MATTERS WHICH MAKE HIS POSITION THE MOST
RESPONSIBLE IN THE DAILY ADMINISTRATION OF A FAIR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  SEE
RHEINSTEIN, WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?  IN INTERPRETATIONS OF MODERN
LEGAL PHILOSOPHIES (NEW YORK, 1947), P. 589.  IN RECENT YEARS WE HAVE
SEEN A PRONOUNCED TENDENCY TO LEAVE MANY MATTERS IN THE DISCRETION OF
THE TRIAL JUDGE.  MCELROY, SUPRA; YANKWICH, INCREASING JUDICIAL
DISCRETION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, 1 F.R.D. 746.  THE MOVEMENT, WHICH
RESTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE JUDGE IS WISE AND IMPARTIAL, SHOULD
MAKE US QUICK TO UPSET HIS DETERMINATIONS IN THE FEW CASES WHICH
CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE LIGHT REGARD FOR THE PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD GUIDE A
RESPONSIBLE JURIST. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

WITHOUT RECOUNTING FURTHER THAN IS DONE IN OTHER OPINIONS THE FACTS
OF THIS UNFORTUNATE EPISODE, I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE RECORD HERE
DISCLOSES ANSWERS OR REMARKS MADE BY PETITIONER TO THE COURT WHICH, IN
SOME INSTANCES, MAY WELL HAVE JUSTIFIED PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT, BUT
FOR ONE CIRCUMSTANCE.  THAT IS, I REGRET TO SAY, THE CONCLUSION TO
WHICH I HAVE BEEN FORCED FROM THE RECORD AS A WHOLE THAT IN THE COURSE
OF THE COLLOQUY AND ESPECIALLY IN THE RAPID SUCCESSION OF FINES,
COMMITMENT TO JAIL, AND ORDER FOR REMOVAL FROM THE COURTROOM, AS WELL
AS IN THE UNJUDICIAL LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT
ACTED IN THE HEAT OF TEMPER AND NOT WITH THAT CALM CONTROL WHICH THE
FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUDICIAL OFFICE COMMANDS UNDER ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

LAWYERS OWE A LARGE, BUT NOT AN OBSEQUIOUS, DUTY OF RESPECT TO THE
COURT IN ITS PRESENCE.  BUT THEIR BREACH OF THIS OBLIGATION IN NO CASE
JUSTIFIES CORRECTION BY AN ACT OR ACTS FROM THE BENCH INTEMPERATE IN
CHARACTER, OVERRIDING JUDGMENT.  SINCE THE CASE COMES HERE UPON THE
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS TAKEN AS AN ENTIRETY, I DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO SEPARATE
ONE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT FROM ANOTHER.  ACCORDINGLY, AS THE CASE
STANDS HERE, I MUST TAKE THE ENTIRE SENTENCE AS INFECTED WITH THE FAULT
I HAVE NOTED.  IT FOLLOWS, IN MY VIEW, THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
REVERSED.  WHATEVER THE PROVOCATION, THERE CAN BE NO DUE PROCESS IN
TRIAL IN THE ABSENCE OF CALM JUDGMENT AND ACTION, UNTINGED WITH ANGER,
FROM THE BENCH. 
..END :


















OTT V. MISSISSIPPI BARGE LINE, 336 U.S. 169 


NO. 244.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1949.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 1949.  - 166
F.2D 509, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE AND A CITY LEVIED AD VALOREM TAXES ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
OPERATING BARGE LINES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON INLAND WATERS.  THE
ASSESSMENTS WERE BASED ON THE RATIO BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF MILES OF LINE
WITHIN THE STATE AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MILES OF THE ENTIRE LINE.  THE
VESSELS ENGAGED IN THE SERVICE WERE ENROLLED AT PORTS OUTSIDE OF THE
STATE AND WERE ONLY WITHIN THE STATE FOR SUCH TIME AS WAS REQUIRED TO
LOAD AND UNLOAD CARGO AND TO MAKE NECESSARY REPAIRS.  HELD:  THE TAXES
DID NOT VIOLATE EITHER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OR THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 170
175. 

2.  THE RULE OF TAX APPORTIONMENT FOR ROLLING STOCK OF RAILROADS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FORMULATED IN PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
141 U.S. 18, IS APPLICABLE HERE.  PP. 172-174. 

3.  SO FAR AS DUE PROCESS IS CONCERNED, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE TAX IN PRACTICAL OPERATION HAS RELATION TO OPPORTUNITIES, BENEFITS,
OR PROTECTION CONFERRED OR AFFORDED BY THE TAXING STATE; AND THOSE
REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED IF THE TAX IS FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO THE
COMMERCE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE STATE.  P. 174. 

4.  CLAIMS OF ERRORS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT NEED NOT HERE BE
RESOLVED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE STATE AFFORDS NO
ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL REMEDY TO CORRECT THEM.  P. 175. 

OTT, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC FINANCE, ET AL. V. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY
BARGE LINE CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

APPELLEES INSTITUTED SUITS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BASED ON DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP, TO RECOVER ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE TAXES WHICH
THEY HAD PAID UNDER PROTEST.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
APPELLEES.  68 F.SUPP.  30.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  166 F.2D
509.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 175. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLEES ARE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WHICH TRANSPORT FREIGHT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE UP AND DOWN THE MISSISSIPPI AND OHIO RIVERS UNDER
CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  EACH HAS AN OFFICE OR AGENT IN
LOUISIANA BUT ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS ELSEWHERE.  THE BARGES
AND TOWBOATS WHICH THEY USE IN THIS COMMERCE ARE ENROLLED AT PORTS
OUTSIDE LOUISIANA; BUT THEY ARE NOT TAXED BY THE STATES OF
INCORPORATION. 

IN THE TRIPS TO LOUISIANA A TUGBOAT BRINGS A LINE OF BARGES TO NEW
ORLEANS WHERE THE BARGES ARE LEFT FOR UNLOADING AND RELOADING.  THEN
THE TUGBOAT PICKS UP LOADED BARGES FOR RETURN TRIPS TO PORTS OUTSIDE
THAT STATE.  THERE IS NO FIXED SCHEDULE FOR MOVEMENT OF THE BARGES. 
BUT THE TURN-AROUNDS ARE ACCOMPLISHED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE
RESULT THAT THE VESSELS ARE WITHIN LOUISIANA FOR SUCH COMPARATIVELY
SHORT PERIODS OF TIME AS ARE REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE AND TAKE ON CARGO
AND TO MAKE NECESSARY AND TEMPORARY REPAIRS.  FN1 

LOUISIANA AND THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS LEVIED AD VALOREM TAXES UNDER
ASSESSMENTS BASED ON THE RATIO BETWEEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MILES OF
APPELLEES' LINES IN LOUISIANA AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MILES OF THE
ENTIRE LINE.  FN2  THE TAXES WERE PAID UNDER PROTEST AND VARIOUS SUITS,
WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED, WERE INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY
REASON OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP FOR THEIR RETURN, THE CONTENTION
BEING THAT THE TAXES VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT
FOR THE APPELLEES, HOLDING THAT THE TAXES VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE VESSELS HAD ACQUIRED NO
TAX SITUS IN LOUISIANA.  68 F.SUPP.  30.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  166 F.2D 509.  CERTIORARI HAVING BEEN DENIED, 334 U.S. 859,
THE CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 240, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 347(B), NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1254. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE RULE OF TAX APPORTIONMENT FOR ROLLING STOCK OF
RAILROADS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY PULLMAN'S CAR
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S. 18, SHOULD BE APPLIED HERE.  IN THAT CASE
A NONDOMICILIARY STATE WAS ALLOWED TO TAX AN INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIER BY
TAKING AS THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT SUCH PROPORTION OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK
AS THE NUMBER OF MILES OF RAILROAD OVER WHICH ITS CARS RAN WITHIN THE
STATE BORE TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MILES IN ALL THE STATES.  FN3 THE
COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT CASE AND ITS OFFSPRING INAPPLICABLE
BECAUSE OF OUR DECISIONS IN HAYS V. PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO., 17 HOW. 
596; ST. LOUIS V. FERRY CO., 11 WALL.  423; MORGAN V. PARHAM, 16 WALL. 
471; AYER & LORD TIE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 202 U.S. 409; AND SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, 222 U.S. 63.  SOME OF THESE CASES INVOLVED
VESSELS WHICH MOVED ON THE HIGH SEAS.  HAYS V. PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO.,
SUPRA; MORGAN V. PARHAM, SUPRA; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY,
SUPRA.  OTHERS INVOLVED VESSELS MOVING IN OUR INLAND WATERS, ST. LOUIS
V. FERRY CO., SUPRA; AYER & LORD TIE CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA.  IN EACH
SITUATION THE COURT EVOLVED THE RULE THAT THE VESSELS WERE TAXABLE
SOLELY AT THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER, SAVE WHERE THEY HAD ACQUIRED AN
ACTUAL SITUS ELSEWHERE AS THEY DID WHEN THEY OPERATED WHOLLY ON WATERS
WITHIN ONE STATE.  OLD DOMINION S.S. CO. V. VIRGINIA, 198 U.S. 299.  SO
FAR AS SHIPS OF AMERICAN OWNERSHIP AND REGISTRY SAILING THE HIGH SEAS
ARE CONCERNED, IT WAS THOUGHT THAT IF THEY WERE NOT TAXABLE AT THE
DOMICILE THEY MIGHT NOT BE TAXABLE AT ALL.  SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
KENTUCKY, SUPRA, AT 75.  BUT IN NEITHER SITUATION WAS THE ELEMENT OF
APPORTIONMENT INVOLVED OR CONSIDERED. 

WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION OF TAXABILITY OF OCEAN CARRIAGE BUT
CONFINE OUR DECISION TO TRANSPORTATION ON INLAND WATERS.  WE SEE NO
PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE SO FAR AS EITHER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OR THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE IS CONCERNED WHETHER IT IS VESSELS OR RAILROAD CARS
THAT ARE MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE PROBLEM UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE IS TO DETERMINE "WHAT PORTION OF AN INTERSTATE ORGANISM MAY
APPROPRIATELY BE ATTRIBUTED TO EACH OF THE VARIOUS STATES IN WHICH IT
FUNCTIONS."  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362,
365.  SO FAR AS DUE PROCESS IS CONCERNED THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE TAX IN PRACTICAL OPERATION HAS RELATION TO OPPORTUNITIES, BENEFITS,
OR PROTECTION CONFERRED OR AFFORDED BY THE TAXING STATE.  SEE WISCONSIN
V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444.  THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE
SATISFIED IF THE TAX IS FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO THE COMMERCE CARRIED ON
WITHIN THE STATE. 

THERE IS SUCH AN APPORTIONMENT UNDER THE FORMULA OF THE PULLMAN
CASE.  MOREOVER, THAT TAX, LIKE TAXES ON PROPERTY, TAXES ON ACTIVITIES
CONFINED SOLELY TO THE TAXING STATE,  FN4  OR TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS
APPORTIONED TO THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON THERE,  FN5  HAS NO CUMULATIVE
EFFECT CAUSED BY THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS.  HENCE THERE
IS NO RISK OF MULTIPLE TAXATION.  FINALLY, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN THIS
CASE THAT LOUISIANA'S TAX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
IT SEEMS THEREFORE TO SQUARE WITH OUR DECISIONS HOLDING THAT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CAN BE MADE TO PAY ITS WAY BY BEARING A NONDISCRIMINATORY
SHARE OF THE TAX BURDEN WHICH EACH STATE MAY IMPOSE ON THE ACTIVITIES
OR PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, 303
U.S. 250, 254-255, AND CASES CITED.  WE CAN SEE NO REASON WHICH SHOULD
PUT WATER TRANSPORTATION ON A DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL FOOTING THAN
OTHER INTERSTATE ENTERPRISES. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE PULLMAN CASE IS INAPPLICABLE
HERE BECAUSE ITS BASIS IS THE CONTINUOUS PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE
TAXING STATE THROUGHOUT THE TAX YEAR TO A PORTION OF THE COMMERCE.  SEE
141 U.S. AT 26; UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, 206; NEW
YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. MILLER, 202 U.S. 584, 597-598; NORTHWEST
AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292, 297.  IT IS SAID IN THIS CASE THAT
THE VISITS OF THE VESSELS TO LOUISIANA WERE SPORADIC AND FOR FRACTIONAL
PERIODS OF THE YEAR ONLY AND THAT THERE WAS NO AVERAGE NUMBER OF
VESSELS IN THE STATE EVERY DAY.  THE DISTRICT COURT INDEED SAID THAT
THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY SOUGHT
TO BE TAXED WAS REGULARLY AND HABITUALLY USED AND EMPLOYED IN LOUISIANA
FOR THE WHOLE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION.  LOUISIANA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATES IN HIS BRIEF THAT THE STATUTE "WAS INTENDED TO COVER AND
ACTUALLY COVERS HERE, AN AVERAGE PORTION OF PROPERTY PERMANENTLY WITHIN
THE STATE - AND BY PERMANENTLY IS MEANT THROUGHOUT THE TAXING YEAR." 
APPELLEES DO NOT SUGGEST AN ABSENCE OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL
REMEDY IN LOUISIANA TO CORRECT ERRORS IN THE ASSESSMENT.  CF.
HILLSBOROUGH V. CROMWELL, 326 U.S. 620.  THE DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT
SIT TO POLICE THEM.  SEE GREAT LAKES CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293;
ARKANSAS COMMISSION V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 132; GARDNER V. NEW JERSEY,
329 U.S. 565, 578-579.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT OF THE TOTAL TIME COVERED BY
APPELLEES' INTERSTATE COMMERCE OPERATIONS IN 1943, THE AMOUNT SPENT BY
THEIR VESSELS IN LOUISIANA OR IN NEW ORLEANS WAS APPROXIMATELY AS
FOLLOWS:

                              PER CENT 

AMERICAN'S TUGBOATS                            3.8 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY'S TUGBOATS                17.25 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY'S BARGES              12.7 

SIMILAR FINDINGS FOR 1944 WERE: 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY'S TUGBOATS                 10.2 

MISSISSIPPI VALLEY'S BARGES                   17.5 

UNION'S TUGBOATS                           2.2 

UNION'S BARGES                   4.3 

FN2  THE STATUTE, 6 DART'S LA. GEN. STAT. SEC. 8370, PROVIDES IN PART
AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  ...  ALL MOVABLE AND REGULARLY MOVED LOCOMOTIVES, CARS,
VEHICLES, CRAFT, BARGES, BOATS AND SIMILAR THINGS, WHICH HAVE NOT THE
CHARACTER OF IMMOVABLES BY THEIR NATURE OR BY THE DISPOSITION OF LAW,
EITHER OWNED OR LEASED FOR A DEFINITE AND SPECIFIC TERM STATED AND
OPERATED (SUCH, ILLUSTRATIVELY BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY, AS THE ENGINES,
CARS AND ALL ROLLING STOCKS OF RAILROADS; THE BOATS, BARGES AND OTHER
WATER-CRAFT AND FLOATING EQUIPMENT OF WATER TRANSPORTATION LINES); ... 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"(F).  THE 'MOVABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY' OF SUCH PERSONS, FIRMS, OR
CORPORATIONS, WHOSE LINE, ROUTE, OR SYSTEM IS PARTLY WITHIN THIS STATE
AND PARTLY WITHIN ANOTHER STATE OR STATES, SHALL BE BY THE COMMISSION
VALUED FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAXATION AND BY IT ASSESSED; AND SUCH
ASSESSMENT BY IT FAIRLY DIVIDED, ALLOCATED AND CERTIFIED TO EACH SUCH
PARISH AND MUNICIPALITY AS HEREIN DEFINED, WITHIN THIS STATE, WITHIN,
THROUGH OR UNDER WHICH SAME BE OPERATED; SAID DIVISION, ALLOCATION AND
CERTIFICATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER AND ACCORDING TO
THE FOLLOWING METHOD; SUCH ASSESSMENT TO BE THERE SUBJECT TO ALL STATE
TAXES AND TO ALL PARISH TAXES AND TO ALL MUNICIPAL TAXES, AS SAME ARE
HEREIN DEFINED AND TO NONE OTHER. 

"1. THE PORTION OF ALL OF SUCH PROPERTY, OF SUCH PERSON, FIRM OR
CORPORATION SHALL BE ASSESSED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, WHERESOEVER,
IN THE RATIO WHICH THE NUMBER OF MILES OF THE LINE, WITHIN THE STATE
BEARS TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MILES OF THE ENTIRE LINE, ROUTE OR SYSTEM,
HERE AND ELSEWHERE, OVER WHICH SUCH MOVABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IS SO
OPERATED OR SO USED BY SUCH PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION. 

     .         .         .         .        . 

"(G).  FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUCH VALUATION, ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION IN
LOUISIANA SUCH PARISHES AND MUNICIPALITIES SHALL BE HEREBY FIXED AND
DECLARED, RESPECTIVELY, TO BE A TAXABLE SITUS IN THIS STATE OF SUCH
MOVABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHETHER SAME BE OPERATED ENTIRELY WITHIN OR
PARTLY WITHIN AND PARTLY WITHOUT THIS STATE AND WHETHER SAID TAXPAYER
BE A RESIDENT OR A NONRESIDENT OF LOUISIANA AND IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER
OR NOT HERE DOMICILED LOCALLY OR OTHERWISE." 

FN3  AND SEE PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. BACKUS, 154 U.S.
421; ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. OHIO, 165 U.S. 194, 166 U.S. 185; AMERICAN
EXPRESS CO. V. INDIANA, 165 U.S. 255; ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. KENTUCKY,
166 U.S. 171; UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194; NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO. V. MILLER, 202 U.S. 584; WELLS, FARGO & CO. V. NEVADA,
248 U.S. 165; ST. LOUIS & E. ST. L.R. CO. V. HAGERMAN, 256 U.S. 314;
SOUTHERN R. CO. V. WATTS, 260 U.S. 519; ROWLEY V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO.,
293 U.S. 102; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362. 

FN4  NEW YORK, L.E. & W.R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 158 U.S. 431; UTAH
POWER & L. CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165; COVERDALE V. ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA
PIPE L. CO., 303 U.S. 604. 

FN5  MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 142 U.S. 217; WISCONSIN & M.R. CO.
V. POWERS, 191 U.S. 379; UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223
U.S. 335; CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450; ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 309 U.S. 157. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 
..END :








WILKERSON V. MCCARTHY, 336 U.S. 53 


NO. 53.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1949.  - UTAH -
, 187 P.2D 188, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THERE
WAS EVIDENCE (DETAILED IN THE OPINION) WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A JURY
FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS, AND IT WAS ERROR
FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO DIRECT A VERDICT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.  PP. 54
61, 63-64. 

2.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT AN
ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE TO THE JURY, IT IS NECESSARY TO LOOK ONLY TO THE
EVIDENCE AND REASONABLE INFERENCES THEREFROM WHICH TEND TO SUPPORT THE
CASE OF THE LITIGANT AGAINST WHOM A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN
GIVEN.  P. 57. 

3.  UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT BAR RECOVERY FOR AN INJURY WHICH
WAS "IN PART" THE RESULT OF THE DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE, BUT THE DAMAGES
IN SUCH CASE "SHALL BE DIMINISHED BY THE JURY IN PROPORTION TO THE
AMOUNT OF NEGLIGENCE ATTRIBUTABLE" TO THE PLAINTIFF.  P. 61. 

4.  THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DOES NOT MAKE THE RAILROAD
AN ABSOLUTE INSURER OF THE SAFETY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, BUT IMPOSES
LIABILITY ONLY FOR NEGLIGENCE.  P. 61. 

5.  THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE ACT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
JURY ACCORDING TO WHETHER AN EMPLOYER'S CONDUCT MEASURES UP TO WHAT A
REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PERSON WOULD HAVE DONE UNDER THE SAME
CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 61. 

6.  THE EMPLOYER IS LIABLE FOR INJURIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONDITIONS
UNDER HIS CONTROL WHEN THEY ARE NOT SUCH AS A REASONABLE MAN OUGHT TO
MAINTAIN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HAVING IN MIND THAT THE STANDARD OF CARE
MUST BE COMMENSURATE TO THE DANGERS OF THE BUSINESS.  P. 61. 

7.  THE ASSUMPTION THAT, WHERE THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE ACT
IS LEFT TO THE JURY, RAILROADS PRACTICALLY ARE MADE INSURERS OF THE
SAFETY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, IS INADMISSIBLE, SINCE COURTS SHOULD NOT
ASSUME THAT, IN DETERMINING THESE QUESTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE, JURIES WILL
FALL SHORT OF A FAIR PERFORMANCE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION.  PP.
61-63. 

WILKERSON V. MCCARTHY ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH. 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY PETITIONER UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, THE TRIAL
COURT DIRECTED A VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED.   - UTAH - , 187 P.2D 188.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
335 U.S. 807.  REVERSED, P. 64. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, A RAILROAD SWITCHMAN, WAS INJURED WHILE PERFORMING
DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENTS IN THEIR RAILROAD COACH YARD AT
DENVER, COLORADO.  HE BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FN1 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE
RAILROAD YARD IT BECAME NECESSARY FOR HIM TO WALK OVER A WHEEL-PIT ON A
NARROW BOARDWAY, AND THAT DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENTS, PETITIONER
FELL INTO THE PIT AND SUFFERED GRIEVOUS PERSONAL INJURIES.  THE
COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENTS HAD FAILED TO FURNISH HIM A
SAFE PLACE TO WORK IN SEVERAL DETAILED PARTICULARS, NAMELY, THAT THE
PIT BOARDWAY (1) WAS NOT FIRMLY SET, (2) WAS NOT SECURELY ATTACHED, AND
(3) ALTHOUGH ONLY ABOUT 20 INCHES WIDE, THE BOARDWAY HAD BEEN PERMITTED
TO BECOME GREASY, OILY, AND SLIPPERY, THEREBY CAUSING PETITIONER TO
LOSE HIS BALANCE, SLIP, AND FALL INTO THE PIT. 

THE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR ANSWER TO THIS COMPLAINT ADMITTED THE
EXISTENCE OF THE PIT AND PETITIONER'S INJURIES AS A RESULT OF FALLING
INTO IT.  THEY DENIED, HOWEVER, THAT THE INJURY RESULTED FROM THE
RAILROAD'S NEGLIGENCE, CHARGING THAT PLAINTIFF'S OWN NEGLIGENCE WAS THE
SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES.  ON MOTION OF THE RAILROAD THE
TRIAL JUDGE DIRECTED THE JURY TO RETURN A VERDICT IN ITS FAVOR.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF UTAH AFFIRMED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.   - UTAH - , 187
P.2D 188. 

THE OPINION OF THE UTAH SUPREME COURT STRONGLY INDICATED, AS THE
DISSENTING JUDGE POINTED OUT, THAT ITS FINDING OF AN ABSENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE RAILROAD RESTED ON THAT COURT'S
INDEPENDENT RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING TESTIMONY.  THIS COURT HAS
PREVIOUSLY HELD IN MANY CASES THAT WHERE JURY TRIALS ARE REQUIRED,
COURTS MUST SUBMIT THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE TO A JURY IF EVIDENCE MIGHT
JUSTIFY A FINDING EITHER WAY ON THOSE ISSUES.  SEE, E.G., LAVENDER V.
KURN, 327 U.S. 645, 652-653; BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO., 319 U.S.
350, 354; TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, 68; AND
SEE BRADY V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 320 U.S. 476, 479.  IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING FOR LITIGANTS IN FELA CASES THEIR RIGHT TO A
JURY TRIAL THAT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THE FOLLOWING FACTS WITHOUT DISPUTE: 

PETITIONER FELL INTO THE PIT JULY 26, 1945.  THE PIT, CONSTRUCTED IN
1942, RAN APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET EAST AND WEST UNDERNEATH THREE OR MORE
PARALLEL TRACKS WHICH CROSSED THE PIT FROM NORTH TO SOUTH.  THE PIT WAS
11 FEET DEEP AND 4 FEET 2 1/2 INCHES WIDE WITH CEMENT WALLS AND FLOOR. 
CAR WHEELS IN NEED OF REPAIR WERE BROUGHT TO THE PIT, LOWERED INTO IT,
THERE REPAIRED, AND THEN LIFTED FROM THE PIT FOR RETURN TO USE.  WHEN
NOT IN USE THE PIT WAS KEPT SOLIDLY COVERED WITH HEAVY BOARDS.  THESE
BOARDS WERE USED AS A WALKWAY BY ALL EMPLOYEES.  WHEN THE PIT WAS IN
USE THE COVER BOARDS WERE REMOVED EXCEPT ONE 75 POUND "PERMANENT BOARD"
22 INCHES WIDE AND 4 FEET 2 1/2 INCHES LONG.  WHILE THE SOLID COVERING
WAS OFF, THIS "PERMANENT BOARD," BUILT TO FIT SNUGLY AND FIRMLY, WAS
UNQUESTIONABLY USED AS A WALKWAY BY ALL EMPLOYEES UP TO ABOUT MAY 1,
1945. 

ON THIS LATTER DATE, THE RAILROAD PUT UP "SAFETY CHAINS" FASTENED TO
GUARD POSTS, INCLOSING 16 1/2 FEET OF THE PIT, ON ITS NORTH, SOUTH AND
WEST SIDES.  THE POSTS, 42 INCHES HIGH, FITTED INTO TUBES IMBEDDED IN
THE GROUND, THE TUBES BEING LARGER THAN THE POSTS - ENOUGH LARGER TO
ALLOW THE POSTS TO WORK FREELY.  THE CHAINS, ATTACHED 2 INCHES FROM THE
TOP OF THE POSTS, WERE TO BE KEPT UP WHILE THE PIT WAS IN USE AND TAKEN
DOWN WHEN THE PIT WAS NOT IN USE.  THEY WERE UP WHEN PLAINTIFF SLIPPED
FROM THE "PERMANENT BOARD" INTO THE PIT.  AT THAT TIME A TOURIST CAR
WAS STANDING OVER THE PIT ON TRACK "23 1/2."  THIS TRACK "23 1/2" WAS
EAST OF THE TWO EAST CHAIN POSTS, ITS WEST RAIL BEING ABOUT 36 INCHES,
AND THE TOURIST CAR OVERHANG ABOUT 7 INCHES FROM THE TWO EAST CHAIN
SUPPORTING POSTS.  FN2  THE FLOOR OF THE "OVERHANG" WAS ABOUT 51 INCHES
ABOVE THE GROUND, OR 9 INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE POSTS, THUS ALLOWING
AN UNOBSTRUCTED CLEARANCE OF 51 INCHES UNDER THE OVERHANG.  THE
"PERMANENT BOARD" WAS INSIDE THE CHAIN ENCLOSURE, THE BOARD'S EAST SIDE
BEING ABOUT 9 1/2 INCHES FROM THE TWO EASTERN CHAIN POSTS.  DESPITE THE
PROXIMITY OF THE TOURIST CAR TO THE POSTS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT SPACE
EAST OF EACH CHAIN POST SO THAT PIT WORKERS HAD ACCESS TO AND USED THE
BOARD AS A WALKWAY.  ONE OF THE DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES, A VERY LARGE MAN
WEIGHING 250 POUNDS, PASSED THROUGH IT, THOUGH ACCORDING TO HIS
TESTIMONY, WITH "VERY BAD DISCOMFORT."  PETITIONER WAS A MUCH SMALLER
MAN, WEIGHING 145 POUNDS, AND IT WAS BY PASSING BETWEEN ONE OF THESE
POSTS AND THE TOURIST CAR THAT PETITIONER REACHED THE "PERMANENT BOARD"
WHICH BRIDGED THE PIT.  OIL FROM WHEELS WOULD SOMETIMES ACCUMULATE AT
THE BOTTOM OF THE PIT, AND AS STATED BY THE UTAH SUPREME COURT THE
"PERMANENT BOARD" WAS "ALMOST CERTAIN TO BECOME GREASY OR OILY" FROM
USE BY THE PIT-MEN. 

NEITHER BEFORE NOR AFTER THE CHAINS WERE PUT UP HAD THE RAILROAD EVER
FORBIDDEN PIT WORKERS OR ANY OTHER WORKERS TO WALK ACROSS THE PIT ON
THE "PERMANENT BOARD."  NEITHER WRITTEN RULES NOR SPOKEN INSTRUCTIONS
HAD FORBIDDEN ANY EMPLOYEES TO USE THE BOARD.  AND WITNESSES FOR BOTH
SIDES TESTIFIED THAT PIT WORKERS WERE SUPPOSED TO, AND DID, CONTINUE TO
USE THE BOARD AS A WALKWAY AFTER THE CHAINS AND POSTS WERE INSTALLED. 
THE UTAH SUPREME COURT NEVERTHELESS HELD THAT ERECTION OF THE CHAIN AND
POST ENCLOSURE WAS ITSELF THE EQUIVALENT OF COMPANY ORDERS THAT NO
EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN PIT WORKERS SHOULD WALK ACROSS THE PERMANENT BOARD
WHEN THE CHAINS WERE UP.  AND THE UTAH SUPREME COURT ALSO CONCLUDED
THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO AUTHORIZE A JURY FINDING THAT
EMPLOYEES GENERALLY, AS WELL AS PIT WORKERS, HAD CONTINUED THEIR LONG
STANDING AND OPEN PRACTICE OF CROSSING THE PIT ON THE PERMANENT BOARD
BETWEEN THE TIME THE CHAINS WERE PUT UP AND THE TIME PETITIONER WAS
INJURED. 

IT IS THE ESTABLISHED RULE THAT IN PASSING UPON WHETHER THERE IS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT AN ISSUE TO THE JURY WE NEED LOOK ONLY TO
THE EVIDENCE AND REASONABLE INFERENCES WHICH TEND TO SUPPORT THE CASE
OF A LITIGANT AGAINST WHOM A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN. 
VIEWING THE EVIDENCE HERE IN THAT WAY IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE
FOLLOWING: 

SWITCHMEN AND OTHER EMPLOYEES, JUST AS PIT WORKERS, CONTINUED TO USE
THE PERMANENT BOARD TO WALK ACROSS THE PIT AFTER THE CHAINS WERE PUT UP
AS THEY HAD USED IT BEFORE.  PETITIONER  FN3  AND ANOTHER WITNESS N4
EMPLOYED ON WORK AROUND THE PIT, TESTIFIED POSITIVELY THAT SUCH
PRACTICE CONTINUED.  IT IS TRUE THAT WITNESSES FOR THE RESPONDENTS
TESTIFIED THAT AFTER THE CHAINS WERE PUT UP, ONLY THE CAR MEN IN
REMOVING AND APPLYING WHEELS USED THE BOARD "TO WALK FROM ONE SIDE OF
THE PIT TO THE OTHER  ...  "  THUS THE CONFLICT AS TO CONTINUED USE OF
THE BOARD AS A WALKWAY AFTER ERECTION OF THE CHAINS WAS WHETHER THE PIT
WORKERS ALONE CONTINUED TO USE IT AS A WALKWAY, OR WHETHER EMPLOYEES
GENERALLY SO USED IT.  WHILE THIS LEFT ONLY A VERY NARROW CONFLICT IN
THE EVIDENCE, IT WAS FOR THE JURY, NOT THE COURT, TO RESOLVE THE
CONFLICT. 

IT WAS ONLY AS A RESULT OF ITS INAPPROPRIATE RESOLUTION OF THIS
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE ACTION
OF THE TRIAL COURT IN DIRECTING THE VERDICT.  FOLLOWING ITS
DETERMINATION OF FACT, THE UTAH SUPREME COURT ACTED ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THE RESPONDENTS "HAD NO KNOWLEDGE, ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, THAT
SWITCHMEN WERE USING THE PLANK TO CARRY OUT THEIR TASKS," AND THE
RAILROAD HAD "NO REASON TO SUSPECT" THAT EMPLOYEES GENERALLY WOULD SO
USE THE WALKWAY.  FROM THIS, THE COURT WENT ON TO SAY THAT RESPONDENTS
"WERE ONLY REQUIRED TO KEEP THE BOARD SAFE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PIT
CREWMEN  ...  AND NOT FOR ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN THE YARD."  BUT THE
COURT EMPHASIZED THAT UNDER DIFFERENT FACTS, MAINTENANCE OF "A 22-INCH
BOARD FOR A WALKWAY, WHICH IS ALMOST CERTAIN TO BECOME GREASY OR OILY,
CONSTITUTES NEGLIGENCE."  AND UNDER THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AS TO THE
BOARD, GREASE AND OIL, THE COURT ADDED:  "IT MUST BE CONCEDED THAT IF
DEFENDANTS KNEW OR WERE CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT SWITCHMEN AND OTHER
WORKMEN GENERALLY IN THE YARD WERE HABITUALLY USING THE PLANK AS A
WALKWAY IN THE MANNER CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFF, THEN THE SAFETY ENCLOSURE
MIGHT BE ENTIRELY INADEQUATE, AND A JURY QUESTION WOULD HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED ON THE CONDITION OF THE BOARD AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE
ENCLOSURE." 

WE AGREE WITH THIS LAST QUOTED STATEMENT OF THE UTAH COURT, AND SINCE
THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A JURY FINDING THAT EMPLOYEES GENERALLY
HAD HABITUALLY USED THE BOARD AS A WALKWAY, IT WAS ERROR FOR THE TRIAL
JUDGE TO DIRECT A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS. 

THERE WAS, AS THE STATE COURT POINTED OUT, EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
PETITIONER COULD HAVE TAKEN A SLIGHTLY LONGER ROUTE AND WALKED AROUND
THE PIT, THUS AVOIDING THE USE OF THE BOARD.  THIS FACT, HOWEVER, UNDER
THE TERMS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WOULD NOT COMPLETELY
IMMUNIZE THE RESPONDENTS FROM LIABILITY IF THE INJURY WAS "IN PART" THE
RESULT OF RESPONDENTS' NEGLIGENCE.  FOR WHILE PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO
USE A SAFER METHOD OF CROSSING MIGHT BE FOUND BY THE JURY TO BE
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
SHALL NOT BAR A RECOVERY, BUT THE DAMAGES SHALL BE DIMINISHED BY THE
JURY IN PROPORTION TO THE AMOUNT OF NEGLIGENCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH
EMPLOYEE  ...  " 

MUCH OF RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT HERE IS DEVOTED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT
THE FEDERAL ACT DOES NOT MAKE THE RAILROAD AN ABSOLUTE INSURER AGAINST
PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES SUFFERED BY ITS EMPLOYEES.  THAT PROPOSITION IS
CORRECT, SINCE THE ACT IMPOSES LIABILITY ONLY FOR NEGLIGENT INJURIES. 
CF. CORAY V. SOUTHERN PAC. CO., 335 U.S. 520.  BUT THE ISSUE OF
NEGLIGENCE IS ONE FOR JURIES TO DETERMINE ACCORDING TO THEIR FINDING OF
WHETHER AN EMPLOYER'S CONDUCT MEASURES UP TO WHAT A REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT PERSON WOULD HAVE DONE UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.  AND A
JURY SHOULD HOLD A MASTER "LIABLE FOR INJURIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO
CONDITIONS UNDER HIS CONTROL WHEN THEY ARE NOT SUCH AS A REASONABLE MAN
OUGHT TO MAINTAIN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES," BEARING IN MIND THAT "THE
STANDARD OF CARE MUST BE COMMENSURATE TO THE DANGERS OF THE BUSINESS." 
TILLER V. ATLANTIC C.L.R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, 67. 

THERE ARE SOME WHO THINK THAT RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH
HAVE REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS TO A JURY MAKE, "FOR
ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, A RAILROAD AN INSURER OF ITS EMPLOYEES."  SEE
INDIVIDUAL OPINION OF JUDGE MAJOR, GRISWOLD V. GARDNER, 155 F.2D 333,
334.  BUT SEE JUDGE KERNER'S DISSENT FROM THIS VIEW AT P. 337 AND JUDGE
LINDLEY'S DISSENTING OPINION, PP. 337-338.  THIS ASSUMPTION, THAT
RAILROADS ARE MADE INSURERS WHERE THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE IS LEFT TO
THE JURY, IS INADMISSIBLE.  IT RESTS ON ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, THIS ONE
UNARTICULATED, THAT JURIES WILL INVARIABLY DECIDE NEGLIGENCE QUESTIONS
AGAINST RAILROADS.  THIS IS CONTRARY TO FACT, AS SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATION
BY OTHER FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, BARRY V. READING CO., 147
F.2D 129, CERT. DENIED, 324 U.S. 867; BENTON V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO
R. CO., 182 S.W.2D 61, CERT. DENIED, 324 U.S. 843.  AND CF. BRUNER V.
MCCARTHY, 105 UTAH 399, 142 P.2D 649, CERT. DISMISSED FOR REASONS
STATED, 323 U.S. 673.  MOREOVER, THIS COURT STATED SOME SIXTY YEARS AGO
WHEN CONSIDERING THE PROPER TRIBUNAL FOR DETERMINING QUESTIONS OF
NEGLIGENCE:  "WE SEE NO REASON, SO LONG AS THE JURY SYSTEM IS THE LAW
OF THE LAND, AND THE JURY IS MADE THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE DISPUTED
QUESTIONS OF FACT, WHY IT SHOULD NOT DECIDE SUCH QUESTIONS AS THESE AS
WELL AS OTHERS."  JONES V. EAST TENNESSEE R. CO., 128 U.S. 443, 445. 
AND PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN IN NEGLIGENCE CASES
"WHERE THE FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE, AND THE EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THEM
IS THAT FROM WHICH FAIR-MINDED MEN MAY DRAW DIFFERENT INFERENCES." 
WASHINGTON & G.R. CO. V. MCDADE, 135 U.S. 554, 572.  SUCH HAS EVER
SINCE BEEN THE ESTABLISHED RULE FOR TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS.  SEE
TILLER V. ATLANTIC C.L.R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, 67, 68.  COURTS SHOULD NOT
ASSUME THAT IN DETERMINING THESE QUESTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE JURIES WILL
FALL SHORT OF A FAIR PERFORMANCE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION.  IN
REJECTING A CONTENTION THAT JURIES COULD BE EXPECTED TO DETERMINE
CERTAIN DISPUTED QUESTIONS ON WHIM, THIS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES, SAID:  "BUT IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
TRIBUNAL DOES ITS DUTY AND FINDS FACTS ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE PROVED." 
AIKENS V. WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194, 206. 

IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION AS TO NEGLIGENCE, A JURY IS FREQUENTLY
CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER MANY SEPARATE STRANDS OF CIRCUMSTANCES, AND
FROM THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO DRAW ITS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUE
OF NEGLIGENCE.  HERE THERE ARE MANY ARGUMENTS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED TO THE JURY IN AN EFFORT TO PERSUADE IT THAT THE RAILROAD'S
CONDUCT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, AND MANY COUNTER ARGUMENTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE
PERSUADED THE JURY THAT THE RAILROAD WAS NEGLIGENT.  THE SAME THING IS
TRUE AS TO WHETHER PETITIONER WAS GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
MANY OF SUCH ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY THE UTAH SUPREME COURT TO
SUPPORT ITS FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NEGLIGENT AND THAT THE
RAILROAD WAS NOT.  FN5  BUT THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE STATE SUPREME
COURT ARE RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE ONLY FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE JURY,
THE TRIBUNAL SELECTED TO PASS ON THE ISSUES.  FOR THESE REASONS, THE
TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY, AND IT WAS
ERROR FOR THE UTAH SUPREME COURT TO AFFIRM ITS ACTION IN TAKING THE
CASE FROM THE JURY. 

IT IS URGED BY PETITIONER THAT OTHER FACT ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN ADDITION TO THOSE WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY POINTED
OUT.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THESE CONTENTIONS NOW SINCE THEY MAY NOT
ARISE ON ANOTHER TRIAL OF THE CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER ACTION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT
IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  35 STAT. 65 AS AMENDED BY 36 STAT. 291 AND 53 STAT. 1404, 45
U.S.C. SECS. 51-59. 

FN2  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT OTHER TYPES OF CARS HAD A WIDER OVERHANG
THEREBY REDUCING THE SPACE AVAILABLE FOR PASSAGE BETWEEN THE POSTS AND
THE CAR.  THIS EVIDENCE BORE DIRECTLY ON THE FACT QUESTION AS TO THE
PRACTICE OF EMPLOYEES GENERALLY IN USING THE BOARDWAY AS PETITIONER DID
HERE. 

FN3  PETITIONER TESTIFIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  MR. WILKERSON, I WILL ASK YOU TO STATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE
EVER OBSERVED OTHER SWITCHMEN OR WORKMEN WORKING IN THE YARDS THERE IN
PASSING OVER THAT PIT WHILE CARS WERE STANDING ON 23 1/2 SINCE THE
SAFETY CHAINS WERE UP? 

"A.  YES, SIR, I HAVE. 

"Q.  WHAT HAS THAT PRACTICE BEEN, THE PRACTICE OF CROSSING OVER THE
PIT? 

"A.  MEN THAT WORK AROUND THERE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SWITCHMEN OR
CAR MEN THAT WANTED TO GO THAT WAY WENT THROUGH THERE. 

"Q.  WENT THROUGH - YOU MEAN OVER THE PIT? 

"A.  OVER THAT PIT, AS I JUST DESCRIBED, FROM EITHER SIDE. 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"Q.  I WILL ASK YOU TO STATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU OBSERVED ANY PRACTICE
WITH REFERENCE TO CROSSING OVER THE PIT WHEN MEN WERE WORKING ON THE
CARS THERE IN THE DAYTIME BEFORE THESE CHAINS WERE INSTALLED? 

"A.  WALKED RIGHT STRAIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD. 

"Q.  WAS THERE A BOARD USUALLY THERE TO WALK OVER? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  WAS THERE ANY CHANGE IN THAT PRACTICE AFTER THE CHAINS WERE
INSTALLED? 

"A. NONE, ONLY THEY HAD TO WALK AROUND THE CHAINS. 

     .      .         .         .         . 

"Q.  WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE WITH REFERENCE TO THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE
OCCASIONS WHEN MEN WOULD CROSS OVER THE PIT. 

"A.  OH, I COULDN'T SAY; I SUPPOSE MAYBE A HUNDRED TIMES; VARIES,
MEN, BOTH SWITCHMEN AND CAR MEN OR OTHERS WORKING THERE IN THE YARD
NECESSARY, PULLMAN, EMPLOYEES AND SO FORTH. 

"Q.  CROSSED OVER THE PIT? 

"A.  YES, SIR, IT WAS A COMMON PRACTICE FOR EVERYBODY TO USE THAT
THAT WAY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"Q.  DID YOU EVER SEE - DID YOU EVER NOTICE THE BOARD EVER BEING USED
FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE EXCEPT MEN WALKING ACROSS? 

"A.  NO, SIR, I HAVEN'T. 

"Q.  ASK YOU TO STATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTY IN
PASSING BETWEEN THE CAR AND THE POST AND ONTO THE BOARD AND OVER THE
BOARD AND BETWEEN THE CAR AND THE NORTH POST AT THE TIME YOU PASSED IT,
THE FIRST TIME IN THE MORNING? 

"A.  NO." 

FN4  ANOTHER WITNESS TESTIFIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  AND WHAT HAVE YOU NOTICED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PRACTICE OF MEN
PASSING BETWEEN THE STANDING CARS ON 23 1/2 AND THE POSTS THAT HOLD THE
SAFETY CHAINS? 

"A.  WELL, THEY WOULD WALK THROUGH AND GET ON THE BOARD AND WALK TO
AND FROM EACH SIDE, AND THE MEN THAT WORK ON THE PIT WORK ON THAT
BOARD, AND SOMETIMES SET ON THE BOARD NEXT TO THE - IN NEXT TO THE CAR
THERE TO PERFORM THEIR WORK, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHERE THEY ARE UP UNDER, OR
WORKING ON THE CAR, THEY USE THE BOARD OVER FROM IT TO WORK ON. 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"Q.  WHAT HAS BEEN YOUR PRACTICE IN PASSING BETWEEN CARS THAT ARE
STANDING ON 23 1/2 AND THE POSTS THAT HOLD THE STAKES AND CHAINS WHEN
THEY HAVE BEEN IN PLACE? 

"A.  WHEN I HAVE OCCASION TO PASS THROUGH THERE, I PUT MY HAND ON THE
POST, STEP OVER ON THE BOARD, AND GO AROUND THE OTHER POST, AND THAT IS
THE WAY I PASS TO AND FROM ON THE PIT. 

"Q.  HAVE YOU OBSERVED OTHER MEN PASSING OVER THE PIT UNDER SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES? 

"A.  YES, SIR, I HAVE. 

"Q.  AND WHAT CAN YOU SAY WITH REFERENCE TO THE - SUCH OCCURRENCES,
AS TO HOW OFTEN THEY HAPPEN? 

"A.  O, I WOULD JUDGE THAT I SAW THE MEN PASS THROUGH THERE DOZENS OF
TIMES.  ... 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"Q.  HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OTHER SWITCHMAN WORKING THERE IN THE YARDS ACT
SIMILARLY; THAT IS, GO AROUND THE POST, BETWEEN THE POST AND THE CAR
AND PASS OVER THE BOARD? 

"A.  YES, SIR, I HAVE SAW MY HELPERS AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND BEFORE
THE CHAINS WERE PLACED, WE USED THE BOARD AT ALL TIMES, YOU KNOW, JUST
TO CROSS THE PIT.  I HAVE WALKED ACROSS THE PIT A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT
WAY, AND ALSO MY HELPERS." 

THIS WITNESS LATER GAVE THE NAMES OF TWO SWITCHMEN HE HAD SEEN CROSS
AFTER CHAINS WERE PUT UP, BUT HE DID NOT THEREBY QUALIFY HIS TESTIMONY
PREVIOUSLY GIVEN AS TO THE PRACTICE OF EMPLOYEES GENERALLY TO USE THE
WALKWAY. 

FN5  THE STATE COURT ARGUED THAT "OTHER AND SAFER ROUTES WERE OPEN"
TO THE PETITIONER.  BUT CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT EXEMPT A
RAILROAD FROM LIABILITY FOR ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE. 

THE STATE COURT ALSO ADVANCED THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT:  "IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, THE BOARD APPEARS ADEQUATE FOR THE USE OF THE PIT
CREWMEN, BUT ENTIRELY INADEQUATE IF INTENDED TO BE A CROSS-WALK FOR
OTHER EMPLOYEES.  EMPLOYEES CLIMBING IN AND OUT OF THE PIT APPROACH
MORE DELIBERATELY, USE OTHER AND DIFFERENT HAND HOLDS, AND ARE MORE
CAREFUL OF THEIR FOOTING, WHILE EMPLOYEES SWINGING ON TO THE PLANK IN A
HURRY ARE APT TO FORGET ABOUT THE SLIPPERY CONDITION OF AN OILY BOARD
AND FORGET ABOUT THE DANGERS INCIDENT TO CROSSING, AS DID THE
PLAINTIFF, WHO SWUNG HIMSELF AROUND THE CHAIN POST AND ONTO THE
PLANK."  ASIDE FROM THE APPARENT ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT PIT
CREWMEN WOULD EXERCISE GREATER CARE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES THAN WOULD
OTHER EMPLOYEES, WHETHER THEY WOULD OR NOT IS PATENTLY A JURY
QUESTION. 

THE STATE COURT ALSO SAID:  "HAD THEY NOT INTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE
USE OF THE BOARD AS A WALK-WAY, THE DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT HAVE INSTALLED
THE CHAIN POSTS SO AS TO BLOCK AN OPEN STRAIGHT APPROACH TO THE
BOARD."  THIS ARGUMENT OF THE STATE COURT IGNORES THE ABSENCE OF ANY
DIRECT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CHAINS WERE ERECTED TO KEEP PEOPLE
FROM WALKING OVER THE OLD "PERMANENT BOARD" WALKWAY.  PETITIONER
TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CHAINS WERE ERECTED
"TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM WALKING DIRECTLY INTO THE OPEN PIT." 

ANOTHER ARGUMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS:  "ALSO, A SIGN NOT
TO CROSS WOULD HAVE AFFORDED PLAINTIFF NO ADDITIONAL SECURITY OR
WARNING, FOR HE DISREGARDED THE CHAIN AND HE WOULD NO DOUBT HAVE
IGNORED ANOTHER FORM OF WARNING."  IF SUCH AN INFERENCE WAS JUSTIFIABLE
AND WAS RELEVANT AT ALL ON THE QUESTION OF RAILROAD NEGLIGENCE, IT WAS
AN INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM FACTS BY THE JURY, NOT BY THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

TRIAL BY JURY AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AND BY THE SEVERAL STATES PRESUPPOSES A JURY UNDER PROPER GUIDANCE OF A
DISINTERESTED AND COMPETENT TRIAL JUDGE.  HERRON V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO., 283 U.S. 91.  IT IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF TRIAL BY JURY WHICH
PUTS UPON THE JUDGE THE EXACTING DUTY OF DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS
SOLID EVIDENCE ON WHICH A JURY'S VERDICT COULD BE FAIRLY BASED.  WHEN A
PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT AN INJURY WHICH HE HAS SUFFERED IS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO A DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE - WANT OF CARE IN THE DISCHARGE OF A DUTY
WHICH THE DEFENDANT OWED TO HIM - IT IS THE TRIAL JUDGE'S FUNCTION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IN ITS ENTIRETY WOULD RATIONALLY SUPPORT
A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF, ASSUMING THAT THE JURY TOOK, AS IT WOULD
BE ENTITLED TO TAKE, A VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE MOST FAVORABLE TO THE
PLAINTIFF.  IF THERE WERE A BRIGHT LINE DIVIDING NEGLIGENCE FROM NON
NEGLIGENCE, THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM.  ONLY AN INCOMPETENT OR A WILFUL
JUDGE WOULD TAKE A CASE FROM THE JURY WHEN THE ISSUE SHOULD BE LEFT TO
THE JURY.  BUT SINCE QUESTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE ARE QUESTIONS OF DEGREE,
OFTEN VERY NICE DIFFERENCES OF DEGREE, JUDGES OF COMPETENCE AND
CONSCIENCE HAVE IN THE PAST, AND WILL IN THE FUTURE, DISAGREE AS TO
WHETHER PROOF IN A CASE IS SUFFICIENT TO DEMAND SUBMISSION TO THE
JURY.  THE FACT THAT A THIRD COURT THINKS THERE WAS ENOUGH TO LEAVE THE
CASE TO THE JURY DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE OTHER TWO COURTS WERE
UNMINDFUL OF THE JURY'S FUNCTION.  THE EASY BUT TIMID WAY OUT FOR A
TRIAL JUDGE IS TO LEAVE ALL CASES TRIED TO A JURY FOR JURY
DETERMINATION, BUT IN SO DOING HE FAILS IN HIS DUTY TO TAKE A CASE FROM
THE JURY WHEN THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT WARRANT A VERDICT BY IT.  A TIMID
JUDGE, LIKE A BIASED JUDGE, IS INTRINSICALLY A LAWLESS JUDGE. 

THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE ESPECIALLY PERTINENT TO SUITS UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  THE DIFFICULTIES IN THESE CASES
DERIVE LARGELY FROM THE OUTMODED CONCEPT OF "NEGLIGENCE" AS A WORKING
PRINCIPLE FOR THE ADJUSTMENTS OF INJURIES INEVITABLE UNDER THE
TECHNOLOGICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF MODERN INDUSTRY.  THIS CRUEL AND
WASTEFUL MODE OF DEALING WITH INDUSTRIAL INJURIES HAS LONG BEEN
DISPLACED IN INDUSTRY GENERALLY BY THE INSURANCE PRINCIPLE THAT
UNDERLIES WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS.  FOR REASONS THAT HARDLY REFLECT
DUE REGARD FOR THE INTERESTS OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES, "NEGLIGENCE"
REMAINS THE BASIS OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO THEM.  IT IS, OF COURSE,
THE DUTY OF COURTS TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT,
HOWEVER OUTMODED AND UNJUST IN OPERATION IT MAY BE. BUT SO LONG AS
NEGLIGENCE RATHER THAN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION IS THE BASIS OF RECOVERY,
JUST SO LONG WILL SUITS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT LEAD
TO CONFLICTING OPINIONS ABOUT "FAULT" AND "PROXIMATE CAUSE."  THE LAW
REPORTS ARE FULL OF UNEDIFYING PROOF OF THESE CONFLICTING VIEWS, AND
THAT TOO BY JUDGES WHO SEEK CONSCIENTIOUSLY TO PERFORM THEIR DUTY BY
NEITHER LEAVING EVERYTHING TO A JURY NOR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TURNING
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT INTO A WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAW. 

CONSIDERING THE VOLUME AND COMPLEXITY OF THE CASES WHICH OBVIOUSLY
CALL FOR DECISION BY THIS COURT, AND CONSIDERING THE TIME AND THOUGHT
THAT THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF SUCH CASES DEMANDS, I DO NOT THINK WE
SHOULD TAKE CASES MERELY TO REVIEW FACTS ALREADY CANVASSED BY TWO AND
SOMETIMES THREE COURTS EVEN THOUGH THOSE FACTS MAY HAVE BEEN
ERRONEOUSLY APPRAISED.  THE DIVISION IN THIS COURT WOULD SEEM TO
DEMONSTRATE BEYOND PERADVENTURE THAT NOTHING IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
EXCEPT THE DRAWING OF ALLOWABLE INFERENCES FROM A NECESSARILY UNIQUE
SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.  FOR THIS COURT TO TAKE A CASE WHICH TURNS MERELY
ON SUCH AN APPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER MUCH HARDSHIP IN THE FALLIBLE
APPLICATION OF AN ARCHAIC SYSTEM OF COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES TO
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES MAY TOUCH OUR PRIVATE SYMPATHY, IS TO DENY DUE
REGARD TO THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED THE COURT TO ASK AND CONGRESS TO
GIVE THE POWER TO CONTROL THE COURT'S DOCKET.  SUCH POWER CARRIES WITH
IT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GRANTING REVIEW ONLY IN CASES THAT DEMAND
ADJUDICATION ON THE BASIS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE OPERATION OF OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM; IMPORTANCE OF THE OUTCOME MERELY TO THE PARTIES IS NOT ENOUGH. 
IT HAS BEEN OUR PRACTICE TO DISMISS A WRIT OF CERTIORARI EVEN AFTER IT
WAS GRANTED WHERE ARGUMENT EXPOSED A WANT OF CONFLICT OR REVEALED THAT
THE CASE INVOLVED NO MORE THAN ITS PARTICULAR FACTS.  FN1  I BELIEVE WE
SHOULD ADHERE TO THIS PRACTICE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

BUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING TO THIS PRACTICE CANNOT BE SEEN IN THE
PERSPECTIVE OF A SINGLE CASE.  DESPITE THE MOUNTING BURDEN OF THE
COURT'S BUSINESS, THIS IS THE THIRTIETH OCCASION IN WHICH A PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI HAS BEEN GRANTED DURING THE PAST DECADE TO REVIEW A
JUDGMENT DENYING RECOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IN
A CASE TURNING SOLELY ON JURY ISSUES.  THE ONLY PETITION ON BEHALF OF A
CARRIER THAT BROUGHT SUCH A CASE HERE DURING THIS PERIOD WAS DISMISSED,
AND RIGHTLY, AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  MCCARTHY V. BRUNER, 322 U.S.
718; 323 U.S. 673.  NOR DOES WHAT THE UNITED STATES REPORTS DISCLOSE
REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TELL THE WHOLE
STORY OF THE COURT'S EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING OR DENYING
THEM.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE OF ADHERENCE, ON THE WHOLE, TO THE WISE
PRACTICE OF NOT PUBLICLY RECORDING THE VOTE OF THE JUSTICES.  OF
COURSE, SOME LIGHT ON THE SITUATION IS DERIVATIVELY SHED BY THE
DISCLOSED POSITION OF THE JUSTICES ON THE MERITS OF THE CASES.  BUT THE
UNAVAILABLE DATA ARE, AS CAN READILY BE IMAGINED, ESPECIALLY RELEVANT
IN THE CASE OF SUCH A RECURRING PROBLEM AS GRANTING OR DENYING
CERTIORARI UNDER A PARTICULAR STATUTE. 

I WOULD, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE PETITION AS HAVING BEEN IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED.  SINCE, HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT TO BE DONE, I TOO HAVE BEEN
OBLIGED TO RECANVASS THE RECORD AND LIKEWISE THINK THAT THERE WAS HERE
ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE JURY. 

FN1  THE REASONS FOR THIS PRACTICE WERE INDICATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE
TAFT FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN LAYNE & BOWLER CORP. V. WESTERN WELL
WORKS, 261 U.S. 387, 393:    "IF IT BE SUGGESTED THAT AS MUCH EFFORT
AND TIME AS WE HAVE GIVEN TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ALLEGED CONFLICT
WOULD HAVE ENABLED US TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE BEFORE US ON THE MERITS,
THE ANSWER IS THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE BE CONSISTENT IN NOT
GRANTING THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI EXCEPT IN CASES INVOLVING PRINCIPLES
THE SETTLEMENT OF WHICH IS OF IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM THAT OF THE PARTIES, AND IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A REAL AND
EMBARRASSING CONFLICT OF OPINION AND AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEAL.  THE PRESENT CASE CERTAINLY COMES UNDER NEITHER
HEAD." 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, HAVING CONCURRED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, ALSO
JOINS IN THIS OPINION.   MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

WHILE I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, I THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO
TAKE THIS OCCASION TO ACCOUNT FOR OUR STEWARDSHIP IN THIS GROUP OF
CASES. 

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PUT ON THE
RAILROAD INDUSTRY SOME OF THE COST FOR THE LEGS, EYES, ARMS, AND LIVES
WHICH IT CONSUMED IN ITS OPERATIONS.  NOT ALL THESE COSTS WERE IMPOSED,
FOR THE ACT DID NOT MAKE THE EMPLOYER AN INSURER.  THE LIABILITY WHICH
IT IMPOSED WAS THE LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE.  BUT JUDGES HAD CREATED
NUMEROUS DEFENSES - FELLOW-SERVANT RULE, ASSUMPTION OF RISK,
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - SO THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS OFTEN EFFECTIVELY
INSULATED FROM LIABILITY EVEN THOUGH IT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE
OF UNSAFE CONDITIONS OF WORK.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO CHANGE
THAT STRICT RULE OF LIABILITY, TO LIFT FROM EMPLOYEES THE "PRODIGIOUS
BURDEN" OF PERSONAL INJURIES WHICH THAT SYSTEM HAD PLACED UPON THEM,
AND TO RELIEVE MEN "WHO BY THE EXIGENCIES AND NECESSITIES OF LIFE ARE
BOUND TO LABOR" FROM THE RISKS AND HAZARDS THAT COULD BE AVOIDED OR
LESSENED "BY THE EXERCISE OF PROPER CARE ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER IN
PROVIDING SAFE AND PROPER MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT WITH WHICH THE
EMPLOYEE DOES HIS WORK."  FN1 

THAT PURPOSE WAS NOT GIVEN A FRIENDLY RECEPTION IN THE COURTS.  IN
THE FIRST PLACE, A GREAT MAZE OF RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATIONS WERE
ENGRAFTED ON THE ACT, CONSTRUCTIONS THAT DEPRIVED THE BENEFICIARIES OF
MANY OF THE INTENDED BENEFITS OF THE LEGISLATION.  SEE SEABOARD AIR
LINE V. HORTON, 233 U.S. 492; TOLEDO, ST. L. & W.R. CO. V. ALLEN, 276
U.S. 165; AND THE REVIEW OF THE CASES IN TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE
R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, 62-67.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS OF
FACT WERE TAKEN FROM THE JURY AND RESOLVED BY THE COURTS IN FAVOR OF
THE EMPLOYER.  THIS COURT LED THE WAY IN OVERTURNING JURY VERDICTS
RENDERED FOR EMPLOYEES.  SEE CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V. COOGAN, 271
U.S. 472; MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. V. AEBY, 275 U.S. 426; NEW YORK CENTRAL
R. CO. V. AMBROSE, 280 U.S. 486.  AND SO IT WAS THAT A GOODLY PORTION
OF THE RELIEF WHICH CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED EMPLOYEES WAS WITHHELD FROM
THEM. 

THE FIRST OF THESE OBSTACLES WHICH THE COURTS HAD CREATED COULD BE
REMOVED BY CONGRESS.  IN 1939 CONGRESS DID INDEED MOVE TO RELEASE THE
EMPLOYEES FROM THE BURDEN OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK WHICH THE COURT HAD
REIMPOSED ON THEM.  53 STAT. 1404, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 54; TILLER V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., SUPRA.  THE SECOND EVIL WAS NOT SO READILY
SUSCEPTIBLE OF CONGRESSIONAL CORRECTION UNDER A SYSTEM WHERE LIABILITY
IS BOTTOMED ON NEGLIGENCE.  SINCE THE CONDITION WAS ONE CREATED BY THE
COURT AND BEYOND EFFECTIVE CONTROL BY CONGRESS, IT WAS APPROPRIATE AND
FITTING THAT THE COURT CORRECT IT.  IN FACT, A DECISION NOT TO CORRECT
IT WAS TO LET THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS LAW BE GOVERNED NOT BY THE AIM
OF THE LEGISLATION TO SAFEGUARD EMPLOYEES BUT BY A HOSTILE PHILOSOPHY
THAT PERMEATED ITS INTERPRETATION. 

THE BASIS OF LIABILITY UNDER THE ACT IS AND REMAINS NEGLIGENCE. 
JUDGES WILL NOT ALWAYS AGREE AS TO WHAT FACTS ARE NECESSARY TO
ESTABLISH NEGLIGENCE.  WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT IN ALL CASES.  BUT THE
REVIEW OF THE CASES COMING TO THE COURT FROM THE 1943 TERM TO DATE  FN2
AND SET FORTH IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION SHOWS, I THINK, A RECORD
MORE FAITHFUL TO THE DESIGN OF THE ACT THAN PREVIOUSLY PREVAILED. 

OF THE 55 PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED DURING THIS PERIOD, 20 HAVE
BEEN GRANTED.  OF THESE ONE WAS GRANTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
EMPLOYER, 19 AT THE INSTANCE OF AN EMPLOYEE.  IN 16 OF THESE CASES THE
LOWER COURT WAS REVERSED FOR SETTING ASIDE A JURY VERDICT FOR AN
EMPLOYEE OR TAKING THE CASE FROM THE JURY.  IN 3 THE LOWER COURT WAS
SUSTAINED IN TAKING THE CASE FROM THE JURY.  IN THE ONE CASE GRANTED AT
THE INSTANCE OF THE EMPLOYER WE HELD THAT IT HAD RECEIVED THE JURY
TRIAL ON CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE TO WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED.  IN THESE 20
CASES WE WERE UNANIMOUS IN 10 OF THE DECISIONS WHICH WE RENDERED ON THE
MERITS. 

OF THE 35 PETITIONS DENIED, 21 WERE BY EMPLOYERS CLAIMING THAT JURY
VERDICTS WERE ERRONEOUS OR THAT NEW TRIALS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ORDERED.  THE REMAINING 14 WERE FILED BY EMPLOYEES.  IN 10 OF THESE THE
LOWER COURT HAD WITHHELD THE CASE FROM THE JURY AND RENDERED JUDGMENT
FOR THE EMPLOYER, IN 3 IT HAD SUSTAINED JURY VERDICTS FOR THE EMPLOYER,
AND IN 1 REVERSED A JURY VERDICT FOR THE EMPLOYEE AND DIRECTED A NEW
TRIAL. 

FROM THIS GROUP OF CASES THREE OBSERVATIONS CAN BE MADE: 

(1)  THE BASIS OF LIABILITY HAS NOT BEEN SHIFTED FROM NEGLIGENCE TO
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY. 

(2)  THE CRITERION GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF OUR DISCRETION IN
GRANTING OR DENYING CERTIORARI IS NOT WHO LOSES BELOW BUT WHETHER THE
JURY FUNCTION IN PASSING ON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT AND IN DRAWING
INFERENCES FROM PROVEN FACTS HAS BEEN RESPECTED. 

(3) THE HISTORIC ROLE OF THE JURY IN PERFORMING THAT FUNCTION, SEE
JONES V. EAST TENNESSEE, V. & G.R. CO., 128 U.S. 443, 445; WASHINGTON &
G.R. CO. V. MCDADE, 135 U.S. 554, 572; BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT R.
CO., 319 U.S. 350, 353-354, IS BEING RESTORED IN THIS IMPORTANT CLASS
OF CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

                  APPENDIX TO OPINION OF DOUGLAS, J. 

I. CASES IN WHICH CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED: 

A. WHERE LOWER COURT WHICH TOOK THE CASE FROM THE JURY OR SET ASIDE A
JURY VERDICT FOR AN EMPLOYEE WAS REVERSED: 

TENNANT V. PEORIA & P.U.R. CO., 321 U.S. 29. 

TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 323 U.S. 574. 

BLAIR V. B. & O.R. CO., 323 U.S. 600. 

KEETON V. THOMPSON, 326 U.S. 689. 

LAVENDER V. KURN, 327 U.S. 645. 

COGSWELL V. CHICAGO & E. ILL. R. CO., 328 U.S. 820. 

JESIONOWSKI V. BOSTON & M.R. CO., 329 U.S. 452. 

ELLIS V. UNION P.R. CO., 329 U.S. 649. 

PAULY V. MCCARTHY, 330 U.S. 802. 

MYERS V. READING CO., 331 U.S. 477(SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT). 

LILLIE V. THOMPSON, 332 U.S. 459. 

ANDERSON V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 333 U.S. 821. 

EUBANKS V. THOMPSON, 334 U.S. 854. 

PENN V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 335 U.S. 849. 

CORAY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 335 U.S. 520. 

WILKERSON V. MCCARTHY, 336 U.S. 53. 

I. CASES IN WHICH CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED - CONTINUED. 

B. WHERE LOWER COURT WHICH SET ASIDE A JURY VERDICT FOR AN EMPLOYEE
OR RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THE EMPLOYER ON QUESTIONS OF LAW WAS
SUSTAINED: 

BRADY V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 320 U.S. 476. 

HUNTER V. TEXAS ELECTRIC R. CO., 332 U.S. 827. 

ECKENRODE V. PENN.  R. CO., 335 U.S. 329. 

C. WHERE LOWER COURT WHICH UPHELD THE JURY'S VERDICT ON THE ISSUES OF
NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WAS SUSTAINED: 

MCCARTHY V. BRUNER, 323 U.S. 673. 

II.  CASES IN WHICH CERTIORARI WAS DENIED: 

A. WHERE LOWER COURT WITHHELD CASE FROM JURY AND RENDERED JUDGMENT
FOR THE EMPLOYER: 

BEAMER V. VIRGINIAN R. CO., 321 U.S. 763. 

COWDRICK V. PENN.  R. CO., 323 U.S. 799. 

NEGRO V. BOSTON & MAINE R., 324 U.S. 862. 

FANTINI V. READING CO., 325 U.S. 856. 

SCARBOROUGH V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 326 U.S. 755. 

CHISHOLM V. READING CO., 329 U.S. 807. 

WALLER V. NORTHERN P.T. CO., 329 U.S. 742. 

WOLFE V. HENWOOD, 332 U.S. 773. 

LASAGNA V. MCCARTHY, 332 U.S. 829. 

TRUST CO. OF CHICAGO V. ERIE R. CO., 334 U.S. 845. 

B. WHERE LOWER COURT SUSTAINED A JURY VERDICT FOR THE EMPLOYER: 

BARRY V. READING CO., 324 U.S. 867. 

BENTON V. ST. LOUIS-S.F.R. CO., 324 U.S. 843. 

BENSON V. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO., 332 U.S. 830. 

C. WHERE LOWER COURT REVERSED A JURY VERDICT FOR THE EMPLOYEE AND
DIRECTED A NEW TRIAL: 

OWENS V. UNION P.R. CO., 323 U.S. 740. 

II.  CASES IN WHICH CERTIORARI WAS DENIED - CONTINUED. 

D. WHERE LOWER COURT SUSTAINED JURY VERDICT FOR THE EMPLOYEE OR HELD
THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S CASE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE JURY: 

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JESTER, 323 U.S. 716. 

THOMPSON V. GODSY, 323 U.S. 719. 

NORTHERN P.R. CO. V. BIMBERG, 323 U.S. 752. 

TERMINAL R. ASSN. V. COPELAND, 323 U.S. 799. 

CHICAGO & E. ILL. R. CO. V. WADDELL, 323 U.S. 732. 

BOSTON & M.R. V. CABANA, 325 U.S. 873. 

TEXAS & P.R. CO. V. RILEY, 325 U.S. 873. 

TERMINAL R. ASSN. V. MOONEY, 326 U.S. 723. 

TERMINAL R. ASSN. V. SCHORB, 326 U.S. 786. 

BALTIMORE & O.C.T.R. CO. V. HOWARD, 328 U.S. 867. 

GARDNER V. GRISWOLD, 329 U.S. 725. 

HENWOOD V. CHANEY, 329 U.S. 760. 

BOSTON & MAINE R. V. MEECH, 329 U.S. 763. 

WHEELING & L.E.R. CO. V. KEITH, 332 U.S. 763. 

DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & W.R. CO. V. MOSTYN, 332 U.S. 770. 

ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. MEEKS, 333 U.S. 827. 

WABASH R. CO. V. HAMPTON, 333 U.S. 833. 

FLEMING V. HUSTED, 333 U.S. 843. 

UNITY R. CO. V. KURIMSKY, 333 U.S. 855. 

BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. SKIDMORE, 335 U.S. 816. 

E. WHERE LOWER COURT SET ASIDE A JURY VERDICT FOR THE EMPLOYER
BECAUSE OF ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTIONS AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL: 

PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. MCCARTHY, 329 U.S. 812. 

FN1  H.R. REP. NO. 1386, 60TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2(1908). 

FN2  CASES WHERE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI WERE GRANTED THIS TERM BUT
WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN DECIDED ON THE MERITS HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED. 
NOR HAVE CASES BEEN INCLUDED WHICH THOUGH ARISING UNDER THE ACT PRESENT
ISSUES OTHER THAN THOSE OF NEGLIGENCE.  MOREOVER, WABASH R. CO. V.
WILLIAMSON, CERTIORARI DENIED, 330 U.S. 824, HAS BEEN OMITTED SINCE
NEGLIGENCE WAS ADMITTED BY THE EMPLOYER, THE CASE TURNING ON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RAILROAD RULE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, DISSENTING. 

IN MY VIEW OF THE RECORD, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NOR ANY INFERENCE
WHICH REASONABLY MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE WHEN VIEWED IN THE
LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER, WHICH COULD SUSTAIN A VERDICT
FOR HIM.  THIS LEADS ME TO CONCLUDE THAT THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY
DIRECTED A VERDICT FOR THE RESPONDENTS, AND I WOULD AFFIRM. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE TRIAL COURT, AFTER HEARING ALL THE EVIDENCE AND SEEING THE
WITNESSES, DIRECTED A VERDICT OF NO CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE UTAH SUPREME
COURT, IN A CAREFUL OPINION, DECIDED TWO PROPOSITIONS: FIRST, WHETHER
THIS COURT STILL HOLDS THAT A PLAINTIFF "IN ORDER TO RECOVER MUST STILL
SHOW NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER."  IT RESOLVED ITS DOUBTS
BY RELYING UPON STATEMENTS OF THIS COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT IT STILL
DOES ADHERE TO THAT REQUIREMENT.  FN1  SECOND, WHETHER THERE IS ANY
EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE.  ON A CAREFUL ANALYSIS, IT FOUND NO EVIDENCE
WHATEVER OF NEGLIGENCE IN THIS CASE.  FOLLOWING ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES
OF LAW, IT CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ERROR TO LET SUCH A CASE
GO TO THE JURY, AND THEREFORE AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL SO TO
DO. 

THIS COURT NOW REVERSES AND, TO MY MIND AT LEAST, ESPOUSES THE
DOCTRINE THAT ANY TIME A TRIAL OR APPELLATE COURT WEIGHS EVIDENCE OR
EXAMINES FACTS IT IS USURPING THE JURY'S FUNCTION.  BUT UNDER THAT RULE
EVERY CLAIM OF INJURY WOULD REQUIRE JURY TRIAL, EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED NO POSSIBLE BASIS FOR A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE.  DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER THERE COULD BE SUCH A BASIS IS A FUNCTION OF THE TRIAL COURT,
EVEN THOUGH IT INVOLVES WEIGHING EVIDENCE AND EXAMINING FACTS.  I THINK
WE ARE UNDER A DUTY TO EXAMINE THE RECORD IMPARTIALLY IF WE TAKE SUCH
CASES AND TO SUSTAIN THE LOWER COURTS WHERE, AS HERE, A FINDING OF
NEGLIGENCE WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT. 

I AM NOT UNAWARE THAT EVEN IN THIS OPINION THE COURT CONTINUES TO PAY
LIP SERVICE TO THE DOCTRINE THAT LIABILITY IN THESE CASES IS TO BE
BASED ONLY UPON FAULT.  BUT ITS STANDARD OF FAULT IS SUCH IN THIS CASE
AS TO INDICATE THAT THE PRINCIPLE IS WITHOUT MUCH PRACTICAL MEANING. 

THIS RECORD SHOWS THAT BOTH THE WHEEL PIT INTO WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL
AND THE BOARD ON WHICH HE WAS TRYING TO CROSS OVER THE PIT WERE BLOCKED
OFF BY SAFETY CHAINS STRUNG BETWEEN POSTS.  PLAINTIFF ADMITS HE KNEW
THE CHAINS WERE THERE TO KEEP HIM FROM CROSSING OVER THE PIT AND TO
REQUIRE HIM TO GO A FEW FEET FARTHER TO WALK AROUND IT.  AFTER THE
CHAINS WERE PUT UP, ANY PERSON UNDERTAKING TO USE THE BOARD AS A CROSS
WALK HAD TO COMPLETE INVOLVED CONTORTIONS AND GYMNASTICS, PARTICULARLY
WHEN, AS WAS THE CASE WITH PETITIONER, A CAR WAS ON THE TRACK 23 1/2. 
A CASUAL EXAMINATION OF THE MODEL FILED AS AN EXHIBIT IN THIS COURT
SHOWS HOW DIFFICULT WAS SUCH A PASSAGE.  NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT HOLDS
THAT IF EMPLOYEES SUCCEEDED IN DISREGARDING THE CHAINS AND FORCED
PASSAGE FREQUENTLY ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED "CUSTOMARY," AND THE
RAILROAD TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, ITS FAILURE SO TO DO WAS NEGLIGENCE. 
THE SAME RULE WOULD NO DOUBT APPLY IF THE RAILROAD'S PRECAUTIONS HAD
CONSISTED OF A BARRICADE, OR AN ARMED GUARD.  I THINK THE RAILROAD HERE
COULD NOT FAIRLY BE FOUND GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE AND THAT THERE WAS NO
JURY QUESTION. 

IF IN THIS CLASS OF CASES, WHICH FORMS A GROWING PROPORTION OF ITS
TOTAL, THIS COURT REALLY IS APPLYING ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF AN OLD BODY
OF LIABILITY LAW IN WHICH LOWER COURTS ARE GENERALLY EXPERIENCED, I DO
NOT SEE WHY THEY ARE SO BAFFLED AND CONFUSED AT WHAT GOES ON HERE.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, IF THIS COURT CONSIDERS A REFORM OF THIS LAW
APPROPRIATE AND WITHIN THE JUDICIAL POWER TO PROMULGATE, I DO NOT SEE
WHY IT SHOULD CONSTANTLY DENY THAT IT IS DOING JUST THAT.    I THINK A
COMPARISON OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION,  - UTAH - , 187 P.2D
188, WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT WILL FAIRLY RAISE, IN THE MINDS OF
COURTS BELOW AND OF THE PROFESSION, THE QUESTION I LEAVE TO THEIR
PERSPICACITY TO ANSWER:  IN WHICH PROPOSITION DID THE SUPREME COURT OF
UTAH REALLY ERR? 

FN1  THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH CONSIDERED AND REJECTED THE OPINION IN
GRISWOLD V. GARDNER, 155 F.2D 333, IN WHICH IT WAS SAID: 

"ANY DETAILED REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN A CASE OF THIS CHARACTER FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE PROPRIETY OF THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL
TO DIRECT A VERDICT WOULD BE AN IDLE AND USELESS CEREMONY IN THE LIGHT
OF THE RECENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.  THIS IS SO REGARDLESS OF
WHAT WE MIGHT THINK OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS
RESPECT.  THE FACT IS, SO WE THINK, THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS IN
EFFECT CONVERTED THIS NEGLIGENCE STATUTE INTO A COMPENSATION LAW
THEREBY MAKING, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, A RAILROAD AN INSURER OF
ITS EMPLOYEES.  (SEE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IN BAILEY V.
CENTRAL VERMONT RY., 319 U.S. 350, 358, 63 S. CT. 1062, 1066, 87 L. ED.
1444.) 

"THE SUPREME COURT, COMMENCING WITH TILLER V. ATLANTIC COASTLINE R.
CO., 318 U.S. 54, 63 S. CT. 444, 87 L. ED. 610, 143 A.L.R. 967, IN A
SUCCESSION OF CASES HAS REVERSED EVERY COURT (WITH ONE EXCEPTION
HEREINAFTER NOTED) WHICH HAS HELD THAT A DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A
DIRECTED VERDICT.  IN THE TILLER CASE, THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, 128 F.2D 420, WHICH HAD
AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT IN DIRECTING A VERDICT.  THE CASE, UPON
REMAND, WAS AGAIN TRIED IN THE COURT BELOW, WHERE A DIRECTED VERDICT
WAS DENIED.  FOR THIS DENIAL THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND AGAIN
THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOLDING THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY.  IN TENNANT V.
PEORIA & P.U.R. CO., 321 U.S. 29, 64 S. CT. 409, 88 L. ED. 520, THIS
COURT REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS REFUSAL TO DIRECT A
VERDICT, AND OUR DECISION, 134 F.2D 860, WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME
COURT.  IN BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT RY., 319 U.S. 350, 63 S. CT. 1062,
87 L. ED. 1444, THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT HELD THAT THERE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN A DIRECTED VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT, AND THE SUPREME COURT
REVERSED THE DECISION OF THAT COURT.  IN BLAIR V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO.,
323 U.S. 600, 65 S. CT. 545, 89 L. ED. 490, THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WHICH HAD HELD THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN A DIRECTED VERDICT.  IN THE RECENT CASE OF LAVENDER,
ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., V. KURN ET AL., (327 U.S. 645) 66 S. CT. 740, THE
SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI WHICH HAD HELD
THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A DIRECTED VERDICT FOR EACH OF THE
DEFENDANTS. 

"THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS IS BRADY V.
SOUTHERN R. CO., 320 U.S. 476, 64 S. CT. 232, 88 L. ED. 239, WHERE THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA WAS AFFIRMED IN ITS HOLDING THAT THERE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A DIRECTED VERDICT.  THIS EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, IS OF
LITTLE CONSEQUENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COURT
DISSENTED." 
..END :












KOVACS V. COOPER, 336 U.S. 77 


NO. 9.  SUBMITTED OCTOBER 11, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1949.  - 135
N.J.L. 584, 52 A.2D 806, AFFIRMED. 


AN ORDINANCE OF TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, FORBIDS THE USE OR OPERATION ON
THE PUBLIC STREETS OF A "SOUND TRUCK" OR OF ANY INSTRUMENT WHICH EMITS
"LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES" AND IS ATTACHED TO A VEHICLE ON THE PUBLIC
STREETS.  HELD:  AS APPLIED TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, IT DOES NOT
INFRINGE THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 78-79,
89. 

KOVACS V. COOPER, JUDGE. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED IN POLICE COURT FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDINANCE
OF TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.  THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE
CONVICTION, 135 N.J.L. 64, 50 A.2D 451, AND THE COURT OF ERRORS AND
APPEALS AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT.  135 N.J.L. 584, 52 A.2D
806.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 89. 

MR. JUSTICE REED ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN OPINION
IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN. 

THIS APPEAL INVOLVES THE VALIDITY OF A PROVISION OF ORDINANCE NO. 430
OF THE CITY OF TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.  IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"4.  THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION,
EITHER AS PRINCIPAL, AGENT OR EMPLOYEE, TO PLAY, USE OR OPERATE FOR
ADVERTISING PURPOSES, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, ON OR UPON
THE PUBLIC STREETS, ALLEYS OR THOROUGHFARES IN THE CITY OF TRENTON, ANY
DEVICE KNOWN AS A SOUND TRUCK, LOUD SPEAKER OR SOUND AMPLIFIER, OR
RADIO OR PHONOGRAPH WITH A LOUD SPEAKER OR SOUND AMPLIFIER, OR ANY
OTHER INSTRUMENT KNOWN AS A CALLIOPE OR ANY INSTRUMENT OF ANY KIND OR
CHARACTER WHICH EMITS THEREFROM LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES AND IS ATTACHED
TO AND UPON ANY VEHICLE OPERATED OR STANDING UPON SAID STREETS OR
PUBLIC PLACES AFOREMENTIONED." 

THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING THIS ORDINANCE BY THE
APPELLEE, A POLICE JUDGE OF THE CITY OF TRENTON.  HIS CONVICTION WAS
UPHELD BY THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT, KOVACS V. COOPER, 135 N.J.L.
64, 50 A.2D 451, AND THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED WITHOUT A MAJORITY
OPINION BY THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS IN AN EQUALLY
DIVIDED COURT.  THE DISSENTS ARE PRINTED.  135 N.J.L. 584, 52 A.2D
806. 

WE TOOK JURISDICTION  FN1  TO CONSIDER THE CHALLENGE MADE TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SECTION ON ITS FACE AND AS APPLIED ON THE
GROUND THAT SEC. 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED BECAUSE THE SECTION AND THE CONVICTION ARE IN
CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLAGE AND
FREEDOM TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION AND OPINIONS TO OTHERS.  THE
ORDINANCE IS ALSO CHALLENGED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS SO OBSCURE, VAGUE,
AND INDEFINITE AS TO BE IMPOSSIBLE OF REASONABLY ACCURATE
INTERPRETATION.  NO QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
COMPLAINT. 

AT THE TRIAL IN THE TRENTON POLICE COURT, A CITY PATROLMAN TESTIFIED
THAT WHILE ON HIS POST HE HEARD A SOUND TRUCK BROADCASTING MUSIC.  UPON
GOING IN THE DIRECTION OF SAID SOUND, HE LOCATED THE TRUCK ON A PUBLIC
STREET NEAR THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING.  AS HE APPROACHED THE TRUCK, THE
MUSIC STOPPED AND HE HEARD A MAN'S VOICE BROADCASTING FROM THE TRUCK. 
THE APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT HE OPERATED THE MECHANISM FOR THE MUSIC AND
SPOKE INTO THE AMPLIFIER.  THE RECORD FROM THE POLICE COURT DOES NOT
SHOW THE PURPOSE OF THE BROADCASTING BUT THE OPINION IN THE SUPREME
COURT SUGGESTS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS USING THE SOUND APPARATUS TO
COMMENT ON A LABOR DISPUTE THEN IN PROGRESS IN TRENTON. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE SECTION IS SO VAGUE, OBSCURE AND INDEFINITE
AS TO BE UNENFORCEABLE MERITS ONLY A PASSING REFERENCE.  THIS OBJECTION
CENTERS AROUND THE USE OF THE WORDS "LOUD AND RAUCOUS."  WHILE THESE
ARE ABSTRACT WORDS, THEY HAVE THROUGH DAILY USE ACQUIRED A CONTENT THAT
CONVEYS TO ANY INTERESTED PERSON A SUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE CONCEPT OF
WHAT IS FORBIDDEN.  LAST TERM, AFTER THOROUGH CONSIDERATION OF THE
PROBLEM OF VAGUENESS IN LEGISLATION AFFECTING LIBERTY OF SPEECH, THIS
COURT INVALIDATED A CONVICTION UNDER A NEW YORK STATUTE CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED TO PUNISH THE DISTRIBUTION OF MAGAZINES "PRINCIPALLY MADE UP OF
CRIMINAL NEWS OR STORIES OF DEEDS OF BLOODSHED OR LUST, SO MASSED AS TO
BECOME VEHICLES FOR INCITING VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE
PERSON."  WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507, 518.  AS THUS CONSTRUED WE
SAID THAT THE STATUTE WAS SO VAGUE THAT AN HONEST DISTRIBUTOR OF TALES
OF WAR HORRORS COULD NOT KNOW WHETHER HE WAS VIOLATING THE STATUTE.  P.
520.  BUT IN THE WINTERS CASE WE POINTED OUT THAT PROSECUTIONS MIGHT BE
BROUGHT UNDER STATUTES PUNISHING THE DISTRIBUTION OF "OBSCENE, LEWD,
LASCIVIOUS, FILTHY, INDECENT OR DISGUSTING" MAGAZINES.  P. 511.  WE
SAID, P. 518: 

"THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF DEFINING THE PRECISE LINE BETWEEN PERMISSIBLE
UNCERTAINTY IN STATUTES CAUSED BY DESCRIBING CRIMES BY WORDS WELL
UNDERSTOOD THROUGH LONG USE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW - OBSCENE, LEWD,
LASCIVIOUS, FILTHY, INDECENT OR DISGUSTING - AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
VAGUENESS THAT LEAVES A PERSON UNCERTAIN AS TO THE KIND OF PROHIBITED
CONDUCT - MASSING STORIES TO INCITE CRIME - HAS RESULTED IN THREE
ARGUMENTS OF THIS CASE IN THIS COURT." 

WE USED THE WORDS QUOTED ABOVE FROM PAGE 511 AS EXAMPLES OF
PERMISSIBLE STANDARDS OF STATUTES FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  P. 520. 
THERE WE SAID: 

"TO SAY THAT A STATE MAY NOT PUNISH BY SUCH A VAGUE STATUTE CARRIES
NO IMPLICATION THAT IT MAY NOT PUNISH CIRCULATION OF OBJECTIONABLE
PRINTED MATTER, ASSUMING THAT IT IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BY THE USE OF APT WORDS TO DESCRIBE THE PROHIBITED
PUBLICATIONS.  ...  NEITHER THE STATES NOR CONGRESS ARE PREVENTED BY
THE REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFICITY FROM CARRYING OUT THEIR DUTY OF
ELIMINATING EVILS TO WHICH, IN THEIR JUDGMENT, SUCH PUBLICATIONS GIVE
RISE." 

WE THINK THE WORDS OF SEC. 4 OF THIS TRENTON ORDINANCE COMPLY WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF DEFINITENESS AND CLARITY, SET OUT ABOVE. 

THE SCOPE OF THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, FOR
THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO PLAY MUSIC AND EXPRESS HIS VIEWS ON MATTERS
WHICH HE CONSIDERS TO BE OF INTEREST TO HIMSELF AND OTHERS ON A PUBLIC
STREET THROUGH SOUND AMPLIFICATION DEVICES MOUNTED ON VEHICLES, MUST BE
CONSIDERED.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND FREEDOM TO
COMMUNICATE INFORMATION AND OPINION TO OTHERS ARE ALL COMPREHENDED ON
THIS APPEAL IN THE CLAIMED RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  THEY WILL BE SO
TREATED IN THIS OPINION. 

THE USE OF SOUND TRUCKS AND OTHER PERIPATETIC OR STATIONARY
BROADCASTING DEVICES FOR ADVERTISING, FOR RELIGIOUS EXERCISES AND FOR
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES OR CONTROVERSIES HAS BROUGHT FORTH NUMEROUS
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES.  THE AVOWED AND OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THESE
ORDINANCES IS TO PROHIBIT OR MINIMIZE SUCH SOUNDS ON OR NEAR THE
STREETS SINCE SOME CITIZENS FIND THE NOISE OBJECTIONABLE AND TO SOME
DEGREE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE BUSINESS OR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES IN WHICH
THEY ARE ENGAGED OR THE QUIET THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO ENJOY.  FN2  A
SATISFACTORY ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS IS DIFFICULT AS
THOSE WHO DESIRE TO BROADCAST CAN HARDLY ACQUIESCE IN A REQUIREMENT TO
MODULATE THEIR SOUNDS TO A PITCH THAT WOULD NOT RISE ABOVE OTHER STREET
NOISES NOR WOULD THEY DEEM A RESTRICTION TO SPARSELY USED LOCALITIES OR
TO HOURS AFTER WORK AND BEFORE SLEEP - SAY 6 TO 9 P.M. - SUFFICIENT FOR
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR CLAIMED PRIVILEGE.  MUNICIPALITIES ARE SEEKING
ACTIVELY A SOLUTION.  NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS,
REPORT NO. 123, 1948.  UNRESTRAINED USE THROUGHOUT A MUNICIPALITY OF
ALL SOUND AMPLIFYING DEVICES WOULD BE INTOLERABLE.  ABSOLUTE
PROHIBITION WITHIN MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF ALL SOUND AMPLIFICATION, EVEN
THOUGH REASONABLY REGULATED IN PLACE, TIME AND VOLUME, IS UNDESIRABLE
AND PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE WITH
NORMAL ACTIVITIES. 

WE HAVE HAD RECENTLY BEFORE US AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LOCKPORT,
NEW YORK, PROHIBITING SOUND AMPLIFICATION WHEREBY THE SOUND WAS CAST ON
PUBLIC PLACES SO AS TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE PASSING PUBLIC TO
THE ANNOYANCE OF THOSE WITHIN THE RADIUS OF THE SOUNDS.  THE ORDINANCE
CONTAINED THIS EXCEPTION: 

"SECTION 3.  EXCEPTION.  PUBLIC DISSEMINATION, THROUGH RADIO
LOUDSPEAKERS, OF ITEMS OF NEWS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND
ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION
PROVIDED THAT THE SAME BE DONE UNDER PERMISSION OBTAINED FROM THE CHIEF
OF POLICE." 

THIS COURT HELD THE ORDINANCE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE," SAIA V.
NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558, BECAUSE THE QUOTED SECTION ESTABLISHED A
"PREVIOUS RESTRAINT" ON FREE SPEECH WITH "NO STANDARDS PRESCRIBED FOR
THE EXERCISE" OF DISCRETION BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE.  WHEN ORDINANCES
UNDERTAKE CENSORSHIP OF SPEECH OR RELIGIOUS PRACTICES BEFORE PERMITTING
THEIR EXERCISE, THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  FN3  THE
COURT SAID IN THE SAIA CASE AT 560-61: 

"THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IS PLACED IN THE UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION OF
THE CHIEF OF POLICE.  HE STANDS ATHWART THE CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION
AS AN OBSTRUCTION WHICH CAN BE REMOVED ONLY AFTER CRIMINAL TRIAL AND
CONVICTION AND LENGTHY APPEAL.  A MORE EFFECTIVE PREVIOUS RESTRAINT IS
DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE." 

THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT OF THAT CHARACTER.  IT CONTAINS NOTHING
COMPARABLE TO THE ABOVE-QUOTED SEC. 3 OF THE ORDINANCE IN THE SAIA
CASE.  IT IS AN EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE CITY BY NEW
JERSEY "TO PREVENT DISTURBING NOISES," N.J. STAT. ANN., TIT. 40, SEC.
48-1(8), NUISANCES WELL WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY'S POWER TO CONTROL. 
THE POLICE POWER OF A STATE EXTENDS BEYOND HEALTH, MORALS AND SAFETY,
AND COMPREHENDS THE DUTY, WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, TO PROTECT
THE WELL-BEING AND TRANQUILITY OF A COMMUNITY.  FN4  A STATE OR CITY
MAY PROHIBIT ACTS OR THINGS REASONABLY THOUGHT TO BRING EVIL OR HARM TO
ITS PEOPLE. 

IN THIS CASE, NEW JERSEY NECESSARILY HAS CONSTRUED THIS VERY ORDINANCE
AS APPLIED TO SOUND AMPLIFICATION.  FN5  THE SUPREME COURT SAID, 135
N.J.L. 64, 66, 50 A.2D 451, 452: 

"THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE APPLY ONLY TO (1) VEHICLES
(2) CONTAINING AN INSTRUMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SOUND AMPLIFIER OR ANY
OTHER INSTRUMENT EMITTING LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES AND (3) SUCH VEHICLE
OPERATED OR STANDING UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, ALLEYS OR THOROUGHFARES
OF THE CITY." 

IF THAT MEANS THAT ONLY AMPLIFIERS THAT EMIT, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ORDINANCE, "LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES" ARE BARRED FROM THE STREETS, WE
HAVE A PROBLEM OF REGULATION.  THE DISSENTS ACCEPT THAT VIEW.  FN6  SO
DID THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION AND HIS BRIEF. 
FN7 ALTHOUGH THIS COURT MUST DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHETHER FEDERAL
QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED AND DECIDED, FN8  WE MUST ACCEPT THE STATE
COURTS' CONCLUSION AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE ORDINANCE.  FN9  WE ACCEPT
THE DETERMINATION OF NEW JERSEY THAT SEC. 4 APPLIES ONLY TO VEHICLES
WITH SOUND AMPLIFIERS EMITTING LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES.  COURTS ARE
INCLINED TO ADOPT THAT REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE WHICH
REMOVES IT FARTHEST FROM POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY.  COX V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 575-76; CF. UNITED STATES V. C.I.O., 335 U.S.
106, 120.  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THIS ORDINANCE SO CONSTRUED IS
REGULATORY OR PROHIBITORY.  ALL REGULATORY ENACTMENTS ARE PROHIBITORY
SO FAR AS THEIR RESTRICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, AND THE PROHIBITION OF THIS
ORDINANCE AS TO A USE OF STREETS IS MERELY REGULATORY.  SOUND TRUCKS
MAY BE UTILIZED IN PLACES SUCH AS PARKS OR OTHER OPEN SPACES OFF THE
STREETS.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHALLENGED ORDINANCE AS
VIOLATIVE OF APPELLANT'S RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH DOES NOT DEPEND UPON SO
NARROW AN ISSUE AS TO WHETHER ITS PROVISIONS ARE CAST IN THE WORDS OF
PROHIBITION OR REGULATION.  FN10  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE
IS A REAL ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH. 

OF COURSE, EVEN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE NOT
ABSOLUTE.  THE SAIA CASE RECOGNIZED THAT IN THIS FIELD BY STATING "THE
HOURS AND PLACE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION CAN BE CONTROLLED."  FN11  IT WAS
SAID DECADES AGO IN AN OPINION OF THIS COURT DELIVERED BY MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES, SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52, THAT: 

"THE MOST STRINGENT PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH WOULD NOT PROTECT A MAN
IN FALSELY SHOUTING FIRE IN A THEATRE AND CAUSING A PANIC.  IT DOES NOT
EVEN PROTECT A MAN FROM AN INJUNCTION AGAINST UTTERING WORDS THAT MAY
HAVE ALL THE EFFECT OF FORCE." 

HECKLERS MAY BE EXPELLED FROM ASSEMBLIES AND RELIGIOUS WORSHIP MAY
NOT BE DISTURBED BY THOSE ANXIOUS TO PREACH A DOCTRINE OF ATHEISM.  THE
RIGHT TO SPEAK ONE'S MIND WOULD OFTEN BE AN EMPTY PRIVILEGE IN A PLACE
AND AT A TIME BEYOND THE PROTECTING HAND OF THE GUARDIANS OF PUBLIC
ORDER. 

WHILE THIS COURT, IN ENFORCING THE BROAD PROTECTION THE CONSTITUTION
GIVES TO THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS, HAS INVALIDATED AN ORDINANCE
FORBIDDING A DISTRIBUTOR OF PAMPHLETS OR HANDBILLS FROM SUMMONING
HOUSEHOLDERS TO THEIR DOORS TO RECEIVE THE DISTRIBUTOR'S WRITINGS, THIS
WAS ON THE GROUND THAT THE HOME OWNER COULD PROTECT HIMSELF FROM SUCH
INTRUSION BY AN APPROPRIATE SIGN "THAT HE IS UNWILLING TO BE
DISTURBED."  THE COURT NEVER INTIMATED THAT THE VISITOR COULD INSERT A
FOOT IN THE DOOR AND INSIST ON A HEARING.  MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319
U.S. 141, 143, 148.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE STRUTHERS CASE REQUIRES
US TO EXPAND THIS INTERDICTION OF LEGISLATION TO INCLUDE ORDINANCES
AGAINST OBTAINING AN AUDIENCE FOR THE BROADCASTER'S IDEAS BY WAY OF
SOUND TRUCKS WITH LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES ON CITY STREETS.  THE
UNWILLING LISTENER IS NOT LIKE THE PASSER-BY WHO MAY BE OFFERED A
PAMPHLET IN THE STREET BUT CANNOT BE MADE TO TAKE IT.  FN12  IN HIS
HOME OR ON THE STREET HE IS PRACTICALLY HELPLESS TO ESCAPE THIS
INTERFERENCE WITH HIS PRIVACY BY LOUD SPEAKERS EXCEPT THROUGH THE
PROTECTION OF THE MUNICIPALITY.    CITY STREETS ARE RECOGNIZED AS A
NORMAL PLACE FOR THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS BY SPEECH OR PAPER.  BUT THIS
DOES NOT MEAN THE FREEDOM IS BEYOND ALL CONTROL.  WE THINK IT IS A
PERMISSIBLE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION TO BAR SOUND TRUCKS WITH
BROADCASTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, AMPLIFIED TO A LOUD AND RAUCOUS VOLUME,
FROM THE PUBLIC WAYS OF MUNICIPALITIES.  ON THE BUSINESS STREETS OF
CITIES LIKE TRENTON, WITH ITS MORE THAN 125,000 PEOPLE, SUCH
DISTRACTIONS WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO TRAFFIC AT ALL HOURS USEFUL FOR THE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION, AND IN THE RESIDENTIAL THOROUGHFARES THE
QUIET AND TRANQUILITY SO DESIRABLE FOR CITY DWELLERS WOULD LIKEWISE BE
AT THE MERCY OF ADVOCATES OF PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS, SOCIAL OR POLITICAL
PERSUASIONS.  WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH COMPEL A
MUNICIPALITY TO ALLOW SUCH MECHANICAL VOICE AMPLIFICATION ON ANY OF ITS
STREETS. 

THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IS GUARANTEED EVERY CITIZEN THAT HE MAY
REACH THE MINDS OF WILLING LISTENERS AND TO DO SO THERE MUST BE
OPPORTUNITY TO WIN THEIR ATTENTION.  THIS IS THE PHASE OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH THAT IS INVOLVED HERE.  WE DO NOT THINK THE TRENTON ORDINANCE
ABRIDGES THAT FREEDOM.  IT IS AN EXTRAVAGANT EXTENSION OF DUE PROCESS
TO SAY THAT BECAUSE OF IT A CITY CANNOT FORBID TALKING ON THE STREETS
THROUGH A LOUD SPEAKER IN A LOUD AND RAUCOUS TONE.  SURELY SUCH AN
ORDINANCE DOES NOT VIOLATE OUR PEOPLE'S "CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY" SO
AS TO REQUIRE FEDERAL INTERVENTION TO PROTECT A CITIZEN FROM THE ACTION
OF HIS OWN LOCAL GOVERNMENT.  CF. PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319,
325.  OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN THE PUBLIC'S EARS BY OBJECTIONABLY AMPLIFIED
SOUND ON THE STREETS IS NO MORE ASSURED BY THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH
THAN IS THE UNLIMITED OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS GATHERINGS ON THE
STREETS.  FN13  THE PREFERRED POSITION  FN14 OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN A
SOCIETY THAT CHERISHES LIBERTY FOR ALL DOES NOT REQUIRE LEGISLATORS TO
BE INSENSIBLE TO CLAIMS BY CITIZENS TO COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE.  TO
ENFORCE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS WOULD BE
HARSH AND ARBITRARY IN ITSELF.  THAT MORE PEOPLE MAY BE MORE EASILY AND
CHEAPLY REACHED BY SOUND TRUCKS, PERHAPS BORROWED WITHOUT COST FROM
SOME ZEALOUS SUPPORTER, IS NOT ENOUGH TO CALL FORTH CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION FOR WHAT THOSE CHARGED WITH PUBLIC WELFARE REASONABLY THINK
IS A NUISANCE WHEN EASY MEANS OF PUBLICITY ARE OPEN.  SECTION 4 OF THE
ORDINANCE BARS SOUND TRUCKS FROM BROADCASTING IN A LOUD AND RAUCOUS
MANNER ON THE STREETS.  THERE IS NO RESTRICTION UPON THE COMMUNICATION
OF IDEAS OR DISCUSSION OF ISSUES BY THE HUMAN VOICE, BY NEWSPAPERS, BY
PAMPHLETS, BY DODGERS.  WE THINK THAT THE NEED FOR REASONABLE
PROTECTION IN THE HOMES OR BUSINESS HOUSES FROM THE DISTRACTING NOISES
OF VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH SUCH SOUND AMPLIFYING DEVICES JUSTIFIES THE
ORDINANCE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237(A), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), NOW 28
U.S.C. SEC. 1257(2); LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; NEW
ORLEANS WATER WORKS CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 164 U.S. 471. 

FN2  ORDINANCES REGULATING OR PROHIBITING SOUND DEVICES WERE UPHELD
IN PEOPLE V. PHILLIPS, 147 N.Y. MISC. 11, 263 N.Y. SUPP. 158; MAUPIN V.
CITY OF LOUISVILLE, 284 KY. 195, 144 S.W.2D 237; HAMILTON V. CITY OF
MONTROSE, 109 COLO. 228, 124 P.2D 757. 

INJUNCTIONS HAVE ALSO DEALT WITH NUISANCES FROM THE PLAYING OF
MECHANICAL MUSIC FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES.  WEBER V. MANN, 42 S.W.2D
492(TEX.  CT. OF CIV. APP.); STODDER V. ROSEN TALKING MACHINE CO., 241
MASS. 245, 135 N.E. 251; 247 MASS. 60, 141 N.E. 569. 

FN3  LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307
U.S. 496; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296. 

FN4  CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. DRAINAGE COMM'RS, 200 U.S. 561, 592;
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 525; QUEENSIDE HILLS REALTY CO. V.
SAXL, 328 U.S. 80, 82. 

FN5  THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS WAS COGNIZANT OF THE
DIFFICULTIES.  EVENING TIMES PRINTING CO. V. AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD,
124 N.J. EQ. 71, 78, 199 A. 598, 602-603. 

FN6  135 N.J.L. 584, 52 A.2D 809: 

"COLIE, J. (FOR REVERSAL.)  I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT
UNDER REVIEW SHOULD BE REVERSED BUT I DO NOT AGREE THAT SECTION 4 OF
THE ORDINANCE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER.  THE
PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN TO USE THE STREETS FOR THE COMMUNICATION OF
IDEAS IS NOT ABSOLUTE BUT MUST BE EXERCISED IN SUBORDINATION TO THE
GENERAL COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE.  MOST ASSUREDLY THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST MAKING 'LOUD AND RAUCOUS' NOISES IS A REASONABLE REGULATION." 

ID., AT 585:  "THERE IS NOT A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE THAT THE MUSIC OR
VOICE WAS LOUD OR RAUCOUS, AND UNDER THE WORDING OF SECTION 4 SUCH
PROOF IS AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE TO A FINDING OF GUILT OF A
VIOLATION." 

THE NEW JERSEY COURTS MAY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE NECESSITY OF SEARCH
BY THE PATROLMAN TO LOCATE THE SOUND TRUCK ON A STREET WAS SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE OF LOUDNESS AND RAUCOUSNESS. 

135 N.J.L. 584, 52 A.2D 808, EASTWOOD, J., FOR REVERSAL, SPEAKING FOR
HIMSELF AND THREE OTHER MEMBERS, SAID, PP. 588-89:  "IT APPEARS TO US,
AND WE SO HOLD, THAT THE PRIMARY AIM OF SECTION 4 OF THE ORDINANCE,
UNDER REVIEW, IS TO PROHIBIT 'LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES,' AT ALL TIMES
AND IN ALL PLACES IN THE CITY OF TRENTON, EMANATING FROM SOUND TRUCKS,
LOUD SPEAKERS, SOUND AMPLIFIERS, RADIOS OR PHONOGRAPHS, EQUIPPED WITH
LOUD SPEAKERS OR SOUND AMPLIFIERS, OR OTHER SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS.  IT IS
THUS CLEAR THAT SECTION 4 OF THE ORDINANCE IS NOT REGULATORY WITHIN A
PROPER EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE MUNICIPALITY." 

ID., AT 590:  "WE CONCLUDE THAT SECTION 4 OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER
ATTACK REPRESENTS AN ATTEMPT BY THE MUNICIPALITY UNDER THE GUISE OF
REGULATION, TO PROHIBIT AND OUTLAW, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CONDITIONS, THE USE OF SOUND AMPLIFYING SYSTEMS." 

PERHAPS THE LAST-QUOTED PARAGRAPH ASSUMES THAT ALL SOUND TRUCKS EMIT
LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES. 

FN7  HE WROTE:  "SECTION 4 OF THE ORDINANCE, UNDER WHICH APPELLANT
WAS CHARGED, PROHIBITS ANY PERSON FROM USING FOR ANY PURPOSE
WHATSOEVER, A LOUD SPEAKER OR SOUND AMPLIFIER WHICH EMITS THEREFROM
'LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES' AND IS ATTACHED TO ANY VEHICLE OPERATED OR
STANDING UPON THE STREETS OF THE CITY OF TRENTON." 

IN THE BRIEF THIS APPEARS: 

"THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT PURPORT TO PROHIBIT LOUD AND RAUCOUS
NOISES.  IT ATTEMPTS TO PROHIBIT SOUND DEVICES WHICH EMIT THEREFROM
LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES.  THIS DOES NOT VALIDATE THE ORDINANCE OR SAVE
IT.  IN ORDER TO BE A VALID REGULATION THE LAW MUST DEAL WITH THE ABUSE
AND NOT WITH THE USE OF THE THING." 

FN8  LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 450. 

FN9  SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558; COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S.
569, 574; WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507, 514. 

FN10  IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER ACTS OR THINGS WHICH COULD
NOT BE BARRED COMPLETELY FROM USE MAY BE PROHIBITED UNDER SOME
CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THEY INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS.  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 574; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568; SAGE STORES CO. V. KANSAS, 323 U.S. 32, 36;
HUTCHINSON ICE CREAM CO. V. IOWA, 242 U.S. 153, 159, COMPARE 160;
POWELL V. PENNSYLVANIA, 127 U.S. 678, 682-83; MUGLER V. KANSAS, 123
U.S. 623, 657-663.  FOR EXAMPLES OF FEDERAL PROHIBITIONS, SEE CAROLENE
PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 18, 27, THIRD; UNITED STATES V.
DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 113, 116; KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334, 348; BUTTFIELD V. STRANAHAN, 192 U.S.
470, 492-93. 

FN11  SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558, 562; PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS,
321 U.S. 158, 166; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 109; COX V.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296,
303; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 371, 373; REYNOLDS V. UNITED
STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 166. 

FN12 SEE SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 162. 

FN13  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160-61: 

"MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, AS TRUSTEES FOR THE PUBLIC, HAVE THE DUTY TO
KEEP THEIR COMMUNITIES' STREETS OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR MOVEMENT OF
PEOPLE AND PROPERTY, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE TO WHICH THE STREETS ARE
DEDICATED.  SO LONG AS LEGISLATION TO THIS END DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY OF ONE RIGHTFULLY UPON THE STREET TO IMPART
INFORMATION THROUGH SPEECH OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE, IT MAY
LAWFULLY REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF THOSE USING THE STREETS.  FOR EXAMPLE,
A PERSON COULD NOT EXERCISE THIS LIBERTY BY TAKING HIS STAND IN THE
MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET, CONTRARY TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, AND
MAINTAIN HIS POSITION TO THE STOPPAGE OF ALL TRAFFIC; A GROUP OF
DISTRIBUTORS COULD NOT INSIST UPON A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FORM A
CORDON ACROSS THE STREET AND TO ALLOW NO PEDESTRIAN TO PASS WHO DID NOT
ACCEPT A TENDERED LEAFLET; NOR DOES THE GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
OR OF THE PRESS DEPRIVE A MUNICIPALITY OF POWER TO ENACT REGULATIONS
AGAINST THROWING LITERATURE BROADCAST IN THE STREETS.  PROHIBITION OF
SUCH CONDUCT WOULD NOT ABRIDGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY SINCE SUCH
ACTIVITY BEARS NO NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP TO THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK,
WRITE, PRINT OR DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION OR OPINION." 

CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 308: 

"WHEN CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF RIOT, DISORDER, INTERFERENCE WITH
TRAFFIC UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, OR OTHER IMMEDIATE THREAT TO PUBLIC
SAFETY, PEACE, OR ORDER, APPEARS, THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PREVENT OR
PUNISH IS OBVIOUS.  EQUALLY OBVIOUS IS IT THAT A STATE MAY NOT UNDULY
SUPPRESS FREE COMMUNICATION OF VIEWS, RELIGIOUS OR OTHER, UNDER THE
GUISE OF CONSERVING DESIRABLE CONDITIONS." 

FN14  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 527, NOTE 12, 530; MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

WISE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN LIBERTY AND ORDER ALWAYS HAS BEEN, AND
EVER WILL BE, INDISPENSABLE FOR A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.  INSOFAR AS THE
CONSTITUTION COMMITS THE DUTY OF MAKING THIS ACCOMMODATION TO THIS
COURT, IT DEMANDS VIGILANT JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT.  A SINGLE DECISION
BY A CLOSELY DIVIDED COURT, UNSUPPORTED BY THE CONFIRMATION OF TIME,
CANNOT CHECK THE LIVING PROCESS OF STRIKING A WISE BALANCE BETWEEN
LIBERTY AND ORDER AS NEW CASES COME HERE FOR ADJUDICATION.  TO DISPOSE
OF THIS CASE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SAIA CASE, 334 U.S. 558,
DECIDED ONLY THE OTHER DAY, WAS RIGHTLY DECIDED, WOULD BE FOR ME TO
START WITH AN UNREALITY.  WHILE I AM NOT UNAWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT DIFFERENTIATE THIS CASE FROM WHAT WAS RULED IN SAIA, FURTHER
REFLECTION HAS ONLY SERVED TO REINFORCE THE DISSENTING VIEWS I
EXPRESSED IN THAT CASE.  ID. AT 562.  IN THE LIGHT OF THEM I CONCLUDE
THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO BAR
NEW JERSEY FROM AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF TRENTON TO DEAL IN THE MANNER
CHOSEN BY THE CITY WITH THE AURAL AGGRESSIONS IMPLICIT IN THE USE OF
SOUND TRUCKS. 

THE OPINIONS IN THIS CASE PROMPT ME TO MAKE SOME ADDITIONAL
OBSERVATIONS.  MY BROTHER REED SPEAKS OF "THE PREFERRED POSITION OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH," THOUGH, TO BE SURE, HE FINDS THAT THE TRENTON
ORDINANCE DOES NOT DISREGARD IT.  THIS IS A PHRASE THAT HAS
UNCRITICALLY CREPT INTO SOME RECENT OPINIONS OF THIS COURT.  I DEEM IT
A MISCHIEVOUS PHRASE, IF IT CARRIES THE THOUGHT, WHICH IT MAY SUBTLY
IMPLY, THAT ANY LAW TOUCHING COMMUNICATION IS INFECTED WITH PRESUMPTIVE
INVALIDITY.  IT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION THAT SUCH A DOCTRINAIRE ATTITUDE HAS DISREGARDED THE
ADMONITION MOST TO BE OBSERVED IN EXERCISING THE COURT'S REVIEWING
POWER OVER LEGISLATION, "THAT IT IS A CONSTITUTION WE ARE EXPOUNDING,"
M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 407.  I SAY THE PHRASE IS
MISCHIEVOUS BECAUSE IT RADIATES A CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE WITHOUT
AVOWING IT.  CLARITY AND CANDOR IN THESE MATTERS, SO AS TO AVOID
GLIDING UNWITTINGLY INTO ERROR, MAKE IT APPROPRIATE TO TRACE THE
HISTORY OF THE PHRASE "PREFERRED POSITION."  THE FOLLOWING IS A
CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF THE EVOLUTION OF TALK ABOUT "PREFERRED
POSITION" EXCEPT WHERE THE THREAD OF DERIVATION IS PLAIN ENOUGH TO BE
INDICATED. 

1.  HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 258:  "THE POWER OF A STATE TO
ABRIDGE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY IS THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN
THE RULE AND THE PENALIZING EVEN OF UTTERANCES OF A DEFINED CHARACTER
MUST FIND ITS JUSTIFICATION IN A REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF DANGER TO
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT
UNFETTERED.  THE LIMITATION UPON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY MUST HAVE
APPROPRIATE RELATION TO THE SAFETY OF THE STATE." 

2.  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152, N. 4,
SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  A FOOTNOTE HARDLY SEEMS TO BE AN
APPROPRIATE WAY OF ANNOUNCING A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, AND THE
CAROLENE FOOTNOTE DID NOT PURPORT TO ANNOUNCE ANY NEW DOCTRINE;
INCIDENTALLY, IT DID NOT HAVE THE CONCURRENCE OF A MAJORITY OF THE
COURT.  IT MERELY REPHRASED AND EXPANDED WHAT WAS SAID IN HERNDON V.
LOWRY, SUPRA, AND ELSEWHERE.  IT CERTAINLY DID NOT ASSERT A PRESUMPTION
OF INVALIDITY AGAINST ALL LEGISLATION TOUCHING MATTERS RELATED TO
LIBERTIES PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  IT MERELY STIRRED INQUIRY WHETHER AS TO SUCH MATTERS THERE
MAY BE "NARROWER SCOPE FOR OPERATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY" AND LEGISLATION REGARDING THEM IS THEREFORE "TO BE
SUBJECTED TO MORE EXACTING JUDICIAL SCRUTINY." 

THE CAROLENE FOOTNOTE IS CITED IN THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88,
95, IN AN OPINION WHICH THUS PROCEEDS:  "MERE LEGISLATIVE PREFERENCE
FOR ONE RATHER THAN ANOTHER MEANS FOR COMBATTING SUBSTANTIVE EVILS,
THEREFORE, MAY WELL PROVE AN INADEQUATE FOUNDATION ON WHICH TO REST
REGULATIONS WHICH ARE AIMED AT OR IN THEIR OPERATION DIMINISH THE
EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS SO NECESSARY TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.  IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT, WHEN THE EFFECTIVE
EXERCISE OF THESE RIGHTS IS CLAIMED TO BE ABRIDGED, THE COURTS SHOULD
'WEIGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES' AND 'APPRAISE THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE
REASONS ADVANCED' IN SUPPORT OF THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS.  SCHNEIDER
V. STATE  ...  "    IT IS CITED AGAIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN
A.F. OF L. V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321, 325, TOGETHER WITH THE HERNDON AND
SCHNEIDER CASES, IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT THAT THE "RIGHT TO FREE
DISCUSSION" "IS TO BE GUARDED WITH A JEALOUS EYE."    THE CAROLENE
FOOTNOTE WAS LAST CITED IN AN OPINION OF THIS COURT IN THE PASSAGE OF
THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 530, QUOTED BELOW. 

(3)  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161:  "IN EVERY CASE,
THEREFORE, WHERE LEGISLATIVE ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHTS (FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS) IS ASSERTED, THE COURTS SHOULD BE ASTUTE TO
EXAMINE THE EFFECT OF THE CHALLENGED LEGISLATION.  MERE LEGISLATIVE
PREFERENCES OR BELIEFS RESPECTING MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE MAY
WELL SUPPORT REGULATION DIRECTED AT OTHER PERSONAL ACTIVITIES, BUT BE
INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SUCH AS DIMINISHES THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS SO
VITAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.  AND SO, AS CASES
ARISE, THE DELICATE AND DIFFICULT TASK FALLS UPON THE COURTS TO WEIGH
THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO APPRAISE THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE REASONS
ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE REGULATION OF THE FREE ENJOYMENT OF THE
RIGHTS." 

(4)  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 262-63:  "MOREOVER, THE
LIKELIHOOD, HOWEVER GREAT, THAT A SUBSTANTIVE EVIL WILL RESULT CANNOT
ALONE JUSTIFY A RESTRICTION UPON FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR THE PRESS.  THE
EVIL ITSELF MUST BE 'SUBSTANTIAL,' BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING IN WHITNEY
V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, (274 U.S. 357) 374; IT MUST BE 'SERIOUS,' ID.
376.  AND EVEN THE EXPRESSION OF 'LEGISLATIVE PREFERENCES OR BELIEFS'
CANNOT TRANSFORM MINOR MATTERS OF PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE OR ANNOYANCE
INTO SUBSTANTIVE EVILS OF SUFFICIENT WEIGHT TO WARRANT THE CURTAILMENT
OF LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE  ... 

"WHAT FINALLY EMERGES FROM THE 'CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER' CASES IS A
WORKING PRINCIPLE THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL MUST BE EXTREMELY SERIOUS
AND THE DEGREE OF IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH BEFORE UTTERANCES CAN BE
PUNISHED." 

THIS FORMULATION OF THE "CLEAR-AND-PRESENT-DANGER" TEST WAS QUOTED
AND ENDORSED IN PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, 334. 

(5)  A NUMBER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CASES REFER TO THE FREEDOMS
SPECIFIED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS IN A "PREFERRED POSITION."  THE
PHRASE WAS APPARENTLY FIRST USED IN THE DISSENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE STONE
IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, 600, 608.  IT REAPPEARS IN MURDOCK
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 115; PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S.
158, 164; FOLLETT V. MCCORMICK, 321 U.S. 573, 575; MARSH V. ALABAMA,
326 U.S. 501, 509; SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558, 562. 

(6)  WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S.
624, 639:  "THE TEST OF LEGISLATION WHICH COLLIDES WITH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT ALSO COLLIDES WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST,
IS MUCH MORE DEFINITE THAN THE TEST WHEN ONLY THE FOURTEENTH IS
INVOLVED.  MUCH OF THE VAGUENESS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DISAPPEARS
WHEN THE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS OF THE FIRST BECOME ITS STANDARD.  THE
RIGHT OF A STATE TO REGULATE, FOR EXAMPLE, A PUBLIC UTILITY MAY WELL
INCLUDE, SO FAR AS THE DUE PROCESS TEST IS CONCERNED, POWER TO IMPOSE
ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH A LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE A 'RATIONAL BASIS'
FOR ADOPTING.  BUT FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND OF PRESS, OF ASSEMBLY, AND OF
WORSHIP MAY NOT BE INFRINGED ON SUCH SLENDER GROUNDS.  THEY ARE
SUSCEPTIBLE OF RESTRICTION ONLY TO PREVENT GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER
TO INTERESTS WHICH THE STATE MAY LAWFULLY PROTECT." 

(7)  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 530:  "FOR THESE REASONS ANY
ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT THOSE LIBERTIES MUST BE JUSTIFIED BY CLEAR PUBLIC
INTEREST, THREATENED NOT DOUBTFULLY OR REMOTELY, BUT BY CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER.  THE RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE REMEDY PROVIDED
AND THE EVIL TO BE CURBED, WHICH IN OTHER CONTEXTS MIGHT SUPPORT
LEGISLATION AGAINST ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS, WILL NOT SUFFICE. 
THESE RIGHTS REST ON FIRMER FOUNDATION.  ACCORDINGLY, WHATEVER OCCASION
WOULD RESTRAIN ORDERLY DISCUSSION AND PERSUASION, AT APPROPRIATE TIME
AND PLACE, MUST HAVE CLEAR SUPPORT IN PUBLIC DANGER, ACTUAL OR
IMPENDING.  ONLY THE GRAVEST ABUSES, ENDANGERING PARAMOUNT INTERESTS,
GIVE OCCASION FOR PERMISSIBLE LIMITATION."  THIS IS PERHAPS THE
STRONGEST LANGUAGE DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT OF
LEGISLATION TOUCHING UTTERANCE.  BUT IT WAS THE OPINION OF ONLY FOUR
MEMBERS OF THE COURT, SINCE MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, IN A SEPARATE
CONCURRING OPINION, REFERRED TO THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
ONLY TO SAY THAT HE AGREED THAT THE CASE FELL INTO "THE CATEGORY OF A
PUBLIC SPEECH, RATHER THAN THAT OF PRACTICING A VOCATION AS
SOLICITOR."  ID. AT 548. 

IN SHORT, THE CLAIM THAT ANY LEGISLATION IS PRESUMPTIVELY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHICH TOUCHES THE FIELD OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, INSOFAR AS THE LATTER'S CONCEPT OF "LIBERTY"
CONTAINS WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST, HAS NEVER
COMMENDED ITSELF TO A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT. 

BEHIND THE NOTION SOUGHT TO BE EXPRESSED BY THE FORMULA AS TO "THE
PREFERRED POSITION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH" LIES A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION
IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN ENACTMENT RELATING TO THE LIBERTIES PROTECTED
BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS VIOLATIVE OF
IT.  IN LAW ALSO, DOCTRINE IS ILLUMINATED BY HISTORY.  THE IDEAS NOW
GOVERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH DERIVE
ESSENTIALLY FROM THE OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES. 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF HIS OPINIONS ON THAT SUBJECT AROSE FROM A DEEP
AWARENESS OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH SOCIOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS ARE
CONDITIONED BY TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCE.  BECAUSE OF THIS AWARENESS MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES SELDOM FELT JUSTIFIED IN OPPOSING HIS OWN OPINION TO
ECONOMIC VIEWS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE EMBODIED IN LAW.  BUT SINCE HE
ALSO REALIZED THAT THE PROGRESS OF CIVILIZATION IS TO A CONSIDERABLE
EXTENT THE DISPLACEMENT OF ERROR WHICH ONCE HELD SWAY AS OFFICIAL TRUTH
BY BELIEFS WHICH IN TURN HAVE YIELDED TO OTHER BELIEFS, FOR HIM THE
RIGHT TO SEARCH FOR TRUTH WAS OF A DIFFERENT ORDER THAN SOME TRANSIENT
ECONOMIC DOGMA.  AND WITHOUT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, THOUGHT BECOMES
CHECKED AND ATROPHIED.  THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERING WHAT INTERESTS ARE SO
FUNDAMENTAL AS TO BE ENSHRINED IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THOSE
LIBERTIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHICH HISTORY HAS ATTESTED AS THE
INDISPENSABLE CONDITIONS OF AN OPEN AS AGAINST A CLOSED SOCIETY COME TO
THIS COURT WITH A MOMENTUM FOR RESPECT LACKING WHEN APPEAL IS MADE TO
LIBERTIES WHICH DERIVE MERELY FROM SHIFTING ECONOMIC ARRANGEMENTS. 
ACCORDINGLY, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES WAS FAR MORE READY TO FIND LEGISLATIVE
INVASION WHERE FREE INQUIRY WAS INVOLVED THAN IN THE DEBATABLE AREA OF
ECONOMICS.  SEE MY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES AND THE SUPREME COURT, 58 ET
SEQ. 

THE OBJECTION TO SUMMARIZING THIS LINE OF THOUGHT BY THE PHRASE "THE
PREFERRED POSITION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH" IS THAT IT EXPRESSES A
COMPLICATED PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION BY A DECEPTIVE
FORMULA.  AND IT WAS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES WHO ADMONISHED US THAT "TO REST
UPON A FORMULA IS A SLUMBER THAT, PROLONGED, MEANS DEATH."  COLLECTED
LEGAL PAPERS, 306.  SUCH A FORMULA MAKES FOR MECHANICAL JURISPRUDENCE. 

SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THIS CASE STRIKINGLY ILLUSTRATE HOW
EASY IT IS TO FALL INTO THE WAYS OF MECHANICAL JURISPRUDENCE THROUGH
THE USE OF OVERSIMPLIFIED FORMULAS.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CONSTITUTION
PROTECTS FREEDOM OF SPEECH:  FREEDOM OF SPEECH MEANS THE RIGHT TO
COMMUNICATE, WHATEVER THE PHYSICAL MEANS FOR SO DOING; SOUND TRUCKS ARE
ONE FORM OF COMMUNICATION; ERGO THAT FORM IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME
PROTECTION AS ANY OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION, WHETHER BY TONGUE OR
PEN.  SUCH STERILE ARGUMENTATION TREATS SOCIETY AS THOUGH IT CONSISTED
OF BLOODLESS CATEGORIES.  THE VARIOUS FORMS OF MODERN SOCALLED "MASS
COMMUNICATIONS" RAISE ISSUES THAT WERE NOT IMPLIED IN THE MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION KNOWN OR CONTEMPLATED BY FRANKLIN AND JEFFERSON AND
MADISON.  CF. ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1.  MOVIES
HAVE CREATED PROBLEMS NOT PRESENTED BY THE CIRCULATION OF BOOKS,
PAMPHLETS, OR NEWSPAPERS, AND SO THE MOVIES HAVE BEEN CONSTITUTIONALLY
REGULATED.  MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 236 U.S.
230.  BROADCASTING IN TURN HAS PRODUCED ITS BROOD OF COMPLICATED
PROBLEMS HARDLY TO BE SOLVED BY AN EASY FORMULA ABOUT THE PREFERRED
POSITION OF FREE SPEECH.  SEE NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 190. 

ONLY A DISREGARD OF VITAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NATURAL SPEECH, EVEN OF
THE LOUDEST SPELLBINDERS, AND THE NOISE OF SOUND TRUCKS WOULD GIVE
SOUND TRUCKS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ACCORDED TO THE UNAIDED HUMAN
VOICE.  NOR IS IT FOR THIS COURT TO DEVISE THE TERMS ON WHICH SOUND
TRUCKS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE, IF AT ALL.  THESE ARE MATTERS FOR
THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT CONTROLLED BY PUBLIC OPINION.  SO LONG AS A
LEGISLATURE DOES NOT PRESCRIBE WHAT IDEAS MAY BE NOISILY EXPRESSED AND
WHAT MAY NOT BE, NOR DISCRIMINATE AMONG THOSE WHO WOULD MAKE INROADS
UPON THE PUBLIC PEACE, IT IS NOT FOR US TO SUPERVISE THE LIMITS THE
LEGISLATURE MAY IMPOSE IN SAFEGUARDING THE STEADILY NARROWING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SERENITY AND REFLECTION.  WITHOUT SUCH OPPORTUNITIES
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT BECOMES A MOCKING PHRASE, AND WITHOUT FREEDOM OF
THOUGHT THERE CAN BE NO FREE SOCIETY. 

FN1  "THERE MAY BE NARROWER SCOPE FOR OPERATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY WHEN LEGISLATION APPEARS ON ITS FACE TO BE WITHIN A
SPECIFIC PROHIBITION OF THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH AS THOSE OF THE FIRST
TEN AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE DEEMED EQUALLY SPECIFIC WHEN HELD TO BE
EMBRACED WITHIN THE FOURTEENTH.  SEE STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S.
359, 369-370; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 452. 

"IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER NOW WHETHER LEGISLATION WHICH
RESTRICTS THOSE POLITICAL PROCESSES WHICH CAN ORDINARILY BE EXPECTED TO
BRING ABOUT REPEAL OF UNDESIRABLE LEGISLATION, IS TO BE SUBJECTED TO
MORE EXACTING JUDICIAL SCRUTINY UNDER THE GENERAL PROHIBITIONS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THAN ARE MOST OTHER TYPES OF LEGISLATION.  ON
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE RIGHT TO VOTE, SEE NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S.
536; NIXON V. CONDON, 286 U.S. 73; ON RESTRAINTS UPON THE DISSEMINATION
OF INFORMATION, SEE NEAR V. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, 283 U.S. 697, 713
714, 718-720, 722; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233; LOVELL
V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA; ON INTERFERENCES WITH POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS, SEE
STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 369; FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380;
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 373-378; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301
U.S. 242; AND SEE HOLMES, J., IN GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 673;
AS TO PROHIBITION OF PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY, SEE DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299
U.S. 353, 365. 

"NOR NEED WE ENQUIRE WHETHER SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS ENTER INTO THE
REVIEW OF STATUTES DIRECTED AT PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS, PIERCE V. SOCIETY
OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, OR NATIONAL, MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390;
BARTELS V. IOWA, 262 U.S. 404; FARRINGTON V. TOKUSHIGE, 273 U.S. 284,
OR RACIAL MINORITIES, NIXON V. HERNDON, SUPRA; NIXON V. CONDON, SUPRA:
WHETHER PREJUDICE AGAINST DISCRETE AND INSULAR MINORITIES MAY BE A
SPECIAL CONDITION, WHICH TENDS SERIOUSLY TO CURTAIL THE OPERATION OF
THOSE POLITICAL PROCESSES ORDINARILY TO BE RELIED UPON TO PROTECT
MINORITIES, AND WHICH MAY CALL FOR A CORRESPONDINGLY MORE SEARCHING
JUDICIAL INQUIRY.  COMPARE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 428;
SOUTH CAROLINA V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 184, N. 2, AND CASES
CITED." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE TRENTON ORDINANCE BECAUSE I
BELIEVE THAT OPERATION OF MECHANICAL SOUNDAMPLIFYING DEVICES CONFLICTS
WITH QUIET ENJOYMENT OF HOME AND PARK AND WITH SAFE AND LEGITIMATE USE
OF STREET AND MARKET PLACE, AND THAT IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO
REGULATION OR PROHIBITION BY THE STATE OR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY.  NO
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY
REASON OF INFRINGEMENT OF FREE SPEECH ARISES UNLESS SUCH REGULATION OR
PROHIBITION UNDERTAKES TO CENSOR THE CONTENTS OF THE BROADCASTING. 
FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR KOVACS DOES NOT, IN MY VIEW, INCLUDE FREEDOM TO
USE SOUND AMPLIFIERS TO DROWN OUT THE NATURAL SPEECH OF OTHERS. 

I DO NOT AGREE THAT, IF WE SUSTAIN REGULATIONS OR PROHIBITIONS OF
SOUND TRUCKS, THEY MUST THEREFORE BE VALID IF APPLIED TO OTHER METHODS
OF "COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS."  THE MOVING PICTURE SCREEN, THE RADIO, THE
NEWSPAPER, THE HANDBILL, THE SOUND TRUCK AND THE STREET CORNER ORATOR
HAVE DIFFERING NATURES, VALUES, ABUSES AND DANGERS.  EACH, IN MY VIEW,
IS A LAW UNTO ITSELF, AND ALL WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW IS THE SOUND
TRUCK. 

BUT I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE BLACK THAT THIS DECISION IS A
REPUDIATION OF THAT IN SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558.  LIKE HIM, I AM
UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING IN THIS RECORD TO WARRANT A DISTINCTION BECAUSE
OF "LOUD AND RAUCOUS" TONES OF THIS MACHINE.  THE SAIA DECISION STRUCK
DOWN A MORE MODERATE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POLICE POWER THAN THE ONE
NOW SUSTAINED.  TRENTON, AS THE ORDINANCE READS TO ME, UNCONDITIONALLY
BANS ALL SOUND TRUCKS FROM THE CITY STREETS.  LOCKPORT RELAXED ITS
PROHIBITION WITH A PROVISO TO ALLOW THEIR USE, EVEN IN AREAS SET ASIDE
FOR PUBLIC RECREATION, WHEN AND WHERE THE CHIEF OF POLICE SAW NO
OBJECTION.  COMPARISON OF THIS OUR 1949 DECISION WITH OUR 1948
DECISION, I THINK, WILL PRETTY HOPELESSLY CONFUSE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES
AS TO WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT DO.    I CONCUR IN THE PRESENT RESULT
ONLY FOR THE REASONS STATED IN DISSENT IN SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S.
558, 566. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS NOT WHETHER APPELLANT MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE CONVICTED OF OPERATING A SOUND TRUCK THAT EMITS
"LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES."  THE APPELLANT WAS NEITHER CHARGED WITH NOR
CONVICTED OF OPERATING A SOUND TRUCK THAT EMITTED "LOUD AND RAUCOUS
NOISES."  THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM IN THE POLICE COURT WAS THAT HE
VIOLATED THE CITY ORDINANCE "IN THAT HE DID, ON SOUTH STOCKTON STREET,
IN SAID CITY, PLAY, USE AND OPERATE A DEVICE KNOWN AS A SOUND TRUCK." 
THE RECORD REFLECTS NOT EVEN A SHADOW OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE
NOISE WAS EITHER "LOUD OR RAUCOUS," UNLESS THESE WORDS OF THE ORDINANCE
REFER TO ANY NOISE COMING FROM AN AMPLIFIER, WHATEVER ITS VOLUME OR
TONE. 

AFTER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION IN THE POLICE COURT, THE CASE WAS TAKEN
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY FOR REVIEW.  THAT COURT, COMPOSED OF
THREE JUDGES, STATED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORDINANCE AND CHARGE:  "IN
SIMPLE, UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE IT PROHIBITS THE USE UPON THE PUBLIC
STREETS OF ANY DEVICE KNOWN AS A SOUND TRUCK, LOUD SPEAKER OR SOUND
AMPLIFIER.  THIS IS THE ONLY CHARGE MADE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN THE
COMPLAINT."  KOVACS V. COOPER, 135 N.J.L. 64, 69, 50 A.2D 451, 453
454.  THAT THIS COURT CONSTRUED THE ORDINANCE AS AN ABSOLUTE
PROHIBITION OF ALL AMPLIFIERS ON ANY PUBLIC STREET AT ANY TIME AND
WITHOUT REGARD TO VOLUME OF SOUND IS EMPHASIZED BY ITS FURTHER
STATEMENT THAT "THE ORDINANCE LEAVES UNTOUCHED THE RIGHT OF THE
PROSECUTOR TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS ORALLY WITHOUT THE AID OF AN
AMPLIFIER."  ID. AT 66.  THUS THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE
CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS SHOWN GUILTY OF THE
ONLY OFFENSE OF WHICH HE WAS CHARGED - SPEAKING THROUGH AN AMPLIFIER ON
A PUBLIC STREET.  IF AS SOME MEMBERS OF THIS COURT NOW ASSUME, HE WAS
ACTUALLY CONVICTED FOR OPERATING A MACHINE THAT EMITTED "LOUD AND
RAUCOUS NOISES," THEN HE WAS CONVICTED ON A CHARGE FOR WHICH HE WAS
NEVER TRIED.  "IT IS AS MUCH A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS TO SEND AN
ACCUSED TO PRISON FOLLOWING CONVICTION OF A CHARGE ON WHICH HE WAS
NEVER TRIED AS IT WOULD BE TO CONVICT HIM UPON A CHARGE THAT WAS NEVER
MADE."  COLE V. ARKANSAS, 333 U.S. 196, 201. 

FURTHERMORE, WHEN THE CONVICTION WAS LATER AFFIRMED IN THE NEW JERSEY
COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, NO ONE OF THAT
COURT'S JUDGES WHO VOTED TO AFFIRM EXPRESSED ANY DOUBT AS TO THE
CORRECTNESS OF THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION; INDEED
THOSE JUDGES WROTE NO OPINION AT ALL.  ONE OF THE SIX WHO VOTED TO
REVERSE DID BASE HIS JUDGMENT ON THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NOT "A
SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE THAT THE MUSIC OR VOICE WAS LOUD OR RAUCOUS" AND
THAT UNDER THE WORDING OF THE ORDINANCE SUCH PROOF WAS ESSENTIAL. 
KOVACS V. COOPER, 135 N.J.L. 584, 585, 52 A.2D 806, 809.  IN CONSTRUING
THE STATUTE AS REQUIRING A PROOF OF LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES, THE
DISSENTING JUDGE MADE THE INITIAL MISTAKE OF THE MAJORITY OF THIS
COURT, BUT HE CONCEDED THAT UNDER THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
THERE WAS A FATAL ABSENCE OF PROOF TO CONVICT.  THE OTHER FIVE JUDGES
WHO WERE FOR REVERSAL CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDINANCE REPRESENTED "AN
ATTEMPT BY THE MUNICIPALITY UNDER THE GUISE OF REGULATION, TO PROHIBIT
AND OUTLAW, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS, THE USE OF SOUND
AMPLIFYING SYSTEMS."  KOVACS V. COOPER, SUPRA AT 590. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CHARGED AND CONVICTED BY
INTERPRETING THE ORDINANCE AS AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE USE
OF SOUND AMPLIFYING DEVICES.  THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED
ONLY ON THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE.  THERE IS NO INDICATION
WHATEVER THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENT VIEW ENTERTAINED BY THE SIX JUDGES
OF THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS WHO AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  AND IT
STRAINS THE IMAGINATION TO SAY THAT THE ORDINANCE ITSELF WOULD WARRANT
ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION. 

NEVERTHELESS, IN THIS COURT THE REQUISITE MAJORITY FOR AFFIRMANCE OF
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION IS COMPOSED IN PART OF JUSTICES WHO GIVE THE NEW
JERSEY ORDINANCE A CONSTRUCTION DIFFERENT FROM THAT GIVEN IT BY THE
STATE COURTS.  THAT IS NOT ALL.  AFFIRMANCE HERE MEANS THAT THE
APPELLANT WILL BE PUNISHED FOR AN OFFENSE WITH WHICH HE WAS NOT
CHARGED, TO PROVE WHICH NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED, AND OF WHICH HE WAS
NOT CONVICTED, ACCORDING TO THE ONLY NEW JERSEY COURT WHICH AFFIRMED
WITH OPINION.  AT THE LAST TERM OF COURT WE HELD THAT THE ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT HAD DENIED AN APPELLANT DUE PROCESS BECAUSE IT HAD FAILED
TO APPRAISE THE VALIDITY OF A CONVICTION "ON CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE
AS IT WAS TRIED AND AS THE ISSUES WERE DETERMINED IN THE TRIAL COURT." 
COLE V. ARKANSAS, SUPRA AT 202.  I AM UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH THE ACTION
TAKEN BY THIS COURT TODAY FROM THE ACTION OF THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
WHICH WE DECLARED DENIED A DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE NEW JERSEY ORDINANCE IS ON ITS FACE, AND AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED
IN THIS CASE BY THAT STATE'S COURTS, AN ABSOLUTE AND UNQUALIFIED
PROHIBITION OF AMPLIFYING DEVICES ON ANY OF TRENTON'S STREETS AT ANY
TIME, AT ANY PLACE, FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW NOISY
THEY MAY BE. 

IN SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558, WE HAD BEFORE US AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF LOCKPORT, NEW YORK, WHICH FORBADE THE USE OF SOUND
AMPLIFICATION DEVICES EXCEPT WITH PERMISSION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE. 
THE ORDINANCE WAS APPLIED TO KEEP A MINISTER FROM USING AN AMPLIFIER
WHILE PREACHING IN A PUBLIC PARK.  WE HELD THAT THE ORDINANCE, AIMED AT
THE USE OF AN AMPLIFYING DEVICE, INVADED THE AREA OF FREE SPEECH
GUARANTEED THE PEOPLE BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  THE
ORDINANCE, SO WE DECIDED, AMOUNTED TO CENSORSHIP IN ITS BALDEST FORM. 
AND OUR CONCLUSION RESTED ON THE FACT THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE WAS
GIVEN ARBITRARY POWER TO PREVENT THE USE OF SPEECH AMPLIFYING DEVICES
AT ALL TIMES AND PLACES IN THE CITY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE VOLUME OF THE
SOUND.  WE POINTED OUT THE INDISPENSABLE FUNCTION PERFORMED BY LOUD
SPEAKERS IN MODERN PUBLIC SPEAKING.  WE THEN PLACED USE OF LOUD
SPEAKERS IN PUBLIC STREETS AND PARKS ON THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL
AS FREEDOM TO SPEAK ON STREETS WITHOUT SUCH DEVICES, FREEDOM TO SPEAK
OVER RADIO, AND FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE LITERATURE. 

IN THIS CASE THE COURT DENIES SPEECH AMPLIFIERS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SHELTER RECOGNIZED BY OUR DECISIONS AND HOLDING IN THE SAIA CASE.  THIS
IS TRUE BECAUSE THE TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, ORDINANCE HERE SUSTAINED GOES
BEYOND A MERE PRIOR CENSORSHIP OF ALL LOUD SPEAKERS WITH AUTHORITY IN
THE CENSOR TO PROHIBIT SOME OF THEM.  THIS TRENTON ORDINANCE WHOLLY
BARS THE USE OF ALL LOUD SPEAKERS MOUNTED UPON ANY VEHICLE IN ANY OF
THE CITY'S PUBLIC STREETS. 

IN MY VIEW THIS REPUDIATION OF THE PRIOR SAIA OPINION MAKES A
DANGEROUS AND UNJUSTIFIABLE BREACH IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS
DESIGNED TO INSURE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  IDEAS AND BELIEFS ARE TODAY
CHIEFLY DISSEMINATED TO THE MASSES OF PEOPLE THROUGH THE PRESS, RADIO,
MOVING PICTURES, AND PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS.  TO SOME EXTENT AT LEAST
THERE IS COMPETITION OF IDEAS BETWEEN AND WITHIN THESE GROUPS.  THE
BASIC PREMISE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS THAT ALL PRESENT INSTRUMENTS OF
COMMUNICATION, AS WELL AS OTHERS THAT INVENTIVE GENIUS MAY BRING INTO
BEING, SHALL BE FREE FROM GOVERNMENTAL CENSORSHIP OR PROHIBITION.  LAWS
WHICH HAMPER THE FREE USE OF SOME INSTRUMENTS OF COMMUNICATION THEREBY
FAVOR COMPETING CHANNELS.  THUS, UNLESS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED,
LAWS LIKE THIS TRENTON ORDINANCE CAN GIVE AN OVERPOWERING INFLUENCE TO
VIEWS OF OWNERS OF LEGALLY FAVORED INSTRUMENTS OF COMMUNICATION.  THIS
FAVORITISM, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF TODAY'S
DECISION.  FOR THE RESULT OF TODAY'S OPINION IN UPHOLDING THIS
STATUTORY PROHIBITION OF AMPLIFIERS WOULD SURELY NOT BE REACHED BY THIS
COURT IF SUCH CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION AS THE PRESS, RADIO, OR MOVING
PICTURES WERE SIMILARLY ATTACKED. 

THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE IDEAS THAT THEY WISH TO DISSEMINATE
BUT WHO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO OWN OR CONTROL PUBLISHING PLANTS,
NEWSPAPERS, RADIOS, MOVING PICTURE STUDIOS, OR CHAINS OF SHOW PLACES. 
YET EVERYBODY KNOWS THE VAST REACHES OF THESE POWERFUL CHANNELS OF
COMMUNICATION WHICH FROM THE VERY NATURE OF OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM MUST BE
UNDER THE CONTROL AND GUIDANCE OF COMPARATIVELY FEW PEOPLE.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, PUBLIC SPEAKING IS DONE BY MANY MEN OF DIVERGENT MINDS WITH
NO CENTRALIZED CONTROL OVER THE IDEAS THEY ENTERTAIN SO AS TO LIMIT THE
CAUSES THEY ESPOUSE.  IT IS NO REFLECTION ON THE VALUE OF PRESERVING
FREEDOM FOR DISSEMINATION OF THE IDEAS OF PUBLISHERS OF NEWSPAPERS,
MAGAZINES, AND OTHER LITERATURE, TO BELIEVE THAT TRANSMISSION OF IDEAS
THROUGH PUBLIC SPEAKING IS ALSO ESSENTIAL TO THE SOUND THINKING OF A
FULLY INFORMED CITIZENRY. 

IT IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE IN A GOVERNMENT WHERE PEOPLE ELECT
THEIR OFFICIALS THAT THE FULLEST OPPORTUNITY BE AFFORDED CANDIDATES TO
EXPRESS AND VOTERS TO HEAR THEIR VIEWS.  IT IS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE THAT
CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTION NOT BE LIMITED TO CRITICISMS BY PRESS,
RADIO, AND MOVING PICTURES.  IN NO OTHER WAY EXCEPT PUBLIC SPEAKING CAN
THE DESIRABLE OBJECTIVE OF WIDESPREAD PUBLIC DISCUSSION BE ASSURED. 
FOR THE PRESS, THE RADIO, AND THE MOVING PICTURE OWNERS HAVE THEIR
FAVORITES, AND IT ASSUMES THE IMPOSSIBLE TO SUPPOSE THAT THESE AGENCIES
WILL AT ALL TIMES BE EQUALLY FAIR AS BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES AND
OFFICIALS THEY FAVOR AND THOSE WHOM THEY VIGOROUSLY OPPOSE.  AND IT IS
AN OBVIOUS FACT THAT PUBLIC SPEAKING TODAY WITHOUT SOUND AMPLIFIERS IS
A WHOLLY INADEQUATE WAY TO REACH THE PEOPLE ON A LARGE SCALE. 
CONSEQUENTLY, TO TIP THE SCALES AGAINST TRANSMISSION OF IDEAS THROUGH
PUBLIC SPEAKING, AS THE COURT DOES TODAY, IS TO DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF A
LARGE PART OF THE BASIC ADVANTAGES OF THE RECEIPT OF IDEAS THAT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT. 

THERE IS NO MORE REASON THAT I CAN SEE FOR WHOLLY PROHIBITING ONE
USEFUL INSTRUMENT OF COMMUNICATION THAN ANOTHER.  IF TRENTON CAN
COMPLETELY BAR THE STREETS TO THE ADVANTAGEOUS USE OF LOUD SPEAKERS,
ALL CITIES CAN DO THE SAME.  IN THAT EVENT PREFERENCE IN THE
DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS IS GIVEN THOSE WHO CAN OBTAIN THE SUPPORT OF
NEWSPAPERS, ETC., OR THOSE WHO HAVE MONEY ENOUGH TO BUY ADVERTISING
FROM NEWSPAPERS, RADIOS, OR MOVING PICTURES.  THIS COURT SHOULD NO MORE
PERMIT THIS INVIDIOUS PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS BY
SPEAKING THAN IT WOULD PERMIT A COMPLETE BLACKOUT OF THE PRESS, THE
RADIO, OR MOVING PICTURES.  IT IS WISE FOR ALL WHO CHERISH FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION TO REFLECT UPON THE PLAIN FACT THAT A HOLDING THAT THE
AUDIENCES OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED IS NOT
UNRELATED TO A LIKE PROHIBITION IN OTHER FIELDS.  AND THE RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM ABSOLUTE CENSORSHIP FOR
PERSONS WITHOUT, AS FOR PERSONS WITH, WEALTH AND POWER.  AT LEAST, SUCH
IS THE THEORY OF OUR SOCIETY. 

I AM AWARE THAT THE "BLARE" OF THIS NEW METHOD OF CARRYING IDEAS IS
SUSCEPTIBLE OF ABUSE AND MAY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTE AN
INTOLERABLE NUISANCE.  BUT ORDINANCES CAN BE DRAWN WHICH ADEQUATELY
PROTECT A COMMUNITY FROM UNREASONABLE USE OF PUBLIC SPEAKING DEVICES
WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY DENYING TO THE COMMUNITY'S CITIZENS ALL INFORMATION
THAT MAY BE DISSEMINATED OR RECEIVED THROUGH THIS NEW AVENUE FOR TRADE
IN IDEAS.  I WOULD AGREE WITHOUT RESERVATION TO THE SENTIMENT THAT
"UNRESTRAINED USE THROUGHOUT A MUNICIPALITY OF ALL SOUND AMPLIFYING
DEVICES WOULD BE INTOLERABLE."  AND OF COURSE CITIES MAY RESTRICT OR
ABSOLUTELY BAN THE USE OF AMPLIFIERS ON BUSY STREETS IN THE BUSINESS
AREA.  A CITY ORDINANCE THAT REASONABLY RESTRICTS THE VOLUME OF SOUND,
OR THE HOURS DURING WHICH AN AMPLIFIER MAY BE USED, DOES NOT, IN MY
MIND, INFRINGE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AREA OF FREE SPEECH.  IT
IS BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE DOES NONE OF THESE THINGS, BUT IS INSTEAD AN
ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF ALL USES OF AN AMPLIFIER ON ANY OF THE STREETS
OF TRENTON AT ANY TIME THAT I MUST DISSENT. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I AM IN ACCORD WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MY BROTHER BLACK.  I THINK
IT IMPORTANT, HOWEVER, TO POINT OUT THAT A MAJORITY HERE AGREE WITH HIM
THAT THE ISSUE PRESENTED IS WHETHER A STATE (HERE A MUNICIPALITY) MAY
FORBID ALL USE OF SOUND TRUCKS OR AMPLIFYING DEVICES IN PUBLIC STREETS,
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHETHER "LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES" ARE EMITTED. 
ONLY A MINORITY TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE TRENTON ORDINANCE MERELY FORBIDS
USING AMPLIFYING INSTRUMENTS EMITTING LOUD AND RAUCOUS NOISES. 

YET A DIFFERENT MAJORITY, ONE INCLUDING THAT MINORITY AND TWO OTHER
JUSTICES, SUSTAIN THE ORDINANCE AND ITS APPLICATION.  IN EFFECT KOVACS
STANDS CONVICTED, BUT OF WHAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL, BECAUSE THE
MAJORITY UPHOLDING THE CONVICTION DO NOT AGREE UPON WHAT CONSTITUTED
THE CRIME.  HOW, ON SUCH A HASHING OF DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE THING
FORBIDDEN, KOVACS COULD HAVE KNOWN WITH WHAT HE WAS CHARGED OR COULD
HAVE PREPARED A DEFENSE, I AM UNABLE TO SEE.  HOW ANYONE CAN DO EITHER
IN THE FUTURE, UNDER THIS DECISION, I AM EQUALLY AT LOSS TO SAY. 

IN MY VIEW AN ORDINANCE DRAWN SO AMBIGUOUSLY AND INCONSISTENTLY AS TO
REFLECT THE DIFFERING VIEWS OF ITS MEANING TAKEN BY THE TWO GROUPS WHO
COMPOSE THE MAJORITY SUSTAINING IT, WOULD VIOLATE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
DUE PROCESS EVEN IF NO QUESTION OF FREE SPEECH WERE INVOLVED.  NO MAN
SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT UNDER A STATUTE WHEN EVEN A BARE
MAJORITY OF JUDGES UPHOLDING THE CONVICTION CANNOT AGREE UPON WHAT ACTS
THE STATUTE DENOUNCES. 

WHAT THE EFFECT OF THIS DECISION MAY BE I CANNOT FORETELL, EXCEPT
THAT KOVACS WILL STAND CONVICTED AND THE DIVISION AMONG THE MAJORITY
VOTING TO AFFIRM LEAVES OPEN FOR FUTURE DETERMINATION WHETHER ABSOLUTE
AND TOTAL STATE PROHIBITION OF SOUND TRUCKS IN PUBLIC PLACES CAN STAND
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  FOR MYSELF, I HAVE NO DOUBT OF
STATE POWER TO REGULATE THEIR ABUSE IN REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION, BY
NARROWLY DRAWN STATUTES, TO OTHER INTERESTS CONCERNED IN USE OF THE
STREETS AND IN FREEDOM FROM PUBLIC NUISANCE.  BUT THAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT LIMITED ITS PROTECTIONS OF SPEECH TO THE NATURAL RANGE OF THE
HUMAN VOICE AS IT EXISTED IN 1790 WOULD BE, FOR ME, LIKE SAYING THAT
THE COMMERCE POWER REMAINS LIMITED TO NAVIGATION BY SAIL AND TRAVEL BY
THE USE OF HORSES AND OXEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPAL MODES OF
CARRYING ON COMMERCE IN 1789.  THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT DRAWN WITH ANY
SUCH LIMITED VISION OF TIME, SPACE AND MECHANICS.  IT IS ONE THING TO
HOLD THAT THE STATES MAY REGULATE THE USE OF SOUND TRUCKS BY
APPROPRIATELY LIMITED MEASURES.  IT IS ENTIRELY ANOTHER TO SAY THEIR
USE CAN BE FORBIDDEN ALTOGETHER. 

TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE AND BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, I WOULD ADD
ONLY THAT I THINK MY BROTHER FRANKFURTER DEMONSTRATES THE CONCLUSION
OPPOSITE TO THAT WHICH HE DRAWS, NAMELY, THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
GUARANTIES OF THE FREEDOMS OF SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY AND RELIGION
OCCUPY PREFERRED POSITION NOT ONLY IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS BUT ALSO IN
THE REPEATED DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 
..END :




















RAILWAY EXPRESS V. NEW YORK, 336 U.S. 106 


NO. 51.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1949.  - 297
N.Y. 703, 77 N.E.2D 13, AFFIRMED. 


A NEW YORK CITY TRAFFIC REGULATION FORBIDS THE OPERATION OF ANY
ADVERTISING VEHICLE ON THE STREETS, BUT EXCEPTS VEHICLES WHICH HAVE
UPON THEM BUSINESS NOTICES OR ADVERTISEMENTS OF THE PRODUCTS OF THE
OWNER AND WHICH ARE NOT USED MERELY OR MAINLY FOR ADVERTISING.  AN
EXPRESS COMPANY, WHICH SOLD SPACE ON THE EXTERIOR SIDES OF ITS TRUCKS
FOR ADVERTISING AND WHICH OPERATED SUCH TRUCKS ON THE STREETS, WAS
CONVICTED AND FINED FOR VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF
THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT, HELD: 

1.  THE REGULATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 108-109. 

(A)  THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT UPON SUCH REVIEW IS NOT TO WEIGH
EVIDENCE ON THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
REGULATION IS SOUND OR APPROPRIATE, NOR TO PASS JUDGMENT ON THE WISDOM
OF THE REGULATION.  P. 109. 

(B)  THIS COURT CAN NOT SAY THAT THE REGULATION HAS NO RELATION TO
THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM OF THE CITY.  P. 109. 

2.  THE EXEMPTION OF VEHICLES HAVING UPON THEM ADVERTISEMENTS OF
PRODUCTS SOLD BY THE OWNER DOES NOT RENDER THE REGULATION A DENIAL OF
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  PP. 109-110. 

(A)  THIS COURT CAN NOT SAY THAT THE ADVERTISING WHICH IS FORBIDDEN
HAS LESS INCIDENCE ON TRAFFIC THAN THAT WHICH IS EXEMPTED.  P. 110. 

(B)  THE REGULATION IS NOT RENDERED INVALID BY THE FACT THAT IT DOES
NOT EXTEND TO WHAT MAY BE EVEN GREATER DISTRACTIONS AFFECTING TRAFFIC
SAFETY, SUCH AS THE SPECTACULAR DISPLAYS AT TIMES SQUARE.  P. 110. 

3.  THE REGULATION DOES NOT BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION
OF ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 111. 

(A)  WHERE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND THE USE OF HIGHWAYS ARE INVOLVED, AND
WHERE THERE IS NO CONFLICTING FEDERAL REGULATION, GREAT LEEWAY IS
ALLOWED LOCAL AUTHORITIES, EVEN THOUGH THE LOCAL REGULATION MATERIALLY
INTERFERES WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 111. 

RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC. ET AL. V. NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED AND FINED FOR VIOLATION OF A TRAFFIC
REGULATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.  THE CONVICTION WAS SUSTAINED BY
THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS.  188 MISC. 342, 67 N.Y.S.2D 732.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  297 N.Y. 703, 77 N.E.2D 13.  ON APPEAL TO
THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 111. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PROMULGATED BY THE POLICE COMMISSIONER PROVIDES: 

"NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE, OR CAUSE TO BE OPERATED, IN OR UPON ANY
STREET AN ADVERTISING VEHICLE; PROVIDED THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED
SHALL PREVENT THE PUTTING OF BUSINESS NOTICES UPON BUSINESS DELIVERY
VEHICLES, SO LONG AS SUCH VEHICLES ARE ENGAGED IN THE USUAL BUSINESS OR
REGULAR WORK OF THE OWNER AND NOT USED MERELY OR MAINLY FOR
ADVERTISING." 

APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN A NATION-WIDE EXPRESS BUSINESS.  IT OPERATES
ABOUT 1,900 TRUCKS IN NEW YORK CITY AND SELLS THE SPACE ON THE EXTERIOR
SIDES OF THESE TRUCKS FOR ADVERTISING.  THAT ADVERTISING IS FOR THE
MOST PART UNCONNECTED WITH ITS OWN BUSINESS.  FN2  IT WAS CONVICTED IN
THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AND FINED.  THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS
SUSTAINED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS.  188 MISC. 342, 67 N.Y.S.2D
732.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION BY A DIVIDED VOTE. 
297 N.Y. 703, 77 N.E.2D 13.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE
SEC. 237(A), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), AS AMENDED, NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1257. 

THE COURT IN FIFTH AVE. COACH CO. V. NEW YORK, 221 U.S. 467,
SUSTAINED THE PREDECESSOR ORDINANCE TO THE PRESENT REGULATION OVER THE
OBJECTION THAT IT VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THAT WAS A MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE RESTING ON THE BROAD BASE OF THE POLICE POWER, WHILE THE
PRESENT REGULATION STANDS OR FALLS MERELY AS A TRAFFIC REGULATION.  BUT
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT DISTINCTION WARRANTS A DIFFERENT RESULT IN THE
TWO CASES. 

THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS CONCLUDED THAT ADVERTISING ON VEHICLES
USING THE STREETS OF NEW YORK CITY CONSTITUTES A DISTRACTION TO VEHICLE
DRIVERS AND TO PEDESTRIANS ALIKE AND THEREFORE AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF
THE PUBLIC IN THE USE OF THE STREETS.  FN3  WE DO NOT SIT TO WEIGH
EVIDENCE ON THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
REGULATION IS SOUND OR APPROPRIATE; NOR IS IT OUR FUNCTION TO PASS
JUDGMENT ON ITS WISDOM.  SEE OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313 U.S. 236.  WE WOULD
BE TRESPASSING ON ONE OF THE MOST INTENSELY LOCAL AND SPECIALIZED OF
ALL MUNICIPAL PROBLEMS IF WE HELD THAT THIS REGULATION HAD NO RELATION
TO THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM OF NEW YORK CITY.  IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE
LOCAL AUTHORITIES THAT IT DOES HAVE SUCH A RELATION.  AND NOTHING HAS
BEEN ADVANCED WHICH SHOWS THAT TO BE PALPABLY FALSE. 

THE QUESTION OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS PRESSED MORE
STRENUOUSLY ON US.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE REGULATION DRAWS THE
LINE BETWEEN ADVERTISEMENTS OF PRODUCTS SOLD BY THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK
AND GENERAL ADVERTISEMENTS.  IT IS ARGUED THAT UNEQUAL TREATMENT ON THE
BASIS OF SUCH A DISTINCTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE AIM AND PURPOSE OF
THE REGULATION.  IT IS SAID, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ONE OF APPELLANT'S
TRUCKS CARRYING THE ADVERTISEMENT OF A COMMERCIAL HOUSE WOULD NOT CAUSE
ANY GREATER DISTRACTION OF PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLE DRIVERS THAN IF THE
COMMERCIAL HOUSE CARRIED THE SAME ADVERTISEMENT ON ITS OWN TRUCK.  YET
THE REGULATION ALLOWS THE LATTER TO DO WHAT THE FORMER IS FORBIDDEN
FROM DOING.  IT IS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE CLASSIFICATION WHICH
THE REGULATION MAKES HAS NO RELATION TO THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM SINCE A
VIOLATION TURNS NOT ON WHAT KIND OF ADVERTISEMENTS ARE CARRIED ON
TRUCKS BUT ON WHOSE TRUCKS THEY ARE CARRIED. 

THAT, HOWEVER, IS A SUPERFICIAL WAY OF ANALYZING THE PROBLEM, EVEN IF
WE ASSUME THAT IT IS PREMISED ON THE CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE
REGULATION.  THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES MAY WELL HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THOSE
WHO ADVERTISE THEIR OWN WARES ON THEIR TRUCKS DO NOT PRESENT THE SAME
TRAFFIC PROBLEM IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OR EXTENT OF THE ADVERTISING
WHICH THEY USE.  IT WOULD TAKE A DEGREE OF OMNISCIENCE WHICH WE LACK TO
SAY THAT SUCH IS NOT THE CASE.  IF THAT JUDGMENT IS CORRECT, THE
ADVERTISING DISPLAYS THAT ARE EXEMPT HAVE LESS INCIDENCE ON TRAFFIC
THAN THOSE OF APPELLANTS. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THAT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE ONE.  YET IF IT
IS, THE CLASSIFICATION HAS RELATION TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS MADE
AND DOES NOT CONTAIN THE KIND OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WHICH THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE AFFORDS PROTECTION.  IT IS BY SUCH PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS BASED ON EXPERIENCE RATHER THAN BY THEORETICAL
INCONSISTENCIES THAT THE QUESTION OF EQUAL PROTECTION IS TO BE
ANSWERED.  PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138, 144; MARCUS BROWN CO.
V. FELDMAN, 256 U.S. 170, 198-199; METROPOLITAN CO. V. BROWNELL, 294
U.S. 580, 585-586.  AND THE FACT THAT NEW YORK CITY SEES FIT TO
ELIMINATE FROM TRAFFIC THIS KIND OF DISTRACTION BUT DOES NOT TOUCH WHAT
MAY BE EVEN GREATER ONES IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY, SUCH AS THE VIVID
DISPLAYS ON TIMES SQUARE, IS IMMATERIAL.  IT IS NO REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL
PROTECTION THAT ALL EVILS OF THE SAME GENUS BE ERADICATED OR NONE AT
ALL.  CENTRAL LUMBER CO. V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 226 U.S. 157, 160. 

IT IS FINALLY CONTENDED THAT THE REGULATION IS A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  MANY OF
THESE TRUCKS ARE ENGAGED IN DELIVERING GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
FROM NEW JERSEY TO NEW YORK.  WHERE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND THE USE OF
HIGHWAYS ARE INVOLVED AND WHERE THERE IS NO CONFLICTING FEDERAL
REGULATION, GREAT LEEWAY IS ALLOWED LOCAL AUTHORITIES, EVEN THOUGH THE
LOCAL REGULATION MATERIALLY INTERFERES WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
CASE IN THAT POSTURE IS CONTROLLED BY S.C. HWY.  DEPT.  V. BARNWELL
BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 187 ET SEQ.  AND SEE MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S.
598.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS REGULATION WAS PROMULGATED BY THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
PURSUANT TO THE POWER GRANTED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT UNDER SEC. 435 OF
THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:  "THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND FORCE SHALL HAVE THE POWER AND IT SHALL BE THEIR DUTY TO
...  REGULATE, DIRECT, CONTROL AND RESTRICT THE MOVEMENT OF VEHICULAR
AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FOR THE FACILITATION OF TRAFFIC AND THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE PROPER PROTECTION OF HUMAN
LIFE AND HEALTH; ...  THE COMMISSIONER SHALL MAKE SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IN THE
USE OF THE PUBLIC STREETS, SQUARES AND AVENUES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY
...  " 

FN2  THE ADVERTISEMENTS FOR WHICH APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED CONSISTED
OF POSTERS FROM THREE BY SEVEN FEET TO FOUR BY TEN FEET PORTRAYING
CAMEL CIGARETTES, RINGLING BROTHERS AND BARNUM & BAILEY CIRCUS, AND
RADIO STATION WOR.  DRIVERS OF APPELLANT'S TRUCKS CARRYING
ADVERTISEMENTS OF PRINCE ALBERT SMOKING TOBACCO AND THE UNITED STATES
NAVY WERE ALSO CONVICTED. 

FN3  THE ELEMENT OF SAFETY WAS HELD TO BE ONE OF THE STANDARDS BY
WHICH THE REGULATIONS OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER WERE TO BE JUDGED.  WE
ACCEPT THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
UNDER SEC. 435 OF THE CHARTER, NOTE 1, SUPRA.  SEE PRICE V. ILLINOIS,
238 U.S. 446, 451; HARTFORD ACCIDENT CO. V. NELSON CO., 291 U.S. 352,
358; CENTRAL HANOVER BANK CO. V. KELLY, 319 U.S. 94, 97. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE ACQUIESCES IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND JUDGMENT,
DUBITANTE ON THE QUESTION OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

THERE ARE TWO CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH THIS COURT
MAY INVOKE TO INVALIDATE ORDINANCES BY WHICH MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK
TO SOLVE THEIR LOCAL PROBLEMS.  ONE SAYS THAT NO STATE SHALL "DEPRIVE
ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 
THE OTHER DECLARES THAT NO STATE SHALL "DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

MY PHILOSOPHY AS TO THE RELATIVE READINESS WITH WHICH WE SHOULD
RESORT TO THESE TWO CLAUSES IS ALMOST DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE
PHILOSOPHY WHICH PREVAILS ON THIS COURT.  WHILE CLAIMS OF DENIAL OF
EQUAL PROTECTION ARE FREQUENTLY ASSERTED, THEY ARE RARELY SUSTAINED. 
BUT THE COURT FREQUENTLY USES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO STRIKE DOWN
MEASURES TAKEN BY MUNICIPALITIES TO DEAL WITH ACTIVITIES IN THEIR
STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES WHICH THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONSIDER AS
CREATING HAZARDS, ANNOYANCES OR DISCOMFORTS TO THEIR INHABITANTS.  AND
I HAVE FREQUENTLY DISSENTED WHEN I THOUGHT LOCAL POWER WAS IMPROPERLY
DENIED.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, OPINION IN DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE AND
COMPANION CASES, 319 U.S. 157, 166; AND DISSENTS IN SAIA V. NEW YORK,
334 U.S. 558, 566; PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158, 176. 

THE BURDEN SHOULD REST HEAVILY UPON ONE WHO WOULD PERSUADE US TO USE
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO STRIKE DOWN A SUBSTANTIVE LAW OR ORDINANCE. 
EVEN ITS PROVIDENT USE AGAINST MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS FREQUENTLY
DISABLES ALL GOVERNMENT - STATE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL - FROM DEALING
WITH THE CONDUCT IN QUESTION BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS IS
ALSO APPLICABLE TO STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS.  INVALIDATION OF A
STATUTE OR AN ORDINANCE ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS LEAVES UNGOVERNED AND
UNGOVERNABLE CONDUCT WHICH MANY PEOPLE FIND OBJECTIONABLE. 

INVOCATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, ON THE OTHER HAND, DOES
NOT DISABLE ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY FROM DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT AT
HAND.  IT MERELY MEANS THAT THE PROHIBITION OR REGULATION MUST HAVE A
BROADER IMPACT.  I REGARD IT AS A SALUTARY DOCTRINE THAT CITIES, STATES
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST EXERCISE THEIR POWERS SO AS NOT TO
DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THEIR INHABITANTS EXCEPT UPON SOME REASONABLE
DIFFERENTIATION FAIRLY RELATED TO THE OBJECT OF REGULATION.  THIS
EQUALITY IS NOT MERELY ABSTRACT JUSTICE.  THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION KNEW, AND WE SHOULD NOT FORGET TODAY, THAT THERE IS NO
MORE EFFECTIVE PRACTICAL GUARANTY AGAINST ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE
GOVERNMENT THAN TO REQUIRE THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW WHICH OFFICIALS
WOULD IMPOSE UPON A MINORITY MUST BE IMPOSED GENERALLY.  CONVERSELY,
NOTHING OPENS THE DOOR TO ARBITRARY ACTION SO EFFECTIVELY AS TO ALLOW
THOSE OFFICIALS TO PICK AND CHOOSE ONLY A FEW TO WHOM THEY WILL APPLY
LEGISLATION AND THUS TO ESCAPE THE POLITICAL RETRIBUTION THAT MIGHT BE
VISITED UPON THEM IF LARGER NUMBERS WERE AFFECTED.  COURTS CAN TAKE NO
BETTER MEASURE TO ASSURE THAT LAWS WILL BE JUST THAN TO REQUIRE THAT
LAWS BE EQUAL IN OPERATION. 

THIS CASE AFFORDS AN ILLUSTRATION.  EVEN CASUAL OBSERVATIONS FROM THE
SIDEWALKS OF NEW YORK WILL SHOW THAT AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD FORBID
ALL ADVERTISING ON VEHICLES WOULD RUN INTO CONFLICT WITH MANY
INTERESTS, INCLUDING SOME, IF NOT ALL, OF THE GREAT METROPOLITAN
NEWSPAPERS, WHICH USE THAT ADVERTISING EXTENSIVELY.  THEIR BLANDISHMENT
OF THE LATEST SENSATIONS IS NOT LESS A CAUSE OF DIVERTED ATTENTION AND
TRAFFIC HAZARD THAN THE COMMONPLACE CIGARETTE ADVERTISEMENT WHICH THIS
TRUCK-OWNER IS FORBIDDEN TO DISPLAY.  BUT ANY REGULATION APPLICABLE TO
ALL SUCH ADVERTISING WOULD REQUIRE MUCH CLEARER JUSTIFICATION IN LOCAL
CONDITIONS TO ENABLE ITS ENACTMENT THAN DOES SOME REGULATION APPLICABLE
TO A FEW.  I DO NOT MENTION THIS TO CRITICIZE THE MOTIVES OF THOSE WHO
ENACTED THIS ORDINANCE, BUT IT DRAMATIZES THE POINT THAT WE ARE MUCH
MORE LIKELY TO FIND ARBITRARINESS IN THE REGULATION OF THE FEW THAN OF
THE MANY.  HENCE, FOR MY PART, I AM MORE RECEPTIVE TO ATTACK ON LOCAL
ORDINANCES FOR DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION THAN FOR DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS, WHILE THE COURT HAS MORE OFTEN USED THE LATTER CLAUSE. 

IN THIS CASE, IF THE CITY OF NEW YORK SHOULD ASSUME THAT DISPLAY OF
ANY ADVERTISING ON VEHICLES TENDS AND INTENDS TO DISTRACT THE ATTENTION
OF PERSONS USING THE HIGHWAYS AND TO INCREASE THE DANGERS OF ITS
TRAFFIC, I SHOULD THINK IT FULLY WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS TO
FORBID IT ALL.  THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE IF THE CITY SHOULD UNDERTAKE TO
ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE THE HAZARD BY ANY GENERALLY APPLICABLE RESTRAINT,
SUCH AS LIMITING THE SIZE, COLOR, SHAPE OR PERHAPS TO SOME EXTENT THE
CONTENTS OF VEHICULAR ADVERTISING.  INSTEAD OF SUCH GENERAL REGULATION
OF ADVERTISING, HOWEVER, THE CITY SEEKS TO REDUCE THE HAZARD ONLY BY
SAYING THAT WHILE SOME MAY, OTHERS MAY NOT EXHIBIT SUCH APPEALS.  THE
SAME DISPLAY, FOR EXAMPLE, ADVERTISING CIGARETTES, WHICH THIS APPELLANT
IS FORBIDDEN TO CARRY ON ITS TRUCKS, MAY BE CARRIED ON THE TRUCKS OF A
CIGARETTE DEALER AND MIGHT ON THE TRUCKS OF THIS APPELLANT IF IT DEALT
IN CIGARETTES.  AND ALMOST AN IDENTICAL ADVERTISEMENT, CERTAINLY ONE OF
EQUAL SIZE, SHAPE, COLOR AND APPEARANCE, MAY BE CARRIED BY THIS
APPELLANT IF IT PROCLAIMS ITS OWN OFFER TO TRANSPORT CIGARETTES.  BUT
IT MAY NOT BE CARRIED SO LONG AS THE MESSAGE IS NOT ITS OWN BUT A
CIGARETTE DEALER'S OFFER TO SELL THE SAME CIGARETTES. 

THE CITY URGES THAT THIS APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL PERSONS OF A
PERMISSIBLE CLASSIFICATION, BECAUSE ALL THAT IT DOES IS (1) FORBID ALL
INHABITANTS OF NEW YORK CITY FROM ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING
ADVERTISING SPACE ON TRUCKS WHICH MOVE AS PART OF THE CITY TRAFFIC; (2)
FORBID ALL TRUCK OWNERS FROM INCIDENTALLY EMPLOYING THEIR VEHICLES FOR
SUCH PURPOSE, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT ALL TRUCK OWNERS CAN ADVERTISE
THEIR OWN BUSINESS ON THEIR OWN TRUCKS.  IT IS ARGUED THAT, WHILE THIS
DOES NOT ELIMINATE VEHICULAR ADVERTISING, IT DOES ELIMINATE SUCH
ADVERTISING FOR HIRE AND TO THIS EXTENT CUTS DOWN THE HAZARD SOUGHT TO
BE CONTROLLED.    THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS
FOR HIRE AND ENGAGING IN THE SAME ACTIVITY ON ONE'S OWN IS A SUFFICIENT
ONE TO SUSTAIN SOME TYPES OF REGULATIONS OF THE ONE THAT IS NOT APPLIED
TO THE OTHER, IS ALMOST ELEMENTARY.  BUT IT IS USUAL TO FIND SUCH
REGULATIONS APPLIED TO THE VERY INCIDENTS WHEREIN THE TWO CLASSES
PRESENT DIFFERENT PROBLEMS, SUCH AS IN CHARGES, LIABILITY AND QUALITY
OF SERVICE. 

THE DIFFERENCE, HOWEVER, IS INVOKED HERE TO SUSTAIN A DISCRIMINATION
IN A PROBLEM IN WHICH THE TWO CLASSES PRESENT IDENTICAL DANGERS.  THE
COURTS OF NEW YORK HAVE DECLARED THAT THE SOLE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF
THE REGULATION BEFORE US IS TO REDUCE TRAFFIC HAZARDS.  THERE IS NOT
EVEN A PRETENSE HERE THAT THE TRAFFIC HAZARD CREATED BY THE ADVERTISING
WHICH IS FORBIDDEN IS IN ANY MANNER OR DEGREE MORE HAZARDOUS THAN THAT
WHICH IS PERMITTED.  IT IS URGED WITH CONSIDERABLE FORCE THAT THIS
LOCAL REGULATION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
BECAUSE IT APPLIES UNEQUALLY UPON CLASSES WHOSE DIFFERENTIATION IS IN
NO WAY RELEVANT TO THE OBJECTS OF THE REGULATION. 

AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE AND IN VIEW OF MY ATTITUDE TOWARD THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE, I DO NOT THINK DIFFERENCES OF TREATMENT UNDER LAW
SHOULD BE APPROVED ON CLASSIFICATION BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES UNRELATED
TO THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE CEASES TO
ASSURE EITHER EQUALITY OR PROTECTION IF IT IS AVOIDED BY ANY
CONCEIVABLE DIFFERENCE THAT CAN BE POINTED OUT BETWEEN THOSE BOUND AND
THOSE LEFT FREE.  THIS COURT HAS OFTEN ANNOUNCED THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE
DIFFERENTIATION MUST HAVE AN APPROPRIATE RELATION TO THE OBJECT OF THE
LEGISLATION OR ORDINANCE.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, MAYFLOWER FARMS V. TEN
EYCK, 297 U.S. 266; SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553.  IN THE LATTER CASE
A MOTOR VEHICLE REGULATION WAS STRUCK DOWN UPON CITATION OF MANY
AUTHORITIES BECAUSE "SUCH A CLASSIFICATION IS NOT BASED ON ANYTHING
HAVING RELATION TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS MADE."  283 U.S. 553,
567.  IF THAT WERE THE SITUATION HERE, I SHOULD THINK WE SHOULD REACH A
SIMILAR CONCLUSION. 

THE QUESTION IN MY MIND COMES TO THIS.  WHERE INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTE
TO AN EVIL OR DANGER IN THE SAME WAY AND TO THE SAME DEGREE, MAY THOSE
WHO DO SO FOR HIRE BE PROHIBITED, WHILE THOSE WHO DO SO FOR THEIR OWN
COMMERCIAL ENDS BUT NOT FOR HIRE BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE?  I THINK THE
ANSWER HAS TO BE THAT THE HIRELING MAY BE PUT IN A CLASS BY HIMSELF AND
MAY BE DEALT WITH DIFFERENTLY THAN THOSE WHO ACT ON THEIR OWN.  BUT
THIS IS NOT MERELY BECAUSE SUCH A DISCRIMINATION WILL ENABLE THE
LAWMAKER TO DIMINISH THE EVIL.  THAT MIGHT BE DONE BY MANY
CLASSIFICATIONS, WHICH I SHOULD THINK WHOLLY UNSUSTAINABLE.  IT IS
RATHER BECAUSE THERE IS A REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOING IN SELF
INTEREST AND DOING FOR HIRE, SO THAT IT IS ONE THING TO TOLERATE ACTION
FROM THOSE WHO ACT ON THEIR OWN AND IT IS ANOTHER THING TO PERMIT THE
SAME ACTION TO BE PROMOTED FOR A PRICE. 

CERTAINLY THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF HIRE HAS BEEN THE HOOK BY WHICH
MUCH HIGHWAY REGULATION HAS BEEN SUPPORTED.  RIGHTS USUAL TO PASSENGERS
MAY BE DENIED TO THE NONPAYING GUEST IN AN AUTOMOBILE TO LIMIT
VEXATIOUS LITIGATION.  SILVER V. SILVER, 280 U.S. 117.  A STATE MAY
REQUIRE SECURITY AGAINST INJURIES FROM ONE USING THE HIGHWAYS FOR HIRE
THAT IT DOES NOT EXACT FROM OTHERS BECAUSE, AS MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND
PUT IT, "THE STREETS BELONG TO THE PUBLIC AND ARE PRIMARILY FOR THE USE
OF THE PUBLIC IN THE ORDINARY WAY.  THEIR USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF GAIN
IS SPECIAL AND EXTRAORDINARY AND, GENERALLY AT LEAST, MAY BE PROHIBITED
OR CONDITIONED AS THE LEGISLATURE DEEMS PROPER."  PACKARD V. BANTON,
264 U.S. 140, 144.  IN THE CASE OF THOSE WHO LET OUT AUTOMOBILES TO
THOSE WHO DRIVE THEM, THE COURT, THROUGH MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, SAID OF
THE STATE, "IT MAY PROHIBIT OR CONDITION AS IT DEEMS PROPER THE USE OF
CITY STREETS AS A PLACE FOR THE CARRYING ON OF PRIVATE BUSINESS." 
HODGE CO. V. CINCINNATI, 284 U.S. 335, 337.  SEE ALSO SPROLES V.
BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 393; STEPHENSON V. BINFORD, 287 U.S. 251, 278;
HICKLIN V. CONEY, 290 U.S. 169; STANLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
295 U.S. 76; AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMMISSION, 295 U.S. 285;
DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO. V. STATE REVENUE COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 72.  THE
RULE WAS FLATLY STATED FOR THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS:  "IN
DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF SAFETY OF THE HIGHWAYS, AS IN OTHER
PROBLEMS OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION, THE STATE MAY ADOPT MEASURES WHICH
FAVOR VEHICLES USED SOLELY IN THE BUSINESS OF THEIR OWNERS, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE WHICH ARE OPERATED FOR HIRE BY CARRIERS WHO
USE THE HIGHWAYS AS THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS."  BRADLEY V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 92, 97.  HOWEVER, IT IS OTHERWISE IF THE
DISCRIMINATIONS WITHIN THE REGULATED CLASS ARE BASED ON ARBITRARY
DIFFERENCES AS TO COMMODITIES CARRIED HAVING NO RELATION TO THE OBJECT
OF THE REGULATION.  SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553.  SEE ALSO QUAKER
CITY CAB CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 277 U.S. 389. 

OF COURSE, THIS APPELLANT DID NOT HOLD ITSELF OUT TO CARRY OR DISPLAY
EVERYBODY'S ADVERTISING, AND ITS RENTAL OF SPACE ON THE SIDES OF ITS
TRUCKS WAS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN BUSINESS WHICH BROUGHT ITS
TRUCKS INTO THE STREETS.  BUT IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT, IN A DAY
OF EXTRAVAGANT ADVERTISING MORE OR LESS SUBSIDIZED BY TAX DEDUCTION,
THE RENTAL OF TRUCK SPACE COULD BECOME AN OBNOXIOUS ENTERPRISE.  WHILE
I DO NOT THINK HIGHLY OF THIS TYPE OF REGULATION, THAT IS NOT MY
BUSINESS, AND IN VIEW OF THE CONTROL I WOULD CONCEDE TO CITIES TO
PROTECT CITIZENS IN QUIET AND ORDERLY USE FOR THEIR PROPER PURPOSES OF
THE HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC PLACES (SEE DISSENT IN SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334
U.S. 558, 566), I THINK THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :
















GOGGIN V. CALIFORNIA LABOR DIV., 336 U.S. 118 


NO. 35.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1949.  - 165
F.2D 155, REVERSED. 


1.  A TAX CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH, AT THE TIME OF THE FILING
OF A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY, WAS SECURED BY A PERFECTED LIEN AND
ACCOMPANIED BY A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE'S POSSESSION OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OF PAYMENT OUT OF THE
PROCEEDS OF THAT PROPERTY, OVER CLAIMS FOR WAGES OF THE KIND SPECIFIED
IN SEC. 64A(2) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND IS NOT REQUIRED BY SEC. 67C
TO BE POSTPONED IN PAYMENT TO SUCH CLAIMS BY REASON OF THE COLLECTOR'S
SUBSEQUENT RELINQUISHMENT OF POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE TRUSTEE
IN BANKRUPTCY FOR SALE BY HIM.  PP. 119-131. 

2.  THE PRIORITY OF THE TAX LIEN OVER THE WAGE CLAIMS MUST BE
DETERMINED AS OF THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY
AND IS UNAFFECTED BY AN ARRANGEMENT UNDER WHICH POSSESSION OF THE
PROPERTY IS SUBSEQUENTLY RELINQUISHED TO THE TRUSTEE FOR SALE BY HIM. 
PP. 124-126. 

3.  ALTHOUGH SEC. 67C WAS ADDED TO THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BY THE CHANDLER
ACT IN 1938, THERE IS NOTHING IN IT OR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO
SUGGEST AN ABANDONMENT OF THE UNDERLYING POINT OF VIEW AS TO THE TIME
AS OF WHICH IT SPEAKS AND THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO CONTINUE
TO SAFEGUARD INTERESTS UNDER LIENS PERFECTED BEFORE BANKRUPTCY.  PP.
126-130. 

GOGGIN, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. DIVISION OF LABOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OF
CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE DIVISION OF LABOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
ASSIGNEE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR WAGES, PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY WHICH GAVE CERTAIN TAX
LIENS OF THE UNITED STATES PRIORITY OVER ALL OTHER CLAIMANTS AGAINST
THE ESTATE OF A BANKRUPT AFTER PAYMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF
ADMINISTRATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT ADOPTED THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE REFEREE AND ENTERED JUDGMENT THEREON.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  165 F.2D 155.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333
U.S. 860.  REVERSED, P. 131. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE DEALS WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER SEC. 67C OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT,  FN1  IN DETERMINING PRIORITIES IN THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, SPEAKS
AS OF THE TIME OF FILING THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE PRECISE ISSUE
PRESENTED IS WHETHER A TAX CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES, SECURED BY A
LIEN PERFECTED BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE TAXPAYER AND ACCOMPANIED,
AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY, BY THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE'S ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE BANKRUPT'S
PERSONAL PROPERTY, IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 67C OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT TO BE
POSTPONED IN PAYMENT TO DEBTS OWED BY THE BANKRUPT FOR WAGES TO
CLAIMANTS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (2) OF SEC. 64A OF THAT ACT, FN2  BECAUSE
THE COLLECTOR LATER RELINQUISHED POSSESSION OF SUCH PROPERTY TO THE
TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE FOR SALE BY HIM.  WE HOLD THAT THE
LIEN WAS VALID AND ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OF PAYMENT AS AGAINST THE WAGE
CLAIMS AT THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY AND THAT THE COLLECTOR'S
RELINQUISHMENT OF POSSESSION OF THE BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY DID NOT CHANGE
THE RESULT. 

THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.  BEFORE MARCH 26, 1946, A COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE OF THE UNITED STATES PERFECTED A STATUTORY LIEN UPON
THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE KESSCO ENGINEERING CORPORATION, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND TOOK ACTUAL POSSESSION OF SUCH PROPERTY
PURSUANT TO THAT LIEN.  HE ATTEMPTED TO SELL SUCH ASSETS AND RECEIVED
BIDS FOR THEM BUT DID NOT COMPLETE THE SALE BECAUSE THE PRICE
OBTAINABLE WAS UNSATISFACTORY TO HIM.  HE INSTITUTED A SECOND SALE BUT
ABANDONED IT WHEN HE RELINQUISHED POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE
TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE.  ON MARCH 26, 1946, THE CORPORATION
FILED ITS VOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WAS ADJUDICATED
A BANKRUPT AND GEORGE T. GOGGIN (WHO LATER BECAME THE TRUSTEE OF THE
BANKRUPT'S ESTATE AND IS THE PETITIONER HEREIN) WAS APPOINTED
RECEIVER.  HAVING QUALIFIED AS RECEIVER ON MARCH 28, 1946, HE
COMMUNICATED WITH COUNSEL FOR THE COLLECTOR AS TO THE COLLECTOR'S
TURNING OVER TO HIM THE BANKRUPT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY.  IN THIS
CONNECTION, THE REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY LATER MADE A FINDING OF FACT
WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"...  THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT IN THE HANDS OF THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ...  WAS TURNED OVER TO THE SAID GEORGE
T. GOGGIN, WHO ACCEPTED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A TELEGRAM FROM J.
P. WENCHEL, CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, READING AS
FOLLOWS: 

"'REFERENCE TO TELEPHONE CONVERSATION TODAY WITH MR. WEBB (MEMBER OF
THE LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF INTERNAL REVENUE) RELATIVE TO KESSCO
ENGINEERING CORPORATION, BANKRUPT, NO OBJECTION BY THIS OFFICE TO
COLLECTOR RELINQUISHING PERSONAL PROPERTY TO TRUSTEE FOR SALE. 
GOVERNMENT'S LIEN TO ATTACH TO PROCEEDS FROM SALE SUBJECT TO TRUSTEE'S
EXPENSES INCLUDING COSTS OF SALE. 

             J. P. WENCHEL, CHIEF COUNSEL.'" 

GOGGIN, IN HIS FINAL CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BANKRUPT, CAUSED
THESE ASSETS TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION, PURSUANT TO ORDER OF COURT. 
HAVING LIQUIDATED ALL ASSETS WHICH HAD COME INTO HIS POSSESSION, HE HAD
ON HAND, ON DECEMBER 12, 1946, ABOUT $31,206.20, WHICH THE REFEREE
CERTIFIED WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY IN FULL THE EXPENSES OF
ADMINISTRATION, THE LIEN CLAIMS, THE PRIOR LABOR CLAIMS AND PRIOR TAX
CLAIMS IN THE CASE.  THE GROSS AMOUNT OF THE AMENDED CLAIM OF THE
COLLECTOR FOR TAXES, PENALTIES AND INTEREST WAS $78,865.03.  THE PRIOR
WAGE CLAIMS TOTALED $3,424.87.  THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALSO FILED A TAX CLAIM FOR $15,135, WHICH WAS
RECORDED AS A LIEN ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 24, 1945.  NEITHER THE VALIDITY
NOR THE AMOUNT OF ANY OF THESE CLAIMS IS IN ISSUE HERE.  FN3 

THE PRESENT PROCEEDING ORIGINATED IN A PETITION FILED WITH THE
REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY BY THE TRUSTEE, SEEKING AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THE ORDER OF PRIORITY OF THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX AND PRIOR WAGE
CLAIMS AND THE EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE REFEREE MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND REACHED
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE ORDERED THAT, FROM THE
MONIES IN THE POSSESSION OF THE TRUSTEE, THERE FIRST BE PAID THE
EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION AND THAT THE BALANCE OF SUCH FUNDS THEN IN
THE HANDS OF THE TRUSTEE BE PAID TO THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
IN PARTIAL PAYMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S TAX CLAIMS AND THE INTEREST
THEREON AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.  FN4  THE DISTRICT COURT ADOPTED THE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF THE REFEREE AND ENTERED
JUDGMENT THEREON.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSED
THAT JUDGMENT AND HELD THAT, BY VIRTUE OF THE COLLECTOR'S
RELINQUISHMENT OF HIS POSSESSION OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE
BANKRUPT, THE TAXES DUE TO THE UNITED STATES MUST BE POSTPONED, IN
PAYMENT, TO THE DEBTS OF THE BANKRUPT FOR CERTAIN WAGE CLAIMS, PURSUANT
TO SEC. 67C OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  165 F.2D 155.  BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 860. 

THE BANKRUPT FILED ITS PETITION AND WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT ON
MARCH 26, 1946.  THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT WAS THEN SUBJECT
TO THE PERFECTED STATUTORY LIEN OF THE UNITED STATES FOR TAXES AND THAT
LIEN WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY
BY A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THOSE FACTS COMPLETELY SATISFY SEC. 67C OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN5
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS, SUCH AS THE RELINQUISHMENT OF HIS POSSESSION BY THE
COLLECTOR IN FAVOR OF THE TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FACILITATING A SALE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE TRUSTEE, ARE NOT
MATERIAL TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US.  FN6  THE TERMS
UNDER WHICH THE COLLECTOR'S POSSESSION WAS RELINQUISHED ARE CONSISTENT
WITH AND SUPPORT THIS RESULT BUT THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO PAYMENT
AHEAD OF THE WAGE CLAIMS WAS DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF BANKRUPTCY AND
DID NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ARRANGEMENT UNDER WHICH POSSESSION WAS
RELINQUISHED TO THE TRUSTEE. 

THIS GENERAL POINT OF VIEW IN INTERPRETING THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS ONE
OF LONG STANDING.  IN EVERETT V. JUDSON, 228 U.S. 474, 479, THIS COURT
SAID: 

"WE THINK THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW WAS TO FIX THE LINE OF CLEAVAGE
WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONDITION OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE AS OF THE TIME
AT WHICH THE PETITION WAS FILED AND THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH VESTS IN
THE TRUSTEE AT THE TIME OF ADJUDICATION IS THAT WHICH THE BANKRUPT
OWNED AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION." 

SEE ALSO, MYERS V. MATLEY, 318 U.S. 622, 626; UNITED STATES V.
MARXEN, 307 U.S. 200, 207-208; ACME HARVESTER CO. V. BEEKMAN LUMBER
CO., 222 U.S. 300, 307.  FN7 

WHILE SEC. 67C WAS ADDED TO THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BY THE CHANDLER ACT IN
1938, WE FIND NOTHING IN IT OR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO SUGGEST AN
ABANDONMENT OF THE UNDERLYING POINT OF VIEW AS TO THE TIME AS OF WHICH
IT SPEAKS AND THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO CONTINUE TO SAFEGUARD
INTERESTS UNDER LIENS PERFECTED BEFORE BANKRUPTCY.  CITY OF RICHMOND V.
BIRD, 249 U.S. 174; IN RE KNOX-POWELL-STOCKTON CO., 100 F.2D 979; IN RE
VAN WINKLE, 49 F.SUPP.  711.  WHILE SEC. 64, AS AMENDED, SOMEWHAT
READJUSTS PRIORITIES AMONG UNSECURED CLAIMS, SEC. 67 CONTINUES TO
RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF LIENS PERFECTED BEFORE BANKRUPTCY AS AGAINST
UNSECURED CLAIMS.  SECTION 67B HAS CLARIFIED THE VALIDITY OF STATUTORY
LIENS, INCLUDING THOSE FOR TAXES, EVEN THOUGH ARISING OR PERFECTED
WHILE THE DEBTOR IS INSOLVENT AND WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF THE FILING OF
THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.  IT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZES THAT THE VALIDITY
OF LIENS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF FILING A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY MAY BE
PERFECTED UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER BANKRUPTCY.  SECTION 67C, AS
AMENDED IN 1938, DOES, HOWEVER, INTRODUCE A NEW POSTPONEMENT IN THE
PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS SECURED BY LIENS TO THE PAYMENT OF OTHER
CLAIMS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSES (1)(FOR CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES,
ETC.) AND (2)(FOR CERTAIN WAGES) OF SEC. 64A.  THIS SUBORDINATION IS,
HOWEVER, SHARPLY LIMITED.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO STATUTORY
LIENS ON REAL PROPERTY, OR TO THOSE ACTUALLY ENFORCED BY SALE BEFORE
BANKRUPTCY, OR, IN GENERAL, TO LIENS ON PERSONAL PROPERTY WHEN
ACCOMPANIED BY ACTUAL POSSESSION OF SUCH PROPERTY.  THE BACKGROUND OF
SEC. 67C SUGGESTS A CONSCIOUS PURPOSE TO GIVE A NARROWLY LIMITED
PRIORITY TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND TO CERTAIN WAGE CLAIMS, AT
LEAST IN INSTANCES DISCLOSING ACCUMULATIONS OF UNPAID TAXES THE
PRIORITY OF WHICH WAGE EARNERS HAD NO GOOD REASON TO SUSPECT, AND WHICH
MIGHT ABSORB THE ENTIRE ESTATE OF THE BANKRUPT UNLESS POSTPONED BY
THESE PROVISIONS.  FN8  THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 67 IN REQUIRING A PUBLIC
WARNING OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN ENFORCEABLE STATUTORY LIEN FOR TAXES WAS
SERVED IN THE INSTANT CASE NOT ONLY BY THE STEPS TAKEN TO PERFECT THE
GOVERNMENT'S LIEN BUT BY THE COLLECTOR'S SEIZURE AND ACTUAL POSSESSION
OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE TAXPAYER BEFORE THE FILING OF THE
TAXPAYER'S PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN FOR TAXES AS AGAINST THE WAGE CLAIMANTS WAS
THUS ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY AND THE COLLECTOR'S POSSESSION OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF
THE BANKRUPT EXCLUDED THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 67C WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD
HAVE POSTPONED THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX CLAIMS TO THE PAYMENT OF THE
CLAIMS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND WAGES SPECIFIED IN CLAUSES (1)
AND (2) OF SEC. 64A.  BY HIS SUBSEQUENT ARRANGEMENT WITH THE TRUSTEE
FOR THE SALE OF THE BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY, THE COLLECTOR DID NOT LOSE THE
RIGHT TO PRIORITY OF PAYMENT ACCORDED TO THE PERFECTED TAX LIENS, AT
THE TIME OF BANKRUPTCY, AS AGAINST THE WAGE CLAIMS. 

THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLECTOR AND THE TRUSTEE WAS A NATURAL
AND PROPER ONE.  WHILE THE AMENDED CLAIM FOR TAXES, PENALTIES AND
INTEREST, DATED AUGUST 28, 1946, AMOUNTED TO $78,865.03, THE ORIGINAL
CLAIM, FILED WITH THE NOTICES OF LIEN PRIOR TO MARCH 26, 1946, AMOUNTED
TO ONLY $40,921.94(EVEN INCLUDING THE INTEREST AND COSTS LATER COMPUTED
TO AUGUST 21, 1946).  OF THIS SUM THE TAXES THEMSELVES AMOUNTED ONLY TO
$34,848.04.  TO MEET THIS, THE TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE, ON
DECEMBER 12, 1946, HAD ON HAND $31,206.20, EVIDENTLY DERIVED FROM THE
SALE OF THE PROPERTY ORIGINALLY HELD BY THE COLLECTOR.  THESE FIGURES,
ACCORDINGLY, SUGGEST THE POSSIBILITY THAT, IN MARCH, 1946, IT
REASONABLY MAY HAVE BEEN SUPPOSED THAT A SURPLUS ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S TAX CLAIM MIGHT BE REALIZED FROM THE SALE OF THE
ASSETS THEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE COLLECTOR.  IN THAT EVENT, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE OBVIOUSLY APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE FOR THE TRUSTEE TO
SELL THAT PROPERTY FREE AND CLEAR OF LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES AND THEN
DISTRIBUTE THE PROCEEDS TO THE RIGHTFUL CLAIMANTS.  EVEN THOUGH THERE
WAS LITTLE OR NO PROSPECT OF REALIZING SUCH A SURPLUS, IT WAS
REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE TRUSTEE, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
LIEN HOLDER, THUS TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND DISTRIBUTE ITS PROCEEDS. 
SEE VAN HUFFEL V. HARKELRODE, 284 U.S. 225; 6 REMINGTON ON BANKRUPTCY
SECS. 2577-2578(4TH ED. 1937).  FN9  THE PROPRIETY OF THE PRESENT
CONCLUSION IS EMPHASIZED BY THE FACT THAT THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION
WOULD, IN MANY OTHER CASES, OPERATE TO THE DETRIMENT BOTH OF UNSECURED
CREDITORS AND OF THE STATUTORY LIEN HOLDERS.  IT WOULD COMPEL A LIEN
HOLDER TO RETAIN HIS ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BE
SURE OF HIS FULL PRIORITY IN THE PAYMENT OF HIS TAX CLAIM.  HE WOULD BE
COMPELLED TO DO THIS, EVEN THOUGH BY DOING SO THE BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY
PROBABLY WOULD YIELD A SMALLER SALES PRICE THAN IF SOLD BY THE
TRUSTEE.  FURTHERMORE, THE LIEN HOLDER WOULD BE BROUGHT INTO SHARP
CONFLICT WITH THE TRUSTEE WHENEVER THERE WAS REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THE
PROCEEDS OF THE SALE MIGHT EQUAL OR EXCEED THE TAX CLAIMS SECURED BY
THE LIEN.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE BANKRUPTCY COURT GENERALLY MAY
ORDER THE SALE OF THE BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY BY THE TRUSTEE, FREE AND
CLEAR OF LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES.  SEE 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY SECS.
70.97, 70.99(14TH ED. 1942); 6 REMINGTON ON BANKRUPTCY SEC. 2583(4TH
ED. 1937).  ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT FOR THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE LIEN HOLDER'S VOLUNTARY RELINQUISHMENT OF HIS
POSSESSION OF THE BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY, IN FAVOR OF THE BANKRUPT'S
TRUSTEE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERMITTING THE TRUSTEE TO SELL THE PROPERTY
IN THIS CASE, MUST CARRY WITH IT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, A POSTPONEMENT OF
THE PAYMENT OF THE LIEN HOLDER'S TAX CLAIM TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS FOR
WAGES HERE PRESENTED.    FOR THESE REASONS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  AS SEC. 67B IS REFERRED TO IN SEC. 67C AND IS MATERIAL TO ITS
INTERPRETATION, BOTH SUBDIVISIONS OF SEC. 67 ARE QUOTED BELOW: 

"SEC. 67.  LIENS AND FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS.  - ... 

"B.  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 60 OF THIS ACT TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING, STATUTORY LIENS IN FAVOR OF EMPLOYEES, CONTRACTORS,
MECHANICS, LANDLORDS, OR OTHER CLASSES OF PERSONS, AND STATUTORY LIENS
FOR TAXES AND DEBTS OWING TO THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE OR
SUBDIVISION THEREOF, CREATED OR RECOGNIZED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES OR OF ANY STATE, MAY BE VALID AGAINST THE TRUSTEE, EVEN THOUGH
ARISING OR PERFECTED WHILE THE DEBTOR IS INSOLVENT AND WITHIN FOUR
MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY OR OF THE
ORIGINAL PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X, XI, XII, OR XIII OF THIS ACT, BY OR
AGAINST HIM.  WHERE BY SUCH LAWS SUCH LIENS ARE REQUIRED TO BE
PERFECTED AND ARISE BUT ARE NOT PERFECTED BEFORE BANKRUPTCY, THEY MAY
NEVERTHELESS BE VALID, IF PERFECTED WITHIN THE TIME PERMITTED BY AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUCH LAWS, EXCEPT THAT IF SUCH LAWS
REQUIRE THE LIENS TO BE PERFECTED BY THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY, THEY
SHALL INSTEAD BE PERFECTED BY FILING NOTICE THEREOF WITH THE COURT. 

"C.  WHERE NOT ENFORCED BY SALE BEFORE THE FILING OF A PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY OR OF AN ORIGINAL PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X, XI, XII, OR XIII
OF THIS ACT, THOUGH VALID UNDER SUBDIVISION B OF THIS SECTION,
STATUTORY LIENS, INCLUDING LIENS FOR TAXES OR DEBTS OWING TO THE UNITED
STATES OR TO ANY STATE OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF, ON PERSONAL PROPERTY NOT
ACCOMPANIED BY POSSESSION OF SUCH PROPERTY, AND LIENS WHETHER STATUTORY
OR NOT, OF DISTRESS FOR RENT SHALL BE POSTPONED IN PAYMENT TO THE DEBTS
SPECIFIED IN CLAUSES (1) AND (2) OF SUBDIVISION A OF SECTION 64 OF THIS
ACT, AND, EXCEPT AS AGAINST OTHER LIENS, SUCH LIENS FOR WAGES OR FOR
RENT SHALL BE RESTRICTED IN THE AMOUNT OF THEIR PAYMENT TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS PROVIDED FOR WAGES AND RENT RESPECTIVELY IN SUBDIVISION A OF

     .         .         .         .         . 

BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, C. 541, 30 STAT. 544, 564, AS AMENDED BY THE
CHANDLER ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, C. 575, 52 STAT. 840, 875-877, 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 107(B) AND (C). 

FN2  NOT ONLY THE PORTIONS OF SEC. 64A SPECIFYING THE WAGES HERE IN
CONTROVERSY BUT THOSE OTHERWISE RELATED TO THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE ARE
QUOTED BELOW: 

"SEC. 64.  DEBTS WHICH HAVE PRIORITY.  - A. THE DEBTS TO HAVE
PRIORITY, IN ADVANCE OF THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS TO CREDITORS, AND TO
BE PAID IN FULL OUT OF BANKRUPT ESTATES, AND THE ORDER OF PAYMENT,
SHALL BE (1) THE ACTUAL AND NECESSARY COSTS AND EXPENSES OF PRESERVING
THE ESTATE SUBSEQUENT TO FILING THE PETITION; THE FEES FOR THE
REFEREES' SALARY FUND AND FOR THE REFEREES' EXPENSE FUND; THE FILING
FEES PAID BY CREDITORS IN INVOLUNTARY CASES; WHERE PROPERTY OF THE
BANKRUPT, TRANSFERRED OR CONCEALED BY HIM EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE
FILING OF THE PETITION, SHALL HAVE BEEN RECOVERED FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE ESTATE OF THE BANKRUPT BY THE EFFORTS AND AT THE COST AND EXPENSE
OF ONE OR MORE CREDITORS, THE REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES OF SUCH
RECOVERY; THE COSTS AND EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING THE
TRUSTEE'S EXPENSES IN OPPOSING THE BANKRUPT'S DISCHARGE, THE FEES AND
MILEAGE PAYABLE TO WITNESSES AS NOW OR HEREAFTER PROVIDED BY THE LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ONE REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE, FOR THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF
ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED, TO THE PETITIONING CREDITORS IN INVOLUNTARY CASES
AND TO THE BANKRUPT IN VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY CASES, AS THE COURT
MAY ALLOW; (2) WAGES, NOT TO EXCEED $600 TO EACH CLAIMANT, WHICH HAVE
BEEN EARNED WITHIN THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE PROCEEDING, DUE TO WORKMEN, SERVANTS, CLERKS, OR TRAVELING OR CITY
SALESMEN ON SALARY OR COMMISSION BASIS, WHOLE OR PART TIME, WHETHER OR
NOT SELLING EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BANKRUPT; ...  (4) TAXES LEGALLY DUE
AND OWING BY THE BANKRUPT TO THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE OR ANY
SUBDIVISION THEREOF:  PROVIDED, THAT NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF A TAX ASSESSED AGAINST ANY PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT IN
EXCESS OF THE VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE THEREIN AS
DETERMINED BY THE COURT:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT, IN CASE ANY
QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE AMOUNT OR LEGALITY OF ANY TAXES, SUCH
QUESTION SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE COURT; AND (5) DEBTS
OWING TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, WHO BY THE LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES IN (IS) ENTITLED TO PRIORITY, AND RENT OWING TO A
LANDLORD WHO IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH PRIORITY FOR RENT TO A LANDLORD SHALL BE
RESTRICTED TO THE RENT WHICH IS LEGALLY DUE AND OWING FOR THE ACTUAL
USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE PREMISES AFFECTED, AND WHICH ACCRUED WITHIN
THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY." 

     .      .         .         .         . 

BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, C. 541, 30 STAT. 544, 563, AS AMENDED BY THE
CHANDLER ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, C. 575, 52 STAT. 840, 874, AND 60 STAT.
323, 330, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 104(A). 

FN3  THERE IS NO ISSUE HERE AS TO THE AMOUNT OF PENALTIES OR INTEREST
INCLUDED IN THE COLLECTOR'S CLAIM FOR TAXES OR AS TO THE DATE TO WHICH
INTEREST ON SUCH CLAIM SHALL BE COMPUTED.  THERE IS NO ISSUE HERE AS TO
ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATUTORY LIENS WHICH WERE PERFECTED MORE THAN
FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY OR THOSE
PERFECTED WITHIN LESS THAN THAT TIME.  AS THE LIEN CLAIMED BY THE
UNITED STATES EXCEEDS THE FUNDS AVAILABLE, IT HAS FILED ITS BRIEF IN
THIS COURT AS THE SOLE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE
WAGE CLAIMS.  THE RESPONDENT, DIVISION OF LABOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPEARS ON BEHALF OF ALL OF THE LABOR CLAIMANTS. 
THERE ALSO IS NO ISSUE HERE AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID FOR THE
EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION OR THE ITEMS WHICH SUCH EXPENSES MAY INCLUDE
IN ADDITION TO THE COSTS OF THE SALE MADE BY THE TRUSTEE. 

FN4  PROVISION, NOT MATERIAL HERE, WAS MADE THAT, IF ADDITIONAL MONEY
CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE TRUSTEE, THE COURT, UPON NOTICE TO ALL
NECESSARY AND PROPER PARTIES, SHOULD DETERMINE THE RESPECTIVE LIENS OR
PRIORITIES, IF ANY THERE BE, OF THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, THE
PRIOR LABOR CLAIMANTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND OTHER TAX CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO BE HEARD. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN6  SEE DAVIS V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 119 F.2D 559.  IN THAT CASE THE
CITY PERFECTED ITS LIEN FOR RETAIL SALES TAXES BY SEIZURE OF ASSETS OF
THE TAXPAYER, MAY 16, 1939.  AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS
FILED, JUNE 7, 1939, AGAINST THE TAXPAYER AND IT WAS ADJUDICATED A
BANKRUPT, JUNE 17, 1939.  THE ASSETS WERE THEREAFTER SOLD IN EXECUTION
OF THE WARRANT ISSUED BY THE CITY TREASURER.  THE LEVY WAS HELD TO BE A
VALID STATUTORY LEVY AS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE
AND THE CITY WAS ALLOWED TO RETAIN THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE, UNDER
SECS. 67B AND 67C OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED IN 1938.  FOR A
CONVERSE SITUATION SEE CITY OF NEW YORK V. HALL, 139 F.2D 935.  IN THAT
CASE THE CITY PERFECTED ITS LIEN ON PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE TAXPAYER,
ARISING OUT OF LONG DELINQUENT BUSINESS AND SALES TAXES, BY THE
DELIVERY OF WARRANTS ON JANUARY 14, 1943, AT 10:15 A.M., TO THE CITY'S
WARRANT AGENT FOR EXECUTION AND LEVY ON THE PROPERTY.  THE ACTUAL LEVY
ON, AND INVENTORY OF, THE PROPERTY AND THE POSTING OF NOTICES OF SALE
WERE NOT EFFECTED UNTIL SHORTLY AFTER 4:30 P.M.  IN THE MEANTIME, AT
4:22 P.M., AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED AGAINST THE
TAXPAYER AND UPON THIS HE WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT.  PURSUANT TO AN
ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, A RECEIVER SOLD THE PROPERTY AND THE
COURT DECLINED TO ORDER THE NET PROCEEDS TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE
CITY.  THE CITY WAS THE HOLDER OF A STATUTORY LIEN BUT, AT THE TIME OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY, THE LIEN WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED
BY ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TO WHICH IT ATTACHED. 
IT, THEREFORE, WAS SUBORDINATED, UNDER SEC. 67C OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
TO THE ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES AND WAGES COVERED BY CLAUSES (1) AND (2)
OF SEC. 64A.  "NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADMONITION OF SECTION 67, SUB. C,
THE CITY CHOSE TO SLUMBER ON ITS RIGHTS.  CONGRESS INTENDED TO PENALIZE
SUCH SOMNOLENCE."  ID. AT P. 936. 

FN7  "SECTION 1.  MEANING OF WORDS AND PHRASES.  - THE WORDS AND
PHRASES USED IN THIS ACT AND IN PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT HERETO SHALL,
UNLESS THE SAME BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONTEXT, BE CONSTRUED AS
FOLLOWS: 

     .         .         .        .         . 

"(13)  'DATE OF BANKRUPTCY', 'TIME OF BANKRUPTCY', 'COMMENCEMENT OF
PROCEEDINGS', OR 'BANKRUPTCY', WITH REFERENCE TO TIME, SHALL MEAN THE
DATE WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED; ...  ."  30 STAT. 544, AS AMENDED BY
52 STAT. 840-841. 

"...  THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS ARE FIXED BY THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.  THIS IS TRUE BOTH AS TO THE
BANKRUPT AND AMONG THEMSELVES.  THE ASSETS AT THAT TIME ARE SEGREGATED
FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.  THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS TO SOMEONE
FOR APPLICATION TO 'THE DEBTS OF THE INSOLVENT, AS THE RIGHTS AND
PRIORITIES OF CREDITORS MAY BE MADE TO APPEAR' (CITING BRAMWELL V. U.S.
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 269 U.S. 483, 490), TAKES PLACE AS OF THAT
TIME."  UNITED STATES V. MARXEN, 307 U.S. 200, 207-208. 

"THE GENERAL RULE IN BANKRUPTCY IS THAT THE FILING OF THE PETITION
FREEZES THE RIGHTS OF ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE BANKRUPT ESTATE. 
EXCEPTIONS ONLY EMPHASIZE THE RULE.  WHATEVER DISAGREEMENT IN OPINION
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE MATTER PRIOR TO THE ACT OF 1938, IT IS NOW
CLEAR THAT STATUTORY LIENS MAY BE VALID IF THEY ARISE BEFORE BANKRUPTCY
ALTHOUGH THEY ARE PERFECTED AFTER BANKRUPTCY, IF THE PERFECTION IS
WITHIN THE TIME PERMITTED BY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
APPLICABLE LAW."  4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY 228-229(14TH ED. 1942). 

FN8  THESE PROVISIONS APPARENTLY ORIGINATED IN AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY
THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE WHICH WERE BEFORE CONGRESS IN A
COMMITTEE REPORT ANALYSIS OF H.R. 12889, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1936). 
THIS REPORT STATES THAT THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. CHANDLER, MAY
28, 1936, CONTAINING AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY
CONFERENCE, AND THE SEVERAL SECTIONS ARE ACCOMPANIED BY EXPLANATORY
NOTES.  SECTION 67C, AS THERE PROPOSED, RESEMBLES SUBSTANTIALLY THE
JACOB I. WEINSTEIN, A MEMBER OF THE CONFERENCE, INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT: 

"SECTION 64(OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BEFORE AMENDMENT BY THE CHANDLER
ACT) IS DECLARATORY OF A POLICY THAT THE COSTS AND EXPENSES IN
CONNECTION WITH A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AND ITS ADMINISTRATION SHALL BE
FIRST PAID IN DISTRIBUTION.  IT IS A SOUND POLICY AND IS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WELL ESTABLISHED IN LIQUIDATION
PROCEEDINGS.  BUT SECTION 67 OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY THE SAME
LIMITATION WITH RESPECT TO VALID LIENS.  THE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE
OF CITY OF RICHMOND V. BIRD, (249 U.S. 174,) 43 A.B.R. 260(1919),
RESOLVED THE CONFLICT IN THE LOWER COURT DECISIONS BY HOLDING THAT THE
PRIORITY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 64 DO NOT APPLY TO LIENS VALID UNDER

"IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT IN RECENT YEARS STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE BEEN
ENACTING SPECIAL LEGISLATION IN FAVOR OF TAX CLAIMS, PUBLIC DEBTS, AND
A VARIETY OF PRIVATE CLAIMS.  STATISTICS IN THE BANKRUPTCY CASES SHOW
THAT THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY LAW HAS SERIOUSLY
SUFFERED THEREFROM.  SUCH CLAIMS, PARTICULARLY TAX LIENS, OFTEN CONSUME
THE ENTIRE ESTATE, LEAVING NOTHING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE COSTS AND
EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION INCURRED IN REDUCING THE ASSETS TO CASH.  IN
MANY SUCH CASES THE TAX LIENS REPRESENT AN ACCUMULATION OF DELINQUENT
ITEMS COVERING A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, WITHOUT ANY ATTEMPT ON THE PART
OF TAX COLLECTORS TO ENFORCE PAYMENT PRIOR TO THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING. 

"THERE IS THEREFORE NEED FOR A PROVISION TO PROTECT THE
ADMINISTRATION COSTS AND EXPENSES; AND SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS APPLY TO
WAGE CLAIMS.  ACCORDINGLY WE HAVE SELECTED, FROM AMONG THE PRIORITIES
FIXED BY SECTION 64(AS REVISED), THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS FOR
PROTECTION.  HOWEVER, BY REASON OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE
INHERENT DIFFERENCES EXISTING IN THE INCIDENTS ATTACHING TO REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY, IT WOULD SEEM ADVISABLE TO RESTRICT THE REMEDY THUS
PROVIDED TO LIENS ON PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHERE SUCH LIENS HAVE NOT BEEN
ENFORCED BY SALE PRIOR TO BANKRUPTCY."  ID. AT P. 212 N. 1. 

AT THAT TIME THE BILL DID NOT ALSO EXCEPT FROM SUBORDINATION
STATUTORY TAX LIENS ON PERSONAL PROPERTY "ACCOMPANIED BY POSSESSION OF
SUCH PROPERTY."  THE ADDITION OF THAT CLAUSE GIVES IT SPECIAL EMPHASIS
AND SUGGESTS ITS APPROPRIATE EFFECT AS A WARNING TO OTHER CLAIMANTS
THAT THE PROPERTY, SO POSSESSED, WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND WAGE CLAIMS SPECIFIED IN
CLAUSES (1) AND (2) OF SEC. 64A. 

THE REPORT FILED BY MR. CHANDLER FOR THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
JULY 29, 1937, TO ACCOMPANY THE BILL THEN KNOWN AS H.R. 8046 MERELY
STATED:  "IN SUBDIVISIONS B AND C STATUTORY LIENS ARE PROTECTED AND
PERMITTED TO BE PERFECTED IF THE TIME ALLOWED BY LAW FOR PERFECTING
THEM HAS NOT EXPIRED."  H.R. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
34(1937), AND SEE REFERENCES TO SECS. 64 AND 67C ON PP. 9, 15-16. 
SEE ALSO, WEINSTEIN, THE BANKRUPTCY LAW OF 1938(1938): 

"THIS SUBDIVISION IS NEW AND IS DESIGNED TO CORRECT AN INEQUITABLE
CONDITION WHICH EXISTED UNDER THE OLD ACT, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO
TAX LIENS ALLOWED, THROUGH THE INACTION OF TAX AUTHORITIES, TO BE
ACCUMULATED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.  FREQUENTLY, SUCH LIENS
CONSUMED THE ENTIRE ESTATE, EVEN TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE COSTS AND
EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PROCEEDING.  WHILE SUBD. A OF SEC. 64 PROVIDES
FOR PRIORITY OF PAYMENT OF SUCH COSTS AND EXPENSES, SUCH PAYMENT IS
PRIOR ONLY TO THE OTHER UNSECURED DEBTS AND DOES NOT AFFECT OR IMPAIR
VALID LIENS, WHETHER STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE.  BUT TAX CLAIMS MAY TAKE
THE FORM OF UNSECURED DEBTS DUE TO THE SOVEREIGN, AND THUS PAYABLE BY
WAY OF PRIORITY IN THE ORDER AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 64, OR THE FORM OF
LIENS CREATED BY LOCAL STATUTES.  AS INDICATED, IF THE TAX CLAIM TAKES
THE FORM OF A LIEN, OR IS REDUCED TO THE FORM OF A LIEN, IT IS NOT
AFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 64.  IN VIEW OF THE INEQUITABLE
CONDITION ABOVE REFERRED TO, THERE WAS NEED FOR A PROVISION TO PROTECT
THE ADMINISTRATION COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND LIKE CONSIDERATIONS OF
PUBLIC POLICY REQUIRED A SIMILAR PROTECTION FOR WAGE CLAIMANTS. 
HOWEVER, THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THE INHERENT DIFFERENCES IN
THE INCIDENTS ATTACHING TO REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, MADE IT
ADVISABLE TO RESTRICT THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY THIS PARAGRAPH TO LIENS ON
PERSONAL PROPERTY; BUT, IN RESPECT EVEN TO PERSONAL PROPERTY, THE
PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN REDUCED
TO POSSESSION OR WHERE THE LIENS HAVE NOT BEEN ENFORCED BY SALE PRIOR
TO BANKRUPTCY."  (AT PP. 144-145.) 

FN9  THE ONLY QUESTION THEN ARISING WOULD BE AS TO THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THE TRUSTEE MIGHT DEDUCT FROM THOSE PROCEEDS HIS GENERAL EXPENSES
OF ADMINISTRATION, AS WELL AS THE COSTS OF THE SALE ITSELF.  THIS
QUESTION WAS TOUCHED UPON IN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE TRUSTEE BUT NO
ISSUE IS PRESENTED HERE AS TO IT.
..END :























KLAPPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 601 


NO. 42.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1949.  - 166
F.2D 273, REVERSED. 


NINE YEARS AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP AND
GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION, THE UNITED STATES FILED A
COMPLAINT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEW JERSEY, UNDER 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 738, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND CANCEL THE CERTIFICATE.  IT
ALLEGED THAT HIS OATH OF ALLEGIANCE WAS FALSE; THAT SUBSEQUENTLY BY
WRITINGS AND SPEECHES HE HAD EVIDENCED HIS LOYALTY TO GERMANY AND
DISLOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES; AND THAT HE WAS A LEADER AND A MEMBER
OF THE GERMAN AMERICAN BUND AND OTHER SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS.  HE WAS
SERVED WITH NOTICE, BUT FAILED TO ANSWER WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AS REQUIRED
BY 8 U.S.C. SEC. 738(B).  (SEVEN DAYS BEFORE EXPIRATION OF THE SIXTY
DAYS, HE WAS ARRESTED ON FEDERAL CRIMINAL CHARGES AND CONFINED IN A NEW
YORK JAIL.)  WITHOUT HEARINGS OR EVIDENCE, THE COURT ENTERED A DEFAULT
JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ADMITTING HIM TO CITIZENSHIP AND
CANCELING HIS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION.  MORE THAN FOUR YEARS
LATER AND WHILE STILL A FEDERAL PRISONER, HE FILED IN THE SAME COURT A
VERIFIED PETITION PRAYING THAT THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE SET ASIDE. 
INTER ALIA, HE ALLEGED IN SUBSTANCE THAT, WHILE WRONGFULLY HOLDING HIM
IN NEW YORK, MICHIGAN, AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAILS, THE GOVERNMENT
CAUSED A DISTRICT COURT IN NEW JERSEY TO REVOKE HIS CITIZENSHIP ON THE
GROUND THAT HE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR AND DEFEND, ALTHOUGH HE WAS AT THE
TIME WITHOUT FUNDS TO HIRE A LAWYER.  THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE UNDENIED. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION ON THE GROUND OF LACHES.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO SET ASIDE
THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND GRANT PETITIONER A HEARING ON THE MERITS OF
THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE DENATURALIZATION COMPLAINT.  PP. 602-608, 615
616.  (THIS JUDGMENT MODIFIED, 336 U.S. 942.) 

KLAPPROTT V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AN
ORDER ADMITTING PETITIONER TO CITIZENSHIP AND CANCELING HIS CERTIFICATE
OF NATURALIZATION.  MORE THAN FOUR YEARS LATER, HE PETITIONED THE SAME
COURT TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, BUT HIS PETITION WAS DISMISSED
ON THE GROUND OF LACHES.  6 F.R.D. 450.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  166 F.2D 273.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  334 U.S.
818.  REVERSED, PP. 615-616. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS. 

THIS CASE RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE POWER OF FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENTS DEPRIVING NATURALIZED PERSONS OF
THEIR CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT HEARINGS OR EVIDENCE, AND TO SET ASIDE
DEFAULT JUDGMENTS UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES FOUR YEARS OR MORE AFTER THE
DEFAULT JUDGMENTS WERE ENTERED. 

THE PETITIONER WAS BORN IN GERMANY.  IN 1933 AFTER A HEARING A NEW
JERSEY STATE COURT ENTERED A JUDGMENT ADMITTING HIM TO UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP.  PETITIONER THEN TOOK AN OATH RENOUNCING ALLEGIANCE TO
GERMANY AND PROMISING TO BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED
STATES, WHEREUPON THE COURT GRANTED HIM A CERTIFICATE OF
NATURALIZATION.  SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 735. 

NINE YEARS LATER THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, ACTING PURSUANT TO 8
U.S.C. SEC. 738, FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OF NEW JERSEY TO SET ASIDE THE STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT AND CANCEL
PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED
GENERALLY THAT PETITIONER'S OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, ETC., WAS FALSE, THAT
AT THE TIME OF TAKING IT PETITIONER WELL KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT ATTACHED
TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND THAT HE HAD
NOT IN FACT INTENDED THEREAFTER TO BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED
STATES OR RENOUNCE AND DISCONTINUE HIS ALLEGIANCE AND FIDELITY TO
GERMANY.  IN PARTICULAR THE COMPLAINT CHARGED NO MORE THAN THAT
PETITIONER SUBSEQUENT TO 1935 HAD EVIDENCED HIS LOYALTY TO GERMANY AND
HIS DISLOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY BY WRITINGS AND SPEECHES; THAT HE WAS IN
1942 AND HAD BEEN BEFORE THAT TIME A LEADER AND MEMBER OF THE GERMAN
AMERICAN BUND AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, THE PRINCIPLES OF WHICH WERE
ALLEGED TO BE INIMICAL TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
HAPPINESS OF ITS PEOPLE; THAT THESE ORGANIZATIONS WERE PROPAGATED AND
ENCOURAGED BY ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES WHO BELIEVED IN THE IDEOLOGY
ENUNCIATED BY ADOLPH HITLER.  FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALLEGATIONS OF
FRAUD BE PARTICULARIZED, SEE RULE 9(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE. 

PETITIONER, THOUGH SERVED WITH NOTICE MAY 15, 1942, FAILED TO ANSWER
THE COMPLAINT WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AS REQUIRED BY 8 U.S.C. SEC. 738(B). 
BUT ON JULY 7, 1942, BEFORE EXPIRATION OF THE SIXTY DAYS, PETITIONER
WAS ARRESTED AND CONFINED IN A NEW YORK JAIL ON CRIMINAL CHARGES
BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES.  ON JULY 17, 1942, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT OF NEW JERSEY ON MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, ENTERED A
JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AGAINST PETITIONER IN THE DENATURALIZATION
PROCEEDINGS, SET ASIDE THE 1933 STATE COURT JUDGMENT ADMITTING HIM TO
CITIZENSHIP, AND CANCELLED HIS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION. 

MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AFTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED AGAINST
HIM, AND WHILE PETITIONER WAS STILL A GOVERNMENT PRISONER, HE FILED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT A VERIFIED PETITION PRAYING THAT THE COURT SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT.  THE UNITED STATES DID NOT DENY ANY OF THE FACTS ALLEGED
IN THE VERIFIED PETITION.  THE DISTRICT COURT, NECESSARILY ACCEPTING
THE UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE, HELD THAT THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN
GUILTY OF "WILLFUL AND INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT" AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED
THE PETITION "BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANT'S LACHES."  6 F.R.D. 450.  THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, REJECTING PETITIONER'S SEVERAL
CONTENTIONS, AFFIRMED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  166 F.2D 273. 

IN CONSIDERING THE CASE WE ALSO MUST ACCEPT AS TRUE THE UNDENIED
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITIONER.  THESE FACTS ARE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN
CONSIDERING SOME OF THE LEGAL CONTENTIONS RAISED.  THE ALLEGED FACTS
CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

1933 

NOV. 16.        PETITIONER WAS NATURALIZED BY ORDER OF COURT. 

1936 

NOV. 17.        PETITIONER MARRIED AN AMERICAN CITIZEN

                AND NOW HAS ONE CHILD BY THAT MARRIAGE. 

1942 

SPRING.         PETITIONER WAS SERIOUSLY ILL.  THE ILLNESS LEFT

HIM FINANCIALLY POOR AND SO WEAKENED

                THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO WORK. 

MAY 12.         UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FILED THE COMPLAINT

                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF

                NEW JERSEY TO CANCEL PETITIONER'S CITIZENSHIP. 

MAY 15.         COMPLAINT SERVED ON PETITIONER.  HE HAD NO

                MONEY TO HIRE A LAWYER.  HE DREW A DRAFT

                OF AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT AND WROTE

                A LETTER TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

                UNION ASKING THAT THEY REPRESENT HIM

                WITHOUT FEE. 

JULY 7.         ARRESTED UNDER FEDERAL INDICTMENT CHARGING

     PETITIONER AND OTHERS WITH CONSPIRACY TO

    VIOLATE THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.  TAKEN

    BEFORE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER AT

NEWARK, NEW JERSEY; LATER CARRIED TO NEW

YORK BY FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

                AGENTS, THERE PUT IN PRISON, UNABLE TO

                MAKE BOND OF $25,000 UNDER WHICH HE

                WAS HELD.  HIS LETTER TO CIVIL LIBERTIES

                UNION TAKEN FROM HIM BY AGENTS OF THE

                FBI EIGHT DAYS BEFORE EXPIRATION OF TIME

                TO ANSWER CANCELLATION OF CITIZENSHIP

                CHARGE IN NEW JERSEY.  THE AGENTS RETAINED

                THE LETTER, NEVER MAILING IT. 

1942 

JULY 17.        JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT ENTERED BY NEW JERSEY

                COURT IN CITIZENSHIP CANCELLATION CASE. 

                AT THE TIME, PETITIONER WAS IN A NEW YORK

                JAIL AWAITING TRIAL UNDER THE SELECTIVE SERVICE

                CONSPIRACY CASE.  NO EVIDENCE WAS

                OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ITS

                CHARGES IN THE COMPLAINT FOR CANCELLATION

                OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE

                CONSISTED OF NO MORE THAN A VERIFICATION

                OF THIS COMPLAINT BY AN FBI AGENT ON

                INFORMATION AND BELIEF, BASED ON THE

                AGENT'S HAVING READ FBI FILES CONCERNING

                PETITIONER. 

JULY 7,         WHILE PETITIONER WAS STILL IN JAIL, A LAWYER 

1942, DATE        WAS APPOINTED BY THE NEW YORK DISTRICT 

OF ARREST,        COURT TO DEFEND PETITIONER IN THE SELECTIVE 

TO JUNE           SERVICE CRIMINAL CASE.  AT HIS REQUEST THE 

1943.             NEW YORK LAWYER PROMISED TO HELP HIM

                ALSO IN THE NEW JERSEY CANCELLATION PROCEEDINGS,

                BUT THE LAWYER NEGLECTED TO DO

                SO.  PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED

                TO PENITENTIARY. 

1943 

JUNE.           PETITIONER ELECTED TO BEGIN SERVICE OF THE

                NEW YORK SENTENCE PENDING APPEAL, WAS

                CARRIED TO AND CONFINED IN FEDERAL INSTITUTION

                IN MICHIGAN WHERE HE REMAINED UNTIL

                JANUARY 30, 1944. 

1944 

JAN. 30.        PETITIONER TRANSFERRED FROM FEDERAL PRISON IN

               MICHIGAN TO JAIL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                TO BE TRIED WITH TWENTY-NINE OTHER

           PERSONS ON A CHARGE OF SEDITION. 

1945 

JUNE 11.        THIS COURT REVERSED PETITIONER'S NEW YORK

          CONVICTION, KEEGAN V. UNITED STATES, 325

         U.S. 478, BUT HE CONTINUED TO BE HELD IN

        THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL UNTIL NOVEMBER

           22, 1946. 

1946 

NOV. 22.        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SEDITION CASE DISMISSED. 

                UNITED STATES V. MCWILLIAMS ET AL., 82

                U.S. APP. D.C. 259, 163 F.2D 695.  THE

                CASE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN TRIED FOR EIGHT

                MONTHS, BUT BEFORE COMPLETION A MISTRIAL

                WAS DECLARED BECAUSE OF THE DEATH OF THE

                PRESIDING JUDGE.  SHORTLY AFTER DISMISSAL

                OF THE SEDITION CASE PETITIONER, STILL A PRISONER

                OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS CARRIED TO

                ELLIS ISLAND FOR DEPORTATION ON ACCOUNT

                OF THE CANCELLATION OF HIS CITIZENSHIP UNDER

                THE NEW JERSEY DEFAULT JUDGMENT. 

DEC. 9.         THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI IN THREE COURT

                ACTIONS UNSUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED BY THE

                CITIZENS PROTECTIVE LEAGUE ON BEHALF OF

                159 INDIVIDUALS INCLUDING PETITIONER. 

                (THE LEAGUE WAS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

                "TO INSURE EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL AND TO

                SAFEGUARD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL

                PERSONS."  CITIZENS PROTECTIVE LEAGUE V.

                CLARK, 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 116, 117, 155

                F.2D 290, 291; CERT. DENIED, 329 U.S.

                787.  THE COMPLAINT PRAYED THAT THE ATTORNEY

                GENERAL BE ENJOINED FROM DEPORTING

                159 INDIVIDUALS.  PETITIONER HAD

             BEEN ORDERED DEPORTED MARCH 27, 1946,

         WHILE HE WAS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        JAIL CHARGED WITH SEDITION.) 

1946 

DEC. 12.        THREE DAYS AFTER THIS COURT'S DENIAL OF CERTIORARI,

             IN THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE

CITIZENS PROTECTIVE LEAGUE, PETITIONER,

STILL A GOVERNMENT PRISONER AT ELLIS ISLAND,

 STATED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FOREGOING FACTS

   UNDER OATH AND A PETITION WAS FILED ON HIS

    BEHALF IN THE NEW JERSEY DISTRICT COURT

  TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND GRANT

 HIM A TRIAL ON THE MERITS.  PETITIONER'S

VERIFIED MOTION ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S

         CHARGES AGAINST HIM IN THE NEW

JERSEY COURT WERE UNTRUE AND HE STRONGLY

ASSERTED HIS LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES. 

1947 

FEB. 7.         DISTRICT JUDGE DISMISSED THE PETITIONER'S MOTION

             HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN

    GUILTY OF LACHES IN NOT ARRANGING WHILE

  IN PRISON FOR DEFENSE OF THE CANCELLATION

  OF CITIZENSHIP CHARGE. 

THUS, THIS PETITIONER HAS NOW BEEN HELD CONTINUOUSLY IN PRISON BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR SIX AND ONE-HALF YEARS.  DURING THAT PERIOD HE SERVED
ONE AND ONE-HALF YEARS OF A PENITENTIARY PUNISHMENT UNDER A CONVICTION
WHICH THIS COURT HELD WAS IMPROPER.  HE WAS ALSO HELD IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA JAIL TWO YEARS AND TEN MONTHS UNDER AN INDICTMENT THAT WAS
LATER DISMISSED.  IT IS CLEAR THEREFORE, THAT FOR FOUR AND ONE-HALF
YEARS THIS PETITIONER WAS HELD IN PRISON ON CHARGES THAT THE GOVERNMENT
WAS UNABLE TO SUSTAIN.  NO OTHER CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN EXCEPT THAT
THIS LONG IMPRISONMENT WAS WRONGFUL.  WHETHER THE JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
SHOULD BE SET ASIDE MUST THEREFORE BE DECIDED ON THE UNDENIED
ALLEGATIONS THAT THE GOVERNMENT, LARGELY THROUGH THE ACTION OF FBI
AGENTS, WRONGFULLY HELD PETITIONER IN NEW YORK, MICHIGAN, AND DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA PRISONS, WHILE THE SAME GOVERNMENT, LARGELY ACTING THROUGH
THE SAME OR OTHER FBI AGENTS, CAUSED A DISTRICT COURT TO REVOKE
PETITIONER'S CITIZENSHIP ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO
MAKE APPEARANCE AND DEFEND IN THE NEW JERSEY COURTS, ALTHOUGH
PETITIONER WAS AT THE TIME WITHOUT FUNDS TO HIRE A LAWYER. 

FIRST.  AMENDED RULE 60(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
BECAME EFFECTIVE MARCH 19, 1948.  FN1  THAT WAS AFTER THE DISTRICT
COURT DENIED THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THIS DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND AFTER
AFFIRMANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  FOR
THESE REASONS THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT AMENDED RULE 60(B) SHOULD
NOT BE APPLIED HERE.  IN SOME RESPECTS, THE AMENDED RULE GRANTS COURTS
A BROADER POWER TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENTS THAN DID THE OLD RULE. 
PETITIONER SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE BENEFIT OF THE MORE LIBERAL AMENDED
60(B).  FOR RULE 86(B) MADE AMENDED 60(B) APPLICABLE TO "FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN ACTIONS THEN PENDING" UNLESS IT "WOULD WORK INJUSTICE"
SO TO APPLY THE RULE.  IT SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE THAT ONE COULD THINK IT
WOULD WORK ANY INJUSTICE TO THE GOVERNMENT TO MEASURE THE PETITIONER'S
RIGHTS BY THIS AMENDED RULE IN THIS CASE WHERE ALL HE ASKS IS A CHANCE
TO TRY THE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING ON ITS MERITS.  AMENDED RULE
60(B) SHOULD BE APPLIED.    SECOND.  AMENDED RULE 60(B) AUTHORIZES A
COURT TO SET ASIDE "A VOID JUDGMENT" WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LIMITATION
OF A YEAR APPLICABLE TO MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE ON SOME OTHER GROUNDS.  IT
IS CONTENDED THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS VOID BECAUSE RENDERED BY A DISTRICT
COURT WITHOUT HEARING ANY EVIDENCE.  THE JUDGMENT IS VOID IF THE
HEARING OF EVIDENCE IS A LEGAL PREREQUISITE TO RENDITION OF A VALID
DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  WHILE 8 U.S.C. SEC.
738, UNDER WHICH THIS DENATURALIZATION COMPLAINT WAS FILED, PLAINLY
AUTHORIZES COURTS TO REVOKE THE CITIZENSHIP OF NATURALIZED CITIZENS
AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, IT CONTAINS NO EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION FOR
RENDITION OF DEFAULT JUDGMENTS.  CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE
COURT ACTION IN THE ABSENCE OF A CITIZEN MIGHT BE IMPLIED, HOWEVER,
FROM THE PROVISION FOR NOTICE BY PUBLICATION IN SEC. 738(B).  ASIDE
FROM POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, IT MAY THEREFORE BE ASSUMED
THAT THE SECTION AUTHORIZES RENDITION OF A DENATURALIZATION JUDGMENT IN
A DEFENDANT'S ABSENCE.  BUT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT A COURT
MAY ALSO RENDER JUDGMENT WITHOUT PROOF OF THE CHARGES MADE IN A
DENATURALIZATION COMPLAINT.  AND THERE IS STRONG INDICATION IN SEC. 738
AND COMPANION SECTIONS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO AUTHORIZE COURTS
AUTOMATICALLY TO DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP FOR FAILURE TO
APPEAR. 

8 U.S.C. SEC. 746 MAKES IT A FELONY FOR APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION
OR OTHERS TO VIOLATE FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO NATURALIZATION.  HAD
PETITIONER BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF MAKING THE FALSE OATH HERE CHARGED, HE
COULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF AND PUNISHED FOR A FELONY UNDER THIS
JURY TRIAL AT WHICH HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AND REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.  A CONVICTION WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT, ON TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES GIVEN IN THE PRESENCE OF
THE ACCUSED WHO WOULD HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE
WITNESSES AGAINST HIM.  IN THE EVENT OF SUCH A CONVICTION UNDER
REQUIRED PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS, SEC. 738(E) AUTHORIZES COURTS TO REVOKE
CITIZENSHIP AND CANCEL NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATES.  THERE IS A BROAD
GAP BETWEEN A SEC. 738 DENATURALIZATION THUS ACCOMPLISHED AND THE ONE
ORDERED BY THE COURT IN THIS PROCEEDING.  FOR HERE, THE DEFENDANT WAS
ABSENT, NO COUNSEL OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS WAS PRESENT, NO
EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED, AND THE ONLY BASIS FOR ACTION WAS A COMPLAINT
CONTAINING ALLEGATIONS, QUESTIONABLE FROM A PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
STANDPOINT, VERIFIED BY AN FBI AGENT ON INFORMATION ACQUIRED BY HIM
FROM LOOKING AT HEARSAY STATEMENTS IN AN FBI DOSSIER.  THE PROTECTION
CONGRESS AFFORDED IN SEC. 738(E) EMPHASIZES THE UNFAIRNESS THAT WOULD
RESULT FROM PERMITTING DENATURALIZATIONS IN OTHER SEC. 738 PROCEEDINGS
WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL. 

WHEN WE LOOK TO FEDERAL STATUTES OTHER THAN SEC. 738 WE FIND NO
COMMAND AND NO EXPRESS AUTHORITY FOR COURTS TO ENTER DENATURALIZATION
JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT WITHOUT PROOF OF FACTS TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT. 
NO SUCH AUTHORITY OR COMMAND IS CONTAINED IN RULE 55 OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH RULE RELATES TO DEFAULT JUDGMENTS.  RULE
55(E) EXPRESSLY BARS ALL JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT
PROOF, BUT IT CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM THIS THAT PROOF IS NEVER REQUIRED
AS A PREREQUISITE TO DEFAULT JUDGMENTS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS OTHER
THAN THE UNITED STATES.  FOR RULE 55(B)(2) EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR
REPRESENTATION OF DEFAULTING PARTIES IN SOME INSTANCES.  RULE 55(B)(2)
ALSO DIRECTS THAT IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED INSTANCES COURTS, BEFORE
ENTERING JUDGMENTS AFTER DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE, SHALL MAKE
INVESTIGATIONS, CONDUCT HEARINGS, AND EVEN GRANT JURY TRIALS.  IN
ADDITION TO THESE PARTICULARIZED INSTANCES, RULE 55(B)(2) ALSO PROVIDES
FOR COURT HEARINGS BEFORE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WHERE "IT IS NECESSARY  ...
TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF ANY AVERMENT BY EVIDENCE OR TO MAKE AN
INVESTIGATION OF ANY OTHER MATTER." 

THUS IT APPEARS THAT STATUTES AND RULES HAVE LARGELY LEFT FOR
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THE TYPE OF CASES IN WHICH HEARINGS AND PROOF
SHOULD PRECEDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS.  IN THIS SITUATION IT IS THE FINAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS COURT TO FORMULATE THE CONTROLLING RULES FOR
HEARINGS AND PROOF.  SEE MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 341. 
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS IT SEEMS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE THAT A
PERSON'S CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE REVOKED ONLY AFTER EVIDENCE HAS
ESTABLISHED THAT THE PERSON HAS BEEN GUILTY OF PROHIBITED CONDUCT
JUSTIFYING REVOCATION. 

DENATURALIZATION CONSEQUENCES MAY BE MORE GRAVE THAN CONSEQUENCES THAT
FLOW FROM CONVICTION FOR CRIMES.  PERSONS CHARGED WITH CRIME IN UNITED
STATES COURTS CANNOT BE CONVICTED ON DEFAULT JUDGMENTS UNSUPPORTED BY
PROOF.  EVEN DECREES OF DIVORCE OR DEFAULT JUDGMENTS FOR MONEY DAMAGES
WHERE THERE IS ANY UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE AMOUNT MUST ORDINARILY BE
SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL PROOF.  THE REASONS FOR REQUIREMENT OF PROOF IN
CASES INVOLVING MONEY APPLY WITH MUCH GREATER FORCE TO CASES WHICH
INVOLVE FORFEITURE OF CITIZENSHIP AND SUBSEQUENT DEPORTATION.  THIS
COURT HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THE PLAIN FACT THAT TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF
HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY SEVERE PENALTY.  THE
CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A DEPRIVATION MAY EVEN REST HEAVILY UPON HIS
CHILDREN.  8 U.S.C. SEC. 719.  AS A RESULT OF THE DENATURALIZATION
HERE, PETITIONER HAS BEEN ORDERED DEPORTED.  "TO DEPORT ONE WHO SO
CLAIMS TO BE A CITIZEN, OBVIOUSLY DEPRIVES HIM OF LIBERTY ...  IT MAY
RESULT ALSO IN LOSS OF BOTH PROPERTY AND LIFE; OR OF ALL THAT MAKES
LIFE WORTH LIVING."  NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 284.  BECAUSE
DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT FALLEN WITHIN THE TECHNICAL
CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES IS HARDLY A SATISFACTORY REASON FOR ALLOWING
DENATURALIZATION WITHOUT PROOF WHILE REQUIRING PROOF TO SUPPORT A MERE
MONEY FINE OR A SHORT IMPRISONMENT. 

FURTHERMORE, BECAUSE OF THE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES INCIDENT TO
DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS WE HAVE HELD THAT A BURDEN RESTS ON THE
GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ITS CHARGES IN SUCH CASES BY CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT LEAVE THE ISSUE IN DOUBT. 
SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, 158.  THIS BURDEN IS
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT REQUIRED IN CRIMINAL CASES - PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  THE SAME FACTORS THAT CAUSED US TO REQUIRE
PROOF OF THIS NATURE AS A PREREQUISITE TO DENATURALIZATION JUDGMENTS IN
HEARINGS WITH THE DEFENDANT PRESENT, APPLY AT LEAST WITH EQUAL FORCE TO
PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH A CITIZEN IS STRIPPED OF HIS CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS IN
HIS ABSENCE.  ASSUMING THAT NO ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS ARE
REQUIRED, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT IN SEC. 738
PROCEEDINGS DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HIS CITIZENSHIP UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT
FIRST OFFERS PROOF OF ITS CHARGES SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE BURDEN
IMPOSED ON IT, EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS MADE DEFAULT IN
APPEARANCE. 

THIRD.  BUT EVEN IF THIS JUDGMENT OF DENATURALIZATION IS NOT TREATED
AS VOID, THERE REMAIN OTHER COMPELLING REASONS UNDER AMENDED 60(B) FOR
RELIEVING THE PETITIONER OF ITS EFFECT.  AMENDED 60(B) PROVIDES FOR
SETTING ASIDE A JUDGMENT FOR ANY ONE OF FIVE SPECIFIED REASONS OR FOR
"ANY OTHER REASON JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
JUDGMENT."  THE FIRST OF THE FIVE SPECIFIED REASONS IS "MISTAKE,
INADVERTENCE, SURPRISE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT."  TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THIS REASON THE RULE REQUIRES A LITIGANT TO ASK RELIEF "NOT MORE THAN
ONE YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING WAS ENTERED OR
TAKEN."  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION BARS PETITIONER
ON THE PREMISE THAT THE PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT SHOWED, AT
MOST, NOTHING BUT "EXCUSABLE NEGLECT."  AND OF COURSE, THE ONE-YEAR
LIMITATION WOULD CONTROL IF NO MORE THAN "NEGLECT" WAS DISCLOSED BY THE
PETITION.  IN THAT EVENT THE PETITIONER COULD NOT AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE
BROAD "ANY OTHER REASON" CLAUSE OF 60(B).  BUT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS
SET UP AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION WHICH CANNOT FAIRLY OR LOGICALLY BE
CLASSIFIED AS MERE "NEGLECT" ON HIS PART.  THE UNDENIED FACTS SET OUT
IN THE PETITION REVEAL FAR MORE THAN A FAILURE TO DEFEND THE
DENATURALIZATION CHARGES DUE TO INADVERTENCE, INDIFFERENCE, OR CARELESS
DISREGARD REGARD OF CONSEQUENCES.  FOR BEFORE, AT THE TIME, AND AFTER
THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, PETITIONER WAS HELD IN JAIL IN NEW
YORK, MICHIGAN, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY THE UNITED STATES, HIS
ADVERSARY IN THE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  WITHOUT FUNDS TO HIRE A
LAWYER, PETITIONER WAS DEFENDED BY APPOINTED COUNSEL IN THE CRIMINAL
CASES.  THUS PETITIONER'S PRAYER TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT DID
NOT REST ON MERE ALLEGATIONS OF "EXCUSABLE NEGLECT."  THE FOREGOING
ALLEGATIONS AND OTHERS IN THE PETITION TEND TO SUPPORT PETITIONER'S
ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A
DEFENSE TO THE CRIMINAL CHARGES INSTIGATED BY OFFICERS OF THE VERY
UNITED STATES AGENCY WHICH SUPPLIED THE SECONDHAND INFORMATION UPON
WHICH HIS CITIZENSHIP WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM IN HIS ABSENCE.  THE
BASIS OF HIS PETITION WAS NOT THAT HE HAD NEGLECTED TO ACT IN HIS OWN
DEFENSE, BUT THAT IN JAIL AS HE WAS, WEAKENED FROM ILLNESS, WITHOUT A
LAWYER IN THE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS OR FUNDS TO HIRE ONE,
DISTURBED AND FULLY OCCUPIED IN EFFORTS TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THE
GRAVEST CRIMINAL CHARGES, HE WAS NO MORE ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN THE
NEW JERSEY COURT THAN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD HE NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE
OF THE CHARGES.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES PETITIONER'S PRAYER FOR
SETTING ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ONLY UNDER
THE EXCUSABLE NEGLECT, BUT ALSO UNDER THE "OTHER REASON" CLAUSE OF
60(B), TO WHICH THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY. 

FOURTH.  THUS WE COME TO THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER'S UNDENIED
ALLEGATIONS SHOW FACTS "JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
JUDGMENT."  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE "OTHER REASON" CLAUSE SHOULD BE
INTERPRETED SO AS TO DENY RELIEF EXCEPT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SUFFICIENT
TO HAVE AUTHORIZED RELIEF UNDER THE COMMON LAW WRITS OF CORAM NOBIS AND
AUDITA QUERELA, AND THAT THE FACTS SHOWN HERE WOULD NOT HAVE JUSTIFIED
RELIEF UNDER THESE COMMON LAW PROCEEDINGS.  ONE THING WRONG WITH THIS
CONTENTION IS THAT FEW COURTS EVER HAVE AGREED AS TO WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES
WOULD JUSTIFY RELIEF UNDER THESE OLD REMEDIES.  TO ACCEPT THIS
CONTENTION WOULD THEREFORE INTRODUCE NEEDLESS CONFUSION IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF 60(B) AND WOULD ALSO CIRCUMSCRIBE IT WITHIN NEEDLESS
AND UNCERTAIN BOUNDARIES.  FURTHERMORE 60(B) STRONGLY INDICATES ON ITS
FACE THAT COURTS NO LONGER ARE TO BE HEMMED IN BY THE UNCERTAIN
BOUNDARIES OF THESE AND OTHER COMMON LAW REMEDIAL TOOLS.  IN SIMPLE
ENGLISH, THE LANGUAGE OF THE "OTHER REASON" CLAUSE, FOR ALL REASONS
EXCEPT THE FIVE PARTICULARLY SPECIFIED, VESTS POWER IN COURTS ADEQUATE
TO ENABLE THEM TO VACATE JUDGMENTS WHENEVER SUCH ACTION IS APPROPRIATE
TO ACCOMPLISH JUSTICE. 

FIFTH.  THE UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS ALREADY SET OUT SHOW THAT A CITIZEN
WAS STRIPPED OF HIS CITIZENSHIP BY HIS GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, A
HEARING, OR THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL, AT A TIME WHEN HIS GOVERNMENT WAS
THEN HOLDING THE CITIZEN IN JAIL WITH NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM
EFFECTIVELY TO DEFEND HIS RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP.  FURTHERMORE, THE
COMPLAINT IN THE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING STRONGLY INDICATES THAT
THE GOVERNMENT HERE IS PROCEEDING ON INADEQUATE FACTS, JUST AS IT DID
IN THE CRIMINAL CASES IT BROUGHT AGAINST PETITIONER.  FOR IF THE
GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN ABLE ON A TRIAL TO PROVE NO MORE THAN THE
PARTICULAR FACTS IT ALLEGED IN ITS DENATURALIZATION COMPLAINT, IT IS
DOUBTFUL IF ITS PROOF COULD HAVE BEEN HELD SUFFICIENT TO REVOKE
PETITIONER'S CITIZENSHIP UNDER OUR HOLDINGS IN BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED
STATES, 322 U.S. 665, SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118,
KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654, 659, AND SEE RULE 9(B) OF THE
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  AND ALL PETITIONER HAS ASKED IS THAT THE
DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE SET ASIDE SO THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME HE MAY DEFEND
ON THE MERITS.  CERTAINLY THE UNDENIED FACTS ALLEGED JUSTIFY SETTING
ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE.  PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO
A FAIR TRIAL.  HE HAS NOT HAD IT.  THE GOVERNMENT MAKES NO CLAIM THAT
HE HAS.  FAIR HEARINGS ARE IN ACCORD WITH ELEMENTAL CONCEPTS OF
JUSTICE, AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE "OTHER REASON" CLAUSE OF 60(B) IS
BROAD ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE THE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AND GRANT PETITIONER A FAIR HEARING. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, MR.
JUSTICE RUTLEDGE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON AGREE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, AND
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT.  THE JUDGMENTS ACCORDINGLY ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT AND GRANT THE PETITIONER A HEARING ON THE MERITS OF
THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE DENATURALIZATION COMPLAINT* .  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

*(THIS JUDGMENT MODIFIED, 336 U.S. 942.) 

FN1  AMENDED RULE 60(B) PROVIDES: 

"ON MOTION AND UPON SUCH TERMS AS ARE JUST, THE COURT MAY RELIEVE A
PARTY OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR
PROCEEDING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:  (1) MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE,
SURPRISE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT; (2) NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH BY
DUE DILIGENCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN TIME TO MOVE FOR A NEW
TRIAL UNDER RULE 59(B); (3) FRAUD (WHETHER HERETOFORE DENOMINATED
INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC), MISREPRESENTATION, OR OTHER MISCONDUCT OF AN
ADVERSE PARTY; (4) THE JUDGMENT IS VOID; (5) THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN
SATISFIED, RELEASED, OR DISCHARGED, OR A PRIOR JUDGMENT UPON WHICH IT
IS BASED HAS BEEN REVERSED OR OTHERWISE VACATED, OR IT IS NO LONGER
EQUITABLE THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION; OR (6)
ANY OTHER REASON JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT. 
THE MOTION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, AND FOR REASONS (1),
(2), AND (3) NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR
PROCEEDING WAS ENTERED OR TAKEN.  A MOTION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION (B)
DOES NOT AFFECT THE FINALITY OF A JUDGMENT OR SUSPEND ITS OPERATION. 
THIS RULE DOES NOT LIMIT THE POWER OF A COURT TO ENTERTAIN AN
INDEPENDENT ACTION TO RELIEVE A PARTY FROM A JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR
PROCEEDING, OR TO GRANT RELIEF TO A DEFENDANT NOT ACTUALLY PERSONALLY
NOTIFIED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 57 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, U.S.C., TITLE
28, SEC. 118, OR TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT. 
WRITS OF CORAM NOBIS, CORAM VOBIS, AUDITA QUERELA, AND BILLS OF REVIEW
AND BILLS IN THE NATURE OF A BILL OF REVIEW, ARE ABOLISHED, AND THE
PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING ANY RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT SHALL BE BY MOTION
AS PRESCRIBED IN THESE RULES OR BY AN INDEPENDENT ACTION." 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WHILE AGREEING WITH MR. JUSTICE REED THAT A
JUDGMENT OF DENATURALIZATION MAY BE ENTERED BY DEFAULT WITHOUT A
FURTHER SHOWING THAN WAS MADE IN THIS CASE, BELIEVES THAT, UNDER THE
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES HERE SHOWN ON BEHALF OF THIS PETITIONER, THE
JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE
GRANTED A HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE
DENATURALIZATION COMPLAINT.  HE THEREFORE JOINS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT AS LIMITED TO THE SPECIAL FACTS OF THIS CASE AND WITHOUT
EXPRESSING AN OPINION UPON ANY ISSUES NOT NOW BEFORE THIS COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AGREES, CONCURRING
IN THE RESULT. 

TO TREAT A DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, WHETHER PROCEDURALLY OR
OTHERWISE, AS IF IT WERE NOTHING MORE THAN A SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR
BREACH OF CONTRACT OR ONE TO RECOVER OVERTIME PAY IGNORES, IN MY VIEW,
EVERY CONSIDERATION OF JUSTICE AND OF REALITY CONCERNING THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE SUIT AND WHAT IS AT STAKE. 

TO TAKE AWAY A MAN'S CITIZENSHIP DEPRIVES HIM OF A RIGHT NO LESS
PRECIOUS THAN LIFE OR LIBERTY, INDEED OF ONE WHICH TODAY COMPREHENDS
THOSE RIGHTS AND ALMOST ALL OTHERS.  FN1  TO LAY UPON THE CITIZEN THE
PUNISHMENT OF EXILE FOR COMMITTING MURDER, OR EVEN TREASON, IS A
PENALTY THUS FAR UNKNOWN TO OUR LAW AND AT MOST BUT DOUBTFULLY WITHIN
CONGRESS' POWER.  U.S. CONST., AMEND. VIII.  YET BY THE DEVICE OR LABEL
OF A CIVIL SUIT, CARRIED FORWARD WITH NONE OF THE SAFEGUARDS OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THIS MOST
COMPREHENSIVE AND BASIC RIGHT OF ALL, SO IT HAS BEEN HELD, CAN BE TAKEN
AWAY AND IN ITS WAKE MAY FOLLOW THE MOST CRUEL PENALTY OF BANISHMENT. 

NO SUCH PROCEDURES COULD STRIP A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF HIS
BIRTHRIGHT OR LAY HIM OPEN TO SUCH A PENALTY.  I HAVE STATED HERETOFORE
THE REASONS WHY I THINK THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT COUNTENANCE EITHER
THAT DEPRIVATION OR THE ENSUING LIABILITY TO SUCH A PUNISHMENT FOR
NATURALIZED CITIZENS.  SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118,
CONCURRING OPINION 165; KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654,
DISSENTING OPINION 675. 

THOSE VIEWS OF THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF NATURALIZED CITIZENS HAVE
NOT PREVAILED HERE.  BUT THE SCHNEIDERMAN DECISION AND BAUMGARTNER V.
UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 665, REQUIRED A BURDEN OF PROOF FOR
DENATURALIZATION WHICH IN EFFECT APPROXIMATES THE BURDEN DEMANDED FOR
CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES, NAMELY, PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
OF THE CHARGES ALLEGED AS CAUSE FOR DENATURALIZATION.  FN2  THIS WAS IN
ITSELF AND TO THAT EXTENT RECOGNITION THAT ORDINARY CIVIL PROCEDURES,
SUCH AS APPLY IN SUITS UPON CONTRACTS AND TO ENFORCE OTHER PURELY CIVIL
LIABILITIES, DO NOT SUFFICE FOR DENATURALIZATION AND ALL ITS
CONSEQUENCES.  MORE THAN THIS IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE IN THE
CASES CITED.  NO LESS SHOULD BE REQUIRED, IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL
KINSHIP OF THE PROCEEDINGS WITH CRIMINAL CAUSES, WHATEVER THEIR
TECHNICAL FORM OR LABEL.  CF. KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654,
DISSENTING OPINION 675, 678. 

THIS CASE, HOWEVER, PRESENTS SQUARELY THE ISSUE WHETHER, BEYOND ANY
QUESTION OF BURDEN OR WEIGHT OF PROOF, THE ORDINARY CIVIL PROCEDURES
CAN SUFFICE TO TAKE AWAY THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN'S STATUS AND LAY HIM
OPEN TO PERMANENT EXILE WITH ALL THE FATEFUL CONSEQUENCES FOLLOWING FOR
HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY, OFTEN AS IN THIS CASE NATIVE-BORN AMERICANS. 
THE QUESTION IN ITS NARROWER ASPECT IS INDEED WHETHER THOSE
CONSEQUENCES CAN BE INFLICTED WITHOUT ANY PROOF WHATEVER. 

UNDER OUR SYSTEM PETITIONER COULD NOT BE CONVICTED OR FINED FOR MAIL
FRAUD, OVERCEILING SALES, OR UNLAWFULLY POSSESSING GASOLINE RATION
COUPONS UPON A JUDGMENT TAKEN BY DEFAULT, MUCH LESS UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THIS RECORD DISCLOSES TO HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
DEFAULT.  YET HIS BASIC RIGHT TO ALL THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED HIM AS A
CITIZEN BY THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE STRIPPED FROM HIM, SO IT IS NOW
URGED, WITHOUT AN IOTA OF PROOF, WITHOUT HIS APPEARANCE OR PRESENCE IN
COURT, WITHOUT COUNSEL EMPLOYED OR ASSIGNED TO DEFEND THAT RIGHT, AND
INDEED WITH NO REAL OPPORTUNITY ON HIS PART TO PREPARE AND MAKE SUCH A
DEFENSE.  THE CASE THUS GOES FAR BEYOND THE COURT'S RULING IN KNAUER V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  AND, IN MY OPINION, IT BRINGS TO CLEARER FOCUS
WHETHER, BEYOND THE MATTER OF SATISFYING THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED
BY THE SCHNEIDERMAN AND BAUMGARTNER CASES, THE KNAUER CASE RIGHTLY
PERMITTED DENATURALIZATION THROUGH THE CIVIL PROCEDURES THERE PURSUED. 
FN3 

IF, IN DEFERENCE TO THE COURT'S RULINGS, WE ARE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS IN THIS COUNTRY, ONE SECURE IN THEIR STATUS AND
THE OTHER SUBJECT AT EVERY MOMENT TO ITS LOSS BY PROCEEDINGS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER CLASS, CF. SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, CONCURRING OPINION AT 167; KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
DISSENTING OPINION AT 678, I CANNOT ASSENT TO THE IDEA THAT THE
ORDINARY RULES OF PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CAUSES AFFORD ANY STANDARD
SUFFICIENT TO SAFEGUARD THE STATUS GIVEN TO NATURALIZED CITIZENS.  IF
CITIZENSHIP IS TO BE DEFEASIBLE FOR NATURALIZED CITIZENS, OTHER THAN BY
VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OR OTHER CAUSES APPLICABLE TO NATIVE-BORN
CITIZENS,  FN4  THE DEFEASANCE IT SEEMS TO ME SHOULD BE SURROUNDED BY
NO LESSER PROTECTIONS THAN THOSE SECURING ALL CITIZENS AGAINST
CONVICTION FOR CRIME.  REGARDLESS OF THE NAME GIVEN IT, THE
DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING WHEN IT IS SUCCESSFUL HAS ALL THE
CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS OF A PENAL OR CRIMINAL CONVICTION, EXCEPT THAT
THE ENSUING LIABILITY TO DEPORTATION IS A GREATER PENALTY THAN IS
GENERALLY INFLICTED FOR CRIME. 

REGARDING THE PROCEEDING IN THIS LIGHT, I DO NOT ASSENT IN PRINCIPLE
THAT THE JUDGMENT OF DENATURALIZATION CAN BE TAKEN BY DEFAULT OR THAT
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE APPLICABLE IN ORDINARY CIVIL CAUSES APPLY
TO PERMIT SUCH A RESULT. 

THE GROUNDS WHICH I HAVE STATED FOR THESE CONCLUSIONS LOGICALLY WOULD
LEAD TO CASTING MY VOTE TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS.  SINCE, HOWEVER, THAT DISPOSITION DOES NOT
RECEIVE THE CONCURRENCE OF A MAJORITY, I JOIN WITH THOSE WHO, ON OTHER
GROUNDS, THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A
NEW TRIAL, IN VOTING SO TO DISPOSE OF THE CAUSE.  ACCORDINGLY I CONCUR
IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT.  I MAY ADD THAT, UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE MAY APPLY IN DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS, I
AM SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORD WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE
BLACK. 

FN1  CF. NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 284; SCHNEIDERMAN V.
UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, 122, AND CONCURRING OPINION 165; KNAUER V.
UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654, DISSENTING OPINION 675. 

FN2  SEE SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 136, 153,
154, 158, 159.  AT PAGE 158 WE SAID:  "WE CONCLUDE THAT THE GOVERNMENT
HAS NOT CARRIED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING BY 'CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND
CONVINCING' EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT LEAVE 'THE ISSUE IN DOUBT,' THAT
PETITIONER OBTAINED HIS CITIZENSHIP ILLEGALLY."  THE CONCURRING OPINION
IN KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654, 674, WENT UPON THE BASIS OF
SATISFACTION "BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT" CONCERNING THE PROOF OF THE
GROUNDS ASSERTED FOR DENATURALIZATION. 

FN3  IN THE VIEW OF THOSE DISSENTING, AS WELL AS THAT OF THE MAJORITY
IN THE KNAUER CASE, THE GOVERNMENT HAD SATISFIED FULLY THE BURDEN OF
PROOF REQUIRED BY THE SCHNEIDERMAN AND BAUMGARTNER DECISIONS.  SEE 328
U.S. 654, 675. 

FN4  SEE KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654, DISSENTING OPINION
675, 676. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
JOIN, DISSENTING. 

IN MAY, 1942, THE UNITED STATES BEGAN PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, AGAINST KLAPPROTT
UNDER SEC. 338 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1137, 1158, 8
U.S.C. SEC. 738,  FN1  TO CANCEL HIS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION,
ISSUED IN 1933, ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD TAKEN A FALSE OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE TO PROCURE THE CERTIFICATE.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT AT
THE TIME HE TOOK THE OATH PETITIONER KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT ATTACHED TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND DID NOT
INTEND TO RENOUNCE HIS ALLEGIANCE TO THE GERMAN REICH; THAT PETITIONER
"IS AND HAS BEEN NOTORIOUSLY AND OPENLY ONE OF THE CHIEF LEADERS AND
ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND" AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
SYMPATHETIC TO THE GERMAN REICH; AND THAT HE HAD MADE "NUMEROUS
STATEMENTS INDICATING HIS ALLEGIANCE AND LOYALTY TO THE GERMAN REICH
AND HIS DISREGARD AND DISRESPECT FOR THE PRINCIPLES AND INSTITUTIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." 

PETITIONER WAS PERSONALLY SERVED WITH SUMMONS ON MAY 15, 1942. 
WITHOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY EVIDENCE, JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT WAS
ENTERED AGAINST HIM ON JULY 17, 1942, WHEN HE FAILED TO ANSWER WITHIN
THE SIXTY DAYS ALLOWED BY SEC. 338, SUPRA, NOTE 1. 

IN JANUARY, 1947, FOUR AND ONE-HALF YEARS LATER, KLAPPROTT PETITIONED
THE SAME DISTRICT COURT WHICH HAD ENTERED THE JUDGMENT OF
DENATURALIZATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THAT JUDGMENT SHOULD
NOT BE VACATED.  IN AN AFFIDAVIT APPENDED TO HIS PETITION, HE STATED,
AFTER ADMITTING RECEIPT OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, THAT IT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO ENTER A DEFENSE AND INTIMATED THAT HE WAS UNABLE
TO TAKE STEPS TO HAVE THE JUDGMENT VACATED PRIOR TO 1947.  THERE IS NO
ALLEGATION THAT HE WAS IGNORANT OF THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT FOR ANY
PERIOD OF TIME.  SEE RULES 5(A) AND 77(D) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  THE REASONS CONTAINED IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THIS
GENERAL STATEMENT CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:  PETITIONER, AS A
RESULT OF SERIOUS ILLNESS, WAS IN POOR HEALTH AND "UNABLE TO GET AROUND
VERY WELL" AT THE TIME SUMMONS WAS SERVED.  SINCE HE HAD NO MONEY WITH
WHICH TO RETAIN A LAWYER, HE DRAFTED A LETTER TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW YORK REQUESTING LEGAL ASSISTANCE.  ON JULY 7,
1942, SEVEN DAYS BEFORE TIME FOR FILING APPEARANCE EXPIRED, HE WAS
ARRESTED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ON AN INDICTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, CHARGING HIM WITH
A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.  THE LETTER WAS
TAKEN BY THESE AUTHORITIES, AND, SO FAR AS KLAPPROTT KNEW, NEVER
MAILED.  THE COURT APPOINTED A LAWYER TO DEFEND PETITIONER IN THE NEW
YORK CONSPIRACY CASE.  PETITIONER INFORMED HIM OF THE DENATURALIZATION
PROCEEDING, TO WHICH THE LAWYER PROMISED TO ATTEND, BUT WHICH HE
NEGLECTED, ALLOWING JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED BY DEFAULT.  BECAUSE OF THE
LENGTHY TRIAL AND EXCEEDINGLY HIGH BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONSPIRACY CHARGE, PETITIONER WAS STILL UNABLE TO TAKE STEPS TO HAVE
THE JUDGMENT VACATED.  HE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF THE CONSPIRACY  FN2  AND
COMMITTED TO THE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT MILAN, MICHIGAN. 
ON JANUARY 30, 1944, PURSUANT TO ANOTHER INDICTMENT - THE "SEDITION
CASE"  FN3  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA - HE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  HE REMAINED
IN CUSTODY THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE UNTIL NOVEMBER 21, 1946,
WHEN THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED.  PETITIONER WAS THEN RELEASED BUT
WAS IMMEDIATELY REMANDED TO CUSTODY AT ELLIS ISLAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEPORTATION.  FROM THERE HE BEGAN THIS ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE JUDGMENT OF
DENATURALIZATION VACATED. 

PETITIONER IN HIS AFFIDAVIT DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND ASSERTED THAT HE HAD A GOOD AND
LEGAL DEFENSE TO THE ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF HIS CERTIFICATE OF
NATURALIZATION. 

IF PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT, HE
MUST QUALIFY UNDER ONE OR MORE OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 60(B) OF THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  FN4  I DO NOT THINK THAT HIS
PETITION OR THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT THEREOF MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THAT RULE FOR VACATING A JUDGMENT. 

FIRST.  THE COURT ASSUMES, AS I THINK IT MUST, THAT SEC. 338 OF THE
NATIONALITY ACT AUTHORIZES DEFAULT JUDGMENTS OF DENATURALIZATION.  SO
MUCH IS CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS IN (B) OF THAT SECTION FOR NOTICE BY
PUBLICATION AND IN (C) FOR THE DENATURALIZATION OF ONE WHO HAS LEFT THE
UNITED STATES TO ESTABLISH A PERMANENT RESIDENCE ELSEWHERE.  THE ACTION
AUTHORIZED BY THE SECTION IS CIVIL.  FN5  THE GENERAL RULE IN CIVIL
ACTIONS IS THAT NOTICE PLACES ON THE PARTY TO WHOM IT IS DIRECTED THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO APPEAR AND DEFEND OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.  RULE 55
OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENTS
IN CIVIL ACTIONS WHERE THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM RELIEF IS SOUGHT FAILS TO
PLEAD.  THE INSTANCES ENUMERATED IN (B)(2) AND (E) OF THAT RULE, AS
THOSE WHERE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHALL NOT BE ENTERED, DO NOT INCLUDE
THIS CASE. 

THE COURT SUGGESTS UNDER CAPTION SECOND, HOWEVER, THAT THE
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IS A PREREQUISITE TO THE ENTRY OF SUCH A
JUDGMENT, AND THAT A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS VOID
AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VACATION WITHOUT A DEFINITE TIME LIMIT UNDER
(4) OF RULE 60(B).  IT POINTS OUT THAT SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES,
320 U.S. 118, HELD THAT "CLEAR AND CONVINCING" EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OF DENATURALIZATION.  THE HOLDING IN THAT CASE,
HOWEVER, MUST BE VIEWED IN ITS SETTING, I.E., A CONTESTED CASE.  THE
CASE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT ANY EVIDENCE, CLEAR AND
CONVINCING OR OTHERWISE, IS REQUIRED IN AN UNCONTESTED DENATURALIZATION
PROCEEDING.  THE GENERAL RULE IN CIVIL ACTIONS IS THAT NONE IS
NECESSARY.  EVEN THOUGH DEPORTATION IS A MOST SERIOUS DISASTER TO THE
DEPORTEE, IT IS FOUNDED HERE ON UNCONTESTED ALLEGATIONS OF ADEQUATE
FACTS THAT MUST BE TAKEN AS TRUE.  ALTHOUGH THE COMMITTEE WHICH
FORMULATED THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TWICE MADE A HEARING ON
EVIDENCE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE ENTRY OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, RULE
55(B)(2) AND (E), NO SUCH REQUIREMENT WAS EXPRESSED FOR CASES OF THIS
SORT.  EXCEPT FOR CASES OF THE SORT SPECIFIED IN (B)(2) AND (E), AND
THOSE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IS IN QUESTION, I THINK THE MEANING
OF THE RULE IS THAT A DEFAULT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ADMISSION OF
ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE WELL PLEADED. 

THE COURT SEEKS SUPPORT IN THE FACT THAT OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 738(E) AND 746, PROVIDE FOR
DENATURALIZATION WHEN THE ALIEN HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF
PROCURING HIS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION BY KNOWINGLY FALSE
STATEMENTS UNDER OATH.  THE PROTECTIONS WHICH SAFEGUARD THE ALIEN IN
SUCH A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ARE SOUGHT TO BE EXTENDED TO HIM IN CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 738.  TO ME THE VERY EXISTENCE IN THE ACT OF TWO
PARALLEL METHODS OF DENATURALIZATION INDICATE THAT THE PROTECTIONS
INHERENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING ARE NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE
CIVIL PROCEEDING SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE. 

SINCE NO EXPRESSION OF CONGRESS CAN BE FOUND, EITHER IN THE FEDERAL
RULES OR IN THE NATIONALITY ACT, TO THE EFFECT THAT EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY TO VALIDATE A CIVIL DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF DENATURALIZATION, I
DO NOT THINK IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO SUPPLY ONE. 

THE SUGGESTION OF THE COURT IN CAPTION FIFTH THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S
COMPLAINT DOES NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, SEEMS UNWARRANTED. 
CERTAINLY THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PLEAD ALL ITS EVIDENCE. 
SINCE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED FRAUD AND SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 6 THEREOF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTING FRAUD, SET OUT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF
THIS DISSENT, I THINK KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654, BELIES THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE COMPLAINT IS DEFECTIVE. 

THUS I DISSENT FROM THE SUGGESTION THAT THE JUDGMENT AGAINST
KLAPPROTT CAN BE VACATED AS VOID UNDER RULE 60(B)(4). 

SECOND.  THE COURT HOLDS THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER
(6), THE "OTHER REASON" CLAUSE OF RULE 60(B).  THIS FOLLOWS, IT IS
SAID, FROM HIS ALLEGATIONS THAT HE WAS HELD IN CUSTODY AND SUBJECTED TO
SEVERAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS BY THE UNITED STATES.  AS I SEE IT, SUCH
ALLEGATIONS ADD NOTHING TO THE SINGLE GROUND ON WHICH RELIEF COULD HAVE
BEEN BASED, I.E., "MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE, SURPRISE, OR EXCUSABLE
NEGLECT."  RULE 60(B)(1).  I DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT AN ARREST AND A
SUBSEQUENT PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT WHICH INTERFERED TO THE EXTENT OF
DEPRIVING HIM OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET LEGAL ASSISTANCE OR THE ABILITY
TO LITIGATE WOULD NOT ENTITLE HIM TO RELIEF.  IN VIEW OF THE FACTS SET
OUT IN PETITIONER'S OWN AFFIDAVIT, HOWEVER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW
IMPRISONMENT SUBJECTED HIM TO ANY INJUSTICE IN THIS CASE OR HOW IT
FURNISHES HIM WITH AN ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR RELIEF.  THUS PETITIONER
DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT HE REQUESTED THE RETURN TO HIM OR THE MAILING OF
HIS LETTER TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION.  HE DOES NOT, IN FACT
COULD NOT, CLAIM THAT IMPRISONMENT DEPRIVED HIM OF THE RIGHT TO
COUNSEL.  ON THE CONTRARY HE ADMITS THAT COUNSEL WAS MADE AVAILABLE IN
TIME TO ENTER AN APPEARANCE IN THE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, BUT
THAT COUNSEL NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DO SO.  PETITIONER'S ABILITY TO
LITIGATE DURING THIS PERIOD OF PURPORTEDLY DRASTIC CONFINEMENT IS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT IN 1945, AS STATED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, HE
BEGAN AND CONTINUED UNTIL ITS UNSUCCESSFUL TERMINATION A SUIT TO ENJOIN
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FROM DEPORTING HIM. 

SINCE THE FACTS ALLEGED AMOUNT TO A SHOWING OF MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE,
OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT ONLY, AND SINCE A DEFINITE TIME LIMIT OF ONE YEAR
IS IMPOSED ON RELIEF BASED ON THESE GROUNDS, THE RULE CANNOT BE SAID TO
CONTEMPLATE A REMEDY WITHOUT TIME LIMIT BASED ON THE SAME FACTS. 
OTHERWISE THE WORD "OTHER" IN CLAUSE (6) IS RENDERED MEANINGLESS.  FN6 

THE COURT INTIMATES THAT PETITIONER WAS WOEFULLY MISTREATED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  IF BY THIS IT IS MEANT THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT BASED ON "MISCONDUCT OF AN ADVERSE PARTY," RULE 60(B)(3), THE
ANSWER IS THAT RELIEF ON THIS GROUND IS LIMITED TO ONE YEAR FROM THE
JUDGMENT.  ON ANALYSIS, HOWEVER, THE SUGGESTION THAT PETITIONER'S
TRIALS HAVE BEEN CARRIED ON IN A WAY CONTRARY TO CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE AS
UNDERSTOOD IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN A MANNER INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
PATTERN OF AMERICAN JUSTICE FALLS FLAT IN VIEW OF THE SIMPLE FACTS. 
KLAPPROTT HAD COUNSEL AND OPEN HEARINGS.  THE COURTS HAVE CLEARED HIM
OF COMPLICITY IN A CONSPIRACY TO IMPEDE THE RAISING OF AN ARMY AND HAVE
DISMISSED A PROSECUTION FOR SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY.  TO BE CLEARED ON
THESE CHARGES CAN HAVE NO EFFECT UPON THE PROPRIETY OF HIS DEPORTATION
FOR VIOLATION OF OUR NATURALIZATION LAWS. 

THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY RULE 60(B) ARE EXPRESSIONS OF THE POLICY
OF FINALLY CONCLUDING LITIGATION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.  SUCH
TERMINATION OF LAWSUITS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  I WOULD NOT FRUSTRATE THE POLICY BY ALLOWING LITIGANTS TO
UPSET JUDGMENTS OF LONG STANDING ON ALLEGATIONS SUCH AS KLAPPROTT'S. 

FN1  "(A)  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UPON AFFIDAVIT SHOWING GOOD
CAUSE THEREFOR, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT SPECIFIED IN
SUBSECTION (A) OF SECTION 701 OF THIS TITLE IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN
WHICH THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN MAY RESIDE AT THE TIME OF BRINGING SUIT,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVOKING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ADMITTING SUCH
PERSON TO CITIZENSHIP AND CANCELING THE CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION
ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD OR ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ORDER AND CERTIFICATE
OF NATURALIZATION WERE ILLEGALLY PROCURED. 

"(B)  THE PARTY TO WHOM WAS GRANTED THE NATURALIZATION ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN FRAUDULENTLY OR ILLEGALLY PROCURED SHALL, IN ANY SUCH
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION, HAVE SIXTY DAYS'
PERSONAL NOTICE IN WHICH TO MAKE ANSWER TO THE PETITION OF THE UNITED
STATES; AND IF SUCH NATURALIZED PERSON BE ABSENT FROM THE UNITED STATES
OR FROM THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PERSON LAST HAD HIS
RESIDENCE, SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN BY PUBLICATION IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED FOR THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION OR UPON ABSENTEES BY
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR THE PLACE WHERE SUCH SUIT IS BROUGHT." 

FN2  CONVICTION SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED IN KEEGAN V. UNITED STATES, 325
U.S. 478. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. MCWILLIAMS, 82 U.S. APP. D.C. 259, 163 F.2D
695. 

FN4  RULE 60(B): 

"ON MOTION AND UPON SUCH TERMS AS ARE JUST, THE COURT MAY RELIEVE A
PARTY OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR
PROCEEDING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:  (1) MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE,
SURPRISE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT; (2) NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH BY
DUE DILIGENCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN TIME TO MOVE FOR A NEW
TRIAL UNDER RULE 59(B); (3) FRAUD (WHETHER HERETOFORE DENOMINATED
INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC), MISREPRESENTATION, OR OTHER MISCONDUCT OF AN
ADVERSE PARTY; (4) THE JUDGMENT IS VOID; (5) THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN
SATISFIED, RELEASED, OR DISCHARGED, OR A PRIOR JUDGMENT UPON WHICH IT
IS BASED HAS BEEN REVERSED OR OTHERWISE VACATED, OR IT IS NO LONGER
EQUITABLE THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION; OR (6)
ANY OTHER REASON JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT. 
THE MOTION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, AND FOR REASONS (1),
(2), AND (3) NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR
PROCEEDING WAS ENTERED OR TAKEN.  A MOTION UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION (B)
DOES NOT AFFECT THE FINALITY OF A JUDGMENT OR SUSPEND ITS OPERATION. 
THIS RULE DOES NOT LIMIT THE POWER OF A COURT TO ENTERTAIN AN
INDEPENDENT ACTION TO RELIEVE A PARTY FROM A JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR
PROCEEDING, OR TO GRANT RELIEF TO A DEFENDANT NOT ACTUALLY PERSONALLY
NOTIFIED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 57 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, U.S.C., TITLE
28, SEC. 118, OR TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD UPON THE COURT. 
WRITS OF CORAM NOBIS, CORAM VOBIS, AUDITA QUERELA, AND BILLS OF REVIEW
AND BILLS IN THE NATURE OF A BILL OF REVIEW, ARE ABOLISHED, AND THE
PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING ANY RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT SHALL BE BY MOTION
AS PRESCRIBED IN THESE RULES OR BY AN INDEPENDENT ACTION." 

FN5  A SUBSEQUENT SECTION, 54 STAT. 1163, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 746(A)(1) AND
(D), SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING FOR THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES OF FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT FOR THE UTTERANCE OF A FALSE OATH SUCH AS THIS, INDICATES
AN INTENTION THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 338 ARE NOT CRIMINAL. 

CF. KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654, 671; LURIA V. UNITED
STATES, 231 U.S. 9, 27-28; SOURINO V. UNITED STATES, 86 F.2D 309;
UNITED STATES V. WEZEL, 49 F.SUPP.  16, 17. 

FN6  CF. WALLACE V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 240, 244. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP OTHER THAN WHEN ACQUIRED BY BIRTH RESTS ON A
JUDICIAL JUDGMENT OF NATURALIZATION.  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S.
568.  CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY DEFINED THE PROCEDURES FOR ANNULLING SUCH
A JUDGMENT.  JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 227; LURIA V.
UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 9; SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 34
STAT. 596, 601, NOW FORMULATED IN 54 STAT. 1158, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 738. 
NEITHER IN ITS TERMS NOR ON A FAIR INTERPRETATION OF OUR NATURALIZATION
LAWS HAS CONGRESS INDICATED THAT SUCH A JUDGMENT - THE CERTIFICATE OF
NATURALIZATION - CANNOT BE ANNULLED BY DEFAULT, THAT IS, WITHOUT ACTIVE
CONTEST AGAINST SUCH ANNULMENT, PROVIDED THAT AMPLE OPPORTUNITY HAS IN
FACT BEEN AFFORDED TO A CITIZEN TO CONTEST.  THIS COURT IS NOT
JUSTIFIED IN ADDING A REQUIREMENT TO THE CANCELLATION PROCEEDINGS THAT
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO WITHHOLD UNLESS SOME PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION SO DEMANDS.  THE ONLY POSSIBLE PROVISION ON WHICH AN
ARGUMENT CAN BE BASED THAT CITIZENSHIP CANNOT BE CANCELED BY A DEFAULT
JUDGMENT IS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  I REJECT
THE SUGGESTION THAT IT OFFENDS DUE PROCESS FOR A JUDGMENT OF
NATURALIZATION OBTAINED BY FRAUD TO BE SET ASIDE IF THE DEFRAUDING
ALIEN IS AFFORDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM
THAT HE OBTAINED HIS CITIZENSHIP THROUGH FRAUD AND CHOOSES NOT TO AVAIL
HIMSELF OF THAT OPPORTUNITY BUT ALLOWS A JUDGMENT OF CANCELLATION TO GO
BY DEFAULT. 

BUT IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION THAT CITIZENSHIP CANNOT BE LOST BY A
DEFAULT JUDGMENT, ONE DOES NOT NECESSARILY EMBRACE THE OTHER EXTREME OF
ASSIMILATING A NATURALIZATION JUDGMENT TO ANY OTHER CIVIL JUDGMENT. 
THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT BECAUSE A NATURALIZATION JUDGMENT INVOLVES
INTERESTS OF A DIFFERENT ORDER FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN OTHER CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS, THE ANNULMENT OF SUCH A JUDGMENT IS GUIDED BY
CONSIDERATIONS QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE THAT GOVERN ANNULMENT
OF ORDINARY JUDGMENTS.  SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118;
BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 665.  THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT
SET A CONTESTED PROCEEDING FOR CANCELLING A NATURALIZATION JUDGMENT
APART FROM OTHER SUITS TO ANNUL A JUDGMENT, ARE EQUALLY RELEVANT TO A
DEFAULT JUDGMENT CAUSING SUCH CANCELLATION.  TO BE SURE, THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN PUTTING A FAIR END TO LITIGATION AND IN NOT ALLOWING PEOPLE
TO SLEEP ON THEIR RIGHTS HAS ITS RIGHTFUL CLAIM EVEN IN PROCEEDINGS
RESULTING IN DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP.  BUT BECAUSE CITIZENSHIP HAS
SUCH RAMIFYING SIGNIFICANCE IN THE FATE OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND OF THOSE
DEPENDENT UPON HIM, THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO BE SAFEGUARDED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WILL NOT BE NEGLECTED IF COURTS LOOK MORE
SHARPLY AND DEAL LESS SUMMARILY WHEN ASKED TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT
JUDGMENT FOR CANCELLATION OF CITIZENSHIP THAN IS REQUIRED OF THEM IN
SETTING ASIDE OTHER DEFAULT JUDGMENTS. 

IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT I WOULD
DISPOSE OF THE PRESENT CASE.  I DEEM IT GOVERNED BY THE LIBERALIZING
AMENDMENT TO RULE 60(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EVEN
THOUGH THAT BECAME EFFECTIVE AFTER THE DECISION BELOW.  IT IS OF COURSE
NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE THAT PROCEDURAL CHANGES ARE TO BE
PROSPECTIVELY APPLIED TO A PENDING LITIGATION AT ANY STAGE AT WHICH IT
MAY BE POSSIBLE TO DO SO WITHOUT WORKING AN INJUSTICE.  BUT SINCE
CITIZENSHIP IS AT STAKE AND THIS IS IN EFFECT AN APPEAL IN EQUITY TO BE
DEALT WITH AS OF THE TIME OF ADJUDICATION, IT SEEMS MORE CONSONANT WITH
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS TO JUDGE THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE RULE NOW
IN FORCE, EVEN THOUGH THE LOWER COURT DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
APPLY IT. 

IF THE PETITIONER HAD PAID NO ATTENTION TO THE PROCEEDING BROUGHT TO
REVOKE HIS CITIZENSHIP, HE WOULD, IN MY OPINION, HAVE NO GROUND FOR
OPENING UP THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE DURING ALL THE YEARS IN
QUESTION HE WAS INCARCERATED.  MEN CAN PRESS THEIR CLAIMS FROM BEHIND
PRISON WALLS, AS IS PROVED BY THE FACT THAT PERHAPS A THIRD OF THE
CASES FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT IN THIS COURT COME FROM
PENITENTIARIES.  BUT KLAPPROTT WAS NOT INDIFFERENT TO THE PROCEEDING TO
SET ASIDE HIS CITIZENSHIP.  HE TOOK ACTIVE MEASURES OF DEFENSE WHICH
WERE ABORTED THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN.  TO BE SURE, HE DID NOT
FOLLOW UP THESE EFFORTS, BUT WHAT HE IS SAYING IN THE MOTION MADE AFTER
HIS CRIMINAL CASES WERE ENDED IS IN SUBSTANCE THAT HE WAS SO
PREOCCUPIED WITH DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST THE DIRE CHARGES OF SEDITION
(THE CONVICTION FOR WHICH THIS COURT SET ASIDE IN KEEGAN V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 478) AND THE THREAT OF DEPORTATION, THAT THE NEW
JERSEY CANCELLATION PROCEEDING NATURALLY DROPPED FROM HIS MIND AFTER HE
HAD TAKEN WHAT HE THOUGHT APPROPRIATE STEPS FOR HIS PROTECTION.  THE
GOVERNMENT IN EFFECT DEMURRED TO THIS CONTENTION AND THE DISTRICT
COURT'S ACTION, AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, PRACTICALLY RULED AS
A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE CLAIM OF KLAPPROTT, EVEN IF TRUE, AFFORDS NO
RELIEF.  IT IS TO ME SIGNIFICANT THAT ONE OF THE TWO AFFIRMING JUDGES
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE LARGELY ON A CLOSE READING OF
THE OLD RULE 60(B) AND THAT THE OTHER RESTED HIS CASE ON LACHES, WHILE
THIS COURT FAILS TO DRAW ON LACHES FOR THE SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSION. 

RULE 60(B) NOW PROVIDES FIVE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT
JUDGMENTS AND A SIXTH CATCH-ALL GROUND, "ANY OTHER REASON JUSTIFYING
RELIEF FROM THE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT."  FN1  THE ONLY ONE OF THE
FIRST FIVE REASONS TO WHICH KLAPPROTT'S CONDUCT, AS EXPLICITLY
NARRATED, MAY PLAUSIBLY BE ASSIGNED IS THAT OF "EXCUSABLE NEGLECT,"
RELIEF FROM WHICH MUST BE OBTAINED WITHIN A YEAR AFTER A DEFAULT
JUDGMENT.  BUT I THINK THAT IF THE INFERENCES FAIRLY TO BE DRAWN FROM
THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED BY KLAPPROTT WERE FOUND TO BE TRUE, THEY
WOULD TAKE HIS CASE OUTSIDE OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF "NEGLECT,"
BECAUSE "NEGLECT" IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS SUBJECT MATTER CARRIES THE IDEA
OF NEGLIGENCE AND NOT MERELY OF NON-ACTION, AND WOULD CONSTITUTE A
DIFFERENT REASON "JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
JUDGMENT."  WHEN A CLAIM FOR CITIZENSHIP IS AT STAKE, WE OUGHT TO READ
A COMPLAINT WITH A LIBERALITY THAT IS THE ANTITHESIS OF BARON PARKE'S
"ALMOST SUPERSTITIOUS REVERENCE FOR THE DARK TECHNICALITIES OF SPECIAL
PLEADING."  SEE 15 DICT.  NAT.  BIOG. 226.  THEREFORE, WHAT FAIRLY
EMANATES FROM SUCH A COMPLAINT SHOULD BE TREATED AS THOUGH FORMALLY
ALLEGED.  AND SO I WOULD NOT DENY KLAPPROTT AN OPPORTUNITY, EVEN AT
THIS LATE STAGE, TO ESTABLISH AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL FACT WHAT HIS
ALLEGATIONS IMPLY, NAMELY THAT THE HARASSING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST HIM HAD SO PREOCCUPIED HIS MIND THAT HE WAS NOT GUILTY OF
NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO DO MORE THAN HE INITIALLY DID IN SEEKING TO
DEFEND THE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING.  BUT I WOULD NOT REGARD SUCH A
PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUE ESTABLISHED AS A FACT MERELY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT
IN EFFECT DEMURRED TO HIS COMPLAINT.  SINCE THE NATURE OF THE ULTIMATE
ISSUE - FORFEITURE OF CITIZENSHIP - IS NOT TO BE GOVERNED BY THE
ORDINARY RULES OF DEFAULT JUDGMENTS, NEITHER SHOULD THE CLAIM OF A
STATE OF MIND BE TAKEN AS PROVED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT, FEELING
ITSELF JUSTIFIED IN RESTING ON A PURELY LEGAL DEFENSE, DID NOT DENY THE
EXISTENCE OF THAT STATE OF MIND. 

TO RULE OUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT WOULD BE TO MAKE ITS DENIAL A RULE OF
LAW.  IT WOULD NOT TAKE MUCH OF THE TRIAL COURT'S TIME TO ALLOW
KLAPPROTT TO ESTABLISH THEM IF HE CAN.  THE TIME WOULD BE WELL SPENT
EVEN IF HE SHOULD FAIL TO DO SO; IT WOULD BE MORE CONSONANT WITH THE
SAFEGUARDS WHICH THIS COURT HAS PROPERLY THROWN AROUND THE WITHDRAWAL
OF CITIZENSHIP THAN IS THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION THAT WAS MADE.  BUT I
WOULD REQUIRE KLAPPROTT TO SATISFY THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT WHAT HE
IMPLIEDLY ALLEGES IS TRUE, AND IT IS HERE THAT I PART COMPANY WITH THE
MAJORITY. 

FN1  "RULE 60.  RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER. 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"(B)  MISTAKES; INADVERTENCE; EXCUSABLE NEGLECT; NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE; FRAUD, ETC.  ON MOTION AND UPON SUCH TERMS AS ARE JUST, THE
COURT MAY RELIEVE A PARTY OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM A FINAL
JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:  (1) MISTAKE,
INADVERTENCE, SURPRISE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT; (2) NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE WHICH BY DUE DILIGENCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN TIME
TO MOVE FOR A NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 59(B); (3) FRAUD (WHETHER HERETOFORE
DENOMINATED INTRINSIC OR EXTRINSIC), MISREPRESENTATION, OR OTHER
MISCONDUCT OF AN ADVERSE PARTY; (4) THE JUDGMENT IS VOID; (5) THE
JUDGMENT HAS BEEN SATISFIED, RELEASED, OR DISCHARGED, OR A PRIOR
JUDGMENT UPON WHICH IT IS BASED HAS BEEN REVERSED OR OTHERWISE VACATED,
OR IT IS NO LONGER EQUITABLE THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE PROSPECTIVE
APPLICATION; OR (6) ANY OTHER REASON JUSTIFYING RELIEF FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT.  THE MOTION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME, AND FOR REASONS (1), (2), AND (3) NOT MORE THAN ONE
YEAR AFTER THE JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING WAS ENTERED OR TAKEN. 
..." 
..END :



COMM'R V. ESTATE OF CHURCH, 335 U.S. 632 


NO. 5.  ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 1947.  - REARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1948.  -
DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1949.  - 161 F.2D 11, REVERSED. 


1.  IN 1924 DECEDENT, THEN 21 YEARS OLD, UNMARRIED, AND CHILDLESS,
MADE A TRANSFER IN TRUST IN NEW YORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW,
NAMING HIMSELF AND TWO OF HIS BROTHERS AS CO-TRUSTEES.  CERTAIN
CORPORATE STOCKS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE TRUSTEES, WHO WERE EMPOWERED
TO HOLD AND SELL THEM AND TO REINVEST THE PROCEEDS.  DECEDENT RESERVED
NO POWER TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE, BUT REQUIRED THE TRUSTEES TO PAY
TO HIM THE INCOME FOR LIFE.  THE TRUST WAS TO TERMINATE AT DECEDENT'S
DEATH, WHICH OCCURRED IN 1939.  SOME PROVISION WAS MADE FOR
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRUST ASSETS AT DECEDENT'S DEATH, BUT NO PROVISION
WAS MADE FOR DISTRIBUTION IF DECEDENT DIED WITHOUT ISSUE AND NONE OF
HIS BROTHERS OR SISTERS, OR THEIR CHILDREN, SURVIVED HIM.  HELD:  THE
DECEDENT HAVING RESERVED THE INCOME FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY FOR LIFE,
THE TRANSFER WAS ONE "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 811(C) OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AND THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST WAS
PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF DECEDENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  PP. 633-651. 

2.  A TRUST TRANSACTION CANNOT BE HELD TO ALIENATE ALL OF A SETTLOR'S
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" UNDER SEC. 811(C) UNLESS IT EFFECTS A BONA
FIDE TRANSFER IN WHICH THE SETTLOR, ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY,
IRREVOCABLY, AND WITHOUT POSSIBLE RESERVATIONS, PARTS WITH ALL OF HIS
TITLE AND ALL OF HIS POSSESSION AND ALL OF HIS ENJOYMENT OF THE
TRANSFERRED PROPERTY.  AFTER SUCH A TRANSFER HAS BEEN MADE, THE SETTLOR
MUST BE LEFT WITH NO PRESENT LEGAL TITLE IN THE PROPERTY, NO POSSIBLE
REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THAT TITLE, AND NO RIGHT TO POSSESS OR TO
ENJOY THE PROPERTY THEN OR THERAFTER.  P. 645. 

3.  HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, REAFFIRMED; MAY V. HEINER,
281 U.S. 238, HELD NO LONGER CONTROLLING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" PROVISION OF SEC. 811(C).  PP. 636-646. 

4.  REAFFIRMANCE OF MAY V. HEINER IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF
STARE DECISIS, NOR BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, NOR BY THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN HASSETT V. WELCH AND HELVERING V. MARSHALL,
303 U.S. 303.  PP. 646-651. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. ESTATE OF CHURCH. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST IN QUESTION
WAS INCLUDIBLE IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE AS A TRANSFER INTENDED TO
TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER DECEDENT'S DEATH. 
THE TAX COURT OVERRULED THAT DETERMINATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  161 F.2D 11.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 803. 
REVERSED, P. 651. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT PART
OF SEC 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE WHICH FOR ESTATE TAX
PURPOSES REQUIRES INCLUDING IN A DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE THE VALUE OF
ALL THE PROPERTY THE DECEDENT HAD TRANSFERRED BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE
BEFORE HIS DEATH WHICH WAS "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH  ...  ."  ESTATE OF SPIEGEL V.
COMMISSIONER, POST, P. 701, INVOLVES QUESTIONS WHICH ALSO DEPEND UPON
INTERPRETATION OF THAT PROVISION OF SEC. 811(C).  AFTER ARGUMENT AND
CONSIDERATION OF THE CASES AT THE OCTOBER 1947 TERM, AN ORDER WAS
ENTERED RESTORING THEM TO THE DOCKET AND REQUESTING COUNSEL UPON
REARGUMENT PARTICULARLY TO DISCUSS CERTAIN QUESTIONS BROADER IN SCOPE
THAN THOSE ORIGINALLY PRESENTED AND ARGUED.  JOURNAL SUPREME COURT,
JUNE 21, 1948, 296-298.  THOSE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS HAVE NOW BEEN FULLY
TREATED IN BRIEFS AND ORAL ARGUMENTS. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES A TRUST EXECUTED IN 1924 BY FRANCOIS CHURCH, THEN
TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE, UNMARRIED AND CHILDLESS.  HE EXECUTED THE
TRUST IN NEW YORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.  CHURCH AND TWO
BROTHERS WERE NAMED CO-TRUSTEES.  CERTAIN CORPORATE STOCKS WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE TRUST WITH GRANT OF POWER TO THE TRUSTEES TO HOLD
AND SELL THE STOCKS AND TO REINVEST THE PROCEEDS.  CHURCH RESERVED NO
POWER TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE, BUT REQUIRED THE TRUSTEES TO PAY HIM
THE INCOME FOR LIFE.  THIS RESERVATION OF LIFE INCOME IS THE DECISIVE
FACTOR HERE. 

AT CHURCH'S DEATH (WHICH OCCURRED IN 1939) THE TRUST WAS TO TERMINATE
AND THE TRUST AGREEMENT CONTAINED SOME DIRECTIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF
THE TRUST ASSETS WHEN HE DIED.  THESE DIRECTIONS AS TO FINAL
DISTRIBUTION DID NOT, HOWEVER, PROVIDE FOR ALL POSSIBLE CONTINGENCIES. 
IF CHURCH DIED WITHOUT CHILDREN AND WITHOUT ANY OF HIS BROTHERS OR
SISTERS, OR THEIR CHILDREN, SURVIVING HIM, THE TRUST INSTRUMENT MADE NO
PROVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF THE TRUST ASSETS.  HAD THIS UNLIKELY
POSSIBILITY COME TO PASS (AT HIS DEATH THERE WERE LIVING, FIVE
BROTHERS, ONE SISTER, AND TEN OF THEIR CHILDREN) THE DISTRIBUTION OF
THE TRUST ASSETS WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTROLLED BY NEW YORK LAW.  IT HAS
BEEN THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW HAD THERE BEEN
NO SUCH SURVIVING TRUST BENEFICIARIES THE CORPUS WOULD HAVE REVERTED TO
THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE.  THIS POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER PLUS THE RETENTION
BY THE SETTLOR OF THE TRUST INCOME FOR LIFE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS ARGUED,
REQUIRES INCLUSION OF THE VALUE OF THE TRUST PROPERTY IN THE DECEDENT'S
GROSS ESTATE UNDER OUR HOLDING IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106. 

THE HALLOCK CASE HELD THAT WHERE A PERSON WHILE LIVING MAKES A
TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WHICH PROVIDES FOR A REVERSION OF THE CORPUS TO
THE DONOR UPON A CONTINGENCY TERMINABLE AT DEATH, THE VALUE OF THE
CORPUS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE UNDER THE
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" PROVISION OF SEC. 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  FN1  IN THIS CASE, THE TAX COURT, RELYING UPON ITS
FORMER HOLDINGS  FN2  DECLARED THAT "THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER
BY OPERATION OF LAW UPON A FAILURE OF THE TRUST, DUE TO THE DEATH OF
ALL THE REMAINDERMEN PRIOR TO THE DEATH OF DECEDENT, IS NOT SUCH A
POSSIBILITY AS TO COME WITHIN THE HALLOCK CASE."  THIS HOLDING MADE IT
UNNECESSARY FOR THE TAX COURT TO DECIDE THE DISPUTED QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER NEW YORK LAW OPERATED TO CREATE SUCH A REVERSIONARY INTEREST. 
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT IT COULD NOT IDENTIFY A CLEAR
CUT MISTAKE OF LAW IN THE TAX COURT'S DECISION.  161 F.2D 11.  THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN THE SPIEGEL
CASE FOUND THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER
AND REVERSED THE TAX COURT, HOLDING THAT POSSIBLE REVERSION BY
OPERATION OF LAW REQUIRED INCLUSION OF A TRUST CORPUS IN A DECEDENT'S
ESTATE.  COMMISSIONER V. SPIEGEL'S ESTATE, 159 F.2D 257.  OTHER UNITED
STATES COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE HELD THE SAME.  FN3  BECAUSE OF THIS
CONFLICT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS AND THE SPIEGEL CASE. 

COUNSEL FOR THE TWO ESTATES HAVE STRONGLY CONTENDED IN BOTH ARGUMENTS
OF THESE CASES THAT THE LAW OF NEITHER NEW YORK NOR ILLINOIS PROVIDES
FOR A POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED.  THEY
ARGUE FURTHER THAT EVEN IF UNDER THE LAW OF THOSE STATES A POSSIBILITY
OF REVERTER DID EXIST, IT WOULD BE AN UNJUSTIFIABLE EXTENSION OF THE
HALLOCK RULE TO HOLD THAT SUCH A POSSIBILITY REQUIRES INCLUSION OF THE
VALUE OF A TRUST CORPUS IN A DECEDENT'S ESTATE.  THE RESPONDENT IN THIS
CASE POINTED OUT THE EXTREME IMPROBABILITY THAT THE DECEDENT WOULD HAVE
OUTLIVED ALL HIS BROTHERS, HIS SISTER, AND THEIR TEN CHILDREN.  HE
ARGUES THAT THE HAPPENING OF SUCH A CONTINGENCY WAS SO REMOTE, THE
MONEY VALUE OF SUCH A REVERSIONARY INTEREST WAS SO INFINITESIMAL, THAT
IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY UNREASONABLE TO HOLD THAT THE HALLOCK RULE
REQUIRES AN ESTATE TAX BECAUSE OF SUCH A CONTINGENCY.  BUT SEE FIDELITY
PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S. 108, 112. 

ARGUMENTS AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS AND THE SPIEGEL CASE BROUGHT
PROMINENTLY INTO FOCUS SHARP DIVISIONS AMONG COURTS, JUDGES AND LEGAL
COMMENTATORS, AS TO THE INTENDED SCOPE AND EFFECT OF OUR HALLOCK
DECISION, PARTICULARLY WHETHER OUR HOLDING AND OPINION IN THAT CASE ARE
SO INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE HOLDING AND OPINION IN MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S.
238, THAT THE LATTER CAN NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED AS A CONTROLLING
INTERPRETATION OF THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" PROVISION OF SEC.
811(C).  FN4  MAY V. HEINER HELD THAT THE CORPUS OF A TRUST TRANSFER
NEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN A SETTLOR'S ESTATE, EVEN THOUGH THE SETTLOR HAD
RETAINED FOR HIMSELF A LIFE INCOME FROM THE CORPUS.  WE HAVE CONCLUDED
THAT CONFUSION AND DOUBT AS TO THE EFFECT OF OUR HALLOCK CASE ON MAY V.
HEINER SHOULD BE SET AT REST IN THE INTEREST OF SOUND TAX AND JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.  FURTHERMORE, IF MAY V. HEINER IS NO LONGER
CONTROLLING, THE VALUE OF THE CHURCH TRUST CORPUS WAS PROPERLY INCLUDED
IN THE GROSS ESTATE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE MUCH DISCUSSED STATE LAW
QUESTION, SINCE CHURCH RESERVED A LIFE ESTATE FOR HIMSELF.  FOR REASONS
WHICH FOLLOW, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE HALLOCK AND MAY V. HEINER HOLDINGS
AND OPINIONS ARE IRRECONCILABLE.  SINCE WE ADHERE TO HALLOCK, THE MAY
V. HEINER INTERPRETATION OF THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 811(C) CAN NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT. 

THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" PROVISION APPEARING IN SEC. 811(C) SEEMS
TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN A PENNSYLVANIA INHERITANCE TAX LAW IN 1826.  FN5
AS EARLY AS 1884 THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELD THAT WHERE A
LEGAL TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WAS MADE WHICH CARRIED WITH IT A RIGHT OF
POSSESSION WITH A RESERVATION BY THE GRANTOR OF INCOME AND PROFITS FROM
THE PROPERTY FOR HIS LIFE, THE TRANSFER WAS NOT INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT
IN ENJOYMENT UNTIL THE GRANTOR'S DEATH:  "ONE CERTAINLY CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED, AS IN THE ACTUAL ENJOYMENT OF AN ESTATE, WHO HAS NO RIGHT
TO THE PROFITS OR INCOMES ARISING OR ACCRUING THEREFROM."  REISH, ADM'R
V. COMMONWEALTH, 106 PA. 521, 526.  THAT COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" CLAUSE DID NOT INVOLVE A MERE TECHNICAL
QUESTION OF TITLE, BUT THAT THE LAW IMPOSED THE DEATH TAX UNLESS ONE
HAD PARTED DURING HIS LIFE WITH HIS POSSESSION AND HIS TITLE AND HIS
ENJOYMENT.  IT WAS FURTHER HELD IN THAT CASE THAT THE TEST OF
"INTENDED" WAS NOT A SUBJECTIVE ONE, THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT WHAT THE
PARTIES INTENDED TO DO, BUT WHAT THE TRANSACTION ACTUALLY EFFECTED AS
TO TITLE, POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT. 

MOST OF THE STATES HAVE INCLUDED THE PENNSYLVANIA-ORIGINATED
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" CLAUSE IN DEATH TAX STATUTES, AND WITH WHAT
APPEARS TO BE COMPLETE UNANIMITY, THEY HAVE UP TO THIS DAY, DESPITE MAY
V. HEINER, SUBSTANTIALLY AGREED WITH THIS 1884 PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME
COURT INTERPRETATION.  FN6 CONGRESS USED THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT"
CLAUSE IN DEATH TAX LEGISLATION IN 1862, 1864, AND 1898.  12 STAT. 432,
485; 13 STAT. 223, 285; 30 STAT. 448, 464.  IN REFERRING TO THE
PROVISION IN THE 1898 ACT, THIS COURT SAID THAT IT MADE "THE LIABILITY
FOR TAXATION DEPEND, NOT UPON THE MERE VESTING IN A TECHNICAL SENSE OF
TITLE TO THE GIFT, BUT UPON THE ACTUAL POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
THEREOF."  VANDERBILT V. EIDMAN, 196 U.S. 480, 493.  AND FIVE YEARS
BEFORE THE 1916 ESTATE TAX STATUTE INCORPORATED THE "POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT" CLAUSE TO FRUSTRATE ESTATE TAX EVASIONS, 39 STAT. 756, 780,
THIS COURT HAD AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
SUSTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ITS STATE INHERITANCE TAX IN AN
OPINION WHICH SAID: "IT IS TRUE THAT AN INGENIOUS MIND MAY DEVISE OTHER
MEANS OF AVOIDING AN INHERITANCE TAX, BUT THE ONE COMMONLY USED IS A
TRANSFER WITH RESERVATION OF A LIFE ESTATE."  MATTER OF KEENEY, 194
N.Y. 281, 287, 87 N.E. 428, 429; KEENEY V. NEW YORK, 222 U.S. 525.  AND
SEE HELVERING V. BULLARD, 303 U.S. 297, 302, WHERE THE FOREGOING
QUOTATION WAS REPEATED WITH SEEMING APPROVAL. 

FROM THE FIRST ESTATE TAX LAW IN 1916 UNTIL MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA, WAS
DECIDED IN 1930, TRUST TRANSFERS WHICH WERE DESIGNED TO DISTRIBUTE THE
CORPUS AT THE SETTLOR'S DEATH AND WHICH RESERVED A LIFE INCOME TO THE
SETTLOR HAD ALWAYS BEEN TREATED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT AS TRANSFERS
"INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT  ...  HIS
DEATH."  THE REGULATIONS HAD SO PROVIDED AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAD
BEEN COLLECTED FROM TAXPAYERS ON THIS BASIS.  SEE E.G., T.D. 2910, 21
TREAS. DEC. 771(1919); AND SEE 74 CONG. REC. 7078, 7198-7199(MARCH 3,
1931).  THIS PRINCIPLE OF ESTATE TAX LAW WAS SO WELL SETTLED IN 1928,
THAT THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED MAY V. HEINER IN FAVOR
OF THE GOVERNMENT IN A ONE-SENTENCE PER CURIAM OPINION.  32 F.2D 1017. 
NEVERTHELESS, MARCH 2, 1931, THIS COURT FOLLOWED MAY V. HEINER IN THREE
CASES IN PER CURIAM OPINIONS, THUS UPSETTING THE CENTURY-OLD HISTORIC
MEANING AND THE LONG STANDING TREASURY INTERPRETATION OF THE
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" CLAUSE.  BURNET V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 283
U.S. 782; MORSMAN V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783; MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283
U.S. 784. 

MARCH 3, 1931, THE NEXT DAY AFTER THE THREE PER CURIAM OPINIONS WERE
RENDERED, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OGDEN MILLS WROTE A LETTER
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE EXPLAINING THE HOLDINGS IN MAY V. HEINER
AND THE THREE CASES DECIDED THE DAY BEFORE.  HE POINTED OUT THE
DISASTROUS EFFECTS THEY WOULD HAVE ON THE ESTATE TAX LAW AND URGED THAT
CONGRESS "IN ORDER TO PREVENT TAX EVASION," IMMEDIATELY "CORRECT THIS
SITUATION" BROUGHT ABOUT BY MAY V. HEINER AND THE OTHER CASES.  74
CONG. REC. 7198, 7199(1931).  HE EXPRESSED FEAR THAT WITHOUT SUCH
ACTION THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SUFFER "A LOSS IN EXCESS OF ONE-THIRD OF
THE REVENUE DERIVED FROM THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, WITH ANTICIPATED
REFUNDS OF IN EXCESS OF $25,000,000."  THE SECRETARY'S SURPRISE AT THE
DECISIONS AND HIS APPREHENSIONS AS TO THEIR TAX EVASION CONSEQUENCES
WERE REPEATED ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE.  74 CONG. REC.
SUPRA.  SENATOR SMOOT, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, SAID
ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT THIS JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
STATUTE "CAME ALMOST LIKE A BOMBSHELL, BECAUSE NOBODY EVER ANTICIPATED
SUCH A DECISION."  74 CONG. REC. 7078.  BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS
UNANIMOUSLY PASSED AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE REQUESTED RESOLUTION
THAT SAME DAY.  FN7 

FEBRUARY 28, 1938, THIS COURT HELD THAT NEITHER PASSAGE OF THE
RESOLUTION NOR ITS LATER INCLUSION IN THE 1932 REVENUE ACT WAS INTENDED
TO APPLY TO TRUSTS CREATED BEFORE ITS PASSAGE.  HASSETT V. WELCH,
HELVERING V. MARSHALL, 303 U.S. 303.  ACCORDINGLY, IF THE CORPUS OF THE
CHURCH TRUST EXECUTED IN 1924 IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SETTLOR'S ESTATE
WITHOUT THIS COURT'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE INTRICACIES OF STATE PROPERTY
LAW, IT MUST BE DONE BY VIRTUE OF THE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT SECTION
AS IT STOOD WITHOUT THE LANGUAGE ADDED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION. 

CRUCIAL TO THE COURT'S HOLDING IN MAY V. HEINER WAS ITS FINDING THAT
NO INTEREST IN THE CORPUS PASSED AT THE SETTLOR'S DEATH BECAUSE LEGAL
TITLE HAD PASSED FROM THE SETTLOR IRREVOCABLY WHEN THE TRUST WAS
EXECUTED; FOR THIS REASON THE GRANTOR'S RESERVATION OF THE TRUST INCOME
FOR HIS LIFE FN8  - ONE OF THE CHIEF BUNDLE-OF-OWNERSHIP INTEREST - WAS
HELD NOT TO BRING THE TRANSFER WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF TRANSFERS
"INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN  ...  ENJOYMENT AT  ...  HIS DEATH."  THIS
COURT HAD NEVER BEFORE SO LIMITED THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT SECTION. 
FN9  THUS WAS FORMAL LEGAL TITLE RATHER THAN THE SUBSTANCE OF A
TRANSACTION MADE THE SOLE TEST OF TAXABILITY UNDER SEC. 811(C).  FOR
FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE GRANTOR THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OF THIS
TRANSACTION WAS HIS CONTINUED ENJOYMENT AND RETENTION OF THE INCOME
UNTIL HIS DEATH; THE IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCE TO THE REMAINDERMEN WAS THE
POSTPONEMENT OF THEIR RIGHT TO THIS ENJOYMENT OF THE INCOME UNTIL THE
GRANTOR'S DEATH.    THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THIS
ESTATE TAX SECTION WAS TO PERMIT A PERSON TO RELIEVE HIS ESTATE FROM
THE TAX BY CONVEYING ITS LEGAL TITLE TO TRUSTEES WHOM HE SELECTED, WITH
AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY MANAGE THE ESTATE DURING HIS LIFE, PAY TO HIM
ALL INCOME AND PROFITS FROM THE PROPERTY DURING HIS LIFE, AND DELIVER
IT TO HIS CHOSEN BENEFICIARIES AT DEATH.  PREPARATION OF PAPERS TO
DEFEAT AN ESTATE TAX THUS BECAME AN EASY CHORE FOR ONE SKILLED IN THE
"VARIOUS NICETIES OF THE ART OF CONVEYANCING."  KLEIN V. UNITED STATES,
283 U.S. 231, 234.  AND BY THIS SIMPLE METHOD ONE COULD, DESPITE THE
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" CLAUSE, RETAIN AND ENJOY ALL THE FRUITS OF
HIS PROPERTY DURING LIFE AND DIRECT ITS DISTRIBUTION AT DEATH, FREE
FROM TAXES THAT OTHERS LESS SKILLED IN TAX TECHNIQUE WOULD HAVE TO
PAY.  REGARDLESS OF THESE FACTS MAY V. HEINER HELD THAT SUCH AN
INSTRUMENT PRESERVING THE BENEFICIAL USE OF ONE'S PROPERTY DURING LIFE
AND PROVIDING FOR ITS DISTRIBUTION AND DELIVERY AT DEATH WAS "NOT
TESTAMENTARY IN CHARACTER."  MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA AT 243.  CF. KEENEY
V. NEW YORK, SUPRA AT 535, 536. 

ONE YEAR AFTER MAY V. HEINER, THIS COURT DECIDED KLEIN V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  THERE THE GRANTOR MADE A DEED CONVEYING PROPERTY TO HIS
WIFE FOR HER LIFE WITH PROVISIONS THAT IF SHE SURVIVED HIM SHE SHOULD
"BY VIRTUE OF THIS CONVEYANCE TAKE, HAVE, AND HOLD THE SAID LANDS IN
FEE SIMPLE," BUT THE FEE WAS TO "REMAIN VESTED IN" HIM SHOULD HIS WIFE
DIE FIRST.  THIS COURT POINTED OUT THAT IN GENERAL AND UNDER THE LAW OF
ILLINOIS WHERE THE DEED WAS MADE, VESTING OF TITLE IN THE GRANTEE
"DEPENDED UPON THE CONDITION PRECEDENT THAT THE DEATH OF THE GRANTOR
HAPPEN BEFORE THAT OF THE GRANTEE."  THUS, SINCE IT WAS FOUND THAT
UNDER ILLINOIS LAW LEGAL TITLE TO THE LAND HAD BEEN RETAINED BY THE
HUSBAND, IT WAS HELD THAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN
HIS GROSS ESTATE UNDER THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" SECTION.  THE
COURT DID NOT CITE MAY V. HEINER. 

IN 1935, THIS COURT DECIDED HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., 296
U.S. 39, AND BECKER V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 48.  IN EACH OF
THESE CASES THE COURT AGAIN, AS IN MAY V. HEINER, DELVED INTO THE
QUESTION OF LEGAL TITLE UNDER RATHER SUBTLE PROPERTY LAW CONCEPTS AND
DECIDED THAT THE LEGAL TITLE OF THE TRUST PROPERTIES THERE, UNLIKE THE
SITUATION IN THE KLEIN TRANSFER, HAD PASSED IRREVOCABLY FROM THE
GRANTOR.  THIS PASSAGE OF BARE LEGAL TITLE WAS HELD TO BE ENOUGH TO
RENDER THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT SECTION INAPPLICABLE.  THESE CASES
WERE EXPRESSLY OVERRULED BY HELVERING V. HALLOCK. 

HELVERING V. HALLOCK WAS DECIDED IN 1940.  THREE SEPARATE TRUSTS WERE
CONSIDERED IN THE HALLOCK CASE.  THESE THREE TRUSTS AS THOSE CONSIDERED
IN THE ST. LOUIS TRUST AND BECKER CASES, HAD BEEN EXECUTED WITH
PROVISIONS FOR REVERSION OF THE TRUST PROPERTIES TO THE GRANTORS SHOULD
THE GRANTORS OUTLIVE THE BENEFICIARIES.  THE TRUSTS HAD BEEN EXECUTED
IN 1917, 1919, AND 1925.  IN THE HALLOCK CASE THIS COURT WAS AGAIN
ASKED TO LIMIT THE EFFECT OF SEC. 811(C) BY EMPHASIS UPON THE FORMAL
PASSAGE OF LEGAL TITLE.  BY SUCH CONCENTRATION ON ELUSIVE LEGAL TITLE,
THE COURT WAS INVITED TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE PLAIN FACT THAT COMPLETE
ENJOYMENT HAD BEEN POSTPONED.  WE DECLINED TO LIMIT THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT PROVISION OF SEC. 811(C) BY ATTEMPTING
TO DEFINE THE NATURE OF THE INTEREST WHICH THE DECEDENT RETAINED AFTER
HIS INTER VIVOS TRANSFER.  WE CALLED ATTENTION TO THE SNARES WHICH
INEVITABLY AWAIT AN ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT ESTATE TAX LIABILITY ON THE
"NICETIES OF THE ART OF CONVEYANCING" AT P. 117.  WE DECLARED THAT THE
STATUTE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION "TAXES NOT MERELY THOSE INTERESTS WHICH
ARE DEEMED TO PASS AT DEATH ACCORDING TO REFINED TECHNICALITIES OF THE
LAW OF PROPERTY.  IT ALSO TAXES INTER VIVOS TRANSFERS THAT ARE TOO MUCH
AKIN TO TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME
EXCISE," P. 112, AND INTER VIVOS GIFTS "RESORTED TO, AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR A WILL, IN MAKING DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY OPERATIVE AT DEATH," P.
114. 

AS POINTED OUT BY THE DISSENT IN HALLOCK, WE THERE DIRECTLY AND
UNEQUIVOCALLY REJECTED THE ONLY SUPPORT THAT COULD POSSIBLY SUFFICE FOR
THE HOLDINGS IN MAY V. HEINER.  THAT SUPPORT WAS THE COURT'S CONCLUSION
IN MAY V. HEINER THAT RETENTION OF POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF HIS
PROPERTY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO REQUIRE INCLUSION OF ITS VALUE IN THE GROSS
ESTATE IF A TRUST GRANTOR HAD SUCCEEDED IN PASSING BARE LEGAL TITLE OUT
OF HIMSELF BEFORE DEATH.  IN HALLOCK WE EMPHASIZED OUR REMOVAL OF THAT
SUPPORT BY DECLARING THAT SEC. 811(C) "DEALS WITH PROPERTY NOT
TECHNICALLY PASSING AT DEATH BUT WITH INTERESTS THERETOFORE CREATED. 
THE TAXABLE EVENT IS A TRANSFER INTER VIVOS.  BUT THE MEASURE OF THE
TAX IS THE VALUE OF THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY AT THE TIME WHEN DEATH
BRINGS IT INTO ENJOYMENT," PP. 110-111. 

MOREOVER, THE HALLOCK CASE, P. 114, STANDS PLAINLY FOR THE PRINCIPLE
THAT "IN DETERMINING WHETHER A TAXABLE TRANSFER BECOMES COMPLETE ONLY
AT DEATH WE LOOK TO SUBSTANCE, NOT TO FORM  ... HOWEVER WE LABEL THE
DEVICE (IF) IT IS BUT A MEANS BY WHICH THE GIFT IS RENDERED INCOMPLETE
UNTIL THE DONOR'S DEATH" THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" PROVISION
APPLIES. 

HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO CALL THIS TRUST TRANSFER "COMPLETE" EXCEPT BY
INVOKING A FICTION?  CHURCH WAS SOLE OWNER OF THE STOCKS BEFORE THE
TRANSFER.  PROBABLY THEIR GREATEST PROPERTY VALUE TO CHURCH WAS HIS
CONTINUING RIGHT TO GET THEIR INCOME.  AFTER LEGAL TITLE TO THE STOCKS
WAS TRANSFERRED, SOMEBODY STILL OWNED A PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE STOCK
INCOME.  THAT PROPERTY RIGHT DID NOT PASS TO THE TRUST BENEFICIARIES
WHEN THE TRUST WAS EXECUTED; IT REMAINED IN CHURCH UNTIL HE DIED.  HE
MADE NO "COMPLETE" GIFT EFFECTIVE BEFORE THAT DATE, UNLESS WE VIEW THE
TRUST TRANSFER AS A "COMPLETE" GIFT TO THE TRUSTEES.  BUT CHURCH GAVE
THE TRUSTEES NOTHING, EITHER PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY.  HE TRANSFERRED
NO RIGHT TO THEM TO GET AND SPEND THE STOCK INCOME.  AND UNDER THE
TEACHING OF THE HALLOCK CASE, QUITE IN CONTRAST TO THAT OF MAY V.
HEINER, PASSAGE OF THE MERE TECHNICAL LEGAL TITLE TO A TRUSTEE IS NOT
NECESSARILY CRUCIAL IN DETERMINING WHETHER AND WHEN A GIFT BECOMES
"COMPLETE" FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  LOOKING TO SUBSTANCE AND NOT
MERELY TO FORM, AS WE MUST UNLESS WE DEPART FROM THE TEACHING OF
HALLOCK, THE INESCAPABLE FACT IS THAT CHURCH RETAINED FOR HIMSELF UNTIL
DEATH A MOST VALUABLE PROPERTY RIGHT IN THESE STOCKS - THE RIGHT TO GET
AND TO SPEND THEIR INCOME.  THUS CHURCH DID FAR MORE THAN ATTACH A
"STRING" TO A REMOTELY POSSIBLE REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY,
A SUFFICIENT RESERVATION UNDER THE HALLOCK RULE TO MAKE THE VALUE OF
THE CORPUS SUBJECT TO AN ESTATE TAX.  CHURCH DID NOT EVEN RISK
ATTACHING AN UNBREAKABLE CABLE TO THE MOST VALUABLE PROPERTY ATTRIBUTE
OF THE STOCKS, THEIR INCOME.  HE SIMPLY RETAINED THIS VALUABLE
PROPERTY, THE RIGHT TO THE INCOME, FOR HIMSELF UNTIL DEATH, WHEN FOR
THE FIRST TIME THE STOCK WITH ALL ITS PROPERTY ATTRIBUTES "PASSED" FROM
CHURCH TO THE TRUST BENEFICIARIES.  EVEN IF THE INTEREST OF CHURCH WAS
MERELY "OBLITERATED," IN MAY V. HEINER LANGUAGE, IT IS BEYOND ALL DOUBT
THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH HIS DEATH, CHURCH NO LONGER OWNED THE RIGHT TO
THE INCOME; THE BENEFICIARIES DID.  IT HAD THEN "PASSED."  IT NEVER HAD
BEFORE.  FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE GIFT HAD BECOME "COMPLETE." 

THUS, WHAT WE SAID IN HALLOCK WAS NOT ONLY A REPUDIATION OF THE
REASONING WHICH WAS ADVANCED TO SUPPORT THE TWO CASES (ST. LOUIS TRUST
AND BECKER) THAT HALLOCK OVERRULED, BUT ALSO A COMPLETE REJECTION OF
THE RATIONALE OF MAY V. HEINER ON WHICH THE TWO FORMER CASES HAD
RELIED.  HALLOCK THEREBY RETURNED TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" SECTION UNDER WHICH AN ESTATE TAX CANNOT BE
AVOIDED BY ANY TRUST TRANSFER EXCEPT BY A BONA FIDE TRANSFER IN WHICH
THE SETTLOR, ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, IRREVOCABLY, AND WITHOUT
POSSIBLE RESERVATIONS, PARTS WITH ALL OF HIS TITLE AND ALL OF HIS
POSSESSION AND ALL OF HIS ENJOYMENT OF THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY.  AFTER
SUCH A TRANSFER HAS BEEN MADE, THE SETTLOR MUST BE LEFT WITH NO PRESENT
LEGAL TITLE IN THE PROPERTY, NO POSSIBLE REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THAT
TITLE, AND NO RIGHT TO POSSESS OR TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY THEN OR
THEREAFTER.  IN OTHER WORDS SUCH A TRANSFER MUST BE IMMEDIATE AND OUT
AND OUT, AND MUST BE UNAFFECTED BY WHETHER THE GRANTOR LIVES OR DIES. 
SEE SHUKERT V. ALLEN, 273 U.S. 545, 547; SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY, 318 U.S.
176.  WE DECLARED THIS TO BE THE EFFECT OF THE HALLOCK CASE IN
GOLDSTONE V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 687, 690, 691.  THERE WE SAID WITH
REFERENCE TO SEC. 811(C) IN CONNECTION WITH OUR HALLOCK RULING:  "...
IT THUS SWEEPS INTO THE GROSS ESTATE ALL PROPERTY THE ULTIMATE
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF WHICH IS HELD IN SUSPENSE UNTIL THE MOMENT
OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH OR THEREAFTER.  ...  TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS
OF AN INTER VIVOS NATURE CANNOT ESCAPE THE FORCE OF THIS SECTION BY
HIDING BEHIND LEGAL NICETIES CONTAINED IN DEVICES AND FORMS CREATED BY
CONVEYANCERS."  AND SEE FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES,
SUPRA, AND COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF FIELD, 324 U.S. 113. 

IT IS STRONGLY URGED THAT WE CONTINUE TO REGARD MAY V. HEINER AS
CONTROLLING AND LEAVE ITS FINAL REPUDIATION TO CONGRESS.  LITTLE EFFORT
IS MADE TO DEFEND THE MAY V. HEINER INTERPRETATION OF "POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT" ON THE GROUND THAT IT TRULY REFLECTS THE CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE, NOR DO WE THINK IT POSSIBLE TO ATTRIBUTE SUCH A PURPOSE TO
CONGRESS.  THERE IS NO PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT, IF ANY AT ALL, THAT TRUSTS
RESERVING LIFE ESTATES WITH REMAINDERS OVER AT GRANTORS' DEATHS ARE NOT
SATISFACTORY AND EFFECTIVE SUBSTITUTES FOR WILLS.  IN FACT, THE PURPOSE
OF THIS SETTLOR AS EXPRESSED IN HIS TRUST PAPERS WAS TO MAKE "PROVISION
FOR ANY LAWFUL ISSUE" HE MIGHT "LEAVE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH AS WELL
AS PROVIDE AN INCOME FOR HIMSELF FOR LIFE."  THIS PAPER, LABELED A
TRUST, BUT PROVIDING FOR ALL THE SUBSTANTIAL PURPOSES OF A WILL, WAS
INTENDED TO AND DID POSTPONE UNTIL THE SETTLOR'S DEATH THE RIGHT OF HIS
RELATIVES TO POSSESS AND ENJOY HIS PROPERTY.  THERE MAY BE TRUST
INSTRUMENTS THAT FALL MORE CLEARLY WITHIN THE CLASS INTENDED TO BE
TREATED AS SUBSTITUTES FOR WILLS BY THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT"
CLAUSE, BUT WE DOUBT IT. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR CONTINUING THE ERROR OF MAY V. HEINER IS NOT ON THE
MERITS BUT IS ADVANCED IN THE ALLEGED INTEREST OF TAX STABILITY AND
CERTAINTY, STARE DECISIS AND A DUE DEFERENCE TO THE JUST EXPECTATIONS
OF THOSE WHO HAVE RELIED ON THE MAY V. HEINER DOCTRINE.  SPECIAL STRESS
IS LAID ON TREASURY REGULATIONS WHICH SINCE THE HASSETT V. WELCH
HOLDING IN 1938 HAVE ACCEPTED THE MAY V. HEINER DOCTRINE AND HAVE NOT
PROVIDED THAT THE VALUE OF A TRUST CORPUS MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE WHERE A GRANTOR HAD RESERVED THE TRUST INCOME. 
IT IS EVEN ARGUED THAT CONGRESS IN SOME WAY RATIFIED THE MAY V. HEINER
DOCTRINE WHEN IT PASSED THE JOINT RESOLUTION AND THAT IF NOT, THE
DECISION IN THE HASSETT AND MARSHALL CASES SET AT REST ALL QUESTIONS AS
TO THE SOUNDNESS OF THE MAY V. HEINER INTERPRETATION.  WE FIND NO MERIT
IN THESE CONTENTIONS. 

WHAT WAS SAID IN THE HALLOCK OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF STARE DECISIS
WOULD APPEAR TO BE A SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO THAT CONTENTION HERE.  THE
HALLOCK OPINION ALSO ANSWERS THE ARGUMENT AS TO RECENT TREASURY
REGULATIONS, ALL OF WHICH WERE MADE BY THE TREASURY UNDER COMPULSION OF
THIS COURT'S CASES.  FURTHERMORE, THE HISTORY OF THE STRUGGLE OF THE
TREASURY TO SUBJECT SUCH TRANSFERS AS THIS TO THE ESTATE TAX LAW, A
HISTORY SHOWN IN PART IN THE HASSETT V. WELCH OPINION, HAS SERVED TO
SPOTLIGHT THE ABIDING CONVICTION OF THE TREASURY THAT THE MAY V. HEINER
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE REJECTED.  IN VIEW OF THE STRUGGLE
OF THE TREASURY IN THIS TAX FIELD, THE VARIANT JUDICIAL AND TAX COURT
OPINIONS, OUR OPINION IN THE HALLOCK CASE AND OTHERS WHICH FOLLOWED, IT
IS NOT EASY TO BELIEVE THAT TAXPAYERS WHO EXECUTED TRUSTS PRIOR TO THE
1931 JOINT RESOLUTION FELT SECURE IN A BELIEF THAT MAY V. HEINER GAVE
THEM A VESTED INTEREST IN PROTECTION FROM ESTATE TAXES UNDER TRUST
TRANSFERS SUCH AS THIS ONE.  AND SO FAR AS THIS TRUST IS CONCERNED,
TREASURY REGULATIONS REQUIRED THE VALUE OF ITS CORPUS TO BE INCLUDED IN
THE GROSS ESTATE WHEN IT WAS MADE IN 1924, AND MOST OF THE PERIOD FROM
THEN UP TO THE SETTLOR'S DEATH IN 1939. 

MOREOVER, THE MAY V. HEINER DOCTRINE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED BY THE
CONGRESS AND REPEATEDLY CHALLENGED BY THE TREASURY.  IT CERTAINLY IS
NOT AN OVERSTATEMENT TO SAY THAT THIS COURT'S HALLOCK OPINION AND
HOLDING TREATED MAY V. HEINER WITH SCANT RESPECT.  WE SAID CONGRESS HAD
"DISPLACED" THE MAY V. HEINER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 811(C); IN
OVERRULING THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES WE POINTED OUT THAT THOSE CASES
HAD RELIED IN PART ON THE "CONGRESSIONALLY DISCARDED MAY V. HEINER
DOCTRINE"; WE THOUGHT CONGRESS "HAD IN PRINCIPLE ALREADY REJECTED THE
GENERAL ATTITUDE UNDERLYING" THE MAY V. HEINER AND ST. LOUIS TRUST
CASES; AND FINALLY OUR HALLOCK OPINION DEMOLISHED THE ONLY REASONING
EVER ADVANCED TO SUPPORT THE MAY V. HEINER HOLDING.  AND IN THE HALLOCK
CASE, TRUSTS CREATED IN 1917, 1919, AND 1925 WERE HELD SUBJECT TO THE
ESTATE TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN SEC. 811(C).  WHAT WE SAID
AND DID ABOUT MAY V. HEINER IN THE HALLOCK CASE TOOK PLACE IN 1940, TWO
YEARS AFTER HASSETT V. WELCH HAD HELD THAT THE 1931 AND 1932 AMENDMENTS
COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO TRUSTS CREATED BEFORE 1931.  CERTAINLY, MAY V.
HEINER CANNOT BE GRANTED THE SANCTUARY OF STARE DECISIS ON THE GROUND
THAT IT HAS HAD A LONG AND TRANQUIL HISTORY FREE FROM TROUBLES AND
CHALLENGES.    NOR DOES THE JOINT RESOLUTION OR THE OPINION IN THE
HASSETT V. WELCH AND HELVERING V. MARSHALL CASES, DECIDED TOGETHER,
SUPPORT AN ARGUMENT THAT THE MAY V. HEINER DOCTRINE BE LEFT
UNDISTURBED.  IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT CONGRESS IN 1931
INTENDED TO ACCEPT AND RATIFY DECISIONS THAT HIT THE CONGRESS LIKE A
"BOMBSHELL."  FN10  AND IN HASSETT V. WELCH THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ASK
THIS COURT TO REEXAMINE OR OVERRULE MAY V. HEINER OR THE THREE PER
CURIAM CASES THAT RELIED ON MAY V. HEINER.  IN FACT, THE GOVERNMENT
BRIEF ARGUED THAT MAY V. HEINER ON ITS FACTS WAS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM
HASSETT V. WELCH.  THE GOVERNMENT BRIEF ALSO POINTEDLY INSISTED THAT
ITS POSITION IN HASSETT V. WELCH DID "NOT REQUIRE A REEXAMINATION OF
THE THREE PER CURIAM DECISIONS OF MARCH 2, 1931."  IT WAS THE
GOVERNMENT'S SOLE CONTENTION IN THE HASSETT AND MARSHALL CASES THAT THE
1932 REENACTMENT OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION WAS NOT LIMITED IN APPLICATION
TO TRUSTS THEREAFTER CREATED, BUT WAS INTENDED TO MAKE THE NEW 1932
AMENDMENT APPLICABLE TO PAST TRUST AGREEMENTS.  THAT CONTENTION WAS
REJECTED.  THE HOLDING WAS LIMITED TO THAT SINGLE QUESTION. 

THE PLAIN IMPLICATIONS OF THE HALLOCK OPINION RECOGNIZE THAT THE
HASSETT AND MARSHALL CASES DID NOT REAFFIRM THE MAY V. HEINER
DOCTRINE.  IN THE MARSHALL CASE THE TRUST, CREATED IN 1920, CONTAINED A
PROVISION THAT SHOULD THE SETTLOR OUTLIVE THE TRUST BENEFICIARY, THE
TRUST CORPUS WOULD REVERT TO THE SETTLOR.  THAT IS THE VERY TYPE OF
PROVISION WHICH WE HELD IN HALLOCK WOULD REQUIRE INCLUSION OF ITS VALUE
IN THE SETTLOR'S ESTATE.  SINCE THE HALLOCK CASE DID NOT OVERRULE THE
MARSHALL CASE INVOLVING A TRUST CREATED IN 1920, IT MUST HAVE ACCEPTED
THE MARSHALL AND HASSETT CASES AS DECIDING NO MORE THAN THAT THE VALUE
OF THE TRUST PROPERTIES THERE COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S
GROSS ESTATE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT'S SOLE RELIANCE WAS ON A RETROACTIVE
APPLICATION OF THE 1931 AND 1932 AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTATE TAX LAW. 

THAT THE HALLOCK OPINION DID NOT TREAT THE HASSETT AND MARSHALL CASES
AS HAVING REAFFIRMED THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE PRE-1931
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT CLAUSE IS FURTHER EMPHASIZED BY THE EFFECT OF
THE HALLOCK CASE ON THE TYPE OF TRUST IN MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S.
784, A TRUST CREATED BEFORE 1931.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
IN THAT CASE HAD HELD THAT THE TRUST PROPERTY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
DECEDENT'S ESTATE CHIEFLY BECAUSE OF THE TRUST PROVISION THAT THE
CORPUS SHOULD REVERT TO THE SETTLOR IN THE EVENT THAT SHE OUTLIVED HER
THREE CHILDREN.  43 F.2D 277.  THIS COURT IN ITS PER CURIAM OPINION
REVERSED THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HELD THAT THE MCCORMICK CORPUS NEED
NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE.  OUR HALLOCK CASE HELD
DIRECTLY THE CONTRARY, FOR SINCE HALLOCK, THE MCCORMICK CORPUS WOULD
HAVE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE PRE-1931 LANGUAGE OF SEC. 811(C).  IN SO
INTERPRETING THE PRE-1931 LANGUAGE IN THE HALLOCK CASE, WE NECESSARILY
REJECTED THE CONTENTION MADE THERE THAT THE CONGRESS BY PASSAGE OF THE
RESOLUTION AND THIS COURT BY THE HASSETT AND MARSHALL OPINIONS HAD
ACCEPTED AS CORRECT THE MAY V. HEINER RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. 811(C).  IT IS PLAIN THAT THIS COURT IN THE HALLOCK CASE
CONSIDERED THAT THE HASSETT AND MARSHALL CASES HELD NO MORE THAN THAT
THE 1931 AND 1932 AMENDMENTS WERE PROSPECTIVE, AND THAT NEITHER THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION NOR THE HASSETT AND MARSHALL CASES WERE
DESIGNED TO GIVE NEW LIFE AND VIGOR TO THE MAY V. HEINER DOCTRINE. 
FN11 

THE RELIANCE OF RESPONDENT HERE ON THE HASSETT AND MARSHALL CASES IS
MISPLACED.  WE HOLD THAT THIS TRUST AGREEMENT, BECAUSE IT RESERVED A
LIFE INCOME IN THE TRUST PROPERTY, WAS INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT THE SETTLOR'S DEATH AND THAT THE
COMMISSIONER THEREFORE PROPERLY INCLUDED THE VALUE OF ITS CORPUS IN THE
ESTATE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE HALLOCK CASE CONSIDERED THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT"
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 811(C) WHICH APPEARED IN SEC. 302(C) OF THE 1926
REVENUE ACT, 44 STAT. 9, 70, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 803(A) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 279, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 811(C). 

FN2  ESTATE OF CASS, 3 T.C. 562; COMMISSIONER V. KELLOGG, 119 F.2D
54, AFFIRMING 40 B.T.A. 916; ESTATE OF DOWNE, 2 T.C. 967; ESTATE OF
HOUGHTON, 2 T.C. 871; ESTATE OF GOODYEAR, 2 T.C. 885; ESTATE OF DELANY,
1 T.C. 781. 

FN3  COMMISSIONER V. BAYNE'S ESTATE, 155 F.2D 475; COMMISSIONER V.
BANK OF CALIFORNIA, 155 F.2D 1; THOMAS V. GRAHAM, 158 F.2D 561; BEACH
V. BUSEY, 156 F.2D 496. 

FN4  CF. ESTATE OF HUGHES, 44 B.T.A. 1196, WITH ESTATE OF BRADLEY, 1
T.C. 518, AFFIRMED SUB NOM. HELVERING V. WASHINGTON TRUST CO., 140 F.2D
87.  SEE NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 100 CT. CL. 311, 51
F.SUPP.  733.  CF. MONTGOMERY, FEDERAL TAXES - ESTATES, TRUSTS AND
GIFTS, 461-462, 480-482(1946) WITH PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT
TAXATION, 1946 SUPP. SECS. 7.15, 7.23.  SEE ALSO NOTE, INTER VIVOS
TRANSFERS AND THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, 49 YALE L.J. 1118(1940);
EISENSTEIN, ESTATE TAXES AND THE HIGHER LEARNING OF THE SUPREME COURT,
3 TAX L. REV. 395(1948). 

FN5  NOTE, ORIGIN OF THE PHRASE, "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER ...  DEATH" (SEC. 811(C), INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE), 56 YALE L.J. 176(1946). 

FN6  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 49 A.L.R. 878-892; 67 A.L.R. 1250-1254;
100 A.L.R. 1246-1254.  SEE ALSO ROTTSCHAEFER, TAXATION OF TRANSFERS
TAKING EFFECT IN POSSESSION AT GRANTOR'S DEATH, 26 IOWA L. REV.
514(1941); OLIVER, PROPERTY RATIONALISM AND TAX PRAGMATISM, 20 TEX. L.
REV. 675, 704-709(1942). 

FN7  "(C)  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE
DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, IN
CONTEMPLATION OF OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH, INCLUDING A TRANSFER UNDER WHICH THE TRANSFEROR
HAS RETAINED FOR HIS LIFE OR ANY PERIOD NOT ENDING BEFORE HIS DEATH (1)
THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF, OR THE INCOME FROM, THE PROPERTY OR (2)
THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE THE PERSONS WHO SHALL POSSESS OR ENJOY THE
PROPERTY OR THE INCOME THEREFROM ...  ."  THE ITALICS ARE ADDED TO
INDICATE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 302(C) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, 46 STAT. 1516
1517. 

FN8  THE MAY V. HEINER TRUST PROVIDED FOR THE INCOME TO GO TO BARNEY
MAY DURING HIS LIFETIME, AFTER HIS DEATH TO HIS WIFE, PAULINE MAY, THE
GRANTOR, AND UPON HER DEATH THE CORPUS WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE
GRANTOR'S FOUR CHILDREN.  THE COURT SAID THAT THE RECORD FAILED CLEARLY
TO DISCLOSE WHETHER MRS. MAY SURVIVED HER HUSBAND, BUT HELD THIS WAS OF
NO SPECIAL IMPORTANCE. 

FN9 THE COURT ALSO QUOTED FROM AND RELIED HEAVILY ON REINECKE V.
NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339, 345.  THIS COURT THERE HELD THAT THE
CORPUS OF TWO TRUSTS THAT RESERVED A LIFE INCOME TO THE GRANTOR PLUS A
POWER TO REVOKE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE. 
THE CORPUS OF FIVE OTHER TRUSTS WERE HELD NOT INCLUDABLE.  THESE FIVE
TRUSTS DID NOT RESERVE A POWER IN THE GRANTOR ALONE TO REVOKE, NOR DID
THEY RESERVE A LIFE ESTATE TO THE GRANTOR, BUT THEY PROVIDED FOR
ACCUMULATION OF THAT INCOME DURING THE SETTLOR'S LIFE, AND AT HIS DEATH
IT WAS TO GO TO THE BENEFICIARIES, SUBJECT TO PRIOR USE BY THE
BENEFICIARIES AS DIRECTED BY THE SETTLOR.  THUS, THIS CASE DID NOT
DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE MAY V. HEINER HOLDING.  NOR IS MAY V. HEINER
SUPPORTED BY SHUKERT V. ALLEN, 273 U.S. 545, AS SHOWN BY REFERENCE TO
SHUKERT V. ALLEN IN THE REINECKE OPINION AT P. 347. 

FN10  A MAY 22, 1931, BULLETIN OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT INDICATES A
STRONG REASON FOR THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE
RESOLUTION AS INAPPLICABLE TO PRE-1931 TRUST TRANSFERS.  T.D. 4314, X
1, CUM. BULL.  450-451(1931).  THAT REASON WAS OBVIOUSLY A FEAR THAT
THIS COURT MIGHT HOLD THAT THE TAX COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
APPLIED TO TRUSTS PREVIOUSLY CREATED UNDER THE NICHOLS V. COOLIDGE, 274
U.S. 531, LINE OF CASES.  THIS SAME APPREHENSION MAY WELL HAVE BEEN THE
UNDERLYING REASON FOR A STATEMENT, RELIED ON BY THE DISSENT, MADE ON
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE THAT THE RESOLUTION WAS NOT MADE "RETROACTIVE
FOR THE REASON THAT WE WERE AFRAID THAT THE SENATE WOULD NOT AGREE TO
IT."  74 CONG. REC. 7199(1931).  RECENT CASES HAVE INDICATED THAT THE
FEAR OF SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IS NOT A VALID ONE. 
CENTRAL HANOVER BANK V. KELLY, 319 U.S. 94, 97-98; FERNANDEZ V. WIENER,
326 U.S. 340, 355. 

FN11  A DISSENT FILED IN THIS CASE HAS AN APPENDIX CITING "DECISIONS
DURING THE PAST DECADE IN WHICH LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WAS DECISIVE OF
CONSTRUCTION OF A PARTICULAR STATUTORY PROVISION," POST, P. 687.  MANY
OTHER DECISIONS OF LESS RECENT DATE COULD ALSO BE CITED TO ESTABLISH
THIS WELL-KNOWN FACT WHICH NOBODY DISPUTES.  BUT WE THINK HERE, IN THE
LANGUAGE OF OUR OPINION IN THE HALLOCK CASE, WHICH OPINION WAS WRITTEN
BY THE AUTHOR OF TODAY'S DISSENT, THAT THE ACTIONS OF CONGRESS RELIED
ON IN THE DISSENT HAVE NOT "UNDER ANY RATIONAL CANONS OF LEGISLATIVE
SIGNIFICANCE  ... IMPLIEDLY ENACTED INTO LAW A PARTICULAR DECISION
WHICH, IN THE LIGHT OF LATER EXPERIENCE, IS SEEN TO CREATE CONFUSION
AND CONFLICT IN THE APPLICATION OF A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNAL
REVENUE LEGISLATION."  HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 121, NOTE
7.  THE BASIC "SETTLED PRINCIPLE" NOW AS WHEN HALLOCK WAS WRITTEN IS
THAT WHERE A TRUST AGREEMENT RESERVES THE SETTLOR'S POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT OF PART OF ALL OF THE TRUST PROPERTY UNTIL DEATH, THE VALUE
OF THE TRUST SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE SETTLOR'S GROSS ESTATE. 

THE ARGUMENTS IN DISSENT HERE BASED ON STARE DICISIS, LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, AND POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS COURT'S HOLDING, ARE
STRIKINGLY LIKE THE FORCEFUL ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE HALLOCK DISSENT. 
BUT THE PERSUASIVE AND SOUND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE COURT'S
SPOKESMAN IN HALLOCK WERE THERE CONSIDERED BY THE MAJORITY OF THIS
COURT TO BE A SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO WHAT WAS SAID IN THE HALLOCK
DISSENT.  PARTICULARLY FORCEFUL WAS THIS COURT'S STATEMENT IN THE
HALLOCK OPINION THAT "WE WALK ON QUICKSAND WHEN WE TRY TO FIND IN THE
ABSENCE OF CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION A CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLE." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING IN NO. 3, SPIEGEL V. COMMISSIONER, POST,
P. 701, AND DISSENTING IN NO. 5, COMMISSIONER V. CHURCH, ANTE, P. 632. 

AS THESE TAX DECISIONS MAY HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS
BEYOND THE LIMITED AREA OF THE ISSUES DECIDED, I HAVE THOUGHT IT
ADVISABLE TO STATE MY POSITION FOR WHATEVER LIGHT IT MAY THROW.  I
AGREE WITH THE JUDGMENT DIRECTED BY THE COURT IN SPIEGEL V.
COMMISSIONER AND WITH SO MUCH OF THE OPINION AS RESTS SOLELY UPON THE
CONTROLLING EFFECT OF THE POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER UNDER THE LAW OF
ILLINOIS.  AS I DISAGREE WITH CHURCH V. COMMISSIONER, DECIDED TODAY, I
CANNOT ACCEPT SO MUCH OF THE OPINION IN THE SPIEGEL CASE, P. 705, AS
SEEMS TO PUT RELIANCE UPON THE FACT THAT THE SETTLOR AS TRUSTEE RETAINS
ANY "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" OF THE TRUST, OTHER THAN A POSSIBILITY OF
REVERTER.  I AM OPPOSED TO THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN THE DISSENT WRITTEN BY
MR. JUSTICE BURTON THAT THE SETTLOR'S INTENT RATHER THAN THE EFFECT OF
HIS ACTS IS THE TOUCHSTONE TO DETERMINE THE TAXABILITY OF HIS PROPERTY
FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES. 

SO FAR AS COMMISSIONER V. CHURCH IS CONCERNED, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 283, SHOULD BE OVERRULED.  THE JOINT RESOLUTION
OF MARCH 3, 1931, THEREFORE, STANDS AS THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR IN
REACHING A CONCLUSION AS TO THE TAXABILITY OF THE CHURCH ESTATE. 
HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303, DECIDED THAT THE RESOLUTION WAS NOT
RETROACTIVE.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE CHURCH ESTATE IS NOT SUBJECT TO AN
ESTATE TAX BECAUSE OF THE RESERVATION OF A LIFE ESTATE. 

WE ARE ASKED TO ACCEPT AN OVERRULING OF MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA, AND
ALSO, I THINK, OF REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339, NOT TO
MENTION THE INCIDENTAL FALL OF HASSETT V. WELCH, SUPRA, ON THE ONE
SIDE, OR, ON THE OTHER HAND, TO LIMIT THE RULE AS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF
REVERTER IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, AND THE NUMEROUS CASES
THAT FOLLOW ITS TEACHING, TO REVERTERS EXPRESSLY RESERVED IN THE
DOCUMENTS.  LEGISLATION INDICATES A PURPOSE TO PROMOTE GIFTS AS A
DESIRABLE MEANS FOR EARLY DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY BENEFITS.  IN
RELIANCE UPON A LONG-SETTLED COURSE OF LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION, DONORS HAVE MADE PROPERTY ARRANGEMENTS THAT SHOULD NOT
NOW BE UPSET SUMMARILY WITH NO STRONGER REASONS FOR DOING SO THAN THAT
FORMER COURTS AND THE CONGRESS DID NOT INTERPRET THE LEGISLATION IN THE
SAME WAY AS THIS COURT NOW DOES.  JUDICIAL EFFORTS TO MOLD TAX POLICY
BY ISOLATED DECISIONS MAKE A NATIONAL TAX SYSTEM DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP,
ADMINISTER OR OBSERVE.  FOR MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS CONGRESS HAS
LEGISLATED UPON THIS PROBLEM AND THIS COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE
ENACTMENTS SO THAT NOW WHAT SEEMS TO ME A REASONABLY FAIR
INTERPRETATION OF TAX LIABILITY UNDER SEC. 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, AS NOW WRITTEN, HAS BEEN WORKED OUT.  RELYING UPON THE
DESIRABILITY OF STARE DECISIS UNDER THE DECISIONS CONCERNING SEC.
811(C), I WOULD LEAVE SUCH CHANGES AS MAY SEEM DESIRABLE TO THE
CONGRESS, WHERE GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR THAT PURPOSE RESTS. 

(1)  A PROVISION INCLUDING IN A DECEDENT'S ESTATE THE VALUE AT TIME
OF DEATH OF INTEREST IN ANY TRANSFER BY TRUST "IN CONTEMPLATION OF OR
INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS
DEATH" HAS BEEN IN THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX LAW SINCE THE INCOME TAX ACT
OF 1916.  FN1  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE PHRASE RELATING TO A TRANSFER
"IN CONTEMPLATION OF OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS (SETTLOR'S) DEATH" HAS NOT CHANGED.  IT WAS
CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT, AT FIRST, TO APPLY TO THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE SOMETHING PASSED FROM THE "POSSESSION, ENJOYMENT OR CONTROL OF
THE DONOR AT HIS DEATH."  REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339,
348.  "OF COURSE IT WAS NOT ARGUED THAT EVERY VESTED INTEREST THAT
MANIFESTLY WOULD TAKE EFFECT IN ACTUAL ENJOYMENT AFTER THE GRANTOR'S
DEATH WAS WITHIN THE STATUTE."  SHUKERT V. ALLEN, 273 U.S. 545, 547. 
WHEN, AFTER THE EXECUTION OF A TRUST, THE SETTLOR "HELD NO RIGHT IN THE
TRUST ESTATE WHICH IN ANY SENSE WAS THE SUBJECT OF TESTAMENTARY
DISPOSITION," THIS COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE GIFT WAS NOT
INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT THE DONOR'S
DEATH.  HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS UNION TR. CO., 296 U.S. 39, 43;
HELVERING V. CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 85, 88; BURNET V.
NORTHERN TRUST CO., 283 U.S. 782; MORSMAN V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783;
MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 784; MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238.  A
RESERVED POWER OF APPOINTMENT OR CHANGE IS, IN A SENSE, A TESTAMENTARY
POWER OVER THE CORPUS.  REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., SUPRA, AT 345;
PORTER V. COMMISSIONER, 288 U.S. 436. 

KLEIN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 231, BROUGHT DOUBT INTO THE ABOVE
CONCEPTION OF THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE IN QUESTION.  THAT TRUST WAS TO
A FOR LIFE AND ON CONDITION THAT A SURVIVE THE DONOR TO A IN FEE
SIMPLE.  IT WAS THE DEATH OF THE DONOR THAT "BROUGHT THE LARGER ESTATE
INTO BEING  ... AND EFFECTED ITS TRANSMISSION FROM THE DEAD TO THE
LIVING," THIS COURT SAID IN UPHOLDING THE TAX ON THE TRUST PROPERTY. 
THIS WAS CONSTRUED BY FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COURT TO MEAN THAT THE
DONOR'S DEATH "OPERATING UPON HIS GIFT INTER VIVOS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL
HIS DEATH, IS THE EVENT WHICH CALLS THE STATUTE INTO OPERATION."  MR.
JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING IN THE LATER CASE OF HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS
TRUST CO., SUPRA, 46.  THE TWO POSITIONS, ONE THAT ONLY POWER IN THE
SETTLOR AT THE TIME OF DEATH TO CAUSE THE PROPERTY TO BE TRANSFERRED
FROM HIM TO ANOTHER BY WILL OR BY DESCENT OR TO SELECT BENEFICIARIES
THROUGH APPOINTMENT BROUGHT THE PROPERTY FORMERLY TRANSFERRED WITHIN
THE REACH OF THE WORDS "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH," THE REINECKE CONCEPT, AND THE OTHER
THAT, IN ADDITION, EVERY POSSIBILITY OF REVERSION OF THE TRANSFERRED
INTEREST TO THE SETTLOR MUST BE BARRED BY THE TRUST INSTRUMENT, THE
DISSENTER'S GROUND IN HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., WERE FULLY
DISCUSSED IN THE MAJORITY AND DISSENTING OPINIONS IN HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106.  FN2  THE LATTER POSITION WAS ACCEPTED AS THE
SOUND INTERPRETATION BY US AND I ADHERE TO THAT VIEW FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE COURT'S OPINION IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK.  CF. EISENSTEIN,
ESTATE TAXES AND THE HIGHER LEARNING OF THE SUPREME COURT, 3 TAX LAW
REV. 395.  THAT INTERPRETATION HAS GAINED STRENGTH FROM THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS HAS NOT REPUDIATED IT AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE AND BY OTHER JUDGMENTS BY THIS COURT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE HALLOCK CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS STATEMENT.  FIDELITY
PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S. 108; COMMISSIONER V.
ESTATE OF FIELD, 324 U.S. 113.  POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY AS
HERETOFORE APPLIED HAS MEANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE TAXABILITY OF
THE TRANSFEROR'S ESTATE, AT LEAST, THAT THE DEATH OF THE TRANSFEROR
PERFECTS THE RIGHT OF THE TRANSFEREE AND CUTS OFF ANY POSSIBILITY OF
REVERTER TO THE TRANSFEROR LEFT BY THE INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSFER.  IF THE
TRANSFEROR REACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BY INHERITANCE OR BY PURCHASE, OTHER
FACTORS WOULD ENTER.  BEFORE THE JOINT RESOLUTION EVEN THE RESERVATION
OF A LIFE ESTATE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PRESERVE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
IN THE TRANSFEROR AS NOTHING PASSED AT HIS DEATH.  WHEN WORDS SUCH AS
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" USED IN A SECTION OF A REVENUE STATUTE WITH
THEIR MANY POSSIBLE SHADES AND AMBIGUITIES OF MEANING HAVE BEEN GIVEN
DEFINITION THROUGH THE COURSE OF LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION, A CHANGE
BY COURTS SHOULD BE AVOIDED.  FN3  BY THE RESOLUTION SUCH A RESERVATION
OR THAT OF POWER OF APPOINTMENT WAS ALSO MADE THE SOURCE OF AN ESTATE
TAX. 

PRIOR CASES HAVE INVOLVED TRUST INSTRUMENTS WHERE THE SETTLOR
SPECIFICALLY RESERVED REMAINDERS, REVERTERS OR CONTINGENT POWERS OF
APPOINTMENT.  IN THESE CASES THE VALUE AT DEATH OF THE ENTIRE CORPUS OF
THE TRUSTS WAS TAXED.  THIS WAS BECAUSE IN EACH CASE THERE WAS A
CONTINGENCY THROUGH WHICH COMPLETED GIFTS OF THE ENTIRE CORPUS TO THE
BENEFICIARIES MIGHT FAIL BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE SETTLOR WITH THE
RESULT THAT THE SETTLOR WOULD AGAIN CONTROL THE TRANSFER OF THE
CORPUS.  FN4  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I TAKE IT AS SETTLED THAT THE
PROPERTY IS TAXABLE ON THE EVENT OF THE SETTLOR'S DEATH UNDER SECS. 810
AND 811(C).  CF. 324 U.S. AT 111. 

THE TRUST INSTRUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASES OF THE SPIEGEL AND CHURCH
ESTATES DO NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR SUCH POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER OR
FOR REGAINING CONTROL OF THE DEVOLUTION OF THE PROPERTY.  THE ISSUE
RAISED BY THESE CASES IS WHETHER A LIKE POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER
SPRINGING NOT FROM THE INSTRUMENT BUT BY OPERATION OF LAW THROUGH THE
FAILURE OF ALL BENEFICIARIES NAMED IN THE TRUST INSTRUMENT SHALL HAVE
THE SAME EFFECT.  ALL NAMED BENEFICIARIES IN THESE TWO TRUSTS MIGHT DIE
BEFORE THE SETTLORS WITHOUT SURVIVING ISSUE.  THUS, DEPENDING UPON THE
CONTROLLING STATE LAW, THE SETTLORS MIGHT REPOSSESS THE ESTATES.  FN5 

TO LAY BARE THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM, IT SEEMS HELPFUL TO PUT ASIDE
CERTAIN PHASES OF POSSIBLE CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION AND POSSIBLE
STATUTORY MEANING, AS NOT INVOLVED OR HERETOFORE DECIDED FOR SOUND
REASONS. 

A. IT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS AT ANY TIME IN DEALING WITH THE
INCLUSION OF TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY IN TRUST TO HAVE THE WHOLE VALUE, AT
THE DONOR'S DEATH, OF THE TOTAL OF ALL GIFTS MADE DURING LIFE, INCLUDED
IN THE SETTLOR'S ESTATE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  FN6  THE WORDS OF THE
STATUTE SHOW THIS.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.  GIFTS IN TRUST ARE TAXABLE ONLY
WHERE AN INTEREST REMAINS IN THE DONOR.  THEREFORE A GIFT BY A TO A
TRUST COMPANY TO HOLD IN TRUST FOR B DURING B'S LIFE AND AT B'S DEATH
TO C, HIS HEIRS, DEVISEES OR ASSIGNS IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 811(C). 
REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., SUPRA, 347-48.  BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF
1931  FN7  THE RETENTION OF AN ESTATE FOR LIFE IN THE SETTLOR DID NOT
SUBJECT THE TRUST TO ESTATE TAX WHERE THE REMAINDER WAS TAKEN BY
BENEFICIARIES WITHOUT REGARD TO FUTURE ACTION BY THE SETTLOR.  FN8 

B. THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1931 MADE NO CHANGE IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
SUBSECTION OF THE ESTATE TAX RELATING TO THE INCLUSION IN ESTATES OF
INTERESTS IN TRUSTS INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
AT OR AFTER DEATH.  NEITHER THE RESOLUTION NOR THE DISCUSSION ON THE
FLOOR OF EITHER HOUSE SUGGESTED A CHANGE IN THE WORDS OF THE SECTION TO
DEFINE WHAT IS MEANT BY AN INTEREST INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT AFTER
DEATH.  CONGRESS AIMED AT THE RETENTION OF LIFE INTERESTS, NOT AT THIS
COURT'S DETERMINATIONS OF THE MEANING OF "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT." 
THOSE WORDS WERE LEFT UNTOUCHED AND AN ADDITION WAS MADE PROVIDING FOR
THE INCLUSION IN THE ESTATE OF INTERESTS WHERE THE SETTLOR HAD RETAINED
THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY OR A RIGHT TO INCOME OR THE
POWER TO DESIGNATE THE BENEFICIARIES.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.  THEREFORE
THE WORDS RELATING TO INTENTION, DEATH, POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT HAVE
THE SAME MEANING NOW AS THEY DID BEFORE THE 1931 AMENDMENT WAS
ADOPTED.  FN9  THE DOCTRINE OF MAY V. HEINER THAT THE STATUTE, AS
WRITTEN WHEN THAT CASE WAS HANDED DOWN, DID NOT COVER RESERVATIONS OF
LIFE INTERESTS AND POWERS OF DESIGNATION WAS LEGISLATIVELY CHANGED BY
ADDING THE WORDS OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION.  SEE IN ACCORD HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, SUPRA.  WHEN HALLOCK THERE REFERS TO THE DOCTRINE OF MAY V.
HEINER DISCARDED BY CONGRESS, IT IS THE DOCTRINE OF MAY V. HEINER THAT
A SETTLOR MIGHT RESERVE A LIFE INTEREST THAT WAS MEANT.  HALLOCK DID
NOT SAY OR IMPLY, AS I READ IT, THAT THE MAY V. HEINER DOCTRINE, WHICH
IS SUPPORTED BY REINECKE AND SHUKERT V. ALLEN, AS TO WHEN "POSSESSION
OR ENJOYMENT" PASSES FROM A DONOR WAS CHANGED BY THE RESOLUTION.  THESE
CASES HAD HELD THAT SOMETHING MUST PASS FROM THE SETTLOR.  THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE WROUGHT BY HALLOCK ON THIS CONCEPT OF POSSESSION AND
ENJOYMENT WAS TO APPLY THE KLEIN RULE THAT THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE
REMAINDER ESTATE DID EFFECT A TRANSMISSION FROM THE DEAD TO THE
LIVING. 

ASSUMING THAT CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE LEGISLATED SO THAT THE ADDED WORDS
WOULD APPLY TO THE ESTATES OF ALL WHO DIED AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE
JOINT RESOLUTION, CONGRESS DEFINITELY MANIFESTED AN INTENTION THAT THE
AMENDMENTS WERE NOT TO APPLY TO TRUSTS CREATED PRIOR TO THE RESOLUTION
THOUGH THE SETTLOR MIGHT DIE SUBSEQUENTLY THERETO.  THIS WHOLE MATTER
IS DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY AND, I THINK, UNANSWERABLY IN HASSETT V. WELCH,
303 U.S. 303, AND I CAN ADD NOTHING TO THE ARGUMENT.  ATTENTION,
HOWEVER, SHOULD BE CALLED TO THE STATEMENTS ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE
BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS AT THE TIME OF THE
PASSAGE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION.  FN10  MR. HAWLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE, ANSWERING A QUESTION AS TO THE NATURE OF THE RESOLUTION
SAID, "IT PROVIDES THAT HEREAFTER NO SUCH METHOD SHALL BE USED TO EVADE
THE TAX." 

MR. GARNER OF THE SAME COMMITTEE STATED: 

"THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS THIS AFTERNOON HAD A MEETING AND
UNANIMOUSLY REPORTED THE RESOLUTION JUST PASSED.  WE DID NOT MAKE IT
RETROACTIVE FOR THE REASON THAT WE WERE AFRAID THAT THE SENATE WOULD
NOT AGREE TO IT.  BUT I DO HOPE THAT WHEN THIS MATTER IS CONSIDERED IN
THE SEVENTY-SECOND CONGRESS WE MAY BE ABLE TO PASS A BILL THAT WILL
MAKE IT RETROACTIVE." 

AND IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION, HE REITERATED, "I HAVE STRONG HOPES THAT
THE NEXT CONGRESS WILL MAKE IT RETROACTIVE."  CONGRESS NEVER TOOK ANY
SUBSEQUENT ACTION AND THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF
"INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" REMAINED THE
SAME.  THE ADDITION TO THE SECTION MADE BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION MADE
CERTAIN FUTURE GIFTS INTER VIVOS, WHICH WOULD THERETOFORE HAVE BEEN
FREE OF ESTATE TAX, SUBJECT TO SUCH A TAX. 

C. AS A COROLLARY TO THE FOREGOING SECTION B, IT IS CLEAR TO ME ALSO
THAT CONGRESS BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION MADE NO CHANGE IN THE STATUTE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING TRUSTS INTO AN ESTATE MERELY BECAUSE THE ACTUAL
USE OF THE ESTATE OR ITS INCOME BY THE CESTUI QUE TRUST WAS POSTPONED
UNTIL THE DEATH OF THE DONOR.  SHUKERT V. ALLEN, SUPRA. 

D. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO LOOK UPON THE SPIEGEL OR CHURCH TRUST
AS CLOSELY AKIN TO A WILL.  THE DECISIVE DIFFERENCE IS THAT A WILL MAY
BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME DURING LIFE, WHILE THESE TRUSTS OBLITERATED ANY
POWER IN THE SETTLORS TO CHANGE OR MODIFY THE DEVOLUTION.  ONLY THE
CHANCES OF DEATH, WHOLLY BEYOND THEIR CONTROL, MIGHT PUT THE
DISPOSITION AGAIN IN THEIR HANDS.  FURTHER, DURING LIFE THE SETTLORS
MUST HANDLE THE TRUSTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL BENEFICIARIES.  THEY WERE
NOT FREE TO DO AS THEY PLEASED AS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE OF A WILL. 
OF COURSE, IF THE SETTLOR HAD MADE SIMILAR PROVISION FOR THE OBJECTS OF
HIS BOUNTY BY WILL, IN EFFECT AT DEATH, THE RESULT TO THE TAKERS WOULD
HAVE BEEN THE SAME; OR IF, IN THE SPIEGEL CASE, THE FATHER HAD ANNUALLY
GIVEN HIS CHILDREN THE SAME SUMS THAT THE TRUST EARNED, THEIR ECONOMIC
POSITION WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME FOR THAT YEAR BUT THE CHILDREN COULD
NOT LOOK FORWARD WITH CERTAINTY TO THEIR ANNUAL INCOME FROM THE TRUST. 
WITHOUT THE TRUST, THE BENEFICIARIES' INCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO
THE WISH OF THE SETTLOR.  IT NEEDS NO ARGUMENT OR ILLUSTRATION TO SHOW
THAT A FATHER'S GIFT FROM HIS INCOME IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING FROM AN
IRREVOCABLE GIFT OF PRINCIPAL TO A CHILD. 

RETURNING TO THE ISSUE IN THESE PRESENT CASES, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THEM AND HELVERING V. HALLOCK AND ITS PROGENY IS THAT HERE THE
POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER ARISES BY OPERATION OF LAW WHEREAS IN THEM THE
POSSIBILITY ARISES OUT OF THE TERMS OF THE TRUST.  THAT DIFFERENCE I DO
NOT THINK IS MATERIAL AS TO TAXABILITY UNDER SEC. 810 AND SEC. 811(C). 
GRANTING THAT IN EARLY INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SECTIONS THIS COURT MIGHT
LOGICALLY HAVE DETERMINED THAT REMOTE POSSIBILITIES OF REVERTER DID NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE BENEFICIARIES' COMPLETE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF
THE GIFT DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE DONOR, THE BALANCE OF EXPERIENCE
AND PRECEDENT, SINCE HELVERING V. HALLOCK, TIPS THE SCALE THE OTHER WAY
IN MY JUDGMENT.  IT IS IMPORTANT, THOUGH NOT DECISIVE, SINCE WE ARE NOT
JUSTIFIED IN PUSHING EVERY RULE TO ITS LOGICAL EXTREME, THAT THIS
CONCLUSION IS A LOGICAL OUTGROWTH OF THE HALLOCK RULE.  SINCE WE KNOW
IT IS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO PUT AN ESTATE TAX ON GIFTS INTENDED TO
TAKE EFFECT AT OR AFTER DEATH, THE INTERPRETATION OF THOSE WORDS SHOULD
BE BROAD ENOUGH TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE EFFECTUALLY.  "INTENDED TO
TAKE EFFECT," IN THAT VIEW, HAS FOR ME THE MEANING OF AN INTENTION TO
ABIDE BY THE LEGAL RESULT OF THE TERMS OF THE TRUST. 

I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS INTERPRETATION HAS POSSIBILITIES OF VARIATION
IN RESULT THROUGH THE EMPLOYMENT OF TECHNICALITIES OF PROPERTY LAW. 
THE ADDITION OF A PHRASE MAY MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMPLETED OR
AN INCOMPLETED GIFT.  TO MAKE THE INTENTION OF THE SETTLOR THE
DETERMINATIVE FACTOR CREATES EQUAL DIFFICULTIES.  NOR AM I UNMINDFUL OF
THIS COURT'S EFFORT, IN WHICH I JOINED, IN THE HALLOCK CASE TO FIND A
HARMONIZING PRINCIPLE FOR THE DIFFICULTIES ENGENDERED BY SEC. 811(C). 
IN THAT CASE THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED WAS THAT A TAX LIES AGAINST AN
ESTATE WHEN THE DEATH OF THE GRANTOR BRINGS A LARGER ESTATE INTO BEING
FOR THE BENEFICIARY.  THIS DOES ACCOMPLISH UNIFORMITY IN THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE SECTION OF FEDERAL LAW.  HALLOCK ATTEMPTED
NOTHING MORE.  IT LEAVES ITS APPLICATION TO PARTICULAR TRUSTS DEPENDENT
UPON STATE DETERMINATION OF WHEN A SETTLOR HAS DIVESTED HIMSELF OF
EVERY POSSIBLE INTEREST IN THE RES OF A TRUST.  FN11  WE ARE DEALING
WITH A STATUTE AND CONGRESS IS FULLY COMPETENT TO CORRECT ANY
MISUNDERSTANDING WE MAY HAVE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION.    (2)
THE FOREGOING LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION IN THE SPIEGEL CASE THAT THIS
ESTATE MUST PAY A FEDERAL ESTATE TAX ON THE TRUST RES UNLESS THAT RES,
UNDER THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, WOULD HAVE PASSED TO THE HEIRS AT LAW OR THE
LEGATEES OF THE LAST DESCENDANT OF THE SETTLOR.  IF UNDER ILLINOIS LAW
THE ESTATE RETURNED TO THE SETTLOR ON HIS SURVIVING ALL HIS
DESCENDANTS, THE TAX IS DUE.  THE POSSIBILITIES OF THIS HAPPENING IN
THIS CASE ARE EXTREMELY REMOTE BUT A TRUST MIGHT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY A
YOUNG SON FOR AN AGED MOTHER TO PAY HER THE INCOME FOR LIFE AND AT THE
SETTLOR'S DEATH TO PAY HER THE PRINCIPAL.    THE COURT OF APPEALS
CONCLUDED (159 F.2D AT 259) THAT "IF NONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES SURVIVED
THE SETTLOR, AND THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY, THEN THE TRUST FAILED, AND THE
TRUSTEES WOULD HOLD THE BARE NAKED TITLE TO THE CORPUS AS RESULTING
TRUSTEES FOR THE SETTLOR."  THERE IS NO ILLINOIS CASE HOLDING SQUARELY
ON THIS POINT, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A DETERMINATION BY A STATE
COURT WE DO NOT INTERFERE WITH A REASONABLE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT
WHICH EMBRACES ILLINOIS.  HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154, 164;
MACGREGOR V. STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO., 315 U.S. 280.  THE RULE
FOLLOWED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDS WITH THAT GENERALLY ACCEPTED. 
RESTATEMENT, TRUSTS SEC. 411; 3 SCOTT, TRUSTS SEC. 411; 2 BOGERT,
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES SEC. 468; HARRIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK V. MORSE, 238
ILL. APP. 232; LILL V. BRANT, 6 ILL. APP. 366, 376.  FN12 

THE TAXPAYER RELIES UPON CASES WHEREIN THE LANGUAGE OF WILLS WAS
CONSTRUED IN ORDER TO CREATE VESTED REMAINDERS.  THESE CASES, HOWEVER,
DO NOT OVERTURN THE FIRMLY SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT WHERE AN EXPRESS
TRUST FAILS FOR LACK OF A BENEFICIARY, A RESULTING TRUST IN FAVOR OF
THE SETTLOR ARISES BY OPERATION OF LAW.  FN13  TO VEST PROPERTY UNDER A
WILL OR DEED IS DESIRABLE.  TO VEST PROPERTY UNDER A TRUST MAY NOT BE.
IT IS MORE REASONABLE TO RETURN TRUST PROPERTY TO THE SETTLOR ON
FAILURE OF THE TRUST THAN TO HAVE IT GO TO THE HEIRS OF THE
BENEFICIARY. 

FROM A READING OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENT INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE,
IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE SETTLOR DID NOT INTEND TO GRANT HIS CHILDREN
THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES SHOULD THEY PREDECEASE
THE SETTLOR WITHOUT ISSUE.  THE SETTLOR SPECIFICALLY NAMED AS
BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST HIS CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.  THAT HE
INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE TRUST TO THESE TWO CLASSES OF BENEFICIARIES IS
EVIDENCED BY THE PROVISION OF THE INSTRUMENT THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE
DEATH OF A CHILD WITHOUT ISSUE THAT CHILD'S SHARE WAS TO BE ADDED TO
THE SHARES OF THE SETTLOR'S SURVIVING CHILDREN.  HIS RETENTION OF THE
TRUSTEESHIP AND FAILURE TO GRANT THE POWER OF DISPOSITION TO HIS
CHILDREN IN HIS LIFETIME NEGATIVE ANY INTENTION OF THE SETTLOR TO
EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF A REVERSION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY TO
HIMSELF. 

NO ERROR APPEARS IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THIS
POINT. 

(3)  FINALLY, THE SITUATION IN THE CHURCH CASE MUST BE DEALT WITH. 
THE TRUST WAS CREATED IN NEW YORK BY A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK WHO DIED A
RESIDENT OF NEW JERSEY.  TWO OF THREE TRUSTEES WERE AT ALL TIMES
RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK WHERE THE STOCKS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE TRUST WERE
KEPT.  FROM WHAT IS BEFORE ME, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE NEW YORK LAW
WOULD CONTROL AS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THE RETENTION OF AN INTEREST BY
THE SETTLOR.  THIS PRODUCES A VARIANT FROM THE SPIEGEL CASE.  THE
DETERMINATION OF NEW YORK LAW WILL BE MADE BY A CIRCUIT THAT DOES NOT
INCLUDE THAT STATE.  THIS, I THINK, IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN DETERMINING
THE COURSE TO BE FOLLOWED. 

AS THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT MADE ITS DECISION ON
THE AUTHORITY OF THE DOBSON RULE, 161 F.2D 11, IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE
EFFECT OF HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303.  AS MAY V. HEINER STANDS, IN
MY OPINION, TRUSTS, LIKE THE CHURCH TRUST, CREATED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE
OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, ARE NOT INCLUDABLE IN THE
GROSS ESTATE OF A SETTLOR FOR FEDERAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES UNLESS THERE
IS A POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER TO THE SETTLOR BY OPERATION OF THE
CONTROLLING STATE LAW.  TO DETERMINE THIS QUESTION, I WOULD VACATE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT AND REMAND THE CASE TO THAT COURT TO
DETERMINE THE STATE LAW. 

I WOULD AFFIRM NO. 3, SPIEGEL V. COMMISSIONER; I WOULD VACATE NO. 5,
COMMISSIONER V. CHURCH. 

FN1  THIS PROVISION FIRST APPEARED IN SEC. 202(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1916, 39 STAT. 756, 777-78, AND READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL
PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS
AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, OR WITH RESPECT TO WHICH HE HAS CREATED A
TRUST, IN CONTEMPLATION OF OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH, EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE FOR
A FAIR CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  ..." 

WITH SMALL CHANGES IT WAS INCLUDED IN SEC. 402(C) OF THE REVENUE ACTS
OF 1918 AND 1921, 40 STAT. 1057, 1097; 42 STAT. 227, 278, AND IN SEC.
302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1924 AND 1926, 43 STAT. 253, 304; 44
STAT. 9, 70.  IN 1931 THE PROVISION WAS AMENDED BY H.J. RES. NO. 529,
46 STAT. 1516, AND ASSUMED ITS PRESENT FORM IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,
47 STAT. 169, 279.  IT NOW READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR
PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED, EXCEPT REAL
PROPERTY SITUATED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  TRANSFERS IN CONTEMPLATION OF, OR TAKING EFFECT AT DEATH. 

"TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS AT
ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, IN CONTEMPLATION OF OR
INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS
DEATH, OR OF WHICH HE HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, UNDER WHICH HE HAS RETAINED FOR HIS LIFE OR FOR ANY PERIOD
NOT ASCERTAINABLE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO HIS DEATH OR FOR ANY PERIOD
WHICH DOES NOT IN FACT END BEFORE HIS DEATH (1) THE POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT OF, OR THE RIGHT TO THE INCOME FROM, THE PROPERTY, OR (2) THE
RIGHT, EITHER ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY PERSON, TO DESIGNATE THE
PERSONS WHO SHALL POSSESS OR ENJOY THE PROPERTY OR THE INCOME
THEREFROM; EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  ..." 

THE ITALICIZED WORDS ARE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AMENDMENTS OF 1931
AND 1932 TO SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  SEE HASSETT V.
WELCH, 303 U.S. AT 307-308.  THE UNDERSCORED PHRASE AT THE END OF THE
FIRST PARAGRAPH WAS ADDED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, SEC. 404, 48
STAT. 680, 754.  THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER CHANGE. 

FN2  WHETHER THE TAXABLE EVENT IS THE "TRANSFER INTER VIVOS," AS WE
SUGGESTED IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 111, SEE SHUKERT V.
ALLEN, 273 U.S. 545, 546, AND FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V.
ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S. 108, 110-11, OR THE TRANSFER AT DEATH, AS NOW
SEEMS TO ME MORE PRECISE, SEEMS IMMATERIAL.  SEE INT. REV. CODE SEC.
810; DISSENT IN HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 39, 46-47;
REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339, 347.  IT WAS SAID OF A
TRANSFER IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, "IT IS THUS AN ENACTMENT IN AID OF,
AND AN INTEGRAL PART OF, THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME OF TAXATION OF
TRANSFERS AT DEATH."  MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15, 23;
HEINER V. DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312, 330, CF. DISSENT AT 334.  IN EITHER
CASE TRANSFER OF AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER DEATH IS TAXED.  IF TAXED AS AN
EXCISE ON THE PRIVILEGE OF TRANSFER AT DEATH, THE TRANSFEREE HAS TAKEN
SUBJECT TO THE TAX.  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 827(B).  IT IS A MEANS OF
CHECKING TAX AVOIDANCE.  CF. MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15,
20.  SEE HELVERING V. BULLARD, 303 U.S. 297, AN ESTATE TAX ON A TRUST
THAT RETAINED A LIFE ESTATE.  WE THERE SAID, PP. 301-2, "A FURTHER
VINDICATION OF THE EXACTION IS THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO TREAT AS
TESTAMENTARY, TRANSFERS WITH RESERVATION OF A POWER OR AN INTEREST IN
THE DONOR."  SEE FERNANDEZ V. WIENER, 326 U.S. 340, 352; CF. HEINER V.
DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312, 331-32. 

FN3  NATIONAL SAFE DEPOSIT CO. V. STEAD, 232 U.S. 58, 67. 

FN4  HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106; FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST
CO. V. ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S. 108; COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF FIELD, 324
U.S. 113; GOLDSTONE V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 687. 

FN5  SINCE THE STATE LAW DEFINES AND CREATES RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN
PROPERTY AND THE FEDERAL TAXING STATUTES ONLY SAY WHICH OF THESE RIGHTS
AND INTERESTS CREATED BY STATE LAW SHALL BE TAXED, THE LAW OF ILLINOIS
CONTROLS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS TRUST.  HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S.
154, 161-63; BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 9-10. 

THE TRUSTEE IN THE SPIEGEL CASE COULD ACT ONLY IN THE INTEREST OF THE
BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST. 

IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN ILLINOIS AS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT A
TRUSTEE IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS AUTHORITY CANNOT DEAL ON HIS OWN
BEHALF WITH ANY PART OF THE TRUST PROPERTY.  DONER V. PHOENIX JOINT
STOCK LAND BANK OF KANSAS CITY, 381 ILL. 106, 45 N.E.2D 20; KINNEY V.
LINDGREN, 373 ILL. 415, 26 N.E.2D 471; CITY OF CHICAGO V. TRIBUNE CO.,
248 ILL. 242, 93 N.E. 757; AND IN DETERMINING THE POWERS OF THE TRUSTEE
REFERENCE MUST BE HAD TO THE INTENTION OF THE GRANTOR AS MANIFESTED IN
THE WHOLE TRUST INSTRUMENT.  CROW V. CROW, 348 ILL. 241, 180 N.E. 877;
BEAR V. MILLIKIN TRUST CO., 336 ILL. 366, 168 N.E. 349; HARRIS TRUST &
SAVINGS BANK V. WANNER, 326 ILL. APP. 307, 61 N.E.2D 860.  EVEN THOUGH
A TRUSTEE HAS BEEN VESTED WITH FULL POWER AND DISCRETION AS TO THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST HE IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE
EQUITY COURT, AND THIS DISCRETION CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY THE TRUSTEE SO
AS TO DEFEAT THE TRUST OR TO DEPRIVE THE CESTUI QUE TRUST OF ITS
BENEFITS.  MAGUIRE V. CITY OF MACOMB, 293 ILL, 441, 127 N.E. 682; JONES
V. JONES, 124 ILL. 254, 15 N.E. 751.  THIS RULE THAT THE TRUSTEE MUST
ADMINISTER THE TRUST SOLELY IN THE INTEREST OF THE CESTUI QUE TRUST HAS
THE SUPPORT OF BOTH REASON AND AUTHORITY.  SEE HELVERING V. STUART, 317
U.S. 154, 162-66; RESTATEMENT, TRUSTS SEC. 170; 2 SCOTT, TRUSTS, SEC.
187. 

FN6  THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT REFER TO THE ITEMS OF DEDUCTION OR
EXEMPTION COVERED BY INT. REV. CODE SEC. 812 BUT TO THE VALUE OF GIFTS
NOT COVERED BY SEC. 812 THAT ALSO ARE NOT COVERED BY SEC. 811. 

FN7  46 STAT. 1516. 

FN8  MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238; BURNET V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 283
U.S. 782; MORSMAN V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783; MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283
U.S. 784. 

FN9  WHY "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF  ...  THE PROPERTY" WAS PUT IN
THE AMENDMENT TO THE SECTION I DO NOT KNOW.  IT READS AS IF CONGRESS
INTENDED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF THE
PROPERTY WAS A BASIS FOR TAXATION.  SUCH RESULT WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED
FROM THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.  THAT IS PROBABLY WHY NO CASES HAVE BEEN
CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION THAT HAVE TURNED ON THE USE OF THESE WORDS IN
THE AMENDMENT. 

FN10  74 CONG. REC. 7198-99. 

FN11  HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154, 161-62: 

"WHEN CONGRESS FIXES A TAX ON THE POSSIBILITY OF THE REVESTING OF
PROPERTY OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME, THE 'NECESSARY IMPLICATION,' WE
THINK, IS THAT THE POSSIBILITY IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE STATE LAW. 
GRANTEES UNDER DEEDS, WILLS AND TRUSTS, ALIKE, TAKE ACCORDING TO THE
RULE OF THE STATE LAW.  THE POWER TO TRANSFER OR DISTRIBUTE ASSETS OF A
TRUST IS ESSENTIALLY A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW.  ...  CONGRESS HAS SELECTED
AN EVENT, THAT IS THE RECEIPT OR DISTRIBUTIONS OF TRUST FUNDS BY OR TO
A GRANTOR, NORMALLY BROUGHT ABOUT BY LOCAL LAW, AND HAS DIRECTED A TAX
TO BE LEVIED IF THAT EVENT MAY OCCUR.  WHETHER THAT EVENT MAY OR MAY
NOT OCCUR DEPENDS UPON THE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON THE TERMS OF THE
INSTRUMENT BY STATE LAW.  ONCE RIGHTS ARE OBTAINED BY LOCAL LAW,
WHATEVER THEY MAY BE CALLED, THESE RIGHTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL
DEFINITION OF TAXABILITY." 

FN12 THE ILLINOIS ANNOTATIONS TO THE RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF
TRUSTS, SEC. 411, SAYS THAT THE RULE OF THE RESTATEMENT "STATES THE
LAW," BUT NO CASE HAS BEEN FOUND WHERE THE TRUSTEE HOLDS THE CORPUS
UPON A RESULTING TRUST FOR THE SETTLOR BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE
INTER VIVOS TRUST.  SEE RESTATEMENT, TRUSTS, ILL. ANNO.  SEC.  411,
COMMENT (B). 

IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTIES SURROUNDING THE THEORY THAT THE BURDEN
OF PROOF IS ON THE TAXPAYER TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE IS IN ERROR AS TO THE LAW APPLICABLE TO AN ASSESSMENT OF A
DEFICIENCY, I DO NOT DEPEND UPON THAT THEORY TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS.  SEE HELVERING V. LEONARD, 310 U.S. 80; HELVERING
V. FITCH, 309 U.S. 149; CF. HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154, DISSENT,
172; 2 PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT TAXATION, SEC. 14.47, N. 4 AND
1946 SUPP.; 9 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION 285-86. 

FN13  IN CHATER V. CARTER, 238 U.S. 572, THIS COURT CONSIDERED THE
FOLLOWING LANGUAGE WHEREBY AN INTER VIVOS TRUST WAS CREATED.  "THE
TRUST FOR LOTTIE LEE IS TO CAUSE THE DIVIDENDS TO BE PAID TO HER DURING
THE THREE YEARS FROM JANUARY 1ST NEXT AND IF SHE SHALL THEN BE LIVING
TO TRANSFER THE SHARES TO HER."  THE CESTUI QUE TRUST DIED BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD AND THE QUESTION AROSE AS TO
WHETHER THE HEIR OF THE CESTUI QUE TRUST OR THE ESTATE OF THE SETTLOR
WAS TO RECEIVE THE CORPUS.  THIS COURT CONSIDERED IT UNNECESSARY "TO
STRAIN THE MEANING OF WORDS, AS IS SOMETIMES DONE TO AVOID INTESTACY
WHEN WILLS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED."  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE TRUST HAVING
FAILED, THE TRUSTEE MUST REDELIVER THE CORPUS "TO HIM FROM WHOM IT
CAME.  IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS A RESULTING TRUST FOR THE DONOR." 
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING.* 

*(THIS IS ALSO A DISSENT FROM ESTATE OF SPIEGEL V. COMMISSIONER,
POST, P. 701.) 

BY FITTING TOGETHER MY AGREEMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE DISSENTING
CONCURRENCE AND MY DISAGREEMENT WITH A PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
DISSENTING OPINIONS OF MY BROTHER BURTON, I COULD INDICATE,
SUBSTANTIALLY, MY VIEWS OF THESE CASES.  BUT SUCH PIECING TOGETHER
WOULD MAKE A JOSEPH'S COAT.  THEREFORE, EVEN AT THE RISK OF SOME
REPETITION OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BY OTHERS, A SELF-CONTAINED STATEMENT
ON THE BASIC ISSUES OF THESE CASES WILL MAKE FOR CLARITY.  PARTICULARLY
IS THIS DESIRABLE WHERE DISHARMONY OF VIEWS SUPPORTS A COMMON RESULT -
A RESULT THE UPSETTING OF WHICH BY CONGRESS IS ALMOST INVITED. 

        I. 

IN THE SPIEGEL CASE, NO. 3, THE DECEDENT MADE A SETTLEMENT BY THE
TERMS OF WHICH HE RESERVED NO INTEREST FOR HIMSELF, AND IT IS NOT
SUGGESTED THAT THE FORM OF THE SETTLEMENT DISGUISED AN ATTEMPTED
EVASION OF THE ESTATETAX LAW.  THE CORPUS OF THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE IS
FOUND TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE TAX ON THE BASIS OF HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST
CO. V. ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S. 108, COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF FIELD, 324
U.S. 113, AND GOLDSTONE V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 687.  ON THAT BASIS
IT IS NOW DECIDED THAT IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, DUE TO THE TERMS OF
THE INSTRUMENT OR BY OPERATION OF LAW, HOWEVER REMOTE, THAT SETTLED
PROPERTY MAY RETURN TO THE SETTLOR, THE ENTIRE TRUST PROPERTY MUST BE
INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX. 
THUS, UNDER THE COURT'S DECISION TAX LIABILITY MAY BE INCURRED BY THE
DISCOVERY OF A GOSSAMER THREAD OF POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT, WHICH HAS NO
VALUE.  NEVERTHELESS THE ENTIRE TRUST CORPUS IS INCLUDED IN THE GROSS
ESTATE AND TAXED AS IF THE SETTLOR REALLY HAD POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
OF THE PROPERTY.  SUCH A RESULT NOT ONLY CREATES UNANTICIPATED HARDSHIP
FOR TAXPAYERS; IT IS ALSO AN UNREALISTIC INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 811(C)
OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  SINCE SUCH AN UNREALISTIC INTERPRETATION
IS NOT A JUDICIAL DUTY WHEREAS ITS AVOIDANCE IS, I AM COMPELLED TO
CONCLUDE THAT SPIEGEL DID NOT TRANSFER AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY
"INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER DEATH"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 811(C) AND THAT THE TRUST CORPUS SETTLED BY
HIM IN HIS LIFETIME WAS NO PART OF HIS GROSS ESTATE. 

THIS CASE IS BROUGHT UNDER THE DECISIONS OF HALLOCK AND THE THREE
SUBSEQUENT CASES ONLY BY A DISREGARD OF THE VITAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE INTEREST CREATED BY THE SPIEGEL INDENTURE AND THE ARRANGEMENTS
BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE FOUR CASES UPON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED. 

1.  IN 1920, SPIEGEL TRANSFERRED SECURITIES TO HIMSELF AND ANOTHER
PERSON AS CO-TRUSTEES, THE INCOME TO BE PAID EQUALLY TO SPIEGEL'S THREE
NAMED CHILDREN DURING HIS LIFETIME.  IF ANY OF THE CHILDREN DIED BEFORE
THE SETTLOR, THE SHARE OF THAT CHILD WAS TO GO TO HIS ISSUE, IF ANY,
OTHERWISE TO THE SETTLOR'S OTHER CHILDREN.  THE INSTRUMENT PROVIDED
FURTHER THAT UPON THE SETTLOR'S DEATH THE CORPUS, TOGETHER WITH ANY
ACCUMULATED INCOME, SHOULD BE DIVIDED "EQUALLY AMONG MY SAID THREE (3)
CHILDREN, AND IF ANY OF MY SAID CHILDREN SHALL HAVE DIED, LEAVING ANY
CHILD OR CHILDREN SURVIVING, THEN THE CHILD OR CHILDREN OF SUCH
DECEASED CHILD OF MINE SHALL RECEIVE THE SHARE" OF THE TRUST TO WHICH
HIS OR HER PARENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED.  IF ANY OF THE SETTLOR'S
THREE CHILDREN DIED WITHOUT LEAVING SURVIVING CHILDREN, THAT SHARE WAS
TO GO TO THE TWO REMAINING CHILDREN.  WHEN THE TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED
SPIEGEL WAS 47 YEARS OLD, AND HIS THREE CHILDREN WERE AGED 25, 15, AND
13.  AT HIS DEATH TWENTY YEARS LATER THE CHILDREN WERE STILL LIVING AND
THERE WERE THREE GRANDCHILDREN.  UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN A REVERTER TO SPIEGEL BY OPERATION OF ILLINOIS LAW IN THE
EVENT THAT ALL HIS CHILDREN PREDECEASED HIM WITHOUT LEAVING "SURVIVING
CHILDREN," THE VALUE OF THIS REMOTE CONTINGENCY WAS DETERMINED
MATHEMATICALLY TO BE WORTH $4,000.  FN1 

2.  IN THE HELVERING V. HALLOCK SERIES, SUPRA, EACH OF THE SEVERAL
DONORS CREATED A TRUST GIVING AN ESTATE TO ANOTHER BUT PROVIDING THAT
THE PROPERTY WOULD REVERT TO THE DONOR IF THE DONEE PREDECEASED HIM. 
THE DONOR'S DEATH IN EACH CASE WAS THE OPERATIVE FACT WHICH ESTABLISHED
FINAL AND COMPLETE DOMINION AS BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DONEE
ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE INSTRUMENTS.  UNTIL THE FORMER'S DEATH
THE DONOR WAS, AS IT WERE, COMPETING WITH THE DONEE FOR THE ULTIMATE
USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY.  WE THERE HELD THAT THE PARTICULAR
FORM OF CONVEYANCING WORDS IS IMMATERIAL IF THE NET EFFECT IS THAT
TRANSFERRED PROPERTY WILL REVEST IN A DONOR WHO SURVIVES THE DONEE. 
EXCEPT ON A CONTINGENCY OF ILLINOIS LAW SO REMOTE AS TO BE NONEXISTENT
IN THE PRACTICAL AFFAIRS OF LIFE, THE PROPERTY WOULD NEVER REVERT TO
SPIEGEL.  HIS DEATH NO DOUBT WOULD FINALLY DETERMINE WHICH CHILDREN OR
GRANDCHILDREN WOULD HAVE THE ULTIMATE ENJOYMENT OF THE TRUST CORPUS
SETTLED UPON HIS CHILDREN, BUT IN THE REAL WORLD THE PROPERTY COULD
NEVER COME BACK TO HIM AS A WINDFALL.  HIS DEATH DID NOT DETERMINE
CONTINGENCIES FROM WHICH HE COULD BENEFIT.  HIS DEATH MERELY
DEFINITIVELY CLOSED THE CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES AND FIXED THE QUANTUM OF
EACH CHILD'S SHARE. 

CONTRARY TO THE SUGGESTION IN THE CONCURRING OPINION IN THIS CASE - A
SUGGESTION ACCEPTED BY THE MAJORITY OPINION - THE COURT OF APPEALS DID
NOT FIND THAT SPIEGEL RETAINED AN INTEREST BECAUSE HE HAD NOT PROVIDED
FOR ALL CONTINGENCIES.  IT INCLUDED THE SETTLED PROPERTY IN THE GROSS
ESTATE ON THE THEORY THAT EVERY TRUST CARRIES AS IT WERE THE SEED OF
ITS OWN DESTRUCTION THROUGH FAILURE OF THE TRUST, THEREBY GENERATING A
RESULTING TRUST.  IT SAID, "IF NONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES SURVIVED THE
SETTLOR, AND THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY, THEN THE TRUST FAILED, AND THE
TRUSTEES WOULD HOLD THE BARE NAKED TITLE TO THE CORPUS AS RESULTING
TRUSTEES FOR THE SETTLOR."  159 F.2D AT 259.  BUT THIS MODE OF ARGUMENT
WOULD HAVE SWEPT INTO THE GROSS ESTATE A CONVEYANCE IN TRUST IN FEE TO
ANY OF SPIEGEL'S CHILDREN IN 1920 SINCE THE FAILURE OF THE TRUST FOR
ANY CONCEIVABLE REASON PRESUMABLY WOULD NOT TURN THE TRUST PROPERTY
INTO AN OUTRIGHT GIFT TO THE TRUSTEES. 

THE TRUST INDENTURE IS A COMPREHENSIVE ARRANGEMENT FOR THE CHILDREN
AND THEIR OFFSPRING TO TAKE CARE OF THE CONTINGENCIES OF MORTALITY
AMONG THE CHILDREN AND THEIR OFFSPRING.  PROVISIONS SUCH AS WERE MADE
IN THE SPIEGEL CASE ARE PRECISELY THE KIND OF ARRANGEMENT MADE BY AN
ANCESTOR FOR HIS CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S CHILDREN BY WHICH HE SETTLES
PROPERTY UPON THEM WITH A VIEW TO THE CONTINGENCIES OF SUCCESSIVE
GENERATIONS AND RESERVES NO INTEREST IN HIMSELF.  NOTHING WAS RESERVED
IN THE SETTLOR EXCEPT WHAT FEUDAL NOTIONS ABOUT SEISIN MAY HAVE
RESERVED.  BUT FEUDAL NOTIONS OF SEISIN ARE NO MORE PERTINENT IN TAX
CASES WHEN THEY LEAD TO IMPOSITION OF AN ESTATE TAX THAN WHEN THEY LEAD
AWAY FROM IT.  AT THE VERY BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE HALLOCK CASE
WAS THE INSISTENCE THAT THESE "UNWITTY DIVERSITIES OF THE LAW OF
PROPERTY (DERIVED) FROM MEDIEVAL CONCEPTS AS TO THE NECESSITY OF A
CONTINUOUS SEISIN.  ...  ARE PECULIARLY IRRELEVANT IN THE APPLICATION
OF TAX MEASURES NOW SO LARGELY DIRECTED TOWARD INTANGIBLE WEALTH." 
HELVERING V. HALLOCK, SUPRA AT P. 118.  THE METAPHYSICAL REMOTENESS OF
THE PRESENT SETTLOR'S INTEREST AT THE TIME THE TRUST WAS CREATED IS
CLEARLY SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT IT DEPENDED UPON THE HIGHLY UNLIKELY
EVENT THAT ALL THE CHILDREN IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE CONVEYANCE
WOULD DIE AND WOULD DIE CHILDLESS.  EVEN THIS REMOTE POSSIBILITY
EVAPORATED LONG BEFORE THE SETTLOR DIED.  AND CERTAINLY THE ONLY
TENABLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IS THAT NOT ONLY MUST THERE HAVE
BEEN A TRANSFER OF THE SORT DESIGNATED IN SEC. 811(C) BUT THE SETTLOR'S
INTEREST MUST ALSO PERSIST UP TO THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.  CF. ESTATE OF
MILLER, 40 B.T.A. 138; SEE GRISWOLD, CASES AND MATERIALS ON FEDERAL
TAXATION 145(1940). 

3.  THE THREE LATER DECISIONS INVOKED BY THE COURT BEAR NO RESEMBLANCE
TO THE SITUATION PRESENTED BY THE SPIEGEL CASE AND GIVE NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE RULING NOW MADE.  IN FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST
CO. V. ROTHENSIES, SUPRA, THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDED FOR A LIFE ESTATE IN
THE SETTLOR, LIFE ESTATES IN THE TWO DAUGHTERS, AND A REVERSION IN THE
SETTLOR UNLESS THE DAUGHTERS HAD ISSUE.  SEE BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT, P.
8, FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES, SUPRA; GOLDSTONE V.
UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 687, 693, N. 3.  THE BIRTH OF THE GRANDCHILDREN
WHICH CUT OFF THE SETTLOR'S INTEREST DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL AFTER THE
DEATH OF THE SETTLOR.  SINCE, THEREFORE, THE TAXABILITY IS TO BE
DETERMINED AT DEATH, IT FOLLOWED THAT THE VALUE OF THE TRUST PROPERTY
WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE.  THE SOLE CONTROVERSY WAS
WHETHER DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR THE MOTHER'S AND DAUGHTERS'
LIFE INTERESTS AND FOR A CONTINGENT GIFT TO UNBORN CHILDREN.  FN2
LIKEWISE IN THE ESTATE OF FIELD CASE IT WAS CONCEDED THAT THE SETTLOR
RETAINED UNTIL DEATH A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST - THE RIGHT TO REDUCE OR
CANCEL THE INTEREST OF LIFE TENANTS AND A REVERSION OF THE CORPUS TO
HIMSELF IF HE SURVIVED THESE TENANTS.  IN THE ESTATE OF FIELD CASE TOO
THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNED THE BASIS ON WHICH THE ESTATE WAS TO BE
ASSESSED - WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE LIFE TENANCIES WAS TO BE DEDUCTED
FROM THE CORPUS.  THE GOLDSTONE CASE WAS IN EFFECT ANOTHER HALLOCK
CASE, THE INSURANCE BEING PAYABLE UPON THE DONOR'S DEATH TO THE WIFE
BUT WITH A RESERVED RIGHT IN THE DONOR IF SHE PREDECEASED HIM. 

THE BIRTH OF GRANDCHILDREN IN SPIEGEL'S LIFETIME DESTROYS ALL
RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN HIS CASE AND THE CASES JUST DISCUSSED.  ON THE
LEAST FAVORABLE READING OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENT - WHEREBY THE
GRANDCHILDREN WOULD HAVE TO SURVIVE NOT ONLY THEIR PARENTS BUT ALSO THE
SETTLOR - THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SETTLOR WOULD REGAIN THE PROPERTY
WAS EXTREMELY TENUOUS.  READING THE TRUST INSTRUMENT IN A CUSTOMARY AND
NOT IN A HOSTILE SPIRIT, THE GRANDCHILDREN WOULD MERELY HAVE TO SURVIVE
THEIR PARENTS AND NOT THE SETTLOR FOR THEIR INTEREST TO BECOME
INDEFEASIBLE.  THUS THE REMOTE CONTINGENCY OF REACQUISITION BY THE
SETTLOR VANISHES.  FN3 

TO BE SURE, IN BOTH THE FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. AND THE
ESTATE OF FIELD CASES THERE IS GENERALITY OF LANGUAGE ABOUT
INDIFFERENCE REGARDING THE REMOTENESS OR UNCERTAINTY OF THE DECEDENT'S
"REVERSIONARY INTEREST."  BUT IN BOTH CASES AS WE HAVE SEEN THERE WAS
NO QUESTION THAT THE TRUST INSTRUMENT ITSELF PURPOSELY RESERVED IN THE
SETTLOR AN INTEREST WHICH IN ITS CONTEXT WAS SUBSTANTIAL.  THE TALK OF
UNCERTAINTY AND REMOTENESS WAS MERELY A WAY OF INDICATING THAT WHERE
THE SETTLOR HIMSELF HAD RESERVED AN INTEREST TERMINABLE ONLY BY HIS
DEATH, IT WAS NOT FOR THE LAW TO MAKE NICE CALCULATIONS AS TO THE
CHANCE HE WAS GIVING HIMSELF TO REGAIN THE PROPERTY.  IN THESE TWO
CASES THE SETTLOR THOUGHT THE RESERVED INTEREST HAD SIGNIFICANCE AND OF
COURSE THE LAW GAVE THAT SIGNIFICANCE MONETARY VALUE.  SPIEGEL
CONTRARIWISE DESIGNED TO RETAIN NOTHING AND HIS ESTATE SHOULD NOT BE
HELD TO INCLUDE PROPERTY OF WHICH HE DIVESTED HIMSELF MANY YEARS BEFORE
HIS DEATH. 

4.  BUT EVEN THE GOSSAMER THREAD WHICH BINDS THE MAJORITY TOGETHER IN
SUBJECTING THE SPIEGEL TRUST CORPUS TO AN ESTATE TAX IS VISIBLE ONLY TO
THEIR MIND'S EYE.  THE GOSSAMER THREAD IS THE REMOTE POSSIBILITY THAT
AT THE TIME OF SPIEGEL'S DEATH THERE WOULD BE A REVERTER OF THE TRUST
PROPERTY TO HIM.  BUT THAT POSSIBILITY DEPENDS ENTIRELY UPON ITS
RECOGNITION BY THE LAW OF ILLINOIS.  IT IS AT BEST A DUBIOUS ASSUMPTION
THAT SUCH A REVERTER EXISTS UNDER ILLINOIS LAW.  MY BROTHER BURTON'S
ARGUMENT IN DISPROOF IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE DISMISSED.  AT BEST, HOWEVER,
THIS COURT'S GUESS THAT ILLINOIS LAW WOULD ENFORCE SUCH A REVERTER MAY
BE DISPLACED THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S
AUTHORITATIVE REJECTION OF THE GUESS.  IF TAX LIABILITY IS TO HANG BY A
GOSSAMER THREAD, THE COURT OUGHT TO BE SURE THAT THE THREAD IS THERE. 
SINCE ONLY THE COURTS OF ILLINOIS CAN DEFINITIVELY INFORM US ABOUT
THIS, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME COMMON SENSE TO SECURE AN ADJUDICATION FROM
THEM IF SOME APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE OF ILLINOIS, LIKE THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACT, IS AVAILABLE.  FN4  TO JUSTIFY AT ALL THE COURT'S THEORY,
THE RATIONAL MODE OF DISPOSING OF THE CASE WOULD BE TO REMAND IT TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN ORDER TO ALLOW THAT COURT
TO DECIDE WHETHER IN FACT A PROCEDURE IS AVAILABLE UNDER ILLINOIS LAW
FOR A RULING UPON THE POINT OF ILLINOIS LAW WHICH IS MADE THE BASIS OF
THIS COURT'S DECISION, SINCE THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS COURT'S ASSUMPTION
IS AT BEST DOUBTFUL.  CF. THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S.
478, 483-484; SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, INC. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101. 
A DETERMINATION SO MADE WOULD CONCLUSIVELY FIX THE INTERESTS ACTUALLY
HELD BY THE PARTIES TO THE INSTRUMENT AND AT THE SAME TIME LEAVE TO THE
FEDERAL COURTS THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THESE INTERESTS.  BLAIR V.
COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 9-14; FREULER V. HELVERING, 291 U.S. 35. 

   II. 

THE REACH OF THE CHURCH CASE, NO. 5, EXTENDS FAR BEYOND THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE TAX STATUTE.  FN5  IT CONCERNS THE APPROPRIATE
ATTITUDE OF THIS COURT TOWARD A SERIES OF LONG-STANDING UNANIMOUS
DECISIONS BY THIS COURT.  MORE THAN THAT, IT INVOLVES THE RESPECT OWED
BY THIS COURT TO THE EXPRESSED INTENTION OF CONGRESS. 

THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THIS.  MORE THAN EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO THIS
COURT BY A UNANIMOUS RULING FOUND THAT CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN TO SUBJECT
A TRUST CORPUS TRANSFERRED BY A DECEDENT IN HIS LIFETIME TO THE ESTATE
TAX IMPOSED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918 MERELY BECAUSE THE SETTLOR HAD
RESERVED THE INCOME TO HIMSELF FOR LIFE.  MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238. 
AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY, IN THREE CASES HAVING MINOR VARIATIONS BUT
PRESENTING THE SAME ISSUE, THE TREASURY INVITED THE COURT'S
RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION.  BUT THE COURT, AFTER HAVING HAD THE
BENEFIT OF COMPREHENSIVE BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS BY COUNSEL SPECIALLY
COMPETENT IN FISCAL MATTERS, UNANIMOUSLY ADHERED TO ITS RULING IN MAY
V. HEINER.  BURNET V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 283 U.S. 782; MORSMAN V.
BURNET, 283 U.S. 783; MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 784.  THESE
DECISIONS, NOW CAST ASIDE, WERE SHARED IN BY JUDGES OF WHOM IT MUST BE
SAID WITHOUT INVIDIOUSNESS THAT THEY WERE MOST ALERT IN RECOGNIZING THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND RESOURCEFUL IN PROTECTING IT.  THERE WERE BRAVE MEN
BEFORE AGAMEMNON.  IF SUCH A SERIES OF DECISIONS, VIEWED IN ALL THEIR
CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THAT WHICH ESTABLISHED THE RULE IN MAY V. HEINER, IS
TO HAVE ONLY CONTEMPORANEOUS VALUE, THE WISEST DECISIONS OF THE PRESENT
COURT ARE ASSURED NO GREATER PERMANENCE. 

IN FAIRNESS, ATTENTION SHOULD BE CALLED TO THE FACT THAT IN JOINING
THE COURT'S DECISIONS LAYING DOWN, AND ADHERING TO, THE MAY V. HEINER
RULING, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, AND MR. JUSTICE STONE WERE NOT DENIED ARGUMENT WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAS NOW URGED UPON US.  BUT IT IS ALSO FAIR TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO POINT OUT THAT IT HAS NOT OF ITS OWN ACCORD ASKED THIS
COURT TO OVERRULE THE FOUR DECISIONS RENDERED EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO.  IT
WAS ONLY AFTER THE CASE WAS ORDERED FOR REARGUMENT AND A SERIES OF
QUESTIONS WAS FORMULATED BY THE COURT WHICH SHED DOUBT UPON THE
CONTINUED VITALITY OF MAY V. HEINER, THAT THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTED THAT
THE DECISION BE CAST INTO LIMBO.  68 SUP. CT. 1524.  NO DOUBT STARE
DECISIS IS NOT "A UNIVERSAL, INEXORABLE COMMAND."  BRANDEIS, J.,
DISSENTING IN WASHINGTON V. DAWSON & CO., 264 U.S. 219, 238.  BUT
NEITHER IS IT A DOCTRINE OF THE DEAD HAND.  IN THE VERY HALLOCK CASE
RELIED UPON SO HEAVILY IN THESE CASES THE COURT SAID, "WE RECOGNIZE
THAT STARE DECISIS EMBODIES AN IMPORTANT SOCIAL POLICY.  IT REPRESENTS
AN ELEMENT OF CONTINUITY IN LAW, AND IS ROOTED IN THE PSYCHOLOGIC NEED
TO SATISFY REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS."  309 U.S. AT 119.  AND ONE OF THE
MOST RECENT RELIANCES ON STARE DECISIS FOR DECISION WAS EXPRESSED WITH
SUCH FIRMNESS AS TO MANIFEST ALLEGIANCE TO PRINCIPLE, NOT UTILIZATION
OF AN AD HOC ARGUMENT.  FN6  WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH A RULING
WHICH CRAMPS THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT; WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A
CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION WHICH TIME AND EXPERIENCE HAVE PROVED A
PAROCHIAL INSTEAD OF A SPACIOUS VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION AND WHICH THUS
CALLS FOR SELF-CORRECTION BY THE COURT WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE LEADEN
FOOTED PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.  WE ARE DEALING WITH AN
EXERCISE OF THIS COURT'S DUTY TO CONSTRUE WHAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED
WITH AMPLE POWERS ON ITS PART QUICKLY AND COMPLETELY TO CORRECT
MISCONSTRUCTION. 

THOSE POWERS WERE PROMPTLY INVOKED IN THIS CASE.  BECAUSE THE
TREASURY WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE MEANING GIVEN BY THIS COURT TO THE
ESTATE-TAX PROVISION, THE VERY NEXT DAY AFTER THE THREE DECISIONS
REAFFIRMING MAY V. HEINER WERE HANDED DOWN, THE TREASURY APPEALED TO
CONGRESS FOR RELIEF AND CONGRESS GAVE RELIEF.  THE TRUE SIGNIFICANCE OF
TODAY'S DECISION IN THE CHURCH CASE IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE COURT'S
FAILURE TO RESPECT STARE DECISIS.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH JUDGES SHOULD
FEEL IN DUTY BOUND NOT TO INNOVATE IS A PERENNIAL PROBLEM, AND THE PULL
OF THE PAST IS DIFFERENT AMONG DIFFERENT JUDGES AS IT IS IN THE SAME
JUDGE ABOUT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PAST.  WE ARE OBLIGATED, HOWEVER,
TO ENFORCE WHAT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DECLARE.  INEVITABLE
DIFFICULTIES ARISE WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT MADE CLEAR ITS PURPOSE, BUT
WHEN THAT PURPOSE IS MADE MANIFEST IN A MANNER THAT LEAVES NO DOUBT
ACCORDING TO THE ORDINARY MEANING OF ENGLISH SPEECH, THIS COURT, IN
DISREGARDING IT, IS DISREGARDING THE LIMITS OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION
WHICH WE ALL PROFESS TO OBSERVE. 

THE TREASURY NO DOUBT WAS DEEPLY CONCERNED OVER THE EMPHATIC
REAFFIRMATION OF MAY V. HEINER.  THE RELIEF SOUGHT FROM CONGRESS WAS
FORMULATED BY THE FISCAL AND LEGAL EXPERT WHO HAD THAT VERY DAY FAILED
IN PERSUADING THIS COURT TO OVERRULE MAY V. HEINER.  WHAT RELIEF DID
THE TREASURY SEEK FROM CONGRESS?  DID THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ASK
CONGRESS TO REWRITE SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, NOW SEC.
811(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SO AS TO STERILIZE MAY V. HEINER? 
CERTAINLY NOT.  NOT ONE WORD WAS ALTERED OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE
PROVISION WHICH THIS COURT FELT COMPELLED TO CONSTRUE AS IT DID IN MAY
V. HEINER.  WHAT THE TREASURY PROPOSED AND WHAT CONGRESS GRANTED WAS A
QUALIFYING ADDITION TO THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED IN MAY V. HEINER
WHEREBY TRUST SETTLEMENTS RESERVING A LIFE INTEREST IN THE SETTLOR WERE
TO BE INCLUDED IN A DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE, BUT ONLY IN THE CASE OF
SETTLEMENTS MADE AFTER THIS QUALIFICATION BECAME OPERATIVE, THAT IS,
AFTER MARCH 3, 1931.  SUCH, IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
WAS THE INESCAPABLE MEANING OF WHAT CONGRESS DID, AND THE ONLY THING IT
DID, TO QUALIFY THE READING WHICH THIS COURT FOUR TIMES FELT
CONSTRAINED TO PLACE UPON THE MANDATE OF CONGRESS IN THE IMPOSITION OF
THE ESTATE TAX.  THE HISTORY IS RECOUNTED IN HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S.
303, AGAIN WITHOUT A DISSENTING VOICE.  THIS HISTORY IS SO CRUCIAL TO
THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN THIS CASE, THAT IT BEARS
REPETITION. 

WHEN THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, WAS ADOPTED, IT WAS CLEAR
THAT IT WAS TO BE ONLY OF PROSPECTIVE EFFECT.  ITS SPONSORS
SPECIFICALLY DECLARED: 

"ENTIRELY APART FROM THE REFUNDS THAT MAY BE EXPECTED TO RESULT, IT
IS TO BE ANTICIPATED THAT MANY PERSONS WILL PROCEED TO EXECUTE TRUSTS
OR OTHER VARIETIES OF TRANSFERS UNDER WHICH THEY WILL BE ENABLED TO
ESCAPE THE ESTATE TAX UPON THEIR PROPERTY.  IT IS OF THE GREATEST
IMPORTANCE THEREFORE THAT THIS SITUATION BE CORRECTED AND THAT THIS
OBVIOUS OPPORTUNITY FOR TAX AVOIDANCE BE REMOVED.  IT IS FOR THAT
PURPOSE THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION IS PROPOSED."  74 CONG. REC. 7198 AND
7078. 

AND THERE WAS GOOD REASON FOR NOT MAKING IT RETROACTIVE: 

"WE DID NOT MAKE IT RETROACTIVE FOR THE REASON THAT WE WERE AFRAID
THAT THE SENATE WOULD NOT AGREE TO IT.  BUT I DO HOPE THAT WHEN THIS
MATTER IS CONSIDERED IN THE SEVENTY-SECOND CONGRESS WE MAY BE ABLE TO
PASS A BILL THAT WILL MAKE IT RETROACTIVE."  74 CONG. REC. 7199. 

THESE STATEMENTS ON THE FLOOR BY THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE RESOLUTION
ARE CONTROLLING, AS MUCH AS THOUGH THEY HAD BEEN SUBMITTED IN A
COMMITTEE REPORT, FOR THEY WERE THE AUTHORITATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE
RESOLUTION'S PURPOSE AND MEANING.  IN FACT, REPRESENTATIVE SCHAFER OF
WISCONSIN HAD STATED THAT UNLESS THE SPONSORS EXPLAINED THE BILL HE
WOULD OBJECT, THUS PREVENTING ITS ACCEPTANCE AS A RESOLUTION.  74 CONG.
REC. 7198. 

WHEN THE SECTION WAS REENACTED BY THE 72D CONGRESS AS SEC. 803(A) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, IT REMAINED IN THE PRE-MAY V. HEINER LANGUAGE
WITH THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, ADDED IN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT
PHRASING.  47 STAT. 279.  THIS SECTION WAS INTERPRETED IN 1938 BY A
UNANIMOUS COURT AS NOT APPLYING TO A RESERVED LIFE ESTATE CREATED IN
1924.  HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303.  THE BRIEFS FILED BY THE
GOVERNMENT IN THAT CASE AGAIN CONTAINED MUCH OF THE SAME DATA NOW FOUND
TO DEMAND A CONTRARY RESULT.  FN7  ON THE SAME DAY THIS COURT ALSO
DECIDED HELVERING V. BULLARD, 303 U.S. 297, WHICH HELD THE JOINT
RESOLUTION APPLICABLE TO RESERVED LIFE ESTATES CREATED AFTER THE
PASSAGE OF THE RESOLUTION.  IT QUOTED THE SAME LANGUAGE FROM MATTER OF
KEENEY, 194 N.Y. 281, 287, NOW QUOTED BY THE MAJORITY, THUS INDICATING
THAT IT APPRECIATED THE TAX-AVOIDANCE PROBLEM AND WOULD HAVE
INTERPRETED SEC. 803(A) RETROACTIVELY HAD CONGRESS INDICATED THAT IT
INTENDED TO TAX RESERVED LIFE ESTATES CREATED BEFORE MARCH 3, 1931. 
FN8  IT IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT IN HASSETT V. WELCH, SUPRA,
THE COURT CONSIDERED ONLY THE LANGUAGE ADDED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION
AND NOT THE SECTION IN ITS ENTIRETY, SINCE IT PHRASED THE ISSUE BEFORE
IT IN THIS WAY: 

"THE PETITIONERS ASK US TO HOLD THAT SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1926 AS AMENDED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 3,
1931, AND SEC. 803(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, INCLUDES IN THE GROSS
ESTATE OF A DECEDENT, FOR ESTATE TAX, PROPERTY WHICH, BEFORE THE
ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS, WAS IRREVOCABLY TRANSFERRED WITH
RESERVATION OF A LIFE ESTATE TO THE TRANSFEROR ..."  303 U.S. AT 304. 

IF MAY V. HEINER HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AS AUTHORITATIVE, IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN POINTLESS TO DECIDE THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 302(C) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926 DID NOT OPERATE RETROACTIVELY.  SEE LEARNED HAND,
J., IN HELVERING V. PROCTOR, 140 F.2D 87, 89(C.A.2D CIR.). 

OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ATTACK MAY V. HEINER IN HASSETT V.
WELCH, SUPRA.  HAVING BEEN REBUFFED THREE TIMES BY THIS COURT IN ITS
EFFORTS TO SECURE ITS OVERRULING AND HAVING RESORTED TO CONGRESS TO
NULLIFY ITS EFFECT, THE WHOLE CLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT IN HASSETT V.
WELCH WAS THAT CONGRESS HAD, AS IT WERE, OVERRULED MAY V. HEINER BY THE
RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, NOT ONLY PROSPECTIVELY, BUT
RETROSPECTIVELY.  THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESOLUTION OF 1931 HAD TO BE
REJECTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE RESOLUTION. 
THE UNANIMITY OF THE COURT'S DECISION IN HASSETT V. WELCH CONFIRMS THE
INEVITABILITY OF THE DECISION.  AND THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT LED THE
GOVERNMENT NOT TO ATTACK MAY V. HEINER IN HASSETT V. WELCH LIKEWISE LED
THE GOVERNMENT NOT TO ASK THE COURT TO OVERRULE MAY V. HEINER IN THIS
LITIGATION UNTIL PROPELLED TO DO SO BY THIS COURT'S ORDER FOR
REARGUMENT.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS WERE OF THE SAME NATURE, EXCEPT
REENFORCED BY ANOTHER DECADE'S RESPECT FOR MAY V. HEINER BY THE
TREASURY IN THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAW. 

CONGRESS HAS MADE NO CHANGE IN THIS SECTION SINCE 1932 AND THE
IDENTICAL LANGUAGE WAS CARRIED OVER AS SEC. 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE IN 1939.  THERE HAS BEEN NO AMENDMENT TO THIS LANGUAGE IN
THE CODE.  ALTHOUGH THE SPONSORS OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION IN THE HOUSE
EXPRESSED THE HOPE THAT THE NEXT CONGRESS WOULD MAKE THE RESOLUTION'S
PROVISIONS RETROACTIVE, NOTHING OF THE SORT WAS DONE.  SEE 74 CONG.
REC. 7199, PARTIALLY QUOTED ANTE AT P. 678.  NOR DID THE TREASURY
REMIND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONGRESS OF THIS UNFINISHED BUSINESS, DESPITE THE
FACT THAT IT URGED AMENDMENT OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ESTATE-TAX
LAW.  FN9 

THE COURT DURING THE PAST DECADE, IN AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF DECISIONS,
HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES FAR LESS
COMPELLING THAN THE STORY HERE SUMMARIZED.  SEE THE MASSIVE BODY OF
CASES COLLECTED IN APPENDIX A, POST, P. 687.  MOREOVER, IN THE FACE OF
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SET OUT ABOVE, EVEN AN OVERRULING OF THE FIVE
CASES IN WHICH THIS PRECISE ISSUE WAS DECIDED WOULD NOT GIVE THIS COURT
A FREE HAND.  FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS OF CONGRESS MAKE THE MEANING
ANNOUNCED IN MAY V. HEINER AND REAFFIRMED FOUR TIMES AS MUCH A PART OF
THE WORDING OF THE STATUTE AS IF IT HAD BEEN WRITTEN IN EXPRESS TERMS. 
SEE NOTE, 59 HARV. L. REV. 1277, 1285.  AN INTERPRETATION THAT "CAME
LIKE A BOMBSHELL" CERTAINLY HAD THE ATTENTION OF THE CONGRESS.  ITS
FAILURE TO ALTER THE LANGUAGE INDICATES THAT IT ACCEPTED THAT
INTERPRETATION.  SEE THE CASES COLLECTED IN APPENDIX B, POST, P. 690. 
DUE REGARD FOR THIS COURT'S FUNCTION PRECLUDES IT FROM IGNORING
EXPLICIT LEGISLATIVE INTENTION EVEN TO "YIELD RESULTS MORE CONSONANT
WITH FAIRNESS AND REASON."  ANDERSON V. WILSON, 289 U.S. 20, 27; SEE
CARDOZO, THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS 14(1921).  WHAT THE
TREASURY COULD NOT INDUCE THE HOUSE TO DO BECAUSE THE SENATE WOULD NOT
VOTE FOR IT WE SHOULD NOT NOW, EIGHTEEN YEARS LATER, BRING TO PASS
SIMPLY BECAUSE OUR ACTION IN THIS CASE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THAT BODY'S
CONCURRENCE. 

NO COMPARABLE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WAS FLOUTED IN HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106.  IT IS ONE THING TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS IS NOT
CHARGED EITHER WITH SEEKING OUT AND READING DECISIONS WHICH REACH
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN THE APPLICATION OF A SOUND PRINCIPLE OR WITH
TAKING STEPS TO MEET SUCH DECISIONS.  THIS IS THE MEANING OF OUR
HOLDING IN THE HALLOCK CASE.  FN10  IT IS QUITE A DIFFERENT THING TO
SAY THAT A STATUTE DOES NOT ACQUIRE AUTHORITATIVE CONTENT WHEN A
DECISION INTERPRETING IT HAS BEEN CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC
AND OF CONGRESS AND HAS ENGENDERED PROFESSIONAL CONTROVERSY, AND WHEN
CONGRESS, AFTER FULL DEBATE, HAS NOT MERELY REFUSED TO UNDO THE EFFECT
OF THE DECISION BUT HAS SEEN FIT TO MODIFY IT ONLY PARTIALLY. 
HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371; UNITED STATES V. SOUTH BUFFALO R.
CO., 333 U.S. 771, 773-785; CF. APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S.
469, 487-489.  THAT IS THIS CASE.  FN11 

THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY IN THE HALLOCK CASE DID NOT, EITHER
EXPLICITLY OR BY IMPLICATION, DECLARE THAT MAY V. HEINER WAS NO LONGER
THE ACCEPTED INTERPRETATION OF THE PRE-1931 PART OF THE LANGUAGE IN
SEC. 811(C).  WHEN WE SPOKE OF WHAT HAD BEEN "CONGRESSIONALLY
DISCARDED" - A REFERENCE, INCIDENTALLY, MADE TO ANSWER THE ARGUMENT
THAT CONGRESS HAD LEGISLATIVELY RECOGNIZED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
KLEIN  FN12  AND THE ST. LOUIS TRUST  FN13  CASES - WE MEANT JUST WHAT
CONGRESS MEANT, THAT WHERE A SETTLOR CREATED A TRUST AFTER MAY 3, 1931,
IN WHICH HE RESERVED A LIFE ESTATE, THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED WOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT ONLY ONE  FN14
OF THE MANY CIRCUIT JUDGES WHO HAVE DEALT WITH THE HALLOCK OPINION HAS
THOUGHT THAT IT OVERRULED MAY V. HEINER OR THAT THE INTERPRETATION
THERE ANNOUNCED WAS TO BE CHANGED.  COMMISSIONER V. HALL'S ESTATE, 153
F.2D 172(C.A.2D CIR.); HELVERING V. PROCTOR, 140 F.2D 87(C.A.2D CIR.);
COMMISSIONER V. CHURCH'S ESTATE, 161 F.2D 11(C.A.3D CIR.); UNITED
STATES V. BROWN, 134 F.2D 372(C.A.9TH CIR.).  THE CONTENTION THAT THE
HALLOCK CASE OVERRULED MAY V. HEINER WAS, ONE WOULD HAVE SUPPOSED,
CONCLUSIVELY ANSWERED BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN HELVERING V. PROCTOR,
SUPRA AT PP. 88-89:    "THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY IN HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, SUPRA, DID NOT EXPLICITLY, OR BY INFERENCE FROM ANYTHING SAID,
DECLARE THAT MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA  ...  WAS NO LONGER LAW.  WE DO NOT
FORGET THAT IN A NOTE ON PAGE 120 OF 309 U.S. ...  FRANKFURTER, J.,
SPOKE OF THE 'CONGRESSIONALLY DISCARDED MAY V. HEINER DOCTRINE;' BUT IT
WOULD BE QUITE UNWARRANTED FROM THAT TO INFER THAT THE COURT MEANT TO
OVERRULE THAT 'DOCTRINE,' AND THE NOTE WAS ADDED FOR QUITE ANOTHER
PURPOSE.  ... IT CANNOT PROPERLY BE INTERPRETED AS HOLDING THAT THE
AMENDMENT WAS A LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATION THAT MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA,
HAD BEEN WRONGLY DECIDED.  PERHAPS IT WAS WRONGLY DECIDED; PERHAPS THE
AMENDMENT IS EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS; BUT THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT SAY
SO, OR INDICATE THAT IT THOUGHT SO.  IT IS TRUE THAT ROBERTS, J. IN HIS
DISSENT FOUND NO DIFFERENCE (309 U.S. AT PAGE 127 ...  ) BETWEEN THAT
DECISION AND HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., SUPRA, 296 U.S. 39
... AND APPARENTLY THOUGHT THAT CONSISTENTLY, MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA,
MUST ALSO FALL, BUT THE MAJORITY DID NOT SHARE HIS OPINION. 

"HELVERING V. HALLOCK, SUPRA, 309 U.S. 106  ...  WAS CONCERNED WITH
QUITE ANOTHER SITUATION.  THE SETTLOR HAD PROVIDED THAT, IF HE SURVIVED
HIS WIFE - WHO HAD A LIFE ESTATE - THE REMAINDER WENT TO HIM; BUT IF
SHE SURVIVED HIM, THE REMAINDER WENT TO HER.  ALL THAT WAS DECIDED WAS
THAT, WHEN THAT WAS THE INTENT, IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE WHAT WAS THE FORM
OF WORDS USED.  IT WAS ENOUGH THAT THE SETTLOR'S DEATH CUT OFF AN
INTEREST WHICH HE HAD RESERVED TO HIMSELF UPON A CONDITION THEN
DETERMINED; THAT MADE THE REMAINDER A PART OF HIS ESTATE.  ...  IF
THEREFORE MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA, 281 U.S. 238  ...  IS TO BE OVERRULED,
WE DO NOT SEE HOW HELVERING V. HALLOCK, SUPRA, CAN BE THOUGHT TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THAT RESULT; IT MUST BE OVERRULED BY A NEW AND ALTOGETHER
INDEPENDENT LIFT OF POWER, WHICH IT IS CLEARLY NOT OURS TO EXERCISE. 
FURTHERMORE, IF THE COMMISSIONER IS RIGHT, HELVERING V. HALLOCK, SUPRA,
309 U.S. 106  ...  ALSO OVERRULED HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303  ...
SUB SILENTIO.  THAT DECISION HAD HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 302(C)
DID NOT OPERATE RETROACTIVELY; AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO
DISCUSS THAT QUESTION, NOR WOULD THE ACTUAL RESULT HAVE BEEN THE SAME,
IF MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA, 281 U.S. 238  ...  HAD NOT BEEN LAW." 

I WOULD REVERSE SPIEGEL V. COMMISSIONER, NO. 3, AND AFFIRM
COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF CHURCH, NO. 5. 

FN1  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT DID NOT DETERMINE
WHETHER A GRANDCHILD WHO SURVIVED HIS PARENT ALSO HAD TO SURVIVE THE
SETTLOR-DECEDENT TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIS SHARE OF THE PRINCIPAL GO TO
HIS ESTATE. 

FN2  THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI WAS "LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST AT THE TIME OF DECEDENT'S
DEATH SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE." 
FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S. 108, 110.  THE
SAME IS TRUE IN COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF FIELD, 324 U.S. 113, 114. 

FN3  IN NO. 5, COMMISSIONER V. CHURCH, IT IS EVEN CLEARER THAT EVENTS
SUBSEQUENT TO THE CREATION OF THE TRUST REMOVED WHATEVER POSSIBILITY OF
REVERTER HAD PREVIOUSLY EXISTED EVEN IF ONE ASSUMES THAT WHEN THE TRUST
WAS CREATED THE SETTLOR WOULD REGAIN THE PROPERTY IF CHILDREN OR HIS
BROTHERS AND SISTERS DID NOT SURVIVE HIM.  THE TRUST INDENTURE PROVIDED
THAT THE CORPUS WAS TO GO TO THE ISSUE OF DECEASED BROTHERS AND SISTERS
IF HE SURVIVED HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, BUT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT
THAT THE CHILDREN SURVIVE ANYONE TO TAKE.  UNLESS WE ARE GOING TO
IMPORT NOTIONS OF TORTIOUS CONVEYANCES INTO MODERN TRUST ARRANGEMENTS,
THE SUBSEQUENT BIRTH OF THE CHILDREN OF HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS
REMOVED ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD COME BACK TO THE
SETTLOR.  SINCE I DO NOT REJECT MAY V. HEINER, I DO NOT REGARD THE
RETENTION OF THE LIFE ESTATE AS CAUSING THE ESTATE TO BE TAXED. 

FN4  SEE SMITH-HURD, ILL. STAT. ANN., TITLE 110, SEC. 181.1.  (ADDED
MAY 16, 1945.) 

FN5  THE PORTION OF SEC. 811(C) WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED HAS
BEEN CONTINUOUSLY ON THE STATUTE BOOKS SINCE 1916, WHEN THE FIRST
FEDERAL ESTATE-TAX LAW WAS ENACTED.  REVENUE ACT OF 1916, SEC. 202(B),
39 STAT. 777; REVENUE ACT OF 1918, SEC. 402(C), 40 STAT. 1097; REVENUE
ACT OF 1921, SEC. 402(C), 42 STAT. 278; REVENUE ACT OF 1924, SEC.
302(C), 43 STAT. 304; REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC. 302(C), 44 STAT. 70,
AMENDED BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, 46 STAT. 1516; REVENUE
ACT OF 1932, SEC. 803(A), 47 STAT. 278; INT. REV. CODE SEC. 811(C). 

FN6  SEE SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, 112-113.  "BUT BEYOND
THAT IS THE PROBLEM OF STARE DECISIS.  THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN SEC. 20
IN THE CLASSIC CASE FORMULATED A RULE OF LAW WHICH HAS BECOME THE BASIS
OF FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT IN THIS IMPORTANT FIELD.  THE RULE ADOPTED IN
THAT CASE WAS FORMULATED AFTER MATURE CONSIDERATION.  IT SHOULD BE GOOD
FOR MORE THAN ONE DAY ONLY.  WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A SITUATION COMPARABLE
TO MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., 321 U.S. 96, WHERE WE OVERRULED A
DECISION DEMONSTRATED TO BE A SPORT IN THE LAW AND INCONSISTENT WITH
WHAT PRECEDED AND WHAT FOLLOWED.  THE CLASSIC CASE WAS NOT THE PRODUCT
OF HASTY ACTION OR INADVERTENCE.  IT WAS NOT OUT OF LINE WITH THE CASES
WHICH PRECEDED.  IT WAS DESIGNED TO FASHION THE GOVERNING RULE OF LAW
IN THIS IMPORTANT FIELD.  WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATIONS WHICH THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE COURT HAVE WISELY
REMAINED FLEXIBLE AND SUBJECT TO FREQUENT REEXAMINATION.  THE MEANING
WHICH THE CLASSIC CASE GAVE TO THE PHRASE 'UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW'
INVOLVED ONLY A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  HENCE IF IT STATES A RULE
UNDESIRABLE IN ITS CONSEQUENCES, CONGRESS CAN CHANGE IT.  WE ADD ONLY
TO THE INSTABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY OF THE LAW IF WE REVISE THE MEANING
OF SEC. 20 TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF EACH CASE COMING BEFORE US." 

FN7  SEE BRIEF FOR PETITIONER, PP. 20 ET SEQ., IN HASSETT V. WELCH,
303 U.S. 303. 

FN8  THE COURT MADE IT CLEAR IN MAY V. HEINER AND THE THREE CASES
FOLLOWING IT THAT IT WAS RESOLVING A STATUTORY, RATHER THAN A
CONSTITUTIONAL, QUESTION.  MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238, 244-245; BURNET
V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 283 U.S. 782, 783; MORSMAN V. BURNET, 283 U.S.
783, 783-784; MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 784, 784-785.  NOR WAS
CONGRESS LEFT IN DOUBT THAT THE COURT HAD MERELY CONSTRUED THE STATUTE
WHICH CONGRESS WAS THEN BEING ASKED TO QUALIFY.  IN THE HOUSE, MR.
BLACK OF NEW YORK ASKED, "WAS THE SUPREME COURT DECISION BASED ON A
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, OR A DISCUSSION OF THE STATUTE?"  TO WHICH A
SPONSOR OF THE LEGISLATION, MR. GARNER OF TEXAS, REPLIED, "IT WAS ON
THE STATUTE ITSELF, AND WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL."  74 CONG. REC. 7199. 
INDEED IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASSUME THAT THE COURT WAS AFFECTED BY NOTIONS
OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WHEN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK HELD SIMILAR WORDS TO APPLY TO A RESERVED LIFE
ESTATE, THIS COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE LAW OFFENDED THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  KEENEY V. NEW YORK,
222 U.S. 525. 

FN9  SEE, E.G., HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON
REVENUE REVISION, 1932, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. 7, 42-43; HEARINGS BEFORE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.
33, 51; 75 CONG. REC. 5787; HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
ON THE REVENUE ACT, 1936, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 624; HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON REVISION OF REVENUE LAWS 1938, 75TH
CONG., 3D SESS. 108; HEARINGS BEFORE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 692-93; HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON REVENUE REVISION OF 1941, 77TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 74-75; HEARINGS BEFORE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1941, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 37; DATA ON PROPOSED REVENUE BILL OF
1942 SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BY THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT AND THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE
TAXATION 363-65(1942), AND HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS ON REVENUE REVISION OF 1942, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 7, 91-92, 94;
REVISED HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON REVENUE
REVISION OF 1943, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 7; REVISED HEARINGS BEFORE THE
FINANCE COMMITTEE ON THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 46;
FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES, A PROPOSAL FOR INTEGRATION AND FOR
CORRELATION WITH THE INCOME TAX, A JOINT STUDY PREPARED BY AN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND BY THE OFFICE OF THE TAX
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE DIVISION OF TAX
RESEARCH AND THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (1948); LETTER FROM THE
UNDER SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO THE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS, FEBRUARY 26, 1948, PP. 3, 5, 8(MIMEOGRAPHED COPY FURNISHED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY). 

FN10  THE ENTIRE TEXT OF THE HALLOCK OPINION INSOFAR AS HERE RELEVANT
MAKES CLEAR WHY THE SITUATION IN THE HALLOCK CASE IS NOT AT ALL SIMILAR
TO THAT INVOLVED IN THE CHURCH CASE. 

"NOR DOES WANT OF SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL REPUDIATIONS OF THE ST.
LOUIS TRUST CASES SERVE AS AN IMPLIED INSTRUCTION BY CONGRESS TO US NOT
TO RECONSIDER, IN THE LIGHT OF NEW EXPERIENCE, WHETHER THOSE DECISIONS,
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE KLEIN CASE, MAKE FOR DISSONANCE OF DOCTRINE. 
IT WOULD REQUIRE VERY PERSUASIVE CIRCUMSTANCES ENVELOPING CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE TO DEBAR THIS COURT FROM REEXAMINING ITS OWN DOCTRINES.  TO
EXPLAIN THE CAUSE OF NON-ACTION BY CONGRESS WHEN CONGRESS ITSELF SHEDS
NO LIGHT IS TO VENTURE INTO SPECULATIVE UNREALITIES.  CONGRESS MAY NOT
HAVE HAD ITS ATTENTION DIRECTED TO AN UNDESIRABLE DECISION; AND THERE
IS NO INDICATION THAT AS TO THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES IT HAD, EVEN BY
ANY BILL THAT FOUND ITS WAY INTO A COMMITTEE PIGEON-HOLE.  CONGRESS MAY
NOT HAVE HAD ITS ATTENTION SO DIRECTED FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS THAT
MAY HAVE MOVED THE TREASURY TO STAY ITS HAND.  BUT CERTAINLY SUCH
INACTION BY THE TREASURY CAN HARDLY OPERATE AS A CONTROLLING
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, THROUGH ACQUIESCENCE, TANTAMOUNT TO AN
ESTOPPEL BARRING REEXAMINATION BY THIS COURT OF DISTINCTIONS WHICH IT
HAD DRAWN.  VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY TACTICS AND
STRATEGY MIGHT BE SUGGESTED AS REASONS FOR THE INACTION OF THE TREASURY
AND OF CONGRESS, BUT THEY WOULD ONLY BE SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE THAT WE
WALK ON QUICKSAND WHEN WE TRY TO FIND IN THE ABSENCE OF CORRECTIVE
LEGISLATION A CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLE." 

FOOTNOTE 7 OF THE HALLOCK OPINION RECOGNIZED THE DOCTRINE OF
REENACTMENT BUT STATED THAT IT "HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE PRESENT
PROBLEM" BECAUSE (1) "THE FACT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IN DEALING WITH
ONE PROBLEM WHILE SILENT ON THE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE ST.
LOUIS TRUST CASES, DOES NOT IMPLY CONTROLLING ACCEPTANCE BY CONGRESS OF
THOSE CASES"; (2) "SINCE THE DECISIONS IN THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES,
CONGRESS HAS NOT RE-ENACTED SEC. 302(C)"; (3) THERE WAS  "...  NO  ...
LONG, UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION AND SUBSEQUENT RE-ENACTMENTS
OF AN AMBIGUOUS STATUTE TO GIVE GROUND FOR IMPLYING LEGISLATIVE
ADOPTION OF SUCH CONSTRUCTION."  AS INDICATED IN THE TEXT OF THIS
DISSENT, THE FOOTNOTE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS BY THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, COULD PLAUSIBLY BE SAID TO HAVE REJECTED
THE ATTITUDE UNDERLYING THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES.  THE TABLE IN THE
NEXT NOTE SHOWS JUST HOW INAPPOSITE ARE THESE OBSERVATIONS TO THE STORY
OF THE TREASURY'S ATTEMPT TO UNDO THIS COURT'S RULING IN MAY V. HEINER
AND THE CASES WHICH FOLLOWED IT. 

FN11  BEARING OF LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS
UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 39, COMPARED WITH THAT IN RESPONSE TO MAY V.
HEINER, 281 U.S. 238. 

                          ST. LOUIS

    RELEVANT FACTORS      TRUST CASES        MAY V. HEINER SERIES 

1.  AGE OF QUESTIONED       FIVE YEARS   EIGHTEEN YEARS 

INTERPRETATION WHEN 

ABANDONED 

2.  WEIGHT OF ADJUDICATION 

(A)  COURT'S DIVISION       5-4          UNANIMOUS 

(B)  TIMES DECIDED          ONCE         FIVE TIMES 

3.  EVIDENCE OF             NONE         (A)  THE EXACT HOLDING 

CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE               EXPLAINED TO CONGRESS

                                       (B)  CHANGE EXPRESSLY

                                       MADE PROSPECTIVE 

4.  APPARENT REASON FOR     NONE         DIFFICULTY OF GETTING
NECESSARY 

CONGRESSIONAL ADHERENCE   SENATE VOTES 

TO QUESTIONED CASE 

FN12  KLEIN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 231. 

FN13  HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 39; BECKER V.
ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 48. 

FN14  AND EVEN THE JUDGE WHO FOUND MAY V. HEINER INCONSISTENT WITH
THE HALLOCK CASE SUGGESTED THAT THE TAX COURT DETERMINE WHETHER THE
GRANTOR FAILED TO RELINQUISH HIS LIFE ESTATE IN RELIANCE ON MAY V.
HEINER.  SEE FRANK, J., DISSENTING IN COMMISSIONER V. HALL'S ESTATE,
153 F.2D 172, 174, 175(C.A.2D CIR.).  THE GOVERNMENT AT THE BAR OF THIS
COURT SUGGESTED THAT HARDSHIPS COULD BE ALLEVIATED BY A REGULATION
RELIEVING OF A TAX THOSE ESTATES WHICH COULD SHOW SUCH RELIANCE.  THE
VERY SUGGESTION INVOLVES A CONFESSION THAT THE DECISION URGED UPON THE
COURT WOULD BE UNFAIR. 

                              APPENDIX A

          DECISIONS DURING THE PAST DECADE IN WHICH LEGISLATIVE

           HISTORY WAS DECISIVE OF CONSTRUCTION OF         A

           PARTICULAR STATUTORY PROVISION 

UNITED STATES V. DURKEE FAMOUS FOODS, INC., 306 U.S. 68; UNITED STATES
V. TOWERY, 306 U.S. 324; KESSLER V. STRECKER, 307 U.S. 22; UNITED
STATES V. MAHER, 307 U.S. 148; UNITED STATES V. ONE 1936 MODEL FORD,
307 U.S. 219; SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 39; PALMER V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79; VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 308
U.S. 141; HAGGAR CO. V. HELVERING, 308 U.S. 389; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401; KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433;
MORGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78; SOUTH CHICAGO COAL & DOCK CO. V.
BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251; AMALGAMATED UTILITY WORKERS V. CONSOLIDATED
EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, 309 U.S. 261; GERMANTOWN TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 304; SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP.,
309 U.S. 390; UNITED STATES V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 310
U.S. 16; SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381; UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534; UNITED STATES V.
DICKERSON, 310 U.S. 554; HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL ROLLING MILLS,
INC., 311 U.S. 46; NEUBERGER V. COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 83; MILK WAGON
DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY FARM PRODUCTS, 311 U.S. 91; HELVERING V.
JANNEY, 311 U.S. 189; TAFT V. HELVERING, 311 U.S. 195; HINES V.
DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52; UNITED STATES V. GILLILAND, 312 U.S. 86;
PALMER V. WEBSTER & ATLAS NATIONAL BANK, 312 U.S. 156; UNITED STATES V.
COOPER CORP., 312 U.S. 600; HELVERING V. ENRIGHT, 312 U.S. 636; MAGUIRE
V. COMMISSIONER, 313 U.S. 1; HELVERING V. CAMPBELL, 313 U.S. 15;
SHAMROCK OIL & GAS CORP. V. SHEETS, 313 U.S. 100; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V.
LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177; HELVERING V. WILLIAM FLACCUS OAK LEATHER
CO., 313 U.S. 247; SAMPAYO V. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, 313 U.S. 270;
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44; PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT
SALES, INC., 314 U.S. 244; TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 326; GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402; DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA V. MURPHY, 314 U.S. 441; ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL
ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE, 314 U.S. 498; DUNCAN V. THOMPSON, 315 U.S. 1;
CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HOLLAND, 315 U.S. 357; UNITED STATES V. LOCAL 807
OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, 315 U.S. 521; STONITE
PRODUCTS CO. V. MELVIN LLOYD CO., 315 U.S. 561.  LABOR BOARD V.
ELECTRIC VACUUM CLEANER CO., 315 U.S. 685; MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R.
CO., 315 U.S. 698; UNITED STATES TO THE USE OF NOLAND CO. V. IRWIN, 316
U.S. 23; MISHAWAKA RUBBER & WOOLEN MANUFACTURING CO. V. S.S. KRESGE
CO., 316 U.S. 203; KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517; HELVERING
V. CEMENT INVESTORS, INC., 316 U.S. 527; MARINE HARBOR PROPERTIES, INC.
V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO., 317 U.S. 78; BRAVERMAN V. UNITED STATES,
317 U.S. 49; RIGGS V. DEL DRAGO, 317 U.S. 95; EX PARTE KUMEZO KAWATO,
317 U.S. 69; STATE BANK OF HARDINSBURG V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 135; PFISTER
V. NORTHERN ILLINOIS FINANCE CORP., 317 U.S. 144; UNITED STATES V.
WAYNE PUMP CO., 317 U.S. 200; PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341; WALLING V.
JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564; HARRISON V. NORTHERN TRUST CO.,
317 U.S. 476; UNITED STATES V. HESS, 317 U.S. 537; UNITED STATES V.
MONIA, 317 U.S. 424; ZIFFRIN, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 73;
PALMER V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109; OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318
U.S. 125; ROBINETTE V. HELVERING, 318 U.S. 184; SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY,
318 U.S. 176; HELVERING V. SABINE TRANSP.  CO., 318 U.S. 306; FEDERAL
SECURITY ADM'R V. QUAKER OATS CO., 318 U.S. 218; UNITED STATES V. SWIFT
& CO., 318 U.S. 442; ECKER V. WESTERN PAC. R. CO., 318 U.S. 448; FRED
FISHER MUSIC CO. V. M. WITMARK & SONS, 318 U.S. 643; JERSEY CENTRAL
POWER & LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 319 U.S. 61; NATIONAL
BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190; BOONE V. LIGHTNER, 319
U.S. 561; SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118; HIRABAYASHI V.
UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81.  ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 264;
UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277; CRESCENT EXPRESS LINES V.
UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 401; COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 422; UNITED STATES V. LAUDANI, 320 U.S. 543; UNITED
STATES V. MYERS, 320 U.S. 561; MCLEAN TRUCKING CO. V. UNITED STATES,
321 U.S. 67; BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, ENTERPRISE LODGE, NO. 27
V. TOLEDO, P. & W.R. CO., 321 U.S. 50; B.F. GOODRICH CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 321 U.S. 126; DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 144;
HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 321; CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 321 U.S. 634; LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PVOLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111;
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 18; SMITH V. DAVIS,
323 U.S. 111; UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360; WESTERN UNION
TELEGRAPH CO. V. LENROOT, 323 U.S. 490; HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 323 U.S. 386; CENTRAL STATES ELECTRIC CO. V. CITY OF MUSCATINE,
324 U.S. 138; GEMSCO V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 244; CANADIAN AVIATOR V.
UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 215; CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, 324 U.S. 515; A.H. PHILLIPS, INC. V. WALLING, 324
U.S. 490; BROOKLYN SAV. BANK V. O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697; FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. A.E. STALEY MFG. CO., 324 U.S. 746; JEWELL RIDGE COAL
CORP. V. LOCAL NO. 6167, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 325 U.S. 161;
ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711; INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. PARKER, 326 U.S. 60; MARKHAM V. CABELL, 326 U.S. 404;
JOHN KELLEY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 326 U.S. 521; ROLAND ELECTRICAL CO. V.
WALLING, 326 U.S. 657; MABEE V. WHITE PLAINS PUB. CO., 327 U.S. 178;
DUGGAN V. SANSBERRY, 327 U.S. 499; UNITED STATES V. CARBONE, 327 U.S.
633; WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 711; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
V. A.P.W. PAPER CO., 328 U.S. 193; HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328
U.S. 707; UNITED STATES V. SHERIDAN, 329 U.S. 379; OKLAHOMA V. UNITED
STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 330 U.S. 127; UNITED STATES V. UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 330 U.S. 258; UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
& JOINERS OF AMERICA V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 395; AMERICAN
STEVEDORES, INC. V. PORELLO, 330 U.S. 446; INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. MECHLING, 330 U.S. 567; UNITED STATES V. OGILVIE HARDWARE
CO., 330 U.S. 709; MCCULLOUGH V. KAMMERER CORP., 331 U.S. 96; AYRSHIRE
COLLIERIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 132; WILLIAMS V. AUSTRIAN,
331 U.S. 642; JONES V. LIBERTY GLASS CO., 332 U.S. 524; FONG HAW TAN V.
PHELAN, 333 U.S. 6; HILTON V. SULLIVAN, 334 U.S. 323; UNITED STATES V.
NATIONAL CITY LINES, 334 U.S. 573; UNITED STATES V. ZAZOVE, 334 U.S.
602; UNITED STATES V. CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, 335 U.S.
106; SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 1; AHRENS V. CLARK, 335 U.S.
188. 

                              APPENDIX B

        OPINIONS DURING THE PAST DECADE RESTING UPON THE

               RULE THAT THE REENACTMENT OF A STATUTE

             CARRIES GLOSS OF CONSTRUCTION PLACED

                 UPON IT BY THIS COURT 

ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY CO. V. SHIMADZU, 307 U.S. 5, 14; RASQUIN V.
HUMPHREYS, 308 U.S. 54; APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469;
BROOKS V. DEWAR, 313 U.S. 354; HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371;
WALLING V. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO., 331 U.S. 17;
COMMISSIONER V. MUNTER, 331 U.S. 210; FRANCIS V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.,
333 U.S. 445; UNITED STATES V. SOUTH BUFFALO R. CO., 333 U.S. 771; CF.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM OF
CALIFORNIA, 311 U.S. 132, 132-133; SEE MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTING IN
WASHINGTONIAN PUBLISHING CO. V. PEARSON, 306 U.S. 30, 42; SEE MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE STONE DISSENTING IN GIROUARD V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 61,
70. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

EXCEPT FOR ITS IMPORTANT RESERVATION TO THE SETTLOR OF A RIGHT TO THE
NET INCOME OF THE TRUST DURING THE SETTLOR'S LIFE, THE DEED OF TRUST IN
THIS CASE  FN1  IS LARGELY COMPARABLE TO THE TRUST INSTRUMENT IN THE
SPIEGEL CASE, 335 U.S. 701.  BOTH SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES AS COMPLETE
TRANSFERS IN PRAESENTI.  NEITHER WAS MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH. 

THE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTUAL INTENT OF THIS SETTLOR, LIKEWISE, IS
COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE SETTLOR IN THE SPIEGEL CASE.  IN FACT, THE
AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE SETTLOR INTENDED TO MAKE A TRANSFER
COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE IN PRAESENTI IS STRONGER HERE THAN IN THE SPIEGEL
CASE.  THIS SETTLOR AVOWEDLY SOUGHT TO PROTECT NOT ONLY HIS FAMILY BUT
ALSO HIMSELF AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF HIS FURTHER DISPOSAL OF HIS
INTEREST IN THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST.  THE REMOTENESS OF ANY POSSIBILITY
OF A REVERTER, ARISING BY OPERATION OF LAW, IS COMPARABLE HERE TO THE
REMOTENESS OF THE ALLEGED POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER IN THE SPIEGEL
CASE.  TWO OTHER FEATURES OF THIS CASE, HOWEVER, REQUIRE SEPARATE
CONSIDERATION. 

FIRST.  IT IS THE LAW OF NEW YORK THAT MUST DETERMINE HERE WHETHER
THE POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER, EITHER TO THE SETTLOR OR TO HIS ESTATE,
AROSE BY OPERATION OF LAW FROM THE DEED OF TRUST.  AS THIS CASE CAME UP
FROM NEW JERSEY, IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT, WE HAVE NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
LAW OF NEW YORK FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT WHICH INCLUDES NEW YORK.  FURTHERMORE, WHEN THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT RENDERED ITS JUDGMENT IN FAVOR
OF THE TAXPAYER, IT DID SO IN EXPRESS RELIANCE UPON THE OPINION OF THE
TAX COURT AND THE TAX COURT, IN TURN, DID NOT ELUCIDATE THE LAW OF NEW
YORK. 

WHILE I REST MY CONCLUSION IN FAVOR OF AFFIRMANCE UPON THE ABSENCE OF
THE FACTUAL INTENT WHICH, AS STATED IN MY DISSENT IN THE SPIEGEL CASE,
I BELIEVE IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, A
SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENT MIGHT BE MADE FOR AFFIRMANCE ON THE GROUND THAT,
UNDER THE LAW OF NEW YORK, NO POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER AROSE FROM THIS
TRUST BY OPERATION OF LAW.  FN2  A SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENT MIGHT ALSO BE
MADE FOR AFFIRMANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ALLEGED POSSIBILITY OF A
REVERTER, HERE AND ALSO IN THE SPIEGEL CASE, SHOULD BE DISREGARDED ON
THE DOCTRINE OF DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX. 

SECOND.  IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE
JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED, HOWEVER, WITHOUT FACING ANY OF THE ABOVE
GROUNDS FOR ITS AFFIRMANCE.  THIS IS DONE BY OVERRULING MAY V. HEINER,
281 U.S. 238, AND THAT ACTION HAS CARRIED WITH IT THE FOUNDATION FOR
THIS COURT'S OPINION IN HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303.  THE EFFECT OF
SUCH REVERSAL IS TO PLACE THIS TRUST, WHICH WAS EXECUTED IN 1924, IN
THE SAME POSITION AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN EXECUTED AFTER THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, 46 STAT. 1516-1517.  THAT RESOLUTION MADE
THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX APPLICABLE TO PROPERTY TRANSFERRED THEREAFTER BY
ANY DEED OF TRUST THAT RESERVED TO THE TRANSFEROR A RIGHT TO THE
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF OR THE INCOME FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY DURING
HIS LIFE.  THERE IS NO DOUBT BUT THAT THE TRANSFER IN THE INSTANT CASE
WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE TAX IF THE DEED OF TRUST HAD BEEN
EXECUTED AFTER, INSTEAD OF BEFORE, THE RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931. 
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THAT RESOLUTION DEMONSTRATES, HOWEVER, THAT
IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE RETROACTIVE.  ITS PROSPECTIVE CHARACTER ALSO
CARRIED WITH IT AT LEAST A CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE EXISTENCE
OF SOME BASIS FOR MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIOR AND FUTURE
TRANSFERS OF THE TYPE DESCRIBED. 

AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE INSTANT TRUST IN 1924 - AND CERTAINLY
BETWEEN MARCH 3, 1931 AND THE DEATH OF THE SETTLOR ON DECEMBER 11, 1939
- THERE WAS LITTLE, IF ANY, REASON FOR HIM TO CONSIDER MAKING FURTHER
DISPOSITION OF HIS RESERVED RIGHTS IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIS ESTATE FROM
THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  BETWEEN 1924 AND 1939, THERE WERE HANDED DOWN
BY THIS COURT ITS DECISIONS IN MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA, ON APRIL 14, 1930;
MORSMAN V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783, AND ITS TWO COMPANION CASES, ON MARCH
2, 1931; AND HASSETT V. WELCH, SUPRA, ON FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  IN THOSE
OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS WHICH WERE RENDERED BEFORE MARCH 3, 1931, THIS
COURT UNANIMOUSLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HELD THAT THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX
WAS NOT TO BE APPLIED TO A TRUST MERELY BECAUSE OF THE RETENTION
THEREUNDER OF A RIGHT IN THE SETTLOR TO RECEIVE THE INCOME OF THE TRUST
DURING HIS LIFE.  THE ENTRY MADE BY THIS COURT IN EACH OF THE COMPANION
CASES DECIDED MARCH 2, 1931, EXPRESSLY STATED A DOUBT AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO ENACT A LAW WHICH WOULD APPLY
THE ESTATE TAX RETROACTIVELY TO TRANSFERS THAT ALREADY HAD BEEN MADE. 
THE ACTION OF CONGRESS ON MARCH 3, 1931, REFLECTED THAT DOUBT.  THE
SEVEN JUSTICES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE CASE OF HASSETT V. WELCH, SUPRA,
IN 1938, REFRAINED FROM EXPRESSING DOUBT AS TO THE STATE OF THE LAW
BEFORE MARCH 3, 1931.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT REVIEWED CAREFULLY THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT WAS MATERIAL TO THE CASE AND ALSO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE STATUTE.  THE
COURT CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS (AT PP. 314-315): 

"IN VIEW OF OTHER SETTLED RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, WHICH
TEACH THAT A LAW IS PRESUMED, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR EXPRESSION TO THE
CONTRARY, TO OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY; THAT, IF DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TAXING STATUTE, THE DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR
OF THE TAXPAYER, WE FEEL BOUND TO HOLD THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF
1931 AND SEC. 803(A) OF THE ACT OF 1932 APPLY ONLY TO TRANSFERS WITH
RESERVATION OF LIFE INCOME MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATES OF THEIR
ADOPTION RESPECTIVELY.    "HOLDING THIS VIEW, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE
CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTES AS APPLIED TO THE TRANSFERS UNDER
CONSIDERATION DEPRIVE THE RESPONDENTS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT." 

THUS, UP TO THE TIME OF THE SETTLOR'S DEATH IN 1939, HE NEVER WAS
GIVEN REASON, AT LEAST BY THIS COURT, TO SUSPECT THAT THE PROPERTY
WHICH HE HAD INCLUDED IN HIS 1924 DEED OF TRUST WOULD BE ADDED TO HIS
GROSS ESTATE FOR FEDERAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  FN3 

THE ISSUE AS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED IN MAY V. HEINER WAS SOLELY ONE OF
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AND THERE WERE PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS FOR
DECIDING THE CASE EITHER WAY.  HOWEVER, THE UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THIS
COURT IN THAT CASE CHANGED THE STATUS OF THAT ISSUE.  THEREAFTER, THE
STATUTE CARRIED THE MEANING ASCRIBED TO IT BY THIS COURT.  SUCH AN
ACCEPTANCE OF THE EFFECT OF MAY V. HEINER WAS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE
THREE PER CURIAM COMPANION DECISIONS OF MARCH 2, 1931.  THIS ACCEPTANCE
ALSO HAS BEEN EVIDENCED IN SOME DEGREE BY THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS, AT
ANY TIME, TO SET FORTH A CONTRARY VIEW ON ITS PART AS TO THE MEANING OF
ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.  CONGRESS MERELY ADDED NEW LANGUAGE TO CHANGE
THE EFFECT OF THAT INTERPRETATION FOR THE FUTURE.  THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT CONFORMED ITS REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES TO THE REASONING OF
MAY V. HEINER.  THIS COURT FURTHER ACCEDED TO THIS VIEW IN 1938 IN
HASSETT V. WELCH AND IN THE COMPANION CASE OF HELVERING V. MARSHALL,
303 U.S. 303, WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE RESPECTIVE LOWER COURT JUDGMENTS IN
THOSE CASES.  THE LOWER COURTS HAD HELD THAT CERTAIN PRE-1931
COMPARABLE TRUSTS, EXECUTED IN 1920 AND 1924, WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  FN4  TODAY, WITH TEN ADDITIONAL YEARS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN CONFORMITY WITH IT, THE RULE OF MAY V.
HEINER SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL THAN IN 1938. 
THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS, WITH FULL RECOGNITION OF ITS APPROPRIATE
LIMITATIONS AS EXPRESSED IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 119
122, WEIGHS STRONGLY AGAINST A REVERSAL OF MAY V. HEINER NOW.  THE
PROBLEM PRESENTED HERE IS JUST SUCH A ONE AS WAS SAID NOT TO EXIST IN
THE HALLOCK CASE.  THE PROBLEM HERE IS ONE OF REJECTING A SETTLED
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  THIS COURT'S REVERSAL OF THE MAY V. HEINER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ESTATE TAX STATUTE AS TO PRE-MARCH 3, 1931 TRUSTS
DOES RETROACTIVELY, IN 1948, WHAT THIS COURT AND CONGRESS RESPECTIVELY
DECLINED TO ATTEMPT IN 1931.  SINCE 1931, COUNTLESS TAXPAYERS DOUBTLESS
HAVE RELIED UPON AND BENEFITED BY THE INTERPRETATION ANNOUNCED IN MAY
V. HEINER.  THEY HAD NO MORE RIGHT TO SUCH BENEFITS THAN HAS THE
TAXPAYER IN THIS CASE.  IF THE GOVERNMENT, AFTER THIS REVERSAL, ISSUES
REGULATIONS TO RELIEVE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, SETTLORS WHO, IN DEMONSTRATED
RELIANCE UPON THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND UPON THE PRACTICE OF THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, HAVE NOT DISPOSED OF THEIR RESERVED RIGHTS UNDER
PRE-MARCH 3, 1931 TRUSTS LIKE THE PRESENT ONE, SUCH SPECIAL REGULATIONS
WILL FURTHER EMPHASIZE THE UNIQUE UNFAIRNESS OF ENFORCING THE PRESENT
DECISION AGAINST THE TAXPAYER IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

BY REVERSING MAY V. HEINER THIS COURT REPUDIATES THE FINALITY OF ITS
1930 AND 1931 DECISIONS INTERPRETING THE PRE-1931 LEGISLATION.  IT
HOLDS THAT THE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION THEN ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT OF
FINAL RESORT IS NOT FINAL, EXCEPT AS TO THE PARTIES TO THE RESPECTIVE
CASES IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENTS ARE RES JUDICATA.  AFTER RELIANCE
BY THE JUDICIAL, LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT
FOR 18 YEARS UPON THIS AUTHORITATIVE STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, A REVERSAL
OF IT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ONLY BY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.  I FAIL TO
FIND SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, EITHER IN THE MERITS OF THE DECISION, IN THE
NATURE OF THE ISSUE OR IN THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
OF A REVERSAL AS AGAINST AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE ORIGINAL INTERPRETATION
OF THIS TAX STATUTE.  THE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ESTABLISHED IN MAY
V. HEINER HAS A PECULIARLY LIMITED APPLICATION BECAUSE ITS
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE IN RELATION TO FUTURE TRUSTS WAS CUT OFF
ON MARCH 3, 1931.  PASSAGE OF TIME WILL SOON ELIMINATE TRANSFERS MADE
PRIOR TO THAT DATE BY SETTLORS WHO ARE YET TO DIE OR WHO HAVE DIED AND
WHOSE ESTATES MAY STILL BE FORCED TO INCLUDE SUCH TRANSFERS FOR FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  THE 1931 LEGISLATION PLUS THE PASSAGE OF TIME
WOULD THUS HAVE DISPOSED OF MAY V. HEINER WITHOUT THE INJUSTICES THAT
WILL NOW ARISE FROM ITS REVERSAL. 

VALUE IS ADDED TO THE FULLY CONSIDERED DECISIONS OF THIS COURT BY OUR
OWN RESPECT FOR THEM.  FAITH IS JUSTIFIABLE THAT THIS COURT WILL
EXERCISE EXTREME SELF-RESTRAINT IN USING ITS POWER OF SELF-REVERSAL. 
WHILE THAT POWER IS ESSENTIAL IN APPROPRIATE CASES AND IS AN INHERENT
PART OF THIS COURT'S FINALITY OF JURISDICTION, EACH CASE THAT SUGGESTS
ITS USE SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED WITH THE UTMOST CARE.  IN THE INSTANT
CASE I FIND ARGUMENTS TO SUGGEST AND SUPPORT, BUT NOT TO REQUIRE, A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE CONTRARY TO THAT ORIGINALLY GIVEN IN MAY V.
HEINER.  I FIND NOTHING SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE REVERSAL OF THIS
COURT'S ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION 18 YEARS AFTER THIS COURT APPROVED IT
UNANIMOUSLY AND 17 YEARS AFTER THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY REAFFIRMED THAT
APPROVAL.  LIKEWISE, I FIND NOTHING IN THE INTERVENING DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT THAT FORCES THIS REVERSAL UPON US.  FN5  FOR THESE REASONS,
I BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED
ON THE AUTHORITY OF MAY V. HEINER AND HASSETT V. WELCH, AND UPON THE
PRINCIPLES STATED IN MY DISSENT IN THE SPIEGEL CASE, POST, P. 708. 

FN1  THIS INDENTURE MADE THE 17TH DAY OF MAY, 1924, BETWEEN FRANCOIS
L. CHURCH, OF THE BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN, CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK
(HEREINAFTER SOMETIMES CALLED THE "SETTLOR"), PARTY OF THE FIRST PART,
AND FRANCOIS L. CHURCH AND E. DWIGHT CHURCH, OF THE BOROUGH OF
BROOKLYN, CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHARLES T. CHURCH, OF NEW
ROCHELLE, NEW YORK (HEREINAFTER SOMETIMES CALLED THE "TRUSTEES"),
PARTIES OF THE SECOND PART. 

WHEREAS THE SAID FRANCOIS L. CHURCH IS DESIROUS OF MAKING PROVISION
FOR ANY LAWFUL ISSUE WHICH HE MAY LEAVE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH AS
WELL AS PROVIDE AN INCOME FOR HIMSELF FOR LIFE IN THE MANNER
HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, 

NOW, THEREFORE, THE SAID FRANCOIS L. CHURCH, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE
SUM OF ONE DOLLAR TO HIM IN HAND PAID, THE RECEIPT WHEREOF IS HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGED, AND THE ACCEPTANCE BY SAID PARTIES OF THE SECOND PART OF
THE TRUST HEREIN DECLARED, HAS SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY HEREOF, SOLD, ASSIGNED, TRANSFERRED AND SET OVER AND DOES
HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN, TRANSFER AND SET OVER UNTO THE SAID FRANCOIS L.
CHURCH, E. DWIGHT CHURCH AND CHARLES T. CHURCH AS TRUSTEES, AND TO
THEIR SUCCESSORS, THE FOLLOWING SECURITIES, TO WIT: 

ONE THOUSAND (1000) SHARES OF STOCK OF CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., A
CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF MAINE, 

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, TOGETHER WITH THE MONEYS AND
INVESTMENTS INTO WHICH IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY POWER HEREINAFTER GIVEN
TO THE TRUSTEES OR BY LAW VESTED IN THEM, THE SAID DESCRIBED SECURITIES
OR THE PROCEEDS THEREOF AND SUCH MONEYS MAY FROM TIME TO TIME BE
CONVERTED IN TRUST NEVERTHELESS TO HOLD, MANAGE, INVEST AND REINVEST
THE SAID TRUST ESTATE UPON THE TRUST HEREIN CONTAINED AND WITH THE
POWERS HEREIN OR BY LAW CONFERRED UPON THE TRUSTEES, AND TO COLLECT AND
RECEIVE THE INCOME ACCRUING THEREFROM AND AFTER PAYING FROM SAID INCOME
ALL CHARGES AND EXPENSES PROPERLY CHARGEABLE AGAINST THE INCOME OF SAID
TRUST ESTATE TO PAY OVER THE NET INCOME TO THE SETTLOR, FRANCOIS L.
CHURCH, DURING THE TERM OF HIS NATURAL LIFE AND UPON THE DEATH OF THE
SETTLOR THIS TRUST SHALL CEASE AND DETERMINE AND THE TRUSTEES ARE
ORDERED AND DIRECTED TO TRANSFER AND PAY OVER THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
SAID TRUST ESTATE, WITH ALL INCREASE THEREOF AS IT SHALL THEN EXIST, TO
THE CHILD OR CHILDREN OF THE SETTLOR THEN SURVIVING THE ISSUE OF ANY
DECEASED CHILD OR CHILDREN TO TAKE THE SHARE PER STIRPES WHICH THEIR
PARENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IF LIVING. 

IN THE EVENT THAT THE SETTLOR SHOULD DIE LEAVING NO LAWFUL ISSUE HIM
SURVIVING THEN AND IN THAT EVENT THE TRUSTEES ARE ORDERED AND DIRECTED
TO TRANSFER AND PAY OVER THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SAID TRUST ESTATE WITH
ALL INCREASE THEREOF AS IT SHALL THEN EXIST IN EQUAL SHARES TO THE
BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF THE SETTLOR THEN SURVIVING, ANY CHILD OR
CHILDREN OF A DECEASED BROTHER OR SISTER TO TAKE THE SHARE PER STIRPES
WHICH THEIR PARENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IF LIVING. 

THE TRUSTEES WITH RESPECT TO SUCH TRUST ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND
EMPOWERED: 

(1)  TO RETAIN THE TRUST ESTATE DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE TRUST
IN THE SAME INVESTMENT IN WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED BY THEM WITHOUT BEING
LIABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY RESULTING LOSS; 

(2)  TO SELL AT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SALE UPON SUCH TERMS AND FOR SUCH
PRICE OR PRICES AND AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES AND TOGETHER OR IN SUCH LOTS
OR PARCELS AS THE TRUSTEES MAY THINK PROPER THE SECURITIES HELD BY THEM
IN THE TRUST, BUT NO SUCH SALE OR SALES SHALL BE MADE BY THE TRUSTEES
WITHOUT THE CONSENT FIRST OBTAINED OF THE SETTLOR; 

LIKEWISE IN THE EVENT OF A SALE THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH SALE SHALL BE
REINVESTED BY THE TRUSTEES WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DELAY IN SECURITIES
APPROVED BY THE SETTLOR OR IN DEFAULT OF SUCH APPROVAL IN SECURITIES
AUTHORIZED FOR INVESTMENT BY TRUSTEES BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK; 

(3)  TO COMPROMISE ANY CLAIM OR CLAIMS THAT MAY AT ANY TIME ARISE
WITH REFERENCE TO THE TRUST ESTATE OR ANY PROPERTY OR SECURITY FORMING
A PART THEREOF; 

(4)  TO EXCHANGE ANY OF THE TRUST SECURITIES FOR OTHER SECURITIES IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY REORGANIZATION OF CHURCH & DWIGHT COMPANY OR ANY
OTHER COMPANY OR COMPANIES ISSUING SECURITIES THEN BELONGING TO THE
TRUST; 

(5)  TO VOTE UPON STOCK, DIRECTLY OR BY PROXY, IN ANY MANNER AND TO
THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THE TRUSTEES HELD THE SHARES IN THEIR OWN RIGHT,
INCLUDING THE POWER TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF CONSOLIDATING OR MERGING
CORPORATIONS INTO OR WITH EACH OTHER OR INTO OR WITH OTHER
CORPORATIONS, FOR THE DISSOLUTION OR LIQUIDATION OF CORPORATIONS, THE
CREATING OR AUTHORIZATION OF INDEBTEDNESS, MORTGAGES AND OTHER LIENS
AND FOR THE ORGANIZATION OR REORGANIZATION OF CORPORATIONS AND TO
DEPOSIT SECURITIES WITH ANY REORGANIZATION COMMITTEE OR PROTECTION
COMMITTEE OF ANY CORPORATION. 

(6)  TO APPORTION IN THEIR UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION AS BETWEEN INCOME
AND PRINCIPAL AS THE TRUSTEES MAY DEEM PROPER, ANY LOSSES OR PROFITS
RESULTING FROM THE INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES
OR PROPERTY WHICH MAY AT ANY TIME FORM A PART OF THE TRUST ESTATE, AND
ALSO SO TO APPORTION THE INCOME OF THE TRUST ESTATE, AND ANY LOSS IN
SAID INCOME AND ANY PROCEEDS RECEIVED UPON ACCOUNT OF INCOME, WHETHER
BY WAY OF INTEREST, DIVIDENDS, STOCK DIVIDENDS OR BY WAY OF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF CASH, BONDS, DEBENTURES, STOCKS OR OTHER SECURITIES BY
CORPORATIONS WHOSE STOCKS OR SECURITIES MAY AT ANY TIME FORM A PART OF
THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST ESTATE OR OTHERWISE, AND ALSO SIMILARLY TO
APPORTION EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF SAID TRUST OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE REALIZATION UPON ANY OF SAID SECURITIES OR
PROPERTY; 

(7)  TO EMPLOY COUNSEL OR ATTORNEYS AT LAW IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST IF IN THEIR DISCRETION THE TRUSTEES DEEM IT
NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE AND TO PAY THEM REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR
THEIR SERVICES AS AN EXPENSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF SAID TRUST. 

IN THE EVENT THAT ANY OF THE TRUSTEES SHOULD RESIGN OR FOR ANY OTHER
REASON CEASE TO BE A TRUSTEE SUCH VACANCY SHALL BE FILLED BY THE
APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE IN WRITING BY THE SETTLOR. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE HEREUNTO SET THEIR HANDS
AND SEALS THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. 

                                      FRANCOIS L. CHURCH,

                                                      SETTLOR. 

                                      FRANCOIS L. CHURCH,

                                      E. DWIGHT CHURCH,

                                      CHARLES T. CHURCH,

                                                      TRUSTEES. 

FN2  THE RESPONDENT CITES PARTICULARLY FULTON TRUST CO. V. PHILLIPS,
218 N.Y. 573, 581, 113 N.E. 558, 559; AND MATTER OF BOWERS, 195 APP.
DIV 548, 186 N.Y.S. 912, AFF'D, 231 N.Y. 613, 132 N.E. 910; AND, AS
PRESENTING ANALOGOUS SITUATIONS IN TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS OR DISPOSITIONS,
MATTER OF ELTING, 268 APP. DIV. 74, 48 N.Y.S.2D 892, AFF'D, 294 N.Y.
941, 63 N.E.2D 123; MATTER OF MCCOMBS, 261 APP. DIV. 449, 25 N.Y.S.2D
894, AFF'D, 287 N.Y. 557, 38 N.E.2D 226. 

FN3  IT APPEARS IN THE RECORD THAT THE SETTLOR, IN 1924, RELIED UPON
THE ADVICE OF HIS FAMILY ATTORNEY AND, ASSUMING THE CONTINUANCE OF SUCH
A RELATIONSHIP, SUCH ATTORNEY IN SUBSEQUENT CONSULTATIONS MAY WELL HAVE
COUNSELED THE SETTLOR'S FURTHER POLICY IN EXPRESS RELIANCE UPON MAY V.
HEINER, 281 U.S. 238.  WITH COMPARABLE SITUATIONS EVIDENTLY IN MIND, IT
HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, IN OPINIONS WHICH RECENTLY HAVE CONSIDERED THE
POSSIBILITY OF OVERRULING MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA, THAT NO JUDGMENT
OVERRULING THAT CASE SHOULD BE RENDERED BY THIS COURT WITHOUT REMANDING
THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE PARTIES
HAD IN FACT PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THAT CASE AND MAKING
SPECIAL PROVISION TO AVOID AN UNFAIR RESULT IF SUCH RELIANCE WERE FOUND
IN FACT TO HAVE EXISTED.  SEE DISSENTING OPINIONS IN HELVERING V.
PROCTOR, 140 F.2D 87, 91(C.A.2D CIR.); AND COMMISSIONER V. HALL'S
ESTATE, 153 F.2D 172, 175(C.A.2D CIR.).    FN4  THE DISCUSSION IN THE
OPINION IN HASSETT V. WELCH, SUPRA, WAS LIMITED TO THE CLAIMED EFFECT
OF THE 1931 AND 1932 AMENDMENTS.  THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE
AND IN HELVERING V. MARSHALL, SUPRA, HOWEVER, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENTS OF
THE RESPECTIVE COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND CIRCUITS. 
(IN WELCH V. HASSETT, 90 F.2D 833(C.A. 1ST CIR.), THE COURT OF APPEALS
DISCUSSED AND RELIED UPON MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 784, MORSMAN V.
BURNET, 283 U.S. 783, BURNET V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 283 U.S. 782, MAY
V. HEINER, SUPRA, AND REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339.  IN
COMMISSIONER V. MARSHALL, 91 F.2D 1010(C.A.2D CIR.), THE COURT OF
APPEALS RELIED PRIMARILY UPON THE WELCH DECISION IN THE FIRST
CIRCUIT.)  THOSE RESPECTIVE COURTS OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY HAD HELD THAT
THE 1931 AND 1932 AMENDMENTS WERE INAPPLICABLE TO A TRUST WHICH WAS
EXECUTED IN 1924(AND REAFFIRMED IN 1926) BY A SETTLOR WHO DIED IN 1932,
AND TO ANOTHER WHICH WAS EXECUTED IN 1920 BY A SETTLOR WHO DIED IN
1933.  THEY ALSO HELD THAT, UNDER SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926, C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, 70, THE COMMISSIONER COULD NOT LAWFULLY
REQUIRE THE TRUSTEED PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED FOR FEDERAL ESTATE TAX
PURPOSES IN THE GROSS ESTATES OF THE RESPECTIVE SETTLOR-DECEDENTS. 
THIS COURT'S AFFIRMANCE OF THOSE JUDGMENTS WAS, THEREFORE, A
CONFIRMATION OF ITS ORIGINAL HOLDING THAT, BEFORE THE 1931 AND 1932
AMENDMENTS, THIS STATUTE DID NOT RENDER TRUST PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX MERELY BECAUSE THE SETTLOR IN TRANSFERRING THE
PROPERTY TO HIS TRUSTEES HAD RESERVED FOR HIMSELF A RIGHT TO THE INCOME
OF THAT PROPERTY DURING HIS LIFE AND HAD PROVIDED FOR THE DISTRIBUTION
OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST AT HIS DEATH IN THE MANNER STATED IN THOSE
CASES.  THE PROSPECTIVE LANGUAGE OF THE 1931 AND 1932 AMENDMENTS LEFT
THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE UNCHANGED AS TO TRUSTS EXECUTED BEFORE MARCH
3, 1931.  IT IS THAT UNCHANGED MEANING WHICH IS APPLICABLE IN THE
INSTANT CASE. 

FN5  THE STATUS OF MAY V. HEINER HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THIS COURT
FROM TIME TO TIME WITHOUT CALLING FORTH ANY REPUDIATION OF ITS
AUTHORITY BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT.  SEE HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309
U.S. 106, 120, N. 7, AND DISSENTING OPINIONS AT 123, 126 ET SEQ.;
FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S. 108, CONCURRING
OPINION AT 113.  THE EFFECT UPON IT OF THE HALLOCK CASE HAS BEEN
CONSIDERED MANY TIMES BY FEDERAL COURTS WITH A RESULTING ADHERENCE TO
BOTH CASES.  "THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK,
SUPRA, DID NOT EXPLICITLY, OR BY INFERENCE FROM ANYTHING SAID, DECLARE
THAT MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA,  ... WAS NO LONGER LAW."  CIRCUIT JUDGE L.
HAND IN HELVERING V. PROCTOR, 140 F.2D 87, 88(C.A.2D CIR.). SEE ALSO,
COMMISSIONER V. HALL'S ESTATE, 153 F.2D 172(C.A.2D CIR.); COMMISSIONER
V. SINGER'S ESTATE, 161 F.2D 15(C.A.2D CIR.); COMMISSIONER V. KELLOGG,
119 F.2D 54(C.A.3D CIR.); SCHULTZ V. UNITED STATES, 140 F.2D
945(C.A.8TH CIR.); UNITED STATES V. BROWN, 134 F.2D 372(C.A.9TH CIR.);
NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 100 CT. CL. 311, 51 F.SUPP.  733;
ESTATE OF MATTHEWS, 3 T.C. 525.  WHILE THESE DECISIONS ARE NOT BINDING
UPON THIS COURT AS PRECEDENTS, THEY ARE DECISIONS WHICH THOSE COURTS
PROPERLY REACHED IN DETERMINING THE BINDING FORCE, UPON THEM, OF OUR
DECISIONS IN MAY V. HEINER AND HELVERING V. HALLOCK.  THEY HAVE AN
APPROPRIATE BEARING UPON THE EXERCISE OF OUR DISCRETION TO OVERRULE MAY
V. HEINER AT THIS LATE DATE. 
..END :



















ESTATE OF SPIEGEL V. COMM'R, 335 U.S. 701 


NO. 3.  ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 1947.  - REARGUED OCTOBER 11-12, 1948.  -
DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1949.  - 159 F.2D 257, AFFIRMED. 


IN 1920 DECEDENT, A RESIDENT OF ILLINOIS, MADE A TRANSFER IN TRUST OF
CERTAIN STOCKS TO HIMSELF AND ANOTHER.  HE DIED IN 1940.  DURING HIS
LIFE THE TRUST INCOME WAS TO BE DIVIDED AMONG HIS THREE CHILDREN; IF
THEY DID NOT SURVIVE HIM, TO ANY OF THEIR SURVIVING CHILDREN.  ON HIS
DEATH THE CORPUS WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED IN THE SAME MANNER.  BUT NO
PROVISION WAS MADE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS AND ITS ACCUMULATED
INCOME SHOULD THE DECEDENT SURVIVE ALL OF HIS CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN.  THE TAX COURT DETERMINED THAT THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS
OF THE TRUST WAS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT
UNDER SEC. 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, HOLDING THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW THERE
WAS A POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER TO THE DECEDENT AND THAT THIS MADE THE
CORPUS OF THE TRUST INCLUDIBLE IN HIS GROSS ESTATE UNDER SEC. 811(C). 
HELD: 

1.  THIS COURT ACCEPTS THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT
UNDER ILLINOIS LAW THE SETTLOR HAD A RIGHT OF REVERTER; THIS RENDERS
THE TRUST ONE "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR
AFTER HIS DEATH," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE; AND THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST AT THE SETTLOR'S
DEATH WAS INCLUDIBLE IN HIS GROSS ESTATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX.  PP. 705-707. 

(A)  THE TAXABILITY OF A TRUST CORPUS UNDER THE "POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT" PROVISION OF SEC. 811(C) DOES NOT HINGE ON A SETTLOR'S
MOTIVES, BUT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE AND OPERATIVE EFFECT OF THE TRUST
TRANSFER.  P. 705. 

(B)  A TRUST TRANSACTION CANNOT BE HELD TO ALIENATE ALL OF A
SETTLOR'S "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" UNDER SEC. 811(C) UNLESS IT EFFECTS
A BONA FIDE TRANSFER IN WHICH THE SETTLOR, ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY,
IRREVOCABLY, AND WITHOUT POSSIBLE RESERVATIONS, PARTS WITH ALL OF HIS
TITLE AND ALL OF HIS POSSESSION AND ALL OF HIS ENJOYMENT OF THE
TRANSFERRED PROPERTY.  AFTER SUCH A TRANSFER HAS BEEN MADE, THE SETTLOR
MUST BE LEFT WITH NO PRESENT LEGAL TITLE IN THE PROPERTY, NO POSSIBLE
REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THAT TITLE, AND NO RIGHT TO POSSESS OR TO
ENJOY THE PROPERTY THEN OR THEREAFTER.  COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF
CHURCH, ANTE, P. 632.  P. 705. 

(C)  IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER A PRESENT OR FUTURE INTEREST, ABSOLUTE
OR CONTINGENT, REMAINS IN THE SETTLOR BECAUSE HE DELIBERATELY RESERVES
IT OR BECAUSE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES, HE CONVEYS AWAY
LESS THAN ALL OF HIS PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND ATTRIBUTES, PRESENT OR
PROSPECTIVE.  P. 705. 

(D)  THE TAX COURT HAVING FOUND THAT THE TRUST CONTAINED NO PROVISION
FOR DISPOSITION OF THE CORPUS SHOULD THE SETTLOR OUTLIVE THE
BENEFICIARIES, AND PETITIONER NOT HAVING CONTENDED THAT IT WAS DENIED
AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCE CONCERNING OWNERSHIP,
POSSESSION, OR ENJOYMENT, REMAND OF THE CASE TO THE TAX COURT FOR
FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT IS UNNECESSARY.  PP. 706-707. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE SETTLOR'S CONTINGENT
REVERSIONARY INTEREST IS SMALL IN COMPARISON WITH THE TOTAL VALUE OF
THE CORPUS DOES NOT RENDER THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" PROVISION OF
SEC. 811(C) INAPPLICABLE.  P. 707. 

3.  THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, WHICH
CIRCUIT EMBRACES ILLINOIS, THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW WHEN ALL TRUST
BENEFICIARIES DIE THE TRUST CORPUS REVERTS TO THE DONOR, IS NOT PLAINLY
WRONG AND THIS COURT DOES NOT DISTURB IT.  PP. 707-708. 

ESTATE OF SPIEGEL ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THE CORPUS AND CERTAIN ACCUMULATED
INCOME OF THE TRUST IN QUESTION WAS INCLUDIBLE IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF
THE DECEDENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  THE TAX COURT
REVERSED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  159 F.2D 257.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 798.  AFFIRMED, P. 708. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A FEDERAL ESTATE TAX CONTROVERSY.  HERE, AS IN COMMISSIONER
V. CHURCH, ANTE, P. 632, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS
DEPENDENT UPON THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF A PROVISION OF SEC.
811(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  47 STAT. 169, 279, AS AMENDED, 26
U.S.C. SEC. 811(C).  THE PARTICULAR PROVISION REQUIRES INCLUDING IN A
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE THE VALUE AT HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY "TO THE
EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME
MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE  ...  INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH  ...  " 

IN 1920 SIDNEY M. SPIEGEL, A RESIDENT OF ILLINOIS, MADE A TRANSFER BY
TRUST OF CERTAIN STOCKS TO HIMSELF AND ANOTHER.  HE DIED IN 1940. 
DURING HIS LIFE THE TRUST INCOME WAS TO BE DIVIDED AMONG HIS THREE
CHILDREN; IF THEY DID NOT SURVIVE HIM, TO ANY OF THEIR SURVIVING
CHILDREN.  ON HIS DEATH THE TRUST PROVIDED THAT THE CORPUS WAS TO BE
DISTRIBUTED IN THE SAME MANNER.  BUT NO PROVISION WAS MADE FOR
DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS AND ITS ACCUMULATED INCOME SHOULD MR.
SPIEGEL SURVIVE ALL OF HIS CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.  FOR THIS REASON
THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONTENDED THAT UNDER CONTROLLING STATE LAW THE
PROPERTY WOULD HAVE REVERTED TO MR. SPIEGEL HAD HE SURVIVED HIS
DESIGNATED BENEFICIARIES. 

THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS OF THIS TRUST WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SPIEGEL
ESTATE TAX RETURN.  THE COMMISSIONER CONCLUDED THAT ITS VALUE WITH
ACCUMULATED INCOME, ABOUT $1,140,000, SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
GROSS ESTATE UNDER SEC. 811(C).  THE TAX COURT HELD OTHERWISE IN AN
UNREPORTED OPINION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
REVERSED.  159 F.2D 257.  IT HELD THAT THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
PROVISION OF SEC. 811(C) REQUIRED INCLUSION OF THE VALUE OF THE TRUST
PROPERTY AND ACCUMULATED INCOME UNDER THE RULE DECLARED IN HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, BECAUSE UNDER STATE LAW THE TRUST AGREEMENT LEFT
THE WAY OPEN FOR THE PROPERTY TO REVERT TO MR. SPIEGEL IN CASE HE
OUTLIVED ALL THE BENEFICIARIES.  THIS HOLDING RESTED ON THE AGREEMENT
OF PARTIES THAT WHETHER THERE WAS A RIGHT OF REVERTER DEPENDED ON
ILLINOIS LAW, AND THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW A
RIGHT OF REVERTER DID EXIST.  FN1 

THE HALLOCK CASE ON WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS RELIED HELD THAT THE
VALUE OF TRUST PROPERTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN A SETTLOR'S
GROSS ESTATE UNDER THE "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" PROVISION WHERE TRUST
AGREEMENTS HAD EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THE CORPUS SHOULD REVERT TO THE
SETTLOR IN THE EVENT HE OUTLIVED THE BENEFICIARIES.  THE TAXPAYER HAS
CONTENDED HERE, AS IN THE TAX COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, THAT THE
HALLOCK RULE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS TRUST, WHERE THE SETTLOR'S
CHANCE TO GET BACK HIS PROPERTY DEPENDED ON STATE LAW AND NOT ON AN
EXPRESS RESERVATION BY THE SETTLOR.  THIS CONTENTION OF THE TAXPAYER
RESTS IN PART ON THE ARGUMENT THAT SEC. 811(C) IMPOSES A TAX ONLY WHERE
IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE SETTLOR'S INTENT WAS TO RESERVE FOR HIMSELF A
CONTINGENT REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.  ANOTHER CONTENTION
IS THAT THE VALUE OF THIS CONTINGENT REVERSIONARY INTEREST WAS SO SMALL
IN COMPARISON WITH THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE CORPUS THAT THE HALLOCK RULE
SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED.  A THIRD CONTENTION IS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
HOLDING WAS ERRONEOUS IN THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW THE CORPUS OF THIS
TRUST WOULD NOT HAVE REVERTED TO THE SETTLOR HAD ALL THE BENEFICIARIES
DIED WHILE THE SETTLOR WAS STILL LIVING.  PETITIONERS URGE THAT IN THAT
EVENT THE ILLINOIS COURTS WOULD HAVE HELD THAT THE CORPUS PASSED TO THE
HEIRS OF THE LAST SURVIVING BENEFICIARY. 

WE HOLD THAT THE HALLOCK RULE WAS RIGHTLY APPLIED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND WE ACCEPT ITS HOLDING AS TO THE APPLICABLE ILLINOIS LAW. 

FIRST.  IN COMMISSIONER V. CHURCH, ANTE, P. 632, WE HAVE DISCUSSED
THE HALLOCK HOLDING IN RELATION TO THE SCOPE OF THE "POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT" PROVISION OF SEC. 811(C) AND NEED NOT ELABORATE WHAT WE SAID
THERE.  WHAT WE SAID DEMONSTRATES THAT THE TAXABILITY OF A TRUST CORPUS
UNDER THIS PROVISION OF SEC. 811(C) DOES NOT HINGE ON A SETTLOR'S
MOTIVES, BUT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE AND OPERATIVE EFFECT OF THE TRUST
TRANSFER.  IN THE CHURCH CASE WE STATED THAT A TRUST TRANSACTION CANNOT
BE HELD TO ALIENATE ALL OF A SETTLOR'S "POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" UNDER
SEC. 811(C) UNLESS IT EFFECTS "A BONA FIDE TRANSFER IN WHICH THE
SETTLOR, ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, IRREVOCABLY, AND WITHOUT POSSIBLE
RESERVATIONS, PARTS WITH ALL OF HIS TITLE AND ALL OF HIS POSSESSION AND
ALL OF HIS ENJOYMENT OF THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY.  AFTER SUCH A
TRANSFER HAS BEEN MADE, THE SETTLOR MUST BE LEFT WITH NO PRESENT LEGAL
TITLE IN THE PROPERTY, NO POSSIBLE REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THAT TITLE,
AND NO RIGHT TO POSSESS OR TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY THEN OR THEREAFTER. 
IN OTHER WORDS SUCH A TRANSFER MUST BE IMMEDIATE AND OUT AND OUT, AND
MUST BE UNAFFECTED BY WHETHER THE GRANTOR LIVES OR DIES."  WE ADD TO
THAT STATEMENT, IF IT CAN BE CONCEIVED OF AS AN ADDITION, THAT IT IS
IMMATERIAL WHETHER SUCH A PRESENT OR FUTURE INTEREST, ABSOLUTE OR
CONTINGENT, REMAINS IN THE GRANTOR BECAUSE HE DELIBERATELY RESERVES IT
OR BECAUSE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES, HE CONVEYS AWAY LESS
THAN ALL OF HIS PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND ATTRIBUTES, PRESENT OR
PROSPECTIVE.  IN EITHER EVENT THE SETTLOR HAS NOT PARTED WITH ALL OF
HIS PRESENTLY EXISTING OR FUTURE CONTINGENT INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTY
TRANSFERRED.  HE HAS THEREFORE NOT MADE THAT "COMPLETE" KIND OF TRUST
TRANSFER THAT SEC. 811(C) COMMANDS AS A PREREQUISITE TO A SHOWING THAT
HE HAS CERTAINLY AND IRREVOCABLY PARTED WITH HIS "POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT."  ANY REQUIREMENT LESS THAN THAT WHICH WE HAVE OUTLINED,
SUCH AS A POSTDEATH ATTEMPT TO PROBE THE SETTLOR'S THOUGHTS IN REGARD
TO THE TRANSFER, WOULD PARTIALLY IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
"POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT" PROVISION AS AN INSTRUMENT TO FRUSTRATE
ESTATE TAX EVASIONS.  TO THIS EXTENT IT WOULD DEFEAT THE PRECISE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROVISION WAS ORIGINATED AND WHICH PROMPTED
CONGRESS TO INCLUDE IT IN SEC. 811(C). 

DETERMINATION OF SUCH ISSUES AS OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, ENJOYMENT,
WHETHER TRANSFERS HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE REACH OF THOSE TRANSFERS, MAY
INVOLVE MANY QUESTIONS OF FACT.  AND WE HAVE HELD IN MANY CASES THAT TO
THE EXTENT THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH ISSUES DEPENDS UPON FACT FINDING,
MANY DIFFERENT FACTS MAY BE RELEVANT.  THESE FACT ISSUES IN FEDERAL TAX
CASES ARE FOR THE TAX COURT TO DECIDE IN CASES BROUGHT BEFORE IT. 

IN THIS CASE THE TAX COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THEN DECIDED
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  IT DID SO, HOWEVER, BY HOLDING AS A MATTER OF
LAW THAT THOSE FACTS DID NOT REQUIRE INCLUSION OF THE VALUE OF THIS
CORPUS IN THE SETTLOR'S ESTATE.  FN2  BUT THE TAX COURT'S FINDINGS OF
FACT SHOWED THAT THE TRUST CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR DISPOSITION OF
THE CORPUS SHOULD THE SETTLOR OUTLIVE THE BENEFICIARIES.  THIS FINDING
OF FACT, WHICH WE ACCEPT, PLUS THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINATION OF
CONTROLLING ILLINOIS LAW, WITHOUT MORE, BRINGS THIS TRUST TRANSACTION
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT PROVISION OF SEC.
811(C) AS WE HAVE INTERPRETED THAT SECTION IN THE HALLOCK AND CHURCH
CASES.  AND PETITIONER HAS NOT CONTENDED THAT IT WAS DENIED AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCE CONCERNING OWNERSHIP,
POSSESSION, OR ENJOYMENT.  IT IS THEREFORE NOT NECESSARY TO REMAND THE
CASE TO THE TAX COURT FOR ANY FURTHER FINDING OF FACTS.  SEE HORMEL V.
HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552, 559-560. 

SECOND.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE MONETARY VALUE OF THE
SETTLOR'S CONTINGENT REVERSIONARY INTEREST IS SMALL IN COMPARISON WITH
THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE CORPUS, THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT PROVISION OF
SEC. 811(C) SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED.  BUT INCLUSION OF A TRUST CORPUS
UNDER THAT PROVISION IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE VALUE OF THE
REVERSIONARY INTEREST.  FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES,
324 U.S. 108, 112; COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF FIELD, 324 U.S. 113, 116;
SEE GOLDSTONE V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 687, 691.  THE QUESTION IS NOT
HOW MUCH IS THE VALUE OF A RESERVATION, BUT WHETHER AFTER A TRUST
TRANSFER, CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS TO BE A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS TAX
EVASION TRANSACTION, SOME PRESENT OR CONTINGENT RIGHT OR INTEREST IN
THE PROPERTY STILL REMAINS IN THE SETTLOR SO THAT FULL AND COMPLETE
TITLE, POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT DOES NOT ABSOLUTELY PASS TO THE
BENEFICIARIES UNTIL AT OR AFTER THE SETTLOR'S DEATH.  SEE SMITH V.
SHAUGHNESSY, 318 U.S. 176, 181. 

THIRD.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW THE CORPUS OF THIS
TRUST WOULD NOT HAVE REVERTED TO THE SETTLOR HAD HE OUTLIVED THE
BENEFICIARIES.  THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE STATE LAW PROBLEM HERE IS
NOT AN EASY ONE, BUT UNDER THIS COURT'S DECISION IN MEREDITH V. WINTER
HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228, THE DIFFICULTY INVOLVED DID NOT RELIEVE THE COURT
OF APPEALS OF ITS DUTY TO MAKE A DECISION.  THE QUESTIONED RULING WAS
MADE BY THREE JUDGES WHO ARE CONSTANTLY REQUIRED TO PASS UPON ILLINOIS
LAW QUESTIONS.  ONE OF THE THREE JUDGES HAS LONG BEEN A RESIDENT AND
LAWYER OF ILLINOIS.  EXAMINATION OF THE ILLINOIS STATE COURT OPINIONS
PRESSED UPON US LEAVES US UNABLE TO SAY WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING WAS WRONG.  IT IS CERTAINLY NEITHER
NOVEL NOR UNREASONABLE FOR STATE LAW TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN ALL TRUST
BENEFICIARIES DIE THE TRUST CORPUS SHOULD REVERT TO THE DONOR.  IT
WOULD BE WHOLLY UNPROFITABLE FOR US TO ANALYZE ILLINOIS CASES ON THE
POINT HERE URGED.  IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR US TO SAY THAT WE THINK
REASONABLE ARGUMENTS CAN BE MADE BASED ON ILLINOIS CASES TO SUPPORT A
DETERMINATION OF THIS QUESTION EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE WILL FOLLOW OUR GENERAL
POLICY AND LEAVE UNDISTURBED THIS COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING ON A
QUESTION OF STATE LAW.  FN3 

ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN NOTED AND WE FIND
THEM WITHOUT MERIT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS COURT OF APPEALS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SEC.
811(C) WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE HOLDING OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. CHURCH'S ESTATE, 161 F.2D 11.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH CASES, ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER,
AND WE HAVE TODAY REVERSED THE CHURCH CASE, ANTE, P. 632. 

FN2  THE TAX COURT'S CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT THE "POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT" CLAUSE OF SEC. 811(C) WAS INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS
TRUST RESTED IN PART ON ITS BELIEF THAT REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO.,
278 U.S. 339, HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE.  BUT THE HALLOCK CASE WAS DECIDED
AFTER REINECKE, AND THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY
RAISED IN THE REINECKE CASE.  NOR DID THE COURT'S OPINION IN THAT CASE,
WRITTEN BY THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, INDICATE THAT A TRANSFER OF
BARE LEGAL TITLE IN A TRANSFER MUST ALWAYS BE ACCEPTED AS A CONCLUSIVE
SHOWING THAT THE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT PROVISION OF SEC. 811(C)
CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE TRUST CORPUS.  CF. COURT'S OPINION IN HARRISON
V. SCHAFFNER, 312 U.S. 579, WRITTEN BY CHIEF JUSTICE STONE. 

FN3  HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154, 162-165; CF. STEELE V.
GENERAL MILLS, 329 U.S. 433. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 

(FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING IN THIS DECISION BUT
DISSENTING FROM THAT IN COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF CHURCH, ANTE, P. 632,
SEE ANTE, P. 651.) 

(FOR OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING FROM THIS
DECISION AND ALSO THAT IN COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF CHURCH, ANTE, P.
632, SEE ANTE, P. 667.) 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

TODAY'S DECISION ADDS TO THE DIFFICULTIES IN THIS TROUBLED FIELD OF
ESTATE TAX LAW.  IT MAY, HOWEVER, SERVE A GOOD PURPOSE IF IT LEADS TO A
SIMULTANEOUS CONSIDERATION BY CONGRESS OF THE RELATED FIELDS OF INCOME,
GIFT AND ESTATE TAXATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION OR TRANSFER OF
FUTURE INTERESTS. 

 FIVE ALTERNATIVES. 

AT LEAST FIVE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO US FOR THE
SOLUTION OF THIS CASE.  THE FIRST CALLS FOR THE REVERSAL OF REINECKE V.
NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339, AND A DECISION AGAINST THE
TAXPAYERS.  THE SECOND CALLS FOR THE EXTENSION TO THIS CASE OF THE
DOCTRINE OF HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, AND A REMAND TO
DETERMINE FURTHER FACTS.  THE THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH FOLLOW EXISTING
PRECEDENTS MORE CLOSELY.  EACH RECOGNIZES THAT, IF NO POSSIBILITY OF A
REVERTER  FN1  AROSE IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR, BY OPERATION OF LAW,
UNDER THE TRUST INSTRUMENT BEFORE US, THE PROPERTY THEREBY PLACED IN
TRUST IS NOT REQUIRED BY SEC. 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE SETTLOR FOR FEDERAL ESTATE TAX
PURPOSES.  THE THIRD PROPOSAL FINDS THAT THE LAW TO BE APPLIED, FOR THE
ABOVE PURPOSE, IS THAT OF ILLINOIS.  IT CALLS FOR A DECISION IN FAVOR
OF THE TAXPAYERS BECAUSE, UNDER A CORRECT APPLICATION OF THAT LAW, THE
REQUIRED REVERTER COULD NOT ARISE.  THE FOURTH PROPOSAL CLAIMS OR
ASSUMES THAT A POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER DID ARISE UNDER THIS TRUST BY
OPERATION OF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR.  IT, HOWEVER,
DECLINES TO APPLY THE RULE OF DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX AND, BY
DECLINING TO LOOK FURTHER, IT REACHES A DECISION AGAINST THE
TAXPAYERS.  THIS IS THE ALTERNATIVE WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN THE
OPINION OF THE COURT.  THE FIFTH PROPOSAL IS LIKE THE FOURTH EXCEPT
THAT IT DOES LOOK FURTHER AND IT RECOGNIZES THAT SEC. 811(C) REQUIRES A
FINDING OF THE SETTLOR'S ACTUAL INTENT IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT SECTION
APPLICABLE.  IT THEN CONCLUDES THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE REQUIRED
INTENT IS ABSENT.  THE FIFTH PROPOSAL, THEREFORE, CALLS FOR A DECISION
IN FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYERS OR AT LEAST CALLS FOR A REMAND TO DETERMINE
THE EXISTENCE, IF ANY, OF THE SETTLOR'S REQUIRED INTENT.  I BELIEVE
THAT ONLY THE THIRD AND FIFTH PROPOSALS PRESENT A SOUND SOLUTION.  EACH
OF THOSE TWO IS FOUNDED UPON EXISTING PRECEDENTS, REACHES AN EQUITABLE
RESULT AND CONTRIBUTES TO THE CERTAINTY RATHER THAN TO THE UNCERTAINTY
OF THE APPLICATION OF THE TAX, PENDING LEGISLATIVE RECONSIDERATION OF
THE ENTIRE SUBJECT.  I PREFER THE FIFTH BECAUSE IT AVOIDS COMPLETE
DEPENDENCE UPON THE LAW OF A STATE.  IF THE FIFTH PROPOSAL IS NOT
ACCEPTED, I BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS
REQUIRES ACCEPTANCE OF THE THIRD. 

           I. THE FIRST PROPOSAL IS THAT THE REINECKE CASE

BE OVERRULED. 

THE LACK OF JUDICIAL SUPPORT FOR OVERRULING REINECKE V. NORTHERN
TRUST CO., SUPRA, AT THIS LATE DAY, MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
THIS PROPOSAL AT LENGTH.  IT HAS BEEN, HOWEVER, STRONGLY URGED UPON US.
THE SPIEGEL TRUST INSTRUMENT IS SO SIMPLE AND COMPLETE IN ITS TERMS
FN2  THAT TO APPLY THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX TO ITS CORPUS MERELY ON THE
STRENGTH OF THOSE TERMS WOULD REQUIRE A REVERSAL OF THE REINECKE CASE. 
ACCORDINGLY, ON THE REARGUMENT OF THIS CASE, WE ASKED THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION: 

"1.  ASSUMING THAT, UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW, THERE WAS NO
POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER AND NO INTEREST OF ANY OTHER KIND RETAINED OR
ARISING IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR OR HIS ESTATE UNDER THE TRANSFER MADE
IN TRUST, INTER VIVOS, DID SECTION 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
REQUIRE THAT THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST BE INCLUDED IN THE
SETTLOR'S GROSS ESTATE FOR FEDERAL ESTATE-TAX PURPOSES?  THAT IS, DID
OF THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS OF A TRUST, CREATED INTER VIVOS, MERELY
BECAUSE THE SETTLOR HAD PROVIDED IN IT THAT, UPON HIS DEATH, THE TRUST
SHOULD TERMINATE AND THE CORPUS BE DISTRIBUTED TO DESIGNATED
BENEFICIARIES THEN SURVIVING?"  JOURNAL SUPREME COURT, OCT. TERM, 1947,
PP. 296-297. 

IN RESPONSE, COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSIONER ARGUED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
AND COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS IN THE NEGATIVE.  THE INTERPRETATION OF
THE STATUTE URGED ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER, HAD BEEN LONG
AGO REJECTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THIS COURT IN PASSING UPON THE SO-CALLED
"FIVE TRUSTS" IN THE REINECKE CASE.  ACCORDINGLY, IF THAT PRECEDENT
STANDS, THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE QUESTION REMAINS "NO" AND THAT ISSUE
SHOULD BE AT REST. 

THE REASONING OF THE REINECKE CASE REQUIRES THAT, FOR A TRANSFER TO
BE TAXABLE IN A CASE LIKE THIS, THE SETTLOR MUST HAVE INTENDED THAT THE
TRANSFER COME FROM THE SETTLOR AND THAT IT TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER THE SETTLOR'S DEATH.  IT MUST BE FROM THE DEAD TO
THE LIVING.  THAT REQUIREMENT CALLS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF AN INTEREST,
RIGHT OR CONTROL IN THE SETTLOR, OR AT LEAST THE EXISTENCE OF SOME
POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER TO THE SETTLOR OR TO HIS ESTATE, AMOUNTING TO
A STRING OR TIE TO THE TRUST PROPERTY, IN ORDER TO MAKE SEC. 811(C)
APPLICABLE.  SUCH INTEREST, STRING OR TIE MUST ALSO BE ONE THAT WAS
TRANSFERRED, CUT OFF OR OBLITERATED BY THE TERMS OF THE TRUST AT OR
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE SETTLOR. 

ACCORDINGLY, THERE NOW SHOULD BE SAID ABOUT SEC. 811 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, 53 STAT. 120, 26 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  811, WHAT MR.
JUSTICE STONE, IN 1929, SAID IN THE REINECKE CASE ABOUT THE
CORRESPONDING SEC. 402 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, C. 136, 42 STAT.
227, 278: 

"IN ITS PLAN AND SCOPE THE TAX IS ONE IMPOSED ON TRANSFERS AT DEATH
OR MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH AND IS MEASURED BY THE VALUE AT DEATH
OF THE INTEREST WHICH IS TRANSFERRED.  CF. Y.M.C.A. V. DAVIS, 264 U.S.
47, 50; EDWARDS V. SLOCUM, 264 U.S. 61, 62; N.Y. TRUST CO. V. EISNER,
256 U.S. 345, 349.  IT IS NOT A GIFT TAX, AND THE TAX ON GIFTS ONCE
IMPOSED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924, C. 234, 43 STAT. 313, HAS BEEN
REPEALED, 44 STAT. 126.  ONE MAY FREELY GIVE HIS PROPERTY TO ANOTHER BY
ABSOLUTE GIFT WITHOUT SUBJECTING HIMSELF OR HIS ESTATE TO A TAX, BUT WE
ARE ASKED TO SAY THAT THIS STATUTE MEANS THAT HE MAY NOT MAKE A GIFT
INTER VIVOS, EQUALLY ABSOLUTE AND COMPLETE, WITHOUT SUBJECTING IT TO A
TAX IF THE GIFT TAKES THE FORM OF A LIFE ESTATE IN ONE WITH REMAINDER
OVER TO ANOTHER AT OR AFTER THE DONOR'S DEATH.  IT WOULD REQUIRE PLAIN
AND COMPELLING LANGUAGE TO JUSTIFY SO INCONGRUOUS A RESULT AND WE THINK
IT IS WANTING IN THE PRESENT STATUTE."  ID. AT PP. 347-348. 

SEE ALSO, HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106; DISSENTING OPINION IN
BECKER V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 48, 53, AND HELVERING V.
ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 39, 46; KLEIN V. UNITED STATES, 283
U.S. 231; AND SHUKERT V. ALLEN, 273 U.S. 545. 

           II.  THE SECOND PROPOSAL IS FOR THE APPLICATION OF

           THE DOCTRINE OF THE CLIFFORD CASE. 

TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA, TO THE CASE
BEFORE US IS, IN EFFECT, TO SUBSTITUTE THAT DOCTRINE FOR THE DOCTRINE
OF THE REINECKE CASE.  HERETOFORE, THIS COURT HAS MADE NO APPLICATION
OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE CLIFFORD CASE TO SEC. 811(C) OR TO ANY OF ITS
PREDECESSOR SECTIONS.  THAT DOCTRINE HAS BEEN RESERVED LARGELY FOR
INCOME TAX CASES.  ALL THE FACTS APPROPRIATE FOR A DECISION IN THIS
CASE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE CLIFFORD CASE HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED. 
THE ABSENCE OF THOSE FACTS FROM THE RECORD AND THE ABSENCE OF THIS
ISSUE FROM THE ARGUMENTS MADE BELOW EMPHASIZE THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF
A REMAND TO INTRODUCE SUCH FACTS AT THIS LATE POINT IN THIS
PROCEEDING.  NOTHING SUGGESTS THAT THIS TRUSTEE HAS PRACTICED FRAUD, OR
TAX EVASION, OR HAS VIOLATED HIS OBLIGATIONS AS A TRUSTEE.  THE TRUST
BECAME IRREVOCABLE AT ITS INCEPTION.  IT THUS CONTRASTS SHARPLY WITH
ANY TESTAMENTARY INSTRUMENT WHICH THE SETTLOR MIGHT HAVE EXECUTED. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN IT TO SUGGEST THAT THE SETTLOR, EVEN AS A SOLE
SURVIVING TRUSTEE, WOULD BE FREE FROM STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE
BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST OR FROM AN OBLIGATION TO USE HIS DISCRETION
IN THEIR INTEREST RATHER THAN IN HIS OWN.  THERE IS NO MORE OF AN
EXPRESS PROVISION IN THIS TRUST FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER TO
THE SETTLOR THAN THERE WAS IN THE REINECKE CASE.  THE COUNTLESS
UNCERTAINTIES WHICH WOULD ARISE IN OTHER CASES FROM A RETROACTIVE
APPLICATION TO THIS STATUTE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE CLIFFORD CASE MIGHT
BE NEARLY AS GREAT AS THOSE WHICH WOULD FLOW FROM A REVERSAL OF THE
REINECKE CASE. 

FURTHERMORE, THERE IS A SHARP CONTRAST BETWEEN SEC. 22(A)  FN3  AND
SEC. 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS A STARTING POINT FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE CLIFFORD CASE.  SECTION 22(A), UPON
WHICH THE CLIFFORD CASE RESTS ITS EXPANSION OF THE TRADITIONALLY
TAXABLE INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER, INVITES OR AT LEAST PERMITS THE BROAD
INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO IT.  SECTION 811, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTAINS
NO SWEEPING INCLUSIONS.  WHATEVER BREADTH OF LANGUAGE IT CONTAINS IS IN
SEC. 811(A), WHEREAS SEC. 811(C) IS IN THE NATURE OF A SPECIAL
EXCEPTION FROM THE BROAD FIELD OF TRANSFERS INTER VIVOS.  SECTION
811(C) SEEKS TO APPLY THE ESTATE TAX TO CERTAIN IDENTIFIABLE
CLASSIFICATIONS OF SUCH TRANSFERS WHERE EXPERIENCE HAS INDICATED THAT,
IN SPITE OF THEIR FORM, CONGRESS BELIEVES THEY SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO
ESTATE TAX.  THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SEC. 811(C) BEARS OUT THIS
INTERPRETATION.  IT HAS BEEN EXTENDED ONLY BY THE ADDITION OF
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED CLASSIFICATIONS.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE
REVOCABLE TRANSFERS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 811(D), OF JOINT AND COMMUNITY
INTERESTS IN SEC. 811(E), OF POWERS OF APPOINTMENT IN SEC. 811(F), OF
PROCEEDS OF LIFE INSURANCE IN SEC. 811(G), OF TRANSFERS OF PRIOR
INTERESTS IN SEC. 811(H) AND OF TRANSFERS FOR INSUFFICIENT
CONSIDERATION IN SEC. 811(I).  IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO SWEEP INTO
THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT BROAD CLASSIFICATIONS OF TRANSFERS
INTER VIVOS, CONTRARY TO THE LIMITATIONS UPHELD IN REINECKE V. NORTHERN
TRUST CO., SUPRA, OR AS WOULD RESULT FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, MANY OF THE FOREGOING SPECIFIC
EXTENSIONS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY.  THE VERY SPECIFICITY OF THE
TERMS OF SEC. 811(C) AND OF ITS RELATED SUBSECTIONS EMPHATICALLY
NEGATIVE ANY BROAD INTERPRETATION OF THEIR LANGUAGE.  NO LANGUAGE OF A
BREADTH COMPARABLE TO THAT USED IN SEC. 22(A) APPEARS ANYWHERE IN THE

TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF THE CLIFFORD CASE TO THE SPIEGEL TRUST
BECAUSE OF THE POWERS WHICH THE SPIEGEL TRUST VESTED IN THE SETTLOR AS
A TRUSTEE CONFLICTS WITH THE POSITION TAKEN BY THIS COURT AS TO THE
"FIVE TRUSTS" IN THE REINECKE CASE, SUPRA.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE POWERS
RESERVED DIRECTLY TO THE SETTLOR UNDER TRUST NO. 4477 IN THE REINECKE
CASE NOT ONLY ARE EQUAL TO BUT, IN SOME WAYS, ARE BROADER THAN THOSE
VESTED IN THE SETTLOR, AS A TRUSTEE, IN THE SPIEGEL TRUST.  THE VERY
FACT THAT IN TRUST NO. 4477 THE RESERVATIONS WERE MADE DIRECTLY TO THE
SETTLOR IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, RATHER THAN TO HIM AS A TRUSTEE,
REMOVES FROM THEM THE TRADITIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH EQUITY PLACES UPON
A TRUSTEE IN THE EXERCISE OF POWERS WHICH HE HOLDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
HIS CESTUI QUE TRUST.  IN APPENDIX II, INFRA, P. 737, TRUST NO. 4477 IS
QUOTED IN FULL FROM THE RECORD IN THE REINECKE CASE AND A NUMBER OF THE
ESPECIALLY MATERIAL CLAUSES HAVE BEEN ITALICIZED.  WHILE THE TERMS OF
THAT TRUST WERE NOT QUOTED VERBATIM IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN THE
REINECKE CASE, THIS COURT THERE SUMMARIZED SEVERAL OF THEM FN4  AND
SAID: 

"NOR DID THE RESERVED POWERS OF MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS SAVE TO
DECEDENT ANY CONTROL OVER THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OR THE ENJOYMENT OF THE
PROPERTY.  HE WOULD EQUALLY HAVE RESERVED ALL THESE POWERS AND OTHERS
HAD HE MADE HIMSELF THE TRUSTEE, BUT THE TRANSFER WOULD NOT FOR THAT
REASON HAVE BEEN INCOMPLETE.  THE SHIFTING OF THE ECONOMIC INTEREST IN
THE TRUST PROPERTY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX WAS THUS COMPLETE
AS SOON AS THE TRUST WAS MADE.  HIS POWER TO RECALL THE PROPERTY AND OF
CONTROL OVER IT FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT THEN CEASED AND AS THE TRUSTS WERE
NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, THE RESERVED POWERS DO NOT SERVE TO
DISTINGUISH THEM FROM ANY OTHER GIFT INTER VIVOS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
TAX."  (AT PP. 346-347.) 

THIS COURT THUS SHOWED THAT ALL OF THE POWERS RESERVED DIRECTLY TO
THE SETTLOR, EVEN IF COUPLED WITH THE "OTHERS" OF THE TRUSTEE, WOULD
NOT SUBJECT THAT TRUST TO THE ESTATE TAX.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY
SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE ISSUE NOW PRESENTED HAD BEEN BROUGHT SQUARELY
BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE REINECKE CASE BY THE FOLLOWING QUESTION IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF: 

"1.  DO THE WORDS OF SECTION 402(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, WHICH
PROVIDE THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASURING THE ESTATE TAX, THERE SHALL
BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE TRUSTS INTENDED TO
'TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH,'
EMBRACE: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  TRUSTS CREATED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF A SIMILAR AND
EARLIER ACT, WHERE THE SETTLOR RESERVED THE POWER TO SELL AND REINVEST
THE TRUST PROPERTY; VOTE THE STOCK; CONTROL LEASES; REAPPOINT TRUSTEES;
AND, JOINTLY WITH THE BENEFICIARIES, TO ALTER, AMEND, OR MODIFY THE
TRUST.  (THIS APPLIES TO TRUSTS NOS. 4477, 4478, 4479, 4480, AND 4481,
RESPECTIVELY, APPEARING IN THE RECORD AT PP. 3, 17, 25, 32, 40.)"  FN5 

FOR US TO HOLD THAT SEC. 811(C) APPLIES HERE BECAUSE OF THE POWERS
WHICH HAVE BEEN VESTED IN THE SETTLOR-TRUSTEE UNDER THE SPIEGEL TRUST
WOULD, THEREFORE, AMOUNT TO OVERRULING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN
THE REINECKE CASE WHICH HELD THAT THE CORRESPONDING LANGUAGE OF SEC.
402(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921 DID NOT APPLY IN THAT CASE.  FN6 

THE FAILURE TO REMAND THIS CASE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF FURTHER
FACTS WHICH WOULD BE MATERIAL UNDER THE TESTS OF THE CLIFFORD CASE DOES
NOT SETTLE THE QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN ARGUED AS TO THE APPLICATION OF
THOSE TESTS UNDER SEC. 811(C).  IT DOES, HOWEVER, SHOW THAT THIS COURT
HAS NOT BEEN WILLING TO REST ITS DECISION UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF THE CLIFFORD CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE TERMS OF THIS TRUST
AND OF THE FACTS SHOWN BY THE PRESENT RECORD. 

             COMMON BASIS FOR THE THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH

        PROPOSALS. 

                         THE MATERIAL FACTS. 

THE IMPORTANT FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THE TERMS OF THE TRUST
INSTRUMENT AND THE INTENT OF THE SETTLOR.  THE TERMS OF THE INSTRUMENT
ARE THOSE TO WHICH THE LAW OF ILLINOIS MUST BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE AROSE, BY OPERATION OF LAW, ANY POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER
IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED, CUT OFF OR
OBLITERATED BY THE SETTLOR'S DEATH.  IN 1920 THE SETTLOR MADE AN
IRREVOCABLE TRANSFER, IN ILLINOIS, BY TRUST, OF CERTAIN CORPORATE
SECURITIES WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE TRUSTEES TO PAY THE INCOME OF THE
TRUST, DURING THE LIFE OF THE SETTLOR, TO HIS THREE NAMED CHILDREN,
BUT, IF ANY OF SUCH CHILDREN PREDECEASED THE SETTLOR, THE PAYMENTS WERE
TO GO TO THE CHILDREN OF SUCH DECEASED CHILD OR CHILDREN PER STIRPES. 
IF THERE WERE NO SURVIVING CHILD OF A DECEASED CHILD OF THE SETTLOR,
THE PAYMENTS WERE TO GO TO THE OTHER CHILDREN OF THE SETTLOR AND TO
THEIR DESCENDANTS PER STIRPES.  SIMILARLY, UPON THE SETTLOR'S DEATH,
THE TRUST FUND AND ANY ACCUMULATED INCOME THEREON WERE TO BE DIVIDED
AMONG THE SETTLOR'S THREE CHILDREN.  IT WAS PROVIDED, WITH OBVIOUS
CARE, THAT, IF ANY OF THE SETTLOR'S CHILDREN HAD BY THAT TIME DIED,
LEAVING ANY CHILD OR CHILDREN SURVIVING, THEN THE CHILD OR CHILDREN OF
SUCH DECEASED CHILD OF THE SETTLOR WAS OR WERE TO RECEIVE THE SHARE OF
THE TRUST FUND TO WHICH ITS OR THEIR PARENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED. 
FURTHERMORE, IF ANY OF THE SETTLOR'S THREE CHILDREN DIED WITHOUT
LEAVING ANY CHILD OR CHILDREN SURVIVING, THEN THE SHARE OF SUCH
DECEASED CHILD WAS TO GO TO THE SETTLOR'S REMAINING CHILDREN AND TO THE
DESCENDANTS OF ANY DECEASED CHILD OF THE SETTLOR PER STIRPES.  NO
FURTHER EXPRESS PROVISION WAS MADE FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE INCOME OR
OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST IN THE EVENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT NONE OF THE
SETTLOR'S THREE CHILDREN AND NO DESCENDANTS OF SUCH CHILDREN SURVIVED
THE SETTLOR.  THE INSTRUMENT CONTAINED NO FURTHER INTIMATION OF ANY
INTENT OR EVEN THOUGHT ON THE PART OF THE SETTLOR THAT IN ANY MANNER
THERE MIGHT ARISE IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR OR OF HIS ESTATE, ANY
BENEFICIAL INTEREST, OR RIGHT TO, OR CONTROL OVER THE POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT OF THE INCOME OR CORPUS OF THE TRUST. 

THE GIFT WAS NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.  AT THAT DATE THERE
WAS NO LAW PRESCRIBING A FEDERAL GIFT TAX APPLICABLE TO IT.  THE
TRUSTEES NAMED IN THE TRUST WERE THE SETTLOR HIMSELF AND ONE OTHER
PERSON WHOSE RELATIONSHIP, IF ANY, TO THE SETTLOR DOES NOT APPEAR IN
THE RECORD.  BOTH WERE RESIDENTS OF ILLINOIS.  THEIR POWERS OF
MANAGEMENT WERE COMPARABLE TO THOSE COMMONLY GRANTED TO TRUSTEES TO
HANDLE A TRUST ESTATE CONSISTING ORIGINALLY OF SUCH SECURITIES AS WERE
TRANSFERRED HERE.  THE TRUST MENTIONED NO POWER OF APPOINTMENT AND NO
POWER TO ALTER, AMEND, REVOKE OR TERMINATE THE TRUST.  AT THE CREATION
OF THE TRUST, THE AGE OF THE SETTLOR WAS 47 AND HE WAS A WIDOWER.  HIS
THREE ONLY CHILDREN WERE, RESPECTIVELY, ABOUT 22, 15 AND 12 YEARS OLD. 
HE THEN HAD NO GRANDCHILDREN.  IN 1940, WHEN HE DIED, HE WAS 68 AND HIS
CHILDREN WERE, RESPECTIVELY, 43, 36 AND 33.  HE THEN HAD THREE
GRANDCHILDREN, AGED, RESPECTIVELY, TEN, FOUR AND TWO.  THROUGHOUT HIS
LIFE THE INCOME OF THE TRUST WAS DISTRIBUTED TO AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF
HIS THREE CHILDREN AND UPON HIS DEATH THE ENTIRE FUND WAS DISTRIBUTED
EQUALLY AMONG THEM. 

            THE POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER TO THE SETTLOR. 

IN ADDITION TO HIS BROADER CLAIMS DISCUSSED UNDER THE FIRST AND
SECOND PROPOSALS, THE COMMISSIONER HAS PRESENTED A NARROW CLAIM.  THIS
IS A CLAIM THAT IF, BY OPERATION OF LAW, THERE ARISES FROM THE TRUST A
REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE SETTLOR OR IN HIS ESTATE, OR IF THERE
EXISTS EVEN A GOSSAMER THREAD OF A POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER TO THE
SETTLOR OR TO HIS ESTATE, AND IF SUCH INTEREST, "STRING OR TIE" WERE,
BY THE TERMS OF THE TRUST, TO BE TRANSFERRED, CUT OFF OR OBLITERATED BY
HIS DEATH, THEN, UNDER EXISTING PRECEDENTS, THE ENTIRE TRUST PROPERTY
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE SETTLOR FOR FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  THERE IS NO ISSUE MADE HERE AS TO THE AMOUNT OF
THE TAX IF ANY IS DUE.  THE PETITIONERS' CLAIM IS SIMPLY THAT NO ESTATE
TAX IS APPLICABLE TO THE TRUST FUND. 

                      III.  THE THIRD PROPOSAL. 

        ILLINOIS LAW PRECLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER. 

ON THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE THE FIRST INQUIRY MUST BE AS TO THE LAW OF
ILLINOIS AND THE SECOND AS TO ITS APPLICATION TO THIS TRUST.  A
DETERMINATION OF THE ILLINOIS LAW AND OF ITS APPLICATION ADVERSELY TO
THE TAXPAYERS WOULD BE CONCLUSIVE AGAINST THEM, UNLESS RELIEVED BY THE
RULE OF DE MINIMIS UNDER THE FOURTH PROPOSAL, OR BY A FINDING FAVORABLE
TO THEM ON THE ISSUE OF THE SETTLOR'S FACTUAL INTENT UNDER THE FIFTH
PROPOSAL.  ON THE OTHER HAND, A FINDING FAVORABLE TO THE TAXPAYERS UPON
EITHER THE PRINCIPLE OR THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS WOULD
DISPOSE OF THIS CASE IN THEIR FAVOR.  THIS VERY CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE
STATE LAW UNDER THIS PROPOSAL IS A WEIGHTY CONSIDERATION IN FAVOR OF
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE PRESENTED BY THE FIFTH PROPOSAL.  A
FEDERAL POLICY OF COMPLETE DEPENDENCE UPON STATE LAWS FOR THE
APPLICATION OF ANY NATIONWIDE TAX CANNOT FAIRLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO
CONGRESS WITHOUT A MUCH CLEARER EXPRESSION OF SUCH A POLICY THAN
APPEARS IN SEC. 811(C).  THE INHERENT DIFFICULTY OF ADMINISTRATION AND
THE RESULTING INEQUALITY OF TAXATION AS BETWEEN INSTRUMENTS GOVERNED BY
THE LAWS OF DIFFERENT STATES ARGUE STRONGLY AGAINST SUCH A POLICY. 

THIS COURT, AS A SETTLED PRACTICE, PLACES MUCH RELIANCE UPON
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY COURTS OF APPEALS AS TO THE LAW OF THE STATES WITHIN
THEIR RESPECTIVE CIRCUITS.  FN7  THE WEIGHT TO WHICH SUCH ANNOUNCEMENTS
ARE ENTITLED WILL VARY WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY ARE
MADE.  IN THIS CASE WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ON THE LAW OF ILLINOIS AS TO THE EFFECT OF
CONTINGENT REMAINDERS CONTAINED IN A TRUST AND POINTING OUT THAT, UNDER
THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, THEY CREATE REVERSIONARY INTERESTS IN THE
SETTLOR.  OUR DIFFICULTY HERE IS NOT WITH THE LAW AS THUS STATED BUT
WITH THE APPLICATION MADE OF IT TO THIS CASE.  THE TROUBLE IS THAT THE
TRUST IN THIS CASE CONTAINS NOT CONTINGENT REMAINDERS BUT VESTED
REMAINDERS, AND IT IS CLEAR THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, NO
REVERSIONS, REVERSIONARY INTERESTS, RESULTING TRUSTS OR "POSSIBILITIES
OF A REVERTER" OF ANY KIND CAN ARISE BY OPERATION OF LAW FROM A VESTED
REMAINDER.  THIS IS DUE TO THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
CONTINGENT REMAINDER AND A VESTED REMAINDER.  IF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS IS
TO CONTROL THE SITUATION, THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE DETERMINATION OF
THIS CLEAR-CUT ISSUE UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE. 

THE FAILURE OF A CONDITION PRECEDENT UPON WHICH A CONTINGENT
REMAINDER DEPENDS UNDER A TRUST RESULTS NATURALLY ENOUGH IN A REVERSION
OF THE UNDISPOSED-OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST TO THE SETTLOR OF THE TRUST. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FAILURE OF A CONDITION SUBSEQUENT ATTACHED TO A
VESTED REMAINDER UNDER A TRUST RESULTS EQUALLY NATURALLY ONLY IN A
FAILURE OF THE DIVESTITURE CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONDITION.  THE EFFECT
OF SUCH A FAILURE OF A CONDITION SUBSEQUENT ATTACHED TO A VESTED
REMAINDER IS NOT A REVERSION OF AN UNDISPOSED-OF BENEFICIAL INTEREST TO
THE SETTLOR OF THE TRUST.  IT MERELY RELIEVES THE HOLDER OF THE VESTED
REMAINDER AND HIS LEGATEES AND NEXT OF KIN FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF THE
DIVESTITURE TO WHICH THE REMAINDER ORIGINALLY HAD BEEN SUBJECTED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS MADE NO ANNOUNCEMENT OF
ILLINOIS LAW CONTRARY TO THAT JUST STATED.  IN FACT, IT MADE NO
ANNOUNCEMENT WHATEVER ON THE SUBJECT OF VESTED REMAINDERS BECAUSE IT
TREATED THE SPIEGEL REMAINDERS AS CONTINGENT.  FN8  THE FOREGOING
ELEMENTAL STATEMENT AS TO THE LEGAL EFFECT OF CONTINGENT REMAINDERS AND
OF VESTED REMAINDERS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT CONFORMS TO THE
GENERALLY ACCEPTED LAW OF TRUSTS  FN9  AND TO THE LAW OF ILLINOIS. 
FN10 

THIS BRINGS US NEAR TO THE DECISIVE QUESTION WHETHER THE REMAINDER
INTERESTS WRITTEN INTO THE SPIEGEL TRUST WERE CONTINGENT OR VESTED. 
THE COMMISSIONER HAS SUGGESTED THAT IT MAKES LITTLE SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE WHETHER A CONDITION IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT OR A CONDITION
SUBSEQUENT, AS LONG AS IT IS A CONDITION.  THAT IS SO FOR MANY PURPOSES
BUT WHERE, AS HERE, A TAX, BY HYPOTHESIS, CAN ATTACH ONLY IF SOME
POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER CAN ARISE IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR BEFORE HIS
DEATH, THEN IT IS INESCAPABLY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, BY
OPERATION OF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, SUCH A POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER CAN
ARISE UNDER THIS TRUST.  TO SAY IN SUCH A SITUATION THAT THE LANGUAGE
OF THE CONVEYANCE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IS TO BEG THE QUESTION.  THE
POSSIBILITY IS NOT EXPRESSLY SPELLED OUT OR DENIED.  ITS EXISTENCE,
LIKE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OTHER BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE TRUST, MUST
DEPEND UPON THE EFFECT GIVEN BY ILLINOIS LAW TO THE WORDS OF ART IN THE
CONVEYANCE.  IN THE LAST ANALYSIS THE PROBLEM IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER
OR NOT THE SETTLOR INTENDED BY HIS LANGUAGE THAT THE POSSESSION AND
ENJOYMENT OF HIS PROPERTY WERE TO RETURN TO HIM UPON FAILURE OF THE
EXPRESS DISPOSITIONS OF THE BENEFICIAL INTERESTS IN IT.  IF THE SETTLOR
HAD WISHED TO EXPRESS HIMSELF IN DETAIL HE COULD HAVE DONE SO.  HERE,
HOWEVER, HE USED ONLY THE CUSTOMARY LANGUAGE OF CONVEYANCING AND IT
REMAINS TO SEE WHAT EFFECT THE ILLINOIS LAW GIVES TO THAT LANGUAGE. 

IN THE HELPFUL LIGHT OF LACHENMYER V. GEHLBACH, 266 ILL. 11, 107 N.E.
202, THE REMAINDERS IN THE SPIEGEL TRUST ARE SHOWN TO BE VESTED
REMAINDERS, CARRYING CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT.  SEE ALSO, STOMBAUGH V.
MOREY, 388 ILL. 392, 58 N.E.2D 545; MURPHY V. WESTHOFF, 386 ILL. 136,
53 N.E.2D 931; DANZ V. DANZ, 373 ILL. 482, 26 N.E.2D 872; SMITH V.
SHEPARD, 370 ILL. 491, 19 N.E.2D 368; HOBLIT V. HOWSER, 338 ILL. 328,
170 N.E. 257; BOYE V. BOYE, 300 ILL. 508, 133 N.E. 382; MCBRIDE V.
CLEMONS, 294 ILL. 251, 128 N.E. 383; HICKOX V. KLAHOLT, 291 ILL. 544,
126 N.E. 166; WELCH V. CROWE, 278 ILL. 244, 115 N.E. 859.  CF.
FREUDENSTEIN V. BRADEN, 397 ILL. 29, 72 N.E.2D 832.  NO DISTINCTION HAS
BEEN DRAWN IN THE ILLINOIS CASES BETWEEN INTERESTS CREATED BY INTER
VIVOS DEEDS AND LIKE INTERESTS CREATED BY TESTAMENTARY DOCUMENTS.  SEE
SMITH V. DUGGER, 310 ILL. 624, 625, 142 N.E. 243, 244, WHERE THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RELIED UPON LACHENMYER V. GEHLBACH, SUPRA, IN
CONSTRUING AN INTER VIVOS DEED.  SEE ALSO, HARDER V. MATTHEWS, 309 ILL.
548, 141 N.E. 442.  FN11 

FOR THESE REASONS, BY OPERATION OF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, THERE HERE
EXISTED NO POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER TO THE SETTLOR AND, THEREFORE, THE
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX CANNOT ATTACH TO IT.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
COMMISSIONER RELIES UPON THE LAW OF ILLINOIS TO ESTABLISH IN THIS CASE
THE POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER TO THE SETTLOR, BY OPERATION OF THE
ILLINOIS LAW, HE HAS BEEN "HOIST WITH HIS OWN PETARD." 

          IV. THE FOURTH PROPOSAL ASSUMES THAT A POSSIBILITY OF A

  REVERTER EXISTS AND THAT THE FACTUAL INTENT        OF

         THE SETTLOR MAY BE DISREGARDED. 

THIS PROPOSAL IS REACHED ONLY IF THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE
LAW OF ILLINOIS ARE DISREGARDED.  IT IS THE SOLUTION ADOPTED IN THE
OPINION OF THE COURT.  IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF
REVERTER IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR MAY BE SAID TO HAVE ARISEN UNDER THE
LAW OF ILLINOIS, THEN UNDER EXISTING PRECEDENTS, IF WE LOOK NO FURTHER,
THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX WOULD BE APPLICABLE HERE AND A DECISION IS
CALLED FOR AGAINST THE TAXPAYERS.  THE FIFTH PROPOSAL PRESENTS THE VIEW
THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES US TO LOOK FURTHER AND TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE
IN RELIANCE UPON THE FACTUAL INTENT OF THE SETTLOR.  HOWEVER, EVEN
WITHOUT GOING THAT FAR, A SUBSTANTIAL CASE CAN BE MADE IN FAVOR OF THE
TAXPAYERS EVEN UNDER THIS FOURTH PROPOSAL.  THAT CASE IS BASED UPON THE
EXTREME REMOTENESS OF THE POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER WHICH IS RELIED UPON
BY THE COMMISSIONER.  THE REMOTENESS OF IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE FACT
THAT, EVEN AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE TRUST WHEN THE CHANCES
OF ITS REALIZATION WERE AT THEIR HIGHEST POINT, THE POSSIBLE REVERTER
TO THE SETTLOR WAS CONCEIVABLE ONLY IF ALL THREE OF THE CHILDREN OF THE
SETTLOR WERE TO DIE BEFORE HE DID AND WERE TO DIE WITHOUT DESCENDANTS
OF THEIR OWN.  DISREGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF DESCENDANTS OF HIS
CHILDREN, THE RECORD SHOWS AN ACTUARIAL COMPUTATION OF THE LIKELIHOOD
THAT THE SETTLOR WOULD SURVIVE ALL THREE OF HIS CHILDREN OF ONLY ABOUT
1 1/2 CHANCES OUT OF 100.  ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A CHANCE OF
REALIZATION, THE COMPUTATION GAVE A VALUE OF ABOUT $4,000 TO A TRUST
CORPUS OF $1,000,000.  TO TAX THE SETTLOR'S ESTATE MORE THAN $450,000,
AS IS HERE PROPOSED, BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS $4,000 WORTH OF A
POSSIBLE REVERTER IS NOT THE KIND OF TAXATION THAT A COURT CAN READILY
IMAGINE THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO IMPOSE.  A PROPORTION OF 1 1/2 TO 100
SUGGESTS THE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION HERE OF THE MAXIM OF DE MINIMIS
NON CURAT LEX.  THE DIFFICULTY OF APPLYING THAT TEST AS THE SOLE BASIS
OF EXEMPTION IS, HOWEVER, OBVIOUS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS ELEMENT OF
REMOTENESS PROVIDES A THOROUGHLY REASONABLE CONSIDERATION WHICH MAY BE
COMBINED WITH OTHER EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF
THE FACTUAL INTENT ON THE PART OF THE SETTLOR WHICH IS DISCUSSED IN THE
FIFTH AND FINAL PROPOSAL. 

                       V. THE FIFTH PROPOSAL. 

THE STATUTORY INTENT OF THE SETTLOR REQUIRED TO MAKE THE ESTATE TAX
APPLICABLE IS ABSENT AND A CONTRARY INTENT IS PRESENT. 

THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER BY
TRUST, THERE WAS AN ABSENCE OF CONSCIOUS INTENT ON THE PART OF THE
SETTLOR THAT THE TRUST PROPERTY, OR ANY PART OF IT, SHOULD EVER RETURN
TO HIM OR TO HIS ESTATE.  IN FACT, THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE SHOWING
THAT HE INTENDED AFFIRMATIVELY TO MAKE A COMPLETE AND IRREVOCABLE
TRANSFER WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE ALL POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER TO HIM.  THE
TRUST RECITED AS COMPLETE A TRANSFER AS ANY OUTRIGHT DEED OF GIFT WOULD
HAVE RECITED IF MADE DIRECTLY TO HIS CHILDREN, EXCEPT FOR THE NATURAL
FEATURE THAT, AT THEIR IMMATURE AGE, THE TRANSFER WAS MADE TO TRUSTEES
AND THESE TRUSTEES WERE REQUIRED BY THE IRREVOCABLE TERMS OF THE TRUST
TO DELIVER COMPLETE TITLE TO THE SETTLOR'S CHILDREN, OR TO THEIR
DESCENDANTS, AT A FUTURE DATE.  THE SETTLOR'S INTENT AND THE
COMPLETENESS OF THE TRANSFER WOULD HAVE BEEN NO MORE COMPLETE IF,
INSTEAD OF FIXING THE DATE FOR THE FUTURE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRUST
PROPERTY AT THE DATE OF HIS OWN DEATH, HE HAD FIXED IT ARBITARARILY AT
DECEMBER 19, 1940, WHICH LATER PROVED TO BE THE DATE OF HIS DEATH.  THE
INTENT AND COMPLETENESS OF THE TRANSFER, SIMILARLY, WOULD HAVE BEEN NO
MORE COMPLETE IF HE HAD FIXED THE DATE OF TERMINATION OF THE TRUST TO
COINCIDE WITH THE DEATH OF A THIRD PERSON INSTEAD OF WITH HIS OWN
DEATH. 

            THE STATUTE REQUIRES A FINDING OF THE SETTLOR'S

                               INTENT. 

CONDITION OF THE APPLICATION OF THAT SECTION TO THIS CASE. 
ACCORDINGLY, IF THE SETTLOR HAD USED LANGUAGE IN HIS TRUST INSTRUMENT
WHICH EXPRESSLY, OR EVEN IMPLIEDLY, HAD CREATED OR RECOGNIZED A
POSSIBLE REVERTER IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR, THAT LANGUAGE IN ITSELF
WOULD HAVE BEEN EVIDENCE THAT THE SETTLOR HAD INTENDED THE TRUST TO
INCLUDE A REVERTER IN HIS FAVOR AND THAT HE HAD INTENDED THE TRUST
PROPERTY, IN THE EVENT OF A REALIZATION OF THAT REVERTER, TO PASS FROM
HIM TO HIS ESTATE, UNDER THE 1920 TRUST, UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THAT
TRUST AT HIS DEATH. 

IT IS, HOWEVER, IN THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUCH LANGUAGE IN THE TRUST
INSTRUMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT NOW CLAIMS THAT A POSSIBLE REVERTER HAS
ARISEN BY OPERATION OF LAW.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A REVERTER,
ACCORDINGLY, MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED IN FACT, AND MAY NOT
HAVE BEEN EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT BY THE SETTLOR.  TO SAY THAT THE SETTLOR
MUST HAVE INTENDED ALL THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTS BEGS THE
QUESTION.  SO CONSTRUED, THE SECTION WOULD HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IF
THE WORD "INTENDED" HAD BEEN OMITTED. 

"INTENDED" SHOULD BE GIVEN ITS NORMAL, FACTUAL MEANING.  TO INTEND
MEANS TO "HAVE IN MIND AS A DESIGN OR PURPOSE."  FN12  THE QUESTION OF
INTENT IS ONE OF FACT, DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE, BUT DETERMINABLE,
NEVERTHELESS.  SECTION 811(C) INVOLVES MORE THAN MERELY DETERMINING
WHETHER A TRANSFER TOOK EFFECT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, AT OR AFTER DEATH
OR WHETHER A "STRING OR TIE," AS A MATTER OF LAW, WAS RETAINED UNTIL
DEATH.  THERE REMAINS FOR DETERMINATION THE FACT WHETHER THE SETTLOR
DID ACTUALLY INTEND THAT THE 1920 TRANSFER TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE TRUST AT HIS DEATH. 

OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER  ...
DEATH."  WE HAVE HELD THAT THE SETTLOR-DECEDENT'S MOTIVE MUST BE
DETERMINED BEFORE IT CAN BE HELD THAT A TRANSFER WAS IN CONTEMPLATION
OF DEATH.  UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S. 102.  THAT CASE INCLUDED A
TRANSFER IN TRUST, INTER VIVOS, WHICH WAS HELD NOT TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN
"CONTEMPLATION OF  ...  DEATH."  SIMILARLY, FACTUAL INTENT SHOULD BE
FOUND IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER A TRANSFER WAS "INTENDED TO TAKE
EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER  ...  DEATH."  IN UNITED
STATES V. WELLS, CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, SAID
(PP. 116-117): 

"THE QUALITY WHICH BRINGS THE TRANSFER WITHIN THE STATUTE IS
INDICATED BY THE CONTEXT AND MANIFEST PURPOSE.  TRANSFERS IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE SAME CATEGORY, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF TAXATION, WITH TRANSFERS INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT AT OR AFTER
THE DEATH OF THE TRANSFEROR.  THE DOMINANT PURPOSE IS TO REACH
SUBSTITUTES FOR TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS AND THUS TO PREVENT THE
EVASION OF THE ESTATE TAX.  ...  AS THE TRANSFER MAY OTHERWISE HAVE ALL
THE INDICIA OF A VALID GIFT INTER VIVOS, THE DIFFERENTIATING FACTOR
MUST BE FOUND IN THE TRANSFEROR'S MOTIVE." 

IN CASES INVOLVING "CONTEMPLATION OF  ...  DEATH" UNDER SEC. 811(C)
THE REQUIRED MOTIVE IMPELLING A TRANSFER "IS A QUESTION OF FACT IN EACH
CASE."  SEE ALLEN V. TRUST CO. OF GEORGIA, 326 U.S. 630, 636.  SO ALSO,
IN EACH CASE UNDER SEC. 811(C), THE QUESTION WHETHER "THE DECEDENT HAS
AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE,  ...  INTENDED TO
TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH,  ...  "
SHOULD BE ONE OF FACT. 

IN DETERMINING THE ISSUE AS TO THE SETTLOR'S INTENT IN MAKING HIS
1920 TRANSFER, INTER VIVOS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FOLLOWING
CONSIDERATIONS ARE MATERIAL AND PERSUASIVE: 

1.  LANGUAGE OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENT.  - THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE IN
THIS INSTRUMENT WHICH EXPRESSED OR EVEN AFFIRMATIVELY IMPLIED AN INTENT
TO MAKE A TRANSFER TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE SETTLOR RATHER THAN IN PRAESENTI.  IF THE TRUST
INSTRUMENT HAD CONTAINED SUCH AN EXPRESS OR AFFIRMATIVELY IMPLIED
DECLARATION OF THE SETTLOR'S INTENT, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONCLUSIVE OF
THE ISSUE.  IF THERE HAD BEEN EVEN A DESCRIPTION OF, OR REFERENCE TO, A
POSSIBLE REVERTER TO THE SETTLOR, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN STRONG EVIDENCE
OF THE INTENT REQUIRED BY SEC. 811(C).  THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH
DESCRIPTION OR REFERENCE WAS CONSISTENT WITH A LACK OF INTENT THAT
THERE BE SUCH A REVERTER.  IT WAS NEGATIVE EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT
SUCH A REVERTER WAS NOT INTENDED AND NOT DESIRED BY THE SETTLOR. 

IN AN INSTRUMENT OF THIS KIND IT IS NATURAL FOR THE SETTLOR TO GIVE
AFFIRMATIVE EXPRESSION TO EACH BENEFICIAL USE TO WHICH HE INTENDS OR
DESIRES THE TRUST PROPERTY TO BE PUT.  IT CANNOT BE ARGUED EFFECTIVELY
IN THIS CASE THAT THE COMPLETE SILENCE OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENT ON THE
SUBJECT OF A POSSIBLE REVERTER OF THE TRUST PROPERTY TO THE SETTLOR OR
TO HIS ESTATE AMOUNTED TO AN EXPRESSION OF INTENT BY THE SETTLOR THAT
SUCH A REVERTER BE PERMITTED TO ARISE BY OPERATION OF LAW.  AS A MATTER
OF FACT, THE EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE TENDED TO
ESTABLISH AN OPPOSITE INTENT AND DESIRE.    IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE
OVERWHELMING IMPROBABILITY OF A COMPLETE FAILURE OF BENEFICIARIES WAS
SO COMPLETE THAT IT SUPPLIED A NATURAL REASON FOR OMITTING FURTHER
PROVISIONS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY.  THE LIKELIHOOD THAT
A 47-YEAR-OLD SETTLOR WOULD OUTLIVE HIS THREE CHILDREN AND ALSO HIS
PROSPECTIVE GRANDCHILDREN OBVIOUSLY WAS SMALL.  AS IT TURNED OUT, NONE
OF THE SETTLOR'S THREE CHILDREN PREDECEASED HIM, AND THE DISTRIBUTION
OF THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS MADE TO THEM WITHOUT REACHING HIS
GRANDCHILDREN.  THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS THEY EXISTED IN 1920
PRESENTED TO THE SETTLOR QUITE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM FROM THAT WHICH
WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IF, AT THAT TIME, HE HAD NAMED AS THE ONLY
BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST A PERSON WITH A LIFE EXPECTANCY OBVIOUSLY
SHORTER THAN HIS OWN. 

STANDING ALONE, THE INSTRUMENT EVIDENCES A SIMPLE TRANSFER IN
PRAESENTI, COMPARABLE TO THAT IN REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., SUPRA.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE INSTRUMENT, THEREFORE, CERTAINLY DID NOT, IN
ITSELF, REQUIRE THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED, IN 1920, TO BE
INCLUDED, IN 1940, IN THE SETTLOR'S GROSS ESTATE FOR FEDERAL ESTATE TAX
PURPOSES.  IF ANYTHING, THE LANGUAGE ITSELF, READ IN THE LIGHT OF
ILLINOIS LAW AS STATED ABOVE IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE THIRD PROPOSAL
AND AS REGARDED BY THE SETTLOR IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADVICE OF HIS LEGAL
COUNSEL, IS EXPRESSIVE OF AN INTENT THAT THERE BE NO POSSIBILITY OF A
REVERTER, AND OF AN INTENT TO MAKE AN ABSOLUTE AND COMPLETE TRANSFER TO
THE TRUSTEES IN PRAESENTI. 

2.  REMOTENESS OF THE POSSIBLE REVERTER.  - THE REMOTENESS OF THE
POSSIBLE REALIZATION OF A SUGGESTED REVERTER (WHETHER ARISING FROM
EXPRESS PROVISION OF A TRUST OR BY OPERATION OF LAW) IS AN IMPORTANT
FACTOR IN ESTABLISHING THE PROBABLE INTENT OF THE SETTLOR OF ANY TRUST
TO MAKE, THEREBY, A TRANSFER TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH.  IF THE 1920 TRUST INSTRUMENT HAD NAMED AS ITS
SOLE BENEFICIARY A PERSON HAVING A COMPARATIVELY SHORT LIFE EXPECTANCY,
THEN, ASSUMING A REVERSION IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR UNDER ILLINOIS LAW,
THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS OCCURRENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL.  IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN SO GREAT THAT, IF THE SETTLOR HAD EXPRESSLY MENTIONED
SUCH A REVERSION IN THE TRUST INSTRUMENT, THAT MENTION OF IT WOULD HAVE
SUBSTANTIALLY DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTENT REQUIRED BY SEC.
811(C).  EVEN IF THE SETTLOR HAD MADE NO EXPRESS MENTION OF SUCH A
REVERSION AND THUS HAD LEFT ITS EFFECTIVENESS WHOLLY TO THE OPERATION
OF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEMSELVES, INCLUDING THE
HIGH PROBABILITY OF THE REALIZATION OF THE REVERSION, WOULD HAVE
SUPPLIED IMPORTANT EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A FINDING OF THE
REQUIRED INTENT ON THE PART OF THE SETTLOR.  HOWEVER, WITH THE
INCLUSION OF EACH ADDITIONAL YOUTHFUL BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST, THE
BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION THAT THE SETTLOR INTENDED TO ESTABLISH A
REVERSION TO HIMSELF OR TO HIS ESTATE AND TO POSTPONE THE TRANSFER OF
THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY UNTIL AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH
WAS WEAKENED. 

THE TAX COURT, UPON UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, REDUCED TO A MATHEMATICAL
BASIS THE POSSIBILITY PRESENTED BY THE SUGGESTED REVERTER IN THIS
CASE.  THE COMPUTATIONS WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN BASED UPON A MORTALITY
TABLE AND AN ASSUMED RATE OF INTEREST PRESCRIBED IN TREASURY
REGULATIONS AS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES.  THE COMPUTATIONS
ALSO WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN BASED UPON ASSUMED AGES OF A SETTLOR AND
OF BENEFICIARIES CORRESPONDING SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THOSE STATED IN THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE.  THE COMPUTATIONS SHOWED THAT THE PROBABILITY THAT
A PERSON OF THE AGE OF THIS SETTLOR WOULD SURVIVE THREE PERSONS OF THE
RESPECTIVE AGES OF THE PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES WHO WERE LIVING AT THE
DATE OF THE CREATION OF THIS TRUST WAS ONLY 0.01612, OR ABOUT 1 1/2
CHANCES OUT OF 100.  SIMILARLY, THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT OF A PERSON, OF
THE AGE OF THE SETTLOR IN 1920, TO RECEIVE $1 ON THE DEATH OF THE LAST
OF THREE PERSONS OF THE AGES OF THE PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES WAS
$0.00390. 

IN 1920, THE MOST FAVORABLE COMPUTATION WOULD THUS HAVE PLACED A
VALUE OF LESS THAN $4,000 UPON THE SETTLOR'S INTEREST IN THE SUGGESTED
REVERTER RELATING TO A $1,000,000 TRUST FUND.  THESE COMPUTATIONS DO
NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL POSSIBILITY THAT MANY
GRANDCHILDREN MIGHT HAVE BEEN BORN IN TIME TO QUALIFY AS BENEFICIARIES
OF THIS TRUST, AND THUS FURTHER REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER.  IN
FACT, THREE SUCH GRANDCHILDREN WERE BORN IN TIME TO QUALIFY - THUS
REDUCING THE VALUE TO THE SETTLOR, IN 1940, OF THE SUGGESTED REVERTER,
ON A $1,000,000 TRUST FUND, TO ABOUT $70.  THE RELATION OF $70 TO
$1,000,000 ORDINARILY WOULD BE DE MINIMIS AND CERTAINLY NOT ONE WHICH
WOULD INDUCE CONGRESS TO PERMIT THE ASSESSMENT OF A TAX OF OVER
$450,000 BECAUSE OF ITS EXISTENCE. 

THIS DEMONSTRATION OF THE REMOTENESS OF THE POSSIBLE REVERTER, IF
ANY, IN THIS CASE IS PERSUASIVE AT LEAST IN SHOWING THE FACT TO HAVE
BEEN THAT THE SETTLOR, IN ESTABLISHING THIS TRUST, PROBABLY INTENDED IT
TO BE NOTHING OTHER THAN A COMPLETED GIFT TO THOSE OF HIS CHILDREN OR
THEIR DESCENDANTS WHO MIGHT SURVIVE HIM. 

IN 1920 THE GIFT, AS SUCH, WAS TAX-FREE.  SUCH A GIFT TODAY WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO A GIFT TAX.  THE ASSESSMENT OF A GIFT TAX UPON SUCH A
TRANSACTION EMPHASIZES THE IMPROPRIETY, RATHER THAN THE PROPRIETY, OF
ALSO APPLYING TO IT AN ESTATE TAX AT THE DEATH OF THE SETTLOR.  IN 1920
THE CHARACTER OF THE GIFT WAS THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE TODAY AND THE
FACT THAT IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A GIFT TAX THEN DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY
MORE SUBJECT TO THE 1940 ESTATE TAX THAN IF A GIFT TAX HAD BEEN PAID
UPON IT. 

3.  DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT OF THE SETTLOR.  - SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE CONFIRMED THE ABSENCE OF THE FACTUAL INTENT NECESSARY IN ORDER
TO MAKE SEC. 811(C) APPLICABLE.  THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE
INDICATING THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL INTENT ON THE PART OF THE SETTLOR
TO PROVIDE FOR A REVERTER TO HIMSELF OR TO HIS ESTATE OR, IN ANY OTHER
MANNER, TO CAUSE HIS 1920 TRANSFER TO TRUSTEES FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS
DESCENDANTS TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS
DEATH. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE WAS UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE INDICATING THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH AN INTENT.  IN FACT, IT INDICATED THE PROBABLE
EXISTENCE OF A CONTRARY INTENT.  THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY WHO DREW THE
TRUST INSTRUMENT TESTIFIED THAT, PRIOR TO THE DRAFTING OF THE
INSTRUMENT, THE SETTLOR HAD STATED THAT HE DESIRED AND INTENDED THE
TRUST PROPERTY TO BE TRANSFERRED TO TRUSTEES FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS
CHILDREN AND THAT HE WANTED AT NO TIME TO RETAIN ANY INTEREST IN IT.
THE ATTORNEY ADDED THAT, IN DRAFTING THE TRUST, HE HAD ENDEAVORED TO
CARRY OUT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HIS CLIENT AND THAT HE BELIEVED HE HAD
DONE SO.  THAT ATTORNEY IS A MEMBER OF THE FIRM REPRESENTING THE ESTATE
OF THE SETTLORDECEDENT IN THE INSTANT CASE.  AS ATTORNEYS FOR THE
ESTATE OF THE 1940 DECEDENT, THEY ARGUE THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF
ILLINOIS, AS THEY UNDERSTOOD IT AND AS THEY ADVISED THEIR CLIENT IN
1920, THERE HAS NOT ARISEN ANY POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER TO THE SETTLOR
UNDER THIS TRUST BY OPERATION OF LAW OR OTHERWISE.  THE RECEIPT OF THAT
OPINION BY THE SETTLOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE TRUST INSTRUMENT
SUPPORTS THE PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THE SETTLOR THEN INTENDED TO
TRANSLATE INTO THIS ILLINOIS TRUST HIS PURPOSE TO MAKE AN ABSOLUTE AND
COMPLETE TRANSFER OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TRUST, AND THEREBY TO
MAKE IRREVOCABLE PROVISION FOR ITS FUTURE DISTRIBUTION. 

IN VIEW OF THE UNCONTROVERTED AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF THE ABSENCE
OF ANY SUCH FACTUAL INTENT ON THE PART OF THE SETTLOR AS IS REQUIRED TO
BRING HIS 1920 TRANSFER WITHIN THE TERMS OF SEC. 811(C), AND IN VIEW OF
THE JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR-DECEDENT'S
EXECUTORS, THERE IS NO NEED TO REMAND THE CASE TO THAT COURT FOR A
FURTHER FINDING IN SUPPORT OF ITS JUDGMENT. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION OF THE FIFTH
PROPOSAL, AND ALSO FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE
THIRD PROPOSAL TO THE EFFECT THAT NO POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER AROSE IN
FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR BY OPERATION OF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, I BELIEVE
THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE TERMS "REVERTER" AND "THE POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER" HAVE
BEEN USED FREQUENTLY AND FREELY IN OPINIONS AND DISCUSSIONS OF THIS
GENERAL SUBJECT.  THEY ARE USED HERE TO REFER TO THE RETURN OR POSSIBLE
RETURN TO THE SETTLOR OR TO HIS ESTATE, UNDER CONDITIONS COMPARABLE TO
THOSE HERE SUGGESTED, OF PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY PLACED IN TRUST BY THE
SETTLOR.  THEY ARE NOT USED IN ANY STRICT OR TECHNICAL SENSE PECULIAR
TO THE LAW OF PROPERTY.  SEE ALSO, I PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT
TAXATION SEC. 7.21, N. 1(1942).  THEY MAY REFER, FOR EXAMPLE, TO A
REVERSIONARY INTEREST, OR A BENEFICIAL INTEREST UNDER A RESULTING
TRUST, OR MERELY SOME RIGHT TO OR CONTROL OVER A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN
THE TRUST PROPERTY AND, IN THAT SENSE, THEY INCLUDE THE "STRING OR TIE"
TO THE TRUST PROPERTY THAT ALSO HAS BEEN REFERRED TO FREQUENTLY IN
DISCUSSIONS OF THIS SUBJECT.  THE TERM "REVERSION" IS USED IN ITS USUAL
TECHNICAL MEANING IN THE LAW OF PROPERTY. 

FN2  THE SPIEGEL TRUST INSTRUMENT IS SET FORTH IN FULL IN APPENDIX I,
INFRA, P. 735. 

FN3  "SEC.  22.  GROSS INCOME. 

"(A)  GENERAL DEFINITION.  - 'GROSS INCOME' INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY
SOURCE WHATEVER.  ..."  53 STAT. 9, 26 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SEC.  22(A). 

FN4  "...  THE SETTLOR RESERVED TO HIMSELF POWER TO SUPERVISE THE
REINVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS, TO REQUIRE THE TRUSTEE TO EXECUTE PROXIES
TO HIS NOMINEE, TO VOTE ANY SHARES OF STOCK HELD BY THE TRUSTEE, TO
CONTROL ALL LEASES EXECUTED BY THE TRUSTEE, AND TO APPOINT SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEES.  WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE FIVE TRUSTS A POWER WAS ALSO
RESERVED 'TO ALTER, CHANGE OR MODIFY THE TRUST,' WHICH WAS TO BE
EXERCISED IN THE CASE OF FOUR OF THEM BY THE SETTLOR AND THE SINGLE
BENEFICIARY OF EACH TRUST, ACTING JOINTLY, AND IN THE CASE OF ONE OF
THE TRUSTS, BY THE SETTLOR AND A MAJORITY OF THE BENEFICIARIES NAMED,
ACTING JOINTLY."  278 U.S. AT P. 344. 

FN5  UPON THE REARGUMENT OF THE INSTANT CASE AND THE CHURCH CASE, WE
REQUESTED COUNSEL TO DISCUSS PARTICULARLY NINE QUESTIONS INSOFAR AS
THOSE QUESTIONS WERE RELEVANT TO THE RESPECTIVE CASES.  THE FIRST
QUESTION HAS BEEN QUOTED SUPRA AT P. 711.  THE REST ARE QUOTED BELOW
AND, OF THESE, NUMBERS 2, 6, 8 AND 9 BORE UPON THIS ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTION: 

"2.  ASSUMING THAT, UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW, THERE AROSE, BY
OPERATION OF LAW, A POSSIBLE REVERTER IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR'S ESTATE,
DID SECTION 811(C) REQUIRE THAT THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS, IN VIEW OF THE
RECORD IN THE CASE, BE INCLUDED IN THE SETTLOR'S GROSS ESTATE FOR
FEDERAL ESTATE-TAX PURPOSES? 

"3.  DID SECTION 811(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, IN 1939,
REQUIRE THE INCLUSION IN THE SETTLOR'S GROSS ESTATE OF THE VALUE OF THE
CORPUS OF A TRUST BECAUSE THE SETTLOR, BY ITS TERMS, HAD, IN 1924,
RESERVED TO HIMSELF A RIGHT TO THE INCOME OF THE TRUST UNTIL HIS DEATH,
THE RESERVATION THUS BEING MADE BEFORE THE MARCH 3, 1931, AMENDMENT OF
THAT SECTION? 

"4.  WERE THE JOINT CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION OF 1931(46 STAT. 1516
1517), AND SUBSEQUENT RELATED ESTATE-TAX STATUTES, INTENDED TO BE A
REPUDIATION OF THIS COURT'S MAY V. HEINER (281 U.S. 238) INTERPRETATION
OF THE ESTATE-TAX STATUTES? 

"5.  DID THE MAY V. HEINER ESTATE-TAX INTERPRETATION SURVIVE THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION AND THIS COURT'S HOLDING AND OPINION IN
HELVERING V. HALLOCK (309 U.S. 106)? 

"6.  UNDER SECTION 811(C) IS THE 'POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT' OF THE
CORPUS OF AN INTER VIVOS TRUST 'INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT  ***  AT OR
AFTER' THE SETTLOR'S DEATH, WHERE HE NAMES HIMSELF AS COTRUSTEE WITH
THE BROAD CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OVER THE CORPUS AND INCOME
HERE VESTED, AND WHERE THE CORPUS IS WITHHELD FROM THE BENEFICIARIES
UNTIL THE SETTLOR'S DEATH? 

"7.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S OPINION IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK
DOES THE HASSETT V. WELCH (303 U.S. 303) INTERPRETATION OF THE 1931
CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION HAVE CONTROLLING RELEVANCE IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE ESTATE TAX SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE CHURCH PROPERTIES
TRANSFERRED TO BENEFICIARIES UNDER A TRUST CREATED BEFORE 1931 BUT IN
WHICH CHURCH RETAINED THE NET INCOME FROM THE TRUST PROPERTIES DURING
HIS LIFE? 

"8.  ASSUMING THAT UNDER THE 'REFINED TECHNICALITIES OF THE LAW OF
PROPERTY' THE 'POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT' OF THE TRUST PROPERTIES HERE
BE DEEMED TO HAVE PASSED TO THE BENEFICIARIES WHEN THE TRUST WAS
CREATED, ARE THE TRANSFERS SO MUCH 'AKIN TO TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS'
AS TO MAKE THEM SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE-TAX STATUTES?  (SEE HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, P. 112.) 

"9.  WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE RULINGS OF HELVERING V. CLIFFORD (309
U.S. 331) UPON THESE TRUSTS?"  JOURNAL SUPREME COURT, OCT. TERM, 1947,
PP. 297-298. 

FN6  A SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE BUT LESS DIRECT CONFLICT IS PRESENTED BY
GOLDSTONE V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 687.  THERE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE
CONTROL OVER THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDS OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS WAS
PLACED BY THE INSURED IN THE DISCRETION OF HIS WIFE, WHO ALSO WAS THE
PRIMARY BENEFICIARY.  A MINORITY OF THIS COURT SOUGHT TO APPLY THE
DOCTRINES OF THE HALLOCK CASE AND THE RATIONALE WHICH INHERES IN THE
CLIFFORD CASE TO THE EXTENT OF RECOGNIZING THE TRANSACTION AS, IN
SUBSTANCE, A COMPLETED GIFT TO THE WIFE OF THE INSURED, AND THEREFORE
NOT SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE TAX.  THIS COURT, HOWEVER, DID NOT, IN THAT
CASE, APPLY THE CLIFFORD DOCTRINE TO THE ESTATE TAX.  BUT SEE
RICHARDSON V. COMMISSIONER, 121 F.2D 1(C.A.2D CIR.), CERT. DENIED, 314
U.S. 684, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT, UNDER THE CLIFFORD CASE, A TRUSTEE,
WITH A BROAD POWER OF REVOCATION WHICH MIGHT AT ANY TIME BE EXERCISED
FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT, WAS HIMSELF LIABLE FOR THE INCOME TAX ON THE
INCOME OF THE TRUST.  SEE ALSO, BUNTING V. COMMISSIONER, 164 F.2D
443(C.A.6TH CIR.), CERT. DENIED, 333 U.S. 856; 47 MICH. L. REV.
137(1948). 

FN7  SEE HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154, 163-164; MACGREGOR V.
STATE MUTUAL CO., 315 U.S. 280. 

FN8  "APPLYING THIS LAW TO THE INSTANT CASE, WE THINK IT FOLLOWS THAT
THE INTERESTS UNDER THIS TRUST DID NOT VEST UPON THE EXECUTION OF THE
TRUST, AS CONTENDED BY THE TAXPAYER, AND COULD ONLY VEST UPON THE
HAPPENING OF THE CONDITION PRECEDENT, NAMELY, THAT THE BENEFICIARIES OR
SOME OF THEM SURVIVE THE SETTLOR, AND THIS WAS THE 'EVENT WHICH BROUGHT
THE LARGER ESTATE INTO BEING FOR THE' BENEFICIARIES."  COMMISSIONER V.
SPIEGEL'S ESTATE, 159 F.2D 257, 259. 

FN9  "WHERE PROPERTY IS GIVEN IN TRUST FOR ONE BENEFICIARY FOR LIFE
AND TO ANOTHER BENEFICIARY IN REMAINDER, AND BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF
THE TRUST THE LATTER BENEFICIARY DIES INTESTATE AND WITHOUT HEIRS OR
NEXT OF KIN, IT WOULD SEEM THAT HIS INTEREST PASSES TO THE STATE, AND
THAT A RESULTING TRUST WILL NOT ARISE IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR OR HIS
ESTATE.  IN SUCH A CASE, SINCE THE ENTIRE BENEFICIAL INTEREST, SUBJECT
TO THE PRECEDING LIFE ESTATE IN THE OTHER BENEFICIARY, VESTED IN THE
BENEFICIARY ENTITLED IN REMAINDER ABSOLUTELY AT THE TIME OF THE
CREATION OF THE TRUST, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE TRUST DOES NOT FAIL ON
HIS DEATH, SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO A RESULTING TRUST, BUT HIS INTEREST
PASSES TO THE STATE AS ULTIMUS HAERES.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE
BENEFICIAL GIFT OVER IS CONTINGENT, AND THE CONTINGENCY DOES NOT OCCUR,
A RESULTING TRUST WILL ARISE IN FAVOR OF THE SETTLOR OR HIS ESTATE."  3
SCOTT ON TRUSTS, SEC. 411.5(1939). 

FN10  THE ILLINOIS CASES ESTABLISH THE RULE THAT, WHEN A VESTED
ESTATE IN REMAINDER HAS BEEN CREATED, THE DIVESTMENT OF THAT ESTATE IN
FAVOR OF SOME OTHER BENEFICIARY CAN TAKE PLACE ONLY IN LITERAL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIVESTING CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE SETTLOR. 
HENDERSON V. HARNESS, 176 ILL. 302, 52 N.E. 68.  SEE ILLINOIS LAND CO.
V. BONNER, 75 ILL. 315; MCFARLAND V. MCFARLAND, 177 ILL. 208, 217, 52
N.E. 281, 284; AND CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NAT. BANK V. KANE, 308 ILL.
APP. 110, 31 N.E.2D 351.  SEE ALSO, 42 ILL. L. REV. 561, 564.  THIS
DOES NOT LEAVE ROOM FOR REVERSION TO THE SETTLOR BY OPERATION OF LAW. 

FN11  THE BASIS OF DISTINCTION NECESSARILY RESTS WITH THE FORM OF THE
STATEMENT EMPLOYED.  A CLASSIC DEFINITION OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
CONTINGENT AND VESTED REMAINDERS IS THAT IN GRAY, THE RULE AGAINST
PERPETUITIES, SEC. 108, QUOTED AS FOLLOWS IN LACHENMYER V. GEHLBACH,
266 ILL. 11, 18-19, 107 N.E. 202, 205: 

"A TEST WHICH IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THE
QUESTION AND WHICH HAS BEEN GENERALLY ADOPTED IS STATED AS FOLLOWS:
'IF THE CONDITIONAL ELEMENT IS INCORPORATED INTO THE DESCRIPTION OF OR
INTO THE GIFT TO THE REMAINDER-MAN THEN THE REMAINDER IS CONTINGENT,
BUT IF, AFTER WORDS GIVING A VESTED INTEREST, A CLAUSE IS ADDED
DIVESTING IT THE REMAINDER IS VESTED.  THUS, ON A DEVISE TO A FOR LIFE,
REMAINDER TO HIS CHILDREN, BUT IF ANY CHILD DIES IN THE LIFETIME OF A
HIS SHARE TO GO TO THOSE WHO SURVIVE, THE SHARE OF EACH CHILD IS
VESTED, SUBJECT TO BE DIVESTED BY ITS DEATH.  BUT ON A DEVISE TO A FOR
LIFE, REMAINDER TO SUCH OF HIS CHILDREN AS SURVIVE HIM, THE REMAINDER
IS CONTINGENT.'" 

THE LANGUAGE IN THE SPIEGEL AND THE LACHENMYER TRUSTS IS CLOSELY
COMPARABLE.  IN EACH CASE THE GIFT TO CHILDREN OF THE SETTLOR IS A
VESTED GIFT.  IN THE SPIEGEL TRUST THE CHILDREN'S INTEREST WAS A VESTED
PRIMARY INTEREST (SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT) AND IN THE
LACHENMYER TRUST THE CHILDREN'S INTEREST WAS A VESTED REMAINDER
FOLLOWING A LIFE INTEREST IN FAVOR OF THE TESTATOR'S WIFE (AND IN TURN
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT).  IN BOTH CASES THE LANGUAGE MAKING
THE GIFTS OVER IS IN THE FORM OF A DIVESTITURE - COMPARABLE TO THAT IN
THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE QUOTED ABOVE "BUT IF ANY CHILD DIES IN THE LIFETIME
OF A HIS SHARE TO GO TO THOSE WHO SURVIVE,  ..." 

THE MATERIAL PROVISION OF THE SPIEGEL TRUST, ITALICS SUPPLIED, IS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"3.  UPON MY DEATH, THE SAID TRUSTEES, AND THE SURVIVOR OF THEM, OR
ANY SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, SHALL DIVIDE SAID TRUST FUND, AND ANY
ACCUMULATED INCOME THEREON THEN IN THE HANDS OF SAID TRUSTEES, EQUALLY
AMONG MY SAID THREE (3) CHILDREN, AND IF ANY OF MY SAID CHILDREN SHALL
HAVE DIED, LEAVING ANY CHILD OR CHILDREN SURVIVING, THEN THE CHILD OR
CHILDREN OF SUCH DECEASED CHILD OF MINE SHALL RECEIVE THE SHARE OF SAID
TRUST FUND TO WHICH ITS OR THEIR PARENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED, AND
IF ANY OF MY SAID THREE (3) CHILDREN SHALL HAVE DIED WITHOUT LEAVING
ANY CHILD OR CHILDREN HIM OR HER SURVIVING, THEN THE SHARE TO WHICH
SUCH DECEASED CHILD OF MINE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED SHALL GO TO MY
REMAINING CHILDREN, AND THE DESCENDANTS OF ANY DECEASED CHILD OF MINE
PER STIRPES AND NOT PER CAPITA." 

THE CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF THE LACHENMYER TRUST, ITALICS
SUPPLIED, IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THIRD - AFTER THE DEATH OF MY SAID WIFE ALL OF SAID PROPERTY AND
ESTATE ABOVE MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED TO GO TO MY CHILDREN, SHARE AND
SHARE ALIKE, AND SHALL ANY OF MY CHILDREN DIE, THEN THE CHILDREN OF
SUCH DECEASED CHILD, SHOULD ANY CHILDREN BE SURVIVING SUCH DECEASED
CHILD, TO TAKE THE SHARE OF THE PARENT SO DECEASED; AND SHOULD ANY OF
MY CHILDREN DIE LEAVING NO ISSUE, THEN THE SHARE OF SUCH DECEASED CHILD
SHALL BE DIVIDED EQUALLY AMONG MY SURVIVING CHILDREN."  LACHENMYER V.
GEHLBACH, SUPRA, AT P. 13. 

CONTRASTING PROVISIONS, SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT BELOW AS
EXAMPLES OF CONTINGENT REMAINDERS IN AN INTER VIVOS TRUST, ARE FOUND IN
KLEIN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 231, 232-233.  THE COURT BELOW ALSO
CITED HAWARD V. PEAVEY, 128 ILL. 430, 21 N.E. 503, AND BALEY V.
STRAHAN, 314 ILL. 213, 145 N.E. 359, INVOLVING WILLS AND RECOGNIZING
THE CONTINGENT CHARACTER OF THE REMAINDERS IN THE KLEIN CASE. 

FN12  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2D ED. (1938). 

             APPENDIXES TO MR. JUSTICE BURTON'S DISSENT. 

                             APPENDIX I. 

THE TRUST INSTRUMENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION IN SPIEGEL
V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 701, IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT I, SIDNEY M. SPIEGEL, OF THE
CITY OF CHICAGO, COUNTY OF COOK AND STATE OF ILLINOIS, IN CONSIDERATION
OF ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS, HAVE
SOLD, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, SET OVER AND DELIVERED, AND BY THESE
PRESENTS DO SELL, TRANSFER, ASSIGN, SET OVER AND DELIVER TO MODIE J.
SPIEGEL AND SIDNEY M. SPIEGEL, AND THE SURVIVOR OF THEM, AS TRUSTEES,
SIX HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE (625) SHARES OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF SPIEGEL'S
HOUSE FURNISHING COMPANY AND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY (750) SHARES OF THE
CAPITAL STOCK OF SPIEGEL MAY STERN COMPANY, IN TRUST, NEVERTHELESS, FOR
THE FOLLOWING USES AND PURPOSES, AND UPON THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS:   - 

"1:  THE SAID TRUSTEES, AND THE SURVIVOR OF THEM, OR ANY SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE, SHALL HAVE FULL, ABSOLUTE AND COMPLETE POWER TO HOLD, MANAGE
AND CONTROL SAID SHARES AND EVERY PART THEREOF; TO SELL, EXCHANGE,
TRANSFER OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF THE SAME, OR ANY PART THEREOF, AND TO
INVEST AND REINVEST THE PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM ANY SUCH SALE OR SALES,
OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF SAID SHARES, OR ANY PART THEREOF, DURING THE
CONTINUANCE OF THIS TRUST.  WHILE SAID SHARES OF STOCK, OR ANY
SUBSTITUTES THEREFOR, ARE HELD BY SAID TRUSTEES, OR THE SURVIVOR OF
THEM, OR ANY SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, IF ANY CORPORATION WHOSE STOCK OR OTHER
SECURITIES ARE HELD BY SAID TRUSTEES SHOULD REQUIRE ANY ACTION OF ANY
KIND TO BE TAKEN, SAID TRUSTEES, AND THE SURVIVOR AND ANY SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE, SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO TAKE ANY ACTION WHICH MAY BE
REQUIRED OF ANY STOCKHOLDER OR HOLDER OF ANY SECURITIES OF ANY SUCH
CORPORATION AS IF SAID TRUSTEES, AND THE SURVIVOR AND ANY SUCCESSOR
HELD SUCH SHARES OR SAID SECURITIES IN THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL NAMES AND
WERE THE SOLE OWNERS THEREOF. 

"2:  THE TRUSTEES, AND THE SURVIVOR OF THEM, AND ANY SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEE, SHALL COLLECT AND RECEIVE ALL INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM, OR
FROM ANY SUBSTITUTES THEREFOR, AND SHALL DURING THE LIFE OF MYSELF,
SAID SIDNEY M. SPIEGEL, DIVIDE SAID NET INCOME INTO THREE (3) EQUAL
PARTS, AND PAY OR USE ONE OF SAID PARTS OF SAID INCOME TO OR FOR THE
MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT AND EDUCATION OF MY THREE (3) CHILDREN, KATHERINE
J. SPIEGEL, SIDNEY M. SPIEGEL, JR. AND JULIA K. SPIEGEL,  - SUCH INCOME
TO BE DISTRIBUTED AT CONVENIENT INTERVALS EACH YEAR.  IN THE EVENT THAT
ANY OF MY SAID THREE (3) CHILDREN SHALL DIE PRIOR TO MY DEATH, THEN THE
SHARE OF SUCH INCOME TO WHICH SUCH DECEASED ONE OF SAID THREE (3)
CHILDREN WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED SHALL GO TO THE CHILD OR CHILDREN OF
SUCH DECEASED CHILD OF MINE, IN EQUAL PARTS, AND IF THERE BE NO SUCH
CHILD OR CHILDREN OF ANY SUCH DECEASED CHILD OF MINE, THEN SUCH INCOME
SHALL BE DIVIDED EQUALLY AMONG THE SURVIVORS OF SAID THREE (3) CHILDREN
OF MINE, AND THEIR DESCENDANTS, PER STIRPES AND NOT PER CAPITA. 

"3:  UPON MY DEATH, THE SAID TRUSTEES, AND THE SURVIVOR OF THEM, OR
ANY SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, SHALL DIVIDE SAID TRUST FUND, AND ANY
ACCUMULATED INCOME THEREON THEN IN THE HANDS OF SAID TRUSTEES, EQUALLY
AMONG MY SAID THREE (3) CHILDREN, AND IF ANY OF MY SAID CHILDREN SHALL
HAVE DIED, LEAVING ANY CHILD OR CHILDREN SURVIVING, THEN THE CHILD OR
CHILDREN OF SUCH DECEASED CHILD OF MINE SHALL RECEIVE THE SHARE OF SAID
TRUST FUND TO WHICH ITS OR THEIR PARENT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED, AND
IF ANY OF MY SAID THREE (3) CHILDREN SHALL HAVE DIED WITHOUT LEAVING
ANY CHILD OR CHILDREN HIM OR HER SURVIVING, THEN THE SHARE TO WHICH
SUCH DECEASED CHILD OF MINE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED SHALL GO TO MY
REMAINING CHILDREN, AND THE DESCENDANTS OF ANY DECEASED CHILD OF MINE
PER STIRPES AND NOT PER CAPITA. 

"4:  IF DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS TRUST THERE SHALL BE ANY
INCREASE IN THE PRINCIPAL OF SAID TRUST ESTATE BY REASON OF THE
DECLARATION OF ANY STOCK DIVIDENDS OR OTHER INCREASES OR EMOLUMENTS ALL
SUCH INCREASES SHALL BE AND REMAIN A PART OF SAID TRUST ESTATE AND
SHALL BE HELD BY SAID TRUSTEES UPON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
ARE HEREIN SET FORTH. 

"5:  IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH, REFUSAL, INABILITY, OR FAILURE FOR
ANY REASON TO ACT OF BOTH SAID TRUSTEES AT ANY TIME DURING THE
CONTINUANCE OF THIS TRUST, THEN THE CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST COMPANY SHALL
BECOME THE SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, WITH THE SAME RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES AND
OBLIGATIONS AS ARE HEREIN VESTED IN AND IMPOSED UPON THE TRUSTEES, AND
THE SURVIVOR THEREOF, HEREINBEFORE NAMED. 

"6:  NONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST ESTATE SHALL AT ANY TIME
BE PERMITTED TO ANTICIPATE THE PAYMENTS TO WHICH ANY OF THEM MAY BE
ENTITLED HEREUNDER BY ANY ORDER, ASSIGNMENT OR OTHERWISE. 

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND SEAL, AT CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS, AS OF THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 1920. 

                                      SIDNEY M. SPIEGEL.  (SEAL) 

"WE HEREBY ACCEPT THE ABOVE-NAMED SHARES OF STOCK AND AGREE TO HOLD
THE SAME SUBJECT TO THE TERMS ABOVE-MENTIONED, AS OF THE 2ND DAY OF
JANUARY, 1920. 

                                MODIE J. SPIEGEL.  (SEAL)

                                      SIDNEY M. SPIEGEL.  (SEAL)"

                             APPENDIX II. 

THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY TRUST INSTRUMENT NO. 4477, WHICH IS ONE OF
THE "FIVE TRUSTS" CONSIDERED IN REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278
U.S. 339, IS AS FOLLOWS (ITALICS SUPPLIED): 

"THIS INDENTURE, MADE THIS FIRST DAY OF MARCH, IN THE YEAR OF OUR
LORD ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NINETEEN (A.D. 1919), BY AND BETWEEN
ADOLPHUS C. BARTLETT, OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, COUNTY OF COOK, AND STATE
OF ILLINOIS, THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, AND THE NORTHERN TRUST
COMPANY (HEREINAFTER TERMED THE 'TRUSTEE'), OF CHICAGO, A CORPORATION
ORGANIZED AND DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART, WITNESSETH:

                            "ARTICLE FIRST 

"THAT THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, BEING DESIROUS OF ESTABLISHING AND
CREATING THE TRUST HEREINAFTER MENTIONED, FOR THE PURPOSES AND UPON THE
TERMS SET FORTH, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES AND INFLUENCED BY
LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR THE BENEFICIARIES HEREINAFTER NAMED, DOES HEREBY
SELL, ASSIGN, TRANSFER, AND SET OVER UNTO THE TRUSTEE THE FOLLOWING
SECURITIES, TO WIT: 

1,000 SHARES OF THE STOCK OF THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY.  784 SHARES
OF THE STOCK OF THE COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY.  300 SHARES OF THE
STOCK OF THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.  300 SHARES OF THE
COMMON STOCK OF THE CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.  200
SHARES OF THE PREFERRED STOCK OF THE CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD
COMPANY.  100 SHARES OF THE STOCK OF THE PULLMAN COMPANY.  5 BONDS OF
ARMOUR & COMPANY, FOR $1,000 EACH.  15 BONDS OF MORRIS & COMPANY, FOR
$1,000 EACH. 

"ALSO THE FOLLOWING-DESCRIBED NOTES SECURED BY MORTGAGE ON REAL
ESTATE IN PHOENIX, ARIZONA: 

MAKER:     AMOUNT 

ROLLIN S. HOWARD............................. 5,000.00    W. S.
DORMAN.................................   5,000.00 

EDGAR O. FAUCETT.............................  22,500.00 

ELISHA T. WATERS.............................   5,000.00 

ROY S. GOODRICH..............................  40,000.00 

WILSON W. DOBSON.............................   7,000.00 

REDWELL MUSIC COMPANY........................  20,000.00 

PAULINE M. O'NEIL............................  25,000.00 

PAULINE M. O'NEIL............................   5,000.00    TO BE
HELD AND DISPOSED OF UNDER AND IN PURSUANCE OF THIS INDENTURE. 

                      "ARTICLE SECOND 

"THE TRUSTEE SHALL HAVE POWER AND AUTHORITY AT ANY TIME, AND FROM
TIME TO TIME - 

"(1)  TO RECEIVE AND COLLECT ALL DIVIDENDS DECLARED AND PAID UPON ANY
SHARES OF STOCK AT ANY TIME SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND
THE INTEREST UPON ALL MONEYS, BONDS, AND OBLIGATIONS AT ANY TIME HELD
BY IT HEREUNDER, AND ALSO ALL RENTS AND OTHER INCOME WHICH SHALL ACCRUE
OR BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE ON OR FROM ANY OF THE TRUST ESTATE
HEREUNDER. 

"(2)  TO SELL, TRANSFER, ASSIGN, AND CONVEY ANY OR ALL OF THE STOCKS,
BONDS, OBLIGATIONS, SECURITIES, REAL ESTATE, OR OTHER PROPERTY HELD AT
ANY TIME BY SAID TRUSTEE UNDER THIS INSTRUMENT, AND TO INVEST AND
REINVEST THE PROCEEDS THEREOF IN EITHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY,
INCLUDING DIVIDEND-PAYING STOCKS OF CORPORATIONS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT DURING THE LIFE OF SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART SAID TRUSTEE SHALL
BE GOVERNED BY ANY INSTRUCTIONS OR DIRECTIONS IN WRITING GIVEN TO IT BY
SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART IN REGARD TO THE MANAGEMENT, SALE, OR
INVESTMENT OF ANY PART OF THE SAID TRUST ESTATE, AND SAID TRUSTEE SHALL
BE FREE FROM ANY LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ACTION BY IT DONE
UNDER OR IN PURSUANCE OF ANY SUCH WRITTEN DIRECTION OR INSTRUCTION.  IN
NO EVENT SHALL ANY PURCHASER FROM THE TRUSTEE, OR ANY PERSON OR
CORPORATION DEALING WITH THE TRUSTEE, BE REQUIRED TO ASCERTAIN THE
AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE TRUSTEE TO MAKE ANY SALE, CONVEYANCE, OR
TRANSFER OF ANY PART OF THE TRUST ESTATE HELD HEREUNDER, BUT EVERY SUCH
PURCHASER AND ALL OTHER PARTIES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RELY UPON THE
DELIVERY OF THE TRANSFER, ASSIGNMENT, OR CONVEYANCE BY THE TRUSTEE OF
ANY OR ALL OF SAID TRUST ESTATE AS HAVING BEEN IN ALL RESPECTS FULLY
AUTHORIZED, AND SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY ANY NOTICE TO THE CONTRARY, OR
BE REQUIRED TO SEE TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PURCHASE MONEY. 

"(3)  TO EXERCISE THE VOTING POWER UPON ALL SHARES OF STOCK HELD BY
THE TRUSTEE HEREUNDER, AND TO EXERCISE EVERY POWER, ELECTION, AND
DISCRETION, GIVE EVERY NOTICE, MAKE EVERY DEMAND, AND DO EVERY ACT AND
THING IN RESPECT OF ANY SHARES OF STOCK OR BONDS, OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS
AND SECURITIES HELD BY THE TRUSTEE HEREUNDER, WHICH IT MIGHT OR COULD
DO IF IT WERE THE ABSOLUTE OWNER THEREOF; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT UPON
THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF SAID FIRST PARTY IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
TRUSTEE TO EXECUTE, OR CAUSE TO BE EXECUTED, TO THE PERSON OR PERSONS
NAMED IN SUCH REQUESTS A PROXY, ENTITLING HIM OR THEM (WITH FULL POWER
OF SUBSTITUTION) TO VOTE IN RESPECT OF ANY SHARES OF STOCK IN SUCH
WRITTEN REQUEST OR PROXY DEFINED AND MENTIONED, AT ANY MEETING OR
MEETINGS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS OF ANY CORPORATION OR CORPORATIONS
SPECIFIED IN SUCH REQUEST AND PROXY. 

"(4)  TO RECEIVE ANY AND ALL STOCK DIVIDENDS DECLARED, AND ANY OTHER
DISTRIBUTION WHICH MAY BE MADE BY ANY CORPORATION, ANY OF WHOSE SHARES
OF STOCK AT THE TIME CONSTITUTE A PART OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST
ESTATE, AND ALSO ALL PROCEEDS WHICH MAY BE PAID ON OR IN RESPECT OF ANY
SUCH SHARES OF STOCK ON THE LIQUIDATION OF THE COMPANY ISSUING THE
SAME, OR UPON THE SALE (WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY) OF ITS
ASSETS, OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR WHICH MAY BE OTHERWISE PAID OUT OF
CAPITAL OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF ANY BOND, STOCK, OR OTHER
SECURITY; AND MAY IN ITS DISCRETION JOIN IN ANY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
OR OF READJUSTMENT OF ANY CORPORATION, ANY OF WHOSE SHARES OF STOCK,
BONDS, OR OTHER SECURITIES OR OBLIGATIONS MAY AT ANY TIME CONSTITUTE A
PART OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST ESTATE, AND ACCEPT THE SUBSTITUTED
SECURITIES IN AND BY SAID PLAN ALLOTTED IN RESPECT TO THE SECURITIES
AND OBLIGATIONS SO HELD BY THE TRUSTEE. 

"(5)  TO EXECUTE LEASES OF ANY REAL ESTATE WHICH SHALL FORM A PART OF
THE SAID TRUST AT ANY TIME, AT SUCH RENTAL, AND UPON SUCH TERMS, AND
FOR SUCH LENGTH OF TIME (NOT EXCEEDING TWO HUNDRED (200) YEARS) AS IT
MAY DEEM BEST; TO ERECT BUILDINGS, OR TO CHANGE, ALTER, OR MAKE
ADDITIONS TO ANY EXISTING BUILDINGS UPON ANY REAL ESTATE WHICH MAY FORM
A PART OF SAID TRUST ESTATE; AND TO DO ALL OTHER ACTS IN RELATION TO
THE SAID REAL ESTATE WHICH IN THE JUDGMENT OF SAID TRUSTEE SHALL BE
NEEDFUL OR DESIRABLE TO THE PROPER AND ADVANTAGEOUS MANAGEMENT THEREOF,
SO AS TO PROTECT THE SAME AND MAKE THE SAME PRODUCTIVE; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT IN EVERY CASE THE SAID TRUSTEE SHALL OBSERVE AND BE
GOVERNED BY ANY INSTRUCTIONS OR REQUESTS IN RELATION THERETO MADE BY AN
INSTRUMENT IN WRITING, SIGNED BY SAID FIRST PARTY. 

        "ARTICLE THIRD - DISTRIBUTION AND APPLICATION OF INCOME 

"(1)  DURING THE JOINT LIVES OF THE SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART AND
HIS WIFE, ABBY H. BARTLETT, THE SAID TRUSTEE SHALL PAY TO THE SAID ABBY
H. BARTLETT THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) ON THE LAST DAY
OF EACH MONTH, AND THE RESIDUE OF SAID NET INCOME SHALL BE ACCUMULATED
IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID TRUSTEE AND KEPT INVESTED IN THE SAME MANNER
AS SAID TRUSTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO INVEST THE PRINCIPAL OF SAID TRUST. 

"THE SAID PAYMENTS TO THE SAID ABBY H. BARTLETT ARE IN LIEU OF THE
MONTHLY PAYMENTS NOW BEING MADE TO HER UNDER AN EXISTING AGREEMENTS,
AND NOT IN ADDITION THERETO. 

"(2)  FROM AND AFTER THE DEATH OF THE SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART,
THE SAID PAYMENT OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) IN EACH MONTH
SHALL CONTINUE TO BE MADE TO THE SAID ABBY H. BARTLETT, UNTIL SHE SHALL
EITHER DIE OR BECOME ENTITLED TO A SHARE OF SAID FIRST PARTY'S ESTATE
OTHERWISE THAN UNDER HIS WILL, BEARING EVEN DATE HEREWITH; AND THE
RESIDUE OF SAID NET INCOME SHALL IN EACH YEAR BE PAID BY SAID TRUSTEE
TO THE FOUR (4) CHILDREN OF SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, VIZ, MAIE
BARTLETT HEARD, FREDERIC CLAY BARTLETT, FLORENCE DIBELL BARTLETT, AND
ELEANOR BARTLETT PERDUE, OR THE SURVIVORS OF THEM, IN EQUAL SHARES;
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF EITHER OF SAID
CHILDREN OF SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART LEAVING ISSUE SURVIVING, SUCH
SURVIVING ISSUE SHALL STAND IN THE PLACE OF SUCH DECEASED CHILD AND
RECEIVE THE SHARE OF SAID NET INCOME WHICH SUCH DECEASED CHILD WOULD
HAVE RECEIVED IF LIVING; IT BEING THE INTENTION OF SAID PARTY OF THE
FIRST PART THAT ALL PAYMENTS TO HIS WIFE, ABBY H. BARTLETT, UNDER THIS
TRUST SHALL CEASE AND BE AT AN END UPON HER BECOMING ENTITLED TO ANY
SHARE OR PORTION OF HIS ESTATE OTHERWISE THAN UNDER HIS WILL, BEARING
EVEN DATE HEREWITH, AND THAT, SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENTS HEREINBEFORE
DIRECTED TO BE MADE TO SAID ABBY H. BARTLETT, THE NET INCOME OF SAID
TRUST ESTATE SHALL BE PAID TO THE CHILDREN OF SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST
PART (AND THE ISSUE OF ANY DECEASED CHILD) IN THE SHARES ABOVE
SPECIFIED DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE TRUST HEREBY CREATED. 

      "ARTICLE FOURTH - DISTRIBUTION OF PRINCIPAL OF TRUST ESTATE 

"THE TRUST HEREBY CREATED SHALL TERMINATE AT THE EXPIRATION OF FIVE
(5) YEARS FROM THE DEATH OF THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART UNLESS THE SAID
ABBY H. BARTLETT SHALL THEN BE LIVING AND BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
MONTHLY PAYMENTS OUT OF THE NET INCOME OF SAID TRUST ESTATE UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS INDENTURE, IN WHICH CASE THIS TRUST SHALL CONTINUE
UNTIL THE DEATH OF SAID ABBY H. BARTLETT, AND SHALL THEN TERMINATE. 

"UPON THE TERMINATION OR EXPIRATION OF THE TRUST HEREBY CREATED, THE
TRUST ESTATE THEN IN THE HANDS OF SAID TRUSTEE SHALL BE PAID OVER AND
DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  ONE-FOURTH (1/4) THEREOF TO EACH OF THE FOUR (4) CHILDREN OF
SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART HEREINBEFORE NAMED, VIZ, MAIE BARTLETT
HEARD, FREDERIC CLAY BARTLETT, FLORENCE DIBELL BARTLETT, AND ELEANOR
BARTLETT PERDUE; 

"(B)  IF EITHER OF SAID FOUR (4) CHILDREN SHALL NOT THEN BE LIVING,
HIS OR HER ONE-FOURTH (1/4) OF SAID TRUST ESTATE SHALL BE PAID OVER AND
DISTRIBUTED TO THE THEN SURVIVING ISSUE OF SUCH DECEASED CHILD PER
STIRPES; AND IN DEFAULT OF SUCH SURVIVING ISSUE, THEN TO THE SURVIVING
ISSUE OF SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART PER STIRPES. 

                "ARTICLE FIFTH - CONCERNING THE TRUSTEE 

"THE TRUSTEE HEREBY ACCEPTS THE TRUST CREATED BY THIS INDENTURE, AND
AGREES TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS AND PROVISIONS.  THE TRUSTEE
MAY CONSULT WITH COUNSEL AND SHALL BE FULLY PROTECTED IN ANY ACTION OR
NONACTION TAKEN, PERMITTED OR SUFFERED BY IT IN GOOD FAITH AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF COUNSEL SELECTED OR PROVIDED BY IT; AND
IN CASE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE TRUSTEE OR THE PRINCIPAL OF
THE TRUST ESTATE, THE TRUSTEE MAY DEFEND SUCH PROCEEDINGS OR MAY, UPON
BEING ADVISED BY SUCH COUNSEL THAT SUCH ACTION IS NECESSARY OR
ADVISABLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE TRUSTEE, OR OF THE
BENEFICIARIES, INSTITUTE ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

"THE TRUSTEE SHALL BE REIMBURSED AND INDEMNIFIED AGAINST ANY AND ALL
LIABILITY, LOSS, OR EXPENSE BECAUSE OF THE HOLDING OF ANY SHARES OF
STOCK OR OTHER PROPERTIES CONSTITUTING A PART OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE
TRUST ESTATE, EITHER IN ITS OWN NAME OR IN THE NAME OF A NOMINEE, AND
SHALL HAVE A LIEN UPON THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST ESTATE AND THE INCOME
THEREFROM FOR THE AMOUNT OF ANY LIABILITY, LOSS, OR EXPENSE WHICH MAY
BE SO INCURRED BY IT, INCLUDING THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING ANY ACTION OR
PROCEEDING INSTITUTED AGAINST IT OR SUCH NOMINEE BY REASON OF ANY SUCH
HOLDING. 

"OUT OF THE INCOME OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST ESTATE THE TRUSTEE
SHALL PAY ALL TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL CHARGES WHICH
IT MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY OR TO RETAIN BECAUSE OR IN RESPECT OF ANY
PART OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST ESTATE OR THE INCOME THEREFROM OR
THE INTEREST OF THE TRUSTEE THEREIN, OR THE INTEREST OF ANY BENEFICIARY
OR OTHER PERSON THEREIN, UNDER ANY PRESENT OR FUTURE LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR OF ANY STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY, OR OTHER TAXING
AUTHORITY THEREIN, ANY AND ALL SUCH TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL CHARGES LAWFULLY IMPOSED BEING CHARGED AS A LIEN UPON THE
SAID INCOME, AND IN CASE OF DEFICIENCY OF SAID INCOME UPON THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST ESTATE. 

"ALL PAYMENTS OR DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME TO BENEFICIARIES IN THIS
INDENTURE PROVIDED FOR SHALL BE MADE OUT OF NET INCOME, CURRENT OR
ACCUMULATED, THEN IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUSTEE. 

"THE SAID TRUSTEE, OR ANY SUCCESSOR IN TRUST, MAY RESIGN AT ANY TIME
BY GIVING NOTICE IN WRITING OF SUCH RESIGNATION TO SAID FIRST PARTY
WHILE HE SHALL LIVE, AND AFTER HIS DEATH BY GIVING NOTICE IN WRITING OF
SUCH RESIGNATION TO EITHER ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES HEREINBEFORE
NAMED. 

"IN CASE OF THE RESIGNATION OF ANY TRUSTEE ACTING HEREUNDER, OR OF
ITS DISABILITY OR INCAPACITY TO FURTHER ACT AS TRUSTEE, THE SAID PARTY
OF THE FIRST PART, IF LIVING, AND AFTER HIS DEATH A MAJORITY OF THE
FIVE (5) BENEFICIARIES HEREINBEFORE NAMED, VIZ, THE WIFE AND FOUR (4)
CHILDREN OF SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, OR A MAJORITY OF THE
SURVIVORS OF THEM, SHALL HAVE POWER TO APPOINT A SUCCESSOR IN TRUST BY
AN INSTRUMENT IN WRITING DULY SIGNED BY HIM OR THEM AND DELIVERED TO
SAID TRUSTEE, AND UPON THE APPOINTMENT OF SUCH SUCCESSOR IN TRUST THE
SAID TRUSTEE SHALL CONVEY, ASSIGN, TRANSFER, AND DELIVER TO SUCH
SUCCESSOR IN TRUST ALL OF THE TRUST ESTATE THEN IN ITS HANDS, AND
THEREUPON AND THEREAFTER SUCH SUCCESSOR IN TRUST SHALL HAVE ALL THE
RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES, AND AUTHORITY WHICH ARE GRANTED TO OR IMPOSED
ON SAID ORIGINAL TRUSTEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS INDENTURE. 

   "ARTICLE SIXTH - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

"(1)  SAID GRANTOR HAS CREATED THE FOREGOING TRUSTS TO PROVIDE FOR
THE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BENEFICIARIES ENTITLED TO SHARE IN
THE INCOME OF SAID TRUST ESTATE, AND THE SAID BENEFICIARIES SHALL HAVE
NO POWER TO ANTICIPATE, ASSIGN, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF OR ENCUMBER
THEIR RESPECTIVE INTERESTS IN SAID TRUST ESTATE, AND THE SAME SHALL NOT
BE SUBJECT TO BE TAKEN FROM THEM BY PROCESS OF LAW. 

"(2)  ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TRUST DEED MAY BE ALTERED,
CHANGED, OR MODIFIED IN ANY RESPECT AND TO ANY EXTENT AT ANY TIME
DURING THE LIFE OF SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART BY THE DELIVERY TO SAID
TRUSTEE OF AN INSTRUMENT IN WRITING SIGNED BY SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST
PART AND BY A MAJORITY OF THE FIVE (5) BENEFICIARIES HEREINBEFORE
NAMED, OR BY A MAJORITY OF THE SURVIVORS OF SAID FIVE BENEFICIARIES. 

"(3)  THE BENEFICIARIES, OR ANY OR EITHER OF THEM, MAY ACT THROUGH AN
ATTORNEY IN FACT IN SIGNING ANY AND ALL INSTRUMENTS DELIVERED TO THE
TRUSTEE UNDER THIS INDENTURE, WITH LIKE EFFECT AS THOUGH SIGNED IN
PERSON, AND ANY OR EITHER OF SAID BENEFICIARIES MAY ACT AS SUCH
ATTORNEY IN FACT WHEN AUTHORIZED SO TO DO. 

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS INSTRUMENT,
UNDER SEAL, THE DAY AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. 

                     ADOLPHUS C. BARTLETT.  (SEAL.) 

                                 THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY,

                                   BY SOLOMON A. SMITH, PRESIDENT. 

"ATTEST:

  H. H. ROCKWELL,

    ASSISTANT SECRETARY." 
..END :








LEIMAN V. GUTTMAN, 336 U.S. 1 


NO. 88.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1949.  - 297
N.Y. 201, 78 N.E.2D 472, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 221(4) OF CH. X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC.
621, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS FOR
SERVICES AS ATTORNEYS FOR A STOCKHOLDERS' PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE IN A
CORPORATE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING - INCLUDING CLAIMS UNDER A PRIVATE
ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES WHICH BENEFITED A SINGLE CLASS OF
SECURITY HOLDERS AND ARE COMPENSABLE BY THEM AND NOT FROM THE ESTATE. 
PP. 2-10. 

(A)  THE CONTROL OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS NOT LIMITED TO FEES AND
ALLOWANCES PAYABLE OUT OF THE ESTATE.  P. 5. 

(B)  SECTION 221(4) APPLIES TO "ALL PAYMENTS" FOR SERVICES "IN
CONNECTION WITH" THE PROCEEDING OR "IN CONNECTION WITH" THE PLAN AND
"INCIDENT TO" THE REORGANIZATION, WHOEVER PAYS THEM.  PP. 5-8. 

(C)  PAYMENTS UNDER A PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT EXPRESSED IN AN ESCROW
AGREEMENT WITH A COMMITTEE REPRESENTING A SMALLER OR MORE INTIMATE
GROUP THAN A CONVENTIONAL COMMITTEE ARE NOT EXCEPTED.  P. 8. 

2. SINCE THE DETERMINATION OF ALLOWANCES HAS BEEN MADE AN INTEGRAL
PART OF THE PROCESS OF CONFIRMATION OF A CORPORATE REORGANIZATION WHICH
IS EXCLUSIVELY ENTRUSTED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT UNDER CHAPTER X, IT
MAY NOT BE DELEGATED TO A STATE COURT.  P. 9. 

3.  IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X, THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER LEGAL FEES
ARISING OUT OF PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS WITH A STOCKHOLDERS' PROTECTIVE
COMMITTEE AND NOT PAYABLE OUT OF THE ESTATE.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN AND
THE TIME ALLOWED FOR APPEAL HAD EXPIRED.  HELD:  THE CLAIMANTS MAY
STILL APPLY TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR AN ALLOWANCE, WHETHER OR NOT
THE FINAL DECREE UNDER SEC. 228 HAS BEEN ENTERED.  PP. 9-10. 

LEIMAN ET AL. V. GUTTMAN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

IN A CORPORATE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ALLOWED PETITIONERS CERTAIN FEES
FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED TO AND PAYABLE OUT OF THE ESTATE BUT HELD
THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN ADDITIONAL FEES TO BE PAID
UNDER THE TERMS OF A PRIVATE ESCROW AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM AND A
COMMITTEE REPRESENTING A GROUP OF STOCKHOLDERS.  69 F.SUPP.  656. 
WITHOUT APPEALING FROM THIS RULING, PETITIONERS SUED IN A STATE COURT
FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE ESCROW AGREEMENT.  THE TRIAL COURT
DENIED A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.  71 N.Y.S.2D 200. 
THE APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMED.  272 APP. DIV. 896, 72 N.Y.S.2D 406. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  297 N.Y. 201, 78 N.E.2D 472.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 808.  AFFIRMED, P. 10. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEC. 621, PROVIDES: 

"THE JUDGE SHALL CONFIRM A PLAN IF SATISFIED THAT  ... 

"(4)  ALL PAYMENTS MADE OR PROMISED BY THE DEBTOR OR BY A CORPORATION
ISSUING SECURITIES OR ACQUIRING PROPERTY UNDER THE PLAN OR BY ANY OTHER
PERSON, FOR SERVICES AND FOR COSTS AND EXPENSES IN, OR IN CONNECTION
WITH, THE PROCEEDING OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLAN AND INCIDENT TO THE
REORGANIZATION, HAVE BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED TO THE JUDGE AND ARE
REASONABLE OR, IF TO BE FIXED AFTER CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN, WILL BE
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE.  ... " 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER THAT PROVISION GIVES
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONERS' CLAIM FOR
SERVICES AS ATTORNEYS IN THE REORGANIZATION OF PITTSBURGH TERMINAL COAL
CORP., THE DEBTOR. 

PETITIONERS WERE ATTORNEYS FOR A PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE REPRESENTING
PUBLIC HOLDERS OF THE PREFERRED STOCK OF THE DEBTOR.  THE COMMITTEE HAD
ON DEPOSIT 584 SHARES OF THE PREFERRED STOCK FROM FOUR STOCKHOLDERS. 
THE COMMITTEE AGREED TO HOLD THOSE SHARES IN ESCROW FOR THE PURPOSE OF
AFFORDING PETITIONERS "ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION" FOR THEIR SERVICES IN
THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEBTOR.  FN1 

PETITIONERS RENDERED VALUABLE SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
REORGANIZATION.  WHEN THE PLAN WAS CONFIRMED, THEY APPLIED TO THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR AN ALLOWANCE.  THAT COURT ALLOWED THEM $37,500 OUT
OF THE ESTATE.  IT CONCLUDED THAT, WHILE THAT AMOUNT WAS ALL THE ESTATE
SHOULD BEAR, THEIR SERVICES WERE WORTH MORE THAN THE ALLOWANCE.  BUT IT
HELD THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO PASS ON THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWANCE
WHICH SHOULD BE PAID UNDER THE ESCROW AGREEMENT.  IN RE PITTSBURGH
TERMINAL COAL CORP., 69 F.SUPP.  656. 

SINCE IN THEIR VIEW THAT COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE
CLAIM, PETITIONERS DID NOT APPEAL FROM THAT ORDER BUT BROUGHT INSTEAD
THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE NEW YORK COURTS FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE
ESCROW AGREEMENT AND FOR DELIVERY OF THE DEPOSITED STOCK IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ANSWERED IN THE
NEGATIVE THE FOLLOWING CERTIFIED QUESTION: 

"HAS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION TO RECOVER FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED TO
THE STOCKHOLDERS COMMITTEE WHICH ARE NOT COMPENSABLE OUT OF THE ASSETS
OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE, IN A CHAPTER X REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER
THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY ACT?"  297 N.Y. AT 204. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ACT. 

WE REVIEWED IN WOODS V. CITY BANK CO., 312 U.S. 262, AND BROWN V.
GERDES, 321 U.S. 178, THE DESIGN OF CH. X INSOFAR AS FEES AND
ALLOWANCES ARE CONCERNED.  THERE WE WERE DEALING WITH FEES AND
ALLOWANCES PAYABLE OUT OF THE ESTATE.  HERE WE ARE DEALING WITH FEES
WHICH ARE INCIDENT TO THE REORGANIZATION BUT NOT PAYABLE OUT OF THE
ESTATE.  UNDER THE LESS COMPREHENSIVE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 77B THE LEADING
AUTHORITY WAS THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE
LATTER CLAIMS AS WELL.  IN RE MCCRORY STORES CORP., 91 F.2D 947.  WE
WOULD BE UNMINDFUL OF HISTORY AND HEEDLESS OF STATUTORY LANGUAGE IF WE
HELD THAT THE POWER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THIS RESPECT HAD BEEN
CONTRACTED  FN2  AS A RESULT OF CH. X. 

THE CONTROL OF THE JUDGE IS NOT LIMITED TO FEES AND ALLOWANCES
PAYABLE OUT OF THE ESTATE.  SECTION 221(4) PLACES UNDER HIS CONTROL
"ALL PAYMENTS MADE OR PROMISED" (1) BY "THE DEBTOR" OR (2) "BY A
CORPORATION ISSUING SECURITIES OR ACQUIRING PROPERTY UNDER THE PLAN" OR
(3) "BY ANY OTHER PERSON" FOR SERVICES RENDERED "IN CONNECTION WITH"
THE PROCEEDING OR "IN CONNECTION WITH" THE PLAN AND "INCIDENT TO" THE
REORGANIZATION.  THE SERVICES OF PETITIONERS CONCEDEDLY MET THOSE
REQUIREMENTS; AND THE COMMITTEE AGAINST WHOSE STOCK A LIEN IS SOUGHT TO
BE ASSERTED WOULD PLAINLY BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE WORDS "ANY OTHER
PERSON."  MOREOVER, THESE PETITIONERS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CLASSES OF
CLAIMANTS TO WHOM THE JUDGE IS EMPOWERED TO ALLOW REASONABLE
COMPENSATION.  FN3  TO LIFT PETITIONERS' CLAIM FROM SEC. 221(4) WOULD
THEREFORE BE TO REWRITE IT OR TO HOLD THAT WHEN EXTENDED SO FAR IT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE LATTER HAS NOT EVEN BEEN INTIMATED.  THE FORMER
IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 

THE AIM OF THE EXPANDED CONTROLS OVER REORGANIZATION FEES AND
EXPENSES IS CLEAR.  THE PRACTICE HAD BEEN TO FIX THEM BY PRIVATE
ARRANGEMENT OUTSIDE OF COURT.  FN4  THE DEPOSIT AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH
COMMITTEES COMMONLY FUNCTIONED WAS VIEWED AS A PRIVATE CONTRACT,  FN5
WHICH GRANTED THE COMMITTEE A LIEN ON THE DEPOSITED SECURITIES FOR ITS
FEES AND EXPENSES.  BY TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT THE COMMITTEE WAS
NORMALLY THE SOLE JUDGE OF THEIR AMOUNT.  FN6  THIS GAVE RISE TO
SERIOUS ABUSES.  THERE WAS THE SPECTACLE OF FIDUCIARIES FIXING THE
WORTH OF THEIR OWN SERVICES AND EXACTING FEES WHICH OFTEN HAD NO
RELATION TO THE VALUE OF SERVICES RENDERED.  FN7  THE RESULT WAS THAT
THE EFFECTIVE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS UNDER THE
PLAN WAS DETERMINED NOT BY THE COURT BUT BY REORGANIZATION MANAGERS AND
COMMITTEES. 

HENCE CONGRESS INSTITUTED CONTROLS, CONTROLS WHICH BECAME MORE
PERVASIVE AS SEC. 77B WAS EVOLVED INTO CH. X. SECTION 211 REQUIRES THAT
A COMMITTEE FILE WITH THE COURT A STATEMENT DISCLOSING SPECIFIED
INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH IT OPERATES.  FN8  THE
SCRUTINY CLAUSE OF SEC. 212 GIVES THE COURT POWER TO SET ASIDE ANY OF
THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT WHICH IT FINDS TO BE "UNFAIR OR NOT
CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY."  AND SEC. 221(4) IS WRITTEN IN
PERVASIVE TERMS - IT APPLIES TO "ALL PAYMENTS" FOR SERVICES "IN
CONNECTION WITH" THE PROCEEDING OR "IN CONNECTION WITH" THE PLAN AND
"INCIDENT TO" THE REORGANIZATION, WHOEVER PAYS THEM.  FN9  A STATUTE
ESTABLISHING SUCH BROAD SUPERVISION OVER COMMITTEES CANNOT BE PRESUMED
TO BE NIGGARDLY IN ITS GRANT OF AUTHORITY WHEN IT DEALS WITH THE MATTER
WHICH OF ALL THE OTHERS HAS THE MOST DIRECT IMPACT ON THOSE WHOM IT
AIMS TO PROTECT. 

WE CAN FIND IN THIS LANGUAGE NO EXEMPTION FOR THE KIND OF COMMITTEE
THAT PETITIONERS REPRESENTED.  THE FACT THAT THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE
REPRESENTED A SMALLER OR MORE INTIMATE GROUP THAN A CONVENTIONAL
COMMITTEE IS IRRELEVANT.  THE STATUTE WAS DESIGNED TO POLICE THE RETURN
WHICH ALL SECURITY HOLDERS OBTAIN FROM REORGANIZATION PLANS.  THE NET
RETURN CANNOT BE KEPT UNDER SUPERVISION IF PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS
EXPRESSED IN ESCROW AGREEMENTS ARE TO CONTROL.  FOR THE IMPACT OF
EXCESSIVE FEE CLAIMS IS THE SAME WHETHER THEY ARE CHARGED DIRECTLY
AGAINST THE ESTATE OR AGAINST THE CLAIM WHICH REPRESENTS A
PROPORTIONATE INTEREST IN THE ESTATE. 

NOR IS IT AN ANSWER TO SAY THAT STATE COURTS CAN SUPERVISE ALLOWANCES
OF THIS NATURE IF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS DISALLOWED AUTHORITY TO DO
SO.  THE HAPPENSTANCE OF LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURTS IS NOT THE
EQUIVALENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULE ADOPTED BY CONGRESS WHEN IT ASKED
THAT COMMITTEE CLAIMANTS SUBMIT THEIR REQUESTS TO THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT.  THE INCIDENCE OF FEES ON REORGANIZATION PLANS IS SO GREAT THAT
CONTROL OVER THEM IS DEEMED INDISPENSABLE TO THE COURT'S DETERMINATION
WHETHER THE PLAN SHOULD BE CONFIRMED.  SECTION 221(4) PROVIDES, INDEED,
ONE OF THE STANDARDS BY WHICH THE COURT MAKES THAT DETERMINATION. 
SINCE THE DETERMINATION OF ALLOWANCES HAS BEEN MADE AN INTEGRAL PART OF
THE PROCESS OF CONFIRMATION WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY ENTRUSTED TO THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, WE CANNOT INFER THAT IT MAY BE DELEGATED TO A STATE
COURT.  MOREOVER, IT IS THE BANKRUPTCY COURT THAT IS IN THE BEST
POSITION TO KNOW WHAT WORK WAS DONE BY THE FEE CLAIMANT, HOW IMPORTANT
AND INVOLVED IT WAS, HOW MUCH IT BENEFITED THE WHOLE GROUP OF SECURITY
HOLDERS AND HOW MUCH IT BENEFITED THE ONE CLASS ALONE, HOW MUCH OF IT
WAS NECESSARY, HOW MUCH OF IT WAS EFFECTIVE.  THAT COURT HAS ALREADY
DETERMINED WHAT THE ESTATE SHOULD PAY.  THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS IS
HOW MUCH OF A CHARGE SHOULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ESCROWED STOCK AND
WHETHER THE STATE COURT OR THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD DETERMINE WHAT
THAT CHARGE SHOULD BE.  CERTAINLY WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE SERVICES
BENEFITED IN PART THE ESTATE AND IN PART ONE CLASS OF SECURITY HOLDERS,
IT IS THE BANKRUPTCY COURT THAT IS IN THE POSITION TO WEIGH THE
INTERRELATED ISSUES OF FACT AND MAKE A FAIR ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE
TWO. 

THESE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORT THE LITERAL READING OF SEC.
221(4) THAT IT IS THE BANKRUPTCY COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION TO PASS ON
THESE FEES.  ITS JURISDICTION IS THEREFORE EXCLUSIVE.  SEE BROWN V.
GERDES, SUPRA. 

PETITIONERS DID NOT APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
HOLDING THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THESE CLAIMS.  BUT NO REASON
IS APPARENT WHY THE PETITIONERS MAY NOT APPLY TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
AN ALLOWANCE EVEN AT THIS DATE.  WE WERE ADVISED DURING THE COURSE OF
ARGUMENT THAT THE FINAL DECREE UNDER SEC. 228 HAS NOT BEEN ENTERED. 
FN10  YET THOUGH IT HAS BEEN, THERE IS NO REASON IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WHY APPLICATION CANNOT BE MADE AT THE FOOT
OF THE DECREE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ESCROW AGREEMENT PROVIDED: 

"THESE SHARES ARE HELD IN ESCROW BY THIS COMMITTEE PENDING THE
TERMINATION OF ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF THE PITTSBURGH TERMINAL
COAL CORPORATION. 

"THIS COMMITTEE HAS SECURED THESE SHARES FROM THE STOCKHOLDERS LISTED
ABOVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AFFORDING TO YOU ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR
YOUR SERVICES IN THE ABOVE MATTER.  THEY HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND ARE
HELD IN ESCROW ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY BE DELIVERED TO YOU ONLY AT
SUCH TIME AS THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF PITTSBURGH
TERMINAL COAL CORPORATION ARE FINALLY TERMINATED AND A FINAL SETTLEMENT
OF ALL SUITS AND CLAIMS MADE BY THIS COMMITTEE IN BEHALF OF THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS HAVE BEEN SETTLED.  IT IS FURTHER CONDITIONED
UPON FAITHFUL AND SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF YOUR DUTIES AS COUNSEL TO
THIS COMMITTEE UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF ALL PROCEEDINGS." 

FN2  THE INDICATED PURPOSE WAS TO STRENGTHEN, NOT TO IMPAIR, THE
EXISTING CONTROLS WHICH SEC. 77B ESTABLISHED IN REGARD TO ALLOWANCES. 
SEE SEN. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 22(1938); H.R. REP. NO.
1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 45(1937). 

FN3  SECTION 242 PROVIDES: 

"THE JUDGE MAY ALLOW REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED
AND REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROPER COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN ESTATE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS CHAPTER
OR IN CONNECTION WITH A PLAN APPROVED BY THE JUDGE, WHETHER OR NOT
ACCEPTED BY CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OR FINALLY CONFIRMED BY THE
JUDGE - 

"(1)  BY INDENTURE TRUSTEES, DEPOSITARIES, REORGANIZATION MANAGERS,
AND COMMITTEES OR REPRESENTATIVES OF CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS; 

"(2)  BY ANY OTHER PARTIES IN INTEREST EXCEPT THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION; AND 

"(3)  BY THE ATTORNEYS OR AGENTS FOR ANY OF THE FOREGOING EXCEPT THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION." 

FN4  SEE PART VIII, PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT, SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE CHANGE COMMISSION (1940), PP. 232 ET SEQ. 

FN5  SEE HABIRSHAW ELEC.  CABLE CO. V. HABIRSHAW ELECTRIC CABLE CO.,
INC., 296 F. 875, 879. 

FN6  SEE PART I, PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION (1937), PP. 642, 644, 645, 646-647: 

"AN EXAMINATION OF THE 846 DEPOSIT AGREEMENTS RECEIVED WITH REPLIES
TO THE COMMISSION'S QUESTIONNAIRE REVEALS THAT 841 AGREEMENTS, OR 99.4
PERCENT, PROVIDED THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO FEES OR
EXPENSES OR BOTH.  OF THOSE 841 DEPOSIT AGREEMENTS, 672 AGREEMENTS, OR
79.9 PERCENT, GAVE THE COMMITTEE AN EXPRESS LIEN UPON THE DEPOSITED
SECURITIES, FOR EXPENSES OR COMPENSATION, OR BOTH.  742, OR 88.2
PERCENT, CLOTHED THE COMMITTEE WITH POWER TO PLEDGE DEPOSITED
SECURITIES TO SECURE LOANS TO FINANCE ITS ACTIVITIES.  THESE POWERS
COMMONLY MAY BE EXERCISED BY THE COMMITTEE IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION FREE
FROM SUPERVISION BY ANY INDEPENDENT AGENCY OR BY THE DEPOSITORS." 
.         .         .         .         . 

"THE DEPOSIT AGREEMENTS PROVIDE LITTLE CHECK UPON THE AMOUNTS THE
COMMITTEES MAY CHARGE FOR FEES AND EXPENSES.  AS WE HAVE STATED ABOVE,
841 OF THE 846 DEPOSIT AGREEMENTS THAT WE EXAMINED PROVIDED THAT THE
COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF ITS FEES OR EXPENSES OR
BOTH.  IN 469 THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES WHICH THE
COMMITTEE MIGHT CHARGE AGAINST THE DEPOSITED SECURITIES WAS UNLIMITED. 
THAT IS TO SAY, IN 55.4 PERCENT OF THE CASES NEITHER THE AGGREGATE
AMOUNT NOR THE AMOUNT PER UNIT OF SECURITIES WHICH COMMITTEES COULD
CLAIM FOR THEIR EXPENSES AND SERVICES WAS LIMITED. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IN THE 705 CASES NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SECTION 77 OR SECTION 77B
PROCEEDINGS MACHINERY WAS PROVIDED FOR HAVING SOME INDEPENDENT PERSON
OR AGENCY REVIEW THE AMOUNT OF THE FEES AND EXPENSES OF THESE
COMMITTEES IN ONLY 2.13 PERCENT OF THE CASES.  IN THE BALANCE OF THE
CASES, NUMBERING 690, THE COMMITTEE HAD RESERVED TO ITSELF THE RIGHT TO
DETERMINE, WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE AGREEMENT, THE AMOUNT
WHICH IT COULD CHARGE FOR FEES AND EXPENSES.  AND IN 403 OF THESE 690
CASES, THE AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBED NO LIMITATIONS.  THESE FIDUCIARIES,
THEREFORE, HAD IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CASES PROVIDED MACHINERY
WHEREBY THEY BECAME THE SOLE ARBITERS OF THE WORTH OF THEIR OWN
SERVICES AND OF THE PROPRIETY OF THEIR EXPENSES.  AS WE HAVE POINTED
OUT, IT WAS USUALLY PROVIDED THAT THE COMPENSATION TO BE FIXED BY THE
COMMITTEE MUST BE 'REASONABLE.'  BUT THIS RESTRICTION IN AND OF ITSELF
WOULD MEAN LITTLE, SINCE THE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE ALONE WAS TO
DETERMINE WHAT WAS 'REASONABLE.'  AND IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT A
COURT OF EQUITY WOULD REVIEW THESE FEES ON COMPLAINT OF A DEPOSITOR AND
DISALLOW SUMS BEYOND A 'REASONABLE' AMOUNT OR DISALLOW IMPROPER ITEMS
OF EXPENSE.  SUCH RELIEF WOULD NECESSITATE LITIGATION BY THE
DEPOSITORS.  CONSIDERING THE TIME, EXPENSE, AND DIFFICULTY OF LEGAL
QUESTIONS INVOLVED, SUCH A REMEDY WOULD FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES
FURNISH NO CHECK WHATSOEVER ON THE EXTRAVAGANCE OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS." 

FN7  SEE PART II, PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT, SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION (1937), PP. 351 ET SEQ. 

FN8  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT WHILE THIS PROVISION ONLY APPLIES TO
COMMITTEES REPRESENTING MORE THAN TWELVE CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS, THE
SCRUTINY CLAUSE CONTAINED IN SEC. 212 AND THE POWER TO CONTROL
ALLOWANCES CONTAINED IN SEC. 221(4) IS NOT SO RESTRICTED. 

FN9  SEN. REP. NO. 1916, SUPRA, NOTE 2, AT 36, EXPLAINS SEC. 221(4)
AS FOLLOWS: 

"SUBSECTION (4) OF SECTION 221, DERIVED FROM SECTION 77B (F)(5),
REQUIRES FULL DISCLOSURE AND THE APPROVAL BY THE JUDGE OF ALL PAYMENTS
FOR SERVICES, AND FOR COSTS AND EXPENSES, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLAN
OR THE PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER SUCH PAYMENTS ARE MADE OR PROMISED BY THE
DEBTOR, OR BY ANY CORPORATION SUCCEEDING TO IT, OR BY ANY OTHER
PERSON." 

SATISFIED THAT  ...  (5) ALL AMOUNTS TO BE PAID BY THE DEBTOR OR BY ANY
CORPORATION OR CORPORATIONS ACQUIRING THE DEBTOR'S ASSETS, AND ALL
AMOUNTS TO BE PAID TO COMMITTEES OR REORGANIZATION MANAGERS, WHETHER OR
NOT BY THE DEBTOR OR ANY SUCH CORPORATION FOR SERVICES OR EXPENSES
INCIDENT TO THE REORGANIZATION, HAVE BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED AND ARE
REASONABLE, OR ARE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE.  ...  "
48 STAT. 919. 

FN10  SECTION 228 PROVIDES: 

"UPON THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN, THE JUDGE SHALL ENTER A FINAL
DECREE - 

"(1)  DISCHARGING THE DEBTOR FROM ALL ITS DEBTS AND LIABILITIES AND
TERMINATING ALL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF STOCKHOLDERS OF THE DEBTOR,
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE PLAN OR IN THE ORDER CONFIRMING THE PLAN OR
IN THE ORDER DIRECTING OR AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OR RETENTION OF
PROPERTY; 

"(2)  DISCHARGING THE TRUSTEE, IF ANY; 

"(3)  MAKING SUCH PROVISIONS BY WAY OF INJUNCTION OR OTHERWISE AS MAY
BE EQUITABLE; AND 

"(4)  CLOSING THE ESTATE." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT INSOFAR AS IT HOLDS THAT A
COMMITTEE OF STOCKHOLDERS CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT MAY NOT
DISBURSE OR COMMIT FIDUCIARY FUNDS IN ITS OWN HANDS UNDER GENERAL
DEPOSIT AGREEMENT, NOR FUNDS OF THE ESTATE, TO PAY ATTORNEYS' FEES
EXCEPT AS ALLOWED BY THE FEDERAL COURT, AND A CONTRACT TO PAY MORE FROM
SUCH FUNDS WOULD NOT BE ENFORCEABLE.  BUT THE OPINION GOES BEYOND
THAT.  AS TO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN STOCKHOLDERS AND COUNSEL WHICH DO NOT
AFFECT FUNDS OF THE ESTATE OR OF THE COMMITTEE, I SEE NO REASON TO SAY
THAT SUCH CONTRACTS ARE SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, OR
INDEED, THAT IN SUCH A CASE AS THIS, THAT THERE IS ANY PRACTICAL WAY IN
WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT CAN EFFECTIVELY ASSERT SUCH A JURISDICTION
AS THE OPINION BESTOWS UPON IT. 

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COURT IS CONVERTING A PROVISION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT DESIGNED TO PREVENT LAWYERS FROM OVERREACHING
STOCKHOLDERS INTO AN AUTHORITY FOR STOCKHOLDERS TO SWINDLE LAWYERS.  IT
MAY APPEAR LIKE AN INSTANCE OF MAN BITING DOG, BUT THE CASE BEFORE US
IS ACTUALLY ONE OF CLIENT SNARING LAWYER.  THE COURT'S OPINION IS A
RATHER ABSTRACT DECLARATION AND MY DIFFICULTY WITH IT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD
ONLY FROM FULLER RECITAL OF THE FACTS. 

THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN TRIED NOR EVEN BEEN AT ISSUE.  IT WAS DECIDED
ON MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE TRIAL AND INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS OF
NEW YORK STATE.  ALL THAT WAS BEFORE THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS WAS
A CERTIFIED ABSTRACT QUESTION TO WHICH I THINK IT RETURNED A CORRECT
ABSTRACT ANSWER.  BUT THAT QUESTION WAS NOT THE ONLY OR THE BASIC
QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE CASE. 

FROM A RECORD THAT IS UNSATISFACTORY FOR DECISION OF ISSUES SO
IMPORTANT TO THE BAR AND TO THOSE INTERESTED IN REORGANIZATIONS, THE
FOLLOWING FACTS APPEAR. 

PITTSBURGH TERMINAL COAL CORPORATION, AS DEBTOR, WAS IN
REORGANIZATION UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THREE OF THESE
DEFENDANTS, IN A MANNER AND WITH POWERS AND DUTIES NOT DISCLOSED,
BECAME A "COMMITTEE FOR PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS."  WHETHER ANY STOCK WAS
DEPOSITED WITH THEM AS SUCH DOES NOT APPEAR AND THE COMMITTEE SEEMS TO
HAVE REPRESENTED ONLY THE INTERESTS OF A FAMILY GROUP, HEAVILY
INTERESTED IN PREFERRED STOCK, WHICH COMPRISED AND DOMINATED THE
COMMITTEE.  THE COMMITTEE ORIGINALLY RETAINED THESE LAWYERS. 

THE SITUATION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ONE OF THOSE IN WHICH EXISTENCE OF
ANY ESTATE, AND HENCE OF ANY VALUE TO THE PREFERRED STOCK, DEPENDED
UPON THE OUTCOME OF A LAWSUIT FOR "UNCOVERING MISMANAGEMENT AND
MALFEASANCE."  REMUNERATION FOR THE LAWYERS WHO WERE TO PRESS THE SUIT
WAS CONTINGENT UPON THEIR CREATING AN ESTATE; BUT IN SUCH CASES COURTS
ARE PROPERLY RELUCTANT AFTER THE EVENT TO INCLUDE IN ALLOWANCES,
COMPENSATION FOR THE RISK OF DOING MUCH WORK FOR NOTHING. 

THESE LAWYERS FACED SO SLIM A CHANCE OF FAIR COMPENSATION THAT THEY
PROPOSED TO WITHDRAW.  TO INDUCE THEM TO CONTINUE, FOUR INDIVIDUAL
STOCKHOLDERS PUT 20% OF THEIR PREFERRED STOCK IN ESCROW WITH THE
DEFENDANT COMMITTEE UNDER A SEPARATE WRITTEN CONTRACT.  THIS STOCK DOES
NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY DEPOSITED WITH THE COMMITTEE, NOR
WAS IT DEPOSITED AT THIS TIME UNDER THE GENERAL STOCKHOLDERS' AGREEMENT
BUT ONLY UNDER THE SPECIAL ESCROW AGREEMENT.  THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
LAWYERS RECITED, "THIS COMMITTEE HAS SECURED THESE SHARES FROM THE
STOCKHOLDERS LISTED ABOVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AFFORDING TO YOU
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR YOUR SERVICES IN THE ABOVE MATTER.  THEY
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND ARE HELD IN ESCROW ON THE CONDITION THAT THEY BE
DELIVERED TO YOU ONLY AT SUCH TIME AS THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS"
ARE TERMINATED AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS MADE, AND DELIVERY WAS
CONDITIONED ON FAITHFUL AND SATISFACTORY SERVICE BY THE LAWYERS. 

AFTER AN ESTATE WAS CREATED BY THE EFFORTS OF THE LAWYERS, THE
STOCKHOLDERS REPUDIATED THE AGREEMENT AND CONTENDED THAT COUNSEL'S
SERVICES WERE ONLY COMPENSABLE FROM THE ESTATE WITHOUT RESORT TO THE
ESCROW CONTRACT.  THE ATTORNEYS THEREUPON SOUGHT COMPENSATION BY AN
ALLOWANCE FROM THE ESTATE.  JUDGE GIBSON'S FINAL OPINION ON THE
APPLICATION RECITES FACTS AMONG WHICH ARE THE FOLLOWING: 

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE FOR PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, "WHILE NOT
DENYING THAT CLAIMANTS HAD RENDERED SERVICES WHICH COULD NOT BE CHARGED
AGAINST THE DEBTOR, AND WHICH WERE RENDERED AT A TIME WHEN ANY SUCH
COMPENSATION FROM THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE SEEMED IMPROBABLE, ASSERTED THAT
THE DEPOSIT OF STOCK IN ESCROW WAS TO BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN CASE NO
CONSIDERABLE AWARD SHOULD BE MADE FROM THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE."  HE
INDICATES THAT THE MISMANAGEMENT LITIGATION WAS "THE SOURCE OF THE
ULTIMATE FORTUNATE RECOVERY OF THE FUND FOR DISTRIBUTION."  BUT HE
FINDS "THAT THE CLAIMANTS RENDERED SERVICES TO THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS NAMED IN THE ESCROW AGREEMENT WHICH WERE NOT COMPENSABLE
FROM THE FUND DISTRIBUTED BY ORDER OF THE COURT.  AMONG SUCH SERVICES
WERE THOSE RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SINKING FUND CLAIMS,
GUTTMAN'S CRITICISM OF THE TRUSTEE'S SALES OF MACHINERY AND HIS
MANAGEMENT OF THE REAL ESTATE, HIS RENT COLLECTIONS AND THE REPAIR OF
THE DEBTOR'S HOUSES AND OTHER PROPERTY." 

THE DEBTOR, THE COMMITTEE AND THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
JOINED AND "CONTENDED THAT IN A CHAPTER X PROCEEDING THE COURT HAS THE
DUTY OF DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF ALL FEES, WHETHER COMPENSABLE
FEES CHARGEABLE TO THE ESTATE OR FOR THOSE WHICH ARE NON-COMPENSABLE
AND WHICH CANNOT BE SO CHARGED."  BUT JUDGE GIBSON HELD OTHERWISE AND I
THINK VERY PROPERLY CONCLUDED, "IN THE INSTANT CASE NO SUFFICIENT FUND
HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE DEPOSITING STOCKHOLDERS AGAINST WHICH ANY
ALLOWANCE TO CLAIMANTS COULD BE CHARGED.  THE JUDGMENT, IF ANY WERE
ENTERED, WOULD BE DIRECTLY AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDERS."  THIS HE THOUGHT
"SEEMS TO STRETCH THE INTERPRETATIVE POWERS OF THE COURT TOO FAR." 

THUS DENIED COMPENSATION ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS FOR SERVICES
ADMITTEDLY RENDERED FOR AND OF VALUE TO THESE STOCKHOLDERS, AND THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDING ITSELF WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THEIR
CONTRACT, THESE LAWYERS THEN WENT INTO THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK TO ENFORCE IT.  THEY NAMED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE AS SUCH AS
DEFENDANTS.  THIS WAS QUITE PROPER, FOR IT WAS THE "COMMITTEE" WHICH,
AS ESCROW AGENT, HELD THE STOCK IN QUESTION.  THE COMPLAINT ASKED
JUDGMENT THAT THE COMMITTEE DELIVER UP THE PROPERTY OF WHICH IT WAS
STAKEHOLDER BUT ASKED NO JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COMMITTEE THAT WOULD BE
PAYABLE FROM ANY OTHER FUND OR PROPERTY IN ITS HANDS.  THE SUIT ALSO
MADE PARTIES DEFENDANT THE INDIVIDUAL PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS IN WHOSE
BEHALF THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE AND WHO BECAME PARTIES TO IT INDIVIDUALLY
BY PUTTING UP THEIR STOCKS AND AGAINST WHOM JUDGE GIBSON HELD HE HAD NO
POWER IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING TO ENTER JUDGMENT.  THIS ACTION IS
THUS AGAINST BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND THE COMMITTEE. 

HOWEVER, THE QUESTION WHICH WAS CERTIFIED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS,
AND WHICH IS ALL THAT WE TOOK FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI TO THAT COURT,
IGNORES ANY QUESTION OF INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY AND ONLY ASKS, "HAS THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THIS ACTION TO RECOVER FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS COMMITTEE WHICH ARE NOT COMPENSABLE OUT OF THE ASSETS OF
THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE, IN A CHAPTER X REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER THE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY ACT?" 

READ LITERALLY, I AGREE THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT ABSTRACT QUESTION IS
"NO."  A COMMITTEE ORGANIZED UNDER THE ACT IS A FIDUCIARY WHOSE
COMMITMENTS ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE COURT.  I DO NOT
THINK IT CAN UNDERTAKE, OUT OF ITS TRUST FUNDS OR OUT OF STOCKS
DEPOSITED ONLY UNDER THE GENERAL AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR BY THE ACT, TO
PAY FOR SERVICES THAT ARE BEYOND THE POWER OF THE COURT TO SUPERVISE. 

BUT THIS COURT, IF I READ ARIGHT, HOLDS THAT NO CONTRACT BETWEEN ANY
PERSON AND A LAWYER FOR SERVICES IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING CAN FIX
THE BASIS OR AMOUNT OF THE FEE EVEN IF SUCH FEES ARE NOT PAYABLE OUT OF
THE ESTATE OR OUT OF ANY FUNDS IN THE COURT'S CONTROL, BECAUSE "THE
STATUTE WAS DESIGNED TO POLICE THE RETURN WHICH ALL SECURITY HOLDERS
OBTAIN FROM REORGANIZATION PLANS.  THE NET RETURN CANNOT BE KEPT UNDER
SUPERVISION IF PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS EXPRESSED IN ESCROW AGREEMENTS ARE
TO CONTROL." 

I HAD NOT UNDERSTOOD THAT THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IN REORGANIZATION CASES
DISABLES ANYBODY, EVEN IF A STOCKHOLDER, FROM EMPLOYING HIS OWN LAWYER
ON SUCH TERMS AS HE SEES FIT TO FIX BY CONTRACT OR THAT IT DISABLES
LAWYERS FROM ACCEPTING SUCH RETAINERS.  TO INVALIDATE THEM, SO FAR AS
COMPENSATION IS CONCERNED, IS THE EFFECT AND, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE
INTENT OF THIS DECISION.  IF ONE PRIVATELY MAY RETAIN A LAWYER, I KNOW
OF NO REASON WHY HE MAY NOT FIX HIS FEE, CONTINGENT OR OTHERWISE, AND
SECURE THE PROMISED COMPENSATION BY PLEDGE OF STOCK IN THE COMPANY
BEING REORGANIZED, OR PAY THE FEE IN SUCH STOCK. 

I AM UNAWARE OF ANY PUBLIC INTERESTS PROTECTED BY THIS DENIAL OF THE
RIGHT TO HIRE ONE'S OWN COUNSEL FOR A FIXED OR DETERMINABLE FEE IN SUCH
CASES.  THE GOOD SERVED BY COURT SUPERVISION IN PREVENTING LAWYER RAIDS
ON FIDUCIARY FUNDS IS NOT ADVANCED BY THIS RULING.  THESE SHARES WERE
PUT UP BY INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDERS, PRESUMABLY MENTALLY COMPETENT
ADULTS, IN WHAT PROVED TO BE A GOOD BARGAIN, EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO
PERFORM IT, AND A WINDFALL IF THEY DO NOT.  ARE PEOPLE SITUATED AS THEY
WERE TO BE DISABLED FROM AGREEING UPON A FEE THAT WILL INDUCE COUNSEL
TO EXPOSE MISMANAGEMENT OF THE BANKRUPT OR THE TRUSTEE IN CASES WHERE,
AS HERE, THE CHANCES OF COMPENSATION OTHERWISE ARE DOUBTFUL?    THIS
COURT SEEMS TO RECOGNIZE UNFAIRNESS IN THE SITUATION IT IS CREATING AND
SUGGESTS THAT IT MAY BE REMEDIED BY A NEW APPLICATION FOR LARGER FEES
TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  BUT WE DO NOT TELL THE COURT WHAT TO DO WITH
THE NEW APPLICATION NOR WHERE IT WENT WRONG AS TO THE FORMER ONE. 
INDEED, WE COULD NOT TELL IT OF ITS MISTAKE, IF ANY, FOR WE HAVE ONLY
SCATTERED BITS OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE PREVIOUS
ORDER WAS MADE.  IF WE WOULD BUT PUT OURSELVES IN THE POSITION OF THAT
COURT, I THINK IT WILL AT ONCE APPEAR HOW IMPRACTICAL IS TODAY'S
DECISION. 

JUDGE GIBSON APPARENTLY AGREED THAT THE SERVICES FOR WHICH EITHER THE
ESTATE OR THE COMMITTEE, AS SUCH, SHOULD PAY ARE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED
BY THE ALLOWANCE OF $37,500.  THE REASON HE DID NOT ALLOW MORE WAS THAT
SERVICES ABOVE THAT VALUE WERE PERFORMED FOR NEITHER THE ESTATE NOR THE
COMMITTEE BUT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDERS WHO EMPLOYED AND AGREED
TO PAY THE LAWYERS.  DO WE, WITHOUT SEEING THE RECORD, REVERSE THIS
FINDING?  IF SO, DO WE HOLD THAT THE SERVICES JUDGE GIBSON ENUMERATED
AS NOT RENDERED FOR BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE OR THE COMMITTEE WERE
RENDERED FOR ONE OR THE OTHER INSTEAD OF FOR THE INDIVIDUALS?  OR DO WE
SAY THAT, EVEN IF SUCH SERVICES WERE RENDERED TO INDIVIDUALS, THE
ESTATE SHOULD PAY FOR THEM?  FROM WHAT FUND IS THE ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION WE ARE SUGGESTING TO BE PAID?  WOULD NOT OTHER PARTIES IN
INTEREST HAVE A JUST GRIEVANCE IF THE ESTATE OF THE BANKRUPT IS
BURDENED WITH PAYING FOR EXTRA-ESTATE SERVICES?  AND WHAT OTHER FUND IS
THERE IN REACH OF THE COURT'S ORDER? 

WHAT WE SEEM TO BE SAYING IS THAT AN ACT WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO GIVE THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT AMPLE POWERS TO SEE THAT NO IMPROPER FEES ARE CHARGED
ON THE ESTATE REALLY COMPELS IT TO MAKE THE ESTATE PAY FEES OF LAWYERS
FOR PRIVATE PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH REORGANIZATION.  I CANNOT FOLLOW
THIS. 

BUT IF WE DO NOT MEAN THEY SHALL BE PAID FROM THE ESTATE OR THE
COMMITTEE, JUDGE GIBSON HAS ALREADY POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO OTHER
FUND.  CAN THIS COURT SAY HE IS WRONG AND THAT WE KNOW OF ONE?  IT IS
SUGGESTED THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY MAKE AN ALLOWANCE TO COUNSEL
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SERVICES AND CHARGE THEM AGAINST THE ESCROWED
STOCK.  I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING WHICH GIVES THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
POWER TO ADJUDICATE THE CONTROVERSY, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A CONTRACT
ACTION BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDERS AND THEIR LAWYERS, MERELY
BECAUSE THE SERVICES INVOLVED APPEARING IN THE REORGANIZATION CASE. 
CLEARLY THE COURT IS HOLDING THAT THE CONTRACT IS NOT VALID INSOFAR AS
IT FIXED THE FEE.  IS IT THEN VALID AS BASIS FOR ALLOWING SOME FEE, BUT
INVALID AS TO THE ONE AGREED UPON?  IF ON QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS THE
ALLOWED FEE EXCEEDS THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE STOCK, MAY THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT GRANT A PERSONAL JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFICIENCY?  IF NOT, THE
CONTRACT IS GOOD TO LIMIT THE LAWYER'S FEE BUT NOT GOOD TO ASSURE
PAYMENT OF IT.  AND IF VALUABLE SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED UNDER THE
CONTRACT FOR WHICH AN ALLOWANCE MIGHT OTHERWISE BE PROPER, SHOULD IT BE
DENIED IF OTHER CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT ARE NOT FULFILLED? 

I AM UNABLE TO FIND ANY BASIS IN LAW FOR SAYING THAT THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT HAS ANYTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH A PRIVATE CONTRACT TO EMPLOY AND
PAY A LAWYER TO GUARD PERSONAL INTERESTS IN A REORGANIZATION CASE,
UNLESS IT IS SOUGHT TO CHARGE THE FEE AGAINST THE ESTATE, OR AGAINST
STOCK DEPOSITED UNDER A GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMITTEE FORMED
UNDER THE ACT.  THIS SITUATION INVOLVES NEITHER, BUT ONLY STOCK
SPECIALLY PLACED IN A STAKEHOLDER'S HANDS UNDER THE ESCROW CONTRACT
WITH COUNSEL. 

AN EXPERIENCED AND ABLE DISTRICT JUDGE KNEW ALL THE FACTS AND WE DO
NOT.  THE LAWYERS INVOLVED MADE A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE, AS SHOULD ANY
LAWYER WHO APPLIES TO THE COURT FOR AN ALLOWANCE.  JUDGE GIBSON
APPROVED THE FEES SO FIXED THAT THE ESTATE PAID ITS SHARE AND ONLY ITS
SHARE, WHICH SEEMS TO FULFILL THE PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL ACT. 

BUT HE SET APART CERTAIN ITEMS OF SERVICES FOR WHICH HE MADE NO
ALLOWANCE BECAUSE THEY WERE RENDERED FOR PRIVATE PARTIES.  THOSE
PARTIES HAD A CONTRACT AS TO WHAT, UNDER THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES,
SHOULD BE PAID FOR THOSE SERVICES.  JUDGE GIBSON LEFT THE CONTROVERSY
AS TO THAT CONTRACT TO THE STATE COURTS TO ADJUDICATE.  AN ACTION HAS
BEEN BROUGHT TO REQUIRE DELIVERY OF THE STOCK PUT IN ESCROW BY THE
INDIVIDUALS TO COMPENSATE THEIR LAWYERS.  THE ACTION SEEKS NO MONEY
JUDGMENT AND NO RELIEF THAT WOULD AFFECT OR COULD AFFECT THE ESTATE IN
THE HANDS OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

I SHOULD REMAND THE CASE TO THE COURTS OF NEW YORK FOR SUCH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS AS STATE LAW PROVIDES FOR ITS ADJUDICATION AND NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH OUR HOLDING THAT FIDUCIARY FUNDS CANNOT BE COMMITTED
EXCEPT BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



LA CROSSE TEL. CORP. V. WIS. BOARD, 336 U.S. 18 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 18-19, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1949.  - 251 WIS.
583, 30 N.W.2D 241, REVERSED. 


1.  A CERTIFICATION BY THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD OF A
UNION AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF
AN EMPLOYER ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH CERTIFICATION HAS
BEEN REVIEWED AND SUSTAINED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, HELD, IN
VIEW OF THE EFFECT OF THE CERTIFICATION UNDER THE STATE LAW, A "FINAL
JUDGMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AND
REVIEWABLE HERE, ALTHOUGH THE CERTIFICATION WAS NOT IN THE FORM OF A
COMMAND.  PP. 21-24. 

2.  IN A PROCEEDING UNDER STATE LAW, THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFIED THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PLANT AND TRAFFIC
DEPARTMENTS OF A TELEPHONE COMPANY HAD ELECTED TO COMBINE IN A SINGLE
BARGAINING UNIT AND HAD CHOSEN A CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATION AS THEIR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AND THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
OFFICE DEPARTMENT HAD ELECTED TO CONSTITUTE THEMSELVES AS A SEPARATE
UNIT AND HAD CHOSEN NOT TO HAVE ANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAD NOT UNDERTAKEN,
UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OR UNIT OF REPRESENTATION OF THE EMPLOYEES. 
THE COMPANY CONCEDEDLY WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE
INDUSTRY WAS ONE OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAD
CONSISTENTLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION.  HELD:  THE STATE BOARD'S
CERTIFICATION IS INVALID AS IN CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 330 U.S. 767, FOLLOWED.  PP. 24-26. 

3.  THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
NATIONAL BOARD UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS TO CEDE ITS JURISDICTION TO A
STATE AGENCY, DOES NOT REQUIRE A RESULT DIFFERENT FROM THAT HERE
REACHED.  PP. 26-27. 

LA CROSSE TELEPHONE CORP. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET
AL. 

NO. 38.  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 39, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL B-953, A.F. OF L. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
BOARD ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

THE APPELLANT TELEPHONE COMPANY AND THE APPELLANT UNION EACH BROUGHT
AN ACTION IN A STATE COURT TO SET ASIDE A CERTIFICATION BY THE
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD.  THE STATE CIRCUIT COURT HELD
THAT THE STATE BOARD WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE
CERTIFICATION.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED.  251 WIS. 583, 30
N.W.2D 241.  ON APPEALS TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 27. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES, HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), 43 STAT. 937, 45 STAT. 54, PRESENT THE QUESTION
WHETHER A CERTIFICATION OF A UNION BY THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS BOARD, WIS. STATS. 1947, CH. 111, AS THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF APPELLANT COMPANY,
CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29
U.S.C. SECS. 151 ET SEQ. 

PRIOR TO 1945 THE APPELLANT COMPANY RECOGNIZED THE APPELLANT UNION AS
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS PLANT AND TRAFFIC
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES.  THE COMPANY AND THE UNION ENTERED INTO A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH BY ITS TERMS WAS TO CONTINUE FROM
YEAR TO YEAR UNLESS TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY ON A SPECIFIED NOTICE. 
AT A TIME WHEN CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THAT AGREEMENT WERE BEING
RENEGOTIATED A RIVAL UNION, THE TELEPHONE GUILD, FILED A PETITION WITH
THE NATIONAL BOARD ASKING THAT IT CERTIFY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THESE EMPLOYEES.  BEFORE THE NATIONAL BOARD ACTED,
THE GUILD WITHDREW ITS PETITION AND FILED A PETITION WITH THE WISCONSIN
BOARD SEEKING THE SAME RELIEF. 

THE WISCONSIN BOARD HELD A HEARING AND DIRECTED THAT SEPARATE
ELECTIONS BE HELD AMONG THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PLANT, TRAFFIC, AND OFFICE
DEPARTMENTS OF THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY DESIRED TO BE
GROUPED IN A SINGLE UNIT OR IN DEPARTMENTAL UNITS AND WHAT
REPRESENTATIVE, IF ANY, THEY DESIRED TO ELECT.  AFTER THE ELECTION THE
WISCONSIN BOARD CERTIFIED THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PLANT AND TRAFFIC
DEPARTMENTS HAD ELECTED TO COMBINE IN A SINGLE BARGAINING UNIT AND HAD
CHOSEN THE GUILD AS THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AND
THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN THE OFFICE DEPARTMENT HAD ELECTED TO CONSTITUTE
THEMSELVES AS A SEPARATE UNIT AND HAD CHOSEN NOT TO HAVE ANY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. 

EACH APPELLANT BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE WISCONSIN COURTS TO HAVE THE
CERTIFICATION SET ASIDE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT, RELYING ON BETHLEHEM STEEL
CO. V. NEW YORK LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 330 U.S. 767, HELD THAT THE
WISCONSIN BOARD WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATION. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN REVERSED.  251 WIS. 583, 30 N.W.2D 241. 

FIRST.  WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH A CONTENTION THAT THE
CERTIFICATION OF THE WISCONSIN BOARD WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT IS NOT A "FINAL JUDGMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344.  THE ARGUMENT IS
THAT UNDER WISCONSIN LAW THE CERTIFICATION IS NO MORE THAN A REPORT ON
THE RESULTS OF AN INVESTIGATION MADE KNOWN TO THE PARTIES FOR SUCH USE
AS THEY MAY DESIRE, THAT NOTHING CAN BE DONE BY ANY STATE AGENCY TO
ENFORCE OBSERVANCE OF THE CERTIFICATION, THAT THE COMPANY CANNOT BE
REQUIRED TO BARGAIN WITH THE CERTIFIED UNION UNTIL AND UNLESS AN UNFAIR
PRACTICE CHARGE IS LODGED AGAINST IT, AND THAT IN SUCH PROCEEDING ALL
THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING CAN BE
RELITIGATED.  IF THAT CONTENTION IS CORRECT, THE CASE IS OF COURSE NOT
RIPE FOR THE INTERVENTION OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER.  SEE ROCHESTER
TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 130-131 AND CASES
CITED. 

BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE WISCONSIN LAW GIVES SUCH SLIGHT
FORCE TO THE CERTIFICATION.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE
REPRESENTATIVE CHOSEN BY THE EMPLOYEES SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE ONE FOR
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  SEC. 111.05(1).  PROVISION IS MADE
FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE A SECRET BALLOT OF THE EMPLOYEES AND TO CERTIFY
THE RESULTS THEREOF, WHENEVER A QUESTION ARISES CONCERNING THE
REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT.  SEC.
111.05(3).  AND THE STATUTE CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION:  "THE
BOARD'S CERTIFICATION OF THE RESULTS OF ANY ELECTION SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE FINDINGS INCLUDED THEREIN UNLESS REVIEWED IN THE
SAME MANNER AS PROVIDED BY SUBSECTION (8) OF SECTION 111.07 FOR REVIEW
OF ORDERS OF THE BOARD."  FN1 SEC. 111.05(3).  THE CERTIFICATION IN
THESE CASES HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND SUSTAINED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF
WISCONSIN.  WHILE THAT CERTIFICATION IS NOT IRREVOCABLE FOR ALL TIME,
FN2  IT FIXES A STATUS TO WHICH WISCONSIN PROVIDES A SANCTION.  FOR IT
IS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN WITH
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES.  FN3 SEC.
111.06(D).  AND SINCE SEC. 111.05(3) MAKES THE CERTIFICATION, SUBJECT
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, "CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE FINDINGS INCLUDED THEREIN,"
IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE CERTIFICATION CANNOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED IN
THAT PROCEEDING OR HEARD DE NOVO.  WE ARE POINTED TO NO WISCONSIN
AUTHORITY TO THE EFFECT THAT IT CAN BE. 

ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE WE ARE, INDEED, REFERRED TO ONLY ONE
WISCONSIN AUTHORITY AND THAT IS UNITED R. & W.D.S.E. V. WISCONSIN
BOARD, 245 WIS. 636, 15 N.W.2D 844.  BUT THAT CASE MERELY HELD THAT AN
ORDER OF THE WISCONSIN BOARD THAT A REFERENDUM OF EMPLOYEES BY SECRET
BALLOT BE HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN "ALL UNION" AGREEMENT WAS
DESIRED WAS NOT REVIEWABLE.  IT DID NOT DEAL WITH A CERTIFICATE WHICH
WAS IN FACT REVIEWED AND SUSTAINED BY THE SAME COURT AS IN THE PRESENT
CASES.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE OPINION BELOW, THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT SAID THAT THE "MERE FACT-FINDING PROCEDURE" OF THE WISCONSIN
BOARD IN ASCERTAINING THE FACTS, IN ORDERING AN ELECTION, AND IN
CERTIFYING THE RESULT "CONSTITUTES ACTION IN MERELY ITS MINISTERIAL
CAPACITY."  251 WIS. AT 592, 30 N.W.2D AT 245.  BUT THAT COMMENT WAS
DIRECTED TO THE LACK OF DISCRETION WHICH THE STATE STATUTE HAD LEFT THE
WISCONSIN BOARD.  IT HAD NO RELEVANCE TO THE EFFECT OF THE
CERTIFICATION UNDER WISCONSIN LAW. 

WHILE THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD SEEMS READIER THAN
SOME TO REEXAMINE THE STATUS OF A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE ON THE
GROUND THAT IT HAS LOST THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY,  FN4  IT
NEVERTHELESS APPEARS TO BE WISCONSIN LAW THAT A CERTIFICATION IS
BINDING UPON AN EMPLOYER SO LONG AS IT STANDS.  FN5 

WE ASSUMED IN ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORP. V. KELLEY, 330 U.S. 767,
THAT THE CERTIFICATION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE,
SUSTAINED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, WAS A FINAL JUDGMENT,
ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT OF ITSELF COMMAND ACTION BUT LIKE THE CERTIFICATION
HERE WAS ENFORCIBLE IN LAW ONLY BY ANOTHER PROCEEDING.  FN6 

WE THINK THAT IS THE CORRECT VIEW.  THE FACT THAT WISCONSIN'S
CERTIFICATION WAS NOT IN THE FORM OF A COMMAND IS IMMATERIAL.  SEE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401, 408.  IT WAS
NOT AN ABSTRACT DETERMINATION OF STATUS.  NOR WAS IT MERELY AN INTERIM
ADJUDICATION IN AN UNCOMPLETED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  IT ESTABLISHED
LEGAL RIGHTS AND RELATIONSHIPS.  IT TOLD THE EMPLOYER, SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW, WITH WHOM HE COULD NOT REFUSE TO NEGOTIATE WITHOUT
RISK OF SANCTIONS.  THE CHARACTER OF THE CERTIFICATION WAS THEREFORE
SUCH AS TO MAKE IT REVIEWABLE UNDER THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR
EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER. 

SECOND.  THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE WISCONSIN
BOARD COULD EXERCISE JURISDICTION HERE UNTIL AND UNLESS THE NATIONAL
BOARD UNDERTOOK TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
OR UNIT OF REPRESENTATION OF THESE EMPLOYEES.  THAT VIEW WAS URGED ON
US IN THE LIKE CASES COMING HERE UNDER A NEW YORK STATUTE.  IN
BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, AT 776,
WE REJECTED THAT ARGUMENT, SAYING: 

"THE STATE ARGUES FOR A RULE THAT WOULD ENABLE IT TO ACT UNTIL THE
FEDERAL BOARD HAD ACTED IN THE SAME CASE.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT A
CASE BY CASE TEST OF FEDERAL SUPREMACY IS PERMISSIBLE HERE."  WE WENT
ON TO POINT OUT THAT THE NATIONAL BOARD HAD JURISDICTION OF THE
INDUSTRY IN WHICH THOSE PARTICULAR EMPLOYERS WERE ENGAGED AND HAD
ASSERTED CONTROL OF THEIR LABOR RELATIONS IN GENERAL.  BOTH THE STATE
AND THE FEDERAL STATUTES HAD LAID HOLD OF THE SAME RELATIONSHIP AND HAD
PROVIDED DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR ITS REGULATION.  SINCE THE EMPLOYERS
IN QUESTION WERE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE NATIONAL BOARD, WE
THOUGHT THE SITUATION TOO FRAUGHT WITH POTENTIAL CONFLICT TO PERMIT THE
INTRUSION OF THE STATE AGENCY, EVEN THOUGH THE NATIONAL BOARD HAD NOT
ACTED IN THE PARTICULAR CASES BEFORE US. 

THOSE CONSIDERATIONS CONTROL THE PRESENT CASES.  THIS EMPLOYER IS
CONCEDEDLY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND THE INDUSTRY IS ONE OVER
WHICH THE NATIONAL BOARD HAS CONSISTENTLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION.  FN7
THE WISCONSIN ACT PROVIDES THAT A MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES IN A SINGLE
CRAFT, DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OR PLANT OF AN EMPLOYER MAY ELECT TO
CONSTITUTE THAT GROUP A SEPARATE BARGAINING UNIT.  SEC. 111.02(6).  THE
FEDERAL ACT LEAVES THAT MATTER TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.  FN8
WHEN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE STATE BOARD PUTS ITS IMPRIMATUR ON A
PARTICULAR GROUP AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT OF EMPLOYEES, IT
FREEZES INTO A PATTERN THAT WHICH THE FEDERAL ACT HAS LEFT FLUID.  FN9
IN PRACTICAL EFFECT THE TRUE MEASURE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL SCHEME OF REGULATION MAY NOT BE FOUND ONLY IN THE COLLISION
BETWEEN THE FORMAL ORDERS THAT THE TWO BOARDS MAY ISSUE.  WE KNOW THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE ALSO DISPOSES OF CASES IN WHICH NO ORDER HAS
BEEN ENTERED.  DISPOSITION OF CONTROVERSIES ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM A FORMAL BASIS WILL OFTEN REFLECT THE ATTITUDES OF
THE NATIONAL BOARD WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN REDUCED TO ORDERS IN THOSE
SPECIFIC CASES.  A CERTIFICATION BY A STATE BOARD UNDER A DIFFERENT OR
CONFLICTING THEORY OF REPRESENTATION MAY THEREFORE BE AS READILY
DISRUPTIVE OF THE PRACTICE UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT AS IF THE ORDERS OF
THE TWO BOARDS MADE A HEAD-ON COLLISION.  THESE ARE THE VERY REAL
POTENTIALS OF CONFLICT WHICH LEAD US TO ALLOW SUPREMACY  FN10  TO THE
FEDERAL SCHEME EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NOT YET BEEN APPLIED IN ANY FORMAL
WAY TO THIS PARTICULAR EMPLOYER.  THE PROBLEM OF EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATION IS A SENSITIVE AND DELICATE ONE IN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS.  THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHICH BOARD IS MASTER AND HOW LONG IT
WILL REMAIN SUCH CAN BE AS DISRUPTIVE OF PEACE BETWEEN VARIOUS
INDUSTRIAL FACTIONS AS ACTUAL COMPETITION BETWEEN TWO BOARDS FOR
SUPREMACY.  WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE WISDOM OF THE POLICY UNDERLYING
THE BETHLEHEM CASE AND ADHERE TO IT. 

THE RESULT WE HAVE REACHED IS NOT CHANGED BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 136, 29 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SECS. 141 ET
SEQ. THAT ACT GRANTS THE NATIONAL BOARD AUTHORITY UNDER SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS TO CEDE ITS JURISDICTION TO A STATE AGENCY.  FN11  BUT IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY CESSION OF JURISDICTION TO
WISCONSIN BY THE NATIONAL BOARD IN REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS.  FN12
REVERSED. 

FN1  THAT REVIEW EXTENDS TO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AFFECTING LEGAL
RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND PRIVILEGES WHETHER AFFIRMATIVE OR NEGATIVE IN FORM,
SEC. 227.15, AND IS ALLOWED ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED AND DIRECTLY AFFECTED
BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.  SEC. 227.16. 

FN2  SECTION 111.05(4) PROVIDES "THE FACT THAT ONE ELECTION HAS BEEN
HELD SHALL NOT PREVENT THE HOLDING OF ANOTHER ELECTION AMONG THE SAME
GROUP OF EMPLOYES, PROVIDED THAT IT APPEARS TO THE BOARD THAT
SUFFICIENT REASON THEREFOR EXISTS." 

FN3  SECTION 111.06(D) ALSO PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN EMPLOYER FILES
WITH THE BOARD A PETITION REQUESTING A DETERMINATION AS TO MAJORITY
REPRESENTATION "HE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE REFUSED TO BARGAIN UNTIL
AN ELECTION HAS BEEN HELD AND THE RESULT THEREOF HAS BEEN CERTIFIED TO
HIM BY THE BOARD."  BUT WE ARE POINTED TO NO AUTHORITY HOLDING THAT
WHERE A CERTIFICATION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE, A RECERTIFICATION CAN BE
DEMANDED.  SECTION 111.05(3), INDEED, MAKES THE CERTIFICATION
"CONCLUSIVE." 

FN4  SEE SEC. 111.05(4), SUPRA, NOTE 2; RYDAHL'S LAUNDERERS &
CLEANERS, WIS. E.R.B. DECISION NO. 677(1944); UAW-CIO AND FOUR WHEEL
DRIVE AUTO CO., WIS. E.R.B. DECISION NO. 687(1944); CF. AUA AND GARTON
TOY CO., WIS. E.R.B. DECISION NO. 1238(1947); KILLINGSWORTH, STATE
LABOR RELATIONS ACTS 161-62(1948). 

FN5  SEE IN RE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS, 2 L.R.R.M.
894(WIS.  COUNTY CIR. CT., 1938); IN RE CHARLES ABRESCH CO., 3 L.R.R.M.
639(WIS.  E.R.B. DECISION NO. 744, 1938); CF. WISCONSIN BOARD V. HALL
GARAGE CORP., 18 L.R.R.M. 2419(WIS.  COUNTY CIR. CT., 1946). 

FN6  IN ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORP. V. KELLEY, SUPRA, SUIT HAD BEEN
BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO RESTRAIN THE
STATE LABOR BOARD FROM DETERMINING A REPRESENTATIVE OF PLAINTIFF'S
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE PLAINTIFF. 
UNDER NEW YORK LAW THE LABOR BOARD HAD AUTHORITY TO HOLD ELECTIONS TO
DETERMINE EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION AND TO CERTIFY THE RESULTS.  30
MCKINNEY'S CONS.  LAWS SEC. 705.  CERTIFICATION IN ITSELF, AS IN THE
INSTANT CASE, DID NOT IMPOSE A LEGAL PENALTY.  SUIT HAD TO BE BROUGHT
IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH RESULT.  30
IBID. SEC. 706.  REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  30 IBID. SEC. 704(6).  EVEN
THOUGH THE NEW YORK LAW DID NOT STATE, AS DOES THE WISCONSIN LAW, THAT
CERTIFICATION BY THE BOARD WAS CONCLUSIVE, WE CONSIDERED A DECISION OF
THE NEW YORK COURT APPROVING THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE BOARD TO
CONDUCT A REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING A FINAL JUDGMENT RIPE FOR OUR
CONSIDERATION. 

FN7  SEE ELYRIA TELEPHONE CO., 58 N.L.R.B. 402; NEWARK TELEPHONE CO.,
59 N.L.R.B. 1408; PEOPLE'S TELEPHONE CORP., 69 N.L.R.B. 540; OHIO
TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., 72 N.L.R.B. 488. 

THE APPELLANT COMPANY OPERATES A TELEPHONE BUSINESS IN LA CROSSE
COUNTY, WISCONSIN.  IT IS A SUBSIDIARY OF THE CENTRAL TELEPHONE CO.,
WHOSE SUBSIDIARIES OPERATE TELEPHONE BUSINESSES IN MANY STATES.  THE
CONCESSION THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS BASED
ON THE INTERSTATE TELEPHONE CALLS WHICH IT HANDLES. 

FN8  "THE BOARD SHALL DECIDE IN EACH CASE WHETHER, IN ORDER TO INSURE
TO EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND
TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND OTHERWISE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF
THIS ACT, THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING SHALL BE THE EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT UNIT, PLANT UNIT, OR
SUBDIVISION THEREOF." 

FN9  MOREOVER, THE WISCONSIN ACT EXCLUDES FROM THE DEFINITION OF
EMPLOYEE THOSE WORKING IN A SUPERVISORY CAPACITY.  SEC. 111.02(3). 
THEY WERE, HOWEVER, INCLUDED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE FEDERAL ACT AS
THEN WRITTEN.  PACKARD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 330 U.S. 485.  THE
DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WISCONSIN ACT ALSO EXCLUDES CERTAIN
STRIKERS AND OTHERS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN AT WORK FOR CERTAIN PERIODS. 
SEC. 111.02(3).  THESE LATTER EXCEPTIONS LIKEWISE DO NOT IN THE MAIN
SQUARE WITH THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE CONTAINED IN SEC. 2(3) OF THE
FEDERAL ACT. 

FN10  U.S. CONST. ART. VI. 

FN11  SECTION 10(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS AMENDED,
NOW PROVIDES IN PART:  "THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED BY AGREEMENT WITH ANY
AGENCY OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY TO CEDE TO SUCH AGENCY JURISDICTION
OVER ANY CASES IN ANY INDUSTRY (OTHER THAN MINING, MANUFACTURING,
COMMUNICATIONS, AND TRANSPORTATION EXCEPT WHERE PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL IN
CHARACTER) EVEN THOUGH SUCH CASES MAY INVOLVE LABOR DISPUTES AFFECTING
COMMERCE, UNLESS THE PROVISION OF THE STATE OR TERRITORIAL STATUTE
APPLICABLE TO THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH CASES BY SUCH AGENCY IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR HAS
RECEIVED A CONSTRUCTION INCONSISTENT THEREWITH." 

FN12  THE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 27, 1948, BETWEEN THE NATIONAL BOARD
AND THE WISCONSIN BOARD IS RESTRICTED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SEC.
14(B) OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  SEE 22 L.R.R. 268. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, HAVING JOINED IN THE DISSENT IN BETHLEHEM STEEL
CO. V. NEW YORK LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 330 U.S. 767, SEE P. 777,
ACQUIESCES IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE. 
..END :













COMMISSIONER V. JACOBSON, 336 U.S. 28 


NOS. 32 AND 33.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1949. 
164 F.2D 594, REVERSED. 


IN 1938, 1939 AND 1940, AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER, IN STRAITENED
FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES BUT SOLVENT, PURCHASED AT LESS THAN THEIR FACE
AMOUNT CERTAIN SECURED NEGOTIABLE BONDS ORIGINALLY ISSUED BY HIM AT
FACE VALUE FOR CASH.  SOME OF THE PURCHASES WERE DIRECTLY FROM THE
BONDHOLDERS, OTHERS WERE THROUGH AGENTS OF THE TAXPAYER OR OF THE
BONDHOLDERS.  ALTHOUGH EACH SELLER KNEW THAT THE BONDS WERE BEING
BOUGHT BY OR FOR THE MAKER, THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT ANY
SELLER INTENDED TO TRANSFER OR RELEASE SOMETHING FOR NOTHING OR TO MAKE
A GIFT OF ANY PART OF HIS CLAIM, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM MAKING A SALE
AND ASSIGNMENT OF HIS WHOLE CLAIM FOR THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE PRICE. 
HELD:  UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 AND OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, THE GAIN TO THE TAXPAYER FROM EACH PURCHASE WAS
INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH HE MADE THE PURCHASE,
AND WAS NOT EXCLUDIBLE AS A "GIFT" UNDER SEC. 22(B)(3) OF THAT ACT AND
CODE.  PP. 29-52. 

1.  THE TAXPAYER'S GAINS FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS MUST BE INCLUDED IN
HIS GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 22(A).  PP. 38-47. 

(A)  ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE TAXPAYER REALIZED AN IMMEDIATE
FINANCIAL GAIN FROM HIS PURCHASE OF THESE BONDS AT A DISCOUNT.  PP. 38
41. 

(B)  THE AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 22(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BY THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1939, THOUGH RELATING TO CORPORATE TAXPAYERS, ARE
PERSUASIVE THAT A NATURAL PERSON IS OBLIGED TO INCLUDE IN HIS GROSS
INCOME UNDER SEC. 22(A) GAINS OF THE KIND HERE INVOLVED.  PP. 41-47. 

2.  GAINS OF THIS TYPE ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE TAXPAYER'S GROSS
INCOME BY THE GENERAL EXEMPTION OF "GIFTS" FROM TAXATION PRESCRIBED BY
SEC. 22(B)(3).  PP. 47-52. 

(A)  THE PROVISION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF
"GIFTS" FROM GROSS INCOME IS TO BE CONSTRUED WITH RESTRAINT IN THE
LIGHT OF THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO TAX INCOME COMPREHENSIVELY.  PP. 47
49. 

(B)  ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE
BONDHOLDERS INTENDED TO TRANSFER OR DID TRANSFER SOMETHING FOR
NOTHING.  PP. 50-51. 

(C)  THE DECISION IN THIS CASE IS NOT RESTED ON THE FACT THAT THE
SALE WAS MADE BEFORE MATURITY OR THAT THE SELLER MAY HAVE RECEIVED
VALID CONSIDERATION FOR A TOTAL RELEASE OF HIS CLAIM BECAUSE THE
DEBTOR'S PAYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE MATURITY.  P. 51. 

(D)  HELVERING V. AMERICAN DENTAL CO., 318 U.S. 322, DISTINGUISHED. 
P. 51. 

3.  THE SITUATION IN EACH TRANSACTION IS A FACTUAL ONE, TURNING UPON
WHETHER THE TRANSACTION IS IN FACT A TRANSFER OF SOMETHING FOR THE BEST
PRICE AVAILABLE OR IS A TRANSFER OR RELEASE OF ONLY A PART OF A CLAIM
FOR CASH AND OF THE BALANCE "FOR NOTHING."  PP. 51-52. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. JACOBSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

FROM A DECISION OF THE TAX COURT REDETERMINING DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME
TAX OF THE RESPONDENT, 6 T.C. 1048, THE COMMISSIONER AND THE RESPONDENT
BOTH PETITIONED FOR REVIEW.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED AGAINST THE
COMMISSIONER ON BOTH PETITIONS.  164 F.2D 594.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 866.  REVERSED, P. 52. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS DECISION APPLIES THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX TO GAINS DERIVED BY A
DEBTOR FROM HIS PURCHASE OF HIS OWN OBLIGATIONS AT A DISCOUNT AND HIS
CONSEQUENT CONTROL OVER THEIR DISCHARGE.  IT PRESENTS THE SPECIFIC
QUESTION WHETHER A SOLVENT NATURAL PERSON, IN STRAITENED FINANCIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, MUST INCLUDE IN HIS GROSS INCOME FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX
PURPOSES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN (1) THE FACE AMOUNT OF HIS PERSONAL
INDEBTEDNESS AS THE MAKER OF SECURED BONDS, ORIGINALLY ISSUED BY HIM AT
FACE VALUE FOR CASH, AND (2) A LESSER AMOUNT PAID BY HIM FOR THEIR
PURCHASE.  THE DEBTOR'S OBLIGATIONS WERE NOT UNPAID BALANCES OF
PURCHASE PRICES WHICH COULD BE READ-JUSTED BY THE DISCHARGE OF THE
OBLIGATIONS.  THE PROCEEDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS WERE NOT TRACED INTO
IDENTIFIABLE LOSSES OFFSETTING THE DEBTOR'S REALIZED GAINS FROM THE
DISCHARGE OF THESE OBLIGATIONS.  EACH SELLER KNEW THAT THE BONDS HE
SOLD WERE BEING BOUGHT BY OR FOR THE MAKER OF THEM.  IN EACH SALE THE
BONDHOLDER SOUGHT TO MINIMIZE HIS PROBABLE LOSS BY GETTING AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FROM THE MAKER OF THE BONDS AS THE
ONE AVAILABLE PURCHASER OF THEM.  THE MAKER OF THE BONDS, AT THE SAME
TIME, SOUGHT TO REDUCE HIS OBLIGATIONS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BY BUYING
THE BONDS AS CHEAPLY AS HE COULD.  WHILE EACH SELLER THUS KNEW THAT HE
WAS RECEIVING FROM THE MAKER OF THE BONDS LESS THAN THEIR FACE AMOUNT,
THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY SELLER INTENDED TO TRANSFER OR RELEASE
SOMETHING FOR NOTHING OR TO MAKE A GIFT OF ANY PART OF HIS CLAIM, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM MAKING A SALE AND ASSIGNMENT OF HIS WHOLE CLAIM FOR
THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE PRICE.  THE MAKER THUS REALIZED A GAIN FROM EACH
PURCHASE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOUND CORRECTLY THAT,
FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, THE MAKER MUST INCLUDE THAT GAIN IN
HIS GROSS INCOME FOR THE TAX YEAR IN WHICH HE MADE THE PURCHASE. 

THE RESPONDENT, LEWIS F. JACOBSON, IN 1938, 1939 AND 1940 RESIDED,
PRACTICED LAW AND OWNED OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.  IN 1943 THE PETITIONER, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, FOUND DEFICIENCIES IN THE INCOME TAXES PAID BY THE RESPONDENT
FOR EACH OF THOSE YEARS.  THOSE DEFICIENCIES TOTALED $3,967.97, OF
WHICH ABOUT $2,500 ARE NOW BEFORE US.  THIS CASE AROSE FROM THE
COMMISSIONER'S ADDITION TO THE REPORTED GROSS INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT
OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN (1) THE PRINCIPAL FACE AMOUNTS OF CERTAIN
LEASEHOLD BONDS EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND (2) THE LESSER AMOUNTS
PAID BY HIM FOR THEIR PURCHASE.  SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE BY OR FOR HIM
SUBSTANTIALLY AS FOLLOWS:  (CHART OMITTED) 

UPON THE RESPONDENT'S PETITION, THE TAX COURT REVIEWED THE
COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS AND - 

"HELD THAT, AS TO THE BONDS ACQUIRED BY PETITIONER (JACOBSON, THE
RESPONDENT HERE) THROUGH DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE BONDHOLDERS, HE
IS NOT TAXABLE ON THE GAIN THEREFROM UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF HELVERING V.
AMERICAN DENTAL CO., 318 U.S. 322; HELD, FURTHER, THAT PETITIONER IS
TAXABLE ON THE GAIN REALIZED IN THE PURCHASES FROM BONDHOLDERS THROUGH
THE SECRETARY OF THE BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE AND THE SECURITY DEALERS,
UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES V. KIRBY
LUMBER CO., 284 U.S. 1, HE BEING AT ALL TIMES SOLVENT."  6 T.C. 1048. 

SIX OF THE SIXTEEN JUDGES DISSENTED AND FIVE OF THOSE SIX VOTED TO
UPHOLD THE COMMISSIONER COMPLETELY, ON THE GROUND THAT NONE OF THE
TRANSACTIONS WERE GRATUITOUS.  6 T.C. 1048, 1057-1059.  THE
COMMISSIONER PETITIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT TO
REVIEW THAT PART OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH WAS UNFAVORABLE TO HIM.  THE
RESPONDENT DID THE SAME AS TO THE REMAINDER OF THE JUDGMENT.  THAT
COURT DECIDED AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER ON BOTH PETITIONS.  IT HELD
THAT, BECAUSE THE RESPECTIVE SELLERS KNEW THAT THE BONDS THEY SOLD WERE
BEING BOUGHT BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENT, AS THE MAKER OF THEM, ANY EXCESS
OF THE FACE VALUES OF THE BONDS OVER THEIR SALES PRICES SHOULD BE
TREATED AS GIFTS TO THE RESPONDENT AND AS EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX.  164
F.2D 594.  DUE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES IN THE UNSETTLED FIELD
OF THE TAXABILITY OF GAINS DERIVED BY A DEBTOR FROM HIS DISCHARGE OF
HIS OWN OBLIGATIONS AT A DISCOUNT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH
CASES.  333 U.S. 866.  WE HAVE HEARD AND DECIDED THEM TOGETHER. 

THE FURTHER MATERIAL FACTS, AS FOUND BY THE TAX COURT OR AS SHOWN BY
UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

BY PURCHASES MADE IN 1922 AND 1923 THE RESPONDENT ACQUIRED A 99-YEAR
LEASE, RUNNING FROM MAY 1, 1914, TOGETHER WITH A TWO-STORY STORE,
OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDING ON THE LEASED PREMISES IN CHICAGO.  ON OR
ABOUT MAY 1, 1925, HE BORROWED $90,000 FROM A NEARBY BANK AND, TOGETHER
WITH HIS WIFE, EXECUTED IN RETURN 200 BONDS SECURED BY A TRUST DEED
MORTGAGING TO THAT BANK THE LEASEHOLD AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON. 
THE BONDS BORE INTEREST AT 6 1/2 PER CENT PER ANNUM AND WERE FOR THE
TOTAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $90,000, WITH $2,500 MATURING SEMIANNUALLY UP
TO AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 1, 1931.  THE BALANCE OF THE BONDS, TOTALLING
$57,500, WERE TO MATURE MAY 1, 1932.  THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDS WERE USED
BY THE RESPONDENT TO RETIRE THE EXISTING ENCUMBRANCE, OF AN UNDISCLOSED
AMOUNT, ON THE PROPERTY, PAY FOR A $16,250 ADDITION MADE BY HIM TO THE
BUILDING ON THE LEASEHOLD AND PAY THE NECESSARY BROKERAGE COMMISSION OF
APPROXIMATELY 10 PER CENT OF THE LOAN, PLUS THE COST OF PRINTING THE
BONDS AND OTHER EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE LOAN.  A REMAINING
"SMALL SURPLUS" WAS PAID TO THE RESPONDENT.  IN 1925 THE RESPONDENT,
FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DEPRECIATION, ALLOCATED $76,580.56 TO THE
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE NEW ADDITION, AND $40,000 TO THE LEASEHOLD,
OUT OF THEIR TOTAL COST TO HIM OF $116,580.56. 

THE BONDS DUE ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 1931, WERE PAID AT OR ABOUT
THEIR MATURITIES.  THE DEBTOR HAS NEVER BEEN IN DEFAULT ON ANY INTEREST
PAYMENT.  HOWEVER, AFTER THE TRUSTEE BANK CLOSED ON JUNE 8, 1931, A
COMMITTEE WAS FORMED TO REPRESENT THE HOLDERS OF THIS ISSUE OF BONDS. 
MAY 1, 1932, THE RESPONDENT SECURED FROM THE COMMITTEE AND INDIVIDUAL
BONDHOLDERS A FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE MATURITY ON ALL OF THE BONDS
AND A REDUCTION IN THE INTEREST RATE FROM 6 1/2 TO 5 PER CENT. DURING
THIS EXTENSION THE RESPONDENT ISSUED HIS CHECKS IN THE NAMES OF THE
RESPECTIVE BONDHOLDERS TO COVER INTEREST DUE THEM.  THE CHECKS WERE
DELIVERED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE, THE
RESPONDENT KEPT HIMSELF FULLY INFORMED AS TO THE IDENTITY AND LOCATION
OF THE RESPECTIVE BONDHOLDERS AND THEY, IN TURN, FREQUENTLY VISITED HIM
TO LEARN ABOUT HIS FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THAT OF THE TRUSTEED
PROPERTY.  IN 1937 HE PROCURED A FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE MATURITY OF
THE BONDS TO MAY 1, 1942, AND, IN THAT CONNECTION, PAID 10 PER CENT ON
THE PRINCIPAL OF EACH BOND, LEAVING A TOTAL OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF
$51,750 PAYABLE ON THESE BONDS. 

THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT IN 1938 THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
LEASEHOLD AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON WAS $80,000 AND THAT IN 1939 AND
1940 IT WAS THE SAME, LESS ACCRUED DEPRECIATION.  THE RESPONDENT
TESTIFIED THAT HE VALUED IT AT CONSIDERABLY LESS, EVEN AS LOW AS TWICE
THE AMOUNT OF ITS GROSS INCOME, OR ABOUT $32,000.  THE GROSS AND NET
INCOME FROM THE TRUSTEED PROPERTY, AFTER DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES,
DEPRECIATION AND ALSO THE INTEREST ON THE BONDS, WAS: 

YEAR            GROSS INCOME  NET INCOME 

1938.......... $16,550.00   $1,233.95 

1939..........     16,520.75    1,107.11 

1940..........     15,578.50    1,719.41 

THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED FROM HIS LAW PRACTICE AND OTHER SOURCES THE
FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROSS INCOME:  1938, $38,390.85; 1939, $35,644.78;
AND 1940, $35,279.59.  THE TAX COURT SAID THAT:  "ON THE STRENGTH OF
THE SHOWING OF PETITIONER'S ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, WE FIND PETITIONER
WAS SOLVENT DURING EACH OF THE TAXABLE YEARS 1938, 1939, AND 1940."  6
T.C. AT P. 1053.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID:  "THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT
THE TAXPAYER WAS SOLVENT DURING EACH OF THE TAXABLE YEARS 1938, 1939
AND 1940, AND WE ACCEPT THE FINDING, ALTHOUGH A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD
MAKES IT QUITE APPARENT THAT HE WAS IN STRAITENED FINANCIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES."  164 F.2D AT P. 596. 

IN HIS PETITION TO THE TAX COURT THE RESPONDENT STATED, AND IT HAS
NOT BEEN DISPUTED, THAT THE VALUE OF THE LEASEHOLD AND BUILDING HAD
SHARPLY DEPRECIATED SINCE HIS ACQUISITION OF THEM.  THE NEIGHBORHOOD
HAD CHANGED, STORES WERE VACANT OR PAID LESS THAN HALF OF THEIR
PREVIOUS RENTS, FROM 1932 TO 1938 THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN ITS COST TO HIM, CONDITIONS WERE GETTING WORSE
AND HE FELT CERTAIN THAT HE WOULD SUSTAIN A LARGE LOSS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROPERTY.  FN1 

THE TAX COURT'S FINDINGS DESCRIBE EACH BOND SALE THAT IS MATERIAL. 
SOME WERE TO THE RESPONDENT PERSONALLY AND SOME TO HIS LAW PARTNER,
ACTING ON HIS BEHALF.  THE REST WERE MADE INDIRECTLY TO THE RESPONDENT
THROUGH BROKERS OR THROUGH THE BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE.  THE TAX COURT
SAID THAT EACH SALE THAT WAS MADE THROUGH A BROKER OR THE COMMITTEE WAS
CLOSELY AKIN TO AN OPEN MARKET TRANSACTION.  IT MADE NO FINDING THAT
ANY SELLER INTENDED TO TRANSFER OR RELEASE SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.  IT
REFERRED TO ALL OF THE RESPONDENT'S ACQUISITIONS OF BONDS AS
PURCHASES.  APPARENTLY THE BONDS WERE PAYABLE TO BEARER AND THE TAX
COURT REFERRED TO THEM AS NEGOTIABLE BONDS.  EACH SELLER MADE A
COMPLETE TRANSFER TO THE RESPONDENT OF ALL THE SELLER'S RIGHTS TO OR
UNDER THE BONDS.  EACH SELLER THUS DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF HIS OWN
LOSS ON HIS INVESTMENT.  EACH KNEW THAT THE MAKER OF THE BOND WOULD
ACQUIRE OR SECURE CONTROL OVER IT AND WOULD THUS BE ENABLED TO REDUCE
HIS LIABILITIES BY ITS FACE AMOUNT.  EXCEPT FOR THE 10 PER CENT PAID ON
EACH BOND IN 1937, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY BONDHOLDER AT ANY TIME
RECEIVED ANY PARTIAL PAYMENT ON ANY BOND OR CONSENTED TO A REDUCTION OF
THE INDEBTEDNESS EVIDENCED BY THE BOND.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT
ANY OF THE RESPONDENT'S PAYMENTS MADE IN 1938, 1939 OR 1940 WERE MADE
SPECIFICALLY IN PARTIAL REDUCTION OF THE RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION AS
EVIDENCED BY A BOND OR THAT ANY BONDHOLDER SPECIFICALLY DISCHARGED HIM
FROM ANY PART OF THE BALANCE OF THAT OBLIGATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT
DOES APPEAR THAT EACH OF SUCH PAYMENTS WAS MADE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE
TRANSFER TO THE RESPONDENT OF TITLE TO THE ENTIRE BOND.  EACH BOND WAS
DELIVERED TO THE RESPONDENT EVIDENCING HIS OBLIGATION FOR ITS FULL
ORIGINAL FACE AMOUNT, LESS ONLY THE 10 PER CENT PAYMENT MADE, ON
ACCOUNT, IN 1937.  AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, THE RESPONDENT APPARENTLY
STILL HELD THE PURCHASED BONDS "INTACT."  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REPUDIATED ANY DISTINCTION MADE BY THE TAX COURT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES
BETWEEN THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT SALES TO THE RESPONDENT.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS BASED ITS DECISION ON EACH SELLER'S KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WAS
TRANSFERRING HIS BOND TO THE MAKER OF IT.  THUS FAR WE AGREE.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF INTENT BY THE
RESPECTIVE SELLERS TO TRANSFER OR RELEASE SOMETHING FOR NOTHING, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM AN INTENT TO GET THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE PRICE FOR
THEIR ENTIRE CLAIMS, TREATED THE RESPONDENT'S GAIN FROM EACH PURCHASE
AS EXEMPT FROM THE TAXATION IMPOSED BY SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1938  FN2  AND OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, BECAUSE THAT COURT FELT
ITSELF OBLIGED BY PRECEDENT TO CLASSIFY EACH SUCH GAIN AS A "GIFT"
UNDER SEC. 22(B)(3) OF THAT ACT  FN3  AND CODE.  WE HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT
THOSE SECTIONS DO NOT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,
PERMIT THAT RESULT. 

THE FIRST TEST OF THE TAXABILITY OF SUCH GAINS RELATES TO THEIR
INCLUSION WITHIN THE GROSS INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER UNDER SEC. 22(A),
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS MADE FROM IT BY SEC.
22(B).  THE OTHER TEST CONSISTS OF THE APPLICATION TO SUCH GAINS OF ANY
OF THOSE SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS.  WE HOLD THAT THESE GAINS COME WITHIN
SEC. 22(A) BUT NOT WITHIN ANY OF THE EXCLUSIONS FROM GROSS INCOME
STATED IN SEC. 22(B). 

THE RESPONDENT REALIZED AN IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL GAIN FROM HIS PURCHASE
OF THESE BONDS AT A DISCOUNT.  BY THAT ACQUISITION HE WAS ENABLED, AT
WILL, TO CANCEL THEM AND THUS DISCHARGE HIMSELF FROM LIABILITY TO PAY
THEM.  WHILE THE RECORD INDICATES THAT HE HELD THEM "INTACT,"
APPARENTLY WITHOUT CREDITING RELEASED INDEBTEDNESS ON THEM OR OTHERWISE
PHYSICALLY CANCELLING THEM IN WHOLE OR IN PART (EXCEPT FOR THE 10 PER
CENT PAYMENTS MADE BY HIM ON EACH BOND IN 1937), HIS POSSESSION OF THEM
AND CONTROL OVER THEM IS NOT DISPUTED AND THE PETITIONER HAS PROPERLY
TREATED THEIR ACQUISITION AS CONSTITUTING A REDUCTION OF THE
RESPONDENT'S DEBTS TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR FACE AMOUNT. AT THE TIME OF
THEIR PURCHASE THE RESPONDENT WAS UNCONDITIONALLY AND PRIMARILY BOUND
TO PAY THEIR FACE AMOUNTS ON MAY 1, 1942, WITH INTEREST.  ALTHOUGH IN
STRAITENED FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES HE WAS SOLVENT, BOTH BEFORE AND
AFTER HIS ACQUISITION OF THE BONDS, AND THE BONDS APPARENTLY WERE
COLLECTIBLE FROM HIM IN FULL THROUGH APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDINGS.  HIS ACQUISITION, AND CONSEQUENT CONTROL OVER THE
DISCHARGE OF THESE BONDS, THEREFORE, IMPROVED HIS NET WORTH BY THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEIR FACE AMOUNT AND THE PRICE HE PAID FOR THEM. 
IT ALSO RELIEVED HIM OF THE SEMIANNUAL INTEREST PAYMENTS ON THEM OF 5
PER CENT PER ANNUM.  HIS ACQUISITION OF THEM LIKEWISE REDUCED THE FACE
AMOUNT OF THE LIEN HELD BY OTHERS UPON HIS LEASEHOLD PROPERTY.  IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE HE HAD RECEIVED THE FULL FACE AMOUNT IN CASH FOR THESE
BONDS SO THAT HIS REPURCHASE OF THEM FOR 50 PER CENT, OR LESS, OF THAT
AMOUNT REFLECTED A SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT WHICH HE HAD DERIVED FROM THE
USE OF THAT BORROWED MONEY.  FN4  THESE WERE NOT PURCHASE MONEY BONDS. 
THE GAINS FROM THEIR CANCELLATION WERE NOT AKIN TO REDUCTIONS IN
BALANCES DUE ON THE PRICES OF PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY.  THE
RESPECTIVE SELLERS OF THE BONDS BORE NO RELATION TO THE RESPONDENT
OTHER THAN THAT OF CREDITORS.  THE GAINS DERIVED BY THE RESPONDENT
THROUGH THESE PURCHASES WERE COMPARABLE TO THOSE HE WOULD HAVE REALIZED
IF HE HAD PURCHASED, AT THE SAME DISCOUNT, LIKE BONDS ISSUED BY A THIRD
PARTY AND HAD RESOLD THEM AT FULL FACE VALUE OR HAD TURNED THEM IN AT
FULL VALUE AS A CREDIT UPON SOME OTHER INDEBTEDNESS OF THE RESPONDENT. 
HIS GAINS WERE COMPARABLE IN THEIR NATURE TO THOSE WHICH HE WOULD HAVE
REALIZED IF A THIRD PARTY, PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT, HAD PAID OFF HIS
INDEBTEDNESS ON THESE BONDS FOR HIM TO THE EXTENT OF THE DISCOUNT AT
WHICH HE PURCHASED THEM.  FN5  THE NATURE OF THE GAIN DERIVED BY A
DEBTOR FROM HIS PURCHASE OF HIS OWN OBLIGATIONS AT A DISCOUNT IS THE
SAME WHETHER THE DEBTOR IS A CORPORATION OR A NATURAL PERSON.  THAT
SUCH A GAIN COMES WITHIN THE MEANING OF GROSS INCOME AS USED IN FEDERAL
INCOME TAX LAWS WAS LONG AGO RECOGNIZED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S
REGULATIONS AND BY THIS COURT IN THE LEADING CASES IN THIS FIELD.  FN6
UNITED STATES V. KIRBY LUMBER CO., 284 U.S. 1; HELVERING V. AMERICAN
CHICLE CO., 291 U.S. 426.  SIMILAR PROVISIONS APPEARED IN THE
REGULATIONS IN EFFECT IN 1938-1940.  FN7 

IF SEC. 22(A) STOOD ALONE, WITHOUT THE EXCLUSIONS STATED IN SEC.
22(B), THE GAIN REALIZED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE UNQUESTIONABLY
WOULD CONSTITUTE GROSS INCOME FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES.  THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 22(B) AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT DO NOT CHANGE THAT
RESULT.  ON THE CONTRARY, THEY CONFIRM IT. 

A STRIKING DEMONSTRATION OF THE MEANING GIVEN BY CONGRESS TO SEC.
22(A) APPEARS IN ITS AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 22(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1939, C. 247, 53 STAT. 862, APPROVED JUNE
29, 1939.  FN8  THESE AMENDMENTS THEN APPLIED ONLY TO TAXABLE YEARS
BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1938, AND ONLY TO DISCHARGES OF
INDEBTEDNESS OCCURRING ON OR AFTER JUNE 29, 1939.  THE VALUE OF THESE
AMENDMENTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT SO MUCH IN THE
EXCLUSIONS WHICH THEY PRESCRIBE, AS IN THE CLEAR LIGHT WHICH THEIR OWN
LIMITATIONS SHED UPON SECS. 22(A) AND 22(B) TO THE EXTENT THAT THOSE

UNLESS THOSE SECTIONS AS THEY STOOD IN 1938 MEANT THAT THE GAINS
DERIVED BY A DEBTOR CORPORATION FROM ITS PURCHASES OF ITS OWN
OBLIGATIONS AT A DISCOUNT RESULTED IN GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 22(A),
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THESE 1939 AMENDMENTS.  FURTHERMORE, AS THE
STATUS OF NATURAL PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS IS NOT DIFFERENTIATED IN
SEC. 22(A), THE NEW AMENDMENTS MAKE IT EQUALLY CLEAR THAT, INASMUCH AS
THEY RELIEVE ONLY CERTAIN CORPORATIONS FROM THE TAXABILITY OF GAINS
DERIVED FROM THEIR PURCHASES OF THEIR OWN OBLIGATIONS AT A DISCOUNT, IT
MUST BE THAT SIMILAR GAINS DERIVED BY NATURAL PERSONS ALSO REMAIN
TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 22(A).  THE STRENGTH OF THIS REFLECTION OF THE
AMENDMENTS UPON THE UNAMENDED SECTIONS IS EMPHASIZED BY THEIR TEMPORARY
CHARACTER.  THE AMENDMENTS EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT THEY SHALL NOT APPLY
TO A TAXABLE YEAR BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1942.  THIS INDICATES
THAT, FOR ITS PERMANENT PROGRAM, CONGRESS REGARDED SUCH GAINS AS
PROPERLY TAXABLE AND IT INDICATES THAT THE AMENDMENTS WERE INTENDED TO
AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY CHANGES IN POLICY AND WERE NOT CLARIFICATIONS OF
EXISTING OR CONTINUING TAX POLICIES.  WHILE THE TIME LIMIT ORIGINALLY
PRESCRIBED HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED, THE EXTENSIONS HAVE BEEN
MADE BY SEPARATE ACTS, EACH FOR A PERIOD OF ONE TO THREE YEARS.  FN9
THIS REPEATED EMPHASIS UPON THEIR TEMPORARY CHARACTER INCREASES THE
CONTRAST WHICH THEY MAKE WITH THE PERMANENT POLICY OF CONGRESS AS TO
THE GENERAL TAXABILITY OF THIS KIND OF GAINS UNDER SEC. 22(A). 

THESE AMENDMENTS DESCRIBE GAINS CORRESPONDING ALMOST PRECISELY WITH
THOSE DERIVED BY THE RESPONDENT FROM HIS TRANSACTIONS IN THE INSTANT
CASE BUT THE AMENDMENTS APPLY ONLY TO CORPORATE GAINS.  THEY THUS
INDICATE THAT SUCH GAINS WERE RECOGNIZED AS NOT HAVING BEEN EXCLUDED
FROM GROSS INCOME BY SEC. 22(B)(3) OR BY ANY OTHER SECTION.  IF THEY
HAD BEEN SO EXCLUDED THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED FOR THE NEW
AMENDMENTS TO EXCLUDE THOSE WHICH THEY DID, EVEN TEMPORARILY. 
FURTHERMORE, THOSE GAINS ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME FOR ALL
PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS.  SECTION 22(B)(9) EXCLUDES THEM ONLY
FROM THE ORDINARY INCOME TAXES FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH THE
TAXPAYING CORPORATION PURCHASES ITS OWN SECURITIES AT A DISCOUNT.  FN10
FURTHERMORE, THE EXCLUSION UNDER SEC. 22(B)(9), AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
OTHER EXCLUSIONS UNDER SEC. 22(B), IS AVAILABLE ONLY UPON THE EXPRESS
CONDITION THAT THE TAXPAYER MAKES AND FILES AT THE TIME OF FILING THE
RETURN ITS CONSENT TO THE REGULATIONS  FN11  PRESCRIBED UNDER SEC.
113(B)(3)  FN12  THEN IN EFFECT.  THAT SECTION AND SUCH REGULATIONS
REQUIRE THAT, WHERE ANY AMOUNT IS EXCLUDED BY A CORPORATION FROM ITS
GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 22(B)(9) ON ACCOUNT OF ITS DISCHARGE OF ITS OWN
INDEBTEDNESS, THE WHOLE OR A PART OF SUCH AMOUNT SHALL BE APPLIED TO
THE REDUCTION OF THE BASIS OF PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER DURING ANY
PORTION OF THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH DISCHARGE OCCURS.  THE AMOUNT
TO BE SO APPLIED AND THE PROPERTIES TO WHICH THE REDUCTION SHALL BE
ALLOCATED ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY REGULATIONS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY.  THIS MEANS THAT SUCH A GAIN, INSTEAD OF BEING
COMPLETELY EXCLUDED AS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION, IS POSTPONED, FOR INCOME
TAX PURPOSES, UNTIL A LATER DATE WHEN THE PROPERTY IS DISPOSED OF IN A
WAY WHICH WILL PERMIT ANOTHER FORM OF ASCERTAINMENT OF THE TAXPAYER'S
GAIN OR LOSS IN ITS DISPOSITION.  FN13 THESE PROVISIONS THEREFORE
DEMONSTRATE THAT CONGRESS, AT LEAST SINCE 1939, HAS PRESCRIBED THAT, IN
ORDER FOR A CORPORATE TAXPAYER TO EXCLUDE FROM ITS GROSS INCOME UNDER
SEC. 22(A) CERTAIN GAINS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DISCHARGE WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR OF THE TAXPAYER'S INDEBTEDNESS EVIDENCED BY BONDS, THE
TAXPAYER MUST CONSENT TO THE SUBSEQUENT USE OF THOSE GAINS IN REDUCING
THE BASIS OF PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER DURING ANY PORTION OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH DISCHARGE OCCURRED.  A CORPORATE TAXPAYER
WITH GAINS MEETING THESE SPECIFICATIONS BUT NOT FILING THE REQUIRED
CONSENT WOULD BE OBLIGED TO INCLUDE THOSE GAINS IN ITS GROSS INCOME,
UNLESS ADDITIONAL FACTS BROUGHT THEM UNDER SOME OTHER EXEMPTION.  A
FORTIORI, A NATURAL PERSON, SUCH AS THE RESPONDENT IN THE INSTANT CASE,
WHO HAS DERIVED GAINS PRECISELY WITHIN THESE SPECIFICATIONS BUT WHO, AS
A NATURAL PERSON, IS INELIGIBLE TO FILE THE REQUIRED CONSENT IS OBLIGED
TO INCLUDE THOSE GAINS IN HIS GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 22(A).  IT
REMAINS, THEREFORE, TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE ARE FACTS IN THIS CASE
WHICH BRING THIS RESPONDENT'S TRANSACTIONS WITHIN ANY EXCLUSION OTHER
THAN THAT STATED IN SEC. 22(B)(9).  FN14 

THE ONLY PROVISION FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THESE TYPES OF GAINS FROM THE
RESPONDENT'S GROSS INCOME THAT IS PRESENTED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS
THE GENERAL EXEMPTION OF GIFTS FROM TAXATION PRESCRIBED BY SEC.
22(B)(3).  FN15  THIS WAS APPLIED BY THIS COURT IN FAVOR OF A TAXPAYER
IN HELVERING V. AMERICAN DENTAL CO., 318 U.S. 322, AS WELL AS BY THE
COURT BELOW IN THE INSTANT CASE.  BOTH THE GENERAL PROVISION FOR
TAXATION OF INCOME AND THIS PROVISION FOR THE EXCLUSION OF GIFTS FROM
GROSS INCOME, FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, HAVE BEEN IN THE FEDERAL INCOME
TAX ACTS IN SUBSTANTIALLY THEIR PRESENT FORM SINCE THE REVENUE ACT OF
1916.  FN16  THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS IS STRIKING.  THE
INCOME TAXED IS DEXCRIBED IN SWEEPING TERMS AND SHOULD BE BROADLY
CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO TAX INCOME
COMPREHENSIVELY.  THE EXEMPTIONS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE SPECIFICALLY
STATED AND SHOULD BE CONSTRUED WITH RESTRAINT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAME
POLICY.  CONGRESS COULD HAVE EXCLUDED FROM THE GROSS INCOME OF ALL
TAXPAYERS THE GAINS DERIVED BY DEBTORS EITHER FROM THEIR ACQUISITIONS
OF THEIR OWN OBLIGATIONS AT A DISCOUNT AND THEIR CONSEQUENT CONTROL
OVER THEM, OR FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE RELEASES FROM ALL OR PART OF SUCH
OBLIGATIONS BY THEIR RESPECTIVE CREDITORS UPON THE DEBTOR'S PAYMENT TO
THE CREDITOR OF SOMETHING LESS THAN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DEBT. 
CONGRESS, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, HAS BEEN COGNIZANT
OF THIS ISSUE AND OF ITS POWER TO MEET IT AS STATED, BUT IT HAS CHOSEN
TO EXTEND SUCH RELIEF ONLY ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED RESTRICTED AND
TEMPORARY BASIS AND ONLY IN THE CASE OF CORPORATIONS.  IN ITS TREATMENT
OF THE ISSUE CONGRESS ALSO HAS REQUIRED THE CORPORATE TAXPAYER'S
CONSENT TO AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR A REDUCTION OF THE CORPORATION'S
BASIS OF PROPERTY VALUES TO BE USED IN LATER DETERMINATIONS OF ITS
GAINS OR LOSSES.  THIS SPECIAL TREATMENT IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM THE
TOTAL EXCLUSION OF A GAIN RESULTING FROM AN EXEMPT GIFT.  IF SUCH GAINS
WERE ALREADY EXEMPTED AS GIFTS UNDER SEC. 22(B)(3), AS REPRESENTING
SOMETHING TRANSFERRED TO THE DEBTOR FOR NOTHING, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN
NO NEED FOR SEC. 22(B)(9).  THE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN IS THAT SUCH
TRANSFERS AS ARE DESCRIBED IN SEC. 22(B)(9) COULD NOT, WITHOUT MORE,
QUALIFY AS EXEMPT GIFTS UNDER SEC. 22(B)(3).  THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF
THE ACQUISITION, BY A NATURAL PERSON, OF HIS OWN OBLIGATIONS AS
DEBTOR.  THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE PRESENT A SITUATION QUITE
SIMILAR TO ONE CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 22(B)(9) EXCEPT THAT THE TAXPAYER
HERE IS A NATURAL PERSON.  THIS EMPHASIZES THE TAXABILITY OF THE GAINS
BEFORE US. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE RELATION BETWEEN THE BONDHOLDER AND THE
RESPONDENT MAY BE ASSUMED IN EACH TRANSACTION TO HAVE BEEN ONE IN WHICH
THE ULTIMATE PARTIES WERE KNOWN TO EACH OTHER TO BE SUCH.  THERE WAS NO
SUGGESTION IN THE EVIDENCE OR THE FINDINGS THAT ANY BONDHOLDER WAS
ACTING FROM ANY INTEREST OTHER THAN HIS OWN.  EACH TRANSACTION WAS A
SALE.  THE SELLER SOUGHT TO GET AS HIGH A PRICE AS HE COULD FOR THE
BOND AND THE BUYER SOUGHT TO PAY AS LOW A PRICE AS HE COULD FOR THE
SAME BOND.  IF THE TRANSACTION HAD BEEN COMPLETELY ON THE OPEN MARKET
THROUGH A STOCK EXCHANGE, THE CONDUCT AND INTENT OF EACH PARTY COULD
HAVE BEEN THE SAME AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN LITTLE, IF ANY, BASIS FOR
ANY CLAIM THAT THE RESPONDENT'S GAIN WAS NOT TAXABLE INCOME.  THE MERE
FACT THAT THE SELLER KNEW THAT HE WAS SELLING TO THE MAKER OF THE BOND
AS HIS ONLY AVAILABLE MARKET DID NOT CHANGE THE SALE INTO A GIFT.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY, THE INTENT OF THE SELLER MAY BE
ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN TO GET ALL HE COULD FOR HIS ENTIRE CLAIM. 
ALTHOUGH THE SALES PRICE WAS LESS THAN THE FACE OF THE BOND AND LESS
THAN THE ORIGINAL ISSUING PRICE OF THE BOND, THERE WAS NOTHING TO
INDICATE THAT THE SELLER WAS NOT GETTING ALL THAT HE COULD FOR ALL THAT
HE HAD.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE EVIDENCE OR FINDINGS TO INDICATE THAT
HE INTENDED TO TRANSFER OR DID TRANSFER SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.  THE
FORM OF THE TRANSACTION EMPHASIZED THIS RELATIONSHIP.  THE SELLER
ASSIGNED THE ENTIRE BOND TO HIS PURCHASER.  THE SELLER DID NOT FIRST
RELEASE THE MAKER FROM A PART OF THE MAKER'S OBLIGATION AND, HAVING
MADE THE MAKER A GIFT OF THAT RELEASE, THEN SELL HIM THE BALANCE OF THE
BOND OR VICE VERSA.  IF THE SELLER ACTUALLY HAD INTENDED TO GIVE THE
MAKER SOME GIFT THE NATURAL REFLECTION OF THAT GIFT WOULD HAVE BEEN A
CREDIT ON THE FACE OF THE BOND OR AT LEAST SOME RECORD OR TESTIMONY
EVIDENCING THE RELEASE.  THIS IS NOT SAYING THAT THE FORM OF THE
TRANSACTION IS CONCLUSIVE.  ASSUMING THAT THE EXTENSION OF THE MATURITY
OF THE BONDS IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS BINDING ON THE CREDITOR, WE DO NOT
REST THIS CASE UPON THE FACT THAT THE SALE WAS MADE BEFORE MATURITY OR
THAT THE SELLER MAY HAVE RECEIVED VALID CONSIDERATION FOR A TOTAL
RELEASE OF HIS CLAIM BECAUSE THE DEBTOR'S PAYMENT WAS MADE BEFORE
MATURITY.  IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT A BONDHOLDER MIGHT MAKE A GIFT OF
AN ENTIRE BOND TO ANYONE, INCLUDING THE MAKER OF IT.  THE FACTS AND
FINDINGS IN THIS CASE DO NOT ESTABLISH ANY SUCH INTENT OF THE SELLER TO
MAKE A GIFT IN CONTRADICTION OF THE NATURAL IMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM
THE SALES AND ASSIGNMENTS WHICH HE MADE.  IT IS CONCEIVABLE, ALTHOUGH
HARDLY LIKELY, THAT A BONDHOLDER, IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS
AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS RELEASE OF HIS DEBTOR, MIGHT HAVE SOLD PART OF
HIS CLAIMS ON THE BONDS HE HELD AT THE FULL FACE VALUE OF THOSE PARTS
AND THEN HAVE MADE A GIFT OF THE REST OF HIS CLAIMS ON THOSE BONDS TO
THE SAME DEBTOR "FOR NOTHING."  IT IS THAT KIND OF EXTRAORDINARY
TRANSACTION THAT THE RESPONDENT ASKS US, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO READ
INTO THE SIMPLE SALES WHICH ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE AND FROM WHICH HE
DERIVED FINANCIAL GAINS.  WE ARE UNABLE TO DO SO ON THE FINDINGS BEFORE
US.  CF. BOGARDUS V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 34. 

THE SITUATION IN EACH TRANSACTION IS A FACTUAL ONE.  IT TURNS UPON
WHETHER THE TRANSACTION IS IN FACT A TRANSFER OF SOMETHING FOR THE BEST
PRICE AVAILABLE OR IS A TRANSFER OR RELEASE OF ONLY A PART OF A CLAIM
FOR CASH AND OF THE BALANCE "FOR NOTHING."  THE LATTER SITUATION IS
MORE LIKELY TO ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH A RELEASE OF AN OPEN ACCOUNT
FOR RENT OR FOR INTEREST, AS WAS FOUND TO HAVE OCCURRED IN HELVERING V.
AMERICAN DENTAL CO., SUPRA, THAN IN THE SALE OF OUTSTANDING SECURITIES,
EITHER OF A CORPORATION AS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 22(B)(9), OR OF A NATURAL
PERSON AS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE.  FOR THESE REASONS WE HOLD THAT THE
COMMISSIONER WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING A TAXABLE GAIN, RATHER THAN AN
EXEMPT GIFT, IN EACH OF THE TRANSACTIONSBEFORE US.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR
FURTHER ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  IN HIS PETITION TO THE TAX COURT, THE RESPONDENT, IN DESCRIBING
THE SALE OF BONDS TO HIM AT A DISCOUNT IN 1939, SAID: 

"IT WAS SELF INTEREST AND GOOD BUSINESS JUDGMENT EXERCISED BY ALL
PRUDENT PERSONS TO TAKE CASH SETTLEMENTS, WHEN OTHERWISE GREATER LOSSES
MIGHT BE INCURRED.  I HAVE DONE THAT VERY THING MYSELF, AND HAVE
ADVISED CLIENTS TO DO SO IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  MOST REAL ESTATE
BONDS IN CHICAGO WERE SELLING FROM 5C TO 25C ON THE DOLLAR IN 1932 TO
1940." 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE RESPONDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN SOLVENT
BEFORE, AS WELL AS AFTER, HIS REALIZATION OF THE GAINS IN QUESTION. 
THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS PURCHASED BY HIM WAS SECURED BY THE MORTGAGE
OF HIS LEASEHOLD PROPERTY WHICH PROPERTY HAD A FAIR MARKET VALUE
SUBSTANTIALLY IN EXCESS OF THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE BONDS.  THE RECORD
FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR A CLAIM THAT THE RESPONDENT
HAD SUFFERED LOSSES WHICH, FOR TAX PURPOSES, OFFSET HIS GAINS FROM HIS
PURCHASE OF THE BONDS.  LITTLE OF THE $90,000 ORIGINALLY RECEIVED BY
HIM FOR THE BONDS WAS USED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY.  THERE IS NO FINDING
OR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHOWING SPECIFICALLY HOW THOSE FUNDS WERE
INVESTED.  EVEN IF THEY ARE TRACED, IN PART, INTO THE ADDITION MADE TO
THE BUILDING ON THE LEASEHOLD PREMISES AND INTO THE DISCHARGE OF THE
THEN EXISTING ENCUMBRANCE ON THOSE PREMISES, THE TOTAL SO USED IS NOT
SHOWN AND THE SHRINKAGE IN THE VALUE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS IS NOT
CLEARLY ASCERTAINED IN THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION.  THE RATIO OF THE
LOSS IN VALUE OF THE LEASEHOLD PROPERTY INDICATED BY THE TAX COURT
FINDINGS IS ABOUT 32 PER CENT OF ITS COST IN 1925 BUT THIS LOSS IS
MERELY BASED UPON ESTIMATES.  THE RESPONDENT CLAIMS A LARGER SHRINKAGE
BUT THERE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT ASCERTAINMENT OF IT TO PERMIT
CONSIDERATION OF ITS USE AS AN OFFSET TO THE RESPONDENT'S GAINS IN
1938, 1939 OR 1940.  SEE 2 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION,
SEC. 11.20 AND N. 99(1942). 

FN2  "SEC.  22.  GROSS INCOME. 

"(A)  GENERAL DEFINITION.  - 'GROSS INCOME' INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY
SOURCE WHATEVER.  ..."  52 STAT. 457. 

THIS WAS RE-ENACTED AS SEC. 22(A), I.R.C., 53 STAT. 9, AND AMENDED IN
A MANNER NOT MATERIAL HERE IN 53 STAT. 574-575, 26 U.S.C. (1940 ED.) 
SEC.  22(A).  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 APPLIED TO THE RESPONDENT'S
INCOME IN 1938 AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE TO THAT IN 1939 AND 1940. 

FN3 "SEC.  22.  GROSS INCOME. 

     .         .         .     .         . 

"(B)  EXCLUSIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.  - THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL NOT
BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER
THIS TITLE: 

     .  .         .         .         . 

"(3)  GIFTS, BEQUESTS, AND DEVISES.  - THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED
BY GIFT, BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE (BUT THE INCOME FROM SUCH
PROPERTY SHALL BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME);" 

     .         .         .         .         . 52 STAT. 458. 

THIS WAS RE-ENACTED AS SEC. 22(B)(3), I.R.C., 53 STAT. 10, 26 U.S.C.
(1940 ED.)  SEC.  22(B)(3), WITHOUT MATERIAL CHANGE. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA, SHOWING THE VARIED USES TO WHICH THE
RESPONDENT APPLIED THESE PROCEEDS AND SHOWING THAT IT IS NOT
PRACTICABLE IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE HIS LOSSES FROM HIS RESULTING
INVESTMENTS, AND MUCH LESS TO OFFSET THEM AGAINST HIS GAINS NOW AT
ISSUE.  HIS TAX BENEFITS FROM THOSE LOSSES ARE THUS POSTPONED UNTIL
SOME SUCH OCCASION AS THE SALE OF THE PROPERTIES REFLECTING THEM MAKES
IT POSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN THE LOSSES CLEARLY. 

FN5  SUCH DISCHARGES OF A TAXPAYER'S DEBTS BY PAYMENTS MADE FOR HIS
BENEFIT ARE REALIZABLE INCOME TO HIM.  IN DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S.
1, 9, THIS COURT SAID: 

"THE QUESTION IS ONE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  WE THINK THAT THE
DEFINITIONS OF GROSS INCOME (REVENUE ACTS, 1926, SEC. 213; 1928, SEC.
22) ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER INCOME OF THAT DESCRIPTION.  THEY ARE TO
BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENT INTENT OF THE CONGRESS 'TO
USE ITS POWER TO THE FULL EXTENT.'  IRWIN V. GAVIT, 268 U.S. 161;
HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS BANK, 293 U.S. 84, 89.  WE HAVE HELD THAT
INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY A TAXPAYER, WHEN, PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT, A DEBT
OR OTHER OBLIGATION WAS DISCHARGED BY ANOTHER FOR HIS BENEFIT.  THE
TRANSACTION WAS REGARDED AS BEING THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE AS IF THE MONEY
HAD BEEN PAID TO THE TAXPAYER AND HE HAD TRANSMITTED IT TO HIS
CREDITOR.  OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716; UNITED
STATES V. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD, 279 U.S. 732." 

FN6  "...  BY THE REVENUE ACT OF (NOVEMBER 23,) 1921, C. 136, SEC.
213(A) GROSS INCOME INCLUDES 'GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM
ANY SOURCE WHATEVER,' AND BY THE TREASURY REGULATIONS AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 1303, THAT HAVE BEEN IN FORCE THROUGH REPEATED REENACTMENTS, 'IF
THE CORPORATION PURCHASES AND RETIRES ANY OF SUCH BONDS AT A PRICE LESS
THAN THE ISSUING PRICE OR FACE VALUE, THE EXCESS OF THE ISSUING PRICE
OR FACE VALUE OVER THE PURCHASE PRICE IS GAIN OR INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE
YEAR.'  ARTICLE 545(1)(C) OF REGULATIONS 62, UNDER REVENUE ACT OF
1921.  SEE ARTICLE 544(1)(C) OF REGULATIONS 45, UNDER REVENUE ACT OF
1918; ARTICLE 545(1)(C) OF REGULATIONS 65, UNDER REVENUE ACT OF 1924;
ARTICLE 545(1)(C) OF REGULATIONS 69, UNDER REVENUE ACT OF 1926; ARTICLE
68(1)(C) OF REGULATIONS 74, UNDER REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  WE SEE NO
REASON WHY THE REGULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS A CORRECT
STATEMENT OF THE LAW. 

"...  THE DEFENDANT IN ERROR HAS REALIZED WITHIN THE YEAR AN
ACCESSION TO INCOME, IF WE TAKE WORDS IN THEIR PLAIN POPULAR MEANING,
AS THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN HERE."  UNITED STATES V. KIRBY LUMBER CO., 284
U.S. 1, 2-3. 

FN7  "ART.  22(A)-14.  CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS.  - (A)  IN
GENERAL.  - THE CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, MAY
RESULT IN THE REALIZATION OF INCOME.  IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AN INDIVIDUAL
PERFORMS SERVICES FOR A CREDITOR, WHO IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF CANCELS
THE DEBT, INCOME IN THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT IS REALIZED BY THE DEBTOR AS
COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES.  A TAXPAYER REALIZES INCOME BY THE
PAYMENT OR PURCHASE OF HIS OBLIGATIONS AT LESS THAN THEIR FACE VALUE. 
... *75P 

"ART. 22(A)-18.  SALE AND PURCHASE BY CORPORATION OF ITS BONDS.  -
(1)(A)  IF BONDS ARE ISSUED BY A CORPORATION AT THEIR FACE VALUE, THE
CORPORATION REALIZES NO GAIN OR LOSS.  (B)  IF THE CORPORATION
PURCHASES ANY OF SUCH BONDS AT A PRICE IN EXCESS OF THE ISSUING PRICE
OR FACE VALUE, THE EXCESS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OVER THE ISSUING PRICE
OR FACE VALUE IS A DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSE FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR.  (C)  IF,
HOWEVER, THE CORPORATION PURCHASES ANY OF SUCH BONDS AT A PRICE LESS
THAN THE ISSUING PRICE OR FACE VALUE, THE EXCESS OF THE ISSUING PRICE
OR FACE VALUE OVER THE PURCHASE PRICE IS GAIN OR INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE
YEAR."  TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1938. 

IN TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, PROMULGATED UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE, SECS. 19.22(A)-14 AND 19.22(A)-18 WERE IDENTICAL WITH THE ABOVE. 
EVEN TODAY THEY ARE THE SAME IN TREASURY REGULATIONS 111, PROMULGATED
UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS SECS. 29.22(A)-13 AND 29.22(A)-17. 

FN8  THESE AMENDMENTS ARE CONTAINED IN SEC. 215 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE ACT OF 1939, C. 247, 53 STAT. 862, 875-876, 26 U.S.C. (1940
ED.)  SECS.  22(B)(9), 113(B)(3).  THEY ADDED TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE SEC. 22(B)(9) AND SEC. 113(B)(3), BOTH RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE
OF INDEBTEDNESS.  A CROSS REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE LATTER IN THE
FORMER.  SUCH SEC. 215, IN ITS ENTIRETY, IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 215.  DISCHARGE OF INDEBTEDNESS. 

"(A)  INCOME FROM DISCHARGE OF INDEBTEDNESS.  - SECTION 22(B) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (RELATING TO EXCLUSIONS FROM GROSS INCOME) IS
AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THEREOF THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPH: 

"(9)  INCOME FROM DISCHARGE OF INDEBTEDNESS.  - IN THE CASE OF A
CORPORATION, THE AMOUNT OF ANY INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE DISCHARGE, WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR, OF ANY INDEBTEDNESS OF THE
TAXPAYER OR FOR WHICH THE TAXPAYER IS LIABLE EVIDENCED BY A SECURITY
(AS HEREINAFTER IN THIS PARAGRAPH DEFINED) IF - 

(A)  IT IS ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER, OR 

(B)  IT IS CERTIFIED TO THE COMMISSIONER BY ANY FEDERAL AGENCY
AUTHORIZED TO MAKE LOANS ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES TO SUCH
CORPORATION OR BY ANY FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE REGULATORY
POWER OVER SUCH CORPORATION, 

THAT AT THE TIME OF SUCH DISCHARGE THE TAXPAYER WAS IN AN UNSOUND
FINANCIAL CONDITION, AND IF THE TAXPAYER MAKES AND FILES AT THE TIME OF
FILING THE RETURN, IN SUCH MANNER AS THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, BY REGULATIONS PRESCRIBES, ITS CONSENT TO
THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 113(B)(3) THEN IN EFFECT.  IN
SUCH CASE THE AMOUNT OF ANY INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY
UNAMORTIZED PREMIUM (COMPUTED AS OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE TAXABLE YEAR
IN WHICH SUCH DISCHARGE OCCURRED) WITH RESPECT TO SUCH INDEBTEDNESS
SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME AND THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTION
ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY UNAMORTIZED DISCOUNT (COMPUTED AS OF THE FIRST DAY
OF THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH DISCHARGE OCCURRED) WITH RESPECT TO
SUCH INDEBTEDNESS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION.  AS USED IN THIS
PARAGRAPH THE TERM 'SECURITY' MEANS ANY BOND, DEBENTURE, NOTE, OR
CERTIFICATE, OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS, ISSUED BY ANY
CORPORATION, IN EXISTENCE ON JUNE 1, 1939.  THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT
APPLY TO ANY DISCHARGE OCCURRING BEFORE THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1939, OR IN A TAXABLE YEAR BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER
31, 1942. 

"(B)  BASIS REDUCED.  - SECTION 113(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
(RELATING TO THE ADJUSTED BASIS OF PROPERTY) IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT
THE END THEREOF THE FOLLOWING NEW PARAGRAPH: 

"(3)  DISCHARGE OF INDEBTEDNESS.  - WHERE IN THE CASE OF A
CORPORATION ANY AMOUNT IS EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME UNDER SECTION
22(B)(9) ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISCHARGE OF INDEBTEDNESS THE WHOLE OR A
PART OF THE AMOUNT SO EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME SHALL BE APPLIED IN
REDUCTION OF THE BASIS OF ANY PROPERTY HELD (WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER
THE TIME OF THE DISCHARGE) BY THE TAXPAYER DURING ANY PORTION OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH DISCHARGE OCCURRED.  THE AMOUNT TO BE SO
APPLIED (NOT IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT SO EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME,
REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ANY DEDUCTION DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION
22(B)(9)) AND THE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES TO WHICH THE REDUCTION SHALL BE
ALLOCATED, SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER REGULATIONS (PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY) IN EFFECT AT THE TIME
OF THE FILING OF THE CONSENT BY THE TAXPAYER REFERRED TO IN SECTION
22(B)(9).  THE REDUCTION SHALL BE MADE AS OF THE FIRST DAY OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH THE DISCHARGE OCCURRED EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF
PROPERTY NOT HELD BY THE TAXPAYER ON SUCH FIRST DAY, IN WHICH CASE IT
SHALL TAKE EFFECT AS OF THE TIME THE HOLDING OF THE TAXPAYER BEGAN. 

"(C)  TAXABLE YEARS TO WHICH APPLICABLE.  - THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY
THIS SECTION SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER
DECEMBER 31, 1938."  53 STAT. 875-876. 

SEE ALSO, TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, PROMULGATED UNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE: SEC. 19.22(B)(9)-1, INCOME FROM DISCHARGE OF
INDEBTEDNESS; SEC. 19.22(B)(9)-2, MAKING AND FILING OF CONSENT; SEC.
19.113(B)(3)-1, ADJUSTED BASIS:  DISCHARGE OF CORPORATE INDEBTEDNESS:
GENERAL RULE; SEC. 19.113(B)(3)-2, ADJUSTED BASIS:  DISCHARGE OF
CORPORATE INDEBTEDNESS:  SPECIAL CASES. 

FN9  WHILE SEC. 22(B)(9) ORIGINALLY DID NOT APPLY TO ANY DISCHARGE
OCCURRING IN A TAXABLE YEAR BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1942, 53 STAT.
875, THIS DATE WAS CHANGED TO DECEMBER 31, 1945, 56 STAT. 811; DECEMBER
31, 1946, 59 STAT. 574; DECEMBER 31, 1947, 60 STAT. 749; AND DECEMBER
31, 1949, 61 STAT. 179. 

FN10  THE EXCLUSIONS MADE BY SEC. 22(B) APPLY TO THE TAXES IMPOSED BY
THE INCOME TAX CHAPTER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THESE INCLUDE THE
ORDINARY INCOME TAXES BUT NOT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME TAXES SUCH AS THOSE
IMPOSED ON PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANIES OR THE EXCESS-PROFITS TAXES. 

FN11  TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, SUPRA, SECS. 19.113(B)(3)-1 AND 2
COVER THE SUBJECT.  THEY PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE PROCEDURE FOR
DECREASING THE COST OR OTHER BASIS OF A TAXPAYING CORPORATION'S
PROPERTIES AS A CONDITION OF ITS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SEC. 22(B)(9). 
THIS PROCEDURE APPLIES NOT ONLY IN "THE CASE OF INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED
TO PURCHASE SPECIFIC PROPERTY" BUT ALSO IN "THE CASE OF SPECIFIC
PROPERTY (OTHER THAN INVENTORY OR NOTES OR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE) AGAINST
WHICH, AT THE TIME OF THE DISCHARGE OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, THERE IS A
LIEN (OTHER THAN A LIEN SECURING INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED TO PURCHASE SUCH
PROPERTY) ...."  IT EVEN PROVIDES THAT IF ANY EXCESS OF AMOUNT EXCLUDED
FROM GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 22(B)(9) EXCEEDS THOSE TWO ADJUSTMENTS,
THE COST OR OTHER BASIS OF ALL THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR OTHER THAN
INVENTORY AND NOTES AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SHALL BE REDUCED
PROPORTIONATELY AND, FINALLY, THE BALANCE, IF ANY, OF THE AMOUNT
EXCLUDED FROM THE DEBTOR'S GROSS INCOME IS APPLIED TO THE REDUCTION OF
THE COST OR OTHER BASIS OF THE DEBTOR'S INVENTORY OR NOTES OR ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE.  IT THUS OFFERS AFFIRMATIVELY A BROAD ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR
REACHING THE CORPORATE DEBTOR'S GAINS FROM ITS DISCHARGE OF ITS
INDEBTEDNESS AT A DISCOUNT.    FN12  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN13  SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS HAVE ALTERED THESE PROVISIONS BUT HAVE
NOT CHANGED THEIR GENERAL EFFECT NOR THEIR REFLECTION UPON THE MEANING
OF SEC. 22(A).  FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE
PROVISIONS, SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA.  THE REQUIREMENT OF A SPECIALLY
CERTIFIED "UNSOUND FINANCIAL CONDITION" FOR A CORPORATE TAXPAYER IN
ORDER TO MAKE SEC. 22(B)(9) APPLICABLE WAS ELIMINATED BY THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1942.  THAT ACT ALSO ELIMINATED THE LIMITATION TO SECURITIES IN
EXISTENCE ON JUNE 1, 1939.  56 STAT. 811. 

IN MAKING THESE TEMPORARY PROVISIONS CONGRESS HAD IN MIND ESPECIALLY
THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED BY RAILROADS AND OTHER CORPORATIONS THEN
SEEKING TO LIQUIDATE HEAVY INDEBTEDNESS.  THE COMMITTEES REPORTING THE
BILLS FOR PASSAGE EMPHASIZED THE LIMITATIONS THAT WERE IMPOSED BY THESE
AMENDMENTS UPON CORPORATIONS SEEKING TO EXCLUDE FROM TAXABLE INCOME THE
GAINS DERIVED FROM THEIR ACQUISITION OF THEIR OWN SECURITIES AT A
DISCOUNT.  H.R. REP. NO. 855, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 5, 23-25(1939);
SEN. REP. NO. 648, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2-3, 5(1939).  OBVIOUSLY IT
WAS EXPECTED THAT THESE PROVISIONS WOULD DECREASE THE EXISTING BURDENS
OF INCOME TAXATION.  IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE A BURDEN
OF POSTPONED TAXABILITY UPON GAINS WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPLETELY EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION BY SEC. 22(B)(3). 

FN14  SEVERAL PROVISIONS HAVE EXTENDED COMPARABLE RELIEF TO OTHER
TAXPAYERS.  NONE OF THEM APPLY TO THE RESPONDENT.  THEY EMPHASIZE,
HOWEVER, THE UNDERSTANDING OF CONGRESS THAT, WITHOUT SPECIAL PROVISION
FOR THEIR EXCLUSION, THE GAINS OF A TAXPAYER FROM THE DISCHARGE OF HIS
INDEBTEDNESS AT A DISCOUNT ARE REQUIRED BY SEC. 22(A) TO BE INCLUDED IN
HIS GROSS INCOME.  THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THE MERE EXCLUSION OF "GIFTS"
UNDER SEC. 22(B)(3) IS NOT ENOUGH TO COVER FACTUAL SITUATIONS LIKE
THOSE PRESENTED IN SEC. 22(B)(9) OR IN THE OTHER RELIEF PROVISIONS
ABOVE MENTIONED. 

AMONG THESE RELIEF PROVISIONS ARE THE FOLLOWING: 

EXCLUSION, FROM EXCESS PROFITS CREDIT, OF INCOME DERIVED FROM THE
RETIREMENT OR DISCHARGE BY THE TAXPAYER OF THE TAXPAYER'S OWN
OBLIGATIONS IF THEY HAVE BEEN OUTSTANDING MORE THAN 18 MONTHS. 
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SECS. 711(A)(1)(C), 711(A)(2)(E), AND SEC.
711(B)(1)(C) ADDED BY THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF 1940, C. 757, 54 STAT.
976-978, REPEALED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1945, C. 453, 59 STAT. 568. 

EXCLUSION, FROM GROSS INCOME, FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, OF THE INCOME
OF RAILROAD CORPORATIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR DISCHARGE OF THEIR
INDEBTEDNESS TO THE EXTENT REALIZED FROM A MODIFICATION OR CANCELLATION
OF INDEBTEDNESS, PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF COURT.  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,
SEC. 22(B)(10), ADDED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, C. 619, 56 STAT. 812,
APPLICABLE TO TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1939, BUT NOT
APPLICABLE TO ANY DISCHARGE IN A TAXABLE YEAR BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER
31, 1945; THIS LATTER DATE EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31, 1946, 59 STAT. 574;
DECEMBER 31, 1947, 60 STAT. 749; AND DECEMBER 31, 1949, 61 STAT. 179. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN16  "SEC.  2.  (A)  THAT, SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH EXEMPTIONS AND
DEDUCTIONS AS ARE HEREINAFTER ALLOWED, THE NET INCOME OF A TAXABLE
PERSON SHALL INCLUDE GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES,
WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN
WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, BUSINESSES, TRADE,
COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL,
GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY, ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE
TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR
PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER: ... 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"SEC. 4.  THE FOLLOWING INCOME SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS TITLE (TITLE I. - INCOME TAX): 

"THE PROCEEDS OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES PAID TO INDIVIDUAL
BENEFICIARIES UPON THE DEATH OF THE INSURED; THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE
INSURED, AS A RETURN OF PREMIUM OR PREMIUMS PAID BY HIM UNDER LIFE
INSURANCE, ENDOWMENT, OR ANNUITY CONTRACTS, EITHER DURING THE TERM OR
AT THE MATURITY OF THE TERM MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT OR UPON THE
SURRENDER OF THE CONTRACT; THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY GIFT,
BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR DESCENT (BUT THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE
INCLUDED AS INCOME); INTEREST UPON THE OBLIGATIONS OF A STATE OR ANY
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF OR UPON THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES OR ITS POSSESSIONS OR SECURITIES ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT OF JULY SEVENTEENTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND
SIXTEEN; THE COMPENSATION OF THE PRESENT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DURING THE TERM FOR WHICH HE HAS BEEN ELECTED, AND THE JUDGES OF THE
SUPREME AND INFERIOR COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES NOW IN OFFICE, AND THE
COMPENSATION OF ALL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF A STATE, OR ANY POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION THEREOF, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH COMPENSATION IS PAID BY THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT."  REVENUE ACT OF 1916, C. 463, 39 STAT. 756,
757, 758-759.  SEE ALSO, AN ACT TO REDUCE TARIFF DUTIES AND TO PROVIDE
REVENUE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  (OCTOBER 3,
1913.)  38 STAT. 114, 167, SEC. II B. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, ALTHOUGH JOINING IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT AND
OPINION, IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE RESULT IS ESSENTIALLY IN CONFLICT WITH
THAT REACHED IN HELVERING V. AMERICAN DENTAL CO., 318 U.S. 322. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS, DISSENTING. 

AS DETAILED IN HELVERING V. AMERICAN DENTAL COMPANY, 318 U.S. 322,
THE PROBLEMS OF THE TAX RESULTS TO THE DEBTOR OF THE RELEASE OF
INDEBTEDNESS HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT.  THAT OPINION SHOWS THAT BOTH
CONGRESS AND INTERNAL REVENUE REGULATIONS HAVE TAKEN VARYING VIEWS AS
TO WHETHER A TAXPAYER SHOULD PAY AN INCOME TAX ON SUCH BALANCE SHEET
IMPROVEMENTS.  FN1 

WE HELD IN THE AMERICAN DENTAL CASE IN 1943 THAT THE "RECEIPT OF
FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES GRATUITOUSLY" WAS A GIFT UNDER INT. REV. CODE SEC.
22.  CONGRESS HAS MADE NO CHANGE IN THE LAW SINCE THAT TIME, NOR HAS IT
BEEN REQUESTED TO DO SO.  FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH IN THAT
CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  HELVERING V. AMERICAN DENTAL CO., SUPRA, P. 326, NOTE 5; P. 328,
NOTE 9, PARTICULARLY TAX FREE RAILROAD ADJUSTMENTS UNDER C. XV, SEC.
735, 53 STAT. 1140. 
..END :























CORAY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 335 U.S. 520 


NO. 54.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6-7, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1949.  - UTAH
, 185 P.2D 963, REVERSED. 


IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE AND FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACTS TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE,
THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS KILLED WHEN A
MOTOR-DRIVEN TRACK CAR ON WHICH HE WAS FOLLOWING A TRAIN CRASHED INTO
THE TRAIN WHEN IT STOPPED SUDDENLY AND UNEXPECTEDLY BECAUSE OF A
DEFECTIVE AIR-BRAKE APPLIANCE.  HELD: 

1.  HIS ADMINISTRATOR WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER IF THIS DEFECTIVE
APPLIANCE WAS THE SOLE OR A CONTRIBUTORY PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE
EMPLOYEE'S DEATH.  PP. 521-523. 

2.  ON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT
DECEDENT'S DEATH RESULTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE DEFECTIVE
APPLIANCE; AND IT WAS ERROR TO DIRECT A VERDICT FOR THE RAILROAD.  PP.
523-524. 

CORAY, ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR, V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH. 

IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE AND FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACTS TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM A RAILROAD FOR THE DEATH OF AN
EMPLOYEE, A STATE TRIAL COURT DIRECTED A VERDICT FOR THE RAILROAD.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF UTAH AFFIRMED.   - UTAH - , 185 P.2D 963.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 807.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 524. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN A UTAH STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL
SAFETY APPLIANCE AND FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACTS  FN1  TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF FRANK LUCUS, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENT
RAILROAD.  THE DECEDENT'S DEATH OCCURRED WHEN A ONE-MAN FLAT-TOP
MOTORDRIVEN TRACK CAR CRASHED INTO THE BACK END OF AN EIGHTY-TWO-CAR
FREIGHT TRAIN ON A MAIN-LINE TRACK AT A POINT NEAR LEMAY, UTAH.  BOTH
TRAIN AND MOTORCAR WERE BEING OPERATED IN AN EASTWARD DIRECTION ON
RAILROAD BUSINESS.  THE TRAIN UNEXPECTEDLY STOPPED JUST BEFORE THE
CRASH OCCURRED BECAUSE THE AIR IN ITS BRAKE LINES ESCAPED, THEREBY
LOCKING THE BRAKES.  THE AIR HAD ESCAPED BECAUSE OF A VIOLATION OF THE
FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT IN THAT THE THREADS ON A VALVE WERE SO
BADLY WORN THAT A NUT BECAME DISCONNECTED.  WHEN THE BRAKES LOCKED, THE
MOTORCAR WAS SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET BEHIND THE FREIGHT TRAIN MOVING AT
ABOUT THE SAME RATE AS THE TRAIN, NOT AN EXCESSIVE RATE UNDER ORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE MOTORCAR WAS EQUIPPED WITH BRAKES WHICH HAD THEY
BEEN APPLIED COULD HAVE STOPPED THE CAR WITHIN A DISTANCE OF ABOUT ONE
HUNDRED FEET.  BUT THE DECEDENT WHO WAS IN CONTROL OF THE CAR DID NOT
APPLY THE BRAKES.  APPARENTLY HE AND ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WITH HIM WERE
LOOKING BACKWARD TOWARD A BLOCK SIGNAL AND THEREFORE DID NOT KNOW THE
TRAIN HAD STOPPED.  FN2 

DESPITE THE PROOF THAT THE TRAIN HAD STOPPED BECAUSE OF THE
RAILROAD'S VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, THE STATE
TRIAL JUDGE DIRECTED THE JURY TO RETURN A VERDICT IN THE RAILROAD'S
FAVOR.  THIS RESULTED FROM THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE ACT DIDN'T
APPLY TO MR. LUCUS, THAT THE ACT'S PROTECTION AGAINST DEFECTIVE BRAKES
DID NOT EXTEND TO EMPLOYEES FOLLOWING AND CRASHING INTO A TRAIN WHICH
STOPPED SUDDENLY BECAUSE OF DEFECTIVE BRAKE APPLIANCES. 

ON APPEAL THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.   - UTAH - , 185 P.2D
963.  THAT COURT AGREED WITH THE TRIAL COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT AND ALSO HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO SHOW
THAT THE DEFECTIVE APPLIANCE WAS THE "LEGAL" CAUSE OF THE CRASH AND OF
THE DEATH OF DECEDENT.  THE OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE OF THE RESTRICTIVE
INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO THE TWO FEDERAL ACTS PROMPTED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI. 

FIRST.  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING THAT
ALTHOUGH THE RAILROAD RAN ITS TRAIN WITH DEFECTIVE BRAKES IT THEREBY
"VIOLATED NO DUTY OWING" TO THE DECEDENT.  THAT COURT SAID THAT THE
OBJECT OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT "INSOFAR AS BRAKES MIGHT BE
CONCERNED, IS NOT TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES FROM STANDING, BUT FROM MOVING
TRAINS." 

WE DO NOT VIEW THE ACT'S PURPOSE SO NARROWLY.  IT COMMANDS RAILROADS
NOT TO RUN TRAINS WITH DEFECTIVE BRAKES.  AN ABRUPT OR UNEXPECTED STOP
DUE TO BAD BRAKES MIGHT BE EQUALLY DANGEROUS TO EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS AS
A FAILURE TO STOP A TRAIN BECAUSE OF BAD BRAKES.  AND THIS ACT, FAIRLY
INTERPRETED, MUST BE HELD TO PROTECT ALL WHO NEED PROTECTION FROM
DANGEROUS RESULTS DUE TO MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF CONGRESSIONALLY
PROHIBITED DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES.  FAIRPORT, P. & E.R. CO. V. MEREDITH,
292 U.S. 589, 597.  LIABILITY OF A RAILROAD UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACT FOR INJURIES INFLICTED AS A RESULT OF THE ACT'S VIOLATION FOLLOWS
FROM THE UNLAWFUL USE OF PROHIBITED DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT "NOT FROM THE
POSITION THE EMPLOYEE MAY BE IN OR THE WORK WHICH HE MAY BE DOING AT
THE MOMENT WHEN HE IS INJURED."  BRADY V. TERMINAL R. ASSN., 303 U.S.
10, 16; LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V. LAYTON, 243 U.S. 617, 621.  IN THIS
CASE WHERE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT THE TRAIN SUDDENLY
STOPPED BECAUSE OF DEFECTIVE AIR-BRAKE APPLIANCES, PETITIONER WAS
ENTITLED TO RECOVER IF THIS DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT WAS THE SOLE OR A
CONTRIBUTORY PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DECEDENT EMPLOYEE'S DEATH.  DAVIS
V. WOLFE, 263 U.S. 239, 243; SPOKANE & I.E.R. CO. V. CAMPBELL, 241 U.S.
497, 509-510. 

SECOND.  THE UTAH SUPREME COURT REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE HERE AND HELD
AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT DID NOT PROXIMATELY
CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE DECEDENT'S DEATH.  THAT COURT DISCUSSED
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN "PROXIMATE CAUSE" IN THE LEGAL SENSE, DEEMED A
SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY, AND "CAUSE" IN THE "PHILOSOPHIC
SENSE," DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO IMPOSE LIABILITY.  IT CONSIDERED THE
STOPPING OF THIS TRAIN TO HAVE BEEN A CAUSE OF DECEDENT'S DEATH IN THE
"PHILOSOPHIC SENSE" IN THAT THE STOPPING CREATED "A CONDITION UPON
WHICH THE NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFFS' INTESTATE OPERATED," ONE PERHAPS OF
MANY CAUSES "SO INSIGNIFICANT THAT NO ORDINARY MIND WOULD THINK OF THEM
AS CAUSES."  THE COURT ADDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE STOPPING "WAS NOT THE
LEGAL CAUSE OF THE RESULT," THEREBY CLASSIFYING IT AS NOT "A
SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR AS WELL AS ACTUAL FACTOR IN BRINGING ABOUT" THE
DECEDENT'S DEATH.  THIS CONCLUSION WAS REACHED IN PART UPON THE
REASONING THAT "THE LEAK IN THE TRIPLE VALVE CAUSED THE TRAIN TO STOP,
BECAUSE AS A SAFETY DEVICE, IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO JUST THAT." 

THE LANGUAGE SELECTED BY CONGRESS TO FIX LIABILITY IN CASES OF THIS
KIND IS SIMPLE AND DIRECT.  CONSIDERATION OF ITS MEANING BY THE
INTRODUCTION OF DIALECTICAL SUBTLETIES CAN SERVE NO USEFUL
INTERPRETATIVE PURPOSE.  THE STATUTE DECLARES THAT RAILROADS SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES' DEATHS "RESULTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART"
FROM DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES SUCH AS WERE HERE MAINTAINED.  45 U.S.C. SEC.
51.  AND TO MAKE ITS PURPOSE CRYSTAL CLEAR, CONGRESS HAS ALSO PROVIDED
THAT "NO SUCH EMPLOYEE  ...  SHALL BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN ANY CASE" WHERE A VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT, SUCH AS THE ONE HERE, "CONTRIBUTED TO THE ...  DEATH OF
SUCH EMPLOYEE."  45 U.S.C. SEC. 53.  CONGRESS HAS THUS FOR ITS OWN
REASONS IMPOSED EXTRAORDINARY SAFETY OBLIGATIONS UPON RAILROADS AND HAS
COMMANDED THAT IF A BREACH OF THESE OBLIGATIONS CONTRIBUTES IN PART TO
AN EMPLOYEE'S DEATH, THE RAILROAD MUST PAY DAMAGES.  THESE AIR-BRAKES
WERE DEFECTIVE; FOR THIS REASON ALONE THE TRAIN SUDDENLY AND
UNEXPECTEDLY STOPPED; A MOTOR TRACK CAR FOLLOWING AT ABOUT THE SAME
RATE OF SPEED AND OPERATED BY AN EMPLOYEE LOOKING IN ANOTHER DIRECTION
CRASHED INTO THE TRAIN; ALL OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE INSEPARABLY
ARABLY RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER IN TIME AND SPACE.  THE JURY COULD HAVE
FOUND THAT DECEDENT'S DEATH RESULTED FROM ANY OR ALL OF THE FOREGOING
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IT WAS ERROR TO DIRECT A VERDICT FOR THE RAILROAD.  THE JUDGMENT OF
THE STATE SUPREME COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT
IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  27 STAT. 531, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 8, 9; 35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED,
36 STAT. 291, AND 53 STAT. 1404, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 51, 53. 

FN2  PETITIONER WAS EMPLOYED BY THE RAILROAD AS A SIGNAL MAINTAINER. 
THE OTHER OCCUPANT OF THE MOTORCAR HAD JUST BEEN EMPLOYED TO WORK IN
THE SAME CAPACITY.  THIS WAS THE NEW EMPLOYEE'S FIRST TRIP AND HE TOOK
THE TRIP TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THE SIGNALS.  BOTH OCCUPANTS OF
THE CAR WERE SEATED AND LOOKING BACK IN THE DIRECTION OF A BLOCK
SIGNAL.  CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THIS ACTION. 
..END :











LINCOLN UNION V. NORTHWESTERN CO., 335 U.S. 525 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 8-10, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1949.  - 149 NEB. 507,
31 N.W.2D 477, AFFIRMED.  - 228 N.C. 352, 45 S.E.2D 860, AFFIRMED. 


A NEBRASKA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND A NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE
PROVIDE, IN EFFECT, THAT NO PERSON IN THOSE STATES SHALL BE DENIED AN
OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE HE IS OR IS NOT A
MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION.  THEY ALSO FORBID EMPLOYERS TO ENTER
INTO CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS OBLIGATING THEMSELVES TO EXCLUDE PERSONS
FROM EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE OR ARE NOT MEMBERS OF LABOR UNIONS. 
HELD:  THEY DO NOT VIOLATE RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO EMPLOYERS, UNIONS, OR
MEMBERS OF UNIONS BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 527
537. 

1. THESE STATE LAWS DO NOT ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE
RIGHT OF UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS "PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO
PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES," WHICH ARE
GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 529-531. 

2.  NOR DO THEY CONFLICT WITH ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, OF THE
CONSTITUTION, INSOFAR AS THEY IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS MADE
PRIOR TO THEIR ENACTMENT.  PP. 531-532. 

3.  NOR DO THEY DENY UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 532-533. 

4.  NOR DO THEY DEPRIVE EMPLOYERS, UNIONS OR MEMBERS OF UNIONS OF
THEIR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 533-537. 

LINCOLN FEDERAL LABOR UNION ET AL. V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO. ET
AL. 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 34, WHITAKER ET AL. V. NORTH CAROLINA, ON APPEAL
FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

NO. 47.  IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY CERTAIN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND THE
PRESIDENT OF ONE OF THEM FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE
RELIEF, A NEBRASKA TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE SO-CALLED
"RIGHT-TO-WORK AMENDMENT" TO THE NEBRASKA CONSTITUTION, NOW DESIGNATED
AS ART. XV, SECS. 13, 14 AND 15, AND SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE
PETITION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA AFFIRMED.  149 NEB. 507, 31
N.W.2D 477.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 537. 

NO. 34.  AN EMPLOYER AND CERTAIN OFFICERS AND AGENTS OF CERTAIN LABOR
UNIONS WERE CONVICTED IN A NORTH CAROLINA STATE COURT OF VIOLATIONS OF
N.C. ACTS, 1947, CH. 328, N.C. GEN. STAT., CH. 95, ART. 10, FOR
ENTERING INTO A "CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT."  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH
CAROLINA AFFIRMED AND SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  228 N.C. 352, 45 S.E.2D 860.  ON
APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 537. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UNDER EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES IN THE UNITED STATES, EMPLOYERS HAVE
SOMETIMES LIMITED WORK OPPORTUNITIES TO MEMBERS OF UNIONS, SOMETIMES TO
NON-UNION MEMBERS, AND AT OTHER TIMES HAVE EMPLOYED AND KEPT THEIR
WORKERS WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THEY WERE OR WERE NOT MEMBERS OF A
UNION.  EMPLOYERS ARE COMMANDED TO FOLLOW THIS LATTER EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICE IN THE STATES OF NORTH CAROLINA AND NEBRASKA.  A NORTH
CAROLINA STATUTE AND A NEBRASKA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT  FN1 PROVIDE
THAT NO PERSON IN THOSE STATES SHALL BE DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN
OR RETAIN EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE HE IS OR IS NOT A MEMBER OF A LABOR
ORGANIZATION.  TO ENFORCE THIS POLICY NORTH CAROLINA AND NEBRASKA
EMPLOYERS ARE ALSO FORBIDDEN TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS
OBLIGATING THEMSELVES TO EXCLUDE PERSONS FROM EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THEY
ARE OR ARE NOT LABOR UNION MEMBERS.  FN2 

THESE STATE LAWS WERE GIVEN TIMELY CHALLENGE IN NORTH CAROLINA AND
NEBRASKA COURTS ON THE GROUND THAT INSOFAR AS THEY ATTEMPT TO PROTECT
NON-UNION MEMBERS FROM DISCRIMINATION, THE LAWS ARE IN VIOLATION OF
RIGHTS GUARANTEED EMPLOYERS, UNIONS, AND THEIR MEMBERS BY THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION.  FN3  THE STATE LAWS WERE CHALLENGED AS VIOLATIONS
OF THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF ASSEMBLY AND OF PETITION
GUARANTEED UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS BY "THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND
PROTECTED AGAINST INVASION BY THE STATE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT."  IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE STATE LAWS IMPAIRED THE
OBLIGATIONS OF EXISTING CONTRACTS IN VIOLATION OF ART. I, SEC. 10, OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND DEPRIVED THE APPELLANT UNIONS AND
EMPLOYERS OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED AGAINST
STATE INVASION BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ALL OF THESE CONTENTIONS
WERE REJECTED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURTS  FN4  AND THE CASES ARE HERE
ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(NOW
28 U.S.C. SEC. 1257).  THE SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED
IN THE TWO CASES PROMPTED US TO SET THEM FOR ARGUMENT TOGETHER AND FOR
THE SAME REASON WE NOW CONSIDER THE CASES IN A SINGLE OPINION. 

FIRST.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THESE STATE LAWS ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND THE OPPORTUNITIES OF UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS "PEACEABLY TO
ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." 
FN5  UNDER THE STATE POLICY ADOPTED BY THESE LAWS, EMPLOYERS MUST,
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BEING EQUAL, GIVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR
REMUNERATIVE WORK TO UNION AND NON-UNION MEMBERS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST EITHER.  IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS OBJECTIVE OF EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TWO GROUPS, EMPLOYERS ARE FORBIDDEN TO MAKE
CONTRACTS WHICH WOULD OBLIGATE THEM TO HIRE OR KEEP NONE BUT UNION
MEMBERS.  NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAWS INDICATES A PURPOSE TO
PROHIBIT SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, OR PETITION.  PRECISELY WHAT THESE STATE
LAWS DO IS TO FORBID EMPLOYERS ACTING ALONE OR IN CONCERT WITH LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS DELIBERATELY TO RESTRICT EMPLOYMENT TO NONE BUT UNION
MEMBERS. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW ENFORCEMENT OF THIS STATE POLICY COULD
INFRINGE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF ANYONE, OR DENY TO ANYONE THE RIGHT
TO ASSEMBLE OR TO PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.  AND APPELLANTS
DO NOT CONTEND THAT THE LAWS EXPRESSLY FORBID THE FULL EXERCISE OF
THOSE RIGHTS BY UNIONS OR UNION MEMBERS.  THEIR CONTENTION IS THAT
THESE STATE LAWS INDIRECTLY INFRINGE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION.  WHILE THE BASIS OF THIS CONTENTION IS
NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR, IT SEEMS TO REST ON THIS LINE OF REASONING:  THE
RIGHT OF UNIONS AND UNION MEMBERS TO DEMAND THAT NO NON-UNION MEMBERS
WORK ALONG WITH UNION MEMBERS IS "INDISPENSABLE TO THE RIGHT OF SELF
ORGANIZATION AND THE ASSOCIATION OF WORKERS INTO UNIONS"; WITHOUT A
RIGHT OF UNION MEMBERS TO REFUSE TO WORK WITH NON-UNION MEMBERS, THERE
ARE "NO MEANS OF ELIMINATING THE COMPETITION OF THE NON-UNION WORKER";
SINCE, THE REASONING CONTINUES, A "CLOSED SHOP" IS INDISPENSABLE TO
ACHIEVEMENT OF SUFFICIENT UNION MEMBERSHIP TO PUT UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS
ON A FULL EQUALITY FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, A CLOSED SHOP IS
CONSEQUENTLY "AN INDISPENSABLE CONCOMITANT" OF "THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES
TO ASSEMBLE INTO AND ASSOCIATE TOGETHER THROUGH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ...
"  JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH AN EXPANSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIGHT TO
SPEAK, ASSEMBLE AND PETITION IS THEN RESTED IN PART ON APPELLANTS'
ASSERTION "THAT THE RIGHT TO WORK AS A NON-UNIONIST IS IN NO WAY
EQUIVALENT TO OR THE PARALLEL OF THE RIGHT TO WORK AS A UNION MEMBER;
THAT THERE EXISTS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO WORK AS A NON-UNIONIST ON
THE ONE HAND WHILE THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT FREE FROM
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED."  CF. WALLACE CORPORATION V. LABOR BOARD, 323 U.S. 248. 

WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY TO ELABORATE THE NUMEROUS REASONS FOR OUR
REJECTION OF THIS CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS.  NOR NEED WE APPRAISE OR
ANALYZE WITH PARTICULARITY THE RATHER STARTLING IDEAS SUGGESTED TO
SUPPORT SOME OF THE PREMISES ON WHICH APPELLANTS' CONCLUSIONS REST. 
THERE CANNOT BE WRUNG FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF WORKERS TO
ASSEMBLE TO DISCUSS IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR OWN WORKING STANDARDS, A
FURTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRIVE FROM REMUNERATIVE EMPLOYMENT ALL
OTHER PERSONS WHO WILL NOT OR CAN NOT PARTICIPATE IN UNION ASSEMBLIES. 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF WORKERS TO ASSEMBLE, TO DISCUSS AND
FORMULATE PLANS FOR FURTHERING THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST IN JOBS CANNOT
BE CONSTRUED AS A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT NONE SHALL GET AND HOLD
JOBS EXCEPT THOSE WHO WILL JOIN IN THE ASSEMBLY OR WILL AGREE TO ABIDE
BY THE ASSEMBLY'S PLANS.  FOR WHERE CONDUCT AFFECTS THE INTERESTS OF
OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE LEGALITY OF THAT CONDUCT
MUST BE MEASURED BY WHETHER THE CONDUCT CONFORMS TO VALID LAW, EVEN
THOUGH THE CONDUCT IS ENGAGED IN PURSUANT TO PLANS OF AN ASSEMBLY. 

SECOND.  THERE IS A SUGGESTION THOUGH NOT ELABORATED IN BRIEFS THAT
THESE STATE LAWS CONFLICT WITH ART. I, SEC. 10, OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, INSOFAR AS THEY IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS MADE
PRIOR TO THEIR ENACTMENT.  THAT THIS CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT IS NOW
TOO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED TO REQUIRE DISCUSSION.  SEE HOME BLDG. & LOAN
ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 436-439, AND CASES THERE CITED.  AND
ALSO VEIX V. SIXTH WARD BLDG. & LOAN ASSN., 310 U.S. 32, 38; EAST NEW
YORK SAVINGS BANK V. HAHN, 326 U.S. 230, 232. 

THIRD.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA AND NEBRASKA LAWS
DENY UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND THUS
OFFEND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
BECAUSE THE OUTLAWED CONTRACTS ARE A USEFUL INCENTIVE TO THE GROWTH OF
UNION MEMBERSHIP, IT IS SAID THAT THESE LAWS WEAKEN THE BARGAINING
POWER OF UNIONS AND CORRESPONDINGLY STRENGTHEN THE POWER OF EMPLOYERS. 
THIS MAY BE TRUE.  BUT THERE ARE OTHER MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED.  THE
STATE LAWS ALSO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN EMPLOYER TO MAKE CONTRACTS
WITH COMPANY UNIONS WHICH OBLIGATE THE EMPLOYER TO REFUSE JOBS TO UNION
MEMBERS.  IN THIS RESPECT, THESE STATE LAWS PROTECT THE EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES OF MEMBERS OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS.  SEE WALLACE
CORPORATION V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA.  THIS CIRCUMSTANCE ALONE, WITHOUT
REGARD TO OTHERS THAT NEED NOT BE MENTIONED, IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
THE STATE LAWS AGAINST A CHARGE THAT THEY DENY EQUAL PROTECTION TO
UNIONS AS AGAINST EMPLOYERS AND NON-UNION WORKERS. 

IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE STATE LAWS DO NOT PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR
UNION MEMBERS EQUAL TO THAT PROVIDED FOR NON-UNION MEMBERS.  BUT IN
IDENTICAL LANGUAGE THESE STATE LAWS FORBID EMPLOYERS TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST UNION AND NON-UNION MEMBERS.  NEBRASKA AND NORTH CAROLINA THUS
COMMAND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOTH GROUPS OF WORKERS.  IT
IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THESE STATE LAWS COMMAND EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR
BOTH GROUPS THAT APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
RIGHTS OF ASSEMBLY AND DUE PROCESS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.  FOR THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS SURROUNDING THESE RIGHTS ARE RELIED ON BY
APPELLANTS TO SUPPORT A CONTENTION THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
GUARANTEES GREATER EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS TO UNION MEMBERS THAN TO NON-UNION
MEMBERS.  THIS CLAIM OF APPELLANTS IS ITSELF A REFUTATION OF THE
CONTENTION THAT THE NEBRASKA AND NORTH CAROLINA LAWS FAIL TO AFFORD
PROTECTION TO UNION MEMBERS EQUAL TO THE PROTECTION AFFORDED NON-UNION
WORKERS. 

FOURTH.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THESE STATE LAWS DEPRIVE APPELLANTS OF
THEIR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THE LAWS ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO
DEPRIVE ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE TWO STATES OF "LIBERTY" (1) TO REFUSE TO
HIRE OR RETAIN ANY PERSON IN EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE HE IS OR IS NOT A UNION
MEMBER, AND (2) TO MAKE A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT TO ENGAGE IN SUCH
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION OR NON-UNION MEMBERS. 

MUCH OF APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT HERE SEEKS TO ESTABLISH THAT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW IS DENIED EMPLOYEES AND UNION MEN BY THAT PART OF THESE STATE
LAWS THAT FORBIDS THEM TO MAKE CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYER OBLIGATING
HIM TO REFUSE TO HIRE OR RETAIN NON-UNION WORKERS.  BUT THAT PART OF
THESE LAWS DOES NO MORE THAN PROVIDE A METHOD TO AID ENFORCEMENT OF THE
HEART OF THE LAWS, NAMELY, THEIR COMMAND THAT EMPLOYERS MUST NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EITHER UNION OR NON-UNION MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY ARE
SUCH.  IF THE STATES HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO BAN SUCH
DISCRIMINATION BY LAW, THEY ALSO HAVE POWER TO BAN CONTRACTS WHICH IF
PERFORMED WOULD BRING ABOUT THE PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION.  CHICAGO, B.
& Q.R. CO. V. MCGUIRE, 219 U.S. 549, 570, 571. 

MANY CASES ARE CITED BY APPELLANTS IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT
IN SOME INSTANCES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PROTECTS THE LIBERTY OF
PERSONS TO MAKE CONTRACTS.  BUT NONE OF THESE CASES, EVEN THOSE
ACCORDING THE BROADEST CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO THE MAKING OF
CONTRACTS, EVER WENT SO FAR AS TO INDICATE THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
BARS A STATE FROM PROHIBITING CONTRACTS TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT BANNED BY
A VALID STATE LAW.  SO HERE, IF THE PROVISIONS IN THE STATE LAWS
AGAINST EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION ARE VALID, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CONTRACT
PROHIBITION ALSO IS VALID.  BAYSIDE FISH FLOUR CO. V. GENTRY, 297 U.S.
422, 427.  AND SEE SAGE V. HAMPE, 235 U.S. 99, 104-105.  WE THEREFORE
TURN TO THE DECISIVE QUESTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CONTENTION, WHICH
IS: DOES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FORBID A STATE TO PASS LAWS CLEARLY
DESIGNED TO SAFEGUARD THE OPPORTUNITY OF NON-UNION WORKERS TO GET AND
HOLD JOBS, FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE NON
UNION WORKERS? 

THERE WAS A PERIOD IN WHICH LABOR UNION MEMBERS WHO WANTED TO GET AND
HOLD JOBS WERE THE VICTIMS OF WIDESPREAD EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION
PRACTICES.  CONTRACTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES WERE USED
BY EMPLOYERS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS ANTI-UNION EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION. 
BEFORE HIRING WORKERS, EMPLOYERS REQUIRED THEM TO SIGN AGREEMENTS
STATING THAT THE WORKERS WERE NOT AND WOULD NOT BECOME LABOR UNION
MEMBERS.  SUCH ANTI-UNION PRACTICES WERE SO OBNOXIOUS TO WORKERS THAT
THEY GAVE THESE REQUIRED AGREEMENTS THE NAME OF "YELLOW DOG
CONTRACTS."  THIS HOSTILITY OF WORKERS ALSO PROMPTED PASSAGE OF STATE
AND FEDERAL LAWS TO BAN EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION MEMBERS
AND TO OUTLAW YELLOW DOG CONTRACTS. 

IN 1907 THIS COURT IN ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161,
CONSIDERED THE FEDERAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
UNION WORKERS.  ADAIR, AN AGENT OF THE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD
COMPANY, HAD BEEN INDICTED AND CONVICTED FOR HAVING DISCHARGED COPPAGE,
AN EMPLOYEE OF THE RAILROAD, BECAUSE COPPAGE WAS A MEMBER OF THE ORDER
OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN.  THIS COURT THERE HELD, OVER THE DISSENTS OF
JUSTICES MCKENNA AND HOLMES, THAT THE RAILROAD, BECAUSE OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST UNION MEMBERS AND COULD THEREFORE DO SO THROUGH
USE OF YELLOW DOG CONTRACTS.  THE CHIEF RELIANCE FOR THIS HOLDING WAS
LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45, WHICH HAD INVALIDATED A NEW YORK LAW
PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM HOURS FOR WORK IN BAKERIES.  THIS COURT HAD FOUND
SUPPORT FOR ITS LOCHNER HOLDING IN WHAT HAD BEEN SAID IN ALLGEYER V.
LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578, A CASE ON WHICH APPELLANTS HERE STRONGLY
RELY.  THERE WERE STRONG DISSENTS IN THE ADAIR AND LOCHNER CASES.    IN
1914 THIS COURT REAFFIRMED THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ADAIR CASE IN COPPAGE
V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, AGAIN OVER STRONG DISSENTS, AND HELD THAT A
KANSAS STATUTE OUTLAWING YELLOW DOG CONTRACTS DENIED EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES A LIBERTY TO FIX TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT.  FOR THIS REASON THE
LAW WAS HELD INVALID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.    THE ALLGEYER
LOCHNER-ADAIR-COPPAGE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE WAS FOR SOME YEARS
FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT.  IT WAS USED TO STRIKE DOWN LAWS FIXING MINIMUM
WAGES AND MAXIMUM HOURS IN EMPLOYMENT, LAWS FIXING PRICES, AND LAWS
REGULATING BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.  SEE CASES CITED IN OLSEN V. NEBRASKA,
313 U.S. 236, 244-246, AND OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 66-67.  AND
THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY WAS FAITHFULLY ADHERED TO IN ADAMS
V. TANNER, 244 U.S. 590, A CASE STRONGLY PRESSED UPON US BY
APPELLANTS.  IN ADAMS V. TANNER, THIS COURT WITH FOUR JUSTICES
DISSENTING STRUCK DOWN A STATE LAW ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITING MAINTENANCE
OF PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.  THE MAJORITY FOUND THAT SUCH
BUSINESSES WERE HIGHLY BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC AND UPON THIS
CONCLUSION HELD THAT THE STATE WAS WITHOUT POWER TO PROSCRIBE THEM. 
OUR HOLDING AND OPINION IN OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, SUPRA, CLEARLY UNDERMINED
ADAMS V. TANNER. 

APPELLANTS ALSO RELY HEAVILY ON CERTAIN LANGUAGE USED IN THIS COURT'S
OPINION IN WOLFF PACKING CO. V. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, 262 U.S.
522.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT INVALIDATED A STATE LAW WHICH IN PART
PROVIDED A METHOD FOR A STATE AGENCY TO FIX WAGES AND HOURS.  FN6  SEE
WOLFF CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COURT, 267 U.S. 552, 565.  IN INVALIDATING THIS
PART OF THE STATE ACT, THIS COURT CONSTRUED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS
FORBIDDING LEGISLATION TO FIX HOURS AND WAGES, OR TO FIX PRICES OF
PRODUCTS.  THE COURT ALSO RELIED ON A DISTINCTION BETWEEN BUSINESSES
ACCORDING TO WHETHER THEY WERE OR WERE NOT "CLOTHED WITH A PUBLIC
INTEREST."  THIS LATTER DISTINCTION WAS REJECTED IN NEBBIA V. NEW YORK,
291 U.S. 502.  THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT BAN LEGISLATIVE
POWER TO FIX PRICES, WAGES AND HOURS AS WAS ASSUMED IN THE WOLFF CASE,
WAS SETTLED AS TO PRICE FIXING IN THE NEBBIA AND OLSEN CASES.  THAT
WAGES AND HOURS CAN BE FIXED BY LAW IS NO LONGER DOUBTED SINCE WEST
COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312
U.S. 100, 125; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 187. 

THIS COURT BEGINNING AT LEAST AS EARLY AS 1934, WHEN THE NEBBIA CASE
WAS DECIDED, HAS STEADILY REJECTED THE DUE PROCESS PHILOSOPHY
ENUNCIATED IN THE ADAIR-COPPAGE LINE OF CASES.  IN DOING SO IT HAS
CONSCIOUSLY RETURNED CLOSER AND CLOSER TO THE EARLIER CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLE THAT STATES HAVE POWER TO LEGISLATE AGAINST WHAT ARE FOUND TO
BE INJURIOUS PRACTICES IN THEIR INTERNAL COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS
AFFAIRS, SO LONG AS THEIR LAWS DO NOT RUN AFOUL OF SOME SPECIFIC
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION, OR OF SOME VALID FEDERAL LAW.  SEE
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, SUPRA AT 523-524, AND WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, SUPRA AT 392-395, AND CASES CITED.  UNDER THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
DOCTRINE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS NO LONGER TO BE SO BROADLY CONSTRUED
THAT THE CONGRESS AND STATE LEGISLATURES ARE PUT IN A STRAIT JACKET
WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO SUPPRESS BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS WHICH
THEY REGARD AS OFFENSIVE TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. 

APPELLANTS NOW ASK US TO RETURN, AT LEAST IN PART, TO THE DUE PROCESS
PHILOSOPHY THAT HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY DISCARDED.  CLAIMING THAT THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ITSELF AFFORDS PROTECTION FOR UNION MEMBERS
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, THEY NEVERTHELESS ASSERT THAT THE SAME
CONSTITUTION FORBIDS A STATE FROM PROVIDING THE SAME PROTECTION FOR NON
UNION MEMBERS.  JUST AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ERECTS
NO OBSTACLE TO BLOCK LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION OF UNION MEMBERS, WE NOW
HOLD THAT LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION CAN BE AFFORDED NON-UNION WORKERS. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 2 OF CHAPTER 328 OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SESSION LAWS,
ENACTED IN 1947, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY AGREEMENT OR COMBINATION BETWEEN ANY EMPLOYER AND ANY LABOR
UNION OR LABOR ORGANIZATION WHEREBY PERSONS NOT MEMBERS OF SUCH UNION
OR ORGANIZATION SHALL BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO WORK FOR SAID EMPLOYER, OR
WHEREBY SUCH MEMBERSHIP IS MADE A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OR
CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT BY SUCH EMPLOYER, OR WHEREBY ANY SUCH UNION
OR ORGANIZATION ACQUIRES AN EMPLOYMENT MONOPOLY IN ANY ENTERPRISE, IS
HEREBY DECLARED TO BE AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICY AND AN ILLEGAL
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE IN THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA." 

NEBRASKA IN 1946 ADOPTED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, ART. XV, SEC. 13
OF WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO PERSON SHALL BE DENIED EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP IN OR
AFFILIATION WITH, OR RESIGNATION OR EXPULSION FROM A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR BECAUSE OF REFUSAL TO JOIN OR AFFILIATE WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION;
NOR SHALL ANY INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION OF ANY KIND
ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT, WRITTEN OR ORAL, TO EXCLUDE PERSONS FROM
EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP IN OR NONMEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR
ORGANIZATION." 

FN2  SHOPS THAT REFUSE TO EMPLOY ANY BUT UNION MEMBERS ARE SOMETIMES
DESIGNATED AS "CLOSED SHOPS," SOMETIMES AS "UNION SHOPS."  CONTRACTS
WHICH OBLIGATE AN EMPLOYER TO EMPLOY NONE BUT UNION MEMBERS ARE
SOMETIMES DESIGNATED AS UNION SECURITY AGREEMENTS, CLOSED SHOP
CONTRACTS OR UNION SHOP CONTRACTS.  THERE IS ALSO MUCH DISPUTE AS TO
THE EXACT MEANING OF THE TERM "OPEN SHOP."  SEE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL
SCIENCES, VOL. 3(1930), PP. 568-569.  THERE IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT
DIFFERENCE IN EMPHASIS BETWEEN THESE DIFFERENT LABELS THAT WE THINK IT
BETTER TO AVOID USE OF ANY OF THEM IN THIS OPINION. 

FN3  THE NEBRASKA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS CHALLENGED IN AN
ACTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  A
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT WAS THAT EMPLOYERS HAD REFUSED TO
COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST OF UNIONS TO DISCHARGE CERTAIN EMPLOYEES WHO
HAD FAILED TO RETAIN UNION MEMBERSHIP.  IN NORTH CAROLINA, CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED AGAINST THE APPELLANTS CHARGING THAT AN
AGREEMENT MADE UNLAWFUL BY THE STATUTE HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE
APPELLANT EMPLOYER AND THE OTHER APPELLANTS, WHO ARE OFFICERS AND
AGENTS OF LABOR UNIONS AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR. 

FN4  STATE V. WHITAKER, 228 N.C. 352, 45 S.E.2D 860; LINCOLN FEDERAL
LABOR UNION NO. 19129 V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO., 149 NEB. 507,
31 N.W.2D 477.  SEE ALSO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. AMERICAN SASH
& DOOR CO., 67 ARIZ. 20, 189 P.2D 912.  AN APPEAL IN THIS LATTER CASE
WAS ALSO ARGUED ALONG WITH THE TWO CASES CONSIDERED IN THIS OPINION. 
WE HAVE TREATED THE ARIZONA CASE IN A SEPARATE OPINION, POST, P. 538,
BECAUSE THE CHALLENGED ARIZONA AMENDMENT PRESENTS A QUESTION NOT RAISED
IN THE NEBRASKA OR NORTH CAROLINA LAWS. 

FN5  THIS CONTENTION RESTS ON THE PREMISE THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT MAKES THE PROHIBITIONS AND GUARANTEES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
APPLICABLE TO STATE ACTION.  SEE WEST VIRGINIA V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S.
624, 639.  THE PERTINENT LANGUAGE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS "CONGRESS
SHALL MAKE NO LAW ...  ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE
PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO
PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." 

FN6  OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE STATUTE RELATED TO MATTERS OTHER THAN
WAGES, PRICES, AND THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT. 
CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THOSE OTHER
PARTS OF THE STATUTE ARE NOT RELEVANT HERE. 

(FOR CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, SEE POST, P.
542.) 

(FOR CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, JOINED BY MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY INSOFAR AS IT APPLIES TO NOS. 34 AND 47, SEE POST, P.
557.) 
..END :
















A.F. OF L. V. AMERICAN SASH CO., 335 U.S. 538 


NO. 27.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8-10, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1949.  - 67
ARIZ. 20, 189 P.2D 912, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE AMENDMENT TO THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO
PERSON SHALL BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN EMPLOYMENT
BECAUSE OF NON-MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND FORBIDS ANYONE TO
ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO DO SO DOES NOT DENY EMPLOYERS, LABOR UNIONS
OR MEMBERS OF LABOR UNIONS FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY OR PETITION, OR
IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS, OR DEPRIVE THEM OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
LINCOLN FEDERAL LABOR UNION V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO., ANTE, P.
525.  PP. 539-540. 

2.  NOR DOES ITS FAILURE TO FORBID LIKE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION
MEMBERS DENY THEM EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS CONTRARY TO THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT CERTAIN
ARIZONA STATUTES MAKE IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY PERSON TO COERCE A
WORKER TO MAKE A CONTRACT "NOT TO JOIN OR BECOME A MEMBER OF A LABOR
ORGANIZATION" AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT IN ARIZONA AND MAKE SUCH
CONTRACTS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN
CORP., 301 U.S. 1.  PP. 540-542. 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR ET AL. V. AMERICAN SASH & DOOR CO. ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA. 

IN A SUIT BY CERTAIN LABOR UNIONS, AN OFFICER OF ONE OF THEM AND AN
EMPLOYER FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST
ENFORCEMENT OF THE "RIGHT-TO-WORK AMENDMENT" TO THE ARIZONA
CONSTITUTION, AN ARIZONA TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE
GROUND THAT THE AMENDMENT DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA AFFIRMED.  67 ARIZ. 20,
189 P.2D 912.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 542. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA UNDER
SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(NOW 28
U.S.C. SEC. 1257).  IT INVOLVES THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE
FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, ADOPTED AT THE 1946
GENERAL ELECTION: 

"NO PERSON SHALL BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN
EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF NON-MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION, NOR SHALL
THE STATE OR ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR ANY CORPORATION, INDIVIDUAL OR
ASSOCIATION OF ANY KIND ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT, WRITTEN OR ORAL,
WHICH EXCLUDES ANY PERSON FROM EMPLOYMENT OR CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT
BECAUSE OF NON-MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION." 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA SUSTAINED THE AMENDMENT AS
CONSTITUTIONAL AGAINST THE CONTENTIONS THAT IT "DEPRIVED UNION
APPELLANTS OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND PROTECTED
AGAINST INVASION BY THE STATE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION"; THAT IT IMPAIRED THE OBLIGATIONS OF
EXISTING CONTRACTS IN VIOLATION OF ART. I, SEC. 10, OF THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION; AND THAT IT DEPRIVED APPELLANTS OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW, AND DENIED THEM EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS CONTRARY TO THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS, PROPERLY RESERVED IN THE
STATE COURT, WERE DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANTS BY THE STATE SUPREME
COURT.  FN1  THE SAME QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE STATE COURT ARE PRESENTED
HERE. 

FOR REASONS GIVEN IN TWO OTHER CASES DECIDED TODAY WE REJECT THE
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS THAT THE ARIZONA AMENDMENT DENIES THEM FREEDOM
OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY OR PETITION, IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF THEIR
CONTRACTS, OR DEPRIVES THEM OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  LINCOLN FEDERAL
LABOR UNION V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO. AND WHITAKER V. NORTH
CAROLINA, ANTE, P. 525.  A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ARIZONA AMENDMENT AND
THE AMENDMENT AND STATUTE CONSIDERED IN THE NEBRASKA AND NORTH CAROLINA
CASES HAS MADE IT NECESSARY FOR US TO GIVE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION TO
THE CONTENTION IN THIS CASE THAT THE ARIZONA AMENDMENT DENIES
APPELLANTS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE ARIZONA AMENDMENT PROHIBITS EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-UNION WORKERS, BUT IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION WORKERS.  IT IS ARGUED THAT A FAILURE TO
PROVIDE THE SAME PROTECTION FOR UNION WORKERS AS THAT PROVIDED FOR NON
UNION WORKERS PLACES THE UNION WORKERS AT A DISADVANTAGE, THUS DENYING
UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF ARIZONA'S LAWS. 

ALTHOUGH THE ARIZONA AMENDMENT DOES NOT ITSELF EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION WORKERS, THAT STATE HAS NOT LEFT UNIONS
AND UNION MEMBERS WITHOUT PROTECTION FROM DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF
UNION MEMBERSHIP.  PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT,
ARIZONA MADE IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY PERSON TO COERCE A WORKER TO MAKE
A CONTRACT "NOT TO JOIN, BECOME OR REMAIN, A MEMBER OF ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION" AS A CONDITION OF GETTING OR HOLDING A JOB IN ARIZONA.  A
AS A "YELLOW DOG CONTRACT") VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE N2.  SIMILARLY, THE
ARIZONA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT MAKES VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS
UNDER WHICH AN EMPLOYER AGREES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NON-UNION
WORKERS.  STATUTES IMPLEMENTING THE AMENDMENT HAVE PROVIDED AS
SANCTIONS FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT RELIEF BY INJUNCTION AND SUITS FOR
DAMAGES FOR DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED IN VIOLATION OF THE AMENDMENT. 
FN3  WHETHER THE SAME KIND OF SANCTIONS WOULD BE AFFORDED A UNION
WORKER AGAINST WHOM AN EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATED IS NOT MADE CLEAR BY THE
OPINION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE.  BUT ASSUMING THAT
ARIZONA COURTS WOULD NOT AFFORD A REMEDY BY INJUNCTION OR SUIT FOR
DAMAGES, WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY INDICATION THAT ARIZONA'S AMENDMENT
AND STATUTES ARE WEIGHTED ON THE SIDE OF NON-UNION AS AGAINST UNION
WORKERS.  WE ARE SATISFIED THAT ARIZONA HAS ATTEMPTED BOTH IN THE ANTI
YELLOW-DOG-CONTRACT LAW AND IN THE ANTIDISCRIMINATION CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO STRIKE AT WHAT WERE CONSIDERED EVILS, TO STRIKE WHERE
THOSE EVILS WERE MOST FELT, AND TO STRIKE IN A MANNER THAT WOULD
EFFECTIVELY SUPPRESS THE EVILS. 

IN LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1, THIS COURT
CONSIDERED A CHALLENGE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ON THE
GROUND THAT IT APPLIED RESTRAINTS AGAINST EMPLOYERS BUT DID NOT APPLY
SIMILAR RESTRAINTS AGAINST WRONGFUL CONDUCT BY EMPLOYEES.  WE THERE
POINTED OUT, AT P. 46, THE GENERAL RULE THAT "LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY,
EXERTED WITHIN ITS PROPER FIELD, NEED NOT EMBRACE ALL THE EVILS WITHIN
ITS REACH."  AND CONCERNING STATE LAWS WE HAVE SAID THAT THE EXISTENCE
OF EVILS AGAINST WHICH THE LAW SHOULD AFFORD PROTECTION AND THE
RELATIVE NEED OF DIFFERENT GROUPS FOR THAT PROTECTION "IS A MATTER FOR
THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT."  WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S.
379, 400.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ARIZONA AMENDMENT HAS DENIED
APPELLANTS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. AMERICAN SASH & DOOR CO., 67
ARIZ. 20, 189 P.2D 912. 

FN2  ARIZ. CODE ANN. SEC. 56-120(1939). 

FN3  ARIZ. SESS. LAWS (1947) C. 81, P. 173. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING* . 

*(THIS IS ALSO A CONCURRENCE IN NO. 47, LINCOLN FEDERAL LABOR UNION
V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO., AND NO. 34, WHITAKER V. NORTH
CAROLINA, DECIDED TOGETHER, ANTE, P. 525.) 

ARIZONA, NEBRASKA, AND NORTH CAROLINA HAVE PASSED LAWS FORBIDDING
AGREEMENTS TO EMPLOY ONLY UNION MEMBERS.  THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION IS INVOKED AGAINST THESE LAWS.  SINCE THE CASES BRING INTO
QUESTION THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE, EXPLICIT AVOWAL OF INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS THAT PROCESS
MAY ELUCIDATE AND THEREBY STRENGTHEN ADJUDICATION.  ACCORDINGLY, I SET
FORTH THE STEPS BY WHICH I HAVE REACHED CONCURRENCE WITH MY BRETHREN ON
WHAT I DEEM THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE HERE, ON ALL OTHER ISSUES
JOINING THE COURT'S OPINION. 

THE COMING OF THE MACHINE AGE TENDED TO DESPOIL HUMAN PERSONALITY. 
IT TURNED MEN AND WOMEN INTO "HANDS."  THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF THE
EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY DEMONSTRATED THE HELPLESSNESS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE TO ACHIEVE HUMAN DIGNITY IN A SOCIETY SO LARGELY
AFFECTED BY TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES.  HENCE THE TRADE UNION MADE ITSELF
INCREASINGLY FELT, NOT ONLY AS AN INDISPENSABLE WEAPON OF SELF-DEFENSE
ON THE PART OF WORKERS BUT AS AN AID TO THE WELL-BEING OF A SOCIETY IN
WHICH WORK IS AN EXPRESSION OF LIFE AND NOT MERELY THE MEANS OF EARNING
SUBSISTENCE.  BUT UNIONIZATION ENCOUNTERED THE SHIBBOLETHS OF A PRE
MACHINE AGE AND THESE WERE REFLECTED IN JURIDICAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT
SURVIVED THE FACTS ON WHICH THEY WERE BASED.  ADAM SMITH WAS TREATED AS
THOUGH HIS GENERALIZATIONS HAD BEEN IMPARTED TO HIM ON SINAI AND NOT AS
A THINKER WHO ADDRESSED HIMSELF TO THE ELIMINATION OF RESTRICTIONS
WHICH HAD BECOME FETTERS UPON INITIATIVE AND ENTERPRISE IN HIS DAY. 
BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS EXPRESSED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTION OF
"LIBERTY" WERE EQUATED WITH THEORIES OF LAISSEZ FAIRE.  FN1  THE RESULT
WAS THAT ECONOMIC VIEWS OF CONFINED VALIDITY WERE TREATED BY LAWYERS
AND JUDGES AS THOUGH THE FRAMERS HAD ENSHRINED THEM IN THE
CONSTITUTION.  THIS MISAPPLICATION OF THE NOTIONS OF THE CLASSIC
ECONOMISTS AND RESULTING DISREGARD OF THE PERDURING REACH OF THE
CONSTITUTION LED TO MR. JUSTICE HOLMES' FAMOUS PROTEST IN THE LOCHNER
CASE AGAINST MEASURING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY MR. HERBERT
SPENCER'S SOCIAL STATICS.  198 U.S. 45, 75.  HAD NOT MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES' AWARENESS OF THE IMPERMANENCE OF LEGISLATION AS AGAINST THE
PERMANENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION GRADUALLY PREVAILED, THERE MIGHT INDEED
HAVE BEEN "HARDLY ANY LIMIT BUT THE SKY" TO THE EMBODIMENT OF "OUR
ECONOMIC OR MORAL BELIEFS" IN THAT AMENDMENT'S "PROHIBITIONS."  BALDWIN
V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586, 595. 

THE ATTITUDE WHICH REGARDED ANY LEGISLATIVE ENCROACHMENT UPON THE
EXISTING ECONOMIC ORDER AS INFECTED WITH UNCONSTITUTIONALITY LED TO
DISRESPECT FOR LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS TO STRENGTHEN THE WAGE-EARNER'S
BARGAINING POWER.  WITH THAT ATTITUDE AS A PREMISE, ADAIR V. UNITED
STATES, 208 U.S. 161, AND COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, FOLLOWED
LOGICALLY ENOUGH; NOT EVEN TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, COULD BE
CONSIDERED UNEXPECTED.  BUT WHEN THE TIDE TURNED, IT WAS NOT MERELY
BECAUSE CIRCUMSTANCES HAD CHANGED AND THERE HAD ARISEN A NEW ORDER WITH
NEW CLAIMS TO DIVINE ORIGIN.  THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN
SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468, SHOWS THE CURRENT RUNNING
STRONGLY IN THE NEW DIRECTION - THE DIRECTION NOT OF SOCIAL DOGMA BUT
OF INCREASED DEFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  "WHETHER IT WAS
WISE," HE SAID, NOW SPEAKING FOR THE COURT AND NOT IN DISSENT, "FOR THE
STATE TO PERMIT THE UNIONS TO (PICKET) IS A QUESTION OF ITS PUBLIC
POLICY - NOT OUR CONCERN."  ID. AT 481.  LONG BEFORE THAT, IN DUPLEX
PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 488, HE HAD WARNED: 

"ALL RIGHTS ARE DERIVED FROM THE PURPOSES OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH
THEY EXIST; ABOVE ALL RIGHTS RISES DUTY TO THE COMMUNITY.  THE
CONDITIONS DEVELOPED IN INDUSTRY MAY BE SUCH THAT THOSE ENGAGED IN IT
CANNOT CONTINUE THEIR STRUGGLE WITHOUT DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY.  BUT IT
IS NOT FOR JUDGES TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH CONDITIONS EXIST, NOR IS IT
THEIR FUNCTION TO SET THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE CONTEST AND TO DECLARE
THE DUTIES WHICH THE NEW SITUATION DEMANDS.  THIS IS THE FUNCTION OF
THE LEGISLATURE WHICH, WHILE LIMITING INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP RIGHTS OF
AGGRESSION AND DEFENSE, MAY SUBSTITUTE PROCESSES OF JUSTICE FOR THE
MORE PRIMITIVE METHOD OF TRIAL BY COMBAT." 

UNIONS ARE POWERS WITHIN THE STATE.  LIKE THE POWER OF INDUSTRIAL AND
FINANCIAL AGGREGATIONS, THE POWER OF ORGANIZED LABOR SPRINGS FROM A
GROUP WHICH IS ONLY A FRACTION OF THE WHOLE THAT MR. JUSTICE HOLMES
REFERRED TO AS "THE ONE CLUB TO WHICH WE ALL BELONG."  THE POWER OF THE
FORMER IS SUBJECT TO CONTROL, THOUGH, OF COURSE, THE PARTICULAR
INCIDENCE OF CONTROL MAY BE BROUGHT TO TEST AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT. 
E.G., NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197; NORTH
AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686.  NEITHER CAN THE LATTER CLAIM
CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION.  EVEN THE GOVERNMENT - THE ORGAN OF THE WHOLE
PEOPLE - IS RESTRICTED BY THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES ESTABLISHED
BY OUR CONSTITUTION.  THE DESIGNERS OF THAT SYSTEM DISTRIBUTED
AUTHORITY AMONG THE THREE BRANCHES "NOT TO PROMOTE EFFICIENCY BUT TO
PRECLUDE THE EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY POWER."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
DISSENTING IN MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52, 293.  THEIR CONCERN
FOR INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF SOCIETY, FOR WHOSE WELL-BEING GOVERNMENT IS
INSTITUTED, GAVE URGENCY TO THE FEAR THAT CONCENTRATED POWER WOULD
BECOME ARBITRARY.  IT IS A FEAR THAT THE HISTORY OF SUCH POWER, EVEN
WHEN PROFESSEDLY EMPLOYED FOR DEMOCRATIC PURPOSES, HAS HARDLY RENDERED
UNFOUNDED. 

IF CONCERN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL JUSTIFIES INCORPORATING IN THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF DEVICES TO CURB PUBLIC AUTHORITY, A LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT THAT HIS PROTECTION REQUIRES THE REGULATION OF THE PRIVATE
POWER OF UNIONS CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS INSUPPORTABLE.  A UNION IS NO
MORE THAN A MEDIUM THROUGH WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE ABLE TO ACT TOGETHER;
UNION POWER WAS BEGOTTEN OF INDIVIDUAL HELPLESSNESS.  BUT THAT POWER
CAN COME INTO BEING ONLY WHEN, AND CONTINUE TO EXIST ONLY SO LONG AS,
INDIVIDUAL AIMS ARE SEEN TO BE SHARED IN COMMON WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE GROUP.  THERE IS A NATURAL EMPHASIS, HOWEVER, ON WHAT IS SHARED
AND A RESULTING TENDENCY TO SUBORDINATE THE INCONSISTENT INTERESTS AND
IMPULSES OF INDIVIDUALS.  FROM THIS, IT IS AN EASY TRANSITION TO
THINKING OF THE UNION AS AN ENTITY HAVING RIGHTS AND PURPOSES OF ITS
OWN.  AN ARDENT SUPPORTER OF TRADE UNIONS WHO IS ALSO NO LESS A
DISINTERESTED STUDENT OF SOCIETY HAS POINTED OUT THAT "AS SOON AS WE
PERSONIFY THE IDEA, WHETHER IT IS A COUNTRY OR A CHURCH, A TRADE UNION
OR AN EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION, WE OBSCURE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY BY
TRANSFERRING EMOTIONAL LOYALTIES TO A FICTITIOUS CREATION WHICH THEN
ACTS UPON US PSYCHOLOGICALLY AS AN OBSTRUCTION, ESPECIALLY IN TIMES OF
CRISIS, TO THE CRITICAL EXERCISE OF A REASONED JUDGMENT."  LASKI,
MORRIS COHEN'S APPROACH TO LEGAL PHILOSOPHY, 15 U. OF CHI.  L. REV.
575, 581(1948). 

THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION, LIKE ANY OTHER RIGHT CARRIED TO ITS
EXTREME, ENCOUNTERS LIMITING PRINCIPLES.  SEE HUDSON COUNTY WATER CO.
V. MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349, 355.  AT THE POINT WHERE THE MUTUAL
ADVANTAGE OF ASSOCIATION DEMANDS TOO MUCH INDIVIDUAL DISADVANTAGE, A
COMPROMISE MUST BE STRUCK.  SEE DICEY, LAW AND PUBLIC OPINION IN
ENGLAND 465-66(1905).  WHEN THAT POINT HAS BEEN REACHED - WHERE THE
INTERSECTION SHOULD FALL - IS PLAINLY A QUESTION WITHIN THE SPECIAL
PROVINCE OF THE LEGISLATURE.  THIS COURT HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO SUCH A
COMPROMISE IN SUSTAINING A LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES AGAINST THE EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICES OF UNIONS.  STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192; WALLACE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 323
U.S. 248; RAILWAY MAIL ASSN. V. CORSI, 326 U.S. 88; CF. ELGIN, J. &
E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711, 733-34.  THE RATIONALE OF THE
ARIZONA, NEBRASKA, AND NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATION PROHIBITING UNION
SECURITY AGREEMENTS IS FOUNDED ON A SIMILAR RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING
INTERESTS.  FN2  UNLESS WE ARE TO TREAT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHAT GOES
AGAINST THE GRAIN BECAUSE IT OFFENDS WHAT WE MAY STRONGLY BELIEVE TO BE
SOCIALLY DESIRABLE, THAT RESOLUTION MUST BE GIVEN RESPECT. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE COMPROMISE WHICH THIS LEGISLATION EMBODIES IS NO
COMPROMISE AT ALL BECAUSE FATAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF ORGANIZED LABOR. 
BUT CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE LEGISLATORS AND THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA,
NEBRASKA, AND NORTH CAROLINA COULD NOT IN REASON BE SCEPTICAL OF
ORGANIZED LABOR'S INSISTENCE UPON THE NECESSITY TO ITS STRENGTH OF
POWER TO COMPEL RATHER THAN TO PERSUADE THE ALLEGIANCE OF ITS RELUCTANT
MEMBERS?  IN THE PAST FIFTY YEARS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYED,
COUNTING SALARIED WORKERS AND THE SELF-EMPLOYED BUT NOT FARMERS OR FARM
LABORERS, HAS NOT QUITE TREBLED, WHILE TOTAL UNION MEMBERSHIP HAS
INCREASED MORE THAN THIRTY-THREE TIMES; AT THE TIME OF THE OPENSHOP
DRIVE FOLLOWING THE FIRST WORLD WAR, THE RATIO OF ORGANIZED TO
UNORGANIZED NON-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS WAS ABOUT ONE TO NINE, AND NOW IT
IS ALMOST ONE TO THREE.  FN3  HOWEVER NECESSITOUS MAY HAVE BEEN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF UNIONISM IN 1898 OR EVEN IN 1923, ITS STATUS IN 1948
PRECLUDES CONSTITUTIONAL CONDEMNATION OF A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT,
WHATEVER WE MAY THINK OF IT, THAT THE NEED OF THIS TYPE OF REGULATION
OUTWEIGHS ITS DETRIMENTS.  IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY FOR THIS COURT TO DENY
THE STATES THE RIGHT TO EXPERIMENT WITH SUCH LAWS, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW
OF THE FACT THAT THE RAILROAD BROTHERHOODS HAVE HELD THEIR OWN DESPITE
CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION OF UNION SECURITY  FN4  AND IN THE LIGHT OF
THE EXPERIENCE OF COUNTRIES ADVANCED IN INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY, SUCH AS
GREAT BRITAIN AND SWEDEN, WHERE DEEPLY ROOTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS NOT REFLECTED IN UNCOMPROMISING
DEMANDS FOR CONTRACTUALLY GUARANTEED SECURITY.  FN5 WHETHER IT IS
PREFERABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT TRADE UNIONS SHOULD BE SUBJECTED
TO STATE INTERVENTION OR LEFT TO THE FREE PLAY OF SOCIAL FORCES,
WHETHER EXPERIENCE HAS DISCLOSED "UNION UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES" AND, IF
SO, WHETHER LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION IS MORE APPROPRIATE THAN SELF
DISCIPLINE AND THE PRESSURE OF PUBLIC OPINION - THESE ARE QUESTIONS ON
WHICH IT IS NOT FOR US TO EXPRESS VIEWS.  THE VERY LIMITED FUNCTION OF
THIS COURT IS DISCHARGED WHEN WE RECOGNIZE THAT THESE ISSUES ARE NOT SO
UNRELATED TO THE EXPERIENCE AND FEELINGS OF THE COMMUNITY AS TO RENDER
LEGISLATION ADDRESSING ITSELF TO THEM WILFULLY DESTRUCTIVE OF CHERISHED
RIGHTS.  FOR THESE ARE NOT MATTERS, LIKE CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS OR
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, ON WHICH HISTORY, THROUGH THE
CONSTITUTION, SPEAKS SO DECISIVELY AS TO FORBID LEGISLATIVE
EXPERIMENTATION. 

BUT THE POLICY WHICH FINDS EXPRESSION IN THE PROHIBITION OF UNION
SECURITY AGREEMENTS NEED NOT REST SOLELY ON A LEGISLATIVE CONCEPTION OF
THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH INCLUDES BUT TRANSCENDS THE SPECIAL CLAIMS OF
TRADE UNIONS.  THE STATES ARE ENTITLED TO GIVE WEIGHT TO VIEWS
COMBINING OPPOSITION TO THE "CLOSED SHOP" WITH LONG-RANGE CONCERN FOR
THE WELFARE OF TRADE UNIONS.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, FOR EXAMPLE, BEFORE
HE CAME TO THIS COURT, HAD BEEN A STAUNCH PROMOTER OF UNIONISM.  IN
TESTIFYING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, HE SAID: 

"I SHOULD SAY TO THOSE EMPLOYERS WHO STAND FOR THE OPEN SHOP, THAT
THEY OUGHT TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS FOR THEIR INTERESTS AS WELL AS THAT
OF THE COMMUNITY THAT UNIONS SHOULD BE POWERFUL AND RESPONSIBLE; THAT
IT IS TO THEIR INTERESTS TO BUILD UP THE UNION; TO AID AS FAR AS THEY
CAN IN MAKING THEM STRONGER; AND TO CREATE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE
UNIONS SHALL BE LED BY THE ABLEST AND MOST EXPERIENCED MEN."  FN6  TET
AT THE SAME TIME HE BELIEVED THAT "THE OBJECTIONS, LEGAL, ECONOMIC, AND
SOCIAL, AGAINST THE CLOSED SHOP ARE SO STRONG, AND THE IDEAS OF THE
CLOSED SHOP SO ANTAGONISTIC TO THE AMERICAN SPIRIT, THAT THE INSISTENCE
UPON IT HAS BEEN A SERIOUS OBSTACLE TO UNION PROGRESS."  LETTER OF
SEPT. 6, 1910, TO LAWRENCE F. ABBOTT OF THE OUTLOOK.  FN7  ON ANOTHER
OCCASION HE WROTE, "BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD NOT, AND WILL NOT,
ACCEPT UNIONISM IF IT INVOLVES THE CLOSED SHOP.  THEY WILL NOT CONSENT
TO THE EXCHANGE OF THE TYRANNY OF THE EMPLOYER FOR THE TYRANNY OF THE
EMPLOYEE."  LETTER OF FEB. 26, 1912, TO LINCOLN STEFFENS.  FN8  IN
SUMMING UP HIS VIEWS ON UNIONISM, HE SAID: 

"IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THE 'SUCCESS OF A LABOR UNION' NECESSARILY MEANS
A 'PERFECT MONOPOLY'.  THE UNION, IN ORDER TO ATTAIN OR PRESERVE FOR
ITS MEMBERS INDUSTRIAL LIBERTY, MUST BE STRONG AND STABLE.  IT NEED NOT
INCLUDE EVERY MEMBER OF THE TRADE.  INDEED, IT IS DESIRABLE FOR BOTH
THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION THAT IT SHOULD NOT.  ABSOLUTE POWER LEADS TO
EXCESSES AND TO WEAKNESS: NEITHER OUR CHARACTER NOR OUR INTELLIGENCE
CAN LONG BEAR THE STRAIN OF UNRESTRICTED POWER.  THE UNION ATTAINS
SUCCESS WHEN IT REACHES THE IDEAL CONDITION, AND THE IDEAL CONDITION
FOR A UNION IS TO BE STRONG AND STABLE, AND YET TO HAVE IN THE TRADE
OUTSIDE ITS OWN RANKS AN APPRECIABLE NUMBER OF MEN WHO ARE NON
UNIONISTS.  IN ANY FREE COMMUNITY THE DIVERSITY OF CHARACTER, OF
BELIEFS, OF TASTE - INDEED MERE SELFISHNESS - WILL INSURE SUCH A
SUPPLY, IF THE ENJOYMENT OF THIS PRIVILEGE OF INDIVIDUALISM IS
PROTECTED BY LAW.  SUCH A NUCLEUS OF UNORGANIZED LABOR WILL CHECK
OPPRESSION BY THE UNION AS THE UNION CHECKS OPPRESSION BY THE
EMPLOYER."  QUOTED FROM LOUIS D. BRANDEIS' CONTRIBUTION TO A DISCUSSION
ENTITLED PEACE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE IN 2 NAT. CIVIC FEDERATION
REV., NO. 2, PP. 1, 16(MAY 15, 1905). 

MR. BRANDEIS ON THE LONG VIEW DEEMED THE PREFERENTIAL SHOP A MORE
RELIABLE FORM OF SECURITY BOTH FOR UNIONS AND FOR SOCIETY THAN THE
CLOSED SHOP; THAT HE DID SO ONLY SERVES TO PROVE THAT THESE ARE
PRAGMATIC ISSUES NOT APPROPRIATE FOR DOGMATIC SOLUTION. 

WHATEVER ONE MAY THINK OF MR. BRANDEIS' VIEWS, THEY HAVE BEEN
REINFORCED BY THE ADOPTION OF LAWS INSURING AGAINST THAT UNDERCUTTING
OF UNION STANDARDS WHICH WAS ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS EFFECTS OF A
DISSIDENT MINORITY IN A UNION SHOP.  UNDER INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT UNDISTURBED BY THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT,  FN9
AND OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED
BY A MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES HAS EXCLUSIVE POWER TO DEAL WITH THE
EMPLOYER ON MATTERS OF WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS.  INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS, WHETHER ON MORE OR LESS FAVORABLE TERMS THAN THOSE OBTAINED
BY THE UNION, ARE BARRED.  J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332;
ORDER OF R.R. TELEGRAPHERS V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342;
MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 678; SEE ELGIN, J. &
E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711, 737, N. 35.  UNDER THESE LAWS, A NON
UNION BIDDER FOR A JOB IN A UNION SHOP CANNOT, IF HE WOULD, UNDERCUT
THE UNION STANDARDS. 

EVEN WHERE THE SOCIAL UNDESIRABILITY OF A LAW MAY BE CONVINCINGLY
URGED, INVALIDATION OF THE LAW BY A COURT DEBILITATES POPULAR
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.  MOST LAWS DEALING WITH ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
PROBLEMS ARE MATTERS OF TRIAL AND ERROR.  FN10  THAT WHICH BEFORE TRIAL
APPEARS TO BE DEMONSTRABLY BAD MAY BELIE PROPHECY IN ACTUAL OPERATION. 
IT MAY NOT PROVE GOOD, BUT IT MAY PROVE INNOCUOUS.  BUT EVEN IF A LAW
IS FOUND WANTING ON TRIAL, IT IS BETTER THAT ITS DEFECTS SHOULD BE
DEMONSTRATED AND REMOVED THAN THAT THE LAW SHOULD BE ABORTED BY
JUDICIAL FIAT.  SUCH AN ASSERTION OF JUDICIAL POWER DEFLECTS
RESPONSIBILITY FROM THOSE ON WHOM IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY IT ULTIMATELY
RESTS - THE PEOPLE.  IF THE PROPONENTS OF UNION-SECURITY AGREEMENTS
HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED TO THE COURT IN THEIR
"ECONOMIC BRIEF," THEY SHOULD ADDRESS THOSE ARGUMENTS TO THE
ELECTORATE.  ITS ENDORSEMENT WOULD BE A VINDICATION THAT THE MANDATE OF
THIS COURT COULD NEVER GIVE.  THAT SUCH VINDICATION IS NOT A VAIN HOPE
HAS BEEN RECENTLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE VOTERS OF MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS,
AND NEW MEXICO.  FN11  AND ALTHOUGH SEVERAL STATES IN ADDITION TO THOSE
AT BAR NOW HAVE SUCH LAWS,  FN12  THE LEGISLATURES OF AS MANY OTHER
STATES HAVE, SOMETIMES REPEATEDLY, REJECTED THEM.  FN13  WHAT ONE STATE
CAN REFUSE TO DO, ANOTHER CAN UNDO. 

BUT THERE IS REASON FOR JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IN MATTERS OF POLICY
DEEPER THAN THE VALUE OF EXPERIMENT:  IT IS FOUNDED ON A RECOGNITION OF
THE GULF OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUSTAINING AND NULLIFYING LEGISLATION. 
THIS DIFFERENCE IS THEORETICAL IN THAT THE FUNCTION OF LEGISLATING IS
FOR LEGISLATURES WHO HAVE ALSO TAKEN OATHS TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION,
WHILE THE FUNCTION OF COURTS, WHEN LEGISLATION IS CHALLENGED, IS MERELY
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS EXERCISED AN ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT,
AND NOT TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT, WHETHER A POLICY IS WITHIN OR
WITHOUT "THE VAGUE CONTOURS" OF DUE PROCESS.  THEORY IS REINFORCED BY
THE NOTORIOUS FACT THAT LAWYERS PREDOMINATE IN AMERICAN LEGISLATURES. 
FN14  IN PRACTICE ALSO THE DIFFERENCE IS WIDE.  IN THE DAY-TO-DAY
WORKING OF OUR DEMOCRACY IT IS VITAL THAT THE POWER OF THE NON
DEMOCRATIC ORGAN OF OUR GOVERNMENT BE EXERCISED WITH RIGOROUS SELF
RESTRAINT.  BECAUSE THE POWERS EXERCISED BY THIS COURT ARE INHERENTLY
OLIGARCHIC, JEFFERSON ALL OF HIS LIFE THOUGHT OF THE COURT AS "AN
IRRESPONSIBLE BODY"  FN15  AND "INDEPENDENT OF THE NATION ITSELF." 
FN16  THE COURT IS NOT SAVED FROM BEING OLIGARCHIC BECAUSE IT PROFESSES
TO ACT IN THE SERVICE OF HUMANE ENDS.  AS HISTORY AMPLY PROVES, THE
JUDICIARY IS PRONE TO MISCONCEIVE THE PUBLIC GOOD BY CONFOUNDING
PRIVATE NOTIONS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, AND SUCH
MISCONCEPTIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LEGITIMATE DISPLACEMENT BY THE WILL
OF THE PEOPLE EXCEPT AT TOO SLOW A PACE.  FN17  JUDGES APPOINTED FOR
LIFE WHOSE DECISIONS RUN COUNTER TO PREVAILING OPINION CANNOT BE VOTED
OUT OF OFFICE AND SUPPLANTED BY MEN OF VIEWS MORE CONSONANT WITH IT.
THEY ARE EVEN FARTHER REMOVED FROM DEMOCRATIC PRESSURES BY THE FACT
THAT THEIR DELIBERATIONS ARE IN SECRET AND REMAIN BEYOND DISCLOSURE
EITHER BY PERIODIC REPORTS OR BY SUCH A MODERN DEVICE FOR SECURING
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ELECTORATE AS THE "PRESS CONFERENCE."  BUT A
DEMOCRACY NEED NOT RELY ON THE COURTS TO SAVE IT FROM ITS OWN
UNWISDOM.  IF IT IS ALERT - AND WITHOUT ALERTNESS BY THE PEOPLE THERE
CAN BE NO ENDURING DEMOCRACY - UNWISE OR UNFAIR LEGISLATION CAN READILY
BE REMOVED FROM THE STATUTE BOOKS.  IT IS BY SUCH VIGILANCE OVER ITS
REPRESENTATIVES THAT DEMOCRACY PROVES ITSELF. 

OUR RIGHT TO PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION IS NOW TOO MUCH PART
OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM TO BE BROUGHT INTO QUESTION.  BUT THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THAT RIGHT AND THE CONDITIONS FOR ITS EXERCISE MUST
CONSTANTLY BE KEPT IN MIND AND VIGOROUSLY OBSERVED.  BECAUSE THE COURT
IS WITHOUT POWER TO SHAPE MEASURES FOR DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS OF
SOCIETY BUT HAS MERELY THE POWER OF NEGATION OVER MEASURES SHAPED BY
OTHERS, THE INDISPENSABLE JUDICIAL REQUISITE IS INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY,
AND SUCH HUMILITY PRESUPPOSES COMPLETE DISINTERESTEDNESS.  AND SO, IN
THE END, IT IS RIGHT THAT THE COURT SHOULD BE INDIFFERENT TO PUBLIC
TEMPER AND POPULAR WISHES.  MR. DOOLEY'S "TH' SUPREME COORT FOLLOWS TH'
ILICTION RETURNS" EXPRESSED THE WIT OF CYNICISM, NOT THE DEMAND OF
PRINCIPLE.  A COURT WHICH YIELDS TO THE POPULAR WILL THEREBY LICENSES
ITSELF TO PRACTICE DESPOTISM, FOR THERE CAN BE NO ASSURANCE THAT IT
WILL NOT ON ANOTHER OCCASION INDULGE ITS OWN WILL.  COURTS CAN FULFILL
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT
THEY SUCCEED IN SHAPING THEIR JUDGMENTS BY RATIONAL STANDARDS, AND
RATIONAL STANDARDS ARE BOTH IMPERSONAL AND COMMUNICABLE.  MATTERS OF
POLICY, HOWEVER, ARE BY DEFINITION MATTERS WHICH DEMAND THE RESOLUTION
OF CONFLICTS OF VALUE, AND THE ELEMENTS OF CONFLICTING VALUES ARE
LARGELY IMPONDERABLE.  ASSESSMENT OF THEIR COMPETING WORTH INVOLVES
DIFFERENCES OF FEELING; IT IS ALSO AN EXERCISE IN PROPHECY.  OBVIOUSLY
THE PROPER FORUM FOR MEDIATING A CLASH OF FEELINGS AND RENDERING A
PROPHETIC JUDGMENT IS THE BODY CHOSEN FOR THOSE PURPOSES BY THE
PEOPLE.  ITS FUNCTIONS CAN BE ASSUMED BY THIS COURT ONLY IN DISREGARD
OF THE HISTORIC LIMITS OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

FN1  OF COURSE, THEORY NEVER WHOLLY SQUARED WITH THE FACTS.  EVEN
WHILE LAISSEZ FAIRE DOCTRINES WERE DOMINANT, STATE ACTIVITY IN ECONOMIC
AFFAIRS WAS CONSIDERABLE.  SEE HANDLIN, COMMONWEALTH:  A STUDY OF THE
ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, MASSACHUSETTS, 1774
1861(1947); HARTZ, ECONOMIC POLICY AND DEMOCRATIC THOUGHT:
PENNSYLVANIA, 1776-1860(1948). 

FN2  SEE, E.G., STATE OF ARIZONA INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PUBLICITY
PAMPHLET, 1946(COMPILED AND ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE);
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE NEBRASKA STATE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
PUBLIC WELFARE, MARCH 21, 1947(TRANSCRIPT OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECORD OF
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TESTIMONY KINDLY FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE OF NEBRASKA); THE CASE AGAINST THE CLOSED SHOP IN NEBRASKA, A
PAMPHLET PUBLISHED BY THE "RIGHT TO WORK COMMITTEE"; N.C. SESS. LAWS,
1947, C. 328, SEC. 1(PREAMBLE).  AS TO THE SIMILAR PURPOSE OF SIMILAR
LEGISLATION IN OTHER STATES, SEE, E.G., THE OPEN SHOP IN VIRGINIA,
REPORT OF THE VIRGINIA ADVISORY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO THE GOVERNOR OF
VIRGINIA, HOUSE DOC. NO. 2, P. 7(1947); ADDRESS OF WM. M. TUCK TO THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA, EXTRA SESSION, HOUSE DOC. NO.
1, PP. 8-9(1947); TUCUMCARI (N.M.)  DAILY NEWS, OCT. 6, 1948, P. 3,
COL. 3(REPORT OF RADIO ADDRESSES BY SPONSORS OF PROPOSED "RIGHT-TO-WORK
AMENDMENT").    FN3  IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE, "UNION MEMBERSHIP"
INCLUDES ALL MEMBERS OF AFL, CIO, AND INDEPENDENT OR UNAFFILIATED
UNIONS, INCLUDING CANADIAN MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL UNIONS WITH
HEADQUARTERS IN THE UNITED STATES; THE "EMPLOYMENT" FIGURES INCLUDE ALL
NON-AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES (I.E., WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS), NON
AGRICULTURAL SELF-EMPLOYED, UNPAID FAMILY WORKERS, AND DOMESTICSERVICE
WORKERS. 

          UNION

        MEMBERSHIP                     EMPLOYMENT 

YEAR      (THOUSANDS)              (THOUSANDS) 

1898         467........................ 

1900         791........................   17,826 

1903       1,824........................   20,202 

1908     2,092........................   22,871 

1913       2,661........................   27,031 

1918       3,368........................   33,456 

1923       3,629........................   32,314 

1928       3,567........................ 35,505 

1933       2,857........................   28,670 

1938       8,265........................   34,530 

1943    13,642........................   45,390 

1948      15,600........................   50,400 

THE "UNION MEMBERSHIP" TOTALS, EXCEPT FOR 1948, ARE TAKEN FROM
MEMBERSHIP OF LABOR UNIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR,
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS (MIMEOGRAPHED PAMPHLET); THE "UNION
MEMBERSHIP" AND "EMPLOYMENT" TOTALS FOR 1948 ARE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.  THE "EMPLOYMENT" FIGURES FOR YEARS
UP TO 1928 ARE TAKEN FROM EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT OF THE LABOR
FORCE, 1900-1940, 2 CONFERENCE BOARD ECONOMIC RECORD 77, 80(1940);
"EMPLOYMENT" FIGURES FOR YEARS SINCE 1929, EXCEPT 1948, AND THE BASIS
UPON WHICH THEY ARE ESTIMATED MAY BE FOUND IN TECHNICAL NOTE, 67
MONTHLY LABOR REV., NO. 1, P. 50(1948). 

FN4  SECTION 2, FOURTH, OF THE 1934 AMENDMENT, 48 STAT. 1187, OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 577, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 152, FOURTH,
APPEARS ON ITS FACE TO BAR UNION-SHOP AGREEMENTS, AND IT HAS BEEN SO
INTERPRETED.  40 OPS.  ATTY.  GEN., NO. 59(DEC.  29, 1942).  THE WISDOM
OF SUCH A LEGISLATIVE POLICY IS OF COURSE NOT FOR US TO JUDGE. 

IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE, "MEMBERSHIP OF BROTHERHOODS" INCLUDES THE
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINEMEN AND FIREMEN, THE ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS, AND THE
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, WITH THE CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP OF EACH,
BUT NOT RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF CIO OR INDEPENDENT
UNIONS.  THE 1919 FIGURE FOR "EMPLOYMENT CLASS I RAILROADS" INCLUDES
ALL, NOT MERELY CLASS I, OPERATING CARRIERS. 

        MEMBERSHIP OF                     EMPLOYMENT

        BROTHERHOODS             CLASS I RAILROADS 

YEAR      (THOUSANDS)                (THOUSANDS) 

1919         456........................       1,908 

1924         434........................       1,774 

1929         423........................    1,661 

1934         268........................       1,008 

1939         303........................         988 

1944         442........................       1,415 

1947         450........................       1,352 

THE "MEMBERSHIP OF BROTHERHOODS" FIGURES ARE ESTIMATES MADE AVAILABLE
THROUGH THE KINDNESS OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS.  THOSE FOR 1924
1934 ARE BASED ON WOLMAN, EBB AND FLOW IN TRADE UNIONISM 230-31(1936). 
THE FIGURES FOR "EMPLOYMENT CLASS I RAILROADS" HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM
THE I.C.C. ANNUAL REPORTS ENTITLED STATISTICS OF RAILWAYS IN THE UNITED
STATES, THAT FOR 1919 FROM THE 33D ANN. REP. AT 21(1922); THAT FOR 1924
FROM 38TH ANN. REP. AT XXV (1926); THOSE FOR 1929, 1934, AND 1939 FROM
54TH ANN. REP. AT 59(1942); THAT FOR 1944 FROM 60TH ANN. REP. AT
55(1948); THAT FOR 1947 FROM I.C.C., BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS AND
STATISTICS, STATEMENT NO. M-300, WAGE STATISTICS OF CLASS I STEAM
RAILWAYS IN THE UNITED STATES (1947). 

FN5  SEE U.S. DEPT. LABOR, REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS IN GREAT BRITAIN 23(1938); U.S. DEPT. LABOR, REPORT OF THE
COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN SWEDEN 9(1938).  CF.  THE
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, ART. 20, CL. 2, ADOPTED BY THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, DEC. 11, 1948, DECLARING THAT
"NO ONE MAY BE COMPELLED TO BELONG TO AN ASSOCIATION." 

FN6  SEN. DOC. NO. 415, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 7681.  FOR OTHER
EXPRESSIONS OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS' SYMPATHY FOR THE CAUSE OF TRADE
UNIONS, SEE ID. AT 7659-60, 7662, 7667; BRANDEIS, THE EMPLOYER AND
TRADES UNIONS, IN BUSINESS - A PROFESSION 13(1914); INDUSTRIAL CO
OPERATION, 3 FILENE CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION ECHO, NO. 3, P. 1(MAY,
1905), REPRINTED IN THE CURSE OF BIGNESS 35(FRAENKEL ED. 1935); BIG
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL LIBERTY, REPRINTED IN ID. AT 38. 

FN7  COPY OBTAINED FROM THE COLLECTION OF BRANDEIS PAPERS AT THE LAW
LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, TO WHICH I AM INDEBTED.  THE
LETTER IS QUOTED IN PART IN MASON, BRANDEIS:  A FREE MAN'S LIFE
301(1946).  SEE ALSO TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 6, AT 7680-81.  AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
THE CLOSED OR UNION SHOP, MR. BRANDEIS ADVOCATED THE "PREFERENTIAL
UNION SHOP," WHICH, APPARENTLY, IS ALSO BARRED BY THE ARIZONA,
NEBRASKA, AND NORTH CAROLINA LAWS.  FOR ACCOUNTS OF THE WORKING OF THE
"PREFERENTIAL UNION SHOP," SEE MOSKOWITZ, THE POWER FOR CONSTRUCTIVE
REFORM IN THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT, 2 LIFE AND LABOR 10(1912); WINSLOW,
CONCILIATION, ARBITRATION, AND SANITATION IN THE CLOAK, SUIT, AND SKIRT
INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK CITY, 24 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR, NO. 98,
JAN., 1912, H.R. DOC. NO. 166, 62D CONG., 2D SESS. 203, 215. 

FN8  COPY OBTAINED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE; QUOTED IN PART
IN MASON, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 7, AT 303-04. 

FN9  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 245, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 17; 93 CONG. REC.
4371(MAY 1, 1947). 

FN10  EXAMPLES OF LEGISLATIVE EXPERIMENTATION UNDERTAKEN TO MEET A
RECOGNIZED NEED WERE THE BANK-DEPOSIT GUARANTY LAWS PASSED IN THE WAKE
OF THE PANIC OF 1907 BY KANSAS, NEBRASKA, AND OKLAHOMA.  DESPITE
SERIOUS DOUBTS OF THEIR WISDOM, THE LAWS WERE SUSTAINED AGAINST DUE
PROCESS ATTACK IN NOBLE STATE BANK V. HASKELL, 219 U.S. 104 AND 575;
SHALLENBERGER V. FIRST STATE BANK, 219 U.S. 114; ASSARIA STATE BANK V.
DOLLEY, 219 U.S. 121.  EXPERIENCE PROVED THE LAWS TO BE UNWORKABLE, SEE
ROBB, GUARANTY OF BANK DEPOSITS IN 2 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCIENCES 417(1930). 
BUT SINCE NO DUE-PROCESS OBSTACLE STOOD IN THE WAY, IT REMAINED
POSSIBLE TO PROFIT BY PAST ERRORS AND ATTEMPT A MORE MATURE SOLUTION OF
THE PROBLEM ON A NATIONAL SCALE.  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 77, 73D CONG., 1ST
SESS. 9-13; H.R. REP. NO. 150, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. 5-7.  THE RESULT
WAS ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION BY THE
BANKING ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 168, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 264.  IF THAT
EXPEDIENT SHOULD PROVE INADEQUATE, THE WAY IS OPEN FOR FURTHER
EXPERIMENTATION.  SEE NOTE, THE GLASS-STEAGALL BANKING ACT OF 1933, 47
HARV. L. REV. 325, 330-32(1933). 

FN11  ON SEPT. 13, 1948, THE VOTERS OF MAINE REJECTED "AN ACT TO
PROTECT THE RIGHT TO WORK AND TO PROHIBIT SECONDARY BOYCOTTS,
SYMPATHETIC STRIKES AND JURISDICTIONAL STRIKES" AND "AN ACT PROTECTING
THE RIGHT OF MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK."  THE VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE FIRST BILL WAS 46,809;
FOR THE SECOND, 13,676; AGAINST BOTH BILLS, 126,285.  THESE FIGURES
WERE KINDLY FURNISHED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF
MAINE. 

ON NOV. 2, 1948, THE VOTERS OF MASSACHUSETTS REJECTED A MEASURE
PROHIBITING "THE DENIAL OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN
EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP OR NON-MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR
ORGANIZATION," BY A VOTE OF 1,290,310 TO 505,575.  REPORT OF THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, NOV. 24,
1948, P. 60. 

ON THE SAME DAY THE VOTERS OF NEW MEXICO REJECTED A SIMILAR BILL BY A
VOTE OF 60,118 TO 41,387(INCOMPLETE RETURNS).  SEE CLOVIS (N.M.)  NEWS
JOURNAL, NOV. 5, 1948, P. 1, COL. 3. 

FN12  ARK. CONST. AMEND. NO. 34, NOV. 7, 1944, AND ACTS OF ARK.,
1947, ACT 101; DEL. LAWS, 1947, C. 196, SEC. 30; FLA. CONST. DECL.  OF
RIGHTS SEC. 12, AS AMENDED NOV. 7, 1944; GA. LAWS, 1947, NO. 140; IOWA
LAWS, 1947, C. 296; LA. GEN. STAT. SEC. 4381.2(DART, 1939); MD. ANN.
CODE GEN. LAWS ART. 100, SEC. 65(1939); NEV. COMP. LAWS SEC.
10473(1929); N.D. LAWS, 1947, C. 243; S.D. CONST. ART. 6, SEC. 2, AS
AMENDED NOV. 1, 1946, AND LAWS, 1947, C. 92; TENN. PUBLIC ACTS, 1947,
C. 36; TEXAS LAWS, 1947, C. 74; VA. ACTS OF ASSEMBLY, 1947, C. 2. 

FOR A VALUABLE DIGEST OF STATE LAWS REGULATING LABOR ACTIVITY SEE
KILLINGSWORTH, STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACTS, APPENDIX A, BY BEVERLEY
KRITZMAN KILLINGSWORTH, AT 267(1948).  IT SHOWS THE VARIETY AND EMPIRIC
CHARACTER OF SUCH LEGISLATION FOR A SINGLE DECADE (1937-47). 

FN13  THE FOLLOWING LIST OF REJECTED ANTI-CLOSED-SHOP LAWS HAS BEEN
COMPILED FROM U.S. DEPT. LABOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS,
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS, 1939 TO DATE. 

CALIF.:  A.B. 1560, 1941; S.B. 974, 1941; CONN.:  H.B. 557, S.B. 823,
1939; H.B. 302, 1947; KANS.:  H.B. 256, S.B. 410, 1939; S.C. RES. NO.
10, 1945; KY.:  S.B. 231, 1946; MASS.:  H.B. 864, 1947; MINN.:  S.B.
102, 1947; MISS.:  H.B. 714, 1942; H.C.R. 21, 1944(SEMBLE); H.B. 171,
1946; H.B. 328, 1948; H.B. 1000, 1948; MO.:  S.B. 144, 1945; N.H.:
H.B. 225, 1945; OHIO:  H.B. 49, 1947; UTAH:  S.J.R. 15, H.J.R. 15,
1947. 

FN14  SEE, E.G., 25 U.S. NEWS, NO. 22, P. 11(NOV.  26, 1948). 

FN15  LETTER TO CHARLES HAMMOND, AUG. 18, 1821, 15 WRITINGS OF THOMAS
JEFFERSON 330, 331(MEMORIAL ED., 1904). 

FN16  LETTER TO SAMUEL KERCHEVAL, JULY 12, 1816, 15 ID. AT 32, 34. 
FOR SIMILAR EXPRESSIONS OF JEFFERSON'S ALARM AT WHAT HE FELT TO BE THE
DANGEROUS ENCROACHMENT OF THE JUDICIARY UPON THE OTHER FUNCTIONS OF
GOVERNMENT, SEE HIS LETTERS TO WILLIAM B. GILES, APRIL 20, 1807, 11 ID.
AT 187, 191; TO CAESAR RODNEY, SEPT. 25, 1810, 12 ID. AT 424, 425; TO
JOHN TAYLOR, MAY 28, 1816, 15 ID. AT 17, 21; TO SPENCER ROANE, SEPT. 6,
1819, 15 ID. AT 212; TO THOMAS RITCHIE, DEC. 25, 1820, 15 ID. AT 297;
TO JAMES PLEASANTS, DEC. 26, 1821, 12 WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, 213,
214(FEDERAL ED., 1905); TO WILLIAM T. BARRY, JULY 2, 1822, 15 WRITINGS,
SUPRA, AT 388; TO A. CORAY, OCT. 31, 1823, 15 ID. AT 480, 487; TO
EDWARD LIVINGSTON, MARCH 25, 1825, 16 ID. AT 112.  SEE ALSO THE PASSAGE
OF JEFFERSON'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY REPRINTED IN 1 WRITINGS, SUPRA, AT 120
22.  AND SEE COMMAGER, MAJORITY RULE OR MINORITY RIGHTS 28-38(1943). 

FN17  IN TIME, OF COURSE, CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLES MAY DISAPPEAR OR
BE REMOVED.  YET ALMOST TWENTY YEARS ELAPSED BETWEEN INVALIDATION OF
THE INCOME TAX IN POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601,
AND ADOPTION OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AND IT TOOK TWENTY YEARS TO
ESTABLISH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A MINIMUM WAGE FOR WOMEN:  IT WAS
PUT IN JEOPARDY BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT IN STETTLER V. O'HARA, 243
U.S. 629, AND FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL,
261 U.S. 525, WHICH WAS NOT OVERRULED UNTIL WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379, 400.  THE FRUSTRATION OF POPULAR GOVERNMENT,
MOREOVER, IS NOT CONFINED TO THE SPECIFIC LAW STRUCK DOWN; ITS BACKWASH
DROWNS UNNUMBERED PROJECTS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE PUT TO TRIAL. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING* . 

*(THIS IS ALSO A CONCURRENCE IN NO. 47, LINCOLN FEDERAL LABOR UNION
V. NORTHWESTERN IRON & METAL CO., AND NO. 34, WHITAKER V. NORTH
CAROLINA, DECIDED TOGETHER, ANTE, P. 525.) 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT IN NO. 34, WHITAKER V. NORTH
CAROLINA.  THE APPELLANTS WERE CONVICTED UNDER A WARRANT WHICH CHARGED
ONLY, IN EFFECT, THAT THEY HAD VIOLATED THE STATUTE "BY EXECUTING A
WRITTEN AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT" FOR A CLOSED OR UNION SHOP.  FN1  THERE
WAS NEITHER CHARGE NOR EVIDENCE THAT THE EMPLOYER, AFTER THE STATUTE
BECAME EFFECTIVE, HAD REFUSED EMPLOYMENT TO ANY PERSON BECAUSE HE WAS
NOT A MEMBER OF A UNION.  THE CHARGE, THEREFORE, AND THE CONVICTION
WERE LIMITED TO THE MAKING OF THE CONTRACT.  NO OTHER PROVISION OF THE
STATUTE IS NOW INVOLVED, AS THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCEDED,
INDEED AS HE STRONGLY URGED, IN THE ARGUMENT HERE.  AS AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS RAISED TO THIS APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE, I
AGREE THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS POWER TO PROSCRIBE THE MAKING OF SUCH
CONTRACTS, AND ACCORDINGLY JOIN IN THE JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE
CONVICTIONS. 

IN NO. 27, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. AMERICAN SASH & DOOR
COMPANY, AND IN NO. 47, LINCOLN FEDERAL LABOR UNION V. NORTHWESTERN
IRON & METAL COMPANY, AS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS NOW
RAISED, I AM ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COURT'S DECISION, BUT SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING RESERVATION.  BECAUSE NO STRIKE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN
ANY OF THE STATES OF FACT, NO QUESTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN ANY OF
THESE CASES IMMEDIATELY INVOLVING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE OR CONCERNING THE
EFFECT OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.  YET THE ISSUES SO CLOSELY APPROACH
TOUCHING THAT RIGHT AS IT EXISTS OR MAY EXIST UNDER THAT AMENDMENT THAT
THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS UPON IT HARDLY CAN BE IGNORED. 
FN2  STRIKES HAVE BEEN CALLED THROUGHOUT UNION HISTORY IN DEFENSE OF
THE RIGHT OF UNION MEMBERS NOT TO WORK WITH NONUNION MEN.  IF TODAY'S
DECISION SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT A STATE TO FORECLOSE THAT RIGHT
BY MAKING ILLEGAL THE CONCERTED REFUSAL OF UNION MEMBERS TO WORK WITH
NONUNION WORKERS, AND MORE ESPECIALLY IF THE DECISION SHOULD BE TAKEN
AS GOING SO FAR AS TO PERMIT A STATE TO ENJOIN SUCH A STRIKE,  FN3  I
SHOULD WANT A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH REARGUMENT OF THESE CASES BEFORE
DECIDING SO MOMENTOUS A QUESTION.    BUT THE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT
CONTRACTS FOR UNION SECURITY IS ONE THING.  THE RIGHT TO FORCE UNION
MEMBERS TO WORK WITH NONUNION WORKERS IS ENTIRELY ANOTHER.  BECAUSE OF
THIS DIFFERENCE, I EXPRESSLY RESERVE JUDGMENT UPON THE LATTER QUESTION
UNTIL IT IS SQUARELY AND INESCAPABLY PRESENTED.  ALTHOUGH THIS
RESERVATION IS NOT MADE EXPRESSLY BY THE COURT, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND ITS
OPINION TO FORECLOSE THIS QUESTION. 

FN1  THE WARRANT, INSOFAR AS IS MATERIAL, CHARGED THAT THE APPELLANTS
HAD ENTERED INTO " ... AN ILLEGAL COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF THE RIGHT TO WORK AND OF TRADE OR COMMERCE IN THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA AND AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, BY EXECUTING A WRITTEN AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN
SAID EMPLOYER AND SAID LABOR UNIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS OR COMBINATIONS,
WHEREBY PERSONS NOT MEMBERS OF SAID UNIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS ARE DENIED
THE RIGHT TO WORK FOR SAID EMPLOYER, OR WHEREBY MEMBERSHIP IS MADE A
CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OR CONTINUATION OF SAID EMPLOYMENT BY SAID
EMPLOYER AND WHEREBY SAID NAMED UNIONS ACQUIRED AN EMPLOYMENT MONOPOLY
IN ANY AND ALL ENTERPRISES WHICH MAY BE UNDERTAKEN BY SAID EMPLOYER ARE
REQUIRED TO BECOME OR REMAIN A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION OR LABOR
ORGANIZATION AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OR CONTINUATION OF EMPLOYMENT
BY SAID EMPLOYER WHEREBY SAID UNIONS ACQUIRE AN EMPLOYMENT MONOPOLY IN
ANY AND ALL ENTERPRISES ENTERED INTO BY SAID EMPLOYER IN VIOLATION OF
HOUSE BILL #229, SESSION 1947, GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA,
CHAPTER 328, 1947 SESSION LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA, AND PARTICULARLY
N.C.  ...  " 

FN2  SEE NOTE 3. 

FN3  THE SYLLOGISM MIGHT WELL BE:  THE DECISIONS IN THE PRESENT CASES
PERMIT A STATE TO MAKE "ILLEGAL" ANY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NONUNION
WORKERS ON ACCOUNT OF THAT STATUS IN RELATION TO SECURING OR RETAINING
EMPLOYMENT; STRIKES FOR "ILLEGAL OBJECTS" ARE "UNLAWFUL"; "UNLAWFUL"
STRIKES MAY BE ENJOINED; A STRIKE BY UNION MEMBERS AGAINST WORKING WITH
NONUNION EMPLOYEES IS A STRIKE FOR AN "ILLEGAL OBJECT"; THEREFORE SUCH
A STRIKE MAY BE ENJOINED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS IN THIS OPINION INSOFAR AS IT APPLIES TO
NOS. 34 AND 47. 
..END :



JUNGERSEN V. OSTBY & BARTON CO., 335 U.S. 560 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1949.  - 163 F.2D 312,
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  - 166 F.2D 807, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ALL OF THE CLAIMS OF JUNGERSEN PATENT NO. 2,118,468, FOR A "METHOD
OF CASTING ARTICLES OF INTRICATE DESIGN AND A PRODUCT THEREOF," HELD
INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  PP. 561-568. 

2.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRIOR ART AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THIS
ALLEGED INVENTION REVEALS THAT EVERY STEP IN THE JUNGERSEN METHOD WAS
ANTICIPATED; AND IT APPEARS THAT JUNGERSEN'S COMBINATION OF THESE STEPS
WAS, IN ITS ESSENTIAL FEATURES, ALSO WELL KNOWN IN THE ART. PP. 563
564. 

3.  WHERE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE WAS COMMON AS A MEANS OF INTRODUCING
MOLTEN METAL INTO A SECONDARY MOULD, ITS USE IN AN INTERMEDIATE STEP TO
FORCE MOLTEN WAX INTO A PRIMARY MOULD WAS NOT AN EXEMPLIFICATION OF
INVENTIVE GENIUS SUCH AS IS NECESSARY TO RENDER A PATENT VALID.  PP.
564-567. 

4.  IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT JEWELRY CASTING IS A SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT ART WHERE THE PATENT IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE CASTING OF
JEWELRY AND THE PRIOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ART OF CASTING WERE SO
OBVIOUSLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASTING OF JEWELRY THAT THE PATENTEE WAS
BOUND BY KNOWLEDGE OF THEM.  P. 567. 

5.  WHERE INVENTION IS PLAINLY LACKING, THE FACT THAT A PROCESS HAS
ENJOYED CONSIDERABLE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS DOES NOT RENDER A PATENT ON IT
VALID.  PP. 567-568. 

JUNGERSEN V. OSTBY & BARTON CO. ET AL. 

NO. 7.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 8, OSTBY & BARTON CO. ET AL. V. JUNGERSEN, ON
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT,
AND NO. 48, JUNGERSEN V. BADEN ET AL., ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

NOS. 7 AND 8.  IN A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A PATENT WAS
INVALID AND NOT INFRINGED, DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMED, ALLEGING
INFRINGEMENT AND SEEKING AN INJUNCTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
CERTAIN CLAIMS VALID BUT NOT INFRINGED AND CERTAIN OTHER CLAIMS
INVALID.  65 F.SUPP.  652.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  163 F.2D
312.  THIS COURT DENIED PETITIONS OF BOTH PARTIES FOR CERTIORARI, 332
U.S. 851, 852; BUT, AFTER A CONFLICTING DECISION IN ANOTHER CIRCUIT IN
NO. 48, VACATED THOSE ORDERS AND GRANTED CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 835. 
NO. 7 AFFIRMED AND NO. 8 REVERSED, P. 568. 

NO. 48.  IN A SUIT FOR DAMAGES, PROFITS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR
ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD ALL CLAIMS OF
THE PATENT INVALID.  69 F.SUPP.  922.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
166 F.2D 807.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 835.  AFFIRMED,
P. 568. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE HERE IS THE VALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 2,118,468
WHICH COVERS A "METHOD OF CASTING ARTICLES OF INTRICATE DESIGN AND A
PRODUCT THEREOF." 

THE PATENT WAS GRANTED TO JUNGERSEN ON MAY 24, 1938.  IN 1941, OSTBY
AND BARTON COMPANY INSTITUTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT
THE PATENT WAS INVALID AND NOT INFRINGED.  JUNGERSEN, BY COUNTERCLAIM,
ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT AND SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
CLAIMS 1-4 VALID BUT NOT INFRINGED AND CLAIMS 5-6 INVALID BECAUSE TOO
BROAD.  65 F.SUPP.  652.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED ON THE REASONING OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  163
F.2D 312.  WE DENIED PETITIONS BY BOTH PARTIES FOR CERTIORARI.  332
U.S. 851, 852. 

IN 1944, JUNGERSEN FILED SUIT AGAINST BADEN IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, IN WHICH HE
ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT AND SOUGHT DAMAGES, PROFITS, AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  THAT COURT HELD ALL THE CLAIMS INVALID.  69
F.SUPP.  922.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  166 F.2D 807. 

VACATING THE PRIOR ORDERS WHICH DENIED IT IN THE OSTBY AND BARTON
PROCEEDING, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH CASES IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE
CONFLICT.  334 U.S. 835.  FN1  SINCE THE PARTIES DO NOT ASSERT ERROR IN
THOSE PORTIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS' DECISIONS WHICH CONCERN
INFRINGEMENT, THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE US IS THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT. 

THE METHOD DESCRIBED IN THE JUNGERSEN PATENT, CLAIMS 1-4, CONSISTS OF
THE FOLLOWING STEPS:  (1) THE PRODUCTION OF A MODEL OF THE ARTICLE TO
BE CAST, (2) THE FORMATION AROUND THIS MODEL OF A "PRIMARY MOULD" OF
PLASTIC MATERIAL "SUCH AS RUBBER" WHICH IS "CAPABLE OF ASSUMING
INTIMATE CONTACT WITH THE INTRICATE DESIGNS OF THE MODEL" AND WHICH
WILL "RETAIN A LASTING SHAPE THROUGH SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT," (3) THE
CASTING IN THIS MOULD OF A PATTERN CONSISTING OF MOLTEN WAX OR OTHER
MATERIAL OF A LOW MELTING POINT WHICH IS MADE TO ASSUME THE MINUTE
CONFIGURATIONS OF THE MOULD BY MEANS OF CENTRIFUGAL FORCE, (4) THE
REMOVAL OF THIS PATTERN (WHICH HAS BECOME SOLID UPON COOLING) FROM THE
PRIMARY MOULD, AND THE FORMATION AROUND IT OF A "SECONDARY MOULD" OF
REFRACTORY MATERIAL, SUCH AS PLASTER OF PARIS, WHICH "WILL ASSUME ALL
THE CONTOURS OF ITS INTRICATE DESIGN," (5) THE REMOVAL OF THE WAX OR
SIMILAR MATERIAL FROM THE SECONDARY MOULD, OR "INVESTMENT" AS IT IS
CALLED, BY THE APPLICATION OF HEAT, THUS MELTING IT OUT, AND FINALLY
(6) THE CASTING OF THE DESIRED MOLTEN METAL INTO THE CAVITY IN THE
INVESTMENT BY THE APPLICATION OF CENTRIFUGAL FORCE AS IN (3), ABOVE. 

THIS METHOD IS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING "SMALL METAL ARTICLES,
PARTICULARLY ARTICLES OF INTRICATE DETAIL SUCH AS JEWELRY WHICH
FREQUENTLY ARE DESIGNED WITH HOLLOWS, UNDERCUT PORTIONS AND
PERFORATIONS, SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE A SMOOTH CLEAN SURFACE FAITHFUL IN
DETAIL TO THE ORIGINAL AND FREE FROM IMPERFECTIONS OR HOLES, AND TO
ENABLE SUCH RESULT BEING ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE MINIMUM OF EXPENSE." 
THE PATENTEE CLAIMS THAT IT MADE POSSIBLE THE ACCURATE REPRODUCTION OF
INTRICATE DESIGNS IN FAR LESS TIME THAN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN REQUIRED. 

CLAIM 5 DESCRIBES IN MORE GENERAL TERMS THE FORMATION OF A PRIMARY
MOULD AROUND THE ORIGINAL PATTERN, THE REMOVAL OF THE PATTERN FROM THE
MOULD, THE INTRODUCTION OF MOLTEN WAX INTO THE MOULD "BY FORCE
SUFFICIENT TO DEPOSIT THE MATERIAL INTO THE DEPRESSION OR DEPRESSIONS
OF THE PRIMARY MOULD" AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE WAX PATTERN FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF A CASTING MOULD.  CLAIM 6 COVERS "AN ARTICLE OF JEWELRY"
OF INTRICATE DESIGN MADE BY THE PROCESS DISCLOSED BY CLAIM 5.  IT
DESCRIBES THE ARTICLE OF JEWELRY ONLY BY REFERENCE TO THE PROCESS BY
WHICH IT IS MANUFACTURED.  OBVIOUSLY IF THE FIRST FOUR CLAIMS ARE
INVALID, THE LAST TWO MUST LIKEWISE FALL. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE PRIOR ART AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THIS
ALLEGED INVENTION REVEALS THAT EVERY STEP IN THE JUNGERSEN METHOD WAS
ANTICIPATED.  WE THINK THAT HIS COMBINATION OF THESE STEPS WAS, IN ITS
ESSENTIAL FEATURES, ALSO WELL KNOWN IN THE ART. 

JUNGERSEN'S PROCESS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A REFINEMENT OF A METHOD
KNOWN AS THE "CIRE PERDUE" OR "LOST WAX" PROCESS, WHICH WAS IN USE AS
EARLY AS THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY N2.  THE TREATISES OF BENVENUTO CELLINI
ON GOLDSMITHING AND SCULPTURE, PP. 87-89, REVEALS A PROCESS WHICH
CONSISTS OF FILLING A PRIMARY MOULD WITH MOLTEN WAX, BUILDING A
SECONDARY MOULD AROUND THE WAX MODEL THUS OBTAINED, MELTING THE WAX
FROM THIS MOULD AND POURING THE DESIRED METAL IN THE SECONDARY MOULD. 
IN 1904 UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 748,996, ISSUED TO SPENCER, DESCRIBED
A SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL PROCESS IN WHICH THE PRIMARY MOULD WAS MADE,
AS IN THE PATENT HERE INVOLVED, BY VULCANIZING RUBBER AROUND THE
ORIGINAL MODEL OR PATTERN.  IN ENGLAND A PROCESS SIMILAR TO SPENCER'S
HAD BEEN THE BASIS OF A PATENT ISSUED TO HASELTINE IN 1875.  FN3 

THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PRIOR ART SUGGESTED NO
LIMITATION OF THEIR APPLICABILITY TO ANY PARTICULAR TYPE OF CASTING. 
SPENCER STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF HIS PROCESS WAS TO PRODUCE ACCURATE
REPLICAS OF THE ORIGINAL PATTERN, WHICH COULD BE OF "INTRICATE FORM"
AND WHICH COULD "HAVE ANY NUMBER OF SIDES OR SURFACES OR UNDERCUT OR
PROJECTING PARTS."  HASELTINE DESCRIBED HIS OBJECT AS THE PRODUCTION OF
"A CASTING IN METAL FROM A GIVEN PATTERN, WHICH CASTING WILL BE A
PERFECT COPY OF SUCH PATTERN WITHOUT REQUIRING MUCH, IF ANY, AFTER
FINISHING OR CHISELLING WORK." 

THE PATENTEE CLAIMS THAT THE INVENTION IN HIS COMBINATION LIES IN THE
USE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE "LOST WAX" PROCESS, OF CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. 
LONG BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PATENT, HOWEVER, THOSE SKILLED IN THE
ART RECOGNIZED AND DISCLOSED THE NECESSITY FOR THE APPLICATION OF FORCE
IN ORDER TO MAKE MOLTEN MATERIALS FIT SNUGLY THE INTRICATE DETAILS OF
THE MOULD.  HASELTINE APPLIED PRESSURE OF ABOUT TWENTY POUNDS PER
SQUARE INCH TO CAUSE THE MOLTEN METAL "TO LIE TO THE DENSE MOULD AND
PRODUCE A SHARP AND WELL DEFINED CASTING."  HE ACCOMPLISHED THIS BY
INTRODUCING THE METAL INTO THE MOULD THROUGH A PIPE ABOUT SIX FEET IN
HEIGHT.  FN4  UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 1,238,789 ISSUED TO KRALUND IN
1917 TEACHES THE APPLICATION OF PRESSURE TO THE WAX AND THE MOLTEN
METAL BY MEANS OF AN ORDINARY PRESSURE DIE CASTING APPARATUS. 

WHETHER THESE TYPES OF PRESSURE ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF CENTRIFUGAL
FORCE WE NEED NOT DECIDE SINCE IT IS EVIDENT FROM PATENTS AND
PUBLICATIONS THAT THE USE OF THE LATTER WAS WELL KNOWN IN THE ART. IN
1923 MCMANUS PATENTED A CASTING MACHINE WHICH WAS ADAPTED "TO THE
CASTING OF JEWELRY, SUCH AS GOLD RINGS, SMALL TRINKETS, ETC., WHERE
METAL OR OTHER DIES OR MOULDS MAY BE ...  FILLED BY CENTRIFUGAL CASTING
METHODS."  UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 1,457,040.  HE CLAIMED "A MEANS FOR
TRANSFERRING FUSED MATERIAL FROM THE FURNACE (IN WHICH THE MATERIAL WAS
MELTED) TO THE MOULD UNDER THE ACTION OF CENTRIFUGAL FORCE."  IN A
PAPER ON CURRENT CASTING METHODS WHICH HE PRESENTED TO THE INSTITUTE OF
METALS IN ENGLAND IN 1926, ONE GEORGE MORTIMER, WITH REFERENCE TO THE
DIFFICULTY IN FILLING A MOULD BY GRAVITY, STATED: 

"IT WAS NATURAL, THEREFORE, THAT ENGINEERS SHOULD EARLY TURN THEIR
ATTENTION TO SOME FORM OF ARTIFICIAL PRESSURE, WHEREBY THE MOULD COULD
BE FILLED BY FORCE, AND SOUNDNESS AND CLEAN DEFINITION SEEMINGLY
ASSURED. 

"THE SIMPLEST FORM OF ARTIFICIAL PRESSURE IS THAT OF CENTRIFUGAL
FORCE  ...  "  FN5  CENTRIFUGAL FORCE WAS COMMONLY USED IN DENTAL
CASTING PRIOR TO 1938.  FN6 

THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE "LOST WAX" PROCESS, THE USE OF A FLEXIBLE
PRIMARY MOULD, AND THE USE OF CENTRIFUGAL FORCE WERE ALL OLD IN THE ART
OF CASTING.  THE PATENTEE CLAIMS THAT THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCING OF WAX
INTO THE PRIMARY MOULD HAD NEVER BEFORE BEEN COMBINED WITH THE OTHER
FEATURES OF HIS PROCESS.  WE THINK THIS FACT IS OF NO LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE.  WHERE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE WAS COMMON AS A MEANS OF
INTRODUCING MOLTEN METAL INTO THE SECONDARY MOULD, ITS USE IN AN
INTERMEDIATE STEP TO FORCE MOLTEN WAX INTO THE PRIMARY MOULD WAS NOT AN
EXEMPLIFICATION OF INVENTIVE GENIUS SUCH AS IS NECESSARY TO RENDER THE
PATENT VALID.  CF. LINCOLN ENGINEERING CO. V. STEWART-WARNER CORP., 303
U.S. 545; CUNO ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., 314 U.S.
84.  THE PATENTEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE SAME PRINCIPLE WAS EMPLOYED
IN BOTH STEPS.  FN7  THUS JUNGERSEN EMPLOYED IN HIS CLAIMED INVENTION
WELL-KNOWN SKILLS AND PRACTICES IN A MANNER AND FOR A PURPOSE LONG
FAMILIAR IN THE FIELD OF CASTING.  HIS CLAIMED IMPROVEMENT IS THEREFORE
NOT PATENTABLE. 

THE PATENTEE CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT JEWELRY CASTING IS A SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT ART; THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE ADVANCEMENTS IN OTHER TYPES OF
CASTING MENTIONED ABOVE CANNOT BE VIEWED AS THE PRIOR ART IN REFERENCE
TO THIS PATENT.  THE ANSWER TO THIS IS TWOFOLD.  IN THE FIRST PLACE,
THIS PATENT IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE CASTING OF JEWELRY.  ITS STATED
OBJECT IS TO "FACILITATE THE CASTING OF SMALL METAL ARTICLES,
PARTICULARLY ARTICLES OF INTRICATE DETAIL SUCH AS JEWELRY  ...  "
SECONDLY WE THINK THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ART OF CASTING WHICH
WERE DISCLOSED BY THE PATENTS AND PUBLICATIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE WERE SO
OBVIOUSLY APPLICABLE TO THE TYPE OF CASTING SOUGHT TO BE EFFECTED BY
JUNGERSEN THAT HE WAS BOUND BY KNOWLEDGE OF THEM.  MANDEL BROS. V.
WALLACE, 335 U.S. 291, 295-96. 

NUMEROUS LICENSES UNDER THE PATENT WERE ISSUED IN THE UNITED STATES
AND OTHER COUNTRIES.  THE FACT THAT THIS PROCESS HAS ENJOYED
CONSIDERABLE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS, HOWEVER, DOES NOT RENDER THE PATENT
VALID.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN CASES WHERE THE QUESTION OF PATENTABLE
INVENTION IS A CLOSE ONE, SUCH SUCCESS HAS WEIGHT IN TIPPING THE SCALES
OF JUDGMENT TOWARD PATENTABILITY.  GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. V. RAY-O
VAC CO., 321 U.S. 275, 279, AND CASES CITED IN FOOTNOTE 5 THEREOF. 
WHERE, AS HERE, HOWEVER, INVENTION IS PLAINLY LACKING, COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS CANNOT FILL THE VOID.  DOW CHEMICAL CO. V. HALLIBURTON CO., 324
U.S. 320, 330; TOLEDO PRESSED STEEL CO. V. STANDARD PARTS, INC., 307
U.S. 350, 356-57; TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS V. HIRSCH CO., 302 U.S. 490,
498-99; 1 WALKER, PATENTS (DELLER, 1937) SEC. 44.  LITTLE PROFIT WOULD
COME FROM DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE CASES CITED ABOVE OR THOSE
INDICATED BY REFERENCE.  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS REALLY A MAKEWEIGHT
WHERE THE PATENTABILITY QUESTION IS CLOSE. 

INCREASED POPULAR DEMAND FOR JEWELRY OR ALERTNESS IN EXPLOITATION OF
THE PROCESS MAY WELL HAVE PLAYED AN IMPORTANT PART IN THE WIDE USE OF
THE PATENT.  WE CANNOT ATTRIBUTE JUNGERSEN'S SUCCESS SOLELY OR EVEN
LARGELY TO THE NOVELTY OF HIS PROCESS. 

WE HOLD ALL THE CLAIMS OF THE PATENT INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION. 
NOS. 7 AND 48 AFFIRMED.  NO. 8 REVERSED. 

FN1  IN NO. 7 WE ARE ASKED TO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AS TO CLAIMS 5 AND 6; IN NO. 8, THE
DECISION OF THAT COURT AS TO CLAIMS 1 THROUGH 4; AND IN NO. 48, THE
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AS TO ALL THE
CLAIMS OF THE PATENT. 

FN2  20 ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (1948), P. 229. 

FN3  BRITISH PATENT NO. 2467. 

A FRENCH PUBLICATION BY VERLEY ENTITLED "LA GRAVURE, ETC." (1924)
DESCRIBES IN DETAIL ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF JUNGERSEN'S PROCESS EXCEPT
THE USE OF CENTRIFUGAL FORCE. 

FN4  "LA GRAVURE, ETC.," SUPRA, NOTE 3, ADVOCATES THE USE OF STEAM
PRESSURE. 

FN5  35 JOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTE OF METALS, 371, 377. 

FN6  "DENTAL-CASTING METHODS EMPLOY FOUR DISTINCT PRINCIPLES; NAMELY,
GRAVITY, CENTRIFUGAL, VACUUM, AND PRESSURE.  ... 

"THE CENTRIFUGAL METHOD HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF GREAT SIMPLICITY, AND
FILLS THE MOLD BY THE FORCE EXERTED IN THROWING THE METAL OFF ON A
TANGENT WHILE BEING REVOLVED ABOUT A CENTER."  STERN, DIE-CASTING
PRACTICE (1ST ED., 1930), P. 10.    FN7  AN EXCERPT FROM THE TESTIMONY
FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  AND WHEN THE MACHINE IS REVOLVED, WHEN IT IS CENTRIFUGED, IT
MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER IT BE MOLTEN WAX OR MOLTEN METAL, DOES IT,
IN THE FACT THAT IT THROWS OUT THE MOLTEN MATERIAL INTO THE GATE?  A.
IT WOULD THROW OUT ANYTHING OF WEIGHT IF IT IS MADE FREE TO LEAVE. 

"Q.  AND THAT APPLIES TO WAX AS WELL AS METAL, DOES IT NOT?  A. IT
APPLIES TO WAX AND METAL, BUT IN A GREATER AMOUNT TO THE METAL THAN TO
THE WAX. 

"Q.  BUT THEY BOTH OPERATE IN THE SAME WAY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE
CENTRIFUGAL MACHINE?  A. THE SAME PRINCIPLE IS USED, YES. 

"Q.  AND THE MOLTEN MATERIAL IN BOTH CASES IS INTRODUCED INTO THE
MOLD?  A. YES." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE PATENT CONTROVERSIES THAT CARRY SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES FOR AN IMPORTANT INDUSTRY AND THEREBY FOR THE GENERAL
PUBLIC.  THE CASE DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE BASIC ISSUES REGARDING THE
JUDICIARY'S ROLE IN OUR EXISTING PATENT SYSTEM.  THESE ISSUES WERE
STATED BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND WHEN THE LITIGATION WAS BEFORE THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  SINCE THIS COURT'S OPINION HAS NOT,
TO MY MIND, MET THE QUESTIONS WHICH HE RAISED, AND SINCE I CANNOT
IMPROVE UPON WHAT JUDGE LEARNED HAND WROTE, I ADOPT HIS OPINION AS
MINE. 

"IN JUNGERSEN'S BRITISH PATENT, AS MY BROTHERS TRULY SAY, HE BASED
HIS INVENTION SOLELY UPON FORCING THE WAX AND THE METAL INTO COMPLETELY
INTIMATE CONTACT WITH EVERY CREVICE OF THE MOULD, AND FOR THIS HE
DISCLOSED A CENTRIFUGE AS THE MEANS.  MOREOVER, IT HAD ALREADY BEEN
KNOWN BY OTHER MOULDERS OF FINE PATTERNS THAT THE METAL MIGHT NOT FILL
ALL THE SPACES NECESSARY FOR PERFECT REPRODUCTION.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN
1873 HASELTINE DISCLOSED A DEVICE WHICH SET UP A PRESSURE OF TWENTY
POUNDS TO THE SQUARE INCH; AND THIS TOO IN A 'LOST WAX' PROCESS.  TRUE,
HE DID NOT DISCLOSE USING SIMILAR PRESSURE FOR THE WAX, AND HE DID NOT
USE A CENTRIFUGE; BUT MCMANUS USED A CENTRIFUGE TO FORCE FUSIBLE METAL
INTO ALL THE CREVICES OF THE MOULD, AND THAT TOO IN A 'LOST WAX'
PROCESS, THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHICH HE APPEARS TO HAVE ASSUMED, FOR HE DOES
NOT DISCLOSE HOW TO MAKE THE WAX MODEL.  KRALUND ALSO SHOWED A PRESSURE
DIE-CASTING PROCESS, AS APPLIED TO THE 'LOST WAX' METHOD; AND HE USED
PRESSURE TO FORCE HIS WAX INTO INTIMATE CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST DIE
AS WELL AS UPON THE MOLTEN METAL OF THE FINAL CASTING:  BUT HIS
ORIGINAL DIE WAS OF STEEL AND HE DOES NOT DESCRIBE ITS MANUFACTURE. 

"NEVERTHELESS, IN SPITE OF ALL THESE APPROACHES, AND OF THE FACT THAT
ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE DISCLOSURE WERE TO BE FOUND IN THE PRIOR ART,
IT REMAINS TRUE THAT JUNGERSEN'S PROCESS IN ITS ENTIRETY HAD NEVER BEEN
ASSEMBLED BEFORE; NO ONE HAD EVER THOUGHT OF COMBINING ALL THOSE STEPS
IN A SINGLE SEQUENCE.  TRUE, HAD THE COMBINATION NOT BEEN NEW IN THIS
OBJECTIVE SENSE, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PATENTED MERELY BY TURNING IT
TO A NEW USE; AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SO, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE TAKEN
AS MUCH ORIGINALITY TO SEE THAT IT COULD BE PUT TO THE NEW USE, AS IT
TAKES TO MAKE AN OUTSTANDING INVENTION.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FINAL
ANSWER THAT CONGRESS HAS NEVER SEEN FIT TO EXTEND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO 'DISCOVERIES' AS SUCH, AND HAS LIMITED PATENTS TO AN 'ART,
MACHINE, MANUFACTURE, OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER,'  FN1  AS WE HAVE OFTEN
SAID - THE LAST TIME IN OLD TOWN RIBBON & CARBON CO., INC., V. COLUMBIA
RIBBON & CARBON MANUFACTURING CO. FN2  MY POINT IS THAT, IF THERE IS A
NEW COMBINATION, HOWEVER TRIFLING THE PHYSICAL CHANGE MAY BE, NOTHING
MORE IS REQUIRED THAN THAT, TO TAKE THE STEP OR STEPS, ADDED
'INVENTION,' IS NEEDED; AND 'INVENTION,' WHATEVER ELSE IT MAY BE, IS
WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITIES AND OF THOSE ALONE.  IN THE
CASE AT BAR THE ANSWER MUST THEREFORE DEPEND UPON HOW WE SHALL APPRAISE
THE DEPARTURE FROM WHAT HAD GONE BEFORE IN TERMS OF CREATIVE
IMAGINATION; INDEED, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT OTHER TEST COULD BE
RELEVANT. 

"IF THAT BE THE TEST, I SUBMIT THAT JUNGERSEN'S PROCESS MEETS IT.
FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL JEWELRY HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED BY THE EARLIER
PROCESSES; SO THAT THE NEED, IF NEED THERE WAS, HAD EXISTED FOR YEARS. 
MOREOVER, TWO OF THOSE EARLIER PROCESSES - 'CUTTLEFISH CASTING AND SAND
CASTING' - HAVE NOW BECOME 'OF LITTLE COMMERCIAL SIGNIFICANCE'; 'DIE
STAMPING' AND JUNGERSEN'S PROCESS 'ARE THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL METHODS NOW
COMMERCIALLY USED'; AND IN THE MANUFACTURE OF A HUNDRED RINGS OR LESS
'DIE-STAMPING' IS MORE EXPENSIVE.  HAD SOME TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE HELD
UP THE CHANGE, AND HAD JUNGERSEN MADE IT ONLY A SHORT TIME AFTER THE
OBSTACLE HAD BEEN REMOVED, I SHOULD AGREE THAT THE INFERENCE OF
OUTSTANDING ORIGINALITY WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATLY WEAKENED; BUT THAT WAS
NOT THE FACT.  INDEED, IT IS THE VERY BASIS OF THE DEFENCE THAT FOR
YEARS ALL THE ELEMENTS LAY OPEN AND AVAILABLE, AND THAT NOTHING WAS
NEEDED BUT THE PALTRY MODIFICATION WHICH HAS PROVED SO FRUITFUL.  TO
THAT I MAKE THE ANSWER ON WHICH COURTS IN THE PAST USED TO RING THE
CHANGES WITH WEARISOME ITERATION.  IF ALL THE INFORMATION WAS AT HAND,
WHY WAS THE NEW COMBINATION SO LONG DELAYED?  WHAT BETTER TEST OF
INVENTION CAN ONE ASK THAN THE DETECTION OF THAT WHICH OTHERS HAD ALL
ALONG HAD A STRONG INCENTIVE TO DISCOVER, BUT HAD FAILED TO SEE, THOUGH
ALL THE WHILE IT LAY BENEATH THEIR EYES?  TRUE, THE WHOLE APPROACH TO
THE SUBJECT HAS SUFFERED A SHIFT WITHIN THE LAST DECADE OR SO, WHICH I
RECOGNIZE THAT WE SHOULD ACCEPT AS AUTHORITATIVE.  MOREOVER, I AM NOT
AWARE OF THE SLIGHTEST BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM; I SHOULD
ACCEPT WITH EQUANIMITY A NEW SYSTEM OR NO SYSTEM.  HOWEVER, I CONFESS
MYSELF BAFFLED TO KNOW HOW TO PROCEED, IF WE ARE AT ONCE TO PROFESS TO
APPLY THE SYSTEM AS IT IS, AND YET IN EVERY CONCRETE INSTANCE WE ARE TO
DECIDE AS THOUGH IT DID NOT EXIST AS IT IS.  IN THE CASE AT BAR, I CAN
ONLY SAY THAT, SO FAR AS I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPREHEND THOSE FACTORS
WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE INVENTION, AND TO WHICH AT LEAST LIP
SERVICE CONTINUES TO BE PAID, THE COMBINATION IN SUIT HAS EVERY HALL
MARK OF A VALID PATENT." 

JUDGE HAND'S OPINION IS REPORTED AT 166 F.2D 811. 

FN1  SEC. 31, TITLE 35 U.S.C.A. 

FN2  2 CIR., 159 F.2D 379, 382. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THIS PATENT MEETS THE PATENT STATUTE'S EVERY REQUIREMENT. 
AND CONFRONTED BY THIS RECORD AN INDUSTRY HERETOFORE GALLED BY FUTILITY
AND FRUSTRATION MAY WELL BE AMAZED AT THE COURT'S DISMISSAL OF
JUNGERSEN'S INGENIOUS AND SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS. 

OF COURSE, COMMERCIAL SUCCESS WILL NOT FILL ANY VOID IN AN INVALID
PATENT.  BUT IT MAY FILL THE VOID IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE
INVENTION HAS MEANT TO THOSE WHOSE LIVELIHOOD, UNLIKE OUR OWN, DEPENDS
UPON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ART. CONCEDEDLY, IN THIS HIGH-PRESSURE AGE
SALES VOLUME MAY REFLECT ONLY POWERFUL PROMOTION OR MARKETING MAGIC,
AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE AS AN INDEX OF NOVELTY OR UTILITY MAY RIGHTLY BE
SUSPECTED.  BUT JUNGERSEN'S SUCCESS WAS GROUNDED NOT IN THE GULLIBILITY
OF THE PUBLIC BUT IN THE HARD-HEADED JUDGMENT OF A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE
AND CRITICAL IF NOT HOSTILE INDUSTRY.  KNOWING WELL ITS NEED FOR AND
ITS FAILURE TO ACHIEVE IMPROVEMENTS ON AVAILABLE PROCESSES, THAT
INDUSTRY DISCARDED THEM, ADOPTED THIS OUTSIDER'S INVENTION, AND MADE IT
A COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. 

IT WOULD TAKE A SINGULAR SELF-ASSURANCE ON THE PART OF ONE WHO KNOWS
AS LITTLE OF THIS ART AS I DO, OR AS I CAN LEARN IN THE FEW HOURS THAT
CAN BE GIVEN TO CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE, TO IGNORE THE JUDGMENT OF
THESE COMPETITORS WHO GREW UP IN THE INDUSTRY AND SAY THAT THEY DID NOT
KNOW SOMETHING NEW AND USEFUL WHEN THEY SAW IT. AND IF BENVENUTO
CELLINI'S AGE-OLD WRITINGS ARE SO REVEALING TO US LAYMEN OF THE
APPELLATE BENCH, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY THIS PRACTICAL-MINDED INDUSTRY
WHICH THE COURT SAYS WAS FOLLOWING CELLINI FAILED THROUGH ALL THE YEARS
TO GET HIS MESSAGE. 

IT WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT TO CITE MANY INSTANCES OF PATENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN GRANTED, IMPROPERLY I THINK, AND WITHOUT ADEQUATE TESTS OF
INVENTION BY THE PATENT OFFICE.  BUT I DOUBT THAT THE REMEDY FOR SUCH
PATENT OFFICE PASSION FOR GRANTING PATENTS IS AN EQUALLY STRONG PASSION
IN THIS COURT FOR STRIKING THEM DOWN SO THAT THE ONLY PATENT THAT IS
VALID IS ONE WHICH THIS COURT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET ITS HANDS ON. 

I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF JUDGE LEARNED HAND BELOW. 
..END :










AYRSHIRE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 573 


NO. 25.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 15, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1949.  -
AFFIRMED. 


TWO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 15(7) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
INVOLVED RAIL RATES ON BITUMINOUS COAL BETWEEN PRODUCING AREAS LONG
GROUPED FOR RATE-MAKING PURPOSES IN INDIANA, ILLINOIS AND WESTERN
KENTUCKY, AND DESTINATIONS IN NORTHERN ILLINOIS AND BELOIT, WIS.  ONE
RESULTED FROM A PROPOSAL OF CERTAIN CARRIERS TO INCREASE RATES BETWEEN
CERTAIN POINTS.  THE OTHER WAS AN INVESTIGATION INSTITUTED BY THE
COMMISSION INTO EXISTING INTRASTATE RATES BETWEEN CERTAIN POINTS IN
ILLINOIS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE DISCRIMINATORY, PREFERENTIAL
AND PREJUDICIAL AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN FAVOR OF INTRASTATE
COMMERCE.  AFTER HEARING AND CONSIDERING BOTH PROCEEDINGS TOGETHER ON
THE SAME RECORD, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT CERTAIN EXISTING AND
PROPOSED RATES WOULD RESULT IN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AND UNDUE
PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 2 AND 3 OF THE ACT.  IT
ISSUED AN ORDER IN WHICH IT DISAPPROVED A DUAL BASIS OF RATES,
SPECIFIED RATES WHICH IT APPROVED, AND RULED THAT THE PROPOSED RATES
WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY EXCEEDED THE APPROVED
RATES.  HELD: 

1.  IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE
THE LAWFULNESS OF EXISTING RATES AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED NEW RATES. 
PP. 581-583. 

2. THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PRESENT AND
PROPOSED SYSTEM OF DUAL RATES, UNDER WHICH SINGLE-LINE RATES FROM
CERTAIN POINTS IN A GROUP TO CERTAIN DESTINATIONS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY
LOWER THAN JOINT-LINE RATES FROM OTHER POINTS IN THE SAME GROUP TO THE
SAME DESTINATIONS, WAS AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 2 AND WOULD CREATE AN UNDUE PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN
DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE SAME GROUPS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(1) OF THE
ACT.  PP. 583-587. 

(A)  THE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF SHIPPERS AT SOME POINTS IN A GROUP
AS AGAINST SHIPPERS AT OTHER POINTS IN THE SAME GROUP WAS AN UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2.  PP. 585-587. 

(B)  IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF RATE MAKING ON A
GROUP BASIS WAS NOT CHALLENGED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE COMMISSION'S
CONCLUSIONS THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DUAL BASIS OF RATES FOR THIS
COAL-MINING REGION DEFEATS THE SYSTEM OF GROUPING BY UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SOME SHIPPERS AND IN FAVOR OF OTHERS IN THE SAME
GROUP AND THAT THIS UNJUST DISCRIMINATION CAN BE AVOIDED ONLY BY THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A SINGLE RATE BASIS CANNOT BE
CHALLENGED SUCCESSFULLY ON THIS RECORD.  P. 587. 

3.  THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT THE DIFFERENTIALS
MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN CARRIERS AS BETWEEN CERTAIN OF THE INDIANA GROUPS
CONSTITUTED AN UNDUE PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(1)
OF THE ACT AND IN PRESCRIBING FAIR AND REASONABLE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN
THE INDIANA GROUPS AND THE ILLINOIS GROUPS.  PP. 588-593. 

(A)  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED
IN USING AVERAGES AS A MEASURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RATES OF
THE INDIANA GROUPS ON THE ONE HAND AND THE ILLINOIS GROUPS ON THE
OTHER, EVEN THOUGH THE RESULTING DIFFERENTIALS WERE NOT BASED STRICTLY
UPON THE FACTOR OF DISTANCE.  PP. 588-591. 

(B)  IN CONSIDERING THESE RATES, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ELEMENT OF COMPETITION.  P. 592. 

(C)  IT ALSO HAS THE CONSUMER INTEREST TO SAFEGUARD AS WELL AS THAT
OF PRODUCERS AND CARRIERS.  P. 592. 

(D) IN FASHIONING A DIFFERENTIALLY RELATED AND FINELY BALANCED RATE
STRUCTURE IN THIS COMPLEX SITUATION, THE COMMISSION HAS A BROAD
DISCRETION IN ACCOMMODATING THE FACTORS OF TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS,
DISTANCE AND COMPETITION, SO LONG AS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IS
OVERLOOKED.  P. 593. 

4.  HAVING UNDERTAKEN TO CURB UNLAWFUL PRACTICES BY PRESCRIBING JUST
AND REASONABLE RATES PURSUANT TO SECS. 15(1) AND 15(7), THE COMMISSION
DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY BY FAILING TO AFFORD THE CARRIERS
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF REMOVING THE DISCRIMINATION WHICH WAS FOUND TO
EXIST.  PP. 593-594. 

5.  HAVING FOUND A FORBIDDEN DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE IN RATES,
THE COMMISSION COULD REMOVE IT WITHOUT FINDING THAT THE PREFERENTIAL
RATES WERE NONCOMPENSATORY.  P. 594. 

AYRSHIRE COLLIERIES CORP. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF INDIANA. 

HAVING FOUND THAT CERTAIN EXISTING AND PROPOSED RAIL RATES ON
SHIPMENTS OF BITUMINOUS COAL WOULD RESULT IN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AND
UNDUE PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ISSUED AN ORDER IN WHICH IT DISAPPROVED A DUAL BASIS OF RATES,
SPECIFIED RATES WHICH IT APPROVED, AND RULED THAT THE PROPOSED RATES
WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY EXCEEDED THE APPROVED
RATES.  263 I.C.C. 179.  A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED TWO
COMPLAINTS SEEKING TO SET THIS ORDER ASIDE.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 594. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL, 38 STAT. 219, 220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 45 AND 47A, 43
STAT. 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345(4), FROM A DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT, WHICH DISMISSED AS WITHOUT MERIT TWO COMPLAINTS SEEKING
TO SET ASIDE A RATE ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN1 

BITUMINOUS COAL IS PRODUCED IN GREAT QUANTITIES IN INDIANA, ILLINOIS
AND WESTERN KENTUCKY.  IN EACH STATE THERE ARE PRODUCING AREAS THAT
HAVE LONG BEEN GROUPED FOR RATE-MAKING PURPOSES.  THESE GROUPS OR
DISTRICTS ARE THE BRAZIL-CLINTON, THE LINTON-SULLIVAN, THE PRINCETON
AYRSHIRE, AND THE BOONVILLE IN INDIANA; THE NORTHERN ILLINOIS, THE
FULTON-PEORIA, THE SPRINGFIELD, THE BELLEVILLE, AND THE SOUTHERN IN
ILLINOIS; AND THE WESTERN IN KENTUCKY.  GROUP RATES HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED BY THE CARRIERS SO THAT ALL MINES WITHIN EACH PRODUCING
AREA ARE ACCORDED THE SAME RATES TO THE SAME CONSUMING DESTINATIONS. 
FN2  THE RESULT IS THAT COMPARATIVE DISTANCES OF THE MINES IN ONE
PRODUCING AREA FROM A PARTICULAR CONSUMING DESTINATION ARE COMMONLY
DISREGARDED IN FIXING THE GROUP RATE.  BUT THE COMMISSION HAS LONG
CONCLUDED THAT SUCH A SYSTEM OF RATE MAKING FOR COAL AND OTHER NATURAL
RESOURCES ENCOURAGES COMPETITIVE PRODUCTION AND A MORE EVEN DEVELOPMENT
OF AN AREA.  FN3 

THE PRESENT LITIGATION INVOLVES GROUP RATES FOR CARLOAD LOTS FROM THE
FOREGOING GROUPS IN INDIANA, ILLINOIS, AND KENTUCKY TO ROCKFORD,
FREEPORT, DIXON AND OTHER POINTS IN NORTHERN ILLINOIS AND TO BELOIT,
WISCONSIN. 

THE ORDER UNDER ATTACK IN THIS CASE RESULTED FROM TWO PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION WHICH WERE HEARD AND CONSIDERED TOGETHER ON THE
SAME RECORD.  ONE WAS AN INVESTIGATION IN WHICH CARRIERS PROPOSED
CERTAIN INCREASES IN RATES FOR CARLOAD LOTS OF BITUMINOUS COAL FROM
SOME OF THE INDIANA GROUPS TO BELOIT, WISCONSIN, AND FROM ALL OF THE
INDIANA GROUPS TO DESIGNATED ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS.  LIKE INCREASES IN
THE ILLINOIS INTRASTATE RATES TO THE SAME ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS WERE
ALSO SOUGHT.  THESE PROPOSED INCREASES HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED UNTIL
DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDING.  THE OTHER PROCEEDING WAS AN
INVESTIGATION INSTITUTED BY THE COMMISSION, ON COMPLAINT, INTO THE
INTRASTATE CARLOAD RATES FROM THE ILLINOIS GROUPS TO THE SAME ILLINOIS
DESTINATIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE DISCRIMINATORY,
PREFERENTIAL, AND PREJUDICIAL AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN FAVOR
OF INTRASTATE COMMERCE. 

THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE ONLY A RECENT CHAPTER IN THE PROBLEM OF
ADJUSTMENT OF THE COAL RATES FOR THIS REGION. 

THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERED A REDUCTION OF THE
INTRASTATE RATES IN 1930.  THIS RESULTED IN A REDUCTION OF CERTAIN
INTERSTATE RATES FROM INDIANA AND WESTERN KENTUCKY TO ROCKFORD AND
OTHER NORTHERN ILLINOIS POINTS.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
REFUSED TO REQUIRE AN INCREASE IN INTRASTATE RATES TO THE IMPORTANT
ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS INVOLVED HERE UNLESS THE RATES FROM THE INDIANA
GROUPS TO THE SAME DESTINATIONS WERE INCREASED.  FN4  SUBSEQUENTLY THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE RATES FROM THE ILLINOIS, INDIANA AND WESTERN
KENTUCKY GROUPS TO BELOIT, WISCONSIN, WERE IN THE MAIN NOT UNREASONABLE
BUT THAT THEY WERE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO BELOIT AND UNDULY PREFERENTIAL
TO ROCKFORD, IF THEY EXCEEDED THE RATES FROM THE SAME ORIGINS TO
ROCKFORD BY MORE THAN 25 CENTS.  THE COMMISSION ALSO FOUND ON FURTHER
HEARING THAT THE RATES FROM CERTAIN OF THE ILLINOIS GROUPS TO BELOIT,
WISCONSIN, WERE NOT UNREASONABLE BUT THAT THEY WERE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL
TO BELOIT AND UNDULY PREFERENTIAL TO ROCKFORD TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY
EXCEEDED THE ROCKFORD RATES BY MORE THAN 15 CENTS.  THE COMMISSION
ALLOWED THE CARRIERS TO INCREASE THE RATES TO ROCKFORD OR TO REDUCE THE
RATES TO BELOIT, OR BOTH, IN ORDER TO RELATE THE RATES TO BELOIT 15
CENTS OVER ROCKFORD.  BUT THE INTRASTATE RATES TO ROCKFORD HAD BEEN
PRESCRIBED AS A MAXIMUM BY THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION AND THEREFORE COULD
NOT BE INCREASED.  ALSO TO INCREASE THE INTERSTATE RATES WITHOUT
SIMILAR INCREASES FROM THE ILLINOIS GROUPS WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE OF THE
RATE STRUCTURE BUILT ON THE GROUP BASIS.  ACCORDINGLY THE RATES TO
BELOIT WERE REDUCED.  FN5 

THE CARRIERS SUBSEQUENTLY PROPOSED INCREASES IN THE RATES FROM THE
INDIANA GROUPS AND THE ILLINOIS GROUPS TO ROCKFORD AND OTHER ILLINOIS
POINTS AND, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, FROM THE INDIANA GROUPS TO BELOIT,
WISCONSIN.  THESE INCREASES CONFORMED TO THE 15-CENT RELATION BETWEEN
ROCKFORD AND BELOIT BUT PLACED THE RATES (BOTH INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE) MORE NEARLY AT THE GENERAL LEVEL OF INTERSTATE RATES IN
THAT TERRITORY. 

ONE OTHER FACT MUST BE MENTIONED IF THE PRESENT POSTURE OF THIS RATE
PROBLEM IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.  AFTER THE ILLINOIS INTRASTATE RATES WERE
REDUCED IN 1930 AND AFTER THE CARRIERS' UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORT TO HAVE THE
EARLIER ONES REESTABLISHED, THE MILWAUKEE ROAD PROPOSED TO REDUCE ITS
SINGLE-LINE RATES FROM MINES IN THE BRAZIL AND LINTON GROUPS WHICH IT
SERVES TO ROCKFORD, FREEPORT AND OTHER INTERMEDIATE ILLINOIS POINTS BY
THE AMOUNT OF THE ILLINOIS INTRASTATE REDUCTION.  THE COMMISSION
ORDERED THE PROPOSED RATE TO BE CANCELLED.  THE COURT AFFIRMED A DECREE
OF A DISTRICT COURT WHICH PERMANENTLY ENJOINED THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION.  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S.
499. 

SINCE THAT TIME THE RATES OF THE MILWAUKEE FROM ORIGINS ON ITS LINE
IN THE BRAZIL AND LINTON GROUPS TO ROCKFORD AND OTHER INTERMEDIATE
POINTS IN ILLINOIS HAVE BEEN LOWER THAN THE CONTEMPORANEOUS RATES OF
CARRIERS SERVING OTHER ORIGINS IN THESE RESPECTIVE GROUPS TO THE SAME
DESTINATIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL WHICH IN 1936
PUBLISHED RATES FROM THE LINTON GROUP TO ROCKFORD AND OTHER
INTERMEDIATE ILLINOIS POINTS ON ITS LINES ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE
MILWAUKEE'S SINGLE-LINE RATES. 

THE MILWAUKEE AND THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL SERVE ONLY A PART OF THE MINES
IN THE BRAZIL AND LINTON GROUPS.  BUT THEY CARRY COAL FROM OTHER MINES
IN THOSE GROUPS EVEN THOUGH THEIR LINES DO NOT REACH THEM, SINCE THEY
ARE EITHER CONNECTING CARRIERS OF LINES THAT DO OR DESTINATION
CARRIERS.  THEY ARE THEREFORE PARTIES TO MANY JOINT RATES.  BUT THE
JOINT RATES DO NOT REFLECT REDUCTIONS WHICH THE MILWAUKEE AND ILLINOIS
CENTRAL MADE IN THEIR SINGLE-LINE RATES.  AND THE RATE INCREASES
PROPOSED, AND SUSPENDED BY THE COMMISSION ON THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS,
CONTINUED THAT PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP.  MOREOVER THE PROPOSED DUAL BASIS
OF RATES TO ROCKFORD AND OTHER ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS REACHED BY THE
MILWAUKEE WAS PROPOSED TO BE EXTENDED TO BELOIT, WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD
ENJOYED THE SAME RATES FROM ALL THE MINES IN THE BRAZIL AND LINTON
GROUPS. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE NEW PROPOSED RATES RESPECTED THE 15-CENT
DIFFERENTIAL OF BELOIT OVER ROCKFORD.  THE RESULT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
INCREASE IN THE JOINT-LINE RATES FROM THE BRAZIL AND LINTON GROUPS TO
BELOIT AS WELL AS TO ROCKFORD.  BUT MILWAUKEE'S SINGLE-LINE RATES WERE
INCREASED 15 CENTS TO ROCKFORD AND NONE TO BELOIT.  THE RESULT WOULD BE
TO ACCORD TO MINES IN THE BRAZIL AND LINTON GROUPS THAT WERE ON THE
MILWAUKEE LINES RATES LOWER TO BELOIT BY 17 AND 12 CENTS, RESPECTIVELY,
THAN ACCORDED THE OTHER MINES IN THE TWO GROUPS.  FURTHERMORE THE NEW
PROPOSED RATES WOULD ESTABLISH A DUAL BASIS OF RATES TO BELOIT FROM THE
PRINCETON GROUP AS WELL. 

THE COMMISSION DISAPPROVED THE DUAL BASIS OF RATES.  IT CONSIDERED
WHAT WOULD BE THE FAIR AND REASONABLE RATE RELATIONS AS BETWEEN THE
RESPECTIVE ORIGINS IN THE SEVERAL GROUPS AND AS BETWEEN THE GROUPS
THEMSELVES.  IT FOUND THAT PRESENT AND PROPOSED RATES OF THE MILWAUKEE
AND ILLINOIS CENTRAL FROM INDIANA TO THE NORTHERN ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS
WOULD RESULT IN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AS BETWEEN SHIPPERS AND RECEIVERS
OF COAL AND UNDUE PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN THE ORIGINS IN
THE BRAZIL AND LINTON GROUPS AND AS BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE INDIANA
GROUPS.  IT MADE THE SAME FINDINGS AS RESPECTS THE MILWAUKEE'S PROPOSED
RATES FROM THE BRAZIL, LINTON AND PRINCETON GROUPS TO BELOIT; AND IN
THAT CONNECTION IT ALSO FOUND THAT THOSE RATES WOULD RESULT IN UNDUE
PREFERENCE AND PRIVILEGE AS BETWEEN THE INDIANA GROUPS ON THE ONE HAND
AND THE ILLINOIS GROUPS ON THE OTHER.  THE COMMISSION WENT ON TO
SPECIFY RATES WHICH IT APPROVED.  IT RULED THAT THE PROPOSED RATES
WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WERE ABOVE THE APPROVED
RATES.  FN6  263 I.C.C. 179. 

WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE COMPLAINTS MUST BE
DISMISSED. 

FIRST.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION IN THIS PROCEEDING HAD
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE LAWFULNESS ONLY OF THE PROPOSED RATES, NOT
OF THE PRESENT RATES. 

THIS PROCEEDING IS AN INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 15(7) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 44 STAT. 1447, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 15(7).  THAT SECTION, WHICH GIVES THE COMMISSION BROAD AUTHORITY
UPON COMPLAINT OR ITS OWN INITIATIVE TO INVESTIGATE AND DETERMINE THE
LAWFULNESS OF ANY NEW RATE,  FN7  PROVIDES THAT "AFTER FULL HEARING,
WHETHER COMPLETED BEFORE OR AFTER THE RATE ...  GOES INTO EFFECT, THE
COMMISSION MAY MAKE SUCH ORDER WITH REFERENCE THERETO AS WOULD BE
PROPER IN A PROCEEDING INITIATED AFTER IT HAD BECOME EFFECTIVE." 

THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION AS IF THE
PROPOSED NEW RATES HAD BECOME EFFECTIVE IS NECESSARILY A COMPREHENSIVE
ONE.  IT SEEMS TOO PLAIN FOR ARGUMENT THAT SUCH BROAD AUTHORITY IS
AMPLE FOR THE MODIFICATION OF EITHER PROPOSED OR EXISTING RATES OR
BOTH.  THE POWER GRANTED THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 15(1) TO DEAL WITH
RATE SCHEDULES ALREADY EFFECTIVE SUPPORTS THAT VIEW.  FN8  FOR ONCE THE
COMMISSION FINDS THE RATE TO BE UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE OR UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATORY OR UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL OR OTHERWISE
UNLAWFUL, THE COMMISSION IS GRANTED THE POWER UNDER SEC. 15(1) TO
DETERMINE AND PRESCRIBE THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATE.  THE COMMISSION
IS NOT BOUND EITHER TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE IN TOTO THE NEW RATES THAT
ARE PROPOSED.  IT CAN MODIFY THE PROPOSAL IN ANY RESPECT AND REQUIRE
THAT THE PROPOSED RATES AS MODIFIED OR WHOLLY DIFFERENT RATES BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PRESENT ONES.  THAT HAS BEEN THE VIEW OF THE
COMMISSION SINCE THE BEGINNING; FN9  AND WE THINK IT IS THE CORRECT
ONE. 

THE SAME RESULT OBTAINS AS RESPECTS THE MILWAUKEE'S SINGLE-LINE RATES
FROM ORIGINS ON ITS LINES IN THE BRAZIL AND LINTON GROUPS TO BELOIT,
WISCONSIN.  THE MILWAUKEE HAD NOT PROPOSED ANY CHANGE IN THOSE RATES. 
BUT THOSE RATES HAD BEEN REPUBLISHED IN THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES.  THEY
WERE AMONG THE RATES SUSPENDED BY THE COMMISSION.  AND THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER OF INVESTIGATION CITED THE MILWAUKEE TARIFF THAT CONTAINS THOSE
RATES.  HENCE THE COMMISSION SOUGHT TO BRING THEM INTO THE
INVESTIGATION AND GAVE MILWAUKEE ALL THE NOTICE TO WHICH IT WAS
ENTITLED.  THAT THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE THEM SEEMS
CLEAR TO US.  EVEN THOUGH WE ASSUME THEY ARE NOT "NEW" RATES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 15(7), THEY ARE RATES "DEMANDED, CHARGED, OR COLLECTED"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 15(1). 

SECOND.  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR A CARRIER TO
RECEIVE FROM ONE PERSON A GREATER OR LESS COMPENSATION FOR TRANSPORTING
PROPERTY THAN IT RECEIVES FROM ANOTHER FOR DOING A "LIKE AND
CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF A LIKE KIND OF TRAFFIC
UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS."  FN10  IT IS
POINTED OUT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS TO ENFORCE EQUALITY
BETWEEN SHIPPERS OF LIKE COMMODITIES OVER THE SAME LINE OR HAUL FOR THE
SAME DISTANCE AND BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS.  FN11  THIS REQUIREMENT, IT
IS ARGUED, HAS NOT BEEN MET IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THERE IS NO
FINDING THAT ANY OF THE COAL FROM ANY ORIGIN POINT TO ANY DESTINATION
WAS BEING CHARGED A HIGHER RATE THAN OTHER COAL FROM THE SAME ORIGIN
POINT TO THE SAME DESTINATION MOVING OVER THE SAME LINE UNDER
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS.  THE CONTENTION
WOULD BE WELL TAKEN IF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT WARRANTED IN TREATING ALL
PLACES WITHIN A PARTICULAR GROUP OR DISTRICT AS ONE ORIGIN POINT. 
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION WAS WARRANTED IN DOING SO, DEPENDS
PRIMARILY ON THE LEGALITY OF ITS ACTION IN GATHERING TOGETHER VARIOUS
ORIGIN POINTS INTO ONE RATE GROUP FOR RATE-MAKING PURPOSES. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED  FN12  THAT HAS BEEN AN HISTORIC METHOD OF BUILDING
COAL RATE STRUCTURES.  THE COMMISSION FOLLOWED THAT METHOD IN THIS CASE
BECAUSE IN ITS OPINION SUCH A RATE STRUCTURE WAS NECESSARY TO AFFORD
CONSUMERS, COAL OPERATORS, AND CARRIERS A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE
IN THE PURCHASE, SALE AND TRANSPORTATION OF COAL FROM THE MINES IN THE
VARIOUS GROUPS OR DISTRICTS TO THE DESTINATIONS IN QUESTION.  THE
COMMISSION'S POWER SO TO ACT IS NOT CHALLENGED HERE.  YET ONCE THE
LEGALITY OF THE GROUPING OF MINES FOR RATE PURPOSES IS ACCEPTED, THE
RESULT IS CLEAR.  FOR THE PROTECTION OF ONE SHIPPER AGAINST UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER WITHIN THE SAME GROUP IS AS CLEARLY
WITHIN THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 2 AS THE PROTECTION OF ONE FACTORY AGAINST
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER IN THE SAME COMMUNITY.    THE
MILWAUKEE AND ILLINOIS CENTRAL WERE GRANTING MORE FAVORABLE RATES TO
SOME ORIGINS THAN TO OTHERS IN THE SAME GROUPS OR DISTRICTS.  THEIR
SINGLE-LINE RATES FROM MINES ON THEIR OWN LINES WERE MUCH LOWER THAN
JOINT-LINE RATES FROM OTHER MINES IN THE SAME GROUP TO THE SAME
DESTINATIONS.  THE LATTER ARE RATES PUBLISHED BY OTHER CARRIERS AND IN
WHICH MILWAUKEE AND ILLINOIS CENTRAL JOIN.  MILWAUKEE AND ILLINOIS
CENTRAL THEREFORE ARE PARTIES TO AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH RESULTS IN SOME
MINES GETTING LOWER RATES THAN OTHER MINES IN THE SAME GROUP ON
SHIPMENTS TO THE SAME DESTINATIONS. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THAT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF SHIPPERS
AT SOME ORIGINS WAS AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
2. 

THE SINGLE-LINE RATES OF MILWAUKEE AND ILLINOIS CENTRAL FROM THE
LINTON GROUP TO NORTHERN ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS WERE 12 CENTS LOWER THAN
THE JOINT-LINE RATES TO THE SAME POINTS FROM OTHER MINES IN THE LINTON
GROUP.  THE LIKE DIFFERENTIAL AS RESPECTS THE BRAZIL GROUP WAS 17
CENTS.  THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES CONTINUED THAT DUAL BASIS OF RATES AND
EXTENDED IT TO BELOIT, WISCONSIN.  THE COMMISSION MADE WHAT SEEMS TO US
A PERMISSIBLE INFERENCE, THAT RATES FAVORABLE TO THE MINES ON THE
SINGLE-RATE ROUTES PLAYED AN IMPORTANT PART IN GETTING THE GREAT BULK
OF THE TONNAGE FROM THE ROADS HAVING THE HIGHER JOINT RATES.  THUS
MILWAUKEE SERVED ONLY 4 OF THE 30 MINES IN THE BRAZIL GROUP AND ONLY 9
OF THE 31 IN THE LINTON GROUP.  BUT IN WHAT THE COMMISSION CALLED A
REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD, MILWAUKEE HANDLED UNDER ITS SINGLE-LINE RATES
OVER 95 PER CENT OF THE TONNAGE MOVING FROM BRAZIL TO ROCKFORD AND OVER
78 PER CENT OF THAT FROM LINTON TO ROCKFORD.  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED
THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DUAL BASIS OF RATES THEREFORE HAD AN
IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES OF SHIPPERS WITHIN THE
RESPECTIVE GROUPS TO MARKET THEIR COAL IN THE DESTINATION TERRITORY. 
IT FOUND THAT THERE WAS SEVERE COMPETITION IN MARKETING COAL IN THIS
TERRITORY AND THAT A DIFFERENTIALLY RELATED AND FINELY BALANCED RATE
STRUCTURE ON THE COAL WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE
CONSUMING PUBLIC, THE MINE OPERATORS, AND THE CARRIERS.  FOR, IN
GENERAL, ALL OF THE MINES IN THESE GROUPS PRODUCE COAL OF THE SAME
QUALITY AND GRADE.  A DIFFERENCE OF A FEW CENTS PER TON IN THE
TRANSPORTATION CHARGE IS NORMALLY SUFFICIENT TO DIVERT A COAL CONTRACT
FROM ONE MINE TO ANOTHER.  YET THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS OVER THE SINGLE-LINE ROUTES DO NOT DIFFER
MATERIALLY FROM THOSE OVER THE JOINT-LINE ROUTES TO THE SAME
DESTINATIONS FROM OTHER MINES IN THE SAME GROUP; THAT THERE IS NO
IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN THE AVERAGE DISTANCES OVER THOSE RESPECTIVE
ROUTES. 

THE LATTER FINDINGS, ESPECIALLY THE ONE RESPECTING THE SIMILARITY OF
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS, ARE SEVERELY CHALLENGED AS BEING WITHOUT ANY
SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  THESE FINDINGS, WHEN JUDGED BY THE CLASSIC
EXAMPLES OF UNJUST DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN SHIPPERS, LEAVE MUST TO BE
DESIRED.  BUT WE THINK THEY ARE ADEQUATE IN THIS CASE.  THEY REFLECT AN
INTIMATE ACQUAINTANCE BY THE COMMISSION WITH THE GROUPING OF MINES FOR
RATE-MAKING PURPOSES.  SEE 263 I.C.C., P. 196.  THE GROUPS ARE
THEMSELVES DESIGNED TO EQUALIZE COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITIES.  THE
LOCATION OF THE MINES, THEIR DISTANCES FROM DESTINATION TERRITORY, THE
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS OVER THE LINES THAT SERVE THE VARIOUS ORIGINS
WITHIN A GROUP - THESE ARE ALL FACTORS WHICH BEAR ON THE DETERMINATION
OF WHAT MINES SHALL BE PULLED TOGETHER INTO ONE GROUP.  THE COMMISSION
CAN DRAW FROM ITS LONG EXPERIENCE WITH THESE GROUPINGS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER ANY VARIABLES IN TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS WARRANT A DIFFERENCE
OF RATES AS BETWEEN MINES WITHIN ONE GROUP TO A COMMON DESTINATION.  OR
TO STATE IT OTHERWISE, THE ATTACK HERE COULD NOT SUCCEED UNLESS IT WERE
ON THE RESPECTIVE GROUPINGS THEMSELVES.  THE APPELLANTS, OF COURSE,
CLAIM THE RIGHT TO INITIATE RATES WITHIN THE ZONE OF REASONABLENESS. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., SUPRA.  BUT THE
COMMISSION HOLDS THAT WHEN THAT POWER IS USED TO ESTABLISH A DUAL BASIS
OF RATES FOR THIS COAL MINING REGION, IT DEFEATS THE SYSTEM OF GROUPING
BY UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SOME SHIPPERS AND IN FAVOR OF OTHERS
IN THE SAME GROUP.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT ONLY BY THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A SINGLE-RATE BASIS CAN THAT UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION BE AVOIDED IS AN INFORMED JUDGMENT BASED ON A COMPLEX OF
MANY FACTORS.  IT CANNOT BE SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED ON THIS RECORD
UNLESS THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF RATE MAKING ON A GROUP BASIS IS UNDERMINED. 
BUT NO SUCH MAJOR PROJECT IS UNDERTAKEN. 

WHAT WE HAVE JUST SAID ALSO DISPOSES OF THE ATTACK WHICH IS MADE ON
THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE PRESENT AND
PROPOSED SYSTEM OF DUAL RATES CREATES AN UNDUE PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE
AS BETWEEN THE ORIGINS IN THE BRAZIL AND LINTON GROUPS IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 3(1) OF THE ACT.  FN13 

THIRD.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE DIFFERENTIALS MAINTAINED BY THE
MILWAUKEE AND ILLINOIS CENTRAL AS BETWEEN CERTAIN OF THE INDIANA GROUPS
CONSTITUTED AN UNDUE PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(1)
OF THE ACT.  FN14 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL, LINTON OVER BRAZIL,
SHOULD BE 10 CENTS.  THIS IS THE STANDARD DIFFERENTIAL, IN EFFECT
GENERALLY TO THE NORTHWEST.  IT FOUND THAT THE STANDARD DIFFERENTIAL,
PRINCETON OVER LINTON, WAS 7 CENTS.  MILWAUKEE'S DIFFERENTIAL IN THE
FORMER WOULD BE 22 CENTS; AND THE DIFFERENTIAL OF THE MILWAUKEE AND
ILLINOIS CENTRAL IN THE LATTER WOULD BE 19 CENTS.  THE MAIN ATTACK OF
APPELLANTS ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE IS THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION
THAT THESE DIFFERENTIALS ARE GREATER THAN THOSE WARRANTED BY THE
RESPECTIVE DIFFERENCES IN DISTANCES.  FACTS ARE ADDUCED TO SHOW THAT
THEY FAIRLY REFLECT DIFFERENCES IN DISTANCES. 

BUT THE COMMISSION MADE PLAIN THAT IN CONSIDERING THE WHOLE PROBLEM
OF RATE RELATIONS PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IT DID NOT RELY STRICTLY UPON
DISTANCE.  DISTANCE WAS A FACTOR BUT IT WAS NOT CONTROLLING.  THE
COMMISSION DEEMED ITS TASK TO BE THE CREATION OF A RATE STRUCTURE THAT
WOULD AFFORD A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE IN THE PURCHASE, SALE AND
TRANSPORTATION OF THE COAL FROM THE VARIOUS MINES TO THE DESTINATIONS
IN QUESTION. 

THE PROPRIETY OF THAT ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IS DETERMINATIVE OF
ANOTHER PHASE OF THE CASE AS WELL.  IT GOES TO THE HEART OF APPELLANTS'
OBJECTIONS TO THE DIFFERENTIALS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION AS FAIR
AND REASONABLE AS BETWEEN THE INDIANA GROUPS AND THE ILLINOIS GROUPS. 

THE COMMISSION APPROVED RATES FROM THE INDIANA GROUPS TO TWELVE
ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS WHICH AVERAGED $1.95 FROM BRAZIL, $2.05 FROM
LINTON, AND $2.12 FROM PRINCETON-BOONVILLE.  THESE RATES, THE
COMMISSION FOUND, COMPARED FAVORABLY WITH THE PROPOSED RATES TO THE
SAME DESTINATIONS FROM THE ILLINOIS GROUPS,  FN15  APART FROM
EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL. 

THE CHIEF PROBLEM OF THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE WAS TO PROVIDE A
RATE STRUCTURE WHICH WOULD AFFORD FAIR AND REASONABLE RELATIONS OF
RATES TO NORTHERN ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS, BOTH AS BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE
ORIGIN GROUPS AND AS BETWEEN INDIANA GROUPS AND ILLINOIS GROUPS.  THERE
HAD BEEN HISTORICALLY NO FIXED RELATION EITHER BETWEEN THE FORMER OR
THE LATTER.  AND THE APPEARANCE OF A DUAL BASIS OF RATES GREATLY
DISTORTED THE PICTURE.  THE COMMISSION DID IN THIS CASE WHAT THE COURT
POINTED OUT IN UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., SUPRA,
AT 510, IT HAD NOT DONE THERE, VIZ, IT ADJUDGED THE FAIRNESS OF THE
RELATION SUBSISTING BETWEEN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA RATES. 

APPELLANTS HOWEVER CONTEND THAT WHAT THE COMMISSION DID WAS WHOLLY
ARBITRARY.  THEY POINT TO INSTANCES WHERE THE RATE FROM AN INDIANA
GROUP IS MORE THAN THE RATE FROM AN ILLINOIS GROUP EVEN THOUGH THE HAUL
IS SHORTER.  THEY SAY THAT WHAT THE COMMISSION DID WAS TO ADJUST THE
RATES NOT TO COMPENSATE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE RENDERED BUT TO
FAVOR ILLINOIS GROUPS OVER INDIANA GROUPS.  THEY GIVE ILLUSTRATION
AFTER ILLUSTRATION OF THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE SPECIFIC RATES,
ASSUMING, AS THE COMMISSION FOUND, THAT THE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
WHICH WERE INVOLVED WERE THE SAME.  FROM THAT ARGUMENT APPELLANTS SEEK
TO MAKE TWO POINTS - (1) THAT THE RATES APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION DO
NOT REFLECT GROUP DIFFERENTIALS DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION
AND PREFERENCE AND (2) THAT, EVEN THOUGH THEY DO, INDIVIDUAL RATES ARE
ESTABLISHED THAT ARE WHOLLY ARBITRARY IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE
THAT EACH DESTINATION IS ENTITLED TO A REASONABLE RATE. 

WE CANNOT DENY THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO USE AVERAGES AS A MEASURE
OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RATES OF THE INDIANA GROUPS ON THE ONE
HAND AND THE ILLINOIS GROUPS ON THE OTHER.  THE AVERAGES WOULD BE SOME
INDICATION OF THE CLOSENESS OF THE ALIGNMENT.  THE IMPORTANT COMPARISON
HERE IS IN THE REGIONAL OR GROUP DIFFERENTIALS.  THESE DIFFERENTIALS IN
THE PRESENT CASE WERE NOT DESIGNED SO AS TO BE FAITHFUL TO THE FACTOR
OF DISTANCE.  THE COMMISSION FOLLOWED THE COMMON PRACTICE IN GIVING
DIMINISHING WEIGHT TO DISTANCE AND INCREASING WEIGHT TO COMPETITION AS
THE LENGTH OF THE HAUL INCREASED.  THE COMMISSION SAID, 263 I.C.C. AT
204, 

"IN APPROVING THE FOREGOING RATE RELATIONS, WE HAVE KEPT IN MIND THE
IMPORTANCE TO CONSUMERS, COAL OPERATORS, AND RAILROADS OF RELATING
THESE DIFFERENTIALLY RELATED COAL RATES, NOT STRICTLY UPON DISTANCE,
BUT SO AS TO AFFORD ALL CONCERNED A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE IN THE
PURCHASE, SALE, AND TRANSPORTATION OF COAL FROM ILLINOIS AND INDIANA
MINES TO THESE DESTINATIONS.  THE RATES BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ORIGIN
GROUPS IN THESE FIELDS HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE WITH PRIMARY REGARD FOR
DISTANCE, AND TO SO MAKE THEM NOW WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT EVENTUALLY OF
ELIMINATING PRACTICALLY ALL COMPETITION BETWEEN MOST OF THEM, A RESULT
WHICH WOULD BE HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE TO THE CONSUMER, WHOSE INTERESTS WE
MAY NOT DISREGARD."  FN16 

THERE IS NO DOUBT, THEREFORE, THAT THE COMMISSION BELIEVED THAT THE
COMPETITIVE FACTOR WAS AN IMPORTANT ONE IN CONSIDERING THIS PROBLEM OF
RATE RELATIONSHIPS.  THE RESULT MAY, AS APPELLANTS CONTEND, FAVOR SOME
ILLINOIS MINES OVER INDIANA AS RESPECTS CERTAIN MARKETS.  THAT WOULD
SEEM TO FOLLOW, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM THE ELIMINATION OF THE LOW SINGLE
LINE RATE THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND TO BE DISRUPTIVE OF RATE RELATIONS
BETWEEN THESE GROUPS.  BUT IT DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE RATES APPROVED
BY THE COMMISSION WERE UNLAWFUL.  THAT MIGHT BE ESTABLISHED BY SHOWING,
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE COMMISSION GAVE WEIGHT ONLY TO THE COMPETITIVE
FACTOR.  YET ALL THAT APPELLANTS ATTEMPT HERE IS TO SHOW THAT
DISCREPANCIES IN RATES ARE NOT WARRANTED BY ANY DIFFERENCE IN
TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS OR IN DISTANCE.  THAT IS NOT ENOUGH PROVIDED
THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE ELEMENT OF
COMPETITION. 

WE THINK IT WAS.  RATE STRUCTURES ARE NOT DESIGNED MERELY TO FAVOR
THE REVENUES OF PRODUCERS AND CARRIERS.  THE COMMISSION HAS THE
CONSUMER INTEREST TO SAFEGUARD AS WELL.  FN17  AND WHEN IT UNDERTAKES
TO RATIONALIZE THE INTERESTS OF THE THREE, GREAT COMPLEXITIES ARE OFTEN
ENCOUNTERED.  THE ECONOMICS OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY HAVE
BAFFLED EVEN EXPERTS.  WE WOULD DEPART FROM OUR COMPETENCE AND OUR
LIMITED FUNCTION IN THIS FIELD IF WE UNDERTOOK TO ACCOMMODATE THE
FACTORS OF TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS, DISTANCE AND COMPETITION
DIFFERENTLY THAN THE COMMISSION HAS DONE IN THIS CASE.  THAT IS A TASK
PECULIARLY FOR IT.  IN FASHIONING WHAT THE COMMISSION CALLED A
DIFFERENTIALLY RELATED AND FINELY BALANCED RATE STRUCTURE FOR THIS
COAL, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR DOGMA OR RIGID FORMULAE.  THE PROBLEM CALLS
FOR AN EXPERT, INFORMED JUDGMENT ON A MULTITUDE OF FACTS.  THE RESULT
IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RATE-MAKER IS LEFT WITH BROAD DISCRETION AS
LONG AS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IS OVERLOOKED.  YET THAT IS, OF
COURSE, PRECISELY THE NATURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IN THIS
FIELD.  SEE BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534, 548; NEW
YORK V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 284, 347-349. 

FOURTH.  APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED BEYOND ITS
AUTHORITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT AFFORD THE CARRIERS ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF
REMOVING THE DISCRIMINATION WHICH WAS FOUND TO EXIST.  SEE TEXAS &
PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 627.  AND MILWAUKEE ARGUES
THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT IT TO CEASE FROM
GRANTING THE UNDUE PREFERENCE FOUND TO EXIST BETWEEN ITS SINGLE-LINE
RATE AND THE HIGHER JOINT-LINE RATES, SINCE IT HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE
LATTER. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE LIKE TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, WHERE THE COMMISSION ISSUES A SO-CALLED ALTERNATIVE ORDER
DIRECTING THE CARRIERS TO REMOVE AN UNJUST JUST DISCRIMINATION OR UNDUE
PREFERENCE WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND.  THAT KIND OF ORDER LEAVES A CHOICE TO
THE CARRIERS WHETHER TO ELIMINATE THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICE BY RAISING ONE
RATE, LOWERING THE OTHER, OR ALTERING BOTH.  BUT AS WE RECENTLY HELD IN
NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 342, THAT RULE IS NOT APPLICABLE
WHERE THE COMMISSION ITSELF UNDERTAKES TO CORRECT THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICE
BY PRESCRIBING THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATE.  THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN
THAT ACTION HERE.  AS WE NOTED ABOVE, THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WAS ONE
UNDER SEC. 15(1) AND SEC. 15(7).  SECTION 15(1) GIVES THE COMMISSION
POWER TO DETERMINE AND PRESCRIBE THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATE ONCE IT
FINDS, INTER ALIA, THAT ANY RATE CHARGED IS UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATING OR
UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL.  THE COMMISSION IN THE PRESENT CASE
HAS EXERCISED THAT POWER.  IT HAS PRESCRIBED APPROVED RATES.  THEY ARE
RATES WHICH IN THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT WILL ELIMINATE THE UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AND UNDUE PREFERENCE FOUND TO EXIST IN THIS RATE
STRUCTURE.  HENCE THE QUESTION WHETHER MILWAUKEE EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED
THE HIGHER JOINT-LINE RATES IS IRRELEVANT HERE.  NEW YORK V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.    FINALLY IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE ORDER IS INVALID
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION DID NOT FIND THAT THE PREFERENTIAL RATES WERE
NONCOMPENSATORY.  BUT ONCE A FORBIDDEN DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE IN
RATES IS FOUND, THE COMMISSION MAY REMOVE IT EVEN THOUGH THE RATES ARE
WITHIN THE ZONE OF REASONABLENESS.  NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
AT 344.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  A PRIOR DECREE SUSTAINING THIS ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WAS
REVERSED BY THE COURT BECAUSE ONE MEMBER OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT
COURT HAD NOT PARTICIPATED IN THE DECISION.  AYRSHIRE CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 331 U.S. 132. 

FN2  ANOTHER CHARACTERISTIC OF COAL RATE STRUCTURES HAS BEEN THE RATE
DIFFERENTIALS.  FOR EXAMPLE, BRAZIL IS THE BASE GROUP IN INDIANA ON
COAL TRAFFIC TO THE ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN DESTINATIONS INVOLVED IN
THIS LITIGATION.  HENCE THE RATES, EXPRESSED IN CENTS PER TON, FROM THE
OTHER INDIANA GROUPS ARE STATED IN TERMS OF DIFFERENCES FROM THE BRAZIL
GROUP RATE. 

FN3  SEE HITCHMAN COAL & COKE CO. V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 16 I.C.C.
512, 520; WAUKESHA LIME & STONE CO. V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO., 26
I.C.C. 515, 518; WISCONSIN & ARKANSAS LBR.  CO. V. ST. LOUIS, I.M. &
S.R. CO., 33 I.C.C. 33, 37-38; PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. OREGON
SHORT LINE R. CO., 33 I.C.C. 103, 106; SOUTHWESTERN INTERSTATE COAL
OPERATORS' ASSN. V. ARKANSAS W.R. CO., 89 I.C.C. 73, 84-85.  AND SEE
NEW YORK HARBOR CASE, 47 I.C.C. 643, 712; ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION
V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 474, 486. 

FN4  SEE INTRASTATE RATES ON BITUMINOUS COAL IN ILLINOIS, 182 I.C.C.
537, 549-550. 

FN5  THE HISTORY OF THIS RATE PROBLEM IS BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED BY THE
COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT ON THE PRESENT CASE.  263 I.C.C. 179.  FOR
EARLIER ASPECTS OF IT SEE INTRASTATE RATES ON BITUMINOUS COAL IN
ILLINOIS, 182 I.C.C. 537; FAIRBANKS-MORSE & CO. V. ALTON & S.R., 195
I.C.C. 365, 251 I.C.C. 181; ILLINOIS COAL TRAFFIC BUREAU V. AHNAPEE &
W.R. CO., 201 I.C.C. 225; COAL TO ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN, 232 I.C.C.
151.  AND SEE COAL FROM INDIANA TO ILLINOIS, 197 I.C.C. 245, 200 I.C.C.
609, THE ORDER IN WHICH, AS WE DISCUSS HEREAFTER IN THE OPINION, WAS
HELD INVALID BY UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294
U.S. 499. 

FN6  THE ORDER ENTERED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE PROCEEDING TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE INTRASTATE RATES WERE UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT UNDER ATTACK HERE.  IT REQUIRED THE
CARRIERS TO DESIST FROM PRACTICES WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND TO BE
DISCRIMINATORY AND TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN, FOR THE INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF COAL, RATES NO LOWER THAN THE APPROVED RATES. 

FN7  "WHENEVER THERE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION ANY SCHEDULE
STATING A NEW INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE, OR ANY NEW
INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT CLASSIFICATION, OR ANY NEW INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT
REGULATION OR PRACTICE AFFECTING ANY RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE, THE
COMMISSION SHALL HAVE, AND IT IS HEREBY GIVEN, AUTHORITY, EITHER UPON
COMPLAINT OR UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE WITHOUT COMPLAINT, AT ONCE, AND IF
IT SO ORDERS WITHOUT ANSWER OR OTHER FORMAL PLEADING BY THE INTERESTED
CARRIER OR CARRIERS, BUT UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, TO ENTER UPON A
HEARING CONCERNING THE LAWFULNESS OF SUCH RATE, FARE, CHARGE,
CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE; AND PENDING SUCH HEARING AND
THE DECISION THEREON THE COMMISSION, UPON FILING WITH SUCH SCHEDULE AND
DELIVERING TO THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS AFFECTED THEREBY A STATEMENT IN
WRITING OF ITS REASONS FOR SUCH SUSPENSION, MAY FROM TIME TO TIME
SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF SUCH SCHEDULE AND DEFER THE USE OF SUCH RATE,
FARE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE, BUT NOT FOR A
LONGER PERIOD THAN SEVEN MONTHS BEYOND THE TIME WHEN IT WOULD OTHERWISE
GO INTO EFFECT; AND AFTER FULL HEARING, WHETHER COMPLETED BEFORE OR
AFTER THE RATE, FARE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE
GOES INTO EFFECT, THE COMMISSION MAY MAKE SUCH ORDER WITH REFERENCE
THERETO AS WOULD BE PROPER IN A PROCEEDING INITIATED AFTER IT HAD
BECOME EFFECTIVE." 

FN8  "THAT WHENEVER, AFTER FULL HEARING, UPON A COMPLAINT MADE AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 13 OF THIS PART, OR AFTER FULL HEARING UNDER AN
ORDER FOR INVESTIGATION AND HEARING MADE BY THE COMMISSION ON ITS OWN
INITIATIVE, EITHER IN EXTENSION OF ANY PENDING COMPLAINT OR WITHOUT ANY
COMPLAINT WHATEVER, THE COMMISSION SHALL BE OF OPINION THAT ANY
INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE WHATSOEVER DEMANDED, CHARGED,
OR COLLECTED BY ANY COMMON CARRIER OR CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THIS PART FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY AS DEFINED IN THE FIRST
REGULATION, OR PRACTICE WHATSOEVER OF SUCH CARRIER OR CARRIERS SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, IS OR WILL BE UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE OR
UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY OR UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL, OR
OTHERWISE IN VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, THE
COMMISSION IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE AND
PRESCRIBE WHAT WILL BE THE JUST AND REASONABLE INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT
RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE, OR RATES, FARES, OR CHARGES, TO BE THEREAFTER
OBSERVED IN SUCH CASE, OR THE MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM, OR MAXIMUM AND
MINIMUM, TO BE CHARGED, AND WHAT INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT CLASSIFICATION,
REGULATION, OR PRACTICE IS OR WILL BE JUST, FAIR, AND REASONABLE, TO BE
THEREAFTER FOLLOWED, AND TO MAKE AN ORDER THAT THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS
SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH VIOLATION TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE SAME DOES OR WILL EXIST, AND SHALL NOT
THEREAFTER PUBLISH, DEMAND, OR COLLECT ANY RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE FOR
SUCH TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN THE RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE SO PRESCRIBED,
OR IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM OR LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SO PRESCRIBED, AS
THE CASE MAY BE, AND SHALL ADOPT THE CLASSIFICATION AND SHALL CONFORM
TO AND OBSERVE THE REGULATION OR PRACTICE SO PRESCRIBED." 

FN9  SEE ADVANCES IN RATES - WESTERN CASE, 20 I.C.C. 307, 314;
LIGNITE COAL FROM N. DAKOTA, 126 I.C.C. 243, 244. 

FN10  "THAT IF ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
PART SHALL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ANY SPECIAL RATE, REBATE,
DRAWBACK, OR OTHER DEVICE, CHARGE, DEMAND, COLLECT, OR RECEIVE FROM ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS A GREATER OR LESS COMPENSATION FOR ANY SERVICE
RENDERED, OR TO BE RENDERED, IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR
PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, THAN IT CHARGES,
DEMANDS, COLLECTS, OR RECEIVES FROM ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS FOR
DOING FOR HIM OR THEM A LIKE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF A LIKE KIND OF TRAFFIC UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS, SUCH COMMON CARRIER SHALL BE DEEMED
GUILTY OF UNJUST DISCRIMINATION, WHICH IS HEREBY PROHIBITED AND
DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL." 

FN11  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 145
U.S. 263, 280; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. ALABAMA MIDLAND R.
CO., 168 U.S. 144, 166; BARRINGER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 1,
6. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN13  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PART TO MAKE, GIVE, OR CAUSE ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, COMPANY,
FIRM, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LOCALITY, PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY,
TRANSIT POINT, REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR
DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC, IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER; OR TO SUBJECT ANY
PARTICULAR PERSON, COMPANY, FIRM, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LOCALITY,
PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY, TRANSIT POINT, REGION, DISTRICT,
TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC TO ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER  ...
" 

FN14  "THE MILWAUKEE AND THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL JOIN IN RATES FROM THE
PRINCETON AND BOONVILLE GROUPS TO THESE NORTHERN ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS
WHICH REFLECT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE GROUPS ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE
BRAZIL AND LINTON POINTS SERVED BY THOSE TWO RESPONDENTS ON THE OTHER,
THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER THAN THE SO-CALLED STANDARD
DIFFERENTIALS AND GREATER THAN ARE WARRANTED BY THE RESPECTIVE
DIFFERENCES IN DISTANCE." 

FN15  THE COMMISSION IN DETERMINING MAXIMUM REASONABLE RATES FROM THE
FULTON-PEORIA GROUP TO IOWA DESTINATIONS DEVELOPED THE SO-CALLED
MIDLAND SCALE.  SEE MIDLAND ELECTRIC COAL CORP. V. CHICAGO & N.W.R.
W.R. CO., 232 I.C.C. 5.  IT USED THE SO-CALLED INDIANA-ILLINOIS SCALE
FOR THE SAME PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN INDIANA GROUPS TO
EASTERN-CENTRAL ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS.  SEE COAL TRADE ASSN. V.
BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 190 I.C.C. 743.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE
COMMISSION MADE CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS IN THOSE SCALES, SEE 263 I.C.C. AT
186, AND USED THEM IN THE COMPARISON OF THE APPROVED INDIANA RATES WITH
THE APPROVED ILLINOIS RATES.  THOSE COMBINED RATES FOR INDIANA TO
TWELVE NORTHERN ILLINOIS DESTINATIONS AVERAGE 86.1 PER CENT OF THE
INDIANA-ILLINOIS SCALE AND 70.7 PER CENT OF THE MIDLAND SCALE, WHILE
THE COMBINED RATES FOR THE ILLINOIS GROUPS TO THOSE DESTINATIONS
AVERAGED 85.4 PER CENT AND 70.3 PER CENT OF THOSE SCALES. 

THE COMMISSION APPROVED RATES OF $2.22 FROM BRAZIL TO BELOIT,
WISCONSIN, $2.32 FROM LINTON, AND $2.39 FROM PRINCETON-BOONVILLE, RATES
WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND COMPARED FAVORABLY WITH THE PRESENT RATES
FROM THE ILLINOIS GROUPS TO BELOIT.  TAKEN AS A WHOLE, THE APPROVED
RATES FROM INDIANA TO BELOIT AVERAGED 94.3 PER CENT OF THE INDIANA
ILLINOIS SCALE AND 77.1 PER CENT OF THE MIDLAND SCALE, WHILE THE
COMBINED PRESENT RATES FROM THE ILLINOIS GROUPS TO BELOIT AVERAGE 92.9
PER CENT AND 76.6 PER CENT OF THE RESPECTIVE SCALES. 

FN16  THE COMMISSION MADE THIS ADDITIONAL OBSERVATION CONCERNING THE
WEIGHT IT GAVE TO DISTANCE, 263 I.C.C. AT 204, 

"AND IN ACCORDING SUCH WEIGHT TO DISTANCE AS SEEMED TO US TO BE FAIR
AND REASONABLE, WE HAVE ALSO KEPT IN MIND THAT THE AVERAGE DISTANCES OF
RECORD, AND AS USED IN THIS REPORT, ESPECIALLY FROM ILLINOIS MINES,
FREQUENTLY REFLECT SEEMING INCONSISTENCIES FROM THE SAME GROUP TO
DESTINATIONS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER.  FOR EXAMPLE, AMBOY IS
LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ABOUT 12 MILES OVER THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL AND
ACROSS COUNTRY LESS DISTANT FROM THE ILLINOIS GROUPS THAN DIXON, BUT
THE AVERAGE SHORTEST TARIFF-ROUTE DISTANCE FROM THE SPRINGFIELD GROUP
IS 9 MILES GREATER AND FROM THE SOUTHERN ILLINOIS GROUP 1 MILE GREATER
TO THE FORMER THAN TO THE LATTER.  BY USE OF THE SHORT TARIFF ROUTES
THE DISTANCE TO AMBOY IS 9 MILES GREATER FROM SPRINGFIELD AND 7 MILES
GREATER FROM SOUTHERN ILLINOIS THAN TO DIXON.  THESE VARIATIONS IN
DISTANCE ARE DUE TO THE DIFFERENT ROUTES USED AND ALSO TO THE FACT THAT
FREQUENTLY THE GROUP RATE APPLIES FROM A LARGER NUMBER OR ORIGINS TO
ONE DESTINATION THAN TO ANOTHER.  THUS, TO DIXON THE SPRINGFIELD RATE
IS PUBLISHED FROM 61 ORIGINS ON 15 ORIGINATING RAILROADS, BUT TO AMBOY
THE RATE APPLIES FROM ONLY 23 ORIGINS ON 8 RAILROADS.  SO ALSO, THE
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS RATE APPLIES FROM 75 ORIGINS ON 7 ROADS TO DIXON AND
65 ORIGINS ON 5 ROADS TO AMBOY.  THE VARIATIONS IN DISTANCE THUS
BROUGHT ABOUT ARE MUCH GREATER FROM ILLINOIS GROUPS THAN FROM INDIANA
GROUPS.  IT IS PLAIN, THEREFORE, THAT COMPARISONS BASED ON DISTANCE,
ESPECIALLY AS BETWEEN INDIANA AND ILLINOIS GROUPS TO PARTICULAR
DESTINATIONS, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS CONTROLLING, BUT MUST BE EVALUATED
WITH THE ABOVE FACTS IN MIND." 

FN17  THE CONSUMER INTEREST TRADITIONALLY HAS BEEN PROMINENT IN THE
COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THE TYPE OF PROBLEM PRESENTED HERE.  SEE
ANDY'S RIDGE COAL CO. V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 18 I.C.C. 405, 410; WAUKESHA
LIME & STONE CO. V. CHICAGO, M., & ST. P.R. CO., SUPRA, AT 518, 519;
WISCONSIN & ARKANSAS LUMBER CO. V. ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO., SUPRA,
AT 37, 38; SOUTHWESTERN INTERSTATE COAL OPERATORS' ASSN. V. ARKANSAS
W.R. CO., SUPRA, AT 85; COAL TO ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN, SUPRA, AT 167,
169. 
..END :









HENSLEE V. UNION PLANTERS BANK, 335 U.S. 595 


NO. 90.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1949.  - 166
F.2D 993, REVERSED. 


UNDER A WILL THE TESTATOR'S ENTIRE ESTATE WAS LEFT IN TRUST FOR HIS 85
YEAR-OLD MOTHER DURING HER LIFETIME, AFTER WHICH CERTAIN SPECIFIC
BEQUESTS WERE MADE AND THE RESIDUE OF THE ESTATE WAS TO BE DIVIDED
EQUALLY AMONG FOUR NAMED CHARITIES.  THE TRUSTEES WERE DIRECTED TO PAY
THE MOTHER A STATED MONTHLY INCOME, EVEN IF IT SHOULD BECOME NECESSARY
TO INVADE THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST, WERE FURTHER AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE
ANY PORTION OF THE CORPUS FOR HER "PLEASURE, COMFORT AND WELFARE" AND
WERE ADMONISHED THAT THE "FIRST OBJECT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED" WAS TO
PROVIDE FOR HER "IN SUCH MANNER AS SHE MAY DESIRE."  SHE DIED THREE
YEARS LATER WITHOUT INVADING THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST.  HELD:  UNDER
SEC. 812(D) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, THE CHARITABLE BEQUESTS WERE
NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE GROSS ESTATE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES. 
MERCHANTS BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 256.  PP. 595-600. 

HENSLEE, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. UNION PLANTERS NATIONAL
BANK & TRUST CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT FOR REFUND OF FEDERAL
ESTATE TAXES.  74 F.SUPP.  113.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  166
F.2D 993.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  335 U.S. 811.  REVERSED, P.
600. 

PER CURIAM. 

RESPONDENTS ARE THE EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM
BATE WILLIAMS.  THEY BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR REFUND, WITH INTEREST, OF
$35,899.12 OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES AND INTEREST PAID UNDER PROTEST. 
THE RELEVANT FACTS, SET FORTH IN RESPONDENTS' COMPLAINT AND ADMITTED BY
THE COLLECTOR'S MOTION TO DISMISS, ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

WILLIAM BATE WILLIAMS DIED IN 1943.  UNDER THE TERMS OF HIS WILL, THE
ENTIRE GROSS ESTATE OF $508,411.17 WAS BEQUEATHED TO RESPONDENTS TO
HOLD IN TRUST FOR THE TESTATOR'S 

"BELOVED MOTHER, ELIZABETH BATE WILLIAMS, FOR AND DURING HER NATURAL
LIFE, WITH THE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY HEREIN CONFERRED. 

"I HEREBY DIRECT BOTH MY EXECUTORS AND MY TRUSTEES TO PAY TO MY
MOTHER THE SUM OF SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY (750.00) DOLLARS A MONTH TO BE
USED BY HER AS SHE SEES FIT.  IN THE EVENT THE INCOME FROM MY ESTATE IS
NOT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE SAID SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ($750.00) DOLLARS
EACH MONTH, THEN MY EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES ARE HEREBY EMPOWERED,
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO ENCROACH ON THE CORPUS OF THE ESTATE TO PAY
SAID AMOUNT AND TO SELL ANY OF MY PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, FOR THIS
PURPOSE. 

"IN ADDITION TO THIS AMOUNT MY SAID EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES ARE
AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO USE AND EXPEND IN THEIR DISCRETION ANY
PORTION OF MY ESTATE, EITHER INCOME OR PRINCIPAL, FOR THE PLEASURE,
COMFORT AND WELFARE OF MY MOTHER. 

"THE FIRST OBJECT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND
MANAGEMENT OF MY ESTATE AND THIS TRUST IS TO TAKE CARE OF AND PROVIDE
FOR MY MOTHER IN SUCH MANNER AS SHE MAY DESIRE AND MY EXECUTORS AND
TRUSTEES ARE FULLY AUTHORIZED AND LIKEWISE DIRECTED TO MANAGE MY ESTATE
PRIMARILY FOR THIS PURPOSE." 

THE WILL WENT ON TO PROVIDE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS OF THE
ESTATE REMAINING AT THE MOTHER'S DEATH.  TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE
TOTAL REMAINING ESTATE WAS BEQUEATHED TO THE TESTATOR'S COUSIN, AND
STATED SUMS IN CASH WERE LEFT TO OTHER NAMED LEGATEES.  AFTER THESE
LEGACIES, THE BALANCE OF THE ESTATE WAS DIRECTED TO BE PAID OVER TO
FOUR NAMED CHARITIES, IN EQUAL SHARES. 

AT THE TIME OF THE TESTATOR'S DEATH THE ESTATE WAS EARNING A NET
INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000 PER YEAR, $6,000 MORE THAN THE AMOUNT
DIRECTED TO BE PAID, AT $750 PER MONTH, TO THE TESTATOR'S MOTHER.  THE
MOTHER AT THAT TIME WAS EIGHTY-FIVE YEARS OLD, LIVED ON SUBSTANTIALLY
LESS THAN $750 PER MONTH, AND HAD INDEPENDENT INVESTMENTS WORTH
APPROXIMATELY $100,000 WHICH NETTED HER AN INCOME OF ABOUT $300 PER
MONTH.  A WOMAN OF MODERATE NEEDS AND WITHOUT DEPENDENTS, SHE DIED
THREE YEARS LATER WITHOUT HAVING REQUESTED RESPONDENTS TO INVADE THE
TRUST CORPUS IN HER BEHALF. 

THE DISPUTED ESTATE TAX LIABILITY RESULTED FROM RESPONDENTS' ATTEMPT
TO DEDUCT FROM THE GROSS ESTATE THE PORTION BEQUEATHED TO THE FOUR
CHARITIES, IN RELIANCE ON THE CHARITABLE DEDUCTION PROVISION OF SEC.
812(D) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  FN1  THE COMMISSIONER DENIED THE
DEDUCTION.  THE COLLECTOR HERE RESISTS THE REFUND CLAIM, ON THE GROUND
THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF INVASION OF THE CORPUS ON BEHALF OF THE
TESTATOR'S MOTHER PREVENTED THE ULTIMATE CHARITABLE INTEREST, AT THE
TESTATOR'S DEATH, FROM BEING "PRESENTLY ASCERTAINABLE, AND HENCE
SEVERABLE FROM THE INTEREST IN FAVOR OF THE PRIVATE USE," WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE APPLICABLE TREASURY REGULATION.  FN2 

ON THE AUTHORITY OF MERCHANTS BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 256, THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE COLLECTOR'S MOTION TO DISMISS.  74 F.SUPP. 
113.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  166 F.2D 993.  IT HELD THAT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE TESTAMENTARY PROVISION FOR THE
"PLEASURE, COMFORT AND WELFARE" OF THE MOTHER, THE COMPLAINT'S
ALLEGATIONS OF THE MOTHER'S GREAT AGE, INDEPENDENT MEANS AND MODEST
TASTES RAISED A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE TRUST CORPUS
WAS THREATENED WITH INVASION AND THE CHARITABLE INTEREST HENCE SUBJECT
TO DEPLETION IN FAVOR OF THE TESTATOR'S MOTHER. 

WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THIS CASE IS GOVERNED BY THE
DECISION IN THE MERCHANTS BANK CASE AND THAT THE SUIT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED.  IT IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE COMPLAINT THAT THIS
TESTATOR'S WILL DID NOT LIMIT THE TRUSTEES' DISBURSEMENTS TO CONFORMITY
WITH SOME READY STANDARD - AS WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, TRUSTEES ARE TO
PROVIDE THE PRIME BENEFICIARY WITH SUCH SUMS AS "MAY BE NECESSARY TO
SUITABLY MAINTAIN HER IN AS MUCH COMFORT AS SHE NOW ENJOYS."  ITHACA
TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 151, 154.  THE STATED INCOME HERE
DIRECTED TO BE PAID TO THE MOTHER WAS "TO BE USED BY HER AS SHE SEES
FIT."  BEYOND THIS THE TRUSTEES WERE EMPOWERED TO INVADE OR WHOLLY
UTILIZE THE CORPUS OF THE ESTATE FOR THE MOTHER'S "PLEASURE, COMFORT
AND WELFARE," BEARING IN MIND THE TESTATOR'S INJUNCTION THAT "THE FIRST
OBJECT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED  ...  IS TO TAKE CARE OF AND PROVIDE FOR MY
MOTHER IN SUCH MANNER AS SHE MAY DESIRE  ..."  FN3  AS IN THE MERCHANTS
BANK CASE, WHERE THE TRUSTEES HAD DISCRETION TO DISBURSE SUMS FOR THE
"COMFORT, SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE, AND/OR HAPPINESS" OF THE PRIME
BENEFICIARY, SO HERE WE THINK IT THE "SALIENT FACT  ...  THAT THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE WIDOW COULD, AND MIGHT WISH TO HAVE THE FUNDS
SPENT DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO RELIABLE PREDICTION."  320 U.S. 256,
258, 262. 

WE DO NOT OVERLOOK THE UNLIKELIHOOD THAT A WOMAN OF THE MOTHER'S AGE
AND CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD ABANDON HER CUSTOMARY FRUGALITY AND SQUANDER
HER SON'S WEALTH.  BUT, THOUGH THERE MAY HAVE BEEN LITTLE CHANCE OF
THAT EXTRAVAGANCE WHICH WOULD WASTE A PART OR CONSUME THE WHOLE OF THE
CHARITABLE INTEREST, THAT CHANCE REMAINED.  WHAT COMMON EXPERIENCE
MIGHT REGARD AS REMOTE IN THE GENERALITY OF CASES MAY NONETHELESS BE
BEYOND THE REALM OF PRECISE PREDICTION IN THE SINGLE INSTANCE.  THE
CONTINGENCY WHICH WOULD HAVE DIMINISHED OR DESTROYED THE CHARITABLE
INTEREST HERE CONSIDERED MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN INSURED AGAINST, BUT SUCH
AN ARITHMETIC GENERALIZATION OF EXPERIENCE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THIS
CHARITABLE INTEREST "PRESENTLY ASCERTAINABLE.""  FN4  ROUGH GUESSES,
APPROXIMATIONS, OR EVEN THE RELATIVELY ACCURATE VALUATIONS ON WHICH THE
MARKET PLACE MIGHT BE WILLING TO ACT ARE NOT SUFFICIENT."  MERCHANTS
BANK V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA AT 261. 

NOR DO WE THINK IT SIGNIFICANT THAT THE TRUST CORPUS WAS INTACT AT
THE MOTHER'S DEATH, FOR THE TEST OF PRESENT ASCERTAINABILITY OF THE
ULTIMATE CHARITABLE INTEREST IS APPLIED "AT THE DEATH OF THE
TESTATOR."  IBID.  THE CHARITABLE DEDUCTION IS A MATTER OF
CONGRESSIONAL GRACE, AND IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE THE
ADVISABILITY OF PERMITTING AMENDMENT OF ESTATE TAX RETURNS AT SUCH TIME
AS THE PROBABLE VESTING OF THE CHARITABLE INTEREST HAS REDUCED ITSELF
TO UNALTERABLE FACT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  26 U.S.C. SEC. 812(D), 53 STAT. 124-125, AS AMENDED BY REVENUE
ACT OF 1942, SEC. 408(A), 56 STAT. 949, AND REVENUE ACT OF 1943, SEC.
511(A), 58 STAT. 74-75. 

FN2  "IF A TRUST IS CREATED FOR BOTH A CHARITABLE AND A PRIVATE
PURPOSE, DEDUCTION MAY BE TAKEN OF THE VALUE OF THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST
IN FAVOR OF THE FORMER ONLY INSOFAR AS SUCH INTEREST IS PRESENTLY
ASCERTAINABLE, AND HENCE SEVERABLE FROM THE INTEREST IN FAVOR OF THE
PRIVATE USE.  ..."  U.S. TREAS. REG. 105 SEC. 81.44(1942).  CF. ID. AT
SEC. 81.46:  "IF THE LEGATEE, DEVISEE, DONEE, OR TRUSTEE IS EMPOWERED
TO DIVERT THE PROPERTY OR FUND, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO A USE OR
PURPOSE WHICH WOULD HAVE RENDERED IT, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS SUBJECT
TO SUCH POWER, NOT DEDUCTIBLE HAD IT BEEN DIRECTLY SO BEQUEATHED,
DEVISED, OR GIVEN BY THE DECEDENT, DEDUCTION WILL BE LIMITED TO THAT
PORTION, IF ANY, OF THE PROPERTY OR FUND WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM AN
EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER." 

FN3  IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS PRIORITY ACCORDED THE MOTHER'S WISHES,
RESPONDENTS' FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARIES, PRIVATE AND
CHARITABLE, WAS INEFFECTIVE TO GUARANTEE PRESERVATION OF ANY
PREDICTABLE FRACTION OF THE CORPUS FOR DISPOSITION AFTER THE MOTHER'S
DEATH.  THE TESTATOR, INDEED, MADE THE GIFTS TO CHARITY SUBORDINATE NOT
ONLY TO HIS MOTHER'S INTEREST BUT TO THAT OF ALL THE PRIVATE
BENEFICIARIES, STATING IN HIS WILL THAT THE CHARITABLE INTEREST "IS A
RESIDUARY BEQUEST  ...  AND IS NOT TO INFRINGE ON ANY OF THE OTHER
LEGACIES HEREINBEFORE PROVIDED." 

FN4  "...  (THE) FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IN THE CASE AT BAR, IS NOT
WHETHER THIS CONTINGENT INTEREST CAN BE INSURED AGAINST OR ITS VALUE
GUESSED AT, BUT WHAT CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO A STATUTE.  DID
CONGRESS IN PROVIDING FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE NET ESTATE TAXABLE,
INTEND THAT A DEDUCTION SHOULD BE MADE FOR A CONTINGENCY, THE ACTUAL
VALUE OF WHICH CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM ANY KNOWN DATA?  NEITHER
TAXPAYER, NOR REVENUE OFFICER - EVEN IF EQUIPPED WITH ALL THE AID WHICH
THE ACTUARIAL ART CAN SUPPLY - COULD DO MORE THAN GUESS AT THE VALUE OF
THIS CONTINGENCY.  IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT A
DEDUCTION SHOULD BE MADE FOR A CONTINGENT GIFT OF THAT CHARACTER." 
HUMES V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 487, 494. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENT UPON THE GROUNDS
STATED IN DISSENT IN MERCHANTS BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 256, AT
263. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

WISDOM TOO OFTEN NEVER COMES, AND SO ONE OUGHT NOT TO REJECT IT
MERELY BECAUSE IT COMES LATE.  SINCE I NOW REALIZE THAT I SHOULD HAVE
JOINED THE DISSENTERS IN THE MERCHANTS BANK CASE, 320 U.S. 256, I SHALL
NOT COMPOUND ERROR BY PUSHING THAT DECISION STILL FARTHER.  I WOULD
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BELOW.  166
F.2D 993. 
..END :






GOESAERT V. CLEARY, 335 U.S. 464 


NO. 49.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1948.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1948.  - 74
F.SUPP.  735, AFFIRMED. 


MICH. STAT. ANN. (CUM. SUPP. 1947) SEC. 18.990(1), WHICH IN EFFECT
FORBIDS ANY FEMALE TO ACT AS A BARTENDER UNLESS SHE BE "THE WIFE OR
DAUGHTER OF THE MALE OWNER" OF A LICENSED LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT, DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
PP. 465-467. 

(A)  THE CLASSIFICATION WHICH MICHIGAN HAS MADE AS BETWEEN WIVES AND
DAUGHTERS OF OWNERS OF LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS AND WIVES AND DAUGHTERS OF
NON-OWNERS IS NOT WITHOUT A REASONABLE BASIS.  PP. 465-467. 

(B)  NOR IS THE STATUTE RENDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE MICHIGAN
ALLOWS WOMEN TO SERVE AS WAITRESSES WHERE LIQUOR IS DISPENSED.  P.
467. 

GOESAERT ET AL. V. CLEARY ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE LIQUOR CONTROL
COMMISSION OF MICHIGAN. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF MICHIGAN. 

A THREE-JUDGE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN
ENFORCEMENT OF MICH. STAT. ANN. (CUM. SUPP. 1947) SEC. 18.990(1), IN
EFFECT FORBIDDING ANY FEMALE TO ACT AS A BARTENDER UNLESS SHE BE "THE
WIFE OR DAUGHTER OF THE MALE OWNER" OF A LICENSED LIQUOR
ESTABLISHMENT.  74 F.SUPP.  735.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P.
467. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AS PART OF THE MICHIGAN SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING THE SALE OF LIQUOR,
BARTENDERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE LICENSED IN ALL CITIES HAVING A
POPULATION OF 50,000 OR MORE, BUT NO FEMALE MAY BE SO LICENSED UNLESS
SHE BE "THE WIFE OR DAUGHTER OF THE MALE OWNER" OF A LICENSED LIQUOR
ESTABLISHMENT.  SECTION 19A OF ACT 133 OF THE PUBLIC ACTS OF MICHIGAN,
1945, MICH. STAT. ANN. SEC. 18.990(1)(CUM.  SUPP.  1947).  THE CASE IS
HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES, CONVENED UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE OLD JUDICIAL CODE, NOW 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 2284, DENYING AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
MICHIGAN LAW.  THE CLAIM, DENIED BELOW, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, 74
F.SUPP.  735, AND RENEWED HERE, IS THAT MICHIGAN CANNOT FORBID FEMALES
GENERALLY FROM BEING BARMAIDS AND AT THE SAME TIME MAKE AN EXCEPTION IN
FAVOR OF THE WIVES AND DAUGHTERS OF THE OWNERS OF LIQUOR
ESTABLISHMENTS.  BEGUILING AS THE SUBJECT IS, IT NEED NOT DETAIN US
LONG.  TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BARRED MICHIGAN FROM MAKING THE CLASSIFICATION
THE STATE HAS MADE BETWEEN WIVES AND DAUGHTERS OF OWNERS OF LIQUOR
PLACES AND WIVES AND DAUGHTERS OF NON-OWNERS, IS ONE OF THOSE RARE
INSTANCES WHERE TO STATE THE QUESTION IS IN EFFECT TO ANSWER IT. 

WE ARE, TO BE SURE, DEALING WITH A HISTORIC CALLING.  WE MEET THE
ALEWIFE, SPRIGHTLY AND RIBALD, IN SHAKESPEARE, BUT CENTURIES BEFORE HIM
SHE PLAYED A ROLE IN THE SOCIAL LIFE OF ENGLAND.  SEE, E.G., JUSSERAND,
ENGLISH WAYFARING LIFE IN THE MIDDLE AGES, 133, 134, 136-37(1889).  THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT TEAR HISTORY UP BY THE ROOTS, AND THE
REGULATION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IS ONE OF THE OLDEST AND MOST
UNTRAMMELED OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS.  MICHIGAN COULD, BEYOND QUESTION,
FORBID ALL WOMEN FROM WORKING BEHIND A BAR.  THIS IS SO DESPITE THE
VAST CHANGES IN THE SOCIAL AND LEGAL POSITION OF WOMEN.  THE FACT THAT
WOMEN MAY NOW HAVE ACHIEVED THE VIRTUES THAT MEN HAVE LONG CLAIMED AS
THEIR PREROGATIVES AND NOW INDULGE IN VICES THAT MEN HAVE LONG
PRACTICED, DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE STATES FROM DRAWING A SHARP LINE
BETWEEN THE SEXES, CERTAINLY IN SUCH MATTERS AS THE REGULATION OF THE
LIQUOR TRAFFIC.  SEE THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT AND CARTER V. VIRGINIA,
321 U.S. 131.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE LEGISLATURES TO
REFLECT SOCIOLOGICAL INSIGHT, OR SHIFTING SOCIAL STANDARDS, ANY MORE
THAN IT REQUIRES THEM TO KEEP ABREAST OF THE LATEST SCIENTIFIC
STANDARDS. 

WHILE MICHIGAN MAY DENY TO ALL WOMEN OPPORTUNITIES FOR BARTENDING,
MICHIGAN CANNOT PLAY FAVORITES AMONG WOMEN WITHOUT RHYME OR REASON. 
THE CONSTITUTION IN ENJOINING THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS UPON
STATES PRECLUDES IRRATIONAL DISCRIMINATION AS BETWEEN PERSONS OR GROUPS
OF PERSONS IN THE INCIDENCE OF A LAW.  BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
REQUIRE SITUATIONS "WHICH ARE DIFFERENT IN FACT OR OPINION TO BE
TREATED IN LAW AS THOUGH THEY WERE THE SAME."  TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310
U.S. 141, 147.  SINCE BARTENDING BY WOMEN MAY, IN THE ALLOWABLE
LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT, GIVE RISE TO MORAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS AGAINST
WHICH IT MAY DEVISE PREVENTIVE MEASURES, THE LEGISLATURE NEED NOT GO TO
THE FULL LENGTH OF PROHIBITION IF IT BELIEVES THAT AS TO A DEFINED
GROUP OF FEMALES OTHER FACTORS ARE OPERATING WHICH EITHER ELIMINATE OR
REDUCE THE MORAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS OTHERWISE CALLING FOR
PROHIBITION.  MICHIGAN EVIDENTLY BELIEVES THAT THE OVERSIGHT ASSURED
THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF A BAR BY A BARMAID'S HUSBAND OR FATHER MINIMIZES
HAZARDS THAT MAY CONFRONT A BARMAID WITHOUT SUCH PROTECTING OVERSIGHT. 
THIS COURT IS CERTAINLY NOT IN A POSITION TO GAINSAY SUCH BELIEF BY THE
MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE.  IF IT IS ENTERTAINABLE, AS WE THINK IT IS,
MICHIGAN HAS NOT VIOLATED ITS DUTY TO AFFORD EQUAL PROTECTION OF ITS
LAWS.  WE CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE EITHER ACTUALLY OR ARGUMENTATIVELY THE
MIND OF MICHIGAN LEGISLATORS NOR QUESTION THEIR MOTIVES.  SINCE THE
LINE THEY HAVE DRAWN IS NOT WITHOUT A BASIS IN REASON, WE CANNOT GIVE
EAR TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE REAL IMPULSE BEHIND THIS LEGISLATION WAS
AN UNCHIVALROUS DESIRE OF MALE BARTENDERS TO TRY TO MONOPOLIZE THE
CALLING. 

IT WOULD BE AN IDLE PARADE OF FAMILIAR LEARNING TO REVIEW THE
MULTITUDINOUS CASES IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASSURANCE OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS HAS BEEN APPLIED.  THE GENERALITIES ON THIS
SUBJECT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE; THEIR APPLICATION TURNS PECULIARLY ON THE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE.  THUS, IT WOULD BE A STERILE
INQUIRY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS CASE IS NEARER TO THE NEPOTIC PILOTAGE
LAW OF LOUISIANA, SUSTAINED IN KOTCH V. PILOT COMMISSIONERS, 330 U.S.
552, THAN IT IS TO THE OKLAHOMA STERILIZATION LAW, WHICH FELL IN
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT "A STATUTE
IS NOT INVALID UNDER THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAVE GONE
FARTHER THAN IT DID, OR BECAUSE IT MAY NOT SUCCEED IN BRINGING ABOUT
THE RESULT THAT IT TENDS TO PRODUCE."  ROSCHEN V. WARD, 279 U. S. 337,
339. 

NOR IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR MICHIGAN TO WITHDRAW FROM WOMEN THE
OCCUPATION OF BARTENDING BECAUSE IT ALLOWS WOMEN TO SERVE AS WAITRESSES
WHERE LIQUOR IS DISPENSED.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAS SUFFICIENTLY
INDICATED THE REASONS THAT MAY HAVE INFLUENCED THE LEGISLATURE IN
ALLOWING WOMEN TO BE WAITRESSES IN A LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT OVER WHICH A
MAN'S OWNERSHIP PROVIDES CONTROL.  NOTHING NEED BE ADDED TO WHAT WAS
SAID BELOW AS TO THE OTHER GROUNDS ON WHICH THE MICHIGAN LAW WAS
ASSAILED.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY JOIN, DISSENTING. 

WHILE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE A LEGISLATURE TO
ACHIEVE "ABSTRACT SYMMETRY" FN1  OR TO CLASSIFY WITH "MATHEMATICAL
NICETY,"  FN2  THAT CLAUSE DOES REQUIRE LAWMAKERS TO REFRAIN FROM
INVIDIOUS DISTINCTIONS OF THE SORT DRAWN BY THE STATUTE CHALLENGED IN
THIS CASE.  FN3 

THE STATUTE ARBITRARILY DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE OWNERS
OF LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS.  A MALE OWNER, ALTHOUGH HE HIMSELF IS ALWAYS
ABSENT FROM HIS BAR, MAY EMPLOY HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER AS BARMAIDS.  A
FEMALE OWNER MAY NEITHER WORK AS A BARMAID HERSELF NOR EMPLOY HER
DAUGHTER IN THAT POSITION, EVEN IF A MAN IS ALWAYS PRESENT IN THE
ESTABLISHMENT TO KEEP ORDER.  THIS INEVITABLE RESULT OF THE
CLASSIFICATION BELIES THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE STATUTE WAS MOTIVATED BY
A LEGISLATIVE SOLICITUDE FOR THE MORAL AND PHYSICAL WELL-BEING OF WOMEN
WHO, BUT FOR THE LAW, WOULD BE EMPLOYED AS BARMAIDS.  SINCE THERE COULD
BE NO OTHER CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
WOMEN OWNERS OF LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENTS, THE STATUTE SHOULD BE HELD
INVALID AS A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION. 

FN1 PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138, 144. 

FN2  LINDSLEY V. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61, 78-82; SEE
ALSO TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141, 147; BAIN PEANUT CO. V. PINSON, 282
U.S. 499, 501; BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63, 73-77; MILLER V.
WILSON, 236 U.S. 373, 384. 

FN3  CF. SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535; MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES
V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337; MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 235 U.S.
151; YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356.  AND SEE KOTCH V. PILOT
COMMISSIONERS, 330 U.S. 552, DISSENTING OPINION 564. 
..END :






MICHELSON V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 469 


NO. 23.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14-15, 1948.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1948.  -
165 F.2D 732, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A TRIAL IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR BRIBERY OF A FEDERAL OFFICER,
THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED THE PAYMENT BUT CLAIMED THAT IT WAS INDUCED BY
THE OFFICER, AND THE CASE HINGED ON WHETHER THE JURY BELIEVED THE
DEFENDANT OR THE OFFICER.  THE DEFENDANT'S CHARACTER WITNESSES
TESTIFIED THAT THEY HAD KNOWN THE DEFENDANT FOR FROM 15 TO 30 YEARS AND
THAT HE HAD A GOOD REPUTATION FOR "HONESTY AND TRUTHFULNESS" AND FOR
"BEING A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN."  IN CROSS-EXAMINING THEM, THE PROSECUTOR
WAS PERMITTED TO ASK WHETHER THEY HAD HEARD THAT THE ACCUSED HAD BEEN
ARRESTED 27 YEARS PREVIOUSLY FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.  THE TRIAL
JUDGE HAD SATISFIED HIMSELF IN THE ABSENCE OF THE JURY THAT THE
QUESTION RELATED TO AN ACTUAL OCCURRENCE, AND HE CAREFULLY INSTRUCTED
THE JURY AS TO THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF THIS EVIDENCE.  HELD:  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE CARE TAKEN BY THE TRIAL
JUDGE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT, PERMITTING THE PROSECUTOR
TO ASK THIS QUESTION WAS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR.  PP. 470-487. 

2.  THE LAW DOES NOT INVEST THE DEFENDANT WITH A PRESUMPTION OF GOOD
CHARACTER; IT SIMPLY CLOSES THE WHOLE MATTER OF CHARACTER, DISPOSITION
AND REPUTATION ON THE PROSECUTION'S CASE-IN-CHIEF.  THE DEFENDANT MAY
INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE HIS GOOD REPUTATION; BUT, IF HE
DOES SO, IT THROWS OPEN THE ENTIRE SUBJECT AND THE PROSECUTION MAY THEN
CROSS-EXAMINE DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES TO TEST THEIR CREDIBILITY AND
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAY ALSO INTRODUCE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE.  PP. 475
479. 

3.  BOTH THE PROPRIETY AND ABUSE OF HEARSAY REPUTATION TESTIMONY, ON
BOTH SIDES, DEPEND ON NUMEROUS AND SUBTLE CONSIDERATIONS, DIFFICULT TO
DETECT OR APPRAISE FROM A COLD RECORD.  THEREFORE, RARELY AND ONLY ON
CLEAR SHOWING OF PREJUDICIAL ABUSE OF DISCRETION, WILL APPELLATE COURTS
DISTURB RULINGS OF TRIAL COURTS ON THIS SUBJECT.  P. 480. 

4.  IN THIS CASE, THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS SCRUPULOUS TO SAFEGUARD THE
PRACTICE AGAINST ANY MISUSE.  P. 481. 

5.  A CHARACTER WITNESS MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED AS TO KNOWLEDGE OF
RUMORS OF DEFENDANT'S PRIOR ARREST, WHETHER OR NOT IT CULMINATED IN A
CONVICTION.  PP. 482-483. 

6.  IT IS NOT ONLY BY COMPARISON WITH THE CRIME ON TRIAL BUT BY
COMPARISON WITH THE REPUTATION ASSERTED THAT A COURT MAY JUDGE WHETHER
THE PRIOR ARREST SHOULD BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY.  PP. 483-484. 

7.  THAT THE INQUIRY CONCERNED AN ARREST 27 YEARS BEFORE THE TRIAL
DID NOT MAKE ITS ADMISSION AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE - ESPECIALLY SINCE TWO OF THE WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED THAT
THEY HAD KNOWN DEFENDANT FOR 30 YEARS, DEFENDANT, ON DIRECT
EXAMINATION, HAD VOLUNTARILY CALLED ATTENTION TO HIS CONVICTION OF A
MISDEMEANOR 20 YEARS BEFORE, AND SINCE NO OBJECTION WAS MADE ON THIS
SPECIFIC GROUND.  P. 484. 

8.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE DIFFICULTY WHICH A JURY MIGHT HAVE IN
COMPREHENDING INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF SUCH EVIDENCE,
A DEFENDANT WHO ELECTS TO INTRODUCE WITNESSES TO PROVE HIS GOOD
REPUTATION FOR HONESTY AND TRUTHFULNESS AND FOR BEING A LAW-ABIDING
CITIZEN HAS NO VALID COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LATITUDE WHICH EXISTING LAW
ALLOWS TO THE PROSECUTION TO MEET THIS ISSUE BY CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
HIS CHARACTER WITNESSES.  PP. 484-485. 

MICHELSON V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF BRIBING A
FEDERAL OFFICER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  165 F.2D 732.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 866.  AFFIRMED, P. 487. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1947 PETITIONER MICHELSON WAS CONVICTED OF BRIBING A FEDERAL
REVENUE AGENT.  FN1  THE GOVERNMENT PROVED A LARGE PAYMENT BY ACCUSED
TO THE AGENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING HIS OFFICIAL ACTION.  THE
DEFENDANT, AS A WITNESS ON HIS OWN BEHALF, ADMITTED PASSING THE MONEY
BUT CLAIMED IT WAS DONE IN RESPONSE TO THE AGENT'S DEMANDS, THREATS,
SOLICITATIONS, AND INDUCEMENTS THAT AMOUNTED TO ENTRAPMENT.  IT IS
ENOUGH FOR OUR PURPOSES TO SAY THAT DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE TURNED
ON WHETHER THE JURY SHOULD BELIEVE THE AGENT OR THE ACCUSED.  FN2 

ON DIRECT EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT, HIS OWN COUNSEL BROUGHT OUT THAT,
IN 1927, HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR HAVING TO DO WITH
TRADING IN COUNTERFEIT WATCH DIALS.  ON CROSS-EXAMINATION IT APPEARED
THAT IN 1930, IN EXECUTING AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO DEAL IN
SECOND-HAND JEWELRY, HE ANSWERED "NO" TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE HAD
THERETOFORE BEEN ARRESTED OR SUMMONED FOR ANY OFFENSE. 

DEFENDANT CALLED FIVE WITNESSES TO PROVE THAT HE ENJOYED A GOOD
REPUTATION.  TWO OF THEM TESTIFIED THAT THEIR ACQUAINTANCE WITH HIM
EXTENDED OVER A PERIOD OF ABOUT THIRTY YEARS AND THE OTHERS SAID THEY
HAD KNOWN HIM AT LEAST HALF THAT LONG.  A TYPICAL EXAMINATION IN CHIEF
WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  DO YOU KNOW THE DEFENDANT MICHELSON? 

"A.  YES. 

"Q.  HOW LONG DO YOU KNOW MR. MICHELSON? 

"A.  ABOUT 30 YEARS. 

"Q.  DO YOU KNOW OTHER PEOPLE WHO KNOW HIM? 

"A.  YES. 

"Q.  HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO DISCUSS HIS REPUTATION FOR HONESTY AND
TRUTHFULNESS AND FOR BEING A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN? 

"A.  IT IS VERY GOOD. 

"Q.  YOU HAVE TALKED TO OTHERS? 

"A.  YES. 

"Q.  AND WHAT IS HIS REPUTATION? 

"A.  VERY GOOD." 

THESE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANSWERS BY THREE WITNESSES; TWO OTHERS
REPLIED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THEY NEVER HAD HEARD ANYTHING AGAINST
MICHELSON. 

ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, FOUR OF THE WITNESSES WERE ASKED, IN SUBSTANCE,
THIS QUESTION:  "DID YOU EVER HEAR THAT MR. MICHELSON ON MARCH 4, 1927,
WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF THE TRADEMARK LAW IN NEW YORK CITY IN
REGARD TO WATCHES?"  THIS REFERRED TO THE TWENTY-YEAR-OLD CONVICTION
ABOUT WHICH DEFENDANT HIMSELF HAD TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION.  TWO
OF THEM HAD HEARD OF IT AND TWO HAD NOT. 

TO FOUR OF THESE WITNESSES THE PROSECUTION ALSO ADDRESSED THE
QUESTION THE ALLOWANCE OF WHICH, OVER DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION, IS CLAIMED
TO BE REVERSIBLE ERROR: 

"DID YOU EVER HEAR THAT ON OCTOBER 11, 1920, THE DEFENDANT, SOLOMON
MICHELSON, WAS ARRESTED FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS?" 

NONE OF THE WITNESSES APPEARS TO HAVE HEARD OF THIS.  THE TRIAL COURT
ASKED COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION, OUT OF PRESENCE OF THE JURY, "IS IT
A FACT ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION IN YOUR POSSESSION, THAT
MICHELSON WAS ARRESTED FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS?"  COUNSEL REPLIED
THAT IT WAS, AND TO SUPPORT HIS GOOD FAITH EXHIBITED A PAPER RECORD
WHICH DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL DID NOT CHALLENGE. 

THE JUDGE ALSO ON THREE OCCASIONS WARNED THE JURY, IN TERMS THAT ARE
NOT CRITICIZED, OF THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR WHICH THIS EVIDENCE WAS
RECEIVED.  FN3 

DEFENDANT-PETITIONER CHALLENGES THE RIGHT OF THE PROSECUTION SO TO
CROSS-EXAMINE HIS CHARACTER WITNESSES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT
IT WAS PERMISSIBLE.  THE OPINION, HOWEVER, POINTS OUT THAT THE PRACTICE
HAS BEEN SEVERELY CRITICIZED AND INVITES US, IN ONE RESPECT, TO CHANGE
THE RULE.  FN4  SERIOUS AND RESPONSIBLE CRITICISM HAS BEEN AIMED,
HOWEVER, NOT ALONE AT THE DETAIL NOW QUESTIONED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
BUT AT COMMON-LAW DOCTRINE ON THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF PROOF OF REPUTATION
OR CHARACTER.  FN5  IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO APPRAISE THE USEFULNESS
AND PROPRIETY OF THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE
UNIQUE PRACTICE CONCERNING CHARACTER TESTIMONY, OF WHICH SUCH CROSS
EXAMINATION IS A MINOR PART.  FN6 

COURTS THAT FOLLOW THE COMMON-LAW TRADITION ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY HAVE
COME TO DISALLOW RESORT BY THE PROSECUTION TO ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE OF A
DEFENDANT'S EVIL CHARACTER TO ESTABLISH A PROBABILITY OF HIS GUILT. 
FN7  NOT THAT THE LAW INVESTS THE DEFENDANT WITH A PRESUMPTION OF GOOD
CHARACTER, GREER V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 559, BUT IT SIMPLY CLOSES
THE WHOLE MATTER OF CHARACTER, DISPOSITION AND REPUTATION ON THE
PROSECUTION'S CASE-IN-CHIEF.  THE STATE MAY NOT SHOW DEFENDANT'S PRIOR
TROUBLE WITH THE LAW, SPECIFIC CRIMINAL ACTS, OR ILL NAME AMONG HIS
NEIGHBORS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH FACTS MIGHT LOGICALLY BE PERSUASIVE THAT HE
IS BY PROPENSITY A PROBABLE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME.  FN8  THE INQUIRY
IS NOT REJECTED BECAUSE CHARACTER IS IRRELEVANT; FN9  ON THE CONTRARY,
IT IS SAID TO WEIGH TOO MUCH WITH THE JURY AND TO SO OVERPERSUADE THEM
AS TO PREJUDGE ONE WITH A BAD GENERAL RECORD AND DENY HIM A FAIR
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND AGAINST A PARTICULAR CHARGE.  THE OVERRIDING
POLICY OF EXCLUDING SUCH EVIDENCE, DESPITE ITS ADMITTED PROBATIVE
VALUE, IS THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE THAT ITS DISALLOWANCE TENDS TO
PREVENT CONFUSION OF ISSUES, UNFAIR SURPRISE AND UNDUE PREJUDICE. 
FN10 

BUT THIS LINE OF INQUIRY FIRMLY DENIED TO THE STATE IS OPENED TO THE
DEFENDANT BECAUSE CHARACTER IS RELEVANT IN RESOLVING PROBABILITIES OF
GUILT.  FN11  HE MAY INTRODUCE AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY THAT THE GENERAL
ESTIMATE OF HIS CHARACTER IS SO FAVORABLE THAT THE JURY MAY INFER THAT
HE WOULD NOT BE LIKELY TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE CHARGED.  THIS PRIVILEGE
IS SOMETIMES VALUABLE TO A DEFENDANT FOR THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT SUCH
TESTIMONY ALONE, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY BE ENOUGH TO RAISE A
REASONABLE DOUBT OF GUILT AND THAT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS A JURY IN A
PROPER CASE SHOULD BE SO INSTRUCTED.  EDGINGTON V. UNITED STATES, 164
U.S. 361. 

WHEN THE DEFENDANT ELECTS TO INITIATE A CHARACTER INQUIRY, ANOTHER
ANOMALOUS RULE COMES INTO PLAY.  NOT ONLY IS HE PERMITTED TO CALL
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY FROM HEARSAY, BUT INDEED SUCH A WITNESS IS NOT
ALLOWED TO BASE HIS TESTIMONY ON ANYTHING BUT HEARSAY.  FN12  WHAT
COMMONLY IS CALLED "CHARACTER EVIDENCE" IS ONLY SUCH WHEN "CHARACTER"
IS EMPLOYED AS A SYNONYM FOR "REPUTATION."  THE WITNESS MAY NOT TESTIFY
ABOUT DEFENDANT'S SPECIFIC ACTS OR COURSES OF CONDUCT OR HIS POSSESSION
OF A PARTICULAR DISPOSITION OR OF BENIGN MENTAL AND MORAL TRAITS; NOR
CAN HE TESTIFY THAT HIS OWN ACQUAINTANCE, OBSERVATION, AND KNOWLEDGE OF
DEFENDANT LEADS TO HIS OWN INDEPENDENT OPINION THAT DEFENDANT POSSESSES
A GOOD GENERAL OR SPECIFIC CHARACTER, INCONSISTENT WITH COMMISSION OF
ACTS CHARGED.  THE WITNESS IS, HOWEVER, ALLOWED TO SUMMARIZE WHAT HE
HAS HEARD IN THE COMMUNITY, ALTHOUGH MUCH OF IT MAY HAVE BEEN SAID BY
PERSONS LESS QUALIFIED TO JUDGE THAN HIMSELF.  THE EVIDENCE WHICH THE
LAW PERMITS IS NOT AS TO THE PERSONALITY OF DEFENDANT BUT ONLY AS TO
THE SHADOW HIS DAILY LIFE HAS CAST IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD.  THIS HAS BEEN
WELL DESCRIBED IN A DIFFERENT CONNECTION AS "THE SLOW GROWTH OF MONTHS
AND YEARS, THE RESULTANT PICTURE OF FORGOTTEN INCIDENTS, PASSING
EVENTS, HABITUAL AND DAILY CONDUCT, PRESUMABLY HONEST BECAUSE
DISINTERESTED, AND SAFER TO BE TRUSTED BECAUSE PRONE TO SUSPECT  ...
IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT SUCH GENERAL REPUTE IS PERMITTED TO BE
PROVEN.  IT SUMS UP A MULTITUDE OF TRIVIAL DETAILS.  IT COMPACTS INTO
THE BRIEF PHRASE OF A VERDICT THE TEACHING OF MANY INCIDENTS AND THE
CONDUCT OF YEARS.  IT IS THE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE DRAWING ITS
CONCLUSION."  FINCH, J., IN BADGER V. BADGER, 88 N.Y. 546, 552. 

WHILE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED LOGICAL GROUNDS FOR CRITICISM OF THIS
TYPE OF OPINION-BASED-ON-HEARSAY TESTIMONY, IT IS SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED
BY "OVERWHELMING CONSIDERATIONS OF PRACTICAL CONVENIENCE" IN AVOIDING
INNUMERABLE COLLATERAL ISSUES WHICH, IF IT WERE ATTEMPTED TO PROVE
CHARACTER BY DIRECT TESTIMONY, WOULD COMPLICATE AND CONFUSE THE TRIAL,
DISTRACT THE MINDS OF JURYMEN AND BEFOG THE CHIEF ISSUES IN THE
LITIGATION.  PEOPLE V. VAN GAASBECK, 189 N.Y. 408, 419, 82 N.E. 718,
721. 

ANOTHER PARADOX IN THIS BRANCH OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IS THAT THE
DELICATE AND RESPONSIBLE TASK OF COMPACTING REPUTATION HEARSAY INTO THE
"BRIEF PHRASE OF A VERDICT" IS ONE OF THE FEW INSTANCES IN WHICH
CONCLUSIONS ARE ACCEPTED FROM A WITNESS ON A SUBJECT IN WHICH HE IS NOT
AN EXPERT.  HOWEVER, THE WITNESS MUST QUALIFY TO GIVE AN OPINION BY
SHOWING SUCH ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE DEFENDANT, THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH HE
HAS LIVED AND THE CIRCLES IN WHICH HE HAS MOVED, AS TO SPEAK WITH
AUTHORITY OF THE TERMS IN WHICH GENERALLY HE IS REGARDED.  TO REQUIRE
AFFIRMATIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REPUTATION MAY SEEM INCONSISTENT WITH THE
LATITUDE GIVEN TO THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY WHEN ALL HE CAN SAY OF THE
REPUTATION IS THAT HE HAS "HEARD NOTHING AGAINST DEFENDANT."  THIS IS
PERMITTED UPON ASSUMPTION THAT, IF NO ILL IS REPORTED OF ONE, HIS
REPUTATION MUST BE GOOD.  FN13  BUT THIS ANSWER IS ACCEPTED ONLY FROM A
WITNESS WHOSE KNOWLEDGE OF DEFENDANT'S HABITAT AND SURROUNDINGS IS
INTIMATE ENOUGH SO THAT HIS FAILURE TO HEAR OF ANY RELEVANT ILL REPUTE
IS AN ASSURANCE THAT NO UGLY RUMORS WERE ABOUT.  FN14 

THUS THE LAW EXTENDS HELPFUL BUT ILLOGICAL OPTIONS TO A DEFENDANT. 
EXPERIENCE TAUGHT A NECESSITY THAT THEY BE COUNTERWEIGHTED WITH EQUALLY
ILLOGICAL CONDITIONS TO KEEP THE ADVANTAGE FROM BECOMING AN UNFAIR AND
UNREASONABLE ONE.  THE PRICE A DEFENDANT MUST PAY FOR ATTEMPTING TO
PROVE HIS GOOD NAME IS TO THROW OPEN THE ENTIRE SUBJECT WHICH THE LAW
HAS KEPT CLOSED FOR HIS BENEFIT AND TO MAKE HIMSELF VULNERABLE WHERE
THE LAW OTHERWISE SHIELDS HIM.  THE PROSECUTION MAY PURSUE THE INQUIRY
WITH CONTRADICTORY WITNESSES  FN15  TO SHOW THAT DAMAGING RUMORS,
WHETHER OR NOT WELL-GROUNDED, WERE AFLOAT - FOR IT IS NOT THE MAN THAT
HE IS, BUT THE NAME THAT HE HAS WHICH IS PUT IN ISSUE.  ANOTHER HAZARD
IS THAT HIS OWN WITNESS IS SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THE
CONTENTS AND EXTENT OF THE HEARSAY ON WHICH HE BASES HIS CONCLUSIONS,
AND HE MAY BE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE RUMORS AND REPORTS THAT ARE CURRENT
EVEN IF THEY DO NOT AFFECT HIS OWN CONCLUSION.  FN16 IT MAY TEST THE
SUFFICIENCY OF HIS KNOWLEDGE BY ASKING WHAT STORIES WERE CIRCULATING
CONCERNING EVENTS, SUCH AS ONE'S ARREST, ABOUT WHICH PEOPLE NORMALLY
COMMENT AND SPECULATE.  THUS, WHILE THE LAW GIVES DEFENDANT THE OPTION
TO SHOW AS A FACT THAT HIS REPUTATION REFLECTS A LIFE AND HABIT
INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED, IT SUBJECTS HIS
PROOF TO TESTS OF CREDIBILITY DESIGNED TO PREVENT HIM FROM PROFITING BY
A MERE PARADE OF PARTISANS. 

TO THUS DIGRESS FROM EVIDENCE AS TO THE OFFENSE TO HEAR A CONTEST AS
TO THE STANDING OF THE ACCUSED, AT ITS BEST OPENS A TRICKY LINE OF
INQUIRY AS TO A SHAPELESS AND ELUSIVE SUBJECT MATTER.  AT ITS WORST IT
OPENS A VERITABLE PANDORA'S BOX OF IRRESPONSIBLE GOSSIP, INNUENDO AND
SMEAR.  IN THE FRONTIER PHASE OF OUR LAW'S DEVELOPMENT, CALLING FRIENDS
TO VOUCH FOR DEFENDANT'S GOOD CHARACTER, AND ITS COUNTERPART - CALLING
THE RIVALS AND ENEMIES OF A WITNESS TO IMPEACH HIM BY TESTIFYING THAT
HIS REPUTATION FOR VERACITY WAS SO BAD THAT HE WAS UNWORTHY OF BELIEF
ON HIS OATH - WERE FAVORITE AND FREQUENT WAYS OF CONVERTING AN
INDIVIDUAL LITIGATION INTO A COMMUNITY CONTEST AND A TRIAL INTO A
SPECTACLE.  GROWTH OF URBAN CONDITIONS, WHERE ONE MAY NEVER KNOW OR
HEAR THE NAME OF HIS NEXTDOOR NEIGHBOR, HAVE TENDED TO LIMIT THE USE OF
THESE TECHNIQUES AND TO DEPRIVE THEM OF WEIGHT WITH JURIES.  THE
POPULARITY OF BOTH PROCEDURES HAS SUBSIDED, BUT COURTS OF LAST RESORT
HAVE SOUGHT TO OVERCOME DANGER THAT THE TRUE ISSUES WILL BE OBSCURED
AND CONFUSED BY INVESTING THE TRIAL COURT WITH DISCRETION TO LIMIT THE
NUMBER OF SUCH WITNESSES AND TO CONTROL CROSS-EXAMINATION.  BOTH
PROPRIETY AND ABUSE OF HEARSAY REPUTATION TESTIMONY, ON BOTH SIDES,
DEPEND ON NUMEROUS AND SUBTLE CONSIDERATIONS DIFFICULT TO DETECT OR
APPRAISE FROM A COLD RECORD, AND THEREFORE RARELY AND ONLY ON CLEAR
SHOWING OF PREJUDICIAL ABUSE OF DISCRETION WILL COURTS OF APPEALS
DISTURB RULINGS OF TRIAL COURTS ON THIS SUBJECT.  FN17 

WIDE DISCRETION IS ACCOMPANIED BY HEAVY RESPONSIBILITY ON TRIAL
COURTS TO PROTECT THE PRACTICE FROM ANY MISUSE.  THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS
SCRUPULOUS TO SO GUARD IT IN THE CASE BEFORE US.  HE TOOK PAINS TO
ASCERTAIN, OUT OF PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THAT THE TARGET OF THE QUESTION
WAS AN ACTUAL EVENT, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY RESULT IN SOME COMMENT AMONG
ACQUAINTANCES IF NOT INJURY TO DEFENDANT'S REPUTATION.  HE SATISFIED
HIMSELF THAT COUNSEL WAS NOT MERELY TAKING A RANDOM SHOT AT A
REPUTATION IMPRUDENTLY EXPOSED OR ASKING A GROUNDLESS QUESTION TO WAFT
AN UNWARRANTED INNUENDO INTO THE JURY BOX.  FN18 

THE QUESTION PERMITTED BY THE TRIAL COURT, HOWEVER, INVOLVES SEVERAL
FEATURES THAT MAY BE WORTHY OF COMMENT.  ITS FORM INVITED HEARSAY; IT
ASKED ABOUT AN ARREST, NOT A CONVICTION, AND FOR AN OFFENSE NOT CLOSELY
SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON TRIAL; AND IT CONCERNED AN OCCURRENCE MANY YEARS
PAST.   SINCE THE WHOLE INQUIRY, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, IS CALCULATED
TO ASCERTAIN THE GENERAL TALK OF PEOPLE ABOUT DEFENDANT, RATHER THAN
THE WITNESS' OWN KNOWLEDGE OF HIM, THE FORM OF INQUIRY, "HAVE YOU
HEARD?"  HAS GENERAL APPROVAL, AND "DO YOU KNOW?"  IS NOT ALLOWED. 
FN19 

A CHARACTER WITNESS MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED AS TO AN ARREST WHETHER OR
NOT IT CULMINATED IN A CONVICTION, ACCORDING TO THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT
OF AUTHORITY.  FN20  THIS RULE IS SOMETIMES CONFUSED WITH THAT WHICH
PROHIBITS CROSS-EXAMINATION TO CREDIBILITY BY ASKING A WITNESS WHETHER
HE HIMSELF HAS BEEN ARRESTED. 

ARREST WITHOUT MORE DOES NOT, IN LAW ANY MORE THAN IN REASON, IMPEACH
THE INTEGRITY OR IMPAIR THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS.  IT HAPPENS TO
THE INNOCENT AS WELL AS THE GUILTY.  ONLY A CONVICTION, THEREFORE, MAY
BE INQUIRED ABOUT TO UNDERMINE THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF A WITNESS. 

ARREST WITHOUT MORE MAY NEVERTHELESS IMPAIR OR CLOUD ONE'S
REPUTATION.  FALSE ARREST MAY DO THAT.  EVEN TO BE ACQUITTED MAY DAMAGE
ONE'S GOOD NAME IF THE COMMUNITY RECEIVES THE VERDICT WITH A WINK AND
CHOOSES TO REMEMBER DEFENDANT AS ONE WHO OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED. 
A CONVICTION, ON THE OTHER HAND, MAY BE ACCEPTED AS A MISFORTUNE OR AN
INJUSTICE, AND EVEN ENHANCE THE STANDING OF ONE WHO MENDS HIS WAYS AND
LIVES IT DOWN.  REPUTATION IS THE NET BALANCE OF SO MANY DEBITS AND
CREDITS THAT THE LAW DOES NOT ATTACH THE FINALITY TO A CONVICTION, WHEN
THE ISSUE IS REPUTATION, THAT IS GIVEN TO IT WHEN THE ISSUE IS THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE CONVICT. 

THE INQUIRY AS TO AN ARREST IS PERMISSIBLE ALSO BECAUSE THE
PROSECUTION HAS A RIGHT TO TEST THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE WITNESS TO
BESPEAK THE COMMUNITY OPINION.  IF ONE NEVER HEARD THE SPECULATIONS AND
RUMORS IN WHICH EVEN ONE'S FRIENDS INDULGE UPON HIS ARREST, THE JURY
MAY DOUBT WHETHER HE IS CAPABLE OF GIVING ANY VERY RELIABLE CONCLUSIONS
AS TO HIS REPUTATION. 

IN THIS CASE THE CRIME INQUIRED ABOUT WAS RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS; THE
TRIAL WAS FOR BRIBERY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THIS DISSIMILARITY
OF OFFENSES TOO GREAT TO SUSTAIN THE INQUIRY IN LOGIC, THOUGH CONCEDING
THAT IT IS AUTHORIZED BY PREPONDERANCE OF AUTHORITY.  IT ASKS US TO
SUBSTITUTE THE ILLINOIS RULE WHICH ALLOWS INQUIRY ABOUT ARREST, BUT
ONLY FOR VERY CLOSELY SIMILAR IF NOT IDENTICAL CHARGES, IN PLACE OF THE
RULE MORE GENERALLY ADHERED TO IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN ENGLAND.  FN21
WE THINK THE FACTS OF THIS CASE SHOW THE PROPOSAL TO BE INEXPEDIENT. 

THE GOOD CHARACTER WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAD SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH WAS
BROADER THAN THE CRIME CHARGED AND INCLUDED THE TRAITS OF "HONESTY AND
TRUTHFULNESS" AND "BEING A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN."  POSSESSION OF THESE
CHARACTERISTICS WOULD SEEM AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH OFFERING A BRIBE TO A
REVENUE AGENT AS WITH RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.  THE CRIMES MAY BE
UNLIKE, BUT BOTH ALIKE PROCEED FROM THE SAME DEFECTS OF CHARACTER WHICH
THE WITNESSES SAID THIS DEFENDANT WAS REPUTED NOT TO EXHIBIT.  IT IS
NOT ONLY BY COMPARISON WITH THE CRIME ON TRIAL BUT BY COMPARISON WITH
THE REPUTATION ASSERTED THAT A COURT MAY JUDGE WHETHER THE PRIOR ARREST
SHOULD BE MADE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY.  BY THIS TEST THE INQUIRY WAS
PERMISSIBLE.  IT WAS PROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION BECAUSE REPORTS OF HIS
ARREST FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, IF ADMITTED, WOULD TEND TO WEAKEN
THE ASSERTION THAT HE WAS KNOWN AS AN HONEST AND LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. 
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION MAY TAKE IN AS MUCH GROUND AS THE TESTIMONY IT IS
DESIGNED TO VERIFY.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD GIVE DEFENDANT THE BENEFIT
OF TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS HONEST AND LAW-ABIDING IN REPUTATION WHEN SUCH
MIGHT NOT BE THE FACT; THE REFUTATION WAS FOUNDED ON CONVICTIONS
EQUALLY PERSUASIVE THOUGH NOT FOR CRIMES EXACTLY REPEATED IN THE
PRESENT CHARGE. 

THE INQUIRY HERE CONCERNED AN ARREST TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS BEFORE THE
TRIAL.  EVENTS A GENERATION OLD ARE LIKELY TO BE LIVED DOWN AND DROPPED
FROM THE PRESENT THOUGHT AND TALK OF THE COMMUNITY AND TO BE ABSENT
FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF YOUNGER OR MORE RECENT ACQUAINTANCES.  THE COURT
IN ITS DISCRETION MAY WELL EXCLUDE INQUIRY ABOUT RUMORS OF AN EVENT SO
REMOTE, UNLESS RECENT MISCONDUCT REVIVED THEM.  BUT TWO OF THESE
WITNESSES DATED THEIR ACQUAINTANCE WITH DEFENDANT AS COMMENCING THIRTY
YEARS BEFORE THE TRIAL.  DEFENDANT, ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, VOLUNTARILY
CALLED ATTENTION TO HIS CONVICTION TWENTY YEARS BEFORE.  WHILE THE JURY
MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT A MATTER SO OLD AND INDECISIVE AS A 1920 ARREST
WOULD SHED LITTLE LIGHT ON THE PRESENT REPUTATION AND HENCE
PROPENSITIES OF THE DEFENDANT, WE CANNOT SAY THAT, IN THE CONTEXT OF
THIS EVIDENCE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF OBJECTION ON THIS SPECIFIC GROUND,
ITS ADMISSION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

WE DO NOT OVERLOOK OR MINIMIZE THE CONSIDERATION THAT "THE JURY
ALMOST SURELY CANNOT COMPREHEND THE JUDGE'S LIMITING INSTRUCTION,"
WHICH DISTURBED THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE REFINEMENTS OF THE
EVIDENTIARY RULES ON THIS SUBJECT ARE SUCH THAT EVEN LAWYERS AND
JUDGES, AFTER STUDY AND REFLECTION, OFTEN ARE CONFUSED, AND SURELY
JURORS IN THE HURRIED AND UNFAMILIAR MOVEMENT OF A TRIAL MUST FIND THEM
ALMOST UNINTELLIGIBLE.  HOWEVER, LIMITING INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT
ARE NO MORE DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND OR APPLY THAN THOSE UPON VARIOUS
OTHER SUBJECTS; FOR EXAMPLE, INSTRUCTIONS THAT ADMISSIONS OF A CO
DEFENDANT ARE TO BE LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF HIS GUILT AND ARE NOT TO
BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS, AND INSTRUCTIONS AS
TO OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE TRIAL OF CONSPIRACY CHARGES.  A DEFENDANT IN
SUCH A CASE IS POWERLESS TO PREVENT HIS CAUSE FROM BEING IRRETRIEVABLY
OBSCURED AND CONFUSED; BUT, IN CASES SUCH AS THE ONE BEFORE US, THE LAW
FORECLOSED THIS WHOLE CONFOUNDING LINE OF INQUIRY, UNLESS DEFENDANT
THOUGHT THE NET ADVANTAGE FROM OPENING IT UP WOULD BE WITH HIM.  GIVEN
THIS OPTION, WE THINK DEFENDANTS IN GENERAL AND THIS DEFENDANT IN
PARTICULAR HAVE NO VALID COMPLAINT AT THE LATITUDE WHICH EXISTING LAW
ALLOWS TO THE PROSECUTION TO MEET BY CROSS-EXAMINATION AN ISSUE
VOLUNTARILY TENDERED BY THE DEFENSE.  SEE GREER V. UNITED STATES, 245
U.S. 559. 

WE END, AS WE BEGAN, WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE LAW REGULATING THE
OFFERING AND TESTING OF CHARACTER TESTIMONY MAY MERIT MANY CRITICISMS. 
ENGLAND AND SOME STATES HAVE OVERHAULED THE PRACTICE BY STATUTE.  FN22
BUT THE TASK OF MODERNIZING THE LONG-STANDING RULES ON THE SUBJECT IS
ONE OF MAGNITUDE AND DIFFICULTY WHICH EVEN THOSE DEDICATED TO LAW
REFORM DO NOT LIGHTLY UNDERTAKE.  FN23 

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE RELATING TO PROOF OF REPUTATION IN CRIMINAL CASES
HAS DEVELOPED ALMOST ENTIRELY AT THE HANDS OF STATE COURTS OF LAST
RESORT, WHICH HAVE SUCH QUESTIONS FREQUENTLY BEFORE THEM.  THIS COURT,
ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTRIBUTED LITTLE TO THIS OR TO ANY PHASE OF
THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, FOR THE REASON, AMONG OTHERS, THAT IT HAS HAD
EXTREMELY RARE OCCASION TO DECIDE SUCH ISSUES, AS THE PAUCITY OF
CITATIONS IN THIS OPINION TO OUR OWN WRITINGS ATTESTS.  IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT A COURT WHICH CAN MAKE ONLY INFREQUENT SALLIES INTO THE FIELD
CANNOT RECAST THE BODY OF CASE LAW ON THIS SUBJECT IN MANY, MANY YEARS,
EVEN IF IT WERE CLEAR WHAT THE RULES SHOULD BE. 

WE CONCUR IN THE GENERAL OPINION OF COURTS, TEXTWRITERS AND THE
PROFESSION THAT MUCH OF THIS LAW IS ARCHAIC, PARADOXICAL AND FULL OF
COMPROMISES AND COMPENSATIONS BY WHICH AN IRRATIONAL ADVANTAGE TO ONE
SIDE IS OFFSET BY A POORLY REASONED COUNTERPRIVILEGE TO THE OTHER.  BUT
SOMEHOW IT HAS PROVED A WORKABLE EVEN IF CLUMSY SYSTEM WHEN MODERATED
BY DISCRETIONARY CONTROLS IN THE HANDS OF A WISE AND STRONG TRIAL
COURT.  TO PULL ONE MISSHAPEN STONE OUT OF THE GROTESQUE STRUCTURE IS
MORE LIKELY SIMPLY TO UPSET ITS PRESENT BALANCE BETWEEN ADVERSE
INTERESTS THAN TO ESTABLISH A RATIONAL EDIFICE. 

THE PRESENT SUGGESTION IS THAT WE ADOPT FOR ALL FEDERAL COURTS A NEW
RULE AS TO CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT PRIOR ARREST, ADHERED TO BY THE
COURTS OF ONLY ONE STATE AND REJECTED ELSEWHERE.  FN24  THE CONFUSION
AND ERROR IT WOULD ENGENDER WOULD SEEM TOO HEAVY A PRICE TO PAY FOR AN
ALMOST IMPERCEPTIBLE LOGICAL IMPROVEMENT, IF ANY, IN A SYSTEM WHICH IS
JUSTIFIED, IF AT ALL, BY ACCUMULATED JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE RATHER THAN
ABSTRACT LOGIC.  FN25 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE FIRST COUNT CHARGED PETITIONER WITH BRIBING IN VIOLATION OF
18 U.S.C. SEC. 91(NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC. 201) AND THE AFFIRMANCE OF HIS
CONVICTION ON THIS COUNT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, 165 F.2D 732, IS THE
JUDGMENT HERE UNDER REVIEW.  THE SECOND COUNT CHARGED "OFFERING" THE
BRIBE AS A VIOLATION OF THE SAME STATUTE BUT HIS CONVICTION ON THIS
COUNT WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND IS NOT HERE INVOLVED. 

FN2  DETAILS APPEAR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION, 165 F.2D 732. 

FN3  IN RULING ON THE OBJECTION WHEN THE QUESTION WAS FIRST ASKED,
THE COURT SAID: 

"  ...  I INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW IS THIS:  THE
DEFENDANT HAS CALLED CHARACTER WITNESSES, AND THE BASIS FOR THE
EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THOSE CHARACTER WITNESSES IS THE REPUTATION OF THE
DEFENDANT IN THE COMMUNITY, AND SINCE THE DEFENDANT TENDERS THE ISSUE
OF HIS REPUTATION THE PROSECUTION MAY ASK THE WITNESS IF SHE HAS HEARD
OF VARIOUS INCIDENTS IN HIS CAREER.  I SAY TO YOU THAT REGARDLESS OF
HER ANSWER YOU ARE NOT TO ASSUME THAT THE INCIDENTS ASKED ABOUT
ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.  ALL THAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT THIS WITNESS'
STANDARD OF OPINION OF THE REPUTATION OF THE DEFENDANT IS BEING
TESTED.  IS THAT CLEAR?" 

IN OVERRULING THE SECOND OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION THE COURT SAID: 

"AGAIN I SAY TO THE JURY THERE IS NO PROOF THAT MR. MICHELSON WAS
ARRESTED FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS IN 1920, THERE ISN'T ANY SUCH
PROOF.  ALL THIS WITNESS HAS BEEN ASKED IS WHETHER HE HAD HEARD OF
THAT.  THERE IS NOTHING BEFORE YOU ON THAT ISSUE.  NOW WOULD YOU BASE
YOUR DECISION ON THE CASE FAIRLY IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THAT
QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED?  YOU WOULD?  ALL RIGHT." 

THE CHARGE INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING: 

"IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE I PERMITTED A
QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE WITNESS KNEW THAT IN 1920 THIS DEFENDANT
HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.  I TRIED TO GIVE YOU THE
INSTRUCTION THEN THAT THAT QUESTION WAS PERMITTED ONLY TO TEST THE
STANDARDS OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE THAT THESE CHARACTER WITNESSES SEEMED
TO HAVE.  THERE ISN'T ANY PROOF IN THE CASE THAT COULD BE PRODUCED
BEFORE YOU LEGALLY WITHIN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS
ARRESTED IN 1920 FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, AND THAT FACT YOU ARE NOT
TO HOLD AGAINST HIM; NOR ARE YOU TO ASSUME WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THAT ARREST WERE.  YOU JUST DRIVE IT FROM YOUR MIND SO FAR AS HE IS
CONCERNED, AND TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY IN WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE
OF THE CHARACTER WITNESSES." 

FN4  FOOTNOTE 8 TO THAT COURT'S OPINION READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED. 1940) SEC. 988, AFTER NOTING THAT 'SUCH
INQUIRIES ARE ALMOST UNIVERSALLY ADMITTED,' NOT AS 'IMPEACHMENT BY
EXTRINSIC TESTIMONY OF PARTICULAR ACTS OF MISCONDUCT,' BUT AS MEANS OF
TESTING THE CHARACTER 'WITNESS' GROUNDS OF KNOWLEDGE,' CONTINUES WITH
THESE COMMENTS:  'BUT THE SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THEM IS THAT PRACTICALLY
THE ABOVE DISTINCTION - BETWEEN RUMORS OF SUCH CONDUCT, AS AFFECTING
REPUTATION, AND THE FACT OF IT AS VIOLATING THE RULE AGAINST PARTICULAR
FACTS - CANNOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE MIND OF THE JURY.  THE RUMOR OF THE
MISCONDUCT, WHEN ADMITTED, GOES FAR, IN SPITE OF ALL THEORY AND OF THE
JUDGE'S CHARGE, TOWARDS FIXING THE MISCONDUCT AS A FACT UPON THE OTHER
PERSON, AND THUS DOES THREE IMPROPER THINGS,  - (1) IT VIOLATES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF FAIRNESS THAT PROHIBITS THE USE OF SUCH FACTS, (2)
IT GETS AT THEM BY HEARSAY ONLY, AND NOT BY TRUSTWORTHY TESTIMONY, AND
(3) IT LEAVES THE OTHER PERSON NO MEANS OF DEFENDING HIMSELF BY DENIAL
OR EXPLANATION, SUCH AS HE WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE HAD IF THE RULE HAD
ALLOWED THAT CONDUCT TO BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF AN ISSUE.  MOREOVER,
THESE ARE NOT OCCURRENCES OF POSSIBILITY, BUT OF DAILY PRACTICE.  THIS
METHOD OF INQUIRY OR CROSS-EXAMINATION IS FREQUENTLY RESORTED TO BY
COUNSEL FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF INJURING BY INDIRECTION A CHARACTER
WHICH THEY ARE FORBIDDEN DIRECTLY TO ATTACK IN THAT WAY; THEY RELY UPON
THE MERE PUTTING OF THE QUESTION (NOT CARING THAT IT IS ANSWERED
NEGATIVELY) TO CONVEY THEIR COVERT INSINUATION.  THE VALUE OF THE
INQUIRY FOR TESTING PURPOSES IS OFTEN SO SMALL AND THE OPPORTUNITIES OF
ITS ABUSE BY UNDERHAND WAYS ARE SO GREAT THAT THE PRACTICE MAY AMOUNT
TO LITTLE MORE THAN A MERE SUBTERFUGE, AND SHOULD BE STRICTLY
SUPERVISED BY FORBIDDING IT TO COUNSEL WHO DO NOT USE IT IN GOOD
FAITH.' 

"BECAUSE, AS WIGMORE SAYS, THE JURY ALMOST SURELY CANNOT COMPREHEND
THE JUDGE'S LIMITING INSTRUCTION, THE WRITER OF THIS OPINION WISHES
THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WOULD TELL US TO FOLLOW WHAT
APPEARS TO BE THE ILLINOIS RULE, I.E., THAT SUCH QUESTIONS ARE IMPROPER
UNLESS THEY RELATE TO OFFENSES SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT
IS ON TRIAL.  SEE AIKEN V. PEOPLE, 183 ILL. 215, 55 N.E. 695; CF.
PEOPLE V. HANNON, 381 ILL. 206, 44 N.E.(2D) 923." 

FN5  A JUDGE OF LONG TRIAL AND APPELLATE EXPERIENCE HAS UTTERED A
WARNING WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE WRITER, WE MIGHT WELL HAVE HEEDED
IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT CERTIORARI HERE: 

"  ...  EVIDENCE OF GOOD CHARACTER IS TO BE USED LIKE ANY OTHER, ONCE
IT GETS BEFORE THE JURY, AND THE LESS THEY ARE TOLD ABOUT THE GROUNDS
FOR ITS ADMISSION, OR WHAT THEY SHALL DO WITH IT, THE MORE LIKELY THEY
ARE TO USE IT SENSIBLY.  THE SUBJECT SEEMS TO GATHER MIST WHICH
DISCUSSION SERVES ONLY TO THICKEN, AND WHICH WE CAN SCARCELY HOPE TO
DISSIPATE BY ANYTHING FURTHER WE CAN ADD."  L. HAND IN NASH V. UNITED
STATES, 54 F.2D 1006, 1007. 

IN OPENING ITS CYCLOPEDIC REVIEW OF AUTHORITIES FROM MANY
JURISDICTIONS, CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM SUMMARIZES THAT THE RULES
REGULATING PROOF OF CHARACTER "HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED AS ILLOGICAL,
UNSCIENTIFIC, AND ANOMALOUS, EXPLAINABLE ONLY AS ARCHAIC SURVIVALS OF
COMPURGATION OR OF STATES OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE JURY PERSONALLY
KNEW THE FACTS ON WHICH THEIR VERDICT WAS BASED."  32 C.J.S. EVIDENCE
SEC. 433.    FN6  SEE MAGUIRE, EVIDENCE:  COMMON SENSE AND COMMON LAW
(1947).  COMPARE PP. 203-209 AND PP. 74-76. 

FN7  GREER V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 559; 1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D
ED., 1940) SEC. 57; 1 WHARTON, CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (11TH ED., 1935) SEC.
330.  THIS WAS NOT THE EARLIER RULE IN ENGLISH COMMON LAW AND IS NOT
NOW THE RULE IN SOME CIVIL LAW COUNTRIES.  1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.,
SEC. 1940) SEC. 193. 

FN8  THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SOME QUALIFICATION, AS WHEN A PRIOR
CRIME IS AN ELEMENT OF THE LATER OFFENSE; FOR EXAMPLE, AT A TRIAL FOR
BEING AN HABITUAL CRIMINAL.  THERE ARE ALSO WELL-ESTABLISHED EXCEPTIONS
WHERE EVIDENCE AS TO OTHER TRANSACTIONS OR A COURSE OF FRAUDULENT
CONDUCT IS ADMITTED TO ESTABLISH FRAUDULENT INTENT AS AN ELEMENT OF THE
CRIME CHARGED.  SEE, E.G., FALL V. UNITED STATES, 60 APP. D.C. 124, 49
F.2D 506, CERTIORARI DENIED, 283 U.S. 867; HATEM V. UNITED STATES, 42
F.2D 40, CERTIORARI DENIED, 282 U.S. 887; WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES,
207 U.S. 425; ALLIS V. UNITED STATES, 155 U.S. 117; WOOD V. UNITED
STATES, 16 PET. 342. 

FN9  AS LONG AGO AS 1865, CHIEF JUSTICE COCKBURN SAID, "THE TRUTH IS,
THIS PART OF OUR LAW IS AN ANOMALY.  ALTHOUGH, LOGICALLY SPEAKING, IT
IS QUITE CLEAR THAT AN ANTECEDENT BAD CHARACTER WOULD FORM QUITE AS
REASONABLE A GROUND FOR THE PRESUMPTION AND PROBABILITY OF GUILT AS
PREVIOUS GOOD CHARACTER LAYS THE FOUNDATION OF INNOCENCE, YET YOU
CANNOT, ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION, GO INTO EVIDENCE AS TO BAD
CHARACTER."  REG. V. ROWTON, 10 COX'S CRIMINAL CASES 25, 29-30.  AND
SEE 1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 55. 

FN10  1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 57. 

FN11  1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 56; UNDERHILL, CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE (4TH ED., 1935) SEC. 165; 1 WHARTON, CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (11TH
ED., 1935) SECS. 330, 336. 

FN12  WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 1609; UNDERHILL, CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE (4TH ED., 1935) SEC. 170; 1 WHARTON, CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (11TH
ED., 1935) SEC. 333. 

FN13  PEOPLE V. VAN GAASBECK, 189 N.Y. 408, 420, 82 N.E. 718, 722. 
THE LAW APPARENTLY IGNORES THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH HUMAN CIPHERS AS
KIPLING'S TOMLINSON, OF WHOM NO ILL IS REPORTED BUT NO GOOD CAN BE
RECALLED.  THEY WIN SEATS WITH THE RIGHTEOUS FOR CHARACTER EVIDENCE
PURPOSES, HOWEVER HARD THEIR LOT IN LITERATURE. 

FN14  ID.; 5 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 1614; UNDERHILL,
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (4TH ED., 1935) SEC. 171; 1 WHARTON, CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE (11TH ED., 1935) SEC. 334. 

FN15  1 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 58; UNDERHILL, CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE (4TH ED., 1935) SEC. 167; 1 WHARTON, CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (11TH
ED., 1935) SEC. 330. 

FN16  A CLASSIC EXAMPLE IN THE BOOKS IS A CHARACTER WITNESS IN A
TRIAL FOR MURDER.  SHE TESTIFIED SHE GREW UP WITH DEFENDANT, KNEW HIS
REPUTATION FOR PEACE AND QUIET, AND THAT IT WAS GOOD.  ON CROSS
EXAMINATION SHE WAS ASKED IF SHE HAD HEARD THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD SHOT
ANYBODY AND, IF SO, HOW MANY.  SHE ANSWERED, "THREE OR FOUR," AND GAVE
THE NAMES OF TWO BUT COULD NOT RECALL THE NAMES OF THE OTHERS.  SHE
STILL INSISTED, HOWEVER, THAT HE WAS OF "GOOD CHARACTER."  THE JURY
SEEMS TO HAVE VALUED HER INFORMATION MORE HIGHLY THAN HER JUDGMENT, AND
ON APPEAL FROM CONVICTION THE CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS HELD PROPER. 
PEOPLE V. LAUDIERO, 192 N.Y. 304, 309, 85 N.E. 132.  SEE ALSO PEOPLE V.
ELLIOTT, 163 N.Y. 11, 57 N.E. 103. 

FN17  SEE, E.G., MANNIX V. UNITED STATES, 140 F.2D 250.  IT HAS BEEN
HELD THAT THE QUESTION MAY NOT BE HYPOTHETICAL NOR ASSUME UNPROVEN
FACTS AND ASK IF THEY WOULD AFFECT THE CONCLUSION, LITTLE V. UNITED
STATES, 93 F.2D 401; PITTMAN V. UNITED STATES, 42 F.2D 793; FILIPPELLI
V. UNITED STATES, 6 F.2D 121; AND THAT IT MAY NOT BE SO ASKED AS TO
DETAIL EVIDENCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CRIME OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS
ACCUSED.  PEOPLE V. MARENDI, 213 N.Y. 600, 107 N.E. 1058.  IT HAS BEEN
HELD ERROR TO USE THE QUESTION TO GET BEFORE THE JURY A PARTICULAR
DEROGATORY NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.  SLOAN V. UNITED STATES, 31 F.2D 902. 
THE PROOF HAS BEEN CONFINED TO GENERAL REPUTATION AND THAT AMONG A
LIMITED GROUP SUCH AS FELLOW EMPLOYEES IN A PARTICULAR BUILDING HELD
INADMISSIBLE.  WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 382. 

FN18  THIS PROCEDURE WAS RECOMMENDED BY WIGMORE.  BUT ANALYSIS OF HIS
INNOVATION EMPHASIZES THE WAY IN WHICH LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS EVOLVED
FROM PRAGMATIC CONSIDERATIONS RATHER THAN FROM THEORETICAL
CONSISTENCY.  THE RELEVANT INFORMATION THAT IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO LAY
BEFORE THE JURY IS TALK OR CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S BEING
ARRESTED.  THAT IS ADMISSIBLE WHETHER OR NOT AN ACTUAL ARREST HAD TAKEN
PLACE; IT MIGHT EVEN BE MORE SIGNIFICANT OF REPUTE IF HIS NEIGHBORS
WERE READY TO ARREST HIM IN RUMOR WHEN THE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT IN
FACT.  BUT BEFORE THIS RELEVANT AND PROPER INQUIRY CAN BE MADE, COUNSEL
MUST DEMONSTRATE PRIVATELY TO THE COURT AN IRRELEVANT AND POSSIBLY
UNPROVABLE FACT - THE REALITY OF ARREST.  FROM THIS PERMISSIBLE INQUIRY
ABOUT REPORTS OF ARREST, THE JURY IS PRETTY CERTAIN TO INFER THAT
DEFENDANT HAD IN FACT BEEN ARRESTED AND TO DRAW ITS OWN CONCLUSIONS AS
TO CHARACTER FROM THAT FACT.  THE WIGMORE SUGGESTION THUS LIMITS
LEGALLY RELEVANT INQUIRIES TO THOSE BASED ON LEGALLY IRRELEVANT FACTS
IN ORDER THAT THE LEGALLY IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION WHICH THE JURY PROBABLY
WILL DRAW FROM THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE BASED ON UNSUPPORTED
OR UNTRUE INNUENDO.  IT ILLUSTRATES JUDGE HAND'S SUGGESTION THAT THE
SYSTEM MAY WORK BEST WHEN EXPLAINED LEAST.  YET, DESPITE ITS
THEORETICAL PARADOXES AND DEFICIENCIES, WE APPROVE THE PROCEDURE AS
CALCULATED IN PRACTICE TO HOLD THE INQUIRY WITHIN DECENT BOUNDS. 

FN19  SEE STEWART V. UNITED STATES, 70 APP. D.C. 101, 104 F.2D 234;
LITTLE V. UNITED STATES, 93 F.2D 401; FILIPPELLI V. UNITED STATES, 6
F.2D 121. 

FN20  SEE MANNIX V. UNITED STATES, 140 F.2D 250; JOSEY V. UNITED
STATES, 77 U.S. APP. D.C. 321, 135 F.2D 809; SPALITTO V. UNITED STATES,
39 F.2D 782, AND AUTHORITIES THERE CITED. 

FN21  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, IN CONSIDERING ITS OWN RULE
WHICH WE ARE URGED TO ADOPT, RECOGNIZED THAT "THE RULE ADHERED TO IN
THIS STATE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GREAT WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IN THIS
COUNTRY AND IN ENGLAND."  PEOPLE V. HANNON, 381 ILL. 206, 209, 44
N.E.2D 923.  AUTHORITIES IN ALL STATES ARE COLLECTED IN 71 A.L.R.
1504. 

FN22  CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT, 61 & 62 VICT., C. 36.  SEE ALSO 51 L.Q.
REV. 443, FOR DISCUSSION OF RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE ABOUT PRIOR
ARRESTS.  FOR REVIEW OF ENGLISH AND STATE LEGISLATION, SEE 1 WIGMORE,
EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 194, ET SEQ. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE (ACT
OF MARCH 15, 1911, P.L. 20, SEC. 1) DISCUSSED BY WIGMORE HAS BEEN
AMENDED (ACT OF JULY 3, 1947, P.L. 1239, SEC. 1, 19 PS SEC. 711).  THE
CURRENT STATUTE AND PENNSYLVANIA PRACTICE WERE CONSIDERED RECENTLY BY
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THAT STATE.  COMMONWEALTH V. HURT, 163 PA.
SUPER.  232, 60 A.2D 828. 

FN23  THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, IN PROMULGATING ITS "MODEL CODE OF
EVIDENCE," INCLUDES THE COMMENT, "CHARACTER, WHEREVER USED IN THESE
RULES, MEANS DISPOSITION NOT REPUTATION.  IT DENOTES WHAT A PERSON IS,
NOT WHAT HE IS REPUTED TO BE.  NO RULES ARE LAID DOWN AS TO PROOF OF
REPUTATION, WHEN REPUTATION IS A FACT TO BE PROVED.  WHEN REPUTATION IS
A MATERIAL MATTER, IT IS PROVABLE IN THE SAME MANNER AS IS ANY OTHER
DISPUTED FACT."  RULE 304.  THE LATTER SENTENCE MAY SEEM AN
OVERSIMPLIFICATION IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS WE HAVE REVIEWED. 

FN24  SEE NOTE 21. 

FN25  IT MUST NOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT ABUSE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION TO
TEST CREDIBILITY CARRIES ITS OWN CORRECTIVE.  AUTHORITIES ON PRACTICE
CAUTION THE BAR OF THE IMPRUDENCE AS WELL AS THE UNPROFESSIONAL NATURE
OF ATTACKS ON WITNESSES OR DEFENDANTS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO BE RESENTED
BY THE JURY.  WELLMAN, ART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION (1927) P. 167, ET SEQ. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

DESPITE THE FACT THAT MY FEELINGS RUN IN THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE
VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE IN HIS DISSENT, I JOIN THE
COURT'S OPINION.  I DO SO BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT TO BE UNPROFITABLE, ON
BALANCE, FOR APPELLATE COURTS TO FORMULATE RIGID RULES FOR THE
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE IN COURTS OF LAW THAT OUTSIDE THEM WOULD NOT BE
REGARDED AS CLEARLY IRRELEVANT IN THE DETERMINATION OF ISSUES.  FOR
WELL-UNDERSTOOD REASONS THIS COURT'S OCCASIONAL VENTURES IN FORMULATING
SUCH RULES HARDLY ENCOURAGE CONFIDENCE IN DENYING TO THE FEDERAL TRIAL
COURTS A POWER OF CONTROL OVER THE ALLOWABLE SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
POSSESSED BY TRIAL JUDGES IN PRACTICALLY ALL STATE COURTS.  AFTER ALL,
SUCH UNIFORMITY OF RULE IN THE CONDUCT OF TRIALS IS THE CRYSTALLIZATION
OF EXPERIENCE EVEN WHEN DUE ALLOWANCE IS MADE FOR THE FORCE OF
IMITATION.  TO REJECT SUCH AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF EXPERIENCE WOULD IMPLY
A MORE DEPENDABLE WISDOM IN A MATTER OF THIS SORT THAN I CAN CLAIM. 

TO LEAVE THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES THE DISCRETION
GIVEN TO THEM BY THIS DECISION PRESUPPOSES A HIGH STANDARD OF
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, GOOD SENSE, FAIRNESS AND COURAGE ON THE PART
OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGES.  IF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
ARE NOT MANNED BY JUDGES OF SUCH QUALITIES, APPELLATE REVIEW, NO MATTER
HOW STRINGENT, CAN DO VERY LITTLE TO MAKE UP FOR THE LACK OF THEM. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

THE COURT'S OPINION CANDIDLY AND INTERESTINGLY POINTS OUT THE
ANOMALOUS FEATURES CHARACTERIZING THE EXCLUSION AND ADMISSION OF SO
CALLED CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES.  IT ALSO FOR THE FIRST
TIME PUTS THE STAMP OF THE COURT'S APPROVAL UPON THE MOST ANOMALOUS
AND, WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, THE MOST UNFAIR STAGE IN THIS EVIDENTIARY
SEQUENCE. 

THERE ARE THREE STAGES.  THE FIRST DENIES THE PROSECUTION THE RIGHT
TO ATTACK THE DEFENDANT'S REPUTATION AS PART OF ITS CASE IN CHIEF,
EITHER BY PROOF OF BAD GENERAL REPUTATION OR BY PROOF OF SPECIFIC
DEROGATORY INCIDENTS DISCONNECTED FROM THE ONE CHARGED AS THE CRIME. 
THE SECOND PERMITS THE DEFENDANT, AT HIS OPTION, TO PROVE BY QUALIFIED
WITNESSES THAT HE BEARS A GOOD GENERAL REPUTATION OR AT LEAST ONE NOT
TARNISHED BY ILL-REPUTE.  THE WITNESS IS FORBIDDEN, HOWEVER, TO GO INTO
PARTICULAR INCIDENTS OR DETAILS OF THE DEFENDANT'S LIFE AND CONDUCT. 
THE WITNESS, ONCE QUALIFIED, CAN STATE ONLY THE GENERAL CONCLUSION OF
THE COMMUNITY CONCERNING THE DEFENDANT'S CHARACTER AS THE WITNESS KNOWS
THAT REPUTATION.  THE THIRD STAGE COMPREHENDS THE PROSECUTION'S
REBUTTAL, AND PARTICULARLY THE LATITUDE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION TO BE
ALLOWED. 

I DO NOT AGREE THAT THIS WHOLE BODY OF LAW IS ANOMALOUS, UNLESS
INDEED ALL THE LAW OF EVIDENCE WITH ITS NUMEROUS RULES OF EXCLUSION AND
EXCEPTIONS TO THEM IS TO BE SO REGARDED.  ANOMALIES THERE ARE, NO DOUBT
WITH MUCH ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.  BUT HERE, IF ANYWHERE, THE LAW IS MORE
LARGELY THE RESULT OF EXPERIENCE, OF CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS AND
PRACTICABILITY DEVELOPED THROUGH THE CENTURIES, THAN OF ANY EFFORT TO
CONSTRUCT A NICELY LOGICAL, WHOLLY CONSISTENT PATTERN OF THINGS. 
IMPERFECT AND VARIABLE AS THE SCHEME HAS BECOME IN THE APPLICATION OF
SPECIFIC RULES, ON THE WHOLE IT REPRESENTS THE RESULT OF CENTURIES OF
COMMON-LAW GROWTH IN THE SEEKING OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES FOR FAIR
PLAY IN THE TRIAL OF CRIME AND OTHER CAUSES. 

MOREOVER, I CANNOT AGREE THAT, IN THE SEQUENCE OF THE THREE STAGES
RELATING TO CHARACTER EVIDENCE, THE ANOMALOUS QUALITY IS EQUALLY
PRESENT IN EACH.  IN MY JUDGMENT THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE IN THIS
RESPECT BETWEEN THE RULINGS SUMMARIZING OUR EXPERIENCE IN THE FIRST TWO
STAGES AND THOSE AFFECTING THE THIRD. 

REGARDLESS OF ALL CONSIDERATIONS OF MERE LOGICAL CONSISTENCY, I
SHOULD SUPPOSE THERE WOULD BE FEW NOW, WHETHER LAWYERS OR LAYMEN, WHO
WOULD ADVOCATE CHANGE IN THE PREVAILING RULES GOVERNING THE FIRST TWO
STAGES OF THE SEQUENCE.  IN CRIMINAL CAUSES ESPECIALLY, THERE ARE SOUND
REASONS BASIC TO OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE WHICH JUSTIFY INITIALLY
EXCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT FROM SHOWING THE DEFENDANT'S BAD GENERAL
CHARACTER OR REPUTATION. 

THE COMMON LAW HAS NOT GROWN IN THE TRADITION OF CONVICTING A MAN AND
SENDING HIM TO PRISON BECAUSE HE IS GENERALLY A BAD MAN OR GENERALLY
REGARDED AS ONE.  GENERAL BAD CHARACTER, MUCH LESS GENERAL BAD
REPUTATION, HAS NOT YET BECOME A CRIMINAL OFFENSE IN OUR SCHEME.  OUR
WHOLE TRADITION IS THAT A MAN CAN BE PUNISHED BY CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
ONLY FOR SPECIFIC ACTS DEFINED BEFOREHAND TO BE CRIMINAL, NOT FOR
GENERAL MISCONDUCT OR BEARING A REPUTATION FOR SUCH MISCONDUCT. 

THAT TRADITION LIES AT THE HEART OF OUR CRIMINAL PROCESS.  AND IT IS
THE FOUNDATION OF THE RULE OF EVIDENCE WHICH DENIES TO THE PROSECUTION
THE RIGHT TO SHOW GENERALLY OR BY SPECIFIC DETAILS THAT A DEFENDANT
BEARS A BAD GENERAL ESTIMATE IN HIS COMMUNITY.  IN THE LIGHT OF OUR
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTIONS OF CRIME AND OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS, THERE IS
NOTHING ANOMALOUS IN THIS EXCLUSION.  IT IS DESIGNED TO RESTRAIN PROOF
TO THE LIMITS OF THE CHARGE AND TO PREVENT CONVICTION FOR ONE OFFENSE
BECAUSE PERHAPS OTHERS, OR MISCONDUCT NOT AMOUNTING TO CRIME AT ALL,
HAVE BEEN PERPETRATED OR ARE REPUTED GENERALLY TO LIE AT THE
DEFENDANT'S DOOR. 

THE RULE WHICH ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE HIS GOOD STANDING BY
GENERAL REPUTATION IS, OF COURSE, A KIND OF EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY
RULE OF EXCLUSION, THOUGH ONE MAY INQUIRE HOW ELSE COULD REPUTATION BE
PROVED THAN BY HEARSAY IF IT IS TO BE PROVED AT ALL.  THIS INDEED
PRESENTS THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION.  APART FROM ITS LONG ACCEPTANCE,
EDGINGTON V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 361, THE RULE ALLOWING THE
EVIDENCE TO COME IN RESTS ON VERY DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS FROM THE ONE
WHICH FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT TO BRING IN PROOF OF BAD PUBLIC CHARACTER
AS PART OF ITS CASE IN CHIEF.  THE DEFENDANT'S PROOF COMES AS
REBUTTAL.  IT IS SUBJECT TO NONE OF THE DANGERS INVOLVING THE
POSSIBILITY OF CONVICTION FOR GENERALLY BAD CONDUCT OR GENERAL REPUTE
FOR IT WHICH WOULD CHARACTERIZE PERMITTING THE PROSECUTION INITIALLY TO
SHOW BAD GENERAL REPUTATION.  THE BASIC REASON FOR EXCLUDING THE LATTER
DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT'S TENDER OF PROOF.    ON THE POSITIVE
SIDE THE RULE IS JUSTIFIED BY THE ANCIENT LAW WHICH PRONOUNCES THAT A
GOOD NAME IS RATHER TO BE CHOSEN THAN GREAT RICHES.  TRUE, MEN OF GOOD
GENERAL REPUTE MAY NOT DESERVE IT. OR THEY MAY SLIP AND FALL IN
PARTICULAR SITUATIONS.  BUT BY COMMON EXPERIENCE THIS IS MORE OFTEN THE
EXCEPTION THAN THE RULE.  MOREOVER, MOST OFTEN IN CLOSE CASES, WHERE
THE PROOF LEAVES ONE IN DOUBT, THE EVIDENCE OF GENERAL REGARD BY ONE'S
FELLOWS MAY BE THE WEIGHT WHICH TURNS THE SCALES OF JUSTICE.  IT MAY
INDEED BE SUFFICIENT TO CREATE A CLEAR CONVICTION OF INNOCENCE OR TO
SOW THAT REASONABLE DOUBT WHICH OUR LAW REQUIRES TO BE OVERCOME IN ALL
CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE THE VERDICT OF GUILTY CAN BE RETURNED. 

THE APPARENT ANOMALY WHICH EXCLUDES THE PROSECUTION'S PROOF OF BAD
CHARACTER IN THE BEGINNING BUT LETS IN THE DEFENDANT'S PROOF OF GOOD
CHARACTER IS THUS ONLY APPARENT.  IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF OUR SCHEME
WHICH FORBIDS CONVICTION FOR OTHER THAN SPECIFIC ACTS CRIMINAL IN
CHARACTER AND WHICH, IN THEIR TRIAL, CASTS OVER THE DEFENDANT THE
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL HE IS PROVED GUILTY BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBT.  TO TAKE AWAY HIS RIGHT TO BRING IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL
AND PERTINENT PROOF BEARING UPON THE EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE DOUBT IS,
SO FAR, TO NULLIFY THE RULE REQUIRING REMOVAL OF THAT DOUBT.  I REJECT
THE COURT'S INTIMATION THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS HAVE TO SOME EXTENT
BECOME OBSOLETE OR WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS BECAUSE WE NOW LIVE IN
CITIES MORE GENERALLY THAN FORMERLY.  THEY ARE BASIC PARTS OF OUR PLAN,
PERHAPS THE MORE IMPORTANT TO BE OBSERVED BECAUSE SO MUCH OF OUR LIFE
NOW IS URBAN. 

BUT, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, THE LAW ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE
NO MORE THAN HIS GENERAL REPUTATION, BY WITNESSES QUALIFIED TO REPORT
CONCERNING IT.  HE CANNOT SHOW PARTICULAR ACTS OF VIRTUE TO OFFSET THE
PROOF OF HIS SPECIFIC CRIMINALITY ON ANY THEORY THAT "BY THEIR FRUITS
YE SHALL KNOW THEM."  WHETHER THIS BE BECAUSE SUCH PROOF IS IRRELEVANT,
IS TOO DISTRACTING AND TIME-CONSUMING, IS SUMMARIZED IN THE GENERAL
REPORT OF GOOD CHARACTER, OR PERHAPS FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, THE RULE
IS SETTLED, AND I THINK RIGHTLY, WHICH RESTRICTS THE PROOF TO GENERAL
REPUTE. 

THUS FAR, WHATEVER THE DIFFERENCES IN LOGIC, DIFFERENCES WHICH AS
USUAL INHERE IN THE PREMISES FROM WHICH THINKING STARTS, THERE IS NO
GENERAL DISAGREEMENT OR DISSATISFACTION IN THE RESULTS.  ALL OF THE
STATES AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM AS WELL, APPROVE THEM.  NO ONE
WOULD OPEN THE DOORS INITIALLY TO THE PROSECUTION.  NO ONE WOULD CLOSE
THEM TO THE DEFENSE. 

BUT THE SITUATION IS DIFFERENT WHEN WE COME TO THE THIRD STAGE, THAT
OF THE PROSECUTION'S REBUTTAL.  OBVIOUSLY REBUTTAL THERE SHOULD BE,
WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS OPENED A LINE OF INQUIRY CLOSED TO THE
PROSECUTION AND HAS SOUGHT TO GAIN ADVANTAGE BY PROOF WHICH IT HAS HAD
NO CHANCE TO COUNTERACT.  BUT THE QUESTION OF HOW THE REBUTTAL SHALL BE
MADE PRESENTS THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM. 

THERE CAN BE NO SOUND OBJECTION, OF COURSE, TO CALLING WITNESSES WHO
WILL QUALIFY AS THE WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE ARE REQUIRED TO DO, BUT
WHO ALSO WILL CONTRADICT THEIR TESTIMONY.  AND THE PROSECUTION MAY
INQUIRE CONCERNING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE
TO SPEAK CONCERNING THE DEFENDANT'S GENERAL REPUTATION.  THUS FAR THERE
IS NOTHING TO EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF REBUTTAL OR TAKE THE CASE OUT OF THE
ISSUES AS MADE. 

BUT THESE HAVE NOT BEEN THE LIMITS OF PROOF AND CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
FOR, IN THE GUISE OF "TESTING THE STANDARDS OF THE WITNESS" WHEN HE
SPEAKS TO REPUTATION, THE DOOR HAS BEEN THROWN WIDE OPEN TO TRYING THE
DEFENDANT'S WHOLE LIFE, BOTH IN GENERAL REPUTATION AND IN SPECIFIC
INCIDENT.  WHAT IS WORSE, THIS IS WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEFENDANT
TO REBUT EITHER THE FACT OR THE INNUENDO FOR WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS
TENDERED MORE GENERALLY THAN OTHERWISE.  HARDLY ANY INCIDENT, HOWEVER
REMOTE OR DEROGATORY, BUT CAN BE DRAWN OUT BY ASKING THE WITNESS WHO
TESTIFIES TO THE DEFENDANT'S GOOD CHARACTER, "HAVE YOU HEARD THIS" OR
"HAVE YOU HEARD THAT."  AND MANY INCIDENTS, WHOLLY INNOCENT IN QUALITY,
CAN BE TURNED BY THE PROSECUTOR, THROUGH AN INFLECTION OR TONE, TO CAST
ASPERSION UPON THE DEFENDANT BY THE MERE ASKING OF THE QUESTION,
WITHOUT HOPE OF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE FROM THE WITNESS. 

THE DANGERS, THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE AND PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT AND
HIS CAUSE, HAVE NOT BEEN MORE CLEARLY SUMMARIZED THAN IN THE EXCERPT
FROM WIGMORE'S CLASSIC TREATISE, QUOTED IN NOTE 4 OF THE COURT'S
OPINION, ANTE, P. 473.  HIS SUMMARY OF THE CONSEQUENCES PRODUCED BY THE
RULE BEARS REPETITION AND GREATER EMPHASIS.  HE SAID: 

"THE RUMOR OF THE MISCONDUCT, WHEN ADMITTED, GOES FAR, IN SPITE OF
ALL THEORY AND OF THE JUDGE'S CHARGE, TOWARDS FIXING THE MISCONDUCT AS
A FACT UPON THE OTHER PERSON, AND THUS DOES THREE IMPROPER THINGS,  -
(1) IT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF FAIRNESS THAT PROHIBITS THE USE
OF SUCH FACTS, (2) IT GETS AT THEM BY HEARSAY ONLY, AND NOT BY
TRUSTWORTHY TESTIMONY, AND (3) IT LEAVES THE OTHER PERSON NO MEANS OF
DEFENDING HIMSELF BY DENIAL OR EXPLANATION, SUCH AS HE WOULD OTHERWISE
HAVE HAD IF THE RULE HAD ALLOWED THAT CONDUCT TO BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF
AN ISSUE."  3 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 988. 

THESE CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT DENIED.  BUT IT IS SAID TWO MODES OF
PROTECTION ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ACCUSED.  ONE IS TO REFRAIN FROM
OPENING THE INQUIRY INTO HIS REPUTATION.  THAT ANSWER WOULD HAVE WEIGHT
IF THE REBUTTAL WERE LIMITED TO INQUIRY CONCERNING THE WITNESS'
OPPORTUNITY FOR KNOWING THE ACCUSED AND HIS REPUTATION AND TO PRODUCING
CONTRARY EVIDENCE BY OTHER WITNESSES OF THE SAME GENERAL SORT AS THAT
WHICH IS REFUTED.  BUT IF THE RULE IS SOUND WHICH ALLOWS THE ACCUSED TO
SHOW HIS GOOD REPUTE AND RESTRICTS HIM TO THAT SHOWING, IT NOT ONLY IS
ANOMALOUS, IT IS HIGHLY UNJUST, TO EXACT, AS THE PRICE FOR HIS DOING
SO, THROWING OPEN TO THE PROSECUTION THE OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO REBUT
HIS PROOF BUT TO CALL IN QUESTION ALMOST ANY SPECIFIC ACT OF HIS LIFE
OR TO INSINUATE WITHOUT PROVING THAT HE HAS COMMITTED OTHER ACTS,
LEAVING HIM NO CHANCE TO REPLY.  A FAIR RULE EITHER WOULD AFFORD THIS
CHANCE OR WOULD RESTRICT THE PROSECUTION'S COUNTERPROOF IN THE SAME WAY
HIS OWN IS LIMITED.  THE PREVAILING RULE CHANGES THE WHOLE CHARACTER OF
THE CASE, IN A MANNER THE RULES APPLYING TO THE TWO EARLIER STAGES SEEK
TO AVOID. 

NOR IS IT ENOUGH, IN MY JUDGMENT, TO TRUST TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF
TRIAL JUDGES TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT AGAINST EXCESSES OF THE
PROSECUTION.  TO DO THIS EFFECTIVELY THEY NEED STANDARDS.  NONE ARE
PROVIDED UNDER THE COURT'S RULING; INDEED IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO
PROVIDE THEM EXCEPT FOR EACH CASE AND QUESTION AS THEY MIGHT ARISE. 

THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, IT SEEMS TO ME, SHOW THE INADEQUACY OF ANY
SUCH GENERAL AND LARGELY UNRESTRICTED DELEGATION.  THEY DEMONSTRATE HOW
FAR AND HOW UNFAIRLY THE PROSECUTION MAY BE ALLOWED TO GO IN BRINGING
EXTRANEOUS AND IMMATERIAL MATTERS TO THE JURY'S ATTENTION, WITH HOWEVER
A PROBABLE EFFECT OF PREJUDICE.  PETITIONER HIMSELF HAD MADE A CLEAN
BREAST OF HIS TWENTY-YEAR-OLD CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING THE NEW YORK
TRADEMARK LAWS.  THAT FACT OF COURSE WAS OF SOME USE FOR TESTING HIS
CHARACTER WITNESSES' STANDARDS FOR SPEAKING TO HIS GENERAL REPUTE,
ALTHOUGH THE CONVICTION WAS SO OLD THAT CONCEIVABLY IT COULD HAVE BUT
LITTLE WEIGHT ON THE ACCUSED'S REPUTATION IN 1947. 

THEN THE PROSECUTION WENT BACK SEVEN YEARS FURTHER AND INQUIRED
WHETHER THE WITNESSES HAD HEARD THAT PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED "ON
OCTOBER 11TH, 1920" FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.  NONE OF THE WITNESSES
HAD HEARD OF THIS FACT.  THE COURT SOLEMNLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT
THEY WERE NOT TO CONSIDER THAT THE INCIDENT TOOK PLACE, THAT ALL THAT
WAS HAPPENING WAS THAT THE PROSECUTOR WAS TESTING THE WITNESS' STANDARD
OF OPINION OF THE ACCUSED'S REPUTATION.  THIS, AFTER THE COURT OUT OF
THE JURY'S PRESENCE HAD REQUIRED THE PROSECUTOR TO MAKE PROOF
SATISFACTORY TO THE COURT THAT THE INCIDENT HAD TAKEN PLACE. 

THE VERY FORM OF THE QUESTION WAS ITSELF NOTICE OF THE FACT TO THE
JURY.  THEY WELL MIGHT ASSUME, AS MEN OF COMMON SENSE, THAT THE COURT
WOULD NOT ALLOW THE QUESTION IF THE FACT WERE ONLY FICTION.  AND WHY
"ON OCTOBER 11TH, 1920," RATHER THAN MERELY "IN 1920" OR "HAVE YOU EVER
HEARD OF THE DEFENDANT'S BEING ARRESTED, OTHER THAN FOR THE TRADEMARK
VIOLATION?"  WHY ALSO "FOR RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS"?  IN MY OPINION THE
ONLY ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE, NOT THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS
"TESTING THE WITNESS' STANDARD OF OPINION OF REPUTATION," BUT THAT IT
WAS TELLING THE JURY WHAT IT COULD NOT PROVE DIRECTLY AND WHAT THE
PETITIONER HAD NO CHANCE TO DENY, NAMELY, THAT HE HAD BEEN SO ARRESTED;
AND THEREBY EITHER INSINUATING THAT HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF THE CRIME
OR LEAVING TO THE JURY TO GUESS THAT THIS HAD BEEN THE OUTCOME.  THE
QUESTION WAS A TYPICAL ABUSE ARISING FROM ALLOWING THIS TYPE OF
INQUIRY.  IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED.  THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL HOW
MUCH PREJUDICE IT PRODUCED. 

MOREOVER, I DO NOT THINK THE MERE QUESTION OF KNOWLEDGE OF A PRIOR
ARREST IS ONE PROPER TO BE ASKED, EVEN IF INQUIRY AS TO CLEARLY
DEROGATORY ACTS IS TO BE PERMITTED.  OF COURSE MEN TAKE SUCH AN INQUIRY
AS REFLECTING UPON THE PERSON ARRESTED.  BUT, FOR USE IN A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION, I DO NOT THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SO.  THE MERE
FACT OF A SINGLE ARREST TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS BEFORE TRIAL, WITHOUT
FURTHER SHOWING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OR THEIR OUTCOME, WHETHER
ACQUITTAL OR CONVICTION, SELDOM COULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL BEARING UPON
ONE'S PRESENT GENERAL REPUTATION; INDEED IT IS NOT PER SE A DEROGATORY
FACT.  BUT IT IS PUT IN GENERALLY, AND I THINK WAS PUT IN EVIDENCE IN
THIS CASE, NOT TO CALL IN QUESTION THE WITNESS' STANDARD OF OPINION
BUT, BY THE VERY QUESTION, TO GIVE ROOM FOR PLAY OF THE JURY'S
UNGUARDED CONJECTURE AND PREJUDICE.  THIS IS NEITHER FAIR PLAY NOR DUE
PROCESS.  IT IS A PERVERSION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS AS WE KNOW IT.
FOR IT PERMITS WHAT THE RULE APPLIED IN THE FIRST STAGE FORBIDS, TRIAL
OF THE ACCUSED NOT ONLY FOR GENERAL BAD CONDUCT OR REPUTATION BUT ALSO
FOR CONJECTURE, GOSSIP, INNUENDO AND INSINUATION. 

ACCORDINGLY, I THINK THIS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED.  I ALSO THINK
THE PREVAILING PRACTICE SHOULD BE CHANGED.  ONE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS HAS SUGGESTED WE DO THIS BY ADOPTING THE ILLINOIS RULE,  FN1
NAMELY, BY LIMITING INQUIRY CONCERNING SPECIFIC INCIDENTS TO QUESTIONS
RELATING TO PRIOR OFFENSES SIMILAR TO THAT FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS
ON TRIAL.  LOGICALLY THAT RULE IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME OBJECTIONS AS THE
GENERALLY PREVAILING ONE.  BUT IT HAS THE PRACTICAL MERIT OF GREATLY
REDUCING THE SCOPE AND VOLUME OF ALLOWABLE QUESTIONS CONCERNING
SPECIFIC ACTS, RUMORS, ETC., WITH COMPARABLE REDUCTION OF INNUENDO,
INSINUATION AND GOSSIP.  MY OWN PREFERENCE AND, I THINK, THE ONLY FAIR
RULE WOULD BE TO FORECLOSE THE ENTIRE LINE OF INQUIRY CONCERNING
SPECIFIC INCIDENTS IN THE DEFENDANT'S PAST, BOTH ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
AND ON NEW EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL.  THIS WOULD LEAVE ROOM FOR PROPER
REBUTTAL WITHOUT TURNING THE DEFENDANT'S TRIAL FOR A SPECIFIC OFFENSE
INTO ONE FOR ALL HIS PREVIOUS MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL OR OTHER, AND WOULD
PUT THE PROSECUTION ON THE SAME PLANE WITH THE DEFENDANT IN RELATION TO
THE USE OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE.  THIS, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS THE ONLY FAIR
WAY TO HANDLE THE MATTER. 

FN1  SEE PEOPLE V. HANNON, 381 ILL. 206, 211, FOR THE MOST RECENT
STATEMENT OF THE RULE ESTABLISHED BY AIKEN V. PEOPLE, 183 ILL. 215; CF.
PEOPLE V. PAGE, 365 ILL. 524.  IN NORTH CAROLINA A CHARACTER WITNESS
MAY BE ASKED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT THE "GENERAL REPUTATION OF THE
DEFENDANT AS TO PARTICULAR VICES OR VIRTUES," BUT NOT ABOUT RUMORS OF
SPECIFIC ACTS OF MISCONDUCT.  STATE V. SHEPHERD, 220 N.C. 377, 379;
STATE V. HOLLY, 155 N.C. 485, 492.  THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, WHICH
ONCE FOLLOWED THE RULE ADOPTED BY THE COURT TODAY, SMITH V. STATE, 22
ARIZ. 229, MORE RECENTLY, IN REVERSING A JUDGMENT BECAUSE A CHARACTER
WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS TO HIS KNOWLEDGE OF SPECIFIC ACTS OF
MISCONDUCT, STATED THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SOURCE OF THE WITNESS' KNOWLEDGE OF THE
ACCUSED'S REPUTATION AND SHOULD NOT INCLUDE QUESTIONS CONCERNING
SPECIFIC ACTS OF MISCONDUCT.  VILIBORGHI V. STATE, 45 ARIZ. 275, 285. 
..END :



FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 497 


NO. 44.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1948.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1948.  - 82
U.S. APP. D.C. 332, 163 F.2D 817, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA FOR VIOLATING THE HARRISON NARCOTICS ACT.  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, HE WAS NOT DENIED THE TRIAL "BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY" GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH THE JURY
WAS COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ONE OF
THEM AND THE WIFE OF ANOTHER WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
BUT NOT OF ITS BUREAU OF NARCOTICS WHICH ADMINISTERS AND ENFORCES THE
FEDERAL NARCOTICS STATUTES.  PP. 498-514. 

2.  A MOTION TO STRIKE THE ENTIRE PANEL FOR ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN
THE METHOD OF ITS SELECTION, WHICH WAS NOT MADE UNTIL AFTER AN ENTIRE
MORNING HAD BEEN CONSUMED IN UNCOMPLETED EFFORTS TO SELECT A JURY AND
WHICH WAS SUPPORTED SOLELY BY COUNSEL'S UNSWORN STATEMENTS, WITHOUT ANY
PROOF OR OFFER OF PROOF, WAS WITHOUT MERIT.  PP. 503-504. 

3.  GIVEN 10 ARBITRARY CHOICES AMONG 22 PROSPECTIVE JURORS NOT
DISQUALIFIED FOR CAUSE, OF WHOM 13 WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND 9
PRIVATELY ENGAGED, PETITIONER KNOWINGLY REJECTED BY PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES ALL 9 OF THE LATTER AND ACCEPTED WITHOUT CHALLENGE ALL BUT
ONE OF THE FORMER.  HELD: HIS OBJECTION TO THE RESULTING JURY ON THE
GROUND THAT IT CONSISTED ENTIRELY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WAS NOT
JUSTIFIED.  PP. 504-512. 

4.  IN VIEW OF THE D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 11-1420, WHICH REMOVED (WITH
SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS) THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING DISQUALIFICATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOR JURY SERVICE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN
CRIMINAL AND OTHER CASES TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY, THE MERE
FACT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT IS INSUFFICIENT TO DISQUALIFY A JUROR WHO
IS OTHERWISE QUALIFIED.  UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 123.  PP. 508
512. 

5.  WHERE PETITIONER KNEW THAT THE WIFE OF ONE JUROR WAS EMPLOYED BY
THE TREASURY AND KNEW THAT ANOTHER JUROR WAS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE BUT
FAILED TO INQUIRE AS TO THE EXACT NATURE OF THE LATTER'S EMPLOYMENT AND
FAILED TO CHALLENGE EITHER JUROR WHILE THE JURY WAS BEING SELECTED,
PETITIONER'S CHALLENGE TO THESE TWO JURORS IN A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
WAS RIGHTLY OVERRULED.  PP. 512-514. 

FRAZIER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF VIOLATING THE HARRISON NARCOTICS ACT, 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 2553.  THE JURY WAS COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND ONE OF THEM AND THE WIFE OF ANOTHER WERE EMPLOYEES OF
THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, BUT NOT OF ITS BUREAU OF NARCOTICS WHICH
ADMINISTERS AND ENFORCES THE FEDERAL NARCOTICS STATUTES.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  82 U.S. APP. D.C. 332, 163 F.2D 817. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 873.  AFFIRMED, P. 514. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER'S PRIMARY COMPLAINT IS THAT HE HAS BEEN DENIED THE TRIAL
"BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY" WHICH THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES.  HE WAS
CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE HARRISON NARCOTICS ACT,  FN1 BY A JURY
COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  ONE JUROR,
MOORE, AND THE WIFE OF ANOTHER, ROOT, WERE EMPLOYED IN THE OFFICE OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, WHO IS CHARGED BY LAW WITH
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTERING AND ENFORCING THE FEDERAL NARCOTICS
STATUTES.  FN2  AS AGAINST OBJECTIONS BASED ON THESE FACTS AND OTHER
MATTERS, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED PETITIONER'S CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE.  82 U.S. APP. D.C. 332, 163 F.2D 817.  HE HAS SOUGHT RELIEF
HERE BY APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE ISSUES RELATING TO
THE JURY'S SELECTION AND COMPOSITION.  TO REVIEW THE DETERMINATION MADE
OF THEM BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 873. 

PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS COMPREHEND AN ATTACK UPON THE ENTIRE PANEL OF
PROSPECTIVE JURORS, MADE DURING THE COURSE OF VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION, IN
AN EFFORT TO HAVE THE PANEL STRICKEN; A CHALLENGE TO THE JURY AS
FINALLY CONSTITUTED, AFTER PETITIONER HAD EXHAUSTED HIS TEN PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES, VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION HAD BEEN COMPLETED, AND THE TWELVE
JURORS WHO TRIED THE CASE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED; AND, EITHER SEPARATELY OR
IN CONJUNCTION WITH HIS OTHER OBJECTIONS,  FN3  A CLAIM OF REVERSIBLE
ERROR ON ACCOUNT OF THE INCLUSION OF MOORE AND ROOT AS JURORS.  AN
ADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES THUS RAISED REQUIRES A CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE
SELECTION OF THE JURY. 

PURSUANT TO CUSTOMARY PRACTICE, THOSE PROCEEDINGS BEGAN WITH THE
SEATING IN THE BOX OF TWELVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS FOR PURPOSES OF
EXAMINATION ON VOIR DIRE.  THESE TWELVE HAD BEEN CHOSEN PREVIOUSLY, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING PRACTICE, FROM JURY LISTS MAINTAINED TO
SUPPLY GRAND AND PETIT JURIES FOR ALL DIVISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
CF. D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 11-1401, ET SEQ. THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT THOSE
LISTS WERE IMPROPERLY MADE UP.  THE USUAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION BEGAN
AND CONTINUED UNTIL THE NOON RECESS, AS IS LATER NOTED, WITH COUNSEL
RAISING NO QUESTION CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LISTS OR THE
PANEL. 

PETITIONER INQUIRED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, HOW MANY WERE GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.  FIVE OF THE ORIGINAL TWELVE INDICATED THEY WERE.  ONE OF
THESE WAS EXCUSED BY THE COURT.  THE OTHER FOUR, INCLUDING MOORE,
REMAINED UNCHALLENGED AND SERVED ON THE JURY.  THE SEVEN REMAINING
VENIREMEN, INCLUDING TWO HOUSEWIVES, WERE ENGAGED IN PRIVATE
OCCUPATIONS.  ALL SEVEN WERE CHALLENGED PEREMPTORILY BY PETITIONER. 

TO REPLACE THEM AND THE ONE EXCUSED BY THE COURT, OTHERS INCLUDING
ROOT WERE CALLED FROM TIME TO TIME, AND WERE EXAMINED IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORIGINAL TWELVE.  ALTOGETHER THEY NUMBERED
THIRTEEN, NINE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, TWO IN PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT, AND TWO
THE NATURE OF WHOSE WORK DOES NOT APPEAR.  OF THE LATTER, ONE WAS
EXCUSED BY THE COURT AND THE OTHER PEREMPTORILY CHALLENGED BY THE
PROSECUTION.  PETITIONER PEREMPTORILY CHALLENGED BOTH OF THOSE IN
PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AND ONE OF THE NINE IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE.  THIS
EXHAUSTED PETITIONER'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AND LEFT EIGHT
UNCHALLENGED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE FOUR LIKE ONES ORIGINALLY
CALLED IN COMPOSING THE TWELVE WHO MADE UP THE JURY AS FINALLY CHOSEN. 
FN4 

THE PROCESS OF SELECTION WAS INTERRUPTED SHORTLY BEFORE NOON, WHEN
PETITIONER STILL HAD TWO UNUSED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES, BY A SHORTAGE OF
VENIREMEN.  ANTICIPATING THAT OTHERS WOULD BE AVAILABLE LATER IN THE
DAY, THE COURT ADJOURNED UNTIL 2:30 P.M.  ON ITS RECONVENING,
ADDITIONAL PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE AVAILABLE.  BUT PETITIONER THEN
MOVED FOR THE FIRST TIME TO STRIKE THE ENTIRE PANEL FOR ALLEGED
IRREGULARITY IN THE METHOD USED FOR SELECTING IT, ASSERTED TO HAVE BEEN
DISCOVERED BY COUNSEL THROUGH "A LITTLE INVESTIGATION" DURING THE NOON
RECESS.  THE COURT DENIED THE MOTION, WITH LEAVE TO RENEW THE OBJECTION
IN A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IF PETITIONER SHOULD BE CONVICTED.  FN5
THE MATERIAL PART OF THE COLLOQUY RELATING TO THESE PROCEEDINGS AND
DISCLOSING THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION AND ITS DENIAL IS SET FORTH IN
THE MARGIN.  FN6 

PETITIONER THEN EXERCISED HIS TWO REMAINING PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES,
AFTER WHICH HE INQUIRED OF THE TWELVE JURORS THEN IMPANELED HOW MANY
WERE EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  WHEN ALL INDICATED THEY WERE,
PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE JURY AS IMPANELED FOR CAUSE.  THE CHALLENGE
AND THE COURT'S RULING IN DENIAL OF IT APPEAR BELOW.  FN7  ALTHOUGH
COUNSEL SOUGHT TO INTERMINGLE WITH THIS CHALLENGE THE ONE PREVIOUSLY
MADE TO THE PANEL,  FN8  THE TWO ARE DISTINCT ATTACKS AND MUST BE
TREATED SEPARATELY. 

I. THE METHOD OF SELECTING THE PANEL.  - APART FROM THE OBJECTION
THAT THIS CHALLENGE CAME TOO LATE, CF. AGNEW V. UNITED STATES, 165 U.S.
36, IT IS WITHOUT MERIT.  IT CONSISTS EXCLUSIVELY OF COUNSEL'S
STATEMENTS, UNSWORN AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY PROOF OR OFFER OF PROOF. 
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT EXPLICITLY DENY THOSE STATEMENTS.  BUT IT WAS
UNDER NO NECESSITY TO DO SO.  THE BURDEN WAS UPON THE PETITIONER AS
MOVING PARTY "TO INTRODUCE, OR TO OFFER, DISTINCT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
OF THE MOTION."  GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 87.  SEE ALSO
SMITH V. MISSISSIPPI, 162 U.S. 592; TARRANCE V. FLORIDA, 188 U.S. 519;
MARTIN V. TEXAS, 200 U.S. 316; CF. BROWNFIELD V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 189
U.S. 426. 

OF ITSELF THIS FAILURE IN TENDER OF PROOF WOULD REQUIRE DENIAL OF THE
MOTION.  BUT EVEN IF PROOF HAD BEEN MADE OR OFFERED THERE WOULD HAVE
BEEN NO SHOWING SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE CONTRARY ACTION.  THE STATEMENTS,
IF TREATED AS ALLEGATIONS, COMPREHENDED IN SUBSTANCE BUT TWO THINGS. 
ONE WAS THE VERY BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE
FOLLOWED, NAMELY, THE SUBPOENAING OF ABOUT FIVE HUNDRED JURORS, THEIR
EQUAL DIVISION FOR ASSIGNMENT TO TWO BRANCHES OF THE COURT, AND THAT
THOSE IN EACH GROUP WHO DID NOT WISH TO SERVE WERE "TOLD TO STEP TO ONE
SIDE."  THIS WAS ALL IN THE WAY OF FACTS.  FROM THEM FOLLOWED COUNSEL'S
VAGUE AND GENERAL CONCLUSION THAT THE REMAINING NUMBER, FROM WHICH IT
WAS SAID JURORS WERE PICKED, "CONSISTED MOSTLY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
AND HOUSEWIVES, AND UNEMPLOYED."  COUNSEL THEN URGED THAT THIS
FURNISHED BASIS FOR APPLYING THE DECISION IN THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO., 328 U.S. 217, AS NOT AFFORDING "A PROPER CROSS-SECTION." 

THE TRIAL COURT RIGHTLY HELD THE THIEL CASE INAPPLICABLE, FOR THE
REASONS THAT IT REQUIRES A SHOWING OF SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION OR ATTEMPT
TO EXCLUDE FROM THE PANEL A PARTICULAR OCCUPATIONAL GROUP OR GROUPS
OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE FOR JURY SERVICE, AND THE STATEMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
OF COUNSEL HERE DISCLOSED NO SUCH ATTEMPT.  BEYOND THIS, MOREOVER, IT
SEEMS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE STATEMENT, IF
PROVED, WOULD CONSTITUTE ANY IRREGULARITY.  NOTHING IS STATED
CONCERNING THE NUMBERS WHO STEPPED TO ONE SIDE, THEIR OCCUPATIONAL
CLASSIFICATIONS, WHETHER THEY WERE EXCUSED OR, IF ANY, HOW MANY, BY
WHOM OR FOR WHAT CAUSE.  FOR ALL ONE COULD KNOW FROM THE STATEMENT,
THOSE STEPPING TO ONE SIDE MAY HAVE INCLUDED BUT ONE IN TEN, AND OF
THESE, HALF OR MORE MAY HAVE BEEN HELD FOR JURY SERVICE AFTER CLAIMING
EXEMPTION OR SEEKING EXCUSE.  THE FACTS STATED, THEREFORE, TAKEN IN THE
LIGHT OF PERTINENT FACTS OMITTED, LAY NO FOUNDATION WHATEVER FOR
COUNSEL'S CONCLUSIONS, INFERENTIALLY THAT JURORS WERE SELECTED ONLY
FROM THOSE NOT STANDING ASIDE, AND EXPLICITLY THAT THE REMAINING NUMBER
"CONSISTED MOSTLY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND HOUSEWIVES, AND
UNEMPLOYED."  THE STATEMENT WAS OBVIOUSLY INSUFFICIENT TO LAY ANY
FOUNDATION FOR VALID ATTACK UPON THE METHOD FOLLOWED IN SELECTING THE
PANEL. 

II.  COMPOSITION OF THE JURY.  - THE ESSENCE OF THIS ATTACK CONSISTS
IN COUNSEL'S STATEMENT, "NOW, I HAVE EXHAUSTED MY TEN CHALLENGES, AND
HERE I HAVE TWELVE GOVERNMENT JURORS WHO ARE TO DECIDE THIS DEFENDANT'S
CASE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE, BEING BROUGHT IN A
FEDERAL COURT, PROSECUTED BY A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AND THE CASE IS
PRESENTED BY FEDERAL AGENTS."  FN9  SO PUT, THE CHALLENGE HAS THE SOUND
OF PLAUSIBILITY.  POSSIBLY IT WOULD HAVE MORE OF THE SUBSTANCE OF IT IF
IN THIS CASE IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT PETITIONER HIMSELF WAS RESPONSIBLE,
BY DELIBERATE CHOICE, FOR THE JURY'S FINAL COMPOSITION. 

GIVEN TEN ARBITRARY CHOICES AMONG TWENTY-TWO PROSPECTIVE JURORS NOT
DISQUALIFIED FOR CAUSE, OF WHOM THIRTEEN WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND
NINE PRIVATELY ENGAGED, HE KNOWINGLY, OF HIS OWN RIGHT, REJECTED NINE
OF THE LATTER AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OR THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE IT
ACCEPTED WITHOUT CHALLENGE ALL BUT ONE OF THE FORMER.  IT WOULD SEEM
THAT ORDINARILY ONE ANXIOUS TO SECURE A JURY REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT IN A COMMUNITY LIKE WASHINGTON,  FN10
AND PARTICULARLY TO AVOID OVERWEIGHTING THE JURY WITH GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, WELL MIGHT HAVE FOUND A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY OF UTILIZING HIS
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO ACHIEVE THOSE OBJECTIVES. 

THE RIGHT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE IS GIVEN, OF COURSE, TO BE
EXERCISED IN THE PARTY'S SOLE DISCRETION AND WAS SO EXERCISED HERE.  WE
DO NOT QUESTION PETITIONER'S PRIVILEGE TO UTILIZE HIS PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES AS HE DID.  BUT THE RIGHT IS GIVEN IN AID OF THE PARTY'S
INTEREST TO SECURE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY, NOT FOR CREATING GROUND
TO CLAIM PARTIALITY WHICH BUT FOR ITS EXERCISE WOULD NOT EXIST.  FN11
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT BY USING THE RIGHT AS HE PLEASES, HE OBTAINS
THE FURTHER ONE TO REPUDIATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OWN CHOICE. 

HERE PETITIONER WAS GIVEN A FAIRLY AND LAWFULLY SELECTED PANEL.  FROM
IT ALL DISQUALIFIED FOR CAUSE WERE EXCUSED.  THE FULLY QUALIFIED JURORS
REMAINING WERE FAIRLY EVENLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG PERSONS PUBLICLY AND
PRIVATELY EMPLOYED.  FOR REASONS ENTIRELY HIS OWN, PETITIONER CHOSE TO
ELIMINATE THE LATTER AND RETAIN THE FORMER.  THIS WAS A DELIBERATE
CHOICE, NOT AN UNINFORMED ONE.  WE NEED DRAW NO CONCLUSION CONCERNING
WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING THE BASIS NOW
ASSERTED FOR OBJECTING TO THE JURY'S COMPOSITION.  FN12  RATHER WE MUST
TAKE IT AS HAVING BEEN MADE EXACTLY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE RIGHT
WAS GIVEN, NAMELY, TO AFFORD PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY BEYOND THE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR SELECTION TO EXPRESS AN ARBITRARY
PREFERENCE AMONG JURORS PROPERLY SELECTED AND FULLY QUALIFIED TO SIT IN
JUDGMENT ON HIS CASE.  CF. NOTE 11.  ANY OTHER VIEW WOULD CONVICT HIM
OF ABUSING HIS PRIVILEGE.  THIS WE ARE UNWILLING TO DO. 

BY THE SAME TOKEN WE ARE NOT WILLING TO JOIN IN REPUDIATING THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OWN SELECTION.  WE TAKE PETITIONER AT HIS WORD AS
EXPRESSED BY HIS REPEATED CHOICES.  THE FACT THAT HE EXERCISED HIS
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AS HE DID, SO FREQUENTLY AND CONSISTENTLY TO
ELIMINATE PRIVATELY EMPLOYED JURORS AND RETAIN ONLY GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, HARDLY CAN BE SAID TO GIVE CAUSE FOR HIM TO CLAIM
OVERWEIGHTING OF THE JURY WITH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  THERE WAS NO
DEFECT OF THE PANEL IN THIS RESPECT.  NOR IS THERE ANY CLAIM OR BASIS
FOR ONE THAT THE PROSECUTION UTILIZED ITS PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO
BRING ABOUT A JURY CONSTITUTED ONLY OF THEM.  IT WOULD BE GOING VERY
FAR TO SAY THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN BY THIS RECORD PETITIONER
WAS DEPRIVED, EITHER IN LAW OR IN FACT, OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY OR INDEED
OF ONE FAIRLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY.  IF DEPRIVATION THERE
WAS, EVEN IN THE LATTER SENSE,  FN13  IT WAS THE RESULT OF HIS OWN
CHOICE, NOT OF IMPERFECTION IN THE CHOICES TENDERED HIM BY LAW OR IN
THE PROCEDURES OF SELECTION AFFORDED. 

IN RULING UPON PETITIONER'S OBJECTION THE TRIAL JUDGE ASSESSED THE
SITUATION AS FOLLOWS: "CHANCE HAS RESULTED IN THIS JURY PANEL OF TWELVE
BEING COMPOSED OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, BUT THE JURY LIST FROM WHICH
THEY BY CHANCE WERE SELECTED IS A MIXTURE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND
PRIVATE EMPLOYEES."  FN14  EVEN IN THIS VIEW OF WHAT TOOK PLACE,
PETITIONER HAS NO CAUSE TO COMPLAIN.  THE WELL-SETTLED RULE IS THAT,
GIVEN A LAWFULLY SELECTED PANEL, FREE FROM ANY TAINT OF INVALID
EXCLUSIONS OR PROCEDURES IN SELECTION AND FROM WHICH ALL DISQUALIFIED
FOR CAUSE HAVE BEEN EXCUSED, NO CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT ARISES MERELY FROM
THE FACT THAT THE JURY FINALLY CHOSEN HAPPENS ITSELF NOT TO BE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PANEL OR INDEED OF THE COMMUNITY.  FN15  THERE
IS, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO RIGHT TO ANY PARTICULAR COMPOSITION OR
GROUP REPRESENTATION ON THE JURY.  FN16    FINALLY, IN THIS PHASE OF
THE CASE, UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 123, GOES FAR TOWARD
PRECLUDING PETITIONER'S OBJECTION.  THAT DECISION SUSTAINED THE ACT OF
CONGRESS OF AUGUST 22, 1935, NOW D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 11-1420,
REMOVING (WITH SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS) THE DISQUALIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES PREVIOUSLY EXISTING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR JURY
SERVICE IN CRIMINAL AND OTHER CASES TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS A
PARTY.  THE DISQUALIFICATION HAD ARISEN IN 1908 BY VIRTUE OF THE
DECISION, MADE ON COMMON-LAW GROUNDS, IN CRAWFORD V. UNITED STATES, 212
U.S. 183. 

OWING TO THE LARGE AND INCREASING PROPORTION OF GOVERNMENT TO PRIVATE
EMPLOYEES IN THE DISTRICT, THE EFFECT OF THE CRAWFORD DECISION HAD BEEN
BY 1935 TO CREATE DIFFICULTIES IN SECURING PROPERLY QUALIFIED JURORS. 
TO MEET THIS SITUATION THE 1935 STATUTE WAS ADOPTED.  FN17  IT
CONTINUED SPECIFIED EXEMPTIONS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING, INCLUDING ALL
EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THEN DIRECTED
IN PRESENTLY MATERIAL PART:  "ALL OTHER PERSONS, OTHERWISE QUALIFIED
ACCORDING TO LAW WHETHER EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  ...  SHALL BE
QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS JURORS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND SHALL NOT
BE EXEMPT FROM SUCH SERVICE  ...  "  D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 11-1420. 

THE WOOD CASE WAS A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR THEFT FROM A PRIVATE
CORPORATION.  THREE OF THE JURORS WERE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, CHALLENGED
FOR CAUSE ON THAT GROUND.  IN SUSTAINING THE CONVICTION AND THE STATUTE
THE COURT FIRST HELD THAT CONGRESS HAD NOT "UNDERTAKEN TO PRECLUDE THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF ACTUAL BIAS," AND THAT THE QUESTION IN ISSUE WAS
LIMITED TO "IMPLIED BIAS, A BIAS ATTRIBUTABLE IN LAW TO THE PROSPECTIVE
JUROR REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL PARTIALITY."  299 U.S. AT 133, 134.  AS TO
THIS THE COURT SAID OF THE STATUTE, "THE ENACTMENT ITSELF IS TANTAMOUNT
TO A LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION THAT THE PRIOR DISQUALIFICATION  THE
CRAWFORD RULING) WAS ARTIFICIAL AND NOT NECESSARY TO SECURE
IMPARTIALITY."  ID. AT 148-149.  BY WAY OF SUSTAINING THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT, THE COURT ADDED ON ITS OWN ACCOUNT: 

"IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS THE GOVERNMENT IS ACTING SIMPLY AS THE
INSTRUMENT OF THE PUBLIC IN ENFORCING PENAL LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF
SOCIETY.  IN THAT ENFORCEMENT ALL CITIZENS ARE INTERESTED.  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY A GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEE, MERELY BY VIRTUE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT, IS INTERESTED IN THAT ENFORCEMENT EITHER MORE OR LESS THAN
ANY GOOD CITIZEN IS OR SHOULD BE.  ...  WE THINK THAT THE IMPUTATION OF
BIAS SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY
ACTUAL PARTIALITY GROWING OUT OF THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
PARTICULAR CASES, RESTS ON AN ASSUMPTION WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL
FOUNDATION."  IBID. 

THE COURT WAS NOT CONFRONTED IN THE WOOD CASE WITH THE EXACT
SITUATION WE HAVE HERE, NAMELY, THAT ALL OF THE JURORS FINALLY SELECTED
WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  BUT THE PURPORT OF THE DECISION WAS THAT
THE MERE FACT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT MORE, WOULD BE
INSUFFICIENT UNDER THE STATUTE'S MANDATE TO DISQUALIFY A JUROR. 
IMPLICIT IN THIS WAS THE CONCEPTION THAT, INSOFAR AS THAT FACT ALONE IS
OR MAY BE EFFECTIVE, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND PERSONS PRIVATELY ENGAGED
WERE PUT UPON THE SAME BASIS WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION, EXPLICIT OR
IMPLIED, UPON THE NUMBER WHO MIGHT BE SELECTED AS JURORS FROM EITHER
GROUP.  FN18  THE EFFECT OF THESE RULINGS, WE THINK, WAS TO MAKE
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SUBJECT, AS ARE ALL OTHER PERSONS AND IN THE SAME
MANNER, TO CHALLENGE FOR "ACTUAL BIAS"  FN19  AND UNDER ALL ORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY TO SUCH CHALLENGE.  IN THAT VIEW, ABSENT ANY BASIS
FOR SUCH CHALLENGE, WE DO NOT SEE HOW A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE PANEL AS
A WHOLE CAN ARISE FROM THE MERE FACT THAT THE JURY CHOSEN BY PROPER
PROCEDURES FROM A PROPERLY SELECTED PANEL TURNS OUT TO BE COMPOSED
WHOLLY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OR, A FORTIORI, OF PERSONS IN PRIVATE
EMPLOYMENT. 

THE OPINION IN THE WOOD CASE, HOWEVER, WAS VERY CAREFUL TO STRESS
MORE THAN ONCE THAT THE SIXTH AMENDMENT PRESCRIBES NO SPECIFIC TESTS
FOR DETERMINING IMPARTIALITY.  299 U.S. AT 133.  IT AFFORDED FURTHER
ASSURANCES, BEYOND THOSE GIVEN BY ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 3, RELATING TO
TRIAL BY JURY, IN RESPECT TO SPEED, PUBLICITY, IMPARTIALITY, ETC.  ID.
AT 142.  BUT IT DID NOT REQUIRE IN THESE RESPECTS "THE PARTICULAR FORMS
AND PROCEDURE USED AT COMMON LAW."  P. 143.  THE OPINION EMPHASIZED
ESPECIALLY THAT "IMPARTIALITY IS NOT A TECHNICAL CONCEPTION.  IT IS A
STATE OF MIND.  FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THIS MENTAL ATTITUDE OF
APPROPRIATE INDIFFERENCE, THE CONSTITUTION LAYS DOWN NO PARTICULAR
TESTS AND PROCEDURE IS NOT CHAINED TO ANY ANCIENT AND ARTIFICIAL
FORMULA."  PP. 145-146. 

THIS SEEMS TO CONTEMPLATE IMPLICITLY THAT IN EACH CASE A BROAD
DISCRETION AND DUTY RESIDE IN THE COURT TO SEE THAT THE JURY AS FINALLY
SELECTED IS SUBJECT TO NO SOLID BASIS OF OBJECTION ON THE SCORE OF
IMPARTIALITY, EVEN THOUGH THAT BASIS MIGHT POSSIBLY ARISE THROUGH THE
WORKING OF CHANCE OR OTHER LAWFUL FACTORS WHOLLY WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
OF PROPER PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING THE PANEL AND CHOOSING THE JURY FROM
IT.  SUCH A SITUATION COULD ARISE, IF AT ALL, ONLY IN THE RAREST AND
MOST EXTRAORDINARY COMBINATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES.  BUT EVEN IF THAT
POSSIBILITY IS TAKEN AS CONCEDED, FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE ALREADY
STATED THIS CASE PRESENTS NO SUCH PROBLEM. 

III.  THE CHALLENGES TO JURORS MOORE AND ROOT.  - CONSIDERED AS
INDEPENDENT AND INDIVIDUAL CHALLENGES FOR "ACTUAL BIAS,"  FN20  THE
OBJECTIONS TO THESE JURORS COME TOO LATE.  MOORE WAS A TREASURY
MESSENGER.  ROOT'S WIFE WAS A TREASURY EMPLOYEE.  PETITIONER'S COUNSEL
KNEW OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF ROOT'S WIFE AND THAT MOORE WAS A FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE.  HE DID NOT INQUIRE WHERE MOORE WAS EMPLOYED, BUT COULD HAVE
KNOWN HIS EMPLOYMENT'S EXACT NATURE.  FN21  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT
EITHER MOORE OR ROOT'S WIFE WAS CONNECTED WITH THE BUREAU OF NARCOTICS
OR HAD ANY DUTY EVEN REMOTELY RELATING TO ITS FUNCTIONS OR THOSE OF THE
SECRETARY IN RELATION TO THEM.  FN22 

AS RESPECTS CHALLENGE FOR "ACTUAL BIAS," THE WOOD OPINION WAS CAREFUL
TO PUT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON THE SAME BASIS AS PROSPECTIVE JURORS
PRIVATELY EMPLOYED.  IT STATED: 

"ALL THE RESOURCES OF APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL INQUIRY REMAIN AVAILABLE
IN THIS INSTANCE AS IN OTHERS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER A PROSPECTIVE JUROR,
ALTHOUGH NOT EXEMPTED FROM SERVICE, HAS ANY BIAS IN FACT WHICH WOULD
PREVENT HIS SERVING AS AN IMPARTIAL JUROR.  IN DEALING WITH AN EMPLOYEE
OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE COURT WOULD PROPERLY BE SOLICITOUS TO DISCOVER
WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, OR
OF THE RELATION OF THE PARTICULAR GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY TO THE MATTERS
INVOLVED IN THE PROSECUTION, OR OTHERWISE, HE HAD ACTUAL BIAS, AND, IF
HE HAD, TO DISQUALIFY HIM."  FN23 

PETITIONER CHALLENGED NEITHER MOORE NOR ROOT FOR "ACTUAL BIAS,"
THOUGH AFFORDED THE FULLEST OPPORTUNITY LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY FOR DOING
SO.  AFTER ACCEPTING THEM BEFORE TRIAL, HE COULD NOT CHALLENGE THEM
SUCCESSFULLY IN A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  QUEEN V. HEPBURN, 7 CRANCH
290, 297; RAUB V. CARPENTER, 187 U.S. 159; CF. UNITED STATES V. GALE,
109 U.S. 65.  SEE KOHL V. LEHLBACK, 160 U.S. 293, 299-302.  WHETHER OR
NOT EMPLOYMENT IN THE TREASURY OUTSIDE THE NARCOTICS BUREAU WOULD
CONSTITUTE GROUND FOR CHALLENGE FOR "ACTUAL BIAS,"  FN24  SUCH
EMPLOYMENT IN THE CONNECTIONS DISCLOSED HERE AFFECTING MOORE AND ROOT
WAS NOT SO OBVIOUS A DISQUALIFICATION OR SO INHERENTLY PREJUDICIAL AS A
MATTER OF LAW, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHALLENGE TO THEM BEFORE TRIAL, AS
TO REQUIRE THE COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION OR ON PETITIONER'S SUGGESTION
AFTERWARD TO SET THE VERDICT ASIDE AND GRANT A NEW TRIAL. 

THE CHALLENGE TO MOORE AND ROOT STANDS NO BETTER IF CONSIDERED, NOT
AS A BELATED INDIVIDUAL CHALLENGE FOR "ACTUAL BIAS" TO EACH, BUT AS
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT OR BUTTRESSING FOR THE CHALLENGE TO THE COMPOSITION
OF THE JURY AS A WHOLE.  APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE TWO SORTS OF
CHALLENGE ARE DISTINCT AND ARE THEREFORE TO BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY,
THE CHALLENGE TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE JURY AS MADE TO THE TRIAL COURT
AND AS RULED UPON BY IT, MADE NO SPECIAL REFERENCE TO EITHER MOORE OR
ROOT OR THE PARTICULAR BASES FOR OBJECTION NOW RAISED TO THEM.  FN25
THOSE REFERENCES, SO FAR AS IS SHOWN BY THE RECORD, FIRST APPEARED IN
THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR MADE BY PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
THEY THEREFORE CAME TOO LATE, EVEN IF THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED AS
FORMING PART OF THE CHALLENGE TO THE JURY'S COMPOSITION OR AS ADDING
ANYTHING OF WEIGHT TO THAT CHALLENGE. 

WHETHER THE MATTER IS CONSIDERED TECHNICALLY OR ON THE BROADER,
NONTECHNICAL BASIS OF IMPARTIALITY AS A STATE OF MIND, PETITIONER HAS
SHOWN NO GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE A TRIAL "BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY" SUCH AS THE SIXTH AMENDMENT ASSURED HIM. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  26 U.S.C. SEC. 2553.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED, SUBSTANTIALLY IN
THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, THAT PETITIONER KNOWINGLY, WILFULLY, UNLAWFULLY
AND FELONIOUSLY DID "PURCHASE, SELL, DISPENSE, AND DISTRIBUTE" CERTAIN
NARCOTIC DRUGS "NOT THEN AND THERE, IN OR FROM, THE ORIGINAL STAMPED
PACKAGE." 

FN2  PURSUANT TO 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2606 THE SECRETARY HAS DELEGATED TO
THE COMMISSIONER OF NARCOTICS "THE INVESTIGATION, DETECTION AND
PREVENTION OF VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL NARCOTIC AND MARIHUANA LAWS." 
21 C.F.R., 1946 SUPP., SEC. 206.1.  THE BUREAU OF NARCOTICS, CREATED
WITHIN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 282, IS SUBJECT TO THE
SECRETARY'S "GENERAL SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION," 21 C.F.R., 1946 SUPP.,
SEC. 206.3, AND ITS DECISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY HIM.  5 U.S.C.
SEC. 282C.  THERE WERE 87,830 EMPLOYEES IN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT AS
OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1948, OF WHOM 19,645 WERE EMPLOYED IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  MONTHLY REPORT OF EMPLOYMENT, EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, U.S. CIV. SERV. COMM'N, SEPTEMBER, 1948, TABLE V.
PUBLISHED FIGURES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO SHOW THE NUMBER OF THESE
EMPLOYED BY THE NARCOTICS BUREAU, BUT OBVIOUSLY IN VIEW OF THE NUMBER
AND DIVERSITY OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT'S FUNCTIONS THEY MUST HAVE
COMPRISED ONLY A COMPARATIVELY SMALL FRACTION OF THE TOTAL. 

FN3  SEE PART III INFRA. 

FN4  IN SUMMARY, TWENTY-FIVE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE EXAMINED.  OF
THESE ONE WAS PEREMPTORILY CHALLENGED BY THE PROSECUTION AND TWO WERE
EXCUSED BY THE COURT FOR CAUSE.  OF THE REMAINING TWENTY-TWO, THIRTEEN
WERE IN GOVERNMENT WORK, NINE PRIVATELY EMPLOYED.  PETITIONER
PEREMPTORILY CHALLENGED THE NINE AND ONE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, THUS
EXHAUSTING HIS PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES.  IN THIS MANNER THE JURY COMPOSED
WHOLLY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RESULTED.  PRIOR TO HIS TRIAL PETITIONER
MADE NO INDIVIDUAL CHALLENGE TO ANY OF THE TWELVE WHO CONSTITUTED THE
JURY AS FINALLY SELECTED.  THEY INCLUDED MOORE AND ROOT. 

FN5  THE OBJECTION WAS RENEWED IN PETITIONER'S MOTIONS IN ARREST OF
JUDGMENT AND FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND WAS DENIED IN EACH INSTANCE. 

FN6  "MR. BUCKLEY.  IF YOUR HONOR PLEASE, I HAVE MADE A LITTLE
INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPANELING OR SELECTION OF THIS PANEL HERE AS WELL
AS SELECTION OF THE OTHER PANELS SITTING THIS MONTH, AND I MOST
RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE METHOD AND PROCEDURE USED IN SELECTING IS
IRREGULAR, AND I AM GOING TO MOVE TO STRIKE THIS WHOLE PANEL, THE
REASON BEING THIS:  THAT FROM THE INQUIRIES I HAVE MADE, THERE WERE
ABOUT FIVE HUNDRED OR FIVE HUNDRED AND A FEW JURORS SUBPENAED - THAT
IS, INDIVIDUALLY SUBPENAED TO APPEAR HERE - FROM WHICH THEY SELECTED A
SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF JURORS HERE. 

"IF THERE WERE FIVE HUNDRED, THEY WERE DIVIDED INTO TWO GROUPS, TWO
HUNDRED FIFTY FOR ONE COURT AND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FOR ANOTHER COURT,
AND OF THE TWO HUNDRED FIFTY FOR EACH COURT, THEY WERE ASKED HOW MANY
OF THOSE TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DID NOT DESIRE TO SERVE AS JURORS, TO RAISE
THEIR HANDS, SO THOSE WHO RAISED THEIR HANDS WERE TOLD TO STEP TO ONE
SIDE, AND OUT OF THE REMAINING NUMBER THAT WERE LEFT THEY PICKED THE
JURORS, AND THE REMAINING NUMBER THAT WERE LEFT CONSISTED MOSTLY OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND HOUSEWIVES, AND UNEMPLOYED.  THERE ARE ONLY A
FEW UNEMPLOYED. 

"I KNOW YOUR HONOR HAS READ THIS CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT, THIEL V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY.  THIS IS NOT A PROPER CROSSSECTION. 

"THE COURT.  THE THIEL CASE HOLDS THAT IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THERE
WAS A SYSTEMATIC ATTEMPT TO EXCLUDE A CERTAIN TYPE OR GROUP OF
PERSONS.  ...  THAT IS WHAT THAT CASE HOLDS, AND THAT IS NOT THE
SITUATION HERE." 

FN7  "MR. BUCKLEY.  IF YOUR HONOR PLEASE, WITH REFERENCE TO THE
MOTION WHICH I MADE A WHILE AGO, MOVING TO STRIKE THE WHOLE PANEL, I
NOW FIND MYSELF IN THIS POSITION.  I HAVE EXHAUSTED MY TEN CHALLENGES. 

"IN SELECTING THESE DIFFERENT PANELS ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF THE
MONTH, THE CLERK SAYS TO THE FIVE HUNDRED OR TWO HUNDRED FIFTY,
WHICHEVER IT MAY BE, INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SUMMONED TO APPEAR HERE, FROM
WHICH TO PICK THE JURIES, 'ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT DESIRE TO SERVE, STEP
TO ONE SIDE.' 

"THAT LEAVES A BATCH OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND HOUSEWIVES. 

"NOW, I HAVE EXHAUSTED MY TEN CHALLENGES, AND HERE I HAVE TWELVE
GOVERNMENT JURORS WHO ARE TO DECIDE THIS DEFENDANT'S CASE, WHICH IS A
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE, BEING BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT,
PROSECUTED BY A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AND THE CASE IS PRESENTED BY
FEDERAL AGENTS.  I SUBMIT THERE IS REASON TO CHALLENGE THESE PEOPLE FOR
CAUSE. 

"THE COURT.  I WILL DENY THE MOTION AND REQUEST AT THIS TIME THAT YOU
TAKE IT UP LATER, IN A MOTION AFTER THE VERDICT, IF YOU THINK IT IS
SOUND.  I DO NOT BELIEVE YOUR MOTION IS SOUND.  CHANCE HAS RESULTED IN
THIS JURY PANEL OF TWELVE BEING COMPOSED OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, BUT
THE JURY LIST FROM WHICH THEY BY CHANCE WERE SELECTED IS A MIXTURE OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND PRIVATE EMPLOYEES."    FN8  SEE NOTE 7; CF.
NOTE 6. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 7. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 17 INFRA AND TEXT. 

FN11  THE RIGHT IS IN THE NATURE OF A STATUTORY PRIVILEGE, VARIABLE
IN THE NUMBER OF CHALLENGES ALLOWED, WHICH MAY BE WITHHELD ALTOGETHER
WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF "AN IMPARTIAL JURY"
AND A FAIR TRIAL.  STILSON V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 583, 586, QUOTED
IN UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 123, 145.    EXCEPT IN CASES OF
TREASON AND OTHER CAPITAL OFFENSES, NO RIGHT TO PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
EXISTED IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIALS UNTIL THE ACT OF JUNE 8, 1872, 17
STAT. 282, REV. STAT. SEC. 819, UNLESS A RULE OF THE PARTICULAR FEDERAL
COURT MADE APPLICABLE A PROVISION OF STATE LAW ALLOWING PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES IN NONCAPITAL CASES.  ACT OF APRIL 30, 1790, SEC. 30, 1
STAT. 112, 119; UNITED STATES V. RANDALL, FED. CAS. NO. 16,118; UNITED
STATES V. COTTINGHAM, FED. CAS. NO. 14,872; UNITED STATES V. MCPHERSON,
FED. CAS. NO. 15,703; UNITED STATES V. KROUSE, FED. CAS. NO. 15,544. 
(HOWEVER, THE RIGHT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE IN CAPITAL CASES, WHICH
EXISTED AT COMMON LAW, HAS BEEN SPOKEN OF AS "ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
OF THE RIGHTS SECURED TO THE ACCUSED."  POINTER V. UNITED STATES, 151
U.S. 396, 408; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 146 U.S. 370, 376.) 

IN NONCAPITAL CASES, SUCH AS THIS, THE PRIVILEGE AFFORDS PROTECTION
ADDITIONAL TO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES, TO BE HAD EXCLUSIVELY AT THE
PARTY'S OPTION.  IF NO SUCH PRIVILEGE HAD BEEN GIVEN IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, THE NORMAL AND VALID COURSE OF SELECTION IN THIS CASE WOULD
HAVE PRODUCED A JURY COMPOSED BOTH OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND PERSONS
ENGAGED IN PRIVATE OCCUPATIONS; IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD HAVE MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR PETITIONER TO RAISE HIS OBJECTION TO THE JURY'S
COMPOSITION. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 4; ALSO NOTE 11 AND TEXT. 

FN13 THE ASSUMPTION IS NOT MEANT TO IMPLY THAT SUCH A DEPRIVATION
ALONE WOULD CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR CHALLENGE TO THE JURY.  SEE TEXT AND
AUTHORITIES CITED INFRA AT NOTE 15. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 7. 

FN15  RUTHENBERG V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 480; THOMAS V. TEXAS, 212
U.S. 278, 282; VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313, 322-323; HIGGINS V.
UNITED STATES, 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 371, 372, 160 F.2D 222, 223; SEE FAY
V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 261, 284-285; THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 328
U.S. 217, 220; CF. AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398, 403-404. 

FN16  IBID. 

FN17  SEE UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. AT 132-133, QUOTING FROM
THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, 65 APP. D.C. 330, 332, 83 F.2D
587, 589.  SEE ALSO H.R. REP. NO. 1421, SEN. REP. NO. 1297, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS.; 79 CONG. REC. 13,401, RELATING TO THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE
ACT OF CONGRESS OF AUGUST 22, 1935, NOW D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 11-1420. 
THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF IN THE WOOD CASE, RELYING UPON FIGURES ASSEMBLED
FROM VARIOUS OFFICIAL SOURCES, INDICATED THAT OF THE PROBABLE 353,949
PERSONS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR JURY SERVICE IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AS OF 1935, SOME 156,874, OR 44.3 PER CENT, WERE DISQUALIFIED
TO SERVE EITHER BY VIRTUE OF EXEMPTION OR BY THE MERE FACT OF
EMPLOYMENT BY OR RECEIPT OF BENEFITS FROM THE GOVERNMENT, UNDER THE
RULING IN THE CRAWFORD CASE. 

FN18  GIVEN OF COURSE A PANEL AND JURY OTHERWISE SELECTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  SINCE THE WOOD CASE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS HELD THAT JURIES INCLUDING FOUR AND NINE
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WERE NOT INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE.  GREAT ATLANTIC &
PACIFIC TEA CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 67 APP. D.C. 30, 89 F.2D 502;
HIGGINS V. UNITED STATES, 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 371, 160 F.2D 222.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS HELD THAT A CANAL ZONE JURY
COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF PERSONS WHO WERE EITHER EMPLOYEES OR TENANTS OF
THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED.  SCHACKOW V. GOVERNMENT
OF THE CANAL ZONE, 108 F.2D 625. 

FN19  THE PHRASE "ACTUAL BIAS" IS USED IN THIS OPINION AS IT WAS IN
THE WOOD CASE.  THE WOOD OPINION STATED:  "THE BIAS OF A PROSPECTIVE
JUROR MAY BE ACTUAL OR IMPLIED; THAT IS, IT MAY BE BIAS IN FACT OR BIAS
CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED AS MATTER OF LAW."  299 U.S. AT 133.  IT LATER
POINTED OUT THAT "CHALLENGES AT COMMON LAW WERE TO THE ARRAY, THAT IS,
WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PANEL, OR TO THE POLLS, FOR
DISQUALIFICATION OF A JUROR.  CHALLENGES TO THE POLLS WERE EITHER
'PRINCIPAL' OR 'TO THE FAVOR,' THE FORMER BEING UPON GROUNDS OF
ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION, THE LATTER FOR ACTUAL BIAS."  PP. 134-135. 
AS APPEARS FROM THE PORTION OF THE OPINION QUOTED IN THE TEXT INFRA AT
NOTE 23, THE COURT REGARDED "ACTUAL BIAS" OR CHALLENGE "TO THE FAVOR"
AS INCLUDING NOT ONLY PREJUDICE IN THE SUBJECTIVE SENSE BUT ALSO SUCH
AS MIGHT BE THOUGHT IMPLICITLY TO ARISE "IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OR
CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, OR OF THE RELATION OF THE PARTICULAR
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY TO THE MATTERS INVOLVED IN THE PROSECUTION, OR
OTHERWISE." 

FN20  CF. TEXT SUPRA AT NOTES 3 AND 8. 

FN21  APART FROM PETITIONER'S OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCOVERY BY SPECIFIC
INQUIRY, LISTS OF JURY PANELS, SHOWING THE NAME, AGE, ADDRESS, AND
OCCUPATION OF EACH MEMBER ARE PREPARED IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ARE AVAILABLE TO
COUNSEL BEFORE TRIAL ON REQUEST. 

FN22  CF. NOTE 2. 

FN23  299 U.S. AT 133-134. 

FN24  IN UNITED STATES V. WOOD THE COURT, SPEAKING OF THE CRAWFORD
CASE, SAID:  "IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE EMPLOYMENT WAS IN THE VERY
DEPARTMENT TO THE AFFAIRS OF WHICH THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY RELATED.  BUT
THE DECISION TOOK A BROADER RANGE AND DID NOT REST UPON THAT POSSIBLE
DISTINCTION."  299 U.S. AT 140.  IT IS AT LEAST HIGHLY DOUBTFUL THAT AN
EMPLOYMENT HAVING NO MORE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PARTICULAR GOVERNMENTAL
ACTIVITY INVOLVED IN THE PROSECUTION THAN DID THAT OF MOORE IN THIS
CASE, CF. NOTE 2, OR THAT OF ROOT'S WIFE, WOULD GIVE GROUND FOR
CHALLENGE FOR "ACTUAL BIAS," ALTHOUGH COMING UNDER THE SAME ULTIMATE
DEPARTMENTAL SUPERVISION, EVEN THOUGH IF TIMELY CALLED TO THE COURT'S
ATTENTION THE CIRCUMSTANCE MIGHT AFFORD BASIS FOR THE COURT, IN AN
EXCESS OF CAUTION, TO EXCUSE THE VENIREMAN. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 7. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

ON ONE PROPOSITION I SHOULD EXPECT TRIAL LAWYERS TO BE NEARLY
UNANIMOUS:  THAT A JURY, EVERY MEMBER OF WHICH IS IN THE HIRE OF ONE OF
THE LITIGANTS, LACKS SOMETHING OF BEING AN IMPARTIAL JURY.  A SYSTEM
WHICH HAS PRODUCED SUCH AN OBJECTIONABLE RESULT AND ALWAYS TENDS TO
REPEAT IT, SHOULD, IN MY OPINION, BE DISAPPROVED BY THIS COURT IN
EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY POWER OVER FEDERAL COURTS. 

WERE THE EMPLOYER AN INDIVIDUAL, A RAILROAD, AN INDUSTRIAL CONCERN,
OR EVEN A STATE, I THINK BIAS WOULD MORE READILY BE IMPLIED; BUT ITS
EXISTENCE WOULD BE NO MORE PROBABLE.  THIS CRIMINAL TRIAL WAS AN
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING, WITH THE GOVERNMENT BOTH AN ACTUAL AND NOMINAL
LITIGANT.  IT WAS THE PATRON AND BENEFACTOR OF THE WHOLE JURY, PLUS ONE
JUROR'S WIFE FOR GOOD MEASURE.  AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT MADE ITS PLEA
TO THEM TO CONVICT, IT HAD THE UPPER HAND OF EVERY ONE OF THEM IN
MATTERS SUCH AS PAY AND PROMOTION.  OF LATE YEARS, THE GOVERNMENT IS
USING ITS POWER AS NEVER BEFORE TO PRY INTO THEIR LIVES AND THOUGHTS
UPON THE SLIGHTEST SUSPICION OF LESS THAN COMPLETE TRUSTWORTHINESS.  IT
DEMANDS NOT ONLY PROBITY BUT UNQUESTIONING IDEOLOGICAL LOYALTY.  A
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE CANNOT TODAY BE DISINTERESTED OR UNCONCERNED ABOUT
HIS APPEARANCE OF FAITHFUL AND ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS WHOSE PRESTIGE AND RECORD IS, SOMEWHAT, IF ONLY A LITTLE,
AT STAKE IN EVERY SUCH PROSECUTION.  AND PROSECUTORS SELDOM FAIL TO
STRESS, IF NOT TO EXAGGERATE, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE BEFORE THEM TO
THE WHOLE SOCIAL, IF NOT THE COSMIC, ORDER.  EVEN IF WE HAVE NO REASON
TO BELIEVE THAT AN ACQUITTING JUROR WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO
EMBARRASSMENTS OR REPRISALS, WE CANNOT EXPECT EVERY CLERK AND MESSENGER
IN THE GREAT BUREAUCRACY TO FEEL SO SECURE AS TO PUT HIS DEPENDENCE ON
THE GOVERNMENT WHOLLY OUT OF MIND.  I DO NOT DOUBT THAT THE GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES AS A CLASS POSSESS A NORMAL INDEPENDENCE AND FORTITUDE.  BUT
WE HAVE GROUNDS TO ASSUME ALSO THAT THE NORMAL PROPORTION OF THEM ARE
SUBJECT TO THAT VERY HUMAN WEAKNESS, ESPECIALLY DISPLAYED IN
WASHINGTON, WHICH LEADS MEN TO "  ...  CROOK THE PREGNANT HINGES OF THE
KNEE WHERE THRIFT MAY FOLLOW FAWNING."  SO I REJECT AS SPURIOUS ANY
VIEW THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT DIFFERS FROM ALL OTHER EMPLOYMENT IN
CREATING NO PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE OF DEPENDENCY OR INTEREST IN GAINING
FAVOR, WHICH MIGHT TEND TO PREDETERMINE ISSUES IN THE INTEREST OF THE
PARTY WHICH HAS COMPLETE MASTERY OVER THE JUROR'S AMBITION AND
POSITION.  BUT EVEN IF THIS SUSPICION CAN BE DISMISSED BY THE COURT AS
A MERE PHANTASY, IT CANNOT DENY THAT SUCH A JURY HAS A ONE-SIDED
OUTLOOK ON PROBLEMS BEFORE IT AND AN APPEARANCE OF GOVERNMENT LEVERAGE
WHICH IS ITSELF A BLEMISH ON THE NAME OF JUSTICE IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

BECAUSE THIS SEMBLANCE OF PARTIALITY REFLECTS ON THE COURTS, EVEN IF
IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANT IN A PARTICULAR CASE, I AM NOT
DISPOSED TO LABOR THE ARGUMENT AS TO WHETHER COUNSEL FOR THIS DEFENDANT
DID ALL THAT HE MIGHT OR SHOULD HAVE DONE BY WAY OF OBJECTION.  HE DID
PROTEST AS SOON AS IT WAS APPARENT WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO HIM, AND THAT
SEEMS TO ME SUFFICIENT IN FACE OF ADVERSE RULINGS.  BUT EVEN IF
DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION WERE BELATED OR TECHNICALLY DEFECTIVE, I STILL
THINK THE COURT DESERVES AND SHOULD REQUIRE A MORE NEUTRAL JURY FOR ITS
OWN APPEARANCES, EVEN IF DEFENDANT DOES NOT DESERVE AND CANNOT DEMAND
ONE. 

THE CAUSE OF OVERLOADING THIS JURY WITH PERSONS BEHOLDEN TO THE
GOVERNMENT IS NO MYSTERY AND NO ACCIDENT.  IT IS DUE TO A DEFECT IN A
SYSTEM WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN THE SAME DIRECTION SO LONG AS
THE SAME PRACTICE IS FOLLOWED.  WHILE COUNSEL DID NOT PROVE IT UNDER
OATH, HE STATED IT FOR THE RECORD AND NEITHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY NOR
THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE, BOTH OF WHOM MUST HAVE KNOWN THE FACTS, DENIED
OR QUESTIONED HIS STATEMENT OR ASKED HIM FOR BETTER EVIDENCE.  THAT
DEFECT IS THIS:  WHEN THE PANEL OF JURORS WAS DRAWN, THE COURT APPEARS
TO HAVE ASKED ALL THOSE WHO DID NOT WISH TO SERVE TO STEP ASIDE, AND
THEY WERE EXCUSED FROM SERVING. 

THIS AMIABLE CONCESSION IN SOME JURISDICTIONS MIGHT PRODUCE NO
DISTORTION OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL; BUT IT IS CERTAIN TO DO
JUST THAT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BECAUSE OF THE DUAL STANDARD AND
DUBIOUS METHOD OF JURY COMPENSATION.  THE NONGOVERNMENT JUROR RECEIVES
$4 PER DAY, FN1  WHICH UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS IS INADEQUATE TO BE
COMPENSATORY TO NEARLY EVERY GAINFULLY EMPLOYED JUROR.  BUT THE
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS NOT PAID SPECIALLY; INSTEAD, HE IS GIVEN LEAVE
FROM HIS GOVERNMENT WORK WITH FULL PAY WHILE SERVING ON THE JURY.  FN2
THE LATTER CLASS ARE THUS INDUCED TO JURY SERVICE BY PROTECTION AGAINST
ANY FINANCIAL LOSS, WHILE THE FORMER ARE SUBJECTED TO CONSIDERABLE
DISADVANTAGE. 

THIS CONDITION MAKES IT OBVIOUS THAT, IF JURY SERVICE IS PUT ON
VIRTUALLY A VOLUNTARY BASIS AND QUALIFIED PERSONS ARE ALLOWED TO
DECLINE JURY SERVICE AT THEIR OWN OPTION, THE PANEL WILL BECOME LOADED
WITH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  IF THIS UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF SUCH JURORS
WERE ACCOMPLISHED BY ANY DEVICE WHICH EXCLUDED NONGOVERNMENT JURORS, IT
UNQUESTIONABLY WOULD BE CONDEMNED NOT ONLY BY REASON OF BUT EVEN
WITHOUT RESORT TO THE DOCTRINE THAT PREVAILED IN BALLARD V. UNITED
STATES, 329 U.S. 187; THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 328 U.S. 217; AND
GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60. 

IS THE RESULT MORE LAWFUL WHEN IT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY LETTING ONE
CLASS EXCLUDE THEMSELVES, STIMULATED TO DO SO BY THE INCENTIVE OF SUCH
A DUAL SYSTEM OF COMPENSATION? 

OF COURSE, THE DEFENDANT AND THE PROSECUTION EACH HAVE PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES, TEN IN THIS CASE, WHICH ENABLE EACH WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY
CAUSE TO EXCUSE THAT NUMBER WHOM THEY DO NOT WISH TO HAVE SIT.  THIS
DEFENDANT USED MANY OF HIS CHALLENGES TO EXCUSE TALESMEN NOT EMPLOYED
BY THE GOVERNMENT AND IT IS HINTED THAT HE MAY HAVE PACKED THIS JURY
AGAINST HIMSELF.  THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE MADE NO SUCH SUGGESTION,
HOWEVER, AND HE WOULD BE BETTER ABLE THAN WE TO DETECT SUCH TACTICS. 
HE BLAMED THE SITUATION ON "CHANCE."  BUT THE FICKLE GODDESS IS HARDLY
TO BE BLAMED FOR THE RESULT WHEN IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE CARDS WERE
STACKED FROM THE BEGINNING.  THIS WAS PLAINLY THE CASE WHEN WE CONTRAST
UNEQUAL ADVANTAGES WHICH THE TWO PARTIES COULD GET FROM THEIR EQUAL
NUMBERS OF CHALLENGES. 

THE GOVERNMENT WAS CONFRONTED BY NO OCCASION TO USE ANY OF ITS
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO GET RID OF ITS ADVERSARY'S EMPLOYEES.  THE
DEFENDANT WAS.  BUT IF THE DEFENDANT SHOULD TRY TO USE HIS CHALLENGES
TO EXCUSE EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT, HE WOULD DISMISS ONE ONLY TO
INCUR A PROBABILITY OF GETTING ANOTHER.  IF HE EXHAUSTED HIS CHALLENGES
IN THIS EFFORT, IT WOULD STILL BE FUTILE, FOR NO ONE CLAIMS HE HAD
ENOUGH TO DISPLACE THEM ALL.  IT MIGHT NOT BE WISE TACTICS TO SHOW
SUSPICION OR DISAPPROVAL OF A CLASS SOME OF WHOM WILL HAVE TO SIT
ANYWAY.  MOREOVER, IF HE USED HIS CHALLENGES AS FAR AS THEY WOULD GO TO
DISLODGE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS, IT WOULD LEAVE HIM HELPLESS TO CHALLENGE
ANY OF THE NONGOVERNMENT JURORS, FOR WHICH CHALLENGE HE MIGHT HAVE GOOD
REASON. 

THE DISADVANTAGE OF DEFENDANT AS TO TALESMEN FROM GOVERNMENT RANKS IS
MORE APPARENT BUT NOT MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN WITH TALESMEN FROM OTHER
WALKS OF LIFE.  WHATEVER REASON HE MAY HAVE HAD FOR EXCUSING SUCH A
ONE, THE PRICE HE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE HAD TO PAY FOR USING HIS
CHALLENGE WAS TO HAVE ONE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE TAKE ANOTHER'S PLACE. 
THE GOVERNMENT COULD VACATE THE SEAT OF A NONGOVERNMENT TALESMAN WITH
NO SUCH UNWELCOME RESULTS.  THE SHORT OF THE THING IS: IN NO CASE WHERE
THE COURT HAS INTERVENED TO USE ITS SUPERVISORY POWER TO REVISE FEDERAL
JURY SYSTEMS HAS THERE BEEN ANY RESULT SO CONSISTENTLY AND INEVITABLY
PREJUDICIAL TO ONE OF THE LITIGANTS AS HERE, UNDER OUR NOSES.  BALLARD
V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 187; THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC, 328 U.S.
217; GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60.  AND IN CASES WHERE A
STRONG MINORITY OF THE COURT HAS WANTED TO GO SO FAR AS TO UPSET A
STATE JURY SYSTEM, AS OFFENSIVE TO FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF
JUSTICE SPELLED OUT FROM THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, THERE HAS BEEN NO SUCH BRAZEN UNFAIRNESS IN ACTUAL
PRACTICE.  MOORE V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 565; FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S.
261. 

THE PRECEDENT OF UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 123, ON WHICH THE
COURT LEANS HEAVILY, IS A WEAK CRUTCH.  THAT DECISION HELD ONLY THAT
THE ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION OF ANY FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, WHICH HAD BEEN
DECLARED IN CRAWFORD V. UNITED STATES, 212 U.S. 183, COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE REMOVED BY THE CONGRESS.  IN THE CASE THE COURT WAS
CONSIDERING ONLY THREE OUT OF THE TWELVE WERE BY CHANCE GOVERNMENT
BENEFICIARIES AND THE COURT WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH SUCH A SYSTEMATIC
DISTORTION OF THE JURY AS WAS AT WORK HERE.  IT HELD THAT,
INDIVIDUALLY, THEY WERE NOT SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE; THAT IS,
THEY WERE NOT EXCUSABLE BY THE COURT MERELY BECAUSE THEY WERE
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  BUT TO HOLD THAT ONE OR A FEW GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES MAY SIT BY CHANCE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR HOLDING THAT THEY MAY
FILL ALL OF THE CHAIRS BY A SYSTEM OF RETIRING EVERYONE ELSE. 
FURTHERMORE, THAT OPINION EMPHASIZED THAT THE PROSECUTION IN THAT CASE
WAS FOR LARCENY FROM A PRIVATE CORPORATION.  THAT WAS NOT AN OFFENSE
AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS SUCH, EXCEPT AS IT HAS RESPONSIBILITY
FOR PROSECUTING CRIMES IN THE DISTRICT THAT IN THE STATE WOULD BE A
MATTER OF NO FEDERAL CONCERN OR EVEN JURISDICTION.  BUT THE PROSECUTION
BEFORE US IS NOT FOR AN OFFENSE OF A PRIVATE ASPECT; IT IS AN OFFENSE
AGAINST NO ONE EXCEPT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY; AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY, IN WHOSE OWN OFFICE ONE OF THESE JURORS WAS EMPLOYED, HAS
EXCLUSIVE AND NATIONWIDE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW
INVOLVED. 

IF WE ADMIT EVERY FACT, PREMISE, ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSION STATED IN
THE COURT'S OPINION, IT STILL LEAVES THIS ONE SITUATION UNEXPLAINED AND
UNJUSTIFIED.  IN FEDERAL COURTS, OVER WHICH WE HAVE SUPERVISORY POWER,
SITTING ALMOST WITHIN A STONE'S THROW OF WHERE WE SIT, A SYSTEM IS IN
OPERATION WHICH HAS PRODUCED AND IS LIKELY AGAIN AND AGAIN TO PRODUCE
WHAT DISINTERESTED PERSONS ARE LIKELY TO REGARD AS A PACKED JURY. 
APPROVAL OF IT, AFTER ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN OF LATE ON THE SUBJECT
OF JURIES, MAKES THESE LOFTY PRONOUNCEMENTS SOUND A LITTLE HOLLOW. 

I WOULD REVERSE THIS RATHER INSIGNIFICANT CONVICTION AND END THIS
SYSTEM BEFORE IT BUILDS UP INTO A SCANDALOUS NECESSITY FOR REVERSAL OF
SOME REALLY SIGNIFICANT CONVICTION. 

FN1  D.C. CODE, TITLE 11, SEC. 1513(1940). 

FN2  D.C. CODE, TITLE 11, SECS. 1421-23(1940). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















HIROTA V. MACARTHUR, 338 U.S. 197 


ARGUED DECEMBER 16-17, 1948.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1948.  - CONCURRING
OPINION ANNOUNCED JUNE 27, 1949. 


1.  THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL SET UP IN JAPAN BY GENERAL MACARTHUR AS THE
AGENT OF THE ALLIED POWERS IS NOT A TRIBUNAL OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE NO POWER OR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW,
AFFIRM, SET ASIDE, OR ANNUL THE JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES IMPOSED BY IT
ON THESE PETITIONERS, ALL OF WHOM ARE RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF JAPAN. 
P. 198. 

2.  FOR THIS REASON, THEIR MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR
WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS ARE DENIED.  P. 198. 

HIROTA V. MACARTHUR, GENERAL OF THE ARMY, ET AL. 

NO. 239, MISC.  MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 240, MISC., DOHIHARA V. MACARTHUR, GENERAL OF THE
ARMY, ET AL. AND NO. 248, MISC., KIDO ET AL. V. MACARTHUR, GENERAL OF
THE ARMY, ET AL., ALSO ON MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR WRITS
OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE PETITIONERS, ALL RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF JAPAN, ARE BEING HELD
IN CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A MILITARY TRIBUNAL IN JAPAN. 
TWO OF THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH, THE OTHERS TO
TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT.  THEY FILED MOTIONS IN THIS COURT FOR LEAVE TO
FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  WE SET ALL THE MOTIONS FOR HEARING
ON THE QUESTION OF OUR POWER TO GRANT THE RELIEF PRAYED AND THAT ISSUE
HAS NOW BEEN FULLY PRESENTED AND ARGUED. 

WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SENTENCING THESE PETITIONERS IS
NOT A TRIBUNAL OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER
ALLIED COUNTRIES CONQUERED AND NOW OCCUPY AND CONTROL JAPAN.  GENERAL
DOUGLAS MACARTHUR HAS BEEN SELECTED AND IS ACTING AS THE SUPREME
COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS.  THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL SENTENCING
THESE PETITIONERS HAS BEEN SET UP BY GENERAL MACARTHUR AS THE AGENT OF
THE ALLIED POWERS. 

UNDER THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
HAVE NO POWER OR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW, TO AFFIRM, SET ASIDE OR ANNUL THE
JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES IMPOSED ON THESE PETITIONERS AND FOR THIS
REASON THE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS
CORPUS ARE DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE RESERVES DECISION AND THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS
VOTE UNTIL A LATER TIME* . 

*MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DIED SEPTEMBER 10, 1949, WITHOUT HAVING
ANNOUNCED HIS VOTE ON THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE FINAL DECISION ON THESE
MOTIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING* . 

*THESE MOTIONS WERE ARGUED DECEMBER 16 AND 17, 1948 AND THE OPINION
OF THE COURT HANDED DOWN DECEMBER 20, 1948.  I WAS NOT ABLE WITHIN THAT
SHORT TIME TO REDUCE MY VIEWS TO WRITING.  HENCE I CONCURRED IN THE
RESULT "FOR REASONS TO BE STATED IN AN OPINION." 

(REPORTER'S NOTE:  THIS OPINION WAS ANNOUNCED ON JUNE 27, 1949.) 

THESE CASES PRESENT NEW, IMPORTANT AND DIFFICULT PROBLEMS. 

PETITIONERS ARE CITIZENS OF JAPAN.  THEY WERE ALL HIGH OFFICIALS OF
THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT OR OFFICERS OF THE JAPANESE ARMY DURING WORLD
WAR II.  THEY ARE HELD IN CUSTODY PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL FOR THE FAR EAST.  THEY WERE FOUND
GUILTY BY THAT TRIBUNAL OF VARIOUS SO-CALLED WAR CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY. 

PETITIONERS AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENT OF THESE CASES WERE CONFINED IN
TOKYO, JAPAN, UNDER THE CUSTODY OF RESPONDENT WALKER, COMMANDING
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES EIGHTH ARMY, WHO HELD THEM PURSUANT TO THE
ORDERS OF RESPONDENT MACARTHUR, SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED
POWERS.  OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE UNITED STATES
ARMY, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, AND THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE. 

FIRST.  THERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF JURISDICTION THAT LIES AT
THE THRESHOLD OF THESE CASES.  RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE COURT IS
WITHOUT POWER TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THESE CASES.  IT IS
ARGUED THAT THE COURT HAS NO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS DEFINED IN ART.
III, SEC. 2, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, FN1  SINCE THESE ARE NOT CASES
AFFECTING AN AMBASSADOR, PUBLIC MINISTER, OR CONSUL; NOR IS A STATE A
PARTY.  AND IT IS URGED THAT APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS ABSENT (1)
BECAUSE MILITARY COMMISSIONS DO NOT EXERCISE JUDICIAL POWER WITHIN THE
MEANING OF ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND HENCE ARE NOT
AGENCIES WHOSE JUDGMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COURT; AND (2) NO
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO WHICH THE POTENTIAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT EXTENDS HAS JURISDICTION OVER THIS CAUSE. 

IT IS TO THE LATTER CONTENTION ALONE THAT CONSIDERATION NEED BE
GIVEN.  I THINK IT IS PLAIN THAT A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DOES HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS TO
EXAMINE INTO THE CAUSE OF THE RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY OF THE PETITIONERS. 

THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED WAS EXPRESSLY RESERVED IN AHRENS V. CLARK,
335 U.S. 188, 192, NOTE 4.  IN THAT CASE ALIENS DETAINED AT ELLIS
ISLAND SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE BY HABEAS CORPUS THE LEGALITY OF THEIR
DETENTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IT WAS
ARGUED THAT THAT COURT HAD JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CUSTODY, WAS PRESENT THERE.  WE REJECTED
THAT VIEW, HOLDING THAT IT WAS THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE PETITIONERS
WERE CONFINED THAT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WRIT.  IT IS NOW
ARGUED THAT NO DISTRICT COURT CAN ACT IN THESE CASES BECAUSE IF IN ONE
CASE THEIR JURISDICTION UNDER THE HABEAS CORPUS STATUTE FN2  IS LIMITED
TO INQUIRIES INTO THE CAUSES OF RESTRAINTS OF LIBERTY OF THOSE CONFINED
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS OF THOSE COURTS, IT IS SO LIMITED
IN ANY OTHER. 

THAT RESULT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT FOLLOW.  IN AHRENS V. CLARK, SUPRA, WE
WERE DEALING WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER AMONG THE SEVERAL
DISTRICT COURTS.  THERE WAS AN EXPLICIT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, INDICATING
DISAPPROVAL OF A PRACTICE OF MOVING PRISONERS FROM ONE DISTRICT TO
ANOTHER IN ORDER TO GRANT THEM THE HEARINGS TO WHICH THEY ARE
ENTITLED.  WE HELD THAT THE COURT AT THE PLACE OF CONFINEMENT WAS THE
COURT TO WHICH APPLICATION MUST BE MADE.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT,
WHERE THAT PLACE IS NOT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF ANY
DISTRICT COURT, JUDICIAL POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT IS RENDERED IMPOTENT. 

HABEAS CORPUS IS AN HISTORIC WRIT AND ONE OF THE BASIC SAFEGUARDS OF
PERSONAL LIBERTY.  SEE BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 26.  THERE IS NO
ROOM FOR NIGGARDLY RESTRICTIONS WHEN QUESTIONS RELATING TO ITS
AVAILABILITY ARE RAISED.  THE STATUTES GOVERNING ITS USE MUST BE
GENEROUSLY CONSTRUED IF THE GREAT OFFICE OF THE WRIT IS NOT TO BE
IMPAIRED.  IN AHRENS V. CLARK, SUPRA, DENIAL OF A REMEDY IN ONE
DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT A DENIAL OF A REMEDY IN ALL OF THEM.  THERE WAS
A DISTRICT COURT TO WHICH THOSE PETITIONERS COULD RESORT.  BUT IN THESE
CASES THERE IS NONE IF THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS IN ALL
RESPECTS RESTRICTED TO CASES OF PRISONERS WHO ARE CONFINED WITHIN THEIR
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES. 

SUCH A HOLDING WOULD HAVE GRAVE AND ALARMING CONSEQUENCES.  TODAY
JAPANESE WAR LORDS APPEAL TO THE COURT FOR APPLICATION OF AMERICAN
STANDARDS OF JUSTICE.  TOMORROW OR NEXT YEAR AN AMERICAN CITIZEN MAY
STAND CONDEMNED IN GERMANY OR JAPAN BY A MILITARY COURT OR COMMISSION. 
FN3  IF NO UNITED STATES COURT CAN INQUIRE INTO THE LAWFULNESS OF HIS
DETENTION, THE MILITARY HAVE ACQUIRED, CONTRARY TO OUR TRADITIONS (SEE
EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1; IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1), A NEW AND
ALARMING HOLD ON US. 

I CANNOT AGREE TO SUCH A GRAVE AND STARTLING RESULT.  IT HAS NEVER
BEEN DEEMED ESSENTIAL THAT THE PRISONER IN EVERY CASE BE WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE DISTRICT WHERE HE SEEKS RELIEF BY WAY OF
HABEAS CORPUS.  IN EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283, 304-306, A PRISONER HAD
BEEN REMOVED, PENDING AN APPEAL, FROM THE DISTRICT WHERE THE PETITION
HAD BEEN FILED.  WE HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MIGHT ACT IF THERE WAS
A RESPONDENT WITHIN REACH OF ITS PROCESS WHO HAD CUSTODY OF THE
PRISONER.  THE AIM OF THE STATUTE IS THE PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  THE ALLOCATION OF JURISDICTION AMONG THE DISTRICT COURTS,
RECOGNIZED IN AHRENS V. CLARK, IS A PROBLEM OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION,
NOT A METHOD OF CONTRACTING THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS SO AS TO
DELIMIT THEIR POWER TO ISSUE THE HISTORIC WRIT. 

THE PLACE TO TRY THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE IS IN THE DISTRICT WHERE
THERE IS A RESPONDENT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CUSTODY OF
PETITIONERS.  THAT DISTRICT IS OBVIOUSLY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
THAT RESULT WAS REACHED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IN EISENTRAGER V. FORRESTAL, 84 U.S. APP. D.C. 396, 174 F.2D
961.  IT HELD, IN THE CASE OF A GERMAN NATIONAL CONFINED IN GERMANY IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, THAT THE COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION OVER THOSE WHO HAVE DIRECTIVE POWER OVER THE JAILER
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES COULD ISSUE THE WRIT.  IN MY VIEW THAT IS THE
CORRECT RESULT.  FOR WE WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE UNITED STATES
GENERALS WHO HAVE CUSTODY OF PETITIONERS ARE BIGGER THAN OUR GOVERNMENT
TO HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENT-OFFICIALS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT HAVE NO
CONTROL OR COMMAND OVER THEM.  THAT RESULT WOULD RAISE GRAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, AS EISENTRAGER V. FORRESTAL, SUPRA,
SUGGESTS. 

IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR TO ME THAT THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA IS THE COURT TO HEAR THESE MOTIONS.  THE APPROPRIATE COURSE
WOULD BE TO REMIT THE PARTIES TO IT, RESERVING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS
UNTIL THE CASES COME HERE BY CERTIORARI.  BUT THE COURT IS UNWILLING TO
TAKE THAT COURSE, APPARENTLY BECAUSE IT DEEMS THE CASES SO PRESSING AND
THE ISSUES SO UNSUBSTANTIAL THAT THE MOTIONS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY
DISPOSED OF. 

SECOND.  THE COURT IN DENYING LEAVE TO FILE STATES: 

"WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SENTENCING THESE PETITIONERS IS
NOT A TRIBUNAL OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER
ALLIED COUNTRIES CONQUERED AND NOW OCCUPY AND CONTROL JAPAN.  GENERAL
DOUGLAS MACARTHUR HAS BEEN SELECTED AND IS ACTING AS THE SUPREME
COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS.  THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL SENTENCING
THESE PETITIONERS HAS BEEN SET UP BY GENERAL MACARTHUR AS THE AGENT OF
THE ALLIED POWERS. 

"UNDER THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
HAVE NO POWER OR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW, TO AFFIRM, SET ASIDE OR ANNUL THE
JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES IMPOSED ON THESE PETITIONERS....." 

BUT THAT STATEMENT DOES NOT IN MY OPINION ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THE
PROBLEM.  THE FORMULA WHICH IT EVOLVES TO DISPOSE OF THE CASES IS
INDEED POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.  IT LEAVES PRACTICALLY NO ROOM FOR
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF THIS NEW TYPE OF MILITARY TRIBUNAL WHICH IS
EVOLVING.  IT LEAVES THE POWER OF THOSE TRIBUNALS ABSOLUTE.  PRISONERS
HELD UNDER ITS MANDATES MAY HAVE APPEAL TO THE CONSCIENCE OR MERCY OF
AN EXECUTIVE; BUT THEY APPARENTLY HAVE NO APPEAL TO LAW. 

THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN SET UP THE ALLIED POWERS SHOULD
NOT OF ITSELF PRECLUDE OUR INQUIRY.  OUR INQUIRY IS DIRECTED NOT TO THE
CONDUCT OF THE ALLIED POWERS BUT TO THE CONDUCT OF OUR OWN OFFICIALS. 
OUR WRIT WOULD RUN NOT TO AN OFFICIAL OF AN ALLIED POWER BUT TO OUR OWN
OFFICIAL.  WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW NOT WHAT AUTHORITY OUR ALLIES HAD TO
DO WHAT THEY DID BUT WHAT AUTHORITY OUR OFFICIALS HAD. 

IF AN AMERICAN GENERAL HOLDS A PRISONER, OUR PROCESS CAN REACH HIM
WHEREVER HE IS.  TO THAT EXTENT AT LEAST, THE CONSTITUTION FOLLOWS THE
FLAG.  IT IS NO DEFENSE FOR HIM TO SAY THAT HE ACTS FOR THE ALLIED
POWERS.  HE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO IS PERFORMING FUNCTIONS FOR OUR
GOVERNMENT.  IT IS OUR CONSTITUTION WHICH HE SUPPORTS AND DEFENDS.  IF
THERE IS EVASION OR VIOLATION OF ITS OBLIGATIONS, IT IS NO DEFENSE THAT
HE ACTS FOR ANOTHER NATION.  THERE IS AT PRESENT NO GROUP OR
CONFEDERATION TO WHICH AN OFFICIAL OF THIS NATION OWES A HIGHER
OBLIGATION THAN HE OWES TO US. 

I ASSUME THAT WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF AN
INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.  BUT IF AS A RESULT OF UNLAWFUL ACTION, ONE OF
OUR GENERALS HOLDS A PRISONER IN HIS CUSTODY, THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CAN EFFECT A RELEASE FROM THAT CUSTODY.  IT IS THE HISTORIC FUNCTION OF
THE WRIT TO EXAMINE INTO THE CAUSE OF RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY.  WE SHOULD
NOT ALLOW THAT INQUIRY TO BE THWARTED MERELY BECAUSE THE JAILER ACTS
NOT ONLY FOR THE UNITED STATES BUT FOR OTHER NATIONS AS WELL. 

LET ME ILLUSTRATE THE GRAVITY AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE CONCLUSION OF
THE COURT. 

(1)  SUPPOSE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN COLLABORATED WITH PETITIONERS IN
PLOTTING A WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES PROVIDE SEVERE PENALTIES FOR SUCH CONDUCT.  MAY THAT CITIZEN BE
TRIED AND CONVICTED BY AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL AND HAVE NO ACCESS TO
OUR COURTS TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE ACTION OF OUR
REPRESENTATIVES ON IT?  MAY HE, IN THE FACE OF THE SAFEGUARDS WHICH OUR
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES EVEN FOR TRAITORS, HAVE NO PROTECTION AGAINST
AMERICAN ACTION AGAINST HIM? 

(2)  SUPPOSE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ON A VISIT TO JAPAN DURING THE
OCCUPATION COMMITS MURDER, EMBEZZLEMENT, OR THE LIKE.  MAY HE BE TRIED
BY AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL AND HAVE NO RECOURSE TO OUR COURTS TO
CHALLENGE ITS JURISDICTION OVER HIM? 

(3)  WHAT ABOUT ANY OTHER CIVILIAN SO TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR SUCH A
CRIME COMMITTED DURING THE OCCUPATION? 

THESE ARE INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AS COLLABORATION AMONG
NATIONS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL CONTINUES.  THEY POSE QUESTIONS FOR
WHICH THERE IS NO PRECEDENT.  BUT WE SACRIFICE PRINCIPLE WHEN WE STOP
OUR INQUIRY ONCE WE ASCERTAIN THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS INTERNATIONAL. 

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD ADHERE TO THAT FORMULA IF THESE
PETITIONERS WERE AMERICAN CITIZENS.  I CANNOT BELIEVE WE WOULD ADHERE
TO IT IF THIS TRIBUNAL OR SOME OTHER TRIBUNAL WERE TRYING AMERICAN
CITIZENS FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE
OCCUPATION.  IN THOSE CASES WE WOULD, I FEEL, LOOK BEYOND THE CHARACTER
OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE PERSONS BEING TRIED AND THE OFFENSES WITH WHICH
THEY WERE CHARGED.  WE WOULD ASCERTAIN WHETHER, SO FAR AS AMERICAN
PARTICIPATION IS CONCERNED, THERE WAS AUTHORITY TO TRY THE DEFENDANTS
FOR THE PRECISE CRIMES WITH WHICH THEY ARE CHARGED.  THAT IS WHAT WE
SHOULD DO HERE.    (1)  GENERAL DOUGLAS MACARTHUR IS THE SUPREME
COMMANDER FOR THE ALLIED POWERS.  THE POTSDAM DECLARATION (JULY 26,
1945) PROVIDED FOR OCCUPATION OF JAPAN BY THE ALLIES.  THE INSTRUMENT
OF SURRENDER (SEPTEMBER 2, 1945) ACCEPTED THE TERMS OF THE POTSDAM
DECLARATION.  BY THE MOSCOW AGREEMENT (DECEMBER 27, 1945) THE SUPREME
COMMANDER WAS RECOGNIZED AS "THE SOLE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE
ALLIED POWERS IN JAPAN."  IT ALSO ESTABLISHED A FAR EASTERN COMMISSION
COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES OF ELEVEN NATIONS.  IT WAS VESTED WITH
BROAD POWERS (A) TO FORMULATE POLICIES, PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS BY
WHICH JAPAN WILL FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TERMS OF SURRENDER
AND (B) TO REVIEW DIRECTIVES ISSUED TO THE SUPREME COMMANDER OR ANY
ACTION TAKEN BY HIM INVOLVING POLICY DECISIONS WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION.  ALL DIRECTIVES EMBODYING POLICY DECISIONS OF THE
COMMISSION ARE TO BE PREPARED BY THE UNITED STATES AND IT TRANSMITS
THEM TO THE SUPREME COMMANDER.  FN4  AND THE COMMISSION IS ENJOINED TO
RESPECT "THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO THE
SUPREME COMMANDER AND THE SUPREME COMMANDER'S COMMAND OF OCCUPATION
FORCES." 

THE WAR CRIMES POLICY OF THE ALLIED POWERS AS RESPECTS JAPAN SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN FIRST SUGGESTED IN THE CAIRO DECLARATION  FN5  (DECEMBER 1,
1943).  THE POTSDAM DECLARATION PROMISED THAT "STERN JUSTICE" WOULD BE
METED OUT "TO ALL WAR CRIMINALS." 

THE FAR EASTERN COMMISSION ON APRIL 3, 1946, ADOPTED A POLICY
DECISION WHICH DEFINED "WAR CRIMES" AS INCLUDING "PLANNING,
PREPARATION, INITIATION OR WAGING OF A WAR OF AGGRESSION OR A WAR IN
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, AGREEMENTS AND ASSURANCES, OR
PARTICIPATION IN A COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
ANY OF THE FOREGOING."  IT PROVIDED THAT THE SUPREME COMMANDER FOR THE
ALLIED POWERS SHOULD HAVE POWER TO APPOINT SPECIAL INTERNATIONAL
MILITARY COURTS TO TRY WAR CRIMINALS.  PRIOR TO THIS TIME THE SUPREME
COMMANDER HAD CONSTITUTED A COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE AND HAD APPOINTED
JUDGES FROM VARIOUS NATIONS TO IT.  ON RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTIVE BASED
ON THE COMMISSION'S WAR CRIMES POLICY DECISION HE PROVIDED A NEW COURT
THE ONE BEFORE WHICH PETITIONERS WERE TRIED.  TO THIS COURT THE
SUPREME COMMANDER APPOINTED FROM NAMES SUBMITTED BY THE RESPECTIVE
NATIONS ELEVEN JUDGES - ONE EACH FROM THE UNITED STATES, CHINA, UNITED
KINGDOM, RUSSIA, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, FRANCE, THE NETHERLANDS, NEW
ZEALAND, INDIA, AND THE PHILIPPINES. 

SO I THINK THERE CAN BE NO SERIOUS DOUBT THAT, THOUGH THE ARRANGEMENT
IS IN MANY RESPECTS AMORPHOUS AND THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL IS DOMINATED BY
AMERICAN INFLUENCE, IT IS NONETHELESS INTERNATIONAL IN CHARACTER.  BUT
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE CHAIN OF COMMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES TO
THE SUPREME COMMANDER IS UNBROKEN.  IT IS HE WHO HAS CUSTODY OF
PETITIONERS.  IT IS THROUGH THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND THAT THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS CAN REACH THE SUPREME COMMANDER. 

(2)  THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO DEFINE AND PUNISH
"OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS  ...  "  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 10. 
IT IS ARGUED THAT CONGRESS HERE HAS NOT MADE AGGRESSIVE WAR A CRIME NOR
PROVIDED INDIVIDUAL PUNISHMENT FOR WAGING IT.  IT IS THEREFORE ARGUED
THAT THESE PETITIONERS CANNOT BE TRIED BY UNITED STATES OFFICIALS FOR
ANY SUCH CRIME.  WE DO NOT NEED TO CONSIDER A CASE WHERE THE DEFINITION
GIVEN BY CONGRESS CONFLICTS WITH WHAT A PRESIDENT DOES.  THERE IS NO
CONFLICT HERE.  THE GRANT OF POWER TO THE CONGRESS DOES NOT NECESSARILY
PRECLUDE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY BY THE PRESIDENT.  THE CONSTITUTION
MAKES THE PRESIDENT THE "COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY OF THE
UNITED STATES  ...  "  ART. II, SEC. 2, CL. 1.  HIS POWER AS SUCH IS
VASTLY GREATER THAN THAT OF TROOP COMMANDER.  HE NOT ONLY HAS FULL
POWER TO REPEL AND DEFEAT THE ENEMY; HE HAS THE POWER TO OCCUPY THE
CONQUERED COUNTRY (NEW ORLEANS V. STEAMSHIP CO., 20 WALL.  387, 394)
AND TO PUNISH THOSE ENEMIES WHO VIOLATED THE LAW OF WAR.  EX PARTE
QUIRIN, SUPRA, AT 28-29; IN RE YAMASHITA, SUPRA, AT 10-11.  WE NEED NOT
CONSIDER TO WHAT EXTENT, IF ANY, THE PRESIDENT, IN PROVIDING THAT
JUSTICE BE METED OUT TO A DEFEATED ENEMY, WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW (AS HE
DID IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, SUPRA, AND IN RE YAMASHITA, SUPRA) THE
PROCEDURE THAT CONGRESS HAD PRESCRIBED FOR SUCH CASES.  HERE THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT UTILIZE THE CONVENTIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNALS PROVIDED
FOR BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR.  HE DID NOT ACT ALONE BUT ONLY IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE ALLIED POWERS.  THIS TRIBUNAL WAS AN INTERNATIONAL
ONE ARRANGED FOR THROUGH NEGOTIATION WITH THE ALLIED POWERS. 

THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE ORGAN OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD OF
FOREIGN RELATIONS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S.
304, 318-321.  AGREEMENTS WHICH HE HAS MADE WITH OUR ALLIES IN
FURTHERANCE OF OUR WAR EFFORTS HAVE BEEN LEGION.  WHETHER THEY ARE WISE
OR UNWISE, NECESSARY OR IMPROVIDENT, ARE POLITICAL QUESTIONS, NOT
JUSTICIABLE ONES.  THAT IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF QUESTIONS RELATING TO
THE COMMENCEMENT AND CONDUCT OF THE WAR.  AGREEMENT WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF WAR CRIMINALS, INSOFAR AS IT INVOLVES
ALIENS WHO ARE THE OFFICIALS OF THE ENEMY OR MEMBERS OF ITS ARMED
SERVICES, IS A PART OF THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.  IT IS A FURTHERANCE
OF THE HOSTILITIES DIRECTED TO A DILUTION OF ENEMY POWER AND INVOLVING
RETRIBUTION FOR WRONGS DONE.  IT FALLS AS CLEARLY IN THE REALM OF
POLITICAL DECISIONS AS ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF MILITARY ALLIANCES IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE COMMON OBJECTIVE OF VICTORY.  CF. GEORGIA V.
STANTON, 6 WALL.  50, 71. 

AFTER THE ESCAPE OF NAPOLEON FROM ELBA WHERE HE HAD VOLUNTARILY
RETIRED, HE WAS BY AGREEMENT AMONG THE POWERS ENTRUSTED TO THE CUSTODY
OF GREAT BRITAIN.  THEN FOLLOWED HIS BANISHMENT TO ST. HELENA.  I HAVE
NO DOUBT THAT OUR PRESIDENT COULD HAVE DONE THE SAME AS RESPECTS THESE
PETITIONERS.  OR HE COULD HAVE MADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER NATIONS FOR
THEIR CUSTODY AND DETENTION.  WHEN THE PRESIDENT MOVES TO MAKE
ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER NATIONS FOR THEIR TRIAL, HE ACTS IN A POLITICAL
ROLE ON A MILITARY MATTER.  HIS DISCRETION CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY THE
JUDICIARY. 

THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THE DECISION WHICH BROUGHT THESE PETITIONERS
BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL IS EMPHASIZED BY THE RULINGS
WHICH THAT TRIBUNAL MADE.  THE CHARTER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONSTITUTED
BY AN ORDER OF THE SUPREME COMMANDER.  IT ESTABLISHED THE TRIBUNAL,
DETERMINED ITS PROCEDURE, AND DESCRIBED ITS JURISDICTION.  IT DESCRIBED
THE "CRIMES" THAT CAME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION.  OF THE TRIBUNAL  FN6
AND THE STANDARD OF RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED.  FN7 

JUSTICE PAL OF INDIA, WHO DISSENTED FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION,
CLAIMED THAT THE ALLIED POWERS AS VICTORS DID NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT
UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO TREAT PETITIONERS AS WAR CRIMINALS.  HE
WROTE AT LENGTH, CONTENDING THAT THE PACT OF PARIS,  FN8  46 STAT.
2343, TO WHICH JAPAN WAS A SIGNATORY, DID NOT AFFECT THE PREEXISTING
LEGAL POSITION OF WAR IN INTERNATIONAL LIFE.  FN9  HE REJECTED THE
ARGUMENT THAT INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY LAW HAD DEVELOPED UNDER THE PACT,
FN10  OR THAT THERE WAS INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAGING OF
AGGRESSIVE WAR, EVEN ASSUMING IT TO BE A CRIME UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW.  FN11 

HE CALLED ON THE TRIBUNAL TO RULE ON THESE QUESTIONS.  HE STATED: 

"WE HAVE BEEN SET UP AS AN INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL.  THE
CLEAR INTENTION IS THAT WE ARE TO BE 'A JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL' AND NOT 'A
MANIFESTATION OF POWER'.  THE INTENTION IS THAT WE ARE TO ACT AS A
COURT OF LAW AND ACT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.  WE ARE TO FIND OUT, BY
THE APPLICATION OF THE APPROPRIATE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, WHETHER
THE ACTS CONSTITUTE ANY CRIME UNDER THE ALREADY EXISTING LAW, DEHORS
THE DECLARATION, THE AGREEMENT OR, THE CHARTER.  EVEN IF THE CHARTER,
THE AGREEMENT OR THE DECLARATION SCHEDULES THEM AS CRIMES, IT WOULD
ONLY BE THE DECISION OF THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES THAT THEY ARE CRIMES
UNDER THE ALREADY EXISTING LAW.  BUT THE TRIBUNAL MUST COME TO ITS OWN
DECISION.  IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BIND THE TRIBUNAL BY THE DECISION
OF THESE BODIES, FOR OTHERWISE THE TRIBUNAL WILL NOT BE A 'JUDICIAL
TRIBUNAL' BUT A MERE TOOL FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF POWER. 

"THE SO-CALLED TRIAL HELD ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF CRIME NOW
GIVEN BY THE VICTORS OBLITERATES THE CENTURIES OF CIVILIZATION WHICH
STRETCH BETWEEN US AND THE SUMMARY SLAYING OF THE DEFEATED IN A WAR.  A
TRIAL WITH LAW THUS PRESCRIBED WILL ONLY BE A SHAM EMPLOYMENT OF LEGAL
PROCESS FOR THE SATISFACTION OF A THIRST FOR REVENGE.  IT DOES NOT
CORRESPOND TO ANY IDEA OF JUSTICE.  SUCH A TRIAL MAY JUSTLY CREATE THE
FEELING THAT THE SETTING UP OF A TRIBUNAL LIKE THE PRESENT IS MUCH MORE
A POLITICAL THAN A LEGAL AFFAIR, AN ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL OBJECTIVE
HAVING THUS BEEN CLOAKED BY A JURIDICAL APPEARANCE.  FORMALIZED
VENGENCE CAN BRING ONLY AN EPHEMERAL SATISFACTION, WITH EVERY
PROBABILITY OF ULTIMATE REGRET; BUT VINDICATION OF LAW THROUGH GENUINE
LEGAL PROCESS ALONE MAY CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE RE
ESTABLISHMENT OF ORDER AND DECENCY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS." 

BUT THE TRIBUNAL, THOUGH EXPRESSING DISAGREEMENT WITH JUSTICE PAL ON
THE POINT,  FN12  DID NOT RULE ON THE QUESTION.  IT RULED THAT "THE LAW
OF THE CHARTER IS DECISIVE AND BINDING" UPON IT. IT SAID: 

"THIS IS A SPECIAL TRIBUNAL SET UP BY THE SUPREME COMMANDER UNDER
AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON HIM BY THE ALLIED POWERS.  IT DERIVES ITS
JURISDICTION FROM THE CHARTER.  IN THIS TRIAL ITS MEMBERS HAVE NO
JURISDICTION EXCEPT SUCH AS IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CHARTER.  THE ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COMMANDER, WHICH APPOINTED THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL,
STATES:  'THE RESPONSIBILITIES, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE TRIBUNAL ARE SET FORTH IN THE CHARTER THEREOF  ...  '  IN THE
RESULT, THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, BEING OTHERWISE WHOLLY WITHOUT
POWER IN RESPECT TO THE TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED, HAVE BEEN EMPOWERED BY
THE DOCUMENTS, WHICH CONSTITUTED THE TRIBUNAL AND APPOINTED THEM AS
MEMBERS, TO TRY THE ACCUSED BUT SUBJECT ALWAYS TO THE DUTY AND
RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLYING TO THE TRIAL THE LAW SET FORTH IN THE
CHARTER." 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, SIR WILLIAM FLOOD WEBB OF AUSTRALIA,
IN A SEPARATE OPINION STATED: 

"THE CHARTER IS BINDING AS IT IS INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE POTSDAM
DECLARATION AND THE INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER PUT INTO OPERATION BY THE
MARTIAL LAW OF THE SUPREME COMMANDER OF THE ALLIED POWERS IN OCCUPATION
OF JAPAN. 

"THE SUPREME COMMANDER STATED IN HIS PROCLAMATION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND
CHARTER - THE MARTIAL LAW REFERRED TO - THAT HE ACTED IN ORDER TO
IMPLEMENT THE TERM OF SURRENDER THAT STERN JUSTICE SHOULD BE METED OUT
TO WAR CRIMINALS. 

  .         .         .         .         . 

"UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW BELLIGERENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUNISH DURING
THE WAR SUCH WAR CRIMINALS AS FALL INTO THEIR HANDS.  THE RIGHT ACCRUES
AFTER OCCUPATION OF THE ENEMY TERRITORY.  AS A CONDITION OF THE
ARMISTICE A VICTORIOUS BELLIGERENT MAY REQUIRE THE DEFEATED STATE TO
HAND OVER PERSONS ACCUSED OF WAR CRIMES.  THE POTSDAM DECLARATION AND
THE INSTRUMENT OF SURRENDER CONTEMPLATE THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT. 
BUT GUILT MUST BE ASCERTAINED BEFORE PUNISHMENT IS IMPOSED; HENCE THE
PROVISION FOR TRIALS. 

"THE OCCUPYING BELLIGERENT MAY SET UP MILITARY COURTS TO TRY PERSONS
ACCUSED OF WAR CRIMES; AND TO ASSURE A FAIR TRIAL MAY PROVIDE AMONG
OTHER THINGS FOR CIVILIAN JUDGES, THE RIGHT OF APPEAL, AND PUBLICITY. 
(OPPENHEIM ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, 6TH EDN.  VOL.  II, P. 456.)"  FN13 

THE CONCLUSION IS THEREFORE PLAIN THAT THE TOKYO TRIBUNAL ACTED AS AN
INSTRUMENT OF MILITARY POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.  IT
RESPONDED TO THE WILL OF THE SUPREME COMMANDER AS EXPRESSED IN THE
MILITARY ORDER BY WHICH HE CONSTITUTED IT.  IT TOOK ITS LAW FROM ITS
CREATOR AND DID NOT ACT AS A FREE AND INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDGE
THE RIGHTS OF PETITIONERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.  AS JUSTICE PAL
SAID, IT DID NOT THEREFORE SIT AS A JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL.  IT WAS SOLELY
AN INSTRUMENT OF POLITICAL POWER.  INSOFAR AS AMERICAN PARTICIPATION IS
CONCERNED, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO THAT ACTION.  FOR
THE CAPTURE AND CONTROL OF THOSE WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PEARL
HARBOR INCIDENT WAS A POLITICAL QUESTION ON WHICH THE PRESIDENT AS
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, AND AS SPOKESMAN FOR THE NATION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
HAD THE FINAL SAY. 

FN1  ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, CL. 2 READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN ALL CASES AFFECTING AMBASSADORS, OTHER PUBLIC MINISTERS AND
CONSULS, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY, THE SUPREME COURT
SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.  IN ALL THE OTHER CASES BEFORE
MENTIONED, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION, BOTH AS
TO LAW AND FACT, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS, AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS
THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE." 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 2241(A) PROVIDES: 

"WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS MAY BE GRANTED BY THE SUPREME COURT, ANY
JUSTICE THEREOF, THE DISTRICT COURTS AND ANY CIRCUIT JUDGE WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS.  THE ORDER OF A CIRCUIT JUDGE SHALL BE
ENTERED IN THE RECORDS OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT WHEREIN
THE RESTRAINT COMPLAINED OF IS HAD." 

FN3  CASES OF THIS SORT ARE BEGINNING TO APPEAR.  IN RE BUSH, 336
U.S. 971, IS SUCH A CASE.  PETITIONER WAS A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE
WAR DEPARTMENT FROM FEB. 19, 1946 TO DEC. 28, 1947, AND WAS STATIONED
IN JAPAN FOR MOST OF THAT PERIOD.  HE TERMINATED HIS EMPLOYMENT AND
RETURNED TO THIS COUNTRY.  THEREAFTER, HE WAS EN ROUTE TO SIAM WHEN HIS
PLANE LANDED IN JAPAN.  HE WAS ARRESTED AND TRIED BY A GENERAL PROVOST
COURT SITTING IN JAPAN FOR TRADING AMERICAN GOODS TO A JAPANESE FOR
CERTAIN EMOLUMENTS.  HE WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR
IMPRISONMENT AND FINED 75,000 YEN.  ON MAY 9, 1949, WE DENIED HIS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS "WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO APPLY TO ANY APPROPRIATE COURT THAT MAY HAVE
JURISDICTION."    FOR A SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE CASE FROM GERMANY SEE BIRD
V. JOHNSON, 336 U.S. 950, WHERE WE DENIED MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE
PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS ON APRIL 18, 1949. 

FN4  THE MOSCOW AGREEMENT ALSO PROVIDED:    "THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT MAY ISSUE INTERIM DIRECTIVES TO THE SUPREME COMMANDER
PENDING ACTION BY THE COMMISSION WHENEVER URGENT MATTERS ARISE NOT
COVERED BY POLICIES ALREADY FORMULATED BY THE COMMISSION; PROVIDED THAT
ANY DIRECTIVES DEALING WITH FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN THE JAPANESE
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OR IN THE REGIME OF CONTROL, OR DEALING WITH A
CHANGE IN THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE WILL BE ISSUED ONLY
FOLLOWING CONSULTATION AND FOLLOWING THE ATTAINMENT OF AGREEMENT IN THE
FAR EASTERN COMMISSION." 

FN5  "THE THREE GREAT ALLIES ARE FIGHTING THIS WAR TO RESTRAIN AND
PUNISH THE AGGRESSION OF JAPAN." 

FN6  ARTICLE 5 PROVIDED: 

"THE TRIBUNAL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO TRY AND PUNISH FAR EASTERN WAR
CRIMINALS WHO AS INDIVIDUALS OR AS MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS ARE CHARGED
WITH OFFENSES WHICH INCLUDE CRIMES AGAINST PEACE.  THE FOLLOWING ACTS,
OR ANY OF THEM, ARE CRIMES COMING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
TRIBUNAL FOR WHICH THERE SHALL BE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY: 

"A.  CRIMES AGAINST PEACE:  NAMELY, THE PLANNING, PREPARATION,
INITIATION OR WAGING OF A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED WAR OF AGGRESSION, OR
A WAR IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, TREATIES, AGREEMENTS OR
ASSURANCES, OR PARTICIPATION IN A COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY FOR THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING; 

"B.  CONVENTIONAL WAR CRIMES:  NAMELY, VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OR
CUSTOMS OF WAR; 

"C.  CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY:  NAMELY, MURDER, EXTERMINATION,
ENSLAVEMENT, DEPORTATION, AND OTHER INHUMANE ACTS COMMITTED BEFORE OR
DURING THE WAR, OR PERSECUTIONS ON POLITICAL OR RACIAL GROUNDS IN
EXECUTION OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CRIME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THE TRIBUNAL, WHETHER OR NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE DOMESTIC LAW OF THE
COUNTRY WHERE PERPETRATED.  LEADERS, ORGANIZERS, INSTIGATORS AND
ACCOMPLICES PARTICIPATING IN THE FORMULATION OR EXECUTION OF A COMMON
PLAN OR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ANY OF THE FOREGOING CRIMES ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ACTS PERFORMED BY ANY PERSON IN EXECUTION OF SUCH
PLAN." 

PETITIONERS DOHIHARA, HIROTA, KIDO, OKA, SATO, SHIMADA AND TOGO WERE
FOUND GUILTY OF WAGING A WAR OF AGGRESSION AND OF CONSPIRING TO DO SO.
PETITIONERS DOHIHARA AND HIROTA WERE FOUND GUILTY OF CONVENTIONAL WAR
CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. 

FN7  ARTICLE 6 PROVIDED: 

"NEITHER THE OFFICIAL POSITION, AT ANY TIME, OF AN ACCUSED, NOR THE
FACT THAT AN ACCUSED ACTED PURSUANT TO ORDER OF HIS GOVERNMENT OR OF A
SUPERIOR SHALL, OF ITSELF, BE SUFFICIENT TO FREE SUCH ACCUSED FROM
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY CRIME WITH WHICH HE IS CHARGED, BUT SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE CONSIDERED IN MITIGATION OF PUNISHMENT IF THE
TRIBUNAL DETERMINES THAT JUSTICE SO REQUIRES." 

FN8  THIS TREATY PROVIDED IN PART: 

"PERSUADED THAT THE TIME HAS COME WHEN A FRANK RENUNCIATION OF WAR AS
AN INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY SHOULD BE MADE TO THE END THAT THE
PEACEFUL AND FRIENDLY RELATIONS NOW EXISTING BETWEEN THEIR PEOPLES MAY
BE PERPETUATED; 

     .         .         .         .         .

                              "ARTICLE I 

"THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES SOLEMNLY DECLARE IN THE NAMES OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE PEOPLES THAT THEY CONDEMN RECOURSE TO WAR FOR THE SOLUTION
OF INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES, AND RENOUNCE IT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF
NATIONAL POLICY IN THEIR RELATIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER. 

                             "ARTICLE II 

"THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES AGREE THAT THE SETTLEMENT OR SOLUTION
OF ALL DISPUTES OR CONFLICTS OF WHATEVER NATURE OR OF WHATEVER ORIGIN
THEY MAY BE, WHICH MAY ARISE AMONG THEM, SHALL NEVER BE SOUGHT EXCEPT
BY PACIFIC MEANS." 

SEE MILLER, THE PEACE PACT OF PARIS (1928). 

FN9  FOR DISCUSSIONS PRO AND CON ON THIS ISSUE SEE GLUECK, WAR
CRIMINALS (1944); GLUECK, THE NUREMBERG TRIAL AND AGGRESSIVE WAR
(1946). 

FN10  IN THIS CONNECTION HE SAID: 

"I MAY MENTION HERE IN PASSING THAT WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE
CONCLUSION OF THE PACT THERE OCCURRED THREE INSTANCES OF RECOURSE TO
FORCE ON A LARGE SCALE ON THE PART OF THE SIGNATORIES OF THE PACT.  IN
1929 SOVIET RUSSIA CONDUCTED HOSTILITIES AGAINST CHINA IN CONNECTION
WITH THE DISPUTE CONCERNING THE CHINESE EASTERN RAILWAY.  THE
OCCUPATION OF MANCHURIA BY JAPAN IN 1931 AND 1932 FOLLOWED.  THEN THERE
WAS THE INVASION OF THE COLOMBIAN PROVINCE OF LETICIA BY PERU IN 1932. 
THEREAFTER, WE HAD THE INVASION OF ABYSSINIA BY ITALY IN 1935 AND OF
FINLAND BY RUSSIA IN 1939.  OF COURSE THERE WAS ALSO THE INVASION OF
CHINA BY JAPAN IN 1937." 

SOME OF THE PETITIONERS, NOTABLY DOHIHARA, HIROTA, KIDO AND TOGO,
WERE FOUND GUILTY ON CHARGES WHICH INVOLVED WAGING OF AGGRESSIVE WAR
PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR, E.G., IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANCHURIAN
EPISODE. 

FN11  HE WENT SO FAR AS TO SAY: 

"IN MY VIEW IF THE ALLEGED ACTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY CRIME UNDER THE
EXISTING INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT OF THE AUTHORS
THEREOF WITH A NEW DEFINITION OF CRIME GIVEN BY THE VICTOR WOULD MAKE
IT A 'WAR CRIME' ON HIS PART.  THE PRISONERS ARE TO BE DEALT WITH
ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND NOT
ACCORDING TO WHAT THE VICTOR CHOOSES TO NAME AS INTERNATIONAL LAW." 

FN12  IT STATED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT IT WAS IN COMPLETE ACCORD
WITH THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE OPINION OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL,
NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION, OPINION AND JUDGMENT (1947), PP. 48,
50, 53, 49, 53-54: 

"THE CHARTER IS NOT AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER ON THE PART OF THE
VICTORIOUS NATIONS, BUT IN THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS WILL BE SHOWN,
IT IS THE EXPRESSION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW EXISTING AT THE TIME OF ITS
CREATION; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE QUESTION IS, WHAT WAS THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THIS PACT?  (PACT OF
PARIS.)  THE NATIONS WHO SIGNED THE PACT OR ADHERED TO IT
UNCONDITIONALLY CONDEMNED RECOURSE TO WAR FOR THE FUTURE AS AN
INSTRUMENT OF POLICY, AND EXPRESSLY RENOUNCED IT.  AFTER THE SIGNING OF
THE PACT, ANY NATION RESORTING TO WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL
POLICY BREAKS THE PACT.  IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE SOLEMN
RENUNCIATION OF WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY NECESSARILY
INVOLVES THE PROPOSITION THAT SUCH A WAR IS ILLEGAL IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW; AND THAT THOSE WHO PLAN AND WAGE SUCH A WAR, WITH ITS INEVITABLE
AND TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES, ARE COMMITTING A CRIME IN SO DOING. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, WHICH UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES, PROTECTS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF A STATE, CANNOT BE
APPLIED TO ACTS WHICH ARE CONDEMNED AS CRIMINAL BY INTERNATIONAL LAW. 
THE AUTHORS OF THESE ACTS CANNOT SHELTER THEMSELVES BEHIND THEIR
OFFICIAL POSITION IN ORDER TO BE FREED FROM PUNISHMENT IN APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"  ...  THE MAXIM NULLUM CRIMEN SINE LEGE IS NOT A LIMITATION OF
SOVEREIGNTY, BUT IS IN GENERAL A PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE.  TO ASSERT THAT
IT IS UNJUST TO PUNISH THOSE WHO IN DEFIANCE OF TREATIES AND ASSURANCES
HAVE ATTACKED NEIGHBORING STATES WITHOUT WARNING IS OBVIOUSLY UNTRUE,
FOR IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ATTACKER MUST KNOW THAT HE IS DOING
WRONG, AND SO FAR FROM IT BEING UNJUST TO PUNISH HIM, IT WOULD BE
UNJUST IF HIS WRONG WERE ALLOWED TO GO UNPUNISHED. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE CHARTER SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES IN ARTICLE 8: 

"'THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT ACTED PURSUANT TO ORDER OF HIS
GOVERNMENT OR OF A SUPERIOR SHALL NOT FREE HIM FROM RESPONSIBILITY, BUT
MAY BE CONSIDERED IN MITIGATION OF PUNISHMENT.' 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW OF ALL
NATIONS.  ...  THE TRUE TEST, WHICH IS FOUND IN VARYING DEGREES IN THE
CRIMINAL LAW OF MOST NATIONS, IS NOT THE EXISTENCE OF THE ORDER, BUT
WHETHER MORAL CHOICE WAS IN FACT POSSIBLE." 

FN13  HE WENT ON TO STATE HIS VIEW THAT THE WAGING OF AGGRESSIVE WAR
WAS A CRIME UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THAT INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
ATTACHED THERETO.  JUSTICE JARANILLA OF THE PHILIPPINES FILED A
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION TO THE SAME EFFECT.  JUSTICE BERNARD OF
FRANCE, THOUGH DISSENTING FROM THE MAJORITY BECAUSE OF CERTAIN RULINGS
ON VICARIOUS CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THE TRIAL
WAS NOT FAIR, AGREED THAT THE WAGING OF AGGRESSIVE WAR WAS A CRIME. 
..END :







UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 410 


NO. 98.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1948.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 13, 1948.  83
U.S. APP. D.C. 207, 168 F.2D 167, REVERSED. 


ARRESTED ON SUSPICION WITHOUT A WARRANT, PETITIONER CONFESSED 30 HOURS
LATER, WHILE BEING HELD WITHOUT HAVING BEEN TAKEN BEFORE A COMMITTING
MAGISTRATE AS REQUIRED BY RULE 5(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.  THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE ARRESTING OFFICER FOR THE
DELAY IN HIS ARRAIGNMENT WAS THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO HOLD
HIM AND THE POLICE WISHED TO QUESTION HIM FURTHER.  AT HIS TRIAL IN A
FEDERAL COURT, THE CONFESSION WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER HIS
OBJECTION AND THE JURY FOUND THAT IT WAS VOLUNTARY.  HELD:  THE
CONFESSION WAS INADMISSIBLE AND A CONVICTION BASED THEREON IS
REVERSED.  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, FOLLOWED.  UNITED
STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 410-414. 

UPSHAW V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  83 U.S. APP. D.C. 207, 168 F.2D
167.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 842.  REVERSED, P. 414. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND SENTENCED TO SERVE
SIXTEEN MONTHS TO FOUR YEARS IN PRISON.  PRE-TRIAL CONFESSIONS OF GUILT
WITHOUT WHICH PETITIONER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED  FN1  WERE
ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIS OBJECTION THAT THEY HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY
OBTAINED.  THE CONFESSIONS HAD BEEN MADE DURING A 30-HOUR PERIOD WHILE
PETITIONER WAS HELD A PRISONER AFTER THE POLICE HAD ARRESTED HIM ON
SUSPICION AND WITHOUT A WARRANT. 

PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONFESSIONS RESTED
ON RULE 5(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND OUR HOLDING
IN MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332.  RULE 5(A) PROVIDES THAT "AN
OFFICER MAKING AN ARREST  ...  SHALL TAKE THE ARRESTED PERSON WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY DELAY BEFORE THE NEAREST AVAILABLE" COMMITTING MAGISTRATE
AND WHEN THE ARRESTED PERSON APPEARS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE "A COMPLAINT
SHALL BE FILED FORTHWITH."  PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT THE OFFICERS HAD
VIOLATED THIS RULE IN DETAINING HIM AS THEY DID WITHOUT TAKING HIM
BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE.  IN THE MCNABB CASE WE HELD THAT
CONFESSIONS HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY ADMITTED WHERE THEY WERE THE PLAIN
RESULT OF HOLDING AND INTERROGATING PERSONS WITHOUT CARRYING THEM
"FORTHWITH" BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE AS THE LAW COMMANDS. 

IN THIS CASE THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THAT THE MCNABB RULING DID
NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DETENTION OF PETITIONER "WAS NOT UNREASONABLE
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS A MATTER OF LAW."  CONSEQUENTLY, THAT COURT
HELD THE CONFESSIONS ADMISSIBLE.  ON APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND
HIS ASSISTANTS DETAILED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PETITIONER'S ARREST AND
DETENTION AND CONFESSED ERROR.  THEY CONCLUDED FROM THESE DETAILED
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE "DELAY" IN CARRYING PETITIONER BEFORE A
COMMITTING MAGISTRATE "WAS UNREASONABLE AND THE PURPOSE OF IT, AS
STATED BY THE OFFICERS THEMSELVES, WAS ONLY TO FURNISH AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR FURTHER INTERROGATION."  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY THOUGHT THAT THE MCNABB RULE MADE THE CONFESSIONS INADMISSIBLE
WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THEY WERE "VOLUNTARY" IN THE LEGAL SENSE. 
THE DELAY IN TAKING PETITIONER BEFORE A JUDICIAL OFFICER WAS THOUGHT,
IN THE WORDS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, TO HAVE BEEN "FOR PURPOSES
INIMICAL TO THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE RULE REQUIRING PROMPT
ARRAIGNMENT." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED THIS CONFESSION OF ERROR, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING.  83 U.S. APP. D.C. 207, 168 F.2D 167.  IT READ THE MCNABB
CASE AS EXPLAINED IN UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65, AS HOLDING
THAT "A CONFESSION VOLUNTARILY GIVEN IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE" WHILE
CONVERSELY "A CONFESSION INVOLUNTARILY MADE IS INADMISSIBLE."  83 U.S.
APP. D.C. 207, 168 F.2D 167.  THAT COURT THOUGHT THE MCNABB CASE DID NO
MORE THAN EXTEND THE MEANING OF "INVOLUNTARY" CONFESSIONS TO PROSCRIBE
CONFESSIONS INDUCED BY PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION AS WELL AS THOSE BROUGHT
ABOUT BY PHYSICAL BRUTALITY.  FINDING NO PSYCHOLOGICAL COERCION IN THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE NOT
THE "FRUIT OF THE ILLEGAL DETENTION."  THE COURT ALSO LAID STRESS ON
THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER'S DETENTION UNLIKE MCNABB'S, "WAS NOT
AGGRAVATED BY CONTINUOUS QUESTIONING FOR MANY HOURS BY NUMEROUS
OFFICERS." 

WE HOLD THAT THIS CASE FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE MCNABB RULING AND IS
NOT TAKEN OUT OF IT BY WHAT WAS DECIDED IN THE MITCHELL CASE.  IN THE
MCNABB CASE WE HELD THAT THE PLAIN PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT
PRISONERS SHOULD PROMPTLY BE TAKEN BEFORE COMMITTING MAGISTRATES WAS TO
CHECK RESORT BY OFFICERS TO "SECRET INTERROGATION OF PERSONS ACCUSED OF
CRIME."  WE THEN POINTED OUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PETITIONERS
WERE INTERROGATED AND CONFESSED.  THIS WAS DONE TO SHOW THAT THE RECORD
LEFT NO DOUBT THAT THE MCNABBS WERE NOT PROMPTLY TAKEN BEFORE A
JUDICIAL OFFICER AS THE LAW REQUIRED, BUT INSTEAD WERE HELD FOR SECRET
QUESTIONING, AND "THAT THE QUESTIONING OF THE PETITIONERS TOOK PLACE
WHILE THEY WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS AND BEFORE ANY
ORDER OF COMMITMENT WAS MADE."  THE MCNABB CONFESSIONS WERE THUS HELD
INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE MCNABBS WERE QUESTIONED WHILE HELD IN "PLAIN
DISREGARD OF THE DUTY ENJOINED BY CONGRESS UPON FEDERAL LAW OFFICERS"
PROMPTLY TO TAKE THEM BEFORE A JUDICIAL OFFICER.  IN THE MCNABB CASE
THERE WERE CONFESSIONS "INDUCED BY ILLEGAL DETENTION," UNITED STATES V.
MITCHELL, SUPRA AT 70, A FACT WHICH THIS COURT FOUND DID NOT EXIST IN
THE MITCHELL CASE. 

IN THE MITCHELL CASE ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGALLY HELD EIGHT
DAYS, THE COURT ACCEPTED THE RECORD AS SHOWING THAT MITCHELL PROMPTLY
AND SPONTANEOUSLY ADMITTED HIS GUILT WITHIN A FEW MINUTES AFTER HIS
ARRIVAL AT THE POLICE STATION.  MITCHELL'S CONFESSIONS THEREFORE WERE
FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY ILLEGAL DETENTION HAD OCCURRED. 
THIS COURT THEN STATED IN THE MITCHELL OPINION THAT "THE ILLEGALITY OF
MITCHELL'S DETENTION DOES NOT RETROACTIVELY CHANGE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH HE MADE THE DISCLOSURES."  THUS THE HOLDING IN THE MITCHELL
CASE WAS ONLY THAT MITCHELL'S SUBSEQUENT ILLEGAL DETENTION DID NOT
RENDER INADMISSIBLE HIS PRIOR CONFESSIONS.  THEY WERE HELD NOT TO
INVOLVE "USE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FRUITS OF WRONGDOING BY ITS
OFFICERS."  THE MITCHELL CASE AT P. 68, HOWEVER, REAFFIRMS THE MCNABB
RULE THAT A CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE IF MADE DURING ILLEGAL DETENTION
DUE TO FAILURE PROMPTLY TO CARRY A PRISONER BEFORE A COMMITTING
MAGISTRATE, WHETHER OR NOT THE "CONFESSION IS THE RESULT OF TORTURE,
PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL  ...  " 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE LEFT IN NO DOUBT AS TO WHY THIS PETITIONER WAS
NOT BROUGHT PROMPTLY BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE.  THE ARRESTING
OFFICER HIMSELF STATED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT CARRIED BEFORE A
MAGISTRATE ON FRIDAY OR SATURDAY MORNING AFTER HIS ARREST ON FRIDAY AT
2 A.M., BECAUSE THE OFFICER THOUGHT THERE WAS NOT "A SUFFICIENT CASE"
FOR THE COURT TO HOLD HIM, ADDING THAT EVEN "IF THE POLICE COURT DID
HOLD HIM WE WOULD LOSE CUSTODY OF HIM AND I NO LONGER WOULD BE ABLE TO
QUESTION HIM."  THUS THE ARRESTING OFFICER IN EFFECT CONCEDED THAT THE
CONFESSIONS HERE WERE "THE FRUITS OF WRONGDOING" BY THE POLICE
OFFICERS.  HE CONCEDED MORE:  HE ADMITTED THAT PETITIONER WAS ILLEGALLY
DETAINED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY HOURS FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF SECURING
THESE CHALLENGED CONFESSIONS.  HE THEREBY REFUTES ANY POSSIBILITY OF AN
ARGUMENT THAT AFTER ARREST HE WAS CARRIED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE "WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY DELAY." 

THE ARGUMENT WAS MADE TO THE TRIAL COURT THAT THIS METHOD OF
ARRESTING, HOLDING, AND QUESTIONING PEOPLE ON MERE SUSPICION WAS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE "USUAL POLICE PROCEDURE OF QUESTIONING A SUSPECT
...  "  HOWEVER USUAL THIS PRACTICE, IT IS IN VIOLATION OF LAW, AND
CONFESSIONS THUS OBTAINED ARE INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE MCNABB RULE.  WE
ADHERE TO THAT RULE.  FN2  REVERSED. 

FN1  AFTER THE EVIDENCE WAS ALL IN, THE TRIAL JUDGE STATED THAT
WITHOUT THE CONFESSIONS THERE WAS "NOTHING LEFT IN THE CASE."  THE
TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO ACQUIT IF THEY FOUND THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD NOT CONFESSED "VOLUNTARILY BUT BECAUSE HE WAS BEATEN." 
ON THIS ISSUE OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE THE JURY FOUND AGAINST THE
PETITIONER, AND THEREFORE THIS ISSUE IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

FN2  OUR HOLDING IS NOT PLACED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  SINCE THE
MCNABB RULE BARS ADMISSION OF CONFESSIONS WE NEED NOT AND DO NOT
CONSIDER WHETHER THEIR ADMISSION WAS A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

WHEN NOT INCONSISTENT WITH A STATUTE, OR THE CONSTITUTION, THERE IS
NO DOUBT OF THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO INSTITUTE, ON ITS OWN
INITIATIVE, REFORMS IN THE FEDERAL PRACTICE AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS IN FEDERAL COURTS.  FN1  THIS POWER OF
REFORM, WHICH EXISTED AT THE TIME, MARCH 1, 1943, MCNABB V. UNITED
STATES, 318 U.S. 332, WAS DECIDED, IS NOT, I BELIEVE, RESTRICTED BY THE
LANGUAGE OF RULE 26 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 1946.  FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE NO. 59;
91 CONG. REC. 12,545.  THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, LIKE THE
COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES, IS "GOVERNED BY COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES AS
INTERPRETED AND APPLIED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE LIGHT OF REASON
AND EXPERIENCE."  WOLFLE V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 7, 12.  FN2  WHILE
JUDICIAL INNOVATIONS EXPLICITLY EXPANDING OR CONTRACTING ADMISSIBILITY
OF EVIDENCE ARE RARE, THERE HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT OCCASIONS TO ESTABLISH
BY PRECEDENT AND LEGISLATIVE ACCEPTANCE THAT THE POWER EXISTS.  MCNABB
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 341.  FN3 

SUCH POWER SHOULD BE USED TO CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED RULES OF
EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, ONLY WHEN "FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERED CONDITIONS," NOTE
2, SUPRA, CALL FOR SUCH A CHANGE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. 
OTHERWISE THE BAD RESULTS FROM A CHANGE OF WELL-ESTABLISHED RULES ARE
QUITE LIKELY TO OUTWEIGH THE GOOD.  THE LACK OF ANY NECESSITY FOR
CHANGING THE RULES OF EVIDENCE TO PROTECT AN ACCUSED LED ME TO DISSENT
IN THE MCNABB CASE, A MURDER CASE WHERE AN ASSUMED FAILURE TO COMMIT
THE PRISONERS APPARENTLY WAS RELIED UPON AS A PARTIAL BASIS FOR DENYING
ADMISSIBILITY TO CERTAIN CONFESSIONS. 

MY OBJECTION TO THIS COURT'S ACTION OF TODAY IN WHAT SEEMS TO ME AN
EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE OF NONADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS IS NOT TO ITS POWER SO TO ACT BUT TO THE ADVISABILITY OF
SUCH AN ADDITIONAL STEP.  UNLESS CONGRESS OR A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT
MODIFIES THE MCNABB RULE, I FEEL BOUND TO FOLLOW MY UNDERSTANDING OF
ITS MEANING IN SIMILAR CASES THAT MAY ARISE, BUT THAT DUTY DOES NOT
IMPOSE UPON ME THE OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT THIS RULING AS TO UPSHAW WHICH
SEEMS TO ME TO COMPOUND CERTAIN UNFORTUNATE RESULTS OF THE MCNABB
DECISION BY EXTENDING IT TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE
MCNABB RULING.  THIS ATTITUDE LEADS ME (I) TO ANALYZE THE MCNABB CASE
AND ITS OFFSPRING, (II) TO POINT OUT WHY I THINK THE PRESENT DECISION
GOES BEYOND THE HOLDING IN MCNABB AND (III) TO POINT OUT WHY MCNABB
SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED. 

THE JUDICIAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM, OF COURSE, MUST BE IN A SPIRIT
OF COOPERATION WITH THE POLICE OFFICIALS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  THEY ARE DIRECTLY CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER AND ARE UNDER THE SAME OBLIGATION AS THE
JUDICIAL ARM TO DISCHARGE THEIR DUTIES IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES.  THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIME IS A
DIFFICULT AND DANGEROUS TASK, FOR THE MOST PART PERFORMED BY SECURITY
AND PROSECUTING PERSONNEL IN A SPIRIT OF PUBLIC SERVICE TO THE
COMMUNITY.  ONLY BY THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER MAY THE RIGHTS OF THE
CRIMINAL AND THE LAW-ABIDING ELEMENTS OF THE POPULATION BE PROTECTED. 
AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THIS COURT IN THE MCNABB AND MITCHELL CASES,
UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL
PROBLEM INVOLVED IN DECIDING WHETHER A VOLUNTARY CONFESSION GIVEN BY A
PRISONER PRIOR TO COMMITMENT BY A MAGISTRATE SHOULD BE ADMITTED IN
EVIDENCE.  A PRISONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION OR TO DUE PROCESS ARE PROTECTED BY THE RULE THAT NO
INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION MAY BE ADMITTED.  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, PP. 339-40 AND CASES CITED; HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596;
MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S.
143. 

                   I. 

OUR FIRST INQUIRY, THEN, IS AS TO THE LEGAL DOCTRINE BEHIND THE
MCNABB DECISION. 

A. WERE THE MCNABB CONFESSIONS BARRED AS A PUNISHMENT OR PENALTY
AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS BECAUSE THEY WERE THOUGHT TO HAVE DISOBEYED
THE COMMAND OF A STATUTE? 

B. WERE THEY BARRED BECAUSE UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT IS SO APT TO BE
FOLLOWED BY AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION AS TO JUSTIFY THE EXCLUSION OF
ALL CONFESSIONS RECEIVED BEFORE JUDICIAL COMMITMENT AFTER A PRISONER IS
KEPT IN CUSTODY MORE THAN A REASONABLE TIME WITHOUT BEING TAKEN BEFORE
A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE? 

C. WERE THEY BARRED BECAUSE THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
THE CONFESSIONS WERE MADE WERE SO LIKELY TO PRODUCE INVOLUNTARY
CONFESSIONS AS TO JUSTIFY EXCLUSION? 

A. AS THE MCNABB DECISION WAS A SUDDEN DEPARTURE FROM THE FORMER
FEDERAL RULE AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS  FN4  INITIATED BY
THE COURT, WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF BRIEF OR ARGUMENT AND WITHOUT
KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL FACTS AS TO COMMITMENT,  FN5  IT CAN HARDLY BE
EXPECTED THAT IT COULD HAVE THE DESIRABLE EXPLICITNESS OF A TRITE RULE
OF EVIDENCE.  CONSEQUENTLY CONFUSION IMMEDIATELY AROSE AS TO ITS
MEANING.  THE DISSENT INTERPRETED THE OPINION AS A DIRECTION TO EXCLUDE
THE CONFESSIONS "BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO QUESTIONING THE PETITIONERS,
THE ARRESTING OFFICERS FAILED PROMPTLY TO TAKE THEM BEFORE A COMMITTING
MAGISTRATE."  IT CONCLUDED:  "THE OFFICERS OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT
SHOULD NOT BE DISCIPLINED BY OVERTURNING THIS CONVICTION."  MCNABB V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 349.  SOME COURTS THOUGHT THAT ANY CONFESSION
OBTAINED BEFORE COMMITMENT WAS INADMISSIBLE.  UNITED STATES V. HOFFMAN,
137 F.2D 416, 421; MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 78 U.S. APP. D.C. 171,
172, 138 F.2D 426, 427.  OTHERS HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE CASE TO DETERMINE
ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS BY A COERCION TEST.  FN6  VARYING
IMPRESSIONS AS TO THE RULE THAT THE MCNABB CASE ANNOUNCED APPEAR IN THE
CASES.  FN7  THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION UNDER DATE OF MAY 15, 1944, ADVISED
SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 2 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THAT BEFORE THE MCNABB CASE "THERE WAS NO EFFECTIVE
PENALTY IN OPERATION.  ... 

"THEN CAME THE MCNABB CASE WHICH DID IMPOSE A DRASTIC PENALTY.  THE
SEVEN MAJORITY JUSTICES HELD THAT UNLAWFUL DETENTION SHUT OUT THE
CONFESSION.  THE DECISION MADE THE SPEEDY PRODUCTION STATUTES REALLY
MEAN SOMETHING.  THE POLICE WERE NO LONGER LEFT FREE TO ENFORCE THE LAW
BY DISOBEYING THE LAW."  P. V. 

FIVE MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE, APPARENTLY UNDER THE
CHAIRMANSHIP OF PROFESSOR ZECHARIAH CHAFEE, JR., ALSO SUBMITTED A
MEMORANDUM WHICH SAID, "THE MCNABB RULE EXCLUDING CONFESSIONS OBTAINED
DURING UNLAWFUL DETENTION IS AN EFFECTIVE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF THE
ACTS OF CONGRESS."  P. 19.  IT ADDED: 

"CONGRESS SHOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO TAKE AWAY THE ONLY EFFECTIVE
PENALTY NOW EXISTING FOR VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO HAVE THE
CONTINUANCE OF CUSTODY DETERMINED BY A MAGISTRATE AND NOT BY THE
UNCONTROLLED WILL OF THE POLICE, HOWEVER ABLE AND DEVOTED THEY MAY
BE."  P. 25.  FN8 

NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SOME DID GAIN THE IMPRESSION FROM THE MCNABB
CASE THAT IT WAS INTENDED AS A DISCIPLINE OF POLICE OFFICERS FOR THE
VIOLATION OF THE COMMITMENT STATUTES, A READING OF MCNABB AS LATER
EXPLAINED BY UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, SUPRA, NEGATIVES SUCH A
CONCLUSION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THERE ARE PHRASES IN THE MCNABB OPINION THAT CONDEMN
THE ASSUMED FAILURE TO TAKE THE ACCUSED PROMPTLY BEFORE A MAGISTRATE. 
FN9  FURTHER BENJAMIN'S CONFESSION WAS BARRED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS GIVEN
WITHIN "FIVE OR SIX HOURS" OF QUESTIONING, AND WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST
SUGGESTION OF FORCE, AFTER HIS VOLUNTARY SURRENDER BECAUSE HE HAD HEARD
THE OFFICERS WERE LOOKING FOR HIM.  PERHAPS THE STRONGEST INDICATION
THAT THE MCNABB DECISION MAY HAVE BEEN INTENDED AS A PENALTY FOR POLICE
MISCONDUCT OCCURS IN ANOTHER CASE DECIDED THE SAME DAY AS MCNABB,
ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 350.  THERE A MAN WAS ARRESTED
SUNDAY NIGHT AND CONFESSED AFTER TWO HOURS' QUESTIONING ON MONDAY
MORNING.  NEVERTHELESS HIS CONFESSION WAS HELD INADMISSIBLE UNDER
AUTHORITY OF MCNABB.  P. 355. 

HOWEVER, UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, SUPRA, MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE
PURPOSE OF MCNABB WAS NOT TO ENFORCE A PENALTY FOR POLICE MISCONDUCT. 
FN10  IN THE MITCHELL CASE A SUSPECT WAS ARRESTED AND TAKEN TO THE
POLICE STATION.  HE CONFESSED WITHIN A FEW MINUTES OF HIS ARRIVAL.  HE
WAS ILLEGALLY DETAINED FOR EIGHT DAYS BEFORE BEING TAKEN BEFORE A
COMMITTING MAGISTRATE.  "THE POLICE EXPLANATION OF THIS ILLEGALITY IS
THAT MITCHELL WAS KEPT IN SUCH CUSTODY WITHOUT PROTEST THROUGH A DESIRE
TO AID THE POLICE IN CLEARING UP THIRTY HOUSEBREAKINGS  ...  "  THIS
COURT THEN PRONOUNCED THIS STATEMENT AS TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE
CONFESSIONS AS EVIDENCE, "THESE, WE HAVE SEEN, WERE NOT ELICITED
THROUGH ILLEGALITY.  THEIR ADMISSION, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT BE USE BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FRUITS OF WRONGDOING BY ITS OFFICERS.  BEING
RELEVANT, THEY COULD BE EXCLUDED ONLY AS A PUNITIVE MEASURE AGAINST
UNRELATED WRONGDOING BY THE POLICE.  OUR DUTY IN SHAPING RULES OF
EVIDENCE RELATES TO THE PROPRIETY OF ADMITTING EVIDENCE.  THIS POWER IS
NOT TO BE USED AS AN INDIRECT MODE OF DISCIPLINING MISCONDUCT."  PP. 70
71.  THE MITCHELL EXPLANATION OF MCNABB SEEMS CORRECT.  IT IS NOT THE
FUNCTION OF COURTS TO PROVIDE PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS FOR ACTS
FORBIDDEN BY STATUTES WHERE NEITHER STATUTES NOR THE COMMON LAW NOR
EQUITY PROCEDURE HAVE ESTABLISHED THEM. 

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, I REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MCNABB CASE
WAS NOT INTENDED AS A PENALTY OR SANCTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE
COMMITMENT STATUTE. 

B. THE COURT BASES ITS DECISION OF TODAY ON THE THEORY THAT "A
CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE IF MADE DURING ILLEGAL DETENTION DUE TO
FAILURE PROMPTLY TO CARRY A PRISONER BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE,
WHETHER OR NOT THE 'CONFESSION IS THE RESULT OF TORTURE, PHYSICAL OR
PSYCHOLOGICAL ...  '"  THE COURT HOLDS THAT THIS WAS THE MCNABB RULE
AND ADHERES TO IT.  I DO NOT THINK THIS WAS THE MCNABB RULE AND I DO
THINK THE RULE AS NOW STATED IS AN UNWARRANTED EXTENSION OF THE RULE
TAUGHT BY THE MCNABB CASE.  MY REASONS FOLLOW. 

THERE IS NO LEGAL THEORY EXPRESSED IN MCNABB THAT SUPPORTS THE IDEA
THAT EVERY CONFESSION AFTER UNNECESSARY DELAY AND BEFORE COMMITMENT IS
INADMISSIBLE.  THERE ARE A FEW ISOLATED SENTENCES THAT DO LEND CREDENCE
TO SUCH AN EXPLANATION OF THE LEGAL THEORY BEHIND THE CASE, BUT WHEN
READ IN CONTEXT, I THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY DO NOT EXPOUND SUCH A
RULE.  FN11  THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS OF THE RESTRAINT ARE EMPHASIZED,
PP. 335-38 AND 344-45.  ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE EXAMINATION, WHEN
STRIPPED, OF ONE MAN.  P. 337.  FN12  THE MITCHELL CASE, SUPRA, P. 67,
REMOVES ALL MY DOUBTS AS TO THE TRUE MCNABB RULE.  IT SAYS:
"INEXCUSABLE DETENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ILLEGALLY EXTRACTING EVIDENCE
FROM AN ACCUSED, AND THE SUCCESSFUL EXTRACTION OF SUCH INCULPATORY
STATEMENTS BY CONTINUOUS QUESTIONING FOR MANY HOURS UNDER PSYCHOLOGICAL
PRESSURE, WERE THE DECISIVE FEATURES IN THE MCNABB CASE WHICH LED US TO
RULE THAT A CONVICTION ON SUCH EVIDENCE COULD NOT STAND."  FN13 

DURING DETENTION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL COMMITMENT STATUTE IS
THE LIKELIHOOD THAT POLICE OFFICIALS WILL USE COERCION FOR THE
EXTRACTION OF AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION SO STRONG AS TO JUSTIFY THE
EXCLUSION BY THIS COURT OF ALL CONFESSIONS TO THE POLICE OBTAINED AFTER
THEIR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF PROMPT PRODUCTION OF THE
ACCUSED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE?  I THINK NOT.  IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT A
PROMPT HEARING GIVES AN ACCUSED AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN A LAWYER; FN14
TO SECURE FROM HIM ADVICE AS TO MAINTAINING AN ABSOLUTE SILENCE TO ALL
QUESTIONS, NO MATTER HOW APPARENTLY INNOCUOUS; TO GAIN COMPLETE FREEDOM
FROM POLICE INTERROGATION IN ALL BAILABLE OFFENSES N15; AND THAT THESE
PRIVILEGES ARE MORE VALUABLE TO THE ILLITERATE AND INEXPERIENCED THAN
TO THE EDUCATED AND WELL-BRIEFED ACCUSED.  PROPER PROTECTION OF THE
IGNORANT IS OF COURSE DESIRABLE, BUT THE RULE NOW ANNOUNCED FORCES
EXCLUSION OF ALL CONFESSIONS GIVEN DURING ILLEGAL RESTRAINT.  IT WILL
SHIFT THE INQUIRY TO THE LEGALITY OF THE ARREST AND RESTRAINT, RATHER
THAN TO WHETHER THE CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY.  SUCH EXCLUSION BECOMES
AUTOMATIC ON PROOF OF DETENTION IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMITMENT STATUTE,
FOLLOWED BY A CONFESSION TO POLICE OFFICIALS BEFORE COMMITMENT.  IT IS
NOW MADE ANALOGOUS TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS THROUGH UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OR
THROUGH COMPULSION OR BY DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  I DO NOT THINK THIS IS
THE DOCTRINE OF THE MCNABB CASE OR THAT IT SHOULD NOW BE MADE AN
EXPLICIT RULE OF FEDERAL LAW. 

THE RULE AS TO THE INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL COURTS
OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, FOURTH AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS IS, IT SEEMS TO ME, INAPPLICABLE AS AN ANALOGY TO A
SITUATION SUCH AS EXISTED IN THE MCNABB CASE AND HERE.  FN16  BY
ASSUMPTION OF THIS COURT, IN THE MCNABB CASE THE MCNABB CONFESSIONS
WERE OBTAINED WITHOUT "DISREGARD OF LIBERTIES DEEMED FUNDAMENTAL BY THE
CONSTITUTION," MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 339, I.E., WITHOUT
VIOLATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  I TAKE IT THE SAME ASSUMPTION APPLIES
AS TO UPSHAW.  UNDER THIS ASSUMPTION, THE MCNABB CONFESSIONS WOULD HAVE
BEEN ADMISSIBLE IF THE COURT HAD NOT BELIEVED THERE WAS A FAILURE TO
FOLLOW THE STATUTE ON COMMITMENTS.  CONFESSIONS, OF COURSE, ARE ALSO
INADMISSIBLE WHEN COERCED IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401,
404; HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596.  WHEN OTHER EVIDENCE IS THE DIRECT
RESULT OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT SUCH AS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT, THIS COURT HAS SAID, IN FEDERAL CASES, THAT TO PERMIT ITS
USE WOULD IMPAIR THE PROTECTION OF THIS MAJOR GUARANTY OF A FREE
COUNTRY.  FN17  WHEN, AS IN THE MCNABB CASE, THERE ARE CONFESSIONS
AFTER FAILURE TO OBSERVE STATUTORY DIRECTIONS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE COERCED
THE CONFESSIONS THE RULE AS TO EVIDENCE EXTRACTED IN DEFIANCE OF THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY.  FN18 

THIS COURT BY DECISION HAS EXCLUDED EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY UNREASONABLE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OR BY COERCION TO A
DEGREE THAT VIOLATES THE FIFTH OR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THE
ADMISSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD IMPERIL THE EFFICACY OF THOSE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  IF CONFESSIONS OBTAINED DURING UNLAWFUL
DETENTION ARE NOT EXCLUDED BY THE FACT OF UNLAWFUL DETENTION ALONE, THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED ARE NEVERTHELESS
PROTECTED BY THE RULE THAT NO INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION IS ADMISSIBLE.  IT
IS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS TO EXTEND THIS
PROTECTION TO EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH VIOLATION OF A STATUTE OR A
RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THOSE TO WHOM THE CONFESSION IS MADE.  IN
CRIMINAL TRIALS, THE METHOD OF OBTAINING EVIDENCE HAS NEVER BEEN A
REASON FOR BARRING ITS USE EXCEPT WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE
VIOLATED.  FN19  THE PROHIBITION OF WIRETAPPING IN SEC. 605 OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT IS NOT THE BASIS FOR THE EXCLUSION IN
PROSECUTIONS OF EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED.  THE EXCLUSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE
IS BASED ON AN EXPLICIT DIRECTION OF THE SECTION THAT INFORMATION SO
OBTAINED SHOULD NOT BE DIVULGED N20.  CONGRESS COULD, OF COURSE, PASS
SUCH A STATUTE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF A CONFESSION AS EVIDENCE, IF
OBTAINED DURING AN UNLAWFUL DETENTION.  THE RULE OF THE OLMSTEAD CASE,
277 U.S. 438, 466, DERIVED FROM THE COMMON LAW THAT THE ADMISSIBILITY
OF EVIDENCE IS NOT AFFECTED BY CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATORS WHERE THERE IS
NO VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY, STANDS UNIMPAIRED. 

IF THIS JUDICIAL RULE OF EXCLUSION OF ALL CONFESSIONS SECURED AFTER
ILLEGAL DETENTION IS ADHERED TO, IT MUST MEAN THAT THIS COURT THINKS
ILLEGAL DETENTION IS SO LIKELY TO RESULT IN "THIRD DEGREE" THAT IT
SHOULD BE OUTLAWED PER SE.  THERE IS A REFERENCE TO "THIRD DEGREE" IN
MCNABB, P. 344, BUT, AS INDICATED ABOVE, P. 425, NO RELIANCE UPON THE
DETENTION AS COERCIVE IN THE DUE PROCESS SENSE.  FN21  IF ILLEGAL
DETENTION, PER SE, IS BELIEVED SUFFICIENTLY LIKELY TO PRODUCE A COERCED
CONFESSION AS TO JUSTIFY EXCLUSION OF SUCH CONFESSIONS AS EVIDENCE, IT
DOES NOT REQUIRE THIS EXTENSION OF THE MCNABB RULE TO MAKE SUCH
EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE.  A COURT NEVER KNOWS WHETHER A CONFESSION IS OR
IS NOT VOLUNTARY.  IT BARS CONFESSIONS ON UNCONTROVERTED PROOF OF FACTS
WHICH AS A MATTER OF LAW ARE DEEMED SO COERCIVE AS TO BE LIKELY TO
PRODUCE AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION.  CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227,
238-39; MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 404.  IF ILLEGAL DETENTION
ALONE WERE DEEMED THAT COERCIVE, THE CONFESSIONS WOULD BE BARRED AS A
MATTER OF DUE PROCESS IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  FN22  SO HERE
IF ILLEGAL DETENTION ALONE IS THE DECISIVE FACTOR, THE RULE OF
EXCLUSION SURELY WILL APPLY TO BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL TRIALS AS
VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  BUT THE MCNABB RULE DOES NOT
APPLY TO TRIALS IN STATE COURTS.  FN23  IT IS BECAUSE ILLEGAL DETENTION
WAS NOT THOUGHT TO BE PER SE COERCIVE THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO CREATE
THE MCNABB RULE OF EXCLUSION. 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, I CONCLUDE THAT DETENTION ALONE, EVEN FOR
THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING INFORMATION, SHOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY THE EXCLUSION OF A CONFESSION TO POLICE OFFICERS OBTAINED AFTER
UNNECESSARY DELAY AND BEFORE COMMITMENT. 

C. THIS BRINGS ME TO A STATEMENT OF THE TRUE RULE OF THE MCNABB CASE,
AS I UNDERSTAND IT.  THIS RULE IS THAT PURPOSEFUL, UNLAWFUL DETENTION
ILLEGALLY TO EXTRACT EVIDENCE AND THE SUCCESSFUL EXTRACTION OF
CONFESSIONS UNDER PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE, OTHER THAN MERE DETENTION FOR
LIMITED PERIODS, MAKES CONFESSIONS SO OBTAINED INADMISSIBLE.  THIS
STATEMENT IS A PARAPHRASE OF THE MITCHELL INTERPRETATION REFERRED TO IN
THE PRECEDING SUBDIVISION.  IT MEANS THAT PRESSURE SHORT OF COERCION
BUT BEYOND MERE DETENTION MAKES CONFESSIONS INADMISSIBLE.  OBVIOUSLY
THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETION AS TO HOW MUCH PSYCHOLOGICAL
PRESSURE IS NECESSARY.  IF ANY MATERIAL AMOUNT IS SUFFICIENT, THE RULE
DIFFERS LITTLE FROM ONE DENYING ADMISSIBILITY IF OBTAINED DURING
ILLEGAL RESTRAINT.  IF ALMOST COERCION IS REQUIRED, THE RULE WILL
DIFFER LITTLE FROM THAT EXCLUDING AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION.  UNDER
THIS INTERPRETATION OF MCNABB, I SUPPOSE, AS IN COERCED CONFESSIONS, IT
SHOULD BE LEFT TO A JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF
PRESSURE WHERE THE ADMITTED FACTS DO NOT SHOW IMPROPER PRESSURE AS A
MATTER OF LAW. 

                            II. 

THE COURT NOW SAYS THAT ILLEGAL DETENTION ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO BAR
FROM EVIDENCE A CONFESSION TO THE POLICE DURING THAT UNLAWFUL
DETENTION.  AS I THINK THIS IS AN IMPROPER EXTENSION OF THE MCNABB
RULE, I PROCEED TO STATE THE APPLICATION OF THE MCNABB RULE, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, TO UPSHAW'S SITUATION.  PERHAPS UPSHAW'S ARREST WITHOUT
A WARRANT WAS ALSO WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE
ARRESTING OFFICER TO BELIEVE HE HAD COMMITTED A FELONY.  THIS UNLAWFUL
ARREST IS NOT RELIED UPON IN THE OPINION.  SO FAR AS THE ADMISSIBILITY
OF THE CONFESSION IS CONCERNED, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT IT MAY HAVE
BEEN OBTAINED AS THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL ARREST OR AN UNLAWFUL
DETENTION.  I THINK THERE WAS LESS PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE UPON UPSHAW
THAN THERE WAS UPON THE MCNABBS.  THAT PRECEDENT, THEREFORE, IF THE
TRUE MCNABB RULE IS PROPERLY STATED IN PART I, SUBDIVISION C, ABOVE,
DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO DECLARE UPSHAW'S CONFESSION INADMISSIBLE.  IN
THE MCNABBS' CASE, THE FACTS OF THEIR ILLEGAL DETENTION THAT CAUSED
THIS COURT'S ACTION APPEAR FROM THE OPINION AS SET OUT BELOW.  FN24  AS
FOR UPSHAW THE FACTS ARE DETAILED IN THE FOOTNOTE N25.  THE TIME
BETWEEN CONFESSION AND COMMITMENT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  UNITED STATES V.
MITCHELL, SUPRA. THE INDICATIONS OF PRESSURE ON THE MCNABBS THAT LEAD
ME TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT SHOULD HOLD UPSHAW'S CONFESSION
ADMISSIBLE UNDER MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MCNABB RULE BEFORE THIS
PRESENT HOLDING ARE THE LACK OF EXPERIENCE OF THE MCNABBS, THE
"BREAKING" OF BENJAMIN BY CONFRONTATION OF CHARGES OF HIS GUILT BY HIS
RELATIVES AND CONFEDERATES, THE GREATER NUMBER OF OFFICERS QUESTIONING
THEM, AND THE LONGER TIME THE MCNABB GROUP WAS INTERROGATED.  FN26

                  III. 

I DO NOT AGREE THAT WE SHOULD NOW EXTEND THE MCNABB RULE BY SAYING
THAT EVERY CONFESSION OBTAINED BY POLICE AFTER UNNECESSARY DELAY IN
ARRAIGNMENT FOR COMMITMENT AND BEFORE MAGISTERIAL COMMITMENT MUST BE
BARRED FROM THE TRIAL.  THOSE MOST CONCERNED WITH A PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ARE AGAINST ANY EXTENSION. 

(1)  THE DEPARTURE OF THE MCNABB AND ANDERSON CASES FROM WELL
ESTABLISHED METHODS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST COERCION HAS BEEN CONDEMNED
BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND NOT ACTED UPON BY THE SENATE. 
FN27 

(2)  OFFICERS CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW HAVE
OBJECTED FOR THE REASON THAT FEAR OF THE APPLICATION OF ITS DRASTIC
PENALTIES DETERRED OFFICERS FROM QUESTIONING DURING REASONABLE DELAYS
IN COMMITMENT.  FN28 

(3)  STATE COURTS UNDER SIMILAR LAWS AND CONDITIONS HAVE REFUSED TO
FOLLOW THE MCNABB EXAMPLE.  FN29 

(4)  LAW REVIEW COMMENT GENERALLY CONDEMNS THE RULE.  FN30 

IN THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRELIMINARY DRAFT,
SUBMITTED MAY 3, 1943, TO THIS COURT, THERE WAS INCLUDED A SEC. 5(B)
WHICH PURPORTED TO CODIFY THE MCNABB RULE.  FN31  IN RESPONSE TO
WIDESPREAD OPPOSITION TO SUCH A CODIFICATION,  FN32  THIS SECTION OF
RULE 5 WAS OMITTED FROM THE FINAL DRAFT.  THESE RULES WERE DRAWN BY A
REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BENCH AND BAR WITH WIDE PARTICIPATION
BEYOND THE MEMBERSHIP BY INTERESTED PARTIES FROM BOTH GROUPS.  THEY
WERE TRANSMITTED ON DECEMBER 26, 1944, BY THIS COURT TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO BE REPORTED TO CONGRESS, MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE MCNABB
CASE AND AFTER THE HEARINGS ON THE HOUSE BILL TO NULLIFY THE MCNABB
RULE.  NEITHER THIS COURT NOR THE CONGRESS RESTORED THE REJECTED
PROPOSAL. 

INSTEAD OF AN EXTENSION OF THE MCNABB RULE, I FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE
LEFT, AS I THINK IT ORIGINALLY WAS, A RULE THAT BARRED A CONFESSION
EXTRACTED UNDER PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE OF THE DEGREE USED IN THE MCNABB
CASE. 

SUCH CONDEMNATION OF EVEN THE RESTRICTED MCNABB RULE BY THOSE
IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENACTMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF OUR
CRIMINAL LAWS SHOULD MAKE THIS COURT, SO FAR REMOVED FROM THE
ACTUALITIES OF CRIME PREVENTION, HESITATE LONG BEFORE PUSHING FARTHER
BY JUDICIAL LEGISLATION ITS CONCEPTION OF THE PROPRIETIES IN CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION.  IT TAKES THIS STEP IN THE BELIEF THAT THEREBY IT
STRENGTHENS CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION BY PROTECTING A PRISONER.  A
PRISONER SHOULD HAVE PROTECTION BUT IT IS WELL TO REMEMBER THAT LAW AND
ORDER IS AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE TO THE PROTECTION OF THE SECURITY OF
ALL.  TODAY'S DECISION PUTS ANOTHER WEAPON IN THE HAND OF THE CRIMINAL
WORLD.  APPARENTLY THE COURT INTENDS TO MAKE THE RULE OF COMMITMENT
"WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DELAY"  FN33  AN IRON RULE WITHOUT FLEXIBILITY TO
MEET THE EMERGENCIES OF CONSPIRACIES, SEARCH FOR CONFEDERATES, OR
EXAMINING INTO THE RAMIFICATIONS OF CRIMINALITY.  THE COURT DOES THIS
BY FAILING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN NECESSARY AND UNNECESSARY DELAY IN
COMMITMENT.  IT USES WORDS LIKE "FORTHWITH" AND "PROMPTLY" AND THUS
DESTROYS THE LEEWAY GIVEN BY THE RULE TO POLICE INVESTIGATIONS.  ALL, I
THINK, WITHOUT ANY NEED FOR SUCH ACTION SINCE EVERY COERCED CONFESSION
HAS BEEN INADMISSIBLE FOR GENERATIONS.  THE POSITION STATED IN THIS
DISSENT DOES NOT ENVISAGE A SURRENDER TO EVILS IN THE HANDLING OF
CRIMINALS.  IF THERE IS A PREVALENT ABUSE OF THE RIGHT TO QUESTION
PRISONERS, THE SOUNDER REMEDY LIES IN POLICE DISCIPLINE, IN STATUTORY
PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDING OFFICIALS, IN VIGOROUS JUDICIAL PROTECTION
AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES FOR CONFESSIONS, AND IN LEGISLATIVE
ENACTMENTS FOR INQUIRIES INTO CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING CRIMES BY
METHODS THAT PROTECT BOTH THE PUBLIC AND SUSPECTS - FOR EXAMPLE, AN
INQUIRY BEFORE A MAGISTRATE WITH SEALED EVIDENCE. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THIS CONVICTION IN RELIANCE UPON THE VERDICT OF THE
PROPERLY INSTRUCTED JURY THAT THIS WAS A VOLUNTARY CONFESSION. 

FN1  54 STAT. 688, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 687. 

RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES, TOGETHER WITH NOTES TO THE RULES, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., S. DOC.
NO. 175. 

NO CHANGE WAS MADE IN THE LAW BY P.L. 772, 80TH CONG., EFFECTIVE
SEPTEMBER 1, 1948, SEC. 20, 62 STAT. 683, 862.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 595 IS
NOT IN EFFECT BUT HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY RULE 5(A) OF THE RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES: 

"5(A)  APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER.  AN OFFICER MAKING AN
ARREST UNDER A WARRANT ISSUED UPON A COMPLAINT OR ANY PERSON MAKING AN
ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT SHALL TAKE THE ARRESTED PERSON WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY DELAY BEFORE THE NEAREST AVAILABLE COMMISSIONER OR BEFORE
ANY OTHER NEARBY OFFICER EMPOWERED TO COMMIT PERSONS CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  WHEN A PERSON ARRESTED
WITHOUT A WARRANT IS BROUGHT BEFORE A COMMISSIONER OR OTHER OFFICER, A
COMPLAINT SHALL BE FILED FORTHWITH." 

FN2  FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371, 383: 

"THE FINAL QUESTION TO WHICH WE ARE THUS BROUGHT IS NOT THAT OF THE
POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO AMEND OR REPEAL ANY GIVEN RULE OR
PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON LAW, FOR THEY NEITHER HAVE NOR CLAIM THAT
POWER, BUT IT IS THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THESE COURTS, IN THE
COMPLETE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT, TO
DECLARE AND EFFECTUATE, UPON COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES, WHAT IS THE PRESENT
RULE UPON A GIVEN SUBJECT IN THE LIGHT OF FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERED
CONDITIONS, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DECLARED AND
PRACTICED." 

FN3  OF THE CASES CITED, ONLY UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 14 PET. 430, AND
FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371, INVOLVE A CHANGE BY THIS COURT OF
A RULE OF EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BECOME FIRMLY ENTRENCHED IN OUR FEDERAL
JURISPRUDENCE.  THE OTHER CASES INVOLVE A CHOICE BETWEEN CONFLICTING
RULES OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RULE WHERE NONE HAD THERETOFORE
EXISTED. 

FN4  318 U.S. 338-39: 

"  ...  RELYING UPON THE GUARANTEES OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAT NO
PERSON 'SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW,' THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF
FORBADE THE USE OF THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.  THE GOVERNMENT COUNTERS
BY URGING THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROSCRIBES ONLY 'INVOLUNTARY'
CONFESSIONS, AND THAT JUDGED BY APPROPRIATE CRITERIA OF 'VOLUNTARINESS'
THE PETITIONERS' ADMISSIONS WERE VOLUNTARY AND HENCE ADMISSIBLE." 

THE COURT WAS ESTABLISHING WHAT IT THOUGHT WERE "CIVILIZED STANDARDS
OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE."  P. 340. 

FN5  AS NO QUESTION WAS RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN THE MCNABB CASE
BECAUSE OF PROLONGED POLICE DETENTION BEFORE COMMITMENT, THE RECORD DID
NOT SHOW WHEN THEY WERE COMMITTED.  DISSENT MCNABB V. UNITED STATES AT
P. 349.  THE COURT ASSUMED THAT DETENTION WITHOUT COMMITMENT LASTED FOR
FREEMAN AND RAYMOND MCNABB FROM BETWEEN ONE AND TWO O'CLOCK THURSDAY
MORNING, WHEN THEY WERE ARRESTED TWELVE MILES FROM CHATTANOOGA, UNTIL
THE COMPLETION OF THE QUESTIONING ABOUT TWO O'CLOCK SATURDAY MORNING,
FORTY-EIGHT HOURS LATER.  ONE CANNOT TELL FROM THE OPINION WHEN FREEMAN
AND RAYMOND CONFESSED OR TO WHAT.  A THIRD MCNABB, BENJAMIN, WAS NOT
TAKEN INTO CUSTODY UNTIL BETWEEN EIGHT AND NINE O'CLOCK FRIDAY
MORNING.  HE CONFESSED AFTER FIVE OR SIX HOURS.  THE COURT ASSUMED THAT
HE HAD NOT BEEN COMMITTED PRIOR TO CONFESSION.  MCNABB V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, PP. 334-38. 

SO FAR AS THE RULING IN THE MCNABB CASE IS CONCERNED, THE COURT'S
UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS, AS STATED IN THE OPINION, IS THE BASIS FOR
THE DECISION.  APPARENTLY FREEMAN AND RAYMOND WERE BY 10:30 A.M. OF THE
MORNING OF THEIR ARREST COMMITTED FOR OPERATING AN ILLICIT STILL,
ANOTHER CRIME THAN, THOUGH CONNECTED WITH, THE MURDER FOR WHICH THEY
WERE CONVICTED.  BENJAMIN WAS COMMITTED FOR MURDER WITHIN FOUR HOURS OF
HIS SURRENDER.  PETITION FOR REHEARING, PP. 3-5. 

SEE NEW TRIAL, MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 904.  THIS
COMMITMENT FOR A DIFFERENT CRIME WAS A SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
COMMITMENT STATUTE TO JUSTIFY THE ADMISSION OF THE CONFESSIONS IN THE
SECOND MCNABB TRIAL, IN THE VIEW OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

FN6  BRINEGAR V. UNITED STATES, 165 F.2D 512, 515; RUHL V. UNITED
STATES, 148 F.2D 173, 175; PADDY V. UNITED STATES, 143 F.2D 847, 852;
UNITED STATES V. GROTE, 140 F.2D 413, 414-15; UNITED STATES V. KLEE, 50
F.SUPP.  679. 

FN7  THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE CONCERNING MCNABB:  "THE
COURT THEN HELD THE CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BY THIRD DEGREE METHODS WERE
INADMISSIBLE  ...  "  STATE V. BEHLER, 65 IDAHO 464, 469, 146 P.2D 338,
340.  "THE COURTS ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE PRACTICES OF THE POLICE
EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THEY MAY BE ASKED TO USE EVIDENCE THEREBY OBTAINED
AGAINST THE WILL OF THE ACCUSED."  PEOPLE V. FOX, 148 P.2D 424,
431(CALIF.).  "  ...  THE NEW DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ANNOUNCED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES IN MCNABB V. UNITED STATES  ...  "  THOMPSON V. HARRIS, V.
HARRIS, 107 UTAH 99, 112, 152 P.2D 91, 97.  TO THE SAME EFFECT ARE
CAVAZOS V. STATE, 146 TEX. CR. REP. 144, 149, 172 S.W.2D 348, 351,
PEOPLE V. GOLDBLATT, 383 ILL. 176, 188, 49 N.E.2D 36, 41; ROYSE, J.,
DISSENTING, IN SCOOPMIRE V. TAFLINGER, 114 IND. APP. 419, 434, 52
N.E.2D 728, 733. 

FN8  SEE ALSO THE STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS BIDDLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 2 OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 3690, P. 27. 

FN9  E.G.:  "FOR IN THEIR TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONERS THE ARRESTING
OFFICERS ASSUMED FUNCTIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY DENIED THEM. 
THEY SUBJECTED THE ACCUSED TO THE PRESSURES OF A PROCEDURE WHICH IS
WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE VITAL BUT VERY RESTRICTED DUTIES OF THE
INVESTIGATING AND ARRESTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND WHICH TENDS
TO UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING."  PP. 341-42. 
"A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, IN WHICH RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF ALL MEN IS
CENTRAL, NATURALLY GUARDS AGAINST THE MISUSE OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS.  ... EXPERIENCE HAS THEREFORE COUNSELED THAT SAFEGUARDS MUST
BE PROVIDED AGAINST THE DANGERS OF THE OVERZEALOUS AS WELL AS THE
DESPOTIC."  P. 343. 

FN10  SEE THE NCNABB RULE TRANSFORMED, 47 COL. L. REV. 1214. 

FN11  CF.:  "FOR IN THEIR TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONERS THE ARRESTING
OFFICERS ASSUMED FUNCTIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY DENIED THEM." 
PP. 341-42.  "PLAINLY, A CONVICTION RESTING ON EVIDENCE SECURED THROUGH
SUCH A FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THE PROCEDURE WHICH CONGRESS HAS COMMANDED
CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT MAKING THE COURTS THEMSELVES
ACCOMPLICES IN WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF LAW."  P. 345.  "AND THE
EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE HARDLY REQUIRES DISREGARD
OF FAIR PROCEDURES IMPOSED BY LAW."  P. 347.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE
ARE REPEATED EXPRESSIONS SUCH AS "THE EVIDENCE ELICITED  ...  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED HERE," P. 341; "EVIDENCE SECURED UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES REVEALED HERE," P. 347, WHICH POINT THE OTHER WAY. 

FN12  APPARENTLY SUCH AN EXAMINATION IS CONSIDERED EFFECTIVE
COERCION.  SEE MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401. 

FN13  SEE ALSO THE STATEMENT IN HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596, 606:
"LEGISLATION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY REFLECTS A SIMILAR BELIEF THAT
DETENTION FOR PURPOSES OF ELICITING CONFESSIONS THROUGH SECRET,
PERSISTENT, LONG-CONTINUED INTERROGATION VIOLATES SENTIMENTS DEEPLY
EMBEDDED IN THE FEELINGS OF OUR PEOPLE.  SEE MCNABB V. UNITED STATES,
318 U.S. 332, 342-43." 

IN DISCUSSING THE EFFECT OF THE MITCHELL CASE, A NOTE IN 38 JOURNAL
OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 136, SAYS AT P. 137:  "THERE THE COURT
PHRASED THE RULE OF THE MCNABB CASE TO STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
THE ILLEGAL DETENTION OF AN ACCUSED PERSON WILL INVALIDATE HIS
CONFESSION ONLY WHEN THE DETENTION ITSELF ACTS AS AN INDUCEMENT IN THE
PROCURING OF THE CONFESSION." 

FN14  RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, NOS. 5(B) AND 44. 

FN15  18 U.S.C. SECS. 3041, 3141; RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, NO.
46(A)(1). 

FN16  FOURTH AMENDMENT:  "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN
THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL
ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR
THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

FIFTH AMENDMENT:  "NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL, OR
OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME, UNLESS ON A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A
GRAND JURY, EXCEPT IN CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR IN
THE MILITIA, WHEN IN ACTUAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER;
NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN
JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE
TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."    SEE WEEKS V.
UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383; BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616;
SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385; GOULED V.
UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298; HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145,
150. 

FN17  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 393:  "IF LETTERS AND
PRIVATE DOCUMENTS CAN THUS BE SEIZED AND HELD AND USED IN EVIDENCE
AGAINST A CITIZEN ACCUSED OF AN OFFENSE, THE PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT DECLARING HIS RIGHT TO BE SECURE AGAINST SUCH SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES IS OF NO VALUE, AND, SO FAR AS THOSE THUS PLACED ARE
CONCERNED, MIGHT AS WELL BE STRICKEN FROM THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
EFFORTS OF THE COURTS AND THEIR OFFICIALS TO BRING THE GUILTY TO
PUNISHMENT, PRAISEWORTHY AS THEY ARE, ARE NOT TO BE AIDED BY THE
SACRIFICE OF THOSE GREAT PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY YEARS OF ENDEAVOR
AND SUFFERING WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN THEIR EMBODIMENT IN THE
FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND." 

FN18  COMPARE THE STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT: 

"NOR CAN WE, WITHOUT THE SANCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT,
SUBSCRIBE TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE COURTS HAVE A DISCRETION TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE, THE ADMISSION OF WHICH IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
BECAUSE UNETHICALLY SECURED.  THIS WOULD BE AT VARIANCE WITH THE COMMON
LAW DOCTRINE GENERALLY SUPPORTED BY AUTHORITY.  THERE IS NO CASE THAT
SUSTAINS, NOR ANY RECOGNIZED TEXT BOOK THAT GIVES COLOR TO SUCH A
VIEW.  OUR GENERAL EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT MUCH EVIDENCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN
RECEIVABLE ALTHOUGH NOT OBTAINED BY CONFORMITY TO THE HIGHEST ETHICS. 
THE HISTORY OF CRIMINAL TRIALS SHOWS NUMEROUS CASES OF PROSECUTIONS OF
OATH-BOUND CONSPIRACIES FOR MURDER, ROBBERY, AND OTHER CRIMES, WHERE
OFFICERS OF THE LAW HAVE DISGUISED THEMSELVES AND JOINED THE
ORGANIZATIONS, TAKEN THE OATHS AND GIVEN THEMSELVES EVERY APPEARANCE OF
ACTIVE MEMBERS ENGAGED IN THE PROMOTION OF CRIME, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SECURING EVIDENCE.  EVIDENCE SECURED BY SUCH MEANS HAS ALWAYS BEEN
RECEIVED. 

"A STANDARD WHICH WOULD FORBID THE RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE IF OBTAINED
BY OTHER THAN NICE ETHICAL CONDUCT BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WOULD MAKE
SOCIETY SUFFER AND GIVE CRIMINALS GREATER IMMUNITY THAN HAS BEEN KNOWN
HERETOFORE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTROLLING LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS,
THOSE WHO REALIZE THE DIFFICULTIES IN BRINGING OFFENDERS TO JUSTICE MAY
WELL DEEM IT WISE THAT THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD BE CONFINED TO
CASES WHERE RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WOULD BE VIOLATED BY
ADMITTING IT."  OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 468. 

FN19  E.G., PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BISHOP ATTERBURY, 16 HOW.  ST. TR.
323, 495, 629-30(1723); SYLVESTER THORNTON'S CASE, 1 LEWIN C.C.
49(1824); REX V. DERRINGTON, 2 C. & P. 418(1826); REG. V. GRANATELLI, 7
STATE TR. N.S. 979, 987(1849); HART V. UNITED STATES, 76 U.S. APP. D.C.
193, 130 F.2D 456(C.A.D.C. 1942). 

"IT IS NECESSARY IN THIS CONNECTION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EVIDENCE
ILLEGALLY PROCURED AND EVIDENCE PROCURED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH AND
SEIZURE."  HART V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT P. 459. 

THE ENGLISH EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE FOR CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BY POLICE
QUESTIONING WAS REJECTED BY THIS COURT, AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, IN
BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 556-58. 

FN20  NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379, 382; GOLDSTEIN V.
UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 114, 118. 

FN21  OTHERS HAVE VIEWED THE EXCLUSION OF CONFESSIONS IN THE MCNABB
CASE AS BASED ON THEIR EXTRACTION BY NEAR THIRD-DEGREE MEASURES. 
HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 2 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 3690, P. 92: 

"THE MCNABB DECISION DOES NOT EVEN PREVENT THE USE OF THE MAN'S OWN
CONFESSION AGAINST HIM.  WHAT IT DOES DO IS PREVENT THE USE AGAINST HIM
OF A CONFESSION OBTAINED BY THIRD DEGREE MEANS OR BY MEANS AKIN TO
THIRD DEGREE IN THE FORM OF THE SECRET DETENTION AND FAILURE TO BRING
HIM PROMPTLY TO THE COMMITTING OFFICER." 

FN22  CF. HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596, 599, WHERE THIS COURT SAID IN
STRONGER LANGUAGE THAN IT HAD EVER USED BEFORE, "IF THE UNDISPUTED
EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT FORCE OR COERCION WAS USED TO EXACT THE
CONFESSION, WE WILL NOT PERMIT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO STAND,
EVEN THOUGH WITHOUT THE CONFESSION THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE JURY." 

FN23  TOWNSEND V. BURKE, 334 U.S. 736, 738. 

FN24  318 U.S. AT 334-38: 

"IMMEDIATELY UPON ARREST, FREEMAN, RAYMOND, AND EMUIL WERE TAKEN
DIRECTLY TO THE FEDERAL BUILDING AT CHATTANOOGA.  THEY WERE NOT BROUGHT
BEFORE A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR A JUDGE.  INSTEAD, THEY WERE
PLACED IN A DETENTION ROOM (WHERE THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD SIT OR
LIE DOWN ON, EXCEPT THE FLOOR), AND KEPT THERE FOR ABOUT FOURTEEN
HOURS, FROM THREE O'CLOCK THURSDAY MORNING UNTIL FIVE O'CLOCK THAT
AFTERNOON.  THEY WERE GIVEN SOME SANDWICHES.  THEY WERE NOT PERMITTED
TO SEE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS WHO ATTEMPTED TO VISIT THEM.  THEY HAD NO
LAWYER.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY REQUESTED THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL, OR THAT THEY WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO SUCH
ASSISTANCE. 

"BARNEY MCNABB, WHO HAD BEEN ARRESTED EARLY THURSDAY MORNING BY THE
LOCAL POLICE, WAS HANDED OVER TO THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ABOUT NINE OR
TEN O'CLOCK THAT MORNING.  HE WAS TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OLD; LIKE THE
OTHER MCNABBS HE HAD SPENT HIS ENTIRE LIFE IN THE SETTLEMENT, HAD NEVER
GONE BEYOND JASPER, AND HIS SCHOOLING STOPPED AT THE THIRD GRADE. 
BARNEY WAS PLACED IN A SEPARATE ROOM IN THE FEDERAL BUILDING WHERE HE
WAS QUESTIONED FOR A SHORT PERIOD.  THE OFFICERS THEN TOOK HIM TO THE
SCENE OF THE KILLING, BROUGHT HIM BACK TO THE FEDERAL BUILDING,
QUESTIONED HIM FURTHER FOR ABOUT AN HOUR, AND FINALLY REMOVED HIM TO
THE COUNTY JAIL THREE BLOCKS AWAY. 

"IN THE MEANTIME, DIRECTION OF THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN ASSUMED BY
H.B. TAYLOR, DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT, WITH
HEADQUARTERS AT LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.  TAYLOR WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S
CHIEF WITNESS ON THE CENTRAL ISSUE OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE MCNABBS.  ARRIVING IN CHATTANOOGA EARLY THURSDAY
MORNING, HE SPENT THE DAY IN STUDY OF THE CASE BEFORE BEGINNING HIS
INTERROGATION OF THE PRISONERS.  FREEMAN, RAYMOND, AND EMUIL, WHO HAD
BEEN TAKEN TO THE COUNTY JAIL ABOUT FIVE O'CLOCK THURSDAY AFTERNOON,
WERE BROUGHT BACK TO THE FEDERAL BUILDING EARLY THAT EVENING. 
ACCORDING TO TAYLOR, HIS QUESTIONING OF THEM BEGAN AT NINE O'CLOCK. 
OTHER OFFICERS SET THE HOUR EARLIER. 

"THROUGHOUT THE QUESTIONING, MOST OF WHICH WAS DONE BY TAYLOR, AT
LEAST SIX OFFICERS WERE PRESENT.  AT NO TIME DURING ITS COURSE WAS A
LAWYER OR ANY RELATIVE OR FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANTS PRESENT.  TAYLOR
BEGAN BY TELLING 'EACH OF THEM BEFORE THEY WERE QUESTIONED THAT WE WERE
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS, WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING, AND ADVISED THEM THAT
THEY DID NOT HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT, THAT THEY NEED NOT FEAR FORCE,
AND THAT ANY STATEMENT MADE BY THEM WOULD BE USED AGAINST THEM, AND
THAT THEY NEED NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ASKED UNLESS THEY DESIRED TO DO
SO.' 

"THE MEN WERE QUESTIONED SINGLY AND TOGETHER.  AS DESCRIBED BY ONE OF
THE OFFICERS, 'THEY WOULD BE BROUGHT IN, BE QUESTIONED POSSIBLY AT
VARIOUS TIMES, SOME OF THEM HALF AN HOUR, OR MAYBE AN HOUR, OR MAYBE
TWO HOURS.'  TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT THE QUESTIONING CONTINUED UNTIL ONE
O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, WHEN THE DEFENDANTS WERE TAKEN BACK TO THE
COUNTY JAIL. 

"THE QUESTIONING WAS RESUMED FRIDAY MORNING, PROBABLY SOMETIME
BETWEEN NINE AND TEN O'CLOCK.  'THEY WERE BROUGHT DOWN FROM THE JAIL
SEVERAL TIMES, HOW MANY I DON'T KNOW.  THEY WERE QUESTIONED ONE AT A
TIME, AS WE WOULD FINISH ONE HE WOULD BE SENT BACK AND WE WOULD TRY TO
RECONCILE THE FACTS THEY TOLD, CONNECT UP THE STATEMENTS THEY MADE, AND
THEN WE WOULD GET TWO OF THEM TOGETHER.  I THINK AT ONE TIME WE
PROBABLY HAD ALL FIVE TOGETHER TRYING TO RECONCILE THEIR STATEMENTS
... WHEN I KNEW THE TRUTH I TOLD THE DEFENDANTS WHAT I KNEW.  I NEVER
CALLED THEM DAMNED LIARS, BUT I DID SAY THEY WERE LYING TO ME.  ...  IT
WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL ALL THE MOTIONS I MADE WITH MY HANDS DURING
THE TWO DAYS OF QUESTIONING, HOWEVER, I DIDN'T THREATEN ANYONE.  NONE
OF THE OFFICERS WERE PREJUDICED TOWARDS THESE DEFENDANTS NOR BITTER
TOWARD THEM.  WE WERE ONLY TRYING TO FIND OUT WHO KILLED OUR FELLOW
OFFICER.' 

"BENJAMIN MCNABB, THE THIRD OF THE PETITIONERS, CAME TO THE OFFICE OF
THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE O'CLOCK FRIDAY MORNING AND
VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED.  BENJAMIN WAS TWENTY YEARS OLD, HAD NEVER BEEN
ARRESTED BEFORE, HAD LIVED IN THE MCNABB SETTLEMENT ALL HIS LIFE, AND
HAD NOT GOT BEYOND THE FOURTH GRADE IN SCHOOL.  HE TOLD THE OFFICERS
THAT HE HAD HEARD THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR HIM BUT THAT HE WAS
ENTIRELY INNOCENT OF ANY CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME.  THE OFFICERS MADE
HIM TAKE HIS CLOTHES OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES BECAUSE, SO HE TESTIFIED,
'THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT ME.  THIS SCARED ME PRETTY MUCH.'  HE WAS NOT
TAKEN BEFORE A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR A JUDGE.  INSTEAD, THE
OFFICERS QUESTIONED HIM FOR ABOUT FIVE OR SIX HOURS.  WHEN FINALLY IN
THE AFTERNOON HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE OTHERS
ACCUSED HIM OF HAVING FIRED BOTH SHOTS, BENJAMIN SAID, 'IF THEY ARE
GOING TO ACCUSE ME OF THAT, I WILL TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH; YOU MAY GET
YOUR PENCIL AND PAPER AND WRITE IT DOWN.'  HE THEN CONFESSED THAT HE
HAD FIRED THE FIRST SHOT, BUT DENIED THAT HE HAD ALSO FIRED THE
SECOND. 

"BECAUSE THERE WERE 'CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THEIR STORIES, AND WE
WERE ANXIOUS TO STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT,' THE DEFENDANTS WERE BROUGHT TO
THE FEDERAL BUILDING FROM THE JAIL BETWEEN NINE AND TEN O'CLOCK FRIDAY
NIGHT.  THEY WERE AGAIN QUESTIONED, SOMETIMES SEPARATELY, SOMETIMES
TOGETHER.  TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT 'WE HAD FREEMAN MCNABB ON THE NIGHT OF
THE SECOND (FRIDAY) FOR ABOUT THREE AND ONEHALF HOURS.  I DON'T
REMEMBER THE TIME BUT I REMEMBER HIM PARTICULARLY BECAUSE HE CERTAINLY
WAS HARD TO GET ANYTHING OUT OF.  HE WOULD ADMIT HE LIED BEFORE, AND
THEN TELL IT ALL OVER AGAIN.  I KNEW SOME OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE WHOLE
TRUTH AND IT TOOK ABOUT THREE AND ONE-HALF HOURS BEFORE HE WOULD SAY IT
WAS THE TRUTH, AND I FINALLY GOT HIM TO TELL A STORY WHICH HE SAID WAS
TRUE AND WHICH CERTAINLY FIT BETTER WITH THE PHYSICAL FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES THAN ANY OTHER STORY HE HAD TOLD.  IT TOOK ME THREE AND
ONE-HALF HOURS TO GET A STORY THAT WAS SATISFACTORY OR THAT I BELIEVED
WAS NEARER THE TRUTH THAN WHEN WE STARTED.' 

"THE QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANTS CONTINUED UNTIL ABOUT TWO O'CLOCK
SATURDAY MORNING, WHEN THE OFFICERS FINALLY 'GOT ALL THE DISCREPANCIES
STRAIGHTENED OUT.'  BENJAMIN DID NOT CHANGE HIS STORY THAT HE HAD FIRED
ONLY THE FIRST SHOT.  FREEMAN AND RAYMOND ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE
PRESENT WHEN THE SHOOTING OCCURRED, BUT DENIED BENJAMIN'S CHARGE THAT
THEY HAD URGED HIM TO SHOOT.  BARNEY AND EMUIL, WHO WERE ACQUITTED AT
THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIAL COURT, MADE NO INCRIMINATING ADMISSIONS." 

IN APPRAISING THE SEVERITY OF THE MCNABB PRESSURE FOR CONFESSIONS IN
COMPARISON WITH THAT EXERTED IN THE UPSHAW DETENTION, IT SHOULD ALSO BE
BORNE IN MIND THAT IN THE ANDERSON CASE, 318 U.S. AT 355, A CONFESSION
WAS EXCLUDED THAT RESULTED FROM TWO HOURS' QUESTIONING.  I HAVE NO
EXPLANATION FOR THIS EXCLUSION.  IF IT WAS INTENDED TO MAKE TWO HOURS'
QUESTIONING A BAR TO A CONFESSION, THE LATER MITCHELL CASE IS
INCONSISTENT WITH SUCH A CONCLUSION.  SEE THE QUOTATION PRECEDING NOTE
13, SUPRA.  THE OPINION DOES NOT RELY UPON IT AND IT SEEMS TO ME
OBVIOUSLY WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMITS UNLESS WE ARE TO USE THE PENALTY
THEORY.  SEE P. 421, SUPRA. 

FN25  UPSHAW, A NEGRO MAN ABLE TO READ AND WRITE WHO HAD COMPLETED
ONE YEAR OF HIGH SCHOOL, WAS ARRESTED AT HIS ROOM BY DETECTIVES FURR
AND CULPEPPER ON A CHARGE OF LARCENY OF A WRIST WATCH AT ABOUT 2 A.M.,
FRIDAY, JUNE 6.  HE WAS TAKEN TO NO. 10 PRECINCT AND QUESTIONED FOR
ABOUT 30 MINUTES.  FURR TESTIFIED THAT PETITIONER WAS UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AT THE TIME.  UPSHAW DENIED THIS.  HE WAS COUGHING
SPORADICALLY AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST AND SUBSEQUENTLY UNTIL HIS
COMMITMENT.  AT APPROXIMATELY 10 A.M., JUNE 6, HE WAS QUESTIONED AGAIN
BY FURR, AT WHICH TIME HE DENIED GUILT.  CULPEPPER QUESTIONED HIM
THROUGH THE BARS IN THE CELL BLOCK AT 11 A.M. AND AGAIN AT 5:30 P.M. ON
JUNE 6.  FURR QUESTIONED HIM AGAIN FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES AT 7:30
P.M. ON THE SAME DAY.  AT 9 A.M., JUNE 7, UPSHAW CONFESSED, AND AT 9:30
A.M. HE SIGNED A STATEMENT WHICH HE IDENTIFIED AS HIS STATEMENT AT 2
P.M., JUNE 7.  THUS SOME 31 HOURS INTERVENED BETWEEN THE ARREST AND THE
CONFESSION.  AT 9 P.M. THAT NIGHT UPSHAW WAS TAKEN TO THE HOME OF THE
COMPLAINING WITNESS WHERE HE REPEATED HIS CONFESSION TO HER. 

THE PETITIONER WAS TAKEN BEFORE A MAGISTRATE FOR COMMITMENT ON
MONDAY, JUNE 9.  THE OFFICERS TESTIFIED THAT THEY HAD NOT HAD HIM
COMMITTED SOONER BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT CASE AGAINST
HIM TO CAUSE THE POLICE COURT TO HOLD HIM AND BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO
CONTINUE THEIR INVESTIGATION. 

FN26  SEE 47 COL. L. REV. 1214, 1217, THE MCNABB RULE TRANSFORMED. 

FN27  93 CONG. REC. 1392; H.R. REP. NO. 29, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN28  INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE, HEARINGS, SUPRA,
43; NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION, HEARINGS, SUPRA, 26; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, H.R. REP. NO. 29, SUPRA. 

FN29  FRY V. STATE, 78 OKLA. CR. 299, 313, 147 P.2D 803, 810-11;
STATE V. FOLKES, 174 ORE.  568, 588, 150 P.2D 17, 25; STATE V. SMITH,
158 KAN. 645, 651, 149 P.2D 600, 604; PEOPLE V. MALINSKI, 292 N.Y. 360,
370-372, 387, 55 N.E.2D 353, 357, 365; STATE V. COLLETT, 58 N.E.2D 417,
426-27(OHIO); STATE V. NAGEL, 75 N.D. 495, 28 N.W.2D 665, 679; STATE V.
ELLIS, 354 MO. 998, 1005, 193 S.W.2D 31, 34; FINLEY V. STATE, 153 FLA.
394, 14 SO.2D 844; STATE V. BROWNING, 206 ARK. 791, 793-798, 178 S.W.2D
77, 78-80; RUSSELL V. STATE, 196 GA. 275, 285, 26 S.E.2D 528, 534. 
FN30  INBAU, THE CONFESSION DILEMMA IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
43 ILL. L. REV. 442; 42 MICH. L. REV. 679; 56 HARV. L. REV. 1008; 47
COL. L. REV. 1214.  SEE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE BILL OF
RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, P. VI, WHICH ADVOCATES
MAINTENANCE OF MCNABB RULE UNTIL A BETTER SYSTEM FOR DEALING WITH
CONFESSIONS TO POLICE CAN BE DEVISED. 

FN31  "5(B)  EXCLUSION OF STATEMENT SECURED IN VIOLATION OF RULE.  NO
STATEMENT MADE BY A DEFENDANT IN RESPONSE TO INTERROGATION BY AN
OFFICER OR AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIM IF THE INTERROGATION OCCURS WHILE THE DEFENDANT IS HELD IN
CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THIS RULE." 

FN32  HOLTZOFF, INSTITUTE ON FEDERAL CRIMINAL RULES, 29 A.B.A.J.
603. 

FN33  RULE 5(A), RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE
RULE WAS ADOPTED TO ALLOW DESIRABLE FLEXIBILITY IN THE TIME OF
COMMITMENT.  SEE NOTES TO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS PREPARED
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE; HEARINGS, SUPRA, PP. 36,
39.  IN MEMORANDUM ON THE DETENTION OF ARRESTED PERSONS, SUPRA, IT IS
STATED AT P. 30 WITH REFERENCE TO THE PHRASE "WITHIN A REASONABLE
TIME":  "THIS PHRASE WOULD HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF SAVING CONFESSIONS
WHERE THE DELAY IN COMMITTAL WAS BRIEF AND REASONABLY EXPLAINED; HERE
THE EXISTING TENDENCY OF LOWER COURTS TO APPLY THE MCNABB RULE RIGIDLY
IS PRETTY HARSH ON THE GOVERNMENT." 
..END :




















UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA, 335 U.S. 437 


NO. 75.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15-16, 1948.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 13, 1948.  -
161 PA. SUPER.  58, 53 A.2D 984, REVERSED. 


1.  WITHOUT BEING ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL OR BEING OFFERED
COUNSEL AT ANY TIME BETWEEN ARREST AND CONVICTION, A 17-YEAR-OLD YOUTH
CHARGED IN A PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT UNDER FOUR INDICTMENTS WITH FOUR
SEPARATE BURGLARIES, FOR WHICH HE COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN MAXIMUM
SENTENCES AGGREGATING 80 YEARS, PLEADED GUILTY AND WAS SENTENCED TO
FROM FIVE TO TEN YEARS ON EACH INDICTMENT, THE SENTENCES TO RUN
CONSECUTIVELY.  THE RECORD SHOWED NO ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE COURT
TO MAKE HIM UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA.  HELD:  HE WAS
DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP.
438-442. 

2.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH OR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
REQUIRES COUNSEL FOR ALL PERSONS CHARGED WITH SERIOUS CRIMES, WHEN
NECESSARY FOR THEIR ADEQUATE DEFENSE, IN ORDER THAT SUCH PERSONS MAY BE
ADVISED HOW TO CONDUCT THEIR TRIALS.  P. 441. 

3.  THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT ADEQUATELY RAISED THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AS TO DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  PP. 438
439. 

4.  SINCE IT APPEARS THAT IN PENNSYLVANIA HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE
TO AN ACCUSED WHOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL HAS BEEN DENIED,
AND SINCE THE STATE DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT IT BARS A REMEDY BY HABEAS
CORPUS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE BECAUSE NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN
FROM THE ORIGINAL CONVICTION, THIS COURT DECIDES THIS CASE ON ITS
MERITS.  P. 440. 

UVEGES V. PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

WITHOUT A HEARING, A PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DISMISSED A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO REVIEW PETITIONER'S CONVICTION,
ON HIS PLEAS OF GUILTY, FOR FOUR SEPARATE BURGLARIES.  THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AFFIRMED.  161 PA. SUPER.  58, 53 A.2D 894.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DENIED A PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN
APPEAL.  161 PA. SUPER.  XXV, 53 A.2D 894.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  334 U.S. 836.  REVERSED, P. 442. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER IS HELD BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE WESTERN
STATE PENITENTIARY ON SENTENCES TOTALLING A MINIMUM OF TWENTY AND A
MAXIMUM OF FORTY YEARS PRONOUNCED PURSUANT TO HIS PLEAS OF GUILTY TO
FOUR INDICTMENTS CHARGING BURGLARY.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A
DENIAL BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OF HIS PETITION TO APPEAL
FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT WHICH AFFIRMED A DISMISSAL OF A
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY
COUNTY.  PETITIONER CLAIMED IN THE STATE COURTS, AND NOW CLAIMS HERE,
THAT HE WAS DENIED COUNSEL IN THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO HIS
CONVICTIONS IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
OF LAW CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FROM THE PLEADINGS AND DECISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS,
CERTIFIED TO US AS THE RECORD IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND
WITHOUT RELIANCE UPON ANY ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, THE FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS AS TO DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:  ON OCTOBER 27, 1938, PETITIONER
UVEGES, A YOUTH SEVENTEEN YEARS OF AGE, WAS FACED WITH FOUR DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S INDICTMENTS CHARGING FOUR SEPARATE BURGLARIES.  UPON HIS
PLEA OF GUILTY TO THESE INDICTMENTS, UVEGES WAS SENTENCED IN THE COURT
OF OYER AND TERMINER OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY TO FROM FIVE TO TEN YEARS ON
EACH INDICTMENT, THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY.  IN HIS PETITION
TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN 1946,
PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL NOR
WAS COUNSEL OFFERED HIM AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN ARREST
AND CONVICTION.  HE ALSO ALLEGED THAT "FRIGHTENED BY THREATS OF DIRE
CONSEQUENCES IF HE DARED TO STAND TRIAL, RELATOR PLEADED GUILTY UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT A SENTENCE TO HUNTINGTON REFORMATORY WOULD BE IMPOSED."  WE
DISREGARD THIS LAST ALLEGATION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL. 
A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE WRIT SHOULD NOT ISSUE WAS GRANTED.  THE
ANSWER DENIED THAT PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL BUT DID NOT DENY
THE ALLEGATION OF THREATS BY THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY.  THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WITHOUT A HEARING, ENTERED AN ORDER DISMISSING
THE PETITION AND DENYING THE WRIT.  THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AFFIRMED, 161 PA. SUPER.  58, 53 A.2D 894, NOTING THAT UVEGES HAD BEEN
ARRESTED ONCE BEFORE FOR BURGLARY AND CONFINED IN A REFORMATORY FOR TEN
MONTHS.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT, ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1947, DENIED A
PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL WHICH REPEATED THE ALLEGATIONS OF
YOUTH AND DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  161 PA. SUPER.  XXV, 53 A.2D
894.  WE THINK THIS RECORD ADEQUATELY RAISED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION AS TO DENIAL OF COUNSEL.  PENNSYLVANIA MAKES NO CONTRARY
CONTENTION.  FN1  WE GRANTED THE MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AND THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 334 U.S. 836, IN ORDER TO
EXAMINE THE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED BY PETITIONER'S
CLAIM OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  FN2 

SINCE OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN PENNSYLVANIA HABEAS CORPUS IS
AVAILABLE TO AN ACCUSED WHOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL HAS BEEN
DENIED,  FN3  AND SINCE RESPONDENT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE STATE BARS
A REMEDY BY HABEAS CORPUS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE BECAUSE NO
APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE ORIGINAL CONVICTION, WE PROCEED TO THE MERITS
OF THIS CONTROVERSY. 

SOME MEMBERS OF THE COURT THINK THAT WHERE SERIOUS OFFENSES ARE
CHARGED, FAILURE OF A COURT TO OFFER COUNSEL IN STATE CRIMINAL TRIALS
DEPRIVES AN ACCUSED OF RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THEY ARE
CONVINCED THAT THE SERVICES OF COUNSEL TO PROTECT THE ACCUSED ARE
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN EVERY SUCH INSTANCE.  SEE BUTE V.
ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 640, DISSENT, 677-79.  ONLY WHEN THE ACCUSED REFUSES
COUNSEL WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF HIS RIGHTS CAN THE COURT DISPENSE WITH
COUNSEL.  FN4  OTHERS OF US THINK THAT WHEN A CRIME SUBJECT TO CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT IS NOT INVOLVED, EACH CASE DEPENDS ON ITS OWN FACTS.  SEE
BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 462.  WHERE THE GRAVITY OF THE CRIME AND
OTHER FACTORS - SUCH AS THE AGE AND EDUCATION OF THE DEFENDANT,  FN5
THE CONDUCT OF THE COURT OR THE PROSECUTING OFFICIALS,  FN6  AND THE
COMPLICATED NATURE OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED AND THE POSSIBLE DEFENSES
THERETO  FN7  - RENDER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT COUNSEL SO APT TO
RESULT IN INJUSTICE AS TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR, THE LATTER GROUP
HOLDS THAT THE ACCUSED MUST HAVE LEGAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE AMENDMENT
WHETHER HE PLEADS GUILTY OR ELECTS TO STAND TRIAL, WHETHER HE REQUESTS
COUNSEL OR NOT.  ONLY A WAIVER OF COUNSEL, UNDERSTANDINGLY MADE,
JUSTIFIES TRIAL WITHOUT COUNSEL. 

THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND BOTH OF THESE VIEWS IS THAT THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES
COUNSEL FOR ALL PERSONS CHARGED WITH SERIOUS CRIMES, WHEN NECESSARY FOR
THEIR ADEQUATE DEFENSE, IN ORDER THAT SUCH PERSONS MAY BE ADVISED HOW
TO CONDUCT THEIR TRIALS.  THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE VARIES AS
INDICATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. 

UNDER EITHER VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS, THE FACTS IN
THIS CASE REQUIRED THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL AT PETITIONER'S TRIAL.  HE
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO PLEAD GUILTY WITHOUT AN OFFER OF THE
ADVICE OF COUNSEL IN HIS SITUATION.  IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGED IN
HIS PETITION ARE TRUE, THE ACCUSED WAS ENTITLED TO AN ADVISER TO HELP
HIM HANDLE HIS PROBLEMS.  PETITIONER WAS YOUNG AND INEXPERIENCED IN THE
INTRICACIES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN HE PLEADED GUILTY TO CRIMES
WHICH CARRIED A MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF EIGHTY YEARS.  FN8  THERE IS AN
UNDENIED ALLEGATION THAT HE WAS NEVER ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL. 
THE RECORD SHOWS NO ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE COURT TO MAKE HIM
UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA.  WHATEVER OUR DECISION MIGHT
HAVE BEEN IF THE TRIAL COURT HAD INFORMED HIM OF HIS RIGHTS AND
CONSCIENTIOUSLY HAD UNDERTAKEN TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS ORDINARILY
ENTRUSTED TO COUNSEL, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE COUNSEL
IN THIS CASE WAS A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF A FAIR HEARING.  REVERSED. 

FN1  EXCERPTS FROM THE BRIEF OF THE COMMONWEALTH SHOW ITS ACCEPTANCE
OF THE ACTUAL ISSUE: 

"3.  THE BASIC QUESTION OF THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE PETITIONER WAS
DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE COMMONWEALTH
OF PENNSYLVANIA DID NOT APPOINT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM IN THE
PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO HIS IMPRISONMENT.  IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE
RESPONDENT THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DID NOT REQUIRE THAT THE STATE
APPOINT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THIS ACCUSED SINCE 

"(A)  THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 6TH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION THAT THE ACCUSED BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN ALL CRIMINAL
CASES DOES NOT APPLY TO THE STATES AND 

"(B)  IT IS ONLY IN A CAPITAL CASE OR UNDER OTHER SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES NOT HERE PRESENT THAT A STATE IS REQUIRED BY THE 14TH
AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT
THE ACCUSED." 

"THE VITAL QUESTION TO BE DECIDED, AND, IN OUR VIEW OF THE CASE THE
ONLY SIGNIFICANT QUESTION, IS WHETHER THE ACCUSED, UNDER SUCH FACTS AS
ARE PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT, MUST BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN ORDER
THAT THE PROCESS LEADING TO HIS CONFINEMENT MAY BE DEEMED DUE
PROCESS." 

FN2  PETITIONER IN HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BASES HIS CLAIM FOR
REVIEW IN PART ON PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES ALLEGEDLY IN VIOLATION OF
STATE STATUTES, SUCH AS THE FAILURE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PERSONALLY
TO SIGN THE INDICTMENTS.  SINCE THESE ALLEGATIONS, EVEN IF TRUE,
PRESENT NO FEDERAL QUESTION, WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THEM. 

FN3  SEE COMMONWEALTH EX REL. MCGLINN V. SMITH 344 PA. 41, 47-48, 24
A.2D 1, 4-5; COMMONWEALTH EX REL. PENLAND V. ASHE, 341 PA. 337, 341-42,
19 A.2D 464, 466. 

FN4  SEE RICE V. OLSON, 324 U.S. 786, 788-89; WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312
U.S. 275, 286; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 468. 

FN5  SEE E.G., WADE V. MAYO, 334 U.S. 672, 683-84; DE MEERLEER V.
MICHIGAN, 329 U.S. 663, 664-65; BETTS V. BRADY, SUPRA, AT 472, POWELL
V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 51-52, 71. 

FN6  SEE E.G., TOWNSEND V. BURKE, 334 U.S. 736, 739-41; DE MEERLEER
V. MICHIGAN, SUPRA, AT 665; SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329, 332-33. 

FN7  SEE E.G., RICE V. OLSON, 324 U.S. 786, 789-91. 

FN8  PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., TIT. 18, SEC. 4901. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR.
JUSTICE BURTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

EXERCISE OF THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION IS PECULIARLY FOR THIS COURT'S
OWN DETERMINATION, AND IS NEITHER TO BE CONCEDED NOR WITHHELD BY
COUNSEL'S ADMISSION.  IN FACT, HOWEVER, PENNSYLVANIA DOES NOT ADMIT
THAT THE ADJUDICATION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IS
REVIEWABLE HERE.  IT URGES THAT "UNDER SUCH FACTS AS ARE PROPERLY
BEFORE THIS COURT" PETITIONER'S CLAIM MUST FAIL.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH THIS COURT IS REVERSING THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHOW SUCH DISREGARD FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER BETWEEN THIS
COURT AND THE HIGHEST COURTS OF THE STATES, THAT I AM CONSTRAINED TO
DISSENT. 

AS THE CAPTION ANNOUNCES, THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE BY A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI DIRECTED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  WE ISSUED
THE WRIT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  IN SUM, THESE WERE THE ALLEGATIONS:  (1) PETITIONER WAS
HELD FOR TWO WEEKS WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO CONSULT FRIENDS OR RELATIVES;
(2) BECAUSE OF HIS YOUTH, HIS IGNORANCE AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE
CHARGES AGAINST HIM, PETITIONER WAS INCAPABLE OF MEETING THEM
INTELLIGENTLY WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; (3) HIS REQUEST FOR LEGAL
AID TO DETERMINE HIS PLEA WAS MET WITH A THREAT OF A SEVERE SENTENCE IF
THE COMMONWEALTH WERE PUT TO THE EXPENSE OF A TRIAL; (4) HE WAS
PROMISED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY A SHORT SENTENCE AT A REFORMATORY FOR
A PLEA OF GUILTY; (5) HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PLEA
OF GUILTY, WAS UNAWARE OF ITS EFFECT, AND INTENDED TO PLEAD GUILTY ONLY
TO ONE OF SEVERAL INDICTMENTS. 

ON THESE ALLEGATIONS, WITHOUT MORE, WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI ON JUNE 7, 1948.  THE RECORD BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THAT COURT DENIED THE PETITION FOR
AN APPEAL TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AFFIRMING THE
REFUSAL OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WAS NOT BEFORE US WHEN WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
NOT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 8, 1948, WAS THAT RECORD SENT HERE BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; IT WAS LODGED HERE ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1948.  IT
NOW APPEARS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH THIS COURT ISSUED ITS WRIT TO
THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT WERE NOT BEFORE THAT COURT IN THE PAPER
IT REQUIRES TO BE FILED TO DETERMINE WHETHER UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW AN
APPEAL SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED.  MORE PARTICULARLY, THE FIVE ALLEGATIONS
SUMMARIZED ABOVE HAD NOT BEEN BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WHEN IT DENIED AN APPEAL.  APART FROM TWO CLAIMS INVOLVING MATTERS OF
LOCAL PROCEDURE, THE ONLY GROUND ON WHICH APPEAL WAS SOUGHT FROM THE
PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT WAS THE BARE CLAIM THAT PETITIONER WAS
DENIED ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, UNSUPPORTED BY THOSE CONSIDERATIONS OF
UNFAIRNESS WHICH, UNDER OUR RULINGS, MAKE SUCH DENIAL A DENIAL OF THE
DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

HAVING GRANTED A REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME
COURT ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGATIONS NOT BEFORE THAT COURT, THIS COURT NOW
HOLDS THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS FLOUTED THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT DOES SO DESPITE THE FACT THAT AT
THE BAR OF THIS COURT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF PENNSYLVANIA UNRESERVEDLY
ADMITTED THAT THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED
BY THE COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA IF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE MADE HERE
HAD BEEN MADE THERE.  WE ARE REVIEWING WHAT THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME
COURT DID.  THE ONLY MATTER BEFORE THAT COURT WAS A PETITION FOR AN
ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA.  THE ONLY MATTER PROPERLY BEFORE US IS DISALLOWANCE OF
THAT APPEAL.  IF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WAS, AS A MATTER OF
STATE LAW, AUTHORIZED TO DISALLOW THE APPEAL BECAUSE THE CLAIM WAS NOT
FORMULATED WITH ADEQUATE PARTICULARITY, A FEDERAL QUESTION IS WANTING
AND OUR WRIT, BEING WITHOUT PROPER FOUNDATION, SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 
THE FACT THAT ON ADEQUATE ALLEGATIONS IN A NEW PROCEEDING BEFORE AN
APPROPRIATE PENNSYLVANIA COURT THE CLAIM MAY BE SUCCESSFULLY SUSTAINED,
GIVES THIS COURT NO WARRANT FOR ASSUMING THAT THE PROPER ALLEGATIONS
WERE BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT SO AS TO TRANSMUTE ITS
DENIAL OF AN APPEAL INTO THE DENIAL OF A PROPERLY PRESENTED FEDERAL
CLAIM.    THIS COURT NOW MAKES SUCH AN ASSUMPTION.  IF WE ARE TO DECIDE
A CASE, HOWEVER GRAVE THE ISSUE, ONLY ON WHAT APPEARS ACCORDING TO THE
RECORD, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR FINDING THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD BEFORE
IT ANYTHING BUT THE PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL.  THIS IS SO
EVEN IF WE ASSUME, ALTHOUGH NOTHING IN THE RECORD AFFORDS US THE RIGHT
TO DO SO,  FN1  THAT THE RECORDS IN THE LOWER COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA
WERE FILED IN ITS SUPREME COURT BEFORE IT DISALLOWED AN APPEAL. 
APPELLANTS OFTEN DO NOT RAISE ALL THAT THEY URGED IN A LOWER COURT, AND
THEY SOMETIMES RAISE AN ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE APPELLATE
COURT.  IN ANY EVENT, THE PETITION HERE WAS TO REVIEW THE ADJUDICATION
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OUR WRIT RAN TO THAT COURT. 
THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE OUR WRIT TURNS OUT TO BE FORMALLY MISDIRECTED
DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE RECORD TO BE SENT UP WAS LODGED, ACCORDING TO
LOCAL PROCEDURE, IN ONE COURT RATHER THAN ANOTHER.  IN SUCH A CASE WHAT
IS REVIEWED HERE, DESPITE THE MISDIRECTION, IS THE SAME RECORD THAT WAS
BEFORE THE STATE COURT WHICH IS TO BE REVIEWED.  THE WRIT RUNS TO THE
OTHER COURT ONLY TO GET THE RECORD HERE.  THIS CASE PRESENTS QUITE A
DIFFERENT SITUATION.  WE CANNOT REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, OR THAT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, BECAUSE NEITHER IS A FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER PENNSYLVANIA
LAW IF EITHER INVOLVED A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  FOR OUR PURPOSE
OF "FINALITY," SUCH AN ISSUE MUST GO TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA BECAUSE THAT COURT HAS OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION TO REVIEW
IT.  PA. STAT. ANN., TIT. 17, SEC. 190; COMMONWEALTH V. CAULFIELD, 211
PA. 644; SEE COMMONWEALTH V. GARDNER, 297 PA. 498, 500.  IN BRINGING
HERE FOR REVIEW THE ACTION OF THAT COURT WE MUST BE GOVERNED BY WHAT
WAS BEFORE THAT COURT AND CANNOT RELY ON WHAT WAS NOT BEFORE IT. 

UNLESS WE ARE TO ASSUME THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FLAGRANTLY VIOLATED ITS DUTY UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW TO GRANT AN APPEAL
WHERE A VIOLATION OF A RIGHT SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES IS PROPERLY RAISED, WE MUST ATTRIBUTE TO THAT COURT A NON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND IN DENYING AN APPEAL IF IT MAY REASONABLY BE SO
ATTRIBUTED.  IF THAT COURT HAD SAID EXPLICITLY THAT IT REQUIRES A MORE
PARTICULARIZED STATEMENT FOR THE CLAIM THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT
PLEAD GUILTY WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HE WAS DOING AND THAT THE
FAILURE TO ASSIGN HIM COUNSEL IN NO WISE HANDICAPPED HIM IN PLEADING TO
THE INDICTMENTS, THIS COURT HARDLY WOULD FIND THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES PRECLUDES SUCH A STATE REQUIREMENT OF PARTICULARITY
IN AN EFFORT TO SET ASIDE A SENTENCE EIGHT YEARS AFTER IT WAS IMPOSED. 
IF SUCH A DETERMINATION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EXPLICITLY
MADE WOULD NOT RAISE A FEDERAL QUESTION, IT DOES NOT RAISE A FEDERAL
QUESTION IF ON THE RECORD WE HAVE A RIGHT TO INFER THAT SUCH WAS THE
IMPLICIT RULING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT.  THAT COURT MAY DISPOSE OF
CASES SUMMARILY AS DOES THIS COURT.  THE RECORD HERE PLAINLY CALLS FOR
THE INFERENCE THAT THE CLAIMS NOW MADE WERE NOT ADEQUATELY PRESENTED IN
THE PAPER UPON WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ACTED.  A
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE STATEMENTS WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA HAD BEFORE IT WHEN IT DENIED THE APPEAL, AND THE
ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE PETITION BEFORE THIS COURT, ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH WE ISSUED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AFFORDS COMPELLING REASON FOR
ATTRIBUTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE APPEAL BY THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME
COURT TO ITS FINDING THAT A CLAIM OF LACK OF DUE PROCESS RAISED AFTER
EIGHT YEARS WAS MADE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY TO CALL FOR A
TRIAL ON THE MERITS.  A TABULAR VIEW OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE FOUR
COURTS BEFORE WHICH THEY WERE PRESSED CLEARLY ESTABLISHES NOT ONLY THAT
WHAT WAS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WAS VERY DIFFERENT
FROM WHAT WAS URGED HERE, BUT ALSO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS URGED BEFORE
THE LOWER PENNSYLVANIA COURTS* .  A FINDING THAT A STATE COURT
DISREGARDED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT BE LIKE A
GAME OF BLINDMAN'S BUFF. 

                 *  CLAIMS MADE IN THE VARIOUS COURTS

                           (CHART OMMITTED) 

SINCE THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURT MAY FAIRLY BE SUSTAINED ON THE
STATE GROUND OF FAILURE ADEQUATELY TO PRESENT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM
SOUGHT TO BE RAISED, WE MUST SO INTERPRET IT. KLINGER V. MISSOURI, 13
WALL.  257, 263; LYNCH V. NEW YORK EX REL. PIERSON, 293 U.S. 52, 54;
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 303 U.S. 206, 212.  OUR
REVIEWING POWER IS OF COURSE NOT TO BE WITHHELD BY EXCOGITATING SOME
FANCIFUL OR RECONDITE DOCTRINE OF LOCAL LAW FOR A STATE COURT
DECISION.  HERE THE STATE GROUND IS FAIRLY OBVIOUS.  TO REJECT IT IS TO
REACH OUT FOR A FEDERAL ISSUE.  THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS ARE FULLY AWARE
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH INDIGENT DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO
THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  SEE E.G. COMMONWEALTH EX REL. MCGLINN V.
SMITH, 344 PA. 41.  ONLY BY ASSUMING THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA WAS HEEDLESS OF ITS DUTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION CAN WE
ASSUME THAT IT DENIED AN APPEAL IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF SUCH
HEEDLESSNESS RATHER THAN BECAUSE IT ENFORCED ALLOWABLE REQUIREMENTS BY
PENNSYLVANIA FOR ASSERTING A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM. 

SUCH REASONING IS NOT WHAT IS INVIDIOUSLY CALLED LEGALISTIC.  LAW IS
ESSENTIALLY LEGALISTIC IN THE SENSE THAT OBSERVANCE OF WELL-RECOGNIZED
PROCEDURE IS, ON BALANCE, SOCIALLY DESIRABLE.  IN THE WELL-BEING OF A
FEDERALISM LIKE OURS OBSERVANCE OF WHAT ON CASUAL VIEW MAY APPEAR AS A
STERILE TECHNICALITY IS IMPORTANT WHENEVER THIS COURT IS BROUGHT IN
POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH STATE COURTS.  ESPECIALLY IS IT IMPORTANT AS TO
THOSE VAST REACHES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN
STATE DOMAIN, AND WHICH ARE THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION
WHICH THIS COURT MAY EXERCISE OVER THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  OF COURSE
THIS COURT HAS THE DUTY OF ALERTNESS IN SAFEGUARDING RIGHTS GUARANTEED
BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST INFRINGEMENT BY THE
STATES EVEN IN THEIR DIFFICULT TASK OF REPRESSING CRIME AND DEALING
WITH TRANSGRESSORS.  AT BEST, HOWEVER, INTERVENTION BY THIS COURT IN
THE CRIMINAL PROCESS OF STATES IS DELICATE BUSINESS.  IT SHOULD NOT BE
INDULGED IN UNLESS NO REASONABLE DOUBT IS LEFT THAT A STATE DENIES, OR
HAS REFUSED TO EXERCISE, MEANS OF CORRECTING A CLAIMED INFRACTION OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

INTERVENTION BY THIS COURT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE OF A STATE HAS ALL THE DISADVANTAGES OF INTERFERENCE FROM
WITHOUT.  WHATEVER SHORT-CUT TO RELIEF MAY BE HAD IN A PARTICULAR CASE,
IT IS CALCULATED TO BEGET MISUNDERSTANDING AND FRICTION AND TO THAT
EXTENT DETRACTS FROM THOSE IMPONDERABLES WHICH ARE THE ULTIMATE
RELIANCE OF A CIVILIZED SYSTEM OF LAW.  AFTER ALL, THIS IS THE NATION'S
ULTIMATE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL, NOT A SUPER-LEGAL-AID BUREAU.  IF THE SAME
RELIEF, ALTHOUGH BY A MORE TEDIOUS PROCESS, IS AVAILABLE THROUGH A
STATE'S SELF-CORRECTIVE PROCESS, IT ENLISTS THE UNDERSTANDING AND
SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY.  CONSIDERATIONS ROOTED IN PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
SOCIOLOGICAL REASON UNDERLIE THE DUTY OF ABSTENTION BY THIS COURT FROM
UPSETTING CONVICTIONS BY STATE COURTS OR THEIR REFUSAL TO GRANT WRITS
OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THOSE UNDER STATE SENTENCES, WHERE STATE ACTION MAY
FAIRLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A RULE OF LOCAL PROCEDURE AND IS NOT
EXCLUSIVELY FOUNDED ON DENIAL OF A FEDERAL CLAIM.  WHEN A STATE COURT
EXPLICITLY RESTS ITS DECISION ON A STATE GROUND IT IS EASY SAILING. 
BUT EVEN WHEN A STATE COURT SUMMARILY DISPOSES OF A CASE WITHOUT
SPELLING OUT ITS GROUND, LED TO DO SO, AS IS THIS COURT IN MANY CASES,
BY THE BURDEN OF ITS DOCKET, IT IS OUR DUTY NOT TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE
STATE COURT FLOUTING OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION BUT TO INFER
REGARD FOR ITS OWN LAW, IF TO THAT LAW MAY REASONABLY BE ATTRIBUTED A
FINDING OF INADEQUACY IN THE MODE OF PRESENTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF IS HERE SOUGHT ON THE MERITS. 

I WOULD DISMISS THE WRIT, LEAVING PETITIONER TO PURSUE IN
PENNSYLVANIA THE CLAIM HE MAKES HERE. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES OF THE THREE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS
WHICH CONSIDERED THIS CASE STRONGLY INDICATE THAT ALL PAPERS OTHER THAN
THE PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL WERE IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY WHEN THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT WAS
DETERMINING THE ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL.  THE "DOCKET ENTRIES" IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA RECORD THAT ON JULY 29, 1947, TWELVE
DAYS AFTER THAT COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
THE RECORD OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WHICH HAD BEEN FILED IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT, WAS REMITTED TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.  THE LATTER
COURT'S "APPEARANCE DOCKET ENTRY" SHOWS THAT IT WAS RECEIVED ON THE
SAME DAY.  TWENTY-FOUR DAYS LATER, ON AUGUST 22, 1947, THE PETITIONER
FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HIS PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE
OF APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT.  THE DOCKET ENTRIES
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DO NOT SHOW THAT THE RECORD WHICH
PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN SENT BACK TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BY THE
SUPERIOR COURT HAD BEEN FILED IN THAT COURT. 

AFTER THIS COURT ISSUED ITS WRIT ON JUNE 7, 1948, PETITIONER'S
ATTORNEY FILED A "PRAECIPE" WITH THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA REQUESTING THAT THE PAPERS THAT NOW MAKE UP THE RECORD IN
THIS COURT BE CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT.  ALTHOUGH THIS WAS DONE UNDER
THE CLERK'S SIGNATURE WITH A STATEMENT THAT "THE FOREGOING RECORD  ...
IS A TRUE AND FAITHFUL COPY OF THE RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA  ...  IN A CERTAIN SUIT THEREIN PENDING
...  " THAT RECORD SHOWS THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AFTER
OUR WRIT OF CERTIORARI HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO IT, HAD TO ISSUE ITS
SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TO OBTAIN THE
RECORD. 
..END :







MCDONALD V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 451 


NO. 36.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1948.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 13, 1948.  - 83
U.S. APP. D.C. 96, 166 F.2D 957, REVERSED. 


SUSPECTING THAT PETITIONER MCDONALD WAS OPERATING AN ILLEGAL LOTTERY,
POLICE HAD KEPT HIM UNDER SURVEILLANCE FOR TWO MONTHS.  THINKING THAT
THEY DETECTED FROM THE OUTSIDE THE SOUND OF AN ADDING MACHINE, THEY
FORCED THEIR WAY, WITHOUT A WARRANT FOR SEARCH OR ARREST, INTO A
ROOMING HOUSE IN WHICH HE HAD RENTED A ROOM.  THEY PROCEEDED TO HIS
ROOM, LOOKED THROUGH THE TRANSOM, AND OBSERVED PETITIONERS MCDONALD AND
WASHINGTON ENGAGED IN OPERATING A LOTTERY.  DEMANDING AND OBTAINING
ENTRANCE, THEY ARRESTED BOTH PETITIONERS AND SEIZED MACHINES, PAPERS
AND MONEY WHICH WERE IN PLAIN VIEW.  THESE ARTICLES WERE ADMITTED IN
EVIDENCE OVER THE OBJECTION OF PETITIONERS, WHO WERE CONVICTED.  HELD: 

1.  THE SEIZURE WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE SEIZED
ARTICLES WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST MCDONALD, AND HIS
CONVICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  PP. 452-456. 

2.  A SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNLESS THE EXIGENCIES
OF THE SITUATION MAKE THAT COURSE IMPERATIVE.  PP. 454-456. 

3.  EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT WASHINGTON'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WERE NOT INVADED, THE DENIAL OF MCDONALD'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE
EVIDENCE WAS, ON THESE FACTS, PREJUDICIAL TO WASHINGTON AS WELL AS TO
MCDONALD.  P. 456. 

MCDONALD ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON EVIDENCE
OBTAINED BY A SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  83 U.S. APP. D.C. 96, 166 F.2D 957.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 872.  REVERSED, P. 456. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT ON EVIDENCE OBTAINED
BY A SEARCH MADE WITHOUT A WARRANT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON A
DIVIDED VOTE.  83 U.S. APP. D.C. 96, 166 F.2D 957.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE
HERE ON CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF DOUBTS WHETHER THAT RESULT SQUARED WITH
JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 10, AND TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES,
334 U.S. 699. 

PETITIONERS WERE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON AN INDICTMENT IN FOUR COUNTS, CHARGING OFFENSES
OF CARRYING ON A LOTTERY KNOWN AS THE NUMBERS GAME IN VIOLATION OF 22
D.C. CODE SECS. 1501, 1502, 1504(1940).  THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY ON ALL
COUNTS. 

PETITIONER MCDONALD, WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ARRESTED FOR NUMBERS
OPERATIONS, HAD BEEN UNDER POLICE OBSERVATION FOR SEVERAL MONTHS PRIOR
TO THE ARREST.  DURING THIS PERIOD AND WHILE HE WAS MAINTAINING A HOME
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, HE RENTED A ROOM IN THE RESIDENCE OF A
MRS. TERRY, WHO MAINTAINED A ROOMING HOUSE IN THE DISTRICT.  HIS
COMINGS AND GOINGS AT THIS ADDRESS WERE UNDER SURVEILLANCE BY THE
POLICE FOR ABOUT TWO MONTHS.  THEY HAD OBSERVED HIM ENTER THE ROOMING
HOUSE DURING THE HOURS IN WHICH OPERATIONS AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE
NUMBERS GAME ARE CUSTOMARILY CARRIED ON. 

ON THE DAY OF THE ARREST THREE POLICE OFFICERS SURROUNDED THE HOUSE. 
THIS WAS MIDAFTERNOON.  THEY DID NOT HAVE A WARRANT FOR ARREST NOR A
SEARCH WARRANT.  WHILE OUTSIDE THE HOUSE, ONE OF THE OFFICERS THOUGHT
THAT HE HEARD AN ADDING MACHINE.  THESE MACHINES ARE FREQUENTLY USED IN
THE NUMBERS OPERATION.  BELIEVING THAT THE NUMBERS GAME WAS IN PROCESS,
THE OFFICERS SOUGHT ADMISSION TO THE HOUSE. 

ONE OF THEM OPENED A WINDOW LEADING INTO THE LAND-LADY'S ROOM AND
CLIMBED THROUGH.  HE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO HER AND ADMITTED THE OTHER
OFFICERS TO THE HOUSE. 

AFTER SEARCHING THE ROOMS ON THE GROUND FLOOR, THEY PROCEEDED TO THE
SECOND FLOOR.  THE DOOR OF AN END BEDROOM WAS CLOSED.  BUT ONE OF THE
OFFICERS STOOD ON A CHAIR AND LOOKED THROUGH THE TRANSOM.  HE OBSERVED
BOTH PETITIONERS IN THE ROOM, AS WELL AS NUMBERS SLIPS, MONEY PILED ON
THE TABLE, AND ADDING MACHINES.  HE YELLED TO MCDONALD TO OPEN THE DOOR
AND MCDONALD DID SO.  BOTH PETITIONERS WERE ARRESTED, AND THE OFFICERS
SEIZED THE MACHINES, A SUITCASE OF PAPERS, AND MONEY.  WHETHER THESE
MACHINES AND PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AS EVIDENCE AND
RETURNED TO PETITIONER MCDONALD IS THE MAJOR QUESTION PRESENTED. 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:  "THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS,
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND
NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR
AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND
THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED."  THIS GUARANTEE OF PROTECTION
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES EXTENDS TO THE INNOCENT AND
GUILTY ALIKE.  IT MARKS THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY AS ONE OF THE UNIQUE
VALUES OF OUR CIVILIZATION AND, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, STAYS THE HANDS OF
THE POLICE UNLESS THEY HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED BY A MAGISTRATE ON
PROBABLE CAUSE SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION.  AND THE LAW PROVIDES
AS A SANCTION AGAINST THE FLOUTING OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD THE
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE SECURED AS A RESULT OF THE VIOLATION, WHEN IT
IS TENDERED IN A FEDERAL COURT.  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383. 

THE PROSECUTION SEEKS TO BUILD THE LAWFULNESS OF THE SEARCH ON THE
LAWFULNESS OF THE ARREST AND SO JUSTIFY THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITHOUT
A WARRANT.  SEE AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, 30; HARRIS V.
UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145, 150-151.  THE REASONING RUNS AS FOLLOWS:
ALTHOUGH IT WAS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY FOR THE OFFICERS TO ENTER MRS.
TERRY'S ROOM, THAT WAS A TRESPASS WHICH VIOLATED HER RIGHTS UNDER THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT, NOT MCDONALD'S.  THEREFORE SO FAR AS HE WAS
CONCERNED, THE OFFICERS WERE LAWFULLY WITHIN THE HALLWAY, AS MUCH SO AS
IF MRS. TERRY HAD ADMITTED THEM.  LOOKING OVER THE TRANSOM WAS NOT A
SEARCH, FOR THE EYE CANNOT COMMIT THE TRESPASS CONDEMNED BY THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  SINCE THE OFFICERS OBSERVED MCDONALD IN THE ACT OF
COMMITTING AN OFFENSE, THEY WERE UNDER A DUTY THEN AND THERE TO ARREST
HIM.  SEE 4 D.C. CODE SECS. 140, 143(1940).  THE ARREST BEING VALID THE
SEARCH INCIDENT THERETO WAS LAWFUL. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO EXAMINE THAT SYLLOGISM FOR FLAWS.  ASSUMING ITS
CORRECTNESS, WE REJECT THE RESULT. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE OFFICERS, PASSING BY ON THE STREET, HEAR
A SHOT AND A CRY FOR HELP AND DEMAND ENTRANCE IN THE NAME OF THE LAW. 
THEY HAD BEEN FOLLOWING MCDONALD AND KEEPING HIM UNDER SURVEILLANCE FOR
TWO MONTHS AT THIS ROOMING HOUSE.  THE PROSECUTION NOW TELLS US THAT
THE POLICE HAD NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR OBTAINING A WARRANT UNTIL, SHORTLY
BEFORE THE ARREST, THEY HEARD THE SOUND OF THE ADDING MACHINE COMING
FROM THE ROOMING HOUSE.  AND THERE IS VAGUE AND GENERAL TESTIMONY IN
THE RECORD THAT ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS THE OFFICERS HAD SOUGHT SEARCH
WARRANTS BUT HAD BEEN DENIED THEM.  BUT THOSE STATEMENTS ALONE DO NOT
LAY THE PROPER FOUNDATION FOR DISPENSING WITH A SEARCH WARRANT. 

WHERE, AS HERE, OFFICERS ARE NOT RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY, THERE
MUST BE COMPELLING REASONS TO JUSTIFY THE ABSENCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT. 
A SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT DEMANDS EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS WE
HELD IN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  WE WILL NOT ASSUME THAT WHERE
A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN UNDER SURVEILLANCE FOR MONTHS, NO SEARCH WARRANT
COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED.  WHAT SHOWING THESE OFFICERS MADE WHEN THEY
APPLIED ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS, THE DATES OF THESE APPLICATIONS, AND
ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEARING UPON THE NECESSITY TO MAKE THIS SEARCH
WITHOUT A WARRANT ARE ABSENT FROM THIS RECORD.  WE CANNOT ALLOW THE
CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER THAT PROTECTS THE PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO
BE HURDLED SO EASILY.  MOREOVER, WHEN WE MOVE TO THE SCENE OF THE
CRIME, THE REASON FOR THE ABSENCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT IS EVEN LESS
OBVIOUS.  WHEN THE OFFICERS HEARD THE ADDING MACHINE AND, AT THE
LATEST, WHEN THEY SAW WHAT WAS TRANSPIRING IN THE ROOM, THEY CERTAINLY
HAD ADEQUATE GROUNDS FOR SEEKING A SEARCH WARRANT. 

HERE, AS IN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES AND TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES,
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT FLEEING OR SEEKING TO ESCAPE.  OFFICERS WERE
THERE TO APPREHEND PETITIONERS IN CASE THEY TRIED TO LEAVE.  NOR WAS
THE PROPERTY IN THE PROCESS OF DESTRUCTION NOR AS LIKELY TO BE
DESTROYED AS THE OPIUM PARAPHERNALIA IN THE JOHNSON CASE.  PETITIONERS
WERE BUSILY ENGAGED IN THEIR LOTTERY VENTURE.  NO REASON, EXCEPT
INCONVENIENCE OF THE OFFICERS AND DELAY IN PREPARING PAPERS AND GETTING
BEFORE A MAGISTRATE, APPEARS FOR THE FAILURE TO SEEK A SEARCH WARRANT. 
BUT THOSE REASONS ARE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR BY-PASSING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT, AS WE HELD IN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, P. 15. 

WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH FORMALITIES.  THE PRESENCE OF A SEARCH
WARRANT SERVES A HIGH FUNCTION.  ABSENT SOME GRAVE EMERGENCY, THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS INTERPOSED A MAGISTRATE BETWEEN THE CITIZEN AND
THE POLICE.  THIS WAS DONE NOT TO SHIELD CRIMINALS NOR TO MAKE THE HOME
A SAFE HAVEN FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.  IT WAS DONE SO THAT AN OBJECTIVE
MIND MIGHT WEIGH THE NEED TO INVADE THAT PRIVACY IN ORDER TO ENFORCE
THE LAW.  THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY WAS DEEMED TOO PRECIOUS TO ENTRUST TO
THE DISCRETION OF THOSE WHOSE JOB IS THE DETECTION OF CRIME AND THE
ARREST OF CRIMINALS.  POWER IS A HEADY THING; AND HISTORY SHOWS THAT
THE POLICE ACTING ON THEIR OWN CANNOT BE TRUSTED.  AND SO THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A MAGISTRATE TO PASS ON THE DESIRES OF THE POLICE
BEFORE THEY VIOLATE THE PRIVACY OF THE HOME.  WE CANNOT BE TRUE TO THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT AND EXCUSE THE ABSENCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT
WITHOUT A SHOWING BY THOSE WHO SEEK EXEMPTION FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL
MANDATE THAT THE EXIGENCIES OF THE SITUATION MADE THAT COURSE
IMPERATIVE. 

IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT WE HAVE SAID THAT MCDONALD'S MOTION FOR
SUPPRESSION OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE RETURN OF THE PROPERTY TO HIM
SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; GO-BART
IMPORTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344, 358.  IT WAS, HOWEVER,
DENIED AND THE UNLAWFULLY SEIZED EVIDENCE WAS USED NOT ONLY AGAINST
MCDONALD BUT AGAINST WASHINGTON AS WELL, THE TWO BEING TRIED JOINTLY. 
APART FROM THIS EVIDENCE THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN LITTLE OR NONE
AGAINST WASHINGTON.  EVEN THOUGH WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT
WASHINGTON, WHO WAS A GUEST OF MCDONALD, HAD NO RIGHT OF PRIVACY THAT
WAS BROKEN WHEN THE OFFICERS SEARCHED MCDONALD'S ROOM WITHOUT A
WARRANT, WE THINK THAT THE DENIAL OF MCDONALD'S MOTION WAS ERROR THAT
WAS PREJUDICIAL TO WASHINGTON AS WELL.  IN THIS CASE, UNLIKE AGNELLO V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 35, THE UNLAWFULLY SEIZED MATERIALS WERE THE
BASIS OF EVIDENCE USED AGAINST THE CODEFENDANT.  IF THE PROPERTY HAD
BEEN RETURNED TO MCDONALD, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR USE AT
THE TRIAL.  WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH
MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED AGAINST WASHINGTON WOULD HAVE BEEN EQUALLY
PROBATIVE.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT, AND IN THE OPINION
INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER MCDONALD.  WITH RESPECT TO THE
PETITIONER WASHINGTON HE IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCE, HAVING BEEN
ILLEGALLY OBTAINED, WAS INADMISSIBLE.  CF. MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324
U.S. 401, OPINION DISSENTING IN PART P. 420 AT PP. 430-432. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE RESULT AND WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  BUT IT
REJECTS THE SEARCH WHICH TWO COURTS BELOW HAVE SUSTAINED WITHOUT SAYING
WHEREIN IT WAS WRONG.  IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO LOWER COURTS AND TO THE
POLICE THEMSELVES TO STATE WHAT APPEARS TO SOME OF US AS THE REASON
THIS SEARCH IS BAD. 

THE POLICE FOR SEVERAL WEEKS HAD THIS DEFENDANT, MCDONALD, UNDER
SURVEILLANCE.  THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER WAS APPROACHED ABOUT A
SEARCH WARRANT BUT, FOR REASONS WHICH DO NOT APPEAR, DECLINED TO ISSUE
IT.  THE ONLY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH LED THE OFFICERS TO TAKE THE
LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS AND MAKE THIS SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT WAS
THAT THEY HEARD AN ADDING MACHINE OR A TYPEWRITER - THE WITNESS WAS NOT
SURE WHICH - OPERATING ON THE PREMISES.  CERTAINLY THE SOUND OF AN
ADDING MACHINE OR TYPEWRITER, STANDING ALONE, IS NO INDICATION OF CRIME
AND IT COULD BECOME SIGNIFICANT ONLY WHEN WEIGHED IN CONNECTION WITH
OTHER EVIDENCE.  A MAGISTRATE MIGHT EITHER HAVE ISSUED OR REFUSED A
WARRANT IF REQUEST HAD BEEN MADE. 

HOWEVER, THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION TOOK THE MATTER
INTO HIS OWN HANDS.  HE NEITHER HAD NOR SOUGHT A SEARCH WARRANT OR
WARRANT OF ARREST; HE DID NOT THEN HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF A CRIME
SUFFICIENT, EVEN IN HIS OWN OPINION, TO JUSTIFY ARREST, AND HE DID NOT
EVEN KNOW THAT THE SUSPECT, MCDONALD, WAS IN THE ROOMING HOUSE AT THE
TIME.  NEVERTHELESS, HE FORCED OPEN THE WINDOW OF THE LANDLADY'S
BEDROOM AND CLIMBED IN.  HE APPARENTLY WAS IN PLAIN CLOTHES BUT SHOWED
HIS BADGE TO THE FRIGHTENED WOMAN, BRUSHED HER ASIDE AND THEN UNLOCKED
DOORS AND ADMITTED TWO OTHER OFFICERS.  THEY THEN WENT TO THE HALL
OUTSIDE THE ROOM RENTED AND OCCUPIED BY DEFENDANT.  THE OFFICER IN
CHARGE CLIMBED ON A CHAIR AND LOOKED THROUGH A TRANSOM.  SEEING THE
DEFENDANT MCDONALD ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY WHICH HE CONSIDERED TO BE PART
OF THE LOTTERY PROCEDURE, HE ARRESTED HIM AND SEARCHED THE QUARTERS. 
THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED, AND THE COURT BELOW HELD, THAT SINCE THE FORCED
ENTRY INTO THE BUILDING WAS THROUGH THE LANDLADY'S WINDOW, IN A ROOM IN
WHICH THE DEFENDANT AS A TENANT HAD NO RIGHTS, NO OBJECTION TO THIS
MODE OF ENTRY OR TO THE SEARCH THAT FOLLOWED WAS AVAILABLE TO HIM. 

DOUBTLESS A TENANT'S QUARTERS IN A ROOMING OR APARTMENT HOUSE ARE
LEGALLY AS WELL AS PRACTICALLY EXPOSED TO LAWFUL APPROACH BY A GOOD
MANY PERSONS WITHOUT HIS CONSENT OR CONTROL.  HAD THE POLICE BEEN
ADMITTED AS GUESTS OF ANOTHER TENANT OR HAD THE APPROACHES BEEN THROWN
OPEN BY AN OBLIGING LANDLADY OR DOORMAN, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGALLY
IN THE HALLWAYS.  LIKE ANY OTHER STRANGER, THEY COULD THEN SPY OR
EAVESDROP ON OTHERS WITHOUT BEING TRESPASSERS.  IF THEY PEEPED THROUGH
THE KEYHOLE OR CLIMBED ON A CHAIR OR ON ONE ANOTHER'S SHOULDERS TO LOOK
THROUGH THE TRANSOM, I SHOULD SEE NO GROUNDS ON WHICH THE DEFENDANT
COULD COMPLAIN.  IF IN THIS MANNER THEY, OR ANY PRIVATE CITIZEN, SAW A
CRIME IN THE COURSE OF COMMISSION, AN ARREST WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE. 

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT EACH TENANT OF A BUILDING, WHILE HE HAS NO
RIGHT TO EXCLUDE FROM THE COMMON HALLWAYS THOSE WHO ENTER LAWFULLY,
DOES HAVE A PERSONAL AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED INTEREST IN THE
INTEGRITY AND SECURITY OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING AGAINST UNLAWFUL BREAKING
AND ENTRY.  HERE THE POLICE GAINED ACCESS TO THEIR PEEKING POST BY
MEANS THAT WERE NOT MERELY UNAUTHORIZED BUT BY MEANS THAT WERE
FORBIDDEN BY LAW AND DENOUNCED AS CRIMINAL.  IN PRYING UP THE PORCH
WINDOW AND CLIMBING INTO THE LANDLADY'S BEDROOM, THEY WERE GUILTY OF
BREAKING AND ENTERING - A FELONY IN LAW AND A CRIME FAR MORE SERIOUS
THAN THE ONE THEY WERE ENGAGED IN SUPPRESSING.  HAVING FORCED AN ENTRY
WITHOUT EITHER A SEARCH WARRANT OR AN ARREST WARRANT TO JUSTIFY IT, THE
FELONIOUS CHARACTER OF THEIR ENTRY, IT SEEMS TO ME, FOLLOWED EVERY STEP
OF THEIR JOURNEY INSIDE THE HOUSE AND TAINTED ITS FRUITS WITH
ILLEGALITY.  CF. WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383; TAYLOR V. UNITED
STATES, 286 U.S. 1; JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 10. 

EVEN IF ONE WERE TO CONCLUDE THAT URGENT CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT JUSTIFY
A FORCED ENTRY WITHOUT A WARRANT, NO SUCH EMERGENCY WAS PRESENT IN THIS
CASE.  THIS METHOD OF LAW ENFORCEMENT DISPLAYS A SHOCKING LACK OF ALL
SENSE OF PROPORTION.  WHETHER THERE IS REASONABLE NECESSITY FOR A
SEARCH WITHOUT WAITING TO OBTAIN A WARRANT CERTAINLY DEPENDS SOMEWHAT
UPON THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENSE THOUGHT TO BE IN PROGRESS AS WELL AS
THE HAZARDS OF THE METHOD OF ATTEMPTING TO REACH IT.  IN THIS CASE THE
POLICE HAD BEEN OVER TWO MONTHS WATCHING THE DEFENDANT MCDONALD.  HIS
CRIMINAL OPERATION, WHILE A SHABBY SWINDLE THAT THE POLICE ARE QUITE
RIGHT IN SUPPRESSING, WAS NOT ONE WHICH ENDANGERED LIFE OR LIMB OR THE
PEACE AND GOOD ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY EVEN IF IT CONTINUED ANOTHER DAY
OR TWO; NEITHER WAS THE RACKET ONE THE DEFENDANT WAS LIKELY TO
ABANDON.  CONDUCT OF THE NUMBERS RACKET IS NOT A SOLITARY VICE,
PRACTICED IN SECRECY AND DISCOVERABLE ONLY BY CRASHING INTO DWELLING
HOUSES.  THE REAL DIFFICULTY IS THAT IT IS SO LITTLE CONDEMNED BY
OTHERWISE LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE THAT IT FLOURISHES WIDELY AND INVOLVES
MULTITUDES OF PEOPLE.  IT IS TO ME A SHOCKING PROPOSITION THAT PRIVATE
HOMES, EVEN QUARTERS IN A TENEMENT, MAY BE INDISCRIMINATELY INVADED AT
THE DISCRETION OF ANY SUSPICIOUS POLICE OFFICER ENGAGED IN FOLLOWING UP
OFFENSES THAT INVOLVE NO VIOLENCE OR THREATS OF IT.  WHILE I SHOULD BE
HUMAN ENOUGH TO APPLY THE LETTER OF THE LAW WITH SOME INDULGENCE TO
OFFICERS ACTING TO DEAL WITH THREATS OR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE WHICH
ENDANGER LIFE OR SECURITY, IT IS NOTABLE THAT FEW OF THE SEARCHES FOUND
BY THIS COURT TO BE UNLAWFUL DEALT WITH THAT CATEGORY OF CRIME.  ALMOST
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THE OVERZEAL WAS IN SUPPRESSING ACTS NOT MALUM IN SE
BUT ONLY MALUM PROHIBITUM.  FN1  WHILE THE ENTERPRISE OF PARTING FOOLS
FROM THEIR MONEY BY THE "NUMBERS" LOTTERY IS ONE THAT OUGHT TO BE
SUPPRESSED, I DO NOT THINK ITS SUPPRESSION IS MORE IMPORTANT TO SOCIETY
THAN THE SECURITY OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES.  WHEN AN OFFICER UNDERTAKES TO ACT AS HIS OWN MAGISTRATE, HE
OUGHT TO BE IN A POSITION TO JUSTIFY IT BY POINTING TO SOME REAL
IMMEDIATE AND SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES IF HE POSTPONED ACTION TO GET A
WARRANT. 

I AM THE LESS RELUCTANT TO REACH THIS CONCLUSION BECAUSE THE METHOD
OF ENFORCING THE LAW EXEMPLIFIED BY THIS SEARCH IS ONE WHICH NOT ONLY
VIOLATES LEGAL RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT BUT IS CERTAIN TO INVOLVE THE POLICE
IN GRAVE TROUBLES IF CONTINUED.  THAT IT DID NOT DO SO ON THIS OCCASION
WAS DUE TO LUCK MORE THAN TO FORESIGHT.  MANY HOMEOWNERS IN THIS CRIME
BESET CITY DOUBTLESS ARE ARMED.  WHEN A WOMAN SEES A STRANGE MAN, IN
PLAIN CLOTHES, PRYING UP HER BEDROOM WINDOW AND CLIMBING IN, HER
NATURAL IMPULSE WOULD BE TO SHOOT.  A PLEA OF JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
MIGHT RESULT AWKWARDLY FOR ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  BUT AN OFFICER SEEING
A GUN BEING DRAWN ON HIM MIGHT SHOOT FIRST.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE, I SHOULD NOT WANT THE TASK OF CONVINCING A JURY THAT IT WAS
NOT MURDER.  I HAVE NO RELUCTANCE IN CONDEMNING AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL A
METHOD OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SO RECKLESS AND SO FRAUGHT WITH DANGER AND
DISCREDIT TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THEMSELVES. 

AS TO DEFENDANT WASHINGTON:  HE WAS A GUEST ON THE PREMISES.  HE
COULD HAVE NO IMMUNITY FROM SPYING AND LISTENING BY THOSE RIGHTFULLY IN
THE HOUSE.  BUT EVEN A GUEST MAY EXPECT THE SHELTER OF THE ROOFTREE HE
IS UNDER AGAINST CRIMINAL INTRUSION.  I SHOULD REVERSE AS TO BOTH
DEFENDANTS. 

FN1  FOR EXAMPLE, THE INSTANT CASE INVOLVES A STATUTE FORBIDDING
LOTTERIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, 334
U.S. 699, LIQUOR CONTROL AND REVENUE STATUTES; JOHNSON V. UNITED
STATES, 333 U.S. 10, NARCOTIC CONTROL AND REVENUE STATUTES; NATHANSON
V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 41, LIQUOR CONTROL AND TARIFF STATUTE. 
OTHER CASES INVOLVING LIQUOR CONTROL OR TAXING STATUTES, OR BOTH, ARE
NUMEROUS; SEE, E.G., TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES
V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452; GO-BART IMPORTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282
U.S. 344; GAMBINO V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 310; AMOS V. UNITED
STATES, 255 U.S. 313.  AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, INVOLVED
COCAINE CONTROL AND TAXING STATUTES; AND WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 383, INVOLVED A STATUTE FORBIDDING USE OF THE MAILS TO DISTRIBUTE
LOTTERY TICKETS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, HAVING JOINED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, ALSO
CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED
JOIN, DISSENTING. 

IN OUR OPINION THE JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED.  THIS IS A
CASE OF A LAWFUL ARREST FOLLOWED BY A SEIZURE OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE
CRIME WHICH THEN WERE IN PLAIN SIGHT.  THERE WAS NO SEARCH.  THERE IS,
THEREFORE, NO ISSUE AS TO THE NEED FOR A SEARCH WARRANT.  IN REGARD TO
THE ARREST, THE ONLY ISSUE IS AS TO THE NEED FOR A WARRANT OF ARREST TO
MAKE IT LAWFUL.  FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW, WE BELIEVE THE ARREST
FOR THE CRIME COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OFFICERS WAS CLEARLY
LAWFUL WITHOUT THE ISSUANCE OF A FORMAL WARRANT FOR IT.  AT THE TIME OF
THE RAID, THERE WERE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO JUSTIFY THE POLICE IN
SUSPECTING THAT THE UNLAWFUL LOTTERY, WHICH LATER PROVED TO BE IN
OPERATION, WAS IN PROGRESS WITHIN THE BUILDING WHICH HAD BEEN UNDER
SURVEILLANCE.  A "NUMBERS GAME," SUCH AS WAS THERE CONDUCTED, IS A FORM
OF LOTTERY GENERALLY REGARDED AS DETRIMENTAL TO THE COMMUNITIES WHERE
IT FLOURISHES.  IT IS HIGHLY PROFITABLE TO ITS PRINCIPALS AT THE
EXPENSE OF ITS PLAYERS.  YET IT IS SO SIMPLE IN OPERATION THAT ITS
HEADQUARTERS ARE READILY MOVABLE.  ACCORDINGLY, IT REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL
POLICE EFFORT TO STOP SUCH UNLAWFUL OPERATIONS AT THEIR SOURCE.  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO LOCATE THE PRINCIPALS AND IT IS STILL MORE DIFFICULT TO
SECURE PROOF SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THEM UNLESS THEY ARE ARRESTED IN THE
MIDST OF ONE OF THE COMPARATIVELY BRIEF PERIODICAL SESSIONS WHEN THE
ESSENTIAL COMPUTATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE LOTTERY ARE BEING
MADE.  SUCH SESSIONS ARE HELD WHEN THE OPERATORS DETERMINE THE DAY'S
WINNERS AND ARRANGE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AMONG THOSE WINNERS OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE SHARES OF THE CASH WHICH HAS BEEN COLLECTED THROUGH A
NETWORK OF WRITERS, COLLECTORS AND RUNNERS. 

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, A PROMPT ENTRY BY THE POLICE WAS JUSTIFIED
WHEN THEY REASONABLY SUSPECTED THAT THE CRIME OF OPERATING A NUMBERS
LOTTERY WAS BEING COMMITTED AT THAT MOMENT.  THE PETITIONERS, AS
TENANTS OR OCCUPANTS OF A ROOM, HAD NO RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE PRESENCE
OF OFFICERS IN THE HALL OF THE ROOMING HOUSE.  THE ACTUAL OBSERVANCE BY
THE POLICE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE SUSPECTED CRIME THEREUPON JUSTIFIED
THEIR IMMEDIATE ARREST OF THOSE ENGAGED IN IT WITHOUT SECURING A
WARRANT FOR SUCH ARREST. 

THIS CASE IS PRIMARILY AN INSTANCE WHERE THE POLICE SUCCEEDED IN
SURPRISING THE PETITIONERS IN THE MIDST OF THE UNLAWFUL OPERATIONS
WHICH THE POLICE SUSPECTED WERE BEING CARRIED ON PERIODICALLY BY
MCDONALD AS A PRINCIPAL OPERATOR AND BY OTHERS AT THE PLACE IN
QUESTION.  IT IS GENERALLY NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE OF THE ACCUSED FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO ARREST SUCH ACCUSED
WITHOUT A WARRANT OF ARREST IF THE ARREST IS MADE AT THE VERY MOMENT
WHEN THE ACCUSED IS ENGAGED IN A VIOLATION OF LAW IN THE PRESENCE OF
THE OFFICER.  IT IS GENERALLY NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE OF SUCH ACCUSED FOR THE ARRESTING OFFICER THEREUPON TO SEIZE
AT LEAST THE ARTICLES THEN IN PLAIN SIGHT AND WHICH HAVE BEEN SEEN BY
THE OFFICER TO HAVE BEEN USED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH
THE ACCUSED IS BEING ARRESTED.  WE SEE NO ADEQUATE REASON FOR A
DISTINCTION IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED HERE.  IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO
SEARCH FOR THE SEIZED PROPERTY BECAUSE ITS PRESENCE WAS OBVIOUS.  ALSO,
THERE WAS NO SEIZURE OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE ARTICLES WHICH THE
ARRESTING OFFICER SAW IN USE IN SOME MATERIAL CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME
WHICH THE ACCUSED COMMITTED IN THE OFFICER'S PRESENCE.  IT, THEREFORE,
WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO
PERMIT SUCH SEIZED ARTICLES TO BE PRESENTED IN EVIDENCE IN SECURING
THEIR CONVICTIONS OF THE CRIMES WHICH THEY WERE CHARGED WITH COMMITTING
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICER. 
..END :





VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377 


NO. 22.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1948.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1948.  - 164
F.2D 924, AFFIRMED. 


IF OTHERWISE APPLICABLE, THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT COVERS EMPLOYEES
OF AMERICAN CONTRACTORS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MILITARY BASE
FOR THE UNITED STATES IN AN AREA IN BERMUDA LEASED BY GREAT BRITAIN TO
THE UNITED STATES FOR 99 YEARS - EVEN THOUGH THE LEASED AREA IS UNDER
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IS NOT TERRITORY OF THE UNITED
STATES IN A POLITICAL SENSE.  PP. 378-390. 

1.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT APPLIES IN THIS AREA IS NOT A
POLITICAL QUESTION BEYOND THE COMPETENCE OF COURTS TO DECIDE.  P. 380. 

2.  UNDER THE POWER GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, ART. IV, SEC. 3, CL.
2, TO MAKE "ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE TERRITORY
OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES," CONGRESS HAS POWER
TO REGULATE LABOR CONTRACTS WHERE THE INCIDENTS REGULATED OCCUR IN
AREAS UNDER THE CONTROL, THOUGH NOT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
OR SOVEREIGNTY, OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 381. 

3.  UNDER THE TERMS OF THE PARTICULAR LEASE UNDER WHICH THIS AREA WAS
LEASED BY GREAT BRITAIN TO THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED STATES IS
AUTHORIZED BY THE LESSOR TO PROVIDE FOR MAXIMUM HOURS AND MINIMUM WAGES
FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE AREA.  PP. 382-383. 

4.  NEITHER THE LACK OF SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO LEASED AREAS IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT NOR THE FACT THAT
THIS PARTICULAR BERMUDA BASE WAS ACQUIRED AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT
PREVENTS THE ACT FROM COVERING SUCH AREAS.  PP. 383-385. 

5.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE BROAD
PURPOSE OF THE ACT, OF THE FACT THAT THE ACT APPLIES TO FAROFF ISLANDS
WHOSE ECONOMY DIFFERS MARKEDLY FROM OUR OWN, AND OF THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS HAS EXTENDED THE COVERAGE OF OTHER ACTS TO SUCH BASES, THE
WORD "POSSESSION," USED BY CONGRESS TO DEFINE THE GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE
OF THIS ACT, IS CONSTRUED AS MAKING THE ACT APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE AREA OF FOREIGN TERRITORY ON BERMUDA
UNDER LEASE FOR A MILITARY BASE.  PP. 386-390. 

VERMILYA-BROWN CO., INC. ET AL. V. CONNELL ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN CONTRACTORS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A MILITARY BASE FOR THE UNITED STATES IN AN AREA ON BERMUDA LEASED
BY GREAT BRITAIN TO THE UNITED STATES SUED FOR OVERTIME PAY UNDER THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 201 ET SEQ. ON
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT DEPENDED
UPON A POLITICAL QUESTION OUTSIDE OF JUDICIAL POWER.  73 F.SUPP.  860. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  164 F.2D 924.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 859.  AFFIRMED, P. 390. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE BRINGS BEFORE US FOR REVIEW THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, TO EMPLOYEES ALLEGEDLY
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE ON A
LEASEHOLD OF THE UNITED STATES, LOCATED ON THE CROWN COLONY OF
BERMUDA. 

THE LEASEHOLD, A MILITARY BASE, WAS OBTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES
THROUGH A LEASE EXECUTED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.  THIS LEASE WAS THE
RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS ADEQUATELY SUMMARIZED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE
LETTERS OF THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN, THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO THE
UNITED STATES, OF DATE SEPTEMBER 2, 1940; THE REPLY OF MR. CORDELL
HULL, THEN OUR SECRETARY OF STATE, OF THE SAME DATE; AND THE AGREEMENT
OF MARCH 27, 1941, BETWEEN THE TWO NATIONS TO FURTHER EFFECTUATE THE
DECLARATIONS OF THE AMBASSADOR IN HIS LETTER.  FN1 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT COVERS COMMERCE "AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES OR FROM ANY STATE TO ANY PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF."  STATE MEANS
"ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR ANY
TERRITORY OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES."  SEC. 3(B) AND (C) OF
THE ACT. 

CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF CONTRACTORS WHO HAD CONTRACTS FOR WORK FOR THE
UNITED STATES ON THE BERMUDA BASE BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF
THE ACT FOR RECOVERY OF UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES,
CLAIMED TO BE DUE THEM FOR THE EMPLOYER'S VIOLATION OF SEC. 7,
REQUIRING OVERTIME COMPENSATION.  WE DO NOT ENTER INTO ANY
CONSIDERATION OF THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT TO RECOVER IF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYMENT ON THE BERMUDA BASE, FOR THE
COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICABILITY DEPENDED UPON THE "SOVEREIGN
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES," THAT THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE
BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT HAD INDICATED THAT SUCH LEASED AREAS WERE
NOT UNDER OUR SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION AND THAT THIS WAS A POLITICAL
QUESTION OUTSIDE OF JUDICIAL POWER.  CONNELL V. VERMILYA-BROWN CO., 73
F.SUPP.  860.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT, HOLDING THAT THE ACT APPLIED TO THE BERMUDA BASE, REVERSED
THIS JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS ON THE MERITS.  164 F.2D 924.  OUR AFFIRMANCE OF THIS
JUDGMENT APPROVES THAT DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL. 

ON ACCOUNT OF THE OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE FROM THE STANDPOINT
OF ADMINISTRATION, IN VIEW OF THE NUMBER OF LEASED AREAS OCCUPIED BY
THE UNITED STATES, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 859. 

(1)  WE SHALL CONSIDER FIRST OUR POWER TO EXPLORE THE PROBLEM AS TO
WHETHER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT COVERS THIS LEASED AREA.  OR, TO
PHRASE IT DIFFERENTLY, IS THIS A POLITICAL QUESTION BEYOND THE
COMPETENCE OF COURTS TO DECIDE?  CF. COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433,
450; COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549, 552.  THERE IS NOTHING THAT
INDICATES TO US THAT THIS COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO DECIDE A CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN LITIGANTS BECAUSE THE GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE OF THIS STATUTE IS
INVOLVED.  RECOGNIZING THAT THE DETERMINATION OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER AN
AREA IS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, JONES V. UNITED
STATES, 137 U.S. 202, DOES NOT DEBAR COURTS FROM EXAMINING THE STATUS
RESULTING FROM PRIOR ACTION.  DE LIMA V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 1; HOOVEN &
ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION FOR THIS
OPINION TO DIFFER FROM THE VIEW AS TO SOVEREIGNTY EXPRESSED "FOR THE
SECRETARY OF STATE" BY THE LEGAL ADVISER OF THE DEPARTMENT IN HIS
LETTER OF JANUARY 30, 1948, TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN RELATION TO
FURTHER LEGAL STEPS IN THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS.  IT WAS THERE STATED: 

"THE ARRANGEMENTS UNDER WHICH THE LEASED BASES WERE ACQUIRED FROM
GREAT BRITAIN DID NOT AND WERE NOT INTENDED TO TRANSFER SOVEREIGNTY
OVER THE LEASED AREAS FROM GREAT BRITAIN TO THE UNITED STATES." 

NOTHING IN THIS OPINION IS INTENDED TO INTIMATE THAT WE HAVE ANY
DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THAT EXPRESSED FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  IN THE
LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WE PREDICATE OUR
VIEWS ON THE ISSUE PRESENTED UPON THE POSTULATE THAT THE LEASED AREA IS
UNDER THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THAT IT IS NOT TERRITORY OF
THE UNITED STATES IN A POLITICAL SENSE, THAT IS, A PART OF ITS NATIONAL
DOMAIN. 

(2)  WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS,
TO REGULATE THE ACTIONS OF OUR CITIZENS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT PUNISHED
OCCURRED WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF A FOREIGN NATION.  THIS WAS
ESTABLISHED AS TO CRIMES DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE GOVERNMENT IN UNITED
STATES V. BOWMAN, 260 U.S. 94.  THIS COURT THERE POINTED OUT, P. 102,
THAT CLEARLY SUCH LEGISLATION CONCERNING OUR CITIZENS COULD NOT OFFEND
THE DIGNITY OR RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY OF ANOTHER NATION.  SEE BLACKMER V.
UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 437; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69,
73, 78.  A FORTIORI CIVIL CONTROLS MAY APPLY, WE THINK, TO LIABILITIES
CREATED BY STATUTORY REGULATION OF LABOR CONTRACTS, EVEN IF ALIENS MAY
BE INVOLVED, WHERE THE INCIDENTS REGULATED OCCUR ON AREAS UNDER THE
CONTROL, THOUGH NOT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OR SOVEREIGNTY,
OF THE NATION ENACTING THE LEGISLATION.  FN2  THIS IS IMPLICITLY
CONCEDED BY ALL PARTIES.  THIS POWER IS PLACED SPECIFICALLY IN CONGRESS
BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR "NEEDFUL RULES AND REGULATIONS
RESPECTING THE TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED
STATES."  CONSTITUTION, ART. IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2.  FN3  IT DOES NOT
DEPEND UPON SOVEREIGNTY IN THE POLITICAL OR ANY SENSE OVER THE
TERRITORY.  SO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE-HOUR DIVISION HAS ISSUED A
STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY OR INTERPRETATION THAT DIRECTS ALL OFFICERS
AND AGENCIES OF HIS DIVISION TO APPLY THIS ACT TO THE CANAL ZONE,
ADMITTEDLY TERRITORY OVER WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE SOVEREIGNTY.  29 C.F.R.,
1947 SUPP., PP. 4392-93. 

(3)  IN THIS VIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO A LEASED
AREA, THE TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR LEASE BECOME IMPORTANT.  REFERENCE,
NOTE 1, SUPRA, HAS BEEN MADE TO THE UNITED STATES STATUTES WHERE THE
TITLE DOCUMENTS ARE READILY AVAILABLE.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO PRINT THEM
HERE IN FULL.  IN THE MARGIN ARE EXTRACTS THAT INDICATE THEIR MEANING
AS TO THE CONTROL INTENDED TO BE GRANTED.  FN4  UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WE
HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE UNITED STATES IS AUTHORIZED BY THE LESSOR TO
PROVIDE FOR MAXIMUM HOURS AND MINIMUM WAGES FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
WITHIN THE AREA, AND THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT APPLIES IS ONE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, NOT LEGISLATIVE POWER. 

(4)  AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT, JUNE 25, 1938, THE
UNITED STATES HAD NO LEASED BASE IN BERMUDA.  THIS COUNTRY DID HAVE A
LEASE FROM THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA OF AN AREA AT GUANTANAMO BAY FOR A
COALING OR NAVAL STATION "FOR THE TIME REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COALING AND NAVAL STATIONS."  THE UNITED STATES WAS GRANTED BY THE
CUBAN LEASE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RIGHTS AS IT HAS IN THE BERMUDA
LEASE.  FN5  THE TIME LIMITS OF THE GRANT WERE REDEFINED ON JUNE 9,
1934, AS EXTENDING UNTIL AGREEMENT FOR ABROGATION OR UNILATERAL
ABANDONMENT BY THE UNITED STATES.  A SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT EXISTED IN
REGARD TO THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE.  FN6  FURTHER, IN THE PHILIPPINE
INDEPENDENCE ACTS OF JANUARY 17, 1933, AND MARCH 24, 1934, PROVISIONS
EXISTED LOOKING TOWARD THE RETENTION OF MILITARY AND OTHER BASES IN THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  47 STAT. 761, SECS. 5 AND 10; 48 STAT. 456, SECS.
5 AND 10.  FN7  A CONVENTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS OF NICARAGUA AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROCLAIMED JUNE 24, 1916, 39 STAT. 1661,
GAVE THE UNITED STATES FOR 99 YEARS "SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY" OVER CERTAIN
ISLANDS IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA.  FN8  NONE OF THESE INTERNATIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS WERE DISCUSSED IN REPORTS OR THE DEBATES CONCERNING THE
SCOPE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND DURING WORLD WAR II, A NUMBER OF BASES FOR
MILITARY OPERATIONS WERE LEASED BY THE UNITED STATES NOT ONLY ON
TERRITORY OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS BUT ON THAT OF OTHER
SOVEREIGNTIES ALSO.  THE PROVISIONS OF THESE LEASES PARALLELED IN MANY
RESPECTS THE BERMUDA LEASE.  FN9 

NEITHER THIS LACK OF SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO
LEASED AREAS, HOWEVER, NOR THE FACT THAT THE PARTICULAR BERMUDA BASE
WAS ACQUIRED AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT SEEMS TO US DECISIVE OF ITS
COVERAGE.  "THE REACH OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINED OR OPPOSED BY THE
FACT THAT IT IS SOUGHT TO BRING NEW SITUATIONS UNDER ITS TERMS."  FN10
THE SHERMAN ACT OF 1890, A DATE WHEN WE HAD NO INSULAR POSSESSIONS, WAS
HELD BY ITS USE OF THE WORD "TERRITORY" IN ITS SEC. 3 TO BE APPLICABLE
IN PUERTO RICO, A DEPENDENCY ACQUIRED BY THE TREATY OF PARIS IN 1898. 
FN11  THE ANSWER AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE WAGE-HOUR ACT LIES IN THE
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN DEFINING ITS REACH. 

(5)  THE POINT OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION FOR OUR DETERMINATION IS AS
TO WHETHER THE WORD "POSSESSION," USED BY CONGRESS TO BOUND THE
GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, FIXES THE LIMITS
OF THE ACT'S SCOPE SO AS TO INCLUDE THE BERMUDA BASE.  THE WORD
"POSSESSION" IS NOT A WORD OF ART, DESCRIPTIVE OF A RECOGNIZED
GEOGRAPHICAL OR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.  WHAT WAS SAID OF "TERRITORIES" IN
THE SHELL CO. CASE, 302 U.S. 253, AT 258, IS APPLICABLE: 

"WORDS GENERALLY HAVE DIFFERENT SHADES OF MEANING, AND ARE TO BE
CONSTRUED IF REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO EFFECTUATE THE INTENT OF THE
LAWMAKERS; AND THIS MEANING IN PARTICULAR INSTANCES IS TO BE ARRIVED AT
NOT ONLY BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE WORDS THEMSELVES, BUT BY
CONSIDERING, AS WELL, THE CONTEXT, THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW, AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE WORDS WERE EMPLOYED." 

THE WORD "POSSESSION" HAS BEEN EMPLOYED IN A NUMBER OF STATUTES BOTH
BEFORE AND SINCE THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO DESCRIBE THE AREAS TO
WHICH VARIOUS CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES APPLY.  FN12  WE DO NOT FIND THAT
THESE EXAMPLES SUFFICIENTLY OUTLINE THE MEANING OF THE WORD TO FURNISH
A DEFINITION THAT WOULD INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE THIS BASE.  WHILE THE
GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS IN THE ENACTMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT IS CLEAR,  FN13  NO SUCH DEFINITE INDICATION OF THE
PURPOSE TO INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE LEASED AREAS, SUCH AS THE BERMUDA BASE,
IN THE WORD "POSSESSION" APPEARS.  WE CANNOT EVEN SAY, "WE SEE WHAT YOU
ARE DRIVING AT, BUT YOU HAVE NOT SAID IT, AND THEREFORE WE SHALL GO ON
AS BEFORE."  FN14  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, OUR DUTY AS A COURT IS TO
CONSTRUE THE WORD "POSSESSION" AS OUR JUDGMENT INSTRUCTS US THE
LAWMAKERS, WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, WOULD HAVE DONE HAD THEY ACTED
AT THE TIME OF THE LEGISLATION WITH THE PRESENT SITUATION IN MIND. 

THE WORD "POSSESSION" IN THE ACT INCLUDES FAR-OFF ISLANDS WHOSE
ECONOMY DIFFERS MARKEDLY FROM OUR OWN.  THUS THE EMPLOYEES OF PUERTO
RICO, GUAM, THE GUANO ISLANDS, SAMOA AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS HAVE THE
PROTECTION OF THE ACT.  SEE 29 C.F.R., 1947 SUPP., 4393.  SINCE DRASTIC
CHANGE IN LOCAL ECONOMY WAS NOT A DETERRENT IN THESE INSTANCES, THERE
IS NO REASON FOR SAYING THAT THE WAGE-HOUR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WERE
NOT INTENDED TO BRING THESE MINIMUM CHANGES INTO THE LABOR MARKET OF
THE BASES.  FN15  SINCE ITS PASSAGE OF THE ACT, CONGRESS HAS EXTENDED
THE COVERAGE OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT
TO THE BASES ACQUIRED SINCE JANUARY 1, 1940, AND TO GUANTANAMO BAY. 
FN16  WHEN ONE READS THE COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF THE REACH OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO FORMULATE A BOUNDARY TO
ITS COVERAGE SHORT OF AREAS OVER WHICH THE POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS,
BY OUR SOVEREIGNTY OR BY VOLUNTARY GRANT OF THE AUTHORITY BY THE
SOVEREIGN LESSOR TO LEGISLATE UPON MAXIMUM HOURS AND MINIMUM WAGES. 
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE, WE FEEL SURE THAT THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
OF BERMUDA WOULD NOT ALSO UNDERTAKE LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO OUR FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO CONTROL LABOR RELATIONS ON THE BASE.  SINCE
CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE NUMEROUS AMONG EMPLOYEES ON THE
BASES, THE NATURAL LEGISLATIVE IMPULSE WOULD BE TO GIVE THESE EMPLOYEES
THE SAME PROTECTION THAT WAS GIVEN THOSE SIMILARLY EMPLOYED ON THE
ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC. 

UNDER SUBDIVISIONS 2 AND 3, SUPRA, WE HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THE POWER
RESTS IN CONGRESS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LEASE TO REGULATE LABOR RELATIONS ON THE BASE.  WE HAVE ALSO POINTED
OUT THAT IT IS A MATTER OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT STATUTES ARE EFFECTIVE BEYOND THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. 
IT DEPENDS UPON THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE.  WHERE AS HERE THE PURPOSE
IS TO REGULATE LABOR RELATIONS IN AN AREA VITAL TO OUR NATIONAL LIFE,
IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO INTERPRET ITS PROVISIONS TO HAVE FORCE WHERE THE
NATION HAS SOLE POWER, RATHER THAN TO LIMIT THE COVERAGE TO
SOVEREIGNTY.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS CONSONANT WITH THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S INCLUSION OF THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF "POSSESSION."    WE THINK THESE FACTS INDICATE AN INTENTION ON THE
PART OF CONGRESS IN ITS USE OF THE WORD "POSSESSION" TO HAVE THE ACT
APPLY TO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS ON FOREIGN TERRITORY UNDER
LEASE FOR BASES.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION SEEMS TO US TO CARRY OUT THE
REMEDIAL ENACTMENT IN ACCORD WITH THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  55 STAT. 1560, 1572, 1576, 1590. 

THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE PUBLISHED IN DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION NO.
1726, EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT SERIES 235. 

FN2  NO DUE PROCESS QUESTION ARISES FROM THIS EXTENSION OF
LEGISLATION OVER SUCH CONTROLLED AREAS SUCH AS WAS CONSIDERED TO BAR
STATE ACTION CONCERNING CONTRACTS MADE AND TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE
BOUNDARIES OF A STATE.  CF. HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397, 407,
WITH ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMM'N, 294 U.S. 532, 541. 

FN3  CF. ASHWANDER V. T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288, 330, ET SEQ. 

FN4  55 STAT. 1560: 

ARTICLE I, "(1)  THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS, POWER
AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE LEASED AREAS WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT, USE, OPERATION AND DEFENCE THEREOF, OR APPROPRIATE FOR
THEIR CONTROL,  ...  " 

ARTICLE XI, "(4)  IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT A LEASED AREA IS NOT A PART
OF THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COASTWISE
SHIPPING LAWS SO AS TO EXCLUDE BRITISH VESSELS FROM TRADE BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE LEASED AREAS."  P. 1565. 

ARTICLE XIII, "(1)  THE IMMIGRATION LAWS OF THE TERRITORY SHALL NOT
OPERATE OR APPLY SO AS TO PREVENT ADMISSION INTO THE TERRITORY, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS AGREEMENT, OF ANY MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES FORCES
POSTED TO A LEASED AREA OR ANY PERSON (NOT BEING A NATIONAL OF A POWER
AT WAR WITH HIS MAJESTY THE KING) EMPLOYED BY, OR UNDER A CONTRACT
WITH, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION OR DEFENCE OF THE BASES IN THE
TERRITORY; BUT SUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS WILL BE MADE BY THE UNITED STATES
TO ENABLE SUCH PERSONS TO BE READILY IDENTIFIED AND THEIR STATUS TO BE
ESTABLISHED."  P. 1565. 

ARTICLE XIV, "(1)  NO IMPORT, EXCISE, CONSUMPTION OR OTHER TAX, DUTY
OR IMPOST SHALL BE CHARGED ON - 

 .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  GOODS CONSIGNED TO THE UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES FOR THE USE OF
INSTITUTIONS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL KNOWN AS POST EXCHANGES, SHIPS'
SERVICE STORES, COMMISSARY STORES OR SERVICE CLUBS, OR FOR SALE THEREAT
TO MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES FORCES, OR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE
UNITED STATES BEING NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES AND EMPLOYED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE BASES, OR MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES RESIDENT WITH
THEM AND NOT ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION IN THE TERRITORY;"
P. 1566. 

ARTICLE XXIX, "DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF ANY LEASE, NO LAWS OF THE
TERRITORY WHICH WOULD DEROGATE FROM OR PREJUDICE ANY OF THE RIGHTS
CONFERRED ON THE UNITED STATES BY THE LEASE OR BY THIS AGREEMENT SHALL
BE APPLICABLE WITHIN THE LEASED AREA, SAVE WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES."  P. 1570. 

THERE ARE ALSO ARTICLES ARRANGING FOR POSTAL FACILITIES AND TAX
EXEMPTIONS. 

FN5  1 MALLOY, TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, INTERNATIONAL ACTS, PROTOCOLS
AND AGREEMENTS (S. DOC. NO. 357, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS.) 359: 

"WHILE ON THE ONE HAND THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES THE CONTINUANCE
OF THE ULTIMATE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA OVER THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED AREAS OF LAND AND WATER, ON THE OTHER HAND THE REPUBLIC
PUBLIC OF CUBA CONSENTS THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF THE OCCUPATION BY THE
UNITED STATES OF SAID AREAS UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT THE
UNITED STATES SHALL EXERCISE COMPLETE JURISDICTION AND CONTROL OVER AND
WITHIN SAID AREAS WITH THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE (UNDER CONDITIONS TO BE
HEREAFTER AGREED UPON BY THE TWO GOVERNMENTS) FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSES
OF THE UNITED STATES ANY LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY THEREIN BY PURCHASE OR
BY EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN WITH FULL COMPENSATION TO THE OWNERS
THEREOF." 

ID., 361.  SEE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 24, APRIL 20, 1898, ON THE
RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF CUBA, 30 STAT. 738; THE ACT OF MARCH
2, 1901, IN FULFILLMENT THEREOF, 31 STAT. 898, ART. VII; TREATY WITH
CUBA PROCLAIMED JUNE 9, 1934, 48 STAT. 1682, 1683, ART. III. 

FN6  ISTHMIAN CANAL CONVENTION, 33 STAT. 2234: 

"THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA BEING
DESIROUS TO INSURE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHIP CANAL ACROSS THE ISTHMUS
OF PANAMA TO CONNECT THE ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC OCEANS, AND THE CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAVING PASSED AN ACT APPROVED JUNE 28,
1902, IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT OBJECT, BY WHICH THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES IS AUTHORIZED TO ACQUIRE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THE
CONTROL OF THE NECESSARY TERRITORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF COLOMBIA, AND THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF SUCH TERRITORY BEING ACTUALLY VESTED IN THE REPUBLIC OF
PANAMA, THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES HAVE RESOLVED FOR THAT PURPOSE TO
CONCLUDE A CONVENTION AND HAVE ACCORDINGLY APPOINTED AS THEIR
PLENIPOTENTIARIES,  -". 

ID., 2235:

           "ARTICLE III. 

"THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA GRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES ALL THE RIGHTS,
POWER AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE ZONE MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE
II OF THIS AGREEMENT AND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ALL AUXILIARY LANDS AND
WATERS MENTIONED AND DESCRIBED IN SAID ARTICLE II WHICH THE UNITED
STATES WOULD POSSESS AND EXERCISE IF IT WERE THE SOVEREIGN OF THE
TERRITORY WITHIN WHICH SAID LANDS AND WATERS ARE LOCATED TO THE ENTIRE
EXCLUSION OF THE EXERCISE BY THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA OF ANY SUCH
SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, POWER OR AUTHORITY." 

FN7  THROUGH THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 29, 1944, 58 STAT. 625,
THESE PROVISIONS WERE EFFECTUATED IN LEASES FOR 99 YEARS BY AN
AGREEMENT OF MARCH 14, 1947.  61 STAT. 2834, TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL
ACTS NO. 1611.  THE RIGHTS OF CONTROL OVER THE AREAS OBTAINED BY THE
UNITED STATES FROM THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO
THOSE OBTAINED OVER THE BERMUDA BASE. 

FN8  THE POWER OF CONTROL OVER LEASED AREAS OBTAINED BY THE UNITED
STATES THROUGH THE ABOVE LEASES IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT ORDINARILY
EXERCISED BY SOVEREIGN LESSEES OF FOREIGN TERRITORY.  SEE 34 AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 703; LAWRENCE, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW (6TH ED., 1915) 175; H.R. DOC. NO. 1, 56TH CONG., 2D SESS., 386;
OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW (6TH ED. BY LAUTERPACHT, 1947) 412-14. 
OPPENHEIM CONTAINS NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS OF LEASES BY AN OWNER-STATE
TO A FOREIGN POWER.  HIS VIEWS UPON THE LEASES OF THE BASES HEREIN
REFERRED TO CORRESPOND TO THAT OF OUR DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND TO THE
POSTULATE AS TO SOVEREIGNTY STATED IN THIS OPINION. 

FN9  E.G., 55 STAT. 1245, EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT SERIES 204(GREENLAND);
56 STAT. 1621, EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT SERIES 275(LIBERIA). 

FN10  BROWDER V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 335, 339; BARR V. UNITED
STATES, 324 U.S. 83, 90. 

FN11  PUERTO RICO V. SHELL CO., 302 U.S. 253, 257. 

FN12  FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, SEC. 2, 45
U.S.C. SEC. 52(1908)("EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD IN THE
TERRITORIES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE, OR OTHER
POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "); 

NEUTRALITY ACT, 40 STAT. 231, SEC. 1, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 39(1917)("THE
TERM 'UNITED STATES'  ... INCLUDES THE CANAL ZONE AND ALL TERRITORY AND
WATERS, CONTINENTAL OR INSULAR, SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES."); 

BANK CONSERVATION ACT, 48 STAT. 2, SEC. 202, 12 U.S.C. SEC.
202(1933)("  ...  THE TERM 'STATE' MEANS ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE CANAL ZONE."); 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 48 STAT. 1064, 1065, SEC. 3(G), AS
AMENDED, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 153(G)(1934)("'UNITED STATES' MEANS THE SEVERAL
STATES AND TERRITORIES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND THE POSSESSIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CANAL ZONE."); 

FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, 52 STAT. 1040, SEC. 201(A), 21 U.S.C.
SEC. 321(A)(1938)("THE TERM 'TERRITORY' MEANS ANY TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
EXCLUDING THE CANAL ZONE."); 

FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT, 52 STAT. 1250, SEC. 1(2), AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 901(2)(1938)("THE TERM 'INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE' MEANS
COMMERCE BETWEEN ANY STATE, TERRITORY OR POSSESSION (NOT INCLUDING THE
CANAL ZONE), OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND ANY PLACE OUTSIDE
THEREOF; ... "); 

INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT, 54 STAT. 795, SEC. 2(A)(37), AS AMENDED, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 80A-2(37)(1940)("'STATE' MEANS ANY STATE OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ALASKA, HAWAII, PUERTO RICO, THE
CANAL ZONE, THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, OR ANY OTHER POSSESSION OF THE UNITED
STATES."); 

NATIONALITY ACT, 54 STAT. 1137, SEC. 101(E), 8 U.S.C. SEC.
501(E)(1940)("THE TERM 'OUTLYING POSSESSIONS' MEANS ALL TERRITORY  ...
OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES EXERCISES RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY, EXCEPT
THE CANAL ZONE."); 

WAR DAMAGE CORPORATION ACT, 56 STAT. 174, 176, SEC. 2, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
606B-2(A)(1942)("SUCH PROTECTION SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY (1) TO SUCH
PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE UNITED STATES (INCLUDING THE SEVERAL STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA), THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, THE CANAL ZONE,
THE TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IN SUCH OTHER
PLACES AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE UNDER THE DOMINION
AND CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "). 

THE WAR DAMAGE CORPORATION ACT AND THE DEFENSE BASE ACT, 56 STAT.
1035, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1651(1942), INFRA, NOTE 16, USE TERMS DIFFERENT
FROM "POSSESSION" TO DESCRIBE THESE LEASED AREAS.  WHEN THESE ACTS WERE
PASSED, HOWEVER, THE PROBLEMS POSED BY THE BASES WERE SPECIFICALLY
CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS.  HEARINGS ON H.R. 6382, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 27; 88 CONG. REC. 1851.  THUS
THEY AFFORD NO TOUCHSTONE AS TO THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT, WHERE SUCH PROBLEMS WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED. 

FN13  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 115: 

"THE MOTIVE AND PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT REGULATION ARE PLAINLY TO MAKE
EFFECTIVE THE CONGRESSIONAL CONCEPTION OF PUBLIC POLICY THAT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE INSTRUMENT OF COMPETITION IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS,
WHICH COMPETITION IS INJURIOUS TO THE COMMERCE AND TO THE STATES FROM
AND TO WHICH THE COMMERCE FLOWS." 

SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS INCLUDED EXCESSIVE HOURS OF LABOR.  OVERNIGHT
MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 577. 

FN14  JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 163 F. 30, 32. 

FN15  WHEN CONGRESS DEALT WITH COVERAGE IN THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, ENACTED JULY 5, 1935, 49 STAT. 449, 450, IT USED A
NARROWER DEFINITION OF COMMERCE, ONE RESTRICTED TO STATES AND
TERRITORIES.  THAT HAS BEEN HELD TO COVER PUERTO RICO BUT WE ARE NOT
ADVISED OF ANY APPLICATION TO THE BASES.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. GONZALEZ
PADIN CO., 161 F.2D 353. 

FN16  DEFENSE BASE ACT, 56 STAT. 1035, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1651(1942). 
THIS ACT EXTENDS THE COVERAGE OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT TO "ANY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN ANY EMPLOYMENT - 

"(1)  AT ANY MILITARY, AIR, OR NAVAL BASE ACQUIRED AFTER JANUARY 1,
1940, BY THE UNITED STATES FROM ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT; OR 

"(2)  UPON ANY LANDS OCCUPIED OR USED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR
MILITARY OR NAVAL PURPOSES IN ANY TERRITORY OR POSSESSION OUTSIDE THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES (INCLUDING ALASKA; THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS;
THE UNITED STATES NAVAL OPERATING BASE, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA; AND THE
CANAL ZONE); ... " 

THIS EXTENSION WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR LIMITED LANGUAGE OF
THE ACT WHICH COVERED INJURIES "OCCURRING UPON THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF
THE UNITED STATES," THE TERM "UNITED STATES" BEING DEFINED TO MEAN "THE
SEVERAL STATES AND TERRITORIES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INCLUDING
THE TERRITORIAL WATERS THEREOF."  44 STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. SECS. 902,
903. 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT GUANTANAMO BAY AND THE CANAL ZONE WERE INCLUDED
IN THE LISTS AS "POSSESSIONS." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE SERIOUS QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS NOT AS TO THE MEANING OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IT MEANS JUST WHAT IT SAYS WHEN IT PROVIDES
THAT IT SHALL APPLY IN ANY TERRITORY OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES
AND I WOULD APPLY IT TO EVERY FOOT OF SOIL THAT, UP TO THE TIME OF THIS
DECISION, HAS BEEN REGARDED AS OUR POSSESSION. 

THE REAL ISSUE HERE, AND IT IS A NOVEL ONE, IS WHETHER THIS COURT
WILL CONSTRUE THE LEASE UNDER WHICH THE UNITED STATES OCCUPIES A
MILITARY BASE IN BERMUDA AS ADDING IT TO OUR POSSESSIONS.  THE LABOR
FOR WHICH OVERTIME UNDER THE ACT IS SOUGHT WAS PERFORMED FOR A
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR ON THIS MILITARY BASE.  THE BASE DID NOT EXIST
WHEN THE ACT WAS PASSED AND IT DOES NOT EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY
PURPORT TO COVER WORK IN THAT AREA, UNLESS THE WORD "POSSESSION" SHALL
BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE THE LEASED LANDS.  WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE OR
PERMISSIBLE TO HOLD AS MATTER OF LAW THAT OUR TENURE THERE CONSTITUTES
THE LEASEHOLD AREA A POSSESSION OBVIOUSLY TURNS ON A READING OF THE
LEASE FROM GREAT BRITAIN. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS READ THE LEASE TO GIVE "SWEEPING POWERS" TO THE
UNITED STATES AND DECLARED THAT "THE AREAS ARE SUBJECT TO FULLY AS
COMPLETE CONTROL BY THE UNITED STATES AS OBTAINS IN OTHER AREAS LONG
KNOWN AS 'POSSESSIONS' OF THE UNITED STATES."  IT NAMES AS COMPARABLE
POSSESSIONS ALASKA, HAWAII, PUERTO RICO, GUAM, SAMOAN ISLANDS, VIRGIN
ISLANDS AND THE CANAL ZONE.  THIS COURT SEEMS TO APPROVE THAT PREMISE
BECAUSE IT AFFIRMS, CITING SOME IF NOT ALL OF THE SAME EXAMPLES; BUT IT
ALSO SAYS, "  ...  IT IS DIFFICULT TO FORMULATE A BOUNDARY TO ITS (THE
ACT'S) COVERAGE SHORT OF AREAS OVER WHICH THE POWER OF CONGRESS
EXTENDS,  ...  TO LEGISLATE UPON MAXIMUM HOURS AND MINIMUM WAGES." 
FN1    THUS APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO THE LEASED AREA IS PUT ON TWO
GROUNDS:  FIRST, THAT THE AREA IS A POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES;
AND SECOND, SINCE THE ACT APPLIES TO THOSE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN
THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE,"  FN2  IT OPERATES WHEREVER
CONGRESS HAS POWER TO ACT WITH RESPECT TO COMMERCE.  PRESUMABLY THE
COURT WILL NOT SHRINK FROM APPLYING THE CONVERSE OF THE LATTER
PROPOSITION; THAT THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THIS COUNTRY OR ITS
NATIONALS ARE NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE. 

BERMUDA AND LIKE BASES ARE NOT, IN MY OPINION, OUR POSSESSIONS ON A
JURIDICAL AND GEOPOLITICAL FOOTING WITH THE POSSESSIONS ENUMERATED.  I
ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NOT AND UNDER THE LEASE THERE CAN NOT BE IN
THE LEASED AREA ANY "COMMERCE" SUBJECT TO THE ACT. 

TO CONSIDER THE BASES AS POSSESSIONS IN THAT SENSE IS INCOMPATIBLE
WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS AND WITH THE LETTER OF THE LEASE BY
WHICH THE BASES WERE ACQUIRED.  IT ENLARGES THE RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH
THE UNITED STATES WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT AND THE PRIVILEGES WHICH GREAT
BRITAIN WAS WILLING TO CONCEDE.  THIS WILL APPEAR FROM THE HISTORY OF
THE TRANSACTION WHOSE MEANING WE INTERPRET. 

WHEN ORGANIZED RESISTANCE IN THE LOW COUNTRIES AND IN FRANCE WENT
DOWN AND THE GERMAN WEHRMACHT STOOD POISED ON EUROPE'S ATLANTIC
SEABOARD, IT WAS SUSPECTED, AS IT SINCE HAS BEEN PROVED, THAT THE
DESIGN FOR CONQUEST EMBRACED SEIZURE OF ATLANTIC ISLANDS AS A PATHWAY
FOR FUTURE OPERATIONS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  FN3  DISASTERS ON
LAND AND SEA HAD BROUGHT THREAT OF INVASION OF THE BRITISH ISLES NEARER
TO REALITY THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE THE SPANISH ARMADA.  CONSEQUENTLY,
GREAT BRITAIN COULD DIVERT NO FORCES TO THE DEFENSE OF HER ISLAND
POSSESSIONS IN OUR HEMISPHERE, WHICH AFTER ALL WERE STRATEGIC SPOTS TO
ASSAIL OUR COMMERCE AND STEPPING STONES TO OUR GATEWAYS.  FN4 GREAT
BRITAIN, HOWEVER, DESPERATELY IN NEED OF DESTROYERS TO DEFEND HER
SHORES, INTIMATED A READINESS TO PUT THE UNITED STATES IN A POSITION TO
DEFEND THESE ISLANDS AND THE AMERICAS AS A QUID PRO QUO FOR OVERAGED
AMERICAN DESTROYERS.  FN5 

AMONG THOSE WHO SAW IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AIR WARFARE A NECESSITY FOR
MOVING OUR AIR DEFENSE OUTPOSTS SEAWARD FROM THE CITIES WHICH DOT OUR
OWN SHORES, AN INFLUENTIAL AND RESPECTED GROUP FAVORED ASKING ENGLAND
TO CEDE HER ISLAND POSSESSIONS IN THIS HEMISPHERE TO US AS AN OUTRIGHT
TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY.  IF THIS CESSION HAD BEEN ASKED AND GRANTED,
THE COURT WOULD NOW RIGHTLY HOLD THE BASES TO BE OUR "POSSESSIONS." 
BUT IT WAS PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT HIMSELF WHO DETERMINED FOR THIS COUNTRY
THAT IT WAS THE PART OF WISDOM NEITHER TO SEEK NOR TO ACCEPT
SOVEREIGNTY OR SUPREME AUTHORITY OVER ANY PART OF THESE ISLANDS.  HE
DECIDED THAT IT WAS IN OUR SELF-INTEREST TO LIMIT THE RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE UNITED STATES STRICTLY TO ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATION OF MILITARY, NAVAL AND AIR INSTALLATIONS.  HIS REASONS HAVE
BEEN PARTIALLY DISCLOSED  FN6  AND ONE OF THEM, APPARENT TO ANYONE EVEN
CASUALLY TRAVELLED IN THOSE ISLANDS, WAS THE GREAT DISPARITY OF SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC AND LABOR CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE ISLANDS AND OUR CONTINENT. 
ALSO HE KNEW FULL WELL THE DIFFERENT CUSTOMS AND INSTITUTIONS
PREVAILING THERE, PARTICULARLY THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE WHITE, COLORED
AND NATIVE RACES, AND THE DIFFICULTY OF ASSIMILATING THEM INTO THE
AMERICAN PATTERN - A PROSPECT THAT WOULD AROUSE EMOTIONAL TENSIONS IN
THIS COUNTRY AS WELL AS IN THE ISLANDS AND WHICH INDEED CAUSED SOME
ANXIETY EVEN IN WESTMINSTER N7.  THUS IT WAS SETTLED AMERICAN POLICY,
GROUNDED, AS I THINK, ON THE HIGHEST WISDOM, THAT, WHATEVER TECHNICAL
FORM THE TRANSACTION SHOULD TAKE, WE SHOULD ACQUIRE NO SUCH
RESPONSIBILITIES AS WOULD REQUIRE US TO IMPORT TO THOSE ISLANDS OUR
LAWS, INSTITUTIONS AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS BEYOND THE NECESSITIES OF
CONTROLLING A MILITARY BASE AND ITS GARRISON, DEPENDENTS AND INCIDENTAL
PERSONNEL. 

KNOWLEDGE OF THAT POLICY AND PURPOSE GIVES A MEASURE OF THE NOVEL AND
DUBIOUS GROUNDS FOR THE COURT'S PRESENT DETERMINATION TO PUT THESE
BASES UPON THE LEGISLATIVE AND JURIDICAL FOOTING OF "TERRITORIES AND
POSSESSIONS."  IT IS A FIRST STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF THE VERY
IMPRUDENCE THAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED BY THE LIMITED TENURE DEVISED
FOR THE BASES. 

BUT IF AMERICAN INTERESTS NEITHER REQUIRE NOR ADMIT OF THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THE BASES HAVE BECOME OUR POSSESSIONS, THE BOUNDS OF THE GRANT AS
UNDERSTOOD AND EXPRESSED BY GREAT BRITAIN DENY IT WITH EVEN MORE
COMPELLING FORCE.  THE CONFINED CHARACTER OF THE GRANTED PRIVILEGES AND
THEIR INCOMPATIBILITY WITH EITHER SOVEREIGNTY OR PROPRIETORSHIP ON OUR
PART APPEAR FROM THE LETTER OF THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN TO SECRETARY
HULL OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1940, WHICH COMMITTED THE UNITED KINGDOM TO GRANT
TO THE UNITED STATES "THE LEASE FOR IMMEDIATE ESTABLISHMENT AND USE OF
NAVAL AND AIR BASES AND FACILITIES FOR ENTRANCE THERETO AND THE
OPERATION AND PROTECTION THEREOF," ON THE GREAT BAY OF BERMUDA.  FN8
ALL OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE FORMAL LEASE WERE SUBSIDIARY TO
AND WITHIN THIS GENERAL MEASURE OF THE RIGHTS YIELDED.  IT COMPREHENDED
ALL THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BESTOW AND ALL THAT WE INTENDED TO TAKE. 
ITS DIMENSIONS WERE WELL DEFINED BY MR. STIMSON AS "THE RIGHT TO
FORTIFY AND DEFEND."  FN9 

DETAILS OF THE FORMAL LEASE DO BUT EMPHASIZE THE COMMON PURPOSE OF
GREAT BRITAIN TO SO CONFINE THE CONCESSION AND THAT OF PRESIDENT
ROOSEVELT TO SO CIRCUMSCRIBE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES.  THE LEASEHOLD RIGHT
OF THE UNITED STATES, IN WAR TIME OR EMERGENCY, TO CONDUCT MILITARY
OPERATIONS ON LAND, WATER OR IN THE AIR, WHICH WAS THE HEART OF THE
MATTER FOR US, IS WITHOUT BOUNDS OR RESTRICTIONS EXCEPT FOR A PLEDGE OF
GOOD NEIGHBORLINESS AND FRIENDLY COOPERATION IN THEIR EXERCISE. 

THE LEASEHOLD TERMS, HOWEVER, ARE WELL CHOSEN, CAREFULLY TO DENY
EVERY COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL RIGHT TO THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT AS
THEY ARE INCIDENTAL AND APPURTENANT TO THIS PRIMARY MILITARY USUFRUCT. 
AMERICAN NATIONALS CANNOT GO THERE FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN
GOVERNMENTAL EXCEPT IN CONFORMITY TO BERMUDIAN LAWS.  ITS IMMIGRATION
LAWS ARE RELAXED ONLY TO ADMIT "ANY MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES FORCES
POSTED TO A LEASED AREA" AND "ANY PERSON (NOT BEING A NATIONAL OF A
POWER AT WAR WITH HIS MAJESTY THE KING) EMPLOYED BY, OR UNDER A
CONTRACT WITH, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN CONNECTION WITH
THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION OR DEFENCE OF THE BASES." 
EVEN SO, THE LESSEE MUST SUBMIT TO MEASURES TO IDENTIFY SUCH PERSONS
AND TO ESTABLISH THEIR STATUS.  IN WHAT FORMERLY RECOGNIZED POSSESSION
OF THE UNITED STATES MENTIONED BY THE COURT IS AMERICAN CITIZENS'
PRIVILEGE OF INGRESS AND EGRESS, OF TRANSIT AND OF RESIDENCE, SO
LIMITED? 

PRIVATE TRADE AND COMMERCE BY OUR CITIZENS LIKEWISE ARE WHOLLY IN
CONTROL OF THE COLONY AND ARE NO MORE DEPENDENT UPON OUR LAWS THAN IN
ANY OTHER PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY.  BERMUDIAN
CUSTOMS DUTIES ARE WAIVED ONLY ON MATERIAL FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE OF OUR BASES, FOR CONSUMPTION BY OUR GARRISONS AND
SUPPORTING PERSONNEL, AND ON THEIR HOUSEHOLD GOODS; AND WE UNDERTAKE TO
PREVENT ABUSE OF THIS CUSTOMS PRIVILEGE AND TO PREVENT RESALE OF SUCH
IMPORTS.  THIS IS NOT GREATER THAN THE IMMUNITY ALLOWED BY EVERY
FOREIGN COUNTRY TO OUR DIPLOMATIC CORPS AND STAFFS, AND THE POWER
RESERVED BY BRITAIN OVER IMPORTS AND CUSTOMS IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE CONCEPT THAT THESE ARE OUR POSSESSIONS. 

THE LEASE ALSO EXPRESSLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY PROVIDES THAT NO
BUSINESS CAN BE ESTABLISHED IN THE LEASED AREA AND THAT NO PERSON SHALL
HABITUALLY RENDER ANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXCEPT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
AND ITS PERSONNEL.  NO WIRELESS OR SUBMARINE CABLE MAY BE OPERATED
EXCEPT FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.  ARE SUCH STIFLING RESTRAINTS BY ANOTHER
STATE CONSISTENT WITH THE IDEA OF OUR POSSESSION? 

PAYMENT OF LOCAL INCOME AND PROPERTY TAXES ARE ONLY WAIVED AS AGAINST
THOSE IN THE AREA WHEN THEY ARE MEMBERS OF OUR ARMED FORCES, EMPLOYEES
ENGAGED IN OUR WORKS OR CONTRACTORS WITH OUR GOVERNMENT.  IN SHORT, NO
ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES USED BY THE COURT AS A STANDARD
OF REFERENCE IS SO INSULATED FROM THE UNITED STATES IN FISCAL, SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC, COMMERCIAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS.  IN NONE IS THE COMMERCE
POWER OF CONGRESS SO STRIPPED OF SUBJECT MATTER FOR REGULATION OR OUR
PERMISSIBLE RANGE OF ACTIVITY SO CIRCUMSCRIBED. 

POSSESSIONS SUCH AS PUERTO RICO, GUAM, THE GUANO ISLANDS, SAMOA AND
THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, WHICH THE COURT MENTIONS AS STANDARDS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF BERMUDA, ARE, IN VITAL RESPECTS, AS DIFFERENT FROM IT AS
NIGHT FROM DAY.  NOT ONE OF THEM IS SUBJECT TO EVEN A FRIVOLOUS CLAIM
ADVERSE TO OUR COMPLETE OWNERSHIP.  THEY BELONG TO US OR THEY BELONG TO
NO ONE.  THEY ARE CEDED TERRITORY OVER WHICH UNITED STATES SOVEREIGNTY
IS AS COMPLETE AND AS UNQUESTIONED AS OVER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
THEY ARE SUBJECT TO NO DUAL CONTROL OR DIVIDED ALLEGIANCE.  THEY ARE
INCORPORATED INTO OUR ECONOMY, FREELY TRADING IN OUR MARKETS, AND
"PROTECTED" BY OUR TARIFF WALLS.  THEY ARE INTEGRATED WITH OUR SOCIAL
AND, IN SOME DEGREE AT LEAST, WITH OUR POLITICAL LIFE AS WELL; SOME OF
THEM BEING AUTHORIZED TO SEND DELEGATES TO OUR CONGRESS. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, HOWEVER, BERMUDA NEVER HAS CEASED IN ITS ENTIRETY
TO BE A CROWN COLONY OF GREAT BRITAIN.  SOCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR
CONDITIONS PREVAILING AT THE ISLAND BASES ARE SUCH THAT BOTH NATIONS
MADE EVERY EFFORT TO INSULATE THEM FROM THE DAMAGING EFFECTS OF OUR
LIMITED OCCUPATION FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.  IT SEEMS TO ME UNSOUND
POLICY AS WELL AS CAPRICIOUS STATUTORY INTERPRETATION FOR THE COURT
BLINDLY TO MINGLE THEM BY IMPOSING STATUTORY POLICIES THAT WERE NOT
SHAPED WITH THEIR EXISTENCE OR PECULIARITIES IN MIND.  IT MAY BE THAT,
IN SOME MATTERS, THE SAME POLICIES SUITED TO OUR LEGITIMATE POSSESSIONS
WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED ADAPTABLE TO THE BASES.  BUT IT IS NOT
NECESSARILY OR PRESUMPTIVELY SO, AND WHERE THE BASES ARE TO BE BROUGHT
INTO OUR SCHEME OF THINGS, IT SHOULD BE DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY
DONE BY THE CONGRESS, IN PARTICULAR MATTERS AND WITH PARTICULAR REGARD
TO LOCAL CONDITIONS,  FN10  AND PERHAPS AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE
UNITED KINGDOM OR COLONIAL AUTHORITIES.  WE SHOULD NOT BY THE PROCESS
OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION IMPOSE UPON THE BASES NOT ONLY THE POLICIES
OF THE ACT BEFORE US BUT THOSE OF MANY ACTS NOT INVOLVED HERE AND AS TO
WHICH WE ARE EVEN LESS INFORMED.  FN11 

NEITHER SHOULD WE EMBARK UPON A COURSE OF MAKING THE SAME NAKED WORDS
MEAN ONE THING IN ONE ACT AND SOMETHING ELSE IN ANOTHER.  IT CANNOT BE
PRETENDED THAT SUCH AN INTERPRETATION AS THE COURT ANNOUNCES IS IN
RESPONSE TO ANY DEMONSTRABLE INTENTION OF CONGRESS ON THE SUBJECT, FOR
WHEN THIS ACT WAS PASSED THE BERMUDA BASE WAS NOT IN BEING NOR WAS IT
WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF EVEN THE MORE FORESIGHTED. 

IT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO DISPOSE OF THIS MATTER TO POINT OUT THAT THE
UNITED STATES HAS NO SUPREME AUTHORITY OR SOVEREIGN FUNCTION IN
BERMUDA, WHERE EVERY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IS SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY
ANOTHER SOVEREIGN WHICH IS OUR POLITICAL SUPERIOR IN THE ISLAND.  WE
HAVE NO COMMERCIAL RIGHTS IN BERMUDA IN THE SENSE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
SUCH AS CONGRESS BY THIS ACT SOUGHT TO REGULATE.  THE UNITED STATES
CANNOT IN GOOD FAITH CONDUCT OR PERMIT ITS NATIONALS TO ENGAGE IN
INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURE OR TRADE THERE.  IT CANNOT AUTHORIZE THEM TO
CONDUCT COMMERCE THERE OR TO PRODUCE GOODS FOR COMMERCE, WHICH ARE THE
CONDITIONS WHICH THIS ACT ITSELF MAKES NECESSARY TO BRING THE LABOR
STANDARDS ACT INTO PLAY.  TO DO SO WOULD BE A FLAGRANT BREACH OF GOOD
FAITH WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM AND AN OVERREACHING OF THE PEOPLE OF
BERMUDA.  SMALL WONDER THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE FEELS CONSTRAINED
TO INFORM US THAT IT "REGARDS AS UNFORTUNATE" THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COURT BELOW, WHICH IS NOW AFFIRMED, AND ADDS A WARNING THAT ANY HOLDING
THAT THE BASES ARE "POSSESSIONS" OF THE UNITED STATES IN A POLITICAL
SENSE "WOULD NOT IN THE DEPARTMENT'S VIEW BE CALCULATED TO IMPROVE OUR
RELATIONS WITH THAT GOVERNMENT."  FN12 

THE CANAL ZONE HAS BEEN CITED AS A POSSESSION WITH WHICH BERMUDA IS
COMPARABLE.  BUT THE ISTHMIAN CANAL CONVENTION OF 1903, WHICH CEDED THE
CANAL ZONE TO THE UNITED STATES, PROVIDES IN ART. III THAT THE UNITED
STATES IS TO HAVE "ALL THE RIGHTS, POWER AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE ZONE
...  WHICH THE UNITED STATES WOULD POSSESS AND EXERCISE IF IT WERE THE
SOVEREIGN  ...  TO THE ENTIRE EXCLUSION OF THE EXERCISE BY THE REPUBLIC
OF PANAMA OF ANY SUCH SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, POWER OR AUTHORITY."  FN13  OUR
STATE DEPARTMENT HAS FIRMLY MAINTAINED THAT THIS TREATY CONFERS UPON
THE UNITED STATES COMPLETE POWER OF COMMERCE N14.  TO SUCH AN EXTENT,
INDEED, ARE WE SOVEREIGN IN THE CANAL ZONE THAT PANAMA HAS BEEN GRANTED
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL RIGHTS ONLY BY EXPRESS AND FORMAL CONCESSION,  FN15
AND THIS COURT HAS REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF THE ACQUISITION AND
CONCLUDED THAT THE TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES IS COMPLETE AND PERFECT. 
WILSON V. SHAW, 204 U.S. 24, AT 32, 33. 

BUT THE PANAMA CANAL HISTORY MAY WELL BE EXPLANATORY OF A PARAGRAPH
OF THE BERMUDIAN LEASE FROM GREAT BRITAIN, UPON WHICH THE COURT BELOW
AND RESPONDENT HEAVILY RELY AND WHICH THIS COURT CITES AS ONE OF THE
SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS.  THIS CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT THE "LEASED AREA IS
NOT A PART OF THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COASTWISE SHIPPING LAWS SO AS TO EXCLUDE BRITISH VESSELS FROM TRADE
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE LEASED AREAS."  FROM THIS PROVISION
IT IS SOUGHT TO DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT FOR ALL OTHER PURPOSES THE
AREA IS PART OF THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE REMAINING
PROVISIONS OF THE IDENTICAL PARAGRAPH ARE SUFFICIENT TO NEGATIVE ANY
IDEA THAT THE TERRITORY BECOMES A UNITED STATES POSSESSION.  FN16  BUT
COASTWISE SHIPPING PRIVILEGES HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT OF FRICTION BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN OVER THE PANAMA CANAL AND THE PLAIN
PURPORT OF THE ARTICLE IS TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO REPEAT THAT
EXPERIENCE.  THE PANAMA CANAL ACT OF 1912, 37 STAT. 560, 562, EXEMPTED
AMERICAN COASTWISE SHIPPING FROM TOLLS, WHICH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTED TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE HAY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY OF 1901 AND
WHICH IT CONSIDERED A COROLLARY OF THE CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY OF 1850. 
PRESIDENT WILSON RECOMMENDED THAT CONGRESS REPEAL THE EXEMPTION
FAVORING AMERICAN COASTWISE SHIPPING AS AGAINST BRITISH SHIPPING  FN17
AND THE ACTION WAS TAKEN ONLY AFTER A BITTER AND EXTENSIVE DEBATE. 
FN18  I THINK THAT THE CLAUSE, INSTEAD OF BEING READ TO CREATE A
POSSESSION OF THE LEASED BASES WOULD, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR TENDENCY TO
FAVOR OUR SHIPPING, BE MORE ACCURATELY READ TO SAY "EVEN FOR THE
PURPOSES OF COASTWISE SHIPPING, THE LEASED AREA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A POSSESSION." 

GUANTANAMO NAVAL BASE, ALSO REFERRED TO, IS A LEASED BASE IN CUBA
UPON WHICH WE HAVE AGREED THAT "NO PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, OR CORPORATION
SHALL BE PERMITTED TO ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN A COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR
OTHER ENTERPRISE."  BUT GUANTANAMO HAS BEEN RULED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL NOT TO BE A POSSESSION; FN19  IT HAS NOT BEEN LISTED BY THE
STATE DEPARTMENT AS AMONG OUR "NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES," N20 AND
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE VERY ACT BEFORE US HAS NOT LISTED IT AMONG OUR
POSSESSIONS.  FN21  ITS TREATMENT CONFIRMS OUR VIEW THAT NEITHER IS
BERMUDA A POSSESSION. 

AMONG RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS COURT ALONE
INSISTS THAT THE BERMUDA BASES ARE POSSESSIONS.  THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE FILES A BRIEF URGING THE COURT AGAINST THIS POSITION; THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE WARNS OF ITS DANGERS AND HARMFUL EFFECTS UPON OUR
FOREIGN RELATIONS; THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR RULED
ADMINISTRATIVELY AGAINST COVERAGE IN BERMUDA.  FN22  CONGRESS HAS SHOWN
THAT IT HAS NOT REGARDED THE LEASED AREAS AS "POSSESSIONS."  FN23 

HERETOFORE IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT THAT THE COURT SHOULD FOLLOW RATHER
THAN OVERRULE THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT IN MATTERS OF THIS KIND.  FN24 

WHAT I HAVE SAID DOES NOT REFLECT THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT ABOUT THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO MAKE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, DOING WORK IN BERMUDA OR
ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD, WHETHER IN OUR OWN OR IN FOREIGN
POSSESSIONS, PAY TIME-AND-A-HALF FOR OVERTIME OR TO ENFORCE ALMOST ANY
LABOR POLICY UPON THEM.  FN25  THE POWER OF CONGRESS, BY APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATION, TO GOVERN SUCH A RELATIONSHIP IS NOT IMPAIRED IF WE HOLD
THAT THE PLACE WHERE THE CONTRACT IS PERFORMED IS NOT OUR
"POSSESSION."  THE HOLDING THAT IT IS A POSSESSION IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO
ENABLE CONGRESS TO ACT BUT SERVES ONLY THE PURPOSE OF EXPANDING THE
COVERAGE OF THIS ACT TO THE BASES WITHOUT SPECIFIC ACTION BY CONGRESS. 
WE NEED NOT RESORT TO SUCH AN UNWARRANTED AND DISTURBING INTERPRETATION
OF OUR RELATIONS WITH BERMUDA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE FULL POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXTEND ALL PROPER PROTECTION TO
THE WAGES AND HOURS OF ALL PERSONNEL AT THE BASE, BECAUSE THEY ARE AND
CAN BE THERE ONLY BY VIRTUE OF GOVERNMENT ASSIGNMENT OR GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS. 

IN SUMMARY:  CONGRESS MADE THE ACT APPLICABLE IN OUR "POSSESSIONS." 
THERE IS NO INDICATION OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT, HAD CONGRESS
CONSIDERED THE MATTER, IT WOULD HAVE REGARDED OUR TENURE IN THE BERMUDA
BASE AS CREATING A "POSSESSION," OR WOULD HAVE APPLIED AN ACT
REGULATING PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT TO AN AREA WHERE NO SUCH PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE COULD EXIST.  THERE IS NO INDICATION OF A PURPOSE TO APPLY
THE ACT TO AN EXCLUSIVELY MILITARY OPERATION; INDEED THE ACT INDICATES
THE CONTRARY BY EXEMPTING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FROM ITS OPERATION. 
FN26 

IT WOULD NOT CONCERN THE UNITED KINGDOM, OR THE COLONY OF BERMUDA, IF
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD REQUIRE ITS CONTRACTORS TO PAY OVERTIME, UPON
ANY ASSUMPTIONS WHICH DO NOT IMPLY A POSSESSION ADVERSE TO THEIRS.  BUT
I DO THINK IT WILL CAUSE UNDERSTANDABLE ANXIETY IF THIS COURT DOES IT
BY HOLDING, AS MATTER OF LAW, THAT THE LEASED AREAS ARE POSSESSIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES, LIKE THOSE WE GOVERN TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL
OTHERS.  SUCH A DECISION BY THIS COURT INITIATES A PHILOSOPHY OF
ANNEXATION AND ESTABLISHES A PSYCHOLOGICAL ACCRETION TO OUR POSSESSIONS
AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR LESSORS, NOT UNLIKELY TO BE RECEIVED IN MORE
CRITICAL QUARTERS ABROAD AS CONFIRMATION OF THE SUSPICION THAT
COMMITMENTS MADE BY OUR EXECUTIVE ARE LIGHTLY REPUDIATED BY ANOTHER
BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT.  IT SHOULD BE THE SCRUPULOUS CONCERN OF EVERY
BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT NOT TO OVERREACH ANY COMMITMENT OR LIMITATION
TO WHICH ANY BRANCH HAS AGREED.  FN27 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND DIRECT DISMISSAL OF THE
COMPLAINT.  FN28 

FN1  THIS IS THE MORE STRIKING BECAUSE IT IS SAID CONCERNING AN ACT
WHICH WE HAVE HELD DOES NOT, EVEN IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES,
EXERCISE OR PURPORT TO EXERCISE THE FULL SCOPE OF THE COMMERCE POWER. 
SEE, E.G., MCLEOD V. THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491, 493; KIRSCHBAUM CO. V.
WALLING, 316 U.S. 517. 

FN2  SECTION 6 OF THE ACT REQUIRES EVERY EMPLOYER (AS DEFINED
THEREIN) TO PAY THE PRESCRIBED RATES TO EACH EMPLOYEE WHO IS "ENGAGED
IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE"; AND SEC. 7
FORBIDS OVERTIME EMPLOYMENT, EXCEPT AT PRESCRIBED RATES, OF ANY
EMPLOYEE WHO IS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE."  29 U.S.C. SECS. 206, 207. 

FN3  ON OCTOBER 29, 1940, MAJOR (GENERAL STAFF) FREIHERR VON
FALKENSTEIN, FROM THE FUEHRER'S HEADQUARTERS, WROTE A SECRET "RESUME OF
THE MILITARY QUESTIONS CURRENT HERE."  THE 5TH ITEM THEREOF READS: 

"THE FUEHRER IS AT PRESENT OCCUPIED WITH THE QUESTION OF THE
OCCUPATION OF THE ATLANTIC ISLANDS WITH A VIEW TO THE PROSECUTION OF
WAR AGAINST AMERICA AT A LATER DATE.  DELIBERATIONS ON THIS SUBJECT ARE
BEING EMBARKED UPON HERE.  ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS ARE AT THE PRESENT: 

"A.  NO OTHER OPERATIONAL COMMITMENT, 

"B.  PORTUGUESE NEUTRALITY, 

"C. SUPPORT OF FRANCE AND SPAIN. 

"A BRIEF ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SEIZING AND HOLDING AIR
BASES AND OF THE QUESTION OF SUPPLY IS NEEDED FROM THE GAF." 

3 NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION (GPO 1946), P. 289; 3 TRIAL OF MAJOR
WAR CRIMINALS (GPO 1947), P. 389, DOCUMENT NO. 376-PS RECEIVED IN
EVIDENCE DEC. 10, 1945; SEE NAZI CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSION:  OPINION
AND JUDGMENT (GPO 1947), P. 45. 

FN4  "I UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE VIEW OF THE AMERICAN TECHNICAL
AUTHORITIES MODERN CONDITIONS OF WAR, ESPECIALLY AIR WAR, REQUIRE
FORESTALLING ACTION, IN THIS CASE ESPECIALLY IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE
ACQUISITION BY HITLER OF JUMPING-OFF GROUNDS FROM WHICH IT WOULD BE
POSSIBLE, BOUND BY BOUND, TO COME TO CLOSE QUARTERS WITH THE AMERICAN
CONTINENT."  MR. CHURCHILL TO HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 9, 1941. 
CHURCHILL, "THE UNRELENTING STRUGGLE," PP. 175-176. 

FN5  STIMSON, "ON ACTIVE SERVICE IN PEACE AND WAR," VOL. II, PP. 356
358. 

FN6  HULL, "MEMOIRS," P. 834; STIMSON, "ON ACTIVE SERVICE IN PEACE
AND WAR," VOL. II, PP. 356-358. 

THE FORMER POINTS OUT, OF THE PRESIDENT, THAT "HE ALSO KNEW THE
PENURIOUS CONDITION OF THE NATIVE POPULATIONS OF MOST OF THE ISLANDS,
AND CONSEQUENTLY DID NOT WANT TO ASSUME THE BURDEN OF ADMINISTERING
THOSE POPULATIONS.  THEREFORE HE HAD CHANGED, DURING MY ABSENCE FROM
WASHINGTON, FROM HIS ORIGINAL IDEA OF OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF THE BASES TO
THAT OF NINETY-NINE-YEAR LEASES.  I HAD ORIGINALLY FAVORED OUTRIGHT
CESSION, BUT WAS WILLING TO AGREE TO LEASES INSTEAD."  P. 834. 

FN7  SEE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, COMMONS, VOL. 370, P. 255, ET SEQ.,
AND VOL. 376, P. 567, ET SEQ. 

FN8  55 STAT. 1560, 1572; EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT SERIES 235, DEPARTMENT
OF STATE (GPO 1942), PP. 14-15. 

FN9  STIMSON, "ON ACTIVE SERVICE IN PEACE AND WAR," VOL. II, P. 356. 

FN10  THE FOLLOWING STATUTES USE LANGUAGE EXPRESSLY COVERING THE
LEASED BASES OR LANGUAGE WHICH SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THE STATUTE WILL
REACH AS FAR AS THERE IS POWER TO MAKE IT REACH: 

I. STATUTES WHICH EXPLICITLY COVER THE LEASED BASES: 

55 STAT. 622, AS AMENDED, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1651(1). 

II.  STATUTES EMPLOYING THE PHRASE "PLACES SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES" OR SIMILARLY SWEEPING LANGUAGE: 

38 STAT. 270, AS AMENDED, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 466; 58 STAT. 624, AS
AMENDED, 10 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SEC. 1213; 56 STAT. 176, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
606B-2(A); 61 STAT. 512, 16 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SEC. 776A (C); 40 STAT.
231, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 39; 35 STAT. 1136, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 387; 35 STAT.
1138, AS AMENDED, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 396; 54 STAT. 1134, AS AMENDED, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 396A; 49 STAT. 494, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 396B; 35 STAT. 1148, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 511; 40 STAT. 559, AS AMENDED, 22 U.S.C. SEC. 226; 42 STAT.
361, 22 U.S.C. SEC. 409; 52 STAT. 631, AS AMENDED, 22 U.S.C. SEC.
611(M); 58 STAT. 643, 22 U.S.C. SEC. 701; 32 STAT. 172, AS AMENDED, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 95; REV. STAT. SEC. 4438A, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 224A
(6); 35 STAT. 1140, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1351; 40 STAT. 217, 219, AS AMENDED,
50 U.S.C. SECS. 31, 37; 54 STAT. 1179, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 512; 56
STAT. 177, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 633(4), (6); 56 STAT. 185,
50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 643A; 58 STAT. 624, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 777; 56
STAT. 390, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 781; 60 STAT. 211, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
1828(C). 

FN11 THE FOLLOWING TABULATION OF STATUTES WHOSE COVERAGE PROVISIONS
ARE SO SIMILAR TO THOSE BEING CONSTRUED AS TO EITHER BE GOVERNED BY
TODAY'S DECISION OR TO REQUIRE MOST SOPHISTICATED DISTINCTIONS SHOWS IN
WHAT A NETWORK OF LEGISLATION THE COURT IS ENTANGLING THE BASES: 

I. STATUTES EMPLOYING THE TERM "POSSESSIONS," 

(A)  IN THE PHRASE "STATES, TERRITORIES, AND POSSESSIONS" OR THE
LIKE: 

43 STAT. 1070, AS AMENDED, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 241(I); 42 STAT. 998, 7
U.S.C. SEC. 3; 42 STAT. 159, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 182(6); 49 STAT. 731, 7
U.S.C. SEC. 511(I); 30 STAT. 544, AS AMENDED, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 1(10); 48
STAT. 2, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 202; 39 STAT. 601, AS AMENDED, 61 STAT. 786, 14
U.S.C. SUPP. I, SEC. 29; 55 STAT. 11, 12, AS AMENDED, 14 U.S.C. SUPP.
I, SECS. 302, 307; 48 STAT. 882, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 78(C)(16);
54 STAT. 790, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 80A-2(37); 44 STAT. 1406, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
402(C); 44 STAT. 1423, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 431; 47 STAT. 8, AS AMENDED, 61
STAT. 202, 15 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SEC. 607; 61 STAT. 515, 15 U.S.C. SUPP.
I, SEC. 619; 52 STAT. 1250, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 901(2); 56 STAT.
1087, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 420G (2); 42 STAT. 1486, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 61(B); 52
STAT. 1041, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 321(B); INT. REV. CODE SECS. 22(B)(4), 251,
252, 1621(A)(8)(B), 813(B); 49 STAT. 1928, 27 U.S.C. SEC. 222(A); 28
U.S.C. SEC. 411(A); 61 STAT. 150, 29 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SEC. 161(2); 61
STAT. 86, 90, 29 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SECS. 252(D), 262(E); 29 U.S.C. APP.
SUPP. I, SEC. 203.7; 55 STAT. 179, 30 U.S.C. SEC. 40; 54 STAT. 1086, 31
U.S.C. SEC. 123; REV. STAT. SEC. 3646, AS AMENDED, 31 U.S.C. SEC.
528(C); 61 STAT. 787, 33 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SECS. 883A, 883B; 44 STAT.
900, AS AMENDED, 39 U.S.C. SEC. 654(C); 49 STAT. 2038, 41 U.S.C. SEC.
39; 58 STAT. 682, AS AMENDED, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 201(G); 49 STAT. 624, AS
AMENDED, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 405(D); 50 STAT. 888, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1402(12);
60 STAT. 774, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1818; 35 STAT. 65, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 52; 52
STAT. 1107, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 362; 45 STAT. 1492, AS AMENDED,
46 U.S.C. SEC. 85; 49 STAT. 888, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 88; REV. STAT. SEC.
4472, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 170; REV. STAT. SEC. 4370, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 316(A); 41 STAT. 996, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 813; 39 STAT.
735, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 819, 823, 826, 829; 40 STAT. 901, AS AMENDED, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 835(A), (D); 41 STAT. 998, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 880, 882, 883;
41 STAT. 1003, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 951; 49 STAT. 2016, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
1244(A), (B); 49 STAT. 1212, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1312; 48 STAT. 1065, AS
AMENDED, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 153(E), (G); 48 STAT. 1084, 47 U.S.C. SEC.
308(C); 48 STAT. 1087, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 314; 44 STAT. 568, 572, 573, 49
U.S.C. SECS. 171, 176(C), 179; 52 STAT. 977, 979, 980, 984, 998, 49
U.S.C. SECS. 401(3), (21)(B), (29), (30), 425, 486; 40 STAT. 415, AS
AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 5; 60 STAT. 50, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP.
SEC. 32(A)(2)(B); 54 STAT. 890, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308; 61
STAT. 31, 32, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. I, SECS. 324, 326(A)(2), (3); 54
STAT. 859, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SEC. 403(B)(A); 56 STAT. 777,
50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 574; 59 STAT. 542, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 639A; 56
STAT. 182, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP SEC. 640; 55 STAT. 206, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 702; 56 STAT. 461-62, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 791, 792, 793,
801; 56 STAT. 1041, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 846; 56 STAT. 23, AS AMENDED,
50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 901; 56 STAT. 245, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
1191(I); 57 STAT. 162, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1472(A)(A); 

(B)  QUALIFIED, USUALLY IN A SIMILAR PHRASE, BY THE WORD "ISLAND" OR
"INSULAR": 

54 STAT. 1137, 1139, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 501(E), 604; 59 STAT. 526, AS
AMENDED, 12 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SEC. 635; 38 STAT. 730, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 12;
48 STAT. 74, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77B (6); 61 STAT. 726, 16
U.S.C. SUPP. I, SEC. 758A; 56 STAT. 1046, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 188D; 56 STAT.
1063, 22 U.S.C. SEC. 672(B); INT. REV. CODE SECS. 2563, 2602, 2733(G);
49 STAT. 2011, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1204; 40 STAT. 388, 50 U.S.C.
SEC. 137; 53 STAT. 812, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 98F. 

II.  STATUTES LISTED UNDER HEADING I ABOVE, THE APPLICATION OF WHICH
TO THE LEASED BASES MIGHT CAUSE CONFLICT WITH BERMUDIAN LAW: 

42 STAT. 998, AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 3(COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT); 42
STAT. 159, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 182(6)(PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, 1921); 49
STAT. 731, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 511(I)(TOBACCO INSPECTION ACT); 54 STAT. 1139,
8 U.S.C. SEC. 604(NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940); 59 STAT. 526, AS AMENDED,
12 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SEC. 635(EXPORT-IMPORT BANK ACT OF 1945); 55 STAT.
11, 12, AS AMENDED, 14 U.S.C. SUPP. I, SECS. 302, 307(COAST GUARD
RESERVE ACT); 38 STAT. 730, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 12(CLAYTON ACT); 42 STAT.
1486, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 61(B)(FILLED MILK ACT); 56 STAT. 1063, 22 U.S.C.
SEC. 672(B)(SETTLEMENT OF MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT); INT. REV. CODE SECS.
22(B)(4), 813(B); 29 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. I, SEC. 203.7(RULES AND
REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AS AMENDED BY
THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT); 49 STAT. 624, AS AMENDED, 42
U.S.C. SEC. 405(D)(SUBPOENA PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND
SURVIVORS INSURANCE BENEFITS ACT); 50 STAT. 888, 42 U.S.C. SEC.
1402(LOW RENT HOUSING ACT); 60 STAT. 774, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1818(ATOMIC
ENERGY ACT); 35 STAT. 65, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 52(FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT); 52 STAT. 1107, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 362(RAILROAD
UNEMP.  INS.  ACT); REV. STAT. SEC. 4370, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
316(A)(ACT FOR THE REGULATION OF VESSELS IN DOMESTIC COMMERCE); 41
STAT. 999, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 883(MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1920); 49 STAT.
2017, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1244(A)(MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936); 49 STAT. 1212,
46 U.S.C. SEC. 1312(CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT); 48 STAT. 1065, 1084,
1087, AS AMENDED, 47 U.S.C. SECS. 153(E), (G), 308(C), 314
(COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934); 44 STAT. 568, 572, 573, AS AMENDED, 49
U.S.C. SECS. 171, 176(C), 179(B)(AIR COMMERCE ACT OF 1926); 52 STAT.
977, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 401(3), (21)(B), (29), (30)(CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT);
52 STAT. 998, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 486(SAME); 56 STAT. 182, 50 U.S.C. APP.
SEC. 640(AMENDMENT OF NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940); 55 STAT. 206, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 702(EXPORTATION RESTRICTION ACT); 56 STAT. 23, AS AMENDED, 50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 901(EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942). 

FN12  THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S LEGAL ADVISER, IN A LETTER TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DATED JANUARY 30, 1948, WROTE, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE DEPARTMENT REGARDS AS UNFORTUNATE THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT
(OF APPEALS) THAT THE U.S. EXERCISES AS COMPLETE CONTROL IN THE LEASED
AREAS AS IN OTHER AREAS LONG KNOWN AS 'POSSESSIONS' OF THE U.S., AND
ITS SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THIS CONNECTION TO THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
SWAINS ISLAND, SAMOA, GUAM AND THE GUANO ISLANDS OVER ALL OF WHICH THE
U.S. EXERCISES SOVEREIGNTY, EXCEPT THE PHILIPPINES OVER WHICH
SOVEREIGNTY WAS EXERCISED UNTIL THEY WERE GIVEN THEIR INDEPENDENCE ON
JULY 4, 1946, AND EXCEPT THE GUANO ISLANDS, OVER WHICH, IN GENERAL, THE
U.S. EXERCISES EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND NO OTHER NATION CLAIMS
SOVEREIGNTY. 

"ANY HOLDING THAT THE BASES OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF GREAT
BRITAIN ON 99 YEAR LEASES ARE 'POSSESSIONS' OF THE UNITED STATES IN A
POLITICAL SENSE WOULD NOT IN THE DEPARTMENT'S VIEW BE CALCULATED TO
IMPROVE OUR RELATIONS WITH THAT GOVERNMENT.  MOREOVER, SUCH A HOLDING
MIGHT VERY WELL BE DETRIMENTAL TO OUR RELATIONS WITH OTHER FOREIGN
COUNTRIES IN WHICH MILITARY BASES ARE NOW HELD OR IN WHICH THEY MIGHT
IN THE FUTURE BE SOUGHT.  ...  " 

FN13  33 STAT. 2234, 2235. 

FN14  SECRETARY HUGHES TO THE PANAMANIAN MINISTER, OCT. 15, 1923, 2
HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, PP. 801-805. 

FN15  JOINT STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND PRESIDENT ARIAS,
OCT. 17, 1933, ID., 806 ET SEQ.; GENERAL TREATY AND SUPPLEMENTARY
CONVENTIONS OF MARCH 2, 1936, RATIFIED JULY 26, 1939, 53 STAT. 1807. 

FN16  THE OTHER SUBPARAGRAPHS PROVIDE THAT THE UNITED STATES MUST
CONFORM TO THE LOCAL SYSTEM OF LIGHTS AND OTHER NAVIGATION AIDS, AND
REPORT IN ADVANCE TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ANY SUCH DEVICES ESTABLISHED OR
CHANGED; THAT THE UNITED STATES IS EXEMPT FROM LOCAL PILOTAGE LAWS;
THAT BRITISH COMMERCIAL VESSELS MAY USE THE LEASED AREAS ON THE SAME
BASIS AS AMERICAN COMMERCIAL VESSELS; AND THAT COMMERCIAL UNITED STATES
AIRCRAFT CANNOT OPERATE FROM THE BASES FOR OTHER THAN MILITARY PURPOSES
EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM. 

FN17  PRESIDENT WILSON, IN A MESSAGE DELIVERED IN PERSON TO THE
CONGRESS (51 CONG. REC. 4313), SAID: 

"WHATEVER MAY BE OUR OWN DIFFERENCES OF OPINION CONCERNING THIS MUCH
DEBATED MEASURE, ITS MEANING IS NOT DEBATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. 
EVERYWHERE ELSE THE LANGUAGE OF THE TREATY (WITH GREAT BRITAIN) IS
GIVEN BUT ONE INTERPRETATION, AND THAT INTERPRETATION PRECLUDES THE
EXEMPTION I AM ASKING YOU TO REPEAL. 

"WE CONSENTED TO THE TREATY (WITH GREAT BRITAIN); ITS LANGUAGE WE
ACCEPTED, IF WE DID NOT ORIGINATE; AND WE ARE TOO BIG, TOO POWERFUL,
TOO SELF-RESPECTING A NATION TO INTERPRET WITH TOO STRAINED OR REFINED
A READING THE WORDS OF OUR OWN PROMISES JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE POWER
ENOUGH TO GIVE US LEAVE TO READ THEM AS WE PLEASE.  THE LARGE THING TO
DO IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN AFFORD TO DO, A VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL
FROM A POSITION EVERYWHERE QUESTIONED AND MISUNDERSTOOD. 

"WE OUGHT TO REVERSE OUR ACTION WITHOUT RAISING THE QUESTION WHETHER
WE WERE RIGHT OR WRONG, AND SO ONCE MORE DESERVE OUR REPUTATION FOR
GENEROSITY AND FOR THE REDEMPTION OF EVERY OBLIGATION WITHOUT QUIBBLE
OR HESITATION. 

"I ASK THIS OF YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE
ADMINISTRATION.  I SHALL NOT KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH OTHER MATTERS OF
EVEN GREATER DELICACY AND NEARER CONSEQUENCE IF YOU DO NOT GRANT IT TO
ME IN UNGRUDGING MEASURE." 

FN18  AFTER HEARINGS, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED PASSAGE.  HOUSE
REPORT NO. 362, 63D CONG., 2D SESS.  THREE SEPARATE MINORITY REPORTS,
REFLECTING THE VIEWS OF FOUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WERE FILED.  ID.  THE
SENATE COMMITTEE HEARD TESTIMONY COVERING MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND
PAGES.  HEARINGS ON H.R. 14385, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTEROCEANIC
CANALS, 63D CONG., 2D SESS.  THE ISSUE WAS SO EXPLOSIVE THAT THE
MEASURE WAS REPORTED BACK WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION.  S. REP. NO. 469, 63D
CONG., 2D SESS.  THE MEASURE WAS DEBATED FOR FIVE DAYS IN THE HOUSE, 51
CONG. REC., PT. 6, 5554-5602; 5605-5640; 5677-5767; 5797-5897; 5922
6089, AND MORE THAN A MONTH IN THE SENATE, 51 CONG. REC., PT. 8, 7660
7667; 7723-7727; 8155-8172; 8211-8229; 8277-8284; 51 CONG. REC., PT. 9,
8335-8340; 8428-8446; 8493-8507; 8548-8560; 8638-8642; 8693-8707; 8730
8741; 8803-8824; 8867; 8875-8888; 8941-8956; 9003-9031; 9209-9214; 9215
9243; 9291-9297; 51 CONG. REC., PT. 10, 9355-9365; 9435-9446; 9509
9526; 9626-9631; 9713-9722; 9723-9745; 9784-9788; 9916-9929; 9977
10008; 10041-10086; 10127-10174; 10195-10210; 10211-10248.  SEE ALSO
EXTENSION OF REMARKS AT 51 CONG. REC., PT. 17, PP. 252-253; 253-255;
258-263; 266-270; 279-280; 280; 280-281; 281-282; 282-290; 290-292; 292
294; 295-296; 296-298; 298; 298-299; 299-303; 306-307; 307-309; 309
315; 316-319; 319-324; 324-331; 331-333; 333-334; 334-335; 335; 335
339; 339-340; 352-353; 353-356; 370-372; 418-428; 539-543; 610-617; 644
645; 645-646; 646-647; 650. 

THE REPEALER WAS PASSED AS THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1914, C. 106, 38 STAT.
385.  SEE ANNOTATIONS IN 48 U.S.C.A. SECS. 1315, 1317. 

FN19  35 OP. ATTY. GEN. 536, 540-541. 

FN20  SEE UNITED NATIONS, NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES, SUMMARIES
OF INFORMATION TRANSMITTED TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL DURING 1946(UN,
1947), P. 101. 

FN21  WAGE & HOUR MANUAL (1942 ED.)  30; 12 FED. REG. 4583-4584; 29
C.F.R. 1947 SUPP., SEC. 776.1. 

FN22  SEE NOTE 21.  SEE ALSO ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER DATED MAY 22,
1942, STATING THAT THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO BASES IN THE "BRITISH WEST
INDIES" AND DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1943,
WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE LEASED AREA ON TRINIDAD. 

FN23  (A)  IN 1941 CONGRESS SOUGHT TO EXTEND TO THE LEASED BASES THE
PROVISIONS OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT
WHICH COVERED DEATH OR DISABILITY FROM AN INJURY OCCURRING UPON THE
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE "UNITED STATES" WAS
THEREFORE DEFINED TO MEAN "THE SEVERAL STATES AND TERRITORIES AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INCLUDING THE TERRITORIAL WATERS THEREOF."  44
STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 902.  THE AMENDMENT, C. 357, 55 STAT. 622,
MADE THE ACT APPLICABLE TO INJURIES OR DEATH OF COVERED EMPLOYEES AT
ANY MILITARY, AIR OR NAVAL BASE ACQUIRED AFTER JANUARY 1, 1940, BY THE
UNITED STATES FROM ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR ANY LANDS OCCUPIED OR USED
BY THE UNITED STATES FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL PURPOSES IN ANY TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, INCLUDING ALASKA,
GUANTANAMO, AND THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  THIS ACT WAS AMENDED IN 1942,
C. 668, 56 STAT. 1028, 1035, AND, AS AMENDED, LISTS SEPARATELY (1)
BASES ACQUIRED FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1940, AND (2)
LANDS USED FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL PURPOSES AND ANY TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION, INCLUDING ALASKA, THE PHILIPPINES, GUANTANAMO, AND THE
CANAL ZONE.  IT IS CLEAR THAT IN NEITHER 1941 NOR 1942 DID THE CONGRESS
CONSIDER THAT THE TERM "POSSESSION" ALONE WOULD HAVE EXTENDED COVERAGE
TO THE BASES. 

(B)  THE ACT OF MARCH 27, 1942, C. 198, 56 STAT. 174, DESIGNED TO
EXTEND WAR DAMAGE PROTECTION PROVIDES THAT SUCH PROTECTION SHALL BE
APPLICABLE ONLY (1) TO PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE UNITED STATES
(INCLUDING THE SEVERAL STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA), THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, THE CANAL ZONE, THE TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND IN SUCH OTHER PLACES AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE
PRESIDENT TO BE UNDER THE DOMINION AND CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THE TERMS OF THIS ACT, AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, INDICATE THAT THE
FINAL CLAUSE WAS ADDED TO COVER AREAS SUCH AS THESE BASES.  IF THE
CONGRESS HAD CONSIDERED AREAS OF THIS KIND TO BE "POSSESSIONS" SUCH A
CLAUSE WOULD SCARCELY HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. 

FN24  MORE THAN 100 YEARS AGO, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, SPEAKING
FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN FOSTER V. NEILSON, 2 PET. 253, 307-309, SAID:
"  ...  IN A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO NATIONS CONCERNING NATIONAL
BOUNDARY, IT IS SCARCELY POSSIBLE THAT THE COURTS OF EITHER SHOULD
REFUSE TO ABIDE BY THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY ITS OWN GOVERNMENT.  ...
THE JUDICIARY IS NOT THAT DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, TO WHICH THE
ASSERTION OF ITS INTERESTS AGAINST FOREIGN POWERS IS CONFIDED; AND ITS
DUTY COMMONLY IS TO DECIDE UPON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, ACCORDING TO THOSE
PRINCIPLES WHICH THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE NATION HAVE
ESTABLISHED.  IF THE COURSE OF THE NATION HAS BEEN A PLAIN ONE, ITS
COURTS WOULD HESITATE TO PRONOUNCE IT ERRONEOUS.  ... 

"AFTER THESE ACTS OF SOVEREIGN POWER OVER THE TERRITORY IN DISPUTE,
ASSERTING THE AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY BY WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT CLAIMS IT, TO MAINTAIN THE OPPOSITE CONSTRUCTION IN ITS OWN
COURTS WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN ANOMALY IN THE HISTORY AND PRACTICE OF
NATIONS.  IF THOSE DEPARTMENTS WHICH ARE ENTRUSTED WITH THE FOREIGN
INTERCOURSE OF THE NATION, WHICH ASSERT AND MAINTAIN ITS INTERESTS
AGAINST FOREIGN POWERS, HAVE UNEQUIVOCALLY ASSERTED ITS RIGHTS OF
DOMINION OVER A COUNTRY OF WHICH IT IS IN POSSESSION, AND WHICH IT
CLAIMS UNDER A TREATY; IF THE LEGISLATURE HAS ACTED ON THE CONSTRUCTION
THUS ASSERTED, IT IS NOT IN ITS OWN COURTS THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION IS TO
BE DENIED.  ...  " 

IN AN EARLIER CASE, THE AMIABLE ISABELLA, 6 WHEAT.  1, 71, MR.
JUSTICE STORY HAD SAID:  "IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIS COURT DOES NOT
POSSESS ANY TREATY-MAKING POWER.  THAT POWER BELONGS BY THE
CONSTITUTION TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT; AND TO ALTER,
AMEND, OR ADD TO ANY TREATY, BY INSERTING ANY CLAUSE, WHETHER SMALL OR
GREAT, IMPORTANT OR TRIVIAL, WOULD BE ON OUR PART AN USURPATION OF
POWER, AND NOT AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS.  ...  " 

IF, AS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL STATED, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT, TO
DENY RIGHTS ASSERTED BY THE EXECUTIVE, PLACE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION
ON AN AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER NATION, A FORTIORI, IT SHOULD NOT DO SO IN
ORDER TO ASSERT RIGHTS WHICH NOT ONLY ARE NOT ASSERTED BY OUR EXECUTIVE
OR BY THE CONGRESS, BUT ARE DENIED BY THEM AND BY THE OTHER SOVEREIGN
INVOLVED.  AND, TO ADD, TO THE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH WE OCCUPY THE
LEASED AREAS, THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW THE BASES HAVE BECOME OUR
POSSESSIONS, IS CERTAINLY MORE THAN A TRIVIAL CHANGE IN THAT AGREEMENT,
IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE CAUTION BY MR. JUSTICE STORY. 

FN25  SEE, E.G., THE STATUTES MENTIONED IN NOTE 23. 

FN26  SECTION 3(D) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE TERM "EMPLOYER" SHALL
NOT INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES.  29 U.S.C. SEC. 203(D). 

FN27  SEE PRESIDENT WILSON'S MESSAGE QUOTED NOTE 17; AND SEE NOTE
24. 

FN28  SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE TRIAL
BASED ON A RULING THAT THE LEASED AREA IS NOT A POSSESSION OF THE
UNITED STATES, I ASSUME THAT THIS COURT'S AFFIRMANCE OF THE REVERSAL OF
THAT RULING LEAVES OPEN ON REMAND ALL OTHER QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO
RESPONDENTS' RIGHT OF RECOVERY, SUCH AS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, AS WELL
AS ANY DEFENSES WHICH MAY BE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER. 

I AM AUTHORIZED TO STATE THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
























ADKINS V. DUPONT CO., 335 U.S. 331 


NO. 1, MISC.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1948.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1948. 


1.  UNDER THE ACT OF JULY 20, 1892, 27 STAT. 252, AS AMENDED, 28
U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  832 ET SEQ. (NOW 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1915), AND
RULE 75(M) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, A FEDERAL COURT IS
NOT WITHOUT POWER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM HAVING TO PAY HEAVY COSTS
INCIDENT TO THE INCLUSION OF UNNECESSARY MATTERS IN THE RECORD IN AN IN
FORMA PAUPERIS APPEAL.  P. 337. 

(A)  IT MAY DENY LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS IF THE APPLICANT
WRONGFULLY PERSISTS IN INCLUDING IN THE RECORD ON APPEAL MASSES OF
MATTER PLAINLY IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL.  P. 337. 

(B)  UNDER RULE 75(M) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, IT MAY
SAVE THE COSTS OF PRINTING BY PROVIDING FOR A TYPEWRITTEN RECORD.  P.
337. 

2.  ON A MOTION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ALLOW AN APPEAL IN
FORMA PAUPERIS, CLAIMANTS FILED AFFIDAVITS ESTIMATING THAT THE COST OF
PRINTING THE RECORD WOULD BE $4,000 AND STATING THAT EACH OF THEM WAS
UNABLE TO PAY OR GIVE SECURITY FOR THE COSTS.  HELD:  THE COURT WAS
JUSTIFIED IN LOOKING FURTHER TO SEE IF THE COSTS REALLY SHOULD HAVE
BEEN $4,000 AND, IF NOT, IN REQUIRING AFFIDAVITS MADE WITH AN
APPRECIATION OF THE LESSER AMOUNT OF EXPENSE.  PP. 338-339. 

3.  ON A MOTION IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AN AFFIDAVIT IS SUFFICIENT WHICH STATES THAT AFFIANT CANNOT,
BECAUSE OF POVERTY, "PAY OR GIVE SECURITY FOR COSTS ...  AND STILL BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE" HIMSELF AND DEPENDENTS "WITH THE NECESSITIES OF
LIFE."  ONE NEED NOT BE ABSOLUTELY DESTITUTE TO ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF
THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUTE.  PP. 339-340. 

4.  IN A SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, ONE OF SEVERAL CLAIMANTS
CANNOT BE DENIED A RIGHT OF APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS MERELY BECAUSE
OTHER CLAIMANTS WILL NEITHER GIVE SECURITY FOR COSTS NOR SIGN AN
AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY.  P. 340. 

5.  COUNSEL EMPLOYED ON A CONTINGENT FEE BASIS TO REPRESENT A POOR
PLAINTIFF IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT NEED NOT FILE AFFIDAVITS SHOWING
THAT THEY ARE UNABLE ON ACCOUNT OF POVERTY TO PAY OR GIVE SECURITY FOR
COSTS IN ORDER FOR THEIR CLIENT TO BE ALLOWED TO APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS.  PP. 340-344. 

ADKINS, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO., INC. UNITED
STATES, INTERVENOR. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT FOR OVERTIME PAY UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9240, AS AMENDED, THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS DENIED LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  PLAINTIFF
PETITIONED THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND MOVED FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  ON JUNE 1, 1948, THIS COURT ENTERED AN
ORDER ASSIGNING THE MOTION FOR ARGUMENT ON OCTOBER 18, 1948, AND
STATING THAT IT DESIRED "TO HEAR ARGUMENT UPON THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED
BY THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, INCLUDING THE
QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION
WITH A SUIT BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT."  THIS
COURT NOW GRANTS CERTIORARI (P. 336), VACATES THE ORDERS DENYING APPEAL
IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND REMANDS THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  P.
344. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED CHIEFLY INVOLVE THE SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF
THE STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZES A CITIZEN TO PROSECUTE OR DEFEND ACTIONS
IN FEDERAL COURTS "WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO PREPAY FEES OR COSTS OR
FOR THE PRINTING OF THE RECORD IN THE APPELLATE COURT  ...  UPON FILING
IN SAID COURT A STATEMENT UNDER OATH IN WRITING, THAT BECAUSE OF HIS
POVERTY HE IS UNABLE TO PAY THE COSTS OF SAID SUIT OR ACTION OR APPEAL,
OR TO GIVE SECURITY FOR THE SAME,  ...  "  FN1 

THIS ACTION WAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BY P.V. ADKINS.  MR. ADKINS DIED WHILE
THE LITIGATION WAS PENDING AND HIS WIFE HAVING BEEN APPOINTED
ADMINISTRATRIX OF HIS ESTATE WAS SUBSTITUTED AS PLAINTIFF.  THE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CLAIMED OVERTIME COMPENSATION, DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEYS' FEES ON BEHALF OF MR. ADKINS AND TWELVE OTHER EMPLOYEES OF
THE RESPONDENT  FN2  "UNDER AND PURSUANT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT OF 1938(TITLE 29, U.S.C.A. SECS. 201-219) AND EXECUTIVE ORDER #9240
AS AMENDED (TITLE 40 U.S.C.A. FOLLOWING SEC. 326) ...  "  FN3 

FROM A DISMISSAL OF HER COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
DENIAL BY THAT COURT OF HER MOTION TO SET THE DISMISSAL ASIDE AND GRANT
A NEW TRIAL, PETITIONER FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A MOTION TO APPEAL
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.  SHE ALSO
FILED A MOTION THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  HER
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION STATED THAT PETITIONER WAS A WIDOW
74 YEARS OF AGE; THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE APPEAL RECORD WOULD BE
APPROXIMATELY $4,000; ALL SHE HAD WAS A HOME, INHERITED FROM HER
HUSBAND, APPRAISED AT $3,450; HER ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME WAS RENT FROM
PARTS OF HER HOME; AND WITHOUT SUCH INCOME SHE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
PURCHASE THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE.  NO OBJECTION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
FILED TO HER MOTION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, BUT THE MOTION WAS
DENIED BY THE COURT.  APPARENTLY DENIAL WAS FOR TWO REASONS:  (1) SHE
COULD NOT PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS WHERE THERE WERE TWELVE OTHER
CLAIMANTS INVOLVED WHO HAD FILED NO AFFIDAVITS OF POVERTY; (2) THE
COURT ASSUMED THAT PETITIONER'S LAWYERS WERE EMPLOYED ON A CONTINGENT
FEE BASIS, AND WAS OF OPINION THAT SHE THEREFORE COULD NOT APPEAL IN
FORMA PAUPERIS UNLESS THE LAWYERS EITHER PREPAID THE COSTS, GAVE
SECURITY FOR COSTS OR FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THEIR POVERTY ALONG WITH
PETITIONER AND ALL OTHER CLAIMANTS. 

PETITIONER THEN FILED AN APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS IN
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS.  THIS APPLICATION WAS DENIED.  THE
DENIAL, SO THE RECORD INDICATES, WAS ON THE GROUND THAT TO APPEAL IN
FORMA PAUPERIS, MRS. ADKINS, THE TWELVE EMPLOYEES, AND ALL THE MEMBERS
OF THE LAW FIRM REPRESENTING HER WOULD HAVE TO MAKE AFFIDAVITS OF
POVERTY. 

PETITIONER THEN WENT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  TEN OF THE TWELVE
EMPLOYEES FILED AFFIDAVITS IN EACH OF WHICH THIS STATEMENT APPEARED:  "
...  BECAUSE OF MY POVERTY I AM UNABLE TO PAY OR GIVE SECURITY FOR THE
COSTS ($4,000) OF SUCH APPEAL AND STILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MYSELF AND
MY DEPENDENTS WITH THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE."  AN AFFIDAVIT WITH
IDENTICAL LANGUAGE WAS FILED BY ONE MEMBER OF THE FIRM OF LAWYERS
REPRESENTING PETITIONER.  THE AFFIDAVIT ALSO STATED THAT THE FIRM'S
INTEREST IN ALL FEES FROM THIS LITIGATION HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO
AFFIANT.  NO AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY WAS FILED BY THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
FIRM.  AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED FOR THE FIRM, HOWEVER, STATING A BELIEF
THAT THE CLAIMS WERE MERITORIOUS, THAT APPEAL COSTS HAD BEEN ESTIMATED
AT ABOUT $4,000, AND THAT THE TOTAL LIQUID ASSETS OF THE FIRM DID NOT
EXCEED $2,000.  ONE OF THE TWELVE CLAIMANTS COULD NOT BE LOCATED AND
ONE REFUSED TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SECOND TIME DENIED THE MOTION TO PERMIT
APPEAL WITHOUT SECURITY FOR COSTS.  HIS GROUNDS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN
THESE.  TWO OF THE CLAIMANTS HAD SIGNED NO AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY; UNLESS
ALL SIGNED, THERE COULD BE NO IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPEAL.  THE AFFIDAVITS
OF PETITIONER, THE TEN CLAIMANTS, AND THE ATTORNEYS WERE HELD
INSUFFICIENT IN THAT THEY FAILED TO SHOW THE PRECISE FINANCIAL
CONDITION OF AFFIANTS, "WHETHER THEY WERE OR WERE NOT WITHOUT
PROPERTY."  THE JUDGE WAS NOT SURE JUST WHAT AFFIANTS WOULD HAVE TO
SHOW AS TO PROPERTY, BUT FELT THAT EACH SHOULD PROVE A COMPLETE
INABILITY TO PAY AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE COSTS.  ALL INTERESTED IN
THE RECOVERY, HE THOUGHT, INCLUDING THE LAWYERS, "HAVE AT LEAST GOT TO
CHIP IN TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR ABILITY TO PAY; AND WHATEVER THEY HAVE,
THEY HAVE GOT TO PUT IN THE POT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING THE APPEAL." 
THE JUDGE WAS "INCLINED TO BELIEVE BUT NOT SURE" THAT BEFORE MRS.
ADKINS COULD BE PERMITTED TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHE MUST MORTGAGE
HER HOME AND "CHIP IN" WHAT SHE RECEIVED ON THE MORTGAGE LOAN.  HE
CONSTRUED ALL THE AFFIDAVITS AS SHOWING NO MORE THAN THAT IT WOULD
CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP TO PAY OR GIVE SECURITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF $4,000
TO MAKE THE RECORD.  THIS STATEMENT AS TO "HARDSHIP" HE THOUGHT DID NOT
MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR AN AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY OR
SECURE COSTS DUE TO "POVERTY." 

FURTHERMORE, THE JUDGE THOUGHT PETITIONER HAD DESIGNATED MORE FOR THE
RECORD THAN WAS NEEDED TO DECIDE THE DISMISSAL QUESTION RAISED BY THE
APPEAL.  HE THEREFORE BELIEVED THAT A $4,000 RECORD WAS "WHOLLY
UNNECESSARY."  SINCE THE JUDGE BELIEVED HE WAS WITHOUT POWER DIRECTLY
TO LIMIT THE CONTENTS OF THE APPELLATE RECORD, HE FELT "PERSUADED TO BE
MORE TECHNICAL AND MORE STRICT" ON THE TYPE OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AFFIDAVITS HE REQUIRED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS THEREAFTER DENIED A SECOND MOTION OF PETITIONER
TO ACCEPT ITS APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  PETITIONER THEN APPLIED TO
THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN DENYING PETITIONER LEAVE TO APPEAL IN
FORMA PAUPERIS.  PETITIONER FURTHER ASKED THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED HERE WITHOUT GIVING SECURITY FOR COSTS.  WE SET THE MOTION DOWN
FOR ARGUMENT.  THE MATTER HAS NOW BEEN SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS AND ORAL
ARGUMENT.  THE AFFIDAVITS OF POVERTY FILED TO PROCEED HERE IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ARE THE SAME AS THE AFFIDAVITS FILED IN THE TWO COURTS BELOW. 

IF THESE AFFIDAVITS ARE THOUGHT TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HER
MOTION, THE PETITIONER URGES THAT WE GIVE DIRECTIONS CONCERNING
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  WHILE FOR OUR PURPOSES THE AFFIDAVITS WOULD
HAVE BEEN MORE ACCEPTABLE HAD THEY MERELY FOLLOWED THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE, OUR RULES HAVE PROVIDED NO PRECISE REQUIREMENTS.  BUT THE ONLY
QUESTIONS PRESENTED HERE RELATE TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THESE AFFIDAVITS
IN THE TWO COURTS BELOW.  AND TO REACH THESE QUESTIONS, WHICH ARE
IMPORTANT, WE MUST EITHER ACCEPT THE AFFIDAVITS AS SUFFICIENT OR DELAY
FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE.  WE ACCEPT THE AFFIDAVITS, GRANT THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, AND THE CASE HAVING BEEN FULLY ARGUED, WE
PROCEED TO PASS ON THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED SO FAR AS NECESSARY.  SEE
STEFFLER V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 38. 

FIRST.  WE DO NOT THINK THE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC FROM HAVING TO PAY HEAVY COSTS INCIDENT TO THE INCLUSION OF
"WHOLLY UNNECESSARY" MATTERS IN AN IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPEAL.  SECTIONS
1 AND 4 OF THE STATUTE PROVIDE THAT A COURT MAY EXERCISE A LIMITED
JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN THE GRANT OR DENIAL OF THE RIGHT AND THIS COURT
HAS SO HELD.  KINNEY V. PLYMOUTH ROCK SQUAB CO., 236 U.S. 43, 45, 46. 
RULE 75(M) OF OUR PRESENT RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READS AS FOLLOWS: 

APPEALS IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  UPON LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
THE DISTRICT COURT MAY BY ORDER SPECIFY SOME DIFFERENT AND MORE
ECONOMICAL MANNER BY WHICH THE RECORD ON APPEAL MAY BE PREPARED AND
SETTLED, TO THE END THAT THE APPELLANT MAY BE ENABLED TO PRESENT HIS
CASE TO THE APPELLATE COURT.  (329 U.S. 870.) 

WE KNOW OF FEW MORE APPROPRIATE OCCASIONS FOR USE OF A COURT'S
DISCRETION THAN ONE IN WHICH A LITIGANT, ASKING THAT THE PUBLIC PAY
COSTS OF HIS LITIGATION, EITHER CARELESSLY OR WILFULLY AND STUBBORNLY
ENDEAVORS TO SADDLE THE PUBLIC WITH WHOLLY UNCALLED-FOR EXPENSE.  SO
HERE, THE COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GRANT THE PETITIONER'S MOTION IF
SHE WRONGFULLY PERSISTED IN INCLUDING IN THE APPEAL RECORD MASSES OF
MATTER PLAINLY IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL.  SEE
ESTABROOK V. KING, 119 F.2D 607, 610.  AND, OF COURSE, UNDER RULE 75(M)
THE COURT MAY SAVE THE COSTS OF PRINTING BY PROVIDING FOR A TYPEWRITTEN
RECORD.  IF EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY A DISTRICT COURT SHOULD RESULT IN
AN UNFAIR AND INCOMPLETE RECORD TO A LITIGANT'S INJURY, THE COURT'S
ERROR COULD BE REMEDIED.  ITS ACTION WOULD BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE
APPELLATE COURT.  MOREOVER, IF IN OBEDIENCE TO COURT ORDER A PARTY
SHOULD AGREE TO A RECORD INADEQUATE FOR APPELLATE COURT PURPOSES, THAT
COURT WOULD HAVE POWER, UPON MOTION OR SUA SPONTE, TO REQUIRE ADDITION
OF MATERIAL NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COURT FAIRLY TO DECIDE THE APPEAL
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  FN4 

SECOND.  THE STATUTE ALLOWING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPEALS PROVIDES
LANGUAGE APPROPRIATE FOR INCORPORATION IN AN AFFIDAVIT.  ONE WHO MAKES
THIS AFFIDAVIT EXPOSES HIMSELF "TO THE PAINS OF PERJURY IN A CASE OF
BAD FAITH."  POTHIER V. RODMAN, 261 U.S. 307, 309.  THIS CONSTITUTES A
SANCTION IMPORTANT IN PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC AGAINST A FALSE OR
FRAUDULENT INVOCATION OF THE STATUTE'S BENEFITS.  FURTHERMORE, THE
STATUTE PROVIDES OTHER SANCTIONS TO PROTECT AGAINST FALSE AFFIDAVITS. 
POVERTY "IF IT BE MADE TO APPEAR THAT THE ALLEGATION OF POVERTY IS
UNTRUE."  AND SEC. 5 PROVIDES ANOTHER SAFEGUARD AGAINST LOSS BY THE
GOVERNMENT DUE TO FALSE AFFIDAVITS IN THAT A COURT IS PERMITTED, IN ITS
DISCRETION, TO RENDER JUDGMENT FOR COSTS "AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUIT
AS IN OTHER CASES."  CONSEQUENTLY, WHERE THE AFFIDAVITS ARE WRITTEN IN
THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IT WOULD SEEM THAT THEY SHOULD ORDINARILY
BE ACCEPTED, FOR TRIAL PURPOSES, PARTICULARLY WHERE UNQUESTIONED AND
WHERE THE JUDGE DOES NOT PERCEIVE A FLAGRANT MISREPRESENTATION. 

HERE, THE AFFIDAVITS WERE NOT COUCHED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE.  THEY WENT OUTSIDE THAT LANGUAGE.  ESTIMATING THAT THE COSTS
WOULD BE $4,000, EACH AFFIDAVIT STATED THAT THE AFFIANT COULD NOT PAY
OR SECURE $4,000.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE AFFIDAVITS HERE TIED INABILITY
TO PAY TO A FIXED COST OF $4,000.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE THINK
THE COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN LOOKING FURTHER TO SEE IF THE COST REALLY
SHOULD HAVE BEEN $4,000 AND IF NOT, THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT IN REQUIRING
AFFIDAVITS MADE WITH AN APPRECIATION BY AFFIANTS OF THE LESSER AMOUNT
OF EXPENSE TO WHICH THEY MIGHT BE SUBJECTED BY THE APPEAL. 

THIRD.  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT ONE MUST BE
ABSOLUTELY DESTITUTE TO ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF THE STATUTE.  WE THINK AN
AFFIDAVIT IS SUFFICIENT WHICH STATES THAT ONE CANNOT BECAUSE OF HIS
POVERTY "PAY OR GIVE SECURITY FOR THE COSTS  ...  AND STILL BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE" HIMSELF AND DEPENDENTS "WITH THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE."  TO SAY
THAT NO PERSONS ARE ENTITLED TO THE STATUTEHS BENEFITS UNTIL THEY HAVE
SWORN TO CONTRIBUTE TO PAYMENT OF COSTS, THE LAST DOLLAR THEY HAVE OR
CAN GET, AND THUS MAKE THEMSELVES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS WHOLLY
DESTITUTE, WOULD BE TO CONSTRUE THE STATUTE IN A WAY THAT WOULD THROW
ITS BENEFICIARIES INTO THE CATEGORY OF PUBLIC CHARGES.  THE PUBLIC
WOULD NOT BE PROFITED IF RELIEVED OF PAYING COSTS OF A PARTICULAR
LITIGATION ONLY TO HAVE IMPOSED ON IT THE EXPENSE OF SUPPORTING THE
PERSON THEREBY MADE AN OBJECT OF PUBLIC SUPPORT.  NOR DOES THE RESULT
SEEM MORE DESIRABLE IF THE EFFECT OF THIS STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IS
TO FORCE A LITIGANT TO ABANDON WHAT MAY BE A MERITORIOUS CLAIM IN ORDER
TO SPARE HIMSELF COMPLETE DESTITUTION.  WE THINK A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE ACHIEVING SUCH CONSEQUENCES IS AN INADMISSIBLE ONE.  SEE CASES
COLLECTED IN 6 A.L.R. 1281-1287 FOR A DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER A
SHOWING OF COMPLETE DESTITUTION SHOULD BE MADE UNDER THIS AND SIMILAR
STATUTES. 

FOURTH.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS PETITIONER CAN BE DENIED A RIGHT
OF APPEAL UNDER THE STATUTE MERELY BECAUSE OTHER CLAIMANTS WILL NEITHER
GIVE SECURITY FOR COSTS NOR SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY.  THIS CASE
ILLUSTRATES THAT SUCH A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THIS STATUTE
MIGHT WHOLLY DEPRIVE ONE OF SEVERAL LITIGANTS OF A RIGHT OF APPEAL,
EVEN THOUGH HE HAD A MERITORIOUS CASE AND EVEN THOUGH HIS POVERTY MADE
IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO PAY OR GIVE SECURITY FOR COSTS.  SUCH A
DEPRIVATION WOULD FRUSTRATE THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE.  THIS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE OF SEVERAL CLAIMANTS FINANCIALLY ABLE BUT
UNWILLING TO PAY HIS PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE COSTS COULD DEMAND THE
BENEFITS OF AN APPEAL PERFECTED BY ANOTHER CLAIMANT UNDER THE IN FORMA
PAUPERIS STATUTE.  BUT IT DOES MEAN IN THIS CASE THAT THE PETITIONER,
UPON MAKING THE REQUIRED AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY, WAS ENTITLED TO
APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE ISSUES THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED AGAINST HER,
WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER OTHER CLAIMANTS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF
POVERTY, OR PAID OR SECURED THEIR FAIR PART OF THE COSTS. 

FIFTH.  PETITIONER'S APPEAL UNDER THE STATUTE WAS DENIED IN PART
BECAUSE HER ATTORNEYS, THOUGHT BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO HAVE BEEN
EMPLOYED ON A CONTINGENT FEE BASIS, HAD NOT SHOWN TO THE COURT'S
SATISFACTION THAT THEY WERE UNABLE ON ACCOUNT OF POVERTY TO PAY OR GIVE
SECURITY FOR COSTS.  WE THINK THE STATUTE IMPOSES NO SUCH BURDEN ON A
LAWYER WHO IS TO SHARE IN THE RECOVERY THROUGH CONTRACT BY REASON OF
HIS LEGAL SERVICES.  WE ARE AWARE THAT SOME DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEAL HAVE SO CONSTRUED THE ACT,  FN5  AND THAT SOME HAVE EVEN
ADOPTED RULES WHICH IMPOSE THIS REQUIREMENT ON LAWYERS.  FN6  OTHER
DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE DECLINED TO INTERPRET THE
STATUTE AS IMPOSING SUCH A BURDEN ON LAWYERS WHO REPRESENT LITIGANTS
TOO POOR TO PAY OR SECURE THE COSTS.  FN7 

MANY STATES, APPARENTLY INCLUDING OKLAHOMA WHERE THIS CASE WAS TRIED,
FN8  MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR LAWYERS TO SIGN A BOND TO SECURE COSTS FOR
THEIR CLIENTS IN ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL ACTION.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN
INNOVATION HAD CONGRESS IN THIS STATUTE EXPRESSLY PERMITTED LAWYERS
TRYING CASES IN FEDERAL COURTS TO CONTRACT WITH THEIR CLIENTS TO PAY OR
SECURE COSTS IN THEIR CLIENTS' CASES.  BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A
SURPRISING LEGISLATIVE INNOVATION FOR CONGRESS TO COMMAND THAT LAWYERS
PAY OR SECURE SUCH COSTS.  THAT CONGRESS DID NOT DO THIS SEEMS TO BE
STRONGLY INDICATED BY THE BASIC STATUTE ITSELF. 

SHALL BE DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENCE, PROSECUTE, OR DEFEND AN
ACTION, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, "IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" SOLELY
BECAUSE HIS POVERTY MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO PAY OR SECURE THE
COSTS.  NOT CONTENT WITH THIS SAFEGUARD FOR THE POOR IN FEDERAL COURTS,
CONGRESS IN SEC. 4 OF THE ACT PROVIDED THAT "THE COURT MAY REQUEST ANY
ATTORNEY OF THE COURT TO REPRESENT SUCH POOR PERSON, IF IT DEEMS THE
CAUSE WORTHY OF A TRIAL,  ...  " CERTAINLY A LAWYER APPOINTED UNDER
SEC. 4 COULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE COSTS OF AN APPEAL.  NOR COULD
SUCH AN APPOINTED LAWYER HAVE A BURDEN OF THIS KIND CAST UPON HIM IF
CONGRESS HAD REQUIRED PAYMENT OF A FEE FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL IN AN
AMOUNT FIXED AS REASONABLE BY THE COURT, A REQUIREMENT THAT SOME STATE
LAWS HAVE PROVIDED.  FN9 YET, SUCH A "REASONABLE FEE" FIXED BY A COURT
WOULD BE A "CONTINGENT FEE" SHOULD WE ACCEPT RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT IN
THIS CASE.  FOR RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT BECAUSE THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT AUTHORIZES A COURT TO FIX A REASONABLE FEE FOR ATTORNEYS
PROSECUTING OVERTIME CLAIMS FOR EMPLOYEES, THIS PETITIONER'S LAWYERS
ARE ON A CONTINGENT FEE BASIS.  THEY THEREFORE ACCORDING TO RESPONDENT
HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE RECOVERY.  CONSEQUENTLY, RESPONDENT
ARGUES, PETITIONER MUST ABANDON HER APPEAL AND HER CLAIM UNLESS THESE
LAWYERS PAY COSTS, SECURE THEM, OR MAKE AFFIDAVITS OF POVERTY. 

NO PROOF IS NEEDED THAT IMPOSITION OF SUCH ONEROUS BURDENS ON
EMPLOYEES' LAWYERS WOULD PUT SERIOUS OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF EMPLOYEES
OBTAINING THE KIND OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION CONGRESS INTENDED TO PROVIDE
FOR THEM IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  AND SINCE SEC. 4 OF THE IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUTE WAS PLAINLY INTENDED TO ASSURE LEGAL
REPRESENTATION TO THE POOR, IT IS ALSO OBVIOUS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT
ACT COULD BE FRUSTRATED IN PART BY CONSTRUING THE STATUTE AS IMPOSING A
GUARANTEE OF APPEAL COSTS ON ALL LAWYERS EMPLOYED TO REPRESENT THE POOR
ON A CONTINGENT BASIS.  FOR IF A PERSON IS TOO POOR TO PAY THE COSTS OF
A SUIT, SOMETIMES VERY SMALL IN AMOUNT, HOW CAN IT BE IMAGINED THAT HE
COULD POSSIBLY PAY A FAIR FEE EXCEPT FROM THE RECOVERY HE OBTAINS? 
FN10 

THE STATUTE HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF A
CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD IMPOSE MORE BURDENS ON LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY
LITIGANTS UNABLE TO PAY FEES EXCEPT ON A CONTINGENT BASIS, THAN THE
BURDENS IMPOSED ON LAWYERS FOR THOSE LITIGANTS WHO ARE ABLE TO EMPLOY
COUNSEL BY THE YEAR OR BY PAYMENT OF STRAIGHT NONCONTINGENT FEES. 
AFFIDAVITS OF POVERTY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE SAME COURT PROCESSES,
HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES, AND THE SAME
REMEDIES AS ARE PROVIDED BY LAW IN OTHER CASES.  AND AS POINTED OUT,
SEC. 4 OF THE STATUTE MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT POOR LITIGANTS
SHALL HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AS
LITIGANTS IN MORE FORTUNATE FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION URGED BY RESPONDENT HERE WOULD RESULT IN RESTRICTING THE
OPPORTUNITIES OF THE POOR LITIGANT IN GETTING A LAWYER WHO WOULD FOLLOW
HIS CASE THROUGH THE APPELLATE COURTS.  FOR AS WAS SAID BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN CLARK V. UNITED STATES, 57 F.2D 214, 216:  "  ...  THE SAME
POVERTY THAT COMPELS A LITIGANT TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THIS BENEFICENT
STATUTE MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HIRE COUNSEL.  HE CAN PROCURE
COUNSEL ONLY BY AGREEING THAT OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF HIS CASE, IF THERE
ARE PROCEEDS, COUNSEL SHALL BE COMPENSATED.  ...  IN PRACTICAL EFFECT
HE A POOR LITIGANT) IS DENIED COUNSEL IF HIS COUNSEL MUST EITHER
HIMSELF GUARANTEE THE COSTS OR FILE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT HE ALSO IS
PENNILESS.  THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE TOO POOR
TO PAY OR GIVE SECURITY FOR COSTS, AND IT WAS NOT INTENDED THAT THEY
SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO EMPLOY ONLY PAUPERS TO REPRESENT THEM." 

IT WAS ERROR TO DENY PETITIONERHS MOTION FOR APPEAL UNDER THE STATUTE
ON THE GROUND THAT HER LAWYERS HAD NOT MADE SATISFACTORY AFFIDAVITS OF
POVERTY.  THE STATUTE REQUIRES NO AFFIDAVIT AT ALL FROM THEM AS A
CONDITION OF APPEAL. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID MAKES IT UNNECESSARY FOR US TO PASS ON THE
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT THAT AN AGREEMENT FOR A CONTINGENT FEE PAYABLE
OUT OF AN EMPLOYEE'S RECOVERY TO PROSECUTE CLAIMS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT IS INVALID. 

THE ORDERS DENYING APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS ARE VACATED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  27 STAT. 252, AS AMENDED, 36 STAT. 866, 42 STAT. 666, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 832.  THE SUBSTANCE OF SECS. 1 TO 5 OF THE ORIGINAL STATUTE AS
AMENDED HAS NOW BEEN INCORPORATED IN SECS. (A) TO (E) OF 28 U.S.C. SEC.
1915. 

FN2  SECTION 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1069, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 216(B), AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEES' SUITS BY AGENTS.  HERE THE
AGENT WAS ACTING "FOR A CONSIDERATION CONTINGENT UPON RECOVERY."  AN
AMENDMENT OF THIS SECTION, THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT, 61 STAT. 84, 29
U.S.C. SUPP. I, SECS. 251-252, LIMITED THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
SUCH REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS COULD BE MAINTAINED. 

FN3  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9240, 7 FED. REG. 7159(1942), AS AMENDED, 7
FED. REG. 7419(1942). 

FN4  WE DO NOT MEAN TO INDICATE THAT THE ISSUES SOUGHT TO BE RAISED
BY THIS PETITIONER ON HER APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PRESENTED TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH NOTHING OTHER THAN THE VERY LIMITED RECORD
THE TRIAL COURT APPARENTLY THOUGHT WOULD BE ADEQUATE.  THE CASE WAS
DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT IT HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF
JURISDICTION BY THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT, SUPRA.  THIS ACT PURPORTS TO
DEPRIVE FEDERAL COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF OVERTIME
WAGES BASED ON ANY ACTIVITY EXCEPT ONE COMPENSABLE BY EITHER "(1) AN
EXPRESS PROVISION OF A WRITTEN OR NONWRITTEN CONTRACT  ...  OR (2) A
CUSTOM OR PRACTICE IN EFFECT, AT THE TIME OF SUCH ACTIVITY," AT THE
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH A WRITTEN OR NONWRITTEN
CONTRACT GOVERNING SUCH EMPLOYMENT.  PETITIONER HAD CONTENDED THAT
EXAMINATION BY THE COURT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD INCLUDING EVIDENCE
ALREADY TAKEN BY A SPECIAL MASTER WOULD SHOW THAT EMPLOYEES' CLAIMS FOR
COMPENSATION WERE SUPPORTED BY EXPRESS CONTRACTS OR BY CUSTOM.  HE
CONTENDED THAT THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT WAS THEREFORE INAPPLICABLE
UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE DISMISSAL UNDER
THAT ACT WAS ERRONEOUS.  PETITIONER'S APPLICATION TO AMEND HER
COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO THE EVIDENCE WAS DENIED BY THE COURT.  CF. MATY
V. GRASSELLI CHEMICAL CO., 303 U.S. 197, 200-201; HOINESS V. UNITED
STATES, 335 U.S. 297.  IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED
TO HAVE A RECORD THAT WAS NOT SO LIMITED AS TO DEPRIVE THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THESE ISSUES SHE RAISED. 

FN5  UNITED STATES EX REL. RANDOLPH V. ROSS, 298 F. 64; BOLT V.
REYNOLDS METAL CO., 42 F.SUPP.  58; ESQUIBEL V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R.
CO., 206 F. 863; FEIL V. WABASH R. CO., 119 F. 490; PHILLIPS V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 153 F. 795; THE BELLA, 91 F. 540, 543; BOYLE V.
GREAT NORTHERN R. CO., 63 F. 539; SILVAS V. ARIZONA COPPER CO., 213 F.
504, 507-508. 

FN6  RULE 26(1), RULES OF UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT; RULE 18(2), RULES OF UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT; CHETKOVICH V. UNITED STATES, 47 F.2D 894, BUT SEE
DEADRICH V. UNITED STATES, 67 F.2D 318. 

FN7  QUITTNER V. MOTION PICTURE PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTORS OF
AMERICA, 70 F.2D 331; UNITED STATES EX REL. PAYNE V. CALL, 287 F. 520;
JACOBS V. NORTH LOUISIANA & GULF R. CO., 69 F.SUPP.  5; CLARK V. UNITED
STATES, 57 F.2D 214; EVANS V. STIVERS LUMBER CO., 2 F.R.D. 548. 

FN8  SEE OKLA. STAT. TIT. 5, SEC. 11(1941).  SEE ALSO WATKINS V.
SEDBERRY, 261 U.S. 571, 576; PECK V. HEURICH, 167 U.S. 624, 630.  BUT
SEE, RADIN, CONTINGENT FEES IN CALIFORNIA, 28 CALIF. L. REV. 587, 589,
598(1940). 

FN9  CLAY COUNTY V. MCGREGOR, 171 IND. 634, 87 N.E. 1; COUNTY OF DANE
V. SMITH, 13 WIS. 585; RYCE V. MITCHELL COUNTY, 65 IOWA 447, 21 N.W.
771; STATE V. HUDSON, 55 R.I. 141, 143, 179 A. 130, 131. 

FN10  SEE RADIN, CONTINGENT FEES IN CALIFORNIA, SUPRA AT P. 589;
UNITED STATES EX REL. PAYNE V. CALL, 287 F. 520, 522; CLARK V. UNITED
STATES, 57 F.2D 214, 216. 
..END :



KORDEL V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 345 


NO. 30.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1948.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1948.  - 164
F.2D 913, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IT IS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 301(A) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND
COSMETIC ACT, 52 STAT. 1040, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 331(A), TO SHIP IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE SAME CONSIGNEE A DRUG AND ALSO FALSE AND
MISLEADING PAMPHLETS DESIGNED FOR USE IN THE ADVERTISEMENT, SALE AND
USE OF THE DRUG AND CONSTITUTING AN ESSENTIAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE LABEL
ON THE DRUG - EVEN THOUGH THE PAMPHLETS ARE SHIPPED SEPARATELY AND AT A
DIFFERENT TIME.  PP. 346-350. 

(A)  THE PHRASE "ACCOMPANYING SUCH ARTICLE" IN SEC. 201(M), DEFINING
"LABELING," IS NOT RESTRICTED TO LABELS THAT ARE ON OR IN THE ARTICLE
OR PACKAGE THAT IS TRANSPORTED.  PP. 347-350. 

(B)  THAT THE PAMPHLETS ARE SHIPPED PRIOR TO OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE
SHIPMENT OF THE DRUG DOES NOT PREVENT THE DRUG FROM BEING "MISBRANDED"
WHEN INTRODUCED INTO COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 301(A) IN
SPITE OF SEC. 301(K), WHICH FORBIDS MISBRANDING OF A DRUG WHILE IT IS
HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PP. 350, 351
352. 

2.  THAT SUCH PAMPHLETS BEAR A SALE PRICE AND ARE OFFERED FOR SALE IS
IMMATERIAL, SINCE THE ACT CANNOT BE CIRCUMVENTED BY THE EASY DEVICE OF
A "SALE" OF THE PAMPHLETS WHERE THEY PERFORM THE FUNCTION OF LABELING. 
P. 350. 

3.  THE FACT THAT, IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ACT, THE BAN ON FALSE
ADVERTISING WAS ELIMINATED AND ITS CONTROL WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DID NOT ELIMINATE FROM THE ACT ADVERTISING
WHICH PERFORMS THE FUNCTION OF LABELING.  P. 351. 

4.  SINCE THE INFORMATIONS CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 301(A) DID NOT
ALLEGE THAT THE ACTS COMMITTED WERE DONE "WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD," THE
MAXIMUM PENALTY WAS IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN A YEAR, OR A FINE OF
NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR BOTH.  THEREFORE, PROSECUTION BY INFORMATION
WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE AND BY SEC. 7(A) OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.  P. 348, N. 3. 

KORDEL V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF VIOLATING
SEC. 301(A) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, 52 STAT. 1040,
21 U.S.C. SEC. 331(A).  66 F.SUPP.  538.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  164 F.2D 913.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S.
872.  AFFIRMED, P. 352. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED. 

THIS CASE AND UNITED STATES V. URBUTEIT, POST, P. 355, DECIDED THIS
DAY, ARE HERE ON CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUITS IN
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT OF JUNE
25, 1938.  52 STAT. 1040, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 301 ET SEQ. 

KORDEL WAS CHARGED BY INFORMATIONS CONTAINING TWENTY COUNTS OF
INTRODUCING OR DELIVERING FOR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE
MISBRANDED DRUGS.  HE WAS TRIED WITHOUT A JURY, FOUND GUILTY, AND FINED
TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ON EACH COUNT.  66 F.SUPP.  538.  THIS JUDGMENT WAS
AFFIRMED ON APPEAL.  164 F.2D 913. 

KORDEL WRITES AND LECTURES ON HEALTH FOODS FROM INFORMATION DERIVED
FROM STUDIES IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIBRARIES.  SINCE 1941 HE HAS BEEN
MARKETING HIS OWN HEALTH FOOD PRODUCTS, WHICH APPEAR TO BE COMPOUNDS OF
VARIOUS VITAMINS, MINERALS AND HERBS.  THE ALLEGED MISBRANDING CONSISTS
OF STATEMENTS IN CIRCULARS OR PAMPHLETS DISTRIBUTED TO CONSUMERS BY THE
VENDORS OF THE PRODUCTS, RELATING TO THEIR EFFICACY.  THE PETITIONER
SUPPLIES THESE PAMPHLETS AS WELL AS THE PRODUCTS TO THE VENDORS.  SOME
OF THE LITERATURE WAS DISPLAYED IN STORES IN WHICH THE PETITIONER'S
PRODUCTS WERE ON SALE.  SOME OF IT WAS GIVEN AWAY WITH THE SALE OF
PRODUCTS; SOME SOLD INDEPENDENTLY OF THE DRUGS; AND SOME MAILED TO
CUSTOMERS BY THE VENDORS. 

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT PETITIONER SHIPPED OR CAUSED TO BE SHIPPED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BOTH THE DRUGS AND THE LITERATURE.  SEVEN OF THE
COUNTS CHARGED THAT THE DRUGS AND LITERATURE WERE SHIPPED IN THE SAME
CARTONS.  THE LITERATURE INVOLVED IN THE OTHER COUNTS WAS SHIPPED
SEPARATELY FROM THE DRUGS AND AT DIFFERENT TIMES - BOTH BEFORE AND
AFTER THE SHIPMENTS OF THE DRUGS WITH WHICH THEY WERE ASSOCIATED.  THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE SEPARATE SHIPMENT OF THE LITERATURE SAVED THE
DRUGS FROM BEING MISBRANDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT PRESENTS THE
MAIN ISSUE IN THE CASE. 

COMMERCE OF ANY DRUG THAT IS ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED.  FN1  IT IS
MISBRANDED ACCORDING TO SEC. 502(A) IF ITS "LABELING IS FALSE OR
MISLEADING IN ANY PARTICULAR" AND UNLESS THE LABELING BEARS "ADEQUATE
DIRECTIONS FOR USE."  SEC. 502(F).  THE TERM LABELING IS DEFINED IN
SEC. 201(M) TO MEAN "ALL LABELS  FN2  AND OTHER WRITTEN, PRINTED, OR
GRAPHIC MATTER (1) UPON ANY ARTICLE OR ANY OF ITS CONTAINERS OR
WRAPPERS, OR (2) ACCOMPANYING SUCH ARTICLE."  SECTION 303 MAKES THE
VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 301 A CRIME.  FN3 

IN THIS CASE THE DRUGS AND THE LITERATURE HAD A COMMON ORIGIN AND A
COMMON DESTINATION.  THE LITERATURE WAS USED IN THE SALE OF THE DRUGS. 
IT EXPLAINED THEIR USES.  NOWHERE ELSE WAS THE PURCHASER ADVISED HOW TO
USE THEM.  IT CONSTITUTED AN ESSENTIAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE LABEL ATTACHED
TO THE PACKAGE.  THUS THE PRODUCTS AND THE LITERATURE WERE
INTERDEPENDENT, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED. 

IT WOULD TAKE AN EXTREMELY NARROW READING OF THE ACT TO HOLD THAT
THESE DRUGS WERE NOT MISBRANDED.  A CRIMINAL LAW IS NOT TO BE READ
EXPANSIVELY TO INCLUDE WHAT IS NOT PLAINLY EMBRACED WITHIN THE LANGUAGE
OF THE STATUTE (UNITED STATES V. RESNICK, 299 U.S. 207; KRAUS & BROS.
V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 614, 621-622), SINCE THE PURPOSE FAIRLY TO
APPRISE MEN OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROHIBITED ACTION WOULD THEN BE
DEFEATED.  UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN, 332 U.S. 689, 693; WINTERS V. NEW
YORK, 333 U.S. 507.  BUT THERE IS NO CANON AGAINST USING COMMON SENSE
IN READING A CRIMINAL LAW, SO THAT STRAINED AND TECHNICAL CONSTRUCTIONS
DO NOT DEFEAT ITS PURPOSE BY CREATING EXCEPTIONS FROM OR LOOPHOLES IN
IT.  SEE ROSCHEN V. WARD, 279 U.S. 337, 339. 

IT WOULD, INDEED, CREATE AN OBVIOUSLY WIDE LOOPHOLE TO HOLD THAT
THESE DRUGS WOULD BE MISBRANDED IF THE LITERATURE HAD BEEN SHIPPED IN
THE SAME CONTAINER BUT NOT MISBRANDED IF THE LITERATURE LEFT IN THE
NEXT OR IN THE PRECEDING MAIL.  THE HIGH PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS WHO UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS ARE LARGELY UNABLE TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES IN THIS FIELD  FN4  WOULD THEN BE EASILY DEFEATED.  THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CHARGED WITH ITS ENFORCEMENT  FN5  HAS NOT GIVEN
THE ACT ANY SUCH RESTRICTED CONSTRUCTION.  FN6  THE TEXTUAL STRUCTURE
OF THE ACT IS NOT AGREEABLE TO IT.  ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
PHRASE "ACCOMPANYING SUCH ARTICLE" IS NOT RESTRICTED TO LABELS THAT ARE
ON OR IN THE ARTICLE OR PACKAGE THAT IS TRANSPORTED. 

THE FIRST CLAUSE OF SEC. 201(M) - ALL LABELS "UPON ANY ARTICLE OR ANY
OF ITS CONTAINERS OR WRAPPERS" - CLEARLY EMBRACES ADVERTISING OR
DESCRIPTIVE MATTER THAT GOES WITH THE PACKAGE IN WHICH THE ARTICLES ARE
TRANSPORTED.  THE SECOND CLAUSE - "ACCOMPANYING SUCH ARTICLE" - HAS NO
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO PACKAGES, CONTAINERS OR THEIR CONTENTS AS DID A
PREDECESSOR STATUTE.  SEE SEVEN CASES V. UNITED STATES, 239 U.S. 510,
513, 515.  IT PLAINLY INCLUDES WHAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE PACKAGE
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS "UPON" THE ARTICLE OR ITS WRAPPER OR CONTAINER. 
BUT THE SECOND CLAUSE DOES NOT SAY "ACCOMPANYING SUCH ARTICLE IN THE
PACKAGE OR CONTAINER," AND WE SEE NO REASON FOR READING THE ADDITIONAL
WORDS INTO THE TEXT. 

ONE ARTICLE OR THING IS ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER WHEN IT SUPPLEMENTS OR
EXPLAINS IT, IN THE MANNER THAT A COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE CONGRESS
ACCOMPANIES A BILL.  NO PHYSICAL ATTACHMENT ONE TO THE OTHER IS
NECESSARY.  IT IS THE TEXTUAL RELATIONSHIP THAT IS SIGNIFICANT.  THE
ANALOGY TO THE PRESENT CASE IS OBVIOUS.  WE NEED NOT LABOR THE POINT. 

THE FALSE AND MISLEADING LITERATURE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS DESIGNED
FOR USE IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF THE DRUG, AND IT WAS SO USED. 
THE FACT THAT IT WENT IN A DIFFERENT MAIL WAS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT WHETHER
WE JUDGE THE TRANSACTION BY PURPOSE OR RESULT.  AND TO SAY THAT THE
PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT SHIPMENT OF THE LITERATURE DISPROVES THAT IT "IS"
MISBRANDED WHEN INTRODUCED INTO COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
301(A), IS TO OVERLOOK THE INTEGRATED NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS
ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE. 

MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE BOOKLETS CARRIED A SELLING PRICE
IS IMMATERIAL ON THE FACTS SHOWN HERE.  AS STATED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THE BOOKLETS AND DRUGS WERE NONETHELESS INTERDEPENDENT; THEY
WERE PARTS OF AN INTEGRATED DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM.  THE ACT CANNOT BE
CIRCUMVENTED BY THE EASY DEVICE OF A "SALE" OF THE ADVERTISING MATTER
WHERE THE ADVERTISING PERFORMS THE FUNCTION OF LABELING. 

PETITIONER POINTS OUT THAT IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE ACT THE BAN ON
FALSE ADVERTISING WAS ELIMINATED, THE CONTROL OVER IT BEING TRANSFERRED
TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.  52 STAT. 114, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 55(A). 
WE HAVE SEARCHED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN VAIN, HOWEVER, TO FIND ANY
INDICATION THAT CONGRESS HAD THE PURPOSE TO ELIMINATE FROM THE ACT
ADVERTISING WHICH PERFORMS THE FUNCTION OF LABELING.  EVERY LABELING IS
IN A SENSE AN ADVERTISEMENT.  THE ADVERTISING WHICH WE HAVE HERE
PERFORMS THE SAME FUNCTION AS IT WOULD IF IT WERE ON THE ARTICLE OR ON
THE CONTAINERS OR WRAPPERS.  AS WE HAVE SAID, PHYSICAL ATTACHMENT OR
CONTIGUITY IS UNNECESSARY UNDER SEC. 201(M)(2). 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT THE OFFENSE IN THIS CASE FALLS UNDER SEC.
301(K) OF THE ACT WHICH INCLUDES MISBRANDING OF A DRUG WHILE IT IS HELD
FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN7  SINCE THE
INFORMATIONS CONTAIN NO SUCH CHARGE, IT IS THEREFORE CLAIMED THAT THE
JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED.  WE DO NOT AGREE.  SECTION 301(K) HAS A
BROAD SWEEP, NOT RESTRICTED TO THOSE WHO INTRODUCE OR DELIVER FOR
INTRODUCTION DRUGS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN8  SEE UNITED STATES V.
SULLIVAN, SUPRA.  NOR IS IT CONFINED TO ADULTERATION OR MISBRANDING AS
IS SEC. 301(A).  ID.  IT IS, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED TO CASES WHERE THE
ARTICLE IS HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND,
UNLIKE SEC. 301(A), IT DOES NOT REACH SITUATIONS WHERE THE MANUFACTURER
SELLS DIRECTLY TO THE CONSUMER.  CF. UNITED STATES V. URBUTEIT, SUPRA.
HENCE WE CONCLUDE THAT WE DO NOT DISTURB THE STATUTORY SCHEME WHEN WE
REFUSE TO TAKE FROM SEC. 301(A) WHAT IS FAIRLY INCLUDED IN IT IN ORDER
TO LEAVE THE MATTER WHOLLY TO THE SERVICE OF SEC. 301(K).  THE REACH OF
SEC. 301(A) IS IN THIS RESPECT LONGER.  SUCH A TRANSFER TO SEC. 301(K)
WOULD CREATE A NEW HIATUS IN THE ACT AND THUS DISTURB THE PATTERN WHICH
WE DISCERN IN IT. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER OBJECTIONS TENDERED BY PETITIONER AND
FIND THEM WITHOUT MERIT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 301 IN RELEVANT PART READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE FOLLOWING ACTS AND THE CAUSING THEREOF ARE HEREBY PROHIBITED: 

"(A)  THE INTRODUCTION OR DELIVERY FOR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF ANY FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC THAT IS ADULTERATED OR
MISBRANDED. 

"(B)  THE ADULTERATION OR MISBRANDING OF ANY FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR
COSMETIC IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

"(C)  THE RECEIPT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ANY FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE,
OR COSMETIC THAT IS ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED, AND THE DELIVERY OR
PROFFERED DELIVERY THEREOF FOR PAY OR OTHERWISE. 

     .         .         .     .         . 

"(K)  THE ALTERATION, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OBLITERATION, OR
REMOVAL OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE LABELING OF, OR THE DOING OF
ANY OTHER ACT WITH RESPECT TO, A FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC, IF
SUCH ACT IS DONE WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RESULTS IN SUCH ARTICLE BEING MISBRANDED." 

FN2  THE TERM LABEL IS DEFINED AS "A DISPLAY OF WRITTEN, PRINTED, OR
GRAPHIC MATTER UPON THE IMMEDIATE CONTAINER OF ANY ARTICLE."  SEC.
201(K). 

FN3  "SEC.  303.  (A)  ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES ANY OF THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 301 SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND SHALL ON CONVICTION
THEREOF BE SUBJECT TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR A
FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR BOTH SUCH IMPRISONMENT AND FINE; BUT
IF THE VIOLATION IS COMMITTED AFTER A CONVICTION OF SUCH PERSON UNDER
THIS SECTION HAS BECOME FINAL SUCH PERSON SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE YEARS, OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$10,000, OR BOTH SUCH IMPRISONMENT AND FINE. 

"(B)  NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS
301, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD OR MISLEAD, THE PENALTY SHALL BE
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE YEARS, OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$10,000, OR BOTH SUCH IMPRISONMENT AND FINE." 

THE INFORMATIONS, IN CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 301(A), DID NOT
ALLEGE THAT THE ACTS COMMITTED WERE DONE "WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD." 
HENCE THE MAXIMUM PENALTY WAS IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN A YEAR, OR
A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR BOTH.  PROSECUTION BY INFORMATION
WAS THEREFORE AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE (SEE DUKE V. UNITED STATES, 301
U.S. 492) AND BY RULE 7(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 

FN4  SEE UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277, 280; UNITED
STATES V. SULLIVAN, SUPRA, P. 696. 

FN5  SEE SEC. 701 AND SEC. 201(C); 1940 REORG. PLAN NO. IV, SEC. 12,
54 STAT.  231, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 133(U). 

FN6  THE FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY BY REGULATION (21 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP.
SEC. 2.2) HAS RULED: 

"LABELING INCLUDES ALL WRITTEN, PRINTED, OR GRAPHIC MATTER
ACCOMPANYING AN ARTICLE AT ANY TIME WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT OR DELIVERY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE." 

FN7  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN8 THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 301(K) WAS DESCRIBED IN H.R. REP. NO. 2139,
75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 3(1938), AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS CONTEMPLATED BY THE
LAW TO THE FULL EXTENT CONSTITUTIONALLY POSSIBLE, PARAGRAPH (K) HAS
BEEN INSERTED PROHIBITING THE CHANGING OF LABELS SO AS TO MISBRAND
ARTICLES HELD FOR SALE AFTER INTERSTATE SHIPMENT." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 502(A) AND SEC.
201(M) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT.  THESE SECTIONS
CONSIDERED TOGETHER PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR THE "MISBRANDING" OF
DRUGS.  I AGREE THAT A DRUG IS MISBRANDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE IS FALSE AND MISLEADING WRITTEN, PRINTED, OR GRAPHIC MATTER IS
EITHER PLACED UPON THE DRUG, ITS CONTAINER OR WRAPPERS, OR USED IN THE
SALE OF THE DRUG AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE PACKAGE LABEL TO ADVISE
CONSUMERS HOW TO USE THE DRUG.  I AGREE THAT FALSE LABELS MAY, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, "ACCOMPANY," THAT IS GO ALONG WITH, A DRUG
ON ITS INTERSTATE JOURNEY EVEN THOUGH NOT IN THE SAME CARTON, ON THE
SAME TRAIN, IN THE SAME MAIL, OR DELIVERED FOR SHIPMENT THE SAME DAY. 
BUT THESE AGREEMENTS DO NOT SETTLE ALL THE PROBLEMS IN THIS CASE. 
THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT DOES NOT PURPORT TO MAKE ALL
MISBRANDING OF DRUGS WITHIN THE FOREGOING DEFINITION A FEDERAL
OFFENSE.  CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO PASS THE ACT IS BASED UPON THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  CONSEQUENTLY MISBRANDING IS ONLY AN OFFENSE IF THE
MISBRANDED DRUGS BEAR THE STATUTORILY DEFINED RELATIONSHIPS TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FOR ILLUSTRATION, IF A PERSON MISBRANDED A DRUG
WHICH HAD NOT BEEN AND WAS NOT THEREAFTER INTRODUCED INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THERE WOULD BE NO VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT, WHATEVER
VIOLATION THERE MIGHT BE OF STATE LAW. 

AS WE POINTED OUT IN UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN, 332 U.S. 689, THE
FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT CREATES SEVERAL OFFENSES EACH OF
WHICH SEPARATELY DEPENDS UPON THE RELATIONSHIP THE MISBRANDED DRUG THEN
BEARS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SECTION 301(A) FORBIDS THE "INTRODUCTION
OR DELIVERY FOR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE" OF MISBRANDED
DRUGS; SEC. 301(B) FORBIDS MISBRANDING WHILE THE DRUGS ARE "IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE"; SEC. 301(C) PROHIBITS THE "RECEIPT" OF SUCH DRUGS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND SEC. 301(K) FORBIDS MISBRANDING WHILE DRUGS
ARE "HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

THE TWENTY COUNTS OF THE INFORMATION UPON WHICH THIS PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION RESTS, CHARGE THAT HE HAD INTRODUCED DRUGS INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND THAT "WHEN" HE SO INTRODUCED THE DRUGS, THEY WERE
"MISBRANDED  ...  IN THAT  ...  STATEMENTS APPEARING IN  ...  BULLETINS
AND BOOKLETS ACCOMPANYING" THE DRUGS "WERE FALSE AND MISLEADING."  THE
UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE AS TO THIRTEEN OF THESE COUNTS SHOWED THAT WHEN THE
DRUGS WERE "INTRODUCED" INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR SHIPMENT, THEY
WERE NOT WITHIN ANY FAIR MEANING OF THE WORD "ACCOMPANIED" BY THE
PRINTED MATTER RELIED ON AS "LABELING."  THE EVIDENCE UNDER ONE COUNT
WAS THAT THE DRUGS WERE SHIPPED JULY 10, 1942, WHILE THE BOOKLETS SAID
TO BE "LABELS" WERE SENT A YEAR AND A HALF LATER, JANUARY 18, 1944. 
THUS, EACH OF THESE COUNTS CHARGED A VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT OFFENSE OF INTRODUCING MISBRANDED DRUGS INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, PROHIBITED BY SEC. 301(A).  THE EVIDENCE PROVES THE OFFENSE,
IF ANY, OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 301(K), WHICH PROHIBITS THE MISBRANDING OF
DRUGS WHILE HELD FOR SALE AFTER AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT. 

THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 301(A) SEEMS TO ME TO CREATE A NEW
OFFENSE TO MAKE IT A CRIME TO INTRODUCE DRUGS INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IF THEY SHOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE MISBRANDED, EVEN SO LONG AS EIGHTEEN
MONTHS LATER WHILE HELD FOR SALE.  THIS JUDICIAL ACTION IS JUSTIFIED IN
PART ON THE GROUND THAT THE OFFENSE CONGRESS CREATED IN SEC. 301(K) FOR
HOLDING MISBRANDED DRUGS FOR SALE AFTER INTERSTATE SHIPMENT MIGHT NOT
REACH ALL SITUATIONS COVERED BY THE CONGRESSIONALLY CREATED OFFENSE
DEFINED BY SEC. 301(A).  IF AS THE COURT BELIEVES, CONGRESS IN SEC.
301(K) HAS LIMITED THE SITUATIONS FOR WHICH IT WILL DIRECT PUNISHMENT
FOR HOLDING MISBRANDED ARTICLES FOR SALE, I CANNOT AGREE THAT WE SHOULD
REWRITE SEC. 301(A) SO AS TO BROADEN ITS COVERAGE.  IF CONGRESS LEFT A
HIATUS, CONGRESS SHOULD FILL IT IF IT SO DESIRES.  WHILE I DO NOT DOUBT
THE WISDOM OF SEPARATING THESE OFFENSES AS CONGRESS HAS HERE DONE, WE
MUST REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE DANGERS IN SPLITTING UP ONE AND THE SAME
TRANSACTION INTO MANY OFFENSES.  SEE BLOCKBURGER V. UNITED STATES, 284
U.S. 299, 304-305. 

THESE ARE SERIOUS OFFENSES.  WHILE PETITIONER WAS FINED ONLY $200 ON
EACH COUNT, OR A TOTAL OF $4,000, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PUNISHMENT WAS
$1,000 PER COUNT AND IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR, OR FOR THREE YEARS
UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEC. 303(A).  THE APPROACH OF CONGRESS IN
THIS FIELD OF PENAL REGULATION HAS BEEN CAUTIOUS.  THE LANGUAGE USED BY
CONGRESS IN THE PRESENT LAW IN DEFINING NEW OFFENSES HAS BEEN MARKED BY
PRECISION.  I THINK WE SHOULD EXERCISE A SIMILAR CAUTION BEFORE READING
INTO THE "INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE" OFFENSE, CONDUCT WHICH
PATENTLY FITS INTO THE "HELD FOR SALE" OFFENSE. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT HERE INSOFAR AS IT RESTS ON THE THIRTEEN
COUNTS IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED OFFENSES UNDER SEC. 301(A) AND
FAILED TO PROVE THEM. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. URBUTEIT, 335 U.S. 355 


NO. 13.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13-14, 1948.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1948.  -
164 F.2D 245, REVERSED. 


CERTAIN MACHINES BEARING NO LABELING OTHER THAN NAME AND SERIAL NUMBER
WERE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SUBSEQUENTLY, BUT AS A PART OF
THE SAME TRANSACTION, THERE WERE SHIPPED TO THE SAME CONSIGNEE CERTAIN
LEAFLETS CONTAINING ALLEGEDLY FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS RELATIVE
TO THE VALUE OF THE MACHINES IN THE DIAGNOSIS, PREVENTION, TREATMENT
AND CURE OF DISEASE.  THESE LEAFLETS WERE USED BY THE CONSIGNEE IN
EXPLAINING THE USE OF THE MACHINES TO HIS PATIENTS AND IN SELLING SOME
OF THEM TO PATIENTS.  HELD:  THE SEPARATE SHIPMENT OF THE MACHINES AND
LEAFLETS DID NOT PREVENT THE MACHINES FROM BEING SUBJECT TO
CONDEMNATION UNDER SEC. 304(A) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC
ACT, 52 STAT. 1044, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 334, AS DEVICES "MISBRANDED WHEN
INTRODUCED INTO" INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  KORDEL V. UNITED STATES, ANTE,
P. 345.  PP. 355-358. 

UNITED STATES V. URBUTEIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ORDERED CERTAIN MACHINES CONDEMNED UNDER
SEC. 304(A) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, 52 STAT. 1044,
21 U.S.C. SEC. 334.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  164 F.2D 245. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 872.  REVERSED, P. 358. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED. 

THE UNITED STATES FILED A LIBEL UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND
COSMETIC ACT (52 STAT. 1044, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 334), SEEKING SEIZURE OF 16
MACHINES LABELED "SINUOTHERMIC."  THE LIBEL ALLEGED THAT THE DEVICE WAS
MISBRANDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT (52 STAT. 1050, 21 U.S.C. SEC.
352(A)) IN THAT REPRESENTATIONS IN A LEAFLET ENTITLED "THE ROAD TO
HEALTH" RELATIVE TO THE CURATIVE AND THERAPEUTIC POWERS OF THE DEVICE
IN THE DIAGNOSIS, CURE, MITIGATION, TREATMENT AND PREVENTION OF DISEASE
WERE FALSE AND MISLEADING.  IT CHARGED THAT THE LEAFLET HAD ACCOMPANIED
THE DEVICE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

RESPONDENT, FRED URBUTEIT, APPEARED AS CLAIMANT OF SEVERAL OF THE
DEVICES.  HE ADMITTED THAT THE DEVICES AND LEAFLETS HAD BEEN SHIPPED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT DENIED THAT THEY WERE SHIPPED TOGETHER OR THAT
THEY WERE RELATED TO EACH OTHER.  HE ALSO DENIED THAT THE STATEMENTS
MADE IN THE LEAFLET WERE FALSE OR MISLEADING.  THE CASE WAS TRIED
WITHOUT A JURY AND THE ARTICLES WERE ORDERED CONDEMNED.  THE JUDGMENT
WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  164 F.2D 245.  THE CASE IS HERE
ON CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN IT AND KORDEL V. UNITED
STATES, ANTE, P. 345. 

RESPONDENT URBUTEIT TERMS HIMSELF A NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN AND
CONDUCTS THE SINUOTHERMIC INSTITUTE IN TAMPA, FLORIDA.  THE MACHINES
AGAINST WHICH THE LIBEL WAS FILED ARE ELECTRICAL DEVICES ALLEGEDLY
AIDING IN THE DIAGNOSIS AND CURE OF VARIOUS DISEASES AND PHYSICAL
DISORDERS SUCH AS CANCER, DIABETES, TUBERCULOSIS, ARTHRITIS, AND
PARALYSIS.  THE ALLEGED CURES EFFECTED THROUGH ITS USE ARE DESCRIBED IN
THE ALLEGEDLY FALSE AND MISLEADING LEAFLET, "THE ROAD TO HEALTH,"
PUBLISHED BY URBUTEIT AND DISTRIBUTED FOR USE WITH THE MACHINES. 

URBUTEIT SHIPPED FROM FLORIDA A NUMBER OF THESE MACHINES TO ONE
KELSCH, A FORMER PUPIL OF HIS WHO LIVES IN OHIO.  KELSCH USED THESE
MACHINES IN TREATING HIS PATIENTS AND, THOUGH HE DID NOT RECEIVE THEM
AS A MERCHANT, HE SOLD SOME TO PATIENTS.  AS PART OF THIS TRANSACTION
URBUTEIT CONTRACTED TO FURNISH KELSCH WITH A SUPPLY OF LEAFLETS, WHICH
WERE SENT FROM FLORIDA TO OHIO AT A DIFFERENT TIME THAN WHEN THE
MACHINES WERE FORWARDED.  KELSCH USED THE LEAFLETS TO EXPLAIN THE
MACHINES TO HIS PATIENTS. 

THE LEAFLETS SEEM TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE SHIPMENT OF THE MACHINES.  BUT
AS KORDEL V. UNITED STATES HOLDS, THAT IS IMMATERIAL WHERE THE
ADVERTISING MATTER THAT WAS SENT WAS DESIGNED TO SERVE AND DID IN FACT
SERVE THE PURPOSES OF LABELING.  THIS MACHINE BORE ONLY THE WORDS, U.S.
PATENT SINUOTHERMIC TRADE MARK.  IT WAS THE LEAFLETS THAT EXPLAINED THE
USEFULNESS OF THE DEVICE IN THE DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT, AND CURE OF
VARIOUS DISEASES.  MEASURED BY FUNCTIONAL STANDARDS, AS SEC. 201(M)(2)
OF THE ACT PERMITS, THESE LEAFLETS CONSTITUTED ONE OF THE TYPES OF
LABELING WHICH THE ACT CONDEMNS. 

THE POWER TO CONDEMN IS CONTAINED IN SEC. 304(A) AND IS CONFINED TO
ARTICLES "ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED WHEN INTRODUCED INTO OR WHILE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  FN1  WE DO NOT, HOWEVER, READ THAT PROVISION AS
REQUIRING THE ADVERTISING MATTER TO TRAVEL WITH THE MACHINE.  THE
REASONS OF POLICY WHICH ARGUE AGAINST THAT IN THE CASE OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS UNDER SEC. 303 ARE EQUALLY FORCIBLE WHEN WE COME TO LIBELS
UNDER SEC. 304(A).  MOREOVER, THE COMMON SENSE OF THE MATTER IS TO VIEW
THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION IN ITS ENTIRETY - THE PURPOSE OF THE
ADVERTISING AND ITS ACTUAL USE.  IN THIS CASE IT IS PLAIN TO US THAT
THE MOVEMENTS OF MACHINES AND LEAFLETS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE A
SINGLE INTERRELATED ACTIVITY, NOT SEPARATE OR ISOLATED ONES.  THE ACT
IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE PURIFICATION OF THE STREAM OF COMMERCE IN THE
ABSTRACT.  THE PROBLEM IS A PRACTICAL ONE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, NOT
DIALECTICS.  THE FACT THAT THE FALSE LITERATURE LEAVES IN A SEPARATE
MAIL DOES NOT SAVE THE ARTICLE FROM BEING MISBRANDED.  WHERE BY
FUNCTIONAL STANDARDS THE TWO TRANSACTIONS ARE INTEGRATED, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 304(A) ARE SATISFIED, THOUGH THE MAILINGS OR
SHIPMENTS ARE AT DIFFERENT TIMES. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT CERTAIN EVIDENCE TENDERED BY URBUTEIT
AS TO THE THERAPEUTIC OR CURATIVE VALUE OF THE MACHINES HAD BEEN
ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDED AT THE TRIAL, A RULING THAT WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO
DISTURB.  PETITIONER CLAIMS, HOWEVER, THAT THE ERROR WAS NOT
PREJUDICIAL.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT SINCE THE EVIDENCE OF THE FALSE AND
MISLEADING CHARACTER OF THE ADVERTISING AS RESPECTS THE DIAGNOSTIC
CAPABILITIES OF THE MACHINES WAS OVERWHELMING, THAT FALSE
REPRESENTATION WAS ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE CONDEMNATION, THOUGH IT BE
ASSUMED THAT THE THERAPEUTIC PHASE OF THE CASE WAS NOT ESTABLISHED.  WE
DO NOT REACH THAT QUESTION.  SINCE THE CASE MUST BE REMANDED TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS, THAT QUESTION AND ANY OTHERS THAT HAVE SURVIVED WILL
BE OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION BY IT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THIS SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY ARTICLE OF FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC THAT IS ADULTERATED
OR MISBRANDED WHEN INTRODUCED INTO OR WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...
SHALL BE LIABLE TO BE PROCEEDED AGAINST WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
OR AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, ON LIBEL OF INFORMATION AND CONDEMNED IN ANY
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF WHICH
THE ARTICLE IS FOUND ...  " 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THEIR DISSENT IN
KORDEL V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 345, DECIDED THIS DAY, ALTHOUGH THIS
CASE ARISES UNDER THE LIMITATION OF SEC. 304(A), "WHILE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE," WHICH HAS A DIFFERENT SCOPE FROM SEC. 301(K), WHILE "HELD
FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 
..END :












GRAND RIVER DAM V. GRAND-HYDRO, 335 U.S. 359 


NO. 6.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12-13, 1948.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1948.  - 200
OKLA. 157, 201 P.2D 225, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PETITIONER IS A PUBLIC CORPORATION CREATED BY OKLAHOMA TO DEVELOP
AND SELL HYDROELECTRIC POWER.  RESPONDENT IS AN OKLAHOMA PRIVATE
CORPORATION WITH THE USUAL POWERS OF A PUBLIC UTILITY.  IN A
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING IN AN OKLAHOMA STATE COURT, PETITIONER SOUGHT A
DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH RESPONDENT WAS
ENTITLED FOR LAND OF RESPONDENT WHICH WAS APPROPRIATED BY PETITIONER
FOR A HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON THE GRAND RIVER IN OKLAHOMA.  PETITIONER
HAD A FEDERAL LICENSE, ISSUED UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, FOR THE
PROJECT; RESPONDENT DID NOT.  IN THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING,
PETITIONER DID NOT RELY ON THE FEDERAL POWER ACT OR ON THE FEDERAL
LICENSE, BUT ONLY ON THE STATE LAW OF CONDEMNATION.  THE STATE SUPREME
COURT DECIDED THAT, IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH
THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED, THE VALUE OF THE LAND FOR USE AS A POWER
SITE COULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THAT EXPERT TESTIMONY AS TO
THAT VALUE WAS ADMISSIBLE.  HELD:  THE FEDERAL POWER ACT HAS NOT SO FAR
AFFECTED THE USE OR VALUE OF THE LAND FOR POWER SITE PURPOSES AS TO
DEPRIVE IT OF ALL FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THOSE PURPOSES AND THUS DEPRIVE
THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH VALUE OF ALL PROBATIVE WEIGHT IN THIS CASE.  PP.
361-369, 372-373. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE STATE COURT PURPORTED TO REST ITS DECISION
LARGELY ON STATE LAW DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE NECESSITY OF THIS
COURT'S CONSIDERING THE QUESTION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD.  P. 369. 

3. IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL LAW
WERE NECESSARILY, ALTHOUGH ONLY IMPLIEDLY, ADJUDICATED BY THE STATE
COURT.  PP. 369-370. 

4.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S STATEMENT OF THE OKLAHOMA LAW AS TO THE
PROPER MEASURE OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND IN THE STATE COURT CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDING IS ACCEPTED HERE.  PP. 370-372. 

5.  THE COURT EXPRESSES NO OPINION AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE
APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF VALUE IN A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY
THE UNITED STATES OR BY ONE OF ITS LICENSEES IN RELIANCE UPON RIGHTS
DERIVED UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  P. 373. 

6.  A DIFFERENT RESULT FROM THAT HERE REACHED IS NOT REQUIRED BY
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT RELATING TO THE DETERMINATION OF
THE RATE BASE OF A FEDERAL LICENSEE, NOR BY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
RELATING TO RECAPTURE OF A PROJECT BY THE UNITED STATES UPON EXPIRATION
OF A FEDERAL LICENSE.  PP. 374-375. 

7.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL POWER ACT WHICH REQUIRES THAT IT
BE INTERPRETED AS SUPERSEDING THE STATE LAW OF CONDEMNATION AND AS
RESTRICTING THE MEASURE OF VALUATION WHICH LAWFULLY MAY BE USED BY THE
COURTS OF OKLAHOMA IN A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
LAND FOR POWER SITE PURPOSES BY AN AGENCY OF THAT STATE.  P. 374. 

8. NO OPINION IS EXPRESSED UPON ISSUES WHICH MIGHT ARISE IN THE EVENT
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION PASSES UPON A RATE BASE FOR THE PROJECT OR
THE UNITED STATES PROCEEDS TO RECAPTURE THE PROJECT UPON EXPIRATION OF
THE FEDERAL LICENSE.  PP. 374-375. 

GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY V. GRAND-HYDRO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.  200 OKLA. 157, 201 P.2D
225, AFFIRMED. 

A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY PETITIONER IN A STATE COURT
OF OKLAHOMA, TO HAVE DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE
RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED FOR LAND APPROPRIATED BY PETITIONER FOR A
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, RESULTED IN A VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR A
SPECIFIED SUM.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW
TRIAL.  192 OKLA. 693, 139 P.2D 798.  THE NEW TRIAL RESULTED IN A
VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR AN INCREASED AMOUNT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED. 

A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY PETITIONER IT, 333 U.S. 852. 
AFFIRMED, P. 375. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL QUESTION IN THIS ACTION FOR CONDEMNATION UNDER OKLAHOMA
LAW IS WHETHER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT  FN1  HAD SO FAR AFFECTED THE USE
OR VALUE OF CERTAIN LAND FOR POWER SITE PURPOSES AS TO RENDER
INADMISSIBLE EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH GAVE RECOGNITION TO THAT LAND'S
AVAILABILITY FOR A POWER SITE.  WE HOLD THAT IT HAD NOT.  WE THUS SEE
NO ADEQUATE REASON TO REVERSE THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA WHICH HAD
HELD THAT SUCH TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN A STATE CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDING. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONER, GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MAYES COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, TO CONDEMN AND TO
AWARD DAMAGES FOR THE TAKING OF 1,462.48 ACRES OF THAT LAND FROM THE
RESPONDENT, GRAND-HYDRO.  FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN OF THESE ACRES
HAVE BEEN USED BY THE PETITIONER AS A SITE FOR ITS HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT, NEAR PENSACOLA, ON THE GRAND RIVER IN OKLAHOMA.  THE
COMMISSIONERS, APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO ASSESS THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED
BY THE APPROPRIATION OF THESE LANDS, AWARDED THE RESPONDENT
$281,802.74.  EACH PARTY, HOWEVER, OBJECTED AND DEMANDED A JURY TRIAL. 
THAT TRIAL RESULTED IN A VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR $136,250.  ON APPEAL,
THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE
CASE FOR A NEW TRIAL IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS OPINION.  THAT OPINION IS
IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE ISSUES BEFORE US. 192 OKLA. 693, 139 P.2D
798.  SIX JUDGES CONCURRED IN THE OPINION, ONE IN THE RESULT AND TWO
DISSENTED. 

IN 1945, THE NEW TRIAL RESULTED IN A VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR
$800,000, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST ON $518,197.26 FROM JANUARY 19, 1940,
WHICH WAS THE DATE ON WHICH THE AMOUNT FIXED BY THE COMMISSIONERS HAD
BEEN PAID INTO COURT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA AFFIRMED THIS
JUDGMENT, SEVEN TO TWO.  200 OKLA. 157, 201 P.2D 225.  WE DENIED
CERTIORARI, 332 U.S. 841, BUT, ON REHEARING, GRANTED IT, 333 U.S. 852,
BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE IN RELATION TO THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT.  THE UNITED STATES FILED A BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE,
AT EACH STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, SUPPORTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE
PETITIONER.  FN2 

THE PETITIONER IS A CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION DISTRICT, CREATED IN
1935 BY THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE.  IT IS A CORPORATE AGENCY OF THE
STATE WITH POWER TO DEVELOP AND SELL WATER POWER AND ELECTRIC ENERGY IN
THE GRAND RIVER BASIN.  FN3  THE RESPONDENT IS A PRIVATE CORPORATION,
ORGANIZED IN 1929 UNDER THE LAWS OF OKLAHOMA.  IT HAS THE USUAL POWERS
OF A PUBLIC UTILITY, INCLUDING THE POWER TO DEVELOP AND USE THE WATERS
OF THE GRAND RIVER, CONSTRUCT DAMS, GENERATE AND DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY
AND ACQUIRE BY RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, PURCHASE OR OTHERWISE, REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR ITS PURPOSES.  THE GRAND RIVER IS TREATED AS A
NONNAVIGABLE STREAM, TRIBUTARY TO THE ARKANSAS RIVER WHICH IS A
NAVIGABLE STREAM. 

LONG PRIOR TO THIS LITIGATION THE RESPONDENT ACQUIRED THE ACREAGE IN
QUESTION FOR USE IN ITS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER ON
THE GRAND RIVER.  IN 1931, IT OBTAINED FROM THE STATE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION A STATE LICENSE AND PERMIT TO APPROPRIATE THE WATERS OF
GRAND RIVER FOR BENEFICIAL USE, TO CONSTRUCT A DAM ON THAT RIVER, AND
THERE TO DEVELOP HYDROELECTRIC POWER FOR SALE.  FN4  THE RESPONDENT,
HOWEVER, NEVER HAS FILED WITH THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ANY
DECLARATION OF INTENTION OR APPLICATION FOR A FEDERAL LICENSE RELATIVE
TO THIS PROJECT. 

IN FEBRUARY, 1934, THE CITY OF TULSA FILED AN ACTION IN AN OKLAHOMA
COURT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT AND OTHERS SEEKING AN ADJUDICATION OF
CERTAIN WATER RIGHTS IN SPAVINAW CREEK AND IN THE GRAND RIVER NEAR
PENSACOLA.  DURING THE PENDENCY OF THAT ACTION THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE
CREATED THE GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY, PETITIONER HEREIN, AND GRANTED
TO IT EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP THE GRAND RIVER IN THE MANNER
DESCRIBED IN THE ACT.  IN EFFECT, THE PETITIONER THUS ACQUIRED A STATE
PRIORITY OVER THE RESPONDENT, ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT HELD TITLE TO
CERTAIN WATER RIGHTS AND TO THE LAND NEEDED FOR THE PROJECT.  THE
PETITIONER THEREUPON WAS MADE A PARTY TO THE TULSA ACTION.  HOWEVER,
BEFORE FILING ITS ANSWER AND CROSSPETITION, THE PETITIONER ENTERED INTO
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT TO IT BY THE RESPONDENT OF
THE LATTER'S RIGHTS TO APPROPRIATE CERTAIN RIVER WATERS FOR THE
PROJECT.  FN5  IT LIKEWISE SECURED FROM THE RESPONDENT THE LATTER'S
TITLE TO 45 ACRES ESSENTIAL TO THE DAM SITE.  IN DUE COURSE, JUDGMENT
WAS RENDERED AWARDING TO THE PETITIONER A PRIOR RIGHT TO CONTROL AND
APPROPRIATE THE REQUIRED WATER FROM THE RIVER AND STATING THAT THE
RESPONDENT HAD NO RIGHT THEREIN.  THE PETITIONER SECURED FROM THE
RESPONDENT A VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE OF TITLE TO TEN ADDITIONAL ACRES AND
ALSO OF CERTAIN RIGHTS OF ENTRY UPON 362 ACRES.  THESE MADE UP THE 417
ACRES REFERRED TO AS THE DAM SITE.  AS LATER FOUND BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF OKLAHOMA - 

"THE CONVEYANCES OF THE LAND WERE MADE ON CONDITION THAT THE
CONSIDERATION WOULD LATER BE DETERMINED BY AGREEMENT OR CONDEMNATION
AND THE ASSIGNMENT WAS ON THE CONDITION PROVIDED FOR THEREIN: 

"'IT IS UNDERSTOOD, HOWEVER, THAT THIS ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE
SHALL NOT, IN ANY WAY, AFFECT OR IMPAIR THE TITLE OF GRAND-HYDRO TO ANY
LANDS OWNED BY IT, OR ANY INTERESTS THEREIN, AND IF ANY LANDS OR
INTERESTS THEREIN OWNED BY THE SAID GRAND-HYDRO ARE ACQUIRED BY THE
GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY BY PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION, THE VALUE
THEREOF OR DAMAGE THERETO SHALL BE ASCERTAINED AND DETERMINED AS THOUGH
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND CONVEYANCE HAD NEVER BEEN MADE.'"  GRAND RIVER DAM
AUTHORITY V. GRAND-HYDRO, 200 OKLA. 157, 158, 201 P.2D 225, 227. 

THE PARTIES BEING UNABLE TO AGREE UPON THE PRICE FOR THE LAND, THE
PETITIONER FILED THE PRESENT ACTION IN FEBRUARY, 1939.  THE PETITION
MADE NO REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL POWER ACT OR TO RIGHTS CLAIMED
THEREUNDER.  THE PETITIONER, ON THE OTHER HAND, BASED ITS CLAIM UPON
THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE LAND BY CONDEMNATION "IN THE MANNER PROVIDED
BY GENERAL LAW WITH RESPECT TO CONDEMNATION" WHICH HAD BEEN GRANTED TO
THE PETITIONER BY THE GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY ACT.  FN6  THE PROJECT
WAS TO BE LOCATED ON THE UPPER REACHES OF THE GRAND (OR NEOSHO) RIVER,
NEAR PENSACOLA, ABOVE THE RIVER'S CONFLUENCE WITH SPAVINAW CREEK.  IN
THE MEANTIME, ON DECEMBER 15, 1937, THE PETITIONER HAD FILED WITH THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION A DECLARATION OF INTENTION UNDER SEC. 23(B) OF
THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  FN7  IN THAT DECLARATION THE PETITIONER STATED
THAT - 

"THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PROJECT WILL PROBABLY NOT AFFECT PRESENT OR
PROSPECTIVE NAVIGATION FOR THE REASON THAT THE GRAND RIVER IS NOT A
NAVIGABLE STREAM IN LAW OR IN FACT, AND THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE
ARKANSAS AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS WILL NOT BE APPRECIABLY AFFECTED
THEREBY.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PROJECT WILL NOT AFFECT ANY PUBLIC
LANDS OR RESERVATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR THE INTERESTS OF
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE." 

IF THE COMMISSION HAD AGREED WITH THE FOREGOING STATEMENT, SEC. 23(B)
WOULD HAVE PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM MERELY UPON PETITIONER'S
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS.  HOWEVER, ON FEBRUARY 11, 1938, THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT - 

"(C)  THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SAID PROJECT AS PROPOSED BY
THE DECLARANT WILL AFFECT NAVIGABLE STAGES OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER, A
NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES, TO WHICH SAID GRAND RIVER IS
TRIBUTARY; 

"THE COMMISSION THEREFORE FINDS THAT: 

"THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SAID PROJECT IN THE MANNER
PROPOSED BY THE DECLARANT WILL AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE." 

THEREUPON, THE PETITIONER SOUGHT AND, ON JULY 26, 1939, SECURED FROM
THE COMMISSION THE FEDERAL LICENSE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT AS ONE
AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS AND RESERVATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
PETITIONER, HOWEVER, HAS NOT, BY AMENDMENT OR OTHERWISE, BASED ITS
RIGHT OF CONDEMNATION IN THE PRESENT CASE UPON THE FEDERAL POWER ACT OR
UPON ANY FEDERAL LICENSE ISSUED THEREUNDER. 

THIS PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT IN AN OKLAHOMA COURT, BY A GOVERNMENT
AGENCY OF OKLAHOMA, TO EXERCISE A RIGHT OF CONDEMNATION GRANTED BY
OKLAHOMA.  IT DOES NOT SEEK TO CONDEMN OR TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR WATER
RIGHTS.  IT SEEKS ONLY TO CONDEMN CERTAIN LAND AND TO ASSESS DAMAGES
DUE TO THE TAKING OF THAT LAND.  AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL, THE COURT
EXCLUDED FROM THE JURY EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND INSOFAR AS
SUCH EVIDENCE WAS BASED UPON THE AVAILABILITY OF THAT LAND FOR A DAM
SITE.  ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA HELD THAT SUCH
EXCLUSION CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AND IT REMANDED THE CASE FOR
RETRIAL IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS OPINION.  THAT OPINION STATED THE LAW OF
OKLAHOMA AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE MEASURE OF COMPENSATION IN SUCH CASE IS THE FAIR MARKET OR CASH
VALUE OF THE LAND CONDEMNED.  CITY OF TULSA V. CREEKMORE, 167 OKLA.
298, 29 P.2D 101.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT, SPEAKING OF THE ELEMENTS TO
BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING MARKET VALUES, SAID: 

"'IT IS THE MARKET VALUE THAT IS THE TEST AND NOT ITS VALUE FOR SOME
PARTICULAR USE TO WHICH IT MIGHT BE SUBJECTED, ALTHOUGH ITS
ADAPTABILITY TO THIS PARTICULAR USE MAY BE CONSIDERED AS ONE OF THE
FACTORS IN ASCERTAINING THE MARKET VALUE WHEN THEY ENTER INTO AND
AFFECT THE CASH MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  REVELL V. CITY OF
MUSKOGEE, 36 OKLA. 529, 129 P. 833; PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. LEATHERBEE,
311 ILL. 505, 143 N.E. 97.' 

"AND IN THE SYLLABUS BY THE COURT THE FAIR CASH OR MARKET VALUE OF
LAND TAKEN IN EMINENT DOMAIN IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: 

"'BY FAIR MARKET VALUE IS MEANT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WHICH A PURCHASER
WILLING BUT NOT OBLIGED TO BUY THE PROPERTY WOULD PAY TO AN OWNER
WILLING BUT NOT OBLIGED TO SELL IT, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL USES
TO WHICH THE LAND WAS ADAPTED AND MIGHT IN REASON BE APPLIED.' 

"WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION OF ADAPTABILITY OR AVAILABILITY FOR A
PARTICULAR USE AS AN ELEMENT IN DETERMINING MARKET VALUE, THE COURT
HELD AS FOLLOWS: 

"'IN DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE OF A PIECE OF REAL ESTATE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF A TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN, IT IS NOT MERELY THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY FOR THE USE TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPLIED BY THE OWNER THAT
SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS USE FOR
ALL PURPOSES, PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE, FOR WHICH IT IS ADAPTED AND TO
WHICH IT MIGHT IN REASON BE APPLIED, MUST BE CONSIDERED, AND ITS VALUE
FOR THE USE TO WHICH MEN OF PRUDENCE AND WISDOM AND HAVING ADEQUATE
MEANS WOULD DEVOTE THE PROPERTY IF OWNED BY THEM MUST BE TAKEN AS THE
ULTIMATE TEST.' 

"THE ABOVE CASE CONTAINS A REASONABLY CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE LAW
OBTAINING IN THIS STATE AND WHICH MUST BE APPLIED HERE.  THE CONDEMNEE
IS ORDINARILY ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION MEASURED NOT ONLY BY THE VALUE
OF THE LAND FOR THE USE TO WHICH HE HAS APPLIED IT, BUT THE VALUE
THEREOF FOR ALL POSSIBLE PURPOSES, PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE, TO WHICH HE
OR HIS ORDINARY GRANTEE MIGHT LEGALLY APPLY THE SAME."  GRAND-HYDRO V.
GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY, 192 OKLA. 693, 694, 139 P.2D 798, 800. 

AFTER RETRIAL AND ON A SECOND APPEAL TO IT, THE SUPREME COURT OF
OKLAHOMA REAFFIRMED THE LAW OF THAT STATE IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS, AND
POINTED TO THE FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH THE PETITIONER AND THE UNITED
STATES, AS AMICUS CURIAE, NOW PLACE BEFORE US: 

"IN THIS APPEAL THE NEW OR DIFFERENT FACTS AND ISSUES PRESENTED
CONSIST OF THE COMPETENCY OF THE TESTIMONY, AS PRESENTED IN THE LAST
TRIAL, OF THE EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE DAM SITE;
THE SUBMISSION OF SUCH TESTIMONY TO THE JURY UNDER PROPER INSTRUCTIONS;
THE EFFECT OF GRAND-HYDRO'S LACK OF A PERMIT FROM THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION; THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW COUNSEL TO ARGUE TO THE
JURY THAT THE CONDEMNED LAND HAD NO DAM SITE VALUE BECAUSE OF SUCH
FACT; AND THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT CREATING THE
AUTHORITY WAS, IN EFFECT, A FORFEITURE OF THE GRAND-HYDRO (STATE)
PERMIT AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE DAM SITE VALUE
OF THE LANDS CONDEMNED.  IF SUCH WAS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IN
PASSING THE ACT, IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, ART. 2, SEC.
24.  THE STATE CANNOT, THROUGH ITS LAW-MAKING BODY, REMOVE THE
PRINCIPAL VALUE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND, THROUGH ITS ESTABLISHED AGENCY
ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY BY CONDEMNATION, BASING THE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE
OWNER ON THE REDUCED VALUE.  IF IT WERE OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE
TO CIRCUMVENT THE ABOVE SECTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION.  ...           .
 .         .         .         . 

"THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERT WITNESSES AS INTRODUCED WAS, THEREFORE,
COMPETENT TO PROVE THE DAM SITE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND WAS IN ACCORD
WITH OUR OPINION ON THE FORMER APPEAL.  ... 

"ALTHOUGH THE AUTHORITY HAD BEEN GRANTED A LICENSE BY THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION GRANTING IT THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE THE 417-ACRE
TRACT AS A DAM SITE, IT COULD NOT THEREBY TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT
JUST COMPENSATION."  GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY V. GRAND-HYDRO, 200
OKLA. 157, 160, 201 P.2D 225, 227, 228.    AS THE QUESTION IS THUS
PRESENTED WHETHER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT HAS SO FAR AFFECTED THE USE OR
VALUE OF THIS LAND FOR POWER SITE PURPOSES AS TO DEPRIVE IT OF ALL FAIR
MARKET VALUE FOR THOSE PURPOSES AND THUS DEPRIVE THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH
VALUE OF ALL PROBATIVE WEIGHT IN THIS CASE, THE FACT THAT THE STATE
COURT PURPORTED TO REST ITS DECISION LARGELY ON STATE LAW DOES NOT
ELIMINATE OUR DUTY TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
ARISES UNDER FEDERAL LAW.  FN8  AGAIN, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT HAS SUPERSEDED THE STATE LAW AND HAS SET UP A NEW STANDARD OF
VALUATION BINDING UPON THE STATE EVEN IN A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING
UNDER STATE LAW.  IT IS, OF COURSE, FOR US TO EXAMINE WHETHER QUESTIONS
OF FEDERAL LAW WERE NECESSARILY, ALTHOUGH ONLY IMPLIEDLY, ADJUDICATED
BY THE STATE COURT.  WE ACCEPT THE LAW OF OKLAHOMA, SET FORTH IN THE
ABOVE QUOTATIONS, AS STATING THE PROPER MEASURE OF THE VALUE TO BE
GIVEN TO THIS LAND IN THIS STATE PROCEEDING.  THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES
HAVE PUT DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS UPON THIS STATEMENT OF THE OKLAHOMA
LAW BUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE HAS SETTLED THE ISSUE IN FAVOR
OF THE RESPONDENT'S INTERPRETATION.  THE PETITIONER POINTS TO THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF THE OKLAHOMA COURT: 

"THE CONDEMNEE IS ORDINARILY ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION MEASURED NOT
ONLY BY THE VALUE OF THE LAND FOR THE USE TO WHICH HE HAS APPLIED IT,
BUT THE VALUE THEREOF FOR ALL POSSIBLE PURPOSES, PRESENT AND
PROSPECTIVE, TO WHICH HE OR HIS ORDINARY GRANTEE MIGHT LEGALLY APPLY
THE SAME."  GRAND-HYDRO V. GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY, 192 OKLA. 693,
694, 139 P.2D 798, 800. 

THE PETITIONER THEN ARGUES THAT, BY VIRTUE OF ITS SPECIAL ACT OF
INCORPORATION, IT HOLDS A GRANT FROM OKLAHOMA OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
DEVELOP THIS POWER SITE INSOFAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED, AND THAT IT
HOLDS A GRANT FROM THE UNITED STATES OF THE ONLY FEDERAL LICENSE THAT
HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE.  THE RESPONDENT, ON
THE OTHER HAND, HOLDS NEITHER A STATE PERMIT NOR A FEDERAL LICENSE TO
USE THIS LAND FOR A POWER SITE, ALTHOUGH IT ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED THE
LAND FOR THAT PURPOSE AND LATER CONVEYED IT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THAT
PURPOSE, UNDER AN AGREEMENT WHICH HAS POSTPONED, UNTIL NOW, THE
DETERMINATION OF ITS PURCHASE PRICE.  THE PETITIONER, WITH THE HELP OF
THE RESPONDENT'S CONVEYANCE TO IT OF THIS LAND AND OF THE RESPONDENT'S
ASSIGNMENT TO IT OF CERTAIN WATER RIGHTS, HAS SECURED JUDICIAL
RECOGNITION OF A PRIOR RIGHT IN ITSELF TO APPROPRIATE UNDER STATE LAW
CERTAIN WATER FROM THE RIVER, AND HAS SECURED FROM THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION THE ABOVE-MENTIONED LICENSE REQUIRED UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT.  THUS EQUIPPED, THE PETITIONER HAS ERECTED ITS DAM ON THE DAM
SITE. 

ACCORDINGLY, IF THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW OF OKLAHOMA IS
THAT, IN ORDER FOR THE RESPONDENT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF
THE LAND FOR A DAM SITE, THE RESPONDENT MUST SHOW NOT ONLY THAT THE
LAND IS REASONABLY AND LAWFULLY USABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE, BUT ALSO THAT
THE RESPONDENT ITSELF HOLDS A VALID STATE PERMIT OR FEDERAL LICENSE FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM ON THAT LAND, THEN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
EVIDENCE WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE.  HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT OF
OKLAHOMA HAS SETTLED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT BY HOLDING
THAT SUCH A PERMIT OR LICENSE IS NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE
EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED.  AS TO THE STATE PERMIT, IT HAS HELD
EXPRESSLY IN ITS SECOND OPINION, AS QUOTED AT PP. 368-369 OF THIS
OPINION, THAT THE GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY ACT DID NOT DEPRIVE THE
RESPONDENT OF ITS RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FROM THE PETITIONER FOR THE
VALUE OF THE DAM SITE AS SUCH.  IN FACT, THE COURT THERE SAID THAT SUCH
A RESULT WOULD VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OF OKLAHOMA.  IN THAT SAME
OPINION, AS QUOTED AT P. 369 OF THIS OPINION, THAT COURT SETTLED THE
ISSUE THAT POSSESSION OF A FEDERAL LICENSE BY THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT
NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE RESPONDENT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE
VALUE OF THIS LAND AS A DAM SITE.  THE COURT SO HELD WHEN IT EXPRESSLY
APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE IN
QUESTION WHEN OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
FEDERAL LICENSE TO THE RESPONDENT AND IN THE FACE OF THE FEDERAL
LICENSE ALREADY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA STANDS SQUARELY UPON THE LAW OF THE
CASE WHICH IT ANNOUNCED UPON THE FIRST APPEAL OF THIS CASE.  ITS
ORIGINAL STATEMENT AS MADE AT THAT TIME AND AS FURTHER INTERPRETED ON
THE SECOND APPEAL HOLDS THAT IT WAS ENOUGH, FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSES,
THAT THE USE OF THE LAND FOR A DAM SITE WAS A REASONABLE AND LAWFUL USE
TO WHICH THE LAND MIGHT BE APPLIED, WITHOUT SHOWING THAT THE RESPONDENT
ITSELF HELD A PERMIT OR LICENSE AUTHORIZING IT TO BUILD THE DAM.  IT
MAY BE SURMISED THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA, IN APPROVING THE
ADMISSION OF THE TESTIMONY BY THE TRIAL COURT, ALSO TREATED THE
PETITIONER AS BEING THE RESPONDENT'S "ORDINARY GRANTEE" OF THE TITLE TO
THIS LAND.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT COURT
RELIED UPON ONE OR THE OTHER, OR BOTH, OF THESE ALTERNATIVES.  RELIANCE
ON EITHER WOULD MAKE THE DISPUTED EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE
OKLAHOMA LAW. 

UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW THE ANSWER TO THE
REMAINING FEDERAL QUESTION IS OBVIOUS.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE SO FAR AFFECTED THE USE OF THIS LAND
FOR A POWER SITE AS TO DESTROY OR OTHERWISE RENDER VALUELESS THE
OWNER'S RIGHT TO USE IT FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THAT ACT MERELY HAS ATTACHED
CONDITIONS TO THE USE OF THE LAND FOR A POWER SITE.  THE ACT SEEKS TO
ENCOURAGE RATHER THAN TO PROHIBIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF POWER SITES.  IT
SEEKS TO PRESERVE OR ENHANCE, NOT TO DESTROY, THEIR VALUE AS SUCH. 
WHILE THE ACT HAS LIMITED THE TIME AND MANNER OF THE USE OF THIS
PARTICULAR LAND FOR A POWER SITE, THE ACT HAS LEFT GREAT BENEFITS
AVAILABLE TO THE OWNER FROM SUCH A USE OF THE LAND.  THE PRESENT LARGE
DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE BY THE PETITIONER UNDER A FEDERAL LICENSE IS
CONVINCING PROOF OF THE VALUE AND AVAILABILITY OF THE LAND FOR THAT
PURPOSE. 

IN A VOLUNTARY PURCHASE OF THIS LAND BY THE PETITIONER, AS A WILLING
PURCHASER, FROM THE RESPONDENT, AS A WILLING AND UNOBLIGATED SELLER,
THE VALUE OF IT AS A POWER SITE INEVITABLY WOULD HAVE ENTERED INTO THE
NEGOTIATED PRICE.  THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT LONG HAVE BEEN
COMPETITORS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE FOR POWER PURPOSES.  EACH
WAS GRANTED, BY STATE LAW, A RIGHT TO CONDEMN THE LAND BUT THE
PETITIONER GAINED A PRIORITY OVER THE RESPONDENT BY VIRTUE OF THE GRAND
RIVER DAM AUTHORITY ACT.  THE PETITIONER'S PURCHASE AMOUNTS TO AN
ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC USE.  THE PETITIONER MAKES
NO CLAIM TO ANY RIGHT TO MAKE USE OF THE NATURAL ASSET OF WATER POWER
IN THE STREAMS OF THE STATE WITHOUT PAYING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
LAND OCCUPIED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

AS BETWEEN THESE TWO CORPORATIONS SEEKING TO DETERMINE THE SALES
PRICE OF THIS LAND, THE FEDERAL POWER ACT PLACED NO LIMITATION UPON
THEIR VOLUNTARY NEGOTIATIONS.  THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE A
PART OF THEIR ORIGINAL AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF THE LAND BY THE
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. 

IF EITHER THE UNITED STATES, OR ITS LICENSEE AS SUCH, WERE SEEKING TO
ACQUIRE THIS LAND UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, IT MIGHT FACE DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS FROM THOSE STATED ABOVE.  THE UNITED STATES ENJOYS
SPECIAL RIGHTS AND POWER IN RELATION TO NAVIGABLE STREAMS AND ALSO TO
STREAMS WHICH AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER,
IS NOT A PARTY TO THE PRESENT CASE.  IT IS NOT ASSERTING ITS RIGHT TO
CONDEMN THIS LAND.  THE PETITIONER, LIKEWISE, IS NOT SEEKING TO ENFORCE
SUCH RIGHTS AS IT MIGHT HAVE TO CONDEMN THIS LAND BY VIRTUE OF ITS
FEDERAL LICENSE.  FN9 ACCORDINGLY, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON WHAT
WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF VALUE IN A CONDEMNATION ACTION
BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ONE OF ITS LICENSEES IN RELIANCE
UPON RIGHTS DERIVED UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
BEARING UPON THE ALLOWANCE OF A VALUATION FOR THE PROJECT AS PART OF
THE RATE BASE OF A FEDERAL LICENSEE MAY BE MATERIAL IN THIS CASE.  FN10
WHATEVER THE RELATION OF THOSE PROVISIONS MAY BE TO THIS PROJECT, IT
IS NOT SUCH AS TO CHANGE THE OKLAHOMA LAW AS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE
OF THE LAND BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THIS CASE.  IT MAY BE THAT, AT SOME
LATER DATE WHEN THE PETITIONER, AS A FEDERAL LICENSEE, SHALL BE READY
TO SELL POWER, THE COMMISSION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE BODY WILL THEN GIVE
CONSIDERATION TO THE VALUE TO BE ALLOWED FOR THIS LAND IN THE
PETITIONER'S RATE BASE.  THERE IS, HOWEVER, NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT THAT PURPORTS TO PRESCRIBE THE PRICE WHICH A PURCHASER OF
LAND MAY PAY VOLUNTARILY AND IN GOOD FAITH FOR LAND WHICH IT LATER
INCORPORATES INTO A PROJECT.  THERE ALSO IS NOTHING IN THE ACT WHICH
PRESCRIBES THAT THE SELLER, RATHER THAN THE PURCHASER, OR THAT THE
CONDEMNEE, RATHER THAN THE CONDEMNOR, OF LAND ACQUIRED FOR A PROJECT
MUST ABSORB THE REDUCTION, IF ANY, WHICH IS TO BE MADE LATER IN THE
ALLOWANCE OF VALUE FOR THAT LAND IN THE PURCHASER'S RATE BASE AS
COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL PRICE PAID FOR IT BY THE PURCHASER IN A
NEGOTIATED PURCHASE OR IN A STATE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING.  AS TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS
ACTUALLY SUPERSEDING THE STATE LAW OF CONDEMNATION AND AS RESTRICTING
THE MEASURE OF VALUATION WHICH LAWFULLY MAY BE USED BY THE COURTS OF
OKLAHOMA IN A CONDEMNATION ACTION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR POWER
SITE PURPOSES BY AN AGENCY OF THAT STATE, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT TO INDICATE THAT AN ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY CONGRESS
TO MAKE SUCH A NATIONWIDE CHANGE IN STATE LAWS.  FN11 

THERE ALSO HAS BEEN A SUGGESTION MADE OF THE POSSIBLE MATERIALITY IN
THIS CASE OF THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT WHICH RELATE TO
THE PRICE TO BE PAID BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE EVENT THAT IT TAKES
OVER THE PROJECT OF A LICENSEE UPON OR AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF A
FEDERAL LICENSE.  FN12  THE ISSUES RAISED BY THAT SUGGESTION ARE
COMPARABLE TO THOSE JUST DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO THE RATE BASE OF A
FEDERAL PROJECT, EXCEPT THAT SUCH A RECAPTURE OF THE PROJECT IS EVEN
MORE REMOTE THAN THE DETERMINATION OF A RATE BASE FOR THE COMPUTATION
OF RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR ITS PRODUCT.  WE ACCORDINGLY EXPRESS NO
OPINION UPON THE ISSUES WHICH MAY ARISE WHEN, AS AND IF THE ABOVE
MENTIONED PROCEEDINGS MAY BE TAKEN. 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  41 STAT. 1063, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 838, 16 U.S.C. SECS. 791A
825R. 

FN2  THE UNITED STATES HAS A FURTHER INTEREST IN THE CASE BECAUSE THE
PETITIONER'S PROJECT HAS BEEN FINANCED LARGELY THROUGH A FEDERAL LOAN
AND GRANT AGREEMENT.  AT THE TIME OF FILING ITS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THE GOVERNMENT HELD APPROXIMATELY $14,000,000
OF THE PETITIONER'S REVENUE BONDS.  SEE ALSO, ACT OF JULY 31, 1946, 60
STAT. 743, AS TO THE REFINANCING OF THESE BONDS. 

FN3  GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY ACT, OKLA. SESS. L. 1935, C. 70, ART.
4(SEN.  BILL NO. 395); OKLA. SESS. L. 1936-1937, C. 70, ART. 1(SEN. 
BILL NO. 299), AND ART. 2(HOUSE BILL NO. 3); OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 82,
SECS. 861-881(1938).  THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS GRANTED TO THE
PETITIONER BY SEC. 2(F) OF THE ORIGINAL ACT.  "SECTION 2.  POWERS,
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(F)  TO ACQUIRE BY CONDEMNATION ANY AND ALL PROPERTY OF ANY KIND,
REAL, PERSONAL, OR MIXED, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT TO THE EXERCISE OF
THE POWERS, RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND FUNCTIONS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THIS
ACT, IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY GENERAL LAW WITH RESPECT TO
CONDEMNATION;" 

.         .         .         .         . OKLA. SESS. L. 1935, C.
70, ART. 4. 

FN4  OKLA. REV. L. 1910, C. 40; OKLA. SESS. L. 1927, C. 70(HOUSE BILL
NO. 62); OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 82, SECS. 451-510(1938). 

FN5  THIS LOWER COURT PROCEEDING IS THUS DESCRIBED IN GRAND-HYDRO V.
GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY, 192 OKLA. 693, 697-698, 139 P.2D 798, 803
804. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN7  "SEC.  23.  ... 

"(B)  ...  ANY PERSON, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, STATE, OR
MUNICIPALITY INTENDING TO CONSTRUCT A DAM OR OTHER PROJECT WORKS
ACROSS, ALONG, OVER, OR IN ANY STREAM OR PART THEREOF, OTHER THAN THOSE
DEFINED HEREIN AS NAVIGABLE WATERS, AND OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS
JURISDICTION UNDER ITS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES SHALL BEFORE SUCH CONSTRUCTION
FILE DECLARATION OF SUCH INTENTION WITH THE COMMISSION, WHEREUPON THE
COMMISSION SHALL CAUSE IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION OF SUCH PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION TO BE MADE, AND IF UPON INVESTIGATION IT SHALL FIND THAT
THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY
SUCH PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, SUCH PERSON, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION,
STATE, OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL NOT CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OR OPERATE SUCH
DAM OR OTHER PROJECT WORKS UNTIL IT SHALL HAVE APPLIED FOR AND SHALL
HAVE RECEIVED A LICENSE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  IF THE
COMMISSION SHALL NOT SO FIND, AND IF NO PUBLIC LANDS OR RESERVATIONS
ARE AFFECTED, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO CONSTRUCT SUCH DAM OR
OTHER PROJECT WORKS IN SUCH STREAM UPON COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS." 
49 STAT. 846, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 817.    FN8  SEE ENTERPRISE IRRIGATION
DIST. V. FARMERS MUTUAL CANAL CO., 243 U.S. 157, 164; NUTT V. KNUT, 200
U.S. 12, 19; AND UNITED STATES V. BELLINGHAM BAY BOOM CO., 176 U.S.
211, 218.  SEE ALSO, DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22, 24-25; AND
AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. LEVEE, 263 U.S. 19.    FN9  41 STAT.
1074, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 814. 

FN10  41 STAT. 1073, 16 U.S.C. SECS. 812, 813, AND SEE 41 STAT. 1071,
AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 844, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 807. 

FN11  EVEN IN A CONDEMNATION ACTION BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, THE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IS TO CONFORM AS NEARLY AS MAY BE WITH THAT IN
THE COURTS OF THE STATE WHERE THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED.  SEE 41 STAT.
1074, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 814. 

FN12  41 STAT. 1071, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 844, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 807. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY,
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE RESULT OF THIS DECISION, NO MATTER HOW IT IS RATIONALIZED, IS TO
GIVE THE WATER-POWER VALUE OF THE CURRENT OF A RIVER TO A PRIVATE PARTY
WHO BY REASON OF FEDERAL LAW NEITHER HAS NOR CAN ACQUIRE ANY LAWFUL
CLAIM TO IT.  THE UNITED STATES HAS ASSERTED THROUGH THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT ITS EXCLUSIVE DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THIS WATER POWER.  FN1
THAT ACT SPECIFIES HOW ONE MAY ACQUIRE A LICENSE TO EXPLOIT IT, SEC.
23(B), AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE LICENSEE MUST OPERATE.  SEE
FIRST IOWA COOP.  V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 328 U.S. 152. 

PETITIONER HAS SUCH A LICENSE.  RESPONDENT HAS NONE AND, FOR REASONS
UNNECESSARY TO RELATE HERE, CONCEDEDLY CANNOT OBTAIN ONE.  RESPONDENT
THEREFORE HAS NO CLAIM TO THE WATER-POWER VALUE WHICH THE LAW CAN
RECOGNIZE, IF THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT IS TO BE RESPECTED. 
WHEN RESPONDENT'S CLAIM IS RECOGNIZED, THE EFFECT IS TO MAKE PETITIONER
PAY A PRIVATE CLAIMANT FOR A PRIVILEGE WHICH ONLY THE UNITED STATES CAN
GRANT. 

THAT IS THE BALD RESULT WHETHER THE CONDEMNATION TAKES PLACE IN A
STATE OR A FEDERAL COURT.  WHATEVER THE PROCEDURE, THE CONSEQUENCE IS
TO GIVE PRIVATE PARTIES AN ENTRENCHED PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN, WHICH THE FEDERAL POWER ACT WAS DESIGNED TO DEFEAT. 

THE PUBLIC BURDEN IS THE SAME AND THE IMPAIRMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE
FEDERAL ACT IS IDENTICAL WHETHER THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED BY A STATE OR
A FEDERAL COURT.  NEVER BEFORE, I BELIEVE, HAS A FEDERAL RIGHT BEEN
ALLOWED LESS PROTECTION IN A STATE COURT THAN IT IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  FN2 

FN1  THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS IN THE WATER
POWER OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM (UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229
U.S. 53, 69; UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC CO., 311 U.S. 377,
427-428) EXTENDS TO THE WATER POWER OF A NONNAVIGABLE STREAM WHERE
PRIVATE COMMAND OVER IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL PROGRAM OF
CONTROL OVER NAVIGATION.  UNITED STATES V. WILLOW RIVER CO., 324 U.S.
499, 509.  FEDERAL REGULATION AND CONTROL HAS THE SAME EFFECT IN EACH
CASE.  OKLAHOMA V. ATKINSON CO., 313 U.S. 508, 525. 

IT HAS BEEN FOUND IN THIS CASE (AND IS UNCHALLENGED HERE) THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THIS PROJECT WILL AFFECT THE NAVIGABLE
STAGES OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER, A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES,
TO WHICH THE GRAND RIVER IS TRIBUTARY.  SEE H.R. DOC. NO. 242, 67TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 123(1921); H.R. DOC. NO. 107, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
6(1939); ACT OF AUGUST 18, 1941, 55 STAT. 645. 

FN2  ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION MAKES ACTS OF CONGRESS "THE
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" AND DIRECTS THAT "THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE
SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY." 
..END :
















FORD MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 303 


ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1948.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 15, 1948.  - 68 F.SUPP. 
825, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A CIVIL ANTITRUST SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST FORD AND A
FINANCE COMPANY, A 1938 CONSENT DECREE PROHIBITED AFFILIATION BY FORD
WITH ANY FINANCE COMPANY, BUT PROVIDED THAT THE PROHIBITION WOULD CEASE
IF, BY JANUARY 1, 1941, GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT SIMILARLY PROHIBITED BY
COURT ORDER.  IN 1940, THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT AN EQUITY SUIT AGAINST
GENERAL MOTORS SEEKING DIVESTITURE OF ITS AFFILIATED FINANCE COMPANY. 
AFTER SUCCESSIVE EXTENSIONS OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST FORD, THE
GOVERNMENT MOVED, ON DECEMBER 31, 1945, TO EXTEND THE PROHIBITION TO
JANUARY 1, 1947.  THE SUIT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS HAS NOT YET BEEN SET
FOR TRIAL.  FORD AND THE FINANCE COMPANY MOVED THAT THE PROHIBITION BE
LIFTED.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION AND DENIED
DEFENDANTS' MOTION.  HELD: 

(A)  ALTHOUGH THE EXTENSION TO JANUARY 1, 1947, HAS EXPIRED, THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY GRANTED IT IS NOT MOOT,
SINCE THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION HAS BEEN HELD IN
ABEYANCE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THESE APPEALS.  P. 313. 

(B)  FORD WAS ENTITLED TO THE LIFTING OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
AFFILIATION WITH ANY FINANCE COMPANY, AND THE DISTRICT COURT'S
EXTENSION OF THE PROHIBITION TO JANUARY 1, 1947, WAS IMPROPER. 
CHRYSLER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 556, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 320
322. 

2.  THE CONSENT DECREE ALSO RESTRAINED VARIOUS PRACTICES WHEREBY
DEALERS WERE INFLUENCED TO PATRONIZE THE FINANCE COMPANY, BUT PROVIDED
THAT FORD COULD MOVE FOR MODIFICATION OR SUSPENSION IF SIMILAR
RESTRICTIONS WERE NOT IMPOSED ON GENERAL MOTORS BY COURT ACTION.  IT
ALSO PROVIDED THAT A GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY IN A PENDING ANTITRUST
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS WOULD BE DEEMED A
DETERMINATION OF THE ILLEGALITY OF ANY AGREEMENT, ACT OR PRACTICE
"WHICH IS HELD BY THE TRIAL COURT, IN ITS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, TO
CONSTITUTE A PROPER BASIS FOR THE RETURN OF A GENERAL VERDICT OF
GUILTY."  IN 1939, THE JURY RETURNED A GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS UPON INSTRUCTIONS THAT COERCION OF DEALERS TO
UTILIZE AN AFFILIATED FINANCE COMPANY WAS ILLEGAL BUT THAT MERE
PERSUASION WAS NOT.  FORD AND THE FINANCE COMPANY MOVED TO SUSPEND OR
MODIFY PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE FORBIDDING FORD TO RECOMMEND, ENDORSE,
OR ADVERTISE THE FINANCE COMPANY, TO HAVE AGENTS OF FORD AND OF THE
FINANCE COMPANY PRESENT TOGETHER WITH A DEALER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INFLUENCING THE DEALER TO PATRONIZE THE FINANCE COMPANY, AND TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER FINANCE COMPANIES.  HELD:  UPON THE BASIS OF
THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS, THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  PP. 313
320. 

3.  IN THE PRESENT POSTURE OF THE CASE, THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM THAT
THE PRACTICES RESTRAINED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ARE ILLEGAL
UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW, WHICH HAS NEITHER BEEN ADMITTED NOR PROVEN, DOES
NOT JUSTIFY THE REFUSAL OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO SUSPEND OR MODIFY
THEM.  P. 320. 

(A)  APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO INSIST THAT, SO LONG AS INTERDICTION
OF THESE PRACTICES HAS NOT BEEN DECREED AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS, THE
GOVERNMENT BE PUT TO ITS PROOF.  P. 320. 

(B)  LIFTING OF THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE CONSENT DECREE WOULD
NOT AFFECT THE LIABILITY OF FORD FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN LAW
THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY ESTABLISH IN COURT.  P. 320. 

(C)  TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH RESTRAINTS MAY IN FUTURE BE IMPOSED ON
GENERAL MOTORS, THEY WOULD, BY THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE, ALSO
BIND FORD.  P. 320. 

FORD MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 1.  APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 2, COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST CORP. ET AL. V.
UNITED STATES, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

IN AN ANTITRUST SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE FORD MOTOR
COMPANY AND A FINANCE COMPANY, THE GOVERNMENT MOVED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION OF A PROVISION OF A CONSENT DECREE
PROHIBITING FORD FROM AFFILIATING WITH ANY FINANCE COMPANY.  FORD AND
THE FINANCE COMPANY MOVED FOR A LIFTING OF THE PROHIBITION AND FOR
SUSPENSION OR MODIFICATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION AND DENIED THE OTHERS. 
68 F.SUPP.  825.  UPON APPEALS TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 322. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES WERE BROUGHT HERE ON APPEAL, PRIOR TO THE REVISION OF
TITLE 28, U.S.C. UNDER WHAT WAS SEC. 345 AND SINCE SEPTEMBER 1 HAS
BECOME SEC. 2101 OF THAT TITLE, TO REVIEW FINAL DECREES OF THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA IN A SUIT IN
EQUITY BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN LAW, 26
STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 36 STAT. 1167, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 4.  THE CASES
PRESENT ANOTHER PHASE OF A MULTIFARIOUS LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN
OCCUPYING THE ATTENTION OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOR MORE THAN A
DECADE.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 26 F.SUPP.  353(N.D.
IND.); UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 121 F.2D 376(C.A.7TH
CIR.), CERT. DENIED, 314 U.S. 618, REHEARING DENIED, 314 U.S. 710;
UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 2 F.R.D. 346(N.D. ILL.); UNITED
STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 2 F.R.D. 528(N.D. ILL.); CHRYSLER CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 583, REHEARING DENIED, 314 U.S. 716;
CHRYSLER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 556.  AN ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
OF THIS LITIGATION WILL MAKE CLEAR THE IMMEDIATE ISSUES BEFORE US AND,
INDEED, LARGELY DISPOSE OF THEM. 

ON MAY 27, 1938, INDICTMENTS WERE RETURNED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, SOUTH BEND
DIVISION, AGAINST THE THREE LEADING AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS AND THE
COMPANIES WHICH FINANCED THE SALE OF THEIR AUTOMOBILES.  ONE INDICTMENT
WAS AGAINST THE PRESENT APPELLANTS, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AND COMMERCIAL
INVESTMENT TRUST CORPORATION, COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST, INC., AND
UNIVERSAL CREDIT CORPORATION, THESE THREE REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY AS
CIT; ANOTHER AGAINST CHRYSLER CORPORATION AND COMMERCIAL CREDIT
COMPANY; A THIRD AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARY,
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, TO BE ABBREVIATED AS GMAC.  THE
INDICTMENTS CHARGED THE AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS AND THE JOINTLY NAMED
FINANCE COMPANIES WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN LAW BY INFLUENCING
DEALERS WHO SOLD THE AUTOMOBILES OF THE RESPECTIVE MANUFACTURERS TO
GIVE THE FINANCE COMPANIES THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING THE DEALERS'
WHOLESALE PURCHASES AND RETAIL SALES OF AUTOMOBILES. 

FOLLOWING THESE CHARGES, NEGOTIATIONS WERE SET AFOOT TO SECURE THE
ELIMINATION THROUGH CONSENT DECREES OF THE PRACTICES DESCRIBED IN THE
INDICTMENTS.  AS TO THE FORD AND CHRYSLER GROUPS, THE GOVERNMENT, ON
NOVEMBER 7, 1938, FILED SUITS IN EQUITY AND ARRANGED FOR THE DISMISSAL
OF THEIR INDICTMENTS.  (FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE ARE NOT FURTHER
CONCERNED WITH CHRYSLER.)  ALTHOUGH FORD AND CIT FORMALLY RESISTED THE
COMPLAINT, DENYING ITS ALLEGATIONS AND PLEADING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
NEGOTIATIONS FOR A CONSENT DECREE PROCEEDED.  EFFORTS TOWARD AN
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT WITH GENERAL MOTORS AND GMAC FAILED.  THE
GOVERNMENT THEREFORE PRESSED THE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THEM.  IN
VIEW OF THE COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY IT
OBVIOUSLY BECAME OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE TO FORD NOT TO CONSENT TO ANY
RESTRAINTS BEYOND THOSE WHICH WOULD FALL UPON GENERAL MOTORS THROUGH
THE CONTINGENCIES OF LITIGATION AGAINST IT.  BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ENOUGH MERELY TO PROVIDE THAT RESTRAINTS WHICH FORD ACCEPTED SHOULD
EVENTUALLY BE LIFTED TO THE EXTENT NOT IMPOSED UPON GENERAL MOTORS AT
SOME REMOTE TIME DEFINED MERELY BY THE VICISSITUDES OF LITIGATION. 
PROTECTION AGAINST COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE, THE APPROPRIATENESS OF
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED, REQUIRED A TIME CERTAIN AT THE END OF
WHICH THE RESTRAINTS AGAINST FORD WOULD EXPIRE IF GENERAL MOTORS WERE
STILL FREE OF THEM. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE CONSENT DECREE, ENTERED ON NOVEMBER 15, 1938,
ASSURED FORD ESSENTIAL EQUALITY OF POSITION WITH THE UNCONSENTING
GENERAL MOTORS BY TWO EXPLICIT CONDITIONS.  THEIR TERMS ARE FULLY SET
OUT IN THE MARGIN; FN1  THEIR ESSENCE CAN BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED. 
PARAGRAPH 12 FORBIDS FORD FROM ACQUIRING CONTROL OF ANY FINANCE
COMPANY.  AFTER ENUMERATING VARIOUS FORBIDDEN FORMS OF FINANCIAL
INTEREST, THE PARAGRAPH PROVIDES THAT, IF THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT
HAVE OBTAINED A FINAL DECREE AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS BY JANUARY 1, 1941,
REQUIRING IT TO DIVEST ITSELF OF ALL INTEREST IN GMAC, ITS AFFILIATED
FINANCE COMPANY, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST FORD WOULD CEASE.  THE SECOND
EXPRESS CONDITION, DESIGNED TO RELIEVE FROM RESTRAINTS IMPOSED BY
EARLIER PARAGRAPHS IN THE DECREE AGAINST VARIOUS MEANS OF INFLUENCING
DEALERS TO PATRONIZE CIT, IS FOUND IN PARAGRAPH 12A.  THAT PARAGRAPH
ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE POSSIBLE EVENTUALITIES OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS AND GMAC:  (1) ITS TERMINATION WITH A
RESULT OTHER THAN A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION; (2) A GENERAL VERDICT OF
GUILTY; (3) A SPECIAL VERDICT OF GUILTY; (4) A PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO
CONTENDERE.  UPON THE FIRST CONTINGENCY ALL RESTRICTIVE TERMS OF THE
DECREE AGAINST FORD WOULD BE SUSPENDED UNTIL SIMILAR RESTRAINTS WERE
IMPOSED UPON GENERAL MOTORS AND GMAC.  THE SECOND WAS TO BE "DEEMED TO
BE A DETERMINATION OF THE ILLEGALITY OF ANY AGREEMENT, ACT OR PRACTICE
OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION WHICH IS HELD BY THE TRIAL COURT, IN ITS
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, TO CONSTITUTE A PROPER BASIS FOR THE RETURN
OF A GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY."  THE THIRD AND FOURTH WERE,
RESPECTIVELY, TO BE DEEMED DETERMINATIONS OF THE ILLEGALITY OF "ANY
AGREEMENT, ACT OR PRACTICE" WHICH WAS THEIR SUBJECT MATTER. 

THESE PROVISIONS FURNISH A LITMUS-PAPER TEST FOR DETERMINING WHAT
RESTRAINTS SURVIVE THE RESULT OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
AND GMAC.  WHAT WAS NOT ILLEGAL FOR GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT LONGER TO BE
PROHIBITED TO FORD.  THE SWORD OF JUSTICE WAS TO STRIKE BOTH ALIKE. 
PARAGRAPH 12A FURTHER DEFINES HOW AND WHEN THE RESTRAINTS WERE TO BE
RELAXED.  SUB-PARAGRAPH (3) PROVIDES THAT AFTER THE ENTRY OF A DECREE
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS, OR AFTER THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
IN THE PENDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS "OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1940(WHICHEVER
DATE IS EARLIEST), THE COURT UPON APPLICATION OF ANY RESPONDENT FROM
TIME TO TIME WILL ENTER ORDERS" SUSPENDING ANY RESTRAINT AGAINST IT
(WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW RELEVANT) "TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS NOT THEN
IMPOSED, AND UNTIL IT SHALL BE IMPOSED, IN SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL
TERMS" UPON GENERAL MOTORS OR GMAC. 

ON NOVEMBER 17, 1939, THE JURY RETURNED A GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT UPON THAT VERDICT, 121 F.2D 376, AND THIS COURT
DENIED FURTHER REVIEW.  314 U.S. 618; ID. AT 710. 

ON OCTOBER 4, 1940, THE GOVERNMENT FINALLY BROUGHT A SUIT IN EQUITY
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS SEEKING DIVESTITURE OF ITS CONTROL OF GMAC.  BUT
IT WAS THEN TOO LATE FOR A DECREE TO BE ENTERED BEFORE THE LAPSE OF
FORD'S AGREEMENT NOT TO BECOME AFFILIATED WITH A FINANCE COMPANY.  ON
DECEMBER 21, 1940, THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT MADE A MOTION ASKING TO
HAVE PARAGRAPH 12 MODIFIED BY MOVING FORWARD THE DATE WHEN THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST AFFILIATION WOULD EXPIRE IF A DECREE AGAINST
GENERAL MOTORS HAD NOT THEN BEEN ENTERED.  EACH YEAR AFTER THAT, AS THE
NEW DEADLINE CAME NEAR, THE GOVERNMENT MADE A NEW MOTION TO HAVE IT
EXTENDED, AND YEAR AFTER YEAR FORD CONSENTED TO THE EXTENSION.  ON
DECEMBER 31, 1945, THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN MOVED TO HAVE THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST AFFILIATION EXTENDED, THIS TIME TO JANUARY 1, 1947.  FORD NOW
RESISTED THE MOTION, AND ON MAY 4, 1946, BOTH FORD AND CIT FILED
MOTIONS OF THEIR OWN.  THEY ASKED THE DISTRICT COURT TO SUSPEND SUB
PARAGRAPHS (I) AND (K) OF PARAGRAPH 6 AND SUB-PARAGRAPH (D) OF
PARAGRAPH 7 AND TO MODIFY SUB-PARAGRAPH (E) OF PARAGRAPH 6 ON THE
GROUND THAT THE PRACTICES ENJOINED BY THESE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE
WERE NOT "HELD BY THE TRIAL COURT, IN ITS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, TO
CONSTITUTE A PROPER BASIS FOR THE RETURN OF A GENERAL VERDICT OF
GUILTY."  FORD ALSO MOVED THAT "AN ORDER BE ENTERED PURSUANT TO
PARAGRAPH 12  ...  THAT NOTHING THEREIN SHALL PRECLUDE THE MANUFACTURER
FROM ACQUIRING AND RETAINING OWNERSHIP OF AND/OR CONTROL OVER OR
INTEREST IN ANY FINANCE COMPANY  ... "  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
MOTIONS BY FORD AND CIT AND GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST AFFILIATION TO JANUARY 1, 1947. 
THE PRESENT APPEALS FOLLOWED.  ALTHOUGH THE PARTICULAR EXTENSION OF
PARAGRAPH 12 APPEALED FROM HAS EXPIRED, THE EQUITY SUIT AGAINST GENERAL
MOTORS HAS NOT YET BEEN SET DOWN FOR TRIAL AND THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION
FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION HAS BEEN HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE OUTCOME
OF THESE APPEALS.  IT IS NOT A MOOT QUESTION THEREFORE WHETHER THE
DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY GRANTED THE EXTENSION TO JANUARY 1, 1947.  SEE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 219 U.S. 433,
452; SOUTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
219 U.S. 498, 514-16. 

THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED AGAINST FORD BY SUB-PARAGRAPHS 6(E), 6(I),
6(K) AND 7(D) MUST SURVIVE THE OUTCOME OF THE CONVICTION AGAINST
GENERAL MOTORS IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S CHARGE TO THE JURY
IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF GENERAL MOTORS CAN FAIRLY BE EQUATED
WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THOSE SUB-PARAGRAPHS.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
JUDGE'S CHARGE FALLS SHORT OF HOLDING ILLEGAL WHAT THOSE SUB-PARAGRAPHS
PROSCRIBED, APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO A SUSPENSION OF SUB-PARAGRAPHS
6(I), 6(K) AND 6(D) AND A MODIFICATION OF SUB-PARAGRAPH 6(E). 

FIRST, THEN, TO SUMMARIZE THE CONTENTS OF THESE PROVISIONS OF THE
DECREE.  FN2  SUB-PARAGRAPH 6(I) PRECLUDES FORD FROM ARRANGING WITH CIT
OR ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY "THAT AN AGENT OF THE MANUFACTURER AND AN
AGENT OF THE FINANCE COMPANY SHALL TOGETHER BE PRESENT WITH ANY DEALER
OR PROSPECTIVE DEALER FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE DEALER TO
PATRONIZE" THE FINANCE COMPANY.  SUB-PARAGRAPH 6(K) PROVIDES THAT "THE
MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT RECOMMEND, ENDORSE OR ADVERTISE THE RESPONDENT
FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY OR COMPANIES TO ANY DEALER
OR TO THE PUBLIC  ...  "  SUB-PARAGRAPH 7(D), THE COUNTERPART OF 6(I),
IS DIRECTED AGAINST CIT. SUB-PARAGRAPH 6(E) RESTRAINS FORD FROM
ESTABLISHING "ANY PRACTICE, PROCEDURE OR PLAN FOR THE RETAIL OR
WHOLESALE FINANCING OF AUTOMOBILES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING
RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY OR COMPANIES TO
ENJOY A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN OBTAINING THE PATRONAGE OF DEALERS"
NOT EQUALLY AVAILABLE TO ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY.  MODIFICATION OF
THIS SUB-PARAGRAPH IS ASKED ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PERMIT THEM
FREEDOM TO ACT IN A MANNER OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE, IF SUSPENSION OF SUB
PARAGRAPHS 6(I), 6(K) AND 7(D) IS GRANTED. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE TRIAL JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS, WHICH, INSOFAR AS
RELEVANT, ARE FULLY SET FORTH BELOW.  FN3  THEIR PLAIN EFFECT IS TO
DRAW A LINE BETWEEN SUCH PRACTICES AS CANCELLATION OF A DEALER'S
CONTRACT, OR REFUSAL TO RENEW IT, OR DISCRIMINATION IN THE SHIPMENT OF
AUTOMOBILES, AS A MEANS OF INFLUENCING DEALERS TO USE GMAC, ALL OF
WHICH FALL WITHIN THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF "COERCION," AND OTHER
PRACTICES FOR WHICH "PERSUASION," "EXPOSITION" OR "ARGUMENT" ARE FAIR
CHARACTERIZATIONS.  AS A MERE MATTER OF INTERPRETING LANGUAGE, THE
GOVERNMENT HARDLY CHALLENGES THE FITNESS OF THE TERMS "PERSUASION,"
"EXPOSITION" OR "ARGUMENT," WHICH THE JURY WAS CHARGED WERE OPEN TO
GENERAL MOTORS, TO COVER ACTS SUCH AS ARRANGING FOR THE PRESENCE OF
AGENTS OF BOTH FORD AND CIT WITH A VIEW TO PUTTING THE CLAIMS OF CIT TO
A DEALER OR RECOMMENDING, ENDORSING, AND ADVERTISING CIT TO A DEALER. 
BUT ALL THESE ACTS WERE SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN FORD BY THE CONSENT
DECREE.  THE GOVERNMENT'S INSISTENCE IS THAT SINCE THE INDICTMENT
CHARGED THAT ADVERTISING, ENDORSEMENT AND RECOMMENDATION VIOLATED THE
SHERMAN LAW AND SINCE EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE,
THE JURY MIGHT HAVE FOUND GENERAL MOTORS AND GMAC GUILTY OF "COERCION"
AT LEAST PARTLY ON THE BASIS OF THAT EVIDENCE.  BUT SUB-PARAGRAPH
12(A)(2) WAS NOT DESIGNED TO AUTHORIZE SPECULATIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF
THE JURY'S PROCESS IN REACHING ITS VERDICT.  IT PROVIDED A DEFINITE
STANDARD FOR ASCERTAINING WHAT RULES OF LAW WERE AT A FUTURE DATE TO BE
MADE BINDING ON A COMPETITOR OF FORD.  THE RULES WHICH THE TRIAL JUDGE
FORMULATED AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS WERE THEREAFTER TO BE THE RULES OF
LAW AGAINST FORD.  THE TRIAL JUDGE USED THE WORD "COERCION" TO
SUMMARIZE PRACTICES WHICH, IF THE JURY FOUND THEM TO EXIST, WOULD CALL
FOR A VERDICT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS.  HE USED THE WORDS "PERSUASION,"
"EXPOSITION" AND "ARGUMENT" TO DESCRIBE CONDUCT WHICH, IN COMMON USAGE,
IS NOT "COERCION" AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT SUPPORT SUCH A VERDICT. 
NOTHING IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE JUDGE'S CHARGE ERASES OR BLURS THIS
LINE OF DISTINCTION.  THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE PARAGRAPHS
APPELLANTS SEEK TO HAVE SUSPENDED ARE PROPERLY DESCRIBED BY THE TERMS
"EXPOSITION," "PERSUASION" AND "ARGUMENT."  SO LONG AS THESE PARAGRAPHS
REMAIN IN EFFECT AND SO LONG AS THERE IS NO COMPARABLE DECREE ENJOINING
THEIR SUBSTANCE AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS AND GMAC, FORD AND CIT CANNOT DO
WITHOUT RISK OF VIOLATING THE CONSENT DECREE THAT WHICH GENERAL MOTORS
AND GMAC ARE FREE TO DO.  ONLY A LAWYER WHO IS OBTUSE OR RECKLESS WOULD
ADVISE FORD AND CIT THAT THEY COULD SUBJECT A DEALER TO "PERSUASION,"
"EXPOSITION" OR "ARGUMENT" WITHOUT THE HAZARD OF CONTEMPT OF THE
PARAGRAPHS UNDER DISCUSSION.  THUS THE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED
WHICH ENTITLED FORD AND CIT TO SUSPENSION OF THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED BY
THOSE TERMS OF THE DECREE. 

QUITE APART FROM FORD'S AND CIT'S CONSENT TO FOREGO THE OPPORTUNITIES
OUTLAWED BY SUB-PARAGRAPHS 6(E), (I), (K) AND 7(D), THE GOVERNMENT
URGES THAT A COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD REFUSE TO SUSPEND OR MODIFY THEM BY
CLAIMING THAT THE PRACTICES RESTRAINED BY THOSE PARAGRAPHS ARE IN ANY
EVENT ILLEGAL UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW.  BUT SINCE THIS HAS NEITHER BEEN
ADMITTED NOR PROVEN, AND SINCE ASCERTAINMENT OF ILLEGALITY UNDER THE
SHERMAN LAW NORMALLY DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR
SITUATION AND THE INFERENCES THEY YIELD, THE APPELLANTS HAVE A RIGHT TO
INSIST THAT, SO LONG AS INTERDICTION OF THESE PRACTICES HAS NOT BEEN
DECREED AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS, THE GOVERNMENT BE PUT TO ITS PROOF. 
THE LIFTING OF THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE CONSENT DECREE DOES NOT,
OF COURSE, AFFECT THE LIABILITY OF FORD FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF THE
SHERMAN LAW THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY ESTABLISH IN COURT.  MOREOVER, TO
THE EXTENT THAT SUCH RESTRAINTS MAY AT SOME FUTURE DATE BE IMPOSED ON
GENERAL MOTORS, THEY WILL, BY SUB-PARAGRAPH 12A (3), EQUALLY FETTER
FORD. 

THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT
COURT PROPERLY EXTENDED THE PROHIBITION AGAINST AFFILIATION BETWEEN
FORD AND A FINANCE COMPANY.  THIS WAS THE SIXTH TIME THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAD APPLIED FOR EXTENSION.  THE EQUITY SUIT BEGUN MORE THAN
SIX YEARS EARLIER HAD NOT YET BEEN BROUGHT TO TRIAL.  THE COURT WAS
FACED AT THE SAME TIME WITH A MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST AFFILIATION WHICH WAS MADE BY APPELLANTS UNDER THE EXPRESS
PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 12 RESERVING THE RIGHT TO SUCH A MOTION.  THE
COURT DENIED THE APPELLANT'S MOTION AND GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S ON THE
GROUND, (1) THAT THE "TIME CLAUSE" OF PARAGRAPH 12 WAS SUBSIDIARY TO
THE "MAIN PURPOSE" OF PARAGRAPH 12 WHICH WAS "TO PROVIDE THAT THE TEST
OF THE PERMANENCY OF THE BAR AGAINST AFFILIATION WAS TO ABIDE THE
OUTCOME OF THE CIVIL ANTITRUST SUIT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION," AND (2) "THAT THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DECREE WILL
BE CARRIED OUT IF FORD MOTOR COMPANY IS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY AT ANY
FUTURE TIME TO PROPOSE A PLAN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A FINANCE COMPANY,
AND TO MAKE A SHOWING THAT SUCH PLAN IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT FORD MOTOR
COMPANY FROM BEING PLACED AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE  ...  " 

THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO SUPPORT THESE CONCLUSIONS BY INSISTING ON A
MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF THE DECISION IN CHRYSLER CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 316 U.S. 556, INVOLVING A PARALLED PROHIBITION AGAINST
CHRYSLER.  THE CHRYSLER CASE WAS DECIDED ON JUNE 1, 1942.  IN THE
INTERVENING YEARS THE FACTORS OF THE PROBLEM HAVE DRASTICALLY CHANGED. 
MORE THAN NINE YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS WAS CONCLUDED; WHAT WAS AT THE TIME OF THE
CHRYSLER DECISION A TWO-YEAR DELAY IN OBTAINING A CIVIL DECREE AGAINST
GENERAL MOTORS HAS NOW STRETCHED INTO A TEN-YEAR DELAY.  EVEN THEN, SIX
AND A HALF YEARS AGO, THIS COURT CHARACTERIZED THE DISTRICT COURT'S
FINDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD PROCEEDED "DILIGENTLY AND
EXPEDITIOUSLY" AS "MARKEDLY GENEROUS."  316 U.S. AT 563.  AT THAT TIME
THE COURT ALSO FOUND SUPPORT FOR THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE FACT THAT
"THE COMPLETE CESSATION OF THE MANUFACTURE OF NEW AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT
TRUCKS HAS DRASTICALLY MINIMIZED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COMPETITIVE
FACTOR."  ID. AT 564.  BUT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE FOUND EXTENUATING ON
BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE DECREE ARE
HARDLY COMPELLING TEN YEARS AFTERWARD.  WHILE A SHOWING THAT
CONTINUANCE OF THE BAR AGAINST AFFILIATION WOULD CAUSE COMPETITIVE
DISADVANTAGE MAY NOT, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, UNREASONABLY HAVE BEEN
CALLED FOR AT A TIME WHEN COMPETITION IN THE INDUSTRY WAS COMPLETELY
SUSPENDED DURING THE INDETERMINATE PERIOD OF WAR, THE RESUMPTION OF
FULL-SCALE COMPETITION MAKES SUCH A SHOWING UNNECESSARY.  AND THIS IS
UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT AUTOMOBILES ARE STILL IN SHORT SUPPLY.  THE
APPELLANTS AGREED FOR A LIMITED TERM TO REFRAIN FROM PURSUING CONDUCT
WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADJUDICATION THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL, THEY WERE
OTHERWISE FREE TO PURSUE AND WHICH GENERAL MOTORS HAS ALWAYS BEEN FREE
TO PURSUE.  THERE HAS BEEN NO SUCH ADJUDICATION AND SUCCESSIVE
EXTENSIONS OF THE TERM HAVE EXPIRED.  THE CRUCIAL FACT NOW IS NOT THE
DEGREE OF ACTUAL DISADVANTAGE BUT THE PERSISTENCE OF AN INEQUALITY
AGAINST WHICH THE APPELLANTS HAD SECURED THE GOVERNMENT'S PROTECTION. 
YET THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS A CHANGE IN THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE DECREE
WHICH WOULD PERPETUATE THAT INEQUALITY.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT
SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF SHOWING GOOD CAUSE WHY A COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD
GRANT RELIEF FROM AN UNDERTAKING WELL UNDERSTOOD AND CAREFULLY
FORMULATED.  IF THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO OUTLAW POSSIBLE ARRANGEMENTS BY
FORD WITH A FINANCE CORPORATION, IT MUST ESTABLISH ITS CASE IN COURT
AGAINST FORD AS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS AND NOT DRAW ON A CONSENT WHICH
BY ITS VERY TERMS IS NOT AVAILABLE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "12.  THE RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY SHALL NOT PAY TO ANY
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND THE MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT OBTAIN
FROM ANY FINANCE COMPANY ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE AS A BONUS
OR COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF RETAIL TIME SALES PAPER ACQUIRED BY THE
FINANCE COMPANY FROM DEALERS OF THE MANUFACTURER.  THE MANUFACTURER
SHALL NOT MAKE ANY LOAN TO OR PURCHASE THE SECURITIES OF RESPONDENT
FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY, AND IF IT SHALL PAY ANY
MONEY TO RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY WITH
THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF INDUCING OR ENABLING SUCH FINANCE COMPANY TO
OFFER TO THE DEALERS OF THE MANUFACTURER A LOWER FINANCE CHARGE THAN IT
WOULD OFFER IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT, IT SHALL OFFER IN WRITING
TO MAKE, AND IF SUCH OFFER IS ACCEPTED IT SHALL MAKE, PAYMENT UPON
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR BASES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO EVERY OTHER
FINANCE COMPANY OFFERING SUCH LOWER FINANCE CHARGE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT
THE MANUFACTURER FROM ACQUIRING NOTES, BONDS, COMMERCIAL PAPER, OR
OTHER EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS OF RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY
OTHER FINANCE COMPANY IN THE OPEN MARKET. 

"IT IS AN EXPRESS CONDITION OF THIS DECREE THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OF THIS PARAGRAPH 12 AND OF ANY
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS DECREE, IF AN EFFECTIVE FINAL ORDER OR DECREE
NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED ON OR BEFORE
JANUARY 1, 1941, REQUIRING GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PERMANENTLY TO
DIVEST ITSELF OF ALL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION AND OF ALL INTEREST THEREIN, THEN AND IN THAT EVENT,
NOTHING IN THIS DECREE SHALL PRECLUDE THE MANUFACTURER FROM ACQUIRING
AND RETAINING OWNERSHIP OF AND/OR CONTROL OVER OR INTEREST IN ANY
FINANCE COMPANY, OR FROM DEALING WITH SUCH FINANCE COMPANY AND WITH THE
DEALERS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THIS DECREE OR IN ANY ORDER OF
MODIFICATION OR SUSPENSION THEREOF ENTERED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 12A. 
THE COURT, UPON APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS OR ANY OF THEM, WILL
ENTER AN ORDER OR DECREE TO THAT EFFECT AT THE FOOT OF THIS DECREE, AND
THE RIGHT OF ANY RESPONDENT HEREIN TO MAKE THE APPLICATION AND TO
OBTAIN SUCH ORDER OR DECREE IS EXPRESSLY CONCEDED AND GRANTED. 

"12A.  IT IS A FURTHER EXPRESS CONDITION OF THIS DECREE THAT: 

"(1)  IF THE PROCEEDING NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT AGAINST GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION INSTITUTED BY THE FILING OF AN INDICTMENT BY THE
GRAND JURY ON MAY 27, 1938, NO. 1039, OR ANY FURTHER PROCEEDING
INITIATED BY REINDICTMENT OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION FOR THE SAME
ALLEGED ACTS, IS FINALLY TERMINATED IN ANY MANNER OR WITH ANY RESULT
EXCEPT BY A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
AND GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION THEREIN, THEN AND IN THAT
EVENT EVERY PROVISION OF THIS DECREE EXCEPT THOSE CONTAINED IN THIS SUB
PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS PARAGRAPH 12A OF THIS DECREE, SHALL FORTHWITH
BECOME INOPERATIVE AND BE SUSPENDED, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS RESTRAINTS AND
REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THOSE IMPOSED HEREIN
SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND GENERAL MOTORS
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES EITHER (A) BY CONSENT
DECREE, OR (B) BY FINAL DECREE OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION NOT
SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW, OR (C) BY DECREE OF SUCH COURT WHICH
ALTHOUGH SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW CONTINUES EFFECTIVE.  THE COURT
RESERVES JURISDICTION UPON APPLICATION OF ANY PARTY TO ENTER ORDERS AT
THE FOOT OF THIS DECREE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
PARAGRAPH. 

"(2)  A GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY RETURNED AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION IN SAID PROCEEDING, FOLLOWED BY THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
THEREON, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A DETERMINATION OF THE ILLEGALITY OF ANY
AGREEMENT, ACT OR PRACTICE OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION WHICH IS HELD
BY THE TRIAL COURT, IN ITS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, TO CONSTITUTE A
PROPER BASIS FOR THE RETURN OF A GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY.  A SPECIAL
VERDICT OF GUILTY RETURNED AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION IN SAID
PROCEEDING, FOLLOWED BY THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT THEREON, SHALL BE DEEMED
TO CONSTITUTE A DETERMINATION OF THE ILLEGALITY OF ANY AGREEMENT, ACT
OR PRACTICE OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF SUCH
SPECIAL VERDICT OF GUILTY.  A PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE BY
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, FOLLOWED BY THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION THEREON, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A DETERMINATION OF THE
ILLEGALITY OF ANY AGREEMENT, ACT OR PRACTICE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF SUCH PLEA.  THE DETERMINATION, IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THIS
CLAUSE, OF THE ILLEGALITY OF ANY AGREEMENT, ACT OR PRACTICE OF GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION SHALL (FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (3) OF THIS
PARAGRAPH) BE CONSIDERED AS THE EQUIVALENT OF A DECREE RESTRAINING THE
PERFORMANCE BY GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION OF SUCH AGREEMENT, ACT OR
PRACTICE, UNLESS OR UNTIL SUCH JUDGMENT IS REVERSED, OR UNLESS SUCH
DETERMINATION IS BASED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, (A) UPON THE OWNERSHIP BY
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION OF GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, OR
(B) UPON THE PERFORMANCE BY GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION OF SUCH
AGREEMENT, ACT OR PRACTICE IN COMBINATION WITH SOME OTHER AGREEMENT,
ACT OR PRACTICE WITH WHICH THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT HERETOFORE FILED AGAINST THEM BY THE GRAND JURY ON MAY 27,
1938, NO. 1041; 

"(3)  AFTER THE ENTRY OF A CONSENT DECREE AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION, OR AFTER THE ENTRY OF A LITIGATED DECREE, NOT SUBJECT TO
FURTHER REVIEW, AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION BY A COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, OR AFTER THE ENTRY OF A
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION IN THE
PROCEEDING HEREINBEFORE REFERRED TO, OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1940(WHICHEVER
DATE IS EARLIEST), THE COURT UPON APPLICATION OF ANY RESPONDENT FROM
TIME TO TIME WILL ENTER ORDERS: 

"(I)  SUSPENDING EACH OF THE RESTRAINTS AND REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN
SUB-PARAGRAPHS (D) TO (F) AND (H) TO (1), INCLUSIVE, OF PARAGRAPH 6 OF
THIS DECREE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS NOT THEN IMPOSED, AND UNTIL IT
SHALL BE IMPOSED, IN SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TERMS, UPON GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AND SUSPENDING EACH OF THE RESTRAINTS
AND REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN SUB-PARAGRAPHS (A), (C) AND (D) OF
PARAGRAPH 7 OF THIS DECREE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS NOT IMPOSED AND
UNTIL IT SHALL BE IMPOSED IN SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TERMS, UPON
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, EITHER (W)
BY CONSENT DECREE, OR (X) BY FINAL DECREE OF A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW, OR (Y) BY DECREE OF SUCH
COURT WHICH, ALTHOUGH SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW, CONTINUES EFFECTIVE,
OR (Z) BY THE EQUIVALENT OF SUCH A DECREE AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (2) OF
THIS PARAGRAPH; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE PROVISIONS OF A CONSENT
OR LITIGATED DECREE AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES CORRESPONDING TO SUB-PARAGRAPHS (J) AND (K) OF PARAGRAPH 6
OF THIS DECREE ARE DIFFERENT FROM SAID SUB-PARAGRAPHS OF THIS DECREE,
THEN UPON APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS ANY PROVISION OR PROVISIONS OF
SAID SUB-PARAGRAPHS WILL BE MODIFIED SO AS TO CONFORM TO THE
CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF SUCH GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION DECREE; 

"(II)  SUSPENDING EACH OF THE RESTRAINTS AND REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED
IN THE REMAINING SUB-PARAGRAPHS (A), (B), (C) AND (G) OF PARAGRAPH 6 TO
THE EXTENT THAT IT IS NOT THEN IMPOSED, AND UNTIL IT SHALL BE IMPOSED,
UPON GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES IN ANY MANNER
SPECIFIED IN THE FOREGOING SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (3), IF ANY
RESPONDENT SHALL SHOW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES IS PERFORMING ANY AGREEMENT, ACT
OR PRACTICE PROHIBITED TO THE MANUFACTURER BY SAID REMAINING SUB
PARAGRAPHS, AND SUSPENDING EACH OF THE RESTRAINTS AND REQUIREMENTS
CONTAINED IN SUB-PARAGRAPH (B) OF PARAGRAPH 7 OF THIS DECREE TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT IS NOT IMPOSED, AND UNTIL IT SHALL BE IMPOSED, UPON
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES IN ANY SAID
MANNER, IF ANY RESPONDENT SHALL SHOW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
THAT GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION IS PERFORMING ANY AGREEMENT,
ACT OR PRACTICE PROHIBITED TO RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY BY SAID SUB
PARAGRAPH (B) OF PARAGRAPH    "(III)  SUSPENDING THE RESTRAINTS OF SUB
PARAGRAPH (D) OF PARAGRAPH 7 OF THIS DECREE AS TO RESPONDENT FINANCE
COMPANY, IN THE EVENT THAT THE RESTRAINTS OF SUB-PARAGRAPH (I) OF
PARAGRAPH 6 OF THIS DECREE ARE SUSPENDED AS TO THE MANUFACTURER. 

"(4)  THE RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENTS OR ANY OF THEM TO MAKE ANY
APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS DECREE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH AND TO OBTAIN SUCH
RELIEF IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY GRANTED. 

"IN THE EVENT THAT AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE DATE WHEN GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION HAS PERMANENTLY DIVESTED ITSELF OF ALL OWNERSHIP AND
CONTROL OF AND INTEREST IN GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE TO DEALERS
OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION IN ANY AREA A FINANCE CHARGE, ON ALL OR
ANY CLASS OF AUTOMOBILES SOLD BY DEALERS OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
LESS THAN THE FINANCE CHARGE THEN GENERALLY AVAILABLE TO DEALERS OF THE
MANUFACTURER WITHIN SUCH AREA, NOTHING IN THIS DECREE SHALL PREVENT THE
MANUFACTURER FROM MAKING, AND THE MANUFACTURER MAY MAKE, ADJUSTMENTS,
ALLOWANCES OR PAYMENTS TO OR WITH ALL OF ITS DEALERS IN SUCH AREA WHO
AGREE TO REDUCE TO AN AMOUNT APPROVED BY THE MANUFACTURER (BUT NOT LESS
THAN THAT THEN MADE AVAILABLE BY GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION)
THE FINANCE CHARGES WHICH SUCH DEALERS OF THE MANUFACTURER IN SUCH AREA
RECEIVE FROM ANY CLASS OF RETAIL PURCHASERS OF AUTOMOBILES, PROVIDED
THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENTS, ALLOWANCES OR PAYMENTS SHALL NOT DISCRIMINATE
AMONG SUCH DEALERS IN SUCH AREA." 

FN2  THEIR FULL TEXT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(6.)(E)  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY SUB-PARAGRAPHS (J) AND (K) OF THIS
PARAGRAPH 6, 

"(I)  THE MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT ESTABLISH ANY PRACTICE, PROCEDURE OR
PLAN FOR THE RETAIL OR WHOLESALE FINANCING OF AUTOMOBILES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENABLING RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE
COMPANY OR COMPANIES TO ENJOY A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN OBTAINING THE
PATRONAGE OF DEALERS THROUGH ANY SERVICE, FACILITY OR PRIVILEGE
EXTENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER PURSUANT TO SUCH PRACTICE, PROCEDURE OR
PLAN IF SUCH SERVICE, FACILITY OR PRIVILEGE OR A SERVICE, FACILITY OR
PRIVILEGE CORRESPONDING THERETO, IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE UPON ITS WRITTEN
REQUEST TO ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY UPON SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TERMS
AND CONDITIONS; AND 

"(II)  SO LONG AS THE MANUFACTURER SHALL CONTINUE TO AFFORD ANY
SERVICE, FACILITY OR PRIVILEGE NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO
IN THIS DECREE TO RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE
COMPANY OR COMPANIES, IT SHALL NOT REFUSE TO AFFORD SIMILAR OR
CORRESPONDING SERVICES, FACILITIES OR PRIVILEGES UPON SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND UPON WRITTEN REQUEST TO ANY OTHER
FINANCE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR
ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY OR COMPANIES A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN
OBTAINING THE PATRONAGE OF DEALERS; PROVIDED THAT IT SHALL NOT BE A
VIOLATION OF THIS DECREE FOR THE MANUFACTURER TO AFFORD SUCH SERVICE,
FACILITY OR PRIVILEGE ONLY TO REGISTERED FINANCE COMPANIES AS DEFINED
IN SUB-PARAGRAPH (J) OF THIS PARAGRAPH 6 OR ONLY TO A FINANCE COMPANY
DESIGNATED IN WRITING TO THE MANUFACTURER BY THE DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE
DEALER; 

"THE WRITTEN REQUEST SHALL SPECIFY IN EACH INSTANCE THE PARTICULAR
SERVICE, FACILITY OR PRIVILEGE DESIRED; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(6.)(I)  THE MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT, EXCEPT IN EACH INSTANCE UPON
WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE DEALER, ARRANGE OR AGREE
WITH RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY THAT AN
AGENT OF THE MANUFACTURER AND AN AGENT OF THE FINANCE COMPANY SHALL
TOGETHER BE PRESENT WITH ANY DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE DEALER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE DEALER TO PATRONIZE RESPONDENT FINANCE
COMPANY OR SUCH OTHER FINANCE COMPANY; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IT SHALL
NOT BE A VIOLATION OF THIS DECREE FOR THE MANUFACTURER TO ASSIST ANY
DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE DEALER, BECAUSE OF SAID DEALER'S OR PROSPECTIVE
DEALER'S FINANCIAL SITUATION OR REQUIREMENTS, BY JOINT CONFERENCE WITH
HIM AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF A PARTICULAR FINANCE COMPANY, TO OBTAIN
SPECIAL FACILITIES OR SERVICES (SUCH TERM NOT INCLUDING ONLY THE
FINANCING OF THE SHIPMENT OR DELIVERY OF AUTOMOBILES TO SUCH DEALER OR
PROSPECTIVE DEALER AND/OR ONLY THE PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF RETAIL
TIME SALES PAPER FROM HIM IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS) FROM THE
PARTICULAR FINANCE COMPANY AND, IN PART CONSIDERATION OF SUCH SPECIAL
FACILITIES OR SERVICES, FOR SUCH DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE DEALER TO
ARRANGE TO DO BUSINESS WITH SUCH FINANCE COMPANY ON AN EXCLUSIVE BASIS
FOR A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME AS MAY BE AGREED BETWEEN THEM; 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"(6.)(K)  THE MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT RECOMMEND, ENDORSE OR ADVERTISE
THE RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY OR
COMPANIES TO ANY DEALER OR TO THE PUBLIC; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
NOTHING IN THIS DECREE CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT THE MANUFACTURER IN GOOD
FAITH: 

"(1) FROM ADOPTING FROM TIME TO TIME A PLAN OR PLANS OF FINANCING
RETAIL SALES OF NEW AUTOMOBILES MADE BY THE MANUFACTURER OR FROM TIME
TO TIME WITHDRAWING OR MODIFYING THE SAME; 

"(2)  FROM RECOMMENDING TO ITS DEALERS THE USE OF SUCH PLANS; 

"(3)  FROM ADVERTISING TO THE PUBLIC AND RECOMMENDING THE USE OF SUCH
PLANS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"7.  THE RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY: 

     .         .      .         .         . 

"(D)  SHALL NOT, EXCEPT UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE DEALER OR
PROSPECTIVE DEALER, ARRANGE OR AGREE WITH THE MANUFACTURER THAT AN
AGENT OF THE MANUFACTURER AND AN AGENT OF RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY
SHALL TOGETHER BE PRESENT WITH ANY DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE DEALER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE DEALER TO PATRONIZE
RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IT SHALL NOT BE A
VIOLATION OF THIS DECREE FOR RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY BY JOINT
CONFERENCE WITH A DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE DEALER AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE MANUFACTURER TO AGREE TO FURNISH TO SUCH DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE
DEALER, BECAUSE OF HIS FINANCIAL SITUATION OR REQUIREMENTS, SPECIAL
FACILITIES OR SERVICES (SUCH TERM NOT INCLUDING ONLY THE FINANCING OF
THE SHIPMENT OR DELIVERY OF AUTOMOBILES TO SUCH DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE
DEALER AND/OR ONLY THE PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF RETAIL TIME SALES
PAPER FROM HIM IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS) AND IN PART
CONSIDERATION OF SUCH SPECIAL FACILITIES OR SERVICES TO ARRANGE FOR THE
DEALER OR PROSPECTIVE DEALER TO DO BUSINESS WITH RESPONDENT FINANCE
COMPANY ON AN EXCLUSIVE BASIS FOR SUCH REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME AS MAY
BE AGREED BETWEEN THEM." 

FN3  "IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE FOR THE GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY TO HAVE A
FINANCE COMPANY.  IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE FOR THE GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY
TO HAVE CONTRACTS WITH ITS DEALERS FOR A YEAR OR TO HAVE A CANCELLATION
CLAUSE IN THEM.  THEY HAVE A PERFECT RIGHT TO HAVE A FINANCE COMPANY
AND TO RECOMMEND ITS USE.  THEY HAVE A PERFECT RIGHT TO CANCEL A
CONTRACT FROM THEIR DEALER AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT PERFORMING ANY
UNREASONABLE ACT. 

"THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHOM THEY WILL SELL THEIR CARS TO,
AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHOM THEY WILL NOT SELL THEIR CARS
TO BECAUSE CARS ARE THEIR PRODUCT AND THEY ARE THEIR PROPERTY AND NO
LAW COMPELS THEM TO SELL THEM TO ANY MAN THEY DON'T WANT TO SELL THEM
TO; BUT THAT IS NOT THE CHARGE IN THIS CASE.  THE CHARGE IS NOT THAT BY
HAVING DIFFICULTY IN CONTRACTS IN ITSELF, THESE DEFENDANTS DID ANYTHING
WRONG; IT IS NOT CHARGED HERE THAT TO RECOMMEND THE USE OF GMAC THERE
IS ANYTHING WRONG; IT IS NOT CHARGED HERE THAT CANCELLATION FOR CAUSE
IS ANYTHING WRONGFUL; BUT THE GOVERNMENT'S THEORY IN THIS CASE IS
IRRESPECTIVE OF THESE CONTRACTS AND INDEPENDENT OF THEM AND OUTSIDE OF
THEM THE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN ASSERTED THAT THEY, UNDER THE DESIGNATION
OF THOSE TO THE GRAND JURORS UNKNOWN, THE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN SUCH THAT
THE POSSIBILITY, THE ABILITY TO CANCEL, THE ABILITY TO REFUSE TO RENEW
A CONTRACT, HAVE BEEN USED AS CLUBS UPON THE DEALERS TO FORCE THEM TO
USE GMAC AND THAT THESE ACTS THAT ARE COMPLAINED OF WERE ACTS THAT WERE
USED TO FORCE THE DEALERS TO USE GMAC, THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT
THESE ACTS INSPIRED BY THAT MOTIVE HAVE BEEN SUCH AS TO RESULT IN
CANCELLATIONS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED; IN
DISCRIMINATIONS THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE OCCURRED IN THE SHIPMENT
OF CARS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN REFUSALS TO RENEW THAT WOULD NOT
OTHERWISE HAVE OCCURRED, AND IN THE USE OF GMAC WHEN IT OTHERWISE WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN USED. 

"IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN, AND IT MAY
NOT COMPLAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS' RIGHT TO LIMIT ITS SALES OF CARS TO
PERSONS WHOM IT MAY SELECT, ITS RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO IT SHALL SELL
TO, ITS RIGHTS TO DETERMINE UPON WHAT TERMS IT WILL SELL, ITS RIGHT TO
PICK ITS OWN DEALERS. 

"IT CAN ONLY COMPLAIN IF THE DEFENDANTS DO SUFFICIENT OF THESE ACTS
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT AS CONSTITUTE DURESS UPON THE DEALER TO
ACCOMPLISH A RESULT THAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE NOT HAVE BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED, AND TO MAKE A DEALER DO SOMETHING THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE
DONE OF HIS OWN FREE WILL. 

"THAT, ALMOST, IS THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE - WHETHER THE DEALER
COULD ACT AS A FREE MAN; WHETHER HE COULD ACT OF HIS OWN FREE WILL. 

"THE DEFENDANTS SAY: 

"'WE NEVER IMPOSED ANY RESTRICTIONS UPON THAT FREEDOM OF ACTION.' 

"THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT DID AND THERE IS THAT QUESTION.  IF IT DID -
IF THE DEFENDANTS DID THAT SORT OF THING - AND IF IT RESULTED IN AN
UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION AND UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO FIND THEM GUILTY. 

"IF THEY DID NOT DO IT, THIS LAWSUIT IS AT AN END, AND THAT IS A
QUESTION WHICH YOU HAVE GOT TO DECIDE. 

"YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE HEARD OF THE TERMS: 

"EXPOSITION; 

"PERSUASION; 

"ARGUMENT; 

"COERCION. 

"THEY ARE DIFFERENT STEPS.  THEY ARE GRADUATED STEPS THAT I SUPPOSE
EVERY SALESMAN GOES THROUGH, EXCEPT PERHAPS THE LAST. 

"IN EXPOSITION ONE MAY EXPOUND THE MERITS OF THAT WHICH HE HAS TO
SELL; HE MAY EXPLAIN ITS NATURE AND BY HIS EXPOSITION MAKE A CLEAR
PICTURE OF WHAT HE HAS. 

"BY PERSUASION HE MAY ENDEAVOR TO PERSUADE THE PERSON TO WHOM HE IS
TALKING TO ACCEPT THAT WHICH HE HAS TO OFFER. 

"THERE IS LITTLE ADVANCEMENT IN HIS FURTHER PROGRESS, TO ARGUE. 

"PERSUASION MEANS SOMETHING SOFTER THAN ARGUMENT, PERHAPS, BUT HE MAY
ARGUE WITH HIM, AND ARGUE WITH HIM THE RESPECTIVE MERITS OF HIS PRODUCT
AND OTHER PRODUCTS BEING OFFERED TO THE PERSON TO WHOM HE MAKES HIS
OFFER. 

"ALL OF THESE ARE PROPER. 

"HE MAY NOT GO BEYOND THAT AND USE SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN HIS POWER
TO USE AS A CLUB TO COERCE THE PERSON TO ACCEPT THAT WHICH HE HAS TO
OFFER. 

     .         .         .        .         . 

"YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT, AFTER ALL, THIS COERCION, IF YOU FIND THAT
COERCION EXISTS, THEN THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS; HAS THAT RESULTED IN
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE?  AND THAT IS A QUESTION
FOR YOU TO DETERMINE FROM ALL OF THE EVIDENCE." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT APPEARS TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLANTS THAT THIS
CONSENT DECREE MUST BE TREATED AS THOUGH IT WERE A CONTRACT BETWEEN
PRIVATE PERSONS FOR PURCHASE OF AN AUTOMOBILE.  BUT A CONSENT DECREE IS
NOT A CONTRACT.  A CONSENT DECREE IN AN ANTITRUST PROCEEDING LIKE A
DECREE ENTERED AFTER A CONTEST MUST BE TREATED AS A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION AND ORDER MADE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  UNITED STATES V.
SWIFT & CO., 286 U.S. 106, 114-115.  THAT MEANS, I WOULD SUPPOSE, THAT
BEFORE THE RESTRAINTS IN THIS DECREE ARE LIFTED, A SHOWING SHOULD BE
MADE THAT SUCH ACTION WOULD NOT TEND TO GENERATE FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF
THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  NO SUCH SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE HERE.  AS I SEE THE
CASE, MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN WILL AID
AND ENCOURAGE DESTRUCTION OF COMPETITION CONTRARY TO LAW.  FOR SO FAR
AS EXISTING EFFECTIVE COURT RESTRAINTS ARE CONCERNED, MODIFICATION WILL
GIVE FORD FREEDOM TO HELP THE APPELLANT FINANCE COMPANIES CRUSH THEIR
COMPETITORS. 

EVEN THOUGH FORD AND COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST CORPORATION
(C.I.T.)  MADE NO ADMISSION OF THE FACTS CHARGED IN THE ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT, THE UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL WERE SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT THE DECREE'S PROHIBITION AGAINST FUTURE COMPETITION-DESTROYING
PRACTICES.  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 311, 327.  IN VERY
BRIEF SUMMARY, THOSE FACTS, SO FAR AS RELEVANT TO THE VIEW I TAKE, ARE
THESE; 

AT THE TIME THE DECREES WERE ENTERED, FORD MADE AND SOLD ABOUT 25% OF
ALL CARS IN THE UNITED STATES, CHRYSLER 25% AND GENERAL MOTORS 44%.
FORD AND THE OTHERS SELL TO DEALERS ABOUT FOUR BILLION DOLLARS' WORTH
OF CARS YEARLY, REQUIRING CASH ON DELIVERY.  THE DEALERS THEN SELL TO
RETAIL CUSTOMERS.  ABOUT 60% OF THE RETAIL SALES ARE ON CREDIT. 
DEALERS NOT PERMITTED TO SELL OTHER MAKES OF CARS ARE WHOLLY DEPENDENT
UPON FORD'S, G.M.'S OR CHRYSLER'S FAVORABLE TREATMENT FOR THEIR
BUSINESS LIVES.  THE DEALER AGENCIES ARE FOR ONE YEAR, BUT THE AGENCY
CONTRACTS CAN BE CANCELED ON SHORT NOTICE AND WITHOUT CAUSE.  THE
DEALERS ARE THUS ECONOMIC DEPENDENTS OF THE COMPANY WHOSE CARS THEY
SELL.  WHILE THERE ARE ABOUT 375 INDEPENDENT FINANCE COMPANIES, C.I.T.
AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, APPELLANTS HERE, PRIOR TO ENTRY OF THIS COURT
DECREE, FURNISHED ABOUT 82% OF THE MONEY FOR FORD DEALER PURCHASES, AND
70% OF THAT FURNISHED FOR FORD RETAIL PURCHASES.  THE FAVORED COMPANIES
GOT THIS MAJOR PERCENTAGE OF FORD CAR LOANS BECAUSE FORD SUPPLIED THEM
WITH OFFICES AT ITS FACTORIES, KEPT THEM INFORMED OF SALES, GAVE MORE
LIBERAL PAYMENT TERMS TO ITS DEALERS WHO DEALT WITH C.I.T., REQUIRED
DEALERS TO KEEP THEIR BOOKS AND RECORDS OPEN SO THAT FORD COULD PREVENT
TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHER FINANCE COMPANIES, SENT FORD FACTORY
REPRESENTATIVES WITH C.I.T. AGENTS TO HELP "PERSUADE" DEALERS TO DO
BUSINESS WITH C.I.T., AND REQUIRED DEALERS WHO HANDLED LOANS THROUGH
OTHERS TO MAKE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATIONS TO FORD. 

THIS FORD FAVORED FINANCE COMPANY, C.I.T., ASKS MODIFICATION.  ONE
REASON SUGGESTED FOR MODIFICATION IS THAT THE C.I.T. GROUP HAS LOST A
PORTION OF FORD FINANCING SINCE THE DECREE SUBJECTED THEM TO
COMPETITION WITH OTHER FINANCE COMPANIES.  THEY COMPLAIN OF THE DECREE
NOT BECAUSE IT STIFLES COMPETITIVE PRACTICE; QUITE THE CONTRARY, THEY
COMPLAIN BECAUSE THE DECREE INFRINGES ON C.I.T.'S MONOPOLISTIC
SANCTUARY. 

IN SUBSTANCE, THE MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED ARE, (1) THAT FORD BE
PERMITTED TO ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, OR AN INTEREST IN A FINANCE
COMPANY; (2) THAT FORD BE PERMITTED TO ENDORSE, RECOMMEND, OR ADVERTISE
PARTICULAR FINANCE COMPANIES TO ITS DEALERS; (3) THAT FORD BE PERMITTED
TO ARRANGE WITH FINANCE COMPANIES THAT ITS REPRESENTATIVES GO WITH
AGENTS OF THE FAVORED COMPANY TO DEALERS TO "INFLUENCE" THOSE DEALERS
TO NEGOTIATE LOANS FOR THEMSELVES AND RETAIL PURCHASERS ONLY WITH THE
FAVORED COMPANIES.  FREEDOM TO INFLUENCE DEALERS WOULD APPEAR TO OFFER
A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY FOR FORD AND THE FAVORED FINANCE COMPANIES TO
DEPRIVE FORD DEALERS AND RETAIL PURCHASERS OF ALL BENEFITS IN THE WAY
OF LOW INTEREST RATES AND LIBERAL LOAN TERMS THE DEALERS AND RETAILERS
MIGHT OTHERWISE OBTAIN FROM COMPETITION AMONG THE HUNDREDS OF FINANCE
COMPANIES IN THE COUNTRY.  FOR IT IS SURE, IF THE UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS
OF THE COMPLAINT BE ACCEPTED, AS THEY SHOULD BE AT THIS STAGE, THAT THE
ECONOMIC POWER OF FORD OVER ITS DEALERS IS SO GREAT THAT DEALERS WHO
DESPERATELY NEED FORD CARS WILL BE HELPLESS TO RESIST FORD'S
"INFLUENCE" AND "PERSUASION," WHETHER LEGALISTICALLY CALLED "COERCION"
OR NOT.  DUE TO FORD'S POWER, WHAT DEALER COULD AFFORD TO DRAW NICE
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN "PERSUASION" AND "COERCION"?  I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE
THAT THE SHOWING OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN FORD AND C.I.T. TO RETURN TO
THEIR OLD METHODS OF "PERSUASION" WOULD FAIL TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT FORD NEITHER PROMISED, NOR IS IT REQUIRED
BY THIS COURT'S ACTION, TO REFRAIN FROM USING ITS OVERPOWERING
INFLUENCE TO "PERSUADE" ITS DEALERS IN THE SAME OLD WAY.  FORD AND
C.I.T. RELY HERE ON NO SHOWING OF AN INTENT TO ABIDE BY THE ANTITRUST
LAW; THEY RELY ON THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF WHAT THEY TREAT AS A CONTRACT
WITH GOVERNMENT PROSECUTORS.  BUT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS HAVE NO POWER, BY
CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE, TO PERMIT VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, EVEN SHOULD
THEY ATTEMPT TO DO SO, WHICH IN THIS CASE I DO NOT THINK THEY DID.  HAD
GENERAL MOTORS BEEN ACQUITTED ON THE CRIMINAL CHARGE OF VIOLATING THE
ANTITRUST LAWS, THERE WOULD BE MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF FORD THAT
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS SHOULD NOT INSIST ON CONTINUANCE OF THIS INJUNCTION
AGAINST FORD.  GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT ACQUITTED, BUT WAS CONVICTED
UNDER AN INDICTMENT ALLEGING THE SAME TYPE OF ECONOMIC PRESSURE
PRACTICES ENJOINED BY THIS CONSENT DECREE.  AND THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED
THE JURY THAT THEY HAD "A RIGHT TO FIND THESE DEFENDANTS GUILTY" IF
THEY FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD "PROVED THE ACTS BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ARE AVERRED IN THIS INDICTMENT."  TRUE THE COURT
CHARGED THE JURY THAT ACTS OF MERE "PERSUASION" WERE NOT ENOUGH, AND
THAT GENERAL MOTORS MUST HAVE USED ITS POWER "AS A CLUB TO COERCE." 
AND THE COURT EXPLAINED DICTIONARY DIFFERENCES IN THE ABSTRACT BETWEEN
"PERSUASION" AND "COERCION."  BUT THE JURY WAS CONSIDERING A CONCRETE
SET OF FACTS IN WHICH THE LANGUAGE USED BY GENERAL MOTORS, IN THE
ABSTRACT, MIGHT ONLY AMOUNT TO "PERSUASION," WHILE THE LANGUAGE PLUS
GENERAL MOTORS' ECONOMIC POWER MIGHT AMOUNT TO "COERCION."  AND THE
JURY'S VERDICT OF GUILTY, VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE COURT'S CHARGE,
MEANS TO ME THAT THE PERSUASION PLUS ECONOMIC POWER CHARGED AND PROVED
IN THE GENERAL MOTORS CASE, WHICH WERE IN SUBSTANCE THE IDENTICAL ACTS
AND PRACTICES CHARGED AND ENJOINED IN THIS CASE, SHOWED USE OF "A CLUB
TO COERCE" IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  I THEREFORE AGREE WITH
THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT HERE IN DENYING FORD'S MOTION TO
MODIFY, NAMELY THAT THE AGREEMENTS, ACTS, AND PRACTICES SUCH AS HERE
ENJOINED CONSTITUTED A PROPER BASIS FOR THE GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY
IN THE GENERAL MOTORS CASE.  CONSEQUENTLY, I THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT
HAS FAIRLY MET THE CONSENT DECREE'S CONDITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE
CONVICTION OF GENERAL MOTORS. 

NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD THIS COURT
SHOULD LIFT THE BAN AGAINST FORD'S ACQUISITION OF OR AFFILIATION WITH A
FINANCE COMPANY.  THE LAW PROHIBITS ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION OF
THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE STOCK OF "ANOTHER CORPORATION  ...  WHERE
THE EFFECT OF SUCH ACQUISITION MAY BE  ...  TO RESTRAIN  ...  COMMERCE
IN ANY SECTION OR COMMUNITY, OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY OF ANY LINE
OF COMMERCE."  38 STAT. 731-732, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 18.  THERE CAN BE NO
DOUBT THAT AFFILIATION BETWEEN FORD AND A CERTAIN GROUP OF FINANCE
COMPANIES WILL LESSEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF OTHER FINANCE COMPANIES TO
COMPETE FOR THE AUTOMOBILE LOAN CONTRACTS BOTH OF DEALERS AND RETAIL
PURCHASERS.  AND WHERE THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS AS HERE INVOLVES 25% OF
ALL AUTOMOBILE SALES (AND EVENTUALLY PROBABLY IN EXCESS OF 90%) THE
TENDENCY TO MONOPOLY IS AGGRAVATED. 

FORD RELIES UPON ALLEGATIONS MADE IN ITS MOTION TO MODIFY TO THE
EFFECT THAT IT WILL BE COMPETITIVELY INJURED IF DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY
TO AFFILIATE WITH A FINANCE COMPANY AND TO "PERSUADE" ITS DEALERS TO
BORROW FROM THAT COMPANY ALONE, SO LONG AS GENERAL MOTORS IS ALLOWED TO
"PERSUADE" ITS DEALERS TO BORROW FROM A GENERAL MOTORS AFFILIATE OR
SUBSIDIARY.  BUT FORD HAS NOT PROPOSED TO THE COURT ANY LEGALLY
ALLOWABLE PLAN FOR AFFILIATION, NOR HAS IT SHOWN THE COURT THAT
CONTINUANCE OF THE DECREE WILL CAUSE IT TO SUFFER A COMPETITIVE
DISADVANTAGE IN THE SALE OF CARS.  FAILURE OF PROOF IN THESE TWO
RESPECTS WAS HELD AN ADEQUATE GROUND FOR DENYING A MOTION OF CHRYSLER
CORPORATION TO AMEND A DECREE PRECISELY LIKE THIS ONE.  CHRYSLER CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 556, 564.  WE SHOULD TAKE THE SAME ACTION IN
THIS CASE WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT SPECIFICALLY HAS FOUND THAT FORD HAD
FAILED TO PROVE THAT CONTINUANCE OF THE DECREE WOULD SUBJECT FORD TO A
COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.  MOREOVER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE HOW
FORD COULD BE SUFFERING A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE IN THE SALE OF CARS
IN TODAY'S FAMISHED CAR MARKET.  SO FAR AS THIS RECORD SHOWS, FORD
WOULD NOT LOSE THE SALE OF A SINGLE CAR BY LEAVING THIS DECREE AS IT
IS.  AND FORD DOES NOT RELY ON A DESIRE TO MAKE A PROFIT, SECRET OR
OPEN, OUT OF LOANS ITS DEALERS MUST OBTAIN TO PAY FORD OR LOANS RETAIL
PURCHASERS MUST GET TO PAY DEALERS.  IF FORD PROFESSED A DESIRE TO MAKE
LOANS AS A FINANCE COMPANY IN OPEN COMPETITION WITH OTHER FINANCE
COMPANIES, THAT WOULD BE ONE THING.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO ASK A COURT
OF EQUITY TO LIFT ITS BAN IN ORDER THAT FORD MAY DICTATE LOAN TERMS FOR
DEALERS AND RETAIL PURCHASERS AFTER FORD HAS SOLD THE CARS IN THE
MARKET.  THE ONLY COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE THAT THIS RECORD REVEALS IS
THAT FROM WHICH FORD DEALERS, FORD RETAIL PURCHASERS, AND INDEPENDENT
LOAN AGENCIES WILL SUFFER WHEN THE MODIFICATION OF THIS DECREE GIVES
FORD AND C.I.T. THE GREEN LIGHT. 

FURTHERMORE, THE COURT'S ACTION HERE MEANS THAT THE CHRYSLER DECREE
MUST BE MODIFIED WITHOUT THE SHOWING THIS COURT REQUIRED IN THE
CHRYSLER CASE.  AND IT MEANS THAT FUTURE DESTRUCTION OF COMPETITION IN
AUTOMOBILE FINANCING BY FORD, CHRYSLER, AND GENERAL MOTORS HAS THE
TACIT APPROVAL OF THIS COURT.  FOR IF FORD SHOULD AFTER TODAY
"AFFILIATE" WITH C.I.T., OR RENEW ITS "PERSUASION" OF DEALERS, COULD IT
BE EXPECTED THAT THIS COURT WOULD THEREAFTER HOLD THESE OTHER COMPANIES
LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE, EVEN IF IT SHOULD BE THOUGHT THAT TODAY'S
PERMITTED CONDUCT RAN AFOUL OF THE ANTITRUST LAW?  IS IT CONCEIVABLE
THAT IF FORD NOW "AFFILIATES" WITH C.I.T., FORD'S "VESTED INTEREST,"
ACQUIRED WITH THIS COURT'S TACIT APPROVAL, WOULD BE TAKEN FROM FORD BY
A FEDERAL COURT? 

MUCH TALK ABOUT REFINED DISTINCTIONS IN THE COURT'S CHARGE IN THE
GENERAL MOTORS CASE CANNOT CREATE DOUBTS AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE
DECISION TODAY.  THE RESULT WILL BE DESTRUCTION OF COMPETITION IN
AUTOMOBILE FINANCING.  HEREAFTER DEALERS AND RETAIL PURCHASERS CANNOT
DEPEND ON COMPETITION TO KEEP INTEREST RATES AT A FAIR LEVEL.  THEIR
SOLE HOPE FOR LOW INTEREST RATES AND LOANS ON LIBERAL TERMS WILL BE THE
SPONTANEOUS GENEROSITY OF FORD, GENERAL MOTORS, AND CHRYSLER.  IT MAY
BE THAT MONOPOLY IN AUTOMOBILE LOANS IS A GOOD THING, BUT THE ANTITRUST
LAWS ASSUME THAT COMPETITION IS BETTER. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THIS JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THIS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS IN THIS OPINION INSOFAR AS IT PROTESTS
AGAINST LIFTING THE BAN ON FORD'S ACQUISITION OF OR AFFILIATION WITH A
FINANCE COMPANY. 
..END :









ECKENRODE V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 335 U.S. 329 


NO. 28.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1948.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 15, 1948.  - 164
F.2D 996, AFFIRMED. 


IN A SUIT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT FOR
THE DEATH OF A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE, HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN
THE RECORD, NOR ANY INFERENCE WHICH REASONABLY COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE
EVIDENCE, WHEN VIEWED IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO PLAINTIFF, WHICH
COULD SUSTAIN A RECOVERY.  P. 330. 

ECKENRODE, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE DISTRICT
COURT SET ASIDE A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR
THE DEFENDANT.  71 F.SUPP.  764.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  164
F.2D 996.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 866.  AFFIRMED, P.
330. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS WAS A SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN WHICH THE PETITIONER CLAIMED DAMAGES UNDER
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT  FN1  AND THE BOILER INSPECTION
ACT  FN2  FOR THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND WHILE IN THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOY
AS A BRAKEMAN. 

IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES, THE JURY ABSOLVED THE
RESPONDENT OF LIABILITY UNDER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, BUT FOUND THAT
THERE HAD BEEN SUCH NEGLIGENCE AS TO CREATE LIABILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  IT RETURNED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER. 
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED UPON THE VERDICT. 

THE RESPONDENT MOVED THE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AND THE
JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT UNDER RULE 50 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  THE
JUDGMENT WAS VACATED; THE VERDICT SET ASIDE, AND JUDGMENT ENTERED IN
FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE COULD BE
PREDICATED, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL
RELATION BETWEEN THE CLAIMED NEGLIGENCE AND THE ACCIDENT.  71 F.SUPP. 
764. 

UPON APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT, THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED.  A REHEARING WAS GRANTED, AND THERE
WAS AN AFFIRMANCE WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  164 F.2D 996. 

THERE IS A SINGLE QUESTION PRESENTED TO US:  WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE
IN THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND NEGLIGENCE ON THE
PART OF THE RESPONDENT WHICH CONTRIBUTED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,  FN3  TO
ECKENRODE'S DEATH?  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD, THE COURT IS OF
THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, NOR ANY INFERENCE WHICH
REASONABLY MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE, WHEN VIEWED IN A LIGHT MOST
FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER, WHICH CAN SUSTAIN A RECOVERY FOR HER. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  35 STAT. 65, 53 STAT. 1404, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

FN2  36 STAT. 913, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 23. 

FN3  45 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR.
JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENT. 
..END :





MANDEL BROS. V. WALLACE, 335 U.S. 291 


NO. 16.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1948.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1948.  - 164
F.2D 861, REVERSED. 


1.  CERTAIN CLAIMS OF WALLACE AND HAND PATENT NO. 2,236,387, FOR AN
IMPROVED COSMETIC PREPARATION TO RETARD OR INHIBIT PERSPIRATION, HELD
INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  PP. 291-296. 

2.  SINCE THE USE OF UREA AS AN ANTICORROSIVE AGENT IN OTHER COMPOUNDS
WAS ALREADY A MATTER OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, ITS USE IN ANTIPERSPIRANTS TO
REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SKIN IRRITATION OR GARMENT CORROSION WAS
MERELY THE APPLICATION OF AN OLD PROCESS TO A NEW USE AND WAS NOT
INVENTION.  PP. 293-296. 

MANDEL BROTHERS, INC. V. WALLACE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT. 

IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE CLAIMS
INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  67 F.SUPP. 
814.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  164 F.2D 861.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 853.  REVERSED, P. 296. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT, OWNER OF WALLACE AND HAND PATENT NO. 2,236,387, FILED
A COMPLAINT AGAINST THIS PETITIONER FOR INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIMS 1 TO 6,
8 TO 13, 15 AND 16.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE CLAIMS INVALID FOR
WANT OF PATENTABLE INVENTION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  67 F.SUPP. 
814.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT HELD
THE CLAIMS VALID AND REVERSED.  164 F.2D 861.  THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAD PREVIOUSLY AFFIRMED A DISTRICT
COURT'S INVALIDATION OF THE SAME PATENT.  WALLACE V. F.W. WOOLWORTH
CO., 45 F.SUPP.  465; 133 F.2D 763.  TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

THE PATENT IS FOR AN "IMPROVED" COSMETIC PREPARATION TO RETARD OR
INHIBIT PERSPIRATION.  PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR THE PATENT (1938), MANY
ANTIPERSPIRANTS WERE ON THE MARKET CONTAINING ACID SALTS OF A METAL,
USUALLY ALUMINUM CHLORIDE OR ALUMINUM SULFATE.  THE ACIDITY PRODUCED BY
THESE ACID-REACTING SALTS IS AN ASTRINGENT WHICH RETARDS PERSPIRATION. 
BUT, AS STATED IN THE PATENT SPECIFICATIONS, THE ACID SOMETIMES
IRRITATES THE SKIN AND ALSO ROTS CLOTHING TO WHICH THE ACID MAY ADHERE,
PARTICULARLY WHEN THAT CLOTHING IS HEATED BY IRONING.  THUS IN THE OLD
ANTIPERSPIRANTS THE ASTRINGENT QUALITIES OF THE ACID WERE DESIRABLE
BECAUSE ESSENTIAL TO THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN RETARDING PERSPIRATION; ON
THE OTHER HAND, THE SKIN IRRITATING AND CLOTH CORRODING QUALITIES OF
THE ACID WERE OBVIOUSLY UNDESIRABLE.  THIS WAS THE PROBLEM AS POSED BY
THE PATENT APPLICATION. 

THE PATENT SPECIFICATIONS ASSERTED AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT
THOUGH STANDARD ALKALIES WOULD NEUTRALIZE AND THUS REDUCE ACIDITY AND
CONSEQUENT SKIN IRRITATION AND CLOTH CORROSION, THESE ALKALIES WOULD BY
NEUTRALIZING ACIDITY ALSO REDUCE THE ASTRINGENCY ESSENTIAL TO CHECK
PERSPIRATION.  THE CLAIMED DISCOVERY OF THE PATENT IS IN ADDING TO THE
OLD ACID-SALTS COSMETICS CERTAIN TYPES OF THE REACTIVE AMINO CHEMICAL
GROUP, PARTICULARLY UREA.  THIS ADDITION, THE PATENTEES ASSERTED,
RESULTS IN AN IMPROVED COMPOUND WHICH CHECKS PERSPIRATION BUT NEITHER
IRRITATES THE SKIN NOR CORRODES THE CLOTHING. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE ADDITION OF UREA TO THE OLDER
PREPARATIONS GREATLY REDUCED WHATEVER LIKELIHOOD THERE HAD BEEN THAT
APPLICATION OF THE PREPARATION WOULD IRRITATE SKIN  FN1 OR CORRODE
GARMENTS.  IT FOUND THAT THE PATENTEES WERE THE FIRST PERSONS TO USE
UREA AS A CORROSION INHIBITING AGENT IN AN ANTIPERSPIRANT.  BUT THE
DISTRICT COURT ALSO FOUND THAT PRIOR TO THE PATENTEES' ALLEGED
DISCOVERY THE USE OF UREA AS AN ANTICORROSIVE AGENT WAS ALREADY A
MATTER OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT IT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED AS A
CORROSION INHIBITOR IN COMPOUNDS OTHER THAN ANTIPERSPIRANTS.  AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THESE FINDINGS, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE PATENT
INVALID.  THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS IN
THE CASE OF WALLACE V. F.W. WOOLWORTH CO., SUPRA, HAD HELD THE PATENT
INVALID FOR THE SAME REASON. 

LONG PRIOR TO THIS PATENT, IT WAS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED IN THE
CHEMICAL FIELD THAT UREA WOULD REACT WITH ACIDS, BASES, AND SALTS TO
PRODUCE NEW SUBSTANCES.  UREA HAD BEEN IN GENERAL USE WHEREVER THESE
RESULTS WERE DESIRABLE FOR CHEMICAL STABILIZATIONS.  AND RESPONDENT
CONCEDES THAT BEFORE APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR THIS PATENT IT WAS
COMMONLY KNOWN, AT LEAST BY CHEMISTS, THAT UREA WOULD REACT WITH ACIDS
IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD REDUCE THEIR CORROSIVENESS.  THESE FACTS ARE
MADE CLEAR BY THIS RECORD, BY THE OPINIONS OF THE FOUR COURTS THAT
CONSIDERED THIS PATENT, AND BY THEIR DISCUSSIONS OF THE PRIOR PATENTS
RELIED ON BY THE RESPONDENT HERE. 

PRIOR PATENTS (SCHUPPHAUS, NO. 514,838, AND KOCH NO. 2,011,292) HAD
SUGGESTED USE OF UREA AS A STABILIZER AGAINST DECOMPOSITION OF CHEMICAL
COMBINATIONS INTO DELETERIOUS ACIDIC SUBSTANCES.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED
THAT THESE PATENTS STANDING ALONE WOULD NOT HAVE TAUGHT THESE PATENTEES
TO EXPERIMENT WITH UREA TO SOLVE THEIR COSMETIC PROBLEM.  THEY DO,
HOWEVER, SHOW THE STATE OF THE PRIOR ART AND POINT TO THE POSSIBILITY
OF USING UREA TO INHIBIT UNWANTED DECOMPOSITION OF SUBSTANCES
CONTAINING ACID OR ACID SALTS.  INDEED, KOCH DEALT WITH THE ADDITION OF
UREA TO ALUMINUM SALTS.  AND MISSBACH, IN NO. 2,069,711, PROPOSED TO
PROTECT CLOTHES FROM THE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF DRY CLEANING FLUIDS BY
THE USE OF UREA TO PREVENT INJURY DUE TO ACIDIC SUBSTANCES BROUGHT
ABOUT BY ACIDIC REACTIONS OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE.  HE CLAIMED HIS
INVENTION PROVIDED "AN EFFECTIVE CORROSION INHIBITOR." 

SHIPP PATENT NO. 2,174,534 POINTED OUT THAT "CERTAIN USES OF SULFURIC
ACIDS ON TEXTILES ARE SO ADVANTAGEOUS THAT ENDEAVORS HAVE BEEN MADE TO
SO TREAT TEXTILES WITH SULFURIC ACID AS TO OBTAIN THE DESIRED EFFECTS
BUT TO AVOID THE UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS."  THE UNDESIRABLE RESULT SHIPP
WANTED TO ELIMINATE WAS THE "MARKED DEGRADING OR DISINTEGRATING EFFECT
ON CELLULOSE FIBERS" OF "STRONG SULFURIC ACID."  HE THEREFORE PROPOSED
USE OF AN AGENT "CAPABLE OF INHIBITING OR AT LEAST GREATLY RETARDING
THE NORMAL DEGRADING ACTION OF STRONG SULFURIC ACID UPON CELLULOSE." 
THE "INHIBITING" AGENT THERE PROPOSED WAS UREA OR OTHER MATERIALS SUCH
AS "AN AMIDE ALONE OR AN AMIDE AND AN AMINE ...  "  THE CORROSION
"INHIBITING" AGENTS HERE ARE AMINO GROUPS WHICH INCLUDE UREA. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE SHIPP PATENT IS IRRELEVANT.  HE URGES
THAT THE SHIPP PREPARATION MERELY RETARDS CORROSION ON CLOTH WHEREAS
RESPONDENT'S STOPS CORROSION COMPLETELY.  HE ALSO POINTS OUT THAT SHIPP
DEALT WITH SULFURIC ACID AND NOT AN ACID SALT AS IS INVOLVED IN THIS
PATENT.  HE ARGUES THAT THE TEACHINGS OF THE SHIPP AND OTHER PATENTS
WOULD NOT HAVE LED A CHEMIST SKILLED IN HIS ART TO UNDERTAKE THE
EXPERIMENT WHICH EVENTUATED IN THE SUCCESS OF THESE PATENTEES.  HE
TAKES THIS POSITION BECAUSE IN THE USE OF ALKALIES AND EVEN OF UREA
WITH PLAIN ACIDS, THE ACIDS DID NOT RETAIN THEIR FULL EFFECTIVENESS AS
ANTIPERSPIRANTS.  THE NATURAL CONCLUSION OF A CHEMIST, HE ARGUES, WOULD
HAVE BEEN THAT UREA WOULD RESULT IN THE SAME FAILURE IF COMBINED WITH
THE ACID SALTS INVOLVED IN HIS PATENT.  BUT IT DID NOT.  UREA COMBINED
WITH ACID SALTS BROUGHT ABOUT THE DESIRED RESULT.  THIS RESULT HE
THEREFORE CONTENDS WAS A "PARADOXICAL" ONE, UNPREDICTABLE BY A SKILLED
CHEMIST.  CONSEQUENTLY, HE SAYS, THE DISCOVERY ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF
PATENTABLE INVENTION. 

BUT WE THINK THAT THE STATE OF THE PRIOR ART WAS PLAINLY SUFFICIENT
TO DEMONSTRATE TO ANY SKILLED CHEMIST SEARCHING FOR AN ANTICORROSIVE
AGENT THAT HE SHOULD MAKE THE SIMPLE EXPERIMENT THAT WAS MADE HERE. 
THE PATENTEES KNEW THAT UREA WAS IN GENERAL USE AS A STABILIZING AGENT
WITH ACID AND SALTS.  MOREOVER, THE PATENTEES KNEW THAT STANDARD
ALKALIES HAD BEEN SUCCESSFULLY EMPLOYED IN PRIOR PATENTS FOR THEIR
ANTICORROSIVE EFFECT.  IT IS NOT SURPRISING THEREFORE THAT AFTER
EXPERIMENTING WITH VARIOUS STANDARD ALKALIES IN AN EFFORT TO FIND A
CORROSION INHIBITOR THAT WOULD NOT GREATLY REDUCE ACIDIC ASTRINGENCY,
THE PATENTEES PROMPTLY TURNED TO UREA.  THEIR SUCCESS WAS IMMEDIATE. 

AS THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT POINTED
OUT WHEN THIS PATENT WAS BEFORE IT:  "  ...  SKILLFUL EXPERIMENTS IN A
LABORATORY, IN CASES WHERE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATIONS ARE
WELL KNOWN, AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DESIRED END REQUIRES ROUTINE
WORK RATHER THAN IMAGINATION, DO NOT INVOLVE INVENTION."  THESE
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW WOULD DISPOSE OF THE CASE EXCEPT FOR THE
POSITION TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE THAT
THE COSMETIC PROBLEM HERE WAS REMOTE AND UNRELATED TO THE PROBLEMS
CONSIDERED IN THE PRIOR ART. FOR THIS REASON THAT COURT HELD THAT
PATENTEES IN THE FIELD OF COSMETICS WERE NOT BOUND BY PRIOR ART
KNOWLEDGE DISCLOSED BY THE SHIPP AND OTHER PATENTS.  THE COURT
THEREFORE CONSIDERED THIS PATENT ALMOST AS THOUGH PATENTEES WERE
WRITING ON A CLEAN SHEET.  ACCORDINGLY IT HELD THAT THE USE OF UREA IN
THE COSMETICS FIELD WITH THE RESULTS HERE OBTAINED WAS PATENTABLE
INVENTION. 

IN THIS THE COURT WAS IN ERROR.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THE GENERAL
STORE OF CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE IN 1938 WAS SUCH THAT ANYONE WORKING ON ANY
PROBLEM OF ACIDIC CORROSION AND IRRITATION WOULD NATURALLY AND
SPONTANEOUSLY HAVE TRIED UREA.  ALL THAT THESE PATENTEES DID WAS TO
UTILIZE IN A COSMETIC PREPARATION, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE THAT
UREA WOULD INHIBIT ACIDIC CORROSION.  THE STEP TAKEN BY THE PATENTEES
IN ADVANCE OF PAST KNOWLEDGE WAS TOO SHORT TO AMOUNT TO INVENTION. 
THEY MERELY APPLIED AN OLD PROCESS OF INHIBITION TO A NEW COSMETIC
USE.  THIS IS NOT INVENTION.  DOW CHEMICAL CO. V. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL
CEMENTING CO., 324 U.S. 320, 327.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PETITIONER POINTS OUT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE WOOLWORTH
CASE FOUND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT INADEQUATE TO SHOW THAT THE OLD
PREPARATIONS HAD RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL SKIN IRRITATION AND URGES A
LIKE INADEQUACY OF EVIDENCE HERE.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT HERE FOUND
THAT "THE ASTRINGENT MATERIALS MAY ATTACK THE SKIN OF SENSITIVE
INDIVIDUALS" AND THAT "A RESIDUE OF ACID REMAINED WHICH SOMETIMES
IRRITATED THE SKIN." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT ON THE AUTHORITY OF
FUNK BROS. SEED CO. V. KALO INOCULANT CO., 333 U.S. 127, 131, WHICH WAS
DECIDED AFTER THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE. 
..END :




HOINESS V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 297 


NO. 20.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1948.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1948.  - 165
F.2D 504, REVERSED. 


1.  A DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN ORDER DISMISSING A LIBEL AND DIRECTING
THAT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS SUBMIT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW.  SUBSEQUENTLY, IT FILED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND A DECREE DISMISSING THE LIBEL.  LIBELANT APPEALED WITHIN THREE
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST ORDER AND WHAT HE SOUGHT TO HAVE
REVIEWED WAS PLAIN; BUT HE REFERRED ONLY TO THE SECOND ORDER IN HIS
PETITION FOR APPEAL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE
GROUND THAT THE FIRST ORDER WAS THE FINAL ONE AND THAT THE SECOND ORDER
WAS NOT APPEALABLE.  HELD:  IT ERRED IN DOING SO, SINCE THE DEFECT
RESULTING FROM A FAILURE TO REFER TO THE FIRST ORDER WAS OF SUCH A
TECHNICAL NATURE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE DISREGARDED IT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY EXPRESSED BY CONGRESS IN R.S. SEC. 954,
28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC. 777.  PP. 300-301. 

2.  A SEAMAN ON A VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AND OPERATED
UNDER AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION AND A
PRIVATE SHIPPING COMPANY WAS INJURED WHILE THE VESSEL WAS DOCKED AT SAN
FRANCISCO AND BROUGHT A LIBEL IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  THE LIBEL DID NOT ALLEGE THAT THE
SEAMAN WAS A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT WHERE SUIT WAS BROUGHT NOR THAT
THE VESSEL WAS FOUND THERE AT THE TIME SUIT WAS FILED.  THE UNITED
STATES DID NOT APPEAR SPECIALLY BUT ANSWERED TO THE MERITS.  RAISING
THE QUESTION SUA SPONTE, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE LIBEL FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  HELD:  IT ERRED IN DOING SO, SINCE THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT DIRECTING WHERE
SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT RELATE NOT TO JURISDICTION BUT TO VENUE, WHICH
WAS WAIVED BY FAILURE TO OBJECT BEFORE PLEADING TO THE MERITS.  PP. 301
302. 

HOINESS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION A LIBEL BROUGHT
BY A SEAMAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND OTHERS UNDER THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT.  75 F.SUPP.  289.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED AN
APPEAL.  165 F.2D 504.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 859. 
REVERSED, P. 302. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS A SEAMAN ON THE S.S. ESCANABA VICTORY, A VESSEL OWNED
BY THE UNITED STATES AND OPERATED UNDER AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION  FN1  AND THE AMERICAN-SOUTH AFRICAN LINE,
INC., THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH ARE UNNECESSARY TO RELATE HERE.  HE WAS
INJURED WHILE THE VESSEL WAS DOCKED AT THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA, AND BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES  FN2  UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  FN3  41 STAT. 525, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 742.  THE LIBEL ALLEGED THAT THE UNITED STATES MAINTAINS
OFFICES AND PRINCIPAL PLACES OF BUSINESS IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA WHERE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT, BUT IT DID NOT ALLEGE THAT
PETITIONER WAS A RESIDENT OF THAT DISTRICT  FN4  NOR THAT THE VESSEL
WAS FOUND THERE AT THE TIME SUIT WAS FILED.  THE UNITED STATES DID NOT
APPEAR SPECIALLY BUT ANSWERED TO THE MERITS, LEAVING ALL QUESTIONS OF
JURISDICTION TO THE COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURT RAISED THE QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION SUA SPONTE AND, BEING OF OPINION THAT JURISDICTION WAS
LACKING, DISMISSED THE LIBEL.  75 F.SUPP.  289. 

ITS OPINION WAS DATED AUGUST 5, 1946, AND ON THE SAME DAY IT ENTERED
AN ORDER READING AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT IS ORDERED: 

"THAT THE LIBEL HEREIN IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, AND
THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE JUDGMENT FOR COSTS. 

"COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS WILL SUBMIT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF COURT AND THE OPINION FILED
HEREWITH." 

ON OCTOBER 14, 1946, IT FILED "FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW" AND A DECREE.  THE DECREE AFTER FORMAL RECITALS STATED: 

"WHEREFORE, BY REASON OF THE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE AND THE PREMISES,
AND THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AS AFORESAID, IT IS
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION, AND THAT THE LIBEL
BE DISMISSED."  ON OCTOBER 18, 1946, PETITIONER FILED A PETITION FOR
APPEAL STATING THAT HE WAS "AGGRIEVED BY THE RULINGS, FINDINGS,
JUDGMENT AND DECREE MADE AND ENTERED HEREIN ON OCTOBER 14, 1946."  THE
APPEAL WAS ALLOWED ON THE SAME DAY. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS BY A DIVIDED VOTE DISMISSED THE APPEAL, HOLDING
THAT THE FIRST ORDER WAS THE FINAL ONE AND THAT THE DECREE OF OCTOBER
14, 1946, WAS NOT APPEALABLE.  165 F.2D 504.  THE CASE IS HERE ON
CERTIORARI. 

I. WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ORDER OF AUGUST 5
OR THAT OF OCTOBER 14, 1946, WAS THE FINAL DECISION  FN5  FROM WHICH AN
APPEAL COULD BE TAKEN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 128 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 36 STAT. 1133, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  225; 62 STAT. 929, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 1291.  THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE
EARLIER OF THE TWO AND WAS THEREFORE TIMELY.  43 STAT. 940, 28 U.S.C.
(1946 ED.)  SEC.  230.  AND ALTHOUGH THE PETITION FOR APPEAL REFERRED
SOLELY TO THE SECOND ORDER AND NOT TO THE FIRST, THAT DEFECT WAS OF
SUCH A TECHNICAL NATURE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE
DISREGARDED IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY EXPRESSED BY CONGRESS IN
R.S. SEC. 954, 28 U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  777.  FN6 

THE MANDATE OF THAT STATUTE IS FOR A COURT TO DISREGARD NICETIES OF
FORM AND TO GIVE JUDGMENT AS THE RIGHT OF THE CAUSE SHALL APPEAR TO IT.
IT SEEMS TO US HYPERTECHNICAL TO SAY THAT THE APPEAL PAPERS DID NOT
BRING THE SOLE ISSUE OF THE CASE FAIRLY BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
THUS THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR FRAMED IN THE APPEAL ATTACKED THE BASIS
OF THE FIRST ORDER AS WELL AS THE SECOND.  WHAT APPELLANT SOUGHT TO
HAVE REVIEWED WAS PLAIN.  THE FAILURE TO USE THE WORDS AUGUST 5, 1946,
IF THAT BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION, WAS AS
INSUBSTANTIAL AS A MISSPELLING OF THE WORDS WOULD HAVE BEEN, SINCE THE
WORDS USED IDENTIFIED THE RULINGS WHICH WERE CHALLENGED, AND IN NO WAY
ALTERED THE SCOPE OF REVIEW.  CF. R.F.C. V. PRUDENCE GROUP, 311 U.S.
579, 582; GEORGIA LUMBER CO. V. COMPANIA, 323 U.S. 334, 336. 

II.  THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2
OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, DIRECTING WHERE SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT,
FN7  WERE JURISDICTIONAL WAS IN OUR VIEW ERRONEOUS.  THOSE PROVISIONS
PROPERLY CONSTRUED RELATE TO VENUE. 

THE SECTION RELATES NOT TO LIBELS IN REM BUT TO LIBELS IN PERSONAM. 
A SIMILAR PROVISION IN SEC. 5 OF THE TUCKER ACT (24 STAT. 506, 28
U.S.C. (1946 ED.)  SEC.  762, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1402), WAS HELD TO
PRESCRIBE VENUE AND HENCE COULD BE AND WAS WAIVED BY FAILURE TO OBJECT
BEFORE PLEADING TO THE MERITS.  UNITED STATES V. HVOSLEF, 237 U.S. 1,
11-12; THAMES & MERSEY INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 237 U.S. 19, 24.  AN
ANALOGOUS PROVISION IN THE JONES ACT, 41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
688, WAS CONSTRUED THE SAME WAY.  PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S.
375, 384-385.  AND WE RECENTLY INDICATED THAT THAT WAS THE CORRECT
CONSTRUCTION OF COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS
ACT, 43 STAT. 1112, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 782(CANADIAN AVIATOR, LTD. V. UNITED
STATES, 324 U.S. 215, 224), AN ACT WHICH IS SIMILIAR IN PURPOSE AND
DESIGN TO THE PRESENT ONE.  SEE AMERICAN STEVEDORES V. PORELLO, 330
U.S. 446, 452-453. 

CONGRESS, BY DESCRIBING THE DISTRICT WHERE THE SUIT WAS TO BE
BROUGHT, WAS NOT INVESTING THE FEDERAL COURTS "WITH A GENERAL
JURISDICTION EXPRESSED IN TERMS APPLICABLE ALIKE TO ALL OF THEM."  SEE
PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, P. 384.  IT WAS DEALING WITH THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES IN SUING OR BEING SUED AT THE DESIGNATED
PLACES.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO GRANT SEAMEN RELIEF AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES IN ITS OWN COURTS.  THE CONCEPTS OF RESIDENCE AND
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS OBVIOUSLY CAN HAVE NO RELEVANCE WHEN
APPLIED TO THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS UBIQUITOUS THROUGHOUT THE LAND
AND, UNLIKE PRIVATE PARTIES, IS NOT CENTERED AT ONE PARTICULAR PLACE. 
THE RESIDENCE OR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE LIBELANT AND THE
PLACE WHERE THE VESSEL OR CARGO IS FOUND MAY BE THE BEST MEASURE OF THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES.  BUT IF THE UNITED STATES IS WILLING TO
DEFEND IN A DIFFERENT PLACE, WE FIND NOTHING IN THE ACT TO PREVENT IT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION NOW STANDS IN ITS SHOES. 
SEE 60 STAT. 501. 

FN2  OTHER PARTIES WERE ALSO SUED BUT THEY WERE DISMISSED FROM THE
CASE. 

FN3  SECTION 2 OF THAT ACT PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THAT IN CASES WHERE IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED,
OR IF SUCH CARGO WERE PRIVATELY OWNED AND POSSESSED, A PROCEEDING IN
ADMIRALTY COULD BE MAINTAINED AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
ACTION HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, A LIBEL IN PERSONAM MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST SUCH CORPORATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE,
PROVIDED THAT SUCH VESSEL IS EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL OR IS A TUG
BOAT OPERATED BY SUCH CORPORATION.  SUCH SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE
PARTIES SO SUING, OR ANY OF THEM, RESIDE OR HAVE THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE
OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES, OR IN WHICH THE VESSEL OR CARGO
CHARGED WITH LIABILITY IS FOUND.  ...  UPON APPLICATION OF EITHER PARTY
THE CAUSE MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY
OTHER DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN4  THE RECORD SHOWS THE PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE WAS IN OREGON. 

FN5  THIS IS THE KIND OF PROBLEM WHICH COULD BE APPROPRIATELY HANDLED
THROUGH THE RULE MAKING AUTHORITY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  CF.
COMMISSIONER V. BEDFORD, 325 U.S. 283, 288. 

FN6  THAT SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO SUMMONS, WRIT, DECLARATION, RETURN, PROCESS, JUDGMENT, OR OTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CIVIL CAUSES, IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL
BE ABATED, ARRESTED, QUASHED, OR REVERSED FOR ANY DEFECT OR WANT OF
FORM; BUT SUCH COURT SHALL PROCEED AND GIVE JUDGMENT ACCORDING AS THE
RIGHT OF THE CAUSE AND MATTER IN LAW SHALL APPEAR TO IT, WITHOUT
REGARDING ANY SUCH DEFECT, OR WANT OF FORM, EXCEPT THOSE WHICH, IN
CASES OF DEMURRER, THE PARTY DEMURRING SPECIALLY SETS DOWN, TOGETHER
WITH HIS DEMURRER, AS THE CAUSE THEREOF; AND SUCH COURT SHALL AMEND
EVERY SUCH DEFECT AND WANT OF FORM, OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH THE PARTY
DEMURRING SO EXPRESSES; AND MAY AT ANY TIME PERMIT EITHER OF THE
PARTIES TO AMEND ANY DEFECT IN THE PROCESS OR PLEADINGS, UPON SUCH
CONDITIONS AS IT SHALL, IN ITS DISCRETION AND BY ITS RULES,
PRESCRIBE." 

AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE, THE FOREGOING SECTION
WAS REPEALED, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1948.  62 STAT. 992, SEC. 39.  AND
SEE REVISION OF TITLE 28, U.S. CODE, H. REP. NO. 308, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. A 239.  BUT THE POLICY EXPRESSED IN SEC. 954 WAS PRESERVED AS
RESPECTS CASES PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE REPEAL, SINCE THE REPEALING
STATUTE PROVIDES THAT "ANY RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES NOW EXISTING UNDER
SUCH SECTIONS OR PARTS THEREOF SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS REPEAL." 
AND SEE RULES 1, 15, 61, AND 81, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA.
..END :
















MACDOUGALL V. GREEN, 335 U.S. 281 


NO. 348.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1948.  - DECIDED OCTOBER 21, 1948.  - 80
F.SUPP.  725, AFFIRMED. 


THE ILLINOIS ELECTION CODE, ILL. REV. STAT., C. 46, SEC. 10 - 2,
REQUIRES THAT A PETITION TO FORM, AND TO NOMINATE CANDIDATES FOR, A NEW
POLITICAL PARTY BE SIGNED BY AT LEAST 25,000 QUALIFIED VOTERS,
INCLUDING AT LEAST 200 FROM EACH OF AT LEAST 50 OF THE 102 COUNTIES IN
THE STATE.  ALLEGING THAT 52% OF THE STATE'S REGISTERED VOTERS RESIDE
IN COOK COUNTY ALONE, 87% IN THE 49 MOST POPULOUS COUNTIES, AND ONLY
13% IN THE 53 LEAST POPULOUS COUNTIES, APPELLANTS SUED TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF AT LEAST 200 SIGNATURES FROM EACH OF
AT LEAST 50 COUNTIES.  HELD:  THIS REQUIREMENT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE
PROCESS, EQUAL-PROTECTION OR PRIVILEGES-AND-IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ART. I, SEC. 2 OR SEC. 4, ART. II, SEC. 1, OR THE
SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP.
282-284. 

MACDOUGALL ET AL. V. GREEN, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION. 

IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF ILL. REV. STAT., C. 46, SEC. 10 -
2, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND WANT OF JURISDICTION AND DENIED THE
INJUNCTION.  80 F.SUPP.  725.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P.
284. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A THREE-JUDGE COURT CONVENED IN THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2281 AND SEC. 2284. 
THE OBJECT OF THE ACTION IS AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
PROVISION WHICH, IN 1935, WAS ADDED TO A STATUTE OF ILLINOIS AND WHICH
REQUIRES THAT A PETITION TO FORM AND TO NOMINATE CANDIDATES FOR A NEW
POLITICAL PARTY BE SIGNED BY AT LEAST 25,000 QUALIFIED VOTERS,
"PROVIDED, THAT INCLUDED IN THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OF TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND
(25,000) SIGNATURES ARE THE SIGNATURES OF TWO HUNDRED (200) QUALIFIED
VOTERS FROM EACH OF AT LEAST FIFTY (50) COUNTIES WITHIN THE STATE." 
ILL. REV. STAT. C. 46, SEC. 10 - 2(1947).  APPELLANTS ARE THE
"PROGRESSIVE PARTY," ITS NOMINEES FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR,
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS, AND STATE OFFICES, AND SEVERAL ILLINOIS VOTERS. 
APPELLEES ARE THE GOVERNOR, THE AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE OF ILLINOIS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS OF ELECTION
COMMISSIONERS OF VARIOUS CITIES, AND THE COUNTY CLERKS OF VARIOUS
COUNTIES.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND WANT OF JURISDICTION AND DENIED THE
INJUNCTION.  80 F.SUPP.  725.  APPELLANTS INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 1253. 

THE ACTION ARISES FROM THE FINDING OF THE STATE OFFICERS ELECTORAL
BOARD THAT APPELLANTS HAD NOT OBTAINED THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF
SIGNATURES FROM THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF COUNTIES AND ITS CONSEQUENT
RULING THAT THEIR NOMINATING PETITION WAS "NOT SUFFICIENT IN LAW TO
ENTITLE THE SAID CANDIDATES' NAMES TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT."  THE
APPELLANTS' CLAIM TO EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST THIS RULING IS BASED UPON
THE PECULIAR DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AMONG ILLINOIS' 102 COUNTIES. 
THEY ALLEGE THAT 52% OF THE STATE'S REGISTERED VOTERS ARE RESIDENTS OF
COOK COUNTY ALONE, 87% ARE RESIDENTS OF THE 49 MOST POPULOUS COUNTIES,
AND ONLY 13% RESIDE IN THE 53 LEAST POPULOUS COUNTIES.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY SAY, THE ILLINOIS STATUTE IS SO DISCRIMINATORY IN
ITS APPLICATION AS TO AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF THE DUE-PROCESS, EQUAL
PROTECTION, AND PRIVILEGES-AND-IMMUNITIES CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS ARTICLE I, SECS. 2 AND 4, ARTICLE II, SEC. 1, AND
THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF TWO HUNDRED SIGNATURES FROM AT
LEAST FIFTY COUNTIES GIVES TO THE VOTERS OF THE LESS POPULOUS COUNTIES
OF ILLINOIS THE POWER COMPLETELY TO BLOCK THE NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES
WHOSE SUPPORT IS CONFINED TO GEOGRAPHICALLY LIMITED AREAS.  BUT THE
STATE IS ENTITLED TO DEEM THIS POWER NOT DISPROPORTIONATE:  OF 25,000
SIGNATURES REQUIRED, ONLY 9,800, OR 39%, NEED BE DISTRIBUTED; THE
REMAINING 61% MAY BE OBTAINED FROM A SINGLE COUNTY.  AND COOK COUNTY,
THE LARGEST, CONTAINS NOT MORE THAN 52% OF THE STATE'S VOTERS.  IT IS
ALLOWABLE STATE POLICY TO REQUIRE THAT CANDIDATES FOR STATE-WIDE OFFICE
SHOULD HAVE SUPPORT NOT LIMITED TO A CONCENTRATED LOCALITY.  THIS IS
NOT A UNIQUE POLICY.  SEE NEW YORK LAWS 1896, C. 909, SEC. 57, NOW N.Y.
ELEC.  LAW SEC. 137(4); 113 LAWS OF OHIO 349, GEN. CODE SEC. 4785
91(1929), NOW OHIO CODE ANN. (CUM. SUPP. 1947) SEC. 4785-91; MASS.
ACTS, 1943, C. 334, SEC. 2, NOW MASS. ANN. LAWS C. 53, SEC. 6(1945). 
TO ASSUME THAT POLITICAL POWER IS A FUNCTION EXCLUSIVELY OF NUMBERS IS
TO DISREGARD THE PRACTICALITIES OF GOVERNMENT.  THUS, THE CONSTITUTION
PROTECTS THE INTERESTS OF THE SMALLER AGAINST THE GREATER BY GIVING IN
THE SENATE ENTIRELY UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION TO POPULATIONS.  IT WOULD BE
STRANGE INDEED, AND DOCTRINAIRE, FOR THIS COURT, APPLYING SUCH BROAD
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTS AS DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS, TO DENY A STATE THE POWER TO ASSURE A PROPER DIFFUSION OF
POLITICAL INITIATIVE AS BETWEEN ITS THINLY POPULATED COUNTIES AND THOSE
HAVING CONCENTRATED MASSES, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LATTER HAVE
PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXERTING THEIR POLITICAL WEIGHT AT THE
POLLS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE FORMER.  THE CONSTITUTION - A PRACTICAL
INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT - MAKES NO SUCH DEMANDS ON THE STATES. 
COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549, AND COLEGROVE V. BARRETT, 330 U.S.
804. 

ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, WE NEED NOT PASS UPON PURELY LOCAL
QUESTIONS, ALSO URGED BY APPELLANTS, HAVING NO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
ASPECT.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. 

IN ITS FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUES THIS CASE IS CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO
COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549.  IT PRESENTS SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS CRUCIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF ILLINOIS ELECTION PROCEDURES AND
THEIR APPLICATION TO THE IMMINENTLY IMPENDING GENERAL ELECTION.  THAT A
BARE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT RESOLVE THEM ONE WAY AND THREE OTHERS HOLD
OPPOSING VIEWS ONLY EMPHASIZES THEIR SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER AND SUPREME
IMPORTANCE.  THESE QUALITIES ARE NOT DIMINISHED BY THE FACT THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, APPEARING FOR THE THREE MEMBERS OF THE SO
CALLED "STATE CERTIFYING BOARD,"  FN1  HAS CONCEDED IN HIS BRIEF THE
VALIDITY OF APPELLANTS' POSITION AND AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT HAS
CONFESSED ERROR IN THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  NOR IS IT
INSIGNIFICANT OR IRRELEVANT THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTORY
PROCEDURES MADE BY THE STATE OFFICIALS IN PRACTICAL EFFECT DENIES TO A
SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF QUALIFIED VOTERS THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR
SUFFRAGE IN BEHALF OF CANDIDATES OF THEIR CHOICE. 

FORCED BY THE EXIGENCIES OF THEIR SITUATION, APPELLANTS HAVE INVOKED
FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION IN VINDICATION OF THEIR RIGHTS.  THEY SEEK
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, IN EFFECT, TO COMPEL PLACING THE NAMES OF THEIR
CANDIDATES UPON THE BALLOT FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 2.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE MAY ASSUME THAT APPELLANTS HAVE
ACTED WITH ALL POSSIBLE DISPATCH.  EVEN SO, WE FIND OURSELVES
CONFRONTED ON THE EVE OF THE ELECTION WITH THE ALTERNATIVES OF DENYING
THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR OF DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION. 

THIS CHOICE, IN MY OPINION, PRESENTS THE CRUCIAL QUESTION AND THE
ONLY ONE NECESSARILY OR PROPERLY NOW TO BE DECIDED.  BEYOND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IT POSES DELICATE PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE
PROPRIETY OF GRANTING THE RELIEF IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES.  EVEN
IF WE ASSUME THAT APPELLANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED,
THE QUESTIONS ARISE WHETHER, IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EQUITY ARM OF
THE FEDERAL COURTS CAN NOW BE EXTENDED TO GIVE EFFECTIVE RELIEF; AND
WHETHER THE RELIEF, IF GIVEN, MIGHT NOT DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD, MIGHT
NOT INDEED EITHER DISRUPT THE ILLINOIS ELECTION ALTOGETHER OR
DISFRANCHISE MORE PERSONS THAN HAVE BEEN DISFRANCHISED BY THE
APPLICATION OF THE QUESTIONED ILLINOIS PROCEDURES. 

EVERY REASON EXISTING IN COLEGROVE V. GREEN, SUPRA, WHICH SEEMED TO
ME COMPELLING TO REQUIRE THIS COURT TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS EQUITY
JURISDICTION AND TO DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IS PRESENT
HERE.  SEE THE OPINION CONCURRING IN THE RESULT, 328 U.S. AT 564. 
INDEED THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE MORE EXIGENT AND THEREFORE MORE COMPELLING
TO THAT CONCLUSION. 

WE ARE ON THE EVE OF THE NATIONAL ELECTION.  BUT TWELVE DAYS REMAIN. 
NECESSARILY SOME OF THESE WOULD BE CONSUMED IN REMANDING THE CAUSE TO
THE DISTRICT COURT AND IN ITS CONSIDERATION, FORMULATION AND ISSUANCE
OF AN INJUNCTION IN ESSENTIALLY SPECIFIC TERMS.  THE BALLOTS, AS
CERTIFIED BY THE STATE OFFICIALS, ARE IN PROCESS OF PRINTING AND
DISTRIBUTION.  ABSENTEE BALLOTS HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED.  ILLINOIS IS ONE
OF THE MORE POPULOUS STATES.  MILLIONS OF BALLOTS WILL BE REQUIRED, NOT
ONLY IN THE STATE BUT IN COOK COUNTY ALONE.  IT IS TRUE THAT, ON THE
SHORT RECORD BEFORE US AND IN THE NECESSARILY BRIEF TIME AVAILABLE FOR
PREPARING BOTH THE RECORD AND THE BRIEFS, APPELLEES WHO OPPOSE GRANTING
THE RELIEF HAVE NOT MADE AN ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE FACTUAL SHOWING THAT
NEW BALLOTS, CONTAINING THE NAMES OF APPELLANTS' CANDIDATES, COULD NOT
POSSIBLY BE PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED FOR USE AT THE ELECTION.  BUT THEY
SUGGEST WITH GOOD REASON THAT THIS COULD NOT BE DONE.  THE TASK WOULD
BE GIGANTIC.  EVEN WITH THE MOBILIZATION OF EVERY POSSIBLE RESOURCE, IT
IS GRAVELY DOUBTFUL THAT IT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED.  THE RISK WOULD BE
VERY LARGE THAT IT COULD NOT BE DONE.  EVEN IF IT COULD FOR ALL EXCEPT
ABSENTEE VOTERS, THEY WOULD BE DISFRANCHISED.  ISSUANCE OF THE
INJUNCTION SOUGHT WOULD INVALIDATE THE BALLOTS ALREADY PREPARED,
INCLUDING THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, AND THOSE NOW IN COURSE OF
PREPARATION. 

THE SUM OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WITHOUT REGARD TO OTHERS NOT NOW
NECESSARY TO STATE, FORCES ME TO CONCLUDE THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT COULD
BE HAD AT THIS LATE STAGE IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS ONLY AT THE GRAVEST
RISK OF DISRUPTING THAT PROCESS COMPLETELY IN ILLINOIS OR OF
DISFRANCHISING ILLINOIS VOTERS IN PERHAPS MUCH GREATER NUMBERS THAN
THOSE WHOSE INTERESTS APPELLANTS REPRESENT.  THAT IS A RISK WHICH, IN
MY JUDGMENT, FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE AND INDEED
ARE NOT FREE TO UNDERTAKE WITHIN THE HISTORIC LIMITS OF THEIR EQUITY
JURISDICTION. 

ACCORDINGLY, I EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND
OTHER QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  AS IN COLEGROVE V. GREEN, SUPRA, I THINK
THE CASE IS ONE IN WHICH, FOR THE REASONS STATED, THIS COURT MAY
PROPERLY, AND SHOULD, DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION IN EQUITY. 
ACCORDINGLY, BUT SOLELY FOR THIS REASON, I AGREE THAT THE JUDGMENT
REFUSING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE STATE CERTIFYING BOARD IS COMPOSED OF THE GOVERNOR, THE
AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND PETITIONS
FOR THE FORMATION OF NEW STATE-WIDE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE FILED WITH
THIS BOARD.  (ILL. REV. STAT. C. 46(1947) SECS. 10 - 2, 10 - 4.)  ON
THE FILING OF TIMELY OBJECTION TO SUCH PETITIONS, THE CERTIFYING BOARD
TRANSMITS THE PETITIONS AND THE OBJECTIONS TO THE STATE OFFICERS
ELECTORAL BOARD, WHICH IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS ACTION.  AFTER PASSING ON
THE OBJECTION, THE STATE OFFICERS ELECTORAL BOARD INFORMS THE STATE
CERTIFYING BOARD OF ITS RULING, AND THE CERTIFYING BOARD IS REQUIRED TO
"ABIDE BY AND COMPLY WITH THE RULING SO MADE TO ALL INTENTS AND
PURPOSES."  (ILL. REV. STAT. C. 46(1947) SEC. 10 - 10.)  WHERE
OBJECTION IS NOT MADE, OR WHERE IT IS MADE AND OVERRULED, THE NEW PARTY
AND THE NAMES OF ITS CANDIDATES ARE CERTIFIED BY THE STATE CERTIFYING
BOARD TO THE SEVERAL COUNTY CLERKS; THE CLERKS OR THE LOCAL BOARDS OF
ELECTION COMMISSIONERS, BOTH GROUPS BEING PARTIES TO THIS ACTION,
THEREUPON ARE REQUIRED TO PRINT BALLOTS CONTAINING THE NAMES OF THE
CANDIDATES THUS CERTIFIED.  (ILL. REV. STAT. C. 46(1947) SEC. 10 -
14.) 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THAT THE 1935 AMENDMENT OF THE ILLINOIS ELECTION CODE, ILL.
REV. STAT. C. 46, SEC. 10-2(1947), AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THIS
CASE, VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THAT STATUTE REQUIRES THE NOMINATING PETITION OF A NEW POLITICAL
PARTY, WHICH PLACES CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION,
TO CONTAIN 200 SIGNATURES FROM EACH OF AT LEAST 50 OF THE 102 COUNTIES
IN THE STATE.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE REQUIRED
SIGNATURES PROPORTIONATE TO THE POPULATION OF EACH COUNTY.  ONE EFFECT
OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE ELECTORATE IN 49 OF THE COUNTIES WHICH
CONTAIN 87% OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS COULD NOT FORM A NEW POLITICAL
PARTY AND PLACE ITS CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT.  TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND OF
THE REMAINING 13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS, HOWEVER, PROPERLY DISTRIBUTED
AMONG THE 53 REMAINING COUNTIES COULD FORM A NEW PARTY TO ELECT
CANDIDATES TO OFFICE.  THAT REGULATION THUS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE
RESIDENTS OF THE POPULOUS COUNTIES OF THE STATE IN FAVOR OF RURAL
POLITICAL RIGHTS IS ENTITLED UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FREE AND HONEST ELECTIONS ARE THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR REPUBLICAN
FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH IMPORTANT POLITICAL
RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE - THE VOTING FOR ELECTORS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE II,
SEC. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION; THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ELECT SENATORS,
GUARANTEED BY THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT; THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO
CHOOSE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS, GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE I, SEC.
2, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY GROUP OR CLASS OF
CITIZENS IN THE EXERCISE OF THESE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS OF
CITIZENSHIP DEPRIVES THE ELECTORAL PROCESS OF INTEGRITY.  THE
PROTECTION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GIVES VOTING RIGHTS COVERS NOT ONLY
THE GENERAL ELECTION BUT ALSO EXTENDS TO EVERY INTEGRAL PART OF THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS, INCLUDING PRIMARIES.  UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313
U.S. 299; SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649.  WHEN CANDIDATES ARE CHOSEN
FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION BY A NOMINATING PETITION, THAT PROCEDURE ALSO
BECOMES AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.  IT IS ENTITLED TO
THE SAME PROTECTION AS THAT WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GRANTS ANY
OTHER PART.    NONE WOULD DENY THAT A STATE LAW GIVING SOME CITIZENS
TWICE THE VOTE OF OTHER CITIZENS IN EITHER THE PRIMARY OR GENERAL
ELECTION WOULD LACK THAT EQUALITY WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
GUARANTEES.  SEE NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536.  THE DILUTION OF
POLITICAL RIGHTS MAY BE AS COMPLETE AND EFFECTIVE IF THE SAME
DISCRIMINATION APPEARS IN THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR NOMINATING
PETITIONS.  SEE STATE V. JUNKIN, 85 NEB. 1, 122 N.W. 473.  IT WOULD, OF
COURSE, BE PALPABLY DISCRIMINATORY IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE IF THIS LAW WERE AIMED AT THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY IN THE MANNER
THAT THE STATE LAW IN NIXON V. HERNDON, SUPRA, WAS AIMED AT NEGROES. 
BUT THE EFFECT OF A STATE LAW MAY BRING IT UNDER THE CONDEMNATION OF
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE HOWEVER INNOCENT ITS PURPOSE.  IT IS
INVALID IF DISCRIMINATION IS APPARENT IN ITS OPERATION.  THE TEST IS
WHETHER IT HAS SOME FOUNDATION IN EXPERIENCE, PRACTICALITY, OR
NECESSITY.  SEE SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542. 

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THIS LAW CAN STAND THAT TEST BECAUSE IT
IS DESIGNED TO REQUIRE STATEWIDE SUPPORT FOR THE LAUNCHING OF A NEW
POLITICAL PARTY RATHER THAN SUPPORT FROM A FEW LOCALITIES.  THERE IS NO
ATTEMPT HERE, AS I HAVE SAID, TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SIGNATURES EVEN
APPROXIMATELY PROPORTIONATE TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF VOTERS AMONG THE
VARIOUS COUNTIES OF THE STATE.  NO SUCH PROPORTIONATE ALLOCATION COULD
OF COURSE BE MATHEMATICALLY EXACT.  NOR WOULD IT BE REQUIRED.  BUT
WHEN, AS HERE, THE LAW APPLIES A RIGID, ARBITRARY FORMULA TO SPARSELY
SETTLED COUNTIES AND POPULOUS COUNTIES ALIKE, IT OFFERS NO BASIS
WHATEVER TO JUSTIFY GIVING GREATER WEIGHT TO THE INDIVIDUAL VOTES OF
ONE GROUP OF CITIZENS THAN TO THOSE OF ANOTHER GROUP.  THIS LEGISLATION
THEREFORE HAS THE SAME INHERENT INFIRMITY AS THAT WHICH SOME OF US SAW
IN COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549, 569.  THE FACT THAT THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF SANCTIONS INEQUALITIES IN SOME PHASES OF OUR
POLITICAL SYSTEM N1 DOES NOT JUSTIFY US IN ALLOWING A STATE TO CREATE
ADDITIONAL ONES.  THE THEME OF THE CONSTITUTION IS EQUALITY AMONG
CITIZENS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR POLITICAL RIGHTS.  THE NOTION THAT
ONE GROUP CAN BE GRANTED GREATER VOTING STRENGTH THAN ANOTHER IS
HOSTILE TO OUR STANDARDS FOR POPULAR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD BE MOST HESITANT TO USE THE INJUNCTION IN STATE
ELECTIONS.  SEE WILSON V. NORTH CAROLINA, 169 U.S. 586, 596.  IF
FEDERAL COURTS UNDERTOOK THE ROLE OF SUPERINTENDENCE, DISRUPTION OF THE
WHOLE ELECTORAL PROCESS MIGHT RESULT, AND THE ELECTIVE SYSTEM THAT IS
VITAL TO OUR GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE PARALYZED.  CF. JOHNSON V. STEVENSON,
170 F.2D 108.  THE EQUITY COURT, MOREOVER, MUST ALWAYS BE ALERT IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION TO MAKE SURE THAT ITS DECREE WILL NOT BE A
FUTILE AND INEFFECTIVE THING.  BUT THE CASE, AS MADE BEFORE US, DOES
NOT INDICATE THAT EITHER OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD DETER US IN
STRIKING DOWN THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE AND IN FREEING THE
IMPENDING ILLINOIS ELECTION OF ITS IMPEDIMENTS.  THE STATE OFFICIALS
WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ELECTION AND WHO AT THIS BAR CONFESSED
ERROR IN THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT MAKE NO SUCH INTIMATION OR
SUGGESTION.  WE ARE THEREFORE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ASSUME THAT OUR DECREE
WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERLY PROCESS OF THE ELECTION. 

FN1  THE FEDERALIST NO. 62 EXPLAINED THE EQUALITY OF REPRESENTATION
OF THE STATES IN THE SENATE AS FOLLOWS:  "IF INDEED IT BE RIGHT, THAT
AMONG A PEOPLE THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED INTO ONE NATION, EVERY DISTRICT
OUGHT TO HAVE A PROPORTIONAL SHARE IN THE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT AMONG
INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN STATES, BOUND TOGETHER BY A SIMPLE LEAGUE,
THE PARTIES, HOWEVER UNEQUAL IN SIZE, OUGHT TO HAVE AN EQUAL SHARE IN
THE COMMON COUNCILS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WITHOUT SOME REASON THAT
IN A COMPOUND REPUBLIC, PARTAKING BOTH OF THE NATIONAL AND FEDERAL
CHARACTER, THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE FOUNDED ON A MIXTURE OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONAL AND EQUAL REPRESENTATION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE EQUAL VOTE ALLOWED TO EACH STATE IS AT ONCE A CONSTITUTIONAL
RECOGNITION OF THE PORTION OF SOVEREIGNTY REMAINING IN THE INDIVIDUAL
STATES, AND AN INSTRUMENT FOR PRESERVING THAT RESIDUARY SOVEREIGNTY. 
SO FAR THE EQUALITY OUGHT TO BE NO LESS ACCEPTABLE TO THE LARGE THAN TO
THE SMALL STATES; SINCE THEY ARE NOT LESS SOLICITOUS TO GUARD, BY EVERY
POSSIBLE EXPEDIENT, AGAINST AN IMPROPER CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATES
INTO ONE SIMPLE REPUBLIC. 

"ANOTHER ADVANTAGE ACCRUING FROM THIS INGREDIENT IN THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE SENATE IS, THE ADDITIONAL IMPEDIMENT IT MUST PROVE AGAINST
IMPROPER ACTS OF LEGISLATION.  NO LAW OR RESOLUTION CAN NOW BE PASSED
WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE, FIRST, OF A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, AND THEN,
OF A MAJORITY OF THE STATES." 
..END :

















SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, 335 U.S. 1 


NO. 49.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1948.  - 159 F.2D
890, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN OBEDIENCE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA, PETITIONER PRODUCED
SALES RECORDS WHICH HE HAD KEPT AS REQUIRED BY A REGULATION OF THE
PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, BUT CLAIMED CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE.  IN A
PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT BASED ON
EVIDENCE THUS PRODUCED, HE INTERPOSED A PLEA IN BAR, CLAIMING THAT
UNDER SEC. 202(G) OF THE ACT, WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF 1893, HIS PRODUCTION OF
THESE RECORDS GAVE HIM IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION.  HELD:  THE PLEA IN
BAR WAS PROPERLY OVERRULED BY THE TRIAL COURT.  PP. 3-36. 

2.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, VIEWED
AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF SETTLED JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMMUNITY
PROVISION, INDICATE THAT CONGRESS REQUIRED RECORDS TO BE KEPT AS A
MEANS OF ENFORCING THE STATUTE AND DID NOT INTEND TO FRUSTRATE THE USE
OF THESE RECORDS FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY GRANTING AN IMMUNITY TO
INDIVIDUALS COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE THEM TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  PP. 7
32. 

(A)  THE VERY LANGUAGE OF SEC. 202(A) DISCLOSES THAT THE RECORD
KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS WERE DESIGNED NOT MERELY TO "OBTAIN
INFORMATION" FOR ASSISTANCE IN PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS OR ORDERS UNDER
THE STATUTE, BUT ALSO TO AID IN THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  P. 8. 

(B)  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 202 INDICATES THAT CONGRESS,
WHOSE ATTENTION WAS INVITED BY PROPONENTS OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT TO
THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF THE LICENSING, RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION
PROVISIONS IN AIDING EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, DID NOT INTEND SEC. 202(G)
TO PROFFER A "GRATUITY TO CRIME" BY GRANTING IMMUNITY TO CUSTODIANS OF
NON-PRIVILEGED RECORDS.  PP. 8-16. 

(C)  IN VIEW OF THE PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE COMPULSORY
TESTIMONY ACT OF 1893 BY THIS COURT IN HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S.
131, CONGRESS MUST HAVE INTENDED THE IMMUNITY PROVISO IN THE PRICE
CONTROL ACT TO BE COTERMINOUS WITH WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE OF PETITIONER IN THE CASE AT BAR; AND SINCE HE
COULD ASSERT NO VALID PRIVILEGE AS TO THE REQUIRED RECORDS HERE
INVOLVED, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361,
HE WAS ENTITLED TO NO IMMUNITY UNDER THE STATUTE.  PP. 16-20. 

(D)  THE PRECISE WORDING OF SEC. 202(G) OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT
INDICATES THAT ITS DRAFTSMEN WENT TO SOME PAINS TO INSURE THAT THE
IMMUNITY PROVIDED FOR WOULD BE CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS AS BEING SO
LIMITED.  PP. 20-22. 

(E)  SINCE THE PRICE CONTROL ACT PROVIDED FOR PRICE REGULATIONS
ENFORCEABLE AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ENTREPRENEURS AS WELL AS CORPORATE
INDUSTRY, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO DIFFERENTIATE
SUB SILENTIO, FOR PURPOSES OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISO, BETWEEN RECORDS
REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY INDIVIDUALS AND THOSE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY
CORPORATIONS.  PP. 22-24. 

(F)  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISO DOES NOT RENDER
MEANINGLESS THE PHRASE "ANY REQUIREMENTS" IN THE OPENING CLAUSE OF SEC.
202(G).  PP. 24-29. 

(G)  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1893 IMMUNITY PROVISION, WHICH
WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, CLEARLY
DISCLOSES THAT THE PROVISION WAS ENACTED MERELY TO PROVIDE AN IMMUNITY
SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO BE AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE, IN RESPONSE TO THE RULING BY THIS COURT IN COUNSELMAN V.
HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547.  PP. 28-29. 

(H)  THE CANON OF AVOIDANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBTS DOES NOT GOVERN
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISION, SINCE ITS APPLICATION TO
THAT CLAUSE WOULD OVERRIDE THE SETTLED JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF SIMILAR
PROVISIONS AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT
OF 1893, AND WOULD FRUSTRATE THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT MANIFESTED BY THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  PP. 29-35. 

3.  THIS CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 202(G) OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT RAISES
NO SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.  PP. 32-34. 

(A)  THE PRIVILEGE WHICH EXISTS AS TO PRIVATE PAPERS CANNOT BE
MAINTAINED WHERE THE RECORDS IN QUESTION WERE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED
UNDER APPROPRIATE REGULATION, THEIR RELEVANCE TO THE LAWFUL PURPOSE OF
THE OPA IS UNQUESTIONED, AND THEY RECORD TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE
DEALER COULD ENGAGE SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF A LICENSE GRANTED UNDER THE
STATUTE.  PP. 32-35. 

(B)  THE SALES RECORD WHICH PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO KEEP AS A
LICENSEE UNDER THE PRICE CONTROL ACT WAS SUCH A RECORD; IT WAS LEGALLY
OBTAINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR PURSUANT TO THE ACT; AND HENCE IT WAS
AVAILABLE AS EVIDENCE.  PP. 34-35. 

SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF HAVING MADE TIE-IN SALES IN VIOLATION OF
REGULATIONS UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING A
PLEA IN BAR CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 202(G).  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  159 F.2D 890.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 801.  AFFIRMED, P. 36. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS TRIED ON CHARGES OF HAVING MADE TIE-IN SALES IN
VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  FN1  A
PLEA IN BAR, CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BASED ON SEC. 202(G)
FN2  OF THE ACT, WAS OVERRULED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE; JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION FOLLOWED AND WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL.  159 F.2D 890.  A
CONTRARY CONCLUSION WAS REACHED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN UNITED STATES
V. HOFFMAN, POST, P. 77.  BECAUSE THIS CONFLICT INVOLVES AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, THESE CASES WERE BROUGHT HERE AND
HEARD TOGETHER.  ADDITIONAL MINOR CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED IN THE
HOFFMAN CASE ARE DEALT WITH IN A SEPARATE OPINION. 

THE PETITIONER, A WHOLESALER OF FRUIT AND PRODUCE, ON SEPTEMBER 29,
1944, WAS SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND AD TESTIFICANDUM,
ISSUED BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE SUBPOENA DIRECTED PETITIONER TO APPEAR BEFORE
DESIGNATED ENFORCEMENT ATTORNEYS OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION
AND TO PRODUCE "ALL DUPLICATE SALES INVOICES, SALES BOOKS, LEDGERS,
INVENTORY RECORDS, CONTRACTS AND RECORDS RELATING TO THE SALE OF ALL
COMMODITIES FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1944 TO SEPTEMBER 28, 1944."  IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA, PETITIONER APPEARED AND, AFTER BEING
SWORN, WAS REQUESTED TO TURN OVER THE SUBPOENAED RECORDS.  PETITIONER'S
COUNSEL INQUIRED WHETHER PETITIONER WAS BEING GRANTED IMMUNITY "AS TO
ANY AND ALL MATTERS FOR INFORMATION OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE
INVESTIGATION AND EXAMINATION OF THESE RECORDS."  THE PRESIDING
OFFICIAL STATED THAT THE "WITNESS IS ENTITLED TO WHATEVER IMMUNITY
WHICH FLOWS AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE PRODUCTION OF THESE BOOKS AND
RECORDS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT PURSUANT TO MPRS 271 AND 426." 
FN3  PETITIONER THEREUPON PRODUCED THE RECORDS, BUT CLAIMED
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE. 

THE PLEA IN BAR ALLEGED THAT THE NAME OF THE PURCHASER IN THE
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED IN THE INFORMATION APPEARED IN THE SUBPOENAED
SALES INVOICES AND OTHER SIMILAR DOCUMENTS.  AND IT WAS ALLEGED THAT
THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION HAD USED THE NAME AND OTHER
UNSPECIFIED LEADS OBTAINED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS TO SEARCH OUT EVIDENCE
OF THE VIOLATIONS, WHICH HAD OCCURRED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT THE RECORDS WHICH PETITIONER
WAS COMPELLED TO PRODUCE WERE RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY A VALID
REGULATION UNDER THE PRICE CONTROL ACT; THAT THEREBY THEY BECAME PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS, AS TO WHICH NO CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION ATTACHES; THAT ACCORDINGLY THE IMMUNITY OF SEC. 202(G)
DID NOT EXTEND TO THE PRODUCTION OF THESE RECORDS AND THE PLEA IN BAR
WAS PROPERLY OVERRULED BY THE TRIAL COURT.  159 F.2D 890. 

IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE DECISION IN THE INSTANT
CASE TURNS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPULSORY TESTIMONY-IMMUNITY
PROVISION WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT
OF 1893.  THIS PROVISION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH BROAD RECORD-KEEPING
REQUIREMENTS, HAS BEEN INCLUDED NOT MERELY IN A TEMPORARY WARTIME
MEASURE BUT ALSO, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TERMS, IN VIRTUALLY ALL OF
THE MAJOR REGULATORY ENACTMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN4 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT A BROADER CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCOPE OF THE
IMMUNITY PROVISION THAN THAT APPROVED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL AIM, IN CONFERRING
INVESTIGATORY POWERS UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR, TO SECURE PROMPT
DISCLOSURE OF BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES SUBJECTED TO
OPA REGULATIONS.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, IT IS URGED THAT THE
LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT INDICATE NOTHING MORE THAN
THAT SEC. 202 WAS INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF "OBTAINING INFORMATION"
AND THAT NOTHING IN THAT HISTORY THROWS ANY LIGHT UPON THE SCOPE OF THE
IMMUNITY AFFORDED BY SUBSECTION (G).  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THESE
CONTENTIONS.  FOR, THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, VIEWED AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF SETTLED JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION
OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISION, INDICATE THAT CONGRESS REQUIRED RECORDS TO
BE KEPT AS A MEANS OF ENFORCING THE STATUTE AND DID NOT INTEND TO
FRUSTRATE THE USE OF THOSE RECORDS FOR ENFORCEMENT ACTION BY GRANTING
AN IMMUNITY BONUS TO INDIVIDUALS COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE THEIR REQUIRED
RECORDS TO THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

THE VERY LANGUAGE OF SEC. 202(A) DISCLOSES THAT THE RECORD-KEEPING
AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS WERE DESIGNED NOT MERELY TO "OBTAIN
INFORMATION" FOR ASSISTANCE IN PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS OR ORDERS UNDER
THE STATUTE, BUT ALSO TO AID "IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
THIS ACT AND REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND PRICE SCHEDULES THEREUNDER." 
FN5 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 202 CASTS EVEN STRONGER LIGHT ON THE
MEANING OF THE WORDS USED IN THAT SECTION.  ON JULY 30, 1941, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN A MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, REQUESTED
PRICE-CONTROL LEGISLATION CONFERRING EFFECTIVE AUTHORITY TO CURB
EVASION AND BOOTLEGGING FN6.  TWO DAYS LATER THE PRICE CONTROL BILL WAS
INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE BY REPRESENTATIVE STEAGALL, AND REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY. 

AS INTRODUCED, AND AS REPORTED OUT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 7,
1941, THE BILL INCLUDED BROAD INVESTIGATORY, RECORD-KEEPING, LICENSING,
AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT POWERS TO BE EXERCISED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  FN7
WHILE IT WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVE WOLCOTT ON NOVEMBER 28,
1941, OFFERED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SEC. 201 A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS, ONE
OF WHICH AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR "TO SUBPENA DOCUMENTS AND
WITNESSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING INFORMATION IN RESPECT TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF PRICE CEILINGS, AND A REVIEW OF PRICE CEILINGS."  FN8
THIS AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED.  THEREUPON REPRESENTATIVE WOLCOTT MOVED TO
STRIKE OUT AS "REDUNDANT" THE MUCH BROADER AND FAR MORE RIGOROUS
PROVISIONS IN THE BILL (SEC. 202), WHICH AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR
TO "REQUIRE THE MAKING AND KEEPING OF RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND
THE MAKING OF REPORTS," AND TO "OBTAIN OR REQUIRE THE FURNISHING OF
SUCH INFORMATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OR OTHERWISE, AS HE DEEMS
NECESSARY OR PROPER TO ASSIST HIM IN PRESCRIBING ANY REGULATION OR
ORDER UNDER THIS ACT, AND IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS
ACT, AND REGULATIONS AND ORDERS THEREUNDER."  FN9  THIS AMENDMENT TOO
WAS ACCEPTED BY THE HOUSE.  FN10 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND
CURRENCY BEGAN ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL ON DECEMBER 9, 1941, THE
DAY AFTER CONGRESS DECLARED THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN
THIS COUNTRY AND THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN.  APPEARING BEFORE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE IN THIS WARTIME SETTING, THE PROPONENTS OF THE
ORIGINAL MEASURE REQUESTED AND SECURED THE RESTORATION OF THE
ENFORCEMENT POWERS WHICH THE HOUSE HAD STRICKEN.  FN11  THEY ASSERTED
THAT A MAJOR ASPECT OF THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS CONTAINED IN THE BILL
AS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED WAS TO ENABLE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO FERRET OUT
VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCE THE LAW AGAINST THE VIOLATORS.  FN12  AND IT WAS
POINTED OUT THAT IN STRIKING DOWN THE AUTHORITY ORIGINALLY GIVEN THE
ADMINISTRATOR IN THE COMMITTEE BILL TO REQUIRE THE MAINTENANCE OF
RECORDS, THE HOUSE HAD SUBSTANTIALLY STRIPPED HIM OF HIS INVESTIGATORY
AND ENFORCEMENT POWERS, 

"BECAUSE NO INVESTIGATORY POWER CAN BE EFFECTIVE WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO
INSIST UPON THE MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS.  BY THE SIMPLE DEVICE OF
FAILING TO KEEP RECORDS OF PERTINENT TRANSACTIONS, OR BY DESTROYING OR
FALSIFYING SUCH RECORDS, A PERSON MAY VIOLATE THE ACT WITH IMPUNITY AND
LITTLE FEAR OF DETECTION.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE IN THE CASE OF PRICE
CONTROL LEGISLATION, WHICH OPERATES ON MANY DIVERSE INDUSTRIES AND
COMMODITIES, EACH INDUSTRY HAVING ITS OWN TRADE PRACTICES AND METHODS
OF OPERATION. 

"THE HOUSE BILL ALSO DEPRIVES THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE POWER TO
REQUIRE REPORTS AND TO MAKE INSPECTIONS AND TO COPY DOCUMENTS.  BY THIS
DEPRIVATION THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SUPERVISION OVER THE OPERATION OF THE
ACT IS RENDERED MOST DIFFICULT.  HE HAS NO EXPEDITIOUS WAY OF CHECKING
ON COMPLIANCE.  HE IS LEFT WITHOUT READY POWER TO DISCOVER VIOLATIONS. 

"IT SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT THE STATUTE TO BE ADMINISTERED IS AN
EMERGENCY STATUTE.  TO PUT TEETH INTO THE PRICE CONTROL ACT, IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INVESTIGATORY POWERS BE STRONG,
CLEAR, AND WELL ADAPTED TO THE OBJECTIVE.  ..."  FN13 

EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON THE RESTORATION OF LICENSING PROVISIONS, WHICH
THE HOUSE HAD DELETED FROM THE PRICE CONTROL BILL AS ORIGINALLY
DRAFTED.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE OPA CONTENDED THAT LICENSING WAS
THE BACKBONE OF ENFORCEMENT OF PRICE SCHEDULES AND REGULATIONS.  FN14
THE WORLD WAR I PROTOTYPE OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT, THE LEVER ACT, HAD
CONTAINED AUTHORITY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO LICENSE THE DISTRIBUTION OF
ANY NECESSARIES WHENEVER DEEMED ESSENTIAL "IN ORDER TO CARRY INTO
EFFECT ANY OF THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT  ..."  FN15  IT WAS POINTED OUT
THAT "THE GENERAL LICENSING REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LEVER ACT,
APPLICABLE TO ALL LICENSEES, REQUIRED THE MAKING OF REPORTS (RULE 1),
THE PERMITTING OF INSPECTION (RULE 2), AND THE KEEPING OF RECORDS (RULE
3)."  FN16  AND IT WAS NOTED THAT LICENSING HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE FUEL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT "AS A METHOD OF
OBTAINING INFORMATION, OF INSURING UNIVERSAL COMPLIANCE, AND OF
ENFORCING REFUNDS OF OVERCHARGES AND THE PAYMENT OF PENALTY CHARGES TO
WAR CHARITIES."  FN17 BY LICENSING MIDDLEMEN, "VIOLATIONS WERE READILY
DISCOVERED BY EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS WHICH EACH LICENSEE WAS
REQUIRED TO SUBMIT."  FN18 

WITH THIS BACKGROUND,  FN19  CONGRESS RESTORED LICENSING POWERS TO
THE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE PRICE CONTROL BILL AS ENACTED, SEC. 205, 50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 925(F), AND PROVIDED FOR THE SUSPENSION BY COURT
ACTION OF THE LICENSE OF ANY PERSON FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE OR PRICE SCHEDULES OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS. 
NON-RETAIL FRUIT DEALERS, INCLUDING PETITIONER IN THE PRESENT CASE,
WERE LICENSED UNDER SEC. 9A OF MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 426, 8 F.R.
16411(1943). 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS, WHOSE ATTENTION WAS INVITED
BY THE PROPONENTS OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT TO THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF
THE LICENSING, RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION PROVISIONS IN AIDING
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LEVER ACT, COULD POSSIBLY HAVE INTENDED
SEC. 202(G) TO PROFFER A "GRATUITY TO CRIME" BY GRANTING IMMUNITY TO
CUSTODIANS OF NON-PRIVILEGED RECORDS.  NOR IS IT EASY TO CONCEIVE THAT
CONGRESS COULD HAVE INTENDED PRIVATE PRIVILEGE TO ATTACH TO RECORDS
WHOSE KEEPING IT AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO REQUIRE ON THE EXPRESS
SUPPOSITION THAT IT WAS THEREBY INSERTING "TEETH" INTO THE PRICE
CONTROL ACT SINCE THE ADMINISTRATOR, BY THE USE OF SUCH RECORDS, COULD
READILY DISCOVER VIOLATIONS, CHECK ON COMPLIANCE, AND PREVENT
VIOLATIONS FROM BEING COMMITTED "WITH IMPUNITY." 

IN CONFORMANCE WITH THESE VIEWS, THE BILL AS PASSED BY CONGRESS
EMPOWERED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO REQUIRE THE MAKING AND KEEPING OF
RECORDS BY ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE, AND TO COMPEL, BY LEGAL
PROCESS, ORAL TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
DEEMED NECESSARY IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE
AND REGULATIONS.  IT ALSO INCLUDED THE IMMUNITY PROVISO, SUBSECTION (G)
OF SEC. 202, AS TO WHICH NO SPECIAL ATTENTION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN PAID
IN THE DEBATES, ALTHOUGH IT WAS UNDOUBTEDLY INCLUDED, AS IT HAD BEEN IN
OTHER STATUTES, AS A "USUAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION,"  FN20  INTENDED
TO FULFILL THE PURPOSE CUSTOMARILY FULFILLED BY SUCH A PROVISION. 

THE INESCAPABLE IMPLICATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RELATED ABOVE
CONCERNING THE OTHER SUBSECTIONS OF SEC. 202 WOULD APPEAR TO BE THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY TO BE SO
BROAD AS TO CONFER A BONUS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION OTHERWISE
OBTAINABLE. 

MOREOVER, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT CONGRESS, IN REENACTING THE
IMMUNITY PROVISION OF THE 1893 ACT, WAS AWARE OF THE SETTLED JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY.  IN ADOPTING THE LANGUAGE USED
IN THE EARLIER ACT, CONGRESS "MUST BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE ADOPTED ALSO
THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THIS COURT TO SUCH LANGUAGE, AND MADE IT A
PART OF THE ENACTMENT."  FN21 THAT JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION IS MADE UP OF
THE DOCTRINES ENUNCIATED BY THIS COURT IN SPELLING OUT THE NON
PRIVILEGED STATUS OF RECORDS VALIDLY REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE KEPT, IN
WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361(1911), AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF
IMMUNITY PROVISIONS TO NON-PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS, IN HEIKE V. UNITED
STATES, 227 U.S. 131(1913).    IN THE FORMER CASE, WILSON, THE
PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION, WAS REQUIRED BY SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE THE
CORPORATE BOOKS IN HIS CUSTODY BEFORE A GRAND JURY.  HE APPEARED BEFORE
THE GRAND JURY BUT REFUSED TO DELIVER UP THE RECORDS ON THE GROUND THAT
THEIR CONTENTS WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM, AND CLAIMED PRIVILEGE
UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  ON REVIEW IN THIS COURT OF THE JUDGMENT
COMMITTING HIM FOR CONTEMPT, WILSON BASED HIS DEFENSE IN PART ON THE
THEORY THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROTECTED IN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION HAD HE BEEN SWORN AS A WITNESS,
AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO PERMIT HIM TO BE SWORN COULD NOT
DEPRIVE HIM OF SUCH PROTECTION.  FN22  THIS ARGUMENT WAS DISPOSED OF BY
THE COURT SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT A CORPORATE OFFICER HAS NO SUCH
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AS TO CORPORATE RECORDS IN HIS POSSESSION,
EVEN THOUGH THEY CONTAIN ENTRIES MADE BY HIMSELF WHICH DISCLOSE HIS
CRIME.  MR. JUSTICE HUGHES, ANNOUNCING THE OPINION OF THE COURT, BASED
THE DECISION ON THE REASONING (WHICH THIS COURT RECENTLY CITED WITH
APPROVAL, IN DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, 589-90(1946)) THAT 

"THE PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS DOES NOT OF ITSELF
PROTECT THE CUSTODIAN AGAINST THEIR COMPULSORY PRODUCTION.  THE
QUESTION STILL REMAINS WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS AND
THE CAPACITY IN WHICH THEY ARE HELD.  IT MAY YET APPEAR THAT THEY ARE
OF A CHARACTER WHICH SUBJECTS THEM TO THE SCRUTINY DEMANDED AND THAT
THE CUSTODIAN HAS VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED A DUTY WHICH OVERRIDES HIS CLAIM
OF PRIVILEGE.  ... THE PRINCIPLE APPLIES NOT ONLY TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
IN PUBLIC OFFICES, BUT ALSO TO RECORDS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE KEPT IN
ORDER THAT THERE MAY BE SUITABLE INFORMATION OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE
THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS OF GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND THE ENFORCEMENT
OF RESTRICTIONS VALIDLY ESTABLISHED.  THERE THE PRIVILEGE, WHICH EXISTS
AS TO PRIVATE PAPERS, CANNOT BE MAINTAINED."  FN23 

AS ILLUSTRATIONS OF DOCUMENTS MEETING THIS "REQUIRED RECORDS" TEST,
THE COURT CITED WITH APPROVAL STATE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT
BUSINESS RECORDS KEPT UNDER REQUIREMENT OF LAW BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
IN UNINCORPORATED ENTERPRISES WERE "'PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, WHICH THE
DEFENDANT WAS REQUIRED TO KEEP, NOT FOR HIS PRIVATE USES, BUT FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, AND FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION.'"  FN24  THE NON
CORPORATE RECORDS TREATED AS PUBLIC IN THOSE CASES CONCERNED SUCH
INDIVIDUALS AS DRUGGISTS REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO KEEP A RECORD OF ALL
SALES OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.  FN25  THE CORPORATE AND NON-CORPORATE
BUSINESSES REQUIRED BY THE PRICE CONTROL ACT TO KEEP RECORDS EMBRACE A
MUCH GREATER NUMBER OF ENTERPRISES THAN THOSE SIMILARLY REGULATED BY
THE STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES.  BUT, SINCE IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE
INCREASED SCOPE OF REGULATION UNDER THE WARTIME MEASURE HERE INVOLVED
DOES NOT RENDER THAT ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE "REQUIRED RECORDS"
DOCTRINE WHICH THIS COURT APPROVED AS APPLIED TO NON-CORPORATE
BUSINESSMEN IN THE STATE CASES WOULD APPEAR EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN THE
CASE AT BAR. 

IN THE HEIKE CASE, THIS COURT, PER HOLMES, J., LAID DOWN A STANDARD
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTORY IMMUNITY PROVISOS WHICH CLEARLY
REQUIRES AFFIRMANCE OF THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT HERE:  "...
THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS TO MAKE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND
COMPULSORY THAT OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE GOT.  WE SEE NO REASON FOR
SUPPOSING THAT THE ACT OFFERED A GRATUITY TO CRIME.  IT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED, SO FAR AS ITS WORDS FAIRLY ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION, AS
COTERMINOUS WITH WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
PERSON CONCERNED."  FN26  IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR RATIONALE IN WILSON,
TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THE RULING IN HEIKE AS TO HOW STATUTORY IMMUNITY
PROVISOS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED, THE CONCLUSION SEEMS INEVITABLE THAT
CONGRESS MUST HAVE INTENDED THE IMMUNITY PROVISO IN THE PRICE CONTROL
ACT TO BE COTERMINOUS WITH WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE OF PETITIONER IN THE CASE AT BAR.  SINCE HE
COULD ASSERT NO VALID PRIVILEGE AS TO THE REQUIRED RECORDS HERE IN
QUESTION, HE WAS ENTITLED TO NO IMMUNITY UNDER THE STATUTE THUS
VIEWED. 

THE TRADITIONAL RULE THAT RE-ENACTMENT OF A STATUTE CREATES A
PRESUMPTION OF LEGISLATIVE ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION
MAY PROPERLY BE APPLIED HERE, SINCE THE COURT IN HEIKE REGARDED THE
1903 IMMUNITY STATUTE THERE CONSTRUED AS IDENTICAL, IN POLICY AND IN
THE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY FURNISHED, WITH THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF
1893, WHICH HAS BEEN RE-ENACTED BY INCORPORATION INTO THE PRICE CONTROL
ACT. 

IN ADDITION, SCRUTINY OF THE PRECISE WORDING OF SEC. 202(G) OF THE
LATTER STATUTE INDICATES THAT THE DRAFTSMEN OF THAT SECTION WENT TO
SOME PAINS TO ENSURE THAT THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED FOR WOULD BE CONSTRUED
BY THE COURTS AS BEING SO LIMITED.  THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED IN THE
HEIKE DECISION WAS RENDERED SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT BECAUSE NEITHER THE
COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF 1893 NOR THE IMMUNITY PROVISO IN THE 1903
ACT MADE ANY EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST
SELF-INCRIMINATION, WITH WHOSE SCOPE THE COURT NONETHELESS HELD THE
IMMUNITY TO BE COTERMINOUS.  SECTION 202(G), ON THE OTHER HAND, FOLLOWS
A PATTERN SET BY THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND EXPRESSLY REFERS TO
THAT PRIVILEGE, THUS APPARENTLY SEEKING TO MAKE IT DOUBLY CERTAIN THAT
THE COURTS WOULD CONSTRUE THE IMMUNITY THERE GRANTED AS NO BROADER THAN
THE PRIVILEGE: 

"NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THIS SECTION BECAUSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
BUT THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF FEB. 11,
1893  ...  SHALL APPLY WITH RESPECT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO SPECIFICALLY
CLAIMS SUCH PRIVILEGE." 

A COMPARISON OF THE PRECISE WORDING OF SEC. 202(G) WITH THE WORDING
OF IMMUNITY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN EARLIER STATUTES  FN27  READILY
SUGGESTS ONE FUNCTION INTENDED BY THE DRAFTERS OF SEC. 202(G) TO BE
PERFORMED BY THE ADDITIONAL PHRASES EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO "PRIVILEGE"
VIZ., THAT OF UNDERLINING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION OF REQUIRING AN
EXCHANGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE FOR IMMUNITY, AN INTENT WHICH THE
COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT DISCERNABLE EVEN IN THE LESS OBVIOUS TERMS
USED BY THE DRAFTERS OF THE EARLIER STATUTES.  THUS THE IMMUNITY
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT CAN BE RELIED UPON HERE ONLY
IF THE TWO PREREQUISITES SET FORTH IN SEC. 202(G) ARE SATISFIED:  (1)
THAT THE PERSON SEEKING TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE IMMUNITY COULD ACTUALLY
HAVE BEEN EXCUSED, IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS SECTION, FROM COMPLYING WITH
ANY OF ITS REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST
SELF-INCRIMINATION, AND (2) THAT THE PERSON SPECIFICALLY CLAIM SUCH
PRIVILEGE.  OBVIOUSLY IF PREREQUISITE (1) IS NOT FULFILLED, THE MERE
FACT THAT THE PERSON SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS A NON-EXISTENT PRIVILEGE WAS
NOT INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO ENTITLE HIM TO THE BENEFIT OF THE
IMMUNITY.  AND THIS IS SO WHETHER THE STATUTE BE CONSTRUED WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ITS GRAMMAR, ITS HISTORICAL GENESIS, OR ITS
RATIONAL FUNCTION. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT DENY THAT THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF A GENUINE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS AN ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITE FOR
THE ATTAINMENT OF IMMUNITY UNDER SEC. 202(G) BY A CORPORATE OFFICER WHO
HAS BEEN COMPELLED BY SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE REQUIRED RECORDS; AND THAT,
UNDER THE HEIKE RULING, THE ASSERTION OF A CLAIM TO SUCH A PRIVILEGE IN
CONNECTION WITH RECORDS WHICH ARE IN FACT NON-PRIVILEGED IS UNAVAILING
TO SECURE IMMUNITY, WHERE THE CLAIMANT IS A CORPORATE OFFICER.  BUT,
WHILE CONCEDING THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED WHERE CORPORATE
OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED, THE PETITIONER NECESSARILY ATTRIBUTES TO
CONGRESS THE PARADOXICAL INTENTION OF AWARDING IMMUNITY IN EXCHANGE FOR
A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AS TO RECORDS OF A CLAIMANT ENGAGED IN NON
CORPORATE BUSINESS, THOUGH HIS BUSINESS IS SIMILARLY SUBJECTED TO
GOVERNMENTAL PRICE CONTROL, AND ITS REQUIRED RECORDS ARE, UNDER THE
WILSON RATIONALE, SIMILARLY NON-PRIVILEGED. 

THE IMPLAUSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH INTERPRETATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT
IS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE UNQUESTIONED FACT THAT CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR
PRICE REGULATIONS ENFORCIBLE AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ENTREPRENEURS AS
WELL AS CORPORATE INDUSTRY.  IT IS ALSO UNQUESTIONABLE THAT CONGRESS,
TO ENSURE THAT VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTE SHOULD NOT GO UNPUNISHED,
REQUIRED RECORDS TO BE KEPT OF ALL RELEVANT BUYING AND SELLING
TRANSACTIONS BY ALL INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE BUSINESS SUBJECT TO THE
STATUTE.  IF THESE ASPECTS OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION BE CONCEDED, IT
IS MOST DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND WHY CONGRESS SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO HAVE
DIFFERENTIATED SUB SILENTIO, FOR PURPOSES OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISO,
BETWEEN RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY INDIVIDUALS AND RECORDS REQUIRED
TO BE KEPT BY CORPORATIONS.  SUCH AN ASSUMPTION CARRIES WITH IT THE
INCONGRUOUS RESULT THAT INDIVIDUALS FORCED TO PRODUCE RECORDS REQUIRED
TO BE KEPT FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INSPECTION AND USE IN ENFORCING THE
PRICE REGULATIONS WOULD BE GIVEN A BONUS OF IMMUNITY IF ENGAGED IN NON
CORPORATE BUSINESS, THUS RENDERING THE RECORDS OF NON-CORPORATE
ENTERPRISE VIRTUALLY USELESS FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES,  FN28  WHEREAS
INDIVIDUALS DISCLOSING THE VERY SAME TYPE OF REQUIRED RECORDS BUT
ENGAGED IN CORPORATE ENTERPRISE WOULD NOT BE GIVEN THAT BONUS.  IN
EFFECT, THIS IS TO SAY THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE IMMUNITY PROVISO TO
FRUSTRATE A MAJOR AIM OF ITS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF RECORD-KEEPING
AND RECORD INSPECTION SO FAR AS IT APPLIES TO NON-CORPORATE
BUSINESSMEN, BUT NOT SO FAR AS IT APPLIES TO CORPORATE OFFICERS.  FN29 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT TO CONSTRUE THE IMMUNITY PROVISO AS WE HAVE HERE
IS TO DEVITALIZE, IF NOT RENDER MEANINGLESS, THE PHRASE "ANY
REQUIREMENTS"  FN30  WHICH APPEARS IN THE OPENING CLAUSE OF SEC.
202(G):  "NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING WITH ANY
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THIS SECTION BECAUSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION  ..."  IT IS URGED THAT, SINCE SEC. 202 INCLUDES AMONG
ITS REQUIREMENTS THE FURNISHING OF INFORMATION UNDER OATH, THE MAKING
AND KEEPING OF RECORDS AND REPORTS, THE INSPECTION AND COPYING OF
RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, AND THE APPEARING AND TESTIFYING OR
PRODUCING OF DOCUMENTS, THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED MUST COVER COMPLIANCE
WITH ANY ONE OF THESE REQUIREMENTS.  THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT
CONTENTION IS THAT THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED DOES COVER COMPLIANCE WITH ANY
OF THESE REQUIREMENTS AS TO WHICH A PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FROM
COMPLIANCE BECAUSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE, WERE IT NOT FOR THE STATUTORY
GRANT OF IMMUNITY IN EXCHANGE FOR SUCH PRIVILEGE.  FN31  THE EXPRESS
LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO, AS WELL AS ITS HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, READILY
SUGGESTS THIS REASONABLE INTERPRETATION.  EVEN THOSE WHO OPPOSE THIS
INTERPRETATION MUST AND DO CONCEDE THAT CONGRESS HAD NO INTENTION OF
REMOVING THE EXCUSE OF PRIVILEGE WHERE THE PRIVILEGE IS ABSENT FROM THE
OUTSET BECAUSE THE RECORDS WHOSE PRODUCTION IS ORDERED AND CONCERNING
WHICH PRIVILEGE IS ASSERTED ARE CORPORATE RECORDS.  IF THIS CONCESSION
IS MADE, SURELY LOGIC AS WELL AS HISTORY REQUIRES A SIMILAR READING OF
THE PROVISO IN CONNECTION WITH VALIDLY REQUIRED NON-CORPORATE RECORDS,
AS TO WHICH PRIVILEGE IS SIMILARLY ABSENT FROM THE OUTSET. 

IF THE CONTENTION ADVANCED AGAINST OUR INTERPRETATION BE VALID, THE
COURT MUST HAVE ERRED IN ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISO IN
THE HEIKE CASE.  FOR THE 1893 ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 46, WHICH IT WAS IN
EFFECT CONSTRUING, PROVIDES THAT, "NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM
ATTENDING AND TESTIFYING OR FROM PRODUCING BOOKS, PAPERS, TARIFFS,
CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION  ...  FOR THE REASON THAT THE TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE,
DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE, REQUIRED OF HIM, MAY TEND TO CRIMINATE HIM OR
SUBJECT HIM TO A PENALTY OR FORFEITURE.  BUT NO PERSON SHALL BE
PROSECUTED  ...  FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY TRANSACTION  ... CONCERNING
WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY, OR PRODUCE EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE
..."  THUS THE IMMUNITY PART OF THE 1893 STATUTE EXTENDED TO ANY
DOCUMENTARY AS WELL AS ORAL TESTIMONY CONCERNING WHICH THERE MIGHT BE A
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.  AND INCLUDED AMONG THE DOCUMENTS WHICH THE
IMMUNITY-SEEKER MIGHT BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE WERE RECORDS MAINTAINED
BY COMMON CARRIERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,  FN32  AND HENCE OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE
DEFINITION OF PUBLIC RECORDS SET FORTH IN THE WILSON AND HEIKE
DECISIONS.  IF THE REASONING ADVANCED AGAINST THE INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. 202(G) WE HAVE PROPOSED WERE VALID, THEN IT MIGHT EQUALLY WELL BE
CONTENDED THAT THE COURT IN THE HEIKE DECISION DEVITALIZED, IF NOT
RENDERED MEANINGLESS THE PHRASE "DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE" IN THE
IMMUNITY SECTION OF THE 1893 ACT. 

ACTUALLY, NEITHER THE INTERPRETATION AS APPLIED IN THE HEIKE DECISION
NOR AS EXPOUNDED HERE RENDERS MEANINGLESS ANY OF THE WORDS IN THE
IMMUNITY PROVISION.  IN EACH CASE, THE IMMUNITY PROVISO IS SET FORTH IN
CONJUNCTION WITH RECORD-KEEPING REQUIREMENTS.  AND IN EACH CASE, WHERE
THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED CONCERNS DOCUMENTS WHOSE PRODUCTION MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE EXCUSED ON THE GROUND OF PRIVILEGE, THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED
TO ARE ALL WRITINGS WHOSE KEEPING AS RECORDS HAS NOT BEEN REQUIRED BY
VALID STATUTE OR REGULATION.  OF COURSE ALL ORAL TESTIMONY BY
INDIVIDUALS CAN PROPERLY BE COMPELLED ONLY BY EXCHANGE OF IMMUNITY FOR
WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE.  FN33 

THE COURT IN THE HEIKE CASE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE FURTHER
CONTENTION THAT THE 1903 IMMUNITY STATUTE, WHICH WAS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE
IT, HAD BEEN PASSED WHEN "THERE WAS AN IMPERIOUS POPULAR DEMAND THAT
THE INSIDE WORKING OF THE TRUSTS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED, AND THAT THE
PEOPLE AND CONGRESS CARED SO MUCH TO SECURE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE THAT
THEY WERE WILLING THAT SOME GUILTY PERSONS SHOULD ESCAPE, AS THAT
REWARD WAS NECESSARY TO THE END."  FN34  IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPRESS
STATEMENTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT AS TO
THE ENFORCEMENT ROLE OF THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS, SUCH AN ARGUMENT
WOULD HARDLY BE TENABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE.  YET EVEN IN THE HEIKE
CASE WHERE SUCH AN ARGUMENT HAD SOME ELEMENTS OF PLAUSIBILITY, THE
COURT HAD NO DIFFICULTY IN REJECTING IT IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION THAT "THE STATUTE SHOULD BE LIMITED AS NEARLY AS MAY BE BY
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE OF WHICH IT TAKES THE
PLACE."  FN35    AS A FINAL ANSWER, AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE 1893
IMMUNITY PROVISION, BASED ON ITS FULL HISTORICAL CONTEXT, SHOULD
SUFFICE TO EXPLAIN THE LIMITED FUNCTION CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS IN
INCORPORATING THAT PROVISION INTO THE 1942 STATUTE.  THE 1893 PROVISION
WAS ENACTED MERELY TO PROVIDE AN IMMUNITY SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO BE AN
ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE, SINCE PREVIOUS
STATUTORY PROVISION FOR IMMUNITY HAD BEEN FOUND BY THE COURT IN
COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547(1892), NOT TO BE COEXTENSIVE WITH
THE PRIVILEGE, THUS RENDERING UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPULSORY PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS AND ORAL
TESTIMONY.  FN36 

THE SUGGESTION HAS BEEN ADVANCED THAT THE SCOPE OF THE IMMUNITY
INTENDED BY CONGRESS SHOULD BE ASCERTAINED, NOT BY REFERENCE TO THE
JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CONSIDERED ABOVE, BUT BY REFERENCE TO
THE PRINCIPLE EXPOUNDED IN FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. AMERICAN TOBACCO
CO., 264 U.S. 298, 307(1924), OF CONSTRUING A BROAD GRANT OF STATUTORY
AUTHORITY SO AS TO AVOID ATTRIBUTING TO CONGRESS "AN INTENT TO DEFY THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT OR EVEN TO COME SO NEAR TO DOING SO AS TO RAISE A
SERIOUS QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW." 

IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE PRICE
CONTROL BILL, APPARENTLY DID INTEND TO RELY UPON THE PRINCIPLE OF
AMERICAN TOBACCO IN CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THOSE IN WHICH THAT
PRINCIPLE WAS ORIGINALLY APPLIED:  NAMELY, TO INSURE THAT THE POWER OF
INSPECTION OR EXAMINATION WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES CONTAINED IN THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  SENATOR BROWN, WHO WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE
PRICE CONTROL BILL AND ONE OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE SENATE
APPOINTED TO CONFER WITH THE HOUSE MANAGERS ON THE SENATE AMENDMENTS,
EXPRESSLY STATED IT TO BE THE VIEW OF THE CONFEREES THAT SEC. 202(A),
WHICH CONTAINED BROAD AUTHORIZATION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR TO "OBTAIN
SUCH INFORMATION AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO ASSIST HIM" IN HIS
STATUTORY DUTIES, WAS INTENDED SOLELY TO EMPOWER THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
"OBTAIN RELEVANT DATA TO ENABLE HIM PROPERLY TO DISCHARGE HIS
FUNCTIONS, PREFERABLY BY REQUIRING THE FURNISHING OF INFORMATION UNDER
OATH OR AFFIRMATION OR OTHERWISE AS HE MAY DETERMINE.  IT IS NOT
INTENDED, NOR IS ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT INTENDED, TO CONFER ANY
POWER OF INSPECTION OR EXAMINATION WHICH MIGHT CONFLICT WITH THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEE OPINION OF
JUSTICE HOLMES IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264
U.S. 298, 307."  FN37 

IT WAS THE ABUSE OF THE SUBPOENA POWER TO OBTAIN IRRELEVANT DATA IN
THE COURSE OF A "FISHING EXPEDITION" WITH WHICH THE COURT WAS CONCERNED
IN THAT CASE.  IT IS CLEAR THAT IF THE ADMINISTRATOR SOUGHT TO OBTAIN
DATA IRRELEVANT TO THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATUTE AND IF
HIS RIGHT OF ACCESS WAS CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE
SOUGHT WAS "PLAINLY INCOMPETENT OR IRRELEVANT TO ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE"
FN38  OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, THAT OBJECTION COULD SUSTAIN A REFUSAL BY
THE DISTRICT COURT TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA OR OTHER WRIT TO COMPEL
INSPECTION.  BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THE AMERICAN TOBACCO PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION TO
GOVERN THE IMMUNITY PROVISO OF SUBSECTION (G), PARTICULARLY SINCE THE
SCOPE OF THAT PROVISO HAD BEEN SO WELL DEMARCATED BY THE COURTS PRIOR
TO ITS 1942 RE-ENACTMENT.  AND IT IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT THAT THE ONE
RULE OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH THIS COURT HAS, IN THE PAST, DIRECTLY AND
EXPRESSLY APPLIED TO THE IMMUNITY PROVISO - THAT "IT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED, SO FAR AS ITS WORDS FAIRLY ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION, AS
COTERMINOUS WITH WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
PERSON CONCERNED"  FN39  - WAS ENUNCIATED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, WHO
GAVE NO SIGN OF REPUDIATING THAT PRINCIPLE BY HIS SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS
IN THE AMERICAN TOBACCO CASE. 

EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT CONTAINED IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WERE LESS CLEAR-CUT AND PERSUASIVE, AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBTS MORE SERIOUS THAN THEY APPEAR TO US, WE WOULD
STILL BE UNCONVINCED AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE AMERICAN TOBACCO
STANDARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISO IN RELATION TO
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNDENIABLY RELEVANT, AND THE
RECORDING AND KEEPING OF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS PROPERLY REQUIRED
IN ADVANCE.  FOR, IN CONSTRUING STATUTORY IMMUNITIES IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE MUST HEED THE EQUALLY WELL-SETTLED DOCTRINE OF THIS
COURT TO READ A STATUTE, ASSUMING THAT IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF EITHER OF
TWO OPPOSED INTERPRETATIONS, IN THE MANNER WHICH EFFECTUATES RATHER
THAN FRUSTRATES THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFTSMEN.  THE
CANON OF AVOIDANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBTS MUST, LIKE THE "PLAIN
MEANING" RULE, GIVE WAY WHERE ITS APPLICATION WOULD PRODUCE A FUTILE
RESULT, OR AN UNREASONABLE RESULT "PLAINLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE POLICY
OF THE LEGISLATION AS A WHOLE."  FN40  IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOT MERELY
DOES THE CONSTRUCTION PUT FORWARD BY THE PETITIONER FRUSTRATE THE
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AS MANIFESTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, BUT IT
ALSO SHUTS OUT THE ILLUMINATION THAT EMANATES FROM KEY WORDS AND
PHRASES IN THE SECTION WHEN CONSIDERED, AS ABOVE, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
HISTORY OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF 1893, AND THE CONSTRUCTION
THAT HAD BEEN PLACED UPON IT AND SIMILAR PROVISOS, PRIOR TO ITS
INCORPORATION INTO THE PRICE CONTROL ACT. 

THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION ONLY THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER
SERIOUS DOUBTS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY ARE RAISED IF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT
IS THUS CONSTRUED.  THIS ISSUE WAS NOT DULY RAISED BY PETITIONER, AND
IT BECOMES RELEVANT, IF AT ALL, ONLY BECAUSE SUCH DOUBTS ARE NOW SAID
TO BE PRESENT IF THE IMMUNITY PROVISO IS INTERPRETED AS SET FORTH
ABOVE. 

IT MAY BE ASSUMED AT THE OUTSET THAT THERE ARE LIMITS WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY EXCEED IN REQUIRING THE KEEPING OF
RECORDS WHICH MAY BE INSPECTED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND MAY BE
USED IN PROSECUTING STATUTORY VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY THE RECORD-KEEPER
HIMSELF.  BUT NO SERIOUS MISGIVING THAT THOSE BOUNDS HAVE BEEN
OVERSTEPPED WOULD APPEAR TO BE EVOKED WHEN THERE IS A SUFFICIENT
RELATION BETWEEN THE ACTIVITY SOUGHT TO BE REGULATED AND THE PUBLIC
CONCERN SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATE OR FORBID
THE BASIC ACTIVITY CONCERNED, AND CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRE THE
KEEPING OF PARTICULAR RECORDS, SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  IT IS NOT QUESTIONED HERE THAT CONGRESS HAS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE COMMODITY PRICES AS A WAR
EMERGENCY MEASURE, AND THAT THE LICENSING AND RECORD-KEEPING
REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT REPRESENT A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE
OF THAT POWER.  FN41  ACCORDINGLY, THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED IN THE
WILSON CASE, AND REAFFIRMED AS RECENTLY AS THE DAVIS CASE, IS CLEARLY
APPLICABLE HERE:  NAMELY, THAT THE PRIVILEGE WHICH EXISTS AS TO PRIVATE
PAPERS CANNOT BE MAINTAINED IN RELATION TO "RECORDS REQUIRED BY LAW TO
BE KEPT IN ORDER THAT THERE MAY BE SUITABLE INFORMATION OF TRANSACTIONS
WHICH ARE THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS OF GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND THE
ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS VALIDLY ESTABLISHED."  FN42 

EVEN THE DISSENTING JUSTICES IN THE DAVIS CASE CONCEDED THAT "THERE
IS AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AFFORDED
THEIR POSSESSORS BETWEEN PAPERS EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE AND DOCUMENTS
HAVING PUBLIC ASPECTS,"  FN43  A DIFFERENCE WHOSE ESSENCE IS THAT THE
LATTER PAPERS, "ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN LEGALLY OBTAINED, ARE AVAILABLE AS
EVIDENCE."  FN44  IN THE CASE AT BAR, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE
SALES RECORD WHICH PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO KEEP AS A LICENSEE UNDER
THE PRICE CONTROL ACT HAS "PUBLIC ASPECTS."  NOR CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT
THAT WHEN IT WAS OBTAINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR THROUGH THE USE OF A
SUBPOENA, AS AUTHORIZED SPECIFICALLY BY SEC. 202(B) OF THE STATUTE, IT
WAS "LEGALLY OBTAINED" AND HENCE "AVAILABLE AS EVIDENCE."  FN45 THE
RECORD INVOLVED IN THE CASE AT BAR WAS A SALES RECORD REQUIRED TO BE
MAINTAINED UNDER AN APPROPRIATE REGULATION, ITS RELEVANCE TO THE LAWFUL
PURPOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IS UNQUESTIONED, AND THE TRANSACTION WHICH
IT RECORDED WAS ONE IN WHICH THE PETITIONER COULD LAWFULLY ENGAGE
SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE LICENSE GRANTED TO HIM UNDER THE STATUTE. 
FN46 

IN THE VIEW THAT WE HAVE TAKEN OF THE CASE, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO
CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL CONTENTION BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT, IN ANY
EVENT, NO IMMUNITY ATTACHES TO THE PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS BY THE
PETITIONER BECAUSE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE BOOKS AND THE EVIDENCE
PRODUCED AT THE TRIAL WAS TOO TENUOUS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  56 STAT. 23, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 901. 

FN2  "NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THIS SECTION BECAUSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
BUT THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF FEBRUARY
11, 1893(U.S.C., 1934 EDITION, TITLE 49, SEC. 46), SHALL APPLY WITH
RESPECT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS SUCH PRIVILEGE."  50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 922(G). 

THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF 1893 PROVIDES:  "NO PERSON SHALL BE
EXCUSED FROM ATTENDING AND TESTIFYING OR FROM PRODUCING BOOKS, PAPERS,
TARIFFS, CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, OR IN OBEDIENCE TO THE SUBPOENA OF THE COMMISSION
...  ON THE GROUND OR FOR THE REASON THAT THE TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE,
DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE, REQUIRED OF HIM, MAY TEND TO CRIMINATE HIM OR
SUBJECT HIM TO A PENALTY OR FORFEITURE.  BUT NO PERSON SHALL BE
PROSECUTED OR SUBJECT TO ANY PENALTY OR FORFEITURE FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF
ANY TRANSACTION, MATTER OR THING, CONCERNING WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY, OR
PRODUCE EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE, BEFORE SAID COMMISSION, OR
IN OBEDIENCE TO ITS SUBPOENA  ..." 

FN3  SECTION 14 OF MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION 426, 8 FED. REG. 9546,
9548-49(1943) PROVIDES: 

"RECORDS.  (A)  EVERY PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS REGULATION SHALL, SO
LONG AS THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, REMAINS IN
EFFECT, PRESERVE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION
ALL HIS RECORDS, INCLUDING INVOICES, SALES TICKETS, CASH RECEIPTS, OR
OTHER WRITTEN EVIDENCES OF SALE OR DELIVERY WHICH RELATE TO THE PRICES
CHARGED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS REGULATION. 

"(B)  EVERY PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS REGULATION SHALL KEEP AND MAKE
AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION FOR SO
LONG AS THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, REMAINS IN
EFFECT, RECORDS OF THE SAME KIND AS HE HAS CUSTOMARILY KEPT, RELATING
TO THE PRICES WHICH HE CHARGES FOR FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AFTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REGULATION AND IN ADDITION AS PRECISELY AS
POSSIBLE, THE BASIS UPON WHICH HE DETERMINED MAXIMUM PRICES FOR THESE
COMMODITIES." 

FN4  SOME OF THE STATUTES WHICH INCLUDE SUCH PROVISIONS, APPLICABLE
TO THE RECORDS OF NON-CORPORATE AS WELL AS CORPORATE BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES, ARE LISTED BELOW: 

SHIPPING ACT, 1916(46 U.S.C. SECS. 826, 827, 814, 817, 820). 

PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, 1921(7 U.S.C. SECS. 221, 222). 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT OF 1922(7 U.S.C. SECS. 15, 6, 7A). 

PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1930(7 U.S.C. SEC. 499M,
499I). 

COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934(47 U.S.C. SECS. 409, 203, 211, 213(F),
220, 412). 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934(15 U.S.C. SECS. 78Q, 78U). 

FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT, 1935(27 U.S.C. SECS. 202(C),
204(D); 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2857; 15 U.S.C. SECS. 49, 50). 

FEDERAL POWER ACT, 1935(16 U.S.C. SECS. 825(A), 825FG)). 

INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL ACT OF 1935(26 U.S.C. SECS. 3119, 3121(C)). 

MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935(49 U.S.C. SECS. 305(D), 304(A)(1), 311(D),
317, 318, 320, 322(G)). 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 1935(29 U.S.C. SECS. 156, 161). 

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 1935(42 U.S.C. SEC. 405(A), (D), (E), (F)). 

MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936(46 U.S.C. SECS. 1124, 1211, 1114(B)). 

BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937(15 U.S.C. (1940 ED.)  SECS.  838, 833(A),
(E), (K), 840(TERMINATED, AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 849)). 

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938(49 U.S.C. SECS. 644, 483, 487, 492,
622(E) AND (G), 673). 

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938(29 U.S.C. SECS. 209, 211; 15 U.S.C.
SECS. 49, 50).  NATURAL GAS ACT, 1938(15 U.S.C. SEC. 717 A, G, M). 

RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1938(45 U.S.C. SECS. 362(A),
(B), (C), (L), 359). 

WATER CARRIERS ACT OF 1940(49 U.S.C. SECS. 916, 906, 913, 917(D)). 

FREIGHT FORWARDERS ACT, 1942(49 U.S.C. SECS. 1017(A), (B), (D), 1005,
1012, 1021(D)). 

IN ADDITION TO THE PRICE CONTROL ACT, THE OTHER MAJOR REGULATORY
STATUTES ENACTED IN RESPONSE TO THE RECENT WARTIME EXIGENCIES ALSO
CONTAIN THESE PROVISIONS: 

SECOND WAR POWERS ACT (50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 633, SUBSECS.  2(A)(3),
(4)). 

STABILIZATION ACT OF 1942(50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 967(B), 962). 

WAR AND DEFENSE CONTRACT ACTS (50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1152(A)(3), (4)). 

WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT (50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1507(A)(3)(B)). 

VERY RECENT REGULATORY STATUTES, WHOSE CONSTRUCTION MAY ALSO BE
AFFECTED OR DETERMINED BY THE RULING OF THE COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE,
INCLUDE:    ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1946(42 U.S.C. SECS. 1812(A)(3),
1810(C)). 

LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, SEC. 101, SUBSECS.  11, 6;
SEC. 207(C), 61 STAT. 136, 150, 140, 155. 

FN5  ITALICS HAVE BEEN ADDED HERE AND IN ALL OTHER QUOTATIONS IN
WHICH THEY APPEAR, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 

FN6  "...  THE EXISTING AUTHORITY OVER PRICES IS INDIRECT AND
CIRCUMSCRIBED AND OPERATES THROUGH MEASURES WHICH ARE NOT APPROPRIATE
OR APPLICABLE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT HAS FURTHER BEEN WEAKENED BY
THOSE WHO PURPORT TO RECOGNIZE NEED FOR PRICE STABILIZATION YET
CHALLENGE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY EFFECTIVE POWER.  IN SOME CASES,
MOREOVER, THERE HAS BEEN EVASION AND BOOTLEGGING; IN OTHER CASES THE
OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION AND CIVILIAN SUPPLY HAS BEEN OPENLY
DEFIED. 

"FACED NOW WITH THE PROSPECT OF INFLATIONARY PRICE ADVANCES,
LEGISLATIVE ACTION CAN NO LONGER PRUDENTLY BE POSTPONED.  OUR NATIONAL
SAFETY DEMANDS THAT WE TAKE STEPS AT ONCE TO EXTEND, CLARIFY, AND
STRENGTHEN THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF
THE GENERAL WELFARE."  H. DOC. NO. 332, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3(1941). 

FN7  SEE 87 CONG. REC. 9148(1941) FOR THE PRECISE WORDING OF SEC.
202, WHICH WAS THEN NUMBERED SEC. 211. 

THE FULL TEXT OF SEC. 202 AS ENACTED IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SUCH STUDIES AND
INVESTIGATIONS, TO CONDUCT SUCH HEARINGS, AND TO OBTAIN SUCH
INFORMATION AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO ASSIST HIM IN
PRESCRIBING ANY REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER THIS ACT, OR IN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT AND REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND
PRICE SCHEDULES THEREUNDER. 

"(B)  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS FURTHER AUTHORIZED, BY REGULATION OR
ORDER, TO REQUIRE ANY PERSON WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING
WITH ANY COMMODITY, OR WHO RENTS OR OFFERS FOR RENT OR ACTS AS BROKER
OR AGENT FOR THE RENTAL OF ANY HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, TO FURNISH ANY
SUCH INFORMATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OR OTHERWISE, TO MAKE AND
KEEP RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, AND TO MAKE REPORTS, AND HE MAY
REQUIRE ANY SUCH PERSON TO PERMIT THE INSPECTION AND COPYING OF RECORDS
AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, THE INSPECTION OF INVENTORIES, AND THE INSPECTION
OF DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY
ADMINISTER OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS AND MAY, WHENEVER NECESSARY, BY
SUBPENA REQUIRE ANY SUCH PERSON TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY OR TO APPEAR AND
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, OR BOTH, AT ANY DESIGNATED PLACE. 

"(C)  FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING ANY INFORMATION UNDER SUBSECTION
(A), THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY BY SUBPENA REQUIRE ANY OTHER PERSON TO
APPEAR AND TESTIFY OR TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, OR BOTH, AT ANY
DESIGNATED PLACE. 

"(D)  THE PRODUCTION OF A PERSON'S DOCUMENTS AT ANY PLACE OTHER THAN
HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION IN ANY
CASE IN WHICH, PRIOR TO THE RETURN DATE SPECIFIED IN THE SUBPENA ISSUED
WITH RESPECT THERETO, SUCH PERSON EITHER HAS FURNISHED THE
ADMINISTRATOR WITH A COPY OF SUCH DOCUMENTS (CERTIFIED BY SUCH PERSON
UNDER OATH TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY), OR HAS ENTERED INTO A
STIPULATION WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AS TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
SUCH DOCUMENTS. 

"(E)  IN CASE OF CONTUMACY BY, OR REFUSAL TO OBEY A SUBPENA SERVED
UPON, ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION (C), THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PERSON IS FOUND OR RESIDES OR TRANSACTS
BUSINESS, UPON APPLICATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO APPEAR AND GIVE
TESTIMONY OR TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, OR BOTH; AND ANY FAILURE
TO OBEY SUCH ORDER OF THE COURT MAY BE PUNISHED BY SUCH COURT AS A
CONTEMPT THEREOF.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL ALSO APPLY
TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION (B), AND SHALL BE IN ADDITION
TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4(A). 

"(F)  WITNESSES SUBPENAED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE PAID THE SAME
FEES AND MILEAGE AS ARE PAID WITNESSES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

"(G)  NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THIS SECTION BECAUSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
BUT THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF FEBRUARY
11, 1893(U.S.C., 1934 EDITION, TITLE 49, SEC. 46), SHALL APPLY WITH
RESPECT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS SUCH PRIVILEGE. 

"(H)  THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL NOT PUBLISH OR DISCLOSE ANY INFORMATION
OBTAINED UNDER THIS ACT THAT SUCH ADMINISTRATOR DEEMS CONFIDENTIAL OR
WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT IS MADE BY
THE PERSON FURNISHING SUCH INFORMATION, UNLESS HE DETERMINES THAT THE
WITHHOLDING THEREOF IS CONTRARY TO THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
AND SECURITY. 

"(I)  ANY PERSON SUBPENAED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
MAKE A RECORD OF HIS TESTIMONY AND TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL."  56
STAT. 23, 30, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 105 OF THE STABILIZATION EXTENSION ACT
OF 1944, 58 STAT. 632, 637, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 922. 

FN8  87 CONG. REC. AT 9232; SEE ALSO ID. AT 9226. 

FN9  ID. AT 9231. 

FN10  ID. AT 9233. 

FN11  AS POINTED OUT BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE,  "...  IN AMENDING THE
HOUSE BILL, THE COMMITTEE HAS SOUGHT TO STRENGTHEN IT.  THAT BILL, WHEN
WE WERE NOT ACTUALLY AT WAR, MIGHT HAVE SUFFICED.  IF THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED HAD PROVED INADEQUATE, ADDITIONAL POWERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOUGHT
AND THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN TIME TO DO SO.  BUT THE SWIFTLY MOVING PACE
OF WAR, WITH EVIDENCES OF INFLATION ALREADY APPARENT, LEAVES LITTLE
TIME FOR THE LUXURY OF EXPERIMENT.  THE NEED FOR PRICE STABILITY IS
URGENT.  ..."  S.REP.  NO. 931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 3(JAN.  2, 1942). 

FN12  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY ON
H.R. 5990, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 192(1941).  (THE REFERENCE IS
CONTAINED IN A BRIEF FILED WITH THE COMMITTEE BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF
THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION.) 

FN13  ID. AT 193. 

IT IS APPARENTLY CONCEDED THAT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT PRESENTED TO THE
SENATE COMMITTEE BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE OPA IN ITS HEARINGS SETS
FORTH THE CONSTRUCTION THAT THIS COURT SUSTAINS IN AFFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN THIS
CASE.  WE MAY ACCORD TO THE CONSTRUCTION EXPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF
THE HEARINGS AT LEAST THAT WEIGHT WHICH THIS COURT HAS IN THE PAST
GIVEN TO THE CONTEMPORANEOUS INTERPRETATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
AFFECTED BY A STATUTE, ESPECIALLY WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THE AGENCY HAS
ACTIVELY SPONSORED THE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS WHICH IT INTERPRETS.  AND
WE MAY TREAT THOSE CONTEMPORANEOUS EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION AS "HIGHLY
RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF THE PROBABLE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE TIMES AND OF THE OPINIONS OF MEN WHO PROBABLY WERE ACTIVE IN THE
DRAFTING OF THE STATUTE.  AS SUCH, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION  ..."  WHITE V. WINCHESTER CLUB, 315 U.S. 32, 41(1942). 
SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534,
549(1940); HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303, 310-311(1938). 

FN14  HEARINGS, SUPRA NOTE 12, AT 181; SEE ALSO ID. AT 154, 179
80(ORAL TESTIMONY), 190-200; 88 CONG. REC. 61, 693-94(1942); S. REP.
NO. 931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 8-9, 19(1942). 

FN15 SECTION 5, 40 STAT. 277(1917).  ALTHOUGH SEC. 4 OF THE LEVER
ACT, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO MAKE ANY "UNJUST OR
UNREASONABLE RATE OR CHARGE" FOR HANDLING OR DEALING IN NECESSARIES,
WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF LACK OF AN ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD
OF GUILT IN UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81(1921), THE
VALIDITY OF THE LICENSING AND RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS WAS NOT
CHALLENGED. 

FN16  HEARINGS, SUPRA NOTE 12, AT 183; SEE ALSO ID. AT 154. 

FN17  ID. AT 184. 

THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE, FOLLOWING THESE HEARINGS,
RECOGNIZED THE KEY IMPORTANCE OF LICENSING PROVISIONS FOR EFFECTIVE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE, NOTING THAT THE "BROAD LICENSING POWER"
WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE FOOD ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE LEVER ACT "WAS
EXTENSIVELY AND EFFECTIVELY USED."  THE REPORT SPECIFICALLY REFERRED
ALSO TO THE EXPERIENCE OF THE FUEL ADMINISTRATION, WHICH AT FIRST
LACKED THE POWER TO LICENSE, THEN DISCOVERED THE NEED FOR THE POWER,
AND AFTER ACQUIRING IT, SECURED "HIGHLY EFFECTIVE" ENFORCEMENT
RESULTS.  THE REPORT CONCLUDED THAT  "...  WHERE THERE ARE MANY
SELLERS, AS IN RETAILING, FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE
WHO IS SUBJECT TO CONTROL, MUCH LESS ENFORCE PRICE REGULATIONS, WITHOUT
LICENSING.  OF THESE FACTS INDUSTRY IS FULLY AWARE.  LICENSING PROVIDES
A SIMPLE AND DIRECT CONTROL OVER VIOLATORS  ..."  S.REP.  NO. 931, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 8-9. 

SPEAKING CRITICALLY OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT, REPRESENTATIVE GIFFORD,
WHO WAS A MANAGER ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE AND HAD REFUSED TO SIGN THE
REPORT AND THE STATEMENT BY THE MANAGERS, DESCRIBED LICENSING THEN IN
PRACTICE IN CANADA AS A PARALLEL TO THE LICENSING PROPOSED BY THE
AMENDED BILL.  HE CALLED THE ATTENTION OF THE HOUSE TO THE CANADIAN
STATEMENT OF POLICY:  "THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CURTAIL
BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN ANY WAY.  BUT BY PLACING EVERY PERSON WHO IN ANY
WAY HANDLES THE COMMODITIES NAMED IN THE ORDER UNDER LICENSE, THE BOARD
WILL HAVE THE MACHINERY WITH WHICH TO MAKE SPEEDY CHECKS ON AVAILABLE
STOCKS AND TO POLICE MORE EFFECTIVELY ANY PRICE-FIXING ORDER WHICH MAY
BE INSTITUTED."  88 CONG. REC. 672(1942).  (REP. GIFFORD QUOTED THE
STATEMENT FROM "A COMPILED BRIEF ON THE LICENSING METHODS;" IT APPEARS,
TOGETHER WITH OTHER DATA REFERRED TO BY REP. GIFFORD, IN THE SECTION ON
LICENSING METHODS IN THE BRIEF PRESENTED DURING THE SENATE HEARINGS BY
THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE OPA, CITED SUPRA NOTE 12, AT P. 188.) 

FN18  HEARINGS, SUPRA NOTE 12, AT 184. 

FN19  IN ASKING UNANIMOUS CONSENT FOR THE COMMITTEE TO FILE ITS
REPORT ON THE NEXT DAY, SENATOR BARKLEY, THE MAJORITY LEADER AND A
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, STATED ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE ON JANUARY
2, 1942, THAT THESE "HEARINGS (HELD BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE FROM
DECEMBER 9-17) HAVE BEEN IN PRINT FOR A WEEK OR TWO."  87 CONG. REC.
10142.  THE SENATE VOTE APPROVING THE HOUSE BILL AS AMENDED WAS NOT
TAKEN UNTIL JANUARY 10, MORE THAN TWO WEEKS AFTER THE HEARINGS APPEARED
IN PRINTED FORM.  88 CONG. REC. 242.  THE HOUSE AGREED TO THE
CONFERENCE REPORT ON JANUARY 26.  ID. AT 689.  THE SENATE ACCEPTED THE
CONFERENCE REPORT ON JANUARY 27.  ID. AT 725.  AND THE BILL WAS
APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT ON JANUARY 30.  ID. AT 911. 

IT IS ALSO OF SOME INTEREST TO NOTE THE STATEMENT, CONTAINED IN THE
SENATE REPORT ON THE BILL, THAT A SUBCOMMITTEE WHICH HAD BEEN APPOINTED
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE DECEMBER 9-17 HEARINGS
"EXTENSIVELY REVISED AND STRENGTHENED THE HOUSE BILL IN THE LIGHT OF
THE HEARINGS AND THE ONSLAUGHT OF WAR."  S. REP. NO. 931, 77TH CONG.,
2D SESS. 6(JAN.  2, 1942).  WE ASSUME THAT THIS RECORD OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS MERITS THE SAME PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AS THE
RECORD OF A COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT.  CF. FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S.
134, 138(1947). 

FN20  SEE JOINT HEARINGS ON S. 2475 AND H.R. 7200(FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT), 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 61(1937). 

FN21  HECHT V. MALLEY, 265 U.S. 144, 153(1924); SEE ALSO MISSOURI V.
ROSS, 299 U.S. 72, 75(1936); SESSIONS V. ROMADKA, 145 U.S. 29,
42(1892). 

FN22  SEE DIGEST OF BRIEF FOR APPELLANT IN WILSON V. UNITED STATES,
55 L. ED. 771, 773(1911). 

FN23  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361, 380(1911).  HOLMES, J.,
IN HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 131, 143(1913), EMPHASIZED THAT THE
DECISION IN WILSON WENT "UPON THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE,
NOT UPON THE GROUND OF STATUTORY IMMUNITY IN SUCH A CASE." 

FN24  WILSON, SUPRA NOTE 23, AT 381.  IN A LATER DECISION INVOLVING
THE ALLEGED ABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS TO ASSERT CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE IN RELATION TO RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT UNDER A REGULATORY
STATUTE, HUGHES, J., SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, FURTHER SPELLED OUT THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE WILSON CASE AND OF THE "REQUIRED RECORDS"
DOCTRINE: 

"...  THE TRANSACTIONS TO WHICH THE REQUIRED REPORTS RELATE ARE
CORPORATE TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATING POWER OF CONGRESS. 
AND, WITH REGARD TO THE KEEPING OF SUITABLE RECORDS OF CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION, AND THE MAKING OF REPORTS OF CORPORATE ACTION, WHERE
THESE ARE ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS,
THE OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION, BY VIRTUE OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THEIR
DUTIES AS SUCH, ARE BOUND BY THE CORPORATE OBLIGATION AND CANNOT CLAIM
A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE IN HOSTILITY TO THE REQUIREMENT."  BALTIMORE &
O.R. CO. V. I.C.C., 221 U.S. 612, 622-23(1911). 

THUS THE SIGNIFICANT ELEMENT IN DETERMINING THE ABSENCE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE WAS THE FACT THAT THE RECORDS IN QUESTION HAD
BEEN VALIDLY REQUIRED TO BE KEPT TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION "PROPERLY TO
PERFORM ITS DUTY TO ENFORCE THE LAW."  ID. AT 622.  THE FACT THAT THE
INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING THE PRIVILEGE WERE CORPORATE OFFICERS WAS
SIGNIFICANT ONLY IN THAT THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT WERE
CORPORATE.  AND, AS CORPORATE OFFICERS, THEY WERE BOUND BY THE
OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE UPON THEIR CORPORATION TO KEEP THE
RECORD.  IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE DEEMED CUSTODIANS OF THE RECORDS FOR
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, NOT MERELY FOR THE CORPORATION. 
HAD THE TRANSACTIONS THERE REGULATED, AND THE RECORDS THERE REQUIRED,
CONCERNED AN UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS, JUSTICE HUGHES' RATIONALE
SUSTAINING THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION WOULD STILL APPLY WITH UNDIMINISHED FORCE. 

THIS DECISION WAS CITED WITH APPROVAL IN UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312
U.S. 100, 125(1941), IN SUPPORT OF THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT IT IS
CONSTITUTIONAL FOR CONGRESS, AS A MEANS OF ENFORCING THE VALID
REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, TO REQUIRE AN
EMPLOYER TO KEEP RECORDS OF WAGES AND HOURS OF HIS EMPLOYEES.  SEE NOTE
42 INFRA.    FN25  OTHER STATE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, SUBSEQUENT TO
THE WILSON CASE, SIMILARLY TREAT AS NON-PRIVILEGED, RECORDS REQUIRED BY
STATUTE TO BE KEPT BY SUCH INDIVIDUALS AS LICENSED FISH DEALERS,
PALADINI V. SUPERIOR COURT, 178 CAL. 369, 372-74, 173 P. 588,
590(1918); JUNK DEALERS REGULATED BY MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE, ST. LOUIS V.
BASKOVITZ, 273 MO. 543, 201 S.W. 870(1918), OR BY STATUTE, STATE V.
LEGORA, 162 TENN. 122, 127-28, 34 S.W.2D 1056, 1057-58(1931), CF.
ROSENTHAL V. NEW YORK, 226 U.S. 260, 268-69(1912); DEALERS IN RAW FURS,
STATE V. STEIN, 215 MINN. 308, 9 N.W.2D 763(1943); AND LICENSED MONEY
LENDERS, FINANCIAL AID CORP. V. WALLACE, 216 IND. 114, 117-119, 122
124, 23 N.E.2D 472, 474, 476(1939). 

FN26  HEIKE, SUPRA NOTE 23, AT 142. 

FN27  SEE ANALYSIS OF THE EARLIER PROVISOS IN 8 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE,
511 N.9(3D ED. 1940), AND IN THE BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN
HEIKE, A DIGEST OF WHICH APPEARS AT 227 U.S. 137.  WHETHER THE STRONGER
WORDING IN THE PRICE CONTROL ACT AND OTHER RECENT ENACTMENTS BE DEEMED
TO INDICATE A "NEW LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE," AS THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT
IN UNITED STATES V. MONIA, 317 U.S. 424(1943), RULED THAT IT DID IN
CONNECTION WITH A PROCEDURAL POINT NOT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE -
OR BE DEEMED NOTHING MORE THAN "A CAREFUL REPHRASING OF A CONVENTIONAL
STATUTORY PROVISION," AS THE DISSENTERS IN MONIA, SUPRA AT 446,
BELIEVED, THE MORE STRINGENT PHRASING OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT PROVISO
MUST, IN EITHER VIEW, BE REGARDED AS STRENGTHENING THE APPLICABILITY OF
THE RULE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HEIKE CASE. 

THE PRECISE HOLDING IN MONIA WAS THAT A WITNESS BEFORE AN
INVESTIGATORY BODY NEED NOT CLAIM HIS PRIVILEGE AS A PREREQUISITE TO
EARNING IMMUNITY UNDER A PRE-1933 STATUTE WHICH OFFERED IMMUNITY
WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE NEED FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM.  THE
MAJORITY CONSIDERED THE HEIKE DECISION INAPPLICABLE TO MONIA BECAUSE
THE RELEVANT TERMS OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISO INVOLVED IN THE LATTER CASE
WERE SO PLAIN AND SO SHARPLY IN CONTRAST WITH THE WORDING OF THE
ENACTMENTS AFTER 1933, WHICH (INCLUDING THE PRICE CONTROL ACT)
EXPRESSLY REQUIRE THE ASSERTION OF THE CLAIM, THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT
HAVE INTENDED THE PRE-1933 STATUTE TO REQUIRE A WITNESS TO ASSERT HIS
CLAIM.  AND IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT, TO CONSTRUE CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION
OTHERWISE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, MIGHT WELL RESULT IN ENTRAPMENT OF
WITNESSES AS TO TESTIMONY CONCEDEDLY PRIVILEGED.  WE DO NOT PERCEIVE
SUCH DISTINGUISHING FACTORS IN THE CASE AT BAR, AND ACCORDINGLY
CONSIDER THE HEIKE RATIONALE FULLY APPLICABLE HERE. 

FN28  SEE JUDGE DELEHANT'S WELL-REASONED DISCUSSION, IN BOWLES V.
MISLE, 64 F.SUPP.  835, 843(1946), OF THE "PUBLIC OR SEMI-PUBLIC"
CHARACTER OF RECORDS KEPT BY A NON-CORPORATE ENTREPRENEUR SUBJECT IN
HIS BUSINESS TO SUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION:  "...  IF THE REGULATING
AUTHORITY MAY BE INTERCEPTED ALTOGETHER AT THE DOOR OF A REGULATED
BUSINESS IN ITS QUEST OF INFORMATION TOUCHING THE OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW
AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, ITS MINISTRY MUST BE FRUITLESS.  AND IT CAN
BE NO MORE EFFECTIVE IF, REALISTICALLY VIEWED, THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
EXAMINATION MAY BE MADE ONLY AT A BARGAIN WHICH ABSOLVES THE PROPRIETOR
OF THE BUSINESS FROM THE SANCTIONS, WHETHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, BY LAW
PROVIDED FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS OF THE REGULATIONS, AND, THEREFORE, OF THE
LAW AS EXAMINATION MAY DISCLOSE.  ..." 

COMPARE THE DICTUM IN UNITED STATES V. MULLIGAN, 268 F. 893(N.D.N.Y.
1920), THAT RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY AN UNINCORPORATED
BUSINESSMAN UNDER THE LEVER ACT WERE NOT PRIVILEGED, AND THAT
INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN WAS AVAILABLE FOR USE IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS AGAINST THE RECORD-KEEPER HIMSELF.  LIKE THE PRICE CONTROL
ACT, THE LEVER ACT CONTAINED A COMPULSORY TESTIMONY IMMUNITY
PROVISION.  SEC. 25, 40 STAT. 285.  THE MEMORANDUM FILED WITH THE
SENATE COMMITTEE, CITED SUPRA NOTE 12, AT 194, SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO
THE "WELL-STATED" OPINION IN THE MULLIGAN CASE. 

FN29  THE EXTREME UNLIKELIHOOD THAT SUCH A DISTINCTION, NOT EXPRESSLY
STATED ANYWHERE IN THE ACT, WAS NEVERTHELESS INTENDED BY CONGRESS
BECOMES EVEN MORE APPARENT IN THE LIGHT OF EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE
STATUTE, SEC. 4(A), MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO THE
ACT, WHETHER IN CORPORATE OR UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, TO
FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE RECORD-KEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 202(B), AND
MAKING IT UNLAWFUL, SEC. 205(B), FOR ANY SUCH PERSON TO MAKE "ANY
STATEMENT OR ENTRY FALSE IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT IN ANY DOCUMENT OR
REPORT REQUIRED TO BE KEPT OR FILED" UNDER SEC. 202(B).  EVEN IN THE
ABSENCE OF THE JUDICIAL BACKGROUND HIGHLIGHTED BY THE RATIONALE OF THE
WILSON AND HEIKE DECISIONS, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT
RECORDS PROPERLY REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY THE GOVERNMENT, FOR GOVERNMENT
USE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF A REGULATORY STATUTE, WITH PENALTIES OF
FINES AND IMPRISONMENT APPLICABLE AGAINST ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO THE
STATUTE WHO FAILS TO KEEP THOSE RECORDS OR WHO FALSIFIES ENTRIES IN
THEM, COULD STILL BE REGARDED BY CONGRESS OR THE PUBLIC AS PRIVATE
RECORDS CONCERNING WHICH THE RECORDER MAY ASSERT A PRIVILEGE AGAINST
SELF-INCRIMINATION. 

FN30  THE PHRASE "ANY REQUIREMENTS" APPEARS ALSO IN THE IMMUNITY
PROVISION OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1946, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1812(A)(3). 
THERE, AS IN THE PRICE CONTROL ACT, SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS REFERRED
TO WOULD, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SECTION, BE EXCUSABLE BECAUSE OF
PRIVILEGE - E.G., COMPELLED ORAL TESTIMONY - WHILE OTHER REQUIREMENTS,
INCLUDING THE COMPULSORY PRODUCTION OF RECORDS WHICH HAD BEEN KEPT
PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE (SEC. 1810(C)), WOULD, UNDER THE WILSON
DOCTRINE, HAVE THE SAME NON-PRIVILEGED (AND HENCE NON-IMMUNIZING)
STATUS AS THE SALES RECORD INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE.  COMPARE ALSO
THE PHRASEOLOGY USED IN SUCH STATUTES AS THE WAR AND DEFENSE CONTRACT
ACTS, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1152(A)(3), (4), AND FREIGHT FORWARDERS ACT
(1942), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1017(A).  (B), (D). 

FN31  COMPARE THE PARAPHRASE OF SEC. 202(G) CONTAINED IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS:  "... ALTHOUGH NO PERSON IS EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING
WITH ANY REQUIREMENT OF THIS SUBSECTION BECAUSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY
TESTIMONY ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1893, ARE MADE APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO
ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS SUCH PRIVILEGE."  S. REP. NO.
931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 21; H.R. REP. NO. 1409, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
9.  (HERE, AS ELSEWHERE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.) 

FN32  SECTION 6 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF FEB. 4, 1887, C.
104, 24 STAT. 380, REQUIRED EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE TO FILE WITH THE COMMISSION COPIES OF ITS
SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS OF RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES, AND OF ALL
CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CARRIERS. 

FN33  IT IS FURTHER SUGGESTED THAT THE PRESENCE OF STATUTORY
PROVISIONS FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT, IN CERTAIN LIMITED RESPECTS, OF
INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
VIEWS OF THIS OPINION.  WE FIND NO SUCH INCONSISTENCY IN THE PRESENCE
OF SECS. 4(C) AND 202(H), THE PROVISIONS WHICH SPECIFY THE TYPES OF
CONFIDENTIAL SAFEGUARDS INTENDED. 

"SECTION 4(C) AFFORDS PROTECTION TO THOSE PERSONS REQUIRED TO
DISCLOSE INFORMATION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR BY MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT, OR FOR ANY ADVISER OR CONSULTANT
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, TO DISCLOSE OR TO USE
FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT, ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER THE BILL. 
FURTHER PROVISION FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT OF SUCH INFORMATION IS
FOUND IN SECTION 202(B)(CHANGED IN CONFERENCE TO SEC. 202(H)).  ...
INFORMATION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE BILL BY DIRECTING THE
ADMINISTRATOR, UPON THE REQUEST OF THE PARTY FURNISHING SUCH
INFORMATION, OR IF HE DEEMS SUCH INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL, NOT TO
DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION UNLESS HE DEEMS THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST
REQUIRES SUCH DISCLOSURE."  S. REP. NO. 931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 20
21. 

THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME SORT OF CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
PROVIDED FOR BY THE HEPBURN ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 594, AMENDING THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT:  "ANY EXAMINER WHO DIVULGES ANY FACT OR
INFORMATION WHICH MAY COME TO HIS KNOWLEDGE DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH
EXAMINATION, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS HE MAY BE DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION
OR BY A COURT OR JUDGE THEREOF, SHALL BE SUBJECT, UPON CONVICTION IN
ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, TO A FINE OF
NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT
EXCEEDING TWO YEARS, OR BOTH."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(7)(F).  NUMEROUS
OTHER STATUTES HAVE INCORPORATED ALMOST IDENTICALLY WORDED PROVISIONS. 
SEE E.G., MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 322(D). 

IN STATUTES SUCH AS THESE, WHERE CONGRESS VALIDLY DISTINGUISHES
REQUIRED RECORDS FROM PRIVATE PAPERS, WITH RESPECT TO THE AVAILABILITY
OF THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS
TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE FOR WHOSE EFFECTUATION THEY ARE KEPT, NOTHING IN
LOGIC NOR HISTORICAL PRACTICE REQUIRES CONGRESS AT THE SAME TIME TO
TREAT THE RECORDS AS PUBLIC IN THE SENSE THAT THEY BE OPEN AT ALL TIMES
TO SCRUTINY BY THE MERELY CURIOUS.  SEE COLEMAN V. UNITED STATES, 153
F.2D 400, 402-04(C.C.A. 6, 1946).  CONGRESS EXPRESSLY FORECLOSED SUCH A
RESULT IN THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, AND THIS OPINION NEITHER
REQUIRES NOR PERMITS IT. 

FN34  HEIKE, SUPRA NOTE 23, AT 141. 

FN35  ID. AT 141-42.  IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE PERSUASIVE BRIEF FOR
THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE, PREPARED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF EMINENT
COUNSEL, CALLED FORTH A HOLMESIAN ECHO. 

FN36  SEE HEIKE, SUPRA NOTE 23, AT 142; BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S.
591, 594-5(1896); HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 67(1906).  SEE ALSO THE
STATEMENT MADE IN THE HOUSE BY REPRESENTATIVE WISE, OF THE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, IN PRESENTING THE BILL WHICH BECAME
THE BASIS OF THE 1893 COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT:  "THE WHOLE SCOPE AND
EFFECT OF THE ACT IS SIMPLY TO MEET THE DECISION RENDERED RECENTLY BY
THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE KNOWN AS 'THE COUNCILMAN CASE.'"  24
CONG. REC. 503(1893). 

FN37  88 CONG. REC. 700(1942). 

FN38  ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS, 317 U.S. 501, 509(1943). 

FN39  HEIKE, SUPRA NOTE 23, AT 142. 

FN40  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534,
543(1940); SEE ALSO MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. BOONE, 270 U.S. 466,
472(1926). 

"A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN A STATUTE MERELY
BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO DEPART FROM CUSTOM OR BECAUSE GIVING
EFFECT TO THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY CONGRESS MIGHT REQUIRE A
COURT TO FACE A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION."  UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN,
332 U.S. 689, 693(1948). 

FN41  CF. YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 422(1944). 

FN42  DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, 589-90(1946).  SEE ALSO
UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 125(1941)("SINCE  ...  CONGRESS
MAY REQUIRE PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO CONFORM TO THOSE
CONDITIONS (WAGES AND HOURS), IT MAY REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER, AS A MEANS
OF ENFORCING THE VALID LAW, TO KEEP A RECORD SHOWING WHETHER HE HAS IN
FACT COMPLIED WITH IT.  THE REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDS EVEN OF THE
INTRASTATE TRANSACTION IS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS TO THE LEGITIMATE END. 
..."); ARROW DISTILLERIES V. ALEXANDER; 109 F.2D 397, 404-05(1940); DI
SANTO V. UNITED STATES, 93 F.2D 948(1937).  CF. RODGERS V. UNITED
STATES, 138 F.2D 992, 995-96(1943). 

IN BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616(1886), THE COURT HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS REPUGNANT TO THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS, AN
1874 REVENUE STATUTE WHICH REQUIRED THE DEFENDANT OR CLAIMANT, ON
MOTION OF THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY, TO PRODUCE IN COURT HIS PRIVATE
BOOKS, INVOICES AND PAPERS, OR ELSE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT
WERE TO BE TAKEN AS CONFESSED.  THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THE STATUTE HAD
BEEN APPLIED IN THAT CASE WAS AN INVOICE, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT, AS WELL
AS THE DEFENDANT, TREATED THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE
PROCEEDINGS AS A PRIVATE BUSINESS RECORD.  THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDED THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE THUS APPLIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
ACTION WAS NOT AGAINST THE CLAIMANTS, BUT WAS MERELY A CIVIL ACTION IN
REM FOR THE FORFEITURE OF MERCHANDISE, IN WHICH ACTION THE CLAIMANTS
HAD VOLUNTARILY INTERVENED.  IT ARGUED THAT IN A FORFEITURE ACTION,
PRIVATE BOOKS AND PAPERS PRODUCED UNDER COMPULSION HAVE NO HIGHER
SANCTITY THAN OTHER PROPERTY, SINCE THE PROVISION IN THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT THAT NO PERSON "SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE
A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF" APPLIES ONLY TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
PERSONAM. 

IN REJECTING THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION, THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY
OF THE COURT PROCEEDED MAINLY UPON A COMPLEX INTERPRETATION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT, TAKEN AS INTERTWINED IN ITS PURPOSE AND HISTORICAL
ORIGINS WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  UNDER THAT VIEW, "A COMPULSORY
PRODUCTION OF THE PRIVATE BOOKS AND PAPERS OF THE OWNER OF GOODS SOUGHT
TO BE FORFEITED IN SUCH A SUIT (I.E., A SUIT FOR A PENALTY OR
FORFEITURE) IS COMPELLING HIM TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, AND IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF A SEARCH AND SEIZURE - AND AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE - WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT."  ID. AT 634-35;
SEE ALSO ID. AT 621 ET SEQ. IN OTHER WORDS, THE MAJORITY OPINION
CONSTRUED THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AS APPLYING IN THE
FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES "TO A RETURNABLE WRIT OF SEIZURE DESCRIBING
SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF A SPECIFIC PERSON."  8 WIGMORE,
EVIDENCE 368(3D ED. 1940); SEE HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 71
72(1906).    HOLDING THIS VIEW OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE MAJORITY OF
THE COURT NEVERTHELESS CAREFULLY DISTINGUISHED THE "UNREASONABLE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE" EFFECTED BY THE STATUTE BEFORE IT FROM THE "SEARCH AND
SEIZURE" WHICH CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED FOR IN REVENUE ACTS THAT REQUIRED
MANUFACTURERS TO KEEP CERTAIN RECORDS, SUBJECT TO INSPECTION (SEE,
E.G., ACT OF JULY 20, 1868, C. 186, SECS. 19, 45, 15 STAT. 133, 143,
REGULATING DISTILLERS AND RECTIFIERS):  "...  THE SUPERVISION
AUTHORIZED TO BE EXERCISED BY OFFICERS OF THE REVENUE OVER THE
MANUFACTURE OR CUSTODY OF EXCISABLE ARTICLES, AND THE ENTRIES THEREOF
IN BOOKS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE KEPT FOR THEIR INSPECTION, ARE
NECESSARILY EXCEPTED OUT OF THE CATEGORY OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES.  ...  BUT, WHEN EXAMINED WITH CARE, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THERE
IS A TOTAL UNLIKENESS OF THESE OFFICIAL ACTS AND PROCEEDINGS TO THAT
WHICH IS NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.  ..."  ID. AT 623-24. 

FN43  DAVIS, SUPRA NOTE 42, AT 602. 

FN44  IBID. 

FN45  SEE DISSENTING OPINION IN DAVIS, SUPRA NOTE 42, AT 614 N.9. 
SEE ALSO AMATO V. PORTER, 157 F.2D 719(1946); COLEMAN V. UNITED STATES,
153 F.2D 400(1946). 

FN46  SEE ALSO THE RATIONALE SET FORTH IN 8 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE SEC.
2259C (3D ED. 1940), A SECTION WHICH WAS CITED WITH APPROVAL BY THE
OPINION OF THE COURT IN DAVIS, SUPRA NOTE 42, AT 590: 

"THE STATE REQUIRES THE BOOKS TO BE KEPT, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
OFFICER TO COMMIT THE CRIME.  IF IN THE COURSE OF COMMITTING THE CRIME
HE MAKES ENTRIES, THE CRIMINALITY OF THE ENTRIES EXISTS BY HIS OWN
CHOICE AND ELECTION, NOT BY COMPULSION OF LAW.  THE STATE ANNOUNCED ITS
REQUIREMENT TO KEEP THE BOOKS LONG BEFORE THERE WAS ANY CRIME; SO THAT
THE ENTRY WAS MADE BY REASON OF A COMMAND OR COMPULSION WHICH WAS
DIRECTED TO THE CLASS OF ENTRIES IN GENERAL, AND NOT TO THIS SPECIFIC
ACT.  THE DUTY OR COMPULSION TO DISCLOSE THE BOOKS EXISTED GENERICALLY,
AND PRIOR TO THE SPECIFIC ACT; HENCE THE COMPULSION IS NOT DIRECTED TO
THE CRIMINAL ACT, BUT IS INDEPENDENT OF IT, AND CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO
IT.  ...  THE SAME REASONING APPLIES TO RECORDS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE
KEPT BY A CITIZEN NOT BEING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, E.G. A DRUGGIST'S REPORT
OF LIQUOR SALES, OR A PAWNBROKER'S RECORD OF PLEDGES.  THE ONLY
DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE DUTY ARISES NOT FROM THE PERSON'S GENERAL
OFFICIAL STATUS, BUT FROM THE SPECIFIC STATUTE LIMITED TO A PARTICULAR
CLASS OF ACTS.  THE DUTY, OR COMPULSION, IS DIRECTED AS BEFORE, TO THE
GENERIC CLASS OF ACTS, NOT TO THE CRIMINAL ACT, AND IS ANTERIOR TO AND
INDEPENDENT OF THE CRIME; THE CRIME BEING DUE TO THE PARTY'S OWN
ELECTION, MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGIN OF THE DUTY." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT THIS DAY DECIDES THAT WHEN CONGRESS PRESCRIBES FOR A
LIMITED GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE, ENFORCEABLE BY APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS, THE
FORM IN WHICH SOME RECORDS ARE TO BE KEPT, NOT BY CORPORATIONS BUT BY
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, IN WHAT IN EVERYDAY LANGUAGE IS A PRIVATE AND NOT
A GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS, CONGRESS THEREBY TAKES SUCH RECORDS OUT OF THE
PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND SEARCH
AND SEIZURE.  DECISION OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IS AT TIMES
UNAVOIDABLE.  BUT IN THIS CASE THE COURT SO DECIDES WHEN IT IS NOT
NECESSARY.  THE COURT MAKES A DRASTIC BREAK WITH THE PAST IN DISREGARD
OF THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION NOT TO PASS ON
A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE - AND HERE A GRAVE ONE INVOLVING BASIC CIVIL
LIBERTIES - IF A CONSTRUCTION THAT DOES NO VIOLENCE TO THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE PERMITS ITS AVOIDANCE.  THIS STATUTE CLEARLY PERMITS IT. FN1
INSTEAD, THE COURT GOES ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT AN IMMUNITY STATUTE MUST
BE EQUATED WITH THE PRIVILEGE, ALTHOUGH ONLY RECENTLY THE COURT
ATTRIBUTED TO CONGRESS A GRATUITOUS GRANT OF IMMUNITY WHERE CONCEDEDLY
THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT REQUIRE IT, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES FAR LESS
PERSUASIVE THAN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND THE POLICY UNDERLYING IT.
SEE UNITED STATES V. MONIA, 317 U.S. 424. 

INSTEAD OF RESPECTING "SERIOUS DOUBTS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY" BY GIVING
WHAT IS AT THE LEAST AN ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION TO THE PRICE CONTROL ACT
WHICH LEGITIMATELY AVOIDS THESE DOUBTS, THE COURT GOES OUT OF ITS WAY
TO MAKE A FARREACHING PRONOUNCEMENT ON A PROVISION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.  IN AN ALMOST CURSORY FASHION, THE COURT NEEDLESSLY DECIDES
THAT ALL RECORDS WHICH CONGRESS MAY REQUIRE INDIVIDUALS TO KEEP IN THE
CONDUCT OF THEIR AFFAIRS, BECAUSE THEY FALL WITHIN SOME REGULATORY
POWER OF GOVERNMENT, BECOME "PUBLIC RECORDS" AND THEREBY, IPSO FACTO,
FALL OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAT NO PERSON
"SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF." 

IN REACHING OUT FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION, ESPECIALLY ONE OF
SUCH MOMENT, WHEN A STATUTORY SOLUTION AVOIDING IT LAY READY AT HAND,
THE COURT HAS DISREGARDED ITS CONSTANTLY PROFESSED PRINCIPLE FOR THE
PROPER APPROACH TOWARD CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.  "WHEN THE VALIDITY
OF AN ACT OF THE CONGRESS IS DRAWN IN QUESTION, AND EVEN IF A SERIOUS
DOUBT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS RAISED, IT IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE THAT
THIS COURT WILL FIRST ASCERTAIN WHETHER A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
IS FAIRLY POSSIBLE BY WHICH THE QUESTION MAY BE AVOIDED."  CROWELL V.
BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 62, QUOTED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS WITH SUPPORTING
CITATIONS IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288,
348, N. 8.  AND SEE, GENERALLY, FOR DUTY TO AVOID CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION, RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, 568 ET
SEQ. 

DEPARTURE FROM A BASIC CANON OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION IS
SINGULARLY UNCALLED FOR IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, WHERE THE STATUTE NOT
ONLY PERMITS A CONSTRUCTION AVOIDING CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS BUT
ON FAIR READING REQUIRES IT. 

IN CONFERRING POWERS OF INVESTIGATION UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR,
CONGRESS DESIGNED TO SECURE THE PROMPTEST DISCLOSURE OF THE BOOKS AND
RECORDS OF THE MILLIONS OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISES SUBJECTED TO THE
REGULATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION.  IT WOULD CONTRADICT
THAT VITAL AIM TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS THE CONFLICTING PURPOSE OF
HAMPERING THE FREE FLOW OF KNOWLEDGE CONTAINED IN BUSINESSMEN'S BOOKS
BY INVITING CONTROVERSIES REGARDING STILL UNDETERMINED CLAIMS OF
PRIVILEGE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESSION OF
SUCH PURPOSE MADE MUCH MORE MANIFEST THAN THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF SEC.
202(G) WHICH CONFERRED IMMUNITY FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SUCH
CONTROVERSIES. 

IT IS A POOR ANSWER TO SAY THAT IF THE STATUTE WERE EVENTUALLY FOUND
TO CONFER IMMUNITY ONLY TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED FOR SUPPLYING AN
EQUIVALENT FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE, ALL RECORDS WOULD TURN OUT
TO BE UNPRIVILEGED OR WOULD FURNISH IMMUNITY, AND IN EITHER CASE REFUTE
ANY EXCUSE FOR WITHHOLDING THEM.  BUSINESSMEN ARE NOT GUIDED BY SUCH
ABSTRACTIONS.  OBEDIENCE IS NOT FREELY GIVEN TO UNCERTAIN LAWS WHEN
THEY INVOLVE SUCH SENSITIVE MATTERS AS OPENING THE BOOKS OF BUSINESS. 
AND SO, BUSINESSMEN WOULD HAVE HAD A STRONG INCENTIVE TO HOLD BACK
THEIR RECORDS, FORCING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO COMPEL PRODUCTION BY
JUDICIAL PROCESS.  APART FROM THE USE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR OBSTRUCTIVE
TACTICS THAT CAN HARDLY BE CIRCUMVENTED WHEN NEW LEGISLATION IS TESTED,
DELAYS INEVITABLE TO LITIGATION WOULD DAM UP THE FLOW OF NEEDED
INFORMATION.  CONGRESS SOUGHT TO PRODUCE INFORMATION, NOT LITIGATION. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. MONIA, SUPRA, AT P. 428. 

IN THE MONIA CASE THE COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE STATUTE, "IF
INTERPRETED AS THE GOVERNMENT NOW DESIRES, MAY WELL BE A TRAP FOR THE
WITNESS."  ID. AT 430.  WE NEED NOT SPECULATE HERE AS TO POTENTIAL
ENTRAPMENT.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE PETITIONER ASKED, THROUGH
HIS ATTORNEY, WHETHER HE WAS "BEING GRANTED IMMUNITY AS TO ANY AND ALL
MATTERS FOR INFORMATION OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION AND
EXAMINATION OF THESE RECORDS."  ON BEHALF OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR,
THE REPLY WAS "THE WITNESS IS ENTITLED TO WHATEVER IMMUNITY WHICH FLOWS
AS A MATTER OF LAW FROM THE PRODUCTION OF THESE BOOKS AND RECORDS WHICH
ARE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT PURSUANT TO MPRS (MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATIONS)
271 AND 426."  PETITIONER, HIMSELF, THEREUPON SPECIFICALLY CLAIMED
IMMUNITY UNDER THE STATUTE AS WELL AS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND
STATED THAT UNDER "THESE CONDITIONS" HE PRODUCED THE BOOKS AND RECORDS
THAT THE SUBPOENA SOUGHT.  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT DISCLOSURE WAS HERE
MADE, RECORDS WERE PRODUCED, ON THE PETITIONER'S JUSTIFIABLE BELIEF -
BASED UPON THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL AND ACQUIESCED IN BY THE PRESIDING
OFFICIAL - THAT HE THEREBY SECURED STATUTORY IMMUNITY AND NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION. 

THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT IN 1942 CONGRESS LEGISLATED WITH A
VIEW TO LITIGATING THE SCOPE OF THE LIMITATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
UPON ITS POWERS.  TO ASCERTAIN WHAT CONGRESS MEANT BY SEC. 202(G) WE
WOULD DO WELL TO BEGIN BY CAREFULLY ATTENDING TO WHAT CONGRESS SAID: 

"NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THIS SECTION BECAUSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
BUT THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF FEBRUARY
11, 1893(U.S.C., 1934 EDITION, TITLE 49, SEC. 46), SHALL APPLY WITH
RESPECT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS SUCH PRIVILEGE."  56
STAT. 23, 30, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 922(G). 

THE TEXT MUST BE PUT INTO ITS CONTEXT, NOT MERELY BECAUSE ONE
PROVISION OF A STATUTE SHOULD NORMALLY BE READ IN RELATION TO ITS
FELLOWS, BUT PARTICULARLY SO HERE BECAUSE CONGRESS EXPLICITLY LINKED
SUBSECTION (G) OF SEC. 202 TO "ANY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THIS SECTION." 
EFFECTIVE PRICE CONTROL DEPENDED ON UNIMPEDED ACCESS TO RELEVANT
INFORMATION.  TO THAT END, SEC. 202 AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
IMPOSE THE "REQUIREMENTS" OF THE SECTION, AND THOSE FROM WHOM THEY WERE
EXACTED WERE UNDER DUTY OF COMPLIANCE BY SUBSECTION (E), WHILE
SUBSECTION (G) BARRED ANY EXCUSE FROM COMPLIANCE BY A CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-CRIMINATION BY THE ASSURANCE OF IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION.  FN2 

SUBSECTIONS (A), (B), (C) AND (E) IMPOSE THESE FOUR REQUIREMENTS:
PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE VAST RANGE OF BUSINESS SUBJECT TO THE ACT MAY BE
REQUIRED TO (1) MAKE AND KEEP RECORDS, (2) MAKE REPORTS AND (3) PERMIT
THE INSPECTION AND COPYING OF RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS; SUCH PERSONS
AS WELL AS OTHERS MAY BE REQUIRED TO (4) "APPEAR AND TESTIFY OR TO
APPEAR AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, OR BOTH, AT ANY DESIGNATED PLACE."  FN3
AN UNCONSTRAINED READING OF SUBSECTION (G) INSURED PROMPT COMPLIANCE
WITH ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS BY REMOVING ANY EXCUSE BASED ON THE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-CRIMINATION. 

HERE THE ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED THE PETITIONER TO "KEEP AND MAKE
AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION  ...
RECORDS OF THE SAME KIND AS HE HAS CUSTOMARILY KEPT  ..."  SEC. 14(B),
MPR 426, 8 F.R. 9546, 9549.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT BECAUSE THE
RECORDS OF PETITIONER'S OWN BUSINESS, THOSE THAT HE "CUSTOMARILY KEPT,"
WERE REQUIRED TO BE SO KEPT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, HE WAS COMPELLED TO
DISCLOSE THEIR CONTENTS EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE INCRIMINATED HIM, AND
THAT HE WAS AFFORDED NO IMMUNITY UNDER SUBSECTION (G) BECAUSE HE WAS
NOT DISCLOSING WHAT WERE REALLY HIS RECORDS.  SURELY THIS IS TO
DEVITALIZE THE PHRASE "ANY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THIS SECTION" IF NOT TO
RENDER IT MEANINGLESS. 

THE COURT SUPPORTS THIS DEVITALIZATION WITH THE "SHORT ANSWER" THAT
THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED DOES COVER COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THESE
REQUIREMENTS AS TO WHICH A PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FROM
COMPLIANCE BECAUSE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE.  THE SHORT REPLY IS
THAT, BEARING IN MIND THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE, ONLY THE FOURTH REQUIREMENT APPEARS TO BE
THUS COVERED.  I DO NOT WISH TO LAY TOO MUCH STRESS ON THE COURT'S
SINGULAR INTERPRETATION OF THE PLURAL "REQUIREMENTS."  PLAINLY, THE
COURT CONSTRUES SEC. 202(G) AS ACCORDING IMMUNITY ONLY TO ORAL
TESTIMONY UNDER OATH AND TO THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENTS WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT HAVE THE FORESIGHT TO REQUIRE TO BE KEPT.  FN4 

THE COURT THUS CONSTRUES THE WORDS "COMPLYING WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THIS SECTION" TO READ "APPEARING AND TESTIFYING OR PRODUCING
DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT PURSUANT TO THIS
WHEN MOST SCRUPULOUSLY PURSUED BY JUDGES MAY NOT WHOLLY ESCAPE SOME
RETROSPECTIVE INFUSION SO THAT THE LINE BETWEEN INTERPRETATION AND
SUBSTITUTION IS SOMETIMES THIN.  BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
READING WHAT IS AND REWRITING IT.  THE COURT HERE DOES NOT ADHERE TO
THE TEXT BUT DELETES AND RESHAPES IT.  SUCH LITERARY FREEWHEELING IS
HARDLY JUSTIFIED BY THE ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE SO
EXPRESSED IT IF IT HAD GIVEN THE MATTER ATTENTIVE CONSIDERATION.  FN5
IN THE MONIA CASE THE COURT, HAVING CONCLUDED THAT A SIMILAR QUESTION
WAS PRESENT, HAD NO DIFFICULTY IN ANSWERING: "IT IS NOT FOR US TO ADD
TO THE LEGISLATION WHAT CONGRESS PRETERMITTED."  317 U.S. AT 430. 

BOTH LOGIC AND AUTHORITY, APART FROM DUE REGARD FOR OUR LIMITED
FUNCTION, DEMONSTRATE THE WISDOM OF RESPECTING THE TEXT.  THE REACH OF
THE IMMUNITY GIVEN BY SEC. 202(G) IS SPELLED OUT IN THE INCORPORATED
TERMS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF 1893.  THESE PROVIDE THAT
WHERE, AS HERE, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS EXACTED WHICH MAY TEND TO
INCRIMINATE, HE WHO PRODUCES IT SHALL NOT "BE PROSECUTED OR SUBJECTED
TO ANY PENALTY OR FORFEITURE FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY TRANSACTION,
MATTER OR THING, CONCERNING WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY, OR PRODUCE EVIDENCE,
DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE  ..."  27 STAT. 443, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 46.  THERE
IS OF COURSE NOTHING IN THIS PROVISION TO SUPPORT THE FINESPUN EXEGESIS
WHICH THE COURT PUTS UPON SEC. 202(G).  THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS AS MUCH
BY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT "THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY
ACT POSSIBLY MAY BE SO READ" AS TO SUPPORT THE PRESENT CLAIM OF
IMMUNITY.  BUT IT URGES THAT NOTHING IN THE "LANGUAGE OR LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY" OF SEC. 202(G) REQUIRES A BROADER IMMUNITY THAN AN
ADJUDICATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE WOULD EXACT. 
THE LANGUAGE YIELDS NO SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S SOPHISTICATED
READING ADOPTED BY THE COURT.  NOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY TO TRANSMUTE THE CLEAR IMPORT OF SEC. 202 INTO ESOTERIC
SIGNIFICANCE.  SO FAR AS IT BEARS UPON OUR PROBLEM, THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE ACT MERELY SHOWS THAT SEC. 202 IN ITS ENTIRETY WAS
INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF "OBTAINING INFORMATION."  FN6  NOTHING IN
THAT HISTORY THROWS ANY LIGHT UPON THE SCOPE OF THE IMMUNITY AFFORDED
BY SUBSECTION (G).  FN7  WHAT IS THERE IN THIS SILENCE OF CONGRESS THAT
SPEAKS SO LOUDLY TO THE COURT?  WHAT ARE THE "INESCAPABLE IMPLICATIONS
OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY" THAT COMPELLED ITS EXTRAORDINARY READING OF
THIS STATUTE?  SURELY, THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S AUTHORITY TO
REQUIRE THE KEEPING OF RECORDS AND THE MAKING OF REPORTS WAS STRICKEN
FROM THE BILL ON ITS ORIGINAL PASSAGE THROUGH THE HOUSE BUT WAS
EVENTUALLY REINSERTED, MERELY INDICATES THAT CONGRESS FINALLY CONCLUDED
THAT OBTAINING INFORMATION WAS NECESSARY FOR EFFECTIVE PRICE
REGULATION.  FN8 

BUT THE COURT READS INTO SEC. 202(G) THE MEANING THAT "THEY" PUT UPON
THE RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS THAT CONGRESS THUS REINSERTED INTO THE
BILL.  "THEY," THE "GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE OPA," APPEARED AND
TESTIFIED ORALLY AT THE SENATE HEARINGS  FN9  AND, IN URGING
RESTORATION OF THE LICENSING (SEC. 205(F)) AND RECORD-KEEPING
PROVISIONS, SECURED PERMISSION TO FILE VARIOUS BRIEFS AND DOCUMENTS
WITH THE COMMITTEE.  FN10  WHILE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE GENERAL
COUNSEL'S ORAL TESTIMONY THAT SHEDS LIGHT UPON OUR PROBLEM, IT DOES
APPEAR FROM ONE OF THE EXHIBITS FILED BY HIM THAT THE COURT HAS
CORRECTLY DETERMINED THE FAR-REACHING CONSTRUCTION THAT HE HAD GIVEN TO
PROVISIONS WHICH THE HOUSE HAD REJECTED AS "REDUNDANT."  FN11  BUT OUR
TASK IS TO DETERMINE, AS BEST WE CAN, WHAT CONGRESS MEANT - NOT WHAT
COUNSEL SPONSORING LEGISLATION, HOWEVER DISINTERESTEDLY, HOPED CONGRESS
WOULD MEAN.  IF COUNSEL'S VIEWS HAD BEEN ORALLY EXPRESSED TO THE
COMMITTEE,  FN12  THE COMMITTEE MIGHT HAVE GIVEN SOME INDICATION OF ITS
VIEWS.  BUT EVEN IF UPON SUCH DISCLOSURE OF COUNSEL'S VIEWS THE
COMMITTEE HAD REMAINED SILENT, THIS WOULD HARDLY HAVE FURNISHED
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO TRANSMUTE THE LANGUAGE THAT CONGRESS ACTUALLY
EMPLOYED TO EXPRESS ITS MEANING INTO SOME OTHER MEANING. 

TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS FAMILIARITY WITH, LET ALONE ACCEPTANCE OF, A
CONSTRUCTION SOLELY BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT OUR RESEARCH REVEALS ITS
PRESENCE AMONG THE 60,000 WORD MEMORANDUM WHICH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE PERMITTED THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE O.P.A. TO FILE,
IS SURELY TO DEFY THE ACTUALITIES OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  IS THERE
THE SLENDEREST GROUND FOR ASSUMING THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE READ
COUNSEL'S SUBMISSION NOW RELIED UPON BY THE COURT?  THERE IS NOT A
REFERENCE TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE O.P.A., WHOLLY APART FROM THAT
BRIEF, IN ANY REPORT OF A COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE OR IN ANY UTTERANCE
ON THE FLOOR OF EITHER HOUSE.  FN13  THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE
HOUSE HAD PASSED THE MEASURE BEFORE THE BRIEF, IN TYPE SMALLER THAN
THAT OF THE FOOTNOTES IN THIS OPINION, APPEARED IN A VOLUME OF HEARINGS
COMPRISING 560 PAGES (PART OF THE THREE VOLUMES OF HOUSE AND SENATE
HEARINGS CONTAINING 2,865 PAGES).  THE GOVERNMENT, IN SUBMITTING TO US
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISION WITH A VIEW TO
SUSTAINING ITS CLAIMS, DID NOT PRETEND THAT THE CONGRESS WAS EITHER
AWARE OF THE BRIEF OR ACCEPTED THE CONSTRUCTION IT PROFFERED.  THE
SUGGESTION THAT MEMBERS OF A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE HAVE READ, AND
PRESUMPTIVELY AGREED WITH, THE VIEWS FOUND IN A MEMORANDUM ALLOWED TO
BE FILED BY A WITNESS AND PRINTED IN APPENDIX FORM IN THE HEARINGS ON A
BILL, LET ALONE THAT BOTH HOUSES IN VOTING FOR A MEASURE ADOPTED SUCH
VIEWS AS THE GLOSS UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT WHICH IT WOULD NOT
OTHERWISE BEAR, CAN ONLY BE MADE IN A PICKWICKIAN SENSE.  IT IS HARD TO
BELIEVE THAT EVEN THE MOST CONSCIENTIOUS MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS WOULD
CARE TO BE CHARGED WITH UNDERWRITING VIEWS MERELY BECAUSE THEY WERE
EXPRESSED IN A MEMORANDUM FILED AS WAS THE O.P.A. BRIEF, ON WHICH SO
MUCH RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  IF THE LANGUAGE OF A
STATUTE IS TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE ESOTERIC INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS THAT
THE SUGGESTED USE OF THE O.P.A. BRIEF IMPLIES, SINCE IT IS THE COMMON
PRACTICE TO ALLOW MEMORANDA TO BE SUBMITTED TO A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS
BY INTERESTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, OFTEN HIGH-MINDED ENOUGH BUT WITH
THEIR OWN AXES TO GRIND, GREAT ENCOURAGEMENT WILL BE GIVEN TO THE
TEMPTATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS AND OTHERS TO PROVIDE SELF
SERVING "PROOF" OF CONGRESSIONAL CONFIRMATION FOR THEIR PRIVATE VIEWS
THROUGH INCORPORATION OF SUCH MATERIALS.  HITHERTO UNSUSPECTED
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ASSURING DESIRED GLOSSES UPON INNOCENT-LOOKING
LEGISLATION WOULD THUS BE AFFORDED. 

WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT CONGRESS GAVE THE ADMINISTRATOR
BROAD POWERS FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION AS AN AID TO THE ADMINISTRATION
AND ENFORCEMENT  FN14  OF THE ACT, AND THAT "THE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF
UNHAMPERED BY THE ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION."  CERTAINLY.  BUT HOW DOES IT FOLLOW THAT CONGRESS
THEREBY INTENDED SUB SILENTIO TO EFFECTUATE THIS BROAD PURPOSE BY
CONFINING THE IMMUNITY ACCORDED WITHIN THE UNDEFINED CONTROVERSIAL
SCOPE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT?  ONE WOULD SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS SECURED
ITS OBJECT, AS THIS COURT HELD IN THE MONIA CASE, BY GIVING IMMUNITY
AND SO TAKING AWAY CONTENTIONS BASED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE. 

PLAINLY, IT WOULD HAVE SUFFICED TO DISPOSE OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY
BY HOLDING THAT CONGRESS GRANTED IMMUNITY BY SEC. 202(G) TO PERSONS WHO
PRODUCED THEIR OWN RECORDS, AS WERE THE RECORDS IN THIS CASE, AND NOT
IN THEIR POSSESSION AS CUSTODIANS OF OTHERS, EVEN THOUGH REQUIRED TO BE
KEPT BY SEC. 202.  TO ADAPT THE LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, WORDS
HAVE BEEN STRAINED BY THE COURT MORE THAN THEY SHOULD BE STRAINED IN
ORDER TO REACH A DOUBTFUL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  SEE BLODGETT V.
HOLDEN, 275 U.S. 142, 148. 

AND SO WE COME TO THE COURT'S FACILE TREATMENT OF THE GRAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BROUGHT INTO ISSUE BY ITS DISPOSITION OF THE
STATUTORY QUESTION.  IN THE INTEREST OF CLARITY IT IS APPROPRIATE TO
NOTE THAT THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION CONCERNS THE SCOPE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, NOT THE VALIDITY OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE COURT
HAS CONSTRUED THE IMMUNITY AFFORDED BY SEC. 202(G) OF THE ACT AS CO
EXTENSIVE WITH THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION.  THUS CONSTRUED, THE SUBSECTION IS OF COURSE VALID,
SINCE, BY HYPOTHESIS, IT AFFORDS A PROTECTION AS BROAD AS THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547; BROWN V. WALKER, 161
U.S. 591.  THE VICE OF THIS CONSTRUCTION - AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
POINT WARRANT'S ITS REITERATION - IS PRECISELY THAT IT NECESSITATES
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION INSTEAD OF AVOIDING IT.  FN15  AND
IF THE PRECEDENTS MEAN ANYTHING THIS COURSE WILL BE FOLLOWED IN EVERY
FUTURE CASE INVOLVING A QUESTION OF STATUTORY IMMUNITY. 

THE COURT HARDLY FINDS A PROBLEM IN DISPOSING OF AN ISSUE FAR
REACHING IN ITS IMPLICATIONS, INVOLVING AS THEY DO A DRASTIC CHANGE IN
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE GOVERNMENT AS HITHERTO
CONCEIVED.  THE COURT TREATS THE PROBLEM AS THOUGH IT WERE ALMOST SELF
EVIDENT THAT WHEN RECORDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT FOR SOME NEEDS OF
GOVERNMENT, OR TO BE KEPT IN A PARTICULAR FORM, THEY ARE LEGALLY
CONSIDERED GOVERNMENTAL RECORDS AND MAY BE DEMANDED AS INSTRUMENTS OF
SELF-CRIMINATION. 

READY-MADE CATCH-PHRASES MAY CONCEAL BUT DO NOT SOLVE SERIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS.  "TOO BROADLY GENERALIZED CONCEPTIONS ARE A
CONSTANT SOURCE OF FALLACY."  HOLMES, J., IN LORENZO V. WIRTH, 170
MASS. 596, 600.  HERE THE FALLACY CAN BE TRACED TO THE REPHRASING OF
OUR PROBLEM INTO TERMS "TO WHICH AS LAWYERS THE JUDGES HAVE BECOME
ACCUSTOMED," IBID.; THEN, BY TREATING THE QUESTION AS THOUGH IT WERE
THE REPHRASED ISSUE, THE EASY ANSWER APPEARS AXIOMATIC AND, BECAUSE
FAMILIAR, AUTHORITATIVE.  SUBTLE QUESTION-BEGGING IS NEVERTHELESS
QUESTION-BEGGING.  THUS: RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY LAW ARE PUBLIC
RECORDS; PUBLIC RECORDS ARE NON-PRIVILEGED; REQUIRED RECORDS ARE NON
PRIVILEGED. 

IF RECORDS MERELY BECAUSE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY LAW IPSO FACTO
BECOME PUBLIC RECORDS, WE ARE INDEED LIVING IN GLASS HOUSES.  VIRTUALLY
EVERY MAJOR PUBLIC LAW ENACTMENT - TO SAY NOTHING OF STATE AND LOCAL
LEGISLATION - HAS RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS.  IN ADDITION TO RECORD
KEEPING REQUIREMENTS, IS THE NETWORK OF PROVISIONS FOR FILING REPORTS. 
EXHAUSTIVE EFFORTS WOULD BE NEEDED TO TRACK DOWN ALL THE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY, LET ALONE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, FOR RECORD-KEEPING
AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.  UNQUESTIONABLY THEY ARE ENORMOUS IN
VOLUME. 

THE CONGRESS BEGAN ITS HISTORY WITH SUCH LEGISLATION.  CHAPTER I OF
THE LAWS OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIRST CONGRESS - "AN ACT TO
REGULATE THE TIME AND MANNER OF ADMINISTERING CERTAIN OATHS" -
CONTAINED A PROVISION REQUIRING THE MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS BY PERSONS
ADMINISTERING OATHS TO STATE OFFICIALS.  1 STAT. 23, 24.  CHAPTER V -
"AN ACT TO REGULATE THE COLLECTION OF THE DUTIES IMPOSED BY LAW ON THE
TONNAGE OF SHIPS OR VESSELS, AND ON GOODS, WARES AND MERCHANDISE
IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES" - CONTAINED A PROVISION REQUIRING AN
IMPORTER TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL INVOICE AND TO MAKE A RETURN
CONCERNING THE CONSIGNED GOODS WITH THE COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF
ARRIVAL.  1 STAT. 29, 39-40. 

EVERY CONGRESS SINCE 1789 HAS ADDED RECORD-KEEPING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.  INDEED, IT WAS THE PLETHORA OF SUCH PROVISIONS THAT LED
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT TO ESTABLISH THE CENTRAL STATISTICAL BOARD IN 1933
AND INDUCED THE ENACTMENT, IN 1942, OF THE FEDERAL REPORTS ACT, 56
STAT. 1078.  SEE, GENERALLY, REPORT OF THE CENTRAL STATISTICAL BOARD,
H. DOC. NO. 27, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; CENTRALIZATION AND COORDINATION
OF FEDERAL STATISTICS - REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 4, 1945, 91 CONG. REC. A5419. 
ON APRIL 25, 1939, THE CENTRAL STATISTICAL BOARD REPORTED THAT, "SINCE
THE END OF 1933, THE BOARD HAS REVIEWED IN ADVANCE OF DISSEMINATION
MORE THAN 4,600 QUESTIONNAIRES AND RELATED FORMS AND PLANS PROPOSED FOR
USE BY FEDERAL AGENCIES.  THE RECORDS FOR THE PAST 2 YEARS SHOW THAT
THE BOARD HAS RECEIVED FORMS FROM 52 FEDERAL AGENCIES AND A NUMBER OF
TEMPORARY INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEES."  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS ON H.R. 5917,
76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AT P. 32.  THE BOARD, ON THE BASIS OF A
COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF THE FINANCIAL AND OTHER REPORTS AND RETURNS
MADE TO 88 FEDERAL AGENCIES BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, FARMS, AND BUSINESS
CONCERNS DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1938, INFORMED CONGRESS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"COUNTING BOTH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND THE NONADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
AND RETURNS, THE BOARD'S INQUIRY REVEALED THAT SOME 49,000,000 OF THE
TOTAL DURING THE YEAR WERE COLLECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTORY
PROVISIONS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING OR DIRECTING THE COLLECTION OF
REPORTS OF THE TYPES CALLED FOR.  APPROXIMATELY 55,000,000 RETURNS WERE
COLLECTED BY AGENCIES IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS
WHICH WERE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTES, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTES
DID NOT SPECIFY THE REPORTS.  IN SUCH CASES THE INFORMATION SOUGHT WAS
OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY IN CARRYING OUT THE REQUIRED FUNCTIONS.  NEARLY
27,000,000 RETURNS WERE COLLECTED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES ON REPORT FORMS
FOR EACH OF WHICH THE LEGAL AUTHORITY WAS TOO GENERAL OR TOO INDEFINITE
TO PERMIT ITS CLEAR DEFINITION.  THE REMAINING 5,000,000 RETURNS WERE
MADE UNDER A VARIETY OF TYPES OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES INCLUDING
AUTHORIZATIONS IMPLIED IN APPROPRIATIONS MADE SPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT
THE COLLECTION OF THE REPORTS. 

"SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF THE RETURNS MADE TO FEDERAL AGENCIES ON
ALL FORMS  ...  WERE MANDATORY BY LAW, IN THE SENSE THAT A PENALTY IS
PRESCRIBED IN CASE OF FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO FILE A REQUIRED
REPORT.  SOME OF THESE MANDATORY RETURNS ARE VERY ELABORATE, AND AS A
CONSEQUENCE OVER 60 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ANSWERS ON REPORT
FORMS, OTHER THAN APPLICATIONS, WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANDATORY
REQUIREMENTS."  (H. DOC. NO. 27, SUPRA, AT 11-12.) 

I DO NOT INTEND BY THE ABOVE EXPOSITION TO CAST ANY DOUBT UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RECORD-KEEPING OR REPORTING PROVISIONS OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OR, IN GENERAL, UPON THE VAST NUMBER OF
SIMILAR STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.  SUCH PROVISIONS SERVE IMPORTANT AND
OFTEN INDISPENSABLE PURPOSES.  BUT TODAY'S DECISION CAN HARDLY FAIL TO
HAMPER THOSE WHO MAKE AND THOSE WHO EXECUTE THE LAWS IN SECURING THE
INFORMATION AND DATA NECESSARY FOR THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND INTELLIGENT
CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT. 

THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION OF THE COURT'S OPINION IS THAT ALL RECORDS
WHICH CONGRESS IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS MAY REQUIRE
INDIVIDUALS TO KEEP IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR AFFAIRS, BECAUSE THOSE
AFFAIRS ALSO HAVE ASPECTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, BECOME "PUBLIC" RECORDS
IN THE SENSE THAT THEY FALL OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A DOCTRINE LIES IN THE SCOPE
OF ITS IMPLICATIONS.  THE CLAIM TOUCHES RECORDS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO
BE KEPT BY FEDERAL REGULATORY LAWS, REVENUE MEASURES, LABOR AND CENSUS
LEGISLATION IN THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS WHICH THE UNDERSTANDING AND
FEELING OF OUR PEOPLE STILL TREAT AS PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, EVEN THOUGH
ITS RELATIONS TO THE PUBLIC MAY CALL FOR GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION,
INCLUDING THE DUTY TO KEEP DESIGNATED RECORDS.    IF THE RECORDS IN
CONTROVERSY HERE ARE IN FACT PUBLIC, IN THE SENSE OF PUBLICLY OWNED, OR
GOVERNMENTAL, RECORDS, THEIR NON-PRIVILEGED STATUS FOLLOWS.  SEE DAVIS
V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, 594, 602(DISSENTING OPINION).  NO ONE
HAS A PRIVATE RIGHT TO KEEP FOR HIS OWN USE THE CONTENTS OF SUCH
RECORDS.  BUT THE NOTION THAT WHENEVER CONGRESS REQUIRES AN INDIVIDUAL
TO KEEP IN A PARTICULAR FORM HIS OWN BOOKS DEALING WITH HIS OWN AFFAIRS
HIS RECORDS CEASE TO BE HIS WHEN HE IS ACCUSED OF CRIME, IS INDEED
STARTLING.    A PUBLIC RECORD IS A PUBLIC RECORD.  IF THE DOCUMENTS IN
CONTROVERSY ARE "PUBLIC RECORDS" AND AS SUCH NON-PRIVILEGED IN A
PROSECUTION UNDER THE PRICE CONTROL ACT, WHY ARE THEY NOT SIMILARLY
PUBLIC AND NON-PRIVILEGED IN ANY SORT OF LEGAL ACTION?  THERE IS
NOTHING IN EITHER THE ACT OR THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF IT TO QUALIFY
THEIR "PUBLIC" NATURE.  IS THERE ANY MAINTAINABLE REASON WHY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT SHOULD BE A BARRIER TO THEIR UTILIZATION IN A PROSECUTION
UNDER ANY OTHER LAW IF IT IS NO BARRIER HERE?  THESE RECORDS WERE, AS A
MATTER OF FACT, REQUIRED TO BE KEPT (AND HENCE "PUBLIC") QUITE APART
FROM THIS ACT.  SEE INT. REV. CODE SEC. 54(A) AND TREAS. REG. 111, SEC.
29.54-1.  IF AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN
THE PROCESSING AND SALE OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES SHOULD DISCLOSE NON
ESSENTIAL PRODUCTION, FOR EXAMPLE, WHY CANNOT THE RECORDS BE UTILIZED
IN PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIORITIES OR SELECTIVE SERVICE
LEGISLATION?  CF. HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145; BUT CF.
TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699. 

MOREOVER, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ENTER A MAN'S HOME TO
EXAMINE OR SEIZE SUCH PUBLIC RECORDS, WITH OR WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT,
AT ANY TIME.  IF AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD KEEP SUCH RECORDS IN HIS HOME, AS
MILLIONS DO, INSTEAD OF IN HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS, WHY IS NOT HIS HOME
FOR SOME PURPOSES AND IN THE SAME TECHNICAL SENSE, A "PUBLIC" LIBRARY? 
COMPARE DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, AND HARRIS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, WITH THE "WELL-STATED" OPINION IN UNITED STATES V.
MULLIGAN, 268 F. 893; BUT SEE TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THIS
IS NOT "A PARADE OF HORRIBLES."  IF A MAN'S RECORDS ARE "PUBLIC" SO AS
TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-CRIMINATION, THEIR
PUBLICNESS INHERES IN THEM FOR MANY OTHER SITUATIONS. 

INDEED, IF THESE RECORDS ARE PUBLIC, I CAN SEE NO REASON WHY THE
PUBLIC SHOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO
PERUSE, IF NOT TO USE, THEM.  FOR, PUBLIC RECORDS ARE "OF A PUBLIC
CHARACTER, KEPT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND SO IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE EYES
OF THE COMMUNITY THAT INACCURACIES, IF THEY SHOULD EXIST, COULD HARDLY
ESCAPE EXPOSURE."  EVANSTON V. GUNN, 99 U.S. 660, 666.  IT WOULD SEEM
TO FOLLOW, THEREFORE, THAT THESE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN
WHAT TO THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING IS DEEMED PRIVATE ENTERPRISE SHOULD BE
GENERALLY AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION AND NOT BARRED BY THE PLEA THAT THE
ENTERPRISE WOULD THEREBY CEASE TO BE PRIVATE. 

CONGRESS WAS GUILTY, PERHAPS, OF NO MORE THAN CURIOUS INCONSISTENCY
WHEN IT PROVIDED IN SEC. 202(H) OF THE ACT FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL
TREATMENT OF THESE "PUBLIC" RECORDS.  FN16  BUT THE SEEMING
INCONSISTENCY GENERALLY APPLIES TO INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE
GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO RECORD-KEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.  SEE
H. DOC. NO. 27, SUPRA, AT PP. 26-28; 56 STAT. 1078, 1079; H.R. REP. NO.
1651, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., AT PP. 4-5; ("WE (THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS)
DO NOT EVEN SUPPLY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR ANYBODY ELSE WITH THAT
INFORMATION") HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS ON H.R. 7590, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AT P.
63. 

THE FACT OF THE MATTER, THEN, IS THAT RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY
LAW ARE NOT NECESSARILY PUBLIC IN ANY EXCEPT A WORD-PLAYING SENSE.  TO
DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH RECORDS ARE TRULY PUBLIC RECORDS, I.E., ARE
DENUDED OF THEIR ESSENTIALLY PRIVATE SIGNIFICANCES, WE HAVE TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT THEIR CUSTODY, THEIR SUBJECT MATTER, AND THE USE SOUGHT TO
BE MADE OF THEM. 

IT IS THE PART OF WISDOM, PARTICULARLY FOR JUDGES, NOT TO BE
VICTIMIZED BY WORDS.  RECORDS MAY BE PUBLIC RECORDS REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER "A STATUTE REQUIRES THEM TO BE KEPT," IF "THEY ARE KEPT IN THE
DISCHARGE OF A PUBLIC DUTY" EITHER BY A PUBLIC OFFICER OR BY PERSONS
ACTING UNDER HIS DIRECTION.  EVANSTON V. GUNN, SUPRA.  CHAPTER I OF THE
FIRST STATUTE PASSED BY CONGRESS, SUPRA, IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN ACT
REQUIRING A PUBLIC RECORD TO BE KEPT. 

RECORDS DO NOT BECOME PUBLIC RECORDS, HOWEVER, MERELY BECAUSE THEY
ARE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY LAW.  PRIVATE RECORDS UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES CONTINUE TO BE PRIVATE RECORDS.  CHAPTER V OF THE ACTS OF
THE FIRST CONGRESS, SUPRA, IS AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH A PRIVATE RECORD
REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY LAW. 

IS THERE, THEN, ANY FOUNDATION FOR THE COURT'S ASSUMPTION THAT ALL
RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY LAW ARE PUBLIC AND NOT PRIVILEGED? 
RELIANCE IS PLACED ON LANGUAGE IN WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S.
361.  THE HOLDING IN THAT CASE HAS NO REAL BEARING ON OUR PROBLEM. 
WILSON, THE PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION, IN ANSWER TO A SUBPOENA TO
PRODUCE, REFUSED TO SURRENDER THE CORPORATION'S BOOKS AND RECORDS ON
THE GROUND THAT THEIR CONTENTS WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM.  HE
APPEALED TO THIS COURT FROM A JUDGMENT COMMITTING HIM FOR CONTEMPT. 
THE CASE WAS DISPOSED OF ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOOKS WERE THE
CORPORATION'S AND NOT "HIS PRIVATE OR PERSONAL BOOKS," THAT THE
"PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS DOES NOT OF ITSELF PROTECT
THE CUSTODIAN AGAINST THEIR COMPULSORY PRODUCTION," AND THAT,
THEREFORE, "THE CUSTODIAN HAS NO PRIVILEGE TO REFUSE PRODUCTION
ALTHOUGH THEIR CONTENTS TEND TO CRIMINATE HIM."  221 U.S. AT 378, 380,
382.  THE COURT CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE ONLY QUESTION WAS WHETHER AS AGAINST THE CORPORATION THE BOOKS
WERE LAWFULLY REQUIRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  WHEN THE
APPELLANT BECAME PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION AND AS SUCH HELD AND USED
ITS BOOKS FOR THE TRANSACTION OF ITS BUSINESS COMMITTED TO HIS CHARGE,
HE WAS AT ALL TIMES SUBJECT TO ITS DIRECTION, AND THE BOOKS
CONTINUOUSLY REMAINED UNDER ITS CONTROL.  IF ANOTHER TOOK HIS PLACE HIS
CUSTODY WOULD YIELD.  HE COULD ASSERT NO PERSONAL RIGHT TO RETAIN THE
CORPORATE BOOKS AGAINST ANY DEMAND OF GOVERNMENT WHICH THE CORPORATION
WAS BOUND TO RECOGNIZE. 

"WE HAVE NOT OVERLOOKED THE EARLY ENGLISH DECISIONS TO WHICH OUR
ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED  ... BUT THESE CANNOT BE DEEMED CONTROLLING. 
THE CORPORATE DUTY, AND THE RELATION OF THE APPELLANT AS THE OFFICER OF
THE CORPORATION TO ITS DISCHARGE, ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY OUR LAWS. 
NOTHING MORE IS DEMANDED THAN THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD PERFORM THE
OBLIGATIONS PERTAINING TO HIS CUSTODY AND SHOULD PRODUCE THE BOOKS
WHICH HE HOLDS IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBPOENA.  NONE OF HIS PERSONAL PAPERS ARE SUBJECT
TO INSPECTION UNDER THE WRIT AND HIS ACTION, IN REFUSING TO PERMIT THE
EXAMINATION OF THE CORPORATE BOOKS DEMANDED, FULLY WARRANTED HIS
COMMITMENT FOR CONTEMPT."  (221 U.S. AT 385-86.) 

THE WILSON CASE WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED.  THE COURT'S HOLDING BOILED
DOWN TO THE PROPOSITION THAT "WHAT'S NOT YOURS IS NOT YOURS."  IT GIVES
NO SANCTION FOR THE BOLD PROPOSITION THAT CONGRESS CAN LEGISLATE
PRIVATE PAPERS IN THE HANDS OF THEIR OWNER, AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF A
CUSTODIAN, OUT OF THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  EVEN
IF THERE WERE LANGUAGE IN THE WILSON OPINION IN THAT DIRECTION, AN
OBSERVATION TAKEN FROM ITS CONTEXT WOULD SEEM TO BE SCANT JUSTIFICATION
FOR RESOLVING, AND NEEDLESSLY, "A VERY GRAVE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW, INVOLVING THE PERSONAL SECURITY, AND PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
THE CITIZEN."  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, 618. 

THE CONCLUSION REACHED TODAY THAT ALL RECORDS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY
LAW ARE PUBLIC RECORDS CANNOT LEAN ON THE WILSON OPINION.  THIS IS THE
LANGUAGE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT: 

"THE PRINCIPLE (THAT A CUSTODIAN HAS NO PRIVILEGE AS TO THE DOCUMENTS
IN HIS CUSTODY) APPLIES NOT ONLY TO PUBLIC DOCUMENTS IN PUBLIC OFFICES,
BUT ALSO TO RECORDS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE KEPT IN ORDER THAT THERE MAY
BE SUITABLE INFORMATION OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE THE APPROPRIATE
SUBJECTS OF GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS
VALIDLY ESTABLISHED.  THERE THE PRIVILEGE, WHICH EXISTS AS TO PRIVATE
PAPERS, CANNOT BE MAINTAINED."  (221 U.S. AT 380.) 

BUT MR. JUSTICE HUGHES, THE WRITER OF THE WILSON OPINION, WENT ON TO
NOTE THAT "THERE ARE ABUNDANT ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE DECISIONS" OF THIS
PRINCIPLE THAT A CUSTODIAN HAS NO PRIVILEGE AS TO THE DOCUMENTS IN HIS
CUSTODY JUST AS NO ONE HAS A PRIVILEGE AS TO PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL RECORDS
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HIS PRIVATE PAPERS.  HE RESORTED TO THESE
ILLUSTRATIONS CONCERNING CUSTODIANS BECAUSE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF
MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA, WHILE ACCEPTING THE PREMISE THAT PUBLIC RECORDS
WERE NOT PRIVILEGED, QUARRELED WITH THE COURT'S HOLDING AS TO THE
ABSENCE OF A CUSTODIAN'S PRIVILEGE CONCERNING NON-PUBLIC RECORDS, AS
FOLLOWS:  "AS THE PRIVILEGE IS A GUARANTY OF PERSONAL LIBERTY IT SHOULD
NOT BE QUALIFIED BY CONSTRUCTION AND A DISTINCTION BASED ON THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE BOOKS DEMANDED AS EVIDENCE IS IMMATERIAL.  SUCH
DISTINCTION HAS NOT BEEN REGARDED EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF PUBLIC RECORDS,
AS WILL BE EXHIBITED BY A REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITIES."  221 U.S. AT
388. 

THE ILLUSTRATIONS UTILIZED BY MR. JUSTICE HUGHES TO MEET THIS
CHALLENGE RAISED BY THE DISSENT STAND FOR THE PROPOSITIONS THAT (A) A
CUSTODIAN HAS NO PRIVILEGE, AND (B) PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS ARE
NON-PRIVILEGED, BUT NOT AT ALL ON ANY NOTION THAT PRIVATE RECORDS
REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY LAW ARE "PUBLIC" RECORDS.  BEFORE ANALYZING THE
ELEVEN PRECEDENTS OR ILLUSTRATIONS THUS EMPLOYED, IT IS WORTHY OF NOTE
THAT THE ILLUSTRATIONS WERE DERIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF.  IT IS
SIGNIFICANT THAT THAT BRIEF, BY SOLICITOR GENERAL FREDERICK W. LEHMANN,
WELL-KNOWN FOR HIS LEARNING, CONTAINED NO REFERENCE TO THE "REQUIRED
RECORDS" DOCTRINE.  ON THE CONTRARY THE GOVERNMENT CITED THESE CASES TO
SUPPORT ITS ARGUMENT THAT:  "THE IMMUNITY GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION
IS PURELY PERSONAL."  FN17 

THESE ARE THE "ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE DECISIONS": 

(1)  BRADSHAW V. MURPHY, 7 C. & P. 612, WHERE "IT WAS HELD THAT A
VESTRY CLERK WHO WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS COULD NOT ON THE GROUND THAT
IT MIGHT INCRIMINATE HIMSELF OBJECT TO THE PRODUCTION OF THE VESTRY
BOOKS KEPT UNDER THE STATUTE, 58 GEORGE III, CHAPTER 69, SEC. 2."  (221
U.S. AT 380.) 

COMMENT. - THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE RECORDS WERE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT
BY A PUBLIC OFFICER (FOR SUCH, IN ENGLAND, WAS A PARISH VESTRY CLERK). 
CLEARLY THE CLERK HAD NO PRIVILEGE AS TO SUCH RECORDS SINCE (1) THEY
WERE NOT HIS, HE WAS MERELY THEIR CUSTODIAN, AND (2) HE WAS A PUBLIC
OFFICER. 

(2)  STATE V. FARNUM, 73 S.C. 165, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE
DISPENSER OF THE STATE DISPENSARY HAD TO DISCLOSE TO A LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE THE OFFICIAL BOOKS OF THAT STATE INSTITUTION. 

COMMENT. - UNDER SOUTH CAROLINA LAW THE DISPENSER WAS AN OFFICER OF
THE STATE; THE BOOKS WERE TRUE PUBLIC RECORDS; HE WAS THEIR CUSTODIAN. 

(3)  STATE V. DONOVAN, 10 N.D. 203, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT A REGISTER
OF SALES OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR KEPT BY A DRUGGIST PURSUANT TO A
STATUTE PROVIDING THAT SUCH RECORD "SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE INSPECTION OF
THE PUBLIC AT ALL REASONABLE TIMES DURING BUSINESS HOURS, AND ANY
PERSON SO DESIRING MAY TAKE MEMORANDA OR COPIES THEREOF" WAS A PUBLIC
RECORD. 

COMMENT. - THE STATE COURT CONSTRUED THE STATUTE TO MAKE THE DRUGGIST
A PUBLIC OFFICER AND, AS SUCH, THE CUSTODIAN OF THE REGISTER FOR THE
STATE.  THE COURT QUOTED AUTHORITY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE REGISTER WAS
"THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE, AND NOT OF THE CITIZEN, AND IS IN NO SENSE
A PRIVATE MEMORANDUM."  10 N.D. AT 209.  ARE WE TO INFER FROM THE
COURT'S OPINION IN THIS CASE THAT THE BOOKS AND RECORDS PETITIONER
CUSTOMARILY KEPT WERE NOT HIS PROPERTY BUT THAT OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, AND THAT THEY "SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE
PUBLIC AT ALL REASONABLE TIMES DURING BUSINESS HOURS, AND ANY PERSON SO
DESIRING MAY TAKE MEMORANDA OR COPIES THEREOF"?  IBID. AND CF. EVANSTON
V. GUNN, SUPRA. 

(4)  STATE V. DAVIS, 108 MO. 666, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT A DRUGGIST
HAD NO PRIVILEGE AS TO THE PRESCRIPTIONS HE FILLED FOR SALES OF
INTOXICATING LIQUOR. 

COMMENT. - HERE THE PRESCRIPTIONS WERE "REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY LAW"
BUT THEY CONSTITUTED "PUBLIC" RECORDS IN THE PURE WILSON SENSE.  THE
PRESCRIPTIONS BELONGED TO THE PHYSICIANS OR THEIR PATIENTS, "AND THE
DRUGGIST (WAS) MERELY THEIR CUSTODIAN."  108 MO. AT 671. 

(5)  STATE V. DAVIS, 68 W. VA. 142(PRESCRIPTION-KEEPING CASE
VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL WITH STATE V. DAVIS, 108 MO. 666). 

(6)  PEOPLE V. COOMBS, 158 N.Y. 532, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT A CORONER
HAD NO PRIVILEGE AS TO OFFICIAL INQUEST RECORDS, REQUIRED TO BE FILED
WITH THE COUNTY CLERK, OVER HIS CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE PRIVATE
RECORDS BECAUSE THEY WERE FALSE AND HAD BEEN FOUND IN HIS OWN OFFICE. 

COMMENT. - "THE PAPERS WERE IN A PUBLIC OFFICE, IN THE CUSTODY OF A
CLERK WHO WAS PAID BY THE CITY.  ON THEIR FACE THEY WERE PUBLIC RECORDS
AND INTENDED TO BE USED AS SUCH."  158 N.Y. AT 539. 

(7)  L. & N.R. CO. V. COMMONWEALTH, 51 S.W. (KY.)  167, WHERE IT WAS
HELD THAT A RAILROAD CORPORATION HAD NO PRIVILEGE AS TO A TARIFF
SHEET. 

COMMENT. - THE TARIFF SHEET WAS "REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE PUBLICLY
POSTED AT THE STATION, AND WAS IN FACT SO POSTED."  51 S.W. AT 167. 
PETITIONER IS NOT A RAILROAD CORPORATION AND HIS RECORDS WERE NOT
"PUBLICLY POSTED."    (8)  STATE V. SMITH, 74 IOWA 580, WHERE IT WAS
HELD THAT A PHARMACIST HAD NO PRIVILEGE AS TO THE MONTHLY REPORTS OF
LIQUOR SALES THAT HE HAD MADE TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR PURSUANT TO A
STATUTORY REPORTING REQUIREMENT. 

COMMENT. - THE REPORTS IN THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE WERE "PUBLIC RECORDS
OF THE OFFICE, WHICH ARE OPEN TO THE INSPECTION OF ALL, AND MAY BE USED
IN EVIDENCE IN ALL CASES BETWEEN ALL PARTIES, WHEN COMPETENT, TO
ESTABLISH ANY FACT IN ISSUE FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION."  74 IOWA AT
583-84.  PETITIONER'S RECORDS WERE IN HIS POSSESSION AND WERE NOT OPEN
FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. 

(9)  STATE V. CUMMINS, 76 IOWA 133(SAME AS STATE V. SMITH, SUPRA). 
(10)  PEOPLE V. HENWOOD, 123 MICH. 317(LIQUOR SALES REPORTING
REQUIREMENT HELD VALID). 

(11)  LANGDON V. PEOPLE, 133 ILL. 382, HELD THAT SEIZURE PURSUANT TO
SEARCH WARRANT OF OFFICIAL STATE DOCUMENTS UNLAWFULLY IN APPELLANT'S
POSSESSION CONSTITUTED REASONABLE SEARCH - "THEY WERE NOT PRIVATE
PAPERS."  133 ILL. AT 398. 

IN SUMMARY OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED AS ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE
RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED BY THE COURT IN THE WILSON CASE, THEN, IT SHOULD
BE OBVIOUS THAT THEY NEITHER STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE FACT
THAT PRIVATE RECORDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY STATUTE MAKES THEM
PUBLIC RECORDS BY OPERATION OF LAW, NOR DID MR. JUSTICE HUGHES
MISCONSTRUE THEM IN REACHING THE DECISION IN THE WILSON CASE. 

WERE THERE ANY DOUBT AS TO THE POINT OF THE ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE
WILSON CASE, SURELY WE COULD SAFELY PERMIT THAT DOUBT TO BE RESOLVED BY
THE WILSON OPINION ITSELF.  AFTER REVIEWING THE ILLUSTRATIVE CASES, MR.
JUSTICE HUGHES OBSERVED: 

"THE FUNDAMENTAL GROUND OF DECISION IN THIS CLASS OF CASES, IS THAT
WHERE, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CHARACTER AND THE RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO
THEM, THE BOOKS AND PAPERS ARE HELD SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION BY THE
DEMANDING AUTHORITY, THE CUSTODIAN HAS NO PRIVILEGE TO REFUSE
PRODUCTION ALTHOUGH THEIR CONTENTS TEND TO CRIMINATE HIM.  IN ASSUMING
THEIR CUSTODY HE HAS ACCEPTED THE INCIDENT OBLIGATION TO PERMIT
INSPECTION."  (221 U.S. 381-82.) 

EVIDENTLY THE DICTUM IN THE WILSON CASE AND THE AUTHORITIES THEREIN
CITED NEED TO BE BOLSTERED FOR THE USE TO WHICH THEY ARE PUT IN THIS
CASE.  WE ARE TOLD THAT "OTHER STATE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS,
SUBSEQUENT TO THE WILSON CASE, SIMILARLY TREAT AS NON-PRIVILEGED,
RECORDS REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO BE KEPT."  THESE ARE THE FIVE INSTANCES
CITED: 

(1)  PALADINI V. SUPERIOR COURT, 178 CAL. 369, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT
THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE STATE MARKET DIRECTOR COULD COMPEL
THE PRODUCTION OF THE SALES RECORDS OF LICENSED FISH DEALERS WAS
VALID. 

COMMENT. - THE COURT DID NOT HOLD THAT THE RECORDS WERE "NON
PRIVILEGED," BUT DISPOSED OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION ON THE GROUND
THAT "THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE STATE MARKET DIRECTOR IS NOT CRIMINAL
IN ITS NATURE, AND THE ORDER COMPELLING THE PETITIONERS TO PRODUCE
THEIR BOOKS BEFORE THE STATE MARKET DIRECTOR WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS A COURT OR OFFICER FROM
REQUIRING A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE AGAINST
HIMSELF."  178 CAL. AT 373.  THE COURT DID DISPOSE OF THE CONTENTION
THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECORDS WERE NOT PRIVATE.  BUT THE
RECORDS HERE WERE PUBLIC RECORDS BECAUSE, SINCE IT WAS CONCEDED THAT
THE FISH BELONGED TO THE STATE, "THEY CONTAIN A RECORD OF THE PURCHASE
AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE, BY THOSE HAVING A QUALIFIED OR
CONDITIONAL INTEREST THEREIN."  IBID.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THIS
CASE THAT PETITIONER'S RECORDS WERE PUBLIC RECORDS BECAUSE HIS FRUIT
AND VEGETABLES WERE THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. 

(2)  ST. LOUIS V. BASKOVITZ, 273 MO. 543, WHERE A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
REQUIRING JUNK DEALERS TO KEEP BOOKS OF REGISTRY RECORDING THEIR
PURCHASES AND PROVIDING THAT THE BOOKS BE OPEN FOR INSPECTION AND
EXAMINATION BY THE POLICE OR ANY CITIZEN WAS UPHELD AGAINST THE
CONTENTION THAT IT VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES. 

COMMENT. - THE CASE WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF
THE WORDS "ANY CITIZEN" AS BEING LIMITED IN MEANING TO "ONE WHOSE
PROPERTY HAS BEEN STOLEN."  273 MO. AT 576.  THE RECORDS HERE WERE
"REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY STATUTE," IT IS TRUE, BUT THE COURT HAD NO
OCCASION TO, AND DID NOT, GO INTO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE
RECORDS WERE "NON-PRIVILEGED." 

(3)  STATE V. LEGORA, 162 TENN. 122, WHERE A STATUTE REQUIRING JUNK
DEALERS TO KEEP A RECORD OF THEIR PURCHASES WAS UPHELD. 

COMMENT. - A RECORD WHICH "SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE OPEN TO THE
INSPECTION OF  ...  ANY PERSON WHO MAY DESIRE TO SEE THE SAME," 162
TENN. AT 124, IS, OF COURSE, A "PUBLIC" RECORD.  EVANSTON V. GUNN,
SUPRA; CF. ST. LOUIS V. BASKOVITZ, SUPRA. 

(4)  STATE V. STEIN, 215 MINN. 308, WHERE A STATUTE REQUIRING
LICENSED DEALERS IN RAW FURS TO KEEP RECORDS OF THEIR SALES AND
PURCHASES WAS UPHELD. 

COMMENT. - THE RECORDS HERE WERE PUBLIC RECORDS FOR THE SAME REASON
THAT THE RECORDS INVOLVED IN THE PALADINI CASE WERE PUBLIC RECORDS -
"THE STATE IS THE OWNER, IN TRUST FOR THE PEOPLE, OF ALL WILD
ANIMALS."  215 MINN. AT 311. 

(5)  FINANCIAL AID CORPORATION V. WALLACE, 216 IND. 114, WHERE A
STATUTE REQUIRING LICENSED SMALL LOAN CONCERNS TO KEEP RECORDS AND
PROVIDING FOR THEIR INSPECTION BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS WAS UPHELD. 

COMMENT. - THE COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO, AND DID NOT, GO INTO THE
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE RECORDS WERE EITHER "PUBLIC" OR "NON
PRIVILEGED." 

IT APPEARS TO ME, THEREFORE, THAT THE AUTHORITIES GIVE NO SUPPORT TO
THE BROAD PROPOSITION THAT BECAUSE RECORDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY
LAW THEY ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AND, HENCE, NON-PRIVILEGED.  PRIVATE
RECORDS DO NOT THUS BECOME "PUBLIC" IN ANY CRITICAL OR LEGALLY
SIGNIFICANT SENSE; THEY ARE MERELY THE RECORDS OF AN INDUSTRY OR
BUSINESS REGULATED BY LAW.  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT
EITHER MAY MAKE, OR HAS MADE, A LICENSE A PREREQUISITE FOR THE DOING OF
BUSINESS MAKE THEM PUBLIC IN ANY ORDINARY USE OF THE TERM.  WHILE
CONGRESS MAY IN TIME OF WAR, OR PERHAPS IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF ECONOMIC
CRISIS, PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS, SURELY
SUCH LICENSING REQUIREMENTS DO NOT REMOVE THE RECORDS OF A MAN'S
PRIVATE BUSINESS FROM THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
EVEN THE EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER IS SUBJECT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
SEE, E.G., HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. 146, 155
56.  JUST AS THE LICENSING OF PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLES DOES NOT MAKE THEM
PUBLIC CARRIERS, THE LICENSING OF A MAN'S PRIVATE BUSINESS, FOR TAX OR
OTHER PURPOSES, DOES NOT UNDER OUR SYSTEM, AT LEAST SO I HAD SUPPOSED,
MAKE HIM A PUBLIC OFFICER. 

DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS CONTROL WHERE THE BUSINESS OF AN ENTERPRISE
IS, AS IT WERE, THE PUBLIC'S.  CLEARLY THE RECORDS OF A BUSINESS
LICENSED TO SELL STATE-OWNED PROPERTY ARE PUBLIC RECORDS.  CF., E.G.,
PALADINI V. SUPERIOR COURT, SUPRA; STATE V. STEIN, SUPRA.  AND THE
RECORDS OF A PUBLIC UTILITY, APART FROM THE CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO
CORPORATE ENTERPRISE, MAY SIMILARLY BE TREATED AS PUBLIC RECORDS.  CF.,
E.G., L. & N.R. CO. V. COMMONWEALTH, SUPRA; FINANCIAL AID CORPORATION
V. WALLACE, SUPRA.  THIS HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO THE RECORDS OF
"OCCUPATIONS WHICH ARE MALUM IN SE, OR SO CLOSELY ALLIED THERETO, AS TO
ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, MORALS OR SAFETY."  ST. LOUIS V. BASKOVITZ,
SUPRA, AT P. 554; CF., E.G., STATE V. LEGORA, SUPRA; STATE V. DONOVAN,
SUPRA; STATE V. SMITH, SUPRA. 

HERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS WAS NOT SUCH AS TO
RENDER IT PUBLIC.  SURELY, THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY DANGEROUS,
IMMORAL, OR UNHEALTHY ABOUT THE SALE OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.  NOR WAS
THERE ANYTHING IN HIS POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THE RECORDS TO CAST A
CLOUD ON HIS TITLE TO THEM.  THEY WERE THE RECORDS THAT HE CUSTOMARILY
KEPT.  I FIND NOTHING IN THE ACT, OR IN THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ACT, THAT MADE HIM A PUBLIC OFFICER.  HE WAS BEING ADMINISTERED, NOT
ADMINISTERING.  NOR WAS HE IN ANY LEGITIMATE SENSE OF THE WORD A
"CUSTODIAN" OF THE RECORDS.  I SEE NOTHING FRIVOLOUS IN A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE RECORDS OF AN "UNINCORPORATED ENTREPRENEUR" AND THOSE OF A
CORPORATION.  ON THE CONTRARY, THAT DISTINCTION WAS DECISIVE OF THE
WILSON HOLDING: 

"BUT THE CORPORATE FORM OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY, WITH ITS CHARTERED
PRIVILEGES, RAISES A DISTINCTION WHEN THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT
DEMANDS THE EXAMINATION OF BOOKS."  (221 U.S. AT 382.) 

AND THE COURT QUOTED AT LENGTH FROM HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 74
75: 

"'...  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION IN
THIS PARTICULAR BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND A CORPORATION, AND THAT THE
LATTER HAS NO RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SUBMIT ITS BOOKS AND PAPERS FOR AN
EXAMINATION AT THE SUIT OF THE STATE.  THE INDIVIDUAL MAY STAND UPON
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN.  HE IS ENTITLED TO CARRY ON HIS
PRIVATE BUSINESS IN HIS OWN WAY.  HIS POWER TO CONTRACT IS UNLIMITED. 
HE OWES NO DUTY TO THE STATE OR TO HIS NEIGHBORS TO DIVULGE HIS
BUSINESS, OR TO OPEN HIS DOORS TO AN INVESTIGATION, SO FAR AS IT MAY
TEND TO CRIMINATE HIM.  ... 

"'UPON THE OTHER HAND, THE CORPORATION IS A CREATURE OF THE STATE. 
IT IS PRESUMED TO BE INCORPORATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC.  IT
RECEIVES CERTAIN SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES ...'"  (221 U.S. AT
383.)  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE IS
ONE OF THE DEEPEST IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AS IT IS FOR THE SHAPERS
OF PUBLIC POLICY. 

THE PHRASE "REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY LAW," THEN, IS NOT A MAGIC PHRASE
BY WHICH THE LEGISLATURE OPENS THE DOOR TO INROADS UPON THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  STATUTORY PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO SEC. 202(B) OF THIS ACT,
REQUIRING THE KEEPING OF RECORDS AND MAKING THEM AVAILABLE FOR OFFICIAL
INSPECTION, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS FOR EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT.  FN18  IT FOLLOWS THAT THOSE CHARGED WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT MAY COMPEL THE
DISCLOSURE OF SUCH RECORDS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 
SEE BOYD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT PP. 623-24.  BUT IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT SUCH DISCLOSURES ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROTECTION
AFFORDED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  FOR THE COMPULSORY DISCLOSURE OF A
MAN'S "PRIVATE BOOKS AND PAPERS, TO CONVICT HIM OF CRIME, OR TO FORFEIT
HIS PROPERTY, IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF A FREE GOVERNMENT.  IT
IS ABHORRENT TO THE INSTINCTS OF AN ENGLISHMAN; IT IS ABHORRENT TO THE
INSTINCTS OF AN AMERICAN.  IT MAY SUIT THE PURPOSES OF DESPOTIC POWER;
BUT IT CANNOT ABIDE THE PURE ATMOSPHERE OF POLITICAL LIBERTY AND
PERSONAL FREEDOM."  ID. AT 632. 

THE COURT IN THE BOYD CASE WAS FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE SENSE AND
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PHRASE "BOOKS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE KEPT FOR THEIR
INSPECTION."  ID. AT 623-24.  SURELY THE RESULT OF THAT DECISION, IF
NOT THE OPINION ITSELF, SPEAKS LOUDLY AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT MERELY BY
VIRTUE OF A RECORD-KEEPING PROVISION THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION BECOMES INOPERATIVE.  THE DOCUMENT IN
CONTROVERSY IN THE BOYD CASE WAS HISTORICALLY, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT,
MUCH MORE OF A "REQUIRED RECORD" THAN THE BOOKS AND RECORDS THE
PETITIONER HERE "CUSTOMARILY KEPT."  IF THE COURT'S POSITION TODAY IS
CORRECT THE BOYD CASE WAS ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED.  FN19 

IN DISREGARDING THE SPIRIT OF THAT DECISION, THE COURT'S OPINION
DISREGARDS THE CLARION CALL OF THE BOYD CASE:  OBSTA PRINCIPIIS.  FOR,
WHILE IT IS EASY ENOUGH TO SEE THIS AS A PETTY CASE AND WHILE SOME MAY
NOT CONSIDER THE RULE OF LAW TODAY ANNOUNCED TO BE FRAUGHT WITH
UNEXPLORED SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE GREAT PROBLEM OF RECONCILING INDIVIDUAL
FREEDOM WITH GOVERNMENTAL STRENGTH, THE BOYD OPINION ADMONISHES AGAINST
BEING SO LULLED.  "IT MAY BE THAT IT IS THE OBNOXIOUS THING IN ITS
MILDEST AND LEAST REPULSIVE FORM; BUT ILLEGITIMATE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PRACTICES GET THEIR FIRST FOOTING IN THAT WAY, NAMELY, BY SILENT
APPROACHES AND SLIGHT DEVIATIONS FROM LEGAL MODES OF PROCEDURE.  THIS
CAN ONLY BE OBVIATED BY ADHERING TO THE RULE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS FOR THE SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED.  A CLOSE AND LITERAL CONSTRUCTION DEPRIVES THEM OF HALF
THEIR EFFICACY, AND LEADS TO GRADUAL DEPRECIATION OF THE RIGHT, AS IF
IT CONSISTED MORE IN SOUND THAN IN SUBSTANCE."  ID. AT 635. 

VIOLATORS SHOULD BE DETECTED, TRIED, CONVICTED, AND PUNISHED - BUT
NOT AT THE COST OF NEEDLESSLY BRINGING INTO QUESTION CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.  WHILE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MAY FIND THEIR
DUTIES MORE ARDUOUS AND CRIME DETECTION MORE DIFFICULT AS SOCIETY
BECOMES MORE COMPLICATED, THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL WERE NOT DESIGNED FOR SHORT-CUTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE. 

AND SO I CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT HAS MISCONSTRUED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
BY NARROWING THE RANGE AND SCOPE OF THE PROTECTION IT WAS INTENDED TO
AFFORD.  THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS, AFTER ALL, "AS
BROAD AS THE MISCHIEF AGAINST WHICH IT SEEKS TO GUARD."  COUNSELMAN V.
HITCHCOCK, SUPRA, AT P. 562.  IF CONGRESS BY THE EASY DEVICE OF
REQUIRING A MAN TO KEEP THE PRIVATE PAPERS THAT HE HAS CUSTOMARILY KEPT
CAN RENDER SUCH PAPERS "PUBLIC" AND NON-PRIVILEGED, THERE IS LITTLE
LEFT TO EITHER THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY OR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE. 

EVEN IF THERE WERE AUTHORITY FOR THE TEMERARIOUS PRONOUNCEMENT IN
TODAY'S OPINION, I WOULD INSIST THAT SUCH AUTHORITY WAS ILL-FOUNDED AND
OUGHT NOT TO BE FOLLOWED.  THERE IS NO SUCH AUTHORITY.  THE COURT'S
OPINION CAN GAIN NO STRENGTH BEYOND ITSELF.  THE PERSUASIVENESS OF ITS
OPINION IS NOT ENHANCED BY THE ENDEAVOR OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT,
SO NEEDLESSLY REACHING OUT FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, TO REST ITS
OMINOUS INROADS UPON THE FIFTH AMENDMENT NOT ON THE WISDOM OF THEIR
DETERMINATION BUT ON BLIND RELIANCE UPON NON-PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY. 
FN1  "A DECISION COULD BE MADE EITHER WAY WITHOUT CONTRADICTING THE
EXPRESS WORDS OF THE ACT, OR, POSSIBLY, EVEN ANY VERY CLEAR
IMPLICATION."  HOLMES, C.J., IN HOOPER V. BRADFORD, 178 MASS. 95, 97. 

FN2  THE ENTIRE SEC. 202 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942,
AS AMENDED, IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SUCH STUDIES AND
INVESTIGATIONS, TO CONDUCT SUCH HEARINGS, AND TO OBTAIN SUCH
INFORMATION AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO ASSIST HIM IN
PRESCRIBING ANY REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER THIS ACT, OR IN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT AND REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND
PRICE SCHEDULES THEREUNDER. 

"(B)  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS FURTHER AUTHORIZED, BY REGULATION OR
ORDER, TO REQUIRE ANY PERSON WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING
WITH ANY COMMODITY, OR WHO RENTS OR OFFERS FOR RENT OR ACTS AS BROKER
OR AGENT FOR THE RENTAL OF ANY HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, TO FURNISH ANY
SUCH INFORMATION UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OR OTHERWISE, TO MAKE AND
KEEP RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, AND TO MAKE REPORTS, AND HE MAY
REQUIRE ANY SUCH PERSON TO PERMIT THE INSPECTION AND COPYING OF RECORDS
AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, THE INSPECTION OF INVENTORIES, AND THE INSPECTION
OF DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY
ADMINISTER OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS AND MAY, WHENEVER NECESSARY, BY
SUBPENA REQUIRE ANY SUCH PERSON TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY OR TO APPEAR AND
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, OR BOTH, AT ANY DESIGNATED PLACE. 

"(C)  FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING ANY INFORMATION UNDER SUBSECTION
(A), THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY BY SUBPENA REQUIRE ANY OTHER PERSON TO
APPEAR AND TESTIFY OR TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, OR BOTH, AT ANY
DESIGNATED PLACE. 

"(D)  THE PRODUCTION OF A PERSON'S DOCUMENTS AT ANY PLACE OTHER THAN
HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION IN ANY
CASE IN WHICH, PRIOR TO THE RETURN DATE SPECIFIED IN THE SUBPENA ISSUED
WITH RESPECT THERETO, SUCH PERSON EITHER HAS FURNISHED THE
ADMINISTRATOR WITH A COPY OF SUCH DOCUMENTS (CERTIFIED BY SUCH PERSON
UNDER OATH TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY), OR HAS ENTERED INTO A
STIPULATION WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AS TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
SUCH DOCUMENTS. 

"(E)  IN CASE OF CONTUMACY BY, OR REFUSAL TO OBEY A SUBPENA SERVED
UPON, ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION (C), THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PERSON IS FOUND OR RESIDES OR TRANSACTS
BUSINESS, UPON APPLICATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO APPEAR AND GIVE
TESTIMONY OR TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, OR BOTH; AND ANY FAILURE
TO OBEY SUCH ORDER OF THE COURT MAY BE PUNISHED BY SUCH COURT AS A
CONTEMPT THEREOF.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL ALSO APPLY
TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION (B), AND SHALL BE IN ADDITION
TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4(A). 

"(F)  WITNESSES SUBPENAED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE PAID THE SAME
FEES AND MILEAGE AS ARE PAID WITNESSES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

"(G)  NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THIS SECTION BECAUSE OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
BUT THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF FEBRUARY
11, 1893(U.S.C., 1934 EDITION, TITLE 49, SEC. 46), SHALL APPLY WITH
RESPECT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS SUCH PRIVILEGE. 

"(H)  THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL NOT PUBLISH OR DISCLOSE ANY INFORMATION
OBTAINED UNDER THIS ACT THAT SUCH ADMINISTRATOR DEEMS CONFIDENTIAL OR
WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT IS MADE BY
THE PERSON FURNISHING SUCH INFORMATION, UNLESS HE DETERMINES THAT THE
WITHHOLDING THEREOF IS CONTRARY TO THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
AND SECURITY. 

"(I)  ANY PERSON SUBPENAED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
MAKE A RECORD OF HIS TESTIMONY AND TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL."  56
STAT. 23, 30, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 105 OF THE STABILIZATION EXTENSION ACT
OF 1944, 58 STAT. 632, 637, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 922. 

FN3  TECHNICALLY THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL OR FIFTH REQUIREMENT - TO
FURNISH INFORMATION "UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OR OTHERWISE" - BUT THIS
REQUIREMENT IS REALLY COVERED BY THE OTHER FOUR. 

FN4  THE ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED THIS PETITIONER TO KEEP "RECORDS OF
THE SAME KIND AS HE HAS CUSTOMARILY KEPT."  SEC. 14(B) OF MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 426, 8 FED. REG. 9546.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER,
THEREFORE, THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED BY THE COURT PROVIDES IMMUNITY ONLY
FOR COMPELLED ORAL TESTIMONY. 

FN5  BUT CF. CARROLL, THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, C. 6: 

"'THE QUESTION IS,' SAID ALICE, 'WHETHER YOU CAN MAKE WORDS MEAN SO
MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.' 

"'THE QUESTION IS,' SAID HUMPTY DUMPTY, 'WHICH IS TO BE MASTER -
THAT'S ALL.'" 

FN6  SEE H.R. 5479, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AS INTRODUCED ON AUGUST 1,
1941, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
BANKING AND CURRENCY, AT P. 8; H.R. 5990, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AS
REPORTED OUT BY THE COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 7, 1941, AT P. 12(AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE HEARINGS ON H.R. 5479, THE COMMITTEE DIRECTED ITS
CHAIRMAN TO INTRODUCE THIS NEW BILL REPRESENTING THE OLD BILL AS
AMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION; SEE H.R. REP. 1409, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3); H.R. REP. 1409, SUPRA, AT P. 9; 87 CONG. REC.
9073, 9231; ID. AT 9232(WOLCOTT AMENDMENT TO STRIKE OUT ALL OF SEC. 202
BECAUSE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT OF THE BILL RENDERED THIS SECTION FOR
"OBTAINING INFORMATION" REDUNDANT); ID. AT 9233(WOLCOTT AMENDMENT
ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE); S. REP. NO. 931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P.
21(H.R. 5990, AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE, AMENDED BY REINSTATING SEC. 202
FOR THE PURPOSE OF "OBTAINING INFORMATION"); AND SEE FINALLY THE
CONFERENCE REPORT ACCOMPANYING H.R. 5990, H.R. REP. 1658, 77TH CONG.,
2D SESS., PP. 25-26(AGREEING TO SEC. 202). 

FN7  INDEED, THE ONLY REFERENCE TO THE IMMUNITY PROVISION IN THE
LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS, SEE FOOTNOTE 6 SUPRA, CONSISTS MERELY OF
PRACTICALLY VERBATIM REPETITIONS OF THE PROVISION. 

FN8  THE HOUSE ORIGINALLY STRUCK OUT THE ENTIRE SEC. 202 BECAUSE A
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AMENDMENT HAD MADE THE SECTION "REDUNDANT."  87
CONG. REC. 9232-9233.  THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AMENDMENT HAD INSERTED A
SEC. 203(A) WHICH SIMPLY PROVIDED THAT: 

"THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR ANY
MEMBER OR COMMISSIONER THEREOF MAY ADMINISTER OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS,
MAY REQUIRE BY SUBPENA OR OTHERWISE THE ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF
WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT ANY DESIGNATED PLACE.  NO
PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THIS
IMMUNITY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF FEBRUARY 11,
1893(U.S.C., 1934 ED., TITLE 49, SEC. 46), SHALL APPLY WITH RESPECT TO
ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO SPECIFICALLY CLAIMS SUCH PRIVILEGE."  ID. AT 9226. 

AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE, THEN, THE BILL WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO REQUIRE THE PRODUCTION OF THE RECORDS HERE IN ISSUE,
BUT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO QUESTION OF THEIR BEING "PUBLIC" RECORDS,
AND PETITIONER WOULD CLEARLY HAVE BEEN ACCORDED THE IMMUNITY HEREIN
CLAIMED.  THE HOUSE MANAGERS YIELDED AS TO THE RECORD-KEEPING
REQUIREMENTS AND THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE ENTIRE SEC. 202, BUT THERE IS
NO MENTION IN THEIR REPORT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (G), LET
ALONE ANY INDICATION THAT THERE WAS ANY DIFFERENCE INTENDED IN THE
SCOPE OF THE IMMUNITY ACCORDED BY THE TWO BILLS. 

FN9  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY ON
H.R. 5990, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AT PP. 68-71, 112-23, 144-60, 174-81,
550-53. 

FN10  ID. AT 154, 175, 180-81. 

FN11  SEE FOOTNOTE 8 SUPRA. 

FN12  EVERY REFERENCE IN THE COURT'S OPINION TO P. 181 ET SEQ. OF THE
HEARINGS IS TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S BRIEF - AN EXHIBIT - NOT TO ORAL
TESTIMONY. 

FN13  I DO NOT DISPUTE EITHER (A) THAT THE HEARINGS (INCLUDING THE
BRIEF AS AN EXHIBIT THERETO) WERE PRINTED AND AVAILABLE BEFORE THE
SENATE PASSED THE BILL, OR (B) THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT A
CURIOUS SENATOR (BUT NOT A REPRESENTATIVE) MIGHT HAVE READ ALL THIS
FINE PRINT.  I MEAN MERELY TO SUGGEST (A) THAT IN VIEW OF THE TIMES,
THE TYPOGRAPHY, AND THE LENGTH OF THE TEXT, THE CHANCES ARE REMOTE, AND
(B) THAT IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IT IS INDEED A
HAZARDOUS MATTER TO ATTRIBUTE POSITIVE CONGRESSIONAL MEANING TO SUCH AN
IMPROBABLE SOURCE.  WHILE IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT THE SENATE
SUBCOMMITTEE REVISED THE HOUSE BILL "IN THE LIGHT OF THE HEARINGS," ALL
THAT MEANS IS THAT THEY HEARD WHAT THEY HEARD - IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THEY READ EVERYTHING THEY MIGHT HAVE READ.  IT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO
ATTRIBUTE TO A DILIGENT COMMITTEEMAN FAMILIARITY WITH TRANSCRIBED ORAL
TESTIMONY OF SUCH VOLUME AS THAT ON THIS BILL.  BUT CF. ID. AT 15:
"SENATOR BARKLEY.  MR. CHAIRMAN, NONE OF US HAVE READ THE HEARINGS IN
THE HOUSE - OR MAYBE A FEW OF US HAVE"; ID. AT 26:  "SENATOR TAFT.  I
HAVE NOT READ THE HOUSE HEARINGS, I AM ASHAMED TO SAY." 

ON JANUARY 26, 1942, REPRESENTATIVE GIFFORD STATED ON THE FLOOR OF
THE HOUSE: 

"BUT THIS LICENSING BUSINESS, 'COMPULSORY LOYALTY WILL CRACK SOONER
THAN THE GENUINE KIND.'  DURING THE LAST WORLD WAR IT WAS LOYALTY BY
COOPERATION.  THEY HAD LICENSING, YES, ON FOOD PRODUCTS AND ON FUEL,
BUT LITTLE OF ANYTHING ELSE.  IF THE LICENSEE WAS PUNISHED, IT WAS ONLY
A SLAP ON THE WRIST.  IF HE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE RED CROSS HE WAS
FORGIVEN.  I HAVE A COMPILED BRIEF ON THE LICENSING METHODS THAT I
COULD GO INTO AT LENGTH.  AN HOUR WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROPERLY
DISCUSS IT AND TO RECITE THE EXPERIENCES OF OURS AND OTHER NATIONS. 
CANADA NOW HAS IT. LET ME READ TO YOU THEIR STATEMENT OF POLICY.  THESE
RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CURTAIL BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN ANY
WAY.  BUT BY PLACING EVERY PERSON WHO IN ANY WAY HANDLES THE
COMMODITIES NAMED IN THE ORDER UNDER LICENSE, THE BOARD WILL HAVE THE
MACHINERY WITH WHICH TO MAKE SPEEDY CHECKS ON AVAILABLE STOCKS AND TO
POLICE MORE EFFECTIVELY ANY PRICE-FIXING ORDER WHICH MAY BE
INSTITUTED."  (88 CONG. REC. 672.) 

TO TRACE KNOWLEDGE OF THE O.P.A. BRIEF TO A CONGRESSIONAL READER BY
ASSUMING FROM THIS STATEMENT THAT REPRESENTATIVE GIFFORD, WHO OPPOSED
THE ADOPTION OF THESE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL, WAS SUCH A READER, AND
FROM THAT TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS IN AN EXHIBIT
TO A COMMITTEE HEARING, IS SO ATTENUATED A PROCESS OF INFERENTIAL
REASONING AS TO DISCREDIT THE WHOLE PARAPHERNALIA OF LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.  THAT THE CONGRESS ITSELF DOES NOT CARE TO BE CHARGED WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE EXTRANEOUS MATTER FOR WHICH EITHER HOUSE HAS
GRANTED LEAVE TO PRINT IN THE RECORD IS APPARENT FROM THE RULES OF THE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING PROVIDING THAT "THE SAME SHALL BE PUBLISHED
IN THE APPENDIX" AND "IN 6 1/2-POINT TYPE."  SEE CONG. REC., DEC. 11,
1947, P. A5039.  THERE IS, MOREOVER, LITTLE BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT
THE GIFFORD "COMPILED BRIEF" WAS THE O.P.A. BRIEF - DIFFERENT BRIEFS
FREQUENTLY QUOTE FROM THE SAME AUTHORITY.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE O.P.A.
BRIEF HARDLY PRESENTED THE ARGUMENT THAT "COMPULSORY LOYALTY WILL CRACK
SOONER THAN THE GENUINE KIND," NOR DID IT CONTAIN MATERIAL
DEMONSTRATING EITHER THE NARROW SCOPE OR THE WEAKNESSES OF WORLD WAR I
LICENSING. 

FN14  PUTTING THE WORD "ENFORCEMENT" IN SEC. 202(A) IN ITALICS DOES
LITTLE TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - FOR ENFORCEMENT
MEANS ENFORCEMENT.  THE WORD IS HARDLY ENERVATED BY THE EXTENSION OF
IMMUNITY TO THE PERSON COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE HIS BOOKS AND RECORDS. 
THE INFORMATION THUS OBTAINED MIGHT WELL ASSIST THE ADMINISTRATOR IN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT AGAINST THE SUPPLIERS OF, BUYERS FROM, OR
COMPETITORS OF THE OWNER OF THE RECORDS.  AS TO HIS SUPPLIERS, THE
RECORDS WOULD OF COURSE DISCLOSE COMPLIANCE WITH MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATIONS; AS TO THE BUYERS, MANY REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM
PRICE ON A COST-PLUS BASIS AND THE INFORMATION OBTAINED WOULD BE
ESSENTIAL TO PROOF OF VIOLATION; AS TO THE COMPETITORS, MANY
REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM PRICE FOR NEW SELLERS ON THE BASIS OF
THEIR CLOSEST COMPETITORS, AND HERE AGAIN THE INFORMATION OBTAINED
MIGHT WELL BE ESSENTIAL TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT. 

FN15  NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
IS NOT RAISED. 

FN16  FOR THE TEXT OF SEC. 202(H) SEE NOTE 2 SUPRA.  H.R. 5479 AS
ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED (SEE NOTE 6 SUPRA) WOULD HAVE LEFT IT TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INFORMATION OBTAINED SHOULD BE
DEEMED CONFIDENTIAL.  THE BILL WAS CHANGED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE TO
ITS FINAL FORM WHEREBY THE PERSON FURNISHING THE INFORMATION COULD
REQUEST CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT SO AS TO GIVE SUCH PERSONS "FURTHER
PROTECTION."  H.R. REP. 1409, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 9.  "FURTHER"
MEANT IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY AFFORDED BY SEC. 202(G). 
IBID. 

FN17  SEE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. AT
366.  THE LEHMANN BRIEF DESERVES READING. 

FN18  SEE NOTE 14 SUPRA. 

FN19  THE BOYDS HAD CONTRACTED TO SUPPLY PLATE GLASS TO THE
GOVERNMENT ON A DUTY-FREE PRICE BASIS.  THEY CONTENDED THAT THEY HAD
FULFILLED THIS CONTRACT OUT OF THEIR STOCK ON HAND.  THEY HAD
PREVIOUSLY SECURED A FREE ENTRY OF 29 CASES OF PLATE GLASS AND CLAIMED
THAT THIS SHIPMENT REPLACED IN PART THE GLASS THAT THEY HAD FURNISHED
THE GOVERNMENT; THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTED THAT THAT SHIPMENT CONTAINED
MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE GLASS FURNISHED.  AFTER THE BOYDS HAD
SECURED A FREE PERMIT AND ENTRY OF A SECOND SHIPMENT OF 35 CASES OF
PLATE GLASS, BUT BEFORE DELIVERY TO THEM, THE GOODS WERE SEIZED AND THE
FREE PERMIT WAS REVOKED.  IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FORFEITURE OF THE
35 CASES, THE GOVERNMENT, PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE COURT, SOUGHT AND SECURED PRODUCTION FROM THE
BOYDS OF THE INVOICE COVERING THE FIRST SHIPMENT OF THE 29 CASES.  THIS
INVOICE WAS A "RECORD REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY STATUTE."  THE ACT OF JULY
31, 1789, REQUIRED THE IMPORTER TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL ENTRY WITH THE
COLLECTOR AT THE PORT OF ARRIVAL AND THERE PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL INVOICE
TO THE COLLECTOR.  1 STAT. 29, 39-40; AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST
4, 1790, 1 STAT. 145, 161-62; AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1799, 1
STAT. 627, 655-56(INVOICE MUST BE SIGNED BY COLLECTOR; AND SEE FORM OF
OATH REQUIRED TO ACCOMPANY INVOICE); AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF APRIL 20,
1818, 3 STAT. 433, 434, 436; AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1823, 3
STAT. 729-30(NO ENTRY WITHOUT INVOICE UNLESS IMPORTER GIVES BOND TO
SECURE PRODUCTION OF INVOICE WITHIN STATED PERIOD), 737(INVOICE,
CERTIFIED WITH COLLECTOR'S OFFICIAL SEAL, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF VALUE
OF IMPORTED GOODS IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES); AS AMENDED BY THE
ACT OF AUGUST 30, 1842, 5 STAT. 548, 564-65(COLLECTOR AUTHORIZED TO
EXAMINE ANY IMPORTER AND TO REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF INVOICES); AS AMENDED
BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, 12 STAT. 737-38(REQUIRED INVOICES TO BE IN
TRIPLICATE AND INDORSED PRIOR TO SHIPMENT TO THIS COUNTRY BY A CONSULAR
OFFICER WHO "SHALL DELIVER TO THE PERSON PRODUCING THE SAME ONE OF SAID
TRIPLICATES, TO BE USED IN MAKING ENTRY OF SAID GOODS, WARES, OR
MERCHANDISE; SHALL FILE ANOTHER IN HIS OFFICE, TO BE THERE CAREFULLY
PRESERVED; AND SHALL, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, TRANSMIT THE REMAINING
ONE TO THE COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF THE UNITED STATES AT WHICH IT SHALL
BE DECLARED TO BE THE INTENTION TO MAKE ENTRY OF SAID GOODS, WARES, OR
MERCHANDISE"), 740(PENALTY FOR WILFUL DESTRUCTION OR CONCEALMENT OF
INVOICES) AND (DISTRICT JUDGE WHERE IT APPEARS TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT
FRAUD ON REVENUE HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR ATTEMPTED SHALL AUTHORIZE
COLLECTOR TO SEIZE INVOICES); AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1864,
13 STAT. 202, 217-18(INVOICE MUST BE MADE OUT IN THE WEIGHTS AND
MEASURES OF THE COUNTRY FROM WHICH IMPORTATION MADE); AS AMENDED BY THE
ACT OF JULY 18, 1866, 14 STAT. 178, 187(SEIZURE OF INVOICES); AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867, 14 STAT. 546, 547(SEIZURE OF
INVOICES); AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 22, 1874, 18 STAT. 186,
187(SEC.  5 - SEIZURE OF INVOICES - HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN BOYD
CASE).  FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM, CONTENTS, FILING
AND KEEPING OF INVOICES, IN EFFECT AT TIME OF ENTRY INVOLVED IN BOYD
CASE, SEE GENERAL REGULATIONS UNDER THE CUSTOMS AND NAVIGATION LAWS
(1884) ARTS. 314-34; SEE ALSO ELMES, CUSTOMS (1887) C. VII. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AGREES,
DISSENTING. 

THE PROTECTION AGAINST COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION, GUARANTEED BY
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IS NULLIFIED TO WHATEVER EXTENT THIS COURT HOLDS
THAT CONGRESS MAY REQUIRE A CITIZEN TO KEEP AN ACCOUNT OF HIS DEEDS AND
MISDEEDS AND TURN OVER OR EXHIBIT THE RECORD ON DEMAND OF GOVERNMENT
INSPECTORS, WHO THEN CAN USE IT TO CONVICT HIM.  TODAY'S DECISION
INTRODUCES A PRINCIPLE OF CONSIDERABLE MOMENT.  OF COURSE, IT STRIPS OF
PROTECTION ONLY BUSINESS MEN AND THEIR RECORDS; BUT WE CANNOT TOO OFTEN
REMIND OURSELVES OF THE TENDENCY OF SUCH A PRINCIPLE, ONCE APPROVED, TO
EXPAND ITSELF IN PRACTICE "TO THE LIMITS OF ITS LOGIC."  THAT IT HAS
ALREADY EXPANDED TO COVER A VAST AREA IS APPARENT FROM THE COURT'S
CITATION OF TWENTY-SIX FEDERAL STATUTES THAT PRESENT PARALLELS TO THE
SITUATION HERE UNDER REVIEW.  IT WOULD, NO DOUBT, SIMPLIFY ENFORCEMENT
OF ALL CRIMINAL LAWS IF EACH CITIZEN WERE REQUIRED TO KEEP A DIARY THAT
WOULD SHOW WHERE HE WAS AT ALL TIMES, WITH WHOM HE WAS, AND WHAT HE WAS
UP TO.  THE DECISION OF TODAY, APPLYING THIS RULE NOT MERELY TO RECORDS
SPECIALLY REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT BUT ALSO TO RECORDS "CUSTOMARILY
KEPT," INVITES AND FACILITATES THAT EVENTUALITY. 

THE PRACTICE APPROVED TODAY OBVIOUSLY NARROWS THE PROTECTIONS OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WE SHOULD NOT ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS SUCH A PURPOSE OR
INTENT UNLESS IT USED LANGUAGE SO MANDATORY AND UNMISTAKABLE THAT IT
LEFT NO ALTERNATIVE, AND CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BASE THAT INFERENCE ON
"LEGISLATIVE HISTORY" OF SUCH DUBIOUS MEANING AS EXISTS IN THIS CASE. 
CONGRESS, IF WE GIVE ITS LANGUAGE PLAIN AND USUAL MEANING, HAS GUARDED
THE IMMUNITY SO SCRUPULOUSLY AS TO RAISE NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 
BUT IF CONGRESS HAD OVERSTEPPED, WE SHOULD HAVE NO HESITATION IN
HOLDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST LOSE SOME CASES RATHER THAN THE PEOPLE
LOSE THEIR IMMUNITIES FROM COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION.  HOWEVER, IN
THIS CASE, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF CONGRESS REQUIRES NO SUCH CHOICE.  IT
DOES REQUIRE, IN MY VIEW, THAT THIS JUDGMENT BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

WITH RESERVATIONS TO BE NOTED, I AGREE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, AND WITH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S CONCLUSIONS
CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISION, SEC. 202(G) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  FN1 

WITH THEM I CANNOT ACCEPT THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THAT SECTION
WHICH REDUCES THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY TO THE SCOPE OF THAT AFFORDED BY
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST COMPULSORY SELF
INCRIMINATION.  THIS COURT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY SO DECIDED.  FN2  NOR, IN
MY JUDGMENT, CAN THE PRESENT DECISION BE RECONCILED WITH THE LANGUAGE
OF THE STATUTE OR ITS PURPOSE OBVIOUS ON ITS FACE. 

THAT WORDING COMPELS TESTIMONY AND THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE,
DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE, REGARDLESS OF ANY CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY, WHETHER VALID OR NOT.  FN3  BUT TO AVOID THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITION AND, IT WOULD SEEM CLEARLY, ALSO ANY DELAY IN SECURING THE
INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE REQUIRED, THE ACT PROMISES IMMUNITY "FOR OR ON
ACCOUNT OF ANY TRANSACTION, MATTER OR THING, CONCERNING WHICH HE MAY
TESTIFY, OR PRODUCE EVIDENCE  ...  IN OBEDIENCE TO" THE SUBPOENA.  FN4 

THE STATUTE THUS CONSISTS OF A COMMAND AND A PROMISE.  IN EXPLICIT
TERMS THE PROMISE IS MADE COEXTENSIVE WITH THE COMMAND.  IT EXPRESSLY
PRECLUDES PROSECUTION, FORFEITURE OR PENALTY "FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY
TRANSACTION, MATTER OR THING" CONCERNING WHICH EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENA.  FN5  COMPELLING TESTIMONY AND GIVING
IMMUNITY "FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY TRANSACTION, MATTER OR THING,
CONCERNING WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY" ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM COMPELLING IT
AND PROMISING THAT, WHEN GIVEN, THE PERSON COMPLYING "SHALL HAVE ONLY
THE IMMUNITY GIVEN BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND NO MORE."  TO CONSTRICT
THE STATUTE'S WORDING SO DRASTICALLY IS NOT SIMPLY TO INTERPRET, IT IS
TO REWRITE THE CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE AND, IN MY VIEW, ITS PURPOSE.  IF
CONGRESS HAD INTENDED ONLY SO NARROW A PROTECTION, IT COULD EASILY HAVE
SAID SO WITHOUT ADDING WORDS TO LEAD WITNESSES AND OTHERS TO BELIEVE
MORE WAS GIVEN. 

IT MAY BE, HOWEVER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE BREADTH OF THE PROMISSORY
TERMS, THAT THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE SO BROAD AS
TO COVER SITUATIONS WHERE THE CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT PRECLUDED
IS ONLY FRIVOLOUS OR INSUBSTANTIAL OR NOT PUT FORWARD IN GOOD FAITH. 
FN6  AND IF, FOR SUCH A REASON, THE LITERAL BREADTH OF THE WORDING MAY
BE SOMEWHAT CUT DOWN, RESTRICTING THE STATUTE'S IMMUNITY BY EXCLUDING
THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD NEITHER RESTRICT THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTORY
WORDS TO THAT OF THE AMENDMENT ITSELF NOR GIVE THEM THE MISLEADING
CONNOTATION OF THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD NOT
BE DEPARTING WIDELY FROM EITHER THE STATUTE'S TERMS OR THEIR OBVIOUS
PURPOSE TO GIVE IMMUNITY BROADER THAN THE AMENDMENT'S, AND WOULD BE
WELL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE COURT'S REDUCTION OF THE STATUTORY WORDING TO EQUIVALENCE IN EFFECT
WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, NEARLY IF NOT QUITE MAKES THAT
WORDING REDUNDANT OR MEANINGLESS; IN ANY EVENT, IT GOES SO FAR IN
REWRITING THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AS TO AMOUNT TO INVASION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. 

WHETHER ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE TWO BROADER VIEWS OF THE STATUTE'S
EFFECT IS ACCEPTED, THEREFORE, IT IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR, I THINK,
REASONABLE OR CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY WORDING AND OBJECT OR WITH
THIS COURT'S FUNCTION AS STRICTLY A JUDICIAL BODY TO GO SO FAR IN
RECONSTRUCTING WHAT CONGRESS HAS DONE, AS I THINK RESULTS FROM REDUCING
THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY TO EQUIVALENCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ONE. 

SINCE IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NOT FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE
SUBPOENA IN THIS CASE, THAT COMPLIANCE WAS EXCESSIVE IN THE PRESENTLY
MATERIAL PORTIONS OF THE EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION PRODUCED, OR THAT THE
CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY PRECLUDED WAS FRIVOLOUS, INSUBSTANTIAL
OR NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH, I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BY
APPLYING THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY, WHETHER IN ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE TWO
FORMS WHICH MAY BE APPLIED. 

IN THIS VIEW I AM RELIEVED OF THE NECESSITY OF REACHING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE RESULTING FROM THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION, AND I
EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON IT EXCEPT TO SAY THAT I HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT
OF THE VALIDITY OF THE COURT'S CONCLUSION AND INDICATE SOME OF THE
REASONS FOR THIS.  I HAVE NONE THAT CONGRESS ITSELF MAY REQUIRE THE
KEEPING AND PRODUCTION OF SPECIFIED RECORDS, WITH APPROPRIATE
LIMITATIONS, IN CONNECTION WITH BUSINESS MATTERS IT IS ENTITLED TO AND
DOES REGULATE.  THAT IS TRUE NOT ONLY OF CORPORATE RECORDS, WILSON V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361, BUT ALSO OF INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS RECORDS
UNDER APPROPRIATE SPECIFICATION AND LIMITATIONS, AS THE NUMEROUS
INSTANCES CITED IN MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S OPINION ILLUSTRATE. 

BUT I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
AS WELL AS THE PROHIBITION OF THE FIFTH AGAINST COMPULSORY SELF
INCRIMINATION, CONGRESS COULD ENACT A GENERAL LAW REQUIRING ALL
PERSONS, INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE, ENGAGED IN BUSINESS SUBJECT TO
CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION TO PRODUCE, EITHER IN EVIDENCE OR FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY'S OR OFFICIAL'S EXAMINATION, ANY AND ALL RECORDS,
WITHOUT OTHER LIMITATION, KEPT IN CONNECTION WITH THAT BUSINESS.  SUCH
A COMMAND WOULD APPROACH TOO CLOSELY IN EFFECT THE KIND OF GENERAL
WARRANT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OUTLAWED.  THAT WOULD BE EVEN MORE
OBVIOUSLY TRUE, IF THERE WERE ANY DIFFERENCE, IN CASE CONGRESS SHOULD
DELEGATE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXECUTIVE OFFICIAL THE POWER TO IMPOSE
SO BROAD A PROHIBITION. 

THE AUTHORITY HERE CONFERRED UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR BY THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT, IN REFERENCE TO RECORD-KEEPING AND REQUIRING
PRODUCTION OF RECORDS, CLOSELY APPROACHES SUCH A COMMAND.  CONGRESS
NEITHER ITSELF SPECIFIES THE RECORDS TO BE KEPT AND PRODUCED UPON THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S DEMAND NOR LIMITS HIS POWER TO DESIGNATE THEM BY ANY
RESTRICTION OTHER THAN THAT HE MAY REQUIRE SUCH AS "HE DEEMS NECESSARY
OR PROPER TO ASSIST HIM," SEC. 202(A), (B), (C), IN CARRYING OUT HIS
FUNCTIONS OF INVESTIGATION AND PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS UNDER, AS WELL
AS OF ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF, THE ACT.  AND AS THE AUTHORITY
TO SPECIFY RECORDS FOR KEEPING AND PRODUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR, THE ONLY LIMITATION IMPOSED WAS THAT THE RECORDS SHOULD
BE SUCH AS HAD BEEN "CUSTOMARILY KEPT."  SEC. 14(B), M.P.R. 426, 8 FED.
REG. 9546, 9549.  SUCH A RESTRICTION IS LITTLE, IF ANY, LESS BROAD THAN
THE ONE CONCERNING WHICH I HAVE INDICATED DOUBT THAT CONGRESS ITSELF
COULD ENACT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 

THE AUTHORIZATION THEREFORE IS ONE WHICH RAISES SERIOUS QUESTION
WHETHER, BY REASON OF FAILURE TO MAKE MORE DEFINITE SPECIFICATION OF
THE RECORDS TO BE KEPT AND PRODUCED, THE LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS
INVOLVED HERE DO NOT EXCEED THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
AGAINST GENERAL WARRANTS AND UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.  THERE
IS A DIFFERENCE, OF COURSE, AND OFTEN A LARGE ONE, BETWEEN SITUATIONS
WHERE EVIDENCE IS SEARCHED OUT AND SEIZED WITHOUT WARRANT, AND OTHERS
WHERE IT IS REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED UNDER JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS.  BUT I
DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE LATTER SITUATION ITS PRODUCTION CAN BE
REQUIRED UNDER A WARRANT THAT AMOUNTS TO A GENERAL ONE.  THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT STANDS AS A BARRIER TO JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE AS WELL AS
EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE EXCESSES IN THIS RESPECT. 

ALTHOUGH I SERIOUSLY QUESTION WHETHER THE SUM OF THE STATUTE, AS
CONSTRUED BY THE COURT, THE PERTINENT REGULATIONS, AND THEIR EXECUTION
IN THIS CASE DOES NOT GO BEYOND CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS IN THE
BREADTH OF THEIR INQUIRY, I EXPRESS NO CONCLUSIVE OPINION CONCERNING
THIS, SINCE FOR ME THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY APPLIES AND IS SUFFICIENT TO
REQUIRE REVERSAL OF PETITIONER'S CONVICTION. 

FN1  56 STAT. 23, 30(SEC.  202(G)), AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
901, INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF
1893, 27 STAT. 443, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 46, QUOTED IN THE COURT'S OPINION IN
NOTE 2. 

FN2  NEITHER HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 131, NOR WILSON V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361, PRINCIPALLY RELIED UPON BY THE COURT,
APPROACHED SUCH A RULING. 

THE WILSON CASE DEALT ONLY WITH CORPORATE RECORDS, AND THE CLAIM OF A
CORPORATE OFFICER HAVING THEIR CUSTODY TO CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY
AGAINST BEING REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THEM.  NONE WERE REQUIRED BY LAW TO
BE KEPT, IN THE SENSE THAT ANY FEDERAL LAW REQUIRED THAT THEY BE KEPT
AND PRODUCED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES.  THE ONLY RULING WAS THAT A
CORPORATE OFFICER HAS NO PERSONAL IMMUNITY AGAINST PRODUCING CORPORATE
RECORDS, WHICH ARE OF COURSE NOT HIS OWN, AND THAT THE CORPORATION HAS
NO IMMUNITY OF ITS OWN UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY.  THE
DECISION IS NOT PERTINENT TO THE PRESENTLY TENDERED PROBLEM. 

THE HEIKE DECISION IS EQUALLY NOT APROPOS.  THE EXACT RULING WAS THAT
THE EVIDENCE, FROM THE PRODUCTION OF WHICH THE CLAIMED RIGHT OF
IMMUNITY, CONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL AS STATUTORY, AROSE, "DID NOT CONCERN
ANY MATTER OF THE PRESENT CHARGE.  NOT ONLY WAS THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF
THE FORMER INVESTIGATION WHOLLY DIFFERENT, BUT THE SPECIFIC THINGS
TESTIFIED TO HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE FACTS NOW IN PROOF MUCH CLOSER
THAN THAT THEY ALL WERE DEALINGS OF THE SAME SUGAR COMPANY."  227 U.S.
131, 143.  THE ACTUAL RULING THEREFORE, APART FROM THE FACT THAT A
CORPORATE OFFICER CLAIMED IMMUNITY IN LARGE PART FOR PRODUCING
CORPORATE RECORDS, SEE ID., 142-143, WAS THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NOT
BROUGHT HIMSELF WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION,
NAMELY, BECAUSE THE "TRANSACTION, MATTER OR THING" CONCERNING WHICH HE
HAD TESTIFIED HAD NO SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION WITH THE MATTERS INVOLVED
IN HIS PROSECUTION.  THE DECISION IS AUTHORITY FOR NOTHING MORE THAN
THAT THE IMMUNITY AT THE MOST DOES NOT ATTACH WHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIM PRECLUDED, BUT SAID TO BRING THE STATUTE INTO PLAY, IS
INSUBSTANTIAL.  THE DICTUM STRESSED IN THE COURT'S OPINION THAT THE
STATUTE "SHOULD BE CONSTRUED, SO FAR AS ITS WORDS FAIRLY ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION, AS COTERMINOUS WITH" (P. 142) THE CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY, NOT ONLY WAS UNNECESSARY, BUT AS THE CLAUSE ITSELF EMPHASIZED
EXPLICITLY NEGATIVES EXACT EQUIVALENCE. 

FN3  THE WORDING OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT NEITHER REQUIRES NOR
SUGGESTS THAT THE RIGHT TO THE IMMUNITY GIVEN SHOULD TURN ON THE
VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM WHICH IS PRECLUDED. 
BUT AT THE LEAST THE ACT WOULD SEEM CLEARLY TO COVER BOTH VALID AND
SUBSTANTIALLY DOUBTFUL ONES. 

FN4  SEE THE TEXT OF THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF 1893 QUOTED IN
NOTE 2 OF THE COURT'S OPINION. 

FN5  THE EXPRESS LIMITATION OF THE IMMUNITY TO TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE
PRODUCED IN OBEDIENCE TO THE SUBPOENA EXCLUDES IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEERED
TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE, I.E., SUCH AS IS GIVEN IN EXCESS OF THE
SUBPOENA'S REQUIREMENT.  BUT THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE PURPORT TO
EXCLUDE NO OTHER. 

FN6  CF. HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 131.  SEE NOTE 2 SUPRA.
..END :



















UNITED STATES V. HOFFMAN, 335 U.S. 77 


NO. 97.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1948.  - 68
F.SUPP.  53, REVERSED. 


AFTER APPELLEE HAD PRODUCED IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING RECORDS
KEPT UNDER A REQUIREMENT OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATIONS, THE
PRICE ADMINISTRATOR PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT TO INSTITUTE CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM FOR VIOLATING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
SELLING USED CARS AT OVER-CEILING PRICES.  THE COURT APPOINTED THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND THE O.P.A. DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT ATTORNEY AS
"ATTORNEYS TO PROSECUTE THE CRIMINAL CHARGES  ...  ON BEHALF OF THE
COURT AND OF THE UNITED STATES."  APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS WAS
GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS ENTITLED UNDER SEC. 202(G) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT TO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION.  THE
GOVERNMENT APPEALED TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT. 
HELD: 

1.  THE UNITED STATES WAS, IN ANY RELEVANT SENSE, A PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND THE APPEAL WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT.  PP. 78-79. 

2.  APPELLEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER SEC. 202(G) OF THE
PRICE CONTROL ACT AND THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED.  SEE SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 1.  P. 79. 

UNITED STATES V. HOFFMAN. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON FEB. 27, 1946, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR FILED A PETITION, IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO INSTITUTE CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST APPELLEE.  THE PETITION CHARGED APPELLEE
WITH HAVING MADE NUMEROUS SALES OF USED CARS AT OVER-CEILING PRICES IN
VIOLATION OF AN INJUNCTION PREVIOUSLY ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  A
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED, BUT WAS DISMISSED ON MOTION OF THE
APPELLEE, ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER SEC.
202(G) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT FROM PROSECUTION FOR THE
TRANSACTIONS UPON WHICH THE PETITION WAS FOUNDED.  68 F.SUPP.  53. 

THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THIS APPEAL, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT,  FN1  TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE MAIN ISSUE IS THE SAME AS THAT PRESENTED IN THE COMPANION
CASE, SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 1, BUT TWO ADDITIONAL MINOR
QUESTIONS ARE RAISED: 

1.  APPELLEE URGES THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT PROPERLY TAKEN BY THE
UNITED STATES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE RECORD SHOWS, HOWEVER, THAT THE LITIGATION
WAS INSTITUTED IN THAT COURT BY A PETITION OF THE OPA DISTRICT
ENFORCEMENT ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR.  WHEN THE
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED, THE COURT APPOINTED THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY AND THE OPA DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT ATTORNEY AS "ATTORNEYS TO
PROSECUTE THE CRIMINAL CHARGES CONTAINED IN THE PETITION FILED HEREIN
ON BEHALF OF THE COURT AND OF THE UNITED STATES."  SEE RULE 42(B) OF
THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 327 U.S. 865-66.  THUS THE UNITED
STATES WAS, IN ANY RELEVANT SENSE, A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THE
APPEAL WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. GOLDMAN, 277 U.S. 229, 235(1928); EX PARTE GROSSMAN, 267 U.S.
87, 115 ET SEQ. (1925). 

2.  THE GOVERNMENT MENTIONS A FURTHER CONSIDERATION, NOT INVOLVED IN
THE SHAPIRO CASE.  THE RECORD DOES NOT STATE THAT THE APPELLEE WAS
SWORN AND PRODUCED THE RECORDS UNDER OATH, A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE
ATTAINMENT OF IMMUNITY UNDER A 1906 AMENDMENT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 48, TO
THE COMPULSORY TESTIMONY ACT OF 1893.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
THIS CONTENTION BOTH BECAUSE IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DULY
RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW, AND BECAUSE THE GROUNDS CONSIDERED AND THE
VIEWS SET FORTH IN OUR OPINION IN THE SHAPIRO CASE SUFFICE TO DISPOSE
OF THIS APPEAL. 

THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 

FN1 34 STAT. 1246, AS AMENDED BY 56 STAT. 271, 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V,
1946) SEC. 682, AND BY SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS STATED IN HIS
DISSENTING OPINION IN SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 36.  MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DISSENT FOR THE REASONS STATED
IN MR. JUSTICE JACKSON'S DISSENTING OPINION IN SHAPIRO V. UNITED
STATES, ANTE, P. 70.  MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P.
71. 
..END :







MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. STONE, 335 U.S. 80 


NO. 94.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1948.  - 201
MISS.  670, 29 SO.2D 268, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, OWNS AND OPERATES A NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE FROM LOUISIANA FIELDS TO MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE.  APPROXIMATELY
135 MILES OF THE LINE LIE IN MISSISSIPPI, AND THERE ARE TWO COMPRESSOR
STATIONS IN THAT STATE.  IN ADDITION TO AD VALOREM TAXES, MISSISSIPPI
IMPOSES A "FRANCHISE OR EXCISE" TAX OF $1.50 FOR EACH $1,000 VALUE OF
CAPITAL USED, INVESTED OR EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE.  PETITIONER, WHOSE
BUSINESS IN MISSISSIPPI WAS EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE, CHALLENGED THE
VALIDITY OF THE LATTER TAX UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER, THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT
SUSTAINED THE TAX AS RECOMPENSE TO THE STATE FOR PROTECTION OF "LOCAL
ACTIVITIES IN MAINTAINING, KEEPING IN REPAIR, AND OTHERWISE IN MANNING"
THE 135 MILES OF LINE WITHIN THE STATE.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
STATE SUPREME COURT IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 80-83, 96. 

MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. STONE, CHAIRMAN, STATE TAX COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

THE VALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF A STATE FRANCHISE TAX
IMPOSED ON PETITIONER WAS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  201
MISS.  670, 29 SO.2D 268.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S.
802.  AFFIRMED, P. 96. 

MR. JUSTICE REED ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN OPINION
IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN. 

THE MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS COMPANY IS A DELAWARE CORPORATION WHICH OWNS
AND OPERATES A PIPE LINE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS.  THE
LINE RUNS FROM THE MONROE GAS FIELD IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH
THE STATES OF ARKANSAS AND MISSISSIPPI TO MEMPHIS AND OTHER POINTS IN
THE STATE OF TENNESSEE.  APPROXIMATELY 135 MILES OF THE PIPE LINE LIE
WITHIN MISSISSIPPI; AT TWO POINTS WITHIN THAT STATE THERE ARE
COMPRESSING STATIONS.  IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE GAS COMPANY HAS NEVER
ENGAGED IN ANY INTRASTATE COMMERCE IN MISSISSIPPI; THAT IT HAS ONLY ONE
CUSTOMER WITHIN THE STATE, THE MISSISSIPPI POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, TO
WHICH IT SELLS GAS FROM ITS INTERSTATE LINE AT WHOLESALE FROM SEVERAL
DELIVERY POINTS; THAT THE GAS COMPANY HAS NEVER QUALIFIED UNDER THE
LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI TO DO INTRASTATE BUSINESS WITHIN THAT STATE; THAT
IT HAS NO AGENT FOR THE SERVICE OF PROCESS AND THAT IT HAS NO OFFICE
WITHIN THE STATE; AND THAT ITS ONLY EMPLOYEES AND REPRESENTATIVES IN
MISSISSIPPI ARE THOSE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE PIPE LINE AND ITS
AUXILIARY APPURTENANCES. 

THE GAS COMPANY HAS PAID ALL AD VALOREM TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST ITS
PROPERTY IN MISSISSIPPI PURSUANT TO THE STATE LAW.  IN ADDITION TO THE
AD VALOREM TAXES, MISSISSIPPI IMPOSES A "FRANCHISE OR EXCISE TAX" UPON
ALL CORPORATIONS "DOING BUSINESS" WITHIN THE STATE.  FN1  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE ACT, "DOING BUSINESS" IS DEFINED "(TO) MEAN AND (TO)
INCLUDE EACH AND EVERY ACT, POWER OR PRIVILEGE EXERCISED OR ENJOYED IN
THIS STATE, AS AN INCIDENT TO, OR BY VIRTUE OF THE POWERS AND
PRIVILEGES ACQUIRED BY THE NATURE OF SUCH ORGANIZATION."  FN2  THE TAX
IS "EQUAL TO $1.50 OF EACH $1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF OF THE VALUE
OF CAPITAL USED, INVESTED OR EMPLOYED" WITHIN THE STATE. 

THE GAS COMPANY FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF MISSISSIPPI OF THE FRANCHISE TAX ASSESSED AGAINST IT FOR
THE YEARS 1942, 1943 AND 1944 BY THE STATE TAX COMMISSIONER.  IN THIS
PETITION THE GAS COMPANY ARGUED THAT THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX BY THE
STATE WAS AN ACT PROHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  FROM AN ORDER OF THE TAX COMMISSION APPROVING THE ACTION
OF THE COMMISSIONER, THE GAS COMPANY APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.  THAT COURT REVERSED THE TAX COMMISSION, BUT
WAS ITSELF REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI.  THE SUPREME
COURT SAID THAT MISSISSIPPI HAD MADE "NO ATTEMPT TO TAX INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AS SUCH, BUT THE LEVY IS AN EXACTION WHICH THE STATE REQUIRES
AS A RECOMPENSE FOR ITS PROTECTION OF LAWFUL ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON IN
THIS STATE BY THE CORPORATION, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, ACTIVITIES WHICH
ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE POWERS AND PRIVILEGES POSSESSED BY IT BY THE
NATURE OF ITS ORGANIZATION - HERE THE LOCAL ACTIVITIES IN MAINTAINING,
KEEPING IN REPAIR, AND OTHERWISE IN MANNING THE FACILITIES OF THE
SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE 135 MILES OF ITS LINE IN THIS STATE."  201 MISS. 
670, 674, 29 SO.2D 268, 270.  IT ARGUED THAT THE STATE TAX DID NOT BEAR
DIRECTLY UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT ANY BURDEN IMPOSED UPON THAT
COMMERCE WAS REMOTE AND UNSUBSTANTIAL.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE LOCAL TAX
WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ORDERED THAT THE TAXES IN QUESTION, PLUS
PENALTIES, BE PAID BY THE GAS COMPANY.  A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
UNDER SEC. 237(B), JUDICIAL CODE, WAS FILED IN THIS COURT BY THE GAS
COMPANY ON MAY 17, 1947.  IT PRESENTED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE
JUDGMENT VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BY REQUIRING A FOREIGN
UNDOMESTICATED CORPORATION, ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO PAY THE
TAX.  THAT PETITION WAS GRANTED JUNE 16, 1947.  331 U.S. 802. 

THE SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT BY THE STIPULATION OF FACTS IN THE TRIAL
COURT, MISSISSIPPI CONCEDES THE TRUTH OF AN ALLEGATION OF THE
CHALLENGED PETITION BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION READING AS
FOLLOWS: 

"TO CARRY ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT A FRANCHISE OR A PRIVILEGE
GRANTED BY THE STATE; IT IS A RIGHT WHICH EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES IS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES; AND THE ACCESSION AND POSSESSION OF MERE CORPORATE
FACILITIES, AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE IN CARRYING ON THEIR BUSINESS,
CANNOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING IT OF SUCH RIGHT, UNLESS CONGRESS
SHOULD SEE FIT TO INTERPOSE SOME CONTRARY REGULATION.  YOUR PETITIONER
OBTAINS NO PROTECTION FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI AND ACQUIRES NO
POWERS OR PRIVILEGES IN ITS INTERSTATE ACTIVITY OTHER THAN THE
PROTECTION AFFORDED YOUR PETITIONER BY VIRTUE OF THE PAYMENT OF AN AD
VALOREM TAX ON THE PROPERTY USED BY THE COMPANY WHOLLY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE." 

IT IS SAID THAT BECAUSE OF THIS CONCESSION MISSISSIPPI CANNOT EXACT A
TAX FROM PETITIONER AS THE STATE "AFFORDS NOTHING TO THIS PETITIONER
FOR WHICH IT COULD ASK RECOMPENSE BY WAY OF A TAX."  THE PERTINENT PART
OF THE STIPULATION READS:  "THAT ALL OF THE FACTS STATED IN SAID
PETITION ARE TRUE AND NO PROOF OF THE SAME SHALL BE REQUIRED IN THIS
CAUSE."  NO CONTENTION AS TO THE CONCESSION IS PRESENTED TO US BY THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS OR BRIEF.  PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION IS THAT THE TAX LEVIED AGAINST IT IS INVALID UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO RAISE THE QUESTION ALONE
WOULD JUSTIFY A REFUSAL HERE TO CONSIDER THE CONTENTION.  SEE
CONNECTICUT R. CO. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493, 496; KESSLER V. STRECKER,
307 U.S. 22, 34.  THE ANSWER TO THE SUGGESTION, HOWEVER, SEEMS TO US
CLEAR.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI MUST BE
REVERSED BECAUSE THE TAX BEFORE US "IS A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN THE DOING OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, AND SUCH
A TAX IS  ...  INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE."  THIS CONCLUSION
SEEMS TO BE REACHED BY THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS.  THE STIPULATION BETWEEN
THE COMPANY AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION IS READ AS IF THE PHRASE "IN
ITS INTERSTATE ACTIVITY" MODIFIED ONLY THE WORDS "POWERS" AND
"PRIVILEGES" AND NOT THE WORD "PROTECTION."  IF THAT IS A PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS STIPULATION, THEN THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE
COMPANY HAS OBTAINED BY THE TAX "NO PROTECTION FROM THE STATE  ...
OTHER THAN THE PROTECTION AFFORDED ...  BY VIRTUE OF THE PAYMENT OF AN
AD VALOREM TAX  ...  "  THE DISSENT THEN CONCLUDES THAT THE IMPOSITION
OF THE AD VALOREM TAXES "EXHAUSTED" THE STATE'S TAXING POWER AND,
CONSEQUENTLY, THAT THE TAX "IS A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN
INTERSTATE BUSINESS" AND, AS SUCH, "INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE." 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED THE TAX AS "AN EXACTION  ...  AS A
RECOMPENSE FOR  ... PROTECTION OF  ...  THE LOCAL ACTIVITIES IN
MAINTAINING, KEEPING IN REPAIR, AND OTHERWISE IN MANNING THE FACILITIES
OF THE SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE 135 MILES OF ITS LINE IN THIS STATE."  AS
WE ARE BOUND BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE STATUTE BY THE STATE
COURT, IT IS IDLE TO SUGGEST THAT THE TAX IS ON "THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE BUSINESS."  NOR CAN THIS RESULT BE CHANGED BY
THE SUGGESTION THAT THE TAX CANNOT BE ON ANY LOCAL INCIDENTS "BECAUSE
THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN FULLY TAXED."  THE LOCAL INCIDENTS, SPOKEN OF BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, WERE NOT THE TAXABLE EVENTS SELECTED
FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE AD VALOREM TAX.  THESE LOCAL INCIDENTS WERE
THE BASIS FOR THE FRANCHISE OR EXCISE TAX NOW IN CONTROVERSY.  NO
REASON IS PERCEIVED WHY MISSISSIPPI CANNOT EXACT THIS DIFFERENT TAX FOR
THE SAME PROTECTION.  IT IS AS THOUGH THE AD VALOREM RATE HAD BEEN
INCREASED.  THE POWER TO LEVY SUCH A NEW TAX IS NOT AND COULD NOT BE
QUESTIONED EXCEPT AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE.  THE LEGAL QUESTION
REMAINS AS TO WHETHER A STATE CAN EXACT A TAX ON THOSE ACTIVITIES UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE PRESENT AGAIN THE PERENNIAL PROBLEM OF THE
VALIDITY OF A STATE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON, WITHIN A
STATE, CERTAIN ACTIVITIES ADMITTEDLY NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN OR OPERATE
THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER.  THIS TRANSPORTATION BY PIPE
LINE WITH DELIVERIES WITHIN THE STATE AT WHOLESALE ONLY IS INTERSTATE
BUSINESS.  PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. COMM'N, 332 U.S. 507,
513, AND CASES CITED.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE POWER GRANTED TO CONGRESS BY
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REGULATE THE TAXATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IF
IT SO DESIRES,  FN3 THAT BODY GENERALLY HAS LEFT THE DETERMINATION TO
THE COURTS OF WHAT STATE TAXES ON OR AFFECTING COMMERCE WERE
PERMISSIBLE AND WHAT IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE
STATES HAVE SOUGHT BY TAXATION TO COLLECT FROM THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
COMMERCE COMPENSATION FOR THE PROTECTION AND ADVANTAGES RENDERED TO
COMMERCE BY STATE GOVERNMENTS.  THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE SOUGHT OVER THE
YEARS TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF A STATE'S POWER TO TAX IN THE LIGHT OF
THE COMPETING INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND OF THE STATES, WITH
THEIR POWER TO IMPOSE REASONABLE TAXES UPON INCIDENTS CONNECTED WITH
THAT COMMERCE.  SEE GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S.
434, 441.  WE CONTINUE AT THAT TASK, CHARACTERIZED LONG AGO AS AN AREA
OF "NICE DISTINCTIONS."  GALVESTON, HARRISBURG & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS,
210 U.S. 217, 225. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION HERE OF DUE PROCESS.  THE GAS COMPANY'S PROPERTY
IS IN THE TAXING STATE WHERE THE TAXABLE INCIDENTS OCCURRED.  MCLEOD V.
DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327, 329.  SEE NIPPERT V. CITY OF RICHMOND, 327
U.S. 416, 423.  NOR IS THE MEASURE USED TO CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF THE
TAX CHALLENGED.  THAT MEASURE IS $1.50 ON EACH THOUSAND DOLLARS OF
CAPITAL EMPLOYED WITHIN MISSISSIPPI.  SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA,
301 U.S. 148, 156, THIRD.  THE ATTACK ON THE MISSISSIPPI STATUTE IS
THAT IT VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BY PUTTING A TAX ON THE COMMERCE
ITSELF. 

THE LOCAL INCIDENTS COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF DOING BUSINESS
HEREINBEFORE SET OUT, SEC. 9312, MISSISSIPPI CODE, SUPRA, WERE SAID BY
THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE TO BE "THE LOCAL ACTIVITIES IN
MAINTAINING, KEEPING IN REPAIR, AND OTHERWISE IN MANNING THE FACILITIES
OF THE SYSTEM" IN MISSISSIPPI.  201 MISS.  670, 674, 29 SO.2D 268,
270.  FN4  THE CASES JUST CITED IN THE NOTE SHOW THAT, FROM THE
VIEWPOINT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WHERE THE CORPORATIONS CARRY ON A
LOCAL ACTIVITY SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATE FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
STATE TAXES MAY BE VALIDLY LAID, EVEN THOUGH THE EXACTION FROM THE
BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS THOUGH THE TAX HAD
BEEN LEVIED UPON THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS ITSELF.  FN5  BUT THE CHOICE
OF A LOCAL INCIDENT FOR THE TAX, WITHOUT MORE, IS NOT ENOUGH.  THERE
ARE ALWAYS CONVENIENT LOCAL INCIDENTS IN EVERY INTERSTATE OPERATION. 
NIPPERT V. CITY OF RICHMOND, SUPRA, AT 423.  THE INCIDENT SELECTED
SHOULD BE ONE THAT DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO REPEATED EXACTIONS IN OTHER
STATES.  OTHERWISE INTRASTATE COMMERCE MAY BE PREFERRED OVER INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN6  AGAIN, WHERE THERE IS A STATE EXACTION FOR SOME
INTRASTATE PRIVILEGE THAT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT
IS INVALID EVEN THOUGH IT IS SUFFICIENTLY DISCONNECTED FROM THE
COMMERCE TO BE TAXABLE OTHERWISE.  FN7 

THE MISSISSIPPI TAX UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY.  IT IS
LEVIED, IN ADDITION TO AD VALOREM TAXES, ON CORPORATIONS CREATED UNDER
MISSISSIPPI LAWS, THOSE ADMITTED TO DO BUSINESS IN MISSISSIPPI AND
THOSE OPERATING IN THE STATE WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY FROM THE STATE.  SEE
NOTE 1, SUPRA.  PETITIONER OPERATED LOCAL COMPRESSOR STATIONS.  WE HAVE
HERETOFORE HELD THAT THE GENERATION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR THE
OPERATION OF SUCH STATIONS WAS SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION WITHOUT
VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  COVERDALE V. ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA PIPE
LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604.  A GLANCE AT THE ACTIVITIES, NAMED ABOVE,
LISTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI, SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO
POSSIBILITY OF MULTIPLE TAXATION THROUGH THE SAME EXACTIONS BY OTHER
STATES.  THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX IS REASONABLE N8.  IT IS PROPERLY
APPORTIONED TO THE INVESTMENT IN MISSISSIPPI.  FN9 

HOWEVER, A STATE TAX UPON A CORPORATION DOING ONLY AN INTERSTATE
BUSINESS MAY BE INVALID UNDER OUR DECISIONS BECAUSE LEVIED (1) UPON THE
PROVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, FN10  OR (2)
UPON SOME LOCAL EVENT SO MUCH A PART OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS AS TO BE IN
EFFECT A TAX UPON THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS ITSELF.  FN11  PETITIONER
ASSERTS THAT THE MISSISSIPPI STATUTE SO OFFENDS. 

FIRST.  THIS COURT HAS DRAWN THE DISTINCTION IN THE FIELD OF PIPE
LINE TAXATION BETWEEN STATE STATUTES ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS
WHERE ONLY INTERSTATE BUSINESS WAS DONE AND THOSE UPON APPROPRIATE
LOCAL INCIDENTS.  IN OZARK PIPE LINE CORP. V. MONIER, 266 U.S. 555, THE
OZARK PIPE LINE CORPORATION OPERATED AN OIL PIPE LINE FROM OKLAHOMA,
THROUGH MISSOURI TO A POINT IN ILLINOIS.  OIL WAS NEITHER RECEIVED NOR
DELIVERED IN MISSOURI.  THIS WAS INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  INTERSTATE
NATURAL GAS CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 331 U.S. 682, 689, AND CASES CITED AT
NOTE 12.  IT HAD ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN MISSOURI.  IT HAD A LICENSE
FROM MISSOURI AUTHORIZING IT TO ENGAGE "'EXCLUSIVELY IN THE BUSINESS OF
TRANSPORTING CRUDE PETROLEUM BY PIPE LINE.'"  PAGE 561.  THE STATE TAX
WAS AN APPORTIONED FRANCHISE TAX.  FN12  IT WAS CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT
AS A TAX "UPON THE PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS."  PAGE 562. 
VIRGINIA V. IMPERIAL COAL CO., 293 U.S. 15, 20.  AS SUCH A TAX UPON A
CORPORATION DOING ONLY AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS, IT WAS HELD INVALID
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  FN13    IN STATE TAX COMMISSION V.
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 284 U.S. 41, A PIPE LINE RAN FROM
LOUISIANA, THROUGH MISSISSIPPI AND BACK TO LOUISIANA.  TWO LOCAL
MISSISSIPPI DISTRIBUTORS TOOK GAS IN THAT STATE FROM THE RESPONDENT. 
MISSISSIPPI SOUGHT TO TAX THE RESPONDENT UNDER A PRIVILEGE TAX LAW THAT
REQUIRED THE PIPE LINE COMPANY TO GET A LICENSE TO EXERCISE THE
PRIVILEGE DESIRED, THAT IS, TO OPERATE AN INTERSTATE PIPE LINE.  FN14
THIS COURT HELD THAT THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT WAS
INTERSTATE DESPITE A CLAIMED LOCAL ACTIVITY BY THE REDUCTION OF
PRESSURE TO DELIVER GAS TO THE MISSISSIPPI DISTRIBUTORS.  IT FOLLOWED
THAT THE STATE LICENSE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF
OPERATING A PIPE LINE WAS AN INVALID BURDEN UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
FN15 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IN INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V. STONE, 308 U.S.
522, WE AFFIRMED PER CURIAM A JUDGMENT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN STONE V.
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 103 F.2D 544, ON THE AUTHORITY OF SOUTHERN
GAS CORPORATION V. ALABAMA, SUPRA AT 153, 156-57.  THE TAX IN QUESTION
IN THE 308 U.S. CASE WAS EXACTED BY THE SAME MISSISSIPPI STATUTE
EMPLOYED HERE.  THIS DIFFERS FROM THE MISSISSIPPI STATUTE IN THE
INTERSTATE CASE IN 284 U.S. THE INTERSTATE CASE IN 308 U.S. DIFFERED
FROM THIS PRESENT CASE, SO FAR AS IS MATERIAL, ONLY IN THE FACT THAT
THE FOREIGN CORPORATION FILED A COPY OF ITS CHARTER AS A PREREQUISITE
TO DOING BUSINESS IN MISSISSIPPI AND APPOINTED AN AGENT FOR THE SERVICE
OF PROCESS.  THE PAGE REFERENCES IN THE STONE CITATION OF THE SOUTHERN
GAS CASE SHOW THAT THIS COURT CONSIDERED THE MISSISSIPPI TAX IN THE
STONE CASE AS ONE NOT ON BUSINESS BUT "'ON THE PRIVILEGE OF EXERCISING
CORPORATE FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE STATE AND ITS EMPLOYMENT OF ITS CAPITAL
IN (MISSISSIPPI).'"  SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 153.  IN THE
SOUTHERN GAS CASE, PAGE 155, THE COMPANY DID INTRASTATE BUSINESS, BUT
IN THE STONE CASE NO INTRASTATE BUSINESS WAS DONE.  THUS THE LOCAL
EVENT OF QUALIFYING FOR INTRASTATE BUSINESS, WHICH OCCURRED IN BOTH
SOUTHERN GAS AND STONE, BROUGHT A DIFFERENT RESULT FROM THAT IN THE
OZARK CASE AND IN INTERSTATE, 284 U.S., WHERE THE PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT TO
DO INTERSTATE BUSINESS WAS PROTECTED.  MISSISSIPPI THROUGH ITS SUPREME
COURT, HAS DECLARED THAT THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF
DOING AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS OR TO SECURE ANYTHING FROM THE CORPORATION
BY THIS STATUTE EXCEPT COMPENSATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
ENUMERATED LOCAL ACTIVITIES OF "MAINTAINING, KEEPING IN REPAIR, AND
OTHERWISE IN MANNING THE FACILITIES."  201 MISS.  674, 29 SO.2D 270. 
UNDER SEC. 9314, QUOTED IN NOTE 1, IN THE LIGHT OF THAT STATUTE'S
DEFINITION OF "DOING BUSINESS" SET OUT ON PP. 81-82, SUPRA, THIS IS A
REASONABLE MEANING TO GIVE THE TAXING STATUTE.  WE MUST ACCEPT THE
STATE COURT'S INTERPRETATION.  FN16  WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE
MISSISSIPPI TAX HERE INVOLVED IS NOT UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN
INTERSTATE BUSINESS. 

SECOND.  WE COME NOW TO THE SECOND QUESTION.  THAT IS WHETHER THE
CHALLENGED EXCISE FOR CARRYING ON WITHIN THE STATE THE AFOREMENTIONED
ACTIVITIES OF MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND MANNING BY A CORPORATION ENGAGED
SOLELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE TAXED.  THE ANSWER ON THIS POINT
DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THESE ACTIVITIES ARE SO MUCH A PART OF THE
INTERSTATE BUSINESS AS TO BE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AS THIS COURT HAS CONSTRUED IT.  FN17  IN THIS CASE THE LOCAL
ACTIVITIES ARE THOSE INVOLVED IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PIPE LINE. 
THIS TAX IS NOT AN UNAPPORTIONED TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE
COMMERCE ITSELF.  IT IS MEASURED BY A PROPORTION OF THE CAPITAL
EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE.  IT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED IN OTHER STATES. 
COMPARE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250, 255.  IN OZARK PIPE
LINE V. MONIER, SUPRA, THIS COURT, AT P. 565, SPOKE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES
AS SET OUT BELOW.  FN18  IF IT WAS INTENDED TO SAY THAT SUCH IN-THE
STATE ACTIVITIES AS THERE DESCRIBED COULD NOT BE TAXED, WE DISAGREE
WITH THAT CONCLUSION.  WE ARE INCLINED TO THE VIEW THAT THE FACT THAT
THE TAX THERE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS CONSIDERED A TAX "UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS," LED THE COURT TO POINT OUT THAT AS
THE LOCAL ACTIVITIES WERE ESSENTIAL TO THAT BUSINESS, THEY WERE NOT
TAXABLE ACTIVITIES.  THE PIPE LINE ITSELF AND ALL APPURTENANCES ARE
ESSENTIAL, YET AN AD VALOREM TAX CAN BE LAID.  FN19 

IN TAXATION, WE DO NOT HAVE THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY MANY DECISIONS ON
STATE REGULATIONS ALLEGED TO IMPEDE THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE WHEN NOT
NATIONALLY UNIFORM.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761. 
REGULATIONS MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE STATE ON COMMERCE.  PANHANDLE EASTERN
PIPE LINE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, SUPRA; BOB-LO EXCURSION CO. V.
MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28.  WHEN STATE TAXATION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROPERTY
WITHIN A STATE IS INVOLVED, DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS CONTROL.  IT IS NO
LONGER A QUESTION OF ACTUAL INTERRUPTION OF THE OPERATION OF COMMERCE. 
KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 14.  RATHER A PROHIBITED TAX EXACTION
IS ONE BEYOND THE POWER OF THE STATE BECAUSE THE TAXABLE EVENT IS
OUTSIDE ITS BOUNDARIES, MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., SUPRA, OR FOR A
PRIVILEGE THE STATE CANNOT GRANT.  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA.  IS IT BAD
BECAUSE A TAX ON THE COMMERCE ITSELF?  WE HAVE SUSTAINED A FEE FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING STATE COURTS, EXACTED BY THE STATE FROM A BUSINESS
LICENSED BY THE UNITED STATES TO HANDLE CUSTOMS CHARGES.  UNION
BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202.  FN20  LIKEWISE A SPECIAL
PRIVILEGE TAX UPON AN INTERSTATE AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY FOR
THE USE OF THE STATE ROADS HAS BEEN APPROVED.  AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT
CO. V. BOARD OF RAILROAD COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495. 

THE MISSISSIPPI EXCISE HAS NO MORE EFFECT UPON THE COMMERCE THAN ANY
OF THE INSTANCES JUST RECITED.  THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THIS TAX WERE
NO MORE ESSENTIAL TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN THOSE JUST MENTIONED
OR AD VALOREM TAXES.  WE THINK THAT THE STATE IS WITHIN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN EXACTING COMPENSATION UNDER THIS STATUTE FOR
THE PROTECTION IT AFFORDS THE ACTIVITIES WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  OF
COURSE, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COULD NOT BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT THESE
LOCAL ACTIVITIES.  BUT THAT FACT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  THESE ARE EVENTS
APART FROM THE FLOW OF COMMERCE.  THIS IS A TAX ON ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH
THE STATE, NOT THE UNITED STATES, GIVES PROTECTION AND THE STATE IS
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION WHEN ITS TAX CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN
UNREASONABLE BURDEN OR A TOLL ON THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  MISS.  CODE SEC. 9313(1942):  "THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED  ... A
FRANCHISE OR EXCISE TAX UPON EVERY CORPORATION  ...  NOW EXISTING IN
THIS STATE, OR HEREAFTER ORGANIZED, CREATED OR ESTABLISHED, UNDER AND
BY VIRTUE OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, EQUAL TO $1.50 FOR
EACH $1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF, OF THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL USED,
INVESTED OR EMPLOYED IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY POWER, PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT
ENJOYED BY SUCH ORGANIZATION WITHIN THIS STATE, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED.  IT BEING THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENT
TO THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, THIS TAX FOR THE RIGHT GRANTED BY THE LAWS
OF THIS STATE TO EXIST AS SUCH ORGANIZATION, AND ENJOY, UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS OF THIS STATE, THE POWERS, RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES DERIVED FROM THE STATE BY THE FORM OF SUCH EXISTENCE." 

SEC. 9314:  "FOR THE YEAR 1940 AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, THERE SHALL
BE AND IS HEREBY IMPOSED, LEVIED AND ASSESSED UPON EVERY CORPORATION,
ASSOCIATION OR JOINT STOCK COMPANY, AS HEREINBEFORE DEFINED, ORGANIZED
AND EXISTING UNDER AND BY VIRTUE OF THE LAWS OF SOME OTHER STATE,
TERRITORY OR COUNTRY, OR ORGANIZED AND EXISTING WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC
STATUTORY AUTHORITY, NOW, OR HEREAFTER DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THIS
STATE, AS HEREINBEFORE DEFINED, A FRANCHISE OR EXCISE TAX EQUAL TO
$1.50 OF EACH $1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF OF THE VALUE OF CAPITAL
USED, INVESTED OR EMPLOYED WITHIN THIS STATE, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED.  IT BEING THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENT
OF A TAX BY ALL ORGANIZATIONS NOT ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS
STATE, MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL OR ITS EQUIVALENT, FOR WHICH
SUCH ORGANIZATION RECEIVES THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
AND LAWS OF THE STATE." 

FN2  MISS.  CODE SEC. 9312(1942). 

FN3  PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408, 429. 

FN4  SUCH LOCAL INCIDENTS FORM A SOUND BASIS FOR TAXATION BY A STATE
OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  FOR EXAMPLE, WE
HAVE UPHELD STATE TAXES ON SALES AFTER COMPLETION OF THE INTERSTATE
TRANSIT, MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33; ON
PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UTAH POWER & L. CO.
V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165, COMPARE FISHER'S BLEND STATION, INC. V. TAX
COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650, 655; A PRIVILEGE TAX ON THE OPERATION OF MACHINES
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY TO DRIVE GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
COVERDALE V. ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604; A USE TAX
ON RAILS SHIPPED INTERSTATE FOR IMMEDIATE INCORPORATION INTO AN
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER,
306 U.S. 167. 

WE HAVE UPHELD A FRANCHISE TAX ON A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO
DO BUSINESS AND MAKING SALES IN A STATE OTHER THAN ITS ACTUAL OR
BUSINESS DOMICILE, FORD MOTOR CO. V. BEAUCHAMP, 308 U.S. 331; A
PRIVILEGE TAX ON A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE UPON
A PROPORTION OF PROPERTY IN THE TAXING STATE THAT WAS COMPUTED BY USING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS AN ELEMENT, HUMP HAIRPIN CO. V. EMMERSON, 258
U.S. 290; WESTERN CARTRIDGE CO. V. EMMERSON, 281 U.S. 511; AN EXCISE ON
INTRASTATE MANUFACTURING, ADDED TO AN AD VALOREM TAX AND MEASURED BY
SALES, INCLUDING OUT OF STATE, AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S.
459, AND SEE POWELL, 60 HARV. L. REV. 501, 508 AND 727, FREEMAN V.
HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, 255; A LICENSE FOR STORING GOODS AT REST IN THE
STATE UNDER A TRANSIT PRIVILEGE, INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES, INC. V.
SCHEELE, 331 U.S. 70. 

FN5  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250, 254. 

FN6  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250, 255. 

FN7  SEE BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454; NIPPERT V. CITY OF
RICHMOND, SUPRA, AT 431-32.  CF. AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. BOARD OF
RAILROAD COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495, 501-502. 

FN8  SEE HUMP HAIRPIN CO. V. EMMERSON, 258 U.S. 290, 295, AND WESTERN
CARTRIDGE CO. V. EMMERSON, 281 U.S. 511, 514. 

FN9  SEE SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148, 156, THIRD, AND
CASES CITED; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. EVATT, 329 U.S. 416, 422
23; AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. BOARD OF RAILROAD COMM'RS, 332 U.S.
495, 501-502. 

FN10  THIS COURT HAS HELD MANY TIMES THAT A STATE HAS NO POWER TO
REFUSE OR TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  A FOREIGN
CORPORATION, SEEKING OR REQUIRING NO PRIVILEGE FROM A STATE SUCH AS THE
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, THE RIGHT TO USE PUBLIC WAYS OR BEDS OF
STREAMS, AND WITHOUT FEDERAL CHARTER OR OTHER FEDERAL STATUTORY
PRIVILEGE, CANNOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO ENTER A STATE, REMAIN THERE
AND OPERATE A PURELY INTERSTATE BUSINESS WITHOUT A STATE FRANCHISE. 
CRUTCHER V. KENTUCKY, 141 U.S. 47, 56; INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V.
PIGG, 217 U.S. 91, 107(3); DAHNKE-WALKER MILLING CO. V. BONDURANT, 257
U.S. 282.  SEE ALSO CALIFORNIA V. PACIFIC R. CO., 127 U.S. 1; LUXTON V.
NORTH RIVER BRIDGE CO., 153 U.S. 525; COLORADO V. UNITED STATES, 271
U.S. 153, 164; STATE EX REL. BOARD V. STANOLIND PIPE LINE CO., 216 IOWA
436, 445, 249 N.W. 366, 371. 

FN11  FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, "BECAUSE IT TAXES THE VERY
PROCESS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (P. 253), IT IS "A DIRECT IMPOSITION ON
THAT VERY FREEDOM OF COMMERCIAL FLOW WHICH FOR MORE THAN A HUNDRED AND
FIFTY YEARS HAS BEEN THE WARD OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE" (P. 256); JOSEPH
V. CARTER & WEEKES CO., 330 U.S. 422, "STEVEDORING, WE CONCLUDE, IS
ESSENTIALLY A PART OF THE COMMERCE ITSELF AND THEREFORE A TAX  ...
UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF STEVEDORING FOR
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, MEASURED BY THOSE GROSS RECEIPTS, IS
INVALID" (P. 433); THIS FOLLOWS "A LINE OF PRECEDENTS OUTLAWING TAXES
ON THE COMMERCE ITSELF" (P. 433).  GALVESTON, HARRISBURG & S.A.R. CO.
V. TEXAS, SUPRA AT 224. 

SEE ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 312, N. 11; SEE COMMENTS
ON AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, N. 4, SUPRA. 

FN12  MO. REV. STAT. SEC. 9836(1919): 

"  ...  EVERY CORPORATION, NOT ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS
STATE, AND ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, SHALL PAY AN ANNUAL
FRANCHISE TAX TO THE STATE OF MISSOURI EQUAL TO ONE-TENTH OF ONE PER
CENT. OF THE PAR VALUE OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK AND SURPLUS EMPLOYED IN
BUSINESS IN THIS STATE ...  " 

FN13  THE OPINION EVOKED A DISSENT BY JUSTICE BRANDEIS WHICH POINTED
OUT THAT:  "THE TAX ASSAILED IS NOT LAID UPON THE OCCUPATION  ...  ";
NOR "UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS."  PP. 567-68.  THE JUSTICE
CONCLUDED THAT "A TAX IS NOT A DIRECT BURDEN MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAID
UPON AN INDISPENSABLE INSTRUMENTALITY OF SUCH COMMERCE," BUT THAT THE
CONTRARY IS TRUE "WHERE IT IS UPON PROPERTY MOVING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  P. 569.  COMPARE OZARK WITH ATLANTIC LUMBER CO. V. COMM'R,
298 U.S. 553.    THE OZARK CASE HAS HAD A LONG HISTORY IN THIS COURT. 
SINCE 288 U.S., IT HAS NOT BEEN CITED IN A MANNER PERTINENT TO OUR
PRESENT ISSUE, EXCEPT TO BE DISTINGUISHED, SOMETIMES NARROWLY.  IN
HELSON & RANDOLPH V. KENTUCKY, 279 U.S. 245, 249, AND STATE TAX
COMMISSION V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 284 U.S. 41, 43, IT WAS CITED
WITH APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A STATE CANNOT LAY A TAX ON THE
OCCUPATION OR THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN
ANGLO-CHILEAN NITRATE SALES CORP. V. ALABAMA, 288 U.S. 218, OZARK WAS
RELIED UPON TO HOLD UNCONSTITUTIONAL A STATE TAX UPON A CORPORATION
WHICH WAS QUALIFIED TO DO INTRASTATE BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE BUT
WHICH IN FACT DID ONLY AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  CARDOZO, J., JOINED BY
BRANDEIS, J., AND STONE, J., DISSENTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX COULD
BE SUPPORTED AS A TAX LAID UPON THE PRIVILEGE TO DO INTRASTATE
BUSINESS.  OZARK WAS NEXT BEFORE THE COURT IN VIRGINIA V. IMPERIAL COAL
CO., SUPRA, A CASE INVOLVING A TAX ON TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PROPERTY
SITUATED AND USED WITHIN THE STATE TO CARRY ON AN EXCLUSIVELY
INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS DISTINGUISHED ON THE GROUND
THAT AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX, AND NOT A PRIVILEGE TAX, WAS BEFORE
THE COURT.  IN ATLANTIC LUMBER CO. V. COMM'R, 298 U.S. 553, INVOLVING
AN EXCISE TAX ON CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN MASSACHUSETTS,
OZARK WAS AGAIN DISTINGUISHED, THIS TIME ON THE GROUND THAT THE LUMBER
CO. WAS ENGAGED IN LOCAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE AND, THEREFORE,
THAT THE BURDEN IMPOSED UPON ITS INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS REMOTE AND
INCIDENTAL.  AGAIN, IN SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148,
OZARK WAS FOUND TO BE INAPPOSITE BECAUSE OF FACTUAL DIFFERENCES. 
SOUTHERN GAS RULED UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TAX ASSESSED ON THE
BASIS OF THE SAME TAX THAT WAS BEFORE THIS COURT IN ANGLO-CHILEAN
NITRATE SALES CORP. V. ALABAMA, SUPRA.  THE STATE TAX WAS HELD
CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE SOUTHERN GAS CASE AS A TAX EXACTED FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS BY A COMPANY IN FACT ENGAGING
IN INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN ALABAMA. 

FN14  MISS.  GEN.  LAWS (1930), C. 88, SEC. 3:  "EVERY PERSON
DESIRING TO ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS, OR EXERCISE ANY PRIVILEGE
HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED, SHALL FIRST, BEFORE COMMENCING SAME, APPLY FOR,
PAY FOR, AND PROCURE FROM THE PROPER OFFICER A PRIVILEGE LICENSE
AUTHORIZING HIM TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS, OR EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGE
SPECIFIED THEREIN; AND THE AMOUNT OF TAX SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING
SCHEDULES IS HEREBY IMPOSED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING AND/OR
CONTINUING IN THE BUSINESSES SET OUT THEREIN." 

ID., SEC. 163:  "UPON EACH PERSON ENGAGING AND/OR CONTINUING IN THIS
STATE IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING A PIPE LINE OR TRANSPORTING IN OR
THROUGH THIS STATE OIL, OR NATURAL, OR ARTIFICIAL GAS, THROUGH PIPES,
AND/OR CONDUITS, A TAX, AS FOLLOWS:  (ON EACH MILE A VARYING TAX THAT
DEPENDED UPON THE DIAMETER OF THE PIPE)." 

FN15  THE SAME RATIONALE HAS LED THIS COURT AT TIMES TO DECLARE
INVALID SIMILAR TAXES ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, ADMITTED TO DO BUSINESS
IN A STATE AND DOING ONLY AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS THROUGH ACTIVITIES
WITHIN THE STATE.  THE LEADING DECISIONS SUPPORTING THIS VIEW (CHENEY
BROTHERS CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S. 147, AND ALPHA PORTLAND CEMENT
CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 268 U.S. 203) HAVE BEEN STRICTLY LIMITED. 
ATLANTIC LUMBER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 298 U.S. 553; CF. SOUTHERN GAS
CORPORATION V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, AT P. 156, AND DISSENT IN ANGLO-CHILEAN
NITRATE SALES CORP. V. ALABAMA, 288 U.S. 218, 229, AT 237.  IN THE
CHENEY CASE AN EXCISE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN
MASSACHUSETTS OF AN UNAPPORTIONED PERCENTAGE OF ITS AUTHORIZED CAPITAL
STOCK (MASS. ACTS, 1909, C. 490, PART III, SEC. 56) WAS INVALIDATED AS
BEING WHOLLY ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALTHOUGH IT MAINTAINED "IN BOSTON A
SELLING OFFICE WITH ONE OFFICE SALESMAN AND FOUR OTHER SALESMEN WHO
TRAVEL THROUGH NEW ENGLAND.  THE SALESMEN SOLICIT AND TAKE ORDERS,
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE HOME OFFICE IN CONNECTICUT, AND IT SHIPS
DIRECTLY TO THE PURCHASERS.  NO STOCK OF GOODS IS KEPT IN THE BOSTON
OFFICE, BUT ONLY SAMPLES USED IN SOLICITING AND TAKING ORDERS.  COPIES
AND RECORDS OF ORDERS ARE RETAINED, BUT NO BOOKKEEPING IS DONE, AND THE
OFFICE MAKES NO COLLECTIONS.  THE SALESMEN AND THE OFFICE RENT ARE PAID
DIRECTLY FROM CONNECTICUT AND THE OTHER EXPENSES OF THE OFFICE ARE PAID
FROM A SMALL DEPOSIT KEPT IN BOSTON FOR THE PURPOSE.  NO OTHER BUSINESS
IS DONE IN THE STATE."  P. 153. 

IN THE ALPHA PORTLAND CASE WHERE, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE TAXPAYER
HAD OBTAINED A RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE, UNDER SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES AN UNAPPORTIONED EXCISE ON THE PRIVILEGE TO DO BUSINESS
IN MASSACHUSETTS WAS INVALIDATED BECAUSE A BURDEN ON COMMERCE. 

FN16  ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 235 U.S. 350, 362; SOUTHERN
GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, SUPRA AT 153, FIRST; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313
U.S. 69, 79; CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, 332 U.S. 155, 158. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA. 

FN18  THIS COURT SAID, 266 U.S. AT 565:  "THE BUSINESS ACTUALLY
CARRIED ON BY APPELLANT WAS EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
MAINTENANCE OF AN OFFICE, THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES, EMPLOYMENT OF
LABOR, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES AND
AUTOMOBILES, AND APPELLANT'S OTHER ACTS WITHIN THE STATE, WERE ALL
EXCLUSIVELY IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS; AND THE PROPERTY
ITSELF, HOWEVER EXTENSIVE OR OF WHATEVER CHARACTER, WAS LIKEWISE
DEVOTED ONLY TO THAT END.  THEY WERE THE MEANS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES BY
WHICH THAT BUSINESS WAS DONE AND IN NO PROPER SENSE CONSTITUTED, OR
CONTRIBUTED TO, THE DOING OF A LOCAL BUSINESS."  SEE ALSO HEYMAN V.
HAYS, 236 U.S. 178, 185. 

FN19  CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. BACKUS, 154 U.S. 439, 445: 

"THE RULE OF PROPERTY TAXATION IS THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS
THE BASIS OF TAXATION.  IT DOES NOT MEAN A TAX UPON THE EARNINGS WHICH
THE PROPERTY MAKES, NOR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE PROPERTY, BUT
RESTS SOLELY UPON THE VALUE.  BUT THE VALUE OF PROPERTY RESULTS FROM
THE USE TO WHICH IT IS PUT AND VARIES WITH THE PROFITABLENESS OF THAT
USE, PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE, ACTUAL AND ANTICIPATED.  THERE IS NO
PECUNIARY VALUE OUTSIDE OF THAT WHICH RESULTS FROM SUCH USE.  THE
AMOUNT AND PROFITABLE CHARACTER OF SUCH USE DETERMINES THE VALUE, AND
IF PROPERTY IS TAXED AT ITS ACTUAL CASH VALUE IT IS TAXED UPON
SOMETHING WHICH IS CREATED BY THE USES TO WHICH IT IS PUT."  SEE ALSO
NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292; ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V.
OHIO, 165 U.S. 194; WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 125 U.S.
530. 

FN20  IN THE UNION BROKERAGE CASE WE DEALT NOT WITH AN ANNUAL TAX ON
FRANCHISES OR LICENSES BUT WITH A STATE'S SINGLE EXACTION FROM A
FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR THE RIGHT TO USE THE COURTS OF THE STATE.  THE
COMPANY WAS A CUSTOMHOUSE BROKER ENGAGED WHOLLY IN THUS EARNING FEES BY
"'CHARGES UPON THE COMMERCE ITSELF,'" P. 209.  THERE WERE INCIDENTAL
ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS MAIN PURPOSE, P. 208:
"UNION'S BUSINESS IS LOCALIZED IN MINNESOTA, IT BUYS MATERIALS AND
SERVICES FROM PEOPLE IN THAT STATE, IT ENTERS INTO BUSINESS
RELATIONSHIPS, AS THIS CASE, A SUIT AGAINST ITS FORMER PRESIDENT,
ILLUSTRATES, WHOLLY OUTSIDE OF THE ARRANGEMENTS IT MAKES WITH IMPORTERS
OR EXPORTERS." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH VIEWS WHICH I HAVE HERETOFORE EXPRESSED N1, IT IS
ENOUGH FOR ME TO SUSTAIN THE TAX IMPOSED IN THIS CASE THAT IT IS ONE
CLEARLY WITHIN THE STATE'S POWER TO LAY INSOFAR AS ANY LIMITATION OF
DUE PROCESS OR "JURISDICTION TO TAX" IN THAT SENSE IS CONCERNED; FN2
IT IS NONDISCRIMINATORY, THAT IS, PLACES NO GREATER BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN THE STATE PLACES UPON COMPETING INTRASTATE
COMMERCE OF LIKE CHARACTER; FN3  IS DULY APPORTIONED, THAT IS, DOES NOT
UNDERTAKE TO TAX ANY INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON OUTSIDE THE
STATE'S BORDERS; FN4 AND CANNOT BE REPEATED BY ANY OTHER STATE.  FN5 

IN THIS VIEW THE TAX IS NOT DIFFERENT IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL RESPECT, FOR
PURPOSES OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE'S PROHIBITIVE APPLICATION, FROM THE
APPORTIONED TAX UPON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
LEVIED BY NEW YORK AND SUSTAINED BY THE DECISION RECENTLY RENDERED IN
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES V. MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653.  FN6  THAT TAX IS
NONETHELESS ONE UPON THE COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH IT IS APPORTIONED.  THE
APPORTIONMENT, HOWEVER, GUARDS IT FROM THE VICE OF TAXING COMMERCE DONE
IN OTHER STATES AND THUS ALSO FROM MULTIPLICATION BY THEM.  FN7  IN MY
VIEW THE SAME CONSEQUENCE FOLLOWS HERE, IN PRACTICAL EFFECT, BOTH FOR
THE BEARING OF THE TAX AND FOR SAVING ITS VALIDITY. 

IT MAY BE THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THERE IS LITTLE MORE
THAN A VERBAL DIFFERENCE IN SO REGARDING THE TAX AND IN LOOKING AT IT
AS ONE NOT "UPON" THE COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH AFFECTING IT, BUT AS BEING
LAID UPON "INCIDENTS OF THE COMMERCE" OR "TAXABLE EVENTS" TAKING PLACE
IN MISSISSIPPI WHICH ARE REGARDED AS BEING "SUFFICIENTLY SEPARATE FROM"
THE COMMERCE, WHETHER BY REASON OF THE APPORTIONMENT OR OTHERWISE, TO
SUSTAIN THE TAX.  TO THE EXTENT THAT NO GREATER DIFFERENCE IS PRESENTLY
INVOLVED, I ACCEPT THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS AND ITS REASONING. 

BUT THE DIFFERENCE CONCEIVABLY MAY BE OF LARGE, INDEED OF
CONTROLLING, IMPORTANCE FOR OTHER CASES.  AND, SO FAR AS THIS MAY BE
TRUE, I AM UNABLE TO REVERT TO RATIONALIZATIONS WHICH MAKE MERELY
VERBAL FORMULAE WITHOUT REFLECTION OF DIFFERENCES IN SUBSTANTIVE
EFFECTS CONTROLLING IN THESE MATTERS. 

THE NEW YORK LEGS OF THE JOURNEY INVOLVED IN THE CENTRAL GREYHOUND
CASE, SUPRA, ARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS MUCH AS THOSE IN NEW JERSEY
AND PENNSYLVANIA.  THEY DO NOT LOSE THAT CHARACTER MERELY BECAUSE AN
APPORTIONED TAX MAY BE LEVIED UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THEM.  THE
INCIDENCE OF THAT TAX IS FLATLY ON THE COMMERCE, THOUGH ONLY ON THE
LOCAL PORTION OF IT.  SO HERE I DO NOT THINK THAT THE LOCAL ACTIVITIES
FOR THE PROTECTION OF WHICH THE MISSISSIPPI TAX PURPORTS IN TERMS TO BE
LAID BECOME SEPARATE FROM THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS WHICH PETITIONER
CONDUCTS IN MISSISSIPPI, EITHER BY REASON OF THE APPORTIONMENT OR
OTHERWISE.  BUT THEY ARE INCIDENTS OF CARRYING ON THAT BUSINESS TAKING
PLACE IN MISSISSIPPI AND ONLY THERE, FOR WHICH MISSISSIPPI AFFORDS
PROTECTION RECEIVED FROM NO OTHER STATE OR THE UNITED STATES.  NOR CAN
ANY OTHER STATE GIVE THAT PROTECTION.  FOR THAT PORTION OF THE BUSINESS
AND THE PROTECTION GIVEN IT, I THINK THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO LEVY SUCH
A TAX AS HAS BEEN PLACED HERE.  NOTHING IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR ITS
GREAT PURPOSES FORBIDS SUCH AN EXACTION.  NOR IS THE STATE LIMITED TO A
SINGLE EXACTION FOR DIFFERENT OR INDEED LIKE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED, SO
LONG AS EACH IS SAFEGUARDED AGAINST PROHIBITED EFFECTS UPON COMMERCE,
AS ARE THOSE LAID BY MISSISSIPPI, AND THEIR AGGREGATE CANNOT BE SHOWN
TO CONTRAVENE THE CLAUSE'S PURPOSE. 

ACCORDINGLY, I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT. 

FN1  SEE MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327; GENERAL TRADING CO. V.
TAX COMM'N, ID. 335; HARVESTER CO. V. DEPT. OF TREASURY, ID. 340,
SEPARATE OPINION, ID. 349; FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, CONCURRING
OPINION AT 259. 

FN2  SEE 322 U.S. AT 352, 353; NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416,
423, 424. 

FN3  SEE MISS.  CODE SEC. 9313(1942), IMPOSING A COMPARABLE TAX, OF
IDENTICAL AMOUNT, UPON COMPANIES ORGANIZED UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAWS. 
INTRASTATE BUSINESS DONE IN THE STATE OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ONE
TAX OR THE OTHER, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE COMPANY DOING IT WERE
ORGANIZED UNDER THE STATE'S LAWS OR THOSE OF ANOTHER STATE. 

FN4  THE STATUTE, MISS.  CODE SECS. 9313 AND 9314(1942), EXPRESSLY
MEASURES AND LIMITS THE TAX BY AN AMOUNT "EQUAL TO $1.50 OF EACH
$1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF OF THE VALUE OF CAPITAL USED, INVESTED OR
EMPLOYED WITHIN THIS STATE  ..." 

FN5  CF. NOTE 4.  APPORTIONMENT IN ITSELF PREVENTS TAXATION OF
EXTRASTATE "EVENTS" OR PORTIONS OF THE BUSINESS DONE, UNLESS THE
APPORTIONMENT IS ITSELF CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID AS NOT REFLECTING A
SUFFICIENT APPROXIMATION TO WHAT THE STATE MAY BE ENTITLED, ON THE
FACTS, TO TAX.  CF. STONE, C. J., DISSENTING IN NORTHWEST AIRLINES V.
MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292, 315-316, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN6  IT IS, OF COURSE, FOR NEW YORK TO SAY WHETHER ITS TAX WILL BE
APPLIED UPON THE APPORTIONED BASIS PERMITTED BY THE COURT'S OPINION. 
THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT SUCH AN APPLICATION WILL BE
MADE, IN VIEW OF THE STATE'S ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT HERE FOR SUSTAINING
THE TAX TO THAT EXTENT IN THE EVENT ITS UNAPPORTIONED APPLICATION
SHOULD BE FOUND INVALID. 

FN7  SEE FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, 266(CONCURRING OPINION) AND
AUTHORITIES CITED. 

THAT THE APPORTIONMENT IN THE ONE CASE IS MADE IN RELATION TO MILEAGE
AND IN THE OTHER TO THE VALUE OF CAPITAL "USED, INVESTED OR EMPLOYED
WITHIN THIS STATE" IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE, SINCE THE STATES HAVE
CONSIDERABLE LATITUDE IN THE SELECTION OF FAIR METHODS OF MAKING
APPORTIONMENT.  CF. NOTE 5. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON, AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THIS LITIGATION BEGAN BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSISSIPPI
BY A PETITION OF THE MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS COMPANY FOR A REVISION OF THE
FRANCHISE TAX ASSESSED AGAINST THAT COMPANY UNDER THE FRANCHISE TAX LAW
OF MISSISSIPPI.  ON JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL, THE
PARTIES STIPULATED THAT "ALL OF THE FACTS STATED IN SAID PETITION ARE
TRUE AND NO PROOF OF THE SAME SHALL BE REQUIRED IN THIS CAUSE."  FN1
THE DECISION THEREFORE MUST BE BASED ON THE UNDISPUTED ALLEGATIONS OF
THE PETITION. 

PETITIONER, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, OWNS AND OPERATES A PIPELINE FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS RUNNING FROM THE GAS FIELDS IN
LOUISIANA THROUGH ARKANSAS AND MISSISSIPPI INTO TENNESSEE.  PETITIONER
HAS CONDUCTED NO INTRASTATE BUSINESS WITHIN MISSISSIPPI, NOR IS IT
QUALIFIED TO DO SO.  THE COMPANY PAID MISSISSIPPI AN INCOME TAX "UPON
THAT PART OF ITS NET INCOME FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ACTIVITIES IN
MISSISSIPPI."  IT ALSO PAYS AD VALOREM TAXES TO THE SIX COUNTIES
THROUGH WHICH THE MISSISSIPPI PORTION OF ITS INTERSTATE PIPELINE - SOME
135 MILES - RUNS.  THE COUNTIES ARE:  WASHINGTON, BOLIVAR, SUNFLOWER,
COAHOMA, TUNICA, AND DE SOTO.  IT ALSO PAYS AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES
TO THE CITIES OF GREENVILLE (WASHINGTON), INDIANOLA (SUNFLOWER), AND
CLARKSDALE (COAHOMA).  IN ADDITION TO THESE INCOME AND LOCAL AD VALOREM
PROPERTY TAXES, NOT HERE QUESTIONED, THE STATE TAX COMMISSION ASSESSED
THE FRANCHISE TAX IN CONTROVERSY.  THIS WAS DONE UNDER AN ENACTMENT OF
1940, WHICH IMPOSED ON ALL FOREIGN CORPORATIONS "DOING BUSINESS WITHIN
THIS STATE"  FN2  A "FRANCHISE OR EXCISE TAX EQUAL TO $1.50 OF EACH
$1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF OF CAPITAL USED, INVESTED OR EMPLOYED
WITHIN THIS STATE  ...  "  CH. 115 OF THE 1940 GENERAL LAWS OF
MISSISSIPPI SEC. 2; MISS.  CODE SEC. 9314(1942).  THE RECORD IS BARREN
OF ANY INDICATION THAT "THE TAXING POWER EXERTED BY THE STATE BEARS
FISCAL RELATION TO PROTECTION, OPPORTUNITIES AND BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE
STATE," WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444, OTHER THAN
THOSE FOR WHICH THE STATE, THROUGH ITS SUBORDINATE TAXING AUTHORITIES,
HAS ALREADY MADE EXACTION, AS CONTRASTED WITH THOSE WHICH ARE GIVEN NOT
BY THE STATE BUT BY THE UNITED STATES AND FOR WHICH THE STATE MAY NOT
MAKE EXACTION.  CRUTCHER V. KENTUCKY, 141 U.S. 47.  THE RECORD NOT ONLY
MAKES NO SUCH AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING; IT DENIES THE FOUNDATION FOR
SUGGESTING THAT THE STATE HAS GIVEN SOMETHING FOR WHICH IT CAN EXACT A
RETURN.  FOR IT WAS STIPULATED BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION THAT 

"YOUR PETITIONER OBTAINS NO PROTECTION FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
AND ACQUIRES NO POWERS OR PRIVILEGES IN ITS INTERSTATE ACTIVITY OTHER
THAN THE PROTECTION AFFORDED YOUR PETITIONER BY VIRTUE OF THE PAYMENT
OF AN AD VALOREM TAX ON THE PROPERTY USED BY THE COMPANY WHOLLY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  FN3 

EVEN ASSUMING THEREFORE THAT, WHILE MISSISSIPPI CANNOT IMPOSE A TAX
FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE BUSINESS WITHIN
THE STATE, IT CAN CAST AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX ON THE MISSISSIPPI
PORTION OF THE CORPUS OF ITS INTERSTATE PROPERTY IN A FORM HAVING ALL
THE EARMARKS OF A FRANCHISE TAX, THE ASSESSMENT HERE CHALLENGED ON THE
RECORD BEFORE US CANNOT STAND.  AND FOR A VERY SIMPLE REASON. 

THERE WOULD HARDLY BE DISAGREEMENT, I TAKE IT, THAT ALABAMA COULD NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSE AN AD VALOREM TAX ON THESE 135 MILES OF
PIPELINE IN MISSISSIPPI.  THIS IS SO NOT BECAUSE THE PIPELINE DOES NOT
TRAVERSE ALABAMA - CONCEDEDLY THE ASSAILED TAX CANNOT BE SUSTAINED
MERELY BECAUSE THE PIPELINE TRAVELS THROUGH MISSISSIPPI - BUT BECAUSE
ALABAMA AFFORDS NOTHING TO THIS PETITIONER FOR WHICH IT COULD ASK
RECOMPENSE BY WAY OF A TAX.  WE CANNOT KNOW, UNLESS WE ARE INSTRUCTED,
HOW GOVERNMENTAL POWERS ARE DISTRIBUTED IN MISSISSIPPI AS BETWEEN ITS
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.  AND THE PETITIONER HAS NO PROOF OF ITS
ALLEGATIONS THAT THE NINE COUNTY AND CITY TAXING AUTHORITIES TO WHICH
THE PETITIONER PAYS APPROXIMATELY $85,000 A YEAR IN AD VALOREM TAXES
SUPPLY ALL THE BENEFITS WHICH IT ENJOYS FROM THE STATE AND THAT THE
STATE IN SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE FRANCHISE TAX AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS
ASKING SOMETHING (APPROXIMATELY $3,500 A YEAR) FOR NOTHING.  BUT "NO
PROOF OF THE SAME SHALL BE REQUIRED IN THIS CAUSE," ACCORDING TO THE
STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES, TO WHICH THE STATE TAX COMMISSION HAS
SET ITS NAME.  SEE H. HACKFELD & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 197 U.S. 442,
446.  IN HOLDING THAT MISSISSIPPI IS "EXACTING COMPENSATION UNDER THIS
STATUTE FOR THE PROTECTION IT AFFORDS THE ACTIVITIES WITHIN ITS
BORDERS" TO THIS PETITIONER THE COURT IS FLYING IN THE FACE OF THE
RECORD.  ON THE BASIS OF THAT RECORD MISSISSIPPI CAN NO MORE EXACT THIS
TAX AGAINST THIS PIPELINE THAN COULD ALABAMA.  FOR WE ARE ALL AGREED
THAT WHERE THE ONLY "LOCAL INCIDENT" IS THE FACT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
- THAT THE INTERSTATE PIPELINE GOES THROUGH MISSISSIPPI - THE TAX IS
NECESSARILY A TAX UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE PUT AN END TO THE POWER OF THE STATES TO CHARGE FOR
THAT PRIVILEGE. 

BUT IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WE ARE BARRED FROM REACHING THIS CONCLUSION,
THOUGH THE RECORD COMPELS IT, BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH AN ISSUE NOT BEFORE
US.  LET US SEE.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI PRESENTED THIS QUESTION: 

"ADMITTEDLY PETITIONER IS ENGAGED IN MISSISSIPPI SOLELY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IT PAYS TO MISSISSIPPI AD VALOREM AND INCOME TAXES AND THUS
CONTRIBUTES MATERIALLY TO THE COST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.  AN
UNDOMESTICATED FOREIGN CORPORATION HAS THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN
MISSISSIPPI IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE PRIVILEGE AS
THE PRIVILEGE FLOWS FROM THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND MAY NOT BE DIRECTLY BURDENED BY THE IMPOSITION OF A
LOCAL 'FRANCHISE OR EXCISE TAX.'" 

BY THIS STATEMENT THE PETITIONER CLEARLY ASSERTED THAT INSOFAR AS
MISSISSIPPI HAS POWER TO TAX THIS INTERSTATE BUSINESS FOR THE
PROTECTION ACCORDED THE "LOCAL INCIDENTS" OF THAT BUSINESS, THE TAXES
LEVIED BY THE STATE THROUGH ITS LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITIES EXHAUSTED THE
POWER.  TO TAX BEYOND THAT IS A BALD TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IF WE WERE PRECLUDED FROM DECIDING A CASE
OTHERWISE THAN BY THE PRECISE COURSE OF ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY COUNSEL,
MANY OF OUR OPINIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE DELETED FROM THE UNITED STATES
REPORTS. 

THE COURT HOWEVER ATTEMPTS TO DEAL WITH THE CONTENTION.  AS I
UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S OPINION, IT ARGUES THAT EVEN IF IT BE TRUE THAT
THIS TAX DOES NOT RECOMPENSE THE STATE FOR THE LOCAL PROTECTION
ACCORDED THE PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES, THIS IS WHOLLY IMMATERIAL AS THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI HAS GIVEN THE TAX A CONTRARY
INTERPRETATION.  THE OPINION OFFERS THE EXTRAORDINARY SUGGESTION THAT
ALTHOUGH THE STATE TAX COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE CONCEDED THAT
THE EXACTION AS A MATTER OF FACT AFFORDED NO PROTECTION, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT MAY DISREGARD SUCH A CONCESSION OF FACT, HAVING ALL THE
FORCE OF PROOF, AND HOLD AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT PROTECTION BEYOND THAT
FOR WHICH TAXES WERE ALREADY IMPOSED WAS ENJOYED BY THE INTERSTATE
BUSINESS. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI PURPORTED TO DO
NO SUCH THING.  ON THE CONTRARY, ITS OPINION CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"DOES THE FRANCHISE TAX HERE DEMANDED AMOUNT TO ENOUGH TO HAVE ANY
SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT TO BLOCK OR IMPEDE THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, OR IS
IT AT ALL OUT OF REASONABLE PROPORTION TO THE SERVICES AND PROTECTION
WHICH MUST BE FURNISHED BY THE STATE IN AND ABOUT THE STATED LOCAL
ACTIVITIES?  THE FRANCHISE TAX DEMANDED IS APPROXIMATELY $3,400 PER
ANNUM, WHEREAS THE AD VALOREM TAXES ARE APPROXIMATELY $82,000 A YEAR,
WHENCE THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THIS LAST QUESTION MUST BE IN THE
NEGATIVE."  (201 MISS.  670, 676.) 

OF COURSE, A STATE TAX ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT BECOME A VALID
ONE MERELY BECAUSE "IT'S ONLY A LITTLE ONE."  AND EVEN IN THESE DAYS,
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXACTION BY A STATE OF $3,400 IS NOT DE MINIMIS. 

BUT EVEN IF THE STATE COURT'S OPINION WERE SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE
CONSTRUCTION ACCORDED IT BY THIS COURT, ITS IPSE DIXIT IN APPLYING THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE WOULD NOT BE BINDING ON THIS COURT.  OF COURSE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE IS FOR THE STATE COURT.  BUT THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE STATUTE WHICH THIS COURT NOW ATTRIBUTES TO THE STATE SUPREME
COURT, WHEREBY THE TAX IS IMPOSED NOT FOR ANY "LOCAL INCIDENTS" -
BECAUSE THESE HAVE ALREADY BEEN FULLY TAXED - MAKES CLEAR BEYOND
PERADVENTURE THAT IT IS A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN THE DOING
OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, AND SUCH A TAX IS, OF COURSE,
INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

IT IS A NOVEL ABDICATION OF THIS COURT'S FUNCTION THAT WE ARE BOUND
BY A STATE COURT'S VIEWS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF A STATE
TAX ON INTERSTATE BUSINESS, BUT ARE NOT BOUND BY AN UNAMBIGUOUS
STIPULATION BY THE STATE THAT NO PROTECTION WAS AFFORDED BY THE STATE
TO THE TAXABLE LOCAL INCIDENTS OF THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS BEYOND THAT
FOR WHICH THE STATE, THROUGH ITS LOCAL AGENCIES, HAS ALREADY LEVIED THE
TAX. 

A STATE MAY OF COURSE INCREASE THE RATE OF A PROPERLY APPORTIONED AD
VALOREM TAX OF AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  COMPARE WALLACE V. HINES, 253
U.S. 66.  BUT IT CAN DO SO ONLY BY INCREASING THE RATE.  THE MERE FACT
THAT THE SAME NUMBER OF DOLLARS COULD HAVE BEEN EXACTED BY THE STATE IN
A CONSTITUTIONAL WAY CANNOT LEGALIZE EVERY TAX, "AS THOUGH THE AD
VALOREM RATE HAD BEEN INCREASED."  BECAUSE A STATE COULD OBTAIN TWICE
THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT IT GETS FROM AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS BY
INCREASING THE AD VALOREM RATE DOES NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY JUSTIFY A TAX
WHICH, BY VIRTUE OF A STIPULATION HAVING THE FORCE OF TRUTH, IS NOT
REFERABLE TO ANY PROTECTION WHICH THE STATE ACCORDS. 

THESE ARE NOT ABSTRACT OBJECTIONS AGAINST DISREGARDING THE TAX WHICH
THE STATE HAS IN FACT LEVIED AND TREATING IT AS THOUGH IT LEVIED SOME
OTHER TAX.  PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS PRECLUDE SUCH A PATENT ENDEAVOR TO
CIRCUMVENT THE RESTRICTIONS THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PLACES UPON THE
TAXING POWERS OF THE STATES.  A STATE LEGISLATURE MAY BE READY TO LEVY
A TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE -
AS LEGISLATURES HAVE AGAIN AND AGAIN ATTEMPTED TO DO - AND NOT BE
PREPARED TO INCREASE OUTRIGHT THE AD VALOREM RATE. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT AN OTHERWISE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX MAY BE TREATED
"AS THOUGH THE AD VALOREM RATE HAD BEEN INCREASED" IS AN EASY WAY OF
SUSTAINING ALMOST EVERY TAX THAT WOULD OTHERWISE FALL UNDER THE BAN OF
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BY TRANSMUTING IT INTO AN ASSUMED INCREASE IN THE
RATE OF AN AD VALOREM TAX.  THE SUGGESTION HAS THE MERIT OF
INVENTIVENESS.  IN THE COMPETITION FOR REVENUE AMONG THE STATES, IT IS
AN INVENTIVENESS THAT SUBJECTS THE HITHERTO GREAT BOON OF FREE TRADE
ACROSS STATE LINES TO THE BANE OF MULTITUDINOUS LOCAL TARIFFS. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE STIPULATION, IN FULL, IS AS FOLLOWS:
"THAT ALL OF THE FACTS STATED IN SAID PETITION ARE TRUE AND NO PROOF
OF THE SAME SHALL BE REQUIRED IN THIS CAUSE.  THE STIPULATION THAT THE
FACTS ARE TRUE SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE FACTS STATED IN THE PETITION AND
THE DEFENDANTS SHALL NOT, BY VIRTUE OF THIS STIPULATION, BE CONSIDERED
OR HELD TO HAVE AGREED WITH ANY OF THE LEGAL PROPOSITIONS AND ARGUMENTS
MADE BY THE MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS COMPANY IN SAID PETITION AS THE PARTIES
RECOGNIZE THAT THESE LEGAL QUESTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ARE FOR
DETERMINATION BY THE COURT." 

FN2  THE STATUTE DEFINED "DOING BUSINESS" TO "MEAN AND INCLUDE EACH
AND EVERY ACT, POWER OR PRIVILEGE EXERCISED OR ENJOYED IN THIS STATE,
AS AN INCIDENT TO, OR BY VIRTUE OF THE POWERS AND PRIVILEGES ACQUIRED
BY THE NATURE OF SUCH ORGANIZATION, WHETHER THE FORM OF EXISTENCE BE
CORPORATE, ASSOCIATE, JOINT STOCK COMPANY OR COMMON LAW TRUST."  MISS. 
CODE SEC. 9312(1942). 

FN3  PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL TAXES PAID BY THE
PETITIONER FOR SUCH PROTECTION TO THE NINE COUNTY AND CITY TAXING
AUTHORITIES, WHERE NOTHING ELSE APPEARS IN THE RECORD EXCEPT THE
EXACTION, THIS UNCONTROVERTED ALLEGATION MUST CONTROL OVER THE
PRESUMPTIVE INFERENCE THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE DRAWN IN FAVOR OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE STATE'S EXACTION.  THIS COURT, AS THE SPECIAL GUARDIAN
OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, OUGHT NOT TO INDULGE IN CASUISTIC ASSUMPTIONS
THAT THE ALLEGATIONS LEFT UNCONTROVERTED BY THE STATE DO NOT CORRESPOND
TO THE REALITIES OF THE MISSISSIPPI SITUATION. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. C.I.O., 335 U.S. 106 


NO. 695.  ARGUED APRIL 28-29, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1948.  - 77
F.SUPP.  355, AFFIRMED. 


A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS PRESIDENT WERE INDICTED FOR VIOLATIONS OF
SEC. 313 OF THE CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT OF 1925, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 304
OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, WHICH PROHIBITS
CONTRIBUTIONS OR EXPENDITURES BY CORPORATIONS AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL ELECTIONS.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THE
LABOR ORGANIZATION MADE, AND ITS PRESIDENT CONSENTED TO, EXPENDITURES
FOR THE PUBLICATION OF A WEEKLY PERIODICAL, IN A CERTAIN ISSUE OF WHICH
APPEARED AN ARTICLE BY ITS PRESIDENT URGING MEMBERS TO VOTE FOR A
PARTICULAR CANDIDATE IN A FORTHCOMING CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION; AND THAT
IT MADE EXPENDITURES FOR THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXTRA
COPIES OF THAT ISSUE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION; BUT IT DID NOT
CHARGE THAT FREE COPIES WERE DISTRIBUTED TO NONSUBSCRIBERS,
NONPURCHASERS OR PERSONS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COPIES AS MEMBERS OF
THE UNION.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ACT, SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO EXPENDITURES BY LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL ELECTIONS, VIOLATED THE FIRST
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  HELD: 

1.  THE INDICTMENT DOES NOT STATE AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 313 OF THE
ACT.  PP. 107-110, 120-124. 

2.  THE INTERPRETATION HERE PLACED ON SEC. 313 IS SUPPORTED BY THE
HISTORY, THE LANGUAGE, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION, AND BY THE FACT
THAT GRAVE DOUBT AS TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY WOULD ARISE WERE IT
CONSTRUED AS APPLICABLE TO THE ACTS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  PP. 113
122. 

3.  ON REVIEW UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, THIS COURT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 313 WHEN THE
INDICTMENT DOES NOT STATE AN OFFENSE UNDER IT.  P. 110. 

UNITED STATES V. CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

RESPONDENTS, A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND AN OFFICER THEREOF, WERE
INDICTED FOR VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 313 OF THE CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, AS
AMENDED BY SEC. 304 OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHALLENGED PROVISION OF THE ACT.  77
F.SUPP.  355.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  AFFIRMED ON ANOTHER GROUND, P. 124. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL PRESENTS A PROBLEM AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC.
313 OF THE FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT OF 1925, AS AMENDED BY SEC.
304 OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947.  SECTION 313 OF THE
FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT NOW READS AS STATED IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 

AN INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED AT THE JANUARY 1948 TERM IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON TWO COUNTS
CHARGING IN COUNT I THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND IN
COUNT II ITS PRESIDENT, PHILIP MURRAY, WITH VIOLATION OF SEC. 313 OF
THE FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT BECAUSE OF THE PUBLICATION AND
DISTRIBUTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF AN ISSUE, VOL. 10, NO. 28,
UNDER DATE OF JULY 14, 1947, OF "THE CIO NEWS," A WEEKLY PERIODICAL
OWNED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CIO AT THE EXPENSE AND FROM THE FUNDS OF THE
CIO AND WITH THE CONSENT OF ITS PRESIDENT, MR. MURRAY.  THE NUMBER OF
"THE CIO NEWS" IN QUESTION CARRIED UPON ITS FRONT PAGE A STATEMENT BY
MR. MURRAY AS PRESIDENT OF THE CIO, URGING ALL MEMBERS OF THE CIO TO
VOTE FOR JUDGE ED GARMATZ, THEN A CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS IN MARYLAND AT
A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD JULY 15, 1947.  THE STATEMENT SAID IT WAS
MADE DESPITE SEC. 313 IN THE BELIEF THAT THE SECTION WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT ABRIDGED RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS
AND FREE ASSEMBLAGE, GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 

THE DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT
SEC. 313 AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED AND UPON ITS FACE ABRIDGED AS TO THE
CIO AND ITS MEMBERS AND MR. MURRAY FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND
ASSEMBLY AND THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION; THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WAS ARBITRARY AND THE PROVISIONS VAGUE IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; AND THAT THE TERMS OF THE SECTION
WERE AN INVASION OF THE RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS, PROTECTED BY THE NINTH
AND TENTH AMENDMENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE MOTION TO
DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT AS "NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST CAN BE FOUND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION" THE ASSERTED ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOMS
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS UNJUSTIFIED.  FN2 77 F.SUPP.  355.  IN THE
ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS, THE DISTRICT COURT DEFINED ITS
RULING AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  THAT THAT PORTION OF SECTION 313 OF THE CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 304 OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT,
1947, WHICH PROHIBITS EXPENDITURES BY ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION AT WHICH PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS OR A SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE IN, OR A DELEGATE
OR RESIDENT COMMISSIONER TO CONGRESS ARE TO BE VOTED FOR, OR IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY PRIMARY ELECTION OR POLITICAL CONVENTION OR CAUCUS
HELD TO SELECT CANDIDATES FOR ANY OF THE FOREGOING OFFICES, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL." 

WE ACCEPTED JURISDICTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL UNDER THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 682. 

THE BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED TO US SUPPORT AND ATTACK THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 313 OF THE FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT ON
ITS FACE - AT LEAST SO FAR AS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS DECLARED IN THE
ABOVE ORDER.  WE DO NOT ADMIT ANY DUTY IN THIS COURT TO PASS UPON SUCH
A CONTENTION ON AN APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT EXCEPT IN
CASES OF LOGICAL NECESSITY.  UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1. 
ALTHOUGH THE CASE TURNED BELOW ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
PROVISION, THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO PASS UPON
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A FEDERAL STATUTE WHERE THE INDICTMENT DOES
NOT STATE AN OFFENSE UNDER ITS TERMS.  UNITED STATES V. L. COHEN
GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81, 88, 97.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CARBONE,
327 U.S. 633.  OUR FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE INDICTMENT
STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 313.  AS WE HEREAFTER CONCLUDE THAT THIS
INDICTMENT DOES NOT CHARGE ACTS EMBRACED WITHIN ITS SCOPE, THIS OPINION
IS LIMITED TO THAT ISSUE. 

INDICTMENT. - THE PRESENTLY ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THE INDICTMENT ARE SET
OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN3 IT WILL BE NOTED THAT PARAGRAPH (3) DOES NOT
ALLEGE THE SOURCE OF THE CIO FUNDS.  THE PARAGRAPH INDICATES ON ITS
FACE THAT "THE CIO NEWS" WAS A REGULARLY PUBLISHED WEEKLY PERIODICAL OF
WHICH THE CHALLENGED ISSUE WAS VOL. 10, NO. 28.  THE FUNDS USED MAY
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM SUBSCRIPTIONS OF ITS READERS OR FROM PORTIONS
OF CIO MEMBERSHIP DUES, DIRECTLY ALLOCATED BY THE MEMBERS TO PAY FOR
THE "NEWS," OR FROM OTHER GENERAL OR SPECIAL RECEIPTS. 

WE DO NOT READ THE INDICTMENT AS CHARGING AN EXPENDITURE BY THE CIO
IN CIRCULATING FREE COPIES TO NONSUBSCRIBERS, NONPURCHASERS OR AMONG
CITIZENS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COPIES OF "THE CIO NEWS," AS MEMBERS
OF THE UNION.  THE INDICTMENT, COUNT I, PARAGRAPH (3), CHARGED THE CIO
WITH MAKING EXPENDITURES FROM ITS FUNDS FOR "THE COST OF DISTRIBUTION"
OF THE PAPER, IN PARAGRAPH (6)(A), WITH PAYING APPROXIMATELY $100 FOR
POSTAL CHARGES FOR THE CHALLENGED ISSUE AND "CAUSING SAID ARTICLE TO BE
DISTRIBUTED IN THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND AND ELSEWHERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIAL ELECTION HELD IN
THAT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY 1947."  IN
PARAGRAPH (6)(B) THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT CERTAIN EXTRA COPIES. 
THESE ARE SET OUT IN THE MARGINAL NOTE 3 SUPRA.  THE EXTRAS WE ASSUME
WERE PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF MR. MURRAY IN THE ARTICLE.  FN4
WE CONCLUDE THAT THE INDICTMENT CHARGES NOTHING MORE AS TO THE EXTRAS
THAN THAT EXTRA COPIES OF THE "NEWS" WERE PUBLISHED FOR DISTRIBUTION
AND WERE DISTRIBUTED IN REGULAR COURSE TO MEMBERS OR PURCHASERS AND
THAT NO ALLEGATION HAS BEEN MADE OF EXPENDITURES FOR "FREE"
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER TO THOSE NOT REGULARLY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
IT. 

SCOPE OF SECTION 313.  - THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SECTION AS APPLIED
TO THIS INDICTMENT TURNS ON THE RANGE OF THE WORD "EXPENDITURE," ADDED
TO THE SECTION BY SEC. 304 OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF
1947, AS INDICATED IN NOTE 1, SUPRA.  "EXPENDITURE" AS HERE USED IS NOT
A WORD OF ART.  IT HAS NO DEFINITELY DEFINED MEANING AND THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE WORD TO PROHIBITION OF PARTICULAR ACTS MUST BE
DETERMINED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ITS EMPLOYMENT.  THE
REACH OF ITS MEANING RAISED QUESTIONS DURING CONGRESSIONAL
CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL WHEN IT CONTAINED THE PRESENT TEXT OF THE
A CORPORATELY OWNED NEWSPAPER?  93 CONG. REC. 6438.  COULD
UNINCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATIONS MAKE EXPENDITURES?  ID., 6439.  COULD
A UNION-OWNED RADIO STATION GIVE TIME FOR A POLITICAL SPEECH?  ID.,
6439.  WHAT OF COMMENTS BY A RADIO COMMENTATOR?  ID., 6439.  IS IT AN
EXPENDITURE ONLY WHEN A IS RUNNING AGAINST B OR IS FREE, FAVORABLE
PUBLICITY FOR PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES ILLEGAL?  ID., 6440.  WHAT OF
CORPORATELY OWNED RELIGIOUS PAPERS SUPPORTING A CANDIDATE ON MORAL
GROUNDS?  THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE?  ID., 6440. 

THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IS A DOMINANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING MEANING. 
FN5  THERE IS NO BETTER KEY TO A DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION THAN THE LAW FROM WHICH THE CHALLENGED STATUTE EMERGED. 
REMEDIAL LAWS ARE TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
AND PRIOR ENACTMENTS.  FN6  NOR, WHERE DOUBT EXISTS, SHOULD WE
DISREGARD INFORMED CONGRESSIONAL DISCUSSION.  FN7 

ACT OF JANUARY 26, 1907, WHICH PROVIDED: 

"THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY NATIONAL BANK, OR ANY CORPORATION
ORGANIZED BY AUTHORITY OF ANY LAWS OF CONGRESS, TO MAKE A MONEY
CONTRIBUTION IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION TO ANY POLITICAL OFFICE. 
IT SHALL ALSO BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CORPORATION WHATEVER TO MAKE A MONEY
CONTRIBUTION IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION AT WHICH PRESIDENTIAL AND
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS OR A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS IS TO BE
VOTED FOR OR ANY ELECTION BY ANY STATE LEGISLATURE OF A UNITED STATES
SENATOR.  ...  "  34 STAT. 864-65. 

THIS LEGISLATION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED BY TWO CONSIDERATIONS. 
FIRST, THE NECESSITY FOR DESTROYING THE INFLUENCE OVER ELECTIONS WHICH
CORPORATIONS EXERCISED THROUGH FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION.  FN8  SECOND,
THE FEELING THAT CORPORATE OFFICIALS HAD NO MORAL RIGHT TO USE
CORPORATE FUNDS FOR CONTRIBUTION TO POLITICAL PARTIES WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.  FN9 

THE NEXT IMPORTANT LEGISLATION WAS THE FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT,
1925.  THIS STATUTE WAS THE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THE DECISION OF
THIS COURT IN NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 232.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299.  THE NEWBERRY CASE HELD THAT FEDERAL
LIMITATION UPON EXPENDITURES BY CANDIDATES WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES MADE IN THE COURSE OF A PRIMARY ELECTION FOR
THE SENATE.  FN10  WHILE THAT CASE DID NOT DIRECTLY CONCERN ITSELF WITH
THE ACT OF 1907, IT WAS WIDELY CONSTRUED TO HAVE INVALIDATED ALL
FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION RELATING TO NOMINATIONS. 
THEREFORE, THE 1925 ACT REENACTED THE EARLIER PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES WITH TWO SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES.  THE PHRASE "MONEY CONTRIBUTION" OF 1907 WAS CHANGED TO READ
"CONTRIBUTION,"  FN11  AND PRIMARIES AND CONVENTIONS WERE EXPRESSLY
EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE LEGISLATION.  FN12 

THE STATUTE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SEC. 304 IN TIME WAS THE WAR LABOR
DISPUTES ACT OF 1943.  FN13 THIS ACT EXTENDED, FOR THE DURATION OF THE
WAR,  FN14  THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACT OF 1925 TO LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS.  ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES CONGRESSIONAL BELIEF
THAT LABOR UNIONS SHOULD THEN BE PUT UNDER THE SAME RESTRAINTS AS HAD
BEEN IMPOSED UPON CORPORATIONS.  IT WAS FELT THAT THE INFLUENCE WHICH
LABOR UNIONS EXERCISED OVER ELECTIONS THROUGH MONETARY EXPENDITURES
SHOULD BE MINIMIZED,  FN15  AND THAT IT WAS UNFAIR TO INDIVIDUAL UNION
MEMBERS TO PERMIT THE UNION LEADERSHIP TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
GENERAL UNION FUNDS TO A POLITICAL PARTY WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
MIGHT OPPOSE.  FN16 

WHEN CONGRESS BEGAN TO CONSIDER THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF
1947 IT HAD AS A GUIDE THE 1944 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AN ELECTION
WHICH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER THE ABOVE AMENDMENT TO THE ACT OF 1925. 
IN ANALYZING THE EXPERIENCE OF THAT ELECTION, A SERIOUS DEFECT WAS
FOUND IN THE WORDING OF THE ACT OF 1925.  THE DIFFICULTY WAS THAT THE
WORD "CONTRIBUTION" WAS READ NARROWLY BY VARIOUS SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES INVESTIGATING THE 1944 AND 1946 CAMPAIGNS.  FN17  THE
CONCEPT OF "CONTRIBUTION" WAS THOUGHT TO BE CONFINED TO DIRECT GIFTS OR
DIRECT PAYMENTS.  FN18 SINCE IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE STATUTE AS
CONSTRUED COULD EASILY BE CIRCUMVENTED THROUGH INDIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS,
SEC. 304 EXTENDED THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 313 TO "EXPENDITURES."  FN19 

THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947 WAS THE SUBJECT OF
EXTENSIVE DEBATES IN CONGRESS.  EMBRACING AS IT DID A NUMBER OF
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, THE DISCUSSION NECESSARILY COVERED A WIDE RANGE. 
IT IS NOT SURPRISING, THEREFORE, TO FIND CONGRESSIONAL EXPLANATION OF
THE INTENDED SCOPE OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SEC. 304, IN ISSUE
HERE, SCANTY AND INDECISIVE.  WE FIND, HOWEVER, IN THE SENATE DEBATES
DEFINITE INDICATION THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF THE SECTION AS AN EXPENDITURE THE COSTS OF THE PUBLICATION
DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT.  AS WE HAVE STATED ABOVE, THERE ARE
NUMEROUS SUPPOSITIONAL INSTANCES OF ACTS BY CORPORATIONS OR UNIONS THAT
APPROACH THE BORDER LINE OF THE EXPENDITURES THAT ARE DECLARED UNLAWFUL
BY SEC. 313 OF THE CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.  AS WE ARE DEALING ON THIS
APPEAL WITH THE SCOPE OF SEC. 313 AS APPLIED TO AN INDICTMENT THAT
CHARGES CERTAIN ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL ACTS, WE PROPOSE TO CONFINE OUR
EXAMINATION OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO THE STATEMENTS THAT TEND TO SHOW
WHETHER THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE WAS TO FORBID THE CHALLENGED
PUBLICATION.  FOR EXAMPLE, SENATOR TAFT, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE
ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, AND ONE OF THE CONFEREES FOR THE SENATE,
ANSWERED INQUIRIES AS FOLLOWS (93 CONG. REC. 6437, 6438, 6440): 

"MR. BARKLEY.  SUPPOSE THE PARTICULAR PUBLICATION REFERRED TO BY THE
SENATOR FROM FLORIDA IS PUBLISHED AND PAID FOR BY SUBSCRIPTIONS PAID TO
THE PUBLICATION BY THE MEMBERSHIP OF THAT RAILWAY LABOR ORGANIZATION? 
"MR. TAFT.  THAT WILL BE PERFECTLY LAWFUL.  THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD
BE DONE. 

"MR. BARKLEY.  AND SUPPOSE IT IS NOT PAID FOR BY UNION FUNDS
COLLECTED FROM THE VARIOUS LABOR UNIONS? 

"MR. TAFT.  THAT WILL BE PERFECTLY PROPER. 

     .    .         .         .         . 

"MR. BARKLEY.  THE SENATOR FROM OHIO REFERRED TO THE LAW PROHIBITING
THE MAKING OF DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS AS A
JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING THE SAME PROVISION IN THE CASE OF LABOR
UNIONS.  LET US CONSIDER THE PUBLICATION OF A CORPORATION WHICH, DAY
AFTER DAY, TAKES A POSITION AGAINST ONE CANDIDATE AND IN FAVOR OF
ANOTHER CANDIDATE, AND DOES SO IN ITS EDITORIALS.  THE EDITORIALS
OCCUPY SPACE IN THAT NEWSPAPER OR PUBLICATION, AND THE SPACE COSTS A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY.  IS THAT A DIRECT OR AN INDIRECT CONTRIBUTION
TO A CAMPAIGN; AND IF IT IS NEITHER, WHAT IS IT? 

"MR. TAFT.  I WOULD SAY THAT IS THE OPERATION OF THE NEWSPAPER
ITSELF. 

"MR. BARKLEY.  THAT IS TRUE; IT IS THE OPERATION OF THE NEWSPAPER. 
BUT I GATHERED THE IMPRESSION THAT IN REFERRING TO THE PRESENT LAW
PROHIBITING THE MAKING OF CONTRIBUTIONS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY
CORPORATIONS, THE SENATOR INFERRED THAT IF A CORPORATION PUBLISHES A
NEWSPAPER - AS MOST OF THEM DO - AND USES THE EDITORIALS IN THAT
PUBLICATION IN ADVOCACY OF OR OPPOSITION TO ANY CANDIDATE, AT LEAST
THAT IS A DIRECT CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAMPAIGN.  IT COULD NOT BE
ANYTHING ELSE. 

"MR. TAFT.  I DO NOT THINK IT IS EITHER A DIRECT OR AN INDIRECT
CONTRIBUTION.  I DO NOT THINK IT IS AN EXPENDITURE OF THE SORT
PROHIBITED, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME IT IS SIMPLY THE ORDINARY OPERATION
OF THE PARTICULAR CORPORATION'S BUSINESS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"MR. BARKLEY.  MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME ASK THE SENATOR THIS QUESTION:
LET US SUPPOSE A LABOR ORGANIZATION PUBLISHES A NEWSPAPER FOR THE
INFORMATION AND BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS, AND LET US SUPPOSE THAT IT IS
PUBLISHED REGULARLY, WHETHER DAILY OR WEEKLY OR MONTHLY, AND IS PAID
FOR FROM A FUND CREATED BY THE PAYMENT OF DUES INTO THE ORGANIZATION IT
REPRESENTS.  LET US ASSUME THAT THE NEWSPAPER IS NOT SOLD ON THE
STREETS, AND LET US ASSUME FURTHER THAT A CERTAIN SUBSCRIPTION BY THE
MONTH OR BY THE YEAR IS NOT CHARGED FOR THE NEWSPAPER.  DOES THE
SENATOR FROM OHIO ADVISE US THAT UNDER THIS MEASURE SUCH A NEWSPAPER
COULD NOT TAKE AN EDITORIAL POSITION WITH RESPECT TO ANY CANDIDATE FOR
PUBLIC OFFICE, WITHOUT VIOLATING THIS MEASURE? 

"MR. TAFT.  IF IT IS SUPPORTED BY UNION FUNDS, I DO NOT THINK IT
COULD.  IF THE NEWSPAPER IS PREPARED AND DISTRIBUTED AND CIRCULATED BY
MEANS OF THE EXPENDITURE OF UNION FUNDS, THEN HOW COULD A LINE BE DRAWN
BETWEEN THAT AND POLITICAL LITERATURE OR PAMPHLETS OR PUBLICATIONS OF
THAT NATURE?  IT IS PERFECTLY EASY FOR A LABOR UNION TO PUBLISH
LAWFULLY A BONA FIDE NEWSPAPER AND TO CHARGE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR THAT
NEWSPAPER, EITHER BY ITSELF OR AS A CORPORATION. 

     .   .         .         .         . 

"MR. BALL.  IN THE CASE OF MOST UNION PAPERS, AS I UNDERSTAND, THE
SUBSCRIPTIONS FROM THE UNION MEMBERS ARE COLLECTED ALONG WITH THE DUES,
BUT THEY ARE AN EARMARKED PORTION OF THE DUES WHICH THE UNION COLLECTS
AND REMITS TO THE PAPER IN THE FORM OF SUBSCRIPTIONS.  I TAKE IT THAT
WOULD BE IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY FROM THE CASE WHERE THE UNION MAKES A
BLANKET SUBSCRIPTION AND AN APPROPRIATION OUT OF UNION DUES. 

"MR. TAFT.  I THINK IF THE PAPER IS, SO TO SPEAK, A GOING CONCERN, IT
CAN TAKE WHATEVER POSITION IT WANTS TO. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"MR. MAGNUSON.  TEAMSTERS' UNIONS PUBLISH NEWSPAPERS DEALING WITH
MATTERS IN WHICH SUCH UNIONS ARE INTERESTED.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF MANY
OTHER UNIONS.  IF THE PENDING MEASURE BECOMES A LAW, FROM NOW ON SUCH
UNIONS WILL BE PROHIBITED FROM ADVOCATING IN THEIR NEWSPAPERS THE
SUPPORT OF ANY POLITICAL CANDIDATES. 

"MR. TAFT.  THAT IS CORRECT, UNLESS THEY SELL THE PAPERS THEY PUBLISH
TO THEIR MEMBERS, IF THE MEMBERS DESIRE TO BUY THEM.  IN SUCH A CASE
THERE WOULD BE NO EXPENDITURE FOR SUCH A PURPOSE OF UNION FUNDS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"MR. MAGNUSON.  MR. PRESIDENT, IF THE SENATOR WILL YIELD, LET ME ASK
HIM ANOTHER QUESTION.  ALL THE FUNDS OF LABOR UNIONS COME FROM DUES
PAID BY THEIR MEMBERS.  ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNIONS ARE BASED UPON
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS PROVIDED BY DUES.  THAT MONEY IS IN THE UNION'S
TREASURY.  IF THE PENDING BILL SHOULD BECOME LAW IT WOULD MEAN THAT ALL
LABOR ORGANS WHICH ARE NOW IN EXISTENCE WOULD, FROM NOW ON, BE
PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING IN A CAMPAIGN, FAVORING A CANDIDATE,
MENTIONING HIS NAME, OR ENDORSING HIM FOR PUBLIC OFFICE? 

"MR. TAFT.  NO; I DO NOT THINK IT MEANS THAT.  THE UNION CAN ISSUE A
NEWSPAPER, AND CAN CHARGE THE MEMBERS FOR THE NEWSPAPER, THAT IS, THE
MEMBERS WHO BUY COPIES OF THE NEWSPAPER, AND THE UNION CAN PUT SUCH
MATTERS IN THE NEWSPAPER IF IT WANTS TO.  THE UNION CAN SEPARATE THE
PAYMENT OF DUES FROM THE PAYMENT FOR A NEWSPAPER IF ITS MEMBERS ARE
WILLING TO DO SO, THAT IS, IF THE MEMBERS ARE WILLING TO SUBSCRIBE TO
THAT KIND OF A NEWSPAPER.  I PRESUME THE MEMBERS WOULD BE WILLING TO DO
SO.  A UNION CAN PUBLISH SUCH A NEWSPAPER, OR UNIONS CAN DO AS WAS DONE
LAST YEAR, ORGANIZE SOMETHING LIKE THE PAC, A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION,
AND RECEIVE DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS, JUST SO LONG AS MEMBERS OF THE UNION
KNOW WHAT THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO, AND THE DUES WHICH THEY PAY INTO
THE UNION TREASURY ARE NOT USED FOR SUCH PURPOSE." 

SENATOR ELLENDER, ALSO ONE OF THE CONFEREES, MADE THIS STATEMENT: 

"MAY I SAY TO THE SENATOR FROM FLORIDA IT IS ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT
UNION FUNDS ARE USED FOR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS THAT A UNION BECOMES
LIABLE.  MR. GREEN CAN TALK ALL HE WANTS TO, IF HE PAYS FOR HIS OWN
TIME OR IF THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION DESIRE TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR SUCH A PURPOSE.  FOR ANOTHER THING, MOST UNIONS
OPERATE AND MANAGE NEWSPAPERS, AND THE MOST OF THEM ARE MAINTAINED BY
ADVERTISEMENTS OR BY SUBSCRIPTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND FROM
OTHER SOURCES.  THE PROCEEDS FROM SUCH NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT UNION FUNDS. 
IN SUCH CASES THESE NEWSPAPERS CAN PRINT ANYTHING THEY DESIRE, AND THEY
WILL NOT VIOLATE THE LAW, SO LONG AS UNION FUNDS ARE NOT USED TO PAY
FOR THE OPERATION OF THOSE NEWSPAPERS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES."  93
CONG. REC. 6522. 

APPLICATION. - WITH THIS SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AND QUOTATION
OF EXCERPTS FROM DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS CONCERNING SEC. 313, WE TURN TO
ITS INTERPRETATION AND A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IT COVERS THE
CIRCUMSTANCES CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  SOME MEMBERS OF THE COURT,
JOINING IN THIS OPINION, DO NOT PLACE THE RELIANCE UPON LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY THAT THIS OPINION EVIDENCES, BUT REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION
WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THAT HISTORY.  FROM WHAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY
NOTED, IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS WAS KEENLY AWARE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS ON LEGISLATION AND OF THE DANGER OF THE INVALIDATION BY THE
COURTS OF ANY ENACTMENT THAT THREATENED ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOMS OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  IT DID NOT WANT TO PASS ANY LEGISLATION THAT
WOULD THREATEN INTERFERENCES WITH THE PRIVILEGES OF SPEECH OR PRESS OR
THAT WOULD UNDERTAKE TO SUPERSEDE THE CONSTITUTION.  THE OBLIGATION
RESTS ALSO UPON THIS COURT IN CONSTRUING CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS TO
TAKE CARE TO INTERPRET THEM SO AS TO AVOID A DANGER OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  FN20 

IF SEC. 313 WERE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT THE PUBLICATION, BY
CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF CONDUCTING THEIR
AFFAIRS, OF PERIODICALS ADVISING THEIR MEMBERS, STOCKHOLDERS OR
CUSTOMERS OF DANGER OR ADVANTAGE TO THEIR INTERESTS FROM THE ADOPTION
OF MEASURES, OR THE ELECTION TO OFFICE OF MEN ESPOUSING SUCH MEASURES,
THE GRAVEST DOUBT WOULD ARISE IN OUR MINDS AS TO ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY.  FN21  IN SO FAR AS SOME OF THE MANY STATEMENTS MADE
ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS MAY INDICATE THE THOUGHT, AT THE TIME, BY
CERTAIN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 313 CARRIED A
RESTRICTIVE MEANING IN CONFLICT WITH THAT WHICH WE HAVE ADOPTED, WE
HOLD THAT THE LANGUAGE ITSELF, COUPLED WITH THE DANGERS OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, SUPPORTS THE INTERPRETATION WHICH WE HAVE PLACED
UPON IT. 

WHEN CONGRESS COUPLED THE WORD "EXPENDITURE" WITH THE WORD
"CONTRIBUTION," IT DID SO BECAUSE THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF SEC. 313
IN PREVIOUS ELECTIONS SHOWED THE NEED TO STRENGTHEN THE BARS AGAINST
THE MISUSE OF AGGREGATED FUNDS GATHERED INTO THE CONTROL OF A SINGLE
ORGANIZATION FROM MANY INDIVIDUAL SOURCES.  APPARENTLY "EXPENDITURE"
WAS ADDED TO ERADICATE THE DOUBT THAT HAD BEEN RAISED AS TO THE REACH
OF "CONTRIBUTION," NOT TO EXTEND GREATLY THE COVERAGE OF THE SECTION. 
FN22 ONE CAN FIND INDICATIONS IN THE EXCHANGES BETWEEN PARTICIPANTS IN
THE DEBATES THAT INFORMED PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS THOUGHT THAT SEC.
313 WENT SO FAR AS TO FORBID PERIODICALS IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF
PUBLICATION FROM TAKING PART IN PENDING ELECTIONS WHERE THERE WAS NOT
SEGREGATED SUBSCRIPTION, ADVERTISING OR SALES MONEYS ADEQUATE FOR ITS
SUPPORT.  OF COURSE, A PERIODICAL FINANCED BY A CORPORATION OR LABOR
UNION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVOCATING LEGISLATION ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE
SPONSOR OR SUPPORTING CANDIDATES WHOSE VIEWS ARE BELIEVED TO COINCIDE
GENERALLY WITH THOSE DEEMED ADVANTAGEOUS TO SUCH ORGANIZATION IS ON A
DIFFERENT LEVEL FROM NEWSPAPERS DEVOTED SOLELY TO THE DISSEMINATION OF
NEWS BUT THE LINE SEPARATING THE TWO CLASSES IS NOT CLEAR.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF DEFINITE STATUTORY DEMARCATION, THE LOCATION OF THAT LINE
MUST AWAIT THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF FACTS IN INDIVIDUAL CASES.  IT IS
ONE THING TO SAY THAT TRADE OR LABOR UNION PERIODICALS PUBLISHED
REGULARLY FOR MEMBERS, STOCKHOLDERS OR PURCHASERS ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER
SEC. 313 AND QUITE ANOTHER TO SAY THAT IN CONNECTION WITH AN ELECTION
OCCASIONAL PAMPHLETS OR DODGERS OR FREE COPIES WIDELY SCATTERED ARE
FORBIDDEN.  SENATOR TAFT STATED ON THE SENATE FLOOR THAT FUNDS
VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTED FOR ELECTION PURPOSES MIGHT BE USED WITHOUT
VIOLATING THE SECTION AND PAPERS SUPPORTED BY SUBSCRIPTIONS AND SALES
MIGHT LIKEWISE BE PUBLISHED.  FN23  MEMBERS OF UNIONS PAYING DUES AND
STOCKHOLDERS OF CORPORATIONS KNOW OF THE PRACTICE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
ORGANIZATIONS IN REGULARLY PUBLISHING PERIODICALS.  IT WOULD REQUIRE
EXPLICIT WORDS IN AN ACT TO CONVINCE US THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO BAR A
TRADE JOURNAL, A HOUSE ORGAN OR A NEWSPAPER, PUBLISHED BY A
CORPORATION, FROM EXPRESSING VIEWS ON CANDIDATES OR POLITICAL PROPOSALS
IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS PUBLICATION.  IT IS UNDULY STRETCHING
LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT THE MEMBERS OR STOCKHOLDERS ARE UNWILLING
PARTICIPANTS IN SUCH NORMAL ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THE
ADVOCACY THEREBY OF GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS,
AND THE SUPPORT THEREBY OF CANDIDATES THOUGHT TO BE FAVORABLE TO THEIR
INTERESTS. 

IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT THIS INDICTMENT CHARGES ONLY THAT THE CIO
AND ITS PRESIDENT PUBLISHED WITH UNION FUNDS A REGULAR PERIODICAL FOR
THE FURTHERANCE OF ITS AIMS, THAT PRESIDENT MURRAY AUTHORIZED THE USE
OF THOSE FUNDS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THIS ISSUE IN REGULAR COURSE TO
THOSE ACCUSTOMED TO RECEIVE COPIES OF THE PERIODICAL AND THAT THE ISSUE
WITH THE STATEMENT DESCRIBED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS OPINION VIOLATED
SEC. 313 OF THE CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. 

WE ARE UNWILLING TO SAY THAT CONGRESS BY ITS PROHIBITION AGAINST
CORPORATIONS OR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS MAKING AN "EXPENDITURE IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION" OF CANDIDATES FOR FEDERAL OFFICE INTENDED
TO OUTLAW SUCH A PUBLICATION.  WE DO NOT THINK SEC. 313 REACHES SUCH A
USE OF CORPORATE OR LABOR ORGANIZATION FUNDS.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS
TO THE SCOPE OF THIS SECTION WHERE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST AND
NONE UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SECTION. 

OUR CONCLUSION LEADS US TO AFFIRM THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON THE
GROUND HEREIN ANNOUNCED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEC. 304, LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 1947, 61 STAT. 159,
ENACTED JUNE 23, 1947: 

"'SEC. 313.  IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY NATIONAL BANK, OR ANY CORPORATION
ORGANIZED BY AUTHORITY OF ANY LAW OF CONGRESS, TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION
OR EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION TO ANY POLITICAL OFFICE,
OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PRIMARY ELECTION OR POLITICAL CONVENTION OR
CAUCUS HELD TO SELECT CANDIDATES FOR ANY POLITICAL OFFICE, OR FOR ANY
CORPORATION WHATEVER, OR ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION
OR EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION AT WHICH PRESIDENTIAL
AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS OR A SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE IN, OR A
DELEGATE OR RESIDENT COMMISSIONER TO CONGRESS ARE TO BE VOTED FOR, OR
IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PRIMARY ELECTION OR POLITICAL CONVENTION OR
CAUCUS HELD TO SELECT CANDIDATES FOR ANY OF THE FOREGOING OFFICES, OR
FOR ANY CANDIDATE, POLITICAL COMMITTEE, OR OTHER PERSON TO ACCEPT OR
RECEIVE ANY CONTRIBUTION PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION.  EVERY CORPORATION
OR LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH MAKES ANY CONTRIBUTION OR EXPENDITURE IN
VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000; AND
EVERY OFFICER OR DIRECTOR OF ANY CORPORATION, OR OFFICER OF ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION, WHO CONSENTS TO ANY CONTRIBUTION OR EXPENDITURE BY THE
CORPORATION OR LABOR ORGANIZATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN VIOLATION OF
THIS SECTION SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT
MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION "LABOR
ORGANIZATION" MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR ANY AGENCY OR
EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR PLAN, IN WHICH EMPLOYEES
PARTICIPATE AND WHICH EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF
DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES, LABOR DISPUTES, WAGES,
RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR CONDITIONS OF WORK.'"    THE
ADDITIONS OF 1947 ARE ITALICIZED. 

FN2  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, AND THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S.
516, WERE CITED. 

FN3  "(3)  THAT AT ALL THE TIMES HEREINAFTER MENTIONED, THE SAID
DEFENDANT CIO OWNED, COMPOSED, EDITED, AND PUBLISHED A WEEKLY
PERIODICAL KNOWN AS 'THE CIO NEWS', AND THE SAID DEFENDANT CIO PAID ALL
OF THE COSTS AND MADE ALL OF THE EXPENDITURES NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL
TO THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SAID PERIODICAL, 'THE CIO NEWS',
FROM THE FUNDS OF THE SAID DEFENDANT CIO, INCLUDING THE SALARIES OF THE
EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS AND OTHER WRITERS OF TEXTS SET FORTH IN SAID
PERIODICAL INCLUDING ALSO THE COST OF THE PRINTING OF THE SAID
PERIODICAL AND THE COST OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAID PERIODICAL, AND
ALL SUCH PAYMENTS AND EXPENDITURES, INCLUDING THOSE REPRESENTING THE
COST AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ISSUE OF SAID 'THE CIO NEWS' UNDER DATE OF
JULY 14, 1947, AND DESIGNATED AS VOLUME 10, NO. 28, WERE MADE BY SAID
DEFENDANT CIO AT WASHINGTON, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT." 

(6) "(B)  THAT THE DEFENDANT CIO ALSO CAUSED ONE THOUSAND COPIES OF
THE ISSUE OF THE PUBLICATION, 'THE CIO NEWS', DATED JULY 14, 1947, AND
DESIGNATED AS THE ISSUE KNOWN AS VOLUME 10, NO. 28, TO BE SPECIALLY
MOVED AND TRANSPORTED FROM WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INTO THE
THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, BY MAILING THE
SAID ONE THOUSAND EXTRA COPIES TO THE REGIONAL CIO DIRECTOR AT
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, AND CAUSED THE FUNDS OF THE SAID DEFENDANT CIO TO
BE EXPENDED IN PRINTING, PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION OF SAID EXTRA
COPIES OF THE PERIODICAL, 'THE CIO NEWS', IN CONNECTION WITH THE
AFORESAID SPECIAL ELECTION." 

FN4  THE DIRECTION WAS IN THIS FORM:  "I THEREFORE HAVE DIRECTED AND
REQUESTED THE EDITOR OF THE CIO NEWS TO PUBLISH THIS STATEMENT,
INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS, AND TO GIVE TO THIS ISSUE OF THE
CIO NEWS PROPER CIRCULATION AMONG THE MEMBERS OF CIO UNIONS IN THE CITY
OF BALTIMORE AND, PARTICULARLY, WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN
WHICH THIS ELECTION IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE PLACE." 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. KIRBY, 7 WALL.  482, 486-87; HAWAII V.
MANKICHI, 190 U.S. 197, 211; FORT SMITH & WESTERN R. CO. V. MILLS, 253
U.S. 206, 209; UNITED STATES V. KATZ, 271 U.S. 354, 359; UNITED STATES
V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478, 485; KEIFER & KEIFER V. R.F.C.,
306 U.S. 381, 391, N. 4; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310
U.S. 534, 544. 

FN6  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 108; BOSTON SAND CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 278 U.S. 41. 

FN7  HARRISON V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 317 U.S. 476, 479. 

FN8  SEE 40 CONG. REC. 96; 41 CONG. REC. 22. 

FN9  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE ELECTION OF THE
PRESIDENT, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 76(1906); 40 CONG. REC. 96. 

IN 1909 THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH CODIFIED,
REVISED AND AMENDED THE PENAL LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, WAS PASSED.  35
STAT. 1088.  THE ACT OF 1907 WAS REENACTED AS SEC. 83.  35 STAT. 1103. 

FN10  36 STAT. 822, AS AMENDED BY 37 STAT. 25. 

FN11  43 STAT. 1074.  "CONTRIBUTION" WAS DEFINED TO INCLUDE "A GIFT,
SUBSCRIPTION, LOAN, ADVANCE, OR DEPOSIT, OF MONEY, OR ANYTHING OF
VALUE, AND INCLUDES A CONTRACT, PROMISE, OR AGREEMENT, WHETHER OR NOT
LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE, TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION."  43 STAT. 1071. 

FN12  43 STAT. 1070. 

FN13  57 STAT. 167.  "IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY  ...  LABOR ORGANIZATION
TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION AT WHICH
PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS OR A SENATOR OR
REPRESENTATIVE IN, OR A DELEGATE OR RESIDENT COMMISSIONER TO CONGRESS
ARE TO BE VOTED FOR, OR FOR ANY CANDIDATE, POLITICAL COMMITTEE, OR
OTHER PERSON TO ACCEPT OR RECEIVE ANY CONTRIBUTION PROHIBITED BY THIS

FN14  57 STAT. 168.  "EXCEPT AS TO OFFENSES COMMITTED PRIOR TO SUCH
DATE, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THIS ACT
SHALL CEASE TO BE EFFECTIVE AT THE END OF SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE
TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES IN THE PRESENT WAR, AS PROCLAIMED BY THE
PRESIDENT, OR UPON THE DATE (PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH PROCLAMATION) OF
THE PASSAGE OF A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS
STATING THAT SUCH PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS SHALL CEASE TO BE
EFFECTIVE." 

FN15  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR ON
H.R. 804, AND H.R. 1483, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2, 4; S. REP. NO. 101,
79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 24. 

FN16  SEE HEARINGS ON H.R. 804 AND H.R. 1483, SUPRA, N. 15, 117-18,
133; 89 CONG. REC. 5334, 5792; 93 CONG. REC. 6440. 

FN17  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2093, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 11; S. REP. NO.
101, SUPRA, N. 15, 57-59; H.R. REP. NO. 2739, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 39
40; S. REP. NO. 1, PART 2, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 37, 38-39. 

FN18  SEE NOTE 17, SUPRA. 

FN19  THIS POINT WAS REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED IN THE SENATE DEBATES. 
SEE 93 CONG. REC. 6436-39. 

FN20  UNITED STATES V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366, 407-408: 

"IT IS ELEMENTARY WHEN THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE IS
ASSAILED, IF THE STATUTE BE REASONABLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO
INTERPRETATIONS, BY ONE OF WHICH IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND BY
THE OTHER VALID, IT IS OUR PLAIN DUTY TO ADOPT THAT CONSTRUCTION WHICH
WILL SAVE THE STATUTE FROM CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY.  KNIGHTS TEMPLARS
INDEMNITY CO. V. JARMAN, 187 U.S. 197, 205.  AND UNLESS THIS RULE BE
CONSIDERED AS MEANING THAT OUR DUTY IS TO FIRST DECIDE THAT A STATUTE
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEN PROCEED TO HOLD THAT SUCH RULING WAS
UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE STATUTE IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF A MEANING, WHICH
CAUSES IT NOT TO BE REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE RULE PLAINLY
MUST MEAN THAT WHERE A STATUTE IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, BY
ONE OF WHICH GRAVE AND DOUBTFUL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARISE AND BY
THE OTHER OF WHICH SUCH QUESTIONS ARE AVOIDED, OUR DUTY IS TO ADOPT THE
LATTER.  HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE COM. COMM., 211 U.S. 407." 

FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298, 307;
MISSOURI P.R. CO. V. BOONE, 270 U.S. 466, 471-72; CF. BLODGETT V.
HOLDEN, 275 U.S. 142, 147. 

FN21  COMPARE "FREE DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY IS A
CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF AMERICANISM - A PRINCIPLE WHICH ALL ARE ZEALOUS
TO PRESERVE."  PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, 346. 

"THE CASE CONFRONTS US AGAIN WITH THE DUTY OUR SYSTEM PLACES ON THIS
COURT TO SAY WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOM ENDS AND THE STATE'S POWER
BEGINS.  CHOICE ON THAT BORDER, NOW AS ALWAYS DELICATE, IS PERHAPS MORE
SO WHERE THE USUAL PRESUMPTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION IS BALANCED BY
THE PREFERRED PLACE GIVEN IN OUR SCHEME TO THE GREAT, THE INDISPENSABLE
DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT."  THOMAS V.
COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 529-30. 

"FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT SPEAK EQUIVOCALLY.  IT PROHIBITS
ANY LAW 'ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS.'  IT MUST BE
TAKEN AS A COMMAND OF THE BROADEST SCOPE THAT EXPLICIT LANGUAGE, READ
IN THE CONTEXT OF A LIBERTY-LOVING SOCIETY, WILL ALLOW."  BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 263. 

FN22  93 CONG. REC. 6436, 6437, 6439. 

FN23  SEE 93 CONG. REC. 6437-40. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IN A GOVERNMENT OPERATING UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS THERE ARE
OBVIOUS ADVANTAGES IN KNOWING AT ONCE THE LEGAL POWERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE DESIRE TO SECURE THESE ADVANTAGES EXPLAINS THE STRONG
EFFORTS OF SOME OF THE ABLEST MEMBERS OF THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION TO
ASSOCIATE THE JUDICIARY THROUGH A COUNCIL OF REVISION IN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  FN1  THE EFFORTS FAILED, BECAUSE THE
DISADVANTAGES OF SUCH A ROLE BY THE JUDICIARY WERE DEEMED GREATER THAN
THE ADVANTAGES.  AND IT CANNOT BE TOO OFTEN RECALLED THAT THE FIRST
CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS ASSOCIATES FELT CONSTRAINED TO WITHHOLD EVEN FROM
THE FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS REGARDING WHICH
WASHINGTON WAS MOST ANXIOUS TO HAVE ILLUMINATION FROM THE SUPREME
COURT, PERTAINING AS THEY DID TO THE PRESIDENT'S POWERS DURING THE
NAPOLEONIC CONFLICT.  SEE 3 JOHNSTON, CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS
OF JOHN JAY (1891) 486-89, AND 10 SPARKS, WRITINGS OF WASHINGTON (1847)
542-45; AND SEE THAYER, LEGAL ESSAYS (1908) 53-54. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE CONVENIENT TO THE PARTIES AND
THE PUBLIC TO KNOW PROMPTLY WHETHER A STATUTE IS VALID, HAS NOT
AFFECTED "RIGID INSISTENCE" ON LIMITING ADJUDICATION TO ACTUAL "CASES"
AND "CONTROVERSIES."  TO THAT END THE COURT HAS DEVELOPED "FOR ITS OWN
GOVERNANCE IN THE CASES CONFESSEDLY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, A SERIES
OF RULES UNDER WHICH IT HAS AVOIDED PASSING UPON A LARGE PART OF ALL
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESSED UPON IT FOR DECISION."  MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS, CONCURRING, IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 345, 346.  SEE ALSO, MORE RECENTLY, ALABAMA
STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450; ALMA MOTOR CO. V.
TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO., 329 U.S. 129; UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS OF AMERICA
V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75; RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S.
549. 

A CASE OR CONTROVERSY IN THE SENSE OF A LITIGATION RIPE AND RIGHT FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION BY THIS COURT IMPLIES A REAL CONTEST - AN
ACTIVE CLASH OF VIEWS, BASED UPON AN ADEQUATE FORMULATION OF ISSUES, SO
AS TO BRING A CHALLENGE TO THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENACTED INESCAPABLY
BEFORE THE COURT.  THE MATTER WAS THUS PUT BY AN AUTHORITATIVE
COMMENTATOR:  "THE DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS HAS BEEN
ASSOCIATED WITH THE STRICTLY JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND SO FAR AS POSSIBLE
HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CONTENTIONS OF POLITICS.  THESE QUESTIONS
HAVE BEEN DECIDED AFTER FULL ARGUMENT IN CONTESTED CASES AND IT IS ONLY
WITH THE LIGHT AFFORDED BY A REAL CONTEST THAT OPINIONS ON QUESTIONS OF
THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE CAN SAFELY BE RENDERED."  CHARLES EVANS HUGHES,
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (1928) 32.  TIME HAS NOT
LESSENED THE FORCE OF THE REASON FOR THIS REQUIREMENT OF ABSTENTION AS
INDICATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL: "NO QUESTIONS CAN BE BROUGHT
BEFORE A JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL OF GREATER DELICACY THAN THOSE WHICH INVOLVE
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LEGISLATIVE ACT.  IF THEY BECOME
INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO THE CASE, THE COURT MUST MEET AND DECIDE
THEM; BUT IF THE CASE MAY BE DETERMINED ON OTHER POINTS, A JUST RESPECT
FOR THE LEGISLATURE REQUIRES, THAT THE OBLIGATION OF ITS LAWS SHOULD
NOT BE UNNECESSARILY AND WANTONLY ASSAILED."  EX PARTE RANDOLPH, 20
FED. CAS. NO. 11,558 AT 254, 2 BROCK.  447, 478-79(C.C.D. VA. 1833). 

IN ORDER THAT A CONTEST MAY FAIRLY INVITE ADJUDICATION IT IS NOT
NECESSARY THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD BE PERSONALLY INIMICAL TO ONE
ANOTHER.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FACT THAT THE OUTWARD FORM OF A
LITIGATION HAS NOT BEEN CONTRIVED BY PRE-ARRANGEMENT OF THE PARTIES
DOES NOT PRECLUDE WANT OF A REAL CONTEST WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO THIS
COURT'S EXERCISE OF ITS FUNCTION, ONE OF "GREAT GRAVITY AND DELICACY,"
IN PASSING UPON THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  ASHWANDER V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, SUPRA, AT 345 AND CASES CITED IN FOOTNOTE
3.  THIS PREREQUISITE MAY BE LACKING THOUGH THERE BE ENTIRE
DISINTERESTEDNESS ON BOTH SIDES IN THEIR DESIRE TO SECURE AT THE
EARLIEST POSSIBLE MOMENT AN ADJUDICATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  IT
MAY BE LACKING PRECISELY BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE FORMULATED SO BROADLY
AS TO BRING GRATUITOUSLY BEFORE THE COURT THAT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO
NECESSITY FOR DECISION, OR BECAUSE THEY INVITE FORMULATION OF A RULE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BROADER THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE PRECISE FACTS OF THE
SITUATION OR THE TERMS OF THE ASSAILED LEGISLATION.  SEE LIVERPOOL,
N.Y. AND PHILA.  S.S. CO. V. COMMISSIONERS OF EMIGRATION, 113 U.S. 33,
39; SEE ALSO, STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS AMICUS
CURIAE, IN BURCO, INC. V. WHITWORTH, 297 U.S. 724; GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF
IN LANDIS V. NORTH AMERICAN CO., 299 U.S. 248. 

WE ARE CONCERNED HERE NOT WITH DEROGATORY IMPLICATIONS OF COLLUSION,
NOR HAVE WE A CASE OF MOOTNESS WITH ITS TECHNICAL MEANING OF A NON
EXISTENT CONTROVERSY.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES BRING THE PRESENT RECORD
WITHIN THOSE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE LED THIS COURT IN THE PAST "FOR
ITS OWN GOVERNANCE IN THE CASES CONFESSEDLY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION" TO
AVOID PASSING ON GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVING THE POWER OF CONGRESS COME HERE NOT SO SHAPED BY THE RECORD
AND BY THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW AS TO BRING THOSE POWERS BEFORE THIS COURT
AS LEANLY AND AS SHARPLY AS JUDICIAL JUDGMENT UPON AN EXERCISE OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER REQUIRES. 

THIS CASE IS HERE UNDER THE UNIQUE JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT OF 1907, AS AMENDED, WHEREBY DECISIONS OF DISTRICT COURTS
RAISE ALMOST ABSTRACT QUESTIONS OF LAW REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OR
CONSTRUCTION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES, IN THAT THEY DO NOT COME HERE IN THE
SETTING OF NORMAL ADJUDICATIONS ON THE MERITS OF A CONTROVERSY. 
COMPARE UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1, WITH THE SUBSEQUENT
ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS IN UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 75 F.SUPP. 
176.  IT IS MOST IMPORTANT THAT SUCH A DECISION RESULT FROM DUE
WEIGHING OF THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ALONE CAN JUSTIFY THE INVALIDATION
OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  THIS IMPLIES THAT THERE BE PRESENTED TO A
DISTRICT COURT THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND THE LEAST MISAPPREHENDING LEGAL
GROUNDS FOR SUPPORTING WHAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED, WHILE AT THE SAME
TIME CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION IS SEDULOUSLY RESISTED BY PRESENTING
TO THE DISTRICT COURT ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS
WRITTEN SO AS TO AVOID, IF FAIRLY POSSIBLE, INVALIDATION OF THE
STATUTE.  THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE COMES TO US
WANTING IN BOTH RESPECTS. 

ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT, THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED THAT SEC.
304 OF THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT IS AN ABRIDGMENT OF "RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT" BUT CONTENDED THAT "CONGRESS HAS POWER UNDER
ARTICLE I, SECTION 4, OF THE CONSTITUTION TO ABRIDGE FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHTS IF IT CONSIDERS SUCH A COURSE NECESSARY IN MAINTAINING THE
PURITY AND FREEDOM OF ELECTIONS."  THIS REPRESENTATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT BELOW IS MADE IN THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, BUT THRICE.  FN2  AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT
IT WAS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
MISCONCEIVED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, THAT WHAT THE DISTRICT
COURT ATTRIBUTED TO THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED
BELOW.  BUT ORDINARY ENGLISH WORDS HAVE LOST ALL MEANING IF THE
DISTRICT JUDGE DOES NOT SAY UNEQUIVOCALLY AND THREE TIMES THAT THAT IS
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ARGUED.  IT CANNOT BE WHISTLED AWAY AS A GAUCHE
MANNER OF SAYING THAT INASMUCH AS UTTERANCE MAY UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES BE RESTRICTED, SEC. 304 IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE ARGUMENT PUT TO THE COURT BELOW, BUT
PLAINLY ENOUGH THAT COURT DID NOT SO UNDERSTAND IT.  WHO IS TO SAY HOW
THE LOWER COURT WOULD HAVE DEALT WITH THE PROBLEM OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
BEFORE IT, IF THE ARGUMENT HAD BEEN PITCHED DIFFERENTLY THAN IN THE WAY
IN WHICH IT REACHED THE COURT, OR IF THE COURT'S MISAPPREHENSION HAD
BEEN CORRECTED?  NO EFFORT WAS MADE, BY THE FAMILIAR PROCESS OF A
PETITION FOR REHEARING OR FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT'S OPINION,
TO SEE TO IT THAT THE LOWER COURT MANIFESTED AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTIONS BY NOT ATTRIBUTING AN ERRONEOUS POSITION TO
THE GOVERNMENT.  (SEE, FOR INSTANCE, PETITION FOR REHEARING IN MORGAN
V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 1, 23.) 

AGAIN, THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT URGE BELOW, AS IS ORDINARILY THE WAY OF
DEFENDANTS, A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH WOULD AFFORD THEM THE
RIGHTS THEY CLAIM - BUT WOULD SECURE THOSE RIGHTS NOT BY DECLARING AN
ACT OF CONGRESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BUT BY AN APPROPRIATE RESTRICTION OF
ITS SCOPE.  ON ITS OWN MOTION, THIS COURT NOW GIVES A CONSTRUCTION TO
THE STATUTE WHICH TAKES THE CONDUCT FOR WHICH DEFENDANTS WERE INDICTED
OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE WITHOUT BRINGING THE COURT INTO
CONFLICT WITH CONGRESS.  WHO CAN BE CONFIDENT THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION,
WHICH SALVAGES THE STATUTE AND AT THE SAME TIME SAFEGUARDS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANTS, MIGHT NOT HAVE COMMENDED
ITSELF TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND EVENTUALLY BROUGHT A DIFFERENT CASE,
IF ANY, BEFORE THIS COURT FOR REVIEW? 

I CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT IN A NATURAL EAGERNESS TO ELICIT
FROM THIS COURT A DECISION AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE MOMENT, EACH SIDE
WAS AT LEAST UNWITTINGLY THE ALLY OF THE OTHER IN BRINGING BEFORE THIS
COURT FAR-REACHING QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH ALL THE BEST TEACHINGS OF THIS COURT ADMONISH US NOT TO
ENTERTAIN. 

BUT SINCE MY BRETHREN FIND THAT THE CASE CALLS FOR ADJUDICATION, I
JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  I DO SO BECAUSE OF ANOTHER RULE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION WHICH REQUIRES US TO GIVE A STATUTE AN
ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION THAT FAIRLY AVOIDS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  SEE
MY DISSENTING OPINION IN SHAPIRO V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 36, DECIDED
THIS DAY. 

FN1 SEE 1 FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF
1787(1911) 21, 28, 94, 97 ET SEQ., 105, 107, 109, 110, 111 ET SEQ.,
131, 138, 141, 144-45; 2 ID. 71, 73 ET SEQ., 294-95, 298 ET SEQ. 

FN2  1.  "THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT ARE ABRIDGED BY THE PROHIBITION AGAINST EXPENDITURES BY LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTIONS; BUT IT SAYS THAT CONGRESS
HAS POWER UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 4, OF THE CONSTITUTION TO ABRIDGE
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IF IT CONSIDERS SUCH A COURSE NECESSARY IN
MAINTAINING THE PURITY AND FREEDOM OF ELECTIONS." 

"THUS THE COURT IS CONFRONTED WITH THE NECESSITY OF PASSING ON THE
VALIDITY OF SECTION 304 OF THE ACT, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO
EXPENDITURES BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL
ELECTIONS." 

2.  "IT IS INSISTED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT CONGRESS COULD ABRIDGE THE
FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDES WAS DONE HERE) BECAUSE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OVER THE
MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS, AND ITS CONSEQUENT POWER TO PREVENT
CORRUPTION THEREIN, AND TO SECURE CLEAN ELECTIONS." 

3.  "IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OVER
ELECTIONS MAY BE EXERCISED IN ABRIDGMENT OF RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, THE GOVERNMENT POINTS TO THE CASE OF UNITED PUBLIC
WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75." 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 

IF SEC. 313 AS AMENDED  FN1  CAN BE TAKEN TO COVER THE COSTS OF ANY
POLITICAL PUBLICATION BY A LABOR UNION, I THINK IT COMPREHENDS THE
"EXPENDITURES" MADE IN THIS CASE.  BY READING THEM OUT OF THE SECTION,
IN ORDER NOT TO PASS UPON ITS VALIDITY, THE COURT IN EFFECT ABDICATES
ITS FUNCTION IN THE GUISE OF APPLYING THE POLICY AGAINST DECIDING
QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY UNNECESSARILY.  FN2  I ADHERE TO THAT
POLICY.  BUT I DO NOT THINK IT JUSTIFIES INVASION OF THE LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTION BY REWRITING OR EMASCULATING THE STATUTE.  THIS IN MY JUDGMENT
IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS INSTANCE.  ACCORDINGLY I DISSENT FROM THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE STATUTE AND FROM THE MISAPPLICATION OF THE
POLICY.  I ALSO THINK THE STATUTE PATENTLY INVALID AS APPLIED IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

                                  I. 

THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SECTION AND THE INDICTMENT ARE NOT
ENTIRELY CLEAR TO ME.  BUT, AS I UNDERSTAND THE RULING, IT IS ONLY THAT
SEC. 313 DOES NOT FORBID LABOR UNIONS TO TAKE PART IN PENDING ELECTIONS
FN3  BY PUBLISHING AND CIRCULATING NEWSPAPERS IN REGULAR COURSE AMONG
THEIR MEMBERSHIP, ALTHOUGH THE COSTS OF PUBLICATION ARE PAID FROM THE
UNION'S GENERAL FUNDS REGARDLESS OF THEIR SOURCE, I.E., WHETHER FROM
SUBSCRIPTIONS, ADVERTISING REVENUES AND RETURNS FROM PER COPY SALES, OR
FROM UNION DUES AND OTHER SOURCES. 

THE LINE OF COVERAGE IS MARKED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE SOURCE FROM
WHICH THE UNION DERIVES THE FUNDS SO EXPENDED,  FN4  BUT BY WHETHER
OTHERS THAN MEMBERS OF THE UNION RECEIVE FREE COPIES OF THE
PUBLICATION; AND BY WHETHER THE PUBLICATION IS "IN REGULAR COURSE" OR
ONLY IN CASUAL OR OCCASIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS.  APPARENTLY, IN THE LATTER
EVENT, CIRCULATION LIMITED TO THE MEMBERSHIP WOULD FALL WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION AS WELL AS FREE (AND PERHAPS ALSO PAID) DISTRIBUTION
OUTSIDE THAT CIRCLE. 

THE CONSTRUCTION THEREFORE COMES DOWN TO FINDING THAT CONGRESS DID
NOT INTEND TO FORBID THESE EXPENDITURES, THOUGH MADE FROM UNION FUNDS,
SINCE THEY WERE MADE:  (1) TO SUSTAIN THE PUBLICATION OF THE UNION'S
POLITICAL VIEWS; (2) IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF PUBLISHING AND
DISTRIBUTING A UNION NEWSPAPER; (3) WITH DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
SUBSTANTIALLY  FN5  TO UNION MEMBERS AND NOT INCLUDING OUTSIDERS.  IT
IS BECAUSE APPLYING SEC. 313 TO THIS TYPE OF EXPENDITURE WOULD RAISE
"THE GRAVEST DOUBT" OF THE SECTION'S CONSTITUTIONALITY THAT THE COURT
HOLDS THE SECTION INAPPLICABLE. 

IF SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WERE TENABLY SUPPORTABLE ON ANY OTHER
BASIS, I SHOULD BE IN ACCORD WITH THIS HAPPY SOLUTION.  BUT NEITHER THE
LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION NOR ITS HISTORY AFFORDS SUCH A BASIS, UNLESS
INDEED IT MAY BE THAT THE WORDING IS SO BROAD, COMPREHENSIVE, AND
INDEFINITE THAT ANY POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD APPLY TO A
UNION'S PUBLICATION OF ITS POLITICAL VIEWS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO EQUALLY
GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBT, AND THEREFORE WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE
COVERED. 

INDEED, SO FAR AS THE PRESENT OPINION CONCLUDES, THAT MAY BE THE
CASE.  FOR IT DOES NOT HOLD THAT DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE THE CIRCLE OF
MEMBERSHIP, EVEN IN REGULAR COURSE, IS FORBIDDEN OR, IF SO, THE
PROHIBITION WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE.  NEITHER DOES IT
RULE THAT EITHER CONSEQUENCE WOULD FOLLOW FROM CASUAL OR OCCASIONAL
DISTRIBUTION WITHIN OR WITHOUT THAT CIRCLE.  AT THE MOST IT IS
INDICATED THAT THE SECTION MORE PROBABLY OR POSSIBLY COVERS THOSE
SITUATIONS THAN THE ONE NOW ELIMINATED.  BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE NO
CORRESPONDING INTIMATION THAT THE SECTION WOULD BE VALID IN SUCH
COVERAGE. 

IN FACT THE OPINION POINTS TO NO SITUATION, RELATING TO A UNION'S
EXPRESSION OF POLITICAL VIEWS, WHICH CERTAINLY COULD BE TAKEN AS
INCLUDED AND VALIDLY SO.  THIS, OF COURSE, COMES DOWN TO EXCLUDING THE
PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT TO SAVE THE STATUTE BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER
APPLICATIONS CLEARLY AND VALIDLY COVERED, BUT BECAUSE THERE ARE SUCH
APPLICATIONS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE COVERED AND WHICH, IF COVERED, MAY
BE EQUALLY OR NEARLY AS DOUBTFUL CONSTITUTIONALLY.  SUCH A COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION, IF FOLLOWED IN EACH INSTANCE OF INDICTMENT ON PARTICULAR
FACTS, WOULD MEAN THAT THE SECTION COULD NOT APPLY IN ANY INSTANCE OF
PUBLICATION, BECAUSE EACH WOULD PRESENT "THE GRAVEST DOUBT" OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY AND THEREFORE WOULD BE EXCLUDED. 

THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 313, AS AMENDED, IS SWEEPINGLY COMPREHENSIVE. 
INSOFAR AS PRESENTLY PERTINENT IT FORBIDS LABOR UNIONS AS WELL AS
CORPORATIONS "  ...  TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION OR EXPENDITURE IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION AT WHICH  ...  (THE DESIGNATED FEDERAL
OFFICERS)  FN6 ARE TO BE VOTED FOR," INCLUDING PRIMARIES, CONVENTIONS
OR CAUCUSES HELD TO SELECT SUCH CANDIDATES. 

THE CRUCIAL WORDS ARE "EXPENDITURE" AND "IN CONNECTION WITH." 
LITERALLY THEY COVER ANY EXPENDITURE WHATEVER RELATING AT ANY RATE TO A
PENDING ELECTION, AND POSSIBLY TO PROSPECTIVE ELECTIONS OR ELECTIONS
ALREADY HELD.  THE BROAD DICTIONARY MEANING OF THE WORD "EXPENDITURE"
TAKES ADDED COLOR FROM ITS CONTEXT WITH "CONTRIBUTION."  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS ADDED BY THE 1947 AMENDMENT
EXPRESSLY TO COVER SITUATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE
ACCEPTED LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATION OF "CONTRIBUTION."  FN7  THE
COLORATION ADDED IS THEREFORE NOT RESTRICTIVE; IT IS EXPANSIVE.  SEE
NOTE 9.  AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION OF RESTRICTION, LIGHT ON
THE SCOPE OF COVERAGE CAN BE FOUND ONLY IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

WHEN ONE TURNS TO THAT SOURCE, HE FINDS A VERITABLE FOG OF
CONTRADICTIONS RELATING TO SPECIFIC POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS,  FN8
CONTRADICTIONS NECESSARILY BRED AMONG BOTH PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF
THE AMENDMENT FROM THE BREADTH AND INDEFINITENESS OF THE LITERAL SCOPE
OF THE LANGUAGE USED.  BUT IN ONE IMPORTANT RESPECT THE HISTORY AGAIN
IS CLEAR, NAMELY, THAT THE SPONSORS AND PROPONENTS HAD IN MIND THREE
PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVES. 

THESE WERE:  (1) TO REDUCE WHAT HAD COME TO BE REGARDED IN THE LIGHT
OF RECENT EXPERIENCE AS THE UNDUE AND DISPROPORTIONATE INFLUENCE OF
LABOR UNIONS UPON FEDERAL ELECTIONS; (2) TO PRESERVE THE PURITY OF SUCH
ELECTIONS AND OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT ENSUING FROM THE CHOICES MADE IN THEM
AGAINST THE USE OF AGGREGATED WEALTH BY UNION AS WELL AS CORPORATE
ENTITIES; AND (3) TO PROTECT UNION MEMBERS HOLDING POLITICAL VIEWS
CONTRARY TO THOSE SUPPORTED BY THE UNION FROM USE OF FUNDS CONTRIBUTED
BY THEM TO PROMOTE ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE OPPOSING VIEWS.  FN9  SHORTLY,
THESE OBJECTS MAY BE DESIGNATED AS THE "UNDUE INFLUENCE," "PURITY OF
ELECTIONS," AND "MINORITY PROTECTION" OBJECTIVES.  THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY
INTERRELATED, BUT NOT IDENTICAL.  AND THE DIFFERENCES AS WELL AS THEIR
COMBINATION BECOME IMPORTANT FOR DECIDING THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION'S
COVERAGE AND ITS VALIDITY IN SPECIFIC APPLICATION. 

WITH THOSE OBJECTS IN MIND AS THROWING LIGHT ON THE SECTION'S
COVERAGE UNDER THE BROAD LANGUAGE EMPLOYED, WE TURN TO THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY ON THAT SUBJECT.  THE GOVERNMENT CENTERS THE DISCUSSION, BOTH
ON COVERAGE AND ON CONSTITUTIONALITY, AROUND THE "MINORITY PROTECTION"
OBJECTIVE.  AND THE LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSION, TAKING PLACE ALMOST
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE SENATE AND DOMINATED LARGELY BY THE LABOR MANAGEMENT
ACT'S SPONSOR IN THAT BODY, ALSO TOOK THIS PURPOSE AS THE CENTRAL
THEME.  FN10 

THE DISCUSSION RANGED AROUND A GREAT VARIETY OF POSSIBLE SPECIFIC
APPLICATIONS,  FN11  WITH CONCENTRATION UPON BOTH THE SCOPE AND THE
VALIDITY OF THE PROVISION.  THE SENATE SPONSOR RESPONDED TO A FLOOD OF
INQUIRIES WITH CANDOR AND SO FAR AS POSSIBLE WITH PRECISION AND
CERTAINTY CONCERNING PARTICULAR SITUATIONS UNDER HIS VIEW OF THE
EQUALLY CANDID IN STATING DOUBT OR DISABILITY TO GIVE POSITIVE
OPINIONS, AT TIMES IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER FACTS.  FN13 

WHAT IS MOST SIGNIFICANT FOR THE QUESTION OF COVERAGE, HOWEVER, AND
FOR THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE, IS THE FACT THAT IN MAKING
HIS RESPONSES TO THE NUMEROUS AND VARIED INQUIRIES HE TESTED COVERAGE
INVARIABLY OR NEARLY SO BY APPLYING THE VERY CRITERION THE COURT NOW
DISCARDS, NAMELY, THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS RECEIVED AND EXPENDED IN
MAKING THE POLITICAL PUBLICATION. 

THAT IS, IN HIS VIEW THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT WAS
"MINORITY PROTECTION," THE LINE DRAWN BY THE SECTION WAS BETWEEN
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE UNION EXPRESSLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THE PUBLICATION AND EARMARKED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND, ON THE OTHER HAND,
EXPENDING FUNDS NOT SO LIMITED BY THE PERSON OR SOURCE SUPPLYING THEM. 
FN14  THERE WAS STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PROVISION AND SPIRITED
EXCHANGE BETWEEN PROPONENTS AND CRITICS OF THE MEASURE CONCERNING ITS
WISDOM AND ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.  BUT THERE WAS NO DISAGREEMENT AMONG
THEM THAT THE SPONSOR'S TEST WAS THE INTENDED CRITERION.  INDEED THE
LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSION WAS STATED EXPLICITLY TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAKING PLAIN BEYOND ANY QUESTION THAT THIS WAS SO.  FN15  ALTHOUGH
THERE WERE MANY DIFFERENCES OVER WHETHER SPECIFIED TYPES OF ACTIVITY
WOULD FALL UNDER THE CRITERION'S BAN AND DOUBTS CONCERNING OTHERS, THE
PURPOSE SUCCEEDED.  THERE WAS NO DIVERGENCE FROM THE VIEW THAT
POLITICAL COMMENT BY A UNION PAPER OR OTHER INSTRUMENTALITY USING
NONSEGREGATED FUNDS WAS WITHIN THE SECTION'S COVERAGE.  WHEN THIS WAS
THE SOURCE OF THE EXPENDITURE IT VIOLATED THE INTENDED PROHIBITION OF
THE SECTION WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLICATION WAS IN REGULAR COURSE AND
WHETHER OR NOT IT WENT TO OTHERS THAN MEMBERS AND PERSONS ACCUSTOMED TO
RECEIVE IT.    IF THEREFORE THE SPONSOR'S STEADFAST VIEW CAN HAVE
WEIGHT TO DETERMINE THE COVERAGE OF A STATUTE INDEFINITE IN ITS TERMS,
WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440; UNITED STATES V. DICKERSON, 310
U.S. 554; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534;
UNITED STATES V. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315 U.S. 110, THIS CASE IS
BROUGHT SQUARELY WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 313.  THIS IS
CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED BY THE EXCERPTS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
DISCUSSION QUOTED IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  OTHERS TO THE SAME EFFECT
ARE ADDED TO THIS ONE AS AN APPENDIX. 

MOREOVER IN HIS MESSAGE VETOING THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF
1947 THE PRESIDENT STATED THAT SEC. 313 "WOULD PREVENT THE ORDINARY
UNION NEWSPAPER FROM COMMENTING FAVORABLY OR UNFAVORABLY UPON
CANDIDATES OR ISSUES IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS."  H.R. DOC. NO. 334, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 9.  IN THE DEBATE PRELIMINARY TO THE OVERRIDING OF THE
VETO, NONE OF THE LEGISLATORS IN CHARGE OF THE MEASURE GAVE ANY
INDICATION THAT THEY DIFFERED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S INTERPRETATION.  NOR
COULD THEY HAVE DIFFERED, FOR THE STATEMENT IN THE VETO MESSAGE GAVE
EFFECT TO THEIR CLEARLY EXPRESSED VIEWS AS TO THE SECTION'S COVERAGE IN
THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE STATED. 

THUS, IN THE FACE OF THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT, REITERATED AFTER VETO,
AND OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S IN MAKING HIS VETO, THIS COURT SETS ASIDE
THE ONE CLEARLY INTENDED FEATURE OF THE STATUTE APART FROM ITS GENERAL
OBJECTIVES.  I DOUBT THAT UPON ANY MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION THE COURT HAS
HERETOFORE SO FAR PRESUMED TO OVERRIDE THE PLAINLY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY
STATED JUDGMENT OF ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS WITH ITS
OWN TORTUOUSLY FASHIONED VIEW.  THIS IS NOT CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE
DOCTRINE OF STRICT NECESSITY.  IT IS INVASION OF THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS BY EMASCULATION OF THE STATUTE.  THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR
THIS IS TO AVOID DECIDING THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY. 

                                 II. 

WE ARE CONCERNED IN THIS CASE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 313
AS AMENDED ONLY INSOFAR AS IT MAY BE APPLIED IN RESTRICTION OR
ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND ASSEMBLY
SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  FN16  OTHER APPLICATIONS ARE NOT IN
QUESTION.  THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT OF CONGRESS' POWER TO REGULATE THE
MAKING OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES BY LABOR UNIONS, AS
WELL AS BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, IN THE INTEREST OF FREE
AND PURE ELECTIONS AND THE PREVENTION OF OFFICIAL CORRUPTION, BY
APPROPRIATE MEASURES NOT TRENCHING ON THOSE BASIC RIGHTS.  BUT WHEN
REGULATION OR PROHIBITION TOUCHES THEM, THIS COURT IS DUTY BOUND TO
EXAMINE THE RESTRICTIONS AND TO DECIDE IN ITS OWN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
WHETHER THEY ARE ABRIDGED WITHIN THE AMENDMENT'S MEANING.  FN17  THAT
OFFICE CANNOT BE SURRENDERED TO LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT, HOWEVER WEIGHTY,
ALTHOUGH SUCH JUDGMENT IS ALWAYS ENTITLED TO RESPECT. 

AS THE COURT HAS DECLARED REPEATEDLY, THAT JUDGMENT DOES NOT BEAR THE
SAME WEIGHT AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY,
WHEN THE LEGISLATION ON ITS FACE OR IN SPECIFIC APPLICATION RESTRICTS
THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE, EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY PROTECTED BY THE
AMENDMENT, AS ARE GIVEN TO OTHER REGULATIONS HAVING NO SUCH TENDENCY. 
FN18  THE PRESUMPTION RATHER IS AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE INTRUSION INTO
THESE DOMAINS.  FOR, WHILE NOT ABSOLUTE, THE ENFORCED SURRENDER OF
THOSE RIGHTS MUST BE JUSTIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE AND IMMEDIATE
IMPENDENCY OF DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH CLEARLY AND NOT
DUBIOUSLY OUTWEIGH THOSE INVOLVED IN THE RESTRICTIONS UPON THE VERY
FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, GROUNDED AS THOSE INSTITUTIONS
ARE IN THE FREEDOMS OF RELIGION, CONSCIENCE, EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY. 
HENCE DOUBTFUL INTRUSIONS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND CONSISTENTLY WITH
THE AMENDMENT'S COMMAND AND PURPOSE,  FN19  NOR THEREFORE CAN THE USUAL
PRESUMPTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY, DERIVING FROM THE WEIGHT OF
LEGISLATIVE OPINION IN OTHER MATTERS MORE LARGELY WITHIN THE
LEGISLATIVE PROVINCE AND SPECIAL COMPETENCE, OBTAIN.  IT IS IN THE
LIGHT AND SPIRIT OF THESE PRINCIPLES THAT THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 313 AS
CLAIMED TO BE APPLICABLE HERE MUST BE DETERMINED. 

AT THE OUTSET THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT SEC. 313, IN PROHIBITING
EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FEDERAL ELECTION, DOES "BRING INTO
PLAY" THE RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND ASSEMBLY.  THIS IS A
NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTION AND THE
PRESENTLY ATTEMPTED APPLICATION.  BUT IT IS CLAIMED NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ABRIDGMENT IS INVOLVED.  THIS, BECAUSE IT IS SAID CONGRESS HAS POWER TO
ACT TO PRESERVE THE FREEDOM AND PURITY OF FEDERAL ELECTIONS UNDER ART.
I, SEC. 4, OF THE CONSTITUTION N20, AND OF OFFICIAL ACTION.  THUS IT IS
CLAIMED THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S GUARANTIES ARE BALANCED BY THIS OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION; AND CONGRESS' EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED BY IT IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME WEIGHT AND PRESUMPTIVE VALIDITY
IN PLACING LIMITS UPON THE FREEDOMS AS ATTACHES IN THEIR FAVOR IN OTHER
CONNECTIONS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE USUAL PREEMINENCE ACCORDED TO THE FIRST
AMENDMENT LIBERTIES DISAPPEARS, IT IS SAID, AND THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT, HAVING RATIONAL BASIS IN FACT AND POLICY, BECOMES
CONTROLLING. 

APART FROM THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SAME ARGUMENT MIGHT NOT BE
APPLICABLE TO ALL OTHER POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION,
TO DESTROY THE PRINCIPLES STATED FOR SECURING THE PREFERENTIAL STATUS
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS, THE ARGUMENT IGNORES OTHER EQUALLY
SETTLED COROLLARY PRINCIPLES.  THESE ARE THAT STATUTES RESTRICTIVE OF
OR PURPORTING TO PLACE LIMITS TO THOSE FREEDOMS MUST BE NARROWLY DRAWN
TO MEET THE PRECISE EVIL THE LEGISLATURE SEEKS TO CURB, CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; SCHNEIDER
V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147; DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353; SAIA V. NEW
YORK, 334 U.S. 558, AND THAT THE CONDUCT PROSCRIBED MUST BE DEFINED
SPECIFICALLY SO THAT THE PERSON OR PERSONS AFFECTED REMAIN SECURE AND
UNRESTRAINED IN THEIR RIGHTS TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY
THE LEGISLATION.  BLURRED SIGNPOSTS TO CRIMINALITY WILL NOT SUFFICE TO
CREATE IT.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA; STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA,
283 U.S. 359; CF. THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516; WINTERS V. NEW YORK,
333 U.S. 507. 

ITS TERMS AND AS INFUSED WITH MEANING FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 
THIS IS TRUE WHETHER THE SECTION IS CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO ONE OR
ANOTHER OF THE EVILS SAID TO BE ITS TARGETS OR WITH REFERENCE TO ALL OF
THEM TAKEN TOGETHER. 

IF THE EVIL IS TAKEN TO BE THE CORRUPTION OF NATIONAL ELECTIONS AND
FEDERAL OFFICIALS BY THE EXPENDITURE OF LARGE MASSES OF AGGREGATED
WEALTH IN THEIR BEHALF, THE STATUTE IS NEITHER SO PHRASED NOR SO
LIMITED, EVEN IN ITS LEGISLATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  INDEED THE GOVERNMENT
DOES NOT EXPLICITLY ARGUE CORRUPTION PER SE ARISING FROM UNION
EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLICATION IN THE SAME SENSE AS GAVE RISE TO THE
ORIGINAL AND LATER LEGISLATION AGAINST CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS DOWN TO
THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT OF 1943.  AND VERY LITTLE IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY DIRECTLY SUGGESTS THIS EVIL, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE INFERENCES
IMPLICIT IN SOME STATEMENTS THAT IT WAS NOT ENTIRELY OUT OF MIND.  FN21
SO ALSO WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT.  FN22 

THE GOVERNMENT STRESSES THE "UNDUE INFLUENCE" OF UNIONS IN MAKING
EXPENDITURES BY WAY OF PUBLICATION IN SUPPORT OF OR AGAINST CANDIDATES
AND POLITICAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CAMPAIGN RATHER THAN CORRUPTION IN
THE GROSS SENSE.  IT MAINTAINS THAT LARGE EXPENDITURES BY UNIONS IN
PUBLICIZING THEIR OFFICIAL POLITICAL VIEWS BRING ABOUT AN UNDUE, THAT
IS SUPPOSEDLY A DISPROPORTIONATE, SWAY OF ELECTORAL SENTIMENT AND
OFFICIAL ATTITUDES.  IN SHORT, THE "BLOC" POWER OF UNIONS HAS BECOME
TOO GREAT, IN INFLUENCING BOTH THE ELECTORATE AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS, TO
PERMIT FURTHER EXPENDITURE OF THEIR FUNDS IN DIRECTLY AND OPENLY
PUBLICIZING THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS.  AND THE ASSERTED EVIL IS TO BE
UPROOTED BY PROHIBITION OF UNION EXPENDITURES AS SUCH, NOT BY
REGULATION SPECIFICALLY DRAWN TO MEET IT. 

THERE ARE, OF COURSE, OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUCH EVILS AND
THOSE ARISING FROM THE GROSSER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE MORE USUALLY
ASSOCIATED WITH SECRECY, BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION, DIRECT OR SUBTLE.  BUT
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO STOP TO POINT THESE OUT OR DISCUSS THEM, EXCEPT
TO SAY THAT ANY ASSERTED BENEFICIAL TENDENCY OF RESTRICTIONS UPON
EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLICIZING POLITICAL VIEWS, WHETHER OF A GROUP OR OF
AN INDIVIDUAL, IS CERTAINLY COUNTERBALANCED TO SOME EXTENT BY THE LOSS
FOR DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES RESULTING FROM THE RESTRICTIONS UPON FREE AND
FULL PUBLIC DISCUSSION.  THE CLAIMED EVIL IS NOT ONE UNMIXED WITH
GOOD.  AND ITS SUPPRESSION DESTROYS THE GOOD WITH THE BAD UNLESS
PRECISE MEASURES ARE TAKEN TO PREVENT THIS. 

THE EXPRESSION OF BLOC SENTIMENT IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN AN INTEGRAL
PART OF OUR DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL AND LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES.  THEY COULD
HARDLY GO ON WITHOUT IT.  MOREOVER, TO AN EXTENT NOT NECESSARY NOW TO
ATTEMPT DELIMITING, THAT RIGHT IS SECURED BY THE GUARANTY OF FREEDOM OF
ASSEMBLY, A LIBERTY ESSENTIALLY COORDINATE WITH THE FREEDOMS OF SPEECH,
THE PRESS, AND CONSCIENCE.  CF. BOWE V. SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH,
320 MASS. 230, 251-252.  IT IS NOT BY ACCIDENT, IT IS BY EXPLICIT
DESIGN, AS WAS SAID IN THOMAS V. COLLINS, SUPRA AT 530, THAT THESE
FREEDOMS ARE COUPLED TOGETHER IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S ASSURANCE.  THEY
INVOLVE THE RIGHT TO HEAR AS WELL AS TO SPEAK, AND ANY RESTRICTION UPON
EITHER ATTENUATES BOTH. 

THERE IS THEREFORE AN EFFECT IN RESTRICTING EXPENDITURES FOR THE
PUBLICIZING OF POLITICAL VIEWS NOT INHERENTLY PRESENT IN RESTRICTING
OTHER TYPES OF EXPENDITURE, NAMELY, THAT IT NECESSARILY DEPRIVES THE
ELECTORATE, THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO HEAR, AS WELL AS THE AUTHOR OF THE
UTTERANCE, WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP, OF THE ADVANTAGE OF FREE
AND FULL DISCUSSION AND OF THE RIGHT OF FREE ASSEMBLY FOR THAT
PURPOSE. 

THE MOST COMPLETE EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FULL,
FAIR AND UNTRAMMELED OPERATION OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.  TO THE EXTENT
THEY ARE CURTAILED THE ELECTORATE IS DEPRIVED OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE
AND OPINION VITAL TO ITS FUNCTION.  TO SAY THAT LABOR UNIONS AS SUCH
HAVE NOTHING OF VALUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT PROCESS AND NO VITAL OR
LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN IT IS TO IGNORE THE OBVIOUS FACTS OF POLITICAL
AND ECONOMIC LIFE AND OF THEIR INCREASING INTERRELATIONSHIP IN MODERN
SOCIETY.  CF. DEMILLE V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF RADIO ARTISTS, 31
CAL.2D 137.  THAT OSTRICHLIKE CONCEPTION, IF ENFORCED BY LAW, WOULD
DENY THOSE VALUES BOTH TO UNIONS AND THUS TO THAT EXTENT TO THEIR
MEMBERS, AS ALSO TO THE VOTING PUBLIC IN GENERAL.  TO COMPARE
RESTRICTIONS NECESSARILY RESULTING IN THIS LOSS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD TO
OTHERS NOT CREATING IT IS TO IDENTIFY ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. 
THE CASES ARE NOT IDENTICAL.  THE LOSS INHERENT IN RESTRICTIONS UPON
EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLICIZING VIEWS IS NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN OTHER
EXPENDITURES. 

IT IS THIS VERY DIFFERENCE, OF COURSE, WHICH BRINGS INTO PLAY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITIONS AND THE PRINCIPLES GIVING THEM
PRESUMPTIVE WEIGHT AGAINST INTRUSIONS OR ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE AREA
THE AMENDMENT RESERVES AGAINST LEGISLATIVE ANNEXATION.  IT IS THIS
DIFFERENCE, THE VERY FACT THAT THE RESTRICTION SEEKS TO CONTRACT THE
BOUNDARIES OF EXPRESSION AND THE RIGHT TO HEAR PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED
OPEN, WHICH FORCES UPON ITS AUTHORS THE BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING THE
CONTRACTION BY DEMONSTRATING INDUBITABLE PUBLIC ADVANTAGE ARISING FROM
THE RESTRICTION OUTWEIGHING ALL DISADVANTAGES, THUS REVERSING THE
DIRECTION OF PRESUMPTIVE WEIGHT IN OTHER CASES. 

IF THEREFORE IT IS AN EVIL FOR ORGANIZED GROUPS TO HAVE UNRESTRICTED
FREEDOM TO MAKE EXPENDITURES FOR DIRECTLY AND OPENLY PUBLICIZING THEIR
POLITICAL VIEWS AND INFORMATION SUPPORTING THEM, BUT CF. BOWE V.
SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, SUPRA AT 252, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT
IS ONE WHICH REQUIRES COMPLETE PROHIBITION OF THE RIGHT.  IBID.  THAT
IS NEITHER CONSISTENT WITH THE AMENDMENT'S SPIRIT AND PURPOSE, IBID.,
NOR ESSENTIAL TO CORRECTION OF THE EVIL, WHETHER IT BE CONSIDERED
CORRUPTIVE INFLUENCE OR MERELY INFLUENCE OF UNDUE OR DISPROPORTIONATE
POLITICAL WEIGHT. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY NOW TO CONSIDER WHETHER RESTRICTING THE RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS, SINGLY OR IN ORGANIZED RELATIONSHIPS, TO PUBLICIZE THEIR
POLITICAL VIEWS, RIGHTS OFTEN ESSENTIAL TO THEIR SURVIVAL AND ALWAYS TO
THEIR WELL-BEING, CAN BE ACCOMMODATED, IN SOME INSTANCES, WITH THE
AMENDMENT'S PURPOSE OR JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IN LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THOSE
PERSONS, UNLESS RESTRICTED, ACQUIRE "UNDUE INFLUENCE" IN THE ELECTORAL
PROCESS.  FOR "UNDUE INFLUENCE" IN THIS CONNECTION MAY REPRESENT NO
MORE THAN CONVINCING WEIGHT OF ARGUMENT FULLY PRESENTED, WHICH IS THE
VERY THING THE AMENDMENT AND THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IT PROTECTS WERE
INTENDED TO BRING OUT.  AND ONE MAY QUESTION HOW FAR LEGISLATORS MAY GO
IN ACCURATELY ASSESSING UNDUE OR DISPROPORTIONATE WEIGHT AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM MAKING SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING CORRUPTION. 

BUT EVEN IF THE RIGHT TO SWAY OTHERS BY PERSUASION IS ASSUMED TO BE
SUBJECT TO SOME CURTAILMENT, IN THE INTEREST OF PREVENTING GROSSLY
UNBALANCED PRESENTATIONS, THAT RIGHT CANNOT BE WHOLLY DENIED, BOWE V.
SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, SUPRA AT 252; NOR CAN IT BE RESTRICTED
BEYOND WHAT IS REASONABLY AND CLEARLY NECESSARY TO CORRECT AN EVIL SO
GROSS AND IMMEDIATE THAT THE CORRECTION INDUBITABLY OUTWEIGHS THE LOSS
TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST RESULTING FROM THE RESTRICTION.    HERE THE
RESTRICTION IN PRACTICAL EFFECT IS PROHIBITION, NOT REGULATION, WHEN IT
IS CONSIDERED WITH RESPECT TO THE OBJECTS OF SUPPRESSING CORRUPTION AND
"UNDUE INFLUENCE."  IT IS NOT A LIMITATION, IT IS A PROHIBITION UPON
EXPENDITURE OF UNION FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH A FEDERAL ELECTION. 
UNIONS CAN ACT AND SPEAK TODAY ONLY BY SPENDING MONEY, AS INDEED IS
TRUE OF NEARLY EVERY ORGANIZATION AND EVEN OF INDIVIDUALS IF THEIR
ACTION IS TO BE EFFECTIVE.  AS WAS SAID IN THE COURSE OF THE SENATE
DEBATES, THE INTERDICTION APPLIES TO "A DOLLAR, OR 50 CENTS, OR $500 OR
$1,000."  93 CONG. REC. 6438.  THERE IS NO SHOWING, LEGISLATIVE OR
OTHERWISE, OF CORRUPTION SO WIDESPREAD OR OF "UNDUE INFLUENCE" SO
DOMINATING AS COULD POSSIBLY JUSTIFY SO ABSOLUTE A DENIAL OF THESE
BASIC RIGHTS.  THE STATUTE, WHETHER IN TERMS OR AS GIVEN MEANING BY THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IS NOT NARROWLY DRAWN TO MEET THE PRECISE EVILS OF
CORRUPTION OR "UNDUE INFLUENCE," IF THESE WERE THE CONTROLLING OBJECTS
OF THE LEGISLATION.  NOR, AS WILL APPEAR, WERE THE RESTRICTIONS
SPECIFICALLY DEFINED, IF THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN DEFINED AT
ALL, SO AS TO LEAVE THE UNION SECURE AND UNRESTRAINED IN THE RIGHT TO
ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE REGION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S
COVERAGE BUT NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE LEGISLATION. 

AS HAS BEEN STATED, IT WAS THE "MINORITY PROTECTION" IDEA WHICH
BECAME THE DOMINANTLY STRESSED ONE IN THE SENATE DEBATES, ALTHOUGH AT
THE MOST SEC. 313 ON ITS FACE GAVE ONLY SLIGHT SUGGESTION OF THIS
PURPOSE.  NOR WAS THERE INDICATION IN THE SECTION'S TERMS THAT ITS
PROHIBITION TURNS ON THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE FUNDS EXPENDED WERE
DERIVED.  THE LANGUAGE BEARING ON THIS WAS "EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION
WITH AN ELECTION" AND NO MORE.  LITERALLY ALL UNION EXPENDITURES IN
THAT CONNECTION WERE OUTLAWED.  THERE IS NOT A WORD TO SUGGEST THAT
UNIONS COULD SPEND THEIR FUNDS IN THAT MANNER IF CONTRIBUTED EXPRESSLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OR DERIVED FROM SUCH SOURCES AS ADVERTISING REVENUES,
SUBSCRIPTIONS, ETC., RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH PUBLICATION OF A PAPER
IN REGULAR COURSE OR OTHERWISE.  THE LIMITATION OF THE PROHIBITION TO
FUNDS RECEIVED GENERALLY, I.E., WITHOUT SPECIFIC DESIGNATION FOR USE IN
POLITICAL PUBLICITY, IS ALMOST WHOLLY A CONSTRUCTION OF THE SENATE
SPONSOR, SO FAR AS APPEARS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

NOTWITHSTANDING ACCEPTED CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, IT
CERTAINLY WOULD BE GOING FAR TO EXPECT LAYMEN, OR EVEN LAWYERS, TO READ
A STATUTE SO LACKING IN SPECIFICITY CONCERNING ITS BASIC CRITERION WITH
ANY SEMBLANCE OF UNDERSTANDING OF ITS LIMITATIONS. 

THE LAWYER MIGHT INDEED READ THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AND CONCLUDE
THAT THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS USED WAS THE CRUX.  BUT EVEN HE WOULD BE
LEFT IN BROAD AND DEEP DOUBT WHETHER IT WOULD TURN MULTITUDINOUS
SITUATIONS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.  IF THE SECTION IS TAKEN NEVERTHELESS
TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO DRAW THE SPONSOR'S LINE OF DISTINCTION, THE
RESTRICTION IT MAKES REMAINS A DRASTIC ONE.  THE EFFECT IS NOT MERELY
ONE OF MINORITY PROTECTION.  IT IS ALSO ONE OF MAJORITY PROHIBITION. 
CF. DEMILLE V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF RADIO ARTISTS, SUPRA.  UNDER THE
BECOME A BULWARK, INDEED PERHAPS THE LEADING CHARACTERISTIC, OF
COLLECTIVE ACTIVITIES IS REJECTED IN FAVOR OF ATOMIZED INDIVIDUAL RULE
AND ACTION IN MATTERS OF POLITICAL ADVOCACY.  IBID.  UNION ACTIVITIES
IN POLITICAL PUBLICITY ARE CONFINED TO THE USE OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM
MEMBERS WITH THEIR EXPLICIT DESIGNATION GIVEN IN ADVANCE FOR THE
PURPOSE.  FN23  FUNDS SO RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS CAN BE THUS EXPENDED AND
NO OTHERS.  EVEN IF ALL OR THE LARGE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS HAD PAID
DUES WITH THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY OR PORTIONS OF THEM WOULD
BE SO USED, BUT HAD NOT GIVEN EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION, THE FUNDS COULD
NOT BE SO EMPLOYED.  FN24  AND THIS WOULD BE TRUE EVEN IF ALL OR THE
LARGE MAJORITY WERE IN COMPLETE SYMPATHY WITH THE POLITICAL VIEWS
EXPRESSED BY THE UNION OR ON ITS BEHALF WITH ANY EXPENDITURE OF MONEY,
HOWEVER SMALL. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE UNION COULD ASK AND IN MANY INSTANCES SECURE THE
REQUIRED EXPLICIT ASSENTS.  IT SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTED THAT THIS MIGHT BE
DONE BY EXPRESSLY DESIGNATING A SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE DUES FOR
POLITICAL USES, POSSIBLY THOUGH NOT AT ALL CLEARLY BY BY-LAW OR
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, POSSIBLY BY EARMARKING UPON STATEMENTS OF
DUES PAYABLE.  BUT IT IS NOT MADE CLEAR WHETHER THE MEMBER COULD REFUSE
TO PAY THE EARMARKED PORTION AND RETAIN MEMBERSHIP OR WOULD HAVE TO PAY
IT TO REMAIN IN THAT STATUS.  IF THE LATTER IS TRUE, THE SECTION
AFFORDS LITTLE REAL "MINORITY PROTECTION"; IF THE FORMER, THE
DISSENTIENT IS GIVEN ALL THE BENEFIT DERIVED FROM THE UNION'S POLITICAL
PUBLICITY WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY ANY PART OF ITS COST.  THIS IS BUT
ANOTHER OF THE IMPORTANT AND HIGHLY DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS RAISED ON THE

THE SECTION DOES NOT MERELY DEPRIVE THE UNION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
MAJORITY RULE IN POLITICAL EXPRESSION.  FN25  CF. DEMILLE V. AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF RADIO ARTISTS, SUPRA.  IT RESTS UPON THE PRESUMPTION THAT
THE MAJORITY ARE OUT OF ACCORD WITH THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN
POLITICAL VIEWPOINT AND ITS EXPRESSION AND, WHERE THAT PRESUMPTION IS
NOT APPLICABLE, IT CASTS THE BURDEN OF ASCERTAINING MINORITY OR
INDIVIDUAL DISSENT NOT UPON THE DISSENTERS BUT UPON THE UNION AND ITS
OFFICIALS.  THE FORMER SITUATION MAY ARISE, INDEED IN ONE NOTABLE
INSTANCE HAS DONE SO.  BUT THAT INSTANCE HARDLY CAN BE TAKEN TO BE A
NORMAL OR USUAL CASE.  UNIONS TOO MOST OFTEN OPERATE UNDER THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS AND THE PRINCIPLE OF MAJORITY RULE.  NOR IN THE
LATTER SITUATION DOES IT SEEM REASONABLE TO PRESUME DISSENT FROM MERE
ABSENCE OF EXPLICIT ASSENT, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF LONG-ESTABLISHED
UNION PRACTICE. 

IF MERELY "MINORITY OR DISSENTER PROTECTION" WERE INTENDED, IT WOULD
BE SUFFICIENT FOR SECURING THIS TO PERMIT THE DISSENTING MEMBERS TO
CARRY THE BURDEN OF MAKING KNOWN THEIR POSITION AND TO RELIEVE THEM OF
ANY DUTY TO PAY DUES OR PORTIONS OF THEM TO BE APPLIED TO THE FORBIDDEN
USES WITHOUT JEOPARDY TO THEIR RIGHTS AS MEMBERS.  THIS WOULD BE
CLEARLY SUFFICIENT, IT WOULD SEEM, TO PROTECT DISSENTING MEMBERS
AGAINST USE OF FUNDS CONTRIBUTED BY THEM FOR PURPOSES THEY DISAPPROVE,
BUT WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE UNION OF THE RIGHT TO USE THE FUNDS OF
CONCURRING MEMBERS, MORE OFTEN THAN OTHERWISE A MAJORITY, WITHOUT
SECURING THEIR EXPRESS CONSENT IN ADVANCE OF THE USE.  FN26 

AGAIN, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE SECTION IS MORE BROADLY DRAWN THAN
IS NECESSARY TO REACH THE INTENDED EVIL.  MOREOVER, THIS DEMONSTRATES,
IN MY OPINION, THAT "MINORITY PROTECTION" WAS NOT THE ONLY OR PERHAPS
THE DOMINANT OBJECT OF ITS ENACTMENT.  THAT OBJECT WAS RATHER TO FORCE
UNIONS AS SUCH ENTIRELY OUT OF POLITICAL LIFE AND ACTIVITY, INCLUDING
FOR PRESENTLY PERTINENT PURPOSES THE EXPRESSION OF ORGANIZED VIEWPOINT
CONCERNING MATTERS AFFECTING THEIR VITAL INTERESTS AT THE MOST CRUCIAL
POINT WHERE THE EXPRESSION WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE.  CF. THOMAS V.
COLLINS, SUPRA AT 536-537; BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S.
624, 642; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 269.  AND SO WE COME
BACK TO THE CONJUNCTION OF OBJECTIVES WHICH, TAKEN TOGETHER, ARE
CLAIMED TO SUSTAIN THE SECTION'S VALIDITY. 

IT WOULD BE A VERY GREAT INFRINGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS GROUP
FREEDOMS, AFFECTING VAST NUMBERS OF OUR CITIZENS, IF LABOR UNIONS COULD
BE DEPRIVED OF ALL RIGHT OF EXPRESSION UPON PENDING POLITICAL MATTERS
AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS.  BUT WE NEED NOT NOW DECIDE WHETHER SEC. 313
HAS GONE SO FAR.  FN27 

FOR IF WE ASSUME THAT THE OBJECTS SAID TO HAVE BEEN THE MOTIVATION
FOR ENACTING SEC. 313 CAN SUSTAIN SUBSTANTIAL LIMITATIONS UPON THE
RIGHTS OF FREE EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY, THEY CANNOT SUPPORT THE
SWEEPING AND HIGHLY INDEFINITE RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON THEM, WHETHER
BY THE SECTION AS DRAWN, AS LEGISLATIVELY CONSTRUED, OR AS SOUGHT TO BE
APPLIED.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE A STATUTE AFFECTING THOSE RIGHTS
MORE LACKING IN PRECISION, MORE BROAD IN THE SCOPE OF DOUBT AND
UNCERTAINTY OF ITS REACH. 

WE HAVE ONLY THE BROAD AND INDEFINITE WORDS "EXPENDITURE IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION."  APART FROM THE LITERAL SWEEP OF
"EXPENDITURE" AND THE LARGE AREA OF DOUBT CREATED BY EFFORTS TO CONFINE
IT, WHAT IS "IN CONNECTION WITH"?  FN28  WHAT IS A FORBIDDEN BECAUSE A
POLITICAL COMMENT N29?  WHAT SORTS OF UNION ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF
PUBLISHING A NEWSPAPER WITH UNSEGREGATED FUNDS WOULD FALL UNDER THE
BAN?  FN30 

THE CATALOGUE OF DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY NEED NOT BE EXTENDED. 
THROUGHOUT THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION, BOTH OF COVERAGE AND OF VALIDITY,
INSTANCES HAVE BEEN NOTED WHICH DEMONSTRATE ITS ENCYCLOPEDIC SCOPE. 
THE CASE IS NOT ONE WHERE A HARD CORE OF CERTAIN PROHIBITION HAS BEEN
FORMED, WITH ONLY A FRINGE OF DOUBT NARROW IN SCOPE AT ITS OUTER
BOUNDARY.  INDEED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VIEW NOW TAKEN BY THE
COURT AND THAT TAKEN BY THE SENATE AND PRESUMABLY BY THE HOUSE SHOWS
THAT EVEN THE CORE IS SOFT.  TO THE GAMBLES OF THE STATUTE ITSELF ARE
ADDED THOSE OF GUESSING NOT ONLY AT ITS PERIMETER BUT AT ITS VERY
CENTER.  NOR HAVE THESE BEEN LESSENED BY TODAY'S DECISION OTHER THAN BY
ELIMINATING THE ONE APPLICATION THE LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSION HAD SOUGHT
TO MAKE CLEAR. 

VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY SO VAST AND ALL-PERVASIVE SEEKING TO
RESTRICT OR DELIMIT FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS ARE WHOLLY AT WAR WITH THE
LONG-ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES SURROUNDING THEIR
DELIMITATION.  THEY MEASURE UP NEITHER TO THE REQUIREMENT OF NARROW
DRAFTING TO MEET THE PRECISE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE CURBED NOR TO THE ONE
THAT CONDUCT PROSCRIBED MUST BE DEFINED WITH SUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY NOT
TO BLANKET LARGE AREAS OF UNFORBIDDEN CONDUCT WITH DOUBT AND
UNCERTAINTY OF COVERAGE.  IN THIS RESPECT THE AMENDMENT'S POLICY ADDS
ITS OWN FORCE TO THAT OF DUE PROCESS IN THE DEFINITION OF CRIME TO
FORBID SUCH CONSEQUENCES.  CF. WINTERS V. NEW YORK, SUPRA. IF THE
STATUTE OUTLAWS ALL UNION EXPENDITURES FOR EXPRESSION OF POLITICAL
VIEWS, IT IS A BLUDGEON ILL-DESIGNED FOR CURBING THE EVILS SAID TO
JUSTIFY ITS ENACTMENT, WITHOUT ALSO CURBING THE RIGHTS.  IF THE SECTION
DOES LESS, THE EXACT THING FORBIDDEN IS TOO LOOSELY DEFINED AND THE
CONSEQUENT CLOUD CAST OVER THE THINGS NOT PROSCRIBED BUT WITHIN THE
AMENDMENT'S BEARING IS FAR TOO GREAT.  IN THIS ASPECT AND IN VIEW OF
THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS IMPOSED, THE SECTION SERVES AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT
UPON THE FREEDOMS OF EXPRESSION AND OF ASSEMBLY THE AMENDMENT WAS
DESIGNED TO SECURE.  ONLY A MASTER, IF ANY, COULD WALK THE PERILOUS
WIRE STRUNG BY THE SECTION'S CRITERIA. 

THE FORCE OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS IS VASTLY MULTIPLIED WHEN IT IS
RECALLED THAT, UNLESS THEY WERE EFFECTIVE TO NULLIFY THE SECTION IN ITS
APPLICATION TO PUBLICIZING ACTIVITIES, THE BROADLY PROHIBITIVE AND
BLANKETING CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE APPLICABLE ALSO TO ALL SIMILAR
CORPORATE POLITICAL EXPRESSIONS, POSSIBLY NOT EXCEPTING EVEN THOSE OF
THE REGULARLY CONDUCTED CORPORATE PRESS.  FN31  THIS WOULD BE TRUE, FOR
INSTANCE, IF THE SENATE SPONSOR'S CONTRARY VIEW SHOULD MEET THE SAME
FATE IN THIS COURT THAT HIS VIEW OF THE SECTION'S APPLICATION TO THE
PRESENTLY INVOLVED SITUATION HAS MET.  MOREOVER, IN THE SPONSOR'S VIEW
SPECIAL EDITIONS AND APPARENTLY FREE DISTRIBUTION BY SUCH CORPORATE
PUBLISHERS, CONTAINING POLITICAL ITEMS, WOULD APPEAR TO FALL UNDER THE
BAN. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR APPLYING AND SUSTAINING THE SECTION IN ITS PRESENTLY
ATTEMPTED APPLICATION HAS GONE LARGELY UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT
WOULD BE VALID AS APPLIED TO SIMILAR CORPORATE PUBLICATIONS, EXCEPTING
POSSIBLY THE REGULAR PRESS.  THE ASSUMPTION IS ONE NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY
DECISION OF THIS COURT, WHICH HAS THE FINAL VOICE IN SUCH MATTERS. 
THERE ARE OF COURSE IMPORTANT LEGAL AND ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES REMAINING
BETWEEN CORPORATIONS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS, INCLUDING LABOR
UNIONS, WHICH JUSTIFY LARGE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THEM IN LEGAL
TREATMENT.  BUT TO WHATEVER EXTENT THIS MAY BE TRUE, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
THAT THE BROADSIDE AND BLANKETING PROHIBITIONS HERE ATTEMPTED IN
RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY WOULD BE VALID IN
THEIR CORPORATE APPLICATIONS.  CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN HELD WITHIN THE
FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION AGAINST RESTRICTIONS UPON THE CIRCULATION
OF THEIR MEDIA OF EXPRESSION.  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S.
233.  IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE TAKEN, MERELY UPON LEGISLATIVE ASSUMPTION,
PRACTICE OR JUDGMENT, THAT RESTRICTIONS UPON FREEDOMS OF EXPRESSION BY
CORPORATIONS ARE VALID.  AGAIN, THOSE MATTERS CANNOT BE SETTLED FINALLY
UNTIL THIS COURT HAS SPOKEN. 

FINALLY, IF SEC. 313 IS TAKEN IN THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION, IN MY
OPINION ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY STANDS IN NO BETTER CASE.  FOR I KNOW OF
NOTHING IN THE AMENDMENT'S POLICY OR HISTORY WHICH TURNS OR PERMITS
TURNING THE APPLICABILITY OF ITS PROTECTIONS UPON THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN REGULAR AND MERELY CASUAL OR OCCASIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS.  INDEED
PAMPHLETEERING WAS A COMMON MODE OF EXERCISING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
BEFORE AND AT THE TIME OF THE AMENDMENT'S ADOPTION.  IT CANNOT HAVE
BEEN INTENDED TO TOLERATE EXCLUSION OF THIS FORM OF EXERCISING THAT
FREEDOM.  NOR DOES MAKING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISTRIBUTION TO DUES
PAYING MEMBERS ONLY AND DISTRIBUTION TO OUTSIDERS OR THE PUBLIC,
WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT PRICE, MAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE.  THE
AMENDMENT DID NOT MAKE ITS PROTECTIONS TURN ON WHETHER THE HEARER OR
READER PAYS, OR CAN PAY, FOR THE PUBLICATION OR THE PRIVILEGE OF
HEARING THE ORAL OR WRITTEN PRONOUNCEMENT.  NEITHER FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND THE PRESS NOR THE RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY IS RESTRICTED TO
PERSONS WHO CAN AND DO PAY. 

A STATUTE WHICH, IN THE CLAIMED INTEREST OF FREE AND HONEST
ELECTIONS, CURTAILS THE VERY FREEDOMS THAT MAKE POSSIBLE EXERCISE OF
THE FRANCHISE BY AN INFORMED AND THINKING ELECTORATE, AND DOES THIS BY
INDISCRIMINATE BLANKETING OF EVERY EXPENDITURE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH
AN ELECTION, SERVING AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT UPON EXPRESSION NOT IN FACT
FORBIDDEN AS WELL AS UPON WHAT IS, CANNOT BE SQUARED WITH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.    FN1  SECTION 313 OF THE CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, AS AMENDED
BY SEC. 304 OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT.
159. 

FN2  RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549; ASHWANDER V.
VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS AT 346-348; FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450;
UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75. 

FN3  THE STATUTORY WORDING IS:  "  ...  EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION
WITH ANY ELECTION AT WHICH PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS
OR A SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE IN, OR A DELEGATE OR RESIDENT
COMMISSIONER TO CONGRESS ARE TO BE VOTED FOR, OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY
PRIMARY ELECTION OR POLITICAL CONVENTION OR CAUCUS HELD TO SELECT
CANDIDATES FOR ANY OF THE FOREGOING OFFICES  ... " 

FN4  THE INDICTMENT EXPLICITLY CHARGES THAT "THE CIO NEWS" WAS
REGULARLY (WEEKLY) PUBLISHED BY THE C.I.O. AND COSTS OF PUBLICATION AND
DISTRIBUTION, INCLUDING THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, WERE PAID FROM THE
UNION'S FUNDS.  THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION CONCERNING THEIR SOURCE,
WHETHER FROM REVENUES NOT CONNECTED WITH OR EARMARKED FOR RECEIPT OF
THE PAPER OR FROM SOURCES SPECIFICALLY SO CONNECTED.  THE COURT'S
OPINION DOES NOT, NOR COULD IT FAIRLY, ASSUME THAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE
LIMITED TO EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS DERIVED FROM SUBSCRIPTIONS, ADVERTISING
REVENUES OR RETURNS FROM PER COPY SALES.  THE OPINION EXPLICITLY HOLDS
THAT SOURCE OF THE FUNDS IS IMMATERIAL UNDER SEC. 313 FOR COVERAGE OF
THE TYPE OF PUBLICATION AND CIRCULATION HERE INVOLVED. 

FN5  BY THE OPINION'S PHRASE, "IN REGULAR COURSE TO THOSE ACCUSTOMED
TO RECEIVE COPIES," P. 123, ANTE, ROOM SEEMS TO BE LEFT FOR THE
INFERENCE THAT INSUBSTANTIAL DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE THE MEMBERSHIP WOULD
NOT TEND TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE SECTION'S TERMS. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 3.  THE SECTION AS PRESENTLY EFFECTIVE IS QUOTED IN
FULL AT NOTE 1 OF THE COURT'S OPINION. 

FN7  "CONTRIBUTION" HAD BEEN CONSTRUED BY LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES
INVESTIGATING CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO 1947, SEE NOTES 9 AND 10,
THOUGH NOT ALWAYS UNANIMOUSLY, NOT TO COVER EXPENDITURES MADE BY LABOR
UNIONS IN PUBLISHING THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS DURING CAMPAIGNS OR AT OTHER
TIMES.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2093, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 10-11; SEN. REP.
NO. 101, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 57-59, 83-84; H.R. REP. NO. 2739, 79TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 39-40, 46; SEN. REP. NO. 1, PART 2, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 37, 38-39.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SUMMARIZE THE DIFFERING
VIEWPOINTS EXPRESSED IN THE 1947 DEBATES CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF
THIS CONSTRUCTION.  WHETHER VALID OR NOT WOULD MAKE ONLY THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN EXTENDING THE STATUTE'S SCOPE BY ADDING TO ITS TERMS OR BY
"PLUGGING A LOOPHOLE," ALBEIT A LARGE ONE, CREATED BY MISCONSTRUCTION. 
IN EITHER EVENT A LARGE ADDITION TO THE SECTION'S COVERAGE WAS MADE. 
SEE, E.G., 93 CONG. REC. 6438-6440. 

THE FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT OF 1925, 43 STAT. 1070, AMENDED THE
PREEXISTING LEGISLATION FORBIDDING A CORPORATE "MONEY CONTRIBUTION" BY
CHANGING THAT TERM TO "CONTRIBUTION" AND DEFINING THIS TO INCLUDE "A
GIFT, SUBSCRIPTION, LOAN, ADVANCE, OR DEPOSIT, OF MONEY, OR ANYTHING OF
VALUE, AND INCLUDES A CONTRACT, PROMISE, OR AGREEMENT, WHETHER OR NOT
LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE, TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION  ...  "  SINCE
"EXPENDITURE" WAS INTENDED TO BROADEN "CONTRIBUTION" IN THE 1947
AMENDMENT OF SEC. 313, IT WOULD SEEM THAT ITS SCOPE COULD HARDLY BE
LESS BROAD THAN WAS GIVEN BY THE 1925 ACT'S DEFINITION TO
"CONTRIBUTION," ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT APPEAR TO URGE THAT
"EXPENDITURE" INCORPORATES THAT DEFINITION. 

FN8  SEE 93 CONG. REC. 6436-6441, 6446-6448, AND EXCERPTS QUOTED IN
THE COURT'S OPINION AND THE APPENDIX TO THIS ONE.  CF. ALSO NOTES 11,
12, 13. 

FN9  THESE WERE THE OBJECTS OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
"CONTRIBUTIONS" BY LABOR UNIONS, WHICH FIRST APPEARED ON A TEMPORARY
BASIS IN 1943 IN THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, WHICH BY ITS TERMS WAS TO
EXPIRE SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING THE TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES.  ACT OF
JUNE 25, 1943, C. 144, SEC. 9, 57 STAT. 167.  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR ON H.R. 804 AND H.R. 1483, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 2, 4, 117, 118, 133.  CF. 89 CONG. REC. 5328, 5334,
5792.  THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF STATES THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE 1943 ACT SHOWS THAT THE PRINCIPAL BASIS OF THE EXTENSION TO LABOR
UNIONS, LIKE THAT OF THE SAME AND EARLIER ACTS APPLYING TO
CORPORATIONS, "WAS THE SECURING OF ELECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
WILL OF THE PEOPLE THROUGH REMOVING DISPROPORTIONATE INFLUENCES EXERTED
BY MEANS OF LARGE AGGREGATIONS OF MONEY." 

SINCE THE 1947 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 313 WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE PERMANENT
THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE 1943 ACT, H.R. REP. NO. 245, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 46; H.R. REP. NO. 510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 67-68(CONFERENCE
REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 3020), AND TO EXPAND THEM BY ADDING
"EXPENDITURES," THE OBJECTS OF THE 1943 ACT NECESSARILY WERE CARRIED
FORWARD INTO THE 1947 AMENDMENT.  IBID.  SEE ALSO 93 CONG. REC. 3428. 

FN10  CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES INVESTIGATING CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES IN
1946 AND 1947 HAD RECOMMENDED THAT "EXPENDITURES" BE ADDED TO THE
PROHIBITION OF SEC. 313.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2739, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS.
39-40, 46; SEN. REP. NO. 1, PART 2, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 37, 38-39. 
THE SO-CALLED TAFT-HARTLEY BILL AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE CONTAINED
THE PROHIBITION, H.R. 3020, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 304, WHILE THE
SENATE VERSION DID NOT.  S. 1126, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS THERE WAS
APPARENTLY LITTLE DISCUSSION IN EITHER BODY ON THE MATTER UNTIL THE
CONFERENCE REPORT INCORPORATING THE PROVISION WAS MADE.  H.R. REP. NO.
510, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THEN LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED IN THE
SENATE, FROM WHICH EXCERPTS ARE QUOTED IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND IN
THE APPENDIX TO THIS ONE.  SEE 93 CONG. REC. 6436-6441, 6445-6448, 6522
6524, 6530. 

FN11  SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT INSTANCES INCLUDED WHETHER THE
CONNECTION WITH" ELECTIONS BY CORPORATELY OWNED NEWSPAPERS AND
PERIODICALS, IN REGULAR COURSE OF DISTRIBUTION, 93 CONG. REC. 6436, OR
IN SPECIAL EDITIONS, IBID.; BY "HOUSE ORGANS," ID. 6440, OR LIKE
PUBLICATIONS PUT OUT BY CORPORATIONS ENGAGING PRIMARILY IN OTHER
BUSINESS THAN PUBLISHING; BY RELIGIOUS, IBID., AND CHARITABLE
CORPORATIONS; BY ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE, IBID.; BY
RADIO COMMENTATORS SPONSORED BY COMMERCIAL CORPORATIONS, ID. 6439,
6447; BY TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, SUCH AS THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MANUFACTURERS, WHICH RECEIVE FUNDS FROM CONSTITUENT CORPORATIONS, ID.
6438. 

THESE INQUIRIES GENERALLY PROCEEDED WITH ANALOGOUS ONES RELATING TO
COMPARABLE ACTIVITIES OF UNIONS AND COMPARABLE RESPONSES, TOUCHING FOR
EXAMPLE P.A.C. ACTIVITIES; LABOR PUBLICATIONS, REGULAR OR SPECIAL;
SPONSORED BROADCASTS, ETC.  ILLUSTRATIVE RESPONSES ARE SET FORTH IN
NOTE 12. 

FN12  E.G., THE REGULAR CORPORATELY OWNED PRESS WAS CONSIDERED NOT
COVERED AS TO ITS ORDINARY CIRCULATION, BECAUSE "THAT IS THE OPERATION
OF THE NEWSPAPER ITSELF," 93 CONG. REC. 6437.  THE SAME EXEMPTION FROM
COVERAGE, HOWEVER, WAS THOUGHT NOT TO EXTEND TO REGULARLY PUBLISHED
UNION OR LABOR PAPERS, SINCE MEMBERS' DUES COULD NOT BE SO USED WITHOUT
SPECIFIC EARMARKING OR DESIGNATION BY EACH FOR SUCH USE, EVEN THOUGH
FROM PREVIOUS PRACTICE THEY MIGHT KNOW SUCH USE WOULD BE MADE.  ID.
6440.  ON THE OTHER HAND, NEITHER THE REGULAR PRESS, CORPORATELY OWNED,
NOR UNION PAPERS COULD PUBLISH SPECIAL EDITIONS OR DISTRIBUTE THEM WITH
OR WITHOUT CHARGE.  NOR COULD HOUSE ORGANS, UNION OR CORPORATE, COMMENT
POLITICALLY, OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, IF INCORPORATED; NEITHER COULD
ASSOCIATIONS LIKE THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, WHICH
RECEIVE FUNDS FROM CORPORATIONS AND BY SUCH EXPENDITURES WOULD BE
MAKING "CONTRIBUTIONS" INDIRECTLY.  PROBLEMS INVOLVING ORGANIZATIONS
LIKE THE ANTI-SALOON LEAGUE AND SPONSORED RADIO BROADCASTS, WHETHER BY
UNIONS OR CORPORATIONS, AS WELL AS GUEST APPEARANCES OF CANDIDATES AND
OTHERS SUPPORTING THEM ON SPONSORED RADIO PROGRAMS, RAISED MATTERS OF
GREATER DIFFICULTY.  SEE THE VARIOUS PERTINENT CITATIONS IN NOTE 11. 
CF. NOTES 13 AND 14. 

FN13  THE PROBLEMS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH RADIO DISCUSSIONS
PRESENTED PARTICULARLY DUBIOUS SITUATIONS, FREQUENTLY ADMITTED TO CALL
FOR FURTHER FACTS, TO PRESENT QUESTIONS OF FACT, AND TO REQUIRE FINE
LINES OF DISTINCTION.  SEE, E.G., 93 CONG. REC. 6439, 6440. 

DIFFICULTY AROSE AND DOUBT WAS EXPRESSED ALSO OVER WHAT WOULD
CONSTITUTE POLITICAL COMMENT, E.G., PUBLISHING AN INCUMBENT CANDIDATE'S
VOTING RECORD, ID. 6438, 6446, 6447, AN INSTANCE IN WHICH THE SENATE
SPONSOR AT FIRST DISAGREED WITH SENATOR BALL, BUT LATER APPARENTLY
THOUGH SOMEWHAT EQUIVOCALLY AGREED WITH HIM THAT PUBLICATION OF THE
RECORD WITHOUT COMMENT FURTHER THAN "MERELY A BARE STATEMENT OF ACTUAL
FACTS AND SIMPLY DIRECT QUOTATIONS OF WHAT THE MAN HAD SAID IN THE
COURSE OF CERTAIN SPEECHES ON CERTAIN SUBJECTS" WOULD NOT BE FORBIDDEN,
ID. 6447; CORPORATE BROADCASTS NOT FOR OR AGAINST A CANDIDATE, BUT FOR
A PARTY OR RELATING TO ISSUES IN THE ELECTION, SAID TO BE "AGAIN, A
QUESTION OF FACT" AND TO DEPEND ON "HOW CLOSE IT IS TO THE ELECTION." 
IBID. THESE INSTANCES ARE ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY, NOT COMPREHENSIVE.  CF.
NOTE 29. 

FN14  THIS RUBRIC TURNED THE ANSWERS TO THE INQUIRIES AND SITUATIONS
MENTIONED IN NOTES 11, 12 AND 13, AS INDEED TO ALL OTHERS.  IF THE
FUNDS USED FOR THE PUBLICATION CAME TO THE CORPORATE OR UNION TREASURY
WITHOUT SECURING THE CONTRIBUTOR'S EXPRESS CONSENT FOR THAT USE, THE
ORGANIZATION COULD NOT SO APPLY THEM; IF SO CONTRIBUTED, THEY COULD BE
THUS EMPLOYED.  EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF THE REGULAR CORPORATE PRESS WHICH
PRESUMABLY WAS NOT COVERED AS TO ORDINARY CIRCULATION, CF. NOTE 12
SUPRA, EXPENDITURE OF ANY CORPORATE OR UNION FUNDS NOT DERIVED FROM
OPERATION OF THE PUBLICATION, E.G., FROM ADVERTISING REVENUES OR
RETURNS FROM PER COPY SALES, OR FUNDS RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT
INDIVIDUAL AND EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
PUBLICATION WAS FORBIDDEN. 

FN15  SEE THE APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION, POST, P. 156. 

FN16  SINCE THE STATUTE IN MY JUDGMENT ABRIDGES THOSE FREEDOMS HERE,
IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER OTHER GROUNDINGS URGED FOR ITS
INVALIDATION. 

FN17  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 531; BOARD OF EDUCATION V.
BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 639; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 96;
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161. 

FN18  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 530; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310
U.S. 88, 95; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161; CF. UNITED STATES
V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152, N. 4. 

FN19  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 530; AND CF. OTHER CASES CITED
IN NOTE 17. 

FN20  "THE TIMES, PLACES AND MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS FOR SENATORS
AND REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN EACH STATE BY THE
LEGISLATURE THEREOF; BUT THE CONGRESS MAY AT ANY TIME BY LAW MAKE OR
ALTER SUCH REGULATIONS, EXCEPT AS TO THE PLACES OF CHUSING SENATORS." 

SEE ALSO U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 2, CLAUSE 1, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 18. 
CF. AS TO CONGRESS' POWER OVER THE ELECTORAL PROCESS, EX PARTE
YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651; UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299. 

FN21  AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE SENATE DEBATE WENT LARGELY ON THE
"MINORITY PROTECTION" BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION WITH ONLY INFERENTIAL OR
INCIDENTAL REFERENCE TO CORRUPTING INFLUENCE AND OCCASIONAL SUGGESTIONS
OF "UNDUE INFLUENCE."  SEE, HOWEVER, THE STATEMENTS OF REPRESENTATIVE
HOFFMAN, 93 CONG. REC. 3428, AND OF SENATOR TAFT, ID. 6437. 

FN22  THE BRIEF, HOWEVER, INCLUDES AMONG THE REASONS FOR THE
PROHIBITION OF SEC. 313 "A DISTRUST OF THE USE OF LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS,
NOT BECAUSE THESE PROVE CORRUPTION, BUT BECAUSE THE LARGE SINGLE
CONTRIBUTIONS IMPLY RESULTING OBLIGATIONS AND, THEREFORE, CAN BREED
CORRUPTION"; AND GOES ON TO STATE THAT "THERE IS NO PRACTICAL
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONTRIBUTION AND AN EXPENDITURE SO FAR AS THE
EFFECT OF THE USE OF MONEY FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES IS CONCERNED." 

FN23  APPARENTLY THE SENATE SPONSOR CONSIDERED THAT REVENUES DERIVED
FROM THE OPERATION OF UNION NEWSPAPERS, SUCH AS ADVERTISING REVENUES,
ETC., ARE AVAILABLE FOR POLITICAL PUBLICITY, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE UNION
FUNDS IN WHICH POLITICALLY DISSENTIENT MEMBERS HAVE INTERESTS
PROPORTIONALLY WITH CONCURRING ONES AND, IT SEEMS, DO NOT GIVE EXPLICIT
CONSENT TO SUCH USE.  THE SITUATION, LIKE THE CASE OF THE REGULAR
INCORPORATED PRESS, WOULD SEEM TO BE EXCEPTIONAL IN PERMITTING THE
UNION (OR CORPORATION) TO USE ITS OWN FUNDS FOR POLITICAL PUBLICITY. 

FN24  SEE NOTE 12 SUPRA. 

FN25  IT WOULD EVEN SEEM QUESTIONABLE WHETHER UNION FUNDS, NOT
INDIVIDUALLY EARMARKED FOR THE PURPOSE, COULD BE USED FOR CALLING UNION
MEETINGS TO DISCUSS AND DETERMINE OFFICIAL POLITICAL POLICIES OR TO
HEAR CANDIDATES OR OTHERS EXPRESSING THEIR VIEWS ON CAMPAIGN ISSUES. 
CF. NOTE 30 INFRA. 

FN26  THIS DIFFERENCE IS MINIMIZED, THOUGH NOTED, IN THE GOVERNMENT'S
COMPARISON OF SEC. 313 WITH THE BRITISH LEGISLATION AND EXPERIENCE. 
CF. TRADE UNION ACT OF 1913, 2 & 3 GEO. V, C. 30; TRADE DISPUTES AND
TRADE UNIONS ACT OF 1927, 17 & 18 GEO. V, C. 22, REPEALED BY TRADE
DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS ACT OF 1946, 9 & 10 GEO. VI, C. 52.  THE
LEGISLATION WAS NOT INTENDED TO PREVENT EXPENDITURES FOR UNION
NEWSPAPERS.  SEE ROTHSCHILD, GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF TRADE UNIONS IN
GREAT BRITAIN:  II, 38 COL. L. REV. 1335, 1364.  AND SEE FURTHER
REGARDING THE BRITISH LEGISLATION'S EFFECT, DEMILLE V. AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF RADIO ARTISTS, 31 CAL.2D 137, 148, DISTINGUISHING
AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF RAILWAY SERVANTS V. OSBORNE, (1910) A.C. 87. 
FN27  CF.:  "IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT UNION FUNDS ARE NOT TO BE USED
TO INTERFERE IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND WITH POLITICAL CANDIDATES,
EITHER IN FAVOR OF ONE CANDIDATE OR AGAINST ANOTHER CANDIDATE."  93
CONG. REC. 6437.  "LABOR UNIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP OUT OF POLITICS IN
THE SAME WAY THAT CORPORATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP OUT OF POLITICS." 
ID. 6440. 

FN28  WHEN DOES THE CONNECTION BEGIN?  OBVIOUSLY NOT WITH THE DATE OF
THE ELECTION, PRIMARY, CONVENTION OR CAUCUS.  HOW LONG BEFOREHAND, WITH
THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANDIDACIES OR WITH EARLIER THOUGH NOT ALWAYS
PUBLIC EFFORTS TO INDUCE PERSONS TO RUN?  WHEN DOES THE CONNECTION
END?  WITH THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATES IN THE ONE CASE AND THE ELECTION
OF OFFICERS IN THE OTHER OR DOES IT EXTEND TO ACTIVITIES RELATING TO
THESE EVENTS TAKING PLACE LATER? 

FN29  THE PUBLICATION OF BARE FACTS, E.G., VOTING RECORDS, OF
QUOTATIONS FROM SPEECHES AND ADDRESSES, THEIR REPRODUCTION IN FULL? 
CF. NOTE 13.  AND DOES ACCURACY OR INACCURACY OF THE QUOTATION MAKE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINALITY AND LEGALITY?  COULD A PRESIDENT'S
SPEECH IN THE COURSE OF A CAMPAIGN FOR REELECTION BE REPRODUCED IN A
UNION NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED WITH UNSEGREGATED FUNDS, WHETHER DESIGNEDLY
AND CLEARLY POLITICAL OR PURPORTING NOT TO BE SO?  WHERE TO DRAW THE
LINE BETWEEN FACTS AND COMMENT, OR COMMENT AND ADVOCACY OR OPPOSITION? 

FN30  A SUMMARY FROM APPELLEES' BRIEF INDICATES THE SCOPE AND VARIETY
OF QUESTIONS WHICH WOULD ARISE: 

"THIS MEASURE THUS ON ITS FACE WOULD PREVENT A LABOR ORGANIZATION
FROM HOLDING A MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVOCATING THE ELECTION OR
DEFEAT OF A PARTICULAR POLITICAL CANDIDATE.  IT WOULD PRECLUDE A LABOR
ORGANIZATION FROM ORGANIZING A PUBLIC GATHERING TO ADVOCATE THE
ELECTION OF A CANDIDATE PLEDGED TO THE DEFEAT OF SUCH A MEASURE AS

"A LABOR ORGANIZATION UNDER THIS STATUTE COULD NOT PLACE AT THE
DISPOSAL OF A CANDIDATE ITS OWN HALL.  IT COULD NOT ENGAGE RADIO TIME
TO DENOUNCE A CANDIDATE WHO HAD IDENTIFIED HIMSELF WITH INTERESTS
FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO THOSE BASIC TO THE INTERESTS OF THE
DEFENDANTS.  NOR COULD IT PAY THE SALARY OR EXPENSES OF AN INDIVIDUAL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERMITTING HIM TO PARTICIPATE IN A POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN. 

"HANDBILLS, PLACARDS OR UNION NEWSPAPERS ADVISING THE UNION
MEMBERSHIP OF THE VOTING RECORDS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS COULD NOT BE
PUBLISHED OR DISTRIBUTED AT ELECTION TIME TO ADVOCATE EITHER THE
ELECTION OF LABOR'S FRIENDS OR THE DEFEAT OF LABOR'S ENEMIES.  PAID
ADVERTISEMENTS AND RADIO PUBLICATIONS FOR THE SAME PURPOSES WOULD BE
LIKEWISE PROSCRIBED. 

"NO MATTER HOW DANGEROUS THE THREAT PRESENTED BY A CANDIDATE TO THE
FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION, IT IS POWERLESS UNDER
THIS LAW TO SPEAK AND TO INFORM THE PEOPLE OF ITS VIEWS.  IT COULD NOT
SEND TO A SINGLE MEMBER A PENNY POSTCARD DEALING WITH SUCH A
CANDIDATE.  IT COULD NOT EVEN SEND A DELEGATE OR OBSERVER TO A
POLITICAL CONVENTION. 

"IT COULD OPPOSE BAD LAWS BUT NOT 'IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION'. 
IT COULD ENDORSE GOOD LAWS BUT AT ALL TIMES BOTH ITS OPPOSITION AND ITS
ENDORSEMENT WOULD BE UNDERTAKEN AT THE PERIL OF CROSSING THE LINE AT
WHICH SUCH OPPOSITION OR ENDORSEMENT OR ADVOCACY COULD BE REGARDED AS
BEING 'IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ELECTION'. 

"MOREOVER, A LABOR ORGANIZATION COULD NOT SPONSOR A PUBLIC MEETING IN
CONNECTION WITH AN ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING THE VIEWS OF
CANDIDATES OF VARIOUS POLITICAL PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES OF
IMPORTANCE TO ITS MEMBERSHIP SINCE SUCH A MEETING WOULD INEVITABLY
REQUIRE EXPENDITURES. 

"THE TRADITIONAL CAMPAIGNS ON THE PART OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS PRIOR
TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS TO 'GET OUT THE VOTE' WOULD, SINCE THEY REQUIRE
EXPENDITURES, BE PROSCRIBED BY THE STATUTE.  AND THE PUBLICATION OF
VOTING GUIDES AND ANALYSES OF THE VOTING RECORDS OF CANDIDATES WOULD
LIKEWISE BE CONDEMNED." 

FN31  CF. THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW, STATED IN HIS VETO MESSAGE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"FURTHERMORE, THIS PROVISION CAN BE INTERPRETED AS GOING FAR BEYOND
ITS APPARENT OBJECTIVES, AND AS INTERFERING WITH NECESSARY BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES.  IT PROVIDES NO EXEMPTION FOR CORPORATIONS WHOSE BUSINESS
IS THE PUBLICATION OF NEWSPAPERS OR THE OPERATION OF RADIO STATIONS. 
IT MAKES NO DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN EXPENDITURES MADE BY SUCH CORPORATIONS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION, AND OTHER
EXPENDITURES MADE BY THEM IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF THEIR BUSINESS 'IN
CONNECTION WITH' AN ELECTION.  THUS IT WOULD RAISE A HOST OF
TROUBLESOME QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF MANY PRACTICES
ORDINARILY ENGAGED IN BY NEWSPAPERS AND RADIO STATIONS."  H.R. DOC. NO.
334, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 9-10. 

APPENDIX. 

"MR. PEPPER.  ... 

"I WISH TO ASK THE SENATOR, IF I MAY, THIS QUESTION:  WOULD THE
NEWSPAPER CALLED LABOR, WHICH IS PUBLISHED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR
EXECUTIVES, BE PERMITTED TO PUT OUT A SPECIAL EDITION OF THE PAPER, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT TRUMAN, IF HE SHOULD BE THE DEMOCRATIC
CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY NEXT YEAR, AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE
SENATOR FROM OHIO, IF HE SHOULD BE THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR THE
PRESIDENCY, STATING THAT PRESIDENT TRUMAN WAS A FRIEND OF LABOR AND
THAT THE SENATOR FROM OHIO WAS NOT FRIENDLY TO LABOR?  WOULD THAT BE
CALLED A POLITICAL EXPENDITURE ON THE PART OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION? 

"MR. TAFT.  IF IT WERE SUPPORTED BY UNION FUNDS CONTRIBUTED BY UNION
MEMBERS AS UNION DUES IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW, YES.  IT IS
EXACTLY AS IF A RAILROAD ITSELF, USING ITS STOCKHOLDERS' FUNDS,
PUBLISHED SUCH AN ADVERTISEMENT IN THE NEWSPAPER SUPPORTING ONE
CANDIDATE AS AGAINST ANOTHER.  IF THE PAPER CALLED LABOR IS OPERATED
INDEPENDENTLY, IF IT DERIVES ITS MONEY FROM ITS SUBSCRIBERS, THEN OF
COURSE THERE WOULD BE NO VIOLATION.  THE PROHIBITION IS AGAINST A LABOR
ORGANIZATION USING ITS FUNDS EITHER AS A CONTRIBUTION TO A POLITICAL
COMPAIGN OR AS A DIRECT EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS ON ITS OWN BEHALF."  (93
CONG. REC. 6436.) 

     .         .         .    .         . 

"MR. PEPPER.  ...  YET THE SENATOR FROM OHIO SAYS THAT THE NEWSPAPER
LABOR, PUBLISHED BY THE 21 RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES, WOULD NOT BE
PERMITTED TO PUBLISH A STATEMENT SAYING THAT IT SUPPORTED PRESIDENT
TRUMAN AND OPPOSED CANDIDATE TAFT, OR VICE VERSA.  I SAY THAT WOULD BE
A DEPRIVATION OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. 

"MR. TAFT.  NO; I SAID THAT UNION FUNDS COULD NOT BE USED FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  THEY COULD CONDUCT A NEWSPAPER IF THEY WANTED TO, JUST AS A
CORPORATION CAN CONDUCT A NEWSPAPER.  BUT WHY SHOULD A LABOR
ORGANIZATION BE ABLE TO PUBLISH PAMPHLETS OR SPECIAL NEWSPAPERS AGAINST
ONE CANDIDATE OR IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER CANDIDATE, USING FUNDS WHICH THAT
ORGANIZATION COLLECTED FROM THE UNION MEMBERS?"  (ID. 6436-6437.) 

.         .         .         .         . 

"MR. PEPPER.  MR. PRESIDENT, I CALL THE ATTENTION OF THE SENATOR FROM
OHIO TO THE FOLLOWING PRACTICE OF THE RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES IN THE
PAST:  IF A CERTAIN CANDIDATE WAS UNFRIENDLY TO THE INTERESTS OF LABOR,
THEY WOULD PUBLISH A SPECIAL EDITION OF THEIR PAPER AND WOULD PUT THAT
SPECIAL EDITION INTO CIRCULATION IN THE AREA WHERE THAT CANDIDATE WAS
RUNNING FOR OFFICE, AND WOULD PLACE IT IN THE HANDS OF LABOR-UNION
MEMBERS AND ALSO IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY. 

"MR. TAFT.  THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO. 

"MR. PEPPER.  VERY WELL; I WANT IT DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
SENATOR FROM OHIO INTENDS TO OUTLAW THAT PRIVILEGE ON THE PART OF
LABOR.  NOW THAT I HAVE THAT CLEAR - 

"MR. TAFT.  IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR.  IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT UNION
FUNDS ARE NOT TO BE USED TO INTERFERE IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND WITH
POLITICAL CANDIDATES, EITHER IN FAVOR OF ONE CANDIDATE OR AGAINST
ANOTHER CANDIDATE.  ..."  (ID. 6437.) 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"MR. BARKLEY.  SO IF THERE IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH IS PUBLISHING
A NEWSPAPER - NOT AS A POLITICAL NEWSPAPER, BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS
MEMBERS - AND IF THE EXPENSES OF THAT PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBTUION ARE
PAID FROM THE FUNDS RAISED BY MEANS OF THE PAYMENT OF DUES, AND IF ALL
MEMBERS OF THE UNION UNDERSTAND THAT A CERTAIN PORTION OF THEIR DUES
GOES TO THE PUBLICATION OF THAT NEWSPAPER, THEN IN ORDER FOR THAT
NEWSPAPER TO TAKE ANY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO ANY CANDIDATE, IT WOULD
HAVE TO CHARGE A SUBSCRIPTION BY THE MONTH OR BY THE YEAR, IN ORDER
THAT IT MIGHT EXPRESS ITS VIEWS IN THAT RESPECT; IS THAT SO? 

"MR. TAET.  I AM INCLINED TO THINK SO, JUST AS A CORPORATION GETS OUT
REGULAR HOUSE ORGANS TO ITS MEMBERS, AND IF THAT CORPORATION INTERFERES
IN A POLITICAL ELECTION THROUGH ONE OF THOSE HOUSE ORGANS IT VIOLATES
THE CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.  ..."  (ID. 6437-6438.) 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"MR. MAGNUSON.  IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OF THAT, LET US
ASSUME A CONCRETE EXAMPLE.  THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
HAVE A NEWSPAPER, WHICH THEY HAVE PUBLISHED FOR MANY YEARS.  IT HAS A
CIRCULATION OF PROBABLY 200,000.  IT IS DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS.  ON THE
NEWSSTAND, NO PRICE APPEARS ON IT.  NO ADVERTISEMENTS ARE ACCEPTED. 
UNDER THIS PROHIBITION, WOULD THEY BE PROHIBITED IN THE FUTURE FROM
MENTIONING IN THEIR EDITORIAL COLUMNS, FOR THEIR REGULAR CIRCULATION,
WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING ADDITIONAL, THE SUPPORT OF A CERTAIN CANDIDATE
OR A CERTAIN POLITICAL PARTY? 

"MR. TAFT.  WE DISCUSSED THAT.  WE DISCUSSED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
OR NOT THAT NEWSPAPER WAS SUPPORTED IN EFFECT BY CONTRIBUTIONS OF
CORPORATIONS OR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, OR WAS PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE WHO
RECEIVED IT.  IF THE LATTER, I DO NOT THINK IT WAS AN EXPENDITURE OF
UNION FUNDS OR CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT IF THE UNION SIMPLY TAKES THE UNION
FUNDS AND PUBLISHES A NEWSPAPER AND USES IT AS A POLITICAL ORGAN IN AN
EFFORT TO ELECT OR TO DEFEAT ONE MAN THAT IS PROHIBITED."  (ID. 6439
6440.) 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"MR. MAGNUSON.  ...  IF THE PENDING BILL SHOULD BECOME LAW IT WOULD
MEAN THAT ALL LABOR ORGANS WHICH ARE NOW IN EXISTENCE WOULD, FROM NOW
ON, BE PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATING IN A CAMPAIGN, FAVORING A
CANDIDATE, MENTIONING HIS NAME, OR ENDORSING HIM FOR PUBLIC OFFICE? 

"MR. TAFT.  NO; I DO NOT THINK IT MEANS THAT.  THE UNION CAN ISSUE A
NEWSPAPER, AND CAN CHARGE THE MEMBERS FOR THE NEWSPAPER, THAT IS, THE
MEMBERS WHO BUY COPIES OF THE NEWSPAPER, AND THE UNION CAN PUT SUCH
MATTERS IN THE NEWSPAPER IF IT WANTS TO.  THE UNION CAN SEPARATE THE
PAYMENT OF DUES FROM THE PAYMENT FOR A NEWSPAPER IF ITS MEMBERS ARE
WILLING TO DO SO, THAT IS, IF THE MEMBERS ARE WILLING TO SUBSCRIBE TO
THAT KIND OF A NEWSPAPER.  I PRESUME THE MEMBERS WOULD BE WILLING TO DO
SO.  A UNION CAN PUBLISH SUCH A NEWSPAPER, OR UNIONS CAN DO AS WAS DONE
LAST YEAR, ORGANIZE SOMETHING LIKE THE PAC, A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION,
AND RECEIVE DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS, JUST SO LONG AS MEMBERS OF THE UNION
KNOW WHAT THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO, AND THE DUES WHICH THEY PAY INTO
THE UNION TREASURY ARE NOT USED FOR SUCH PURPOSE."  (ID. 6440.) 
..END :







LUDECKE V. WATKINS, 335 U.S. 160 


NO. 723.  ARGUED MAY 3-4, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1948.  - 163 F.2D
143, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798, WHICH EMPOWERS THE
PRESIDENT, WHENEVER THERE IS A "DECLARED WAR" BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
AND ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF ALIEN ENEMIES
FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE PRESIDENT, ON JULY 14, 1945, DIRECTED THE
REMOVAL OF ALL ALIEN ENEMIES "DEEMED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE
DANGEROUS" TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON JANUARY 18,
1946, ORDERED REMOVAL OF PETITIONER, A GERMAN NATIONAL, FROM THE UNITED
STATES.  CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE REMOVAL ORDER, PETITIONER
INSTITUTED HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO
SECURE HIS RELEASE FROM DETENTION UNDER THE ORDER.  HELD: 

1. THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT PRECLUDES JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE REMOVAL
ORDER.  PP. 163-166. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
GERMANY, THERE EXISTS A "DECLARED WAR" NOTWITHSTANDING THE CESSATION OF
ACTUAL HOSTILITIES, AND THE ORDER IS ENFORCEABLE.  PP. 166-170. 

3.  THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT, CONSTRUED AS PERMITTING RESORT TO THE COURTS
ONLY TO CHALLENGE ITS VALIDITY AND CONSTRUCTION, AND TO RAISE QUESTIONS
OF THE EXISTENCE OF A "DECLARED WAR" AND OF ALIEN ENEMY STATUS, DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 170
171. 

4.  THE FACT THAT HEARINGS ARE UTILIZED BY THE EXECUTIVE TO SECURE AN
INFORMED BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE SUMMARY POWER CONFERRED BY THE
ACT DOES NOT EMPOWER THE COURTS TO RETRY SUCH HEARINGS, NOR DOES IT
MAKE THE WITHHOLDING OF SUCH POWER FROM THE COURTS A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  PP. 171-172. 

LUDECKE V. WATKINS, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER, IN CUSTODY UNDER AN ORDER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HIS
REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT, APPLIED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR RELEASE FROM
DETENTION UNDER THE ORDER.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE WRIT WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  163 F.2D 143.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 865.  AFFIRMED, P. 173. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FIFTH CONGRESS COMMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT THESE POWERS: 

"WHENEVER THERE IS A DECLARED WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND ANY
FOREIGN NATION OR GOVERNMENT, OR ANY INVASION OR PREDATORY INCURSION IS
PERPETRATED, ATTEMPTED, OR THREATENED AGAINST THE TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES BY ANY FOREIGN NATION OR GOVERNMENT, AND THE PRESIDENT
MAKES PUBLIC PROCLAMATION OF THE EVENT, ALL NATIVES, CITIZENS,
DENIZENS, OR SUBJECTS OF THE HOSTILE NATION OR GOVERNMENT, BEING OF THE
AGE OF FOURTEEN YEARS AND UPWARD, WHO SHALL BE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
AND NOT ACTUALLY NATURALIZED, SHALL BE LIABLE TO BE APPREHENDED,
RESTRAINED, SECURED, AND REMOVED AS ALIEN ENEMIES.  THE PRESIDENT IS
AUTHORIZED, IN ANY SUCH EVENT, BY HIS PROCLAMATION THEREOF, OR OTHER
PUBLIC ACT, TO DIRECT THE CONDUCT TO BE OBSERVED, ON THE PART OF THE
UNITED STATES, TOWARD THE ALIENS WHO BECOME SO LIABLE; THE MANNER AND
DEGREE OF THE RESTRAINT TO WHICH THEY SHALL BE SUBJECT AND IN WHAT
CASES, AND UPON WHAT SECURITY THEIR RESIDENCE SHALL BE PERMITTED, AND
TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF THOSE WHO, NOT BEING PERMITTED TO RESIDE
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, REFUSE OR NEGLECT TO DEPART THEREFROM; AND TO
ESTABLISH ANY OTHER REGULATIONS WHICH ARE FOUND NECESSARY IN THE
PREMISES AND FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY."  (ACT OF JULY 6, 1798, 1 STAT.
577, R.S. SEC. 4067, AS AMENDED, 40 STAT. 531, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21.) 

THIS ALIEN ENEMY ACT HAS REMAINED THE LAW OF THE LAND, VIRTUALLY
UNCHANGED SINCE 1798.  FN1 THROUGHOUT THESE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS
EXECUTIVE INTERPRETATION AND DECISIONS OF LOWER COURTS HAVE FOUND IN
THE ACT AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PRESIDENT WHICH IS NOW QUESTIONED, AND THE
FURTHER CLAIM IS MADE THAT, IF WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID COMES WITHIN THE
ACT, THE CONGRESS COULD NOT GIVE HIM SUCH POWER.  FN2  OBVIOUSLY THESE
ARE ISSUES WHICH PROPERLY BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  333 U.S. 865. 

PETITIONER, A GERMAN ALIEN ENEMY,  FN3  WAS ARRESTED ON DECEMBER 8,
1941, AND, AFTER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AN ALIEN ENEMY HEARING BOARD ON
JANUARY 16, 1942, WAS INTERNED BY ORDER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DATED
FEBRUARY 9, 1942.  FN4  UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE ACT OF 1798, THE
PRESIDENT, ON JULY 14, 1945, DIRECTED THE REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES OF ALL ALIEN ENEMIES "WHO SHALL BE DEEMED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO BE DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY OF THE UNITED
STATES."  PROCLAMATION 2655, 10 FED. REG. 8947.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON JANUARY 18, 1946, ORDERED PETITIONER'S REMOVAL. 
FN5  DENIAL OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR RELEASE FROM DETENTION UNDER
THIS ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT BELOW.  163 F.2D 143. 

AS CONGRESS EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED IN THE RECENT ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT, SOME STATUTES "PRECLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW."  ACT OF JUNE
11, 1946, SEC. 10, 60 STAT. 237, 243.  BARRING QUESTIONS OF
INTERPRETATION AND CONSTITUTIONALITY, THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798 IS
SUCH A STATUTE.  ITS TERMS, PURPOSE, AND CONSTRUCTION LEAVE NO DOUBT. 
THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY THE FIFTH CONGRESS COULD HARDLY BE MADE
CLEARER, OR BE RENDERED DOUBTFUL, BY THE INCOMPLETE AND NOT ALWAYS
DEPENDABLE ACCOUNTS WE HAVE OF DEBATES IN THE EARLY YEARS OF CONGRESS. 
FN6  THAT SUCH WAS THE SCOPE OF THE ACT IS ESTABLISHED BY CONTROLLING
CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION.  "THE ACT CONCERNING ALIEN ENEMIES, WHICH
CONFERS ON THE PRESIDENT VERY GREAT DISCRETIONARY POWERS RESPECTING
THEIR PERSONS," MARSHALL, C. J., IN BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 8 CRANCH
110, 126, "APPEARS TO ME TO BE AS UNLIMITED AS THE LEGISLATURE COULD
MAKE IT."  WASHINGTON, J., IN LOCKINGTON V. SMITH, 15 FED. CAS. NO.
8448 AT P. 760.  THE VERY NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S POWER TO ORDER THE
REMOVAL OF ALL ENEMY ALIENS REJECTS THE NOTION THAT COURTS MAY PASS
JUDGMENT UPON THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION.  FN7  THIS VIEW WAS
EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE IREDELL SHORTLY AFTER THE ACT WAS PASSED, CASE
OF FRIES, 9 FED. CAS. NO. 5126, AND EVERY JUDGE BEFORE WHOM THE
QUESTION HAS SINCE COME HAS HELD THAT THE STATUTE BARRED JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  FN8  WE WOULD SO READ THE ACT IF IT CAME BEFORE US WITHOUT THE
IMPRESSIVE GLOSS OF HISTORY. 

THE POWER WITH WHICH CONGRESS VESTED THE PRESIDENT HAD TO BE EXECUTED
BY HIM THROUGH OTHERS.  HE PROVIDED FOR THE REMOVAL OF SUCH ENEMY
ALIENS AS WERE "DEEMED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL" TO BE DANGEROUS.  FN9
BUT SUCH A FINDING, AT THE PRESIDENT'S BEHEST, WAS LIKEWISE NOT TO BE
SUBJECTED TO THE SCRUTINY OF COURTS.  FOR ONE THING, REMOVAL WAS
CONTINGENT NOT UPON A FINDING THAT IN FACT AN ALIEN WAS "DANGEROUS." 
THE PRESIDENT WAS CAREFUL TO CALL FOR THE REMOVAL OF ALIENS "DEEMED BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE DANGEROUS."  BUT THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS THE PRESIDENT'S VOICE AND CONSCIENCE.  A WAR
POWER OF THE PRESIDENT NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT TRANSMUTED
INTO A JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE ACTION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CHOOSES TO
HAVE THAT POWER EXERCISED WITHIN NARROWER LIMITS THAN CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED. 

AND SO WE REACH THE CLAIM THAT WHILE THE PRESIDENT HAD SUMMARY POWER
UNDER THE ACT, IT DID NOT SURVIVE CESSATION OF ACTUAL HOSTILITIES. 
FN10  THIS CLAIM IN EFFECT NULLIFIES THE POWER TO DEPORT ALIEN ENEMIES,
FOR SUCH DEPORTATIONS ARE HARDLY PRACTICABLE DURING THE PENDENCY OF
WHAT IS COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS THE SHOOTING WAR.  FN11  NOR DOES LAW LAG
BEHIND COMMON SENSE.  WAR DOES NOT CEASE WITH A CEASE-FIRE ORDER, AND
POWER TO BE EXERCISED BY THE PRESIDENT SUCH AS THAT CONFERRED BY THE
ACT OF 1798 IS A PROCESS WHICH BEGINS WHEN WAR IS DECLARED BUT IS NOT
EXHAUSTED WHEN THE SHOOTING STOPS.  FN12  SEE UNITED STATES V.
ANDERSON, 9 WALL.  56, 70; THE PROTECTOR, 12 WALL.  700; MCELRATH V.
UNITED STATES, 102 U.S. 426, 438; HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES
CO., 251 U.S. 146, 167.  "THE STATE OF WAR" MAY BE TERMINATED BY TREATY
OR LEGISLATION OR PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION.  WHATEVER THE MODE, ITS
TERMINATION IS A POLITICAL ACT.  FN13  IBID.  WHETHER AND WHEN IT WOULD
BE OPEN TO THIS COURT TO FIND THAT A WAR THOUGH MERELY FORMALLY KEPT
ALIVE HAD IN FACT ENDED, IS A QUESTION TOO FRAUGHT WITH GRAVITY EVEN TO
BE ADEQUATELY FORMULATED WHEN NOT COMPELLED.  ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO THE
COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE OF WAR IN RELATION TO
WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS EXERCISED THE AUTHORITY NOW CHALLENGED WAS
TERMINATED.  WOODS V. MILLER CO., 333 U.S. 138.  NOTHING THAT HAS
HAPPENED SINCE CALLS FOR A QUALIFICATION OF THAT VIEW.  FN14  IT IS
STILL TRUE, AS WAS SAID IN THE OPINION IN THAT CASE WHICH EYED THE WAR
POWER MOST JEALOUSLY, "WE HAVE ARMIES ABROAD EXERCISING OUR WAR POWER
AND HAVE MADE NO PEACE TERMS WITH OUR ALLIES, NOT TO MENTION OUR
PRINCIPAL ENEMIES."  WOODS V. MILLER CO., SUPRA, AT P. 147(CONCURRING
OPINION).  THE SITUATION TODAY IS STRIKINGLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF 1919,
WHERE THIS COURT OBSERVED:  "IN VIEW OF FACTS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, SOME
OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO, THAT THE TREATY OF PEACE HAS NOT YET
BEEN CONCLUDED, THAT THE RAILWAYS ARE STILL UNDER NATIONAL CONTROL BY
VIRTUE OF THE WAR POWERS, THAT OTHER WAR ACTIVITIES HAVE NOT BEEN
BROUGHT TO A CLOSE, AND THAT IT CAN NOT EVEN BE SAID THAT THE MAN POWER
OF THE NATION HAS BEEN RESTORED TO A PEACE FOOTING, WE ARE UNABLE TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE ACT HAS CEASED TO BE VALID."  HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY
DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. AT 163. 

THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT THE WAR WITH
GERMANY TO AN END.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT HAS PROCLAIMED THAT "A STATE OF
WAR STILL EXISTS."  PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 2714, 12 FED. REG. 1; SEE
WOODS V. MILLER CO., SUPRA, AT P. 140; FLEMING V. MOHAWK WRECKING &
LUMBER CO., 331 U.S. 111, 116.  THE COURT WOULD BE ASSUMING THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE POLITICAL AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT TO YIELD TO THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER OF GERMANY AND THE
DISINTEGRATION OF THE NAZI REICH HAVE LEFT GERMANY WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT
CAPABLE OF NEGOTIATING A TREATY OF PEACE.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO QUESTION
A BELIEF BY THE PRESIDENT THAT ENEMY ALIENS WHO WERE JUSTIFIABLY DEEMED
FIT SUBJECTS FOR INTERNMENT DURING ACTIVE HOSTILITIES DO NOT LOSE THEIR
POTENCY FOR MISCHIEF DURING THE PERIOD OF CONFUSION AND CONFLICT WHICH
IS CHARACTERISTIC OF A STATE OF WAR EVEN WHEN THE GUNS ARE SILENT BUT
THE PEACE OF PEACE HAS NOT COME.  FN15  THESE ARE MATTERS OF POLITICAL
JUDGMENT FOR WHICH JUDGES HAVE NEITHER TECHNICAL COMPETENCE NOR
OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE FINAL QUESTION.  IS THE STATUTE VALID AS WE
HAVE CONSTRUED IT?  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS OF REASON, AUTHORITY, AND
HISTORY, THAT LED US TO REJECT READING THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE "DECLARED
WAR"  FN16  TO MEAN "ACTUAL HOSTILITIES," SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE.  THE WAR POWER IS THE WAR POWER.  IF THE WAR, AS WE HAVE HELD,
HAS NOT IN FACT ENDED, SO AS TO JUSTIFY LOCAL RENT CONTROL, A FORTIORI,
IT VALIDLY SUPPORTS THE POWER GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE ACT OF 1798
IN RELATION TO ALIEN ENEMIES.  NOR DOES IT REQUIRE PROTRACTED ARGUMENT
TO FIND NO DEFECT IN THE ACT BECAUSE RESORT TO THE COURTS MAY BE HAD
ONLY TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AND TO
QUESTION THE EXISTENCE OF THE "DECLARED WAR," AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS
CASE.  FN17  THE ACT IS ALMOST AS OLD AS THE CONSTITUTION, AND IT WOULD
SAVOR OF DOCTRINAIRE AUDACITY NOW TO FIND THE STATUTE OFFENSIVE TO SOME
EMANATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  FN18  THE FACT THAT HEARINGS ARE
UTILIZED BY THE EXECUTIVE TO SECURE AN INFORMED BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE
OF SUMMARY POWER DOES NOT ARGUE THE RIGHT OF COURTS TO RETRY SUCH
HEARINGS, NOR BESPEAK DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TO WITHHOLD SUCH POWER FROM
THE COURTS. 

SUCH GREAT WAR POWERS MAY BE ABUSED, NO DOUBT, BUT THAT IS A BAD
REASON FOR HAVING JUDGES SUPERVISE THEIR EXERCISE, WHATEVER THE LEGAL
FORMULAS WITHIN WHICH SUCH SUPERVISION WOULD NOMINALLY BE CONFINED.  IN
RELATION TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AMONG THE THREE
BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE OPTIMISTIC EIGHTEENTH CENTURY LANGUAGE
OF MR. JUSTICE IREDELL, SPEAKING OF THIS VERY ACT, IS STILL PERTINENT: 

"ALL SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT SUPPOSE THEY ARE TO BE ADMINISTERED BY MEN
OF COMMON SENSE AND COMMON HONESTY.  IN OUR COUNTRY, AS ALL ULTIMATELY
DEPENDS ON THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE, THEY HAVE IT IN THEIR POWER, AND IT
IS TO BE PRESUMED THEY GENERALLY WILL CHOOSE MEN OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
BUT IF THEY WILL NOT, THE CASE, TO BE SURE, IS WITHOUT REMEDY.  IF THEY
CHOOSE FOOLS, THEY WILL HAVE FOOLISH LAWS.  IF THEY CHOOSE KNAVES, THEY
WILL HAVE KNAVISH ONES.  BUT THIS CAN NEVER BE THE CASE UNTIL THEY ARE
GENERALLY FOOLS OR KNAVES THEMSELVES, WHICH, THANK GOD, IS NOT LIKELY
EVER TO BECOME THE CHARACTER OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE."  (CASE OF FRIES,
SUPRA, AT P. 836.) 

ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE JUST EXERCISE
OF THIS GREAT POWER MAY VALIDLY BE LEFT WHERE THE CONGRESS HAS
CONSTITUTIONALLY PLACED IT - ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THE FOUNDERS IN THEIR WISDOM MADE HIM NOT ONLY THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
BUT ALSO THE GUIDING ORGAN IN THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  HE
WHO WAS ENTRUSTED WITH SUCH VAST POWERS IN RELATION TO THE OUTSIDE
WORLD WAS ALSO ENTRUSTED BY CONGRESS, ALMOST THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE LIFE
OF THE NATION, WITH THE DISPOSITION OF ALIEN ENEMIES DURING A STATE OF
WAR.  SUCH A PAGE OF HISTORY IS WORTH MORE THAN A VOLUME OF RHETORIC. 
FN19  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND STAY ORDER ENTERED FEBRUARY 2, 1948,
VACATED. 

FN1  THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW MINOR CHANGES IN WORDING.  WE HAVE DULY
CONSIDERED THESE IN LIGHT OF AN ARGUMENT IN THE BRIEF OF THE AMICI
CURIAE AND DEEM THEM WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE. 

FN2  WE ARE ADVISED THAT THERE ARE 530 ALIEN ENEMIES, ORDERED TO
DEPART FROM THE UNITED STATES, WHOSE DISPOSITION AWAITS THE OUTCOME OF
THIS CASE. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT: 

"THE PETITIONER WAS BORN IN BERLIN, GERMANY, ON FEBRUARY 5, 1890.  HE
WAS OUT OF GERMANY FOR MOST OF THE PERIOD OF 1923 TO MARCH 1933.  HE
RETURNED TO GERMANY IN MARCH 1933 AND BECAME A MEMBER OF THE NAZI
PARTY.  LATER HE HAD SOME DISAGREEMENTS WITH OTHER MEMBERS AND AS A
RESULT HE WAS SENT TO A GERMAN CONCENTRATION CAMP, FROM WHICH HE
ESCAPED MARCH 1, 1934, AFTER BEING CONFINED FOR OVER EIGHT MONTHS. 
SOMETIME THEREAFTER HE CAME TO THIS COUNTRY AND PUBLISHED A BOOK, 'I
KNEW HITLER' ('THE STORY OF A NAZI WHO ESCAPED THE BLOOD PURGE' - 'IN
MEMORY OF CAPTAIN ERNST ROEHM AND GREGOR STRASSER AND MANY OTHER NAZIS
WHO WERE BETRAYED, MURDERED, AND TRADUCED IN THEIR GRAVES'), IN 1937. 
HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WAS DENIED
DECEMBER 18, 1939." 

THE PETITIONER'S ATTITUDE WAS THUS EXPRESSED IN HIS BRIEF BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COURT:    "FUNDAMENTALLY, IT MATTERS NOT WHERE I LIVE, FOR I
CAN STRIVE TO LIVE THE RIGHT LIFE AND BE OF SERVICE WHERE EVER I AM.
BESIDES, IT MAY WELL BE A BETTER THING TO DO THE BEST I CAN WHILE I CAN
IN THE MIDST OF A DEFEATED PEOPLE SUFFERING IN BODY AND SOUL, THAN TO
BE A FUTILE AND FRUSTRATED SOMETHING IN THE MIDST OF A TRIUMPHANT
PEOPLE BREATHING THE FOUL AIR OF SELF-COMPLACENCY, HYPOCRISY, AND SELF
DECEIT." 

FN4  NO QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THESE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION
2526, DATED DECEMBER 7, 1941, 6 FED. REG. 6321, 6323, ISSUED UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT.    FN5  THE ORDER RECITED THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS DEEMED DANGEROUS ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT
HEARINGS BEFORE THE ALIEN ENEMY HEARING BOARD ON JANUARY 16, 1942, AND
THE REPATRIATION HEARING BOARD ON DECEMBER 17, 1945.  THE DISTRICT
COURT WHICH EXAMINED THESE PROCEEDINGS FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD NOTICE
AND A FAIR HEARING AND THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUBSTANTIAL.  SEE ALSO
NOTE 8, INFRA. 

FN6  SEE, HOWEVER, UNITED STATES EX REL. KESSLER V. WATKINS, 163 F.2D
140; CITIZENS PROTECTIVE LEAGUE V. CLARK, 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 116, 155
F.2D 290. 

FN7  "SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD, IN MY OPINION, BE AT VARIANCE WITH
THE SPIRIT AS WELL AS WITH THE LETTER OF THE LAW, THE GREAT OBJECT OF
WHICH WAS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY, BY IMPOSING SUCH RESTRAINTS
UPON ALIEN ENEMIES, AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE OF THE UNITED
STATES MIGHT THINK NECESSARY, AND OF WHICH HIS PARTICULAR SITUATION
ENABLED HIM BEST TO JUDGE.  ...  I DO NOT FEEL MYSELF AUTHORISED TO
IMPOSE LIMITS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE WHICH
CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, HAS NOT SEEN
FIT TO IMPOSE.  NOTHING IN SHORT, CAN BE MORE CLEAR TO MY MIND, FROM AN
ATTENTIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE ACT IN ALL ITS PARTS, THAN THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO MAKE THE JUDICIARY AUXILIARY TO THE EXECUTIVE, IN EFFECTING
THE GREAT OBJECTS OF THE LAW; AND THAT EACH DEPARTMENT WAS INTENDED TO
ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, EXCEPT THAT THE FORMER WAS TO MAKE THE
ORDINANCES OF THE LATTER, THE RULE OF ITS DECISIONS."  LOCKINGTON V.
SMITH, SUPRA, AT P. 761. 

FN8  CITIZENS PROTECTIVE LEAGUE V. CLARK, 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 116, 155
F.2D 290; UNITED STATES EX REL. SCHLUETER V. WATKINS, 158 F.2D 853;
UNITED STATES EX REL. HACK V. CLARK, 159 F.2D 552; UNITED STATES EX
REL. KESSLER V. WATKINS, 163 F.2D 140; UNITED STATES EX REL. VON
ASCHEBERG V. WATKINS, 163 F.2D 1021; MINOTTO V. BRADLEY, 252 F. 600;
SEE LOCKINGTON'S CASE, BRIGHTLY (PA.)  269, 280; LOCKINGTON V. SMITH,
15 F. CAS. NO. 8448, AT P. 758; EX PARTE GRABER, 247 F. 882; DE LACEY
V. UNITED STATES, 249 F. 625; EX PARTE FRONKLIN, 253 F. 984; GRAHL V.
UNITED STATES, 261 F. 487; CF. BANNING V. PENROSE, 255 F. 159; EX PARTE
RISSE, 257 F. 102; EX PARTE GILROY, 257 F. 110; UNITED STATES EX REL.
DE CICCO V. LONGO, 46 F.SUPP.  170; UNITED STATES EX REL. SCHWARZKOPF
V. UHL, 137 F.2D 898; UNITED STATES EX REL. D'ESQUIVA V. UHL, 137 F.2D
903; UNITED STATES EX REL. KNAUER V. JORDAN, 158 F.2D 337.  THE ONE
EXCEPTION IS THE INITIAL VIEW TAKEN BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS
CASE.  IT REJECTED THE "CONTENTION THAT THE ONLY QUESTION THAT THE
COURT MAY CONSIDER IN THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IS THE PETITIONER'S
ALIEN ENEMY STATUS, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE CASES WHICH GIVE SUPPORT TO THAT
VIEW," BUT HELD THE PETITIONER HAD HAD A FAIR HEARING BEFORE THE
REPATRIATION BOARD AND THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER WAS "DANGEROUS." 
ON REHEARING, THE COURT NOTED THAT THE SCHLUETER CASE, SUPRA,
FORECLOSED THE ISSUE. 

FN9  IF THE PRESIDENT HAD NOT ADDED THIS EXPRESS QUALIFICATION, BUT
HAD CONFORMED HIS PROCLAMATION TO THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, PRESUMABLY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD NOT HAVE ACTED ARBITRARILY BUT WOULD HAVE
UTILIZED SOME SUCH IMPLIED STANDARD AS "DANGEROUS" IN HIS EXERCISE OF
THE DELEGATED POWER. 

FN10  "THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES DOES NOT NECESSARILY END THE WAR
POWER.  IT WAS STATED IN HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES & W. CO.,
251 U.S. 146, 161, THAT THE WAR POWER INCLUDES THE POWER 'TO REMEDY THE
EVILS WHICH HAVE ARISEN FROM ITS RISE AND PROGRESS' AND CONTINUES
DURING THAT EMERGENCY.  STEWART V. KAHN, 11 WALL.  493, 507.  WHATEVER
MAY BE THE REACH OF THAT POWER, IT IS PLAINLY ADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH
PROBLEMS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WHICH ARISE DURING THE PERIOD OF
HOSTILITIES BUT DO NOT CEASE WITH THEM.  NO MORE IS INVOLVED HERE." 
FLEMING V. MOHAWK WRECKING & LUMBER CO., 331 U.S. 111, 116. 

FN11  THE CLAIM IS SAID TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE ACT.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PARAPHRASED EXPRESSIONS OF A FEW
MEMBERS OF THE FIFTH CONGRESS COULD PROPERLY SANCTION AT THIS LATE DATE
A JUDICIAL READING OF THE STATUTORY PHRASE "DECLARED WAR" TO MEAN
"STATE OF ACTUAL HOSTILITIES."  SEE P. 3, SUPRA.  NOTHING NEEDS TO BE
ADDED TO THE CONSIDERATION WHICH THIS POINT RECEIVED FROM THE COURT
BELOW IN THE KESSLER CASE.  CIRCUIT JUDGE AUGUSTUS HAND, IN THIS CASE
SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF AND CIRCUIT JUDGES L. HAND AND SWAN, SAID: 

"APPELLANTS' COUNSEL ARGUES THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES PRECEDING
THE ENACTMENT OF THE ALIEN LAW OF 1798 BY GALLATIN, OTIS AND OTHERS,
SHOW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT 'WAR' AS USED IN THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT
SHOULD BE WAR IN FACT.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE DISCUSSIONS HAD SUCH
AN EFFECT.  GALLATIN ARGUED THAT SECTION 9 OF ART. I OF THE
CONSTITUTION ALLOWING TO THE STATES THE FREE 'MIGRATION OR IMPORTATION'
OF ALIENS UNTIL 1808 MIGHT STAND IN THE WAY OF THE ACT AS PROPOSED IF
IT WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 'STATE OF ACTUAL HOSTILITIES.'  IT HOWEVER WAS
NOT SO LIMITED IN THE TEXT OF THE ACT AND IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW THE
FAILURE TO LIMIT IT IN WORDS INDICATED A DISPOSITION ON THE PART OF
CONGRESS TO LIMIT IT BY IMPLICATION.  OTIS OBJECTED TO LIMITING THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO A STATE OF DECLARED WAR BECAUSE HE THOUGHT
THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE POWER TO DEAL WITH ENEMY ALIENS IN THE
CASE OF HOSTILITIES SHORT OF WAR AND IN CASES WHERE A WAR WAS NOT
DECLARED.  THAT OTIS WISHED TO ADD 'HOSTILITIES' TO THE WORDS 'DECLARED
WAR,' AND FAILED IN HIS ATTEMPT, DOES NOT SHOW THAT CONGRESS MEANT THAT
WHEN WAR WAS DECLARED ACTIVE HOSTILITIES MUST EXIST IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY
THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER.  THE QUESTIONS RAISED WHICH WERE DEALT WITH
IN THE ACT AS FINALLY PASSED WERE NOT HOW LONG THE POWER SHOULD LAST
WHEN PROPERLY INVOKED, BUT THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH IT MIGHT BE
INVOKED.  THOSE CONDITIONS WERE FULLY MET IN THE PRESENT CASE AND NO
QUESTION IS RAISED BY APPELLANTS' COUNSEL AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF THE
PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION OF WAR.  THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE DEBATES
OR IN THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER, WHEN
PROPERLY INVOKED, SHOULD CEASE UNTIL PEACE WAS MADE, AND PEACE HAS NOT
BEEN MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE.  IF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
CONTENDED FOR BY APPELLANTS' COUNSEL WERE ADOPTED, THE EXECUTIVE WOULD
BE POWERLESS TO CARRY OUT INTERNMENT OR DEPORTATION WHICH WAS NOT
EXERCISED DURING ACTIVE WAR AND MIGHT BE OBLIGED TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY
UNPROTECTED FROM ALIENS DANGEROUS EITHER BECAUSE OF SECRETS WHICH THEY
POSSESSED OR BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL INIMICAL ACTIVITIES.  IT SEEMS QUITE
NECESSARY TO SUPPOSE THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT CARRY OUT PRIOR TO
THE OFFICIAL TERMINATION OF THE DECLARED STATE OF WAR, DEPORTATIONS
WHICH THE EXECUTIVE REGARDED AS NECESSARY FOR THE SAFETY OF THE COUNTRY
BUT WHICH COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT DURING ACTIVE WARFARE BECAUSE OF THE
DANGER TO THE ALIENS THEMSELVES OR THE INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE
CONDUCT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS."  (UNITED STATES EX REL. KESSLER V.
WATKINS, 163 F.2D AT 142-43.) 

FN12 IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A JOINT LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF A
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE BY ATTORNEY GENERAL GREGORY AND THE SECRETARY
OF LABOR IN THE WILSON ADMINISTRATION REFLECTS A CONTRARY
INTERPRETATION OF THIS ACT.  BUT, AS THE KESSLER OPINION POINTED OUT:
"THE LETTER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL GREGORY REFERRED TO BY APPELLANTS'
COUNSEL DOES NOT AFFECT OUR CONCLUSIONS.  WHEN HE SAID THAT THERE WAS
NO LAW TO EXCLUDE ALIENS HE WAS, IN OUR OPINION, PLAINLY REFERRING TO
CONDITIONS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THE PEACE TREATY, AND NOT TO PRIOR
CONDITIONS."  IBID.  THE TEXT OF THE LETTER (DATED FEB. 5, 1919)
SUPPORTS THAT OBSERVATION:  "THERE IS NO LAW NOW ON THE STATUTE BOOKS
UNDER WHICH THESE PERSONS CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COUNTRY, NOR UNDER
WHICH THEY CAN BE DETAINED IN CUSTODY AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THE
PEACE TREATY.  UNLESS THE BILL INTRODUCED BY YOU, OR ONE SIMILAR IN
CHARACTER, IS PASSED IT WILL BECOME NECESSARY ON THE RATIFICATION OF
PEACE TO SET FREE ALL OF THESE HIGHLY DANGEROUS PERSONS."  HEARINGS
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ON H.R.
6750, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 42-43.  AND ATTORNEY GENERAL PALMER MADE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME STATEMENTS TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES ON
IMMIGRATION.  SEE S. REP. NO. 283, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 2; H.R. REP.
NO. 143, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 2. 

BUT EVEN IF CONTRADICTORY VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
GREGORY, THEY PLAINLY REFLECT POLITICAL EXIGENCIES WHICH FROM TIME TO
TIME GUIDE THE DESIRE OF AN ADMINISTRATION TO SECURE WHAT IN EFFECT IS
CONFIRMING LEGISLATION.  THE CONFUSION OF VIEWS IS STRIKINGLY
MANIFESTED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL GREGORY'S RECOGNITION THAT THE ACT
SURVIVED THE CESSATION OF ACTUAL HOSTILITIES SO AS TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO
APPREHEND, RESTRAIN, AND SECURE ENEMY ALIENS.  SEE, GENERALLY, WORLD
WAR I CASES CITED NOTE 8, SUPRA.  IN ANY EVENT, EVEN IF ONE VIEW
EXPRESSED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL GREGORY, AS AGAINST ANOTHER EXPRESSED BY
HIM, COULD BE CLAIMED TO INDICATE A DEVIATION FROM AN OTHERWISE
UNIFORMLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT BEFORE US, IT WOULD HARDLY
TOUCH THE TRUE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  AS AGAINST THE CONFLICTING
VIEWS OF ONE ATTORNEY GENERAL WE HAVE NOT ONLY THE VIEW BUT THE ACTIONS
OF THE PRESENT ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OF THE PRESIDENT AND THEIR
RATIFICATION BY THE PRESENT CONGRESS.  SEE NOTE 19, INFRA. 

FN13  OF COURSE, THERE ARE STATUTES WHICH HAVE PROVISIONS FIXING THE
DATE OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE WAR POWERS THEY CONFER UPON THE
EXECUTIVE.  SEE, E.G., HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S.
146, 167, N. 1(COLLECTION OF STATUTES PROVIDING THAT THE AUTHORITY
TERMINATES UPON RATIFICATION OF TREATY OF PEACE OR BY PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATION).  CONGRESS CAN, OF COURSE, PROVIDE EITHER BY A DAY
CERTAIN OR A DEFINED EVENT FOR THE EXPIRATION OF A STATUTE.  BUT WHEN
THE LIFE OF A STATUTE IS DEFINED BY THE EXISTENCE OF A WAR, CONGRESS
LEAVES THE DETERMINATION OF WHEN A WAR IS CONCLUDED TO THE USUAL
POLITICAL AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

FN14  CF., E.G., THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS ON MARCH 17,
1948, RECOMMENDING THE ENACTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN RECOVERY PROGRAM,
UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING, AND THE TEMPORARY REENACTMENT OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE LEGISLATION.  H. DOC. NO. 569, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS.  ON MAY 10,
1948, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 9957, 13 FED. REG. 2503, THE PRESIDENT
EXERCISED HIS AUTHORITY "IN TIME OF WAR,  ...  THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF
WAR, TO TAKE POSSESSION AND ASSUME CONTROL OF ANY SYSTEM OR SYSTEMS OF
TRANSPORTATION  ...  "  (ACT OF AUGUST 29, 1916, 39 STAT. 619, 645, 10
U.S.C. SEC. 1361.) 

FN15  "RAPID CHANGES ARE TAKING PLACE IN EUROPE WHICH AFFECT OUR
FOREIGN POLICY AND OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.  ...  ALMOST 3 YEARS HAVE
ELAPSED SINCE THE END OF THE GREATEST OF ALL WARS, BUT PEACE AND
STABILITY HAVE NOT RETURNED TO THE WORLD."  H. DOC. NO. 569, SUPRA, AT
P. 1. 

FN16  WE SHOULD POINT OUT THAT IT IS CONCEDED THAT A "STATE OF WAR"
WAS "FORMALLY DECLARED" AGAINST GERMANY.  ACT OF DECEMBER 11, 1941, 55
STAT. 796. 

FN17  THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE PERSON RESTRAINED IS
IN FACT AN ALIEN ENEMY FOURTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER MAY ALSO BE
REVIEWED BY THE COURTS.  SEE CASES CITED NOTE 8, SUPRA.  THIS QUESTION
IS NOT RAISED IN THIS CASE. 

FN18  THE FIFTH CONGRESS WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR "AN ACT CONCERNING
ALIENS," APPROVED JUNE 25, 1798, 1 STAT. 570, AND "AN ACT IN ADDITION
TO THE ACT, ENTITLED 'AN ACT FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMES
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,'" APPROVED JULY 14, 1798, 1 STAT. 596, AS
WELL AS THE INSTANT "AN ACT RESPECTING ALIEN ENEMIES," APPROVED JULY 6,
1798.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT WHILE THE FORMER STATUTES - THE ALIEN AND
SEDITION ACTS - WERE VIGOROUSLY AND CONTEMPORANEOUSLY ATTACKED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THERE WAS NEVER ANY ISSUE RAISED AS TO THE VALIDITY
OF THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT.  JAMES MADISON, IN HIS REPORT ON THE VIRGINIA
RESOLUTIONS, CAREFULLY AND CAUSTICALLY DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN FRIENDLY
AND ENEMY ALIEN LEGISLATION, AS FOLLOWS:  "THE NEXT OBSERVATION TO BE
MADE IS, THAT MUCH CONFUSION AND FALLACY HAVE BEEN THROWN INTO THE
QUESTION BY BLENDING THE TWO CASES OF ALIENS, MEMBERS OF A HOSTILE
NATION, AND ALIENS, MEMBERS OF FRIENDLY NATIONS.  ...  WITH RESPECT TO
ALIEN ENEMIES, NO DOUBT HAS BEEN INTIMATED AS TO THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY
OVER THEM; THE CONSTITUTION HAVING EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO CONGRESS THE
POWER TO DECLARE WAR AGAINST ANY NATION, AND, OF COURSE, TO TREAT IT
AND ALL ITS MEMBERS AS ENEMIES."  6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON (HUNT,
EDITOR) 360-61.  SIMILARLY, THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE AUTHOR OF THE
KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798 AND 1799, WAS CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THAT
THE ALIEN ACT UNDER ATTACK WAS THE ONE "WHICH ASSUMES POWERS OVER ALIEN
FRIENDS."  8 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (FORD, EDITOR) 466.  THERE
WAS NEVER ANY QUESTIONING OF THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798 BY EITHER
JEFFERSON OR MADISON NOR DID EITHER EVER SUGGEST ITS REPEAL. 

FN19  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT CONGRESS OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT
CORRECTING TODAY'S DECISION.  BUT THE PRESENT CONGRESS HAS APPARENTLY
ANTICIPATED THE DECISION.  IT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
POWERS UNDER THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798 WERE NOT TERMINATED BY THE
CESSATION OF ACTUAL HOSTILITIES BY APPROPRIATING FUNDS "  ...  FOR ALL
NECESSARY EXPENSES, INCIDENT TO THE MAINTENANCE, CARE, DETENTION,
SURVEILLANCE, PAROLE, AND TRANSPORTATION OF ALIEN ENEMIES AND THEIR
WIVES AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER
EXPENSES IN THE RETURN OF SUCH PERSONS TO PLACE OF BONA FIDE RESIDENCE
OR TO SUCH OTHER PLACE AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
...  "  61 STAT. 279, 292.  "AND THE APPROPRIATION BY CONGRESS OF FUNDS
FOR THE USE OF SUCH AGENCIES STANDS AS CONFIRMATION AND RATIFICATION OF
THE ACTION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.  BROOKS V. DEWAR, 313 U.S. 354,
361."  FLEMING V. MOHAWK WRECKING & LUMBER CO., 331 U.S. 111, 116; SEE
ALSO ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 139. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER,
A LEGALLY ADMITTED RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS ABOUT TO BE
DEPORTED FROM THIS COUNTRY TO GERMANY AS A "DANGEROUS" ALIEN ENEMY,
WITHOUT HAVING BEEN AFFORDED NOTICE AND A FAIR HEARING TO DETERMINE
WHETHER HE WAS "DANGEROUS."  THE COURT NOW HOLDS, AS THE GOVERNMENT
ARGUED, THAT BECAUSE OF A PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION, PETITIONER CAN BE
DEPORTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ORDER WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL INQUIRY
WHATEVER INTO THE TRUTH OF HIS ALLEGATIONS.  FN1  THE COURT GOES
FURTHER AND HOLDS, AS I UNDERSTAND ITS OPINION, THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CAN DEPORT HIM WHETHER HE IS DANGEROUS OR NOT.  THE EFFECT OF
THIS HOLDING IS THAT ANY UNNATURALIZED PERSON, GOOD OR BAD, LOYAL OR
DISLOYAL TO THIS COUNTRY, IF HE WAS A CITIZEN OF GERMANY BEFORE COMING
HERE, CAN BE SUMMARILY SEIZED, INTERNED AND DEPORTED FROM THE UNITED
STATES BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THAT NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HAS ANY POWER WHATEVER TO REVIEW, MODIFY, VACATE, REVERSE, OR IN ANY
MANNER AFFECT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPORTATION ORDER.  MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS HAS GIVEN REASONS IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION WHY HE BELIEVES
THAT DEPORTATION OF ALIENS, WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING, WHETHER IN
PEACE OR WAR, WOULD BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  I AGREE WITH
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS FOR MANY OF THE REASONS HE GIVES THAT DEPORTATION
OF PETITIONER WITHOUT A FAIR HEARING AS DETERMINED BY JUDICIAL REVIEW
IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  FN2  BUT I DO NOT REACH THE
QUESTION OF POWER TO DEPORT ALIENS OF COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE ARE AT
WAR WHILE WE ARE AT WAR, BECAUSE I THINK THE IDEA THAT WE ARE STILL AT
WAR WITH GERMANY IN THE SENSE CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE CONTROLLING
HERE IS A PURE FICTION.  FURTHERMORE, I THINK THERE IS NO ACT OF
CONGRESS WHICH LENDS THE SLIGHTEST BASIS TO THE CLAIM THAT AFTER
HOSTILITIES WITH A FOREIGN COUNTRY HAVE ENDED THE PRESIDENT OR THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, ONE OR BOTH, CAN DEPORT ALIENS WITHOUT A FAIR HEARING
REVIEWABLE IN THE COURTS.  ON THE CONTRARY, WHEN THIS VERY QUESTION
CAME BEFORE CONGRESS AFTER WORLD WAR I IN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE
ARMISTICE AND THE CONCLUSION OF FORMAL PEACE WITH GERMANY, CONGRESS
UNEQUIVOCALLY REQUIRED THAT ENEMY ALIENS BE GIVEN A FAIR HEARING BEFORE
THEY COULD BE DEPORTED. 

THE COURT RELIES ON THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798.  1 STAT. 577, 50
U.S.C. SEC. 21-24.  THAT ACT DID GRANT EXTRAORDINARILY BROAD POWERS TO
THE PRESIDENT TO RESTRAIN AND "TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL" OF ALIENS
WHO OWE ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, BUT SUCH ACTION IS
AUTHORIZED ONLY "WHENEVER THERE IS A DECLARED WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES" AND SUCH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, OR IN THE EVENT THAT FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS OR THREATENS THE UNITED STATES WITH "ANY INVASION
OR PREDATORY INCURSION."  THE POWERS GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT BY THIS
STATUTE, I MAY ASSUME FOR MY PURPOSES, ARE SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO HAVE
AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT ACTING THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DEPORT
ALIEN GERMANS FROM THIS COUNTRY WHILE THE "DECLARED" SECOND WORLD WAR
WAS ACTUALLY GOING ON, OR WHILE THERE WAS REAL DANGER OF INVASION FROM
GERMANY.  BUT THIS 1798 STATUTE, UNLIKE STATUTES PASSED IN LATER YEARS,
DID NOT EXPRESSLY PRESCRIBE THE EVENTS WHICH WOULD FOR STATUTORY
PURPOSES MARK THE TERMINATION OF THE "DECLARED" WAR OR THREATENED
INVASIONS.  SEE HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. 146,
165, N. 1.  IN SUCH CASES WE ARE CALLED ON TO INTERPRET A STATUTE AS
BEST WE CAN SO AS TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PARTICULAR RIGHT THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT, UNITED
STATES V. ANDERSON, 9 WALL.  56, 69-70; THE PROTECTOR, 12 WALL.  700,
702, OR THE PARTICULAR EVIL THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO GUARD AGAINST. 
MCELRATH V. UNITED STATES, 102 U.S. 426, 437, 438.  SEE JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF THE END OF THE WAR, 47 COL. L. REV. 255. 

THE 1798 ACT WAS PASSED AT A TIME WHEN THERE WAS WIDESPREAD HOSTILITY
TO FRANCE ON THE PART OF CERTAIN GROUPS IN THE UNITED STATES.  IT WAS
ASSERTED BY MANY THAT FRANCE HAD INFILTRATED THIS COUNTRY WITH SPIES
PREACHING "SUBVERSIVE" IDEAS AND ACTIVITIES.  MR. OTIS, THE CHIEF
CONGRESSIONAL SPOKESMAN FOR THE MEASURE, EXPRESSED HIS FEARS OF "  ...
A BAND OF SPIES  ...  SPREAD THROUGH THE COUNTRY, FROM ONE END OF IT TO
THE OTHER, WHO, IN CASE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ENEMY INTO OUR
COUNTRY" MIGHT JOIN THE ENEMY "IN THEIR ATTACK UPON US, AND IN THEIR
PLUNDER OF OUR PROPERTY  ... "  ANNALS OF CONGRESS, 5TH CONG., 2D SESS.
1791.  CONGRESSIONAL DISCUSSIONS OF THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE APPEAR AT
PP. 1573-1582, 1785-1796, AND 2034-2035, ANNALS OF CONGRESS, 5TH CONG.,
2D SESS.,  FN3  AND SHOW BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ALIEN
ENEMY ACT OF 1798 WAS INTENDED TO GRANT ITS EXTRAORDINARY POWERS ONLY
TO PREVENT ALIEN ENEMIES RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES FROM EXTENDING
AID AND COMFORT TO AN ENEMY COUNTRY WHILE DANGERS FROM ACTUAL FIGHTING
HOSTILITIES WERE IMMINENTLY THREATENED.  INDEED, MR. OTIS, WHO WAS MOST
PERSISTENT IN HIS EXPRESSIONS OF ANTI-FRENCH SENTIMENTS AND IN HIS
AGGRESSIVE SPONSORSHIP OF THIS AND ITS COMPANION ALIEN AND SEDITION
ACTS, IS RECORDED AS SAYING "  ...  THAT IN A TIME OF TRANQUILITY, HE
SHOULD NOT DESIRE TO PUT A POWER LIKE THIS INTO THE HANDS OF THE
EXECUTIVE; BUT, IN A TIME OF WAR, THE CITIZENS OF FRANCE OUGHT TO BE
CONSIDERED AND TREATED AND WATCHED IN A VERY DIFFERENT MANNER FROM
CITIZENS OF OUR OWN COUNTRY."  ANNALS OF CONGRESS, 5TH CONG., 2D SESS.
1791.  AND JUST BEFORE THE BILL WAS ORDERED TO BE READ FOR ITS THIRD
TIME, MR. GALLATIN POINTED OUT THAT THE ALIEN ACT HAD ALREADY MADE IT
POSSIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO REMOVE ALL ALIENS, WHETHER FRIENDS OR
ENEMIES; HE INTERPRETED THE MEASURE HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, AIMED
ONLY AT ALIEN ENEMIES, AS PROVIDING "IN WHAT MANNER THEY MAY BE LAID
UNDER CERTAIN RESTRAINTS BY WAY OF SECURITY."  FOR THIS REASON HE
SUPPORTED THIS BILL.  ANNALS OF CONGRESS, 5TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2035. 

GERMAN ALIENS COULD NOT NOW, IF THEY WOULD, AID THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT
IN WAR HOSTILITIES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  FOR AS DECLARED BY THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, JUNE 5, 1945, THE GERMAN ARMED
FORCES ON LAND AND SEA HAD BEEN COMPLETELY SUBJUGATED AND HAD
UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDERED.  "THERE IS NO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR
AUTHORITY IN GERMANY CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF ORDER, THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTRY AND COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VICTORIOUS POWERS."  AND THE STATE
DEPARTMENT WENT ON TO DECLARE THAT THE UNITED STATES, RUSSIA, GREAT
BRITAIN, AND FRANCE HAD ASSUMED "SUPREME AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO
GERMANY, INCLUDING ALL THE POWERS POSSESSED BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT,
THE HIGH COMMAND, AND ANY STATE, MUNICIPAL, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR
AUTHORITY."  12 STATE DEPT. BULL.  1051.  AND ON MARCH 17, 1948, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TOLD THE CONGRESS THAT "ALMOST 3 YEARS
HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE END  ...  " OF THE WAR WITH GERMANY.  SEE COURT
OPINION, N. 15. 

OF COURSE IT IS NOTHING BUT A FICTION TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOW AT WAR
WITH GERMANY.  FN4  WHATEVER ELSE THAT FICTION MIGHT SUPPORT, I REFUSE
TO AGREE THAT IT AFFORDS A BASIS FOR TODAY'S HOLDING THAT OUR LAWS
AUTHORIZE THE PEACETIME BANISHMENT OF ANY PERSON ON THE JUDICIALLY
UNREVIEWABLE CONCLUSION OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.  THE 1798 ACT DID NOT
GRANT ITS EXTRAORDINARY AND DANGEROUS POWERS TO BE USED DURING THE
PERIOD OF FICTIONAL WARS.  AS PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT, EVEN MR. OTIS,
WITH ALL OF HIS FERVENT SUPPORT OF ANTI-FRENCH LEGISLATION, REPUDIATED
THE SUGGESTION THAT THE ACT WOULD VEST THE PRESIDENT WITH SUCH
DANGEROUS POWERS IN PEACETIME.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT TODAY GIVES THE
1798 ACT A FAR BROADER MEANING THAN IT WAS GIVEN BY ONE OF THE MOST
VOCIFEROUS CHAMPIONS OF THE 1798 SERIES OF ANTI-ALIEN AND ANTI-SEDITION
LAWS. 

FURTHERMORE, THE HOLDING TODAY REPRESENTS AN ENTIRELY NEW
INTERPRETATION OF THE 1798 ACT.  FOR NEARLY 150 YEARS AFTER THE 1798
ACT THERE NEVER CAME TO THIS COURT ANY CASE IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
ASKED THAT THE ACT BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT OR ANY
OTHER PERSON TO DEPORT ALIEN ENEMIES WITHOUT ALLOWING THEM ACCESS TO
THE COURTS.  IN FACT, LESS THAN TWO MONTHS AFTER THE END OF THE ACTUAL
FIGHTING IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR, ATTORNEY GENERAL GREGORY INFORMED THE
CONGRESS THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS POWER TO CONTINUE THE INTERNMENT OF
ALIEN ENEMIES AFTER THE CESSATION OF ACTUAL HOSTILITIES AND UNTIL THE
RATIFICATION OF A PEACE TREATY, STILL THERE WAS NO STATUTE UNDER WHICH
THEY COULD THEN BE DEPORTED.  FN5  FOR THIS REASON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
REQUESTED CONGRESS TO ENACT NEW LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE DEPORTATION OF
ENEMY ALIENS AT THAT TIME.  THE BILL THEREAFTER INTRODUCED WAS ENDORSED
BY BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE SECRETARY OF LABOR IN A JOINT
LETTER IN WHICH THEY ASKED THAT IT BE GIVEN "IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION"
IN VIEW OF THE "GRAVITY OF THIS SITUATION."  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 6750, 66TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 42-43.  SEVERAL MONTHS LATER ATTORNEY GENERAL PALMER
SUBMITTED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME STATEMENTS TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE
COMMITTEES ON IMMIGRATION.  H.R. REP. 143, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2; S.
REP. 283, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2.  SEE ALSO REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, 1919, 25-28. 

A BILL TO CARRY OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WILSON ADMINISTRATION
WAS LATER PASSED, 41 STAT. 593(1920), BUT NOT UNTIL IT HAD BEEN AMENDED
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO REQUIRE THAT ALL ALIEN
ENEMIES BE GIVEN A FAIR HEARING BEFORE THEIR DEPORTATION.  58 CONG.
REC. 3366.  THAT A FAIR HEARING WAS THE COMMAND OF CONGRESS IS NOT ONLY
SHOWN BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT BUT BY THE TEXT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
HEARINGS, BY THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND BY CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES ON THE
BILL.  IN FACT, THE HOUSE WAS ASSURED BY THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE REPORTING THE BILL THAT IN HEARINGS TO DEPORT ALIEN ENEMIES
UNDER THE BILL "A MAN IS ENTITLED TO HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT, ENTITLED TO
SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND SUMMON THEM BEFORE HIM AND HAVE A FULL HEARING,
AT WHICH THE STENOGRAPHER'S MINUTES MUST BE TAKEN."  58 CONG. REC.
3373.  SEE ALSO 3367 AND 3372.  CONGRESS THEREFORE AFTER THE FIGHTING
WAR WAS OVER AUTHORIZED THE DEPORTATION OF INTERNED ALIEN ENEMIES ONLY
IF THEY WERE "GIVEN FULL HEARING, AS IN ALL CASES OF DEPORTATION UNDER
EXISTING LAWS."  H.R. REP. NO. 143, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2. 

THIS PETITIONER IS IN PRECISELY THE SAME STATUS AS WERE THE INTERNED
ALIEN ENEMIES OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR FOR WHOM CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY
REQUIRED A FAIR HEARING WITH COURT REVIEW AS A PREREQUISITE TO THEIR
DEPORTATION.  YET THE COURT TODAY SANCTIONS A PROCEDURE WHEREBY
PETITIONER IS TO BE DEPORTED WITHOUT ANY DETERMINATION OF HIS CHARGE
THAT HE HAS BEEN DENIED A FAIR HEARING.  THE COURT CAN REACH SUCH A
RESULT ONLY BY REJECTING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE 1798 ACT GIVEN BY
TWO ATTORNEY GENERALS, UPON WHICH CONGRESS ACTED IN 1920.  IT IS HELD
THAT CONGRESS AND THE TWO ATTORNEY GENERALS OF THE WILSON
ADMINISTRATION WERE WRONG IN BELIEVING THAT THE 1798 ACT DID NOT
AUTHORIZE DEPORTATION OF INTERNED ENEMY ALIENS AFTER HOSTILITIES AND
BEFORE A PEACE TREATY.  AND IN MAKING ITS NOVEL INTERPRETATION OF THE
1798 ACT THE COURT TODAY DENIES THIS PETITIONER AND OTHERS THE KIND OF
FAIR HEARING THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW WAS INTENDED TO GUARANTEE.  SEE
THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86, 100-101, READ AND EXPLAINED
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT 58 CONG. REC. 3373,
READ INTO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, SUPRA AT 19-20, AND QUOTED IN
PART IN NOTE 2 OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS' DISSENTING OPINION. 

THE COURT'S OPINION SEEMS TO FEAR THAT GERMANS IF NOW LEFT IN THE
UNITED STATES MIGHT SOMEHOW HAVE A "POTENCY FOR MISCHIEF" EVEN AFTER
THE COMPLETE SUBJUGATION AND SURRENDER OF GERMANY, AT LEAST SO LONG AS
THE "PEACE OF PEACE HAS NOT COME."  THIS "POTENCY FOR MISCHIEF" CAN OF
COURSE HAVE NO POSSIBLE RELATION TO APPREHENSION OF ANY INVASION BY OR
WAR WITH GERMANY.  THE APPREHENSION MUST THEREFORE BE BASED ON FEAR
THAT GERMANS NOW RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES MIGHT EMIT IDEAS
DANGEROUS TO THE "PEACE OF PEACE."  BUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT REPRESENTS
THIS NATION'S BELIEF THAT THE SPREAD OF POLITICAL IDEAS MUST NOT BE
SUPPRESSED.  AND THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT WAS NOT TO
STIFLE THE SPREAD OF IDEAS AFTER HOSTILITIES HAD ENDED.  FN6  OTHERS IN
THE SERIES OF ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS DID PROVIDE FOR PRISON PUNISHMENT
OF PEOPLE WHO HAD OR AT LEAST WHO DARED TO EXPRESS POLITICAL IDEAS. 
FN7  I CANNOT NOW AGREE TO AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT
WHICH GIVES A NEW LIFE TO THE LONG REPUDIATED ANTI-FREE SPEECH AND ANTI
FREE PRESS PHILOSOPHY OF THE 1798 ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS.  I WOULD NOT
DISINTER THAT PHILOSOPHY WHICH THE PEOPLE HAVE LONG HOPED THOMAS
JEFFERSON HAD PERMANENTLY BURIED WHEN HE PARDONED THE LAST PERSON
CONVICTED FOR VIOLATION OF THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS.    FINALLY, I
WISH TO CALL ATTENTION TO WHAT WAS SAID BY CIRCUIT JUDGE AUGUSTUS HAND
IN THIS CASE SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF AND CIRCUIT JUDGES LEARNED HAND AND
SWAN, BEFORE WHOM PETITIONER ARGUED HIS OWN CAUSE.  BELIEVING THE
DEPORTATION ORDER BEFORE THEM WAS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, THEY
SAW NO REASON FOR DISCUSSING THE "  ...  NATURE OR WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE REPATRIATION HEARING BOARD, OR THE FINDING OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL  ...  "  BUT THEY ADDED:  "HOWEVER, ON THE FACE OF THE
RECORD IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY THE RELATOR SHOULD NOW BE COMPELLED TO GO
BACK.  OF COURSE THERE MAY BE MUCH NOT DISCLOSED TO JUSTIFY THE STEP;
AND IT IS OF DOUBTFUL PROPRIETY FOR A COURT EVER TO EXPRESS AN OPINION
ON A SUBJECT OVER WHICH IT HAS NO POWER.  THEREFORE, WE SHALL, AND
SHOULD, SAY NO MORE THAN TO SUGGEST THAT JUSTICE MAY PERHAPS BE BETTER
SATISFIED IF A RECONSIDERATION BE GIVEN HIM IN THE LIGHT OF THE CHANGED
CONDITIONS, SINCE THE ORDER OF REMOVAL WAS MADE EIGHTEEN MONTHS AGO." 
163 F.2D AT 144. 

IT IS NOT AMISS, I THINK, TO SUGGEST MY BELIEF THAT BECAUSE OF
TODAY'S OPINION INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY WILL BE LESS SECURE TOMORROW THAN IT
WAS YESTERDAY.  CERTAINLY THE SECURITY OF ALIENS IS LESSENED,
PARTICULARLY IF THEIR IDEAS HAPPEN TO BE OUT OF HARMONY WITH THOSE OF
THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES OF A PERIOD.  AND THERE IS REMOVED A
SEGMENT OF JUDICIAL POWER TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY FROM ARBITRARY
ACTION, AT LEAST UNTIL TODAY'S JUDGMENT IS CORRECTED BY CONGRESS  FN8
OR BY THIS COURT. 

FN1  THE COURT SPECIFICALLY HOLDS THAT THIS PETITIONER IS NOT
ENTITLED TO HAVE THIS COURT OR ANY OTHER COURT DETERMINE WHETHER
PETITIONER HAS HAD A FAIR HEARING.  THE MERITS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S ACTION ARE THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE BY THE
PETITIONER.  NEVERTHELESS THE COURT IN NOTE 3 QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXT A
SHORT PARAGRAPH FROM A WRITTEN PROTEST MADE BY PETITIONER AGAINST THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PROCEDURE.  THE ONLY POSSIBLE PURPOSE OF THIS
QUOTATION IS TO INDICATE THAT, ANYHOW, THE PETITIONER OUGHT TO BE
DEPORTED BECAUSE OF HIS VIEWS STATED IN THIS PARAGRAPH OF HIS PROTEST
AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PROCEDURE.  THIS IS A STRANGE KIND OF
DUE PROCESS.  THE PROTEST POINTED OUT THAT HITLER HAD KEPT PETITIONER
IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP FOR EIGHT MONTHS FOR DISLOYALTY TO THE NAZIS
AND THAT THIS GOVERNMENT HAD THEN KEPT HIM IMPRISONED FOR FOUR YEARS ON
THE CHARGE THAT HE WAS A NAZI.  IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE PARAGRAPH CITED
IN THE COURT'S OPINION, PETITIONER'S PROTEST CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT: 

"FAR BE IT FROM ME, HOWEVER, TO THRUST MY GOODWILL UPON ANYBODY AND
INSIST TO STAY ON A COMMUNITY WHOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS OF ILL WILL SEEK TO
REMOVE ME BY PITIFUL PROCEDURES AND ILLEGAL MEANS.  THEREFORE, I
PROPOSE THAT I LEAVE VOLUNTARILY AS A FREE MAN, NOT AS A DANGEROUS
ALIEN DEPORTEE, AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED I SHALL BE ALLOWED
SIXTY DAYS TO SETTLE MY AFFAIRS BEFORE SAILING DATE."  IS IT DUE
JUDICIAL PROCESS TO REFUSE TO REVIEW THE WHOLE RECORD TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE WAS A FAIR HEARING AND YET ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPORTATION ORDER BY REFERENCE TO TWO SENTENCES IN A
LONG RECORD? 

FN2  COMPARE EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283; KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES,
323 U.S. 214. 

FN3  IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS OF THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT,
FREQUENT REFERENCES TO THE ACT WERE MADE IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES
ON THE ALIEN ACT, 1 STAT. 570, AND THE SEDITION ACT, 1 STAT. 596, BOTH
OF WHICH WERE PASSED WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ALIEN
ENEMY ACT.  THESE REFERENCES APPEAR IN MANY PLACES IN THE ANNALS OF
CONGRESS, 5TH CONG., 2D SESS.  SEE E.G., 1973-2028. 

FN4  THE COURT CITES WOODS V. MILLER CO., 333 U.S. 138, AS HAVING
HELD THAT THE WAR WITH GERMANY HAS NOT YET TERMINATED.  I FIND NO SUCH
HOLDING IN THE OPINION AND NO LANGUAGE THAT EVEN SUGGESTS SUCH A
HOLDING.  WE THERE DEALT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL WAR POWERS OF
CONGRESS, WHETHER ALL THOSE POWERS ARE NECESSARILY NON-EXISTENT WHEN
THERE ARE NO ACTUAL HOSTILITIES.  DECISION OF THAT QUESTION HAS HARDLY
EVEN A REMOTE RELEVANCY TO THE MEANING OF THE 1798 ALIEN ENEMY ACT. 
THE COURT TODAY ALSO SEEKS TO SUPPORT ITS JUDGMENT BY A QUOTATION FROM
A CONCURRING OPINION IN THE WOODS CASE, SUPRA.  BUT THE CONCURRING
OPINION CITED WAS THAT OF A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE COURT. 

FN5  IN A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION DATED JANUARY 9, 1919, ATTORNEY GENERAL
GREGORY EXPLAINED THAT A NUMBER OF GERMAN SUBJECTS WHO HAD "BEEN
INTERNED PURSUANT TO SECTION 4067 OF THE REVISED STATUTES" (SECTION 1
OF THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798) WERE STILL HELD IN CUSTODY.  HE THEN
STATED: 

"THE AUTHORITY GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT TO REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF
ENEMY ALIENS DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE WAR, IN MY OPINION, COULD NOT
PROPERLY BE USED AT THIS TIME TO BRING ABOUT THE DEPORTATION OF THESE
ALIENS.  THERE IS NOW, THEREFORE, NO LAW UNDER WHICH THESE PERSONS CAN
BE EXPELLED FROM THE COUNTRY NOR, IF ONCE OUT OF IT, PREVENTED FROM
RETURNING TO THIS COUNTRY.  I HAVE, THEREFORE, CAUSED TO BE PREPARED
THE INCLOSED DRAFT OF A PROPOSED BILL, THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH ARE SELF
EXPLANATORY."  H.R. REP. NO. 1000, 65TH CONG., 3D SESS. 1-2.  THIS
POSITION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THERE THEN WAS NO POWER UNDER
EXISTING LAW TO DEPORT ENEMY ALIENS WAS REITERATED BY REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ON THE BILL ENACTED INTO LAW.  HEARINGS
ON H.R. 6750, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3-21.  IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE 1798 ALIEN ENEMY ACT THE WILSON ADMINISTRATION
DID NOT ATTEMPT TO DEPORT INTERNED ALIEN ENEMIES UNDER THE 1798 ACT
AFTER THE ARMISTICE AND BEFORE CONGRESS BY STATUTE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED
SUCH DEPORTATIONS AS REQUESTED BY THE TWO ATTORNEY GENERALS.  REPORT OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1919, 25-28. 

FN6  AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE 1798 ACT THE
COURT APPEARS TO ADOPT THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS IN UNITED STATES EX REL. KESSLER V. WATKINS, 163 F.2D 140,
DECIDED IN 1947.  THAT COURT EMPHASIZED THE DIFFICULTY OF DEPORTATION
OF ALIEN ENEMIES DURING THE TIME OF ACTUAL HOSTILITY "BECAUSE OF THE
DANGER TO THE ALIENS THEMSELVES OR THE INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE
CONDUCT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS."  THIS REASONING WOULD OF COURSE BE
PERSUASIVE IF THE OBJECT OF THE 1798 STATUTE HAD BEEN PUNISHMENT OF THE
ALIEN ENEMIES, BUT THE WHOLE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS THAT SUCH WAS
NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT.  HENCE THE ACT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO
AUTHORIZE THE DEPORTATION OF AN ENEMY ALIEN AFTER THE WAR IS OVER AS
PUNISHMENT.  FURTHERMORE, THE PURPOSE OF DEPORTATION, SO FAR AS IT WAS
AUTHORIZED (IF AUTHORIZED) UNDER THE 1798 ACT, WAS NOT TO PROTECT THE
UNITED STATES FROM IDEAS OF ALIENS AFTER A WAR OR THREATENED INVASION
BUT TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES AGAINST SABOTAGE, ETC., DURING A WAR
OR THREATENED INVASION.  NEVERTHELESS, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
THOUGHT THAT WITHOUT ITS INTERPRETATION "THE EXECUTIVE WOULD BE
POWERLESS TO CARRY OUT INTERNMENT OR DEPORTATION WHICH WAS NOT
EXERCISED DURING ACTIVE WAR AND MIGHT BE OBLIGED TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY
UNPROTECTED FROM ALIENS DANGEROUS EITHER BECAUSE OF SECRETS WHICH THEY
POSSESSED OR BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL INIMICAL ACTIVITIES."  BUT AFTER A
WAR IS OVER THE ONLY "INIMICAL ACTIVITIES" WOULD RELATE TO PEACETIME
GOVERNMENTAL MATTERS - NOT THE TYPE OF CONDUCT WHICH CONCERNED THOSE
WHO PASSED THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT.  MOREOVER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY
IT WOULD ENDANGER THIS COUNTRY TO KEEP ALIENS HERE "BECAUSE OF SECRETS
WHICH THEY POSSESS."  AND OF COURSE THE EXECUTIVE IS NOT POWERLESS TO
SEND DANGEROUS ALIENS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY, EVEN IF THE 1798 ACT DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE THEIR DEPORTATION, FOR THERE ARE OTHER STATUTES WHICH
GIVE BROAD POWERS TO DEPORT ALIENS.  THERE IS THIS DISADVANTAGE TO THE
GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, IN CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER DEPORTATION STATUTES
THEY REQUIRE A HEARING AND THE EXECUTIVE WOULD NOT HAVE ARBITRARY
POWER TO SEND THEM AWAY WITH OR WITHOUT REASONS. 

FN7  SEE BOWERS, JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON, 1925, C. XVI, "HYSTERICS,"
AND C. XVII, "THE REIGN OF TERROR"; 1 MORISON, LIFE OF OTIS, C. VIII,
"A SYSTEM OF TERROR." 

FN8  IT IS SUGGESTED IN THE COURT'S OPINION THAT CONGRESS BY
APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN 1947 TO "RETURN" ALIEN ENEMIES TO THEIR "BONA
FIDE RESIDENCE OR TO SUCH OTHER PLACE AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL" HAS ALREADY APPROVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE 1798 ACT AS AUTHORIZING THE PRESENT DEPORTATION
OF ALIEN ENEMIES WITHOUT AFFORDING THEM A FAIR HEARING.  BUT NO SUCH
STRAINED INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN.  CONGRESS DID NOT THERE OR ELSEWHERE
EXPRESS A PURPOSE TO DENY THESE ALIENS A FAIR HEARING AFTER THE WAR WAS
OVER.  UNTIL IT DOES SO, I AM UNWILLING TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE CONGRESS
ANY SUCH ATTEMPTED VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE SOLE QUESTION OPEN ON HABEAS CORPUS IS
WHETHER THE PETITIONER IS IN FACT AN ALIEN ENEMY.  FN1  THAT
DELIMITATION OF THE HISTORIC WRIT IS A WHOLLY ARBITRARY ONE.  I SEE NO
REASON FOR A MORE NARROW RANGE OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY HERE THAN IN HABEAS
CORPUS ARISING OUT OF ANY OTHER DEPORTATION PROCEEDING. 

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT IN PEACETIME AN ALIEN IS PROTECTED BY THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WONG WING V. UNITED STATES, 163
U.S. 228.  FEDERAL COURTS WILL THEN DETERMINE THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS
WHETHER OR NOT A DEPORTATION ORDER IS BASED UPON PROCEDURES AFFORDING
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103, 106.  IN
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS DUE PROCESS REQUIRES REASONABLE NOTICE (TISI V.
TOD, 264 U.S. 131, 134), A FAIR HEARING (BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S.
135, 156; CHIN YOW V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 8, 12; LOW WAH SUEY V.
BACKUS, 225 U.S. 460), AND AN ORDER SUPPORTED BY SOME EVIDENCE
(VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, P. 106; ZAKONAITE V. WOLF, 226 U.S.
272, 274).  AND SEE KWOCK JAN FAT V. WHITE, 253 U.S. 454. 

THE RULE OF THOSE CASES IS NOT RESTRICTED TO INSTANCES WHERE CONGRESS
ITSELF HAS PROVIDED FOR A HEARING.  THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189
U.S. 86, DECIDED IN 1903, SO HELD.  THE COURT IN THAT CASE HELD THAT
DUE PROCESS REQUIRED THAT DEPORTATION BE HAD ONLY AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING EVEN THOUGH THERE, AS HERE, THE STATUTE PRESCRIBED NO SUCH
PROCEDURE BUT ENTRUSTED THE MATTER WHOLLY TO AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER.  FN2
CONSISTENTLY WITH THAT PRINCIPLE WE HELD IN BRIDGES V. WIXON, SUPRA,
THAT A VIOLATION OF THE RULES GOVERNING THE HEARING COULD BE REACHED ON
HABEAS CORPUS, EVEN THOUGH THE RULES WERE PRESCRIBED NOT BY CONGRESS
BUT BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY IN CHARGE OF THE DEPORTATION
PROCEEDING.  WE STATED, P. 154: 

"WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE ALIEN.  THOUGH DEPORTATION IS NOT TECHNICALLY A
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, IT VISITS A GREAT HARDSHIP ON THE INDIVIDUAL AND
DEPRIVES HIM OF THE RIGHT TO STAY AND LIVE AND WORK IN THIS LAND OF
FREEDOM.  THAT DEPORTATION IS A PENALTY - AT TIMES A MOST SERIOUS ONE -
CANNOT BE DOUBTED.  METICULOUS CARE MUST BE EXERCISED LEST THE
PROCEDURE BY WHICH HE IS DEPRIVED OF THAT LIBERTY NOT MEET THE
ESSENTIAL STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS." 

THE SAME PRINCIPLES ARE APPLICABLE HERE.  THE PRESIDENT HAS
CLASSIFIED ALIEN ENEMIES BY REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY AND
HAS AUTHORIZED DEPORTATION ONLY OF THOSE DEEMED DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY
HAVE ADHERED TO AN ENEMY GOVERNMENT, OR THE PRINCIPLES THEREOF. 
PETITIONER WAS IN FACT GIVEN A HEARING IN 1945 BEFORE THE REPATRIATION
HEARING BOARD IN ADDITION TO ONE IN 1942 BEFORE THE ALIEN ENEMY HEARING
BOARD.  THE ORDER FOR HIS DEPORTATION RECITES THAT "UPON CONSIDERATION
OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED" BEFORE THOSE BOARDS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
IN THE WORDS OF THE PROCLAMATION, DEEMS PETITIONER "TO BE DANGEROUS TO
THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE HE HAS ADHERED
TO A GOVERNMENT WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR OR TO THE
PRINCIPLE THEREOF."  THOSE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE PROCEDURE
BY WHICH THEY WERE REACHED MUST CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE
PROCESS.  AND HABEAS CORPUS IS THE TIME-HONORED PROCEDURE TO PUT THEM
TO THE TEST. 

THE INQUIRY IN THIS TYPE OF CASE NEED BE NO GREATER AN INTRUSION IN
THE AFFAIRS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THAN INQUIRIES BY
HABEAS CORPUS IN TIMES OF PEACE INTO A DETERMINATION THAT THE ALIEN IS
CONSIDERED TO BE AN "UNDESIRABLE RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  SEE
MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32.  BOTH INVOLVE ONLY A DETERMINATION THAT
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS SATISFIED, THAT THERE BE A FAIR HEARING, AND
THAT THE ORDER BE BASED UPON SOME EVIDENCE. 

THE NEEDS OF THE HOUR MAY WELL REQUIRE SUMMARY APPREHENSION AND
DETENTION OF ALIEN ENEMIES.  A NATION AT WAR NEED NOT BE DETAINED BY
TIME-CONSUMING PROCEDURES WHILE THE ENEMY BORES FROM WITHIN.  BUT WITH
AN ALIEN ENEMY BEHIND BARS, THAT DANGER HAS PASSED.  IF HE IS TO BE
DEPORTED ONLY AFTER A HEARING, OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT
THE HEARING BE A FAIR ONE.  IT IS FOREIGN TO OUR THOUGHT TO DEFEND A
MOCK HEARING ON THE GROUND THAT IN ANY EVENT IT WAS A MERE GRATUITY. 
HEARINGS THAT ARE ARBITRARY AND UNFAIR ARE NO HEARINGS AT ALL UNDER OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  AGAINST THEM HABEAS CORPUS PROVIDES IN THIS CASE
THE ONLY PROTECTION. 

THE NOTION THAT THE DISCRETION OF ANY OFFICER OF GOVERNMENT CAN
OVERRIDE DUE PROCESS IS FOREIGN TO OUR SYSTEM.  DUE PROCESS DOES NOT
PERISH WHEN WAR COMES.  IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE WAR POWER DOES
NOT REMOVE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS SAFEGUARDING ESSENTIAL
LIBERTIES.  HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 426. 

FN1  SEE UNITED STATES EX REL. SCHLUETER V. WATKINS, 67 F.SUPP.  556,
AFF'D 158 F.2D 853; UNITED STATES V. LONGO, 46 F.SUPP.  170; UNITED
STATES V. UHL, 46 F.SUPP.  688, REV'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 137 F.2D 858;
EX PARTE GILROY, 257 F. 110; BANNING V. PENROSE, 255 F. 159; EX PARTE
FRONKLIN, 253 F. 984; MINOTTO V. BRADLEY, 252 F. 600.  CF. CITIZENS
PROTECTIVE LEAGUE V. CLARK, 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 116, 155 F.2D 290; DE
LACEY V. UNITED STATES, 249 F. 625.  IN THE SCHLUETER CASE IT WAS HELD
THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTE DO NOT REQUIRE A HEARING AND THUS
AN ALIEN ENEMY CANNOT COMPLAIN OF THE CHARACTER OF THE HEARING HE DID
RECEIVE.  67 F.SUPP.  AT 565.    FN2  THE COURT SAID, 189 U.S. P. 101:
"  ...  NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY,
AT SOME TIME, TO BE HEARD, BEFORE SUCH OFFICERS, IN RESPECT OF THE
MATTERS UPON WHICH THAT LIBERTY DEPENDS - NOT NECESSARILY AN
OPPORTUNITY UPON A REGULAR, SET OCCASION, AND ACCORDING TO THE FORMS OF
JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, BUT ONE THAT WILL SECURE THE PROMPT, VIGOROUS
ACTION CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS, AND AT THE SAME TIME BE APPROPRIATE TO
THE NATURE OF THE CASE UPON WHICH SUCH OFFICERS ARE REQUIRED TO ACT. 
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT COMPETENT FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OR ANY
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE YEAR LIMITED BY THE STATUTE,
ARBITRARILY TO CAUSE AN ALIEN, WHO HAS ENTERED THE COUNTRY, AND HAS
BECOME SUBJECT IN ALL RESPECTS TO ITS JURISDICTION, AND A PART OF ITS
POPULATION, ALTHOUGH ALLEGED TO BE ILLEGALLY HERE, TO BE TAKEN INTO
CUSTODY AND DEPORTED WITHOUT GIVING HIM ALL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
UPON THE QUESTIONS INVOLVING HIS RIGHT TO BE AND REMAIN IN THE UNITED
STATES.  NO SUCH ARBITRARY POWER CAN EXIST WHERE THE PRINCIPLES
INVOLVED IN DUE PROCESS OF LAW ARE RECOGNIZED." 
..END :























AHRENS V. CLARK, 335 U.S. 188 


NO. 446.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1948.  - AFFIRMED. 


1.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS IF THE PERSON DETAINED IS NOT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHEN THE PETITION IS FILED.  PP. 189-193. 

2.  THE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 452) CONFERRING POWER
ON THE DISTRICT COURTS, "WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS," TO
GRANT WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, INDICATES THAT CONCLUSION.  PP. 191-193. 

3.  CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WHICH MIGHT WARRANT GIVING THE DISTRICT
COURTS DISCRETION IN THIS MATTER ARE FOR CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.  PP.
192-193. 

4.  THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE PERSON FOR WHOSE RELIEF A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS INTENDED MUST BE WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS ONE WHICH CONGRESS
HAS IMPOSED ON THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ACT, AND IT MAY NOT
BE WAIVED BY THE PARTIES.  P. 193. 

5.  EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 193. 

AHRENS ET AL. V. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS TO SECURE THEIR RELEASE FROM DETENTION UNDER REMOVAL
ORDERS ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER A PRESIDENTAL PROCLAMATION
PURSUANT TO THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISMISSED ON APPEAL.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 826.  AFFIRMED, P. 193. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED. 

THE INITIAL QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS CASE IS THE ONE WE RESERVED IN
EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283, 305, VIZ. WHETHER THE PRESENCE WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE PERSON DETAINED
IS PREREQUISITE TO FILING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

PETITIONERS ARE SOME 120 GERMANS WHO ARE BEING HELD AT ELLIS ISLAND,
NEW YORK, FOR DEPORTATION TO GERMANY.  THEIR DEPORTATION HAS BEEN
DIRECTED UNDER REMOVAL ORDERS ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAS
FOUND THAT EACH OF THEM IS DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY OF
THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE HE HAS ADHERED TO A GOVERNMENT WITH WHICH THE
UNITED STATES IS AT WAR OR TO THE PRINCIPLES THEREOF.  THESE REMOVAL
ORDERS WERE ISSUED UNDER PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 2655 OF JULY 14,
1945(10 FED. REG. 8947) PURSUANT TO THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798, R.S.
SEC. 4067, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21.  THE ORDERS ARE CHALLENGED BY THESE
PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS ON SEVERAL GROUNDS, THE PRINCIPAL
ONE BEING THAT ALL OF THEM EXCEED THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THAT THEY
WERE ISSUED AFTER ACTUAL HOSTILITIES WITH GERMANY CEASED. 

THE PETITIONS WERE FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AND ALLEGED THAT PETITIONERS WERE CONFINED AT ELLIS ISLAND,
NEW YORK, AND ARE "SUBJECT TO THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL" OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.  RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS BECAUSE, INTER ALIA, PETITIONERS
WERE OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL CONFINES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTING THE MOTION. 

THE STATUTE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 452, PROVIDES: 

"THE SEVERAL JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SEVERAL JUDGES OF
THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL AND OF THE DISTRICT COURTS, WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, SHALL HAVE POWER TO GRANT WRITS OF HABEAS
CORPUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN INQUIRY INTO THE CAUSE OF RESTRAINT OF
LIBERTY.  A CIRCUIT JUDGE SHALL HAVE THE SAME POWER TO GRANT WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS WITHIN HIS CIRCUIT, THAT A DISTRICT JUDGE HAS WITHIN HIS
DISTRICT; AND THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGE SHALL BE ENTERED IN THE
RECORDS OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT WHEREIN THE RESTRAINT
COMPLAINED OF IS HAD." 

THE QUESTION AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE CASE IS WHETHER THE WORDS
"WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS" LIMIT THE DISTRICT COURTS TO
INQUIRES INTO THE CAUSES OF RESTRAINTS OF LIBERTY OF THOSE CONFINED OR
RESTRAINED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS OF THOSE COURTS.  THERE
ARE FEW CASES ON ALL FOURS WITH THE PRESENT ONE, THE PRECISE QUESTION
NOT HAVING FREQUENTLY ARISEN IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  BUT THE
GENERAL VIEW IS THAT THEIR JURISDICTION IS SO CONFINED.  MCGOWAN V.
MOODY, 22 APP. D.C. 148, 158 ET SEQ.; IN RE BICKLEY, 3 FED. CAS. 332. 
AND SEE IN RE BOLES, 48 F. 75; EX PARTE GOUYET, 175 F. 230, 233; UNITED
STATES V. DAY, 50 F.2D 816, 817; JONES V. BIDDLE, 131 F.2D 853, 854;
UNITED STATES V. SCHLOTFELDT, 136 F.2D 935, 940.  FN1  CF. SANDERS V.
ALLEN, 69 APP. D.C. 307, 100 F.2D 717; TIPPITT V. WOOD, 78 U.S. APP.
D.C. 332, 140 F.2D 689.  THAT IS OUR VIEW. 

WE START FROM THE ACCEPTED PREMISE THAT APART FROM SPECIFIC
EXCEPTIONS CREATED BY CONGRESS THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS
IS TERRITORIAL.  SEE GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S. 439, 467
468, AND CASES CITED.  IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT IN OUR VIEW THAT THE JAILER
OR CUSTODIAN ALONE BE FOUND IN THE JURISDICTION. 

ALTHOUGH THE WRIT IS DIRECTED TO THE PERSON IN WHOSE CUSTODY THE
PARTY IS DETAINED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 455, THE STATUTORY SCHEME
CONTEMPLATES A PROCEDURE WHICH MAY BRING THE PRISONER BEFORE THE
COURT.  FOR SEC. 458 PROVIDES THAT "THE PERSON MAKING THE RETURN SHALL
AT THE SAME TIME BRING THE BODY OF THE PARTY BEFORE THE JUDGE WHO
GRANTED THE WRIT."  SEE WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275.  IT WOULD
TAKE COMPELLING REASONS TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED THE
PRODUCTION OF PRISONERS FROM REMOTE SECTIONS, PERHAPS THOUSANDS OF
MILES FROM THE DISTRICT COURT THAT ISSUED THE WRIT.  THE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR ESCAPE AFFORDED BY TRAVEL, THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN OF SUCH AN UNDERTAKING NEGATE SUCH A PURPOSE. 
THESE ARE MATTERS OF POLICY WHICH COUNSEL US TO CONSTRUE THE
JURISDICTIONAL PROVISION OF THE STATUTE IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE, EVEN
THOUGH IN SOME SITUATIONS RETURN OF THE PRISONER TO THE COURT WHERE HE
WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED MIGHT SEEM TO OFFER SOME ADVANTAGES. 

THE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE SUPPORTS THIS VIEW.  IT CAME INTO THE LAW
AS THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1867, 14 STAT. 385.  AND SEE ACT OF AUGUST
29, 1842, 5 STAT. 539.  PRIOR TO THAT DATE IT WAS THE ACCEPTED VIEW
THAT A PRISONER MUST BE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FROM IT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  SEE
EX PARTE GRAHAM, 4 WASH. C.C. 211; FN2  IN RE BICKLEY, 3 FED. CAS.
332.  CF. UNITED STATES V. DAVIS, 5 CRANCH C.C. 622.  THE BILL AS
INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE WAS THOUGHT TO CONTAIN AN INFIRMITY.  THE
OBJECTION WAS MADE ON THE FLOOR THAT IT WOULD PERMIT "A DISTRICT JUDGE
IN FLORIDA TO BRING BEFORE HIM SOME MEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED AND
HELD UNDER IMPRISONMENT IN THE STATE OF VERMONT OR IN ANY OF THE
FURTHER STATES."  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 2D SESS. 730.  AS A RESULT
OF THAT OBJECTION SENATOR TRUMBULL, WHO HAD CHARGE OF THE BILL, OFFERED
AN AMENDMENT WHICH ADDED THE WORDS "WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS."  IBID. AT 790.  THAT AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED AS A
SATISFACTORY SOLUTION OF THE IMAGINED DIFFICULTY.  FN3  N3.  ID.  THUS
THE VIEW THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ISSUE THE WRIT
IN CASES SUCH AS THIS  FN4  IS RESTRICTED TO THOSE PETITIONERS WHO ARE
CONFINED OR DETAINED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
IS SUPPORTED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, BY CONSIDERATIONS OF
POLICY, AND BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ENACTMENT.  WE THEREFORE
DO NOT FEEL FREE TO WEIGH THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE ADVANCED
FOR GIVING DISTRICT COURTS DISCRETION IN CASES LIKE THIS.  IF THAT
CONCEPT IS TO BE IMPORTED INTO THIS STATUTE, CONGRESS MUST DO SO. 

RESPONDENT IS WILLING TO WAIVE THE POINT, SO THAT WE MAY MAKE A
DECISION ON THE MERITS.  BUT THE RESTRICTION IS ONE WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PLACED ON THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ACT.  HENCE IT MAY NOT BE
WAIVED BY THE PARTIES.  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, 229. 

EX PARTE ENDO, SUPRA, P. 305, IS NOT OPPOSED TO THIS VIEW.  IN THAT
CASE PETITIONER AT THE TIME SUIT WAS INSTITUTED WAS WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS COURT BUT HAD
SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REMOVED TO A DIFFERENT DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT.  WE
HELD, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE POLICY UNDERLYING RULE 45(1) OF THE COURT,
THAT JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT DEFEATED IN THAT
MANNER, NO MATTER HOW PROPER THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE REMOVAL.  WE DECIDED
THAT IN THAT SITUATION THE COURT CAN ACT AS LONG AS IT CAN REACH A
PERSON WHO HAS CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER. 

SINCE THERE IS A DEFECT IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
WHICH REMAINS UNCURED, WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THE PROPER RESPONDENT (SEE SECS. 455 AND 458; WALES
V. WHITNEY, 114 U.S. 564, 574; JONES V. BIDDLE, SUPRA; SANDERS V.
BENNETT, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 32, 148 F.2D 19) AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE
OBJECTION MAY BE WAIVED, AS RESPONDENT IS WILLING TO DO.  CF. EX PARTE
ENDO, SUPRA, PP. 305-307.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BUT SEE EX PARTE FONG YIM, 134 F. 938; EX PARTE NG QUONG MING,
135 F. 378. 

FN2  THE PRINCIPLE WHICH GOVERNED THE DECISION WAS STATED BY MR.
JUSTICE WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS, 4 WASH. C.C. PP. 211-212: 

"IT IS ADMITTED THAT THESE COURTS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR COMMON
LAW AND EQUITY JURISDICTION, HAVE NO AUTHORITY, GENERALLY, TO ISSUE
PROCESS INTO ANOTHER DISTRICT, EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE SUCH AUTHORITY HAS
BEEN SPECIALLY BESTOWED BY SOME LAW OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE ABSENCE
OF SUCH A POWER WOULD SEEM NECESSARILY TO RESULT FROM THE ORGANIZATION
OF THE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, BY WHICH TWO COURTS ARE ALLOTTED TO
EACH OF THE DISTRICTS INTO WHICH THE UNITED STATES ARE DIVIDED, THE ONE
DENOMINATED A DISTRICT, AND THE OTHER A CIRCUIT COURT.  THIS DIVISION
AND APPOINTMENT OF PARTICULAR COURTS FOR EACH DISTRICT, NECESSARILY
CONFINES THE JURISDICTION OF THESE LOCAL TRIBUNALS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS WITHIN WHICH THEY ARE DIRECTED TO BE HOLDEN. 
WERE IT OTHERWISE, AND THE COURT OF ONE DISTRICT COULD SEND COMPULSORY
PROCESS INTO ANY OTHER, SO AS TO DRAW TO ITSELF A JURISDICTION OVER
PERSONS AND THINGS WITHOUT THE LIMITS OF ITS DISTRICT, THERE WOULD
RESULT A CLASHING OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT COURTS NOT
EASILY TO BE ADJUSTED, AND AN OPPRESSION UPON SUITORS TOO INTOLERABLE
TO BE ENDURED." 

FN3  THE STATUTE THEN READ, "THAT THE SEVERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND THE SEVERAL JUSTICES AND JUDGES OF SUCH COURTS, WITHIN
THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, IN ADDITION TO THE AUTHORITY ALREADY
CONFERRED BY LAW, SHALL HAVE POWER TO GRANT WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS IN
ALL CASES WHERE ANY PERSON MAY BE RESTRAINED OF HIS OR HER LIBERTY IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, OR OF ANY TREATY OR LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES; ...  "  14 STAT. 385. 

FN4  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF WHAT PROCESS, IF ANY, A
PERSON CONFINED IN AN AREA NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF ANY
DISTRICT COURT MAY EMPLOY TO ASSERT FEDERAL RIGHTS.  CF. EX PARTE BETZ;
EX PARTE DURANT; EX PARTE WILLS; EX PARTE CUTINO; EX PARTE WALCZAK; EX
PARTE MCKINLEY; AND EX PARTE MURPHY, ALL REPORTED TOGETHER.  329 U.S.
672. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE JURISDICTIONAL TURN THIS CASE HAS TAKEN GIVES IT IMPORTANCE FAR
BEYOND THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS TENDERED ON THE MERITS OF PETITIONERS'
APPLICATION.  THEY ARE ALIEN ENEMIES INTERNED DURING THE WAR AS
DANGEROUS TO THE NATION'S SAFETY.  THEY NOW SEEK TO AVOID DEPORTATION
FROM A COUNTRY WHICH TAKES CARE FOR PERSONAL LIBERTIES, EVEN WHEN ITS
HOSPITALITY MAY BE ABUSED, TO ONE WHICH DENIED ITS OWN CITIZENS SUCH
RIGHTS UNTIL ITS STRUCTURE OF TYRANNY FELL IN RUINS.  WHETHER OR NOT
PETITIONERS HAVE FORFEITED THE RIGHT TO CONTINUED ENJOYMENT OF OUR
INSTITUTIONS AND THE LIFE THEY FOSTER, AND WHETHER THE FORFEITURE HAS
BEEN DECLARED AND CAN NOW BE EXECUTED PURSUANT TO LAWFULLY GRANTED
AUTHORITY, ARE INDEED IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, UPON WHICH THESE PETITIONERS
ARE AS MUCH ENTITLED TO HEARING AND DECISION AS LUDECKE.  CF. LUDECKE
V. WATKINS, ANTE, P. 160, DECIDED TODAY. 

BUT THE COURT, PUTTING THEM ASIDE FOR THESE PETITIONERS, CUTS MUCH
MORE SWEEPINGLY AT THE ROOTS OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM BY ITS DECISION UPON
THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE THAN COULD ANY DISPOSITION OF THOSE ISSUES. 
THE DECISION ATTENUATES THE PERSONAL SECURITY OF EVERY CITIZEN.  SO
DOES ANY SERIOUS CONTRACTION IN THE AVAILABILITY OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.  FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS COURT PUTS A NARROW AND RIGID
TERRITORIAL LIMITATION UPON ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT BY THE INFERIOR
FEDERAL COURTS.  HERETOFORE SUCH CONSTRICTIVE FORMULATIONS HAVE BEEN
AVOIDED GENERALLY, EVEN ASSIDUOUSLY, OUT OF REGARD FOR THE WRIT'S GREAT
OFFICE IN THE VINDICATION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY.  SEE, E.G., BOWEN V.
JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 26-28; EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283, 304-307;
PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334 U.S. 266; WADE V. MAYO, 334 U.S. 672.  FN1 

BUT TODAY'S RULING, DEPARTING FROM THAT POLICY, IS THAT THE WRIT CAN
ISSUE ONLY WHEN THE PLACE OF CONFINEMENT LIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE
COURT'S TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.  THAT PURELY GEOGRAPHIC FACT AND IT
ALONE DETERMINES THE COURT'S COMPETENCE TO ACT.  AND THIS IS NOT MERELY
AS A MATTER OF VENUE OR OF ACCOMMODATION IN THE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY
AMONG TRIBUNALS OF COORDINATE POWER, ALLOWING ROOM FOR SOME
ADAPTABILITY TO VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT IS ONE CRUCIAL BETWEEN
COMPETENCE TO ACT AND TOTAL IMPOTENCE.  ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE
PUT TO ONE SIDE.  NEITHER THE JAILER'S PRESENCE AND AMENABILITY TO
PROCESS NOR HIS ABILITY OR EVEN HIS WILLINGNESS TO PRODUCE THE BODY CAN
CURE THE COURT'S BASIC INFIRMITY, IF BY ACCIDENT OR CHOICE THE LOCUS OF
CONFINEMENT HAPPENS TO FALL BEYOND THE PHYSICAL LINE. 

IF THIS IS OR IS TO BECOME THE LAW, THE FULL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE
DECISION ARE DIFFICULT TO FORESEE.  IT WOULD SEEM THAT A GREAT
CONTRACTION OF THE WRIT'S CLASSIC SCOPE AND EXPOSITION HAS TAKEN PLACE,
FN2  AND MUCH OF ITS HISTORIC EFFICACY MAY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED.  FOR
IF ABSENCE OF THE BODY FROM THE JURISDICTION IS ALONE CONCLUSIVE
AGAINST EXISTENCE OF POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT, WHAT OF THE CASE WHERE
THE PLACE OF IMPRISONMENT, WHETHER BY PRIVATE OR PUBLIC ACTION, IS
UNKNOWN?  WHAT ALSO OF THE SITUATION WHERE THAT PLACE IS LOCATED IN ONE
DISTRICT, BUT THE JAILER IS PRESENT IN AND CAN BE SERVED WITH PROCESS
ONLY IN ANOTHER?  FN3  AND IF THE PLACE OF DETENTION LIES WHOLLY
OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF ANY FEDERAL JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH
THE PERSON OR PERSONS EXERCISING RESTRAINT ARE CLEARLY WITHIN REACH OF
SUCH AUTHORITY, IS THERE TO BE NO REMEDY, EVEN THOUGH IT IS AMERICAN
CITIZENS WHO ARE WRONGFULLY DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY AND AMERICANS
ANSWERABLE TO NO OTHER POWER WHO DEPRIVE THEM OF IT, WHETHER PURPORTING
TO ACT OFFICIALLY OR OTHERWISE?  IN ALL THESE CASES MAY THE JAILERS
STAND IN DEFIANCE OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER, AND PLEAD EITHER THE
ACCIDENT OF THE LOCUS OF DETENTION OUTSIDE THE COURT'S TERRITORIAL
LIMITATIONS, OR THEIR OWN ASTUTENESS IN SO SELECTING THE PLACE, TO
NULLIFY JUDICIAL COMPETENCE? 

TO NONE OF THESE QUESTIONS DOES THE COURT GIVE ANSWER, ALTHOUGH IT
PURPORTS TO RESERVE DECISION CONCERNING ONE OF THEM.  YET IN ALL, IF
POWER TO ACT RESTS SOLELY ON THE BODY'S PRESENCE, ITS ABSENCE  FN4
WILL RENDER THE COURT IMPOTENT EVEN THOUGH THE JAILER IS WITHIN GRASP
OF ITS PROCESS FOR COMPELLING PRODUCTION AND, IT MAY BE, BEYOND REACH
OF THE LIKE PROCESS OF ANY OTHER COURT.  FOR UPON THE TEST PRESCRIBED,
THERE MUST BE CONJUNCTION OF THE BODY'S PRESENCE AND THE JAILER'S FOR
THE WRIT TO ISSUE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN IN SUCH
CASES, WHERE THE CONJUNCTION DOES NOT EXIST, THEN IT IS NOT TRUE THAT
THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF POWER TO AFFORD IT ONLY WHEN
THE BODY IS HELD WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS,
AND THE COURT'S GROUNDING OF THIS DECISION WOULD SEEM NEITHER NECESSARY
NOR PROPER FOR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 

BY THUS ELEVATING THE PLACE OF PHYSICAL CUSTODY TO THE LEVEL OF
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTIONAL CRITERION, THE COURT GIVES CONTROLLING EFFECT
TO A FACTOR WHICH GENERALLY HAS BEEN REGARDED AS OF LITTLE OR NO
IMPORTANCE FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES OR FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF THE
WRIT IN ITS GREAT OFFICE AS HISTORICALLY CONCEIVED.  PERHAPS THE
CLASSIC EXPOSITION OF ITS NATURE AND AVAILABILITY, AS ALSO OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDING, IS THAT OF JUDGE COOLEY, QUOTED IN PART
WITH APPROVAL BY OUR OPINION IN EX PARTE ENDO, SUPRA: 

"THE IMPORTANT FACT TO BE OBSERVED IN REGARD TO THE MODE OF PROCEDURE
UPON THIS WRIT IS, THAT IT IS DIRECTED TO, AND SERVED UPON, NOT THE
PERSON CONFINED, BUT HIS JAILER.  IT DOES NOT REACH THE FORMER EXCEPT
THROUGH THE LATTER.  THE OFFICER OR PERSON WHO SERVES IT DOES NOT UNBAR
THE PRISON DOORS, AND SET THE PRISONER FREE, BUT THE COURT RELIEVES HIM
BY COMPELLING THE OPPRESSOR TO RELEASE HIS CONSTRAINT.  THE WHOLE FORCE
OF THE WRIT IS SPENT UPON THE RESPONDENT  ...  THE PLACE OF CONFINEMENT
IS THEREFORE NOT IMPORTANT TO THE RELIEF, IF THE GUILTY PARTY IS WITHIN
REACH OF PROCESS, SO THAT BY THE POWER OF THE COURT HE CAN BE COMPELLED
TO RELEASE HIS GRASP.  THE DIFFICULTY OF AFFORDING REDRESS IS NOT
INCREASED BY THE CONFINEMENT BEING BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE STATE,
EXCEPT AS GREATER DISTANCE MAY AFFECT IT.  THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS,
WHERE IS THE POWER OF CONTROL EXERCISED?"  FN5 

IN THIS HISTORIC VIEW THE PROCEEDING IN HABEAS CORPUS IS ANALOGOUS
JURISDICTIONALLY NEITHER TO ONE IN REM OR QUASI IN REM NOR TO THE
ANOMALOUSLY RESTRICTED PERSONAL ACTION, AS DEVELOPED IN THE COMMON LAW,
OF TRESPASS TO REALTY.  FN6  YET THE COURT'S DECISION GIVES TO THIS
PRIME REMEDY FOR INVASION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY AN AVAILABILITY IN THE
INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS HARDLY GREATER THAN THOSE HIGHLY RESTRICTED
PROCEEDINGS POSSESS, JURISDICTIONALLY SPEAKING, FOR PURPOSES REMEDIAL
OF INJURIES TO PROPERTY.  THOSE COURTS INDEED ARE DEPRIVED OF POWERS IN
HABEAS CORPUS WHICH, AS JUDGE COOLEY POINTED OUT IN RELATION TO STATE
TRIBUNALS,  FN7  THEY MAY CONSTANTLY EXERT WITH EXTRATERRITORIAL
EFFECTS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR GENERAL JURISDICTION IN EQUITY. 

THIS EXALTATION OF THE TERRITORIAL ELEMENT IN JURISDICTION, WITH SUCH
CONSTRICTIVE AND POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE CONSEQUENCES, THE COURT MAKES
BY REASON OF ITS CONCEPTION OF THE MEANING OF THE STATUTORY PHRASE,
"WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS," 28 U.S.C. SEC. 452; THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF ITS INSERTION; AND CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS OF
POLICY, RELATING ESPECIALLY TO THE PRODUCTION OF PERSONS DETAINED BY
FEDERAL PENAL OR OTHER AUTHORITIES IN COURTS DISTANT FROM THE PLACES OF
DETENTION AND THOUGHT TO REQUIRE THE NARROW READING GIVEN.  I DO NOT
THINK THESE CONSIDERATIONS COMPEL SO RIGID A JURISDICTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE, OR THAT THIS IS NECESSARY TO AVOID THE EVILS THE COURT
THUS SEEKS TO ESCAPE. 

THE JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEM AS PRESENTED BY THE FACTS INVOLVES TWO
QUESTIONS.  THE FIRST, THE COURT DOES NOT REACH.  BUT IT IS ONE I THINK
BASIC TO CONSIDERATION OF THE OTHER, A DIFFERENCE NO DOUBT DUE TO
DIFFERENT EMPHASIS UPON THE TERRITORIAL ELEMENT IN JURISDICTIONAL
MATTERS OF THIS SORT.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
A PROPER PARTY RESPONDENT.  THE ANSWER TURNS ON WHETHER THE PETITIONERS
ARE IN HIS CUSTODY  FN8  AND THUS ARE SUBJECT TO HIS POWER OF
PRODUCTION.  IN MY OPINION THEY ARE. 

THE SAME PRINCIPLE WHICH FORBIDS FORMULATION OF RIGID JURISDICTIONAL
LIMITATIONS UPON THE USE OF THIS PREROGATIVE WRIT IN OTHER RESPECTS,
INCONSISTENT WITH ITS AVAILABILITY FOR PERFORMING ITS OFFICE IN VARYING
CIRCUMSTANCES, FORBIDS LIMITING THOSE WHO MAY BE CALLED UPON TO ANSWER
FOR RESTRAINTS THEY UNLAWFULLY IMPOSE BY TECHNICAL NICETIES OF THE LAW
OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, SUPERIOR OR SUBORDINATE IN PUBLIC AUTHORITY, OR
IMMEDIACY OR REMOTENESS OF THE INCIDENCE OF THE AUTHORITY OR POWER TO
RESTRAIN.  JURISDICTIONALLY SPEAKING, IT IS, OR SHOULD BE, ENOUGH THAT
THE RESPONDENT NAMED HAS THE POWER OR ABILITY TO PRODUCE THE BODY WHEN
SO DIRECTED BY THE COURT PURSUANT TO PROCESS LAWFULLY ISSUED AND SERVED
UPON HIM.  FN9 

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POWER TO PRODUCE
THE PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE.  FOR HE IS IN COMPLETE CHARGE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS LEADING UP TO THE ORDER DIRECTING THEIR REMOVAL FROM THE
COUNTRY; FN10  INDEED HE CLAIMS TO HAVE COMPLETE DISCRETION TO DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT REMOVAL SHALL BE DIRECTED.  IN VIEW OF HIS ALL-PERVASIVE
CONTROL OVER THEIR FORTUNES, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT HE IS A PROPER
PARTY TO RESIST "AN INQUIRY INTO THE CAUSE OF RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY" IN
THEIR CASES.  FN11 

MOREOVER, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
AMENABILITY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, TO PROCESS IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA SEARCHING HIS OFFICIAL ACTS FOR LAWFUL AUTHORITY,  FN12 NOR
DOES HE CLAIM IMMUNITY IN THIS RESPECT. 

THE CASE THEREFORE IS ONE IN WHICH EVERY REQUISITE OF JURISDICTION,
AS THE WRIT HAS BEEN CONCEIVED HISTORICALLY, IS PRESENT.  THE PERSON
HAVING CUSTODY OF THE BODY HAS NOT ONLY THE ABILITY BUT THE AUTHORITY
TO PRODUCE IT.  HE IS WITHIN REACH OF THE COURT'S PROCESS AND AMENABLE
TO IT FOR THAT PURPOSE.  INDEED IN THIS CASE HE IS WILLING TO RESPOND
AND, TO THAT END, TO WAIVE ANY OBJECTION HE MIGHT BE ENTITLED TO MAKE
TO THE COURT'S EXERCISE OF ITS POWER.  FN13  UNLESS THEREFORE POWER IS
TOTALLY WANTING BY REASON OF PETITIONERS' ABSENCE FROM THE DISTRICT,
THERE IS NO INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO ITS EXERCISE IN THIS CASE.  AND AS
TO THIS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT URGE, HE MERELY SUGGESTS, IN VIEW
OF CERTAIN DICTA AND DECISIONS, SEE NOTE 18, THAT THE POWER MAY BE
LACKING FOR THAT REASON. 

IF SO, THIS CAN BE ONLY BECAUSE THE STATUTORY WORDING, "WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS," COMPELS THE COURT'S CONCLUSION.  FN14  THE
LANGUAGE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT EVEN PURPORT TO DEFINE "THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS" IN TERMS OF WHERE THE BODY RESTRAINED IS HELD.  INDEED,
IT GIVES NO INDICATION THAT ABSENCE OF THE PERSONS DETAINED FROM THE
DISTRICT WHICH HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THEIR CUSTODIAN CREATES AN
INSUPERABLE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, WITH THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE THAT
IF HE IS BEYOND REACH OF PROCESS ISSUED BY THE COURTS WHERE THE BODY IS
HELD THERE CAN BE NO REMEDY BY HABEAS CORPUS IN ANY FEDERAL COURT.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THE WORDING OF THE STATUTORY PHRASE IS AS CONSISTENT WITH
REGARDING "THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS" AS ATTACHING WHEN THE COURT
ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OVER THE JAILER BY SERVICE OF PROCESS WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, EVEN THOUGH THE PLACE OF
DETENTION IS ELSEWHERE, AS IT IS TO INVERT THOSE FACTORS OF TERRITORIAL
LIMITATION IN THE MANNER OF THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT CONGRESS, WHEN IT ADDED THE PHRASE, WAS CONCERNED
WITH THE PROBLEM, OR RATHER THE POSSIBILITY, THAT THE INFERIOR FEDERAL
COURTS MIGHT ABUSE THEIR POWER, IN ISSUING THE WRIT, BY REQUIRING THE
PRODUCTION OF PERSONS DETAINED IN DISTANT PLACES, WITH THE EFFECT OF
MALADJUSTMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY AS AMONG THE DIFFERENT
FEDERAL COURTS.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, AS THE COURT CONCLUDES, THAT
IT SOUGHT TO SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS IN A MANNER THAT WOULD DEPRIVE ALL
COURTS OF POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT EXCEPT THOSE SITTING IN THE PLACE OF
DETENTION.  AS WILL APPEAR, CONGRESS WAS DEALING WITH AN EVEN BROADER
POSSIBILITY FOR ABUSE, AND WHILE IT SOUGHT TO LIMIT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
THE WRIT, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, OR THE PROBLEM OF STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION THE AMENDMENT WAS
INTRODUCED TO SOLVE, WHICH SHOWS THAT SO NARROW AND RIGID A RESTRICTION
WAS CONTEMPLATED. 

TO PUT THE MATTER IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE, BEFORE TURNING TO THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE PRECISE PROBLEM WITH WHICH IT WAS
CONCERNED, IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE
COURT'S HOLDING IS NOT THAT PETITIONERS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN A
DISTANT COURT WHENEVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY THERE BE SERVED. 
RATHER THE ALTERNATIVE IS THAT THEIR ABSENCE FROM THE DISTRICT IS A
CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH NORMALLY WOULD INDUCE THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS
DISCRETION TO DECLINE JURISDICTION, BUT WHICH MAY BE DISREGARDED IN
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES IF THE RESPONDENT SO DESIRES OR IF THE COURT
FINDS THAT JUSTICE IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES SO DEMANDS. 

EVEN THOUGH WE START FROM THE ACCEPTED PREMISE THAT FOR THIS PURPOSE
THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS TERRITORIAL, SEE GEORGIA V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S. 439, 467-468, WE SHOULD ALSO RECALL, AS
HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED, THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN WHICH THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE
INSTITUTED.  IT IS WITHIN HIS POWER TO TERMINATE THE RESTRAINT OF
PETITIONERS' LIBERTY WITHOUT LEAVING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IN THE
SENSE STATED BY JUDGE COOLEY, HIS POWER OF CONTROL IS EXERCISED WITHIN
THAT DISTRICT.  WE HAVE NO PROBLEM OF ISSUING PROCESS TO BE SERVED
OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUCH AS MIGHT RESULT IN "A CLASHING OF
JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT COURTS NOT EASILY TO BE ADJUSTED,
AND AN OPPRESSION UPON SUITORS TOO INTOLERABLE TO BE ENDURED," AND WITH
WHICH ALONE IN MY OPINION THE STATUTORY PHRASE SOUGHT TO DEAL.  FN15 

WHEN THE CASES WHERE BOTH THE CUSTODIAN AND HIS PRISONER ARE OUTSIDE
THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT  FN16  ARE SEPARATED FROM
THOSE WHERE THE CUSTODIAN IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THOUGH THE
PRISONER IS ELSEWHERE,  FN17  THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IN THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS IS OPPOSED TO THE CONCLUSION REACHED TODAY.  FN18  WITH
THE FORMER CLASS THIS CASE IS NOT CONCERNED.  BUT, FOR REASONS YET TO
BE STATED, IT IS WITH THAT CLASS ALONE, IN MY OPINION, THAT THE PHRASE
"WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS" SOUGHT TO DEAL.  MOREOVER,
OTHER AUTHORITIES HAVE GENERALLY TAKEN THE POSITION THAT JURISDICTION
OVER THE CUSTODIAN IS SUFFICIENT REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION OF THE
PARTY RESTRAINED N19.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS PREVAILING CONCEPTION OF
THE PROBLEM, WE TURN TO THE COURT'S REASONS FOR DEPARTING FROM IT. 

PRINCIPAL RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1867
AMENDMENT.  BUT THIS HISTORY NEITHER REQUIRES NOR, IN MY OPINION,
JUSTIFIES THE COURT'S VIEW.  IT CONSISTS IN A SHORT STATEMENT BY
SENATOR JOHNSON, FOLLOWED BY BRIEF COLLOQUY, WHICH LED TO INSERTION OF
THE PHRASE.  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 2D SESS. 730, 790, 899.  IT SEEMS
QUITE CLEAR THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT A WHOLLY DIFFERENT PROBLEM,
ARISING FROM THE BILL'S BROAD WORDING BEFORE THE LIMITING PHRASE WAS
INTRODUCED.  FN20  THIS WAS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE BILL WOULD CONFER
POWER UPON DISTRICT JUDGES TO ISSUE PROCESS AGAINST JAILERS IN REMOTE
DISTRICTS, AND THUS CREATE DEPARTURE FROM THE USUAL RULE, IN HABEAS
CORPUS CASES AS IN OTHERS, THAT PROCESS DOES NOT RUN BEYOND THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE ISSUING COURT.  THE SENATOR WISHED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE BILL WOULD NOT HAVE THAT EFFECT.  AND THE UNDERLYING
ASSUMPTION OF THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION WAS THAT, WITHOUT THE LIMITATION
PROPOSED, THE BILL'S UNLIMITED LANGUAGE MIGHT BE TAKEN TO GIVE
AUTHORITY TO DISTRICT COURTS TO ISSUE PROCESS TO RUN THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY, COMPARABLE AS WAS SAID TO THAT EXERCISED BY JUSTICES OF THIS
COURT, OR EVEN BEYOND ITS BORDERS,  FN21  AND THUS TO BRING BEFORE THEM
JAILERS WITHOUT REGARD TO DISTANCE. 

IT WAS THIS POSSIBILITY WHICH LED TO THE PROPOSAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF
THE AMENDMENT, NOT THAT A JAILER WITHIN THE COURT'S JURISDICTION, I.E.,
IN REACH OF ITS PROCESS ISSUED AND SERVED WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION, MIGHT DETAIN THE BODY OUTSIDE THOSE LIMITS AND BE
REQUIRED TO BRING IT BEFORE THE COURT WHEN ORDERED.  INDEED THERE IS
NOT A WORD IN THE LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LATTER SITUATION, OR
TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS THE CAUSE EITHER OF CONCERN OR OF THE
AMENDMENT'S INCLUSION.  NEITHER SENATOR JOHNSON NOR ANYONE ELSE SEEMS
TO HAVE HAD IN MIND THE SITUATION WHERE THE LOCUS OF DETENTION IS IN
ONE JURISDICTION AND THE JAILER IS PRESENT IN ANOTHER, AMENABLE TO ITS
PROCESS.  FN22  IT IS THIS CRUCIAL FACT WHICH THE COURT'S OPINION AND
RULING IGNORE. 

CONFINING THE RUNNING OF THE COURT'S PROCESS TO ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION IS OF COURSE A VERY DIFFERENT THING FROM CONFINING ITS
JURISDICTION TO CASES IN WHICH THE PRISONER'S BODY IS LOCATED WITHIN
THOSE LIMITS.  MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT IS ONE MUCH LESS DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
WRIT'S EFFICACY IN CASES WHERE IT MAY BE MOST NEEDED, AND OF THE
HISTORIC CONCEPTION OF THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDING.  THE
AMENDMENT'S TERMS ARE COMPLETELY SATISFIED, ARE GIVEN THEIR FULL AND
INTENDED EFFECT, IF THEY ARE LIMITED TO THE FORMER OBJECT.  SO TAKEN,
THEY DO NO MORE THAN PREVENT THE SECTION'S OTHERWISE UNLIMITED PHRASING
FROM AUTHORIZING PROCESS TO RUN WITHOUT TERRITORIAL LIMITATION, CF.
GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., SUPRA AT 467-468, AND AUTHORITIES
CITED; THEY DO NOT TRENCH UPON THE WRIT'S CLASSIC AVAILABILITY OR ITS
UTILITY AS A PRIME SAFEGUARD OF FREEDOM.  THERE IS NO HINT IN EITHER
THE AMENDMENT'S WORDING OR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT IT HAD ANY
SUCH RESTRICTIVE PURPOSE OR EFFECT.  THE ENTIRE MEASURE WAS ADOPTED IN
FACT, NOT TO REDUCE, BUT TO EXPAND THE WRIT'S AVAILABILITY.  FN23 

IN VIEW OF THIS HISTORY AND ITS EFFECT FOR THE STATUTE'S MEANING AND
PURPOSE, THE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY AND CONVENIENCE UPON WHICH THE
COURT RELIES TO BOLSTER ITS VIEW CAN HAVE NO PROPER INFLUENCE TO GIVE
THAT VIEW VALIDITY.  INDEED, IF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WERE LESS CLEAR
THAN IT IS AGAINST THE COURT'S CONCEPTION, A DUE AND HITHERTO
TRADITIONAL REGARD FOR THE WRIT'S HIGH OFFICE SHOULD DICTATE RESOLVING
ANY DOUBT, AS BETWEEN THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTIONS, AGAINST A
JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION SO DESTRUCTIVE OF THE WRIT'S AVAILABILITY AND
ADAPTABILITY TO ALL THE VARYING CONDITIONS AND DEVICES BY WHICH LIBERTY
MAY BE UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED. 

ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE SINCE NO SUCH RIGID RESTRICTION IS NECESSARY
TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE EVILS THE COURT ENVISAGES. 
IT SEEMS TO PROCEED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF JURISDICTION IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WERE ADMITTED, FEDERAL PRISONERS THOUSANDS OF
MILES AWAY WOULD HAVE AN UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO INVOKE IT. 

ON THE CONTRARY, IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD NOT WAIVE OBJECTION
TO PROCEEDING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS HE HAS DONE HERE AND THERE
WERE NO COMPELLING REASON FOR OVERRIDING HIS OBJECTION, SUCH AS THE
ABSENCE OF ANY POSSIBLE REMEDY ELSEWHERE, THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT
CLEARLY WOULD HAVE DISCRETION TO DECLINE THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
JURISDICTION.  INDEED, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF SUCH CASES, WHERE REMEDY
WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN A MORE CONVENIENT FORUM, IT WOULD BE THEIR DUTY
TO DO SO AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, SUBJECT TO CORRECTION UPON REVIEW,
FOR THEM TO COMPEL THE PETITIONER'S PRODUCTION IN SUCH AN INCONVENIENT
OR OTHERWISE INAPPROPRIATE FORUM.  SEE BEARD V. BENNETT, 114 F.2D 578,
580-581. 

IN THIS VIEW IT WOULD BE ONLY THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE OF DETENTION
OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT AND PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY INDEPENDENT OF ITS
AFFAIRS, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE OR INDEED PERMIT THE EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION BY ITS COURTS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE SITUATIONS WHERE
THE DISTRICT HAS A PECULIAR INTEREST THAT ITS COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER
IN SUCH CASES, NAMELY, THOSE AFFECTING ITS PENAL INSTITUTIONS LOCATED
OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS, THEY WOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION, AS THE
PRESENT DECISION CONSISTENTLY APPLIED WOULD SEEM TO NECESSITATE.  FN24 

THE COURT HAS RESERVED DECISION UPON CASES WHERE THE PLACE OF
CONFINEMENT IS NOT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT. 
FN25  AND IT HAS SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH EX PARTE ENDO, SUPRA.  I AGREE
THAT THE RESERVATION AND THE DISTINCTION SHOULD BE MADE.  BUT I THINK
THE FACT THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND NECESSARY GOES FAR TO DESTROY THE
VALIDITY OF THE PRESENT DECISION'S GROUNDING. 

CASES OF THE TYPE RESERVED HAVE ARISEN RECENTLY ON APPLICATION FOR
ORIGINAL WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS BY PETITIONERS DETAINED BY THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES IN GERMANY AND JAPAN.  EX PARTE BETZ; EX PARTE DURANT; EX
PARTE WILLS; EX PARTE CUTINO; EX PARTE WALCZAK; EX PARTE MCKINLEY; EX
PARTE MURPHY, 329 U.S. 672.  SOME OF THOSE PETITIONERS WERE CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES; SOME WERE CIVILIANS, OTHERS MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES.  IN SOME INSTANCES THE DETENTION WAS PURSUANT TO SENTENCES
IMPOSED BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS FOR ALLEGED OFFENSES, DEATH BEING THE
PENALTY IN ONE.  IN OTHER CASES THE PETITIONERS CLAIMED TO BE CONFINED
FOR INDEFINITE PERIODS WITHOUT CHARGE AND WITHOUT TRIAL. 

THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THOSE PETITIONS ARE OF
PROFOUND IMPORTANCE.  FN26  AND IF ANY OF THE REASONS ADVANCED FOR
TODAY'S DECISION IS DEEMED CONTROLLING, ALL SUCH QUESTIONS WILL BE
RESOLVED IN THE FUTURE AGAINST SUCH PETITIONERS.  PERHAPS WHEN THOSE
CASES ARISE THE COURT WILL IGNORE THE REASONS RELIED ON TODAY, JUST AS
TODAY IT IGNORES THE REASONING RELIED ON IN EX PARTE ENDO.  FOR IF
ABSENCE OF THE BODY DETAINED FROM THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE JAILER CREATES A TOTAL AND
IRREMEDIABLE VOID IN THE COURT'S CAPACITY TO ACT, WHAT LAWYERS CALL
JURISDICTION IN THE FUNDAMENTAL SENSE, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW THAT
GAP CAN BE FILLED BY SUCH EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS AS WHETHER THERE IS
NO OTHER COURT IN THE PLACE OF DETENTION FROM WHICH REMEDY MIGHT BE HAD
AND WHETHER A RULE OF THIS COURT, RULE 45(1), CAN OVERRIDE A BASIC
JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED. 

IN ANY EVENT, I CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS HAS LAID
DOWN A JURISDICTIONAL CRITERION SO CAPRICIOUS IN ITS CONSEQUENCES OR SO
DESTRUCTIVE OF THE WRIT'S HISTORIC NATURE, SCOPE AND AVAILABILITY.  AS
WAS STATED AT THE BEGINNING, THE FULL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE DECISION ARE
DIFFICULT TO FORESEE.  IT IS ONE THING TO LAY DOWN A RULE OF DISCRETION
ADEQUATE TO PREVENT FLOODING THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WITH APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS FROM THE COUNTRY AT LARGE.  IT IS
ENTIRELY ANOTHER TO TIE THEIR HANDS, AND THOSE OF ALL OTHER INFERIOR
FEDERAL COURTS, WITH A STRICT JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION WHICH CAN ONLY
DEFEAT THE WRIT'S EFFICACY IN MANY CASES WHERE IT MAY BE MOST NEEDED. 

NOT THE LEAST IMPORTANT OF THESE MAY BE INSTANCES ARISING IN THE
FUTURE WHERE PERSONS ARE WRONGFULLY DETAINED IN PLACES UNKNOWN TO THOSE
WHO WOULD APPLY FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THEIR BEHALF.  WITHOUT KNOWING THE
DISTRICT OF CONFINEMENT, A PETITIONER WOULD BE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE
BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING JURISDICTION IN ANY COURT IN THE LAND.  SUCH A
SITUATION MIGHT ARISE FROM MILITARY DETENTION, CF. DUNCAN V.
KOHANAMOKU, 327 U.S. 304; EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2; IN THE MATTER
OF SAMUEL STACY, 10 JOHNS.  328; OR AS A RESULT OF MASS EVACUATION OF
GROUPS FROM A GIVEN AREA IN TIME OF EMERGENCY WITH CONSEQUENT
DISRUPTION OF THE MEANS OF KEEPING PERSONNEL RECORDS IN ORDER, CF.
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81; EX PARTE ENDO, SUPRA; OR
POSSIBLY, THOUGH IT IS TO BE HOPED NOT OFTEN, EVEN FROM WILFUL
MISCONDUCT BY ARBITRARY EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS OVERREACHING THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  THESE DANGERS MAY SEEM UNREAL
IN THE UNITED STATES.  BUT THE EXPERIENCE OF LESS FORTUNATE COUNTRIES
SHOULD SERVE AS A WARNING AGAINST THE UNWARRANTED CURTAILMENT OF THE
JURISDICTION OF OUR COURTS TO PROTECT THE LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL BY
MEANS OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

ACCORDINGLY, I DISSENT FROM THE CONCLUSION AND JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT.  SINCE I THINK THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION AND SINCE
ALSO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO ITS EXERCISE IN
THIS CASE, FOR REASONS CERTAINLY NOT INADEQUATE, I AM ALSO OF THE VIEW
THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS. 

FN1  CF. SUNAL V. LARGE, 332 U.S. 174, DISSENTING OPINIONS AT 184,
187. 

FN2  SEE TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 5. 

FN3  CONGRESS HAS NOT GIVEN THE DISTRICT COURT POWER TO DIRECT
SERVICE OF THE WRIT TO BE MADE OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE STATE IN WHICH
THE COURT SITS, SEE UNITED STATES EX REL. CORSETTI V. COMMANDING
OFFICER OF CAMP UPTON, 3 F.R.D. 360, AND IT IS AT LEAST QUESTIONABLE
WHETHER SERVICE ON THE TURNKEY WOULD CONSTITUTE SERVICE ON THE
CUSTODIAN.  SEE UNITED STATES EX REL. GOODMAN V. ROBERTS, 152 F.2D
841. 

FN4  FURTHER QUESTIONS NECESSARILY ARISE CONCERNING MATTERS OF
PLEADING AND PROOF OF PRESENCE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE
JURISDICTION. 

FN5  IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL W. JACKSON, 15 MICH. 417, 439-440.  SEE
EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. AT 306.  AT A LATER POINT JUDGE COOLEY'S
OPINION CONTINUED:  "THERE IS NO INHERENT DIFFICULTY IN THE CASE; AND
THE COURT OF CHANCERY, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO COMPEL SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE, FREQUENTLY EXERTS AN AUTHORITY OVER A SUBJECT MATTER IN A
FOREIGN JURISDICTION SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH IS SOUGHT FOR HERE.  I THINK
THE CASE PRESENTED BY THE PETITION IS ONE IN WHICH WE CAN GIVE RELIEF,
AND THE DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. DAVIS, 5 CRANCH.  C.C. 622, IS IN
POINT, AND WILL WARRANT IT.  THERE ARE NO CONFLICTING DECISIONS.  THE
INCIDENTAL REMARKS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE IN SOME CASES ABOUT THE REMEDY
APPLYING WHERE THE IMPRISONMENT IS WITHIN THE STATE, SEEM TO ME OF NO
SIGNIFICANCE.  IN NONE OF THOSE CASES WAS ATTENTION DIRECTED TO THIS
PARTICULAR POINT  ..."  P. 441. 

SOME OF THE CASES FOLLOWING THIS VIEW ARE EMERSON V. GUTHNER, 107
COLO. 83; CROWELL V. CROWELL, 190 GA. 501; SHAW V. SHAW, 114 S. CAR. 
300; QUEEN V. BARNARDO, 24 Q.B.D. 283; IN RE MATTHEWS, 12 IR. C.L. 233;
AND SEE CASES CITED IN EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. AT 306.  THE SAME
POSITION IS TAKEN IN CHURCH, HABEAS CORPUS (2D ED.)  SEC.  109. 

IN THE ENDO CASE, ALTHOUGH RESERVING THE PRECISE ISSUE NOW DECIDED,
WE SAID:  "THERE ARE EXPRESSIONS IN SOME OF THE CASES WHICH INDICATE
THAT THE PLACE OF CONFINEMENT MUST BE WITHIN THE COURT'S TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO ISSUE THE WRIT.  SEE (CASES CITED
IN NOTE 16 INFRA).  BUT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COURT MAY ACT IF
THERE IS A RESPONDENT WITHIN REACH OF ITS PROCESS WHO HAS CUSTODY OF
THE PETITIONER.  AS JUDGE COOLEY STATED IN IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL W.
JACKSON, 15 MICH. 417, 439-440:"  THEN FOLLOWED THE MATTER QUOTED IN
THE TEXT ENDING WITH THE WORDS, "THE WHOLE FORCE OF THE WRIT IS SPENT
UPON THE RESPONDENT;" TOGETHER WITH CITATION OF OTHER AUTHORITIES TO
SIMILAR EFFECT.  323 U.S. 283, 306. 

FN6  SEE RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 624 SPECIAL NOTE (TENT. 
DRAFT NO. 5, 1929); SEE ALSO PROPOSED FINAL DRAFT NO. 2, QUESTION
SUGGESTED FOR DISCUSSION, SEC. 624; NOTE, 28 KY. L.J. 462. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 5. 

FN8  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE "WRIT SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE
PERSON IN WHOSE CUSTODY THE PARTY IS DETAINED."  REV. STAT. SEC. 755,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 455. 

FN9  SEE CASES CITED IN NOTES 5 AND 17. 

FN10  THE EXECUTIVE PROCLAMATION UNDER WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS
ACTING PROVIDES THAT ALL ALIEN ENEMIES "WHO SHALL BE DEEMED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY OF THE
UNITED STATES BECAUSE THEY HAVE ADHERED TO THE AFORESAID ENEMY
GOVERNMENTS OR TO THE PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT THEREOF SHALL BE SUBJECT
UPON THE ORDER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES AND MAY BE REQUIRED TO DEPART THEREFROM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH
REGULATIONS AS HE MAY PRESCRIBE."  PROCLAMATION 2655, 10 FED. REG.
8947.  THIS PROCLAMATION WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED
BY THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798, 1 STAT. 577. 

FN11  FURTHERMORE, AS THE SOLICITOR GENERAL POINTS OUT IN HIS BRIEF,
THERE IS "NO REASON WHY THE UNITED STATES CANNOT WAIVE THIS PARTICULAR
OBJECTION SINCE IT HAS THE EFFECT MERELY OF PERMITTING SUIT AGAINST ONE
GOVERNMENT OFFICER RATHER THAN ANOTHER." 

FN12  SEE FED. RULES CIV. PROC., 28 U.S.C. FOLLOWING SEC. 723C, RULE
4(F). 

FN13  UPON THE FACTS THE SITUATION IS ONE IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
QUITE PROPERLY DESIRES A SPEEDY DETERMINATION UPON THE MERITS, IN ORDER
TO AVOID THE FURTHER DELAY NECESSARILY INCIDENT TO REACHING THEM BY
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  WHETHER FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF ESTABLISHING THE
GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO REMOVE THE PETITIONERS OR OF TERMINATING THE
RESTRAINT UPON THEIR LIBERTIES, EXPEDITION OF THE DETERMINATION IS
HIGHLY DESIRABLE. 

FN14  THE 1925 AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTE PROVIDING THAT "THE ORDER OF
THE CIRCUIT JUDGE SHALL BE ENTERED IN THE RECORDS OF THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE DISTRICT WHEREIN THE RESTRAINT COMPLAINED OF IS HAD" DOES NOT
LIMIT JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE WRIT.  SEE EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283,
307, N. 26.  THE PROVISION IS A MERE RECORDING REQUIREMENT APPLICABLE
IN TERMS ONLY TO CIRCUIT JUDGES ACTING INDIVIDUALLY.  APPROPRIATELY IT
DOES NOT APPLY TO COURTS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM JUDGES BECAUSE COURT
ORDERS WOULD BE RECORDED BY ROUTINE PROCEDURE, WHEREAS AN ORDER ISSUED
BY A JUDGE IN VACATION WOULD REQUIRE SPECIAL TREATMENT.  SINCE THE
APPLICATION IN THIS CASE WAS MADE TO A COURT IN SESSION, THE
REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY HERE.  BUT EVEN IF IT DID APPLY, AND EVEN IF
A RECORDING PROVISION ENACTED IN 1925 COULD BE TAKEN TO RELATE BACK TO
THE AMENDMENT OF 1867 TO GIVE MEANING TO THE WORDS "WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS," THE WORDING "THE DISTRICT WHEREIN THE
RESTRAINT COMPLAINED OF IS HAD" COULD BE TAKEN AS READILY TO MEAN
"WHEREIN THE POWER OF CONTROL IS EXERCISED" AS "WHEREIN THE BODY IS
LOCATED."  CF. THE CASES CITED IN NOTES 5 AND 17. 

FN15  SEE EX PARTE GRAHAM, 4 WASH. C.C. 211, 212.  SEE NOTE 2 OF THE
COURT'S OPINION.  IN THAT CASE, AS IN MOST OF THE CASES CITED BY THE
COURT, THE CUSTODIAN AND THE PRISONER WERE BOTH OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  SEE NOTES 16, 17 AND 18. 

FN16  EX PARTE GRAHAM, 4 WASH. C.C. 211; IN RE BOLES, 48 F. 75; EX
PARTE GOUYET, 175 F. 230; EX PARTE YEE HICK HO, 33 F.2D 360; UNITED
STATES V. DAY, 50 F.2D 816(IN THIS CASE THE CUSTODIAN DID APPEAR IN
COURT, BUT ONLY SPECIALLY TO CHALLENGE ITS JURISDICTION); JONES V.
BIDDLE, 131 F.2D 853; UNITED STATES V. SCHLOTFELDT, 136 F.2D 935. 

FN17  UNITED STATES V. DAVIS, 5 CRANCH C.C. 622; IN RE BICKLEY, 3
FED. CAS. 332, NO. 1,387; MCGOWAN V. MOODY, 22 APP. D.C. 148; EX PARTE
FONG YIM, 134 F. 938; EX PARTE NG QUONG MING, 135 F. 378; SANDERS V.
ALLEN, 69 APP. D.C. 307, 100 F.2D 717.  SEE TIPPITT V. WOOD, 140 F.2D
689; BURNS V. WELCH, 159 F.2D 29.    FN18  OF THE CASES CITED IN NOTE
17 ONLY MCGOWAN V. MOODY AND IN RE BICKLEY ARE IN ACCORD WITH TODAY'S
DECISION.  AND EVEN THOSE TWO CASES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE.  IN MCGOWAN V.
MOODY THE PRINCIPAL GROUND OF DECISION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THAT THE
PRISONER WAS NOT IN THE ACTUAL CUSTODY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 
SEE 22 APP. D.C. AT 163-164.  MOREOVER, THE AUTHORITY OF THAT CASE IS
QUESTIONABLE IN VIEW OF LATER DECISIONS BY THE SAME COURT, SEE NOTE 24
INFRA.  ALTHOUGH IN RE BICKLEY DOES REST ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT
WAS NOT "COMPETENT TO GIVE THE RELIEF ASKED FOR" AND USES THE TERM
"JURISDICTION," IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT AT THAT TIME THE TERM
"JURISDICTION" WAS OFTEN USED IN THE SENSE OF "VENUE," AND SINCE THE
CUSTODIAN DID NOT WAIVE THE DEFECT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COURT
TO REACH THE PRECISE ISSUE ADJUDICATED TODAY.  IN FACT THE OPINION
INTIMATES THAT THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE POINT HAD
BEEN "FREELY CONCEDED."  SEE PP. 333-334. 

FN19  SEE NOTE 5. 

FN20  THE BILL, PRIOR TO ADDITION OF THE PHRASE, READ PERTINENTLY AS
FOLLOWS:  "BE IT ENACTED, &C., THAT THE SEVERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE SEVERAL JUSTICES AND JUDGES OF SUCH COURTS, IN ADDITION
TO THE AUTHORITY ALREADY CONFERRED BY LAW, SHALL HAVE POWER TO GRANT
WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS IN ALL CASES WHERE ANY PERSON MAY BE RESTRAINED
OF HIS OR HER LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR OF ANY TREATY
OR LAW OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 2D SESS.
730. 

FN21  WHEN THE AMENDMENT "WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS" WAS
SUGGESTED, SENATOR JOHNSON COMMENTED ON IT AS FOLLOWS:  "THE AMENDMENT
PROPOSED BY THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN IS ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY TO ME.  I
SUGGESTED THE NECESSITY OF AN AMENDMENT THE OTHER DAY BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES DECIDED THAT UNDER THE
LAWS AS THEY STAND PROCESS ISSUED BY A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN
CASES WHERE THOSE JUDGES HAVE A RIGHT TO ISSUE PROCESS EXTENDS ALL OVER
THE UNION.  THAT I AM SATISFIED MIGHT LEAD TO A PRACTICAL EVIL.  THE
AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN IS ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY
TO ME AND REMOVES THAT DIFFICULTY."  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 2D SESS.
790. 

FN22  THE DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE WAS LIMITED TO
THE STATEMENTS BY SENATOR JOHNSON, QUOTED IN PART IN NOTE 21, AND THE
REMARKS OF SENATOR TRUMBULL, WHO INTRODUCED THE AMENDMENT AS A RESULT
OF SENATOR JOHNSON'S STATEMENT.  SEE CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 2D SESS.
730, 790. 

FN23  THE ACT OF 1867 WAS AN IMPORTANT LIBERALIZING MEASURE IN TWO
RESPECTS.  SUBSTANTIVELY, THE STATUTE AUTHORIZED THE ISSUANCE OF THE
WRIT TO RELIEVE ANY DETENTION IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  PROCEDURALLY, THE REMEDY WAS EXTENDED TO ALL
PERSONS IN STATE AS WELL AS IN FEDERAL CUSTODY.  SEE NOTE, 61 HARV. L.
REV. 657, 659.  "(NO) INDICATION HAS BEEN FOUND OF INTENT TO NARROW THE
ACT  ...  "  IBID., N. 22. 

FN24  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REFORMATORY IS LOCATED AT LORTON,
VIRGINIA, AND THE DISTRICT WORKHOUSE IS AT OCCOQUAN, VIRGINIA.  PERSONS
ARE CONFINED IN THESE INSTITUTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CODE.  THE OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF BOTH INSTITUTIONS IS A
RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT AND MAINTAINS HIS HEADQUARTERS IN THE
DISTRICT.  FOR OBVIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS, THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS THEREFORE HELD THAT APPLICATIONS FOR
HABEAS CORPUS MAY BE FILED IN COURTS OF THE DISTRICT BY INMATES OF
THOSE INSTITUTIONS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE CONFINED BEYOND ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION.  SANDERS V. ALLEN, 69 APP. D.C. 307, 100 F.2D 717.  SEE
BURNS V. WELCH, 159 F.2D 29.  UNDER TODAY'S RULING SUCH PETITIONS MUST
HEREAFTER BE FILED IN THE VIRGINIA FEDERAL COURT TO THE INCONVENIENCE
OF THE PARTIES AND OF THE COURT, WHICH MUST TO A CERTAIN EXTENT APPLY
LAW PECULIAR TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

IT IS OF INTEREST THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS REACHED THIS RESULT IN
THE FACE OF THE APPARENTLY INCONSISTENT EARLIER HOLDING IN MCGOWAN V.
MOODY, 22 APP. D.C. 148.  THAT CASE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED EITHER ON THE
GROUND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION IT PROPERLY DECLINED
TO EXERCISE IT BECAUSE RELIEF WAS AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE, SEE SANDERS V.
ALLEN, 69 APP. D.C. 307, 309, 100 F.2D 717, 719, BUT CF. NOTE 25 INFRA,
OR, AT LEAST BY IMPLICATION, ON THE GROUND THAT SECRETARY MOODY WAS NOT
A PROPER PARTY RESPONDENT.  SEE SANDERS V. BENNETT, 80 U.S. APP. D.C.
32, 33, 148 F.2D 19, 20, N. 2.  BOTH OF THESE GROUNDS INDICATE THAT THE
COURT OF APPEALS NO LONGER REGARDS MCGOWAN V. MOODY AS AUTHORITY FOR
THE PROPOSITION FOR WHICH THE COURT CITES IT TODAY. 

FN25  THE LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY OF THIS RESERVATION WITH THE DECISION
IS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE CITATION, APPARENTLY WITH APPROVAL, OF MCGOWAN V.
MOODY, 22 APP. D.C. 148, WHERE THE COURT EXPRESSLY ASSUMED THAT IF IT
HAD NO JURISDICTION, THERE WOULD BE NO TRIBUNAL IN WHICH RELIEF MIGHT
BE HAD.  P. 158.  IN THAT CASE THE PETITIONER SOUGHT RELIEF AGAINST THE
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY IN BEHALF OF A MARINE IMPRISONED ON GUAM. 

FN26  SEE WOLFSON, AMERICANS ABROAD AND HABEAS CORPUS, 9 F. BAR J.
142. 
..END :












COMSTOCK V. GROUP OF INVESTORS, 335 U.S. 211 


ARGUED MARCH 9-10, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1948.  - 163 F.2D 350,
AFFIRMED - ID. 358, CERTIORARI DISMISSED. 


AFTER CERTAIN RAILROADS HAD BEEN IN REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS AND A SECOND PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
AND WAS BEFORE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR APPROVAL, PETITIONER, WHO
HAD RECENTLY BOUGHT SECURITIES OF ONE OF THE SUBSIDIARY RAILROADS AT
TEN CENTS ON THE DOLLAR, OBJECTED TO ALLOWANCE OF A PREVIOUSLY
UNCHALLENGED LARGE CLAIM OF THE PARENT RAILROAD AGAINST THAT
SUBSIDIARY.  HE CONTENDED THAT THE PARENT HAD DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED
THE SUBSIDIARY AND HAD MISMANAGED ITS AFFAIRS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
SUBSIDIARY AND ITS OTHER CREDITORS AND THAT IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE TO
ALLOW THE CLAIM.  AFTER FULL HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE
PARENT HAD DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED THE SUBSIDIARY BUT THAT ITS
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SUBSIDIARY'S AFFAIRS HAD BEEN IN GOOD FAITH AND
TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE SUBSIDIARY AND ITS OTHER CREDITORS, THAT THE
CLAIM WAS VALID AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED, AND THAT THE REORGANIZATION PLAN
WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  IT ACCORDINGLY
OVERRULED PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
CONCURRED FULLY IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND AFFIRMED
ITS RULING.  HELD: 

1.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A VERY EXCEPTIONAL SHOWING OF ERROR, THE
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW ARE FINAL IN THIS
COURT.  PP. 213-214. 

2.  IN VIEW OF THE AMOUNT AND POSITION OF THE CLAIM INVOLVED AND THE
FACT THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE OBJECTIONS WAS SUCH THAT IT WENT
BEYOND PETITIONER'S INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AND AFFECTED THE FAIRNESS AND
EQUITY OF THE PLAN, THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN ADJUDGING THE
OBJECTIONS ON THEIR MERITS - EVEN THOUGH PETITIONER MAY HAVE BEEN
BARRED BY LACHES AND OTHER EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS FROM ASSERTING A
CAUSE OF ACTION IN HIS OWN BEHALF.  PP. 226-227. 

3.  IN VIEW OF THE FUNCTIONS CAST UPON THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN SUCH
CASES, IT MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, CONSIDER OBJECTIONS ON THEIR MERITS,
EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION.  P. 227. 

4.  THE COURT SHOULD BE DILIGENT TO PROTECT ITSELF AND THE PUBLIC
FROM APPROVAL OF UNFAIR PLANS, EVEN BY DEFAULT, AND MAY TAKE FOR ITS
OWN USE EVIDENCE NO PARTY WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE UPON IT.  PP. 227
228. 

5.  EVEN THOUGH THE PARENT HAD DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED THE
SUBSIDIARY, THE DISTRICT COURT'S ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM WAS NOT AN
ERROR OF LAW - IN VIEW OF ITS FINDING THAT THE PARENT'S ADMINISTRATION
OF THE SUBSIDIARY'S AFFAIRS WAS IN GOOD FAITH AND WAS BENEFICIAL AND
ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE SUBSIDIARY AND ITS OTHER CREDITORS.  TAYLOR V.
STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 306 U.S. 307, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 228
231. 

6.  THE CLAIM WAS NOT INVALIDATED OR BARRED BY THE FACT THAT, UNDER
CONTROL OF THE PARENT, DIVIDENDS WERE PAID BY THE SUBSIDIARY AT A TIME
WHEN IT WAS BORROWING MONEY REPRESENTED BY THE CLAIM - IN VIEW OF THE
FINDING BELOW THAT THE DIVIDENDS WERE PAID OUT OF CURRENT EARNINGS OR
SURPLUS, AND NOT IN BAD FAITH OR IN VIOLATION OF LAW OR CONTRACT.  PP.
229-230. 

COMSTOCK V. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL. 

NO. 451.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT* . 

IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF CO. V. GROUP
OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.; NO. 453, THOMPSON, TRUSTEE, V. GROUP
OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.; AND NO. 454, COMSTOCK V. THOMPSON,
TRUSTEE, ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED CERTAIN OBJECTIONS TO A
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  64 F.SUPP.  64.  IN NO. 451 THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  163 F.2D 350.  IN NOS. 452, 453, 454 THE APPEALS
WERE DISMISSED.  163 F.2D 358.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332
U.S. 850.  NO. 451 AFFIRMED; NOS. 452, 453, 454 CERTIORARI DISMISSED,
P. 231. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SINCE 1933 THE MISSOURI PACIFIC, THE NEW ORLEANS, TEXAS AND MEXICO
RAILWAY CO. AND A NUMBER OF AFFILIATED RAILROAD CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN
IN REORGANIZATION UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205.  A
SECOND PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, WAS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI.  COMSTOCK THEN, IN 1944, MADE OBJECTION TO ALLOWANCE OF A
CLAIM OF APPROXIMATELY 10 MILLION DOLLARS BY THE MISSOURI PACIFIC, ONE
DEBTOR CORPORATION, AGAINST ANOTHER, THE NEW ORLEANS, WHICH, DURING THE
10 YEARS OF PROCEEDINGS, HAD BEEN UNCHALLENGED.  THE ISSUES RAISED BY
HIS OBJECTION WERE SEVERED FROM OTHER PROBLEMS OF REORGANIZATION WHICH
DO NOT CONCERN US HERE.  AFTER FULL HEARING THE DISTRICT COURT MADE
FINDINGS AND WROTE AN OPINION, IN RE MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 64
F.SUPP.  64, OVERRULING HIS OBJECTIONS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  COMSTOCK V. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTORS, 163 F.2D 350. 

THE ISSUES OF FACT, CONTESTED IN A LONG HEARING, ARE NOT BEFORE US
FOR REVIEW.  PETITIONER ASSURED US, IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI HERE, THAT "THERE IS NO FACTUAL CONTROVERSY BEFORE THIS
COURT" AND "WE ASSUME THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  OUR
CHALLENGE IS DIRECTED ONLY TO THE LEGAL IMPORT OF THESE UNCHALLENGED
FACTS." 

MUCH OF PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT SEEMS TO DEPART FROM THESE ASSUMPTIONS
AND TO INVITE US TO REACH CONCLUSIONS FROM THE VOLUMINOUS RECORD IN THE
CASE, CONTRARY TO THOSE REACHED BY THE TWO COURTS BELOW.  THIS WE
CANNOT DO.  A SEASONED AND WISE RULE OF THIS COURT MAKES CONCURRENT
FINDINGS OF TWO COURTS BELOW FINAL HERE IN THE ABSENCE OF VERY
EXCEPTIONAL SHOWING OF ERROR.  STUART V. HAYDEN, 169 U.S. 1; BRAINARD
V. BUCK, 184 U.S. 99; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. LITTLEFIELD, 226 U.S. 110;
BAKER V. SCHOFIELD, 243 U.S. 114; SECOND RUSSIAN INSURANCE CO. V.
MILLER, 268 U.S. 552; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281
U.S. 548; PAGE V. ARKANSAS NATURAL GAS CORP., 286 U.S. 269; PICK MFG.
CO. V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 299 U.S. 3; VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515; UNITED STATES V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 501;
ANDERSON V. ABBOTT, 321 U.S. 349; ALLEN V. TRUST CO., 326 U.S. 630;
UNITED STATES V. DICKINSON, 331 U.S. 745.  NO SUCH ERROR IS CLAIMED BY
PETITIONER. 

SINCE WE ARE CONCLUDED BY SUCH CONCURRENT FINDINGS, WE CAN DO NO
BETTER THAN TO ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF FACTS MADE IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PETITIONER'S PROPOSITIONS OF
LAW ARE PREDICATED AND MUST BE DECIDED.  THE ESSENTIAL FACTS SO RECITED
ARE: 

"IT APPEARS THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC ACQUIRED THE CONTROLLING
INTEREST IN THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE NEW ORLEANS AT THE END OF 1924 AND
AT TIMES RELEVANT HERE OWNED FROM 58 TO 93 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
$15,000,000 PAR VALUE OF SUCH STOCK, AND FROM JANUARY 1925, UNTIL
SIMULTANEOUS COMMENCEMENT OF REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY
OF BOTH CORPORATIONS IN 1933, IT MANAGED THE AFFAIRS OF THE NEW ORLEANS
THROUGH MISSOURI PACIFIC OFFICERS WHO WERE GIVEN CORRESPONDING
POSITIONS IN THE NEW ORLEANS CORPORATION.  AN EXPANSION PROGRAM FOR
BOTH COMPANIES WAS CARRIED ON AND THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF OPERATIONS
THE MISSOURI PACIFIC MADE ADVANCEMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND BETTERMENTS
TO THE NEW ORLEANS.  SOME WERE REPAID, BUT IN FEBRUARY 1933, THE NEW
ORLEANS FILED ITS APPLICATION WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
UNDER SECTION 20A OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT (49 U.S.C.A. SEC. 20A (2)),
SHOWING THAT IT WAS INDEBTED TO THE MISSOURI PACIFIC FOR AN
ACCUMULATION OF SUCH ADVANCES OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS REMAINING UNPAID
IN THE SUM OF $10,355,226.78, AND THAT IT HAD BEEN REQUESTED BY THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC TO ISSUE DEMAND NOTES THEREFOR IN THE AMOUNT OF
$9,955,226.78 TO THE MISSOURI PACIFIC.  IT HAD PARTIALLY COMPLIED BY
ISSUING ONE SUCH NOTE FOR $400,000.00, AND ONE FOR $2,498,500, AND
AFTER HEARING THE COMMISSION MADE ITS FINDING AS REQUIRED BY THE
STATUTE,  FN1  49 U.S.C.A. SEC. 20A (2), AND AUTHORIZED NEW ORLEANS TO
ISSUE TO THE MISSOURI PACIFIC A NOTE FOR THE REMAINING $7,456,726.78. 
SO THAT AT THE TIME OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE NEW ORLEANS ON THE SAME
DATE AS THAT OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC THE NOTES OF THE NEW ORLEANS TO
THE MISSOURI PACIFIC IN THE SUM OF $10,355,226.78 WERE OUTSTANDING AND
UNPAID.  UNDER AUTHORIZATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
GRANTED AFTER HEARING, THE MISSOURI PACIFIC HAD PLEDGED TWO OF THE
NOTES AGGREGATING $9,955,226.78 AS SECURITY FOR LOANS MADE TO IT BY THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.  AN ADDITIONAL PLEDGE WAS MADE TO
RAILROAD FINANCE CORPORATION. 

"AFTER APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEES FOR THE RAILROADS AND ON AUGUST
29, 1938, AN OFFICER OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC FILED CLAIM FOR THAT
COMPANY AGAINST THE NEW ORLEANS FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE NOTES, PLUS AN
ITEM OF ADVANCEMENT OF $210,000.00, AGGREGATING THE AMOUNT OF
$10,565,226.78, DESCRIBING THE CONSIDERATION AS 'CASH ADVANCES FOR
OPERATION, INTEREST PAYMENTS, ETC., AT VARIOUS TIMES FROM MARCH 1929 TO
FEBRUARY 1933, BOTH INCLUSIVE.'  THE ITEMS WHICH MADE UP THE TOTAL
$10,565,226.78 WERE CLEARLY SPECIFIED AND EVIDENCE OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE DEBT AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE NOTES WAS ADDUCED BEFORE THE
COMMISSION AT AN EARLY STAGE OF THESE SECTION 77 PROCEEDINGS, AND THE
OBLIGATION WAS DEEMED TO BE VALID AND AHEAD OF NEW ORLEANS' STOCKHOLDER
INTEREST IN ALL OF THE ACCOUNTINGS, COMPUTATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS
RESULTING IN THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION
AND APPROVED BY THE COURT IN 1940.  IT HAS ALSO BEEN SO CONSIDERED BY
THE COMMISSION IN THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION BEFORE THE COURT AT THE
TIME OF THE HEARING AND ORDER NOW APPEALED FROM. 

"IT APPEARS THAT IN 1926 THE MISSOURI PACIFIC ISSUED AND CAUSED TO BE
SOLD TO THE PUBLIC ITS 5 1/4% SECURED SERIAL BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$13,156,000, SECURED BY THE PLEDGE OF $1000.00 PAR VALUE OF NEW ORLEANS
CAPITAL STOCK FOR EACH $1000.00 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING BONDS,
SO THAT THE OFFICERS WHO WERE PUT IN CHARGE OF THE AFFAIRS OF BOTH
CORPORATIONS CAME UNDER FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO THE CREDITORS AND THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF EACH COMPANY TO HANDLE HONESTLY THE AFFAIRS OF EACH. 

"COMSTOCK OWNS SOME OF SAID 5 1/4% SECURED SERIAL BONDS SO SECURED BY
THE PLEDGE OF THE NEW ORLEANS CAPITAL STOCK, AND BY VIRTUE OF HIS
OWNERSHIP OF SAID BONDS HE HAS AN INTEREST AS A CREDITOR OF THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC IN THE PAYMENT OF HIS BONDS AND THE INTEREST THEREON,
AND ALSO AN INTEREST IN THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE NEW ORLEANS PLEDGED TO
SECURE THE BONDS.  ON NOVEMBER 22, 1944, HE FILED HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND PLEA FOR EQUITABLE TREATMENT ON THE BASIS OF
THOSE INTERESTS.  CERTAIN OF HIS OBJECTIONS CONTAINED CHARGES OF
MISMANAGEMENT OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC TO HIS DETRIMENT AS A BONDHOLDING
CREDITOR OF THAT CORPORATION, BUT THE SEPARATELY NUMBERED OBJECTIONS
HERE INVOLVED RELATE TO WRONGS WHICH HE ALLEGES WERE DONE BY THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC TO THE NEW ORLEANS TO THE DETRIMENT OF HIS INTEREST IN
THE PLEDGED STOCK OF THAT COMPANY. 

"BY HIS OBJECTIONS 'NUMBERED 19 AND RELATED OBJECTIONS,' COMSTOCK
CHARGED THAT DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE AFFAIRS OF THE NEW ORLEANS WERE
CONTROLLED BY ITS MAJORITY STOCKHOLDER THE MISSOURI PACIFIC, BETWEEN
THE END OF 1924 AND THE BANKRUPTCY IN 1933, THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
MANAGEMENT CAUSED THE NEW ORLEANS TO PAY DIVIDENDS ILLEGALLY OUT OF
CAPITAL AND TO IMPROVIDENTLY DECLARE AND PAY DIVIDENDS UNJUSTIFIED BY
THE BUSINESS AND CONDITION OF THE NEW ORLEANS; IMPROPERLY LOANED MONEY
TO IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING IT TO PAY DIVIDENDS; INVOLVED IT (THE
NEW ORLEANS) IN EXPANSION AND IMPROPERLY MADE ADVANCEMENTS TO IT AND
CAUSED IT TO ASSUME INDEBTEDNESS GROWING OUT OF EXPANSION; CAUSED IT TO
BE OPERATED WITH UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO THE MISSOURI PACIFIC AND LOSS TO
ITSELF, AND GENERALLY MISMANAGED IT AND COMMITTED SPOLIATION AND WASTE
OF ITS PROPERTY AND INTERESTS TO THE FINANCIAL DETRIMENT OF THE NEW
ORLEANS AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC.  THERE IS ALSO A
CHARGE THAT THE TRUSTEE FOR THE NEW ORLEANS, WHO IS ALSO TRUSTEE FOR
THE MISSOURI PACIFIC, FAILED TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
NEW ORLEANS, TO THE DETRIMENT OF NEW ORLEANS STOCK INTEREST.  ALTHOUGH
AN EXHIBIT 'A' ATTACHED TO THE OBJECTIONS ASSUMED TO SET FORTH DETAILS,
THE CHARGES REMAINED SWEEPING AND GENERAL IN FORM WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS. 
FN2 

"THE OBJECTOR PRAYED THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC CLAIM FOR $10,565,227
AND INTEREST AGAINST THE NEW ORLEANS BE DISALLOWED; THAT IT BE
DETERMINED THAT THE NEW ORLEANS WAS NOT INDEBTED TO THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT ALL CLAIMS OF THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC AGAINST THE NEW ORLEANS BE SUBORDINATED IN THE REORGANIZATION
TO THE NEW ORLEANS CAPITAL STOCK INTEREST. 

"THE ALLEGATIONS OF BREACHES OF OBLIGATIONS ON THE PART OF THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC WERE TRAVERSED IN PLEADINGS OF OTHER PARTIES IN
INTEREST.  THE MAIN BURDEN OF PRODUCING WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE TO
JUSTIFY THE HANDLING OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE NEW ORLEANS BY THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC DURING THE PERIOD OF MISSOURI PACIFIC MANAGEMENT AND TO PROVE
THE $10,565,226.78 INDEBTEDNESS OF THE NEW ORLEANS TO THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC WAS CARRIED AT THE TRIAL BY THE GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTORS HOLDING FIRST AND REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS OF MISSOURI
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE HOLDERS
OF GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS OF MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.  THEY
RECOGNIZED FULLY THE FIDUCIARY NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION WHICH LAW AND
EQUITY ATTRIBUTED TO THE MISSOURI PACIFIC BY REASON OF ITS PLEDGE OF
THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE NEW ORLEANS TO SECURE THE 5 1/4% SERIAL BONDS
WHILE THE NEW ORLEANS WAS UNDER ITS MANAGEMENT AS MAJORITY STOCKHOLDER,
AND THAT BY THE TERMS OF THE PLEDGE THE MISSOURI PACIFIC WAS ENTITLED
TO RECEIVE ITSELF ONLY THE DIVIDENDS (LAWFULLY AND PROPERLY DECLARED)
OF THE NEW ORLEANS STOCK AND WAS REQUIRED AS TO THE CORPUS OF SAID
STOCK TO HONESTLY MANAGE THE CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND TO EXERCISE HONEST
JUDGMENT AND GOOD FAITH TO PRESERVE THE STOCK INTEREST INVIOLATE. 

"COMSTOCK DID NOT QUESTION OR DENY THAT THE NEW ORLEANS HAD EXECUTED
ITS NEGOTIABLE PROMISSORY NOTES TO THE MISSOURI PACIFIC WHICH WERE
OUTSTANDING AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL DRAWING INTEREST, AND CONCEDED
THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AS AN INNOCENT HOLDER
THEREOF IN PLEDGE COULD HOLD THE NEW ORLEANS FOR THEIR FACE AMOUNT AND
INTEREST, BUT HIS CONTENTION WAS THAT BY REASON OF ITS WRONG-DOINGS THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC EITHER HAD NO VALID CLAIM OR THAT SUCH CLAIM AS IT HAD
SHOULD BE SUBORDINATED TO THE CAPITAL STOCK INTEREST.  HE DID NOT
ASSERT OR TENDER EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY SPECIFIED INDIVIDUALS
WORKING FOR THE NEW ORLEANS OR THE MISSOURI PACIFIC, OR BOTH COMPANIES,
HAD MISAPPROPRIATED OR WRONGFULLY DIVERTED TO THEIR OWN USE ANY OF THE
ASSETS OR BUSINESS OF THE NEW ORLEANS TO THE DETRIMENT OF
STOCKHOLDERS.  HE TENDERED NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PLAN OF
MISSOURI PACIFIC SYSTEM EXPANSION, INCLUDING EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT
OF THE NEW ORLEANS, AND FOR THE FINANCING THEREOF, ADOPTED AND CARRIED
THROUGH BY THE MISSOURI PACIFIC, WAS IN ITSELF FRAUDULENT OR RECKLESS
AND IMPROVIDENT.  AS TO THE NEW ORLEANS, THE PLAN CONTEMPLATED THAT THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC WOULD ADVANCE MONEY TO THE NEW ORLEANS FOR BETTERMENTS
AND ADDITIONS ON SHORT TIME LOANS, AND THAT AT INTERVALS WHEN THE
INDEBTEDNESS BECAME OF SUFFICIENT SIZE BOND ISSUES WOULD BE SOLD TO
REFUND IT.  THE WORST OF THE DEPRESSION CAME COINCIDENTALLY WITH THE
TIME WHEN SUCH REFUNDING WAS EXPECTED TO BE MADE AND MADE THE REFUNDING
IMPOSSIBLE. 

"FROM TESTIMONY FRANKLY GIVEN BY HIMSELF, AND ON THE FACE OF THE
RECORD, IT CLEARLY APPEARS AS TO THE CASE COMSTOCK PRESENTED TO THE
COURT ON THE OBJECTIONS HEREIN INVOLVED THAT AFTER THE REPORT OF THE
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE WHICH CRITICIZED THE MISSOURI PACIFIC MANAGEMENT OF
THE NEW ORLEANS, AND IN 1940, COMSTOCK BOUGHT A FEW OF THE 5 1/4%
SERIAL BONDS AT ABOUT 10 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR AND THEN EMPLOYED AN
ACCOUNTANT TO MAKE STUDIES OF THE ACCOUNTS, RECORDS AND REPORTS OF
MISSOURI PACIFIC MANAGEMENT OF THE NEW ORLEANS AND BASED HIS CHARGES ON
THE ACCOUNTANT'S STUDIES.  HE TENDERED NO EXTRANEOUS OR NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  AS THE PERIOD OF MISSOURI PACIFIC ALLEGED
MISMANAGEMENT OF THE NEW ORLEANS (1925 TO 1933) HAD EXPIRED MANY YEARS
BEFORE COMSTOCK ACQUIRED HIS INTEREST IN NEW ORLEANS STOCK, A COURT
WOULD NOT ORDINARILY HAVE FELT OBLIGED AT HIS INSTANCE TO TRY THE
MERITS OF CHARGES OF MISMANAGEMENT COMMITTED IN LONG PAST YEARS AND
CLAIMED TO BE PROVABLE BY CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORDS WHICH WERE AT ALL
TIMES ACCESSIBLE.  IT WOULD NOT SANCTION SUCH BUYING INTO A LAWSUIT. 
"BUT HERE THE PLAN FOR MISSOURI PACIFIC REORGANIZATION WAS BEFORE THE
COURT TO BE APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED, ACCORDING TO WHETHER IT WAS OR WAS
NOT FAIR AND EQUITABLE.  THE PROPOSED PLAN INCLUDED AS ONE OF ITS
ESSENTIAL POSTULATES THAT THE NEW ORLEANS WAS INDEBTED TO THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC IN A SUM WHICH WITH ACCUMULATED INTEREST AMOUNTED TO AROUND
EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS.  NO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION UPON THE VALIDITY
OF THE DEBT HAD EVER BEEN MADE IN ANY ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS THROUGHOUT
THE THIRTEEN YEAR COURSE OF THE SECTION 77 PROCEEDINGS AND BONDS LIKE
COMSTOCK'S ARE OUTSTANDING IN MANY HANDS AGGREGATING SOME $13,500,000. 
ALTHOUGH THE COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT NOT ONLY COMSTOCK BUT ALL OTHER
OWNERS OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC 5 1/4% SERIAL BONDS SECURED BY NEW
ORLEANS STOCK WHO HAD AT ALL TIMES TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION AND IN GREAT
PART REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, HAD BEEN GUILTY OF LACHES IN FAILING
FOR SO MANY YEARS TO ASSERT AND PRESENT PROOF AND TRY OUT BEFORE THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURT THE ALLEGED INVALIDITY OF THE DEBT ALMOST
ENTIRELY EVIDENCED BY THE NOTES,  FN3  IT CONCLUDED THAT JUDICIAL
ADJUDICATION SHOULD BE MADE AS TO THE DEBT AND THAT THE COURT SHOULD,
AND THEREFORE IT DID, HEAR THE EVIDENCE COVERING THE WHOLE PERIOD OF
MANAGEMENT OF THE NEW ORLEANS BY THE MISSOURI PACIFIC, AND IT TRIED OUT
THE WHOLE CASE AND ALL THE CHARGES PRESENTED BY COMSTOCK ON THE
MERITS. 

"THE EXPERT ACCOUNTANT CALLED BY COMSTOCK PRODUCED A LARGE NUMBER OF
EXHIBITS WHICH HE HAD PREPARED FROM THE BOOKS, RECORDS AND REPORTS OF
THE INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES AND EXPLAINED IN CONNECTION WITH THEM THE
INFERENCES HE HAD DRAWN FROM HIS STUDIES AND EXPRESSED HIS OPINIONS
TENDING TO SUPPORT THE COMSTOCK CHARGES.  HE CENTERED HIS ATTACK
LARGELY ON THAT PART OF THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM OF THE RAILROADS THROUGH
WHICH THE NEW ORLEANS AND ITS FOURTEEN SUBSIDIARY RAILROADS HAD BEEN
TREATED AS A UNIT FOR FINANCING PURPOSES AND THE FINANCIAL CONDITION
INDICATED BY CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.  BY DISREGARDING THE SYSTEM
CHARACTER OF ALL THE GULF COAST LINES HELD UNDER NEW ORLEANS OWNERSHIP
HE INFERRED A MUCH LESS FAVORABLE FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE NEW
ORLEANS THAN WAS SHOWN BY ITS CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.  HE HAD NO
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RAILROAD OPERATIONS OR TRANSACTIONS COVERED
BY HIS TESTIMONY. 

"THE GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS HOLDING FIRST AND REFUNDING
MORTGAGE BONDS OF MISSOURI PACIFIC AND THE PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE
HOLDERS OF GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS OF MISSOURI PACIFIC TO SUSTAIN THE
BURDEN OF MISSOURI PACIFIC DEFENSE CALLED AS THEIR WITNESSES ON THE
TRIAL THE RAILROAD MEN WHO HAD ENGAGED, EACH IN HIS OWN DEPARTMENT, IN
ALL OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND RAILROAD OPERATIONS AND THE RECORDS MADE
THEREOF THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD INVOLVED, AND THEY TESTIFIED OF AND
CONCERNING MATTERS WITH WHICH THEY WERE INTIMATELY FAMILIAR.  ALSO MR.
WILLIAM WYER, WHO AFTER HIS GRADUATION FROM YALE AND MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SERVED IN RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
FOR THE GOVERNMENT DURING WORLD WAR I, AND IN U.S. RAILROAD
ADMINISTRATION DURING FEDERAL CONTROL, AND AFTERWARDS IN VARIOUS
POSITIONS IN THE DIVISION OF OPERATIONS, DIVISION OF ACCOUNTS AND
ASSISTANT TO THE COMPTROLLER.  FROM 1920 TO 1927 HE OCCUPIED IMPORTANT
POSITIONS WITH THE SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE DENVER RIO GRANDE
AND WESTERN, THE LATTER BEING 'FIFTY PERCENT.  OWNED BY THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC SO IT WAS CONSIDERED A PART OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC SYSTEM.' 
IN FEBRUARY, 1929, HE BECAME ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC WHO WAS ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
THE NEW ORLEANS, AND LATER IN THE YEAR HE BECAME SECRETARY AND
TREASURER OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC AND AN OFFICER ON ALL THE
SUBSIDIARIES, EXCEPT AS TO THE TEXAS AND PACIFIC HE WAS SUCH OFFICERS
FOR ONLY SIX YEARS.  HE HANDLED A GREAT MANY OF THE FINANCIAL MATTERS
INVOLVING THE MISSOURI PACIFIC AND THE NEW ORLEANS UNDER THE
SUPERVISION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC.  IN
1933 HE STARTED STUDIES WHICH HAVE PROVIDED SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE
STUDIES UPON WHICH THE VARIOUS PLANS OF REORGANIZATION HAVE BEEN
BASED.  HE WAS AT THE TIME OF TESTIFYING THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE CENTRAL RAILROAD OF NEW JERSEY.  HE WAS THOROUGHLY INFORMED AND
CONVERSANT WITH THE MISSOURI PACIFIC POLICIES OF SYSTEM OPERATION AND
OF EXPANDING AND FINANCING, AND WITH THE RAILROAD OPERATIONS AND THE
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS UPON WHICH THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THE
DEBT IN CONTROVERSY DEPEND, AS WELL AS THE ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING
SYSTEM MAINTAINED FOR DISCLOSING AND REPORTING THEM.  HE HAD AN
IMPORTANT PART IN WHAT WAS DONE, WAS IN TOUCH WITH SUBSTANTIALLY THE
WHOLE COURSE OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NEW ORLEANS UNDER ATTACK AND HE
GAVE HIS EXTENSIVE TESTIMONY UPON DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION WITH
OBVIOUS UNDERSTANDING OF ITS RELEVANCY AND IMPORTANCE.  HIS TESTIMONY,
SUPPORTED BY MANY ACCOUNTING AND SUMMARIZING EXHIBITS, WAS TO THE
EFFECT THAT MISSOURI PACIFIC MANAGEMENT OF NEW ORLEANS WAS HONEST AND
WAS BENEFICIAL TO NEW ORLEANS. 

"JUDGE MOORE, PRESIDING AT THE TRIAL, HAS EXERCISED THE JURISDICTION
IN THESE SECTION 77 PROCEEDINGS THROUGH MOST OF THEIR COURSE, AND HIS
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND DIRECTIONS REFLECT HIS CLOSE ATTENTION TO AND
UNDERSTANDING OF THE TESTIMONY AND ITS APPLICATION THROUGH THE TRIAL. 
HIS WRITTEN OPINION IS REPORTED 64 F.SUPP.  64.  HIS FINDINGS OF FACTS
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE DRAWN WITH CARE AND THOROUGHNESS, AND
APPEAR TO US TO BE RESPONSIVE TO ALL THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE
OBJECTIONS HERE INVOLVED AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS ADDUCED, AND THE
APPELLANT HAS NOT CALLED OUR ATTENTION TO ANY REFUSAL ON THE PART OF
THE COURT TO MAKE FINDINGS IN RESPECT TO ANY OTHER ISSUES CLAIMED TO
HAVE BEEN PRESENTED.  THE VAST EXTENT OF THE RAILROAD BUSINESS CARRIED
ON BY THE MISSOURI PACIFIC AND THE NEW ORLEANS DURING THE LONG PAST
PERIOD OF ALLEGED MISMANAGEMENT AND THE INTRICATE CORPORATE STRUCTURES
OF THE RAILROADS, INEVITABLY PRESENTED MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE
ATTEMPTS OF ACCOUNTANTS TO PICTURE WHAT THEIR COURSE OF OPERATIONS AND
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS HAD BEEN.  THE NEW ORLEANS HAD IN SOME RESPECTS
THE CHARACTER OF A HOLDING COMPANY IN THAT IT OPERATED ITSELF ONLY A
SMALL FRACTION (AROUND 11%) OF THE RAILROAD MILEAGE OF ITS RAILROAD
SYSTEM BUT OWNED THE STOCKS AND SECURITIES OF SOME FOURTEEN OTHER
RAILROAD COMPANIES AND WAS THE ONLY ONE OF THE GROUP OF RAILROADS
COMPRISING ITS RAILROAD SYSTEM WHICH HAD ANY RELATIVELY SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF SECURITIES OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC.  FOR
FINANCING PURPOSES THE INDIVIDUAL ROADS IN THE GROUP WERE DEPENDENT
UPON THE NEW ORLEANS WHICH, ACTING FOR THE GROUP IN RESPECT TO
FINANCING, PRESENTED THE NECESSARY UNITARY FUNCTIONING PRINCIPAL. 
THERE WAS FUNDAMENTAL CONTROVERSY AS TO WHAT INFERENCES SHOULD BE DRAWN
FROM THE AVAILABLE ACCOUNTS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUE FINANCIAL CONDITION
OF THE NEW ORLEANS AT DIFFERENT TIMES WITHIN THE PERIOD AND TO
ESTABLISH AND PRESENT THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF THE RAILROAD OPERATIONS
THAT WERE CARRIED ON.  MR. WYER TESTIFIED THAT THE IDENTIFIED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS COMPILED UNDER DIRECTION OF THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC AND NEW ORLEANS OFFICERS WERE THE SUMMARIZING RECORDS WHICH
WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO KEEP ITS MEMBERS INFORMED
IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES.  IT WAS THROUGH THE USE OF THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS THAT THE NEW ORLEANS AND ITS AFFILIATED
RAILROADS WERE TREATED AS A UNIT IN THE FINANCING OF THE COMPANIES
THROUGHOUT MISSOURI PACIFIC MANAGEMENT.  THOUGH HE COULD NOT SAY WHAT
WENT ON IN THE MINDS OF OTHERS, HIS TESTIMONY LEAVES NO ROOM TO DOUBT
THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS WELL UNDERSTOOD HOW THE COMPUTATIONS WERE
ARRIVED AT AND THAT THE MEMBERS RELIED ON THEM IN THE USUAL COURSE OF
THE FINANCING OF THE BUSINESS.  HE WAS INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH ALL
PHASES OF THE ACCOUNTING IN WHICH THEY CULMINATE, AND ALTHOUGH HE
ADMITTED THAT PERFECTION WAS NEVER ATTAINED, HIS TESTIMONY TOGETHER
WITH THAT OF THE RAILROAD OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO DID THE WORK,
FULLY JUSTIFIED THE TRIAL COURT'S RELIANCE UPON THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS IN HIS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.  BUT THE DISPUTES AND
CONFLICTS OF TESTIMONY IN RESPECT TO THE ACCOUNTS AND THE INFERENCES TO
BE DRAWN WERE ALL ISSUES OF FACT.  THE COURT RECOGNIZED FULLY ALL THE
BURDEN OF OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY LAW UPON THE MISSOURI PACIFIC IN
RESPECT TO ITS MANAGEMENT OF THE NEW ORLEANS AND THAT IF THE COMSTOCK
CHARGES COULD BE PROVED AND THE INDEBTEDNESS IN ISSUE WAS INVALID OR
OUGHT NOT IN EQUITY TO BE ENFORCED AGAINST NEW ORLEANS STOCKHOLDERS,
THE THEN PENDING PLAN OF REORGANIZATION COULD NOT STAND. 

"COMSTOCK'S CONTENTION THAT THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY PUT THE BURDEN OF
PROVING HIS CHARGES ON HIM RATHER THAN REQUIRING THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
TO PROCEED FIRST TO DISPROVE THEM, IS WITHOUT MERIT.  AS THE EXECUTION
OF THE PROMISSORY NOTES WAS ADMITTED AND AT LEAST FORMAL PROOF OF ALL
OF THE ITEMS OF ADVANCEMENTS MAKING UP THE DEBT HAD BEEN IN THE RECORD
OF THE SECTION 77 PROCEEDINGS FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE THE HEARING, THE
COURT REQUIRED ONLY THAT ALL THE RECORDS OF THE TRANSACTIONS THAT WERE
QUESTIONED BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THE HEARING SO THAT THERE WAS THE
EQUIVALENT OF A FULL DISCLOSURE BY THE MISSOURI PACIFIC BEFORE COMSTOCK
WAS REQUIRED TO PROCEED WITH HIS PROOF OF THE CHARGES.  IN ITS FINDINGS
THE COURT STATED THE FACTS AS IT FOUND THEM TO BE PROVEN BY THE WHOLE
EVIDENCE.  IT FOUND IN DETAIL AND IN EFFECT THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
HAD ADMINISTERED THE AFFAIRS OF THE NEW ORLEANS IN GOOD FAITH TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THAT COMPANY; HAD MADE THE ADVANCEMENTS TO IT FOR PROPER
PURPOSES; HAD NOT CAUSED DIVIDENDS TO BE PAID OUT OF CAPITAL OR
IMPROVIDENTLY IN BAD FAITH, AND THAT THE ASSERTED INDEBTEDNESS AROSE
FROM ADVANCEMENT MADE BY MISSOURI PACIFIC TO NEW ORLEANS FOR
BETTERMENTS AND ADDITIONS AND WAS VALID AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ITEMS
SPECIFIED, AND THAT THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION BASED AS IT WAS IN PART
ON RECOGNITION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEBT IN QUESTION, WAS FAIR AND
EQUITABLE AND CONFORMABLE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW REGARDING THE
PARTICIPATION OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS." 

WE ARE CONFRONTED AT THE OUTSET WITH PETITIONER'S DELAY AND CONDUCT
AND ITS EFFECT ON THE DUTY OF THIS COURT AND THAT BELOW TO PASS ON THE
MERITS OF HIS OBJECTIONS.  COMSTOCK, APPARENTLY WITH GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
OF THE CONDUCT HE ALLEGES TO BE A WRONG TOWARD THE SECURITIES WHICH HE
NOW HOLDS, BOUGHT THEM AT ABOUT 10 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR NEARLY SEVEN
YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT HAD ENDED.  THUS, IT WAS NOT
COMSTOCK WHO WAS A VICTIM OF ANY WRONG-DOING BUT THOSE IN WHOSE HANDS
THE SECURITIES DEPRECIATED TO THE LOW POINT AT WHICH COMSTOCK BOUGHT. 
IT IS APPARENT THAT COMSTOCK BOUGHT A GRIEVANCE TO EXPLOIT AND TO REAP
THE ADVANTAGE OF ITS RECTIFICATION.  THOSE WHO REALIZED THE LOSS
THROUGH SALES TO COMSTOCK COULD, IN NO EVENT, BE INDEMNIFIED IN THIS
PROCEEDING.  FROM EVERY VIEWPOINT, THE DELAY IN ASSERTING THESE CLAIMS
IS UNUSUAL.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND IT ALSO PREJUDICIAL DUE TO THE
DEATH OF SIX NAMED WITNESSES AND PARTICIPANTS, AMONG OTHERS, WHOSE
TESTIMONY WOULD BE IMPORTANT.  WHILE IT CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS
BARRED BY LACHES, IT NONETHELESS ADJUDGED THEIR MERITS. 

WE THINK THAT, IN THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING, THE COURTS MAY
ENTERTAIN ON THEIR MERITS OBJECTIONS TO A PLAN EVEN IF MADE BY ONE WHO
MIGHT BE BARRED FROM ASSERTING A CAUSE OF ACTION IN HIS OWN BEHALF, IF
THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE OBJECTIONS IS SUCH THAT IT GOES BEYOND THE
OBJECTOR'S INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS AND AFFECTS THE FAIRNESS AND EQUITY OF
THE PLAN.  IN VIEW OF THE AMOUNT AND POSITION OF THE CLAIM INVOLVED, WE
DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT SUCH WAS THE CASE HERE. 

IT ALSO IS TRUE, AS THE COURT BELOW INDICATES, THAT THIS OBJECTOR
MADE NO EFFORT TO EXHAUST OR TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OBJECTION.  NEITHER THE OBJECTION NOR THE
EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR IT WERE LAID BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION IN ITS HEARINGS ON SUCCESSIVE PLANS OF REORGANIZATION.  THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMMISSION "HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS, AT WHICH
OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO BE HEARD, AND
FOLLOWING WHICH THE COMMISSION SHALL RENDER A REPORT" TO THE COURT IS
NOT PROVIDED WITHOUT A PURPOSE AND IS NOT TO BE IGNORED BY PERSONS WITH
CLAIMS OR OBJECTIONS TO BE HEARD.  THIS ISSUE INVOLVED MATTERS WITH
WHICH THE COMMISSION AND ITS STAFF ARE ESPECIALLY QUALIFIED TO DEAL. 
IT HAS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS A VIEW ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS
ALLOWED TO GO BY DEFAULT BEFORE IT, AND THE COURTS DO NOT HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF THE COMMISSION'S INFORMED JUDGMENT ON THE MATTER INVOLVED. 
TO BY-PASS THE COMMISSION AND MAKE THE COURT THE ORIGINAL FORUM FOR
SUCH CONTENTIONS IS NOT TO BE ENCOURAGED. 

BUT THE COURT DID NOT REFUSE TO HEAR THE OBJECTIONS ON THEIR MERITS. 
IN VIEW OF THE FUNCTIONS CAST UPON THE COURT IN SUCH CASES, WE CANNOT
SAY THAT IT MAY NOT, IN ITS DISCRETION, CONSIDER OBJECTIONS ON THEIR
MERITS EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION. 
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT BE DISCLOSED TO INDICATE A REMAND FOR THEIR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION.  THEY MIGHT INDICATE THAT THE COURTS
WOULD WITHHOLD APPROVAL, NOT OUT OF DEFERENCE TO THE OBJECTING PARTIES'
RIGHTS BUT BECAUSE OF THE BROAD RESPONSIBILITY LAID UPON THE COURT FOR
THE EQUITY AND FAIRNESS OF THE PLAN AS A WHOLE.  THE COURT WILL BE
DILIGENT TO PROTECT ITSELF AND THE PUBLIC FROM APPROVAL OF UNFAIR
PLANS, EVEN BY DEFAULT, AND MAY TAKE FOR ITS OWN USE EVIDENCE NO PARTY
WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE UPON IT.  THE COURT BELOW EVIDENTLY
CONSIDERED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE TO WARRANT SUCH INQUIRY INTO
THE MERITS, AND WE DO NOT INQUIRE WHETHER THE DISCRETION WAS WISELY
EXERCISED.    THE CASE ON THE MERITS PRESENTS, AS TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT
AND COMPLICATED TRANSACTIONS, A SINGLE QUESTION OF LAW.  IT IS SAID
THAT OUR DECISION IN TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 306 U.S.
307, REQUIRES THAT THE CLAIM OF MISSOURI PACIFIC AGAINST THE NEW
ORLEANS BE DISALLOWED AND PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS SUSTAINED.  IN THAT
CASE THIS COURT REFORMULATED FOR APPLICATION TO REORGANIZATION CASES A
WHOLESOME EQUITY DOCTRINE TO THE EFFECT THAT A CLAIM AGAINST A DEBTOR
SUBSIDIARY BE DISALLOWED OR AT LEAST SUBORDINATED WHEN THE CLAIMANT
CORPORATION HAS WHOLLY DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED THE SUBSIDIARY AND IN
THE TRANSACTIONS CREATING THE DEBT HAS BREACHED ITS FIDUCIARY DUTY AND
ACTED BOTH TO ITS OWN BENEFIT AND TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE DEBTOR.  AS
WE LATER SAID OF THE DECISION, "THIS WAS BASED ON THE EQUITIES OF THE
CASE - THE HISTORY OF SPOLIATION, MISMANAGEMENT, AND FAITHLESS
STEWARDSHIP OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BY STANDARD TO THE
DETRIMENT OF THE PUBLIC INVESTORS."  PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295,
308. 

PETITIONER ASKS US TO DECLARE THE SAME RESULT IN THIS CASE DESPITE
EXPLICIT AND UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS THAT, IN ITS DEALINGS WITH NEW
ORLEANS DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED, "THE MISSOURI PACIFIC ACTED IN GOOD
FAITH AND WITH DUE REGARD TO ITS OBLIGATIONS, LEGAL AND EQUITABLE, TO
THE NEW ORLEANS AND ITS SECURITY HOLDERS," THAT THE "EFFECT OF THE
CONTROL BY THE MISSOURI PACIFIC OF THE GULF COAST LINES WAS BENEFICIAL
AND ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE NEW ORLEANS AND THE HOLDERS AND PLEDGEES OF ITS
SECURITIES," THAT ALL DIVIDENDS IN QUESTION "WERE PAID EITHER OUT OF
THE EARNED SURPLUS OF THE NEW ORLEANS AVAILABLE FOR DIVIDENDS OR OUT OF
THE NET INCOME OF THE NEW ORLEANS AFTER PAYMENT OF ALL PRIOR CHARGES
AGAINST INCOME," AND THAT THE SUBORDINATION OF THE CLAIM AS ASKED
"WOULD UNJUSTLY ENRICH THE HOLDERS OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE NEW
ORLEANS AND THE HOLDERS OF THE SECURED SERIAL BONDS," AS WELL AS OTHER
MORE DETAILED FINDINGS TO THE SAME EFFECT. 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US THERE WAS DOMINATION OF THE SUBSIDIARY, A
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORATIONS WHICH THE LAW HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO
PROSCRIBE.  BY THE APPLICATION OF LONG-STANDING PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY
THIS COURT FASHIONED THE RULE IN THE TAYLOR CASE TO PREVENT A FIDUCIARY
IN SUCH A POSITION FROM ENRICHING ITSELF BY BREACH OF ITS TRUST.  IT IS
NOT MERE EXISTENCE OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO WRONG THAT BRINGS THE RULE
INTO PLAY; IT IS THE UNCONSCIONABLE USE OF THE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED BY
THE DOMINATION TO ADVANTAGE ITSELF AT THE INJURY OF THE SUBSIDIARY THAT
DEPRIVES THE WRONGDOER OF THE FRUITS OF HIS WRONG.  ON THE FINDINGS IN
THIS CASE, THE CLAIM OF MISSOURI PACIFIC WAS THE OUTGROWTH OF
COMPLICATED BUT LEGITIMATE GOOD FAITH BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, NEITHER IN
DESIGN OR EFFECT PRODUCING INJURY TO THE PETITIONER OR THE INTERESTS
FOR WHICH HE SPEAKS. 

SPECIAL EMPHASIS HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FACT THAT UNDER CONTROL OF
THE MISSOURI PACIFIC DIVIDENDS WERE PAID BY THE SUBSIDIARY AT A TIME
WHEN IT WAS BORROWING MONEY REPRESENTED BY THIS CLAIM.  IT IS CLEAR
FROM THE FINDINGS THAT THE DIVIDENDS WERE PAID OUT OF CURRENT EARNINGS
OR SURPLUS, AND NOT IN VIOLATION OF LAW OR CONTRACT.  ONLY IN 1929 DID
NEW ORLEANS EARN CURRENTLY SUFFICIENT TO PAY ITS DIVIDENDS. 
NEVERTHELESS IN ALL THREE YEARS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EARNED SURPLUS
LEGALLY TO PERMIT DIVIDENDS.  HEAVY INVESTMENTS IN IMPROVEMENTS MAY
REQUIRE BORROWINGS FOR DIVIDENDS; BUT NO LAW OR PUBLIC POLICY REQUIRES
A CORPORATION TO FINANCE CAPITAL ADDITIONS OUT OF EARNINGS OR TO PASS
DIVIDENDS BECAUSE OF LOW CURRENT EARNINGS WHEN PAST EARNINGS ARE
AVAILABLE FOR DIVIDEND PURPOSES.  THESE PAST EARNINGS MAY BE USED TO
COMPENSATE THE CAPITAL THAT PRODUCED THEM, AND CAPITAL ADDITIONS MAY BE
MADE FROM FUNDS BORROWED OR RAISED BY ISSUES OF CAPITAL SECURITIES, SO
LONG AS THE AUTHORIZATIONS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF RAILROADS ARE
OBTAINED.  NO QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE AUTHORITY TO BORROW. 

WHILE THE CONTEMPORANEOUS BORROWING TO PAY FOR CAPITAL ADDITIONS, AND
PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS, IS NOT IN ITSELF ILLEGAL, IT WOULD, OF COURSE,
COME UNDER THE BAN OF THE TAYLOR DECISION IF IT WERE CARRIED OUT IN
BREACH OF GOOD FAITH FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF THE HOLDING COMPANY TO THE
DETRIMENT OF THE SUBSIDIARY.  BUT THE FINDINGS OF GOOD FAITH, FAIR
DEALING AND FREEDOM FROM FRAUD OR OVERREACHING COVER THE DIVIDEND
POLICY AS WELL AS OTHER QUESTIONED TRANSACTIONS.  SUCH BEING THE FACTS,
THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM IS NOT ERROR OF LAW. 

THE FINDINGS HERE DO NOT STOP WITH HOLDING THAT THE QUESTIONED
TRANSACTIONS WERE INTENDED TO AND DID BENEFIT THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. 
AN OVER-ALL BENEFIT TO THE SYSTEM MIGHT BE ATTAINED AT THE INJURY OF
ONE OF ITS UNITS AND THE SECURITY HOLDERS OF THAT UNIT.  BUT HERE THE
FINDING OF GOOD FAITH AND OF BENEFIT APPLIES TO THE NEW ORLEANS AND ITS
SECURITY HOLDERS AS WELL AS TO THE SYSTEM GENERALLY.  THE FINDING IS
UNEQUIVOCAL THAT THE CONTROL OF MISSOURI PACIFIC NOT ONLY WAS "IN GOOD
FAITH AND WITH DUE REGARD TO ITS OBLIGATIONS, LEGAL AND EQUITABLE, TO
THE NEW ORLEANS AND ITS SECURITY HOLDERS," BUT ALSO THAT ITS CONTROL OF
THE GULF COAST LINES "WAS BENEFICIAL AND ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE NEW
ORLEANS AND THE HOLDERS AND PLEDGEES OF ITS SECURITIES."  THE
CRITICISED TRANSACTIONS ARE THUS NOT ONLY EXONERATED OF EVIL OR ILLEGAL
INTENT BUT ARE ALSO ESTABLISHED AS BENEFICIAL RATHER THAN INJURIOUS TO
THE INTERESTS WHICH NOW CHALLENGE THEM.  THE FINDINGS TO THAT EFFECT
ARE ENTITLED TO SPECIAL WEIGHT WHERE, AS HERE, THEY ARE BASED ON THE
DISTRICT JUDGE'S COMPLETE FAMILIARITY WITH THE CASE.  RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION V. DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN R. CO., 328 U.S.
495, 533.  AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THEY ARE, UNDER
THE RULE CONCERNING CONCURRENT FINDINGS, AND ON THE BASIS OF OUR GRANT
OF CERTIORARI, CONCLUSIVE IN THIS COURT. 

DISALLOWANCE OF PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ON SUCH FINDINGS WAS NOT
ERROR OF LAW.  IN THIS VIEW OF THE CASE WE NEED NOT CONSIDER QUESTIONS
TENDERED AS TO VALIDITY OR EFFECT OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOTES OR OF THEIR
PLEDGE. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IN NO. 451 IS AFFIRMED. 

FN"1  '***  THAT THE ISSUE BY THE NEW ORLEANS, TEXAS & MEXICO RAILWAY
COMPANY OF A NOTE OR NOTES IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING
$7,456,726.78, AS AFORESAID, (2) IS FOR A LAWFUL OBJECT WITHIN ITS
CORPORATE PURPOSES, AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH IS
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPER
PERFORMANCE BY IT OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AS A COMMON CARRIER, AND
WHICH WILL NOT IMPAIR ITS ABILITY TO PERFORM THAT SERVICE, AND (B) IS
REASONABLY NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSE.'  NEW ORLEANS,
TEXAS & MEXICO RAILWAY COMPANY NOTES, FINANCE DOCKET NO. 9817; 189 ICC
600, 601, (1933)(R. 20839-20840)." 

FN"2  THE EXHIBIT 'A' ALSO INCLUDED EXCERPTS FROM A REPORT OF A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ON THE SUBJECT OF MISSOURI
PACIFIC SYSTEM - INTER COMPANY DIVIDENDS AND ADVANCES, PUBLISHED ABOUT
JULY 29, 1940, WHICH CRITICIZED MISSOURI PACIFIC MANAGEMENT OF THE NEW
ORLEANS." 

FN"3  THERE WAS ALSO AT ALL TIMES A SUBSTANTIAL MINORITY STOCKHOLDING
INTEREST IN THE NEW ORLEANS WITH MEANS TO KEEP INFORMED OF THE AFFAIRS
OF THE REGULATED RAILROAD CORPORATION." 

PETITIONS IN NOS. 452, 453 AND 454 WERE ADDRESSED TO DISMISSALS BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE SAME ORDER AS NO. 451 BUT TAKEN IN
DIFFERENT NAMES.  THE PETITIONS WERE FILED AS SAFEGUARDS AGAINST
PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER.  THE WRITS IN THESE CASES
ARE DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE AGREE, DISSENTING. 

THE RULE THAT MAKES CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY TWO COURTS BELOW
BINDING ON US IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME VERY EXCEPTIONAL ERROR IS A WISE
ONE.  BUT IT IS NOT A RULE TO BE APPLIED IN A BLIND MANNER SIMPLY
BECAUSE A CASE INVOLVES A COMPLEX FACTUAL SITUATION.  IN MY VIEW, THERE
IS AN EXCEPTIONAL ERROR INVOLVED IN THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT AND AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AN ERROR
THAT IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS.  AND
SINCE THIS ERROR IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ILLUMINATED BY THE OPINION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 163 F.2D 350, AS QUOTED BY THE MAJORITY IN
THIS COURT, I DEEM IT ESSENTIAL TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT STATEMENT OF THE
RELEVANT FACTS AS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THIS CASE GROWS OUT OF THE JOINT REORGANIZATION OF THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND AFFILIATED RAILROAD CORPORATIONS UNDER
SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205.  IT INVOLVES A CLAIM
OF $10,565,226.78 FILED BY THE MISSOURI PACIFIC AGAINST ONE OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES WHICH WAS ALSO UNDERGOING REORGANIZATION AND THE
APPLICATION TO THAT CLAIM OF THE SO-CALLED DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE
ENUNCIATED IN TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS CO., 306 U.S. 307. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR PRESENT PURPOSES TO DETAIL THE LONG,
COMPLICATED AND STILL UNFINISHED PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE MARKED THE
REORGANIZATION OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY SYSTEM.  THE INSTANT
PROCEEDING IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO A REVISED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
APPROVED IN 1944 BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT BELOW THEN HEARD OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN BY VARIOUS PARTIES IN
INTEREST.  INCLUDED AMONG THEM WAS THE PETITIONER COMSTOCK.  HE STATED
THAT HE OWNED $80,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE 5 1/4% SECURED SERIAL
GOLD BONDS OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC.  HIS OBJECTIONS WERE FILED ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF, OF FOURTEEN OTHER PUBLIC INVESTORS HOLDING IN EXCESS
OF $900,000 ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THESE BONDS, AND OF ALL
OTHER OWNERS AND HOLDERS OF THE BONDS.  A COMMITTEE OF THESE
BONDHOLDERS, REPRESENTING AN ADDITIONAL $315,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
THE BONDS, ALSO JOINED IN COMSTOCK'S OBJECTIONS.  OF THE TOTAL
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THESE BONDS PUBLICLY OUTSTANDING, ABOUT 11 1/2%
WERE SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTED BY COMSTOCK. 

COMSTOCK'S OBJECTION NO. 19, WHICH IS OUR SOLE CONCERN, RELATED TO
THE VALIDITY AND PRIORITY OF A $10,565,226.78 CLAIM FILED BY THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC (HEREINAFTER CALLED MOP) AGAINST ITS SUBSIDIARY NEW
ORLEANS, TEXAS AND MEXICO RAILWAY CO. (HEREINAFTER CALLED NOTM) IN THE
JOINT REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  IT APPEARS THAT MOP HAD ACQUIRED THE
CONTROLLING INTEREST IN NOTM'S COMMON STOCK IN 1924 AND HAD COMPLETELY
DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED NOTM UNTIL THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
BEGAN IN 1933.  MOP'S CLAIM AGAINST NOTM WAS BASED UPON "CASH ADVANCES
FOR OPERATION, INTEREST PAYMENTS, ETC. AT VARIOUS TIMES FROM MARCH,
1929 TO FEBRUARY, 1933, BOTH INCLUSIVE."  MOST OF THE NOTM STOCK WHICH
MOP HELD WAS PLEDGED AS SECURITY FOR THE CLASS OF MOP 5 1/4% SECURED
BONDS WHICH COMSTOCK OWNED, THE PLEDGE CONSTITUTING 82% OF THE
OUTSTANDING SHARES OF NOTM'S SOLE CLASS OF STOCK.  MOP SOUGHT TO PUT
ITS CLAIM AGAINST NOTM AHEAD OF THE CLAIMS OF THE HOLDERS OF THESE MOP
BONDS WHO LOOKED TO THE NOTM COMMON STOCK FOR SECURITY.  THE REVISED
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION GAVE EFFECT TO MOP'S DESIRE IN THIS RESPECT. 

A SEPARATE HEARING WAS HELD BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON COMSTOCK'S
OBJECTION NO. 19.  AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE VOLUMINOUS AND
COMPLICATED EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THIS HEARING, THE COURT ENTERED A
SEPARATE ORDER OVERRULING THE OBJECTION AND HOLDING THAT THE
$10,565,226.78 CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL; WITH INTEREST, THIS
CLAIM NOW AGGREGATES MORE THAN $18,000,000.  THE COURT FURTHER HELD
THAT THIS CLAIM, SO ALLOWED, WAS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER THE CLAIMS
OF THE PUBLIC INVESTORS HOLDING MOP 5 1/4% SECURED BONDS.  IN ADDITION,
THE COURT FELT THAT OBJECTION NO. 19 WAS NOT TIMELY AND SHOULD BE
BARRED FROM CONSIDERATION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES. 

AT THE SAME TIME, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ANOTHER ORDER OVERRULING
THE OTHER OBJECTIONS RAISED BY COMSTOCK AND THE OTHER PARTIES IN
INTEREST AND APPROVING THE REVISED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  AN OPINION
WAS THEN FILED DETAILING THE REASONS FOR THE TWO ORDERS.  IN RE
MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 64 F.SUPP.  64.  COMSTOCK APPEALED FROM THE
ORDER DISMISSING HIS OBJECTION NO. 19.  FN1  THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION ON THIS OBJECTION,
HOLDING THAT THE FINDINGS OF THAT COURT WERE NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 
COMSTOCK V. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, 163 F.2D 350.  AT THE
SUGGESTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THEN REMANDED THE REVISED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION BACK TO THE
COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REVISION.  WRIGHT V. GROUP OF
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, 163 F.2D 1022.  THE COMMISSION HAS NOT YET
DISPOSED OF THE MATTER. 

                                I. 

FOR SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT REASONS THAN THOSE ADVANCED BY THE COURT, I
AGREE THAT A JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION OF COMSTOCK'S OBJECTION NO. 19 IS
NOT NOW PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES. 

THE JOINT REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED IN 1933.  COMSTOCK DID
NOT PURCHASE ANY OF THE MOP 5 1/4% SECURED BONDS UNTIL 1940, SOON AFTER
A SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE INVESTIGATING RAILROADS ISSUED A REPORT
CRITICIZING THE MOP MANAGEMENT OF NOTM.  S. REP. NO. 25, PART 9, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS.  HE THEN BOUGHT SOME OF THE BONDS AT ABOUT 10 CENTS ON
THE DOLLAR AND EMPLOYED AN ACCOUNTANT TO STUDY THE RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN MOP AND NOTM PRIOR TO 1933.  NOT UNTIL 1943 DID COMSTOCK
SUGGEST THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME IRREGULARITIES ON THE PART OF
MOP.  AND NOT UNTIL NOVEMBER, 1944, WHEN HE FILED HIS OBJECTION NO. 19
TO THE REVISED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, DID HE REALLY PRESS HIS
ALLEGATIONS.    PRIOR TO COMSTOCK'S OBJECTION, MORE THAN A DECADE OF
THE REORGANIZATION PROCESS HAD PRODUCED NO CHARGE OR REVELATION OF
IMPROPRIETY AS TO MOP'S $10,565,226.78 CLAIM AGAINST NOTM.  NUMEROUS
INVESTIGATIONS AND HEARINGS HAD BEEN HELD DURING THAT LONG PERIOD
CONCERNING THE PRE-REORGANIZATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF MOP
AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  THE PUBLIC HOLDERS OF THE MOP 5 1/4% SECURED
BONDS AND OTHER CREDITORS HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE
ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM.  BUT NO CHARGES WERE MADE UNTIL AFTER COMSTOCK
PURCHASED HIS BONDS AND CONDUCTED HIS OWN INVESTIGATION.  MANY OF THE
EVENTS TO WHICH OBJECTION NO. 19 RELATES TOOK PLACE MORE THAN TWENTY
YEARS AGO; AND SOME OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE
EVENTS AND WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TESTIFY IN REGARD THERETO ARE
NOW DEAD. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES IS PROPERLY
APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD BEFORE IT
A REVISED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF MOP AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, A PLAN
WHICH RECOGNIZED THAT NOTM WAS INDEBTED TO MOP AND WHICH PERMITTED MOP
TO COLLECT THAT DEBT WITHOUT SUBORDINATION TO OTHER CREDITORS.  THAT
COURT WAS DUTY BOUND TO TEST THIS PORTION OF THE PLAN BY THE FAIR AND
EQUITABLE RULE AND TO APPROVE IT ONLY IF THE RULE WAS FOUND TO BE
SATISFIED.  AMERICAN INS. CO. V. AVON PARK, 311 U.S. 138, 145-146.  THE
COURT'S DUTY WAS NONETHELESS EXISTENT BECAUSE AN ATTACK ON THE MOP
CLAIM CAME LATE IN THE DAY.  COMSTOCK'S OBJECTION SERVED ONLY TO
EMPHASIZE THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS INDEBTEDNESS AND TO GIVE
THE COURT AN OPPORTUNITY TO INQUIRE INTO THE MATTER MORE FULLY THAN IT
MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE DONE.  MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THIS OBJECTION HAD
NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN RAISED AND ADJUDICATED IN THE SEC. 77 PROCEEDINGS
ADDED TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE DEBT AT THIS JUNCTURE.  ONLY BY EXAMINING THE MATTER
NOW COULD THE COURT BE CERTAIN WHETHER THE TREATMENT ACCORDED THE DEBT
BY THE REORGANIZATION PLAN WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE. 

THE MOTIVES WHICH LED COMSTOCK TO ACQUIRE HIS BOND HOLDINGS AND TO
RAISE HIS OBJECTION NO. 19 ARE NOT PERTINENT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S DUTY OF TESTING THE FAIRNESS OF THE REORGANIZATION
PLAN.  NOR IS IT DECISIVE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE OBJECTION
MIGHT HAVE BEEN RAISED EARLIER BY COMSTOCK OR SOME OTHER BONDHOLDER. 
IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE MATTER WAS PRESENTED IN AN APPROPRIATE FASHION AT
A TIME WHEN THE COURT WAS COMPELLED TO PASS JUDGMENT UPON THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN AND AT A TIME WHEN NO PREJUDICIAL CHANGE IN THE
POSITION OF OTHER PARTIES HAD YET OCCURRED. 

IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AT AN EARLY STAGE IN THE SEC. 77 PROCEEDINGS HELD THAT THE
VALIDITY OF THE MOP CLAIM IS A MATTER "FOR LITIGATION IN THE COURTS." 
THUS COMSTOCK WOULD LIKELY HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL HAD HE ATTEMPTED TO
SECURE A DETERMINATION OF HIS OBJECTION BY THE COMMISSION BEFORE GOING
TO COURT.  THE COURT TODAY, HOWEVER, EXPRESSLY HOLDS THAT THE DEEP ROCK
ISSUES RAISED BY COMSTOCK INVOLVE MATTERS OVER WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS
JURISDICTION AND WITH WHICH IT IS ESPECIALLY QUALIFIED TO DEAL.  SEE
SCHWABACHER V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 182.  ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE,
I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COURT.  THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE TO RAILROAD REORGANIZATION
PLANS WHICH IT FORMULATES.  BUT SINCE THE COMMISSION HAD PREVIOUSLY
REFUSED TO ADJUDICATE THE MERITS OF THE MOP CLAIM AND SINCE COMSTOCK'S
OBJECTION HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY AIRED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, IT IS
INAPPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE CASE NOW TO THE COMMISSION FOR AN
EXPRESSION OF ITS VIEWS. 

DESPITE THE CLAIMED DIFFICULTIES DUE TO THE AGE OF THE PERTINENT
EVENTS AND THE DEATH OF SOME OF THE WITNESSES, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
ABLE TO GIVE A COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT TO COMSTOCK'S OBJECTION AND TO
RENDER AN INFORMED JUDGMENT ON THE FAIRNESS OF MOP'S CLAIM AGAINST
NOTM.  MANY OF THE ISSUES REVOLVED ABOUT WRITTEN EVIDENCE AND
STATISTICS.  AND THE COURT WAS ABLE TO DRAW UPON ITS INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE
OF THE MOP-NOTM RELATIONSHIPS, KNOWLEDGE GAINED FROM LONG ASSOCIATION
WITH THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  HENCE THE COURT COULD AND DID
PERFORM FULLY ITS FUNCTION AS TO THAT PORTION OF THE REVISED
REORGANIZATION PLAN WITH WHICH OBJECTION NO. 19 WAS CONCERNED. 

IN THIS SITUATION, THE DESIRABILITY AND NECESSITY OF DETERMINING THE
FAIRNESS AND EQUITABLENESS OF MOP'S CLAIM FAR OUTWEIGH ANY POSSIBLE
INCONVENIENCE CAUSED BY THE LATE PRESENTATION OF THE MATTER. 

                       II. 

IN TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS CO., SUPRA, THIS COURT ESTABLISHED THE
PRINCIPLE THAT WHERE A PARENT CORPORATION HAS NOT ONLY DOMINATED BUT
HAS MISMANAGED A SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION, WHICH IS PRESENTLY IN
BANKRUPTCY OR REORGANIZATION, AND WHERE THE PARENT HAS A CLAIM WHICH IS
INTIMATELY RELATED TO THE MISMANAGEMENT, A COURT MAY REFUSE TO PERMIT
THE PARENT TO ASSERT THE CLAIM AS A CREDITOR EXCEPT IN SUBORDINATION TO
THE CLAIMS OF THE SUBSIDIARY'S OTHER CREDITORS AND PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS.  THIS PRINCIPLE, WHICH HAS BECOME KNOWN AS THE DEEP ROCK
DOCTRINE, IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE.  AS EXPLAINED IN PEPPER V. LITTON,
308 U.S. 295, 308, THE DOCTRINE WAS APPLIED IN THE TAYLOR CASE ON THE
BASIS OF "THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE - THE HISTORY OF SPOLIATION,
MISMANAGEMENT, AND FAITHLESS STEWARDSHIP OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE
SUBSIDIARY BY STANDARD TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PUBLIC INVESTORS." 

THE FULCRUM OF COMSTOCK'S OBJECTION NO. 19 IS THE DEEP ROCK
DOCTRINE.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ITEMS CONSTITUTING THE
$10,565,276.78 CLAIM FILED BY MOP AGAINST NOTM ARE IMPREGNATED WITH
MOP'S ALLEGED MISMANAGEMENT OF NOTM AND THAT THE CLAIM SHOULD THEREFORE
BE SUBORDINATED TO THE CLAIM OF THE PUBLIC INVESTORS IN THE MOP 5 1/4%
SECURED BONDS, WHO ARE SECURED BY MOP'S PLEDGE OF THE NOTM COMMON
STOCK. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO COMSTOCK'S CLAIM THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT THE TRANSACTIONS GIVING RISE TO THE MOP CLAIM WERE CARRIED OUT IN
GOOD FAITH.  THE EQUITIES WHICH FORM THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE RELATE NOT
ALONE TO MATTERS OF BAD FAITH.  THEY ARE ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE
ESSENTIAL FAIRNESS AND PROPRIETY OF TRANSACTIONS FROM AN OBJECTIVE
STANDPOINT.  PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA, 306.  LIKE NEGLIGENCE, INEQUITY
MAY BE PRESENT WHERE THERE IS THE UTMOST SUBJECTIVE GOOD FAITH.  IF
THERE IS MISMANAGEMENT AND IF THERE IS UNDUE HARM TO THE CREDITORS AND
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF THE SUBSIDIARY, THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE
DICTATES SUBORDINATION OF THE PARENT'S CLAIM.  AND IF THERE BE GOOD
FAITH ON THE PART OF THE PARENT'S OFFICERS, IT HARDLY JUSTIFIES
IGNORING THE INJURY TO THE SUBSIDIARY'S CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS. 
EQUITY LOOKS IN ALL DIRECTIONS.  ONLY IN THAT WAY CAN THE VARIOUS
INTERESTS IN THE CORPORATE COMMUNITY BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED. 

MOREOVER, THE ISSUES RAISED BY COMSTOCK ARE NOT RESOLVED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT OPERATIONAL BENEFITS ACCRUED TO NOTM AND
ITS SUBSIDIARIES BY VIRTUE OF THE TRANSACTIONS UNDERLYING MOP'S CLAIM. 
THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE UNDOUBTEDLY TIED IN WITH THE EXPANSION PROGRAM
WHICH MOP WAS UNDERTAKING DURING THIS PERIOD.  BUT A BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS IS NOT TO BE CONDONED BY THE PRESENCE OF
ACCOMPANYING BENEFITS WHERE THE SUBSIDIARY'S ASSETS ARE DEPLETED TO THE
INJURY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS OF THE SUBSIDIARY. 

NOR DOES THE FACT THAT MOP, THE PARENT, IS INSOLVENT BAR AN
APPLICATION OF THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  THE
INSOLVENCY OF THE PARENT AND THE CONSEQUENT EFFECT OF SUBORDINATION
UPON THE PARENT'S INNOCENT CREDITORS ARE CERTAINLY FACTORS TO BE
CONSIDERED.  SEE CONSOLIDATED ROCK CO. V. DUBOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 524;
PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, 316 U.S. 89, 97.  BUT THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY
DECISIVE IN ALL CASES.  THE EQUITIES OF A PARTICULAR SITUATION MAY TURN
UPON SOMETHING MORE THAN THE SOLVENCY OR INSOLVENCY OF THE PARENT.  IT
MAY WELL BE THAT A BALANCING OF COMPETING EQUITIES REVEALS THAT IT IS
UNJUST TO PERMIT THE ADVANTAGES ARISING FROM THE PARENT'S BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO ADHERE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE INNOCENT CREDITORS OF
THE INSOLVENT PARENT.  SOME OTHER INNOCENT PARTIES MAY HAVE AN
OVERRIDING INTEREST WHICH JUSTIFIES SUBORDINATION OF THE CLAIM.  OR THE
CLAIM ITSELF MAY BE SO TAINTED WITH INEQUITY AND UNENFORCEABILITY AS TO
REQUIRE SUBORDINATION REGARDLESS OF THE PARENT'S INSOLVENCY.  AND SO
THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE IS AS BROAD AND AS NARROW AS THE EQUITIES IN
EACH CASE. 

IN THIS INSTANCE, I BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC HOLDERS OF THE MOP 5 1/4%
SECURED BONDS HAVE A SUFFICIENTLY DIRECT AND OVERRIDING INTEREST IN THE
FINANCIAL WELL-BEING OF NOTM TO JUSTIFY SUBORDINATING THE MOP CLAIM
SHOULD IT APPEAR THAT THIS CLAIM IS INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED WITH A BREACH
OF MOP'S FIDUCIARY DUTIES.  MOP SECURED THESE BONDS WITH A PLEDGE OF
THE NOTM COMMON STOCK AND EXPRESSLY UNDERTOOK NOT TO IMPEACH THE
PLEDGE.  ANY WRONGFUL CONDUCT BY MOP WHICH DIMINISHED THE SIZE OF NOTM
ASSETS WOULD IMPAIR THE VALUE OF THE NOTM STOCK.  SUBORDINATION OF THE
CLAIM WOULD THUS TEND TO MAKE THE NOTM STOCK MORE VALUABLE AND TO MAKE
POSSIBLE A REALIZATION OF MOP'S EXPRESS PLEDGE TO ITS BONDHOLDERS. 
TRUE, CREDITORS OF MOP OTHER THAN THE BONDHOLDERS WOULD BE UNABLE TO
BENEFIT FROM WHATEVER COULD BE COLLECTED ON THE CLAIM.  BUT THEY WERE
NOT THE RECIPIENTS OF A PLEDGE OF NOTM STOCK AND THEY LACKED THE
IMMEDIATE INTEREST THAT THE BONDHOLDERS HAD IN A PROPER PERFORMANCE OF
MOP'S FIDUCIARY DUTIES.  THE INDIRECT LOSS THEY WOULD SUFFER BY
SUBORDINATION IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE DIRECT INJURY TO THE BONDHOLDERS AS
A RESULT OF ALLOWING THE CLAIM. 

IT IS THEREFORE ESSENTIAL TO STUDY THE VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS IN DETAIL
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY REPRESENT THE TYPE OF MISMANAGEMENT BY A
PARENT WHICH LEADS TO SUBORDINATION OF THE RESULTING CLAIM AGAINST THE
SUBSIDIARY. 

                             III. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH, 1929, TO
FEBRUARY, 1933, MOP ADVANCED TO NOTM THE NET SUM, AFTER DEDUCTING
PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS, OF $10,565,226.78 - WHICH CONSTITUTES THE CLAIM IN
ISSUE.  INCLUDED IN THESE ADVANCES WAS THE GREATER PORTION OF THE
$2,795,000 LOANED TO NOTM BETWEEN NOVEMBER 30, 1928, AND NOVEMBER 27,
1931, TO MAKE ADDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RAILROAD PROPERTIES OF
NOTM AND OTHER RELATED SUBSIDIARIES.  BUT EACH TIME ONE OF THESE
ADVANCES WAS MADE, THERE WAS AN ALMOST SIMULTANEOUS PAYMENT OF A
DIVIDEND BY NOTM ON ITS STOCK, WHICH WAS LARGELY OWNED BY MOP.  THIS
PHENOMENON IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE: 

(CHART OMITTED) 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT MOP'S ACTION IN MAKING THESE LOANS AND
RECEIVING BACK THE DIVIDENDS FOLLOWED A NATURAL PATTERN OF A COMPANY
DEVOTED TO IMPROVING THE PROPERTIES OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES, THERE BEING
MERELY A "NEAR COINCIDENCE AS TO THE DATES OF CERTAIN DIVIDENDS AND
ADVANCES."  REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS RESPECT TO THE RELATIONSHIP WHICH
MOP BEARS TO THE VARIOUS COMPANIES IN THE GULF COAST LINES SYSTEM
(HEREINAFTER CALLED GCL).  IN 1924, MOP ACQUIRED A CONTROLLING INTEREST
IN NOTM AND THEREBY INHERITED COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE GCL SYSTEM, THE
RAIL LINES OF WHICH ARE INTERLACED WITH OTHERS IN THE MOP SYSTEM.  NOTM
AT ALL TIMES HAS BEEN PRIMARILY A HOLDING COMPANY OWNING ALL THE STOCKS
AND BONDS OF THE FOURTEEN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES CONSTITUTING THE GCL
GROUP, NOTM ITSELF OPERATING ONLY ABOUT 11% OF THE TOTAL GCL MILEAGE. 
OF THE GCL OPERATING COMPANIES, THE ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE AND MEXICO
RAILWAY CO. (HEREINAFTER CALLED BROWNSVILLE) IS THE MOST IMPORTANT,
OPERATING ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THE GCL MILEAGE AND CONTRIBUTING FROM 61%
TO 84% OF THE GROUP'S INCOME DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION.  NOTM IS
THE ONLY ONE OF THE GCL GROUP WHICH HAS SECURITIES OUTSTANDING IN THE
HANDS OF THE PUBLIC. 

ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT FINDINGS, MOP'S POLICY IN ADVANCING
THE $2,795,000 TO NOTM WAS TO REIMBURSE NOTM'S TREASURY FOR ADDITIONS
AND BETTERMENTS TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE GCL SYSTEM.  NOTM ACTED AS
BANKER FOR THAT SYSTEM.  THE GCL SUBSIDIARIES WERE NOT IN A POSITION
FROM 1925 TO 1930 TO FINANCE THEIR OWN IMPROVEMENTS EXCEPT OUT OF
EARNINGS AND BY BORROWING FROM NOTM.  MOST OF THEIR FREIGHT REVENUES
WERE CLEARED THROUGH NOTM; AS THESE ITEMS WERE RECEIVED BY NOTM, THEY
WERE CREDITED AGAINST THE OBLIGATIONS CREATED BY THE LOANS FROM NOTM TO
THE SUBSIDIARIES.  BUT SINCE THE TOTAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES
FOR OPERATING EXPENSES, DIVIDENDS AND IMPROVEMENTS WERE IN EXCESS OF
THE RECEIPTS, THE UNPAID ACCOUNTS MOUNTED.  FINALLY MOP HAD TO BEGIN
LOANING MONEY TO NOTM TO COVER THESE ACCOUNTS.  IT IS IN THIS WAY THAT
MOP'S ADVANCES ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TOWARD THE IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM OF THE GCL SYSTEM. 

IT IS VIGOROUSLY DENIED THAT THESE MOP ADVANCES WERE IN ANY WAY USED
TO PAY FOR THE ALMOST SIMULTANEOUS DIVIDENDS FROM NOTM TO MOP, SUCH A
CONTENTION BEING TERMED "SUPERFICIAL" AND CONTRARY TO "BASIC PRINCIPLES
OF ACCOUNTING."  IN SUPPORT OF THAT DENIAL, AN ILLUSTRATION IS USED. 
ASSUME THAT NOTM RECEIVES $200,000 CASH FROM NET EARNINGS ON JANUARY
31, WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT THIS AMOUNT WILL BE NEEDED TO PAY A BILL FOR
A NEW FREIGHT YARD FOR A SUBSIDIARY.  NOTM ALSO KNOWS THAT ON APRIL 1 A
$100,000 CASH DIVIDEND TO MOP WILL BE DUE.  INSTEAD OF BORROWING TO PAY
FOR THE NEW FREIGHT YARD, NOTM USES THE $200,000 CASH FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  THEN, THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE DIVIDEND DATE, NOTM BORROWS
$100,000 FROM MOP TO REIMBURSE THE NOTM TREASURY IN PART FOR THE
INVESTMENT IN THE NEW FREIGHT YARD.  THIS SAVES NOTM ABOUT TWO MONTHS'
INTEREST ON $100,000 OF THE MONEY SPENT FOR THE FREIGHT YARD.  THE FACT
THAT A $100,000 CASH DIVIDEND IS PAID THREE DAYS AFTER THE $100,000
LOAN IS THOUGHT TO BE A MERE COINCIDENCE, THE DIVIDEND AND THE LOAN
HAVING NO CONNECTION.    BUT IN THIS ILLUSTRATION IT IS OBVIOUS THAT
NOTM HAS INSUFFICIENT CASH TO FINANCE BOTH THE $200,000 FREIGHT YARD
AND THE $100,000 DIVIDEND.  IT HAS TO BORROW MONEY FOR ONE PURPOSE OR
THE OTHER.  BUT TO SAY THAT IT HERE BORROWS $100,000 TO HELP PAY FOR
THE FREIGHT YARD IS UNREALISTIC.  NOTM HAS ENOUGH CASH TO PAY FOR THE
FREIGHT YARD AND IT USES THE CASH JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE.  TWO MONTHS
LATER IT HAS THE CHOICE OF (1) BORROWING $100,000 AND PAYING THE
DIVIDEND, OR (2) NOT BORROWING THE MONEY AND NOT PAYING THE DIVIDEND. 
IT CHOOSES THE FORMER COURSE OF ACTION.  BY SUCH ACTION, NOTM HAS
BORROWED MONEY TO PAY A DIVIDEND.    THE FOREGOING ILLUSTRATION
INDICATES WHAT THE RECORD IN THIS CASE AMPLY DEMONSTRATES - NAMELY,
THAT THE MOP ADVANCES FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO HAVE BEEN FOR THE
PAYMENT OF GCL IMPROVEMENTS WERE IN REALITY ADVANCES FOR THE PAYMENT OF
DIVIDENDS BY NOTM, DIVIDENDS WHICH FOR THE MOST PART WENT TO MOP. 
CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATE ENTITY, NOTM RARELY HAD ENOUGH INCOME FROM THE
TIME MOP ACQUIRED CONTROL IN 1924 TO THE START OF REORGANIZATION IN
1933 TO PAY THE REGULAR DIVIDENDS; LOANS WERE ESSENTIAL IF MOP WAS TO
CONTINUE TO RECEIVE ITS SHARE OF THESE DIVIDENDS. 

        YEAR                   NET INCOME    DIVIDENDS 

1925.....................      $839,679.00    $1,038,198 

1926.....................     1,393,806.58     1,038,198 

1927.....................       937,098.90     1,038,198 

1928.....................       742,058.00     1,038,198 

1929.....................     1,153,257.54     1,038,198 

1930.....................       854,139.71     1,038,198 

1931.....................    *  399,487.80     1,038,198 

1932.....................     (-951,607.76)         NONE 

*AFTER DEDUCTION OF $3,155,000 FOR THAT PORTION OF THE DIVIDENDS ON
BROWNSVILLE STOCK HELD BY NOTM WHICH WAS UNPAID IN 1931. 

AFTER STUDYING THESE DIVIDENDS FROM NOTM TO MOP, THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE INVESTIGATING RAILROADS
(COMPOSED OF SENATORS WHEELER AND TRUMAN) CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE N.O.T. & M. ITSELF NEVER EARNED ENOUGH TO PAY THESE DIVIDENDS. 
IN NONE OF THE 6 YEARS, 1926 THROUGH 1931, DID THE N.O.T. & M. EARN
MORE THAN $605,000(EXCLUSIVE OF DIVIDENDS FROM ITS SUBSIDIARY, THE ST.
LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE & MEXICO).  IN 3 OF THE 6 YEARS, THE ROAD SHOWED A
DEFICIT AFTER FIXED CHARGES.  FOR THE 6-YEAR PERIOD CONSIDERED AS A
WHOLE ITS STATED NET INCOME TOTALED A BARE $90,000(AS AGAINST DIVIDEND
DECLARATIONS TOTALING $6,300,000). 

"EVEN THE $90,000 NET INCOME FIGURE WAS A CONSIDERABLE
OVERSTATEMENT.  EACH YEAR THE N.O.T. & M. REGULARLY INCLUDED IN ITS
OPERATING EXPENSES A CERTAIN SUM FOR DEPRECIATION OF ITS EQUIPMENT. 
CONSISTENTLY, YEAR AFTER YEAR, THE AMOUNT CHARGED FOR DEPRECIATION WAS
INADEQUATE.  A STATEMENT FROM THE FILES OF THE RAILROAD ITSELF SHOWS
THAT FOR THE PERIOD 1926 THROUGH 1930 THE N.O.T. & M.'S NET INCOME WAS
OVERSTATED (THROUGH UNDERSTATEMENT OF DEPRECIATION) BY MORE THAN
$411,000.  IF THE RAILROAD'S DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY CHARGED,
IT WOULD HAVE SHOWN A DEFICIT FOR THE 6 YEARS 1926-1931 OF $321,000
AFTER FIXED CHARGES.  YET DURING THIS PERIOD THE MISSOURI PACIFIC TOOK
$5,580,000 IN DIVIDENDS OUT OF THE N.O.T. & M."  S. REP. NO. 25, PART
9, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 2-3. 

THE CONSOLIDATED PICTURE OF NOTM AND ITS GCL SUBSIDIARIES WAS EQUALLY
INDICATIVE OF THE LACK OF AN ABILITY TO PAY DIVIDENDS TO MOP WITHOUT
BORROWING. 

        YEAR                  NET INCOME    DIVIDENDS 

1925.....................       $2,547,633   $1,038,198 

1926.....................        1,783,278    1,038,198 

1927.....................       (-202,438)    1,038,198 

1928.....................          956,433    1,038,198 

1929.....................          845,064    1,038,198 

1930.....................          674,950    1,038,198 

1931.....................     (-1,122,422)    1,038,198 

CARE WAS TAKEN, HOWEVER, TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF BORROWING FROM
MOP TO PAY DIVIDENDS TO MOP, A PRACTICE OF DOUBTFUL LEGALITY.  WHENEVER
IT WAS FOUND THAT NOTM HAD INADEQUATE INCOME TO MEET A PROSPECTIVE
DIVIDEND PAYMENT, MOP OFFICERS WOULD DIRECT BROWNSVILLE, NOTM'S
PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARY, TO TAKE STEPS TO DECLARE A DIVIDEND ON ITS STOCK,
ALL OF WHICH WAS HELD BY NOTM.  USUALLY THIS DIVIDEND WAS THE PRECISE
AMOUNT BY WHICH NOTM LACKED MONEY TO PAY ITS OWN DIVIDEND.  FN2  BUT
BROWNSVILLE INVARIABLY WAS UNABLE TO MAKE A CASH PAYMENT OF ITS
DIVIDENDS TO NOTM AND MANY OF ITS PRE-1931 DIVIDEND DECLARATIONS WERE
CONSIDERED COLLECTED BY NOTM ONLY AT THE EXPENSE OF LEAVING UNPAID
BROWNSVILLE'S DEBTS TO NOTM FOR ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES.  THESE PAPER
DIVIDEND DECLARATIONS WERE CAPPED IN 1931 WHEN BROWNSVILLE WAS ORDERED
TO DECLARE DIVIDENDS TO NOTM OF $4,155,000; IN THAT YEAR BROWNSVILLE
EARNED BUT $398,000.  THE BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION IN 1936 INFORMED NOTM THAT THESE 1931 DIVIDENDS WERE
DECLARED AT A TIME WHEN NOTM WAS AWARE THAT BROWNSVILLE "WAS WITHOUT
FUNDS TO PAY IT, AND EVEN ON THE BASIS OF PAST EXPERIENCE, THE EARNINGS
OF THE COMPANY, HAD BUSINESS CONTINUED GOOD, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ADEQUATE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT UNTIL SOME FUTURE DATE."  THIS FACT
RENDERED THE DIVIDENDS IMPROPER UNDER COMMISSION RULES.  AND WHILE IT
WAS TOO LATE TO CORRECT THE INCOME ACCOUNTS OF NOTM WHICH HAD ALREADY
BEEN CLOSED, NOTM WAS DIRECTED TO WRITE OFF THE UNPAID PORTION OF THE
1931 DIVIDENDS (SOME $1,400,000) THROUGH PROFIT AND LOSS. 

THIS 1931 INCIDENT GREW OUT OF THE FACT THAT NOTM WAS OPERATING THAT
YEAR AT A GREAT LOSS.  IT BEGAN THAT YEAR WITH A PROFIT-AND-LOSS
BALANCE OF ONLY $709,000 AND OPERATED AT A LOSS OF $606,000.  IT ALSO
HAD TO CHARGE OFF $875,000 TO CORRECT ITS FORMER INADEQUATE
DEPRECIATION ACCRUALS.  BY THE END OF 1931, NOTM WOULD HAVE SHOWN A
DEBIT PROFIT-AND-LOSS BALANCE OF $772,000 OR MORE.  MOP, OF COURSE, WAS
DEMANDING PAYMENT OF THE USUAL $1,038,000 DIVIDEND FOR THE YEAR.  "THE
PROBLEM WAS SOLVED AS IT HAD BEEN SOLVED IN PREVIOUS YEARS - BY MILKING
THE BROWNSVILLE.  BUT THIS TIME THE MILKING WOULD HAVE TO BE THOROUGH. 
...  THE SOLUTION FOUND WAS TO CAUSE THE BROWNSVILLE TO DECLARE AN
EXTRAORDINARY DIVIDEND OF $3,500,000 - A DIVIDEND SEVEN TIMES THE PAR
VALUE OF THE STOCK UPON WHICH IT WAS DECLARED.  OTHER BROWNSVILLE
DIVIDENDS TO THE N.O.T. & M. BROUGHT THE TOTAL FOR THE YEAR TO
$4,155,000, ENOUGH TO FILL UP THE N.O.T.M.'S PROFIT-AND-LOSS DEFICIT
AND TO ENABLE THE LATTER TO DECLARE A $1,038,000 DIVIDEND IN FAVOR
CHIEFLY OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC."  S. REP. NO. 25, PART 9, 76TH CONG.,
3D SESS., P. 10. 

THUS THE BROWNSVILLE DIVIDEND DECLARATIONS GAVE NOTM EARNED SURPLUSES
ON PAPER WITHOUT GIVING IT ANY CASH WITH WHICH TO PAY ITS DIVIDENDS TO
MOP.  DIVIDENDS DECLARED BY BROWNSVILLE WERE ENTERED AS INCOME TO NOTM
EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT PAID.  AN OSTENSIBLE LEGAL BASIS WAS THEREBY
ESTABLISHED FOR A DECLARATION OF DIVIDENDS TO MOP.  NOTM WOULD THEN
BORROW MONEY FROM MOP TO PAY FOR THOSE DIVIDENDS.  THIS AGAIN WAS
LARGELY A PAPER TRANSACTION.  THE EARNED SURPLUS UPON WHICH THE COURT
TODAY PLACES GREAT RELIANCE IN AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS
WAS BUT A FIGMENT OF THE MOP IMAGINATION.  "THE INTRICATE ACCOUNTING
DEVICES EVOLVED BY RAILROAD AND HOLDING COMPANY OFFICIALS IN AN ATTEMPT
TO LEGALIZE DIVIDEND PAYMENTS UNJUSTIFIED BY EARNINGS RESULTED, BOTH IN
1930 AND IN 1931, IN THE PAYMENT OF N.O.T. & M. DIVIDENDS OUT OF
CAPITAL, A PROCEDURE DISGUISED IN 1930 BEHIND FAULTY BOOKKEEPING AND IN
1931 BEHIND AN OUT-AND-OUT VIOLATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ACCOUNTING REGULATIONS."  S. REP. NO. 25, PART 9, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.,
P. 14. 

BY ADVANCING TO NOTM $2,795,000, MOP RECEIVED BACK $2,654,000 IN
DIVIDENDS WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER THE VARIOUS LOANS, MAKING A TOTAL NET
ADVANCE OF $141,000.  MOP'S CASH POSITION WAS UNAFFECTED BY THESE
VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS, THE NOTM DIVIDENDS MERELY GIVING IT A PAPER
PROFIT-AND-LOSS BALANCE OUT OF WHICH TO DECLARE ITS OWN DIVIDENDS. 
HENCE MOP, LIKE NOTM, WAS FORCED TO BORROW MONEY; IT DID SO FROM
OUTSIDE SOURCES.  YET MOP NOW SEEKS TO CLAIM NEARLY ALL OF THE
$2,795,000 PLUS INTEREST, AN AGGREGATE OF ABOUT $4,795,000, FOR
ENGAGING IN THESE BOOKKEEPING TRANSACTIONS AND FOR EXTENDING CREDIT TO
THE EXTENT OF $141,000. 

NOTM'S FISCAL AFFAIRS IN THIS RESPECT HAVE CERTAINLY NOT "BEEN
CONDUCTED WITH AN EYE SINGLE TO ITS OWN INTERESTS" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE.  TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS CO., SUPRA, 323. 
NOR CAN THESE TRANSACTIONS BE SAID TO MEET THE TEST OF "INHERENT
FAIRNESS" AND THE REQUIREMENT OF AN "ARM'S LENGTH BARGAIN," WHICH ARE
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THAT DOCTRINE.  PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA, 306
307.  HERE, AS IN THE TAYLOR CASE, DIVIDENDS WERE DECLARED IN THE FACE
OF THE FACT THAT NOTM HAD NOT THE CASH AVAILABLE TO PAY THEM AND WAS,
AT THE TIME, BORROWING IN LARGE AMOUNTS FROM MOP.  AND SEE IN RE
COMMONWEALTH LIGHT & POWER CO., 141 F.2D 734, 738.  COMPELLING A
SUBSIDIARY TO PAY DIVIDENDS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE TYPE OF
MISMANAGEMENT BY A PARENT WHICH LEADS TO THE SUBORDINATION OF THE
RESULTING INDEBTEDNESS. 

    IV. 

ANOTHER PART OF THE $10,565,226.78 MOP CLAIM RELATED TO AN
INTERCOMPANY ADJUSTMENT OF $1,261,009.84 MADE DURING OCTOBER, 1932, AT
THE HEIGHT OF THE DEPRESSION AND SHORTLY BEFORE THE SEC. 77 PROCEEDINGS
BEGAN. 

THE INTERNATIONAL-GREAT NORTHERN RAILROAD CO. (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
I-GN) WAS A SUBSIDIARY OF NOTM, ALTHOUGH NOT DEEMED A PART OF THE GCL
SYSTEM.  I-GN HAD ADVANCED CASH OR DELIVERED MATERIALS TO TEN OF NOTM'S
GCL SUBSIDIARIES; AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1932, THESE TEN COMPANIES WERE
INDEBTED TO I-GN IN THE SUM OF $1,261,009.84 ON ACCOUNT OF THESE
TRANSACTIONS.  ON THE SAME DATE, I-GN WAS INDEBTED TO MOP IN AN AMOUNT
IN EXCESS OF $1,261,009.84. 

IT WAS KNOWN AT THIS TIME THAT THE I-GN CLAIMS AGAINST THE NOTM
SUBSIDIARIES WERE PRESENTLY UNCOLLECTIBLE.  IT WAS ALSO APPARENT THAT
NOTM WAS IN BETTER FINANCIAL HEALTH THAN I-GN.  MOP, WHICH WAS THEN IN
NEED OF LOANS FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES, SOUGHT TO IMPROVE ITS OWN FINANCIAL
CONDITION BY SHIFTING DEBTORS.  IT DID THIS BY INCREASING ITS CLAIM
AGAINST NOTM BY $1,261,009.84 AND BY DECREASING ITS CLAIM AGAINST I-GN
BY THAT SAME FIGURE.  TO MAKE THIS BOOKKEEPING SHUFFLE POSSIBLE, I-GN
CREDITED NOTM AND ITS OTHER SUBSIDIARIES WITH THE PAYMENT OF THE
$1,261,009.84 DEBT WHICH THOSE SUBSIDIARIES OWED.  MOP THEN CREDITED I
GN WITH PAYMENT OF A LIKE AMOUNT, CREDITING IT AGAINST I-GN'S DEBT TO
MOP.  NOTM THEREBY FOUND ITSELF OBLIGATED TO PAY MOP AN ADDITIONAL
$1,261,009.84.  APPROPRIATE ENTRIES WERE MADE, OF COURSE, IN THE
JOURNALS OF THE AFFECTED COMPANIES. 

NOTM HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN LIABLE TO PAY THIS AMOUNT TO MOP; NOR
DID IT RECEIVE ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM MOP IN RETURN FOR ASSUMING THE
DEBT.  YET NO VALID REASON IS SUGGESTED WHY NOTM SHOULD HAVE BEEN
FORCED TO SHOULDER THIS OBLIGATION, THEREBY DECREASING THE ASSETS
AVAILABLE TO ITS CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS.  CERTAINLY IT WAS NOT
ESSENTIAL, AS HAS BEEN CLAIMED, THAT NOTM ACQUIRE THE DEBT TO PROTECT
ITS OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF ITS GCL SUBSIDIARIES.  NOTM WAS
INVULNERABLE IN THAT RESPECT, OWNING ALL THE SECURITIES OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES, AND THE ADDITION OF THIS DEBT ADDED NO NEW PROTECTION. 
THE CONTENTION IS ALSO MADE THAT NOTM OWED A FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO I
GN, ITS SUBSIDIARY, AND THAT IT WAS NOTM'S DUTY TO RELIEVE I-GN OF ANY
UNCOLLECTIBLE ITEMS OWED BY OTHER NOTM SUBSIDIARIES.  THE FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATION GROWS OUT OF THE FACT THAT NOTM OWNED ALL THE SECURITIES OF
ITS GCL SUBSIDIARIES.  THIS CONTENTION IS CLOSELY ALLIED TO THE THEORY
THAT NOTM AND THE SUBSIDIARIES ARE A SINGLE FINANCIAL ENTITY AND THAT
IT IS IMMATERIAL WHICH COMPANY WITHIN THAT ENTITY IS LIABLE FOR THE
DEBT.  BUT THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF NOTM AND ITS GCL SUBSIDIARIES DOES
NOT LEGITIMATIZE THE INTERCOMPANY ADJUSTMENT FROM AN EQUITABLE POINT OF
VIEW.  IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE DEALING WITH THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS
AND STOCKHOLDERS WHO ARE DIRECTLY INTERESTED IN THE FINANCIAL WELL
BEING OF NOTM AS AN ENTERPRISE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ITS
SUBSIDIARIES.  HENCE IT IS NECESSARY HERE TO RECOGNIZE AND GIVE EFFECT
TO THE CORPORATE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN NOTM AND ITS GCL SUBSIDIARIES. 

THE RESULTING PICTURE IS ONE OF A BOOKKEEPING WRITE-UP OF NOTM
INDEBTEDNESS AT A TIME WHEN NOTM WAS ON THE THRESHOLD OF
REORGANIZATION.  NOTM RECEIVED NOTHING WHATEVER TO COMPENSATE FOR THE
INCREASE IN ITS DEBT STRUCTURE.  THE INCREASE SERVED ONLY TO ENABLE
MOP, THE PARENT, TO POSSESS WHAT WAS THOUGHT TO BE A MORE FAVORABLE
CREDITOR'S POSITION.  SUCH TREATMENT OF A SUBSIDIARY'S DEBT STRUCTURE
DOES NOT SQUARE WITH A PARENT'S FIDUCIARY POSITION.  A SUBSIDIARY IS
ENTITLED TO BE SADDLED BY A PARENT ONLY WITH THOSE DEBTS WHICH MAY
FAIRLY BE ALLOCATED TO IT, DEBTS WHICH GROW OUT OF LEGITIMATE BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS.  TO TRANSFER DEBTS PROMISCUOUSLY FROM ONE SUBSIDIARY TO
ANOTHER MERELY TO AUGMENT THE PARENT'S CREDITOR STATUS IS TO INFLICT AN
INJUSTICE UPON THE CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF THE SUBSIDIARY TO
WHICH THE DEBT IS SHIFTED.  IT IS A TYPE OF MISMANAGEMENT OF A
SUBSIDIARY WHICH PROPERLY CALLS THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE INTO OPERATION,
CAUSING THE SUBORDINATION OF THE PARENT'S CLAIM FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE
TRANSFERRED DEBT. 

                            V. 

THE REMAINDER OF THE $10,565,226.78 CLAIM CONCERNED THE ADVANCES MADE
BY MOP TO NOTM TO ACQUIRE FIVE TEXAS "FEEDER" RAILROAD LINES AT A COST
OF OVER $5,500,000. 

COMSTOCK'S CONTENTION IN THIS RESPECT IS THAT THE ACQUISITION OF
THESE LINES WAS FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF MOP AND I-GN, RATHER THAN FOR
NOTM OR THE GCL SYSTEM.  REFERENCE IS MADE TO A STATEMENT OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THAT THESE "FEEDER" LINES "WERE REALLY
ACQUIRED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE (MOP) SYSTEM, AND  ...  THEY
HAVE USUALLY BEEN OPERATED AT A DEFICIT SINCE ACQUISITION."  MISSOURI
PACIFIC R. CO. REORGANIZATION, 239 I.C.C. 7, 71.  MOREOVER, SOME OF THE
"FEEDER" LINES ARE SAID NOT TO CONNECT AT ALL WITH THE LINES OF NOTM OR
ITS GCL SUBSIDIARIES.  AND IT IS THOUGHT THAT SOME OF THE MOP ADVANCES
WERE USED TO COVER OPERATING DEFICITS OF THE ACQUIRED PROPERTY.  SUCH
IS THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION TO THE RECOGNITION OF MOP'S CLAIM AGAINST
NOTM FOR THE COST OF THE "FEEDER" LINES.    THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
RECORD TO SUPPORT AN APPLICATION OF THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE TO THIS
ASPECT OF MOP'S CLAIM.  THE USE OF NOTM TO ACQUIRE SUBSIDIARY RAIL
LINES WHICH HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN OPERATED AT A LOSS DOES NOT
NECESSARILY INDICATE IMPROPER ACTION BY MOP; A MERE MISTAKE IN BUSINESS
JUDGMENT MAY BE ALL THAT WAS INVOLVED.  AND THE FACT THAT THE
ACQUISITION MAY HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOME PART OF THE
MOP SYSTEM OTHER THAN THE GCL COMPANIES DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT
THE ACQUISITION WAS OUTSIDE THE LEGITIMATE SCOPE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF
NOTM, A HOLDING COMPANY IN THE MOP SYSTEM. 

INDEED, THE MAIN THRUST OF COMSTOCK'S OBJECTION TO THIS SEGMENT OF
THE MOP CLAIM IS DIRECTED TOWARD THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MOP'S MANAGEMENT
OF NOTM.  THE THOUGHT IS THAT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARENT AND THE
SUBSIDIARY HAS BEEN SO COMPLEX AND SO SATURATED WITH MISMANAGEMENT AS
TO WARRANT SUBORDINATION OF THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE PARENT WITHOUT
BOTHERING TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS.  SEE TAYLOR
V. STANDARD GAS CO., SUPRA, 323.  BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT SUCH
AN APPROACH TO THE MOP-NOTM RELATIONSHIP.  THERE HAVE BEEN, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, TWO EXAMPLES OF MISMANAGEMENT ON MOP'S PART THAT WARRANT THE
APPLICATION OF THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE.  BUT THOSE SITUATIONS ARE
SEPARABLE IN NATURE FROM THE OTHER TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN MOP AND NOTM. 
AND THE DEEP ROCK DOCTRINE IS NOT ONE THAT OPERATES TO BAR AN ENTIRE
PARENTAL CLAIM IF ONLY A SEPARABLE PORTION OF IT IS INEQUITABLE.  IT IS
ONLY WHERE, AS IN THE TAYLOR CASE, THE PARENT-SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIP
HAS BEEN SO COMPLEX THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RESTORE THE SUBSIDIARY TO
THE POSITION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN BUT FOR THE PARENT'S MISMANAGEMENT
THAT THE ENTIRE CLAIM MAY BE SUBORDINATED WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING THE
GOOD TRANSACTIONS FROM THE BAD.  SUCH IS NOT THE SITUATION IN THIS
CASE. 

                  VI. 

FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE UNCONTESTED FACTS IN
THE RECORD, I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT OF THE $10,565,226.78 MOP CLAIM,
THE PORTION OF THE $2,795,000 RELATING TO DIVIDEND ADVANCES DURING THE
PERIOD IN QUESTION AND THE $1,261,009.84 RELATING TO THE INTERCOMPANY
BOOKKEEPING TRANSACTION SHOULD BE SUBORDINATED TO THE CLAIMS OF THE
PLEDGEES OF NOTM STOCK.  IN HOLDING OTHERWISE, THE DISTRICT COURT
COMMITTED AN ERROR WHICH THIS COURT SHOULD NOT OVERLOOK. 

FN1  THE LEADING PARTY OPPOSING COMSTOCK ON THIS APPEAL WAS THE GROUP
OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, HOLDING FIRST AND REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS
OF MOP.  THIS GROUP REPRESENTED LESS THAN 10% OF SUCH BONDS AND
ADMITTED THAT IT HAD "NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE CONTROVERSY
REVOLVING ABOUT" THE MOP CLAIM, ITS ONLY INTEREST BEING TO EXPEDITE A
REORGANIZATION PLAN THEN UNDER CONSIDERATION.  BUT THIS GROUP OFFERED
THE ONLY EVIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOP CLAIM. 
ANOTHER PARTY WAS THE NOTM MORTGAGE AND INCOME BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE,
WHICH ALSO ADMITTED IT HAD NO DIRECT INTEREST IN THE MOP CLAIM
LITIGATION.  OTHER PARTIES INCLUDED MOP, THE MOP COMMON AND PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS COMMITTEES, THE MOP TRUSTEE, ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, AND
CERTAIN GROUPS OF CREDITORS AND INDENTURE TRUSTEES.  THESE PARTIES ARE
NOW RESPONDENTS BEFORE US. 

FN2  THE METHOD BY WHICH MOP WOULD BRING ABOUT THE BROWNSVILLE
DECLARATION OF DIVIDENDS IS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING TYPICAL EXCHANGE OF
LETTERS BETWEEN NOTM AND MOP OFFICIALS:

                                      "HOUSTON, JANUARY 10TH, 1931 

"MR. L. W. BALDWIN:  THE NET INCOME OF THE NOT&M FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDING NOVEMBER 30TH, 1930, REFLECTS A DEFICIT OF $56,613.10, WHICH IS
$316,188.85 SHORT OF QUARTERLY DIVIDEND REQUIREMENT OF THE NOT&M DUE
DECEMBER 1ST, 1930. 

"I AM ATTACHING HERETO STATEMENT SHOWING RESULT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, AND NOVEMBER 1930. 

"FOLLOWING PAST PRACTICE, WE WILL ARRANGE FOR MR. COLE TO LIST FOR
ACTION AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STLB&M
(BROWNSVILLE), A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THAT DIVIDEND BE DECLARED OUT OF
THE SURPLUS OF THE STLB&M IN FAVOR OF THE NOT&M.

                                           "H. R. SAFFORD. 

                                           "F." 

THE REPLY TO THE FOREGOING LETTER FOLLOWS:

                            "ST. LOUIS, MO., JANUARY 13, 1931 

"MR. SAFFORD:  REFERRING TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 10TH, FILE 482-2,
WITH REFERENCE TO DECLARING DIVIDEND OUT OF THE SURPLUS OF THE ST.
LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE & MEXICO RAILWAY COMPANY IN FAVOR OF THE NEW
ORLEANS, TEXAS & MEXICO RAILWAY COMPANY. 

                                         "L. W. BALDWIN,

                                          "PER C.D.P." 

"PER C.D.P." 

ON JUNE 17, 1931, BROWNSVILLE DECLARED A DIVIDEND OF $316,188.85, THE
PRECISE AMOUNT OF THE NOTM DEFICIT; THE DIVIDEND WAS DECLARED EFFECTIVE
AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1930, ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE DIVIDEND DATE FOR NOTM'S
STOCK. 
..END :
























TAYLOR V. ALABAMA, 335 U.S. 252 


NO. 721.  ARGUED APRIL 30 AND MAY 3, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1948.  -
249 ALA. 667, 32 SO.2D 659, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE ALABAMA PROCEDURE, WHEREBY A TRIAL COURT OF THAT STATE, BY
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, MAY SET ASIDE ITS OWN JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL
CASE BECAUSE OF AN ERROR OF FACT NOT APPARENT ON THE COMMON LAW RECORD,
IS A PROCEDURE LONG RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMON LAW AND CONSTITUTES DUE
PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 254, 259-261. 

2.  IN REQUIRING THAT PERMISSION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT BE
OBTAINED BY PETITIONER BEFORE FILING SUCH A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS IN A TRIAL COURT, WHERE THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT ALREADY
HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY SUCH SUPREME COURT, THE PROCEDURE OF THE STATE IS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LONG-ESTABLISHED COMMON LAW PRACTICE AND CONSTITUTES
DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 254-255, 261. 

3.  IN A TRIAL IN A STATE COURT OF ALABAMA IN WHICH HE WAS
REPRESENTED BY COMPETENT COUNSEL ACCEPTABLE TO HIM, DID NOT TESTIFY IN
HIS OWN DEFENSE AND MADE NO CLAIM THAT HIS CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS
INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE WERE COERCED, AND IN WHICH TESTIMONY WAS
INTRODUCED AS TO HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENT THAT HIS CONFESSIONS AND
ADMISSIONS HAD NOT BEEN COERCED, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF RAPE AND
SENTENCED TO DEATH.  ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA AFFIRMED. 
THEREAFTER, THROUGH NEW COUNSEL, HE PETITIONED THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA FOR AN ORDER GRANTING HIM THE RIGHT TO FILE A PETITION IN THE
TRIAL COURT FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, CLAIMING THAT THE
CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS USED AGAINST HIM AT THE TRIAL HAD BEEN
COERCED AND THAT, THROUGH FEAR OF FURTHER REPRISALS, HE HAD FALSELY
TOLD HIS OWN TRIAL COUNSEL THE CONTRARY.  AFTER ARGUMENT AND UPON
CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THAT IN THE TRIAL COURT
AND THE AFFIDAVITS FILED IN SUPPORT OF AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE
PETITION, BUT WITHOUT ANY STATEMENT FROM PETITIONER'S TRIAL COUNSEL,
THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA FOUND THAT THE AVERMENTS OF THE PETITION
WERE UNREASONABLE, THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABILITY OF TRUTH CONTAINED
THEREIN, AND THAT THE PROPOSED ATTACK UPON THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT
MERITORIOUS.  IT ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE PETITION.  HELD:  IN SO DOING,
IT DID NOT DENY PETITIONER DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 261-272. 

(A)  THE ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT IS LIMITED TO A DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ALABAMA IN DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER TO FILE HIS
PETITION NOT MERELY HAD COMMITTED AN ERROR BUT HAD DEPRIVED THE
PETITIONER OF LIFE OR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP. 261
262. 

(B)  IN PASSING UPON THE PETITION, THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA WAS
NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION AT FACE VALUE. 
THAT COURT WAS CALLED UPON TO DECIDE NOT ONLY WHETHER, IF TRUE, IT
PRESENTED A MERITORIOUS GROUND FOR SETTING ASIDE ITS PREVIOUS JUDGMENT
BUT, IN ITS SUPERVISORY CAPACITY OVER THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW, TO
DETERMINE ALSO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE
PETITION AND THE PROBABILITY OR IMPROBABILITY OF THEIR TRUTH.  P. 262. 

(C)  THE PETITION AND THE AFFIDAVITS FILED IN ITS SUPPORT MUST BE
TESTED FOR THEIR REASONABLENESS, THE PROBABILITY OF THEIR TRUTH, THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ATTACK THEY MAKE ON THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT AND
THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL ENFORCEMENT OF LAW WITH JUSTICE TO
ALL - IN THE LIGHT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD ALREADY MADE IN THE CASE.  PP.
264-265. 

(D)  IN THE LIGHT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO IT
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, AND THAT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE
AVERMENTS OF THE PETITION WERE UNREASONABLE, THAT THERE WAS NO
PROBABILITY OF TRUTH CONTAINED THEREIN AND THAT THE PROPOSED ATTACK
UPON THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT MERITORIOUS, AND IN RECOGNITION OF THAT
COURT'S SUPERVISORY CAPACITY OVER THE PROCEDURE IN THE CRIMINAL TRIALS
OF THAT STATE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ALABAMA IN DENYING THE PETITION WAS SUCH AN ARBITRARY ONE AS IN
ITSELF TO AMOUNT TO DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP. 265-272. 

TAYLOR V. ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

AFTER PETITIONER HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF RAPE AND SENTENCED TO DEATH
AND HIS CONVICTION HAD BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
(249 ALA. 130, 30 SO.2D 256), HE PETITIONED THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
IN THE TRIAL COURT, CLAIMING FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT HIS CONFESSIONS
AND ADMISSIONS INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL HAD BEEN COERCED. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA DENIED THE PETITION.  249 ALA. 667, 32
SO.2D 659.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 866.  AFFIRMED, P.
272. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE STATE OF ALABAMA DEPRIVED THE
PETITIONER OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT  FN1
TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT
STATE DENIED HIM PERMISSION TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM
NOBIS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA.  WE HOLD THAT IT
DID NOT.  WE HOLD ALSO THAT THE ALABAMA PROCEDURE, WHEREBY ONE OF ITS
TRIAL COURTS, BY WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, MAY SET ASIDE ITS OWN
JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE BECAUSE OF AN ERROR OF FACT NOT APPARENT ON
THE COMMON LAW RECORD, IS A PROCEDURE LONG RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMON LAW
AND CONSTITUTES DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WE
HOLD FURTHER THAT THE PROCEDURE OF THAT STATE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LONG-ESTABLISHED COMMON LAW PRACTICE AND CONSTITUTES DUE PROCESS OF LAW
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN REQUIRING THAT THE PERMISSION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA BE SECURED BY A PETITIONER BEFORE FILING SUCH
A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, IN A TRIAL COURT OF ALABAMA,
IF IT APPEARS THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT ALREADY HAS BEEN AFFIRMED
BY SUCH SUPREME COURT. 

OCTOBER 25, 1946, THE PETITIONER, SAMUEL TAYLOR, A NEGRO, RESIDING IN
PRICHARD, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA, AND THEN 19 YEARS OLD, WAS INDICTED
FOR RAPE.  THE ACT FOR WHICH HE WAS INDICTED WAS AN ATTACK MADE IN
PRICHARD, APRIL 12, 1946, ON A WHITE GIRL THEN 14 YEARS OLD.  OCTOBER
26, HENRI M. ALDRIDGE, OF THE MOBILE COUNTY BAR, WAS APPOINTED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THAT COUNTY TO REPRESENT THE PETITIONER.  HOWEVER,
OCTOBER 28, ON COUNSEL'S OWN MOTION, THIS ORDER WAS SET ASIDE AND,
THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL, HE REPRESENTED THE PETITIONER, EVIDENTLY AS
COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONER'S CHOICE OR OF THAT OF HIS FAMILY.  DECEMBER
30, ON MOTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE SAME COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED TO
PREPARE AND PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER'S APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA.  HE THUS REPRESENTED THE PETITIONER AT LEAST FROM OCTOBER 26,
1946, UNTIL THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA,
APRIL 24, 1947, AND IT IS CLEAR THAT HE RENDERED ADEQUATE AND COMPETENT
SERVICE.  FN2 

THE TRIAL TOOK PLACE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, NOVEMBER
19, 1946.  AFTER A FULL HEARING IN WHICH THE PETITIONER DID NOT TAKE
THE STAND, THE TRIAL JUDGE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY FOUR ALTERNATIVE FORMS
OF VERDICTS:  "GUILTY OF RAPE AS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, AND FURTHER
FIND HE SHALL SUFFER DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION"; "GUILTY OF RAPE, AS
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, AND FURTHER FIND HE SHALL BE IMPRISONED IN
THE PENITENTIARY FOR - " ("WHATEVER YOU SHOULD DETERMINE, NOT LESS THAN
TEN YEARS UP TO LIFE"); "GUILTY OF CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, AS CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT, AND FURTHER FIND HE SHALL BE IMPRISONED IN THE PENITENTIARY
FOR - YEARS" ("WHATEVER YOU SHOULD DETERMINE, NOT LESS THAN TWO NOR
MORE THAN TEN"), AND "NOT GUILTY."  THE JURY RETURNED ITS VERDICT IN
THE FIRST FORM AND THE PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED TO BE ELECTROCUTED
JANUARY 9, 1947, AT THE KILBY PRISON, AT MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA.  NO
MOTION WAS MADE FOR A NEW TRIAL BUT NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS ENTERED AND
THE PETITIONER'S SENTENCE WAS SUSPENDED PENDING THE APPEAL. 

ON APPEAL THE CASE WAS FULLY BRIEFED AND ARGUED, AND, APRIL 24, 1947,
THE JUDGMENT WAS UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED.  TAYLOR V. STATE, 249 ALA. 130,
30 SO.2D 256.  FROM A SUBSEQUENT BRIEF OF THE STATE IT APPEARS THAT THE
PETITIONER DID NOT APPLY FOR A REHEARING, THAT HE WAS LATER DENIED
CLEMENCY BY THE GOVERNOR, AND THAT HE WAS GRANTED A REPRIEVE FROM THE
EXECUTION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 19, 1947. 

SEPTEMBER 18, 1947, THE PETITIONER, REPRESENTED BY NEW COUNSEL,
INSTITUTED THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE AT
MONTGOMERY.  THIS PROCEEDING IS NUMBERED FIRST DIVISION 308 AND IS
ENTITLED "EX PARTE TAYLOR, IN RE NO. 279 SAMUEL TAYLOR APPELLANT V.
STATE OF ALABAMA, APPELLEE."  IT WAS INITIATED BY A PETITION TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA FOR AN ORDER GRANTING THE PETITIONER THE RIGHT
TO FILE A PETITION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA, FOR
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS.  THE PETITION IN THIS NEW PROCEEDING WAS
SWORN TO BY THE PETITIONER AND SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVITS OF THREE MEN
WHO HAD BEEN IN THE PRICHARD JAIL WITH HIM JUNE 29-JULY 3, 1946.  THIS
PETITION AND THESE AFFIDAVITS EXECUTED IN SEPTEMBER, 1947, PRESENTED
FOR THE FIRST TIME A CHARGE THAT THE PETITIONER'S SEVERAL CONFESSIONS,
HIS IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTRIX AND THE DEMONSTRATION OF
LOCATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BY THE PETITIONER AS TO HIS PART IN THE
CRIME, ALL ON JULY 3, 1946, HAD BEEN INDUCED BY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
ADMINISTERED TO HIM OR THREATS MADE TO HIM IN THE PRICHARD JAIL PRIOR
TO THAT DATE.  THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY HAD BEEN
GIVEN REPEATEDLY THAT THE PETITIONER HAD VOLUNTEERED HIS CONFESSIONS
AND THAT HE HAD MADE HIS DISCLOSURES "TO GET IT ALL OFF HIS CHEST." 
THIS ATTITUDE WAS REINFORCED BY THE PETITIONER'S READY AND COMPLETE
DISCLOSURES OF MANY DETAILS OTHERWISE UNAVAILABLE.  IN EACH INSTANCE
THESE WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE AND WERE
DEMONSTRATIVE OF THE UNFAILING TRUTHFULNESS OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY
THE PETITIONER ON JULY 3.  UNTIL THE FILING OF THIS NEW PROCEEDING, THE
PETITIONER'S STATEMENTS HAD NOT BEEN AT ANY POINT SELF-CONTRADICTORY OR
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHER EVIDENCE.  HIS PRESENT PETITION, ON THE OTHER
HAND, IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE STATEMENTS MADE BY HIM TO THE
MAYOR OF PRICHARD AND OTHERS, JULY 3, AND AS TO WHICH THE MAYOR
TESTIFIED AT THE TRIAL, NOVEMBER 19, 1946.  THE PETITIONER NOW ALLEGES
THAT WHEN, APART FROM THE TRIAL, HE "WAS ASKED BY HIS SAID ATTORNEY WHO
REPRESENTED HIM ON THE TRIAL  ...  IF HE WAS MISTREATED OR BEATEN IN
ANY FASHION BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
GIVING OF SAID CONFESSION HE REPLIED IN THE NEGATIVE, BEING UNEDUCATED
AND IGNORANT AS AFORESAID, AND FEARFUL OF FURTHER REPRISALS BY SAID
POLICE OFFICERS."  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HE MADE ANY CONTRARY
DISCLOSURES TO HIS COUNSEL EVEN DURING THE TRIAL OF NOVEMBER 19, 1946,
OR UP TO THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE CASE ON APPEAL, APRIL 24, 1947, ALTHOUGH
THE PETITIONER HAD LONG BEEN OUT OF THE CUSTODY OF THE PRICHARD POLICE
AND WAS AWARE OF THE DILIGENCE WITH WHICH HIS COUNSEL, WITHOUT SUCCESS,
HAD SOUGHT THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL TO UNCOVER POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF
VIOLENCE OR OTHER COERCION IN CONNECTION WITH THE PETITIONER'S
DISCLOSURES MADE ON JULY 3.  IT IS WORTHY OF NOTICE THAT, PRIOR TO THE
ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF EACH STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE NATURE
OF A CONFESSION, HIS COUNSEL DILIGENTLY SOUGHT TO INQUIRE INTO ITS
VOLUNTARINESS, AND NEVER SUCCEEDED IN BRINGING OUT EVIDENCE OF ITS
INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER.  THE TRIAL JUDGE IN EACH INSTANCE EXPRESSLY
FOUND THE EVIDENCE TO BE ADMISSIBLE.  THE PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO
CHANGE HIS ORIGINAL STATEMENT TO HIS COUNSEL WOULD OF COURSE BE
CONSISTENT WITH ITS TRUTHFULNESS AND WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD
BEFORE SEPTEMBER 18, 1947. 

AFTER THE FILING OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDING THE SENTENCE OF EXECUTION
OF THE PETITIONER WAS FURTHER SUSPENDED.  SEPTEMBER 25, 1947, THE STATE
OF ALABAMA FILED ITS MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEW PETITION.  IN THAT
MOTION IT CALLED THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT TO THE TESTIMONY IN THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING RECENTLY REVIEWED BY THAT COURT AND CONTRADICTORY
TO THE NEW POSITION TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER.  OCTOBER 29, 1947, THE
ISSUE WAS ARGUED AND THE STATE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANIED BY EIGHT
PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OF THE PETITIONER AT 5:37 P.M., JULY
3, 1946.  SEVEN OF THESE WERE TAKEN OF HIM IN THE NUDE IMMEDIATELY
AFTER HE HAD MADE HIS SEVERAL CONFESSIONS ON THAT DAY AND IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING THE DATES JUNE 29 TO JULY 2, INCLUSIVE, ON WHICH DATES THE
NEW PETITION ALLEGES THAT SEVERE BEATINGS HAD BEEN ADMINISTERED TO
HIM.  FN3  NOVEMBER 13, 1947, THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, BY A VOTE
OF SIX TO ONE, DENIED THE PETITION.  EX PARTE TAYLOR, 249 ALA. 667, 32
SO.2D 659.  DECEMBER 4 IT DENIED A REHEARING.  MARCH 3, 1948, PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED HERE.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT RELATION OF
THIS PROCEDURE TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
ESPECIALLY IN CAPITAL CASES, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 866. 

THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS ALABAMA PROCEDURE TO SECURE A
REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE BY WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
CONSTITUTES DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT IS
CLEAR THAT IT DOES.  THIS PROCEDURE TO ENABLE A TRIAL COURT TO CORRECT
ITS OWN JUDGMENT WHEN FOUND BY IT TO HAVE BEEN BASED UPON AN ERROR OF
FACT NOT APPARENT ON THE COMMON LAW RECORD HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AT
COMMON LAW.  FN4  IT SURVIVES IN VARYING FORMS IN STATE PRACTICE BUT IT
MAY BE THAT IN FEDERAL PRACTICE ITS PURPOSE IS OTHERWISE SERVED.  FN5
THIS COURT HAS HELD EXPRESSLY THAT, IN THE FORM IN WHICH THE PROCEDURE
CAME BEFORE US FROM FLORIDA, IN 1942, IT CONFORMED TO DUE PROCESS OF
LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HYSLER V. FLORIDA, 315 U.S. 411. 
FN6  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, AT LEAST SINCE ITS DECISION, IN
1943, IN JOHNSON V. WILLIAMS, 244 ALA. 391, 13 SO.2D 683, HAS FOLLOWED
FLORIDA PRECEDENTS AS TO THIS PROCEDURE, AND THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY
HERE AS TO THE CONFORMITY OF THE PRESENT PROCEDURE WITH THAT OF THOSE
PRECEDENTS.  FN7 

AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE TRADITIONAL WRIT OF ERROR ENABLING A
SUPERIOR COURT TO REVIEW AN ERROR OF LAW COMMITTED BY A TRIAL COURT,
THE WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS BRINGS THE ERROR OF FACT DIRECTLY BEFORE
THE TRIAL COURT.  HOWEVER, WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT ALREADY
HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT OF A SUPERIOR COURT, THEN THE TRIAL
COURT IS BOUND BY THE MANDATE OF THAT SUPERIOR COURT.  UNDER THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REQUIRE A PETITIONER TO SECURE,
FROM THAT SUPERIOR COURT, PERMISSION TO FILE HIS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
ERROR CORAM NOBIS IN THE TRIAL COURT WHERE HE SEEKS AN ORDER SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ALREADY AFFIRMED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT.  THIS
ADDITIONAL STEP WAS INCLUDED IN THE FLORIDA PROCEDURE WHICH WAS
FAVORABLY CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN HYSLER V. FLORIDA, SUPRA. 

IT IS PRECISELY THIS STEP THAT IS BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING.  IT IS THE REFUSAL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA TO GRANT
THIS PERMISSION THAT IS UNDER REVIEW.  ON THIS POINT WE HOLD THAT THE
ALABAMA PROCEDURE, FOLLOWING BOTH THE ANCIENT PRECEDENTS OF THE COMMON
LAW AND THE MORE RECENT PRECEDENTS OF FLORIDA AND OF THIS COURT, DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW REQUIRED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

WE COME NOW TO THE MERITS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE.  IT IS CHARGED
THAT THE DENIAL BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OF THE PERMISSION HERE
SOUGHT FROM IT AMOUNTED IN ITSELF TO A DENIAL TO THIS PETITIONER OF THE
DUE PROCESS OF LAW TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE.  THE PETITIONER, HOWEVER, HAD NO MANDATORY RIGHT TO THE
PERMISSION.  THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS NOT THE ISSUE WHICH WOULD HAVE
FACED THE TRIAL COURT IN THE EVENT THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
HAD GRANTED PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER TO FILE HIS PETITION FOR WRIT
OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS IN THAT COURT.  THE PROCEEDING HERE IS NOT EVEN A
REVIEW, DE NOVO, OF THE MERITS OF THE REQUEST MADE TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF ALABAMA.  THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS LIMITED TO A DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ALABAMA IN DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE PETITIONER TO FILE HIS
PETITION NOT MERELY HAD COMMITTED ERROR BUT HAD DEPRIVED THE PETITIONER
OF LIFE OR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

IN PASSING UPON THIS REQUEST THAT COURT WAS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT AT
FACE VALUE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION.  THE ISSUE WAS NOT
SUBMITTED TO IT AS THOUGH ON A DEMURRER.  THAT COURT WAS CALLED UPON TO
DECIDE NOT ONLY WHETHER THIS NEW PETITION, IF TRUE, PRESENTED A
MERITORIOUS GROUND FOR SETTING ASIDE ITS PREVIOUS JUDGMENT, BUT THAT
COURT, IN ITS SUPERVISORY CAPACITY OVER THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW, WAS
CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE ALSO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS
MADE IN THE PETITION AND THE PROBABILITY OR IMPROBABILITY OF THEIR
TRUTH.  THE STANDARD BY WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SEEKS TO
GUIDE ITS DETERMINATION IN SUCH A CASE HAS BEEN STATED BY IT IN JOHNSON
V. WILLIAMS, 244 ALA. 391, 394, 13 SO.2D 683, 686, AS FOLLOWS: 

"WE RECOGNIZE IN THIS STATE, AS DOES THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
(HYSLER V. STATE, 146 FLA. 593, 1 SO.2D 628), THAT THE COMMON LAW WRIT
OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS IS AVAILABLE  ...  AND IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY
TO BE FOLLOWED.  SEE 24 C.J.S., CRIMINAL LAW, SEC. 1606.  THE RULE IN
THAT STATE, WHICH WE THINK IS JUST AND PROPER, AND IS HERE ADOPTED,
CALLS FOR A PETITION TO THIS COURT, WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION HAS
BEEN HERE AFFIRMED, FOR LEAVE TO PETITION THE CIRCUIT COURT WHERE THE
CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS TO REVIEW SUCH
JUDGMENT.  SUCH APPLICATION SHOULD MAKE AN ADEQUATE SHOWING OF THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THIS
COURT.  A MERE NAKED ALLEGATION THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS BEEN
INVADED WILL NOT SUFFICE.  THE APPLICATION SHOULD MAKE A FULL
DISCLOSURE OF THE SPECIFIC FACTS RELIED UPON, AND NOT MERELY
CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH FACTS.  THE PROOF MUST
ENABLE THIS COURT TO 'ASCERTAIN WHETHER UNDER SETTLED PRINCIPLES
PERTAINING TO SUCH WRIT THE FACTS ALLEGED WOULD AFFORD AT LEAST PRIMA
FACIE JUST GROUND FOR AN APPLICATION TO THE LOWER COURT FOR A WRIT OF
ERROR CORAM NOBIS.'  AND IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR DISCRETION IN MATTERS
OF THIS CHARACTER, THIS COURT SHOULD LOOK TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION AND TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE PROBABILITY OF
THE TRUTH THEREOF.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN HYSLER V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 315 U.S. 411, 62 S. CT. 688, 691, 86 L. ED. 932, SAID
THAT 'EACH STATE MAY DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHETHER, AFTER GUILT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED BY THE ORDINARY PROCESSES OF TRIAL AND AFFIRMED ON APPEAL, A
LATER CHALLENGE TO ITS ESSENTIAL JUSTICE MUST COME IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, OR EVEN IN THE LAST INSTANCE, BEFORE A BENCH OF JUDGES RATHER
THAN BEFORE A JURY', AND THAT THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED ABOVE, WHICH WE
HAVE ADOPTED FROM THE FLORIDA COURT, MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION." 

IT REMAINS TO APPLY THE TEST TO THIS CASE.  THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF
VALIDITY ATTACHED TO THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT WHICH
WAS RENDERED ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO AFTER A JURY TRIAL.  IT HAS BEEN
AFFIRMED UNANIMOUSLY BY A SUPREME COURT OF SEVEN JUDGES AND, IN THIS
VERY PROCEEDING, THAT COURT REACHED A CONCLUSION, BY A VOTE OF SIX TO
ONE, THAT "THE AVERMENTS OF THE (NEW) PETITION ARE UNREASONABLE AND
THAT THERE IS NO PROBABILITY OF TRUTH CONTAINED THEREIN, AND THAT THE
PROPOSED ATTACK UPON THE JUDGMENT IS NOT MERITORIOUS."  EX PARTE
TAYLOR, SUPRA, PP. 670-671. 

IN REVIEWING THAT CONCLUSION, WE EMPHASIZE THE FOLLOWING
CONSIDERATIONS: 

LIKE EVERY CAPITAL CASE, IT IS ONE OF SERIOUS MOMENT.  IN THE STATE
COURTS AND HERE, CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO EACH MATERIAL ISSUE OF
FACT AND LAW.  BOTH OPINIONS HANDED DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA DISCLOSE AN APPRECIATION BY ITS MEMBERS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
OBLIGATIONS TO THE PETITIONER, THE STATE AND THE NATION. 

SINCE THE PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED, NOVEMBER 19, 1946, TO PAY THE
PENALTY WHICH THE LAW AND THE JURY HAVE PRESCRIBED FOR THE CRIME OF
WHICH HE WAS THEN CONVICTED, THE EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE HAS BEEN
SUSPENDED REPEATEDLY IN ORDER THAT THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION MIGHT BE
GIVEN BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES TO EVERY SUBSTANTIAL ARGUMENT
PRESENTED ON HIS BEHALF.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HAS STATED ITS
APPRECIATION OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS CASE AS FOLLOWS: 

"WE ARE FULLY MINDFUL OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY RESTING UPON
THIS COURT IN CASES OF THIS CHARACTER.  WE NOT ONLY ARE MINDFUL OF
RESPONSIBILITY SO FAR AS THIS DEFENDANT IS CONCERNED, BUT ALSO FEEL
LIKE RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAWS
OF OUR STATE."  EX PARTE TAYLOR, SUPRA, P. 669. 

IF THE NEW PETITION AND ITS SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS STOOD ALONE OR HAD
TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, THE ISSUE WOULD BE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM
WHAT IT IS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, HOWEVER, READ THIS PETITION
AND THESE AFFIDAVITS, AS WE MUST READ THEM, IN CLOSE CONNECTION WITH
THE ENTIRE RECORD ALREADY MADE IN THE CASE.  THEY MUST BE TESTED IN
THAT CONTEXT FOR THEIR REASONABLENESS, THE PROBABILITY OF THEIR TRUTH,
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ATTACK THEY MAKE ON THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT AND
THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL ENFORCEMENT OF LAW WITH JUSTICE TO
ALL. 

THE NEW PETITION AND THE AFFIDAVITS HAVE INHERENT ELEMENTS OF
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS BEARING UPON THEIR CREDIBILITY TO WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA WAS ENTITLED TO GIVE CONSIDERATION.  IN
CONTRAST TO THE SITUATION PRESENTED IN MANY OTHER CASES WHERE A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS HAS BEEN RELIED UPON, THIS
PETITION CONTAINS NO CHARGE THAT THERE WAS ANY FALSE TESTIMONY
PRESENTED AT THE TRIAL (EXCEPT FOR ITS REFERENCE TO TESTIMONY BY
SERGEANT WILKES WHICH REFERENCE THE RECORD SHOWS IS PLAINLY
ERRONEOUS).  THE PETITIONER BASES HIS CLAIMS UPON EVIDENCE NOT
PRESENTED AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL.  THIS CONSISTS OF EVIDENCE OF COERCION
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER BY POLICE OFFICERS AT
TIMES NOT COVERED BY THE TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL.  ALL OF
THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IF TRUE, MUST HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL BUT IT IS CLAIMED THAT HE CONCEALED
IT EVEN FROM HIS OWN COUNSEL.  IT IS NEWLY DISCLOSED EVIDENCE, RATHER
THAN NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, AND ITS CREDIBILITY IN THE EYES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA MAY WELL HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THAT FACT.  THE
NEW PETITION DOES NOT DENY THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER OR DENY ANY OF
THE ACTS UPON WHICH HIS CONVICTION WAS BASED.  IT CLAIMS MERELY THAT
THE COERCION APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER WAS SUCH THAT IT WOULD BE A
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE EXCLUSION, FROM A NEW TRIAL, OF THE EVIDENCE
OF CERTAIN CONFESSIONS AND SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONER THAT
WAS USED AGAINST HIM AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL. 

THE PETITION CONTAINS NO CHARGES THAT THE STATE'S ATTORNEY MADE USE
OF ANY FALSE TESTIMONY OR THAT HE KNEW OF ANY OF THE COERCION RELIED
UPON IN THE NEW PETITION. 

MORE SERIOUS THAN THIS LACK OF COMPELLING FORCE TO THE PETITIONER'S
ATTACK ARE THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE APPROPRIATE FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA IN PASSING UPON THE
PROBABLE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS: 

1.  THE ONLY AFFIDAVITS PRESENTED ARE THOSE OF THE PETITIONER HIMSELF
AND OF THREE PERSONS, EACH OF WHOM WAS AN ASSOCIATE OF THE PETITIONER,
ARRESTED AND DETAINED WITH HIM BY THE PRICHARD POLICE, JUNE 29-JULY 3,
1946, UNDER A CHARGE OF SOME CRIME NOT CONNECTED WITH THE RAPE.  ONE OF
THESE AFFIANTS IS SERVING A TEN-YEAR SENTENCE IN THE KILBY PRISON FOR
ROBBERY.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE INSTANCE ON JUNE 29, NONE OF THE
THREE ASSOCIATES CLAIMS TO HAVE SEEN THE ALLEGED BEATINGS OF THE
PETITIONER, ALTHOUGH EACH CLAIMS TO HAVE HEARD THE BEATINGS BEING
ADMINISTERED.  THE CHARGES AS TO THE ALLEGED BEATINGS ARE MADE IN SUCH
EXTREME TERMS THAT MARKS OF SUCH BEATINGS, IF THEY ACTUALLY OCCURRED,
PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN EVIDENT ON JULY 3, WHEREAS THE TESTIMONY AT
THE TRIAL AS TO THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PETITIONER ON THAT DAY IS
TO THE CONTRARY AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE PETITIONER IN THE
PHOTOGRAPHS, TAKEN ON JULY 3, WAS FOUND BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
TO LEND NO SUPPORT TO THESE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVITS. 

2.  THE PETITION CHARGES SERGEANT C.D. WILKES OF THE PRICHARD POLICE
FORCE WITH PERJURING HIMSELF "BY FALSELY TESTIFYING THAT PETITIONER WAS
NOT SUBJECTED TO ANY MISTREATMENT IN CONNECTION WITH MAKING SAID
CONFESSION."  SERGEANT WILKES, HOWEVER, GAVE NO TESTIMONY ON THAT
SUBJECT.  AT THE TRIAL HE TESTIFIED ONLY AS TO HIS BEING ON DUTY WHEN
THE PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED ON JUNE 29, AS TO THE IDENTIFICATION MADE
OF THE PETITIONER BY THE PROSECUTRIX, AS TO THE FACT THAT HE TALKED
WITH THE PETITIONER AT 9 P.M. ON JULY 2, AND AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH
THE PETITIONER HAD VOLUNTEERED TO MAKE HIS CONFESSION AT 3 A.M. ON JULY
3.  NOTHING WAS SAID BY SERGEANT WILKES ON DIRECT OR CROSS-EXAMINATION
OR WAS EVEN ASKED OF HIM ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO ANY MISTREATMENT OF
THE PETITIONER OR AS TO ANY SUBJECT AS TO WHICH THERE APPEARS TO BE ANY
CONFLICT OF FACT.  THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL DEMONSTRATES ON ITS FACE
THAT THE CHARGE OF PERJURY IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 

3.  IN THE TRIAL RECORD THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, EITHER ON DIRECT OR
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, OF ANY PHYSICAL OR MENTAL COERCION,
OR OF ANY INDUCEMENT OR PROMISE BEARING UPON THE VOLUNTEERED, DETAILED
AND REPEATED CONFESSIONS BY THE PETITIONER OF HIS CONDUCT, THE
IDENTIFICATION OF HIS VICTIM OR HIS DESIGNATION, BY SKETCH AND ON THE
PREMISES, OF THE LOCALITIES OF MATERIAL OCCURRENCES.  ALTHOUGH THE
ALERT AND DILIGENT COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ENDEAVORED AT THE TRIAL
TO TEST ON EACH OCCASION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF EVERY STATEMENT IN THE
NATURE OF A CONFESSION THAT WAS MADE BY THE PETITIONER, HE DID NOT
SUCCEED IN CONVINCING THE COURT THAT ANY OF THEM SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS
HAVING BEEN INVOLUNTARILY MADE.  HIS EFFORTS RESULTED IN NOTHING MORE
THAN ESTABLISHING THAT MANY WITNESSES HAD LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE AS TO
THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF COERCION DURING EXTENDED PERIODS PRIOR TO
THE PETITIONER'S CONFESSIONS, ALTHOUGH THEY TESTIFIED TO THE
VOLUNTARINESS OF THE CONFESSIONS AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE AND FOR
VARYING PERIODS PRIOR THERETO.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SAID:
"THE QUESTION OF THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE CONFESSION WAS DULY
CONSIDERED AND TREATED IN THE OPINION ON FORMER APPEAL.  NOR DID THE
RECORD CONTAIN THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION THAT THE DEFENDANT, A NEGRO
TWENTY YEARS OF AGE, WAS IGNORANT AND IN ANY MANNER SUBNORMAL."  EX
PARTE TAYLOR, SUPRA, P. 669. 

4.  NO WITNESS TESTIFIED AT THE TRIAL TO HAVING SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ON THE BODY OF THE PETITIONER.  G.M. PORTER, THE
MEMBER OF THE PRICHARD POLICE WHO WAS ON DUTY MUCH OF THE TIME AT THE
JAIL AND WHO BROUGHT THE PETITIONER FROM HIS CELL IN ANSWER TO
PETITIONER'S REQUEST ON JULY 3 FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS INITIAL
CONFESSION, EXPRESSLY TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT AT THAT TIME
THERE WERE NO SIGNS OF THE PETITIONER HAVING BEEN MISTREATED.  THE
PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN THAT AFTERNOON ARE DESCRIBED IN THE OPINION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA AS DISCLOSING "NO INDICATIONS ON THE BODY OF
ANY PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION."  EX PARTE TAYLOR,
SUPRA, P. 669. 

5.  STILL MORE STRIKING ARE THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER
HIMSELF ON JULY 3.  THESE WERE MADE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SO DISARMING
AND SELF-CONFIRMATORY AS TO SUGGEST THE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR
CREDIBILITY BY THE JURY AND LATER BY THE SUPREME COURT ON ITS REVIEW OF
THE RECORD.  WHEN READ IN FULL, THE STATEMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
THROUGHOUT JULY 3 ARE SO FREE IN MANNER, DETAILED IN CONTENT AND
AFFIRMATIVE IN THEIR NATURE THAT THEY CARRY OBVIOUS EARMARKS OF BEING
THE TRUTH.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AT 3 A.M. ON JULY 3 THE PETITIONER
CALLED FROM HIS CELL THAT HE WISHED TO TELL "ALL OF IT" AND "GET IT ALL
OFF HIS CHEST."  SHORTLY THEREAFTER, HE TOLD HIS STORY BEFORE THE MAYOR
OF PRICHARD AND OTHERS.  HE REPEATED IT TO STILL OTHERS WHO CAME IN
LATER.  HE VOLUNTEERED FURTHER DETAILS WHILE RIDING IN A CAR TO THE
SCENE OF THE CRIME.  HIS STATEMENTS IN THE CAR WERE THEN AND THERE
WRITTEN DOWN BY AN ASSISTANT COUNTY SOLICITOR, WERE SIGNED BY THE
PETITIONER AND WERE SUPPLEMENTED BY A SKETCH WHICH THE PETITIONER DREW
HIMSELF.  THESE SIGNED STATEMENTS AND THIS SKETCH WERE INTRODUCED IN
EVIDENCE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE ASSISTANT COUNTY SOLICITOR WHO HAD
BEEN CALLED AS A WITNESS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.  LATER THAT DAY,
THE PETITIONER MADE A FURTHER DETAILED STATEMENT IN QUESTION AND ANSWER
FORM.  HE PERSONALLY IDENTIFIED THE VICTIM OF HIS CRIME IN THE PRESENCE
OF SEVERAL WITNESSES AND SHE IDENTIFIED HIM.  IN HIS TESTIMONY GIVEN IN
THE PRESENCE OF THE MAYOR, THE PETITIONER STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT HE
HAD NOT BEEN BEATEN OR COERCED.  EXCERPTS FROM THIS TESTIMONY ARE SET
FORTH IN THE MARGIN AS RETOLD BY THE MAYOR AT THE TRIAL.  FN8 

6.  THE PETITION ALLEGES THAT THE PETITIONER FALSELY TOLD HIS OWN
ATTORNEY THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN BEATEN AND THAT HE SO TOLD HIS ATTORNEY
BECAUSE OF FEAR OF FURTHER REPRISALS.  THIS ATTORNEY WAS THE ONE WHO
HAD BEEN APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO DEFEND THE PETITIONER AND LATER
PRIVATELY RETAINED FOR THE PETITIONER.  STILL LATER HE WAS APPOINTED BY
THE COURT TO HANDLE THE CASE ON APPEAL.  THERE IS NOTHING OTHER THAN
THIS PETITION TO SUGGEST THAT THE PETITIONER AT ANY TIME MISLED HIS
ATTORNEY, OR LACKED CONFIDENCE IN HIM, OR HAD REASON TO LACK CONFIDENCE
IN HIM.  BOTH THE RECORD AND THE ATTORNEY'S CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL AND
APPEAL ARE THOROUGHLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PETITIONER'S HAVING TOLD HIS
ATTORNEY THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN BEATEN AND THERE IS NOTHING, OTHER THAN
THE NEW PETITION, TO SHOW THAT SUCH STATEMENT WAS FALSE.  THE TRIAL
TOOK PLACE ON NOVEMBER 19, 1946, AND IN THAT CONNECTION PETITIONER WAS
DETAINED IN THE MOBILE COUNTY JAIL RATHER THAN WITH THE PRICHARD
POLICE.  AFTER HIS CONVICTION THE PETITIONER WAS SENT TO KILBY PRISON
IN MONTGOMERY, OVER 200 MILES AWAY. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA CONCLUDED: 

"THE TRIAL WAS CONDUCTED WITH MUCH CARE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
RECORD ON FORMER APPEAL TO INDICATE THE SLIGHTEST APPEAL TO PREJUDICE,
NOR WAS A SINGLE UNTOWARD INCIDENT RECORDED.  WE THINK IT IS ASKING
ENTIRELY TOO MUCH OF THE COURT TO BELIEVE THAT THIS DEFENDANT, IN THE
SECRECY OF CONSULTATION WITH HIS OWN ABLE COUNSEL, WOULD SAY TO COUNSEL
IN SUBSTANCE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING UPON WHICH TO BASE AN OBJECTION TO
HIS CONFESSIONS, SOLELY BECAUSE HE WAS UNDER FEAR GENERATED BY
TREATMENT WHICH HE CLAIMS WAS ACCORDED HIM ON JULY 3, NEARLY FOUR
MONTHS PREVIOUS."  EX PARTE TAYLOR, SUPRA, P. 670. 

THE PETITIONER'S TRIAL ATTORNEY HAS SUBMITTED NO AFFIDAVIT AND HAS
NOT APPEARED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING.    FOR THESE REASONS, WE
CONCLUDE NOT ONLY THAT THE ALABAMA PROCEDURE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE
PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BUT THAT THE DENIAL BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OF THE PERMISSION THUS SOUGHT BY THE
PETITIONER TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA, WAS NOT, UNDER ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AN ARBITRARY ACTION AS IN ITSELF TO AMOUNT TO A
DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA WAS ACTING WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY WHEN, IN ITS SUPERVISORY CAPACITY OVER THE PROCEDURE IN THE
CRIMINAL TRIALS OF THAT STATE, IT DENIED TO PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO
FILE THIS PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS AND STATED THAT "UPON
DUE CONSIDERATION WE CONCLUDE THAT THE AVERMENTS OF THE PETITION ARE
UNREASONABLE AND THAT THERE IS NO PROBABILITY OF TRUTH CONTAINED
THEREIN, AND THAT THE PROPOSED ATTACK UPON THE JUDGMENT IS NOT
MERITORIOUS."  EX PARTE TAYLOR, SUPRA, PP. 670-671. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "  ...  NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY,
OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ...  "  U.S. CONST. AMEND.
XIV, SEC. 1. 

FN2  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, SAID:
"COUNSEL APPOINTED BY THE COURT FOR THE DEFENSE HAS VERY DILIGENTLY
PRESENTED THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE RECORD, BOTH BY ORAL ARGUMENT AND
A FULL AND COMPLETE BRIEF."  TAYLOR V. STATE, 249 ALA. 130, 133, 30
SO.2D 256, 258.  IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING THAT COURT SAID:  "UPON THE
TRIAL OF THIS CAUSE THE PETITION ADMITS THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS
REPRESENTED BY ABLE COUNSEL."  EX PARTE TAYLOR, 249 ALA. 667, 669, AND
SEE P. 670, 32 SO.2D 659, 660, 661. 

FN3  THE STATE IN ITS BRIEF HERE SAYS THAT "IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR
PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE TAKEN OF DEFENDANTS IN CHARGES OF THIS NATURE.  IT IS
SOMETIMES ANTICIPATED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT A VOLUNTARY
CONFESSION WILL LATER BE REPUDIATED.  PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND
INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE BEFORE.  JOHNSON V. STATE, 242 ALA. 278(282), 5
SO.2D 632(635)."  AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL NO REPUDIATION OF THE
CONFESSIONS HAD BEEN MADE AND NO TESTIMONY HAD BEEN INTRODUCED
SUPPORTING ANY CHARGE OF COERCION OF THE PETITIONER BY PHYSICAL
VIOLENCE OR OTHERWISE.  THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE CASE
ONLY AFTER AFFIDAVITS CHARGING COERCIVE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE HAD BEEN
FILED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING. 

FN4  "IF  ...  THERE WAS ERROR IN FACT IN THE PROCEEDINGS, NOT ERROR
IN LAW, A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR CORAM VOBIS MIGHT ISSUE TO THE
TRIAL COURT TO ENABLE IT TO CORRECT THE ERROR.  ... IF THE CAUSE WERE
IN THE K.B. (KING'S BENCH), THE WRIT WOULD BE CORAM NOBIS, BEFORE US,
AS THE RECORD REMAINING IN THE COURT WHERE THE KING IS CONSTRUCTIVELY;
IF IT WERE IN THE COMMON PLEAS, THE WRIT WOULD BE CORAM VOBIS, BEFORE
YOU, SINCE THE RECORD REMAINS THEN BEFORE THE JUSTICES OF THAT COURT." 
COOLEY'S BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES (4TH ED., ANDREWS, 1899), BOOK III,
P.*  406 N. 2. 

SEE ALSO, OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD, ON CIRCUIT, IN UNITED
STATES V. PLUMER, 27 FED. CAS. 561, 573, NO. 16,056. 

FN5  SEE E.G., HYSLER V. STATE, 146 FLA. 593, 1 SO.2D 628, AFFIRMED,
315 U.S. 411; MCCALL V. STATE, 136 FLA. 349, 186 SO. 802; CHAMBERS V.
STATE, 117 FLA. 642, 158 SO. 153; LAMB V. STATE, 91 FLA. 396, 107 SO.
535; AND SEE AS TO THE FEDERAL PRACTICE, FED. R. CRIM. P., 32, 33, 35
AND 36; REID V. UNITED STATES, 149 F.2D 334(C.C.A.5TH); YOUNG V. UNITED
STATES, 138 F.2D 838(C.C.A.5TH); UNITED STATES V. GARDZIELEWSKI, 135
F.2D 271(C.C.A.7TH); ROBINSON V. JOHNSTON, 118 F.2D 998(C.C.A.9TH);
STRANG V. UNITED STATES, 53 F.2D 820(C.C.A.5TH); UNITED STATES V.
PLUMER, 27 FED. CAS. 561, 571-574, NO. 16,056.  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES
V. SMITH, 331 U.S. 469, 475-476, N. 4; UNITED STATES V. MAYER, 235 U.S.
55.  CF. UNITED STATES V. NORSTRAND CORP., 168 F.2D 481(C.C.A.2D),
DECIDED MAY 26, 1948; MOORE AND ROGERS, FEDERAL RELIEF FROM CIVIL
JUDGMENTS, 55 YALE L.J. 623, 669-674(1945-1946). 

FN6  "SUCH A STATE PROCEDURE OF COURSE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  VINDICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT DEMAND UNIFORMITY OF PROCEDURE BY THE FORTY
EIGHT STATES.  EACH STATE IS FREE TO DEVISE ITS OWN WAY OF SECURING
ESSENTIAL JUSTICE IN THESE SITUATIONS.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DID NOT
STEREOTYPE THE MEANS FOR ASCERTAINING THE TRUTH OF A CLAIM THAT THAT
WHICH DULY APPEARS AS THE ADMINISTRATION OF INTRINSIC JUSTICE WAS SUCH
MERELY IN FORM, THAT IN FACT IT WAS A PERVERSION OF JUSTICE BY THE LAW
OFFICERS OF THE STATE.  EACH STATE MAY DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHETHER, AFTER
GUILT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ORDINARY PROCESSES OF TRIAL AND
AFFIRMED ON APPEAL, A LATER CHALLENGE TO ITS ESSENTIAL JUSTICE MUST
COME IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, OR EVEN IN THE LAST INSTANCE, BEFORE A
BENCH OF JUDGES RATHER THAN BEFORE A JURY. 

"FLORIDA THEN HAD AMPLE MACHINERY FOR CORRECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
WRONG OF WHICH HYSLER COMPLAINED.  BUT IT REMAINS TO CONSIDER WHETHER
IN REFUSING HIM RELIEF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DENIED A PROPER
APPEAL TO ITS CORRECTIVE PROCESS FOR PROTECTING A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  HYSLER V. FLORIDA, 315 U.S. 411, 416-417. 

SEE ALSO, BUTE V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 640, 650-654, AS TO THE SCOPE
WHICH STATES ENJOY IN PROVIDING THEIR OWN PROCEDURES WITHIN THE MEANING
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FN7  SEE ALSO, EX PARTE LEE, 248 ALA. 246, 27 SO.2D 147, CERT.
DENIED, SUB NOM. LEE V. ALABAMA, 329 U.S. 808; EX PARTE BURNS, 247 ALA.
98, 22 SO.2D 517; SMITH V. STATE, 245 ALA. 161, 16 SO.2D 315; REDUS V.
WILLIAMS, 244 ALA. 459, 13 SO.2D 561, CERT. DENIED, 320 U.S. 775; BROWN
V. STATE, 32 ALA. APP. 500, 27 SO.2D 226.  WHILE, FOR REASONS SET FORTH
IN THE RESPECTIVE OPINIONS, THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
OR FOR PERMISSION TO FILE SUCH A PETITION HAS BEEN DENIED IN EACH OF
THE FOREGOING CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, NEVERTHELESS, THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALABAMA, IN THE LAST CASE CITED, IN 1946, GRANTED
LEAVE FOR A PETITIONER TO PRESENT HIS PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM
NOBIS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RUSSELL COUNTY. 

FN8  GLEN V. DISMUKES, MAYOR OF PRICHARD, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, TESTIFIED AS TO THE APPEARANCE AND CONDUCT
OF THE PETITIONER IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING HIS INITIAL CONFESSION AT ABOUT
3 A.M. JULY 3, AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  AND YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER, OR NOT, THEY ACTUALLY INFLICTED ANY
VIOLENCE ON HIM BEFORE YOU GOT THERE? 

"A.  HE DIDN'T APPEARED (APPEAR) TO BE FRIGHTENED IN ANY WAY. 

"Q.  BUT YOU DON'T KNOW.  HE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE FRIGHTENED? 

"A.  NO. 

"Q.  DID HE SEEM TO BE WHOLLY AT EASE? 

"A.  PERFECTLY AT EASE. 

"Q.  I SEE.  YOU CAME IN THERE AT THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, AND
FOUND THIS NEGRO BOY AND TWO POLICEMEN, AND HE SEEMED TO BE PERFECTLY
AT EASE? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  DIDN'T SEEM TO BE UPSET AT ALL? 

"A.  NOT AT ALL. 

"Q.  DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE NERVOUS? 

"A.  NO. 

"Q.  PERFECTLY FRIENDLY? 

"A.  RATHER PLEASANT. 

"Q.  RATHER PLEASANT, WELL, AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER, OR NOT, AFTER
YOU TALKED TO HIM THAT THEY MADE ANY PROMISES OR THREATS, DO YOU, MR.
DISMUKES? 

"A.  NO, SIR." 

LATER THAT DAY THE MAYOR VISITED THE SCENE OF THE CRIME WITH THE
PETITIONER AND OTHERS AND, AFTER THEIR RETURN TO THE OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF OF POLICE, THE PETITIONER MADE REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ASKED OF HIM
BY THE STATE SOLICITOR.  THESE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WERE RECALLED BY
THE MAYOR IN HIS ORAL TESTIMONY AND WERE THUS INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL. 
SOME OF THIS TESTIMONY OF THE MAYOR IN RESPONSE TO DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE STATE SOLICITOR WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  NOW, MR. DISMUKES, ON THAT TIME AND PLACE THERE IN THE OFFICE TO
WHICH WE REFERRED, DO YOU RECALL ME ASKING HIM (THE PETITIONER), 'WHEN
WERE YOU ARRESTED ON THIS CHARGE, SAMUEL?', AND HIM ANSWERING, 'I WAS
ARRESTED SATURDAY NIGHT AROUND MIDNIGHT.'  DO YOU RECALL THAT? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  THEN DO YOU RECALL ME ASKING, 'AND YOU HAVE BEEN IN JAIL SINCE
THAT TIME?'  AND HE ANSWERING, 'YES, SIR.' 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  DO YOU RECALL ME SAYING, 'NOW, SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN IN JAIL,
SAMUEL, HAVE YOU BEEN PROPERLY TREATED?'  DO YOU RECALL HIM ANSWERING,
'YES, SIR.' 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  DO YOU RECALL ME ASKING HIM, 'HAVE ANY OF THE OFFICERS
MISTREATED YOU, OR THREATENED TO BEAT YOU, OR OFFERED YOU ANY REWARD,
TO GET YOU TO TALK?'  AND HIS ANSWER BEING, 'NO, SIR.' 

"A.  THAT IS RIGHT. 

"Q.  DO YOU RECALL ME ASKING HIM, 'HAVE ANY OF THEM BEAT YOU OR
KICKED YOU?'  AND HE ANSWERING, 'NO, SIR.' 

"A.  THAT'S RIGHT. 

"Q.  DO YOU RECALL ME ASKING HIM, 'NOW, A FEW MINUTES AGO WHEN DR.
GRUBBS TOOK PICTURES OF YOU NAKED, WERE THERE ANY MARKS ON YOUR BODY
THAT WERE PUT THERE BY THE POLICE?'  AND HIM ANSWERING, 'NO, SIR.' 

"A.  YES, SIR." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE DISSENTING OPINION IS WRITTEN AS THOUGH THIS COURT WERE A COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR REVISION OF CONVICTIONS IN THE STATE COURTS. 
IT IS WRITTEN AS THOUGH WE WERE ASKED TO CONSIDER INDEPENDENTLY, AND AS
A REVISORY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAD POWER TO DO SO, WHETHER A
CONVICTION IN THE COURTS OF ALABAMA WAS BASED UPON A COERCED
CONFESSION.  ONE WOULD HARDLY GATHER FROM THE DISSENTING OPINION THAT A
TRIAL WAS HAD IN ALABAMA UNDER THE BEST SAFEGUARDS TO WHICH A DEFENDANT
IN OUR COURTS IS ENTITLED; THAT HE WAS DEFENDED BY COUNSEL CONCEDEDLY
ABLE WHO EXERTED ALL HIS PROFESSIONAL SKILL ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT;
THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE GUIDED THE PROCEEDINGS WITH COMPETENCE AND
SCRUPULOSITY; THAT THEN FOLLOWED A CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE TRIAL ON
APPEAL, RESULTING IN AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY THE
HIGHEST COURT OF ALABAMA. 

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES REQUIRE STILL
FURTHER PROTECTION.  A STATE MUST FURNISH CORRECTIVE PROCESS TO ENABLE
A CONVICTED PERSON, EVEN AFTER SUCH PROCEEDINGS AS I HAVE OUTLINED, TO
ESTABLISH THAT IN FACT A SENTENCE WAS PROCURED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH OFFEND "THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE WHICH LIE AT THE
BASE OF OUR CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS."  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294
U.S. 103, 112.  SUCH RE-INSURANCE THAT NO ONE IS PUNISHED IN VIOLATION
OF BASIC NOTIONS OF JUSTICE DOES NOT OF COURSE REQUIRE DETERMINATION OF
SUCH A CLAIM BY ANOTHER JURY.  "EACH STATE MAY DECIDE FOR ITSELF
WHETHER, AFTER GUILT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ORDINARY PROCESSES OF
TRIAL AND AFFIRMED ON APPEAL, A LATER CHALLENGE TO ITS ESSENTIAL
JUSTICE MUST COME IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, OR EVEN IN THE LAST INSTANCE,
BEFORE A BENCH OF JUDGES RATHER THAN BEFORE A JURY."  HYSLER V.
FLORIDA, 315 U.S. 411, 417. 

ALABAMA, IT CANNOT BE DENIED, PROVIDES FOR SUCH CORRECTIVE PROCESS. 
IF ALABAMA CHOSE TO LEAVE THE DETERMINATION OF THE REASONABLENESS OF
SUCH A CLAIM AS IS HERE MADE FINALLY AND ON THE MERITS TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF ALABAMA, OF COURSE WE COULD NOT SAY THAT ALABAMA WAS
DISREGARDFUL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  NOR, IN VIEW OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, COULD WE IN ALL FAIRNESS SAY THAT THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY REJECTED THAT CLAIM
MADE AS BELATEDLY AS IT WAS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE HUMAN
PROBABILITIES OF THE SITUATION.  IF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA COULD,
AS A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS, HAVE REJECTED ON THE MERITS THE CLAIM THAT
THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, RESULTING IN THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, WAS UNDERMINED BECAUSE OF AN INFRACTION OF THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, IT WOULD DISREGARD REASON FOR THIS COURT TO
HOLD THAT A CONSCIENTIOUS STATE COURT COULD NOT HAVE CONCLUDED, AS THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HAS CONCLUDED, THAT, ON THE TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PROBABILITIES WERE SO STRONG AGAINST THE TRUTH OF
THE ALLEGATIONS ON WHICH THE CLAIM WAS BASED THAT IT DID NOT REQUIRE A
HEARING OF WITNESSES TO REJECT IT.  IN REACHING SUCH A CONCLUSION THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE ORIGINAL TRIAL, THE MANNER OF ITS CONDUCT BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE
PROFESSIONAL ABILITY WITH WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED, THE
BEHAVIOR OF THE ACCUSED THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, AND, IN THE LIGHT
OF ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVITS
ON WHICH HIS PRESENT PETITION IS BASED. 

FOR ME, THE ESSENCE OF THE DECISION OF THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT IS
CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE:  "WE THINK IT IS ASKING ENTIRELY
TOO MUCH OF THE COURT TO BELIEVE THAT THIS DEFENDANT, IN THE SECRECY OF
CONSULTATION WITH HIS OWN ABLE COUNSEL, WOULD SAY TO COUNSEL IN
SUBSTANCE THAT THERE WAS NOTHING UPON WHICH TO BASE AN OBJECTION TO HIS
CONFESSIONS, SOLELY BECAUSE HE WAS UNDER FEAR GENERATED BY TREATMENT
WHICH HE CLAIMS WAS ACCORDED HIM ON JULY 3, NEARLY FOUR MONTHS
PREVIOUS."  249 ALA. 667, 670.  SINCE I CANNOT DEEM THE REASONING BY
WHICH THIS CONCLUSION WAS REACHED AS UNSUSTAINABLE IN REASON, I AM NOT
ENTITLED TO REJECT IT, AND I THEREFORE AGREE WITH THIS COURT'S
OPINION. 

BUT THIS MERELY CARRIES ME TO SUSTAINING THE JUDGMENT OF THE ALABAMA
SUPREME COURT.  THERE IS NOT NOW BEFORE US ANY RIGHT THAT THE
PETITIONER MAY HAVE UNDER THE JUDICIAL CODE TO BRING AN INDEPENDENT
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
FN1 

FN1  SEE ALSO SEC. 2254 OF THE LEGISLATION REVISING THE JUDICIAL
CODE, H.R. 3214, 80TH CONG., 2D SESS., AS PASSED BY CONGRESS ON JUNE
16, 1948: 

"STATE CUSTODY:  REMEDIES IN STATE COURTS. 

"AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN BEHALF OF A PERSON IN
CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT SHALL NOT BE GRANTED
UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, OR THAT THERE IS EITHER AN
ABSENCE OF AVAILABLE STATE CORRECTIVE PROCESS OR THE EXISTENCE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING SUCH PROCESS INEFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS
OF THE PRISONER.    "AN APPLICANT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXHAUSTED
THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THIS SECTION, IF HE HAS THE RIGHT UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE TO
RAISE, BY ANY AVAILABLE PROCEDURE, THE QUESTION PRESENTED." 
(CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, JUNE 16, 1948, P. 8676.) 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

ONE OF THE FIXED PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS, AS GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IS THAT NO CONVICTION IN A STATE COURT IS VALID
WHICH IS BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION.  LEE
V. MISSISSIPPI, 332 U.S. 742, 745.  WHEREVER A CONFESSION IS SHOWN TO
BE THE PRODUCT OF MENTAL OR PHYSICAL COERCION RATHER THAN REASONED AND
VOLUNTARY CHOICE, THE CONVICTION IS VOID.  AND IT IS VOID EVEN THOUGH
THE CONFESSION IS IN FACT TRUE AND EVEN THOUGH THERE IS ADEQUATE
EVIDENCE OTHERWISE TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION. 

THIS PRINCIPLE REFLECTS THE COMMON ABHORRENCE OF COMPELLING ANY MAN,
INNOCENT OR GUILTY, TO GIVE TESTIMONY AGAINST HIMSELF IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.  IT IS A PRINCIPLE WHICH WAS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION
BECAUSE OF THE BELIEF THAT TO TORTURE AND COERCE AN INDIVIDUAL INTO
CONFESSING A CRIME, EVEN THOUGH THAT INDIVIDUAL BE GUILTY, IS TO
ENDANGER THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF ALL PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIME. 
HISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT ONCE TYRANNICAL METHODS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE
PERMITTED AS TO ONE MAN SUCH METHODS ARE INVARIABLY USED AS TO OTHERS. 
BRUTALITY KNOWS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INNOCENT AND THE GUILTY. 
AND THOSE WHO SUFFER MOST FROM THESE INQUISITORIAL PROCESSES ARE THE
FRIENDLESS, THE IGNORANT, THE POOR AND THE DESPISED.  CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 237-238.  TO GUARD AGAINST THIS EVIL, THEREFORE,
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT A CONVICTION BE SET ASIDE WHENEVER IT
APPEARS THAT A CONFESSION INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL IS INVOLUNTARY IN
NATURE. 

THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE PETITIONER, HAVING BEEN FOUND
GUILTY OF RAPE AND SENTENCED TO DEATH, IS NOW ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON
HIS ALLEGATION THAT THE CONFESSION INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL WAS OBTAINED
BY COERCIVE METHODS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA REFUSED TO ALLOW A
HEARING ON THE THEORY THAT THE ALLEGATION WAS UNREASONABLE.  IN
AFFIRMING THAT REFUSAL, HOWEVER, THIS COURT RELIES UPON CONSIDERATIONS
WHICH ARE EITHER IRRELEVANT, INCONCLUSIVE OR CONTRARY TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE JUST DISCUSSED: 

(1)  THE COURT EMPHASIZES THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT DENY THE GUILT
OF PETITIONER OR DENY ANY OF THE ACTS UPON WHICH HIS CONVICTION WAS
BASED.  BUT WHETHER PETITIONER BE INNOCENT OR GUILTY HAS NO BEARING
WHATEVER ON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ALLEGATION THAT THE CONFESSION
WAS COERCED.  EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT PETITIONER IS GUILTY BEYOND ALL
DOUBT, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE STILL INVALIDATES HIS CONVICTION IF IT
WAS OBTAINED THROUGH USE OF A COERCED CONFESSION.  THE THRUST OF THAT
CLAUSE IS DIRECTED TOWARD THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE CONFESSION, NOT
TOWARD THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED. 

(2)  SIGNIFICANCE IS GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE BY
PETITIONER AND INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL AS HIS CONFESSION "ARE SO FREE
IN MANNER, DETAILED IN CONTENT AND AFFIRMATIVE IN THEIR NATURE THAT
THEY CARRY OBVIOUS EARMARKS OF BEING THE TRUTH."  HERE AGAIN THE COURT
MISCONCEIVES THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE IN
ISSUE.  COERCED CONFESSIONS ARE OUTLAWED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
REGARDLESS OF THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THEIR CONTENT.  IT IS JUST AS
UNCIVILIZED TO BRUTALIZE AN ACCUSED PERSON INTO TELLING THE TRUTH AS IT
IS TO FORCE HIM TO FABRICATE A CONFESSION.  THE TORTURE AND COERCION
ARE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION CONDEMNS.  HENCE AN ALLEGATION THAT A
CONFESSION IS INVOLUNTARY IS NOT RENDERED UNREASONABLE BECAUSE OF THE
APPARENT TRUTHFULNESS OF THAT CONFESSION. 

(3)  THE COURT REFERS TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AT THE ORIGINAL
TRIAL OF ANY PHYSICAL OR MENTAL COERCION OR OF ANY INDUCEMENT OR
PROMISE BEARING UPON THE CONFESSION MADE BY PETITIONER.  BUT BECAUSE HE
ALLEGEDLY WAS STILL SUFFERING FROM THE COERCIVE EFFECTS OF THE
BEATINGS, PETITIONER MADE NO EFFORT AT THE TRIAL TO PROVE THAT HE HAD
BEEN SUBJECT TO UNDUE PRESSURE PRIOR TO 3 A.M., JULY 3, 1946, WHICH IS
THE CRUCIAL PERIOD.  MOST OF THE WITNESSES AT THE TRIAL ADMITTED
IGNORANCE AS TO THE EVENTS OCCURRING BEFORE THAT TIME.  THUS THE PROOF
AT THE TRIAL IS AT LEAST CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLEGATION NOW MADE AND IS
NOT SUCH AS TO RENDER THE ALLEGATION UNREASONABLE. 

(4)  OBJECTION IS MADE THAT THE ONLY AFFIDAVITS SUPPORTING THE
ALLEGATION ARE THOSE OF PETITIONER HIMSELF AND OF THREE PERSONS
ASSOCIATED WITH HIM.  I FAIL TO SEE, HOWEVER, HOW SUCH AN OBJECTION
INDICATES THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ALLEGATION.  THE AFFIDAVITS ARE
THOSE OF FOUR NEGROES ARRESTED ON THE STREET AT THE SAME TIME AND
DETAINED ON A ROBBERY CHARGE.  THEIR COMMON ARREST AND DETENTION DO NOT
NECESSARILY RENDER UNTRUSTWORTHY ANY AFFIDAVITS ON THE PART OF
PETITIONER'S THREE COMPANIONS.  A STATEMENT BY A FRIEND OR ASSOCIATE
CAN BE JUST AS PROBATIVE FOR PRESENT PURPOSES AS A STATEMENT BY AN
ENEMY OR A DISINTERESTED PERSON.  IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION NOW TO WEIGH
THE EFFECT WHICH THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE FOUR AFFIANTS MAY HAVE ON THE
VERITY OF THEIR STATEMENTS.  SUFFICIENT IT IS THAT THE STATEMENTS ARE
REASONABLE AND PERTINENT ON THEIR FACE.  MOREOVER, THE JAIL SENTENCE
NOW BEING SERVED BY ONE OF THE COMPANIONS DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE,
DESTROY THE FORCE OF HIS AFFIDAVIT UNLESS WE ARE TO INDULGE IN THE
UNREALISTIC ASSUMPTION THAT NOTHING SAID BY A PRISON INMATE IS TO BE
GIVEN CREDENCE.  OVERLOOKED IN THIS RESPECT IS THE FACT THAT TWO OF THE
COMPANIONS ARE NOW FREE INDIVIDUALS WHO PRESUMABLY LACK WHAT THE COURT
FEELS IS THE TAINT OF IMPRISONMENT.  I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE, THEREFORE,
THAT IF THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THESE AFFIDAVITS IT DOES NOT
APPEAR IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFFIANTS. 

(5)  THE COURT OBSERVES THAT, EXCEPT FOR ONE INSTANCE, NONE OF THE
THREE ASSOCIATES CLAIMS TO HAVE SEEN THE ALLEGED BEATINGS OF THE
PETITIONER; ALL THEY DID WAS TO HEAR THE BRUTALITY BEING INFLICTED. 
BUT I HAD NEVER SUPPOSED THAT AN ALLEGATION OF COERCION WAS ANY LESS
REASONABLE BECAUSE THE ALLEGED TORTURE DID NOT TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE
VERY EYES OF DISINTERESTED WITNESSES.  A MOMENT'S REFLECTION WILL
DEMONSTRATE THAT COERCION IS MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR IN SECRET AND TO BE
WITNESSED, IF AT ALL, THROUGH THE EARS OF OTHER INMATES.  WHETHER THERE
IS ANY TRUTH TO THE CLAIMED OVERHEARING, OF COURSE, IS A MATTER FOR THE
TRIER OF FACTS AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CLAIM
ITSELF. 

(6) THE ALLEGED BEATINGS ARE SAID TO BE SO EXTREME IN NATURE AS TO BE
EVIDENT ON JULY 3, WHEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER WERE TAKEN. 
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT PHOTOGRAPHS CAN BE MOST DECEIVING, ESPECIALLY
PHOTOGRAPHS OF A PERSON LIKE PETITIONER.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REALIZED THIS FACT AND PLACED NO PARTICULAR RELIANCE UPON THE
PHOTOGRAPHS; THE DISSENTING JUDGE, HOWEVER, WAS CONVINCED THAT THE
PICTURES DID SHOW NUMEROUS MARKS ON PETITIONER'S BODY.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM JUDGING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE
ALLEGATION BY WHAT WE THINK APPEARS IN DECEPTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS. 

(7)  THE STATEMENT THAT SERGEANT WILKES PERJURED HIMSELF AT THE TRIAL
APPARENTLY HAS NO FOUNDATION, AS THE COURT POINTS OUT.  BUT THIS FACTOR
HAS NO PARTICULAR RELEVANCE TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CLAIM OF
COERCION.  SUCH AN ERROR SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S ENTIRE
ALLEGATION. 

(8)  IT IS SAID THAT THERE IS NOTHING OTHER THAN THE PETITION TO SHOW
THAT PETITIONER CONCEALED THE ALLEGED COERCION FROM HIS ATTORNEY AT THE
TRIAL.  THIS FACT MAY BE CONCEDED, BUT IT HARDLY WARRANTS TREATING THE
CLAIM AS UNREASONABLE.  THE COERCION CONCEIVABLY COULD HAVE BEEN SO
EFFECTIVE AS TO SHUT PETITIONER'S LIPS ALL THROUGH THE TRIAL AND TO
SILENCE HIM EVEN AS TO HIS OWN ATTORNEY.  WE SHOULD NOT CLOSE THE DOOR
TO PROOF OF THAT POSSIBILITY. 

THUS I FIND INADEQUATE THE CONSIDERATIONS RELIED UPON BY THIS COURT
TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW.  PETITIONER HAS MADE AN ALLEGATION OF THE
MOST SERIOUS NATURE, ONE THAT REFLECTS GRAVELY UPON THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
PROCESSES OF ALABAMA.  HE CLAIMS THAT FOR FOUR NIGHTS PRECEDING THE
CONFESSION HE WAS "BRUTALLY BEATEN, KICKED AND BRUISED IN AN EFFORT TO
OBTAIN SAID CONFESSION" AND PUT IN "GREAT FEAR FOR HIS FUTURE SAFETY." 
CF. CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA.  THREE OTHER PERSONS ARE WILLING TO
TESTIFY THAT THEY HEARD BLOWS STRUCK AND HEARD PETITIONER "SCREAM AND
HOLLER MANY TIMES."  A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD REVEALS AN ABSENCE OF ANY
FACTOR THAT WOULD RENDER THIS ALLEGATION COMPLETELY SLEEVELESS.  DOUBTS
MAY REASONABLY EXIST AS TO THE MERITS OF THE ALLEGATION.  BUT THEY ARE
DOUBTS WHICH SHOULD BE RESOLVED AT A FULL HEARING.  THAT IS ALL THAT
PETITIONER NOW ASKS.  AND I BELIEVE THAT A DENIAL OF HIS REQUEST TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS ALLEGATION IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
OF A MOST FLAGRANT NATURE. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, A MATTER OF
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORTANCE.  IF IT WERE OUR FUNCTION TO SPECULATE UPON
THE EFFECT PETITIONER'S CONFESSION HAD ON THE JURY'S VERDICT, IT WOULD
SEEM CLEAR THAT THE CONFESSION WAS OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE.  THERE WAS
LITTLE ELSE TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT, THE PROSECUTRIX'S IDENTIFICATION OF
PETITIONER BEING SOMEWHAT WEAKENED BY THE FACT THAT SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY
MADE A POSITIVE AND MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATION OF ANOTHER NEGRO.  AND THE
CONFESSION UNDOUBTEDLY AFFECTED THE JURY'S CHOICE FROM AMONG FOUR
ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF THE GUILTY VERDICT OF THE ONE THAT IMPOSED THE
DEATH SENTENCE.  CF. ANDRES V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 740.  IF THE
CONFESSION WAS IN FACT COERCED, THEREFORE, THE CONVICTION ITSELF WAS
THOROUGHLY IMPREGNATED WITH THE COERCION.  BUT THE DEGREE OF SUCH
IMPREGNATION IS IRRELEVANT UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  AS WE HAVE
SEEN, IT IS ENOUGH IF A COERCED CONFESSION WAS ACTUALLY INTRODUCED AT
THE TRIAL.  THE CONVICTION THEN BECOMES VOID UNDER WELL ESTABLISHED
RULES.  WHERE THERE IS A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT A CONVICTION IS
VOID FOR THIS REASON, I THINK THAT AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE AFFORDED A
CONDEMNED MAN TO DEMONSTRATE HIS CASE.  PETITIONER'S EXECUTION IS NO
ANSWER TO THE ALLEGATION WHICH HE HAS RAISED. 

FORTUNATELY, THIS COURT HAS NOT YET MADE A FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE
ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S CLAIM.  ALL THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED HERE IS THAT
THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA DID NOT ERR IN DECLINING TO PERMIT HIM TO
FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS IN THE ALABAMA COURTS. 
NOTHING HAS BEEN HELD WHICH PREJUDICES PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO PROCEED BY
WAY OF HABEAS CORPUS IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, NOW THAT HE HAS
EXHAUSTED HIS STATE REMEDIES.  HE MAY YET OBTAIN THE HEARING WHICH
ALABAMA HAS DENIED HIM. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. ZAZOVE, 334 U.S. 602 


NO. 432.  ARGUED APRIL 19, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  - 162 F.2D
443, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 602(H)(2) OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF
1940 PROVIDES THAT INSURANCE PAYABLE TO A BENEFICIARY WHO IS OVER 30 AT
THE TIME OF THE INSURED'S DEATH SHALL BE PAID IN EQUAL MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS FOR 120 MONTHS CERTAIN, WITH SUCH PAYMENTS CONTINUING
DURING THE REMAINING LIFETIME OF THE BENEFICIARY.  REGULATION 3450 OF
THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, ISSUED AS A CONSTRUCTION OF SEC.
602(H)(2), PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS SO
PAYABLE SHALL BE CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SCHEDULE BASED UPON
THE BENEFICIARY'S AGE AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE TABLE OF MORTALITY. 
THE BENEFICIARY OF A NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, WHO WAS
OVER 30 AT THE TIME OF THE INSURED'S DEATH IN 1943, SUED TO OBTAIN
MONTHLY PAYMENTS IN AN AMOUNT WHICH, OVER A PERIOD OF 120 MONTHS, WOULD
EQUAL THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY PLUS INTEREST.  SHE CONTENDED THAT
REGULATION 3450 WAS NOT A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 602(H)(2).  HELD:
THE REGULATION IS VALID.  PP. 604-624. 

2.  READ IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIALIZED,
TECHNICAL SENSE IN WHICH SOME OF ITS WORDING IS GENERALLY EMPLOYED IN
THE INSURANCE FIELD, SEC. 602(H)(2) IS NOT SO CLEAR AND FREE FROM
AMBIGUITY AS TO PRECLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE VETERANS'
ADMINISTRATION IN REGULATION 3450.  PP. 608-610. 

3.  IN CONSTRUING THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS SETTING UP A
SYSTEM OF NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE, ONLY THE INTENT OF CONGRESS NEED BE
ASCERTAINED; THE LAYMAN UNDERSTANDING OF THE POLICY HOLDER DOES NOT
HAVE THE RELEVANCE THAT IT HAS IN THE CASE OF AN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL
INSURANCE CONTRACT.  PP. 610-611. 

4.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH, HOWEVER, THAT THE REGULATION IS NOT PLAINLY
INTERDICTED BY THE STATUTE, FOR IN SEC. 608 OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED,
CONGRESS MANIFESTED AN INTENT THAT REGULATIONS OF THE VETERANS'
ADMINISTRATION BE SUBJECTED TO MORE THAN CASUAL JUDICIAL SCRUTINY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE "NOT INCONSISTENT" WITH THE STATUTE, WHETHER
THEY ARE "NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE" TO CARRY OUT ITS PURPOSES, AND
WHETHER THEY ARE "PROPERLY" ISSUED.  PP. 611-612. 

5.  BUT WHEN THE RESPECTIVE ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF EACH OF
THE TWO ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF SEC. 602(H)(2) PRESENTED IN THIS
CASE ARE TESTED AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE STATUTE VIEWED
IN ITS ENTIRETY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ONE INCORPORATED IN REGULATION
3450 IS THAT INTENDED BY CONGRESS.  PP. 612-624. 

(A)  UNDER A CONTRARY INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE, A BENEFICIARY
OVER 30 WOULD IN MOST CASES RECEIVE A FAR GREATER AGGREGATE AMOUNT THAN
A BENEFICIARY UNDER 30.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
THIS SHARP DISPARITY OF TREATMENT, AND IT DOES NOT RESULT UNDER THE
REGULATION.  PP. 612-616. 

(B)  CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED THAT THE RESERVE FUND TO MEET THE
LIABILITIES OF NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES WAS TO BE SELF
SUPPORTING, SUSTAINED BY THE PREMIUMS PAID AND BY THE YIELD OF PREMIUMS
INVESTED, EXCEPT AS TO THOSE EXCEPTIONAL ITEMS OF COST AS TO WHICH THE
STATUTE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BEAR THE
FINANCIAL BURDEN.  UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION ADVANCED BY THE BENEFICIARY
IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT'S TOTAL LIABILITY WOULD BE
INCREASED TO AN EXTENT REQUIRING EITHER SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL
APPROPRIATIONS OR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN PREMIUM RATES.  THE STATUTE
NOWHERE SPECIFIES THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BEAR THIS HUGE COST, NOR
IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR ASSUMING THAT CONGRESS ENVISAGED PREMIUM RATES
HIGH ENOUGH TO MEET AN ADDED LIABILITY OF SUCH PROPORTIONS.  PP. 616
617. 

(C)  THE PRACTICE IN EFFECT UNDER UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LIFE
INSURANCE FOR WORLD WAR I VETERANS AND THE LONG-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF
COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHICH MUST BE VIEWED AS PART OF THE
BACKGROUND OF EXPERIENCE WHICH THE DRAFTSMEN OF SEC. 602(H)(2) HAD IN
MIND, BOTH ACCORD WITH THE CONSTRUCTION EMBODIED IN REGULATION 3450. 
PP. 617-619. 

(D)  THE JUXTAPOSITION OF SEC. 602(H)(2) WITH OTHER PROVISIONS
INDICATING THAT ACTUARIAL PRINCIPLES WERE TO BE FOLLOWED IS ALSO
SIGNIFICANT.  P. 620. 

(E)  THE SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE CLEARLY
INDICATES CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION PUT ON SEC.
602(H)(2) BY REGULATION 3450.  PP. 620-624. 

UNITED STATES V. ZAZOVE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY A BENEFICIARY, THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY
OF REGULATION 3450 OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION AS BEING IN ACCORD
WITH SEC. 602(H)(2) OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF
1940.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  162 F.2D 443.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 835.  REVERSED, P. 624. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CALLED UPON IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER REGULATION 3450
OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION  FN1  IS IN ACCORD WITH A PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 602(H)(2) OF THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE
ACT OF 1940.  FN2 

RESPONDENT, TILLIE ZAZOVE, WAS DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY IN A $5,000
CONTRACT OF NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE.  THE INSURED DIED IN 1943,
AND THE NAMED BENEFICIARY FILED HER CLAIM FOR THE INSURANCE IN THE
VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION.  UPON DENIAL OF THE CLAIM, SUIT WAS
INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS.  FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT RULED, ON ITS VIEW OF THE FACTS,
THAT MRS. ZAZOVE DID NOT STAND IN LOCO PARENTIS TO THE SOLDIER AND
HENCE WAS NOT ONE OF THE PERSONS WHO COULD BE MADE A BENEFICIARY AS
PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE.  FN4  ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT RULED TO THE CONTRARY AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  156 F.2D 24. 

THE ISSUE REMAINING FOR DETERMINATION BY THE DISTRICT COURT UPON
REMAND WAS THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION 3450.  IT SUSTAINED THE
REGULATION AS PROPERLY ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE
INSURANCE ACT.  ON A SECOND APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED.  162 F.2D 443.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
REVIEW THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION INVOLVED.  332
U.S. 835. 

THE BASIC STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED IS SEC. 602(H) OF THE NATIONAL
SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF 1940, WHICH PROVIDES THAT INSURANCE
ISSUED UNDER THE ACT "SHALL BE PAYABLE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 

"(1)  IF THE BENEFICIARY TO WHOM PAYMENT IS FIRST MADE IS UNDER
THIRTY YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF MATURITY, IN TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY
EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS. 

"(2)  IF THE BENEFICIARY TO WHOM PAYMENT IS FIRST MADE IS THIRTY OR
MORE YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF MATURITY, IN EQUAL MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MONTHS CERTAIN, WITH SUCH
PAYMENTS CONTINUING DURING THE REMAINING LIFETIME OF SUCH
BENEFICIARY." 

THE ADMINISTRATOR, ACTING UNDER THE GENERAL RULE-MAKING POWER GIVEN
HIM BY THE ACT,  FN5 PROMULGATED REGULATION 3450(SET FORTH IN THE
MARGIN)  FN6  SHORTLY AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, TO PUT SEC.
602(H) INTO OPERATION.  THE REGULATION PROVIDES, FOR BENEFICIARIES
COVERED BY CLAUSE (1), THAT "PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE IN 240 EQUAL MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS AT THE RATE OF $5.51 FOR EACH $1,000 OF SUCH INSURANCE." 
THE AMOUNT OF THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENT IS SO CALCULATED THAT THE SUM OF
THE 240 INSTALLMENTS EQUALS THE FACE VALUE OF THE INSURANCE PLUS 3%
INTEREST PER ANNUM. 

IT IS THE PROVISION MADE BY THE REGULATION FOR FIRST BENEFICIARIES
COVERED BY CLAUSE (2) THAT IS IN ISSUE, SINCE THE FIRST BENEFICIARY IN
THIS CASE, MRS. ZAZOVE, WAS MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS OLD WHEN THE POLICY
MATURED.  FOR SUCH BENEFICIARIES, WHO ARE TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS FOR LIFE
WITH 120 PAYMENTS CERTAIN, THE REGULATION PROVIDES THAT THE "AMOUNT OF
THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENT FOR EACH $1,000 OF INSURANCE SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY THE AGE OF THE BENEFICIARY AS OF LAST BIRTHDAY AT THE
TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH (A) SCHEDULE BASED
UPON THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE TABLE OF MORTALITY AND INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 3 PERCENTUM PER ANNUM  ...  " ACCORDINGLY, THE SIZE OF THE
MONTHLY INSTALLMENT VARIES NOT MERELY WITH THE FACE VALUE OF THE
INSURANCE POLICY BUT ALSO WITH THE AGE OF THE FIRST BENEFICIARY, THE
LATTER FACTOR BEING USED AS THE BASIS OF AN ACTUARIAL COMPUTATION
WHEREBY THE FACE VALUE OF THE POLICY PLUS INTEREST IS EQUALIZED OVER
THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF THE BENEFICIARY.  UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. 602(H)(2), THE RESPONDENT, WHO WAS 54 YEARS OF AGE AT THE DEATH OF
THE INSURED, IS ENTITLED TO MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF $29.50, AT THE RATE
OF $5.90 FOR EACH $1,000 OF INSURANCE IN WHICH SHE HAD A BENEFICIAL
INTEREST.  THESE INSTALLMENTS ARE TO BE PAID FOR 120 MONTHS CERTAIN,
FN7  AND TO CONTINUE DURING HER REMAINING LIFETIME IF SHE LIVES BEYOND
THAT 10-YEAR PERIOD. 

IN REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD
THIS METHOD OF CALCULATION SET FORTH BY REGULATION 3450 TO BE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 602(H)(2).  IT CONSTRUED THE
LATTER PROVISIONS, IN ACCORD WITH THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION, AS
PLAINLY REQUIRING THAT THE TOTAL OF THE EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS
PAYABLE OVER A PERIOD OF 120 MONTHS CERTAIN SHOULD EQUAL THE FACE VALUE
OF THE INSURANCE, PLUS INTEREST.  UNDER THIS CONSTRUCTION, MRS. ZAZOVE
IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE $48.08, INSTEAD OF $29.50, AS HER MONTHLY
INSTALLMENT, SO THAT THE TOTAL OF THE 120 PAYMENTS CERTAIN WILL AMOUNT
TO $5,000(PLUS INTEREST), INSTEAD OF $3,450(PLUS INTEREST) AS
DETERMINED BY THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, WITH THE MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS DUE HER IF SHE SURVIVES THE PERIOD OF GUARANTEED PAYMENTS
CONTINUING AT THE SAME RATE.  TAKING INTO ACCOUNT MRS. ZAZOVE'S LIFE
EXPECTANCY AS ESTIMATED BY THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE TABLE OF MORTALITY,
THE ACTUAL CASH VALUE OF THIS $5,000 INSURANCE POLICY AT THE TIME OF
THE INSURED'S DEATH WOULD AMOUNT TO $8,145 UNDER RESPONDENT'S
CONSTRUCTION, INSTEAD OF $5,000 AS DETERMINED BY THE REGULATION.  FN8 

IN ARRIVING AT ITS DECISION, THE MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REASONED THAT THE TERMS OF SEC. 602(H)(2) ARE CLEAR AND
UNAMBIGUOUS; THAT NOTHING IS SAID IN THE STATUTE ABOUT EQUALIZING THE
SUM OVER THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF THE BENEFICIARY; AND THAT CONGRESS
UNMISTAKABLY PRESCRIBED PAYMENT OF THE FACE VALUE PLUS INTEREST IN
EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OVER A PERIOD OF 120 MONTHS CERTAIN.  THE
MAJOR DIFFICULTY WITH THIS REASONING LIES IN THE INADEQUATE
CONSIDERATION THAT IT GIVES TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE PAYMENT PROVIDED
BY SEC. 602(H)(2).  IN EFFECT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAJORITY
STOPPED SHORT, IN ITS READING OF THE TERMS FOR PAYMENT OF THE INSURANCE
IN THAT SUBSECTION, AT THE END OF THE PHRASE "IN EQUAL MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MONTHS CERTAIN."  BY STOPPING
SHORT AT THAT PHRASE, THE COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE
POSSIBILITY THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PHRASE,
"WITH SUCH PAYMENTS CONTINUING DURING THE REMAINING LIFETIME OF SUCH
BENEFICIARY," TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL AND EQUALLY ESSENTIAL COMPONENT
OF THE STATUTORY EQUIVALENT FOR THE FACE VALUE OF THE INSURANCE. 
ASSUMING THAT THIS ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTION IS IN FACT
WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED, THE ONLY PROPER INTERPRETATIVE REGULATION WOULD
BE ONE THAT COMPUTED THE VALUE OF THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS PAYABLE TO
ANY GIVEN FIRST BENEFICIARY IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE VALUE OF THE
PAYMENTS TO BE MADE, GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO THE BENEFICIARY'S LIFE
EXPECTANCY AT THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO THE FACE
VALUE OF THE POLICY, PLUS 3% INTEREST.  REGULATION 3450 IS BASED ON
THAT ASSUMPTION.  IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FAILED TO REGARD THE CONTINUING PAYABILITY OF MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS,
AFTER THE PAYMENT OF THE 120 INSTALLMENTS CERTAIN, AS POSSIBLY
CONSTITUTING A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE INSURANCE FOR WHICH THE
SERVICEMAN HAD CONTRACTED, RATHER THAN A SHEER GRATUITY CONFERRED BY
CONGRESS, THAT THE COURT COULD VIEW THE SUBSECTION AS PLAINLY AND
WITHOUT AMBIGUITY REQUIRING THE FACE VALUE OF THE INSURANCE TO BE PAID
BY THE END OF THE 120 MONTHS CERTAIN. 

MOREOVER, THE VERY PRESENCE OF THE TERM "CERTAIN" IN THE PHRASE
"EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MONTHS CERTAIN"
SUGGESTS A VIEW CONTRARY TO THAT REACHED BY THE COURT BELOW.  IT WILL
BE NOTED THAT WHEN CONGRESS HAD IN MIND, AS IT CLEARLY DID IN THE CASE
OF SEC. 602(H)(1), THAT A FIXED NUMBER OF INSTALLMENTS PROVIDED FOR
SHOULD EQUAL THE FACE VALUE OF THE INSURANCE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR
THE USE OF "CERTAIN" IN DESCRIBING THE INSTALLMENTS TO BE MADE AND,
INDEED, THE TERM IS NOT FOUND IN SEC. 602(H)(1).  WHILE THE INCLUSION
OF THE TERM IN DESCRIBING THE FIXED NUMBER OF INSTALLMENTS TO BE PAID
UNDER SEC. 602(H)(2) MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE A MERE SUPERFLUITY, ITS
PRESENCE AT LEAST SUGGESTS THE FAR GREATER PROBABILITY THAT IT WAS USED
IN THE SPECIALIZED, TECHNICAL SENSE IN WHICH IT IS GENERALLY EMPLOYED
IN THE INSURANCE FIELD - NAMELY, TO INDICATE A GUARANTY THAT A
DESIGNATED NUMBER OF MONTHLY PAYMENTS SHALL BE FORTHCOMING, WHERE A
POLICY PROVIDES AN OPTION FOR EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS CONTINUING
THROUGHOUT THE LIFETIME OF A PAYEE, WITH THE INDIVIDUAL INSTALLMENT
VARYING IN AMOUNT DEPENDING ON THE AGE OF THE BENEFICIARY WHEN THE
POLICY MATURES.  FN9 

HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, A READING OF SEC. 602(H)(2) IN ITS ENTIRETY
SUFFICES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LANGUAGE THERE USED BY CONGRESS IS FAR
FROM BEING SO CLEAR AND SO FREE FROM AMBIGUITY AS TO PRECLUDE THE
CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION IN REGULATION
3450.  TO THIS EXTENT, WE BELIEVE THE REASONING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WAS IN ERROR.  BUT THAT ALONE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY INVALIDATE
ITS HOLDING SINCE, AS THE GOVERNMENT APPEARS TO CONCEDE, THE TERMS OF
SEC. 602(H)(2) ARE NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY IN ACCORD WITH THE REGULATION. 
INDEED, IF THE AMBIGUITY INHERENT IN SEC. 602(H)(2) WERE FOUND IN THE
TERMS OF AN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL INSURANCE POLICY, THERE MIGHT WELL BE
SUBSTANTIAL GROUND FOR CONSTRUING IT IN FAVOR OF THE INSURED.  FN10 

THERE IS, OF COURSE, A MARKED DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CRITERIA FOR
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF AN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL INSURANCE CONTRACT, AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS SETTING UP A
SYSTEM OF NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE FOR SERVICEMEN TO BE ADMINISTERED BY
A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.  THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, WHERE AMBIGUOUS, ARE
TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY TO EFFECTUATE THE BENEFICIAL PURPOSES THAT
CONGRESS HAD IN MIND.  IN THIS RESPECT, JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE MAY APPEAR SIMILAR TO CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL POLICY,
WHERE AMBIGUOUS PROVISIONS ARE GENERALLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF THE
INSURED.  IN THE LATTER CASE, CONSTRUCTION FAVORABLE TO THE INSURED
RESTS ON THE THEORY THAT "THE PHRASEOLOGY OF CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE IS
THAT CHOSEN BY THE INSURER AND THE CONTRACT IN FIXED FORM IS TENDERED
TO THE PROSPECTIVE POLICY HOLDER WHO IS OFTEN WITHOUT TECHNICAL
TRAINING, AND WHO RARELY ACCEPTS IT WITH A LAWYER AT HIS ELBOW.  SO IF
ITS LANGUAGE IS REASONABLY OPEN TO TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, THAT MORE
FAVORABLE TO THE INSURED WILL BE ADOPTED  ...  AND UNLESS IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT THE WORDS ARE INTENDED TO BE USED IN THEIR TECHNICAL CONNOTATION
THEY WILL BE GIVEN THE MEANING THAT COMMON SPEECH IMPORTS.  ...  "
FN11  BUT THE STATUTE IS AN EXPRESSION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT RATHER
THAN THE EMBODIMENT OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE INSURED
PERSON.  ONLY THE INTENT OF CONGRESS, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE
INSURER, NEED BE ASCERTAINED TO FIX THE MEANING OF THE STATUTORY TERMS;
THE LAYMAN UNDERSTANDING OF THE POLICY HOLDER DOES NOT HAVE THE
RELEVANCE HERE THAT IT HAS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL
CONTRACT.  FN12 

ON THE OTHER HAND, WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION PURPORTING TO CONSTRUE AN AMBIGUOUS SUBSECTION OF THE
NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE ACT OF 1940 IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY TO BE DEEMED
VALID MERELY BECAUSE NOT PLAINLY INTERDICTED BY THE TERMS OF THE
PARTICULAR PROVISION CONSTRUED.  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S GENERAL RULE
MAKING POWER, WHICH WAS EXERCISED IN ISSUING REGULATION 3450, IS
LIMITED BY THE STATUTE TO "SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, AS ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO
CARRY OUT ITS PURPOSES  ...  "  FN13  MOREOVER, A 1946 AMENDMENT TO
SEC. 608, DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE THE FINALITY OF THE DECISIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR ON INSURANCE MATTERS,  FN14  AMENDED THE LAST SENTENCE OF
SEC. 608 TO ADD THE WORDS SET OUT IN ITALICS: 

"EXCEPT IN THE EVENT OF SUIT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 617 HEREOF, OR
OTHER APPROPRIATE COURT PROCEEDINGS, ALL DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR REGULATIONS PROPERLY
ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO, SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ON ALL QUESTIONS
OF LAW OR FACT, AND NO OTHER OFFICIAL OF THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT A
JUDGE OR JUDGES OF UNITED STATES COURTS, SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW ANY SUCH DECISIONS." 

THE EXTENSION OF PROCEDURES AVAILABLE TO SECURE JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE
INTERPOLATION OF THE WORD "PROPERLY," AND THE ADDITION, PRESUMABLY OUT
OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, OF THE TAUTOLOGICAL PHRASE "EXCEPT A JUDGE
OR JUDGES OF UNITED STATES COURTS" ARE INDICATIVE OF CONGRESSIONAL
CONCERN THAT THE REGULATIONS OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION BE SUBJECT
TO MORE THAN CASUAL JUDICIAL SCRUTINY WHEN THEY ARE BASED UPON A
CONTROVERTED CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.    ACCORDINGLY, SEC.
602(H)(2) MUST BE READ IN THE FULL CONTEXT OF RELATED SECTIONS OF THE
STATUTE AND OTHER INDICIA OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEFORE WE CAN
ADEQUATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THE REGULATION IS "NOT INCONSISTENT" WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND WHETHER IT IS "NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE
TO CARRY OUT ITS PURPOSES."  WE TURN THEREFORE FROM NARROW, SEMANTIC
CONSIDERATIONS TO A BROADER CONTEXT IN WHICH THE INTENT OF CONGRESS CAN
BE MORE READILY COMPREHENDED. 

THE PROPER MEANING OF SEC. 602(H)(2) BECOMES APPARENT WHEN THE
RESPECTIVE ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF EACH OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVE
INTERPRETATIONS BEFORE US ARE TESTED AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
AND THE STATUTE VIEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY.  THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WOULD RESULT IN CONFERRING A FAR GREATER
RETURN TO BENEFICIARIES IN THE GROUP COVERED BY SEC. 602(H)(2), I.E.,
OVER THIRTY AT THE TIME OF THE INSURED'S DEATH, THAN THE RETURN TO
WHICH FIRST BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY SEC. 602(H)(1), I.E., UNDER THIRTY
AT THE INSURED'S DEATH, ARE ENTITLED.  IT IS UNQUESTIONED THAT THE
LATTER GROUP, UNDER THE ORIGINAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS,  FN15  WERE
ENTITLED ONLY TO 240 MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS (I.E., OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD)
WHICH IN THE AGGREGATE EQUAL THE FACE VALUE PLUS INTEREST, WITH NO
FURTHER INSTALLMENTS PAYABLE THEREAFTER, WHETHER OR NOT THE PAYEE
SURVIVED THAT LIMITED PERIOD.  BUT, UNDER THE RULING OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, PAYMENTS IN MANY IF NOT MOST OF THE CASES INVOLVING
THE FORMER GROUP OF BENEFICIARIES WOULD EXCEED THE FACE VALUE OF THE
POLICY SINCE ANY FIRST BENEFICIARY WHO SURVIVED THE 10-YEAR PERIOD OF
SEC. 602(H)(2) WOULD AUTOMATICALLY SECURE MORE THAN THAT AMOUNT.  IN
FACT, THE ACTUAL VALUE OF A POLICY, AT MATURITY, TO A 30-YEAR OLD
BENEFICIARY, UNDER THIS RULING, WOULD BE ALMOST TWO AND A HALF TIMES
ITS FACE AMOUNT,  FN16  WHEREAS THE 29-YEAR OLD BENEFICIARY, PAID IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 602(H)(1)(WHOSE INTERPRETATION IS NOT OPEN TO
QUESTION), COULD NEVER RECEIVE MORE THAN THE FACE AMOUNT, PLUS
INTEREST.  AND THE AGGREGATE OF GUARANTEED AND CONTINUING PAYMENTS MADE
AT SO HIGH A RATE UNDER SEC. 602(H)(2) WOULD NECESSARILY GREATLY EXCEED
THE TOTAL FACE VALUE OF THE POLICIES ISSUED UNDER THE STATUTE.  FN17 

THIS SHARP DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS OF
BENEFICIARIES DOES NOT RESULT UNDER THE REGULATION, SINCE THE AGE OF
THE FIRST BENEFICIARY IS USED BY THE REGULATION AS THE BASIS OF AN
ACTUARIAL CALCULATION PURSUANT TO A FORMULA WHEREBY TOTAL PAYMENTS
UNDER SEC. 602(H)(2) APPROXIMATE THE FACE VALUE OF THE POLICIES, PLUS
INTEREST.  THE EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN RESULT IS INDICATED BY THE
TABLE, SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN18  OF COMPARATIVE PRESENT VALUES OF
THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS UNDER THE REGULATION AND UNDER THE VIEW OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE BENEFICIARY'S LIFE
EXPECTANCY AS SHOWN BY THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE TABLE OF MORTALITY. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT THOUGHT IT PROBABLE THAT CONGRESS ORIGINALLY
INTENDED THE HIGHER RATE OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE
BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY SEC. 602(H)(2) BECAUSE THAT GROUP OF PERSONS
OVER 30 AT THE TIME OF THE SERVICEMAN'S DEATH WOULD INCLUDE PARENTS,
WHO WOULD BE AT LEAST MIDDLE-AGED, AND "YOUNG WIDOWS WITH SMALL
CHILDREN WHOSE TEN YEARS OF MONTHLY PAYMENTS WOULD END AT THE MOST
NEEDED TIME."  FN19  THIS WOULD HARDLY SERVE TO EXPLAIN, HOWEVER, WHY
CONGRESS WOULD INTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE IN SO SUBSTANTIAL A MANNER
AGAINST A SIMILARLY DESERVING BUT SLIGHTLY YOUNGER WIDOW IN THE UNDER
THIRTY CATEGORY BY FAILING TO EXTEND COMPARABLE BENEFITS TO THE LATTER
GROUP. 

THE DISPARITY IN BENEFITS AVAILABLE UNDER THE RESPONDENT'S VIEW, AS
CONTRASTED WITH THOSE AVAILABLE UNDER THE REGULATION, IS REFLECTED IN A
CORRESPONDINGLY LARGE INCREASE, UNDER THE FORMER VIEW, IN THE TOTAL
LIABILITY FOR BENEFICIAL PAYMENTS.  FN20  THIS GREATLY ENHANCED
LIABILITY COULD BE MET, THEORETICALLY, IN EITHER OF TWO WAYS:  BY
SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS, OR BY GREATLY INCREASED PREMIUM
RATES SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THOSE WHICH ARE NOW SET BY THE VETERANS'
ADMINISTRATION ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE REGULATION IS PROPER. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THE GOVERNMENT TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY
LIABILITY.  BY EXPRESS PROVISIONS IN THE 1940 ACT, CONGRESS SPECIFIED
THAT THE UNITED STATES WOULD BEAR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE
INSURANCE SYSTEM N21, EXCESS MORTALITY AND DISABILITY COST RESULTING
FROM THE EXTRA HAZARDS OF WAR,  FN22  AND THE COST OF REIMBURSING THE
RESERVE FUND FOR WAIVING RECOVERY OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS ERRONEOUSLY MADE
WHERE IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE TO REQUIRE REPAYMENT.  FN23  CONGRESS
OBVIOUSLY CONTEMPLATED THAT THE RESERVE FUND TO MEET THE LIABILITIES OF
NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES WAS TO BE SELF-SUPPORTING,
SUSTAINED BY THE PREMIUMS PAID AND BY THE YIELD OF PREMIUMS INVESTED,
IN ALL RESPECTS ASIDE FROM THOSE EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS WHERE THE
STATUTE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BEAR THE
FINANCIAL BURDEN.  YET CONGRESS NOWHERE SPECIFIED THAT THE UNITED
STATES WOULD BEAR THE HUGE COST OF THE ENHANCED LIABILITY THAT IT WOULD
NECESSARILY HAVE ANTICIPATED HAD IT IMPRESSED UPON SEC. 602(H)(2) THE
MEANING THAT RESPONDENT FINDS THERE; AND THAT STRIKING OMISSION IS
PERSUASIVE, IN THE ABSENCE OF COGENT CONSIDERATIONS TO THE CONTRARY,
THAT NO GENEROSITY OF THIS MAGNITUDE WAS CONTEMPLATED.  FN24 

NOR CAN IT BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS ENVISAGED THE SETTING OF PREMIUM
RATES HIGH ENOUGH TO MEET AN ADDED LIABILITY OF SUCH PROPORTIONS. 
SENATOR HARRISON, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE ORIGINAL BILL, INFORMED THE
SENATE THAT "PREMIUM RATES BASED ON THE AVERAGE AGE - 25 YEARS - WILL
BE 67 CENTS PER THOUSAND PER MONTH."  FN25  SUCH A RATE, THOUGH
ADEQUATE TO COVER PAYMENTS UNDER REGULATION 3450, WOULD BE COMPLETELY
INADEQUATE UNDER THE RESPONDENT'S CONSTRUCTION. 

MOREOVER, WHATEVER AMBIGUITY EXISTS IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 602(H)(2)
IS DISPELLED BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE PRACTICE IN EFFECT UNDER UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT LIFE INSURANCE, ESTABLISHED FOR WORLD WAR I VETERANS,
AND THE LONG-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANIES,
VIEWED AS PART OF THE BACKGROUND OF EXPERIENCE WHICH THE DRAFTSMEN OF
SEC. 602(H)(2) MAY BE ASSUMED TO HAVE HAD IN MIND. 

THE WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT, 1924,  FN26  PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT OF
INSURANCE BENEFITS IN 240 EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS, BUT AUTHORIZED
THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION (FORMERLY THE VETERANS' BUREAU) TO PROVIDE
IN THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE "FOR OPTIONAL SETTLEMENTS, TO BE SELECTED
BY THE INSURED, WHEREBY SUCH INSURANCE MAY BE MADE PAYABLE EITHER IN
ONE SUM OR IN INSTALLMENTS FOR THIRTY-SIX MONTHS OR MORE.  ...  "  ONE
OF THE OPTIONS, SET UP BY REGULATION 3068 UNDER THIS STATUTORY
AUTHORIZATION, PROVIDED THAT MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS IN AMOUNTS DESIGNATED
IN AN APPENDED TABLE - THE AMOUNTS BEING GRADUATED, JUST AS IN
REGULATION 3450, WITH THE "AGE OF BENEFICIARY AT TIME OF DEATH OF THE
INSURED" - "WILL BE PAYABLE THROUGHOUT THE LIFETIME OF THE DESIGNATED
BENEFICIARY, BUT IF SUCH DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY DIES BEFORE 240 SUCH
INSTALLMENTS HAVE BEEN PAID, THE REMAINING UNPAID MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS
WILL BE PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BENEFICIARY PROVISIONS OF THE
POLICY."  FN27 

IT SEEMS APPARENT TO US THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL DRAFTSMEN, IN FRAMING
SEC. 602(H)(2), WERE UNDOUBTEDLY STRIVING TO INCORPORATE INTO THE 1940
ACT A PROVISION MODELED ON THE LIFE-ANNUITY-WITH-240-PAYMENTS-CERTAIN
OPTION SET UP BY REGULATION 3068 UNDER THE WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT OF
1924, DEVIATING MATERIALLY ONLY IN THE NUMBER OF PAYMENTS GUARANTEED. 
TRUE, SEC. 602(H)(2) DOES NOT ITSELF DEFINE EXPRESSLY THE METHOD OF
COMPUTATION TO BE USED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN DETERMINING THE SIZE OF
THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS IN ANY GIVEN CASE.  BUT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT
THE FACTORS PREVIOUSLY SET FORTH AND CONSIDERING THEM AGAINST THE
BACKGROUND OF EXPERIENCE UNDER THE 1924 ACT, THE ONLY REASONABLE
CONCLUSION IS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE CALCULATION TO BE AN ACTUARIAL
ONE, BASED ON THE AGE OF THE BENEFICIARY.  TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE OPPOSITE
CONCLUSION, WE MUST BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED, BY ITS WORDING OF
SEC. 602(H)(2), TO BESTOW UPON BENEFICIARIES OF WORLD WAR II SERVICEMEN
TOTAL PAYMENTS COMPLETELY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THOSE AVAILABLE TO
BENEFICIARIES OF WORLD WAR.  I SERVICEMEN.  TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS,
BY THE ENACTMENT OF A SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS PROVISION, INTENDED THIS
DISPROPORTIONATE RESULT ALONG WITH THE OTHER DISPARITIES THAT HAVE BEEN
SHOWN TO BE REQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENT'S VIEW, PUTS TOO GREAT A STRAIN
UPON THE IMAGINATION. 

MOREOVER, THE CONGRESSIONAL DRAFTSMEN OF SEC. 602(H)(2), WITH THE
EXAMPLE BEFORE THEM OF THE 1924 ACT AND THE SIMILAR PRACTICE OF
STANDARD COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANIES, UNDOUBTEDLY CONSIDERED THAT
EVEN THE VERY WORDING OF THAT SUBSECTION, WITHOUT MORE, NECESSARILY
IMPLIED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS TO FOLLOW THE EXISTING PRACTICE IN
CALCULATING THE SIZE OF THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS.  AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED,
THE TERM "CERTAIN" APPEARING IN THE PHRASE "EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS
FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MONTHS CERTAIN" IS A TECHNICAL WORD THAT
CONNOTES, BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS COMMONLY USED IN
STANDARD COMMERCIAL POLICIES, AN ACTUARIAL CALCULATION OF THE MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS PAYABLE. 

FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES USED IN 1940
PROVIDED FOR A LIFE INCOME OPTION TO BE "MADE PAYABLE IN EQUAL ANNUAL,
SEMI-ANNUAL, QUARTERLY OR MONTHLY INSTALMENTS FOR TEN OR TWENTY YEARS
CERTAIN, WITH PAYMENTS CONTINUING DURING THE REMAINING LIFETIME OF THE
PERSON UPON WHOSE LIFE THE INCOME DEPENDS  ...  THE FIRST INSTALMENT
WILL BE DUE UPON THE DATE ON WHICH THE OPTION BECOMES OPERATIVE.  THE
AMOUNT OF SUCH INSTALMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TABLE OF INSTALMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE, WHICH INSTALMENTS INCLUDE
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 3% PER ANNUM, AND SHALL BE BASED ON THE SEX AND
THE AGE AT BIRTHDAY NEAREST THE DUE DATE OF THE FIRST INSTALMENT, OF
THE PERSON UPON WHOSE LIFE THE INCOME DEPENDS.  ...  "  FN28  ANOTHER
EXAMPLE, CLOSER TO THE CONCISE FORM OF SEC. 602(H)(2), THOUGH USING THE
TERM "FIXED" RATHER THAN "CERTAIN," IS AN OPTION WHICH PROVIDES FOR
"THE PAYMENT OF EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TABLE
BELOW (A TABLE WHOSE PAYMENTS ARE GRADUATED IN AMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO
THE "AGE OF PAYEE NEAREST BIRTHDAY AT DATE OF FIRST INSTALMENT"), TO
THE INSURED OR THE BENEFICIARY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR A FIXED PERIOD
OF TEN YEARS AND FOR SO LONG THEREAFTER AS THE PAYEE SHALL SURVIVE, THE
FIRST INSTALMENT BEING PAYABLE IMMEDIATELY."  FN29 

CONGRESS MAY ALSO HAVE ASSUMED THAT ITS INTENT WAS MADE MANIFEST BY
THE JUXTAPOSITION OF SEC. 602(H)(2) WITH OTHER PROVISIONS HAVING
SIMILAR CONNOTATIONS.  SECTION 605(B), FOR EXAMPLE, AUTHORIZES THE
ADMINISTRATOR "TO SET ASIDE OUT OF (THE NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE
FUND) SUCH RESERVE AMOUNTS AS MAY BE REQUIRED UNDER ACCEPTED ACTUARIAL
PRINCIPLES, TO MEET ALL LIABILITIES UNDER SUCH INSURANCE  ...."  AND
SEC. 602(E) PROVIDES THAT THE PREMIUM RATES, ALL "CASH, LOAN, PAID UP,
AND EXTENDED VALUES, AND ALL OTHER CALCULATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH
INSURANCE, SHALL BE BASED UPON SAID AMERICAN EXPERIENCE TABLE OF
MORTALITY AND INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 3 PER CENTUM PER ANNUM." 

IN ANY EVENT, THE SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE
CLEARLY INDICATES CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION PUT UPON
SEC. 602(H)(2) BY REGULATION 3450.  A PROPOSED BILL WAS SUGGESTED IN A
LETTER WRITTEN BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION TO
CONGRESS IN JUNE, 1944, TO AMEND SECS. 602(H)(1) AND 602(H)(2) OF THE
1940 ACT BY AUTHORIZING "THE ELECTION OF A REFUND LIFE INCOME IN LIEU
OF THE MODE OF PAYMENTS NOW PROVIDED."  FN30  IN EXPLAINING THE
NECESSITY OF THE AMENDMENT, THE ADMINISTRATOR POINTED OUT THAT IF "A
WIDOW HAVING A MINOR CHILD, WHO IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENTS AS PROVIDED IN
OF INSURANCE, PAYMENTS UNDER THE CONTRACT WILL CEASE AFTER PAYMENT OF
120 INSTALLMENTS HAS BEEN COMPLETED EVEN THOUGH THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE
INSTALLMENTS PAID OR PAYABLE IS LESS THAN THE FACE VALUE OF THE POLICY
AND EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD IS TOO YOUNG TO BE CAPABLE OF SELF-SUPPORT AT
THE TIME PAYMENTS EXPIRE.  THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL AUTHORIZE THE
PAYMENT OF THE FULL FACE VALUE OF THE INSURANCE IN EVERY INSTANCE AND
WILL ALSO INSURE AN INCOME THROUGHOUT THE LIFETIME OF THE FIRST
BENEFICIARY UNDER THE POLICY."  FN31 

IN OTHER WORDS, THE AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED PARTLY TO EXTEND A LIFE
INCOME OPTION TO BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY SEC. 602(H)(1), WHO
THERETOFORE HAD BEEN ELIGIBLE ONLY FOR THE 240-PAYMENT PLAN, AND PARTLY
TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION FOR THE INEQUITABLE SITUATION PRESENTED IN
CERTAIN CASES COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 602(H)(2), WHEN THE 120
INSTALLMENTS CERTAIN AMOUNTED TO LESS THAN THE FACE VALUE OF THE POLICY
AND THE FIRST BENEFICIARY DIED BEFORE HAVING RECEIVED AN AMOUNT EQUAL
TO THAT FACE VALUE.  THE INEQUITABLE SITUATION THUS CONSIDERED TO BE
PRESENT UNDER SEC. 602(H)(2) AND SOUGHT TO BE AMELIORATED BY THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT COULD NOT HAVE EXISTED, OF COURSE, IF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WERE CORRECT IN THE CONSTRUCTION IT HAS PUT UPON SEC.
602(H)(2). 

THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, IN RECOMMENDING PASSAGE OF THE BILL,
ADOPTED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER AS EXPLANATORY OF THE VARIOUS
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL  FN32  AND INDICATED THEREBY ITS APPROVAL OF THE
INTERPRETATION EMBODIED IN REGULATION 3450, SINCE OTHERWISE A MAJOR
PURPOSE CLAIMED TO BE EFFECTED BY THE AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPLETELY ILLUSORY.  MOREOVER, A TABLE INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
LETTER, COMPARING THE AMOUNT OF EACH MONTHLY INSTALLMENT AND THE SUM OF
THE GUARANTEED INSTALLMENTS UNDER THE NEW REFUND LIFE INCOME PLAN AND
UNDER SEC. 602(H)(2), CLEARLY APPRISED CONGRESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION PUT
UPON THE LATTER SECTION BY THE REGULATION.  HENCE, IN ENACTING THE
AMENDMENT  FN33  CONGRESS INDICATED ITS APPROVAL OF THE INTERPRETATION
UPON WHICH THE REGULATION IS BASED.  FN34    SIMILAR RECOGNITION THAT
IN MANY INSTANCES "THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE ACTUALLY PAYABLE"
UNDER THE ORIGINAL MODE OF SETTLEMENT PROVIDED BY SEC. 602(H)(2)
"AMOUNTED TO MUCH LESS THAN THE FACE OF THE POLICY" WAS GIVEN BY THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WORLD WAR VETERANS' LEGISLATION, IN RECOMMENDING A
1946 AMENDMENT TO PERMIT POLICIES ON WHICH PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE PRIOR
TO THE 1944 ACT TO ELECT THE REFUND LIFE INCOME PLAN.  FN35  THE 1946
BILL ALSO INCLUDED A PROVISION SETTING UP OPTIONAL MODES OF SETTLEMENT
FOR INSURANCE MATURING ON OR AFTER AUGUST 1, 1946, AND THE THIRD OPTION
WAS COUCHED IN LANGUAGE IDENTICAL IN EVERY SIGNIFICANT RESPECT TO THAT
USED IN THE ORIGINAL SEC. 602(H)(2).  FN36  ACCORDINGLY, WHEN CONGRESS
ENACTED THE 1946 BILL, IT IN EFFECT INCORPORATED THE OLD PROVISION OF
SEC. 602(H)(2), WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR REGULATION 3450, AND IN OUR
VIEW THEREBY ACCEPTED THE CONSTRUCTION EMBODIED IN THAT REGULATION,
WHICH HAD BEEN SO CLEARLY BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION ON THIS AND PRIOR
OCCASIONS. 

FURTHER EVIDENCE, WERE ANY NEEDED, THAT CONGRESS ACCEPTED AS ITS OWN
THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE USED IN SEC. 602(H)(2) IS SUPPLIED
BY THE SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION MAINTAINED IN THIS REENACTMENT BETWEEN
THE MODE OF PAYMENT ORIGINALLY PROVIDED BY SEC. 602(H)(2) AND THE
REFUND LIFE INCOME PLAN, VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
REPORT ON THE BILL.  IT IS HARDLY CONCEIVABLE - AND IF CONCEIVABLE,
HARDLY EXPLICABLE - THAT CONGRESS MEANT ONE THING BY THE LANGUAGE IT
USED IN SEC. 602(H)(2) WHEN ENACTING THE ORIGINAL MEASURE IN 1940, AND
ANOTHER, QUITE DIFFERENT THING, WHEN IT REENACTED THAT LANGUAGE IN
1946. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, THE VALIDITY OF
REGULATION 3450 IS SUSTAINED AND THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  6 FED. REG. 1162, 1166, 38 C.F.R. 1941 SUPP. SEC. 10.3450. 

FN2  PART I, TITLE VI OF THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF 1940, ACT OF OCT.
8, 1940, C. 757, 54 STAT. 974, 1008, 38 U.S.C. SECS. 801, 802(H)(2). 

FN3  PURSUANT TO SEC. 617 OF THE ACT, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 817. 

FN4  SEC. 602(G), 38 U.S.C. SEC. 802(G). 

FN5  SEC. 608, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 808:  "THE ADMINISTRATOR, SUBJECT TO
THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, SHALL ADMINISTER, EXECUTE AND
ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE SUCH
RULES AND REGULATIONS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER, AS ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT ITS PURPOSES, AND
SHALL DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS ARISING HEREUNDER.  ...  " 

FN6  "PAYMENT TO FIRST BENEFICIARY.  UPON DUE PROOF OF THE DEATH OF
THE INSURED WHILE A NATIONAL SERVICE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY IS IN FORCE,
THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS, WITHOUT INTEREST, WHICH HAVE ACCRUED SINCE
THE DEATH OF THE INSURED (THE FIRST INSTALLMENT BEING DUE ON THE DATE
OF DEATH OF THE INSURED) AND THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS WHICH THEREAFTER
BECOME PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY, SHALL
BE PAID TO THE BENEFICIARY OR BENEFICIARIES ENTITLED IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER: 

"(A)  IF THE BENEFICIARY TO WHOM PAYMENT IS FIRST MADE IS UNDER
THIRTY YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, PAYMENT
SHALL BE MADE IN 240 EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS AT THE RATE OF $5.51
FOR EACH $1,000 OF SUCH INSURANCE. 

"(B) IF THE BENEFICIARY TO WHOM PAYMENT IS FIRST MADE IS THIRTY OR
MORE YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, PAYMENT
SHALL BE MADE IN EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS FOR 120 MONTHS CERTAIN,
WITH SUCH PAYMENT CONTINUING THROUGHOUT THE REMAINING LIFETIME OF SUCH
BENEFICIARY.  THE AMOUNT OF THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENT FOR EACH $1,000 OF
INSURANCE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE AGE OF THE BENEFICIARY AS OF LAST
BIRTHDAY AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE BASED UPON THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE TABLE OF
MORTALITY AND INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 3 PERCENTUM PER ANNUM:

                            AMOUNT OF 

AGE OF BENEFICIARY AT DATE                      EACH MONTHLY 

OF DEATH OF INSURED                              INSTALLMENT 

30 ................................................... $3.97 

     .      .         .         .         . 

40 ...................................................  4.50 

     .         .        .         .         . 

50 ...................................................  5.39 

     .         .         .         .         . 

54 ...................................................  5.90 

     .         .         .  .         . 

60 ...................................................  6.81 

     .         .         .         .    . 

68 ...................................................  8.19 

     .         .         .         .         . 

70 ...................................................  8.51 

     .         .         .         .         . 

80 ...................................................  9.55 

.         .         .         .         . 

FN7  IF THE FIRST BENEFICIARY FAILS TO SURVIVE THE 10-YEAR PERIOD,
AFTER HAVING RECEIVED AT LEAST ONE INSTALLMENT, "THEREAFTER MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS IN THE SAME AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID TO THE PERSON OR PERSONS
ENTITLED AS BENEFICIARY UNTIL ALL OF THE INSTALLMENTS CERTAIN SHALL
HAVE BEEN PAID."  REGULATION 3451, 6 FED. REG. 1162, 1166, 38 C.F.R.
CUM. SUPP. SEC. 10.3451. 

FN8  SEE TABLE, INFRA NOTE 18. 

FN9  SEE EXAMPLES, IN THE TEXT INFRA, OF STANDARD USAGE OF THIS TERM
IN COMMERCIAL INSURANCE POLICIES. 

FN10  SEE ASCHENBRENNER V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 292
U.S. 80, 84 ET SEQ. (1934); MANUFACTURERS' ACCIDENT INDEMNITY CO. V.
DORGAN, 58 F. 945, 956(1893). 

FN11  ASCHENBRENNER V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., SUPRA
NOTE 10, AT 84-85. 

FN12  THIS IS NOT, OF COURSE, TO DENY THAT THE STATUTE AND
REGULATIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO IT GIVE RISE TO AN OBLIGATION THAT HAS
THE FORCE OF A BINDING CONTRACT WITH THE SERVICEMAN INSURED.  SEE LYNCH
V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571, 579(1934). 

FN13  SEC. 608, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 808, QUOTED IN PART SUPRA, NOTE 6. 

FN14  S. REP. NO. 1705, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 9; H.R. REP. NO. 2002,
79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 10; SEC. 12 OF THE 1946 AMENDMENT, 60 STAT. 781,
788, AMENDING SEC. 608. 

FN15  THE STATUTE WAS AMENDED IN 1946 TO MAKE ALL FUTURE
BENEFICIARIES, REGARDLESS OF AGE, ELIGIBLE FOR THE LIFE ANNUITY WITH
120 GUARANTEED PAYMENTS PREVIOUSLY LIMITED TO THOSE OVER THIRTY.  SEC.
9 OF THE 1946 AMENDMENT, 60 STAT. 781, 785, ADDING SUBSECTION (T)(3) TO
SEC. 602 OF THE 1940 ACT. 

FN16  SEE TABLE, INFRA NOTE 18. 

FN17  IBID. 

AS MENTIONED IN NOTE 15 SUPRA, THE LIFE ANNUITY WITH 120 GUARANTEED
PAYMENTS WAS MADE AVAILABLE IN 1946 TO ALL BENEFICIARIES REGARDLESS OF
AGE.  ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONDENT'S INTERPRETATION WOULD REQUIRE US TO
VIEW CONGRESS AS HAVING OFFERED, IN THE 1946 AMENDMENT, FOUR OPTIONAL
SETTLEMENTS (SEE NOTE 36 INFRA), THREE OF WHICH WOULD BE LIMITED IN
VALUE AT MATURITY TO THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE INSURANCE, WHILE THE FOURTH
OPTION WOULD OFFER A VALUE FAR IN EXCESS OF THE FACE AMOUNT AND WOULD
BE AVAILABLE TO ALL BENEFICIARIES WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR AGE AT THE
INSURED'S DEATH. 

BY THE CALCULATIONS OF THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE TABLE, A PERSON HAS TO
BE 68 YEARS OLD BEFORE HIS LIFE EXPECTANCY IS LESS THAN 10 YEARS. 
ACCORDINGLY, IN ALL CASES WHERE THE FIRST BENEFICIARY IS UNDER 68 YEARS
OF AGE AT THE TIME THE INSURED DIES, THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE POLICY,
THUS COMPUTED, WOULD EXCEED ITS FACE AMOUNT.  THE ADMINISTRATOR
ESTIMATES THAT, ON THE APPROXIMATELY 2.1 BILLION DOLLARS OF DEATH
CLAIMS ALREADY INCURRED AND NOW BEING SETTLED UNDER THE PROVISION FOR
LIFE INCOME WITH INSTALLMENTS GUARANTEED FOR 120 MONTHS, THE ADDITIONAL
LIABILITY THAT WOULD RESULT IF SETTLEMENT WERE REQUIRED TO BE MADE
PURSUANT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT'S HOLDING WOULD AMOUNT TO APPROXIMATELY
1.8 BILLION DOLLARS.  GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF, P. 67.  POTENTIAL LIABILITY
ON THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INSURANCE NOW IN FORCE AND YET TO MATURE
WOULD SIMILARLY BE VASTLY INCREASED UNDER THIS VIEW. 

THE PRECISE SIZE OF THE LATTER LIABILITY IS OF COURSE PROBLEMATICAL. 
IN A LETTER TO THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, DATED OCTOBER 24, 1947, THE
VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE IN FORCE AND
NOT YET MATURED AT 35 BILLION DOLLARS.  ASSUMING THAT ALL OF THAT
INSURANCE WOULD BE HELD TO MATURE AT DEATH AND THAT THE TYPICAL
BENEFICIARY WOULD BE A WOMAN AGED 30 AT THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND, AND
THAT ALL POLICIES WOULD BE SETTLED UNDER THE LIFE INCOME OPTION WITH
INSTALLMENTS GUARANTEED FOR 120 MONTHS, THE ADMINISTRATOR ESTIMATED
THAT POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER RESPONDENT'S VIEW OF THE STATUTE MIGHT
BE ABOUT 97 BILLION DOLLARS, INSTEAD OF 35 BILLION DOLLARS (THE
POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER REGULATION 3450) - AN INCREASED FUTURE
LIABILITY OF 62 BILLION DOLLARS.  AND IF 10% OF ALL LAPSED POLICIES
WERE REINSTATED, THE POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL LIABILITY (ON THE BASIS OF
THE ABOVE ASSUMPTIONS) WOULD BE ABOUT 19.7 BILLION DOLLARS. 

WHILE THESE ASSUMPTIONS MAY BE OVERLY FAVORABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTIONS AND MAY NOT BE FULLY BORNE OUT BY THE COURSE OF FUTURE
EVENTS, IT IS OBVIOUS - EVEN ALLOWING FOR A WIDE MARGIN OF ERROR - THAT
THE ADDED POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER THE HOLDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS MIGHT WELL AMOUNT TO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. 

FN18

                            PRESENT VALUE       PRESENT VALUE

                            UNDER REGULATION     UNDER C.C.A. 7 

BENEFICIARY'S AGE                   3450      VIEW 

10..........................       $1,000       $2,786 

20..........................        1,000           2,633 

30..........................        1,000              2,421 

40..........................        1,000               2,136 

50..........................        1,000               1,783 

54..........................   1,000               1,629 

60..........................      1,000               1,411 

70..........................        1,000               1,129 

SEE APPENDIX D OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF FOR THE MATHEMATICAL
FORMULAE USED IN CONSTRUCTING THIS TABLE. 

FN19  TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD, P. 10. 

FN20  UNDER THE RESPONDENT'S VIEW, THIS EXTRAORDINARY PUTATIVE
LIABILITY MUST BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED BY THE
EXTENSION OF THE SEC. 602(H)(2) METHOD OF PAYMENT TO ALL BENEFICIARIES
BY THE 1946 AMENDMENT WHICH REMOVED THE LIMITING AGE FACTOR.  SEE NOTE
15 SUPRA. 

FN21  SEC. 606, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 806. 

FN22  SEC. 607(A), 38 U.S.C. SEC. 807(A). 

FN23  SEC. 609, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 809.  SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS TO THE
1940 ACT ADDED OTHER SPECIFIED COSTS TO BE BORNE BY THE UNITED STATES. 
SEE, E.G., 38 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 802 ET SEQ. 

FN24  CF. THE REASONING OF THE COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES, IN PINE HILL COAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 191,
196(1922):  "A LIABILITY IN ANY CASE IS NOT TO BE IMPOSED UPON A
GOVERNMENT WITHOUT CLEAR WORDS.  ...  AND WHERE, AS HERE, THE LIABILITY
WOULD MOUNT TO GREAT SUMS, ONLY THE PLAINEST LANGUAGE COULD WARRANT A
COURT IN TAKING IT TO BE IMPOSED.  ... " 

FN25  86 CONG. REC. 12920(1940). 

FN26  TITLE III, 43 STAT. 607, 624, AS AMENDED, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 512. 

FN27  38 C.F.R. 10.3068. 

FN28  THE HANDY GUIDE TO STANDARD AND SPECIAL CONTRACTS (1940) 294. 

FN29  ID. AT 613. 

A THIRD ILLUSTRATION PROVIDES IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS FOR AN ELECTION
BETWEEN A PLAN SIMILAR TO THAT PROVIDED BY SEC. 602(H)(2) AS CONSTRUED
BY REGULATION 3450, AND THE REFUND LIFE INCOME PLAN PROVIDED BY THE
1944 AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTE (SEE NOTE 33 INFRA):  "THE COMPANY WILL
PAY EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALMENTS DURING THE PAYEE'S REMAINING LIFE, WITH
120 OR 240 INSTALMENTS CERTAIN OR WITH INSTALMENTS CERTAIN UNTIL THE
PROCEEDS ARE REFUNDED, AS MAY BE DESIGNATED IN THE ELECTION OF THE
OPTION, THE AMOUNT OF EACH INSTALMENT TO BE DETERMINED FROM THE TABLE
ENTITLED 'OPTION 4 - LIFE INCOME WITH INSTALMENTS CERTAIN' IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEX OF THE PAYEE AND THE AGE OF THE PAYEE AT THE
PAYEE'S BIRTHDAY NEAREST TO THE DATE WHEN THE PROCEEDS OF THIS POLICY
SHALL BECOME PAYABLE, THE FIRST OF SAID INSTALMENTS TO BE PAYABLE
IMMEDIATELY.  ...  "  HANDY GUIDE, SUPRA NOTE 28, AT 983.  SEE ALSO ID.
AT 1284-85. 

FN30  S. REP. NO. 1105, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2, QUOTING THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER. 

FN31  ID. 

FN32  ID. AT 1. 

FN33  SECTION 6 OF THE 1944 ACT, 58 STAT. 762, 763, AMENDED SEC.
602(H)(2) BY PROVIDING THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR "MAY INCLUDE A PROVISION
IN THE INSURANCE CONTRACT AUTHORIZING THE INSURED OR THE BENEFICIARY TO
ELECT, IN LIEU OF THIS MODE OF PAYMENT, A REFUND LIFE INCOME IN MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS PAYABLE FOR SUCH PERIOD CERTAIN AS MAY BE REQUIRED IN
ORDER THAT THE SUM OF THE INSTALLMENTS CERTAIN, INCLUDING A LAST
INSTALLMENT OF SUCH REDUCED AMOUNT AS MAY BE NECESSARY, SHALL EQUAL THE
FACE VALUE OF THE CONTRACT LESS ANY INDEBTEDNESS WITH SUCH PAYMENTS
CONTINUING THROUGHOUT THE LIFETIME OF SUCH BENEFICIARY:  PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT SUCH OPTIONAL SETTLEMENT SHALL NOT BE AVAILABLE IN ANY
CASE IN WHICH SUCH SETTLEMENT WOULD RESULT IN PAYMENTS OF INSTALLMENTS
OVER A SHORTER PERIOD THAN ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MONTHS, NOR IN ANY
CASE IN WHICH PAYMENTS OF INSURANCE INSTALLMENTS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED
PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT."  SECTION 5 OF THE 1944 ACT
ADDED A SIMILAR AMENDMENT TO SEC. 602(H)(1).    FN34  CF. ALEXANDER V.
MAYOR, 5 CRANCH 1, 7-8(1809). 

FN35  H.R. REP. NO. 2002, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 5.  THE MEASURE WAS
APPROVED BY CONGRESS, AND SEC. 5(A) OF THE ACT AMENDS SEC. 602(H)(1)
AND (2) AS INDICATED.  60 STAT. 781, 782-3. 

36 SECTION 9 OF THE ACT ADDED TO SEC. 602 A NEW SUBSECTION (T),
READING AS FOLLOWS:  "INSURANCE MATURING ON OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE
OF ENACTMENT OF THE INSURANCE ACT OF 1946 SHALL BE PAYABLE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING OPTIONAL MODES OF SETTLEMENT: 

"(1)  IN ONE SUM. 

"(2)  IN EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF FROM THIRTY-SIX TO TWO HUNDRED
AND FORTY IN NUMBER, IN MULTIPLES OF TWELVE. 

"(3)  IN EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY MONTHS
CERTAIN WITH SUCH PAYMENTS CONTINUING DURING THE REMAINING LIFETIME OF
THE FIRST BENEFICIARY. 

"(4)  AS A REFUND LIFE INCOME IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS PAYABLE FOR
SUCH PERIOD CERTAIN AS MAY BE REQUIRED IN ORDER THAT THE SUM OF THE
INSTALLMENTS CERTAIN, INCLUDING A LAST INSTALLMENT OF SUCH REDUCED
AMOUNT AS MAY BE NECESSARY, SHALL EQUAL THE FACE VALUE OF THE CONTRACT,
LESS ANY INDEBTEDNESS, WITH SUCH PAYMENTS CONTINUING THROUGHOUT THE
LIFETIME OF THE FIRST BENEFICIARY: PROVIDED, THAT SUCH OPTIONAL
SETTLEMENT SHALL NOT BE AVAILABLE IN ANY CASE IN WHICH SUCH SETTLEMENT
WOULD RESULT IN PAYMENTS OF INSTALLMENTS OVER A SHORTER PERIOD THAN ONE
HUNDRED AND TWENTY MONTHS.  ...  "
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. FELIN & CO., 334 U.S. 624 


NO. 17.  ARGUED MAY 7, 1947.  - REARGUED NOVEMBER 18-19, 1947.  -
DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  - 107 CT. CL. 155, 67 F.SUPP.  1017, REVERSED. 


WHEN PRICES OF PORK PRODUCTS (BUT NOT LIVE HOGS) WERE FIXED UNDER THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, THE GOVERNMENT ORDERED FROM A PACKER A
QUANTITY OF FOUR PARTICULAR PORK PRODUCTS FOR WAR PURPOSES.  THE PACKER
REFUSED DELIVERY AT CEILING PRICES AND THE PRODUCTS WERE SEIZED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  UNDER A STATUTORY PROCEDURE, AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
AWARDED COMPENSATION AT CEILING PRICES; THIS WAS REFUSED; AND THE
PACKER WAS PAID HALF THE AMOUNT DUE AT CEILING PRICES ON ACCOUNT.  IN A
SUIT BY THE PACKER FOR "JUST COMPENSATION" UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT,
THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE REPLACEMENT COST OF THE
SEIZED PRODUCTS AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE TAKING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY
IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING PRICES AND AWARDED JUDGMENT FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE AMOUNT PAID AND WHAT IT FOUND TO BE THE REPLACEMENT VALUE
OF SUCH PRODUCTS.  THE PACKER FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT HAD SUFFERED ANY
ACTUAL LOSS ON THE PARTICULAR PRODUCTS SEIZED.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, HELD:  JUDGMENT REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR
THE UNPAID BALANCE OF THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCTS AT CEILING PRICES, WITH
INTEREST ON THE TOTAL VALUE AT CEILING PRICES FROM THE DATE OF THE
TAKING TO THE DATE OF THE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE AWARD.  PP. 625-642. 

UNITED STATES V. JOHN J. FELIN & CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED A PORK PACKER JUDGMENT FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE AMOUNT PAID (BASED ON O.P.A. CEILING PRICES) FOR CERTAIN
PORK PRODUCTS SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR REPLACEMENT VALUE. 
107 CT. CL. 155, 67 F.SUPP.  1017.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  330
U.S. 814.  REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS, P. 642. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND
DELIVERED AN OPINION IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON
CONCURRED. 

THIS IS A CLAIM FOR JUST COMPENSATION, BASED ON THE FIFTH AMENDMENT,
BY A SLAUGHTERER WHOSE MEAT PRODUCTS THE GOVERNMENT REQUISITIONED FOR
WAR PURPOSES.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED DAMAGES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM
PRICES FIXED BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION FOR SUCH PRODUCTS
AND MEASURED BY WHAT THAT COURT DEEMED THE REPLACEMENT COST OF THE
REQUISITIONED PROPERTY.  107 CT. CL. 155, 67 F.SUPP.  1017.  THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RULING REACH FAR, AND SO WE BROUGHT THE CASE
HERE.  330 U.S. 814. 

WHILE THE IMMEDIATE FACTS OF THIS CONTROVERSY ARE FEW AND UNDISPUTED,
THEY CAN BE UNDERSTOOD ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECOGNIZED FACTS IN
THE MEAT INDUSTRY.  OF THESE WE MUST TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE INASMUCH AS
WE MUST TRANSLATE THE IDIOM OF THE INDUSTRY INTO VERNACULAR ENGLISH. 
ALSO, OF COURSE, WE MUST CONSIDER THE FACTS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
RATHER INTRICATE SYSTEM OF MEAT PRICE REGULATION BY O.P.A. 

THE RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PACKING PORK PRODUCTS
IN PHILADELPHIA.  IT BOUGHT HOGS IN CHICAGO, ST. LOUIS, AND
INDIANAPOLIS AND TRANSPORTED THEM TO PHILADELPHIA WHERE THEY WERE
SLAUGHTERED AND CONVERTED INTO VARIOUS PORK CUTS AND PRODUCTS.  IT SOLD
THESE PRODUCTS TO RETAIL DEALERS IN PHILADELPHIA, AND IT HAD ALSO
SUPPLIED PORK PRODUCTS TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. 

ON JANUARY 30, 1942, THE PRESIDENT APPROVED THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT.  56 STAT. 23, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 901. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, BY A SERIES OF REGULATIONS,
ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM PRICES FOR DRESSED HOGS AND WHOLESALE PORK CUTS. 
REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 148, ISSUED ON OCTOBER 22, 1942,
GOVERNED THE PORK CUTS HERE INVOLVED.  7 FED. REG. 8609, 8948, 9005; 8
FED. REG. 544. 

TO MEET THE FOOD NEEDS ENTAILED BY THE WAR, THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT, 56 STAT. 176, 50 U.S.C. (SUPP.
V, 1946) SEC. 633, CREATED THE FOOD DISTRIBUTION ADMINISTRATION, WITH
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AS ITS HEAD.  E.O. 9280, 7 FED. REG.
10179.  THIS ADMINISTRATION WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN FOOD
PRIORITIES, TO "ALLOCATE" FOOD TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND FOR PRIVATE
ACCOUNT, AND TO ASSIST IN CARRYING OUT THE PROGRAM OF THE LEND-LEASE
ACT OF MARCH 11, 1941, 55 STAT. 31.  TO CARRY OUT THE TASK THUS
DELEGATED BY THE PRESIDENT, THE FOOD DISTRIBUTION ADMINISTRATION ISSUED
TO EACH PACKER OPERATING UNDER FEDERAL INSPECTION A PRIORITY ORDER
CALLING FOR DELIVERY OF A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE TOTAL QUANTITY
NEEDED AT THE PARTICULAR TIME.  FN1  A PACKER'S QUOTA WAS BASED ON THE
RATIO OF MEAT PRODUCED IN HIS PLANT TO THE TOTAL PRODUCTION IN ALL
FEDERALLY INSPECTED PLANTS. 

IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS SYSTEM, THE RESPONDENT, ON FEBRUARY 2, 1943,
WAS REQUESTED TO DELIVER 225,000 POUNDS OF LARD AND PORK PRODUCTS TO
THE FEDERAL SURPLUS COMMODITY CORPORATION FOR DELIVERY UNDER THE LEND
LEASE PROGRAM.  THE RESPONDENT WAS ADVISED THAT THIS ORDER WAS TO BE
FILLED IN PREFERENCE TO ANY OTHER ORDER OR CONTRACT OF LOWER PRIORITY,
AND AT THE APPLICABLE O.P.A. CEILING PRICES.  INSISTING THAT IT COULD
NO LONGER AFFORD TO SELL TO THE GOVERNMENT AT CEILING PRICES,
RESPONDENT REFUSED TO MAKE DELIVERY. 

ON MARCH 1, 1943, THE FOOD DISTRIBUTION ADMINISTRATION, EXERCISING
POWERS NOT QUESTIONED, ISSUED AN ORDER REQUISITIONING THE LARD AND PORK
PRODUCTS IN CONTROVERSY.  FN2  ON MARCH 3, 1943, THE PROPERTY WAS DULY
SEIZED IN RESPONDENT'S PHILADELPHIA PACKING HOUSE.  ON MARCH 24, 1943,
RESPONDENT FILED ITS CLAIM WITH THE ADMINISTRATION FOR "JUST
COMPENSATION" FOR TAKING THIS PROPERTY.  ITS TOTAL CLAIM WAS $55,525,
OF WHICH $16,250 WAS FOR LARD AND $39,275 FOR PORK CUTS.  ON MAY 7,
1943, THE ADMINISTRATION, BY WAY OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF THE
JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, FIXED THE VALUE OF
THE LARD AT $15,543.78 AND THE PORK CUTS AT $25,112.50.  THESE AMOUNTS
WERE BASED ON THE O.P.A. CEILING PRICES APPLICABLE TO THESE PRODUCTS. 
ON MAY 22, 1943, THE PRELIMINIARY AWARD WAS MADE FINAL.  RESPONDENT
ACCEPTED IN FULL PAYMENT THE AWARD AS TO THE LARD; IT REFUSED TO ACCEPT
THE DETERMINATION AS TO THE PORK CUTS AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STATUTORY PROCEDURE IN THE CASE OF REJECTION OF SUCH AN AWARD, WAS PAID
HALF OF IT.  ON JUNE 24, 1943, RESPONDENT INSTITUTED THIS ACTION IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WHICH WHEN ADDED TO
THE $12,556.25, THE HALF OF THE GOVERNMENT'S VALUATION FOR THOSE CUTS,
WOULD CONSTITUTE "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD
TAKEN. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS REFERRED THE PROCEEDING TO A COMMISSIONER, WHO
TOOK EVIDENCE AND REPORTED TO THE COURT.  UPON THE BASIS OF HIS REPORT
AND THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE, THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND AS A FACT THAT
THE REPLACEMENT COST OF THE REQUISITIONED PORK CUTS AT THE TIME AND
PLACE OF THE TAKING WAS $30,293, AND CONCLUDED, AS A MATTER OF LAW,
THAT SUCH REPLACEMENT COST AND NOT THE MAXIMUM CEILING PRICE WAS THE
PROPER MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR THE TAKING.  WE HEARD ARGUMENT AT THE
LAST TERM, AND AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO ORDER
REARGUMENT AT THIS TERM.  FN3 

AT THE OUTSET IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT IT IS WE ARE CALLED
UPON TO DECIDE.  THE CONVENTIONAL CRITERION FOR DETERMINING WHAT IS
"JUST COMPENSATION" FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE IS WHAT
IT WOULD BRING IN THE FREE, OPEN MARKET.  E.G., OLSON V. UNITED STATES,
292 U.S. 246, 255; BROOKS-SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S. 106,
123; L. VOGELSTEIN & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 262 U.S. 337, 340.  BUT
THERE MUST BE A MARKET TO MAKE THE CRITERION AVAILABLE.  HERE THERE WAS
A MARKET IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT COULD HAVE SOLD THE PORK CUTS, BUT IT
WAS NOT A FREE AND OPEN MARKET; IT WAS CONTROLLED IN ITS VITAL FEATURE,
SELLING PRICE, BY THE O.P.A.  IT IS THIS FACT THAT CREATES THE PROBLEM
OF THE CASE, ASSUMING THAT THE CASE IS NOT DOGMATICALLY DISPOSED OF BY
HOLDING THAT INASMUCH AS THE MAXIMUM PRICE IS THE ONLY PRICE WHICH
RESPONDENT COULD LEGALLY HAVE GOT FOR ITS GOODS IT IS JUST
COMPENSATION.  WE ARE NOT PASSING ON THE ABSTRACT QUESTION WHETHER A
LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM PRICE IS THE PROPER MEASURE OF "JUST
COMPENSATION" WHENEVER PROPERTY IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE.  WE ARE
ADJUDICATING ONLY THE PRECISE ISSUES THAT EMERGE FROM THIS CASE. 

THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT, 1942, UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY
WAS AUTHORIZED TO BE TAKEN, RESTRICTED COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING TO
THAT WHICH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ENJOINS.  56 STAT. 176, 181.  IN
ENFORCING THIS CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT "THE QUESTION IS WHAT HAS THE
OWNER LOST, NOT WHAT HAS THE TAKER GAINED."  BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
V. BOSTON, 217 U.S. 189, 195; MCGOVERN V. NEW YORK, 229 U.S. 363. 
RESPONDENT'S SOLE CLAIM IS FOR THE PECUNIARY EQUIVALENT OF THE PROPERTY
TAKEN.  THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, IN ANY
APPROPRIATE SENSE OF THE TERM, ARE URGED AS A NECESSARY PART OF JUST
COMPENSATION.  RESPONDENT DOES NOT CLAIM SUCH DAMAGES ON THE THEORY
THAT, IN ORDER TO PROTECT ITS GOOD WILL, IT HAD TO SUPPLY ITS REGULAR
CUSTOMERS AND THAT THIS COMPELLED REPLACEMENT OF THE REQUISITIONED PORK
PRODUCTS BY THE PURCHASE, SLAUGHTER, AND PROCESSING OF LIVE HOGS.  FN4
CF. UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, 382; UNITED
STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. 372, 377-78; UNITED STATES EX REL.
T.V.A. V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266, 281-82.  RESPONDENT CLAIMS THAT
REPLACEMENT COST IS THE PROPER MEASURE OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
WHEN REQUISITIONED.  THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES WHICH
THE RESPONDENT WOULD SUFFER, SO IT MAINTAINS, IF IT ACCEPTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S OFFER OF THE APPLICABLE CEILING PRICES IN SATISFACTION OF
"JUST COMPENSATION."  THE BURDEN THEREFORE RESTS ON THE RESPONDENT TO
PROVE THE DAMAGES IT WOULD SUFFER BY NOT RECEIVING MORE THAN THE
CEILING PRICES.  MARION & RYE VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S.
280, 285. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE PRINCIPAL ITEM IN THE COST OF
PROCESSING RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS WAS WHAT IT HAD TO PAY FOR LIVE HOGS;
THAT, INASMUCH AS LIVE HOGS WERE NOT THEN COVERED BY PRICE REGULATION,
THE CHICAGO MARKET QUOTATIONS GOVERNED PRICE IN THE PACKING INDUSTRY;
THAT THE CHICAGO AVERAGE LIVE HOG PRICE WAS $15.59 DURING MARCH 1943;
FN5  AND THAT, ON THE BASIS OF THIS PRICE, THE REPLACEMENT COST FOR THE
REQUISITIONED PROPERTY WAS $30,293.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IN REACHING
THIS CONCLUSION THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DECISIVE
FACTORS FOR THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE
RESPONDENT. 

WE ARE DEALING WITH A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF A TRANSACTION
PERTAINING TO A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY, AND THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE TORN
FROM THE CONTEXT OF THAT INDUSTRY.  IT IS PRACTICALLY A POSTULATE OF
THE SLAUGHTERING INDUSTRY THAT REPLACEMENT COST DOES NOT AFFORD A
RELEVANT BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE TRUE VALUE OF THE INDUSTRY'S
PRODUCTS.  "MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS IN THE MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY DO
NOT CONSIST OF ASSEMBLING RAW MATERIALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING
ONE FINISHED PRODUCT, BUT RATHER OF SEPARATING OR BREAKING DOWN RAW
MATERIALS (CATTLE, ETC.) INTO MANY PARTS, ONE OF WHICH (DRESSED
CARCASS) IS THE MAJOR PRODUCT, AND THE OTHER PARTS OF WHICH ARE FURTHER
PROCESSED INTO NUMEROUS BYPRODUCTS."  KINGAN & CO. V. BOWLES, 144 F.2D
253, 254.  IN CONSEQUENCE, COST IN THE INDUSTRY GENERALLY IS LIKE A
FAGOT THAT CANNOT BE BROKEN UP INTO SIMPLE, ISOLATED PIECES.  SEE
GREER, PACKINGHOUSE ACCOUNTING (PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTING
OF THE INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN MEAT PACKERS), PASSIM.  "THE ACCOUNTING
PROCEDURE IN THE HOG BUSINESS IS EVEN MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT OF THE
CATTLE, CALF, OR SHEEP BUSINESS, BECAUSE THE OPERATIONS INVOLVE A
GREATER BREAKING UP OF THE DRESSED CARCASS AND MORE NUMEROUS PROCESSES
EXTENDING OVER CONSIDERABLE PERIODS OF TIME."  ID. AT 33-34.  THE
PROBLEM IS ONE OF "JOINT COST" IN A BUSINESS WHICH "PRODUCES NO SINGLE
MAJOR PRODUCT," ID. AT 213, WITH THE RESULT THAT NO ACCOUNTANT HAS THUS
FAR "BEEN ABLE TO DEVISE A METHOD YIELDING BY-PRODUCT OR JOINT-COST
FIGURES WHICH DOES NOT EMBODY A DOMINANCE OF ARBITRARINESS AND
GUESSWORK."  HAMILTON, COST AS A STANDARD FOR PRICE, 4 LAW AND
CONTEMP.  PROB.  321, 328; CF. GREENBAUM, THE BASIS OF PROPERTY SHALL
BE THE COST OF SUCH PROPERTY: HOW IS COST DEFINED?, 3 TAX L. REV. 351,
356-59. 

IF, AS SUGGESTED IN ARGUMENT, A HOG WERE NOTHING BUT AN ARTICULATED
PORK CHOP, AND THE PROCESSING OF EDIBLE AND INEDIBLE BY-PRODUCTS WERE
NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF THE INDUSTRY, THE PRICE OF A LIVE HOG MIGHT WELL
REPRESENT THE COLLECTIVE COST OF THE DERIVATIVE PORK CUTS.  THE PORK
CHOP, HOWEVER, IS BUT ONE OF THE MANY EDIBLE HOG PRODUCTS.  ACCORDING
TO AN ESTIMATE ABOUT THE TIME OF THE REQUISITIONING OF THESE PORK CUTS,
THERE WERE MORE THAN 200 PORK ITEMS (EXCLUSIVE OF SAUSAGE PRODUCTS) IN
THE MARKET.  SEE SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVISED
REGULATION NO. 148, PIKE AND FISCHER, 3 OPA FOOD DESK BOOK 46,151. 
"MOST PORK PRODUCTS," THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND, "ARE CONSUMED IN A CURED
OR PROCESSED STATE.  FRESH PORK PRODUCTS, SUCH AS PORK CHOPS AND FRESH
HAM, REPRESENT NOT OVER 20 PER CENT OF THE VAST QUANTITY OF PORK WHICH
MOVES BY RAIL.  THE REMAINING 80 PER CENT REACHES THE CONSUMER IN A
WIDE VARIETY OF PROCESSED FORMS, INCLUDING DRIED, DRY CURED, SWEET
PICKLED, SMOKED, COOKED, BAKED, AND CANNED."  ID. AT 46,141.  IT
DESERVES NOTING THAT THE REQUISITIONED PRODUCTS IN CONTROVERSY INCLUDED
CURED REGULAR HAMS, CURED CLEAR BELLIES, CURED PICNICS, AND SALTED
FATBACKS. 

THE PETITIONER WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN BY-PRODUCT PROCESSING N6, FOR THE
GOVERNMENT TOOK FROM HIM 100,000 POUNDS OF REFINED PURE LARD.  FOR THE
VALUE OF THE LARD THE RESPONDENT ACCEPTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AWARD. 
FN7  ADMITTEDLY, PART OF THE COST OF THE LIVE HOG MUST BE CHARGED TO BY
PRODUCTS.  HOWEVER, ANY METHOD OF APPORTIONING THE TOTAL COST TO THE BY
PRODUCTS IS HIGHLY SPECULATIVE.  FN8 

SINCE SO MUCH SPECULATIVE APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK ENTERED INTO
THE DETERMINATION OF COST, SELLING PRICE, AND PROFIT, THE INDUSTRY,
NATURALLY ENOUGH, WAS IN ALMOST CONTINUOUS CONTROVERSY WITH THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR ABOUT THEM.  THE RESPONDENT WAS PARTY TO THESE
CONTROVERSIES.  ON JULY 17, 1942, IT FILED A PROTEST AGAINST MAXIMUM
PRICE REGULATION NO. 148 WHICH WAS CONSOLIDATED WITH THE PROTEST OF 115
OTHER PORK SLAUGHTERERS AGAINST THIS REGULATION.  ON THE BASIS OF
CALCULATIONS AS TO THE CUT-OUT VALUE OR REPLACEMENT COST OF VARIOUS
PORK CUTS, THE SLAUGHTERERS CONTENDED THAT THE REGULATION DID NOT ALLOW
THEM SUFFICIENT OPERATING MARGIN OVER THE COST OF LIVE HOGS.  IN
REJECTING THE PROTEST, ON APRIL 23, 1943, THE ADMINISTRATOR MADE THIS
RULING:  "THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF ALL PHASES OF THE OPERATIONS OF
PACKING ESTABLISHMENTS MAKES PRECISE EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PRICES ON DRESSED AND PROCESSED MEATS AND LIVE HOG PRICES
IMPOSSIBLE EXCEPT IN TERMS OF THE OVER-ALL FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE
INDUSTRY."  IN THE MATTER OF RAPIDES PACKING CO., PIKE AND FISCHER, 1
OPA OPINIONS AND DECISIONS 243.  THE RESPONDENT, ON MARCH 8, 1943, HAD
ALSO PROTESTED, AGAIN ON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF LIVE HOGS, AGAINST
THE REVISION OF THE REGULATION.  THIS PROTEST WAS CONSOLIDATED WITH
THOSE OF 15 OTHER PORK SLAUGHTERERS AND, SUBSTANTIALLY ON THE GROUND
TAKEN IN THE RAPIDES PACKING CO. CASE, THIS SECOND PROTEST WAS LIKEWISE
REJECTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  IN THE MATTER OF GREENWOOD PACKING
PLANT, PIKE AND FISCHER, 1 OPA OPINIONS AND DECISIONS 296, 299. 

REVIEW BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT SOUGHT,  FN9
ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DENIAL OF RESPONDENT'S CLAIM FOR THE REPLACEMENT
COST OF PORK CUTS, BASED ON LIVE HOG PRICES, CAME SHORTLY AFTER THE
GOVERNMENT'S REQUISITIONING OF THE PRODUCTS AS TO WHICH HE NOW MAKES
THE SAME CONTENTION.  IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE PORK PRICE MARGINS WERE
ALMOST THE ONLY MEAT PRICE MARGINS WHICH WERE NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS IN WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED "THE BATTLE OF THE
MEAT REGULATIONS."  SEE HYMAN AND NATHANSON, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PRICE
CONTROL:  THE BATTLE OF THE MEAT REGULATIONS, 42 ILL. L. REV. 584. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH UNDERLAY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S MEAT PRICE
DETERMINATIONS ARE MOST PERTINENT TO THE SOLUTION OF OUR IMMEDIATE
PROBLEM.  THE RESULT OF HIS ANALYSIS WAS THAT THE PROFIT-AND-LOSS DATA
ON A SLAUGHTERER'S ENTIRE OPERATIONS WERE THE ONLY DEPENDABLE FIGURES
FROM WHICH THE FAIRNESS OF MEAT PRICES COULD BE DEDUCED.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR POINTED OUT THAT THE INDUSTRY, ON THE BASIS OF ITS
ACCOUNTING FIGURES, HAD HISTORICALLY LOST MONEY ON ITS MEAT SALES. 
FN10  SINCE, HOWEVER, BY TAKING THE BY-PRODUCT SALES INTO FULL ACCOUNT
ITS OPERATIONS AS A WHOLE WERE HIGHLY PROFITABLE, THESE MEAT SALE
LOSSES WERE "MORE IN THE NATURE OF BOOKKEEPING LOSSES WHICH FAILED TO
TAKE FULLY INTO ACCOUNT THE INTEGRATED NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY."  THESE
VIEWS WERE APPROVINGLY QUOTED BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS IN
ARMOUR & CO. V. BOWLES, 148 F.2D 529, 535. 

IN BOTH OF THE CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE RESPONDENT WAS A
PARTY, THE ADMINISTRATOR EXPLICITLY REQUESTED TO BE FURNISHED WITH THE
INDUSTRY'S PROFIT-AND-LOSS DATA.  IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDING, NO PROOF
OF LOSS WAS FILED BY ANY OF THE PROTESTANTS.  IN THE MATTER OF RAPIDES
PACKING CO., SUPRA.  IN THE SECOND PROCEEDING THE ADMINISTRATOR MADE
THIS FINDING: 

"THE THREE PROTESTANTS WHO SUBMITTED FURTHER EVIDENCE DID NOT EVEN
THUS SUSTAIN THEIR CLAIMS OF INDIVIDUAL HARDSHIP.  ONE OF THEM SHOWED A
NET PROFIT OF $60,492.44 FOR THE FIVE MONTHS PERIOD ENDING MARCH 27,
1942; ANOTHER A NET PROFIT OF $6,838.00 FOR THE THREE MONTHS PERIOD
ENDING APRIL 1, 1943, AND THE THIRD FAILED TO SUBMIT A PROFIT AND LOSS
STATEMENT AND BALANCE SHEET ALTHOUGH SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO DO SO." 
IN THE MATTER OF GREENWOOD PACKING PLANT, SUPRA, AT 297. 

NOT MERELY DOES THE INDUSTRY GENERALLY SEEM TO HAVE PROSPERED UNDER
PRICE CONTROL,  FN11  BUT SO DID THE RESPONDENT  FN12  DESPITE THE FACT
THAT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD IN CONTROVERSY IT CONTINUED TO BUY LIVE HOGS
AT PREVAILING PRICES AND TO SELL PORK PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM THEM AT THE
AUTHORIZED CEILING PRICES, EVEN WHEN THIS MEANT SELLING ITS PORK
PRODUCTS BELOW THE PRICE THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND TO BE THEIR
REPLACEMENT COST VALUE.  FN13 

MOST PERTINENT, THEREFORE, ARE THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE PACKING
INDUSTRY MADE BEFORE THESE MATTERS BECAME EMBROILED IN PRICE-FIXING
LITIGATION.  "THE COST OF A DRESSED HOG CARCASS, OR OF A LOT OF DRESSED
HOG CARCASSES, MAY BE DETERMINED QUITE SATISFACTORILY; BUT WHEN A
CARCASS IS CUT UP INTO ITS VARIOUS MERCHANTABLE PARTS, ALL RECORD OF
COST IS LOST, AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE COST OF ANY OF THESE
CUTS."  GREER, PACKINGHOUSE ACCOUNTING (PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE ON
ACCOUNTING OF THE INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN MEAT PACKERS), P. 246, AND ALSO
PP. 43, 58, 61-62.  SINCE THE "RESULTS FOR THE HOG BUSINESS AS A WHOLE
CAN BE FOUND ONLY BY ADDING THE PROFITS OR LOSSES FOR ALL MERCHANDISING
DEPARTMENTS," ID. AT 218, THE ONLY ACCURATE FORMULA FOR COSTS IN HOG
SLAUGHTERING IS A PROFIT-AND-LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE ENTIRE OPERATIONS. 
ID. AT 43-44. 

IT IS AS OLD AS THE COMMON LAW THAT AN ALLEGATION PURPORTING TO BE
ONE OF FACT BUT CONTRADICTED BY COMMON KNOWLEDGE IS NOT CONFESSED BY A
DEMURRER.  FN14  OF COURSE, FINDINGS OF FACT ARE BINDING ON THIS COURT,
BUT IF THIS COURT HAD TO TREAT AS THE STARTING POINT FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES A SPURIOUS FINDING OF "FACT"
CONTRADICTED BY AN ADJUDICATED FINDING BETWEEN THE VERY PARTIES TO THE
INSTANT CONTROVERSY, CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION WOULD BECOME A VERBAL
GAME. 

THERE ARE FACTS AND FACTS, EVEN IN COURT OF CLAIMS' LITIGATION.  IT
IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO MAKE FINDINGS.  BUT WHEN A
JUDGMENT BASED ON SUCH FINDINGS IS HERE BROUGHT IN QUESTION IT IS THE
FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF THE FINDINGS IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE THEIR LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BELOW THAT "REPLACEMENT COST" IS THE PROPER MEASURE OF JUST
COMPENSATION AND THE MODE BY WHICH IT REACHED THE AMOUNT OF THAT COST
ARE INESCAPABLY ENMESHED IN CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE CLEARLY FAMILIAR
ISSUES OF LAW AND PARTICULARLY OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  WHERE THE
CONCLUSION IS A "COMPOSITE OF FACT AND LAW," CEDAR RAPIDS GAS LIGHT CO.
V. CEDAR RAPIDS, 223 U.S. 655, 668, THIS COURT MAY CERTAINLY HOLD THAT
AS A MATTER OF LAW THE FINDINGS ARE ERRONEOUS.  SEE, E.G., WASHINGTON
EX REL. OREGON R. & N. CO. V. FAIRCHILD, 224 U.S. 510, 528.  EVEN WHEN
THIS COURT REVIEWS STATE COURT JUDGMENTS INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES IT "MUST REVIEW INDEPENDENTLY BOTH THE LEGAL ISSUES AND THOSE
FACTUAL MATTERS WITH WHICH THEY ARE COMMINGLED."  SEE OYAMA V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633, 636(AND THE AUTHORITIES THEREIN CITED). 
SIMILARLY, FINDINGS CONCURRED IN BY TWO COURTS DO NOT CONTROL THE
DECISION HERE WHERE "FACTS AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ARE
TOO CLOSELY CONNECTED" AND "THE STANDARDS AND THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION
INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF LAW INSEPARABLE FROM THE PARTICULAR FACTS TO WHICH
THEY ARE APPLIED."  UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO.,
311 U.S. 377, 404.  EVEN WHERE THE PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION HAVE
STIPULATED AS TO THE "FACTS," THIS COURT WILL DISREGARD THE
STIPULATION, ACCEPTED AND APPLIED BY THE COURTS BELOW, IF THE
STIPULATION OBVIOUSLY FORECLOSES REAL QUESTIONS OF LAW.  SEE, E.G.,
SWIFT & CO. V. HOCKING VALLEY R. CO., 243 U.S. 281. 

THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, AS TO WHICH WE WOULD
BE BLIND NOT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, AS WELL AS THE UNQUESTIONED FACTS
PERTAINING TO THE MEAT INDUSTRY ARE RELEVANT TO INTERPRET THE FINDINGS
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT HERE "REPLACEMENT COST"
IS A SPURIOUS, I.E. NON-LEGAL, BASIS FOR DETERMINING JUST
COMPENSATION.  IT IS AS THOUGH THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD BASED ITS
OPINION ON A BALANCE SHEET AND WE HAD TO INTERPRET THE BALANCE SHEET
INTO ACTUALITIES.  AND SO WE HOLD THAT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE COURT
BELOW ERRED IN UTILIZING REPLACEMENT COST AS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING
WHAT CONSTITUTED JUST COMPENSATION. 

WHEN DUE REGARD IS GIVEN TO THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THEY
FAIL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE COMPENSATION PROFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR
THE REQUISITIONED PORK CUTS, BASED ON THE MAXIMUM CEILING PRICES, FALLS
SHORT OF "JUST COMPENSATION."  WE ARE THEREFORE NOT CALLED UPON TO
CONSIDER WHETHER AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PRICES FIXED BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR THE SALE OF COMMODITIES ARE THE MEASURE OF "JUST
COMPENSATION" FOR COMMODITIES SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  AS THE
CONFLICT OF OPINION HERE INDICATES, THAT IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE WHICH,
SINCE WE CAN, WE MUST AVOID ADJUDICATING.  SEE SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V.
MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101, 105. 

THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS CASE WAS UPON THE RESPONDENT.  THE NATURE
OF THIS BURDEN WAS TO PROVE, IN LIGHT OF THE GOVERNING FACTS OF THE
INDUSTRY, THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AWARD FOR THE TAKING OF RESPONDENT'S
PROPERTY WAS LESS THAN JUST COMPENSATION, BASED AS IT WAS ON PRICES
WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD ESTABLISHED FOR THOSE PRODUCTS AND WHICH
HAD BEEN LEFT UNDISTURBED BY THE PROCESS DEVISED BY CONGRESS FOR
ASSURING THE FAIRNESS OF THESE PRICES.  BY EVIDENCE MERELY OF
BOOKKEEPING LOSSES, RESPONDENT DID NOT CARRY ITS BURDEN OF PROVING
ACTUAL DAMAGE.  JUST COMPENSATION IS A PRACTICAL CONCEPTION, A MATTER
OF FACT AND NOT OF FICTION.  RESPONDENT INTRODUCED NO EVIDENCE, AND THE
COURT OF CLAIMS MADE NO FINDINGS, TO ESTABLISH A LOSS BASED ON ITS
TOTAL OPERATIONS DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE
HOGS FROM WHICH THE REQUISITIONED PRODUCTS WERE PROCESSED.  FN15  ON
THE BASIS OF SUCH FIGURES IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE BY
REASONABLE ALLOCATIONS THE PORTION OF THE LOSS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE GOODS SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW THE
RESPONDENT NEITHER ALLEGED SUCH A LOSS NOT SUBMITTED PROOF IN SUPPORT
OF IT.  SINCE IT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE
CEILING PRICE AWARD ENTAILS DAMAGES, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS CANNOT STAND. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO
ENTER A JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING
$12,556.25, WITH INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF $25,112.50 FROM MARCH 3,
1943, THE DATE OF THE REQUISITION, TO MAY 22, 1943, THE DATE OF THE
FINAL AWARD MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE FOOD DISTRIBUTION
ADMINISTRATION. 

FN1  IN 1943 THERE WERE 308 HOG SLAUGHTERERS WHOSE ESTABLISHMENTS
OPERATED UNDER FEDERAL INSPECTION.  LIVESTOCK, MEATS, AND WOOL MARKET
STATISTICS AND RELATED DATA 1945, COMPILED BY THE LIVESTOCK BRANCH,
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, P. 31.  IN 1942 THERE HAD BEEN ONLY 218 HOG SLAUGHTERING
ESTABLISHMENTS UNDER FEDERAL INSPECTION, AND IN 1944 THERE WERE 322. 
IBID. 

FN2  THE REQUISITIONED PROPERTY CONSISTED OF THE FOLLOWING: 

40,000 POUNDS CURED REGULAR HAMS, 14 TO 18 LB. RANGE 

40,000 POUNDS CURED CLEAR BELLIES, 10 TO 14 LB. RANGE 

15,000 POUNDS CURED PICNICS, 6 TO 10 LB. RANGE 

30,000 POUNDS SALTED FATBACKS, 8 TO 12 LB. RANGE 

100,000 POUNDS REFINED PURE LARD, 1 LB. PRINTS (30 LBS. TO CARTON) 

FN3  AFTER THE CASE WAS TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT, FOLLOWING REARGUMENT,
A MATTER WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION WHICH CALLS FOR CONSIDERATION,
HOWEVER SUMMARY.  WE WERE ADVISED THAT ON MARCH 23, 1943, THE
RESPONDENT FILED WITH THE O.P.A. AN "APPLICATION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF
MAXIMUM PRICES FOR COMMODITIES OR SERVICES UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
OR SUBCONTRACTS," PURSUANT TO PROCEDURAL REGULATION NO. 6, 7 FED. REG.
5087, AND SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER NO. 9, 7 FED. REG. 5444.  (SEE 7 FED.
REG. 5088 FOR THE FORM OF THE APPLICATION.)  THE PURPOSE OF THESE
REGULATIONS WAS TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY FOR RELIEF TO SELLERS WHO HAD
MADE, OR PROPOSED TO MAKE, "CONTRACTS OR SUBCONTRACTS" WITH THE
GOVERNMENT.  THIS APPLICATION HAD LAIN DORMANT FROM THE DATE OF ITS
FILING UNTIL DECEMBER 13, 1947, WHEN WE WERE ADVISED BY COUNSEL FOR THE
GOVERNMENT THAT IT WAS NOW IN THE FILES OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION, WHICH IS THIRD IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE FROM THE O.P.A.,
THROUGH THE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY CONTROLS, CHARGED WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THESE TWO REGULATIONS.  ON DECEMBER 15, 1947, COUNSEL
FOR THE RESPONDENT ADVISED THE R.F.C. THAT IT WITHDREW THE APPLICATION
INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINED TO THE REQUISITIONED COMMODITIES IN CONTROVERSY
HERE. 

WHILE THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE DORMANCY OF THIS
APPLICATION RENDERS PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, IF NOT MOOT, PREMATURE, SUCH
APPARENTLY IS THE INTIMATION.  IF THE REGULATIONS IN FACT AUTHORIZED
ONE WHO IS NOT A "CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR" IN THE ORDINARY MEANING
OF THOSE TERMS TO OBTAIN SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF APART FROM THE
STATUTORY SCHEME RELATING TO REQUISITIONED PROPERTY, TECHNICAL ISSUES
WOULD HAVE TO BE FACED WHICH WE NEED NOT PARTICULARIZE.  COUNSEL FOR
THE GOVERNMENT ADVISE US THAT A COUNSEL FOR THE R.F.C. HAS NOW
INTERPRETED THE REGULATIONS NOT ONLY (1) AS APPLICABLE TO REQUISITIONED
COMMODITIES, BUT (2) AS AUTHORIZING RETROACTIVE PRICE ADJUSTMENTS FOR
REQUISITION TRANSACTIONS COMPLETED BEFORE READJUSTMENT IS SOUGHT.  NOT
UNNATURALLY, THE GOVERNMENT STATES THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS
PROCEDURE FOR READJUSTMENT "TO REQUISITIONED COMMODITIES MAY NOT BE
READILY APPARENT FROM ITS TERMS."  WHILE NORMALLY WE ACCEPT THE
CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON A REGULATION BY THOSE CHARGED WITH ITS
ADMINISTRATION, WE MUST REJECT A CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT ONLY AS
UNNATURAL AS WHAT IS NOW PROPOSED BUT COMES TO US POST LITEM MOTAM FIVE
YEARS AFTER THE APPLICATION.  IT SHOULD ALSO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION NOW PLACED UPON THE REGULATIONS IS NOT MADE BY THE
ADMINISTRATION THAT PROMULGATED IT BUT BY THE SECOND SUCCESSOR AGENCY
FOR LIQUIDATING WHAT IS LEFT OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.  WITH DUE REGARD
FOR THE RESPECT WE OWE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS IN THEIR NORMAL
SETTING, IT WOULD REQUIRE SUCH A REMAKING OF THE REGULATIONS AS REASON
AND FAIR DEALING HERE REJECT.  THE PROVISIONS FOR READJUSTMENT OF
CONTRACTS RELATE TO A TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE SELLER AND THE
PURCHASING AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT WERE IN AGREEMENT AS TO THE
CONTRACT PRICE.  THE PRICE WAS PAID, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
APPLICATION FOR ADJUSTMENT.  IF SO APPROVED, THE SELLER RETAINED THE
PURCHASE PRICE; IF DISAPPROVED, THE SELLER HAD TO MAKE A REFUND.  SEE
ARMOUR & CO. V. BROWN, 137 F.2D 233, 240.  IN THE CASE OF A
REQUISITIONED COMMODITY, CERTAINLY PRIOR TO THE FILING OF AN
APPLICATION, NO AMOUNT IS AGREED UPON, AND NO PROVISION FOR REFUND HAS
BEEN MADE.  IN SHORT, WE REJECT THIS BELATED AND NOVEL CONSTRUCTION AND
ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PENDENCY OF THIS MORIBUND APPLICATION
BEFORE THE R.F.C., NOW WITHDRAWN BY THE RESPONDENT, WAS NO BAR TO THIS
SUIT.    FN4  IF THE RESPONDENT HAD SOLD THE PORK PRODUCTS IN
CONTROVERSY HERE TO ITS REGULAR CUSTOMERS, IT WOULD HAVE DONE SO AT THE
APPLICABLE CEILING PRICES.  IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD THEN REQUISITIONED
THE PROPERTY FROM THESE CUSTOMERS, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO QUESTION
THAT THE CEILING PRICES WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MEASURE OF JUST
COMPENSATION.    FN5  THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE COST OF THE HOGS FROM
WHICH THE PORK PRODUCTS REQUISITIONED BY THE ORDER OF MARCH 1, 1943,
WERE PROCESSED.  THE RELEVANT HOGS WERE PURCHASED IN SOME PREVIOUS
MONTH AND AT A LOWER COST.  THE CHICAGO AVERAGE WAS $15.35 IN FEBRUARY
AND $14.78 IN JANUARY, 1943, AND $14.01 IN DECEMBER AND $13.96 IN
NOVEMBER, 1942.  LIVESTOCK, MEATS, AND WOOL MARKET STATISTICS AND
RELATED DATA 1945, COMPILED BY THE LIVESTOCK BRANCH, PRODUCTION AND
MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, P.
54.  MOREOVER, THESE WERE THE AVERAGE PRICES FOR AVERAGE WEIGHTS OF
HOGS.  IBID.  THE GOVERNMENT TOOK SPECIFIC PORK PRODUCTS WHICH WERE
PROCESSED FROM HOGS OF A DEFINITE WEIGHT FOR WHICH THE RESPONDENT PAID
SPECIFIC PRICES IN THE CHICAGO, ST. LOUIS, OR INDIANAPOLIS MARKETS. 

FN6  THERE ARE "NUMEROUS BY-PRODUCTS," AND THE COMPUTATION OF THE
VALUES FOR "SUCH BY-PRODUCTS AS CASINGS, GREASE, FERTILIZER, AND HOG
HAIR, IS RATHER COMPLEX."  GREER, PACKINGHOUSE ACCOUNTING (PREPARED BY
THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTING OF THE INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN MEAT
PACKERS)(1929) AT 213 AND 219, RESPECTIVELY; SEE, GENERALLY, CLEMEN, BY
PRODUCTS IN THE PACKING INDUSTRY (1929); MOULTON AND LEWIS, MEAT
THROUGH THE MICROSCOPE (REV. ED. 1940); READINGS ON BY-PRODUCTS OF THE
MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY, COLLECTED BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEAT PACKING,
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO (1941); RHOADES, MERCHANDISING PACKINGHOUSE
PRODUCTS, INSTITUTE OF MEAT PACKING, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO (1929);
TOLMAN, PACKING-HOUSE INDUSTRIES (1922). 

FN7  SINCE, AS WE HOLD, THE VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS CAN ONLY
BE DETERMINED BY PROPORTIONATE ALLOCATION FROM THE OVER-ALL OPERATIONS,
IT SEEMS TO US THAT RESPONDENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE AWARD AS TO THE LARD
WAS HARDLY CONSISTENT WITH ITS REJECTION OF THE AWARD AS TO THE OTHER
PORK PRODUCTS. 

FN8  "ON MUCH OF THE MATERIAL TRANSFERRED (FROM ONE OF THE
SLAUGHTERER'S DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTS TO ANOTHER), SUCH AS BLOOD, BONES,
TANKAGE, GLUE STOCK, ETC., THERE IS NO ASCERTAINABLE OUTSIDE MARKET,
AND THE PACKERS MUST PERFORCE PLACE QUITE ARBITRARY VALUATIONS ON THIS
MATERIAL HAVING NO PROBABLE RELATION TO EITHER COST OR MARKET.  AGAIN
CERTAIN PRODUCTS ARE IN THE GREEN STAGE WHEN TRANSFERRED, AND AN
OUTSIDE MARKET ONLY OBTAINS FOR THE FINISHED STAGE, WITH THE RESULT
THAT ARBITRARY DEDUCTIONS MUST BE MADE FROM THE FINISHED MARKET,
ESTIMATED TO ESTABLISH A NONEXISTENT 'GREEN' MARKET.  THE CERTIFICATION
OF INTERNAL TRANSFER PRICES PRESENTS, ACCORDINGLY, AN ALMOST
INTERMINABLE PROBLEM TO ANY OUTSIDE REVIEWING BODY."  REPORT OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ON THE MEAT-PACKING INDUSTRY (1920), PART V,
56.  THE INDUSTRY'S POSITION AS TO THE UTILIZATION OF SUCH COST
ALLOCATIONS AND THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR'S OBJECTIONS THERETO ARE QUOTED
FULLY AND DISCUSSED IN ARMOUR & CO. V. BOWLES, 148 F.2D 529, 535-39. 

FN9  IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT THAT NONE OF THE OTHER 130 PROTESTANTS
SOUGHT REVIEW IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  CF., E.G., KINGAN &
CO. V. BOWLES, 144 F.2D 253, AND ARMOUR & CO. V. BOWLES, 148 F.2D 529,
FOR THAT COURT'S VIEWS ON REPLACEMENT COST AS A BASIS FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF VALUE. 

FN10  "IT IS A NOTABLE FACT, THAT ACCORDING TO THE PRESENT METHOD OF
DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNTING, THE PACKERS ARE IN THE HABIT OF SHOWING LOW
PROFITS OR EVEN POSITIVE LOSSES IN THE CARCASS-MEAT DEPARTMENTS, WHILE
AT THE SAME TIME EXHIBITING LARGE PROFITS IN THE BY-PRODUCTS OR
'SPECIALTY' DEPARTMENTS, THE CHIEF REASON FOR THIS SOMEWHAT
EXTRAORDINARY STATE OF AFFAIRS BEING FOUND IN THE VALUATIONS PLACED
UPON TRANSFERS."  REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ON THE MEAT
PACKING INDUSTRY (1920), PART V, 56.  WHILE A GREAT DEAL OF TIME HAS
PASSED SINCE THIS 1920 REPORT, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR REACHED THE SAME
CONCLUSIONS IN 1943, AND THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS QUOTED THE
REPORT MORE FULLY IN 1945.  SEE ARMOUR & CO. V. BOWLES, 148 F.2D AT
537. 

FN11  SEE WAR PROFITS STUDY NO. 14, OFFICE OF RESEARCH, FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS BRANCH, OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF TEMPORARY
CONTROLS (1947) PP. 17, 45-47, 73-75.  THIS IS A STUDY OF THE PROFITS
OF 520 FOOD PROCESSORS, BUT THE FOREGOING REFERENCES WERE TO THE
SEPARATE TABULATIONS CONCERNING THE 79 MEAT PACKERS INCLUDED IN THE
STUDY.  THE FINANCIAL DATA WAS COMPILED FROM MOODY'S INDUSTRIALS,
STANDARD & POOR'S CORPORATION RECORDS, AND THE OPA FINANCIAL REPORTS
SUBMITTED BY THE PACKERS.  ID. AT 19.  OF THE TOTAL 79 MEAT PACKERS, 54
ARE PROCESSING SLAUGHTERERS, 10 NON-PROCESSING SLAUGHTERERS, AND 15 NON
SLAUGHTERERS.  THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 1943 OPERATIONS AND THE BASE
PERIOD (1936-39 AVERAGE) OPERATIONS SHOWS FOR THE 54 PROCESSING
SLAUGHTERERS:  NET SALES:  1943 - $4,575,528,000(AFTER RENEGOTIATION
REFUNDS)/BASE PERIOD - $2,382,211,000; PROFITS BEFORE INCOME TAXES:
1943 - $125,463,000(AFTER RENEGOTIATION REFUNDS)/BASE PERIOD -
$24,415,000; PROFITS AFTER TAXES:  1943 - $50,402,000(AFTER
RENEGOTIATION REFUNDS)/BASE PERIOD - $19,255,000; RETURN ON SALES:
1943 - 2.7%/BASE PERIOD - 1.0%; RETURN ON NET WORTH:  1943 - 19.5%/
BASE PERIOD - 4.1%; RETURN ON INVESTED CAPITAL:  1943 - 16.5%/BASE
PERIOD - 4.1%.  ID. AT 45, 47.  FOR THE 10 NON-PROCESSING SLAUGHTERERS,
THE COMPARISON SHOWS:  NET SALES:  1943 - $62,098,000/BASE PERIOD -
$29,927,000; PROFITS BEFORE INCOME TAXES:  1943 - $1,027,000/BASE
PERIOD - $184,000; PROFITS AFTER TAXES:  1943 - $390,000/BASE PERIOD -
$147,000; RETURN ON SALES:  1943 - 1.7%/BASE PERIOD - .6%; RETURN ON
NET WORTH:  1943 - 28.0%/BASE PERIOD - 6.3%; RETURN ON INVESTED
CAPITAL:  1943 - 25.5%/BASE PERIOD - 5.9%.  IBID. 

FN12  RESPONDENT'S INCOME ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31,
1943, SHOWS: 

"NET SALES............................  $14,225,056 

COST OF SALES.........................   12,950,785 

SELLING, ETC., EXP....................      869,770 

OPERATING PROFIT......................      404,500 

OTHER INCOME..........................       18,717 

TOTAL INCOME..........................      423,217 

MISC. DEDUCTIONS......................       13,229 

INCOME TAXES..........................      176,619 

NET INCOME............................      233,369 

EARN., PFD.  SHARE.....................               $40.21 

EARN., COM. SHARE.....................                17.97" 

SEE MOODY'S MANUAL OF INVESTMENTS, AMERICAN AND FOREIGN, INDUSTRIAL
SECURITIES, 1944, P. 647.  THE 1943 NET INCOME FIGURE OF $233,369
COMPARED FAVORABLY WITH PRECEDING YEARS:  1942 - $73,292; 1941 -
$150,069; 1940 - $148,164; AND 1939 - D$76,936. 

FN13  THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT IN ORDER TO PROTECT ITS GOOD WILL
AND KEEP ITS ORGANIZATION INTACT, "THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD MENTIONED
(PRIOR TO AND AFTER THE MARCH 1943 REQUISITION), PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT)
CONTINUED TO BUY LIVE HOGS AT PREVAILING PRICES AND TO SELL PORK
PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM THEM AT THE CEILING PRICES AUTHORIZED BY
REGULATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, EVEN WHEN THE COST
OF LIVE HOGS WAS GREATER THAN THE WHOLESALE PRICES OF THE PRODUCTS
OBTAINED FROM THEM."  67 F.SUPP.  AT 1022. 

FN14  "IF ONE ENTERS MY CLOSE, AND WITH AN IRON SLEDGE AND BAR BREAKS
AND DISPLACES THE STONES ON THE LAND, BEING MY CHATTELS, AND I REQUEST
HIM TO DESIST, AND HE REFUSES, AND THREATENS ME IF I SHALL APPROACH
HIM; AND UPON THIS I, TO PREVENT HIM FROM DOING MORE DAMAGE TO THE
STONES, NOT DARING TO APPROACH HIM, THROW SOME STONES AT HIM MOLLITER
ET MOLLI MANU, AND THEY FALL UPON HIM MOLLITER, STILL THIS IS NOT A
GOOD JUSTIFICATION, FOR THE JUDGES SAY THAT ONE CANNOT THROW STONES
MOLLITER, ALTHOUGH IT WERE CONFESSED BY A DEMURRER  ...  "  COLE V.
MAUNDER, 2 ROLL.  ABR.  548(K.B. 1635)(AS TRANSLATED FROM THE NORMAN
FRENCH IN AMES, CASES ON PLEADING (1875) 2). 

FN15  THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT THE $25,112.50 AWARD WAS THE
EQUIVALENT OF THE CEILING PRICE OF THE REQUISITIONED PROPERTY WHEN SOLD
AT WHOLESALE IN CARLOAD QUANTITIES AT PHILADELPHIA ON MARCH 3, 1943,
THE DATE THE GOVERNMENT TOOK POSSESSION AND TITLE; THAT THE RESPONDENT
CUSTOMARILY SOLD ITS PRODUCTS AT WHOLESALE BUT IN LOTS OF LESS THAN 500
POUNDS EACH AND THAT IT MADE DELIVERY TO ITS CUSTOMERS BY MEANS OF 57
ROUTE TRUCKS; THAT THE CEILING PRICE IF THE REQUISITIONED PROPERTY HAD
BEEN SOLD IN THIS CUSTOMARY MANNER WOULD HAVE BEEN $26,362.50; THAT THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CEILING PRICE FIGURES RESULTED FROM THE $1
PER CWT. DEDUCTION ESTABLISHED BY THE PRICE REGULATION FOR SALES IN
CARLOAD QUANTITIES; AND THAT THE "$1.00 DIFFERENTIAL WAS INTENDED TO
PARTIALLY DEFRAY THE EXPENSE INCURRED FOR DELIVERY AND SALE IN LESS
THAN CARLOAD QUANTITIES."  67 F.SUPP.  AT 1022.  RESPONDENT DID NOT
CHALLENGE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE $1 DIFFERENTIAL IN ITS PETITION
FILED WITH THE COURT BELOW.  RESPONDENT ARGUES HERE, HOWEVER, THAT THE
EFFECT OF THE DIFFERENTIAL IS TO REDUCE THE RETURN IT WOULD HAVE NETTED
IF IT HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO SELL THE REQUISITIONED PRODUCTS IN SMALL
QUANTITIES.  BUT, BEARING IN MIND THAT THIS IS A SUIT FOR ACTUAL
DAMAGES, THE ARGUMENT HAS A FATAL WEAKNESS.  IF THE RESPONDENT HAD SOLD
IN SMALLER QUANTITIES AT THE HIGHER CEILING PRICE AND MADE DELIVERY BY
TRUCK, IT WOULD HAVE INCURRED ALL OF THE EXPENSES THAT MOTIVATED THE
DIFFERENTIAL - INVOICING, BILLING, HANDLING, AND TRANSPORTATION.  NONE
OF THESE EXPENSES WAS INCURRED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT REQUISITIONED THE
PORK PRODUCTS.  THE "LOSS" IN THE GROSS SALES FIGURES WOULD HAVE BEEN
COUNTERBALANCED, TO SOME EXTENT AT LEAST, BY THE ADDITIONAL
EXPENDITURES.  CF. SUPERIOR PACKING CO. V. CLARK, 164 F.2D 343, 347
48.  ALL THIS BEARS ON THE GUIDING CONSIDERATION THAT RECOVERY IN THIS
ACTION MUST BE RELATED TO PROOF OF ACTUAL LOSS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
JOIN, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT. 

I AGREE WITH THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE MADE BY JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER'S OPINION.  HOWEVER, I CANNOT CONCUR IN THE REASONING BY
WHICH THAT RESULT IS REACHED.  THAT OPINION HOLDS THAT THE RESPONDENT
IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER AS "JUST COMPENSATION" ANYTHING IN ADDITION
TO THE CEILING PRICE UNLESS IT CAN "ESTABLISH A LOSS BASED ON ITS TOTAL
OPERATIONS DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE HOGS
FROM WHICH THE REQUISITIONED PRODUCTS WERE PROCESSED" AND "DETERMINE BY
REASONABLE ALLOCATIONS THE PORTION OF THE LOSS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE GOODS SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT."  WHY A LOSS ON TOTAL OPERATIONS
MUST BE ESTABLISHED IN ORDER TO SHOW THE LOSS ON THE HOG PRODUCTS
REQUISITIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME.  IT IS THE MARKET
VALUE OF ANY PRODUCT THAT IS THE BASIS FOR "JUST COMPENSATION."  IF
THERE IS NO REAL MARKET VALUE, COST MAY BE AN ELEMENT IN THE
DETERMINATION OF VALUE.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, ANY
OTHER VALUE THAN THE CEILING PRICE IS ILLUSORY.  CONSEQUENTLY I BELIEVE
THAT WHENEVER PERISHABLE PROPERTY IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE UNDER
CONTROLLED-MARKET CONDITIONS, THE CONSTITUTIONALLY ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM
PRICE IS THE ONLY PROPER STANDARD OF "JUST COMPENSATION." 

FIVE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT EXPRESS THEIR AGREEMENT THAT REPLACEMENT
COST, IF RELEVANT, HAS BEEN PROPERLY FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  IF
REPLACEMENT COST, DETERMINED BY ANY ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, IS A FACTOR, THE
EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS BASED ITS FINDINGS OF THAT COST
IS NOT BEFORE US, AND THEREFORE THOSE FINDINGS CANNOT BE PROPERLY
REGARDED AS UNSATISFACTORY.  EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THE EVIDENCE
OFFERED DID NOT PROPERLY ALLOCATE COSTS, THE GOVERNMENT RAISED NO SUCH
ISSUE BY ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OR IN ITS BRIEF.  THE RECORD DOES
SHOW A FINDING OF REPLACEMENT COST BASED UPON SOME EVIDENCE.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF THAT EVIDENCE FROM THE RECORD, IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT IT
WOULD SUPPORT THE FINDINGS.  IF WE ASSUME THAT REPLACEMENT COST IS
RELEVANT, TO SAY THAT A MANUFACTURER WHO PROVES THAT COST BY THE
RESULTS OF HIS OWN SYSTEM OF COST ACCOUNTING MAY NOT RETAIN HIS AWARD
BECAUSE A MORE ACCURATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM EXISTS, THOUGH NOT OFFERED IN
EVIDENCE, DISREGARDS THE SALUTARY RULE THAT LITIGANTS IN CIVIL MATTERS
MUST BE ALLOWED TO FRAME THEIR ISSUES AND PROVE THEIR CASES IN TRIAL
COURTS AS EACH DESIRES.  THIS PRINCIPLE INCLUDES THE INTRODUCTION OF
SUCH RELEVANT EVIDENCE AS EACH WISHES TO INTRODUCE.  OFTEN PROOF OF
VALUE OR DAMAGES IS DIFFICULT.  COURTS THEN REACH CONCLUSIONS FROM THE
RELEVANT EVIDENCE PRESENTED.  PALMER V. CONNECTICUT RAILWAY & LIGHTING
CO., 311 U.S. 544; BIGELOW V. RKO RADIO PICTURES, 327 U.S. 251. 
FINDINGS ARE PROPERLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE HEARD
AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ATTACK BECAUSE OTHER AVAILABLE EVIDENCE MIGHT
HAVE BEEN PRODUCED.  THE SUGGESTION OF JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S OPINION AS
TO A BETTER METHOD FOR DETERMINING REPLACEMENT COST IS FUTILE, SINCE IT
FURNISHES A RULE, REJECTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT, FOR THE COURT
OF CLAIMS TO USE IN DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION.  THE APPROVAL OF THE
METHOD OF DETERMINING REPLACEMENT COST USED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY A
MAJORITY OF THIS COURT LOGICALLY REQUIRES A DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT
THE CEILING PRICE REPRESENTS "JUST COMPENSATION." 

IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE RESPONDENT CANNOT REPLACE THE
REQUISITIONED HOG PRODUCTS AT THE CEILING PRICE.  IF RESPONDENT WAS
IMPELLED TO REPLACE THE REQUISITIONED PRODUCTS IN ITS STOCK, ITS
REASONS FOR SO DOING LAY IN THE REALM OF BUSINESS JUDGMENT.  THERE WAS
NO LEGAL COMPULSION.  IT ACTED TO KEEP ITS LINE OF GOODS COMPLETE, TO
SERVE ITS CUSTOMERS AND TO PRESERVE ITS GOOD WILL.  ANY ADDITIONAL COST
TO THE RESPONDENT CAUSED BY REPLACING THE PRODUCTS WAS A CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGE FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS NOT GIVEN IN FEDERAL CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS.  UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. 372, 378.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, 382.    IT HAS
BEEN LONG ESTABLISHED THAT IN A FREE MARKET THE MARKET PRICE IS THE
PROPER CRITERION FOR DETERMINING "JUST COMPENSATION."  OLSON V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 246, 255; BROOKS-SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 265
U.S. 106, 123.  IN VOGELSTEIN & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 262 U.S. 337,
THIS COURT HELD THAT THE PREVAILING PRICE IN A CONTROLLED MARKET WAS
"JUST COMPENSATION."  THE VOGELSTEIN COMPANY WAS A WHOLESALER OF
REFINED COPPER.  BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 28, 1917, AND FEBRUARY 1, 1918, THE
UNITED STATES REQUISITIONED FROM THE COMPANY 12,542,857 POUNDS OF
COPPER FOR WHICH IT PAID 23.5[ PER POUND.  BUT THIS PRICE WAS NOT THE
RESULT OF THE INTERPLAY OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND ON A FREE AND OPEN MARKET;
IT WAS A PRICE FIXED BY AN AGREEMENT MADE BY THE WAR INDUSTRIES BOARD
WITH COPPER PRODUCERS AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 21,
1917.  VOGELSTEIN COMPANY, ALTHOUGH NOT A PRODUCER, HAD APPARENTLY
COOPERATED WITH THE PRODUCERS IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
THE 23.5[ PRICE.  THE COMPANY ARGUED THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO 26.8[ PER
POUND - THE AVERAGE COST TO IT OF THE COPPER REQUISITIONED BY THE
UNITED STATES.  THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT PAYING THE FIXED 23.5[ WAS
CORRECT.  "THE MARKET PRICE WAS PAID.  THE MARKET VALUE OF THE COPPER
TAKEN AT THE TIME IT WAS TAKEN MEASURES THE OWNER'S COMPENSATION."  262
U.S. AT 340.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS
DISMISSING THE COMPANY'S PETITION WAS AFFIRMED.  THIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE
FIXED PRICE AS THE MARKET VALUE CLOSELY APPROACHES THE SITUATION NOW
PRESENTED. 

IT WOULD BE ANOMALOUS TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY
REQUIRE PERSONS IN THE POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT TO SELL THEIR
PERISHABLE PROPERTY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT A FIXED PRICE OR NOT TO
SELL TO ANYONE  FN1  AND LATER TO HOLD THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST PAY A
HIGHER PRICE THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHERE IT REQUISITIONS THE
PERISHABLE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF A REPLACEMENT COST, GREATER THAN THE
FIXED PRICE.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE UNITED STATES BY EXERCISING ITS POWER
OF REQUISITIONING COMPELLED THE RESPONDENT TO SELL TO IT; BUT THE
COMPULSION TO SELL TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT CEILING PRICES WAS HARDLY
LESS SEVERE.  THE CHOICE WAS BETWEEN SALES AT THE FIXED PRICE OR, AT
THE BEST, ECONOMIC HIBERNATION AND, AT THE WORST, ECONOMIC EXTINCTION. 
THE TWO SITUATIONS ARE SO PARALLEL THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALLY
ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM PRICE MAY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, BE
PROPERLY TAKEN AS THE MEASURE OF "JUST COMPENSATION."  THAT LAWFULLY
FIXED MARKET PRICE DETERMINES WHAT THE PERISHABLE ARTICLE CAN BE SOLD
FOR OR ITS MARKET VALUE IN ANY REAL SENSE.  IT GIVES TO THE CONDEMNEE
ANY PROFIT FOR INCREASED VALUE IN HIS HANDS AND TAKES NOTHING FROM HIM
THAT HE COULD LAWFULLY OBTAIN SINCE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
GOOD WILL CANNOT BE OBTAINED.  SUCH MAXIMUM PRICE IS "JUST
COMPENSATION."  FN2 

IF THE GOVERNMENT FIXED PRICES WITH THE PREDOMINANT PURPOSE OF
ACQUIRING PROPERTY AFFECTED BY ITS ORDER, A DIFFERENT SITUATION WOULD
BE PRESENTED.  HERE WE HAVE PRICE REGULATION OF MEAT PRODUCTS ON A
NATIONAL SCALE WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THOSE REGULATIONS.  THE
GOVERNMENT SOUGHT FOR ITSELF NO UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE. 

THE RESPONDENT, AS JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S OPINION POINTS OUT, FILED
SEVERAL PROTESTS AGAINST THE MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATIONS CONTROLLING THE
CEILING PRICES OF HOG PRODUCTS.  THESE PROTESTS WERE REJECTED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND REVIEW BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT
SOUGHT.  IT WAS DURING THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT EVIDENCE OF
THE PROFIT AND LOSS OF THE INDUSTRY AND OF THE REPLACEMENT COST OF PORK
PRODUCTS COULD PROPERLY BE INTRODUCED.  HOWEVER, ONCE THE MAXIMUM PRICE
HAD BEEN SET AND HAD NOT BEEN SET ASIDE BY DIRECT ATTACK, THAT PRICE
BECAME THE ONLY RELEVANT MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION.  WHETHER
NORMALLY ADMISSIBLE OR NOT,  FN3  THE REPLACEMENT COST OF PERISHABLE
ARTICLES THEN SUBJECT TO PRICE CONTROL, BOUGHT TO MAINTAIN THE GOOD
WILL OF A BUSINESS, CANNOT BE AN ELEMENT IN THE DETERMINATION OF VALUE
TO FIX JUST COMPENSATION.  THEREFORE, EVIDENCE OF REPLACEMENT COST IN
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS THAT BEFORE THE COURT TODAY IS
IRRELEVANT AND SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. 

FN1  SEE YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414; BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM,
321 U.S. 503. 

FN2  CF. NORTZ V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 317, 328-29. 

FN3  SEE ORGEL, VALUATION UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN (1936) 586. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

SIX MEMBERS OF THE COURT AGREE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS MUST BE REVERSED, BUT ARE EQUALLY DIVIDED IN THEIR GROUNDINGS. 
SINCE I AM IN PARTIAL AGREEMENT WITH BOTH GROUPS, I STATE MY OWN
CONCLUSIONS INDEPENDENTLY. 

IT MAY BE, AS MY BROTHER REED AND THOSE WHO JOIN WITH HIM THINK, THAT
THE CEILING PRICE IN A WARTIME CONTROLLED MARKET SHOULD FURNISH THE
MEASURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL JUST COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY OF A HIGHLY
PERISHABLE NATURE TAKEN.  PERHAPS ALSO THIS VIEW SHOULD BE QUALIFIED
FURTHER, AS BY SOME LIMITATION WHICH WOULD MAKE ADJUSTMENTS BEYOND THAT
PRICE PERMISSIBLE WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TAKING ARE SUCH THAT
THEY WOULD ENTAIL DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES BEYOND THOSE INHERENT
MERELY IN THE PROPERTY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVES AND USES.  FN1 

BUT I AM ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH MY BROTHER FRANKFURTER AND THOSE WHO
CONCUR WITH HIM THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REACH THESE IMPORTANT
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE.  FOR I THINK THAT, WITH REFERENCE
TO SUCH PERISHABLE COMMODITIES TAKEN UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE,
THE LEGAL MARKET OR CEILING PRICE FURNISHES AT LEAST PRESUMPTIVELY THE
MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION, AND THAT THIS MEASURE SHOULD APPLY UNLESS
AND UNTIL THE OWNER SUSTAINS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT HE HAS
SUSTAINED SOME LOSS FOR WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO A GREATER AWARD. 

THAT BURDEN, I ALSO AGREE, THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT SUSTAINED IN THIS
CASE.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED RESPONDENT ITS "REPLACEMENT COSTS,"
IN THE VIEW THAT "WHEN PROPERTY IS TAKEN THE OWNER MUST BE PUT IN AS
GOOD POSITION PECUNIARILY AS HE WAS IN BEFORE HIS PROPERTY WAS TAKEN." 
FN2 PAYMENT OF THE CEILING PRICE DID NOT DO THIS, SINCE AS THE COURT
POINTED OUT RESPONDENT "FELT OBLIGED TO FURNISH ITS CUSTOMERS A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF PRODUCTS, ALTHOUGH AT A LOSS, IN ORDER TO RETAIN THEIR GOOD
WILL AND  ...  HOLD ITS ORGANIZATION TOGETHER."  FN3  FOR THIS REASON
IT BECAME NECESSARY FOR RESPONDENT TO GO INTO THE MARKET AND PURCHASE
LIVE HOGS AND PROCESS THEM, PAYING A HIGHER PRICE THAN IT HAD PAID FOR
THE HOGS FROM WHICH THE PRODUCTS TAKEN HAD BEEN PROCESSED.  IN THIS WAY
RESPONDENT INCURRED A LOSS IT WOULD NOT HAVE INCURRED HAD THOSE
PRODUCTS NOT BEEN TAKEN. 

ON THIS BASIS, I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE REED THAT THE LOSS IS ONE FOR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.  THAT IS, IT IS ONE TO COMPENSATE FOR LOSS
INCURRED TO PRESERVE UNIMPAIRED RESPONDENT'S GOOD WILL, FN4  NOT TO
COMPENSATE FOR ANY VALUE LAWFULLY OBTAINABLE FOR THE ARTICLES THEN OR
PROSPECTIVELY WITHIN ANY REASONABLE FUTURE PERIOD, IN VIEW OF THE
PROPERTY'S PERISHABLE NATURE, FROM OTHER SOURCES. 

BUT RESPONDENT ASSERTS ITS CLAIM TO "REPLACEMENT VALUE" ON A
DIFFERENT THEORETICAL BASIS, I.E., NOT AS COMPENSATION FOR LOSS
INCURRED IN PRESERVING GOOD WILL, BUT AS THE PROPER MEASURE OF THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHEN REQUISITIONED.  AND IF MARKET PRICE, HERE
CEILING PRICE, IS NOT THE MEASURE OF COMPENSATION, IT IS SAID
"REPLACEMENT COST" FURNISHES THE BEST SUBSTITUTE OR AT ANY RATE AN
APPROPRIATE ELEMENT FOR CONSIDERATION. 

THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SEEM TO BE HIGHLY
VERBAL.  FOR IN ANY EVENT THE LOSS WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF KEEPING RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS SATISFIED AND THUS PRESERVING
ITS GOOD WILL UNIMPAIRED; IN OTHER WORDS, TO PREVENT THE ACCRUAL OF
INJURY CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE TAKING. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE IS NO MARKET VALUE,
"REPLACEMENT COST" HAS BEEN HELD APPROPRIATE FOR CONSIDERATION IN
REACHING A JUDGMENT CONCERNING THE VALUE WHICH IS JUST COMPENSATION. 
BUT THIS SEEMS TO ME A DIFFERENT THING FROM ALLOWING SUCH PROOF, WHEN
THE LOSS IT REFLECTS HAS BEEN INCURRED SOLELY TO PREVENT CONSEQUENTIAL
INJURY, AND THERE IS A MARKET VALUE PRESUMPTIVELY VALID TO COMPENSATE
FOR ALL LOSSES INCURRED EXCEPT THAT LOSS.  TO ALLOW THAT PROOF IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE IN SUBSTANCE IF NOT IN FORM TO PERMIT AN AWARD
FOR ELEMENTS OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ENTIRELY OUT OF LINE WITH THE
POLICY OF THIS COURT'S PRIOR DECISIONS CONCERNING COMPENSATION FOR SUCH
INJURIES.  FN5 

THE CONSIDERATIONS SET FORTH BY MY BROTHER FRANKFURTER RESPECTING THE
DIFFICULTIES, INDEED THE NEAR IMPOSSIBILITY, OF PROVING COSTS IN THIS
CASE WOULD SEEM TO SUPPORT THIS CONCLUSION.  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCUR IN
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

FN1  IN SOME SITUATIONS THE COURT HAS ALLOWED COMPENSATION FOR THE
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AS BEING EQUIVALENT TO "TAKING" IT, CF., E.G.,
UNITED STATES V. WELCH, 217 U.S. 333; RICHARDS V. WASHINGTON TERMINAL
CO., 233 U.S. 546; UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373,
384; IN OTHERS APPARENTLY WHAT AMOUNTED IN EFFECT TO DESTRUCTION HAS
BEEN REGARDED AS INFLICTION OF CONSEQUENTIAL INJURIES AND THUS AS NOT
COMPENSABLE, CF. E.G., BOTHWELL V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 231;
MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 341. 

FN2  107 CT. CL. 155, 165.  FOR THIS GROUNDING THE COURT RELIED UPON
CITATION OF SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299;
BROOKS-SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S. 106, 125; UNITED STATES
V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 369, 374; WALKER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 105 CT.
CL. 553.  THE QUOTED STATEMENT, OF COURSE, TAKEN ABSTRACTLY, IS BROAD
ENOUGH TO PERMIT THE AWARD OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, AN EFFECT CONTRARY
TO THIS COURT'S CONSISTENT RULINGS.  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE
4. 

FN3  107 CT. CL. 155, 165.  THE RECORD BEFORE US CONTAINS NO PROOF
THAT REPLACING THE REQUISITIONED GOODS WAS ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT
RESPONDENT FROM GOING OUT OF BUSINESS OR THAT THE LOSS OF GOOD WILL
ENTAILED BY THE TAKING, IF NOT REPAIRED BY REPLACEMENT, WOULD HAVE
PREVENTED CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES OR DISRUPTED
ITS ORGANIZATION. 

FN4  SEE UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. 372, 378, AND
AUTHORITIES CITED; CF. UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S.
373, 383. 

FN5  SEE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 4. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THIS COURT IN THIS CASE IS EXCEEDING THE
LIMITATION PLACED BY CONGRESS ON ITS REVIEW OF COURT OF CLAIMS
DECISIONS.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 288; 53 STAT. 752.  THE COURT DOES NOT
DECIDE, AS CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED IT TO DO, THAT ANY FINDING OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, OR THAT THE
ULTIMATE FINDINGS LACK SUPPORT IN EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS, OR THAT THERE
HAS BEEN A FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS ON THE MATERIAL ISSUES.  INSTEAD,
IN EFFECT IT SETS ASIDE THE JUDGMENT BELOW ON ITS OWN INTERPRETATION OF
"RECOGNIZED FACTS IN THE MEAT INDUSTRY."  OF THESE IT TAKES JUDICIAL
NOTICE ON THE BASIS OF AN ASSORTMENT OF PUBLICATIONS WHICH, WHATEVER
THEIR MERITS IF CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT BELOW, SHOULD NOT
IN THIS COURT OUTWEIGH SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS
BASED ON EVIDENCE BEFORE IT. 

TAKING THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE CASE IS THIS:
CLAIMANT WAS A MEAT PACKER AND AMONG ITS PRODUCTS WERE PORK CHOPS.  THE
GOVERNMENT SET A MAXIMUM PRICE AT WHICH PORK CHOPS COULD BE SOLD.  IT
SET NO MAXIMUM PRICE ON THE TWO PRINCIPAL FACTORS IN THE COST OF PORK
CHOPS, VIZ:  LIVE HOGS AND LABOR.  THE RESULT WAS THAT CLAIMANT'S
UNCONTROLLED COSTS MOUNTED UNTIL, ON WHAT IS FOUND TO BE A FAIR
ALLOCATION OF COSTS BETWEEN CHOPS AND OTHER PRODUCTS OF THE HOG, IT WAS
COSTING MORE TO PRODUCE THE PORK CHOPS THAN THE PRICE FOR WHICH
CLAIMANT WAS PERMITTED TO SELL THEM.  BUT THERE WERE CERTAIN COLLATERAL
BENEFITS DERIVED FROM SUPPLYING OLD PATRONS, EVEN AT A LOSS, TO AVOID
HEAVIER LOSSES FROM SHUTTING DOWN THE BUSINESS AND TO KEEP CUSTOMER
GOOD WILL FOR THE HOPEDFOR DAY OF NORMAL BUSINESS. 

HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT DECIDED TO BUY CLAIMANT'S CHOPS.  IT OFFERED
THE MAXIMUM OPA PRICE.  AS THERE WAS NO SUCH COMPENSATING ADVANTAGE TO
THE PACKER IN SELLING ITS CHOICE CUTS TO THE GOVERNMENT AT A LOSS, AS
IN KEEPING ITS BUSINESS GOING WITH ITS GENERAL CUSTOMERS, IT REFUSED
THE OFFER.  THE GOVERNMENT THEN SEIZED ITS PORK CHOPS AND THE COMPANY
NOW CLAIMS THE "JUST COMPENSATION" WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES TO
THOSE WHOSE PRIVATE PROPERTY IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE.  THE GOVERNMENT
CONTENDS, AND THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE COURT'S HOLDING IS, THAT THE
COMPANY CAN RECOVER ONLY THE MAXIMUM PRICE FIXED FOR ITS PRODUCTS BY
THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, IN SPITE OF THE FINDING THAT THIS
IS LESS THAN IT COST TO PRODUCE OR TO REPLACE THEM. 

IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW JUST COMPENSATION CAN BE THE LEGAL EQUIVALENT
OF A CONTROLLED PRICE, UNLESS A CONTROLLED PRICE IS ALSO ALWAYS
REQUIRED TO EQUAL JUST COMPENSATION.  IT NEVER HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN
REGULATING A COMMODITY PRICE THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO FIX ONE THAT IS
ADEQUATELY COMPENSATORY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, SO LONG AS THE
OWNER IS FREE TO KEEP HIS PROPERTY OR TO PUT IT ON THE MARKET AS HE
CHOOSES.  IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE REQUIRED TO DO SO, THE TASK OF PRICE
REGULATION WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY, IF NOT DISASTROUSLY, COMPLICATED AND
RETARDED.  IT SEEMS QUITE INDISPENSABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, FOR
THE LONG-RANGE SUCCESS OF PRICE CONTROLS, THAT FIXED PRICES FOR
VOLUNTARY SALES BE NOT IDENTIFIED WITH THE JUST COMPENSATION DUE UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION TO ONE WHO IS COMPELLED TO PART WITH HIS PROPERTY. 
THE WAR DID NOT REPEAL OR SUSPEND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  UNITED STATES
V. NEW RIVER COLLIERIES, 262 U.S. 341, 343; UNITED STATES V. COHEN
GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81, 88.  BUT IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY TAKEN
FOR PUBLIC USE BECOMES MEANINGLESS IF THE GOVERNMENT MAY FIRST, UNDER
ITS "WAR POWERS," FIX THE MARKET PRICE AND THEN MAKE ITS CONTROLLED
FIGURE THE MEASURE OF COMPENSATION.  FN1 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT MARKET PRICE, AS SUCH, IS NOT
CONTROLLING.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S "EXACT LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF
THE GOVERNMENT"  FN2  IS NOT MARKET PRICE - IT IS JUST COMPENSATION. 
THE FORMER IS RELEVANT, AND THIS COURT HAS SO CONSIDERED IT, ONLY
BECAUSE, IN A FREE MARKET, IT IS PERHAPS THE BEST KEY TO VALUE AT THE
TIME OF TAKING.  ORIGINAL COST AND REPLACEMENT COST YIELD TO IT ONLY
BECAUSE OF THAT FACTOR.  BUT HERE, THERE IS NO TRUE MARKET PRICE FN3
TO PROVIDE THE USUALLY ACCEPTED STANDARD OF VALUE.  THE RELEVANCE OF
ORIGINAL COST AND REPLACEMENT COST, EVEN IN THIS SITUATION, CANNOT
SERIOUSLY BE DENIED.  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN OVER-RIDING FREE-MARKET
PRICE, THE COURTS MUST TURN TO THE SOUNDEST STANDARDS OTHERWISE
AVAILABLE. 

WE THINK THE COURT OF CLAIMS MADE NO ERROR OF LAW IN THINKING THAT
THE CONTROLLED MARKET PRICE FOR VOLUNTARY SALES WAS NOT THE MEASURE OF
JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE SEIZED PORK CHOPS.  LIMITING OUR REVIEW TO
THE SCOPE WHICH CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED, WE FIND NO ERROR IN ITS
CALCULATION OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPLYING WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 

FN1  SUCH A RULE HARDLY SQUARES WITH THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN BY THIS
COURT MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS AGO THAT "THE COMPENSATION MUST BE A FULL
AND PERFECT EQUIVALENT FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN," MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION
COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 312, 326, OR LATER EXPRESSIONS THAT
"THE OWNER SHALL BE PUT IN AS GOOD POSITION PECUNIARILY AS HE WOULD
HAVE BEEN IF HIS PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN," SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299, 304; OLSON V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
246; UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 369. 

FN2  "  ...  IN THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT, THERE IS STATED THE EXACT
LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR
PUBLIC USES."  MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S.
312, 325. 

FN3  THE PRICE APPROVED AS JUST COMPENSATION IN VOGELSTEIN & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 262 U.S. 337, WAS FIXED BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE PRODUCERS, REPRESENTED BY A COMMITTEE WHOSE MEMBERS
VOGELSTEIN HAD NOMINATED, AND HELPED TO ELECT, TO REPRESENT THE
INDUSTRY.  THUS THAT PRICE IS NOT COMPARABLE TO THE GOVERNMENTDICTATED
PRICE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  IN THE VOGELSTEIN CASE, THIS COURT SAID:
"APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS NO MARKET PRICE OTHER THAN THAT
FIXED BY THE FIAT OF THE UNITED STATES IS WITHOUT SUPPORT.   ...  "
262 U.S. 339.  AND, FURTHER, "THE FINDING OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS
PLAIN AND CANNOT BE READ AS REFERRING TO A MERE FIAT PRICE."  262 U.S.
340. 
..END :












GREYHOUND LINES V. MEALEY, 334 U.S. 653 


NO. 14.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  - 296 N.Y.
18, 68 N.E.2D 855, REVERSED. 


1.  THE VALIDITY OF A STATE TAX UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WAS
CHALLENGED BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF NEW YORK AND ON REVIEW
BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.  NOTWITHSTANDING A
CLAIM THAT THE ONLY QUESTION PRESENTED WAS ONE OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK EXPRESSLY SUSTAINED THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TAX AND CERTIFIED IN ITS REMITTITUR THAT IT
HAD DONE SO.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, HELD:  THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION IS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT FOR REVIEW.  PP. 654-655. 

2.  A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF A NEW YORK TAX ON ITS GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BETWEEN TWO POINTS IN THE STATE BUT OVER A
ROUTE 42.53% OF WHICH WAS IN NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA.  HELD: NEW
YORK MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION
APPORTIONED AS TO THE MILEAGE WITHIN THE STATE; BUT THE TAX ON GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM THAT PORTION OF THE MILEAGE OUTSIDE THE STATE UNDULY
BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 655-664. 

CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC. V. MEALEY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TAX LEVIED BY NEW YORK ON GROSS RECEIPTS
OF A COMMON CARRIER FROM TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TWO POINTS IN NEW YORK,
BUT LARGELY THROUGH NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA, WAS SUSTAINED BY THE
STATE TAX COMMISSION, THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW YORK (266 APP. DIV. 648, 44 N.Y.S.2D 652), AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF NEW YORK (296 N.Y. 18, 68 N.E.2D 855).  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 664. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF A DETERMINATION BY THE TAX
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS OF THE
STATE, WHEREBY SEC. 186-A OF THE NEW YORK TAX LAW WAS CONSTRUED TO
IMPOSE A TAX ON APPELLANT'S GROSS RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN
POINTS WITHIN THE STATE BUT OVER ROUTES THAT UTILIZE THE HIGHWAYS OF
PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY.  THE APPELLANT CONTENDS, AGAINST CONTRARY
CONCLUSIONS BELOW, THAT SINCE THE TAXED TRANSPORTATION WAS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, NEW YORK MAY NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
SUCH TRANSPORTATION.  IN ANY EVENT, IT SUBMITS THAT THE STATE MAY
VALIDLY TAX ONLY SO MUCH OF THESE GROSS RECEIPTS AS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE MILEAGE WITHIN THE STATE.  BEFORE DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES, WE
MUST DISPOSE OF AN OBJECTION TO OUR RIGHT TO DEAL WITH THEM. 

THE STATE URGES THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS HERE PRESSED BY THE
APPELLANT WERE NOT PASSED UPON BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  THE
RECORD DOES NOT SUSTAIN THIS CHALLENGE TO OUR JURISDICTION.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WERE UNDENIABLY RAISED BEFORE THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION AND ON REVIEW BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT, 266 APP. DIV. 648.  THE SUGGESTION THAT THESE ISSUES WERE NOT
BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS IS BASED ON ITS STATEMENT THAT THE QUESTION
URGED THERE WAS "NOT ONE OF CONSTITUTIONAL TAXING POWER BUT OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION."  296 N.Y. 18, 24.  BUT THE COURT PROCEEDED TO
PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND EXPRESSLY HELD THAT "THERE IS
NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO TAXATION OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS HERE. 
THIS IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  "  296 N.Y. AT 25.  ITS AMENDED
REMITTITUR STATED EXPLICITLY THAT A QUESTION ARISING UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION "WAS PRESENTED AND PASSED UPON," AND THAT IN
SUSTAINING THE TAX THE COURT "HELD THAT THE AFORESAID STATUTE AS SO
CONSTRUED IS NOT REPUGNANT TO THAT PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION."  THIS AMENDMENT WAS NOT A RETROSPECTIVE INJECTION OF A
NON-EXISTENT FEDERAL QUESTION, BUT A FORMAL CERTIFICATION THAT A
FEDERAL CLAIM HAD BEEN PRESENTED AND WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  IT IS PROPERLY HERE FOR REVIEW.  SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

THIS CASE SERVES TO REMIND ONCE MORE THAT COURTS DO NOT ADJUDICATE
ABSTRACTIONS, SUCH AS, "WHAT IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE?"  ALSO, IT AGAIN
ILLUSTRATES THAT EVEN IF IT BE FOUND THAT CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS IN FACT
CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SUCH CONCLUSION DOES NOT ANSWER THE
FURTHER INQUIRY WHETHER A PARTICULAR ASSERTION OF POWER BY A STATE OVER
SUCH TRANSACTIONS OFFENDS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

IT IS TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO DENY THAT TRANSPORTATION WHICH LEAVES A
STATE AND ENTERS ANOTHER STATE IS "COMMERCE   ...  AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES" SIMPLY BECAUSE THE POINTS FROM AND TO ARE IN THE SAME STATE. 
HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO., 187 U.S. 617; WESTERN UNION TEL.
CO. V. SPEIGHT, 254 U.S. 17; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. STROUD, 267
U.S. 404.  IN REACHING THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION THE STATE COURT RELIED
UPON THREE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT:  LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 145 U.S. 192; EWING V. LEAVENWORTH, 226 U.S. 464; NEW
YORK EX REL. CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V. SOHMER, 235 U.S. 549.  THE EWING
CASE WAS BASED ON THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE; THE CORNELL STEAMBOAT CASE
RELIED ON THE EWING AND THE LEHIGH VALLEY DECISIONS.  THE HOLDING IN
THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE WAS DEFINED WITH PRECISION BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES
IN THE HANLEY CASE.  HE ACCOUNTED FOR SOME STATE DECISIONS WHICH
DISREGARDED INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS A MATTER OF FACT, TESTED BY THE
ACTUAL TRANSACTION, AS "MADE SIMPLY OUT OF DEFERENCE TO CONCLUSIONS
DRAWN FROM LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 145 U.S. 192,
AND WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THEY CARRY THEIR CONCLUSIONS TOO FAR."  HE
POINTED OUT THAT IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE "THE TAX 'WAS DETERMINED IN
RESPECT OF RECEIPTS FOR THE PROPORTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE
STATE.'  145 U.S. 201.  SUCH A PROPORTIONED TAX HAD BEEN SUSTAINED IN
THE CASE OF COMMERCE ADMITTED TO BE INTERSTATE."  HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY
SOUTHERN R. CO., SUPRA, AT 621.  THIS LIMITED SCOPE OF THE LEHIGH
VALLEY CASE WAS THE BASIS OF DECISION IN UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY
V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335.  IN THAT CASE, THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT
HAD INTERPRETED THE LEHIGH VALLEY DECISION "AS ALLOWING A RECOVERY OF
TAXES UPON THAT PROPORTION OF THE EARNINGS DERIVED FROM THE CARRIAGE
WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE.  THIS SEEMS TO US THE SAFER RULE, AND AVOIDS
ANY QUESTION OF TAXING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND WE ADOPT AND APPLY IT
TO THIS CASE.  NINE PER CENT. OF THE TAXES RECOVERED ON THIS CLASS OF
EARNINGS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE AMOUNT OF THE RECOVERY."  114
MINN. 346, 350.  ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA,
THIS COURT UPHELD THE STATE COURT'S APPLICATION OF THE LEHIGH VALLEY
DECISION.  223 U.S. 335, 341-42. 

IN VIEW, HOWEVER, OF SOME CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS TO WHICH THE OPINION
IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE HAS GIVEN RISE, IT CALLS FOR A MORE CANDID
CONSIDERATION THAN MERELY QUOTING PHRASES FROM IT CONGENIAL TO A
PARTICULAR DECISION.  THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE WAS THIS.  THE LEHIGH
VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY ATTACKED THE VALIDITY OF A PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE
TAXING THE COMPANY'S GROSS RECEIPTS FROM ITS LINE BETWEEN MAUCH CHUNK,
PENNSYLVANIA, AND PHILLIPSBURG, NEW JERSEY.  THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD
OPERATED A CONNECTING LINE BETWEEN PHILLIPSBURG AND PHILADELPHIA.  THE
LEHIGH AND THE PENNSYLVANIA HAD ARRANGED FOR CONTINUOUS TRANSPORTATION
OF THROUGH PASSENGERS AND FREIGHT BETWEEN MAUCH CHUNK AND
PHILADELPHIA.  THE TRIAL COURT HAD FOUND, AS APPEARS FROM THE RECORD,
THAT THE "TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM THIS TRANSPORTATION, SEVEN PER CENT. OF
WHICH WERE COLLECTED BY THE LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY AT POINT OF
SHIPMENT AND THE REMAINDER BY THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY AT
POINT OF DESTINATION, WERE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE COMPANIES UPON A
MILEAGE BASIS - THAT IS TO SAY, EACH COMPANY'S SHARE WAS IN THE
PROPORTION THAT THE NUMBER OF MILES CARRIED BY IT BORE TO THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF MILES CARRIED."  IT SUSTAINED THE TAX ON THE GROUND THAT THE
TRANSPORTATION WAS IN SUBSTANCE "PURELY INTERNAL."  THE SUPREME COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA AFFIRMED ON THE TRIAL COURT'S OPINION.  LEHIGH VALLEY
R. CO. V. COMMONWEALTH, 1 MONAG.  45, 17 ATL. 179. 

WHEN THE CASE GOT HERE, THE LEHIGH VALLEY CONTENDED THAT THE
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN MAUCH CHUNK AND PHILLIPSBURG CONSTITUTED
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THEREFORE BEYOND THE TAXING POWER OF
PENNSYLVANIA, BECAUSE PHILLIPSBURG, WHILE ON THE DELAWARE RIVER BORDER
BETWEEN PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY, WAS IN NEW JERSEY AND REACHED BY
THE RAILROAD VIA AN INTERSTATE BRIDGE.  PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE OTHER
HAND, IGNORING THE STRETCH OVER THE INTERSTATE BRIDGE (APPARENTLY ON
THE THEORY OF DE MINIMIS) INSISTED THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS WERE DEEMED
TO BE "WHOLLY FROM TRAFFIC WITHIN THE STATE" BECAUSE SO TREATED BY THE
RAILROAD ITSELF.  THIS WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE LEHIGH VALLEY AND
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD HAD APPORTIONED THE RECEIPTS FROM THEIR
THROUGH TRAFFIC, AND THE AMOUNT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH
PENNSYLVANIA TAXED WAS THE PROPORTION WHICH THE RAILROADS INTER SE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE LEHIGH VALLEY AS ITS SHARE OF THE EARNINGS WITHIN
PENNSYLVANIA.  THIS FISCAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO RAILROADS IS THE
EXPLANATION AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STATEMENT IN THIS COURT'S OPINION
THAT "THE TAX UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE WAS DETERMINED IN RESPECT OF
RECEIPTS FOR THE PROPORTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE STATE." 
145 U.S. AT 201.  AND SO, NATURALLY ENOUGH, IN THE HANLEY CASE THE
COURT CALLED THE TAX WHICH HAD BEEN SUSTAINED IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE
"A PROPORTIONED TAX," AND AS SUCH IT "HAD BEEN SUSTAINED IN THE CASE OF
COMMERCE ADMITTED TO BE INTERSTATE."  HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R.
CO., SUPRA, AT 621. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT "A PROPORTIONED TAX HAD BEEN
SUSTAINED IN THE CASE OF COMMERCE ADMITTED TO BE INTERSTATE" THE HANLEY
CASE INVOKED MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 142 U.S. 217.  UNFORTUNATELY,
THE OPINION IN LEHIGH VALLEY DID NOT RELY ON THAT CASE.  IT DID NOT
EVEN MENTION IT.  THIS SILENCE IS EXPLICABLE BY THE FACT THAT ONLY A
FEW MONTHS BEFORE, IN THE SAME TERM, THE COURT HAD SHARPLY DIVIDED ON
THIS VERY ISSUE IN THE GRAND TRUNK CASE.  IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER SPOKE FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT.  ONE IS ENTITLED TO
INFER THAT SUCH ACCORD WAS OBTAINABLE BY NOT RENEWING THE BATTLE OF THE
GRAND TRUNK CASE.  IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF
THIS COURT THAT AGREEMENT COULD BE REACHED BY ONE MODE OF REASONING BUT
NOT BY ANOTHER.  MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY AND HIS FELLOW DISSENTERS IN THE
GRAND TRUNK CASE WERE EVIDENTLY CONTENT TO SUSTAIN THE PENNSYLVANIA TAX
AS A TAX ON "DOMESTIC TRANSPORTATION," "INTERNAL INTERCOURSE," IN SHORT
AS NOT "INTERSTATE COMMERCE," FOR THEREBY THEY WOULD NOT BRING INTO
QUESTION THE VIEWS SO VIGOROUSLY EXPRESSED BY THEM A FEW MONTHS
BEFORE. 

IT WAS REASONABLE ENOUGH TO DISREGARD THE SHORT DISTANCE IN WHICH THE
TRANSPORTATION IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE WENT OVER THE INTERSTATE
BRIDGE ON THE DELAWARE RIVER BUT OTHERWISE WAS WHOLLY IN PENNSYLVANIA,
AND TO TREAT IT AS DE MINIMIS WHEN THE RAILROAD'S ACCOUNTING ITSELF
TREATED THE RECEIPTS AS PROPORTIONED.  "REGULATION AND COMMERCE AMONG
THE STATES BOTH ARE PRACTICAL RATHER THAN TECHNICAL CONCEPTIONS, AND,
NATURALLY, THEIR LIMITS MUST BE FIXED BY PRACTICAL LINES."  GALVESTON,
HARRISBURG AND SAN ANTONIO R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 225.  BUT TO
LABEL TRANSPORTATION ACROSS AN INTERSTATE STREAM "LOCAL COMMERCE" FOR
SOME PURPOSES WHEN IT IS "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" IN OTHER RELATIONS, SEE,
E.G., COVINGTON & CINCINNATI BRIDGE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 154 U.S. 204, IS
TO USE LOOSELY TERMS HAVING CONNOTATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE.  TO CALL COMMERCE IN FACT INTERSTATE "LOCAL COMMERCE"
BECAUSE UNDER A GIVEN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, AS IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY
CASE, A PARTICULAR EXERTION OF STATE POWER IS NOT RENDERED INVALID BY
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS TO INDULGE IN A FICTION.  ESPECIALLY IN THE
DISPOSITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE LEGAL FICTIONS HAZARDOUS,
BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF CONFOUNDING USERS AND NOT MERELY READERS.  THE
KIND OF CONFUSION TO WHICH THE LEHIGH VALLEY OPINION HAS GIVEN RISE
RESULTS FROM EMPLOYING A NEEDLESS FICTION - CALLING COMMERCE LOCAL
WHICH IN FACT IS INTERSTATE - AS A MANNER OF STATING THAT A PARTICULAR
EXERCISE OF STATE POWER IS NOT INVALID EVEN THOUGH IT AFFECTS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE DIFFICULT TASK OF DETERMINING WHETHER A PHASE
OF COMMERCE, CONCEDEDLY INTERSTATE, IS SUBJECT TO A PARTICULAR
INCIDENCE OF STATE REGULATION, THROUGH TAXATION OR OTHERWISE, IS NOT
LESSENED BY CALLING INTERSTATE COMMERCE LOCAL COMMERCE IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN ITS LOCAL CONTROL.  TO STATE THIS PERSISTENT AND PROTEAN
PROBLEM OF OUR FEDERALISM IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION-BEGGING FICTION, IS
NOT TO ANSWER IT. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US.  NEW YORK CLAIMS
THE RIGHT TO TAX THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION WHICH TRAVERSES
NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA AS WELL AS NEW YORK.  TO SAY THAT THIS
COMMERCE IS CONFINED TO NEW YORK IS TO INDULGE IN PURE FICTION.  TO DO
SO, DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE RELATION OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY TO
THE TRANSACTIONS NOR ELIMINATE THE BENEFITS WHICH THOSE TWO STATES
CONFER UPON THE PORTIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THEIR BORDERS. 
NEITHER THEIR INTERESTS NOR THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE EVAPORATED BY
THE VERBAL DEVICE OF ATTRIBUTING THE ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION TO NEW
YORK.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION HERE THAT THE INTERSTATE ROUTES WERE
UTILIZED AS A MEANS OF AVOIDING EVEN IN PART NEW YORK'S TAXATION. 
COMPARE, E.G., EICHHOLZ V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, 306
U.S. 268, AND RYAN V. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, 143 PA.
SUPER.  517.  WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A NECESSARY DEVIATION OR A
CALCULATED DETOUR.  NOR IS NEW YORK SEEKING TO TAX TRANSACTIONS
PHYSICALLY OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS BUT SO TRIFLING IN QUANTITY TO THE NEW
YORK COMMERCE, OF WHICH THEY FORM A PART, AS TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
INSIGNIFICANT.  NEW YORK SEEKS TO TAX THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM
TRANSPORTATION OF WHICH NEARLY 43% OF THE MILEAGE LAY IN NEW JERSEY AND
PENNSYLVANIA.  TRANSACTIONS WHICH TO SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT ACTUALLY
TAKE PLACE IN NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA CANNOT BE DEEMED LEGALLY TO
TAKE PLACE IN NEW YORK. 

OF COURSE WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH "INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  OF COURSE
CONGRESS DID NOT EXCEED ITS POWER TO REGULATE SUCH COMMERCE WHEN IN THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 IT EXPLICITLY INCLUDED COMMERCE SUCH AS THAT
BEFORE US WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT ACT: "THE TERM 'INTERSTATE COMMERCE'
MEANS COMMERCE BETWEEN ANY PLACE IN A STATE AND ANY PLACE IN ANOTHER
STATE OR BETWEEN PLACES IN THE SAME STATE THROUGH ANOTHER STATE,
WHETHER SUCH COMMERCE MOVES WHOLLY BY MOTOR VEHICLE OR PARTLY BY MOTOR
VEHICLE AND PARTLY BY RAIL, EXPRESS, OR WATER."  49 STAT. 543, 544, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 303(A)(10).  IN A CASE LIKE THIS NOTHING IS GAINED, AND
CLARITY IS LOST, BY NOT STARTING WITH RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT IT
IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH THE STATE IS SEEKING TO REACH AND CANDIDLY
FACING THE REAL QUESTION WHETHER WHAT THE STATE IS EXACTING IS A
CONSTITUTIONALLY FAIR DEMAND BY THE STATE FOR THAT ASPECT OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO WHICH THE STATE BEARS A SPECIAL RELATION.  SEE
UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, AND BOB-LO EXCURSION CO.
V. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28.  SUCH BEING THE REAL ISSUE INEVITABLY "NICE
DISTINCTIONS ARE TO BE EXPECTED."  GALVESTON, HARRISBURG AND SAN
ANTONIO R. CO. V. TEXAS, SUPRA, AT 225.  BUT SUCH DISTINCTIONS WOULD BE
CLEARER AND MORE REASONABLY MADE IF, FOR INSTANCE, A FLAT PRIVILEGE TAX
APPLIED BY A MUNICIPALITY TO AN EXPRESS COMPANY SHIPPING PACKAGES
BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN A STATE, BUT OVER ROUTES WHICH FOR A VERY SHORT
DISTANCE PASS OUT OF THE STATE, HAD BEEN FRANKLY SUSTAINED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE TAX DID NOT BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE RATHER THAN ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  COMPARE EWING V. LEAVENWORTH, SUPRA, WITH
KIRMEYER V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 568.  AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE MADE FOR A LESS
DIALECTICAL, IF NOT MORE COHERENT, DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW TO SUSTAIN A
NEW YORK GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON A NEW YORK CORPORATION, ENGAGED IN
TOWING VESSELS BETWEEN PORTS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON THE HUDSON
RIVER TRAVERSING THE NEW JERSEY SIDE BUT NOT TOUCHING ITS SHORE, ON THE
GROUND THAT UPON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, AND MORE PARTICULARLY NEW
JERSEY'S RELATION TO THE TRANSACTIONS (VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE NOW
BEFORE US), NEW YORK WAS NOT BURDENING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, RATHER THAN
TO HOLD THAT "TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE PORTS OF THE STATE IS NOT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EXCLUDED FROM THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE,
BECAUSE AS TO A PART OF THE JOURNEY THE COURSE IS OVER THE TERRITORY OF
ANOTHER STATE."  COMPARE NEW YORK EX REL. CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V.
SOHMER, SUPRA, AT 560, WITH CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321
U.S. 634. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT, SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED, NO STATE OTHER THAN
NEW YORK SEEKS TO TAX THE UNAPPORTIONED RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION
GOING THROUGH MORE THAN ONE STATE, (EXCEPT TO AN EXTENT SO
INSIGNIFICANT AS TO BE DISREGARDED), MERELY BECAUSE SUCH TRANSPORTATION
RETURNS TO THE STATE OF ITS ORIGIN.  IF NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA
COULD CLAIM THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE APPROPRIATELY APPORTIONED CLAIMS
AGAINST THAT SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT TO WHICH
THEY AFFORD PROTECTION, WE DO NOT SEE HOW ON PRINCIPLE AND IN PRECEDENT
SUCH A CLAIM COULD BE DENIED.  THIS BEING SO, TO ALLOW NEW YORK TO
IMPOSE A TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE ENTIRE MILEAGE - ON THE
57.47% WITHIN NEW YORK AS WELL AS THE 42.53% WITHOUT - WOULD SUBJECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE UNFAIR BURDEN OF BEING TAXED AS TO PORTIONS
OF ITS REVENUE BY STATES WHICH GIVE PROTECTION TO THOSE PORTIONS, AS
WELL AS TO A STATE WHICH DOES NOT.  THIS IS NOT TO CONJURE UP REMOTE
POSSIBILITIES.  PENNSYLVANIA'S CLAIM TO TAX A PORTION OF APPELLANT'S
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION WHICH NEW YORK HAS TAXED IS NOT
A MATTER OF SPECULATION.  APPARENTLY, PENNSYLVANIA HAS SO TAXED SINCE
1931.  PENN.  LAWS 1931, NO. 255, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF JUNE 5, 1947,
NO. 204.  NEW YORK DOES NOT DENY THAT PENNSYLVANIA IN FACT SO TAXES,
THOUGH THERE IS DISPUTE AS TO THE MEANING OF THE FORMULA BY WHICH SHE
DOES SO.  BUT EVEN IF NEITHER PENNSYLVANIA NOR NEW JERSEY SOUGHT TO TAX
THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE REVENUE FROM THIS TRANSPORTATION, SUCH
ABSTENTION WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE TAXING BY NEW YORK OF THE ENTIRE
REVENUE.  FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, 256.  BY ITS VERY NATURE AN
UNAPPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS TAX MAKES INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BEAR
MORE THAN "A FAIR SHARE OF THE COST OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHOSE
PROTECTION IT ENJOYS."  ID. AT 253.  THE VICE OF SUCH A TAX IS THAT IT
LAYS "A DIRECT BURDEN UPON EVERY TRANSACTION IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE
BY WITHHOLDING, FOR THE USE OF THE STATE, A PART OF EVERY DOLLAR
RECEIVED IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS."  CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245
U.S. 292, 297; SEE ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307,
311; FREEMAN V. HEWIT, SUPRA; JOSEPH V. CARTER AND WEEKES STEVEDORING
CO., 330 U.S. 422. 

HOWEVER, WHILE THE NEW YORK COURTS HAVE CONSTRUED THE STATUTE AS
LEVYING AN UNAPPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON THIS TRANSACTION, THE
ENTIRE TAX NEED NOT FALL.  THE TAX MAY BE "FAIRLY APPORTIONED" TO THE
"BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE STATE BY A FAIR METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT." 
WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 255.  THERE IS
NO DISPUTE AS TO FEASIBILITY IN APPORTIONING THIS TAX.  ON THE RECORD
BEFORE US THE TAX MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE SUSTAINED ON THE RECEIPTS
FROM THE TRANSPORTATION APPORTIONED AS TO THE MILEAGE WITHIN THE
STATE.  SEE RATTERMAN V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 127 U.S. 411, 427
28.  THERE IS NO QUESTION AS TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE SUGGESTED METHOD OF
APPORTIONMENT.  COMPARE MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., SUPRA, WITH NEW
JERSEY BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, 280
U.S. 338; CF. WALLACE V. HINES, 253 U.S. 66.  BOTH APPELLANT AND
APPELLEE HAVE INDICATED HERE THAT, AS A MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION, THE
STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION PERMITS SUCH APPORTIONMENT, BUT THAT IS A
MATTER FOR THE NEW YORK COURTS TO DETERMINE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

A PRECISE DELINEATION OF THE CONTROLLING FACTS IS ESSENTIAL TO A
DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL. 
THAT ISSUE CONCERNS AN ALLEGED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND A NEW YORK STATUTE TAXING THE
GROSS INCOME OF UTILITIES DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THAT STATE. 
SPECIFICALLY, THE PROBLEM RELATES TO AN APPLICATION OF THE TAX TO THE
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM BUS TRANSPORTATION ORIGINATING AND TERMINATING IN
NEW YORK BUT PASSING THROUGH PARTS OF NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA. 

THE FURNISHING OF UTILITY SERVICES."  IT IMPOSES A TAX "EQUAL TO TWO
PER CENTUM OF ITS GROSS INCOME  ...  UPON EVERY UTILITY DOING BUSINESS
IN THIS STATE  ...  IN ADDITION TO ANY AND ALL OTHER TAXES AND FEES
IMPOSED BY ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LAW FOR THE SAME PERIOD."  N1  THE
WORD "UTILITY" IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE EVERY PERSON "SUBJECT TO THE
SUPERVISION OF EITHER DIVISION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SERVICE" FN2  AND THE WORDS "GROSS INCOME" ARE DEFINED TO INCLUDE
"RECEIPTS RECEIVED IN OR BY REASON OF ANY SALE  ...  MADE OR SERVICE
RENDERED FOR ULTIMATE CONSUMPTION OR USE BY THE PURCHASER IN THIS STATE
...  "  FN3 

APPELLANT IS A NEW YORK CORPORATION ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AS A COMMON
CARRIER BY OMNIBUS.  IT OPERATES ITS BUSES BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT NEW
YORK AND IS SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION.  HENCE IT IS A UTILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 186-A. 

APPELLANT OPERATES BUSES OVER NUMEROUS ROUTES FROM NEW YORK CITY TO
BUFFALO AND OTHER CITIES IN UPSTATE NEW YORK, ROUTES WHICH CUT ACROSS
ONES POSSIBLE.  THE CONTROVERSY IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE TAXATION
UNDER SEC. 186-A OF THAT PART OF APPELLANT'S RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM
CONTINUOUS TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BETWEEN NEW YORK POINTS OVER
SUCH ROUTES.  APPLICATION OF THE TAX TO THE RECEIPTS FROM
TRANSPORTATION MOVING SOLELY WITHIN NEW YORK IS NOT CONTESTED; AND
RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN NEW YORK POINTS AND OUT-OF-STATE
POINTS HAVE NOT BEEN TAXED. 

AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION RELATIVE TO THE
CONTESTED TAX, THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE LIMITED TO
THE OPERATIONS OVER THESE ROUTES DURING JULY, 1937, AND THAT THE
CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ALL
MONTHS SUBSEQUENT THERETO.  THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS INTRODUCED REVEALED
THAT 57.47% OF THE TOTAL MILEAGE OF THE JOURNEYS OVER THE ROUTES IN
QUESTION WAS TRAVERSED WITHIN NEW YORK, WHILE 42.53% THEREOF WAS
TRAVERSED WITHIN NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA.  ALTHOUGH SOME TRANSFERS
AND STOPOVERS IN NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA WERE INDICATED, THERE WAS
NO SHOWING THAT THEY WERE OF A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OR THAT THEY WERE OF
SUCH A NATURE AS TO BREAK THE TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN NEW YORK POINTS
INTO TWO UNRELATED TRIPS.  THE LEGAL ISSUES IN THE CASE HAVE BEEN
PREDICATED AT ALL TIMES UPON THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS CONTINUOUS
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BETWEEN NEW YORK POINTS ON SINGLE TICKETS
AND UPON THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE PERCENTAGE OF THE MILEAGE TRAVERSED
WITHIN AND WITHOUT NEW YORK. 

THE STATE TAX COMMISSION CONSTRUED SEC. 186-A AS APPLICABLE TO
APPELLANT'S TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION IN ISSUE, PRORATION
OF THE RECEIPTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MILEAGE TRAVERSED IN NEW YORK
BEING CONSIDERED UNNECESSARY.  SO CONSTRUED, SEC. 186-A WAS HELD NOT TO
CONFLICT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THIS
RULING WAS SUSTAINED BY THE NEW YORK COURTS. 

THE CRUCIAL FACT, FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT, IS THE DUAL AND
UNIQUE CHARACTER OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TERMINI IN THE SAME STATE
WHERE THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER STATE IS TRAVERSED EN ROUTE.  SUCH
TRANSPORTATION HAS BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE FEATURES.  FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF PHYSICAL MOVEMENT, THERE IS A CROSSING OF STATE LINES AND
A JOURNEY OVER TERRITORY BELONGING TO MORE STATES THAN ONE - A MOVEMENT
THAT IS UNDENIABLY INTERSTATE.  AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE BUSINESS
OF TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS OR FREIGHT BETWEEN POINTS IN THE SAME STATE
IS ESSENTIALLY LOCAL IN CHARACTER DESPITE THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT.  ALL
OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE REPRESENTED BY
THE CONTINUOUS TRANSPORTATION ARE RESIDENT IN THAT ONE STATE.  THE
PARTIES TO THE TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT, THE MAKING OF THE CONTRACT AND
THE SERVICE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACT ARE IDENTIFIED
PREEMINENTLY WITH THAT STATE.  THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSACTION IS
TO TRANSPORT THE PASSENGERS OR FREIGHT TO A POINT WITHIN THE SAME STATE
AS THE POINT OF ORIGIN.  PASSAGE THROUGH ANOTHER STATE IS A MERE
GEOGRAPHIC INCIDENT IN THE CONSUMMATION OF THIS LOCAL TRANSACTION. 
WHILE THAT PASSAGE MAY HAVE INTERSTATE SIGNIFICANCE FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
IT CANNOT OPERATE BY ITSELF TO MAKE INTERSTATE THE COMMERCIAL
RELATIONSHIP UNDERLYING THE CONTINUOUS TRANSPORTATION. 

AND SO WITHIN THE NARROW COMPASS OF THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF
TRANSPORTATION IT IS SOMETHING MORE THAN A FICTION TO SAY THAT BOTH
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE FEATURES ARE PRESENT.  CF. BOB-LO EXCURSION
CO. V. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28.  IT IS A RECOGNITION OF THE HARD
REALITIES OF THE SITUATION.  IT IS A REALIZATION THAT TRANSPORTING
PERSONS BETWEEN POINTS IN THE SAME STATE IS A BUSINESS LOCAL IN ALL ITS
COMMERCIAL CONNOTATIONS, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A PHYSICAL MOVEMENT OF AN
INTERSTATE CHARACTER.  DUE RESPECT FOR MR. JUSTICE HOLMES' ADMONITION
THAT COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES IS A PRACTICAL RATHER THAN A TECHNICAL
LEGAL CONCEPTION, SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 398,
FORBIDS AN INDISCRIMINATE APPLICATION OF THE INTERSTATE LABEL SIMPLY
BECAUSE STATE LINES ARE CROSSED IN THE COURSE OF A PARTICULAR
BUSINESS.  WHERE LOCAL ELEMENTS REMAIN INTACT DESPITE THE INTERSTATE
MOVEMENT IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF PRACTICALITY TO GIVE RECOGNITION TO
THAT FACT.  SUCH IS THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE. 

THIS COURT HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT THIS TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION,
UNLIKE OTHER TYPES, IS PHYSICALLY INTERSTATE AND COMMERCIALLY LOCAL. 
AND IT HAS GIVEN LIFE TO THAT DISTINCTION SO THAT THE FEDERAL POWER
OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE MIGHT REMAIN EFFECTIVE WITHOUT DETRACTING
UNNECESSARILY FROM THE SCOPE OF STATE POWER OVER THOSE ENGAGED IN THIS
NARROW TRANSPORTATION SPHERE.  WHERE THE PROPOSED STATE ACTION IS SUCH
AS TO CREATE AN ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY
ARISING OUT OF THE PHYSICAL MOVEMENT ACROSS STATE LINES, THE COURT HAS
EMPHASIZED THE INTERSTATE ASPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION IN MAKING THE
FEDERAL POWER SUPREME.  THUS IN HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO.,
187 U.S. 617, CONGRESS WAS FOUND TO HAVE THE SOLE POWER TO FIX THE
RATES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BY RAIL BETWEEN TWO POINTS IN
ARKANSAS OVER A ROUTE PASSING THROUGH A PART OF THE INDIAN TERRITORY;
ARKANSAS WAS ACCORDINGLY PRECLUDED FROM THE EXERCISE OF ITS RATE-MAKING
AUTHORITY IN THIS INSTANCE.  SUCH TRANSPORTATION WAS SAID TO BE
INTERSTATE, STRESS BEING LAID UPON THE PHYSICAL MOVEMENT OF THE FREIGHT
ACROSS AND BEYOND THE ARKANSAS BORDER.  SEE ALSO MISSOURI PACIFIC R.
CO. V. STROUD, 267 U.S. 404; WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. SPEIGHT, 254
U.S. 17; COMPARE WILMINGTON TRANSPORTATION CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION,
236 U.S. 151. 

BUT WHERE THE IMPACT OF STATE ACTION IS SUCH AS NOT TO ENDANGER OR
EMBARRASS FEDERAL CONTROL OVER INTERSTATE MOVEMENTS, THE COURT HAS
RELIED UPON THE LOCAL ELEMENTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION IN SANCTIONING THE
IMPOSITION OF STATE AUTHORITY.  THIS HAS OCCURRED IN THE SETTING OF
STATE GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES AND CITY LICENSE TAXES LEVIED ON THOSE
ENGAGED IN THE TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION HERE INVOLVED.  LEHIGH VALLEY R.
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 145 U.S. 192; UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335; EWING V. LEAVENWORTH, 226 U.S. 464; CORNELL
STEAMBOAT CO. V. SOHMER, 235 U.S. 549.  IN THOSE CASES THE TAXES WERE
NON-DISCRIMINATORY IN NATURE AND INTERFERED IN NO WAY WITH ANY
REGULATIONS CONGRESS MIGHT WISH TO IMPOSE BY REASON OF THE MOVEMENTS
ACROSS STATE LINES.  THE THRUST OF THE TAXES AFFECTED ONLY THE BUSINESS
OF TRANSPORTING ARTICLES BETWEEN TWO POINTS IN THE SAME STATE AND THE
RECEIPTS DERIVED THEREFROM.  THAT BUSINESS WAS CONSIDERED TO BE OF A
LOCAL VARIETY AND A CLEAR REJECTION WAS MADE OF THE CONTENTION THAT
"THE MERE PASSAGE OVER THE SOIL OF ANOTHER STATE RENDERS THAT BUSINESS
FOREIGN, WHICH IS DOMESTIC."  LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
SUPRA, 202.  AS STATED IN CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V. SOHMER, SUPRA, 560,
"BUT TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE PORTS OF THE STATE IS NOT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, EXCLUDED FROM THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE, BECAUSE AS TO A
PART OF THE JOURNEY THE COURSE IS OVER THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER
STATE." 

ROOM HAS THUS BEEN MADE IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM FOR A REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE INTERESTS IN REGULATING AND
TAXING THOSE ENGAGED IN THIS UNIQUE TRANSPORTATION.  SEE CORNELL
STEAMBOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 634, 639, NOTE 4.  IT IS AN
ACCOMMODATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN UNIFORM
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE MOVEMENTS AS WELL AS TO SAFEGUARD THE STATES'
LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN PLACING A FAIR SHARE OF THE LOCAL BURDENS ON
THOSE DOING LOCAL BUSINESS.  FN4 

THE PROPER ANSWER TO THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS DICTATED IN LARGE PART
BY THE LEHIGH VALLEY LINE OF DECISIONS.  THOSE PRIOR CASES ARE NOT TO
BE DISMISSED AS DIALECTICAL EXERCISES IN THE LAW OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THEY REPRESENT A REALISTIC APPRECIATION OF THE FACT THAT THE
BUSINESS FROM WHICH THE GROSS RECEIPTS IN ISSUE WERE DERIVED IS LOCAL
IN NATURE.  AND SEC. 186-A OF THE NEW YORK TAX LAW, IN TAXING THOSE
GROSS RECEIPTS, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  THIS TAX IS GROUNDED ON A BASE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH
JUSTIFIES THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER, MAKING A CONFLICT BETWEEN
FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY IMPOSSIBLE.  IN EFFECT, SEC. 186-A LEVIES A
NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX ON ALL COMPANIES FURNISHING CONTINUOUS
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BETWEEN CITIES IN THAT STATE.  THE TAX IS IN
TERMS OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THAT SERVICE. 
ENGAGING IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IS A LOCAL BUSINESS, EVEN
THOUGH SOME OF THE ROUTES CROSS PARTS OF OTHER STATES.  AND TAXING THE
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THIS SERVICE IS WELL WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER OF NEW YORK SO FAR AS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS CONCERNED.  FN5 

IN LIGHT OF THE PAST DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, THE ONLY NOVEL QUESTION
HERE PRESENTED IS WHETHER NEW YORK MUST LIMIT ITS TAX TO THAT
PROPORTION OF THE RECEIPTS WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE PROPORTION OF THE
MILEAGE TRAVERSED WITHIN THAT STATE ON THE TRIPS IN ISSUE, I.E. 57.47%.
LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, AND UNITED STATES EXPRESS
CO. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA, DID NOT INVOLVE THIS QUESTION SINCE THE GROSS
RECEIPTS TAXES HAD THERE BEEN PRORATED BY THE RESPECTIVE STATES BEFORE
REACHING THIS COURT, AND EWING V. LEAVENWORTH, SUPRA, WAS CONCERNED
ONLY WITH A FLAT LICENSE TAX.  WHILE CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V. SOHMER,
SUPRA, DID INVOLVE AN UNAPPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS TAX, THE FACTS WERE
SUCH AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT PROPORTION OF THE
JOURNEYS TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE NEW YORK; THE PRECISE ISSUE WAS THUS
UNRESOLVED. 

THE RULE REQUIRING APPORTIONMENT OF GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES TO THE
ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON WITHIN A STATE IS ONE THAT IS NECESSARILY
PREDICATED UPON THE EXISTENCE OF SOME INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES WHICH THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE PLACES BEYOND THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE.  SEE
RATTERMAN V. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO., 127 U.S. 411; WISCONSIN & M.R. CO.
V. POWERS, 191 U.S. 379.  IT IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE LEVYING OF SUCH
TAXES AS WILL DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OR PROHIBIT THE INTERSTATE
ACTIVITIES OR WILL PLACE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT A DISADVANTAGE
RELATIVE TO LOCAL COMMERCE.  BUT THIS RULE OBVIOUSLY IS INAPPLICABLE
WHERE THE TAX IS NOT LEVIED ON WHAT IS APPROPRIATELY LABELLED
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AND AS WE HAVE SEEN, NEW YORK HERE HAS LEVIED A
TAX SOLELY UPON THE LOCAL BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS BETWEEN
POINTS IN THAT STATE, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE FURNISHING OF UTILITIES
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NEW YORK TAX LAW.  THE FACT THAT 42.53% OF
THE TRANSPORTATION OCCURS OUTSIDE NEW YORK DOES NOT MAKE THAT BUSINESS
ANY LESS LOCAL.  FROM THE COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT, THE OUT-OF-STATE
SEGMENT OF THE JOURNEY RETAINS ITS POSITION AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
CONTINUOUS LOCAL TRANSACTION.  THE PROPORTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION
ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE WITHIN OR WITHOUT NEW YORK THUS HAS NO COMMERCE
CLAUSE SIGNIFICANCE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  INASMUCH AS THE
RESTRICTIVE FORCE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS NON-EFFECTIVE, NEW YORK IS
ENTITLED TO TAX THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THIS LOCAL COMMERCE. 

THIS RESULT DOES NOT PERMIT OTHER STATES, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, TO TAX THE LOCAL BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS
BETWEEN NEW YORK POINTS.  WHAT IS LOCAL BUSINESS AS TO NEW YORK IS NOT
LOCAL BUSINESS AS TO NEW JERSEY OR PENNSYLVANIA.  THE ELEMENTS WHICH
JUSTIFY NEW YORK'S UNAPPORTIONED TAX EXIST ONLY IN THAT STATE.  IF NEW
JERSEY OR PENNSYLVANIA WERE TO TAX A PORTION OF APPELLANT'S GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION IN ISSUE, SUCH TAX WOULD INVOLVE QUITE
DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS THAN THOSE WHICH SUSTAIN THE
NEW YORK TAX.  SINCE NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST
IN THE SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS OCCURRING WITHIN
THEIR BORDERS, CONCENTRATION WOULD HAVE TO BE PLACED UPON THE
INTERSTATE ASPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION.  THE PROBLEM WOULD THEN BE
WHETHER THESE STATES COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX THE PORTION OF THE
GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM THE MILEAGE TRAVERSED THEREIN.  IF SUCH
TAXES WERE SUSTAINED, THE RESULTING MULTIPLE BURDEN ON THE GROSS
RECEIPTS WOULD SIMPLY BE A NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF CONDUCTING A LOCAL
BUSINESS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO USE THE FACILITIES OF MORE STATES THAN
ONE.  BUT THAT TYPE OF MULTIPLE BURDEN IS NOT OUTLAWED BY THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  NOR DOES THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A BURDEN MAKE THE BUSINESS OF
TRANSPORTING PERSONS BETWEEN POINTS IN NEW YORK ANY LESS LOCAL IN
NATURE. 

I WOULD THEREFORE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

FN1  NEW YORK TAX LAW, SEC. 186-A, SUBD. 1. 

FN2  NEW YORK TAX LAW, SEC. 186-A, SUBD. 2(A). 

FN3  NEW YORK TAX LAW, SEC. 186-A, SUBD. 2(C). 

FN4  SECTION 303(10) OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 303(10), DEFINES INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FOR FEDERAL
REGULATORY PURPOSES, TO INCLUDE COMMERCE "BETWEEN PLACES IN THE SAME
STATE THROUGH ANOTHER STATE."  BUT SEC. 302(B) OF THE SAME ACT, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 302(B), STATES THAT NOTHING THEREIN "SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
AFFECT THE POWERS OF TAXATION OF THE SEVERAL STATES."  THIS IS A
CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE ACCOMMODATION THAT EXISTS IN REGARD TO
THE FEDERAL AND STATE INTERESTS. 

SEE, IN GENERAL, KAUPER, "STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE MOTOR
CARRIERS," 31 MICH. L. REV. 1097, 1105-1107; TARNAY, "METHODS FOR
DIFFERENTIATING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION FROM INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION," 6 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 553, 633-637; GANIT, THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, SEC. 62(D), (1932). 

FN5  THE PROPER RESULT IN THIS CASE IS APTLY PARAPHRASED IN LEHIGH
VALLEY R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 145 U.S. 192, 201-202:  "SO AS TO THE
TRAFFIC OF THE ERIE RAILWAY BETWEEN THE CITIES OF NEW YORK AND BUFFALO,
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THAT COMPANY ESCAPES TAXATION IN RESPECT OF
THAT PART OF ITS BUSINESS BECAUSE SOME MILES OF ITS ROAD ARE IN
PENNSYLVANIA, WHILE THE NEW YORK CENTRAL IS TAXED AS TO ITS BUSINESS
BETWEEN THE SAME PLACES, BECAUSE ITS RAILS ARE WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE
OF NEW YORK." 
..END :












WADE V. MAYO, 334 U.S. 672 


NO. 40.  SUBMITTED OCTOBER 13, 1947.  - RESUBMITTED MARCH 9, 1948.  -
DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  - 158 F.2D 614, REVERSED. 


1.  IMPRISONED UNDER A FLORIDA STATE COURT CONVICTION OF A NON-CAPITAL
OFFENSE, PETITIONER SOUGHT RELEASE BY HABEAS CORPUS IN A STATE COURT,
CLAIMING DENIAL OF HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  AN
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DENYING RELIEF WAS DISMISSED BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT ON THE MERITS.  AT THE TIME OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S
ACTION, ITS JUDGMENT APPARENTLY COULD HAVE RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE NON
FEDERAL GROUND, BUT IN A LATER CASE THE COURT MADE CLEAR THAT IT HAD
DECIDED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  HELD:  ALTHOUGH
PETITIONER DID NOT SEEK CERTIORARI FROM THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT, IT WAS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION BY PETITIONER
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO PROCEED TO A DETERMINATION OF
PETITIONER'S FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.  PP. 674-682. 

(A)  THE FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION DOES NOT BAR RELIEF, SINCE IT APPEARS THAT A DEFENDANT WHO
IS DENIED COUNSEL IN A NON-CAPITAL CASE IN FLORIDA MAY RAISE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION EITHER BY APPEAL FROM THE CONVICTION OR BY
HABEAS CORPUS, AND PURSUIT OF ONE OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES
SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES.  PP. 677
678. 

(B)  THIS COURT ACCEPTS THE PRONOUNCEMENT BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT
IN A LATER CASE THAT ITS DECISION IN PETITIONER'S HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING RESTED ON THE MERITS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, AND NOT
ON A RULING THAT A DIRECT APPEAL WAS THE ONLY WAY TO RAISE THE ISSUE. 
PP. 678-679. 

(C)  THE REASONS FOR THE RULE REQUIRING EXHAUSTION OF THE STATE
REMEDY CEASE WHEN THE HIGHEST STATE COURT HAS RENDERED A DECISION ON
THE MERITS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM; THE PROBLEM THEN IS THE
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE FEDERAL REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. 
PP. 679-680. 

(D)  THE FACT THAT A STATE PRISONER DID NOT SEEK REVIEW BY THIS COURT
OF A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST STATE COURT DENYING HIS CLAIM OF FEDERAL
RIGHT MAY BE A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION FOR THE DISTRICT COURT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER TO ENTERTAIN A SUBSEQUENT HABEAS CORPUS PETITION,
BUT IT DOES NOT ABSOLUTELY BAR EXERCISE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DISCRETION TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A PETITION.  P. 680. 

(E)  WHERE IT IS APPARENT OR EVEN POSSIBLE THAT A STATE PRISONER'S
PETITION TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A RULING BY THE HIGHEST
STATE COURT ON HIS CLAIM OF FEDERAL RIGHT WOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE
JUDGMENT APPEARS TO BE BASED ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND, FAILURE
TO FILE THE PETITION SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE RIGHT TO FILE A HABEAS
CORPUS APPLICATION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  PP. 680-681. 

(F)  THE FLEXIBLE NATURE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS COUNSELS
AGAINST ERECTING A RIGID PROCEDURAL RULE THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF
IMPOSING A NEW JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION ON THE WRIT.  P. 681. 

(G)  WHERE THE MATTER IS OTHERWISE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, IT IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THAT COURT TO WEIGH THE
FAILURE TO SEEK CERTIORARI AGAINST THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE THAT
MIGHT RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT RELIEF.  P. 681. 

(H)  THE FEAR THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S POWER TO
ENTERTAIN HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS THESE MIGHT
GIVE RISE TO FREQUENT INSTANCES OF A SINGLE FEDERAL JUDGE UPSETTING THE
JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, OFTEN THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, IS
WITHOUT FOUNDATION.  PP. 681-682. 

2.  AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF HIS TRIAL IN A FLORIDA STATE COURT FOR THE
NON-CAPITAL OFFENSE OF BREAKING AND ENTERING, PETITIONER, CLAIMING TO
BE WITHOUT FUNDS, REQUESTED THE TRIAL JUDGE TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO
REPRESENT HIM.  THE REQUEST WAS REFUSED, THE TRIAL PROCEEDED, AND
PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE YEARS. 
PETITIONER, AFTER EXHAUSTING HIS STATE REMEDY, APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, CLAIMING DENIAL OF HIS FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT, AT THE
TIME OF THE TRIAL IN THE STATE COURT, PETITIONER WAS AN INEXPERIENCED
YOUTH UNFAMILIAR WITH COURT PROCEDURE AND NOT CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY
REPRESENTING HIMSELF.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE REFUSAL OF
PETITIONER'S REQUEST THAT COUNSEL BE APPOINTED FOR HIM CONSTITUTED A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  HELD:  THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WERE NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND IT WAS ERROR FOR THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REVERSE THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT.  PP.
682-684. 

(A)  REFUSAL TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
WHO, BY REASON OF AGE, IGNORANCE OR MENTAL CAPACITY, IS INCAPABLE OF
ADEQUATELY REPRESENTING HIMSELF, THOUGH THE PROSECUTION BE OF A
RELATIVELY SIMPLE NATURE, IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 684. 

(B)  WHETHER THE FAILURE TO APPOINT COUNSEL IN A NON-CAPITAL CASE IN
A STATE COURT CONSTITUTES A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE LAW OF THE STATE REQUIRES
SUCH AN APPOINTMENT.  P. 684. 

WADE V. MAYO, STATE PRISON CUSTODIAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN WHICH PETITIONER SOUGHT RELEASE FROM
IMPRISONMENT UNDER A STATE COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED RELIEF ON THE GROUND THAT A FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAD BEEN DENIED PETITIONER AT HIS TRIAL IN THE
STATE COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  158 F.2D 614. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 801.  REVERSED, P. 684. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CENTERS ON TWO ISSUES:  (1) WHETHER IT WAS PROPER FOR A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION FILED BY A
STATE PRISONER WHO, HAVING SECURED A RULING FROM THE HIGHEST STATE
COURT ON HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM, HAD FAILED TO SEEK A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT; (2) WHETHER THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE PRISONER HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT THE TRIAL FOR A NON-CAPITAL STATE
OFFENSE. 

ON FEBRUARY 19, 1945, PETITIONER WADE WAS ARRESTED IN PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA, UPON THE CHARGE OF BREAKING AND ENTERING.  HE WAS HELD
IN JAIL UNTIL BROUGHT TO TRIAL BEFORE A JURY ON MARCH 14, 1945, IN THE
CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY.  JUST BEFORE THE TRIAL
STARTED, HE ASKED THE TRIAL JUDGE TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM,
CLAIMING THAT IT WAS FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO EMPLOY ONE HIMSELF.  THE
JUDGE REFUSED THE REQUEST AND THE TRIAL PROCEEDED.  THE JURY RETURNED A
VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE SAME DAY AND WADE WAS IMMEDIATELY SENTENCED TO
SERVE FIVE YEARS IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY. 

WADE THEN OBTAINED THE AID OF COUNSEL.  ON MARCH 16, TWO DAYS AFTER
THE TRIAL AND CONVICTION, THIS COUNSEL FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY.  THE PETITION
CLAIMED THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE JUDGE TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR WADE AT
THE TRIAL WAS A DENIAL OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED TO HIM BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
WRIT WAS ISSUED, A HEARING WAS HAD, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT THEREUPON
GRANTED THE MOTION OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY TO QUASH THE WRIT.  THIS
ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE AUTHORITY OF TWO DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF FLORIDA HOLDING THAT UNDER FLORIDA LAW A TRIAL COURT HAS NO DUTY TO
APPOINT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE ACCUSED IN A NON-CAPITAL CASE.  WATSON
V. STATE, 142 FLA. 218, 194 SO. 640; JOHNSON V. STATE, 148 FLA. 510, 4
SO.2D 671. 

WADE'S COUNSEL APPEALED THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.  IN THE LATTER COURT, THE STATE'S ATTORNEY
GENERAL FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS.  TWO POINTS
WERE EMPHASIZED IN THIS MOTION:  (1) WADE HAD NOT APPEALED FROM HIS
CONVICTION OR EVEN FILED A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; (2) THE CIRCUIT
COURT HAD QUASHED THE HABEAS CORPUS WRIT ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE TWO
CASES CITED IN ITS ORDER.  THE SUPREME COURT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF
THIS MOTION, GRANTED THE MOTION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL.  NO WRITTEN
OPINION WAS FILED AND NO INDICATION WAS GIVEN WHETHER THE APPEAL WAS
DISMISSED FOR ONE OR BOTH OF THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.  THE DATE OF THIS ACTION WAS MAY 14, 1945.  NO ATTEMPT WAS
MADE TO SECURE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THIS COURT. 

NEARLY A YEAR LATER, ON MAY 8, 1946, A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS WAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.  THIS PETITION ALLEGED THAT THE REFUSAL TO APPOINT
COUNSEL FOR WADE AT THE TRIAL DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  AND THE PETITION FURTHER STATED THAT THIS POINT
HAD NOT BEEN RAISED BY WAY OF APPEAL FROM THE CONVICTION BECAUSE OF THE
BELIEF THAT THE WATSON AND JOHNSON CASES MADE IT PLAIN THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA "HAS NO POWER OF REVERSAL OF A CONVICTION BECAUSE
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AND FOR THAT REASON FAILED
TO OBTAIN A FAIR TRIAL, EXCEPT IN CAPITAL CASES, AND THIS CASE IS NOT A
CAPITAL CASE."  SUCH WAS THE REASON GIVEN FOR THE BELIEF THAT AN APPEAL
WOULD HAVE BEEN USELESS AND OF NO AVAIL.  BUT THE PETITION POINTED OUT
THAT IN ORDER TO EXHAUST ALL HIS REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS BEFORE
APPLYING TO A FEDERAL COURT, WADE HAD PURSUED A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE FLORIDA COURTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE WRIT AND A HEARING WAS HELD ON MAY 17,
1946.  BOTH WADE AND THE TRIAL JUDGE TESTIFIED AS TO THE EVENTS
SURROUNDING THE REFUSAL TO APPOINT COUNSEL.  AFTER HEARING THIS
TESTIMONY AND THE ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL, THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED
THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DENIAL OF WADE'S REQUEST WAS CONTRARY
TO THE DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THEREBY
RENDERING VOID THE JUDGMENT AND COMMITMENT UNDER WHICH WADE WAS HELD. 
BUT THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT REQUIRE THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN NON
CAPITAL STATE CASES UNLESS THE STATE LAW SO REQUIRED.  158 F.2D 614. 

WE THEN GRANTED CERTIORARI.  AFTER THE CASE HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO US
ON BRIEFS, WE ORDERED THE CASE RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT ON
TWO POINTS:  "(1) THE PROPRIETY OF THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE WHEN IT APPEARS OF RECORD, IN THE STATE'S
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL ON HABEAS CORPUS, THAT PETITIONER
HAD NOT AVAILED HIMSELF OF THE REMEDY OF APPEAL FROM HIS CONVICTION,
APPARENTLY OPEN AFTER TRIAL THOUGH NOW BARRED BY LIMITATION ...  (2)
WHETHER THE FAILURE OF FLORIDA TO MAKE THIS OBJECTION IN THIS
PROCEEDING AFFECTS THE ABOVE PROBLEM." 

IN OUR VIEW, IT WAS PROPER FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN WADE'S
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO PROCEED TO A DETERMINATION
OF THE MERITS OF WADE'S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.  THE CRUCIAL POINT IS
THAT WADE HAS EXHAUSTED ONE OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVE ROUTES OPEN IN THE
FLORIDA COURTS FOR SECURING AN ANSWER TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION. 
IT NOW APPEARS THAT A DEFENDANT WHO IS DENIED COUNSEL IN A NON-CAPITAL
CASE IN FLORIDA MAY ATTACK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH TREATMENT
EITHER BY THE DIRECT METHOD OF AN APPEAL FROM THE CONVICTION OR BY THE
COLLATERAL METHOD OF HABEAS CORPUS.  SINCE WADE CHOSE THE LATTER
ALTERNATIVE AND PURSUED IT THROUGH TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, HE
HAS DONE ALL THAT COULD BE DONE TO SECURE A DETERMINATION OF HIS CLAIM
BY THE FLORIDA COURTS.  THE FACT THAT HE MIGHT HAVE APPEALED HIS
CONVICTION AND MADE THE SAME CLAIM AND RECEIVED THE SAME ANSWER DOES
NOT DETRACT FROM THE COMPLETENESS WITH WHICH FLORIDA HAS DISPOSED OF
HIS CLAIM ON HABEAS CORPUS.  THE EXHAUSTION OF BUT ONE OF SEVERAL
AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY. 

AT THE TIME THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DISMISSED WADE'S HABEAS
CORPUS APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE PROPRIETY OF THE HABEAS CORPUS METHOD OF
RAISING THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL ISSUE WAS ANYTHING BUT CLEAR.  THE FAILURE
OF THAT COURT TO SPECIFY THE REASON FOR THE DISMISSAL MADE IT POSSIBLE
TO CONSTRUE THE ACTION AS A HOLDING THAT A DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE
CONVICTION WAS THE ONLY REMEDY AVAILABLE TO WADE.  THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE HABEAS CORPUS APPEAL SEEMED TO MAKE
THAT POINT AND THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT HAVE ADOPTED IT AS THE SOLE
GROUND OF DISMISSAL.  HAD THAT BEEN THE SITUATION, THE CASE BEFORE US
WOULD BE IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POSTURE.  WADE WOULD THEN BE IN THE
POSITION OF SEEKING RELIEF IN A FEDERAL COURT AFTER HAVING CHOSEN TO
FOREGO THE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE RECOGNITION OF HIS CLAIM BY THE
EXCLUSIVE MODE DESIGNATED BY FLORIDA. 

BUT THE DOUBTS AS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FLORIDA FOR
THE PURPOSE AT HAND HAVE BEEN DISPELLED BY THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN JOHNSON V. MAYO, 158 FLA. 264, 28 SO.2D
585.  THAT CASE WAS A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE FLORIDA
COURT PROCEEDED TO PASS UPON THE MERITS OF A CLAIM IDENTICAL WITH THAT
RAISED BY WADE.  IN SO DOING, THE COURT RELIED UPON THE DISPOSITION OF
WADE'S HABEAS CORPUS APPEAL, STATING THAT IT HAD BEEN DISMISSED AS
FRIVOLOUS.  AS THE JOHNSON CASE MAKES CLEAR, WADE'S APPEAL WAS
CONSIDERED FRIVOLOUS BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN A NON-CAPITAL CASE
IS COUNTER TO THE SETTLED LAW OF FLORIDA.  REFERENCE WAS MADE IN THE
JOHNSON DECISION TO THE CONTRARY DECISIONS IN OTHER STATES AND TO "THE
RULE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BUT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THOSE DECISIONS
DO NOT CONTROL IN FLORIDA."  158 FLA. AT 266, 28 SO.2D AT 586. 

THUS THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ANNOUNCED UNAMBIGUOUSLY LESS THAN A
YEAR AND A HALF AFTER ITS DISMISSAL OF WADE'S APPEAL THAT ITS ACTION
HAD BEEN GROUNDED ON THE MERITS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE TENDERED BY
WADE, RATHER THAN ON A HOLDING THAT A DIRECT APPEAL WAS THE ONLY WAY TO
RAISE THAT ISSUE.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO CONTRADICT THIS CONSTRUCTION BY
THE FLORIDA COURT AND TO ATTRIBUTE THE DISMISSAL OF WADE'S APPEAL TO A
STATE GROUND OF PROCEDURE WHICH IS NEGATIVED BY BOTH THE DECISION AND
THE REASONING IN THE LATER JOHNSON CASE. 

THE ONLY REAL PROBLEM IN THIS CASE CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERTAINING WADE'S PETITION RELATES TO THE EFFECT OF
HIS FAILURE TO SEEK A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THIS COURT FOLLOWING THE
ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ON HIS HABEAS CORPUS APPEAL.  IT
HAS BEEN SAID THAT "ORDINARILY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE
DETAINED UNDER A STATE COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR CRIME WILL BE
ENTERTAINED BY A FEDERAL COURT ONLY AFTER ALL STATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE,
INCLUDING ALL APPELLATE REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS AND IN THIS COURT
BY APPEAL OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED."  EX PARTE HAWK,
321 U.S. 114, 116-117.  THE PROBLEM IS TO REEXAMINE THIS STATEMENT IN
THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT STATE REMEDIES BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE RELIEF IS
SOUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IS GROUNDED PRIMARILY UPON THE RESPECT
WHICH FEDERAL COURTS HAVE FOR THE STATE JUDICIAL PROCESSES AND UPON THE
ADMINISTRATIVE NECESSITIES OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.  STATE COURTS ARE
DUTY BOUND TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IT
CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THEY WILL BE DERELICT IN THEIR DUTY.  ONLY AFTER
STATE REMEDIES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED WITHOUT THE FEDERAL CLAIM HAVING
BEEN VINDICATED MAY FEDERAL COURTS PROPERLY INTERVENE.  INDEED, ANY
OTHER RULE WOULD VISIT UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN,
FORCING THEM TO SUPERVISE THE COUNTLESS STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
WHICH DEPRIVATIONS OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE ALLEGED. 

BUT THE REASONS FOR THIS EXHAUSTION PRINCIPLE CEASE AFTER THE HIGHEST
STATE COURT HAS RENDERED A DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.  THE STATE PROCEDURE HAS THEN ENDED AND THERE IS
NO LONGER ANY DANGER OF A COLLISION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE
AUTHORITY.  THE PROBLEM SHIFTS FROM THE CONSUMMATION OF STATE REMEDIES
TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE FEDERAL REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE.  THE EXERTION OF SUCH REVIEW AT THIS POINT, HOWEVER, IS NOT IN
ANY REAL SENSE A PART OF THE STATE PROCEDURE.  IT IS AN INVOCATION OF
FEDERAL AUTHORITY GROWING OUT OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND THE NECESSITY OF GIVING EFFECT TO THAT SUPREMACY IF
THE STATE PROCESSES HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. 

AFTER STATE PROCEDURE HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED, THE CONCERN IS WITH THE
APPROPRIATE FEDERAL FORUM IN WHICH TO PURSUE FURTHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIM.  THE CHOICE LIES BETWEEN APPLYING DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT FOR
REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE BY CERTIORARI OR INSTITUTING AN
ORIGINAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
CONSIDERATIONS OF PROMPT AND ORDERLY PROCEDURE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
WILL OFTEN DICTATE THAT DIRECT REVIEW BE SOUGHT FIRST IN THIS COURT. 
AND WHERE A PRISONER HAS NEGLECTED TO SEEK THAT REVIEW, SUCH FAILURE
MAY BE A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION FOR A DISTRICT COURT IN DETERMINING
WHETHER TO ENTERTAIN A SUBSEQUENT HABEAS CORPUS PETITION. 

BUT THE FACTORS WHICH MAKE IT DESIRABLE TO PRESENT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE DIRECTLY AND INITIALLY TO THIS COURT DO NOT JUSTIFY A HARD AND
FAST RULE TO THAT EFFECT, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE VOLUME OF THIS
COURT'S BUSINESS.  WRITS OF CERTIORARI ARE MATTERS OF GRACE.  MATTERS
RELEVANT TO THE EXERCISE OF OUR CERTIORARI DISCRETION FREQUENTLY RESULT
IN DENIALS OF THE WRIT WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE MAY THUS HAVE NO BEARING UPON THE DENIAL OF THE
WRIT.  WHERE IT IS APPARENT OR EVEN POSSIBLE THAT SUCH WOULD BE THE
DISPOSITION OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FROM THE STATE COURT'S
JUDGMENT, FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE RIGHT TO
FILE A HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION IN A DISTRICT COURT.  GOOD JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION IS NOT FURTHERED BY INSISTENCE ON FUTILE PROCEDURE. 

MOREOVER, THE FLEXIBLE NATURE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS COUNSELS
AGAINST ERECTING A RIGID PROCEDURAL RULE THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF
IMPOSING A NEW JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION ON THE WRIT.  HABEAS CORPUS IS
PRESENTLY AVAILABLE FOR USE BY A DISTRICT COURT WITHIN ITS RECOGNIZED
JURISDICTION WHENEVER NECESSARY TO PREVENT AN UNJUST AND ILLEGAL
DEPRIVATION OF HUMAN LIBERTY.  CF. PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334 U.S. 266,
283.  WHERE THE MATTER IS OTHERWISE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, IT IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THAT COURT TO WEIGH THE
FAILURE TO SEEK CERTIORARI AGAINST THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE THAT
MIGHT RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO GRANT RELIEF.  IN SHORT, WE REFUSE TO
CODIFY THE FAILURE TO INVOKE THE DISCRETIONARY CERTIORARI POWERS OF
THIS COURT INTO AN ABSOLUTE DENIAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S POWER TO
ENTERTAIN A HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION.  THE PREVENTION OF UNDUE
RESTRAINTS ON LIBERTY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MECHANICAL AND UNREALISTIC
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.    FEAR HAS SOMETIMES BEEN
EXPRESSED THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S POWER TO ENTERTAIN
HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT GIVE RISE TO
FREQUENT INSTANCES OF A SINGLE FEDERAL JUDGE UPSETTING THE JUDGMENT OF
A STATE COURT, OFTEN THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  BUT TO RESTRICT
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR SUCH REASON IS TO LIMIT IT ON THE BASIS
OF A DISCREDITED FEAR.  EXPERIENCE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT DISTRICT COURT
JUDGES HAVE USED THIS POWER SPARINGLY AND THAT ONLY IN A NEGLIGIBLE
NUMBER OF INSTANCES HAVE CONVICTIONS SUSTAINED BY STATE COURTS BEEN
REVERSED.  STATISTICS COMPILED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURTS SHOW THAT DURING THE FISCAL YEARS OF 1943, 1944
AND 1945 THERE WAS AN AVERAGE OF 451 HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS FILED EACH
YEAR IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS BY PRISONERS SERVING STATE COURT
SENTENCES; OF THESE PETITIONS, AN AVERAGE OF BUT 6 PER YEAR RESULTED IN
A REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION AND A RELEASE OF THE PRISONER.  THE
RELEASES THUS CONSTITUTED ONLY 1.3% OF THE TOTAL PETITIONS FILED.  IN
LIGHT OF SUCH FIGURES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE
LIGHTLY EXERCISED THEIR POWER TO RELEASE PRISONERS HELD UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF A STATE.  SEE EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241, 253. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE BELIEVE THAT IT WAS WELL WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER WADE'S PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS.  THE FLORIDA COURTS HAD GIVEN A FULL AND CONCLUSIVE
ANSWER TO HIS CLAIM THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
COUNSEL.  NO OTHER REMEDIES WERE AVAILABLE IN FLORIDA.  TRUE, HE DID
NOT SEEK CERTIORARI FOLLOWING THE DISMISSAL OF HIS HABEAS CORPUS APPEAL
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.  BUT AT THE TIME OF THAT DISMISSAL, IT
WAS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL, TO SAY THE LEAST, WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE HAD REALLY BEEN DECIDED.  THAT DOUBT WAS SUCH AS TO MAKE IT
REASONABLY CERTAIN THAT THIS COURT WOULD HAVE DENIED CERTIORARI ON THE
THEORY THAT AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND APPEARED TO UNDERLIE THE
JUDGMENT.  HIS FAILURE TO MAKE THIS FUTILE ATTEMPT TO SECURE CERTIORARI
ACCORDINGLY SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE HIS SUBSEQUENT PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  OTHERWISE HE WOULD BE LEFT COMPLETELY
REMEDILESS, HAVING BEEN UNABLE TO SECURE RELIEF FROM THE FLORIDA COURTS
AND BEING BARRED FROM INVOKING THE AID OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

AS TO THE MERITS OF WADE'S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM, THE DISTRICT COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AFTER A HEARING AT WHICH WADE AND THE TRIAL
JUDGE GAVE TESTIMONY: 

"THE COURT HAS HEARD THE EVIDENCE OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND THE
ARGUMENT OF THEIR COUNSEL.  IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER, AT THE TIME OF
HIS TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD OF PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, WAS
EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD, AND THOUGH NOT WHOLLY A STRANGER TO THE COURT ROOM,
HAVING BEEN CONVICTED OF PRIOR OFFENSES, WAS STILL AN INEXPERIENCED
YOUTH UNFAMILIAR WITH COURT PROCEDURE, AND NOT CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY
REPRESENTING HIMSELF.  IT IS ADMITTED BY THE JUDGE WHO PRESIDED AT
PETITIONER'S TRIAL ON MARCH 6, 1945 THAT PETITIONER IN OPEN COURT,
BEFORE TRIAL COMMENCED, REQUESTED SAID JUDGE TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR
HIM, BUT THE REQUEST WAS DENIED AND PETITIONER PLACED ON TRIAL WITHOUT
COUNSEL.  ...  THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S REQUEST IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
HERE INVOLVED CONSTITUTES A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, CONTRARY TO THE 14TH
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WHICH RENDERS VOID THE JUDGMENT
AND COMMITMENT UNDER WHICH PETITIONER IS HELD.  ...  " 

AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT, THE EVIDENCE AT THE
HEARING BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT FURTHER SHOWED THAT DURING THE
PROGRESS OF THE TRIAL WADE (A) WAS ADVISED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE OF HIS
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE JURORS AND EXCUSE AS MANY AS SIX WITHOUT REASON, A
RIGHT WHICH HE DID NOT EXERCISE; (B) WAS AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY, WHICH
HE ACCEPTED, TO CROSS-EXAMINE STATE WITNESSES; (C) TOOK THE STAND AND
TESTIFIED IN HIS OWN BEHALF; AND (D) WAS OFFERED THE PRIVILEGE OF
ARGUING HIS CASE TO THE JURY BUT DECLINED, AS DID THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY. 

WE ARE NOT DISPOSED TO DISAGREE WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT.  ITS DETERMINATION WAS A PURELY FACTUAL ONE TO THE
EFFECT THAT WADE WAS AN INEXPERIENCED YOUTH INCAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY
REPRESENTING HIMSELF EVEN IN A TRIAL WHICH APPARENTLY INVOLVED NO
COMPLICATED LEGAL QUESTIONS.  THIS IS A JUDGMENT WHICH IS PECULIARLY
WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE TRIER OF FACTS, BASED UPON PERSONAL
OBSERVATION OF WADE.  AND WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DETERMINATION WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 

THERE ARE SOME INDIVIDUALS WHO, BY REASON OF AGE, IGNORANCE OR MENTAL
CAPACITY, ARE INCAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THEMSELVES ADEQUATELY IN A
PROSECUTION OF A RELATIVELY SIMPLE NATURE.  THIS INCAPACITY IS PURELY
PERSONAL AND CAN BE DETERMINED ONLY BY AN EXAMINATION AND OBSERVATION
OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  WHERE SUCH INCAPACITY IS PRESENT, THE REFUSAL TO
APPOINT COUNSEL IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS THEREFORE IN ERROR IN REVERSING THE
DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT.  IT WAS ALSO IN ERROR IN ASSUMING THAT THE
FAILURE TO APPOINT COUNSEL IN A NON-CAPITAL CASE IN A STATE COURT IS A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ONLY IF THE LAW OF
THE STATE REQUIRES SUCH AN APPOINTMENT.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS TYPE OF CASE IT STEMS DIRECTLY
FROM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND NOT FROM STATE STATUTES.  BETTS V.
BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 473.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

DONALD WADE WAS BROUGHT TO TRIAL MARCH 14, 1945, IN THE CRIMINAL
COURT OF RECORD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA.  ON THE SAME DAY, AFTER
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN WHICH WADE REPRESENTED
HIMSELF, HE WAS CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF BREAKING AND ENTERING, AND
SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.  WADE DID NOT APPEAL HIS
CONVICTION, BUT ON MARCH 16, 1945, HAVING OBTAINED THE AID OF COUNSEL,
HE BROUGHT A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF PALM BEACH COUNTY; ON MARCH 22, 1945, THAT COURT QUASHED THE WRIT;
AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER QUASHING THE WRIT WAS TAKEN TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA AND ON MAY 14, 1945, THAT COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL
WITHOUT STATING WHETHER IT DISPOSED OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS OR UPON A
PROCEDURAL GROUND.  FN1  HOWEVER, IN A LATER CASE, JOHNSON V. MAYO, 158
FLA. 264, 28 SO.2D 585, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT INDICATED THAT ITS
RULING IN THE WADE CASE HAD BEEN UPON THE MERITS.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THIS OPINION, I ASSUME THAT THIS DECISION WAS UPON THE MERITS.  WADE
FAILED TO BRING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE ACTION
OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  ON MAY 8, 1946, A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS WAS FILED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.  THE WRIT WAS GRANTED AND A HEARING SET FOR MAY
17, 1946.  AT THE HEARING THE COURT EXAMINED WADE'S CLAIM THAT HE HAD
BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE FAILURE OF FLORIDA TO
FURNISH HIM WITH COUNSEL.  IT CONCLUDED THAT WADE HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF
THOSE RIGHTS AND ORDERED THAT HE BE RELEASED FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE
RESPONDENT, MAYO, AND BE REMANDED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF OF PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO BE HELD FOR ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WHICH THE
STATE SHOULD TAKE.  ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE LOWER COURT.  IT HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A STATE FURNISH COUNSEL TO ONE IN THE POSITION OF
WADE.  IT BASED THIS CONCLUSION, WE THINK, FROM EXAMINATION OF ITS
OPINION, ON BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, NOT ON ANY RULING THAT STATE
LAW DETERMINES THE NECESSITY FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN STATE
CASES IN ALL NON-CAPITAL PROSECUTIONS.  FN2  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 331
U.S. 801; THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO US; ON NOVEMBER 10, 1947, WE
ORDERED THE CASE RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT, DIRECTING THAT
COUNSEL DISCUSS THESE QUESTIONS:  "(1) THE PROPRIETY OF THE EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE WHEN IT APPEARS OF
RECORD, IN THE STATE'S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL ON HABEAS
CORPUS, THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT AVAILED HIMSELF OF THE REMEDY OF APPEAL
FROM HIS CONVICTION, APPARENTLY OPEN AFTER TRIAL THOUGH NOW BARRED BY
LIMITATION  ...  (2) WHETHER THE FAILURE OF FLORIDA TO MAKE THIS
OBJECTION IN THIS PROCEEDING AFFECTS THE ABOVE PROBLEM." 

   I. 

THE FIRST QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER WADE'S FAILURE TO BRING A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT IN HIS STATE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING SHOULD AFFECT HIS
EFFORT TO OBTAIN RELEASE THROUGH A FEDERAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  OR,
TO REPHRASE THE PROBLEM, SHOULD CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT BE CONSIDERED
A PART OF THE STATE REMEDY FOR PURPOSES OF THE WELL-RECOGNIZED DOCTRINE
OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES?  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103. 

THIS INQUIRY MAY BE STARTED BY CONSIDERING EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S.
114.  THE UNANIMOUS OPINION IN THIS CASE WAS HANDED DOWN JANUARY 31,
1944.  HAWK HAD MADE A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN THIS COURT.  HIS APPLICATION WAS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD
FAILED TO EXHAUST THE STATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO HIM.  THE OPINION IN
HAWK'S CASE, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THIS AND OTHER COURTS AS
HAVING BEEN DESIGNED TO GIVE DIRECTION FOR PROCEDURE TO FEDERAL COURTS
IN THEIR CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS BROUGHT BY A
PERSON CONFINED UNDER A STATE CRIMINAL CONVICTION.  FN3  ONE OF THE
RULES WHICH THIS COURT PRESCRIBED GOVERNS THE ISSUE NOW UNDER
CONSIDERATION. 

"ORDINARILY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE DETAINED UNDER A
STATE COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR CRIME WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY A
FEDERAL COURT ONLY AFTER ALL STATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE, INCLUDING ALL
APPELLATE REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS AND IN THIS COURT BY APPEAL OR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  TINSLEY V. ANDERSON, 171 U.S.
101, 104-5; URQUHART V. BROWN, 205 U.S. 179; UNITED STATES EX REL.
KENNEDY V. TYLER, 269 U.S. 13; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA, 115; EX PARTE
ABERNATHY, 320 U.S. 219."  FN4 

AFTER A PERSON, PROTECTED BY THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, HAS BEEN
CONVICTED BY A STATE TRIAL COURT AND HIS CONVICTION HAS BEEN SUBJECTED
EITHER TO DIRECT OR COLLATERAL ATTACKS IN THE STATE COURTS,  FN5  WISE
ADMINISTRATION COMMANDS THAT THIS COURT BE ASKED, BY APPEAL OR
CERTIORARI, TO PASS UPON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED
N6.  IT IS ONLY BY SUCH A PROCEDURE THAT THE VALIDITY OF STATE CRIMINAL
CONVICTION CAN BE EXPEDITIOUSLY AND FINALLY ADJUDICATED.  FN7 

THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED THIS RULE OF
PRACTICE.  SOME DISTRICT JUDGES HAVE USED FORM LETTERS WHICH THEY SENT
TO CONVICTS CONFINED IN STATE PRISONS WHO SOUGHT HABEAS CORPUS.  FN8
IN GORDON V. SCUDDER, 163 F.2D 518, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPLIED THE RULE TO A STATE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING
IN WHICH THE HABEAS CORPUS HAD BEEN DENIED WITHOUT OPINION.  ALL OF THE
CIRCUIT COURTS WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THIS RULE HAVE APPROVED IT.  FN9 

TODAY THE COURT BOTH LIMITS AND CONFUSES THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
STATE REMEDIES SO CLEARLY EXPOUNDED IN EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA.  CERTAINTY
IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF STATE CONVICTIONS IS ESSENTIAL
SO THAT THE APPLICANT MAY KNOW THE WAY TO TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
HIS CONVICTION AND SO THAT THE PUBLIC AND ITS JUDICIAL SYSTEM MAY BE
SPARED UNDUE EXPENSE AND INTERFERENCE FROM A SUCCESSION OF PETITIONS
THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS. 
THE SERIOUS AND DIFFICULT PROBLEMS OF HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURE IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS CANNOT BE SOLVED BY RULES WHICH HAVE AS THEIR VERY CORE
VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY.  FN10  I CONCLUDE THAT CERTIORARI SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED A PART OF THE STATE PROCEDURE FOR PURPOSES OF HABEAS
CORPUS. 

II. 

THE NEXT ISSUE IS THIS.  CAN WADE, HAVING FAILED TO USE A STATE
REMEDY ONCE AVAILABLE  FN11  - APPEAL - AND HAVING FAILED TO TAKE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT FROM THE DENIAL OF HIS STATE HABEAS
CORPUS, WITH NO CONDITIONS EXISTING OR CLAIMED THAT RESTRICTED HIS
ABILITY TO PROCEED IN THE REGULAR COURSE IN THE HANDLING OF HIS CASE
AFTER VERDICT, OBTAIN RELIEF IN A FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING FOR
AN ALLEGED DEPRIVATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN IT
APPEARS THAT NO STATE REMEDY IN WHICH RELIEF CAN BE OBTAINED IS NOW
AVAILABLE?  FN12 

THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO DISCHARGE UPON A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS "A PRISONER  ...  IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
...  OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  FN13  THIS COURT HELD IN FRANK V.
MANGUM, THAT THIS WRIT IS A PROPER PROCEDURE "TO SAFEGUARD THE LIBERTY
OF ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST
INFRINGEMENT THROUGH ANY VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION  ...  "  FN14
THE DISSENT IN THE FRANK CASE AGREED WITH THE COURT'S THEORY OF THE
AVAILABILITY OF HABEAS CORPUS, SAYING AT P. 346:  "BUT HABEAS CORPUS
CUTS THROUGH ALL FORMS AND GOES TO THE VERY TISSUE OF THE STRUCTURE. 
IT COMES IN FROM THE OUTSIDE, NOT IN SUBORDINATION TO THE PROCEEDINGS,
AND ALTHOUGH EVERY FORM MAY HAVE BEEN PRESERVED OPENS THE INQUIRY
WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN MORE THAN AN EMPTY SHELL."  AS WADE ALLEGED A
DEPRIVATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 
HABEAS CORPUS IS, HOWEVER, A DISCRETIONARY WRIT.  FN15  THUS, THE
QUESTION PRESENTED IS THIS: WAS IT PROPER FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO
EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT APPEARED OF RECORD THAT WADE HAD NOT
AVAILED HIMSELF OF THE REMEDY OF APPEAL, OPEN AFTER TRIAL THOUGH NOW
BARRED BY LIMITATION, AND HAD FAILED TO EXHAUST, BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
THE STATE REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS?  AN ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM CAN BEST
BE DERIVED FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, THE RELEVANT PRECEDENTS AND
ANALOGIES DRAWN FROM THE DECIDED HABEAS CORPUS CASES, AND THE
RESOLUTION OF SIMILAR QUESTIONS IN RELATED FIELDS. 

STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE PLACES OF TRIAL FOR
OFFENDERS AGAINST THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.  STATE
COURTS EQUALLY WITH FEDERAL COURTS ADMINISTER JUSTICE UNDER THE
AUTHORITY AND LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, BINDING THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE "ANY THING
IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING."  FN16  THUS, WHENEVER A PRISONER BRINGS A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS CHALLENGING
COLLATERALLY A CONVICTION IN THE STATE COURTS AND ASKING RELEASE FROM
STATE CUSTODY, SERIOUS QUESTIONS OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE FEDERAL
AND STATE JUDICIAL STRUCTURES ARE RAISED.  "IT IS AN EXCEEDINGLY
DELICATE JURISDICTION GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL COURTS BY WHICH A PERSON
UNDER AN INDICTMENT IN A STATE COURT AND SUBJECT TO ITS LAWS MAY, BY
THE DECISION OF A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT, UPON A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, BE TAKEN OUT OF THE CUSTODY OF THE OFFICERS OF THE STATE
AND FINALLY DISCHARGED THEREFROM ...  "  FN17  RESPECT FOR THE THEORY
AND PRACTICE OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT FEDERAL
COURTS INTERVENE BY HABEAS CORPUS IN STATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS ONLY
IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  THEIR DUTY COMPELS THEM TO ACT WHERE THE
STATE FAILS TO PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
BUT DUE REGARD FOR A STATE'S SYSTEM OF JUSTICE ADMONISHES FEDERAL
COURTS TO BE CHARY OF ALLOWING THE EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WHERE THE ACCUSED, WITHOUT EXCUSE, HAS NOT EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
OFFERED BY THE STATE TO REDRESS VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  FN18 

THE DESIRABILITY OF DISCRETIONARY LIMITATION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS
POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS IN RESPECT TO STATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS WHICH
INHERES IN THE DUAL SOVEREIGNTIES OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM IS RE-ENFORCED
BY CONSIDERATIONS OF PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION:  (1) IT IS NOT TO BE
ASSUMED THAT STATE COURTS DELIBERATELY DENY TO THE INDIVIDUAL HIS
RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; (2) THE NORMAL PATHS OF REVIEW -
APPEAL AND PETITION FOR CERTIORARI - ARE OPEN TO CORRECT FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS IN STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS; (3) EXTRAVAGANT
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION WOULD FURNISH ANOTHER TECHNIQUE OF
DELAY IN A CRIMINAL SYSTEM WHICH OFTEN PERMITS LONG PERIODS OF TIME TO
ELAPSE BETWEEN SENTENCING AND EXECUTION OF SENTENCE. 

BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE REASONS, THE FEDERAL COURTS EXERCISE THEIR
HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS IN THE CUSTODY OF A
STATE IN LIMITED TYPES OF SITUATIONS.  FOR EXAMPLE:  (1) WHERE ALL
STATE REMEDIES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED; (2) WHERE THE STATE REMEDY IS
SERIOUSLY INADEQUATE N19; AND (3) WHERE A STATE ATTEMPTS TO INTERFERE
IMPROPERLY WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

THE THIRD CLASS OF CASES REPRESENTS THE LARGEST GROUP OF SITUATIONS
IN WHICH FEDERAL COURTS EXERCISE HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION WITHOUT THE
EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES.  THE CASES OF THIS TYPE WHICH HAVE COME
BEFORE THIS COURT ARE EXAMPLES OF THE USE OF HABEAS CORPUS TO PREVENT
STATE INTERFERENCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT,  FN20  OR WITH A FEDERAL AGENCY,  FN21  OR WITH TREATY
RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN22 

THE SECOND CLASS IS REPRESENTED IN THIS COURT BY ONLY ONE CASE, MOORE
V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86.  THERE EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES WAS NOT
REQUIRED.  FN23  "WE ASSUME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT CASE (FRANK V.
MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 335) THAT THE CORRECTIVE PROCESS SUPPLIED BY THE
STATE MAY BE SO ADEQUATE THAT INTERFERENCE BY HABEAS CORPUS OUGHT NOT
TO BE ALLOWED.  ...  BUT IF THE CASE IS THAT THE WHOLE PROCEEDING IS A
MASK - THAT COUNSEL, JURY AND JUDGE WERE SWEPT TO THE FATAL END BY AN
IRRESISTIBLE WAVE OF PUBLIC PASSION, AND THAT THE STATE COURTS FAILED
TO CORRECT THE WRONG, NEITHER PERFECTION IN THE MACHINERY FOR
CORRECTION NOR THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE TRIAL COURT AND COUNSEL SAW NO
OTHER WAY OF AVOIDING AN IMMEDIATE OUTBREAK OF THE MOB CAN PREVENT THIS
COURT FROM SECURING TO THE PETITIONERS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS." 
FN24  THAT MOORE'S CASE IS UNIQUE, EMPHASIZES ITS UNUSUAL NATURE; THIS
COURT HAS NOT AGAIN BEEN COMPELLED TO RESORT TO THIS EXTREME PROCEDURE
TO PROTECT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

THE GREATEST NUMBER OF HABEAS CORPUS CASES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FALL
INTO CLASS ONE.  IN EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, WE STATED THE PRINCIPLE WHICH
GOVERNS THESE CASES:  "ORDINARILY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY
ONE DETAINED UNDER A STATE COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR CRIME WILL
BE ENTERTAINED BY A FEDERAL COURT ONLY AFTER ALL STATE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE, INCLUDING ALL APPELLATE REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS AND IN
THIS COURT BY APPEAL OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  ...
"  FN25  LITIGATION OF THIS CATEGORY OFFERS THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THE
GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF FEDERAL-HABEAS-CORPUS RESTRAINT.  THE INSISTENCE
THAT STATE REMEDIES BE EXHAUSTED IS BUT A CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE
PROPOSITION THAT STATE COURTS MUST, IN ALL BUT THE MOST EXCEPTIONAL
CASES, BE THE FORUMS IN WHICH ALL THE PROBLEMS INCIDENT TO A STATE
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ARE TO BE ANSWERED. 

WHERE A STATE OFFERS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS
IN CRIMINAL TRIALS, THAT REMEDY MUST BE FOLLOWED.  WHERE THERE IS A
DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE, A
REMEDY EXISTS BY DIRECT REVIEW IN THIS COURT.  FN26  AN ACCUSED SHOULD
NOT BE PERMITTED TO RESERVE GROUNDS FOR A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION IN
FEDERAL COURTS WHICH WOULD HAVE FURNISHED A BASIS FOR A REVIEW IN
REGULAR COURSE IN THE STATE COURT; NOT EVEN WHEN THOSE GROUNDS ARE THAT
THE ACCUSED WAS DENIED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BY A STATE COURT SUBJECT
TO REVERSAL BY A HIGHER STATE COURT.  FN27  TO PERMIT SUCH TRIFLING
WITH STATE CRIMINAL LAW WOULD DISRUPT ITS EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION. 
THE FEDERAL COURT'S REFUSAL OF CONSIDERATION DEPENDS ON THE RULE THAT
THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD NOT UTILIZE HABEAS CORPUS TO TAKE THE PLACE
OF STATE REMEDIES EXCEPT IN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS WHERE OTHERWISE
THE ACCUSED WOULD BE "REMEDILESS."  FN28  IT IS NOT SEEMLY THAT YEARS
AFTER A CONVICTION, WHEN TIME HAS DULLED MEMORIES, WHEN DEATH HAS
STILLED TONGUES, WHEN RECORDS ARE UNAVAILABLE, CONVICTED FELONS,
UNBURDENED BY ANY HANDICAP TO A NORMAL PRESENTATION OF ANY CLAIM OF
UNFAIRNESS IN THEIR TRIAL, SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ATTACK THEIR
SENTENCES COLLATERALLY BY HABEAS CORPUS BECAUSE OF ERRORS KNOWN TO THEM
AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.  WHEN IT IS SHOWN BY THE RECORD THAT A PETITIONER
IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR RELIEF FROM A STATE CONVICTION THAT INVOLVES A
DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAS WITHOUT ADEQUATE EXCUSE FAILED TO
USE AN AVAILABLE STATE JUDICIAL REMEDY, ALTHOUGH ALL SUCH REMEDIES ARE
NOW BARRED TO HIM BY LIMITATION, I THINK THAT FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD NOT
INTERVENE TO CORRECT THE ERROR. 

IN GOTO V. LANE, 265 U.S. 393, THIS COURT WAS ASKED TO CONSIDER THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER A GROUP OF PRISONERS, CONVICTED OF A CRIME IN THE
TERRITORIAL COURTS OF HAWAII, HAD THE RIGHT TO RAISE IN A HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ALLEGED DEPRIVATIONS OF
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THE COURT SAID:  "AND, IF THE PETITIONERS
PERMITTED THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A REVIEW ON WRIT OF ERROR MIGHT BE
OBTAINED TO ELAPSE AND THEREBY LOST THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCH A REVIEW,
THAT GAVE NO RIGHT TO RESORT TO HABEAS CORPUS AS A SUBSTITUTE."  FN29
THE COURT FOUND NO REASONS WHICH, IN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION, EXCUSED THE PETITIONERS FROM SEEKING REVIEW BY WRIT OF
ERROR.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
WHICH HAD REFUSED TO ISSUE THE WRIT.  THIS CASE IS A PERSUASIVE
PRECEDENT IN THE SITUATION NOW BEFORE US BECAUSE THE STATE COURTS OF
THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES AND THE TERRITORIAL COURTS OF HAWAII STOOD, IN
1924, IN SIMILAR POSITIONS IN RELATION TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL
STRUCTURE.  AS THE SCOPE OF REVIEW OF THIS COURT IN CRIMINAL CASES FROM
STATE COURTS AND HAWAIIAN TERRITORIAL COURTS WAS THEN THE SAME, NO
VALID DISTINCTIONS CAN BE DRAWN BETWEEN GOTO'S CASE AND THE SITUATION
NOW BEFORE US.  FN30 

IT SHOULD NOT BE THOUGHT THAT THE PRACTICE WHICH I WOULD FOLLOW
REPRESENTS THE SOLE INSTANCE IN OUR JURISPRUDENCE OF THE LOSS OF THE
RIGHT TO PRESS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF FAILURE ON THE PART
OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO RAISE THOSE ISSUES PROPERLY OR IN TIME.  THE
PRINCIPLE THAT FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS MUST BE PROPERLY RAISED
IN STATE COURTS BEFORE THEY WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IS TOO
WELL ESTABLISHED TO REQUIRE CITATION.  IN A CASE DECIDED THIS TERM,
PARKER V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 571, PARKER WAS HELD TO HAVE LOST HIS
RIGHT TO RAISE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF STATE
PROCEDURE WHICH REQUIRED THAT THOSE QUESTIONS BE RAISED BY DIRECT
APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  PARKER APPEALED HIS CASE TO THE
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, LOST ANY CHANCE OF AN
ADJUDICATION BY THIS COURT OF THOSE ISSUES.  FN31

               III. 

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS, ANALOGIES, AND PRECEDENTS
DISCUSSED ABOVE ADMIT OF ONLY ONE ANSWER TO THE BASIC PROBLEM OF THIS
CASE.  THIS PETITIONER HAD COUNSEL IN AMPLE TIME TO PERMIT A PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT.  THERE IS NOT A SUGGESTION IN THE RECORD
OF ANY INTERFERENCE, THROUGH HIS OWN DISABILITIES OR OTHERWISE, WITH
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO SECURE, THROUGH COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOICE, REVIEW
OF HIS ALLEGEDLY ERRONEOUS CONVICTION.  FN32  THEREFORE, I THINK THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT TO WHOM THIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
FROM A CONVICTION IN A STATE COURT WAS PRESENTED SHOULD HAVE REFUSED
COGNIZANCE OF THE WRIT, SUA SPONTE, SINCE THE RECORD SHOWED THAT STATE
REMEDIES WERE AVAILABLE  FN33  AFTER THE ALLEGED DENIAL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THAT THE PETITIONER NEGLECTED TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THOSE REMEDIES.  FN34 "AVAILABLE" AS HERE USED CARRIES THE
CONNOTATION OF ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE STATE
PROCEDURE.  FN35  FLORIDA'S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO CONSIDERATION OF THE
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BECAUSE CERTIORARI WAS NOT REQUESTED CANNOT
HAVE THE EFFECT OF AUTHORIZING A FEDERAL COURT TO EXAMINE INTO THE
VALIDITY OF THE CONVICTION.  THE REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING HABEAS CORPUS
IN SUCH CASES DOES NOT DEPEND UPON STATE ACQUIESCENCE BUT UPON THE
FEDERAL JUDICIAL POLICY OF NON-INTERFERENCE WITH STATE CRIMINAL
ADMINISTRATION UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN COMPLETE USE AND FINAL EXHAUSTION
OF STATE REMEDIES. 

ON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE DECISION OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
DISMISSING WADE'S APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, WAS ENTERED ON THE GROUND THAT THE REMEDY IN
FLORIDA FOR THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS BY APPEAL INSTEAD OF
HABEAS CORPUS, WADE STANDS IN NO BETTER POSITION.  IF THAT WAS THE REAL
BASIS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL, WADE FAILED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF
THE REMEDY OF APPEAL THEN OPEN TO HIM IN FLORIDA, THOUGH NOW FORECLOSED
BY LIMITATION.  NO DOUBT HIS COUNSEL BY MOTION COULD HAVE OBTAINED A
RULING FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT AS TO WHETHER THEIR DISMISSAL WAS
ON A FEDERAL OR STATE GROUND IN VIEW OF THE THEN RULE OF THIS COURT IN
EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, AT 117, THAT AN APPLICANT FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN
FEDERAL COURTS MUST EXHAUST STATE REMEDIES INCLUDING APPEAL OR
CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT.  THIS WOULD HAVE PERMITTED WADE TO BRING HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION HERE FOR REVIEW UNDER A REGULAR COURSE OF
PROCEDURE.  IF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAD REFUSED A CLARIFYING
ORDER, THIS COURT WOULD HAVE HAD RESOURCES FOR REACHING A CONCLUSION IN
SUCH A SITUATION.  SEE LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS, 334 U.S. 804.  CONSEQUENTLY,
I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
THAT THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BE DISMISSED. 

FN1  WADE V. KIRK, 155 FLA. 906, 23 SO.2D 163. 

FN2  MAYO V. WADE, 158 F.2D 614. 

FN3  THIS COURT HAS, IN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES, THROUGH ITS CLERK,
DISTRIBUTED THIS OPINION TO STATE PRISONERS SEEKING HABEAS CORPUS
RELIEF IN FEDERAL COURTS. 

POTTER V. DOWD, 146 F.2D 244, 248:  "THE HAWK DECISION IS THE LATEST
OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE SUBJECT.  IT WAS NO DOUBT INTENDED TO
ENLIGHTEN THE FEDERAL INFERIOR COURTS SO THAT THE RATHER DIFFICULT ROAD
WHICH THEY MUST TRAVEL WILL HAVE FEWER OBSTRUCTIONS.  ALSO, THE CONVICT
WHO BELIEVES HE HAS BEEN DENIED RIGHTS GUARANTEED HIM BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION WILL FIND THE PROPER JUDICIAL HAVEN HE IS SEEKING." 

FN4  EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, AT 116-17. 

FN5  IF A STATE JUDGMENT IS BASED UPON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, A
FAILURE TO REQUEST REVIEW BY THIS COURT DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE
PRISONER.  WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760, 767; HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S.
42, 48. 

FN6  AT PP. 691-692, INFRA, I COMMENT UPON THE DELICATE NATURE OF THE
FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION OVER STATE CONVICTIONS.  THOSE
OBSERVATIONS ARE RELEVANT HERE.    FN7  SEE PP. 694-695, INFRA. 

FN8  AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH A LETTER APPEARS IN THE RECORD IN EX PARTE
HANLEY, 322 U.S. 708: 

"YOUR PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND
EXAMINED.  FROM SUCH EXAMINATION, IT APPEARS THAT, IF FILED, YOUR
PETITION WOULD HAVE TO BE DISMISSED FOR THE REASON THAT IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THEREFROM THAT YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED YOUR REMEDIES IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUGGESTION CONTAINED
IN A RECENT OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE
CASE OF EX PARTE HENRY HAWK (FILED JANUARY 31, 1944), WHEREIN THE COURT
SAID:    "'ORDINARILY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE DETAINED
UNDER A STATE COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR CRIME WILL BE
ENTERTAINED BY A FEDERAL COURT ONLY AFTER ALL STATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE,
INCLUDING ALL APPELLATE REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS AND IN THIS COURT
BY APPEAL OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED." 

ACCORDINGLY, YOUR PETITION HAS NOT BEEN FILED AND IS RETURNED
HEREWITH.  IF, HOWEVER, YOU DESIRE TO MAKE A RECORD IN THIS COURT, YOU
MAY RETURN THE PETITION (REFERRING TO THIS LETTER) WITH THE REQUEST
THAT IT BE FILED, AND IT WILL BE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
THIS COURT. 

"I DO NOT WISH TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE
MERITS OF YOUR CASE." 

FN9  SEE LYON V. HARKNESS, 151 F.2D 731, 733(C.C.A. 1ST); MONSKY V.
WARDEN OF CLINTON STATE PRISON, 163 F.2D 978, 979(C.C.A.2D); 

STONEBREAKER V. SMYTH, 163 F.2D 498, 501-502(C.C.A.4TH); NUSSER V.
ADERHOLD, 164 F.2D 127(C.C.A.5TH); MAKOWSKI V. BENSON, 158 F.2D
158(C.C.A.6TH); ROSS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 159 F.2D 994(C.C.A.7TH); GUY V.
UTECHT, 144 F.2D 913, 915(C.C.A.8TH); GORDON V. SCUDDER, SUPRA
(C.C.A.9TH); HERZOG V. COLPOYS, 79 U.S. APP. D.C. 81, 143 F.2D 137,
138. 

FN10  CF. DISSENT IN MAGGIO V. ZEITZ, 333 U.S. 56, 81. 

FN11  "AN APPEAL  ...  MAY BE TAKEN ONLY WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE
JUDGMENT OR SENTENCE APPEALED FROM IS ENTERED, EXCEPT THAT AN APPEAL
FROM BOTH JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE MAY BE TAKEN WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER
THE SENTENCE IS ENTERED."  24 FLA. STAT. ANN. SEC. 924.09. 

FN12  FLORIDA PROVIDES TWO DEVICES FOR COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON
CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS:  HABEAS CORPUS AND CORAM NOBIS.  WADE HAS TRIED
HABEAS CORPUS AND FAILED.  WADE V. KIRK, 155 FLA. 906, 23 SO.2D 163. 
CORAM NOBIS IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT
SPECIFIC FACTS, EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, BUT NOT SHOWN BY THE
RECORD AND NOT KNOWN BY THE COURT OR BY THE DEFENDANT OR HIS COUNSEL AT
THE TIME OF THE TRIAL.  LAMB V. STATE, 91 FLA. 396, 107 SO. 535.  SEE
HOUSE V. STATE, 130 FLA. 400, 177 SO. 705; CF. HYSLER V. FLORIDA, 315
U.S. 411, 415-16.  THE FACTS UPON WHICH WADE SEEKS RELIEF WERE KNOWN,
DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, BOTH TO HIMSELF AND TO THE TRIAL
JUDGE. 

FN13  28 U.S.C. SECS. 451-53.  UNDER THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, THE
WRIT COULD NOT ISSUE IF THE PRISONER WAS HELD UNDER FINAL PROCESS BASED
UPON A JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.  EX PARTE
WATKINS, 3 PET. 193.  BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1867, CONGRESS EXPANDED
THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN SITUATIONS IN
WHICH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN VIOLATED.  14 STAT. 385, CH.
28; SEE HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271, 274-75; FRANK V. MANGUM, 237U.S.
309, 330-32. 

FN14  FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 331. 

FN15  EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241, 250 ET SEQ." IN RE WOOD, 140
U.S. 278, 290; COOK V. HART, 146 U.S. 183, 195; IN RE FREDERICH, 149
U.S. 70, 75; NEW YORK V. ENO, 155 U.S. 89; IN RE LINCOLN, 202 U.S. 178,
181; URQUHART V. BROWN, 205 U.S. 179; SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224,
231; GOTO V. LANE, 265 U.S. 393, 403; UNITED STATES EX REL. KENNEDY V.
TYLER, 269 U.S. 13, 17; EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114. 

FN16  CONST., ART. VI; ROBB V. CONNOLLY, 111 U.S. 624, 637. 

FN17  BAKER V. GRICE, 169 U.S. 284, 291. 

FN18  SEE FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 329; EX PARTE ROYALL, 117
U.S. 241, 247-54; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA. 

FN19  SEE EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 118. 

FN20  IN RE NEAGLE, 135 U.S. 1; HUNTER V. WOOD, 209 U.S.
205(IMPAIRMENT OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS); IN RE LONEY,
134 U.S. 372(IMPAIRMENT OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND
JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT). 

FN21  BOSKE V. COMINGORE, 177 U.S. 459; OHIO V. THOMAS, 173 U.S.
276. 

FN22  WILDENHUS'S CASE, 120 U.S. 1. 

FN23  SEE STATE V. MARTINEAU, 149 ARK. 237, 232 S.W. 609. 

FN24  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, SUPRA, AT 91. 

FN25  EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, AT 116-17. 

FN26  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45; URQUHART V. BROWN, 205 U.S.
179. 

FN27  ANDREWS V. SWARTZ, 156 U.S. 272, 276; IN RE WOOD, 140 U.S. 278,
289; EX PARTE SPENCER, 228 U.S. 652.  SEE GLASGOW V. MOYER, 225 U.S.
420, 430; WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101, 105; SUNAL V. LARGE, 332
U.S. 174.  BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 27:  "THE RULE IS NOT ONE
DEFINING POWER BUT ONE WHICH RELATES TO THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF
POWER." 

FN28  EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, 117-18.  SEE ADAMS V. MCCANN, 317 U.S.
269, 274; UNITED STATES EX REL. KENNEDY V. TYLER, 269 U.S. 13, 17. 

FN29  GOTO V. LANE, SUPRA, AT 402.  SEE ALSO URQUHART V. BROWN, 205
U.S. 179; RIDDLE V. DYCHE, 262 U.S. 333; CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255,
277. 

FN30  THE ACT OF APRIL 30, 1900, WHICH ESTABLISHED A GOVERNMENT FOR
THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, PROVIDED THAT:  "THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
RELATING TO APPEALS, WRITS OF ERROR, REMOVAL OF CAUSES, AND OTHER
MATTERS AND PROCEEDINGS AS BETWEEN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES SHALL GOVERN IN SUCH MATTERS AND
PROCEEDINGS AS BETWEEN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COURTS
OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII."  31 STAT. 158.  IN 1925, THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WAS GIVEN POWER TO REVIEW FINAL
DECISIONS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES "  ...
WHEREIN THE CONSTITUTION OR A STATUTE OR TREATY OF THE UNITED STATES
OR ANY AUTHORITY EXERCISED THEREUNDER IS INVOLVED  ...  "  43 STAT.
936.  THIS POWER IS STILL RETAINED AND CASES FROM THE TERRITORIAL
COURTS NOW COME TO THIS COURT ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 225. 

FN31  SEE ALSO CENTRAL UNION CO. V. EDWARDSVILLE, 269 U.S. 190. 

FN32  IN THIS THE CASE DIFFERS FROM WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471,
472; TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485, 486; SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S.
329, 334. 

FN33  A STATE CAN LEAVE A PROCEDURE OPEN THROUGH ITS OWN COURTS BY
WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS MAY BE RAISED AT ANY TIME.  IF THE STATE
COURT PASSES UPON THE MERITS, THIS COURT CAN REVIEW THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION UPON APPEAL OR PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301
U.S. 242, 247.  SEE LOVELADY V. TEXAS, 333 U.S. 867(CERT.  GRANTED),
ID. 333 U.S. 879(DISMISSED), EX PARTE LOVELADY, - TEX. CR. R. - , 207
S.W.2D 396. 

FN34  I WOULD NOT HERE DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THIS RULE APPLIES TO
CASES WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF MOORE V. DEMPSEY, SUPRA,
OR TO THE SITUATION IN WHICH A STATE ATTEMPTS TO INTERFERE IMPROPERLY
WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

FN35  FOR EXAMPLE, IF WADE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN COUNSEL UNTIL
TOO LATE FOR AN APPEAL, APPEAL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A REMEDY "AVAILABLE"
TO HIM.  SEE PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334 U.S. 266; DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN,
329 U.S. 663; DOWNER V. DUNAWAY, 53 F.2D 586, 589-91. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :







TRUPIANO V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 699 


NO. 427.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  - 163 F.2D
828, REVERSED. 


FEDERAL AGENTS WHO HAD KNOWN FOR AT LEAST THREE WEEKS THAT A BUILDING
ON A FARM WAS BEING USED FOR ILLICIT DISTILLING MADE A NIGHTTIME RAID
THEREON WITHOUT A WARRANT OF ARREST OR A SEARCH WARRANT.  THEY WERE LED
ONTO THE FARM AND TO THE BUILDING BY THE OWNER, WHO WAS AN INFORMER. 
THROUGH AN OPEN DOOR THEY SAW ONE OF THE PETITIONERS ENGAGED IN ILLICIT
DISTILLING.  AN AGENT ENTERED, ARRESTED HIM, AND SEIZED THE CONTRABAND
APPARATUS AND MATERIAL.  THE OTHER PETITIONERS WERE ARRESTED LATER. 
CHARGED WITH VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL REVENUE LAWS, THEY MOVED TO SUPPRESS
THE EVIDENCE AS HAVING BEEN OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  HELD: 

1.  THE ARREST WAS LAWFUL AS AN ARREST OF A PERSON WHO WAS COMMITTING
A FELONY IN THE DISCERNIBLE PRESENCE OF A LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AT A
PLACE WHERE THE OFFICER WAS LAWFULLY PRESENT.  PP. 700-705. 

(A)  THE ABSENCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT TIME TO OBTAIN ONE, DOES NOT INVALIDATE AN ARREST UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 705. 

2.  THE SEIZURE OF THE CONTRABAND PROPERTY WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT AND NOT JUSTIFIED AS INCIDENT TO THE LAWFUL ARREST. 
PP. 705-710. 

(A)  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO EXCUSE FOR
FAILURE TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT.  PP. 705-706, 708. 

(B)  THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY SEIZED WAS CONTRABAND, WHICH
DOUBTLESS WOULD HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN A WARRANT HAD ONE ISSUED, DOES
NOT LEGALIZE THE SEIZURE.  P. 707. 

(C) THE PROXIMITY OF THE CONTRABAND PROPERTY TO THE ARRESTED PERSON
AT THE MOMENT OF HIS ARREST WAS A FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE INADEQUATE TO
LEGALIZE THE SEIZURE.  PP. 707-708. 

(D)  THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF AN ARRESTEE AT THE EXACT TIME AND
PLACE OF A FORESEEABLE AND ANTICIPATED SEIZURE DOES NOT DETERMINE THE
VALIDITY OF THAT SEIZURE IF IT OCCURS WITHOUT A WARRANT.  P. 708. 

(E)  THE MERE FACT THAT THERE IS A VALID ARREST DOES NOT IPSO FACTO
LEGALIZE A SEARCH OR SEIZURE WITHOUT A WARRANT.  P. 708. 

(F)  HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145, DISTINGUISHED; TAYLOR V.
UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1, FOLLOWED.  PP. 708-709. 

3.  PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE UNLAWFULLY SEIZED PROPERTY
SUPPRESSED AS EVIDENCE; BUT, SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS CONTRABAND, THEY
WERE NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE IT RETURNED TO THEM.  P. 710. 

TRUPIANO ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS, CHARGED WITH VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL REVENUE LAWS, MOVED
TO SUPPRESS CERTAIN EVIDENCE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY OBTAINED. 
AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING THE MOTION, 70 F.SUPP.  764, WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 163 F.2D 828.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 841.  REVERSED, P. 710. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ADDS ANOTHER CHAPTER TO THE BODY OF LAW GROWING OUT OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THAT
AMENDMENT PROVIDES:  "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR
PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON
PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE
SEIZED."  IN OTHER WORDS, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS A RECOGNITION OF THE
FACT THAT IN THIS NATION INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY DEPENDS IN LARGE PART UPON
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE INTRUSION BY THOSE IN AUTHORITY.  IT IS THE
DUTY OF THIS COURT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THAT FREEDOM. 

IN JANUARY, 1946, THE PETITIONERS SOUGHT TO LEASE PART OF THE KELL
FARM IN MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, AND TO ERECT A BUILDING THEREON. 
KELL SUSPECTED THAT THEY INTENDED TO BUILD AND OPERATE AN ILLEGAL
STILL.  HE ACCORDINGLY REPORTED THE MATTER TO THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL
AUTHORITY, THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE.  THE
FEDERAL AGENTS TOLD KELL TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION, PROVIDED HE DID
NOTHING TO ENTICE OR ENCOURAGE THE PETITIONERS INTO GOING AHEAD WITH
THEIR PLANS AND PROVIDED HE KEPT THE AGENTS INFORMED OF ALL
DEVELOPMENTS.  NILSEN, ONE OF THE AGENTS, WAS ASSIGNED IN FEBRUARY TO
WORK ON THE FARM IN THE DISGUISE OF A "DUMB FARM HAND" AND TO ACCEPT
WORK AT THE STILL IF PETITIONERS SHOULD OFFER IT. 

TOWARD THE END OF MARCH, 1946, KELL AGREED WITH PETITIONERS TO LET
THEM RENT PART OF HIS FARM FOR $300 A MONTH.  KELL AND NILSEN ASSISTED
PETITIONERS IN THE ERECTION OF THE BUILDING, A ROUGHLY CONSTRUCTED BARN
ABOUT 200 YARDS FROM THE KELL FARMHOUSE.  NILSEN ALSO ASSISTED IN THE
ERECTION OF THE STILL AND THE VATS. 

OPERATION OF THE STILL BEGAN ABOUT MAY 13, 1946.  NILSEN THEREAFTER
WORKED AS "MASH MAN" AT A SALARY OF $100 A WEEK, WHICH HE TURNED OVER
TO THE GOVERNMENT.  DURING THIS PERIOD HE WAS IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION
WITH HIS FELLOW AGENTS.  BY PREARRANGEMENT, HE WOULD MEET ONE OR MORE
OF THE AGENTS AT VARIOUS PLACES WITHIN A FEW MILES OF THE KELL FARM; AT
THESE MEETINGS "THE CONVERSATION WOULD BE ABOUT THE STILL BUILDING I
HAD ASSISTED IN ERECTING OR ABOUT THE ILLICIT DISTILLERY THAT I WAS
WORKING AT ON THE KELL FARM."  ON MAY 20 HE MET WITH ONE OF HIS
SUPERIOR OFFICERS AND GAVE HIM SAMPLES OF ALCOHOL, SEVERAL SUGAR BAGS,
A YEAST WRAPPER AND AN EMPTY FIVE-GALLON CAN WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM
THE STILL PREMISES. 

ON MAY 26 NILSEN RECEIVED A TWO-WAY PORTABLE RADIO SET FROM HIS
SUPERIORS.  HE USED THIS SET TO TRANSMIT FREQUENT BULLETINS ON THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONERS.  ON THE BASIS OF RADIO INTELLIGENCE
SUPPLIED BY NILSEN, A TRUCKLOAD OF ALCOHOL WAS SEIZED ON MAY 31 ABOUT
AN HOUR AFTER IT HAD LEFT THE FARM. 

AT ABOUT 9 P.M. IN THE EVENING OF JUNE 3, 1946, NILSEN RADIOED HIS
SUPERIOR THAT THE STILL OPERATORS WERE AWAITING THE ARRIVAL OF A LOAD
OF SUGAR AND THAT ALCOHOL WAS TO BE TAKEN FROM THE FARM WHEN THE SUGAR
TRUCK ARRIVED.  NILSEN APPARENTLY KNEW THEN THAT A RAID WAS SCHEDULED
FOR THAT NIGHT, FOR HE TOLD KELL DURING THE EVENING THAT "TONIGHT IS
THE NIGHT."  HE RADIOED AT 11 P.M. THAT THE TRUCK HAD BEEN DELAYED BUT
THAT PETITIONERS ROETT AND ANTONIOLE WERE AT THE STILL. 

THREE FEDERAL AGENTS THEN DROVE TO WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE FARM, AT
WHICH POINT THEY WERE MET BY KELL.  THE REMAINDER OF THE DISTANCE WAS
TRAVERSED IN KELL'S AUTOMOBILE.  THEY ARRIVED AT THE FARM AT ABOUT
11:45 P.M.  THE AGENTS STATED THAT THE ODOR OF FERMENTING MASH AND THE
SOUND OF A GASOLINE MOTOR WERE NOTICEABLE AS THE CAR WAS DRIVEN ONTO
THE FARM PREMISES; THE ODOR BECAME STRONGER AND THE NOISE LOUDER AS
THEY ALIGHTED FROM THE CAR AND APPROACHED THE BUILDING CONTAINING THE
STILL.  VAN DE CAR, ONE OF THE AGENTS, WENT AROUND ONE END OF THE
BUILDING.  LOOKING THROUGH AN OPEN DOOR INTO A DIMLY LIGHTED INTERIOR
HE COULD SEE A STILL COLUMN, A BOILER AND A GASOLINE PUMP IN
OPERATION.  HE ALSO SAW ANTONIOLE BENDING DOWN NEAR THE PUMP.  HE
ENTERED THE BUILDING AND PLACED ANTONIOLE UNDER ARREST.  THEREUPON HE
"SEIZED THE ILLICIT DISTILLERY." 

AFTER THIS ARREST AND SEIZURE, VAN DE CAR LOOKED ABOUT FURTHER AND
OBSERVED A LARGE NUMBER OF FIVE-GALLON CANS WHICH HE LATER FOUND TO
CONTAIN ALCOHOL AND SOME VATS WHICH CONTAINED FERMENTING MASH.  ANOTHER
AGENT, CASEY, TESTIFIED THAT HE COULD SEE SEVERAL OF THESE CANS THROUGH
THE OPEN DOOR BEFORE HE ENTERED; HE SUBSEQUENTLY COUNTED THE CANS AND
FOUND THAT THERE WERE 262 OF THEM.  AFTER HE ENTERED HE SAW THE
REMAINDER OF THE DISTILLERY EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING FOUR LARGE MASH VATS. 
THE THIRD AGENT, GETTEL, PROCEEDED TO A SMALL TRUCK STANDING IN THE
YARD AND "SEARCHED IT THOROUGHLY FOR PAPERS AND THINGS OF AN
EVIDENTIARY NATURE."  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER HE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN
HIS SEARCH OR WHETHER HE TOOK ANYTHING FROM THE TRUCK. 

A FEW MINUTES LATER ROETT WAS ARRESTED OUTSIDE THE BUILDING. 
PETITIONERS TRUPIANO AND RICCARDELLI APPARENTLY WERE ARRESTED LATER
THAT NIGHT BY OTHER AGENTS, THE PLACE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT BEING
REVEALED BY THE RECORD BEFORE US.  IN ADDITION, THREE OTHER PERSONS
WERE ARRESTED THAT NIGHT BECAUSE OF THEIR CONNECTIONS WITH THE ILLEGAL
OPERATIONS; ONE OF THEM, WHO WAS UNKNOWN TO NILSEN, WAS ARRESTED WHEN
HE ARRIVED AT THE FARM WITH A TRUCK LOADED WITH COKE. 

THE AGENTS ENGAGED IN THIS RAID WITHOUT SECURING A SEARCH WARRANT OR
WARRANTS OF ARREST.  IT IS UNDENIED THAT THEY HAD MORE THAN ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN SUCH WARRANTS BEFORE THE RAID OCCURRED, VARIOUS
FEDERAL JUDGES AND COMMISSIONERS BEING READILY AVAILABLE. 

ALL OF THE PERSONS ARRESTED WERE CHARGED WITH VARIOUS VIOLATIONS OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE ARISING OUT OF THEIR OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION
OF THE DISTILLERY.  PRIOR TO THE RETURN OF AN INDICTMENT AGAINST THEM,
THE FOUR PETITIONERS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
NEW JERSEY A MOTION ALLEGING THAT THE FEDERAL AGENTS HAD ILLEGALLY
SEIZED "A STILL, ALCOHOL, MASH AND OTHER EQUIPMENT," AND ASKING THAT
"ALL SUCH EVIDENCE" BE EXCLUDED AND SUPPRESSED AT ANY TRIAL AND THAT
"ALL OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY" BE RETURNED.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED
THE MOTION AFTER A HEARING, HOLDING THAT THE SEIZURE WAS REASONABLE AND
HENCE CONSTITUTIONAL.  70 F.SUPP.  764.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED PER CURIAM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  163 F.2D 828. 

THUS WE HAVE A CASE WHERE CONTRABAND PROPERTY WAS SEIZED BY FEDERAL
AGENTS WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SUCH A
WARRANT COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN OBTAINED.  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER,
CLAIMS THAT THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE WARRANT HAS NO EFFECT UPON THE
VALIDITY OF THE SEIZURE.  REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE WELL ESTABLISHED
RIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT FOR A
FELONY COMMITTED IN THEIR PRESENCE, CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S.
132, 156-157, A RIGHT SAID TO BE UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THERE MAY
HAVE BEEN ADEQUATE TIME TO PROCURE A WARRANT OF ARREST.  SINCE ONE OF
THE PETITIONERS, ANTONIOLE, WAS ARRESTED WHILE ENGAGED IN OPERATING AN
ILLEGAL STILL IN THE PRESENCE OF AGENTS OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT, HIS
ARREST WAS VALID UNDER THIS VIEW EVEN THOUGH IT OCCURRED WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF A WARRANT.  AND SINCE THIS ARREST WAS VALID, THE ARGUMENT IS
MADE THAT THE SEIZURE OF THE CONTRABAND OPEN TO VIEW AT THE TIME OF THE
ARREST WAS ALSO LAWFUL.  RELIANCE IS HERE PLACED ON THE LONG LINE OF
CASES RECOGNIZING THAT AN ARRESTING OFFICER MAY LOOK AROUND AT THE TIME
OF THE ARREST AND SEIZE THOSE FRUITS AND EVIDENCES OF CRIME OR THOSE
CONTRABAND ARTICLES WHICH ARE IN PLAIN SIGHT AND IN HIS IMMEDIATE AND
DISCERNIBLE PRESENCE.  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 392;
CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 158; AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269
U.S. 20, 30; UNITED STATES V. LEE, 274 U.S. 559, 563; MARRON V. UNITED
STATES, 275 U.S. 192, 198-199; GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S.
344, 358; UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452, 465; HARRIS V.
UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145, 150-151. 

WE SUSTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE ARREST OF ANTONIOLE
WAS VALID.  THE FEDERAL AGENTS HAD MORE THAN ADEQUATE CAUSE, BASED UPON
THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY NILSEN, TO SUSPECT THAT ANTONIOLE WAS
ENGAGED IN FELONIOUS ACTIVITIES ON THE FARM PREMISES.  ACTING ON THAT
SUSPICION, THE AGENTS WENT TO THE FARM AND ENTERED ONTO THE PREMISES
WITH THE CONSENT OF KELL, THE OWNER.  THERE ANTONIOLE WAS SEEN THROUGH
AN OPEN DOORWAY BY ONE OF THE AGENTS TO BE OPERATING AN ILLEGAL STILL,
AN ACT FELONIOUS IN NATURE.  HIS ARREST WAS THEREFORE VALID ON THE
THEORY THAT HE WAS COMMITTING A FELONY IN THE DISCERNIBLE PRESENCE OF
AN AGENT OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT, A PEACE OFFICER OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE ABSENCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT TIME TO OBTAIN ONE, DOES NOT DESTROY THE VALIDITY OF AN
ARREST UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  WARRANTS OF ARREST ARE DESIGNED TO
MEET THE DANGERS OF UNLIMITED AND UNREASONABLE ARRESTS OF PERSONS WHO
ARE NOT AT THE MOMENT COMMITTING ANY CRIME.  THOSE DANGERS, OBVIOUSLY,
ARE NOT PRESENT WHERE A FELONY PLAINLY OCCURS BEFORE THE EYES OF AN
OFFICER OF THE LAW AT A PLACE WHERE HE IS LAWFULLY PRESENT.  COMMON
SENSE THEN DICTATES THAT AN ARREST IN THAT SITUATION IS VALID DESPITE
THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN A WARRANT OF ARREST. 

BUT WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE SEIZURE OF THE CONTRABAND PROPERTY WAS
MADE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  IT
IS A CARDINAL RULE THAT, IN SEIZING GOODS AND ARTICLES, LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENTS MUST SECURE AND USE SEARCH WARRANTS WHEREVER REASONABLY
PRACTICABLE.  CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 156; GO-BART CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 358; TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1, 6;
JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 10, 14-15.  THIS RULE RESTS UPON THE
DESIRABILITY OF HAVING MAGISTRATES RATHER THAN POLICE OFFICERS
DETERMINE WHEN SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ARE PERMISSIBLE AND WHAT
LIMITATIONS SHOULD BE PLACED UPON SUCH ACTIVITIES.  UNITED STATES V.
LEFKOWITZ, SUPRA, 464.  IN THEIR UNDERSTANDABLE ZEAL TO FERRET OUT
CRIME AND IN THE EXCITEMENT OF THE CAPTURE OF A SUSPECTED PERSON,
OFFICERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO POSSESS THE DETACHMENT AND NEUTRALITY WITH
WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE SUSPECT MUST BE VIEWED.  TO
PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SECURITY AGAINST UNREASONABLE INTRUSIONS UPON THE
PRIVATE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS, THE FRAMERS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
REQUIRED ADHERENCE TO JUDICIAL PROCESSES WHEREEVER POSSIBLE.  AND
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY HAS CONFIRMED THE WISDOM OF THAT REQUIREMENT. 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE DO NOT MEASURE UP TO THE FOREGOING STANDARD. 
THE AGENTS OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT KNEW EVERY DETAIL OF THE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE ILLEGAL DISTILLERY LONG BEFORE THE
RAID WAS MADE.  ONE OF THEM WAS ASSIGNED TO WORK ON THE FARM ALONG WITH
THE ILLICIT OPERATORS, MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SECURE AND REPORT
THE MINUTEST FACTS.  IN COOPERATION WITH THE FARM OWNER, WHO SERVED AS
AN INFORMER, THIS AGENT WAS IN A POSITION TO SUPPLY INFORMATION WHICH
COULD EASILY HAVE FORMED THE BASIS FOR A DETAILED AND EFFECTIVE SEARCH
WARRANT.  CONCEDEDLY, THERE WAS AN ABUNDANCE OF TIME DURING WHICH SUCH
A WARRANT COULD HAVE BEEN SECURED, EVEN ON THE NIGHT OF THE RAID AFTER
THE ODOR AND NOISE OF THE DISTILLERY CONFIRMED THEIR EXPECTATIONS.  AND
THE PROPERTY WAS NOT OF A TYPE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DISMANTLED AND
REMOVED BEFORE THE AGENTS HAD TIME TO SECURE A WARRANT; ESPECIALLY IS
THIS SO SINCE ONE OF THEM WAS ON HAND AT ALL TIMES TO REPORT AND GUARD
AGAINST SUCH A MOVE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. KAPLAN, 89 F.2D 869, 871. 

WHAT WAS SAID IN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 15, IS EQUALLY
APPLICABLE HERE:  "NO REASON IS OFFERED FOR NOT OBTAINING A SEARCH
WARRANT EXCEPT THE INCONVENIENCE TO THE OFFICERS AND SOME SLIGHT DELAY
NECESSARY TO PREPARE PAPERS AND PRESENT THE EVIDENCE TO A MAGISTRATE. 
THESE ARE NEVER VERY CONVINCING REASONS AND, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
CERTAINLY ARE NOT ENOUGH TO BY-PASS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT. 
...  IF THE OFFICERS IN THIS CASE WERE EXCUSED FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DUTY OF PRESENTING THEIR EVIDENCE TO A MAGISTRATE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
THINK OF A CASE IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED." 

AND SO WHEN THE AGENTS OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT DECIDED TO DISPENSE
WITH A SEARCH WARRANT AND TO TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS, THEY
DID PRECISELY WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO OUTLAW. 
UNINHIBITED BY ANY LIMITATIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONTAINED IN A
WARRANT, THEY DESCENDED UPON THE DISTILLERY IN A MIDNIGHT RAID. 
NOTHING CIRCUMSCRIBED THEIR ACTIVITIES ON THAT RAID EXCEPT THEIR OWN
GOOD SENSES, WHICH THE AUTHORS OF THE AMENDMENT DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY A SEARCH OR SEIZURE EXCEPT IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT
HERE PRESENT.  THE LIMITLESS POSSIBILITIES AFFORDED BY THE ABSENCE OF A
WARRANT WERE EPITOMIZED BY THE ONE AGENT WHO ADMITTED SEARCHING
"THOROUGHLY" A SMALL TRUCK PARKED IN THE FARMYARD FOR ITEMS OF AN
EVIDENTIARY CHARACTER.  THE FACT THAT THEY ACTUALLY SEIZED ONLY
CONTRABAND PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD DOUBTLESS HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN A
WARRANT HAD ONE BEEN ISSUED, DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE ILLEGALITY OF
THE SEIZURE.  SEE AMOS V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 313; BYARS V. UNITED
STATES, 273 U.S. 28; TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.    MOREOVER, THE
PROXIMITY OF THE CONTRABAND PROPERTY TO THE PERSON OF ANTONIOLE AT THE
MOMENT OF HIS ARREST WAS A FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH WAS INADEQUATE
TO LEGALIZE THE SEIZURE.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE EXISTENCE OF THIS
PROPERTY AND THE DESIRABILITY OF SEIZING IT WERE KNOWN TO THE AGENTS
LONG BEFORE THE SEIZURE AND FORMED ONE OF THE MAIN PURPOSES OF THE
RAID.  LIKEWISE, THE ARREST OF ANTONIOLE AND THE OTHER PETITIONERS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ILLICIT OPERATIONS WAS A FORESEEABLE EVENT
MOTIVATING THE RAID.  BUT THE PRECISE LOCATION OF THE PETITIONERS AT
THE TIME OF THEIR ARREST HAD NO RELATION TO THE FORESEEABILITY OR
NECESSITY OF THE SEIZURE.  THE PRACTICABILITY OF OBTAINING A SEARCH
WARRANT DID NOT TURN UPON WHETHER ANTONIOLE AND THE OTHERS WERE WITHIN
THE DISTILLERY BUILDING WHEN ARRESTED OR UPON WHETHER THEY WERE THEN
ENGAGED IN OPERATING THE ILLICIT EQUIPMENT.  ANTONIOLE JUST HAPPENED TO
BE WORKING AMID THE CONTRABAND SURROUNDINGS AT 11:45 P.M. ON THE NIGHT
IN QUESTION, WHILE THE OTHER THREE PETITIONERS CHANCED TO BE SOME PLACE
ELSE.  BUT ANTONIOLE MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE THE BUILDING AT THAT
PARTICULAR TIME.  IF THAT HAD BEEN THE CASE AND HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN
THE FARMYARD, THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN SUPPORT
OF THE SEIZURE WITHOUT WARRANT WOULD COLLAPSE.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE
DEPENDS UPON SUCH A FORTUITOUS FACTOR AS THE PRECISE LOCATION OF
ANTONIOLE AT THE TIME OF THE RAID. 

IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF AN ARRESTEE AT THE EXACT
TIME AND PLACE OF A FORESEEABLE AND ANTICIPATED SEIZURE DOES NOT
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THAT SEIZURE IF IT OCCURS WITHOUT A WARRANT. 
RATHER THE TEST IS THE APPARENT NEED FOR SUMMARY SEIZURE, A TEST WHICH
CLEARLY IS NOT SATISFIED BY THE FACTS BEFORE US. 

A SEARCH OR SEIZURE WITHOUT A WARRANT AS AN INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL
ARREST HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE A STRICTLY LIMITED RIGHT.  IT
GROWS OUT OF THE INHERENT NECESSITIES OF THE SITUATION AT THE TIME OF
THE ARREST.  BUT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE IN THE WAY OF NECESSITY
THAN MERELY A LAWFUL ARREST.  THE MERE FACT THAT THERE IS A VALID
ARREST DOES NOT IPSO FACTO LEGALIZE A SEARCH OR SEIZURE WITHOUT A
WARRANT.  CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 158.  OTHERWISE THE
EXCEPTION SWALLOWS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE, MAKING A SEARCH WARRANT
COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY WHEREVER THERE IS A LAWFUL ARREST.  AND SO THERE
MUST BE SOME OTHER FACTOR IN THE SITUATION THAT WOULD MAKE IT
UNREASONABLE OR IMPRACTICABLE TO REQUIRE THE ARRESTING OFFICER TO EQUIP
HIMSELF WITH A SEARCH WARRANT.  IN THE CASE BEFORE US, HOWEVER, NO
REASON WHATEVER HAS BEEN SHOWN WHY THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COULD NOT
HAVE ARMED THEMSELVES DURING ALL THE WEEKS OF THEIR SURVEILLANCE OF THE
LOCUS WITH A DULY OBTAINED SEARCH WARRANT - NO REASON, THAT IS, EXCEPT
INDIFFERENCE TO THE LEGAL PROCESS FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION CONTEMPLATED. 

WE DO NOT TAKE OCCASION HERE TO REEXAMINE THE SITUATION INVOLVED IN
HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE INSTANT CASE RELATES ONLY TO THE
SEIZURE OF CONTRABAND THE EXISTENCE AND PRECISE NATURE AND LOCATION OF
WHICH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WERE AWARE LONG BEFORE MAKING THE
LAWFUL ARREST.  THAT CIRCUMSTANCE WAS WHOLLY LACKING IN THE HARRIS
CASE, WHICH WAS CONCERNED WITH THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF A GENERAL
SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT AS AN INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST.  MOREOVER,
THE HARRIS CASE DEALT WITH THE SEIZURE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY WHICH
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A PRIOR SEARCH WARRANT, IT HAVING
BEEN FOUND UNEXPECTEDLY DURING THE COURSE OF A SEARCH.  IN CONTRAST,
THE CONTRABAND SEIZED IN THIS CASE COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED IN
A PRIOR SEARCH WARRANT.  THESE FACTUAL DIFFERENCES MAY OR MAY NOT BE OF
SIGNIFICANCE SO FAR AS GENERAL PRINCIPLES ARE CONCERNED.  BUT THE
DIFFERENCES ARE ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY CONFINING OURSELVES TO THE PRECISE
FACTS OF THIS CASE, LEAVING IT TO ANOTHER DAY TO TEST THE HARRIS
SITUATION BY THE RULE THAT SEARCH WARRANTS ARE TO BE OBTAINED AND USED
WHEREVER REASONABLY PRACTICABLE. 

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SET OF FACTS GOVERNED BY A PRINCIPLE
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED IN TAYLOR V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  THE COURT THERE HELD THAT THE SEIZURE OF ILLICIT
WHISKEY WAS UNREASONABLE, HOWEVER WELL-GROUNDED THE SUSPICIONS OF THE
FEDERAL AGENTS, WHERE THERE WAS AN ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN A
SEARCH WARRANT AND TO PROCEED IN AN ORDERLY, JUDICIAL WAY.  TRUE, THE
TAYLOR CASE DID NOT INVOLVE A SEIZURE IN CONNECTION WITH AN ARREST. 
AND THE OFFICERS THERE MADE AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY ONTO THE PREMISES.  BUT
THOSE FACTORS HAD NO RELATION TO THE PRACTICABILITY OF OBTAINING A
SEARCH WARRANT BEFORE MAKING THE SEIZURE.  IT WAS THE TIME ELEMENT AND
THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE NEED FOR A SEARCH AND SEIZURE THAT MADE THE
WARRANT ESSENTIAL.  THE TAYLOR CASE ACCORDINGLY MAKES PLAIN THE
ILLEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDING. 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT BOTH THE INNOCENT AND
THE GUILTY FROM UNREASONABLE INTRUSIONS UPON THEIR RIGHT OF PRIVACY
WHILE LEAVING ADEQUATE ROOM FOR THE NECESSARY PROCESS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT.  THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES INSISTED ON WRITING THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT INTO THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE SAD EXPERIENCE HAD
TAUGHT THEM THAT THE RIGHT TO SEARCH AND SEIZE SHOULD NOT BE LEFT TO
THE MERE DISCRETION OF THE POLICE, BUT SHOULD AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE
BE SUBJECTED TO THE REQUIREMENT OF PREVIOUS JUDICIAL SANCTION WHEREVER
POSSIBLE.  THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, COULD HARDLY
BE EMBARRASSED BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT ARRESTING OFFICERS WHO HAVE
THREE WEEKS OR MORE WITHIN WHICH TO SECURE THE AUTHORIZATION OF
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY FOR MAKING SEARCH AND SEIZURE SHOULD SECURE SUCH
AUTHORITY AND NOT BE LEFT TO THEIR OWN DISCRETION AS TO WHAT IS TO BE
SEARCHED AND WHAT IS TO BE SEIZED.  SUCH A REQUIREMENT PARTAKES OF THE
VERY ESSENCE OF THE ORDERLY AND EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW. 

IT IS A MISTAKE TO ASSUME THAT A SEARCH WARRANT IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD CONTRIBUTE NOTHING TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE
RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  A SEARCH WARRANT MUST
DESCRIBE WITH PARTICULARITY THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND THE THINGS TO
BE SEIZED.  WITHOUT SUCH A WARRANT, HOWEVER, OFFICERS ARE FREE TO
DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES THE EXTENT OF THEIR SEARCH AND THE PRECISE
OBJECTS TO BE SEIZED.  THIS IS NO SMALL DIFFERENCE.  IT IS A DIFFERENCE
UPON WHICH DEPENDS MUCH OF THE POTENCY OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY.  AND IT
IS A DIFFERENCE THAT MUST BE PRESERVED EVEN WHERE CONTRABAND ARTICLES
ARE SEIZED IN CONNECTION WITH A VALID ARREST. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT IT WAS ERROR TO REFUSE PETITIONERS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE
AND SUPPRESS THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS IMPROPERLY SEIZED.  BUT SINCE THIS
PROPERTY WAS CONTRABAND, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO HAVE IT RETURNED TO
THEM.  REVERSED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

FEDERAL OFFICERS, FOLLOWING A LAWFUL ARREST, SEIZED CONTRABAND
MATERIALS WHICH WERE BEING EMPLOYED IN OPEN VIEW IN VIOLATION AND
DEFIANCE OF THE LAWS OF THE LAND.  TODAY, THE COURT FOR THE FIRST TIME
HAS BRANDED SUCH A SEIZURE ILLEGAL.  NOTHING IN THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DICTATES THAT RESULT.  NOR IS THAT HOLDING
SUPPORTED BY ANY DECISION OF THIS COURT. 

THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  IN JANUARY, 1946, CERTAIN OF
THE PETITIONERS APPROACHED ONE KELL OFFERING TO RENT A PORTION OF THE
LATTER'S FARM ON WHICH A BUILDING WAS TO BE ERECTED.  HIS SUSPICIONS
AROUSED, KELL REPORTED THE MATTER TO AGENTS OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT OF
THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE.  HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE OFFER COULD BE
ACCEPTED PROVIDED THAT NOTHING WAS DONE TO ENTICE PETITIONERS INTO
COMPLETION OF THEIR PLANS.  AN AGENT, NILSEN, WAS ASSIGNED TO THE FARM
TO ACT THE PART OF A FARM HAND IN THE EMPLOY OF KELL. 

ULTIMATELY, AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO WHEREBY KELL RENTED A
PORTION OF HIS FARM TO PETITIONERS AT $300 A MONTH.  PETITIONERS, WITH
THE ASSISTANCE OF KELL AND NILSEN, CONSTRUCTED A BARN-LIKE STRUCTURE
SOME TWO HUNDRED YARDS FROM THE FARMHOUSE.  A STILL AND VATS WERE
INSTALLED.  AFTER THE STILL BEGAN OPERATION, NILSEN ACTED AS A "MASH
MAN" RECEIVING A SALARY OF $100 A WEEK FROM PETITIONERS.  ALL SUMS
RECEIVED BY NILSEN WERE TURNED OVER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD, NILSEN REPORTED REGULARLY TO HIS SUPERIORS. 
AS A RESULT OF THIS INFORMATION, FEDERAL AGENTS ON MAY 31, 1946, SEIZED
A TRUCKLOAD OF ALCOHOL ABOUT AN HOUR AFTER IT HAD LEFT THE KELL FARM. 

THE NIGHT OF JUNE 3, 1946, WAS CHOSEN BY THE AGENTS TO CONDUCT THEIR
RAID.  KELL COOPERATED FULLY WITH THE OFFICERS AND DROVE THREE OF THE
AGENTS TO THE FARM IN HIS OWN CAR.  AS THE CAR ENTERED THE FARM
PREMISES, THE ODOR OF FERMENTING MASH AND THE SOUND OF A GASOLINE MOTOR
BECAME APPARENT.  WHEN THE AGENTS ALIGHTED FROM THE CAR IT WAS OBVIOUS
THAT THE SOUND AND THE ODOR WERE EMANATING FROM THE BUILDING IN WHICH
THE STILL WAS LOCATED.  ONE OF THE AGENTS APPROACHED THE STRUCTURE AND
THROUGH AN OPEN DOOR OBSERVED A STILL AND A BOILER.  HE ALSO SAW THE
PETITIONER ANTONIOLE BENDING OVER A GASOLINE PUMP.  THE AGENT ENTERED
THE BUILDING AND PLACED ANTONIOLE UNDER ARREST ON THE THEORY THAT A
CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTED IN HIS PRESENCE.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AGENT
SEIZED THE STILL, MASH VATS CONTAINING FERMENTING MASH, OTHER
DISTILLERY EQUIPMENT, AND 262 FIVE-GALLON CANS CONTAINING ILLICIT
ALCOHOL.  NEITHER THE ARREST NOR THE SEIZURE WAS EFFECTED UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF A WARRANT.  LATER SIX OTHER PERSONS WERE ARRESTED,
INCLUDING THREE OF THE PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE.  FN1 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF PETITIONERS WERE IN
FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN2  IT IS CLEAR,
ALSO, THAT THE MATERIALS SEIZED CONSISTED OF INSTRUMENTALITIES USED BY
PETITIONERS IN THEIR CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE AND CONTRABAND GOODS,
POSSESSION OF WHICH IS A CRIME.  THE MATERIALS AND OBJECTS FALLING INTO
THE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL AGENTS, THEREFORE, WERE OF THE TYPE PROPERLY
SUBJECT TO LAWFUL SEIZURE.  FN3 

FURTHER, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ENTRY OF THE FEDERAL AGENTS ONTO THE FARM
PREMISES WAS IN NO SENSE TRESPASSORY OR OTHERWISE ILLEGAL.  AMOS V.
UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 313(1921); BYARS V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S.
28(1927).  KELL, THE OWNER OF THE FARM, GAVE HIS ACTIVE CONSENT TO THE
ENTRY.  INDEED, HE VOLUNTARILY DROVE THREE OF THE AGENTS TO THE
PREMISES IN HIS OWN CAR. 

NOR CAN THERE BE DOUBT THAT THE ARREST OF THE PETITIONER ANTONIOLE
WHILE ENGAGED IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
AGENT WAS A VALID ARREST.  THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT EXPLICITLY
CONCEDES SUCH TO BE THE FACT.  UNDER THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW, A POLICE
OFFICER HAD POWER WITHOUT A WARRANT TO ARREST PERSONS COMMITTING A
MISDEMEANOR IN THE OFFICER'S PRESENCE AND PERSONS WHOM THE OFFICER HAD
REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE HAD COMMITTED A FELONY.  THIS RULE, WHICH
HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE ANCIENT FORMATIVE PERIOD OF THE COMMON LAW, WAS
FIRMLY ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  FN4  SINCE THAT TIME IT HAS RECEIVED GENERAL APPLICATION BY
STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  FN5  INDEED, THIS COURT HAS HERETOFORE GIVEN
SPECIFIC RECOGNITION TO THE RULE.  CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S.
132, 156-157(1925).  FN6 

THUS, EVEN THOUGH AGENTS CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES MADE A LAWFUL ENTRY ONTO THE FARM AND DESPITE THE FACT
THAT A VALID ARREST WAS MADE OF A PARTY WHO WAS IN THE ACT OF
COMMITTING A FELONY, THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICER IN
THE ABSENCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT WAS POWERLESS TO MAKE A VALID SEIZURE
OF CONTRABAND MATERIALS LOCATED IN PLAIN SIGHT IN THE STRUCTURE IN
WHICH THE ARREST TOOK PLACE.  AND THIS DESPITE THE LONG LINE OF
DECISIONS IN THIS COURT RECOGNIZING AS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESTRICTIONS
OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT THE POWER OF LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO MAKE
REASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AS INCIDENTS TO LAWFUL ARRESTS. 

IN AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, 30(1925), THIS COURT
STATED:  "THE RIGHT WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TO
SEARCH PERSONS LAWFULLY ARRESTED WHILE COMMITTING CRIME AND TO SEARCH
THE PLACE WHERE THE ARREST IS MADE IN ORDER TO FIND AND SEIZE THINGS
CONNECTED WITH THE CRIME  ...  AS WELL AS WEAPONS AND OTHER THINGS TO
EFFECT AN ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY, IS NOT TO BE DOUBTED.  ...  SUCH
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES NATURALLY AND USUALLY APPERTAIN TO AND ATTEND
SUCH ARRESTS."  FN7  AND SEE WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383,
392(1914); CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 158; UNITED STATES V.
LEE, 274 U.S. 559, 563(1927); MARRON V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192,
198-199(1927); GO-BART IMPORTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344,
358(1931); UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452, 465(1932); HARRIS
V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145, 150-151, 168, 186(1947). 

THE VALIDITY OF A SEARCH AND SEIZURE AS INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST
HAS BEEN BASED UPON A RECOGNITION BY THIS COURT THAT WHERE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENTS HAVE LAWFULLY GAINED ENTRANCE INTO PREMISES AND HAVE
EXECUTED A VALID ARREST OF THE OCCUPANT, THE VITAL RIGHTS OF PRIVACY
PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ARE NOT DENIED BY SEIZURE OF
CONTRABAND MATERIALS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF CRIME IN OPEN VIEW OR
SUCH AS MAY BE BROUGHT TO LIGHT BY A REASONABLE SEARCH.  HERE THERE CAN
BE NO OBJECTION TO THE SCOPE OR INTENSITY OF THE SEARCH.  CF. MARRON V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA; GO-BART IMPORTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, SUPRA; HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE
SEIZURE WAS NOT PRECEDED BY AN EXPLORATORY SEARCH.  THE OBJECTS SEIZED
WERE IN PLAIN SIGHT.  TO INSIST UPON THE USE OF A SEARCH WARRANT IN
SITUATIONS WHERE THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH A WARRANT CAN CONTRIBUTE NOTHING
TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE RIGHTS WHICH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS
INTENDED TO PROTECT, SERVES ONLY TO OPEN AN AVENUE OF ESCAPE FOR THOSE
GUILTY OF CRIME AND TO MENACE THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT
WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL PRECONDITION TO THE EXISTENCE OF ALL CIVIL
LIBERTIES. 

IN REACHING ITS RESULT THE COURT RELIES ON TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES,
286 U.S. 1(1932).  THERE, FEDERAL AGENTS BROKE INTO A GARAGE AND SEIZED
A QUANTITY OF ILLICIT LIQUOR.  AT THE TIME OF ENTRY, "NO ONE WAS WITHIN
THE PLACE AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO THINK OTHERWISE."  ID. AT 5.  THE
AGENTS ACTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF A SEARCH WARRANT, NOR, UNLIKE THE
PRESENT CASE, WAS LAWFUL ENTRY INTO THE BUILDING MADE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF EFFECTING A VALID ARREST.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT RULED
THAT THE SEIZURE WAS UNLAWFUL.  BUT TO APPLY THAT HOLDING IN A
SITUATION LIKE THE PRESENT, WHERE LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE ENTERED
A BUILDING TO ARREST A PARTY OPENLY ENGAGED IN THE COMMISSION OF A
FELONY, IS TO DISREGARD THE VERY BASIS UPON WHICH THE TAYLOR CASE WAS
DECIDED. 

WE ARE TOLD, HOWEVER, THAT ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONER ANTONIOLE WAS
ARRESTED WHILE UNDENIABLY ENGAGED IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY, HIS
PRESENCE IN THE BUILDING IN WHICH THE CONTRABAND MATERIALS WERE LOCATED
WAS A "FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH WAS INADEQUATE TO LEGALIZE THE
SEIZURE."  WE SHOULD SUPPOSE THAT ANY ARREST OF A PARTY ENGAGED IN THE
COMMISSION OF A FELONY IS BASED IN PART UPON AN ELEMENT OF CHANCE. 
CRIMINALS DO NOT NORMALLY CHOOSE TO ENGAGE IN FELONIOUS ENTERPRISES
BEFORE AN AUDIENCE OF POLICE OFFICIALS.  WE MAY WELL ANTICIPATE THE
PERPLEXITY OF OFFICERS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICAL BUSINESS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A RULE WHICH MAKES THE VALIDITY OF A
SEIZURE OF CONTRABAND MATERIALS AS AN INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST
DEPENDENT UPON SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL JUDGMENT AS TO THE "FORTUITOUS"
CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTY ARRESTED ON THE
PREMISES IN WHICH THE ILLEGAL GOODS ARE LOCATED. 

NOR ARE WE FREE TO ASSUME THAT THE AGENTS IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE
PROCEEDED ILLEGALLY TO SEIZE THE MATERIALS IN THE BARN IN THE ABSENCE
OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF A VALID ARREST.  A LAWFUL SEIZURE IS NOT TO BE
INVALIDATED BY SPECULATIONS AS TO WHAT THE CONDUCT OF THE AGENTS MIGHT
HAVE BEEN HAD A DIFFERENT FACTUAL SITUATION BEEN PRESENTED. 

THE CASE OF JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 10(1948), DOES NOT
SUPPORT THE RESULT WHICH THE COURT HAS REACHED.  FOR THERE THE MAJORITY
OF THE COURT HELD THAT THE ARREST IN QUESTION WAS AN INVALID ONE. 
OBVIOUSLY, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE MAY NOT BE HELD VALID ON THE SOLE
GROUND THAT IT WAS AN INCIDENT TO AN INVALID ARREST.  SUCH IS NOT THE
SITUATION HERE. 

IN CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 149, THIS COURT OBSERVED:  "THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT IS TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT WAS DEEMED AN
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, AND IN A MANNER
WHICH WILL CONSERVE PUBLIC INTERESTS AS WELL AS THE INTERESTS AND
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS."  WE BELIEVE THAT THE RESULT REACHED
TODAY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AS IT EXISTED BEFORE
THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT NOR AS IT HAS DEVELOPED SINCE THAT
TIME.  NOR DO WE FEEL THAT THE DECISION COMMENDS ITSELF AS ADAPTED TO
CONSERVE VITAL PUBLIC AND INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS.  HERETOFORE IT HAS BEEN
THOUGHT THAT WHERE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW HAVE LAWFULLY ENTERED PREMISES AND EXECUTED A
VALID ARREST, A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION OF THE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY
AND THE INDIVIDUAL PERMITS SUCH OFFICIALS TO SEIZE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
THE CRIME AND CONTRABAND MATERIALS IN OPEN VIEW OF THE ARRESTING
OFFICER.  THE COURT WOULD NOW CONDITION THIS RIGHT OF SEIZURE AFTER A
VALID ARREST UPON AN EX POST FACTO JUDICIAL JUDGMENT OF WHETHER THE
ARRESTING OFFICERS MIGHT HAVE OBTAINED A SEARCH WARRANT.  AT BEST, THE
OPERATION OF THE RULE WHICH THE COURT TODAY ENUNCIATES FOR THE FIRST
TIME MAY BE EXPECTED TO CONFOUND CONFUSION IN A FIELD ALREADY REPLETE
WITH COMPLEXITIES. 

FN1  SUBSEQUENTLY, PETITIONERS MOVED THE DISTRICT COURT TO ORDER THE
RETURN OF THE PROPERTY SEIZED AND TO SUPPRESS ITS USE AS EVIDENCE.  70
F.SUPP.  764(1947).  THE MOTION WAS DENIED.  THE ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN A PER CURIAM STATEMENT.  163 F.2D
828(1947). 

FN2  SEE SECS. 2803, 2810, 2812, 2814, 2831, 2833 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE. 

FN3  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, 623, 624(1886); WEEKS V.
UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 392-393(1914); GOULED V. UNITED STATES,
255 U.S. 298, 309(1921); CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, 149
150(1925); AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, 30(1925); MARRON V.
UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192, 199(1927); UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285
U.S. 452, 465-466(1932); HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145,
154(1947). 

FN4  SAMUEL V. PAYNE, 1 DOUG.  K.B. 359(1780); WAKELY V. HART, 6
BINN.  316(1814).  AND SEE 2 HALE, PLEAS OF THE CROWN 85-97; 4
BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES 292-293; WILGUS, ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT, 22
MICH. L. REV. 541, 673. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. DAISON, 288 F. 199(1923); ROHAN V. SAWIN, 5
CUSH.  281(1850); WADE V. CHAFFEE, 8 R.I. 224(1865). 

FN6  CF. KURTZ V. MOFFITT, 115 U.S. 487, 498-499(1855). 

FN7  AND SEE ID. AT 32, 33. 
..END :






















WEST V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N, 334 U.S. 717 


NO. 489.  ARGUED MARCH 29-30, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  - 200
OKLA. - , 193 P.2D 1017, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN OKLAHOMA INHERITANCE TAX ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTIES HELD IN
TRUST BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF A RESTRICTED OSAGE INDIAN
AND HIS HEIRS, WHICH PROPERTIES HAD NOT BEEN EXEMPTED BY CONGRESS FROM
DIRECT TAXATION, HELD VALID.  PP. 718-728. 

2.  UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432, AND MCCURDY V. UNITED
STATES, 264 U.S. 484, DISTINGUISHED; OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 598, FOLLOWED.  PP. 724-727. 

3.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN ESTATE TAX, THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESTRICTED PROPERTY AND TRUST PROPERTY.  P. 726. 

4.  AN INHERITANCE OR ESTATE TAX IS NOT IMPOSED UPON THE PROPERTY OF
WHICH AN ESTATE IS COMPOSED, BUT RATHER UPON THE SHIFTING OF ECONOMIC
BENEFITS AND THE PRIVILEGE OF TRANSMITTING OR RECEIVING SUCH BENEFITS. 
P. 727. 

5.  WHETHER LEGAL TITLE TO THE PROPERTIES COMPOSING AN ESTATE IS IN
THE UNITED STATES OR IN THE DECEDENT AND HIS HEIR IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE
TO THE TAXABILITY OF THE TRANSFER; NOR IS THE FACT THAT PERMITTING THE
IMPOSITION OF THE INHERITANCE TAX ON THE TRANSFER MAY DEPLETE THE TRUST
CORPUS AND CREATE LIEN DIFFICULTIES.  P. 727. 

WEST V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

FROM AN ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION IMPOSING AN INHERITANCE
TAX ON THE ESTATE OF A RESTRICTED OSAGE INDIAN, APPELLANT, SOLE HEIR OF
THE DECEDENT, APPEALED.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDER. 
200 OKLA. - , 193 P.2D 1017.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P.
728. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL CONCERNS THE POWER OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA TO LEVY AN
INHERITANCE TAX ON THE ESTATE OF A RESTRICTED OSAGE INDIAN. 
SPECIFICALLY, THE PROBLEM IS WHETHER PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST BY THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN MAY BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE
TAXABLE ESTATE. 

CHARLES WEST, JR., WAS A RESTRICTED, FULL-BLOOD, UNALLOTTED, ADULT
OSAGE INDIAN.  HE DIED INTESTATE IN 1940, A RESIDENT OF OKLAHOMA.  NO
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY WAS EVER ISSUED TO HIM.  SURVIVING HIM WAS
HIS MOTHER, APPELLANT HEREIN, WHO IS A RESTRICTED, FULL-BLOOD OSAGE
INDIAN.  THE ENTIRE ESTATE PASSED TO HER AS THE SOLE HEIR AT LAW.  FN1 

THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER LEVYING A TAX ON THE
TRANSFER OF THE NET ESTATE, VALUED AT $111,219.18.  WITH PENALTIES, THE
TOTAL TAX IMPOSED WAS $5,313.35.  APPELLANT MADE TIMELY OBJECTION TO
THE INCLUSION OF CERTAIN ITEMS IN THE TAXABLE ESTATE.  THESE ITEMS
FORMED THE BULK OF THE ESTATE AND HAD BEEN HELD IN TRUST FOR THE
DECEDENT BY THE UNITED STATES, ACTING THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR.  ACT OF JUNE 28, 1906, 34 STAT. 539, AS AMENDED, 41 STAT.
1249, 45 STAT. 1478, 52 STAT. 1034.  THE TRUST PROPERTIES INVOLVED WERE
AS FOLLOWS: 

(1)  ONE AND 915/2520THS OSAGE MINERAL HEADRIGHTS.  THIS ITEM
REPRESENTED THE DECEDENT'S UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE OIL, GAS, COAL AND
OTHER MINERALS UNDER THE LANDS IN OSAGE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, SAID MINERALS
HAVING BEEN RESERVED TO THE USE OF THE OSAGE TRIBE BY THE ACT OF JUNE
28, 1906.  FN2 

(2)  SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, REPRESENTING
ACCRUALS OF INCOME TO THE DECEDENT FROM THE HEADRIGHTS. 

(3)  STOCKS AND BONDS PURCHASED BY AND IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED
STATES AND HELD FOR THE DECEDENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 
THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE WITH THE SURPLUS FUNDS ACCRUING FROM THE
HEADRIGHTS. 

(4)  TRUST FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES,
REPRESENTING DECEDENT'S SHARE OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE OSAGE
TRIBE'S LANDS IN KANSAS. 

(5)  PERSONAL PROPERTY PURCHASED WITH SURPLUS FUNDS. 

APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT THESE PROPERTIES WERE IMMUNE FROM STATE
TAXATION BY VIRTUE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION,
TREATIES AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; HENCE THE OKLAHOMA INHERITANCE
AND TRANSFER TAX ACT OF 1939(SECS.  989-989T, TITLE 68, OKLA. STAT.
1941) WHICH AUTHORIZED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE PROPERTIES WAS INVALID IN
THIS RESPECT.  THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION REJECTED THIS CONTENTION AND
THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA AFFIRMED.  200 OKLA. - , 193 P.2D 1017. 

IT IS ESSENTIAL AT THE OUTSET TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY AND NATURE OF
THE ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY THE UNITED STATES HOLDS IN TRUST THE PROPERTIES
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  SEE COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW
(1945) 446-455.  IN 1866, THE UNITED STATES AND THE CHEROKEE NATION OF
INDIANS EXECUTED A COMPREHENSIVE TREATY COVERING THEIR VARIOUS
RELATIONSHIPS.  14 STAT. 799.  IT WAS THERE AGREED THAT THE UNITED
STATES MIGHT SETTLE FRIENDLY INDIANS IN CERTAIN AREAS OF CHEROKEE
TERRITORY, INCLUDING WHAT IS NOW OSAGE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA; THESE AREAS
HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVEYED BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE CHEROKEES. 
THE TREATY FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE AREAS IN QUESTION WERE TO BE
CONVEYED IN FEE SIMPLE TO THE TRIBES SETTLED BY THE UNITED STATES "TO
BE HELD IN COMMON OR BY THEIR MEMBERS IN SEVERALTY AS THE UNITED STATES
MAY DECIDE." 

THE OSAGE INDIANS SUBSEQUENTLY MOVED TO THE INDIAN TERRITORY AND
SETTLED IN WHAT IS NOW OSAGE COUNTY.  IN 1883, PURSUANT TO THE 1866
TREATY, THE CHEROKEES CONVEYED THIS AREA TO THE UNITED STATES "IN TRUST
NEVERTHELESS AND FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE SAID OSAGE AND KANSAS
INDIANS."  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE LAND WAS NOT
CONVEYED AT THIS TIME TO THE OSAGES; INSTEAD, THE UNITED STATES
RECEIVED THAT TITLE AS TRUSTEE FOR THE OSAGES.  NOR WAS ANY DISTINCTION
HERE MADE BETWEEN THE LAND AND THE MINERALS THEREUNDER, LEGAL TITLE TO
BOTH BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES. 

ON JUNE 28, 1906, THE OSAGE ALLOTMENT ACT, PROVIDING FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF OSAGE LANDS AND PROPERTIES, BECAME EFFECTIVE.  34 STAT.
539.  SEE LEVINDALE LEAD CO. V. COLEMAN, 241 U.S. 432.  PROVISION WAS
THERE MADE FOR THE ALLOTMENT TO EACH TRIBAL MEMBER OF A 160-ACRE
HOMESTEAD, PLUS CERTAIN ADDITIONAL SURPLUS LANDS.  THESE ALLOTTED
LANDS, SAID SEC. 7, WERE TO BE SET ASIDE "FOR THE SOLE USE AND BENEFIT
OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE ENTITLED THERETO, OR TO THEIR
HEIRS, AS HEREIN PROVIDED."  THE HOMESTEAD WAS TO BE INALIENABLE AND
NONTAXABLE FOR 25 YEARS OR DURING THE LIFE OF THE ALLOTTEE.  THE
SURPLUS LANDS, HOWEVER, WERE TO BE INALIENABLE FOR 25 YEARS AND
NONTAXABLE FOR 3 YEARS, EXCEPT THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR MIGHT
ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCE TO AN ADULT, AUTHORIZING HIM TO SELL
ALL OF HIS SURPLUS LANDS; UPON THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH A CERTIFICATE, OR
UPON THE DEATH OF THE ALLOTTEE, THE SURPLUS LANDS WERE TO BECOME
IMMEDIATELY TAXABLE.  SEC. 2, SEVENTH; CHOTEAU V. BURNET, 283 U.S.
691. 

WERE TO BE RESERVED TO THE OSAGE TRIBE FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS AND
THAT MINERAL LEASES AND ROYALTIES WERE TO BE APPROVED BY THE UNITED
STATES.  SECTION 4 THEN PROVIDED THAT ALL MONEY DUE OR TO BECOME DUE TO
THE TRIBE WAS TO BE HELD IN TRUST BY THE UNITED STATES FOR 25 YEARS;
FN3  BUT THESE FUNDS WERE TO BE SEGREGATED AND CREDITED PRO RATA TO THE
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OR THEIR HEIRS, WITH INTEREST ACCRUING AND BEING
PAYABLE QUARTERLY TO THE MEMBERS.  ROYALTIES FROM THE MINERAL LEASES
WERE TO BE PLACED IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE CREDIT OF
THE TRIBAL MEMBERS AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS IN THE
SAME MANNER AND AT THE SAME TIME AS INTEREST PAYMENTS ON OTHER MONEYS
HELD IN TRUST.  IN THIS CONNECTION, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT QUARTERLY
PAYMENTS OF INTEREST AND ROYALTIES BECAME SO LARGE THAT CONGRESS LATER
LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS THAT COULD BE MADE TO THOSE WITHOUT
CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCE; PROVISION WAS ALSO MADE FOR INVESTING THE
SURPLUS IN BONDS, STOCKS, ETC.  FN4 

ACCORDING TO SEC. 5 OF THIS 1906 STATUTE, AT THE END OF THE 25-YEAR
TRUST PERIOD "THE LANDS, MINERAL INTERESTS, AND MONEYS, HEREIN PROVIDED
FOR AND HELD IN TRUST BY THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE THE ABSOLUTE
PROPERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE OSAGE TRIBE, ACCORDING TO THE
ROLE HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, OR THEIR HEIRS, AS HEREIN PROVIDED, AND DEEDS
TO SAID LANDS SHALL BE ISSUED TO SAID MEMBERS, OR TO THEIR HEIRS, AS
HEREIN PROVIDED, AND SAID MONEYS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO SAID MEMBERS,
OR TO THEIR HEIRS, AS HEREIN PROVIDED, AND SAID MEMBERS SHALL HAVE FULL
CONTROL OF SAID LANDS, MONEYS, AND MINERAL INTERESTS, EXCEPT AS
HEREINBEFORE PROVIDED."  IT WAS ALSO STATED IN SEC. 2, SEVENTH, THAT
THE MINERALS UPON THE ALLOTTED LANDS "SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL OWNER OF SAID LAND" AT THE EXPIRATION OF 25 YEARS, UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY CONGRESS. 

MOREOVER, SEC. 6 PROVIDED THAT THE LANDS, MONEYS AND MINERAL
INTERESTS OF ANY DECEASED MEMBER OF THE OSAGE TRIBE "SHALL DESCEND TO
HIS OR HER LEGAL HEIRS, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE TERRITORY OF
OKLAHOMA."  CONGRESS SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED, IN SEC. 8 OF THE ACT OF
APRIL 18, 1912, 37 STAT. 86, 88, THAT ANY ADULT MEMBER OF THE TRIBE WHO
WAS NOT MENTALLY INCOMPETENT COULD BY WILL DISPOSE OF "ANY OR ALL OF
HIS ESTATE, REAL, PERSONAL, OR MIXED, INCLUDING TRUST FUNDS, FROM WHICH
RESTRICTIONS AS TO ALIENATION HAVE NOT BEEN REMOVED," IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.  SUCH WILLS COULD NOT BE
PROBATED, HOWEVER, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. 

THE 25-YEAR TRUST PERIOD ESTABLISHED BY THE 1906 STATUTE HAS BEEN
EXTENDED SEVERAL TIMES BY CONGRESS, FIRST TO 1946(41 STAT. 1249), THEN
TO 1958(45 STAT. 1478), AND FINALLY TO 1984(52 STAT. 1034).  THE LAST
EXTENSION PROVIDED THAT THE "LANDS, MONEYS, AND OTHER PROPERTIES NOW OR
HEREAFTER HELD IN TRUST OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE OSAGE TRIBE OF INDIANS, THE MEMBERS THEREOF, OR THEIR HEIRS AND
ASSIGNS, SHALL CONTINUE SUBJECT TO SUCH TRUSTS AND SUPERVISION UNTIL
JANUARY 1, 1984, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY ACT OF CONGRESS." 

APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS TO THE ESTATE IN ISSUE
PRODUCES THIS PICTURE: LEGAL TITLE TO THE MINERAL INTERESTS, THE FUNDS
AND THE SECURITIES CONSTITUTING THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST ESTATE IS IN
THE UNITED STATES AS TRUSTEE.  THE UNITED STATES RECEIVED LEGAL TITLE
TO THE MINERAL INTERESTS IN 1883, WHEN IT TOOK WHAT IS NOW OSAGE COUNTY
FROM THE CHEROKEES IN TRUST FOR THE OSAGES; AND THAT TITLE HAS NOT
SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN TRANSFERRED.  LEGAL TITLE TO THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND
SECURITIES ADHERED TO THE UNITED STATES AS THE PERTINENT TRUSTS WERE
ESTABLISHED AND DEVELOPED.  BENEFICIAL TITLE TO THESE PROPERTIES WAS
VESTED IN THE DECEDENT AND IS NOW HELD BY HIS SOLE HEIR, THE
APPELLANT.  THE BENEFICIARY AT ALL TIMES HAS BEEN ENTITLED TO AT LEAST
A LIMITED AMOUNT OF INTEREST AND ROYALTIES ARISING OUT OF THE CORPUS. 
AND THE BENEFICIARY HAS A REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE CORPUS, AN
INTEREST THAT WILL MATERIALIZE ONLY WHEN IN THE CORPUS, AN INTEREST
THAT WILL MATERIALIZE ONLY WHEN THE TRUST PERIOD.  BUT UNTIL THAT
PERIOD ENDS, THE BENEFICIARY HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE CORPUS.  SEE GLOBE
INDEMNITY CO. V. BRUCE, 81 F.2D 143, 150. 

SINCE 1819, WHEN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, WAS DECIDED,
IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES IS
IMMUNE FROM ANY FORM OF STATE TAXATION, UNLESS CONGRESS EXPRESSLY
CONSENTS TO THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH LIABILITY.  VAN BROCKLIN V.
TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151; UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 322 U.S.
174.  THIS TAX IMMUNITY GROWS OUT OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE NECESSITY THAT IT BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH ITS OWN
PROPERTY FREE FROM ANY INTERFERENCE OR EMBARRASSMENT THAT STATE
TAXATION MIGHT IMPOSE.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA; WISCONSIN
RAILROAD CO. V. PRICE COUNTY, 133 U.S. 496. 

IN UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432, THE SAME RULE WAS HELD TO
APPLY WHERE THE UNITED STATES HOLDS LEGAL TITLE TO LAND IN TRUST FOR AN
INDIAN OR A TRIBE.  THE UNITED STATES THERE HELD LEGAL TITLE TO CERTAIN
LANDS IN TRUST FOR A BAND OF SIOUX INDIANS WHICH WAS IN ACTUAL
POSSESSION OF THE LANDS.  THIS COURT HELD THAT NEITHER THE LANDS NOR
THE PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS THEREON WERE SUBJECT TO STATE OR LOCAL AD
VALOREM TAXES.  IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE FEE TITLE REMAINED IN THE
UNITED STATES IN OBVIOUS EXECUTION OF ITS PROTECTIVE POLICY TOWARD ITS
WARDS, THE SIOUX INDIANS.  TO TAX THESE LANDS AND THE IMPROVEMENTS
THEREON, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT, WOULD BE TO TAX A MEANS
EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOMPLISH BENEFICENT OBJECTS RELATIVE TO
A DEPENDENT CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS.  MOREOVER, THE UNITED STATES HAD
AGREED TO CONVEY THE LANDS TO THE ALLOTTEES IN FEE AT THE END OF THE
TRUST PERIOD "FREE OF ALL CHARGE OR INCUMBRANCES WHATSOEVER."  IF THE
TAX IN QUESTION WERE ASSESSED AND UNPAID, THE LANDS COULD BE SOLD BY
THE TAX AUTHORITIES.  THE UNITED STATES WOULD THUS BE SO BURDENED THAT
IT COULD NOT DISCHARGE ITS OBLIGATION TO CONVEY UNENCUMBERED LAND
WITHOUT PAYING THE TAXES IMPOSED FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 

FURTHER APPLICATION OF THE TAX IMMUNITY RULE TO LAND HELD IN TRUST BY
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF INDIANS WAS MADE IN MCCURDY V.
UNITED STATES, 264 U.S. 484.  THAT CASE INVOLVED SURPLUS LANDS THAT HAD
BEEN ALLOTTED TO MEMBERS OF THE OSAGE TRIBE.  IT WILL BE RECALLED THAT
THE OSAGE ALLOTMENT ACT OF JUNE 28, 1906, HAD MADE THESE SURPLUS LANDS
EXPRESSLY TAXABLE AFTER THREE YEARS OR AT THE DEATH OF THE ALLOTTEE. 
THE ALLOTTEES IN THE MCCURDY CASE DIED WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD BUT
BEFORE DEEDS TO THEIR ALLOTTED LANDS HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND DELIVERED TO
THEM.  OKLAHOMA SOUGHT TO PLACE A TAX ON THE LANDS, THE TAXABLE DATE
BEING WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD AND BEFORE THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF THE DEEDS TO THE HEIRS OF THE ALLOTTEES.  THIS COURT HELD
THAT LEGAL TITLE TO THE LANDS IN ISSUE WAS STILL IN THE UNITED STATES
AS TRUSTEE ON THE TAXABLE DATE, TITLE NOT PASSING UNTIL THE EXECUTION
AND DELIVERY OF THE DEEDS.  IN RELIANCE ON THE RICKERT CASE, THE
CONCLUSION WAS REACHED THAT THE LANDS WERE NOT TAXABLE WHILE HELD IN
TRUST BY THE UNITED STATES.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. BOARD OF COMM'RS
OF FREMONT COUNTY, WYO., 145 F.2D 329; UNITED STATES V. THURSTON
COUNTY, 143 F. 287. 

SINCE THE PROPERTY HERE INVOLVED IS ALL HELD IN TRUST BY THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DECEDENT AND HIS HEIRS, IT IS THOUGHT TO
BE IMMUNE FROM ANY FORM OF STATE TAXATION UNDER THE DECISIONS IN THE
RICKERT AND MCCURDY CASES.  REFERENCE IS MADE TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
THE OKLAHOMA INHERITANCE AND TRANSFER TAX ACT WHICH INDICATE THAT THE
INHERITANCE TAX IN ISSUE MIGHT HAVE A VERY REAL AND DIRECT EFFECT UPON
THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HOLDS TITLE, AN EFFECT SIMILAR
TO THAT WHICH WAS EMPHASIZED IN THE RICKERT CASE.  THE ACT APPLIES, OF
COURSE, TO THE TRANSFER OF ESTATES HELD IN TRUST.  SEC. 989.  SPECIFIC
PROVISION IS THEN MADE IN SEC. 989I THAT "TAXES LEVIED UNDER THIS ACT
SHALL BE AND REMAIN A LIEN UPON ALL THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED UNTIL
PAID."  PROVISION IS ALSO MADE FOR THE SALE OF ESTATE PROPERTY IF
NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE TAX.  SECS. 989I AND 989L.  IT IS THEREFORE
POSSIBLE THAT IF THE TAX WERE UNPAID OKLAHOMA MIGHT TRY TO PLACE A LIEN
UPON THE PROPERTY WHICH IS BEING TRANSFERRED, PROPERTY AS TO WHICH THE
UNITED STATES HOLDS LEGAL TITLE.  COMPLICATIONS MIGHT ARISE AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF SUCH A LIEN.  AND THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE BURDENED TO
THE EXTENT OF OPPOSING THE IMPOSITION OF THE LIEN OR SEEING THAT THE
TAX WAS PAID SO AS TO AVOID THE LIEN. 

MOREOVER, INSOFAR AS THE INHERITANCE TAX IS PAID OUT OF THE SURPLUS
AND TRUST FUNDS HELD BY THE UNITED STATES, THERE IS A DEPLETION OF THE
CORPUS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HOLDS LEGAL TITLE.  SUCH DEPLETION
MAKES THAT MUCH SMALLER THE ESTATE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS SEEN FIT TO
HOLD IN TRUST FOR THE DECEDENT'S HEIRS.  IF THE ESTATE IS TO BE TAPPED
REPEATEDLY BY OKLAHOMA UNTIL 1984 BY THE DEATHS OF THE VARIOUS HEIRS,
THE RESULT MAY BE A SUBSTANTIAL DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT THEN AVAILABLE
FOR DISTRIBUTION. 

BUT OUR DECISION IN OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S.
598, HAS FORECLOSED AN APPLICATION OF THE RICKERT AND MCCURDY CASES TO
THE ESTATE AND INHERITANCE TAX SITUATION.  AMONG THE PROPERTIES
INVOLVED IN THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION CASE WERE RESTRICTED CASH AND
SECURITIES, WHICH COULD NOT BE FREELY ALIENATED OR USED BY THE INDIANS
WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  WE HELD THAT
THE RESTRICTION, WITHOUT MORE, WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A
CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF ESTATE TAX IMMUNITY FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CASH
AND SECURITIES.  MOREOVER, EXPRESS REPUDIATION WAS MADE OF THE CONCEPT
THAT THESE RESTRICTED PROPERTIES WERE FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES AND
THEREFORE CONSTITUTIONALLY EXEMPT FROM ESTATE TAX CONSEQUENCES.  SEE
ALSO HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376.  THE VERY
FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THE RICKERT CASE RESTED WAS THUS HELD TO BE
INAPPLICABLE. 

WE FAIL TO SEE ANY SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES
BETWEEN RESTRICTED PROPERTY AND TRUST PROPERTY.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS
OVER BOTH TYPES OF PROPERTY IS THE SAME.  BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V.
SEBER, 318 U.S. 705, 717; UNITED STATES V. RAMSEY, 271 U.S. 467, 471. 
BOTH DEVICES HAVE THE COMMON PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
FOUND BY CONGRESS TO BE UNABLE YET TO ASSUME A FULLY INDEPENDENT STATUS
RELATIVE TO PROPERTY.  THE EFFECT WHICH AN ESTATE OR INHERITANCE TAX
MAY HAVE IS THE SAME IN BOTH INSTANCES; LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON BOTH
RESTRICTED AND TRUST PROPERTIES AND LEAD TO COMPLICATIONS; AND BOTH
TYPES OF PROPERTY MAY OF NECESSITY BE DEPLETED TO ASSURE PAYMENT OF THE
TAX.  THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES HOLDS LEGAL TITLE AS TO TRUST
PROPERTY BUT NOT AS TO RESTRICTED PROPERTY AFFORDS NO DISTINGUISHING
CHARACTERISTIC FROM THE STANDPOINT OF AN ESTATE TAX.  IN ADDITION,
CONGRESS HAS GIVEN NO INDICATION WHATEVER THAT TRUST PROPERTIES IN
GENERAL ARE TO BE GIVEN ANY GREATER TAX EXEMPTION THAN RESTRICTED
PROPERTIES.  HENCE THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION CASE MUST CONTROL OUR
DISPOSITION OF THIS PROCEEDING. 

IMPLICIT IN THIS COURT'S REFUSAL TO APPLY THE RICKERT DOCTRINE TO AN
ESTATE OR INHERITANCE TAX SITUATION IS A RECOGNITION THAT SUCH A TAX
RESTS UPON A BASIS DIFFERENT FROM THAT UNDERLYING A PROPERTY TAX.  AN
INHERITANCE OR ESTATE TAX IS NOT LEVIED ON THE PROPERTY OF WHICH AN
ESTATE IS COMPOSED.  RATHER IT IS IMPOSED UPON THE SHIFTING OF ECONOMIC
BENEFITS AND THE PRIVILEGE OF TRANSMITTING OR RECEIVING SUCH BENEFITS. 
UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 307 U.S. 57, 60; WHITNEY V. TAX
COMMISSION, 309 U.S. 530, 538.  IN THIS CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DECEDENT
HAD A VESTED INTEREST IN HIS OSAGE HEADRIGHT; AND HE HAD THE RIGHT TO
RECEIVE THE ANNUAL INCOME FROM THE TRUST PROPERTIES AND TO RECEIVE ALL
THE PROPERTIES AT THE END OF THE TRUST PERIOD.  AT HIS DEATH, THESE
INTERESTS AND RIGHTS PASSED TO HIS HEIR.  IT IS THE TRANSFER OF THESE
INCIDENTS, RATHER THAN THE TRUST PROPERTIES THEMSELVES, THAT IS THE
SUBJECT OF THE INHERITANCE TAX IN QUESTION.  IN THIS SETTING,
REFINEMENTS OF TITLE ARE IMMATERIAL.  WHETHER LEGAL TITLE TO THE
PROPERTIES IS IN THE UNITED STATES OR IN THE DECEDENT AND HIS HEIR IS
OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE TAXABILITY OF THE TRANSFER. 

THE RESULT OF PERMITTING THE IMPOSITION OF THE INHERITANCE TAX ON THE
TRANSFER OF TRUST PROPERTIES MAY BE, AS WE HAVE NOTED, TO DEPLETE THE
TRUST CORPUS AND TO CREATE LIEN DIFFICULTIES.  BUT THOSE ARE NORMAL AND
INTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE INHERITANCE TAX.  AND UNTIL CONGRESS HAS
IN SOME AFFIRMATIVE WAY INDICATED THAT THESE BURDENS REQUIRE THAT THE
TRANSFER BE IMMUNE FROM THE INHERITANCE TAX LIABILITY, THE OKLAHOMA TAX
COMMISSION CASE PERMITS THAT LIABILITY TO BE IMPOSED.  BUT THAT CASE
ALSO MAKES CLEAR THAT SHOULD ANY OF THE PROPERTIES TRANSFERRED BE
EXEMPTED BY CONGRESS FROM DIRECT TAXATION THEY CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN
THE ESTATE FOR INHERITANCE TAX PURPOSES.  NO SUCH PROPERTIES ARE HERE
INVOLVED, HOWEVER. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER POINTS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BUT DEEM
THEM TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE DECEDENT WAS ALSO SURVIVED BY A WIDOW.  BUT SHE WAS
PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM INHERITING ANY PART OF THE ESTATE UNLESS SHE WAS
OF INDIAN BLOOD, A MATTER WHICH WAS IN DISPUTE.  A SETTLEMENT WAS
REACHED WHEREBY THE WIDOW RECEIVED A CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM THE ESTATE,
APPARENTLY IN RETURN FOR GIVING UP HER CLAIM AS AN HEIR. 

FN2  AN OSAGE HEADRIGHT HAS BEEN DEFINED BY ONE COURT AS "THE
INTEREST THAT A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE HAS IN THE OSAGE TRIBAL TRUST
ESTATE, AND THE TRUST CONSISTS OF THE OIL, GAS, AND MINERAL RIGHTS, AND
THE FUNDS WHICH WERE PLACED TO THE CREDIT OF THE OSAGE TRIBE, ALL FULLY
SET OUT IN THE ABOVE ACT (ACT OF JUNE 28, 1906, 34 STAT. 539)."  IN RE
DENISON, 38 F.2D 662, 664.  ANOTHER COURT HAS MADE THIS DEFINITION:
"THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE TRUST FUNDS AND THE MINERAL INTERESTS AT THE
END OF THE TRUST PERIOD, AND DURING THAT PERIOD TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE BONUSES AND ROYALTIES ARISING FROM THE MINERAL
ESTATES AND THE INTEREST ON THE TRUST FUNDS, IS AN OSAGE HEADRIGHT." 
GLOBE INDEMNITY CO. V. BRUCE, 81 F.2D 143, 148-149.  HEADRIGHTS ARE NOT
TRANSFERABLE AND DO NOT PASS TO A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY.  TAYLOR V.
TAYRIEN, 51 F.2D 884; TAYLOR V. JONES, 51 F.2D 892. 

FN3  THE TRUST UNDER WHICH THESE FUNDS WERE TO BE HELD WAS
ESTABLISHED IN 1865 BY TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE GREAT
AND LITTLE OSAGE INDIANS, 14 STAT. 687.  BY THE TERMS OF THIS TREATY,
THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF OSAGE LANDS IN KANSAS WERE TO BE PLACED IN
THE UNITED STATES TREASURY TO THE CREDIT OF THE TRIBE.  PROVISIONS FOR
CARRYING OUT THE TERMS OF THIS TREATY WERE MADE BY CONGRESS IN 1880, 21
STAT. 291. 

FN4  BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1921, 41 STAT. 1249, CONGRESS PROVIDED
THAT SO LONG AS THE INCOME SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT THE ADULT OSAGE INDIAN
WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY SHOULD BE PAID $1,000 QUARTERLY. 
SEE ALSO ACT OF FEB. 27, 1925, 43 STAT. 1008.  IN THE ACT OF JUNE 24,
1938, 52 STAT. 1034, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE RESTRICTED OSAGE
HAD SURPLUS FUNDS IN EXCESS OF $10,000 HE WAS TO BE PAID $1,000
QUARTERLY, BUT IF HE HAD SURPLUS FUNDS OF LESS THAN $10,000 HE WAS TO
RECEIVE QUARTERLY ONLY HIS CURRENT INCOME, NOT TO EXCEED $1,000
QUARTERLY. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
DISSENT. 
..END :


















GRYGER V. BURKE, 334 U.S. 728 


NO. 541.  ARGUED APRIL 29-27, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  -
AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER WAS CHARGED AND CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OF BEING A FOURTH OFFENDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  IN THE
PROCEEDING ON THE FOURTH-OFFENDER CHARGE, THE ONLY QUESTION OF FACT
BEFORE THE COURT WAS WHETHER HE WAS THE SAME PERSON WHO WAS CONVICTED
IN FOUR PREVIOUS CASES, AND THIS HE ADMITTED AND DOES NOT NOW DENY. 
HELD: 

1.  IT IS FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS TO SAY WHETHER THE SENTENCING
JUDGE MADE AN ERROR IN CONSTRUING THE PENNSYLVANIA HABITUAL CRIMINAL
ACT AS MAKING A LIFE SENTENCE MANDATORY AND NOT DISCRETIONARY; AND AN
ERROR BY A STATE COURT IN CONSTRUING STATE LAW IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 731. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE
STATE'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER ON HIS PLEA TO THE
FOURTH-OFFENDER CHARGE WAS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  BUTE V.
ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 640.  P. 731. 

3.  THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE CONVICTIONS THAT ENTERED INTO THE
CALCULATIONS BY WHICH PETITIONER BECAME A FOURTH OFFENDER OCCURRED
BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA HABITUAL CRIMINAL ACT WAS PASSED DOES NOT MAKE
THE ACT INVALIDLY RETROACTIVE OR SUBJECT THE PETITIONER TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.  P. 732. 

GRYGER V. BURKE, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI, 332 U.S. 854, TO REVIEW DENIAL OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 
AFFIRMED, P. 732. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOLDS THE PETITIONER PRISONER UNDER
A LIFE SENTENCE AS AN HABITUAL CRIMINAL.  HIS CLAIM HERE, PROTESTING
DENIAL BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT OF HIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, IS THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES PENNSYLVANIA TO
RELEASE HIM ON DUE PROCESS OF LAW GROUNDS BECAUSE (1) HE WAS SENTENCED
AS A FOURTH OFFENDER WITHOUT COUNSEL OR OFFER OF COUNSEL; (2) ONE OF
THE CONVICTIONS ON WHICH THE SENTENCE IS BASED OCCURRED BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HABITUAL CRIMINAL ACT  FN1  AND THE
STATUTE IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RETROACTIVE AND EX POST FACTO;
AND (3) SENTENCING UNDER THIS ACT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECTS HIM TO
DOUBLE JEOPARDY. 

AT THE OUTSET, WE FACE THE SUGGESTION THAT THE CASE CANNOT PROPERLY BE
DECIDED ON THE MERITS BY THIS COURT BECAUSE, AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW,
THE ATTACK ON THE LIFE SENTENCE MAY BE PREMATURE SINCE PETITIONER WOULD
BE VALIDLY RESTRAINED ON PRIOR SENTENCES NOT EXPIRING UNTIL AT LEAST
FEBRUARY 1949, EVEN IF THE LIFE SENTENCE WERE TO BE INVALIDATED.  SOME
MEMBERS OF THE COURT PREFER TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND. 
HOWEVER, SINCE THE STATE LAW QUESTION IS NOT FREE FROM DIFFICULTY, THE
ISSUE WAS NOT FULLY LITIGATED IN THIS COURT, AND SINCE, ON THE MERITS,
FN2  THE SAME CONCLUSION IS REACHED, WE DISPOSE OF THE CASE IN THAT
MANNER. 

BEGINNING IN 1927, AT THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN, THIS PETITIONER HAS BEEN
ARRESTED EIGHT TIMES FOR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE, FOLLOWED IN EACH INSTANCE
BY PLEA OF GUILTY OR BY CONVICTION.  RESPONDENT STATES, AND PETITIONER
DOES NOT DENY, THAT OF THE LAST 20 YEARS OF HIS LIFE, OVER 13 YEARS
HAVE BEEN SPENT IN JAIL.  A SCHEDULE OF HIS PLEAS OR CONVICTIONS AND
PERTINENT DATA IS APPENDED, POST, P. 732, THOSE IN ITALICS BEING THE
FOUR ON THE BASIS OF WHICH AN INFORMATION WAS FILED CHARGING HIM TO BE
A FOURTH OFFENDER.  BROUGHT INTO COURT ON THAT LIMITED CHARGE, HE
ACKNOWLEDGED HIS IDENTITY AS THE CONVICT IN EACH OF THE PREVIOUS CASES
AND HE WAS GIVEN A LIFE SENTENCE PURSUANT TO THE ACT.  HE WAS WITHOUT
COUNSEL AND IT IS SAID THAT HE WAS NEITHER ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO
OBTAIN COUNSEL NOR WAS COUNSEL OFFERED TO HIM.  FN3 

IT RATHER OVERSTRAINS OUR CREDULITY TO BELIEVE THAT ONE WHO HAD BEEN
A DEFENDANT EIGHT TIMES AND FOR WHOM COUNSEL HAD TWICE WAGED DEFENSES,
ALBEIT UNSUCCESSFUL ONES, DID NOT KNOW OF HIS RIGHT TO ENGAGE COUNSEL. 
NO REQUEST TO DO SO APPEARS.  THE ONLY QUESTION OF FACT BEFORE THE
COURT ON THE FOURTH OFFENDER CHARGE WAS WHETHER HE WAS THE SAME PERSON
WHO WAS CONVICTED IN THE FOUR CASES.  THIS HE THEN ADMITTED AND DOES
NOT NOW DENY.  THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION WAS SENTENCE, AND IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT ANY INFORMATION HELPFUL TO PETITIONER WAS UNKNOWN TO THE
COURT. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE SENTENCING JUDGE PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT BY A
MISTAKE IN CONSTRUING THE PENNSYLVANIA HABITUAL CRIMINAL ACT IN THAT HE
REGARDED AS MANDATORY A SENTENCE WHICH IS DISCRETIONARY.  IT IS NEITHER
CLEAR THAT THE SENTENCING COURT SO CONSTRUED THE STATUTE, NOR IF HE DID
THAT WE ARE EMPOWERED TO PRONOUNCE IT AN ERROR OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW.  IT
IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIAL COURT, IN VIEW OF DEFENDANT'S LONG CRIMINAL
RECORD, CONSIDERED HE HAD A DUTY TO IMPOSE THE LIFE SENTENCE AND
REFERRED TO IT AS ONE "REQUIRED BY THE ACT."  BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO
INDICATE THAT HE FELT CONSTRAINED TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY EXCEPT AS THE
FACTS BEFORE HIM WARRANTED IT.  AND IT IN ANY EVENT IS FOR THE
PENNSYLVANIA COURTS TO SAY UNDER ITS LAW WHAT DUTY OR DISCRETION THE
COURT MAY HAVE HAD.  NOTHING IN THE RECORD IMPEACHES THE FAIRNESS AND
TEMPERATENESS WITH WHICH THE TRIAL JUDGE APPROACHED HIS TASK.  HIS
ACTION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH.  WE
ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO CONJECTURE THAT THE TRIAL COURT ACTED UNDER AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH WE MIGHT
ADOPT AND THEN SET UP OUR OWN INTERPRETATION AS A BASIS FOR DECLARING
THAT DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN DENIED.  WE CANNOT TREAT A MERE ERROR OF
STATE LAW, IF ONE OCCURRED, AS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS; OTHERWISE,
EVERY ERRONEOUS DECISION BY A STATE COURT ON STATE LAW WOULD COME HERE
AS A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 

WE HAVE JUST CONSIDERED AT LENGTH THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATES TO
PROVIDE COUNSEL TO DEFENDANTS WHO PLEAD GUILTY TO NON-CAPITAL
OFFENSES.  BUTE V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 640.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE
RESOURCEFUL ARGUMENT OF ASSIGNED COUNSEL IN THIS COURT, WE THINK THAT
PRECEDENT SETTLES THE ISSUE HERE, THAT NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE
PRESENT AND THAT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD
BEFORE US, THE STATE'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE COUNSEL FOR THIS PETITIONER
ON HIS PLEA TO THE FOURTH OFFENDER CHARGE DID NOT RENDER HIS CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE INVALID. 

NOR DO WE THINK THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE CONVICTIONS THAT ENTERED
INTO THE CALCULATIONS BY WHICH PETITIONER BECAME A FOURTH OFFENDER
OCCURRED BEFORE THE ACT WAS PASSED, MAKES THE ACT INVALIDLY RETROACTIVE
OR SUBJECTS THE PETITIONER TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  THE SENTENCE AS A
FOURTH OFFENDER OR HABITUAL CRIMINAL IS NOT TO BE VIEWED AS EITHER A
NEW JEOPARDY OR ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR THE EARLIER CRIMES.  IT IS A
STIFFENED PENALTY FOR THE LATEST CRIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN
AGGRAVATED OFFENSE BECAUSE A REPETITIVE ONE.  CF. MOORE V. MISSOURI,
159 U.S. 673; MCDONALD V. MASSACHUSETTS, 180 U.S. 311; GRAHAM V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 224 U.S. 616; CARLESI V. NEW YORK, 233 U.S. 51; PENNSYLVANIA
EX REL. SULLIVAN V. ASHE, 302 U.S. 51. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 1108 OF THE PENAL CODE OF 1939, 18 PA. STAT. ANN. SEC.
5108. 

FN2  RESPONDENT CONTESTED THE CASE BELOW AND IN THIS COURT ON THE
MERITS.  WE ASSUME THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA PASSED ON
PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS OF DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS AND THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE THEREFORE OPEN HERE.  HERNDON V.
LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 247. 

FN3  THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS FREQUENTLY HELD THAT THE
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ACCORDING DEFENDANTS THE RIGHT TO BE
HEARD BY COUNSEL DOES NOT REQUIRE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN NONCAPITAL
CASES.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, COMMONWEALTH EX REL. MCGLINN V. SMITH, 344
PA. 41, 24 A.2D 1; COMMONWEALTH EX REL. WITHERS V. ASHE, 350 PA. 493,
39 A.2D 610.  SEE ALSO BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 465.  THE
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES REQUIRE ONLY THAT DESTITUTE DEFENDANTS ACCUSED OF
MURDER SHALL BE ASSIGNED COUNSEL.  ACT OF MARCH 22, 1907, 19 PA. STAT.
ANN. SEC. 784. 

       TABLE OF PLEAS AND CONVICTIONS. 

DATE     CHARGE                       PLEA
SENTENCE 

1927---BURGLARY--------------------------GUILTY----------------1
YEAR. 

1928---ASSAULT AND BATTERY; CARRYING     GUILTY----------------1
YEAR. 

     CONCEALED DEADLY WEAPON. 

1929---BURGLARY; BREAKING AND ENTERING   NOT GUILTY-----------
COMMITTED TO REFORMATORY 

     WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY. 
INDEFINITELY. 

1930---ARMED ROBBERY, ARMED ASSAULT,     GUILTY----------------5 TO
10 YEARS. 

     ENTERING WITH INTENT TO ROB. 

1937---BURGLARY, CARRYING CONCEALED      GUILTY OF RECEIVING   1 1/2
TO 3 YEARS. 

     DEADLY WEAPON.                    STOLEN GOODS, AND

                                       CARRYING CONCEALED

                                       DEADLY WEAPON. 

1943---BURGLARY, RECEIVING STOLEN        GUILTY OF RECEIVING 5 TO 10
YEARS. 

     GOODS - 12 OFFENSES EACH.         STOLEN GOODS. 

1944---BURGLARY--------------------------NOT GUILTY------------5 TO
10 YEARS. 

1944---AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND BATTERY.   NOT GUILTY-----------
SUSPENDED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN, DISSENTING. 

EVEN UPON THE NARROW VIEW TO WHICH A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT ADHERE
CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL CASES, AS
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW, I CANNOT SQUARE THE DECISION IN THIS CASE WITH THAT MADE IN
TOWNSEND V. BURKE, POST, P. 736, DECIDED TODAY. 

THE OPINION IN THAT CASE DECLARES THAT "THE DISADVANTAGE FROM ABSENCE
OF COUNSEL, WHEN AGGRAVATED BY CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING THAT IT RESULTED
IN THE PRISONER ACTUALLY BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, OR PREJUDICED, DOES
MAKE OUT A CASE OF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS."  IN THIS VIEW THE COURT
FINDS THAT TOWNSEND WAS PREJUDICED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION IN
SENTENCING HIM ON THE BASIS EITHER OF MISINFORMATION SUBMITTED TO IT
CONCERNING HIS PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD OR BY ITS MISREADING OF THE RECORD
AND CARELESSNESS IN THAT RESPECT.  ON THE SAME BASIS GRYGER'S SENTENCE
WAS INVALID, ALTHOUGH THE COURT FINDS NO SUCH EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
HERE INDUCING PREJUDICE AS IT FINDS IN TOWNSEND'S CASE. 

THE RECORD, IN MY JUDGMENT, DOES REVEAL SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE, ONE
WORKING TO INDUCE PREJUDICE AT EXACTLY THE SAME POINT AS WITH TOWNSEND,
NAMELY, UPON THE CRITICAL QUESTION OF SENTENCE.  SO FAR AS THE RECORD
REVEALS, GRYGER WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT BY A COURT WORKING
UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION THAT A LIFE TERM WAS MANDATORY, NOT
DISCRETIONARY, UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA HABITUAL CRIMINAL ACT.  FN1 

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.  IN EXPLICIT TERMS THE STATUTE PUTS
IMPOSITION OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT UPON FOURTH OFFENDERS "IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE."  FN2  MOREOVER, APPEAL OF THE SENTENCE IS
AUTHORIZED "NOT ONLY AS TO ALLEGED LEGAL ERRORS BUT ALSO AS TO THE
JUSTICE THEREOF," WITH THE COSTS OF APPEAL AND REASONABLE COUNSEL FEE
TO BE PAID BY THE COMMONWEALTH.  FN3 

IN SPITE OF HIS DISCRETION AND DUTY TO EXERCISE IT, THE SENTENCING
JUDGE, REMARKING THAT THE ONLY QUESTION WAS WHETHER PETITIONER WAS THE
SAME PERSON WHO HAD SUFFERED THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS, REPEATEDLY SPOKE AS
IF THE LIFE SENTENCE WERE MANDATORY.  THE STATEMENTS QUOTED IN THE
MARGIN ARE TYPICAL.  FN4 

IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE SAME SENTENCE MIGHT OR PROBABLY WOULD HAVE
BEEN IMPOSED IN AN EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S DISCRETION.  PETITIONER WAS
ENTITLED TO HAVE SENTENCE PRONOUNCED IN THAT MANNER, NOT AS AN
AUTOMATIC MANDATE OF STATUTE.  THE DENIAL OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS, WHICH IS THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION WHERE DISCRETION
IS REQUIRED, IS IN ITSELF A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, NOT MERELY AN ERROR
OF STATE LAW OF NO CONCERN TO THIS COURT.  AND WE CANNOT SPECULATE
WHETHER THE SAME SENTENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRONOUNCED IF THE COURT'S
DISCRETION HAD BEEN EXERCISED. 

MOREOVER, THE COURT'S MISCONCEPTION, TOGETHER WITH THE ABSENCE OF
COUNSEL, DEPRIVED THE PETITIONER OF ANY CHANCE TO BE HEARD ON THE
CRUCIAL QUESTION OF SENTENCE, THE ONLY MATTER LEFT FOR HEARING AND THE
VITAL ONE AFTER HIS PLEA OF GUILTY WAS RECEIVED.  EVEN IF IT COULD BE
ASSUMED, AS THE COURT SAYS, THAT HE KNEW OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FROM
HIS FREQUENT PRIOR APPEARANCES IN COURT, FN5  STILL IT CANNOT BE
ASSUMED, INDEED THE RECORD SUBSTANTIALLY DISPROVES, THAT HE KNEW THE
EXACT TERMS OF THE HABITUAL CRIMINAL ACT.  FN6  HE THEREFORE, MISLED IT
WOULD SEEM BY THE COURT'S LANGUAGE GIVING NO HINT OF ITS DISCRETIONARY
POWER, MADE NO PLEA IN MITIGATION AND HAD NO REPRESENTATIVE TO CORRECT
THE COURT'S MISCONCEPTION OR TO PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MIGHT HAVE
INDUCED A SENTENCE LESS SEVERE THAN THE ONE PRONOUNCED.  TO PARAPHRASE
THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE OF THE OPINION IN THE TOWNSEND CASE, "COUNSEL
MIGHT NOT HAVE CHANGED THE SENTENCE, BUT HE COULD HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO
SEE THAT THE SENTENCE WAS NOT PREDICATED ON MISCONCEPTION OR MISREADING
OF THE CONTROLLING STATUTE, A REQUIREMENT OF FAIR PLAY WHICH ABSENCE OF
COUNSEL WITHHELD FROM THIS PRISONER." 

I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THAT THE COURT'S MISREADING OR
MISINFORMATION CONCERNING THE FACTS OF RECORD VITAL TO THE PROPER
EXERCISE OF THE SENTENCING FUNCTION IS PREJUDICIAL AND DEPRIVES THE
DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, BUT ITS MISREADING OR MISCONCEPTION OF
THE CONTROLLING STATUTE, IN A MATTER SO VITAL AS IMPOSING MANDATORY
SENTENCE OR EXERCISING DISCRETION CONCERNING IT, HAS NO SUCH EFFECT. 
PERHAPS THE DIFFERENCE SERVES ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE HOW CAPRICIOUS ARE THE
RESULTS WHEN THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS MADE TO DEPEND NOT UPON THE
MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION, BUT UPON THE VAGARIES OF WHETHER JUDGES,
THE SAME OR DIFFERENT, WILL REGARD THIS INCIDENT OR THAT IN THE COURSE
OF PARTICULAR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS PREJUDICIAL. 

FN1  PA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 18, SEC. 5108. 

FN2  SECTION 5108(B) PROVIDES THAT WHEN THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS ARE
SHOWN AT THE TRIAL FOR THE FOURTH OFFENSE, THE DEFENDANT "SHALL, UPON
CONVICTION  ...  BE SENTENCED, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE TRYING
THE CASE, TO IMPRISONMENT IN A STATE PENITENTIARY FOR THE TERM OF HIS
NATURAL LIFE." 

INSTANT CASE, VIZ, A SEPARATE PROCEEDING ON AN INFORMATION WITHIN TWO
YEARS OF THE FOURTH CONVICTION, PROVIDES THAT "THE COURT MAY SENTENCE
HIM TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AS PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (B) OF THIS
JUDGE HAS BEEN CLEARLY RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMONWEALTH'S HIGHEST COURT. 
COMMONWEALTH EX REL. FOSTER V. ASHE, 336 PA. 238, 240. 

FN3  SEC. 5108(D). 

FN4  "  ...  IT BECOMES MY DUTY, UNDER THE ACT OF ASSEMBLY, TO TREAT
SUCH A CASE, THAT IS TO SAY, WHERE A PERSON HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY THE
FOURTH TIME OF A FELONY WITHIN A PRESCRIBED PERIOD, TO IMPOSE THE
SENTENCE REQUIRED BY THE ACT." 

"IN OTHER WORDS, THE LAW HAS COME TO THIS VIEWPOINT:  ...  (A FOURTH
OFFENDER) MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF EVER COMMITTING THE
OFFENSE AGAIN."    FN5  A DUBIOUS ASSUMPTION, IT WOULD SEEM, IN VIEW OF
THE FACT THAT PENNSYLVANIA GENERALLY CONFINES THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL
IN CRIMINAL TRIALS TO CAPITAL CASES.  SEE, E.G., COMMONWEALTH EX REL.
MCGLINN V. SMITH, 344 PA. 41; COMMONWEALTH EX REL. WITHERS V. ASHE, 350
PA. 493.  PA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 19, SEC. 784.  BUT CF. NOTE 3 AND TEXT. 

FN6  PETITIONER, WHEN SERVED WITH THE INFORMATION CHARGING HIM AS A
FOURTH OFFENDER, WAS CONFINED IN THE PENITENTIARY WITHOUT FINANCIAL
MEANS OF PREPARING A DEFENSE.  HE ALLEGED, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT
THE PRISON AUTHORITIES REFUSED HIS REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE HABITUAL
CRIMINAL ACT.  IT IS NO ANSWER, OF COURSE, TO SAY THAT PETITIONER HAD
NO NEED OF THE STATUTE OR OTHER ASSISTANCE BECAUSE OF HIS PREVIOUS
TRIPS THROUGH THE COURTS.  WHATEVER KNOWLEDGE OF COURT PROCEDURES HE
MAY HAVE ACQUIRED, HE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE FOURTH OFFENDER ACT. 

EVEN IF PETITIONER HAD SECURED ACCESS PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO
MATERIALS NEEDED TO PREPARE A DEFENSE, OR HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY INFORMED
BY THE COURT AS TO THE STATUTE'S TERMS AND HIS RIGHTS THEREUNDER, IT IS
HIGHLY UNREALISTIC TO ASSUME THAT PETITIONER WAS CAPABLE OF ADEQUATELY
PRESENTING HIS OWN CASE AT THE HEARING.  THE PLEADINGS WHICH HE FILED
ARE TELLING WITNESS OF HIS LIMITED INTELLIGENCE AND EDUCATION.  AND AT
THE HEARING IT WAS SO OBVIOUS THAT PETITIONER WAS UNABLE TO COMPREHEND
THE ISSUES INVOLVED THAT THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY REPRESENTING
THE COMMONWEALTH REMARKED, "HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND." 
..END :















TOWNSEND V. BURKE, 334 U.S. 736 


NO. 542.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  - REVERSED. 


1.  THAT A DEFENDANT CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT OF A NON-CAPITAL
OFFENSE ON A PLEA OF GUILTY HAD BEEN HELD INCOMMUNICADO FOR A PERIOD OF
40 HOURS BETWEEN HIS ARREST AND HIS PLEA OF GUILTY, HAS NO BEARING ON
THE VALIDITY OF HIS CONVICTION - PARTICULARLY WHEN HE MAKES NO
ALLEGATION THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS DETENTION INDUCED HIS PLEA OF
GUILTY.  PP. 737-738. 

2.  WHERE A DEFENDANT SO CONVICTED WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND
IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT, WHILE THE COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE
SENTENCE TO BE IMPOSED, THE DEFENDANT ACTUALLY WAS PREJUDICED EITHER BY
THE PROSECUTION'S SUBMISSION OF MISINFORMATION REGARDING HIS PRIOR
CRIMINAL RECORD OR BY THE COURT'S CARELESS MISREADING OF THAT RECORD,
HE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE CONVICTION CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED.  PP. 738-741. 

TOWNSEND V. BURKE, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI, 332 U.S. 854, TO REVIEW DENIAL OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  REVERSED, P. 741. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOLDS PETITIONER PRISONER UNDER TWO
INDETERMINATE SENTENCES, NOT EXCEEDING 10 TO 20 YEARS, UPON A PLEA OF
GUILTY TO BURGLARY AND ROBBERY.  ON REVIEW HERE OF THE STATE SUPREME
COURT'S DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS,  FN1  THE PRISONER DEMANDS A DISCHARGE
BY THIS COURT ON FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. 

PETITIONER, WHILE A FUGITIVE, WAS INDICTED ON JUNE 1, 1945, FOR
BURGLARY AND ARMED ROBBERY.  FOUR OF HIS ALLEGED ACCOMPLICES HAD BEEN
ARRESTED ON MAY 18, 1945, AND SIGNED A JOINT CONFESSION, WHILE A FIFTH
HAD BEEN ARRESTED ON MAY 21, 1945, AND HAD ALSO CONFESSED.  PETITIONER
WAS ARRESTED ON JUNE 3, 1945, AND CONFESSED ON JUNE 4.  ON JUNE 5,
AFTER PLEADING GUILTY TO TWO CHARGES OF ROBBERY AND TWO CHARGES OF
BURGLARY AND NOT GUILTY TO OTHER CHARGES, HE WAS SENTENCED. 

PETITIONER NOW ALLEGES VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN
THAT, EXCEPT FOR A TEN-MINUTE CONVERSATION WITH HIS WIFE, HE WAS HELD
INCOMMUNICADO FOR A PERIOD OF 40 HOURS BETWEEN HIS ARREST AND HIS PLEA
OF GUILTY.  HE DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT HE WAS BEATEN, MISUSED, THREATENED
OR INTIMIDATED, BUT ONLY THAT HE WAS HELD FOR THAT PERIOD AND WAS
SEVERAL TIMES INTERROGATED.  HE DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT THE QUESTIONING
WAS CONTINUOUS OR THAT IT HAD ANY COERCIVE EFFECT. 

THE PLEA FOR RELIEF BECAUSE HE WAS DETAINED, AS HE CLAIMS, UNLAWFULLY
IS BASED ON MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332.  BUT THE RULE THERE
APPLIED WAS ONE AGAINST USE OF CONFESSIONS OBTAINED DURING ILLEGAL
DETENTION AND IT WAS LIMITED TO FEDERAL COURTS, TO WHICH IT WAS APPLIED
BY VIRTUE OF OUR SUPERVISORY POWER.  IN THIS PRESENT CASE NO CONFESSION
WAS USED BECAUSE THE PLEA OF GUILTY IN OPEN COURT DISPENSED WITH PROOF
OF THE CRIME.  HENCE, LAWFULNESS OF THE DETENTION IS NOT A FACTOR IN
DETERMINING ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY CONFESSION AND IF HE WERE TEMPORARILY
DETAINED ILLEGALLY, IT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF HIS
PRESENT CONFINEMENT BASED ON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY, PARTICULARLY SINCE HE
MAKES NO ALLEGATION THAT IT INDUCED THE PLEA. 

PETITIONER ALSO RELIES ON HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596, IN WHICH THIS
COURT REVERSED A STATE COURT MURDER CONVICTION BECAUSE IT WAS BELIEVED
TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON A CONFESSION WRUNG FROM AN UNCOUNSELED 15-YEAR
OLD BOY HELD INCOMMUNICADO DURING QUESTIONING BY RELAYS OF POLICE FOR
SEVERAL HOURS LATE AT NIGHT.  EVEN ASIDE FROM THE DIFFERING FACTS, THAT
CASE PROVIDES NO PRECEDENT FOR RELIEF TO THIS PRISONER SINCE, AS HAS
BEEN SAID, NO CONFESSION WAS USED AGAINST HIM, AND HE DOES NOT ALLEGE
THAT HIS PLEAS OF GUILTY RESULTED FROM HIS ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL
DETENTION. 

PETITIONER ALSO SAYS THAT WHEN HE WAS BROUGHT INTO COURT TO PLEAD, HE
WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OFFERED ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL, ADVISED
OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL OR INSTRUCTED WITH PARTICULARITY AS TO THE
NATURE OF THE CRIMES WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED.  THIS, HE SAYS, UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEPRIVED HIS CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY BY REASON OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN2 

ONLY RECENTLY A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT REAFFIRMED THAT THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATE
FROM ACCEPTING A PLEA OF GUILTY IN A NON-CAPITAL CASE FROM AN
UNCOUNSELED DEFENDANT.  BUTE V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 640.  IN THAT, AND
IN EARLIER CASES, WE HAVE INDICATED, HOWEVER, THAT THE DISADVANTAGE
FROM ABSENCE OF COUNSEL, WHEN AGGRAVATED BY CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING THAT
IT RESULTED IN THE PRISONER ACTUALLY BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, OR
PREJUDICED, DOES MAKE OUT A CASE OF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. 

THE PROCEEDINGS AS TO THIS PETITIONER, FOLLOWING HIS PLEA OF GUILTY,
CONSISTED OF A RECITAL BY AN OFFICER OF DETAILS OF THE CRIMES TO WHICH
PETITIONER AND OTHERS HAD PLEADED GUILTY AND OF THE FOLLOWING ACTION BY
THE COURT: 

"BY THE COURT (ADDRESSING TOWNSEND): 

"Q.  TOWNSEND, HOW OLD ARE YOU? 

"A.  29. 

"Q. YOU HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE, HAVEN'T YOU? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  1933, LARCENY OF AUTOMOBILE.  1934, LARCENY OF PRODUCE.  1930,
LARCENY OF BICYCLE.  1931, ENTERING TO STEAL AND LARCENY.  1938,
ENTERING TO STEAL AND LARCENY IN DOYLESTOWN.  WERE YOU TRIED UP THERE? 
NO, NO. ARRESTED IN DOYLESTOWN.  THAT WAS UP ON GERMANTOWN AVENUE,
WASN'T IT?  YOU ROBBED A PAINT STORE. 

"A.  NO. THAT WAS MY BROTHER. 

"Q.  YOU WERE TRIED FOR IT, WEREN'T YOU? 

"A.  YES, BUT I WAS NOT GUILTY. 

"Q.  AND 1945, THIS.  1936, ENTERING TO STEAL AND LARCENY, 1350 RIDGE
AVENUE.  IS THAT YOUR BROTHER TOO? 

"A.  NO. 

"Q.  1937, RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, A SAXOPHONE.  WHAT DID YOU WANT
WITH A SAXOPHONE?  DIDN'T HOPE TO PLAY IN THE PRISON BAND THEN, DID
YOU? 

"THE COURT:  TEN TO TWENTY IN THE PENITENTIARY." 

THE TRIAL COURT'S FACETIOUSNESS CASTS A SOMEWHAT SOMBER REFLECTION ON
THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDING WHEN WE LEARN FROM THE RECORD THAT
ACTUALLY THE CHARGE OF RECEIVING THE STOLEN SAXOPHONE HAD BEEN
DISMISSED AND THE PRISONER DISCHARGED BY THE MAGISTRATE.  BUT IT SAVORS
OF FOUL PLAY OR OF CARELESSNESS WHEN WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT, ON
TWO OTHERS OF THE CHARGES WHICH THE COURT RECITED AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT, HE HAD ALSO BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY.  BOTH THE 1933 CHARGE OF
LARCENY OF AN AUTOMOBILE, AND THE 1938 CHARGE OF ENTRY TO STEAL AND
LARCENY, RESULTED IN HIS DISCHARGE AFTER HE WAS ADJUDGED NOT GUILTY. 
WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO ASSUME THAT ITEMS GIVEN SUCH EMPHASIS BY THE
SENTENCING COURT DID NOT INFLUENCE THE SENTENCE WHICH THE PRISONER IS
NOW SERVING. 

WE BELIEVE THAT ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS
UNCOUNSELED DEFENDANT WAS EITHER OVERREACHED BY THE PROSECUTION'S
SUBMISSION OF MISINFORMATION TO THE COURT OR WAS PREJUDICED BY THE
COURT'S OWN MISREADING OF THE RECORD.  COUNSEL, HAD ANY BEEN PRESENT,
WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER A DUTY TO PREVENT THE COURT FROM PROCEEDING ON
SUCH FALSE ASSUMPTIONS AND PERHAPS UNDER A DUTY TO SEEK REMEDY
ELSEWHERE IF THEY PERSISTED.  CONSEQUENTLY, ON THIS RECORD WE CONCLUDE
THAT, WHILE DISADVANTAGED BY LACK OF COUNSEL, THIS PRISONER WAS
SENTENCED ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS CONCERNING HIS CRIMINAL RECORD
WHICH WERE MATERIALLY UNTRUE.  SUCH A RESULT, WHETHER CAUSED BY
CARELESSNESS OR DESIGN, IS INCONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND
SUCH A CONVICTION CANNOT STAND. 

WE WOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT REACHING THIS RESULT BECAUSE OF
PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION THAT HIS SENTENCE WAS UNDULY SEVERE.  THE
SENTENCE BEING WITHIN THE LIMITS SET BY THE STATUTE, ITS SEVERITY WOULD
NOT BE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF HERE EVEN ON DIRECT REVIEW OF THE CONVICTION,
MUCH LESS ON REVIEW OF THE STATE COURT'S DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS.  IT
IS NOT THE DURATION OR SEVERITY OF THIS SENTENCE THAT RENDERS IT
CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID; IT IS THE CARELESS OR DESIGNED PRONOUNCEMENT
OF SENTENCE ON A FOUNDATION SO EXTENSIVELY AND MATERIALLY FALSE, WHICH
THE PRISONER HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT BY THE SERVICES WHICH
COUNSEL WOULD PROVIDE, THAT RENDERS THE PROCEEDINGS LACKING IN DUE
PROCESS. 

NOR DO WE MEAN THAT MERE ERROR IN RESOLVING A QUESTION OF FACT ON A
PLEA OF GUILTY BY AN UNCOUNSELED DEFENDANT IN A NON-CAPITAL CASE WOULD
NECESSARILY INDICATE A WANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  FAIR PROSECUTORS
AND CONSCIENTIOUS JUDGES SOMETIMES ARE MISINFORMED OR DRAW INFERENCES
FROM CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WITH WHICH WE WOULD NOT AGREE.  BUT EVEN AN
ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT, BASED ON A SCRUPULOUS AND DILIGENT SEARCH FOR
TRUTH, MAY BE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

IN THIS CASE, COUNSEL MIGHT NOT HAVE CHANGED THE SENTENCE, BUT HE
COULD HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO SEE THAT THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WERE NOT
PREDICATED ON MISINFORMATION OR MISREADING OF COURT RECORDS, A
REQUIREMENT OF FAIR PLAY WHICH ABSENCE OF COUNSEL WITHHELD FROM THIS
PRISONER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  RESPONDENT RAISED NO PROCEDURAL OR JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES IN THIS
COURT OR IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  SINCE PETITIONER HAS THROUGHOUT
BASED HIS CLAIM FOR RELIEF SOLELY ON ALLEGED DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WE ASSUME THAT THOSE QUESTIONS WERE CONSIDERED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AND ARE THEREFORE OPEN HERE. 
HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 247. 

FN2  THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS FREQUENTLY HELD THAT THE
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ACCORDING DEFENDANTS THE RIGHT TO BE
HEARD BY COUNSEL DOES NOT REQUIRE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN NON-CAPITAL
CASES.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, COMMONWEALTH EX REL. MCGLINN V. SMITH, 344
PA. 41, 24 A.2D 1; COMMONWEALTH EX REL. WITHERS V. ASHE, 350 PA. 493,
39 A.2D 610.  SEE ALSO BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 465.  THE
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES REQUIRE ONLY THAT DESTITUTE DEFENDANTS ACCUSED OF
MURDER SHALL BE ASSIGNED COUNSEL.  ACT OF MARCH 22, 1907, 19 PA. STAT.
ANN. SEC. 784. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED, AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT. 

..END :







LICHTER V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 742 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 20-21, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  - 160 F.2D 329
159 F.2D 73-160 F.2D 103, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE RENEGOTIATION ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE AS AUTHORITY
FOR THE RECOVERY BY THE UNITED STATES OF "EXCESSIVE PROFITS" (LESS TAX
CREDITS) REALIZED BY PRIVATE PARTIES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE
CASES ON SUBCONTRACTS FOR WAR GOODS IN TIME OF WAR WITH CONTRACTORS WHO
WERE ALSO PRIVATE PARTIES - EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACTUAL
PROVISIONS FOR THE RENEGOTIATION OF SUCH PROFITS AND EVEN AS APPLIED TO
CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT, PROVIDED
FINAL PAYMENTS HAD NOT BEEN MADE PURSUANT TO SUCH CONTRACTS PRIOR TO
THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE ORIGINAL ACT.  PP. 746, 753-793. 

2.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE THE RECOVERY OF SUCH EXCESSIVE
PROFITS IS INCLUDED IN THE BROAD SCOPE OF THE WAR POWERS EXPRESSLY
GRANTED TO CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 753-772. 

(A) IN TIME OF WAR, CONGRESS UNQUESTIONABLY HAS THE FUNDAMENTAL POWER
TO CONSCRIPT MEN AND TO REQUISITION PROPERTIES NECESSARY AND PROPER TO
ENABLE IT TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES.  PP. 756, 765. 

(B)  THE RENEGOTIATION ACT WAS A LAW "NECESSARY AND PROPER" FOR
CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS AND ESPECIALLY ITS
POWER TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES.  PP. 757-765. 

(C)  NOT ONLY WAS IT "NECESSARY AND PROPER" FOR CONGRESS TO PROVIDE
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF WAR SUPPLIES IN THE SUCCESSFUL CONDUCT OF THE
WAR, BUT IT WAS WELL WITHIN THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DISCRETION OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT TO DO SO UNDER THE TERMS OF
THE RENEGOTIATION ACT IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE EXCESSIVE
PRIVATE PROFITS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S.
289, 305.  PP. 763-765, 769. 

(D)  THE PLAN FOR RENEGOTIATION OF PROFITS REALIZED BY PRIVATE
PARTIES ON CONTRACTS FOR PRODUCTION OF WAR GOODS - CHOSEN BY CONGRESS
AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO MOBILIZATION OF THE PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF THE
NATION INTO A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT ON THE TOTALITARIAN MODEL - SYMBOLIZED
A FREE PEOPLE UNITED IN REACHING UNEQUALLED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND YET
RETAINING THE MAXIMUM OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM CONSISTENT WITH A GENERAL
MOBILIZATION OF EFFORT.  PP. 765-772. 

3.  THE AUTHORITY GRANTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE
AMOUNT OF "EXCESSIVE PROFITS," IF ANY, REALIZED ON WAR SUBCONTRACTS WAS
A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AND NOT AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  PP. 774-787. 

(A)  A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IMPLIES A POWER OF DELEGATION OF
AUTHORITY UNDER IT SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT ITS PURPOSES.  PP. 778-783. 

(B)  THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES DEVELOPED UNDER THE ACT
DEMONSTRATED THE DEFINITIVE ADEQUACY OF THE TERM "EXCESSIVE PROFITS" AS
USED IN THE ACT.  P. 783. 

(C)  IN THE LIGHT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND ITS FACTUAL
BACKGROUND, THE STATUTORY TERM "EXCESSIVE PROFITS" WAS A SUFFICIENT
EXPRESSION OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND STANDARDS TO RENDER IT
CONSTITUTIONAL.  PP. 783-786. 

(D)  THE METHODS PRESCRIBED AND THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY CONGRESS
ON THE CONTEMPLATED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION HELP TO SUSTAIN ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY.  PP. 786-787. 

4.  THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT ARE ONLY THOSE WHICH
ARE TO BE DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THE PRIMARY IMPLICATION OF
A WAR POWER IS THAT IT SHALL BE AN EFFECTIVE POWER TO WAGE WAR
SUCCESSFULLY.  P. 782. 

5.  WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND CONTROLS OF OUR GOVERNMENT
ARE OUR GUIDES EQUALLY IN WAR AND IN PEACE, THEY MUST BE READ WITH THE
REALISTIC PURPOSES OF THE ENTIRE INSTRUMENT FULLY IN MIND.  P. 782. 

6.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT CONGRESS SUPPLY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS
WITH A SPECIFIC FORMULA FOR THEIR GUIDANCE IN A FIELD WHERE FLEXIBILITY
AND THE ADAPTATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO INFINITELY VARIABLE
CONDITIONS CONSTITUTE THE ESSENCE OF THE PROGRAM.  P. 785. 

7.  THE COLLECTION OF RENEGOTIATED EXCESSIVE PROFITS ON A WAR
SUBCONTRACT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF A PENALTY AND IS NOT A DEPRIVATION
OF A SUBCONTRACTOR OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 787-788. 

8.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER EXCESSIVE PROFITS (LESS
TAX CREDITS) FROM EACH OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS IN THESE CASES, WHETHER
THEY AROSE FROM CONTRACTS MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT,
PROVIDED FINAL PAYMENTS HAD NOT BEEN MADE PURSUANT TO SUCH CONTRACTS
PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL ACT - EVEN THOUGH THEY AROSE OUT OF
CONTRACTS BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES AND NOT OUT OF CONTRACTS MADE
DIRECTLY WITH THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  PP. 747-753, 788-789. 

9.  IN A SUIT BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ACT TO RECOVER EXCESSIVE
PROFITS ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN REALIZED BY
SUBCONTRACTORS UNDER WAR CONTRACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES,
SUBCONTRACTORS WHO FAILED TO MAKE TIMELY APPLICATION TO THE TAX COURT
FOR REDETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS DO NOT HAVE
THE RIGHT TO RAISE QUESTIONS AS TO THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT, AS TO THE
AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS ADJUDGED TO BE DUE FROM THEM, OR AS TO
OTHER COMPARABLE ISSUES WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY THEM TO THE
TAX COURT UPON A TIMELY PETITION FOR A REDETERMINATION.  PP. 753-754,
789-793. 

(A)  THE STATUTE AND THE COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN AFFORDED PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS TO THE SUBCONTRACTORS IN THESE CASES.  P. 791. 

(B)  THE STATUTORY PROVISION FOR A PETITION TO THE TAX COURT WAS NOT,
IN ANY OF THESE CASES, AN OPTIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE; IT
PROVIDED THE ONLY PROCEDURE TO SECURE A REDETERMINATION OF THE
EXCESSIVE PROFITS WHICH HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED TO EXIST. 
P. 792. 

(C)  FAILURE OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS IN THESE CASES TO EXHAUST THAT
PROCEDURE HAS LEFT THEM NO RIGHT TO PRESENT SUCH ISSUES IN THIS COURT. 
P. 792. 

LICHTER ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS SOUTHERN FIREPROOFING CO., V. UNITED
STATES. 

NO. 105.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 74, POWNALL ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ON CERTIORARI
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT; AND NO. 95,
ALEXANDER WOOL COMBING CO. V. UNITED STATES, ON CERTIORARI TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, ARGUED NOVEMBER 21,
1947. 

THE CASES ARE STATED CONCISELY IN THE OPINION WITH CITATIONS TO THE
DECISIONS BELOW, PP. 746-753.  AFFIRMED, P. 793. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RENEGOTIATION ACT,  FN1  IN TIME OF CRISIS, PRESENTED TO THIS
NATION A NEW LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION OF A MAJOR PHASE OF THE PROBLEM OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE AGAINST WORLD-WIDE AGGRESSION.  THROUGH ITS
CONTRIBUTION TO OUR PRODUCTION PROGRAM IT SOUGHT TO ENABLE US TO TAKE
THE LEADING PART IN WINNING WORLD WAR II ON AN UNPRECEDENTED SCALE OF
TOTAL GLOBAL WARFARE WITHOUT ABANDONING OUR TRADITIONAL FAITH IN AND
RELIANCE UPON PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE DEVOTED TO
THE PUBLIC WELFARE. 

IN EACH OF THE THREE CASES BEFORE US THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE IS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY, ON ITS FACE, OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT INSOFAR AS IT
IS AUTHORITY FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE EXCESSIVE PROFITS SOUGHT TO BE
RECOVERED BY THE UNITED STATES FROM THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS.  IN
EACH CASE THE SECONDARY ISSUE IS WHETHER THE FAILURE OF THE RESPECTIVE
PETITIONERS TO PETITION THE TAX COURT FOR A REDETERMINATION OF THE
AMOUNT, IF ANY, OF THEIR EXCESSIVE PROFITS EXCLUDES FROM CONSIDERATION
HERE THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT, THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS AND OTHER
COMPARABLE ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE TAX COURT.  IN
EACH OF THESE CASES THE DISTRICT COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ACT WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT, BY FAILURE TO PETITION THE TAX COURT FOR THEIR
REDETERMINATION, THE EXISTING ORDERS HAVE BECOME FINAL AS CLAIMED BY
THE GOVERNMENT.  EACH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS AFFIRMED,
UNANIMOUSLY, THE JUDGMENT APPEALED TO IT.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURTS
BELOW. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THE UNITED STATES OBTAINED A JUDGMENT FOR A
SUM ALLEGED TO BE OWED TO IT PURSUANT TO A DETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE
PROFITS UNDER THE RENEGOTIATION ACT.  THE DETERMINATIONS OF EXCESSIVE
PROFITS IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES WERE MADE BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR
OR BY THE WAR CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AFTER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1943 HAD BEEN APPROVED, FEBRUARY 25, 1944.  THAT ACT CONTAINED, IN ITS
TITLE VII, THE SO-CALLED SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT WHICH INCLUDED
PROVISIONS FOR THE FILING WITH THE TAX COURT OF PETITIONS FOR THE
REDETERMINATIONS OF EXCESS PROFITS.  NONE OF THESE PETITIONERS,
HOWEVER, FILED SUCH A PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS HAVE RELIED UPON THEIR CLAIMS THAT, AS A
MATTER OF LAW, THE RENEGOTIATION ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE
INSOFAR AS IT PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE THE JUDGMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN
AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS.  THE PETITIONERS CONTEND ALSO THAT
THEIR FAILURES TO FILE PETITIONS WITH THE TAX COURT HAVE NOT FORECLOSED
THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO CONTEST HERE THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT, THE
AMOUNT OF THE EXCESS PROFITS FOUND AGAINST THEM AND OTHER COMPARABLE
ISSUES WHICH THEY MIGHT HAVE PRESENTED TO THE TAX COURT. 

            NO. 105(THE LICHTER CASE). 

IN MAY, 1945, THE UNITED STATES FILED ITS COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS, JACOB LICHTER AND JENNIE L. LICHTER, ENGAGED IN THE
CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS IN CINCINNATI, OHIO, UNDER THE NAME OF THE
SOUTHERN FIREPROOFING COMPANY, A COPARTNERSHIP.  THE COMPLAINT WAS
FOUNDED UPON THE DETERMINATION BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR, DATED
OCTOBER 20, 1944, THAT $70,000 OF THE PROFITS REALIZED BY PETITIONERS
DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1942 FROM NINE SUBCONTRACTS, EXECUTED IN 1942
FOR A TOTAL PRICE OF $710,224.16, WERE, UNDER THE RENEGOTIATION ACT,
EXCESSIVE PROFITS.  THE COMPLAINT SHOWED THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE
ENTITLED TO A TAX CREDIT OF $42,980.61 AGAINST SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS. 
IT ALLEGED, MOREOVER, THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD NOT, WITHIN THE REQUIRED
PERIOD, PETITIONED THE TAX COURT FOR A REDETERMINATION OF THE ORDER IN
QUESTION AND HAD NOT PAID OR OTHERWISE ELIMINATED THE AMOUNT OF
$27,019.39 THUS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES. 

THE PETITIONERS ADMITTED THAT THE UNDER SECRETARY HAD MADE THE
DETERMINATION AS ALLEGED; THAT IF HIS ORDER WERE VALID THE PETITIONERS
WERE ENTITLED TO THE TAX CREDIT SPECIFIED; AND THAT THEY HAD NOT PAID
THE SUM DEMANDED NOR HAD THEY FILED A PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT FOR A
REDETERMINATION OF THE EXCESSIVE PROFITS, IF ANY.  THEY PUT IN ISSUE,
ON SPECIFICALLY STATED GROUNDS, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
RENEGOTIATION ACT INSOFAR AS IT MIGHT BE AUTHORITY FOR THE RECOVERY OF
THE PROFITS SOUGHT TO BE RECOVERED, AND THEY PUT IN ISSUE THE
APPLICABILITY TO THEM OF ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THEY SEEK IN THE TAX
COURT A REDETERMINATION OF THE PROFITS WHICH THEY HAD BEEN ORDERED TO
REPAY TO THE UNITED STATES.  THEY ALLEGED ALSO THAT:  OF THE NINE
SUBCONTRACTS WHICH WERE MADE THE BASIS OF RENEGOTIATION, ALL WERE
EXECUTED DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1942; FOUR WERE EXECUTED BEFORE APRIL
28, 1942, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT; NONE CONTAINED
CLAUSES PERMITTING OR REQUIRING THEIR RENEGOTIATION; ONLY TWO OF THEM
WERE FOR AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $100,000 EACH; THESE TWO WERE AMONG THOSE
WHICH HAD BEEN EXECUTED BEFORE APRIL 28, 1942; AND NO EXCESSIVE PROFITS
HAD BEEN IN FACT EARNED BY THE PETITIONERS DURING 1942.  FINALLY THEY
ALLEGED THAT THE SEVERAL CONTRACTS REFERRED TO WERE SUBCONTRACTS
ENTERED INTO UNDER PRIME CONTRACTS WHICH HAD BEEN AWARDED BY A
DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT AS THE RESULT OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND THE SUBCONTRACTS
THEMSELVES HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY PETITIONERS AFTER FURTHER COMPETITIVE
BIDDING.  FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS STATED IN THE ANSWER THE
CONTRACTS WERE CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT FROM RENEGOTIATION. 

THE UNITED STATES MOVED FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED IN SUPPORT OF
THOSE MOTIONS.  THESE INCLUDED PARTICULARLY THE COMPREHENSIVE
AFFIDAVITS OF ROBERT P. PATTERSON, THEN UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR, AND OF
H. STRUVE HENSEL, THEN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.  THESE
AFFIDAVITS SET FORTH THE GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT
AND THE BASIS FOR CLAIMING THAT THE RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS WAS
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THIS NATION'S SHARE OF THE BURDEN OF
WINNING WORLD WAR II. COUNTERPARTS OF THESE TWO AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED
IN EACH OF THE OTHER CASES BEFORE US.  THE PETITIONERS, ON THE OTHER
HAND, MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT FAILED TO
STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED AND THAT THE PROFITS
IN QUESTION WERE EXEMPT FROM THE ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT SUBSTANTIALLY AS STATED IN
THE COMPLAINT AND ADMITTED IN THE ANSWER.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS
NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT AND THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS
ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW FOR $27,019.39, WITH INTEREST
AT SIX PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM NOVEMBER 6, 1944.  68 F.SUPP.  19.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT. 
IT HELD EXPRESSLY THAT THE RENEGOTIATION ACT WAS VALID ON ITS FACE AND
THAT THE PETITIONERS, BY REASON OF THEIR FAILURE TO PETITION THE TAX
COURT FOR A REDETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE EXCESSIVE PROFITS, IF
ANY, WERE BARRED FROM MAKING THEIR OTHER ATTACKS ON THE SECRETARY'S
DETERMINATION OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS.  160 F.2D 329.  BECAUSE OF THE
BASIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 802. 

                      NO. 74(THE POWNALL CASE). 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1945, THE UNITED STATES FILED ITS COMPLAINT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, A.V. POWNALL, GRACE M. POWNALL, AND
HENES-MORGAN MACHINERY COMPANY, LIMITED, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ALL
THREE DOING BUSINESS IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AS COPARTNERS UNDER
THE NAME OF GENERAL PRODUCTS COMPANY.  THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THEY
WERE THERE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF PRECISION PARTS, MACHINERY AND
TOOLS FOR USE BY WAR CONTRACTORS.  THE COMPLAINT WAS FOUNDED UPON A
DETERMINATION MADE BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR, ON BEHALF OF THE WAR
CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, DATED DECEMBER 27, 1944, TO THE
EFFECT THAT $628,373.14 OF THE PROFITS REALIZED BY PETITIONERS DURING
THE CALENDAR YEAR 1943 ON THEIR CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS, SUBJECT TO
RENEGOTIATION PURSUANT TO THE RENEGOTIATION ACT, WERE EXCESSIVE
PROFITS.  THE COMPLAINT SHOWED THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO A
TAX CREDIT OF $514,663.95 AGAINST SUCH PROFITS.  IT ALLEGED, MOREOVER,
THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD NOT, WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD, PETITIONED
THE TAX COURT FOR A REDETERMINATION OF THE ORDER IN QUESTION AND HAD
NOT PAID THE SUM OF $113,709.19 THUS CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE
PETITIONERS ADMITTED THAT THE UNDER SECRETARY HAD MADE THE
DETERMINATION AS ALLEGED; THAT THE BOARD HAD ADOPTED HIS ORDER; THAT
THE APPROPRIATE TAX CREDIT WAS AS ALLEGED; THAT NO PETITION FOR
REDETERMINATION HAD BEEN FILED WITH THE TAX COURT; THAT THE TIME FOR
FILING HAD EXPIRED; AND THAT NO PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED HAD BEEN
MADE.  THE PETITIONERS ALLEGED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RENEGOTIATION ACT WAS
INVALID ON ITS FACE ON NUMEROUS SPECIFICALLY STATED CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS; THAT THE UNDER SECRETARY'S ORDER WAS INVALID IN THAT IT WAS
BASED ON UNDISCLOSED DATA AND CONTAINED NO FINDINGS; AND THAT NO SINGLE
CONTRACT UNDER CONSIDERATION EXCEEDED IN AMOUNT THE SUM OF $99,000. 

THE UNITED STATES MOVED FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  THE PETITIONERS DID THE SAME. 
UNDER THE STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES THERE WERE NO DISPUTED ISSUES OF
FACT AND THE ONLY QUESTIONS LEFT FOR DECISION WERE THOSE AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ACT AND AS TO ITS INTERPRETATION IF
FOUND TO BE VALID. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES.  HOWEVER,
RULING ON THE MERITS OF THE CAUSE THUS BEFORE IT, IT FOUND THE FACTS TO
BE SUBSTANTIALLY AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND AS STIPULATED.  IT
HELD THE ACT TO BE VALID ON ITS FACE AND HELD THE UNAPPEALED
DETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS TO BE FINAL.  IT RENDERED JUDGMENT
FOR THE UNITED STATES FOR $121,043.39, EVIDENTLY REPRESENTING
$113,709.19, WITH INTEREST AT SIX PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM MARCH 13,
1945.  65 F.SUPP.  147, AND SEE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  IT FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER DECISION IN
SPAULDING V. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., 154 F.2D 419, IN UPHOLDING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT AND EXPRESSLY HOLDING THAT THE
PETITIONERS, BY NOT HAVING PETITIONED THE TAX COURT FOR RELIEF, HAD
FAILED TO EXHAUST THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  ACCORDINGLY, IT HELD
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE
PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS AS TO THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT.  159 F.2D 73. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 802. 

                     NO. 95(THE ALEXANDER CASE). 

IN AUGUST, 1945, THE UNITED STATES FILED ITS COMPLAINT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER, ALEXANDER WOOL COMBING COMPANY, A MASSACHUSETTS
CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS AT LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS, AND THERE ENGAGED
IN THE BUSINESS OF SCOURING WOOL AND COMBING IT INTO TOPS AND NOILS FOR
COMMISSIONS PAID TO IT BY THE OWNERS OF THE WOOL.  THE COMPLAINT WAS
FOUNDED UPON TWO DETERMINATIONS BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR, BOTH
DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 1944.  ONE DETERMINED THAT $22,500 OF THE PROFITS
REALIZED BY THE PETITIONER DURING ITS FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1942,
AND THE OTHER THAT $45,000 OF THE PROFITS REALIZED BY THE PETITIONER
DURING ITS FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1943, UNDER ITS CONTRACTS AND
SUBCONTRACTS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
RENEGOTIATION ACT, WERE EXCESSIVE.  THE COMPLAINT SHOWED THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A TAX CREDIT OF $15,020.80 AGAINST SUCH
EXCESSIVE PROFITS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1942, AND OF
$36,596.42 AGAINST THOSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1943.  THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGED, MOREOVER, THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NOT, WITHIN THE
REQUIRED PERIODS, PETITIONED THE TAX COURT FOR A REDETERMINATION OF
EITHER OF THE ORDERS IN QUESTION; THAT THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS FOR
FILING SUCH PETITIONS HAD EXPIRED; AND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NOT
PAID, OR OTHERWISE ELIMINATED, THE AMOUNT OF $15,882.78 THUS DUE TO THE
UNITED STATES.  THE PETITIONER ADMITTED THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT BUT DENIED THAT ANY AMOUNT WAS OWING TO THE UNITED STATES. 
IT CLAIMED THAT THE DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE UNDER SECRETARY WERE
VOID BECAUSE MADE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND WERE UNENFORCIBLE AS
TO THE PETITIONER BECAUSE, AS APPLIED TO IT, THEY WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
FOR SEVERAL SPECIFICALLY STATED REASONS.    THE UNITED STATES MOVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT.  IN SUPPORT OF THESE MOTIONS THE ABOVE-MENTIONED AFFIDAVITS
OF ROBERT P. PATTERSON, UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR, AND OF H. STRUVE
HENSEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, AND SEVERAL OTHERS WERE
FILED.  EVIDENCE BOTH ORAL AND IN AFFIDAVIT FORM WAS SUBMITTED IN
OPPOSITION.  THE DISTRICT COURT STATED IN ITS OPINION, 66 F.SUPP.  389,
391, THAT THE PETITIONER "HAD NO DIRECT CONTRACTS WITH ANY DEPARTMENT
OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT COMBED WOOL FOR DIFFERENT PRIVATE
COMPANIES.  IT KNEW THAT SOME OF THE WOOL IT COMBED FOR THE COMPANIES
WAS DESTINED FOR USE IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, BUT IT WAS AND IS
IGNORANT AS TO THE DESTINATION OF OTHER WOOL."  THAT COURT,
NEVERTHELESS, RENDERED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR
$15,882.78, WITH INTEREST AT SIX PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM SEPTEMBER 6,
1944.  IT HELD THAT THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS WERE SUFFICIENT TO
ENABLE IT TO AUTHORIZE THE RECAPTURE OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS SUCH AS
THESE; THAT THE STANDARD OF "EXCESSIVE PROFITS" WAS SUFFICIENT TO
SATISFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
DELEGATE AUTHORITY; THAT ANY DEFECTS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS
WERE IMMATERIAL IN VIEW OF THE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED THE PETITIONER FOR
A TRIAL DE NOVO AND FOR A REDETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS, IF ANY,
IN THE TAX COURT; AND THAT PETITIONER'S DEFENSES ON THE GROUND OF LACK
OF COVERAGE OR OF RETROACTIVITY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE RENEGOTIATION
ACT TO THE PETITIONER WERE LOST TO IT BY ITS FAILURE TO SEEK RELIEF
FROM THE TAX COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
SAID, PER CURIAM:  "WE THINK THE COURT BELOW ADEQUATELY COVERED ALL THE
ISSUES IN THIS CASE AND WE AFFIRM ITS JUDGMENT UPON THE GROUNDS AND FOR
THE REASONS SET FORTH IN ITS OPINION  ...  "  160 F.2D 103.  FN2  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 802. 

                           THE BACKGROUND. 

WE HAVE TWO MAIN ISSUES BEFORE US:  (1) THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
RENEGOTIATION ACT ON ITS FACE AND (2) THE FINALITY OF THE DETERMINATION
OF THE EXCESSIVE PROFITS MADE UNDER IT IN THE ABSENCE OF A PETITION
FILED WITH THE TAX COURT WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME, SEEKING A
REDETERMINATION OF THOSE PROFITS.  IN THE LICHTER CASE WE HAVE ISSUES
AS TO PROFITS MADE IN THE CALENDAR YEAR 1942, IN THE POWNALL CASE AS TO
PROFITS MADE IN THE CALENDAR YEAR 1943, AND IN THE ALEXANDER CASE AS TO
CERTAIN PROFITS MADE IN THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1942, AND AS TO
OTHER PROFITS MADE IN THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1943.  IN EACH
CASE WE UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT AS PROVIDING THE
NECESSARY AUTHORIZATION FOR THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED.  WE ALSO ACCEPT THE
FINALITY GIVEN BY THE COURTS BELOW TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS
MADE OF THE EXCESSIVE PROFITS, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTORY SITUATION AS A
BASIS FOR THE FINALITY OF SUCH DETERMINATIONS IS NOT PRECISELY THE SAME
IN EACH CASE.  BY REASON OF THE FINALITY THUS ATTACHED TO THE
DETERMINATIONS MADE AS TO EXCESSIVE PROFITS IN THESE CASES, WE DO NOT
PASS UPON THE ISSUES ATTEMPTED TO BE RAISED HERE AS TO THE COVERAGE OF
THE ACT, THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS, OR OTHER MATTERS WHICH THE
PETITIONERS MIGHT HAVE PRESENTED TO THE TAX COURT BUT DID NOT. 

IN PROCEDURE WHICH AFFECTS PROPERTY RIGHTS AS DIRECTLY AND
SUBSTANTIALLY AS THAT AUTHORIZED BY THE RENEGOTIATION ACT, THE
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION AUTHORIZED, ALTHOUGH RESTING ON VALID
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, IS CAPABLE OF GROSS ABUSE.  THE VERY FINALITY
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS HERE UPHELD EMPHASIZES THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THE INJUSTICES WHICH CAN RESULT FROM THE ABUSE OF THE
LARGE POWERS VESTED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS.  WE DO NOT
MINIMIZE THE SERIOUSNESS OF COMPLAINTS WHICH THUS MAY BE CUT OFF
WITHOUT RELIEF IN THE NAME OF THE NECESSITIES OF WAR AND FOR THE SAKE
OF THE DEFENSE OF THE NATION WHEN ITS SURVIVAL IS AT STAKE.  WE RE
EMPHASIZE THAT, UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, THERE IS GREAT NEED BOTH FOR
ADEQUATE CHANNELS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND FOR CAREFUL CONFORMITY
TO THOSE CHANNELS.  IN TOTAL WAR IT IS NECESSARY THAT A CIVILIAN MAKE
SACRIFICES OF HIS PROPERTY AND PROFITS WITH AT LEAST THE SAME FORTITUDE
AS THAT WITH WHICH A DRAFTED SOLDIER MAKES HIS TRADITIONAL SACRIFICES
OF COMFORT, SECURITY AND LIFE ITSELF.  WITHIN PROCEDURE THUS AUTHORIZED
BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION, AND HERE
AFFIRMED, RESULTING INJUSTICES CAN AND SHOULD BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED AND
AS FAR AS POSSIBLE RELIEVED.  IN WAR BOTH THE RAISING AND THE SUPPORT
OF THE ARMED FORCES ARE ESSENTIAL.  BOTH REQUIRE MOBILIZATION AND
CONTROL UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS.  BOTH ARE ENTITLED ALSO TO
SUCH POSTWAR RELIEF AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS. 

THE RENEGOTIATION ACT WAS DEVELOPED AS A MAJOR WARTIME POLICY OF
CONGRESS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.  THE
AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE EACH OF THEM SPRANG FROM ITS WAR
POWERS.  EACH WAS A PART OF A NATIONAL POLICY ADOPTED IN TIME OF CRISIS
IN THE CONDUCT OF TOTAL GLOBAL WARFARE BY A NATION DEDICATED TO THE
PRESERVATION, PRACTICE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAXIMUM MEASURE OF
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM CONSISTENT WITH THE UNITY OF EFFORT ESSENTIAL TO
SUCCESS. 

WITH THE ADVENT OF SUCH WARFARE, MOBILIZED PROPERTY IN THE FORM OF
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES BECAME AS ESSENTIAL AS MOBILIZED MANPOWER. 
MOBILIZATION OF EFFORT EXTENDED NOT ONLY TO THE UNIFORMED ARMED
SERVICES BUT TO THE ENTIRE POPULATION.  BOTH ACTS WERE A FORM OF
MOBILIZATION.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZING SUCH
MEASURES IS BROAD RATHER THAN RESTRICTIVE.  IT SAYS "THE CONGRESS SHALL
HAVE POWER  ...  TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES, BUT NO APPROPRIATION OF
MONEY TO THAT USE SHALL BE FOR A LONGER TERM THAN TWO YEARS; ...  "
ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 12.  FN3  THIS PLACES EMPHASIS UPON THE SUPPORTING
AS WELL AS UPON THE RAISING OF ARMIES.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS AS TO
BOTH IS INESCAPABLY EXPRESS, NOT MERELY IMPLIED.  THE CONSCRIPTION OF
MANPOWER IS A MORE VITAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL THAN IS THE CONSCRIPTION OF HIS PROPERTY OR
HIS PROFITS OR ANY SUBSTITUTE FOR SUCH CONSCRIPTION OF THEM.  FOR HIS
HAZARDOUS, FULL-TIME SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES A SOLDIER IS PAID
WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT DEEMS TO BE A FAIR BUT MODEST COMPENSATION. 
COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, THE MANUFACTURER OF WAR GOODS UNDERGOES NO SUCH
HAZARD TO HIS PERSONAL SAFETY AS DOES A FRONT-LINE SOLDIER AND YET THE
RENEGOTIATION ACT GIVES HIM FAR BETTER ASSURANCE OF A REASONABLE RETURN
FOR HIS WARTIME SERVICES THAN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AND ALL ITS
RELATED LEGISLATION GIVE TO THE MEN IN THE ARMED FORCES.  THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONSCRIPTION OF MANPOWER FOR MILITARY SERVICE
IS BEYOND QUESTION.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO SUPPORT
THE ARMED FORCES WITH EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES IS NO LESS CLEAR AND
SWEEPING.  FN4  IT IS VALID, A FORTIORI. 

IN VIEW OF THIS POWER "TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES,  ...  " AND THE
POWER GRANTED IN THE SAME ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION "TO MAKE ALL LAWS
WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE
FOREGOING POWERS,  ...  " THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING IS WHETHER THE
RENEGOTIATION ACT WAS A LAW "NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO
EXECUTION" THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS AND ESPECIALLY ITS POWER TO
SUPPORT ARMIES. 

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE HERE TO PICTURE ADEQUATELY ALL THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
"NECESSARY AND PROPER" IN 1942-1944 TO MEET THE UNPRECEDENTED
RESPONSIBILITY FACING CONGRESS IN THIS FIELD.  WE DO, HOWEVER, CATCH A
GLIMPSE OF IT IN AUTHORITATIVE, CONTEMPORANEOUS DESCRIPTIONS OF THE
SITUATION.  ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN EXCERPTS FROM
THE MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE CONGRESS UPON THE STATE OF THE
UNION, JANUARY 6, 1942,  FN5  FROM A REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF
THE SENATE INVESTIGATING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM UNDER THE
CHAIRMANSHIP OF SENATOR HARRY S. TRUMAN, OF MISSOURI, MARCH 30, 1943,
FN6  AND FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT P. PATTERSON, UNDER SECRETARY OF
WAR, DATED AUGUST 3, 1945,  FN7  IN THE FORM FILED IN EACH OF THE THREE
CASES BEFORE US. 

THE ABOVE-MENTIONED EXCERPTS DESCRIBE A DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF WAR
SUPPLIES IN PROPORTIONS PREVIOUSLY UNIMAGINED.  THEY CALL FOR
PRODUCTION IN A VOLUME NEVER BEFORE APPROXIMATED AND AT AN UNDREAMED OF
SPEED.  THE RESULTS AMPLY DEMONSTRATED THE INFINITE VALUE OF THAT
PRODUCTION IN WINNING THE WAR.  IT PROVED TO BE A SINE QUA NON
CONDITION OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE NATION.  NOT ONLY WAS IT "NECESSARY
AND PROPER" FOR CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH PRODUCTION IN THE
SUCCESSFUL CONDUCT OF THE WAR, BUT IT WAS WELL WITHIN THE OUTER LIMITS
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRETION OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT TO DO SO
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE QUESTION
BEFORE US AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT IS NOT
THAT OF THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO RENEGOTIATE AND RECAPTURE WAR
PROFITS.  THE ONLY QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER THE PARTICULAR METHOD OF
RENEGOTIATION AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED CONFORMED TO
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS UNDER WHICH CONGRESS WAS PERMITTED TO
EXERCISE ITS BASIC POWERS. 

OUR FIRST QUESTION RELATES TO THE METHOD OF ADJUSTING NET
COMPENSATION FOR WAR SERVICES THROUGH THE COMPULSORY "RENEGOTIATION" OF
PROFITS UNDER EXISTING CONTRACTS BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES, INCLUDING
RECOURSE TO UNILATERAL ORDERS FOR PAYMENTS INTO THE TREASURY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF SUCH PORTIONS OF THOSE PROFITS AS WERE DETERMINED BY
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS OF THAT GOVERNMENT TO BE "EXCESSIVE
PROFITS."  THERE WERE ADDED THE LIMITATIONS THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE FOR
WAR GOODS IN TIME OF WAR, THE ULTIMATE PAYMENT FOR WHICH WAS, IN ANY
EVENT, TO COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT, AT THE TIME OF THIS
IMPINGEMENT OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT UPON THEM, THE CONTRACTS MUST NOT
HAVE BEEN COMPLETED TO THE EXTENT THAT FINAL PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE ON
THEM. 

ONE APPROACH TO THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS
OVER THE PROFITS ON THESE CONTRACTS IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT CONGRESS, IN
TIME OF WAR, UNQUESTIONABLY HAS THE FUNDAMENTAL POWER, PREVIOUSLY
DISCUSSED, TO CONSCRIPT MEN AND TO REQUISITION THE PROPERTIES NECESSARY
AND PROPER TO ENABLE IT TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ITS ARMIES.  CONGRESS
FURTHERMORE HAS A PRIMARY OBLIGATION TO BRING ABOUT WHATEVER PRODUCTION
OF WAR EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES SHALL BE NECESSARY TO WIN A WAR.  GIVEN
THIS MISSION, CONGRESS THEN HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
FOR ITS PERFORMANCE.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPELLING NECESSITY FOR THE
IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION OF VAST QUANTITIES OF WAR GOODS, THE FIRST
ALTERNATIVE, ALL TOO CLEARLY EVIDENT TO THE WORLD, WAS THAT WHICH
CONGRESS DID NOT CHOOSE, NAMELY, THAT OF MOBILIZING THE PRODUCTIVE
CAPACITY OF THE NATION INTO A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT ON THE TOTALITARIAN
MODEL.  THIS WOULD HAVE MEANT THE CONSCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND OF
WORKMEN.  IT WOULD HAVE MEANT THE RAISING OF SUPPLIES FOR THE ARMIES IN
MUCH THE SAME MANNER AS THAT IN WHICH CONGRESS RAISED THE MANPOWER FOR
SUCH ARMIES.  ALREADY THE NATION HAD SOME UNITS OF PRODUCTION OF
MILITARY SUPPLIES IN THE FORM OF ARSENALS, NAVY YARDS, AND IN THE
INCREASING NUMBER OF GOVERNMENTALLY OWNED, IF NOT OPERATED, WAR
MATERIAL PLANTS.  THE PRODUCTION OF THE ATOMIC BOMBS WAS ONE EXAMPLE OF
A WAR INDUSTRY OWNED AND OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FACED
WITH THIS IRONICAL ALTERNATIVE OF CONVERTING THE NATION IN EFFECT INTO
A TOTALITARIAN STATE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE ITSELF FROM TOTALITARIAN
DOMINATION, THAT ALTERNATIVE WAS STEADFASTLY REJECTED.  THE PLAN FOR
RENEGOTIATION OF PROFITS WHICH WAS CHOSEN IN ITS PLACE BY CONGRESS
APPEARS IN ITS TRUE LIGHT AS THE VERY SYMBOL OF A FREE PEOPLE UNITED IN
REACHING UNEQUALLED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND YET RETAINING THE MAXIMUM
OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM CONSISTENT WITH A GENERAL MOBILIZATION OF
EFFORT. 

SOMEWHAT CRUDE IN ITS INITIAL STATUTORY SIMPLICITY, THE RENEGOTIATION
ACT DEVELOPED RAPIDLY AS THE DEMAND FOR WAR PRODUCTION INCREASED BEYOND
PRECEDENT.  FIRST APPROVED APRIL 28, 1942, LESS THAN FIVE MONTHS AFTER
OUR DECLARATION OF WAR, THE ACT WAS ADJUSTED AND STRENGTHENED IN ITS
EFFECTIVENESS AND FAIRNESS BY THE NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS MADE TO IT.  FN8
THE NATION PREVIOUSLY HAD EXPERIENCED DIFFERENT, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY
COMPARABLE, FEDERAL REGULATION OF CIVILIAN LIBERTY AND PROPERTY IN
PROPORTION TO THE INCREASING DEMANDS OF MODERN WARFARE.  FN9 

THE DEMANDS FOR WAR EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES WERE SO GREAT IN VOLUME,
WERE FOR SUCH NEW TYPES OF PRODUCTS, WERE SUBJECT TO SO MANY CHANGES IN
SPECIFICATIONS AND WERE SUBJECT TO SUCH PRESSING DEMANDS FOR DELIVERY
THAT ACCURATE ADVANCE ESTIMATES OF COST WERE OUT OF THE QUESTION. 
LAYING ASIDE AS UNDESIRABLE THE COMPLETE GOVERNMENTAL OWNERSHIP AND
OPERATION OF THE PRODUCTION OF WAR GOODS OF ALL KINDS, MANY ALTERNATIVE
SOLUTIONS WERE ATTEMPTED.  OFTEN THESE CALLED FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
BY THE GOVERNMENT IN BUILDING NEW PLANT FACILITIES.  ADHERING, HOWEVER,
TO THE POLICY OF PRIVATE OPERATION OF THESE FACILITIES, CONGRESS AND
THE ADMINISTRATION SOUGHT TO PROMOTE A POLICY OF WIDE DISTRIBUTION OF
PRIME CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS, EVEN TO COMPARATIVELY HIGH COST
MARGINAL PRODUCERS OF UNFAMILIAR PRODUCTS.  CONGRESS SOUGHT TO DO
EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO RETAIN AND ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE IN
THE WORLD-WIDE RACE FOR THE LARGEST AND QUICKEST PRODUCTION OF THE BEST
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES.  IT CLUNG TO ITS FAITH IN PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. 
THE PROBLEM WAS TO FIND A FAIR MEANS OF COMPENSATION FOR THE SERVICES
RENDERED AND THE GOODS PURCHASED.  CONTRACTS WERE AWARDED BY
NEGOTIATION WHEREVER COMPETITIVE BIDDING NO LONGER WAS PRACTICABLE. 
CONTRACTS WERE LET AT COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE.  ESCALATOR CLAUSES WERE
INSERTED.  PRICE CEILINGS WERE ESTABLISHED.  A FLAT PERCENTAGE LIMIT ON
THE PROFITS IN CERTAIN LINES OF PRODUCTION WAS TRIED.  EXCESS PROFITS
TAXES WERE IMPOSED.  APPEALS WERE MADE FOR VOLUNTARY REFUNDS OF
EXCESSIVE PROFITS.  HOWEVER, EXPERIENCE WITH THESE ALTERNATIVES
CONVINCED THE GOVERNMENT THAT CONTRACTS AT FIXED INITIAL PRICES STILL
PROVIDED THE BEST INCENTIVE TO PRODUCTION.  FN10    ON FEBRUARY 16,
1942, THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S.
289, POINTED TO THE POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATIVE RELIEF.  IT SAID (P.
309): 

"THE PROBLEM OF WAR PROFITS IS NOT NEW.  IN THIS COUNTRY, EVERY WAR
WE HAVE ENGAGED IN HAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFITEERING AND THEY
HAVE BEEN TOO OFTEN SCANDALOUSLY SEIZED.  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS ON H.R. 3 AND H.R. 5293, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., 590-598.  TO MEET THIS RECURRENT EVIL, CONGRESS HAS AT TIMES
TAKEN VARIOUS MEASURES.  IT HAS AUTHORIZED PRICE FIXING.  IT HAS PLACED
A FIXED LIMIT ON PROFITS, OR HAS RECAPTURED HIGH PROFITS THROUGH
TAXATION.  IT HAS EXPRESSLY RESERVED FOR THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO
CANCEL CONTRACTS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN MADE.  PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY, THE GOVERNMENT HAS REQUISITIONED EXISTING PRODUCTION
FACILITIES OR ITSELF BUILT AND OPERATED NEW ONES TO PROVIDE NEEDED WAR
MATERIALS.  IT MAY BE THAT ONE OR SOME OR ALL OF THESE MEASURES SHOULD
BE UTILIZED MORE COMPREHENSIVELY, OR THAT STILL OTHER MEASURES MUST BE
DEVISED.  BUT IF THE EXECUTIVE IS IN NEED OF ADDITIONAL LAWS BY WHICH
TO PROTECT THE NATION AGAINST WAR PROFITEERING, THE CONSTITUTION HAS
GIVEN TO CONGRESS, NOT TO THIS COURT, THE POWER TO MAKE THEM." 

FINALLY THE COMPULSORY RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACTS WAS AUTHORIZED. 
THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN THE ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT, APRIL 28,
1942, WAS RAPIDLY PERFECTED.  AS IT DEVELOPED IT REQUIRED ADVANCE
CONSENTS TO SUCH RENEGOTIATION TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE RESPECTIVE
CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS FOR WAR GOODS PRIOR TO THEIR AWARD AND
FINALLY IT MADE EXPRESS PROVISION FOR A REDETERMINATION OF THE
EXCESSIVE PROFITS, IN A PROCEEDING DE NOVO BEFORE THE TAX COURT,
WHEREVER A WAR GOODS CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.  THROUGHOUT THESE DEVELOPMENTS EXTENDED
CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE ISSUES
PRESENTED.  FN11 

THE PLAN PROVED ITSELF READILY ADAPTABLE TO THE NEEDS OF THE TIME. 
IT CALLED FOR INITIAL CONTRACT ESTIMATES BASED UPON THE BEST AVAILABLE
INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THE CONTRACTS.  PRODUCTION
PROCEEDED AT ONCE ON THE BASIS OF THOSE ESTIMATES.  MANY FACTORS WERE
INCAPABLE OF EXACT ADVANCE DETERMINATION.  THE FINAL NET COMPENSATION,
HOWEVER, RESULTED FROM A RENEGOTIATION MADE AFTER BOTH PARTIES HAD HAD
THE BENEFIT OF ACTUAL EXPERIENCE UNDER THE CONTRACT.  THIS
DETERMINATION OF THE ALLOWABLE PROFIT WAS GUIDED BY MANY RELEVANT
FACTORS.  A LIST OF COMMONLY RELEVANT FACTORS WAS PRESENTED IN AN EARLY
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE.  LATER SUCH A LIST WAS ENACTED INTO THE
STATUTE.  EACH ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION WAS MADE SUBJECT TO A
REDETERMINATION IN A PROCEEDING DE NOVO IN THE TAX COURT PROVIDED A
TIMELY PETITION FOR IT WAS FILED BY THE AGGRIEVED CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR.  THE ACT ALWAYS HAS BEEN LIMITED IN DURATION TO A PERIOD
DURING AND SHORTLY FOLLOWING THE WAR.  IN MOST INSTANCES THE ACT HAS
RESULTED IN A DISPOSITION OF CASES BY AGREEMENTS REACHED BETWEEN THE
PARTIES.  FN12  THE CONTROVERSIES WHICH HAVE SURVIVED TO THIS DAY ARE,
IN LARGE MEASURE, NOT THOSE DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
GENERAL EFFECT OF THE PLAN OR EVEN WITH THE FINALITY OF REDETERMINATION
UNDER THE PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, BUT ARE THOSE ARISING
OUT OF AN ALLEGED ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ITS ADMINISTRATION. 

          THE RENEGOTIATION ACT. 

WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN SIX LEGISLATIVE STEPS  FN13  IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT, THE PORTIONS OF IT THAT ARE ESPECIALLY
MATERIAL HERE CONSIST OF CERTAIN LANGUAGE IN THE SO-CALLED ORIGINAL
RENEGOTIATION ACT CONTAINED IN SEC. 403 OF THE SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, APPROVED APRIL 28, 1942; FN14  IN THE
AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, OCTOBER 21, 1942; FN15  AND
ITS FURTHER AMENDMENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BY SEC. 701(B) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1943, FEBRUARY 25, 1944.  FN16  IN THAT FORM IT IS
SOMETIMES CALLED THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT, BUT THE ENTIRE SEC. 403,
BOTH IN ITS ORIGINAL AND AMENDED FORMS MAY BE PROPERLY CITED AS THE
"RENEGOTIATION ACT."  FN17  IN THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING UP TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT, AN ALTERNATIVE IN THE FORM
OF A RIGID LIMITATION OF PROFITS WAS REJECTED IN FAVOR OF THE MORE
FLEXIBLE DEFINITION EMBODIED IN THE TERM "EXCESSIVE PROFITS."  FN18 THE
WAR DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE OF AUGUST 10, 1942, ENTITLED "PRINCIPLES,
POLICY AND PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN RENEGOTIATION" PROMPTLY STATED
THE FACTORS TO BE STRESSED IN DETERMINING EXCESSIVE PROFITS.  THIS
DIRECTIVE WAS INTRODUCED IN THE HEARINGS HELD BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
OF THE SENATE IN SEPTEMBER  FN19  AND THUS WAS BEFORE THE SENATE AT THE
TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REVENUE ACT OF 1942, OCTOBER
21, 1942, WHICH MADE IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS IN THE RENEGOTIATION ACT. 

THE "JOINT STATEMENT BY THE WAR, NAVY, AND TREASURY DEPARTMENTS AND
THE MARITIME COMMISSION - PURPOSES, PRINCIPLES, POLICIES, AND
INTERPRETATIONS" DEALING WITH THE RENEGOTIATION ACT WAS ISSUED MARCH
31, 1943.  THIS WAS CONSIDERED AT THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. 2, PP. 469, ET
SEQ., 1025-1039, ESPECIALLY 1028-1029(1943).  FINALLY THE ABOVE
MENTIONED REVENUE ACT OF 1943, 58 STAT. 21, ON FEBRUARY 25, 1944,
LARGELY INCORPORATED THESE VIEWS IN SEC. 403(A)(4)(A),  FN20 THUS
INDICATING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND
FURTHER ASSURING CONTINUITY OF IT DURING THE BALANCE OF THE LIFE OF THE
ACT. 

                   DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE

                          RENEGOTIATION ACT. 

THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE RENEGOTIATION ACT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
ATTEMPTED TO DELEGATE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. 
THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CONTEST THE RIGHT OF THE COURTS TO DECIDE
THE ISSUES AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT ON ITS FACE IN THE PRESENT
CASES, EACH OF WHICH WAS INSTITUTED AFTER THE PETITIONERS' RESPECTIVE
RIGHTS TO A TAX COURT REDETERMINATION HAD BEEN FORFEITED.  WE FIND NO
REASON FOR NOT REACHING HERE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT.  CF.
AIRCRAFT & DIESEL CORP. V. HIRSCH, 331 U.S. 752; WADE V. STIMSON, 331
U.S. 793; MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 327 U.S. 540; YAKUS V.
UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT IS BASED UPON THE CLAIM THAT THE
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN THE ACT CARRIED WITH IT TOO SLIGHT
A DEFINITION OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND STANDARDS.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
CONTENDED THAT THE RESULTING DETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS WHICH
WERE CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES AMOUNTED TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL INSTEAD OF
A MERE EXERCISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION UNDER VALID LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY.  WE HOLD THAT THE AUTHORIZATION WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. 
CERTAINLY AS SPELLED OUT IN SEC. 403(A)(4)(A)  FN21  OF THE SECOND
RENEGOTIATION ACT WITH RESPECT TO FISCAL YEARS ENDING AFTER JUNE 30,
1943, THERE CAN BE NO OBJECTION ON THIS GROUND.  THIS QUESTION,
THEREFORE, RELATES TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY AS MADE BY THE ACT
BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT.  THE
ARGUMENT ON THIS QUESTION IS LIMITED TO THE LICHTER AND ALEXANDER
CASES, INASMUCH AS THE EXCESSIVE PROFITS DETERMINED TO EXIST IN THE
POWNALL CASE WERE SO FOUND BY THE WAR CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
UNDER THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT. 

                     1.  THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE. 

THE ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT,  FN22  APPROVED APRIL 28, 1942,
PROVIDED IN SEC. 403(B), (C), (D) AND (E) FOR THE RENEGOTIATION OF ALL
CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS THEREAFTER MADE AND ALSO OF ALL CONTRACTS
AND SUBCONTRACTS THERETOFORE MADE BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT, THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT OR THE MARITIME COMMISSION, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CONTRACTS OR
SUBCONTRACTS CONTAINED A RENEGOTIATION OR RECAPTURE CLAUSE, PROVIDED
THE FINAL PAYMENT PURSUANT THERETO HAD NOT BEEN MADE PRIOR TO APRIL 28,
1942.  THE RENEGOTIATION WAS TO BE DONE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT CONCERNED.  FOR THIS PURPOSE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MARITIME
COMMISSION WAS INCLUDED IN THE TERM "SECRETARY."  THE SERVICES OF THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE WERE MADE AVAILABLE UPON THE REQUEST OF EACH
SECRETARY, SUBJECT TO THE CONSENT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, FOR
THE PURPOSES OF MAKING EXAMINATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
PROFITS UNDER THE SECTION.  THE SECRETARY OF EACH DEPARTMENT WAS
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED, WHENEVER IN HIS OPINION EXCESSIVE PROFITS HAD
BEEN REALIZED OR WERE LIKELY TO BE REALIZED FROM ANY CONTRACT WITH SUCH
DEPARTMENT OR FROM ANY SUBCONTRACT THEREUNDER, TO REQUIRE THE
CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR TO RENEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT PRICE.  IN CASE
ANY AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SUCH
RENEGOTIATION TO REPRESENT "EXCESSIVE PROFITS" WHICH HAD BEEN PAID TO
THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, THE SECRETARY WAS AUTHORIZED TO
RECOVER THEM. 

THERE WAS NO EXPRESS DEFINITION OF THE TERM "EXCESSIVE PROFITS" IN
THE ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT.  HOWEVER, IN ITS SEC. 403(B),  FN23
THERE WAS A RELEVANT STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE RENEGOTIATION
CLAUSES REQUIRED TO BE INSERTED IN FUTURE CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS
FOR AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $100,000 EACH.  THE SECRETARY WAS REQUIRED
TO INSERT IN SUCH CONTRACTS, THEREAFTER MADE BY HIS DEPARTMENT, "A
PROVISION FOR THE RENEGOTIATION OF THE CONTRACT PRICE AT A PERIOD OR
PERIODS WHEN, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SECRETARY, THE PROFITS CAN BE
DETERMINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY; ...  "  CONTRACTORS WERE ALSO TO
BE REQUIRED TO INSERT A LIKE PROVISION IN THEIR SUBCONTRACTS.  THIS
STATEMENT INDICATED A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CURRENT "EXCESSIVE PROFITS"
AND THOSE WHICH LATER MIGHT BE DETERMINED WITH "REASONABLE CERTAINTY." 

ALSO, IN SEC. 403(D)  FN24  IT WAS PROVIDED THAT, IN RENEGOTIATING A
CONTRACT PRICE OR DETERMINING EXCESSIVE PROFITS, THE SECRETARIES OF THE
RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS SHOULD NOT MAKE ALLOWANCES "FOR ANY SALARIES,
BONUSES, OR OTHER COMPENSATION PAID BY A CONTRACTOR TO ITS OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES IN EXCESS OF A REASONABLE AMOUNT,  ...  " NOR "FOR ANY
EXCESSIVE RESERVES SET UP BY THE CONTRACTOR OR FOR ANY COSTS INCURRED
BY THE CONTRACTOR WHICH ARE EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE." 

THE AMENDMENTS MADE TO THIS SECTION BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942,  FN25
APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 1942, WERE MADE EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 28, 1942. 
AT THE TIME THEY WERE APPROVED, CONGRESS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE WAR
DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE OF AUGUST 10, 1942,  FN26  WHICH HAD BEEN PUT INTO
EFFECT STRESSING CERTAIN FACTORS WHICH THE SECRETARY EMPHASIZED IN
DETERMINING EXCESSIVE PROFITS.  WHILE CONGRESS THEN MADE SEVERAL
AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 403, THOSE AMENDMENTS DID NOT ALTER THE EFFECT OF
SUCH DIRECTIVE IN THIS PARTICULAR.  AMONG THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE THEN
ADDED THERE WAS THE FOLLOWING PURPORTED DEFINITION OF "EXCESSIVE
PROFITS":  "THE TERM 'EXCESSIVE PROFITS' MEANS ANY AMOUNT OF A CONTRACT
OR SUBCONTRACT PRICE WHICH IS FOUND AS A RESULT OF RENEGOTIATION TO
REPRESENT EXCESSIVE PROFITS."  IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXISTING
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES THIS AT LEAST EXPRESSED A CONGRESSIONAL
SATISFACTION WITH THE EXISTING SPECIFICITY OF THE ACT.  THE AMENDMENT
MADE TO SEC. 403(C)(3)  FN27  REQUIRED THE RECOGNITION OF EXCLUSIONS
AND DEDUCTIONS OF THE CHARACTER AFFORDED BY CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 403(C)(5) FN28  PROVIDED
ALSO THAT THE SECRETARIES, BY JOINT REGULATION, MIGHT PRESCRIBE THE
FORM AND DETAIL IN WHICH CERTAIN DATA MIGHT BE FILED BY CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS BEARING UPON THEIR PROFITS UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS.  THIS
MATERIAL CONCERNED "STATEMENTS OF ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCTION" AND
"OTHER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ANY PRIOR FISCAL YEAR OR YEARS."  UNDER
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE ABSENCE OF A NOTICE FROM THE SECRETARY AND
IN THE ABSENCE OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF RENEGOTIATIONS, IT WAS PROVIDED
THAT "THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL NOT THEREAFTER BE REQUIRED
TO RENEGOTIATE TO ELIMINATE EXCESSIVE PROFITS REALIZED FROM ANY SUCH
CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT DURING SUCH FISCAL YEAR OR YEARS AND ANY
LIABILITIES OF THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR FOR EXCESSIVE PROFITS
REALIZED DURING SUCH PERIOD SHALL BE THEREBY DISCHARGED."  A NEW
SUBSECTION (I)  FN29  WAS ADDED CONTAINING NEW EXCEPTIONS AND
EXEMPTIONS FROM THE ACT.  THE "JOINT STATEMENT BY THE WAR, NAVY, AND
TREASURY DEPARTMENT AND THE MARITIME COMMISSION - PURPOSES, PRINCIPLES,
POLICIES, AND INTERPRETATIONS" ISSUED MARCH 31, 1943,  FN30  SIMILARLY
CONTRIBUTED DEFINITENESS TO THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE. 

           2.  THE VALIDITY OF THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY. 

IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICES THAT WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE RENEGOTIATION ACT MADE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  ON THE BASIS OF (A)
THE NATURE OF THE PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS BEING EMPLOYED, (B)
THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES LATER INCORPORATED INTO THE ACT
AND (C) THE ADEQUACY OF THE STATUTORY TERM "EXCESSIVE PROFITS" AS USED
IN THIS CONTEXT, WE HOLD THAT THE AUTHORITY GRANTED WAS A LAWFUL
DELEGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AND NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. 

(A)  A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IMPLIES A POWER OF DELEGATION OF
AUTHORITY UNDER IT SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT ITS PURPOSES.  - THIS POWER IS
ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTITUTIONAL WAR POWERS
UNDER WHICH THE EXERCISE OF BROAD DISCRETION AS TO METHODS TO BE
EMPLOYED MAY BE ESSENTIAL TO AN EFFECTIVE USE OF ITS WAR POWERS BY
CONGRESS.  THE DEGREE TO WHICH CONGRESS MUST SPECIFY ITS POLICIES AND
STANDARDS IN ORDER THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY GRANTED MAY NOT BE
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF ITS OWN LEGISLATIVE POWER IS NOT
CAPABLE OF PRECISE DEFINITION.  IN PEACE OR IN WAR IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT
THE CONSTITUTION BE SCRUPULOUSLY OBEYED,  FN31  AND PARTICULARLY THAT
THE RESPECTIVE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT KEEP WITHIN THE POWERS
ASSIGNED TO EACH BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS OF THE
HIGHEST IMPORTANCE THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTION BE
KEPT IN MIND AND GIVEN EFFECT IN ORDER THAT, THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION,
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES MAY IN TIME OF WAR AS IN PEACE BRING TO
THE SUPPORT OF THOSE PURPOSES THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR UNITED ACTION. 
IN TIME OF CRISIS NOTHING COULD BE MORE TRAGIC AND LESS EXPRESSIVE OF
THE INTENT OF THE PEOPLE THAN SO TO CONSTRUE THEIR CONSTITUTION THAT BY
ITS OWN TERMS IT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY HINDER RATHER THAN HELP THEM IN
DEFENDING THEIR NATIONAL SAFETY. 

IN AN ADDRESS BY HONORABLE CHARLES E. HUGHES, OF NEW YORK, ON "WAR
POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION," SEPTEMBER 5, 1917, 42 A.B.A. REP. 232,
238-239, 247-248, HE SAID: 

"THE POWER TO WAGE WAR IS THE POWER TO WAGE WAR SUCCESSFULLY.  THE
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE UNDER NO ILLUSIONS AS TO WAR.  THEY
HAD EMERGED FROM A LONG STRUGGLE WHICH HAD TAUGHT THEM THE WEAKNESS OF
A MERE CONFEDERATION, AND THEY HAD NO HOPE THAT THEY COULD HOLD WHAT
THEY HAD WON SAVE AS THEY ESTABLISHED A UNION WHICH COULD FIGHT WITH
THE STRENGTH OF ONE PEOPLE UNDER ONE GOVERNMENT ENTRUSTED WITH THE
COMMON DEFENCE.  IN EQUIPPING THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE NEEDED
AUTHORITY IN WAR, THEY TOLERATED NO LIMITATIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT
OBJECT, AS THEY REALIZED THAT THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE NATION MIGHT BE
AT STAKE AND THAT EVERY RESOURCE OF THE PEOPLE MUST BE AT COMMAND. 
... 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF WAR MAY BRING PARTICULAR
(BUSINESSES) AND ENTERPRISES CLEARLY INTO THE CATEGORY OF THOSE WHICH
ARE AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHICH DEMAND IMMEDIATE AND
THOROUGHGOING PUBLIC REGULATION.  THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF
FOODSTUFFS, ARTICLES OF PRIME NECESSITY, THOSE WHICH HAVE DIRECT
RELATION TO MILITARY EFFICIENCY, THOSE WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED
FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE DURING THE STRESS OF CONFLICT, ARE
PLAINLY OF THIS SORT.  REASONABLE REGULATIONS TO SAFEGUARD THE
RESOURCES UPON WHICH WE DEPEND FOR MILITARY SUCCESS MUST BE REGARDED AS
BEING WITHIN THE POWERS CONFIDED TO CONGRESS TO ENABLE IT TO PROSECUTE
A SUCCESSFUL WAR. 

"IN THE WORDS OF THE SUPREME COURT:  'IT IS ALSO SETTLED BEYOND
DISPUTE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.  IN OTHER WORDS,
THAT THE POWER WHICH IT CONFERS ON THE ONE HAND IT DOES NOT IMMEDIATELY
TAKE AWAY ON THE OTHER.  ...  '  FN32  THIS WAS SAID IN RELATION TO THE
TAXING POWER.  HAVING BEEN GRANTED IN EXPRESS TERMS, THE COURT HELD IT
HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  AS THE SUPREME COURT PUT IT IN ANOTHER CASE:  'THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ITSELF BY CONFERRING UPON THE ONE
HAND A TAXING POWER AND TAKING THE SAME POWER AWAY ON THE OTHER BY THE
LIMITATIONS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.'  FN33 

"SIMILARLY, IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE POWER HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO
CONGRESS TO PROSECUTE WAR, AND TO PASS ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE
NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING THAT POWER INTO EXECUTION.  THAT
POWER EXPLICITLY CONFERRED AND ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE SAFETY OF
THE NATION IS NOT DESTROYED OR IMPAIRED BY ANY LATER PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OR BY ANY ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS.  THESE MAY ALL BE
CONSTRUED SO AS TO AVOID MAKING THE CONSTITUTION SELF-DESTRUCTIVE, SO
AS TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN FROM UNWARRANTABLE ATTACK,
WHILE ASSURING BEYOND ALL HAZARD THE COMMON DEFENCE AND THE PERPETUITY
OF OUR LIBERTIES.  THESE REST UPON THE PRESERVATION OF THE NATION. 

"IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THE CONSTITUTION MARCHES.  THAT IS, THERE ARE
CONSTANTLY NEW APPLICATIONS OF UNCHANGED POWERS, AND IT IS ASCERTAINED
THAT IN NOVEL AND COMPLEX SITUATIONS, THE OLD GRANTS CONTAIN, IN THEIR
GENERAL WORDS AND TRUE SIGNIFICANCE, NEEDED AND ADEQUATE AUTHORITY. 
SO, ALSO, WE HAVE A FIGHTING CONSTITUTION.  WE CANNOT AT THIS TIME FAIL
TO APPRECIATE THE WISDOM OF THE FATHERS, AS UNDER THIS CHARTER, ONE
HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS OLD - THE CONSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON - THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES FIGHT WITH THE POWER OF UNITY,  - AS WE
FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF OUR CHILDREN AND THAT HEREAFTER THE SWORD OF
AUTOCRATS MAY NEVER THREATEN THE WORLD." 

THE WAR POWERS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT ARE ONLY THOSE WHICH ARE
TO BE DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION BUT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE LANGUAGE
JUST QUOTED, THE PRIMARY IMPLICATION OF A WAR POWER IS THAT IT SHALL BE
AN EFFECTIVE POWER TO WAGE THE WAR SUCCESSFULLY.  THUS, WHILE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND CONTROLS OF OUR GOVERNMENT ARE OUR GUIDES
EQUALLY IN WAR AND IN PEACE, THEY MUST BE READ WITH THE REALISTIC
PURPOSES OF THE ENTIRE INSTRUMENT FULLY IN MIND.  FN34 

IN 1942, IN THE EARLY STAGES OF TOTAL GLOBAL WARFARE, THE EXERCISE OF
A WAR POWER SUCH AS THE POWER "TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES,  ...  " AND
"TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY; ...  ," CALLED FOR THE PRODUCTION BY
US OF WAR GOODS IN UNPRECEDENTED VOLUME WITH THE UTMOST SPEED, COMBINED
WITH FLEXIBILITY OF CONTROL OVER THE PRODUCT AND WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF
INITIATIVE ON THE PART OF THE PRODUCERS.  FACED WITH THE NEED TO
EXERCISE THAT POWER, THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER IT WAS BEYOND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO DELEGATE TO THE HIGH OFFICIALS
NAMED THEREIN THE DISCRETION CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION
ACT OF APRIL 28, 1942, AND THE AMENDMENTS OF OCTOBER 21, 1942.  WE
BELIEVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY THERE GRANTED WAS WELL WITHIN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL WAR POWERS THEN BEING PUT TO THEIR PREDESTINED
USES. 

(B)  THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES DEVELOPED UNDER THE RENEGOTIATION
ACT DEMONSTRATED THE DEFINITIVE ADEQUACY OF THE TERM "EXCESSIVE
PROFITS" AS USED IN THE ACT.  - THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES CURRENTLY
DEVELOPED UNDER THE ACT IN INTERPRETING THE TERM "EXCESSIVE PROFITS"
APPEAR TO HAVE COME WELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY. 
WE HAVE REFERRED ABOVE TO THE WAR DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE OF AUGUST 10,
1942,  FN35  AND TO THE JOINT DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT OF MARCH 31, 1943,
FN36  BOTH OF WHICH WERE PLACED BEFORE APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES.  THESE CLEARLY STATED PRACTICES ARE EVIDENCE OF A CURRENT
CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  THIS APPEARS FROM
THE FACT THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION OF OCTOBER 21, 1942, MADE
EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 28, 1942, WAS TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE
MENTIONED DIRECTIVE AND WITHOUT RESTRICTING ITS EFFECT.  FURTHERMORE,
THE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TAKEN FEBRUARY 25, 1944, AND MADE EFFECTIVE
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDING AFTER JUNE 30, 1943, SUBSTANTIALLY
INCORPORATED INTO THE STATUTE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE SHOWN IN THE
JOINT DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT OF MARCH 31, 1943.  IT THUS BECAME AN
EXPRESS CONGRESSIONAL DEFINITION OF THE FACTORS APPROPRIATE FOR
CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING EXCESSIVE PROFITS, WHEREAS BEFORE IT WAS
AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF "EXCESSIVE PROFITS" TO THE SAME
EFFECT. 

(C)  THE STATUTORY TERM "EXCESSIVE PROFITS," IN ITS CONTEXT, WAS A
SUFFICIENT EXPRESSION OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND STANDARDS TO RENDER IT
CONSTITUTIONAL.  - THE FACT THAT THIS TERM LATER WAS FURTHER DEFINED
BOTH BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND BY STATUTORY AMENDMENT INDICATES THE
PROBABLE DESIRABILITY OF SUCH ADDED DEFINITION, BUT IT DOES NOT
DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH FURTHER DEFINITION WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY
ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ORIGINAL EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS
WAR POWERS IN INITIATING A NEW SOLUTION OF AN UNPRECEDENTED PROBLEM. 
THE FACT THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL DEFINITION CONFIRMED THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE WHICH ALREADY WAS IN EFFECT UNDER THE ORIGINAL STATUTORY
LANGUAGE TENDS TO SHOW THAT A STATUTORY DEFINITION WAS NOT NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. 

IN 1942 THE IMPOSITION OF EXCESS PROFITS TAXES WAS A PROCEDURE
ALREADY FAMILIAR TO CONGRESS, BOTH AS AN EMERGENCY PROCEDURE TO RAISE
FUNDS FOR EXTRAORDINARY WARTIME EXPENDITURES, AND AS ONE TO MEET THE
NEEDS OF PEACE.  THE RECAPTURE OF EXCESS INCOME AS APPLIED BY CONGRESS
TO THE RAILROADS HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THIS COURT IN 1924.  DAYTON-GOOSE
CREEK R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456.  THE OPINIONS OF THIS
COURT IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414; SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 529-542; AND PANAMA REFINING CO. V.
RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, 413-433, ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH OUR PRESENT
POSITION. 

THE POLICY AND PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN CHOOSING THE RENEGOTIATION OF
PROFITS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COST-PLUS CONTRACTS, TO FLAT PERCENTAGE
LIMITATIONS OF PROFITS, AND TO 100% EXCESS PROFITS TAXES WAS AN ATTEMPT
TO DETERMINE A FAIR RETURN ON WAR CONTRACTS, UNDER CONDITIONS WHERE
ACTUAL EXPERIENCE ALONE COULD DISCLOSE WHAT WAS FAIR AND WHEN THE
PRIMARY NATIONAL NEED WAS FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION OF UNPRECEDENTED
QUANTITIES OF NEW PRODUCTS.  THE ACTION OF CONGRESS WAS AN EXPRESSION
OF ITS WELLCONSIDERED JUDGMENT AS TO THE DEGREE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
AUTHORITY WHICH IT WAS NECESSARY TO GRANT IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE ITS
POLICY.  THIS ACTION OF CONGRESS CAME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS
DISCRETION AS DESCRIBED BY CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN PANAMA REFINING CO.
V. RYAN, SUPRA, AT P. 421: 

"UNDOUBTEDLY LEGISLATION MUST OFTEN BE ADAPTED TO COMPLEX CONDITIONS
INVOLVING A HOST OF DETAILS WITH WHICH THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE CANNOT
DEAL DIRECTLY.  THE CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS DENYING TO
THE CONGRESS THE NECESSARY RESOURCES OF FLEXIBILITY AND PRACTICALITY,
WHICH WILL ENABLE IT TO PERFORM ITS FUNCTION IN LAYING DOWN POLICIES
AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS, WHILE LEAVING TO SELECTED INSTRUMENTALITIES
THE MAKING OF SUBORDINATE RULES WITHIN PRESCRIBED LIMITS AND THE
DETERMINATION OF FACTS TO WHICH THE POLICY AS DECLARED BY THE
LEGISLATURE IS TO APPLY.  WITHOUT CAPACITY TO GIVE AUTHORIZATIONS OF
THAT SORT WE SHOULD HAVE THE ANOMALY OF A LEGISLATIVE POWER WHICH IN
MANY CIRCUMSTANCES CALLING FOR ITS EXERTION WOULD BE BUT A FUTILITY." 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT CONGRESS SUPPLY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS
WITH A SPECIFIC FORMULA FOR THEIR GUIDANCE IN A FIELD WHERE FLEXIBILITY
AND THE ADAPTATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO INFINITELY VARIABLE
CONDITIONS CONSTITUTE THE ESSENCE OF THE PROGRAM.  "IF CONGRESS SHALL
LAY DOWN BY LEGISLATIVE ACT AN INTELLIGIBLE PRINCIPLE  ...  SUCH
LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS NOT A FORBIDDEN DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER."  HAMPTON CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 394, 409.  STANDARDS
PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS ARE TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONDITIONS TO
WHICH THEY ARE TO BE APPLIED.  "THEY DERIVE MUCH MEANINGFUL CONTENT
FROM THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, ITS FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND THE STATUTORY
CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY APPEAR."  AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT CO. V. S.E.C.,
329 U.S. 90, 104.  THE PURPOSE OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT AND ITS FACTUAL
BACKGROUND ESTABLISH A SUFFICIENT MEANING FOR "EXCESSIVE PROFITS" AS
THOSE WORDS ARE USED IN PRACTICE.  FN37  THE WORD "EXCESSIVE" APPEARS
TWICE IN THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION:  "EXCESSIVE BAIL
SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED,  ...  "  IN THE
ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT, SEC. 403(D), FN38  THERE WERE EXPRESSLY
DISALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR IN DETERMINING HIS PROFITS "COMPENSATION
PAID BY A CONTRACTOR TO ITS OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES IN EXCESS OF A
REASONABLE AMOUNT,  ...  " AND "ANY COSTS INCURRED BY THE CONTRACTOR
WHICH ARE EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE."  "EXCESSIVE PROFITS ARE THOSE IN
EXCESS OF REASONABLE PROFITS."  SPAULDING V. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO., 154
F.2D 419, 423. 

THE FOLLOWING, SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE, LEGISLATIVE SPECIFICATIONS ARE
AMONG THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD TO STATE A SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE
STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: 

"JUST AND REASONABLE" RATES FOR SALES OF NATURAL GAS, FEDERAL POWER
COMM'N V. HOPE GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 600-601; "PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY" IN ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT, NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 190, 225-226; PRICES YIELDING A "FAIR RETURN" OR THE
"FAIR VALUE" OF PROPERTY, SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381,
397-398; "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION" DISTINCT FROM OFFENSES DEFINED
UNDER THE COMMON LAW, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S.
304, 311-312, 314; "JUST AND REASONABLE" RATES FOR THE SERVICES OF
COMMISSION MEN, TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420,
431; AND "FAIR AND REASONABLE" RENT FOR PREMISES, WITH FINAL
DETERMINATION IN THE COURTS, LEVY LEASING CO. V. SIEGEL, 258 U.S. 242,
243, 248-250. 

          3.  METHODS PRESCRIBED AND LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON THE

                     ADMINISTRATION. 

THE METHODS PRESCRIBED AND THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY CONGRESS UPON
THE CONTEMPLATED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ARE HELPFUL.  THE ACT IS
CONFINED TO THE DURATION OF THE WAR OR TO A SHORT TIME THEREAFTER. 
RENEGOTIATION, FROM THE BEGINNING, HAS BEEN CONFINED TO THE ELIMINATION
OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS FROM CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS WITH CERTAIN
GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR. 
BY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THE SCOPE OF THE ACT WAS LIMITED BY FURTHER
EXPRESS EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS TO
WHOM AUTHORITY WAS GRANTED WERE CLEARLY SPECIFIED AND WERE ALL
OFFICIALS OF HIGH GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY.  EACH WAS REQUIRED TO
ACT WHENEVER HE FOUND EXCESSIVE PROFITS EXISTED UNDER THE CONDITIONS
DEFINED.  THE PROVISIONS FOR A REDETERMINATION OF EXCESS PROFITS BY THE
TAX COURT DE NOVO ARE DISCUSSED LATER.  THEY LIKEWISE IMPOSED IMPORTANT
LIMITATIONS ON THE ALLOWABLE RECOVERIES. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY HERE IN ISSUE,
UNDER THE RENEGOTIATION ACT IN ITS SEVERAL FORMS, WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL
DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AND NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. 

          THE RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS WAS NOT A TAKING

           OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE. 

THE RECOVERY BY THE GOVERNMENT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS RECEIVED OR
RECEIVABLE UPON WAR CONTRACTS IS IN THE NATURE OF THE REGULATION OF
MAXIMUM PRICES UNDER WAR CONTRACTS OR THE COLLECTION OF EXCESS PROFITS
TAXES, RATHER THAN THE REQUISITIONING OR CONDEMNATION OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE.  ONE OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF THE
RENEGOTIATION PLAN FOR REDETERMINING THE ALLOWABLE PROFIT ON CONTRACTS
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF WAR GOODS BY PRIVATE PERSONS WAS THE AVOIDANCE OF
REQUISITIONING OR CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO GOVERNMENTAL
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF THE PLANTS PRODUCING WAR MATERIALS.  A
REFUND TO THE GOVERNMENT OF EXCESSIVE EARNINGS OF RAILROAD CARRIERS
UNDER THE RECAPTURE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 15A OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1920, 41 STAT. 488, HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT.  DAYTON-GOOSE
CREEK R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456.  THE COLLECTION OF
RENEGOTIATED EXCESSIVE PROFITS ON A WAR SUBCONTRACT ALSO IS NOT IN THE
NATURE OF A PENALTY AND IS NOT A DEPRIVATION OF A SUBCONTRACTOR OF HIS
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

          THE RENEGOTIATION ACT, INCLUDING ITS AMENDMENTS,

            HAS BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED TO CONTRACTS ENTERED

                 INTO BEFORE ITS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE

                           ENACTMENTS. 

THE EXCESSIVE PROFITS CLAIMED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THESE CASES AROSE
OUT OF CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS AND OTHER PRIVATE
PARTIES.  NONE AROSE OUT OF CONTRACTS MADE DIRECTLY WITH THE GOVERNMENT
ITSELF.  ALL THE CONTRACTS, HOWEVER, RELATED TO SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT IN ITS RESPECTIVE STAGES.  THE
CONTRACTS ALL WERE OF THE TYPE WHICH CAME TO BE KNOWN, UNDER THE ACT,
AS SUBCONTRACTS.  ALL, EXCEPT FOUR IN THE LICHTER CASE, WERE ENTERED
INTO AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT, APRIL 28,
1942, AND ON THOSE FOUR, THE FINAL PAYMENT HAD NOT BEEN MADE BY THAT
DATE.  WE THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE BEFORE US AN ISSUE AS TO THE RECOVERY
OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS ON ANY CONTRACT MADE DIRECTLY WITH THE GOVERNMENT
NOR ON ANY SUBCONTRACT UPON WHICH FINAL PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE BEFORE
APRIL 28, 1942, ALTHOUGH RELATING TO WAR GOODS MADE OR SERVICES
PERFORMED AFTER THE DECLARATION OF WAR, DECEMBER 8, 1941.  CONGRESS
LIMITED THE RENEGOTIATION ACT TO FUTURE CONTRACTS AND TO CONTRACTS
ALREADY EXISTING BUT PURSUANT TO WHICH FINAL PAYMENTS HAD NOT BEEN MADE
PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE ORIGINAL ACT.  THESE INCLUDED
CONTRACTS MADE DIRECTLY WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND ALSO SUBCONTRACTS SUCH
AS THOSE HERE INVOLVED. 

WE UPHOLD THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO RECOVER EXCESSIVE PROFITS ON
EACH OF THE CONTRACTS BEFORE US.  THIS RIGHT EXISTS AS TO SUCH
EXCESSIVE PROFITS WHETHER THEY AROSE FROM CONTRACTS MADE BEFORE OR
AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT.  A CONTRACT IS EQUALLY A WAR CONTRACT IN
EITHER EVENT AND, IF UNCOMPLETED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FINAL PAYMENT
HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE, THE RECOVERY OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS DERIVED FROM
IT MAY BE AUTHORIZED AS HAS BEEN DONE HERE. 

WHILE THE ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT MAY NOT HAVE EXPRESSLY DEFINED
SOME OF THE CONTRACTS BEFORE US AS SUBCONTRACTS, THE ACT OF OCTOBER 21,
1942, IN ITS AMENDMENTS EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 28, 1942, DID SO.
ACCORDINGLY, THE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES IN THE
ALEXANDER CASE BETWEEN APRIL 28, 1942, AND OCTOBER 21, 1942, COME
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT. 

                        THE TAX COURT REMEDY. 

BEFORE THE AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED IN IT ON FEBRUARY 25, 1944, BY THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1943(THE SO-CALLED SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT) THE
ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT, AS THERETOFORE AMENDED, DID NOT PROVIDE
EXPRESSLY FOR A REVIEW OR REDETERMINATION OF THE INITIAL DETERMINATION
OF THE EXCESS PROFITS AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE BY THE RESPECTIVE
SECRETARIES.  THE 1944 AMENDMENTS ADDED NOT MERELY AN EXPRESS STATEMENT
OF FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING EXCESSIVE
PROFITS (SEC. 403(A)(4)(A)),  FN39  BUT ALSO CREATED A WAR CONTRACTS
PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD (SEC. 403(D)(1))  FN40  TO MAKE SUCH
DETERMINATIONS IN THE FUTURE.  ALSO, IT PROVIDED EXPRESSLY FOR
PETITIONS TO BE FILED WITH THE TAX COURT TO SECURE REDETERMINATIONS OF
THE ORDERS OF SUCH BOARD.  (SEC. 403(E)(1).)  FN41  IT EXPRESSLY STATED
THAT "A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TAX COURT TO FINALLY DETERMINE THE
AMOUNT, IF ANY, OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW THE DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD, BUT SHALL BE
TREATED AS A PROCEEDING DE NOVO."  (SEC. 403(E)(1).)  IT PROVIDED ALSO
THAT "IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FILING OF A PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AND WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT
PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (E)(1), SUCH ORDER (OF THE BOARD) SHALL BE
FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW OR
REDETERMINATION BY ANY COURT OR OTHER AGENCY."  (SEC. 403(C)(1).)  FN42
ALL OF THE DETERMINATIONS IN THE CASES BEFORE US WERE MADE AFTER
FEBRUARY 25, 1944, AND THOSE IN THE POWNALL CASE WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF
THE BOARD.  THE ABOVE PROCEDURE UNDER SEC. 403(E)(1) ACCORDINGLY WAS
OPEN TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE POWNALL CASE BUT THEY DID NOT FILE A
PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT. 

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE PROCEDURES AFFECTING FUTURE DETERMINATIONS
OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD, THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION
ACT ALSO MADE EXPRESS PROVISIONS, IN SEC. 403(E)(2), FN43  FOR A
REDETERMINATION BY THE TAX COURT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS DETERMINED TO
EXIST BY THE RESPECTIVE SECRETARIES.  THESE PROVISIONS APPLIED FIRST TO
ANY DETERMINATIONS MADE BY A SECRETARY PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 25, 1944, WITH
RESPECT TO A FISCAL YEAR ENDING BEFORE JULY 1, 1943.  IN THOSE
INSTANCES A PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION BY THE TAX COURT WAS PERMITTED
TO BE FILED WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER FEBRUARY 25, 1944.  WE HAVE NO SUCH
CASE BEFORE US.  THESE PROVISIONS APPLIED ALSO TO ANY DETERMINATION
MADE BY A SECRETARY AFTER FEBRUARY 25, 1944, WITH RESPECT TO A FISCAL
YEAR ENDING BEFORE JULY 1, 1943.  IN THAT EVENT, A PETITION FOR
REDETERMINATION BY THE TAX COURT WAS PERMITTED TO BE FILED WITHIN 90
DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE REDETERMINATION.  WE HAVE SUCH SITUATIONS IN
THE LICHTER AND ALEXANDER CASES. 

NO PETITIONS WERE FILED WITH THE TAX COURT IN ANY OF THE CASES BEFORE
US, AND THE TIME FOR DOING SO HAS EXPIRED.  ACCORDINGLY, HERE, AS IN
AIRCRAFT & DIESEL CORP. V. HIRSCH, 331 U.S. 752, 771, WE DO NOT HAVE
BEFORE US, AND WE DO NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION UPON, THE FINALITY WHICH
WOULD HAVE ATTACHED TO A REDETERMINATION BY THE TAX COURT IF SUCH A
REDETERMINATION HAD BEEN SOUGHT AND MADE.  WE HAVE ONLY THE SITUATIONS
PRESENTED BY THE RESPECTIVE FAILURES OF THE PETITIONERS TO RESORT TO
THE TAX COURT IN THE FACE OF THE EXPRESS STATUTORY PROVISIONS MADE FOR
SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF. 

AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE AND OF THE COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN, WE
HOLD THAT THE STATUTE DID AFFORD PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS TO THE
RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS BUT THAT NONE OF THEM MADE USE OF THE PROCEDURE
SO PROVIDED FOR THEM.  CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIMARY NEED FOR SPEED AND
DEFINITENESS IN THESE MATTERS, THE ORIGINAL ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATIONS BY THE RESPECTIVE SECRETARIES OR BY THE BOARD WERE
INTENDED PRIMARILY AS RENEGOTIATIONS IN THE COURSE OF WHICH THE
INTERESTED PARTIES WERE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE GOVERNMENT OR IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, MIGHT ANNOUNCE ITS UNILATERAL
DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE PROFIT CLAIMED BY THE UNITED
STATES.  THIS INITIAL PROCEEDING WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE A FORMAL
PROCEEDING PRODUCING A RECORD FOR REVIEW BY SOME OTHER AUTHORITY.  IN
LIEU OF SUCH A PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW, THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT
PROVIDED AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR A REDETERMINATION OF THE EXCESSIVE
PROFITS, IF ANY, DE NOVO BY THE TAX COURT.  "THE DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS
DO NOT REQUIRE A HEARING, AT THE INITIAL STAGE OR AT ANY PARTICULAR
POINT OR AT MORE THAN ONE POINT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING SO LONG
AS THE REQUISITE HEARING IS HELD BEFORE THE FINAL ORDER BECOMES
EFFECTIVE."  OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 152-153. 

WE UPHOLD THE DECISIONS BELOW AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT
TO THE EFFECT THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISION THUS MADE FOR A PETITION TO
THE TAX COURT WAS NOT, IN ANY CASE BEFORE US, AN OPTIONAL OR
ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE.  IT PROVIDED THE ONE AND ONLY PROCEDURE TO
SECURE A REDETERMINATION OF THE EXCESSIVE PROFITS WHICH HAD BEEN
DETERMINED TO EXIST BY THE ORDERS OF THE RESPECTIVE SECRETARIES OR OF
THE BOARD IN THE CASES BEFORE US.  FAILURE OF THE RESPECTIVE
PETITIONERS TO EXHAUST THAT PROCEDURE HAS LEFT THEM WITH NO RIGHT TO
PRESENT HERE ISSUES SUCH AS THOSE AS TO COVERAGE AND THE AMOUNT OF
PROFITS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED THERE.  ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS
EXCLUDED FROM OUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS PROCEEDING THE CONTENTION IN
THE LICHTER CASE THAT THE PETITIONERS' SUBCONTRACTS WERE EXEMPT FROM
RENEGOTIATION ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE SUBCONTRACTS UNDER PRIME
CONTRACTS WITH A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND HAD BEEN AWARDED TO
THEM AS THE RESULT OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES.  THERE IS EXCLUDED ALSO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
CONTENTION IN THE POWNALL CASE THAT PETITIONERS' CONTRACTS WHICH WERE
FOR AMOUNTS UNDER $100,000 EACH WERE NOT SUBJECT TO RENEGOTIATION. 
LIKEWISE, IN THE ALEXANDER CASE, THERE IS EXCLUDED THE PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION THAT IT HAD NOT MADE EXCESSIVE PROFITS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE STATUTE AND THAT ITS CONTRACTS FOR PROCESSING WOOL WERE NOT
"SUBCONTRACTS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL RENEGOTIATION ACT. 

FOR THESE REASONS, WE UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
RENEGOTIATION ACT ON ITS FACE AS AUTHORITY FOR THE RECOVERY OF
EXCESSIVE PROFITS AS ORDERED IN THE THREE RESPECTIVE CASES BEFORE US,
AND WE HOLD THAT THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO
PRESENT QUESTIONS AS TO THE COVERAGE OF THAT ACT, AS TO THE AMOUNT OF
EXCESSIVE PROFITS ADJUDGED TO BE DUE FROM THEM OR AS TO OTHER
COMPARABLE ISSUES WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY THEM TO THE TAX
COURT UPON A TIMELY PETITION TO THAT COURT FOR A REDETERMINATION OF
EXCESSIVE PROFITS, IF ANY. 

ACCORDINGLY, IN EACH OF THE CASES BEFORE US, THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE RENEGOTIATION ACT, INCLUDING ITS AMENDMENTS, IS HERE TREATED
AS CONSISTING OF: 

I. SECTION 403, SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION
ACT, 1942, APPROVED APRIL 28, 1942, C. 247, 56 STAT. 226, 245-246. 
SOMETIMES THIS IS CALLED THE ORIGINAL OR FIRST RENEGOTIATION ACT.  FOR
RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM ITS TEXT SEE APPENDIX I, INFRA, P. 793. 

II.  TITLE VIII, RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS, REVENUE ACT OF 1942,
APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 1942, C. 619, 56 STAT. 798, 982-985, 26 U.S.C.A
IINTERNAL REVENUE ACTS BEGINNING 1940, REVENUE ACT OF 1942, SEC. 801,
P. 376.  FOR RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM ITS TEXT SEE APPENDIX II, INFRA, P.
795. 

III.  SECTION 1, MILITARY APPROPRIATION ACT, 1944, APPROVED JULY 1,
1943, C. 185, 57 STAT. 347-348. 

IV.  AN ACT TO PREVENT THE PAYMENT OF EXCESSIVE FEES OR COMPENSATION
IN CONNECTION WITH THE NEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS, APPROVED JULY 14,
1943, C. 239, 57 STAT. 564-565. 

V. TITLE VII, RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS, AND TITLE VIII,
REPRICING OF WAR CONTRACTS, REVENUE ACT OF 1943, PASSED NOTWITHSTANDING
THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT, FEBRUARY 25, 1944, C. 63, 58 STAT. 21,
78-93, 50 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SECS. 1191, 1192; ALSO 26 U.S.C.A.
INTERNAL REVENUE ACTS BEGINNING 1940, REVENUE ACT OF 1943, SECS. 701
AND 801, PP. 491 AND 508.  FOR RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM ITS TEXT SEE
APPENDIX III, INFRA, P. 798.  SOMETIMES THIS IS CALLED THE SECOND
RENEGOTIATION ACT.  SECTION 701(B), OF THE FOREGOING CHAPTER 63, ADDED
TO SEC. 403 OF THE SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION
ACT, 1942, A FINAL SUBSECTION AS FOLLOWS:  "(1) THIS SECTION MAY BE
CITED AS THE 'RENEGOTIATION ACT'."  58 STAT. 90.  SECTION 701(D) ALSO
PROVIDED THAT THIS SUBSECTION (L) OF SEC. 403, AND CERTAIN OTHERS,
"SHALL BE EFFECTIVE AS IF SUCH AMENDMENTS AND SUBSECTIONS HAD BEEN A
PART OF SECTION 403 OF SUCH ACT ON THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT."  58
STAT. 92.    VI.  AN ACT TO EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1945, THE
TERMINATION DATE UNDER THE RENEGOTIATION ACT, APPROVED JUNE 30, 1945,
C. 210, 59 STAT. 294-295, 50 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 1191. 

FN2  IN ADDITION TO THE OPINIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND
DISTRICT COURTS CITED IN THE TEXT, SEE RING CONSTRUCTION CORP. V.
SECRETARY OF WAR, 8 T.C. 1070; COHEN V. SECRETARY OF WAR, 7 T.C. 1002;
STEIN BROS. MFG. CO. V. SECRETARY OF WAR, 7 T.C. 863.  FOR DISCUSSIONS
OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT BY THIS COURT, STOPPING SHORT OF PASSING UPON
ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY, SEE AIRCRAFT & DIESEL CORP. V. HIRSCH, 331 U.S.
752; AND MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 327 U.S. 540. 

FN3  AMONG THE MANY OTHER PROVISIONS IMPLEMENTING THE CONGRESS AND
THE PRESIDENT WITH POWERS TO MEET THE VARIED DEMANDS OF WAR, THE
FOLLOWING OBVIOUSLY COMMAND ATTENTION:  "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION,  ...  PROVIDE FOR THE
COMMON DEFENCE,... AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND
OUR POSTERITY, DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA."  U.S. CONST. PREAMBLE. 

"THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES,
IMPOSTS AND EXCISES, TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON
DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES;... 

 .         .         .         .         . 

"TO DECLARE WAR,... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY; 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING
INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS,  ...."  ID. ART. I, SEC. 8. 

"THE PRESIDENT SHALL BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY OF
THE UNITED STATES,...."  ID. ART. II, SEC. 2, CL. 1. 

MADISON SAID IN THE FEDERALIST, NUMBER XLI, - GENERAL VIEW OF THE
POWERS CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION:  "SECURITY AGAINST FOREIGN DANGER
IS ONE OF THE PRIMITIVE OBJECTS OF CIVIL SOCIETY.  IT IS AN AVOWED AND
ESSENTIAL OBJECT OF THE AMERICAN UNION.  THE POWERS REQUISITE FOR
ATTAINING IT MUST BE EFFECTUALLY CONFIDED TO THE FEDERAL COUNCILS." 

HAMILTON SAID IN THE FEDERALIST, NUMBER XXIII, - THE NECESSITY OF A
GOVERNMENT AS ENERGETIC AS THE ONE PROPOSED TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE
UNION: 

"THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF NATIONS ARE INFINITE,
AND FOR THIS REASON NO CONSTITUTIONAL SHACKLES CAN WISELY BE IMPOSED ON
THE POWER TO WHICH THE CARE OF IT IS COMMITTED.  THIS POWER OUGHT TO BE
CO-EXTENSIVE WITH ALL THE POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS OF SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES;
AND OUGHT TO BE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SAME COUNCILS WHICH ARE
APPOINTED TO PRESIDE OVER THE COMMON DEFENCE." 

FN4  "THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS TO CONGRESS POWER 'TO RAISE AND SUPPORT
ARMIES,' 'TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY,' AND TO MAKE ALL LAWS
NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY THESE POWERS INTO EXECUTION.  UNDER THIS
AUTHORITY CONGRESS CAN DRAFT MEN FOR BATTLE SERVICE.  SELECTIVE DRAFT
LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366.  ITS POWER TO DRAFT BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS TO
SUPPORT THE FIGHTING MEN WHO RISK THEIR LIVES CAN BE NO LESS."  UNITED
STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S. 289, 305. 

IN WRITING OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PASS A CONSCRIPTION ACT,
PRESIDENT LINCOLN SAID, WITH CHARACTERISTIC CLEARNESS: 

"WHETHER A POWER CAN BE IMPLIED WHEN IT IS NOT EXPRESSED HAS OFTEN
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY; BUT THIS IS THE FIRST CASE IN WHICH
THE DEGREE OF EFFRONTERY HAS BEEN VENTURED UPON OF DENYING A POWER
WHICH IS PLAINLY AND DISTINCTLY WRITTEN DOWN IN THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
CONSTITUTION DECLARES THAT 'THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO
RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES; BUT NO APPROPRIATION OF MONEY TO THAT USE
SHALL BE FOR A LONGER TERM THAN TWO YEARS.'  THE WHOLE SCOPE OF THE
CONSCRIPTION ACT IS 'TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES.'  THERE IS NOTHING
ELSE IN IT.... 

"...  DO YOU ADMIT THAT THE POWER IS GIVEN TO RAISE AND SUPPORT
ARMIES, AND YET INSIST THAT BY THIS ACT CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERCISED THE
POWER IN A CONSTITUTIONAL MODE?  - HAS NOT DONE THE THING IN THE RIGHT
WAY?  WHO IS TO JUDGE OF THIS?  THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE
POWER, BUT IT DOES NOT PRESCRIBE THE MODE, OR EXPRESSLY DECLARE WHO
SHALL PRESCRIBE IT.  IN SUCH CASE CONGRESS MUST PRESCRIBE THE MODE, OR
RELINQUISH THE POWER.  THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE....  THE POWER IS GIVEN
FULLY, COMPLETELY, UNCONDITIONALLY.  IT IS NOT A POWER TO RAISE ARMIES
IF STATE AUTHORITIES CONSENT; NOR IF THE MEN TO COMPOSE THE ARMIES ARE
ENTIRELY WILLING; BUT IT IS A POWER TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES GIVEN
TO CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION, WITHOUT AN 'IF.'"  9 NICOLAY AND HAY,
WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN 75-77(1894). 

THE FOREGOING QUOTATION IS FROM AN OPINION BY PRESIDENT LINCOLN,
WHICH WAS NOT ACTUALLY ISSUED OR PUBLISHED BY HIM BUT WHICH WAS QUOTED
TO THE ABOVE EXTENT BY HONORABLE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, OF NEW YORK, IN
HIS ADDRESS ON "WAR POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION" BEFORE THE AMERICAN
BAR ASSOCIATION, SEPTEMBER 5, 1917, 42 A.B.A. REP. 232, 234-235. 

THE DRAFT WAS PUT IN FORCE BOTH BY THE UNION AND BY THE CONFEDERACY
DURING THE CIVIL WAR AND ITS VALIDITY WAS SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS IN
BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH.  "THE POWER OF COERCING THE CITIZEN TO RENDER
MILITARY SERVICE, IS INDEED A TRANSCENDENT POWER, IN THE HANDS OF ANY
GOVERNMENT; BUT SO FAR FROM BEING INCONSISTENT WITH LIBERTY, IT IS
ESSENTIAL TO ITS PRESERVATION."  BURROUGHS V. PEYTON, 16 GRATT.  470,
473.  SEE CASES CITED IN 42 A.B.A. REP. 234 N. 1, AND SEE SELECTIVE
DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366; JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11,
29; IN RE GRIMLEY, 137 U.S. 147, 153. 

FN5  "OUR OWN OBJECTIVES ARE CLEAR; THE OBJECTIVE OF SMASHING THE
MILITARISM IMPOSED BY WAR LORDS UPON THEIR ENSLAVED PEOPLES; THE
OBJECTIVE OF LIBERATING THE SUBJUGATED NATIONS; THE OBJECTIVE OF
ESTABLISHING AND SECURING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION,
FREEDOM FROM WANT, AND FREEDOM FROM FEAR EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD. 

"WE SHALL NOT STOP SHORT OF THESE OBJECTIVES; NOR SHALL WE BE
SATISFIED MERELY TO GAIN THEM AND CALL IT A DAY.  I KNOW THAT I SPEAK
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE - AND I HAVE GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE I SPEAK
ALSO FOR ALL THE OTHER PEOPLES WHO FIGHT WITH US - WHEN I SAY THAT THIS
TIME WE ARE DETERMINED NOT ONLY TO WIN THE WAR, BUT ALSO TO MAINTAIN
THE SECURITY OF THE PEACE WHICH WILL FOLLOW. 

"BUT MODERN METHODS OF WARFARE MAKE IT A TASK, NOT ONLY OF SHOOTING
AND FIGHTING, BUT AN EVEN MORE URGENT ONE OF WORKING AND PRODUCING. 

"VICTORY REQUIRES THE ACTUAL WEAPONS OF WAR AND THE MEANS OF
TRANSPORTING THEM TO A DOZEN POINTS OF COMBAT. 

"IT WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR US AND THE OTHER UNITED NATIONS TO
PRODUCE A SLIGHTLY SUPERIOR SUPPLY OF MUNITIONS TO THAT OF GERMANY,
JAPAN, ITALY, AND THE STOLEN INDUSTRIES IN THE COUNTRIES WHICH THEY
HAVE OVERRUN. 

"THE SUPERIORITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN MUNITIONS AND SHIPS MUST BE
OVERWHELMING - SO OVERWHELMING THAT THE AXIS NATIONS CAN NEVER HOPE TO
CATCH UP WITH IT.  IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THIS OVERWHELMING SUPERIORITY THE
UNITED STATES MUST BUILD PLANES AND TANKS AND GUNS AND SHIPS TO THE
UTMOST LIMIT OF OUR NATIONAL CAPACITY.  WE HAVE THE ABILITY AND
CAPACITY TO PRODUCE ARMS NOT ONLY FOR OUR OWN FORCES BUT ALSO FOR THE
ARMIES, NAVIES, AND AIR FORCES FIGHTING ON OUR SIDE. 

"AND OUR OVERWHELMING SUPERIORITY OF ARMAMENT MUST BE ADEQUATE TO PUT
WEAPONS OF WAR AT THE PROPER TIME INTO THE HANDS OF THOSE MEN IN THE
CONQUERED NATIONS, WHO STAND READY TO SEIZE THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO
REVOLT AGAINST THEIR GERMAN AND JAPANESE OPPRESSORS, AND AGAINST THE
TRAITORS IN THEIR OWN RANKS, KNOWN BY THE ALREADY INFAMOUS NAME OF
'QUISLINGS.'  AS WE GET GUNS TO THE PATRIOTS IN THOSE LANDS, THEY TOO
WILL FIRE SHOTS HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD. 

"THIS PRODUCTION OF OURS IN THE UNITED STATES MUST BE RAISED FAR
ABOVE ITS PRESENT LEVELS, EVEN THOUGH IT WILL MEAN THE DISLOCATION OF
THE LIVES AND OCCUPATIONS OF MILLIONS OF OUR OWN PEOPLE.  WE MUST RAISE
OUR SIGHTS ALL ALONG THE PRODUCTION LINE.  LET NO MAN SAY IT CANNOT BE
DONE.  IT MUST BE DONE - AND WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO DO IT. 

"I HAVE JUST SENT A LETTER OF DIRECTIVE TO THE APPROPRIATE
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF OUR GOVERNMENT, ORDERING THAT IMMEDIATE
STEPS BE TAKEN: 

"1.  TO INCREASE OUR PRODUCTION RATE OF AIRPLANES SO RAPIDLY THAT IN
THIS YEAR, 1942, WE SHALL PRODUCE 60,000 PLANES, 10,000 MORE THAN THE
GOAL SET A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.  THIS INCLUDES 45,000 COMBAT PLANES -
BOMBERS, DIVE-BOMBERS, PUSUIT PLANES.  THE RATE OF INCREASE WILL BE
CONTINUED, SO THAT NEXT YEAR, 1943, WE SHALL PRODUCE 125,000 AIRPLANES,
INCLUDING 100,000 COMBAT PLANES. 

"2.  TO INCREASE OUR PRODUCTION RATE OF TANKS SO RAPIDLY THAT IN THIS
YEAR, 1942, WE SHALL PRODUCE 45,000 TANKS; AND TO CONTINUE THAT
INCREASE SO THAT NEXT YEAR, 1943, WE SHALL PRODUCE 75,000 TANKS. 

"3.  TO INCREASE OUR PRODUCTION RATE OF ANTIAIRCRAFT GUNS SO RAPIDLY
THAT IN THIS YEAR, 1942, WE SHALL PRODUCE 20,000 OF THEM; AND TO
CONTINUE THAT INCREASE SO THAT NEXT YEAR, 1943, WE SHALL PRODUCE 35,000
ANTIAIRCRAFT GUNS. 

"4.  TO INCREASE OUR PRODUCTION RATE OF MERCHANT SHIPS SO RAPIDLY
THAT IN THIS YEAR, 1942, WE SHALL BUILD 8,000,000 DEADWEIGHT TONS AS
COMPARED WITH A 1941 PRODUCTION OF 1,100,000.  WE SHALL CONTINUE THAT
INCREASE SO THAT NEXT YEAR, 1943, WE SHALL BUILD 10,000,000 TONS. 

"THESE FIGURES AND SIMILAR FIGURES FOR A MULTITUDE OF OTHER
IMPLEMENTS OF WAR WILL GIVE THE JAPANESE AND NAZIS A LITTLE IDEA OF
JUST WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISHED IN THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR. 

"OUR TASK IS HARD - OUR TASK IS UNPRECEDENTED - AND THE TIME IS
SHORT.  WE MUST STRAIN EVERY EXISTING ARMAMENT-PRODUCING FACILITY TO
THE UTMOST.  WE MUST CONVERT EVERY AVAILABLE PLANT AND TOOL TO WAR
PRODUCTION.  THAT GOES ALL THE WAY FROM THE GREATEST PLANTS TO THE
SMALLEST - FROM THE HUGE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY TO THE VILLAGE MACHINE
SHOP. 

"PRODUCTION FOR WAR IS BASED ON MEN AND WOMEN - THE HUMAN HANDS AND
BRAINS WHICH COLLECTIVELY WE CALL LABOR.  OUR WORKERS STAND READY TO
WORK LONG HOURS; TO TURN OUT MORE IN A DAY'S WORK; TO KEEP THE WHEELS
TURNING AND THE FIRES BURNING 24 HOURS A DAY, AND 7 DAYS A WEEK.  THEY
REALIZE WELL THAT ON THE SPEED AND EFFICIENCY OF THEIR WORK DEPEND THE
LIVES OF THEIR SONS AND THEIR BROTHERS ON THE FIGHTING FRONTS. 

"PRODUCTION FOR WAR IS BASED ON METALS AND RAW MATERIALS - STEEL,
COPPER, RUBBER, ALUMINUM, ZINC, TIN.  GREATER AND GREATER QUANTITIES OF
THEM WILL HAVE TO BE DIVERTED TO WAR PURPOSES.  CIVILIAN USE OF THEM
WILL HAVE TO BE CUT FURTHER AND STILL FURTHER - AND, IN MANY CASES,
COMPLETELY ELIMINATED. 

"WAR COSTS MONEY.  SO FAR, WE HAVE HARDLY EVEN BEGUN TO PAY FOR IT.
WE HAVE DEVOTED ONLY 15 PERCENT OF OUR NATIONAL INCOME TO NATIONAL
DEFENSE.  AS WILL APPEAR IN MY BUDGET MESSAGE TOMORROW, OUR WAR PROGRAM
FOR THE COMING FISCAL YEAR WILL COST $56,000,000,000 OR, IN OTHER
WORDS, MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL NATIONAL INCOME. 
THIS MEANS TAXES AND BONDS AND BONDS AND TAXES.  IT MEANS CUTTING
LUXURIES AND OTHER NONESSENTIALS.  IN A WORD, IT MEANS AN ALL-OUT WAR
BY INDIVIDUAL EFFORT AND FAMILY EFFORT IN A UNITED COUNTRY. 

"ONLY THIS ALL-OUT SCALE OF PRODUCTION WILL HASTEN THE ULTIMATE ALL
OUT VICTORY.  SPEED WILL COUNT.  LOST GROUND CAN ALWAYS BE REGAINED -
LOST TIME NEVER.  SPEED WILL SAVE LIVES; SPEED WILL SAVE THIS NATION
WHICH IS IN PERIL; SPEED WILL SAVE OUR FREEDOM AND CIVILIZATION - AND
SLOWNESS HAS NEVER BEEN AN AMERICAN CHARACTERISTIC."  88 CONG. REC. 32,
33-34(1942). 

FN6  "EVER SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE LAST WAR THERE HAS BEEN A
CONSTANT EFFORT TO FIND AN EFFECTIVE METHOD OF CONTROLLING WAR PROFITS
WITHOUT IMPEDING WAR PRODUCTION.  THE RENEGOTIATION LAW IS THE LATEST
PRODUCT OF SUCH EFFORTS.  TO OBTAIN SPEED WE HAVE HAD TO USE
CONTRACTING METHODS THAT WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN TOLERATED IN PEACETIME. 
WE GRANTED COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACTS WHERE THE SPECIFICATIONS WERE
NOT KNOWN OR HAD TO BE SUBJECT TO NUMEROUS CHANGES OR WHERE THERE WAS
NO TIME TO PREPARE DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS.  WE ALSO GRANTED LUMP-SUM
CONTRACTS FOR MANY ITEMS WHICH HAD NEVER BEFORE BEEN MADE IN QUANTITY
AND FOR WHICH ESTIMATES OF COST WERE MERE GUESSES.  THIS WAS
PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF WAR CONTRACTS WHICH
WERE HASTILY 'SHOVELED' OUT EARLY IN JANUARY 1942. 

"IS THE RENEGOTIATION LAW A NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE METHOD OF
COUNTERACTING THE WASTEFUL EFFECTS OF SUCH NECESSARY PRACTICES IN EARLY
WARTIME PROCUREMENT?  IS IT BEING ADMINISTERED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO GIVE
EFFECT TO THE STATUTORY INTENT?  WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, ARE NEEDED? 

"AS TO THE NECESSITY AND DESIRABILITY OF THE RENEGOTIATION LAW: 

"(1)  BECAUSE OF THE WARTIME NEED FOR RAPID PROCUREMENT OF MATERIALS
OF WAR, NEW MATERIALS WITH WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO PREVIOUS
MANUFACTURING EXPERIENCE AND OTHER ARTICLES PREVIOUSLY MANUFACTURED
ONLY IN RELATIVELY SMALL QUANTITIES, SOME PROCEDURE FOR SUBSEQUENT
PRICE ADJUSTMENT IS NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE IF EXCESSIVE WAR PROFITS
AND COSTS ARE TO BE AVOIDED. 

"(2)  TAXES ALONE WILL NOT DO THE JOB BECAUSE (A) HIGHER CORPORATE
TAX RATES ARE LIKELY TO ENCOURAGE HIGHER COSTS AND DISCOURAGE
ECONOMICAL PRODUCTION; (B) NO SCHEME OF TAXATION HAS BEEN DEVISED WHICH
IS SUFFICIENTLY FLEXIBLE TO PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR EFFICIENT LOW-COST
PRODUCTION; (C) A PROFIT PERCENTAGE WHICH WOULD FAIRLY REWARD ONE WAR
CONTRACTOR WITH ONE TYPE OF FINANCIAL STRUCTURE WOULD BANKRUPT A SECOND
CONTRACTOR WITH A DIFFERENT FINANCIAL SET-UP, AND WOULD PROVIDE
INORDINATELY EXCESSIVE PROFITS FOR A THIRD CONTRACTOR WITH A STILL
DIFFERENT FINANCIAL PROBLEM.    "(3)  WAR CONTRACTORS IN MOST CASES CAN
PROTECT THEMSELVES AGAINST LOSS BY ESCALATOR CLAUSES AND OTHER CONTRACT
PROVISIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES.  THE PEOPLE CAN OBTAIN PROTECTION IN MANY
CASES ONLY THROUGH SOME PROCEDURE SUCH AS RENEGOTIATION. 

"(4)  EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN 'COST-PLUS' CONTRACTS TO BE WORSE THAN
WORTHLESS IN THE EFFORT TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE COSTS.  THEY STRONGLY TEND
TO INCREASE COSTS INSTEAD OF THE REVERSE. 

"THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RENEGOTIATION LAW DURING THE FIRST 10
MONTHS OF ITS EXISTENCE HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY TWO SIGNIFICANT
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:    "(1)  THE ASSEMBLY IN GOVERNMENT OF AN UNUSUAL
GROUP OF ABLE, CONSCIENTIOUS, AND PATRIOTIC LAWYERS, ACCOUNTANTS, AND
BUSINESSMEN AS ADMINISTRATORS OF RENEGOTIATION; 

"(2)  THE GRADUAL EDUCATION OF WAR CONTRACTORS AS TO THE REASONS FOR
AND IMPORTANCE OF THEIR ADOPTING A POLICY OF TAILORING THEIR OWN
PROFITS TO LEVELS WHICH, IN THEIR OWN SPECIAL SITUATIONS, ARE FAIR BOTH
TO THEM AND TO THE GOVERNMENT. 

"ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RENEGOTIATION LAW AND
THE LAW ITSELF ARE PROPERLY SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONSTRUCTIVE
CRITICISMS: 

"(1)  SUBSTANTIAL VARIATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND ATTITUDE
STILL EXIST AMONG THE FOUR DEPARTMENTS CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR
RENEGOTIATION, ALTHOUGH THIS CONDITION HAS BEEN NOTICEABLY IMPROVED IN
RECENT WEEKS.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A CONDITION HAS CREATED WHOLLY
UNNECESSARY CONFUSION, UNCERTAINTY, AND MISUNDERSTANDING AMONG
CONTRACTORS. 

"(2)  RESULTS OF NAVY RENEGOTIATIONS TO DATE JUSTIFY AN INFERENCE
THAT IN ITS EARLY PROCEEDINGS THE NAVY PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MAY HAVE
BEEN TOO STRONGLY INFLUENCED BY A DESIRE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME KIND OF
MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS WHICH RESULTS FROM A COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF
COST CONTRACT, A RESULT WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FLEXIBILITY
WHICH WAS THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE RENEGOTIATION LAW. 

"(3)  ARMY ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN RENDERED UNNECESSARILY CUMBERSOME
BY USE OF MILITARY CHANNELS IN THE HANDLING OF AN ESSENTIALLY BUSINESS
AND FINANCIAL ENTERPRISE. 

"(4)  THE PRINCIPLES AND RESULTS OF RENEGOTIATION HAVE BEEN SHROUDED
WITH ENTIRELY TOO MUCH SECRECY NOT ONLY AS TO THE PUBLIC BUT AS TO THE
RENEGOTIATORS THEMSELVES, CAUSING MANY WAR CONTRACTORS TO BE DISTRACTED
BY WHOLLY UNWARRANTED BUT NEVERTHELESS NATURAL FEARS OF THE UNKNOWN. 

"(5)  IN SOME CASES THE COST AUDITS INCIDENT TO RENEGOTIATION AND
TAXATION HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARILY DUPLICATORY. 

"(6)  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RECOVER EVERY LAST DOLLAR OF EXCESSIVE WAR
PROFITS WITHOUT UNNECESSARILY INTERFERING WITH WAR PRODUCTION, AND
OVERZEALOUS ADMINISTRATION OF THE VAST POWERS DELEGATED BY THIS LAW
COULD BE SERIOUSLY DETRIMENTAL TO WAR PROCUREMENT."  S, REP. NO. 10,
PART 5, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 1-3(1943). 

FN7  "5.  THE NECESSARY RESULT OF THIS COMBINATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES
IS THAT THE WAR PROCURING AGENCIES CANNOT USE NORMAL METHODS OF
PROCUREMENT.  THE PRESSING NEED FOR SPEED REQUIRES THE ABANDONMENT OF
DRAWN-OUT NEGOTIATION AND THE CAREFUL SURVEYS OF ALL RELEVANT FACTORS
WHICH SOUND PURCHASING WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE.  COMPETITION
NECESSARILY WANES AND NO LONGER OFFERS AN ADEQUATE GUIDE TO THE PRICES
WHICH SHOULD BE PAID.  ABOVE ALL, THE FORECASTING OF COSTS OF
PRODUCTION BECOMES, IN LARGE MEASURE, A MATTER OF INFORMED GUESSING
RATHER THAN OF REAL COST ANALYSIS.  THIS IS TRUE IN THE CASE OF NEW
PRODUCTS, NEW PLANTS, AND NEW PRODUCERS; IT IS LIKEWISE TRUE, THOUGH
PERHAPS IN LESSER DEGREE, WHEREVER THE QUANTITIES TO BE MANUFACTURED
ARE SHARPLY INCREASED OVER PRE-WAR AMOUNTS.  ACCORDINGLY, ADVANCE
PRICES QUOTED IN GOOD FAITH BY MANUFACTURERS IN A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES
HAVE LITTLE RELATION TO COSTS ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED IN THE COURSE OF
PRODUCTION.  FURTHERMORE, MANY MANUFACTURERS FEEL UNABLE TO QUOTE FIRM
PRICES WITHOUT INCLUDING RESERVES TO COVER MANY CONTINGENCIES THE
OCCURRENCE OF WHICH MIGHT SKYROCKET THEIR COSTS, AND SO OVERTURN ALL
THEIR ESTIMATES. 

"6.  THESE WERE THE CONDITIONS OF WARTIME PROCUREMENT, AFTER DECEMBER
7, 1941, AND THE WAR DEPARTMENT HAD TO FORCE ITS PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES
INTO THEIR MOLD.  EFFORTS WERE MADE, OF COURSE, TO DEVELOP CONTRACTUAL
DEVICES WHICH WOULD MINIMIZE THE PARAMOUNT DIFFICULTY IN ESTIMATING
PRODUCTION COSTS.  THE COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT WAS USED WHERE
UNAVOIDABLE, BUT THIS FORM HAS THE DISADVANTAGE OF REMOVING FINANCIAL
INCENTIVES TO EFFICIENCY AND OF IMPOSING A HEAVY BURDEN OF AUDITING
UPON THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CONTRACTOR.  ESCALATOR CLAUSES, PERMITTING
PRICES TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO FLUCTUATIONS IN INDICES OF LABOR AND
MATERIAL COSTS, WERE ALSO USED BUT PROVED UNWORKABLE.  LETTERS OF
INTENT, UNDER WHICH MANUFACTURE WAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE NEGOTIATION
OF A FORMAL CONTRACT, HELPED TO SPEED PRODUCTION, BUT COULD NOT, OF
COURSE, SOLVE THE ULTIMATE PROBLEM OF DECREASING COSTS AND PREVENTING
EXCESSIVE PROFITS. 

"7.  SHORTLY AFTER THE DECLARATIONS OF WAR, BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE AND
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT REALIZED THAT EXCESSIVE
WARTIME PROFITS WERE CERTAIN TO ACCURE UNLESS COUNTER MEASURES WERE
TAKEN.  THE EVIL EFFECT OF SUCH WARTIME EXCESSIVE PROFIT ON THE MORALE
OF THE FIGHTING FORCES AND THE CIVILIAN POPULATION, AS WELL AS THE
UNNECESSARY FINANCIAL BURDEN UPON THE GOVERNMENT, COULD NOT BE
IGNORED.  THE EXAMPLE OF THE LAST WAR WAS STILL FRESH.  MANY WAR
CONTRACTORS REALIZED THE DANGERS AND INEQUITIES RESULTING FROM SUCH
EXCESSIVE PROFIT, AND SOME OF THEM MADE REFUNDS OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS OR
VOLUNTARILY REDUCED THEIR PRICES.  IN THE SPRING OF 1942, THE WAR
DEPARTMENT DEVELOPED COST ANALYSIS UNITS TO CHECK, SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE, ON PRODUCTION COSTS, AND SET UP A PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
TO NEGOTIATE WITH CONTRACTORS FOR VOLUNTARY PRICE REDUCTIONS AND
REFUNDS OF PAST PAYMENTS.  TENTATIVE POLICIES AS TO WHAT PROFITS WERE
EXCESSIVE WERE ESTABLISHED AND MEETINGS WITH CONTRACTORS HAD.  AT THE
SAME TIME, THERE CAME INTO USE CONTRACT CLAUSES PROVIDING FOR THE
RENEGOTIATION OR REDETERMINATION OF CONTRACT PRICES AFTER AN INITIAL
PERIOD OF PRODUCTION HAD LAID A BASIS FOR THE PROPER ESTIMATION OF
COSTS.  WE HOPED THAT THESE MEANS WOULD KEEP INCENTIVES TO EFFICIENCY
ALIVE AND AT THE SAME TIME WOULD TEND TO ELIMINATE UNDUE PROFITS SUCH
AS WERE THEN COMING TO LIGHT. 

"8.  THE CONGRESS APPARENTLY FELT, HOWEVER, THAT THESE CONTRACTUAL
MEASURES, RESTING AS THEY DID UPON THE VOLUNTARY COOPERATION OF A
RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF WAR CONTRACTORS, DID NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH
CERTAINTY THAT EXCESSIVE PROFITS WOULD BE ELIMINATED.  THE VINSON
TRAMMEL ACT, LIMITING PROFITS ON AIRCRAFT AND SHIP CONSTRUCTION, HAD
BEEN REPEALED IN 1940, BUT AN EFFORT WAS MADE TO REVIVE IT.  IN MARCH,
1942, THE WAR DEPARTMENT AND THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD OPPOSED SUCH
LEGISLATION ON THE GROUND THAT A FLAT PERCENTAGE PROFIT LIMITATION
WOULD IMPEDE PRODUCTION AND WOULD BE UNFAIR TO MANY CONTRACTORS AND TOO
GENEROUS TO OTHERS.  AFTER THE CASE AMENDMENT IMPOSING SUCH A FLAT
PERCENTAGE LIMITATION ON PROFITS FROM WAR CONTRACTS HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LATE IN MARCH, 1942, THE ARMED SERVICES
AND THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD OFFERED A SUBSTITUTE PROPOSAL GIVING
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO THE PROCESS OF VOLUNTARY RENEGOTIATION WHICH HAD
BEEN DEVELOPING.  CONGRESS ADOPTED THE PRINCIPLE OF RENEGOTIATION WITH
WHICH THE ARMED SERVICES WERE IN ACCORD (RATHER THAN THE PRINCIPLE OF A
FLAT PERCENTAGE LIMITATION OF PROFITS), AND IT ALSO ENDOWED THE
PROCURING AGENCIES WITH POWER TO DETERMINE EXCESSIVE PROFITS WHEN NO
BILATERAL AGREEMENT COULD BE REACHED WITH THE CONTRACTOR.  I BELIEVE
THAT THIS ADDITION BY THE CONGRESS OF THE POWER OF UNILATERAL ACTION
WAS A WISE AND A NECESSARY ONE, AND THAT WITHOUT IT RENEGOTIATION WOULD
NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING LIKE THE RESULTS THAT HAVE BEEN
ACHIEVED. 

     .         .      .         .         . 

"12....  SOME CONCEPTION OF THE VAST SCOPE OF THE PROCUREMENT
ACTIVITY OF THE ARMED SERVICES AFTER THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR CAN BE
GAINED FROM THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS FOR THE ONE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30,
1942($22,905,000,000) CONSIDERABLY EXCEEDED THE TOTAL MILITARY AND
NAVAL EXPENDITURES OF THE GOVERNMENT FROM 1789 THROUGH THE END OF WORLD
WAR I."  AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT P. PATTERSON, UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR,
SWORN TO AUGUST 3, 1945. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN9  MCKINLEY V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 397(REGULATIONS OF LOCAL
ACTIVITIES NEAR FEDERAL MILITARY STATIONS); NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V.
NORTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 135(SEIZURE AND OPERATION OF RAILROADS);
HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES AND W. CO., 251 U.S. 146(LOCAL LIQUOR
TRAFFIC); CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U.S. 554(SEIZURE OF
ENEMY PROPERTY); HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81(CURFEW
REGULATIONS); YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414(EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT); BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503(RENT CONTROL); AND
KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214(EXCLUSION OF CIVILIANS FROM
WEST COAST MILITARY AREA). 

IN HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THIS COURT SAID (P. 93): 

"THE WAR POWER OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS 'THE POWER TO WAGE WAR
SUCCESSFULLY.'  SEE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, WAR POWERS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, 42 A.B.A. REP. 232, 238.  IT EXTENDS TO EVERY MATTER AND
ACTIVITY SO RELATED TO WAR AS SUBSTANTIALLY TO AFFECT ITS CONDUCT AND
PROGRESS.  THE POWER IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE WINNING OF VICTORIES IN
THE FIELD AND THE REPULSE OF ENEMY FORCES....  SINCE THE CONSTITUTION
COMMITS TO THE EXECUTIVE AND TO CONGRESS THE EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER
IN ALL THE VICISSITUDES AND CONDITIONS OF WARFARE, IT HAS NECESSARILY
GIVEN THEM WIDE SCOPE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION IN
DETERMINING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE THREATENED INJURY OR DANGER
AND IN THE SELECTION OF THE MEANS FOR RESISTING IT....  WHERE, AS THEY
DID HERE, THE CONDITIONS CALL FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AND
DISCRETION AND FOR THE CHOICE OF MEANS BY THOSE BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT ON WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS PLACED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
WAR-MAKING, IT IS NOT FOR ANY COURT TO SIT IN REVIEW OF THE WISDOM OF
THEIR ACTION OR SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THEIRS." 

FN10  "20.  AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LIMITED EMERGENCY IN 1939, THE
ONLY APPLICABLE STATUTORY LIMITS ON PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF MILITARY
OR NAVAL SUPPLIES WERE CONTAINED IN THE VINSON-TRAMMEL ACT OF MARCH 27,
1934, AS AMENDED (RELATING TO NAVAL VESSELS) AND THE MERCHANT MARINE
ACT OF 1936, AS AMENDED (RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION OF MERCHANT SHIPS). 
THE ACT OF APRIL 3, 1939, EXTENDED PERCENTAGE PROFIT LIMITATION TO
COVER ARMY AIRCRAFT CONTRACTS.  THE PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT ALLOWED TO
CONTRACTORS WAS LOWERED TO APPROXIMATELY 8% BY THE ACT OF JUNE 28,
1940, BUT THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT,
1941, ENACTED SEPTEMBER 9, 1940, PROVIDED THAT AS TO AIRCRAFT THE OLD
LIMITATION OF 12% WAS TO PREVAIL. 

"21....  ACCORDINGLY, THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF 1940, CONTAINING THE
EXCESS PROFITS TAX, SUSPENDED THE PROFIT LIMITATION STATUTES APPLICABLE
TO ARMY AND NAVY CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1939, OR
UNCOMPLETED ON THAT DATE BY CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SUBJECT TO
THE NEW EXCESS PROFITS TAX.  THEREAFTER, UNTIL THE PASSAGE OF THE SIXTH
SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1942, THE ONLY
STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONCERNING WAR OR DEFENSE CONTRACTS WERE THOSE OF
THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX."  AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT P. PATTERSON, UNDER
SECRETARY OF WAR, SWORN TO AUGUST 3, 1945. 

AND SEE HENSEL AND MCCLUNG, PROFIT LIMITATION CONTROLS PRIOR TO THE
PRESENT WAR, 10 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  187(1943-1944). 

FN11  THE FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS WERE PUBLICLY
HELD: 

HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON SEC. 403 OF PUB.
L. NO. 528, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (SEPTEMBER 22 AND 23, 1942); 

HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON
SEC. 403 OF PUB. L. NO. 528, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (SEPTEMBER 29 AND 30,
1942); 

HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS ON MIL. EST.  APP.  BILL FOR 1944, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
483-518, 571-580(JUNE 10, 1943); 

HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS ON H.R. 2996(MIL.  EST.  APP. BILL FOR 1944), 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 22, 30-33, 125-138, 150-151(1943); 

HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, PURSUANT TO
H.R. RES. 30, VOL. 2, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (JUNE 10-30, 1943); 

HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON H.R. 2324,
2698 AND 3015(RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS), 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(SEPTEMBER 9-23, 1943); 

HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON H.R. 3687(REVENUE
ACT OF 1943), 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 49, 388-392, 402-424, 443-452, 465,
469, 598-601, 620-629, 669-684, 690-696, 925-926, 987-1111, 1121
1132(NOVEMBER 29-DECEMBER 15, 1943); 

HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON H.R.
2628(EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE OF RENEGOTIATION ACT), 79TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. (APRIL 12-16, 1945). 

IN ADDITION, PRIVATE HEARINGS AND INTERVIEWS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN HAD
BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. 

THE FOLLOWING MAJOR REPORTS ON THE OPERATION OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT
WERE ISSUED BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES: 

H.R. REP. NO. 733, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (OCTOBER 7, 1943).  REPORT
OF THE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, PURSUANT TO H.R. RES.
30(RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS); 

SEN. REP. NO. 10, PART 5, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (MARCH 60, 1943). 
ADDITIONAL REPORT OF THE SPECIAL SENATE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM (RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS);    SEN. REP.
NO. 10, PART 16, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 40-64, 192-199(MARCH 4, 1944). 
ADDITIONAL REPORT OF THE SPECIAL SENATE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM (THIRD ANNUAL REPORT); 

H.R. REP. NO. 871, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 75-90(NOVEMBER 18, 1943), ON
H.R. 3687(REVENUE BILL OF 1943); 

SEN. REP. NO. 627, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 98-119(DECEMBER 22, 1943),
ON H.R. 3687(REVENUE BILL OF 1943); 

H.R. REP. NO. 1079, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 34-39, 76-88(FEBRUARY 4,
1944), ON H.R. 3687(CONFERENCE REPORT ON REVENUE ACT OF 1943). 

SEE ALSO: 

RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS - LAW, DEBATES AND OTHER LEGISLATIVE
MATERIALS - COMPILED FOR THE USE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1943); 

DATA ON RENEGOTIATION OF CONTRACTS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
(DECEMBER 9, 1943). 

FN12  IN ITS BRIEF FILED JOINTLY IN THE PRESENT CASES THE GOVERNMENT
HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT AS TO THE RESULTS OF
RENEGOTIATION: 

"11.  THE RESULTS OF RENEGOTIATION:  WE ARE ADVISED BY THE WAR
CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD THAT AS OF JUNE 30, 1947, 118,101
CONTRACTORS HAD BEEN ASSIGNED FOR RENEGOTIATION WITH RESPECT TO 1942
THROUGH 1946 FISCAL YEARS, AND CONTRACTS AGGREGATING OVER
$190,000,000,000(EXCLUDING CONTRACTORS ELIMINATED BECAUSE OF EXEMPTIONS
OR NON-COVERAGE) WERE SUBJECTED TO RENEGOTIATION.  OF THE TOTAL
ASSIGNMENTS, 115,535(OR 97.8%) WERE COMPLETED AS OF JUNE 30, 1947.  OUT
OF THE 115,535 COMPLETED ASSIGNMENTS, 85,037(OR 73.6%) RESULTED IN
CANCELLATIONS OR CLEARANCES INDICATING THAT NO EXCESSIVE PROFITS HAD
BEEN MADE OR THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS FOUND TO BE EXEMPT FROM
RENEGOTIATION; 28,889(OR 25%) RESULTED IN BILATERAL REFUND AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CONTRACTOR; 1,609(OR 1.4%) RESULTED IN
UNILATERAL DETERMINATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENTS OR THE WAR CONTRACTS PRICE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  OF THE 30,498 ASSIGNMENTS INVOLVING DETERMINATIONS
OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS, 1,609(OR 5.28%) WERE UNILATERAL DETERMINATIONS
AND 28,889(OR 94.72%) WERE BILATERAL. 

"ALSO AS OF JUNE 30, 1947, THE GROSS RECOVERIES THROUGH RENEGOTIATION
AMOUNTED TO SOME $10,434,637,000, AND THE ESTIMATED NET RECOVERY (AFTER
DEDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL TAX CREDIT ALLOWED CONTRACTORS ON
RENEGOTIATION REFUNDS) AMOUNTED TO $3,130,391,000.  OF THE TOTAL GROSS
RECOVERIES OF $10,434,637,000, SOME $895,493,000(OR 8.58%) WERE
INVOLVED IN UNILATERAL DETERMINATIONS AND THE REST WERE RECOVERED BY
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT." 

FN13  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN14  FOR RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM ITS TEXT, SEE APPENDIX I, INFRA, P.
793. 

FN15  FOR RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM ITS TEXT, SEE APPENDIX II, INFRA, P.
795. 

FN16  FOR RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM ITS TEXT, SEE APPENDIX III, INFRA,
P. 798. 

FN17  SEE SEC. 403(L) IN NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN18  IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE CASE AMENDMENT, PROVIDING
IN EFFECT A LIMITATION OF 6% ON WAR PROFITS WAS ADOPTED WITHOUT
DEBATE.  88 CONG. REC. 3139-3140(1942).  BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS STRONG OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THIS PROVISION BY THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS OMISSION WAS RECOMMENDED BY
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.  AFTER AMPLE CONSIDERATION IT
WAS OMITTED IN THE ACT AS PASSED.  88 CONG. REC. 3378-3405; 3582-3599;
3647-3662; 3666(1942), AND SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2030, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.
8-10(1942). 

FN19  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE ON PUB. L. NO. 528, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 16-28(SEPTEMBER 29,
1942). 

FN20  SEE APPENDIX III, INFRA, P. 798. 

FN21  SEE APPENDIX III, INFRA, P. 798. 

FN22  SEE APPENDIX I, INFRA, P. 793. 

FN23  SEE APPENDIX I, INFRA, P. 793. 

FN24  SEE APPENDIX I, INFRA, P. 794. 

FN25  SEE APPENDIX II, INFRA, P. 795. 

FN26  PUBLISHED AS PART OF THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY UNDER SECRETARY
OF WAR ROBERT P. PATTERSON AT THE HEARINGS ON THE RENEGOTIATION OF
CONTRACTS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON
SEC. 403 OF PUB. L. NO. 528, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 28, 34-43(SEPTEMBER
29, 1942). 

FN27  SEE APPENDIX II, INFRA, P. 796. 

FN28  SEE APPENDIX II, INFRA, P. 797. 

FN29  SEE APPENDIX II, INFRA, P. 798. 

FN30  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. 2, PP. 469, ET SEQ., 1025-1039, ESPECIALLY 1028
1029(1943). 

FN31  "THE QUESTION REMAINS:  WHAT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE FORCE AND
EFFECT IN TIME OF WAR OF THE RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE
CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY?  IT IS
MANIFEST, AT ONCE, THAT THE GREAT ORGANS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
RETAIN AND PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS AS THE CONSTITUTION PRESCRIBES. 
SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES ARE QUALIFIED AND CHOSEN AS PROVIDED IN
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LEGISLATIVE POWER VESTED IN THE CONGRESS MUST
BE EXERCISED IN THE REQUIRED MANNER.  THE PRESIDENT IS STILL THE
CONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE, ELECTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED AND SUBJECT TO
THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED UPON HIS OFFICE.  THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES CONTINUES TO BE VESTED IN ONE SUPREME COURT AND SUCH
INFERIOR COURTS AS CONGRESS HAS ORDAINED.  AGAIN, APART FROM THE
PROVISIONS FIXING THE FRAMEWORK OF THE GOVERNMENT, THERE ARE
LIMITATIONS WHICH BY REASON OF THEIR EXPRESS TERMS OR BY NECESSARY
IMPLICATION MUST BE REGARDED AS APPLICABLE AS WELL IN WAR AS IN PEACE. 
THUS ONE OF THE EXPRESSED OBJECTS OF THE POWER GRANTED TO CONGRESS 'TO
LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS, AND EXCISES' IS TO 'PROVIDE FOR
THE COMMON DEFENCE,' AND IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT TAXES LAID FOR THIS
PURPOSE, THAT IS, TO SUPPORT THE ARMY AND NAVY AND TO PROVIDE THE MEANS
FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS, MUST BE LAID SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RESTRICTIONS."  ADDRESS BY HONORABLE CHARLES E. HUGHES, OF NEW YORK, ON
"WAR POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION," SEPTEMBER 5, 1917, 42 A.B.A. REP.
232, 241-242. 

FN32  BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261, 282. 

FN33  BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1, 24. 

FN34  "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE
PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE
FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE
BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, DO ORDAIN AND
ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."  U.S.
CONST. PREAMBLE. 

FN35  SEE NOTES 19 AND 26, SUPRA. 

FN36  SEE NOTE 30, SUPRA. 

FN37  EXCESSIVE MEANS:  "CHARACTERIZED BY, OR EXHIBITING, EXCESS; AS:
A EXCEEDING WHAT IS USUAL OR PROPER; OVERMUCH.  B GREATER THAN THE
USUAL AMOUNT OR DEGREE; EXCEPTIONAL; VERY GREAT."  WEBSTER'S NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2D ED. (1938). 

FN38  SEE APPENDIX I, INFRA, P. 794. 

FN39  SEE APPENDIX III, INFRA, P. 799. 

FN40  SEE APPENDIX III, INFRA, P. 801. 

FN41  SEE APPENDIX III, INFRA, P. 801. 

FN42  SEE APPENDIX III, INFRA, P. 800. 

FN43  SEE APPENDIX III, INFRA, P. 801. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS IN THE RESULT IN THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT IN THE POWNALL CASE, BUT
DISSENTS IN THE LICHTER AND ALEXANDER CASES. 

                              APPENDIX. 

                                  I. 

EXCERPTS FROM THE SO-CALLED ORIGINAL OR FIRST RENEGOTIATION ACT, SEC.
403, SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1942,
APPROVED APRIL 28, 1942, C. 247, 56 STAT. 226, 245-246. 

"(A) ...  FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBSECTIONS (D) AND (E) OF THIS
'CONTRACTOR' INCLUDES A SUBCONTRACTOR. 

"(B)  THE SECRETARY OF EACH DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO
INSERT IN ANY CONTRACT FOR AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $100,000 HEREAFTER
MADE BY SUCH DEPARTMENT (1) A PROVISION FOR THE RENEGOTIATION OF THE
CONTRACT PRICE AT A PERIOD OR PERIODS WHEN, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SECRETARY, THE PROFITS CAN BE DETERMINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY; (2)
A PROVISION FOR THE RETENTION BY THE UNITED STATES OR THE REPAYMENT TO
THE UNITED STATES OF (A) ANY AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE WHICH IS
FOUND AS A RESULT OF SUCH RENEGOTIATION TO REPRESENT EXCESSIVE PROFITS
AND (B) AN AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF THE
REDUCTION IN THE CONTRACT PRICE OF ANY SUBCONTRACT UNDER SUCH CONTRACT
PURSUANT TO THE RENEGOTIATION OF SUCH SUBCONTRACT AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE
(3) OF THIS SUBSECTION; AND (3) A PROVISION REQUIRING THE CONTRACTOR TO
INSERT IN EACH SUBCONTRACT FOR AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $100,000 MADE BY
HIM UNDER SUCH CONTRACT (A) A PROVISION FOR THE RENEGOTIATION BY SUCH
SECRETARY AND THE SUBCONTRACTOR OF THE CONTRACT PRICE OF THE
SUBCONTRACT AT A PERIOD OR PERIODS WHEN, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SECRETARY, THE PROFITS CAN BE DETERMINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, (B)
A PROVISION FOR THE RETENTION BY THE UNITED STATES OR THE REPAYMENT TO
THE UNITED STATES OF ANY AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE OF THE
SUBCONTRACT WHICH IS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SUCH RENEGOTIATION, TO
REPRESENT EXCESSIVE PROFITS, AND (C) A PROVISION FOR RELIEVING THE
CONTRACTOR FROM ANY LIABILITY TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY
AMOUNT SO RETAINED BY OR REPAID TO THE UNITED STATES. 

"(C)  THE SECRETARY OF EACH DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED,
WHENEVER IN HIS OPINION EXCESSIVE PROFITS HAVE BEEN REALIZED, OR ARE
LIKELY TO BE REALIZED, FROM ANY CONTRACT WITH SUCH DEPARTMENT OR FROM
ANY SUBCONTRACT THEREUNDER, (1) TO REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR TO RENEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT PRICE, (2) TO WITHHOLD FROM
THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR ANY AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE WHICH
IS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SUCH RENEGOTIATION TO REPRESENT EXCESSIVE
PROFITS, AND (3) IN CASE ANY AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE FOUND AS A
RESULT OF SUCH RENEGOTIATION TO REPRESENT EXCESSIVE PROFITS SHALL HAVE
BEEN PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, TO RECOVER SUCH AMOUNT
FROM SUCH CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR.  SUCH CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR
ANY AMOUNT WHICH SUCH SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED TO RECOVER FROM SUCH
CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR UNDER THIS SUBSECTION, AND SUCH SECRETARY
MAY BRING ACTIONS IN THE APPROPRIATE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
RECOVER SUCH AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES.  ALL AMOUNTS
RECOVERED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE COVERED INTO THE TREASURY AS
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS.  THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL
CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS HEREAFTER MADE AND TO ALL CONTRACTS AND
SUBCONTRACTS HERETOFORE MADE, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CONTRACTS OR
SUBCONTRACTS CONTAIN A RENEGOTIATION OR RECAPTURE CLAUSE, PROVIDED THAT
FINAL PAYMENT PURSUANT TO SUCH CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN
MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT. 

"(D)  IN RENEGOTIATING A CONTRACT PRICE OR DETERMINING EXCESSIVE
PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE SECRETARIES OF THE
RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS SHALL NOT MAKE ANY ALLOWANCE FOR ANY SALARIES,
BONUSES, OR OTHER COMPENSATION PAID BY A CONTRACTOR TO ITS OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES IN EXCESS OF A REASONABLE AMOUNT, NOR SHALL THEY MAKE
ALLOWANCE FOR ANY EXCESSIVE RESERVES SET UP BY THE CONTRACTOR OR FOR
ANY COSTS INCURRED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHICH ARE EXCESSIVE AND
UNREASONABLE.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING WHETHER SUCH
UNREASONABLE COMPENSATION HAS BEEN OR IS BEING PAID, OR WHETHER SUCH
EXCESSIVE RESERVES HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING SET UP, OR WHETHER ANY
EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE COSTS HAVE BEEN OR ARE BEING INCURRED, EACH
SUCH SECRETARY SHALL HAVE THE SAME POWERS WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH
CONTRACTOR THAT AN AGENCY DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO EXERCISE THE
POWERS CONFERRED BY TITLE XIII OF THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT, 1942, HAS
WITH RESPECT TO ANY CONTRACTOR TO WHOM SUCH TITLE IS APPLICABLE.  ... 

"(E)  IN ADDITION TO THE POWERS CONFERRED BY EXISTING LAW, THE
SECRETARY OF EACH DEPARTMENT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND OF ANY
CONTRACTOR WHO HOLDS CONTRACTS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS SECTION ARE APPLICABLE IN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF
$100,000, STATEMENTS OF ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND SUCH OTHER
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AT SUCH TIMES AND IN SUCH FORM AND DETAIL, AS
SUCH SECRETARY MAY REQUIRE.  ...  " 

    .         .         .         .         . 

56 STAT. 245. 

                                 II. 

EXCERPTS FROM TITLE VIII, RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS, REVENUE ACT
OF 1942, APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 1942, C. 619, 56 STAT. 798, 982-985, 26
U.S.C.A. INTERNAL REVENUE ACTS BEGINNING 1940, REVENUE ACT OF 1942,
SEC. 801, P. 376. 

PARTICULARS, ALL EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 28, 1942.  AMONG THE AMENDMENTS
WERE CERTAIN ADDITIONS OR CHANGES CONTAINED IN SEC. 403(A), SEC. 403(C)
AND SEC. 403(I) AND READING AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 801.  RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS. 

"(A)  SUBSECTIONS (A), (B), AND (C) OF SECTION 403 OF THE SIXTH
SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT (PUBLIC 528, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS.), ARE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 403.  (A)  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(4)  THE TERM 'EXCESSIVE PROFITS' MEANS ANY AMOUNT OF A CONTRACT OR
SUBCONTRACT PRICE WHICH IS FOUND AS A RESULT OF RENEGOTIATION TO
REPRESENT EXCESSIVE PROFITS. 

"(5)  THE TERM 'SUBCONTRACT' MEANS ANY PURCHASE ORDER OR AGREEMENT TO
PERFORM ALL OR ANY PART OF THE WORK, OR TO MAKE OR FURNISH ANY ARTICLE,
REQUIRED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF ANOTHER CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT.  THE
TERM 'ARTICLE' INCLUDES ANY MATERIAL, PART, ASSEMBLY, MACHINERY,
EQUIPMENT, OR OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY.    "FOR THE PURPOSES OF
SUBSECTIONS (D) AND (E) OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM 'CONTRACT' INCLUDES A
SUBCONTRACT AND THE TERM 'CONTRACTOR' INCLUDES A SUBCONTRACTOR. 

     .         .  .         .         . 

"(C)(1)  WHENEVER, IN THE OPINION OF THE SECRETARY OF A DEPARTMENT,
THE PROFITS REALIZED OR LIKELY TO BE REALIZED FROM ANY CONTRACT WITH
SUCH DEPARTMENT, OR FROM ANY SUBCONTRACT THEREUNDER WHETHER OR NOT MADE
BY THE CONTRACTOR, MAY BE EXCESSIVE, THE SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED AND
DIRECTED TO REQUIRE THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR TO RENEGOTIATE THE
CONTRACT PRICE.  WHEN THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR HOLDS TWO OR MORE
CONTRACTS OR SUBCONTRACTS THE SECRETARY IN HIS DISCRETION, MAY
RENEGOTIATE TO ELIMINATE EXCESSIVE PROFITS ON SOME OR ALL OF SUCH
CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS AS A GROUP WITHOUT SEPARATELY RENEGOTIATING
THE CONTRACT PRICE OF EACH CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT. 

"(2)  UPON RENEGOTIATION, THE SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO
ELIMINATE ANY EXCESSIVE PROFITS UNDER SUCH CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT (I)
BY REDUCTIONS IN THE CONTRACT PRICE OF THE CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT, OR
BY OTHER REVISION IN ITS TERMS; OR (II) BY WITHHOLDING, FROM AMOUNTS
OTHERWISE DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, ANY AMOUNT OF SUCH
EXCESSIVE PROFITS; OR (III) BY DIRECTING A CONTRACTOR TO WITHHOLD FOR
THE ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE TO THE
SUBCONTRACTOR, ANY AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS UNDER THE
SUBCONTRACT; OR (IV) BY RECOVERY FROM THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR,
THROUGH REPAYMENT, CREDIT OR SUIT, OF ANY AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESSIVE
PROFITS ACTUALLY PAID TO HIM; OR (V) BY ANY COMBINATION OF THESE
METHODS, AS THE SECRETARY DEEMS DESIRABLE.  THE SECRETARY MAY BRING
ACTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE APPROPRIATE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES TO RECOVER FROM SUCH CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, ANY
AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS ACTUALLY PAID TO HIM AND NOT WITHHELD
OR ELIMINATED BY SOME OTHER METHOD UNDER THIS SUBSECTION.  THE SURETY
UNDER A CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE REPAYMENT
OF ANY EXCESSIVE PROFITS THEREON.  ALL MONEY RECOVERED BY WAY OF
REPAYMENT OR SUIT UNDER THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE COVERED INTO THE
TREASURY AS MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS. 

"(3)  IN DETERMINING THE EXCESSIVENESS OF PROFITS REALIZED OR LIKELY
TO BE REALIZED FROM ANY CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT, THE SECRETARY SHALL
RECOGNIZE THE PROPERLY APPLICABLE EXCLUSIONS AND DEDUCTIONS OF THE
CHARACTER WHICH THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR IS ALLOWED UNDER
CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 2E OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  IN DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF ANY EXCESSIVE PROFITS TO BE ELIMINATED HEREUNDER THE
SECRETARY SHALL ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR CREDIT FOR
FEDERAL INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3806 OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

"(4)  UPON RENEGOTIATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, THE SECRETARY MAY
MAKE SUCH FINAL OR OTHER AGREEMENTS WITH A CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR
FOR THE ELIMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS AND FOR THE DISCHARGE OF ANY
LIABILITY FOR EXCESSIVE PROFITS UNDER THIS SECTION, AS THE SECRETARY
DEEMS DESIRABLE.  SUCH AGREEMENTS MAY COVER SUCH PAST AND FUTURE PERIOD
OR PERIODS, MAY APPLY TO SUCH CONTRACT OR CONTRACTS OF THE CONTRACTOR
OR SUBCONTRACTOR, AND MAY CONTAIN SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AS THE
SECRETARY DEEMS ADVISABLE.  ... 

"(5)  ANY CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR WHO HOLDS CONTRACTS OR
SUBCONTRACTS, TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE APPLICABLE,
MAY FILE WITH THE SECRETARIES OF ALL THE DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED
STATEMENTS OF ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND SUCH OTHER FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR ANY PRIOR FISCAL YEAR OR YEARS OF SUCH CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR, IN SUCH FORM AND DETAIL, AS THE SECRETARIES SHALL
PRESCRIBE BY JOINT REGULATION.  WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE FILING OF
SUCH STATEMENTS, OR WITHIN SUCH SHORTER PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY
SUCH JOINT REGULATION, THE SECRETARY OF A DEPARTMENT MAY GIVE THE
CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR WRITTEN NOTICE, IN FORM AND MANNER TO BE
PRESCRIBED IN SUCH JOINT REGULATION, THAT THE SECRETARY IS OF THE
OPINION THAT THE PROFITS REALIZED FROM SOME OR ALL OF SUCH CONTRACTS OR
SUBCONTRACTS MAY BE EXCESSIVE, AND FIXING A DATE AND PLACE FOR AN
INITIAL CONFERENCE TO BE HELD WITHIN SIXTY DAYS THEREAFTER.  IF SUCH
NOTICE IS NOT GIVEN AND RENEGOTIATION COMMENCED BY THE SECRETARY WITHIN
SUCH SIXTY DAYS THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL NOT THEREAFTER BE
REQUIRED TO RENEGOTIATE TO ELIMINATE EXCESSIVE PROFITS REALIZED FROM
ANY SUCH CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT DURING SUCH FISCAL YEAR OR YEARS AND
ANY LIABILITIES OF THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR FOR EXCESSIVE
PROFITS REALIZED DURING SUCH PERIOD SHALL BE THEREBY DISCHARGED. 

"(6)  THIS SUBSECTION (C) SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL CONTRACTS AND
SUBCONTRACTS HEREAFTER MADE AND TO ALL CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS
HERETOFORE MADE, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CONTRACTS OR SUBCONTRACTS CONTAIN
A RENEGOTIATION OR RECAPTURE CLAUSE, UNLESS (I) FINAL PAYMENT PURSUANT
TO SUCH CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT WAS MADE PRIOR TO APRIL 28, 1942,  ...
" 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  (SEC. 801.)  SECTION 403 OF THE SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL
DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT (PUBLIC 528, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.), IS
AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THEREOF THE FOLLOWING SUBSECTIONS: 

"(I)  ... 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"(2)  THE SECRETARY OF A DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED, IN HIS DISCRETION,
TO EXEMPT FROM SOME OR ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION - 

"(I)  ANY CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT TO BE PERFORMED OUTSIDE OF THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES OR IN ALASKA; 

"(II)  ANY CONTRACTS OR SUBCONTRACTS UNDER WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF
THE SECRETARY, THE PROFITS CAN BE DETERMINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY
WHEN THE CONTRACT PRICE IS ESTABLISHED, SUCH AS CERTAIN CLASSES OF
AGREEMENTS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY,
PERISHABLE GOODS, OR COMMODITIES THE MINIMUM PRICE FOR THE SALE OF
WHICH HAS BEEN FIXED BY A PUBLIC REGULATORY BODY, OF LEASES AND LICENSE
AGREEMENTS, AND OF AGREEMENTS WHERE THE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE UNDER
SUCH CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT WILL NOT BE IN EXCESS OF THIRTY DAYS; AND 

"(III)  A PORTION OF ANY CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT OR PERFORMANCE
THEREUNDER DURING A SPECIFIED PERIOD OR PERIODS, IF IN THE OPINION OF
THE SECRETARY, THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT ARE OTHERWISE ADEQUATE TO
PREVENT EXCESSIVE PROFITS. 

"THE SECRETARY MAY SO EXEMPT CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS BOTH
INDIVIDUALLY AND BY GENERAL CLASSES OR TYPES." 

     .         .         .         .         . 

56 STAT. 982. 

                               III. 

EXCERPTS FROM THE SO-CALLED SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT, TITLE VII,
RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS, PASSED NOTWITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIONS
OF THE PRESIDENT, FEBRUARY 25, 1944, C. 63, 58 STAT. 21, 78-92, 50
U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 1191; ALSO 26 U.S.C.A. INTERNAL REVENUE
ACTS BEGINNING 1940, REVENUE ACT OF 1943, SEC. 701, P. 491. 

WHILE SEC. 403 OF THE SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1942, AS EXPANDED BY SEC. 701(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT,
1943, IS TOO LONG FOR REPRODUCTION HERE, THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS FROM IT
ARE ESPECIALLY RELEVANT:  SEC. 403(A)(4)(A); SEC. 403(C)(1); SEC.
403(D)(1); SEC. 403(D)(4); SEC. 403(E)(1); SEC. 403(E)(2); SEC. 403(1);
SEE ALSO, SEC. 701(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943: 

"SEC. 701.  RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS. 

    .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS.  - SECTION 403, AS AMENDED, OF
THE SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1942, IS
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 403.  (A)  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION - 

     .         .         . .         . 

"(4)(A)  THE TERM 'EXCESSIVE PROFITS' MEANS THE PORTION OF THE
PROFITS DERIVED FROM CONTRACTS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS AND SUBCONTRACTS
WHICH IS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION TO BE EXCESSIVE. 
IN DETERMINING EXCESSIVE PROFITS THERE SHALL BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: 

"(I)  EFFICIENCY OF CONTRACTOR, WITH PARTICULAR REGARD TO ATTAINMENT
OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY PRODUCTION, REDUCTION OF COSTS AND ECONOMY IN
THE USE OF MATERIALS, FACILITIES, AND MANPOWER; 

"(II)  REASONABLENESS OF COSTS AND PROFITS, WITH PARTICULAR REGARD TO
VOLUME OF PRODUCTION, NORMAL PRE-WAR EARNINGS, AND COMPARISON OF WAR
AND PEACETIME PRODUCTS; 

"(III)  AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CAPITAL EMPLOYED AND
NET WORTH; 

"(IV)  EXTENT OF RISK ASSUMED, INCLUDING THE RISK INCIDENT TO
REASONABLE PRICING POLICIES; 

"(V)  NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE WAR EFFORT, INCLUDING
INVENTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL CONTRIBUTION AND COOPERATION WITH THE
GOVERNMENT AND OTHER CONTRACTORS IN SUPPLYING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; 

"(VI)  CHARACTER OF BUSINESS, INCLUDING COMPLEXITY OF MANUFACTURING
TECHNIQUE, CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF SUBCONTRACTING, AND RATE OF TURN
OVER; 

"(VII)  SUCH OTHER FACTORS THE CONSIDERATION OF WHICH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE DEALING MAY REQUIRE, WHICH FACTORS
SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD FROM TIME TO TIME AS
ADOPTED. 

     .         .    .         .         . 

"(C)(1)  WHENEVER, IN THE OPINION OF THE BOARD, THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED
OR ACCRUED UNDER CONTRACTS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS AND SUBCONTRACTS MAY
REFLECT EXCESSIVE PROFITS, THE BOARD SHALL GIVE TO THE CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE TIME AND
PLACE OF A CONFERENCE TO BE HELD WITH RESPECT THERETO.  THE MAILING OF
SUCH NOTICE BY REGISTERED MAIL TO THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL
CONSTITUTE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE RENEGOTIATION PROCEEDING.  AT THE
CONFERENCE, WHICH MAY BE ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME, THE BOARD SHALL
ENDEAVOR TO MAKE A FINAL OR OTHER AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR WITH RESPECT TO THE ELIMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS
RECEIVED OR ACCRUED, AND WITH RESPECT TO SUCH OTHER MATTERS RELATING
THERETO AS THE BOARD DEEMS ADVISABLE.  ANY SUCH AGREEMENT, IF MADE,
MAY, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, ALSO INCLUDE
PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ELIMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS LIKELY
TO BE RECEIVED OR ACCRUED.  IF THE BOARD DOES NOT MAKE AN AGREEMENT
WITH RESPECT TO THE ELIMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS RECEIVED OR
ACCRUED, IT SHALL ISSUE AND ENTER AN ORDER DETERMINING THE AMOUNT, IF
ANY, OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS, AND FORTHWITH GIVE NOTICE THEREOF BY
REGISTERED MAIL TO THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE FILING OF A PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF AND WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION
(E)(1), SUCH ORDER SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND SHALL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO REVIEW OR REDETERMINATION BY ANY COURT OR OTHER AGENCY.  THE
BOARD SHALL EXERCISE ITS POWERS WITH RESPECT TO THE AGGREGATE OF THE
AMOUNTS RECEIVED OR ACCRUED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR (OR SUCH OTHER
PERIOD AS MAY BE FIXED BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT) BY A CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR UNDER CONTRACTS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS AND SUBCONTRACTS,
AND NOT SEPARATELY WITH RESPECT TO AMOUNTS RECEIVED OR ACCRUED UNDER
SEPARATE CONTRACTS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS OR SUBCONTRACTS, EXCEPT THAT
THE BOARD MAY EXERCISE SUCH POWERS SEPARATELY WITH RESPECT TO AMOUNTS
RECEIVED OR ACCRUED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR UNDER ANY ONE OR
MORE SEPARATE CONTRACTS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS OR SUBCONTRACTS AT THE
REQUEST OF THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR.  WHENEVER THE BOARD MAKES A
DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS, WHETHER
SUCH DETERMINATION IS MADE BY ORDER OR IS EMBODIED IN AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, IT SHALL, AT THE REQUEST OF THE
CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, PREPARE AND FURNISH
SUCH CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR WITH A STATEMENT OF SUCH
DETERMINATION, OF THE FACTS USED AS A BASIS THEREFOR, AND OF ITS
REASONS FOR SUCH DETERMINATION.  SUCH STATEMENT SHALL NOT BE USED IN
THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AS PROOF OF THE FACTS OR CONCLUSIONS
STATED THEREIN. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(D)(1)  THERE IS HEREBY CREATED A WAR CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD (IN THIS SECTION CALLED THE 'BOARD'), WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF SIX
MEMBERS.  ... 

     .        .         .         .         . 

"(4)  THE BOARD MAY DELEGATE IN WHOLE OR IN PART ANY POWER, FUNCTION,
OR DUTY TO THE SECRETARY OF A DEPARTMENT, AND ANY POWER, FUNCTION, OR
DUTY SO DELEGATED MAY BE DELEGATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE SECRETARY
TO SUCH OFFICERS OR AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES AS HE MAY DESIGNATE,
AND HE MAY AUTHORIZE SUCCESSIVE REDELEGATIONS OF SUCH POWERS,
FUNCTIONS, AND DUTIES. 

     .         .  .         .         . 

"(E)(1)  ANY CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF THE
BOARD DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS RECEIVED OR ACCRUED
BY SUCH CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR MAY, WITHIN NINETY DAYS (NOT
COUNTING SUNDAY OR A LEGAL HOLIDAY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS THE
LAST DAY) AFTER THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF SUCH ORDER UNDER
SUBSECTION (C)(1), FILE A PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR A REDETERMINATION THEREOF.  UPON SUCH FILING SUCH COURT
SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, BY ORDER, TO FINALLY DETERMINE THE
AMOUNT, IF ANY, OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS RECEIVED OR ACCRUED BY THE
CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, AND SUCH DETERMINATION SHALL NOT BE
REVIEWED OR REDETERMINED BY ANY COURT OR AGENCY.  THE COURT MAY
DETERMINE AS THE AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS AN AMOUNT EITHER LESS
THAN, EQUAL TO, OR GREATER THAN THAT DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.  A
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TAX COURT TO FINALLY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT, IF
ANY, OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PROCEEDING TO
REVIEW THE DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD, BUT SHALL BE TREATED AS A
PROCEEDING DE NOVO.  ...    "(2)  ANY CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR  ...
AGGRIEVED BY A DETERMINATION OF THE SECRETARY MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943, WITH RESPECT TO A FISCAL YEAR
ENDING BEFORE JULY 1, 1943, AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS,
WHICH IS NOT EMBODIED IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRACTOR OR
SUBCONTRACTOR, MAY, WITHIN NINETY DAYS (NOT COUNTING SUNDAY OR A LEGAL
HOLIDAY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS THE LAST DAY) AFTER THE DATE OF
THE ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943, FILE A PETITION WITH THE TAX
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR A REDETERMINATION THEREOF, AND ANY SUCH
CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGGRIEVED BY A DETERMINATION OF THE
SECRETARY MADE ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1943, WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF
EXCESSIVE PROFITS, WHICH IS NOT EMBODIED IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, MAY, WITHIN NINETY DAYS (NOT COUNTING
SUNDAY OR A LEGAL HOLIDAY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS THE LAST DAY)
AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH DETERMINATION, FILE A PETITION WITH THE TAX
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR A REDETERMINATION THEREOF.  UPON SUCH
FILING SUCH COURT SHALL HAVE THE SAME JURISDICTION, POWERS, AND DUTIES,
AND THE PROCEEDING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROVISIONS, AS IN THE
CASE OF A PETITION FILED WITH THE COURT UNDER PARAGRAPH (1), EXCEPT
THAT THE AMENDMENTS MADE TO THIS SECTION BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943
WHICH ARE NOT MADE APPLICABLE AS OF APRIL 28, 1942, OR TO FISCAL YEARS
ENDING BEFORE JULY 1, 1943, SHALL NOT APPLY. 

 .         .         .         .         . 

"(L)  THIS SECTION MAY BE CITED AS THE 'RENEGOTIATION ACT'." 

     .       .         .         .         . 

"(D)  (SEC. 701.)  EFFECTIVE DATE.  - THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY
SUBSECTION (B) SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE FISCAL YEARS
ENDING AFTER JUNE 30, 1943, EXCEPT THAT (1) THE AMENDMENTS INSERTING
SUBSECTIONS (A)(4)(C), (A)(4)(D), (I)(1)(C), (I)(1)(D), (I)(1)(F),
(I)(3), AND (1) IN SECTION 403 OF THE SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL
DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1942, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE AS IF SUCH
AMENDMENTS AND SUBSECTIONS HAD BEEN A PART OF SECTION 403 OF SUCH ACT
ON THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT, AND (2) THE AMENDMENTS ADDING SUBSECTION
(D) AND (E)(2) TO SECTION 403 OF SUCH ACT SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE
DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT."  58 STAT. 78. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTING IN PART. 

THE BUSINESS INVOLVED IN THE LICHTER CASE RELATES TO PROFITS REALIZED
DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1942.  AS TO THE AMOUNTS
OWED UNDER THESE CONTRACTS, PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING IN
THE DISTRICT COURT.  FOR CONGRESS DID NOT REQUIRE THAT CLASS OF
CONTRACTS TO BE TAKEN TO THE TAX COURT.  I THINK A CLOSE READING OF THE
STATUTES, CONTAINED IN APPENDIX III TO THE COURT'S OPINION, WILL BEAR
ME OUT. 

THEY MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE TAX COURT.  AND SEC. 403(C)(1) PROVIDES
THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FILING OF SUCH A PETITION WITH THE TAX
COURT, THE ORDERS OF THE BOARD "SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE." 

BUT WE ARE CONCERNED HERE NOT WITH ORDERS OF THE BOARD BUT WITH AN
ORDER OF THE SECRETARY.  SECTION 403(E)(2) PROVIDES THAT THOSE ORDERS,
TOO, MAY BE TAKEN TO THE TAX COURT.  BUT SEC. 403(E)(2) BY ITS TERMS
MAKES INAPPLICABLE THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE 1943 AMENDMENT WHICH ARE NOT
MADE APPLICABLE AS OF APRIL 28, 1942, OR TO THE FISCAL YEARS ENDING
BEFORE JULY 1, 1943.  THUS, SEC. 403(C)(6) LIMITS SUBSECTION (C) "TO
ALL CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS, TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED OR
ACCRUED THEREUNDER IN ANY FISCAL YEAR ENDING AFTER JUNE 30, 1943,
WHETHER SUCH CONTRACTS OR SUBCONTRACTS WERE MADE ON, PRIOR TO, OR AFTER
THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943."  HENCE IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 403(C)(1) WHICH MAKES THE ORDERS OF
THE BOARD FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE IN ABSENCE OF THE FILING OF A PETITION
WITH THE TAX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE.  ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY, AT
LEAST AS RESPECTS 1942 BUSINESS, ARE THEREFORE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN
ORDERS OF THE BOARD.  I CONCLUDE THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO LEAVE
CONTRACTS AND CONTRACTORS WHO FELL IN THAT CATEGORY WITH THE RIGHT OF
ACCESS TO THE COURTS WHICH THEY HAD ENJOYED PRIOR TO THE REVENUE ACT OF
1943.  IN THOSE CASES JURISDICTION OF THE TAX COURT MAY BE INVOKED AT
THE OPTION OF THE PETITIONERS. 

MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 327 U.S. 540, IS NOT OPPOSED TO THIS
CONCLUSION.  FOR THAT CASE INVOLVED AN ORDER OF THE BOARD.  WADE V.
STIMSON, 331 U.S. 793, INVOLVED AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY AND RELATED
TO 1942 BUSINESS.  BUT THE QUESTION IN ISSUE HERE WAS NOT RAISED THERE,
AS IT IS NOT IN ALEXANDER WOOL COMBING CO. V. UNITED STATES, DECIDED
THIS DAY. 
..END :























LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS, 334 U.S. 804 


NO. 59.  ARGUED APRIL 26, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948. 


IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE CAUSE IS CONTINUED FOR AN
APPROPRIATE PERIOD TO ENABLE THIS COURT TO BE ADVISED WITHOUT AMBIGUITY
WHETHER THE STATE SUPREME COURT INTENDED TO REST ITS JUDGMENT HEREIN ON
AN ADEQUATE INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND OR WHETHER DECISION OF THE CLAIM
OF DENIAL OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENT
RENDERED.  PP. 804-806. 

LOFTUS V. ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

PETITIONER, BY AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF ERROR IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT,
CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF FOUR JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION IN A CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE STATE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENTS. 
395 ILL. 479, 70 N.E.2D 573.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S.
831.  CAUSE CONTINUED, PP. 805-806. 

PER CURIAM. 

BY WAY OF AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF ERROR IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS,
PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF FOUR CONVICTIONS IN A CIRCUIT
COURT OF THAT STATE.  THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENTS, 395 ILL. 479, 70 N.E.2D 573.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 333
U.S. 831, BECAUSE OF A SERIOUS CLAIM THAT PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CONSTITUTE A DISREGARD
OF THE SAFEGUARDS TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DISPOSED OF THIS CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ILLINOIS LAW.  IF THE ILLINOIS DECISION WAS AN
ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS TO WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, WE WOULD BE CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT HE HAD
BROUGHT HIMSELF WITHIN OUR GOVERNING DECISIONS.  IN HIS ORAL ARGUMENT
HERE, HOWEVER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE INSISTED THAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIES IN CLAIMING DENIAL OF A RIGHT
UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS ON THE ILLINOIS WRIT OF ERROR, BUT MUST BE
PURSUED IN ILLINOIS BY HABEAS CORPUS.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELIES FOR
HIS VIEW OF THE LOCAL LAW UPON TWO RECENT OPINIONS OF THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT, PEOPLE V. WILSON, 399 ILL. 437, 78 N.E.2D 514, AND
PEOPLE V. SHOFFNER, 400 ILL. 174, 79 N.E.2D 200.  BOTH THESE OPINIONS
CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THAT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF INDIGENT ACCUSED MAY,
UNDER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, BE PART OF THE DUE PROCESS WHICH THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES. 

IF, AS A MATTER OF LOCAL PROCEDURE, ILLINOIS CHOOSES TO ALLOW A
FEDERAL RIGHT, SUCH AS THE PRESENT RECORD PRESENTS, TO BE VINDICATED BY
HABEAS CORPUS IN ITS ILLINOIS SCOPE, BUT DOES NOT MAKE AVAILABLE THE
ILLINOIS WRIT OF ERROR, THAT IS FOR ILLINOIS TO SAY AND NOT FOR US TO
DENY. 

EVEN THOUGH OUR READING OF THE RECORD AND OF ILLINOIS LAW MIGHT GIVE
US A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING, WE HAVE HAD TOO GREAT DIFFICULTY IN
ASCERTAINING WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE ILLINOIS PROCEDURE FOR RAISING
CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS TO REJECT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S SUBMISSION REGARDING ILLINOIS PROCEDURAL LAW.  SEE, E.G.,
MARINO V. RAGEN, 332 U.S. 561.  IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS CORRECT AND
PETITIONER SOUGHT TO RAISE EVEN A VALID FEDERAL CLAIM BY WAY OF AN
UNAVAILABLE ILLINOIS REMEDY, WE HAVE OF COURSE A JUDGMENT THAT RESTS ON
A NON-FEDERAL GROUND, CALLING FOR DISMISSAL OF OUR WRIT.  IN THIS STATE
OF UNCERTAINTY, WE FOLLOW OUR PRECEDENT IN HERB V. PITCAIRN, 324 U.S.
117.  SEE ALSO PHYLE V. DUFFY, 334 U.S. 431. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE SHALL CONTINUE THIS CAUSE FOR AN APPROPRIATE PERIOD
TO ENABLE US TO BE ADVISED WITHOUT AMBIGUITY WHETHER THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT INTENDED TO REST THE JUDGMENT HEREIN ON AN ADEQUATE
INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND OR WHETHER DECISION OF THE CLAIM UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :




















HEDGEBETH V. NORTH CAROLINA, 334 U.S. 806 


NO. 674.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1948.  - 228 N.C.
259, 45 S.E.2D 563, CERTIORARI DISMISSED. 


1.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAVING AFFIRMED DISMISSAL OF A HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDING INVOLVING A CLAIM OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE FULL RECORD WAS NOT BEFORE IT, THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI GRANTED TO REVIEW THAT JUDGMENT IS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE
JUDGMENT CAN REST ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  P. 807. 

2.  A STATE PRISONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MUST BE
PURSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE PROCEDURE OR, IN DEFAULT OF RELIEF
BY AVAILABLE STATE PROCEDURE, BY A NEW CLAIM OF DENIAL OF FEDERAL RIGHT
FOR WANT OF SUCH RELIEF.  P. 807. 

HEDGEBETH V. NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

PETITIONER SUED IN A STATE COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS TO SECURE RELEASE
FROM IMPRISONMENT UNDER A CONVICTION ALLEGED TO HAVE DENIED HIS FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE WRIT WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  228 N.C. 259, 45 S.E.2D 563.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 854.  DISMISSED, P. 807. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFTER A CONVICTION FOR ROBBERY, PETITIONER SUED OUT A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN A SUPERIOR COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA CLAIMING THAT THE SENTENCE
HE IS SERVING INVOLVED A DENIAL OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE WRIT WAS DISMISSED AND THE DISMISSAL AFFIRMED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.  228 N.C. 259, 45 S.E.2D 563.  IF
PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS, WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, IN THE HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS CONTROLLED THE ISSUE BEFORE US, THEY WOULD ESTABLISH
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAKE THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AN
INGREDIENT OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  WHILE THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH
CAROLINA RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL
UNDER APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HELD THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE
HABEAS CORPUS THE TRIAL COURT HAD BEFORE IT NOT MERELY THE PETITIONER'S
ALLEGATIONS BUT "THE ORAL TESTIMONY OF THE SHERIFF, WHICH WAS NOT SENT
UP."  IN SHORT, THERE WAS BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT ONLY
A PARTIAL RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT.  IN
REVIEWING A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, WE ARE BOUND BY THE RECORD ON
WHICH THAT JUDGMENT WAS BASED.  SINCE THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
WENT ON THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE FULL RECORD BEFORE IT, WE
ARE CONSTRAINED TO DISMISS THIS WRIT BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW CAN
REST ON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION MUST BE PURSUED ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
OF NORTH CAROLINA OR, IN DEFAULT OF RELIEF BY AVAILABLE NORTH CAROLINA
PROCEEDINGS, BY A NEW CLAIM OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR WANT OF SUCH
RELIEF.  FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134, 139. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :


















SHERRER V. SHERRER, 334 U.S. 343 


NO. 36.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13-14, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 320
MASS. 351, 69 N.E.2D 801, REVERSED. 


A WIFE WENT FROM HER MASSACHUSETTS HOME TO FLORIDA AND SUED FOR
DIVORCE IN A COURT OF THAT STATE A FEW DAYS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE
90-DAY PERIOD OF RESIDENCE REQUIRED BY FLORIDA LAW.  HER HUSBAND
APPEARED GENERALLY AND DENIED ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT,
INCLUDING THAT OF THE WIFE'S FLORIDA RESIDENCE.  AT THE HEARING, THE
WIFE INTRODUCED EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH HER FLORIDA RESIDENCE, AND THE
HUSBAND, THOUGH PRESENT IN PERSON AND BY COUNSEL, DID NOT CROSS-EXAMINE
OR PROFFER EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE WIFE WAS A
BONA FIDE RESIDENT OF FLORIDA AND GRANTED HER A DIVORCE.  THE HUSBAND
DID NOT APPEAL.  THE WIFE MARRIED AGAIN AND SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED TO
MASSACHUSETTS.  HER FORMER HUSBAND THEN INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS THERE
COLLATERALLY ATTACKING THE FLORIDA DECREE.  ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO
INDICATION THAT THE DECREE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO SUCH AN ATTACK
UNDER FLORIDA LAW, THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT FOUND THAT THE WIFE WAS
NEVER DOMICILED IN FLORIDA AND HELD THE DIVORCE VOID.  HELD:  THE
MASSACHUSETTS JUDGMENT DENIED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE FLORIDA
JUDGMENT, CONTRARY TO ART. IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT
OF MAY 26, 1790, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687.  PP. 344-356. 

(A)  THE HUSBAND HAD HIS DAY IN COURT IN FLORIDA WITH RESPECT TO
EVERY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS WHICH DEMANDS THAT HE BE GIVEN A SECOND
OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE THE EXISTENCE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS.  P.
348. 

(B)  THE REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BAR A DEFENDANT FROM
COLLATERALLY ATTACKING A DIVORCE DECREE ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS IN
THE COURTS OF A SISTER STATE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN PARTICIPATION BY THE
DEFENDANT IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN
ACCORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES, AND
WHERE THE DECREE IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO SUCH COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE
COURTS OF THE STATE WHICH RENDERED THE DECREE.  DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305
U.S. 32, FOLLOWED.  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 348-352. 

(C)  INSOFAR AS THE RULE OF ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14, MAY BE
SAID TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE JUDGMENT HEREIN ANNOUNCED, IT MUST BE
REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN SUPERSEDED BY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT.  PP. 352-353. 

(D)  IF THE APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO CASES
OF THIS NATURE REQUIRES THAT LOCAL POLICY BE SUBORDINATED, THAT IS A
PART OF THE PRICE OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  THAT VITAL INTERESTS ARE
INVOLVED IN DIVORCE LITIGATION MAKES IT A MATTER OF GREATER RATHER THAN
LESSER IMPORTANCE THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE
LITIGATION END IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE DECREE WAS
RENDERED.  PP. 354-356. 

SHERRER V. SHERRER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE PROBATE COURT FOR BERKSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS. 

AFTER A WIFE HAD OBTAINED A DIVORCE IN FLORIDA, AND HAD RETURNED TO
HER FORMER HOME IN MASSACHUSETTS, A PROBATE COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS
FOUND THAT SHE WAS NEVER DOMICILED IN FLORIDA AND HELD THE DIVORCE
VOID.  THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS AFFIRMED.  320 MASS.
351, 69 N.E.2D 801.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 814. 
REVERSED, P. 356. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE AND IN COE V. COE, POST, P. 378,
TO CONSIDER THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS THAT MASSACHUSETTS HAS FAILED
TO ACCORD FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO DECREES OF DIVORCE RENDERED BY
COURTS OF SISTER STATES.  FN1 

PETITIONER MARGARET E. SHERRER AND THE RESPONDENT, EDWARD C. SHERRER,
WERE MARRIED IN NEW JERSEY IN 1930, AND FROM 1932 UNTIL APRIL 3, 1944,
LIVED TOGETHER IN MONTEREY, MASSACHUSETTS.  FOLLOWING A LONG PERIOD OF
MARITAL DISCORD, PETITIONER, ACCOMPANIED BY THE TWO CHILDREN OF THE
MARRIAGE, LEFT MASSACHUSETTS ON THE LATTER DATE, OSTENSIBLY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SPENDING A VACATION IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.  SHORTLY AFTER
HER ARRIVAL IN FLORIDA, HOWEVER, PETITIONER INFORMED HER HUSBAND THAT
SHE DID NOT INTEND TO RETURN TO HIM.  PETITIONER OBTAINED HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS IN FLORIDA, PLACED HER OLDER CHILD IN SCHOOL, AND
SECURED EMPLOYMENT FOR HERSELF. 

ON JULY 6, 1944, A BILL OF COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE WAS FILED AT
PETITIONER'S DIRECTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.  FN2  THE BILL ALLEGED EXTREME CRUELTY
AS GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE AND ALSO ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER WAS A "BONA
FIDE LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA."  FN3  THE RESPONDENT
RECEIVED NOTICE BY MAIL OF THE PENDENCY OF THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.  HE
RETAINED FLORIDA COUNSEL WHO ENTERED A GENERAL APPEARANCE AND FILED AN
ANSWER DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT, INCLUDING THE
ALLEGATION AS TO PETITIONER'S FLORIDA RESIDENCE.  FN4 

ON NOVEMBER 14, 1944, HEARINGS WERE HELD IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS. 
RESPONDENT APPEARED PERSONALLY TO TESTIFY WITH RESPECT TO A STIPULATION
ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. 
FN5  THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS RESPONDENT WAS REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.  FN6  PETITIONER INTRODUCED EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH HER FLORIDA
RESIDENCE AND TESTIFIED GENERALLY TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF HER COMPLAINT. 
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT FAILED TO CROSS-EXAMINE OR TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
IN REBUTTAL. 

THE FLORIDA COURT ON NOVEMBER 29, 1944, ENTERED A DECREE OF DIVORCE
AFTER SPECIFICALLY FINDING THAT PETITIONER "IS A BONA FIDE RESIDENT OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND THAT THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE
PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER IN SAID CAUSE; ...  "  RESPONDENT FAILED
TO CHALLENGE THE DECREE BY APPEAL TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.  FN7 

ON DECEMBER 1, 1944, PETITIONER WAS MARRIED IN FLORIDA TO ONE HENRY
A. PHELPS, WHOM PETITIONER HAD KNOWN WHILE BOTH WERE RESIDING IN
MASSACHUSETTS AND WHO HAD COME TO FLORIDA SHORTLY AFTER PETITIONER'S
ARRIVAL IN THAT STATE.  PHELPS AND PETITIONER LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND
AND WIFE IN FLORIDA, WHERE THEY WERE BOTH EMPLOYED, UNTIL FEBRUARY 5,
1945, WHEN THEY RETURNED TO MASSACHUSETTS. 

IN JUNE, 1945, RESPONDENT INSTITUTED AN ACTION IN THE PROBATE COURT
OF BERKSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS, WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE ISSUES
OF THIS CASE.  RESPONDENT ALLEGED THAT HE IS THE LAWFUL HUSBAND OF
PETITIONER, THAT THE FLORIDA DECREE OF DIVORCE IS INVALID, AND THAT
PETITIONER'S SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE IS VOID.  RESPONDENT PRAYED THAT HE
MIGHT BE PERMITTED TO CONVEY HIS REAL ESTATE AS IF HE WERE SOLE AND
THAT THE COURT DECLARE THAT HE WAS LIVING APART FROM HIS WIFE FOR
JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE.  FN8  PETITIONER JOINED ISSUE ON RESPONDENT'S
ALLEGATIONS. 

IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOLLOWED, PETITIONER GAVE TESTIMONY IN
DEFENSE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE FLORIDA DIVORCE DECREE.  FN9  THE
PROBATE COURT, HOWEVER, RESOLVED THE ISSUES OF FACT ADVERSELY TO
PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS, FOUND THAT SHE WAS NEVER DOMICILED IN
FLORIDA, AND GRANTED RESPONDENT THE RELIEF HE HAD REQUESTED.  THE
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS AFFIRMED THE DECREE ON THE
GROUNDS THAT IT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS
OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTS FROM
REEXAMINING THE FINDING OF DOMICILE MADE BY THE FLORIDA COURT.  FN10 

AT THE OUTSET, IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
FLORIDA COURT PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE DECREE OF DIVORCE WERE IN NO
WAY INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  WE
DO NOT UNDERSTAND RESPONDENT TO URGE THE CONTRARY.  THE RESPONDENT
PERSONALLY APPEARED IN THE FLORIDA PROCEEDINGS.  THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY
HE FILED PLEADINGS DENYING THE SUBSTANTIAL ALLEGATIONS OF PETITIONER'S
COMPLAINT.  IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT HIS RIGHTS TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
AND OTHERWISE TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE WERE IN ANY DEGREE IMPAIRED; NOR
IS IT SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM THE RIGHT TO SEEK
REVIEW OF THE DECREE BY APPEAL TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.  IT IS
CLEAR THAT RESPONDENT WAS AFFORDED HIS DAY IN COURT WITH RESPECT TO
EVERY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL
ISSUE OF PETITIONER'S DOMICILE.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS WHICH DEMANDS THAT A DEFENDANT BE
AFFORDED A SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE THE EXISTENCE OF
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS.  CHICAGO LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. CHERRY, 244 U.S.
25(1917); BALDWIN V. IOWA TRAVELING MEN'S ASSN., 283 U.S. 522(1931). 

IT SHOULD ALSO BE OBSERVED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO SUGGESTION THAT
UNDER THE LAW OF FLORIDA, THE DECREE OF DIVORCE IN QUESTION IS IN ANY
RESPECT INVALID OR COULD SUCCESSFULLY BE SUBJECTED TO THE TYPE OF
ATTACK PERMITTED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT.  THE IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION
UNDERLYING THE POSITION TAKEN BY RESPONDENT AND THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT
IS THAT THIS CASE INVOLVES A DECREE OF DIVORCE VALID AND FINAL IN THE
STATE WHICH RENDERED IT; AND WE SO ASSUME.  FN11 

THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE FLORIDA COURT TO ENTER A VALID DECREE OF
DIVORCE WAS DEPENDENT UPON PETITIONER'S DOMICILE IN THAT STATE IS NOT
DISPUTED.  FN12  THIS REQUIREMENT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE FLORIDA COURT
WHICH RENDERED THE DIVORCE DECREE, AND THE PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN GIVEN
FREQUENT APPLICATION IN DECISIONS OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  FN13
BUT WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS DOMICILED IN FLORIDA AT THE TIME THE
DIVORCE WAS GRANTED WAS A MATTER TO BE RESOLVED BY JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION.  HERE, UNLIKE THE SITUATION PRESENTED IN WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226(1945), THE FINDING OF THE REQUISITE
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS WAS MADE IN PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT
APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED.  THE QUESTION WITH WHICH WE ARE CONFRONTED,
THEREFORE, IS WHETHER SUCH A FINDING MADE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
PRESENTED BY THIS CASE MAY, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT, BE SUBJECTED TO COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE COURTS OF A
SISTER STATE IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS. 

THE QUESTION OF WHAT EFFECT IS TO BE GIVEN TO AN ADJUDICATION BY A
COURT THAT IT POSSESSES REQUISITE JURISDICTION IN A CASE, WHERE THE
JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT IS SUBSEQUENTLY SUBJECTED TO COLLATERAL ATTACK
ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS, HAS BEEN GIVEN FREQUENT CONSIDERATION BY
THIS COURT OVER A PERIOD OF MANY YEARS.  INSOFAR AS CASES ORIGINATING
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE CONCERNED, THE RULE HAS EVOLVED THAT THE
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO ADJUDICATIONS RELATING EITHER TO
JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OR OF THE SUBJECT MATTER WHERE SUCH
ADJUDICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THOSE QUESTIONS
WERE IN ISSUE AND IN WHICH THE PARTIES WERE GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
LITIGATE.  FN14  THE REASONS FOR THIS DOCTRINE HAVE FREQUENTLY BEEN
STATED.  THUS IN STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165, 172(1938), IT WAS
SAID:  "COURTS TO DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART
OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT THAT THERE SHOULD
BE A PLACE TO END AS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PLACE TO BEGIN LITIGATION. 
AFTER A PARTY HAS HIS DAY IN COURT, WITH OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS
EVIDENCE AND HIS VIEW OF THE LAW, A COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON THE DECISION
AS TO JURISDICTION THERE RENDERED MERELY RETRIES THE ISSUE PREVIOUSLY
DETERMINED.  THERE IS NO REASON TO EXPECT THAT THE SECOND DECISION WILL
BE MORE SATISFACTORY THAN THE FIRST." 

THIS COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA MUST BE
APPLIED TO QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION IN CASES ARISING IN STATE COURTS
INVOLVING THE APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE WHERE,
UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED,
SUCH ADJUDICATIONS ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  FN15 

IN DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32(1938), THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA HAD REFUSED TO GIVE EFFECT TO A DECREE OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE
RENDERED IN VIRGINIA, ON THE GROUND THAT THE VIRGINIA COURT HAD LACKED
JURISDICTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD APPEARED IN THE
VIRGINIA PROCEEDINGS AND HAD FULLY LITIGATED THE ISSUE OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S DOMICILE.  THIS COURT HELD THAT IN FAILING TO GIVE
RECOGNITION TO THE VIRGINIA DECREE, THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT HAD
FAILED TO ACCORD THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIRED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  DURING THE COURSE OF THE OPINION, THIS COURT STATED:
"AS TO PETITIONER'S DOMICIL FOR DIVORCE AND HIS STANDING TO INVOKE
JURISDICTION OF THE VIRGINIA COURT, ITS FINDING THAT HE WAS A BONA FIDE
RESIDENT OF THAT STATE FOR THE REQUIRED TIME IS BINDING UPON RESPONDENT
IN THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT.  SHE MAY NOT SAY THAT HE WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO SUE FOR DIVORCE IN THE STATE COURT, FOR SHE APPEARED THERE
AND BY PLEA PUT IN ISSUE HIS ALLEGATION AS TO DOMICIL, INTRODUCED
EVIDENCE TO SHOW IT FALSE, TOOK EXCEPTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER'S
REPORT, AND SOUGHT TO HAVE THE COURT SUSTAIN THEM AND UPHOLD HER PLEA. 
PLAINLY, THE DETERMINATION OF THE DECREE UPON THAT POINT IS EFFECTIVE
FOR ALL PURPOSES IN THIS LITIGATION."  FN16 

WE BELIEVE THAT THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE DAVIS CASE AND
THOSE IN RELATED SITUATIONS FN17  ARE CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF THE RESULT
TO BE REACHED HERE.  THOSE CASES STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BAR A DEFENDANT FROM COLLATERALLY
ATTACKING A DIVORCE DECREE ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS IN THE COURTS OF A
SISTER STATE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN PARTICIPATION BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN ACCORDED FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES, AND WHERE THE DECREE
IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO SUCH COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE
WHICH RENDERED THE DECREE.  FN18 

APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES TO THIS CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE
MASSACHUSETTS COURTS ERRED IN PERMITTING THE FLORIDA DIVORCE DECREE TO
BE SUBJECTED TO ATTACK ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT DOMICILED
IN FLORIDA AT THE TIME THE DECREE WAS ENTERED.  RESPONDENT PARTICIPATED
IN THE FLORIDA PROCEEDINGS BY ENTERING A GENERAL APPEARANCE, FILING
PLEADINGS PLACING IN ISSUE THE VERY MATTERS HE SOUGHT SUBSEQUENTLY TO
CONTEST IN THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTS, PERSONALLY APPEARING BEFORE THE
FLORIDA COURT AND GIVING TESTIMONY IN THE CASE, AND BY RETAINING
ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED HIM THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS.  IT
HAS NOT BEEN CONTENDED THAT RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN LESS THAN A FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE ISSUE OF PETITIONER'S DOMICILE OR ANY OTHER
ISSUE RELEVANT TO THE LITIGATION.  THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT
THE FLORIDA COURT WOULD NOT HAVE EVALUATED FAIRLY AND IN GOOD FAITH ALL
RELEVANT EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO IT.  RESPONDENT DOES NOT EVEN CONTEND
THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED IN THE FLORIDA
PROCEEDINGS, THAT COURT REACHED AN ERRONEOUS RESULT ON THE ISSUE OF
PETITIONER'S DOMICILE.  IF RESPONDENT FAILED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED HIM, THE RESPONSIBILITY IS HIS OWN.  WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THE DERELICTION OF A DEFENDANT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR SUBSEQUENT ATTACK IN THE
COURTS OF A SISTER STATE ON A DECREE VALID IN THE STATE IN WHICH IT WAS
RENDERED. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14(1903),
MILITATES AGAINST THE RESULT WE HAVE REACHED.  IN THAT CASE A HUSBAND,
WHO HAD BEEN DOMICILED IN MASSACHUSETTS, INSTITUTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS
IN A SOUTH DAKOTA COURT AFTER HAVING SATISFIED THE RESIDENCE
REQUIREMENTS OF THAT STATE.  THE WIFE APPEARED BY COUNSEL AND FILED
PLEADINGS CHALLENGING THE HUSBAND'S SOUTH DAKOTA DOMICILE.  BEFORE THE
DECREE OF DIVORCE WAS GRANTED, HOWEVER, THE WIFE, PURSUANT TO A CONSENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, WITHDREW HER APPEARANCE FROM THE
PROCEEDINGS.  FOLLOWING THE ENTRY OF THE DECREE, THE HUSBAND RETURNED
TO MASSACHUSETTS AND SUBSEQUENTLY REMARRIED.  AFTER HIS DEATH A CONTEST
DEVELOPED BETWEEN HIS FIRST AND SECOND WIVES AS TO THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE HUSBAND'S ESTATE.  THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE
SOUTH DAKOTA DECREE OF DIVORCE WAS VOID ON THE GROUND THAT THE HUSBAND
HAD NOT BEEN DOMICILED IN THAT STATE AND THAT, UNDER THE APPLICABLE
STATUTES OF MASSACHUSETTS, THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTS WERE NOT REQUIRED
TO GIVE RECOGNITION TO SUCH A DECREE.  THIS COURT AFFIRMED ON WRIT OF
ERROR BY A DIVIDED VOTE.  FN19    ON ITS FACTS, THE ANDREWS CASE
PRESENTS VARIATIONS FROM THE PRESENT SITUATION.  FN20  BUT INSOFAR AS
THE RULE OF THAT CASE MAY BE SAID TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE JUDGMENT
HEREIN ANNOUNCED, IT MUST BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN SUPERSEDED BY
SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  THE ANDREWS CASE WAS DECIDED PRIOR
TO THE CONSIDERABLE MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO
FINALITY OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS.  FN21  ONE OF THE DECISIONS UPON
WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT IN THAT CASE PLACED PRIMARY RELIANCE,
WISCONSIN V. PELICAN INSURANCE CO., 127 U.S. 265(1888), WAS, INSOFAR AS
PERTINENT, OVERRULED IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S.
268(1935).  THE ANDREWS CASE, THEREFORE, MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS
DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUES BEFORE US. 

IT IS URGED FURTHER, HOWEVER, THAT BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH
LITIGATION INVOLVING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MARITAL RELATION, A
DIFFERENT RESULT IS DEMANDED FROM THAT WHICH MIGHT PROPERLY BE REACHED
IF THIS CASE WERE CONCERNED WITH OTHER TYPES OF LITIGATION.  IT IS
POINTED OUT THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THE REGULATION AND CONTROL OF
MARITAL AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES.  IT IS
URGED, AND PROPERLY SO, THAT THE REGULATION OF THE INCIDENTS OF THE
MARITAL RELATION INVOLVES THE EXERCISE BY THE STATES OF POWERS OF THE
MOST VITAL IMPORTANCE.  FINALLY, IT IS CONTENDED THAT A RECOGNITION OF
THE IMPORTANCE TO THE STATES OF SUCH POWERS DEMANDS THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BE VIEWED IN SUCH A LIGHT AS TO
PERMIT AN ATTACK UPON A DIVORCE DECREE GRANTED BY A COURT OF A SISTER
STATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE EVEN WHERE THE ATTACK IS
INITIATED IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS.  FN22 

BUT THE RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF A STATE'S POWER TO DETERMINE
THE INCIDENTS OF BASIC SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS INTO WHICH ITS
DOMICILIARIES ENTER DOES NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE.  THIS IS
NOT A SITUATION IN WHICH A STATE HAS MERELY SOUGHT TO EXERT SUCH POWER
OVER A DOMICILIARY.  THIS IS, RATHER, A CASE INVOLVING INCONSISTENT
ASSERTIONS OF POWER BY COURTS OF TWO STATES OF THE FEDERAL UNION AND
THUS PRESENTS CONSIDERATIONS WHICH GO BEYOND THE INTERESTS OF LOCAL
POLICY, HOWEVER VITAL.  IN RESOLVING THE ISSUES HERE PRESENTED, WE DO
NOT CONCEIVE IT TO BE A PART OF OUR FUNCTION TO WEIGH THE RELATIVE
MERITS OF THE POLICIES OF FLORIDA AND MASSACHUSETTS WITH RESPECT TO
DIVORCE AND RELATED MATTERS.  NOR DO WE UNDERSTAND THE DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS PASSED
THEREUNDER AMOUNTS TO SOMETHING LESS THAN THE DUTY TO ACCORD FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT TO DECREES OF DIVORCE ENTERED BY COURTS OF SISTER STATES. 
FN23  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS ONE OF THE PROVISIONS
INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTITUTION BY ITS FRAMERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TRANSFORMING AN AGGREGATION OF INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN STATES INTO A
NATION.  FN24  IF IN ITS APPLICATION LOCAL POLICY MUST AT TIMES BE
REQUIRED TO GIVE WAY, SUCH "IS PART OF THE PRICE OF OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM."  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 302(1942).  FN25 

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT IN NO CASE MAY AN AREA BE RECOGNIZED IN WHICH
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS OF INTEREST MAY PROPERLY BE MADE.  BUT AS
THIS COURT HAS HERETOFORE MADE CLEAR, THAT AREA IS OF LIMITED EXTENT. 
FN26  WE BELIEVE THAT IN PERMITTING AN ATTACK ON THE FLORIDA DIVORCE
DECREE WHICH AGAIN PUT IN ISSUE PETITIONER'S FLORIDA DOMICILE AND IN
REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF THAT DECREE, THE MASSACHUSETTS
COURTS HAVE ASSERTED A POWER WHICH CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE FAITH AND CREDIT.  WE BELIEVE THAT ASSURANCES THAT
SUCH A POWER WILL BE EXERCISED SPARINGLY AND WISELY RENDER IT NO LESS
REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMANDS. 

IT IS ONE THING TO RECOGNIZE AS PERMISSIBLE THE JUDICIAL
REEXAMINATION OF FINDINGS OF JURISDICTIONAL FACT WHERE SUCH FINDINGS
HAVE BEEN MADE BY A COURT OF A SISTER STATE WHICH HAS ENTERED A DIVORCE
DECREE IN EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS.  FN27  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO
HOLD THAT THE VITAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS INVOLVED IN DIVORCE LITIGATION
MAY BE HELD IN SUSPENSE PENDING THE SCRUTINY BY COURTS OF SISTER STATES
OF FINDINGS OF JURISDICTIONAL FACT MADE BY A COMPETENT COURT IN
PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE HIGHEST
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS AND IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAS
PARTICIPATED.  WE DO NOT CONCEIVE IT TO BE IN ACCORD WITH THE PURPOSES
OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIREMENT TO HOLD THAT A JUDGMENT
RENDERED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE MAY BE REQUIRED TO RUN
THE GANTLET OF SUCH COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE COURTS OF SISTER STATES
BEFORE ITS VALIDITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE WHICH RENDERED IT IS
ESTABLISHED OR REJECTED.  THAT VITAL INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED IN DIVORCE
LITIGATION INDICATES TO US THAT IT IS A MATTER OF GREATER RATHER THAN
LESSER IMPORTANCE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PLACE TO END SUCH LITIGATION. 
FN28 AND WHERE A DECREE OF DIVORCE IS RENDERED BY A COMPETENT COURT
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE OBLIGATION OF FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT REQUIRES THAT SUCH LITIGATION SHOULD END IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  U.S. CONST. ART. IV, SEC. 1, PROVIDES:  "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE.  AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS
PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL
BE PROVED, AND THE EFFECT THEREOF." 

THE ACT OF MAY 26, 1790, 1 STAT. 122, AS AMENDED, R.S. SEC. 905, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 687, PROVIDES IN PART:  "  ...  AND THE SAID RECORDS AND
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS  ...  SHALL HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO
THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR
USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN." 

FN2  BY STATUTE, THE CIRCUIT COURTS, AS COURTS OF EQUITY, HAVE
JURISDICTION OF DIVORCE CAUSES.  FLORIDA STAT. ANN. SEC. 65.01. 
MELOCHE V. MELOCHE, 101 FLA. 659, 662, 133 SO. 339, 340(1931). 

FN3  SECTION 65.02 OF FLORIDA STAT. ANN. PROVIDES:  "IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN A DIVORCE THE COMPLAINANT MUST HAVE RESIDED NINETY DAYS IN THE
STATE OF FLORIDA BEFORE THE FILING OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT."  THE
FLORIDA COURTS HAVE CONSTRUED THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF RESIDENCE TO
BE THAT OF DOMICILE.  RESPONDENT DOES NOT CONTEND NOR DO WE FIND ANY
EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF "DOMICILE" AS DEFINED BY THE FLORIDA
CASES ARE OTHER THAN THOSE GENERALLY APPLIED OR DIFFER FROM THE TESTS
EMPLOYED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTS.  WADE V. WADE, 93 FLA. 1004, 113
SO. 374(1927); EVANS V. EVANS, 141 FLA. 860, 194 SO. 215(1940); FOWLER
V. FOWLER, 156 FLA. 316, 22 SO.2D 817(1945). 

FN4  THE FIRST ALLEGATION OF RESPONDENT'S ANSWER STATED:  "THAT THE
PLAINTIFF IS NOT A BONA-FIDE LEGAL RESIDENT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND
HAS NOT BEEN SUCH CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN THE NINETY DAYS
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  THAT ON OR
ABOUT APRIL 3, 1944, WHILE THE PARTIES WERE LIVING TOGETHER AS
RESIDENTS OF MONTEREY, MASSACHUSETTS, THE PLAINTIFF CAME TO FLORIDA
WITH THE CHILDREN OF THE PARTIES FOR A VISIT AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESSED
INTENTION OF ESTABLISHING A SEPARATE RESIDENCE FROM THE DEFENDANT AND
HAS REMAINED IN FLORIDA EVER SINCE, BUT WITHOUT ANY INTENTION OF
BECOMING A BONA-FIDE RESIDENT OF FLORIDA." 

FN5  THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE CUSTODY OF
THE CHILDREN DURING THE SCHOOL TERM OF EACH YEAR AND THAT PETITIONER
SHOULD BE GIVEN CUSTODY THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE YEAR, SUBJECT TO THE
RIGHT OF BOTH PARENTS TO VISIT AT REASONABLE TIMES.  BEFORE THE FINAL
DECREE OF DIVORCE WAS ENTERED, RESPONDENT RETURNED TO MASSACHUSETTS
ACCOMPANIED BY THE TWO CHILDREN. 

FN6  IT IS SAID THAT THROUGHOUT MOST OF THE PROCEEDINGS RESPONDENT
DID NOT APPEAR IN THE COURTROOM BUT REMAINED "IN A SIDE ROOM." 

FN7  APPEALS LIE TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT FROM FINAL DECREES OF
DIVORCE.  FLA. CONST. ART. V, SEC. 5.  AND SEE E.G., HOMAN V. HOMAN,
144 FLA. 371, 198 SO. 20(1940). 

FN8  THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MASS. GEN.
LAWS (TER.  ED.)  C. 209, SEC. 36. 

FN9  PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR TO HER DEPARTURE
FOR FLORIDA, RESPONDENT HAD MADE FREQUENT ALLUSIONS TO THE FACT THAT
PETITIONER'S MOTHER HAD BEEN COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION AND HAD
SUGGESTED THAT PETITIONER WAS REVEALING THE SAME TRAITS OF MENTAL
INSTABILITY.  PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT AS A RESULT OF THESE REMARKS
AND OTHER ACTS OF CRUELTY, HER HEALTH HAD BEEN UNDERMINED AND THAT IT
HAD THEREFORE BECOME NECESSARY FOR HER TO LEAVE RESPONDENT.  IN ORDER
TO INSURE HER DEPARTURE, SHE HAD REPRESENTED THAT HER STAY IN FLORIDA
WAS TO BE ONLY TEMPORARY, BUT FROM THE OUTSET SHE HAD IN FACT INTENDED
NOT TO RETURN.  PETITIONER TESTIFIED FURTHER THAT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
THE FLORIDA DECREE OF DIVORCE HAD BEEN ENTERED, SHE HAD INTENDED TO
RESIDE PERMANENTLY IN FLORIDA AND THAT SHE AND PHELPS HAD RETURNED TO
MASSACHUSETTS ONLY AFTER RECEIVING A LETTER STATING THAT PHELPS' FATHER
WAS IN POOR HEALTH. 

FN10  320 MASS. 351, 69 N.E.2D 801(1946). 

FN11  SEE WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226, 233-234(1945);
CF. TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66, 78, NOTE 26(1939). 
NO FLORIDA CASE HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION INVOLVING A COLLATERAL
ATTACK ON A DIVORCE DECREE QUESTIONING THE DOMICILE OF THE PARTIES, AND
HENCE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHICH ENTERED THE DECREE, WHERE
BOTH PARTIES APPEARED IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.  SEE GENERALLY
EVERETTE V. PETTEWAY, 131 FLA. 516, 528-529, 179 SO. 666, 671
672(1938); STATE EX REL. GOODRICH CO. V. TRAMMELL, 140 FLA. 500, 505,
192 SO. 175, 177(1939).  BUT CF. CHISHOLM V. CHISHOLM, 98 FLA. 1196,
125 SO. 694(1929); DYE V. DOLBECK, 114 FLA. 866, 154 SO. 847(1934),
INVOLVING ATTACKS ON JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS MADE IN EX PARTE DIVORCE
PROCEEDINGS. 

FN12  BELL V. BELL, 181 U.S. 175(1901). 

FN13  SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA. 

FN14  BALDWIN V. IOWA STATE TRAVELING MEN'S ASSOCIATION, 283 U.S.
522(1931): STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165(1938); CHICOT COUNTY
DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER STATE BANK, 308 U.S. 371(1940); SUNSHINE
ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381(1940); JACKSON V. IRVING
TRUST CO., 311 U.S. 494(1941).  AND SEE FORSYTH V. HAMMOND, 166 U.S.
506(1897); HEISER V. WOODRUFF, 327 U.S. 726(1946). 

FN15  AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 156(1932); TREINIES V.
SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66(1939).  AND SEE CHICAGO LIFE INSURANCE
CO. V. CHERRY, 244 U.S. 25(1917). 

FN16  DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, 40(1938).  AND SEE STOLL V.
GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165, 172, NOTE 13(1938). 

FN17  SEE CASES DISCUSSED SUPRA. 

FN18  WE, OF COURSE, INTIMATE NO OPINION AS TO THE SCOPE OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO LEGISLATE UNDER ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  SEE NOTE 1 SUPRA. 

FN19  JUSTICES BREWER, SHIRAS, AND PECKHAM DISSENTED.  MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES TOOK NO PART IN THE CASE. 

FN20  THUS, IN THE ANDREWS CASE, BEFORE THE DIVORCE DECREE WAS
ENTERED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA COURT, THE DEFENDANT WITHDREW HER
APPEARANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A CONSENT AGREEMENT. 

FN21  SEE NOTE 14 SUPRA. 

FN22  BUT CF. WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226, 230(1945). 

FN23  DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, 40(1938); WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 294(1942). 

FN24  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 276-277(1935);
MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 439(1943). 

FN25  BUT WE MAY WELL DOUBT THAT THE JUDGMENT WHICH WE HEREIN
ANNOUNCE WILL AMOUNT TO SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH STATE POLICY WITH
RESPECT TO DIVORCE.  MANY STATES WHICH HAVE HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER
THE MATTER HAVE ALREADY RECOGNIZED THE IMPROPRIETY OF PERMITTING A
COLLATERAL ATTACK ON AN OUT-OF-STATE DIVORCE DECREE WHERE THE DEFENDANT
APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.  SEE, E.G.,
NORRIS V. NORRIS, 200 MINN. 246, 273 N.W. 708(1937); MILLER V. MILLER,
65 N.Y.S.2D 696(1946), AFFIRMED 271 APP. DIV. 974, 67 N.Y.S.2D
379(1947); COLE V. COLE, 96 N.J. EQ. 206, 124 A. 359(1924). 

FN26  BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, 642(1935); WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 294-295(1942). 

FN27  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226(1945). 

FN28  CF. STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165, 172(1938). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS,
DISSENTING* . 

*(THIS IS ALSO A DISSENT TO COE V. COE, POST, P. 378.) 

WHAT MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID OF THE ILL-STARRED HADDOCK V. HADDOCK
MAY EQUALLY BE SAID HERE:  "I DO NOT SUPPOSE THAT CIVILIZATION WILL
COME TO AN END WHICHEVER WAY THIS CASE IS DECIDED."  201 U.S. 562,
628.  BUT, BELIEVING AS I DO THAT THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED IS
CALCULATED, HOWEVER UNWITTINGLY, TO PROMOTE PERJURY WITHOUT OTHERWISE
APPRECIABLY AFFECTING THE EXISTING DISHARMONIES AMONG THE FORTY-EIGHT
STATES IN RELATION TO DIVORCE, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO STATE MY
VIEWS. 

NOT ONLY IS TODAY'S DECISION FRAUGHT WITH THE LIKELIHOOD OF UNTOWARD
CONSEQUENCES.  IT DISREGARDS A LAW THAT FOR A CENTURY HAS EXPRESSED THE
SOCIAL POLICY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND LATTERLY OF OTHER STATES, IN A
DOMAIN WHICH UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION IS PECULIARLY THE CONCERN OF THE
STATES AND NOT OF THE NATION. 

IF ALL THAT WERE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE VALIDITY IN ONE
STATE OF A DIVORCE GRANTED IN ANOTHER WAS TO READ THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, GENERATIONS OF JUDGES WOULD NOT HAVE
FOUND THE PROBLEM SO TROUBLESOME AS THEY HAVE, NOR WOULD A DIVIDED
COURT HAVE SUCCESSIVELY PRONOUNCED A SERIES OF DISCORDANT DECISIONS. 
"FULL FAITH AND CREDIT" MUST BE GIVEN TO A JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE. 
BUT A "JUDGMENT" IMPLIES THE POWER OF THE STATE TO DEAL WITH THE
SUBJECT-MATTER IN CONTROVERSY.  A STATE COURT WHICH HAS ENTERED WHAT
PROFESSES TO BE A JUDGMENT MUST HAVE HAD SOMETHING ON WHICH TO ACT. 
THAT SOMETHING IS WHAT IS CONVEYED BY THE WORD "JURISDICTION," AND,
WHEN IT COMES TO DISSOLVING A MARRIAGE STATUS, THROUGHOUT THE ENGLISH
SPEAKING WORLD THE BASIS OF POWER TO ACT IS DOMICILE.  WHETHER OR NOT
IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION A PERSON IS DOMICILED IN A GIVEN STATE
DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES, AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE MYRIAD DIVERSITIES. 
BUT THERE IS A CONSENSUS OF OPINION AMONG ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTS THE
WORLD OVER THAT DOMICILE REQUIRES SOME SENSE OF PERMANENCE OF
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL WHO CLAIMS IT AND THE STATE WHICH HE
ASKS TO RECOGNIZE IT. 

IT WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN EASIER IF FROM THE BEGINNING THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE HAD BEEN CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT THE ASSUMPTION
OF JURISDICTION BY THE COURTS OF A STATE WOULD BE CONCLUSIVE, SO THAT
EVERY OTHER STATE WOULD HAVE TO RESPECT IT.  BUT SUCH CERTAINLY HAS NOT
BEEN THE LAW SINCE 1873.  THOMPSON V. WHITMAN, 18 WALL.  457.  NOR WAS
IT THE LAW WHEN THIS COURT LAST CONSIDERED THE DIVORCE PROBLEM, IN
1945.  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226.  A STATE THAT IS ASKED
TO ENFORCE THE ACTION OF ANOTHER STATE MAY APPROPRIATELY ASCERTAIN
WHETHER THAT OTHER STATE HAD POWER TO DO WHAT IT PURPORTED TO DO.  AND
IF THE ENFORCING STATE HAS AN INTEREST UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION IN REGARD
TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER THAT IS VITAL AND INTIMATE, IT SHOULD NOT BE
WITHIN THE POWER OF PRIVATE PARTIES TO FORECLOSE THAT INTEREST BY THEIR
PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT.  ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14; CF. FALL V.
EASTIN, 215 U.S. 1; ALASKA PACKERS ASSOCIATION V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT
COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 532. 

IF THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT WERE NO DIFFERENT FROM A CONTRACT TO SELL AN
AUTOMOBILE, THE PARTIES THERETO MIGHT WELL BE PERMITTED TO BARGAIN AWAY
ALL INTERESTS INVOLVED, IN OR OUT OF COURT.  BUT THE STATE HAS AN
INTEREST IN THE FAMILY RELATIONS OF ITS CITIZENS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM
THE INTEREST IT HAS IN AN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION.  THAT
INTEREST CANNOT BE BARTERED OR BARGAINED AWAY BY THE IMMEDIATE PARTIES
TO THE CONTROVERSY BY A DEFAULT OR AN ARRANGED CONTEST IN A PROCEEDING
FOR DIVORCE IN A STATE TO WHICH THE PARTIES ARE STRANGERS.  THEREFORE,
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF A STATE TO DETERMINE THE MARRIAGE STATUS OF
TWO OF ITS CITIZENS SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED FORECLOSED BY A PROCEEDING
BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN ANOTHER STATE, EVEN THOUGH IN OTHER TYPES OF
CONTROVERSY CONSIDERATIONS MAKING IT DESIRABLE TO PUT AN END TO
LITIGATION MIGHT FORECLOSE THE PARTIES THEMSELVES FROM REOPENING THE
DISPUTE.  FN1  I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS A STATE
FROM INSISTING THAT IT IS NOT BOUND BY ANY SUCH PROCEEDINGS IN A
DISTANT STATE WANTING IN THE POWER THAT DOMICILE ALONE GIVES, AND THAT
ITS COURTS NEED NOT HONOR SUCH AN INTRINSICALLY SHAM PROCEEDING, NO
MATTER WHO BRINGS THE ISSUE TO THEIR ATTENTION. 

THAT SOCIETY HAS A VITAL INTEREST IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF ITS
MEMBERS WILL BE ALMOST IMPATIENTLY CONCEDED N2.  BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH
TO PAY LIP-SERVICE TO THE COMMONPLACE AS AN ABSTRACTION.  ITS
IMPLICATIONS MUST BE RESPECTED.  THEY DEFINE OUR PROBLEMS.  NOWHERE IN
THE UNITED STATES, NOT EVEN IN THE STATES WHICH GRANT DIVORCES MOST
FREELY, MAY A HUSBAND AND WIFE RESCIND THEIR MARRIAGE AT WILL AS THEY
MIGHT A COMMERCIAL CONTRACT.  EVEN IF ONE THOUGHT THAT SUCH A VIEW OF
THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE WAS SOCIALLY DESIRABLE, IT COULD SCARCELY
BE HELD THAT SUCH A PERSONAL VIEW WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE
CONSTITUTION OR INTO THE LAW FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE, ENACTED BY THE FIRST CONGRESS.  1 STAT. 122, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 687.  THAT WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ORDAINED DIVORCE WAS A MATTER
OF THE DEEPEST PUBLIC CONCERN, RATHER THAN DEEMED A PERSONAL DISPUTE
BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES, IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT IT COULD BE SECURED
ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ONLY BY SPECIAL ENACTMENTS OF THE SEVERAL
LEGISLATURES AND NOT THROUGH LITIGATION IN COURT.  SEE IRELAND AND
GALINDEZ, DIVORCE IN THE AMERICAS (1947) P. 1. 

AS A CONTRACT, THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT IS UNIQUE IN THE LAW.  TO
ASSIMILATE IT TO AN ORDINARY PRIVATE CONTRACT CAN ONLY MISLEAD.  SEE
MAYNARD V. HILL, 125 U.S. 190, 210-14; RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW,
CONTRACTS, SECS. 584, 586; CF. DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT. 
518, 627-29.  THE PARTIES TO A MARRIAGE DO NOT COMPREHEND BETWEEN THEM
ALL THE INTERESTS THAT THE RELATION CONTAINS.  SOCIETY SANCTIONS THE
INSTITUTION AND CREATES AND ENFORCES ITS BENEFITS AND DUTIES.  AS A
MATTER OF LAW, SOCIETY IS REPRESENTED BY THE PERMANENT HOME STATE OF
THE PARTIES, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT OF THEIR DOMICILE.  IN THESE CASES
THAT STATE WAS MASSACHUSETTS. 

MASSACHUSETTS HAS SEEN FIT TO SUBJECT ITS CITIZENS TO THE FOLLOWING
LAW: 

"A DIVORCE DECREED IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO THE LAWS
THEREOF BY A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE AND OF BOTH THE
PARTIES SHALL BE VALID AND EFFECTUAL IN THIS COMMONWEALTH; BUT IF AN
INHABITANT OF THIS COMMONWEALTH GOES INTO ANOTHER JURISDICTION TO
OBTAIN A DIVORCE FOR A CAUSE OCCURRING HERE WHILE THE PARTIES RESIDED
HERE, OR FOR A CAUSE WHICH WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE A DIVORCE BY THE LAWS OF
THIS COMMONWEALTH, A DIVORCE SO OBTAINED SHALL BE OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT
IN THIS COMMONWEALTH."  MASS. GEN. LAWS C. 208, SEC. 39(1932). 

THIS STATUTE, IN SUBSTANCE,  FN3  WAS FIRST ENACTED IN 1835, AND EVEN
THEN MERELY FORMALIZED A PRIOR RULE OF JUDICIAL ORIGIN.  CF. HANOVER V.
TURNER, 14 MASS. 227; REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO REVISE
THE GENERAL STATUTES OF THE COMMONWEALTH, PT. II, P. 123; 2 KENT,
COMMENTARIES, LECT.  27,*  108-*109.  THE UNIFORM ANNULMENT OF
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE ACT,  FN4 PASSED BY DELAWARE N5, NEW JERSEY,  FN6
AND WISCONSIN,  FN7  IS ALMOST IDENTICAL, AS IS A MAINE STATUTE  FN8
ON THE SAME SUBJECT. 

MASSACHUSETTS SAYS THROUGH THIS STATUTE THAT A PERSON WHO ENJOYS ITS
OTHER INSTITUTIONS BUT IS IRKED BY ITS LAWS CONCERNING THE SEVERANCE OF
THE MARRIAGE TIE, MUST EITHER MOVE HIS HOME TO SOME OTHER STATE WITH
MORE CONGENIAL LAWS, OR REMAIN AND ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
HE CANNOT PLAY DUCKS AND DRAKES WITH THE STATE, BY LEAVING IT JUST LONG
ENOUGH TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A PROCEEDING ELSEWHERE, DEVISED IN THE
INTERESTS OF A QUICK DIVORCE, INTENDING ALL THE TIME TO RETAIN
MASSACHUSETTS AS HIS HOME, AND THEN RETURN THERE, RESUME TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF SUCH OF ITS INSTITUTIONS AS HE FINDS CONGENIAL BUT ASSERT
HIS FREEDOM FROM THE RESTRAINTS OF ITS POLICIES CONCERNING SEVERANCE OF
THE MARRIAGE TIE.  MASSACHUSETTS HAS A RIGHT TO DEFINE THE TERMS ON
WHICH IT WILL GRANT DIVORCES, AND TO REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE DIVORCES
GRANTED BY OTHER STATES TO PARTIES WHO AT THE TIME ARE STILL
MASSACHUSETTS DOMICILIARIES.  HAS IT NOT ALSO THE RIGHT TO FRUSTRATE
EVASION OF ITS POLICIES BY THOSE OF ITS PERMANENT RESIDENTS WHO LEAVE
THE STATE TO CHANGE THEIR SPOUSES RATHER THAN TO CHANGE THEIR HOMES,
MERELY BECAUSE THEY GO THROUGH A LUKEWARM OR FEIGNED CONTEST OVER
JURISDICTION? 

THE NUB OF THE WILLIAMS DECISION WAS THAT THE STATE OF DOMICILE HAS
AN INDEPENDENT INTEREST IN THE MARITAL STATUS OF ITS CITIZENS THAT
NEITHER THEY NOR ANY OTHER STATE WITH WHICH THEY MAY HAVE A TRANSITORY
CONNECTION MAY ABROGATE AGAINST ITS WILL.  ITS INTEREST IS NOT LESS
BECAUSE BOTH PARTIES TO THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP INSTEAD OF ONE SOUGHT
TO EVADE ITS LAWS.  IN THE WILLIAMS CASE, IT WAS NOT THE INTEREST OF
MRS. WILLIAMS, OR THAT OF MR. HENDRYX, THAT NORTH CAROLINA ASSERTED. 
IT WAS THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF NORTH CAROLINA.  THE SAME IS TRUE
HERE OF THE INTEREST OF MASSACHUSETTS.  FN9  WHILE THE STATE'S INTEREST
MAY BE EXPRESSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, WITH ITSELF FORMALLY A PARTY
AS IN THE WILLIAMS CASE, THE STATE ALSO EXPRESSES ITS SOVEREIGN POWER
WHEN IT SPEAKS THROUGH ITS COURTS IN A CIVIL LITIGATION BETWEEN PRIVATE
PARTIES.  CF. SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1. 

SURELY THERE IS INVOLVED HERE AN EXERCISE BY MASSACHUSETTS OF ITS
POLICY CONCERNING THE TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE BY ITS OWN CITIZENS.  THE
FRAMERS LEFT THAT POWER OVER DOMESTIC RELATIONS IN THE SEVERAL STATES,
AND EVERY EFFORT TO WITHDRAW IT FROM THE STATES WITHIN THE PAST SIXTY
YEARS HAS FAILED.  FN10  AN AMERICAN CITIZEN MAY CHANGE HIS DOMICILE
FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER.  AND SO, A STATE MUST RESPECT ANOTHER
STATE'S VALID DIVORCE DECREE EVEN THOUGH IT CONCERNS ITS FORMER
CITIZENS.  BUT THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE CAN BE USED AS A LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF A STATE OVER
ITS CITIZENS WHO DO NOT CHANGE THEIR DOMICILE, WHO DO NOT REMOVE TO
ANOTHER STATE, BUT WHO LEAVE THE STATE ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO ESCAPE THE
RIGORS OF ITS LAWS, OBTAIN A DIVORCE, AND THEN SCURRY BACK.  TO HOLD
THAT THIS MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE CONTRAVENES THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE IS TO SAY THAT THAT STATE HAS SO SLIGHT A CONCERN IN THE
CONTINUANCE OR TERMINATION OF THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS OF ITS
DOMICILIARIES THAT ITS INTEREST MAY BE FORECLOSED BY AN ARRANGED
LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN WHICH IT WAS NOT REPRESENTED.  FN11 

TODAY'S DECISION MAY STIR HOPE OF CONTRIBUTING TOWARD GREATER
CERTAINTY OF STATUS OF THOSE DIVORCED.  BUT WHEN PEOPLE CHOOSE TO AVAIL
THEMSELVES OF LAWS LAXER THAN THOSE OF THE STATE IN WHICH THEY
PERMANENTLY ABIDE, AND WHERE, BARRING ONLY THE INTERLUDE NECESSARY TO
GET A DIVORCE, THEY CHOOSE TO CONTINUE TO ABIDE, DOUBTS AND CONFLICTS
ARE INEVITABLE, SO LONG AS THE DIVORCE LAWS OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES
REMAIN DIVERSE, AND SO LONG AS WE RESPECT THE LAW THAT A JUDGMENT
WITHOUT JURISDICTIONAL FOUNDATION IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO
RECOGNITION EVERYWHERE.  THESE ARE DIFFICULTIES, AS THIS COURT HAS
OFTEN REMINDED, INHERENT IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM, IN WHICH GOVERNMENTAL
POWER OVER DOMESTIC RELATIONS IS NOT GIVEN TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. 
UNIFORMITY REGARDING DIVORCE IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO
ACHIEVE SO LONG AS "THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE  ...
WERE MATTERS RESERVED TO THE STATES."  OHIO EX REL. POPOVICI V. AGLER,
280 U.S. 379, 384; IN RE BURRUS, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94.  FN12  AND SO
LONG AS THE CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERCISED ITS POWERS UNDER THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO MEET THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS RAISED BY DIVORCE
DECREES, THIS COURT CANNOT THROUGH ITS ADJUDICATIONS ACHIEVE THE RESULT
SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY A LONG TRAIN OF ABORTIVE EFFORTS AT
LEGISLATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.  FN13  TO ATTEMPT TO SHAPE
POLICY SO AS TO AVOID DISHARMONIES IN OUR DIVORCE LAWS WAS NOT A POWER
ENTRUSTED TO US, NOR IS THE JUDICIARY COMPETENT TO EXERCISE IT.  COURTS
ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO PURSUE THE PATHS FOR DISCOVERING WISE POLICY.  A
COURT IS CONFINED WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF A PARTICULAR RECORD, AND IT
CANNOT EVEN SHAPE THE RECORD.  ONLY FRAGMENTS OF A SOCIAL PROBLEM ARE
SEEN THROUGH THE NARROW WINDOWS OF A LITIGATION.  HAD WE INNATE OR
ACQUIRED UNDERSTANDING OF A SOCIAL PROBLEM IN ITS ENTIRETY, WE WOULD
NOT HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL ADEQUATE MEANS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTION.  THE
ANSWER TO SO TANGLED A PROBLEM AS THAT OF OUR CONFLICTING DIVORCE LAWS
IS NOT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE SIMPLE JUDICIAL RESOURCES OF EITHER/OR -
THIS DECREE IS GOOD AND MUST BE RESPECTED, THAT ONE IS BAD AND MAY BE
DISREGARDED.  WE CANNOT DRAW ON THE AVAILABLE POWER FOR SOCIAL
INVENTION AFFORDED BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR DEALING ADEQUATELY WITH THE
PROBLEM, BECAUSE THE POWER BELONGS TO THE CONGRESS AND NOT TO THE
COURT.  THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH THIS COURT CAN ACHIEVE UNIFORMITY, IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, IS BY
PERMITTING THE STATES WITH THE LAXEST DIVORCE LAWS TO IMPOSE THEIR
POLICIES UPON ALL OTHER STATES.  WE CANNOT AS JUDGES BE IGNORANT OF
THAT WHICH IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO ALL MEN.  WE CANNOT CLOSE OUR EYES TO
THE FACT THAT CERTAIN STATES MAKE AN INDUSTRY OF THEIR EASY DIVORCE
LAWS, AND ENCOURAGE INHABITANTS OF OTHER STATES TO OBTAIN "QUICKIE"
DIVORCES WHICH THEIR HOME STATES DENY THEM.  FN14 TO PERMIT SUCH STATES
TO BIND ALL OTHERS TO THEIR DECREES WOULD ENDOW WITH CONSTITUTIONAL
SANCTITY A GRESHAM'S LAW OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS. 

FORTUNATELY, TODAY'S DECISION DOES NOT GO THAT FAR.  BUT ITS
PRACTICAL RESULT WILL BE TO OFFER NEW INDUCEMENTS FOR CONDUCT BY
PARTIES AND COUNSEL, WHICH, IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF LITIGATION, WOULD BE
REGARDED AS PERJURY, BUT WHICH IS NOT SO REGARDED WHERE DIVORCE IS
INVOLVED BECAUSE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN INDULGE IN IT.  BUT IF THE
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AS TO JURISDICTIONAL FACTS IN CONTROVERSIES
INVOLVING EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE INTERESTS AS INFUSED INTO THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS APPLIED TO DIVORCE DECREES SO AS TO FORECLOSE
SUBSEQUENT INQUIRY INTO JURISDICTION, THERE IS NEITHER LOGIC NOR REASON
NOR PRACTICAL DESIRABILITY IN NOT TAKING THE ENTIRE DOCTRINE OVER.  RES
JUDICATA FORECLOSES RELITIGATION IF THERE HAS BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO
LITIGATE ONCE, WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS BEEN AVAILED OF, OR CARRIED AS FAR
AS POSSIBLE.  CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, 94 U.S. 351; CHICOT COUNTY
DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER STATE BANK, 308 U.S. 371.  FN15  AND IT
APPLIES TO QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION OF SUBJECT MATTER AS WELL AS TO
THAT OF PERSONS.  STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165; TREINIES V. SUNSHINE
MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66.  WHY SHOULD IT NOT APPLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN
A WASTED OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE, BUT SHOULD APPLY WHERE THE FORM OF A
CONTEST HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH?  FN16  OR IF MORE THAN FORM IS REQUIRED,
HOW MUCH OF A CONTEST MUST IT BE?  MUST THE CONTEST BE BELLICOSE OR MAY
IT BE PACIFIC?  MUST IT BE FIERCE OR MAY IT BE TEPID?  MUST THERE BE A
CLOUD OF WITNESSES TO NEGATIVE THE TESTIMONY OF THE PLAINTIFF, OR MAY A
SINGLE DOUBTER BE ENOUGH?  CERTAINLY IF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT
ESTABLISH RES JUDICATA AS BETWEEN PRIVATE LITIGANTS IN THE ORDINARY
SITUATIONS APPLY TO THE VALIDITY OF A DIVORCE AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICY
OF THE STATE OF DOMICILE, IT CANNOT MAKE A RATIONAL DIFFERENCE THAT THE
QUESTION OF DOMICILE IS CONTESTED WITH BAD FEELING RATHER THAN AMICABLY
ADJUSTED.  THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER IS THAT THROUGH THE DEVICE OF A
CONSENT DECREE A POLICY OF VITAL CONCERN TO STATES SHOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED TO BE DEFIED WITH THE SANCTION OF THIS COURT.  IF PERCHANCE THE
COURT LEAVES OPEN THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO PROVE FRAUD IN THE ORDINARY
SENSE - NAMELY, THAT A MOCK CONTEST WAS WON BY PREARRANGEMENT - THE
CLAIM FALLS THAT TODAY'S DECISION WILL SUBSTANTIALLY RESTRICT THE AREA
OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE VALIDITY OF DIVORCES.  IF THE COURT SEEKS TO
AVOID THIS RESULT BY HOLDING THAT A PARTY TO A FEIGNED LEGAL CONTEST
CANNOT QUESTION IN HIS HOME STATE THE GOOD FAITH BEHIND AN ADJUDICATION
OF DOMICILE IN ANOTHER STATE, SUCH HOLDING IS BOUND TO ENCOURAGE FRAUD
AND COLLUSION STILL FURTHER. 

IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ASSERTED UNCERTAINTIES
OF MARITAL STATUS UNDER EXISTING LAW IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THIS
RESULT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO THINK QUANTITATIVELY, NOT DRAMATICALLY.  ONE
WOULD SUPPOSE THAT THE DIVERSITY IN THE DIVORCE LAWS OF THE FORTY-EIGHT
STATES, AND THE UNWILLINGNESS OF MOST OF THEM TO ALLOW THE FEW WHICH
MAKE AN INDUSTRY OUT OF GRANTING DIVORCE TO IMPOSE THEIR POLICIES UPON
THE OTHERS, UNDERMINES THE STRUCTURE OF THE FAMILY AND RENDERS INSECURE
ALL MARRIAGES OF PREVIOUSLY DIVORCED PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE
PROPORTION OF DIVORCED PEOPLE WHO HAVE CAUSE TO WORRY IS SMALL INDEED. 
THOSE WHO WERE DIVORCED AT HOME HAVE NO PROBLEM.  THOSE WHOSE DESIRE TO
BE RID OF A SPOUSE COINCIDED WITH AN UNRELATED SHIFT OF DOMICILE WILL
HARDLY BE SUSPECT WHERE, AS IS USUALLY TRUE, THE STATE TO WHICH THEY
MOVED DID NOT AFFORD EASY DIVORCES OR REQUIRED A LONG RESIDENCE
PERIOD.  ACTUALLY, THERE ARE BUT FIVE STATES, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, IDAHO,
NEVADA, AND WYOMING, IN WHICH DIVORCES MAY BE EASILY OBTAINED ON LESS
THAN ONE YEAR'S RESIDENCE.  FN17  INDOVINA AND DALTON, STATUTES OF ALL
STATES AND TERRITORIES WITH ANNOTATIONS ON MARRIAGE-ANNULMENT-DIVORCE
(SANTA MONICA, 1945).  THESE FIVE STATES ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY 24,370
DIVORCES IN 1940, BUT 9% OF THE NATIONAL TOTAL.  DEPT. OF COMMERCE,
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES (1946) P. 94.  THE NUMBER OF
DIVORCES GRANTED IN ARKANSAS, IDAHO, AND WYOMING IS SMALL ENOUGH TO
INDICATE THE NORMAL INCIDENCE OF DIVORCE AMONG THEIR PERMANENT
POPULATION, WITH ONLY FEW TRANSIENTS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THEIR DIVORCE
LAWS.  NEVADA AND FLORIDA THUS ATTRACT VIRTUALLY ALL THE NON-RESIDENT
DIVORCE BUSINESS.  YET, BETWEEN THEM, ONLY 16,375 DIVORCES WERE GRANTED
IN 1940, 6% OF THE TOTAL.  IBID.  SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WERE UNDOUBTEDLY
PERMANENTLY SETTLED IN THOSE STATES, AND HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.  OTHERS
MAY HAVE MOVED TO THOSE STATES, INTENDING TO MAKE THEIR PERMANENT HOMES
THERE, AND HAVE SINCE REMAINED.  THEY WERE AMPLY PROTECTED BY THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE EVEN BEFORE TODAY'S DECISION.  THE ONLY PERSONS
AT ALL INSECURE ARE THAT SMALL MINORITY WHO TEMPORARILY LEFT THEIR HOME
STATES FOR A STATE - ONE OF THE FEW - OFFERING QUICK AND EASY DIVORCE,
OBTAINED ONE, AND DEPARTED.  IS THEIR SECURITY SO IMPORTANT TO THE
NATION THAT WE MUST SAFEGUARD IT EVEN AT THE PRICE OF DEPRIVING THE
GREAT MAJORITY OF STATES WHICH DO NOT OFFER BARGAIN-COUNTER DIVORCES OF
THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE LAWS OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS APPLICABLE TO
THEIR CITIZENS? 

EVEN TO A BELIEVER IN THE DESIRABILITY OF EASIER DIVORCE - AN ISSUE
THAT IS NOT OUR CONCERN - THIS DECISION SHOULD BRING LITTLE SOLACE.  IT
OFFERS A WAY OUT ONLY TO THAT SMALL PORTION OF THOSE UNHAPPILY MARRIED
WHO ARE SUFFICIENTLY WEALTHY TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD A TRIP TO NEVADA OR
FLORIDA, AND A SIX-WEEK OR THREE-MONTH STAY THERE.  FN18 

OF COURSE, MASSACHUSETTS MAY NOT DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF DOMICILE
IN DISREGARD OF WHAT HER SISTER STATES HAVE FOUND.  A TRIAL DE NOVO OF
THIS ISSUE WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH WE LAID DOWN IN THE
SECOND WILLIAMS CASE, 325 U.S. AT 236.  NOR CAN MASSACHUSETTS MAKE
FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE WHICH PRECLUDE REEXAMINATION BY THIS COURT, NOR
MAY IT, THROUGH PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF ITS OWN POLICIES, STRAIN THE
FACTS TO FIND CONTINUANCE OF THE TIE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ITSELF. 
BUT THE RECORDS IN THESE CASES DO NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT
MASSACHUSETTS HAS BEEN REMISS IN ITS DUTY OF RESPECT.  IT IS TRUE THAT
ITS COURTS DID NOT EMPLOY A FORMAL LEGAL JARGON AND SAY THAT THERE WAS
A PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF THE FINDINGS OF FLORIDA OR NEVADA AND THAT
THIS PRESUMPTION HAD BEEN OVERCOME BY THE EVIDENCE.  BUT THE
CONSTITUTION DEMANDS COMPLIANCE, NOT A FORM OF WORDS.  TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER IN FACT THERE IS A REAL BASIS FOR SAYING THAT MASSACHUSETTS DID
NOT ACCORD PROPER RECOGNITION TO NEVADA'S AND FLORIDA'S FINDINGS, WE
MUST TURN TO THE RECORDS AND DISCOVER FOR OURSELVES JUST HOW MUCH
WARRANT THERE WAS FOR THEIR FINDINGS OF DOMICILE. 

THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IN SHERRER V. SHERRER WERE MARRIED IN
NEW JERSEY IN 1930, AND MOVED TO MONTEREY, MASSACHUSETTS, IN 1932,
WHERE THEY LIVED TOGETHER UNTIL 1944.  THEY HAD TWO CHILDREN.  THERE
WAS EVIDENCE THAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP BECAME LESS THAN HARMONIOUS
TOWARDS THE END OF THIS PERIOD, THAT MRS. SHERRER WAS TROUBLED BY A
SINUS INFECTION AND HAD BEEN ADVISED BY A PHYSICIAN TO GO TO FLORIDA,
AND THAT SHE CONSULTED A MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY ABOUT DIVORCE BEFORE
LEAVING.  IN MARCH, 1944, SHE TOLD SHERRER THAT SHE WISHED TO TAKE A
TRIP TO FLORIDA FOR A MONTH'S REST AND WANTED TO TAKE THE CHILDREN
ALONG.  SHE LATER TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD INTENDED EVEN THEN TO GO TO
FLORIDA TO STAY, BUT HAD LIED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN HER HUSBAND'S
CONSENT.  HIS CONSENT AND THE NECESSARY FUNDS WERE FORTHCOMING.  ON
APRIL 3, 1944, MRS. SHERRER AND THE CHILDREN LEFT FOR FLORIDA, TAKING
ALONG A SUITCASE AND A SMALL BAG, BUT LEAVING BEHIND A TRUNK, SOME
HOUSEDRESSES, AND MUCH OF THE CHILDREN'S CLOTHING.  THEY ARRIVED THE
FOLLOWING DAY.  SHE RENTED AN APARTMENT IN ST. PETERSBURG, WHICH THEY
OCCUPIED FOR ABOUT THREE WEEKS, THEN MOVED INTO A FURNISHED COTTAGE AND
LATER INTO ANOTHER FURNISHED COTTAGE. 

ABOUT A WEEK AFTER MRS. SHERRER'S DEPARTURE, ONE PHELPS, WHO HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN AT LEAST AN ACQUAINTANCE OF HERS, KNOWING THAT SHE HAD
GONE TO ST. PETERSBURG, WENT THERE, MET HER SOON AFTER, AND SAW HER
FREQUENTLY.  ON APRIL 20, SHE WROTE TO HER HUSBAND THAT SHE DID NOT
CARE TO GO BACK TO HIM, AND RETURNED THE MONEY FOR TRAIN FARE WHICH HE
HAD SENT.  SHE SENT HER OLDER DAUGHTER TO SCHOOL AND TOOK A JOB AS A
WAITRESS.  PHELPS FOUND EMPLOYMENT IN A LUMBER YARD. 

FLORIDA LAW PERMITS INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DIVORCE AFTER
NINETY DAYS' BONA FIDE RESIDENCE IN THE STATE.  ON JULY 6, NINETY-THREE
DAYS AFTER HER ARRIVAL IN THE STATE, MRS. SHERRER CONSULTED A FLORIDA
ATTORNEY, HAD THE NECESSARY PAPERS DRAWN UP, AND FILED A LIBEL FOR
DIVORCE THE SAME DAY.  SHERRER, RECEIVING NOTICE BY MAIL, RETAINED
FLORIDA COUNSEL, WHO ENTERED A GENERAL APPEARANCE AND FILED AN ANSWER,
WHICH DENIED MRS. SHERRER'S ALLEGATIONS AS TO RESIDENCE.  THE CASE WAS
SET FOR HEARING ON NOVEMBER 14.  ON NOVEMBER 9, SHERRER ARRIVED ON THE
SCENE.  HE AND HIS WIFE ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION, SUBJECT TO THE
APPROVAL OF THE COURT, PROVIDING FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN IN HIM
DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR AND IN HER DURING SUMMER VACATIONS.  AT THE
HEARING, SHERRER'S ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT, AND SHERRER REMAINED IN A SIDE
ROOM.  THE ATTORNEY DID NOT CROSS-EXAMINE MRS. SHERRER OR OFFER
EVIDENCE AS TO EITHER JURISDICTION OR THE MERITS, OTHER THAN THE
STIPULATION REGARDING CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN.  SHERRER WAS CALLED INTO
THE COURTROOM AND QUESTIONED AS TO HIS ABILITY TO LOOK AFTER THE
CHILDREN DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR.  THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, THE DECREE
BEING HELD UP PENDING FILING OF A DEPOSITION BY MRS. SHERRER.  ON
NOVEMBER 19, SHERRER RETURNED TO MASSACHUSETTS WITH THE CHILDREN.  ON
NOVEMBER 29, THE DEPOSITION WAS FILED AND THE DECREE ENTERED.  ON
DECEMBER 1, THE PETITIONER MARRIED PHELPS AND THE COUPLE TOOK UP
RESIDENCE IN THE COTTAGE WHICH SHE AND THE CHILDREN HAD PREVIOUSLY
OCCUPIED. 

THERE THEY REMAINED UNTIL EARLY IN FEBRUARY, 1945, WHEN THEY RETURNED
TO MASSACHUSETTS, STAYING FOR A FEW DAYS AT WESTFIELD AND THEN
RETURNING TO MONTEREY.  PHELPS' FATHER LIVED IN WESTFIELD, AND PHELPS
TESTIFIED THAT HIS FATHER'S CRITICAL ILLNESS OCCASIONED THEIR RETURN. 
A FEW DAYS LATER, PHELPS WAS SERVED WITH PAPERS IN A $15,000 ALIENATION
OF AFFECTIONS ACTION BROUGHT BY SHERRER.  HE TESTIFIED THAT THE
PENDENCY OF THIS ACTION WAS THE REASON FOR HIS REMAINING IN
MASSACHUSETTS EVEN AFTER HIS FATHER'S HEALTH HAD BECOME LESS CRITICAL. 
THE TRIAL WAS SET MANY MONTHS AHEAD, BUT PHELPS AND THE PETITIONER DID
NOT RETURN TO FLORIDA.  RENT ON THE FLORIDA COTTAGE FOR A MONTH
FOLLOWING THEIR DEPARTURE WAS PAID, BUT THIS MAY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED, AS
IT WAS PAID ON A MONTHLY BASIS.  SOME PERSONAL BELONGINGS WERE LEFT
BEHIND THERE.  LATER, THE LANDLORD WAS INFORMED THAT PHELPS AND THE
PETITIONER WOULD NOT CONTINUE RENTING THE COTTAGE, AND STILL LATER THEY
ASKED THAT THEIR BELONGINGS BE SENT TO MONTEREY. 

SHERRER HAD MEANWHILE MOVED OUT OF THE HOUSE WHICH HE AND THE
PETITIONER HAD FORMERLY LIVED IN, WHICH THEY OWNED TOGETHER.  PHELPS
AND THE PETITIONER MOVED IN, AND DID NOT RETURN TO FLORIDA.  ON JUNE
28, 1945, A PETITION WAS FILED BY SHERRER IN THE BERKSHIRE COUNTY
PROBATE COURT FOR A DECREE SETTING FORTH THAT HIS WIFE HAD DESERTED HIM
AND THAT HE WAS LIVING APART FROM HER FOR JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE.  A STATUTE
PROVIDED THAT SUCH A DECREE WOULD EMPOWER A HUSBAND TO CONVEY REALTY
FREE OF DOWER RIGHTS.  MASS. GEN. LAWS C. 209, SEC. 36(1932).  THE
PROBATE COURT FOUND THAT MRS. SHERRER HAD NOT GONE TO FLORIDA TO MAKE
IT HER PERMANENT HOME BUT WITH THE INTENTION OF MEETING PHELPS,
DIVORCING SHERRER, MARRYING PHELPS, AND RETURNING TO MASSACHUSETTS. 
THESE FINDINGS WERE UPHELD BY THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF THE STATE. 

THE PARTIES IN COE V. COE WERE MARRIED IN 1934 IN NEW YORK CITY. 
UNTIL 1939, THEY SPENT A LARGE PART OF EACH YEAR IN TRAVEL, BUT HAD
ONLY ONE HOME, OWNED BY COE, IN WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS.  COE ALSO
OWNED OTHER LAND, MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNTS, PAID TAXES, REGISTERED HIS
AUTOMOBILE, ETC., ALL IN WORCESTER. 

BEGINNING IN 1940, COE ALSO MAINTAINED AN APARTMENT IN NEW YORK CITY,
WHERE MUCH OF HIS BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED.  HE USUALLY LIVED THERE
DURING THE WEEK, RETURNING TO WORCESTER ON WEEK ENDS.  IN NEW YORK CITY
THERE ALSO LIVED ONE DAWN ALLEN, HIS SECRETARY AND FRIEND.  HIS
RELATIONS WITH MRS. COE DETERIORATED.  IT APPEARS THAT DURING THIS
PERIOD AS WELL, HIS PRINCIPAL DOMICILE WAS IN WORCESTER.  HIS OWN
TESTIMONY AS TO WHERE HE INTENDED TO MAKE HIS HOME AT THIS TIME WAS
CONTRADICTORY.  HE KEPT BANK ACCOUNTS AND MOST OF HIS FUNDS IN NEW YORK
AND DID JURY DUTY THERE.  HE USED HIS WORCESTER ADDRESS IN
CORRESPONDENCE AND WHEN INCORPORATING A PERSONAL CORPORATION.  FN19
THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT HIS DOMICILE REMAINED IN WORCESTER. 

IN JANUARY, 1942, MRS. COE FILED A PETITION FOR SEPARATE SUPPORT IN
THE WORCESTER COUNTY PROBATE COURT.  COE CROSS-PETITIONED FOR DIVORCE. 
ON MARCH 25, COE'S PETITION WAS DISMISSED, AND MRS. COE'S GRANTED; SHE
WAS AWARDED $35 PER WEEK.  SHE APPEALED, COMPLAINING OF THE AMOUNT. 
WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING, COE LEFT WORCESTER FOR NEW YORK, AND
ACCOMPANIED BY DAWN ALLEN AND HER MOTHER, LEFT NEW YORK ON MAY 31, FOR
RENO, NEVADA, ARRIVING THERE ON JUNE 10.  HE LIVED AT THE DEL MONTE
RANCH.  HE TESTIFIED THAT HE WENT THERE TO RELIEVE HIS ASTHMA AND
BECAUSE OF NEVADA'S LIBERAL TAX LAWS.  HE ALSO GAVE CONFLICTING
TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER HE WENT THERE IN ORDER TO GET A DIVORCE.  ON
JUNE 11, HE CONSULTED A LAWYER FOR WHOM HIS WORCESTER ATTORNEY HAD
PREPARED A DIVORCE MEMORANDUM.  HE OPENED A BANK ACCOUNT AND RENTED A
SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX, REGISTERED HIS AUTOMOBILE AND TOOK OUT A DRIVER'S
LICENSE, ALL IN NEVADA.  HE DID NOT SEVER HIS OTHER TIES WITH NEW YORK
OR MASSACHUSETTS. 

NEVADA LAW PERMITS INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DIVORCE AFTER SIX
WEEKS' RESIDENCE.  FORTY-SEVEN DAYS AFTER HIS ARRIVAL IN THE STATE, COE
FILED A COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE, ALLEGING SIX WEEKS' BONA FIDE
RESIDENCE.  NOTICE WAS MAILED TO MRS. COE, WHO FOLLOWED TO RENO,
ENGAGED AN ATTORNEY, AND DEMURRED TO THE COMPLAINT.  SUBSEQUENTLY,
HOWEVER, SHE AND COE ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR A
LUMP SUM PAYMENT TO MRS. COE OF $7,500, AND $35 PER WEEK.  ON SEPTEMBER
19, SHE FILED AN ANSWER IN WHICH SHE ADMITTED COE'S RESIDENCE AS
ALLEGED IN HIS COMPLAINT, AND A CROSS-COMPLAINT.  ON THE SAME DAY, A
DIVORCE WAS GRANTED TO MRS. COE, AND THE COURT ADOPTED THE AGREEMENT. 
ALSO ON THE SAME DAY, COE MARRIED DAWN ALLEN.  TWO DAYS LATER THEY LEFT
RENO, RETURNED TO NEW YORK, WHERE COE GAVE UP HIS APARTMENT, AND
RETURNED TO WORCESTER ON OCTOBER 1, RESIDING AT A HOUSE OWNED BY HIM
THERE. 

ON FEBRUARY 25, 1943, THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
AFFIRMED THE SEPARATE MAINTENANCE DECREE OF THE WORCESTER COUNTY
PROBATE COURT.  COE MADE NO PAYMENTS TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER EITHER
THAT DECREE OR THAT OF THE NEVADA COURT, OTHER THAN THE $7,500 LUMP
SUM.  ON MAY 22, 1943, RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION IN THE PROBATE COURT
TO HAVE HIM CITED FOR CONTEMPT.  COE PETITIONED TO HAVE THE DECREE
REVOKED BECAUSE OF THE SUPERVENING NEVADA DIVORCE DECREE. 

WHILE THIS WAS PENDING, COE AND DAWN SPENT A PART OF THE SUMMER OF
1943 AT THE DEL MONTE RANCH, NEAR RENO, TO CONFER WITH COE'S NEVADA
DIVORCE LAWYER AND TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE RANCH. 
APPARENTLY, THE PURCHASE WAS NOT MADE.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS
PERIOD, HE AND DAWN HAVE RESIDED AT WORCESTER CONTINUOUSLY SINCE THEIR
MARRIAGE.  COE KEPT HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AND POST-OFFICE BOX THERE, AND
PAID HIS POLL TAX AND OTHER LOCAL TAXES.  IN FEBRUARY, 1944, HE
PURCHASED A MORE EXPENSIVE HOUSE, INTO WHICH THEY MOVED.  IN VARIOUS
FORMAL PAPERS, HE NOTED WORCESTER AS HIS RESIDENCE.    ON OCTOBER 21,
1943, THE PROBATE COURT, ON THE BASIS OF THE NEVADA DIVORCE, REVOKED
ITS SEPARATE MAINTENANCE DECREE.  THE RESPONDENT'S PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
TO SHOW LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THE NEVADA COURT WAS REJECTED.  THIS
RULING WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, WHICH SENT THE CASE
BACK TO ALLOW EVIDENCE CONTRADICTING THE NEVADA FINDING OF DOMICILE. 
ON REMAND, SUCH EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN, THE GIST OF WHICH HAS BEEN
SUMMARIZED.  THE PROBATE COURT FOUND THAT THE PARTIES HAD BEEN
DOMICILED IN MASSACHUSETTS THROUGHOUT, AND THAT COE'S TRIP TO NEVADA
WAS MADE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE AND NOT TO CHANGE HIS DOMICILE. 
THESE FINDINGS WERE UPHELD BY THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT. 

CONCEDING THAT MATTERS OF CREDIBILITY WERE FOR THE TRIERS OF FACT,
THE EVIDENCE APPEARS TO ME TO HAVE BEEN AMPLE TO JUSTIFY THE FINDINGS
THAT WERE MADE, EVEN GIVING EVERY WEIGHT TO THE CONTRARY NEVADA AND
FLORIDA DETERMINATIONS AND TREATING THE BURDEN ON THE PARTY
CONTRADICTING THOSE DETERMINATIONS AS MOST HEAVY.  JUDGES, AS WELL AS
JURORS, NATURALLY ENOUGH MAY DIFFER AS TO THE MEANING OF TESTIMONY AND
THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN EVIDENCE.  I WOULD NOT DEEM IT PROFITABLE TO
DISSENT ON SUCH AN ISSUE TOUCHING THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A
PARTICULAR CASE.  MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT IS NOT
AS TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, BUT CONCERNS WHAT I TAKE TO BE ITS
HOLDING, THAT THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE PARTIES TO LITIGATE THE QUESTION
OF JURISDICTION IN NEVADA AND FLORIDA FORECLOSED MASSACHUSETTS FROM
RAISING THE QUESTION LATER.  IF THE COURT HAD MERELY HELD THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY MASSACHUSETTS' FINDINGS,
CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS RECITED IN THE DECREES OF NEVADA AND FLORIDA, OR,
AS AN ADDED ASSURANCE THAT OBLIGATIONS OF RECOGNITION BE HONORED, HAD
REQUIRED OF THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT EXPLICIT AVOWAL OF THE PRESUMPTION
IN FAVOR OF THE FLORIDA AND NEVADA DECREES, I SHOULD HAVE REMAINED
SILENT.  BUT THE CRUX OF TODAY'S DECISION IS THAT REGARDLESS OF HOW
OVERWHELMING THE EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN THAT THE ASSERTED DOMICILE IN
THE STATE OFFERING BARGAIN-COUNTER DIVORCES WAS A SHAM, THE HOME STATE
OF THE PARTIES IS NOT PERMITTED TO QUESTION THE MATTER IF THE FORM OF A
CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH.  TO SUCH A PROPOSITION I CANNOT
ASSENT.  DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT HAVE NOT STOOD THE TEST OF TIME
HAVE BEEN DUE NOT TO WANT OF FORESIGHT BY THE PRESCIENT FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, BUT TO MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING ITS REQUIREMENTS.  I
CANNOT BRING MYSELF TO BELIEVE THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
GAVE TO THE FEW STATES WHICH OFFER BARGAIN-COUNTER DIVORCES
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO CONTROL THE SOCIAL POLICY GOVERNING DOMESTIC
RELATIONS OF THE MANY STATES WHICH DO NOT. 

FN1  NOR DO I REGARD DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, AS CONTRARY
AUTHORITY.  THAT CASE DID NOT DEPEND FOR ITS RESULT ON THE FACT THAT
THERE HAD BEEN AN ADJUDICATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
RENDERING THE DIVORCE ENFORCED, INASMUCH AS THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE
STATE GRANTING THE DIVORCE WAS IN FACT THAT OF THE DOMICILE.  305 U.S.
AT 41.  MOREOVER THIS COURT'S CITATION THEREIN OF ANDREWS V. ANDREWS,
SUPRA, INDICATES AN ABSENCE OF INTENTION TO OVERRULE THE HOLDING OF
THAT CASE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE THE ISSUE OF DOMICILE DOES NOT
FORECLOSE INQUIRY AS TO THE TRUE FACTS.  ANDREWS V. ANDREWS HAS SINCE
BEEN CITED WITH RESPECT, AS RECENTLY AS WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317
U.S. 287, 309, 320, N. 7, AND 325 U.S. 226, 229, 240, 242. 

FN2  COMPARE THE ENGLISH LAWS PROVIDING FOR A KING'S PROCTOR TO
REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE CROWN IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.  SECTIONS
5-7, MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT, 1860, 23 & 24 VICT., C. 144; SEC. 1,
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT.  1873, 36 & 37 VICT., C. 31; SEC. 181, THE
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (CONSOLIDATION) ACT, 1925, 15 & 16 GEO. 5,
C. 49, 9 HALSBURY'S STATUTES OF ENGLAND 393-94. 

FN3  REV. L. 1835, C. 76: 

SEC. 39.  "WHEN ANY INHABITANT OF THIS STATE SHALL GO INTO ANY OTHER
STATE OR COUNTRY, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE FOR ANY CAUSE, WHICH HAD
OCCURRED HERE, AND WHILST THE PARTIES RESIDED HERE, OR FOR ANY CAUSE,
WHICH WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE A DIVORCE, BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE, A
DIVORCE SO OBTAINED SHALL BE OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT IN THIS STATE." 

SEC. 40.  "IN ALL OTHER CASES, A DIVORCE DECREED IN ANY OTHER STATE
OR COUNTRY, ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE PLACE, BY A COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE AND OF BOTH OF THE PARTIES, SHALL BE VALID
AND EFFECTUAL IN THIS STATE." 

FN4  SEE NOTE 13, INFRA. 

FN5  DEL. REV. CODE, C. 86, SEC. 29(1935). 

FN6  N.J. STAT. ANN. SEC. 2:50:35(1939). 

FN7  WIS. STAT. SEC. 247.21(1945). 

FN8  ME. REV. STAT., C. 73, SEC. 12(1930). 

FN9  THE RESULT OF THE ASSERTION OF THE STATE'S INTEREST MAY BE A
WINDFALL TO A PARTY WHO HAS SOUGHT TO BARGAIN HIS OR HER RIGHTS AWAY
AND NOW SEEKS TO RENEGE ON THE AGREEMENT.  THIS FACT, HOWEVER, SHOULD
SCARCELY BE ALLOWED TO STAND IN THE WAY OF THE ASSERTION BY THE STATE
OF ITS PARAMOUNT CONCERN IN THE MATTER.  SUCH AN UNEXPECTED WINDFALL TO
A PARTY, WHO BY ETHICAL STANDARDS MAY BE REGARDED AS UNDESERVING, IS A
FREQUENT CONSEQUENCE OF FINDINGS OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.  SEE HOLMES,
C.J., IN ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 176 MASS. 92, 96. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 13, INFRA. 

FN11  TODAY'S DECISION WOULD ALSO SEEM TO RENDER INVALID, UNDER THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE COMMONLY
ENCOUNTERED INJUNCTIONS AGAINST A DOMICILIARY PROSECUTING AN OUT-OF
STATE DIVORCE ACTION.  CF. KEMPSON V. KEMPSON, 58 N.J. EQ. 94, 61 N.J.
EQ. 303, 63 N.J. EQ. 783; POUND, THE PROGRESS OF THE LAW - EQUITY, 33
HARV. L. REV. 420, 425-28; JACOBS, THE UTILITY OF INJUNCTIONS AND
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS IN MIGRATORY DIVORCE, 2 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB. 
370; NOTE, 13 BKLYN.  L. REV. 148.  SINCE NO STATE MAY ENJOIN ITS
INHABITANTS FROM CHANGING THEIR DOMICILES IN ORDER TO PROCURE DIVORCES,
IT WOULD SEEM THAT HENCEFORTH A RECITAL OF DOMICILE IN THE OUT-OF-STATE
DIVORCE DECREE WILL RENDER THE INJUNCTION RETROACTIVELY INVALID IF
THERE HAS BEEN ANY SEMBLANCE OF A CONTEST IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING. 

FN12  THE MASSACHUSETTS LAW IS SURELY LEGISLATION WITHIN THE FIELD
REGULATING THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND, AS SUCH,
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF "MATTERS RESERVED TO THE STATES."  IT CAN SCARCELY
BE DOUBTED THAT IF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WITHDREW THIS FIELD FROM
THE STATES AND GAVE IT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AN ACT OF CONGRESS,
MAKING THE SAME PROVISION SUBSTANTIVELY AS DID MASSACHUSETTS, REGARDING
DIVORCES GRANTED IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES TO CITIZENS
OF THIS COUNTRY, WOULD BE HELD CONSTITUTIONAL.  SUCH A LAW IS NOT LESS
A LAW CONCERNING "THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE," EVEN
THOUGH INCIDENTALLY IT MAY AFFECT THE FORCE TO BE GIVEN TO WHAT APPEARS
TO BE A JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE. 

FN13  THREE MODES OF ACHIEVING UNIFORMITY HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED -
ADOPTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING FEDERAL DOMESTIC
RELATIONS LEGISLATION; CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IMPLEMENTING THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE; AND UNIFORM STATE LEGISLATION.  SUCH ATTEMPTS WERE
ORIGINALLY FOSTERED BY THOSE WHO SOUGHT LEGISLATION RENDERING DIVORCE
UNIFORMLY DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN.  SEE LICHTENBERGER, DIVORCE (1931) PP.
187 ET SEQ.; CAVERS, FOREWORD, 2 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  289. 

THE FIRST EFFORT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO EMPOWER CONGRESS TO
ENACT DOMESTIC RELATIONS LEGISLATION UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE NATION WAS
MADE IN 1884.  SINCE THEN AT LEAST SEVENTY SIMILAR AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN
PROPOSED.  AMES, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES DURING THE FIRST CENTURY OF ITS HISTORY, (1896) ANN. REP.
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASS'N, REPRINTED AS H.R. DOC. NO. 353, 54TH CONG.,
2D SESS., PT. 2, P. 190; SEN. DOC. NO. 93, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.;
"PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS FROM THE 69TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION THROUGH THE
78TH CONGRESS, DECEMBER 6, 1926, TO DECEMBER 19, 1944" (U.S. GOVT.
PRINTING OFFICE, 1946).  NONE HAS BEEN FAVORABLY ACTED UPON.  SEE,
E.G., H.R. REP. NO. 1290, 52ND CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2, IN WHICH THE
MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, REPORTING ADVERSELY ON SUCH
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT, POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS MIGHT ACHIEVE A MEASURE
OF UNIFORMITY THROUGH EXERCISE OF ITS EXISTING POWERS TO IMPLEMENT THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE. 

SUGGESTIONS THAT SUCH A STATUTE BE ENACTED BY CONGRESS HAVE NOT BEEN
LACKING.  SEE, E.G., 52 REP. A.B.A. 292, 319; CORWIN, THE "FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT" CLAUSE, 81 U. OF PA. L. REV. 371, 388; CF. MR. JUSTICE
STONE, DISSENTING, IN YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202, 215, N.
2; JACKSON, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT - THE LAWYER'S CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, 45 COL. L. REV. 1, 21.  AND SENATOR MCCARRAN OF NEVADA IS
CURRENTLY SEEKING TO HAVE SUCH LEGISLATION ADOPTED.  SEE S. 1960, 80TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 

THE MOST VIGOROUS EFFORTS, HOWEVER, HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE DIRECTION
OF SECURING UNIFORM STATE LEGISLATION.  PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
IN CALLING ON CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR COMPILATION OF MARRIAGE AND
DIVORCE STATISTICS, INCLUDED A SUGGESTION OF COOPERATION AMONG THE
STATES IN ENACTING UNIFORM LAWS.  15 RICHARDSON, MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF
THE PRESIDENTS 6942.  ON THE INITIATIVE OF THE GOVERNOR OF
PENNSYLVANIA, A NATIONAL CONGRESS ON UNIFORM DIVORCE LAWS, IN WHICH
FORTY-TWO STATES WERE REPRESENTED, WAS CALLED IN 1906.  THIS CONGRESS
RESOLVED THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WAS NOT FEASIBLE AND DRAFTED
RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING UNIFORM STATE LEGISLATION.  LICHTENBERGER,
SUPRA, 191-96.  SEE ALSO PROCEEDINGS, NATIONAL CONGRESS ON UNIFORM
DIVORCE LAWS (1906) PASSIM; PROCEEDINGS 2D MEETING OF THE GOVERNORS OF
THE STATES OF THE UNION (1910) PP. 185-98.  IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE
THAT EVEN THESE PROPONENTS OF UNIFORMITY ADVOCATED THAT EACH STATE
"ADOPT A STATUTE EMBODYING THE PRINCIPLE CONTAINED IN" THE VERY
MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE NOW HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE COURT PERHAPS IN
THE INTERESTS OF UNIFORMITY.  LICHTENBERGER, SUPRA, AT 194. 

THE BILL PREPARED BY THE CONGRESS WAS ALSO APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS (PROCEEDINGS, 17TH ANN. CONF.,
COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS (1907) PP. 120 ET SEQ.) BUT WAS
ADOPTED BY ONLY THREE STATES.  SEE PP. 360-361, SUPRA.  THE
COMMISSIONERS EVENTUALLY DECIDED THAT NO UNIFORM LAW ESTABLISHING
SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE COULD SUCCEED, AND REPLACED THIS
PROPOSAL WITH THE UNIFORM DIVORCE JURISDICTION ACT, WHICH WOULD HAVE
ACCORDED RECOGNITION TO A WIDER RANGE OF DECREES THAN WERE PROTECTED BY
HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562, THEN IN FORCE.  (1930) HANDBOOK OF
THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS, PP. 498
502.  THIS ACT HAS BEEN ADOPTED ONLY BY VERMONT, L. 1931, NO. 45, AND
WAS REPEALED TWO YEARS LATER.  L. 1933, NO. 38. 

MEANWHILE, OTHER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NOT GIVEN UP THE ATTEMPT TO HAVE
ENACTED UNIFORM DIVORCE LAWS, ALTHOUGH IN RECENT YEARS THE OBJECTIVE
HAS USUALLY BEEN UNIFORMLY LIBERAL RATHER THAN UNIFORMLY REPRESSIVE
LEGISLATION.  SEE, E.G., WOMAN'S HOME COMPANION, DEC., 1947, P. 32. 

EVEN IN THE INTERNATIONAL FIELD, ATTEMPTS TO AVOID CONFLICTS AS TO
THE EXTRATERRITORIAL VALIDITY OF DIVORCES HAVE BEEN MADE.  SEE, E.G.,
CONVENTION TO REGULATE CONFLICTS OF LAWS AND OF JURISDICTION IN MATTERS
OF DIVORCE AND SEPARATION, THE HAGUE, JUNE 12, 1902. 

FN14  SEE THE INTERESTING ACCOUNT OF NEVADA'S DIVORCE MILL, WRITTEN
BY TWO MEMBERS OF THE NEVADA BAR, INGRAM AND BALLARD, THE BUSINESS OF
MIGRATORY DIVORCE IN NEVADA, 2 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  302; CF.
BERGESON, THE DIVORCE MILL ADVERTISES, ID. AT 348. 

FN15  QUAERE, WHETHER TODAY'S DECISION APPLIES TO EX PARTE NEVADA
DECREES BY DEFAULT, WHERE THE DEFENDANT LATER FILES A GENERAL
APPEARANCE AND THE RECORD IS MADE TO SHOW JURISDICTION NUNC PRO TUNC. 
NEV. COMP. LAWS (1931-1941 SUPP.) SEC. 9488. 

FN16  IT IS BY NO MEANS CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE MASSACHUSETTS
COURTS IN EITHER OF THESE CASES WAS OR COULD HAVE BEEN LITIGATED IN
FLORIDA OR NEVADA.  ALL THAT THE FLORIDA OR NEVADA COURTS COULD HAVE
DETERMINED WAS WHETHER THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUISITES OF STATE LAW AND
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE MET.  AND IF A
DIRECT ATTACK ON THESE DECREES HAD BEEN MADE IN THIS COURT, ALL THAT WE
COULD HAVE DECIDED WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DUE PROCESS POINT.  A DIVORCE
MAY SATISFY DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, AND BE VALID WHERE RENDERED, AND
STILL LACK THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUISITES FOR FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO
BE MANDATORY.  COMPARE WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287,
307(CONCURRING OPINION), WITH WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S.
226.  THIS IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH THE FLORIDA AND NEVADA COURTS APPEAR TO
CHARACTERIZE THE JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITES UNDER THEIR RESPECTIVE
LAWS AS DOMICILE, WADE V. WADE, 93 FLA. 1004, 1007; LATTERNER V.
LATTERNER, 51 NEV. 285; SINCE WE MAY BE UNWILLING TO APPLY AS LOOSE A
TEST OF "DOMICILE," IN DETERMINING WHETHER EXTRASTATE ENFORCEMENT IS
MANDATORY, AS THOSE STATES MIGHT PROPERLY CHOOSE TO USE IN DETERMINING
WHAT DIVORCES MIGHT BE GRANTED AND EFFECTIVE WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS. 
THUS, AT NO POINT IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN FLORIDA OR NEVADA IN THE
INSTANT CASES WAS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE WHETHER MRS. SHERRER
OR MR. COE HAD ACQUIRED FLORIDA OR NEVADA DOMICILE, RESPECTIVELY,
SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE THEIR DIVORCES TO EXTRATERRITORIAL RECOGNITION. 

FN17  NORTH CAROLINA APPEARS TO BE THE ONLY OTHER STATE ALLOWING
DIVORCE ON LESS THAN A YEAR'S RESIDENCE, BUT IT DOES NOT ALLOW DIVORCE
FOR MANY OF THE USUAL CAUSES.  THE WILLIAMS CASES ATTEST THAT ITS LAWS
ARE NOT LAX.    FN18  THE EASIER IT IS MADE FOR THOSE WHO THROUGH
AFFLUENCE ARE ABLE TO EXERCISE DISPROPORTIONATELY LARGE INFLUENCE ON
LEGISLATION, TO OBTAIN MIGRATORY DIVORCES, THE LESS LIKELY IT IS THAT
THE DIVORCE LAWS OF THEIR HOME STATES WILL BE LIBERALIZED, INSOFAR AS
THAT IS DEEMED DESIRABLE, SO AS TO AFFECT ALL.  SEE GROVES, MIGRATORY
DIVORCES, 2 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  293, 298.  FOR COMPARABLE INSTANCES,
IN THE PAST, OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE POOR IN THE ACTUAL
APPLICATION OF DIVORCE LAWS, CF. DICKENS, HARD TIMES, C. 11; HANKINS,
DIVORCE, 5 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 177, 179. 

FN19  FOR PURPOSES OF STATE TAXATION, HE MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN
REGARDED AS DOMICILED IN EITHER STATE.  CF. WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO.
V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292; TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398. 
..END :





COE V. COE, 334 U.S. 378 


NO. 37.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 320 MASS.
295, 69 N.E.2D 793, REVERSED. 


IN A SUIT BETWEEN RESIDENTS OF THE STATE, A MASSACHUSETTS COURT
GRANTED A WIFE SEPARATE SUPPORT AND DENIED HER HUSBAND A DIVORCE.  THE
HUSBAND WENT TO NEVADA AND SUED FOR DIVORCE THERE AS SOON AS HE HAD
BEEN THERE THE SIX WEEKS REQUIRED BY NEVADA LAW.  THE WIFE APPEARED
PERSONALLY AND BY COUNSEL, FILED A CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE,
ADMITTED THE HUSBAND'S NEVADA RESIDENCE, AND PARTICIPATED PERSONALLY IN
THE PROCEEDINGS.  AFTER FULL OPPORTUNITY TO TRY THE JURISDICTIONAL
ISSUES, THE NEVADA COURT FOUND THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION AND GRANTED THE
WIFE A DIVORCE, WHICH WAS VALID AND FINAL UNDER NEVADA LAW.  THE
HUSBAND THEN MARRIED AGAIN AND RETURNED TO MASSACHUSETTS, WHEREUPON HIS
EX-WIFE PETITIONED THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT TO ADJUDGE HIM IN CONTEMPT
FOR FAILING TO MAKE PAYMENTS FOR HER SEPARATE SUPPORT UNDER ITS EARLIER
DECREE.  SHE ALSO MOVED THAT THE SUPPORT DECREE BE MODIFIED SO AS TO
AWARD HER A LARGER ALLOWANCE.  THE HUSBAND DEFENDED ON THE GROUND OF
THE NEVADA DIVORCE.  THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT HELD THE NEVADA DIVORCE
VOID FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND INCREASED THE FIRST WIFE'S ALLOWANCE
FOR SEPARATE SUPPORT.  ITS OPINION CONTAINED NO INTIMATION THAT, UNDER
STATE LAW, THE DECREE FOR SEPARATE SUPPORT WOULD SURVIVE IF THE NEVADA
DIVORCE WERE VALID.  HELD:  BY SUBJECTING THE NEVADA DECREE TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK, THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT DENIED IT FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CONTRARY TO ART. IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT OF
MAY 26, 1790, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687.  SEE SHERRER V. SHERRER, ANTE, P.
343.  PP. 379-384. 

COE V. COE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE PROBATE COURT FOR WORCESTER COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS. 

A MASSACHUSETTS PROBATE COURT DENIED A DIVORCE TO A RESIDENT OF THAT
STATE AND GRANTED SEPARATE SUPPORT TO HIS WIFE.  THE SUPREME JUDICIAL
COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS AFFIRMED.  313 MASS. 232, 46 N.E.2D 1017.  HE
WENT TO NEVADA AND SUED FOR A DIVORCE.  HIS WIFE APPEARED PERSONALLY
AND FILED A CROSS-COMPLAINT.  THE NEVADA COURT FOUND THAT IT HAD
JURISDICTION AND GRANTED THE WIFE A DIVORCE.  UPON THE HUSBAND'S RETURN
TO MASSACHUSETTS, THE WIFE PETITIONED THE PROBATE COURT THERE TO
ADJUDGE HIM IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENTS FOR HER SUPPORT
UNDER ITS EARLIER DECREE.  SHE ALSO MOVED FOR AN INCREASE IN HER
ALLOWANCE UNDER THE SUPPORT DECREE.  UPON PROOF OF THE NEVADA DIVORCE,
THE PROBATE COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION.  THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
OF MASSACHUSETTS REVERSED.  316 MASS. 423, 55 N.E.2D 702.  AFTER
HEARINGS ON THE ISSUE OF DOMICILE, THE PROBATE COURT HELD THE NEVADA
DIVORCE VOID FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND INCREASED THE WIFE'S
ALLOWANCE FOR SUPPORT.  THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
AFFIRMED.  320 MASS. 295, 69 N.E.2D 793.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 814.  REVERSED, P. 384. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS THE COMPANION CASE TO SHERRER V. SHERRER, ANTE, P. 343.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONER THAT THE
COURTS OF MASSACHUSETTS HAVE FAILED TO ACCORD FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO
A DECREE OF DIVORCE RENDERED BY A COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA. 

PETITIONER, MARTIN V.B. COE, AND THE RESPONDENT, KATHERINE C. COE,
WERE MARRIED IN NEW YORK IN 1934, AND THEREAFTER RESIDED AS HUSBAND AND
WIFE IN WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS.  FN1  DISCORD DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, AND ON JANUARY 13, 1942, RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION FOR
SEPARATE SUPPORT IN THE PROBATE COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WORCESTER. 
PETITIONER ANSWERED AND FILED A LIBEL FOR DIVORCE.  FOLLOWING A
HEARING, THE PETITION FOR SEPARATE SUPPORT WAS GRANTED AND THE LIBEL
FOR DIVORCE WAS DISMISSED.  FN2  THE DECREE OF THE PROBATE COURT WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS ON FEBRUARY 23,
1943.  FN3 

PETITIONER LEFT WORCESTER IN MAY, 1942, AND ARRIVED IN RENO, NEVADA,
ON JUNE 10, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS SECRETARY, ONE DAWN ALLEN, AND HER
MOTHER.  ON JULY 24, 1942, PETITIONER, THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY, INSTITUTED
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS BY FILING A COMPLAINT IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT
PETITIONER WAS A BONA FIDE RESIDENT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA  FN4  AND
CHARGED RESPONDENT WITH DESERTION AND EXTREME CRUELTY.  RESPONDENT
RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS WHILE IN MASSACHUSETTS.  SHE ARRIVED
IN NEVADA IN AUGUST, 1942, AND THEREAFTER, THROUGH ATTORNEYS, FILED AN
ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT TOGETHER WITH A CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR
DIVORCE ALLEGING EXTREME CRUELTY ON THE PART OF PETITIONER AS GROUNDS
FOR HER SUIT.  RESPONDENT'S ANSWER ADMITTED AS TRUE THE ALLEGATIONS OF
PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT RELATING TO PETITIONER'S NEVADA RESIDENCE. 

AT THE HEARING IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT
APPEARED PERSONALLY.  BOTH PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 
PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD COME TO NEVADA WITH THE INTENTION OF
MAKING THAT STATE HIS HOME AND THAT SUCH WAS HIS PRESENT INTENTION. 
RESPONDENT GAVE TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIC ACTS OF CRUELTY, BUT
RAISED NO QUESTION IN RELATION TO PETITIONER'S DOMICILE.  ON SEPTEMBER
19, 1942, THE NEVADA COURT, AFTER FINDING THAT IT HAD "JURISDICTION OF
THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AND OF THE SUBJECT MATTER INVOLVED,"  FN5
ENTERED A DECREE GRANTING RESPONDENT A DIVORCE AS PRAYED FOR IN HER
CROSS-COMPLAINT.  FN6  NEITHER PARTY CHALLENGED THE DECREE BY APPEAL TO
THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT.  FN7 

FOLLOWING THE ENTRY OF THE DIVORCE DECREE, PETITIONER AND DAWN ALLEN
WERE MARRIED IN NEVADA.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THEY RETURNED TO
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.  IN MAY OR JUNE, 1943,
THEY LEFT MASSACHUSETTS FOR NEVADA WHERE THEY REMAINED UNTIL AUGUST OF
THAT YEAR. 

ON MAY 22, 1943, RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION IN THE PROBATE COURT FOR
THE COUNTY OF WORCESTER, PRAYING THAT PETITIONER BE ADJUDGED IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILING TO ABIDE BY THE TERMS OF THE DECREE FOR
SEPARATE SUPPORT WHICH HAD BEEN ENTERED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT IN
THE PREVIOUS YEAR.  FN8 SUBSEQUENTLY, RESPONDENT ALSO MOVED THAT THE
DECREE FOR SEPARATE SUPPORT BE MODIFIED SO AS TO AWARD HER A LARGER
ALLOWANCE.  PETITIONER IN HIS ANSWER DENIED THAT THE DECREE FOR
SEPARATE SUPPORT WAS STILL IN EFFECT AND SET UP THE NEVADA DIVORCE
DECREE AS A BAR TO RESPONDENT'S ACTION. 

IN THE HEARINGS WHICH FOLLOWED, PETITIONER INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE AN
EXEMPLIFIED COPY OF THE NEVADA COURT PROCEEDING.  THE PRESIDING JUDGE
REFUSED TO ALLOW THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE PLACING IN ISSUE
PETITIONER'S NEVADA DOMICILE AND THEREBY THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEVADA
COURT, ON THE GROUND THAT PERMITTING SUCH COLLATERAL ATTACK WAS NOT
CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. 
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE ACTION WAS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. 

THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS REVERSED ON APPEAL,
HOLDING THAT THE PROBATE COURT HAD ERRED IN EXCLUDING THE EVIDENCE
PLACING IN ISSUE PETITIONER'S NEVADA DOMICILE AND THE JURISDICTION OF
THE NEVADA COURT.  FN9  IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT JUDGMENT, THE PROBATE
COURT HELD AN EXTENDED HEARING ON THOSE QUESTIONS.  FN10  THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER WENT TO NEVADA TO SEEK A DIVORCE; THAT
NEITHER PETITIONER NOR RESPONDENT HAD A BONA FIDE RESIDENCE IN THAT
STATE; THAT THE NEVADA COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OF EITHER PARTY;
AND THAT THE DIVORCE WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
APPLICABLE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE.  FN11  THE PROBATE COURT DISMISSED
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF THE DECREE FOR SEPARATE SUPPORT
AND MODIFIED THAT DECREE SO AS TO AWARD RESPONDENT A SUBSTANTIALLY
LARGER ALLOWANCE.  ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT AFFIRMED THE
ORDER OF THE PROBATE COURT DISMISSING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REVOKE THE
DECREE FOR SEPARATE SUPPORT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED
THE CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER WAS NEVER DOMICILED IN NEVADA AND THAT
THE NEVADA COURTS LACKED JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE DECREE OF DIVORCE. 
THE ORDER OF THE PROBATE COURT MODIFYING THE DECREE FOR SEPARATE
SUPPORT WAS REVERSED, APPARENTLY FOR FURTHER HEARINGS ON PETITIONER'S
FINANCIAL CONDITION.  FN12  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE OPINION OF
THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT THAT PETITIONER, UNDER STATE LAW, COULD BE
HELD TO THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE DECREE FOR SEPARATE SUPPORT IF
IT BE CONCEDED THAT THE NEVADA DECREE OF DIVORCE IS VALID.  FN13 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DECREE OF DIVORCE IN QUESTION IS VALID AND FINAL
IN THE STATE IN WHICH IT WAS RENDERED AND, UNDER THE LAW OF NEVADA, MAY
NOT BE SUBJECTED TO THE COLLATERAL ATTACK PERMITTED IN THIS CASE IN THE
MASSACHUSETTS COURTS.  FN14  RESPONDENT DOES NOT URGE THE CONTRARY. 

NOR HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NEVADA
COURT WERE IN ANY DEGREE VIOLATIVE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS OR THAT RESPONDENT WAS DENIED A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST
THE ISSUE OF PETITIONER'S NEVADA DOMICILE. 

IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT RESPONDENT PARTICIPATED IN THE NEVADA
DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.  SHE APPEARED PERSONALLY AND GAVE TESTIMONY AT THE
HEARING.  THROUGH HER ATTORNEYS SHE FILED PLEADINGS IN ANSWER TO
PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT AND SUCCESSFULLY INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE
NEVADA COURT TO OBTAIN THE DECREE OF DIVORCE WHICH SHE SUBSEQUENTLY
SUBJECTED TO ATTACK AS INVALID IN THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTS. 

THUS, HERE, AS IN THE SHERRER CASE, THE DECREE OF DIVORCE IS ONE
WHICH WAS ENTERED AFTER PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THERE WAS PARTICIPATION BY
BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AND IN WHICH BOTH PARTIES WERE GIVEN FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.  IT IS A DECREE NOT
SUSCEPTIBLE TO COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH IT
WAS RENDERED.  IN THE SHERRER CASE, WE CONCLUDED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS
OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT PRECLUDE THE COURTS OF A SISTER STATE FROM
SUBJECTING SUCH A DECREE TO COLLATERAL ATTACK BY READJUDICATING THE
EXISTENCE OF JURISDICTIONAL FACTS.  THAT PRINCIPLE IS NO LESS
APPLICABLE WHERE, AS HERE, THE PARTY INITIATING THE COLLATERAL ATTACK
IS THE PARTY IN WHOSE FAVOR THE DECREE WAS ENTERED.  FOR REASONS STATED
AT LENGTH IN THE SHERRER CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTS
ERRED IN PERMITTING THE NEVADA DIVORCE DECREE TO BE SUBJECTED TO ATTACK
ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT DOMICILED IN NEVADA AT THE TIME
THE DECREE WAS ENTERED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IT APPEARS THAT AFTER OCTOBER, 1940, PETITIONER MAINTAINED AN
APARTMENT IN NEW YORK CITY.  THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTS FOUND THAT
PETITIONER DID NOT THEREBY LOSE HIS MASSACHUSETTS DOMICILE. 

FN2  BY THE TERMS OF THE DECREE OF SEPARATE SUPPORT ENTERED ON MARCH
25, 1942, PETITIONER WAS ORDERED TO PAY TO RESPONDENT THE SUM OF $35
EACH WEEK. 

FN3  313 MASS. 232, 46 N.E.2D 1017(1943). 

FN4  THE FIRST ALLEGATION OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT STATED:  "THAT
PLAINTIFF FOR MORE THAN SIX WEEKS LAST PAST AND IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
THE FILING OF THIS COMPLAINT HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY AND NOW IS, A BONA
FIDE RESIDENT OF, AND DURING ALL OF SAID PERIOD OF TIME, HAS HAD AND
NOW HAS HIS RESIDENCE WITHIN THE STATE OF NEVADA, AND HAS BEEN
PHYSICALLY, CORPORALLY AND ACTUALLY PRESENT IN SAID STATE DURING ALL OF
THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF TIME." 

FN5  THE NEVADA COURTS RECOGNIZE DOMICILE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES AS A
PREREQUISITE TO DIVORCE JURISDICTION, LATTERNER V. LATTERNER, 51 NEV.
285, 274 P. 194(1929).  POWER TO DECREE DIVORCES IN APPROPRIATE CASES
IS CONFERRED UPON THE DISTRICT COURTS BY NEVADA STATUTE.  NEV. COMP.
LAWS, SEC. 9460. 

FN6  INCORPORATED INTO THE DECREE WAS A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WHEREBY
PETITIONER WAS TO PAY RESPONDENT THE SUM OF $7,500 PLUS $35 PER WEEK SO
LONG AS SHE SHOULD REMAIN SINGLE.  PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT,
PETITIONER PAID THE SUM OF $7,500 AT THE TIME THE DECREE WAS ENTERED. 

FN7  APPEALS LIE TO THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT IN DIVORCE CASES.  SEE,
E.G., AFRIAT V. AFRIAT, 61 NEV. 321, 117 P.2D 83(1941). 

FN8  APPARENTLY UPON ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO PAY
ANY OF THE WEEKLY INSTALLMENTS REQUIRED UNDER THE DECREE FOR SEPARATE
SUPPORT OR UNDER THE AGREEMENT INCORPORATED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE
AFTER THE DATE OF THE DIVORCE DECREE. 

FN9  316 MASS. 423, 55 N.E.2D 702(1944). 

FN10  PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT SINCE HIS ARRIVAL IN NEVADA IN JUNE,
1942, HE HAD BEEN DOMICILED IN THAT STATE.  HE STATED THAT HE WENT TO
NEVADA TO HELP HIS ASTHMA AND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LIBERAL TAX LAWS
AND THAT HE INTENDED TO RESIDE IN NEVADA WHETHER OR NOT HE OBTAINED A
DIVORCE.  HE TESTIFIED FURTHER THAT FOLLOWING HIS MARRIAGE WITH DAWN
ALLEN, HE WENT TO WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISPOSING OF TWO HOUSES WHICH HE OWNED.  HE SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED TO
NEVADA IN MAY, 1943.  PETITIONER STATED THAT SHORTLY AFTER HIS RETURN
TO NEVADA, HE LEARNED THAT RESPONDENT HAD INSTITUTED CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS IN THE MASSACHUSETTS PROBATE COURT AND UPON ADVICE OF
COUNSEL WENT TO MASSACHUSETTS IN AUGUST, 1943, TO DEFEND THE ACTION. 

FN11  MASS. GEN. LAWS (TER.  ED.), C. 208, SEC. 39, PROVIDES:  "A
DIVORCE DECREED IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO THE LAWS THEREOF
BY A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE AND OF BOTH THE PARTIES
SHALL BE VALID AND EFFECTUAL IN THIS COMMONWEALTH; BUT IF AN INHABITANT
OF THIS COMMONWEALTH GOES INTO ANOTHER JURISDICTION TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE
FOR A CAUSE OCCURRING HERE WHILE THE PARTIES RESIDED HERE, OR FOR A
CAUSE WHICH WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE A DIVORCE BY THE LAWS OF THIS
COMMONWEALTH, A DIVORCE SO OBTAINED SHALL BE OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT IN
THIS COMMONWEALTH." 

FN12  320 MASS. 295, 69 N.E.2D 793(1946). 

FN13  SEE ROSA V. ROSA, 296 MASS. 271, 5 N.E.2D 417(1936); COHEN V.
COHEN, 319 MASS. 31, 64 N.E.2D 689(1946).  CF. ESTIN V. ESTIN, POST, P.
541; KREIGER V. KREIGER, POST, P. 555. 

FN14  CONFER V. DISTRICT COURT, 49 NEV. 18, 234 P. 688, 236 P.
1097(1925).  AND SEE CHAMBLIN V. CHAMBLIN, 55 NEV. 146, 27 P.2D
1061(1934); CALVERT V. CALVERT, 61 NEV. 168, 122 P.2D 426(1942). 
..END :



TOOMER V. WITSELL, 334 U.S. 385 


NO. 415.  ARGUED JANUARY 13-14, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 73
F.SUPP.  371, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


FISHERMEN WHO WERE CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF GEORGIA, AND AN
INCORPORATED FISH DEALERS' ASSOCIATION, SUED IN A FEDERAL COURT IN
SOUTH CAROLINA TO ENJOIN STATE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING STATUTES OF
THAT STATE REGULATING COMMERCIAL SHRIMP FISHING IN THE THREE-MILE
MARITIME BELT OFF THE COAST, CHALLENGING THE STATUTES AS VIOLATIVE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  HELD: 

1.  SINCE THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTES
WOULD IRREPARABLY INJURE THE ASSOCIATION OF FISH DEALERS, THE
ASSOCIATION HAS NO STANDING TO ASK A FEDERAL COURT TO ENJOIN THEIR
ENFORCEMENT.  P. 391. 

2.  SINCE THE STATE LAW PERMITS ANY TAXPAYER WHO BELIEVES A TAX
ILLEGAL TO PAY IT UNDER PROTEST AND SUE IN A STATE COURT TO RECOVER THE
AMOUNT SO PAID, AND SINCE THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS MADE NO SHOWING
THAT THEY COULD NOT UTILIZE THAT PROCEDURE TO RAISE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS TO A STATUTE IMPOSING UPON NON-RESIDENTS AN
INCOME TAX ON PROFITS FROM OPERATIONS IN THE STATE, IT CANNOT BE SAID
THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW; AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
WAS PROPERLY DENIED AS TO THAT STATUTE.  PP. 391-392. 

3.  SINCE DEFIANCE OF OTHER STATUTES DEFENDANTS WERE ATTEMPTING TO
ENFORCE WOULD INVOLVE RISKS OF HEAVY FINES AND LONG IMPRISONMENT, AND
SINCE COMPLIANCE WITH THEM OR WITHDRAWAL FROM FURTHER FISHING UNTIL A
TEST CASE COULD BE LITIGATED TO A FINAL CONCLUSION WOULD RESULT IN
SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL LOSSES FOR WHICH NO COMPENSATION COULD BE
OBTAINED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE, THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS
SUFFICIENTLY SHOWED THE IMMINENCE OF IRREPARABLE INJURY FOR WHICH THERE
WAS NO PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW; AND, IF THOSE
STATUTES WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST THEIR
ENFORCEMENT WAS APPROPRIATE.  PP. 391-392. 

4.  SINCE THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF SHRIMPING OUT OF SEASON AND IN INLAND
WATERS HAD NO RELATION TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHALLENGED
STATUTES, THIS MISCONDUCT DID NOT CALL FOR APPLICATION OF THE CLEAN
HANDS MAXIM.  P. 393. 

5.  SINCE THE PRESENT CASE EVINCES NO CONFLICT BETWEEN SOUTH
CAROLINA'S REGULATORY SCHEME AND ANY ASSERTION OF FEDERAL POWER, THE
STATE HAS SUFFICIENT INTERESTS IN THE SHRIMP FISHERY WITHIN THREE MILES
OF ITS COAST SO THAT IT MAY EXERCISE ITS POLICE POWER TO PROTECT AND
REGULATE THAT FISHERY - WITHIN THE CONFINES OF GENERALLY APPLICABLE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  PP. 393-394. 

6.  SECTION 3374, S.C. CODE, WHICH IMPOSES A TAX OF 1/8[ A POUND ON
GREEN SHRIMP TAKEN IN THE MARITIME BELT, DOES NOT TAX IMPORTS OR UNDULY
BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF ART. I, SECS. 8 AND 10, OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 394-395. 

7.  SECTION 3379, S.C. CODE, REQUIRING NON-RESIDENTS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA TO PAY A LICENSE FEE OF $2,500 FOR EACH SHRIMP BOAT AND
RESIDENTS TO PAY A FEE OF ONLY $25, VIOLATES THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF ART. IV, SEC. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 395
403. 

(A)  THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE WAS INTENDED TO OUTLAW
CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON THE FACT OF NON-CITIZENSHIP UNLESS THERE IS
SOMETHING TO INDICATE THAT NON-CITIZENS CONSTITUTE A PECULIAR SOURCE OF
THE EVIL AT WHICH THE STATUTE IS AIMED; AND IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO
CONVINCING SHOWING OF A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ALLEGED
DANGER TO THE SHRIMP SUPPLY REPRESENTED BY NON-CITIZENS, AS A CLASS,
AND THE SEVERE DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED UPON THEM.  PP. 396-399. 

(B)  COMMERCIAL SHRIMPING IN THE MARGINAL SEA, LIKE OTHER COMMON
CALLINGS, IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE.  MCCREADY V. VIRGINIA, 94 U.S. 391, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 399
403. 

8.  SECTION 3414, S.C. CODE, WHICH REQUIRES THAT OWNERS OF SHRIMP
BOATS FISHING IN THE MARITIME BELT OFF SOUTH CAROLINA DOCK AT A SOUTH
CAROLINA PORT AND UNLOAD, PACK, AND STAMP THEIR CATCH (WITH A TAX
STAMP) BEFORE "SHIPPING OR TRANSPORTING IT TO ANOTHER STATE," BURDENS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN SHRIMP IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
ART. I, SEC. 8, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  GEER V. CONNECTICUT, 161 U.S.
519, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 403-407. 

TOOMER ET AL. V. WITSELL ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT
OF CERTAIN ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES GOVERNING
COMMERCIAL SHRIMP FISHING IN THE THREE-MILE MARITIME BELT OFF THE COAST
OF THAT STATE.  73 F.SUPP.  371.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, P. 407. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT TO ENJOIN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE ENFORCEMENT OF
SEVERAL SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES GOVERNING COMMERCIAL SHRIMP FISHING IN
THE THREE-MILE MARITIME BELT OFF THE COAST OF THAT STATE.  APPELLANTS,
WHO INITIATED THE ACTION, ARE FIVE INDIVIDUAL FISHERMEN, ALL CITIZENS
AND RESIDENTS OF GEORGIA, AND A NON-PROFIT FISH DEALERS' ORGANIZATION
INCORPORATED IN FLORIDA.  APPELLEES ARE SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICIALS
CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTES. 

THE THREE-JUDGE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WHICH WAS CONVENED TO HEAR THE
CASE  FN1  UPHELD THE STATUTES, DENIED AN INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE
SUIT.  FN2  ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THAT JUDGMENT FN3  WE NOTED PROBABLE
JURISDICTION. 

THE FISHERY WHICH SOUTH CAROLINA ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE BY THE STATUTES
IN QUESTION IS PART OF A LARGER SHRIMP FISHERY EXTENDING FROM NORTH
CAROLINA TO FLORIDA.  FN4 MOST OF THE SHRIMP IN THIS AREA ARE OF A
MIGRATORY TYPE, SWIMMING SOUTH IN THE LATE SUMMER AND FALL AND
RETURNING NORTHWARD IN THE SPRING.  SINCE THERE IS NO FEDERAL
REGULATION OF THE FISHERY, THE FOUR STATES MOST INTIMATELY CONCERNED
HAVE GONE THEIR SEPARATE WAYS IN DEVISING CONSERVATION AND OTHER
REGULATORY MEASURES.  WHILE ACTION BY THE STATES HAS FOLLOWED SOMEWHAT
PARALLEL LINES, EFFORTS TO SECURE UNIFORMITY THROUGHOUT THE FISHERY
HAVE BY AND LARGE BEEN FRUITLESS.  FN5  BECAUSE OF THE INTEGRAL NATURE
OF THE FISHERY, MANY COMMERCIAL SHRIMPERS, INCLUDING THE APPELLANTS,
WOULD LIKE TO START TRAWLING OFF THE CAROLINAS IN THE SUMMER AND THEN
FOLLOW THE SHRIMP DOWN THE COAST TO FLORIDA.  EACH STATE HAS BEEN
DESIROUS OF SECURING FOR ITS RESIDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHRIMP IN
THIS WAY, BUT SOME HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN MORE CONCERNED WITH CHANNELING
TO THEIR OWN RESIDENTS THE BUSINESS DERIVED FROM LOCAL WATERS. 
RESTRICTIONS ON NON-RESIDENT FISHING IN THE MARGINAL SEA, AND EVEN
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST IT, HAVE NOW INVITED RETALIATION TO THE POINT THAT
THE FISHERY IS EFFECTIVELY PARTITIONED AT THE STATE LINES; BILATERAL
BARGAINING ON AN OFFICIAL LEVEL HAS COME TO BE THE ONLY METHOD WHEREBY
ANY ONE OF THE STATES CAN OBTAIN FOR ITS CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO SHRIMP
IN WATERS ADJACENT TO THE OTHER STATES.  FN6 

SOUTH CAROLINA FORBIDS TRAWLING FOR SHRIMP IN THE STATE'S INLAND
WATERS,  FN7  WHICH ARE THE HABITAT OF THE YOUNG SHRIMP FOR THE FIRST
FEW MONTHS OF THEIR LIFE.  IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR A CLOSED SEASON IN THE
THREE-MILE MARITIME BELT DURING THE SPAWNING SEASON, FROM MARCH 1 TO
JULY 1.  FN8 THE VALIDITY OF THESE REGULATIONS IS NOT QUESTIONED. 

THE STATUTES APPELLANTS CHALLENGE RELATE TO SHRIMPING DURING THE OPEN
SEASON IN THE THREE-MILE BELT:  SECTION 3300 OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE
PROVIDES THAT THE WATERS IN THAT AREA SHALL BE "A COMMON FOR THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE FOR THE TAKING OF FISH."  FN9  SECTION 3374 IMPOSES A TAX
OF 1/8[ A POUND ON GREEN, OR RAW, SHRIMP TAKEN IN THOSE WATERS.  FN10
$25 FOR EACH SHRIMP BOAT OWNED BY A RESIDENT, AND OF $2,500 FOR EACH
ONE OWNED BY A NON-RESIDENT.  FN11  ANOTHER STATUTE, NOT INTEGRATED IN
THE CODE, CONDITIONS THE ISSUANCE OF NON-RESIDENT LICENSES FOR 1948 AND
THE YEARS THEREAFTER ON SUBMISSION OF PROOF THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE
PAID SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAXES ON ALL PROFITS FROM OPERATIONS IN THAT
STATE DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR.  FN12  AND SEC. 3414 REQUIRES THAT ALL
BOATS LICENSED TO TRAWL FOR SHRIMP IN THE STATE'S WATERS DOCK AT A
SOUTH CAROLINA PORT AND UNLOAD, PACK, AND STAMP THEIR CATCH "BEFORE
SHIPPING OR TRANSPORTING IT TO ANOTHER STATE OR THE WATERS THEREOF." 
FN13 VIOLATION OF THE FISHING LAWS ENTAILS SUSPENSION OF THE VIOLATOR'S
LICENSE AS WELL AS A MAXIMUM OF A $1,000 FINE, IMPRISONMENT FOR A YEAR,
OR A COMBINATION OF A $500 FINE AND A YEAR'S IMPRISONMENT.  FN14 

FIRST.  WE ARE CONFRONTED AT THE OUTSET WITH APPELLEES' CONTENTION,
REJECTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS INAPPROPRIATE
IN THIS CASE, REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTES,
SINCE APPELLANTS FAILED TO SHOW THE IMMINENCE OF IRREPARABLE INJURY AND
DID NOT COME INTO COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS. 

AS TO THE CORPORATE APPELLANT, WE AGREE WITH THE APPELLEES THAT THERE
HAS BEEN NO SHOWING THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTES WOULD WORK AN
IRREPARABLE INJURY.  THE RECORD SHOWS ONLY THAT THE CORPORATION IS AN
ASSOCIATION OF FISH DEALERS AND THAT IT OPERATES NO FISHING BOATS. 
INDEED, NEITHER THE RECORD NOR THE APPELLANTS' BRIEF SHEDS ANY LIGHT ON
HOW THE STATUTES AFFECT THE CORPORATION, LET ALONE HOW THEIR
ENFORCEMENT WILL CAUSE IT IRREPARABLE INJURY.  UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CORPORATION HAS NO STANDING TO ASK A FEDERAL COURT
TO TAKE THE EXTRAORDINARY STEP OF RESTRAINING ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE
STATUTES.  THE REMAINDER OF THIS OPINION WILL THEREFORE BE ADDRESSED TO
THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS' CASE. 

AS TO THEM, IT IS AGREED THAT THE APPELLEES WERE ATTEMPTING TO
ENFORCE THE STATUTES.  IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT COMPLIANCE WITH ANY BUT
THE INCOME TAX STATUTE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED PAYMENT OF LARGE SUMS OF
MONEY FOR WHICH SOUTH CAROLINA PROVIDES NO MEANS OF RECOVERY, THAT
DEFIANCE WOULD HAVE CARRIED WITH IT THE RISK OF HEAVY FINES AND LONG
IMPRISONMENT, AND THAT WITHDRAWAL FROM FURTHER FISHING UNTIL A TEST
CASE HAD BEEN TAKEN THROUGH THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURTS AND PERHAPS TO
THIS COURT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF BUSINESS FOR
WHICH NO COMPENSATION COULD BE OBTAINED.  EXCEPT AS TO THE INCOME TAX
STATUTE, WE CONCLUDE THAT APPELLANTS SUFFICIENTLY SHOWED THE IMMINENCE
OF IRREPARABLE INJURY FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND
COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW.  FN15 

APPELLANTS' POSITION ON THE INCOME TAX STATUTE  FN16  IS THAT IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR SOUTH CAROLINA TO REQUIRE GEORGIA RESIDENTS TO PAY
SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAXES ON PROFITS MADE FROM OPERATIONS IN SOUTH
CAROLINA WATERS.  ANOTHER SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE, HOWEVER, PERMITS ANY
TAXPAYER WHO BELIEVES A TAX TO BE "ILLEGAL FOR ANY CAUSE" TO PAY THE
TAX UNDER PROTEST AND THEN SUE IN A STATE COURT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNTS
SO PAID.  FN17  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING BY APPELLANTS THAT THEY
COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROCEDURE TO RAISE THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE TAX, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THEY DO NOT
HAVE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. 

SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF
SHRIMPING OUT OF SEASON AND IN INLAND WATERS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
THAT THIS PREVIOUS MISCONDUCT, NOT HAVING ANY RELATION TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTES, DID NOT CALL FOR
APPLICATION OF THE CLEAN HANDS MAXIM.  WE AGREE. 

SECOND.  THE APPELLANTS TOO PRESS A CONTENTION WHICH, IF CORRECT,
WOULD DISPOSE OF THE CASE.  THEY URGE THAT SOUTH CAROLINA HAS NO
JURISDICTION OVER COASTAL WATERS BEYOND THE LOW-WATER MARK.  IN THE
COURT BELOW UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19(1947), WAS RELIED
UPON FOR THIS PROPOSITION.  HERE APPELLANTS SEEM TO CONCEDE, AND
CORRECTLY SO, THAT SUCH IS NEITHER THE HOLDING NOR THE IMPLICATION OF
THAT CASE; FOR IN DECIDING THAT THE UNITED STATES, WHERE IT ASSERTED
ITS CLAIM, HAD PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN THE THREE-MILE BELT, THE COURT
POINTEDLY QUOTED AND SUPPLIED EMPHASIS TO A STATEMENT IN SKIRIOTES V.
FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69, 75(1941), THAT "IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT FLORIDA HAS
AN INTEREST IN THE PROPER MAINTENANCE OF THE SPONGE FISHERY AND THAT
THE (STATE) STATUTE SO FAR AS APPLIED TO CONDUCT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
WATERS OF FLORIDA, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION,
IS WITHIN THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE."  FN18 

SINCE THE PRESENT CASE EVINCES NO CONFLICT BETWEEN SOUTH CAROLINA'S
REGULATORY SCHEME AND ANY ASSERTION OF FEDERAL POWER, THE DISTRICT
COURT PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE HAS SUFFICIENT INTERESTS IN THE
SHRIMP FISHERY WITHIN THREE MILES OF ITS COAST SO THAT IT MAY EXERCISE
ITS POLICE POWER TO PROTECT AND REGULATE THAT FISHERY.  FN19 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE EXISTENCE OF POWER TO REGULATE, HOWEVER,
THAT SUCH POWER NEED NOT BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF GENERALLY
APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE, THE HEART
OF THIS CASE IS WHETHER SOUTH CAROLINA'S ADMITTED POWER HAS BEEN SO
EXERCISED.  WE NOW PROCEED TO VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THAT PROBLEM. 

THIRD.  APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT SEC. 3374,  FN20  WHICH IMPOSES A TAX
OF 1/8[ A POUND ON GREEN SHRIMP TAKEN IN THE MARITIME BELT, TAXES
IMPORTS AND UNDULY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 8
AND 10 OF ART. I OF THE CONSTITUTION.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW
THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS POSITION. 

SINCE SOUTH CAROLINA HAS POWER TO REGULATE FISHING IN THE THREE-MILE
BELT, AT LEAST WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS MADE NO CONFLICTING
ASSERTION OF POWER, FISH CAUGHT IN THAT BELT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
"IMPORTS" IN A REALISTIC SENSE OF THE WORD.  APPELLANTS URGE, HOWEVER,
THAT THE TAX IS IMPOSED ON SHRIMP CAUGHT OUTSIDE, AS WELL AS WITHIN,
THE THREE-MILE LIMIT.  ON ITS FACE THE STATUTE HAS NO SUCH EFFECT, AND
APPELLANTS CALL OUR ATTENTION TO NO SOUTH CAROLINA DECISION SO
INTERPRETING IT.  SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF INTERPRETATION BY
THE STATE COURTS AND SINCE THIS SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION DOES NOT PRESENT
A CONCRETE FACTUAL SITUATION INVOLVING THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
TO SHRIMPING BEYOND THE IMAGINARY THREE-MILE LINE, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE
FOR US TO RULE IN THE ABSTRACT ON THE EXTENT OF THE STATE'S POWER TO
TAX IN THIS REGARD.  FN21 

NOR DOES THE STATUTE VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  IT DOES NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN SHRIMP, AND THE TAXABLE
EVENT, THE TAKING OF SHRIMP, OCCURS BEFORE THE SHRIMP CAN BE SAID TO
HAVE ENTERED THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN22 

FOURTH.  APPELLANTS' MOST VIGOROUS ATTACK IS DIRECTED AT SEC. 3379
FN23  WHICH, AS AMENDED IN 1947, REQUIRES NON-RESIDENTS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA TO PAY LICENSE FEES ONE HUNDRED TIMES AS GREAT AS THOSE WHICH
RESIDENTS MUST PAY.  THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THIS STATUTE, THEY
CONTEND, IS NOT TO CONSERVE SHRIMP, BUT TO EXCLUDE NON-RESIDENTS AND
THEREBY CREATE A COMMERCIAL MONOPOLY FOR SOUTH CAROLINA RESIDENTS.  AS
SUCH, THE STATUTE IS SAID TO VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE OF ART. IV, SEC. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2, SO FAR AS RELEVANT, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES." 

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE, LIKE THE CLAUSES BETWEEN WHICH IT
IS LOCATED - THOSE RELATING TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND TO INTERSTATE
EXTRADITION OF FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE - WAS TO HELP FUSE INTO ONE
NATION A COLLECTION OF INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN STATES.  IT WAS DESIGNED
TO INSURE TO A CITIZEN OF STATE A WHO VENTURES INTO STATE B THE SAME
PRIVILEGES WHICH THE CITIZENS OF STATE B ENJOY.  FN24  FOR PROTECTION
OF SUCH EQUALITY THE CITIZEN OF STATE A WAS NOT TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE
UNCERTAIN REMEDIES AFFORDED BY DIPLOMATIC PROCESSES AND OFFICIAL
RETALIATION.  FN25  "INDEED, WITHOUT SOME PROVISION OF THE KIND
REMOVING FROM THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE THE DISABILITIES OF ALIENAGE
IN THE OTHER STATES, AND GIVING THEM EQUALITY OF PRIVILEGE WITH
CITIZENS OF THOSE STATES, THE REPUBLIC WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED LITTLE
MORE THAN A LEAGUE OF STATES; IT WOULD NOT HAVE CONSTITUTED THE UNION
WHICH NOW EXISTS."  PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, 180(1868). 

IN LINE WITH THIS UNDERLYING PURPOSE, IT WAS LONG AGO DECIDED THAT
ONE OF THE PRIVILEGES WHICH THE CLAUSE GUARANTEES TO CITIZENS OF STATE
A IS THAT OF DOING BUSINESS IN STATE B ON TERMS OF SUBSTANTIAL EQUALITY
WITH THE CITIZENS OF THAT STATE.  FN26 

LIKE MANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE.  IT DOES BAR DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES WHERE THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL REASON
FOR THE DISCRIMINATION BEYOND THE MERE FACT THAT THEY ARE CITIZENS OF
OTHER STATES.  BUT IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE DISPARITY OF TREATMENT IN THE
MANY SITUATIONS WHERE THERE ARE PERFECTLY VALID INDEPENDENT REASONS FOR
IT.  THUS THE INQUIRY IN EACH CASE MUST BE CONCERNED WITH WHETHER SUCH
REASONS DO EXIST AND WHETHER THE DEGREE OF DISCRIMINATION BEARS A CLOSE
RELATION TO THEM.  FN27  THE INQUIRY MUST ALSO, OF COURSE, BE CONDUCTED
WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATES SHOULD HAVE
CONSIDERABLE LEEWAY IN ANALYZING LOCAL EVILS AND IN PRESCRIBING
APPROPRIATE CURES. 

WITH THESE FACTORS IN MIND, WE TURN TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 3379. 

BY THAT STATUTE SOUTH CAROLINA PLAINLY AND FRANKLY DISCRIMINATES
AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS, AND THE RECORD LEAVES LITTLE DOUBT BUT WHAT THE
DISCRIMINATION IS SO GREAT THAT ITS PRACTICAL EFFECT IS VIRTUALLY
EXCLUSIONARY.  FN28  THIS THE APPELLEES DO NOT SERIOUSLY DISPUTE.  NOR
DO THEY ARGUE THAT SINCE THE STATUTE IS COUCHED IN TERMS OF RESIDENCE
IT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, WHICH
SPEAKS OF CITIZENS.  SUCH AN ARGUMENT, WE AGREE, WOULD BE WITHOUT FORCE
IN THIS CASE.  FN29    AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STATUTE, APPELLEES URGE
THAT THE STATE'S OBVIOUS PURPOSE WAS TO CONSERVE ITS SHRIMP SUPPLY, AND
THEY SUGGEST THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO HEAD OFF AN IMPENDING THREAT OF
EXCESSIVE TRAWLING.  THE RECORD CASTS SOME DOUBT ON THESE STATEMENTS. 
FN30  BUT IN ANY EVENT, APPELLEES' ARGUMENT ASSUMES THAT ANY MEANS
ADOPTED TO ATTAIN VALID OBJECTIVES NECESSARILY SQUARES WITH THE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE.  IT OVERLOOKS THE PURPOSE OF THAT
CLAUSE, WHICH, AS INDICATED ABOVE, IS TO OUTLAW CLASSIFICATIONS BASED
ON THE FACT OF NON-CITIZENSHIP UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING TO INDICATE
THAT NON-CITIZENS CONSTITUTE A PECULIAR SOURCE OF THE EVIL AT WHICH THE
STATUTE IS AIMED. 

IN THIS CONNECTION APPELLEES MENTION, WITHOUT FURTHER ELUCIDATION,
THE FISHING METHODS USED BY NON-RESIDENTS, THE SIZE OF THEIR BOATS, AND
THE ALLEGEDLY GREATER COST OF ENFORCING THE LAWS AGAINST THEM.  ONE
STATEMENT IN THE APPELLEES' BRIEF MIGHT ALSO BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT
THE STATE'S CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR SHRIMP REQUIRES EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS BEYOND THOSE COLLECTED IN LICENSE FEES - FUNDS TO WHICH RESIDENTS
AND NOT NON-RESIDENTS CONTRIBUTE.  NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATES THAT
NON-RESIDENTS USE LARGER BOATS OR DIFFERENT FISHING METHODS THAN
RESIDENTS, THAT THE COST OF ENFORCING THE LAWS AGAINST THEM IS
APPRECIABLY GREATER, OR THAT ANY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE STATE'S
GENERAL FUNDS IS DEVOTED TO SHRIMP CONSERVATION.  BUT ASSUMING SUCH
WERE THE FACTS, THEY WOULD NOT NECESSARILY SUPPORT A REMEDY SO DRASTIC
AS TO BE A NEAR EQUIVALENT OF TOTAL EXCLUSION.  THE STATE IS NOT
WITHOUT POWER, FOR EXAMPLE, TO RESTRICT THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED IN
ITS FISHERIES,  FN31  TO GRADUATE LICENSE FEES ACCORDING TO THE SIZE OF
THE BOATS,  FN32  OR EVEN TO CHARGE NON-RESIDENTS A DIFFERENTIAL WHICH
WOULD MERELY COMPENSATE THE STATE FOR ANY ADDED ENFORCEMENT BURDEN THEY
MAY IMPOSE OR FOR ANY CONSERVATION EXPENDITURES FROM TAXES WHICH ONLY
RESIDENTS PAY.  WE WOULD BE CLOSING OUR EYES TO REALITY, WE BELIEVE, IF
WE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
DANGER REPRESENTED BY NON-CITIZENS, AS A CLASS, AND THE SEVERE
DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED UPON THEM. 

THUS, SEC. 3379 MUST BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS COMMERCIAL
SHRIMP FISHING IN THE MARITIME BELT FALLS WITHIN SOME UNEXPRESSED
EXCEPTION TO THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE. 

APPELLEES STRENUOUSLY URGE THAT THERE IS SUCH AN EXCEPTION.  THEIR
ARGUMENT RUNS AS FOLLOWS: EVER SINCE ROMAN TIMES, ANIMALS FERAE
NATURAE, NOT HAVING BEEN REDUCED TO INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION AND
OWNERSHIP, HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS RES NULLIUS OR PART OF THE "NEGATIVE
COMMUNITY OF INTERESTS" AND HENCE SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY THE SOVEREIGN
OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.  MORE RECENTLY THIS THOUGHT HAS BEEN
EXPRESSED BY SAYING THAT FISH AND GAME ARE THE COMMON PROPERTY OF ALL
CITIZENS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT, AS A SORT OF
TRUSTEE, EXERCISES THIS "OWNERSHIP" FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS CITIZENS. 
IN THE CASE OF FISH, IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED THAT EACH GOVERNMENT
"OWNED" BOTH THE BEDS OF ITS LAKES, STREAMS, AND TIDEWATERS AND THE
WATERS THEMSELVES; HENCE IT MUST ALSO "OWN" THE FISH WITHIN THOSE
WATERS.  EACH GOVERNMENT MAY, THE ARGUMENT CONTINUES, REGULATE THE
CORPUS OF THE TRUST IN THE WAY BEST SUITED TO THE INTERESTS OF THE
BENEFICIAL OWNERS, ITS CITIZENS, AND MAY DISCRIMINATE AS IT SEES FIT
AGAINST PERSONS LACKING ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST.  FINALLY, IT IS SAID
THAT THIS SPECIAL PROPERTY INTEREST, WHICH NATIONS AND SIMILAR
GOVERNMENTAL BODIES HAVE TRADITIONALLY HAD, IN THIS COUNTRY VESTED IN
THE COLONIAL GOVERNMENTS AND PASSED TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES. 

LANGUAGE FREQUENTLY REPEATED BY THIS COURT APPEARS TO LEND SOME
SUPPORT TO THIS ANALYSIS.  FN33 BUT IN ONLY ONE CASE, MCCREADY V.
VIRGINIA, 94 U.S. 391(1876), HAS THE COURT ACTUALLY UPHELD STATE ACTION
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST COMMERCIAL FISHING OR HUNTING BY CITIZENS OF
OTHER STATES WHERE THERE WERE ADVANCED NO PERSUASIVE INDEPENDENT
REASONS JUSTIFYING THE DISCRIMINATION.  FN34  IN THAT CASE THE COURT
SANCTIONED A VIRGINIA STATUTE APPLIED SO AS TO PROHIBIT CITIZENS OF
OTHER STATES, BUT NOT VIRGINIA CITIZENS, FROM PLANTING OYSTERS IN THE
TIDAL WATERS OF THE WARE RIVER.  THE RIGHT OF VIRGINIANS IN VIRGINIA
WATERS, THE COURT SAID, WAS "A PROPERTY RIGHT, AND NOT A MERE PRIVILEGE
OR IMMUNITY OF CITIZENSHIP."  AND AN ANALOGY WAS DRAWN BETWEEN PLANTING
OYSTERS IN A RIVER BED AND PLANTING CORN IN STATE-OWNED LAND. 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO FACTUAL DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE MCCREADY CASE.  FIRST, THE MCCREADY
CASE RELATED TO FISH WHICH WOULD REMAIN IN VIRGINIA UNTIL REMOVED BY
MAN.  THE PRESENT CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, DEALS WITH FREE-SWIMMING
FISH WHICH MIGRATE THROUGH THE WATERS OF SEVERAL STATES AND ARE OFF THE
COAST OF SOUTH CAROLINA ONLY TEMPORARILY.  SECONDLY, THE MCCREADY CASE
INVOLVED REGULATION OF FISHING IN INLAND WATERS, WHEREAS THE STATUTE
NOW QUESTIONED IS DIRECTED AT REGULATION OF SHRIMPING IN THE MARGINAL
SEA. 

THUS WE HAVE, ON THE ONE HAND, A SINGLE PRECEDENT WHICH MIGHT BE
TAKEN AS READING AN EXCEPTION INTO THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE
AND, ON THE OTHER, A CASE WHICH DOES NOT FALL DIRECTLY WITHIN THAT
EXCEPTION.  VIEWED IN THIS LIGHT, THE QUESTION BEFORE US COMES DOWN TO
WHETHER THE REASONS WHICH EVOKED THE EXCEPTION CALL FOR ITS EXTENSION
TO A CASE INVOLVING THE FACTUAL DISTINCTIONS HERE PRESENTED. 

HOWEVER SATISFACTORILY THE OWNERSHIP THEORY EXPLAINS THE MCCREADY
CASE, THE VERY FACTORS WHICH MAKE THE PRESENT CASE DISTINGUISHABLE
RENDER THAT THEORY BUT A WEAK PROP FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE. 
THAT THE SHRIMP ARE MIGRATORY MAKES APPOSITE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES'
STATEMENT IN MISSOURI V. HOLLAND, 252 U.S. 416, 434(1920), THAT "TO PUT
THE CLAIM OF THE STATE UPON TITLE IS TO LEAN UPON A SLENDER REED.  WILD
BIRDS ARE NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF ANYONE; AND POSSESSION IS THE
BEGINNING OF OWNERSHIP."  INDEED, ONLY FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER THE MCCREADY
DECISION, A UNANIMOUS COURT INDICATED THAT THE RULE OF THAT CASE MIGHT
NOT APPLY TO FREE-SWIMMING FISH.  FN35  THE FACT THAT IT IS ACTIVITY IN
THE THREE-MILE BELT WHICH THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATES IS OF
EQUAL RELEVANCE IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE OWNERSHIP
DOCTRINE.  WHILE UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19(1947), AS
INDICATED ABOVE, DOES NOT PRECLUDE ALL STATE REGULATION OF ACTIVITY IN
THE MARGINAL SEA, THE CASE DOES HOLD THAT NEITHER THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL
COLONIES NOR THEIR SUCCESSOR STATES SEPARATELY ACQUIRED "OWNERSHIP" OF
THE THREE-MILE BELT.  FN36 

THE WHOLE OWNERSHIP THEORY, IN FACT, IS NOW GENERALLY REGARDED AS BUT
A FICTION EXPRESSIVE IN LEGAL SHORTHAND OF THE IMPORTANCE TO ITS PEOPLE
THAT A STATE HAVE POWER TO PRESERVE AND REGULATE THE EXPLOITATION OF AN
IMPORTANT RESOURCE.  FN37  AND THERE IS NO NECESSARY CONFLICT BETWEEN
THAT VITAL POLICY CONSIDERATION AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND THAT THE
STATE EXERCISE THAT POWER, LIKE ITS OTHER POWERS, SO AS NOT TO
DISCRIMINATE WITHOUT REASON AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS LEAD US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MCCREADY
EXCEPTION TO THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, IF SUCH IT BE,
SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDED TO COVER THIS CASE. 

THUS WE HOLD THAT COMMERCIAL SHRIMPING IN THE MARGINAL SEA, LIKE
OTHER COMMON CALLINGS, IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE.  AND SINCE WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THE
REASONS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE STATUTE DO NOT BEAR A REASONABLE
RELATIONSHIP TO THE HIGH DEGREE OF DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED UPON
CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES, IT FOLLOWS THAT SEC. 3379 VIOLATES ART. IV,
SEC. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

APPELLANTS MAINTAIN THAT BY A PARITY OF REASONING THE STATUTE ALSO
CONTRAVENES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
THAT MAY WELL BE TRUE, BUT WE DO NOT PASS ON THIS ARGUMENT SINCE IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO DISPOSITION OF THE PRESENT CASE. 

FIFTH.  APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT SEC. 3414,  FN38  WHICH REQUIRES THAT
OWNERS OF SHRIMP BOATS FISHING IN THE MARITIME BELT OFF SOUTH CAROLINA
DOCK AT A SOUTH CAROLINA PORT AND UNLOAD, PACK, AND STAMP THEIR CATCH
(WITH A TAX STAMP) BEFORE "SHIPPING OR TRANSPORTING IT TO ANOTHER
STATE," BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN SHRIMP IN VIOLATION OF ART. I,
SEC. 8, OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT A HIGH PROPORTION OF THE SHRIMP CAUGHT IN THE
WATERS ALONG THE SOUTH CAROLINA COAST, BOTH BY APPELLANTS AND BY
OTHERS, IS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THERE WAS ALSO
UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANTS' COSTS WOULD BE MATERIALLY
INCREASED BY THE NECESSITY OF HAVING THEIR SHRIMP UNLOADED AND PACKED
IN SOUTH CAROLINA PORTS RATHER THAN AT THEIR HOME BASES IN GEORGIA
WHERE THEY MAINTAIN THEIR OWN DOCKING, WAREHOUSING, REFRIGERATION AND
PACKING FACILITIES.  IN ADDITION, AN INEVITABLE CONCOMITANT OF A
STATUTE REQUIRING THAT WORK BE DONE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, EVEN THOUGH THAT
BE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE FISHERMEN, IS TO DIVERT TO SOUTH
CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESS WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE GO TO GEORGIA;
THE NECESSARY TENDENCY OF THE STATUTE IS TO IMPOSE AN ARTIFICIAL
RIGIDITY ON THE ECONOMIC PATTERN OF THE INDUSTRY. 

APPELLEES DO NOT CONTEST THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE THEREBY BURDENS,
TO SOME EXTENT AT LEAST, INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN SHRIMP CAUGHT IN WATERS
OFF THE SOUTH CAROLINA COAST.  AGAIN, HOWEVER, THEY RELY ON THE FACT
THAT THE COMMERCE AFFECTED IS IN FISH RATHER THAN SOME OTHER
COMMODITY.  THEY URGE THAT SOUTH CAROLINA, BECAUSE OF ITS OWNERSHIP OF
THE SHRIMP, COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBIT ALL SHIPMENTS TO OTHER
STATES.  IT FOLLOWS, THEY IMPLY, THAT THE STATE COULD IMPOSE LESSER
RESTRICTIONS, SUCH AS THOSE HERE AT ISSUE, ON OUT-OF-STATE SHIPMENTS. 

THERE IS CONSIDERABLE AUTHORITY, STARTING WITH GEER V. CONNECTICUT,
161 U.S. 519(1896), TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT A STATE MAY CONFINE
THE CONSUMPTION OF ITS FISH AND GAME WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE'S LIMITS. 
WE NEED NOT PAUSE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS POWER EXTENDS TO FREE
SWIMMING FISH IN THE THREE-MILE BELT, FOR EVEN AS APPLIED TO FISH TAKEN
IN INLAND WATERS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE A STATE DID NOT EXERCISE
ITS FULL POWER, BUT ON THE CONTRARY PERMITTED SHIPMENTS TO OTHER
STATES, IT COULD NOT AT THE SAME TIME CONDITION SUCH SHIPMENTS SO AS TO
BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN FOSTER PACKING CO. V. HAYDEL, 278 U.S.
1(1928), THE COURT HELD IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR A DISTRICT
COURT NOT TO ENTER AN ORDER TEMPORARILY ENJOINING, AS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ENFORCEMENT OF A
LOUISIANA STATUTE WHICH PERMITTED THE SHIPMENT OF SHRIMP FROM LOUISIANA
TO OTHER STATES ONLY IF THE HEADS AND HULLS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN
REMOVED.  IN DISTINGUISHING THE GEER CASE, THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WAS
MADE: 

"AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS PEOPLE, THE STATE MIGHT HAVE RETAINED
THE SHRIMP FOR CONSUMPTION AND USE THEREIN.  ...  BUT BY PERMITTING ITS
SHRIMP TO BE TAKEN AND ALL THE PRODUCTS THEREOF TO BE SHIPPED AND SOLD
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE STATE NECESSARILY RELEASES ITS HOLD AND, AS
TO THE SHRIMP SO TAKEN, DEFINITELY TERMINATES ITS CONTROL.  CLEARLY
SUCH AUTHORIZATION AND THE TAKING IN PURSUANCE THEREOF PUT AN END TO
THE TRUST UPON WHICH THE STATE IS DEEMED TO OWN OR CONTROL THE SHRIMP
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS PEOPLE.  AND THOSE TAKING THE SHRIMP UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE ACT NECESSARILY THEREBY BECOME ENTITLED TO THE RIGHTS
OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE."  FN39 

IN JOHNSON V. HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 16(1928), THE SAME CONCLUSION WAS
REACHED, ON THE BASIS OF THE FOSTER PACKING CO. CASE, AS TO A SIMILAR
STATUTE RELATING TO OYSTERS. 

SIMILARLY IN THE PRESENT CASE, SOUTH CAROLINA HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO
RETAIN FOR THE USE OF ITS OWN PEOPLE THE SHRIMP CAUGHT IN THE MARGINAL
SEA.  INDEED, THE STATE HAS BEEN EAGER TO STIMULATE INTERSTATE
SHIPMENTS AND SALES AS A MEANS OF INCREASING THE EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME
OF ITS SHRIMP INDUSTRY.  FN40  THUS EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT SOUTH
CAROLINA COULD RETAIN FOR LOCAL CONSUMPTION SHRIMP CAUGHT IN THE
MARITIME BELT TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THEY WERE TAKEN IN INLAND
WATERS, THE GEER CASE WOULD NOT SUPPORT SEC. 3414. 

IN UPHOLDING THIS STATUTE, THE COURT BELOW ADDUCED A REASON NOT
ADVANCED BY APPELLEES, THAT THE REQUIREMENTS AS TO DOCKING, UNLOADING,
PACKING, AND AFFIXING A TAX STAMP WERE A PROPER MEANS OF INSURING
COLLECTION OF THE 1/8[ A POUND TAX.  FN41  BUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING
COMMERCE BETWEEN THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES FLOW UNIMPEDED BY LOCAL
BARRIERS PERSUADES US THAT STATE RESTRICTIONS INIMICAL TO THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY FACILITATE IN SOME
MEASURE ENFORCEMENT OF A VALID TAX. 

THUS WE HOLD THAT SEC. 3414 VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF ART. I,
SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

TO SUM UP, WE HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN THE ATTACKS PRESSED BY THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS, BUT NOT THE
CORPORATE APPELLANT, ON ALL THE STATUTES SAVE THE ONE RELATING TO
INCOME TAXES; THAT SOUTH CAROLINA HAS POWER, IN THE ABSENCE OF A
CONFLICTING FEDERAL CLAIM, TO REGULATE FISHING IN THE MARGINAL SEA; AND
THAT IN SEC. 3374 OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE, THOUGH NOT IN SECS. 3379
AND 3414, THE STATE HAS EXERCISED THAT POWER IN A MANNER CONSISTENT
WITH RESTRAINTS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION IMPOSES UPON THE STATES.  THE
DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT REFUSING EQUITABLE RELIEF IS AFFIRMED WITH
RESPECT TO SEC. 3374 AND THE INCOME TAX STATUTE AND REVERSED WITH
RESPECT TO SECS. 3379 AND 3414.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN
PART.    FN1  THE COURT WAS CONVENED PURSUANT TO SEC. 266 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380. 

FN2  73 F.SUPP.  371(1947). 

FN3  THE APPEAL IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 380. 

FN4  SEE JOHNSON AND LINDNER, SHRIMP INDUSTRY OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC
AND GULF STATES (U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF FISHERIES
INVESTIGATIONAL REP. NO. 21, 1934); ANNUAL REP. OF S.C. STATE BOARD OF
FISHERIES (1946). 

FN5  AT LEAST THREE OF THE STATES (FLORIDA, GEORGIA, AND SOUTH
CAROLINA) BELONG TO THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION,
ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL AIMS OF WHICH IS TO SECURE THE ENACTMENT OF
UNIFORM FISHERIES LAWS.  THE COMMISSION WAS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO AN
INTERSTATE COMPACT WHICH HAS BEEN RATIFIED BY AT LEAST THIRTEEN EASTERN
STATES.  ITS DUTIES, HOWEVER, ARE LARGELY CONSULTIVE AND ADVISORY, AND
TO DATE ITS EFFORTS HAVE PRODUCED LITTLE IN THE WAY OF CONCRETE RESULTS
INSOFAR AS THE SOUTH ATLANTIC SHRIMP FISHERY IS CONCERNED.  SEE 56
STAT. 267(1942); FLA. STAT. ANN. SEC. 374.43(SUPP.  1946); GA. CODE
ANN. SEC. 45-1001 ET SEQ. (SUPP. 1947); S.C. CODE ANN. (1944 SUPP.)
SEC. 1776-1; ANNUAL REP. OF THE S.C. STATE BOARD OF FISHERIES (1943);
ID. (1944); ID. (1945); ID. (1946). 

FN6  SEE FLA. STAT. ANN. SEC. 374.14(3)(SUPP.  1946), AS AMENDED BY
1947 GEN. LAWS OF FLA., ACT 163; GA. CODE ANN. SECS. 45-216, 45
217(1937); N.C. GEN. STAT. ANN. SEC. 113-238, AS AMENDED 1947 SESSION
LAWS OF N.C., C. 256; S.C. ACTS OF 1947, ACT 281, SECS. 1, 2, 5.  SEE
ALSO STATEMENTS BY THE S.C. STATE PLANNING BOARD THAT "IN REVISING
THESE (SHRIMP) LAWS  ...  NON-RESIDENT LICENSES (SHOULD BE) PLACED ON A
PAR OR RECIPROCAL BASIS WITH THOSE OF OTHER STATES IN THE SOUTH
ATLANTIC GROUP" AND "UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS OUR FISHERMEN ARE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST."  S.C. STATE PLANNING BOARD BULL.  NO. 14, P.
59(1944). 

FN7  S.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 3410(SUPP.  1944). 

FN8  S.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 3408. 

FN9  "THE WATERS AND BOTTOMS OF THE BAYS, RIVERS, CREEKS AND MARSHES
WITHIN THE STATE OR WITHIN THREE MILES OF ANY POINT ALONG LOW WATER
MARK ON THE COAST THEREOF, NOT HERETOFORE CONVEYED BY GRANT FROM THE
LEGISLATURE OR LAWFUL COMPACT WITH THE STATE, SHALL CONTINUE AND REMAIN
AS A COMMON FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE FOR THE TAKING OF FISH  ...  " 

FN10  "THE FOLLOWING FISHERIES' TAX IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON ALL FISH
OR FISHERIES PRODUCTS TAKEN OR CANNED, SHUCKED OR SHIPPED FOR MARKET,
TO-WIT  ...  ON EACH POUND OF GREEN SHRIMP, ONE-EIGHTH OF ONE CENT.
...  " 

FN11  PRIOR TO 1947 THERE WAS IMPOSED ON RESIDENT AND NON-RESIDENT
SHRIMPERS ALIKE A BOAT TAX OF $1.50 PER TON; A PERSONAL LICENSE TAX OF
$5; AND A TAX OF $5 FOR EACH SHRIMP TRAWL NET.  S.C. CODE ANN. SECS.
3375, 3376, 3379.  THESE TAXES, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF SEC.
3375 IMPOSING A BOAT TAX GRADUATED BY TONNAGE, APPARENTLY REMAIN IN
EFFECT AND, IN ADDITION, SEC. 3379 WAS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  ALL OWNERS OF SHRIMP BOATS, WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA SHALL TAKE OUT A LICENSE FOR EACH BOAT OWNED BY HIM, AND
SAID LICENSE SHALL BE TWENTY-FIVE ($25.00) DOLLARS PER YEAR, AND ALL
OWNERS OF SHRIMP BOATS WHO ARE NON-RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, AND WHO HAVE HAD ONE OR MORE BOATS LICENSED IN SOUTH CAROLINA
DURING EACH OF THE PAST THREE YEARS, SHALL TAKE OUT A LICENSE FOR EACH
BOAT OWNED BY HIM AND SAID LICENSE SHALL BE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY
($150.00) DOLLARS PER YEAR, AND ALL OWNERS OF SHRIMP BOATS WHO ARE NON
RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND WHO HAVE NOT HAD ONE OR
MORE BOATS LICENSED DURING EACH OF THE PAST THREE YEARS, SHALL TAKE OUT
A LICENSE FOR EACH BOAT OWNED BY HIM AND SAID LICENSE SHALL BE TWO
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($2,500.00) DOLLARS PER YEAR."  S.C. ACTS OF
1947, ACT 281, SEC. 1. 

THE APPELLANTS CANNOT QUALIFY FOR $150 LICENSES AND HENCE ARE SUBJECT
TO THE $2,500 PROVISION.  AS INTRODUCED IN THE LEGISLATURE AND PASSED
BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE BILL TO AMEND SEC.
3379 DID NOT CONTAIN THE $150 PROVISION.  THAT PROVISION WAS INSERTED
BY AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE AT THE INSTANCE OF A SENATOR FROM BEAUFORT
COUNTY, WHICH IS THE COASTAL COUNTY ADJOINING GEORGIA.  SEE HOUSE BILL
555; SENATE BILL 576; SENATE JOURNAL NO. 69, MAY 9, 1947, PP. 53-5;
CHARLESTON NEWS AND COURIER, MAY 17, 1947, P. 1, COLS.  2-3. 

OTHER PARTS OF THE SAME 1947 STATUTE, NOT ATTACKED IN THIS CASE,
LIMIT TO 100 THE NUMBER OF NON-RESIDENT BOATS WHICH MAY BE LICENSED AND
FORBID ALTOGETHER THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES, EVEN ON PAYMENT OF THE
$2,500 FEE, TO RESIDENTS OF STATES WHICH DO NOT GRANT LICENSES TO FISH
IN THEIR WATERS TO SOUTH CAROLINA RESIDENTS AT THE SAME OR A LOWER
FEE.  ID. SECS. 2, 5. 

FN12  "THE BOARD OF FISHERIES, BEFORE ISSUING ANY NON-RESIDENT
LICENSES IN THE YEAR 1948 AND THEREAFTER, SHALL REQUIRE PROOF THAT THE
OWNER OF THE NON-RESIDENT BOAT HAS PAID ALL INCOME TAXES DUE TO THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA FOR PROFITS MADE FROM OPERATIONS IN SOUTH
CAROLINA DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR."  ID. SEC. 3. 

FN13  "ALL BOATS LICENSED BY THIS STATE TO TRAWL FOR SHRIMP IN THE
WATERS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA SHALL LAND OR DOCK AT SOME POINT
IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AND SHALL UNLOAD THEIR CATCH OF SHRIMP, AND PACK AND
PROPERLY STAMP THE SAME BEFORE SHIPPING OR TRANSPORTING IT TO ANOTHER
STATE OR THE WATERS THEREOF.  ...  "  THE STAMPING REFERS TO TAX
STAMPS. 

FN14  S.C. ACTS OF 1947, ACT 281, SEC. 4; S.C. CODE ANN. SECS. 3407,
3414. 

FN15  APPELLEES STRESS AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. WATSON, 327
U.S. 582(1946).  WE THINK THE DOCTRINE OF THAT CASE APPLICABLE TO ONE
OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE AGAINST SEC. 3374, SUPRA NOTE 10.  SEE THE THIRD
DIVISION OF THIS OPINION, INFRA P. 394.  AS TO ALL THE OTHER STATUTES
EXCEPT THAT RELATING TO STATE INCOME TAXES, HOWEVER, WE AGREE WITH THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT THERE IS NEITHER NEED FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE
STATUTES NOR ANY OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE REQUIRING THE FEDERAL COURT
TO STAY ACTION PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 12 SUPRA. 

FN17  S.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 2469.  THIS SECTION PROVIDES THAT A
TAXPAYER MAY INSTITUTE SUIT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNTS PAID WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS OF THE PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST.  SEE ARGENT LUMBER CO. V. QUERY, 178
S.C. 1, 5, 182 S.E. 93, 94(1935). 

FN18  332 U.S. 19, 38(1947). 

FN19  APPELLANTS ALSO CONTEND THAT UNTIL 1924 SOUTH CAROLINA HAD
ITSELF LIMITED ITS BOUNDARIES BY THE LOW-WATER MARK AND HAD ASSERTED NO
POWER OVER THE MARITIME BELT.  BUT, AS THE DISTRICT COURT HELD, THE
STATUTE CITED BY APPELLANTS NEED NOT BE GIVEN THE EFFECT WHICH THEY
WOULD ATTRIBUTE TO IT, AND EVEN IF IT WERE SO CONSTRUED, IT DID NOT
IMPOSE A CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT ON THE POWER OF FUTURE LEGISLATURES. 

FN20  SEE NOTE 10 SUPRA. 

FN21  SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582(1946);
CF. RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549(1947). 

FN22  SEE HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284(1927); LACOSTE
V. DEPT. OF CONSERVATION, 263 U.S. 545(1924); OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD,
262 U.S. 172(1923); HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 245(1922);
COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517(1886). 

FN23  SEE NOTE 11 SUPRA. 

FN24  SEE PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, 180-81(1868); TRAVIS V.
YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO., 252 U.S. 60, 78(1920). 

FN25  TRAVIS V. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO., SUPRA NOTE 24, AT 82. 

FN26  WARD V. MARYLAND, 12 WALL.  418(1870); SEE ALSO CHALKER V.
BIRMINGHAM & N.W.R. CO., 249 U.S. 522(1919); SHAFFER V. CARTER, 252
U.S. 37, 52-53(1920). 

FN27  SEE TRAVIS V. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO., 252 U.S. 60, 79(1920). 

FN28  THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT IN 1946, THE YEAR BEFORE NON
RESIDENTS HAD TO PAY HIGHER FEES THAN RESIDENTS, 100 NON-RESIDENT BOATS
WERE LICENSED AND THAT IN 1947 ONLY 15 SUCH BOATS WERE LICENSED.  EVEN
THOSE 15 WERE PRESUMABLY OWNED BY PERSONS WHO HAD FISHED IN SOUTH
CAROLINA WATERS THE THREE PRECEDING YEARS AND WERE THUS ELIGIBLE FOR
$150 LICENSES, SINCE THE APPELLEES CONCEDED ON ORAL ARGUMENT HERE THAT
NO $2,500 LICENSES HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT.  SEE NOTE 11 SUPRA. 

FN29  SEE BLAKE V. MCCLUNG, 172 U.S. 239, 247(1898); CHALKER V.
BIRMINGHAM & N.W.R. CO., 249 U.S. 522(1919); TRAVIS V. YALE & TOWNE
MFG. CO., 252 U.S. 60, 79(1920). 

FN30  IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE STATUTE IMPOSES NO LIMITATION
ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENT BOATS WHICH MAY BE LICENSED, AND IT WAS
STIPULATED THAT WHILE THE NUMBER OF NON-RESIDENT BOATS FELL FROM 100 TO
15 BETWEEN 1946 AND 1947, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BOATS LICENSED INCREASED
DURING THAT TIME FROM 254 TO 271. 

THE REPORTS OF THE STATE BOARD OF FISHERIES FOR SEVERAL YEARS BACK,
WHILE EXPRESSING SOLICITUDE AS TO THE NEED FOR CONSERVATION MEASURES,
REVEAL EQUAL CONCERN WITH METHODS FOR INCREASING THE MARKET FOR SHRIMP
BY ADVERTISING, AIR SHIPMENTS, ETC. - AND CONTAIN FREQUENT REFERENCES
TO THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE SHRIMP INDUSTRY TO THE STATE.  THE
1945 REPORT, FOR EXAMPLE, SAID THAT "THE SHRIMP BUSINESS IN OUR STATE
IS QUITE AN INDUSTRY, IT EMPLOYS NUMBERS OF MEN AND BOAT CREWS SPEND
LARGE SUMS OF MONEY ON REPAIRS, GASOLINE, OIL AND FOOD BESIDES THE
MONEY THAT IS SPENT BY THE INDIVIDUALS PERSONALLY."  IN CONNECTION WITH
THE POSSIBILITY OF AIR SHIPMENTS TO LARGE CONSUMING CENTERS SUCH AS NEW
YORK, THE SAME REPORT SAID THAT AIR TRANSPORTATION "SHOULD INCREASE THE
CONSUMPTION OF SAME (I.E., SEAFOODS) IN LARGE QUANTITIES; IT WILL ALSO
CREATE A MUCH GREATER DEMAND FOR SHRIMP AND SEAFOODS ALL OVER THE
UNIVERSE, AND IT WILL PLACE THEM IN SECTIONS WHERE THEY ARE VERY SELDOM
CONSUMED WITH THE RESULT THAT MANY MORE PEOPLE WILL GET SOLD ON THE
IDEA OF EATING SAME."  AND THE 1946 REPORT'S SECTION ON SHRIMP
CONCLUDED WITH THE STATEMENT THAT "TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS REPORT IS
CERTAINLY A PLEASURE TO THE STATE BOARD OF FISHERIES AS WE ARE ABLE TO
SHOW THAT THE CATCH OF SHRIMP THIS SEASON WAS NEARLY TWICE AS LARGE AS
IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR." 

FN31  SEE FLA. STAT. ANN. SEC. 374.14(5)(SUPP.  1946); 1947 GEN. LAWS
OF FLA., ACT 654; GA. CODE ANN. SEC. 45-109(1937); JOHNSON AND LINDNER,
SHRIMP INDUSTRY OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC AND GULF STATES (U.S. DEPT. OF
COMMERCE, BUREAU OF FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONAL REP. NO. 21, 1934) 62
63. 

FN32  SOUTH CAROLINA HAS ITSELF IMPOSED SUCH A GRADUATED TAX IN YEARS
PAST.  S.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 3375(1942).  SEE ALSO GA. CODE ANN. SEC. 45
210(1937); N.C. GEN. STAT. ANN. SEC. 113-165(SUPP.  1945). 

FN33  THE MOST EXTENDED EXPOSITION APPEARS IN THE MAJORITY OPINION IN
GEER V. CONNECTICUT, 161 U.S. 519(1896). 

FN34  APPELLEES RELY ALSO UPON PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S.
138(1914), AND HAAVIK V. ALASKA PACKERS ASSN., 263 U.S. 510(1924).  THE
PATSONE CASE INVOLVED A 1909 PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE FORBIDDING RESIDENT
ALIENS TO KILL GAME OR TO POSSESS FIREARMS USEFUL FOR THAT PURPOSE.  ON
THE RECORD BEFORE IT, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT IT COULD NOT SAY THAT
THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE WAS NOT WARRANTED IN ASSUMING THAT
RESIDENT ALIENS WERE AT THAT TIME "THE PECULIAR SOURCE OF THE EVIL THAT
IT DESIRED TO PREVENT."  THE STATUTE WAS THEREFORE HELD NOT TO VIOLATE
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BUT THE THEORY OF THE CASE WAS THAT THERE
WAS A SUBSTANTIAL REASON FOR THE DISCRIMINATION BEYOND THE MERE FACT OF
ALIENAGE.  THE HAAVIK CASE INVOLVED THE VALIDITY, UNDER AN ACT OF
CONGRESS, OF AN ALASKAN STATUTE IMPOSING ON NON-RESIDENTS, BUT NOT
RESIDENTS, A $5 FISHING LICENSE FEE.  IN UPHOLDING THE STATUTE THE
COURT POINTED OUT THAT "WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH TAXATION BY A
STATE."  AND IN CONSIDERING THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE SUCH A
TAX, IT WAS ADDED THAT THE FEE WAS A REASONABLE CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THE
PROTECTION WHICH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFORDED TO NON-RESIDENTS. 

FN35  MANCHESTER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 139 U.S. 240, 265(1891).  IN THAT
CASE APPELLANT, A CITIZEN OF RHODE ISLAND, WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING A
MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE WHICH REGULATED FISHING IN BUZZARDS BAY.  THE
COURT UPHELD MASSACHUSETTS' POWER TO ENACT THE REGULATION, BUT POINTED
OUT THAT THE STATUTE "MAKES NO DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF CITIZENS OF
MASSACHUSETTS AND AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES."  IBID. 

FN36  332 U.S. 19, 31. 

FN37  SEE, E.G., POUND, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF LAW, 197
202.  THE FICTION APPARENTLY GAINED CURRENCY PARTLY AS A RESULT OF
CONFUSION BETWEEN THE ROMAN TERM IMPERIUM, OR GOVERNMENTAL POWER TO
REGULATE, AND DOMINIUM, OR OWNERSHIP.  POWER OVER FISH AND GAME WAS, IN
ORIGIN, IMPERIUM.  IBID. 

FN38  SEE NOTE 13 SUPRA. 

FN39  278 U.S. 1, 13. 

FN40  SEE NOTE 30 SUPRA.  THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THAT THE FOSTER
PACKING CO. AND JOHNSON CASES HAD BEEN RENDERED INAPPLICABLE TO THIS
CASE BY BAYSIDE FISH FLOUR CO. V. GENTRY, 297 U.S. 422(1936).  THE
CALIFORNIA STATUTE WHICH THE COURT UPHELD IN THAT CASE, HOWEVER, WAS OF
A FAR DIFFERENT TYPE THAN THE ONE WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW DEALING.  THE
STATUTE IN EFFECT LIMITED THE NUMBER OF FISH WHICH COULD BE REDUCED TO
FISH FLOUR AS APART FROM THOSE PROCESSED OR SOLD IN OTHER FORMS.  IN
REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
BURDENED INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE COURT SAID THAT "IT IN NO WAY LIMITS
OR REGULATES  ...  THE MOVEMENT OF THE SARDINES FROM OUTSIDE INTO THE
STATE, OR THE MOVEMENT OF THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCT FROM THE STATE TO
THE OUTSIDE.  THE ACT REGULATES ONLY THE MANUFACTURE WITHIN THE STATE. 
ITS DIRECT OPERATION, INTENDED AND ACTUAL, IS WHOLLY LOCAL."  297 U.S.
422, 425-26. 

FN41  THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO SAID THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 3414
WERE A REASONABLE MEANS OF MAINTAINING THE GOOD REPUTATION OF PRODUCTS
ORIGINATING IN SOUTH CAROLINA.  BUT THE APPELLEES DO NOT PRETEND THAT
THE STATUTE RESULTS IN BETTER PRESERVATION OF THE SHRIMP IN HEALTHFUL
FORM.  MOREOVER, SINCE SHRIMP CAUGHT OFF THE SHORES OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE TAKEN OFF THE SHORES OF NEIGHBORING
STATES, PURCHASERS WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT SHRIMP PACKED
IN GEORGIA, IF INFERIOR, WERE PRODUCTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA.    MR.
JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND ALL OF THE
OPINION EXCEPT PART FIFTH. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS, CONCURRING. 

BARRING THE PORTION ENTITLED FOURTH, I JOIN THE COURT'S OPINION. 
WHILE I AGREE THAT SOUTH CAROLINA HAS EXCEEDED HER POWER TO CONTROL
FISHERIES WITHIN HER WATERS, I REST THE INVALIDITY OF HER ATTEMPT TO DO
SO ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE COURT REACHES THIS RESULT BY WHAT I
DEEM TO BE A MISAPPLICATION OF THE PRIVILEGES-AND-IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF
ART. IV, SEC. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

TO REGARD ANY LIMITATION UPON THE PRIVILEGES-AND-IMMUNITIES CLAUSE AS
"SOME UNEXPRESSED EXCEPTION" AND NOT GIVE ANY CLUE TO THE BASIS ON
WHICH SUCH AN "EXCEPTION" MAY BE IMPLIED IS TO LEAVE THE MATTER TOO
MUCH AT LARGE.  IT DEALS WITH THE CONSTITUTION AS THOUGH ITS VARIOUS
CLAUSES WERE DISCRETE AND NOT A COHERENT SCHEME FOR GOVERNMENT. 
SPECIFICALLY, THE PRIVILEGES-AND-IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, LIKE THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE, MUST BE PUT "IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK."  EAST NEW YORK SAVINGS BANK V. HAHN, 326 U.S. 230, 232. 

LIKE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE CLAUSE WHEREBY "THE
CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES" MUST BE READ IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  THIS CLAUSE
PRESUPPOSES THE CONTINUED RETENTION BY THE STATES OF POWERS THAT
HISTORICALLY BELONGED TO THE STATES, AND WERE NOT EXPLICITLY GIVEN TO
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATES.  I THINK IT IS
FAIR TO SUMMARIZE THE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE APPLIED ART. IV, SEC. 2, BY
SAYING THAT THEY BAR A STATE FROM PENALIZING THE CITIZENS OF OTHER
STATES BY SUBJECTING THEM TO HEAVIER TAXATION MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE
SUCH CITIZENS OR BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES IN
THE PURSUIT OF ORDINARY LIVELIHOODS IN COMPETITION WITH LOCAL
CITIZENS.  IT IS NOT CONCEIVABLE THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
MEANT TO OBLITERATE ALL SPECIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN A STATE AND ITS
CITIZENS.  THIS CLAUSE DOES NOT TOUCH THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO CONSERVE
OR UTILIZE ITS RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF ITS OWN CITIZENS, PROVIDED IT
USES THESE RESOURCES WITHIN THE STATE AND DOES NOT ATTEMPT A CONTROL OF
THE RESOURCES AS PART OF A REGULATION OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 
A STATE MAY CARE FOR ITS OWN IN UTILIZING THE BOUNTIES OF NATURE WITHIN
HER BORDERS BECAUSE IT HAS TECHNICAL OWNERSHIP OF SUCH BOUNTIES OR,
WHEN OWNERSHIP IS IN NO ONE, BECAUSE THE STATE MAY FOR THE COMMON GOOD
EXERCISE ALL THE AUTHORITY THAT TECHNICAL OWNERSHIP ORDINARILY
CONFERS. 

WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED, SUCH, NO DOUBT, WAS THE COMMON
UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE POWER OF STATES OVER THEIR FISHERIES, AND
IT IS THIS COMMON UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS REFLECTED IN MCCREADY V.
VIRGINIA, 94 U.S. 391.  THE MCCREADY CASE IS NOT AN ISOLATED DECISION
TO BE LOOKED AT ASKANCE.  IT IS THE SYMBOL OF ONE OF THE WEIGHTIEST
DOCTRINES IN OUR LAW.  IT EXPRESSED THE MOMENTUM OF LEGAL HISTORY THAT
PRECEDED IT, AND AROUND IT IN TURN HAS CLUSTERED A VOLUMINOUS BODY OF
RULINGS.  NOT ONLY HAS A HOST OF STATE CASES APPLIED THE MCCREADY
DOCTRINE AS TO THE POWER OF STATES TO CONTROL THEIR GAME AND FISHERIES
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR OWN CITIZENS, BUT IN OUR OWN DAY THIS COURT
FORMULATED THE AMPLITUDE OF THE MCCREADY DOCTRINE BY REFERRING TO "THE
REGULATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, OR OF THE COMMON
PROPERTY OR RESOURCES OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, THE ENJOYMENT OF
WHICH MAY BE LIMITED TO ITS CITIZENS AS AGAINST BOTH ALIENS AND THE
CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES."  TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, 39-40. 

BUT A STATE CANNOT PROJECT ITS POWERS OVER ITS OWN RESOURCES BY
SEEKING TO CONTROL THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  IT IS
ONE THING TO SAY THAT A FOOD SUPPLY THAT MAY BE REDUCED TO CONTROL BY A
STATE FOR FEEDING ITS OWN PEOPLE SHOULD BE ONLY LOCALLY CONSUMED.  THE
STATE HAS THAT POWER AND THE PRIVILEGES-AND-IMMUNITIES CLAUSE IS NO
RESTRICTION UPON ITS EXERCISE.  IT IS A WHOLLY DIFFERENT THING FOR THE
STATE TO PROVIDE THAT ONLY ITS CITIZENS SHALL BE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
AMONG THE STATES, EVEN THOUGH BASED ON A LOCALLY AVAILABLE FOOD
SUPPLY.  THAT IS NOT THE EXERCISE OF THE BASIC RIGHT OF A STATE TO FEED
AND MAINTAIN AND GIVE ENJOYMENT TO ITS OWN PEOPLE.  WHEN A STATE
REGULATES THE SENDING OF PRODUCTS ACROSS STATE LINES WE HAVE COMMERCE
AMONG THE STATES AS TO WHICH STATE INTERVENTION IS SUBORDINATE TO THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THAT IS THE NUB OF THE DECISION IN FOSTER-FOUNTAIN
PACKING CO. V. HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 1.  SOUTH CAROLINA HAS ATTEMPTED SUCH
REGULATION OF COMMERCE IN SHRIMP AMONG THE STATES.  IN DOING SO SHE HAS
EXCEEDED THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE RESULT AND THE COURT'S OPINION, SUBJECT TO ONE
INTERPRETATION OR QUALIFICATION OF THE OPINION'S FIFTH PART. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT OWNERS OF BOATS FISHING IN THE MARITIME BELT
DOCK AT A SOUTH CAROLINA PORT, UNLOAD, PACK, AND STAMP THEIR CATCH (FOR
TAX PURPOSES), BEFORE "SHIPPING OR TRANSPORTING IT TO ANOTHER STATE,"
IS NOT MERELY A REGULATION OF COMMERCE BURDENING IT IN THE SENSE OF
MATERIALLY INCREASING THE SHIPPER'S COSTS.  MANY VALID REGULATIONS OF
COMMERCE DO THIS.  THE REGULATION IN QUESTION GOES FARTHER.  IT IS
AIMED IN TERMS DIRECTLY AT INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALONE, AND THUS WOULD
SEEM TO BE DISCRIMINATORY IN INTENT AND EFFECT UPON THAT COMMERCE. 
MOREOVER, IN MY OPINION, IT IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT, IF APPLIED,
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES IT WOULD BLOCK THE COMMERCE. 

SINCE IT WAS EXACTLY THAT SORT OF STATE REGULATION THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE WAS DESIGNED TO STRIKE DOWN, I AGREE THAT THIS ONE CANNOT
STAND.  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS I ALSO THINK WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO
NULLIFY THE LICENSE FEES LEVIED AGAINST NONRESIDENTS, SINCE UPON THE
RECORD THEIR TRANSPORTATION OF CATCHES WOULD SEEM TO BE EXCLUSIVELY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR PRACTICALLY SO.
..END :




TAKAHASHI V. FISH COMM'N, 334 U.S. 410 


NO. 533.  ARGUED APRIL 21-22, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 30
CAL.2D 719, 185 P.2D 805, REVERSED. 


1.  A CALIFORNIA STATUTE BARRING ISSUANCE OF COMMERCIAL FISHING
LICENSES TO PERSONS "INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP," WHICH CLASSIFICATION
INCLUDED RESIDENT ALIEN JAPANESE AND PRECLUDED SUCH A ONE FROM EARNING
HIS LIVING AS A COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN IN THE OCEAN WATERS OFF THE COAST
OF THE STATE, HELD INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND LAWS. 
PP. 412-422. 

2.  FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION BY THIS COURT, IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT
THE OBJECT OF THE STATUTE WAS TO CONSERVE FISH IN THE COASTAL WATERS OF
THE STATE, OR TO PROTECT CITIZENS OF THE STATE ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL
FISHING FROM THE COMPETITION OF JAPANESE ALIENS, OR BOTH.  P. 418. 

3.  THAT THE UNITED STATES REGULATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
IN PART ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND COLOR CLASSIFICATIONS DOES NOT
AUTHORIZE ADOPTION BY A STATE OF SUCH CLASSIFICATIONS TO PREVENT
LAWFULLY ADMITTED ALIENS WITHIN ITS BORDERS FROM EARNING A LIVELIHOOD
BY MEANS OPEN TO ALL OTHER INHABITANTS.  PP. 418-420. 

4.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND FEDERAL LAWS, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 41,
EMBODY A GENERAL POLICY THAT ALL PERSONS LAWFULLY IN THIS COUNTRY SHALL
ABIDE "IN ANY STATE" ON AN EQUALITY OF LEGAL PRIVILEGES WITH ALL
CITIZENS UNDER NON-DISCRIMINATORY LAWS.  PP. 419-420. 

5.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE INTEREST OF THE STATE OR ITS CITIZENS IN THE
FISH IN THE 3-MILE BELT OFFSHORE, THAT INTEREST DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE
STATE IN EXCLUDING ANY OR ALL ALIENS WHO ARE LAWFUL RESIDENTS OF THE
STATE FROM MAKING A LIVING BY FISHING IN THE OCEAN OFF ITS SHORES WHILE
PERMITTING ALL OTHER PERSONS TO DO SO.  PP. 420-421. 

6.  ASSUMING THEIR CONTINUED VALIDITY, CASES SUSTAINING STATE LAWS
BARRING LAND OWNERSHIP BY ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP, WHICH
RESTED ON GROUNDS PECULIAR TO REAL PROPERTY, CAN NOT BE EXTENDED TO
CONTROL THE DECISION IN THIS CASE.  P. 422. 

TAKAHASHI V. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT AN ACTION IN A STATE COURT FOR MANDAMUS TO COMPEL
ISSUANCE TO HIM OF A COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENSE.  A JUDGMENT GRANTING
THE WRIT WAS REVERSED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, 30 CAL.2D 719, 185
P.2D 805.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 853.  REVERSED, P.
422. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT, TORAO TAKAHASHI, BORN IN JAPAN, CAME TO THIS COUNTRY
AND BECAME A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA IN 1907.  FEDERAL LAWS, BASED ON
DISTINCTIONS OF "COLOR AND RACE," TOYOTA V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S.
402, 411-412, HAVE PERMITTED JAPANESE AND CERTAIN OTHER NON-WHITE
RACIAL GROUPS TO ENTER AND RESIDE IN THE COUNTRY, BUT HAVE MADE THEM
INELIGIBLE FOR UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP N1.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS
WHETHER CALIFORNIA CAN, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS PASSED PURSUANT TO IT, USE THIS FEDERALLY CREATED RACIAL
INELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP AS A BASIS FOR BARRING TAKAHASHI FROM
EARNING HIS LIVING AS A COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN IN THE OCEAN WATERS OFF
THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA. 

PRIOR TO 1943 CALIFORNIA ISSUED COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENSES TO ALL
QUALIFIED PERSONS WITHOUT REGARD TO ALIENAGE OR INELIGIBILITY TO
CITIZENSHIP.  FROM 1915 TO 1942 TAKAHASHI, UNDER ANNUAL COMMERCIAL
FISHING LICENSES ISSUED BY THE STATE, FISHED IN OCEAN WATERS OFF THE
CALIFORNIA COAST, APPARENTLY BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE THREE-MILE
COASTAL BELT, AND BROUGHT HIS FRESH FISH ASHORE FOR SALE.  IN 1942,
WHILE THIS COUNTRY WAS AT WAR WITH JAPAN, TAKAHASHI AND OTHER
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY WERE EVACUATED FROM THE STATE
UNDER MILITARY ORDERS.  SEE KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214. 
IN 1943, DURING THE PERIOD OF WAR AND EVACUATION, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE WAS ADOPTED PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF A
LICENSE TO ANY "ALIEN JAPANESE."  CAL. STATS. 1943, CH. 1100.  IN 1945,
THE STATE CODE WAS AGAIN AMENDED BY STRIKING THE 1943 PROVISION FOR
FEAR THAT IT MIGHT BE "DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL" BECAUSE DIRECTED ONLY
"AGAINST ALIEN JAPANESE"; FN2  THE NEW AMENDMENT BANNED ISSUANCE OF
LICENSES TO ANY "PERSON INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP," WHICH
CLASSIFICATION INCLUDED JAPANESE.  CAL. STATS. 1945, CH. 181.  FN3
BECAUSE OF THIS STATE PROVISION BARRING ISSUANCE OF COMMERCIAL FISHING
LICENSES TO PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP UNDER FEDERAL LAW,
TAKAHASHI, WHO MET ALL OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS, WAS DENIED A LICENSE
BY THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION UPON HIS RETURN TO
CALIFORNIA IN 1945. 

TAKAHASHI BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR MANDAMUS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO COMPEL THE COMMISSION TO ISSUE A
LICENSE TO HIM.  THAT COURT GRANTED THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS.  IT HELD
THAT LAWFUL ALIEN INHABITANTS OF CALIFORNIA, DESPITE THEIR
INELIGIBILITY TO CITIZENSHIP, WERE ENTITLED TO ENGAGE IN THE VOCATION
OF COMMERCIAL FISHING ON THE HIGH SEAS BEYOND THE THREE-MILE BELT ON
THE SAME TERMS AS OTHER LAWFUL STATE INHABITANTS, AND THAT THE
CALIFORNIA CODE PROVISION DENYING THEM THIS RIGHT VIOLATED THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE STATE SUPREME
COURT, THREE JUDGES DISSENTING, REVERSED, HOLDING THAT CALIFORNIA HAD A
PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN FISH IN THE OCEAN WATERS WITHIN THREE MILES OF
THE SHORE, AND THAT THIS INTEREST JUSTIFIED THE STATE IN BARRING ALL
ALIENS IN GENERAL AND ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP IN PARTICULAR
FROM CATCHING FISH WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE THREE-MILE COASTAL BELT AND
BRINGING THEM TO CALIFORNIA FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.  30 CAL.2D 719,
185 P.2D 805.  FN4  TO REVIEW THIS QUESTION OF IMPORTANCE IN THE FIELDS
OF FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIPS AND OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
INDIVIDUAL EQUALITY AND LIBERTY, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

WE MAY WELL BEGIN OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED
IN THIS CASE BY A SUMMARY OF THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN TRUAX V. RAICH,
239 U.S. 33, NOT DEEMED CONTROLLING BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT, BUT REGARDED BY THE DISSENTERS AS REQUIRING THE
INVALIDATION OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW.  THAT CASE INVOLVED AN ATTACK UPON
AN ARIZONA LAW WHICH REQUIRED ALL ARIZONA EMPLOYERS OF MORE THAN FIVE
WORKERS TO HIRE NOT LESS THAN EIGHTY (80) PER CENT QUALIFIED ELECTORS
OR NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  RAICH, AN ALIEN WHO
WORKED AS A COOK IN A RESTAURANT WHICH HAD MORE THAN FIVE EMPLOYEES,
WAS ABOUT TO LOSE HIS JOB SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE STATE LAW'S COERCIVE
EFFECT ON THE RESTAURANT OWNER.  THIS COURT, IN UPHOLDING RAICH'S
CONTENTION THAT THE ARIZONA LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARED THAT RAICH,
HAVING BEEN LAWFULLY ADMITTED INTO THE COUNTRY UNDER FEDERAL LAW, HAD A
FEDERAL PRIVILEGE TO ENTER AND ABIDE IN "ANY STATE IN THE UNION" AND
THEREAFTER UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO ENJOY THE EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE IN WHICH HE ABIDED; THAT THIS PRIVILEGE TO
ENTER IN AND ABIDE IN ANY STATE CARRIED WITH IT THE "RIGHT TO WORK FOR
A LIVING IN THE COMMON OCCUPATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY," A DENIAL OF WHICH
RIGHT WOULD MAKE OF THE AMENDMENT "A BARREN FORM OF WORDS."  IN ANSWER
TO A CONTENTION THAT ARIZONA'S RESTRICTION UPON THE EMPLOYMENT OF
ALIENS WAS "REASONABLE" AND THEREFORE PERMISSIBLE, THIS COURT
DECLARED: 

"IT MUST ALSO BE SAID THAT REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION IMPLIES ACTION
CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE STATE, AND IT WILL NOT
BE DISPUTED THAT THESE CANNOT BE SO BROADLY CONCEIVED AS TO BRING THEM
INTO HOSTILITY TO EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL POWER.  THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL
IMMIGRATION - TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE ALIENS - IS VESTED SOLELY IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698,
713.  THE ASSERTION OF AN AUTHORITY TO DENY TO ALIENS THE OPPORTUNITY
OF EARNING A LIVELIHOOD WHEN LAWFULLY ADMITTED TO THE STATE WOULD BE
TANTAMOUNT TO THE ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT TO DENY THEM ENTRANCE AND
ABODE, FOR IN ORDINARY CASES THEY CANNOT LIVE WHERE THEY CANNOT WORK. 
AND, IF SUCH A POLICY WERE PERMISSIBLE, THE PRACTICAL RESULT WOULD BE
THAT THOSE LAWFULLY ADMITTED TO THE COUNTRY UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE
ACTS OF CONGRESS, INSTEAD OF ENJOYING IN A SUBSTANTIAL SENSE AND IN
THEIR FULL SCOPE THE PRIVILEGES CONFERRED BY THE ADMISSION, WOULD BE
SEGREGATED IN SUCH OF THE STATES AS CHOSE TO OFFER HOSPITALITY."  TRUAX
V. RAICH, SUPRA AT 42. 

HAD THE TRUAX DECISION SAID NOTHING FURTHER THAN WHAT IS QUOTED
ABOVE, ITS REASONING, IF FOLLOWED, WOULD SEEM TO REQUIRE INVALIDATION
OF THIS CALIFORNIA CODE PROVISION BARRING ALIENS FROM THE OCCUPATION OF
FISHING AS INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAW, WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
DECLARED TO BE "THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND."  HOWEVER, THE COURT THERE
WENT ON TO NOTE THAT IT HAD ON OCCASION SUSTAINED STATE LEGISLATION
THAT DID NOT APPLY ALIKE TO CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS, THE GROUND FOR
THE DISTINCTION BEING THAT SUCH LAWS WERE NECESSARY TO PROTECT SPECIAL
INTERESTS EITHER OF THE STATE OR OF ITS CITIZENS AS SUCH.  THE TRUAX
OPINION POINTED OUT THAT THE ARIZONA LAW, AIMED AS IT WAS AGAINST
EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS IN ALL VOCATIONS, FAILED TO SHOW A "SPECIAL PUBLIC
INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO ANY PARTICULAR BUSINESS  ...  THAT COULD
POSSIBLY BE DEEMED TO SUPPORT THE ENACTMENT."  THE COURT NOTED THAT IT
HAD PREVIOUSLY UPHELD VARIOUS STATE LAWS WHICH RESTRICTED THE PRIVILEGE
OF PLANTING OYSTERS IN THE TIDEWATER RIVERS OF A STATE TO CITIZENS OF
THAT STATE, AND WHICH DENIED TO ALIENS WITHIN A STATE THE PRIVILEGE OF
POSSESSING A RIFLE AND OF SHOOTING GAME WITHIN THAT STATE; IT ALSO
REFERRED TO DECISIONS RECOGNIZING A STATE'S BROAD POWERS, IN THE
ABSENCE OF OVERRIDING TREATIES, TO RESTRICT THE DEVOLUTION OF REAL
PROPERTY TO NON-ALIENS.  FN5 

CALIFORNIA NOW URGES, AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD, THAT THE
CALIFORNIA FISHING PROVISION HERE CHALLENGED FALLS WITHIN THE RATIONALE
OF THE "SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST" CASES DISTINGUISHED IN THE TRUAX
OPINION, AND THUS THAT THE STATE'S BAN UPON COMMERCIAL FISHING BY
ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP IS VALID.  THE CONTENTION IS THIS:
CALIFORNIA OWNS THE FISH WITHIN THREE MILES OF ITS COAST AS A TRUSTEE
FOR ALL CALIFORNIA CITIZENS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS NON-CITIZEN
INHABITANTS; AS SUCH TRUSTEE-OWNER, IT HAS COMPLETE POWER TO BAR ANY OR
ALL ALIENS FROM FISHING IN THE THREE-MILE BELT AS A MEANS OF CONSERVING
THE SUPPLY OF FISH; SINCE MIGRATORY FISH CAUGHT WHILE SWIMMING IN THE
THREE-MILE BELT ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE CAUGHT WHILE SWIMMING
IN THE ADJACENT HIGH SEAS, THE STATE, IN ORDER TO ENFORCE ITS THREE
MILE CONTROL, CAN ALSO REGULATE THE CATCHING AND DELIVERY TO ITS COAST
OF FISH CAUGHT BEYOND THE THREE-MILE BELT UNDER THIS COURT'S DECISION
IN BAYSIDE FISH CO. V. GENTRY, 297 U.S. 422.  ITS LAW DENYING FISHING
LICENSES TO ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP, SO THE STATE'S
CONTENTION GOES, TENDS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN AND
THEREFORE IS A PROPER FISH CONSERVATION MEASURE; IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
POWER TO DECIDE WHAT GROUPS WILL BE DENIED LICENSES, THE STATE HAS A
RIGHT, IF NOT A DUTY, TO BAR FIRST OF ALL ALIENS, WHO HAVE NO COMMUNITY
INTEREST IN THE FISH OWNED BY THE STATE.  FINALLY, THE LEGISLATURE'S
DENIAL OF LICENSES TO THOSE ALIENS WHO ARE "INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP"
IS DEFENDED AS A REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION, ON THE GROUND THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS SIMPLY FOLLOWED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S LEAD IN
ADOPTING THAT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE NATURALIZATION LAWS. 

FIRST.  THE STATE'S CONTENTION THAT ITS LAW WAS PASSED SOLELY AS A
FISH CONSERVATION MEASURE IS VIGOROUSLY DENIED.  THE PETITIONER ARGUES
THAT IT WAS THE OUTGROWTH OF RACIAL ANTAGONISM DIRECTED SOLELY AGAINST
THE JAPANESE, AND THAT FOR THIS REASON ALONE IT CANNOT STAND.  SEE
KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 216; KOTCH V. BOARD OF RIVER PILOT
COMM'RS, 330 U.S. 552, 556; YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356; IN RE AH
CHONG, 2 F. 733, 737.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO RESOLVE THIS
CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE MOTIVES THAT PROMPTED ENACTMENT OF THE
LEGISLATION.  ACCORDINGLY, FOR PURPOSES OF OUR DECISION WE MAY ASSUME
THAT THE CODE PROVISION WAS PASSED TO CONSERVE FISH IN THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL WATERS, OR TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA CITIZENS ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL
FISHING FROM COMPETITION BY JAPANESE ALIENS, OR FOR BOTH REASONS. 

SECOND.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, AS CALIFORNIA SEEMS TO ARGUE, THAT
BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES REGULATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION IN
PART ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND COLOR CLASSIFICATIONS, A STATE CAN ADOPT
ONE OR MORE OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATIONS TO PREVENT LAWFULLY ADMITTED
ALIENS WITHIN ITS BORDERS FROM EARNING A LIVING IN THE SAME WAY THAT
OTHER STATE INHABITANTS EARN THEIR LIVING.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS IN DETERMINING WHAT ALIENS SHALL BE
ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES, THE PERIOD THEY MAY REMAIN, REGULATION
OF THEIR CONDUCT BEFORE NATURALIZATION, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THEIR NATURALIZATION.  SEE HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52, 66.  UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION THE STATES ARE GRANTED NO SUCH POWERS; THEY CAN
NEITHER ADD TO NOR TAKE FROM THE CONDITIONS LAWFULLY IMPOSED BY
CONGRESS UPON ADMISSION, NATURALIZATION AND RESIDENCE OF ALIENS IN THE
UNITED STATES OR THE SEVERAL STATES.  STATE LAWS WHICH IMPOSE
DISCRIMINATORY BURDENS UPON THE ENTRANCE OR RESIDENCE OF ALIENS
LAWFULLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES CONFLICT WITH THIS CONSTITUTIONALLY
DERIVED FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION, AND HAVE ACCORDINGLY
BEEN HELD INVALID.  FN6  MOREOVER, CONGRESS, IN THE ENACTMENT OF A
COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATIVE PLAN FOR THE NATION-WIDE CONTROL AND
REGULATION OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, HAS BROADLY PROVIDED: 

"ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE
THE SAME RIGHT IN EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY TO MAKE AND ENFORCE
CONTRACTS, TO SUE, BE PARTIES, GIVE EVIDENCE, AND TO THE FULL AND EQUAL
BENEFIT OF ALL LAWS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SECURITY OF PERSONS AND
PROPERTY AS IS ENJOYED BY WHITE CITIZENS, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO LIKE
PUNISHMENT, PAINS, PENALTIES, TAXES, LICENSES, AND EXACTIONS OF EVERY
KIND, AND TO NO OTHER."  16 STAT. 140, 144, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 41. 

THE PROTECTION OF THIS SECTION HAS BEEN HELD TO EXTEND TO ALIENS AS
WELL AS TO CITIZENS.  FN7 CONSEQUENTLY THE SECTION AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT ON WHICH IT RESTS IN PART PROTECT "ALL PERSONS" AGAINST STATE
LEGISLATION BEARING UNEQUALLY UPON THEM EITHER BECAUSE OF ALIENAGE OR
COLOR.  SEE HURD V. HODGE, 334 U.S. 24.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND
THE LAWS ADOPTED UNDER ITS AUTHORITY THUS EMBODY A GENERAL POLICY THAT
ALL PERSONS LAWFULLY IN THIS COUNTRY SHALL ABIDE "IN ANY STATE" ON AN
EQUALITY OF LEGAL PRIVILEGES WITH ALL CITIZENS UNDER NON-DISCRIMINATORY
LAWS. 

ALL OF THE FOREGOING EMPHASIZES THE TENUOUSNESS OF THE STATE'S CLAIM
THAT IT HAS POWER TO SINGLE OUT AND BAN ITS LAWFUL ALIEN INHABITANTS,
AND PARTICULARLY CERTAIN RACIAL AND COLOR GROUPS WITHIN THIS CLASS OF
INHABITANTS, FROM FOLLOWING A VOCATION SIMPLY BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS PUT
SOME SUCH GROUPS IN SPECIAL CLASSIFICATIONS IN EXERCISE OF ITS BROAD
AND WHOLLY DISTINGUISHABLE POWERS OVER IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION. 
THE STATE'S LAW HERE CANNOT BE SUPPORTED IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF THIS
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF POLICIES ADOPTED BY CONGRESS IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO TREAT SEPARATELY AND DIFFERENTLY WITH ALIENS
FROM COUNTRIES COMPOSED OF PEOPLES OF MANY DIVERSE CULTURES, RACES, AND
COLORS.  FOR THESE REASONS THE POWER OF A STATE TO APPLY ITS LAWS
EXCLUSIVELY TO ITS ALIEN INHABITANTS AS A CLASS IS CONFINED WITHIN
NARROW LIMITS.    THIRD.  WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT THE "SPECIAL
PUBLIC INTEREST" ON WHICH CALIFORNIA RELIES PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR THIS
STATE BAN ON TAKAHASHI'S COMMERCIAL FISHING.  AS BEFORE POINTED OUT,
CALIFORNIA'S CLAIM OF "SPECIAL PUBLIC INTEREST" IS THAT ITS CITIZENS
ARE THE COLLECTIVE OWNERS OF FISH SWIMMING IN THE THREE-MILE BELT.  IT
IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT DID LONG AGO SAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF A STATE
COLLECTIVELY OWN "THE TIDE-WATERS  ...  AND THE FISH IN THEM, SO FAR AS
THEY ARE CAPABLE OF OWNERSHIP WHILE RUNNING."  MCCREADY V. VIRGINIA, 94
U.S. 391, 394.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19, 38;
TOOMER V. WITSELL, ANTE, P. 385.  THE MCCREADY CASE UPHELD A VIRGINIA
LAW WHICH PROHIBITED CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES FROM PLANTING OYSTERS IN
A VIRGINIA TIDEWATER RIVER.  THOUGH THE MCCREADY CASE HAS BEEN OFTEN
DISTINGUISHED, ITS RATIONALE HAS BEEN RELIED ON IN OTHER CASES,
INCLUDING GEER V. CONNECTICUT, 161 U.S. 519.  THAT DECISION, WHERE ONLY
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS INVOLVED, SUSTAINED A STATE LAW THAT, IN ORDER
TO RESTRICT THE USE OF GAME TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, PROHIBITED THE
OUT-OF-STATE TRANSPORTATION OF GAME KILLED WITHIN THE STATE.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, WHERE LOUISIANA LAWS DECLARED THAT THE STATE OWNED ALL
SHRIMP WITHIN THE WATERS OF THE STATE, BUT PERMITTED ULTIMATE SALE AND
SHIPMENT OF SHRIMP FOR CONSUMPTION OUTSIDE THAT STATE'S BOUNDARIES,
LOUISIANA WAS DENIED POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REQUIRE THE
LOCAL PROCESSING OF SHRIMP TAKEN FROM LOUISIANA MARSHES AS A
PREREQUISITE TO OUT-OF-STATE TRANSPORTATION.  FOSTER PACKING CO. V.
HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 1.  IN THE ABSENCE OF OVERRIDING FEDERAL TREATIES,
THIS COURT SUSTAINED A STATE LAW BARRING ALIENS FROM HUNTING WILD GAME
IN THE INTEREST OF CONSERVING GAME FOR CITIZENS OF THE STATE AGAINST
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGES.  PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA,
232 U.S. 138.  LATER, HOWEVER, THE FEDERAL MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT OF
1918, 40 STAT. 755, WAS SUSTAINED AS WITHIN FEDERAL POWER DESPITE THE
CLAIM OF MISSOURI OF OWNERSHIP OF BIRDS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES BASED ON
PRIOR STATEMENTS AS TO STATE OWNERSHIP OF GAME AND FISH IN THE GEER
CASE.  MISSOURI V. HOLLAND, 252 U.S. 416.  THE COURT WAS OF OPINION
THAT "TO PUT THE CLAIM OF THE STATE UPON TITLE IS TO LEAN UPON A
SLENDER REED."  P. 434.  WE THINK THAT SAME STATEMENT IS EQUALLY
APPLICABLE HERE.  TO WHATEVER EXTENT THE FISH IN THE THREE-MILE BELT
OFF CALIFORNIA MAY BE "CAPABLE OF OWNERSHIP" BY CALIFORNIA, WE THINK
THAT "OWNERSHIP" IS INADEQUATE TO JUSTIFY CALIFORNIA IN EXCLUDING ANY
OR ALL ALIENS WHO ARE LAWFUL RESIDENTS OF THE STATE FROM MAKING A
LIVING BY FISHING IN THE OCEAN OFF ITS SHORES WHILE PERMITTING ALL
OTHERS TO DO SO. 

THIS LEAVES FOR CONSIDERATION THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS LAW SHOULD BE
UPHELD ON AUTHORITY OF THOSE CASES WHICH HAVE SUSTAINED STATE LAWS
BARRING ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP FROM LAND OWNERSHIP.  FN8
ASSUMING THE CONTINUED VALIDITY OF THOSE CASES,  FN9  WE THINK THEY
COULD NOT IN ANY EVENT BE CONTROLLING HERE.  THEY RESTED SOLELY UPON
THE POWER OF STATES TO CONTROL THE DEVOLUTION AND OWNERSHIP OF LAND
WITHIN THEIR BORDERS, A POWER LONG EXERCISED AND SUPPORTED ON REASONS
PECULIAR TO REAL PROPERTY.  THEY CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO COVER THIS
CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COMPREHENSIVE LAWS ADOPTED BY CONGRESS REGULATING THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS ARE INCLUDED IN TITLE 8 OF THE
U.S. CODE; FOR CODIFICATION OF LAWS GOVERNING RACIAL AND COLOR
PREREQUISITES OF ALIENS TO CITIZENSHIP SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 703.  AN ACT
ADOPTED BY THE FIRST CONGRESS IN 1790 MADE "FREE WHITE PERSONS" ONLY
ELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP.  1 STAT. 103.  LATER ACTS HAVE EXTENDED
ELIGIBILITY OF ALIENS TO CITIZENSHIP TO THE FOLLOWING GROUPS:  IN 1870,
"ALIENS OF AFRICAN NATIVITY AND  ...  PERSONS OF AFRICAN DESCENT," 16
STAT. 254, 256; IN 1940, "DESCENDANTS OF RACES INDIGENOUS TO THE
WESTERN HEMISPHERE," 54 STAT. 1137, 1140; IN 1943, "CHINESE PERSONS OR
PERSONS OF CHINESE DESCENT," 57 STAT. 600, 601; AND IN 1946, FILIPINOS
AND "PERSONS OF RACES INDIGENOUS TO INDIA," 60 STAT. 416.  WHILE IT IS
NOT WHOLLY CLEAR WHAT RACIAL GROUPS OTHER THAN JAPANESE ARE NOW
INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP, IT IS CLEAR THAT JAPANESE ARE AMONG THE FEW
GROUPS STILL NOT ELIGIBLE, SEE OYAMA V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633, 635,
N. 3, AND THAT, ACCORDING TO THE 1940 CENSUS, JAPANESE ALIENS
CONSTITUTED THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ALIENS LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES
THEN INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP.  SEE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY IN OYAMA V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA AT 650, 665, 666, NN. 20 AND 22. 

FN2  REPORT OF THE CALIFORNIA SENATE FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON
JAPANESE RESETTLEMENT, MAY 1, 1945, PP. 5-6. 

FN3  AS AMENDED THE CODE SECTION NOW READS:  "PERSONS REQUIRED TO
PROCURE LICENSE:  TO WHOM ISSUABLE.  EVERY PERSON WHO USES OR OPERATES
OR ASSISTS IN USING OR OPERATING ANY BOAT, NET, TRAP, LINE, OR OTHER
APPLIANCE TO TAKE FISH, MOLLUSKS OR CRUSTACEANS FOR PROFIT, OR WHO
BRINGS OR CAUSES FISH, MOLLUSKS OR CRUSTACEANS TO BE BROUGHT ASHORE AT
ANY POINT IN THE STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING THE SAME IN A FRESH
STATE, SHALL PROCURE A COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENSE. 

"A COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN
A PERSON INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP.  A COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENSE MAY
BE ISSUED TO A CORPORATION ONLY IF SAID CORPORATION IS AUTHORIZED TO DO
BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, IF NONE OF THE OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS THEREOF
ARE PERSONS INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP, AND IF LESS THAN THE MAJORITY OF
EACH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS THEREOF ARE PERSONS INELIGIBLE TO
CITIZENSHIP."  CAL. FISH AND GAME CODE SEC. 990.  IN 1947 THE CODE WAS
AMENDED TO PERMIT "ANY PERSON, NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES," TO
OBTAIN HUNTING AND SPORT FISHING LICENSES, BOTH OF WHICH HAD BEEN
DENIED TO "ALIEN JAPANESE" AND TO PERSONS "INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP"
UNDER THE 1943 AND 1945 AMENDMENTS.  CAL. STATS. 1947, C. 1329; CAL.
FISH AND GAME CODE SECS. 427, 428. 

FN4  THE SUPERIOR COURT FIRST ORDERED ISSUANCE OF A COMMERCIAL
FISHING LICENSE AUTHORIZING TAKAHASHI TO BRING ASHORE "CATCHES OF FISH
FROM THE WATERS OF THE HIGH SEAS BEYOND THE STATE'S TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION."  AFTER APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT BY THE STATE
COMMISSION THE SUPERIOR COURT AMENDED ITS JUDGMENTS SO AS TO ORDER A
COMMERCIAL LICENSE AUTHORIZING TAKAHASHI TO BRING IN CATCHES OF FISH
TAKEN FROM THE THREE-MILE OCEAN BELT ADJACENT TO THE CALIFORNIA COAST
AS WELL AS FROM THE HIGH SEAS.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE
SUPERIOR COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO AMEND ITS JUDGMENT AFTER
APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE AMENDED JUDGMENT AS VOID. 
CALIFORNIA ARGUES HERE THAT ITS STATE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION IS
AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE TO ISSUE ONLY ONE TYPE OF COMMERCIAL FISHING
LICENSE, NAMELY, ONE PERMITTING OCEAN FISH TO BE BROUGHT ASHORE WHETHER
CAUGHT WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE THREE-MILE BELT, THAT THE SUPERIOR COURT'S
FIRST JUDGMENT ORDERING ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE LIMITED TO CATCHES OF
HIGH SEAS FISH DIRECTED THE COMMISSION TO DO SOMETHING IT WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO DO, AND THAT ON THIS GROUND WE SHOULD AFFIRM THE STATE
COURT'S DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED LICENSE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT DID
NOT, HOWEVER, DECIDE THE CASE ON THAT GROUND, BUT RULED AGAINST
PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHALLENGED CODE PROVISION WAS VALID
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THAT THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO
GRANT A LICENSE WAS REQUIRED BY ITS TERMS.  SINCE THE STATE COURT OF
LAST RESORT RELIED SOLELY UPON FEDERAL GROUNDS FOR ITS DECISION, WE MAY
PROPERLY REVIEW ITS ACTION HERE. 

FN5  THE OPINION CITED THE FOLLOWING CASES: MCCREADY V. VIRGINIA, 94
U.S. 391; PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138; HAUENSTEIN V. LYNHAM,
100 U.S. 483; AND BLYTHE V. HINCKLEY, 180 U.S. 333. 

FN6  TRUAX V. RAICH, SUPRA; CHY LUNG V. FREEMAN, 92 U.S. 275, 280;
SEE HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, SUPRA AT 65-68. 

FN7  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, SUPRA AT 369; UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK,
169 U.S. 649, 696; IN RE TIBURCIO PARROTT, 1 F. 481, 508-509; FRASER V.
MCCONWAY & TORLEY CO., 82 F. 257. 

FN8  TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197; PORTERFIELD V. WEBB, 263 U.S.
225; WEBB V. O'BRIEN, 263 U.S. 313; FRICK V. WEBB, 263 U.S. 326. 

FN9  SEE OYAMA V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633, 646, 649, 672. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE AGREES,
CONCURRING. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT, IN WHICH I JOIN, ADEQUATELY EXPRESSES MY
VIEWS AS TO ALL BUT ONE IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS CASE.  THAT ASPECT
RELATES TO THE FACT THAT SEC. 990 OF THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE,
BARRING THOSE INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP FROM SECURING COMMERCIAL
FISHING LICENSES, IS THE DIRECT OUTGROWTH OF ANTAGONISM TOWARD PERSONS
OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY.  EVEN THE MOST CURSORY EXAMINATION OF THE
BACKGROUND OF THE STATUTE DEMONSTRATES THAT IT WAS DESIGNED SOLELY TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SUCH PERSONS IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CONCEPT OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  LEGISLATION OF THAT TYPE IS
NOT ENTITLED TO WEAR THE CLOAK OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

THE STATUTE IN QUESTION IS BUT ONE MORE MANIFESTATION OF THE ANTI
JAPANESE FEVER WHICH HAS BEEN EVIDENT IN CALIFORNIA IN VARYING DEGREES
SINCE THE TURN OF THE CENTURY.  SEE CONCURRING OPINION IN OYAMA V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633, 650, AND DISSENTING OPINION IN KOREMATSU V.
UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214, 233.  THAT FEVER, OF COURSE, IS TRACEABLE
TO THE REFUSAL OR THE INABILITY OF CERTAIN GROUPS TO ADJUST THEMSELVES
ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY RELATIVE TO RESIDENTS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY. 
FOR SOME YEARS PRIOR TO THE JAPANESE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR, THESE
PROTAGONISTS OF INTOLERANCE HAD BEEN LEVELING UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS AND
INNUENDOES AGAINST JAPANESE FISHING CREWS OPERATING OFF THE COAST OF
CALIFORNIA.  THESE FISHERMEN NUMBERED ABOUT A THOUSAND AND MOST OF THEM
HAD LONG RESIDED IN THAT STATE.  IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED
NOT ONLY IN FISHING BUT IN ESPIONAGE AND OTHER ILLICIT ACTIVITIES ON
BEHALF OF THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT.  AS WAR WITH JAPAN APPROACHED AND
FINALLY BECAME A REALITY, THESE CHARGES WERE REPEATED WITH INCREASING
VIGOR.  YET FULL INVESTIGATIONS BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES FAILED TO
REVEAL ANY COMPETENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE; NOT EVEN ONE JAPANESE
FISHERMAN WAS ARRESTED FOR ALLEGED ESPIONAGE.  SUCH BASELESS
ACCUSATIONS CAN ONLY BE VIEWED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE LONG CAMPAIGN
TO UNDERMINE THE REPUTATION OF PERSONS OF JAPANESE BACKGROUND AND TO
DISCOURAGE THEIR RESIDENCE IN CALIFORNIA.  SEE MCWILLIAMS, PREJUDICE
(1944), CH. VII. 

MORE SPECIFICALLY, THESE ACCUSATIONS WERE USED TO SECURE THE PASSAGE
OF DISCRIMINATORY FISHING LEGISLATION.  BUT SUCH LEGISLATION WAS NOT
IMMEDIATELY FORTHCOMING.  THE CONTINUED PRESENCE IN CALIFORNIA OF THE
JAPANESE FISHERMEN WITHOUT THE OCCURRENCE OF ANY UNTOWARD INCIDENTS ON
THEIR PART SERVED FOR A TIME AS ADEQUATE AND LIVING REFUTATION OF THE
PROPAGANDA.  THEN CAME THE EVACUATION OF ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE
ANCESTRY FROM THE WEST COAST.  SEE KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
ONCE EVACUATION WAS ACHIEVED, AN INTENSIVE CAMPAIGN WAS BEGUN TO
PREVENT THE RETURN TO CALIFORNIA OF THE EVACUEES.  ALL OF THE OLD
CHARGES, INCLUDING THE ONES RELATING TO THE FISHERMEN, WERE REFURBISHED
AND AUGMENTED.  THIS TIME THE JAPANESE WERE ABSENT AND WERE UNABLE TO
PROVIDE EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION.  THE WINDS OF RACIAL ANIMOSITY BLEW
UNABATED. 

DURING THE HEIGHT OF THIS RACIAL STORM IN 1943, NUMEROUS ANTI
JAPANESE BILLS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATORS.  SEVERAL
AMENDMENTS TO THE ALIEN LAND LAW WERE ENACTED.  AND SEC. 990 OF THE
FISH AND GAME CODE WAS ALTERED TO PROVIDE THAT "A COMMERCIAL FISHING
LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN AN ALIEN JAPANESE."  NO
PRETENSE WAS MADE THAT THIS ALTERATION WAS IN THE INTERESTS OF
CONSERVATION.  IT WAS MADE AT A TIME WHEN ALL ALIEN JAPANESE WERE
EXCLUDED FROM CALIFORNIA, WITH NO IMMEDIATE RETURN INDICATED; THUS THE
BANNING OF FISHING LICENSES FOR THEM COULD HAVE NO EARLY EFFECT UPON
THE CONSERVATION OF FISH.  MOREOVER, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THIS
AMENDMENT WAS PASSED WAS ONE IN WHICH BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE
AUTHORITIES WERE DOING THEIR UTMOST TO ENCOURAGE GREATER FOOD
PRODUCTION FOR WARTIME PURPOSES.  THE MAIN DESIRE AT THIS TIME WAS TO
INCREASE RATHER THAN TO DECREASE THE CATCH OF FISH.  CERTAINLY THE
CONTEMPORANEOUS BULLETINS AND REPORTS OF THE BUREAU OF MARINE FISHERIES
OF CALIFORNIA DID NOT INDICATE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY CONSERVATION
PROBLEM DUE TO AN EXCESS NUMBER OF FISHERMEN.  SEE THIRTY-EIGHTH
BIENNIAL REPORT (JULY 1, 1944), PP. 33-36; FISH BULLETIN NO. 58, FOR
THE YEAR 1940; FISH BULLETIN NO. 59, FOR THE YEARS 1941 AND 1942. 

THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY CONFIRM THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT THE 1943
AMENDMENT TO SEC. 990 WAS INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE THE RETURN TO
CALIFORNIA OF JAPANESE ALIENS.  BY TAKING AWAY THEIR COMMERCIAL FISHING
RIGHTS, THE LIVES OF THOSE ALIENS WHO PLIED THE FISHERMAN'S TRADE WOULD
BE MADE MORE DIFFICULT AND UNREMUNERATIVE.  AND THE NON-JAPANESE
FISHERMEN WOULD THEREBY BE FREE FROM THE COMPETITION AFFORDED BY THESE
ALIENS.  THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
HOWEVER, DOES NOT PERMIT A STATE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST RESIDENT
ALIENS IN SUCH A FASHION, WHETHER THE PURPOSE BE TO GIVE EFFECT TO
RACIAL ANIMOSITY OR TO PROTECT THE COMPETITIVE INTERESTS OF OTHER
RESIDENTS. 

THE 1945 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 990 WHICH IS NOW BEFORE US STANDS IN NO
BETTER POSITION THAN THE 1943 AMENDMENT.  THIS LATER ALTERATION
ELIMINATED THE REFERENCE TO "ALIEN JAPANESE" AND SUBSTITUTED THEREFOR
"A PERSON INELIGIBLE TO CITZENSHIP."  ADOPTION OF THIS CHANGE ALSO
OCCURRED DURING A PERIOD WHEN ANTI-JAPANESE AGITATION IN CALIFORNIA HAD
REACHED ONE OF ITS PERIODIC PEAKS.  THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE END OF THE
JAPANESE EXCLUSION ORDERS, PLUS THIS COURT'S DECISION IN EX PARTE ENDO,
323 U.S. 283, MADE THE RETURN TO CALIFORNIA OF MANY OF THE EVACUEES A
REASONABLE CERTAINTY.  THE PREJUDICES, THE ANTAGONISMS AND THE HATREDS
WERE ONCE AGAIN AROUSED, PUNCTUATED THIS TIME BY NUMEROUS ACTS OF
VIOLENCE AGAINST THE RETURNING JAPANESE AMERICANS.  ANOTHER WAVE OF
ANTI-JAPANESE PROPOSALS MARKED THE 1945 LEGISLATIVE SESSION.  IT WAS IN
THIS SETTING THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 990 WAS PROPOSED AND ENACTED IN
1945.    IT IS OF INTEREST AND SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE AMENDMENT IN
QUESTION WAS PROPOSED BY A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE DEVOTED TO JAPANESE
RESETTLEMENT PROBLEMS, NOT BY A COMMITTEE CONCERNED WITH THE
CONSERVATION OF FISH.  THE SENATE FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON JAPANESE
RESETTLEMENT ISSUED A REPORT ON MAY 1, 1945.  THIS REPORT DEALT WITH
SUCH MATTERS AS THE ALIEN LAND LAW, THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, DUAL
CITIZENSHIP AND THE TULE LAKE RIOT.  AND UNDER THE HEADING "JAPANESE
FISHING BOATS" (PP. 5-6) APPEARED THIS EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO SEC. 990: 

"THE COMMITTEE GAVE LITTLE CONSIDERATION TO THE PROBLEMS OF THE USE
OF FISHING VESSELS ON OUR COAST OWNED AND OPERATED BY JAPANESE, SINCE
THIS MATTER SEEMS TO HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN COVERED BY LEGISLATION.  THE
COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, FEELS THAT THERE IS DANGER OF THE PRESENT STATUTE
BEING DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ON THE GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION,
SINCE IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ALIEN JAPANESE.  IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS
LEGAL QUESTION CAN PROBABLY BE ELIMINATED BY AN AMENDMENT WHICH HAS
BEEN PROPOSED TO THE BILL WHICH WOULD MAKE IT APPLY TO ANY ALIEN WHO IS
INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP.  THE COMMITTEE HAS INTRODUCED SENATE BILL
413 TO MAKE THIS CHANGE IN THE STATUTE." 

NOT A WORD WAS SAID IN THIS REPORT REGARDING THE NEED FOR THE
CONSERVATION OF FISH OR THE NECESSITY OF LIMITING THE NUMBER OF
FISHERMEN.  THE OBVIOUS THOUGHT BEHIND THE AMENDMENT WAS TO ATTEMPT TO
LEGALIZE THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JAPANESE ALIEN FISHERMEN BY
DROPPING THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THEM. 

THE PROPOSED REVISION WAS ADOPTED.  THE TRIAL COURT BELOW CORRECTLY
DESCRIBED THE SITUATION AS FOLLOWS:  "AS IT WAS COMMONLY KNOWN TO THE
LEGISLATORS OF 1945 THAT JAPANESE WERE THE ONLY ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO
CITIZENSHIP WHO ENGAGED IN COMMERCIAL FISHING IN OCEAN WATERS BORDERING
ON CALIFORNIA, AND AS THE COURT MUST TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE SAME
FACT, IT BECOMES MANIFEST THAT IN ENACTING THE PRESENT VERSION OF
JAPANESE FROM THOSE ENTITLED TO A COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENSE BY MEANS
OF DESCRIPTION RATHER THAN BY NAME.  TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES AND IN
EFFECT THE PROVISION IN THE 1943 AND 1945 AMENDMENTS ARE THE SAME, THE
THIN VEIL USED TO CONCEAL A PURPOSE BEING TOO TRANSPARENT.  UNDER EACH
AND BOTH, ALIEN JAPANESE ARE DENIED A RIGHT TO A LICENSE TO CATCH FISH
ON THE HIGH SEAS FOR PROFIT, AND TO BRING THEM TO SHORE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF SELLING THE SAME IN A FRESH STATE  ...  THIS DISCRIMINATION
CONSTITUTES AN UNEQUAL EXACTION AND A GREATER BURDEN UPON THE PERSONS
OF THE CLASS NAMED THAN THAT IMPOSED UPON OTHERS IN THE SAME CALLING
AND UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS, AND AMOUNTS TO PROHIBITION.  THIS
DISCRIMINATION, PATENTLY HOSTILE, IS NOT BASED UPON A REASONABLE GROUND
OF CLASSIFICATION AND, TO THAT EXTENT, THE SECTION IS IN VIOLATION OF
STATES,  ...  " 

WE SHOULD NOT BLINK AT THE FACT THAT SEC. 990, AS NOW WRITTEN, IS A
DISCRIMINATORY PIECE OF LEGISLATION HAVING NO RELATION WHATEVER TO ANY
CONSTITUTIONALLY COGNIZABLE INTEREST OF CALIFORNIA.  IT WAS DRAWN
AGAINST A BACKGROUND OF RACIAL AND ECONOMIC TENSION.  IT IS DIRECTED IN
SPIRIT AND IN EFFECT SOLELY AGAINST ALIENS OF JAPANESE BIRTH.  IT
DENIES THEM COMMERCIAL FISHING RIGHTS NOT BECAUSE THEY THREATEN THE
SUCCESS OF ANY CONSERVATION PROGRAM, NOT BECAUSE THEIR FISHING
ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE WELFARE OF
CALIFORNIA OR OF THE NATION, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE OF JAPANESE
STOCK, A STOCK WHICH HAS HAD THE MISFORTUNE TO AROUSE ANTAGONISM AMONG
CERTAIN POWERFUL INTERESTS.  WE NEED BUT UNBUTTON THE SEEMINGLY
INNOCENT WORDS OF SEC. 990 TO DISCOVER BENEATH THEM THE VERY NEGATION
OF ALL THE IDEALS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  NO MORE IS NECESSARY
TO WARRANT A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

THE REASONS WHICH LEAD ME TO CONCLUDE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE AFFIRMED MAY BE BRIEFLY STATED. 
AS FISHING RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TREATED TRADITIONALLY AS A NATURAL
RESOURCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL REGULATION, CALIFORNIA AS A
SOVEREIGN STATE HAS POWER TO REGULATE THE TAKING AND HANDLING OF FISH
IN THE WATERS BORDERING ITS SHORES.  FN1  IT IS, I THINK, ONE OF THE
NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE THAT MAY BE PRESERVED FROM EXPLOITATION
BY ALIENS.  FN2  THE GROUND FOR THIS POWER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY IS CALIFORNIA'S AUTHORITY OVER ITS
FISHERIES. 

THE RIGHT TO FISH IS ANALOGOUS TO THE RIGHT TO OWN LAND, A PRIVILEGE
WHICH A STATE MAY DENY TO ALIENS AS TO LAND WITHIN ITS BORDERS. 
TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197.  FN3  IT IS CLOSELY AKIN TO THE
RIGHT TO HUNT, A PRIVILEGE FROM WHICH A STATE MAY BAR ALIENS, IF
REASONABLY DEEMED ADVANTAGEOUS TO ITS CITIZENS.  FN4  A STATE'S POWER
HAS EVEN BEEN HELD TO EXTEND TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALIENS FROM THE
OPERATION OF POOL AND BILLIARD HALLS WHEN A CITY DEEMED THEM NOT AS
WELL QUALIFIED AS CITIZENS FOR THE CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS THOUGHT TO
HAVE HARMFUL TENDENCIES.  CLARKE V. DECKEBACH, 274 U.S. 392.  FN5 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PURSUED A POLICY OF EQUAL TREATMENT OF
ALIENS AND CITIZENS.  CITIZENS HAVE RIGHTS SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF ALIENS
IN THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND IN EXPLOITING NATURAL RESOURCES.  FN6
PERHAPS CONGRESS AS A MATTER OF IMMIGRATION POLICY MAY REQUIRE THAT
STATES OPEN EVERY DOOR OF OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA TO ALL RESIDENT
ALIENS, BUT UNTIL CONGRESS SO DETERMINES AS TO FISHERIES, I DO NOT FEEL
THAT THE JUDICIAL ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REQUIRE THE STATES TO
ADMIT ALL ALIENS TO THIS PRIVILEGE. 

CERTAINLY TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, UPON WHICH THE MAJORITY
OPINION APPEARS TO RELY IN HOLDING THAT THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE DENIES
EQUAL PROTECTION IN ATTEMPTING TO CLASSIFY ALIENS BY PUTTING
RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR RIGHT TO LAND FISH, IS NOT AN AUTHORITY FOR SUCH
A DECISION.  THE POWER OF A STATE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ALIENS ON
PUBLIC WORKS AND THE EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES WAS RECOGNIZED
IN THAT CASE.  FN7  AND, AT THE VERY TIME THAT IT WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION, THIS COURT ALSO HAD BEFORE IT HEIM V. MCCALL, 239 U.S.
175.  FN8  IN THAT CASE, HEIM ATTACKED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NEW
YORK STATUTE WHICH PROVIDED THAT "IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS
BY THE STATE OR A MUNICIPALITY, OR BY PERSONS CONTRACTING WITH THE
STATE OR SUCH MUNICIPALITY, ONLY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE
EMPLOYED; AND IN ALL CASES WHERE LABORERS ARE EMPLOYED ON ANY SUCH
PUBLIC WORKS, PREFERENCE SHALL BE GIVEN CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK."  FN9  A UNANIMOUS COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTE, WHICH WAS
ATTACKED ON THE GROUND THAT IT DENIED ALIENS THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, DUE PROCESS, AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF
THE CONSTITUTION, WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF STATE POWER AS
APPLIED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW YORK CITY SUBWAYS BY PRIVATE
CONTRACTORS.  FN10  THE CONSTITUTION THAT PERMITS THE BAR OF ALIENS
FROM PUBLIC WORKS SURELY MUST PERMIT THEIR BAR FROM STATE FISHING
RIGHTS.  A STATE HAS POWER TO EXCLUDE FROM ENJOYMENT OF ITS NATURAL
RESOURCES THOSE WHO ARE UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO BECOME CITIZENS. 

IF ALIENS, AS I THINK THEY CAN, MAY BE EXCLUDED BY A STATE FROM
FISHING PRIVILEGES, I SEE NO REASON WHY THE CLASSIFICATION ESTABLISHED
BY CALIFORNIA EXCLUDING ONLY ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP IS
PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197,
220.  WHATEVER WE MAY THINK OF THE WISDOM OF CALIFORNIA'S STATUTE, WE
SHOULD INTERVENE ONLY WHEN WE CONCLUDE THE STATE STATUTE PASSES
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS. 

FN1  BAYSIDE FISH FLOUR CO. V. GENTRY, 297 U.S. 422, 425. 

THE STATUTE, SEE NOTE 3 OF THE COURT'S OPINION FOR THE TEXT, SEEMS
OBVIOUSLY TO CAST NO BURDEN ON COMMERCE. 

A WASHINGTON STATUTE SIMILAR TO THE ONE NOW BEFORE US WAS CONSIDERED
IN LUBETICH V. POLLOCK, 6 F.2D 237. 

FN2  EVEN CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BY A STATE FROM
SUCH OPPORTUNITIES.  MCCREADY V. VIRGINIA, 94 U.S. 391(PLANTING OYSTER
BEDS).  FISHING LICENSES DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN RESIDENTS AND NON
RESIDENTS ARE PERMISSIBLE.  HAAVIK V. ALASKA PACKERS ASSN., 263 U.S.
510. 

FN3  THE RIGHT OF AN ALIEN TO OWN LAND IS CONTROLLED BY THE LAW OF
THE STATE IN WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED.  SUCH WAS THE RULE OF THE
COMMON LAW.  COLLINGWOOD V. PACE, 1 VENT.  413, 86 ENG. REP. 262.  THAT
HAS LONG BEEN THE LAW OF NATIONS, 2 VATTEL, LAW OF NATIONS (1883) C. 8,
SEC. 114, AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THIS COUNTRY.  CHIRAC V. CHIRAC, 2
WHEAT.  259; LEVY V. M'CARTEE, 6 PET. 102, 113; HAUENSTEIN V. LYNHAM,
100 U.S. 483; BLYTHE V. HINCKLEY, 180 U.S. 333, 341.  WHETHER THE
PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF THAT POWER, OR THE POWER OVER FISH AND GAME, IS
A THEORY OF OWNERSHIP OR TRUSTEESHIP FOR ITS CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS OR
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES OR PROTECTION OF ITS LAND OR COASTS
IS NOT MATERIAL.  THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND RESTS IN
SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND, IN THE UNITED STATES, IT RESTS WITH THE
INDIVIDUAL STATES IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL ACTION BY TREATY OR
OTHERWISE. 

FN4  PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138.  IN EXPRESSING THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES PHRASED THE RULE AS
FOLLOWS, PP. 145-46:  "IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THE SUBJECT OF THIS
WHOLE DISCUSSION IS WILD GAME, WHICH THE STATE MAY PRESERVE FOR ITS OWN
CITIZENS IF IT PLEASES." 

FN5  IN THAT CASE A UNANIMOUS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE
STONE, SAID, P. 396: 

"THE OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ORDINANCE ARE NOT
PERSUASIVE.  ALTHOUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO
PROHIBIT PLAINLY IRRATIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALIENS, ...  IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT ALIEN RACE AND ALLEGIANCE MAY NOT BEAR IN SOME
INSTANCES SUCH A RELATION TO A LEGITIMATE OBJECT OF LEGISLATION AS TO
BE MADE THE BASIS OF A PERMITTED CLASSIFICATION." 

FN6  THE UNITED STATES LIMITS THE RIGHTS OF ALIENS AS COMPARED WITH
CITIZENS IN LAND OWNERSHIP IN ITS TERRITORIES, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 71-86; IN
DISPOSITION OF MINERAL LANDS, 30 U.S.C. SEC. 181; OF PUBLIC LANDS, 43
U.S.C. SEC. 161; IN ENGAGING IN COASTWISE TRADE, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 11,
13; IN OPERATING AIRCRAFT, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 176(C), 521. 

IT WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO LIMIT THE BENEFITS OF THE EMERGENCY RELIEF
APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1938 TO ALIENS WHO HAD "FILED A DECLARATION OF
INTENTION TO BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN  ...  "  52 STAT. 809, 813. 

FN7  239 U.S. 33, 39-40:  "THE DISCRIMINATION DEFINED BY THE ACT DOES
NOT PERTAIN TO THE REGULATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, OR
OF THE COMMON PROPERTY OR RESOURCES OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, THE
ENJOYMENT OF WHICH MAY BE LIMITED TO ITS CITIZENS AS AGAINST BOTH
ALIENS AND THE CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES.  ...  THE CASE NOW PRESENTED
IS NOT WITHIN THESE DECISIONS, OR WITHIN THOSE RELATING TO THE
DEVOLUTION OF REAL PROPERTY  ...  ; AND IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT THE ACT
IS NOT LIMITED TO PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED ON PUBLIC WORK OR RECEIVE THE
BENEFIT OF PUBLIC MONEYS.  THE DISCRIMINATION HERE INVOLVED IS IMPOSED
UPON THE CONDUCT OF ORDINARY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE." 

FN8  TRUAX V. RAICH, SUPRA, WAS ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1915, AND DECIDED
NOVEMBER 1, 1915; HEIM V. MCCALL, SUPRA, WAS ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1915,
AND DECIDED NOVEMBER 29, 1915. 

FN9  239 U.S. 175, 176-77. 

FN10  THE PROBLEM OF NATURAL RESOURCES WAS NOT DIRECTLY DISCUSSED IN
THE OPINION.  BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT WAS NOT UNAWARE OF THE
RELATION OF ITS DECISION TO THE NATURAL RESOURCES CASES.  SEE 239 U.S.
175, 194.  THE FACT THAT THIS CASE WAS BEFORE THE COURT AT THE SAME
TIME AS TRUAX V. RAICH, PROBABLY EXPLAINS THE CAREFUL RESERVATION OF
THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS PROBLEMS IN THAT CASE.  SEE 239
U.S. 33, 39-40. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :











PHYLE V. DUFFY, 334 U.S. 431 


NO. 655.  ARGUED APRIL 20-21, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 30
CAL.2D 838, 186 P.2D 134, CERTIORARI DISMISSED. 


PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER, SENTENCED TO DEATH, AND IMPRISONED
PENDING EXECUTION.  IN COMPLIANCE WITH A CALIFORNIA STATUTE FORBIDDING
THE EXECUTION OF AN INSANE PERSON AND PRESCRIBING A PROCEDURE FOR
OBTAINING A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF A PRISONER'S SANITY (TO BE
INITIATED BY THE WARDEN IF "THERE IS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE" THAT HE
HAS BECOME INSANE), PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED INSANE AND TAKEN TO A STATE
HOSPITAL.  THEREAFTER, WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING, THE MEDICAL
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE HOSPITAL CERTIFIED THAT PETITIONER'S REASON HAD
BEEN RESTORED; AND HE WAS RETURNED TO PRISON AND A NEW DATE WAS SET FOR
HIS EXECUTION.  HE INSTITUTED A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN THE STATE
SUPREME COURT; BUT THAT COURT DENIED RELIEF.  HELD:  SINCE THE JUDGMENT
DENYING HABEAS CORPUS MAY REST ON THE ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND THAT
PETITIONER HAD PURSUED THE WRONG STATE REMEDY, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE
FOR THIS COURT AT THIS TIME TO PASS ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  PP. 432-444. 

(A)  IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A STATE REMEDY BY MANDAMUS AVAILABLE TO
PETITIONER UNDER WHICH HE CAN INVOKE JUDICIAL ACTION TO COMPEL THE
WARDEN TO AGAIN INITIATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE PETITIONER'S
SANITY AND THAT IN SUCH MANDAMUS PROCEEDING THE COURT WILL HEAR AND
CONSIDER EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS "REASON TO BELIEVE"
THAT PETITIONER IN INSANE.  PP. 440-442. 

(B)  NOBLES V. GEORGIA, 168 U.S. 398, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 437-439. 

(C)  A DECLARATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA THAT
PETITIONER HAS NOT AVAILED HIMSELF OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE REMEDY IS
ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTROLLING STATE STATUTES
AND COURT DECISIONS.  P. 441. 

(D)  ALTHOUGH MANDAMUS MIGHT NOT BE AVAILABLE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW IF
THERE WERE ANOTHER REMEDY, SO FAR AS HERE APPEARS, AND IN THE LIGHT OF
THE DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT, MANDAMUS TO COMPEL ACTION BY
THE WARDEN IS THE ONLY REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER.  P. 442. 

(E)  THIS COURT CAN NOT SAY AT THIS TIME THAT THE REMEDY BY MANDAMUS
AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW WILL BE LESS THAN A
SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT OF ONE WHEREBY HE COULD APPLY DIRECTLY TO A
COURT FOR A FULL HEARING.  PP. 442-444. 

PHYLE V. DUFFY, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY PETITIONER IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, THAT COURT DENIED RELIEF.  30 CAL.2D 838, 186 P.2D
134.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 841.  CERTIORARI
DISMISSED, P. 444. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER IS UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE IMPOSED BY A CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT AND AFFIRMED BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT.  28 CAL.2D 671, 171 P.2D 428.  THE VALIDITY OF THAT
SENTENCE IS NOT HERE CHALLENGED.  FN1  BUT SEC. 1367 OF THE CALIFORNIA
PENAL CODE PROVIDES THAT "A PERSON CANNOT BE TRIED, ADJUDGED TO
PUNISHMENT, OR PUNISHED FOR A PUBLIC OFFENSE, WHILE HE IS INSANE." 
THUS IF PETITIONER IS INSANE, CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS HIS EXECUTION
UNDER THE DEATH SENTENCE WHICH HE RECEIVED.  THE LEGAL QUESTIONS HERE
PRESENTED RELATE TO THE PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY CALIFORNIA TO DETERMINE
WHETHER PETITIONER IS SANE OR INSANE AS A MATTER OF FACT. 

IT IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT, THOUGH HAVING BEEN PRONOUNCED
INSANE IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AFTER HIS CONVICTION, AND THOUGH HE IN
FACT IS STILL INSANE, HE IS ABOUT TO BE EXECUTED BECAUSE A STATE
DOCTOR, ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY OF STATE STATUTES, HAS DECLARED HIM
RESTORED TO SANITY.  THE DOCTOR REACHED HIS DETERMINATION WITHOUT
NOTICE OR HEARINGS, AND WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY ON PETITIONER'S PART TO
OBTAIN AN ORIGINAL COURT HEARING AND ADJUDICATION OF HIS SANITY, OR
EVEN TO OBTAIN A COURT REVIEW OF THE DOCTOR'S CONCLUSION THAT HE IS
SANE.  THIS PROCEDURE IT IS ARGUED CONSTITUTES A DENIAL TO PETITIONER
OF THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED HIM BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THIS CONTENTION WAS URGED UPON THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS THERE INSTITUTED.  THAT COURT ENTERTAINED AND
CONSIDERED THE PETITION, BUT, WITH TWO JUDGES DISSENTING, DENIED
RELIEF, SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF THE POWER OF THE STATE'S EXECUTIVE
AGENTS TO FOLLOW THE PRESCRIBED STATUTORY PROCEDURES.  30 CAL.2D 838,
186 P.2D 134.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUS NATURE OF
THE DUE PROCESS CONTENTIONS PRESENTED IN THE PETITION.  333 U.S. 841. 
HERE THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHILE SUPPORTING THE STATE
SUPREME COURT'S DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS, ASSERTS THAT CALIFORNIA
AFFORDS PETITIONER AN ADEQUATE JUDICIAL REMEDY BY WAY OF MANDAMUS, A
PROCEDURE WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN SOUGHT BY PETITIONER. 

THE CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE MAY PERHAPS BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD BY
EXPLAINING THE APPLICATION OF THE CONTROLLING CALIFORNIA STATUTES TO
PETITIONER'S CASE.  WHILE HE WAS IN PRISON AWAITING EXECUTION OF THE
DEATH SENTENCE A QUESTION AROSE CONCERNING THE PETITIONER'S SANITY AT
THAT TIME.  SECTION 3701 OF THE STATE PENAL CODE  FN2  PRESCRIBES THAT
IF "THERE IS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE" THAT A DEFENDANT UNDER SENTENCE OF
DEATH "HAS BECOME INSANE, THE WARDEN MUST CALL SUCH FACT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY."  IT IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
"DUTY" IMMEDIATELY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN AN APPROPRIATE TRIAL
COURT TO DETERMINE THE SANITY OF THE DEFENDANT, AND THE COURT "MUST AT
ONCE" SUMMON A JURY OF TWELVE TO "HEAR SUCH INQUIRY."  IN PETITIONER'S
CASE THIS PRESCRIBED COURSE WAS FOLLOWED, A JUDICIAL HEARING WAS HELD
AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 3702,  FN3 AND PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED INSANE.  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 3703  FN4  THE COURT THEN ORDERED THAT PETITIONER
"BE TAKEN TO A STATE HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE AND BE THERE KEPT IN SAFE
CONFINEMENT UNTIL HIS REASON IS RESTORED."  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE
PETITIONER OBTAINED A JUDICIAL HEARING AS TO SANITY ONLY BECAUSE THE
WARDEN INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS AFTER DETERMINING THAT THERE WAS "GOOD
REASON TO BELIEVE" THAT THE PETITIONER WAS INSANE.  THUS, THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR A PERSON UNDER SENTENCE OF DEATH TO HAVE A HEARING
BEFORE JUDGE AND JURY ON THE QUESTION OF HIS SANITY DEPENDS IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE SOLELY ON THE WARDEN. 

AFTER ADJUDICATION OF INSANITY THE PETITIONER WAS TAKEN TO A STATE
HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER OF
COMMITMENT.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 3704  FN5  THE WARDEN THEN
SUSPENDED THE DEATH SENTENCE AND DELIVERED CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE
COURT'S ORDER TO THE GOVERNOR AND TO THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT OF THE
STATE HOSPITAL TO WHICH PETITIONER WAS SENT.  AS SEC. 3704 PROVIDES,
THE SUPERINTENDENT WAS DIRECTED THAT WHEN PETITIONER "RECOVERS HIS
REASON," THE SUPERINTENDENT "MUST CERTIFY THAT FACT" TO THE GOVERNOR,
WHO IS THEN REQUIRED TO ISSUE TO THE WARDEN HIS WARRANT APPOINTING A
DAY FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT.  THE WARDEN THEN RETURNS THE
DEFENDANT TO THE STATE PRISON PENDING THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT. 
THIS COURSE WAS FOLLOWED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PETITIONER.  EIGHTEEN
DAYS AFTER HIS ADMISSION TO THE STATE HOSPITAL THE MEDICAL
SUPERINTENDENT CERTIFIED TO THE GOVERNOR THAT THE PETITIONER WAS THEN
SANE.  HE WAS RETURNED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE PRISON WARDEN, AND THE
GOVERNOR SET A NEW DATE FOR HIS EXECUTION. 

THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT'S DETERMINATION OF PETITIONER'S SANITY WAS
BASED ON HIS OWN EX PARTE INVESTIGATION, NO NOTICE OR HEARINGS HAVING
BEEN AFFORDED PETITIONER OR ANY PERSON ON HIS BEHALF.  IT IS THUS CLEAR
THAT THE CALIFORNIA STATUTORY SCHEME HERE CHALLENGED PROVIDES NEITHER
AN ADMINISTRATIVE NOR A JUDICIAL HEARING AS A PREREQUISITE TO A
DETERMINATION THAT A CONDEMNED DEFENDANT JUDICIALLY ADJUDICATED TO BE
INSANE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO SANITY; ONE MAN IN AN EX PARTE
INVESTIGATION DECIDES THE QUESTION UPON WHICH HANGS THE DEFENDANT'S
LIFE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A LATER REQUEST BY THE PRISON WARDEN FOR A
JUDICIAL HEARING ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS THEN "REASON TO BELIEVE"
THE DEFENDANT HAS BECOME INSANE. 

THE HOLDING OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THE HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING WAS: 

"THERE IS NO AUTHORITY  ...  FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT DEFENDANT HAS A
RIGHT TO HABEAS CORPUS OR OTHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE
QUESTION OF HIS SANITY AFTER HIS RELEASE FROM THE STATE HOSPITAL.  IN
FACT, SECTION 3700 OF THE PENAL CODE  FN6  EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS SUCH A
PROCEEDING.  ONCE THE SUPERINTENDENT CERTIFIES THAT DEFENDANT IS SANE,
HE IS REMANDED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE WARDEN FOR EXECUTION AND 'NO
JUDGE, COURT OR OTHER OFFICER OTHER THAN THE GOVERNOR' CAN THEN SUSPEND
THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT, 'EXCEPT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE PRISON
TO WHOM HE IS DELIVERED.  ...  '"  IN RE PHYLE, 30 CAL.2D AT 842-843,
186 P.2D AT 137. 

FOR THE STATEMENTS IN ITS OPINION THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONFERRED NO RIGHT ON A CONDEMNED DEFENDANT TO ANY
KIND OF JUDICIAL ADJUDICATION OR REVIEW ON THE QUESTION OF SANITY, THE
STATE SUPREME COURT PRIMARILY RELIED ON NOBLES V. GEORGIA, 168 U.S.
398.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT EITHER THE ACTUAL HOLDING OR WHAT WAS SAID
IN THE OPINION IN THAT CASE WOULD NECESSARILY REQUIRE A REJECTION OF
THE CONTENTIONS MADE HERE AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA PROCEDURES. 

THE GEORGIA LAW UNDER SCRUTINY IN THE NOBLES CASE PROVIDED THAT THE
SANITY OF A PERSON PREVIOUSLY CONDEMNED TO DEATH SHOULD BE DETERMINED
BY A TRIBUNAL FORMED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: "THE SHERIFF OF THE
COUNTY, WITH THE CONCURRENCE AND ASSISTANCE OF THE ORDINARY THEREOF,
SHALL SUMMON A JURY OF TWELVE MEN TO INQUIRE INTO SUCH INSANITY  ...  "
IF THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND INSANITY THE SHERIFF WAS REQUIRED TO SUSPEND
EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND REPORT HIS ACTION TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE. 
RESTORATION OF SANITY SO AS TO JUSTIFY EXECUTION WAS TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE "BY INQUISITION OR OTHERWISE."  THUS "THE ONLY
QUESTION" IN THE NOBLES CASE, AS THE COURT THERE SAID, WAS "WHETHER
...  IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE DUE PROCESS OF LAW" THE QUESTION OF
INSANITY OF A CONDEMNED DEFENDANT MUST "BE TRIED BY A JURY IN A
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING SURROUNDED BY ALL THE SAFEGUARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
OF A COMMON LAW JURY TRIAL, AND EVEN ALTHOUGH BY THE STATE LAW FULL AND
ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE AND QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS IS CREATED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATING THE SUGGESTION."  P. 405.  THIS AGENCY FOR A
HEARING TO INQUIRE INTO THE PRISONER'S SANITY, COMPOSED AS IT WAS OF
SHERIFF, COUNTY JUDGE AND JURY, WAS REFERRED TO AS AN "APT AND SPECIAL
TRIBUNAL."  THERE IS PROVISION IN THE CALIFORNIA STATUTES FOR A HEARING
BEFORE A JUDGE AND JURY WHEN, BUT ONLY WHEN, THE WARDEN IS OF OPINION
THAT THERE "IS REASON TO BELIEVE" A DEFENDANT IS INSANE. 

THE NOBLES CASE DOES STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A CONDEMNED
DEFENDANT HAS NO "ABSOLUTE RIGHT" TO A HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF HIS
SANITY ON HIS MERE "SUGGESTION."  SUCH AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT, THIS COURT
THOUGHT, WOULD MAKE THE PUNISHMENT OF A DEFENDANT "DEPEND SOLELY UPON
HIS FECUNDITY IN MAKING SUGGESTION AFTER SUGGESTION OF INSANITY, TO BE
FOLLOWED BY TRIAL UPON TRIAL."  P. 406.  FOR THIS REASON, THE COURT IN
THE NOBLES OPINION CITED AND QUOTED FROM LEGAL COMMENTATORS AND FROM
JUDICIAL OPINIONS WHICH EMPHASIZED, AS THE OPINION IN THE NOBLES CASE
ITSELF EMPHASIZED, THE IMPORTANCE OF LEAVING TO THE "DISCRETION OF A
JUDGE" THE MOST APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE SANITY OF A
DEFENDANT ALREADY SENTENCED TO DEATH.  IT WAS IN THIS CONNECTION THAT
THE COURT MADE THE STATEMENT IN THE NOBLES CASE UPON WHICH THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT PARTICULARLY RELIED, THAT "THE MANNER IN WHICH
SUCH QUESTION SHOULD BE DETERMINED WAS PURELY A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE
REGULATION." 

READING THIS STATEMENT IN ITS CONTEXT AND IN RELATION TO THE GEORGIA
PROCEDURE, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURT IN THE NOBLES CASE
PASSED UPON THE QUESTION HERE URGED:  WHETHER A STATE WHICH BARS THE
EXECUTION OF INSANE PERSONS CAN SUBMIT TO A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL THIS
QUESTION, CRUCIAL TO LIFE, TO BE DECIDED BY THAT INDIVIDUAL EX PARTE,
WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARINGS AS THE INDIVIDUAL MAY CHOOSE, AND
WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL SUPERVISION, CONTROL OR REVIEW WHATEVER.  THE
NOBLES CASE WE DO UNDERSTAND TO BE AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT
A CONDEMNED DEFENDANT CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BLOCK EXECUTION BY
SUGGESTIONS OF INSANITY, AND THAT A STATE TRIBUNAL, PARTICULARLY A
JUDGE, MUST BE LEFT FREE TO EXERCISE A REASONABLE DISCRETION IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE FACTS WARRANT A FULL INQUIRY AND HEARING UPON
THE SANITY OF A PERSON SENTENCED TO DEATH.  FN7 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID PREVIOUSLY INDICATES THE GRAVITY OF THE QUESTIONS
HERE RAISED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS HERETOFORE CONSTRUED BY
THIS COURT, BOTH THE CONTENTION THAT EXECUTION OF AN INSANE MAN IS
OFFENSIVE TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH
LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, ADAMSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46; CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173, AND THE
DIFFERENT CONTENTION THAT LIFE SHALL NOT BE TAKEN BY A STATE AS THE
RESULT OF THE UNREVIEWABLE EX PARTE DETERMINATION OF A CRUCIAL FACT
MADE BY A SINGLE EXECUTIVE OFFICER.  SEE NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S.
276.  FN8  IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR US TO PASS ON SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS IN THIS HABEAS CORPUS CASE IF, AS THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL CONTENDS, THERE IS A STATE REMEDY BY MANDAMUS AVAILABLE TO
PETITIONER UNDER WHICH HE CAN INVOKE JUDICIAL ACTION TO COMPEL THE
WARDEN TO INITIATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND IN WHICH MANDAMUS
PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WILL HEAR AND CONSIDER EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE IS "REASON TO BELIEVE" THAT THE PETITIONER IS INSANE. 
NEW YORK EX REL. WHITMAN V. WILSON, WARDEN, 318 U.S. 688; WOODS V.
NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211; CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173.  SEE ALSO
SIMON V. CRAFT, 182 U.S. 427, 437. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN DENYING HABEAS CORPUS SAID THAT THE STATE
STATUTES MADE "NO PROVISION FOR A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE
QUESTION OF THE SANITY OF A DEFENDANT DELIVERED TO THE WARDEN OF A
STATE PRISON FOR EXECUTION EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN" SEC. 3701.  THAT IS
THE SECTION WHICH REQUIRES A JUDICIAL INQUIRY WITH A COURT AND JURY
ONLY WHEN AND IF THE WARDEN CERTIFIES THAT "THERE IS GOOD REASON TO
BELIEVE" THAT A PERSON SENTENCED TO DEATH HAS "BECOME INSANE."  BUT IT
DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW FROM THE FACT THAT PETITIONER CANNOT OBTAIN
A FULL-FLEDGED JUDICIAL HEARING AS TO SANITY ON HIS OWN MOTION MADE
DIRECTLY TO A STATE COURT THAT HE IS WITHOUT SOME OTHER ADEQUATE STATE
REMEDY.  AND THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ASSERTS HERE THAT THE
PETITIONER DOES HAVE AN "AMPLE REMEDY, IF THE FACTS SUPPORT HIM, BY
APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA COURTS FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS" TO COMPEL
THE WARDEN TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 3701. 

THUS WE HAVE AN UNEQUIVOCAL DECLARATION BY THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AN AVAILABLE
STATE REMEDY.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THE HIGHEST NON-JUDICIAL LEGAL
OFFICER OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS PARTICULARLY CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF
SUPERVISING ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAWS.  FN9  HIS STATEMENT ON
THIS QUESTION IS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTROLLING
STATE STATUTES AND COURT DECISIONS.  FN10  NOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE
STATE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION IN THIS CASE THAT NEED BE CONSIDERED IN
CONFLICT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION.  WHILE THAT COURT HELD
THAT THERE WAS NO STATUTORY PROVISION FOR PETITIONER TO OBTAIN A SANITY
HEARING EXCEPT THROUGH ACTION BY THE WARDEN AS PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 3701,
IT DID NOT HOLD OR EVEN CONSIDER WHETHER THERE WAS JUDICIAL POWER UNDER
STATE LAW TO COMPEL THE WARDEN TO DO HIS DUTY UNDER SEC. 3701.  IT DID
DECLARE, CLEARLY AND EMPHATICALLY, THAT THE STATUTE IMPOSED A MANDATORY
OBLIGATION ON THE WARDEN TO INITIATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IF THERE WAS
GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE A CONDEMNED DEFENDANT INSANE, AN OBLIGATION THAT
CONTINUED TO REST UPON THE WARDEN EVEN AFTER CERTIFICATION OF
RESTORATION TO SANITY BY THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT.  THE SUPREME COURT
ALSO DECLARED THAT THIS DUTY WOULD CONTINUE UP TO THE VERY TIME OF
EXECUTION.  FAILURE OF THE WARDEN TO PERFORM THIS OBLIGATION, SO THE
COURT SAID, WOULD BE A "VIOLATION OF ...  SECTION 1367," WHICH SECTION
PROHIBITS EXECUTION OF AN INSANE MAN.  IN VIEW OF THIS MANDATORY
OBLIGATION UPON THE WARDEN TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS IF "THERE IS GOOD
REASON TO BELIEVE" A DEFENDANT SENTENCED TO DEATH IS INSANE, IT WOULD
BE SOMEWHAT ANOMALOUS, TO SAY THE LEAST, IF CALIFORNIA COURTS WERE
WHOLLY WITHOUT POWER TO CORRECT AN EXECUTIVE AGENT'S ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
IN A MATTER OF SUCH GREAT SIGNIFICANCE AS THE EXECUTION OF INSANE
PERSONS. 

THE JURISDICTION OF CALIFORNIA COURTS TO ISSUE MANDAMUS HAS ITS
SOURCE IN ART. VI, SECS. 4, 4B, 5 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  THE WRIT
CAN ISSUE TO ANY INFERIOR TRIBUNAL OR PERSON TO COMPEL AN ACT WHICH THE
LAW SPECIFICALLY ENJOINS.  CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF CALIFORNIA, SEC.
1085.  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE WRIT MAY ISSUE AGAINST THE SECRETARY
OF STATE, HUTCHINSON V. BROWN, 122 CAL. 189, 54 P. 738, OR EVEN AGAINST
THE GOVERNOR.  ELLIOTT V. PARDEE, GOVERNOR, 149 CAL. 516, 520, 86 P.
1087, 1089. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT MANDAMUS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE
UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW IF THERE IS ANOTHER ADEQUATE REMEDY, SEE KAHN V.
SMITH, 23 CAL.2D 12, 142 P.2D 13, THAT HERE HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE,
AND HENCE MANDAMUS IS NOT.  THIS CONTENTION IS FULLY ANSWERED BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION IN THIS CASE, HOLDING THAT NEITHER HABEAS
CORPUS NOR ANY OTHER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO TEST SANITY OF A CONDEMNED
DEFENDANT, EXCEPT THAT REMEDY UNDER SEC. 3701 WHICH ONLY THE WARDEN CAN
INSTITUTE.  HENCE, SO FAR AS IT HERE APPEARS, MANDAMUS TO COMPEL ACTION
BY THE WARDEN IS THE ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THIS REMEDY IS INADEQUATE BECAUSE UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW NO RELIEF COULD BE HOPED FOR IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING
WITHOUT A SHOWING THAT THE WARDEN'S NON-ACTION WAS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS.  WE CANNOT KNOW, OF COURSE, JUST WHAT PRECISE STANDARDS THE
STATE SUPREME COURT MAY HOLD MUST BE MET BY PETITIONER IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY PROVIDED IN SEC. 3701.  WE ARE PERSUADED BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S STATEMENTS AND BRIEF, AND BY THE STATE
CONSTITUTION, STATE STATUTES, AND STATE DECISIONS TO WHICH HE REFERRED,
THAT MANDAMUS IS PROBABLY AVAILABLE, AND THAT IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING
SOME ISSUES OF FACT CONCERNING PETITIONER'S SANITY CAN BE DRAWN BY THE
PARTIES, RESOLVED BY THE COURTS, AND PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR RELIEF. 
DIFFERENT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN USED IN DIFFERENT OPINIONS CONCERNING THE
CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE WRIT WILL ISSUE IN CALIFORNIA.  ALTHOUGH IT
HAS BEEN SAID THAT GENERALLY THE WRIT WILL ISSUE ONLY TO CORRECT AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION, BANK OF ITALY V. JOHNSON, 200 CAL. 1, 31-33, 251
P. 784, 795-796 AND CASES CITED, IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT IN
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WRITS CAN ISSUE TO COMPEL ACTION IN A PARTICULAR
WAY.  WOOD V. STROTHER, 76 CAL. 545, 549, 18 P. 766, 769; LANDSBOROUGH
V. KELLY, 1 CAL.2D 739, 744, 37 P.2D 93, 95. 

IN CONSIDERING WHAT THE ISSUES MAY BE IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING, IT
MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE WARDEN IS UNDER A MANDATORY DUTY TO
INITIATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, NOT WHEN A DEFENDANT IS INSANE, BUT WHEN
"THERE IS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE" HE IS INSANE.  WE CANNOT SAY AT THIS
TIME THAT CALIFORNIA'S REMEDY BY MANDAMUS WILL BE LESS THAN A
SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT  FN11  OF ONE WHICH AUTHORIZED HIM TO APPLY
DIRECTLY TO A COURT FOR A FULL HEARING.  FOR THIS COURT HELD IN NOBLES
V. GEORGIA, SUPRA, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR
HOLDING A FULL HEARING INTO THE SANITY OF A DEFENDANT SENTENCED TO
DEATH, A STATE JUDGE MAY DENY SUCH A HEARING CONSISTENTLY WITH DUE
PROCESS.  AS PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT, THE DECISION IN THE NOBLES CASE
EMPHASIZED THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAD NEVER NECESSARILY ENVISIONED A
FULL COURT HEARING EVERY TIME THE INSANITY OF A CONDEMNED DEFENDANT WAS
SUGGESTED.  APPLICATIONS FOR INQUIRIES INTO SANITY MADE BY A DEFENDANT
SENTENCED TO DEATH, UNSUPPORTED BY FACTS, AND BUTTRESSED BY NO GOOD
REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS LOST HIS SANITY, CANNOT,
WITH ANY APPROPRIATE REGARD FOR SOCIETY AND FOR THE JUDICIAL PROCESS,
CALL FOR THE DELAYS IN EXECUTION INCIDENT TO FULL JUDICIAL INQUIRY. 
AND A COURT CAN JUST AS SATISFACTORILY DETERMINE BY MANDAMUS AS BY
DIRECT APPLICATION WHETHER THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO HAVE A FULL
FLEDGED JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO A DEFENDANT'S SANITY. 

IN THIS SITUATION WE FIND NO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
PRESENTED WHICH IS RIPE FOR DECISION HERE.  SO HERE, AS IN WOODS V.
NIERSTHEIMER, SUPRA, BEING UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE JUDGMENT DENYING
HABEAS CORPUS MAY NOT REST ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND, THE WRIT
OF CERTIORARI DISMISSED. 

FN1  THE OPINION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMING PETITIONER'S
SENTENCE SHOWS:  UPON ARRAIGNMENT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COUNSEL WAS
APPOINTED FOR PETITIONER AT HIS REQUEST.  HIS PLEAS WERE "NOT GUILTY"
AND "NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY."  LATER PETITIONER INFORMED HIS
COUNSEL THAT HE WISHED TO WITHDRAW THESE PLEAS AND ENTER A PLEA OF
GUILTY.  THE TRIAL JUDGE THEN EXAMINED PETITIONER AT LENGTH, SATISFIED
HIMSELF THAT THE CHANGE OF PLEA WAS VOLUNTARILY ENTERED BY PETITIONER
WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS, AND THEN ACCEPTED IT.
EVIDENCE WAS THEN TAKEN BY THE COURT TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF THE
MURDER AND TO FIX THE PUNISHMENT.  TWO PHYSICIANS APPOINTED BY THE
COURT TESTIFIED THAT IN THEIR JUDGMENT PETITIONER WAS SANE.  OTHER
WITNESSES TESTIFIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CRIME.  THE MURDER WAS
COMMITTED BY PETITIONER WHILE HE WAS IN THE ACT OF PERPETRATING A
ROBBERY.  DURING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, SO THE STATE SUPREME COURT
FOUND FROM THE RECORD, THE APPOINTED COUNSEL PARTICIPATED AND
REPRESENTED PETITIONER "WITH FIDELITY AND PROFICIENCY."  PEOPLE V.
PHYLE, 28 CAL.2D 671, 171 P.2D 428. 

FN2  "3701.  INSANITY OF DEFENDANT, HOW DETERMINED.  IF, AFTER HIS
DELIVERY TO THE WARDEN FOR EXECUTION, THERE IS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT A DEFENDANT, UNDER JUDGMENT OF DEATH, HAS BECOME INSANE, THE
WARDEN MUST CALL SUCH FACT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PRISON IS SITUATED, WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO
IMMEDIATELY FILE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUCH COUNTY A PETITION,
STATING THE CONVICTION AND JUDGMENT, AND THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS
BELIEVED TO BE INSANE, AND ASKING THAT THE QUESTION OF HIS SANITY BE
INQUIRED INTO.  THEREUPON THE COURT MUST AT ONCE CAUSE TO BE SUMMONED
AND IMPANELED, FROM THE REGULAR JURY LIST OF THE COUNTY, A JURY OF
TWELVE PERSONS TO HEAR SUCH INQUIRY." 

FN3  "3702.  DUTY OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY UPON HEARING.  THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY MUST ATTEND THE HEARING, AND MAY PRODUCE WITNESSES BEFORE THE
JURY, FOR WHICH PURPOSE HE MAY ISSUE PROCESS IN THE SAME MANNER AS FOR
WITNESSES TO ATTEND BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, AND DISOBEDIENCE THERETO MAY
BE PUNISHED IN LIKE MANNER AS DISOBEDIENCE TO PROCESS ISSUED BY THE
COURT." 

FN4  "3703.  CONVICT FOUND INSANE.  THE VERDICT OF THE JURY MUST BE
ENTERED UPON THE MINUTES, AND THEREUPON THE COURT MUST MAKE AND CAUSE
TO BE ENTERED AN ORDER RECITING THE FACT OF SUCH INQUIRY AND THE RESULT
THEREOF, AND WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANT IS INSANE, THE ORDER
MUST DIRECT THAT HE BE TAKEN TO A STATE HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE, AND
THERE KEPT IN SAFE CONFINEMENT UNTIL HIS REASON IS RESTORED." 

FN5  "3704.  CONVICT FOUND SANE:  DUTIES OF WARDEN.  IF IT IS FOUND
THAT THE DEFENDANT IS SANE, THE WARDEN MUST PROCEED TO EXECUTE THE
JUDGMENT AS SPECIFIED IN THE WARRANT; IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANT
IS INSANE, THE WARDEN MUST SUSPEND THE EXECUTION AND TRANSMIT A
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER MENTIONED IN THE LAST SECTION TO THE
GOVERNOR AND DELIVER THE DEFENDANT, TOGETHER WITH A CERTIFIED COPY OF
SUCH ORDER, TO THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT OF THE HOSPITAL NAMED IN SUCH
ORDER.  WHEN THE DEFENDANT RECOVERS HIS REASON, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
SUCH HOSPITAL MUST CERTIFY THAT FACT TO THE GOVERNOR, WHO MUST
THEREUPON ISSUE TO THE WARDEN HIS WARRANT APPOINTING A DAY FOR THE
EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT, AND THE WARDEN SHALL THEREUPON RETURN THE
DEFENDANT TO THE STATE PRISON PENDING THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT." 

FN6  "3700.  GOVERNOR MAY SUSPEND.  NO JUDGE, COURT, OR OFFICER,
OTHER THAN THE GOVERNOR, CAN SUSPEND THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT OF
DEATH, EXCEPT THE WARDEN OF THE STATE PRISON TO WHOM HE IS DELIVERED
FOR EXECUTION, AS PROVIDED IN THE SIX SUCCEEDING SECTIONS, UNLESS AS
APPEAL IS TAKEN. 

FN7  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 49 A.L.R. 804, ET SEQ. 

FN8  SEE ALSO YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 369-370; REGAL DRUG
CORP. V. WARDELL, 260 U.S. 386, 392; DUNCAN V. KAHANAMOKU, 327 U.S.
304, 322; DENT V. WEST VIRGINIA, 129 U.S. 114, 123-124; BROWN V. NEW
JERSEY, 175 U.S. 172, 176; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES,
298 U.S. 38, 49-54, AND CONCURRING OPINION, BRANDEIS, J., AT 76-78. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. JU TOY, 198 U.S. 253, 263; SIMON V. CRAFT, 182
U.S. 427, 436. 

FN9  CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECS. 12510-12512, 12519, 12550
12553. 

FN10  SEE UNION INS. CO. V. HOGE, 21 HOW.  35, 66; FOX V. STANDARD
OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87, 96; DRISCOLL V. EDISON CO., 307 U.S. 104, 115. 

FN11  SEE EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 234; OPP COTTON
MILLS, INC. V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 152-153. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN, CONCURRING. 

WHERE LIFE IS AT STAKE ONE CANNOT BE TOO CAREFUL.  I'S HAD BETTER BE
DOTTED AND T'S CROSSED.  AND SO I DEEM IT PROPER TO STATE MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH I
CONCUR IN IT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA WHICH DISMISSED HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT IN THAT
COURT.  WE DID SO ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CASE RAISED QUESTIONS
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - MORE PARTICULARLY, WHETHER AN
UNREVIEWABLE DETERMINATION BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF A STATE HOSPITAL,
THAT ONE CONVICTED OF MURDER AND FOUND TO HAVE BECOME INSANE AFTER
CONVICTION HAD BEEN RESTORED TO SANITY AND THEREFORE WAS SUBJECT TO
EXECUTION, WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE DUE PROCESS WHICH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT SECURES.  THE COURT NOW FINDS THAT ALL THAT THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT DID WAS TO HOLD THAT AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE
THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM COULD NOT BE PASSED ON BY THE DIRECT REMEDY OF
HABEAS CORPUS, BUT THAT THERE IS AVAILABLE A SPECIAL LOCAL REMEDY,
LABELED MANDAMUS, WHEREBY THE PETITIONER CAN JUDICIALLY TEST HIS
PRESENT SANITY.  IN SHORT, THE COURT DISMISSES THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW RESTS ON A PURELY STATE GROUND
IN THAT THERE IS A STATE REMEDY AVAILABLE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PURSUED,
BY MEANS OF WHICH HE CAN SECURE THE RIGHTS HE CLAIMS UNDER THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION. 

OF COURSE I RECOGNIZE THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S VIEWS REGARDING THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA.  BUT THE CONTROLLING
VOICE ON CALIFORNIA LAW IS THAT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 
WHATEVER MAY BE THE ELEGANCIES OF PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE MATTER IS TO
BE DETERMINED, OUR DECISION DECLINING TO CONSIDER THE GRAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH WE THOUGHT WE HAD BEFORE US, IS CONTINGENT
UPON A DETERMINATION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE LAW OF
THAT STATE IS WHAT OUR DECISION PRESUPPOSES IT TO BE, NAMELY, THAT
CALIFORNIA BY A REMEDY WHICH CALIFORNIA CHOOSES TO CALL MANDAMUS
ENABLES THE PRESENT PETITIONER TO SECURE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
HIS PRESENT SANITY.  THIS MEANS, OF COURSE, NOT THE VERY RESTRICTED
SCOPE OF RELIEF WHICH IS NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRADITIONAL
REMEDY OF MANDAMUS.  IT PRESUPPOSES THAT CALIFORNIA AFFORDS PETITIONER
THE MEANS OF CHALLENGING IN A SUBSTANTIAL WAY THE EX PARTE FINDING OF
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE AND ENABLES HIM
TO SECURE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE CLAIMS HE HAS MADE IN HIS
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WHICH, SO THE COURT NOW HOLDS, IS NOT THE
PROPER WAY TO PROCEED. 

UPON THIS VIEW I CONCUR IN THE DECISION AND OPINION OF THE COURT. 
..END :















BAY RIDGE CO. V. AARON, 334 U.S. 446 


ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 162 F.2D 665,
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN A LONGSHOREMEN'S UNION AND
EMPLOYERS, AFFECTING EMPLOYMENT IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
PROVIDED FOR "STRAIGHT TIME" HOURLY RATES FOR WORK DONE DURING CERTAIN
DAYTIME HOURS ON WEEKDAYS AND "OVERTIME RATES," APPROXIMATELY 150% OF
"STRAIGHT TIME" RATES, FOR WORK DONE DURING ALL OTHER HOURS AND ON
SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS.  IT MADE NO PROVISION FOR A DIFFERENTIAL IN PAY
FOR WORK IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS PER WEEK.  LONGSHOREMEN WORK IRREGULAR
HOURS AND FREQUENTLY WORK FOR SEVERAL DIFFERENT EMPLOYERS DURING A
SINGLE WEEK.  RESPONDENT LONGSHOREMEN, SOME OF WHOM HAD WORKED ONLY
OUTSIDE "STRAIGHT TIME" PERIODS AND HAD BEEN PAID "OVERTIME RATES,"
SUED TO RECOVER ADDITIONAL OVERTIME COMPENSATION ALLEGEDLY DUE THEM
UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FOR WORK IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS PER
WEEK.  HELD: 

1.  THE "STRAIGHT TIME" RATE PROVIDED FOR BY THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE THE "REGULAR RATE" WHICH SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT REQUIRES TO BE USED IN COMPUTING THE STATUTORY MINIMUM
PAYMENT ("NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE") FOR
WORK IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS.  PP. 459-477. 

2.  WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 462
463. 

3.  CONTRACT DECLARATIONS, EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO WHAT IS THE "REGULAR RATE" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 7(A).  PP. 463-464. 

4.  DETERMINATION OF THE "REGULAR RATE" FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL MUST BE
DRAWN FROM WHAT HAPPENS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.  P. 464. 

5.  THE "REGULAR RATE" IS TO BE FOUND BY DIVIDING THE NUMBER OF HOURS
WORKED INTO THE TOTAL WEEKLY COMPENSATION RECEIVED, LESS THE AMOUNT OF
ANY "OVERTIME PREMIUM."  PP. 464-465. 

6.  "OVERTIME PREMIUM," DEDUCTIBLE FROM TOTAL COMPENSATION RECEIVED
IN COMPUTING THE "REGULAR RATE," IS ANY ADDITIONAL SUM RECEIVED BY AN
EMPLOYEE FOR WORK BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS WORK FOR A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF
HOURS IN THE WORKWEEK OR WORKDAY, WHETHER THE HOURS ARE SPECIFIED BY
CONTRACT OR STATUTE.  PP. 450, N. 3, 465-471. 

7.  WHERE AN EMPLOYEE RECEIVES A HIGHER WAGE OR RATE BECAUSE OF
UNDESIRABLE HOURS OR DISAGREEABLE WORK, SUCH WAGE REPRESENTS A SHIFT
DIFFERENTIAL RATHER THAN AN OVERTIME PREMIUM, AND MUST ENTER INTO THE
DETERMINATION OF THE "REGULAR RATE" OF PAY.  THE EXTRA PAY PROVIDED IN
"OVERTIME" RATES UNDER THE AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE REPRESENTS A SHIFT
DIFFERENTIAL AND NOT AN OVERTIME PREMIUM.  PP. 466-471. 

8.  THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT "OVERTIME" RATES WERE DESIGNED TO
CONCENTRATE THE WORK OF THE LONGSHOREMEN IN THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURS IS
IRRELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE RESPONDENTS' "REGULAR RATE" OF
PAY.  P. 470. 

9.  THE PURPOSE OF THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 7(A)
IS NOT ONLY TO SPREAD EMPLOYMENT BUT ALSO TO COMPENSATE AN EMPLOYEE IN
A SPECIFIC MANNER FOR THE STRAIN OF WORKING LONGER THAN 40 HOURS.  P.
470. 

10.  IT IS UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE WHAT WERE
RESPONDENTS'"REGULAR WORKING HOURS," SINCE REGULAR WORKING HOURS UNDER
A CONTRACT, EVEN FOR AN INDIVIDUAL, HAVE NO SIGNIFICANCE IN DETERMINING
THE RATE OF PAY UNDER THE STATUTE.  PP. 471-474. 

11.  SINCE THE SO-CALLED "OVERTIME" RATES PAID UNDER THE CONTRACT IN
THIS CASE ACTUALLY REPRESENTED A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL AND HAD NO RELATION
TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS PREVIOUSLY WORKED DURING THE WEEK, THEIR PAYMENT
DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  PP. 474-476. 

12.  EACH RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR HIS
HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40 AT 1 1/2 TIMES HIS REGULAR RATE, COMPUTED
AS THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE RATES WORKED DURING THE WEEK.  P. 476. 

13.  IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID, THE EMPLOYER MAY CREDIT
AGAINST THE OBLIGATION TO PAY STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION THE AMOUNT
ALREADY PAID TO EACH RESPONDENT WHICH IS ALLOCABLE TO WORK IN THOSE
EXCESS HOURS.  THE PRECISE METHOD OF COMPUTING THIS CREDIT AND FINDING
THE EXACT AMOUNT DUE RESPONDENTS IS LEFT TO THE DISTRICT COURT ON
REMAND.  PP. 476-477. 

14.  ON REMAND, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY CONSIDER ANY DEFENSE WHICH THE
EMPLOYERS MAY HAVE UNDER THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT, AND MAY ALLOW ANY
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPLAINT OR ANSWER OR ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE WHICH THE
COURT MAY DEEM JUST.  P. 477. 

BAY RIDGE OPERATING CO., INC. V. AARON ET AL. 

NO. 366.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 367, HURON STEVEDORING CORP. V. BLUE ET AL., ALSO
ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

RESPONDENTS SUED PETITIONERS TO RECOVER UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION
ALLEGEDLY DUE UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  TO THE EXTENT THAT
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ADVERSE, 69 F.SUPP.  956,
RESPONDENTS APPEALED AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  162
F.2D 665.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 814.  MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED, P. 477. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE PERPLEXING PROBLEM OF WHAT
CONSTITUTES THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY WHICH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
REQUIRES TO BE USED IN COMPUTING THE PROPER PAYMENT FOR WORK IN EXCESS
OF FORTY HOURS.  THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 7.  (A)  NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN
THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR
IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

     .       .         .         .         . 

(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, 

UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN
EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE
HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  FN1 

THE PROBLEM POSED IS THE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY
FOR LONGSHOREMEN WHO WORK IN FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE VARYING
AND IRREGULAR HOURS THROUGHOUT THE WORKWEEK UNDER A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT FOR HANDLING CARGO WHICH PROVIDES CONTRACT
STRAIGHT TIME HOURLY RATES FOR WORK DONE WITHIN A PRESCRIBED 44-HOUR
TIME SCHEDULE AND CONTRACT OVERTIME RATES FOR ALL WORK DONE OUTSIDE THE
STRAIGHT TIME HOURS.  FN2 

THESE TWO SUITS WERE BROUGHT AS CLASS ACTIONS ON BEHALF OF ALL
LONGSHOREMEN EMPLOYED BY TWO STEVEDORING COMPANIES, BAY RIDGE OPERATING
CO., AND HURON STEVEDORING CORP., TO RECOVER UNPAID STATUTORY EXCESS
COMPENSATION  FN3  IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  FN4  BY STIPULATION THE CLAIMS OF TEN SPECIFIC
LONGSHOREMEN IN EACH CASE WERE SEVERED AND THE TWO SUITS WERE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL, LEAVING THE CLAIMS OF THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS
PENDING ON THE DOCKET.  THE CLAIMS OF THE PLAINTIFFS HERE ARE FOR THE
PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 1943, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1945. 

THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS, LONGSHOREMEN WORKING IN
THE PORT OF NEW YORK, WERE FIXED FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION BY THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMENS
ASSOCIATION AND THE NEW YORK SHIPPING ASSOCIATION TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN
STEAMSHIP AND STEVEDORE COMPANIES.  IT WAS APPLICABLE TO THE TWO
PETITIONERS.  THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHED A "BASIC WORKING DAY" OF EIGHT
HOURS AND A "BASIC WORKING WEEK," THAT IS, WORKWEEK, OF FORTY-FOUR
HOURS; HOURLY RATES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF CARGO WERE SPECIFIED FOR
WORK BETWEEN 8 A.M. AND 12 NOON AND BETWEEN 1 P.M. AND 5 P.M. DURING
FIVE WORKING DAYS OF THE WEEK, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND FROM 8 A.M.
TO 12 NOON ON SATURDAY, AND A DIFFERENT SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR WORK
DURING ALL OTHER HOURS IN THE WORKWEEK.  THE FIRST SCHEDULE WAS CALLED
"STRAIGHT TIME" RATES, AND THE SECOND SCHEDULE WAS ENTITLED "OVERTIME"
RATES.  THIS OPINION DESIGNATES THESE RATES AS CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME
AND CONTRACT OVERTIME.  FOR FOUR TYPES OF CARGO THE OVERTIME RATES WERE
EXACTLY ONE AND A HALF TIMES THE STRAIGHT TIME RATES; FOR FOUR OTHER
TYPES THE OVERTIME RATES WERE SLIGHTLY LESS THAN ONE AND A HALF TIMES
THE STRAIGHT TIME RATES.  THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME RATES RANGED FROM
$1.25 TO $2.50 AN HOUR.  THE CONTRACT OVERTIME RATES WERE PAID FOR ALL
WORK ON SUNDAYS AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS.  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR NO
DIFFERENTIAL FOR WORK IN EXCESS OF FORTY HOURS IN A WEEK.  FN5 

RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT THEIR REGULAR RATE OF PAY UNDER THE CONTRACT
FOR ANY WORKWEEK, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7(A), IS THE AVERAGE
HOURLY RATE COMPUTED BY DIVIDING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED IN
ANY WORKWEEK FOR ANY SINGLE EMPLOYER INTO THE TOTAL COMPENSATION
RECEIVED FROM THAT EMPLOYER DURING THAT WEEK; AND THAT IN THOSE
WORKWEEKS WEEKS IN WHICH THEY WORKED MORE THAN FORTY HOURS FOR ANY ONE
EMPLOYER THEY WERE ENTITLED BY SEC. 7(A) TO STATUTORY EXCESS
COMPENSATION FOR ALL SUCH EXCESS HOURS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THAT
RATE.  THE PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THE STRAIGHT TIME RATES ARE THE
REGULAR RATES, AND THAT THEY HAVE, THEREFORE, WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS NOT
PRESENTED BY THIS REVIEW, COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7(A). 
THAT IS, NO RATES EXCEPT STRAIGHT TIME RATES ARE TO BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION IN COMPUTING THE REGULAR RATE.  THE PETITIONERS CONTEND
THAT THE CONTRACT OVERTIME RATES WERE INTENDED TO COVER ANY EARNED
STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION AND DID COVER IT BECAUSE THEY WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY IN AN AMOUNT OF ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE STRAIGHT TIME
RATES.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME RATES
WERE THE REGULAR RATES BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT HELD OTHERWISE.  FN6 

THROUGHOUT ALL THESE PROCEEDINGS THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SINCE THE UNITED STATES UNDER
ITS COST-PLUS CONTRACTS WITH THE PETITIONERS IS THE REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST.  SUBSTANTIALLY ALL STEVEDORING DURING THE WAR YEARS WAS
PERFORMED FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
NOTES THAT PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 118
SUITS HAD BEEN INSTITUTED ON BEHALF OF LONGSHOREMEN, AND SINCE THAT
TIME APPROXIMATELY 100 NEW COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED.  CONTRACTS OF
THE SAME GENERAL TYPE ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT IN ALL OUR
MARITIME AREAS.  WITNESSES TESTIFYING BEFORE THE WAGES AND HOURS
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR STATED THAT
LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT UNDER SUCH SUITS WOULD BE LARGE.  FN7  THE
WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR HAS NOT FILED A BRIEF IN THE PROCEEDINGS,
BUT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS ADVISED US THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR "BELIEVES THAT PROPER
CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN BY THE COURT BELOW TO HIS INTERPRETATION OF
IS CORRECT."  THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR TESTIFIED AT LENGTH BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE AS TO THEIR VIEWS
ON THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THESE CASES.  FN8  AMICUS BRIEFS HAVE BEEN
FILED BY THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, AND THE WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION
OF THE PACIFIC COAST, ALL URGING THAT THE DECISION BELOW BE REVERSED. 

IN ORDER TO FIX THE LEGAL ISSUES IN THEIR FACTUAL SETTING, WE
SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH WERE
ACCEPTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND ARE NOT CHALLENGED HERE. 
MOST OF THESE FINDINGS REFERRED TO IN THIS OPINION WILL BE FOUND IN THE
APPENDIX AT 162 F.2D 670.  EMPLOYMENT IN THE LONGSHORE INDUSTRY HAS
ALWAYS BEEN CASUAL IN NATURE.  THE AMOUNT OF WORK AVAILABLE DEPENDS ON
THE NUMBER OF SHIPS IN PORT AND THEIR LENGTH OF STAY AND IS
CONSEQUENTLY HIGHLY VARIABLE AND UNPREDICTABLE, FROM DAY TO DAY, WEEK
TO WEEK, AND SEASON TO SEASON.  LONGSHOREMEN ARE HIRED FOR A SPECIFIC
JOB AT THE "SHAPE,"  FN9  WHICH IS NORMALLY HELD THREE TIMES A DAY AT
EACH PIER WHERE WORK IS AVAILABLE.  THE HIRING STEVEDORE SELECTS THE
MEN HE DESIRES FROM THE LONGSHOREMEN WHO ARE PRESENT AT THE "SHAPE"; IN
SOME INSTANCES A GROUP OF LONGSHOREMEN ARE HIRED TOGETHER AS A GANG. 
THE WORK MAY LAST ONLY FOR A FEW HOURS OR FOR AS LONG AS A WEEK. 
ALTHOUGH SOME WORK IS CARRIED ON AT ALL HOURS, THE STEVEDORING
COMPANIES, SINCE OPERATIONS ARE THEN CARRIED ON AT LESS COST, ATTEMPT
TO DO AS MUCH WORK AS POSSIBLE DURING THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURS. 

THE COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT THE RATE FOR NIGHT WORK AND HOLIDAY WORK
HAD BEEN HIGHER THAN THE RATE FOR DAY WORK SINCE AT LEAST AS FAR BACK
AS 1887, AND THAT SINCE 1916, WHEN THE FIRST AGREEMENT WAS MADE WITH
THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION, THE DIFFERENTIAL HAD BEEN
APPROXIMATELY 50%.  JOSEPH B. RYAN, PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION,
TESTIFIED THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL WAS DESIGNED TO SHORTEN THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED AND TO CONFINE THE WORK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE
WITHIN THE SCHEDULED FORTY-FOUR HOURS.  DESPITE THE DIFFERENTIAL, MANY
LONGSHOREMEN WERE UNWILLING TO WORK AT NIGHT.  ALTHOUGH SOME LONGSHORE
WORK WAS REQUIRED AT ALL HOURS, EXCEPT SATURDAY NIGHT, THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL HAD BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HIGH
DEGREE OF CONCENTRATION OF LONGSHORE WORK TO THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME
HOURS. 

THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED ELABORATE STATISTICAL STUDIES TO SHOW THE
DISTRIBUTION OF WORK AS BETWEEN THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME AND CONTRACT
OVERTIME HOURS.  FROM 1932 TO 1937, 80% OF THE TOTAL HOURS WORKED WERE
WITHIN THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME HOURS AND ONLY 2 1/2% OF THE TOTAL
MANHOURS WERE PERFORMED BY MEN WORKING BETWEEN 5 P.M. AND 8 A.M.
(EXCLUSIVE OF SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS) WHO HAD WORKED NO STRAIGHT TIME
HOURS EARLIER THAT DAY.  DURING THE WAR, THE PROPORTION OF WORK IN
CONTRACT OVERTIME HOURS WAS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE GREATER
VOLUME OF CARGO HANDLED; 55% OF THE TOTAL HOURS FELL WITHIN THE
CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME HOURS, AND THE RATIO OF WORK IN CONTRACT
OVERTIME HOURS BY MEN WHO HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY WORKED IN THE CONTRACT
STRAIGHT TIME HOURS WAS CORRESPONDINGLY HIGHER.  THE RESPONDENTS'
EMPLOYMENT WAS HIGHLY IRREGULAR; IN MANY WEEKS THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT
WORK AT ALL, AND IN WEEKS IN WHICH THEY DID WORK THEIR HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT VARIED OVER A WIDE RANGE.  THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED THAT
THE "BASIC WORKING DAY" AND "BASIC WORKING WEEK,"  FN10  MEANING BY
THESE PHRASES THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME HOURS, WERE NOT THE PERIODS
"NORMALLY, REGULARLY OR USUALLY" WORKED BY THE RESPONDENTS.  FINDING
45. 

IN GIVING JUDGMENT FOR THE PETITIONERS, THE TRIAL COURT PLACED
EMPHASIS ON THE FACT THAT THE RATES IN QUESTION WERE ARRIVED AT THROUGH
BONA FIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND WERE MORE FAVORABLE TO THE
LONGSHOREMEN THAN THE STATUTORY MANDATE REQUIRED.  THAT IS, THAT RATES
AS HIGH AS CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME RATES PLUS STATUTORY EXCESS
COMPENSATION WERE PAID TO ALL WORKERS FOR ALL WORK IN CONTRACT OVERTIME
HOURS WHETHER REQUIRED BY SEC. 7(A) OR NOT.  THE DISTRICT COURT OPINION
REFERRED TO JOSEPH B. RYAN'S STATEMENT THAT THE INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION WAS OPPOSED TO THE SUIT "AS IT MIGHT WIPE OUT
ALL OF THE GAINS WE HAD MADE FOR OUR MEN OVER A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS." 
FN11  IT REJECTED RESPONDENTS' ALTERNATIVE CONTENTIONS THAT THE REGULAR
RATE WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE AVERAGE RATE DURING THE FIRST FORTY
HOURS OR BY THE AVERAGE RATE FOR ALL HOURS WORKED.  IT NOTED THAT SHIFT
DIFFERENTIALS WERE USUALLY FIVE OR TEN CENTS AN HOUR AND SELDOM
EXCEEDED FIFTEEN CENTS AND WERE NOT DESIGNED TO DETER THE EMPLOYER FROM
WORKING EMPLOYEES DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE DIFFERENTIAL WAS
PAID; IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT THE 50%
DIFFERENTIAL WAS DESIGNED TO DETER AND ACTUALLY DID DETER WORK OUTSIDE
CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME HOURS.  ACCORDINGLY THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED
THAT THE "COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED AGREEMENT ESTABLISHED A REGULAR RATE"
UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT - THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME RATE. 
69 F.SUPP.  956, 961. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE REGULAR RATE MUST BE
DETERMINED AS AN "ACTUAL FACT" AND COULD NOT BE ARRANGED THROUGH A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, CITING 149 MADISON AVE. CORP. V.
ASSELTA, 331 U.S. 199.  THAT COURT THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT ON THE
BASIS OF THE FINDINGS BELOW THE REGULAR RATE MUST BE COMPUTED BY
DIVIDING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED INTO THE TOTAL COMPENSATION
RECEIVED.  THE COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE REGULAR RATE WAS
THE AVERAGE RATE FOR THE FIRST FORTY HOURS OF WORK, CITING WALLING V.
HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO., 331 U.S. 17.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNTS
DUE PLAINTIFFS IN THE LIGHT OF THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947, 61
STAT. 84.  NO DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OR VALIDITY OF THAT ACT WAS
ATTEMPTED AS THOSE MATTERS HAD NOT BEEN ARGUED.  162 F.2D 665, 673. 

ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE REGULAR
RATE OF PAY IN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS PROVIDING FOR EXTRA PAY, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  FN12  332 U.S. 814. 

THE GOVERNMENT ADOPTS THE VIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE
CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME RATES CONSTITUTED THE REGULAR RATES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE GOVERNMENT
ACCEPTS, TOO, THE REASONING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE CONTRACT
OVERTIME RATES, AS THEY WERE COERCIVE IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE
INTENDED TO EXERT PRESSURE ON EMPLOYERS TO CARRY ON THEIR ACTIVITIES IN
THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURS, WERE NOT REGULAR RATES AND COULD BE CREDITED
AGAINST REQUIRED STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION IN THE AMOUNT THAT THE
CONTRACT OVERTIME RATES EXCEEDED THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME RATES.  THE
GOVERNMENT ARGUES IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT THE "NORMAL, NON-OVERTIME
WORKWEEK," SAID TO BE THE HOURS CONTROLLING THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY, IS
TO BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO PEACETIME CONDITIONS, RATHER THAN THE
ABNORMAL WARTIME CONDITIONS, AND THAT THE STATISTICAL STUDIES SHOW THAT
THE WORK OF LONGSHOREMEN IS SUFFICIENTLY CONCENTRATED WITHIN THE
SCHEDULED HOURS TO COMPEL THE FINDING THAT THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME
HOURS ARE THE REGULAR WORKING HOURS.  THE GOVERNMENT URGES ALSO THAT
THE CONTRACT, AS THUS INTERPRETED, ACCORDS WITH CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSES
IN ENACTING THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IT IS SAID TO REDUCE WORKING
HOURS AND SPREAD EMPLOYMENT AND TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.    WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  LATER IN THIS OPINION, PP. 465-471, WE SET OUT OUR
REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE EXTRA PAY FOR CONTRACT OVERTIME HOURS
IS NOT AN OVERTIME PREMIUM.  WHERE THERE ARE NO OVERTIME PREMIUM
PAYMENTS THE RULE FOR DETERMINING THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY IS TO DIVIDE
THE WAGES ACTUALLY PAID BY THE HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED IN ANY WORKWEEK
AND ADJUDGE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ON THAT BASIS FOR
TIME IN EXCESS OF FORTY HOURS WORKED FOR A SINGLE EMPLOYER.  ANY
STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION SO FOUND IS OF COURSE SUBJECT TO
ENLARGEMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 16(B).  COMPARE SEC. 11 OF
PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947.  THIS DETERMINATION, WE THINK, ACCORDS
WITH THE STATUTE AND THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. 

(1)  THE STATUTE, SEC. 7(A), EXPRESSES THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS "TO
REQUIRE EXTRA PAY FOR OVERTIME WORK BY THOSE COVERED BY THE ACT EVEN
THOUGH THEIR HOURLY WAGES EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY MINIMUM."  THE PURPOSE
WAS TO COMPENSATE THOSE WHO LABORED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF HOURS FOR THE WEAR AND TEAR OF EXTRA WORK AND TO SPREAD
EMPLOYMENT THROUGH INDUCING EMPLOYERS TO SHORTEN HOURS BECAUSE OF THE
PRESSURE OF EXTRA COST.  FN13  THE STATUTE BY ITS TERMS PROTECTS THE
GROUP OF EMPLOYEES BY PROTECTING EACH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE FROM OVERLY
LONG HOURS.  SO ALTHOUGH ONLY ONE OF A THOUSAND WORKS MORE THAN FORTY
HOURS, THAT ONE IS ENTITLED TO STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION.  THAT
EXCESS COMPENSATION IS FIXED BY SEC. 7(A) "AT ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES
THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY OF
THE RESPONDENTS UNDER THIS CONTRACT MUST THEREFORE BE FOUND. 

THE STATUTE CONTAINS NO DEFINITION OF REGULAR RATE OF PAY AND NO RULE
FOR ITS DETERMINATION.  CONTRACTS FOR PAY TAKE MANY FORMS.  THE RATE OF
PAY MAY BE BY THE HOUR, BY PIECEWORK, BY THE WEEK, MONTH OR YEAR, AND
WITH OR WITHOUT A GUARANTEE THAT EARNINGS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME SHALL BE
AT LEAST A STATED SUM.  THE REGULAR RATE MAY VARY FROM WEEK TO WEEK. 
OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 580; WALLING V. BELO
CORP., 316 U.S. 624, 632.  THE EMPLOYEE'S HOURS MAY BE REGULAR OR
IRREGULAR.  FROM ALL SUCH WAGES THE REGULAR HOURLY RATE MUST BE
EXTRACTED.  AS NO AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN ANY AGENCY TO ESTABLISH
REGULATIONS, COURTS MUST APPLY THE STATUTE TO THIS SITUATION WITHOUT
THE BENEFIT OF BINDING INTERPRETATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT BY
AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  FN14 

EVERY CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, WRITTEN OR ORAL, EXPLICITLY OR
IMPLICITLY INCLUDES A REGULAR RATE OF PAY FOR THE PERSON EMPLOYED. 
WALLING V. BELO CORP., SUPRA, 631; WALLING V. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL
CEMENTING CO., SUPRA.  WE HAVE SAID THAT "THE WORDS 'REGULAR RATE'  ...
OBVIOUSLY MEAN THE HOURLY RATE ACTUALLY PAID FOR THE NORMAL, NON
OVERTIME WORKWEEK."  WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37, 40. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360, 363.  "WAGE DIVIDED BY
HOURS EQUALS REGULAR RATE."  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, SUPRA,
580.  "THE REGULAR RATE BY ITS VERY NATURE MUST REFLECT ALL PAYMENTS
WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED SHALL BE RECEIVED REGULARLY DURING THE
WORKWEEK, EXCLUSIVE OF OVERTIME PAYMENTS.  IT IS NOT AN ARBITRARY LABEL
CHOSEN BY THE PARTIES; IT IS AN ACTUAL FACT.  ONCE THE PARTIES HAVE
DECIDED UPON THE AMOUNT OF WAGES AND THE MODE OF PAYMENT THE
DETERMINATION OF THE REGULAR RATE BECOMES A MATTER OF MATHEMATICAL
COMPUTATION, THE RESULT OF WHICH IS UNAFFECTED BY ANY DESIGNATION OF A
CONTRARY 'REGULAR RATE' IN THE WAGE CONTRACTS."  WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN
REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S. 419, 424-25.  THE RESULT IS AN "ACTUAL
FACT."  149 MADISON AVE. CORP. V. ASSELTA, SUPRA, 204. 

IN DEALING WITH SUCH A COMPLEX SITUATION AS WAGES THROUGHOUT NATIONAL
INDUSTRY, CONGRESS NECESSARILY HAD TO RELY UPON JUDICIAL OR
ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION OF ITS STANDARDS IN APPLYING SANCTIONS TO
INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS.  THESE STANDARDS HAD TO BE EXPRESSED IN WORDS OF
GENERALITY.  THE POSSIBLE CONTRACT VARIATIONS WERE UNFORESEEABLE.  IN
WALLING V. BELO CORP., SUPRA, 634, THIS COURT REFRAINED FROM RIGIDLY
DEFINING "REGULAR RATE" IN A GUARANTEED WEEKLY WAGE CONTRACT THAT MET
THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7(A) FOR MINIMUM COMPENSATION.  IN
THE BELO CASE THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR A REGULAR OR BASIC RATE OF PAY
ABOVE THE STATUTORY MINIMUM AND A GUARANTEED WEEKLY WAGE OF 60 TIMES
THAT AMOUNT.  AS THE HOURLY RATE WAS KEPT LOW IN RELATION TO THE
GUARANTEED WAGE, STATUTORY OVERTIME PLUS THE CONTRACT HOURLY RATE DID
NOT AMOUNT TO THE GUARANTEED WEEKLY WAGE UNTIL AFTER 54 1/2 HOURS WERE
WORKED.  P. 628.  WE REFUSED TO REQUIRE DIVISION OF THE WEEKLY WAGE
ACTUALLY PAID BY THE HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED TO FIND THE "REGULAR RATE"
OF PAY AND LEFT ITS DETERMINATION TO AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.  WHERE
THE SAME TYPE OF GUARANTEED WEEKLY WAGES WERE INVOLVED, WE HAVE
REAFFIRMED THAT DECISION AS A NARROW PRECEDENT PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE OF
PUBLIC RELIANCE UPON AND CONGRESSIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE RULE THERE
ANNOUNCED.  WALLING V. HALLIBURTON CO., SUPRA.  ASIDE FROM THIS
LIMITATION OF BELO, THE CASE ITSELF IS NOT A PRECEDENT FOR THESE CASES
AS IN BELO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF MINIMUM WAGES AND STATUTORY
EXCESS COMPENSATION WERE PROVIDED BY THE BELO CONTRACT.  IN THESE
PRESENT CASES NO PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR ANY STATUTORY EXCESS
COMPENSATION AND NONE CAN BE EARNED BY ANY RESPONDENT BASED ON THE
CONTRACT OVERTIME PAY.  OUR ASSENT TO THE BELO DECISION, MOREOVER, DOES
NOT IMPLY THAT MERE WORDS IN A CONTRACT CAN FIX THE REGULAR RATE.  FN15
THAT WOULD NOT BE THE MAINTENANCE OF A FLEXIBLE DEFINITION OF REGULAR
RATE BUT A REFUSAL TO APPLY A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR PROTECTING
WORKERS AGAINST EXCESSIVE HOURS.  THE RESULTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL OF THE
OPERATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT MUST BE TESTED BY THE STATUTE.  FN16  AS
CONGRESS LEFT THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY UNDEFINED, WE FEEL SURE THE
PURPOSE WAS TO REQUIRE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IN FACT AN
EMPLOYEE RECEIVES THE FULL STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION, RATHER THAN
TO IMPOSE A RULE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD OR CLEAR EVASION
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES MIGHT FIX A REGULAR RATE WITHOUT REGARD TO
HOURS WORKED OR SUMS ACTUALLY RECEIVED AS PAY. 

FURTHER, WE REJECT THE ARGUMENT THAT UNDER THE STATUTE AN AGREEMENT
REACHED OR ADMINISTERED THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS MORE
PERSUASIVE IN DEFINING REGULAR RATE THAN INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS. 
ALTHOUGH OUR PUBLIC POLICY RECOGNIZES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND ENCOURAGES ITS USE,  FN17  NOTHING TO OUR KNOWLEDGE IN
ANY ACT AUTHORIZES US TO GIVE DECISIVE WEIGHT TO CONTRACT DECLARATIONS
AS TO THE REGULAR RATE BECAUSE THEY ARE THE RESULT OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  149 MADISON AVE. CORP. V. ASSELTA, SUPRA, 202 AND 204;
WALLING V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 325 U.S. 427, 432.  FN18  A VIGOROUS
ARGUMENT IS PRESENTED FOR PETITIONERS BY THE INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION THAT A COLLECTIVELY OBTAINED AND ADMINISTERED
AGREEMENT SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN DETERMINING THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY
FN19  BUT WE THINK THE WORDS OF AND PRACTICES UNDER THE CONTRACT ARE
THE DETERMINATIVE FACTORS IN FINDING THE REGULAR RATE FOR EACH
INDIVIDUAL. 

AS THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY CANNOT BE LEFT TO A DECLARATION BY THE
PARTIES AS TO WHAT IS TO BE TREATED AS THE REGULAR RATE FOR AN
EMPLOYEE, IT MUST BE DRAWN FROM WHAT HAPPENS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT.  WE THINK THE MOST REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY TO BE FOUND BY DIVIDING THE WEEKLY
COMPENSATION BY THE HOURS WORKED UNLESS THE COMPENSATION PAID TO THE
EMPLOYEE CONTAINS SOME AMOUNT THAT REPRESENTS AN OVERTIME PREMIUM.  IF
SUCH OVERTIME PREMIUM IS INCLUDED IN THE WEEKLY PAY CHECK THAT MUST BE
DEDUCTED BEFORE THE DIVISION.  THIS DEDUCTION OF OVERTIME PREMIUM FROM
THE PAY FOR THE WORKWEEK RESULTS FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE. 
WHEN THE STATUTE SAYS THAT THE EMPLOYEE SHALL RECEIVE FOR HIS EXCESS
HOURS ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED,
IT IS CLEAR TO US THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXCLUDE OVERTIME PREMIUM
PAYMENTS FROM THE COMPUTATION OF THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  TO PERMIT
OVERTIME PREMIUM TO ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION OF THE REGULAR RATE
WOULD BE TO ALLOW OVERTIME PREMIUM ON OVERTIME PREMIUM - A PYRAMIDING
THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED.  IN ORDER TO AVOID A SIMILAR
DOUBLE PAYMENT, WE THINK THAT ANY OVERTIME PREMIUM PAID, EVEN IF FOR
WORK DURING THE FIRST FORTY HOURS OF THE WORKWEEK, MAY BE CREDITED
AGAINST ANY OBLIGATION TO PAY STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION.  THESE
CONCLUSIONS ACCORD WITH THOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  FN20 

THE DEFINITION OF OVERTIME PREMIUM THUS BECOMES CRUCIAL IN
DETERMINING THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  WE NEED NOT PAUSE TO
DIFFERENTIATE THE SITUATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED BY THE WORD
"OVERTIME."  FN21  SOMETIMES IT IS USED TO DENOTE WORK AFTER REGULAR
HOURS, SOMETIMES WORK AFTER HOURS FIXED BY CONTRACT AT LESS THAN THE
STATUTORY MAXIMUM HOURS AND SOMETIMES HOURS OUTSIDE OF A SPECIFIED
CLOCK PATTERN WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER PREVIOUS WORK HAS BEEN DONE,
E.G., WORK ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS.  IT IS NOT A WORD OF ART. SEE
PREMIUM PAY PROVISIONS IN SELECTED UNION AGREEMENTS, MONTHLY LABOR
REVIEW, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCTOBER 1947, VOL. 65, NO. 4. 
OVERTIME PREMIUM HAS BEEN USED IN THIS OPINION AS DEFINED IN NOTE 3. 
IT IS THAT EXTRA PAY FOR WORK BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS WORK FOR A SPECIFIED
NUMBER OF HOURS IN THE WORKWEEK OR WORKDAY.  IT IS EXTRA PAY OF THAT
KIND WHICH WE THINK THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM
COMPUTATION OF REGULAR PAY.  OTHERWISE THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO
REQUIRE PAYMENT TO AN EMPLOYEE FOR EXCESS HOURS IS EXPANDED
EXTRAVAGANTLY BY COMPUTING REGULAR RATE OF PAY UPON A PAYMENT ALREADY
MADE FOR THE SAME PURPOSE FOR WHICH SEC. 7(A) REQUIRES EXTRA PAY, TO
WIT, EXTRA PAY BECAUSE OF EXCESS WORKING HOURS.  ACCORDINGLY, STATUTORY
EXCESS COMPENSATION PAID FOR WORK IN EXCESS OF FORTY HOURS SHOULD NOT
BE USED TO FIGURE THE REGULAR RATE.  NEITHER SHOULD SIMILAR CONTRACT
EXCESS COMPENSATION FOR WORK BECAUSE OF PRIOR WORK BE USED IN SUCH A
CALCULATION.  EXTRA PAY BY CONTRACT BECAUSE OF LONGER HOURS THAN THE
STANDARD FIXED BY THE CONTRACT FOR THE DAY OR WEEK HAS THE SAME PURPOSE
AS STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION AND MUST LIKEWISE BE EXCLUDED.  FN22
UNDER THE DEFINITION, A MERE HIGHER RATE PAID AS A JOB DIFFERENTIAL OR
AS A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL, OR FOR SUNDAY OR HOLIDAY WORK, IS NOT AN
OVERTIME PREMIUM.  IT IS IMMATERIAL IN DETERMINING THE CHARACTER OF THE
EXTRA PAY THAT AN EMPLOYEE ACTUALLY HAS WORKED AT A LOWER RATE EARLIER
IN THE WORKWEEK PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF THE HIGHER RATE.  THE HIGHER
RATE MUST BE PAID BECAUSE OF THE HOURS PREVIOUSLY WORKED FOR THE EXTRA
PAY TO BE AN OVERTIME PREMIUM. 

THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION THAT
THE CONTRACT OVERTIME RATE WAS A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL, PARTLY BECAUSE IT
WAS FELT THAT SUCH A HOLDING WOULD HAVE A DISRUPTIVE EFFECT ON NATIONAL
ECONOMY.  69 F.SUPP.  958-59.  WE USE AS EXAMPLES THREE ILLUSTRATIONS
EMPLOYED BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO ILLUSTRATE ITS UNDERSTANDING OF THE
EFFECT OF RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT SITUATIONS.  THAT
COURT THOUGHT THESE ILLUSTRATIONS INDICATED ADDITIONAL LIABILITY FROM
THE EMPLOYER UNDER SEC. 7(A).  FN23  WE DO NOT AGREE.  OUR CONCLUSIONS
AS TO THE TRIAL COURT'S ILLUSTRATIONS VARY FROM THOSE OF THE TRIAL
COURT BECAUSE THAT COURT DID NOT DEDUCT OVERTIME PREMIUMS, AS WE HAVE
DEFINED THEM, ACTUALLY PAID FROM THE WEEKLY WAGE BEFORE DIVIDING BY THE
HOURS WORKED.  SEE QUOTATION FROM WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS
HARDWOOD CO., SUPRA, AT P. 461 OF THIS OPINION.  (1) THE EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT CALLS FOR AN OVERTIME PREMIUM FOR WORK BEYOND THIRTY-SIX
HOURS.  SUCH EXTRA PAY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED AS WEEKLY WAGES IN ANY
COMPUTATION OF THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH A MAN WORKS.  FN24  (2) A
CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF TIME AND A HALF FOR WORK IN EXCESS OF
EIGHT HOURS IN A SINGLE WORKDAY.  AN EMPLOYEE WHO WORKS FIVE TEN-HOUR
DAYS WOULD HAVE NO CLAIM FOR STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION IF PAID THE
AMOUNT DUE BY THE CONTRACT.  FN25  OR (3) A CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR A
RATE OF $1 AN HOUR FOR THE FIRST 40 HOURS AND $1.50 FOR ALL EXCESS
HOURS; AN EMPLOYEE WORKS 48 HOURS AND RECEIVES $52.  TO FIND HIS
REGULAR RATE OF PAY, THE OVERTIME PREMIUM OF $4 SHOULD BE DEDUCTED AND
THE RESULTING SUM DIVIDED BY 48 HOURS.  FN26  ON THE OTHER HAND, A MAN
MIGHT BE EMPLOYED AS A NIGHT WATCHMAN ON AN EIGHT-HOUR SHIFT AT TIME
AND A HALF THE WAGE RATE OF DAY WATCHMEN.  THIS WOULD BE EXTRA PAY FOR
UNDESIRABLE HOURS.  IT IS A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL.  IT WOULD NOT BE
OVERTIME PREMIUM PAY BUT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION FOR
DETERMINING OVERTIME PREMIUM FOR ANY EXCESS HOURS.  FN27 

WHERE AN EMPLOYEE RECEIVES A HIGHER WAGE OR RATE BECAUSE OF
UNDESIRABLE HOURS OR DISAGREEABLE WORK, SUCH WAGE REPRESENTS A SHIFT
DIFFERENTIAL OR HIGHER WAGES BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER OF WORK DONE OR
THE TIME AT WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO LABOR RATHER THAN AN OVERTIME
PREMIUM.  FN28  SUCH PAYMENTS ENTER INTO THE DETERMINATION OF THE
REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  SEE CABUNAC V. NATIONAL TERMINALS CORP., 139 F.2D
853.    THE TRIAL COURT SEEMED TO ASSUME THAT IF THE CONTRACT OVERTIME
RATE WERE A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL, THE EMPLOYEE WHO WORKED ON A HIGHER
PAID SHIFT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS HIGHER SHIFT RATES ENTER INTO
THE COMPUTATION OF REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  ONE OF THE REASONS FOR NOT
ALLOWING THE CONTRACT OVERTIME RATES IN THE COMPUTATION OF REGULAR RATE
OF PAY WAS THAT IT THOUGHT THE GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT
STRAIGHT TIME AND CONTRACT OVERTIME RATES SHOWED THAT THE PREMIUM PAID
BY CONTRACT WAS NOT A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL BUT A TRUE OVERTIME PREMIUM. 
IN THIS WE THINK THE TRIAL COURT ERRED.  THE SIZE OF THE SHIFT
DIFFERENTIAL CANNOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT LARGE WAGES WERE PAID FOR WORK
IN UNDESIRABLE HOURS.  IT IS LIKE A DIFFERENTIAL FOR DANGEROUS WORK. 
THIS CONTRACT CALLED FOR $2.50 STRAIGHT TIME HOURLY RATE FOR HANDLING
EXPLOSIVES.  THE STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION WOULD, OF COURSE, BE
$3.75 PER HOUR.  IF AN EMPLOYEE RECEIVES FROM HIS EMPLOYER A HIGH
HOURLY RATE OF PAY FOR HARD OR DISAGREEABLE DUTY, HE IS ENTITLED TO THE
STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION FIGURED ON HIS ACTUAL PAY. 

NOR DO WE FIND THE DISTRICT COURT'S RELIANCE UPON THE FACT THAT THE
OVERTIME RATES WERE EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO CONCENTRATE THE WORK OF THE
LONGSHOREMEN IN THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURS RELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION OF
THE RESPONDENTS' RATE OF PAY.  THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THE
CONCENTRATION WAS SIGNIFICANT.  IT DID NOT TEST WHETHER THE CONTRACT
OVERTIME RATES CONTAINED OVERTIME PREMIUM PAYMENTS BY CONSIDERING
WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE ACTUALLY RECEIVED EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR EXCESS
HOURS.  WE ACCEPT THE DISTRICT COURT'S HOLDING THAT THIS CONCENTRATION
WAS AN INTENDED EFFECT OF THE OVERTIME RATES AND THAT THE HIGHER RATES
DID CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONCENTRATION OF THE WORK IN THE STRAIGHT TIME
HOURS AS SET OUT IN A PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OF THIS OPINION.  P. 456
SUPRA.  SUCH A CONCENTRATION TENDS, IN SOME RESPECTS, TO THE EMPLOYMENT
OF MORE MEN, AS THERE IS PRESSURE FOR MORE WORK TO BE DONE IN THE
STRAIGHT TIME HOURS.  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, SUPRA, 578. 
HOWEVER, THE PRESSURE OF THE CONTRACT OVERTIME WAGES IS NOT SOLELY
TOWARD A SPREAD OF EMPLOYMENT.  SINCE WORK IS IN FACT DONE OUTSIDE
STRAIGHT TIME HOURS, THE EMPLOYER CAN USE MEN WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY
WORKED IN STRAIGHT TIME HOURS IN CONTRACT OVERTIME HOURS WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL COST. 

BUT SPREAD OF EMPLOYMENT IS NOT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE FORTY-HOUR
MAXIMUM PROVISION OF SEC. 7(A).  ITS PURPOSE IS ALSO TO COMPENSATE AN
EMPLOYEE IN A SPECIFIC MANNER FOR THE STRAIN OF WORKING LONGER THAN
FORTY HOURS.  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, SUPRA, 578.  THE STATUTE
COMMANDS THAT AN EMPLOYEE RECEIVE TIME AND ONE-HALF HIS REGULAR RATE OF
PAY FOR STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION.  THE CONTRACT HERE IN QUESTION
FAILS TO GIVE THAT COMPENSATION TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO WORKS ALL OR PART OF
HIS TIME IN THE LESS DESIRABLE CONTRACT OVERTIME HOURS.  LOOKED AT FROM
THE INDIVIDUAL STANDPOINT OF RESPONDENTS, THE CONCENTRATION OF WORK
DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT UPON THEIR REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  BECAUSE OF
THIS DEFECT, THE CONCENTRATION OF WORK BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONTRACT
HAS NO EFFECT IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  AS WE
INDICATED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS SUBDIVISION (1), A MAJOR PURPOSE OF
THE STATUTE WAS TO COMPENSATE AN EMPLOYEE BY EXTRA PAY FOR WORK DONE IN
EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM HOURS.  THUS THE BURDENS OF OVERLY LONG
HOURS ARE BALANCED BY THE PAY OF TIME AND A HALF FOR THE EXCESS HOURS. 

WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT OVERTIME PREMIUM, DEDUCTIBLE FROM EXTRA PAY TO
FIND THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY, IS ANY ADDITIONAL SUM RECEIVED BY AN
EMPLOYEE FOR WORK BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS WORK FOR A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF
HOURS IN THE WORKWEEK OR WORKDAY WHETHER THE HOURS ARE SPECIFIED BY
CONTRACT OR STATUTE.  FN29 

(2)  SINCE UNDER INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 4, SEC. 69, THE
ADMINISTRATOR REFERS TO REGULAR WORKING HOURS AS IMPORTANT IN
CALCULATING THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY UNDER SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT, A WORD
MUST BE SAID AS TO REGULAR WORKING HOURS IN THIS CASE.  FN30  "REGULAR
WORKING HOURS" APPARENTLY HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 
HE COULD HARDLY HAVE INTENDED IN SEC. 69 TO EMPLOY THE STATUTORY
MAXIMUM HOURS AS SYNONOMOUS WITH REGULAR WORKING HOURS AS THERE IS NO
PROHIBITION ON REGULAR WORKING HOURS THAT ARE LONGER THAN THE STATUTORY
MAXIMUM.  HIS ILLUSTRATIONS, NUMBERS 2 AND 3, SHOW THAT OVERTIME
PREMIUMS MAY BE EARNED WITHIN THE FIRST 40 HOURS OF A WORKWEEK.  THE
STATUTORY MAXIMUM HOURS ARE SIGNIFICANT ONLY AS REQUIRING OVERTIME
PREMIUM PAY.  AN EMPLOYER MAY INCREASE PAY OR DECREASE HOURS FREE AS TO
THOSE STEPS FROM STATUTORY REGULATION.  SEE ARTICLE IN MONTHLY LABOR
REVIEW, SUPRA.  THE TRIAL COURT POINTED OUT THAT "THE IDENTIFYING MARK
OF THE CASE AT BAR IS THE ABSENCE OF ANY NORM, ANY REGULARITY.  BOTH
PARTIES HAVE EMPHASIZED THE CASUAL, IRREGULAR CHARACTER OF THE
EMPLOYMENT."  69 F.SUPP.  959-60.  THE TRIAL COURT, AS WE HAVE
HERETOFORE STATED, PP. 456-457, ALSO FOUND THAT THE "BASIC WORKING
DAY," DEFINED BY SEC. 2(A) OF THE AGREEMENT SET FORTH IN NOTE 5, SUPRA,
WAS NOT THE DAY NORMALLY, REGULARLY OR USUALLY WORKED BY RESPONDENTS. 
INDEED THE CONTRACT, SEC. 1, REQUIRED THESE ROUND-THE-CLOCK IRREGULAR
HOURS FROM SOME INDIVIDUALS.  WE CALL ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM ONLY TO
LAY IT ASIDE AS INAPPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 

HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS IN THIS CASE THAT REGULAR WORKING
HOURS ARE IMPORTANT, THAT THE CONTRACT FIXED REGULAR WORKING HOURS AS
THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURS AND THAT AS AN ACTUAL FACT AS SHOWN BY THE
STATISTICS OF CONCENTRATION OF WORK IN STRAIGHT TIME HOURS, P. 456,
SUPRA, THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURS WERE THE REGULAR WORKING HOURS OF ALL
LONGSHOREMEN.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCLUDES FROM THIS THAT THE CONTRACT
STRAIGHT TIME PAY IS THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY AND THE CONTRACT OVERTIME
PAY INCLUDES A TRUE OVERTIME PREMIUM.  WE MAY BE MISTAKEN IN THUS
LIMITING THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT ON THIS POINT.  IF THE GOVERNMENT
MEANS THAT ANY EXTRA PAY TO AN EMPLOYEE FOR WORK OUTSIDE REGULAR
WORKING HOURS OF THE GROUP OF EMPLOYEES IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE
COMPUTATION OF THE REGULAR RATE, WE DO NOT THINK THAT CONTENTION
SOUND.  THE DEFECT IN THIS ARGUMENT, HOWEVER THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
IS CONSTRUED, IS THAT IT TREATS OF THE ENTIRE GROUP OF LONGSHOREMEN
INSTEAD OF THE INDIVIDUAL WORKMEN, RESPONDENTS HERE.  THE STRAIGHT TIME
HOURS CAN BE THE REGULAR WORKING HOURS ONLY TO THOSE WHO WORK IN THOSE
HOURS.  THE WORK SCHEDULE OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN THE SAME GENERAL
EMPLOYMENT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE IN DETERMINING REGULAR WORKING HOURS OF
A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, REGULAR WORKING HOURS UNDER
A CONTRACT, EVEN FOR AN INDIVIDUAL, HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE IN DETERMINING
THE RATE OF PAY UNDER THE STATUTE.  IT IS NOT IMPORTANT WHETHER PAY IS
EARNED FOR WORK OUTSIDE OF REGULAR WORKING HOURS.  THE TIME WHEN WORK
IS DONE DOES NOT CONTROL WHETHER OR NOT ALL OR A PART OF THE PAY FOR
THAT WORK IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE REGULAR PAY. 

WE THINK, THEREFORE, THAT THIS CASE PRESENTS NO PROBLEMS THAT INVOLVE
DETERMINATION OF THE REGULAR HOURS OF WORK.  AS AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
FOR IRREGULAR HOURS THE RULE OF DIVIDING THE WEEKLY WAGE BY THE NUMBER
OF HOURS WORKED TO FIND THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY WOULD APPLY.  CF.
OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, SUPRA, AT 580. 

(3)  THE CONTRACT WAS INTERPRETED BY THE SHIPPING ASSOCIATION AND THE
LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION AS PROVIDING THAT THE CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME
WAS THE REGULAR RATE.  THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT INDICATED BY THEIR
CONDUCT THAT THE CONTRACT OVERTIME WAS THE STATUTORY EXCESS
COMPENSATION OR AN OVERTIME PREMIUM.  FINDING 43, 162 F.2D AT 672; SEE
NOTE 33, INFRA.  FN31  APPARENTLY NO DISPUTE OR CONTROVERSY AROSE OVER
THIS INTERPRETATION ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT, SEC. 19, MADE PROVISION FOR
THE RESOLUTION OF SUCH DISAGREEMENTS.  THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINED THAT
THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURLY RATE WAS THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH RESPONDENTS
WERE EMPLOYED.  FN32  THIS CONSTRUCTION BY THE PARTIES AND THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, LEADS US TO CONSIDER THIS AGREEMENT
AS THOUGH THERE WAS A PARAGRAPH WHICH READ TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
STRAIGHT TIME RATE IS THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER
THAT THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE CONTRACT OVERTIME RATES WERE
INTENDED TO PROVIDE ANY STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION, WHEN MEN WORKED
MORE THAN FORTY HOURS EXCEPT IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE ENTIRE TIME,
INCLUDING THE EXCESS, WAS IN THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURS.  FN33  THIS OF
COURSE DOES NOT MEAN THAT RESPONDENTS HERE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THESE
PURPOSES OF THE AGREEMENT.  SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, THEY WORKED FOR
THE PAY PROMISED UNDER THE WORDS OF THE CONTRACT.  IT SHOWS NOTHING
MORE ON THIS POINT. 

UNDER THE CONTRACT WE ARE EXAMINING, THE RESPONDENTS' WORK IN
OVERTIME HOURS WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT ANY RELATION AS TO WHETHER THEY
HAD OR HAD NOT WORKED BEFORE.  UNDER OUR VIEW OF SEC. 7(A)'S
REQUIREMENTS THEIR HIGH PAY WAS NOT BECAUSE THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED
BUT BECAUSE OF THE DISAGREEABLE HOURS THEY WERE CALLED TO LABOR OR
BECAUSE THE CONTRACTING PARTIES WISHED TO COMPRESS THE REGULAR WORKING
DAYS INTO THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.  AS HERETOFORE
POINTED OUT, WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHAT WERE THE REGULAR WORKING HOURS
OF THESE RESPONDENTS.  IF IT WERE IMPORTANT, THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINED
THAT THEIR REGULAR WORKING HOURS WERE NOT THE STRAIGHT TIME HOURS. 
THEY WORKED AT IRREGULAR TIMES.  FINDING 45, 162 F.2D AT 673.  THE
RECORD SHOWS THAT ALL RESPONDENTS WORKED 5,201 STRAIGHT TIME HOURS AND
20,771 OVERTIME HOURS.  FOUR OF THE TWENTY RESPONDENTS WORKED NO
STRAIGHT TIME HOURS.  FIVE OTHERS WORKED LESS THAN 100 STRAIGHT TIME
HOURS.  THREE WORKED MORE STRAIGHT TIME THAN OVERTIME.  THE RECORD DOES
NOT SHOW THE HOURS THESE RESPONDENTS WORKED FOR OTHER EMPLOYERS.  THAT
FACT IS IMMATERIAL IN THIS CASE AS RESPONDENTS SEEK RECOVERY ONLY FROM
PETITIONER EMPLOYERS.  THESE ROUND-THE-CLOCK HOURS WERE IN STRICT
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT WHICH ALLOWED THE LONGSHOREMENS
ASSOCIATION TO FURNISH ALL MEN NEEDED AND CALLED FOR THE MEN TO "WORK
ANY NIGHT OF THE WEEK, OR ON SUNDAYS, HOLIDAYS, OR SATURDAY AFTERNOONS,
WHEN REQUIRED."  SECS. 1 AND 2; SEE NOTE 5.  MEN WHO WORKED CONTRACT
OVERTIME HOURS WERE ENTITLED TO CONTRACT OVERTIME PAY.  THEY WERE GIVEN
NO OVERTIME PREMIUM PAY BECAUSE OF LONG HOURS.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT
HIS REGULAR RATE MAY GREATLY EXCEED THE STATUTORY MINIMUM RATE.  THIS
CONTRACT OVERTIME RATE, THEREFORE, DID NOT MEET THE EXCESS PAY
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7. 

IN FINDING THE STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION DUE RESPONDENTS, THE
TRIAL COURT MUST DETERMINE THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION.  EACH RESPONDENT
IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR HIS HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF
FORTY AT ONE AND A HALF TIMES HIS REGULAR RATE, COMPUTED AS THE
WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE RATES WORKED DURING THE WEEK.  IN COMPUTING THE
AMOUNT TO BE PAID, THE PETITIONERS MAY CREDIT AGAINST THE OBLIGATION TO
PAY STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID TO EACH
RESPONDENT WHICH IS ALLOCABLE TO WORK IN THOSE EXCESS HOURS.  THE
PRECISE METHOD FOR COMPUTING THIS CREDIT PRESENTS THE DIFFICULTY. 
ACCORDING TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION, AN EMPLOYER MAY CREDIT
HIMSELF WITH AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF
FORTY MULTIPLIED BY THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK RATHER
THAN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF FORTY
MULTIPLIED BY THE AVERAGE RATE OF PAY FOR THOSE EXCESS HOURS.  FN34
UNDER THAT FORMULA EACH RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED, AS STATUTORY EXCESS
COMPENSATION, TO AN ADDITIONAL SUM EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED
FOR ONE EMPLOYER IN A WORKWEEK IN EXCESS OF FORTY, MULTIPLIED BY ONE
HALF THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, THAT
INTERPRETATION SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE ONE; WE LEAVE A FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE POINT TO THE DISTRICT COURT ON FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT ORDERED THE CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNTS DUE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS
OPINION.  BY A FURTHER ORDER, IT ALLOWED THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER
ANY MATTERS PRESENTED TO IT BY PETITIONERS AS A DEFENSE IN WHOLE OR IN
PART UNDER THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT.  WE MODIFY THESE ORDERS SO AS TO
PERMIT THE DISTRICT COURT TO ALLOW ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPLAINT OR
ANSWER OR ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MAY CONSIDER
JUST. 

AS SO MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 1063, APPROVED JUNE 25, 1938; SEC. 7(A) TOOK
EFFECT 120 DAYS LATER, SEC. 7(D).  NO PROBLEM AS TO THE LENGTH OF TIME
ANY EMPLOYEE WORKED IS PRESENTED.  SEE TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA
LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590; ANDERSON V. MT. CLEMENS POTTERY CO., 328 U.S.
680.  PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 84. 

FN2  THE USE OF THE WORD "OVERTIME" IN THE CONTRACT DOES NOT DECIDE
THIS CASE.  THE PROBLEM FOR SOLUTION IS WHETHER RATES DESCRIBED AS
"OVERTIME" BY THE CONTRACT ACTUALLY ARE SUCH RATES AS SEC. 7(A)
PROVIDES FOR STATUTORY EXCESS HOURS. 

AS WILL HEREAFTER APPEAR, WE CONSIDER THE CONTRACT AS INTENDING TO
PROVIDE STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION AND OVERTIME PREMIUM. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WE ACCEPT THE WORD "OVERTIME" USED IN THE CONTRACT TO
DESCRIBE ONE WAGE SCALE AS HAVING BEEN INTENDED BY THE PARTIES TO THE
CONTRACT TO SATISFY FULLY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7(A). 

FN3  THE FOLLOWING PHRASES ARE USED IN THIS OPINION WITH THE
FOLLOWING MEANING.  THESE DEFINITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO QUOTATIONS. 

EXTRA PAY.  - ANY INCREASED DIFFERENTIAL FROM A LOWER PAY SCALE FOR
WORK AFTER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOURS IN A WORKDAY OR WORKWEEK OR FOR
WORK AT SPECIFIED HOURS. 

OVERTIME PREMIUM.  - EXTRA PAY FOR WORK BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS WORK FOR
A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HOURS IN THE WORKWEEK OR WORKDAY WHETHER THE
HOURS ARE SPECIFIED BY CONTRACT OR STATUTE.    STATUTORY EXCESS
COMPENSATION.  - ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY SEC.
7(A), F.L.S.A. 

REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  - TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR HOURS WORKED DURING
ANY WORKWEEK LESS OVERTIME PREMIUM DIVIDED BY TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS
WORKED. 

THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS APPLY TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CONTRACT
ONLY: 

CONTRACT STRAIGHT TIME.  - COMPENSATION PAID UNDER THE LONGSHORING
CONTRACT FOR WORK DURING THE HOURS DEFINED IN PAR. 3(A) OF THE
CONTRACT, AS FOLLOWS:  8 A.M. TO 12 NOON AND FROM 1 P.M. TO 5 P.M.,
MONDAY TO FRIDAY, INCLUSIVE, AND FROM 8 A.M. TO 12 NOON SATURDAY. 
CONTRACT OVERTIME.  - ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WHICH THE CONTRACT
REQUIRES SHALL BE PAID FOR WORK ON LEGAL HOLIDAYS AND FOR WORK AT HOURS
OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN PAR. 3(A). 

FN4  52 STAT. 1069, SEC. 16: 

"(B)  ANY EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR
AFFECTED IN THE AMOUNT OF THEIR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OR THEIR UNPAID
OVERTIME COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IN AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL
AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ...  THE COURT IN SUCH ACTION SHALL, IN
ADDITION TO ANY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFFS, ALLOW
A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE TO BE PAID BY THE DEFENDANT, AND COSTS OF
THE ACTION." 

FN5  THE AGREEMENT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO
THE HOURS OF WORK AND SCALE OF WAGES:

                     I. GENERAL CARGO AGREEMENT. 

"1.  MEMBERS OF THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART SHALL HAVE ALL OF THE
WORK PERTAINING TO THE RIGGING UP OF SHIPS AND THE COALING OF SAME, AND
THE DISCHARGING AND LOADING OF ALL CARGOES INCLUDING MAIL, SHIPS'
STORES AND BAGGAGE.  WHEN THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART CANNOT FURNISH A
SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF MEN TO PERFORM THE WORK IN A SATISFACTORY MANNER,
THEN THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART MAY EMPLOY SUCH OTHER MEN AS ARE
AVAILABLE. 

"2. (A)  THE BASIC WORKING DAY SHALL CONSIST OF 8 HOURS, AND THE
BASIC WORKING WEEK SHALL CONSIST OF 44 HOURS.  MEN SHALL WORK ANY NIGHT
OF THE WEEK, OR ON SUNDAYS, HOLIDAYS, OR SATURDAY AFTERNOONS, WHEN
REQUIRED.  ON SATURDAY NIGHT, WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY TO FINISH A
SHIP FOR SAILING ON SUNDAY, OR TO HANDLE MAIL OR BAGGAGE. 

"(B)  MEAL HOURS SHALL BE FROM 6 A.M. TO 7 A.M., FROM 12 NOON TO 1
P.M., FROM 6 P.M. TO 7 P.M., AND FROM 12 MIDNIGHT TO 1 A.M. 

     . .         .         .         . 

"(C)  LEGAL HOLIDAYS SHALL BE:  NEW YEAR'S DAY, LINCOLN'S BIRTHDAY,
WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY, GOOD FRIDAY ON THE NEW JERSEY SHORE, DECORATION
DAY, FOURTH OF JULY, LABOR DAY, COLUMBUS DAY, ELECTION DAY, ARMISTICE
DAY, THANKSGIVING, CHRISTMAS, AND SUCH OTHER NATIONAL OR STATE HOLIDAYS
AS MAY BE PROCLAIMED BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. 

     .      .         .         .         . 

"3. (A)  STRAIGHT TIME RATE SHALL BE PAID FOR ANY WORK PERFORMED FROM
8 A.M. TO 12 NOON AND FROM 1 P.M. TO 5 P.M., MONDAY TO FRIDAY,
INCLUSIVE, AND FROM 8 A.M. TO 12 NOON SATURDAY. 

"(B)  ALL OTHER TIME, INCLUDING MEAL HOURS AND THE LEGAL HOLIDAYS
SPECIFIED HEREIN, SHALL BE CONSIDERED OVERTIME AND SHALL BE PAID FOR AT
THE OVERTIME RATE. 

"(C)  THE FULL MEAL HOUR RATE SHALL BE PAID IF ANY PART OF THE MEAL
HOUR IS WORKED AND SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY UNTIL THE MEN ARE RELIEVED. 

"4.  WAGE SCALE:  THE WAGE SCALE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:

          STRAIGHT

                 TIME       OVERTIME

                                  HOURLY       HOURLY

                                                    RATE      RATE 

"(A)  GENERAL CARGO OF EVERY DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING 

     BARREL OIL WHEN PART OF GENERAL CARGO, 

AND ALL GENERAL CARGO HANDLED IN REFRIGERATOR 

     SPACE WITH THE TEMPERATURE ABOVE 

     FREEZING ......................................   $1.25
$1.87 1/2" 

EXTRA RATES ARE PAID FOR SPECIAL TYPES OF CARGO. 

  FOR EXAMPLE: 

"(D)  WET HIDES, CREOSOTED POLES, CREOSOTED TIES, 

     CREOSTED SHINGLES AND SODA ASH IN BAGS ........   $1.40
$2.02 1/2" 

FN6  ADDISON V. HURON STEVEDORING CORP., 69 F.SUPP.  956; AARON V.
BAY RIDGE OPERATING CO., 162 F.2D 665. 

FN7 MR. WALTER E. MALONEY, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
AMERICAN SHIPPING, TESTIFIED THAT LIABILITY TO THE GOVERNMENT ON
STEVEDORING CONTRACTS MIGHT RUN AS HIGH AS $260,000,000, ALTHOUGH HE
ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY WAS "ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO
CALCULATE."  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 4 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1198-1205. 
COMMITTEE MEMBERS REFERRED TO THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION AS $236,000,000,
$340,000,000, AND $300,000,000.  HEARINGS, SUPRA, PP. 1203, 2283,
2469.  THE BASIS FOR SUCH FIGURES DOES NOT APPEAR.  NOR IS IT MADE
CLEAR WHETHER THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT WAS IN MIND.  61 STAT. 84, 88,
89, PT. IV, SECS. 9 AND 11. 

THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION CLAIMS TO HAVE
APPROXIMATELY 80,000 MEMBERS IN UNITED STATES AND CANADA.  THIRTY
THOUSAND ARE SAID TO WORK IN THE PORT OF NEW YORK, AND THE TERMS
ADOPTED IN THE NEW YORK CONTRACT ARE GENERALLY FOLLOWED IN OTHER
PORTS.  THE WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST
STATES THAT 20,000 STEVEDORES ARE COVERED BY 21 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
CONTRACTS, OF WHICH 3 ARE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION.  THE CURRENT NEW YORK CONTRACT WITH THE I.L.A.
AND THE 21 AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PACIFIC ASSOCIATION AND THE I.L.A.
AND I.L.W.U. ARE SAID TO CONTAIN CLAUSES PERMITTING CANCELLATION IF THE
COURTS SUSTAIN THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT. 

FN8  HEARINGS, SUPRA, NOTE 7, 2467-2471; 2474-2482; 2736-2762. 

FN9  THE TRIAL COURT GAVE THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION OF THE "SHAPE,"
FINDING 16: 

"AT THREE STATED HOURS DURING THE DAY, NAMELY AT 7.55 A.M., 12.55
P.M. AND 6.55 P.M., MEN SEEKING EMPLOYMENT GATHER IN A GROUP OR
SEMICIRCLE, CONSTITUTING THE 'SHAPE,' AT THE HEAD OF A PIER WHERE WORK
IS AVAILABLE.  THE FOREMAN STEVEDORE THEN SELECTS FROM THE 'SHAPE' SUCH
MEN AS HE DESIRES TO HIRE, TO WORK UNTIL 'KNOCKED OFF,' THAT IS, TOLD
TO QUIT.  THE SELECTION OF A MAN FROM THE SHAPE CARRIES WITH IT NO
OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER CONCERNING ANY SPECIFIED LENGTH
OF EMPLOYMENT, EXCEPT FOR WORK REQUIREMENTS OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
RELATING TO MINIMUM HOURS UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.  THE DURATION OF
EMPLOYMENT DEPENDS ENTIRELY UPON THE DETERMINATION OF THE STEVEDORE OR
THE STEAMSHIP COMPANY." 

FN10  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND, FINDING 13, THAT "THE WORK WEEK
COMMENCED ON MONDAY AT 7 A.M., AND ENDED THE FOLLOWING MONDAY AT 7
A.M."  THE 44-HOUR WEEK HAD BEEN IN THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE SHIPPING
ASSOCIATION AND THE LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  NO ADJUSTMENT OF THE BASIC WORKWEEK WAS MADE IN THE
CONTRACT WHEN THE 42- AND 40-HOUR PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7(A) BECAME
EFFECTIVE. 

FN11  MR. RYAN EXPLAINED THE ASSOCIATION OBJECTIVE AS FOLLOWS:  "OUR
OBJECTIVE WAS TO DE-CASUALIZE LONGSHORE WORK AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, TO
HAVE THE WORK DONE IN THE DAYTIME AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AND MAKE IT AS
EXPENSIVE FOR THE EMPLOYERS AS POSSIBLE ON SUNDAY.  BEFORE THERE WAS
ANY UNION WE HAD DOUBLE TIME FOR SUNDAY.  WE WANTED TO WORK IN THE
DAYTIME.  WE FIGURED WE ONLY LIVE ONCE.  WE WANT THE DAYTIME WHEN EVERY
MAN WHO WANTS TO WORK WANTS IT DONE IN THE DAYTIME AND NOT DURING
OVERTIME.  THE EMPLOYERS WOULD SAY IT CANNOT BE DONE IN THE STEAMSHIP
INDUSTRY.  I THINK WE HAVE PROVEN FOR THEM THAT AFTER 30 YEARS OF
NEGOTIATING MANY OF THE THINGS THEY SAID COULD NOT BE DONE IN THE
INDUSTRY, WHEN THEY FOUND IT TOO EXPENSIVE TO DO IT IN ANY OTHER WAY,
HAVE BEEN DONE. 

"Q.  DO THE MEN OBJECT TO WORKING OUTSIDE OF A NORMAL DAY?  A.
ABSOLUTELY." 

FURTHERMORE, AS THE LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION'S PRIMARY INTEREST IS
AS STATED ABOVE BY MR. RYAN, IT FEARS THE EFFECT ON THEIR EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT OF A HOLDING THAT THE CONTRACT OVERTIME RATE MUST BE USED IN
THE DETERMINATION OF STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION.  THE SHIPPING
ASSOCIATION MIGHT INSIST ON A REDUCTION OF THE CONTRACT OVERTIME RATE,
IF PAYMENT OF THAT RATE WERE NOT TO BE TREATED AS A SATISFACTION OF THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN13  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 577, 578; WALLING
V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37, 40; BROOKLYN BANK V. O'NEIL, 324
U.S. 697, 706; JEWELL RIDGE CORP. V. LOCAL, 325 U.S. 161, 167. 

FN14  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 523; SEE SEC. 9, PART
IV, PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT, 61 STAT. 84, 88. 

FN15  149 MADISON AVE. CORP. V. ASSELTA, SUPRA, P. 204:  "THE CRUCIAL
QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, ARE WHETHER THE HOURLY RATE DERIVED
FROM THE FORMULA HERE PRESENTED WAS, IN FACT, THE 'REGULAR RATE' OF PAY
WITHIN THE STATUTORY MEANING AND WHETHER THE WAGE AGREEMENT UNDER
CONSIDERATION, IN FACT, MADE ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR OVERTIME
COMPENSATION."  WALLING V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 325 U.S. 427, 432. 

FN16  WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., SUPRA, 424;
WALLING V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., SUPRA, 430. 

FN17  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449; LABOR MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 136; NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70,
SEC. 2; PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 84, SEC. 1. 

FN18  THE CONTENTION, HOWEVER, FOUND FAVOR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT:
"SUCH CATASTROPHIC RESULTS ARE INEVITABLE ONCE WE ACCEPT PLAINTIFFS'
UNDERLYING PREMISE - THAT IN DETERMINING THE 'REGULAR RATE' INTENDED BY
CONGRESS, WE MUST CLOSE OUR EYES TO THE CONTRACT IN GOOD FAITH
NEGOTIATED BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES AND LOOK ONLY TO THE ACTUAL
WORK PATTERN.  UPON SUCH A PREMISE, GENUINE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
CANNOT LIVE."  69 F.SUPP.  956, 959. 

FN19 "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, TO BE EFFECTIVE, MUST NECESSARILY DEAL
WITH LARGE GROUPS - WITH ALL THE WORKERS IN THE INDUSTRY, OR ITS
SUBDIVISION, ON WHOSE BEHALF THE BARGAINING IS BEING CONDUCTED.  AND
WHEN, AS IN THE I.L.A., SUCH COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS ARE SUBMITTED TO A
VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP AFFECTED, AND THAT APPROVAL OF THE BARGAIN THUS
ARRIVED AT IS VOTED, IT WOULD MAKE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING A MOCKERY
IF SOME OF THEM COULD SEEK SPECIAL TERMS, BECAUSE, FOR A SHORT PERIOD
OF TIME, THEIR WORK EXPERIENCE HAS VARIED IN SOME DEGREE FROM THAT OF
THEIR FELLOW WORKERS." 

FN20  SEE NOTE 30 AND WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO.,
SUPRA, 424-25. 

FN21  CF. FINDING 28(A):  "PRIOR TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE
WORD OVERTIME HAD A GENERALLY ACCEPTED MEANING IN AMERICAN INDUSTRY,
NAMELY, EXCESS TIME, TO WHICH A PENALTY RATE OF COMPENSATION WAS
APPLIED TO DISCOURAGE SUCH WORK.  THE IDEA OF EXCESSIVITY, HOWEVER, WAS
NOT AN INDISPENSABLE ELEMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF OVERTIME AS UNDERSTOOD. 
OVERTIME WAS ALSO UNDERSTOOD TO COVER HOURS OUTSIDE OF A SPECIFIED
CLOCK PATTERN." 

FN22  THE HOLDING IN WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, SUPRA, IS NOT TO
THE CONTRARY OF THIS POSITION.  THE FACTS OF THAT CASE INDICATED A
PALPABLE EVASION OF THE STATUTORY PURPOSES.  SEE 69 F.SUPP.  AT P. 958,
NOTE 1. 

NOR IS THE DECISION IN 149 MADISON AVE. CORP. V. ASSELTA, SUPRA,
OPPOSED TO THIS POSITION.  IN THAT CASE WEEKLY WAGE CONTRACTS CALLING
FOR A WORKWEEK OF 46 AND 54 HOURS PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING FORMULA FOR
DETERMINING THE REGULAR HOURLY RATE OF PAY:  "'THE HOURLY RATES FOR
THOSE REGULARLY EMPLOYED MORE THAN FORTY (40) HOURS PER WEEK SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THEIR WEEKLY EARNINGS BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS
EMPLOYED PLUS ONE-HALF THE NUMBER OF HOURS ACTUALLY EMPLOYED IN EXCESS
OF FORTY (40) HOURS.'"  331 U.S. AT 202.  UNDER THAT METHOD OF
COMPUTATION AN EMPLOYEE WHO WORKED 46 HOURS RECEIVED A SUM EQUAL TO
WHAT HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IF HE HAD BEEN PAID FOR 40 HOURS' WORK AT
THE FORMULA HOURLY RATE AND 6 HOURS OF WORK AT ONE AND A HALF TIMES THE
FORMULA RATE.  AS SO CONSTRUED, THE EXTRA PAY FOR WORK IN EXCESS OF 40
HOURS WOULD BE AN OVERTIME PREMIUM WHICH COULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE
COMPUTATION OF THE REGULAR RATE, AND THE REGULAR RATE WOULD BE THE
FORMULA RATE.  THE COURT DID NOT REACH THE QUESTION OF THE LEGALITY OF
THAT METHOD OF COMPUTATION AS IT HELD THAT SINCE THE FORMULA RATE WAS
NOT CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYED IN DETERMINING COMPENSATION, THE FORMULA RATE
COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED THE REGULAR RATE FOR THOSE WHO WORKED MORE THAN
40 HOURS.  ACCORDINGLY THE REGULAR RATE WAS HELD TO BE THE AVERAGE OF
ALL WAGES ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE ENTIRE WEEK.  SEE ASSELTA V. 149
MADISON AVE. CORP., 156 F.2D 139, 141. 

FN23  THE OPINION STATED: 

"THIS CONTROVERSY REQUIRES FOR ITS RESOLUTION A DELICATE ADJUSTMENT
TO ACCOMMODATE THE HARMONIOUS APPLICATION OF THREE NATIONAL POLICIES. 
A HEAVY HANDED MESHING OF THESE THREE POLICIES WITH THE INDUSTRIAL
MACHINE WHICH FAILS TO MINIMIZE THE FRICTION AT THEIR POINTS OF CONTACT
CAN GENERATE ENOUGH HEAT TO IMPAIR ONE OR MORE OF THE POLICIES OR
SEVERELY INJURE THE MACHINE ITSELF. 

"IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WE HAVE (1) THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
JULY 5, 1935, 49 STAT. 449,  ...  TO ENCOURAGE THE PRACTICE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; (2) THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, JUNE 25, 1938,
52 STAT. 1060,  ...  TO CORRECT AND ELIMINATE THE LABOR CONDITIONS
DETRIMENTAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING
NECESSARY FOR HEALTH, EFFICIENCY AND GENERAL WELL BEING OF WORKERS; (3)
THE NATIONAL NEED DURING THE WAR FOR THE MAXIMUM OF PRODUCTION AS
ILLUSTRATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 9301, FEBRUARY 9, 1943, 8 FED. REG.
1825, ESTABLISHING THE 48 HOUR WEEK FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR."  69
F.SUPP.  956, 958. 

FN24  36 HOURS X $1   14 HOURS X $1.50   TOTAL WAGES $57.  REGULAR
RATE   $57, LESS OVERTIME PREMIUM OF $7,/50 HOURS   $1 PER HOUR. 
FN25  5 DAYS X 8 HOURS AT $1 PER HOUR   5 DAYS X 2 HOURS AT $1.50 PER
HOUR   $55 TOTAL WAGE.  REGULAR RATE   $55 - $5/50   $1 PER HOUR. 

FN26  EXECUTIVE ORDER 9301, ISSUED FEBRUARY 9, 1943, 8 FED. REG.
1825, PROVIDED THAT ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS SHOULD WORK THEIR
EMPLOYEES AT LEAST 48 HOURS PER WEEK.  THE ORDER PROVIDED THAT IT
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS SUPERSEDING THE PROVISIONS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL
OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY FOR
HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF THE AGREED OR CUSTOMARY WORKWEEK, NOR AS
SUSPENDING OR MODIFYING ANY PROVISION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
OR ANY OTHER LAW RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF WAGES OR OVERTIME. 

FN27  FOR EXAMPLE, DAYTIME WATCHMAN'S PAY, $.60 PER HOUR.  NIGHTTIME
WATCHMAN'S PAY $.90 PER HOUR, EIGHT-HOUR, SEVEN-DAY SHIFT.  SIXTEEN
HOURS WOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR AT EXCESS TIME RATES.  THE WATCHMAN'S
PAY WOULD BE 56 X $.90   $50.40.  HIS STATUTORY EXCESS PAY 16 X $.45
$7.20; TOTAL $57.60.  HIS REGULAR RATE IS ($57.60-$7.20)/56 OR $.90 PER
HOUR. 

COMPARE LEGAL FIELD LETTER 109, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, JULY 31, 1946, 1947 WAGE-HOUR MAN.  66, IN WHICH THE CHIEF OF
THE WAGE-HOUR SECTION CHARACTERIZES A PARTICULAR 50% DIFFERENTIAL AS A
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL. 

FN28  THIS IS WELL BROUGHT OUT BY A CASE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO THIS
LITIGATION.  FERRER V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 70 F.SUPP.  1.  THERE THE
WAGE SCHEDULE WAS AS FOLLOWS, P. 3:

                     GENERAL CARGO 

FROM        TO                       WORK DAYS     HOLIDAYS 

7 A.M.      12 M.D. ................      $0.55        $0.77 

12 M.D. 1 P.M. .................       0.90         1.00 

1 P.M.   4 P.M. .................       0.55         0.77 

4 P.M.     6 P.M. .................       0.77         0.84 

6 P.M.      7 P.M. .................       0.90         1.20 

7 P.M.      11 P.M. ................       0.77         0.84 

11 P.M.     12 M.N. ................       0.90         1.25 

12 M.N.     6 A.M. .................       0.84         1.02 

6 A.M.      7 A.M. .................       1.30         1.40 

FN29  WE AVOID ANY EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF RESPONDENTS' SUGGESTION
THAT THE PROPER WAY TO DETERMINE THE REGULAR RATE IS TO DIVIDE THE
WAGES RECEIVED DURING THE FIRST FORTY HOURS OF WORK IN A WEEK BY 40. 
THE QUOTIENT, IT IS SUGGESTED, WOULD BE THE REGULAR RATE.  ONE FAULT OF
THAT METHOD, WE THINK, IS THAT SUCH WAGES MIGHT CONTAIN OVERTIME
PREMIUM PAYMENTS; FOR EXAMPLE, A CONTRACT WHICH FIXED A RATE FOR 36
HOURS AND A HIGHER RATE FOR SUBSEQUENT HOURS.  ANOTHER OBJECTION IS
THAT SUCH A METHOD OF COMPUTATION WOULD GIVE AN IMPROPERLY WEIGHTED
AVERAGE FOR THE RATE OF PAY FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK; AN EMPLOYEE WHO
PERFORMED MORE HIGHLY SKILLED OR UNPLEASANT WORK AFTER 40 HOURS OF WORK
WOULD NOT RECEIVE THE PROPER AMOUNT OF STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION IF
THE REGULAR RATE WERE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST 40
HOURS.  THE STATEMENT AS TO STATUTORY EXCESS HOURS IN WALLING V.
YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S. 419, 423, WAS MADE AS TO A
SITUATION WHERE THIS COURT CONCLUDED THE DUAL PAY PLAN OF THE CASE WAS
"WHOLLY UNREALISTIC AND ARTIFICIAL  ...  SO AS TO NEGATE THE STATUTORY
PURPOSES."  323 U.S. 42.  THE PROBLEM WE ARE HERE CONSIDERING WAS NOT
AT ISSUE. 

FN30  THE QUESTION IS SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN BY THIS EXCERPT:  "EXTRA
COMPENSATION PAID FOR OVERTIME WORK, EVEN IF REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY A
UNION AGREEMENT OR OTHER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND HIS
EMPLOYEES NEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN DETERMINING THE EMPLOYEE'S REGULAR
HOURLY RATE OF PAY (SEE PAR. 13 OF THIS BULLETIN).  FURTHERMORE, IN
DETERMINING WHETHER HE HAS MET THE OVERTIME REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7
THE EMPLOYER MAY PROPERLY CONSIDER AS OVERTIME COMPENSATION PAID BY HIM
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SATISFYING THESE REQUIREMENTS, ONLY THE EXTRA AMOUNT
OF COMPENSATION - OVER AND ABOVE STRAIGHT TIME - PAID BY HIM AS
COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME WORK - THAT IS, FOR HOURS WORKED OUTSIDE THE
NORMAL OR REGULAR WORKING HOURS - REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE IS REQUIRED
TO PAY SUCH COMPENSATION BY A UNION OR OTHER AGREEMENT." 
INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 4, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, REVISED NOVEMBER 1940. 

FN31  AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN HALF OF THE CARGO CLASSIFICATIONS THE
OVERTIME RATE WAS A FEW CENTS LESS PER HOUR THAN TIME AND A HALF THE
STRAIGHT TIME RATES. 

FN32  CONCLUSION OF LAW NO. 3:  "THE 'STRAIGHT TIME HOURLY RATE' SET
FORTH IN EACH SUBDIVISION OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT,
AS STATED IN FINDING OF FACT NO. 9, CONSTITUTED THE REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH PLAINTIFFS WERE EMPLOYED WHEN HANDLING THE STATED KIND OF
CARGO." 

FN33  IT IS CLEAR UNDER THE APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE AGREEMENT, SEC.
2(A), NOTE 5 ABOVE, THAT A MAN COULD WORK ALL HIS TIME WHOLLY IN
CONTRACT OVERTIME HOURS.  AN EMPLOYEE RECEIVED OVERTIME PREMIUM FOR
WORK DONE IN WHAT THE TRIAL COURT CONSIDERED TO BE THE BASIC WORKWEEK. 
FINDING 43(A): "IF, AND ONLY IF, A LONGSHOREMAN WORKED MORE THAN 40
HOURS BETWEEN 8 A.M. AND 12 NOON, AND 1 P.M. AND 5 P.M. ON MONDAYS TO
FRIDAYS, INCLUSIVE, AND BETWEEN 8 A.M. AND 12 NOON ON SATURDAY OF THAT
WORKWEEK, NONE OF THESE DAYS BEING A HOLIDAY, HE WAS PAID AN ADDITIONAL
SUM FOR WORK ON SATURDAY MORNING IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS - NAMELY 62 1/2
CENTS PER HOUR,  ...  " 

FN34  SEE INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 4, SEC. 14.  THE ADMINISTRATOR
ILLUSTRATES HIS POSITION WITH THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE:  AN EMPLOYEE WORKS
30 HOURS A WEEK AT AN OCCUPATION PAYING 40 CENTS AN HOUR AND 20 HOURS
IN THE SAME WEEK AT AN OCCUPATION PAYING 50 CENTS AN HOUR.  THE
EMPLOYEE'S REGULAR RATE OF PAY IS 44 CENTS AN HOUR (30 HOURS X 40 CENTS
20 HOURS X 50 CENTS/50 HOURS), AND HE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE $2.20 IN
ADDITION TO THE $22 HE HAS ALREADY RECEIVED, EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF
OVERTIME HOURS (10) MULTIPLED BY ONE-HALF THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY (22
CENTS). 

IF IT WERE HELD THAT AN EMPLOYER, UNDER THE CONTRACT WE ARE HERE
CONSIDERING, COULD CREDIT HIMSELF ONLY WITH THE WAGES ACTUALLY PAID
DURING THE HOURS FOLLOWING THE FIRST 40, AN EMPLOYEE WHO PERFORMED 40
HOURS OF CONTRACT OVERTIME WORK EARLY IN THE WEEK AND 10 HOURS OF
STRAIGHT TIME AFTER THE FIRST 40 HOURS WOULD RECEIVE A LARGER AWARD
THAN AN EMPLOYEE WHO FIRST WORKED 10 STRAIGHT TIME HOURS AND THEN
WORKED 40 CONTRACT OVERTIME HOURS.  SUCH A VARIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
STATUTORY EXCESS COMPENSATION WOULD NOT BE IN ACCORD WITH THE STATUTORY
PURPOSE. 

COMPARE, HOWEVER, RELEASES 1913 AND 1913(A) ISSUED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR ON DECEMBER 1, 1942 AND JANUARY 5, 1943, WHICH PROVIDE
THAT AN EMPLOYER MAY IF HE SO ELECTS COMPUTE THE REGULAR RATE ON THE
BASIS OF THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40.  IF THAT METHOD OF
COMPUTATION OF THE REGULAR RATE IS FOLLOWED, AN EMPLOYER COULD CREDIT
HIMSELF WITH THE WAGES ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE HOURS IN EXCESS OF 40. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR.
JUSTICE BURTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

NO TIME IS A GOOD TIME NEEDLESSLY TO SAP THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING OR TO DISTURB HARMONIOUS AND FRUITFUL RELATIONS BETWEEN
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES BROUGHT ABOUT BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE
JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS UPON ANOTHER DOCTRINAIRE CONSTRUCTION BY THIS
COURT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OUGHT TO ADMONISH AGAINST AN
APPLICATION OF THAT ACT IN DISREGARD OF INDUSTRIAL REALITIES.  PROMPTLY
AFTER THE EIGHTIETH CONGRESS CONVENED, CONGRESS PROCEEDED TO UNDO THE
DISASTROUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN THE SO-CALLED PORTAL-TO-PORTAL
CASES.  WITHIN LESS THAN A YEAR OF THE DECISION IN ANDERSON V. MT.
CLEMENS POTTERY CO., 328 U.S. 680, BOTH HOUSES, BY OVERWHELMING VOTES
THAT CUT ACROSS PARTY LINES, PASSED, AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNED, THE
PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947.  WHAT IS MOST PERTINENT TO THE IMMEDIATE
PROBLEM BEFORE US IS THE FACT THAT BECAUSE THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
HAD BEEN "INTERPRETED JUDICIALLY IN DISREGARD OF LONG-ESTABLISHED
CUSTOMS, PRACTICES, AND CONTRACTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES,"
CONGRESS HAD TO UNDO SUCH JUDICIAL MISCONSTRUCTION BECAUSE IT FOUND
THAT "VOLUNTARY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WOULD BE INTERFERED WITH AND
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS AND BETWEEN
EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYEES WOULD BE CREATED."  FN1  BECAUSE THE PRESENT
DECISION IS HEEDLESS OF A LONG-STANDING AND SOCIALLY DESIRABLE
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT AND IS CALCULATED TO FOSTER DISPUTES IN AN
INDUSTRY WHICH HAS BEEN HAPPILY AT PEACE FOR MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS, I
DEEM IT NECESSARY TO SET FORTH THE GROUNDS OF MY DISSENT. 

THE COURT'S OPINION IS WRITTEN QUITE IN THE ABSTRACT.  IT TREATS THE
WORDS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS THOUGH THEY WERE PARTS OF A
CROSS-WORD PUZZLE.  THEY ARE, OF COURSE, THE MEANS BY WHICH CONGRESS
SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE SPECIFIC INDUSTRIAL ABUSES.  THE COURT DEALS WITH
THESE WORDS OF CONGRESS AS THOUGH THEY WERE UNRELATED TO THE FACTS OF
INDUSTRIAL LIFE, PARTICULARLY THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK.  THE COURT'S OPINION COULD EQUALLY
WELL HAVE BEEN WRITTEN HAD THE HISTORY OF THAT INDUSTRY UP TO 1916 NOT
BEEN AN ANARCHIC EXPLOITATION OF THE NECESSITIES OF CASUAL LABOR FOR
WANT OF A STRONG UNION TO SECURE THROUGH EQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER
FAIR TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT.  SEE, E.G., BARNES, THE LONGSHOREMEN (1915),
PASSIM.  THROUGH SUCH BARGAINING POWER THE AGREEMENT WAS SECURED WHICH
THE COURT NOW UPSETS.  THROUGH THIS AGREEMENT, THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF
THE INDUSTRY - THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION ON THE ONE HAND AND THE
EMPLOYERS ON THE OTHER HAND - WERE DEFINED, AND THE INTERESTS OF THE
MEN, THE EMPLOYERS, AND, NOT LEAST, THE COMMUNITY WERE TO BE ADJUSTED
IN A RATIONAL AND CIVILIZED WAY.  ON BEHALF OF A FEW DISSIDENT MEMBERS
OF THE UNION, BUT AGAINST THE PROTESTS OF THE UNION AND OF THE
EMPLOYERS AND OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE COURT DISLOCATES THIS ARRANGEMENT
AND IT DOES SO BY WHAT IT CONCEIVES TO BE THE COMPULSIONS OF SEC. 7(A)
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FN2  THIS IS TO ATTRIBUTE DESTRUCTIVE
POTENCY TO TWO SIMPLE ENGLISH WORDS - "REGULAR RATE" - FAR BEYOND WHAT
THEY DESERVE. 

EMPLOYMENT OF LONGSHOREMEN HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN PRECARIOUS BECAUSE
DEPENDENT ON WEATHER, TRADE CONDITIONS, AND OTHER UNPREDICTABLES. 
DECASUALIZATION OF THEIR WORK HAS BEEN THEIR PRIME OBJECTIVE FOR AT
LEAST SIXTY YEARS.  THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE THIS RESULT BY INDUCING
CONCENTRATION OF WORK DURING WEEKDAY DAYTIME HOURS. 

ONE OF THE STRONGEST INFLUENCES TO THIS END IS TO MAKE IT
ECONOMICALLY DESIRABLE.  AND SO THE UNION HAS SOUGHT AND ACHIEVED AN
ADDITION TO THE BASIC - THE REGULAR - RATE SUFFICIENTLY HIGH TO DETER
EMPLOYERS FROM ASSIGNING WORK OUTSIDE OF DEFINED PERIODS, EXCEPT IN
EMERGENCIES.  SINCE 1916, WHEN THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMENS
ASSOCIATION MADE ITS FIRST COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WITH WATERFRONT
EMPLOYERS IN NEW YORK, A 50% PREMIUM ON NIGHT AND WEEKEND WORK HAS
GENERALLY PREVAILED.  IN THE INDUSTRY, THIS HAS BEEN COLLOQUIALLY
CALLED "OVERTIME" PAY. 

LONGSHOREMEN DO NOT USUALLY WORK CONTINUOUSLY FOR ONE EMPLOYER, BUT
SHIFT FROM ONE TO ANOTHER, WHEREVER EMPLOYMENT CAN BE FOUND.  THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT DOES NOT ENTITLE AN EMPLOYEE WHO WORKS A TOTAL OF
OVER FORTY HOURS PER WEEK FOR SEVERAL EMPLOYERS, BUT NOT MORE THAN
FORTY HOURS FOR ANY ONE OF THEM, TO ANY OVERTIME PAY.  IN VIEW OF THE
PECULIARITIES OF THIS INDUSTRY, THEREFORE, THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY OF
PROMOTING THE AIM OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, TO DETER A LONG
WORKWEEK, IS THAT DEVISED BY THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, NAMELY, TO LIMIT
TO APPROXIMATELY THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OF HOURS THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE
PERIODS IN THE WEEK FOR WHICH ADDITIONAL PAY AMOUNTING TO OVERTIME
RATES NEED NOT BE PAID, REGARDLESS OF THE EMPLOYER FOR WHOM THE WORK IS
DONE. 

DURING THE PERIOD (1943-45) IN CONTROVERSY, THE WAGE RATES WERE
GOVERNED BY THE 1943 GENERAL CARGO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION AND THE EMPLOYERS AT THE PORT OF NEW YORK. 
UNDER ITS TERMS, THE "BASIC WORKING WEEK," FOR WHICH "STRAIGHT TIME"
HOURLY RATES WERE PAID, INCLUDED THE HOURS OF 8 A.M. TO NOON, AND 1
P.M. TO 5 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND 8 A.M. TO NOON ON SATURDAY. 
FN3  "OVERTIME" RATES, FOR "ALL OTHER TIME," WERE IN ALMOST ALL
INSTANCES  FN4  150% OF THE "STRAIGHT TIME" RATES.  THE 1943 AGREEMENT
EMBODIED THE PRACTICE OF THE INDUSTRY SINCE 1916, WHEREBY APPROXIMATELY
150% OF "STRAIGHT TIME" RATES WAS PAID FOR NIGHT AND WEEKEND WORK. 
THROUGH THE YEARS, WITH SUCCESSIVE RENEWALS OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMENS ASSOCIATION AND THE EMPLOYERS, THE RATES OF
PAY HAVE RISEN AND THE LENGTH OF THE "BASIC WORKING WEEK" HAS
DECREASED.  THE RESPONDENTS, MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMENS
ASSOCIATION, DID A LARGE PART OF THEIR WORK FOR THE PETITIONERS OUTSIDE
OF THE ENUMERATED "STRAIGHT TIME" HOURS.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, THEY RECEIVED, FOR WHATEVER WORK THEY DID DURING
THE "BASIC WORKING WEEK," "STRAIGHT TIME" PAY, AND FOR WORK AT ALL
OTHER TIMES, "OVERTIME" PAY, DRAWING SUCH "OVERTIME" PAY REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER SUCH WORK WAS OR WAS NOT PART OF THEIR FIRST FORTY HOURS OF
WORK IN THE WEEK.  FN5  THEY INSTITUTED THIS ACTION, FOR DOUBLE DAMAGES
UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060, 1069,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 216(B), ASSERTING THAT NIGHT AND WEEKEND WORK HAD BEEN
SO FREQUENT AN INCIDENT OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT THAT THE CONTRACTUAL
"STRAIGHT TIME" PAY COULD NOT BE DEEMED THEIR "REGULAR RATE" OF PAY,
UNDER SEC. 7(A), BUT THAT THEIR "REGULAR RATE" WAS THE AVERAGE OF WHAT
THEY RECEIVED FOR ALL THEIR WORK FOR ANY ONE EMPLOYER, "STRAIGHT TIME"
AND "OVERTIME" TOGETHER.  ON THIS THEORY, REJECTED BY THE UNION, THE
EMPLOYERS, AND THE GOVERNMENT, BUT NOW ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, ALL WORK
BEYOND FORTY HOURS PER WEEK FOR ANY ONE EMPLOYER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID
FOR AT ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THIS AVERAGE.    THE STATUTORY PHRASE
"REGULAR RATE" IS NOT A TECHNICAL TERM.  THIRTEEN EXPRESSIONS USED IN
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WERE DEFINED BY CONGRESS IN SEC. 3. 
"REGULAR RATE" WAS LEFT UNDEFINED.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
PHRASE REVEALS ONLY THAT IT REPLACED "AGREED WAGE" IN AN EARLIER DRAFT,
BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS MODIFICATION HAD SIGNIFICANCE. 
NOR IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT IN THE FIELD OF LABOR RELATIONS,
"REGULAR RATE" WAS A TECHNICAL TERM MEANING THE ARITHMETIC AVERAGE OF
WAGES IN ANY ONE WEEK.  IF ORDINARY ENGLISH WORDS ARE NOT LEGISLATIVELY
DEFINED, THEY MAY RIGHTLY BE USED BY THE PARTIES TO WHOM THEY ARE
ADDRESSED TO MEAN WHAT THE PARTIES THROUGH LONG USAGE HAVE UNDERSTOOD
THEM TO MEAN, WHEN THE WORDS CAN BEAR SUCH MEANING WITHOUT DOING
VIOLENCE TO ENGLISH SPEECH.  THE "REGULAR RATE" CAN THEREFORE BE
ESTABLISHED BY THE PARTIES TO A LABOR AGREEMENT, PROVIDED ONLY THAT THE
RATE SO ESTABLISHED TRULY REFLECTS THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT AND IS
NOT A SUBTERFUGE TO CIRCUMVENT THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE.  WALLING V.
YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S. 419, 424.  THUS THE PROBLEM
BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE DESIGNATION OF "STRAIGHT TIME RATES" FOR THE
"BASIC WORKING WEEK" IN THE LONGSHOREMEN'S COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WAS AN
HONEST REFLECTION OF THE DISTINCTIVE CONDITIONS OF THIS INDUSTRY. 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH AN ABSTRACT "REGULAR RATE" OF PAY, FOR
INDUSTRY IS NOT.  THE "REGULAR RATE" IN A GIVEN INDUSTRY MUST BE
INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES OF THAT
INDUSTRY.  THE DISTINCTIVE CONDITIONS OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S TRADE,
WHERE EMPLOYEES FREQUENTLY WORK DURING ONE WEEK FOR SEVERAL DIFFERENT
EMPLOYERS, ARE REFLECTED IN THE PROVISIONS WHICH THE INDUSTRY HAS MADE
IN DETERMINING RATES OF COMPENSATION.  THESE PROVISIONS WERE DESIGNED
TO SECURE FOR LONGSHOREMEN PROTECTION NOT ONLY FROM HARMFUL PRACTICES
COMMON TO MANY INDUSTRIES AND DEALT WITH SPECIFICALLY BY THE STATUTE,
BUT ALSO FROM THOSE PECULIAR TO THE LONGSHOREMEN'S INDUSTRY, REQUIRING
SPECIAL TREATMENT. 

THE RESPONDENTS' WAGES, AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE ARRANGEMENT FOR
THE BETTERMENT OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S TRADE - ALSO COVERING HEALTH AND
SANITARY PROVISIONS, MINIMUM NUMBER OF MEN IN A GANG DOING SPECIFIED
TYPES OF WORK, "SHAPING TIME," MINIMUM HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THOSE
CHOSEN AT A "SHAPE," ARBITRATION, ETC. - WERE DETERMINED BY A
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE EMPLOYERS. 
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS "INTENDED TO AID AND NOT SUPPLANT THE
EFFORTS OF AMERICAN WORKERS TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN POSITION BY SELF
ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."  H.R. REP. NO. 1452, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 9.  "THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE
EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES AND HOURS IS
RECOGNIZED AND ENCOURAGED BY THIS BILL.  IT IS NOT INTENDED THAT THIS
LAW SHALL INVADE THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE TO FIX THEIR OWN
CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT, WHEREVER THERE CAN BE ANY REAL, GENUINE
BARGAINING BETWEEN THEM.  IT IS ONLY THOSE LOWWAGE AND LONG-WORKING
HOUR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS, WHO ARE THE HELPLESS VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN
BARGAINING WEAKNESS, THAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO ASSIST TO OBTAIN A MINIMUM
WAGE."  SEN. REP. NO. 884, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 3-4.  FN6  SUCH
ASSURANCES WERE NECESSARY TO ALLAY THE TRADITIONAL HOSTILITY OF
ORGANIZED LABOR TO LEGISLATIVE WAGE-FIXING.  THE COURT NOW HOLDS
UNLAWFUL A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY A STRONG UNION,
GOVERNING THE WIDE RANGE OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIPS, AND ESPECIALLY DESIGNED TO RESTRICT THE HOURS OF WORK
AND TO REQUIRE THE SAME PREMIUM AS THAT GIVEN BY THE STATUTE FOR WORK
DONE OUTSIDE OF NORMAL HOURS BUT WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMIT.  THE COURT
SUBSTITUTES AN ARRANGEMENT REJECTED BOTH BY THE UNION AND THE EMPLOYERS
AS INIMICAL TO THE NEEDS OF THEIR INDUSTRY AND SUBVERSIVE OF THE
PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNDER WHICH THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN
CARRIED ON.  BUT, WE ARE TOLD, THESE UNTOWARD CONSEQUENCES ARE
COMPELLED BY A MERE READING OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN. 

ON THE QUESTION YOU ASK DEPENDS THE ANSWER YOU GET.  IF THE PROBLEM
IS CONCEIVED OF MERELY AS A MATTER OF ARITHMETIC YOU GET AN
ARITHMETICAL ANSWER.  IF THE PROBLEM IS PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
INDUSTRY TO WHICH IT RELATES, AND MEANING IS DERIVED FROM AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY OF WHICH THIS
IS JUST ONE ASPECT, A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF CONSIDERATIONS MUST BE
RESPECTED.  THE DEFENDANTS DERIVED THEIR RIGHTS FROM THE ENTIRE
AGREEMENT AND NOT FROM A PART MUTILATED BY ISOLATION.  IF THE PARTIES
HAD WRITTEN OUT WITH UNAMBIGUOUS EXPLICITNESS THAT THE EXTRA WAGE IN
THE SCHEDULED PERIODS IS TO BE DEEMED A DETERRENT AGAINST WORK DURING
THOSE PERIODS AND IS NOT TO BE DEEMED A BASIS FOR CALCULATING TIME AND
A HALF AFTER THE FORTY HOURS, I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT WOULD
SAY THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT, MADE IN PALPABLE GOOD FAITH, IS OUTLAWED BY
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

HOW IS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES ABOVE THE LIMITS SET BY THE ACT TO
BE RECKONED?  THE STANDARD FOR COMPENSATION COULD BE DETERMINED (1) BY
SPECIFIC STATUTORY TERMS; (2) BY COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT; OR (3) BY
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION IN DEFAULT OF EITHER. 

CONGRESS COULD HAVE LAID DOWN A HARD AND FAST RULE, COULD HAVE
EXPRESSED A PURELY ARITHMETIC FORMULA.  IT COULD HAVE SAID THAT THE
RATE ON WHICH TIME AND A HALF IS TO BE RECKONED IS TO BE FOUND BY
DIVIDING THE TOTAL WAGE BY THE HOURS WORKED.  IT WOULD NOT EVEN HAVE
BEEN NECESSARY TO SPELL ALL THIS OUT.  CONGRESS COULD HAVE CONVEYED ITS
THOUGHT BY USING THE PHRASE "AVERAGE" INSTEAD OF "REGULAR."  AND WHERE
WE HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO GO ON, EXCEPT THE TOTAL WAGE AND THE HOURS, IT
IS REASONABLE ENOUGH THUS TO ASCERTAIN THE REGULAR RATE.  BUT WHEN
PARTIES TO A COMPLICATED INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENT, WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING
OF DETAILS NOT PECULIARLY WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF JUDGES, INDICATE
WHAT THE REGULAR RATE IS FOR PURPOSES OF CONTINGENCIES AND ADJUSTMENTS
SATISFIED OTHERWISE THAN BY A PURELY ARITHMETIC DETERMINATION OF THE
RATE OF WAGES, NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OR ITS LANGUAGE
PRECLUDES SUCH DESIRABLE CONSENSUAL ARRANGEMENTS, PROVIDED, OF COURSE,
THAT THE PARTIES DEAL AT ARM'S LENGTH, AND THAT THE DEFINED "REGULAR"
RATE IS NOT AN ARTIFICE FOR CIRCUMVENTING THE PLAIN COMMANDS OF THE
LAW.  SUCH AN ARTIFICE WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT BE USED IN A CONTRACT MADE
BY WORKERS IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS REPRESENTED BY A UNION STRONG ENOUGH
TO PURSUE THOSE INTERESTS.  REGULARITY IN THIS CONTEXT IMPLIES OF
COURSE A CONTROLLING NORM FOR DETERMINING WAGES WHICH, THOUGH AGREED
UPON BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND NOT HOSTILE TO, THE
UNDERLYING AIMS OF THE OVERTIME PROVISION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  DISCOURAGEMENT OF OVERWORK AND OF UNDEREMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT ARE
THE AIMS.  THE LONGSHOREMEN'S COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT SERVES THE SAME
PURPOSE AS DOES THE STATUTE. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS NOT A LEGISLATIVE CODE FOR THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDUSTRY.  IT SETS A FEW MINIMUM STANDARDS, LEAVING THE
MAIN FEATURES IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION FOR VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  WHERE STRONG UNIONS EXIST, RELATIVELY LITTLE OF
THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION WAS TO BE ENFORCED BY LAW.  MOST OF IT WAS LEFT
TO BE REGULATED BY FREE CHOICE AND USAGE AS EXPRESSED AND UNDERSTOOD BY
THE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS.  CONGRESS DID NOT PROVIDE FOR INCREASE IN
BASIC RATES EXCEPT TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF ESTABLISHING MINIMUM
WAGES.  THE INCLUSION OF SUCH MINIMUM WAGES IS IN ITSELF A RECOGNITION
BY CONGRESS OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IT SOUGHT TO CHANGE AND
WHAT IT SOUGHT TO USE ONLY AS THE BASIS FOR THE COMPUTATION OF AN
OVERTIME PERCENTAGE. 

THE CLAIM OF THE FEW MEMBERS IN OPPOSITION TO THE UNION IS PREDICATED
UPON AN AMOUNT SUPERADDED FOR REASONS PECULIAR TO THE STEVEDORING
INDUSTRY TO THE WAGE WHICH THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT IN PERFECT GOOD
FAITH ESTABLISHED AS THE REGULAR RATE.  THE UNION MEMBERS SECURED THIS
EXTRA WAGE AS PART OF THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT. 
FN7  THIS PREMIUM IS NOT TO BE DETACHED FROM THE SCHEME AS THOUGH IT
WERE A RATE FIXED BY LAW AS A BASIS FOR CALCULATING THE STATUTE'S
NARROWLY LIMITED OVERTIME PROVISION.  SO LONG AS ITS MINIMUM WAGE
PROVISIONS WERE COMPLIED WITH, THE STATUTE DID NOT SEEK TO CHANGE THE
TRUE BASIC OR "REGULAR" RATE OF PAY IN ANY INDUSTRY, FROM WHICH RATE
ALL STATUTORY OVERTIME IS TO BE COMPUTED.  THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION
FOR INTERPRETING THE STATUTORY TERM AS INCLUDING ELEMENTS CLEARLY
UNDERSTOOD IN THE INDUSTRY TO BE AS FOREIGN TO THE "REGULAR RATE" AS
ANY STRICTLY OVERTIME RATES.  HERE THE EXTRA WAGE IS THE INDUSTRY'S
OVERTIME RATE FOR WORK WHICH MIGHT NOT BE WITHIN THE OVERTIME PERIOD OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, BUT WAS WITHIN THE SCHEDULE OF THE
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT FOR EXTRA WAGES, NOT BECAUSE THE WORK WAS OVERTIME
IN THE ORDINARY INDUSTRIAL SENSE BUT BECAUSE IT WAS AT PERIODS DURING
WHICH ALL WORK WAS SOUGHT TO BE DISCOURAGED BY MAKING IT COSTLY. 
BECAUSE THE UNION SECURED FOR ITS MEN AN EXTRA WAGE EVEN FOR NOT MORE
THAN FORTY WORKING HOURS, THE SCOPE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS
TO OVERTIME IS NOT ENLARGED.  ONLY FOR A WORK-WEEK LONGER THAN FORTY
HOURS IS AN EMPLOYEE TO BE PAID ONE AND A HALF TIMES "THE REGULAR
RATE," AND NOTHING IN THE ACT PRECLUDES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
AS TO WHAT THE REGULAR RATE SHOULD BE, PROVIDED SUCH AGREEMENT IS
REACHED IN GOOD FAITH AND AS A FAIR BARGAIN.  THE PRESUPPOSITION OF THE
ACT WAS THAT VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENTS THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
SHOULD COVER AN AREA MUCH WIDER, AND ECONOMICALLY MORE ADVANTAGEOUS,
THAN THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FIXED BY THE ACT.  THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED WHERE IT EXISTED.  IT
WAS TO BE EXTENDED BY ADVANCING THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF WORKERS IN NON
UNIONIZED INDUSTRIES AND IN INDUSTRIES WHERE UNIONS WERE WEAK, BY
FURTHERING EQUALITY IN BARGAINING POWER.  IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT THE
PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO PERMIT THE WEAKENING OF A STRONG UNION BY
EVISCERATING JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERMS OF A COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT CONTRARY TO THE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE INDUSTRY HAD LONG
BEEN OPERATING AND FOR WHICH THE UNION IS EARNESTLY CONTENDING. 

THERE CAN BE NO QUARREL WITH THE GENERALITY THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ARE ARRIVED AT THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH VIOLATES THE STATUTE NEED NOT BE UPHELD.  BUT THIS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONTRACTUAL DESIGNATION
OF CERTAIN HOURS AS "BASIC" IS HONEST AND FAIR, WE CANNOT CONSIDER THE
FACT THAT THE CONTRACT WAS ONE ENTERED INTO BY A POWERFUL UNION,
FAMILIAR WITH THE NEEDS OF ITS MEMBERS AND THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS OF
THE INDUSTRY, AND FULLY EQUIPPED TO SAFEGUARD ITS MEMBERSHIP.  TO VIEW
SUCH A CONTRACT WITH A HOSTILE EYE IS SCARCELY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE
OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED THE POWER OF "EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE  ...  TO
ESTABLISH (THE) REGULAR RATE AT ANY POINT AND IN ANY MANNER THEY SEE
FIT," WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S. 419, 424,
PROVIDED THAT THE REGULAR RATE IS NOT COMPUTED "IN A WHOLLY UNREALISTIC
AND ARTIFICIAL MANNER SO AS TO NEGATE THE STATUTORY PURPOSES."  WALLING
V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37, 42.  IF WE WERE CONFRONTED WITH AN
AGREEMENT WHICH DID NOT REFLECT THE TRUE PRACTICE IN THE INDUSTRY, IF
DESPITE THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN HOURS AS "BASIC" AND OTHERS AS
"OVERTIME," THE DISTINCTION WAS NOT ACTUALLY OBSERVED, BUT WORK WAS
DONE AT ALL TIMES INDISCRIMINATELY, SO THAT WHAT THE CONTRACT
DESIGNATED AS "OVERTIME" PAY WAS IN REALITY A "SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL,"
DESIGNED TO INDUCE EMPLOYEES TO WORK AT LESS PLEASANT HOURS, RATHER
THAN TO DETER EMPLOYERS FROM CARRYING ON AT SUCH HOURS, THE LABELS
ATTACHED BY THE PARTIES TO THE VARIOUS PERIODS OF WORK WOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED TO CONCEAL THE TRUE FACTS.  WE HAVE AGAIN AND AGAIN PIERCED
THROUGH SUCH DECEPTIVE FORMS.  SEE, E.G., WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE,
323 U.S. 37; WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S. 419;
WALLING V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 325 U.S. 427; 149 MADISON AVE. CORP. V.
ASSELTA, 331 U.S. 199.  BUT HERE THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE
AGREEMENT MISLABELED THE TRUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP.  AND IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT IN NO CASE IN WHICH WE FOUND
THAT THE TERMS USED HAD DISTORTED THE TRUE FACTS DID A UNION WHICH HAD
MADE THE CONTRACT APPEAR TO DEFEND IT. 

THE FACT THAT SOME WORK WAS DONE AT ODD HOURS DOES NOT MISREPRESENT
THE REGULAR SITUATION, PROVIDED THAT SUCH WORK WAS EXCEPTIONAL AND WAS
RESTRICTED IN FREQUENCY BY THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, SO
THAT WHAT THE AGREEMENT TREATED AS REGULAR AND WHAT AS EXCEPTIONAL WERE
TRULY JUST THAT.  WE TURN THEN TO THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, IN
REPRESENTATIVE PERIODS, OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK LONGSHOREMEN.  THE
STIPULATIONS, EXHIBITS, AND FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ALL
DEMONSTRATE THE EXCEPTIONAL NATURE OF "OVERTIME" WORK.  FN8  IT IS ALSO
APPARENT THAT SUCH NIGHT WORK AS WAS DONE WAS USUALLY DONE IN ADDITION
TO, RATHER THAN INSTEAD OF, DAYTIME WORK.  THE INCREASED COMPENSATION
FOR SUCH WORK THEREFORE SERVED PRINCIPALLY TO ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULT
AS DID THE STATUTE - NAMELY, TO AFFORD A HIGHER RATE OF COMPENSATION
FOR LONG HOURS.  IN PEACETIME, NIGHT WORK WAS EXTREMELY RARE FOR ANYONE
AS A RECURRING EXPERIENCE, AND EVEN DURING THE EXIGENCIES OF WAR ONLY A
SMALL MINORITY WAS PRINCIPALLY SO OCCUPIED. 

THE ACCURACY OF THE DESIGNATION OF ONE PERIOD OR AMOUNT OF WORK AS
"BASIC" IS NOT CONTRADICTED BY THE FACT THAT SOME WORK MAY HAVE BEEN
DONE AT OTHER TIMES AS WELL.  THE VERY REFERENCE IN ANY COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT TO OVERTIME PAY FOR UNUSUAL HOURS IMPLIES THAT SOME SUCH WORK
IS ANTICIPATED.  A PROTECTIVE TARIFF NEED NOT BE SO HIGH AS TO EXCLUDE
EVERY LAST ITEM.  THE STATISTICS IN THE MARGIN AMPLY JUSTIFY THE TRIAL
JUDGE'S CONCLUSION THAT THE DESIGNATIONS IN THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
WERE NOT UNREAL OR ARTIFICIAL WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO, AND
DID NOT BECOME SO EVEN AT THE HEIGHT OF THE ABNORMAL WARTIME EFFORT. 
OF COURSE, EVEN IF MOST OF THE WORK OF LONGSHOREMEN WAS PERFORMED
DURING "STRAIGHT TIME" HOURS, IF THE 50% INCREMENT FOR WORK AT OTHER
TIMES WAS NOT A TRUE OVERTIME PAYMENT, BUT A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL, THIS
HIGHER RATE OF PAY WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ESTABLISHING
THE "REGULAR RATE" OF THE RESPONDENTS.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT THIS PREMIUM CONSTITUTED TRUE OVERTIME.  AS THAT COURT STATED
(FINDING 28), A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 

"IS AN AMOUNT ADDED TO THE NORMAL RATE OF COMPENSATION, WHICH IS
LARGE ENOUGH TO ATTRACT WORKERS TO WORK DURING WHAT ARE REGARDED AS
LESS DESIRABLE HOURS OF THE DAY, AND YET NOT SO LARGE AS TO INHIBIT AN
EMPLOYER FROM THE USE OF MULTIPLE SHIFTS," 

WHILE A TRUE OVERTIME PREMIUM 

"IS AN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL RATE OF COMPENSATION, DESIGNED TO
INHIBIT OR DISCOURAGE AN EMPLOYER FROM USING HIS EMPLOYEES BEYOND A
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HOURS DURING THE WEEK OR DURING CERTAIN SPECIFIED
HOURS OF THE DAY.  A SAFE GUIDE FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE SHIFT
DIFFERENTIAL AND THE OVERTIME PREMIUM IS BY THE DEGREE OF SPREAD
BETWEEN THE NORMAL RATE AND THE PENALTY RATE.  WHEREAS A SHIFT
DIFFERENTIAL IS USUALLY 5 OR 10 CENTS PER HOUR, THE OVERTIME PREMIUM IS
GENERALLY 50 PER CENT OF THE NORMAL RATE."  THESE FINDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT ARE AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE TESTIMONY AND BY INDUSTRIAL
STATISTICS.  SEE 65 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 183-85; WAGE STRUCTURE:
MACHINERY (BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 1945) P. 21; ID. (1946) P. 38;
WAGE STRUCTURE:  FOUNDRIES (BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 1945) TABLES 32,
33; ID. (1946) PP. 44-45.  AND COMPARE THE DIRECTIVES OF THE ECONOMIC
STABILIZATION DIRECTOR DATED MARCH 8, 1945, AND APRIL 24, 1945,
LIMITING THE SHIFT DIFFERENTIALS WHICH THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD
COULD APPROVE TO FOUR CENTS PER HOUR FOR THE SECOND SHIFT AND SIX OR
EIGHT CENTS PER HOUR FOR THE THIRD.  CCH LABOR LAW SERVICE, VOL. 1A,
PP10,034.11, 10,462.  APPLYING THE TEST BASED ON FINDING 28, AND
FINDING ALSO THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL HAD IN FACT SERVED TO DETER NIGHT
AND WEEK-END WORK, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE FIFTY PER CENT
INCREMENT WAS TRUE OVERTIME AND NOT A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL. 

THE COURT PURPORTS TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND
YET IT CONCLUDES THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
FIFTY PER CENT WAS BY WAY OF OVERTIME AND NOT A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL. 
THE DISTRICT COURT, TO BE SURE, DID NOT EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THE
PREMIUM WAS NOT A SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL IN ONE OF ITS FORMAL FINDINGS OF
FACT.  IT DID SO STATE, HOWEVER, IN ITS OPINION AND THIS CONCLUSION
DEPENDED ON THE STATEMENTS QUOTED ABOVE FROM FINDING 28 AS TO THE
CHARACTERISTICS INDICATIVE OF TRUE OVERTIME AND SHIFT DIFFERENTIALS.  I
FAIL TO SEE HOW THIS COURT CAN ACCEPT FINDING 28 AND REJECT THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTRACTUAL "OVERTIME" WAS NOT A SHIFT
DIFFERENTIAL. 

FINDINGS OF LOWER COURTS ARE TO BE DISREGARDED ONLY IF NOT
SUBSTANTIATED BY THE EVIDENCE.  HERE, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE
FINDING WAS IMPRESSIVE, AND YET THE COURT STRAINS TO OVERTURN IT TO
REACH A RESULT NOT URGED AS SOCIALLY DESIRABLE BUT ONLY AS DEMANDED BY
LEGAL DIALECTIC.  FN9 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT EVEN IF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ACCURATELY
DESIGNATED THE REGULAR AND OVERTIME WORK OF THE GENERALITY OF
LONGSHOREMEN, IT CANNOT APPLY TO THE RESPONDENTS, BECAUSE OF THEIR
PARTICULAR WORKING HOURS FOR A STRETCH OF THE WARTIME PERIOD HERE IN
CONTROVERSY.  THIS CONTENTION EXPRESSES AN ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PROCESS
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH, IF ACCEPTED, WOULD UNDERMINE ITS
EFFICACY.  IT SUBJECTS THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT TO THE HAZARDS OF SELF
SERVING INDIVIDUALISM, WHICH MUST INEVITABLY WEAKEN THE FORCE OF SUCH
AGREEMENTS FOR IMPROVING THE CONDITIONS OF LABOR AND FORWARDING
INDUSTRIAL PEACE.  HERE, THE VERY INCREASED RATES OF PAY WHICH THE
RESPONDENTS RECEIVED FOR EXCEPTIONAL NIGHT AND WEEKEND WORK WAS THE
RESULT OF THE CONTRACT WHICH THEY NOW SEEK TO DISAVOW. 

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BETWEEN POWERFUL COMBINATIONS OF EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES IN AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY, EACH GROUP CONSCIOUS OF WHAT IT SEEKS
AND HAVING NOT MERELY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP BUT RESOURCEFUL
EXPERIENCE IN DISCHARGING IT, IS A FORM OF INDUSTRIAL GOVERNMENT
WHEREBY SELF-IMPOSED LAW SUPPLANTS FORCE.  CF. FEIS, THE SETTLEMENT OF
WAGE DISPUTES (1921) C. II.  THIS IS AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE
PROCESS BY WHICH THE STEVEDORING INDUSTRY HAS SERVED THE GREATEST PORT
IN THE UNITED STATES.  YET THE COURT REJECTS THE MEANING WHICH THE
PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT HAVE GIVEN IT AND SAYS IT MEANS WHAT THE
PARTIES REJECT.  OFTEN, TOO OFTEN, INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IS ENGENDERED BY
CONFLICTING VIEWS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES AS TO THE MEANING OF
A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.  HERE THE INDUSTRY AS AN ENTIRETY - THE UNION
AND THE EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION - IS IN COMPLETE ACCORD ON THE MEANING
OF THE TERMS UNDER WHICH THE INDUSTRY HAS LIVED FOR THIRTY YEARS AND
UNDER WHICH ALONE, THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT INSIST, THEY CAN
CONTINUE TO LIVE PEACEFULLY.  BUT A FEW MEMBERS OF THE UNION ASSERT AN
INTEREST DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THEIR FELLOWS - SOME THIRTY THOUSAND -
AND URGE THEIR PRIVATE MEANING EVEN THOUGH THIS CARRIES POTENTIAL
DISLOCATION TO THE VERY AGREEMENT TO WHICH THEY APPEAL FOR THEIR
RIGHTS.  UNLESS IT BE JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED THAT UNION OFFICERS DO NOT
KNOW THEIR RESPONSIBILITY OR HAVE BETRAYED IT, SO THAT WHAT APPEARS TO
BE A CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THEIR MEN IS MERE PRETENSE IN THAT IT DOES
NOT EXPRESS THE TRUE INTERESTS OF THE UNION AS AN ENTIRETY, THIS COURT
HAD BETTER LET THE UNION SPEAK FOR ITS MEMBERS AND REPRESENT THEIR
WELFARE, INSTEAD OF RECONSTRUCTING, AND THEREBY JEOPARDIZING,
ARRANGEMENTS UNDER WHICH THE UNION HAS LIVED AND THRIVED AND BY WHICH
IT WISHES TO ABIDE.  FN10 

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS PLAY TOO VALUABLE A PART IN THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIPS TO BE CAST ASIDE AT THE WHIM OF A FEW UNION
MEMBERS WHO SEEK TO RETAIN THEIR BENEFITS BUT WISH TO DISAVOW WHAT THEY
REGARD AS THEIR BURDENS.  UNLESS THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT IS HELD TO
DETERMINE THE INCIDENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE ENTIRETY FOR WHOM IT
WAS SECURED, IT CEASES TO PLAY ITS GREAT ROLE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY.  CF. RICE, COLLECTIVE LABOR AGREEMENTS IN
AMERICAN LAW, 44 HARV. L. REV. 572; WOLF, THE ENFORCEMENT OF COLLECTIVE
LABOR AGREEMENTS:  A PROPOSAL, 5 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  273; HAMILTON,
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, 3 ENCYC.  SOC.  SCI. 628, 630. 

BUT FURTHERMORE, AS I READ THE COURT'S OPINION, IT IS NOT LIMITED IN
APPLICATION TO THOSE EMPLOYEES MOST OR ALL OF WHOSE WORK WAS DONE AT
NIGHT, BUT EXTENDS EQUALLY TO THOSE WHO WORKED CHIEFLY DURING THE
"BASIC WORKING WEEK," BUT ALSO DID A FEW HOURS OF WORK AT OTHER TIMES. 
EVEN WHERE A LONGSHOREMAN WORKED PRECISELY FORTY HOURS OF "STRAIGHT
TIME," FOLLOWED BY A FEW HOURS OF "OVERTIME" IN THE SAME WEEK, PAYMENT
OF THE APPROPRIATE WAGES AS DETERMINED BY THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
WOULD NOT SATISFY THE COURT'S TEST THAT ONLY SUCH EXTRA PAY AS IS GIVEN
"FOR WORK BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS WORK FOR A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HOURS IN
THE WORKWEEK OR WORKDAY" CAN BE REGARDED AS TRUE OVERTIME PAY.  TO
REQUIRE SPECIFICATION IN AN INDUSTRY WHERE THE ONLY THING CERTAIN IS
UNCERTAINTY IS TO COMMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE.  THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION
FOR SUCH A TEST IN THE STATUTE, ITS HISTORY, INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE,
JUDICIAL DECISION, OR ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS.  FN12 

IN SHORT, THIS IS NOT A DECISION THAT WHERE THE PREDOMINANT WORK OF
AN EMPLOYEE IS PAID FOR AT "OVERTIME" RATES, SUCH RATES ENTER INTO
COMPUTATION OF THE "REGULAR RATE," BUT RATHER THAT WHERE THE CONDITIONS
IN AN INDUSTRY ARE SUCH THAT THE NUMBER OF "STRAIGHT TIME" HOURS CANNOT
BE PRECISELY PREDICTED IN ADVANCE, AN ARRANGEMENT FOR TIME AND A HALF
FOR ALL OTHER HOURS CANNOT BE LEGAL, REGARDLESS OF HOW UNUSUAL WORK
OUTSIDE OF THE "STRAIGHT TIME" HOURS MAY BE. 

BUT WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT MEANS TO GO AS FAR AS IT SEEMS TO GO,
AND EVEN IF ITS HOLDING IS LATER LIMITED TO THE NARROW SITUATION NOW
BEFORE US, I CANNOT AGREE WITH ITS CONCLUSION.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE
"REGULAR RATE" OF PAY FOR PORT OF NEW YORK LONGSHOREMEN WAS THE
"STRAIGHT TIME" SCALE PROVIDED FOR BY THE UNION CONTRACT, AND THAT THIS
WAS TRUE FOR THE WHOLE UNION, INCLUDING THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS. 
FAR FROM RECEIVING LESS OVERTIME THAN THE STATUTE REQUIRED, THE
RESPONDENTS WERE, THROUGH THE AGREEMENT, THE RECIPIENTS OF MUCH MORE. 
TO CALL THEIR DEMAND ONE FOR "OVERTIME PYRAMIDED ON OVERTIME" IS NOT TO
USE A CLEVER CATCHPHRASE, BUT TO DESCRIBE FAIRLY THE TRUE NATURE OF
THEIR CLAIM. 

I WOULD REINSTATE THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN1  SECTION 1(A), PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 84, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 251(A). 

FN2  "NO EMPLOYER SHALL  ...  EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES  ...  FOR A
WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS  ...  UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF (FORTY HOURS) AT A RATE
NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS
EMPLOYED."  52 STAT. 1060, 1063, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 207(A). 

FN3  "2(A)  THE BASIC WORKING DAY SHALL CONSIST OF 8 HOURS, AND THE
BASIC WORKING WEEK SHALL CONSIST OF 44 HOURS.  MEN SHALL WORK ANY NIGHT
OF THE WEEK, OR ON SUNDAYS, HOLIDAYS, OR SATURDAY AFTERNOONS, WHEN
REQUIRED.  ON SATURDAY NIGHT, WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED ONLY TO FINISH A
SHIP FOR SAILING ON SUNDAY, OR TO HANDLE MAIL OR BAGGAGE. 

"(B)  MEAL HOURS SHALL BE FROM 6 A.M. TO 7 A.M., FROM 12 NOON TO 1
P.M., FROM 6 P.M. TO 7 P.M., AND FROM 12 MIDNIGHT TO 1 A.M. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"3(A)  STRAIGHT TIME RATE SHALL BE PAID FOR ANY WORK PERFORMED FROM 8
A.M. TO 12 NOON AND FROM 1 P.M. TO 5 P.M., MONDAY TO FRIDAY, INCLUSIVE,
AND FROM 8 A.M. TO 12 NOON SATURDAY. 

"(B)  ALL OTHER TIME, INCLUDING MEAL HOURS AND THE LEGAL HOLIDAYS
SPECIFIED HEREIN, SHALL BE CONSIDERED OVERTIME AND SHALL BE PAID FOR AT
THE OVERTIME RATE. 

"(C)  THE FULL MEAL HOUR RATE SHALL BE PAID IF ANY PART OF THE MEAL
HOUR IS WORKED AND SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY UNTIL THE MEN ARE RELIEVED. 
...  " 

FN4  FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, THE "OVERTIME" RATE MAY BE REGARDED
AS 150% OF "STRAIGHT TIME" IN ALL INSTANCES, SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT
ALLOWED THE RESPONDENTS TO RECOVER FOR THOSE FEW INSTANCES WHERE THE
"OVERTIME" WAS SLIGHTLY LESS, AND THIS PORTION OF ITS JUDGMENT WAS NOT
APPEALED. 

FN5  ON THE OTHER HAND, ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT DID NOT SO SPECIFY, IN
THE UNUSUAL SITUATION OF A LONGSHOREMAN WORKING OVER FORTY HOURS OF
"STRAIGHT TIME" FOR ONE EMPLOYER IN ONE WEEK, HE WAS PAID TIME AND A
HALF FOR THE EXCESS.  WHERE THIS HAD NOT BEEN DONE, THE DISTRICT COURT
ALLOWED APPROPRIATE RECOVERY, AND THIS WAS NOT APPEALED. 

FN6  SIMILAR INTENTIONS WERE EXPRESSED AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND ON THE FLOOR OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS BY THE
SPOKESMEN OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS. 
SEE THE JOINT HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND
EDUCATION AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP.
46-47(ASST.  ATTY.  GEN. JACKSON); ID. PP. 181-83(SECY.  PERKINS AND
SEN. WALSH); 81 CONG. REC. 7650, 7651, 7808(SEN.  BLACK); 7652, 7799,
7800, 7885-86, 7937(SEN.  WALSH); 7813(SEN.  PEPPER); 82 CONG. REC.
1390(REP.  NORTON); 1395(REP.  RANDOLPH); 83 CONG. REC. 7291(REP. 
ALLEN); 7310(REP.  FITZGERALD); 9258(REP.  RANDOLPH). 

FN7  CF. LORD STOWELL, IN THE NEPTUNE, 1 HAGG.  ADM.*  227,*  232:  "
...  THE NATURAL AND LEGAL PARENTS OF WAGES ARE THE MARINER'S
CONTRACT, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE COVENANTED THEREIN; THEY
IN FACT GENERATE THE TITLE TO WAGES." 

FN8  THE FOLLOWING FIGURES WERE EITHER STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES,
FOUND AS FACTS BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND CONCURRED IN BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AND THIS COURT, OR COMPUTED FROM SUCH STATISTICS:

                        OCT. 24, 1938

                        1932-37   (EFFECTIVE DATE  APR. 1, 1944
MAR. 

                                            AVERAGE     OF FLSA) TO
   31, 1945

                               AUG. 31, 1939   (HEIGHT OF WARTIME

(EVE OF WAR)        ACTIVITY) 

WORK PERFORMED DURING STRAIGHT TIME HOURS----  79.93%       75.03%
    54.5% 

NIGHT WORK-----------------------------------  15.13%       17.89%
   20.5% 

WEEKEND WORK---------------------------------   4.94%        7.08%
    25.0% 

TOTAL NIGHT WORK BY MEN WHO HAD WORKED 

DURING SAME DAY -----------------------------   13.2%       23.29%
    44.5% 

DITTO BY THOSE WHO HAD NOT-------------------  86.8%        76.71%
   55.5% 

TOTAL MAN-HOURS, CONSISTING OF NIGHT WORK BY 

THOSE WHO HAD NOT WORKED DURING SAME DAY-----   2.57%      4.17%
  11.1% 

CONCENTRATION OF MAN-HOURS, STRAIGHT TIME 

OVER OVERTIME-------------------------------- 11.22         8.47
   3.38 

FN9  THAT THE HOURS DESIGNATED BY THE AGREEMENT AS "OVERTIME" WERE
REGARDED BY THE UNION AS EXCESSIVE HOURS, RATHER THAN MERELY AS
UNPLEASANT HOURS, MAY ALSO BE DEDUCED FROM THE FACT THAT THEY INCLUDED
MUCH WEEKDAY TIME IN WHICH THERE WAS AMPLE DAYLIGHT DURING A LARGE PART
OF THE YEAR, AND WERE NOT CONFINED TO NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS.  ANOTHER
INDICATION OF THE SAME THING IS THE FACT THAT THE HISTORY OF THE UNION
AGREEMENTS FOR NEW YORK LONGSHOREMEN REVEALS A SUCCESSION OF REDUCTIONS
OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF "STRAIGHT TIME" HOURS PARALLEL TO THE REDUCTION
OF THE USUAL WEEKLY WORKING HOURS DURING THE SAME PERIOD THROUGHOUT
AMERICAN INDUSTRY.    FN10  OF COURSE, IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT
PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES - FOR REASONS OF COLOR, LACK OF SENIORITY, OR
ANYTHING ELSE - WERE NOT FAIRLY OR PROPERLY REPRESENTED IN THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, AND WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND
FORCED INTO A LESS DESIRABLE CLASS OF WORK, NOT BECAUSE OF ACCIDENT OR
THEIR OWN DESIRE BUT BECAUSE OF THE DELIBERATE POLICY OF THE EMPLOYERS,
THE UNION, OR BOTH, WE CANNOT TREAT THE AGREEMENT MADE FOR THE
GENERALITY OF LONGSHOREMEN AS BINDING UPON THEM AS WELL.  SEE STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, 323 U.S. 210.  THE RESPONDENTS' CLAIM
WAS NOT BASED UPON ANY SUCH ALLEGATION. 

FN12  THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE WAGE-HOUR ADMINISTRATOR PERTINENT TO
THIS CASE ARE CONFLICTING AND INCONCLUSIVE.  CITATION OF THE MOST
RELEVANT SHOULD SUFFICE.  CF. SECS. 69, 70, INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO.
4, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. STEEL CO., 334 U.S. 495 


NO. 461.  ARGUED APRIL 29-30, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 74
F.SUPP.  671, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE UNITED STATES SUED UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO ENJOIN
THE ACQUISITION BY UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION OF THE ASSETS OF
CONSOLIDATED STEEL CORPORATION, LARGEST INDEPENDENT STEEL FABRICATOR ON
THE WEST COAST, AS A VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT.  THE GIST
OF THE COMPLAINT WAS (1) THAT THE ACQUISITION WOULD BE IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE, BECAUSE ALL MANUFACTURERS OTHER THAN UNITED STATES STEEL WOULD
BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING CONSOLIDATED'S REQUIREMENTS
OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS, AND BECAUSE EXISTING COMPETITION BETWEEN
CONSOLIDATED AND UNITED STATES STEEL IN THE SALE OF STRUCTURAL
FABRICATED PRODUCTS AND PIPE WOULD BE ELIMINATED; AND (2) THAT THE
PROPOSED ACQUISITION, IN THE LIGHT OF PREVIOUS ACQUISITIONS BY UNITED
STATES STEEL, WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF
FABRICATED STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET AREA.  HELD:  THE
PROPOSED ACQUISITION WOULD NOT VIOLATE SEC. 1 OR SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  PP. 507-508, 519-534. 

(A)  THE ACQUISITION DOES NOT UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE OPPORTUNITIES
OF COMPETITOR PRODUCERS OF ROLLED STEEL TO MARKET THEIR PRODUCT.  PP.
519-527. 

(B)  THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC INTENT IN THIS CASE TO ACCOMPLISH AN
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UNITED STATES V. YELLOW
CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 520-527. 

(C)  IT IS NOT PROVED IN THIS CASE THAT THE ELIMINATION OF
COMPETITION BETWEEN CONSOLIDATED AND THE STRUCTURAL FABRICATING
SUBSIDIARIES OF UNITED STATES STEEL CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  P. 529. 

(D)  THE ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN CONSOLIDATED AND NATIONAL
TUBE (A UNITED STATES STEEL SUBSIDIARY) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN PIPE, IN VIEW INTER ALIA OF THE
LIMITED EXTENT OF THE COMPETITION BETWEEN THEM IN THIS FIELD.  PP. 530
531. 

(E)  IN THE LIGHT OF PREVIOUS ACQUISITIONS BY UNITED STATES STEEL,
INCLUDING THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED PLANT AT GENEVA, UTAH, THE
ACQUISITION OF CONSOLIDATED DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF A
SPECIFIC INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE, BUT REFLECTS RATHER A NORMAL BUSINESS
PURPOSE.  PP. 531-533. 

(F)  CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS IN THE AGGREGATE AND IN THE
LIGHT OF THE CHARGE OF INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE, THE ACQUISITION DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY MANIFESTED IN THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 533-534. 

2.  THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT LIMITED TO ELIMINATING RESTRAINTS WHOSE
EFFECTS ARE NATION-WIDE; BUT, WHERE THE RELEVANT COMPETITIVE MARKET
COVERS A LESSER AREA, THE ACT MAY BE INVOKED TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINTS IN THAT AREA.  P. 519. 

3.  WITHDRAWAL OF CONSOLIDATED AS A CONSUMER OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS
MADE BY OTHER PRODUCERS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT. 
PP. 520-523. 

4.  VERTICAL INTEGRATION IS NOT ILLEGAL PER SE.  ITS LEGALITY IS TO
BE DETERMINED BY, INTER ALIA, (1) CHARACTERIZING THE NATURE OF THE
MARKET TO BE SERVED AND THE LEVERAGE ON THE MARKET WHICH THE PARTICULAR
VERTICAL INTEGRATION CREATES, AND (2) THE PURPOSE OR INTENT WITH WHICH
THE COMBINATION WAS CONCEIVED.  UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES,
334 U.S. 131, AND UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, FOLLOWED. 
PP. 524-527. 

5.  THERE IS NO DECLARED PUBLIC POLICY WHICH FORBIDS, PER SE, AN
EXPANSION OF FACILITIES OF AN EXISTING COMPANY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF NEW
MARKETS OF A COMMUNITY, WHETHER THAT COMMUNITY IS NATION-WIDE OR
SMALLER IN AREA.  P. 526. 

6.  THE SAME TESTS WHICH MEASURE THE LEGALITY OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION
BY ACQUISITION ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ACQUISITION OF COMPETITORS IN
IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR LINES OF MERCHANDISE.  IT IS FIRST NECESSARY TO
DELIMIT THE MARKET IN WHICH THE CONCERNS COMPETE AND THEN DETERMINE THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE CONCERNS ARE IN COMPETITION IN THAT MARKET.  IF
SUCH ACQUISITION RESULTS IN OR IS AIMED AT UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT, THEN
THE PURCHASE IS FORBIDDEN BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 527. 

7.  IN DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT, DOLLAR
VOLUME IN ITSELF IS NOT OF COMPELLING SIGNIFICANCE.  CONSIDERATION MUST
ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESS CONTROLLED, THE STRENGTH OF
THE REMAINING COMPETITION, WHETHER THE ACTION SPRINGS FROM BUSINESS
REQUIREMENTS OR PURPOSE TO MONOPOLIZE, THE PROBABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INDUSTRY, CONSUMER DEMANDS, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MARKET. 
THE RELATIVE EFFECT OF PERCENTAGE COMMAND OF A MARKET VARIES WITH THE
SETTING IN WHICH THAT FACTOR IS PLACED.  PP. 527-528. 

8.  EVEN THOUGH A RESTRAINT OF TRADE BE REASONABLE AND NOT UNLAWFUL
UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IT MAY NEVERTHELESS CONSTITUTE AN
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 IF A SPECIFIC INTENT TO
MONOPOLIZE BE SHOWN.  PP. 531-532. 

UNITED STATES V. COLUMBIA STEEL CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF DELAWARE. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT A SUIT UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO
ENJOIN, AS A VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT, THE ACQUISITION OF
THE CONSOLIDATED STEEL CORPORATION BY THE UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION.  AFTER A HEARING ON THE MERITS, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED
THE RELIEF PRAYED IN THE COMPLAINT.  74 F.SUPP.  671.  A DIRECT APPEAL
WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT.  AFFIRMED, P. 534. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BRINGS THIS SUIT UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO
ENJOIN UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES FROM
PURCHASING THE ASSETS OF THE LARGEST INDEPENDENT STEEL FABRICATOR ON
THE WEST COAST ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ACQUISITION WOULD VIOLATE SECS.
1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN1  THE COMPLAINT, FILED ON FEBRUARY 24,
1947, CHARGED THAT IF THE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN UNITED STATES STEEL
AND CONSOLIDATED STEEL CORPORATION WERE CARRIED OUT, COMPETITION IN THE
SALE OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS AND IN FABRICATED STEEL PRODUCTS WOULD BE
RESTRAINED, AND THAT THE CONTRACT INDICATED AN EFFORT ON THE PART OF
UNITED STATES STEEL TO ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE THE MARKET IN FABRICATED
STEEL PRODUCTS.  AFTER A TRIAL BEFORE A SINGLE JUDGE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS, AND THE
GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL.  32 STAT. 823, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 29. 

THE UNDERLYING FACTS IN THE CASE ARE SET FORTH IN THE FINDINGS OF THE
TRIAL COURT, AND WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS THOSE FINDINGS ARE NOT DISPUTED
BY THE GOVERNMENT.  WE RELY CHIEFLY ON THE FINDINGS TO INDICATE THE
NATURE OF THE COMMERCE HERE IN QUESTION AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH
COMPETITION WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE CHALLENGED CONTRACT. 

THE STEEL PRODUCTION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE MAY BE SPOKEN OF AS BEING
DIVIDED INTO TWO STAGES: THE PRODUCTION OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS AND
THEIR FABRICATION INTO FINISHED STEEL PRODUCTS.  ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS
CONSIST OF STEEL PLATES, SHAPES, SHEETS, BARS, AND OTHER UNFINISHED
STEEL PRODUCTS AND ARE IN TURN MADE FROM INGOTS BY MEANS OF ROLLING
MILLS.  THE STEEL FABRICATION INVOLVED HEREIN MAY ALSO BE DIVIDED INTO
STRUCTURAL FABRICATION AND PLATE FABRICATION.  FABRICATED STRUCTURAL
STEEL PRODUCTS CONSIST OF BUILDING FRAMEWORK, BRIDGES, TRANSMISSION
TOWERS, AND SIMILAR PERMANENT STRUCTURES, AND ARE MADE PRIMARILY FROM
ROLLED STEEL SHAPES, ALTHOUGH PLATES AND OTHER ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS
MAY ALSO BE EMPLOYED.  FABRICATED PLATE PRODUCTS, ON THE OTHER HAND,
CONSIST OF PRESSURE VESSELS, TANKS, WELDED PIPE, AND SIMILAR PRODUCTS
MADE PRINCIPALLY FROM ROLLED STEEL PLATES, ALTHOUGH SHAPES AND BARS ARE
ALSO OCCASIONALLY USED.  BOTH PLATE AND STRUCTURAL FABRICATED PRODUCTS
ARE MADE TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE; FABRICATED
PRODUCTS DO NOT INCLUDE STANDARD PRODUCTS MADE BY REPETITIVE PROCESSES
IN THE MANUFACTURE OF GENERAL STEEL MERCHANDISE SUCH AS WIRE, NAILS,
BOLTS, AND WINDOW FRAMES.  THE MANUFACTURE OF SUCH STANDARDIZED
FINISHED PRODUCTS IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  THE FACILITIES
REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL FABRICATION ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
REQUIRED FOR PLATE FABRICATION; THE FORMER REQUIRE EQUIPMENT FOR
SHEARING, PUNCHING, DRILLING, ASSEMBLING, AND RIVETING OR WELDING
STRUCTURAL SHAPES WHEREAS THE LATTER REQUIRE EQUIPMENT FOR BENDING,
ROLLING, CUTTING, AND FORMING THE PLATES WHICH GO INTO THE FINISHED
PRODUCT. 

THE COMPLAINT LISTS FOUR DEFENDANTS:  COLUMBIA STEEL COMPANY,
CONSOLIDATED STEEL CORPORATION, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, AND
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION OF DELAWARE.  UNITED STATES STEEL AND
ITS SUBSIDIARIES ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCING ROLLED STEEL
PRODUCTS AND IN STRUCTURAL FABRICATION, BUT DO NO PLATE FABRICATION
WORK.  CONSOLIDATED STEEL, THE SALE OF WHOSE ASSETS THE GOVERNMENT
SEEKS TO ENJOIN, IS ENGAGED ONLY IN STRUCTURAL FABRICATION AND PLATE
FABRICATION.  UNITED STATES STEEL WITH ITS SUBSIDIARIES IS THE LARGEST
PRODUCER OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH A TOTAL
INVESTMENT OF MORE THAN A BILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS.  DURING THE TEN
YEAR PERIOD 1937-1946 UNITED STATES STEEL PRODUCED ALMOST EXACTLY A
THIRD OF ALL ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND
AVERAGE SALES FOR THAT PERIOD WERE NEARLY A BILLION AND A HALF
DOLLARS.  IN THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD 1937-1941, AVERAGE SALES WERE A
LITTLE OVER A BILLION DOLLARS.  CONSOLIDATED, BY CONTRAST, HAD PLANTS
WHOSE DEPRECIATED VALUE WAS LESS THAN TEN MILLION DOLLARS.  DURING THE
FIVE-YEAR PERIOD 1937-1941, CONSOLIDATED HAD AVERAGE SALES OF ONLY
TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS, AND THE UNITED STATES STEEL COMMITTEE WHICH
NEGOTIATED THE TERMS OF THE PURCHASE OF CONSOLIDATED ESTIMATED THAT
CONSOLIDATED'S SALES IN THE FUTURE WOULD RUN TO TWENTY-TWO MILLION
DOLLARS ANNUALLY AND AGREED WITH CONSOLIDATED ON A PURCHASE PRICE OF
SLIGHTLY IN EXCESS OF EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS.  DURING THE WAR
CONSOLIDATED PRODUCTED OVER A BILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS WORTH OF SHIPS
WITH GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED FACILITIES.  CONSOLIDATED NO LONGER POSSESSES
ANY FACILITIES FOR BUILDING SHIPS.  FN2 

COLUMBIA STEEL, A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED STATES STEEL, HAS
BEEN THE LARGEST ROLLED STEEL PRODUCER IN THE PACIFIC COAST AREA SINCE
1930, WITH PLANTS IN UTAH AND CALIFORNIA, AND HAS ALSO SERVED AS
SELLING AGENT FOR OTHER ROLLED STEEL SUBSIDIARIES OF UNITED STATES
STEEL, AND FOR TWO SUBSIDIARIES OF THAT COMPANY ENGAGED IN STRUCTURAL
FABRICATION, THE AMERICAN BRIDGE COMPANY AT PITTSBURGH AND THE VIRGINIA
BRIDGE COMPANY AT ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, THOUGH NEITHER IT NOR ANY OTHER
SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED STATES STEEL IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET AREA WAS A
FABRICATOR OF ANY KIND.  NATIONAL TUBE COMPANY, ANOTHER UNITED STATES
STEEL SUBSIDIARY, SELLS PIPE AND TUBING.  CONSOLIDATED HAS STRUCTURAL
FABRICATING PLANTS NEAR LOS ANGELES AND AT ORANGE, TEXAS, AND PLATE
FABRICATING FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA AND ARIZONA.  CONSOLIDATED HAS
SOLD ITS PRODUCTS DURING THE PAST TEN YEARS IN ELEVEN STATES, REFERRED
TO HEREAFTER AS THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET:  ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, IDAHO,
LOUISIANA, MONTANA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, TEXAS, UTAH AND
WASHINGTON.  IT IS THAT MARKET WHICH THE GOVERNMENT VIEWS AS
SIGNIFICANT IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF COMPETITION BETWEEN UNITED
STATES STEEL AND CONSOLIDATED.  IT IS NOT THE USUAL PACIFIC AND
MOUNTAIN STATES GROUPS EMPLOYED BY THE CENSUS.  FN3  UNITED STATES
STEEL CORPORATION OF DELAWARE IS A SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED STATES STEEL
WHICH RENDERS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO OTHER SUBSIDIARIES ENGAGED IN
STEEL PRODUCTION. 

ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN SOLD ON A BASING POINT
SYSTEM.  FN4  PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II ROLLED STEEL WAS SOLD ON THE WEST
COAST AT A PRICE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF EASTERN BASING POINTS, EVEN
THOUGH BOTH UNITED STATES STEEL AND BETHLEHEM STEEL PRODUCED ROLLED
STEEL PRODUCTS IN CALIFORNIA.  FABRICATORS SUCH AS CONSOLIDATED THUS
DID NOT GET THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR PROXIMITY TO THE WESTERN MARKET. 
THE COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGES UNDER WHICH WESTERN FABRICATORS WORKED IS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT UNITED STATES STEEL HAS BEEN THE LARGEST
SELLER OF FABRICATED STRUCTURAL STEEL IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET, EVEN
THOUGH IT HAS NO FABRICATING PLANTS IN THE AREA.  DURING THE TEN-YEAR
PERIOD ENDING IN 1946, 100 DIFFERENT CONCERNS BID SUCCESSFULLY IN
COMPETITION WITH UNITED STATES STEEL FOR THE SALE OF FABRICATED
STRUCTURAL PRODUCTS IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET; 50 OF THOSE CONCERNS
ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE AREA.  UNITED STATES STEEL'S PRINCIPAL
COMPETITOR AS MEASURED ON A NATIONAL BASIS, BETHLEHEM STEEL, DOES HAVE
FABRICATING FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA, HOWEVER, AND PRIOR TO WORLD WAR
II UNITED STATES STEEL HAD PREPARED PLANS FOR THE ERECTION OF
FABRICATING FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA.  THE WAR MADE IT NECESSARY TO
POSTPONE THE PLANS.  THIS USE OF EASTERN BASING POINTS MAKES PAST
FIGURES ON ROLLED STEEL PRODUCT SALES FROM PRODUCERS IN THE
CONSOLIDATED MARKET UNRELIABLE IN DETERMINING EFFECTIVE COMPETITION FOR
THE FUTURE SALES OF ROLLED STEEL IN THAT MARKET.  UNITED STATES STEEL
NOW USES GENEVA AS A BASING POINT. 

THE URGENT WARTIME DEMAND FOR STEEL PROMPTED THE GOVERNMENT TO
CONSTRUCT NEW ROLLED STEEL PLANTS IN THE WEST.  THE LARGEST OF THESE
PLANTS WAS ERECTED AT GENEVA, UTAH, AT A COST OF NEARLY $200,000,000,
AND WAS DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED, AND OPERATED BY UNITED STATES STEEL FOR
THE ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE PLANT HAD AN ANNUAL CAPACITY OF
MORE THAN 1,200,000 TONS OF INGOTS, WHICH IN TURN COULD BE EMPLOYED TO
MAKE 700,000 TONS OF PLATES AND 250,000 TONS OF SHAPES.  ANOTHER LARGE
PLANT WAS ERECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AT FONTANA, CALIFORNIA.  THIS IS
NOW OPERATED THROUGH ARRANGEMENTS OF PRIVATE PARTIES WITH THE
GOVERNMENT.  IN JANUARY 1945 UNITED STATES STEEL CONSIDERED THE
ACQUISITION OF THE GENEVA PLANT, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SPECULATIVE NATURE
OF THE VENTURE AND ATTACKS BY PEOPLE WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT,
UNITED STATES STEEL DECIDED NOT TO SUBMIT A BID AND NOTIFIED THE
DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION TO THAT EFFECT ON AUGUST 8, 1945.  SHORTLY
THEREAFTER THE SURPLUS PROPERTY ADMINISTRATOR WROTE TO BENJAMIN F.
FAIRLESS, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES STEEL, ADVISING HIM THAT A BID BY
UNITED STATES STEEL WOULD BE WELCOMED.  ON MAY 1, 1946, UNITED STATES
STEEL SUBMITTED A BID FOR THE GENEVA PLANT OF $47,500,000.  THE TERMS
OF THE BID PROVIDED THAT UNITED STATES STEEL WOULD SPEND NOT LESS THAN
$18,000,000 OF ITS OWN FUNDS TO ERECT ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AT GENEVA,
AND $25,000,000 TO ERECT A COLD-REDUCTION MILL AT PITTSBURG,
CALIFORNIA, TO CONSUME 386,000 TONS OF HOT ROLLED COILS PRODUCED AT
GENEVA.  FN5  THE BID ESTIMATED THAT A SUFFICIENT MARKET COULD BE FOUND
TO ABSORB AN ANNUAL PRODUCTION RANGING FROM 456,000 TO 600,000 TONS. 
THE BID STIPULATED THAT GENEVA PRODUCTS WOULD BE SOLD WITH GENEVA AS A
BASING POINT.  THIS WOULD OFFER POSSIBILITIES FOR A REDUCTION IN THE
PRICE OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS TO WEST COAST PURCHASERS AND THEIR
CUSTOMERS.  THE VARIATION BETWEEN 456,000 AND 600,000 TONS DEPENDED ON
THE CONSUMPTION OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS BY USERS OTHER THAN UNITED
STATES STEEL'S NEW PITTSBURG PLANT.  THE BID NOTED THAT ADDITIONAL
STEEL CONSUMING MANUFACTURING PLANTS MIGHT BE LOCATED IN THE WEST WHICH
WOULD PROVIDE A MARKET FOR ADDITIONAL ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS.  APART
FROM THE COLD-REDUCTION MILL TO BE ERECTED AT PITTSBURG, THE BID WAS
SILENT AS TO THE ACQUISITION OF FABRICATING FACILITIES BY UNITED STATES
STEEL TO PROVIDE A MARKET FOR GENEVA PRODUCTS. 

ON MAY 23, 1946, THE WAR ASSETS ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED THAT THE BID
OF UNITED STATES STEEL WAS ACCEPTED.  AN ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM
DISCUSSED IN DETAIL THE SIX BIDS WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED, AND CONCLUDED
THAT UNITED STATES STEEL'S BID WAS THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS.  THE OTHER
BIDS WERE FOUND UNACCEPTABLE FOR A NUMBER OF REASON; EITHER THE BIDDER
COULD OFFER NO ASSURANCE OF HIS FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OR HIS ABILITY
TO OPERATE THE PLANT, OR THE PRICE OFFERED WAS TOO LOW, OR THE BIDDER
REQUESTED THE GOVERNMENT TO LEND THE BIDDER LARGE SUMS FOR THE ERECTION
OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES OR TO ERECT SUCH FACILITIES AT GOVERNMENT
EXPENSE.  FN6  THE MEMORANDUM NOTED THAT THE SUCCESSFUL BID WOULD
"FOSTER THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE WEST OF NEW INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISE" BY
ENCOURAGING THE LOCATION OF STEEL-CONSUMING MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE
WESTERN STATES. 

ON JUNE 17, 1946, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ADVISED THE WAR ASSETS
ADMINISTRATION THAT THE PROPOSED SALE DID NOT IN HIS OPINION CONSTITUTE
A VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, AND THE SALE WAS CONSUMMATED TWO
DAYS THEREAFTER.  THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS REQUESTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 20 OF THE SURPLUS PROPERTY ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT.
765, 775, WHICH REQUIRES SUCH PROCEDURE WHEN GOVERNMENT PLANTS COSTING
MORE THAN $1,000,000 ARE BEING SOLD.  THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT
NOTHING IN THE SURPLUS PROPERTY ACT "SHALL IMPAIR, AMEND, OR MODIFY THE
ANTITRUST LAWS OR LIMIT AND PREVENT THEIR APPLICATION TO PERSONS" WHO
BUY PROPERTY UNDER THE ACT.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOTED THAT THE INGOT
CAPACITY OF UNITED STATES STEEL HAD DECLINED FROM 35.3% OF THE TOTAL
NATIONAL CAPACITY IN 1939 TO 31.4% IN 1946, AND THAT IF THE GENEVA
PLANT WERE ACQUIRED, THE PERCENTAGE WOULD BE INCREASED TO 32.7%.
CONSIDERING ONLY THE PACIFIC COAST AND MOUNTAIN STATES, THE ACQUISITION
OF GENEVA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID, WOULD INCREASE UNITED STATES
STEEL'S PERCENTAGE OF CAPACITY IN THAT AREA FROM 17.3% TO 39%.  UNITED
STATES STEEL, HOWEVER, ESTIMATED THAT ON ACQUISITION OF GENEVA IT WOULD
HAVE 51% OF INGOT CAPACITY IN THE PACIFIC COAST AREA.  ON THE BASIS OF
THESE FIGURES CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO.
OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, AND AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES,
328 U.S. 781, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCLUDED THAT THE PROPOSED SALE, AS
SUCH, WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  THE LETTER ADDED THAT NO
OPINION WAS EXPRESSED AS TO THE LEGALITY OF ANY ACTS OR PRACTICES IN
WHICH UNITED STATES STEEL MIGHT HAVE ENGAGED OR IN WHICH IT MIGHT
ENGAGE IN THE FUTURE.  SEE FOR A COMPARABLE SITUATION UNITED STATES V.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417, 446.    PRIOR TO THE SALE OF
THE GENEVA PLANT, ALDEN G. ROACH, PRESIDENT OF CONSOLIDATED, APPROACHED
FAIRLESS OF UNITED STATES STEEL AND INDICATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO
SELL THE BUSINESS OF CONSOLIDATED.  ROACH ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH
REPRESENTATIVES OF BETHLEHEM AND KAISER WITH REGARD TO THE SAME END. 
ROACH MENTIONED THE SUBJECT AGAIN TO FAIRLESS IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH OF
1946, AND FAIRLESS REPLIED THAT UNITED STATES STEEL WAS RESTUDYING ITS
DECISION NOT TO BID ON THE GENEVA PLANT, AND DID NOT WANT TO DISCUSS
THE PURCHASE OF CONSOLIDATED UNTIL THE GENEVA ISSUE WAS DECIDED.  AFTER
THE SALE OF GENEVA WAS EFFECTED IN JUNE, FAIRLESS SPOKE AGAIN WITH
ROACH AND ARRANGED TO HAVE A COMMITTEE FROM UNITED STATES STEEL MAKE AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLANTS IN AUGUST.  THE COMMITTEE
REPORTED THAT IT WOULD COST $14,000,000 AND TAKE THREE YEARS TO
CONSTRUCT PLANTS EQUIVALENT TO THOSE OWNED BY CONSOLIDATED, AND THAT
THE CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES HAD A DEPRECIATED VALUE OF $9,800,000. 
AFTER FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS THE PARTIES AGREED ON A PRICE OF
APPROXIMATELY $8,250,000, AND A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON
DECEMBER 14 ACCORDING TO WHICH COLUMBIA AGREED TO BUY THE PHYSICAL
ASSETS OF CONSOLIDATED AND FOUR SUBSIDIARIES.  FAIRLESS TESTIFIED ON
THE WITNESS STAND THAT UNITED STATES STEEL'S PURPOSE IN PURCHASING
CONSOLIDATED WAS TO ASSURE A MARKET FOR PLATES AND SHAPES PRODUCED AT
GENEVA, AND ROACH TESTIFIED THAT CONSOLIDATED'S PURPOSE WAS TO WITHDRAW
THE STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY FROM THE FABRICATION BUSINESS WITH ITS
CYCLICAL FLUCTUATIONS AT A TIME WHEN A FAVORABLE PRICE COULD BE
REALIZED. 

 I. 

THE THEORY OF THE UNITED STATES IN BRINGING THIS SUIT IS THAT THE
ACQUISITION OF CONSOLIDATED CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE ALL MANUFACTURERS EXCEPT UNITED STATES
STEEL WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING CONSOLIDATED'S
REQUIREMENTS OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS, AND BECAUSE COMPETITION NOW
EXISTING BETWEEN CONSOLIDATED AND UNITED STATES STEEL IN THE SALE OF
STRUCTURAL FABRICATED PRODUCTS AND PIPE WILL BE ELIMINATED.  IN
ADDITION, THE GOVERNMENT ALLEGES THAT THE ACQUISITION OF CONSOLIDATED,
VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PREVIOUS SERIES OF ACQUISITIONS BY UNITED
STATES STEEL, CONSTITUTES AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE THE PRODUCTION AND
SALE OF FABRICATED STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET.  THE
APPELLEES CONTEND THAT THE AMOUNT OF COMPETITION WHICH WILL BE
ELIMINATED IS SO INSIGNIFICANT THAT THE RESTRAINT EFFECTED IS A
REASONABLE RESTRAINT NOT AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE AND NOT PROHIBITED BY
THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN7 ON THE RECORD BEFORE US AND IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
TRIAL COURT WE CONCLUDE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO PROVE ITS
CONTENTION THAT THE ACQUISITION OF CONSOLIDATED WOULD UNREASONABLY
LESSEN COMPETITION IN THE THREE RESPECTS CHARGED, AND THEREFORE THE
PROPOSED CONTRACT IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  WE
FURTHER HOLD THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO PROVE AN ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2. 

WE TURN FIRST TO THE CHARGE THAT THE PROPOSED PURCHASE WILL LESSEN
COMPETITION BY EXCLUDING PRODUCERS OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS OTHER THAN
UNITED STATES STEEL FROM SUPPLYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED. 
OVER THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD FROM 1937 TO 1946 CONSOLIDATED PURCHASED OVER
TWO MILLION TONS OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS, INCLUDING THE ABNORMALLY
HIGH WARTIME REQUIREMENTS.  WHATEVER AMOUNT OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS
CONSOLIDATED USES IN THE FUTURE WILL BE SUPPLIED INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE
FROM OTHER SUBSIDIARIES OF UNITED STATES STEEL, AND OTHER PRODUCERS OF
ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS WILL LOSE CONSOLIDATED AS A PROSPECTIVE
CUSTOMER. 

THE PARTIES ARE IN SHARP DISPUTE AS TO THE SIZE AND NATURE OF THE
MARKET FOR ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS WITH WHICH CONSOLIDATED'S CONSUMPTION
IS TO BE COMPARED.  THE APPELLEES ARGUE THAT ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS ARE
SOLD ON A NATIONAL SCALE, AND THAT FOR THE MAJOR PRODUCERS THE ENTIRE
UNITED STATES SHOULD BE REGARDED AS THE MARKET.  VIEWED FROM THIS
STANDPOINT, CONSOLIDATED'S REQUIREMENTS ARE AN INSIGNIFICANT FRACTION
OF THE TOTAL MARKET, LESS THAN 1/2 OF 1%.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT
THE MARKET MUST BE MORE NARROWLY DRAWN, AND THAT THE RELEVANT MARKET TO
BE CONSIDERED IS THE ELEVEN-STATE AREA IN WHICH CONSOLIDATED SELLS ITS
PRODUCTS, AND FURTHER THAT IN THAT AREA BY CONSIDERING ONLY THE
CONSUMPTION OF STRUCTURAL AND PLATE FABRICATORS A VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.  IF ALL SALES OF ROLLED STEEL
PRODUCTS IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET ARE CONSIDERED, CONSOLIDATED'S
PURCHASES OF TWO MILLION TONS REPRESENT A LITTLE MORE THAN 3% OF THE
TOTAL OF 60 MILLION TONS.  THE FIGURE IS NOT APPRECIABLY DIFFERENT IF
THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD 1937-41 OR 1946 ALONE IS USED AS THE MEASURING
PERIOD.  FN8  IF THE COMPARABLE MARKET IS CONSTRUED EVEN MORE NARROWLY,
AND IS RESTRICTED TO THE CONSUMPTION OF PLATES AND SHAPES IN THE
CONSOLIDATED MARKET, FIGURES FOR 1937 INDICATE THAT CONSOLIDATED'S
CONSUMPTION OF PLATES AND SHAPES WAS 13% OF THE TOTAL.  DATA ARE
OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR 1946 WHICH ARE TOO UNCERTAIN TO FURNISH A
RELIABLE GUIDE.  FN9 

THE GOVERNMENT REALIZES THE FORCE OF APPELLEES' ARGUMENT THAT ROLLED
STEEL PRODUCTS ARE SOLD ON A NATIONAL SCALE, AND ATTEMPTS TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT DURING THE NON-WAR YEARS 80% OF CONSOLIDATED'S
REQUIREMENTS WERE PRODUCED ON THE WEST COAST; CONSOLIDATED RESORTS TO
DATA NOT IN THE RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IN FACT ONLY 26% OF
CONSOLIDATED'S ROLLED STEEL PURCHASES WERE PRODUCED IN PLANTS LOCATED
IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET AREA.  FN10  WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE
GOVERNMENT'S OR CONSOLIDATED'S FIGURES, HOWEVER, THEY ARE OF LITTLE
VALUE IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH WEST COAST FABRICATORS WILL
PURCHASE ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE EASTERN MARKET IN THE FUTURE,
SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PLANTS AT GENEVA AND FONTANA AND THE
CREATION OF NEW BASING POINTS ON THE WEST COAST WILL PRESUMABLY GIVE
WEST COAST ROLLED STEEL PRODUCERS A FAR LARGER SHARE OF THE WEST COAST
FABRICATING MARKET THAN BEFORE THE WAR. 

ANOTHER DIFFICULTY IS THAT THE RECORD FURNISHES LITTLE INDICATION AS
TO THE PROPRIETY OF CONSIDERING PLATES AND SHAPES AS A MARKET DISTINCT
FROM OTHER ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS.  IF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCERS CAN MAKE
OTHER PRODUCTS AS EASILY AS PLATES AND SHAPES, THEN THE EFFECT OF THE
REMOVAL OF CONSOLIDATED'S DEMAND FOR PLATES AND SHAPES MUST BE MEASURED
NOT AGAINST THE MARKET FOR PLATES AND SHAPES ALONE, BUT FOR ALL
COMPARABLE ROLLED PRODUCTS.  THE RECORD SUGGESTS, BUT DOES NOT
CONCLUSIVELY INDICATE, THAT ROLLED STEEL PRODUCERS CAN MAKE OTHER
PRODUCTS INTERCHANGEABLY WITH SHAPES AND PLATES, AND THAT THEREFORE WE
SHOULD NOT MEASURE THE POTENTIAL INJURY TO COMPETITION BY CONSIDERING
THE TOTAL DEMAND FOR SHAPES AND PLATES ALONE, BUT RATHER COMPARE
CONSOLIDATED'S DEMAND FOR ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS WITH THE DEMAND FOR ALL
COMPARABLE ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKETING AREA. 

WE READ THE RECORD AS SHOWING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ACCEPT THE
THEORY THAT THE COMPARABLE MARKET WAS RESTRICTED TO THE DEMAND FOR
PLATES AND SHAPES IN THE CONSOLIDATED AREA, BUT DID ACCEPT THE
GOVERNMENT'S THEORY THAT THE MARKET WAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE TOTAL
DEMAND FOR ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE ELEVEN-STATE AREA.  ON THAT
BASIS THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE STEEL REQUIREMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED
REPRESENTED "A SMALL PART" OF THE CONSUMPTION IN THE CONSOLIDATED AREA,
THAT CONSOLIDATED WAS NOT A "SUBSTANTIAL MARKET" FOR ROLLED STEEL
PRODUCERS SELLING IN COMPETITION WITH UNITED STATES STEEL, AND THAT THE
ACQUISITION OF CONSOLIDATED WOULD NOT INJURE ANY COMPETITOR OF UNITED
STATES STEEL ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF ROLLED STEEL
PRODUCTS IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET OR ELSEWHERE.  WE RECOGNIZE THE
DIFFICULTY OF LAYING DOWN A RULE AS TO WHAT AREAS OR PRODUCTS ARE
COMPETITIVE, ONE WITH ANOTHER.  IN THIS CASE AND ON THIS RECORD WE HAVE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT STRONGLY INDICATE TO US THAT ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTION
AND CONSUMPTION IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKETING AREA IS THE COMPETITIVE
AREA AND PRODUCT FOR CONSIDERATION. 

IN ANALYZING THE INJURY TO COMPETITION RESULTING FROM THE WITHDRAWAL
OF CONSOLIDATED AS A PURCHASER OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS, WE HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERING THE ACQUISITION OF CONSOLIDATED AS A STEP IN THE VERTICAL
INTEGRATION OF UNITED STATES STEEL.  REGARDED AS A SELLER OF FABRICATED
STEEL PRODUCTS RATHER THAN AS A PURCHASER OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS,
HOWEVER, THE ACQUISITION OF CONSOLIDATED MAY BE REGARDED AS A STEP IN
HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION AS WELL, SINCE UNITED STATES STEEL WILL BROADEN
ITS FACILITIES FOR STEEL FABRICATION THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF
CONSOLIDATED.  IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF COMPETITION BETWEEN
CONSOLIDATED AND THE TWO STRUCTURAL FABRICATION SUBSIDIARIES OF UNITED
STATES STEEL IN THE SALE OF FABRICATED STEEL PRODUCTS, WE MUST AGAIN
DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE MARKET IN WHICH THE TWO COMPANIES MAY BE SAID
TO COMPETE.  THE PARTIES AGREE THAT UNITED STATES STEEL DOES NO PLATE
FABRICATION, AND THAT COMPETITION IS RESTRICTED TO FABRICATING
STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS AND PIPE.  CONSOLIDATED MAKES PIPE BY BENDING
AND WELDING PLATES, WHEREAS NATIONAL TUBE, A UNITED STATES STEEL
SUBSIDIARY, MAKES SEAMLESS PIPE THROUGH A PROCESS WHICH THE PARTIES
AGREE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE HEADING OF STEEL FABRICATION. 

WE TURN FIRST TO THE FIELD OF FABRICATED STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS. 
AS IN THE CASE OF ROLLED STEEL, THE APPELLEES CLAIM THAT STRUCTURAL
FABRICATORS SELL ON A NATIONAL SCALE, AND THAT CONSOLIDATED'S
PRODUCTION MUST BE MEASURED AGAINST ALL STRUCTURAL FABRICATORS.  AN
INDEX OF THE POSITION OF CONSOLIDATED AS A STRUCTURAL FABRICATOR IS
SHOWN BY ITS BOOKINGS FOR THE PERIOD 1937-1942, AS REPORTED BY THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION.  DURING THAT PERIOD TOTAL
BOOKINGS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WERE NEARLY 10,000,000 TONS, OF WHICH
CONSOLIDATED'S SHARE WAS ONLY 84,533 TONS.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT
COMPETITION IS TO BE MEASURED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ELEVEN-STATE AREA
IN WHICH CONSOLIDATED SELLS ITS PRODUCTS.  VIEWED ON THAT BASIS, TOTAL
BOOKINGS FOR THE LIMITED AREA FOR THE SIX-YEAR PERIOD WERE 1,665,698,
OF WHICH UNITED STATES STEEL'S SHARE WAS 17% AND CONSOLIDATED'S 5%.
THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT CONSOLIDATED HAS BECOME A MORE IMPORTANT
FACTOR SINCE THAT PERIOD, AND ALLEGES THAT BOOKINGS FOR 1946 IN THE
CONSOLIDATED MARKET WERE DIVIDED AMONG 90 FABRICATORS, OF WHICH UNITED
STATES STEEL HAD 13% AND CONSOLIDATED AND BETHLEHEM STEEL EACH HAD 11%.
THE NEXT LARGEST STRUCTURAL FABRICATORS HAD 9%, 6% AND 3% OF THE
TOTAL.  FN11  ALTHOUGH THE APPELLEES CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S 1946 FIGURES, AND THE DISTRICT COURT MADE NO REFERENCE TO
THEM IN THE FINDINGS, WE ACCEPT THEM AS SUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE FOR OUR
PRESENT PURPOSE.  THE FIGURES ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RELIES
DEMONSTRATE THAT AT LEAST IN THE PAST COMPETITION IN STRUCTURAL STEEL
PRODUCTS HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON A NATIONAL SCALE.  FIVE OUT OF THE TEN
STRUCTURAL FABRICATORS HAVING THE LARGEST SALES IN THE CONSOLIDATED
MARKET PERFORM THEIR FABRICATION OPERATIONS OUTSIDE THE AREA, INCLUDING
UNITED STATES STEEL AND BETHLEHEM STEEL.  PURCHASERS OF FABRICATED
STRUCTURAL PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SECURE BIDS FROM FABRICATORS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AND THEREFORE STATISTICS SHOWING THE SHARE OF
UNITED STATES STEEL AND CONSOLIDATED IN THE TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF
FABRICATED STRUCTURAL PRODUCTS IN ANY PRESCRIBED AREA ARE OF LITTLE
PROBATIVE VALUE IN ASCERTAINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONSUMERS OF THESE
PRODUCTS WOULD BE INJURED THROUGH ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN
THE TWO COMPANIES. 

AS IN THE CASE OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS, HOWEVER, WARTIME
DEVELOPMENTS HAVE MADE PREWAR STATISTICS OF LITTLE RELEVANCE.  THE
APPELLEES URGE THREE REASONS WHY EASTERN FABRICATORS WILL BE AT A
COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE WITH WESTERN FABRICATORS FOR THE WESTERN
MARKET:  THE AVAILABILITY OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS FROM THE GENEVA
PLANT AND OTHER WEST COAST PLANTS AT A LOWER PRICE, THE INCREASE IN
COMMERCIAL FREIGHT RATES ON FABRICATED PRODUCTS, AND THE ABOLITION OF
LAND GRANT RATES.  THE INCREASE IN FREIGHT RATES HAS MADE IT LESS
PROFITABLE FOR EASTERN FABRICATORS TO SELL IN THE WEST, AND THE
ELIMINATION OF LAND GRANT RATES ON GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS HAS MADE IT
LESS PROFITABLE FOR EASTERN FABRICATORS TO SELL TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
IN THE WEST.  WHATEVER COMPETITION MAY HAVE EXISTED IN THE PAST BETWEEN
CONSOLIDATED AND THE TWO BRIDGE COMPANY SUBSIDIARIES OF UNITED STATES
STEEL, THE APPELLEES URGE, WILL EXIST TO A MUCH LESSER EXTENT IN THE
FUTURE.  FN12  CONSEQUENTLY, EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE CORRECT
IN CLAIMING THAT THE ELEVEN-STATE AREA IS THE PROPER MARKET FOR
MEASURING COMPETITION WITH CONSOLIDATED, THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT AT THE
SAME TIME CLAIM THAT PREWAR STATISTICS AS TO UNITED STATES STEEL'S
SHARE OF THAT MARKET ARE OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE. 

APART FROM THE QUESTION OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL SIZE OF THE MARKET, THE
APPELLEES URGE THAT THE BOOKINGS FOR FABRICATED STRUCTURAL STEEL
PRODUCTS ARE OF LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE CONSOLIDATED AND UNITED
STATES STEEL MAKE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS.  IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT STRUCTURAL STEEL JOBS ARE FABRICATED ON AN
INDIVIDUAL BASIS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPARE THE OUTPUT OF UNITED
STATES STEEL WITH THAT OF CONSOLIDATED, BUT THE APPELLEES ARGUE THAT IN
GENERAL CONSOLIDATED DOES ONLY LIGHT AND MEDIUM FABRICATION, WHEREAS
UNITED STATES STEEL DOES HEAVY FABRICATION.  THE APPELLEES SUPPORT
THEIR ARGUMENT WITH AN ELABORATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF BIDS BY THE
TWO COMPANIES.  THOSE FIGURES SHOW THAT CONSOLIDATED AND UNITED STATES
STEEL SUBMITTED BIDS FOR THE SAME PROJECT IN A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF
INSTANCES.  FN13  SUCH FIGURES ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE OF LACK OF
COMPETITION; THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT KNOWLEDGE THAT ONE PARTY HAS
SUBMITTED A BID MAY DISCOURAGE OTHERS FROM BIDDING.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS
INTRODUCED VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, TO SHOW THAT IN FACT THE
TYPES OF STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS SOLD BY CONSOLIDATED ARE SIMILAR TO
THOSE SOLD BY UNITED STATES STEEL.  THE APPELLEES FURTHER URGE THAT
ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION OF CONSOLIDATED'S BUSINESS FELL IN THE CATEGORY
OF STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS, AND THAT AS TO PLATE FABRICATION AND
MISCELLANEOUS WORK THERE WAS NO COMPETITION WITH UNITED STATES STEEL
WHATSOEVER.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND ON THIS ISSUE THAT 16% OF
CONSOLIDATED'S BUSINESS WAS IN STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS AND 70% IN
PLATE FABRICATION.  ON THE BASIS OF THE STATISTICS HERE SUMMARIZED, THE
TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF FABRICATED STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS WAS NOT
SUBSTANTIAL. 

THE GOVERNMENT ALSO ARGUES THAT COMPETITION WILL BE ELIMINATED
BETWEEN CONSOLIDATED AND NATIONAL TUBE IN THE SALE OF PIPE.  IN THIS
FIELD WE HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING THE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE OF
THE MARKET TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF COMPETITION,
SINCE THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT CONSOLIDATED AND NATIONAL TUBE COMPETE
ON A NATION-WIDE SCALE IN THE FIELD OF LARGE DIAMETER PIPE FOR OIL AND
GAS PIPELINES.  OTHER TYPES OF PIPE MADE BY THE TWO CONCERNS ARE
APPARENTLY NOT COMPETITIVE AS THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEST THIS
ASSERTION OF THE APPELLEES.  FN14  CONSOLIDATED IN THE PAST HAS
SPECIALIZED IN COMPARATIVELY LIGHT WALLED PIPE FOR LOW PRESSURE
PURPOSES, SUCH AS IRRIGATION AND WATER TRANSMISSION, WHEREAS NATIONAL
TUBE HAS MADE A HEAVY WALLED PIPE FOR HIGH PRESSURE PURPOSES WHICH IS
USED CHIEFLY IN THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY.  NATIONAL TUBE PIPE IS
SUBSTANTIALLY CHEAPER TO PRODUCE.  THE RECORD DOES SHOW, HOWEVER, THAT
IN THE LAST FEW YEARS CONSOLIDATED HAS SUPPLIED LARGE DIAMETER PIPE FOR
OIL AND GAS PIPELINES ON AT LEAST FOUR OCCASIONS IN THREE OF WHICH
NATIONAL TUBE ALSO SUPPLIED PART OF THE PIPE REQUIREMENTS.  FN15
ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THE EXTENT OF CONSOLIDATED'S BUSINESS
IN THIS FIELD, ONE OF THE WITNESSES ESTIMATED THAT CONSOLIDATED'S
CONTRACT TO FURNISH 90% OF THE PIPE FOR THE TRANS-ARABIAN PIPELINE
WOULD RUN TO ALMOST $30,000,000.  THE APPELLEES SEEK TO MINIMIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF COMPETITION IN THIS FIELD BY POINTING OUT THAT THE PIPE
TO BE USED FOR THE TRANS-ARABIAN PIPELINE IS 30 AND 31 INCHES IN
DIAMETER, WHICH IS TOO LARGE A SIZE TO BE MADE BY THE SEAMLESS PROCESS
EMPLOYED BY NATIONAL TUBE.  THE RECORD IS BARREN ON THE COMPARATIVE
PRODUCTION BETWEEN CONSOLIDATED AND ITS COMPETITORS, OTHER THAN UNITED
STATES STEEL, IN THE MANUFACTURE OF LARGE PIPE.  THE RECORD DOES SHOW
THAT OTHER MAJOR COMPANIES, NOT CONNECTED WITH ANY OF THE PARTIES TO
THIS PROCEEDING, DO MANUFACTURE WELDED AND SEAMLESS PIPE.  FN16  THE
APPELLEES FURTHER CLAIM THAT UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES CONSOLIDATED
AND NATIONAL TUBE WOULD NOT COMPETE IN THIS FIELD BECAUSE CONSOLIDATED
PIPE SELLS FOR $30 A TON MORE THAN NATIONAL TUBE PIPE, AND THAT
CONSOLIDATED IS ABLE TO SELL ITS PIPE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY OF
NATIONAL TUBE AND OTHER CONCERNS TO TAKE ON ADDITIONAL ORDERS.  THE
GOVERNMENT ARGUES IN REPLY THAT CONSOLIDATED MAY BE ABLE TO REDUCE ITS
COSTS OF PRODUCTION IF A SUFFICIENTLY LARGE VOLUME OF ORDERS IS
OBTAINED, BUT NO EVIDENCE IS ADDUCED TO SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION. 

THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT SUMMARIZED THE FACTS OUTLINED ABOVE,
AND CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION BETWEEN
NATIONAL TUBE AND CONSOLIDATED IN THE SALE OF PIPE; ONE OF THE FINDINGS
WENT EVEN FURTHER, STATING THAT THE TWO COMPANIES "DO NOT COMPETE" IN
THE SALE OF THEIR PIPE PRODUCTS. 

THE TRIAL COURT ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD FAILED TO
PROVE THAT UNITED STATES STEEL HAD ATTEMPTED TO MONOPOLIZE THE BUSINESS
OF FABRICATING STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 2.  THE TRIAL JUDGE APPARENTLY WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE
THE PURCHASE OF CONSOLIDATED DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1,
IT COULD NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2, SINCE EVERY ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE MUST ALSO CONSTITUTE AN ILLEGAL RESTRAINT.  IN HIS FINDINGS
THE TRIAL JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO
"FOR SOUND BUSINESS REASONS" AND WITH NO INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE THE
PRODUCTION AND SALE OF FABRICATED STEEL PRODUCTS. 

                                 II. 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION THAT THE PROPOSED CONTRACT VIOLATES SEC. 1
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT ALL THE LEGAL CONCLUSIONS
OF THE DISTRICT COURT WERE ERRONEOUS.  IT IS ARGUED THAT, WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE PERCENTAGES OF CONSUMPTION OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS BY
CONSOLIDATED JUST CONSIDERED, THE ACQUISITION BY UNITED STATES STEEL OF
CONSOLIDATED VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT.  SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT, IT IS
CLAIMED, EXCLUDES OTHER PRODUCERS OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED MARKET AND CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGAL RESTRAINT PER SE TO
WHICH THE RULE OF REASON IS INAPPLICABLE.  OR, PHRASING THE ARGUMENT
DIFFERENTLY, THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION SEEMS TO BE THAT THE
ACQUISITION OF FACILITIES WHICH PROVIDE A CONTROLLED MARKET FOR THE
OUTPUT OF THE GENEVA PLANT IS A PROCESS OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION AND
INVALID PER SE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE ACQUISITION OF CONSOLIDATED,
IT IS POINTED OUT, WOULD ALSO ELIMINATE COMPETITION BETWEEN
CONSOLIDATED AND THE SUBSIDIARIES OF UNITED STATES STEEL IN THE SALE OF
STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS AND PIPE PRODUCTS, AND WOULD ELIMINATE
POTENTIAL COMPETITION FROM CONSOLIDATED IN THE SALE OF OTHER STEEL
PRODUCTS.  WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF CONSOLIDATED WILL BRING
UNITED STATES STEEL FOR THE FIRST TIME INTO THE FIELD OF PLATE
FABRICATION. 

A. WE FIRST LAY TO ONE SIDE A POSSIBLE OBJECTION TO MEASURING THE
INJURY TO COMPETITION BY REFERENCE TO A MARKET WHICH IS LESS THAN
NATION-WIDE IN AREA.  THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT LIMITED TO ELIMINATING
RESTRAINTS WHOSE EFFECTS COVER THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES; WE HAVE
CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT WHERE THE RELEVANT COMPETITIVE MARKET COVERS
ONLY A SMALL AREA THE SHERMAN ACT MAY BE INVOKED TO PREVENT
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS WITHIN THAT AREA.  IN UNITED STATES V. YELLOW
CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218, WE SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF A COMPLAINT WHICH
ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD MONOPOLIZED THE CAB OPERATING BUSINESS
IN FOUR LARGE CITIES.  FN17  IT IS THE VOLUME IN THE AREA WHICH THE
ALLEGED RESTRAINTS AFFECT THAT IS IMPORTANT.  IN UNITED STATES V.
GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, WE FOUND RESTRAINT OF TRADE BY A CHAIN OF
MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITORS COVERING A SMALL AREA.  ALTHOUGH OUR PREVIOUS
DISCUSSION HAS INDICATED THE DIFFICULTIES IN ACCEPTING THE ELEVEN-STATE
AREA IN WHICH CONSOLIDATED SELLS ITS PRODUCTS AS THE RELEVANT
COMPETITIVE MARKET, WE ACCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECISION THE
GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THAT THIS AREA IS THE ONE TO BE CONSIDERED IN
MEASURING THE EFFECT ON COMPETITION OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF CONSOLIDATED
AS A MARKET FOR OTHER ROLLED STEEL PRODUCERS AND OF THE BRINGING
TOGETHER UNDER COMMON CONTROL OF CONSOLIDATED AND THE FABRICATING
SUBSIDIARIES OF UNITED STATES STEEL. 

B. THE GOVERNMENT RELIES HEAVILY ON UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO.,
SUPRA, TO SUPPORT ITS ARGUMENT THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF CONSOLIDATED AS A
POSSIBLE CONSUMER FOR THE GOODS OF OTHER ROLLED STEEL PRODUCERS
CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGAL RESTRAINT.  THE COMPLAINT IN THE YELLOW CAB CASE
CHARGED THAT THERE WAS A PLAN, AN INTENT, TO MONOPOLIZE THE CAB
BUSINESS, FROM MANUFACTURE THROUGH OPERATION IN THE FOUR LARGE CITIES,
BY ACQUIRING CAB OPERATING COMPANIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN; TYING THOSE
COMPANIES INTO A CAB MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND REQUIRING THE OPERATING
COMPANIES TO PURCHASE THEIR CABS FROM THE MANUFACTURER AT A PRICE ABOVE
THE PREVAILING MARKET.  THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE VOLUME OF CAB
PRODUCTION WHICH WAS THUS EXCLUDED AS A MARKET FOR RIVAL CAB
MANUFACTURERS WAS A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL VOLUME OF CABS
PRODUCED, AND THE GOVERNMENT CONCLUDES THAT THE CASE STANDS FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT IT IS ILLEGAL PER SE FOR A MANUFACTURER TO PREEMPT ANY
MARKET FOR HIS GOODS THROUGH VERTICAL INTEGRATION PROVIDED THAT AN
"APPRECIABLE" AMOUNT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INVOLVED.  FN18 

WE DO NOT CONSTRUE OUR HOLDING IN THE YELLOW CAB CASE TO MAKE ILLEGAL
THE ACQUISITION BY UNITED STATES STEEL OF THIS OUTLET FOR ITS ROLLED
STEEL WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ITS EFFECT ON THE OPPORTUNITIES OF OTHER
COMPETITOR PRODUCERS TO MARKET THEIR ROLLED STEEL.  FN19  IN DISCUSSING
THE CHARGE IN THE YELLOW CAB CASE, WE SAID THAT THE FACT THAT THE
CONSPIRATORS WERE INTEGRATED DID NOT INSULATE THEM FROM THE ACT, NOT
THAT CORPORATE INTEGRATION VIOLATED THE ACT.  IN THE COMPLAINT THE
GOVERNMENT CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD COMBINED AND CONSPIRED TO
EFFECT THE RESTRAINTS IN QUESTION WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF
MONOPOLIZING THE CAB BUSINESS IN CERTAIN CITIES, AND ON MOTION TO
DISMISS THAT ALLEGATION WAS ACCEPTED AS TRUE.  WHERE A COMPLAINT
CHARGES SUCH AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT AS THE FACTS OF THE YELLOW CAB
CASE SHOW, THE AMOUNT OF INTERSTATE TRADE AFFECTED IS IMMATERIAL IN
DETERMINING WHETHER A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT HAS BEEN CHARGED.  A
RESTRAINT MAY BE UNREASONABLE EITHER BECAUSE A RESTRAINT OTHERWISE
REASONABLE IS ACCOMPANIED WITH A SPECIFIC INTENT TO ACCOMPLISH A
FORBIDDEN RESTRAINT OR BECAUSE IT FALLS WITHIN THE CLASS OF RESTRAINTS
THAT ARE ILLEGAL PER SE.  FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE A COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT
THE DEFENDANTS HAVE ENGAGED IN PRICE FIXING,  FN20  OR HAVE CONCERTEDLY
REFUSED TO DEAL WITH NON-MEMBERS OF AN ASSOCIATION N21, OR HAVE
LICENSED A PATENTED DEVICE ON CONDITION THAT UNPATENTED MATERIALS BE
EMPLOYED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PATENTED DEVICE,  FN22 THEN THE AMOUNT
OF COMMERCE INVOLVED IS IMMATERIAL BECAUSE SUCH RESTRAINTS ARE ILLEGAL
PER SE.  NOTHING IN THE YELLOW CAB CASE SUPPORTS THE THEORY THAT ALL
EXCLUSIVE DEALING ARRANGEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL PER SE. 

A SUBSIDIARY WILL IN ALL PROBABILITY DEAL ONLY WITH ITS PARENT FOR
GOODS THE PARENT CAN FURNISH.  THAT FACT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MAKE THE
ACQUISITION INVALID.  WHEN OTHER ELEMENTS OF SHERMAN ACT VIOLATIONS ARE
PRESENT, THE FACT OF CORPORATE RELATIONSHIP IS MATERIAL AND CAN BE
CONSIDERED IN THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER RESTRAINT OR ATTEMPT TO
RESTRAIN EXISTS.  THAT THIS IS THE TEACHING OF THE YELLOW CAB CASE IS
INDICATED BY THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION: 

"AND SO IN THIS CASE, THE COMMON OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE VARIOUS
CORPORATE APPELLEES ARE IMPOTENT TO LIBERATE THE ALLEGED COMBINATION
AND CONSPIRACY FROM THE IMPACT OF THE ACT.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT
THE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE WAS NOT ONLY EFFECTED BY THE
COMBINATION OF THE APPELLEES BUT WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE
COMBINATION.  THE THEORY OF THE COMPLAINT, TO BORROW LANGUAGE FROM
UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26, 57, IS THAT 'DOMINATING
POWER' OVER THE CAB OPERATING COMPANIES 'WAS NOT OBTAINED BY NORMAL
EXPANSION TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF A BUSINESS GROWING AS A RESULT OF
SUPERIOR AND ENTERPRISING MANAGEMENT, BUT BY DELIBERATE, CALCULATED
PURCHASE FOR CONTROL.'  IF THAT THEORY IS BORNE OUT IN THIS CASE BY THE
EVIDENCE, COUPLED WITH PROOF OF AN UNDUE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE,
A PLAIN VIOLATION OF THE ACT HAS OCCURRED."  332 U.S. AT 227-28. 

THAT VIEW IS IN ACCORD WITH PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURT.  FN23 

THE LEGALITY OF THE ACQUISITION BY UNITED STATES STEEL OF A MARKET
OUTLET FOR ITS ROLLED STEEL THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF THE MANUFACTURING
FACILITIES OF CONSOLIDATED DEPENDS NOT MERELY UPON THE FACT OF THAT
ACQUIRED CONTROL BUT ALSO UPON MANY OTHER FACTORS.  EXCLUSIVE DEALINGS
FOR ROLLED STEEL BETWEEN CONSOLIDATED AND UNITED STATES STEEL, BROUGHT
ABOUT BY VERTICAL INTEGRATION OR OTHERWISE, ARE NOT ILLEGAL, AT ANY
RATE UNTIL THE EFFECT OF SUCH CONTROL IS TO UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE
OPPORTUNITIES OF COMPETITORS TO MARKET THEIR PRODUCT. 

IN UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, 334 U.S. 131, WE WERE
PRESENTED WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED THAT
VERTICAL INTEGRATION WAS ILLEGAL UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  WE HELD THAT
CONTROL BY THE MAJOR PRODUCER-DISTRIBUTORS OVER NEARLY THREE-QUARTERS
OF THE FIRST-RUN THEATERS IN CITIES WITH POPULATION OVER 100,000 WAS
NOT OF ITSELF ILLEGAL, AND WE REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FURTHER FINDINGS.  IN OUTLINING THE FACTORS WHICH WE CONSIDERED TO
BE SIGNIFICANT IN DETERMINING THE LEGALITY OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION, WE
EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERIZING THE NATURE OF THE MARKET TO
BE SERVED, AND THE LEVERAGE ON THE MARKET WHICH THE PARTICULAR VERTICAL
INTEGRATION CREATES OR MAKES POSSIBLE.  A SECOND TEST WHICH WE
CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN THE PARAMOUNT CASE WAS THE PURPOSE OR INTENT
WITH WHICH THE COMBINATION WAS CONCEIVED.  WHEN A COMBINATION THROUGH
ITS ACTUAL OPERATION RESULTS IN AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT, INTENT OR
PURPOSE MAY BE INFERRED; EVEN THOUGH NO UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT MAY BE
ACHIEVED, NEVERTHELESS A FINDING OF SPECIFIC INTENT TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH
AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT MAY RENDER THE ACTOR LIABLE UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, 105.  FN24 

IT SEEMS CLEAR TO US THAT VERTICAL INTEGRATION, AS SUCH WITHOUT MORE,
CANNOT BE HELD VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT IS AN INDEFINITE TERM
WITHOUT EXPLICIT MEANING.  EVEN IN THE IRON INDUSTRY, WHERE COULD A
LINE BE DRAWN - AT THE END OF MINING THE ORE, THE PRODUCTION OF THE PIG
IRON OR STEEL INGOTS, WHEN THE ROLLING MILL OPERATION IS COMPLETED,
FABRICATION ON ORDER OR AT SOME STAGE OF MANUFACTURE INTO STANDARD
MERCHANDISE?  NO ANSWER WOULD BE POSSIBLE AND THEREFORE THE EXTENT OF
PERMISSIBLE INTEGRATION MUST BE GOVERNED, AS OTHER FACTORS IN SHERMAN
ACT VIOLATIONS, BY THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL CASES. 
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES MAY EASILY REQUIRE A BASIC INDUSTRY PLANT TO
EXPAND ITS PROCESSES INTO SEMI-FINISHED OR FINISHED GOODS SO AS TO
PRODUCE DESIRED ARTICLES IN GREATER VOLUME AND WITH LESS EXPENSE.    IT
IS NOT FOR COURTS TO DETERMINE THE COURSE OF THE NATION'S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT.  ECONOMISTS MAY RECOMMEND, THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE
BRANCHES MAY CHART LEGAL COURSES BY WHICH THE COMPETITIVE FORCES OF
BUSINESS CAN SEEK TO REDUCE COSTS AND INCREASE PRODUCTION SO THAT A
HIGHER STANDARD OF LIVING MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ALL.  THE EVILS AND
DANGERS OF MONOPOLY AND ATTEMPTS TO MONOPOLIZE THAT GROW OUT OF SIZE
AND EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE OTHERS FROM MARKETS, LARGE OR SMALL, HAVE
CAUSED CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE TO REGULATE COMMERCE AND TRADE IN
MANY RESPECTS.  BUT NO DIRECTION HAS APPEARED OF A PUBLIC POLICY THAT
FORBIDS, PER SE, AN EXPANSION OF FACILITIES OF AN EXISTING COMPANY TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF NEW MARKETS OF A COMMUNITY, WHETHER THAT COMMUNITY IS
NATION-WIDE OR COUNTY-WIDE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COURTS HAVE BEEN
GIVEN BY CONGRESS WIDE POWERS IN MONOPOLY REGULATION.  THE VERY
BROADNESS OF TERMS SUCH AS RESTRAINT OF TRADE, SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION
AND PURPOSE TO MONOPOLIZE HAVE PLACED UPON COURTS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
APPLY THE SHERMAN ACT SO AS TO AVOID THE EVILS AT WHICH CONGRESS
AIMED.  THE BASIC INDUSTRIES, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, DO NOT APPROACH IN
AMERICA A CARTELIZED FORM.  IF BUSINESSES ARE TO BE FORBIDDEN FROM
ENTERING INTO DIFFERENT STAGES OF PRODUCTION THAT ORDER MUST COME FROM
CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS. 

APPLYING THE STANDARDS LAID DOWN IN THE PARAMOUNT CASE, WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE SO-CALLED VERTICAL INTEGRATION RESULTING FROM THE ACQUISITION
OF CONSOLIDATED DOES NOT UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE OPPORTUNITIES OF THE
COMPETITOR PRODUCERS OF ROLLED STEEL TO MARKET THEIR PRODUCT.  WE
ACCEPT AS THE RELEVANT COMPETITIVE MARKET THE TOTAL DEMAND FOR ROLLED
STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE ELEVEN-STATE AREA; OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS
CONSOLIDATED HAS ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY 3% OF THAT DEMAND, AND IF
EXPECTATIONS AS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN STEEL INDUSTRY ARE
REALIZED, CONSOLIDATED'S PROPORTION MAY BE EXPECTED TO BE LOWER THAN
THAT FIGURE IN THE FUTURE.  NOR CAN WE FIND A SPECIFIC INTENT IN THE
PRESENT CASE TO ACCOMPLISH AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT, FOR REASONS WHICH
WE DISCUSS UNDER HEADING III OF THIS OPINION. 

C. WE TURN NOW TO A DISCUSSION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE, AS TO POSSIBLE
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, OF THE FACT THAT CONSOLIDATED HAS BEEN A
COMPETITOR OF UNITED STATES STEEL IN STRUCTURAL STEEL FABRICATION AND
IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PIPE.  THE SAME TESTS WHICH MEASURE THE LEGALITY
OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION BY ACQUISITION ARE ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF COMPETITORS IN IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR LINES OF
MERCHANDISE.  IT IS FIRST NECESSARY TO DELIMIT THE MARKET IN WHICH THE
CONCERNS COMPETE AND THEN DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CONCERNS
ARE IN COMPETITION IN THAT MARKET.  IF SUCH ACQUISITION RESULTS IN OR
IS AIMED AT UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT, THEN THE PURCHASE IS FORBIDDEN BY
THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT, WE DO NOT THINK THE DOLLAR VOLUME IS IN ITSELF OF COMPELLING
SIGNIFICANCE; WE LOOK RATHER TO THE PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESS CONTROLLED,
THE STRENGTH OF THE REMAINING COMPETITION, WHETHER THE ACTION SPRINGS
FROM BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS OR PURPOSE TO MONOPOLIZE, THE PROBABLE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY, CONSUMER DEMANDS, AND OTHER
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MARKET.  WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO PRESCRIBE ANY
SET OF PERCENTAGE FIGURES BY WHICH TO MEASURE THE REASONABLENESS OF A
CORPORATION'S ENLARGEMENT OF ITS ACTIVITIES BY THE PURCHASE OF THE
ASSETS OF A COMPETITOR.  FN25  THE RELATIVE EFFECT OF PERCENTAGE
COMMAND OF A MARKET VARIES WITH THE SETTING IN WHICH THAT FACTOR IS
PLACED. 

THE UNITED STATES MAKES THE POINT THAT THE ACQUISITION OF
CONSOLIDATED WOULD PRECLUDE AND RESTRAIN SUBSTANTIAL POTENTIAL
COMPETITION IN THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF OTHER STEEL PRODUCTS THAN
FABRICATED STRUCTURAL STEEL AND PIPE.  FORCE IS ADDED TO THIS
CONTENTION BY THE FACT, ADVERTED TO ABOVE AT PAGES 500 AND 512, THAT
UNITED STATES STEEL DOES NO PLATE FABRICATION WHILE CONSOLIDATED DOES. 
BY PLATE FABRICATION CONSOLIDATED PRODUCES MANY ARTICLES NOT NOW
PRODUCED BY UNITED STATES STEEL.  WE MENTION, AS EXAMPLES, BOILERS, GAS
TANKS, SMOKE STACKS, STORAGE TANKS AND BARGES.  ATTENTION IS ALSO
CALLED TO THE WAR ACTIVITIES OF CONSOLIDATED IN STEEL SHIPBUILDING AS
INDICATIVE OF ITS POTENTIALITIES AS A COMPETITOR.  WE HAVE NOTED, PP.
500-501, SUPRA, THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS UNDER GOVERNMENT DIRECTION
AND FINANCING.  WE AGREE THAT ANY ACQUISITION OF FABRICATING EQUIPMENT
ELIMINATES SOME POTENTIAL COMPETITION FROM ANYONE WHO MIGHT OWN OR
ACQUIRE SUCH FACILITIES.  WE AGREE, TOO, WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
THAT POTENTIAL COMPETITION FROM PRODUCERS OF PRESENTLY NON-COMPETITIVE
ARTICLES AS WELL AS THE POSSIBILITY THAT ACQUIRED FACILITIES MAY BE
USED IN THE FUTURE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF NEW ARTICLES IN COMPETITION
WITH OTHERS MAY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN WEIGHING THE EFFECT OF
ANY ACQUISITION OF ASSETS ON RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  FN26 

THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, TAKES US INTO HIGHLY SPECULATIVE
SITUATIONS.  STEEL SHIP CONSTRUCTION FOR WAR PURPOSES WAS AN ENTERPRISE
UNDERTAKEN AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE.  WE KNOW OF NOTHING FROM THE RECORD
THAT WOULD LEAD CONSOLIDATED OR UNITED STATES STEEL TO BRANCH OUT INTO
THE PEACE-TIME STEEL SHIP INDUSTRY AT THEIR OWN RISK.  THE NECESSARY
YARDS HAVE BEEN SOLD.  IT IS TRUE THAT UNITED STATES STEEL MIGHT GO
INTO PLATE FABRICATION.  THE RECORD SHOWS NOTHING AS TO PRODUCTION OR
DEMAND IN THE CONSOLIDATED TRADE AREA FOR PLATE FABRICATED ARTICLES. 
NOTHING APPEARS AS TO THE NUMBER OF PRODUCERS OF SUCH GOODS IN THAT
TERRITORY.  WHAT WE HAVE SAID IN OTHER PLACES IN THIS OPINION AS TO THE
GROWING STEEL INDUSTRY IN THIS AREA IS PERTINENT HERE.  EASTERN
FABRICATORS WILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO MEET COMPETITION FROM WESTERN
FABRICATORS IN THE WESTERN MARKET.  CHEAPER WESTERN ROLLED STEEL AND
FREIGHT RATES ARE A HANDICAP TO EASTERN FABRICATORS.  LOOKING AT THE
SITUATION HERE PRESENTED, WE ARE UNWILLING TO HOLD THAT POSSIBILITIES
OF INTERFERENCE WITH FUTURE COMPETITION ARE SERIOUS ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY
US IN DECLARING THAT THIS CONTRACT WILL BRING ABOUT UNLAWFUL
RESTRAINT. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT IN THIS CASE THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT
THE ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN CONSOLIDATED AND THE STRUCTURAL
FABRICATING SUBSIDIARIES OF UNITED STATES STEEL CONSTITUTES AN
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT.  IF WE MAKE THE DOUBTFUL ASSUMPTION THAT UNITED
STATES STEEL COULD BE EXPECTED IN THE FUTURE TO SELL 13% OF THE TOTAL
OF STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE CONSOLIDATED TRADE AREA AND THAT
CONSOLIDATED COULD BE EXPECTED TO SELL 11%, WE CONCLUDE THAT WHERE WE
HAVE THE PRESENT UNUSUAL CONDITIONS OF THE WESTERN STEEL INDUSTRY AND
IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS DEVELOPED AT PAGES 512 TO 516, OF
THIS OPINION, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THERE WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  TO HOLD THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT ADDITIONAL
ACQUISITIONS OF FABRICATING FACILITIES FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL WOULD NOT
BECOME MONOPOLISTIC.  NOTWITHSTANDING SOME DIFFERENCES AS TO THE
BUSINESS OF CONSOLIDATED AND UNITED STATES STEEL IN RESPECT TO THE
CHARACTER OF STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTS FABRICATED BY EACH, THERE IS
COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO FOR BOTH LIGHT AND HEAVY WORK.  THE WESTERN
STEEL INDUSTRY IS DEVELOPING.  FONTANA AND GENEVA AS WELL AS OTHER
PRODUCERS ARE MAKING AVAILABLE FOR FABRICATORS LARGER SUPPLIES OF
ROLLED STEEL SO THAT THE WEST IS BECOMING LESS DEPENDENT ON EASTERN
SUPPLIERS.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION, MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE NUMBER OF
WEST COAST FABRICATORS (SEE PP. 502-503) AND THE ABILITY OF OUT-OF-THE
AREA FABRICATORS TO COMPETE BECAUSE OF THE SPECIALIZED CHARACTER OF
STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCTION IN REGARD TO ORDERS AND DESIGNS, THAT THIS
ACQUISITION IS PERMISSIBLE. 

WE LIKEWISE CONCLUDE THAT THE ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN
CONSOLIDATED AND NATIONAL TUBE (A UNITED STATES STEEL SUBSIDIARY) DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT.  COMPETITION AT THE TIME OF
THE CONTRACT WAS RESTRICTED TO THE SALE OF LARGE DIAMETER PIPE FOR OIL
AND GAS PIPELINES, SEE PAGES 516 TO 518, SUPRA, AND THE ONLY INDICATION
IN THE RECORD THAT COMPETITION IN PIPE WOULD EXIST IN A BROADER FIELD
IN THE FUTURE IS CONTAINED IN THE SUGGESTION, WITHOUT PROOF OR
SPECIFICATION, THAT CONSOLIDATED THROUGH TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES OR
BUSINESS EXPANSION, MIGHT PRODUCE A WIDER RANGE OF PIPE SIZES AND
TYPES.  THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO PERSUADE US THAT THE PURCHASE WILL UNDULY
RESTRAIN TRADE IN PIPE.  THE RECORD DOES SHOW THAT IN THREE INSTANCES
CONSOLIDATED AND NATIONAL TUBE EACH SUPPLIED PIPE FOR A NEW PIPELINE. 
IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE LINE PIPE CONTRACTS WERE OBTAINED BY
CONSOLIDATED IN A SELLER'S MARKET.  WE ARE GIVEN NOTHING AS TO THE
NATIONAL PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS TRUNKLINE PIPE OR THE RELATION OF
THE PIPE SOLD BY CONSOLIDATED AND NATIONAL TUBE TO THIS PRODUCTION. 
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEST APPELLEES' STATEMENT THAT CONSOLIDATED
PIPE FOR THIS PURPOSE IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN SEAMLESS
PIPE, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT WELDED PIPE HAS ADVANTAGES
OVER SEAMLESS PIPE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INCREASED COST OR THAT
CONSOLIDATED'S PRODUCTION COSTS MAY BE EXPECTED TO DECLINE WITH AN
INCREASE IN VOLUME, IT DOES NOT SEEM TO US THAT IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT
COMPETITION IN THIS FIELD BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTRACT IS SO
SUBSTANTIAL THAT ITS ELIMINATION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTES
AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT. 

THE GOVERNMENT CITES FOUR ANTITRUST CASES INVOLVING RAILROADS TO
SUPPORT ITS ARGUMENT THAT CONTROL BY ONE COMPETITOR OVER ANOTHER
VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE PERCENTAGE OF BUSINESS FOR
WHICH THEY COMPETE MAY BE SMALL.  FN27  THE APPELLEES CITE CASES FROM
THIS COURT AND LOWER COURTS IN WHICH ACQUISITION BY ONE COMPETITOR OF
ANOTHER WAS HELD NOT TO VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  FN28  WE DO NOT
STOP TO EXAMINE THOSE CASES TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE WOULD NOW APPROVE
EITHER THEIR LANGUAGE OR THEIR HOLDINGS.  THE FACTUAL SITUATION IN ALL
THOSE CASES IS SO DISSIMILAR FROM THAT PRESENTED HERE THAT THEY FURNISH
LITTLE GUIDANCE IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE COMPETITION WHICH WILL BE
ELIMINATED THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF CONSOLIDATED IS SUFFICIENT TO
WARRANT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FN29

                                 III. 

WE TURN LAST TO THE ALLEGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT UNITED STATES
STEEL HAS ATTEMPTED TO MONOPOLIZE THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF FABRICATED
STEEL PRODUCTS IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET.  WE THINK THAT THE TRIAL
COURT APPLIED TOO NARROW A TEST TO THIS CHARGE; EVEN THOUGH THE
RESTRAINT EFFECTED MAY BE REASONABLE UNDER SEC. 1, IT MAY CONSTITUTE AN
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 2 IF A SPECIFIC INTENT TO
MONOPOLIZE MAY BE SHOWN.  FN30  TO SHOW THAT SPECIFIC INTENT, THE
GOVERNMENT RECITES THE LONG HISTORY OF ACQUISITIONS OF UNITED STATES
STEEL, AND ARGUES THAT THE PRESENT ACQUISITION WHEN VIEWED IN THE LIGHT
OF THAT HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THE EXISTENCE OF A SPECIFIC INTENT TO
MONOPOLIZE.  ALTHOUGH THIS COURT HELD IN 1920  FN31  THAT UNITED STATES
STEEL HAD NOT VIOLATED SEC. 2 THROUGH THE ACQUISITION OF 180 FORMERLY
INDEPENDENT CONCERNS, WE MAY LOOK TO THOSE ACQUISITIONS AS WELL AS TO
THE EIGHT ACQUISITIONS FROM 1924 TO 1943 TO DETERMINE THE INTENT OF
UNITED STATES STEEL IN ACQUIRING CONSOLIDATED. 

WE LOOK NOT ONLY TO THOSE ACQUISITIONS, HOWEVER, BUT ALSO TO THE
LATEST ACQUISITION - THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED PLANT AT GENEVA.  WE THINK
THAT LAST ACQUISITION IS OF SIGNIFICANCE IN ASCERTAINING THE INTENT OF
UNITED STATES STEEL IN ACQUIRING CONSOLIDATED.  FN32  THE BID OF UNITED
STATES STEEL FOR THE GENEVA PLANT EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF ERECTING
FINISHING FACILITIES TO ASSURE A MARKET FOR GENEVA'S PRODUCTION, AND WE
THINK IT A FACT OF WEIGHT THAT MANY OF THE OTHER BIDS WERE CONDITIONED
UPON THE GOVERNMENT LENDING MONEY OR MAKING GRANTS FOR ERECTING SUCH
FACILITIES AT NO COST TO THE BIDDER.  NO OBJECTION WAS INTERPOSED WHEN
UNITED STATES STEEL INDICATED THAT IT PROPOSED TO SPEND $25,000,000 TO
ERECT A COLD REDUCTION MILL AT PITTSBURG, AND IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER
OBJECTIONS COULD BE RAISED IF UNITED STATES STEEL PROPOSED TO BUILD
INSTEAD OF TO BUY FROM A COMPETITOR FABRICATING FACILITIES SIMILAR TO
THOSE POSSESSED BY CONSOLIDATED.  THE REASONS GIVEN BY CONSOLIDATED AND
UNITED STATES STEEL FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE ASSETS HERE
INVOLVED SEEM NOT TO INVOLVE ANY ACTION CONDEMNED BY THE SHERMAN ACT. 
GRANTING THAT THE SALE WILL TO SOME EXTENT AFFECT COMPETITION, THE
ACQUISITION OF A FIRM OUTLET TO ABSORB A PORTION OF GENEVA'S ROLLED
STEEL PRODUCTION SEEMS TO REFLECT A NORMAL BUSINESS PURPOSE RATHER THAN
A SCHEME TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW.  UNITED STATES STEEL, DESPITE ITS LARGE
SALES, MANY ACQUISITIONS AND LEADING POSITION IN THE INDUSTRY, HAS
DECLINED IN THE PROPORTION OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS IT MANUFACTURES IN
COMPARISON WITH ITS EARLY DAYS.  IN 1901 IT PRODUCED 50.1%; IN 1911,
45.7%; IN 1946, 30.4%.  FN33  FOR THE PERIOD 1937-1946, IT PRODUCED
33.2%.  FN34  ITS SIZE IS IMPRESSIVE.  SIZE HAS SIGNIFICANCE ALSO IN AN
APPRAISAL OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  BUT THE STEEL
INDUSTRY IS ALSO OF IMPRESSIVE SIZE AND THE WELCOME WESTWARD EXTENSION
OF THAT INDUSTRY REQUIRES THAT THE EXISTING COMPANIES GO INTO
PRODUCTION THERE OR ABANDON THAT MARKET TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. 

WE HAVE DEALT WITH THE OBJECTIONS TO THIS PURCHASE BECAUSE OF THE
EXCLUSION OF OTHER ROLLED STEEL PRODUCERS FROM SUPPLYING CONSOLIDATED'S
DEMAND FOR THAT PRODUCT AND BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGED RESTRAINT OF TRADE
INVOLVED IN THE EXTENSION OF UNITED STATES STEEL'S FABRICATING AND PIPE
COMMERCE.  IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY TO TREAT THESE ARGUMENTS SEPARATELY SO
AS TO ISOLATE THE FACTS AND FIGURES WHICH CONVINCE US THAT THESE
OBJECTIONS DO NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF PROVING A VIOLATION OF LAW.  IT
ONLY NEED BE ADDED THAT WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS ITEMS OF
OBJECTION IN THE AGGREGATE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE CHARGE OF INTENT TO
MONOPOLIZE.  BUT EVEN FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT
PERSUADED US THAT THE PROPOSED CONTRACT VIOLATES OUR PUBLIC POLICY AS
STATED IN THE SHERMAN ACT.    THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 4, 15 U.S.C., READ, SO FAR AS APPLICABLE, AS
FOLLOWS: 

SEC. 1.  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL:  ...  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MAKE ANY CONTRACT OR ENGAGE IN
ANY COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY DECLARED BY SECTIONS 1-7 OF THIS TITLE TO
BE ILLEGAL SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION
THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING $5,000, OR BY
IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN
THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT." 

SEC. 2.  "EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE, OR ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO
MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND,
ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING $5,000,
OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH SAID PUNISHMENTS,
IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT." 

SEC. 4.  "THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS,
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS
IN EQUITY TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS.  ...  " 

FN2  AN UNCONTESTED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED'S SHIP BUILDING
ACTIVITIES DURING THE WAR YEARS APPEARS IN CONSOLIDATED'S BRIEF: 

"DURING THE WAR YEARS, ACTING UNDER GOVERNMENT SPONSORSHIP,
CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTED SHIPS FOR DEFENSE AND WAR PURPOSES FOR VARIOUS
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT AGENCIES BUT IT IS NO LONGER ENGAGED IN THIS
FIELD.  CONSOLIDATED'S WAR WORK WAS CONFINED TO SHIP AND ORDNANCE
CONSTRUCTION WITH GOVERNMENT FURNISHED FACILITIES, ALL OF WHICH HAVE
NOW BEEN ABANDONED.  CONSOLIDATED SHIPYARDS, INC., A CONSOLIDATED
SUBSIDIARY OPERATING A SMALL BOAT YARD, HAS DISPOSED OF ITS PLANT TO A
GROUP OF REAL ESTATE SPECULATORS.  THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO COMPETITION
BETWEEN U.S. STEEL AND CONSOLIDATED IN THE SHIPBUILDING BUSINESS." 

FN3  LOUISIANA AND TEXAS, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE CONSOLIDATED
MARKET, ARE NOT LISTED IN THE CENSUS GROUPING, WHEREAS COLORADO AND
WYOMING, WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE CENSUS, ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED MARKET.  SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1940,
AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES 1940, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, P. 3. 

FN4  IN 1924 THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER WHICH
CONCLUDED THAT UNITED STATES STEEL HAD VIOLATED SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT AND SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT BY ITS SO-CALLED
"PITTSBURGH PLUS" METHOD OF PRICING, ACCORDING TO WHICH ALL ROLLED
STEEL PRODUCTS WERE SOLD AT A DELIVERED PRICE INCLUDING FREIGHT FROM
PITTSBURGH TO THE DESTINATION, REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL POINT OF
SHIPMENT.  MATTER OF UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 8 F.T.C. 1.  UNITED
STATES STEEL WAS ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SELLING ITS PRODUCTS
ON THAT BASIS, OR FROM EMPLOYING ANY BASING POINT OTHER THAN THE POINT
OF MANUFACTURE OR SHIPMENT.  IN 1938 UNITED STATES STEEL FILED A
PETITION TO REVIEW THAT ORDER IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ADMITTING THAT UNITED STATES STEEL HAD NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE LATTER
PART OF THE ORDER.  NO DECISION HAS YET BEEN REACHED IN THAT
PROCEEDING. 

FN5  COLD ROLLING IS THE NAME GIVEN TO THE PROCESS OF ROLLING STEEL
PRODUCTS AT TEMPERATURES RANGING FROM 50 DEGREE F. TO 240 DEGREE F.
COILS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE HOT ROLLING PROCESS ARE FED INTO
A COLD-REDUCTION MILL AND ROLLED INTO STRIP AND SHEETS WHICH ARE OF
MUCH HIGHER QUALITY THAN HOT ROLLED STRIP AND SHEETS.  SEE CAMP AND
FRANCIS, THE MAKING, SHAPING AND TREATING OF STEEL (5TH ED., 1940), PP.
1227-1245. 

FN6  THE BID OF COLORADO FUEL & IRON CORP. PROPOSED THAT THE
GOVERNMENT SPEND $47,935,000 FOR THE ERECTION OF ADDITIONAL FACILITIES,
INCLUDING OVER $25,000,000 FOR THE ERECTION OF A SHEET AND TIN-PLATE
MILL.  THE BID OF PACIFIC-AMERICAN STEEL IRON CORP. PROPOSED THAT THE
GOVERNMENT LEND THE BIDDER $25,000,000 FOR THE ERECTION OF A TIN-PLATE
MILL.  THE BID OF RILEY STEEL CO. PROPOSED THAT THE GOVERNMENT LEND THE
BIDDER $28,844,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHEET MILL, TUBE MILL, AND
ADDITIONS TO THE STRUCTURAL MILL. 

FN7  THIS WAS NOT A PURCHASE OF STOCK OF A COMPETING COMPANY.  SEE
SEC. 7, CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 730, 731; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. WESTERN
MEAT CO., 272 U.S. 554.  IT MUST BE ASSUMED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PUBLIC
POLICY ANNOUNCED BY SEC. 7 OF THE CLAYTON ACT IS TO BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER ACQUISITION OF ASSETS OF
CONSOLIDATED BY UNITED STATES STEEL WITH THE SAME ECONOMIC RESULTS AS
THE PURCHASE OF THE STOCK VIOLATES THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT
AGAINST UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS.  SEE HANDLER, INDUSTRIAL MERGERS AND
THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, 32 COL. L. REV. 179, 266. 

IN 1941 THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE PROPOSED THAT SEC.
7 BE AMENDED TO APPLY TO ACQUISITION OF ASSETS AND TO REQUIRE PRIOR
APPROVAL BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.  SEE COMMENT, 57 YALE L.J.
613, FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE BILLS WHICH HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED BEFORE
CONGRESS TO CARRY OUT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. 

FN8  THE FOLLOWING TABLE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIAL COURT AS CORRECT:

                        U.S. STEEL     ESTIMATED      U.S. STEEL

          INDUSTRY     SUBSIDIARIES   CONSUMPTION  SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED'S

         PRODUCTION PRODUCTION    ALL ROLLED      SHIPMENT OF
PURCHASES

YEAR    ALL ROLLED     ALL ROLLED       STEEL        ALL ROLLED
 ALL

            STEEL         STEEL       PRODUCTS 11        STEEL
ROLLED STEEL

           PRODUCTS       PRODUCTS       STATES      PRODUCTION
INTO

                PRODUCTS

           THE 11 STATES 

1937------  38,345,158    14,097,666     4,362,900       1,556,085
103,286 

1938------  21,356,398     7,315,506     2,670,000       1,046,287
   44,050 

1939------  34,955,175    11,707,251     3,630,000       1,434,383
   69,862 

1940------ 45,965,971     15,013,749     4,337,990       1,686,129
  117,644 

1941------  60,942,979    20,416,604     6,008,757       2,441,840
  163,428 

1942------  60,591,052    20,615,137     8,489,204       3,181,358
339,711 

1943------  62,210,261    20,147,616    10,124,831       3,706,886
  404,180 

1944------  63,250,519    21,052,179     9,587,503       3,495,231
  390,532 

1945------  56,602,322    18,410,264     7,232,590    2,378,112
225,273 

1946------  48,993,777    15,181,719     6,000,000       1,810,982
  178,669

    ------------- ----------------------------   ----------------
--------------- 

TOTAL----- 493,213,612   163,957,691    62,443,775      22,737,293
2,036,635 

FN9  THE GOVERNMENT NOTES THAT UNITED STATES STEEL IN ITS BID FOR THE
GENEVA PLANT ESTIMATED THAT THE POSTWAR MARKET IN SEVEN WESTERN STATES
WOULD BE 227,000 TONS OF PLATES AND 213,000 TONS OF SHAPES PER YEAR,
AND COMPARES WITH THESE FIGURES THE 1946 PURCHASES OF CONSOLIDATED OF
107,128 TONS OF PLATES AND 43,770 TONS OF SHAPES.  APART FROM THE FACT
THAT THE FIGURES FOR ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION INCLUDED ONLY SEVEN STATES
AS AGAINST ELEVEN IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET, CONSOLIDATED'S PURCHASES
IN 1946 WERE PRINCIPALLY DEVOTED TO FINISHING UP WAR CONTRACTS.  THE
FIGURES FOR ESTIMATED CONSUMPTION WERE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
LEVEL OF ACTIVITY WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN DURING THE WAR. 

FN10  THE TABLE FROM WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DERIVES THIS FIGURE OF 80%
IS INCONCLUSIVE.  IT REFERS TO "PURCHASES FROM WEST COAST PRODUCERS"
AND DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER THE PRODUCERS THEMSELVES PRODUCED THE
ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS OR WERE ACTING AS AGENTS OF EASTERN PRODUCERS. 
THERE IS NO CHALLENGE TO CONSOLIDATED'S STATEMENT THAT DURING THE YEARS
1937-41 AND 1946 DELIVERIES TO IT FROM THE ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTION OF
THE WEST COAST TOTALED 208,093 TONS AS AGAINST 495,848 TONS FROM
EASTERN PRODUCERS. 

FN11  10 LARGEST STRUCTURAL STEEL FABRICATORS IN THE 11 WESTERN
STATES, 1946. 

              COMPANY         LOCATION             BOOKINGS
PERCENT

                                                      (NET TONS)
OF TOTAL 

ALL COMPANIES----------------------------------------------------
336,717       100.0 

UNITED STATES STEEL CORP----------------PITTSBURGH, PA-----------
44,083        12.9 

CONSOLIDATED STEEL CORP-----------------LOS ANGELES, CALIF-------
36,142        10.6 

BETHLEHEM STEEL CO----------------------BETHLEHEM, PA------------
36,047        10.6 

MOSHER STEEL CO-------------------------HOUSTON, TEX-------------
29,814         8.7 

CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON CO----------------CHICAGO, ILL-------------
21,588         6.3 

ISAACSON IRON WORKS---------------------SEATTLE, WASH------------
10,656         3.1 

KANSAS CITY STRUCTURAL CO---------------KANSAS CITY, KANS--------
10,051         2.9 

MIDWEST STEEL & IRON WORKS CO-----------DENVER, COLO-------------
9,306         2.7 

NORTHWEST STEEL ROLLING MILLS, INC------SEATTLE, WASH------------
9,000         2.6 

STRUCTURAL STEEL & FORGE CO-------------SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH-----
8,300         2.4

                                             ----------------------
-

   TOTAL 10 COMPANIES------------------------------------------
214,987        63.0

   REMAINING 80 COMPANIES--------------------------------------
121,730   37.0 

THE TABLE QUOTED INCLUDES A CORRECTION AS TO CONSOLIDATED'S BOOKINGS
WHICH WAS MADE AFTER THE EXHIBIT WAS INTRODUCED. 

FN12  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE FABRICATING SUBSIDIARIES OF
UNITED STATES STEEL WOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM THE WEST COAST MARKET IN
THE FUTURE EXCEPT FOR SPECIALIZED PRODUCTS WHICH THEY ARE EQUIPPED TO
FABRICATE ECONOMICALLY AND WHICH SELL AT HIGHER PRICES PER TON OF
PRODUCT. 

SINCE THE RECORD WAS MADE UP IN THIS CASE, UNITED STATES STEEL HAS
ANNOUNCED THAT THE MILL PRICE FOR GENEVA STEEL PRODUCTS HAS BEEN
REDUCED $3 PER TON, EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 1948.  THAT AMOUNT REPRESENTED THE
PREVIOUSLY EXISTING MILL PRICE DIFFERENTIAL OF GENEVA STEEL PRODUCTS
OVER PRODUCTS PRODUCED AT PITTSBURGH, CHICAGO, GARY, AND BIRMINGHAM. 
U.S. STEEL QUARTERLY, VOL. 2, NO. 2, MAY 1948, P. 6. 

FN13  DURING THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD ENDING IN 1946 UNITED STATES STEEL
BID ON 2,409 JOBS IN THE CONSOLIDATED AREA AND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN 839. 
CONSOLIDATED BID ON 6,377 JOBS AND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN 2,390.  THERE WERE
ONLY 166 JOBS, HOWEVER, ON WHICH BOTH COMPANIES BID.  FORTY OF THESE
JOBS ON WHICH BOTH COMPANIES BID WERE AWARDED TO UNITED STATES STEEL,
35 WERE AWARDED TO CONSOLIDATED, AND 91 WERE AWARDED TO COMPETITORS. 
REDUCING THESE FIGURES TO A TONNAGE BASIS, UNITED STATES STEEL WAS
AWARDED BIDS COVERING 499,605 TONS OUT OF A TOTAL TONNAGE ON WHICH BIDS
WERE SUBMITTED OF 1,273,152 TONS.  CONSOLIDATED BID ON JOBS INVOLVING
578,847 TONS AND WAS AWARDED 157,997 TONS.  THE TONNAGE INVOLVED IN THE
166 COMMON BIDS WAS 122,353 TONS, OF WHICH UNITED STATES STEEL'S SHARE
WAS 38,920, CONSOLIDATED'S 24,162, AND OTHER COMPETITORS 59,271. 

THE ABOVE FIGURES INDICATE THAT CONSOLIDATED CUSTOMARILY BID ON
LIGHTER TYPES OF WORK; THE AVERAGE TONNAGE FOR CONSOLIDATED'S BIDS WAS
90 TONS, WHEREAS THE AVERAGE TONNAGE FOR UNITED STATES STEEL WAS 528
TONS.  THE 166 JOBS ON WHICH BOTH COMPANIES SUBMITTED BIDS WERE
CONSIDERABLY LARGER IN VOLUME, AVERAGING 737 TONS. 

FN14  THE FOLLOWING EXTRACT FROM THE RECORD SUMMARIZES THE EVIDENCE
ON THIS QUESTION: 

"A.  THE TYPE OF PIPE MADE BY CONSOLIDATED IS ELECTRIC WELD PIPE
KNOWN AS FUSION WELD OR ARC WELD PIPE IN SIZES FROM 4-INCH UP TO SAY 30
INCH.  WE DON'T MAKE ANY ELECTRIC WELD PIPE.  THE PIPE THAT
CONSOLIDATED MAKE OTHER THAN THE PIPE LARGER THAN 26-INCH IS MADE
PRIMARILY FOR AND SOLD TO THE WATER WORKS INDUSTRY, AND OUR PIPE IS
SOLD PRIMARILY TO THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY.  WE DON'T MAKE THE SAME
TYPE OF PIPE, AND THE SIZES WHICH WE MANUFACTURE AND THE GAGES AND THE
LENGTHS ARE IN GENERAL QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE MADE BY CONSOLIDATED
STEEL.  THEY ONLY OVERLAP AT A VERY SMALL PART OF THE FIELD INSOFAR AS
THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE PIPE ARE CONCERNED. 

"Q.  YOU HAVE SPOKEN OF PIPE MADE BY CONSOLIDATED FOR WATER
CONVEYANCE.  ARE THOSE WHAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AS PENSTOCKS? 

"A.  NO, SIR.  WELL, YES, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT PENSTOCKS, AND MANY
OTHER TYPES OF LOW-PRESSURE WATER PIPE.  IT IS TRUE THAT PENSTOCKS ARE
INCLUDED IN THAT AS FAR AS CONSOLIDATED IS CONCERNED.  NATIONAL TUBE
COMPANY DO NOT MAKE ANY PENSTOCK PIPE.  THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY FOR TEN
YEARS. 

"Q.  AND NONE OF WHAT YOU TERM LIGHT-PRESSURE PIPE? 

"A.  WE DON'T COMPETE WITH THAT.  WE MAKE HIGH-PRESSURE PIPE ONLY." 

FN15  ROACH TESTIFIED THAT THE FIRST ORDER WHICH CONSOLIDATED HAD
FILLED FOR SUCH PIPE WAS FOR THE SOUTHERN COUNTIES AND SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA GAS LINE, BUT HE DID NOT INDICATE THE SIZE OR DATE OF THE
ORDER.  THE PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL TUBE TESTIFIED THAT CONSOLIDATED
CONTRACTED IN 1946 TO FURNISH 100 MILES OF 26-INCH PIPE FOR THE EL PASO
NATURAL GAS CO., NATIONAL TUBE CONTRACTED TO SUPPLY 230 MILES, AND A
THIRD COMPETITOR 400 MILES.  THE SAME WITNESS ALSO TESTIFIED THAT
NATIONAL TUBE CONTRACTED IN 1946 TO SUPPLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF 24-INCH
PIPE TO THE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO., AND THAT CONSOLIDATED IN 1947
ALSO AGREED TO FURNISH A QUANTITY OF PIPE FOR THE SAME PIPELINE.  AS OF
NOVEMBER 30, 1946, CONSOLIDATED HAD UNFILLED ORDERS FOR "HEAVY PIPE" OF
$9,830,079, A FIGURE WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PACIFIC GAS AND
ELECTRIC OR TRANS-ARABIAN ORDER. 

FN16  E.G., REPUBLIC STEEL CORP., A.O. SMITH CORP., YOUNGSTOWN SHEET
AND TUBE CO. THERE ARE OTHER PRODUCERS IN THE WEST. 

FN17  332 U.S. AT 226: 

"LIKEWISE IRRELEVANT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AFFECTED IN RELATION TO THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THAT TYPE OF COMMERCE IN
THE UNITED STATES.  THE SHERMAN ACT IS CONCERNED WITH MORE THAN THE
LARGE, NATION-WIDE OBSTACLES IN THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE TRADE.  IT
IS DESIGNED TO SWEEP AWAY ALL APPRECIABLE OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT THE
STATUTORY POLICY OF FREE TRADE MIGHT BE EFFECTIVELY ACHIEVED.  AS THIS
COURT STATED IN INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER CO., 293
U.S. 268, 279, 'THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 HAVE BOTH A
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DISTRIBUTIVE SIGNIFICANCE AND APPLY TO ANY PART OF THE
UNITED STATES AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE WHOLE AND TO ANY PART OF THE
CLASSES OF THINGS FORMING A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.'  IT FOLLOWS
THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE IS NOT DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE
THAT CCM HAS A MONOPOLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXICABS
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES.  ITS RELATIVE POSITION IN
THE FIELD OF CAB PRODUCTION HAS NO NECESSARY RELATION TO THE ABILITY OF
THE APPELLEES TO CONSPIRE TO MONOPOLIZE OR RESTRAIN, IN VIOLATION OF
THE ACT, AN APPRECIABLE SEGMENT OF INTERSTATE CAB SALES.  AN ALLEGATION
THAT SUCH A SEGMENT HAS BEEN OR MAY BE MONOPOLIZED OR RESTRAINED IS
SUFFICIENT." 

FN18  THE GOVERNMENT RELIES PARTICULARLY ON THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT,
332 U.S. AT 226-27: 

"NOR CAN IT BE DOUBTED THAT COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES OF THE TYPE
ALLEGED IN THIS CASE FALL WITHIN THE BAN OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  BY
EXCLUDING ALL CAB MANUFACTURERS OTHER THAN CCM FROM THAT PART OF THE
MARKET REPRESENTED BY THE CAB OPERATING COMPANIES UNDER THEIR CONTROL,
THE APPELLEES EFFECTIVELY LIMIT THE OUTLETS THROUGH WHICH CABS MAY BE
SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  LIMITATIONS OF THAT NATURE HAVE BEEN
CONDEMNED TIME AND AGAIN AS VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT.  ...  IN ADDITION, BY
PREVENTING THE CAB OPERATING COMPANIES UNDER THEIR CONTROL FROM
PURCHASING CABS FROM MANUFACTURERS OTHER THAN CCM, THE APPELLEES DENY
THOSE COMPANIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE CABS IN A FREE, COMPETITIVE
MARKET.  THE SHERMAN ACT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO SANCTION SUCH A
CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN THE FREE PURCHASE OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE." 

FN19 THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT HAS
BEEN CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING ONLY UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS, NOT ALL
POSSIBLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221
U.S. 1.  IN THIS IT DIFFERS SOMEWHAT FROM THE MORE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF
THE CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 730, OR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, 38
STAT. 717.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37,
46, AND STANDARD FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258 U.S. 346,
356. 

FN20  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150. 

FN21  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1; EASTERN STATES
RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS' ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600;
MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38.  SEE FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD
V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457. 

FN22  INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392. 

FN23  COMPARE OUR STATEMENT IN UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES,
334 U.S. 131, 173-174: 

"EXPLORATION OF THESE PHASES OF THE CASES WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY IF,
AS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARGUES, VERTICAL INTEGRATION OF PRODUCING,
DISTRIBUTING AND EXHIBITING MOTION PICTURES IS ILLEGAL PER SE.  BUT THE
MAJORITY OF THE COURT DOES NOT TAKE THAT VIEW.  IN THE OPINION OF THE
MAJORITY THE LEGALITY OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT
TURNS ON (1) THE PURPOSE OR INTENT WITH WHICH IT WAS CONCEIVED, OR (2)
THE POWER IT CREATES AND THE ATTENDANT PURPOSE OR INTENT.  FIRST, IT
RUNS AFOUL OF THE SHERMAN ACT IF IT WAS A CALCULATED SCHEME TO GAIN
CONTROL OVER AN APPRECIABLE SEGMENT OF THE MARKET AND TO RESTRAIN OR
SUPPRESS COMPETITION, RATHER THAN AN EXPANSION TO MEET LEGITIMATE
BUSINESS NEEDS." 

THE LEGALITY OF CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXCLUSIVE DEALING WAS
SUSTAINED IN UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707, 728-29. 
COMPARE FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CURTIS PUBLISHING CO., 260 U.S. 568. 

FN24  ID., PP. 106-107: 

"ANYONE WHO OWNS AND OPERATES THE SINGLE THEATRE IN A TOWN, OR WHO
ACQUIRES THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT A FILM, HAS A MONOPOLY IN THE
POPULAR SENSE.  BUT HE USUALLY DOES NOT VIOLATE SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT UNLESS HE HAS ACQUIRED OR MAINTAINED HIS STRATEGIC POSITION, OR
SOUGHT TO EXPAND HIS MONOPOLY, OR EXPANDED IT BY MEANS OF THOSE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WHICH ARE COGNIZABLE UNDER SEC. 1.  FOR THOSE
THINGS WHICH ARE CONDEMNED BY SEC. 2 ARE IN LARGE MEASURE MERELY THE
END PRODUCTS OF CONDUCT WHICH VIOLATES SEC. 1.  STANDARD OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 61.  BUT THAT IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE.  SECTION 1
COVERS CONTRACTS, COMBINATIONS, OR CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 
MONOPOLIZE BUT ALSO MAKES IT A CRIME FOR ANY PERSON TO MONOPOLIZE OR TO
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN TRADE OR
COMMERCE.  SO IT IS THAT MONOPOLY POWER, WHETHER LAWFULLY OR UNLAWFULLY
ACQUIRED, MAY ITSELF CONSTITUTE AN EVIL AND STAND CONDEMNED UNDER SEC.
2 EVEN THOUGH IT REMAINS UNEXERCISED.  FOR SEC. 2 OF THE ACT IS AIMED,
INTER ALIA, AT THE ACQUISITION OR RETENTION OF EFFECTIVE MARKET
CONTROL.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416,
428, 429.  HENCE THE EXISTENCE OF POWER 'TO EXCLUDE COMPETITION WHEN IT
IS DESIRED TO DO SO' IS ITSELF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2, PROVIDED IT IS
COUPLED WITH THE PURPOSE OR INTENT TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.  AMERICAN
TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 809, 811, 814."    FN25
COMPARE UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, 424;
HANDLER, SUPRA, NOTE 7, TABLES, P. 245.  SEE ALSO ROSTOW, THE NEW
SHERMAN ACT:  A POSITIVE INSTRUMENT OF PROGRESS, 14 U. OF CHICAGO L.
REV. 567, 575-86. 

FN26  UNITED STATES V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 259 U.S. 214; UNITED
STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26. 

FN27  UNITED STATES V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 259 U.S. 214; UNITED
STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 226 U.S. 61; UNITED STATES V. READING
CO., 253 U.S. 26; NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S.
197. 

FN28  INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 280 U.S. 291;
UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417; UNITED STATES
V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO., 247 U.S. 32; UNITED STATES V. STANDARD
OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY, 47 F.2D 288; UNITED STATES V. REPUBLIC STEEL
CORP., 11 F.SUPP.  117. 

FN29  SEE HANDLER, SUPRA, NOTE 7, AT 269-71. 

FN30  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, SUPRA, NOTE 24. 

FN31  UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417. 

FN32  ID., AT 446. 

FN33  THE FIGURES FOR 1901 AND 1911 ARE TAKEN FROM UNITED STATES V.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 223 FED. 55, 67. 

FN34  THE RECORD INCLUDES AN UNCHALLENGED TABLE SHOWING THE
PROPORTION OF TOTAL NATIONAL PRODUCTION OF STEEL INGOTS AND STEEL FOR
CASTING ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNITED STATES STEEL FROM 1901 THROUGH 1946.  IT
IS TAKEN FROM THE STATISTICAL REPORTS OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL
INSTITUTE AND UNITED STATES STEEL.  IT MAY BE SUMMARIZED BY SAYING IT
SHOWS AN IRREGULAR REDUCTION FROM OVER 60% TO LESS THAN 33-1 3%. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY,
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ANTITRUST CASE WHICH HAS BEEN BEFORE THE
COURT IN YEARS.  IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT REVEALS THE WAY OF GROWTH
OF MONOPOLY POWER - THE PRECISE PHENOMENON AT WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT WAS
AIMED.  HERE WE HAVE THE PATTERN OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE GREAT TRUSTS. 
LITTLE, INDEPENDENT UNITS ARE GOBBLED UP BY BIGGER ONES.  AT TIMES THE
INDEPENDENT IS DRIVEN TO THE WALL AND SURRENDERS.  AT OTHER TIMES ANY
NUMBER OF "SOUND BUSINESS REASONS" APPEAR WHY THE SALE TO OR MERGER
WITH THE TRUST SHOULD BE MADE.  FN1  IF THE ACQUISITION WERE THE RESULT
OF PREDATORY PRACTICES OR RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, THE TRUST COULD BE
REQUIRED TO DISGORGE.  SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES, INC. V. UNITED STATES,
334 U.S. 110.  BUT THE IMPACT ON FUTURE COMPETITION AND ON THE ECONOMY
IS THE SAME THOUGH THE TRUST WAS BUILT IN MORE GENTLEMANLY WAYS. 

WE HAVE HERE THE PROBLEM OF BIGNESS.  ITS LESSON SHOULD BY NOW HAVE
BEEN BURNED INTO OUR MEMORY BY BRANDEIS.  THE CURSE OF BIGNESS SHOWS
HOW SIZE CAN BECOME A MENACE - BOTH INDUSTRIAL AND SOCIAL.  IT CAN BE
AN INDUSTRIAL MENACE BECAUSE IT CREATES GROSS INEQUALITIES AGAINST
EXISTING OR PUTATIVE COMPETITORS.  IT CAN BE A SOCIAL MENACE - BECAUSE
OF ITS CONTROL OF PRICES.  FN2  CONTROL OF PRICES IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY
IS POWERFUL LEVERAGE ON OUR ECONOMY.  FOR THE PRICE OF STEEL DETERMINES
THE PRICE OF HUNDREDS OF OTHER ARTICLES.  OUR PRICE LEVEL DETERMINES IN
LARGE MEASURE WHETHER WE HAVE PROSPERITY OR DEPRESSION - AN ECONOMY OF
ABUNDANCE OR SCARCITY.  SIZE IN STEEL SHOULD THEREFORE BE JEALOUSLY
WATCHED.  FN3  IN FINAL ANALYSIS, SIZE IN STEEL IS THE MEASURE OF THE
POWER OF A HANDFUL OF MEN OVER OUR ECONOMY.  THAT POWER CAN BE UTILIZED
WITH LIGHTNING SPEED.  IT CAN BE BENIGN OR IT CAN BE DANGEROUS.  THE
PHILOSOPHY OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS THAT IT SHOULD NOT EXIST.  FOR ALL
POWER TENDS TO DEVELOP INTO A GOVERNMENT IN ITSELF.  POWER THAT
CONTROLS THE ECONOMY SHOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE PEOPLE, NOT IN THE HANDS OF AN INDUSTRIAL OLIGARCHY.  INDUSTRIAL
POWER SHOULD BE DECENTRALIZED.  IT SHOULD BE SCATTERED INTO MANY HANDS
SO THAT THE FORTUNES OF THE PEOPLE WILL NOT BE DEPENDENT ON THE WHIM OR
CAPRICE, THE POLITICAL PREJUDICES, THE EMOTIONAL STABILITY OF A FEW
SELF-APPOINTED MEN.  THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT VICIOUS MEN BUT
RESPECTABLE AND SOCIAL-MINDED IS IRRELEVANT.  THAT IS THE PHILOSOPHY
AND THE COMMAND OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT IS FOUNDED ON A THEORY OF
HOSTILITY TO THE CONCENTRATION IN PRIVATE HANDS OF POWER SO GREAT THAT
ONLY A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE IT. 

THE COURT FORGOT THIS LESSON IN UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL
CORP., 251 U.S. 417, AND IN UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
CO., 274 U.S. 693.  THE COURT TODAY FORGETS IT WHEN IT ALLOWS UNITED
STATES STEEL TO WRAP ITS TENTACLES TIGHTER AROUND THE STEEL INDUSTRY OF
THE WEST. 

THIS ACQUISITION CAN BE DRESSED UP (PERHAPS LEGITIMATELY) IN TERMS OF
AN EXPANSION TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF A BUSINESS WHICH IS GROWING AS A
RESULT OF SUPERIOR AND ENTERPRISING MANAGEMENT.  FN4 BUT THE TEST UNDER
THE SHERMAN ACT STRIKES DEEPER.  HOWEVER THE ACQUISITION MAY BE
RATIONALIZED, THE EFFECT IS PLAIN.  IT IS A PURCHASE FOR CONTROL, A
PURCHASE FOR CONTROL OF A MARKET FOR WHICH UNITED STATES STEEL HAS IN
THE PAST HAD TO COMPETE BUT WHICH IT NO LONGER WANTS LEFT TO THE
UNCERTAINTIES THAT COMPETITION IN THE WEST MAY ENGENDER.  THIS IN
EFFECT IT CONCEDES.  IT STATES THAT ITS PURPOSE IN ACQUIRING
CONSOLIDATED IS TO INSURE ITSELF OF A MARKET FOR PART OF GENEVA'S
PRODUCTION OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS WHEN DEMAND FALLS OFF. 

BUT COMPETITION IS NEVER MORE IRREVOCABLY ELIMINATED THAN BY BUYING
THE CUSTOMER FOR WHOSE BUSINESS THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN COMPETING.  THE
BUSINESS OF CONSOLIDATED AMOUNTS TO AROUND $22,000,000 ANNUALLY.  THE
COMPETITIVE PURCHASES BY CONSOLIDATED ARE OVER $5,000,000 A YEAR.  I DO
NOT SEE HOW IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT $5,000,000 OF COMMERCE IS
IMMATERIAL.  IT PLAINLY IS NOT DE MINIMIS.  AND IT IS THE CHARACTER OF
THE RESTRAINT WHICH SEC. 1 OF THE ACT BRANDS AS ILLEGAL, NOT THE AMOUNT
OF COMMERCE AFFECTED.  MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38; UNITED
STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 225, N. 59; UNITED
STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218, 225.  AT LEAST IT CAN BE SAID
HERE, AS IT WAS IN INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S.
392, 396, THAT THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS RESTRAINED BY THIS CONTRACT IS
NOT INSIGNIFICANT OR INSUBSTANTIAL.  UNITED STATES STEEL DOES NOT
CONSIDER IT INSIGNIFICANT, FOR THE AIM OF THIS WELL-CONCEIVED PROJECT
IS TO MONOPOLIZE IT.  IF IT IS NOT INSUBSTANTIAL AS A MARKET FOR UNITED
STATES STEEL, IT CERTAINLY IS NOT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE
STRUGGLING WESTERN UNITS OF THE STEEL INDUSTRY. 

IT IS UNREALISTIC TO MEASURE CONSOLIDATED'S PART OF THE MARKET BY
DETERMINING ITS PROPORTION OF THE NATIONAL MARKET.  THERE IS NO
SAFEGUARDING OF COMPETITION IN THE THEORY THAT THE BIGGER THE NATIONAL
MARKET THE LESS PROTECTION WILL BE GIVEN THOSE SELLING TO THE SMALLER
COMPONENTS THEREOF.  THAT THEORY WOULD ALLOW A PRODUCER TO ABSORB
OUTLETS UPON WHICH SMALL ENTERPRISES WITH RESTRICTED MARKETING
FACILITIES DEPEND.  THOSE OUTLETS, THOUGH STATISTICALLY UNIMPORTANT
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE NATIONAL MARKET, COULD BE A MATTER OF
LIFE AND DEATH TO SMALL, LOCAL ENTERPRISES. 

THE LARGEST MARKET WHICH MUST BE TAKEN FOR COMPARISON IS THE MARKET
ACTUALLY REACHED BY THE COMPANY WHICH IS BEING ABSORBED.  IN THIS CASE
CONSOLIDATED'S PURCHASES OF ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS ARE A LITTLE OVER 3
PER CENT OF THAT MARKET.  BY NO STANDARD - UNITED STATES STEEL'S OR ITS
WESTERN COMPETITORS - CAN THAT PERCENTAGE BE DEEMED IMMATERIAL.  YET
CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE FROM THAT VIEWPOINT PUTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST
PHASE OF THE ACQUISITION IN THE LEAST FAVORABLE LIGHT.  A SURER TEST OF
THE IMPACT OF THE ACQUISITION ON COMPETITION IS TO BE DETERMINED NOT
ONLY BY CONSIDERATION OF THE ACTUAL MARKETS REACHED BY CONSOLIDATED BUT
ALSO BY THE ACTUAL PURCHASES WHICH IT MAKES.  ITS PURCHASES WERE
PREDOMINANTLY OF PLATES AND SHAPES - 76 PER CENT FROM 1937-1941.  THIS
WAS IN 1937 13 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL IN THE CONSOLIDATED MARKET.  THAT
COMPARISON IS REJECTED BY THE COURT OR AT LEAST DISCOUNTED ON THE
THEORY THAT COMPETITORS PRESENTLY SELLING TO CONSOLIDATED CAN PROBABLY
CONVERT FROM PLATES AND SHAPES TO OTHER FORMS OF ROLLED STEEL
PRODUCTS.  BUT A SURER TEST OF THE EFFECT ON COMPETITION IS THE ACTUAL
BUSINESS OF WHICH COMPETITORS WILL BE DEPRIVED.  WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER
THEY CAN BE SUFFICIENTLY RESOURCEFUL TO RECOVER FROM THIS STRENGTHENING
OF THE HOLD WHICH THIS GIANT OF THE INDUSTRY NOW HAS ON THEIR MARKETS. 
IT WOULD BE MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO GIVE
THE BENEFITS OF ANY DOUBTS TO THE STRUGGLING COMPETITORS. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, IMMATERIAL THAT A PURPOSE OR INTENT TO ACHIEVE THE
RESULT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENT.  THE HOLDING OF THE CASES FROM UNITED
STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 543, TO UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334
U.S. 100, IS THAT THE REQUISITE PURPOSE OR INTENT IS PRESENT IF
MONOPOLY OR RESTRAINT OF TRADE RESULTS AS A DIRECT AND NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT WAS DONE.  WE NEED NOT HOLD THAT VERTICAL
INTEGRATION IS PER SE UNLAWFUL IN ORDER TO STRIKE DOWN WHAT IS
ACCOMPLISHED HERE.  THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DELIBERATE, CALCULATED
PURCHASE FOR PURPOSE OF CONTROL OVER THIS SUBSTANTIAL SHARE OF THE
MARKET CAN NO MORE BE AVOIDED HERE THAN IT WAS IN UNITED STATES V.
READING CO., 253 U.S. 26, 57, AND IN UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO.,
SUPRA.  I DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE ACQUISITION ON
COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF FABRICATED STEEL PRODUCTS.  THE MONOPOLY OF
THIS SUBSTANTIAL MARKET FOR ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS IS IN ITSELF AN
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE ACT. 

THE RESULT MIGHT WELL BE DIFFERENT IF CONSOLIDATED WERE MERGING WITH
OR BEING ACQUIRED BY AN INDEPENDENT WEST COAST PRODUCER FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED OPERATION.  THE PURCHASE MIGHT THEN BE PART
OF AN INTENSELY PRACTICAL PLAN TO PUT TOGETHER AN INDEPENDENT WESTERN
UNIT OF THE INDUSTRY WITH SUFFICIENT RESOURCES AND STRENGTH TO COMPETE
WITH THE GIANTS OF THE INDUSTRY.  APPROVAL OF THIS ACQUISITION WORKS IN
PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.  IT MAKES DIM THE PROSPECTS THAT THE
WESTERN STEEL INDUSTRY WILL BE FREE FROM THE CONTROL OF THE EASTERN
GIANTS.  UNITED STATES STEEL, NOW THAT IT OWNS THE GENEVA PLANT, HAS
OVER 51 PER CENT OF THE ROLLED STEEL OR INGOT CAPACITY OF THE PACIFIC
COAST AREA.  THIS ACQUISITION GIVES IT UNQUESTIONED DOMINATION THERE
AND PROTECTS IT AGAINST GROWTH OF THE INDEPENDENTS IN THAT DEVELOPING
REGION.  THAT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO CONDEMN THE PURCHASE.  ITS SERIOUS
IMPACT ON COMPETITION AND THE ECONOMY IS EMPHASIZED WHEN IT IS RECALLED
THAT UNITED STATES STEEL HAS ONE-THIRD OF THE ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTION
OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.  FN5  THE LEAST I CAN SAY IS THAT A COMPANY THAT
HAS THAT TREMENDOUS LEVERAGE ON OUR ECONOMY IS BIG ENOUGH.  FN6 

FN1  THE MOST FREQUENT REASONS GIVEN FOR MERGERS ARE THAT THEY
PREVENT WASTE AND PROMOTE EFFICIENCY, REDUCE OVERHEAD, DILUTE SALES AND
ADVERTISING COSTS, SPREAD RISKS, ETC.  COMPARE, NEW MERGERS, NEW
MOTIVES, BUSINESS WEEK, NOV. 10, 1945, P. 68; GROWTH OF BUSINESS UNITS:
EFFECT OF WAR AND SHORTAGES, UNITED STATES NEWS, MAY 10, 1946, P. 48. 
BUT THAT THESE ADVANTAGES ARE LARGELY ILLUSORY HAS LONG BEEN
RECOGNIZED.  SEE, E.G., RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF LARGE, MEDIUM-SIZED, AND
SMALL BUSINESS (TNEC MONOGRAPH 13, 1941) PP. 111, 128, 132, 398.  THE
THEORY WAS NEVER MORE FORCEFULLY EXPLODED THAN BY BRANDEIS IN THE CURSE
OF BIGNESS: 

"THE ONLY ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY ADVANCED IN FAVOR OF
PRIVATE MONOPOLY IS THAT COMPETITION INVOLVES WASTE, WHILE THE MONOPOLY
PREVENTS WASTE AND LEADS TO EFFICIENCY.  THIS ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY
UNSOUND.  THE WASTES OF COMPETITION ARE NEGLIGIBLE.  THE ECONOMIES OF
MONOPOLY ARE SUPERFICIAL AND DELUSIVE.  THE EFFICIENCY OF MONOPOLY IS
AT THE BEST TEMPORARY. 

"UNDOUBTEDLY COMPETITION INVOLVES WASTE.  WHAT HUMAN ACTIVITY DOES
NOT?  THE WASTES OF DEMOCRACY ARE AMONG THE GREATEST OBVIOUS WASTES,
BUT WE HAVE COMPENSATIONS IN DEMOCRACY WHICH FAR OUTWEIGH THAT WASTE
AND MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT THAN ABSOLUTISM.  SO IT IS WITH
COMPETITION.  THE WASTE IS RELATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT.  THERE ARE WASTES
OF COMPETITION WHICH DO NOT DEVELOP, BUT KILL.  THESE THE LAW CAN AND
SHOULD ELIMINATE, BY REGULATING COMPETITION. 

"IT IS TRUE THAT THE UNIT IN BUSINESS MAY BE TOO SMALL TO BE
EFFICIENT.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE UNIT MAY BE TOO LARGE TO BE
EFFICIENT, AND THIS IS NO UNCOMMON INCIDENT OF MONOPOLY."  P. 105. 

"  ...  NO MONOPOLY IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY IN AMERICA HAS YET BEEN
ATTAINED BY EFFICIENCY ALONE.  NO BUSINESS HAS BEEN SO SUPERIOR TO ITS
COMPETITORS IN THE PROCESSES OF MANUFACTURE OR OF DISTRIBUTION AS TO
ENABLE IT TO CONTROL THE MARKET SOLELY BY REASON OF ITS SUPERIORITY." 
P. 114-15. 

"THE STEEL TRUST, WHILE APPARENTLY FREE FROM THE COARSER FORMS OF
SUPPRESSING COMPETITION, ACQUIRED CONTROL OF THE MARKET NOT THROUGH
GREATER EFFICIENCY, BUT BY BUYING UP EXISTING PLANTS AND PARTICULARLY
ORE SUPPLIES AT FABULOUS PRICES, AND BY CONTROLLING STRATEGIC
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS."  P. 115. 

"BUT THE EFFICIENCY OF MONOPOLIES, EVEN IF ESTABLISHED, WOULD NOT
JUSTIFY THEIR EXISTENCE UNLESS THE COMMUNITY SHOULD REAP BENEFIT FROM
THE EFFICIENCY; EXPERIENCE TEACHES US THAT WHENEVER TRUSTS HAVE
DEVELOPED EFFICIENCY, THEIR FRUITS HAVE BEEN ABSORBED ALMOST WHOLLY BY
THE TRUSTS THEMSELVES.  FROM SUCH EFFICIENCY AS THEY HAVE DEVELOPED THE
COMMUNITY HAS GAINED SUBSTANTIALLY NOTHING.  FOR INSTANCE:   ...  THE
STEEL TRUST, A CORPORATION OF REPUTED EFFICIENCY.  THE HIGH PRICES
MAINTAINED BY IT IN THE INDUSTRY ARE MATTERS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE.  IN
LESS THAN TEN YEARS IT ACCUMULATED FOR ITS SHAREHOLDERS OR PAID OUT AS
DIVIDENDS ON STOCK REPRESENTING MERELY WATER, OVER $650,000,000."  PP.
120-121.    FN2  SEE RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF LARGE, MEDIUM-SIZED, AND
SMALL BUSINESS (TNEC MONOGRAPH 13, 1941) P. 132.    FN3  IN 1911 WHEN
THE ORIGINAL ANTITRUST SUIT AGAINST UNITED STATES STEEL WAS INSTITUTED,
THE COMPANY HAD ALREADY ABSORBED 180 FORMERLY INDEPENDENT CONCERNS. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 223 F. 55, 162.  SINCE
THEN IT HAS ABSORBED AT LEAST 8 ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT COMPANIES,
INCLUDING COLUMBIA WHICH PRIOR TO 1930 WAS OPERATED BY AN INDEPENDENT
PRODUCER AND MAINTAINED THE ONLY INTEGRATED STEEL OPERATION WEST OF THE
ROCKIES. 

FN4 SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 8 OF THE COURT'S OPINION. 

FN6  "UNITED STATES STEEL IS THE GIANT OF THE INDUSTRY.  ITS
MANUFACTURING CAPACITY IS 'GREATER THAN THAT OF ALL GERMAN PRODUCERS
COMBINED.  IT IS MORE THAN TWICE THAT OF THE ENTIRE BRITISH STEEL
INDUSTRY AND MORE THAN TWICE THAT OF ALL THE FRENCH MILLS COMBINED.' 
IN ADDITION TO ITS FACILITIES FOR PRODUCING PIG IRON, STEEL INGOTS, AND
ALL FORMS OF FINISHED AND SEMIFINISHED STEEL PRODUCTS, THE CORPORATION
OWNED AND OPERATED THROUGH SOME 150 SUBSIDIARIES, IN 1937, NEARLY 2,000
OIL AND NATURAL GAS WELLS, 89 IRON ORE MINES, 79 COAL MINES, SOME 40
LIMESTONE, DOLOMITE, CEMENT ROCK, AND CLAY QUARRIES, A NUMBER OF GYPSUM
AND FLUORSPAR MINES, 2 ZINC MINES, A MANGANESE ORE MINE IN BRAZIL, OVER
5,000 COKING OVENS, SEVERAL WATER-SUPPLY SYSTEMS WITH RESERVOIRS,
FILTRATION PLANTS, AND PUMPING STATIONS, OVER 100 OCEAN, LAKE, AND
RIVER STEAMERS, 500 BARGES AND TUGS, RAILROADS, FIRE BRICK PLANTS, AND
MILLS PRODUCING 12,000,000 BARRELS OF CEMENT.  BY VIRTUE OF ITS
TREMENDOUS SIZE AND ITS HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRATION, THE CORPORATION IS
IN A POSITION TO DOMINATE THE FIELD."  WILCOX, COMPETITION AND MONOPOLY
IN AMERICAN INDUSTRY (TNEC MONOGRAPH 21, 1940) P. 120. 
..END :























ESTIN V. ESTIN, 334 U.S. 541 


NO. 139.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2-3, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 296
N.Y. 308, 73 N.E.2D 113, AFFIRMED. 


WHILE BOTH SPOUSES WERE DOMICILED IN NEW YORK, A WIFE OBTAINED A
DECREE OF SEPARATION AND ALIMONY THERE.  LATER THE HUSBAND OBTAINED A
NEVADA DIVORCE IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE WIFE WAS NOTIFIED
CONSTRUCTIVELY AND ENTERED NO APPEARANCE.  HE STOPPED PAYING ALIMONY
AND THE WIFE SUED IN NEW YORK FOR THE AMOUNT IN ARREARS.  THE HUSBAND
APPEARED AND DEFENDED ON THE GROUND OF THE NEVADA DIVORCE.  THE NEW
YORK COURT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE DIVORCE, BUT GRANTED THE WIFE
JUDGMENT FOR THE ARREARS OF ALIMONY.  THE HIGHEST COURT OF NEW YORK
AFFIRMED.  HELD:  THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT DID NOT DENY FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT TO THE NEVADA DECREE.  PP. 542-549. 

(A)  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY EARLIER HOLDINGS IN NEW YORK TO THE
CONTRARY, THE HOLDING OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF NEW YORK THAT THE AWARD
OF ALIMONY SURVIVED THE DIVORCE UNDER NEW YORK LAW, IS BINDING ON THIS
COURT - UNLESS IT CONFLICTS WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  P.
544. 

(B)  THE FACT THAT THE MARITAL CAPACITY WAS CHANGED DOES NOT MEAN
THAT EVERY OTHER LEGAL INCIDENCE OF THE MARRIAGE WAS NECESSARILY
AFFECTED.  PP. 544-545. 

(C)  THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ARE EXACTING, SO
FAR AS JUDGMENTS ARE CONCERNED, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATE OF THE
DOMICILE OF ONE SPOUSE MAY, THROUGH THE USE OF CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE,
ENTER A DECREE THAT CHANGES EVERY LEGAL INCIDENCE OF THE MARRIAGE
RELATIONSHIP.  PP. 545-546. 

(D)  NEVADA COULD NOT ADJUDICATE RIGHTS OF THE WIFE UNDER THE NEW
YORK JUDGMENT WHEN SHE WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND DID NOT APPEAR IN
THE NEVADA PROCEEDING.  PP. 546-549. 

(E)  SINCE NEVADA HAD NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE THE WIFE'S RIGHTS IN THE
NEW YORK JUDGMENT, NEW YORK NEED NOT GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THAT
PHASE OF NEVADA'S JUDGMENT.  P. 549. 

ESTIN V. ESTIN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

NOTWITHSTANDING A DIVORCE OBTAINED BY A HUSBAND IN NEVADA, A NEW YORK
COURT GAVE THE WIFE A JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS OF ALIMONY AWARDED UNDER AN
EARLIER DECREE GRANTED WHILE BOTH SPOUSES WERE DOMICILED IN NEW YORK. 
63 N.Y.S.2D 476.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  271 APP. DIV. 829, 66 N.Y.S.2D 421; 296 N.Y. 308, 73 N.E.2D
113.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 840.  AFFIRMED, P. 549. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED. 

THIS CASE, HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK,
PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN1  ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1.  IT IS WHETHER A NEW
YORK DECREE AWARDING RESPONDENT $180 PER MONTH FOR HER MAINTENANCE AND
SUPPORT IN A SEPARATION PROCEEDING SURVIVED A NEVADA DIVORCE DECREE
WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY WAS GRANTED PETITIONER. 

THE PARTIES WERE MARRIED IN 1937 AND LIVED TOGETHER IN NEW YORK UNTIL
1942 WHEN THE HUSBAND LEFT THE WIFE.  THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF THE
MARRIAGE.  IN 1943 SHE BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST HIM FOR A SEPARATION. 
HE ENTERED A GENERAL APPEARANCE.  THE COURT, FINDING THAT HE HAD
ABANDONED HER, GRANTED HER A DECREE OF SEPARATION AND AWARDED HER $180
PER MONTH AS PERMANENT ALIMONY.  IN JANUARY 1944 HE WENT TO NEVADA
WHERE IN 1945 HE INSTITUTED AN ACTION FOR DIVORCE.  SHE WAS NOTIFIED OF
THE ACTION BY CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE BUT ENTERED NO APPEARANCE IN IT.  IN
MAY, 1945, THE NEVADA COURT, FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN A BONA
FIDE RESIDENT OF NEVADA SINCE JANUARY 30, 1944, GRANTED HIM AN ABSOLUTE
DIVORCE "ON THE GROUND OF THREE YEARS CONTINUAL SEPARATION, WITHOUT
COHABITATION."  THE NEVADA DECREE MADE NO PROVISION FOR ALIMONY, THOUGH
THE NEVADA COURT HAD BEEN ADVISED OF THE NEW YORK DECREE. 

PRIOR TO THAT TIME PETITIONER HAD MADE PAYMENTS OF ALIMONY UNDER THE
NEW YORK DECREE.  AFTER ENTRY OF THE NEVADA DECREE HE CEASED PAYING. 
THEREUPON RESPONDENT SUED IN NEW YORK FOR A SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT FOR
THE AMOUNT OF THE ARREARS.  PETITIONER APPEARED IN THE ACTION AND MOVED
TO ELIMINATE THE ALIMONY PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION DECREE BY REASON
OF THE NEVADA DECREE.  THE SUPREME COURT DENIED THE MOTION AND GRANTED
RESPONDENT JUDGMENT FOR THE ARREARS.  63 N.Y.S.2D 476.  THE JUDGMENT
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, 271 APP. DIV. 829, 66 N.Y.S.2D
421, AND THEN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  296 N.Y. 308, 73 N.E.2D 113. 

WE HELD IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287; 325 U.S. 226,
(1) THAT A DIVORCE DECREE GRANTED BY A STATE TO ONE OF ITS
DOMICILIARIES IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN A BIGAMY
PROSECUTION BROUGHT IN ANOTHER STATE, EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER SPOUSE WAS
GIVEN NOTICE OF THE DIVORCE PROCEEDING ONLY THROUGH CONSTRUCTIVE
SERVICE; AND (2) THAT WHILE THE FINDING OF DOMICILE BY THE COURT THAT
GRANTED THE DECREE IS ENTITLED TO PRIMA FACIE WEIGHT, IT IS NOT
CONCLUSIVE IN A SISTER STATE BUT MIGHT BE RELITIGATED THERE.  AND SEE
ESENWEIN V. ESENWEIN, 325 U.S. 279.  THE LATTER COURSE WAS FOLLOWED IN
THIS CASE, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK
FOUND, IN ACCORD WITH THE NEVADA COURT, THAT PETITIONER "IS NOW AND
SINCE JANUARY, 1944, HAS BEEN A BONA FIDE RESIDENT OF THE STATE OF
NEVADA." 

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THEREFORE IS THAT THE TAIL MUST GO WITH THE
HIDE - THAT SINCE BY THE NEVADA DECREE, RECOGNIZED IN NEW YORK, HE AND
RESPONDENT ARE NO LONGER HUSBAND AND WIFE, NO LEGAL INCIDENCE OF THE
MARRIAGE REMAINS.  WE ARE GIVEN A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK LAW TO
SHOW THAT THE NEW YORK COURTS HAVE NO POWER EITHER BY STATUTE OR BY
COMMON LAW TO COMPEL A MAN TO SUPPORT HIS EX-WIFE, THAT ALIMONY IS
PAYABLE ONLY SO LONG AS THE RELATION OF HUSBAND AND WIFE EXISTS, AND
THAT IN NEW YORK, AS IN SOME OTHER STATES, SEE ESENWEIN V. ESENWEIN,
SUPRA, P. 280, A SUPPORT ORDER DOES NOT SURVIVE DIVORCE. 

THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT ARGUMENT IS THAT THE HIGHEST COURT IN NEW
YORK HAS HELD IN THIS CASE THAT A SUPPORT ORDER CAN SURVIVE DIVORCE AND
THAT THIS ONE HAS SURVIVED PETITIONER'S DIVORCE.  THAT CONCLUSION IS
BINDING ON US, EXCEPT AS IT CONFLICTS WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO SAY WHETHER THAT RULING SQUARES WITH WHAT
THE NEW YORK COURTS SAID ON EARLIER OCCASIONS.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT NEW
YORK TODAY SAYS THAT SUCH IS HER POLICY.  THE ONLY QUESTION FOR US IS
WHETHER NEW YORK IS POWERLESS TO MAKE SUCH A RULING IN VIEW OF THE
NEVADA DECREE. 

WE CAN PUT TO ONE SIDE THE CASE WHERE THE WIFE WAS PERSONALLY SERVED
OR WHERE SHE APPEARED IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.  CF. YARBOROUGH V.
YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202; DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32; SHERRER V.
SHERRER, ANTE, P. 343; COE V. COE, ANTE, P. 378.  THE ONLY SERVICE ON
HER IN THIS CASE WAS BY PUBLICATION AND SHE MADE NO APPEARANCE IN THE
NEVADA PROCEEDING.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS WERE
SATISFIED AND THE DOMICILE OF THE HUSBAND IN NEVADA WAS FOUNDATION FOR
A DECREE EFFECTING A CHANGE IN THE MARITAL CAPACITY OF BOTH PARTIES IN
ALL THE OTHER STATES OF THE UNION, AS WELL AS IN NEVADA.  WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287.  BUT THE FACT THAT MARITAL CAPACITY WAS
CHANGED DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY OTHER LEGAL INCIDENCE OF THE MARRIAGE
WAS NECESSARILY AFFECTED. 

ALTHOUGH THE POINT WAS NOT ADJUDICATED IN BARBER V. BARBER, 21 HOW. 
582, 588, THE COURT IN THAT CASE RECOGNIZED THAT WHILE A DIVORCE DECREE
OBTAINED IN WISCONSIN BY A HUSBAND FROM HIS ABSENT WIFE MIGHT DISSOLVE
THE VINCULUM OF THE MARRIAGE, IT DID NOT MEAN THAT HE WAS FREED FROM
PAYMENT OF ALIMONY UNDER AN EARLIER SEPARATION DECREE GRANTED BY NEW
YORK.  AN ABSOLUTIST MIGHT QUARREL WITH THE RESULT AND DEMAND A RULE
THAT ONCE A DIVORCE IS GRANTED, THE WHOLE OF THE MARRIAGE RELATION IS
DISSOLVED, LEAVING NO ROOTS OR TENDRILS OF ANY KIND.  BUT THERE ARE FEW
AREAS OF THE LAW IN BLACK AND WHITE.  THE GREYS ARE DOMINANT AND EVEN
AMONG THEM THE SHADES ARE INNUMERABLE.  FOR THE ETERNAL PROBLEM OF THE
LAW IS ONE OF MAKING ACCOMMODATIONS BETWEEN CONFLICTING INTERESTS. 
THIS IS WHY MOST LEGAL PROBLEMS END AS QUESTIONS OF DEGREE.  THAT IS
TRUE OF THE PRESENT PROBLEM UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE. 
FN2  THE QUESTION INVOLVES IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS BOTH OF LAW AND OF
POLICY WHICH IT IS ESSENTIAL TO STATE. 

THE SITUATIONS WHERE A JUDGMENT OF ONE STATE HAS BEEN DENIED FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT IN ANOTHER STATE, BECAUSE ITS ENFORCEMENT WOULD
CONTRAVENE THE LATTER'S POLICY, HAVE BEEN FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.  SEE
WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 294-295; MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM
CO. V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 438-439, AND CASES CITED; SHERRER V.
SHERRER, SUPRA.  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS NOT TO BE APPLIED,
ACCORDION-LIKE, TO ACCOMMODATE OUR PERSONAL PREDILECTIONS.  IT
SUBSTITUTED A COMMAND FOR THE EARLIER PRINCIPLES OF COMITY AND THUS
BASICALLY ALTERED THE STATUS OF THE STATES AS INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS. 
WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 301-302; SHERRER V. SHERRER,
SUPRA.  IT ORDERED SUBMISSION BY ONE STATE EVEN TO HOSTILE POLICIES
REFLECTED IN THE JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER STATE, BECAUSE THE PRACTICAL
OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DESIGNED,
DEMANDED IT.  THE FACT THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT,
SO FAR AS JUDGMENTS ARE CONCERNED,  FN3  ARE EXACTING, IF NOT
INEXORABLE (SHERRER V. SHERRER, SUPRA), DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT
THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE OF ONE SPOUSE MAY, THROUGH THE USE OF
CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE, ENTER A DECREE THAT CHANGES EVERY LEGAL INCIDENCE
OF THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP.  FN4 

MARITAL STATUS INVOLVES THE REGULARITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE MARRIAGE
RELATION.  IT AFFECTS THE LEGITIMACY OF THE OFFSPRING OF MARRIAGE.  IT
IS THE BASIS OF CRIMINAL LAWS, AS THE BIGAMY PROSECUTION IN WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA DRAMATICALLY ILLUSTRATES.  THE STATE HAS A CONSIDERABLE
INTEREST IN PREVENTING BIGAMOUS MARRIAGES AND IN PROTECTING THE
OFFSPRING OF MARRIAGES FROM BEING BASTARDIZED.  THE INTEREST OF THE
STATE EXTENDS TO ITS DOMICILIARIES.  THE STATE SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO
GUARD ITS INTEREST IN THEM BY CHANGING OR ALTERING THEIR MARITAL STATUS
AND BY PROTECTING THEM IN THAT CHANGED STATUS THROUGHOUT THE FARTHEST
REACHES OF THE NATION.  FOR A PERSON DOMICILED IN ONE STATE SHOULD NOT
BE ALLOWED TO SUFFER THE PENALTIES OF BIGAMY FOR LIVING OUTSIDE THE
STATE WITH THE ONLY ONE WHICH THE STATE OF HIS DOMICILE RECOGNIZES AS
HIS LAWFUL WIFE.  AND CHILDREN BORN OF THE ONLY MARRIAGE WHICH IS
LAWFUL IN THE STATE OF HIS DOMICILE SHOULD NOT CARRY THE STIGMA OF
BASTARDY WHEN THEY MOVE ELSEWHERE.  THESE ARE MATTERS OF LEGITIMATE
CONCERN TO THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE.  THEY ENTITLE THE STATE OF THE
DOMICILE TO BRING IN THE ABSENT SPOUSE THROUGH CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE. 
IN NO OTHER WAY COULD THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE HAVE AND MAINTAIN
EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THE MARITAL STATUS OF ITS DOMICILIARIES. 

THOSE ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE LONG PERMITTED THE STATE OF
THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICILE TO CHANGE THE MARITAL STATUS OF THE PARTIES BY
AN EX PARTE DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THOMPSON V. THOMPSON, 226 U.S. 551,
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH IN THE WILLIAMS CASES WE THOUGHT WERE EQUALLY
APPLICABLE TO ANY STATE IN WHICH ONE SPOUSE HAD ESTABLISHED A BONA FIDE
DOMICILE.  SEE 317 U.S. PP. 300-301.  BUT THOSE CONSIDERATIONS HAVE
LITTLE RELEVANCY HERE.  IN THIS CASE NEW YORK EVINCED A CONCERN WITH
THIS BROKEN MARRIAGE WHEN BOTH PARTIES WERE DOMICILED IN NEW YORK AND
BEFORE NEVADA HAD ANY CONCERN WITH IT.  NEW YORK WAS RIGHTLY CONCERNED
LEST THE ABANDONED SPOUSE BE LEFT IMPOVERISHED AND PERHAPS BECOME A
PUBLIC CHARGE.  THE PROBLEM OF HER LIVELIHOOD AND SUPPORT IS PLAINLY A
MATTER IN WHICH HER COMMUNITY HAD A LEGITIMATE INTEREST.  THE NEW YORK
COURT, HAVING JURISDICTION OVER BOTH PARTIES, UNDERTOOK TO PROTECT HER
BY GRANTING HER A JUDGMENT OF PERMANENT ALIMONY.  NEVADA, HOWEVER,
APPARENTLY FOLLOWS LOWS THE RULE THAT DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE PUTS
AN END TO A SUPPORT ORDER.  SEE HERRICK V. HERRICK, 55 NEV. 59, 68, 25
P.2D 378, 380.  BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER NEVADA COULD UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES ADJUDICATE RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT UNDER THE NEW YORK
JUDGMENT WHEN SHE WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED OR DID NOT APPEAR IN THE
PROCEEDING. 

BASSETT V. BASSETT, 141 F.2D 954, HELD THAT NEVADA COULD NOT.  FN5
WE AGREE WITH THAT VIEW. 

THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT IS A PROPERTY INTEREST OF RESPONDENT, CREATED
BY NEW YORK IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH BOTH PARTIES WERE PRESENT.  IT
IMPOSED OBLIGATIONS ON PETITIONER AND GRANTED RIGHTS TO RESPONDENT. 
THE PROPERTY INTEREST WHICH IT CREATED WAS AN INTANGIBLE, JURISDICTION
OVER WHICH CANNOT BE EXERTED THROUGH CONTROL OVER A PHYSICAL THING. 
JURISDICTION OVER AN INTANGIBLE CAN INDEED ONLY ARISE FROM CONTROL OR
POWER OVER THE PERSONS WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS ARE THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS.  CF. CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, 366. 

JURISDICTION OVER A DEBTOR IS SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THE STATE OF HIS
DOMICILE SOME CONTROL OVER THE DEBT WHICH HE OWES.  IT CAN, FOR
EXAMPLE, LEVY A TAX ON ITS TRANSFER BY WILL (BLACKSTONE V. MILLER, 188
U.S. 189; STATE TAX COMM'N V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, 176-177),
APPROPRIATE IT THROUGH GARNISHMENT OR ATTACHMENT (CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R.
CO. V. STURM, 174 U.S. 710; SEE HARRIS V. BALK, 198 U.S. 215), COLLECT
IT AND ADMINISTER IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.  CLARK V. WILLIARD,
294 U.S. 211; FISCHER V. AMERICAN UNITED INS. CO., 314 U.S. 549, 553. 
BUT WE ARE AWARE OF NO POWER WHICH THE STATE OF DOMICILE OF THE DEBTOR
HAS TO DETERMINE THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF THE CREDITOR IN THE INTANGIBLE
UNLESS THE CREDITOR HAS BEEN PERSONALLY SERVED OR APPEARS IN THE
PROCEEDING.  THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SUCH POWER HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
DENIED.  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714; HART V. SANSOM, 110 U.S. 151;
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DUNLEVY, 241 U.S. 518. 

WE KNOW OF NO SOURCE OF POWER WHICH WOULD TAKE THE PRESENT CASE OUT
OF THAT CATEGORY.  THE NEVADA DECREE THAT IS SAID TO WIPE OUT
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM FOR ALIMONY UNDER THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT IS NOTHING
LESS THAN AN ATTEMPT BY NEVADA TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENT FROM ASSERTING
HER CLAIM UNDER THAT JUDGMENT.  THAT IS AN ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE AN IN
PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER A PERSON NOT BEFORE THE COURT.  THAT MAY NOT
BE DONE.  SINCE NEVADA HAD NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS
IN THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT, NEW YORK NEED NOT GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
TO THAT PHASE OF NEVADA'S JUDGMENT.  A JUDGMENT OF A COURT HAVING NO
JURISDICTION TO RENDER IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES DEMAND. 
HANSBERRY V. LEE, 311 U.S. 32, 40-41; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325
U.S. 226, 229, AND CASES CITED. 

THE RESULT IN THIS SITUATION IS TO MAKE THE DIVORCE DIVISIBLE - TO
GIVE EFFECT TO THE NEVADA DECREE INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTS MARITAL STATUS
AND TO MAKE IT INEFFECTIVE ON THE ISSUE OF ALIMONY.  IT ACCOMMODATES
THE INTERESTS OF BOTH NEVADA AND NEW YORK IN THIS BROKEN MARRIAGE BY
RESTRICTING EACH STATE TO THE MATTERS OF HER DOMINANT CONCERN. 

SINCE NEVADA HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ALTER RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS IN THE
NEW YORK JUDGMENT, WE DO NOT REACH THE FURTHER QUESTION WHETHER IN ANY
EVENT THAT JUDGMENT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN
NEVADA.  SEE SISTARE V. SISTARE, 218 U.S. 1; BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S.
77; GRIFFIN V. GRIFFIN, 327 U.S. 220.  AND IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO
CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF ANY DISCRIMINATION SHOWN TO OUT-OF-STATE EX
PARTE DIVORCES WHEN A STATE MAKES THAT ITS POLICY.  AFFIRMED.    FN1
THAT CLAUSE DIRECTS THAT "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH
STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY
OTHER STATE" AND PROVIDES THAT "CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE
THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED,
AND THE EFFECT THEREOF."  BY THE ACT OF MAY 26, 1790, C. 11, 1 STAT.
122, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687, CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT THE
"RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS" OF THE COURTS OF ANY STATE "SHALL
HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES, AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE
FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN." 

FN2  SEE BINGHAM, IN THE MATTER OF HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 21 CORN.  L.
QUART.  393; RADIN, THE AUTHENTICATED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, 39
ILL. L. REV. 1; HOLT, THE BONES OF HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 41 MICH. L. REV.
1013, 1034; BARNHARD, HADDOCK REVERSED - HARBINGER OF THE DIVISIBLE
DIVORCE, 31 GEO. L.J. 210; COOK, IS HADDOCK V. HADDOCK OVERRULED, 18
IND. L.J. 165. 

FN3  AS RESPECTS STATUTES, SEE THE DISCUSSION IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 295-296. 

FN4  THE CASE IS UNLIKE THOMPSON V. THOMPSON, 226 U.S. 551, WHERE THE
WIFE BY HER CONDUCT FORFEITED HER RIGHT TO ALIMONY UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICILE WHERE HER HUSBAND OBTAINED THE
DIVORCE, AND HENCE COULD NOT RETAIN A JUDGMENT FOR MAINTENANCE
SUBSEQUENTLY OBTAINED IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION. 

FN5  AND SEE MILLER V. MILLER, 200 IOWA 1193, 206 N.W. 262. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT'S OPINION APPEARS TO REST ON THREE INDEPENDENT GROUNDS: 

(1)  NEW YORK MAY, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE, HOLD THAT A PRIOR SEPARATE MAINTENANCE DECREE OF ONE OF ITS
COURTS SURVIVES A DECREE OF DIVORCE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ENFORCEABILITY
OF THE RULE IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, WHETHER SUCH
DIVORCE IS GRANTED IN NEW YORK OR BY A SISTER STATE; 

(2)  BY VIRTUE OF ITS INTEREST IN PREVENTING ITS CITIZENS FROM
BECOMING PUBLIC CHARGES, NEW YORK MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVIDE THAT A
DOMESTIC SEPARATE MAINTENANCE DECREE SURVIVES A SISTER-STATE DIVORCE
DECREE WHICH MUST BE RESPECTED IN NEW YORK UNDER THE RULE IN THE FIRST
WILLIAMS CASE, SUPRA; 

(3)  A SEPARATE MAINTENANCE DECREE CREATES AN OBLIGATION WHICH MAY
NOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH DUE PROCESS, BE EXTINGUISHED BY A COURT LACKING
PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THE OBLIGEE, THOUGH POSSESSED OF JURISDICTION
TO TERMINATE HER MARITAL STATUS, AND ANY JUDGMENT PURPORTING TO DO SO
IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXTRA-STATE RECOGNITION. 

TO THE FIRST OF THESE GROUNDS I ASSENT, AND IF SUCH IS THE LAW OF NEW
YORK I AGREE THAT THE DECISION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS
CASE MUST BE UPHELD.  IT IS FOR NEW YORK TO DECIDE WHETHER ITS DECREES
FOR SEPARATE MAINTENANCE SURVIVE DIVORCE OR TERMINATE WITH IT,
PROVIDED, OF COURSE, THAT ITS DECISION IS NOT A MERE ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT
A FEDERAL RIGHT, GIVEN BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, UNDER THE
GUISE OF A DETERMINATION OF STATE LAW.  CF. DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S.
22, 24-25. 

THE SECOND GROUND PRESENTS DIFFICULTIES.  I CANNOT AGREE THAT NEW
YORK'S INTEREST IN ITS RESIDENTS WOULD JUSTIFY NEW YORK IN GIVING LESS
EFFECT TO AN ENFORCEABLE NEVADA DIVORCE GRANTED TO ONE DOMICILED IN
NEVADA, AGAINST A SPOUSE NOT PERSONALLY SERVED, THAN IT WOULD GIVE TO A
VALID NEW YORK DIVORCE SIMILARLY OBTAINED.  AS TO THIS, I AGREE WITH
THE VIEWS OF MY BROTHER JACKSON.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, NEW YORK DOES
NOT SO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ENFORCEABLE "EX PARTE" DIVORCE DECREES
GRANTED BY A SISTER STATE, NO PROBLEM UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE ARISES. 

FURTHERMORE, IF THE RESPONDENT HAD OBTAINED HER SEPARATE MAINTENANCE
DECREE IN PENNSYLVANIA - WHICH TREATS SUCH DECREES AS TERMINATED BY ANY
VALID DIVORCE, SEE ESENWEIN V. ESENWEIN, 325 U.S. 279 - AND HAD
SUBSEQUENTLY MOVED TO NEW YORK AND THERE BROUGHT A SUIT BASED ON THE
PENNSYLVANIA DECREE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NEW YORK'S INTEREST IN PREVENTING
THE RESPONDENT FROM BECOMING A PUBLIC CHARGE WOULD NOT JUSTIFY REFUSAL
TO TREAT THE SEPARATE MAINTENANCE DECREE AS HAVING BEEN TERMINATED. 
NEW YORK WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REFER TO THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE MAINTENANCE DECREE OF THAT COMMONWEALTH HAD
SURVIVED THE NEVADA DIVORCE, AND, FINDING THAT IT HAD NOT, THE NEW YORK
COURTS COULD NOT ENFORCE IT. 

MY DIFFICULTY WITH THE THIRD GROUND OF THE COURT'S OPINION IS THAT
NEVADA DID NOT PURPORT, SO FAR AS THE RECORD DISCLOSES, TO RULE ON THE
SURVIVAL OF THE NEW YORK SEPARATE MAINTENANCE DECREE.  NEVADA MERELY
ESTABLISHED A CHANGE IN STATUS.  IT WAS FOR NEW YORK TO DETERMINE THE
EFFECT, WITH REFERENCE TO ITS OWN LAW, OF THAT CHANGE IN STATUS.  IF IT
WAS THE LAW OF NEW YORK THAT DIVORCE PUT AN END TO ITS SEPARATE
MAINTENANCE DECREE, THE RESPONDENT'S DECREE WOULD HAVE BEEN TERMINATED
NOT BY THE NEVADA DIVORCE BUT BY THE CONSEQUENCES, UNDER THE NEW YORK
LAW, OF A CHANGE IN STATUS, EVEN THOUGH BROUGHT ABOUT BY NEVADA. 
SIMILARLY, NEVADA COULD NOT ADJUDICATE RIGHTS IN NEW YORK REALTY, BUT,
IF NEW YORK LAW PROVIDED FOR DOWER, A NEVADA DIVORCE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT
TERMINATE A DOWER INTEREST IN NEW YORK REALTY DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR
NOT NEW YORK TREATED DOWER RIGHTS AS EXTINGUISHED BY DIVORCE. 

IF THE NEVADA DECREE, INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTED THE NEW YORK SEPARATE
MAINTENANCE DECREE, WERE VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS, NEW YORK OF COURSE
WOULD NOT HAVE TO GIVE EFFECT TO IT.  IT COULD NOT DO SO EVEN IF IT
WISHED.  IF THE NEVADA DECREE INVOLVED A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS,
THERE IS AN END OF THE MATTER AND OTHER COMPLICATED ISSUES NEED NOT BE
CONSIDERED.  IT WOULD NOT MATTER WHETHER NEW YORK HAD A SPECIAL
INTEREST IN PREVENTING ITS RESIDENTS FROM BECOMING PUBLIC CHARGES, OR
WHETHER NEW YORK TREATED MAINTENANCE DECREES AS SURVIVING A VALID
DIVORCE. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE CRUCIAL ISSUE, AS I SEE IT, IS WHETHER NEW YORK HAS
HELD THAT NO "EX PARTE" DIVORCE DECREE COULD TERMINATE A PRIOR NEW YORK
SEPARATE MAINTENANCE DECREE, OR WHETHER IT HAS DECIDED MERELY THAT NO
"EX PARTE" DIVORCE DECREE OF ANOTHER STATE COULD.  THE OPINION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS LEAVES THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE IN DOUBT.  THE PRIOR
DECISIONS OF THE NEW YORK COURTS DO NOT DISPEL MY DOUBTS.  NEITHER DO
THE CASES CITED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION, WHICH, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF WAGSTER V. WAGSTER, 193 ARK. 902, DO NOT INVOLVE "EX
PARTE" DOMESTIC DIVORCES.  NEW YORK MAY LEGITIMATELY DECLINE TO ALLOW
ANY "EX PARTE" DIVORCE TO DISSOLVE ITS PRIOR SEPARATE MAINTENANCE
DECREE, BUT IT MAY NOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA,
317 U.S. 287, DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A NEVADA DECREE GRANTED TO ONE THERE
DOMICILED, AND AFFORD IT LESS EFFECT THAN IT GIVES TO A DECREE OF ITS
OWN WITH SIMILAR JURISDICTIONAL FOUNDATION.  I CANNOT BE SURE WHICH IT
HAS DONE. 

I AM REINFORCED IN THESE VIEWS BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON'S DISSENT.  AS
A NEW YORK LAWYER AND THE JUSTICE ASSIGNED TO THE SECOND CIRCUIT, HE IS
PRESUMABLY NOT WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF NEW YORK LAW.  THE COURT'S OPINION
IS WRITTEN IN A SPIRIT OF CERTITUDE THAT THE NEW YORK LAW IS CONTRARY
TO THAT WHICH MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ASSUMES IT TO BE.  THUS, ON THE ISSUE
THAT I DEEM DECISIVE OF THE QUESTION WHETHER NEW YORK HAS GIVEN FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE NEVADA DECREE - NAMELY, WHETHER UNDER NEW
YORK'S LAW DIVORCE DECREES BASED ON PUBLICATION TERMINATE SUPPORT - HER
LAW HAS THUS FAR NOT SPOKEN WITH ASCERTAINABLE CLARITY.  I WOULD
THEREFORE REMAND THE CASE TO THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS FOR
CLARIFICATION OF ITS RATIONALE.  "  ...  IT IS  ...  IMPORTANT THAT
AMBIGUOUS OR OBSCURE ADJUDICATIONS BY STATE COURTS DO NOT STAND AS
BARRIERS TO A DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT OF THE VALIDITY UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF STATE ACTION.  INTELLIGENT EXERCISE OF OUR
APPELLATE POWERS COMPELS US TO ASK FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE
OBSCURITIES AND AMBIGUITIES FROM THE OPINIONS IN SUCH CASES." 
MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551, 557. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM
THEIR LAWMAKERS, IT IS RULES OF LAW THAT WILL ENABLE INDIVIDUALS TO
TELL WHETHER THEY ARE MARRIED AND, IF SO, TO WHOM.  TODAY MANY PEOPLE
WHO HAVE SIMPLY LIVED IN MORE THAN ONE STATE DO NOT KNOW, AND THE MOST
LEARNED LAWYER CANNOT ADVISE THEM WITH ANY CONFIDENCE.  THE
UNCERTAINTIES THAT RESULT ARE NOT MERELY TECHNICAL, NOR ARE THEY
TRIVIAL; THEY AFFECT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND RELATIONS SUCH AS THE
LAWFULNESS OF THEIR COHABITATION, THEIR CHILDREN'S LEGITIMACY, THEIR
TITLE TO PROPERTY, AND EVEN WHETHER THEY ARE LAW-ABIDING PERSONS OR
CRIMINALS.  IN A SOCIETY AS MOBILE AND NOMADIC AS OURS, SUCH
UNCERTAINTIES AFFECT LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE AND CREATE A SOCIAL
PROBLEM OF SOME MAGNITUDE.  IT IS THEREFORE IMPORTANT THAT, WHATEVER WE
DO, WE SHALL NOT ADD TO THE CONFUSION.  I THINK THAT THIS DECISION DOES
JUST THAT. 

THESE PARTIES LIVED TOGETHER IN NEW YORK STATE DURING THEIR ENTIRE
MARRIED LIFE.  COURTS OF THAT STATE GRANTED JUDGMENT OF SEPARATION,
WITH AWARD OF ALIMONY TO THE WIFE, IN OCTOBER 1943.  THREE MONTHS LATER
THE HUSBAND JOURNEYED TO NEVADA AND IN THREE MORE MONTHS BEGAN A
DIVORCE ACTION.  NO PROCESS WAS SERVED ON THE WIFE IN NEVADA; SHE WAS
PUT ON NOTICE ONLY BY CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE THROUGH PUBLICATION IN NEW
YORK.  NOTIFIED THUS OF WHAT WAS GOING ON, SHE WAS PUT TO THIS CHOICE:
TO GO TO NEVADA AND FIGHT A BATTLE, HOPELESS UNDER NEVADA LAWS, TO KEEP
HER NEW YORK JUDGMENT, OR TO DO NOTHING.  SHE DID NOTHING, AND THE
NEVADA COURT GRANTED THE HUSBAND A DIVORCE WITHOUT REQUIRING PAYMENT OF
ALIMONY. 

NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT OF SEPARATION OR
THE NEVADA JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE CONTROLS THE PRESENT OBLIGATION TO PAY
ALIMONY.  THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT OF SEPARATION IS BASED ON THE PREMISE
THAT THE PARTIES REMAIN HUSBAND AND WIFE, THOUGH ESTRANGED, AND HENCE
THE OBLIGATION OF SUPPORT, INCIDENT TO MARRIAGE, CONTINUES.  THE NEVADA
DECREE IS BASED ON THE CONTRARY PREMISE THAT THE MARRIAGE NO LONGER
EXISTS AND SO OBLIGATIONS DEPENDENT ON IT HAVE CEASED. 

THE COURT REACHES THE SOLOMON-LIKE CONCLUSION THAT THE NEVADA DECREE
IS HALF GOOD AND HALF BAD UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  IT
IS GOOD TO FREE THE HUSBAND FROM THE MARRIAGE; IT IS NOT GOOD TO FREE
HIM FROM ITS INCIDENTAL OBLIGATIONS.  ASSUMING THE JUDGMENT TO BE ONE
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TO BE RECOGNIZED AT ALL, I DO NOT SEE
HOW WE CAN SQUARE THIS DECISION WITH THE COMMAND THAT IT BE GIVEN FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT.  FOR REASONS WHICH I STATED IN DISSENTING IN WILLIAMS
V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, I WOULD NOT GIVE STANDING UNDER THE
CLAUSE TO CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE DIVORCES OBTAINED ON SHORT RESIDENCE. 
BUT IF WE ARE TO HOLD THIS DIVORCE GOOD, I DO NOT SEE HOW IT CAN BE
LESS GOOD THAN A DIVORCE WOULD BE IF RENDERED BY THE COURTS OF NEW
YORK. 

AS I UNDERSTAND NEW YORK LAW, IF, AFTER A DECREE OF SEPARATION AND
ALIMONY, THE HUSBAND HAD OBTAINED A NEW YORK DIVORCE AGAINST HIS WIFE,
IT WOULD TERMINATE HER RIGHT TO ALIMONY.  IF THE NEVADA JUDGMENT IS TO
HAVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, I THINK IT MUST HAVE THE SAME EFFECT THAT A
SIMILAR NEW YORK DECREE WOULD HAVE.  I DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN HOLD THAT
IT MUST BE ACCEPTED FOR SOME PURPOSES AND NOT FOR OTHERS, THAT HE IS
FREE OF HIS FORMER MARRIAGE BUT STILL MAY BE JAILED, AS HE MAY IN NEW
YORK, FOR NOT PAYING THE MAINTENANCE OF A WOMAN WHOM THE COURT IS
COMPELLED TO CONSIDER AS NO LONGER HIS WIFE. 
..END :







KREIGER V. KREIGER, 334 U.S. 555 


NO. 371.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2-3, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 297
N.Y. 530, 74 N.E.2D 468, AFFIRMED. 


WHILE BOTH SPOUSES WERE DOMICILED IN NEW YORK, A WIFE OBTAINED A
DECREE OF SEPARATION AND ALIMONY THERE.  LATER THE HUSBAND OBTAINED A
NEVADA DIVORCE IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE WIFE WAS NOTIFIED
CONSTRUCTIVELY AND ENTERED NO APPEARANCE.  HE STOPPED PAYING ALIMONY
AND THE WIFE SUED IN NEW YORK FOR THE AMOUNT IN ARREARS.  THE HUSBAND
APPEARED AND DEFENDED ON THE GROUND OF THE NEVADA DIVORCE.  THE NEW
YORK COURT GRANTED THE WIFE JUDGMENT FOR THE ARREARS OF ALIMONY.  THE
HIGHEST COURT OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED.  HELD:  THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT DID
NOT DENY FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE NEVADA DECREE, SINCE NEVADA HAD
NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE THE WIFE'S RIGHTS IN THE NEW YORK DECREE OF
ALIMONY.  SEE ESTIN V. ESTIN, ANTE, P. 541.  PP. 556-557. 

KREIGER V. KREIGER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

NOTWITHSTANDING A DIVORCE OBTAINED BY A HUSBAND IN NEVADA, A NEW YORK
COURT GAVE THE WIFE A JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS OF ALIMONY AWARDED UNDER AN
EARLIER DECREE GRANTED WHILE BOTH SPOUSES WERE DOMICILED IN NEW YORK. 
THE APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMED.  271 N.Y. APP. DIV. 872, 66 N.Y.S.2D
798.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  297 N.Y. 530, 74 N.E.2D 468. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 829.  AFFIRMED, P. 557. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO ESTIN V. ESTIN, ANTE, P. 541, ALSO HERE
ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

THE PARTIES WERE MARRIED IN NEW YORK IN 1933 AND LIVED THERE TOGETHER
UNTIL THEIR SEPARATION IN 1935.  IN 1940 RESPONDENT OBTAINED A DECREE
OF SEPARATION IN NEW YORK ON GROUNDS OF ABANDONMENT.  PETITIONER
APPEARED IN THE ACTION; AND RESPONDENT WAS AWARDED $60 A WEEK ALIMONY
FOR THE SUPPORT OF HERSELF AND THEIR ONLY CHILD, WHOSE CUSTODY SHE WAS
GIVEN. 

PETITIONER THEREAFTER WENT TO NEVADA WHERE HE CONTINUES TO RESIDE. 
HE INSTITUTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN THAT STATE IN THE FALL OF 1944. 
CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE WAS MADE ON RESPONDENT WHO MADE NO APPEARANCE IN
THE NEVADA PROCEEDINGS.  WHILE THEY WERE PENDING, RESPONDENT OBTAINED
AN ORDER IN NEW YORK PURPORTING TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM SEEKING A
DIVORCE AND FROM REMARRYING.  PETITIONER WAS NEITHER SERVED WITH
PROCESS IN NEW YORK NOR ENTERED AN APPEARANCE IN THE LATTER
PROCEEDING.  THE NEVADA COURT, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJUNCTION AND THE
NEW YORK JUDGMENT FOR ALIMONY, AWARDED PETITIONER AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE
ON GROUNDS OF THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF SEPARATION WITHOUT
COHABITATION.  THE JUDGMENT MADE NO PROVISION FOR ALIMONY.  IT DID
PROVIDE THAT PETITIONER WAS TO SUPPORT, MAINTAIN AND EDUCATE THE CHILD,
WHOSE CUSTODY IT PURPORTED TO GRANT HIM, AND AS TO WHICH JURISDICTION
WAS RESERVED.  PETITIONER THEREAFTER TENDERED $50 A MONTH FOR THE
SUPPORT OF THE CHILD BUT CEASED MAKING PAYMENTS UNDER THE NEW YORK
DECREE. 

RESPONDENT THEREUPON BROUGHT SUIT ON THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT IN A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEVADA.  WITHOUT WAITING THE OUTCOME OF THAT
LITIGATION SHE OBTAINED A JUDGMENT IN NEW YORK FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE
ARREARS, PETITIONER APPEARING AND UNSUCCESSFULLY PLEADING HIS NEVADA
DIVORCE AS A DEFENSE.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE
DIVISION, TWO JUDGES DISSENTING.  271 N.Y. APP. DIV. 872, 66 N.Y.S.2D
798.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION, 297 N.Y. 530, 74
N.E.2D 468, BUT STATED IN ITS REMITTITUR THAT ITS ACTION WAS BASED UPON
ESTIN V. ESTIN, 296 N.Y. 308, 73 N.E.2D 113.  RESPONDENT DOES NOT
ATTACK THE BONA FIDES OF PETITIONER'S NEVADA DOMICILE. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN ESTIN V. ESTIN, ANTE, P. 541, WE HOLD THAT
NEVADA HAD NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS IN THE NEW YORK
JUDGMENT AND THUS NEW YORK WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BOW TO THAT PROVISION OF
THE NEVADA DECREE.  IT IS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON NEW YORK'S
ATTEMPT TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM SECURING A DIVORCE OR TO REACH THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT WAS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT IN THE NEVADA PROCEEDINGS.  NO ISSUE AS TO THE CUSTODY OF THE
CHILD WAS RAISED EITHER IN THE COURT BELOW OR IN THIS COURT.  THE
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS STATED IN HIS
DISSENTING OPINION IN ESTIN V. ESTIN, ANTE, P. 549. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN HIS OPINION
IN ESTIN V. ESTIN, ANTE, P. 553. 
..END :











SAIA V. NEW YORK, 334 U.S. 558 


NO. 504.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 297 N.Y.
659, 76 N.E.2D 323, REVERSED. 


A CITY ORDINANCE FORBIDDING THE USE OF SOUND AMPLIFICATION DEVICES IN
PUBLIC PLACES EXCEPT WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND
PRESCRIBING NO STANDARDS FOR THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, SINCE IT ESTABLISHES A PREVIOUS RESTRAINT
ON THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, MADE
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 558-562. 

SAIA V. NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING A CITY ORDINANCE FORBIDDING THE
USE OF SOUND AMPLIFICATION DEVICES EXCEPT WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE
CHIEF OF POLICE.  THE COUNTY COURT AND THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  297 N.Y. 659, 76 N.E.2D 323.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
REVERSED, P. 562. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
BLACK. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF A PENAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LOCKPORT, NEW YORK, WHICH
FORBIDS THE USE OF SOUND AMPLIFICATION DEVICES EXCEPT WITH PERMISSION
OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.  FN1 

APPELLANT IS A MINISTER OF THE RELIGIOUS SECT KNOWN AS JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES.  HE OBTAINED FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE PERMISSION TO USE
SOUND EQUIPMENT, MOUNTED ATOP HIS CAR, TO AMPLIFY LECTURES ON RELIGIOUS
SUBJECTS.  THE LECTURES WERE GIVEN AT A FIXED PLACE IN A PUBLIC PARK ON
DESIGNATED SUNDAYS.  WHEN THIS PERMIT EXPIRED, HE APPLIED FOR ANOTHER
ONE BUT WAS REFUSED ON THE GROUND THAT COMPLAINTS HAD BEEN MADE. 
APPELLANT NEVERTHELESS USED HIS EQUIPMENT AS PLANNED ON FOUR OCCASIONS,
BUT WITHOUT A PERMIT.  HE WAS TRIED IN POLICE COURT FOR VIOLATIONS OF
THE ORDINANCE.  IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT HE USED HIS EQUIPMENT TO AMPLIFY
SPEECHES IN THE PARK AND THAT THEY WERE ON RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS.  SOME
WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE ANNOYED BY THE SOUND, THOUGH NOT BY
THE CONTENT OF THE ADDRESSES; OTHERS WERE NOT DISTURBED BY EITHER.  THE
COURT UPHELD THE ORDINANCE AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT IT VIOLATED
APPELLANT'S RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, AND WORSHIP UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FINES AND JAIL SENTENCES WERE IMPOSED.  HIS
CONVICTIONS WERE AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION BY THE COUNTY COURT FOR
NIAGARA COUNTY AND BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, 297 N.Y. 659, 76
N.E.2D 323.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL. 

WE HOLD THAT SEC. 3 OF THIS ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS
FACE, FOR IT ESTABLISHES A PREVIOUS RESTRAINT ON THE RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH IS PROTECTED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST STATE ACTION.  TO USE A LOUD-SPEAKER OR
AMPLIFIER ONE HAS TO GET A PERMIT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE.  THERE ARE
NO STANDARDS PRESCRIBED FOR THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION.  THE
STATUTE IS NOT NARROWLY DRAWN TO REGULATE THE HOURS OR PLACES OF USE OF
LOUD-SPEAKERS, OR THE VOLUME OF SOUND (THE DECIBELS) TO WHICH THEY MUST
BE ADJUSTED.  THE ORDINANCE THEREFORE HAS ALL THE VICES OF THE ONES
WHICH WE STRUCK DOWN IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296; LOVELL
V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; AND HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496. 

IN THE CANTWELL CASE A LICENSE HAD TO BE OBTAINED IN ORDER TO
DISTRIBUTE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.  WHAT WAS RELIGIOUS WAS LEFT TO THE
DISCRETION OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.  WE HELD THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW TO
RECTIFY ABUSES IN THE LICENSING SYSTEM DID NOT SAVE THE ORDINANCE FROM
CONDEMNATION ON THE GROUNDS OF PREVIOUS RESTRAINT.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
SUPRA, HELD VOID ON ITS FACE AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING A LICENSE FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE.  THAT ORDINANCE, LIKE THE PRESENT ONE, WAS
DRESSED IN THE GARB OF THE CONTROL OF A "NUISANCE."  BUT THE COURT MADE
SHORT SHRIFT OF THE ARGUMENT, SAYING THAT APPROVAL OF THE LICENSING
SYSTEM WOULD INSTITUTE CENSORSHIP "IN ITS BALDEST FORM."  IN HAGUE V.
C.I.O., SUPRA, WE STRUCK DOWN A CITY ORDINANCE WHICH REQUIRED A LICENSE
FROM A LOCAL OFFICIAL FOR A PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ON THE STREETS OR HIGHWAYS
OR IN THE PUBLIC PARKS OR PUBLIC BUILDINGS.  THE OFFICIAL WAS EMPOWERED
TO REFUSE THE PERMIT IF IN HIS OPINION THE REFUSAL WOULD PREVENT
"RIOTS, DISTURBANCES OR DISORDERLY ASSEMBLAGE."  WE HELD THAT THE
ORDINANCE WAS VOID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE IT COULD BE MADE "THE INSTRUMENT
OF ARBITRARY SUPPRESSION OF FREE EXPRESSION OF VIEWS ON NATIONAL
AFFAIRS."  307 U.S. P. 516. 

THE PRESENT ORDINANCE HAS THE SAME DEFECTS.  THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IS
PLACED IN THE UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.  HE
STANDS ATHWART THE CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION AS AN OBSTRUCTION WHICH
CAN BE REMOVED ONLY AFTER CRIMINAL TRIAL AND CONVICTION AND LENGTHY
APPEAL.  A MORE EFFECTIVE PREVIOUS RESTRAINT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE. 
UNLESS WE ARE TO RETREAT FROM THE FIRM POSITIONS WE HAVE TAKEN IN THE
PAST, WE MUST GIVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THIS CASE THE SAME PREFERRED
TREATMENT THAT WE GAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN THE CANTWELL CASE,
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN THE GRIFFIN CASE, AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY IN THE HAGUE CASE.  FN2 

LOUD-SPEAKERS ARE TODAY INDISPENSABLE INSTRUMENTS OF EFFECTIVE PUBLIC
SPEECH.  THE SOUND TRUCK HAS BECOME AN ACCEPTED METHOD OF POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNING.  IT IS THE WAY PEOPLE ARE REACHED.  MUST A CANDIDATE FOR
GOVERNOR OR THE CONGRESS DEPEND ON THE WHIM OR CAPRICE OF THE CHIEF OF
POLICE IN ORDER TO USE HIS SOUND TRUCK FOR CAMPAIGNING?  MUST HE PROVE
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THAT OFFICIAL THAT HIS NOISE WILL NOT BE
ANNOYING TO PEOPLE? 

THE PRESENT ORDINANCE WOULD BE A DANGEROUS WEAPON IF IT WERE ALLOWED
TO GET A HOLD ON OUR PUBLIC LIFE.  NOISE CAN BE REGULATED BY REGULATING
DECIBELS.  THE HOURS AND PLACE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION CAN BE CONTROLLED. 
BUT TO ALLOW THE POLICE TO BAR THE USE OF LOUD-SPEAKERS BECAUSE THEIR
USE CAN BE ABUSED IS LIKE BARRING RADIO RECEIVERS BECAUSE THEY TOO MAKE
A NOISE.  THE POLICE NEED NOT BE GIVEN THE POWER TO DENY A MAN THE USE
OF HIS RADIO IN ORDER TO PROTECT A NEIGHBOR AGAINST SLEEPLESS NIGHTS. 
THE SAME IS TRUE HERE. 

ANY ABUSES WHICH LOUD-SPEAKERS CREATE CAN BE CONTROLLED BY NARROWLY
DRAWN STATUTES.  WHEN A CITY ALLOWS AN OFFICIAL TO BAN THEM IN HIS
UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION, IT SANCTIONS A DEVICE FOR SUPPRESSION OF FREE
COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS.  IN THIS CASE A PERMIT IS DENIED BECAUSE SOME
PERSONS WERE SAID TO HAVE FOUND THE SOUND ANNOYING.  IN THE NEXT ONE A
PERMIT MAY BE DENIED BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE FIND THE IDEAS ANNOYING. 
ANNOYANCE AT IDEAS CAN BE CLOAKED IN ANNOYANCE AT SOUND.  THE POWER OF
CENSORSHIP INHERENT IN THIS TYPE OF ORDINANCE REVEALS ITS VICE. 

COURTS MUST BALANCE THE VARIOUS COMMUNITY INTERESTS IN PASSING ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LOCAL REGULATIONS OF THE CHARACTER INVOLVED HERE. 
BUT IN THAT PROCESS THEY SHOULD BE MINDFUL TO KEEP THE FREEDOMS OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IN A PREFERRED POSITION.  SEE MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326
U.S. 501, 509.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE ORDINANCE, INSOFAR AS PERTINENT, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 2.  RADIO DEVICES, ETC.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON
TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE IN ANY BUILDING, OR ON ANY PREMISES OR ON ANY
AUTOMOBILE, MOTOR TRUCK OR OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE, ANY RADIO DEVICE,
MECHANICAL DEVICE, OR LOUD SPEAKER OR ANY DEVICE OF ANY KIND WHEREBY
THE SOUND THEREFROM IS CAST DIRECTLY UPON THE STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES
AND WHERE SUCH DEVICE IS MAINTAINED FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES OR FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ATTRACTING THE ATTENTION OF THE PASSING PUBLIC, OR WHICH IS
SO PLACED AND OPERATED THAT THE SOUNDS COMING THEREFROM CAN BE HEARD TO
THE ANNOYANCE OR INCONVENIENCE OF TRAVELERS UPON ANY STREET OR PUBLIC
PLACES OR OF PERSONS IN NEIGHBORING PREMISES. 

"SECTION 3.  EXCEPTION.  PUBLIC DISSEMINATION, THROUGH RADIO
LOUDSPEAKERS, OF ITEMS OF NEWS AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND
ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION
PROVIDED THAT THE SAME BE DONE UNDER PERMISSION OBTAINED FROM THE CHIEF
OF POLICE." 

APPELLANT'S CONDUCT WAS REGARDED THROUGHOUT AS FALLING WITHIN THE
TYPES OF ACTIVITY ENUMERATED IN SEC. 3.  WE TAKE THE ORDINANCE AS
CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURTS. 

FN2  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 577-578, DID NOT DEPART FROM
THE RULE OF THESE EARLIER CASES BUT RE-EMPHASIZED THE VICE OF THE TYPE
OF ORDINANCE WE HAVE HERE.  DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43, WAS
DISTINGUISHED IN THE HAGUE CASE, 307 U.S. PP. 514-516, WHICH LIKEWISE
INVOLVED AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS AND PARKS. 
IT WAS THERE SAID, "WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE WHETHER, ON THE
FACTS DISCLOSED, THE DAVIS CASE WAS RIGHTLY DECIDED, BUT WE CANNOT
AGREE THAT IT RULES THE INSTANT CASE.  WHEREVER THE TITLE OF STREETS
AND PARKS MAY REST, THEY HAVE IMMEMORIALLY BEEN HELD IN TRUST FOR THE
USE OF THE PUBLIC AND, TIME OUT OF MIND, HAVE BEEN USED FOR PURPOSES OF
ASSEMBLY, COMMUNICATING THOUGHTS BETWEEN CITIZENS, AND DISCUSSING
PUBLIC QUESTIONS.  SUCH USE OF THE STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES HAS, FROM
ANCIENT TIMES, BEEN A PART OF THE PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES, RIGHTS, AND
LIBERTIES OF CITIZENS.  THE PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
TO USE THE STREETS AND PARKS FOR COMMUNICATION OF VIEWS ON NATIONAL
QUESTIONS MAY BE REGULATED IN THE INTEREST OF ALL; IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE,
BUT RELATIVE, AND MUST BE EXERCISED IN SUBORDINATION TO THE GENERAL
COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE, AND IN CONSONANCE WITH PEACE AND GOOD ORDER;
BUT IT MUST NOT, IN THE GUISE OF REGULATION, BE ABRIDGED OR DENIED." 

WE ADHERE TO THAT VIEW.  THOUGH THE STATEMENT WAS THAT OF ONLY THREE
JUSTICES, IT PLAINLY INDICATED THE ROUTE THE MAJORITY FOLLOWED, WHO ON
THE MERITS DID NOT CONSIDER THE DAVIS CASE TO BE CONTROLLING. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE APPELLANT'S LOUD-SPEAKERS BLARED FORTH IN A SMALL PARK IN A SMALL
CITY.  FN1  THE PARK WAS ABOUT 1,600 FEET LONG AND FROM 250 TO 400 FEET
WIDE.  IT WAS USED PRIMARILY FOR RECREATION, CONTAINING BENCHES, PICNIC
AND ATHLETIC FACILITIES, AND A CHILDREN'S WADING POOL AND PLAYGROUND. 
ESTIMATES OF THE RANGE OF THE SOUND EQUIPMENT VARIED FROM ABOUT 200 TO
600 FEET.  THE ATTENTION OF A LARGE FRACTION OF THE AREA OF THE PARK
WAS THUS COMMANDED. 

THE NATIVE POWER OF HUMAN SPEECH CAN INTERFERE LITTLE WITH THE SELF
PROTECTION OF THOSE WHO DO NOT WISH TO LISTEN.  THEY MAY EASILY MOVE
BEYOND EARSHOT, JUST AS THOSE WHO DO NOT CHOOSE TO READ NEED NOT HAVE
THEIR ATTENTION BLUDGEONED BY UNDESIRED READING MATTER.  AND SO
UTTERANCES BY SPEECH OR PEN CAN NEITHER BE FORBIDDEN NOR LICENSED, SAVE
IN THE FAMILIAR CLASSES OF EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON,
308 U.S. 147; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568.  BUT MODERN
DEVICES FOR AMPLIFYING THE RANGE AND VOLUME OF THE VOICE, OR ITS
RECORDING, AFFORD EASY, TOO EASY, OPPORTUNITIES FOR AURAL AGGRESSION. 
IF UNCONTROLLED, THE RESULT IS INTRUSION INTO CHERISHED PRIVACY.  THE
REFRESHMENT OF MERE SILENCE, OR MEDITATION, OR QUIET CONVERSATION, MAY
BE DISTURBED OR PRECLUDED BY NOISE BEYOND ONE'S PERSONAL CONTROL. 

MUNICIPALITIES HAVE CONSCIENTIOUSLY SOUGHT TO DEAL WITH THE NEW
PROBLEMS TO WHICH SOUND EQUIPMENT HAS GIVEN RISE AND HAVE DEVISED
VARIOUS METHODS OF CONTROL TO MAKE CITY LIFE ENDURABLE.  SEE MCINTIRE
AND RHYNE, RADIO AND MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS (NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS, REPORT NO. 62, 1940) PP. 28 ET SEQ. SURELY
THERE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FORCE UNWILLING PEOPLE TO
LISTEN.  CF. OTTO, SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH, IN FREEDOM AND
EXPERIENCE (EDITED BY HOOK AND KONVITZ, 1947) 78, 83 ET SEQ. AND SO I
CANNOT AGREE THAT WE MUST DENY THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO CONTROL THESE
BROADCASTING DEVICES SO AS TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS NOT TO BE
ASSAILED BY INTRUSIVE NOISE BUT TO BE FREE TO PUT THEIR FREEDOM OF MIND
AND ATTENTION TO USES OF THEIR OWN CHOICE. 

COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION, I CANNOT SAY THAT IT
WAS BEYOND CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS TO REFUSE A LICENSE TO THE APPELLANT
FOR THE TIME AND PLACE REQUESTED.  THE STATE WAS ENTITLED TO AUTHORIZE
THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF LOCKPORT TO DETERMINE THAT THE WELL-BEING OF
THOSE OF ITS INHABITANTS WHO SOUGHT QUIET AND OTHER PLEASURES THAT A
PARK AFFORDS, OUTWEIGHED THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO FORCE HIS MESSAGE
UPON THEM.  NOR DID IT EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF REASON FOR THE CHIEF OF
POLICE TO BASE HIS DECISION REFUSING A LICENSE UPON THE FACT THAT THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE LICENSE HAD BEEN USED IN THE PAST WAS DESTRUCTIVE
OF THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PARK BY THOSE FOR WHOM IT WAS MAINTAINED.  THAT
PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT AN ANNOYANCE WOULD SEEM TO BE A PRETTY SOLID
BASIS IN EXPERIENCE FOR NOT SANCTIONING ITS CONTINUANCE. 

VERY DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS COME INTO PLAY WHEN THE FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION IS SUBJECTED TO A LICENSING SYSTEM WHEREBY A MINOR OFFICIAL
DETERMINES WHETHER A CAUSE IS RELIGIOUS.  THIS WAS THE PROBLEM
PRESENTED BY CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, AND OF COURSE WE
HELD THAT "SUCH A CENSORSHIP OF RELIGION AS THE MEANS OF DETERMINING
ITS RIGHT TO SURVIVE IS A DENIAL OF LIBERTY PROTECTED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND INCLUDED IN THE LIBERTY WHICH IS WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF
THE FOURTEENTH."  310 U.S. AT 305.  TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CAUSE IS, OR
IS NOT, "RELIGIOUS" OPENS UP TOO WIDE A FIELD OF PERSONAL JUDGMENT TO
BE LEFT TO THE MERE DISCRETION OF AN OFFICIAL.  AS TO THE ALLOWABLE
RANGE OF JUDGMENT REGARDING THE SCOPE OF "RELIGION," SEE JUDGE AUGUSTUS
N. HAND IN UNITED STATES V. KAUTEN, 133 F.2D 703, 708.  THE MATTER
BEFORE US IS OF QUITE A DIFFERENT ORDER.  IT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
FOR A STATE TO VEST IN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS
IN EFFECT A NUISANCE MERELY BECAUSE SUCH AUTHORITY MAY BE OUTRAGEOUSLY
MISUSED BY TRYING TO STIFLE THE EXPRESSION OF SOME UNDESIRED OPINION
UNDER THE MERETRICIOUS CLOAK OF A NUISANCE.  JUDICIAL REMEDIES ARE
AVAILABLE FOR SUCH ABUSE OF AUTHORITY, AND COURTS, INCLUDING THIS
COURT, EXIST TO ENFORCE SUCH REMEDIES.    EVEN THE POWER TO LIMIT THE
ABUSE OF SOUND EQUIPMENT MAY NOT BE EXERCISED WITH A PARTIALITY
UNRELATED TO THE NUISANCE.  BUT THERE IS HERE NO SHOWING OF EITHER
ARBITRARY ACTION OR DISCRIMINATION.  THERE IS NO BASIS FOR FINDING THAT
NOISEMAKERS SIMILAR TO APPELLANT WOULD HAVE OBTAINED A LICENSE FOR THE
TIME AND PLACE REQUESTED.  REFERENCE IS FOUND IN THE TESTIMONY TO THE
USE OF LOUD-SPEAKERS FOR LUTHERAN SERVICES IN A NEARBY BALLFIELD.  BUT
THE BALLFIELD WAS OUTSIDE THE PARK IN WHICH APPELLANT BLARED TO HIS
AUDIENCE, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE LUTHERANS
COULD HAVE USED THEIR AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE PARK, OR THAT THE
APPELLANT WOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED PERMISSION TO USE SUCH EQUIPMENT IN
THE BALLFIELD.  SEE LEHON V. ATLANTA, 242 U.S. 53.  STATE ACTION CANNOT
BE FOUND HYPOTHETICALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  NEW YORK EX REL. HATCH V.
REARDON, 204 U.S. 152. 

THE MEN WHOSE LABORS BROUGHT FORTH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES HAD THE STREET OUTSIDE INDEPENDENCE HALL COVERED WITH EARTH SO
THAT THEIR DELIBERATIONS MIGHT NOT BE DISTURBED BY PASSING TRAFFIC. 
OUR DEMOCRACY PRESUPPOSES THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS AS A CONDITION OF
THOUGHT AND OF RESPONSIBLE CHOICE BY THE ELECTORATE.  TO THE FOUNDING
FATHERS IT WOULD HARDLY SEEM A PROOF OF PROGRESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
OUR DEMOCRACY THAT THE BLARE OF SOUND TRUCKS MUST BE TREATED AS A
NECESSARY MEDIUM IN THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS.  IN ANY EVENT, IT WOULD
STARTLE THEM TO LEARN THAT THE MANNER AND EXTENT OF THE CONTROL OF THE
BLARE OF THE SOUND TRUCKS BY THE STATES OF THE UNION, WHEN SUCH CONTROL
IS NOT ARBITRARILY AND DISCRIMINATORILY EXERCISED, MUST SATISFY WHAT
THIS COURT THINKS IS THE DESIRABLE SCOPE AND MANNER OF EXERCISING SUCH
CONTROL. 

WE ARE DEALING WITH NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVICES AND WITH ATTEMPTS TO
CONTROL THEM IN ORDER TO GAIN THEIR BENEFITS WHILE MAINTAINING THE
PRECIOUS FREEDOM OF PRIVACY.  THESE ATTEMPTS, BEING EXPERIMENTAL, ARE
BOUND TO BE TENTATIVE, AND THE VIEWS I HAVE EXPRESSED ARE DIRECTED
TOWARDS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE IMMEDIATE CASE.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY
THAT THE LIMITATIONS BY NEW YORK UPON THE EXERCISE OF APPELLANT'S
RIGHTS OF UTTERANCE DID NOT IN MY VIEW EXCEED THE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN
THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS WHICH THE STATE WAS HERE ENTITLED TO MAKE IN
VIEW OF TIME AND PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE,
312 U.S. 569. 

FN1  THE LAST CENSUS GAVE THE POPULATION OF LOCKPORT AS 24,379. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I DISSENT FROM THIS DECISION, WHICH SEEMS TO ME NEITHER JUDICIOUS NOR
SOUND AND TO ENDANGER THE GREAT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH BY MAKING IT
RIDICULOUS AND OBNOXIOUS, MORE THAN THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION MENACES
FREE SPEECH BY REGULATING USE OF LOUD-SPEAKERS.  LET US STATE SOME
FACTS WHICH THE COURT OMITS: 

THE CITY OF LOCKPORT, NEW YORK, OWNS AND MAINTAINS A PUBLIC PARK OF
SOME 28 ACRES DEDICATED BY DEED TO "PARK PURPOSES EXCLUSIVELY."  THE
SCENE OF ACTION IN THIS CASE IS AN AREA THEREIN SET APART FOR THE
PEOPLE'S RECREATION.  THE CITY HAS PROVIDED IT WITH TABLES, BENCHES,
AND FIREPLACES FOR PICNIC PARTIES, A PLAYGROUND AND WADING POOL FOR
CHILDREN, AND FACILITIES FOR SUCH GAMES AS HORSESHOE PITCHING, BOWLING
AND BASEBALL. 

THE APPELLANT, ONE OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, CONTENDS, AND THE COURT
HOLDS, THAT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION REQUIRED BY CITY ORDINANCE HE MAY
SET UP A SOUND TRUCK SO AS TO FLOOD THIS AREA WITH AMPLIFIED LECTURES
ON RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS.  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT HE DEMANDS EVEN MORE
THAN THE RIGHT TO SPEAK AND HOLD A MEETING IN THIS AREA WHICH IS
RESERVED FOR OTHER AND QUITE INCONSISTENT PURPOSES.  HE LOCATED HIS
CAR, ON WHICH LOUD-SPEAKERS WERE MOUNTED, EITHER IN THE PARK ITSELF,
NOT OPEN TO VEHICLES, OR IN THE STREET CLOSE BY.  THE MICROPHONE FOR
THE SPEAKER WAS LOCATED SOME LITTLE DISTANCE FROM THE CAR AND IN THE
PARK, AND ELECTRIC WIRES WERE STRUNG, IN ONE OR MORE INSTANCES
APPARENTLY ACROSS THE SIDEWALK, FROM THE ONE TO THE OTHER.  SO THAT
WHAT THE COURT IS HOLDING, IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES FORBIDS A CITY TO REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE PERSON TO
ERECT, IN ITS STREETS, PARKS AND PUBLIC PLACES, A TEMPORARY PUBLIC
ADDRESS SYSTEM, WHICH CERTAINLY HAS POTENTIALITIES OF ANNOYANCE AND
EVEN INJURY TO PARK PATRONS IF CARELESSLY HANDLED.  IT WAS FOR SETTING
UP THIS SYSTEM OF MICROPHONE, WIRES AND SOUND TRUCK WITHOUT A PERMIT,
THAT THIS APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED - IT WAS NOT FOR SPEAKING. 

IT IS ASTONISHING NEWS TO ME IF THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS A
MUNICIPALITY FROM POLICING, CONTROLLING OR FORBIDDING ERECTION OF SUCH
EQUIPMENT BY A PRIVATE PARTY IN A PUBLIC PARK.  CERTAINLY PRECAUTIONS
AGAINST ANNOYANCE OR INJURY FROM OPERATION OF SUCH DEVICES ARE NOT ONLY
APPROPRIATE, BUT I SHOULD THINK A DUTY OF THE CITY IN SUPERVISING SUCH
PUBLIC PREMISES.  AND A VERY APPROPRIATE MEANS TO SUPERVISION IS A
PERMIT WHICH WILL INFORM THE CITY'S POLICE OFFICERS OF THE TIME AND
PLACE WHEN SUCH APPARATUS IS TO BE INSTALLED IN THE PARK.  I THINK IT
IS A STARTLING PERVERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO SAY THAT IT WRESTS
AWAY FROM THE STATES AND THEIR SUBDIVISIONS ALL CONTROL OF THE PUBLIC
PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CANNOT REGULATE OR PROHIBIT THE IRRESPONSIBLE
INTRODUCTION OF CONTRIVANCES OF THIS SORT INTO PUBLIC PLACES. 

THE COURT, HOWEVER, IGNORES THE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER THAT GROW OUT
OF SETTING UP THE SYSTEM OF AMPLIFYING APPLIANCES, WIRES AND
MICROPHONES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, WHICH DISTINGUISH IT FROM THE CASES
CITED AS AUTHORITY.  IT TREATS THE ISSUE ONLY AS ONE OF FREE SPEECH. 
TO MY MIND THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE.  FN1  LOCKPORT HAS IN NO
WAY DENIED OR RESTRICTED THE FREE USE, EVEN IN ITS PARK, OF ALL OF THE
FACILITIES FOR SPEECH WITH WHICH NATURE HAS ENDOWED THE APPELLANT.  IT
HAS NOT EVEN INTERFERED WITH HIS INVITING AN ASSEMBLAGE IN A PARK SPACE
NOT SET ASIDE FOR THAT PURPOSE.  FN2  BUT CAN IT BE THAT SOCIETY HAS NO
CONTROL OF APPARATUS WHICH, WHEN PUT TO UNREGULATED PROSELYTING,
PROPAGANDA AND COMMERCIAL USES, CAN RENDER LIFE UNBEARABLE?  IT IS
INTIMATED THAT THE CITY CAN CONTROL THE DECIBELS; IF SO, WHY MAY IT NOT
PRESCRIBE ZERO DECIBELS AS APPROPRIATE TO SOME PLACES?  IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT SOCIETY HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL, AS TO PLACE, TIME AND VOLUME,
THE USE OF LOUD-SPEAKING DEVICES FOR ANY PURPOSE, PROVIDED ITS
REGULATIONS ARE NOT UNDULY ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS OR DISCRIMINATORY. 

BUT THE COURT POINTS OUT THAT PROPAGATION OF HIS RELIGION IS THE
AVOWED AND ONLY PURPOSE OF APPELLANT AND HOLDS THAT LOCKPORT CANNOT
STOP THE USE OF LOUD-SPEAKER SYSTEMS ON ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  IF IT IS TO BE TREATED AS A CASE MERELY OF RELIGIOUS
TEACHING, I STILL COULD NOT AGREE WITH THE DECISION.  ONLY A FEW WEEKS
AGO WE HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS A STATE OR MUNICIPALITY
FROM USING TAX-SUPPORTED PROPERTY "TO AID RELIGIOUS GROUPS TO SPREAD
THEIR FAITH."  MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203.  TODAY WE
SAY IT COMPELS THEM TO LET IT BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IN THE ONE
CASE THE PUBLIC PROPERTY WAS APPROPRIATED TO SCHOOL USES; TODAY IT IS
PUBLIC PROPERTY APPROPRIATED AND EQUIPPED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.  I
THINK LOCKPORT HAD THE RIGHT TO ALLOCATE ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY TO THOSE
PURPOSES AND TO KEEP OUT OF IT INSTALLATIONS OF DEVICES WHICH WOULD
FLOOD THE AREA WITH RELIGIOUS APPEALS OBNOXIOUS TO MANY AND THEREBY
DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES
FOR WHICH IT WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE.  AND I CANNOT SEE HOW WE CAN READ
THE CONSTITUTION ONE DAY TO FORBID AND THE NEXT DAY TO COMPEL USE OF
PUBLIC TAX-SUPPORTED PROPERTY TO HELP A RELIGIOUS SECT SPREAD ITS
FAITH. 

THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION OR PREJUDICE
AGAINST THE APPELLANT BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION OR HIS IDEAS.  THIS SAME
APPELLANT, NOT A RESIDENT OF LOCKPORT BUT OF BUFFALO, BY THE WAY, WAS
GRANTED A PERMIT BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND USED THIS PARK FOR FOUR
SUCCESSIVE SUNDAYS DURING THE SAME SUMMER IN QUESTION.  WHAT HAS BEEN
REFUSED IS HIS APPLICATION FOR A SECOND SERIES OF FOUR MORE USES OF THE
PARK.  LOCKPORT IS IN A CLIMATE WHICH HAS ONLY ABOUT THREE MONTHS OF
WEATHER ADAPTABLE FOR PARK USE.  THERE ARE 256 RECOGNIZED RELIGIOUS
DENOMINATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND, EVEN IF THE LOCKPORT POPULACE
SUPPORTS ONLY A FEW OF THESE, IT IS APPARENT THAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
WERE GRANTED MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF THE SUNDAY TIME AVAILABLE ON ANY
FAIR ALLOCATION OF IT AMONG DENOMINATIONS. 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY OTHER DENOMINATION HAS EVER BEEN
PERMITTED TO HOLD MEETINGS OR, FOR THAT MATTER, HAS EVER SOUGHT TO HOLD
THEM IN THE RECREATION AREA.  IT APPEARS THAT ON ONE OF THE SUNDAYS IN
QUESTION THE LUTHERANS WERE USING THE BALL PARK.  THIS ALSO APPEARS TO
BE PUBLIC PROPERTY.  IT IS EQUIPPED WITH INSTALLED LOUD-SPEAKERS, A
GRANDSTAND AND BLEACHERS, AND SURROUNDED BY A FENCE SIX FEET HIGH. 
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THESE FACILITIES WOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ON THE SAME TERMS AS TO THE LUTHERANS.  IT IS
EVIDENT, HOWEVER, THAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DID NOT WANT AN ENCLOSED
SPOT TO WHICH THOSE WHO WANTED TO HEAR THEIR MESSAGE COULD RESORT. 
APPELLANT WANTED TO THRUST THEIR MESSAGE UPON PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE
PARK FOR RECREATION, A TYPE OF CONDUCT WHICH INVADES OTHER PERSONS'
PRIVACY AND, IF IT HAS NO OTHER CONTROL, MAY LEAD TO RIOTS AND
DISORDER. 

THE COURT EXPRESSES GREAT CONCERN LEST THE LOUD-SPEAKERS OF POLITICAL
CANDIDATES BE CONTROLLED IF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CAN BE.  THAT DOES NOT
WORRY ME.  EVEN POLITICAL CANDIDATES OUGHT NOT TO BE ALLOWED
IRRESPONSIBLY TO SET UP SOUND EQUIPMENT IN ALL SORTS OF PUBLIC PLACES,
AND FEW OF THEM WOULD REGARD IT AS TACTFUL CAMPAIGNING TO THRUST
THEMSELVES UPON PICNICKING FAMILIES WHO DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THEIR
MESSAGE.  I THINK THE COURT IS OVERCONCERNED ABOUT DANGER TO POLITICAL
CANDIDACIES AND I WOULD DEAL WITH THAT PROBLEM WHEN, AND IF, IT
ARISES. 

BUT IT IS SAID THE STATE OR MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT DELEGATE SUCH
AUTHORITY TO A CHIEF OF POLICE.  I AM UNABLE TO SEE WHY A STATE OR CITY
MAY NOT JUDGE FOR ITSELF WHETHER A POLICE CHIEF IS THE APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY TO CONTROL PERMITS FOR SETTING UP SOUND-AMPLIFYING
APPARATUS.  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569.  IT ALSO IS SUGGESTED
THAT THE CITY FATHERS HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE TO HIS
DISCRETION.  BUT I DID NOT SUPPOSE OUR FUNCTION WAS THAT OF A COUNCIL
OF REVISION.  THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER WHAT HAS BEEN DONE HAS
DEPRIVED THIS APPELLANT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  IT IS THE LAW AS
APPLIED THAT WE REVIEW, NOT THE ABSTRACT, ACADEMIC QUESTIONS WHICH IT
MIGHT RAISE IN SOME MORE DOUBTFUL CASE. 

I DISAGREE ENTIRELY WITH THE IDEA THAT "COURTS MUST BALANCE THE
VARIOUS COMMUNITY INTERESTS IN PASSING ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
LOCAL REGULATIONS OF THE CHARACTER INVOLVED HERE."  IT IS FOR THE LOCAL
COMMUNITIES TO BALANCE THEIR OWN INTERESTS - THAT IS POLITICS - AND
WHAT COURTS SHOULD KEEP OUT OF.  OUR ONLY FUNCTION IS TO APPLY
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS. 

I CAN ONLY REPEAT THE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, DISREGARDED IN HIS
TIME AND EVEN LESS HEEDED NOW: 

"I HAVE NOT YET ADEQUATELY EXPRESSED THE MORE THAN ANXIETY THAT I
FEEL AT THE EVER INCREASING SCOPE GIVEN TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN
CUTTING DOWN WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
STATES.  AS THE DECISIONS NOW STAND, I SEE HARDLY ANY LIMIT BUT THE SKY
TO THE INVALIDATING OF THOSE RIGHTS IF THEY HAPPEN TO STRIKE A MAJORITY
OF THIS COURT AS FOR ANY REASON UNDESIRABLE.  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE
AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO GIVE US CARTE BLANCHE TO EMBODY OUR ECONOMIC
OR MORAL BELIEFS IN ITS PROHIBITIONS."  FN3 

AND EVEN IF THIS WERE A CIVIL LIBERTIES CASE, I SHOULD AGREE WITH
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, WRITING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT: 

"CIVIL LIBERTIES, AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IMPLY THE
EXISTENCE OF AN ORGANIZED SOCIETY MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER WITHOUT
WHICH LIBERTY ITSELF WOULD BE LOST IN THE EXCESSES OF UNRESTRAINED
ABUSES."  FN4 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS AGO THIS COURT IN DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS,
167 U.S. 43, AFFIRMED A STATE COURT DECISION (162 MASS. 510) WRITTEN BY
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES AND HOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING
THAT "NO PERSON SHALL, IN OR UPON ANY OF THE PUBLIC GROUNDS, MAKE ANY
PUBLIC ADDRESS  ...  EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PERMIT FROM THE
MAYOR."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE ATTACK ON THE
ORDINANCE'S CONSTITUTIONALITY "ASSUMES THAT THE ORDINANCE IS DIRECTED
AGAINST FREE SPEECH GENERALLY,  ...  WHEREAS IN FACT IT IS DIRECTED
TOWARD THE MODES IN WHICH BOSTON COMMON MAY BE USED."  THAT CASE,
DIRECTLY IN POINT HERE, AND APPROVING A REGULATION OF THE RIGHT OF
SPEECH ITSELF, CERTAINLY CONTROLS THIS ONE, WHICH INVOLVES ONLY
REGULATION OF THE USE OF AMPLIFYING DEVICES, AND, AS APPLIED TO THIS
APPELLANT, FORBADE ONLY UNAUTHORIZED USE IN A PARK DEDICATED
EXCLUSIVELY TO PARK PURPOSES.  MOREOVER, THE DAVIS CASE APPROVED THE
REQUIREMENT THAT A PERMIT BE OBTAINED FROM A CITY OFFICIAL BEFORE "ANY
PUBLIC ADDRESS" COULD BE MADE "IN OR UPON ANY OF THE PUBLIC GROUNDS." 

THE DAVIS CASE WAS NOT OVERRULED IN THE CASES CITED BY THE COURT. 
AND ALL OF THOSE CASES WERE CONSIDERED AND DISTINGUISHED IN COX V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, WRITTEN BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES FOR A
UNANIMOUS COURT, AND WHICH APPROVED REGULATION AND LICENSING OF PARADES
AND PROCESSIONS IN PUBLIC STREETS EVEN FOR ADMITTEDLY RELIGIOUS
PURPOSES.    THE CASE OF HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, CANNOT PROPERLY
BE QUOTED IN THIS CONNECTION, FOR NO OPINION THEREIN WAS ADHERED TO BY
A MAJORITY OF THE COURT.  THE QUOTATION IN THE COURT'S OPINION TODAY
HAD THE SUPPORT OF ONLY TWO JUSTICES, WITH A POSSIBLE THIRD.  THE
FAILURE OF SIX OR SEVEN JUSTICES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THOSE VIEWS WOULD SEEM
TO FATALLY IMPAIR THE STANDING OF THAT QUOTATION AS AN AUTHORITY. 

FN2  NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE INTERFERES WITH FREEDOM OF RELIGION,
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY OR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  INDEED, THE EFFECT OF
SEC. 3, WHICH THE COURT SUMMARILY STRIKES DOWN AS VOID ON ITS FACE, IS
TO AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO PERMIT USE OF "RADIO DEVICES,
MECHANICAL DEVICES, OR LOUD SPEAKERS" WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER IS "NEWS
AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES," EVEN THOUGH
"THE SOUND THEREFROM IS CAST DIRECTLY UPON THE STREETS AND PUBLIC
PLACES" AND "THE SOUNDS COMING THEREFROM CAN BE HEARD TO THE ANNOYANCE
OR INCONVENIENCE OF THE TRAVELERS UPON ANY STREET OR PUBLIC PLACES OR
OF PERSONS IN NEIGHBORING PREMISES," WHICH WOULD, WITHOUT SEC. 3, BE
BARRED BY SEC. 2. 

FN3  BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586, 595. 

FN4  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 574. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. NAT. CITY LINES, 334 U.S. 573 


NO. 544.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1948.  - 7 F.R.D.
456, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A CIVIL PROCEEDING AGAINST A CORPORATION UNDER THE ANTITRUST
LAWS IS BROUGHT IN ANY FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THOSE WHEREIN SUCH
A SUIT IS AUTHORIZED TO BE BROUGHT BY SEC. 12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS
JURISDICTION BY APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  PP. 574
597. 

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT CLEARLY
ESTABLISHES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO LEAVE NO ROOM FOR JUDICIAL
DISCRETION TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS TO DEPRIVE THE
PLAINTIFF OF THE CHOICE OF FORUM GIVEN BY THE SECTION.  PP. 582-588. 

3.  IT BEING CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS TO CONFER UPON
THE PLAINTIFF IN CIVIL ANTITRUST PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CORPORATIONS THE
RIGHT OF CHOICE AMONG THE SPECIFIED VENUES, CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY
WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE JUSTIFY THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN
THE MATTER BECOME IRRELEVANT.  PP. 588-589. 

4.  THE FACT THAT, PURSUANT TO RULE 21(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS
AGAINST THE SAME CORPORATE DEFENDANTS HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER
DISTRICT FROM THAT IN WHICH THE CIVIL PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT, DOES NOT
JUSTIFY DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL PROCEEDING BY APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  PP. 593-596. 

5.  WHEN CONGRESS HAS VESTED COURTS WITH JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE CAUSES AND HAS GIVEN COMPLAINING LITIGANTS THE RIGHT OF
CHOICE AMONG THEM, INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONARY
JUDICIAL POWER TO DEFEAT THE CHOICE MADE, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS CAN HAVE NO EFFECT.  PP. 596-597. 

6.  WHETHER A STATUTE HAS CONFERRED UPON A PLAINTIFF A RIGHT OF
CHOICE OF VENUE IS TO BE DECIDED, UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE
RELEVANT MATERIALS, BY WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AND THE EFFECT
OF THE LANGUAGE USED TO ACHIEVE IT WERE TO VEST THE POWER OF CHOICE IN
THE PLAINTIFF OR TO CONFER POWER UPON THE COURTS TO QUALIFY HIS
SELECTION.  P. 597. 

UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY LINES, INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT A CIVIL PROCEEDING AGAINST CORPORATE
DEFENDANTS TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT UPON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS.  7 F.R.D. 456.  A DIRECT APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT
UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT.  REVERSED, P. 597. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN UNITED STATES V. SCOPHONY CORP., 333 U.S. 795, WE RECENTLY
CONSIDERED THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF SEC. 12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT,  FN1
PROVIDING FOR VENUE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS IN CIVIL ANTITRUST
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.  THIS CASE BRINGS BEFORE US
ANOTHER PHASE OF THE SECTION'S EFFECT IN LIKE PROCEEDINGS.  THE
PRINCIPAL QUESTION, AND THE ONLY ONE WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER,
IS WHETHER THE CHOICE OF FORUMS GIVEN TO THE PLAINTIFF BY SEC. 12 IS
SUBJECT TO QUALIFICATION BY JUDICIAL APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS. 

THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST NINE CORPORATIONS
FN2  FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  26
STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2.  THE BASIC CHARGE IS THAT THE
APPELLEES CONSPIRED TO ACQUIRE CONTROL OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
COMPANIES IN NUMEROUS CITIES LOCATED IN WIDELY DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE
UNITED STATES,  FN3  AND TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IN MOTORBUSSES, PETROLEUM SUPPLIES, TIRES AND TUBES SOLD TO THOSE
COMPANIES, CONTRARY TO THE ACT'S PROHIBITIONS N4.  INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER
RELIEF OF AN EQUITABLE NATURE WAS SOUGHT.  FN5 

THE APPELLEES FILED VARIOUS MOTIONS, INCLUDING THE ONE INVOLVED IN
THIS APPEAL.  IT SOUGHT DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WAS NOT A
CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THE TRIAL.  THIS MOTION WAS SUPPORTED BY A SHOWING
NOT ONLY OF INCONVENIENCE TO THE DEFENDANTS OF TRIAL IN THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT, BUT ALSO THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION (CHICAGO), WOULD BE THE MOST CONVENIENT
FORUM FOR THEM.  THE SHOWING WAS BY AFFIDAVITS, EXECUTED BY OFFICERS,
ATTORNEYS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS.  FN6
COUNTERAFFIDAVITS WERE FILED IN OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  FN7 

AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT FILED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TOGETHER WITH A WRITTEN OPINION, SUBSTANTIALLY
ACCEPTING APPELLEES' SHOWING AND SUSTAINING THE MOTION.  7 F.R.D. 456. 
ACCORDINGLY IT ENTERED JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, BUT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE INSTITUTION OF A SIMILAR SUIT AGAINST THE NAMED
DEFENDANTS "IN A MORE APPROPRIATE AND CONVENIENT FORUM."  THIS DECISION
IS BROUGHT TO US FOR REVIEW ON DIRECT APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE STATUTES
APPLICABLE IN SUCH CASES.  FN8 

IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN THE
BASIC SENSE OF POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CAUSE OR THAT IT HAS
VENUE WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 12.  FN9  NOR CAN IT BE QUESTIONED
THAT ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS CAN BE BROUGHT PERSONALLY WITHIN THAT
COURT'S JURISDICTION BY SERVICE OF PROCESS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF EITHER SEC. 12, OR THOSE OF SEC. 5 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
FN10  THE ONLY QUESTION PRESENTED CONCERNING THE COURT'S POWER IS
WHETHER, HAVING JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF THE CAUSE AND PERSONAL
JURISDICTION OF THE DEFENDANTS, THE COURT ALSO WAS AUTHORIZED TO
DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UPON FINDING, WITHOUT ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, THAT THE FORUM WAS NOT A CONVENIENT ONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE NON-STATUTORY DOCTRINE COMMONLY, THOUGH NOT TOO ACCURATELY, LABELED
FORUM NON CONVENIENS. 

IT WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE TO REVIEW IN DETAIL THE REASONING OR
THE AUTHORITIES UPON WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THE DOCTRINE
APPLICABLE IN SUCH CASES AS THIS, OR THEREFORE THE FURTHER GROUNDINGS
UPON WHICH IT PROCEEDED IN HOLDING THE FORUM INCONVENIENT.  FOR THE
VIEW HAS PREVAILED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION DURING THE LIFE OF SEC. 12,
THIRTY-FOUR YEARS, THAT THE CHOICE OF VENUES EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO THE
PLAINTIFF IS NOT TO BE QUALIFIED BY ANY POWER OF A COURT HAVING VENUE
UNDER ANY OF THE SECTION'S ALTERNATIVES TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE THE
JURISDICTION CONFERRED.  NONE OF THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURT RELIED SUGGESTED, MUCH LESS DECIDED, THAT SUCH A POWER EXISTS. 
THIS THEREFORE IS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, SEEKING DEPARTURE FROM
LONG-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE.  MOREOVER, THE ANALOGIES DRAWN FROM OTHER
TYPES OF CASES IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN APPLIED  FN11  CANNOT
SURVIVE IN THE FACE OF THE SECTION'S EXPLICIT TERMS AND THE PATENT
INTENT OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING IT. 

IN THE SCOPHONY CASE WE GAVE ATTENTION TO THE HISTORY OF SEC. 12,
WHICH AS THERE RELATED IS AS PERTINENT TO THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED AS
IT WAS TO THE ISSUES THEN UNDER CONSIDERATION.  FN12 REFERENCE TO THE
SCOPHONY OPINION, PART I, 333 U.S. AT 802-810, WILL AVOID THE NECESSITY
FOR REPEATING THE HISTORY HERE IN EXTENSO.  BUT ITS PRESENT
APPLICABILITY WILL BE ACCENTUATED BY RECALLING THAT WE REAFFIRMED THE
RULING IN EASTMAN CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359, NAMELY, THAT
SEC. 12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT HAD ENLARGED THE VENUE PROVISION OF SEC. 7
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, WITH THE INTENT AND EFFECT TO GIVE THE PLAINTIFF
THE RIGHT TO BRING ANTITRUST PROCEEDINGS NOT ONLY IN THE DISTRICTS
WHERE THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT "RESIDES OR IS FOUND," AS SEC. 7 HAD
AUTHORIZED, BUT ALSO "IN ANY DISTRICT WHEREIN IT  ...  TRANSACTS
BUSINESS."  FN13 

IN THE EASTMAN CASE, AS THE SCOPHONY OPINION EMPHASIZED, THE COURT
HAD REJECTED THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ADDITION OF "OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS"
WAS NO MORE THAN A REDUNDANT REFORMULATION OF "IS FOUND"; INSTEAD IT
GAVE THE ADDED WORDS BROADER AND LESS TECHNICAL MEANING THAN "IS FOUND"
HAD ACQUIRED UNDER PRIOR DECISIONS.  FN14  THIS WAS DONE, AS THE
EASTMAN OPINION STATED, BECAUSE ACCEPTING THE CONTRARY VIEW WOULD HAVE
RENDERED THE ADDITION MEANINGLESS AND DEFEATED THE PLAIN REMEDIAL
PURPOSE OF SEC. 12.  273 U.S. AT 373.  THAT SECTION, THE COURT HELD,
SUPPLEMENTED "THE REMEDIAL PROVISION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT FOR THE
REDRESS OF INJURIES RESULTING FROM ILLEGAL RESTRAINTS UPON INTERSTATE
TRADE, BY RELIEVING THE INJURED PERSON FROM THE NECESSITY OF RESORTING
FOR THE REDRESS OF WRONGS COMMITTED BY A NON-RESIDENT CORPORATION, TO A
DISTRICT, HOWEVER DISTANT, IN WHICH IT RESIDES OR MAY BE 'FOUND' -
OFTEN AN INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE - AND ENABLING HIM TO INSTITUTE THE SUIT
IN A DISTRICT, FREQUENTLY THAT OF HIS OWN RESIDENCE, IN WHICH THE
CORPORATION IN FACT TRANSACTS BUSINESS, AND BRING IT BEFORE THE COURT
BY THE SERVICE OF PROCESS IN A DISTRICT IN WHICH IT RESIDES OR MAY BE
'FOUND.'"  273 U.S. AT 373-374. 

THE SCOPHONY OPINION REAFFIRMED THIS VIEW:  "THUS, BY SUBSTITUTING
PRACTICAL, BUSINESS CONCEPTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS HAIR-SPLITTING LEGAL
TECHNICALITIES ENCRUSTED UPON THE 'FOUND'-'PRESENT'-'CARRYING-ON
BUSINESS' SEQUENCE, THE COURT YIELDED TO AND MADE EFFECTIVE CONGRESS'
REMEDIAL PURPOSE.  THEREBY IT RELIEVED PERSONS INJURED THROUGH
CORPORATE VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS FROM THE 'OFTEN INSUPERABLE
OBSTACLE' OF RESORTING TO DISTANT FORUMS FOR REDRESS OF WRONGS DONE IN
THE PLACES OF THEIR BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE.  A FOREIGN CORPORATION NO
LONGER COULD COME TO A DISTRICT, PERPETRATE THERE THE INJURIES
OUTLAWED, AND THEN BY RETREATING OR EVEN WITHOUT RETREATING TO ITS
HEADQUARTERS DEFEAT OR DELAY THE RETRIBUTION DUE."  333 U.S. AT 808. 

THESE CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE SECTION'S INTENT AND EFFECT ARE
ALTOGETHER INCONSISTENT WITH ANY IDEA THAT THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION
CAN DEFEAT THE PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE OF VENUE AS GIVEN, BY ASKING FOR AND
SECURING DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT, EITHER ON THE GROUND THAT THE VENUE
SELECTED WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMITS IS INCONVENIENT FOR THE DEFENDANT
OR THAT ANOTHER AUTHORIZED VENUE IS MORE CONVENIENT FOR IT. 

NO SUCH DISCRETIONARY POWER HAD BEEN EXERCISED BY ANY COURT DURING
THE TWENTY YEARS OF THE SHERMAN ACT'S APPLICATION PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF SEC. 12, UNDER THE NARROWER RANGE OF CHOICE AFFORDED BY
SEC. 7.  NONE HAD BEEN SUGGESTED, AND UNIFORM PRACTICE HAD ESTABLISHED
THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE WAS CONCLUSIVE, AS WAS TRUE LATER UNDER
SEC. 12 UNTIL THE DEVIATION IN THIS CASE. 

WHEN THEREFORE CONGRESS CAME TO FACE THE PROBLEM OF MAKING THE
NATION'S ANTITRUST POLICY MORE EFFECTIVE THROUGH THE CLAYTON ACT'S
PROVISIONS, THAT BODY WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH ANY PROBLEM OF ABUSE BY
PLAINTIFFS IN SELECTING VENUE FOR ANTITRUST SUITS; NOR WAS IT CONCERNED
WITH ANY QUESTION OF PROVIDING MEANS BY WHICH THE DEFENDANTS IN SUCH
SUITS MIGHT DEFEAT THE PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE TO SERVE THEIR OWN
CONVENIENCE.  CONGRESS' CONCERN WAS QUITE THE OPPOSITE.  IT WAS TO
PROVIDE BROADER AND MORE EFFECTIVE RELIEF, BOTH SUBSTANTIVELY AND
PROCEDURALLY, FOR PERSONS INJURED BY VIOLATIONS OF ITS ANTITRUST
POLICY.  FN15  INSOFAR AS CONVENIENCE IN BRINGING SUIT AND CONDUCTING
TRIAL WAS INVOLVED, THE PURPOSE WAS TO MAKE THESE LESS INCONVENIENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS OR, AS WAS SAID IN THE EASTMAN OPINION, TO REMOVE THE "OFTEN
INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE" THROWN IN THEIR WAY BY THE EXISTING VENUE
RESTRICTIONS. 

TO HAVE BROADENED THE CHOICE OF VENUE FOR THE REASONS WHICH BROUGHT
ABOUT THAT ACTION, ONLY TO HAVE IT NARROWED AGAIN BY APPLICATION OF THE
VAGUE AND DISCRETIONARY POWER  FN16  COMPREHENDED BY FORUM NON
CONVENIENS, WOULD HAVE BEEN INCONGRUOUS, TO SAY THE LEAST.  IN MAKING
THE CHANGE CONGRESS DID NOT AUTHORIZE PLAINTIFFS TO INSTITUTE CIVIL
ANTITRUST SUITS IN THE NEWLY SPECIFIED DISTRICTS, MERELY IN ORDER TO
HAVE THEM TRANSFERRED BACK FOR TRIAL TO ONE OF THE DISTRICTS
COMPREHENDED BY SEC. 7.  IT INTENDED TRIAL TO TAKE PLACE IN THE
DISTRICT SPECIFIED BY THE STATUTE AND SELECTED BY THE PLAINTIFF.  FN17 

THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED AS STRONGLY BY THE HISTORY OF THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 12 AS BY THE
FOREGOING JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTIONS.  SECTION 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT HAD
LIMITED VENUE, AS WE HAVE NOTED, TO DISTRICTS IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT
"RESIDES OR IS FOUND."  AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE, TWO
FN18  PERPETUATED THOSE PROVISIONS.  FN19  DURING DISCUSSION ON THE
FLOOR, HOWEVER, VARIOUS REPRESENTATIVES DEMANDED BROADER CHOICE OF
VENUE FOR PLAINTIFFS.  THE DEMAND RELATED TO BOTH SECTIONS, AND THE
DISCUSSION WENT FORWARD NOW WITH REFERENCE TO ONE, NOW THE OTHER, NOW
BOTH. 

THE BASIC AIM OF THE ADVOCATES OF CHANGE WAS TO GIVE THE PLAINTIFF
THE RIGHT TO BRING SUIT AND HAVE IT TRIED IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE
DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND INFLICTED THE
FORBIDDEN INJURIES.  FN20  AT FIRST THEY WERE NOT MUCH CONCERNED WITH
THE EXACT FORMULATION OF THE LANGUAGE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, SEVERAL
FORMULAS BEING PROPOSED FROM TIME TO TIME.  FN21  BUT THEY WERE
CONVINCED THAT RESTRICTING THE CHOICE OF VENUE TO DISTRICTS IN WHICH
THE DEFENDANT "RESIDES OR IS FOUND" WAS NOT ADEQUATE TO ASSURE THAT THE
SUIT COULD BE BROUGHT WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, AND THEREFORE
INSISTED ON CHANGE IN ORDER TO ASSURE THAT RESULT.  FN22 

THE COMMITTEE SPONSORING THE BILL HAD NO OBJECTION TO THIS PURPOSE;
INDEED ITS MEMBERS EXPRESSLY APPROVED IT.  FN23  BUT AT FIRST THEY
OPPOSED ANY AMENDMENT, BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE OBJECT FULLY ACHIEVED
BY THE WORDS "IS FOUND."  FN24  OVER THIS DIFFERENCE THE DISCUSSION
WENT FORWARD, AS WELL AS OVER VARIOUS FORMULATIONS OF THE PROPOSED
ADDITION.  SOME WERE BROADER THAN WAS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE PRIMARY
AIM.  FN25  INDEED SOME WERE SO BROAD THAT COMMITTEE MEMBERS THOUGHT
THEIR INCLUSION WOULD JEOPARDIZE PASSAGE OF THE ENTIRE BILL.  FN26 

TO AVOID THIS RESULT AND TO SATISFY THOSE WHO INSISTED ON AMENDMENT,
THE COMMITTEE YIELDED AND PROPOSED A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT FOR ONE OF
THOSE OFFERED FROM THE FLOOR RELATING TO SEC. 4.  THE COMMITTEE
SUBSTITUTE ADDED THE WORDS "OR HAS AN AGENT" AFTER "IS FOUND" IN THE
ORIGINAL COMMITTEE VERSION.  51 CONG. REC. 9466.  THIS AMENDMENT PASSED
THE HOUSE AND LATER THE SENATE UNCHANGED.  ID. 9467.  SECTION 4 THUS
BECAME LAW IN ITS PRESENT FORM, FOR THE LIMITED CLASS OF CASES COVERED
BY ITS TERMS.  CF. NOTE 18. 

SINCE HOWEVER THE AMENDMENT AFFECTED ONLY SEC. 4, THE PROBLEM
CONCERNING SEC. 12 REMAINED UNRESOLVED.  SUGGESTIONS THEREFORE WERE
MADE AT ONCE FOR AMENDING SEC. 12 TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY WITH SEC.
4.  ID. 9467, 9607.  ALTHOUGH OTHER PROPOSALS WERE AGAIN PUT FORWARD,
ID. 9607, THE CONFORMING AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE.  IBID. 

AFTER THE BILL PASSED THE HOUSE, IT WAS REFERRED TO THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.  THAT COMMITTEE REPORTED IT OUT WITH SEC.
12 ALTERED BY THE SUBSTITUTION OF "OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS" IN PLACE OF
"OR HAS AN AGENT," BUT LEAVING THE LATTER CLAUSE IN SEC. 4 UNTOUCHED. 
FN27  THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND THE DEBATES IN THAT BODY THROW
LITTLE LIGHT UPON THE REASONS UNDERLYING THE COMMITTEE'S ALTERATION OF
SEC. 12 AND ITS FAILURE TO ALTER SEC. 4 SO AS TO MAKE THEM UNIFORM,
EXCEPT FOR THE GENERAL STATEMENT THAT SEC. 12 AS REPORTED "CONCERNS THE
VENUE OR THE PLACE WHERE SUITS TO ENFORCE THE ANTITRUST LAWS AGAINST
CORPORATIONS MAY BE BROUGHT AND LIBERALIZES THE SHERMAN LAW TO SOME
EXTENT UPON THIS SUBJECT."  FN28  THE BILL FINALLY PASSED THE SENATE
WITH SEC. 12 SUBSTANTIALLY AS IT WAS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY,  FN29  AND WENT TO CONFERENCE IN THAT FORM.  IN CONFERENCE
THE SENATE VERSION OF SEC. 12 PREVAILED OVER THAT OF THE HOUSE, AND THE
BILL WAS SO ENACTED.  FN30    THE SHORT OUTCOME WAS THAT CONGRESS
EXPANDED THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, SEC. 7, IN TWO WAYS,
VIZ:  (1) BY ADDING TO "RESIDES OR IS FOUND," IN SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT, THE WORDS "OR HAS AN AGENT"; (2) IN SEC. 12 BY ADDING "OR
TRANSACTS BUSINESS."  THUS STRICT UNIFORMITY IN THE TWO SECTIONS' VENUE
PROVISIONS WAS NOT ACHIEVED.  BUT WHATEVER THEIR DIFFERENCES MAY BE,
EACH ADDITION WAS DESIGNED TO AID PLAINTIFFS BY GIVING THEM A WIDER
CHOICE OF VENUES, AND THEREBY TO SECURE A MORE EFFECTIVE, BECAUSE MORE
CONVENIENT, ENFORCEMENT OF ANTITRUST PROHIBITIONS. 

MOREOVER THE DISCUSSIONS IN CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY IN THE HOUSE,
DISCLOSE ON OTHER THOUGHT THAN THAT THE CHOICE OF FORUMS WAS GIVEN AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT, NOT AS ONE LIMITED BY JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  THERE WAS,
IN FACT, COMMON AGREEMENT UPON THIS AMONG BOTH THE ADVOCATES AND THE
OPPONENTS OF AMENDMENT.  FN31  NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT THE COURTS WOULD
HAVE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION
CONFERRED.  BUT SINCE IT WAS UNIVERSALLY AGREED THAT THE CHOICE OF
VENUE, TO WHATEVER EXTENT IT MIGHT BE CONFERRED, WAS TO BE GIVEN AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT, SEVERAL OF THE BROADER AMENDMENTS WERE OPPOSED AND
DEFEATED AS GOING TOO FAR.  FN32 

CONGRESS THEREFORE WAS NOT INDIFFERENT TO POSSIBILITIES OF ABUSE
INVOLVED IN THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE.  EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE WAS
TRUE.  FOR THE BROADER PROPOSALS WERE NOT REJECTED BECAUSE THEY GAVE
THE PLAINTIFF THE CHOICE.  THEY WERE REJECTED BECAUSE THE CHOICE GIVEN
WAS TOO WIDE, GIVING PLAINTIFFS THE POWER TO BRING SUIT AND FORCE TRIAL
IN DISTRICTS FAR REMOVED FROM THE PLACES WHERE THE COMPANY WAS
INCORPORATED, HAD ITS HEADQUARTERS, OR CARRIED ON ITS BUSINESS.  IN
ADOPTING SEC. 12 CONGRESS WAS NOT WILLING TO GIVE PLAINTIFFS FREE REIN
TO HAUL DEFENDANTS HITHER AND YOU AT THEIR CAPRICE.  51 CONG. REC.
9466, 9467.  BUT NEITHER WAS IT WILLING TO ALLOW DEFENDANTS TO HAMPER
OR DEFEAT EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT BY CLAIMING IMMUNITY TO SUIT IN THE
DISTRICTS WHERE BY A COURSE OF CONDUCT THEY HAD VIOLATED THE ACT WITH
THE RESULTING OUTLAWED CONSEQUENCES.  IN FRAMING SEC. 12 TO INCLUDE
THOSE DISTRICTS AT THE PLAINTIFFS' ELECTION, CONGRESS THUS HAD IN MIND
NOT ONLY THEIR CONVENIENCE BUT ALSO THE DEFENDANT COMPANY'S
INCONVENIENCE, AND FIXED THE LIMITS WITHIN WHICH EACH COULD CLAIM
ADVANTAGE IN VENUE AND BEYOND WHICH NEITHER COULD SEEK IT. MOREOVER, IN
SEC. 12, THOUGH NOT IN SEC. 4, THE RIGHT OF CHOICE CONFERRED WAS GIVEN
DESIGNEDLY TO THE GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS TO PRIVATE SUITORS.  FN33 

IN THE FACE OF THIS HISTORY WE CANNOT SAY THAT ROOM WAS LEFT FOR
JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS SO AS
TO DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF OF THE CHOICE GIVEN BY THE SECTION.  THAT
RESULT, AS OTHER COURTS HAVE CONCLUDED, WOULD BE UTTERLY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN CONFERRING THE BROADER RANGE OF
CHOICE.  TIVOLI REALTY V. INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, 167 F.2D 155; FERGUSON V.
FORD MOTOR CO., 77 F.SUPP.  425. 

IN THIS VIEW OF CONGRESS' ACTION, NUMEROUS CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY
URGED BY THE APPELLEES AS SUPPORTING THE DISCRETIONARY POWER'S
EXISTENCE AND APPLICABILITY BECOME IRRELEVANT.  CONGRESS' MANDATE
REGARDING VENUE AND THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IS BINDING UPON THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  CONST. ART. III, SEC. 2.  OUR GENERAL POWER TO
SUPERVISE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, CF.
MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, DOES NOT EXTEND TO DISREGARDING
A VALIDLY ENACTED AND APPLICABLE STATUTE OR PERMITTING DEPARTURE FROM
IT, EVEN IN SUCH MATTERS AS VENUE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPELLEES MADE A STRONG SHOWING OF INCONVENIENCE,
ALBEIT BY INTERESTED PERSONS, WHEN THAT MATTER IS CONSIDERED ON THEIR
PRESENTATION ALONE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GOVERNMENT ADVANCED STRONG
REASONS, APART FROM THE QUESTION OF POWER, FOR NOT APPLYING THE
DOCTRINE.  FN34  BUT IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF SEC. 12, WE NEED NOT
CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPELLEES' SHOWING ON THE FACTS SUFFICIENTLY
OUTWEIGHED THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO JUSTIFY DISMISSAL.  FN35 

TWO IMPORTANT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS WERE ADVANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT,
HOWEVER, WHICH NOT ONLY BEAR STRONGLY UPON THAT QUESTION BUT AFFECT THE
QUESTION OF POWER, IF CONGRESS HAD NOT CONCLUDED IT.  THE FIRST IS THAT
PERMITTING THE APPLICATION OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS TO ANTITRUST CASES
INEVITABLY WOULD LENGTHEN LITIGATION ALREADY OVEREXTENDED IN THE TIME
REQUIRED FOR ITS FINAL DISPOSITION, AND THUS WOULD VIOLATE CONGRESS'
DECLARED POLICY OF EXPEDITING THIS TYPE OF LITIGATION.  FN36 

THE ARGUMENT HAS MERIT TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION WE HAVE REACHED UPON
THE STATUTE.  ANTITRUST SUITS, EVEN WITH ALL THE EXPEDITION AFFORDED
THEM, ARE NOTORIOUSLY THOUGH OFTEN PERHAPS UNAVOIDABLY LONG DRAWN OUT. 
THE MORE COMPLEX AND IMPORTANT CASES SELDOM REQUIRE LESS THAN THREE TO
FIVE YEARS TO CONCLUDE,  FN37  EXCEPT POSSIBLY WHERE CONSENT DECREES
ARE ENTERED.  OFTEN THE TIME NECESSARY OR TAKEN IS MUCH LONGER.  TO
INJECT INTO THIS OVERLENGTHENED PROCEDURE WHAT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN
ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY TRIAL AND REVIEW UPON THE CONVENIENCE OF THE
FORUM COULD NOT BUT ADD APPROXIMATELY ANOTHER YEAR OR LONGER TO THE
TIME ESSENTIAL FOR DISPOSING OF THE CASES, INDEED FOR REACHING THE
MERITS.  FN38  ALTHOUGH SOME INSTANCES OF INCONVENIENCE TO DEFENDANTS
WILL ARISE FROM THE ABSENCE OF DISCRETIONARY POWER, THAT WILL BE
UNAVOIDABLY TRUE IN ALMOST ANY EVENT.  AND IT MAY WELL BE DOUBTED THAT
THE SUM TOTAL OF INCONVENIENCE AND INJUSTICE RESULTING WILL BE AS GREAT
AS WOULD FOLLOW, FOR BOTH PRIVATE PLAINTIFFS AND THE PUBLIC, FROM
ALLOWING THE INESCAPABLE DELAY INCIDENT TO THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A
DISCRETIONARY POWER.  FOR ONCE THE POWER WERE FOUND TO EXIST, IT IS
MORE THAN LIKELY THAT INJECTION OF THE ISSUE WOULD BECOME A COMMON
INCIDENT OF ANTITRUST SUITS, AND CREATE THE DISADVANTAGE OF DELAY FOR
ALL CONCERNED. 

THIS CONSIDERATION IS REINFORCED BY ANOTHER, NAMELY, THE DIFFICULTY
OF APPLYING THE DOCTRINE IN CASES SUCH AS THIS, IN WHICH THE VIOLATIONS
CHARGED ARE NATIONWIDE OR NEARLY SO IN SCOPE AND EFFECT, AND THE
DEFENDANTS ARE NUMEROUS COMPANIES WIDELY SCATTERED IN THE LOCATION OF
THEIR PLACES OF INCORPORATION, PRINCIPAL OFFICES, AND PLACES OF
CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND PARTICIPATING IN THE SCHEME.  IN SUCH A CASE
DISMISSAL IN ONE AUTHORIZED DISTRICT CANNOT REINSTATE OR TRANSFER THE
CAUSE TO ANOTHER.  NOR CAN THE COURT, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE
DOCTRINE, SPECIFY THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE CASE SHALL BE REINSTITUTED
AND TRIED.  IT CAN ONLY TERMINATE THE PENDING PROCEEDING, AS WAS DONE
HERE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO COMMENCEMENT OF A LIKE SUIT "IN A MORE
APPROPRIATE OR CONVENIENT FORUM," WITH WHATEVER CONSEQUENCES MAY FOLLOW
FROM HAVING TO BEGIN ALL OVER AGAIN. 

FURTHER, WHEN THAT IS DONE, THE RESULT WELL MAY BE IN SOME INSTANCES
TO HAVE THE ACTION COMMENCED AGAIN, ONLY TO PRECIPITATE THE SAME ISSUE
AND CONSEQUENT DELAY IN THE SECOND FORUM.  CONCEIVABLY THIS COULD OCCUR
FROM FORUM TO FORUM IN SUCCESSION, DEPENDING UPON THE NUMBER OF
CORPORATIONS NAMED AS DEFENDANTS AND THE VARIETY, PROXIMITY, AND DEGREE
OF CONCENTRATION OF THE LOCATIONS OF THEIR PRINCIPAL OFFICES, PLACES OF
BUSINESS, AND THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF OTHER AVAILABLE FORUMS FOR THE
VARIOUSLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS.  ACCORDINGLY, IN AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF
SUCH CASES THE PRACTICAL RESULT WELL MIGHT BE TO ESTABLISH A MERRY-GO
ROUND OF LITIGATION UPON THE ISSUE, WHICH COULD BE USED TO DEFER
INDEFINITELY CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS.  THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
A TACTIC WOULD GREATLY HAMPER THE INSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE CONCLUSION
OF ANTITRUST PROCEEDINGS.  INDEED, FOR CASES OF THIS COMPLEX TYPE, THE
UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE OUTCOME OF AN EFFORT TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE
MIGHT GO FAR TOWARD DEFEATING THE ACT'S EFFECTIVE APPLICATION TO THE
MOST SERIOUS AND WIDESPREAD OFFENSES AND OFFENDERS.  FN39 

FURTHER, EVEN IF IT IS TAKEN THAT THE APPELLEES' ACTIVITIES
CONSTITUTING THE CORE OF THE VIOLATIONS CHARGED WERE AS FULLY
CONCENTRATED IN OR NEAR THE ILLINOIS DISTRICT AS APPELLEES CLAIM, SUCH
A CONCENTRATION MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT EXIST IN OTHER LIKE PROCEEDINGS. 
AND IN THE LATTER EVENT THE PROBLEM OF SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FORUM
WELL MIGHT BECOME A HIGHLY UNCERTAIN AND DIFFICULT ONE.  FN40 

THE APPELLEES ALSO STRONGLY URGE TWO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
DESERVE MENTION.  ONE IS THAT A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST THE
APPELLEES (TOGETHER WITH SEVEN INDIVIDUALS, OFFICERS OF SOME OF THEM),
PENDING IN THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THIS CAUSE AND
GROWING OUT OF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TRANSACTIONS, HAD BEEN
TRANSFERRED TO THE ILLINOIS DISTRICT SHORTLY BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED ITS JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL.  FN41  THE TRANSFER WAS ORDERED
PURSUANT TO RULE 21(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 
FN42  THAT ACTION WAS TAKEN AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOUNDED UPON AND SUBSTANTIALLY ADOPTING
THE APPELLEES' SHOWING, WHICH WAS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THEIR
SHOWING IN THIS CASE.  CONSEQUENTLY, AS THE CASES NOW STAND, THE
CRIMINAL CAUSE IS TO BE TRIED IN THE ILLINOIS DISTRICT WHILE THIS CIVIL
SUIT FOUNDED UPON PRACTICALLY THE SAME TRANSACTIONS AND AFFECTING THE
SAME CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IS TO BE TRIED IN THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT. 

GREAT EMPHASIS IS PLACED UPON THIS AS AN IMPELLING REASON FOR HOLDING
FORUM NON CONVENIENS APPLICABLE HERE, AND THEN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL UNDER THAT DOCTRINE AND THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS.  BUT,
FOR THE REASONS ABOVE STATED, WE THINK THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BY
THE TERMS AND INTENT OF SEC. 12.  MOREOVER, IT IS AT LEAST DOUBTFUL
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAD A RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF TRANSFER
IN THE CRIMINAL CASE.  FN43  IN ANY EVENT, THE VALIDITY OF THAT ORDER
IS NOT BEFORE US.  WE THEREFORE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON EITHER OF THOSE
QUESTIONS.  BUT THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT DO SO GOES FAR TO NULLIFY THE
EFFECT OF APPELLEE'S ARGUMENT OF HARDSHIP ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER. 
FOR THAT ARGUMENT COMES DOWN, IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES, TO ONE
THAT BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT ON APPELLEES' APPLICATION HAS
TRANSFERRED THE CRIMINAL CAUSE BY A DUBIOUSLY REVIEWABLE ORDER,
PERFORCE OF THAT ACTION IT SHOULD ALSO DISMISS THIS CIVIL CAUSE AND WE
SHOULD SUSTAIN THE DISMISSAL. 

IN PRACTICAL EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF ACCEPTING SUCH AN ARGUMENT AS
GROUND FOR SUSTAINING BOTH THE POWER AND THE DISMISSAL WOULD BE TO MAKE
RULE 21(B) CONTROLLING IN CIVIL AS WELL AS CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING THE
SAME TRANSACTIONS AND PARTIES, THUS OVERRIDING SEC. 12, AND AT THE SAME
TIME DEPRIVING THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CIVIL CAUSE OF ANYTHING MORE THAN
PERFUNCTORY REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL.  FN44 

HARDLY CAN IT BE TAKEN THAT RULE 21(B) WAS INTENDED SO TO OVERRIDE
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 12, TO CONFER POWER ON THE DISTRICT COURTS TO DO
SO, OR TO NULLIFY THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM AN ORDER
DEPRIVING IT OF THE STATUTORY PRIVILEGE OF CHOOSING THE VENUE.  YET
THESE WOULD BE THE PRACTICAL RESULTS, IF THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE
COURT HAS ORDERED TRANSFER OF THE CRIMINAL CASE IS TO BE CONTROLLING OR
HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL, AS IT UNDOUBTEDLY WOULD BE IN MOST CASES, IN
APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN THE CIVIL CAUSE.  IF
MATTERS OF POLICY WERE MATERIAL, THESE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES WOULD ADD
FORCE TO THE VIEW THAT THE DOCTRINE IS NOT APPLICABLE. 

MOREOVER, IF THE TRANSFER SHOULD RESULT IN HARDSHIP TO THE APPELLEES,
FN45  INSOFAR AS THE HARDSHIP ARISES FROM THAT CAUSE IT IS ONE WHICH
WAS AVOIDABLE BY THEM AND WILL BE INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THEIR OWN
ACTION IN APPLYING FOR IT.  THAT THEY HAVE VOLUNTARILY INCURRED IT IS
NO GOOD REASON FOR DEPRIVING THE PLAINTIFF OF ITS STATUTORY RIGHT OF
CHOICE UNDER THE TERMS AND POLICY OF SEC. 12 IN THE ENTIRELY DISTINCT
CIVIL SUIT. 

FINALLY, BOTH APPELLEES AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAVE PLACED MUCH
EMPHASIS UPON THIS COURT'S RECENT DECISIONS APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND IN SOME INSTANCES EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF ITS
APPLICATION.  FN46  WHATEVER MAY BE THE SCOPE OF ITS PREVIOUS
APPLICATION OR OF ITS APPROPRIATE EXTENSION, THE DOCTRINE IS NOT A
PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL APPLICABILITY, AS THOSE DECISIONS UNIFORMLY
RECOGNIZE.  AT LEAST ONE INVARIABLE, LIMITING PRINCIPLE MAY BE STATED. 
IT IS THAT WHENEVER CONGRESS HAS VESTED COURTS WITH JURISDICTION TO
HEAR AND DETERMINE CAUSES AND HAS INVESTED COMPLAINING LITIGANTS WITH A
RIGHT OF CHOICE AMONG THEM WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXERCISE BY
THOSE COURTS OF DISCRETIONARY POWER TO DEFEAT THE CHOICE SO MADE, THE
DOCTRINE CAN HAVE NO EFFECT.  BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S.
44; MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698.  THE QUESTION
WHETHER SUCH A RIGHT HAS BEEN GIVEN IS USUALLY THE CRUX OF THE
PROBLEM.  IT IS ONE NOT TO BE ANSWERED BY SUCH INDECISIVE INQUIRIES AS
WHETHER THE VENUE OR JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE IS LABELED A "SPECIAL" OR A
"GENERAL" ONE.  NOR IS IT TO BE DETERMINED MERELY BY THE COURT'S VIEW
THAT APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE WOULD SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IN
THE PARTICULAR CASE.  IT IS RATHER TO BE DECIDED, UPON CONSIDERATION OF
ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS, BY WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AND THE
EFFECT OF THE LANGUAGE USED TO ACHIEVE IT WERE TO VEST THE POWER OF
CHOICE IN THE PLAINTIFF OR TO CONFER POWER UPON THE COURTS TO QUALIFY
HIS SELECTION.    THIS IS A CASE IN WHICH THE PERTINENT FACTORS MAKE
CLEAR THAT THE COURTS WERE GIVEN NO SUCH POWER.  ACCORDINGLY THE
JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  12.  THAT ANY SUIT, ACTION, OR PROCEEDING UNDER THE
ANTITRUST LAWS AGAINST A CORPORATION MAY BE BROUGHT NOT ONLY IN THE
JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHEREOF IT IS AN INHABITANT, BUT ALSO IN ANY DISTRICT
WHEREIN IT MAY BE FOUND OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS; AND ALL PROCESS IN SUCH
CASES MAY BE SERVED IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH IT IS AN INHABITANT, OR
WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND."  38 STAT. 736, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 22.    FN2
THESE, WITH THE STATES OF THEIR INCORPORATION AND THEIR PRINCIPAL
PLACES OF BUSINESS, ARE AS FOLLOWS:

      STATE OF       PRINCIPAL PLACE OF

          CORPORATION              INCORPORATION          BUSINESS 

NATIONAL CITY LINES, INC.         DELAWARE          CHICAGO 

AMERICAN CITY LINES, INC.                 "                   " 

PACIFIC CITY LINES, INC.                  "         OAKLAND, CALIF. 

STANDARD OIL CO. OF CALIFORNIA             "         SAN FRANCISCO 

FEDERAL ENGINEERING CORP.         CALIFORNIA                " 

PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.            DELAWARE          BARTLESVILLE,
OKLA. 

GENERAL MOTORS CORP. 

FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO.       OHIO              AKRON, OHIO 

MACK MANUFACTURING CORP.          DELAWARE          NEW YORK 

FN3  FORTY-FOUR CITIES IN SIXTEEN STATES ARE INCLUDED.  THE STATES
ARE AS WIDELY SCATTERED AS CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN,
NEBRASKA, TEXAS AND WASHINGTON.  THE LARGER LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS INCLUDE THOSE OF BALTIMORE, ST. LOUIS, SALT LAKE CITY, LOS
ANGELES AND OAKLAND.  THE LARGEST CONCENTRATIONS OF SMALLER SYSTEMS ARE
IN ILLINOIS, WITH ELEVEN CITIES; CALIFORNIA WITH NINE (EXCLUDING LOS
ANGELES); AND MICHIGAN WITH FOUR.  THE LOCAL OPERATING COMPANIES WERE
NOT NAMED AS PARTIES DEFENDANT. 

FN4  THE APPELLEE COMPANIES FALL INTO TWO GROUPS.  THE LARGEST, WHICH
MAY BE CALLED THE SUPPLIER GROUP, INCLUDES THE SIX LAST NAMED IN NOTE 2
ABOVE.  EXCEPT FEDERAL, THEY ARE ENGAGED IN PRODUCING AND DISTRIBUTING
THE COMMODITIES PURCHASED BY THE LOCAL OPERATING COMPANIES, THE SALE OF
WHICH IS CHARGED TO BE MONOPOLIZED AND RESTRAINED.  FEDERAL IS A WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF STANDARD, ENGAGED IN MANAGING INVESTMENTS FOR
STANDARD. 

THE OTHER GROUP, INCLUDING THE FIRST THREE COMPANIES LISTED IN NOTE
2, IS COLLECTIVELY CALLED CITY LINES.  NATIONAL IS A HOLDING COMPANY
WITH OPERATIONS DIRECTED FROM CHICAGO.  AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ARE ITS
SUBSIDIARIES.  THE THREE OWN, CONTROL OR HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS IN
THE OPERATING COMPANIES. 

THE COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT THE SUPPLIER APPELLEES FURNISH CAPITAL TO
CITY LINES FOR ACQUIRING CONTROL OF THE LOCAL OPERATING SYSTEMS, UPON
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT CITY LINES CAUSE ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL
SYSTEMS IN BUSSES, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, TIRES AND TUBES TO BE PURCHASED
FROM THE SUPPLIER APPELLEES AND NO OTHER SELLERS. 

FN5  THE PRAYER OF THE COMPLAINT SOUGHT COMPLETE DIVESTITURE OF THE
SUPPLIER APPELLEES' FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN CITY LINES; PARTIAL
DIVESTITURE OF CITY LINES' INTERESTS IN LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES;
VOIDING OF EXISTING CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE SUPPLIER APPELLEES AND CITY
LINES; AND AN INJUNCTION AGAINST PURCHASES FROM THOSE SUPPLIERS BY CITY
LINES OR THEIR OPERATING COMPANIES, EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A
COMPETITIVE BIDDING PLAN TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DECREE. 

FN6  IN HIGHLY ATTENUATED SUMMARY THE SHOWING WAS THAT THE
TRANSACTIONS CREATING THE CORE OF THE CHARGED CONSPIRACY TOOK PLACE
CHIEFLY IN OR NEAR CHICAGO; APPELLEES' CHIEF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE ARE LOCATED THERE; THEIR TRANSPORTATION TO LOS ANGELES AND
EXTENDED PRESENCE THERE WILL CAUSE GREAT HARDSHIP; NO DEFENDANT
"RESIDES" OR HAS ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT (CF. NOTE 2); AND TWO TRIALS IN DISTANT CITIES, SEE
TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 41, WILL GREATLY MAGNIFY THE HARDSHIP.  SEE 7 F.R.D.
456, 465. 

FN7  THE GOVERNMENT STRESSES THAT THREE OF THE FIVE SUPPLIER
DEFENDANTS TRANSACT BUSINESS AND ARE "FOUND," CF. NOTE 1, IN THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT; THE VOLUME OF SALES ALLEGEDLY RESTRAINED IS MUCH
GREATER ON THE PACIFIC COAST THAN ELSEWHERE; SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS OF
THE EVIDENCE, ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY, WILL BE PRODUCED FROM CALIFORNIA,
ETC. CF. 7 F.R.D. 456, 465. 

FN8  32 STAT. 823, 36 STAT. 1167, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29; 43 STAT. 938, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

FN9  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THREE OF THE DEFENDANTS, STANDARD, GENERAL
MOTORS, AND FIRESTONE, TRANSACT BUSINESS WITHIN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA.  THE OTHERS APPARENTLY WERE SERVED EITHER PURSUANT TO
THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF SEC. 12 OR PURSUANT TO SEC. 5 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  SEE NOTE 10 INFRA. 

FN10  "SEC 5.  WHENEVER IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COURT BEFORE WHICH ANY
PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION FOUR OF THIS ACT MAY BE PENDING, THAT THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT OTHER PARTIES SHOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE
COURT, THE COURT MAY CAUSE THEM TO BE SUMMONED, WHETHER THEY RESIDE IN
THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE COURT IS HELD OR NOT; AND SUBPOENAS TO THAT
END MAY BE SERVED IN ANY DISTRICT BY THE MARSHAL THEREOF."  26 STAT.
210, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 5.  SECTION 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT (I.E., "THIS ACT")
REFERS SPECIFICALLY TO CIVIL ACTIONS BROUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT.  CF.
EASTMAN CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359, 374. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 46 INFRA. 

FN12  IN THE SCOPHONY CASE WE WERE CONCERNED, NOT AS HERE WITH ANY
QUESTION OF DISCRETION TO DECLINE THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION, BUT IN
PRESENTLY PERTINENT PART WITH THE TESTS OF VENUE PRESCRIBED BY THE
SO AS TO ESTABLISH VENUE IN THE DISTRICT OF SUIT. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN14  SEE UNITED STATES V. SCOPHONY CORP., 333 U.S. 795, PART I AT
802-810. 

FN15  THE CLAYTON ACT HARDLY CAN BE REGARDED AS A STATUTE FOR THE
RELIEF OF CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IN ANTITRUST PROCEEDINGS FROM EITHER
PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE ABUSES.  SEE LEVY, THE CLAYTON LAW - AN
IMPERFECT SUPPLEMENT TO THE SHERMAN LAW, 3 VA. L. REV. 411. 

FN16  "WISELY, IT HAS NOT BEEN ATTEMPTED TO CATALOGUE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WILL JUSTIFY OR REQUIRE EITHER GRANT OR DENIAL OF
REMEDY.  THE DOCTRINE LEAVES MUCH TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT TO
WHICH PLAINTIFF RESORTS, AND EXPERIENCE HAS NOT SHOWN A JUDICIAL
TENDENCY TO RENOUNCE ONE'S OWN JURISDICTION SO STRONG AS TO RESULT IN
MANY ABUSES. 

"IF THE COMBINATION AND WEIGHT OF FACTORS REQUISITE TO GIVEN RESULTS
ARE DIFFICULT TO FORECAST OR STATE, THOSE TO BE CONSIDERED ARE NOT
DIFFICULT TO NAME.  AN INTEREST TO BE CONSIDERED, AND THE ONE LIKELY TO
BE MOST PRESSED, IS THE PRIVATE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT.  ...  THE
COURT WILL WEIGH RELATIVE ADVANTAGES AND OBSTACLES TO FAIR TRIAL." 
GULF OIL CORP. V. GILBERT, 330 U.S. 501, 508. 

FN17  THE EASTMAN OPINION REFERRED TO THE DISADVANTAGES SUFFERED BY
PLAINTIFFS UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT WHO WERE INJURED WHERE THEY
RESIDED OR CONDUCTED THEIR BUSINESS, ONLY TO BE FORCED TO SEEK OUT THE
WRONGDOING COMPANY IN A DISTANT FORUM TO SECURE VENUE AND SERVICE OF
PROCESS, AND THEREFORE ALSO TO TRANSPORT WITNESSES AND INCUR OTHER
DISADVANTAGES IN TRIAL.  273 U.S. 359, 373-374.  LIKEWISE THE
LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSIONS HEREINAFTER CITED UNIFORMLY TREAT THE PROBLEM
AS ONE INVOLVING BOTH INSTITUTING THE SUIT AND TRYING IT.  THERE IS NO
HINT THAT IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THE TWO PHASES OF THE LITIGATION MIGHT BE
SEPARATED AND CONDUCTED IN DIFFERENT PLACES.  SEE, E.G., NOTES 31 AND
32 INFRA. 

FN18  SECTION 12 BEGAN AS SEC. 10, BECAME SEC. 11 IN THE SENATE, AND
FINALLY SEC. 12 IN CONFERENCE.  SIMILARLY, SEC. 4 BEGAN AS SEC. 5,
CHANGED FIRST TO SEC. 3, AND FINALLY TO SEC. 4.  SECTION 4 PROVIDES FOR
RECOVERY OF TREBLE DAMAGES IN PRIVATE ANTITRUST PROCEEDINGS AND ITS
VENUE PROVISIONS APPLY IN TERMS ONLY TO SUCH SUITS.  SECTION 12 APPLIES
TO "ANY SUIT, ACTION, OR PROCEEDING UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS AGAINST A
CORPORATION."  THIS LITERALLY IS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THE SUITS
COMPREHENDED BY SEC. 4. 

FN19  THE ORIGINAL WORDING OF THE TWO SECTIONS IN RESPECT TO VENUE
WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BUT THE SUBSTANCE WAS IDENTICAL, BOTH FOLLOWING
THE PREEXISTING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

FN20  E.G., REPRESENTATIVE DICKINSON URGED THAT THE LANGUAGE "BE
EXTENDED SUFFICIENTLY TO REACH EVERY CONTINGENCY, SO THAT THESE
CONCERNS MAY BE SUED IN THAT JURISDICTION WHERE THEY COMMIT THE WRONG,
WHERE THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF MAY BE COMMITTED, WHERE THE OFFICERS,
AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES, ACTING FOR THEIR MASTER CORPORATION, MAY BE FOUND
SETTING ASIDE THE LAW, AND WHERE THE WITNESSES ARE EASILY OBTAINABLE
...  "  51 CONG. REC. 9190.  LATER HE STATED THAT HE WANTED TO "GIVE
THE WIDEST LIBERTY OF BRINGING SUITS WHERE THE DAMAGE IS DONE AND WHERE
THE ACTION AROSE."  51 CONG. REC. 9417. 

REPRESENTATIVE SUMNERS SPOKE TO THE SAME EFFECT:  "MR. CHAIRMAN, I
BELIEVE THIS MATTER OF VENUE IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CONNECTED
WITH THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF ANTITRUST LEGISLATION.  ...  THE PHILOSOPHY
OF LEGISLATION WITH REGARD TO THIS SUBJECT SHOULD GIVE THE VENUE AT THE
PLACE WHEREIN THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES."  ID. 9467.  SEE ALSO ID.
9414, 9415, 9608. 

FN21  "WHY NOT AT THE END OF THE SECTION, AFTER THE WORD 'FOUND,' ADD
OTHER WORDS, SUCH AS 'DOING BUSINESS, OR VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS LAW, OR WHEREVER IT MAY DO BUSINESS OR WHERE ITS AGENTS, OFFICERS,
OR EMPLOYEES MAY BE FOUND,' OR OTHER APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE.  A DOZEN
SUGGESTIONS MAY BE MADE IN THE WAY OF AMENDMENT."  ID. 9190.  SEE ALSO
ID. 9414-9417, 9466, 9607, 9663, 9682. 

FN22  "MR. SCOTT.  WHAT IS THE GENTLEMAN'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD
'FOUND'; WHAT IS ITS IMPORT AS USED IN THIS SECTION? 

"MR. DICKINSON.  I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS SOME DECISION BY SOME
COURT THAT I AM NOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT MAY POSSIBLE COVER THE VERY
THOUGHT SUGGESTED BY MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT
MEETS THE SITUATION, AND IF THERE BE ANY DOUBT ABOUT IT, IN ORDER THAT
THE GOVERNMENT MAY PROSECUTE SUCCESSFULLY AND INSTITUTE SUITS AND
ACTIONS AND HAVE TRIALS THE LANGUAGE OUGHT TO BE CLEAR AND DEFINITE,
AND SO PLAIN THAT HE WHO RUNS MAY READ, SO THAT THERE CAN NOT BE TWO
CONSTRUCTIONS."  ID. 9415. 

"MR. CULLOP.  MAY I SUGGEST  ...  THAT EVERY SUIT WHICH HAS ARISEN
UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW HAS BEEN BROUGHT AT THE HOME OF THE
CORPORATION ITSELF, OR AT ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, AND
THEREFORE THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO CONSTRUE THIS LANGUAGE, 'IS FOUND,'
WHICH IS AMBIGUOUS AND UNCERTAIN.  IF YOU ARE TO CONSTRUE 'IS FOUND,'
YOU WILL HAVE TO CONSTRUE THAT AS THE PLACE OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE
CORPORATION, BECAUSE IT IS NOT MIGRATORY.  YOU CAN NOT GET SERVICE UPON
SOME PERSON TRAVELING THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND HOLD YOUR JURISDICTION
THROUGHOUT THAT TERRITORY. 

"MR. CARLIN.  WHY SHOULD NOT THE SUIT BE BROUGHT IN THE HABITAT OF
THE CORPORATION?  WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL SO FAR IN THAT MATTER. 

"MR. CULLOP.  IN THIS CASE FOR THE VERY BEST REASON, I THINK.  THE
GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA (MR. CARLIN) NOW HAS DISCLOSED THE PURPOSE OF
THIS LANGUAGE, AND THAT IS WHY I AM COMBATING IT, AND FOR THE BEST OF
REASONS, I THINK.  I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA COME
TO TRENTON, N.J., TO BRING A SUIT FOR VIOLATION OF THIS LAW, BUT I WANT
HIM TO SUE AT HOME IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION
AROSE."  ID. 9416.  SEE ALSO ID. 9466-9467, 9607-9608, 9663-9664. 

FN23  E.G., REPRESENTATIVE FLOYD STATED THAT THE PROVISIONS WERE
DESIGNED "TO GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE WIDEST POSSIBLE SCOPE IN GETTING
SERVICE IN THESE CASES, AND THE PROVISION IS RIGHT AS IT IS WRITTEN AND
OUGHT NOT TO BE CHANGED."  ID. 9416. 

FN24  "MR. FLOYD.  ...  THE VERY BROADEST LANGUAGE THAT CAN BE USED
IN A STATUTE OF THIS KIND CONFERRING JURISDICTION IS TO GIVE THE
JURISDICTION WHERE THE CORPORATION RESIDES OR IS FOUND."  ID. 9415. 
AND "I THINK THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO SERVICE PROPERLY DRAFTED AS
THEY APPEAR IN THE BILL, AND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND OTHERS
SUGGESTED IN THE DEBATE WOULD NARROW THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS AS
DRAWN."  ID. 9417.  AND SEE ID. 9608. 

FN25  SEE, E.G., REPRESENTATIVE CULLOP'S SUGGESTION TO CONFER
JURISDICTION ON STATE COURTS WITHOUT A RIGHT OF REMOVAL TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  ID. 9662-9664. 

FN26  IN OPPOSING THE SUGGESTION TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE STATE
COURTS, REPRESENTATIVE FLOYD ARGUED, INTER ALIA, THAT "ANY FRIEND OF
THIS LEGISLATION, AS I AM SURE THE GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA
(REPRESENTATIVE CULLOP) IS, OUGHT NOT TO AID THOSE WHO ARE FIGHTING
THIS LEGISLATION - THE TRUSTS AND THE COMBINES OF THIS COUNTRY - BY
LOADING IT DOWN WITH QUESTIONABLE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL TEND TO DEFEAT
IT AND DESTROY IT IN THE END."  ID. 9663. 

FN27  IN PLACE OF THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 12 OF "OR HAS AN
AGENT," THE SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTED THIS LANGUAGE:  "OR TRANSACTS
ANY BUSINESS; AND ALL PROCESS IN SUCH CASES MAY BE SERVED IN THE
DISTRICT OF WHICH IT IS AN INHABITANT, OR WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND." 
SEN. REP. NO. 698, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 73. 

FN28  51 CONG. REC. 14214.  SEE ID. 14596, 15943, 16048-16052. 

FN29  AN AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR STOCKHOLDER SUITS AGAINST OFFICERS
OF A CORPORATION VIOLATING THE ANTITRUST LAWS WAS ADDED BY THE SENATE
BUT DELETED IN CONFERENCE.  SEE THE REFERENCES CITED IN NOTE 28. 

FN30  SEN. DOC. NO. 583, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 9.  SEN. DOC. NO. 584,
63D CONG., 2D SESS. 18. 

FN31  SEE NOTES 25, 26.  THE FOLLOWING ARE EXAMPLES OF THE DISCUSSION
ON THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE:  "MR. DICKINSON.  ...  I DO NOT ASK
TO STRIKE OUT ANY LANGUAGE OF THE COMMITTEE, BUT SIMPLY TO ADD TO IT,
TO MAKE CLEAR AND DEFINITE AND CERTAIN SO THAT ANY PERSON AND ANY
CORPORATION MAY BE SUED NOT ONLY WHERE IT HAS ITS RESIDENCE AS A
CORPORATION OR INDIVIDUAL, BUT THAT IT CAN BE SUED WHEREVER IT IS FOUND
DOING BUSINESS AND THE CAUSE OF ACTION MAY ARISE.    "MR. STEPHENS OF
TEXAS.  ...  I THOROUGHLY AGREE  ...  "  51 CONG. REC. 9414. 

"I WILL SAY TO MY FRIEND FROM WISCONSIN (MR. STAFFORD) THAT WE ARE
LIBERALIZING THE PROCEDURE IN THE COURTS IN ORDER TO GIVE THE
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DAMAGED THE RIGHT TO GET HIS DAMAGES ANYWHERE -
ANYWHERE YOU CAN CATCH THE OFFENDER, AS IS SUGGESTED BY A FRIEND
SITTING NEAR BY."  THE QUOTED LANGUAGE IS THAT OF REPRESENTATIVE WEBB. 
51 CONG. REC. 16274.  SEE ID. 9467, 9607; ALSO NOTE 32.    FN32  MR.
SCOTT.  I COULD NOT CONCEIVE THAT ANYTHING WOULD DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF
OF HIS RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE PLACE OF TRIAL IF HE SO DESIRED, EITHER IN
THE DISTRICT WHERE FOUND OR WHERE THE CORPORATION RESIDES."  ID. 9417. 

"MR. SCOTT.  ...  THE AMENDMENT ENLARGES THE PRESENT INTERPRETATION
OF THE WORD 'FOUND' AS APPLIED TO THE CORPORATE JURISDICTION, AND
PERMITS SUIT TO BE BROUGHT, WITH ABSOLUTE DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE
PLAINTIFF, IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE AN AGENT,
WITHOUT DEFINING THE CHARACTER OF THAT AGENT."  ID. 9467. 

FN33  REPRESENTATIVE FLOYD REMARKED THAT THE COMMITTEE "LANGUAGE WAS
USED TO MAKE THIS SECTION CONFORM TO THE EXISTING LAW AND ENABLE HIM
(THE ATTORNEY GENERAL) TO HAVE GREATER LIBERTY IN BRINGING THESE
SUITS."  ID. 9415.  AND SEE NOTE 23 SUPRA. 

FN34  SEE NOTES 6 AND 7. 

FN35 IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT "THE MERE BALANCE OF
CONVENIENCE" IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  THIS HAS BEEN
TRUE SINCE THE EARLIEST SCOTTISH AND ENGLISH CASES APPLYING THE
DOCTRINE, ALTHOUGH THE TEST HAS BEEN VARIOUSLY FORMULATED.  FOR
EXAMPLE, DISMISSAL HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED IF SUIT IS "VEXATIOUS AND
OPPRESSIVE AND AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF THE COURT," OR "ONLY BROUGHT
TO ANNOY THE DEFENDANT."  SEE BRAUCHER, THE INCONVENIENT FEDERAL FORUM,
60 HARV. L. REV. 908, 909-911.  CF. ALSO NOTE 16 SUPRA. 

FN36  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT THE TRIAL OF THESE ACTIONS MAY, UPON
REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, "BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER OTHERS AND
IN EVERY WAY EXPEDITED, AND BE ASSIGNED FOR HEARING AT THE EARLIEST
PRACTICABLE DAY  ...  "  32 STAT. 823, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 28.  THE POLICY
OF EXPEDITING FINAL DECISION OF THESE CASES IS FURTHER IMPLEMENTED BY
AUTHORIZING DIRECT APPEALS TO THIS COURT.  32 STAT. 823, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
29. 

FN37  SEE, E.G., SCHINE THEATRES V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 110;
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100, WHICH WERE INSTITUTED IN 1939
AND HAVE RECENTLY BEEN REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL
COURTS.  AND THE EASTMAN CASE, 273 U.S. 359, THOUGH BEGUN IN 1915, WAS
NOT DECIDED BY THIS COURT UNTIL 1927. 

FN38  IN THIS CASE, ALTHOUGH THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE ADVANCED WITHOUT
UNWARRANTED DELAY AT ANY ONE STAGE, MORE THAN A YEAR HAS BEEN CONSUMED
SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED
ON APRIL 10, 1947.  MOTIONS TO DISMISS, SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS TO SHOW
INCONVENIENCE, WERE FILED IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER.  THE TRIAL COURT
MADE FINDINGS AND ENTERED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ON OCTOBER 15 AND
ALLOWED AN APPEAL ON DECEMBER 3.  THE GOVERNMENT FILED ITS STATEMENT AS
TO JURISDICTION IN THIS COURT ON JANUARY 20, 1948; WE NOTED PROBABLE
JURISDICTION ON FEBRUARY 9, HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT ON APRIL 28, AND TODAY
WE RESOLVE THE ISSUE.  BUT FOR THE INTERVENTION OF THE MOTIONS, THE
CONSEQUENT DISMISSAL AND APPEAL, THE CASE WITH APPROPRIATE EXPEDITION
MIGHT NOW BE WELL ON THE WAY TO FINAL DECISION ON THE MERITS. 

FN39  IN THIS CASE THESE POSSIBILITIES HAVE BEEN DISCOUNTED, LARGELY
UPON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLEES HAD JOINED IN STIPULATING THAT ALL
REGARDED THE ILLINOIS FORUM "AS THE PROPER FORUM FOR THE ABOVE ACTION"
AND THAT, IN CASE OF DISMISSAL IN THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT AND FILING OF
A LIKE SUIT IN THE ILLINOIS DISTRICT, THE DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT MOVE FOR
DISMISSAL OF THE NEW SUIT ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  THE
STIPULATION PERHAPS WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN THIS CASE TO AVOID THE
COMPLEXITIES OF REPEATED MOTIONS IF SUIT WERE REINSTITUTED IN CHICAGO,
BUT NOT IF THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SELECT ANY OF THE OTHER VENUES OPEN TO
IT UNDER SEC. 12. 

IN ANY EVENT, THE STIPULATION IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO ANY QUESTION OF
THE GENERAL EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE'S APPLICABILITY UPON ANTITRUST
PROCEEDINGS.  FOR ONCE THAT WERE ESTABLISHED, NO DEFENDANT OR GROUP OF
DEFENDANTS IN SUBSEQUENT CASES WOULD BE BOUND, OR PERHAPS LIKELY, TO
EXECUTE SUCH A STIPULATION. 

FN40  AS THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT, IN PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE MORE
COMPLEX TYPES OF ANTITRUST PROCEEDINGS, THE PRINCIPAL DEFENDANTS ARE
CORPORATIONS DOING A MULTISTATE BUSINESS, AND THE COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY CHARGED SELDOM HAS A DEFINED LOCUS.  IN SUCH SITUATIONS, IT
IS GENERALLY TRUE THAT, WHATEVER THE FORUM CHOSEN BY THE PLAINTIFF, IT
WILL BE INCONVENIENT FOR SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS AND OFTEN FOR MOST OF
THEM.  WHEN THERE IS SUCH DIFFUSION OF POSSIBLE VENUE, THAT FACT OF
COURSE WOULD BE BASIS FOR DECLINING TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS, EVEN IF APPLICABLE.  IT IS ALSO REASON FOR DECLINING TO
ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT THE DOCTRINE WAS INTENDED TO BE APPLICABLE. 

THUS, IN THIS CASE, ALL BUT TWO OF THE APPELLEES WERE INCORPORATED
AND HENCE "RESIDE" IN DELAWARE.  NONE ARE INCORPORATED IN ILLINOIS, AND
ONLY TWO HAVE THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACES OF BUSINESS OR HEADQUARTERS IN
CHICAGO.  THE INVARIABLE PRACTICE FOR FIFTY-FOUR YEARS, FIRST UNDER
SEC. 7, THEN UNDER SEC. 12, HAS BEEN THAT SUIT MAY BE MAINTAINED AND
TRIAL HAD AT THE PLAINTIFF'S ELECTION WHERE THE CORPORATION "RESIDES"
OR WHERE IT "IS FOUND."  BUT IF THIS SUIT HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN DELAWARE
OR AT ANY OF THE PRINCIPAL PLACES OF BUSINESS EXCEPT CHICAGO, UNDER THE
APPLICATION OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS MADE HERE THE TRIAL COULD NOT HAVE
PROCEEDED IN ANY OF THOSE OTHER PLACES.  CF. TIVOLI REALTY V.
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, 167 F.2D 155.  THE STATUTE, SEC. 12, DOES NOT
REQUIRE TRIAL TO BE HAD WHERE THE AGREEMENT IN CONSPIRACY TAKES PLACE. 
LOCUS OF COMING TO AGREEMENT IS NOT THE GIST OF THE OFFENSES
PROSCRIBED. 

FN41 THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED ON APRIL 9, 1947; ON AUGUST 14,
1947, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER THE CAUSE WAS GRANTED.  THE CIVIL
COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON APRIL 10, 1947, AND DISMISSED ON OCTOBER 15,
1947. 

FN42  RULE 21(B) PROVIDES:  "OFFENSE COMMITTED IN TWO OR MORE
DISTRICTS OR DIVISIONS.  THE COURT UPON MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT SHALL
TRANSFER THE PROCEEDING AS TO HIM TO ANOTHER DISTRICT OR DIVISION, IF
IT APPEARS FROM THE INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION OR FROM A BILL OF
PARTICULARS THAT THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED IN MORE THAN ONE DISTRICT OR
DIVISION AND IF THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
THE PROCEEDING SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER DISTRICT OR DIVISION IN
WHICH THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE IS CHARGED."  CF. NOTE 43 AND
TEXT.  IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS THERE RESERVED, WE EXPRESS NO
OPINION ON WHETHER RULE 21(B) APPLIES TO CRIMINAL ANTITRUST
PROSECUTIONS. 

THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BECAME EFFECTIVE MARCH 21,
1946.  IT WOULD BE STRETCHING VERY FAR THE IDEA OF UTILIZING
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IF CRIMINAL RULES ADOPTED TWENTY-TWO YEARS AFTER A
CIVIL STATUTE WAS ENACTED WERE GIVEN ANY SIGNIFICANCE UPON THE MEANING
OR EFFECT OF THE STATUTE. 

FN43  THE PRECISE POINT APPARENTLY HAS NOT ARISEN SINCE THE ADOPTION
OF RULE 21(B), BUT THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO STATUTORY BASIS FOR APPEAL
FROM AN ORDER OF THIS TYPE.  SEE 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682.  SEE ALSO SEMEL V.
UNITED STATES, 158 F.2D 231, 232. 

FN44  ALL THAT DEFENDANTS WOULD HAVE TO DO, IN ANY PRACTICAL SENSE,
IN ORDER TO SECURE DISMISSAL, WOULD BE TO CONVINCE THE DISTRICT COURT
THAT TRANSFER OF THE CRIMINAL CAUSE SHOULD BE MADE, AND THEN
DEMONSTRATE THE SELF-EVIDENT FACT THAT TRIAL OF THE TWO CAUSES IN
DIFFERENT DISTRICTS WOULD BE INCONVENIENT. 

FN45  IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THIS CIVIL CASE, THERE WOULD BE
NOTHING TO PREVENT APPELLEES FROM MAKING A MOTION UNDER RULE 21(B) OF
THE CRIMINAL RULES TO HAVE THE CRIMINAL CAUSE RETRANSFERRED TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, IF IN THE CHANGED OUTLOOK ARISING FROM
THIS DECISION THAT SHOULD BE THEIR PLEASURE. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES FURTHER THAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THERE IS
LITTLE LIKELIHOOD THAT APPELLEES WILL BE FORCED TO DEFEND BOTH
ACTIONS.  FOR ITS DISTINCTLY FOOTNOTE VALUE WE QUOTE FROM ITS BRIEF: 

"WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVES THAT THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, IT SOMETIMES SEEKS CORRECTIVE RELIEF BY WAY OF A CIVIL
SUIT FILED AFTER, OR SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH, THE RETURN OF A CRIMINAL
INDICTMENT, BUT WHEN COMPANION PROCEEDINGS ARE THUS INSTITUTED IT IS
ONLY RARELY THAT BOTH ARE ULTIMATELY BROUGHT TO TRIAL.  IF IT IS HELD
ON THE PRESENT APPEAL THAT DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL COMPLAINT WAS
ERRONEOUS, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT SEEK TO BRING THE CRIMINAL AND THE
CIVIL CASES TO TRIAL SIMULTANEOUSLY AND, IN ANY EVENT, IT IS HIGHLY
UNLIKELY THAT IT WILL BE FOUND NECESSARY TO BRING BOTH CASES TO TRIAL. 

"IF THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINS A DECREE IN A CIVIL SUIT, THE DEFENDANTS
IN A RELATED CRIMINAL CASE USUALLY FILE PLEAS OF NOLO CONTENDERE.  IF
THE CRIMINAL CASE IS TRIED FIRST AND VERDICTS OF GUILTY ARE RETURNED,
THERE IS NOTHING LEFT FOR TRIAL IN THE CIVIL CASE EXCEPT THE QUESTION
OF RELIEF (LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 298-299), AND THE
PARTIES ARE CUSTOMARILY ABLE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT ON THIS QUESTION AND
DISPOSE OF THE CIVIL CASE BY THE ENTRY OF A CONSENT DECREE." 

FN46  GULF OIL CORP. V. GILBERT, 330 U.S. 501; KOSTER V. LUMBERMENS
MUTUAL CO., 330 U.S. 518.  SEE ALSO BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER,
314 U.S. 44; MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698; WILLIAMS
V. GREEN BAY & W.R. CO., 326 U.S. 549. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BUT ARRIVE AT IT BY A
SHORTER AND DIFFERENT ROUTE. 

WE HAVE JUST HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW AND TO DECIDE, BY A DIVIDED COURT,
CASES INVOLVING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  GULF OIL CORP.
V. GILBERT, 330 U.S. 501; KOSTER V. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., 330
U.S. 518.  WE THERE HELD THAT, IN CASES WHERE THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN
COURT IN AN ORDINARY CIVIL SUIT ONLY BY REASON OF THE VENUE STATUTES
THAT APPLY GENERALLY, THE COURT COULD EXERCISE DISCRETION IN DISMISSING
COMPLAINTS TO PREVENT IMPOSITION ON ITS JURISDICTION IF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE SHOWED AN ABUSE OF THE OPTION
VESTED IN PLAINTIFF BY THE GENERAL VENUE STATUTES.  BUT WE ALSO POINTED
OUT THAT, WHERE THE CHOICE OF FORUM WAS AUTHORIZED BY A SPECIAL VENUE
STATUTE, THIS DISCRETION TO DISMISS WOULD NOT BE IMPLIED.  THE
DISTINCTIONS THERE MADE BETWEEN GENERAL AND SPECIAL VENUE STATUTES MAY
HAVE BEEN OVERLY SIMPLE FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE DIALECTICIAN.  BUT AS
WORKING TOOLS OF EVERYDAY CRAFTSMEN THEY DO SERVE TO POINT OUT A
DIFFERENCE THAT I THINK GOVERNS HERE. 

CONGRESS MADE SOME RATHER UNUSUAL PROVISIONS AS TO VENUE IN ANTITRUST
CASES.  HAD IT STOPPED THERE, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PERMISSIBLE FOR THE
COURTS TO DEVISE THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS TO PREVENT ABUSE OF THEIR
PROCESS.  BUT CONGRESS DID NOT STOP THERE.  NOT ONLY ONCE BUT THREE
TIMES IT HAS ENACTED ALMOST IDENTICAL PROVISIONS WHICH CHECK ANY ABUSE
OR OPPRESSION FROM COMPELLING DEFENDANTS TO DEFEND IN PLACES REMOTE
FROM THEIR HABITAT.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 5(1890), 15 U.S.C. SEC. 10(1894),
15 U.S.C. SEC. 25(1914). 

THE SCHEME OF THE STATUTES, AS I SEE IT, IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
MAY LAY THE VENUE IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE HE MAY PROPERLY SERVE ONE OR
MORE OF HIS DEFENDANTS.  HE MAY GO AHEAD WITH HIS ACTION AGAINST THEM,
WHETHER HE IS ALLOWED TO BRING IN OTHERS OR NOT.  BEFORE HE CAN BRING
IN OTHER PARTIES THAN THOSE PROPERLY SERVED IN THE DISTRICT, I.E.,
THOSE "INHABITANT," "TRANSACTING BUSINESS," OR "FOUND" THERE, IT MUST
BE MADE TO APPEAR TO THE COURT THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT
THEY BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT, IN WHICH CASE THEY MAY BE SUMMONED
FROM ANY DISTRICT. 

CONGRESS HAS HERE PROVIDED A PRACTICE BY WHICH ANY DEFENDANT, WHO HAS
NOT SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO SUIT IN THE DISTRICT, MAY OBTAIN THE SAME
PROTECTIONS WHICH THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE WOULD AFFORD. 

IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENDANTS, WHO MIGHT BE ENTITLED TO URGE THE
DOCTRINE, HAVE NOT RESISTED OR CONTESTED THE ORDER BRINGING THEM INTO
THE SUIT.  IT WAS BY SO DOING THAT THEY COULD HAVE SHOWN THAT THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE WOULD NOT BE SERVED BY SUCH ACTION.  INSTEAD, THEY DESIRE TO
SUBMIT TO BEING BROUGHT IN AND THEN USE THEIR POSITION TO THROW THE
WHOLE CASE OUT.  THIS, I THINK, CANNOT BE DONE. 

THE SPECIAL PROVISION CONGRESS HAS MADE, BOTH TO ESTABLISH VENUE AND
TO PROTECT AGAINST ITS ABUSE, WHETHER THE EXACT EQUIVALENT OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS OR NOT, SEEMS TO ME TO PRECLUDE ITS APPLICATION BY THE
COURTS TO THIS CLASS OF CASES. 

FOR THIS REASON I CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THIS IS AN EQUITY SUIT FOR VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN
LAW BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.  THE SAME DEFENDANTS WERE INDICTED IN THE SAME
COURT FOR THE SAME TRANSACTIONS UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS OF THE
SHERMAN LAW.  THAT COURT TRANSFERRED THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FROM THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS BECAUSE IT WAS "IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE" TO
ORDER THE TRANSFER.  IN DOING SO, THE COURT BELOW WAS OBEDIENT TO RULE
21(B)  FN1  OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, FORMULATED BY
THIS COURT AND HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW.  327 U.S. 823 ET SEQ. WITH
CONVINCING PARTICULARITY THE DISTRICT COURT SET FORTH ITS REASONS FOR
MAKING THIS TRANSFER.  FN2  AFTER THE TRANSFER OF THE CRIMINAL CASE,
THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION NOW BEFORE US, DISMISSING THE EQUITY SUIT
"IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, JUST AS THE SAME FACTS IN THE COMPANION
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION REQUIRED ITS TRANSFER TO ANOTHER DISTRICT."  7
F.R.D. 456, 465.    IS IT NOT INCONGRUOUS THAT THAT WHICH "THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE" DEMANDED IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS BEYOND THE POWER OF
A COURT IN A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE SAME DEFENDANTS ON THE SAME
TRANSACTIONS?  FN3 

OF COURSE CONGRESS MAY LEAVE NO CHOICE TO A COURT TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT
EVEN THOUGH IT IS VEXATIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO CHOOSE
THE PARTICULAR DISTRICT IN WHICH HE PURSUES HIS CLAIM.  BUT SUCH
LIMITATION UPON THE POWER OF COURTS TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE OUGHT NOT TO
BE LIGHTLY DRAWN FROM LANGUAGE MERELY CONFERRING JURISDICTION.  THE
MANNER IN WHICH JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS ARE APPROPRIATELY TO BE READ
IS ILLUSTRATED BY OUR DECISION IN MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, 308 U.S.
1, WHERE THIS COURT RECOGNIZED "CONSIDERATIONS OF CONVENIENCE,
EFFICIENCY AND JUSTICE" EVEN WHEN A STATE INVOKED THE COURT'S ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION IN WHAT WAS CONCEDEDLY A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  308
U.S. AT 19.  I DO NOT FIND IN THE SCHEME OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS AND OF
THEIR RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THE DUTY TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION SO
IMPERATIVE AS TO PRECLUDE JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN
A SUIT WHERE "THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE" COMMANDS IT. 

DEFENDANTS IN AN ANTI-TRUST SUIT MAY NO DOUBT ATTEMPT TO RESORT TO
DELAYING TACTICS BY MOTIONS CLAIMING UNFAIRNESS OF A PARTICULAR FORUM. 
NEITHER MUST WE BE INDIFFERENT TO THE POTENTIALITIES OF UNFAIRNESS IN
GIVING THE GOVERNMENT A WHOLLY FREE HAND IN SELECTING ITS FORUM SO LONG
AS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF VENUE ARE MET.  SEE, E.G., THE RAILWAY
SHOPMEN'S STRIKE CASE (UNITED STATES V. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES), 283 F.
479.  ALL PARTIES TO A LITIGATION TEND TO BECOME PARTISANS, AND
CONFIDENCE IN THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE HAD BETTER BE RESTED
ON EXACTING STANDARDS IN THE QUALITY OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.  FEDERAL
JUDGES OUGHT TO BE OF A CALIBRE TO BE ABLE TO THWART OBSTRUCTIVE
TACTICS BY DEFENDANTS AND NOT BE DENIED ALL POWER TO CHECK ATTEMPTED
UNFAIRNESS BY A TOO ZEALOUS GOVERNMENT. 

I FIND NOTHING IN THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS COMPARABLE TO THE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED THIS COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WERE DESIGNED TO GIVE RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN BRINGING SUITS UNDER THAT ACT.  SEE,
ESPECIALLY, CONCURRING OPINION IN MILES V. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO., 315
U.S. 698, 705. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE
MOTION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT ENTERED THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1 "THE COURT UPON MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT SHALL TRANSFER THE
PROCEEDING AS TO HIM TO ANOTHER DISTRICT OR DIVISION, IF IT APPEARS
FROM THE INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION OR FROM A BILL OF PARTICULARS THAT
THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED IN MORE THAN ONE DISTRICT OR DIVISION AND IF
THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE PROCEEDING
SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER DISTRICT OR DIVISION IN WHICH THE
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE IS CHARGED." 

FN2  "I DO NOT QUESTION THE MOTIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN INSTITUTING
THE PROSECUTION IN THIS DISTRICT. 

"BUT I AM SATISFIED THAT A TRIAL HERE WOULD IMPOSE UNNECESSARY
HARDSHIPS ON THE DEFENDANTS AND ENTAIL UNJUSTIFIABLE EXPENSE WHICH IT
IS THE OBJECT OF THE NEW RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AND ESPECIALLY OF
THE RULE UNDER DISCUSSION, TO AVOID.  ALTOGETHER THE FACTS SPELL OUT
THE VEXATIOUSNESS AND OPPRESSIVENESS WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS WARNED
US TO ESCHEW IN MATTERS OF THIS CHARACTER."  7 F.R.D. 393, 402-403. 

FN3  CF. L. HAND, J., IN UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA,
148 F.2D 416, 429:  "IN UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, 61 S.
CT. 463, 85 L. ED. 788, A LATER STATUTE IN PARI MATERIA WAS CONSIDERED
TO THROW A CROSS LIGHT UPON THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS, ILLUMINATING ENOUGH
EVEN TO OVERRIDE AN EARLIER RULING OF THE COURT." 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS THIS DISSENT. 
..END :














PATERNO V. LYONS, 334 U.S. 314 


NO. 583.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1948.  - 297 N.Y.
617, 75 N.E.2D 630, AFFIRMED. 


INDICTED IN A NEW YORK STATE COURT FOR RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY,
PETITIONER WAS PERMITTED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY
SECOND DEGREE, A LESSER OFFENSE NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  HE
FAILED TO AVAIL HIMSELF, WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED, OF STATE LAW
REMEDIES FOR CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE CONVICTION UNDER STATE
LAW.  LATER HE WAS CONVICTED FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE AND SENTENCED AS A
SECOND OFFENDER.  THEREAFTER HE ATTACKED THE VALIDITY OF THE FIRST
CONVICTION UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF A JUDGMENT
DENYING RELIEF, HELD: 

1.  THE DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE THAT ACCEPTANCE OF
THE PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE LESSER OFFENSE DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF
HIS RIGHT UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BE PROSECUTED FOR AN INFAMOUS
CRIME ONLY UPON A GRAND JURY INDICTMENT WAS BINDING HERE.  PP. 318
319. 

2.  THE REMEDIES PROVIDED BY STATE LAW FOR CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY
OF THE CONVICTION UNDER STATE LAW (VIZ., MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA OF
GUILTY, MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT, OR DIRECT APPEAL) WERE ADEQUATE
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AT LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT
PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY EFFECTIVELY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
SUCH REMEDIES.  P. 319. 

3.  IN VIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TWO OFFENSES UNDER THE STATE
STATUTES, THE INDICTMENT CHARGING ONLY RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY
AFFORDED PETITIONER REASONABLE NOTICE AND INFORMATION OF THE LESSER
OFFENSE TO WHICH HE PLEADED GUILTY; AND HE WAS NOT IN THIS RESPECT
DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP. 319-322. 

PATERNO V. LYONS, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

A COUNTY COURT OF NEW YORK ADJUDGED INVALID A CONVICTION OF
PETITIONER UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, 187 MISC.
56, 60 N.Y.S.2D 813, BUT WAS PREVENTED FROM VACATING THE JUDGMENT BY A
WRIT OF PROHIBITION ISSUED UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE.  272 APP.
DIV. 120, 69 N.Y.S. 715.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  297 N.Y. 617,
75 N.E.2D 630.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 831. 
AFFIRMED, P. 322. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OCTOBER 30, 1936, THE PETITIONER WAS INDICTED IN THE COUNTY COURT OF
ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK, ON A CHARGE OF 

"BUYING, RECEIVING, CONCEALING AND WITHHOLDING PROPERTY, KNOWING THE
SAME TO HAVE BEEN STOLEN OR APPROPRIATED WRONGFULLY IN SUCH MANNER AS
TO CONSTITUTE LARCENY, CONTRARY TO THE PENAL LAW, SECTION 1308, IN THAT
HE, THE SAID JOSEPH PATERNO ON OR ABOUT THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1936,
AT THE CITY OF TONAWANDA, IN THIS COUNTY, FELONIOUSLY BROUGHT N,
RECEIVED, CONCEALED AND WITHHELD PROPERTY STOLEN FROM CHARLES M. ROSEN,
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE ASSUMED NAME AND STYLE OF ARCADE JEWELRY
SHOP." 

THE PUNISHMENTS PROVIDED FOR THIS OFFENSE AND FOR LARCENY ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.  BOTH MAY, ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES, RANGE UP
TO TEN YEARS AT HARD LABOR.  FN1  NOVEMBER 10, 1936, PETITIONER
APPEARED IN COURT WITH COUNSEL, PLEADED NOT GUILTY TO THE INDICTMENT,
AND WAS RELEASED ON A BOND OF $2500.  FIVE MONTHS LATER, ON APRIL 14,
1937, HE AGAIN APPEARED IN ERIE COUNTY COURT AND UPON AGREEMENT WITH
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WAS "PERMITTED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THE REDUCED
CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY 2ND DEGREE."  UNDER NEW YORK LAW THE
PUNISHMENT FOR SUCH AN ATTEMPT CAN BE NO MORE THAN HALF THE PUNISHMENT
PROVIDED FOR THE OFFENSE ATTEMPTED.  FN2  THE SENTENCE, NOT IMPOSED
UNTIL JULY 16, THREE MONTHS AFTER THE PLEA OF GUILTY, WAS FOR FIFTEEN
MONTHS MINIMUM AND THIRTY MONTHS MAXIMUM AT HARD LABOR.  THIS SENTENCE
WAS SUSPENDED AND PETITIONER WAS PLACED ON PROBATION WITH A REQUIREMENT
THAT HE "MAKE RESTITUTION $75.00 CASH BALANCE AS DETERMINED BY
PROBATION DEPT." 

ALTHOUGH DISCHARGED FROM PROBATION DECEMBER 1, 1938, PETITIONER ON
DECEMBER 27, 1945, MADE A MOTION IN THE NATURE OF CORAM NOBIS IN THE
ERIE COUNTY COURT ASKING THAT COURT TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE ITS FORMER
CONVICTION OF PETITIONER, PERMIT WITHDRAWAL OF THE PLEA OF GUILTY, AND
FOR LEAVE TO PLEAD DE NOVO.  THERE WAS A SPECIAL REASON WHY PETITIONER
WISHED TO VACATE THIS JUDGMENT LONG AFTER THE PROBATIONARY RESTRAINTS
OF THE SENTENCE HAD BEEN LIFTED.  IN THE MEANTIME HE HAD PLEADED GUILTY
IN THE CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY COURT, NEW YORK, TO THE CRIME OF ROBBERY
SECOND DEGREE UNDER AN INDICTMENT CHARGING HIM WITH ROBBERY FIRST
DEGREE.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK SECOND
FELONY OFFENDER LAW  FN3  THE CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY JUDGE HAD SENTENCED
PETITIONER TO 15 TO 30 YEARS AT HARD LABOR, PROOF HAVING BEEN MADE
BEFORE HIM OF PETITIONER'S PRIOR ERIE COUNTY CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED
GRAND LARCENY SECOND DEGREE. 

THE GROUNDS OF THE MOTION IN THE NATURE OF CORAM NOBIS WERE THAT THE
ERIE COUNTY COURT HAD EXCEEDED ITS POWER IN ACCEPTING HIS PLEA OF
GUILTY TO THE OFFENSE OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY SECOND DEGREE UNDER
THE INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED HIM WITH THE OFFENSE OF RECEIVING,
CONCEALING, AND WITHHOLDING PROPERTY KNOWING IT TO HAVE BEEN STOLEN. 
HE ALLEGED THAT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN A CASE INITIATED BY AN
INDICTMENT WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE CHARGE TO WHICH HE HAD PLEADED
GUILTY DENIED HIM HIS RIGHT UNDER ART. 1, SEC. 6 OF THE NEW YORK
CONSTITUTION TO BE PROSECUTED FOR AN INFAMOUS CRIME ONLY ON INDICTMENT
OF A GRAND JURY,  FN4  AND ALSO DENIED HIM DUE PROCESS OF LAW
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN5  THE JUDGE OF THE ERIE
COUNTY COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLEA OF GUILTY TO
THE LESSER OFFENSE DEPRIVED HIM OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE NEW YORK
CONSTITUTION AND THAT THEREFORE HIS CONVICTION WAS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.  187 MISC. 56, 60 N.Y.S.2D 813.  THAT JUDGE WAS PREVENTED FROM
VACATING THE JUDGMENT, HOWEVER, BY A WRIT OF PROHIBITION ISSUED UPON
THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ERIE COUNTY.  THAT
COURT HELD THAT PATERNO HAD "BEEN DENIED NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL
RIGHT."  THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE
DIVISION, AFFIRMED, 272 APP. DIV. 120, 69 N.Y.S.2D 715, STATING THAT
ACCEPTANCE OF PATERNO'S PLEA TO THE LESSER OFFENSE MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN
ERROR OF LAW WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED RELIEF BY MOTION IN ARREST OF
JUDGMENT OR BY APPEAL AS OF RIGHT; BUT THAT PETITIONER, HAVING DECLINED
TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THESE REMEDIES WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD, COULD
NOT LATER RAISE THE QUESTION.  FN6  IT FAILED TO ACCEPT PATERNO'S CLAIM
THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HIS PLEA WAS ENTERED DEPRIVED HIM OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED WITHOUT
OPINION.  297 N.Y. 617, 75 N.E.2D 630.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333
U.S. 831. 

IT IS AGAIN CONTENDED HERE THAT ACCEPTANCE OF PETITIONER'S PLEA OF
GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY SECOND DEGREE UNDER AN INDICTMENT
WHICH CHARGED THAT HE HAD BOUGHT, RECEIVED, CONCEALED, AND WITHHELD
STOLEN PROPERTY DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS RIGHT UNDER THE NEW YORK
CONSTITUTION TO BE PROSECUTED FOR AN INFAMOUS CRIME ONLY ON A GRAND
JURY INDICTMENT AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE ERIE COUNTY JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION IS A NULLITY.  BUT THIS CONTENTION AS TO NEW YORK LAW HAS
PREVIOUSLY BEEN REJECTED BY THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT, IN PEOPLE EX
REL. WACHOWICZ V. MARTIN, 293 N.Y. 361, 57 N.E.2D 53, AND WAS AGAIN
REJECTED BY THE NEW YORK COURTS IN THIS CASE.  THEIR DECISION ON SUCH A
STATE QUESTION IS FINAL HERE.  IN RE DUNCAN, 139 U.S. 449, 462; WEST V.
LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258, 261. 

PETITIONER NEXT ARGUES THAT THE STATE HAS FAILED TO SUPPLY HIM AN
AVAILABLE REMEDY TO ATTACK THE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM AND THAT SUCH A
FAILURE DENIES HIM DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  SEE MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, 113.  BUT THIS
CONTENTION FALLS WITH ITS PREMISE.  PETITIONER, WITHIN THE PERIODS
PRESCRIBED BY NEW YORK STATUTES, COULD HAVE CHALLENGED ANY ALLEGED
ERRORS OF STATE LAW EITHER BY FILING A MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA OF
GUILTY, OR A MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT, OR BY TAKING A DIRECT APPEAL
FROM THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT.  FN7  CERTAINLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
SHOWING THAT PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY EFFECTIVELY TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THESE CORRECTIVE REMEDIES TO CHALLENGE PURELY STATE
QUESTIONS SUCH REMEDIES ARE ADEQUATE FROM A DUE PROCESS STANDPOINT. 
SEE PARKER V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 571; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN,
287 U.S. 156, 169, AND CASES CITED N. 6. 

PETITIONER FURTHER CHALLENGES THE JUDGMENT AS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
UPON THE GROUND THAT THE INDICTMENT CHARGED HIM WITH ONE OFFENSE AND
THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS BASED ON A PLEA OF GUILTY TO AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE
OFFENSE.  THIS CHALLENGE AGAIN BASICALLY RESTS ON THE ALLEGATION THAT
UNDER NEW YORK LAW AN INDICTMENT FOR RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY DOES NOT
NECESSARILY INCLUDE A CHARGE OF AN ATTEMPT TO STEAL THE PROPERTY. 
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE ON SUCH A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND
APPEARS TO BE AN AVAILABLE PROCEDURE UNDER NEW YORK LAW,  FN8  AND THE
COURTS BELOW SO ASSUMED.  DETERMINATION OF THIS FEDERAL DUE PROCESS
QUESTION DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHETHER AS A MATTER OF NEW YORK LAW THE
ERIE COUNTY JUDGE ERRED IN PERMITTING PETITIONER TO PLEAD GUILTY.  FN9
THE QUESTION TURNS RATHER UPON WHETHER THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DISCLOSED WAS GIVEN REASONABLE NOTICE AND
INFORMATION OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST HIM AND A FAIR HEARING IN
OPEN COURT.  IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 278; COLE V. ARKANSAS,
333 U.S. 196, 201.  WE AGREE WITH THE NEW YORK COURTS THAT THIS
PETITIONER HAD SUCH NOTICE AND INFORMATION.  THE FAIRNESS OF THE
HEARING AFFORDED PETITIONER IS NOT CHALLENGED. 

THERE IS CLOSE KINSHIP BETWEEN THE OFFENSE OF LARCENY AND THAT OF
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY KNOWING THAT IT WAS STOLEN.  WHEN RELATED TO
THE SAME STOLEN GOODS, AS HERE, THE TWO CRIMES CERTAINLY MAY FAIRLY BE
SAID TO BE "CONNECTED WITH THE SAME TRANSACTION" AS THE NEW YORK COURT
OF APPEALS NOTED IN THE WACHOWICZ CASE.  293 N.Y. AT 367, 57 N.E.2D AT
56.  A PERSON COMMITS LARCENY UNDER NEW YORK LAW IF HE "UNLAWFULLY
OBTAINS OR APPROPRIATES" AN ARTICLE, N.Y. PENAL LAW SEC. 1294; HE
VIOLATES THE RECEIVING OF STOLEN PROPERTY STATUTE IF HE "IN ANY WAY
...  CONCEALS, WITHHOLDS, OR AIDS IN CONCEALING OR WITHHOLDING  ...
PROPERTY, KNOWING THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN STOLEN, OR APPROPRIATED
WRONGFULLY IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CONSTITUTE LARCENY," N.Y. PENAL LAW
SEC. 1308.  THE OVERLAPPING NATURE OF THE TWO OFFENSES IS FURTHER
EMPHASIZED BY THE DEFINITION OF LARCENY IN SEC. 1290, WHICH INCLUDES
CONDUCT WHEREBY ANY PERSON WHO "WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE OR DEFRAUD
ANOTHER OF THE USE AND BENEFIT OF PROPERTY, OR TO APPROPRIATE THE SAME
TO THE USE OF  ... ANY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE TRUE OWNER,
WRONGFULLY TAKES, OBTAINS OR WITHHOLDS (ANY PROPERTY) BY ANY MEANS
WHATEVER, FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE TRUE OWNER OR OF ANY OTHER PERSON
...  " 

IT WOULD BE EXALTATION OF TECHNICAL PRECISION TO AN UNWARRANTED
DEGREE TO SAY THAT THE INDICTMENT HERE DID NOT INFORM PETITIONER THAT
HE WAS CHARGED WITH SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF LARCENY
THEREBY ENABLING HIM, AS A MEANS OF CUTTING HIS SENTENCE IN HALF, TO
AGREE TO PLEAD GUILTY TO AN ATTEMPTED LARCENY.  PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
ARE ESSENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS IN OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL LAW. 
THESE SAFEGUARDS SHOULD CONSTANTLY AND VIGILANTLY BE OBSERVED TO AFFORD
THOSE ACCUSED OF CRIME EVERY FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. 
THIS PETITIONER HAD SUCH OPPORTUNITY.  MONTHS AFTER HIS FIRST
APPEARANCE IN COURT HE CAME BACK AND PLEADED GUILTY TO AN ATTEMPT
WRONGFULLY TO "WITHHOLD" THE VERY PROPERTY OF ANOTHER WHICH THE
INDICTMENT HAD ORIGINALLY CHARGED HIM WITH WRONGFULLY "WITHHOLDING." 
FN10  IT WOULD BE A STRAINED INTERPRETATION OF PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO HOLD THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HE WAS NOT
GIVEN SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM TO AFFORD A BASIS FOR
AN INTELLIGENT DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A RELATED BUT LESSER OFFENSE
THAN THAT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT.  THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES NO SUCH HOLDING. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  N.Y. PENAL LAW SECS. 1294, 1297, 1308. 

FN2  N.Y. PENAL LAW SEC. 261.  MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT FOR GRAND LARCENY
SECOND DEGREE IS 5 YEARS.  N.Y. PENAL LAW SEC. 1297.  THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY EXPLAINED HIS REASONS FOR THE AGREEMENT IN THESE WORDS:  "ONLY
A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE STOLEN PROPERTY WAS RECOVERED AND THAT WAS
FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF SEVERAL ADMITTED INMATES OF A DISORDERLY
HOUSE WHO ARE OF NECESSITY THE CHIEF WITNESSES FOR THE PEOPLE IN THIS
CASE.  FOR THESE REASONS AND BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER OF THESE
WITNESSES, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE PERMITTED TO PLEAD
GUILTY TO THE REDUCED CHARGE OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY 2ND DEGREE." 

FN3  N.Y. PENAL LAW SEC. 1941. 

FN4  "NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL OR OTHERWISE
INFAMOUS CRIME  ...  UNLESS ON INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY  ...  "  N.Y.
CONST., ART. 1, SEC. 6. 

FN5  THESE QUESTIONS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN RAISED BY PETITIONER IN
OTHER NEW YORK COURTS WITHOUT SUCCESS.  IN 1943 HE HAD MOVED THE
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY COURT TO VACATE ITS JUDGMENT, UNDER WHICH HE HAD BEEN
SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER.  THAT COURT HELD IT WAS WITHOUT
POWER TO PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE ERIE COUNTY JUDGMENT AND
DISMISSED HIS MOTION.  PEOPLE V. PATERNO, 182 MISC. 491, 50 N.Y.S.2D
713.  IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT, RELYING ON PEOPLE EX REL. WACHOWICZ V. MARTIN, 293 N.Y.
361, 57 N.E.2D 53, HELD THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO OBTAIN
VACATION OF THE JUDGMENT, AND THAT THE ONLY WAY TO RAISE A QUESTION AS
TO WHETHER A PLEA OF GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED LARCENY COULD BE ACCEPTED
UNDER AN INDICTMENT SUCH AS THAT AGAINST PATERNO WAS BY APPEAL OR
MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT.  PEOPLE EX REL. PATERNO V. MARTIN, 268
APP. DIV. 956, 51 N.Y.S.2D 679. 

FN6  THE STATE ARGUES HERE THAT WHILE PETITIONER HAD A RIGHT TO
APPEAL AND CHALLENGE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLEA OF GUILTY UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN, NEITHER PEOPLE EX REL. WACHOWICZ V. MARTIN, 293
N.Y. 361, 57 N.E.2D 53, NOR ANY OTHER NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS CASE
HAS SQUARELY HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

FN7  N.Y. CODE CRIM. PROC. SECS. 337, 467, 469, 517, 519-521; N.Y.
LAWS 1946, C. 942; N.Y. LAWS 1947, C. 706; MATTER OF HOGAN V. COURT OF
GENERAL SESSIONS, 296 N.Y. 1, 68 N.E.2D 849; MATTER OF HOGAN V. N.Y.
SUPREME COURT, 295 N.Y. 92, 65 N.E.2D 181; PEOPLE EX REL. WACHOWICZ V.
MARTIN, 293 N.Y. 361, 57 N.E.2D 53; PEOPLE V. GERSEWITZ, 294 N.Y. 163,
61 N.E.2D 427; MATTER OF MORHOUS V. N.Y. SUPREME COURT, 293 N.Y. 131,
56 N.E.2D 79; MATTER OF LYONS V. GOLDSTEIN, 290 N.Y. 19, 47 N.E.2D 425;
SEE CANIZIO V. NEW YORK, 327 U.S. 82, 84-85.    FN8  SEE CASES CITED
NOTE 7; FULD, THE WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, 117 N.Y.L.J. 2212, 2230,
2248. 

FN9  SEE CALDWELL V. TEXAS, 137 U.S. 692, 698; IN RE CONVERSE, 137
U.S. 624, 631; LEEPER V. TEXAS, 139 U.S. 462, 468; DAVIS V. TEXAS, 139
U.S. 651; HOWARD V. KENTUCKY, 200 U.S. 164, 173. 

FN10  THE APPELLATE DIVISION'S OPINION IN THIS CASE SAID:  "IT IS
TRUE THAT THE CRIME OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, SECOND DEGREE IS NOT
NECESSARILY INCLUDED UNDER A CHARGE OF CRIMINALLY RECEIVING STOLEN
PROPERTY (THE THEN INDICTMENT AGAINST PATERNO)(PEOPLE EX REL. WACHOWICZ
V. MARTIN, 293 N.Y. 361, SUPRA) BUT ONE CAN CONCEIVE A SET OF FACTS
UNDER WHICH ONE GUILTY OF CRIMINALLY RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY COULD BE
GUILTY OF LARCENY IN UNLAWFULLY WITHHOLDING THE STOLEN PROPERTY FROM
THE OWNER THEREOF.  (PENAL LAW, SEC. 1290; SEE PEOPLE V. VITOLO, 271
APP. DIV. 959; 136 A.L.R. 1091; AND 2 WHARTON ON CRIMINAL LAW, SECS.
1122, 1168.)"  272 APP. DIV. AT 126, 69 N.Y.S.2D AT 719. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT PROSECUTION FOR AN "INFAMOUS
CRIME" BE UPON INDICTMENT BY GRAND JURY.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
HAS HELD THAT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT DOES NOT NULLIFY THE
ACCEPTANCE BY A TRIAL COURT OF A PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE OFFENSE OF
ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY, SECOND DEGREE, UPON AN INDICTMENT FOR
KNOWINGLY RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.  SINCE, SO FAR AS THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED, THE STATES MAY DISPENSE WITH ACCUSATIONS BY
GRAND JURIES, IT IS FOR NEW YORK AND NOT FOR US TO DECIDE WHEN THE
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF NEW YORK LAW, NOT TOUCHING THOSE FUNDAMENTAL
SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROTECTS, ARE
SATISFIED.  WHAT IS HERE CHALLENGED IS NEW YORK'S DETERMINATION THAT
THE KNOWING RECEIPT OF STOLEN GOODS IS SUFFICIENTLY RELATED TO LARCENY
SO AS TO PERMIT ACCEPTANCE OF A PLEA OF GUILTY OF THE LATTER ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT AN INDICTMENT FOR ONE AFFORDS ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE
OTHER.  SURELY THIS DOES NOT RISE TO THE DIGNITY OF A SUBSTANTIAL
FEDERAL QUESTION.  IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THIS
COURT DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIND THAT THAT AMENDMENT HAD NOT MADE
THIS COURT AN APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO SUPERVISE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW OF THE STATES.  IT IS NOT IRRELEVANT TO RECALL THIS
ADMONITION. 

THUS, I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S OPINION, BUT DRAW FROM IT THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION. 
..END :












HILTON V. SULLIVAN, 334 U.S. 323 


NO. 560.  ARGUED APRIL 21, 1948.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1948.  - 83 U.S.
APP. D.C. - , 165 F.2D 251, AFFIRMED. 


REGULATIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPLICABLE TO REDUCTIONS
IN FORCE OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PRESCRIBED THE
FOLLOWING ORDER OF PRIORITY FOR RETENTION OF "PERMANENT EMPLOYEES":
(1) A-1 PLUS, WORLD WAR II VETERANS FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD AFTER RETURN
TO DUTY; (2) A-1, VETERAN'S PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WITH EFFICIENCY
RATINGS OF "GOOD" OR BETTER; (3) A-2, EMPLOYEES WITHOUT VETERAN'S
PREFERENCE WITH EFFICIENCY RATINGS OF "GOOD" OR BETTER.  UNDER THE
REGULATIONS, EVERY MEMBER OF GROUPS A-1 PLUS AND A-1 WAS ENTITLED TO BE
RETAINED IN PREFERENCE TO THOSE IN GROUP A-2, WITHOUT REGARD TO LENGTH
OF SERVICE.  PETITIONER WAS CLASSIFIED IN GROUP A-2 AND WAS NOTIFIED OF
A ONE-YEAR FURLOUGH.  HE SUED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PRAYING THAT
THE COMMISSION'S A-1 PLUS AND A-1 CLASSIFICATIONS BE DECLARED VOID,
THAT HE BE RESTORED TO HIS POSITION, AND THAT THE COMMISSION BE
REQUIRED TO RESCIND THE REGULATIONS AND PROMULGATE NEW ONES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  HELD: 

1.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO
CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE A-1 PLUS AS WELL AS THE A-1
CLASSIFICATION.  PP. 325-328. 

2.  THE A-1 PLUS CLASSIFICATION IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 8 OF THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  PP. 328-333. 

(A)  THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 8(B)(A) OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940 THAT THE GOVERNMENT REHIRE ITS
RETURNING VETERAN EMPLOYEES IS NOT QUALIFIED, AS IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE
EMPLOYERS UNDER SEC. 8(B)(B), WHEN "THE EMPLOYER'S CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE
SO CHANGED AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE OR UNREASONABLE TO DO SO."  PP. 328
330, 331. 

(B)  TRAILMOBILE CO. V. WHIRLS, 331 U.S. 40, AND FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN
DRYDOCK & REPAIR CO., 328 U.S. 275, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 330-333. 

(C)  THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 8(C) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940 AGAINST "DISCHARGE" OF A REEMPLOYED WAR VETERAN
MUST BE READ IN LIGHT OF THE DIFFERENT REEMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED
ON PRIVATE EMPLOYERS AND ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  P. 331. 

(D)  SECTION 12 OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944 DID NOT SO
AMEND SEC. 8 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT AS TO CONFER
UPON PETITIONER RETENTION RIGHTS BASED UPON HIS LENGTH OF SERVICE.  P.
332. 

(E)  A ONE-YEAR FURLOUGH, APPLIED TO VETERANS, WOULD BE A "DISCHARGE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(C) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT.  P. 333. 

3.  THE A-1 CLASSIFICATION, WHICH GIVES ALL PERMANENT EMPLOYEE
"VETERANS WITH 'GOOD' OR HIGHER EFFICIENCY RATINGS" RETENTION
PREFERENCES OVER ALL NONVETERANS, EVEN OVER NONVETERANS WITH HIGHER
EFFICIENCY RATINGS AND LONGER GOVERNMENT SERVICE, IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC.
12 OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944, IN VIEW OF THAT SECTION'S
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  PP. 333-339. 

(A)  THE "DUE EFFECT" REQUIRED BY THE FIRST CLAUSE OF SEC. 12 IS
GIVEN TO LENGTH OF SERVICE BY ITS CONSIDERATION IN THE DETERMINATION OF
RETENTION PREFERENCES AS BETWEEN VETERAN AND VETERAN AND AS BETWEEN
NONVETERAN AND NONVETERAN.  PP. 335-336. 

(B)  THE QUESTION OF THE WISDOM OF THE POLICY EMBODIED IN A
CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO DETERMINE.  P. 339. 

HILTON V. SULLIVAN, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION BY PETITIONER AGAINST THE SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY AND THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TO
ESTABLISH HIS EMPLOYMENT STATUS, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  83 U.S. APP. D.C. - , 165 F.2D 251.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 841.  AFFIRMED, P. 339. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF WAR
VETERAN AND NONVETERAN EMPLOYEES TO RETENTION IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
WHEN A PROGRAM OF REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES MAKES IT NECESSARY FOR SOME TO BE CHOSEN FOR DISCHARGE.  THE
ACUTE POINT OF CONTROVERSY IS THIS:  IN THE TREATMENT OF PERMANENT
TENURE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES, SHOULD QUALIFIED HONORABLY DISCHARGED
WAR VETERANS, MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH, BE RETAINED IN PREFERENCE
TO NONVETERANS, EVEN THOUGH THOSE NONVETERANS HAVE SERVED THE
GOVERNMENT A SUBSTANTIALLY LONGER TIME THAN THE VETERANS.  THE
QUESTIONS DEPEND UPON WHETHER CERTAIN REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ARE VALID UNDER A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF
CONTROLLING STATUTES. 

THE PETITIONER WAS FOR TWELVE YEARS, FROM 1934 TO 1946, A DULY
APPOINTED PERMANENT STATUS CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEE WORKING IN THE
CHARLESTON NAVY YARD.  HIS WORK WAS OF SUCH HIGH QUALITY AS TO EARN HIM
AN EFFICIENCY RATING OF "EXCELLENT."  BY SUCCESSIVE PROMOTIONS, HE
ARRIVED AT THE RESPONSIBLE POSITION OF LEADINGMAN SHIPFITTER AT A BASIC
WAGE OF $12.08 PER DAY.  JANUARY 7, 1946, SHORTLY AFTER THE POST
HOSTILITY REDUCTION OF GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES BEGAN, PETITIONER WAS
DEMOTED TO A POSITION PAYING $10.08 PER DAY AS PART OF A REDUCTION IN
FORCE.  THIS DEMOTION APPARENTLY WAS DUE IN PART TO THE FACT THAT HE
DID NOT HAVE A VETERAN'S PREFERENCE.  OCTOBER 7, 1946, PETITIONER WAS
NOTIFIED THAT DUE TO CURTAILMENT OF WORK AND FUNDS IT WAS NECESSARY TO
ELIMINATE CERTAIN POSITIONS IN HIS COMPETITIVE LEVEL AND THAT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS HIS NAME HAD BEEN REACHED FOR
ACTION.  HE WAS TOLD THAT, IF HE APPROVED, HE WAS THEN TO BE PLACED IN
A ONE-YEAR "FURLOUGH STATUS" RATHER THAN ABSOLUTELY SEPARATED FROM
SERVICE BECAUSE IT WAS HOPED THAT CONDITIONS MIGHT JUSTIFY HIS RECALL
TO DUTY WITHIN THE YEAR.  HE WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT HIS "ACTIVE
SERVICE" HAD ALREADY BEEN TERMINATED AND THAT UNLESS SOONER RECALLED TO
DUTY HE WOULD BE SEPARATED FOR REDUCTION IN FORCE AT THE END OF HIS ONE
YEAR FURLOUGH PERIOD. 

THE CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS SAID TO REQUIRE TERMINATION OF
PETITIONER'S ACTIVE SERVICE DIVIDE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INTO THREE MAIN
GROUPS - A, B, AND C. GROUP A, WHICH HAS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR
RETENTION, IS COMPOSED OF "PERMANENT EMPLOYEES"; GROUPS B AND C ARE
COMPOSED OF EMPLOYEES WITH LIMITED TENURES OF EMPLOYMENT.  GROUP A IS
DIVIDED INTO FIVE SUBGROUPS, THE FIRST THREE OF WHICH ARE OF PARTICULAR
IMPORTANCE HERE.  THESE THREE SUBGROUPS ARE: 

SUBGROUP A-1 PLUS, (VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II) FOR A ONE-YEAR PERIOD
AFTER RETURN TO DUTY; 

SUBGROUP A-1, VETERANS' PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WITH "GOOD" (OR HIGHER)
EFFICIENCY RATINGS; 

SUBGROUP A-2, EMPLOYEES WITHOUT VETERANS' PREFERENCE WITH "GOOD" (OR
HIGHER) EFFICIENCY RATINGS.  FN1 

THE RESULT OF THESE COMMISSION GROUPINGS IS THAT A-1 PLUS VETERANS
HAVE THE HIGHEST RETENTION PRIORITY; A-1 THE SECOND; AND A-2, IN WHICH,
NOT HAVING A VETERAN'S PREFERENCE, PETITIONER IS CLASSIFIED, HAS THE
THIRD.  THUS IF THESE REGULATIONS ARE VALID, EVERY MEMBER OF BOTH
SUBGROUP A-1 PLUS AND SUBGROUP A-1 MUST BE RETAINED IN PREFERENCE TO
PETITIONER. 

AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF HIS ONE-YEAR FURLOUGH, PETITIONER FILED
THIS COMPLAINT IN DISTRICT COURT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, MANDAMUS,
AND OTHER RELIEF.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED
THAT PETITIONER'S DEMOTION AND FURLOUGH WERE THE RESULT OF THE
COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS WHICH PRESCRIBED RETENTION PRIORITIES FOR
VETERANS' PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES IN A-1 PLUS AND A-1 OVER ALL NONVETERAN
EMPLOYEES WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LONGER PERIODS OF SERVICE OF SOME OF
THE NONVETERAN EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING PETITIONER.  THE FAILURE OF THE
COMMISSION TO CONSIDER RELATIVE LENGTH OF SERVICE IN ESTABLISHING THESE
RETENTION PRIORITIES WAS CHARGED TO BE "UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY, AND
CAPRICIOUS, WITHOUT STATUTORY WARRANT, AND CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS
PROVISIONS" OF APPLICABLE STATUTES.  THE PETITIONER'S PRAYER WAS THAT
THE COMMISSION'S A-1 PLUS AND A-1 CLASSIFICATIONS BE DECLARED VOID,
THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY BE COMPELLED TO RESTORE HIM TO HIS
ORIGINAL POSITION AS LEADINGMAN SHIPFITTER, THAT THE COMMISSION BE
REQUIRED TO RESCIND THE REGULATIONS AND PROMULGATE NEW ONES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND THAT "SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS IS
JUST" BE GRANTED HIM.  AFTER ANSWER AND CERTAIN STIPULATIONS OF FACT,
BOTH PARTIES MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION WAS
GRANTED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFFIRMED. 
83 U.S. APP. D.C. - , 165 F.2D 251.  IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED
PROMPTED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 841. 

FIRST.  WHILE ADMITTING PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY
OF SUBGROUP A-1 IN THIS ACTION, THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT HE CANNOT
CHALLENGE A-1 PLUS.  THE PREMISE OF THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT, EVEN IF A-1
PLUS WERE INVALID, THE VETERANS GROUPED IN IT WOULD FALL WITHIN
SUBGROUP A-1.  WE FIND NO ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THIS PREMISE IN THE
RECORD.  VETERANS IN SUBGROUP A-1 PLUS COULD NOT QUALIFY FOR A-1 UNLESS
THEY HAD EFFICIENCY RATINGS OF "GOOD" OR BETTER.  BUT THE LANGUAGE
DEFINING A-1 PLUS INCLUDES VETERANS OF ALL RATINGS, EVEN BELOW "GOOD." 
AND WHEN THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE WAS RENDERED, 61 OF THE 118
VETERANS COMPRISING A-1 PLUS HAD NOT BEEN RATED AT ALL.  TRUE, THE
GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT 60 OF THESE VETERANS HAVE NOW BEEN RATED "GOOD"
AND THE SIXTY-FIRST MEMBER HAS RESIGNED.  BUT THE POTENTIAL MEMBERSHIP
OF SUBGROUP A-1 PLUS IS NOT LIMITED TO THOSE VETERANS WHO WERE IN IT
WHEN THE CASE WAS TRIED.  THE CLASSIFICATION PROVIDES FOR A CONTINUING
STATUS OF PREFERENCE OF ONE YEAR FOR ALL RETURNING VETERANS WHO LEFT
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT FOR WAR DUTY.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT
ADDITIONAL WAR VETERANS QUALIFIED FOR CLASSIFICATION UNDER A-1 PLUS
WILL NOT RETURN TO CHARLESTON NAVY YARD AND RECLAIM SHIPFITTER JOBS IN
PREFERENCE TO OTHERWISE QUALIFIED NONVETERAN EMPLOYEES.  AND THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THIS CLASSIFICATION HAS BEEN REPEALED OR
ALTERED SO THAT IN THE FUTURE IT CAN INCLUDE ONLY THOSE VETERANS WHO
HAVE AN EFFICIENCY RATING OF "GOOD" OR HIGHER.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT ALL MEMBERS OF A-1 PLUS COULD
QUALIFY OR WILL BE ABLE TO QUALIFY AS MEMBERS OF A-1.  THEREFORE WE
CANNOT ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT PETITIONER'S LIKELIHOOD
OF INJURY FROM A-1 PLUS IS TOO REMOTE TO JUSTIFY HIS ATTACK ON IT.  IF
INVALID, THERE IS AS MUCH REASON FOR HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THIS
SUBGROUP AS FOR HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE SUBGROUP A-1. 

SECOND.  THE GOVERNMENT FINDS SUPPORT FOR SUBGROUP A-1 PLUS IN SEC. 8
OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, 890,
50 U.S.C. SEC. 308.  THAT SECTION PROVIDES REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS TO ANY
PERSON WHO UNDER THAT ACT LEFT A POSITION OTHER THAN A TEMPORARY ONE IN
ORDER TO PERFORM TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES AND WHO
SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED HIS TRAINING.  IT FURTHER REQUIRES THAT UPON
APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AFTER RELEASE FROM TRAINING, SUCH PERSON, IF
STILL QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF HIS OLD JOB AND "IF SUCH
POSITION WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,  ...  SHALL
BE RESTORED TO SUCH POSITION OR TO A POSITION OF LIKE SENIORITY,
STATUS, AND PAY."  SECTION 8(C) ALSO PROVIDES THAT A PERSON SO RESTORED
TO HIS OLD POSITION "SHALL NOT BE DISCHARGED FROM SUCH POSITION WITHOUT
CAUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER SUCH RESTORATION." 

THERE APPEARS TO BE LITTLE ROOM FOR CONTENTION THAT THERE IS
AMBIGUITY IN THE LANGUAGE THAT CONGRESS SELECTED TO EXPRESS ITS PURPOSE
TO REQUIRE THE RESTORATION OF A FORMER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WHO ENTERED
THE ARMED FORCES TO HIS OLD POSITION AND TO GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO
RETENTION FOR A YEAR.  THE LANGUAGE IS THAT SUCH AN EMPLOYEE "SHALL BE
RESTORED" TO HIS POSITION OR TO ONE LIKE IT, SUPPLEMENTED BY LANGUAGE
THAT HE "SHALL NOT BE DISCHARGED FROM SUCH POSITION WITHOUT CAUSE
WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER SUCH RESTORATION."  WE HAVE EXAMINED THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940
AND FIND NOTHING WHATEVER WHICH FAINTLY SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
ITS LANGUAGE TO BE LESS MANDATORY THAN IMPLIED BY THE WORDS IT USED. 
THE COMMAND IN SEC. 8(B)(A) THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REHIRE ITS
RETURNING VETERAN EMPLOYEES CONTRASTED SHARPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT IN
SEC. 8(B)(B) THAT A PRIVATE EMPLOYER NEED NOT REEMPLOY SUCH A VETERAN
WHEN "THE EMPLOYER'S CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO MAKE IT
IMPOSSIBLE OR UNREASONABLE TO DO SO."  THIS DIFFERENCE WAS NOTED BY THE
CONGRESSIONAL SPONSORS OF THE 1940 ACT, WHO THOUGHT THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD SET AN EXAMPLE TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY BY PROVIDING JOBS
FOR ALL RETURNING VETERAN EMPLOYEES.  FN2  CONGRESS, HAVING THUS
PROVIDED THAT THE VETERAN WHO LEFT A GOVERNMENT JOB MUST BE REEMPLOYED,
ALSO REQUIRED HIS RETENTION BY DECLARING THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE
DISCHARGED WITHIN A YEAR WITHOUT CAUSE. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATIONS OF
SEC. 8(B)(B) AND SEC. 8(C) IN TRAILMOBILE CO. V. WHIRLS, 331 U.S. 40,
AND IN FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328 U.S. 275,
REQUIRE A HOLDING THAT THE REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A-1 PLUS ARE
INVALID.  THE TRAILMOBILE CASE DEALT ONLY WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF A
PRIVATE EMPLOYER TO VETERANS AFTER THE FIRST YEAR OF THEIR RETURN TO
HIS EMPLOYMENT, AND OUR HOLDING THERE IS OF NO RELEVANCE HERE.  IN THE
OTHER CASE, FISHGOLD, FOLLOWING HIS DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMED FORCES,
HAD BEEN RESTORED TO HIS OLD POSITION BY HIS FORMER PRIVATE EMPLOYER. 
WITHIN ONE YEAR THEREAFTER TEMPORARY LAYOFFS BECAME NECESSARY ON EACH
OF NINE DAYS.  FISHGOLD WAS LAID OFF WHILE NONVETERANS WITH LONGER
SERVICE WERE CONTINUOUSLY KEPT AT WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRED THAT "DECREASES" IN THE WORKING
FORCE BE BASED PRIMARILY UPON "LENGTH OF SERVICE."  THIS COURT HELD
THAT SINCE FISHGOLD'S LAYOFFS WERE TEMPORARY, HE STILL RETAINED AN
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP, AND THUS HAD NOT BEEN "DISCHARGED" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 8(C).  THE STATUTE WAS HELD NOT TO REQUIRE THAT WHEN
SLACK WORK COMPELLED A PRIVATE EMPLOYER TO LAY OFF SOME WORKERS
TEMPORARILY A VETERAN RESTORED TO HIS JOB BE GIVEN CONTINUOUS WORK FOR
ONE YEAR AFTER HIS REINSTATEMENT IN PREFERENCE TO OTHER NONVETERAN
EMPLOYEES WHO UNDER THE TERMS OF COMPANY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE CONTRACT
WERE ENTITLED TO SUCH WORK BY REASON OF THEIR GREATER "LENGTH OF
SERVICE." 

THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHY WE CANNOT ACCEPT PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT
THAT THE FISHGOLD CASE REQUIRES THE INVALIDATION OF THE A-1 PLUS
CLASSIFICATION.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH THE ONE
YEAR RETENTION RIGHTS OF VETERANS RESTORED UNDER SEC. 8(B)(A) TO THEIR
OLD JOBS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT, AS IN THE FISHGOLD CASE,
WITH THE RIGHTS OF VETERANS RESTORED TO JOBS IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY UNDER
SEC. 8(B)(B).  WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS IN SEC.
8(B)(A) IMPOSED A MANDATORY AND UNCONDITIONAL REEMPLOYMENT OBLIGATION
UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; IN OTHER WORDS THE SECTION GUARANTEED THAT
A RETURNING VETERAN WOULD GET BACK HIS JOB WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  BUT
SEC. 8(B)(B) IMPOSED NO SUCH UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTEE THAT A RETURNING
VETERAN WOULD BE REEMPLOYED BY HIS FORMER PRIVATE EMPLOYER.  FOR THAT
SUBSECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE RESTORATION OF RETURNING VETERANS TO THEIR
FORMER PRIVATE JOBS "IF THE EMPLOYER'S CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE SO CHANGED AS
TO MAKE IT UNREASONABLE OR IMPOSSIBLE" TO REHIRE HIM. 

THUS CONGRESS, EVIDENTLY CONSIDERING THAT THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES IN INDUSTRIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AND
POTENTIALITIES, IMPOSED OBLIGATIONS TO REHIRE RETURNING VETERANS OF A
MARKEDLY DIFFERENT NATURE UPON GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.  IT
DID NOT DEFINE THE "UNREASONABLE OR IMPOSSIBLE" CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
MIGHT RELIEVE A PRIVATE EMPLOYER OF THE DUTY TO REHIRE VETERANS, NOR
NEED WE ATTEMPT TO DO SO NOW.  BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE SUCH AS SERIOUSLY TO AFFECT, NOT ONLY THE
REASONABLENESS AND POSSIBILITY OF REHIRING, BUT ALSO THE REASONABLENESS
AND POSSIBILITY OF RETAINING HIM FOR A FULL YEAR'S CONTINUOUS WORK. 
FOR THIS REASON, AMONG OTHERS, INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 8(C)'S
PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCHARGE OF A RETURNING VETERAN MUST BE MADE IN
LIGHT OF WHETHER HE RETURNS TO A GOVERNMENT-GUARANTEED OR TO A PRIVATE
NON-GUARANTEED JOB.  THEREFORE SEC. 8(C)'S PROHIBITION AGAINST
"DISCHARGE" BY A PRIVATE EMPLOYER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS DETERMINATIVE
OF THE SCOPE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST "DISCHARGE" BY
THE GOVERNMENT.    THE FOREGOING DISTINCTION IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE FACT
THAT CIVIL SERVICE WORKERS, UNLIKE THE PRIVATE EMPLOYEES IN THE
FISHGOLD CASE, ARE NOT CONFRONTED BY A SITUATION IN WHICH THEIR
EMPLOYER, THE GOVERNMENT, HAS AN OUTSTANDING CONTRACT WITH THEM
PROVIDING THAT THEY SHALL BE RETAINED IN SERVICE IN PROPORTION TO THEIR
"LENGTH OF SERVICE" AS REDUCTIONS IN FORCE BECOME NECESSARY.  WHATEVER
SENIORITY RIGHTS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE WHEN DISCHARGES OR
REDUCTIONS IN FORCE ARE MADE DEPEND ENTIRELY UPON CONGRESSIONAL ACTS
AND REGULATIONS ISSUED IN HARMONY WITH THEM.  SEE 37 STAT. 555, 5
U.S.C. SEC. 652.  WE HAVE DISCOVERED NO ACTS OR REGULATIONS WHICH CAN
BE CONSTRUED TO RECOGNIZE A NONVETERAN'S LENGTH OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE
AS A FACTOR SUFFICIENT TO OVERRIDE THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 8(B)(A) AND
SEC. 8(C) THAT A VETERAN MUST BE RESTORED TO HIS OLD JOB WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND CANNOT BE DISCHARGED THEREFROM WITHOUT CAUSE FOR
ONE YEAR.  THUS, UNLIKE THE EMPLOYEES IN THE FISHGOLD CASE WHOSE
PRIVATE-EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT-DERIVED SENIORITY PREVENTED THEIR BEING
LAID OFF, PETITIONER HAS NO COMPARABLE STATUTORILY DERIVED SENIORITY
RIGHTS TO HIS JOB WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  PETITIONER ARGUES, HOWEVER,
THAT SEC. 12 OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 390, 5
U.S.C. SEC. 861, IN EFFECT AMENDED SEC. 8 AND CONFERRED RETENTION
RIGHTS UPON HIM BASED UPON HIS LENGTH OF SERVICE.  FOR THE REASONS WE
GIVE BELOW IN DISCUSSING THE VALIDITY OF SUBGROUP A-1, WE THINK THIS
CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT. 

FINALLY, THE FISHGOLD DECISION HELD ONLY THAT A TEMPORARY LAYOFF DID
NOT VIOLATE A VETERAN'S RIGHT UNDER SEC. 8(C) NOT TO BE DISCHARGED
WITHOUT CAUSE FOR ONE YEAR AFTER HE HAD BEEN RESTORED TO HIS OLD JOB. 
HERE THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THE STATUTORY ONE-YEAR PROHIBITION
AGAINST DISCHARGE CONFERS UPON A REEMPLOYED VETERAN NO SECURITY FROM A
FURLOUGH FOR ONE YEAR WITHOUT PAY, THAT SUCH A FURLOUGH IS NOT A
"DISCHARGE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(C).  THE COMMISSION HAS HERE
TREATED A FURLOUGH OF MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS AS THE EQUIVALENT OF A
DISCHARGE.  THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRIOR GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICE
WHICH HAS CONSIDERED THAT THE FURLOUGH OF A VETERAN WITH MILITARY
PREFERENCE VIOLATES REGULATIONS PROVIDING THAT HE SHALL NOT BE
"DISCHARGED OR DROPPED" WHEN "REDUCTIONS IN FORCE ARE BEING MADE."  FN3
MOREOVER, SEC. 14 OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT, WHICH SAFEGUARDS
PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL OF THEIR PREFERENCE
RIGHTS, SPECIFICALLY PLACES FURLOUGHS AND SUSPENSIONS FOR MORE THAN
THIRTY DAYS WITHOUT PAY ON THE SAME BASIS AS DISCHARGES.  THUS, THE
COMMON MEANING OF FURLOUGH IN GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS
THAT WHICH THE COURT IN THE FISHGOLD CASE FOUND TO BE THE MEANING OF
"LAYOFFS" AND "FURLOUGHS" IN "INDUSTRIAL PARLANCE."  TO GIVE THIS ONE
YEAR "FURLOUGH" ANY LESS MEANING THAN THE STATUTORY WORD "DISCHARGE"
WOULD RESULT IN DEPRIVING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE VETERANS OF THE ENTIRE
CONGRESSIONAL GUARANTEE OF A YEAR'S RETENTION IN THEIR OLD JOBS.  WE
HOLD THAT THE FURLOUGH, IF APPLIED TO VETERANS, WOULD BE A "DISCHARGE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(C).  CONSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSION ACTED
WITHIN ITS STATUTORY DUTY BY PROVIDING VETERANS A PREFERENCE AGAINST
SUCH REMOVALS BY ESTABLISHING SUBGROUP A-1 PLUS. 

THIRD.  PETITIONER STRONGLY URGES INVALIDITY OF SUBGROUP A-1, WHICH
GIVES ALL PERMANENT EMPLOYEE "VETERANS WITH 'GOOD' OR HIGHER EFFICIENCY
RATINGS" RETENTION PREFERENCES OVER ALL NONVETERANS, EVEN OVER
NONVETERANS WITH HIGHER EFFICIENCY RATINGS AND LONGER GOVERNMENT
SERVICE.  WHILE CONCEDING THAT UNDER SOME LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES
VETERANS WITH "GOOD OR HIGHER RATINGS" ARE GRANTED PREFERENCE BY SEC.
12 OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944, PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE
VETERANS OVER NONVETERANS WHICH FAILS TO GIVE SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT TO A
NONVETERAN'S LONGER GOVERNMENT SERVICE.  THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE
THE REQUIRED EFFICIENCY RATINGS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACT THAT
NONVETERANS MAY HAVE HAD LONGER GOVERNMENT SERVICE.  AN ALTERNATIVE
ARGUMENT IS THAT, WHETHER ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED OR NOT, THE COMMISSION'S
SUBGROUPING IS WELL WITHIN THE POWER TO PROMULGATE "RULES AND
REGULATIONS" SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 12.  THE QUESTION
PRESENTED IS THEREFORE ONE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT LANGUAGE
OF SEC. 12. 

THE PART OF THE SECTION ON WHICH PETITIONER PARTICULARLY RELIES
READS: 

"IN ANY REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL IN ANY CIVILIAN SERVICE OF ANY FEDERAL
AGENCY, COMPETING EMPLOYEES SHALL BE RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS WHICH SHALL GIVE DUE EFFECT TO TENURE OF
EMPLOYMENT, MILITARY PREFERENCE, LENGTH OF SERVICE, AND EFFICIENCY
RATINGS:  PROVIDED, THAT THE LENGTH OF TIME SPENT IN ACTIVE SERVICE IN
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF EACH SUCH EMPLOYEE SHALL BE
CREDITED IN COMPUTING LENGTH OF TOTAL SERVICE  ...  " 

PETITIONER INTERPRETS THIS PORTION OF SEC. 12 AS A CONGRESSIONAL
COMMAND THAT THE COMMISSION MUST INVARIABLY GIVE "DUE EFFECT" TO LENGTH
OF SERVICE IN DETERMINING WHAT EMPLOYEES, WHETHER VETERANS OR
NONVETERANS, SHALL FIRST BE DISCHARGED IN A REDUCTION-OF-FORCE
PROGRAM.  IN EFFECT HE ARGUES THAT THE ABOVE LANGUAGE PROVIDES NO OTHER
"MILITARY PREFERENCE" IN CIVIL SERVICE FOR A VETERAN EMPLOYEE OVER A
NONVETERAN WITH GREATER "LENGTH OF SERVICE" THAN THAT DEFINED IN THE
ABOVE PROVISO, NAMELY, THAT THE LENGTH OF A VETERAN'S ARMY SERVICE
SHALL BE CREDITED IN COMPUTING THE LENGTH OF HIS TOTAL GOVERNMENT
SERVICE. 

THE PART OF SEC. 12 ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS THE COMMISSION'S
RECOGNITION OF A VETERAN'S ABSOLUTE RETENTION PREFERENCE WITHOUT REGARD
TO COMPARATIVE LENGTH OF SERVICE OF VETERANS AND NONVETERANS FOLLOWS
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT SECTION'S LANGUAGE ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIES,
AND READS: 

" ...  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHOSE EFFICIENCY
RATINGS ARE 'GOOD' OR BETTER SHALL BE RETAINED IN PREFERENCE TO ALL
OTHER COMPETING EMPLOYEES AND THAT PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHOSE
EFFICIENCY RATINGS ARE BELOW 'GOOD' SHALL BE RETAINED IN PREFERENCE TO
COMPETING NONPREFERENCE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE EQUAL OR LOWER EFFICIENCY
RATINGS  ...  " 

THE GOVERNMENT INTERPRETS THIS PROVISO AS A SPECIAL WITHDRAWAL OF THE
PROVISO-DEFINED CLASSES OF VETERANS FROM THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE FIRST
CLAUSE OF SEC. 12 RELATING TO "LENGTH OF SERVICE."  IT VIEWS THIS
PROVISO AS THE CONGRESSIONAL CREATION OF CLASSES OF
VETERANS'"PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES" FN4  WHO "SHALL," IF THEY HAVE THE
DEFINED EFFICIENCY RATINGS, "BE RETAINED IN PREFERENCE TO ALL OTHER
COMPETING EMPLOYEES" WITHOUT REGARD TO LENGTH OF SERVICE AS BETWEEN
VETERANS AND NONVETERANS.  THUS, UNDER THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION,
LENGTH OF SERVICE WOULD BE GIVEN THE "DUE EFFECT" REQUIRED BY THE FIRST
CLAUSE OF SEC. 12 BY ITS CONSIDERATION IN THE DETERMINATION OF
RETENTION PREFERENCES AS BETWEEN VETERAN AND VETERAN AND AS BETWEEN
NONVETERAN AND NONVETERAN.  THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISO AND THE
THEM, IS PLAINLY CALLED FOR BY THE LANGUAGE, AND HARMONIZES THIS
PORTION OF THE ACT WITH ALL ITS OTHER PARTS AND WITH THE ACT'S BROAD
PURPOSES.  THE INTERPRETATION IS COMPELLED, SO THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES,
BY THE ACT'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PROVISO AND
PRECEDING CLAUSES IN THE SECTION ARE VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF A LONG
SERIES OF PRIOR CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS AND AUTHORIZED EXECUTIVE
ORDERS GRANTING PREFERENCES IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT TO VETERANS AND
THEIR CLOSE RELATIVES.  WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT IN THE LIGHT
OF THE FOREGOING FACTORS NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE PERTINENT PARTS
OF THE SECTION CAN FAIRLY BE REACHED. 

IN 1876, SEVENTY-TWO YEARS AGO, CONGRESS PASSED A LAW WHICH REQUIRED
ANY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT WHEN MAKING "ANY REDUCTION OF FORCE" TO
"RETAIN THOSE PERSONS WHO MAY BE EQUALLY QUALIFIED WHO HAVE BEEN
HONORABLY DISCHARGED FROM THE MILITARY OR NAVAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF DECEASED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS." 
19 STAT. 143, 169; 5 U.S.C. SEC. 37.  FN5 IN 1912 CONGRESS GREATLY
STRENGTHENED THE OLD 1876 POLICY BY PROVIDING THAT "IN THE EVENT OF
REDUCTIONS BEING MADE IN THE FORCE IN ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS
NO HONORABLY DISCHARGED SOLDIER OR SAILOR WHOSE RECORD IN SAID
DEPARTMENT IS RATED GOOD SHALL BE DISCHARGED OR DROPPED, OR REDUCED IN
RANK OR SALARY."  37 STAT. 360, 413.  FN6  THERE IS NOTHING AMBIGUOUS
ABOUT THIS 1912 PROVISION.  IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE COMMAND THAT NO
GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENT SHOULD DISCHARGE, DROP, OR REDUCE IN RANK ANY
HONORABLY DISCHARGED VETERAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WITH A RATING OF
"GOOD."  LENGTH OF SERVICE IN NO WAY QUALIFIED THE PREFERENCE GIVEN THE
VETERAN.  AND SUBSEQUENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOT ONLY RECOGNIZED THIS
PROVISION AS GIVING VETERANS AN ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE,  FN7  BUT ALSO
EXTENDED THE PREFERENCE TO VETERANS IN THE FIELD SERVICE  FN8  AND TO
POSITIONS NOT UNDER CIVIL SERVICE.  FN9 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 4240 OF JUNE 4, 1925, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
5068 OF MARCH 2, 1929, PROVIDED, AS DOES SUBGROUP A-1 HERE, AN ABSOLUTE
RETENTION PREFERENCE FOR VETERANS OVER NONVETERANS WHERE THE VETERANS'
EFFICIENCY RATINGS WERE "GOOD," AND A SIMILAR ABSOLUTE PREFERENCE OVER
NONVETERANS WHOSE RATINGS WERE LESS THAN GOOD IF THE VETERANS' RATINGS
WERE EQUAL TO THOSE OF THE NONVETERANS.  AND AT THE TIME OF PASSAGE OF
THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944, THERE WERE 1943 CIVIL SERVICE
REGULATIONS OUTSTANDING  FN10  WHICH GRANTED VETERANS WITH PERMANENT
TENURE AND WITH A RATING OF "GOOD" OR HIGHER, PRECISELY THE SAME
ABSOLUTE RETENTION PREFERENCE OVER NONVETERANS WHICH IS NOW AFFORDED BY
SUBGROUP A-1, HERE ATTACKED AS INVALID.  CONSEQUENTLY, A HOLDING THAT
VETERANS WITH A RATING OF "GOOD" NO LONGER HAVE A RETENTION PREFERENCE
OVER NONVETERANS WITH LONGER SERVICE, WOULD MEAN THAT PASSAGE OF THE
VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT IN 1944 NARROWED THE LONG-EXISTING SCOPE OF
VETERANS' PREFERENCES IN CASE OF REDUCTION IN FORCE OF GOVERNMENT
PERSONNEL.  THE PURPOSE OF THAT ACT'S SPONSORS AND OF CONGRESS IN
PASSING IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE - TO BROADEN
RATHER THAN NARROW THE PREFERENCE. 

THE SENATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE WAS TOLD BY THE CONGRESSIONAL
SPONSOR OF THE MEASURE THAT "THIS BILL TAKES AWAY NO EXISTING VETERANS'
PREFERENCE, EITHER BY STATUTE OR EXECUTIVE ORDER, BUT IT DOES
STRENGTHEN, BROADEN, AND IMPLEMENTS THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE POLICY
HERETOFORE IN EFFECT," AND THAT IT WOULD "GIVE LEGISLATIVE SANCTION TO
EXISTING VETERANS' PREFERENCE, TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT  ...  "  FN11  A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION IN EXPLAINING THE BILL TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE
CALLED THE PROVISO HERE INVOLVED THE "HEART OF THE SECTION,"  FN12  AND
STATED THAT IT WAS "SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME" AS THE 1912 ACT, FN13
WHICH, AS BEFORE POINTED OUT, PROVIDED FOR AN ABSOLUTE VETERANS'
RETENTION PREFERENCE WITHOUT REGARD TO LENGTH OF SERVICE.  FN14  AND IN
EXPLAINING THE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, THE SPONSOR AND ACTIVE
PROPONENTS OF THE MEASURE EXPLAINED IT AS STRENGTHENING AND BROADENING
VETERANS' PREFERENCES THEN EMBODIED IN STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS. 
FN15 

NOT ONLY DID THE FRIENDS OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT EXPLAIN TO
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE AND TO THE CONGRESS THE BROAD
PREFERENCES THE ACT WOULD GRANT.  HOSTILE WITNESSES GRAPHICALLY POINTED
OUT TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE WHAT THEY DEEMED WOULD BE THE UNFAIRNESS OF
THE ACT'S EFFECT IF PASSED AS WRITTEN.  ONE SUCH WITNESS REPRESENTING
THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM LEAGUE SAID:  "I THINK YOU OUGHT TO GIVE
CONSIDERATION TO  ... RETENTION OF VETERANS IN CIVIL SERVICE REGARDLESS
OF LENGTH OF SERVICE.  I DO NOT THINK IT IS FAIR, A VETERAN BE RETAINED
IN SERVICE WHO HAS BEEN IN THE SERVICE 6 MONTHS AS AGAINST A PERSON WHO
HAS BEEN IN THE SERVICE 25 YEARS.  I BELIEVE SOME DISTINCTION MIGHT BE
MADE, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD DO A GRAVE INJUSTICE TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
LONG YEARS OF SERVICE IN CIVIL SERVICE."  FN16  AND ANOTHER WITNESS
AGAINST THE BILL POINTED OUT THAT UNDER IT NONVETERANS WOULD "BE THE
FIRST TO BE LAID OFF AND THE LAST TO BE TAKEN ON."  FN17 

THUS CONGRESS PASSED THE BILL WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE LONG
STANDING ABSOLUTE RETENTION PREFERENCES OF VETERANS WOULD BE EMBODIED
IN THE ACT.  PETITIONER MAKES AN APPEALING ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS
POLICY.  BUT IT IS A POLICY ADOPTED BY CONGRESS, AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY
IS TO INTERPRET THE ACT, NOT TO OVERRULE THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY. 
FN18  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE REMAINING TWO SUBGROUPS OF A, NOT INVOLVED HERE, ARE: 

SUBGROUP A-3, VETERANS WITH EFFICIENCY RATINGS LOWER THAN "GOOD." 

SUBGROUP A-4, NONVETERANS WITH EFFICIENCY RATINGS LOWER THAN "GOOD." 
5 CODE FED. REG. (SUPP. 1945) SEC. 12.303, NOW FOUND IN 5 CODE FED.
REG. (SUPP. 1947) SEC. 20.3(A). 

FN2  HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS ON H.R.
10132, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. 80-82, 118, 235; 86 CONG. REC. 11697. 

FN3  SEE 40 OPS.  ATTY.  GEN., NO. 115(SEPT.  20, 1946), P. 7,
REFERRING TO OPINION, ATTORNEY GENERAL MITCHELL IN 1929, INTERPRETING
EXECUTIVE ORDER 5068, MARCH 2, 1929.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT ORDER IS
SET OUT IN THIS OPINION AT P. 337. 

FN4  THE ACT NOT ONLY PROVIDES PREFERENCES FOR VETERANS BUT UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES GRANTS PREFERENCES TO VETERANS' WIVES, WIDOWS AND
MOTHERS.  SEC. 2, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 851, AS AMENDED BY 62 STAT. 3.  SEE
H.R. REP. NO. 1289, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 3. 

FN5  DISABLED VETERANS HAD BEEN GRANTED EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES IN
1865.  13 STAT. 571.  THIS STATUTORY POLICY WAS EXPRESSLY PRESERVED BY
SEC. 7 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT OF 1883, 22 STAT. 403, 406, 5 U.S.C.
SEC. 638, WAS CARRIED FORWARD IN OTHER ACTS, AND HAS BEEN REPEATED IN A
MOST COMPREHENSIVE MANNER IN SEC. 2 OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF
1944.    FN6  IT IS OF INTEREST THAT THIS LEGISLATIVE EXPRESSION, LIKE
THE ONE BEFORE US, WAS A PROVISO IN A SECTION, AND THAT THE SECTION AS
A WHOLE HAD TO DO WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
SHOULD PROVIDE FOR EFFICIENCY RATINGS IN RELATION TO PROMOTIONS,
DEMOTIONS AND DISMISSALS OF CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES. 

FN7  SEC. 7, EXECUTIVE ORDER 3567, OCTOBER 24, 1921.    FN8
EXECUTIVE ORDER 3801, MARCH 3, 1923. 

FN9  DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR 146, U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMM'N, OCTOBER
22, 1936. 

FN10  5 CODE FED. REG. (SUPP. 1943) SECS. 12.301-12.313.  THESE
REGULATIONS, LIKE THOSE ATTACKED HERE, SEPARATED ALL CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES ACCORDING TO THEIR TENURE, WITH
PERMANENT EMPLOYEES HAVING THE HIGHEST RETENTION STATUS.  THUS ALL
PERMANENT EMPLOYEES, REGARDLESS OF VETERANS' PREFERENCE AND OF
EFFICIENCY RATING, ENJOYED PRIORITY OVER ALL EMPLOYEES WITH LIMITED
TENURES. 

FN11  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE ON S. 1762
AND H.R. 4115, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 8-9. 

FN12  ID. AT 29. 

FN13  ID. AT 27, 29. 

FN14  THREE VETERANS' ORGANIZATIONS COLLABORATED WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
SPONSORS IN DRAFTING THE ACT.  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
CIVIL SERVICE ON S. 1762 AND H.R. 4115, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 8.  A
REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS STATED TO THE COMMITTEE:
"THIS MEASURE GIVES TO HONORABLY DISCHARGED VETERANS OF WORLD WAR I AND
WORLD WAR II, THEIR WIDOWS, AND THE WIVES OF DISABLED VETERANS WHO
THEMSELVES ARE NOT QUALIFIED, PREFERENCE IN EMPLOYMENT WHERE FEDERAL
FUNDS ARE DISBURSED.  IT PROVIDES, BY LAW, A DEFINITE PREFERENCE BOTH
IN APPOINTMENT AND RETENTION IN FEDERAL POSITIONS.  WHILE SUCH A
PREFERENCE IN MANY INSTANCES NOW EXISTS BY VIRTUE OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS
AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS, THIS BILL GIVES SUCH
PREFERENCE A PERMANENT STANDING THAT CANNOT BE CHANGED EXCEPT BY
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  THE BILL, LIKEWISE, DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE
VETERAN ANY RIGHTS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED UNDER ANY EXISTING LAW, EXECUTIVE
ORDER, CIVIL-SERVICE RULE, OR REGULATION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT PRESCRIBES BY LAW ADDITIONAL PREFERENCES AND CONFIRMS
MANY NOW EXISTING BY REGULATION."  ID. AT 41-42. 

FN15  90 CONG. REC. 3502, 3503, 3505. 

FN16  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE ON S. 1762
AND H.R. 4115, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 33-34. 

FN17  ID. AT 63, 65. 

FN18  IT IS WORTHY OF NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS, IN RECOGNITION OF
HARDSHIPS RESULTING FROM REPLACEMENT OF OLDER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BY
VETERANS, HAS PASSED ACTS WHICH GRANT SPECIAL PENSIONS TO EMPLOYEES
OVER 55 YEARS OF AGE WHO HAVE WORKED FOR THE GOVERNMENT FOR 25 YEARS OR
MORE AND WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE IN
REDUCTIONS IN FORCE.  60 STAT. 939, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 691E; 62 STAT. 48. 
SEE 92 CONG. REC. 9201-9202, H.R. REP. NO. 2443, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS.
1; S. REP. NO. 1678, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 1-2. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT IN THIS CASE.  MY
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE OPINION IS LIMITED TO THAT PORTION OF SUBDIVISION
SECOND WHICH INDICATES THAT THE RIGHTS OF A VETERAN AS TO DISCHARGE
AFTER RESTORATION TO EMPLOYMENT BY THE UNITED STATES DIFFER FROM THE
CORRESPONDING RIGHTS OF A VETERAN RESTORED TO EMPLOYMENT BY A PRIVATE
EMPLOYER. 

THE RIGHTS TO RETENTION OF EMPLOYMENT OF BOTH VETERANS ARE GOVERNED
BY THE SAME SUBSECTION 8(C).  54 STAT. 890, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 308. 
FOR ALL EMPLOYEES WHETHER THEY ARE REEMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
BY PRIVATE EMPLOYERS. 

NOTHING HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT INDICATES TO ME A CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE TO GRANT TO ONE MORE RIGHTS AS TO CONTINUITY OF EMPLOYMENT THAN
TO THE OTHER.  THE LEGISLATION AS TO BOTH DEPENDED UPON THE SAME
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - THE WAR POWER.  I CAN SEE NO REASON TO
ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS AN INTENTION TO GUARANTEE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT TO A
RETURNING VETERAN REGARDLESS OF THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE OR TO
DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN EQUALLY DESERVING VETERANS.  COMPARE FISHGOLD V.
SULLIVAN DRY DOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328 U.S. 275. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS
OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT.  BUT I DO SO WITHOUT EXPRESSING OPINION
CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF SUBGROUP A-1 PLUS OF THE REGULATIONS.  THAT
CLASSIFICATION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT AND THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF IT,
GIVES PREFERENCE FOR RETENTION FOR ONE YEAR IN GOVERNMENTAL WORK TO
VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II OVER ALL OTHERS, INCLUDING VETERANS OF WORLD
WAR I, REGARDLESS OF EFFICIENCY AND LENGTH OF SERVICE WHETHER OF THE
RESTORED VETERAN OR OF HIS COMPETITORS.  IT MAY BE THAT UPON THE SUM OF
THE LEGISLATION CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE SO BROAD A PRIORITY TO
RETURNING MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY SERVICES.  BUT IF SO, IT IS THE ONE
INSTANCE IN WHICH BOTH EFFICIENCY AND LENGTH OF SERVICE HAVE BEEN
ABSOLUTELY DISREGARDED.  AND IT IS AT LEAST POSSIBLE, I THINK, TO READ
THE COMPLEX SERIES OF STATUTES BEARING ON THE PROBLEM AS NOT HAVING
BEEN INTENDED TO GO SO FAR. 

BUT I DO NOT REACH THAT QUESTION, BECAUSE SUBGROUP A-1 DOES TAKE
ACCOUNT OF EFFICIENCY.  IT GIVES PREFERENCE TO VETERANS UNLESS THEIR
EFFICIENCY RATING IS LESS THAN "GOOD."  NO SPECIFIC MENTION OF LENGTH
OF SERVICE IS MADE.  BUT WHILE A CLASSIFICATION WHICH IGNORES ALL
CONSIDERATIONS BOTH OF EFFICIENCY AND OF LENGTH OF SERVICE MIGHT BE
FOUND UNAUTHORIZED UNDER THE STATUTORY SCHEME,  FN1  ONE WHICH TAKES
DUE ACCOUNT OF EFFICIENCY, WHICH IS NOT WHOLLY UNRELATED TO LENGTH OF
SERVICE, WELL MIGHT BE SUSTAINED.  AND IN THAT EVENT THE COMMISSION'S
JUDGMENT THAT VETERANS WITH EFFICIENCY RATINGS OF "GOOD" OR BETTER
SHOULD BE PREFERRED TO ALL OTHERS COULD HARDLY BE CALLED ARBITRARY OR
IN EXCESS OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED.  FN2 

IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN PETITIONER WAS SEPARATED FROM SERVICE THERE WERE
SOME 61 VETERANS CLASSIFIED A-1 PLUS, WITHOUT EFFICIENCY RATINGS AND IN
PRIORITY TO HIMSELF.  FN3  BUT WE ARE INFORMED, AND IT IS NOT DISPUTED,
FN4  THAT 60 OF THESE MEN NOW HAVE RECEIVED EFFICIENCY RATINGS OF
"GOOD," AND THEREFORE FALL INTO GROUP A-1 IN ANY EVENT.  THE OTHER OF
THE 61 HAS RESIGNED.  HENCE WE ARE TOLD, AND THIS ALSO IS NOT DISPUTED,
THAT ANY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT PURPORTING TO REQUIRE PETITIONER'S
RESTORATION WOULD MEAN THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO DISPLACE ONE OF THOSE
VETERANS. 

SINCE IN MY VIEW REGULATION A-1 IS VALID, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A-1
PLUS SHOULD STAND, AND SINCE ON THE FACTS NOW BEFORE US REGULATION A-1
IS SUFFICIENT TO EXCLUDE PETITIONER FROM RESTORATION AT THIS TIME, I DO
NOT THINK HE HAS MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING TO CALL FORTH THE EXERCISE
OF OUR DISCRETIONARY POWER IN THIS PROCEEDING TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION
TO REFORMULATE THE REGULATIONS.  UPON THE SHOWING MADE THE CASE IS NOT
ONE APPROPRIATE, IN MY JUDGMENT, FOR APPLICATION OF THE DISCRETIONARY
REMEDY OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

FN1  DEPENDING UPON WHETHER SEC. 8 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 890, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 308, REQUIRING
RESTORATION TO EMPLOYMENT AND FORBIDDING DISCHARGE WITHOUT CAUSE FOR
ONE YEAR, HAS BEEN QUALIFIED BY THE LATER ENACTMENT OF SEC. 12 OF THE
VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT, 58 STAT. 390, 5 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC.
861, QUOTED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, PARTICULARLY THE SECOND PROVISO. 
SEE NOTE 2. 

FN2  THE SECOND PROVISO, CF. NOTE 1, SPECIFIES THAT PREFERENCE
EMPLOYEES (I.E., VETERANS) WITH EFFICIENCY RATINGS OF "GOOD" OR BETTER
SHALL BE RETAINED IN PREFERENCE TO "ALL OTHER COMPETING EMPLOYEES," A
DESIGNATION CERTAINLY OF THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE SCOPE.  THE VERY TERMS
OF THE SECTION APPEAR THUS TO PLACE MUCH GREATER STRESS UPON EFFICIENCY
RATINGS THAN UPON LENGTH OF SERVICE. 

FN3  THE PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THESE POSITIONS HAS BEEN TO WITHHOLD
EFFICIENCY RATINGS, IN THIS CASE, FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, AND THEN
TO AWARD THEM ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE. 

FN4  ORDINARILY, OF COURSE, RIGHTS ARE TO BE DETERMINED AS OF THE
TIME THE INTERESTS INVOLVED ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.  BUT IT WOULD SEEM
HARDLY CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME THAT EMPLOYEES WITH
DEFERRED STATUS COULD DEFEAT THE USE OF A REASONABLE PERIOD TO
DETERMINE THE VETERAN'S EFFICIENCY RATING BY ACTUAL PERFORMANCE.  IN
ANY EVENT, THE DISCRETIONARY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REMEDY SHOULD NOT BE
APPLIED TO OUST PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER OTHERS,
EVEN THOUGH THEIR STATUS AS PREFERENCE EMPLOYEES IS ESTABLISHED AFTER
TRIAL BUT BEFORE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE ON APPELLATE REVIEW. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. DISTRICT COURT, 334 U.S. 258 


NO. 527.  ARGUED APRIL 19-20, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1948.  - 164 F.2D
159, REVERSED. 


AFTER A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS HEARD AND DETERMINED AN APPEAL IN
AN ANTITRUST CASE CERTIFIED TO IT BY THIS COURT UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE
9, 1944(BECAUSE OF WANT AT THE TIME OF A QUORUM OF JUSTICES OF THIS
COURT QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE), THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO COMPEL THE DISTRICT COURT TO COMPLY WITH ITS MANDATE - EVEN THOUGH
THE TERM DURING WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED ITS MANDATE
TO THE DISTRICT COURT HAS EXPIRED AND EVEN THOUGH IT BE ASSUMED
ARGUENDO THAT ALL FURTHER APPEALS IN THE CASE WOULD COME TO THIS
COURT.  PP. 259-265. 

(A)  THE BROAD POWER CONFERRED UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS BY SEC. 262 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE INCLUDES THE POWER TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS EITHER
IN EXERCISE OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION OR IN AID OF APPELLATE
JURISDICTION.  P. 263. 

(B)  THE FACT THAT MANDAMUS IS CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE APPELLATE
POWER DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE POWER TO ISSUE IT IS ABSENT
WHERE THERE IS NO EXISTING OR FUTURE, BUT ONLY A PAST, APPELLATE
JURISDICTION TO WHICH IT CAN RELATE.  P. 263. 

(C)  A HIGH FUNCTION OF MANDAMUS IS TO KEEP A LOWER TRIBUNAL FROM
INTERPOSING UNAUTHORIZED OBSTRUCTIONS TO ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT OF A
HIGHER COURT.  P. 264. 

(D)  THE ACT OF JUNE 9, 1944, GAVE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE
FULL AMPLITUDE OF JUDICIAL POWER TO DEAL WITH A CAUSE CERTIFIED TO IT
THEREUNDER - EVEN THOUGH IT BE ASSUMED ARGUENDO THAT ANY FURTHER
APPEALS IN THE CASE WOULD COME TO THIS COURT.  PP. 264-265. 

UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE THE DISTRICT COURT TO VACATE A PORTION OF ITS
JUDGMENT IN AN ANTITRUST CASE CERTIFIED BY THIS COURT TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 9, 1944, 58 STAT. 272, AND
REMANDED BY THE LATTER TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  164 F.2D 159.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 333 U.S. 841.  REVERSED, P. 265. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT A PROCEEDING AGAINST THE ALUMINUM COMPANY
OF AMERICA (ALCOA) AND OTHERS TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN CERTAIN
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C.
SECS. 1, 2, 4.  AFTER TRIAL THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT.  44 F.SUPP.  97.  THE CASE CAME HERE BY APPEAL, AFTER WHICH
WE ASCERTAINED THAT DUE TO THE DISQUALIFICATION OF FOUR JUSTICES TO SIT
IN THE CASE, WE WERE WITHOUT A QUORUM.  ACCORDINGLY, WE TRANSFERRED THE
CASE TO A SPECIAL DOCKET AND POSTPONED FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN IT UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS THERE WAS A QUORUM OF JUSTICES QUALIFIED TO SIT IN IT.
320 U.S. 708.  THEREAFTER CONGRESS AMENDED THE STATUTE WHICH PROVIDES
FOR A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT IN ANTITRUST
CASES.  THE ACT OF JUNE 9, 1944, C. 239, 58 STAT. 272, 15 U.S.C. (SUPP.
V, 1946) SEC. 29, PASSED TO MEET THE CONTINGENCY OF THE LACK OF A
QUORUM HERE, PROVIDES:  FN1 

"IN EVERY SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT IN ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES UNDER ANY OF SAID ACTS, WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES IS
COMPLAINANT, AN APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT WILL
LIE ONLY TO THE SUPREME COURT AND MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM
THE ENTRY THEREOF:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF, UPON ANY SUCH APPEAL,
IT SHALL BE FOUND THAT, BY REASON OF DISQUALIFICATION, THERE SHALL NOT
BE A QUORUM OF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS, THEN, IN LIEU OF A
DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT, THE CASE SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY CERTIFIED
BY THE SUPREME COURT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE CIRCUIT IN
WHICH IS LOCATED THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT WHICH COURT
SHALL THEREUPON HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE APPEAL IN
SUCH CASE, AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE OF SAID
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS, TO DESIGNATE IMMEDIATELY THREE CIRCUIT
JUDGES OF SAID COURT, ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE HIMSELF AND THE OTHER TWO OF
WHOM SHALL BE THE TWO CIRCUIT JUDGES NEXT IN ORDER OF SENIORITY TO
HIMSELF, TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE APPEAL IN SUCH CASE AND IT SHALL BE
THE DUTY OF THE COURT, SO COMPRISED, TO ASSIGN THE CASE FOR ARGUMENT AT
THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE DATE AND TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE SAME, AND
THE DECISION OF THE THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES SO DESIGNATED, OR OF A
MAJORITY IN NUMBER THEREOF, SHALL BE FINAL AND THERE SHALL BE NO REVIEW
OF SUCH DECISION BY APPEAL OR CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE. 

"IF, BY REASON OF DISQUALIFICATION, DEATH OR OTHERWISE, ANY OF SAID
THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES SHALL BE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION OF
SAID CASE, ANY SUCH VACANCY OR VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY THE SENIOR
CIRCUIT JUDGE BY DESIGNATING ONE OR MORE OTHER CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE
SAID CIRCUIT NEXT IN ORDER OF SENIORITY AND, IF THERE BE NONE SUCH
AVAILABLE, HE SHALL FILL ANY SUCH VACANCY OR VACANCIES BY DESIGNATING
ONE OR MORE CIRCUIT JUDGES FROM ANOTHER CIRCUIT OR CIRCUITS,
DESIGNATING, IN EACH CASE, THE OLDEST AVAILABLE CIRCUIT JUDGE, IN ORDER
OF SENIORITY, IN THE CIRCUIT FROM WHICH HE IS SELECTED, SUCH
DESIGNATION TO BE ONLY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE OF
ANY SUCH OTHER CIRCUIT. 

"THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO EVERY CASE PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT." 

THEREUPON WE CERTIFIED THE CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  322 U.S. 716.  THAT COURT HEARD THE CASE,
SUSTAINED CHARGES OF MONOPOLY AGAINST ALCOA, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF
DISMISSAL, AND REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH ITS OPINION.  148 F.2D 416.  IT LEFT OPEN THE
QUESTION OF THE REMEDIES TO BE APPLIED.  NEARLY FIVE YEARS HAD PASSED
SINCE THE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSED, WAR HAD INTERVENED, NEW PLANTS HAD BEEN
CONSTRUCTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEIR DISPOSITION UNDER THE SURPLUS
PROPERTY ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 765, 50 U.S.C.A. SEC. 1611, WOULD AFFECT
THE COMPETITIVE SITUATION IN THE INGOT MARKET.  PETITIONER HAD ASKED
FOR ALCOA'S DISSOLUTION.  BUT THAT QUESTION WAS DEFERRED UNTIL ALCOA'S
POSITION IN THE INDUSTRY AFTER THE WAR WAS KNOWN.  148 F.2D PP. 445
447. 

ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ITS JUDGMENT ON THE
MANDATE ON APRIL 23, 1946.  IT ENJOINED CERTAIN PRACTICES AND RETAINED
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE UNTIL AFTER THE SURPLUS PROPERTY
ADMINISTRATOR SHALL HAVE PROPOSED A PLAN FOR DISPOSITION OF THE
GOVERNMENT-OWNED ALUMINUM PLANTS OR FACILITIES, IN ORDER THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL MIGHT INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DISSOLUTION OR
PARTIAL DISSOLUTION OF ALCOA OR FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH PLAN IF IT
WILL ESTABLISH COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY OR FOR SUCH OTHER
RELIEF AS WILL ESTABLISH THEM; "AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING
ALUMINUM COMPANY TO APPLY TO THIS COURT FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE
QUESTION WHETHER IT STILL HAS A MONOPOLY OF THE ALUMINUM INGOT MARKET
IN THE UNITED STATES." 

PURSUANT TO THE QUOTED PROVISION ALCOA FILED A PETITION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT PRAYING THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ADJUDICATING
THAT IT NO LONGER HAS A MONOPOLY OF THE ALUMINUM INGOT MARKET IN THE
UNITED STATES AND THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE
INDUSTRY HAVE BEEN RESTORED.  THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO
DISMISS THE PETITION WAS DENIED AND THE QUESTION WHETHER ALCOA STILL
HAD A MONOPOLY WAS SET FOR TRIAL.  THE UNITED STATES THEREUPON FILED A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO
REQUIRE THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO VACATE SO MUCH OF ITS JUDGMENT OF APRIL
23, 1946, AS RESERVED JURISDICTION TO ENABLE ALCOA TO APPLY FOR A
DETERMINATION WHETHER IT STILL HAS A MONOPOLY, AND TO DISMISS THE
PETITION OF ALCOA. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS. 
164 F.2D 159.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED TO SETTLE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION UNDER THE ACT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT ITS POWER TO ISSUE THE
WRIT OF MANDAMUS EXISTS ONLY AS AN INCIDENT TO ITS JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  IT READ THE
ACT OF JUNE 9, 1944, AS CONFINING ITS JURISDICTION TO THE DETERMINATION
OF THE APPEAL WHICH IT HAD HEARD UNDER OUR CERTIFICATE.  MOREOVER,
CONTROL OVER ITS MANDATE ENDED WITH THE END OF THE TERM DURING WHICH
THE MANDATE WENT DOWN.  FN2  THE COURT THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD
NO POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT. 

WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER ANOTHER APPEAL IN THE CASE
WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR BY THIS COURT, NOW
THAT THERE IS A QUORUM OF JUSTICES QUALIFIED TO SIT IN IT.  NO MATTER
HOW THAT QUESTION WERE RESOLVED, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION IN THIS MANDAMUS PROCEEDING. 

THE FEDERAL COURTS "SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES
AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  IT WAS EARLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE POWER TO
ISSUE A MANDAMUS EXTENDED TO CASES WHERE ITS ISSUANCE WAS EITHER AN
EXERCISE OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION OR IN AID OF APPELLATE
JURISDICTION.  SEE MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137, 175; EX PARTE
CRANE, 5 PET. 190.  THAT POWER PROTECTS THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WHICH MIGHT BE OTHERWISE DEFEATED AND EXTENDS TO SUPPORT AN ULTIMATE
POWER OF REVIEW, THOUGH IT NOT BE IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY INVOLVED. 
MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268.  EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S.
241, 246.  IN THAT CATEGORY WILL OFTEN FALL CASES INVOLVING ISSUANCE OF
MANDAMUS REQUIRING THE LOWER COURT TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT OF THE
APPELLATE COURT.  DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V. RELLSTAB, 276 U.S. 1, 5. 

BUT THE FACT THAT MANDAMUS IS CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE APPELLATE
POWER DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE POWER TO ISSUE IT IS ABSENT
WHERE THERE IS NO EXISTING OR FUTURE APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO WHICH IT
CAN RELATE.  CF. CHICKAMING V. CARPENTER, 106 U.S. 663, 665.  IN RE
WASHINGTON & GEORGETOWN R. CO., 140 U.S. 91, IS A CASE IN POINT.  THE
LOWER COURT IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT ALLOWED INTEREST
ON A JUDGMENT.  THE AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST WAS TOO SMALL TO BE THE
SUBJECT OF A WRIT OF ERROR FROM THIS COURT.  IT WAS HELD THAT MANDAMUS
WAS THE PROPER REMEDY TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATE.  AND SEE
CITY BANK V. HUNTER, 152 U.S. 512, 515.  IT IS, INDEED, A HIGH FUNCTION
OF MANDAMUS TO KEEP A LOWER TRIBUNAL FROM INTERPOSING UNAUTHORIZED
OBSTRUCTIONS TO ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT OF A HIGHER COURT.  DELAWARE,
L. & W.R. CO. V. RELLSTAB, SUPRA.  THAT FUNCTION MAY BE AS IMPORTANT IN
PROTECTING A PAST EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION AS IN SAFEGUARDING A PRESENT
OR FUTURE ONE.  WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED "THE CASE" TO BE CERTIFIED TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IT EXCEPTED NONE OF THE POWERS OF THAT
COURT WHICH MIGHT BE BROUGHT TO BEAR ON THE LITIGATION.  THOSE POWERS
INCLUDE THE POWER TO ISSUE MANDAMUS TO PROTECT THE MANDATE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, EVEN THOUGH WE ASSUME ARGUENDO THAT ALL
FURTHER APPEALS IN THE CASE WOULD COME HERE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED TO THE
OTHER VIEW BY THE FEELING THAT THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE MANDAMUS
CUTS SO WIDE A SWATHE IN THE LITIGATION THAT IT SHOULD HOLD ITS HAND. 
ITS POSITION WAS THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS HAD
AN IMPORTANT RELATION TO THE RESERVED PROBLEM OF DISSOLUTION, THAT THE
JUDGMENT ON DISSOLUTION WOULD IN ITS VIEW EVENTUALLY COME HERE ON
APPEAL, THAT ANY RULING BY IT ON THE MANDAMUS WOULD THEREFORE LIMIT OUR
FREEDOM TO DEAL WITH THE DISSOLUTION ISSUE AS, IF, AND WHEN IT GOT
HERE. 

THOSE CONSIDERATIONS MAY BE OF LARGE IMPORTANCE IN THE TOTALITY OF
THIS PROCEEDING, ONCE WE ACCEPT THE PREMISE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THAT IT WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OTHER APPEALS IN THE
CASE.  BUT THEY DO NOT SEEM TO US GERMANE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE OBEDIENCE TO ITS
MANDATE.  WE THINK THE ACT OF JUNE 9, 1944, GAVE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THE FULL AMPLITUDE OF JUDICIAL POWER TO DEAL WITH THE CAUSE
WHICH WE CERTIFIED.  THAT POWER DOES NOT CONTRACT WITH THE IMPORTANCE
OR GRAVITY OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED.  THE POWER TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE
WITH THE MANDATE TURNS ON WHETHER THE LOWER COURT HAS OBSTRUCTED
ENFORCEMENT OF IT, NOT ON THE COLLATERAL REPERCUSSIONS WHICH
ENFORCEMENT MAY ENTAIL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1317, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS.; SEN. REP. NO. 890,
78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN2  THE TERM OF COURT IN WHICH THE MANDATE ISSUED EXPIRED SEPTEMBER
30, 1945, ON WHICH DAY THE COURT LOST POWER TO CHANGE IT EXCEPT AS TO
MATTERS OF FORM.  SEE FAIRMONT CREAMERY CO. V. MINNESOTA, 275 U.S. 70. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

WHEN THIS CASE ORIGINALLY CAME HERE BY APPEAL, AN EXTRAORDINARILY
RARE, IF NOT UNIQUE, SITUATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE COURT PRECLUDED
ITS CONSIDERATION FOR WANT OF A QUALIFIED QUORUM.  THE IMPASSE WAS MET
BY THE SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF JUNE 9, 1944, 58 STAT. 272, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 29.  FOR REASONS THAT SEEM TO ME TOO OBVIOUS TO NEED
SPELLING OUT, THAT ACT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS TRANSFERRING TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE CASE AND NOT MERELY A STAGE IN ITS
DISPOSITION IF THE CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE REASONABLY PERMITS THE ACT TO
BE SO READ.  SINCE IT CAN BE SO READ I DO SO READ IT AND CONCLUDE THAT
THE WHOLE APPELLATE PROCESS IN THIS CASE WAS VESTED IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, REGARDLESS OF THE PIECEMEAL EXERCISE OF THAT
PROCESS.  I FIND SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT OF JUNE 9, 1944, FREER
FROM DIFFICULTIES THAN SOME OF THE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO
MANDAMUS THAT ARISE ON THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COURT. 
..END :























PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 334 U.S. 266 


NO. 111.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1948.  - 159 F.2D
234 AND 161 F.2D 705, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HAS POWER, EXERCISABLE IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT, TO ISSUE
AN ORDER, IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, COMMANDING THAT A
PRISONER BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARGUING HIS OWN
APPEAL IN A CASE INVOLVING HIS LIFE OR LIBERTY.  PP. 278-286. 

(A)  AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PRESENCE OF A PRISONER BEFORE A CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS TO ARGUE HIS OWN APPEAL IS ONE IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND, AS SUCH, CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC.
262.  P. 279. 

(B)  SUCH AN ORDER SATISFIES THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 262 THAT
IT BE NECESSARY TO THE COMPLETE EXERCISE BY THE COURT OF AN APPELLATE
JURISDICTION ALREADY EXISTING.  P. 279. 

(C)  A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF THIS NATURE IS NOT LIMITED TO
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE "NECESSARY" IN THE SENSE THAT THE COURT COULD NOT
OTHERWISE PHYSICALLY DISCHARGE ITS APPELLATE DUTIES, BUT IS AVAILABLE
IN THOSE EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE ITS USE AS AN AID TO AN APPEAL OVER
WHICH THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE REASONABLY
NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.  P. 279. 

(D)  SINCE ORDINARILY A COURT CAN NOT DESIGNATE COUNSEL FOR A
PRISONER WHO HAS NO LAWYER AND WHO DESIRES THAT NONE BE APPOINTED TO
REPRESENT HIM, AN ARRANGEMENT IN SUCH CASE FOR THE PRISONER'S PRESENCE
AND PARTICIPATION AT THE ORAL ARGUMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE "REASONABLY
NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE."  P. 280. 

(E)  THE FORMS OF THE HABEAS CORPUS WRIT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 262 ARE
NOT ONLY THOSE WHICH WERE RECOGNIZED IN THIS COUNTRY IN 1789, WHEN THE
ORIGINAL JUDICIARY ACT CONTAINING THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS SECTION CAME
INTO EXISTENCE.  P. 282. 

(F)  WHERE PRODUCTION OF A PRISONER BEFORE AN APPELLATE COURT IS
ESSENTIAL TO PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE CASE ON APPEAL, ISSUANCE OF A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THAT PURPOSE IS "AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND
PRINCIPLES OF LAW" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 262.  PP. 281-284. 

2.  THE POWER TO ISSUE SUCH A WRIT IS DISCRETIONARY; AND THIS
DISCRETION IS TO BE EXERCISED WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF BOTH THE
PRISONER AND THE GOVERNMENT IN MIND.  P. 284. 

3.  THE RIGHT GIVEN BY SEC. 272 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO PARTIES IN
ALL THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO "PLEAD AND MANAGE THEIR CAUSES
PERSONALLY" IS NOT UNQUALIFIED AS TO PRISONERS DESIRING TO CONDUCT
THEIR OWN ORAL ARGUMENTS IN APPELLATE COURTS AND MAY BE CIRCUMSCRIBED
AS TO THEM WHERE REASONABLE NECESSITY SO DICTATES.  PP. 285-286. 

4.  AFTER THREE UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS BY HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS TO
SECURE RELEASE FROM ALLEGEDLY UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT, PETITIONER
INSTITUTED A FOURTH PROCEEDING, ALLEGING FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE
PROSECUTION HAD KNOWINGLY USED FALSE TESTIMONY TO OBTAIN HIS
CONVICTION.  WITHOUT DENYING THIS ALLEGATION OR QUESTIONING ITS
SUFFICIENCY, THE GOVERNMENT ASKED THAT THE FOURTH PETITION BE DENIED,
APPARENTLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED WERE KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER WHEN HE FILED THE EARLIER PETITIONS AND THAT THE FOURTH
PETITION WAS AN ABUSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  WITHOUT A HEARING
AND WITHOUT STATING ANY REASONS FOR ITS ACTION, THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE FOURTH PETITION.  HELD: IT ERRED IN SO DOING AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 269-278, 286
294. 

(A)  SINCE THE THREE PRIOR APPLICATIONS DID NOT RAISE THE ISSUE AS TO
THE PROSECUTION KNOWINGLY USING FALSE TESTIMONY TO OBTAIN PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION, THE THREE PRIOR REFUSALS TO DISCHARGE PETITIONER CAN HAVE
NO BEARING OR WEIGHT ON THE DISPOSITION TO BE MADE OF THE NEW MATTER
RAISED IN THE FOURTH PETITION.  SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224, AND
WONG DOO V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S. 239, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 287-290. 

(B)  ALTHOUGH THE RECORD IN THE PROCEEDING UPON PETITIONER'S FIRST
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS INDICATES THAT PETITIONER THEN HAD KNOWLEDGE
OF THE FACTS WHICH FORM THE BASIS, AT LEAST IN PART, OF THE DUE PROCESS
ALLEGATION MADE IN THE FOURTH PETITION, IT CAN NOT BE ASSUMED THAT
PETITIONER HAS ACQUIRED NO NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SINCE THE
TIME OF THE FIRST PROCEEDING, THAT MIGHT INDICATE FRAUDULENT CONDUCT ON
THE PART OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS.  P. 290. 

(C)  WHETHER PETITIONER DOES OR DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEW INFORMATION IS
A MATTER WHICH SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, AND ON WHICH PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO BE HEARD EITHER
AT A HEARING OR THROUGH AN AMENDMENT OR ELABORATION OF HIS PLEADINGS. 
P. 291. 

(D)  ASSUMING THAT PETITIONER DID HAVE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE
FACTS UPON WHICH THE ALLEGATION IN QUESTION IS BASED, IT DOES NOT
NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT THE FOURTH PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED, SINCE
HE MAY HAVE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE PREVIOUSLY TO ASSERT HIS RIGHTS.  P.
291. 

(E)  THE BURDEN WAS NOT ON THE PETITIONER TO ALLEGE AFFIRMATIVELY IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE THAT HE HAD ACQUIRED NEW INFORMATION OR THAT HE HAD
ADEQUATE REASONS FOR NOT RAISING SOONER THE ISSUE OF THE KNOWING USE OF
FALSE TESTIMONY.  IT WAS ENOUGH IF HE PRESENTED AN ALLEGATION AND
SUPPORTING FACTS WHICH, IF BORNE OUT BY PROOF, WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO
RELIEF.  PP. 291-292. 

(F)  THERE CAN NOT BE IMPOSED ON UNLEARNED PRISONERS WHO ACT AS THEIR
OWN COUNSEL IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS THE SAME HIGH STANDARDS OF THE
LEGAL ART WHICH MAY BE DEMANDED OF MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION,
ESPECIALLY WHERE THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH STANDARDS WOULD HAVE A
RETROACTIVE AND PREJUDICIAL EFFECT ON THE PRISONER'S INARTISTICALLY
DRAWN PETITION.  P. 292. 

(G)  IF THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES NOT TO DENY THE ALLEGATION OR TO
QUESTION ITS SUFFICIENCY AND DESIRES INSTEAD TO CLAIM THAT THE PRISONER
HAD ABUSED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, IT RESTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO
MAKE THAT CLAIM WITH CLARITY AND PARTICULARITY IN ITS RETURN TO THE
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.  P. 292. 

(H)  ONCE A PARTICULAR ABUSE OF THE WRIT HAS BEEN ALLEGED, THE
PRISONER HAS THE BURDEN OF ANSWERING THAT ALLEGATION AND OF PROVING
THAT HE HAS NOT ABUSED THE WRIT; AND IF THE ANSWER IS INADEQUATE, THE
COURT MAY DISMISS THE PETITION WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  P. 292. 

(I)  IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT, A HEARING MAY BE NECESSARY
TO DETERMINE THE FACTS, AND APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CAN THEN BE MADE.  IN THIS WAY AN ADEQUATE RECORD MAY BE ESTABLISHED SO
THAT APPELLATE COURTS CAN DETERMINE THE PRECISE BASIS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S ACTION, AND THE PRISONER IS GIVEN A FAIRER OPPORTUNITY TO MEET
ALL POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS TO THE FILING OF HIS PETITION.  P. 292. 

(J)  THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE INSTANT
PROCEEDING PRECLUDED A PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISSUE OF THE ALLEGEDLY
ABUSIVE USE OF THE HABEAS CORPUS WRIT AND DID NOT GIVE PETITIONER A
FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.  P. 293. 

PRICE V. JOHNSTON, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S FOURTH PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS DENIED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS EN BANC
DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING HIS APPEARANCE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ORALLY ARGUING HIS CASE, 159 F.2D 234, AND AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 161 F.2D 705.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 804.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 294. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS HAS PLAYED A GREAT ROLE IN THE HISTORY OF
HUMAN FREEDOM.  IT HAS BEEN THE JUDICIAL METHOD OF LIFTING UNDUE
RESTRAINTS UPON PERSONAL LIBERTY.  BUT IN RECENT YEARS THE INCREASED
USE OF THIS WRIT, ESPECIALLY IN FEDERAL COURTS, HAS CREATED MANY
PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS WHICH ARE NOT EASY OF SOLUTION.  THIS CASE INVOLVES
SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WRIT AND THE
NECESSITY THAT IT NOT LOSE ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN A PROCEDURAL MORASS, WE
HAVE DEEMED IT WISE TO DEAL WITH THIS CASE AT LENGTH AND TO SET FORTH
FULLY AND EXPLICITLY THE ANSWERS TO THE MATTERS AT ISSUE. 

IN 1938, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN
MICHIGAN UNDER A FOUR-COUNT INDICTMENT CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF THE
FEDERAL BANK ROBBERY STATUTE.  FN1  HE WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT
FOR 65 YEARS AND WAS COMMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY AT
ALCATRAZ, CALIFORNIA.  HIS EFFORTS TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL FROM HIS
CONVICTION PROVED FUTILE.  FN2 

SINCE HIS CONFINEMENT AT ALCATRAZ, PETITIONER HAS MADE FOUR SEPARATE
APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.  THE INSTANT PROCEEDING
INVOLVES THE FOURTH OF THESE APPLICATIONS.  INASMUCH AS THE PROBLEMS IN
THIS CASE CAN BEST BE UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE
EARLIER PROCEEDINGS, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE VARIOUS
APPLICATIONS IN SOME DETAIL. 

1.  THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS PREPARED AND FILED IN 1940 BY
PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT A LAWYER.  HE SOUGHT RELEASE MAINLY ON THE
GROUNDS THAT CERTAIN EVIDENCE USED AGAINST HIM AT THE TRIAL HAD BEEN
OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE
HAD IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY HIMSELF UPON THE FILING OF AN
AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS APPLICATION
DID NOT ALLEGE THAT THE CONVICTION RESULTED FROM THE PROSECUTION'S
KNOWING USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY.  THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED AN ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE, A RETURN WAS MADE, AND THE PETITIONER THEN FILED A TRAVERSE
IN THE FORM OF A "MOTION TO OVERRULE RESPONDENT'S RETURN AND ISSUE
WRIT."  THIS MOTION LIKEWISE FAILED TO AVER THE KNOWING USE OF FALSE
TESTIMONY.  BUT IT DID CALL THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO "TWO DIFFERENT
STATEMENTS" MADE AT THE TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTION'S CHIEF WITNESS, FRED
T. DONNER, AND TO THE "METHODS  ...  USED TO OBTAIN" THIS CHANGE IN
TESTIMONY.  FN3  THERE WAS NO INDICATION GIVEN AS TO WHAT THOSE
"METHODS" WERE.  DONNER'S TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL WAS ATTACHED AS AN
EXHIBIT, TESTIMONY WHICH REVEALED THAT DONNER HAD GONE TO THE OFFICE OF
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND TALKED TO HIM AND HIS ASSISTANT DURING THE
INTERVAL BETWEEN THE ALLEGEDLY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS.  FN4 

THE DISTRICT COURT THEN APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER AT HIS
REQUEST.  SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, WHEN THE MATTER CAME ON FOR
DETERMINATION, THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DISMISSING THE PETITION.  NO HEARING WAS
HELD, THE ORDER BEING ENTERED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS. 
AND NO FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE MADE.  NOR WAS AN
OPINION WRITTEN.  PETITIONER THEREAFTER PROCEEDED PRO SE.  AMONG HIS
VARIOUS LEGAL MANEUVERS, HE MOVED FOR A REHEARING.  HE STATED, AS
GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION, THAT THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO ALLOW HIM
TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY PERSONALLY BEFORE ENTERING THE ORDER AND THAT THE
COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY "BLOCKED YOUR PETITIONER FROM FILING AN
AMENDED PETITION TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL POINTS SO THAT THEY COULD BE
REVIEWED ON APPEAL."  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED. 

PETITIONER PREPARED HIS OWN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
AMONG THE POINTS UPON WHICH HE STATED HE INTENDED TO RELY WAS THE CLAIM
THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED "A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL" BY DONNER'S CHANGE
IN TESTIMONY AFTER TALKING WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.  BUT THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, IN AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, MADE NO REFERENCE TO THIS POINT; ITS OPINION
WAS DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE MATTERS RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL
PETITION.  PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 125 F.2D 806. 

INCLUDED IN THE NUMEROUS CLAIMS IN HIS ATTEMPT TO SECURE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT WAS THE REITERATION THAT DONNER'S CHANGE IN
TESTIMONY DEPRIVED HIM OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL.  ACCORDING TO HIS
WRITTEN ARGUMENT, "IF THIS WAS NOT PERJURED IT WAS BASE CONTRADICTORY
EVIDENCE FOR AFTER THIS WITNESS HAD COMPLETED ALL HIS EVIDENCE HE WAS
THEN TAKEN INTO THE PRIVATE CHAMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY  ...
AND THERE WAS INSTRUCTED AS TO WHAT TO SAY, FOR HE CAME FROM SAID
OFFICE AND WAS RECALLED TO THE STAND AT THIS SECOND SETTING HE REBUTTED
ALL HIS PRIOR TESTIMONY.  THIS MUST BE EITHER CLASSED AS A CONSPIRACY
FORCING A WITNESS TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY EITHER OF WHICH SURELY WOULD
NOT BE GIVING THE APPELLANT THE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL TO WHICH HE IS
ENTITLED."  THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION DEALT WITH THIS
CONTENTION IN A FOOTNOTE.  IT WAS THERE SAID THAT PETITIONER'S CLAIM
"IS REFUTED BY THE EXCERPT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT
THE TRIAL INTRODUCED AS PART OF PETITIONER'S PLEADINGS.  ...  THE
WITNESS DID NOT REBUT HIS PRIOR TESTIMONY BUT MERELY SUPPLEMENTED IT
WITH A FEW MORE DETAILS AND HE AFFIRMATIVELY STATED THAT HIS DISCUSSION
WITH THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT ASSIST HIM IN HIS SUBSEQUENT TESTIMONY." 
THIS COURT DENIED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  PRICE V.
JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 677; REHEARING DENIED, 316 U.S. 712. 

2.  IN 1942, SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE FOREGOING ACTION BY THIS COURT,
PETITIONER PREPARED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A SECOND PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  IN THIS PETITION HE SOUGHT RELEASE ON THE
SAME GROUNDS SET FORTH IN HIS FIRST PETITION AS WELL AS ON TWO
PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL GROUNDS.  THE TWO NEW CLAIMS WERE THAT
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL HAD BEEN ABSENT FROM THE COURTROOM DURING AN
IMPORTANT PART OF THE TRIAL AND THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT HAD COUNSEL AT
THE PRELIMINARY HEARING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER.  THE
PETITION, AS AMENDED, CONTAINED NO ALLEGATION THAT FALSE TESTIMONY HAD
BEEN KNOWINGLY USED AT THE TRIAL; NOR DID IT REFER IN ANY WAY TO
DONNER'S ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY.  MOREOVER, NO MENTION OF
SUCH MATTERS WAS MADE BY PETITIONER IN HIS TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING ON
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  FN5 

THE DISTRICT COURT, AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, DISCHARGED THE WRIT. 
ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED
AND WERE SILENT AS TO ANY QUESTION RELATING TO THE KNOWING USE OF FALSE
TESTIMONY.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL, THE
OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BEING DEVOTED TO THE MATTERS
DECIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 144 F.2D 260.  THIS
COURT THEN DENIED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, A PETITION WHICH PRESENTED
NO ISSUES DIFFERING FROM THOSE RAISED IN THE LOWER COURTS.  PRICE V.
JOHNSTON, 323 U.S. 789; REHEARING DENIED, 323 U.S. 819. 

3.  PETITIONER'S THIRD PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS
DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON AUGUST 22, 1945.  THIS DENIAL WAS BASED
ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED WERE KNOWN TO PETITIONER WHEN HE
FILED THE EARLIER PETITIONS, MAKING THE THIRD PETITION AN ABUSIVE USE
OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 61 F.SUPP.  995.  FN6
LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS DENIED.  IT IS NOT EVIDENT, HOWEVER, WHAT THE
ISSUES WERE THAT PETITIONER DID RAISE IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

4.  ON JANUARY 2, 1946, PETITIONER FILED HIS FOURTH APPLICATION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  HE ALLEGED THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED A FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL TRIAL IN THAT, ON THE TRIAL FOR BANK ROBBERY, THE JURY WAS
CONFUSED BY THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW PERJURY BEFORE A
NOTARY PUBLIC, THAT THE COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING A GENERAL
SENTENCE ON THE FOUR COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT, AND THAT THE FOURTH
COUNT DID NOT ALLEGE AN OFFENSE.  AFTER AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WAS
ISSUED, PETITIONER AMENDED HIS PETITION TO ALLEGE "THAT THE GOVERNMENT
KNOWINGLY EMPLOYED FALSE TESTIMONY ON THE TRIAL, TO OBTAIN THE
CONVICTION." 

THE RESPONDENT WARDEN, THROUGH THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, THEREUPON
FILED HIS RETURN TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.  THIS RETURN DID NOT DENY
THE ALLEGATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY EMPLOYED FALSE TESTIMONY
AT THE TRIAL.  NOR DID IT QUESTION THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE ALLEGATION OR
THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING FACTS.  IT SIMPLY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE THREE PRIOR HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS AND
ASKED THAT THE FOURTH PETITION BE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S OPINION DENYING THE THIRD APPLICATION.  FN7  PETITIONER'S
TRAVERSE STATED THAT THE EARLIER PETITIONS DID NOT CONTAIN SOME OF THE
POINTS PRESENTED IN THE FOURTH PETITION.  IT REPEATED THE ALLEGATIONS
IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION, THOUGH IT MERELY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
THE ALLEGATION OF THE AMENDED PETITION THAT THE PROSECUTOR KNOWINGLY
USED FALSE TESTIMONY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE FOURTH PETITION WITHOUT A HEARING AND
WITHOUT OPINION.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISCOVER FROM SUCH ACTION THE
PRECISE BASIS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE ALLEGATION IN
QUESTION.  BUT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE WARDEN'S RETURN, WE SUSPECT
THAT THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THE MATTER WAS KNOWN TO PETITIONER AT THE
TIME OF FILING THE FIRST PETITION AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN URGED AT THAT
TIME.  THERE IS NOTHING WHATEVER TO INDICATE THAT THE DISMISSAL STEMMED
FROM THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT THE ALLEGATION WAS INSUFFICIENT ON ITS
FACE OR THAT IT WAS OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT MERIT. 

ON APPEAL, A PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED UP
THE ORIGINAL FILES IN PETITIONER'S THREE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS AND
DIRECTED THAT PETITIONER BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT FOR THE ARGUMENT
OF HIS APPEAL.  AFTER THE ARGUMENT, THE SUBMISSION OF THE CAUSE WAS SET
ASIDE AND THE CASE WAS ASSIGNED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC. 
PETITIONER THEN MOVED THE COURT EN BANC FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING HIS
APPEARANCE FOR THE REARGUMENT.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED ON JANUARY 6,
1947.  IN ITS WRITTEN OPINION, A MAJORITY OF THE COURT HELD THAT
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS ARE WITHOUT POWER TO ORDER THE PRODUCTION OF
A PRISONER FOR THE ARGUMENT OF HIS APPEAL IN PERSON.  ONE JUDGE
EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE COURT HAD SUCH POWER, BUT CONCURRED IN THE
DENIAL OF THE MOTION AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION.  TWO JUDGES DISSENTED,
STATING THAT THERE WAS POWER TO GRANT THE REQUESTED RELIEF; BUT THEY
DID NOT REACH THE QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY OF EXERCISING THAT POWER IN
THIS CASE.  159 F.2D 234. 

THE APPEAL WAS THEN CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS ON BRIEFS FILED BY
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT  FN8 AND ON ORAL ARGUMENT BY AN ASSISTANT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.  PETITIONER WAS UNREPRESENTED AT THE ORAL
ARGUMENT.  ON MAY 5, 1947, THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING THE
FOURTH PETITION WITHOUT A HEARING WAS AFFIRMED, TWO JUDGES DISSENTING
IN SEPARATE OPINIONS.  161 F.2D 705. 

THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT
THAT, BY AMENDING HIS FOURTH PETITION TO ALLEGE "THAT THE GOVERNMENT
KNOWINGLY EMPLOYED FALSE TESTIMONY ON THE TRIAL, TO OBTAIN CONVICTION,"
PETITIONER HAD INTERPOSED A WHOLLY NEW GROUND FOR DISCHARGE.  BUT THE
SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CLAIM HAD NOT BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THE OPINION ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE ALLEGATION AS
THOUGH IT HAD INCORPORATED PETITIONER'S EXPLANATORY STATEMENT IN HIS
APPELLATE BRIEF THAT THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, IN THE COURSE OF THE
TRIAL, "DID TAKE THE ONE AND ONLY WITNESS, DONNER, THAT TESTIFIED THAT
THERE HAD BEEN A CRIME COMMITTED, FROM THE WITNESS STAND AFTER HE HAD
TESTIFIED THAT HE COULD NOT SEE ANY GUNS OR PISTOLS DURING THE ROBBERY,
TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND TALKED ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AND
PUT THE WITNESS DONNER BACK ON THE WITNESS STAND TO TESTIFY THAT HE DID
SEE THE PISTOLS, AND DESCRIBED THEM, WHEN HE COULD NOT DO SO AT
FIRST." 

SO CONSTRUING THE ALLEGATION, THE COURT THEN SAID:  "THE RECORDS IN
THESE SEVERAL PROCEEDINGS DISCLOSE THAT THROUGHOUT HIS TRIAL APPELLANT
WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOOSING.  AND SINCE HE WAS
HIMSELF PRESENT AT ALL TIMES HE COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF THE
DESCRIBED INCIDENT OR OF ITS IMPLICATIONS, NOR DOES HE MAKE ANY SUCH
CLAIM.  ON THE FACE OF HIS SHOWING IT IS APPARENT HE KNEW AS MUCH ABOUT
THE MISCONDUCT AT THE TIME IT IS SAID TO HAVE OCCURRED AS HE KNOWS
NOW.  YET NO REASON OR EXCUSE IS ATTEMPTED TO BE ADVANCED FOR HIS
FAILURE TO SET IT UP IN ONE OR THE OTHER OF HIS PRIOR PETITIONS."  161
F.2D AT 706-707.  AND IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT "WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN
REPEATED PETITIONS WITH AN APPARENT HUSBANDING OF GROUNDS THE ONUS MAY
PROPERLY BE CAST ON THE APPLICANT OF SATISFYING THE COURT THAT AN
ABUSIVE USE IS NOT BEING MADE OF THE WRIT."  ID., AT 707.  SINCE
PETITIONER HAD GIVEN NO VALID EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO PRESENT EARLIER THE
ALLEGATION IN QUESTION, THE CONCLUSION WAS REACHED THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE FOURTH PETITION
WITHOUT A HEARING.  REFERENCE WAS MADE IN THIS RESPECT TO SALINGER V.
LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224, AND WONG DOO V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S. 239. 
WE ISSUED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE IMPORTANT ISSUES THUS
RAISED IN THE TWO OPINIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  AND ON
PETITIONER'S MOTION, WE APPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT TO
SERVE AS HIS COUNSEL BEFORE US.

                        I. 

WE HOLD THAT POWER IS RESIDENT IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO
COMMAND THAT A PRISONER BE BROUGHT BEFORE IT SO THAT HE MAY ARGUE HIS
OWN APPEAL IN A CASE INVOLVING HIS LIFE OR LIBERTY.  THAT POWER, WHICH
MAY BE EXERCISED AT THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT, GROWS OUT OF THE
PORTION OF SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 377, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT "THE SUPREME COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, AND
THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES
AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW." 

AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PRESENCE OF A PRISONER BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS TO ARGUE HIS OWN APPEAL IS ONE IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.  AS SUCH, IT CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC.
262.  BASIC TO THE POWER OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER THAT SECTION, OF COURSE, IS THE PENDENCY OF A
PROCEEDING OF AN APPELLATE NATURE TO WHICH THE CONTEMPLATED WRIT IS
AUXILIARY.  WHITNEY V. DICK, 202 U.S. 132.  THE WRIT CANNOT BE ISSUED
BY THAT COURT AS AN INDEPENDENT AND ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; IT CAN ONLY
ISSUE WHERE IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO THE COMPLETE EXERCISE OF AN
APPELLATE JURISDICTION ALREADY EXISTING.  SINCE THE OCCASION FOR
DEMANDING THE PRESENCE OF A PRISONER AT AN ORAL ARGUMENT WOULD ARISE
ONLY WHERE THERE WAS AN APPEAL ALREADY PENDING BEFORE THE COURT, A WRIT
COMPELLING HIS PRESENCE SATISFIES THIS BASIC REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 262. 

MOREOVER, A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OF THIS NATURE CAN ON OCCASION BE
"NECESSARY" FOR THE EXERCISE OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION SO AS TO BE
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 262.  WE HAVE REFUSED TO INTERPRET THAT SECTION TO
MEAN THAT A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CAN ISSUE A HABEAS CORPUS WRIT
ONLY IF "NECESSARY" IN THE SENSE THAT THE COURT COULD NOT OTHERWISE
PHYSICALLY DISCHARGE ITS APPELLATE DUTIES.  ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX
REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 273.  RATHER, SEC. 262 HAS BEEN READ SO THAT
THE WRIT MAY BE ISSUED WHERE ITS USE IS CALCULATED, IN THE SOUND
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, TO ACHIEVE THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE ENTRUSTED TO IT.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE WRIT IS AVAILABLE IN
THOSE EXCEPTIONAL CASES "WHERE, BECAUSE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, ITS
USE AS AN AID TO AN APPEAL OVER WHICH THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION MAY
FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE REASONABLY NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE." 
ID., AT 274. 

EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS MAY ARISE WHERE A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
MIGHT FAIRLY CONCLUDE THAT ORAL ARGUMENT BY A PRISONER IN PERSON IS
"REASONABLY NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE."  TRUE, AN APPEAL CAN
ALWAYS BE SUBMITTED ON WRITTEN BRIEFS.  BUT ORAL ARGUMENT, WHILE NOT
INDISPENSABLE, IS FREQUENTLY IF NOT USUALLY DESIRED BY THE PARTIES. 
AND THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN A COURT DEEMS IT ESSENTIAL THAT ORAL
ARGUMENT BE HAD; INDEED, A COURT ORDER OR REQUEST TO THAT EFFECT MAY BE
NECESSARY WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED A WILLINGNESS TO
FOREGO THE PRIVILEGE.  IN SUCH SITUATIONS WHERE ORAL ARGUMENT IS SLATED
TO TAKE PLACE, FAIRNESS AND ORDERLY APPELLATE PROCEDURE DEMAND THAT
BOTH PARTIES BE ACCORDED AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
ARGUMENT EITHER THROUGH COUNSEL OR IN PERSON.  THE DIFFICULTY, OF
COURSE, ARISES WHEN ONE OF THE PARTIES IS A PRISONER WHO HAS NO LAWYER
AND WHO DESIRES THAT NONE BE APPOINTED TO REPRESENT HIM, BEING OF THE
BELIEF THAT THE CASE IS OF SUCH A NATURE THAT ONLY HE HIMSELF CAN
ADEQUATELY DISCUSS THE FACTS AND ISSUES.  SINCE ORDINARILY THE COURT
CANNOT DESIGNATE COUNSEL FOR THE PRISONER WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, AN
ARRANGEMENT THAT IS MADE FOR HIS PRESENCE AND PARTICIPATION AT THE ORAL
ARGUMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE "REASONABLY NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE."  OTHERWISE THE COURT LOSES THE BENEFITS OF LISTENING TO HIS
CONTENTIONS, HEARING ONLY THE ARGUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT COUNSEL. 
CONCEIVABLY, THE PRISONER'S CASE MIGHT BE UNDULY PREJUDICED BY SUCH A
ONE-SIDED DEBATE.  THAT THE ARGUMENT ORALLY ADVANCED BY THE PRISONER
MAY IN FACT BE LESS THAN ENLIGHTENING TO THE COURT DOES NOT DETRACT
FROM THE FAIRNESS OR THE JUSTNESS OF GIVING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO
APPEAR AND ARGUE.  THUS IF A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS SATISFIED IN
OTHER RESPECTS THAT THE PRISONER SHOULD BE PRODUCED AT THE ARGUMENT, A
WRIT DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THAT PRODUCTION IS PLAINLY "NECESSARY"
WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SEC. 262. 

IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THE PURPOSE
UNDER CONSIDERATION IS "AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW,"
AS THAT PHRASE IS USED IN SEC. 262.  AT COMMON LAW THERE WERE SEVERAL
VARIANTS OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  SEE 3 BLACKSTONE'S
COMMENTARIES* 129-132; EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 4 CRANCH 75, 97-98.  FN9  NONE
OF THEM, HOWEVER, SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DEVISED FOR THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE
OF PRODUCING A PRISONER TO ARGUE HIS OWN APPEAL.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR
THAT THE COURTS OF ENGLAND HAVE USED OR DEVELOPED THE HABEAS CORPUS
WRIT FOR THIS PURPOSE.  FN10 

HOWEVER, WE DO NOT CONCEIVE THAT A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN
ISSUING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, IS
NECESSARILY CONFINED TO THE PRECISE FORMS OF THAT WRIT IN VOGUE AT THE
COMMON LAW OR IN THE ENGLISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  SECTION 262 SAYS THAT
THE WRIT MUST BE AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF "LAW," A
TERM WHICH IS UNLIMITED BY THE COMMON LAW OR THE ENGLISH LAW.  AND
SINCE "LAW" IS NOT A STATIC CONCEPT, BUT EXPANDS AND DEVELOPS AS NEW
PROBLEMS ARISE, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE FORMS OF THE HABEAS CORPUS
WRIT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 262 ARE ONLY THOSE RECOGNIZED IN THIS COUNTRY
IN 1789, WHEN THE ORIGINAL JUDICIARY ACT CONTAINING THE SUBSTANCE OF
THIS SECTION CAME INTO EXISTENCE.  IN SHORT, WE DO NOT READ SEC. 262 AS
AN OSSIFICATION OF THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF MORE THAN A CENTURY
AND A HALF AGO.  RATHER IT IS A LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED SOURCE OF
PROCEDURAL INSTRUMENTS DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE "THE RATIONAL ENDS OF LAW." 
ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, SUPRA, 273. 

WE ACCORDINGLY LOOK TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE ATTACHED
THEMSELVES TO THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS TO THE
PRESENT TIME.  THE HISTORIC AND GREAT USAGE OF THE WRIT, REGARDLESS OF
ITS PARTICULAR FORM, IS TO PRODUCE THE BODY OF A PERSON BEFORE A COURT
FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE MIGHT BE ESSENTIAL TO THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF A
CAUSE.  THE MOST IMPORTANT RESULT OF SUCH USAGE HAS BEEN TO AFFORD A
SWIFT AND IMPERATIVE REMEDY IN ALL CASES OF ILLEGAL RESTRAINT UPON
PERSONAL LIBERTY.  WITH THAT USAGE, A WRIT FOR THE PURPOSE UNDER
CONSIDERATION IS ENTIRELY AGREEABLE AND CONSISTENT.  TO ORDER THE
PRODUCTION OF A PRISONER BEFORE AN APPELLATE COURT TO ARGUE HIS OWN
APPEAL IN A CASE IN WHICH HE ALLEGES THAT HE IS ILLEGALLY IMPRISONED IS
TO PERFORM AN ACT WHICH IS INTIMATELY AND NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE
PRESENTATION OF THE MERITS OF THE PRISONER'S COMPLAINT, A PRESENTATION
WHICH IS ESSENTIAL IF RELIEF FROM THE ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT IS
TO BE SECURED.  SUCH PRODUCTION, AS WE HAVE SEEN, MAY IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES BE ESSENTIAL TO THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE CASE ON
APPEAL.  WHERE THAT IS THE CASE, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO ACHIEVE THAT PRODUCTION IS AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES OF LAW. 

MOREOVER, THE PRINCIPLE HAS DEVELOPED THAT THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SHOULD BE LEFT SUFFICIENTLY ELASTIC SO THAT A COURT MAY, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS PROPER JURISDICTION, DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH ANY AND ALL
FORMS OF ILLEGAL RESTRAINT.  THE RIGIDITY WHICH IS APPROPRIATE TO
ORDINARY JURISDICTIONAL DOCTRINES HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED TO THIS WRIT. 
THE FLUIDITY OF THE WRIT IS ESPECIALLY DESIRABLE IN THE SETTING OF A
STATUTE WHERE CONGRESS HAS GIVEN CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS THE POWER TO
ISSUE THE WRIT IN AID OF THEIR APPELLATE JURISDICTION WHEREVER
"REASONABLY NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE."  THE ORDINARY FORMS
AND PURPOSES OF THE WRIT MAY OFTEN HAVE LITTLE RELATION TO THE
NECESSITIES OF THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THOSE COURTS.  JUSTICE MAY
ON OCCASION REQUIRE THE USE OF A VARIATION OR A MODIFICATION OF AN
ESTABLISHED WRIT.  IT THUS BECOMES ESSENTIAL NOT TO LIMIT APPELLATE
COURTS TO THE ORDINARY FORMS AND PURPOSES OF LEGAL PROCESS.  CONGRESS
HAS SAID AS MUCH BY THE VERY BREADTH OF ITS LANGUAGE IN SEC. 262.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT WE SHOULD NOT WRITE IN LIMITATIONS WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT
SEE FIT TO MAKE. 

FORMULATION OF THE LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 262 WHICH DO EXIST MUST AWAIT
THE NECESSITIES OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN PARTICULAR CASES.  IT IS
ENOUGH FOR THE PRESENT TO NOTE THAT WHERE THOSE NECESSITIES ARE SUCH AS
TO REQUIRE THE PRESENCE OF A PRISONER TO ARGUE HIS OWN APPEAL, THE
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THAT PURPOSE IS "AGREEABLE TO
THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW" SO AS TO BE SANCTIONED BY SEC. 262. 
ONLY IN THAT WAY CAN WE GIVE SUBSTANCE IN THIS CASE TO OUR PREVIOUS
STATEMENT THAT "DRY FORMALISM SHOULD NOT STERILIZE PROCEDURAL RESOURCES
WHICH CONGRESS HAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE FEDERAL COURTS."  ADAMS V.
UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, SUPRA, 274. 

WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS DO HAVE THE
POWER UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE
NATURE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS COMMANDING THAT A PRISONER BE BROUGHT
TO THE COURTROOM TO ARGUE HIS OWN APPEAL.  THAT POWER HAS HERETOFORE
BEEN ASSUMED.  SCHWAB V. BERGGREN, 143 U.S. 442, 449; AND SEE GOLDSMITH
V. SANFORD, 132 F.2D 126, 127; DONNELLY V. STATE, 26 N.J. LAW 463, 472,
AFFIRMED, 26 N.J. LAW 601.  WE NOW TRANSLATE THAT ASSUMPTION INTO AN
EXPLICIT HOLDING. 

IN SO DECIDING, HOWEVER, WE EMPHASIZE THAT THE POWER OF A CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS TO ISSUE SUCH A WRIT IS DISCRETIONARY.  AND THIS
DISCRETION IS TO BE EXERCISED WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF BOTH THE
PRISONER AND THE GOVERNMENT IN MIND.  IF IT IS APPARENT THAT THE
REQUEST OF THE PRISONER TO ARGUE PERSONALLY REFLECTS SOMETHING MORE
THAN A MERE DESIRE TO BE FREED TEMPORARILY FROM THE CONFINES OF THE
PRISON,  FN11  THAT HE IS CAPABLE OF CONDUCTING AN INTELLIGENT AND
RESPONSIBLE ARGUMENT, AND THAT HIS PRESENCE IN THE COURTROOM MAY BE
SECURED WITHOUT UNDUE INCONVENIENCE OR DANGER, THE COURT WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING THE WRIT.  BUT IF ANY OF THOSE FACTORS WERE FOUND
TO BE NEGATIVE, THE COURT MIGHT WELL DECLINE TO ORDER THE PRISONER TO
BE PRODUCED.  SECTION 262, IN OTHER WORDS, DOES NOT JUSTIFY AN
INDISCRIMINATE OPENING OF THE PRISON GATES TO ALLOW ALL THOSE WHO SO
DESIRE TO ARGUE THEIR OWN APPEALS. 

THE DISCRETIONARY NATURE OF THE POWER IN QUESTION GROWS OUT OF THE
FACT THAT A PRISONER HAS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ARGUE HIS OWN APPEAL OR
EVEN TO BE PRESENT AT THE PROCEEDINGS IN AN APPELLATE COURT.  SCHWAB V.
BERGGREN, SUPRA.  THE ABSENCE OF THAT RIGHT IS IN SHARP CONTRAST TO HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE OF BEING PRESENT IN PERSON AT EACH
SIGNIFICANT STAGE OF A FELONY PROSECUTION,  FN12  SEE HOPT V. UTAH, 110
U.S. 574, AND SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, AND TO HIS
RECOGNIZED PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING HIS OWN DEFENSE AT THE TRIAL. 
LAWFUL INCARCERATION BRINGS ABOUT THE NECESSARY WITHDRAWAL OR
LIMITATION OF MANY PRIVILEGES AND RIGHTS, A RETRACTION JUSTIFIED BY THE
CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING OUR PENAL SYSTEM.  AMONG THOSE SO LIMITED IS
THE OTHERWISE UNQUALIFIED RIGHT GIVEN BY SEC. 272 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 394, TO PARTIES IN ALL THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
TO "PLEAD AND MANAGE THEIR OWN CAUSES PERSONALLY."  TO THE EXTENT THAT
THIS SECTION PERMITS PARTIES TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE
APPELLATE COURTS, IT MUST BE MODIFIED IN ITS APPLICATION TO PRISONERS. 
ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPEAL IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF DUE PROCESS
AND IT MAY BE CIRCUMSCRIBED AS TO PRISONERS WHERE REASONABLE NECESSITY
SO DICTATES. 

A PRISONER'S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPEAL IS
ACCORDINGLY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETIONARY POWER
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER SEC. 262.  THE COURT BELOW ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT NO SUCH POWER EXISTED.  BUT SINCE THE CASE MUST GO BACK
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE
TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO EXERCISE THE
DISCRETIONARY POWER WHICH RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO IT.

                                 II. 

WE HOLD THAT PETITIONER'S FOURTH PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, ALLEGING THE KNOWING USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY TO OBTAIN HIS
CONVICTION, WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES BEFORE US THAT THE ALLEGATION IN QUESTION, AS
PRESENTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, IS A MERE ALLEGATION OF LAW
UNSUPPORTED BY REFERENCE TO ANY SPECIFIC FACTS.  AS SUCH, THE
ALLEGATION IS SAID TO BE FATALLY DEFICIENT AND TO WARRANT SUMMARY
DENIAL.  REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS RESPECT TO CUDDY, PETITIONER, 131
U.S. 280, 286; KOHL V. LEHLBACK, 160 U.S. 293, 299; UNITED STATES V. JU
TOY, 198 U.S. 253, 261; COLLINS V. MCDONALD, 258 U.S. 416, 420-421;
HODGE V. HUFF, 78 U.S. APP. D.C. 329, 331, 140 F.2D 686, 688; AND LONG
V. BENSON, 140 F.2D 195, 196.    BUT THIS PROPOSITION WAS APPARENTLY
NOT PRESENTED TO OR PASSED UPON BY THE DISTRICT COURT; NOR WAS IT
DETERMINED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE SOLE COMPLAINT MADE BY
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE LOWER COURTS, AND THE MAIN ONE RAISED BEFORE US,
RELATES TO PETITIONER'S ALLEGED ABUSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  A
CONSIDERATION OF THAT FACTOR IS PRELIMINARY AS WELL AS COLLATERAL TO A
DECISION AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OR MERITS OF THE ALLEGATION ITSELF.  WE
ACCORDINGLY ADDRESS OURSELVES SOLELY TO THE ALLEGED ABUSE OF THE WRIT,
LEAVING THE GOVERNMENT FREE TO PRESS ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE ADEQUACY OF
THE ALLEGATION AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE RENEWED BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT.    THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AS WE HAVE NOTED, TREATED THE
BARE ALLEGATION OF THE KNOWING USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY AS HAVING
INCORPORATED THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT IN PETITIONER'S APPELLATE
BRIEF.  WHETHER SUCH AN EXPANDED ALLEGATION STATES A SUFFICIENTLY
SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF MOONEY V.
HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, IS A QUESTION WHICH WE NEED NOT NOW ANSWER.  NOR
IS IT NECESSARY HERE TO DECIDE THE PROPRIETY OF TREATING A STATEMENT IN
AN APPELLATE BRIEF AS AN AMPLIFICATION OF AN ALLEGATION IN THE TRIAL
COURT, A PRACTICE TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAKES OBJECTION. 

BUT IN DEALING WITH THE ALLEGED ABUSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
WE FIND IT UNDENIED THAT THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ILLUMINATES THE
ALLEGATION MADE IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE STATEMENT MAKES CLEAR THE
INCIDENT TO WHICH PETITIONER HAD REFERENCE WHEN HE ALLEGED THE KNOWING
USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE ESSENCE OF PETITIONER'S
CHARGE IS THAT THE PROSECUTION BROUGHT UNDUE PRESSURE TO BEAR ON THE
GOVERNMENT'S CHIEF WITNESS, DONNER, TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY AND THAT
THIS ALTERED TESTIMONY WAS KNOWINGLY USED TO OBTAIN PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION.  CF. PYLE V. KANSAS, 317 U.S. 213, 215-216.  THE ISSUE NOW
IS WHETHER PETITIONER HAS SO ABUSED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS TO BAR
A CONSIDERATION OF THIS ALLEGATION, WHETHER IT BE GENERAL OR SPECIFIC
IN FORM OR WHETHER IT BE SUPPORTED OR UNSUPPORTED BY FACTUAL
REFERENCES. 

FROM THE FACTS WHICH WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY DETAILED IT IS EVIDENT THAT
THIS ALLEGATION WAS NOT PROPERLY RAISED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE
FOURTH PETITION.  NONE OF THE THREE PRIOR PETITIONS HAD MADE THIS
POINT.  IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING, IT IS TRUE, PETITIONER'S TRAVERSE TO
THE WARDEN'S RETURN CALLED THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO THE DIFFERING
STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DONNER AND CLAIMED THAT CERTAIN UNDEFINED
"METHODS" HAD BEEN USED TO OBTAIN THE CHANGE IN TESTIMONY.  PETITIONER
WAS APPARENTLY TRYING TO RAISE THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE FORMULATED IN
MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA.  BUT HIS EFFORT WAS WITHOUT SUCCESS.  A MERE
CLAIM THAT A WITNESS GAVE INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY IS NOT ENOUGH TO
CHARGE THE PROSECUTION'S KNOWING USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY; IT MAY WELL BE
THAT THE WITNESS' SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS WERE TRUE, IN WHICH EVENT THE
CLAIM OF INCONSISTENCY IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.  SINCE THIS
DUE PROCESS ISSUE WAS NOT PROPERLY RAISED, WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION IN DISMISSING THE FIRST PETITION ON THE
PLEADINGS WAS A DETERMINATION AGAINST PETITIONER ON THE MERITS OF THE
ISSUE. 

FURTHER ELABORATION OF THE DONNER INCIDENT WAS MADE BY PETITIONER IN
THE COURSE OF SEEKING REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION ON THE
FIRST PETITION.  BOTH IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND IN THIS COURT
HE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL BY
DONNER'S ALLEGED SHIFT IN TESTIMONY; AND IN THIS COURT HE STATED THAT
THERE HAD BEEN A CONSPIRACY TO FORCE DONNER TO CHANGE HIS STORY.  IT IS
NOTEWORTHY THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT SEE FIT TO DENY OR CONTROVERT
PETITIONER'S CLAIM UNTIL THE CASE REACHED THIS COURT.  WE NEED NOT
DECIDE WHETHER THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE WAS PROPERLY RAISED IN THE REVIEW
PROCEEDINGS, INASMUCH AS PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO MAKE A PROPER
ALLEGATION IN THAT RESPECT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FORECLOSED ANY
DETERMINATION OF THE MATTER.  AND AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE SECOND AND
THIRD PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS WERE COMPLETELY SILENT AS TO THIS DUE
PROCESS ISSUE. 

THERE HAS THUS BEEN NO PROPER OCCASION PRIOR TO THE FOURTH PROCEEDING
FOR A HEARING AND DETERMINATION BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS TO THE
ALLEGATION THAT THE PROSECUTION KNOWINGLY USED FALSE TESTIMONY TO
OBTAIN A CONVICTION.  THAT FACT RENDERS INAPPLICABLE SALINGER V.
LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224, UPON WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  IT WAS THERE HELD THAT, WHILE HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS ARE FREE FROM THE RES JUDICATA PRINCIPLE, A PRIOR REFUSAL
TO DISCHARGE THE PRISONER IS NOT WITHOUT BEARING OR WEIGHT WHEN A LATER
HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION RAISING THE SAME ISSUES IS CONSIDERED.  BUT
HERE THE THREE PRIOR APPLICATIONS DID NOT RAISE THE ISSUE NOW UNDER
CONSIDERATION AND THE THREE PRIOR REFUSALS TO DISCHARGE PETITIONER CAN
HAVE NO BEARING OR WEIGHT ON THE DISPOSITION TO BE MADE OF THE NEW
MATTER RAISED IN THE FOURTH PETITION.  WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S.
101. 

LIKEWISE IRRELEVANT TO THE INSTANT PROCEEDING IS WONG DOO V. UNITED
STATES, 265 U.S. 239.  IN THAT CASE, THE PETITIONER SET FORTH TWO
GROUNDS FOR DISCHARGE IN HIS FIRST PETITION.  AT THE HEARING, HE
OFFERED NO PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND GROUND.  THE PETITION WAS
DISMISSED ON THE THEORY THAT THE FIRST GROUND WAS NOT GOOD IN LAW.  A
SUBSEQUENT HABEAS CORPUS PETITION RELIED ENTIRELY ON THE SECOND GROUND
ALLEGED IN THE FIRST PETITION.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER HAD
HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER PROOF AS TO THE SECOND POINT AT THE
HEARING ON THE FIRST PETITION, PROOF WHICH WAS ACCESSIBLE AT ALL
TIMES.  IF HE WAS INTENDING TO RELY ON THAT GROUND, GOOD FAITH REQUIRED
THAT HE PRODUCE HIS PROOF AT THE FIRST HEARING.  "TO RESERVE THE PROOF
FOR USE IN ATTEMPTING TO SUPPORT A LATER PETITION, IF THE FIRST FAILED,
WAS TO MAKE AN ABUSIVE USE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  NO REASON FOR
NOT PRESENTING THE PROOF AT THE OUTSET IS OFFERED."  265 U.S. AT 241. 

THE WONG DOO CASE THUS INVOLVED A SITUATION WHERE ONE HAS PROPERLY
RAISED AN ISSUE IN AN EARLIER PETITION, HAS RECEIVED A FULL OPPORTUNITY
AT A HEARING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ON THE POINT, AND HAS REFUSED TO AVAIL
ONESELF OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.  THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURES IN THE
INSTANT CASE ARE OBVIOUS. 

THERE IS ONE FACTOR IN THIS CASE THAT MIGHT BE THOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE
DISMISSAL OF THE FOURTH PETITION AS AN ABUSIVE USE OF THE HABEAS CORPUS
WRIT.  THAT FACTOR IS THAT PETITIONER HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE DONNER
INCIDENT WHICH FORMS THE BASIS, AT LEAST IN PART, OF THE DUE PROCESS
ALLEGATION NOW BEING MADE.  THE RECORD IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING SHOWS
THAT PETITIONER'S OWN LAWYER ELICITED THE INFORMATION FROM DONNER THAT
HE HAD TALKED WITH THE PROSECUTING LAWYERS DURING THE INTERLUDE BETWEEN
THE ALLEGEDLY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS.  AND PETITIONER MADE REFERENCE TO
THAT INFORMATION DURING THE COURSE OF THE FIRST HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING IN THE MANNER HERETOFORE DESCRIBED.  PETITIONER NOW UTILIZES
THAT SAME INFORMATION IN ALLEGING THAT THE PROSECUTION MADE A KNOWING
USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, HOWEVER, WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT PETITIONER HAS
ACQUIRED NO NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SINCE THE TIME OF THE TRIAL
OR THE FIRST HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING THAT MIGHT INDICATE FRAUDULENT
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS.  AS JUDGE DENMAN
STATED IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION BELOW, 161 F.2D AT 708-709:  "THE
GRAVAMEN OF THE MISCONDUCT CHARGED IS NOT THE FACT THAT THE WITNESS
CHANGED HIS TESTIMONY BUT THAT THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KNOWINGLY
CAUSED THE WITNESS TO GIVE THE FALSE TESTIMONY.  ALL THE ACCUSED AND
HIS ATTORNEY KNEW AT THE TRIAL WAS THAT THE SINGLE PROSECUTING WITNESS
CHANGED HIS TESTIMONY.  OBVIOUSLY THIS IN ITSELF DOES NOT WARRANT A
CHARGE OF FRAUD.  THAT IT WAS FRAUDULENTLY DONE BY PERSUASION OF THE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN LEARNED AFTER CONVICTION AND
AFTER THE CONVICTED MAN WAS IN THE PENITENTIARY." 

WHETHER PETITIONER DOES OR DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEW INFORMATION IS A
MATTER UNREVEALED BY ANYTHING BEFORE US OR BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  IT IS A MATTER WHICH SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  AND IT IS ONE ON WHICH PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED TO BE HEARD EITHER AT A HEARING OR THROUGH AN AMENDMENT OR
ELABORATION OF HIS PLEADINGS.  APPELLATE COURTS CANNOT MAKE FACTUAL
DETERMINATIONS WHICH MAY BE DECISIVE OF VITAL RIGHTS WHERE THE CRUCIAL
FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED.  CF. KENNEDY V. SILAS MASON CO., 334
U.S. 249. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, EVEN IF IT IS FOUND THAT PETITIONER DID HAVE
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE FACTS CONCERNING THE ALLEGATION IN QUESTION,
IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT THE FOURTH PETITION SHOULD BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS OR WITHOUT
HOLDING A HEARING.  IF CALLED UPON, PETITIONER MAY BE ABLE TO PRESENT
ADEQUATE REASONS FOR NOT MAKING THE ALLEGATION EARLIER, REASONS WHICH
MAKE IT FAIR AND JUST FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO OVERLOOK THE DELAY.  THE
PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT A
MAN IS NOT UNJUSTLY IMPRISONED.  AND IF FOR SOME JUSTIFIABLE REASON HE
WAS PREVIOUSLY UNABLE TO ASSERT HIS RIGHTS OR WAS UNAWARE OF THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF RELEVANT FACTS, IT IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR REASONABLE
TO DENY HIM ALL OPPORTUNITY OF OBTAINING JUDICIAL RELIEF. 

MOREOVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON THE PETITIONER OF
AFFIRMATIVELY ALLEGING IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THAT HE HAD ACQUIRED NEW
INFORMATION OR THAT HE HAD ADEQUATE REASONS FOR NOT RAISING SOONER THE
ISSUE OF THE KNOWING USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY.  IT WAS ENOUGH IF HE
PRESENTED AN ALLEGATION AND SUPPORTING FACTS WHICH, IF BORNE OUT BY
PROOF, WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO RELIEF.  PRISONERS ARE OFTEN UNLEARNED IN
THE LAW AND UNFAMILIAR WITH THE COMPLICATED RULES OF PLEADING.  SINCE
THEY ACT SO OFTEN AS THEIR OWN COUNSEL IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, WE
CANNOT IMPOSE ON THEM THE SAME HIGH STANDARDS OF THE LEGAL ART WHICH WE
MIGHT PLACE ON THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS
TRUE IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE THE IMPOSITION OF THOSE STANDARDS WOULD
HAVE A RETROACTIVE AND PREJUDICIAL EFFECT ON THE PRISONER'S
INARTISTICALLY DRAWN PETITION.  CF. HOLIDAY V. JOHNSTON, 313 U.S. 342,
350; PYLE V. KANSAS, SUPRA, 216; TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485,
487; RICE V. OLSON, 324 U.S. 786, 791-792. 

AND SO IF THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES NOT TO DENY THE ALLEGATION OR TO
QUESTION ITS SUFFICIENCY AND DESIRES INSTEAD TO CLAIM THAT THE PRISONER
HAS ABUSED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, IT RESTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO
MAKE THAT CLAIM WITH CLARITY AND PARTICULARITY IN ITS RETURN TO THE
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.  THAT IS NOT AN INTOLERABLE BURDEN.  THE
GOVERNMENT IS USUALLY WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE FACTS THAT ARE NECESSARY
TO MAKE SUCH A CLAIM.  ONCE A PARTICULAR ABUSE HAS BEEN ALLEGED, THE
PRISONER HAS THE BURDEN OF ANSWERING THAT ALLEGATION AND OF PROVING
THAT HE HAS NOT ABUSED THE WRIT.  IF THE ANSWER IS INADEQUATE, THE
COURT MAY DISMISS THE PETITION WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  BUT IF
THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT, A HEARING MAY BE NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE THE ACTUAL FACTS.  APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW CAN THEN BE MADE.  IN THIS WAY AN ADEQUATE RECORD MAY BE
ESTABLISHED SO THAT APPELLATE COURTS CAN DETERMINE THE PRECISE BASIS OF
THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION, WHICH IS OFTEN SHROUDED IN AMBIGUITY WHERE
A PETITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT AN EXPRESSED REASON.  AND THE PRISONER
IS GIVEN A FAIRER OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ALL POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS TO THE
FILING OF HIS PETITION. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN
THE INSTANT PROCEEDING PRECLUDED A PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISSUE OF
THE ALLEGEDLY ABUSIVE USE OF THE HABEAS CORPUS WRIT.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WAS TOO INDEFINITE AND VAGUE TO
GIVE PETITIONER A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE. 
MERELY QUOTING THE COURT'S OPINION IN THE THIRD HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING WAS NOT ENOUGH TO REQUIRE PETITIONER TO EXPLAIN HIS REASONS
FOR FAILING TO PRESENT EARLIER HIS ALLEGATION AS TO THE KNOWING USE OF
FALSE TESTIMONY.  AND THE COURT EITHER FAILED OR WAS UNABLE TO
DELINEATE THE ISSUE BY MAKING SPECIFIC FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
OR BY EXPLAINING ITS VIEW OF THE MATTER IN A WRITTEN OPINION. 

WE ARE NOT UNAWARE OF THE MANY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE NUMEROUS AND
SUCCESSIVE HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS FILED BY PRISONERS.  FN13  BUT THE
ANSWER IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN REPEATED DENIALS OF PETITIONS WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND OR WITHOUT THE PRISONERS HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND
AGAINST THEIR ALLEGED ABUSES OF THE WRIT.  THAT ONLY ENCOURAGES THE
FILING OF MORE FUTILE PETITIONS.  THE VERY LEAST THAT CAN AND SHOULD BE
DONE IS TO MAKE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT COURTS MORE
MEANINGFUL AND DECISIVE, MAKING CLEAR JUST WHAT ISSUES ARE DETERMINED
AND FOR WHAT REASONS. 

TO THAT END, WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND THE INSTANT
CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  WE DO NOT HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT, ON REMAND, MUST GRANT
THE FOURTH HABEAS CORPUS PETITION IF IT IS UNSUPPORTED AND
UNSUBSTANTIATED; NOR DO WE HOLD THAT A HEARING MUST NOW BE HELD ON THE
MERITS OF THE ALLEGATION IN QUESTION.  RATHER THE CASE MUST BE
DEVELOPED FURTHER IN LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED HEREIN.  THE
GOVERNMENT IS FREE TO AMEND ITS RETURN TO BRING INTO FOCUS WHATEVER
ABUSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IT THINKS PETITIONER HAS COMMITTED. 
AND THE PETITIONER IS FREE TO ANSWER SUCH CHARGE AS MAY BE MADE IN THAT
RESPECT, THE BURDEN BEING ON HIM TO SHOW THAT HE IS ENTITLED AT THIS
LATE DATE TO MAKE THE ALLEGATION AS TO THE KNOWING USE OF FALSE
TESTIMONY.  THE DISTRICT COURT MAY THEN DISPOSE OF THE MATTER ON THE
PLEADINGS OR ORDER THAT A HEARING BE HAD TO DEVELOP THE FACTS.  IF THE
COURT EVENTUALLY DETERMINES THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT ABUSED THE WRIT,
THE ALLEGATION OF THE KNOWING USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE DECIDED
AS TO ITS SUFFICIENCY AND ITS MERITS.  BUT IN ANY EVENT THE COURT
SHOULD MAKE EXPLICIT ITS DETERMINATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PROBLEM OF
THE ABUSIVE USE OF THE WRIT.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.    FN1  12 U.S.C.
SECS. 588B AND 588C.  PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH HAVING (1) ENTERED A
FEDERALLY INSURED BANK WITH INTENT TO ROB, (2) ROBBED THE BANK BY
PUTTING AN EMPLOYEE IN FEAR, (3) JEOPARDIZED THE LIVES OF A BANK
EMPLOYEE AND OTHERS BY THE USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON, AND (4) KIDNAPPED
A BANK EMPLOYEE IN THE COURSE OF SUCH OFFENSE.  PETITIONER WAS FOUND
GUILTY AS CHARGED.    FN2  HIS PETITION TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ENTER A
DECISION ON HIS APPLICATION FOR AN APPEAL WAS DENIED BECAUSE "NO
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE RESPONDENT OR IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN."  PRICE V.
MOINET, 116 F.2D 500.  HIS PETITION IN THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WAS DENIED BECAUSE FILED OUT OF TIME, 311 U.S. 703;
REHEARING DENIED, 311 U.S. 729.  PETITIONER ACTED AS HIS OWN COUNSEL IN
THESE UNSUCCESSFUL MANEUVERS. 

FN3  POINT V OF PETITIONER'S MOTION STATED:  "BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT
SHOWS FALSELY ON THE AFFIDAVIT BY ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JOHN
W. BABCOCK, RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT 'A', WHERE HE STATES THAT THERE WAS NO
DETERMINATION OF ANY ONE IN SAID OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
TO HAVE HIM CONVICTED FALSELY.  PETITIONER CALLS THE ATTENTION OF THIS
HONORABLE COURT TO THE TESTIMONY OF TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD AT PAGE 35
SECOND PART.  RECROSS EXAMINATION OF THE ONE AND ONLY WITNESS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT PRODUCED TO TESTIFY THAT THERE HAD BEEN A CRIME COMMITTED AS
CHARGED IN INDICTMENT #24629.  PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT 'A', TESTIMONY
GIVEN BY FRED T. DONNER, AND IT WILL SHOW JUST WHAT METHODS WAS USED TO
OBTAIN TWO DIFFERENT STATEMENTS FROM THIS WITNESS." 

FN4  THIS TESTIMONY WAS BROUGHT OUT ON RECROSS EXAMINATION OF DONNER
BY ONE OF PETITIONER'S ATTORNEYS.  PART OF THIS COLLOQUY WAS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  WITNESS, PERHAPS I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. 
DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY TO SAY THAT LAST NIGHT AFTER YOU LEFT
HERE, YOU WENT UP TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OR THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND YOU DISCUSSED YOUR TESTIMONY? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  AND WHOM DID YOU DISCUSS IT WITH? 

"A.  WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND THE ASSISTANT. 

"Q.  AND AFTER THAT DISCUSSION, YOU REMEMBERED SOME THINGS THAT YOU
HAVE TESTIFIED TO THIS MORNING? 

"A.  I REMEMBERED THEM YESTERDAY, BUT I JUST - I WAS NERVOUS AND
FORGOT THEM. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"Q.  WELL, MY RECOLLECTION AND YOURS PERHAPS DO NOT AGREE ON IT, BUT
THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE YESTERDAY WERE ALL TRUE TO THE BEST OF
YOUR RECOLLECTION, WERE THEY NOT? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  AND YOUR CONVERSATIONS LAST NIGHT AFTER YOU LEFT THE COURT
DIDN'T ASSIST YOU IN GIVING ANY TESTIMONY, DID THEY? 

"A.  NO, IT DID NOT, ONLY THAT I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, I WANTED AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BRING OUT SOMETHING THAT I HADN'T SAID. 

"Q.  DID IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? 

"A.  NO, IT JUST - THERE WERE JUST SOME THINGS I DIDN'T TELL IN MY
STORY, THAT IS ALL." 

FN5  THE LAWYER WHO HAD REPRESENTED PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH THE
FIRST APPLICATION WITHDREW AND ANOTHER WAS APPOINTED IN HIS PLACE BY
THE DISTRICT COURT TO SERVE PETITIONER IN THE SECOND PROCEEDING.  THIS
LAWYER FILED AN AMENDED PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  THE
WRIT ISSUED, THERE WAS A HEARING AT WHICH PETITIONER'S COUNSEL WAS
PRESENT, A FURTHER AMENDMENT OF THE PETITION WAS ALLOWED, AND TESTIMONY
WAS TAKEN.  PETITIONER GAVE EVIDENCE ON HIS OWN BEHALF AT THIS
HEARING.  IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION,
PETITIONER ONCE MORE ACTED PRO SE. 

FN6  THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION, AFTER BRIEFLY STATING THE
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"PETITIONER ALLEGES 'THAT THE QUESTIONS NOW RAISED WAS NOT RAISED IN
THE PRIOR PETITIONS NO. 23268-W AND 10.671.R.'  HOWEVER, THESE MATTERS
WERE KNOWN TO PETITIONER WHEN HE FILED THE PETITIONS IN 23268-W AND
23721-R.  IF PETITIONER INTENDED TO RELY ON THESE MATTERS HE SHOULD
HAVE URGED THEM IN 23268-W.  'TO RESERVE THEM FOR USE IN A LATER
PROCEEDING "WAS TO MAKE AN ABUSIVE USE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS."' 
SWIHART V. JOHNSTON, 9 CIR., 1945, 150 F.2D 721. 

"SINCE UPON THE FACE OF THE PETITION PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO
THE WRIT, WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275, 284  ...  THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED." 

FN7  THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, FILED
WITH THE RETURN, MERELY QUOTED THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION DENYING THE
THIRD PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, PRICE V. JOHNSTON, 61
F.SUPP.  995(SEE FOOTNOTE 6, SUPRA).  THE MEMORANDUM THEN CONCLUDED:
"RESPONDENT, IN RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF JUDGE ST. SURE AND THE
AUTHORITIES WHICH HE CITES, RESPECTFULLY URGES THAT THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD BE DENIED AND THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,
HERETOFORE ISSUED, DISCHARGED." 

FN8  THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AGAIN WAS
DEVOTED SOLELY TO A QUOTATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION DENYING
THE THIRD PETITION.  SEE FOOTNOTE 7, SUPRA.  IT CONCLUDED WITH THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT:  "APPELLEE IS IN ACCORD WITH THE REASONING OF
JUDGE ST. SURE AND THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN HIS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DENYING APPELLANT'S THIRD APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND
HEREBY ADOPTS THEM IN TOTO AS HIS ARGUMENT ON THIS APPEAL TO SUSTAIN
THE COURT BELOW IN ITS DECISION DENYING APPELLANT'S FOURTH APPLICATION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN OUR CASE AT BAR." 

FN9  BLACKSTONE DESCRIBES THE FOLLOWING COMMON LAW VERSIONS OF THE
HABEAS CORPUS WRIT: 

(1)  HABEAS CORPUS AD RESPONDENDUM.  ISSUED "WHEN A MAN HATH A CAUSE
OF ACTION AGAINST ONE WHO IS CONFINED BY THE PROCESS OF SOME INFERIOR
COURT; IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE PRISONER, AND CHARGE HIM WITH THIS NEW
ACTION IN THE COURT ABOVE." 

(2)  HABEAS CORPUS AD SATISFACIENDUM.  ISSUED "WHEN A PRISONER HATH
HAD JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM IN AN ACTION, AND THE PLAINTIFF IS DESIROUS TO
BRING HIM UP TO SOME SUPERIOR COURT TO CHARGE HIM WITH PROCESS OF
EXECUTION." 

(3)  HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM, TESTIFICANDUM, DELIBERANDUM, ETC.
ISSUED "WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO REMOVE A PRISONER, IN ORDER TO
PROSECUTE OR BEAR TESTIMONY IN ANY COURT, OR TO BE TRIED IN THE PROPER
JURISDICTION WHEREIN THE FACT WAS COMMITTED." 

(4)  HABEAS CORPUS AD FACIENDUM ET RECIPIENDUM.  THIS "ISSUES OUT OF
ANY OF THE COURTS OF WESTMINSTER HALL, WHEN A PERSON IS SUED IN SOME
INFERIOR JURISDICTION, AND IS DESIROUS TO REMOVE THE ACTION INTO THE
SUPERIOR COURT; COMMANDING THE INFERIOR JUDGES TO PRODUCE THE BODY OF
THE DEFENDANT, TOGETHER WITH THE DAY AND CAUSE OF HIS CAPTION AND
DETAINER, (WHENCE THE WRIT IS FREQUENTLY DENOMINATED AN HABEAS CORPUS
CUM CAUSA,) TO DO AND RECEIVE WHATSOEVER THE KING'S COURT SHALL
CONSIDER IN THAT BEHALF." 

(5)  HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICIENDUM.  THE "GREAT AND EFFICACIOUS
WRIT," WHICH IS "DIRECTED TO THE PERSON DETAINING ANOTHER, AND
COMMANDING HIM TO PRODUCE THE BODY OF THE PRISONER, WITH THE DAY AND
CAUSE OF HIS CAPTION AND DETENTION, AD FACIENDUM, SUBJICIENDUM, ET
RECIPIENDUM, TO DO, SUBMIT TO, AND RECEIVE WHATSOEVER THE JUDGE OR
COURT AWARDING SUCH WRIT SHALL CONSIDER IN THAT BEHALF." 

CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL EXAMINES THE FIRST FOUR OF THESE WRITS IN
THEIR RELATION TO THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 4
CRANCH 75, 97-98. 

FN10  THE COURTS OF ENGLAND HAVE LONG CONSIDERED THEMSELVES POWERLESS
TO ISSUE A HABEAS CORPUS WRIT TO ENABLE A PRISONER TO DEFEND HIMSELF IN
ANOTHER PROCEEDING OR TO ARGUE MOTIONS IN THE TRIAL COURT.  BENNS V.
MOSLEY, 2 C.B. (N.S.)  116; WELDON V. NEAL, 15 Q.B.D. 471.  SEE ALSO
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HUNT, 9 PRICE 147; FORD V. NASSAU, 9 M. & W. 793;
REX V. PARKYNS, 3 B. & ALD.  679; ATTORNEY GENERAL V. CLEAVE, 2 DOWL. 
P.C. 668; EX PARTE COBBETT, 3 H. & N. 155; CLARK V. SMITH, 3 C.B. 982. 
BUT THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM OF WHETHER A PRISONER CAN BE PRODUCED TO ARGUE
IN PERSON HIS OWN APPEAL UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THOSE PRESENT IN THE
INSTANT CASE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE A PRECISE ANSWER IN ENGLISH LAW. 

FN11  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BELOW FELT THAT THE PRODUCTION OF
PRISONERS TO ARGUE THEIR OWN APPEALS MIGHT LEAD TO "THE WIDESPREAD
ABUSE OF THE WRIT  ...  , NOT TO MENTION THE ITEMS OF FRUITLESS BURDEN
AND EXPENSE.  TO THE LEGITIMATE HOPE OF RELEASE BY LEGAL MEANS WOULD BE
ADDED INDUCEMENTS NOT SO LEGITIMATE; FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF FROM PRISON
CONFINEMENT IS ALWAYS AN ALLURING PROSPECT, AND TO THE HARDENED
CRIMINAL THE POSSIBILITY OF ESCAPE LURKS IN EVERY EXCURSION BEYOND
PRISON WALLS."  159 F.2D AT 237. 

FN12  BUT SEE BELL V. UNITED STATES, 129 F.2D 290; BARBER V. UNITED
STATES, 142 F.2D 805. 

FN13  SEE DISCUSSIONS IN DORSEY V. GILL, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 9, 148
F.2D 857; GOODMAN, "USE AND ABUSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS," 7
F.R.D. 313; NOTE, 61 HARV. L. REV. 657. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE VIEWS OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF
ALL THE LONG-DRAWN-OUT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, THE TWO LOWER COURTS
JUSTIFIABLY FOUND THE FOURTH PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE
WITHOUT MERIT ON ITS FACE.  IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK THE PETITIONER TO
STATE, HOWEVER INFORMALLY, THAT HIS FOURTH PETITION IS BASED ON NEWLY
DISCOVERED MATTER, OR, IN ANY EVENT, ON A CLAIM THAT HE COULD NOT
FAIRLY HAVE BEEN ASKED TO BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION IN HIS THREE
PRIOR PETITIONS.  SUCH A REQUIREMENT CERTAINLY DOES NOT NARROW THE
BROAD PROTECTION WHICH THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SERVES.  I ALSO AGREE
WITH HIS GENERAL ATTITUDE AGAINST A PRISONER BEING BROUGHT FROM
ALCATRAZ - OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL PRISON - TO ARGUE HIS OWN CASE ON
APPEAL.  MY DIFFERENCE WITH HIM IS THAT I WOULD NOT BOLT THE DOOR TO
SUCH AN UNDESIRABLE PRACTICE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, BUT MERELY LEAVE IT
AS A RIGOROUS RULE OF PRACTICE.  THE POWER TO DEPART FROM THIS RULE
OUGHT NOT TO BE WHOLLY FORECLOSED, EVEN THOUGH OPPORTUNITY FOR ITS
EXERCISE IS LEFT FOR CONTINGENCIES NOT EASILY FORESEEABLE. 

THE OFFICE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PRECLUDES DEFINITIVE
FORMULATION OF ITS LIMITATIONS PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS THE PREROGATIVE
WRIT AVAILABLE FOR VINDICATING LIBERTIES.  SEE SUNAL V. LARGE, 332 U.S.
174, 184, 187.  THEREFORE, I WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE USE OF THE WRIT TO
BRING A CONVICT BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES
IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE MAKE HIS PRESENCE COMPELLING.  SEE ADAMS V.
UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 272-75.  IT IS A VERY
DIFFERENT THING TO JUDGE THE USE OF THE WRIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING
AN INCARCERATED PETITIONER ARGUE HIS OWN CASE ON APPEAL BY THE ORDINARY
STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  TO ACKNOWLEDGE SUCH POWER IN THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS IMPLIES TOO BROAD AN AUTHORITY, IN THAT THE
ABUSE OF ITS EXERCISE IN GRANTING THE WRIT IS TOO NARROW A BASIS FOR
REVIEW.  A GENERAL RULE SHOULD PRECLUDE THE USE OF THE WRIT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF TAKING A PRISONER OUT OF CONFINEMENT MERELY TO ARGUE HIS OWN
CASE ON APPEAL FROM DISMISSAL OF A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS AFTER
CONVICTION.  EVERY LEGITIMATE RIGHT OF SUCH A PRISONER CAN BE
SAFEGUARDED BY MEANS MUCH MORE CONSONANT WITH THE FAIR AND SEEMLY AND
WISE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THIS
UNSUPPORTED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED FOURTH HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, WHETHER
HIS ACTION IN SO DOING WAS BASED ON ITS OBVIOUS LACK OF MERIT OR ON THE
PRISONER'S ABUSE OF THE WRIT.  NOR CAN I AGREE THAT APPEARANCE OF A
PRISONER MERELY TO ARGUE HIS CASE IS "NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE" OF
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND "AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES
AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW" AS IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 377. 

THIS CASE IS TYPICAL OF MANY BASED ON REPEATED HABEAS CORPUS
PETITIONS BY THE SAME PRISONER.  FN1  THIS PETITIONER IS SERVING A LONG
TERM FOR ARMED BANK ROBBERY.  CONFINEMENT IS NEITHER ENJOYABLE NOR
PROFITABLE.  AND IT IS SAFE TO ASSUME THAT IT NEITHER GIVES RISE TO NEW
SCRUPLES NOR MAGNIFIES OLD ONES WHICH WOULD HANDICAP PETITIONER'S
PREPARATION OF ONE HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION AFTER ANOTHER.  IF THE
TRIAL COURT RULES ONE SET OF ALLEGATIONS DEFICIENT, CONCOCTION OF
ANOTHER SET MAY BRING SUCCESS.  UNDER THIS DECISION, FAILURE TO ALLEGE
THE MOST OBVIOUS GROUNDS IN EARLIER APPLICATIONS, OR TO SUPPORT THEM
WITH FACTS IN A LATER PETITION, IS NOT FATAL.  THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE
GOVERNMENT MUST RE-TRY THE CASE DEPENDS ONLY ON THE PRISONER'S
INGENUITY, INDUSTRY AND IMAGINATION.  THIS PRISONER, IN HIS FOURTH
PETITION IN EIGHT YEARS, HAS NOW GOTTEN AROUND TO CHARGING THAT, AT HIS
TRIAL IN 1938, THE GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY EMPLOYED FALSE TESTIMONY TO
OBTAIN THE CONVICTION.  THIS ISSUE SUBSTANTIALLY INVOLVES A RETRIAL OF
THE ORIGINAL CONVICTION AFTER MORE THAN TEN YEARS HAVE PASSED BY,
MEMORIES ARE BLURRED, EVIDENCE IS LOST, AND PARTIES DISPERSED.  THE
PETITION IS UNACCOMPANIED BY ANY PARTICULARS SUPPORTING THIS MOST
SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST THE COURT AND RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS OF THE LAW. 
THE PRISONER, OF COURSE, HAS NOTHING TO LOSE IN ANY EVENT.  PERJURY HAS
FEW TERRORS FOR A MAN ALREADY SENTENCED TO 65 YEARS' IMPRISONMENT FOR A
CRIME OF VIOLENCE.  EVEN SUCH HONOR AS EXISTS AMONG THIEVES IS NOT TOO
PRECIOUS TO BE SACRIFICED FOR A CHANCE AT LIBERTY.  CONSEQUENTLY, HIS
VARYING ALLEGATIONS CAN RUN THE GAMUT OF ALL THOSE PERPETUATED IN THE
PAGES OF THE UNITED STATES REPORTS.    THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT SUCH
IRRESPONSIBLE, GENERAL, UNSUPPORTED AND BELATED ACCUSATIONS MUST BE
TRIED OUT; FURTHER, THE DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED IN THAT HE DID NOT REQUEST
THE PERENNIAL PETITIONER TO FILL IN DETAILS, THE ABSENCE OF WHICH,
UNDER ESTABLISHED RULES, JUSTIFIED HIS DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION
ACTUALLY FILED.  I THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO
GO TO TRIAL (OR RATHER, RETRIAL) ON A CASE OF THIS KIND, UNLESS THE
PETITIONER, WITHOUT PROMPTING OR SOLICITATION BY THE COURT, ALLEGES
WITH PARTICULARITY CONDUCT WHICH WOULD BE SUFFICIENT, IF PROVED, TO
ENTITLE HIM TO RELEASE.  IF HE DOES NOT HAVE SUCH FACTS, HE IS DOOMED
ULTIMATELY TO FAIL; IF HE DOES HAVE THEM, HE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO
FORCE THE COURT AND THE GOVERNMENT INTO FURTHER LITIGATION UNTIL HE HAS
DISCLOSED THEM.  AND CERTAINLY IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO REQUIRE THAT ON A
FOURTH PETITION, EIGHT YEARS AFTER CONVICTION, THE PETITIONER MUST ALSO
SET FORTH FACTS WHICH WILL EXCUSE HIS FAILURE TO RAISE HIS QUESTION IN
EARLIER PETITIONS INSTEAD OF AT A PERIOD SO REMOTE FROM HIS TRIAL. 

MOREOVER, IF ANY ONE OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATIONS AND ACCOMPANYING
FACTS CONVINCE THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT A HEARING ON THE MERITS IS
JUSTIFIED, THE PRISONER'S PRESENCE IN THE TRIAL COURT, TO TESTIFY, MAY
FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE NECESSARY.  THE PROCEDURE FOR BRINGING HIM BEFORE
THAT COURT TO GIVE HIS EVIDENCE IS OF ANCIENT ORIGIN.  BUT IT IS
ANOTHER AND QUITE DIFFERENT MATTER TO SAY THAT A LAYMAN'S PRESENCE,
SOLELY TO TAKE PART IN A LEGAL ARGUMENT ON A SETTLED RECORD, IS
NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT. 
THE ONLY SUGGESTED AUTHORITY FOR SO ORDERING A JAILER TO FETCH A
PRISONER TO ARGUE HIS OWN APPEAL IS SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 377, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "THE SUPREME COURT, THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS, AND THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE
ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE," AND IF THE STATUTE
STOPPED HERE, THE COURT MIGHT HAVE SOME BASIS FOR ITS ACTION.  BUT THE
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF
LAW." 

EVEN IF THE COURT OF APPEALS, OR THIS COURT, BELIEVED THAT THE FORMER
SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO SUMMON PRISONERS FOR ARGUMENT OF THEIR
APPEALS, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.  THE ISSUE IS, CAN THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE STATUTE BE MET?  IS THE PRISONER'S PRESENCE MERELY TO ARGUE HIS
CASE "NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE" OF THE APPELLATE COURT'S
JURISDICTION?  I THINK IT IS FAR-FETCHED TO SO HOLD.  FN2  SUCH COURTS
MAY, AND USUALLY DO, APPOINT COUNSEL FOR A PRISONER WHO CANNOT OBTAIN
ONE FOR HIMSELF.  IF THERE IS MORE THAT THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF WANTS TO
PRESENT, IT CAN ALWAYS BE DONE IN WRITING.  MANY CASES ARE DECIDED IN
APPELLATE COURTS SOLELY ON WRITTEN BRIEFS.  BUT THE COURT FEARS THAT
SOME PRISONERS LIKE THIS ONE MAY NOT ONLY REFUSE COUNSEL BUT ALSO WISH
NOT TO REST ON A WRITTEN BRIEF.  UNDER THE STATUTE HOWEVER, IT IS NOT
THE CONVENIENCE OR THE EGOTISM OF THE PRISONER THAT CONFERS POWER TO
GRANT A WRIT - IT IS THE NECESSITY OF THE WRIT FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION.  IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT
PRISONERS, WHOM THE COURT SO OFTEN FORGIVES FOR VIOLATING ALL RULES OF
PLEADING AND PROCEDURE ON THE GROUND OF LAY IGNORANCE, CAN BE A
NECESSARY SOURCE OF LIGHT AND LEADING TO AN APPELLATE COURT.  THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH A NECESSITY IS, I SUPPOSE, THE REASON WHY NO SUCH WRIT
HAS BEEN KNOWN TO THE LAW UNTIL TODAY'S REVELATION, AND WHY THE STATUTE
DOES NOT ALLOW IT.  BUT THE COURT BY THIS DECISION MAKES IT PROPER FOR
ANY PRISONER, WHOSE APPEAL FROM EITHER CONVICTION OR DENIAL OF ANY ONE
OF HIS MULTITUDINOUS PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IS BEFORE THE COURT OF
APPEALS, TO INSIST THAT HE BE TRANSPORTED TO THAT COURT TO ARGUE THE
CASE AND TO DEMAND A RULING BY THE COURT ON THAT ISSUE AS WELL AS ON
THE MERITS.  THIS SEEMS TO OPEN THE GATE TO NEW AND FRUITLESS
LITIGATION. 

ADMITTEDLY, THE STATUTE'S SECOND REQUIREMENT, VIZ:  THAT THE WRIT BE
"AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW," CANNOT BE MET.  IT IS
APPARENT THAT THE LATTER CLAUSE IS A LIMITATION ON THE EARLIER SWEEPING
GRANT OF POWER.  EX PARTE BOLLMAN AND SWARTWOUT, 4 CRANCH 75, 99.  THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS ARE STATUTORY COURTS AND MUST LOOK TO A
STATUTORY BASIS FOR ANY JURISDICTION THEY EXERCISE.  BUT IN THIS CASE
THE COURT IS AUTHORIZING A COMPLETE OVERRIDING OF THE LIMITATION
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO IMPOSE.  THE COURT'S OPINION POINTS OUT THAT
EMPLOYMENT OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THIS PURPOSE HAS NEVER BEEN
A USAGE OR PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON LAW.  NO STATUTORY OR DECISIONAL
FN3  BASIS FOR SUCH A USAGE OR PRINCIPLE IS CITED.  YET, IGNORING THE
LIMITATIONS OF THIS VERY STATUTE, THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE WRIT CAN
JUST BE ISSUED ANYWAY.  I CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS SORT OF STATUTORY
"CONSTRUCTION." 

THIS IS ONE OF A LINE OF CASES BY WHICH THERE IS BEING PUT INTO THE
HANDS OF THE CONVICT POPULATION OF THE COUNTRY NEW AND UNPRECEDENTED
OPPORTUNITIES TO RE-TRY THEIR CASES, OR TO TRY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
OR THEIR OWN COUNSEL, AND KEEP THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COURTS LITIGATING
THEIR CASES UNTIL THEIR SENTENCES EXPIRE OR ONE OF THEIR MYRIAD CLAIMS
STRIKES A RESPONSIVE CHORD OR THE PRISONERS MAKE THE BEST OF INCREASED
OPPORTUNITIES TO ESCAPE.  I THINK THIS COURT, BY INFLATING THE GREAT
AND BENEFICENT WRIT OF LIBERTY BEYOND A SOUND BASIS, IS BRINGING ABOUT
ITS EVENTUAL DEPRECIATION.  FN4 

FN1  PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF ARMED BANK ROBBERY IN APRIL, 1938. 
AFTER THAT DATE, AND PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THIS CURRENT HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION, HE TOOK THE FOLLOWING STEPS SEEKING HIS LIBERTY: 

1.  IN 1940, PETITIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MANDAMUS TO FORCE
THE TRIAL JUDGE TO ACT ON AN APPLICATION FOR APPEAL; THAT COURT FOUND
NO SUCH APPLICATION WAS THEN PENDING AND DENIED THE PETITION; THIS
COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 703, AND A REHEARING, 311 U.S. 729. 

2.  IN 1940, FILED AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  AFTER ARGUMENT
BY COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL, THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 125 F.2D 806; THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 316
U.S. 677, AND DENIED REHEARING, 316 U.S. 712, THE LATTER DECISION BEING
ANNOUNCED JUNE 1, 1942. 

3.  ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1942, FILED ANOTHER HABEAS CORPUS PETITION. 
AFTER HEARING, PARTICIPATED IN BY COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL, THE PETITION
WAS DISMISSED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 144 F.2D 260; THIS COURT
DENIED CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 789, AND DENIED REHEARING, 323 U.S. 819,
THE LATTER DECISION BEING ANNOUNCED ON JANUARY 29, 1945. 

4.  PRIOR TO AUGUST 22, 1945, FILED THIRD HABEAS CORPUS PETITION,
WHICH WAS DENIED ON THAT DATE, 61 F.SUPP.  995. 

THE CURRENT PETITION WAS FILED IN JANUARY, 1946. 

FN2  IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING TO FIND THE PRESENCE OF THE
PRISONER "NECESSARY" UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS IN ADAMS V. U.S. EX
REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 274, WHERE THIS COURT EXPLAINED THE
NECESSITY AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MOVED THE COURT BELOW TO THE EXERCISE OF ITS
JURISDICTION WERE THE PECULIAR DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN PREPARING A
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.  THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES HAD NEVER BEEN TYPED. 
THE RELATOR CLAIMED THAT HE WAS WITHOUT FUNDS.  SINCE HE WAS UNABLE TO
RAISE THE BAIL FIXED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, HE HAD BEEN IN CUSTODY SINCE
SENTENCE AND THEREFORE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS.  THE COURT DOUBTED 'WHETHER ANY (BILL) CAN EVER BE MADE UP
ON WHICH THE APPEAL CAN BE HEARD  ...  IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE AT BAR, IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE WRIT IS "NECESSARY TO THE
COMPLETE EXERCISE" OF OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION BECAUSE  ...  THERE IS
A DANGER THAT IT CANNOT BE OTHERWISE EXERCISED AT ALL AND A CERTAINTY
THAT IT MUST IN ANY EVENT BE A GOOD DEAL HAMPERED.'" 

FN3  THE COURT SAYS THAT IT "TRANSLATES" THE "ASSUMPTION," FOUND IN
ONE DECISION OF THIS COURT, ONE OF A COURT OF APPEALS, AND ONE OF A
STATE COURT, INTO A SPECIFIC HOLDING THAT THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
DO HAVE THIS POWER.  THE DICTUM IN SCHWAB V. BERGGREN, 143 U.S. 442,
449 IS MERELY THIS:  "  ...  BUT NEITHER REASON NOR PUBLIC POLICY
REQUIRE THAT HE SHALL BE PERSONALLY PRESENT PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN AN
APPELLATE COURT WHOSE ONLY FUNCTION IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER, IN THE
TRANSCRIPT SUBMITTED TO THEM, THERE APPEARS ANY ERROR OF LAW TO THE
PREJUDICE OF THE ACCUSED; ESPECIALLY, WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, HE HAD
COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM IN THE COURT OF REVIEW.  WE DO NOT MEAN TO SAY
THAT THE APPELLATE COURT MAY NOT, UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, REQUIRE HIS
PERSONAL PRESENCE; BUT ONLY THAT HIS PRESENCE IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO ITS
JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITH THE CASE."  IN GOLDSMITH V. SANFORD, 132
F.2D 126, CERT. DEN.  318 U.S. 762, REHEARING DENIED 318 U.S. 799, THE
COURT SAID:  "  ...  WE KNOW OF NO PRECEDENT FOR TAKING A PRISONER FROM
THE PENITENTIARY THAT HE MIGHT BE PRESENT TO ARGUE IN PERSON HIS APPEAL
FROM AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT ON HABEAS CORPUS.  ...  IF THERE BE POWER TO
ORDER THE REMOVAL WHICH WAS REQUESTED, DISCRETION WAS WELL EXERCISED IN
REFUSING IT."  IN DONNELLY V. STATE, 26 N.J. LAW 463, AFFIRMED, 26 N.J.
LAW 601, WHICH COULD HARDLY BE EVEN PERSUASIVE HERE, THE COURT HELD
THAT THE PRISONER'S PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR JURISDICTION, NOR
WAS IT REQUIRED AS A TECHNICAL NECESSITY OR A MATTER OF RIGHT. 

THE "TRANSLATION" OF THESE "ASSUMPTIONS" INTO A HOLDING INVOLVES,
UNDER THIS STATUTE, A DECISION THAT THESE THREE ISOLATED STATEMENTS
REPRESENT THE "USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  THOSE TERMS HAVE BEEN IN
THE STATUTE SINCE THE ORIGINAL JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, AND THE COURT
ADMITS THERE WAS NO SUCH USAGE OR PRINCIPLE PRIOR TO THAT TIME.  THESE
THREE LATER CASES ARE THEREFORE THE ONLY SHADOW OF A BASIS FOR HOLDING
THAT A WRIT SUCH AS THE COURT NOW DIRECTS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE.  TO CONSIDER SUCH UNAUTHORITATIVE SOURCES AS A PRECEDENT ON
THIS POINT WOULD BE BAD ENOUGH - BUT TO ENLARGE THEM TO A USAGE OR
PRINCIPLE OF LAW IS EVEN LESS WARRANTED.  RELIANCE ON THESE ISOLATED
PRONOUNCEMENTS, WHICH, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY, ARE FAR
FROM BEING AUTHORITY ON THIS POINT, SEEMS CLOSE TO CREATING PRECEDENTS
OUT OF THIN AIR. 

FN4  SUCH DEPRECIATION HAS ALREADY SET IN.  SEE GOODMAN, "USE AND
ABUSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS," 7 F.R.D. 313, STATING, AT PAGE
315, THAT FROM JUNE 1937 TO JUNE 1947 6 PRISONERS IN ALCATRAZ FILED A
TOTAL OF 68 PETITIONS, WHILE 57 OTHERS FILED 183 PETITIONS.  SEE ALSO
DORSEY V. GILL, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 9, 148 F.2D 857, STATING (862-863)
THAT IN ONE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD ONE PRISONER FILED 50 PETITIONS IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; FOUR OTHERS FILED 27, 24,
22 AND 20, RESPECTIVELY; AND 119 PRISONERS FILED 597 PETITIONS, AN
AVERAGE OF 5 EACH. 
..END :







HUNTER V. MARTIN, 334 U.S. 302 


NO. 643.  ARGUED APRIL 22, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1948.  - 165 F.2D
215, REVERSED. 


A STATE PRISONER SENTENCED BY A FEDERAL COURT TO IMPRISONMENT FOR TEN
YEARS BEGINNING "AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE SENTENCE NOW BEING SERVED" IN
THE STATE PRISON, WHO IS PAROLED FROM THE STATE PRISON BEFORE
EXPIRATION OF THE STATE SENTENCE AND SURRENDERED BY STATE AUTHORITIES
TO FEDERAL CUSTODY, MUST BEGIN SERVING HIS FEDERAL SENTENCE IMMEDIATELY
AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO TEMPORARY FREEDOM PENDING EXPIRATION OF THE FULL
TERM OF THE STATE SENTENCE.  PP. 302-304. 

HUNTER, WARDEN, V. MARTIN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, A DISTRICT COURT DISCHARGED THE WRIT
AND REMANDED A FEDERAL PRISONER TO CUSTODY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED WITHOUT OPINION.  165 F.2D 215.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 854.  REVERSED, P. 304. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER IS HELD PRISONER IN THE UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY AT
LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS.  HE PLEADED GUILTY TO CHARGES OF FORGING AND
UTTERING UNITED STATES TREASURY CHECKS.  HE WAS SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR TEN YEARS ON EACH COUNT, TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, AND THE
JUDGMENT PROVIDED THAT SENTENCE SHOULD "BEGIN TO RUN AT THE EXPIRATION
OF THE SENTENCE NOW BEING SERVED IN THE MISSOURI STATE PENITENTIARY." 
PETITIONER WAS RETURNED TO THE MISSOURI AUTHORITIES TO RESUME THE
SERVICE OF A STATE SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS FOR AUTOMOBILE THEFT.  ON
MAY 13, 1947, BEFORE EXPIRATION OF SUCH PERIOD, HE WAS PAROLED BY THE
STATE AND DELIVERED TO THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES, BY WHOM HE HAS SINCE
BEEN HELD.  HE CONTENDS THAT THE FEDERAL SENTENCE DOES NOT BEGIN UNTIL
THE FULL TERM OF THE STATE SENTENCE HAS EXPIRED AND THAT, FOR THE
PERIOD OF PAROLE, HE IS ENTITLED TO FREEDOM.  THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER
SUCH WORDING OF A FEDERAL SENTENCE ENTITLES THE PRISONER UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES TO TEMPORARY FREEDOM IS ONE ON WHICH CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS ARE IN CONFLICT.  COMPARE UNITED STATES EX REL. LOMBARDO V.
MCDONNELL, 153 F.2D 919; JOHNSTON V. WRIGHT, 137 F.2D 914; KIRK V.
SQUIER, 150 F.2D 3; MARTIN V. HUNTER, 165 F.2D 215.  WE BROUGHT THE
CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI, 333 U.S. 854, TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT. 

WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CLAUSE DEFERRING
COMMENCEMENT OF SERVICE OF THE FEDERAL SENTENCE WAS TO PREVENT CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS.  THE PRESENT FEDERAL
IMPRISONMENT AVOIDS SUCH CONFLICT AND ACHIEVES THAT PURPOSE.  MISSOURI
AUTHORITIES HAVE RELEASED PETITIONER FROM THEIR CUSTODY AND SURRENDERED
HIM FOR THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF SERVING HIS FEDERAL SENTENCE AND HAVE
RESERVED CONTROL OVER HIM AS A PAROLEE ONLY IN EVENT HE IS NOT KEPT IN
PRISON DURING THE PERIOD OF THE FEDERAL SENTENCE.  FOR ALL PRACTICAL
PURPOSES CONTEMPLATED BY THE JUDGMENT, THE STATE SENTENCE HAS EXPIRED -
AT LEAST INSOFAR AS IT WAS AN OBSTACLE TO SERVICE OF THE FEDERAL
SENTENCE. 

TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD MEAN THAT A MAN ALREADY FINALLY ADJUDGED
GUILTY OF A SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIME AND SENTENCED TO TEN YEARS
IMPRISONMENT WOULD BE LEFT AT LARGE AND FREE OF ALL RESTRAINT FOR AN
INTERLUDE BETWEEN RELEASE FROM THE STATE PRISON AND COMMENCEMENT OF THE
FEDERAL TERM.  WE DO NOT THINK SUCH A RESULT IS REQUIRED OR INTENDED
UNDER THE STATUTE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 709A,  FN1  OR UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
SENTENCE AS IMPOSED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER FULL HEARING, DISMISSED THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND REMANDED PETITIONER TO CUSTODY TO SERVE HIS SENTENCE.  WE
THINK THIS WAS A CORRECT DISPOSITION OF THE MATTER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS' DECISION TO THE CONTRARY IS ERROR.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1932, C. 310, SEC. 1, 47 STAT. 381. 
..END :



BRIGGS V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 334 U.S. 304 


NO. 530.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1948.  - 164 F.2D
21, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A CIVIL SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, THE JURY RENDERED A
VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF; BUT THE COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND DIRECTED
THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ON THE VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF; BUT ITS MANDATE
MADE NO PROVISION FOR INTEREST.  HELD:  IN ENTERING JUDGMENT UNDER THE
MANDATE, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY NOT ADD INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE
VERDICT TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT.  PP. 305-307. 

2.  THE RULE THAT AN INFERIOR COURT HAS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY TO
DEVIATE FROM A MANDATE ISSUED BY AN APPELLATE COURT INTERDICTS
ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE MANDATE.  P. 306. 

BRIGGS, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE JURY
RETURNED A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BUT THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, 153 F.2D 841, AND DIRECTED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ON THE
VERDICT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE
VERDICT PLUS INTEREST FROM THE DATE THEREOF TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT TO EXCLUDE THE
INTEREST.  164 F.2D 21.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 836. 
AFFIRMED, P. 307. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE FIRST PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER A PLAINTIFF RECOVERING
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51, IS
ENTITLED TO HAVE INTEREST ON THE VERDICT FOR THE INTERVAL BETWEEN ITS
RETURN AND THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, WHERE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS'
MANDATE WHICH AUTHORIZED THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS NO DIRECTION TO ADD
INTEREST AND IS NEVER AMENDED TO DO SO. 

THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF $42,500.  THE DISTRICT COURT THEN
GRANTED A MOTION, AS TO WHICH DECISION HAD BEEN RESERVED DURING THE
TRIAL, TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, AND THE
JUDGMENT ENTERED WAS THEREFORE ONE OF DISMISSAL.  HOWEVER, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 153 F.2D 841, AND DIRECTED THAT JUDGMENT BE
ENTERED ON THE VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.  WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED
JUDGMENT, IT ADDED TO THE VERDICT INTEREST FROM THE DATE THEREOF TO THE
DATE OF JUDGMENT.  THE MANDATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD MADE
NO PROVISION FOR INTEREST.  NO MOTION TO RECALL AND AMEND THE MANDATE
HAD BEEN MADE AND THE TERM AT WHICH IT WAS HANDED DOWN HAD EXPIRED. 
MOTION TO RESETTLE SO AS TO EXCLUDE THE INTEREST WAS DENIED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT
TO EXCLUDE THE INTEREST IN QUESTION AND TO CONFORM TO ITS MANDATE, 164
F.2D 21, AND THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI, 333 U.S. 836. 

IN ITS EARLIEST DAYS THIS COURT CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT AN INFERIOR
COURT HAS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY TO DEVIATE FROM THE MANDATE ISSUED BY
AN APPELLATE COURT.  HIMELY V. ROSE, 5 CRANCH 313; THE SANTA MARIA, 10
WHEAT.  431; BOYCE'S EXECUTORS V. GRUNDY, 9 PET. 275; EX PARTE SIBBALD
V. UNITED STATES, 12 PET. 488.  THE RULE OF THESE CASES HAS BEEN
UNIFORMLY FOLLOWED IN LATER DAYS; SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN RE WASHINGTON &
GEORGETOWN R. CO., 140 U.S. 91; EX PARTE UNION STEAMBOAT COMPANY, 178
U.S. 317; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO. V. GUARDIAN TRUST CO., 281 U.S.
1.  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL APPLIED THE RULE TO INTERDICT ALLOWANCE OF
INTEREST NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE MANDATE, HIMELY V. ROSE, 5 CRANCH 313;
MR. JUSTICE STORY EXPLAINED AND AFFIRMED THE DOCTRINE, THE SANTA MARIA,
10 WHEAT.  431; BOYCE'S EXECUTORS V. GRUNDY, 9 PET. 275.  WE DO NOT SEE
HOW IT CAN BE QUESTIONED AT THIS TIME.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INTEREST
WAS IN EXCESS OF THE TERMS OF THE MANDATE AND HENCE WAS WRONGLY
INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT AND RIGHTLY STRICKEN OUT BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE LATTER COURT'S MANDATE MADE NO
PROVISION FOR SUCH INTEREST AND THE TRIAL COURT HAD NO POWER TO ENTER
JUDGMENT FOR AN AMOUNT DIFFERENT THAN DIRECTED.  IF ANY ENLARGEMENT OF
THAT AMOUNT WERE POSSIBLE, IT COULD BE DONE ONLY BY AMENDMENT OF THE
MANDATE.  BUT NO MOVE TO DO THIS WAS MADE DURING THE TERM AT WHICH IT
WENT DOWN.  WHILE POWER TO ACT ON ITS MANDATE AFTER THE TERM EXPIRES
SURVIVES TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT'S OWN PROCESSES, HAZEL
ATLAS GLASS CO. V. HARTFORD CO., 322 U.S. 238, IT HAS NOT BEEN HELD TO
SURVIVE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF LITIGANTS.  FAIRMONT CREAMERY CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 275 U.S. 70. 

THE PLAINTIFF HAS AT NO TIME MOVED TO AMEND THE MANDATE WHICH IS THE
BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT.  THAT IT MADE NO PROVISION FOR INTEREST WAS
APPARENT ON ITS FACE.  PLAINTIFF ACCEPTED ITS ADVANTAGES AND BRINGS HER
CASE TO THIS COURT, NOT ON THE PROPOSITION THAT AMENDMENT OF THE
MANDATE HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY REFUSED, BUT ON THE GROUND THAT THE MANDATE
SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.  SUCH A POSITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  HENCE THE
QUESTION WHETHER INTEREST MIGHT, ON PROPER APPLICATION, HAVE BEEN
ALLOWED, IS NOT REACHED.  FN1  IN RE WASHINGTON & GEORGETOWN R. CO.,
140 U.S. 91.  FN2 AFFIRMED. 

FN1  COMPARE LOUISIANA & ARKANSAS R. CO. V. PRATT, 142 F.2D 847, WITH
BRIGGS V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 164 F.2D 21. 

FN2  "WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER INTEREST WAS
ALLOWABLE BY LAW, OR RULE, OR STATUTE, ON THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT OF THE
SPECIAL TERM, OR WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER FOR THE SPECIAL
TERM, IN RENDERING THE JUDGMENT, OR OTHERWISE, TO HAVE ALLOWED INTEREST
UPON IT, OR WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER FOR THE GENERAL TERM TO
DO SO; BUT WE RENDER OUR DECISION SOLELY UPON THE POINT THAT, AS
NEITHER THE SPECIAL TERM NOR THE GENERAL TERM ALLOWED INTEREST ON THE
JUDGMENT, AND AS THIS COURT AWARDED NO INTEREST IN ITS JUDGMENT OF
AFFIRMANCE, ALL THAT THE GENERAL TERM COULD DO, AFTER THE MANDATE OF
THIS COURT WENT DOWN, WAS TO ENTER A JUDGMENT CARRYING OUT THE MANDATE
ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS, AND SIMPLY AFFIRMING THE PRIOR JUDGMENT OF THE
GENERAL TERM, AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL
TERM  ...  WITH COSTS, AND WITHOUT INTEREST  ...  "  140 U.S. 91 AT
97. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN, DISSENTING. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 164 F.2D 21, AND ONE RENDERED BY THE LIKE
COURT FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN LOUISIANA & ARKANSAS R. CO. V. PRATT,
142 F.2D 847. 

IN EACH CASE THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF, BUT THE
TRIAL COURT NEVERTHELESS GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT AS A MATTER OF
LAW; FN1  UPON APPEAL THAT JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED; AND THE CAUSE WAS
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT.  IN BOTH
CASES THE APPELLATE COURTS' MANDATES WERE SILENT CONCERNING INTEREST,
BUT THE TRIAL COURTS INCLUDED IN THE JUDGMENTS INTEREST FROM THE DATE
OF THE VERDICT, NOT MERELY FROM THE TIME WHEN JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED
FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF THE APPELLATE COURTS' MANDATES.  FN2  IN THE PRATT
CASE THIS ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS SUSTAINED AS CONFORMING TO THE
MANDATE; IN THIS CASE THE TRIAL COURT'S LIKE ACTION WAS REVERSED AS
BEING IN EXCESS OF AND, TO THAT EXTENT, CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE. 

THE TWO CASES THUS PRESENT SQUARELY CONFLICTING DECISIONS ON TWO
QUESTIONS:  (1) WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT'S MANDATE INCLUDES THE
INTEREST PROVIDED BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 811,  FN3  ALTHOUGH THE MANDATE
MAKES NO EXPLICIT MENTION OF INTEREST; (2) WHETHER, IF SO, THE INTEREST
ALLOWED BY THE SECTION PROPERLY RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE VERDICT  FN4
OR ONLY FROM THE TIME OF ENTERING JUDGMENT AFTER RECEIPT OF THE
APPELLATE COURT'S MANDATE.  BOTH QUESTIONS ARE NECESSARILY INVOLVED ON
PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION AND SHOULD NOW BE DECIDED. 

THIS COURT, HOWEVER, DECLINES TO ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION, BECAUSE
IT DETERMINES THE FIRST IN RESPONDENT'S FAVOR, ACCEPTING, ERRONEOUSLY I
THINK, THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS PHASE OF
THE CASE.  FN5  THAT COURT CONSTRUED ITS MANDATE AS NOT INCLUDING
INTEREST.  THIS WAS ON THE BASIS THAT THE MANDATE WAS SILENT CONCERNING
INTEREST, MENTIONING EXPRESSLY ONLY THE PRINCIPAL SUM AWARDED BY THE
VERDICT.  IN SUCH A CASE THE COURT SAID, "THE DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT
POWER TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR A DIFFERENT SUM."  FN6  HENCE, IT WAS HELD,
THE MANDATE WAS VIOLATED WHEN INTEREST WAS ADDED TO THAT SUM.  164 F.2D
AT 23.  AND EVEN UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE MANDATE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
AMENDED TO INCLUDE INTEREST BY TIMELY APPLICATION FOR THAT PURPOSE,
THIS COULD NOT BE DONE AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TERM AT WHICH THE
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, AS PETITIONER SOUGHT TO HAVE DONE.  FN7  IBID. 

IT IS THIS TREATMENT OF THE COURT'S MANDATE, NOW ACCEPTED BY THIS
COURT AND FORMING THE BASIS FOR ITS DISPOSITION OF THE CASE WITHOUT
REACHING THE QUESTION CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW, FROM WHICH I
DISSENT.  IT CONFUSES SETTLED LINES OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT
STATUTES AND OF DECISIONS RELATING TO THEM.  I THINK THESE WERE
CORRECTLY DRAWN AND OUGHT TO BE MAINTAINED.  IF THAT WERE DONE, WE
WOULD BE FORCED TO REACH AND DECIDE THE QUESTION NOW AVOIDED CONCERNING
THE EFFECT OF SEC. 811. 

ORDINARILY IT IS FOR THE COURT ISSUING A MANDATE TO DETERMINE ITS
SCOPE AND EFFECT, AND OTHER COURTS ARE BOUND BY ITS DETERMINATION.  BUT
THIS IS NOT ALWAYS SO.  IF IT WERE TRUE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE SILENCE
OF A MANDATE OR A JUDGMENT REGARDING INTEREST INVARIABLY PRECLUDED ITS
RECOVERY, THE COURT'S DECISION AND THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WOULD BE CORRECT.  BUT AN EXPLICIT PROVISION FOR INTEREST IS NOT ALWAYS
NECESSARY TO ITS INCLUSION, WHETHER IN A JUDGMENT OR A MANDATE.  IN
SOME INSTANCES INTEREST ATTACHES AS A MATTER OF LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE
MANDATE OR JUDGMENT IS WHOLLY SILENT REGARDING IT.  IN OTHERS EXPLICIT
MENTION IS NECESSARY TO ITS INCLUSION.  BLAIR V. DURHAM, 139 F.2D 260,
AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

WHERE THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST RESTS UPON STATUTE, WHETHER THE ONE OR
THE OTHER EFFECT RESULTS DEPENDS UPON THE TERMS AND EFFECT OF THE
PARTICULAR STATUTE ON WHICH THE CLAIM IS FOUNDED.  BECAUSE NOT ALL
STATUTES ARE ALIKE IN THIS RESPECT, THE TERMS AND INTENT OF EACH MUST
BE EXAMINED, WHEN PUT IN QUESTION, TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE INTEREST
ALLOWED ATTACHES TO THE JUDGMENT OR THE MANDATE BY OPERATION OF LAW OR
ONLY UPON EXPLICIT JUDICIAL DIRECTION.  USUALLY THIS IS RESOLVED BY
DETERMINING WHETHER THE INTEREST ALLOWED IS TO BE GIVEN IN THE COURT'S
DISCRETION OR AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.  BLAIR V. DURHAM, SUPRA. 

AS THE BLAIR OPINION POINTS OUT, ORDINARILY THERE IS NO OCCASION TO
MENTION STATUTORY INTEREST EXPRESSLY, SINCE IT ATTACHES AS A LEGAL
INCIDENT FROM THE STATUTE ALLOWING IT.  FN8  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT HAS
OFTEN BEEN DECLARED THAT INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWED ON JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED
BY THIS COURT OR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS UNLESS SO ORDERED
EXPRESSLY.  FN9  THE BLAIR OPINION, HOWEVER, FURTHER NOTES THAT ALL THE
CASES SO DECLARING ARE FOUNDED UPON ANOTHER STATUTE THAN THE ONE
INVOLVED HERE, NAMELY, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 878.  FN10  AND, IT MAY BE ADDED,
THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THIS COURT AND BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN THIS PHASE OF THE CASE PRESENTLY BEFORE US INVOLVED EITHER
SEC. 878 OR THE ALLOWANCE OF OTHER RELIEF NOT BASED ON SEC. 811.  FN11 

IT BECOMES IMPORTANT THEREFORE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE TWO STATUTES,
SECS. 811 AND 878, ARE ALIKE IN THEIR EFFECTS AS REQUIRING OR NOT
REQUIRING EXPLICIT MENTION OF THE INTEREST PROVIDED FOR IN ORDER FOR IT
TO BE INCLUDED IN A JUDGMENT OR MANDATE.  THE TWO SECTIONS ARE VERY
DIFFERENT IN THEIR TERMS.  SECTION 878 AUTHORIZES THE FEDERAL APPELLATE
COURTS TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR DELAY, FN12  AND IN TERMS MAKES THE AWARD
DISCRETIONARY WITH THE REVIEWING COURT.  SCHELL V. COCHRAN, 107 U.S.
625.  IT IS IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH AWARDS, AS HAS BEEN STATED, THAT
THE REPEATED DECISIONS NOW APPLIED TO PETITIONER'S CLAIM, GROUNDED
SOLELY ON SEC. 811, HAVE HELD THAT INTEREST IS TO BE DEEMED DENIED
UNLESS EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN THE MANDATE.  FN13 

ON THE OTHER HAND, SEC. 811 IS VERY DIFFERENT.  NOTHING IN ITS TERMS
PERMITS AN IMPLICATION THAT THE AWARD OF INTEREST IS TO BE MADE AS A
MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  THE LANGUAGE IS MANDATORY.  FN14  THE
COMPARISON WITH THAT OF SEC. 878, GIVES THE INTEREST IT ENCOMPASSES AS
A MATTER OF RIGHT.  UNITED STATES V. VERDIER, 164 U.S. 213.  THIS IS SO
WHETHER THAT INTEREST BEGINS TO RUN AS OF ONE DATE OR ANOTHER. 
WHATEVER INTEREST THE SECTION ALLOWS ATTACHES AS AN INCIDENT FLOWING
FROM THE STATUTE AND IS DEPENDENT IN NO WAY UPON JUDICIAL DISCRETION OR
UPON JUDICIAL INADVERTENCE IN FAILING TO MENTION IT.  THIS WAS THE
EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS IN THE PRATT AND BLAIR CASES, AS WELL AS UNITED
STATES V. VERDIER, SUPRA. 

THE COURT'S DECISION IGNORES THESE VITAL DIFFERENCES IN THE STATUTES,
THEIR TERMS AND EFFECTS.  CONSEQUENTLY IT MISAPPLIES THE DECISIONS
RELATING TO SEC. 878 AND OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE THE RELIEF SOUGHT WAS
DISCRETIONARY, TO THIS CLAIM ARISING ONLY UNDER SEC. 811.  THE SAME
THING HAPPENED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  HOWEVER, THE TWO
MANDATE'S FAILURE TO MENTION INTEREST EXCLUDED IT, THAT THERE CAN BE NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR CONFUSING OR IDENTIFYING THEM IN THIS RESPECT.  THE
DECISIONS CONSTRUING SEC. 878 ARE NEITHER CONTROLLING NOR PERTINENT TO
THAT PROBLEM WHEN IT ARISES UNDER SEC. 811. 

PETITIONER'S ONLY CLAIM IS UNDER THE LATTER SECTION.  HE SEEKS AS OF
RIGHT INTEREST GIVEN BY SEC. 811 AND ATTACHING TO THE JUDGMENT ENTERED
IN HIS FAVOR REGARDLESS OF THE MANDATE'S OMISSION TO MENTION INTEREST. 
THIS CLAIM IN MY OPINION IS WELL GROUNDED, TO WHATEVER EXTENT SEC. 811
ALLOWS INTEREST.  TO THAT EXTENT INTEREST ATTACHES AND WAS MEANT TO
ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW, AND REGARDLESS OF THE MANDATE'S
SPECIFICITY, TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THE SECTION GIVES INTEREST IS, OF COURSE, A DISTINCT QUESTION,
DEPENDING IN THIS CASE ON WHETHER THE SECTION CONTEMPLATES THAT THE
INTEREST SHALL BEGIN TO RUN AT ONE DATE OR ANOTHER.    SINCE THE COURT
DOES NOT DECIDE THAT QUESTION, I RESERVE DECISION UPON IT.  BUT I
DISSENT FROM THE REFUSAL TO DECIDE IT NOW.  THE QUESTION IS OF
CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE FOR THE PROPER AND UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION OF
THE STATUTE; IT IS NOT ENTIRELY WITHOUT DIFFICULTY; FN15  AND THE
UNCERTAINTY AS WELL AS THE CONFLICT OF DECISION SHOULD BE ENDED.  THERE
IS NO GOOD REASON FOR PERMITTING THEIR INDEFINITE CONTINUANCE, TO THE
PERPLEXITY OF COURTS AND COUNSEL, AND TO AN ASSURED IF UNPREDICTABLE
AMOUNT OF INJUSTICE TO LITIGANTS. 

FN1  IN THIS CASE THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PLAINTIFF ADMINISTRATRIX LACKED CAPACITY TO BRING THE ACTION; IN THE
PRATT CASE THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE VERDICT INCONSISTENT WITH ANSWERS
GIVEN TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND THEREFORE GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
DEFENDANT. 

FN2  IN THE PRATT CASE THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED INTEREST NOT ONLY
FROM THE DATE OF THE VERDICT BUT ALSO FROM THE DATE OF JUDICIAL
DEMAND.  THIS WAS MODIFIED ON APPEAL TO ALLOW INTEREST ONLY FROM THE
DATE OF VERDICT.  142 F.2D 847. 

FN3  THE SECTION IS AS FOLLOWS:  "INTEREST SHALL BE ALLOWED ON ALL
JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL CAUSES, RECOVERED IN A DISTRICT COURT, AND MAY BE
LEVIED BY THE MARSHAL UNDER PROCESS OF EXECUTION ISSUED THEREON, IN ALL
CASES WHERE, BY THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH SUCH COURT IS HELD,
INTEREST MAY BE LEVIED UNDER PROCESS OF EXECUTION ON JUDGMENTS
RECOVERED IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE; AND IT SHALL BE CALCULATED FROM
THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT, AT SUCH RATE AS IS ALLOWED BY LAW ON
JUDGMENTS RECOVERED IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE."  REV. STAT. SEC. 966,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 811. 

FN4  ALTHOUGH SEC. 811 REQUIRES CALCULATION OF INTEREST "FROM THE
DATE OF THE JUDGMENT," THE CLAIM IS THAT, IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE,
THE WORDS "THE JUDGMENT" SHOULD BE TAKEN TO SPECIFY NOT THE TIME OF
ENTERING JUDGMENT AFTER APPEAL AND ISSUANCE OF MANDATE FOLLOWING
REVERSAL, BUT THE TIME WHEN JUDGMENT PROPERLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED
BUT FOR THE DELAY CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT'S RESISTANCE TO THE
PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTFUL CLAIM AS ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL.  CF. FED. RULES
CIV. PROC., RULE 58.  PETITIONER FIXES THIS TIME AS THE DATE OF THE
VERDICT.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY NOW TO CONSIDER WHETHER, IF PETITIONER'S
BROAD CONTENTION WERE ACCEPTED, THE PROPER DATE WOULD BE THAT OF THE
VERDICT OR THAT ON WHICH THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED ITS CONSIDERATION OF
THE CASE AND ENTERED THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT. 

FN5  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS NOT ONLY RESTED UPON ITS
CONSTRUCTION OF ITS MANDATE AND THE VIEW THAT IT COULD NOT BE ALTERED
AFTER THE TERM, BUT ALSO DECIDED THE QUESTION CONCERNING PETITIONER'S
RIGHT TO INTEREST UNDER SEC. 811 ADVERSELY TO HIS CLAIM THAT IT BEGINS
TO RUN PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AFTER
REMAND.  TO WHAT EXTENT THIS RULING INFLUENCED THE DECISION AS TO THE
MANDATE'S EFFECT IS NOT CLEAR. 

FN6  CITING IN RE WASHINGTON & GEORGETOWN R. CO., 140 U.S. 91;
THORNTON V. CARTER, 109 F.2D 316.  SEE TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 11. 

FN7  IN THE PRATT CASE THE TERM OF COURT AT WHICH THE ORIGINAL
MANDATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD BEEN HANDED DOWN HAD
SIMILARLY EXPIRED. 

FN8  MASSACHUSETTS BENEFIT ASSN. V. MILES, 137 U.S. 689. 

FN9  SEE THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 10. 

FN10  139 F.2D 260, 261.  THE AUTHORITIES CITED WERE IN RE WASHINGTON
& GEORGETOWN R. CO., 140 U.S. 91; BOYCE'S EXECUTORS V. GRUNDY, 9 PET.
275; DE WITT V. UNITED STATES, 298 F. 182; GREEN V. CHICAGO, S. & C.R.
CO., 49 F. 907; HAGERMAN V. MORAN, 75 F. 97. 

FN11  NONE OF THE CASES ON WHICH THIS COURT BASES ITS DECISION
INVOLVES SEC. 811.  THEY INVOLVE EITHER SEC. 878(BOYCE'S EXECUTORS V.
GRUNDY, 9 PET. 275; IN RE WASHINGTON & GEORGETOWN R. CO., 140 U.S. 91,
WHICH THE MAJORITY EMPHASIZE BY QUOTATION); THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST
IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE AS, E.G., WHERE GOODS ARE ILLEGALLY SEIZED
AND DETAINED (HIMELY V. ROSE, 5 CRANCH 313; THE SANTA MARIA, 10 WHEAT. 
431); OR THE GRANTING OF RELIEF, OTHER THAN INTEREST, BEYOND THAT
DECREED IN THE MANDATE (EX PARTE SIBBALD V. UNITED STATES, 12 PET. 488;
EX PARTE THE UNION STEAMBOAT COMPANY, 178 U.S. 317; KANSAS CITY SO. R.
CO. V. GUARDIAN TRUST CO., 281 U.S. 1). 

OF THE CASES CITED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SEE NOTE 6, IN RE
WASHINGTON & GEORGETOWN R. CO., SUPRA, IS A SEC. 878 CASE, AND THORNTON
V. CARTER, 109 F.2D 316, DOES NOT TURN ON SEC. 811. 

THUS, NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES RELIED ON GOVERNS THE QUESTION
PRESENTED HERE, VIZ., WHETHER UNDER SEC. 811 THE MANDATE OF THE
REVIEWING COURT EXCLUDED INTEREST AND WAS VIOLATED BY ITS ADDITION. 

FN12  THE SECTION IS AS FOLLOWS:  "WHERE, UPON A WRIT OF ERROR,
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED IN THE SUPREME COURT OR A CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, THE COURT SHALL ADJUDGE TO THE RESPONDENTS IN ERROR JUST
DAMAGES FOR HIS DELAY, AND SINGLE OR DOUBLE COSTS, AT ITS DISCRETION." 
REV. STAT. SEC. 1010, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 878. 

FN13 SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 10; SEE ALSO NOTE 11. 

FN14  "INTEREST SHALL BE ALLOWED ON ALL JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL CAUSES,
RECOVERED IN A DISTRICT COURT, AND MAY BE LEVIED  ...  "; "IT SHALL BE
CALCULATED  ...."  SEE NOTE 3. 

FN15  CF. NOTE 4.  THE MATTER IS SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED BY THE ANOMALY
WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM A DECISION THAT, WHILE SEC. 878 PROVIDES FOR
ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AS DAMAGES FOR DELAY WHEN A DECISION IS AFFIRMED,
NEITHER THAT SECTION NOR SEC. 811 EXPLICITLY PROVIDES ANY SUCH
INDEMNITY WHEN A JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT IS REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS
TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF; AND BY THE CONSIDERATIONS,
OBVIOUSLY RELEVANT ON THE FACE OF SEC. 811, SEE NOTE 3, RELATIVE TO
SECURING UNIFORMITY IN THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AS BETWEEN THE FEDERAL
COURTS AND COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT SITS.  CF.
MASSACHUSETTS BENEFIT ASSN. V. MILES, 137 U.S. 689; CF. ALSO ERIE R.
CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 
..END :









KENNEDY V. SILAS MASON CO., 334 U.S. 249 


NO. 590.  ARGUED APRIL 20, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1948.  - 164 F.2D
1016, JUDGMENTS VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


PETITIONERS, WHO WORKED IN A GOVERNMENT-OWNED PLANT IN WHICH
RESPONDENT PRODUCED MUNITIONS UNDER A COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT WITH
THE WAR DEPARTMENT, SUED RESPONDENT FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNDER THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR
RESPONDENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  AMONG OTHER
ISSUES INVOLVED WERE WHETHER PETITIONERS WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE
GOVERNMENT OR OF THE PRIVATE CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER MUNITIONS PRODUCED
FOR SHIPMENT ACROSS STATE LINES ARE PRODUCED FOR "COMMERCE" AND ARE
"GOODS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  SUBSTANTIAL CLAIMS OF THE
PETITIONERS WOULD BE DENIED OR LARGE SUMS ADDED TO THE COST OF THE WAR
BY THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED, AND MANY OTHER CASES WOULD BE
GOVERNED BY THE DECISION.  ALSO, CERTAIN CONTENTIONS WERE MADE IN THIS
COURT WHICH WERE NOT MADE IN THE COURTS BELOW; AND AN ADEQUATE
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM WOULD REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF THREE
DIFFERENT ACTS OF CONGRESS, TWO OF WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS
COURT ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE.  HELD:  WITHOUT INTIMATING ANY
CONCLUSION ON THE MERITS, THE JUDGMENTS ARE VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR RECONSIDERATION AND AMPLIFICATION OF
THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S OPINION AND OF PRESENT
CONTENTIONS.  PP. 251-257. 

(A)  THE HEARING OF CONTENTIONS AS TO DISPUTED FACTS, THE SORTING OF
DOCUMENTS TO SELECT RELEVANT PROVISIONS, ASCERTAIN THEIR ULTIMATE FORM
AND MEANING, THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION PUT ON THEM BY THE PARTIES, AND
REDUCTION OF A MASS OF CONFLICTING CONTENTIONS AS TO FACT AND INFERENCE
FROM FACTS, IS A TASK PRIMARILY FOR A TRIAL COURT INSTEAD OF THIS
COURT.  P. 256. 

(B) SUMMARY PROCEDURES UNDER RULE 56 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, HOWEVER SALUTARY WHERE ISSUES ARE CLEAR-CUT AND SIMPLE,
PRESENT A TREACHEROUS RECORD FOR DECIDING ISSUES OF FAR-FLUNG IMPORT,
ON WHICH THIS COURT SHOULD DRAW INFERENCES WITH CAUTION FROM
COMPLICATED COURSES OF LEGISLATION, CONTRACTING AND PRACTICE.  PP. 256
257. 

(C)  AS A MATTER OF GOOD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, THIS COURT WILL NOT
ATTEMPT TO DECIDE THESE FAR-REACHING ISSUES ON SUCH A RECORD PRESENTING
AN INDEFINITE FACTUAL FOUNDATION AND INVOLVING SUCH A WELTER OF NEW
CONTENTIONS AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS, BUT WILL AWAIT THE PRESENTATION
OF THESE ISSUES ON A RECORD CONTAINING A MORE SOLID BASIS OF FINDINGS
BASED ON LITIGATION OR ON A COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS. 
P. 257. 

KENNEDY ET AL. V. SILAS MASON CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION BY PETITIONERS TO RECOVER OVERTIME COMPENSATION CLAIMED
UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT FIRST DENIED, 68
F.SUPP.  576, BUT LATER GRANTED, 70 F.SUPP.  929, SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR
RESPONDENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  164 F.2D 1016. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  333 U.S. 841.  JUDGMENTS VACATED AND
CAUSE REMANDED, P. 257. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES QUESTIONS AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE OVERTIME
PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FN1  TO CERTAIN PERSONS WHO
WORKED IN A GOVERNMENT-OWNED PLANT IN WHICH RESPONDENT PRODUCED
MUNITIONS UNDER A COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE CONTRACT WITH THE WAR
DEPARTMENT.  IT INVOLVES SUCH SUBSIDIARY ISSUES AS WHETHER THE
PLAINTIFFS WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT OR OF THE PRIVATE
CONTRACTOR, WHETHER MUNITIONS PRODUCED FOR SHIPMENT ACROSS STATE LINES
IN WAR USE ARE PRODUCED FOR "COMMERCE"  FN2  AND WHETHER THEY ARE
"GOODS"  FN3  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  SUBSTANTIAL CLAIMS OF
PETITIONERS MAY BE DENIED OR LARGE SUMS ADDED TO THE COST OF THE WAR BY
THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS, AND MANY CASES OTHER THAN THIS WILL BE
CONTROLLED BY ITS DECISION. 

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CASE HAS THUS FAR DEVELOPED RAISES THE
QUESTION WHETHER AS A MATTER OF GOOD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION THIS COURT
SHOULD ATTEMPT TO DECIDE THESE FAR-REACHING ISSUES ON THIS RECORD. 

NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT, TAKING ITS ALLEGATIONS AT THEIR FACE VALUE,
THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  SUMMARY JUDGMENT HAS GONE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS
BECAUSE, BY AFFIDAVIT AND EXHIBITS, THE ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN FOUND
UNSUSTAINABLE.  THE DEFENDANT FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER
RULE 56 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE  FN4  "ON THE GROUND
THAT DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW."  THE
MOTION, SO FAR AS THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS CONCERNED, WAS BASED
ON AN AFFIDAVIT "WHICH STATES FACTS SHOWING THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW
NEITHER COMPLAINANTS NOR DEFENDANT WERE COVERED" BY THE ACT IN THAT
NEITHER "WERE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE."  MADE PART OF THE AFFIDAVIT BY REFERENCE WERE DEFENDANT'S
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND SOME 22
SUPPLEMENTS OR CHANGE ORDERS COVERING NEARLY 200 PAGES OF THE RECORD. 
THE COMPLAINANTS THEN FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT WHICH ADDED BY
REFERENCE ALL REGULATIONS AND INTERPRETATIVE BULLETINS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
CLARIFYING AND EXPLAINING IT.  AND, AS AGAINST DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVIT
AND EXHIBITS, THE PLAINTIFFS, AS RECITED IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S
OPINION, OFFERED BY REFERENCE AFFIDAVITS OF THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES OF
THE CONTRACTOR SHOWING THE CUSTOMS OF PAYMENT AND OPERATION AS BEARING
ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THEY WERE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OR THOSE OF THE
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR.  THE AFFIDAVITS DO NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD, BUT
PARTS DEEMED RELEVANT ARE SET OUT IN THE COURT'S OPINION. 

ON THIS BASIS THE DISTRICT COURT FIRST DENIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  68
F.SUPP.  576.  IT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PLAINTIFFS, WHATEVER THE
FORMS OF THE TRANSACTION, WERE IN REALITY EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT
AND, HENCE, THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BY ITS OWN TERMS DID NOT COVER
THEM.  BUT IT HELD THAT THEY WERE COVERED BY SEC. 4(B) OF THE ACT OF
JULY 2, 1940,  FN5  AND WERE ENTITLED TO RECOVER OVERTIME UNDER IT. 

ON REHEARING, THE COURT CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO REMEDY UNDER THIS
LATTER ACT WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM IN THIS ACTION AS IT WAS NOT PLEADED. 
ACCORDINGLY, IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM.  70 F.SUPP. 
929.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT, SITTING EN BANC
AFFIRMED.  164 F.2D 1016.  IT HELD THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WERE IN
SUBSTANCE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT MUNITIONS WERE NOT A
PART OF COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, AND THAT IN ANY EVENT
MUNITIONS WERE NOT "GOODS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  ONE JUDGE,
CONCURRING, DID NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONERS WERE
EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT BUT HELD ONLY THAT MUNITIONS WERE PRODUCED
FOR WAR, NOT FOR COMMERCE.  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
WHOLE SYSTEM "WAS DESIGNED AND OPERATED SO THAT THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD NOT BE THE EMPLOYER" AND CONSIDERED THAT MUNITIONS PRODUCED FOR
TRANSPORTATION TO A PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE WERE PRODUCED FOR
COMMERCE AND THOSE ENGAGED THEREIN WERE SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  THE CASE
IS HERE ON CERTIORARI, 333 U.S. 841. 

THE SILAS MASON COMPANY, IN A SENSE, IS NO MORE THAN A NOMINAL
DEFENDANT, FOR IT IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. 
THE GOVERNMENT, THE ULTIMATE PARTY IN INTEREST, APPEARS THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF THE STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE CLAIMS
AGAINST ITSELF.  BUT IT ADVISES US THAT "THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IS
OF THE VIEW THAT RESPONDENT'S POSITION HAS MERIT FOR THE REASONS SET
FORTH IN THE BRIEF FILED BY RESPONDENT.  THE ARMY IS CONCERNED WITH THE
GREAT COST TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE SUBJECTED IF THE NUMEROUS
SUITS AKIN TO THIS ARE LOST, OR EVEN IF IT MUST BEAR THE COST OF
DEFENDING THEM.  FURTHERMORE, THE ARMY BELIEVES THAT THE CLASSES OF
EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THESE CASES WERE WELL PAID, THAT THEY ACCEPTED
THEIR COMPENSATION WITHOUT COMPLAINT OR EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING MORE
UNTIL THIS LITIGATION WAS COMMENCED SOMETIME AFTER THE TERMINATION OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT ACCORDINGLY THERE IS LITTLE EQUITY IN THE
EMPLOYEES' PRESENT POSITION." 

THREE ACTS OF CONGRESS REQUIRE CONSIDERATION.  THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE
GOVERNMENT SAY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS CONTROLLING.  THE
DEFENDANT, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WHICH HANDLED THE TRANSACTION,
AND THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDER THAT THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, CONTROLS
THE LIABILITY.  BUT THE TRIAL COURT HELD IT CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF
ADJUDICATION OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS BECAUSE NO SUCH ISSUE WAS PLEADED
AND THAT HOLDING HAS BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO
APPEAL.  THE PLAINTIFFS PLEADED THEIR CAUSE OF ACTION ALSO UNDER THE
WALSH-HEALEY PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT,  FN6  BUT IT WAS HELD UNAVAILABLE TO
THEM BELOW AND THEIR PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT RAISES NO
QUESTION AS TO THAT ACT AND ACQUIESCES IN DROPPING IT FROM OUR
CONSIDERATION. 

ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHO WAS THE EMPLOYER, ON WHICH THIS CASE WAS
DECIDED BELOW, THE COMPLAINT MAKES A CLEAR, FACTUAL AND SIMPLE
ALLEGATION.  IT SAYS THAT THESE PLAINTIFFS WERE EMPLOYED BY THE
CORPORATE DEFENDANT ITSELF.  THIS ALLEGATION HAS BEEN OVERBORNE BY
INTERPRETING THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN THAT ALLEGED EMPLOYER
AND A THIRD PARTY, THAT IS, THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH TERMS MAY OR MAY NOT
HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEES.  THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY AS
TO THE WAY THOSE TWO PARTIES, THE GOVERNMENT AND DEFENDANT IN ACTUAL
PRACTICE, CONSTRUED THEIR CONTRACTS, BOTH SIDES OF THE CONTROVERSY
BEING BASED ON EVENTS OF WHICH WE ARE ASKED TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OR
TO SPELL OUT FROM CONTRACTS WITHOUT THE TESTS WHICH TRIAL AFFORDS.  THE
PLAINTIFFS IN TURN SEEK TO COUNTERACT WHATEVER INFERENCES MAY BE DRAWN
FROM THE DEFENDANT'S VERSION OF DEALINGS BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND THE
GOVERNMENT BY CONTRARY INFERENCES FROM DEALINGS BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND
THE DEFENDANT.  BUT THEY DO NOT PROVE PLAINTIFFS' OWN DEALINGS, WHICH
ARE NOT IN THE RECORD, BUT OFFER AFFIDAVITS WHICH RELATE SPECIFICALLY
TO "LABORERS AND MECHANICS" WHILE PLAINTIFFS WERE INSPECTORS AND
FOREMEN, A DIFFERENCE THAT MAY BE MATERIAL.  INSOFAR AS THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE COMPLAINT ARE IMPEACHED BY THE COURSE OF DEALING BETWEEN
DEFENDANT AND THE GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY COURSE OF
DEALING TO WHICH THESE PLAINTIFFS WERE PARTIES.  WHAT THEY WERE PAID
AND ON WHAT BASIS, WHETHER THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR OVERTIME ON
THE THEORY THAT ONE OF THE OTHER ACTS APPLIES, WE DO NOT KNOW. 

DEFENDANT'S PRESENT POSITION, WHICH, FOR ALL WE KNOW, MAY OR MAY NOT
BE SHARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, IS THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO
SETTLE THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER DEFENDANT OR THE GOVERNMENT WAS THE
ACTUAL EMPLOYER, THAT THE EFFECT OF THE WAR-TIME LEGISLATION WAS TO SET
UP A WHOLLY NEW SYSTEM OF WAR PRODUCTION, WHICH WAS NEITHER PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE NOR GOVERNMENT OPERATION, BUT AN AMALGAMATION OF THE TWO,
WHICH ALSO PRESCRIBED A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF LABOR RELATION BY STATUTE
WHICH SUPERSEDES AND PRECLUDES OPERATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  BUT THIS BROAD CONTENTION SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO
EITHER COURT BELOW, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORETICAL BASIS OF
THEIR DECISIONS AND APPEARS FULLY PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE
REPLY BRIEF IN THIS COURT. 

THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE HAVE AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
QUESTION, PROBABLY AFFECTING ALL COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE WAR CONTRACTORS
AND MANY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES IMMEDIATELY, AND ULTIMATELY AFFECTING BY A
VAST SUM THE COST OF FIGHTING THE WAR.  NO CONCLUSION IN SUCH A CASE
SHOULD PRUDENTLY BE RESTED ON AN INDEFINITE FACTUAL FOUNDATION.  THE
CASE, WHICH COUNSEL HAVE DESCRIBED AS A CONSTANTLY EXPANDING ONE, COMES
TO US ALMOST IN THE STATUS IN WHICH IT SHOULD COME TO A TRIAL COURT. 
IN ADDITION TO THE WELTER OF NEW CONTENTIONS AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
WE MUST PICK OUR WAY AMONG OVER A SCORE OF TECHNICAL CONTRACTS, EACH
AMENDING SOME EARLIER ONE, WITHOUT FULL BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE OF THE
DEALINGS OF THE PARTIES.  THE HEARING OF CONTENTIONS AS TO DISPUTED
FACTS, THE SORTING OF DOCUMENTS TO SELECT RELEVANT PROVISIONS,
ASCERTAIN THEIR ULTIMATE FORM AND MEANING IN THE CASE, THE PRACTICAL
CONSTRUCTION PUT ON THEM BY THE PARTIES AND REDUCTION OF THE MASS OF
CONFLICTING CONTENTIONS AS TO FACT AND INFERENCE FROM FACTS, IS A TASK
PRIMARILY FOR A COURT OF ONE JUDGE, NOT FOR A COURT OF NINE. 

WE DO NOT HOLD THAT IN THE FORM THE CONTROVERSY TOOK IN THE DISTRICT
COURT THAT TRIBUNAL LACKED POWER OR JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLYING THE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE.  BUT SUMMARY PROCEDURES, HOWEVER SALUTARY
WHERE ISSUES ARE CLEAR-CUT AND SIMPLE,  FN7  PRESENT A TREACHEROUS
RECORD FOR DECIDING ISSUES OF FAR-FLUNG IMPORT, ON WHICH THIS COURT
SHOULD DRAW INFERENCES WITH CAUTION FROM COMPLICATED COURSES OF
LEGISLATION, CONTRACTING AND PRACTICE. 

WE CONSIDER IT THE PART OF GOOD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION TO WITHHOLD
DECISION OF THE ULTIMATE QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE UNTIL THIS OR
ANOTHER RECORD SHALL PRESENT A MORE SOLID BASIS OF FINDINGS BASED ON
LITIGATION OR ON A COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS.  WHILE WE
MIGHT BE ABLE, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, TO REACH A CONCLUSION THAT WOULD
DECIDE THE CASE, IT MIGHT WELL BE FOUND LATER TO BE LACKING IN THE
THOROUGHNESS THAT SHOULD PRECEDE JUDGMENT OF THIS IMPORTANCE AND WHICH
IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS TO PROVIDE. 

WITHOUT INTIMATING ANY CONCLUSION ON THE MERITS, WE VACATE THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND AMPLIFICATION OF THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
OPINION AND OF PRESENT CONTENTIONS.  JUDGMENTS VACATED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1938, C. 676, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
201. 

FN2 THE ACT DEFINES COMMERCE AS FOLLOWS:  "'COMMERCE' MEANS TRADE,
COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES OR FROM ANY STATE TO ANY PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF." 

FN3  THE ACT DEFINES GOODS AS FOLLOWS:  "'GOODS' MEANS GOODS
(INCLUDING SHIPS AND MARINE EQUIPMENT), WARES, PRODUCTS, COMMODITIES,
MERCHANDISE, OR ARTICLES OR SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE OF ANY CHARACTER, OR
ANY PART OR INGREDIENT THEREOF, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE GOODS AFTER THEIR
DELIVERY INTO THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER
THEREOF OTHER THAN A PRODUCER, MANUFACTURER, OR PROCESSOR THEREOF." 

FN4  RULE 56 PROVIDES THAT THE TRIAL COURT MAY AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AFTER MOTION, NOTICE AND HEARING, PROVIDED THE PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS,
ADMISSIONS AND AFFIDAVITS ON FILE SHOW THAT THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE
AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT AND THAT THE MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

FN5  ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, C. 508, 54 STAT. 712. 

FN6  ACT OF JUNE 30, 1936, C. 881, 49 STAT. 2036, 41 U.S.C. SEC. 35. 

FN7  RULE 56 REQUIRES THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHALL BE RENDERED IF
"THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT  ...  "  SEE NOTE
4. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK THINKS THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :








WOODS V. HILLS, 334 U.S. 210 


NO. 437.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 10, 1948. 


UNDER SEC. 205 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, THE ADMINISTRATOR
BROUGHT AN ACTION BASED ON AN ALLEGED OVERCHARGE OF RENT.  THE ISSUE,
BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, WAS THE VALIDITY OF THE SECOND OF TWO
ORDERS OF THE RENT DIRECTOR REDUCING MAXIMUM RENTS ON PROPERTY OF THE
DEFENDANT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT IN
1946.  AN APPEAL BY THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS NOT SUBMITTED IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10, 1947, AND THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT EXPIRED BY ITS TERMS ON JUNE 30, 1947.  HELD: 

1.  SECTION 204(D) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT PRECLUDED THE
DISTRICT COURT IN 1946 FROM DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
RENT ORDER, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BROUGHT THERE WAS
BASED ON THE ALLEGED INVALIDITY OF THE ORDER, SINCE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF A REGULATION OR AN ORDER ISSUED
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS VESTED IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS AND
IN THIS COURT UPON REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE EMERGENCY
COURT.  PP. 211-214. 

2.  ON REMAND, THE DISTRICT COURT WILL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE SECOND RENT ORDER AND SHOULD NOT BE
DIRECTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE
ORDER.  PP. 211-212, 218. 

3.  SINCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO RENT CONTROL
WAS TRANSFERRED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 9841 TO THE HOUSING EXPEDITER RATHER
THAN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, THE NECESSARY EFFECT OF THE
AMENDMENT OF SEC. 204(E) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT BY THE
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION ACT OF JULY 30, 1947, WAS TO ABROGATE THE
STATUTORY RIGHT THE DEFENDANT IN THE PRESENT CASE PREVIOUSLY HAD TO
APPLY TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR LEAVE TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, WHEREFORE THE LATTER COURT NO LONGER HAS
JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SEC. 204(E) OVER ANY COMPLAINT WHICH DEFENDANT
MAY DESIRE TO FILE WITH IT TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE SECOND RENT
ORDER.  PP. 215-216. 

4.  UNDER SEC. 1(B) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, THE EMERGENCY
COURT OF APPEALS STILL HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW RENT ORDERS ISSUED
UNDER THE PRICE CONTROL ACT, THROUGH THE PROTEST AND COMPLAINT
PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY SECS. 203(A) AND 204(A) AS AMENDED, ALTHOUGH A
1947 AMENDMENT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES OR
ANY OFFICER THEREOF TO DISMISS ANY PROTEST UNDER SEC. 203 ON THE GROUND
OF LACHES.  PP. 216-218. 

WOODS, HOUSING EXPEDITER, V. HILLS. 

ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

UPON AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DEFENDANT IN AN ACTION BY THE TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR
(SUCCEEDED BY THE HOUSING EXPEDITER) UNDER SEC. 205 OF THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT BASED ON AN ALLEGED OVERCHARGE OF RENT, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFIED QUESTIONS TO THIS COURT WHICH ARE HERE
ANSWERED, PP. 212-213, 218. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS OF LAW CONCERNING WHICH IT ASKS INSTRUCTIONS FOR
THE PROPER DECISION OF THE CAUSE PENDING IN THAT COURT.  JUDICIAL CODE,
SEC. 239; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346. 

THE CERTIFICATE STATES THAT THIS IS AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR TREBLE DAMAGES AND FOR AN INJUNCTION UNDER SEC. 205
OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT  FN1  AND UNDER THE RENT REGULATION
FOR HOUSING.  FN2  HILLS, THE DEFENDANT BELOW, REMODELED APARTMENTS
LOCATED IN A DEFENSE RENTAL AREA, SUBJECT TO THE RENT REGULATIONS, AND
DULY REGISTERED THEM.  THEREAFTER, ON DECEMBER 17, 1943, THE MAXIMUM
RENTS WERE REDUCED BY THE AREA RENT DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(C) OF
THE REGULATION; AND ON MARCH 7, 1945, THE RENT DIRECTOR ISSUED AN ORDER
FURTHER REDUCING THE MAXIMUM RENTS. 

ON TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT A JURY, THE PARTIES STIPULATED
THAT THE ONLY ISSUE WAS THE VALIDITY OF THE SECOND ORDER.  THE DISTRICT
COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT ON OCTOBER 29, 1946, HOLDING
THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF
THE SECOND ORDER AND THAT HE HAD FAILED TO INTRODUCE PROOF ESTABLISHING
ITS VALIDITY. 

AT THE TIME THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ITS JUDGMENT, EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF A REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED BY
THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS VESTED IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS AND IN
THIS COURT UPON REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE EMERGENCY COURT. 
SEC. 204(D), 50 U.S.C.A. APP. SEC. 924(D).  HOWEVER, THE APPEAL BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT SUBMITTED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10, 1947, AND THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT EXPIRED BY ITS TERMS ON JUNE 30, 1947. 
SEC. 1(B), 50 U.S.C.A. APP. SEC. 901(B). 

THE QUESTIONS CERTIFIED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1)  ON REMAND, WILL THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
DISTRICT OF KANSAS, FIRST DIVISION, HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE
VALIDITY OF THE SECOND RENT ORDER AND SHOULD WE DIRECT THE DISTRICT
COURT TO PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF SUCH RENT ORDER? 

"(2)  IF THE FIRST QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, DOES THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS STILL HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE
VALIDITY OF THE SECOND RENT ORDER? 

"(3)  IF THE SECOND QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND THIS
COURT REMANDS THE CAUSE WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT AS PRAYED FOR
AGAINST HILLS, MAY HILLS, UNDER SEC. 204(E) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED (50 U.S.C.A. APP., SEC. 924(E)), APPLY
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR LEAVE TO FILE IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATOR, SETTING FORTH OBJECTIONS
TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SECOND RENT ORDER, AND, UPON PROPER PETITION AND
SHOWING, OBTAIN THE RELIEF PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 204(E), AND SHOULD WE
SO DIRECT ON REMAND?" 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON
THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS BY SEC. 204(D)  FN3 PRECLUDED THE
DISTRICT COURT IN 1946 FROM DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
RENT ORDER EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BROUGHT THERE WAS
BASED ON THE ALLEGED INVALIDITY OF THE ORDER.  FN4 

THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT WAS TO TERMINATE ON JUNE 30, 1947. 
OFFENSES COMMITTED, OR RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES INCURRED, PRIOR TO SUCH
TERMINATION DATE, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH REGULATIONS,
ORDERS, PRICE SCHEDULES, AND REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE TREATED AS STILL
REMAINING IN FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUSTAINING ANY PROPER SUIT,
ACTION, OR PROSECUTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH RIGHT, LIABILITY, OR
OFFENSE."  56 STAT. 24.  SINCE THE OFFENSE COMPLAINED OF IN THE CASE AT
BAR OCCURRED BEFORE THE TERMINATION DATE, SEC. 1(B) WOULD APPLY AND THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS WOULD STILL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO
PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SECOND RENT ORDER, IF ADDITIONAL
PREREQUISITES SET FORTH IN SEC. 204(E)(1) OF THE STATUTE WERE
SATISFIED.  FN5 

JURISDICTION OF THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS OVER ANY COMPLAINT
ARISES, PURSUANT TO SEC. 204(E)(1), WHEN THE COURT IN WHICH A CIVIL OR
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING IS PENDING HAS GRANTED THE DEFENDANT
LEAVE TO FILE IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS A COMPLAINT SETTING
FORTH OBJECTIONS TO THE VALIDITY OF ANY PROVISION WHICH THE DEFENDANT
IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED, AND THE DEFENDANT HAS DULY FILED SUCH A
COMPLAINT.  PRIOR TO A 1947 AMENDMENT, SEC. 204(E)(1) PROVIDED THAT
"WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER ARRAIGNMENT, OR SUCH ADDITIONAL TIME AS THE
COURT MAY ALLOW FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, AND
WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER JUDGMENT IN ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING,
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 205 OF THIS ACT OR SECTION 37 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE, INVOLVING ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF ANY
REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2 OR OF ANY PRICE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206, THE
DEFENDANT MAY APPLY TO THE COURT IN WHICH THE PROCEEDING IS PENDING FOR
LEAVE TO FILE IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
ADMINISTRATOR SETTING FORTH OBJECTIONS TO THE VALIDITY OF ANY PROVISION
WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED OR CONSPIRED TO
VIOLATE.  THE COURT IN WHICH THE PROCEEDING IS PENDING SHALL GRANT SUCH
LEAVE WITH RESPECT TO ANY OBJECTION WHICH IT FINDS IS MADE IN GOOD
FAITH AND WITH RESPECT TO WHICH IT FINDS THERE IS REASONABLE AND
SUBSTANTIAL EXCUSE FOR THE DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO PRESENT SUCH
OBJECTION IN A PROTEST FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 203(A).  FN6
UPON THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO AND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM
THE GRANTING OF SUCH LEAVE, THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN OR SET ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE PROVISION
OF THE REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE COMPLAINED OF OR TO DISMISS
THE COMPLAINT.  ...  "  59 STAT. 308. 

HOWEVER, THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION ACT, 1948, APPROVED JULY 30,
1947, AMENDED SEC. 204(E) BY STRIKING OUT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE
FOREGOING PROVISION AND SUBSTITUTING THE FOLLOWING: "WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS AMENDMENT, OR WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
AFTER ARRAIGNMENT IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION
205 OF THIS ACT OR SECTION 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, INVOLVING ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206 WITH RESPECT TO WHICH
RESPONSIBILITY WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9841,  FN7  THE DEFENDANT MAY APPLY TO THE COURT IN
WHICH THE PROCEEDING IS PENDING FOR LEAVE TO FILE IN THE EMERGENCY
COURT OF APPEALS A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATOR SETTING FORTH
OBJECTIONS TO THE VALIDITY OF ANY PROVISION WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS
ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED OR CONSPIRED TO VIOLATE."  61 STAT. 619. 

SINCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO RENT CONTROL WAS
TRANSFERRED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 9841 TO THE HOUSING EXPEDITER RATHER
THAN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, THE NECESSARY EFFECT OF THE
FOREGOING AMENDMENT IS TO ELIMINATE ENTIRELY THE STATUTORY RIGHT THE
DEFENDANT IN THE PRESENT CASE PREVIOUSLY HAD TO APPLY TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR LEAVE TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS. 
AS A COROLLARY, THE LATTER COURT CAN NO LONGER ACQUIRE JURISDICTION
PURSUANT TO SEC. 204(E) OVER ANY COMPLAINT WHICH DEFENDANT MAY DESIRE
TO FILE WITH IT TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE SECOND RENT ORDER. 

WE MAY NOW CONSIDER WHAT EFFECT THE 1947 AMENDMENT, THUS VIEWED, HAS
UPON THE "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" PROVISION IN SEC. 204(D), WHICH WAS
PRESERVED BY THE SAVING CLAUSE OF SEC. 1(B).  IF ELIMINATION OF THE
COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OF SEC. 204(E) AS A REMEDY FOR THOSE SEEKING TO
CHALLENGE RENT ORDERS MEANT THE ELIMINATION OF ALL PROVISION FOR REVIEW
BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, IT MIGHT BE ARGUED THAT PRESERVATION
OF THE BAN IMPOSED BY SEC. 204(D) ON DISTRICT COURT ADJUDICATION OF THE
VALIDITY OF RENT ORDERS WOULD BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TO A DEFENDANT
CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER. 

HOWEVER, THE 1947 AMENDMENT LEFT UNIMPAIRED THE PROVISION IN SEC.
203(A) FOR REVIEW OF RENT ORDERS BY FILING PROTESTS WITH THE
ADMINISTRATOR (I.E., THE HOUSING EXPEDITER, AS TRANSFEREE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S RENT CONTROL FUNCTIONS).  A DENIAL OF SUCH A PROTEST
MAY BE REVIEWED IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS BY FILING A COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO SEC. 204(A).  PRIOR TO AN AMENDMENT ADDED BY THE
STABILIZATION EXTENSION ACT OF 1944, PROTESTS COULD BE FILED UNDER SEC.
203(A) ONLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE
REGULATION OR ORDER SOUGHT TO BE CHALLENGED.  UNDER THE 1944 AMENDMENT,
WHICH IS PRESERVED UNCHANGED FOR RENT ORDERS, THIS PERIOD WAS EXTENDED
SO THAT PROTESTS CAN BE FILED "AT ANY TIME AFTER THE ISSUANCE" OF THE
REGULATION OR ORDER, ALTHOUGH THE 1947 AMENDMENT EXPRESSLY TAKES
COGNIZANCE OF THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OFFICER THEREOF TO
DISMISS ANY PROTEST UNDER SEC. 203 ON THE GROUND OF LACHES.  FN8 

THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS MAY STILL BE
ABLE TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW RENT ORDERS, ISSUED UNDER THE
PRICE CONTROL ACT, BY MEANS OF THE PROTEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OF
SECS. 203(A) AND 204(A).  ACCORDINGLY, THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
PROVISION IN SEC. 204(D) IS NOT A MEANINGLESS ANOMALY SO FAR AS REVIEW
OF RENT CONTROL ORDERS IS CONCERNED, AND IT REMAINS AS SUBSTANTIAL A
BARRIER TO REVIEW OF THE SECOND RENT ORDER BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS IT
WAS HELD TO BE IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414(1944).  THERE
THIS COURT RULED THAT DEFENDANTS COULD NOT ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF PRICE
REGULATIONS IN A PROSECUTION IN A DISTRICT COURT EVEN THOUGH THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT AS THEN DRAWN MADE NO PROVISION FOR REVIEW
BY THE COMPLAINT PROCEDURE LATER SET UP UNDER SEC. 204(E)(AND NOW
ABANDONED SO FAR AS RENT ORDERS ARE CONCERNED).  THE ONLY JUDICIAL
REVIEW THEN AVAILABLE REQUIRED AS A PRELIMINARY THE FILING OF A PROTEST
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 203(A) WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE
PROMULGATION OF THE ORDER OR REGULATION.  THAT STATUTORY REVIEW
PROCEDURE, WHOSE CONSTITUTIONALITY WAS UPHELD IN THE YAKUS CASE, IS
STILL PRESERVED TO DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH VIOLATIONS OF RENT ORDERS
ISSUED UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942.  FN9  IF
ANYTHING, THE JUDICIAL REVIEW STILL AVAILABLE TO SUCH DEFENDANTS IS
EVEN BROADER THAN THE PROCEDURE SUSTAINED IN THE YAKUS CASE, SINCE THE
SIXTY-DAY LIMITATION ON THE FILING OF PROTESTS NO LONGER APPLIES TO
RENT ORDERS. 

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ANSWER QUESTION (1) IN THE NEGATIVE.  IN
ANSWER TO QUESTION (2), THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS NO LONGER HAS
JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO SEC. 204(E) TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE
SECOND RENT ORDER. 

FN1  AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C.A. APP. SECS. 901, 925. 

FN2  AS AMENDED, 8 FED. REG. 7322. 

FN3  "  ...  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE SUPREME COURT
UPON REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS,
SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF ANY
REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2, OF ANY PRICE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206, AND OF ANY
PROVISION OF ANY SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE.  EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, NO COURT, FEDERAL, STATE, OR TERRITORIAL,
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OR POWER TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF ANY SUCH
REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE, OR TO STAY, RESTRAIN, ENJOIN, OR
SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REGULATIONS OR ORDERS, OR MAKING EFFECTIVE ANY
SUCH PRICE SCHEDULE, OR ANY PROVISION OF ANY SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR
PRICE SCHEDULE, OR TO RESTRAIN OR ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY SUCH
PROVISION."  56 STAT. 33. 

FN4  SEE BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 510-511, 521(1944);
YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414(1944). 

FN5  CF. 150 EAST 47TH STREET CORP. V. PORTER, 156 F.2D 541(E.C.A.,
1946).  MOREOVER, THE TERMS OF A 1947 AMENDMENT, DISCUSSED INFRA, PP.
215-217, CLEARLY SHOW CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION THAT THIS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION CONTINUED AFTER THE TERMINATION DATE. 

FN6  SECTION 203(A) PROVIDES INTER ALIA FOR THE FILING OF PROTESTS TO
RENT ORDERS ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AT ANY TIME AFTER ISSUANCE. 
THE DENIAL BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF SUCH A PROTEST IS REVIEWABLE BY A
COMPLAINT FILED IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO SEC.
204(A).    FN7  12 FED. REG. 2645. 

FN8  "  ...  NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS IN ANY WAY
AFFECTING THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OFFICER THEREOF TO
DISMISS ANY PROTEST UNDER SECTION 203 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, OR DEFEND AGAINST ANY COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION
204(E) OF SUCH ACT ON THE GROUND OF LACHES."  61 STAT. 619. 

FN9  OF COURSE THE DISTRICT COURT CAN WITHHOLD JUDGMENT SO THAT IT
MAY GIVE EFFECT TO ANY DETERMINATION BY THE HOUSING EXPEDITER OR THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM THE DEFENDANT'S
PURSUIT OF THIS REMEDY. 
..END :






MANDEVILLE FARMS V. SUGAR CO., 334 U.S. 219 


NO. 75.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 10, 1948.-  159 F.2D
71, REVERSED. 


GROWERS OF SUGAR BEETS BROUGHT AN ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST
ACT, AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO REFINED BEET SUGAR AND DISTRIBUTED IT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FOR TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY
REASON OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  THE AMENDED BILL OF
COMPLAINT ALLEGED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD CONSPIRED WITH
OTHER REFINERS TO FIX UNIFORM PRICES TO BE PAID TO GROWERS FOR SUGAR
BEETS GROWN IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; THAT THE REFINERS HAD A MONOPOLY OF
THE SEED SUPPLY AND THE ONLY PRACTICAL MARKET FOR BEETS GROWN IN THE
AREA; AND THAT, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND THE PRICE-FIXING
FORMULA, THE COMPLAINANTS RECEIVED LESS FOR THEIR BEETS.  OTHER
ALLEGATIONS SHOWED THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY IN
THE AREA; THE DOMINANT POSITION OF THE REFINERS IN THE INDUSTRY; AND
THE EFFECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ON APPEAL FROM A
JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, HELD: 

1.  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ACT. 
PP. 221-246. 

2.  A RESTRAINT OF THE TYPE FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT, THOUGH ARISING IN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE, FALLS WITHIN THE ACT'S PROHIBITION IF ITS ACTUAL
OR THREATENED EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SUFFICIENTLY
SUBSTANTIAL.  PP. 227-235. 

3.  THE REFINERS' CONSPIRACY WAS OF THE TYPE FORBIDDEN, EVEN THOUGH
THE PRICE-FIXING WAS BY PURCHASERS AND THOUGH THE CLAIMANTS OF TREBLE
DAMAGES ARE SELLERS INSTEAD OF CUSTOMERS OR CONSUMERS.  P. 235. 

4.  MONOPOLIZATION OF LOCAL BUSINESS, WHEN ACHIEVED BY RESTRAINING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 235-236. 

5.  THE CONSPIRACY BEING SHOWN TO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ADVERSELY TO CONGRESS' POLICY, THE AMOUNT OF THE NATION'S SUGAR
INDUSTRY WHICH THE REFINERS CONTROL IS IRRELEVANT, SO LONG AS CONTROL
IS EXERCISED EFFECTIVELY IN THE AREA INVOLVED.  P. 236. 

6.  MERE CHANGE IN THE FORM OF A COMMODITY OR EVEN COMPLETE CHANGE IN
ESSENTIAL QUALITY BY INTERMEDIATE REFINING OR PROCESSING DOES NOT
DEFEAT APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO PRACTICES OCCURRING EITHER
DURING THOSE PROCESSES OR BEFORE THEY BEGIN, WHEN THEY HAVE THE EFFECTS
FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT.  P. 238. 

7.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE PRICE-FIXING IN THIS CASE RELATED DIRECTLY
TO THE BEETS DID NOT SEVER OR RENDER INSUBSTANTIAL ITS EFFECT
SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE SALE OF SUGAR.  P. 238. 

8.  IN AN INTEGRATED INDUSTRY SUCH AS THIS, STABILIZATION OF PRICES
PAID FOR THE ONLY RAW MATERIAL INEVITABLY TENDS TOWARD REDUCING
COMPETITION IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT.  P. 241. 

9.  THE INTERDEPENDENCE AND INEXTRICABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
INTERSTATE AND THE INTRASTATE EFFECTS OF THE COMBINATION AND MONOPOLY
ARE INDICATED BY THE PROVISION OF THE UNIFORM PRICE AGREEMENT WHICH
TIES IN THE PRICE PAID FOR BEETS WITH THE PRICE RECEIVED FOR SUGAR. 
PP. 241-242. 

10.  THE MONOPOLISTIC EFFECTS OF THE REFINERS' AGREEMENT TO PAY
UNIFORM PRICES FOR BEETS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, NOT ONLY
DEPRIVED THE GROWERS OF ANY COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR DISPOSING OF
THEIR CROPS, BUT ALSO TENDED TO INCREASE CONTROL OVER THE QUANTITY OF
SUGAR SOLD INTERSTATE; AND THROUGH THE TIE-IN PROVISION INTERLACED
THOSE INTERSTATE EFFECTS WITH THE PRICE PAID FOR THE BEETS.  P. 242. 

11.  THE FACT THAT SOME GROWERS, THOUGH NOT THE COMPLAINANTS, MAY
HAVE BEEN BENEFITED RATHER THAN HARMED DOES NOT RENDER THE COMBINATION
LEGAL OR IMMUNE TO LIABILITY FOR VIOLATING THE ACT.  PP. 242-243. 

12. BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INJURY ARE INDICATED IN THIS CASE, FOR IN
ADDITION TO THE RESTRAINTS PUT UPON THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE
INTERSTATE SALE OF SUGAR, ENHANCING THE REFINERS' CONTROLS, THERE ARE
SPECIAL INJURIES AFFECTING THE GROWERS.  P. 243. 

13.  THE AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE SO AS TO ELIMINATE
THE WORDS "SUGAR AND SUGAR BEETS" FROM ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE
REFINERS HAD CONSPIRED TO "MONOPOLIZE AND RESTRAIN TRADE" WHILE LEAVING
IN MANY OTHER ALLEGATIONS TO THE SAME EFFECT, DID NOT ELIMINATE, NOR
CONSTITUTE A DISAVOWAL, DISCLAIMER OR WAIVER BY THE COMPLAINANTS OF,
THE CHARGE OF RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN SUGAR, THE ONLY INTERSTATE
COMMODITY.  PP. 244-246. 

MANDEVILLE ISLAND FARMS, INC. ET AL. V. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS' AMENDED COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT TO
RECOVER TRIPLE DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT WAS DISMISSED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  64 F.SUPP.  265.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  159 F.2D 71.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 800. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 246. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ACTION IS FOR TREBLE DAMAGES INCURRED BY VIRTUE OF ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, SECS. 1 AND 2.  26 STAT. 209, 38 STAT.
731, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2, 7, 15.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON CERTIORARI,
331 U.S. 800, FROM AFFIRMANCE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 159 F.2D
71, OF A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 64 F.SUPP.  265.  THAT
JUDGMENT DISMISSED THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS INSUFFICIENT TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING UNDER THE ACT.  IN THIS POSTURE OF THE CASE,
THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE DETERMINED UPON THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT.  FN1 

THE MAIN QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES PLEADED,
CALIFORNIA SUGAR REFINERS WHO SELL SUGAR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY
AGREE AMONG THEMSELVES TO PAY A UNIFORM PRICE FOR SUGAR BEETS GROWN IN
CALIFORNIA WITHOUT INCURRING LIABILITY TO THE LOCAL BEETGROWERS UNDER
THE ACT.  NARROWLY THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE REFINERS' AGREEMENT
TOGETHER WITH THE ALLEGATIONS MADE CONCERNING ITS EFFECTS SHOWS A
CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE AND TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE
OR ONE THUS AFFECTING ONLY PURELY LOCAL TRADE AND COMMERCE. 

THE MATERIAL FACTS PLEADED, WHICH STAND ADMITTED AS IF THEY HAD BEEN
PROVED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PROCEEDING, MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS
FOLLOWS:  PETITIONERS' FARMS ARE LOCATED IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, WITHIN
THE AREA LYING NORTH OF THE THIRTY-SIXTH PARALLEL.  THE ONLY PRACTICAL
MARKET AVAILABLE TO BEET GROWERS IN THAT AREA WAS SALE TO ONE OF THREE
REFINERS.  FN2  RESPONDENT WAS ONE OF THESE.  EACH SEASON GROWERS
CONTRACT WITH ONE OF THE REFINERS TO GROW BEETS AND TO SELL THEIR
ENTIRE CROPS TO THE REFINER UNDER STANDARD FORM CONTRACTS DRAWN BY IT.
SINCE PRIOR TO 1939 PETITIONERS HAVE THUS CONTRACTED WITH RESPONDENT. 

THE REFINERS CONTROL THE SUPPLY OF SUGAR BEET SEED.  BOTH BY VIRTUE
OF THIS FACT AND BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS, THE FARMERS ARE
REQUIRED TO BUY SEED FROM THE REFINER.  THE SEED CAN BE PLANTED ONLY ON
LAND SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY THE CONTRACT.  ANY EXCESS MUST BE RETURNED
TO THE REFINER IN GOOD ORDER AT THE END OF THE PLANTING SEASON. 

THE STANDARD CONTRACT GIVES THE REFINER THE RIGHT TO SUPERVISE THE
PLANTING, CULTIVATION, IRRIGATION AND HARVESTING OF THE BEETS,
INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ASCERTAIN QUALITY DURING GROWING AND HARVESTING
SEASONS BY SAMPLING AND POLARIZING.  BEFORE DELIVERING BEETS TO THE
COMPANY, THE FARMERS MUST MAKE PRELIMINARY PREPARATIONS FOR PROCESSING
THEM INTO RAW SUGAR.  FN3  THE REFINER HAS THE OPTION TO REJECT BEETS
IF THE CONTRACT CONDITIONS ARE NOT COMPLIED WITH AND IF THE BEETS ARE
NOT SUITABLE IN ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF SUGAR. 

PRIOR TO 1939 THE CONTRACT FIXED THE GROWER'S PRICE BY A FORMULA
COMBINING TWO VARIABLES, A PERCENTAGE OF THE REFINER'S NET RETURNS PER
HUNDRED POUNDS FROM SALES OF SUGAR AND THE SUGAR CONTENT OF THE
INDIVIDUAL GROWER'S BEETS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE REFINER'S TEST. 
FN4 

SOMETIME BEFORE THE 1939 SEASON THE THREE REFINERS ENTERED INTO AN
AGREEMENT TO PAY UNIFORM PRICES FOR SUGAR BEETS.  THE MECHANICS OF THE
PRICE-FIXING ARRANGEMENT WERE SIMPLE.  THE REFINERS ADOPTED IDENTICAL
FORM CONTRACTS AND BEGAN TO COMPUTE BEET PRICES ON THE BASIS OF THE
AVERAGE NET RETURNS OF ALL THREE RATHER THAN THE SEPARATE RETURNS OF
THE PURCHASING REFINER.  INEVITABLY ALL WOULD PAY THE SAME PRICE FOR
BEETS OF THE SAME QUALITY. 

SINCE THE REFINERS CONTROLLED THE SEED SUPPLY AND THE ONLY PRACTICAL
MARKET FOR BEETS GROWN IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, WHEN THE NEW CONTRACTS
WERE OFFERED TO THE FARMERS, THEY HAD THE CHOICE OF EITHER SIGNING OR
ABANDONING SUGAR BEET FARMING.  PETITIONERS ACCORDINGLY CONTRACTED WITH
RESPONDENT UNDER THIS PLAN DURING THE 1939, 1940 AND 1941 SEASONS.  THE
PLAN WAS DISCONTINUED AFTER THE 1941 SEASON.  BECAUSE BEET PRICES WERE
DETERMINED FOR THE THREE SEASONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMBINED RETURNS
OF THE THREE REFINERS, THE PRICES RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS FOR THOSE
SEASONS WERE LOWER THAN IF RESPONDENT, THE MOST EFFICIENT OF THE THREE,
HAD BASED ITS PRICES ON ITS SEPARATE RETURNS. 

THE FOREGOING ALLEGATIONS SET FORTH THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE
CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE REFINERS AND THE GROWERS AND OF
THE AGREEMENT AMONG THE REFINERS THEMSELVES.  OTHER ALLEGATIONS WERE
MADE TO COMPLETE THE SHOWING OF VIOLATION AND INJURY.  THEY RELATE
SPECIFICALLY TO THE PECULIARLY INTEGRATED CHARACTER OF THE INDUSTRY,
EFFECTS OF THE ARRANGEMENTS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE RELATION
BETWEEN THE VIOLATIONS CHARGED AND THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY
PETITIONERS. 

WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDUSTRY IN GENERAL, IT WAS STATED THAT SUGAR
BEETS WERE GROWN DURING THE SEASONS 1938 TO 1942 ON LARGE ACREAGES NOT
ONLY IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BUT ALSO IN UTAH, COLORADO, MICHIGAN,
IDAHO, ILLINOIS AND OTHER STATES.  THE CROPS SO GROWN, WHEN HARVESTED,
WERE NOT "SOLD IN CENTRAL MARKETS AS WERE POTATOES, ONIONS, CORN,
GRAIN, FRUIT AND BERRIES, BUT WERE PRODUCED BY GROWERS UNDER CONTRACT
WITH MANUFACTURERS OR PROCESSORS AND IMMEDIATELY UPON BEING HARVESTED
WERE DELIVERED TO THESE MANUFACTURERS AND TAKEN TO THEIR BEET SUGAR
REFINERIES WHERE THE SUGAR BEETS WERE MANUFACTURED BY AN ELABORATE
PROCESS INTO RAW SUGAR BY THE SAID MANUFACTURERS, WHO THEREAFTER SOLD
THE RESULTING SUGAR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THEN FOLLOW THE
ALLEGATIONS SUMMARIZED ABOVE IN NOTE 2 CONCERNING THE BULKY AND
SEMIPERISHABLE NATURE OF SUGAR BEETS, THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF TRANSPORTING
THEM OVER LONG DISTANCES OR OF STORING THEM CHEAPLY OR SAFELY, THEIR
RAPID DETERIORATION WHEN RIPE, AND THE NECESSITY FOR PROMPT HARVESTING
AND MARKETING.  THESE ALLEGATIONS MUST BE TAKEN AS INTENDED AND
EFFECTIVE TO PUT THE AGREEMENTS COMPLAINED OF IN THE GENERAL SETTING OF
THE INDUSTRY'S UNIQUE STRUCTURE AND SPECIAL MODE OF OPERATION. 

THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATION IS ADDED THAT THE SUGAR MANUFACTURED BY
RESPONDENT AND THE OTHER NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REFINERS FROM BEETS GROWN
IN THE REGION "WAS, DURING ALL OF SAID PERIOD (1938 TO 1942), SOLD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES." 

BY WAY OF LEGAL AS WELL AS ULTIMATE FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT RESPONDENT HAD UNLAWFULLY CONSPIRED WITH THE
OTHER NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REFINERS TO "MONOPOLIZE AND RESTRAIN TRADE
AND COMMERCE  FN5  AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES AND TO UNLAWFULLY FIX
PRICES TO BE PAID THE GROWERS  ...  ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS  ...  "; AND THAT EACH REFINER NO LONGER COMPETED AGAINST THE
OTHERS AS TO THE PRICE TO BE PAID THE GROWERS, BUT PAID THE SAME PRICE
ON THE AGREED UNIFORM BASIS OF AVERAGE NET RETURNS. 

THERE WERE FURTHER CHARGES THAT PRIOR TO 1939 THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
REFINERS HAD "COMPETED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITH EACH OTHER AS TO THE
PERFORMANCE, ABILITY AND EFFICIENCY OF THEIR MANUFACTURING, SALES AND
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, AND EACH STROVE TO INCREASE SALES RETURN AND
DECREASE EXPENSES," WITH THE RESULT THAT FOR 1938 RESPONDENT SECURED
SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER "NET GROSS RECEIPTS OF SALES OF SUGAR" THAN THE
OTHER REFINERS.  THESE IN TURN WERE REFLECTED IN THE PAYMENT OF 29 1/2
TO 52 1/2 CENTS PER TON MORE TO PETITIONERS AND OTHER GROWERS DEALING
WITH RESPONDENT THAN WAS PAID BY THE OTHER REFINERS TO THEIR GROWERS. 

HOWEVER, FOR THE SEASONS 1939, 1940 AND 1941, UNDER THE NEW UNIFORM
CONTRACTS AND PRICES, "THERE WAS NO LONGER ANY SUCH COMPETITION  ...  "
INSTEAD IT WAS ALLEGED UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF THAT, AS A RESULT
OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, RESPONDENT DID NOT CONDUCT ITS INTERSTATE
OPERATIONS AS CAREFULLY AND EFFICIENTLY AS PREVIOUSLY OR "AS IT WOULD
HAVE HAD SAID CONSPIRACY NOT EXISTED."  IN CONSEQUENCE, RESPONDENT
RECEIVED LESS IN SALES RETURNS FOR RAW SUGAR AND INCURRED GREATER
EXPENSES THAN IF COMPETITION HAD BEEN FREE, AND PETITIONERS "DID NOT
RECEIVE THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THEIR SUGAR BEETS." 

FURTHER CHARGES WERE THAT AS "A DIRECT, EXPECTED AND PLANNED RESULT
OF SAID CONSPIRACY, THE FREE AND NATURAL FLOW OF COMMERCE IN INTERSTATE
TRADE WAS INTENTIONALLY HINDERED AND OBSTRUCTED," SO THAT INSTEAD OF
THE REFINERS "PRODUCING AND SELLING RAW SUGAR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
...  IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER  ...  THEY BECAME ILLEGALLY
ASSOCIATED IN A COMMON PLAN WHEREIN THEY POOLED THEIR RECEIPTS AND
EXPENSES AND FRUSTRATED THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM  ...  "; ALL
INCENTIVE TO EFFICIENCY, ECONOMY AND INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE DISAPPEARED;
AND THE REFINERS OPERATED, "IN SO FAR AS THE GROWERS WERE CONCERNED,"
AS IF THEY WERE ONE CORPORATION OWNING AND CONTROLLING ALL FACTORIES IN
THE AREA, BUT WITH THREE COMPLETELY SEPARATED OVERHEADS AND WITH NONE
OF THE EFFICIENCY THAT CONSOLIDATION INTO ONE CORPORATION MIGHT BRING. 
FN6 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED PRESENTLY WITH THE ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE
INJURIES AND AMOUNTS OF DAMAGES INFLICTED UPON PETITIONERS,  FN7 EXCEPT
TO SAY THAT THEY ARE SUFFICIENT TO PRESENT THOSE QUESTIONS FOR SUPPORT
BY PROOF, IF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE TO SHOW A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING
UNDER THE STATUTE ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

IN OUR JUDGMENT THE AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION
ARISING UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, SECS. 1 AND 2, AND THE COMPLAINT WAS
IMPROPERLY DISMISSED. 

             I. 

BROADLY PETITIONERS REGARD THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF GROWING THE BEETS,
REFINING THEM INTO SUGAR AND DISTRIBUTING IT, UNDER THE ARRANGEMENTS
SET FORTH, AS A CHAIN OF EVENTS SO INTEGRATED AND TAKING PLACE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN SUCH CLOSE AND INTIMATE CONNECTION WITH IT
THAT, FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE SHERMAN ACT, THE COMPLETE SEQUENCE
IS AN ENTIRETY AND NO PART OF IT CAN BE SEGREGATED FROM THE REMAINDER
SO AS TO PUT IT BEYOND THE STATUTE'S GRASP. 

RESPONDENT, ON THE CONTRARY, BROADLY SEVERS THE PHASE OR PHASES OF
GROWING AND SELLING BEETS FROM THE LATER ONES OF REFINING THEM AND OF
MARKETING THE SUGAR.  THE INITIAL GROWING PROCESS TOGETHER WITH SALE OF
THE BEETS, AND IT WOULD SEEM ALSO THE INTERMEDIATE STAGE OF REFINING,
ARE TAKEN TO BE "PURELY LOCAL," SINCE ALL OCCURRED ENTIRELY WITHIN
CALIFORNIA; THEREFORE WERE WHOLLY INTRASTATE EVENTS; AND CONSEQUENTLY
WERE BEYOND THE SHERMAN ACT'S REACH. 

CONNECTED WITH THIS SEVERANCE IS THE ASSERTION THAT THE COMPLAINT
ALLEGES NO MONOPOLISTIC OR RESTRICTIVE EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, BUT ONLY SUCH EFFECTS IN THE INTRASTATE PHASES OF THE
INDUSTRY. 

MUCH STRESS IS LAID UPON THE SO-CALLED INTERRUPTION OF THE SEQUENCE
AT THE REFINING STAGE.  PRIOR TO THE INTERRUPTION ONLY BEETS ARE
INVOLVED, AFTERWARD ONLY SUGAR.  SINCE THE TWO COMMODITIES ARE
DIFFERENT AND ALL THAT AFFECTS THE BEETS TAKES PLACE IN CALIFORNIA,
INCLUDING THE RESTRAINTS ALLEGED UPON THEIR SALE, THE TRADE AND
COMMERCE IN BEETS IS WHOLLY DISTINCT FROM THAT IN SUGAR AND IS ENTIRELY
LOCAL, AS ARE THEREFORE THE RESTRAINT AND MONOPOLIZATION OF THAT
TRADE.  ADMITTEDLY ONCE THE BEETS ARE CONVERTED INTO SUGAR AND THE
SUGAR STARTS ON ITS INTERSTATE JOURNEY TO THE TABLES OF THE NATION,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECOMES INVOLVED.  BUT ONLY THEN IS IT AFFECTED,
AND NOTHING OCCURRING BEFORE THE JOURNEY BEGINS OR AT ANY RATE BEFORE
THE BEETS BECOME SUGAR SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS OR, FOR PURPOSES OF THE
STATUTE'S APPLICATION, HAS RELEVANCE TO THAT COMMERCE. 

THUS SUGAR TOGETHER WITH ITS INTERSTATE SALE AND TRANSPORTATION IS
ABSOLUTELY DIVORCED FROM SUGAR BEETS, THEIR PRODUCTION, SALE AND
DELIVERY TO THE REFINER.  MANUFACTURE BREAKS THE RELATIONSHIP AND WITH
IT ALL CONSEQUENCES GROWING OUT OF THE RESTRAINTS FOR THE INTERSTATE
PROCESSES AND THE PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE.  IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE THE
RESTRAINTS PRECEDE THE INTERSTATE MARKETING OF THE SUGAR AND
IMMEDIATELY AFFECT ONLY THE LOCAL MARKETING OF THE BEETS, THEY HAVE NO
RESTRICTIVE EFFECT UPON THE TRADE AND COMMERCE IN SUGAR. 

THIS VERY NEARLY DENIES THAT SUGAR BEETS CONTAIN SUGAR.  IT CERTAINLY
DENIES THAT THE PRICE OF BEETS AND RESTRICTIONS UPON IT HAVE ANY
SUBSTANTIAL RELATION IN FACT OR IN LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE STATUTE'S
PURPOSES TO THE PRICE OF SUGAR SOLD INTERSTATE, WHEN THE RESTRICTIONS
TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A SINGLE STATE AND BEFORE THE
INTERSTATE MARKETING PROCESS BEGINS. 

   II. 

THE BROAD FORM OF RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.  IT IS A
REVERSION TO CONCEPTIONS FORMERLY HELD BUT NO LONGER EFFECTIVE TO
RESTRICT EITHER CONGRESS' POWER, WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111, OR
THE SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN ACT'S COVERAGE.  THE ARTIFICIAL AND MECHANICAL
SEPARATION OF "PRODUCTION" AND "MANUFACTURING" FROM "COMMERCE," WITHOUT
REGARD TO THEIR ECONOMIC CONTINUITY, THE EFFECTS OF THE FORMER TWO UPON
THE LATTER, AND THE VARYING METHODS BY WHICH THE SEVERAL PROCESSES ARE
ORGANIZED, RELATED AND CARRIED ON IN DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES OR INDEED
WITHIN A SINGLE INDUSTRY, NO LONGER SUFFICES TO PUT EITHER PRODUCTION
OR MANUFACTURING AND REFINING PROCESSES BEYOND REACH OF CONGRESS'
AUTHORITY OR OF THE STATUTE.    IT IS TRUE THAT THE FIRST DECISION
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT APPLIED THOSE MECHANICAL DISTINCTIONS WITH
SUBSTANTIALLY NULLIFYING EFFECTS FOR COVERAGE BOTH OF THE POWER AND OF
THE ACT.  UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1.  LIKE THIS ONE,
THAT CASE INVOLVED THE REFINING AND INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR. 
BUT BECAUSE THE REFINING WAS DONE WHOLLY WITHIN A SINGLE STATE, THE
CASE WAS HELD TO BE ONE INVOLVING "PRIMARILY" ONLY "PRODUCTION" OR
"MANUFACTURING," ALTHOUGH THE VAST PART OF THE SUGAR PRODUCED WAS SOLD
AND SHIPPED INTERSTATE,  FN8  AND THIS WAS THE MAIN END OF THE
ENTERPRISE.  THE INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTING PHASE, HOWEVER, WAS REGARDED
AS BEING ONLY "INCIDENTALLY," "INDIRECTLY," OR "REMOTELY" INVOLVED; AND
TO BE "INCIDENTAL," "INDIRECT," OR "REMOTE" WAS TO BE, UNDER THE
PREVAILING CLIMATE, BEYOND CONGRESS' POWER TO REGULATE, AND HENCE
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  SEE WICKARD V. FILBURN, SUPRA,
AT 119 ET SEQ. 

THE KNIGHT DECISION MADE THE STATUTE A DEAD LETTER FOR MORE THAN A
DECADE AND, HAD ITS FULL FORCE REMAINED UNMODIFIED, THE ACT TODAY WOULD
BE A WEAK INSTRUMENT, AS WOULD ALSO THE POWER OF CONGRESS, TO REACH
EVILS IN ALL THE VAST OPERATIONS OF OUR GIGANTIC NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
SYSTEM ANTECEDENT TO INTERSTATE SALE AND TRANSPORTATION OF MANUFACTURED
PRODUCTS.  INDEED, IT AND SUCCEEDING DECISIONS, EMBRACING THE SAME
ARTIFICIALLY DRAWN LINES, PRODUCED A SERIES OF CONSEQUENCES FOR THE
EXERCISE OF NATIONAL POWER OVER INDUSTRY CONDUCTED ON A NATIONAL SCALE
WHICH THE EVOLVING NATURE OF OUR INDUSTRIALISM FOREDOOMED TO REVERSAL. 
FN9 

WE DO NOT STOP TO REVIEW AGAIN IN DETAIL THE FAMILIAR STORY OF THE
PROGRESSION OF DECISION TO THAT END, PERHAPS NOT TOLD ELSEWHERE MORE
SUCCINCTLY OR PERTINENTLY THAN IN WICKARD V. FILBURN, SUPRA.  FN10
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT AFTER COMING BACK TO LIFE AGAIN IN THE NORTHERN
SECURITIES CASE, 193 U.S. 197, FOR MATTERS OF TRANSPORTATION, THE
SHERMAN ACT HAD A SECOND REBIRTH IN 1911 WITH THE DECISIONS IN STANDARD
OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, AND UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN
TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106.  CF. UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN
UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533, 553 ET SEQ. 

NOT THEREAFTER COULD IT BE FORETOLD WITH ASSURANCE THAT APPLICATION
OF THE LABELS OF "PRODUCTION" AND "MANUFACTURE," "INCIDENTAL" AND
"INDIRECT," WOULD THROW PROTECTIVE COVERING OVER THOSE PROCESSES
AGAINST THE ACT'S CONSEQUENCES.  VERY SOON ALSO CAME THE SHREVEPORT
RATE CASES, 234 U.S. 342, AGAIN IN THE FIELD OF TRANSPORTATION, BUT
INEVITABLY TO ADD FORCE AND SCOPE TO THE STANDARD OIL AND AMERICAN
TOBACCO RULINGS THAT MANUFACTURING COMPANIES LAY WITHIN THE REACH OF
THE POWER AND OF THE STATUTE, DERIVING NO IMMUNITY FOR THEIR CONDUCT
VIOLATIVE OF THE PROHIBITIONS MERELY FROM THE FACT OF ENGAGING IN THAT
CHARACTER OF ACTIVITY. 

WITH EXTENSION OF THE SHREVEPORT INFLUENCE TO GENERAL APPLICATION,
FN11  IT WAS NECESSARY NO LONGER TO SEARCH FOR SOME SHARP POINT OR LINE
WHERE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ENDS AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE BEGINS, IN ORDER
TO DECIDE WHETHER CONGRESS' COMMANDS WERE EFFECTIVE.  FOR THE ESSENCE
OF THE AFFECTATION DOCTRINE WAS THAT THE EXACT LOCATION OF THIS LINE
MADE NO DIFFERENCE, IF THE FORBIDDEN EFFECTS FLOWED ACROSS IT TO THE
INJURY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR TO THE HINDRANCE OR DEFEAT OF
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY REGARDING IT. 

THE FORMULATION OF THE SHREVEPORT DOCTRINE WAS A GREAT TURNING POINT
IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, COMPARABLE IN THIS RESPECT
TO THE LANDMARK OF COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299.  FOR,
WHILE THE LATTER GAVE PLAY FOR STATE POWER TO WORK IN THE FIELD OF
COMMERCE, THE FORMER BROKE BONDS CONFINING CONGRESS' POWER AND MADE IT
AN EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT FOR FULFILLING ITS PURPOSE.  THE SHREVEPORT
DOCTRINE CUT CONGRESS LOOSE FROM THE HALTERING LABELS OF "PRODUCTION"
AND "MANUFACTURING" AND GAVE IT REIN TO REACH THOSE PROCESSES WHEN THEY
WERE USED TO DEFY ITS PURPOSES REGARDING INTERSTATE TRADE AND
COMMERCE.  IN DOING SO THE DECISION SUBSTITUTED JUDGMENT AS TO
PRACTICAL IMPEDING EFFECTS UPON THAT COMMERCE FOR RUBRICS CONCERNING
ITS BOUNDARIES AS THE BASIC CRITERION OF EFFECTIVE CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION. 

THE TRANSITION, HOWEVER, WAS NEITHER SMOOTH NOR IMMEDIATELY COMPLETE,
PARTICULARLY FOR APPLYING THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE OLD IDEAS PERSISTED IN
SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS AS LATE AS THE 1930'S.  BUT AFTER THE HISTORIC
DECISIONS OF 1911, AND EVEN MORE FOLLOWING THE SHREVEPORT DECISION, A
CONSTANTLY GROWING NUMBER OF OTHERS REJECTED THE IDEA THAT PRODUCTION
AND MANUFACTURING ARE "PURELY LOCAL" AND HENCE BEYOND THE ACT'S
COMPASS, SIMPLY BECAUSE THOSE PHASES OF A COMBINATION RESTRAINING OR
MONOPOLIZING TRADE WERE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A SINGLE
STATE OR, OF COURSE, OF SEVERAL STATES.  FN12  THE STRUGGLE FOR
SUPREMACY BETWEEN THE CONFLICTING APPROACHES WAS LONG CONTINUED.  BUT
MORE AND MORE UNTIL THE CLIMAX CAME IN THE LATE 1930'S, THIS COURT
REFUSED TO DECIDE THOSE ISSUES OF POWER AND COVERAGE MERELY BY ASKING
WHETHER THE RESTRAINTS OR MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES, SHOWN TO HAVE THE
FORBIDDEN EFFECTS ON COMMERCE, TOOK PLACE IN A PHASE OR PHASES OF THE
TOTAL ECONOMIC PROCESS WHICH, APART FROM OTHER PHASES AND FROM THE
OUTLAWED EFFECTS, OCCURRED ONLY IN INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES.  FN13 

IN VIEW OF THIS EVOLUTION, THE INQUIRY WHETHER THE RESTRAINT OCCURS
IN ONE PHASE OR ANOTHER, INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE, OF THE TOTAL
ECONOMIC PROCESS IS NOW MERELY A PRELIMINARY STEP, EXCEPT FOR THOSE
SITUATIONS IN WHICH NO ASPECT OF OR SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CAN BE FOUND IN THE SUM OF THE FACTS PRESENTED.  FN14  FOR,
GIVEN A RESTRAINT OF THE TYPE FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT, THOUGH ARISING IN
THE COURSE OF INTRASTATE OR LOCAL ACTIVITIES, AND A SHOWING OF ACTUAL
OR THREATENED EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE VITAL QUESTION
BECOMES WHETHER THE EFFECT IS SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIAL AND ADVERSE TO
CONGRESS' PARAMOUNT POLICY DECLARED IN THE ACT'S TERMS TO CONSTITUTE A
FORBIDDEN CONSEQUENCE.  IF SO, THE RESTRAINT MUST FALL, AND THE
INJURIES IT INFLICTS UPON OTHERS BECOME REMEDIABLE UNDER THE ACT'S
PRESCRIBED METHODS, INCLUDING THE TREBLE DAMAGE PROVISION. 

THE SHREVEPORT DOCTRINE DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT RESTRAINTS OR
BURDENS BECOME OR REMAIN IMMUNE MERELY BECAUSE THEY TAKE PLACE AS
EVENTS PRIOR TO THE POINT IN TIME WHEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEGINS. 
EXACTLY THE CONTRARY IS COMPREHENDED, FOR IT IS THE EFFECT UPON THAT
COMMERCE, NOT THE MOMENT WHEN ITS CAUSE ARISES, WHICH THE DOCTRINE WAS
FASHIONED TO REACH. 

OBVIOUSLY THEREFORE THE CRITERIA RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE US FOLLOW
FURNISH NO BASIS FOR REACHING THE RESULT IT SEEKS.  ONLY BY RETURNING
TO THE KNIGHT APPROACH, AND SEVERING THE INTRASTATE EVENTS RELATING TO
THE BEETS, INCLUDING THE PRICE RESTRAINTS, FROM THE LATER EVENTS
RELATING TO THE SUGAR, INCLUDING ITS INTERSTATE SALE, COULD WE CONCLUDE
THERE WERE NO FORBIDDEN RESTRAINTS OR PRACTICES TOUCHING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE HERE.  AT THIS LATE DAY WE ARE NOT WILLING TO TAKE THAT LONG
BACKWARD STEP. 

                                 III. 

WE TURN THEN TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS POSED UPON THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT THAT ARE RELEVANT UNDER THE PRESENTLY CONTROLLING CRITERIA. 
THESE ARE WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS DISCLOSE A RESTRAINT AND MONOPOLISTIC
PRACTICES OF THE TYPES OUTLAWED BY THE SHERMAN ACT; WHETHER, IF SO,
THOSE ACTS ARE SHOWN TO PRODUCE THE FORBIDDEN EFFECTS UPON COMMERCE;
AND WHETHER THE EFFECTS CREATE INJURY FOR WHICH RECOVERY OF TREBLE
DAMAGES BY THE PETITIONERS IS AUTHORIZED. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AGREEMENT IS THE SORT OF COMBINATION CONDEMNED
BY THE ACT,  FN15  EVEN THOUGH THE PRICE-FIXING WAS BY PURCHASERS,
FN16  AND THE PERSONS SPECIALLY INJURED UNDER THE TREBLE DAMAGE CLAIM
ARE SELLERS, NOT CUSTOMERS OR CONSUMERS N17.  AND EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED
THAT THE FINAL AIM OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS CONTROL OF THE LOCAL SUGAR
BEET MARKET, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  FOR MONOPOLIZATION OF LOCAL BUSINESS, WHEN ACHIEVED BY
RESTRAINING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS CONDEMNED BY THE ACT.  STEVENS CO.
V. FOSTER & KLEISER, 311 U.S. 255, 261.  AND A CONSPIRACY WITH THE
ULTIMATE OBJECT OF FIXING LOCAL RETAIL PRICES IS WITHIN THE ACT, IF THE
MEANS ADOPTED FOR ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT REACH BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF ONE
STATE.  UNITED STATES V. FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES, 324 U.S. 293. 

THE STATUTE DOES NOT CONFINE ITS PROTECTION TO CONSUMERS, OR TO
PURCHASERS, OR TO COMPETITORS, OR TO SELLERS.  NOR DOES IT IMMUNIZE THE
OUTLAWED ACTS BECAUSE THEY ARE DONE BY ANY OF THESE.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150; AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 781.  THE ACT IS COMPREHENSIVE IN ITS TERMS AND
COVERAGE, PROTECTING ALL WHO ARE MADE VICTIMS OF THE FORBIDDEN
PRACTICES BY WHOMEVER THEY MAY BE PERPETRATED.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., SUPRA, AT 553. 

NOR IS THE AMOUNT OF THE NATION'S SUGAR INDUSTRY WHICH THE CALIFORNIA
REFINERS CONTROL RELEVANT, SO LONG AS CONTROL IS EXERCISED EFFECTIVELY
IN THE AREA CONCERNED, INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE V. PRAIRIE FARMER, 293
U.S. 268, 279, UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218, 225, THE
CONSPIRACY BEING SHOWN TO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE ADVERSELY TO
CONGRESS' POLICY.  CONGRESS' POWER TO KEEP THE INTERSTATE MARKET FREE
OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER CONDITIONS INIMICAL TO THE GENERAL WELFARE,
UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 115, MAY BE EXERCISED IN
INDIVIDUAL CASES WITHOUT SHOWING ANY SPECIFIC EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, UNITED STATES V. WALSH, 331 U.S. 432, 437-438; IT IS ENOUGH
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY WHEN MULTIPLIED INTO A GENERAL PRACTICE IS
SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL, WICKARD V. FILBURN, SUPRA, OR THAT IT
CONTAINS A THREAT TO THE INTERSTATE ECONOMY THAT REQUIRES PREVENTIVE
REGULATION.  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 221
222. 

MOREOVER, AS WE SAID IN THE FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES CASE, " ...  THERE
IS AN OBVIOUS DISTINCTION TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN A COURSE OF CONDUCT
WHOLLY WITHIN A STATE AND CONDUCT WHICH IS AN INSEPARABLE ELEMENT OF A
LARGER PROGRAM DEPENDENT FOR ITS SUCCESS UPON ACTIVITY WHICH AFFECTS
COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES."  324 U.S. 293, 297.  THAT STATEMENT IS AS
TRUE OF THE SITUATION NOW PRESENTED AS OF THE ONE THEN BEFORE US,
ALTHOUGH INSTEAD OF RESTRAINING TRADE IN ORDER TO CONTROL A LOCAL
MARKET PETITIONERS CONTROL A LOCAL MARKET IN WHICH THEY PURCHASE.  FOR
THIS IS NOT A CASE INVOLVING ONLY "A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHOLLY WITHIN A
STATE"; IT IS RATHER ONE INVOLVING "CONDUCT WHICH IS AN INSEPARABLE
ELEMENT OF A LARGER PROGRAM DEPENDENT FOR ITS SUCCESS UPON ACTIVITY
WHICH AFFECTS COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES," AND IN SUCH A CASE IT IS
NOT MATERIAL THAT THE SOURCE OF THE FORBIDDEN EFFECTS UPON THAT
COMMERCE ARISES IN ONE PHASE OR ANOTHER OF THAT PROGRAM. 

IN VIEW OF ALL THIS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND RESPONDENT'S
ARGUMENT THAT THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT THE CONSPIRACY HAD ANY
EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCARDED
CRITERIA DISCUSSED IN PART II ABOVE.  THE CONTENTION IGNORES SPECIFIC
ALLEGATIONS WHICH WE HAVE SET FORTH.  BUT APART FROM THAT FACT IT RESTS
ONLY ON A SINGLE GROUNDING, WHICH IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IS
LITTLE, IF ANY, MORE THAN A DIFFERENT PHRASING OF THE CRITERIA
SUPPLANTED BY THE SHREVEPORT APPROACH. 

THIS IS THAT THE CHANGE UNDERGONE IN THE MANUFACTURING STAGE WHEN THE
BEETS ARE CONVERTED INTO SUGAR MAKES THE CASE DIFFERENT, FOR THE
SHERMAN ACT'S OBJECTS, THAN IT WOULD BE IF THE IDENTICAL COMMODITY WERE
CONCERNED FROM THE PLANTING STAGE THROUGH THE PHASE OF INTERSTATE
DISTRIBUTION, E.G., IF THE COMMODITY WERE WHEAT, AS WAS TRUE IN WICKARD
V. FILBURN, SUPRA, OR RAISINS PURCHASED BY PACKERS FROM GROWERS AND
SHIPPED INTERSTATE AFTER PACKING, CF. PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341,
350. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER SPECIFIC AND VARIED SITUATIONS IN WHICH A
CHANGE OF FORM AMOUNTING TO ONE IN THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE
COMMODITY TAKES PLACE BY MANUFACTURING OR PROCESSING INTERMEDIATE THE
STAGES OF PRODUCING AND DISPOSING OF THE RAW MATERIAL INTRASTATE AND
LATER INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT; OR THE EFFECTS,
IF ANY, OF SUCH A CHANGE IN PARTICULAR SITUATIONS UNLIKE THE ONE NOW
PRESENTED.  FN18  FOR MERE CHANGE IN THE FORM OF THE COMMODITY OR EVEN
COMPLETE CHANGE IN ESSENTIAL QUALITY BY INTERMEDIATE REFINING,
PROCESSING OR MANUFACTURING DOES NOT DEFEAT APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
TO PRACTICES OCCURRING EITHER DURING THOSE PROCESSES OR BEFORE THEY
BEGIN, WHEN THEY HAVE THE EFFECTS FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT.  FN19 AGAIN, AS
WE HAVE SAID, THE VITAL THING IS THE EFFECT ON COMMERCE, NOT THE
PRECISE POINT AT WHICH THE RESTRAINT OCCURS OR BEGINS TO TAKE EFFECT IN
A SCHEME AS CLOSELY KNIT AS THIS IN ALL PHASES OF THE INDUSTRY.  HENCE
IN THIS CASE THE MERE FACT THAT THE PRICE FIXING RELATED DIRECTLY TO
THE BEETS DID NOT SEVER OR RENDER INSUBSTANTIAL ITS EFFECT SUBSEQUENTLY
IN THE SALE OF SUGAR. 

INDEED THAT SEVERANCE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY TAKE PLACE IF THE
MANUFACTURING STAGE HAD PRODUCED A MUCH GREATER CHANGE IN COMMODITIES
THAN WAS EFFECTED HERE.  BUT UNDER THE FACTS CHARACTERIZING THIS
INDUSTRY'S OPERATION AND THE TIGHTENING OF CONTROLS IN THIS PRODUCING
AREA BY THE NEW AGREEMENTS AND UNDERSTANDINGS, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION
THAT THEIR RESTRICTIVE CONSEQUENCES WERE PROJECTED SUBSTANTIALLY INTO
THE INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SUGAR, AS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
REPEATEDLY ALLEGES.  INDEED THEY PERMEATED THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF THE
INDUSTRY IN ALL ITS PHASES, INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE.    WE DEAL HERE,
AS PETITIONERS SAY, WITH AN INDUSTRY TIGHTLY INTERWOVEN FROM SALE OF
THE SEED THROUGH ALL THE INTERMEDIATE STAGES TO AND INCLUDING
INTERSTATE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SUGAR.  IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL
THESE PROCESSES AND DOMINATING ALL OF THEM STAND THE REFINERS.  THEY
CONTROL THE SUPPLY AND PRICE OF SEED, THE QUANTITY SOLD AND THE VOLUME
OF LAND PLANTED, THE PROCESSES OF CULTIVATION AND HARVESTING, THE
QUANTITY OF BEETS PURCHASED AND REJECTED, THE REFINING, AND THE
DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR BOTH INTERSTATE AND LOCAL. 

SOME OF THESE CONTROLS HAVE BEEN BUILT UP BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY THE INDUSTRY'S UNIQUE CHARACTER, BOTH NATURAL
AND IN ITS GENERAL PATTERN AND HABITS OF ORGANIZATION; FN20  OTHERS BY
UTILIZING THE KEY POSITIONS THESE ADVANTAGES GIVE THE REFINERS TO PUT
CONTRACTUAL RESTRAINTS UPON THE GROWERS BY THEIR SEPARATE ACTIONS; FN21
AND STILL GREATER ONES BY THE REFINERS' ABILITY, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
CENTRAL AND DOMINATING PLACE THUS ACHIEVED, TO AGREE AMONG THEMSELVES
UPON FURTHER RESTRICTIONS. 

EVEN WITHOUT THE UNIFORM PRICE PROVISION AND WITH FULL COMPETITION
AMONG THE THREE REFINERS, THEIR POSITION IS A DOMINATING ONE.  THE
GROWERS' ONLY COMPETITIVE OUTLET IS THE ONE WHICH EXISTS WHEN THE
REFINERS COMPETE AMONG THEMSELVES.  THERE IS NO OTHER MARKET.  THE
FARMERS' ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO DEALING WITH ONE OF THE THREE REFINERS IS
TO STOP GROWING BEETS.  THEY CAN NEITHER PLANT NOR SELL EXCEPT AT THE
REFINERS' PLEASURE AND ON THEIR TERMS.  THE REFINERS THUS EFFECTIVELY
CONTROL THE QUANTITY OF BEETS GROWN, HARVESTED AND MARKETED, AND
CONSEQUENTLY OF SUGAR SOLD FROM THE AREA IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EVEN
WHEN THEY COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER.  THEY DOMINATE THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY. 
AND THEIR DOMINANT POSITION, TOGETHER WITH THE OBSTACLES CREATED BY THE
NECESSITY FOR LARGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND THE TIME REQUIRED TO MAKE IT
PRODUCTIVE, MAKES OUTLET THROUGH NEW COMPETITION PRACTICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE.  UPON THE ALLEGATIONS, IT IS ABSOLUTELY SO FOR ANY SINGLE
GROWING SEASON.  A TIGHTER OR MORE ALL-INCLUSIVE MONOPOLISTIC POSITION
HARDLY CAN BE CONCEIVED. 

WHEN THEREFORE THE REFINERS CEASE ENTIRELY TO COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER
IN ALL STAGES OF THE INDUSTRY PRIOR TO MARKETING THE SUGAR, THE LAST
VESTIGE OF LOCAL COMPETITION IS REMOVED AND WITH IT THE ONLY
COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE GROWER TO MARKET HIS PRODUCT.  MOREOVER
IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE MONOPOLY SO CREATED WILL HAVE NO EFFECTS
FOR THE LESSENING OF COMPETITION IN THE LATER INTERSTATE PHASES OF THE
OVER-ALL ACTIVITY OR THAT THE EFFECTS IN THOSE PHASES WILL HAVE NO
REPERCUSSIONS UPON THE PRIOR ONES, INCLUDING THE PRICE RECEIVED BY THE
GROWERS. 

THERE WERE INDEED TWO DISTINCT EFFECTS FLOWING FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR
PAYING UNIFORM GROWERS' PRICES, ONE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE PRICE RECEIVED
BY THE GROWER RENDERING IT DEVOID OF ALL COMPETITIVE INFLUENCE IN
AMOUNT; THE OTHER, THE NECESSARY AND INEVITABLE EFFECT OF THAT
AGREEMENT, IN THE SETTING OF THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE, TO REDUCE
COMPETITION IN THE INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR. 

THE IDEA THAT STABILIZATION OF PRICES PAID FOR THE ONLY RAW MATERIAL
CONSUMED IN AN INDUSTRY HAS NO INFLUENCE TOWARD REDUCING COMPETITION IN
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT, IN AN INTEGRATED INDUSTRY
SUCH AS THIS, IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT.  BY THEIR AGREEMENT THE
COMBINATION OF REFINERS ACQUIRED NOT ONLY A MONOPOLY OF THE RAW
MATERIAL BUT ALSO AND THEREBY CONTROL OF THE QUANTITY OF SUGAR
MANUFACTURED, SOLD AND SHIPPED INTERSTATE FROM THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
PRODUCING AREA.  IN SUBSTANCE AND ROUGHLY, IF NOT PRECISELY, THEY
ALLOCATED AMONG THEMSELVES THE MARKET FOR CALIFORNIA BEETS
SUBSTANTIALLY UPON THE BASIS OF QUOTAS COMPETITIVELY ESTABLISHED AMONG
THEM AT THE TIME THE UNIFORM PRICE ARRANGEMENT WAS AGREED UPON.  IT IS
HARDLY LIKELY THAT ANY REFINER WOULD HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH ITS ONLY COMPETITORS, THE EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN TO DRIVE
AWAY ITS GROWERS, OR THEREFORE THAT MANY OF THE LATTER WOULD HAVE GOOD
REASON TO SHIFT THEIR DEALINGS WITHIN THE CLOSED CIRCLE.  THUS CONTROL
OF QUANTITY IN THE INTERSTATE MARKET WAS ENHANCED. 

THIS EFFECT WAS FURTHER MAGNIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE WIDELY
SCATTERED LOCATION OF SUGAR BEET GROWING REGIONS AND THEIR DIFFERENT
ACCESSIBILITIES TO MARKET  FN22  GIVE THE REFINERS OF EACH REGION
CERTAINLY SOME ADVANTAGE OVER GROWERS AND REFINERS IN OTHER REGIONS,
AND UNDOUBTEDLY LARGE ONES OVER THOSE MOST DISTANT FROM THE SEGMENT OF
THE INTERSTATE MARKET SERVED BY REASON OF BEING NEAREST TO HAND. 

FINALLY, THE INTERDEPENDENCE AND INEXTRICABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE INTERSTATE AND THE INTRASTATE EFFECTS OF THE COMBINATION AND
MONOPOLY ARE SHOWN PERHAPS MOST CLEARLY BY THE PROVISION OF THE UNIFORM
PRICE AGREEMENT WHICH TIES IN THE PRICE PAID FOR BEETS WITH THE PRICE
RECEIVED FOR SUGAR.  THE PERCENTAGE FACTOR OF INTERSTATE RECEIPTS FROM
SUGAR WHICH THE GROWER'S CONTRACT SPECIFIES SHALL ENTER HIS PRICE FOR
BEETS MAKES THAT PRICE DEPENDENT UPON THE PRICE OF SUGAR SOLD
INTERSTATE.  THE UNIFORM AGREEMENT'S EFFECT, WHEN ADDED TO THIS, IS TO
DEPRIVE THE GROWER OF THE ADVANTAGE OF THE INDIVIDUAL EFFICIENCY OF THE
REFINER WITH WHICH HE DEALS, IN THIS CASE THE MOST EFFICIENT OF THE
THREE, AND OF THE PRICE THAT REFINER RECEIVES.  IT IS ALSO TO REFLECT
IN THE GROWER'S PRICE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE COMBINATION'S EFFECTS FOR
REDUCING COMPETITION AMONG THE REFINERS IN THE INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION
OF SUGAR. 

IN SUM, THE RESTRAINT AND ITS MONOPOLISTIC EFFECTS WERE REFLECTED
THROUGHOUT EACH STAGE OF THE INDUSTRY, PERMEATING ITS ENTIRE
STRUCTURE.  THIS WAS THE NECESSARY AND INEVITABLE EFFECT OF THE
AGREEMENT AMONG THE REFINERS TO PAY UNIFORM PRICES FOR BEETS, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  THOSE MONOPOLISTIC EFFECTS NOT ONLY
DEPRIVED THE BEET GROWERS OF ANY COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR DISPOSING
OF THEIR CROPS BY THE IMMEDIATE OPERATION OF THE UNIFORM PRICE
PROVISION; THEY ALSO TENDED TO INCREASE CONTROL OVER THE QUANTITY OF
SUGAR SOLD INTERSTATE; AND FINALLY BY THE TIE-IN PROVISION THEY
INTERLACED THOSE INTERSTATE EFFECTS WITH THE PRICE PAID FOR THE BEETS. 

THESE RESTRICTIVE AND MONOPOLISTIC EFFECTS, RESULTING NECESSARILY
FROM THE PRACTICES ALLEGEDLY INTENDED TO PRODUCE THEM, FALL SQUARELY
WITHIN THE SHERMAN ACT'S PROHIBITIONS, CREATING THE VERY INJURIES THEY
WERE DESIGNED TO PREVENT, BOTH TO THE PUBLIC AND TO PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS. 

IT DOES NOT MATTER, CONTRARY TO RESPONDENT'S VIEW, THAT THE GROWERS
CONTRACTING WITH THE OTHER TWO REFINERS MAY HAVE BEEN BENEFITED, RATHER
THAN HARMED, BY THE COMBINATION'S EFFECTS, EVEN IF THAT RESULT IS
ASSUMED TO HAVE FOLLOWED.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THESE PETITIONERS HAVE
SUFFERED THE INJURIES FOR WHICH THE STATUTORY REMEDY IS AFFORDED.  FOR
THE TEST OF THE LEGALITY AND IMMUNITY OF SUCH A COMBINATION, IN VIEW OF
THE STATUTE'S POLICY, IS NOT THAT SOME OTHERS THAN THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMBINATION HAVE PROFITED BY ITS OPERATION.  IT IS RATHER WHETHER THE
STATUTE'S POLICY HAS BEEN VIOLATED IN A MANNER TO PRODUCE THE GENERAL
CONSEQUENCES IT FORBIDS FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE SPECIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS ESSENTIAL TO THE RECOVERY OF TREBLE DAMAGES. 
BOTH TYPES OF INJURY ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE, FOR IN ADDITION TO THE
RESTRAINTS PUT UPON THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE INTERSTATE SALE OF
SUGAR, ENHANCING THE REFINER'S CONTROLS, THERE ARE SPECIAL INJURIES
AFFECTING THE PETITIONERS RESULTING FROM THOSE EFFECTS AS WELL AS FROM
THE IMMEDIATE OPERATION OF THE UNIFORM PRICE ARRANGEMENT ITSELF. 

THE FACT THAT THAT ARRANGEMENT IS THE SOURCE OF BOTH EFFECTS CANNOT
BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT NEITHER IS OUTLAWED BY THE STATUTE, IN VIEW OF
THEIR INTERDEPENDENCE AND THE COMPLETELY UNIFIED AND COMPREHENSIVE
NATURE OF THE SCHEME AS RESPECTS ITS INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE PHASES. 
THE POLICY OF THE ACT IS COMPETITION.  IT CANNOT BE FLOUTED, AS HAS
BEEN DONE HERE, BY ARTIFICIAL NOMENCLATURAL SEVERANCE OF THE PLAN'S
FORBIDDEN EFFECTS, ANY MORE THAN BY SUCH A SEGMENTATION OF THE
INTEGRATED INDUSTRY INTO LEGALLY UNRELATED PHASES.  NOR CAN THE
SEVERANCE BE MADE IN SUCH A CASE MERELY BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT A
REFINING OR MANUFACTURING PROCESS CONSTITUTES AN INTERMEDIATE STAGE IN
THE WHOLE. 

TO COMPARE AN INDUSTRY SO COMPLETELY INTERLOCKED IN ALL ITS STAGES,
BY ALL-INCLUSIVE CONTRACT AS WELL AS BY INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE AND
ORGANIZATION, WITH ONE LIKE PRODUCING, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING
FRUITS, VEGETABLES, CORN, OR OTHER PRODUCTS, SUSCEPTIBLE OF VARIOUS
USES AND UNDER CONDITIONS AFFORDING VARIED OUTLETS FOR MARKET, BOTH
LOCAL AND INTERSTATE, IN THE RAW OR REFINED STATE, IN WHICH NEITHER
SUCH A CONTRACTUAL NOR SUCH AN INDUSTRIAL INTEGRATION EXISTS, IS TO
IGNORE THE FACTS OF INDUSTRIAL LIFE.  SO IS IT ALSO TO MAKE CONCLUSIVE
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER INDUSTRIES IN WHICH THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS
REQUIRES AND HAS AVAILABLE A GREATER VARIETY OF RAW MATERIALS FOR
MAKING THE FINISHED PRODUCT, AND INVOLVES A LONGER AND MORE EXTENSIVE
PROCESS OF CHANGE, THAN DOES EXTRACTING THE SUGAR CONTENT OF BEETS TO
MAKE RAW SUGAR. 

WE DEAL WITH THE FACTS BEFORE US.  WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS WHICH MAY
BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, FOR PURPOSES OF VIOLATING THE STATUTE'S
TERMS AND POLICY, WE AWAIT ANOTHER DAY.  FN23

                      IV. 

LITTLE MORE REMAINS TO BE SAID CONCERNING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT.  THE
ALLEGATIONS COMPREHEND ALL THAT WE HAVE SET FORTH.  WE DO NOT STOP TO
RESTATE THEM, LEAVING THEIR SUBSTANCE AT THIS POINT FOR REFERENCE TO
THE SUMMARY MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS OPINION. 

RESPONDENT HAS PRESENTED ITS ARGUMENT AS IF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
OMITTED ALL REFERENCE TO RESTRAINT OR EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE TRADE IN
SUGAR AND CONFINED THESE ALLEGATIONS TO THE TRADE IN BEETS.  IT IS TRUE
THAT AT THE HEARING WHICH FOLLOWED FILING OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT,
PETITIONERS AT ONE POINT, APPARENTLY IN RESPONSE TO SOME INTIMATION
FROM THE COURT, ELIMINATED THE WORDS "SUGAR AND SUGAR BEETS" FROM ONE
OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE REFINERS HAD CONSPIRED TO "MONOPOLIZE AND
RESTRAIN TRADE AND COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES  ...  "  FN24 

RESPONDENT TAKES THIS ELISION AS EFFECTIVE TO CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESS
DISAVOWAL BY PETITIONERS OF ANY CHARGE OF RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN SUGAR,
THE ONLY INTERSTATE COMMODITY.  THE AMENDMENT DID NOT ELIMINATE OR
AFFECT NUMEROUS OTHER ALLEGATIONS WHICH IN EFFECT REPEATED THE CHARGE
IN VARIOUS FORMS AND WITH REFERENCE TO VARIOUS SPECIFIC EFFECTS UPON
INTERSTATE AS WELL AS LOCAL PHASES OF THE COMMERCE.  SOME OF THESE
EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED TRADE OR COMMERCE IN SUGAR,  FN25  OTHERS
DESIGNATED THE TRADE AFFECTED AS INTERSTATE, WHICH ON THE FACTS COULD
MEAN ONLY SUGAR.  MOREOVER, PETITIONERS DENY THE DISAVOWAL, BOTH IN
INTENT AND IN EFFECT.  THEY SAY THE ELISION WAS INSUBSTANTIAL, SINCE IN
THE CLAUSE FROM WHICH IT WAS MADE THE ALLEGATION OF CONSPIRACY TO
MONOPOLIZE AND RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE REMAINED, AND THE ONLY
INTERSTATE TRADE WAS IN SUGAR.  WE THINK THE AMENDMENT, FOR WHATEVER
REASON MADE, WAS NOT EFFECTIVE TO CONSTITUTE A DISAVOWAL, DISCLAIMER OR
WAIVER. 

THE ALLEGATIONS ARE COMPREHENSIVE AND, FOR THE GREATER PART, SPECIFIC
CONCERNING BOTH THE RESTRAINTS AND THEIR EFFECTS.  THEY CLEARLY STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1 THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CONTAINED THREE COUNTS, THE FIRST ALLEGING
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE SECOND AND THIRD CHARGING BREACH
OF CONTRACTS MADE IN 1940 AND 1941 RESPECTIVELY.  IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE
DECISION AND REVIEW UPON THE SHERMAN ACT CONTENTION, BY STIPULATION THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED SETTING FORTH, WITH AN AMENDMENT TO BE
NOTED, SEE NOTE 5, ONLY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT COUNT.  THE
STIPULATION PROVIDED FOR FOLLOWING THIS COURSE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
FURTHER ASSERTION BY PETITIONERS OF RIGHTS UNDER THE TWO CONTRACT
COUNTS WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD FOLLOWING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT ISSUES. 

FN2  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE BEETS, WHEN HARVESTED, ARE "BULKY AND
SEMI-PERISHABLE AND INCAPABLE OF BEING TRANSPORTED OVER LONG DISTANCES
OR OF BEING STORED CHEAPLY OR SAFELY FOR ANY EXTENDED PERIOD.  ...
WHEN RIPE, DETERIORATED RAPIDLY IF KEPT IN THE GROUND AND NOT
HARVESTED, AND IT WAS NECESSARY TO HARVEST THEM PROMPTLY WHEN
MATURED." 

THERE WERE ALSO ALLEGATIONS THAT INITIAL OUTLAY, ANNUAL UPKEEP AND
OPERATING EXPENSES, AND TIME REQUIRED FOR ERECTING AND EQUIPPING A
REFINERY, WERE SO GREAT THAT NO COMPETITION FROM ANY NEW REFINERY COULD
BE EXPECTED SHORT OF TWO YEARS AT BEST; THAT THE THREE REFINERS HAD A
MONOPOLY IN THE AREA OF THE SUPPLY OF SEEDS AND OF REFINING; AND THAT
NO GROWER IN THE REGION COULD SELL BEETS AT A PROFIT EXCEPT TO ONE OF
THE THREE REFINERS. 

FN3  THESE INCLUDE CUTTING OFF THE BEET TOPS, TRIMMING THE CROWNS IN
A SPECIFIED WAY, AND REMOVING ALL FOREIGN SUBSTANCES LIKELY TO
INTERFERE WITH FACTORY WORK. 

FN4  NET RETURNS FROM SUGAR SALES WERE MEASURED BY GROSS SALES PRICE
LESS SELLING EXPENSES DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO SUGAR.  MONTHLY
SETTLEMENTS WERE MADE FOR BEETS DELIVERED DURING THE PRECEDING MONTH ON
THE ESTIMATED NET RETURNS OF THE REFINER.  BUT FINAL SETTLEMENT HAD TO
BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE END OF THE SEASON WHEN NET RETURNS COULD BE
ACCURATELY DETERMINED. 

FN5  AT THIS POINT THE WORDS "IN SUGAR AND SUGAR BEETS" APPEARED IN
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.  THEY WERE STRICKEN FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
BY PETITIONERS' COUNSEL PRIOR TO DISMISSAL OF THAT COMPLAINT.  CF. NOTE
1.  THIS CHANGE HOWEVER DID NOT AFFECT NUMEROUS OTHER ALLEGATIONS
REMAINING IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE COMBINATION'S
RESTRICTIVE AND MONOPOLISTIC EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE TRADE IN SUGAR. 
SEE NOTE 6 AND TEXT; ALSO NOTE 24 AND TEXT PART IV INFRA.    FN6
PARAGRAPH XIX OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SUMMARIZED PETITIONERS'
CONCLUSIONS AS FOLLOWS:  "BY REASON OF THE FOREGOING ACTS OF THE
DEFENDANT AND ITS SAID CONSPIRATORS, INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN SUGAR WAS
ILLEGALLY RESTRAINED, COMPETITION THEREIN WAS NOT ONLY SUBSTANTIALLY
LESSENED BUT WAS DESTROYED, THE PRICE OF SUGAR BEETS WAS ILLEGALLY
FIXED, AND AN ILLEGAL MONOPOLY WAS ESTABLISHED, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE
ANTI-TRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TO THE DAMAGE OF PLAINTIFFS AS
AFORESAID."  CF. NOTES 5 AND 24. 

FN7  IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER DAMAGES WERE TO BE MEASURED BY THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICES ACTUALLY PAID AND THOSE THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN PAID IF BASED ON RESPONDENT'S SEPARATE RETURNS, OR BY THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICES PAID AND THE PRICES SET BY THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE, PURSUANT TO THE SUGAR ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 910, 7
U.S.C. SEC. 1131(D); SEE 5 FED. REG. 5231.  BUT THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT
NEED NOT CONCERN US NOW.  PETITIONER MANDEVILLE ISLAND FARMS PRAYED
JUDGMENT FOR $315,043.80; PETITIONER ZUCKERMAN FOR $112,192.14. 

FN8  IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY NOTED HERE THAT THE COURT APPLIED THESE
LABELS AS A HERITAGE FROM PRIOR DECISIONS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE,
DEALING NOT AS THE KNIGHT CASE WITH AN ACT OR ACTS OF CONGRESS, BUT
WITH THE VALIDITY OF STATE STATUTES, WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111,
121; UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533,
543-545, AN APPROACH REFLECTING MARSHALL'S IDEA OF THE MUTUAL
EXCLUSIVENESS OF STATE AND NATIONAL POWER IN THIS AREA AND IGNORING THE
LATER EVOLUTION OF DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS IN COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS,
12 HOW.  299.  SEE PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408, 412
427. 

FN9  COMPARE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1,
WITH STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, AND UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106; HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S.
251, WITH UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; CARTER V. CARTER COAL
CO., 298 U.S. 238, WITH SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381;
UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, ETC., R. CO., 282 U.S. 311, AND RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, WITH UNITED STATES V.
LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225; HOPKINS V. UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 578, WITH
STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495; EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S.
463, 498, WITH VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 557, AND
WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 321; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. V.
DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495 AND AUTHORITIES CITED, WITH UNITED
STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533, AND
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408. 

FN10  SEE PARTICULARLY THE DISCUSSION IN 317 U.S. AT 119-120.  SEE
ALSO PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408; UNITED STATES V.
SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533; LABOR BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; UNITED
STATES V. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315 U.S. 110; STERN, THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND THE NATIONAL ECONOMY, 1933-1946, 59 HARV. L. REV. 645, 883. 

THE FILBURN CASE DEALT WITH THE SECOND AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT
AND THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT IT.  BUT, REFERRING TO THE FIRST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE SHERMAN ACT, THE COURT IN THE FILBURN
CASE (PP. 121-122) SAID THAT THOSE STATUTES "USHERED IN NEW PHASES OF
ADJUDICATION" REQUIRING A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, ALTHOUGH "WHEN IT FIRST DEALT WITH THIS NEW
LEGISLATION, THE COURT ADHERED TO ITS EARLIER PRONOUNCEMENTS, AND
ALLOWED BUT LITTLE SCOPE TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS."  FOR THE LATTER
STATEMENT THE KNIGHT CASE WAS CITED AS THE PRINCIPAL EXAMPLE. 

FN11  THE DOCTRINE ENCOMPASSED FUNDAMENTALLY NOT MERELY AN EXPANDING
FACTOR IN FEDERAL POWER OVER TRANSPORTATION.  IT WAS RATHER AN INTEGER
IN THE SUM OF POWER OVER COMMERCE, OF WHICH AUTHORITY OVER
TRANSPORTATION WAS BUT A PART.  THE "AFFECTATION" APPROACH WAS ACTUALLY
A REVIVAL OF MARSHALL'S "NECESSARY AND PROPER" DOCTRINE, CF. WICKARD V.
FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111, 120, 122, BUT UNQUALIFIED BY HIS IDEA OF MUTUAL
EXCLUSIVENESS, SEE NOTE 8.  ONCE APPLIED TO TRANSPORTATION AND THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS, IT WAS INEVITABLE THAT THE APPROACH WOULD BE
EXTENDED TO THE PRODUCTIVE AND INDUSTRIAL PHASES OF THE NATIONAL
ECONOMY AND THE STATUTES REGULATING THEM, INCLUDING THE SHERMAN ACT. 
TIME AND EVENTS WERE DISCLOSING EVER MORE CLEARLY THE IMPACT OF THEIR
EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE.  AND THIS WAS POSING THE
SAME NECESSITY FOR REGULATION AS IN THE FIELD OF TRANSPORTATION, IN
ORDER TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE NATIONAL COMMERCE AND CARRY OUT
CONGRESS' POLICY REGARDING IT. 

FN12  UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26; UNITED STATES V.
KEYSTONE WATCH CASE CO., 218 F. 502; PENNSYLVANIA SUGAR REFINING CO. V.
AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO., 166 F. 254; UNITED STATES V. E.I. DU PONT
DE NEMOURS & CO., 188 F. 127.  SEE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES DISSENTING IN
HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, 279. 

FN13  MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 196 U.S. 375; UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525; BINDERUP
V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. PACIFIC
PAPER ASSN., 273 U.S. 52; STEVENS CO. V. FOSTER & KLEISER CO., 311 U.S.
255; BIGELOW V. RKO RADIO PICTURES, 327 U.S. 251. 

FN14  IN UNITED STATES V. FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES, 324 U.S. 293, 297,
WE SAID:  "IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT HAS ON OCCASION DETERMINED THAT
LOCAL CONDUCT COULD BE INSULATED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS ON THE BASIS OF THE PURELY LOCAL AIMS OF A COMBINATION, INSOFAR AS
THOSE AIMS WERE NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING COMMERCE,
AND WHERE THE MEANS USED TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE DID NOT DIRECTLY TOUCH
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THE DECISIONS CITED WERE INDUSTRIAL
ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 64; LEVERING &
GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103; UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V.
HERKERT & MEISEL TRUNK CO., 265 U.S. 457; CF. LOCAL 167 V. UNITED
STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 297, AND UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S.
219. 

FN15  UNITED STATES V. FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES, 324 U.S. 293, AND
AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN16  CF. UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150;
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781; UNITED STATES V.
PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375.  EACH
CASE INVOLVED OUTLAWED PRACTICES BY PERSONS WHO WERE BOTH PURCHASERS
AND SELLERS, AND FORBIDDEN EFFECTS UPON SELLERS AS WELL AS PURCHASERS
AND CONSUMERS. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 16. 

FN18  COMPARE ARKADELPHIA MILLING CO. V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN R.
CO., 249 U.S. 134, WITH CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V. PATTERSON, 315 U.S.
148. 

FN19  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375; AMERICAN TOBACCO
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781; UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF
AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416. 

FN20  THE NATURAL FACTORS INCLUDE THE PECULIAR NATURE OF THE CROP IN
ITS LIMITATION TO A SINGLE PRIMARY AND COMMERCIALLY PROFITABLE USE, THE
NECESSITY FOR IMMEDIATE AND NEARBY MARKETING TO FOLLOW DIRECTLY UPON
HARVESTING, AND THE WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT SUGAR BEETS ARE GROWN ONLY IN
WIDELY SCATTERED REGIONS SPECIALLY ADAPTED TO THE CROP IN SOIL, CLIMATE
AND AVAILABILITY OF WATER IN LARGE QUANTITIES DURING THE GROWING
SEASON. 

FN21  RESULTING IN LARGE PART FROM THE NATURAL LIMITATIONS STATED IN
NOTE 20 AND THE FACT THAT EXTRACTING THE SUGAR CONTENT FROM THE BEETS
IS AN ELABORATE AND TECHNICAL PROCESS, IS THE FURTHER IMPORTANT FACT
THAT THE PROCESSING CANNOT BE DONE BY THE GROWERS INDIVIDUALLY OR EVEN
IN SMALL COOPERATIVE GROUPS, BUT REQUIRES SPECIALIZED AND LARGESCALE
BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, EQUIPMENT AND INVESTMENT.  ALL THESE FACTORS AND
PERHAPS OTHERS COMBINE TO MAKE THE REFINING STAGE OF THE INDUSTRY A
SPECIALIZED MANUFACTURING ONE TO BE CARRIED ON SEPARATELY FROM GROWING,
TO ESTABLISH THE REFINERS' KEY PLACE IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY, AND THUS
TO LEAVE THE GROWERS COMPLETELY AT THE REFINERS' MERCY FOR THE
PROFITABLE PRODUCTION OF BEETS EXCEPT AS THE LATTER MAY COMPETE AMONG
THEMSELVES. 

FN22 SEE NOTE 20. 

FN23  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, IS
INCONSISTENT WITH OUR CONCLUSION HERE.  THE COURT THERE HELD FIRST THAT
THE SHERMAN ACT DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE PROGRAM WAS SPONSORED BY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  CONTRARY TO THE PRESENT SUGGESTION, THE OPINION
ASSUMES THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE INTRASTATE AND THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN RAISINS WAS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY FEDERAL REGULATION, IF
THE STATE-SPONSORED PROGRAM OF PRORATING HAD BEEN "ORGANIZED AND MADE
EFFECTIVE SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF A CONTRACT, COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY OF
PRIVATE PERSONS, INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE."  317 U.S. AT 350.  THE CASE
THEREFORE CONTAINS NO SUGGESTION, ON THE FACTS OR ON THE LAW, CONTRARY
TO THE RESULT NOW REACHED. 

FN24  SEE NOTE 5.  BY WAY OF EXPLAINING THE DELETION, THE RECORD
CONTAINS ONLY THE STATEMENT OF THE STIPULATION, CF. NOTE 1, THAT THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT ELIMINATED "WHAT THE COURT CONSIDERED AN AMBIGUITY IN
THE (ORIGINAL) COMPLAINT."  WITH NO FURTHER SUPPORT FROM THE RECORD, IT
HAS BEEN ASSUMED THAT THE AMBIGUITY SO ELIDED WAS THE REFERENCE TO
RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE IN SUGAR AND HENCE THE PETITIONERS IN
MAKING IT STATED THEMSELVES OUT OF COURT. 

APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ELISION DID NOT AFFECT NUMEROUS OTHER
LIKE ALLEGATIONS, SEE NOTE 6 AND TEXT, THE DELETION INCLUDED THE
SPECIFICATIONS OF BOTH "SUGAR AND SUGAR BEETS."  FROM THIS THE LITERAL
INFERENCE, IF ANY OF THE SORT COULD BE MADE, WOULD BE THAT THE ELISION
WAS INTENDED TO WITHDRAW ALL CHARGES OF MONOPOLY OR RESTRAINT OF TRADE,
WHETHER IN SUGAR OR IN BEETS, AND THUS TO CONCEDE THERE WAS NO CASE
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, A CONCLUSION OBVIOUSLY AT WAR WITH THE REMAINING
ALLEGATIONS OF RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN BOTH SUGAR AND SUGAR BEETS. 

BUT, IF ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO COULD BE ASSUMED AS HAVING
BEEN INTENDED, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT THE SUPPOSED AMBIGUITY
DELETED AROSE FROM THE REFERENCE TO INTERSTATE TRADE IN BEETS, SINCE
THE ALLEGATION AS A WHOLE REFERRED ONLY TO "INTERSTATE TRADE AND
COMMERCE" AND ON THE FACTS PLEADED THE ONLY TRADE IN BEETS WAS
INTRASTATE (CONSIDERED APART, AS RESPONDENT WOULD DO, FROM ITS RELATION
TO AND EFFECTS UPON THE TRADE IN SUGAR). 

IN ANY EVENT THE CASE IS TO BE DECIDED UPON THE SUM OF THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, NOT UPON CONJECTURE AS TO WHY A
PARTICULAR AND, WE THINK, IMMATERIAL AMENDMENT OF ONE ALLEGATION WAS
MADE.  INDEED THE ENTIRE ALLEGATION COULD HAVE BEEN ELIDED WITHOUT
AFFECTING THE SUBSTANCE OR VALIDITY OF THE REMAINDER OF THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  THERE WAS
MORE THAN ENOUGH WITHOUT IT. 

FN25  E.G., IN THE ALLEGATION QUOTED IN NOTE 6, AS WELL AS OTHERS SET
FORTH IN THE TEXT PRECEDING THAT NOTE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE COURT'S OPINION IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS OF
FACT WHICH THE PETITIONER DISCLAIMED IN THE COURT BELOW.  THESE
ASSUMPTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES FROM THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ONLY
IF WE DISREGARD THE WAY IN WHICH THE AMENDMENTS CAME ABOUT. 

ON HEARING, THE TRIAL JUDGE APPARENTLY CONSIDERED THAT A CAUSE OF
ACTION WOULD BE STATED ONLY IF THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE GROWING
CONTRACTS AFFECTED THE PRICE OF SUGAR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT THE
CONTRACTS ACCOMPANYING THE PLEADINGS INDICATED THAT THE EFFECTS RAN IN
THE OTHER DIRECTION.  THE MARKET PRICE OF INTERSTATE SUGAR WAS THE BASE
ON WHICH THE PRICE OF BEETS WAS TO BE FIGURED.  THE LATTER PRICE WAS
DERIVED FROM THE INCOME WHICH RESPONDENT AND OTHERS RECEIVED FROM SUGAR
SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET OVER THE PERIOD OF A YEAR.  THE TRIAL JUDGE
THEREFORE SUGGESTED THAT THE REFERENCES TO RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN SUGAR
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CREATED AN AMBIGUITY IN THE COMPLAINT. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE PLAINTIFF, AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE COURT AND FOR THE
SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THIS APPEAL, FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WHICH
COMPLETELY ELIMINATED THE CHARGE THAT THE AGREEMENTS COMPLAINED OF
AFFECTED THE PRICE OF SUGAR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND ELIMINATED THE
TWO OTHER COUNTS "TO ENABLE THE COURT HEREIN TO PASS UPON THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE FIRST COUNT ON ITS MERITS AND, FURTHER, TO MAKE
POSSIBLE A SPEEDY AND INEXPENSIVE REVIEW BY APPEAL IF THE COURT HELD
THAT THE FIRST COUNT WAS INSUFFICIENT."  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT THEN
HELD THAT SINCE NO BEETS WHATEVER MOVED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
SINCE THERE WAS NO CHARGE IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT THE COST OR
QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT WHICH DID MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS IN ANY
WAY AFFECTED, NO CAUSE OF ACTION WAS STATED.  THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 

THIS COURT, HOWEVER, DECIDES THE CASE AS THOUGH THE ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT AS IT RELATED TO SUGAR HAD NOT ONLY REMAINED UNCHANGED BUT
HAD BEEN PROVED BY EVIDENCE.  DESPITE THE DELETION FROM THE COMPLAINT
OF THE ALLEGATION CONCERNING THE PRICE OF SUGAR, THE COURT ASSUMES,
WITHOUT ALLEGATION OR EVIDENCE, THAT THE PRICE OF SUGAR IS AFFECTED AND
ON THAT BASIS BUILDS ITS THESIS THAT THE SHERMAN ACT HAS BEEN
VIOLATED.  I THINK IN FAIRNESS TO THE LITIGANTS AND THE DISTRICT COURT,
THE PETITIONER'S CASE SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF HERE ON THE SAME BASIS ON
WHICH IT WAS PLEADED TO THE COURTS BELOW. 

ON THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTS BELOW, I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN1  THE FULL TEXT OF THE STIPULATION AND ORDER WHICH WAS EXECUTED BY
COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARTIES, AND BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHEREAS, IN ORAL ARGUMENT ON NOVEMBER 13, 1945, ON THE MOTION OF
DEFENDANT TO DISMISS, ETC., HON. BEN HARRISON, THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE BEFORE WHOM SAID MATTER WAS ARGUED, STATEDFROM THE BENCH
TO COUNSEL HEREIN THAT HE FELT THAT THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, IF
SUPPLEMENTED BY COPIES OF THE CONTRACTS ATTACHED TO THE DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS, WOULD NOT STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A
CAUSE OF ACTION, AND SUGGESTED THAT IT WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS SAVING OF
TIME AND EXPENSE IF THE COMPLAINT WERE AMENDED (A) BY SETTING FORTH
COPIES OF THE AGREEMENTS INVOLVED IN THE FIRST COUNT, (B) BY
ELIMINATING WHAT THE COURT CONSIDERED AN AMBIGUITY IN THE COMPLAINT,
AND (C) BY THE PARTIES ENTERING INTO A STIPULATION TO ELIMINATE FROM
THE PLEADINGS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL ONLY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS, THE SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION,
SO AS TO ENABLE THE COURT HEREIN TO PASS UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
FIRST COUNT ON ITS MERITS AND, FURTHER, TO MAKE POSSIBLE A SPEEDY AND
INEXPENSIVE REVIEW BY APPEAL IF THE COURT HELD THAT THE FIRST COUNT WAS
INSUFFICIENT; 

"NOW, WHEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE, WITHOUT PLAINTIFFS' WAIVING
THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE SECOND AND THIRD COUNTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
ANY OF PLAINTIFFS' RIGHTS THEREUNDER, AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: 

"1.  PLAINTIFFS WILL FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT HEREIN, ATTACHING
COPIES OF THE FORMS OF CONTRACT IN USE IN 1938, 1939, 1940 AND 1941,
AND OMITTING THE SECOND AND THIRD COUNTS. 

"2.  SAID OMISSION OF THE SAID SECOND AND THIRD COUNTS SHALL BE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS TO ANY
CAUSE OR CAUSES OF ACTION INCLUDED OR INCLUDIBLE THEREIN BY AMENDMENT,
AND SHALL NOT BE A RETRAXIT OR A DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. 

"3.  DEFENDANT HEREIN WAIVES, FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME HEREINAFTER SET
FORTH, ANY AND ALL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS NOW OR HEREAFTER APPLICABLE
TO THE SECOND OR THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION OR ANY MATTERS THEREIN SET
FORTH OR INCLUDIBLE THEREIN BY AMENDMENT, AND WAIVES THE DEFENSE OF
LACHES AS TO THE SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION OR ANY MATTERS
THEREIN SET FORTH OR INCLUDIBLE THEREIN BY AMENDMENT. 

"4.  PLAINTIFFS MAY, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO SIX MONTHS AFTER THE
DECISION ON APPEAL AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE FIRST COUNT HAS BECOME
FINAL, EITHER AMEND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT HEREIN BY REALLEGING SAID
SECOND AND THIRD COUNTS OR ANY PORTION OF EITHER, OR, AT ANY TIME
DURING SAID PERIOD, FILE A SEPARATE ACTION OR ACTIONS SETTING FORTH
SAID SECOND AND THIRD COUNTS OR ANY PORTION OF EITHER, ALL WITH THE
SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS IF SAID SECOND AND THIRD COUNTS WERE
CONTINUOUSLY INCLUDED HEREIN AS SECOND AND THIRD COUNTS FROM THE DATE
OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACTION. 

"5.  THE WAIVER OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND OF THE DEFENSE OF
LACHES HEREIN SET FORTH, AND THE STIPULATION PERMITTING THE AMENDMENT
OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR THE FILING OF A SEPARATE ACTION OR ACTIONS
HEREINABOVE SET FORTH, SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL SIX MONTHS AFTER THE
DETERMINATION ON APPEAL AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE FIRST COUNT HAS
BECOME FINAL." 
..END :









SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, 334 U.S. 1 


ARGUED JANUARY 15-16, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1948.  - 355 MO. 814, 198
S.W.2D 679, AND 316 MICH. 614, 25 N.W.2D 638, REVERSED. 


PRIVATE AGREEMENTS TO EXCLUDE PERSONS OF DESIGNATED RACE OR COLOR FROM
THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF REAL ESTATE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES DO NOT
VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; BUT IT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FOR STATE COURTS TO
ENFORCE THEM.  CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY, 271 U.S. 323, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 8
23. 

(A)  SUCH PRIVATE AGREEMENTS STANDING ALONE DO NOT VIOLATE ANY RIGHTS
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 12-13. 

(B)  THE ACTIONS OF STATE COURTS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES ARE ACTIONS OF THE STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 14-18. 

(C)  IN GRANTING JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH PRIVATE AGREEMENTS IN
THESE CASES, THE STATES ACTED TO DENY PETITIONERS THE EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS, CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 18-23. 

(D)  THE FACT THAT STATE COURTS STAND READY TO ENFORCE RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS EXCLUDING WHITE PERSONS FROM THE OWNERSHIP OR OCCUPANCY OF
PROPERTY COVERED BY THEM DOES NOT PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS
EXCLUDING COLORED PERSONS FROM CONSTITUTING A DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, SINCE THE RIGHTS CREATED BY SEC. 1 OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE GUARANTEED TO THE INDIVIDUAL.  PP. 21-22. 

(E)  DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO ENFORCE SUCH RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS DOES NOT DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO THE PARTIES TO
SUCH AGREEMENTS.  P. 22. 

SHELLEY ET UX. V. KRAEMER ET UX. 

NO. 72.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 87, MCGHEE ET UX. V. SIPES ET AL., ON CERTIORARI
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

NO. 72.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI REVERSED A JUDGMENT OF A STATE
TRIAL COURT DENYING ENFORCEMENT OF A PRIVATE AGREEMENT RESTRICTING THE
USE OR OCCUPANCY OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TO PERSONS OF THE CAUCASIAN
RACE.  355 MO. 814, 198 S.W.2D 679.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
331 U.S. 803.  REVERSED, P. 23. 

NO. 87.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT OF A STATE
TRIAL COURT ENJOINING VIOLATION OF A PRIVATE AGREEMENT RESTRICTING THE
USE OR OCCUPANCY OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TO PERSONS OF THE CAUCASIAN
RACE.  316 MICH. 614, 25 N.W.2D 638.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
331 U.S. 804.  REVERSED, P. 23. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE
VALIDITY OF COURT ENFORCEMENT OF PRIVATE AGREEMENTS, GENERALLY
DESCRIBED AS RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH HAVE AS THEIR PURPOSE THE
EXCLUSION OF PERSONS OF DESIGNATED RACE OR COLOR FROM THE OWNERSHIP OR
OCCUPANCY OF REAL PROPERTY.  BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OF OBVIOUS
IMPORTANCE HAVE BEEN RAISED. 

THE FIRST OF THESE CASES COMES TO THIS COURT ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI.  ON FEBRUARY 16, 1911, THIRTY OUT OF A TOTAL
OF THIRTY-NINE OWNERS OF PROPERTY FRONTING BOTH SIDES OF LABADIE AVENUE
BETWEEN TAYLOR AVENUE AND CORA AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, SIGNED
AN AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECORDED, PROVIDING IN PART: 

"  ...  THE SAID PROPERTY IS HEREBY RESTRICTED TO THE USE AND
OCCUPANCY FOR THE TERM OF FIFTY (50) YEARS FROM THIS DATE, SO THAT IT
SHALL BE A CONDITION ALL THE TIME AND WHETHER RECITED AND REFERRED TO
AS N NOT IN SUBSEQUENT CONVEYANCES AND SHALL ATTACH TO THE LAND AS A
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE SALE OF THE SAME, THAT HEREAFTER NO PART OF
SAID PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION THEREOF SHALL BE, FOR SAID TERM OF FIFTY
YEARS, OCCUPIED BY ANY PERSON NOT OF THE CAUCASIAN RACE, IT BEING
INTENDED HEREBY TO RESTRICT THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY FOR SAID PERIOD OF
TIME AGAINST THE OCCUPANCY AS OWNERS OR TENANTS OF ANY PORTION OF SAID
PROPERTY FOR RESIDENT OR OTHER PURPOSE BY PEOPLE OF THE NEGRO OR
MONGOLIAN RACE." 

THE ENTIRE DISTRICT DESCRIBED IN THE AGREEMENT INCLUDED FIFTY-SEVEN
PARCELS OF LAND.  THE THIRTY OWNERS WHO SIGNED THE AGREEMENT HELD TITLE
TO FORTY-SEVEN PARCELS, INCLUDING THE PARTICULAR PARCEL INVOLVED IN
THIS CASE.  AT THE TIME THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED, FIVE OF THE PARCELS
IN THE DISTRICT WERE OWNED BY NEGROES.  ONE OF THOSE HAD BEEN OCCUPIED
BY NEGRO FAMILIES SINCE 1882, NEARLY THIRTY YEARS BEFORE THE
RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT OWNERS
OF SEVEN OUT OF NINE HOMES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LABADIE AVENUE, WITHIN
THE RESTRICTED DISTRICT AND "IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY" OF THE PREMISES
IN QUESTION, HAD FAILED TO SIGN THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT IN 1911.  AT
THE TIME THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT, FOUR OF THE PREMISES WERE OCCUPIED BY
NEGROES, AND HAD BEEN SO OCCUPIED FOR PERIODS RANGING FROM TWENTY-THREE
TO SIXTY-THREE YEARS.  A FIFTH PARCEL HAD BEEN OCCUPIED BY NEGROES
UNTIL A YEAR BEFORE THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED. 

ON AUGUST 11, 1945, PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT OF SALE, PETITIONERS
SHELLEY, WHO ARE NEGROES, FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM ONE
FITZGERALD A WARRANTY DEED TO THE PARCEL IN QUESTION.  FN1  THE TRIAL
COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONERS HAD NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESTRICTIVE
AGREEMENT AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE. 

ON OCTOBER 9, 1945, RESPONDENTS, AS OWNERS OF OTHER PROPERTY SUBJECT
TO THE TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, BROUGHT SUIT IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PRAYING THAT PETITIONERS SHELLEY BE
RESTRAINED FROM TAKING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT JUDGMENT BE
ENTERED DIVESTING TITLE OUT OF PETITIONERS SHELLEY AND REVESTING TITLE
IN THE IMMEDIATE GRANTOR OR IN SUCH OTHER PERSON AS THE COURT SHOULD
DIRECT.  THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE REQUESTED RELIEF ON THE GROUND THAT
THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT, UPON WHICH RESPONDENTS BASED THEIR ACTION,
HAD NEVER BECOME FINAL AND COMPLETE BECAUSE IT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE
PARTIES TO THAT AGREEMENT THAT IT WAS NOT TO BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL
SIGNED BY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE DISTRICT, AND SIGNATURES OF ALL
THE OWNERS HAD NEVER BEEN OBTAINED. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI SITTING EN BANC REVERSED AND DIRECTED
THE TRIAL COURT TO GRANT THE RELIEF FOR WHICH RESPONDENTS HAD PRAYED. 
THAT COURT HELD THE AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AND CONCLUDED THAT ENFORCEMENT
OF ITS PROVISIONS VIOLATED NO RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO PETITIONERS BY THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FN2  AT THE TIME THE COURT RENDERED ITS
DECISION, PETITIONERS WERE OCCUPYING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 

THE SECOND OF THE CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION COMES TO THIS COURT FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED DO NOT
DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THE MISSOURI CASE.  IN JUNE, 1934, ONE FERGUSON
AND HIS WIFE, WHO THEN OWNED THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF
DETROIT WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, EXECUTED A CONTRACT PROVIDING
IN PART: 

"THIS PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE USED OR OCCUPIED BY ANY PERSON OR PERSONS
EXCEPT THOSE OF THE CAUCASIAN RACE. 

"IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT THIS RESTRICTION SHALL NOT BE EFFECTIVE
UNLESS AT LEAST EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY FRONTING ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE STREET IN THE BLOCK WHERE OUR LAND IS LOCATED IS SUBJECTED TO
THIS OR A SIMILAR RESTRICTION." 

THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE RESTRICTIONS WERE TO REMAIN IN EFFECT
UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1960.  THE CONTRACT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECORDED; AND
SIMILAR AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED WITH RESPECT TO EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE
LOTS IN THE BLOCK IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS SITUATED. 

BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1944, PETITIONERS, WHO WERE FOUND BY THE
TRIAL COURT TO BE NEGROES, ACQUIRED TITLE TO THE PROPERTY AND THEREUPON
ENTERED INTO ITS OCCUPANCY.  ON JANUARY 30, 1945, RESPONDENTS, AS
OWNERS OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT,
BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST PETITIONERS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY. 
AFTER A HEARING, THE COURT ENTERED A DECREE DIRECTING PETITIONERS TO
MOVE FROM THE PROPERTY WITHIN NINETY DAYS.  PETITIONERS WERE FURTHER
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED FROM USING OR OCCUPYING THE PREMISES IN THE
FUTURE.  ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN AFFIRMED, DECIDING
ADVERSELY TO PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS THAT THEY HAD BEEN DENIED RIGHTS
PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN3 

PETITIONERS HAVE PLACED PRIMARY RELIANCE ON THEIR CONTENTIONS, FIRST
RAISED IN THE STATE COURTS, THAT JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE
RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS IN THESE CASES HAS VIOLATED RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO
PETITIONERS BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND
ACTS OF CONGRESS PASSED PURSUANT TO THAT AMENDMENT.  FN4  SPECIFICALLY,
PETITIONERS URGE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS, DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND HAVE BEEN
DENIED PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE
PASS TO A CONSIDERATION OF THOSE ISSUES. 

  I. 

WHETHER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
INHIBITS JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT BY STATE COURTS OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
BASED ON RACE OR COLOR IS A QUESTION WHICH THIS COURT HAS NOT
HERETOFORE BEEN CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER.  ONLY TWO CASES HAVE BEEN
DECIDED BY THIS COURT WHICH IN ANY WAY HAVE INVOLVED THE ENFORCEMENT OF
SUCH AGREEMENTS.  THE FIRST OF THESE WAS THE CASE OF CORRIGAN V.
BUCKLEY, 271 U.S. 323(1926).  THERE, SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE COURTS OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO ENJOIN A THREATENED VIOLATION OF CERTAIN
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS RELATING TO LANDS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF
WASHINGTON.  RELIEF WAS GRANTED, AND THE CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE ON
APPEAL.  IT IS APPARENT THAT THAT CASE, WHICH HAD ORIGINATED IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS AND INVOLVED THE ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS ON LAND
LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COULD PRESENT NO ISSUES UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; FOR THAT AMENDMENT BY ITS TERMS APPLIES ONLY TO
THE STATES.  NOR WAS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF COURT ENFORCEMENT
OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROPERLY BEFORE
THE COURT, AS THE OPINION OF THIS COURT SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZES.  FN5
THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WHICH THE APPELLANTS HAD RAISED IN THE
LOWER COURTS, AND HENCE THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT
ON APPEAL, WAS THE VALIDITY OF THE COVENANT AGREEMENTS AS SUCH.  THIS
COURT CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE INHIBITIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS INVOKED APPLY ONLY TO GOVERNMENTAL ACTION, AS CONTRASTED TO
ACTION OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE COVENANTS,
WHICH WERE SIMPLY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, WERE
INVALID.  ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION.  NOTHING IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, THEREFORE,
MAY PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES PRESENTED BY THESE CASES, WHICH RAISE THE
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY, NOT OF THE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS AS SUCH, BUT OF
THE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE AGREEMENTS. 

THE SECOND OF THE CASES INVOLVING RACIAL RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WAS
HANSBERRY V. LEE, 311 U.S. 32(1940).  IN THAT CASE, PETITIONERS, WHITE
PROPERTY OWNERS, WERE ENJOINED BY THE STATE COURTS FROM VIOLATING THE
TERMS OF A RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAD HELD
PETITIONERS BOUND BY AN EARLIER JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, IN LITIGATION
IN WHICH PETITIONERS WERE NOT PARTIES, UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE
RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH, IN FACT, THE AGREEMENT HAD NOT BEEN
SIGNED BY THE NUMBER OF OWNERS NECESSARY TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE UNDER
STATE LAW.  THIS COURT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT
UPON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONERS HAD BEEN DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
BEING HELD ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT ON THE
THEORY, ACCEPTED BY THE STATE COURT, THAT THE EARLIER LITIGATION, IN
WHICH PETITIONERS DID NOT PARTICIPATE, WAS IN THE NATURE OF A CLASS
SUIT.  IN ARRIVING AT ITS RESULT, THIS COURT DID NOT REACH THE ISSUES
PRESENTED BY THE CASES NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

IT IS WELL, AT THE OUTSET, TO SCRUTINIZE THE TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIVE
AGREEMENTS INVOLVED IN THESE CASES.  IN THE MISSOURI CASE, THE COVENANT
DECLARES THAT NO PART OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTY SHALL BE "OCCUPIED BY
ANY PERSON NOT OF THE CAUCASIAN RACE, IT BEING INTENDED HEREBY TO
RESTRICT THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY  ...  AGAINST THE OCCUPANCY AS OWNERS
OR TENANTS OF ANY PORTION OF SAID PROPERTY FOR RESIDENT OR OTHER
PURPOSE BY PEOPLE OF THE NEGRO OR MONGOLIAN RACE."  NOT ONLY DOES THE
RESTRICTION SEEK TO PROSCRIBE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE AFFECTED
PROPERTIES BY MEMBERS OF THE EXCLUDED CLASS, BUT AS CONTRUED BY THE
MISSOURI COURTS, THE AGREEMENTS REQUIRES THAT TITLE OF ANY PERSON WHO
USES HIS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE RESTRICTION SHALL BE DIVESTED. 
THE RESTRICTION OF THE COVENANT IN THE MICHIGAN CASE SEEKS TO BAR
OCCUPANCY BY PERSONS OF THE EXCLUDED CLASS.  IT PROVIDES THAT "THIS
PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE USED OR OCCUPIED BY ANY PERSON OR PERSONS EXCEPT
THOSE OF THE CAUCASIAN RACE." 

IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THESE COVENANTS DO NOT SEEK TO PROSCRIBE
ANY PARTICULAR USE OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES.  USE OF THE PROPERTIES
FOR RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY, AS SUCH, IS NOT FORBIDDEN.  THE RESTRICTIONS
OF THESE AGREEMENTS, RATHER, ARE DIRECTED TOWARD A DESIGNATED CLASS OF
PERSONS AND SEEK TO DETERMINE WHO MAY AND WHO MAY NOT OWN OR MAKE USE
OF THE PROPERTIES FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.  THE EXCLUDED CLASS IS
DEFINED WHOLLY IN TERMS OF RACE OR COLOR; "SIMPLY THAT AND NOTHING
MORE."  FN6 

IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT AMONG THE CIVIL RIGHTS INTENDED TO BE
PROTECTED FROM DISCRIMINATORY STATE ACTION BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
ARE THE RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE, ENJOY, OWN AND DISPOSE OF PROPERTY. 
EQUALITY IN THE ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS WAS REGARDED BY THE
FRAMERS OF THAT AMENDMENT AS AN ESSENTIAL PRE-CONDITION TO THE
REALIZATION OF OTHER BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WHICH THE
AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO GUARANTEE.  FN7  THUS, SEC. 1978 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES, DERIVED FROM SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
WHICH WAS ENACTED BY CONGRESS WHILE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ALSO
UNDER CONSIDERATION,  FN8  PROVIDES: 

"ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT, IN
EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY, AS IS ENJOYED BY WHITE CITIZENS THEREOF TO
INHERIT, PURCHASE, LEASE, SELL, HOLD, AND CONVEY REAL AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY."  FN9 

THIS COURT HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC RECOGNITION TO THE SAME PRINCIPLE. 
BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60(1917). 

IT IS LIKEWISE CLEAR THAT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY OF
THE SORT SOUGHT TO BE CREATED BY THE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS IN THESE CASES
COULD NOT BE SQUARED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
IF IMPOSED BY STATE STATUTE OR LOCAL ORDINANCE.  WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND
RESPONDENTS TO URGE THE CONTRARY.  IN THE CASE OF BUCHANAN V. WARLEY,
SUPRA, A UNANIMOUS COURT DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE PROVISIONS OF A
CITY ORDINANCE WHICH DENIED TO COLORED PERSONS THE RIGHT TO OCCUPY
HOUSES IN BLOCKS IN WHICH THE GREATER NUMBER OF HOUSES WERE OCCUPIED BY
WHITE PERSONS, AND IMPOSED SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS ON WHITE PERSONS WITH
RESPECT TO BLOCKS IN WHICH THE GREATER NUMBER OF HOUSES WERE OCCUPIED
BY COLORED PERSONS.  DURING THE COURSE OF THE OPINION IN THAT CASE,
THIS COURT STATED:  "THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THESE STATUTES
ENACTED IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS PURPOSE OPERATE TO QUALIFY AND ENTITLE A
COLORED MAN TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY WITHOUT STATE LEGISLATION
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST HIM SOLELY BECAUSE OF COLOR."  FN10    IN HARMON
V. TYLER, 273 U.S. 668(1927), A UNANIMOUS COURT, ON THE AUTHORITY OF
BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, SUPRA, DECLARED INVALID AN ORDINANCE WHICH FORBADE
ANY NEGRO TO ESTABLISH A HOME ON ANY PROPERTY IN A WHITE COMMUNITY OR
ANY WHITE PERSON TO ESTABLISH A HOME IN A NEGRO COMMUNITY, "EXCEPT ON
THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF A MAJORITY OF THE PERSONS OF THE OPPOSITE RACE
INHABITING SUCH COMMUNITY OR PORTION OF THE CITY TO BE AFFECTED." 

THE PRECISE QUESTION BEFORE THIS COURT IN BOTH THE BUCHANAN AND
HARMON CASES INVOLVED THE RIGHTS OF WHITE SELLERS TO DISPOSE OF THEIR
PROPERTIES FREE FROM RESTRICTIONS AS TO POTENTIAL PURCHASERS BASED ON
CONSIDERATIONS OF RACE OR COLOR.  BUT THAT SUCH LEGISLATION IS ALSO
OFFENSIVE TO THE RIGHTS OF THOSE DESIRING TO ACQUIRE AND OCCUPY
PROPERTY AND BARRED ON GROUNDS OF RACE OR COLOR IS CLEAR, NOT ONLY FROM
THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPINION IN BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, SUPRA, BUT FROM THIS
COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE CASE OF RICHMOND V. DEANS, 281 U.S.
704(1930).  THERE, A NEGRO, BARRED FROM THE OCCUPANCY OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY BY THE TERMS OF AN ORDINANCE SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE BUCHANAN
CASE, SOUGHT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE ON THE GROUNDS THAT ITS PROVISIONS
VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SUCH RELIEF WAS
GRANTED, AND THIS COURT AFFIRMED, FINDING THE CITATION OF BUCHANAN V.
WARLEY, SUPRA, AND HARMON V. TYLER, SUPRA, SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ITS
JUDGMENT.  FN11 

BUT THE PRESENT CASES, UNLIKE THOSE JUST DISCUSSED, DO NOT INVOLVE
ACTION BY STATE LEGISLATURES OR CITY COUNCILS.  HERE THE PARTICULAR
PATTERNS OF DISCRIMINATION AND THE AREAS IN WHICH THE RESTRICTIONS ARE
TO OPERATE, ARE DETERMINED, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, BY THE TERMS OF
AGREEMENTS AMONG PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.  PARTICIPATION OF THE STATE
CONSISTS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RESTRICTIONS SO DEFINED.  THE
CRUCIAL ISSUE WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONFRONTED IS WHETHER THIS
DISTINCTION REMOVES THESE CASES FROM THE OPERATION OF THE PROHIBITORY
PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

SINCE THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S.
3(1883), THE PRINCIPLE HAS BECOME FIRMLY EMBEDDED IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW THAT THE ACTION INHIBITED BY THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS ONLY SUCH ACTION AS MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE THAT OF THE
STATES.  THAT AMENDMENT ERECTS NO SHIELD AGAINST MERELY PRIVATE
CONDUCT, HOWEVER DISCRIMINATORY OR WRONGFUL.  FN12 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS STANDING
ALONE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS VIOLATIVE OF ANY RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO
PETITIONERS BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SO LONG AS THE PURPOSES OF
THOSE AGREEMENTS ARE EFFECTUATED BY VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE TO THEIR TERMS,
IT WOULD APPEAR CLEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTION BY THE STATE AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT HAVE NOT BEEN VIOLATED.  CF. CORRIGAN
V. BUCKLEY, SUPRA. 

BUT HERE THERE WAS MORE.  THESE ARE CASES IN WHICH THE PURPOSES OF
THE AGREEMENTS WERE SECURED ONLY BY JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT BY STATE
COURTS OF THE RESTRICTIVE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENTS.  THE RESPONDENTS
URGE THAT JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF PRIVATE AGREEMENTS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO
STATE ACTION; OR, IN ANY EVENT, THE PARTICIPATION OF THE STATE IS SO
ATTENUATED IN CHARACTER AS NOT TO AMOUNT TO STATE ACTION WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FINALLY, IT IS SUGGESTED, EVEN IF
THE STATES IN THESE CASES MAY BE DEEMED TO HAVE ACTED IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, THEIR ACTION DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WE MOVE TO A
CONSIDERATION OF THESE MATTERS. 

                           II. 

THAT THE ACTION OF STATE COURTS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES IS TO BE REGARDED AS ACTION OF THE STATE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IS A PROPOSITION WHICH HAS LONG
BEEN ESTABLISHED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  THAT PRINCIPLE WAS GIVEN
EXPRESSION IN THE EARLIEST CASES INVOLVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
TERMS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THUS, IN VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100
U.S. 313, 318(1880), THIS COURT STATED:  "IT IS DOUBTLESS TRUE THAT A
STATE MAY ACT THROUGH DIFFERENT AGENCIES,  - EITHER BY ITS LEGISLATIVE,
ITS EXECUTIVE, OR ITS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES; AND THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE
AMENDMENT EXTEND TO ALL ACTION OF THE STATE DENYING EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS, WHETHER IT BE ACTION BY ONE OF THESE AGENCIES OR BY
ANOTHER."  IN EX PARTE VIGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, 347(1880), THE COURT
OBSERVED:  "A STATE ACTS BY ITS LEGISLATIVE, ITS EXECUTIVE, OR ITS
JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES.  IT CAN ACT IN NO OTHER WAY."  IN THE CIVIL
RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3, 11, 17(1883), THIS COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE
AMENDMENT MAKES VOID "STATE ACTION OF EVERY KIND" WHICH IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE GUARANTIES THEREIN CONTAINED, AND EXTENDS TO MANIFESTATIONS OF
"STATE AUTHORITY IN THE SHAPE OF LAWS, CUSTOMS, OR JUDICIAL OR
EXECUTIVE PROCEEDINGS."  LANGUAGE TO LIKE EFFECT IS EMPLOYED NO LESS
THAN EIGHTEEN TIMES DURING THE COURSE OF THAT OPINION.  FN13 

SIMILAR EXPRESSIONS, GIVING SPECIFIC RECOGNITION TO THE FACT THAT
JUDICIAL ACTION IS TO BE REGARDED AS ACTION OF THE STATE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ARE TO BE FOUND IN NUMEROUS CASES
WHICH HAVE BEEN MORE RECENTLY DECIDED.  IN TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211
U.S. 78, 90-91(1908), THE COURT SAID:  "THE JUDICIAL ACT OF THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE, IN AUTHORITATIVELY CONSTRUING AND ENFORCING ITS
LAWS, IS THE ACT OF THE STATE."  IN BRINKERHOFF-FARIS TRUST & SAVINGS
CO. V. HILL, 281 U.S. 673, 680(1930), THE COURT, THROUGH MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, STATED:  "THE FEDERAL GUARANTY OF DUE PROCESS EXTENDS TO
STATE ACTION THROUGH ITS JUDICIAL AS WELL AS THROUGH ITS LEGISLATIVE,
EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT."  FURTHER EXAMPLES OF
SUCH DECLARATIONS IN THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT ARE NOT LACKING.  FN14 

ONE OF THE EARLIEST APPLICATIONS OF THE PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO ACTION OF STATE JUDICIAL OFFICIALS OCCURRED IN
CASES IN WHICH NEGROES HAD BEEN EXCLUDED FROM JURY SERVICE IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS BY REASON OF THEIR RACE OR COLOR.  THESE CASES
DEMONSTRATE, ALSO, THE EARLY RECOGNITION BY THIS COURT THAT STATE
ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE AMENDMENT'S PROVISIONS IS EQUALLY REPUGNANT
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMANDS WHETHER DIRECTED BY STATE STATUTE OR
TAKEN BY A JUDICIAL OFFICIAL IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE.  THUS, IN
STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 303(1880), THIS COURT DECLARED
INVALID A STATE STATUTE RESTRICTING JURY SERVICE TO WHITE PERSONS AS
AMOUNTING TO A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO THE
COLORED DEFENDANT IN THAT CASE.  IN THE SAME VOLUME OF THE REPORTS, THE
COURT IN EX PARTE VIRGINIA, SUPRA, HELD THAT A SIMILAR DISCRIMINATION
IMPOSED BY THE ACTION OF A STATE JUDGE DENIED RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE
AMENDMENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATE STATUTE
RELATING TO JURY SERVICE CONTAINED NO SUCH RESTRICTIONS. 

THE ACTION OF STATE COURTS IN IMPOSING PENALTIES OR DEPRIVING PARTIES
OF OTHER SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND, HAS, OF COURSE, LONG BEEN REGARDED AS A DENIAL
OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
BRINKERHOFF-FARIS TRUST & SAVINGS CO. V. HILL, SUPRA.  CF. PENNOYER V.
NEFF, 95 U.S. 714(1878).  FN15 

IN NUMEROUS CASES, THIS COURT HAS REVERSED CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS IN
STATE COURTS FOR FAILURE OF THOSE COURTS TO PROVIDE THE ESSENTIAL
INGREDIENTS OF A FAIR HEARING.  THUS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT CONVICTIONS
OBTAINED IN STATE COURTS UNDER THE DOMINATION OF A MOB ARE VOID.  MOORE
V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86(1923).  AND SEE FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S.
309(1915).  CONVICTIONS OBTAINED BY COERCED CONFESSIONS,  FN16  BY THE
USE OF PERJURED TESTIMONY KNOWN BY THE PROSECUTION TO BE SUCH,  FN17 OR
WITHOUT THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL,  FN18  HAVE ALSO BEEN HELD
TO BE EXERTIONS OF STATE AUTHORITY IN CONFLICT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

BUT THE EXAMPLES OF STATE JUDICIAL ACTION WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD BY
THIS COURT TO VIOLATE THE AMENDMENT'S COMMANDS ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO
SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WERE FOUND IN SOME MANNER
TO BE PROCEDURALLY UNFAIR.  IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE ACTION OF
STATE COURTS IN ENFORCING A SUBSTANTIVE COMMON-LAW RULE FORMULATED BY
THOSE COURTS, MAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN SUCH
CASES MAY HAVE BEEN IN COMPLETE ACCORD WITH THE MOST RIGOROUS
CONCEPTIONS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  FN9  THUS, IN AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321(1941), ENFORCEMENT BY STATE
COURTS OF THE COMMON-LAW POLICY OF THE STATE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE
RESTRAINING OF PEACEFUL PICKETING, WAS HELD TO BE STATE ACTION OF THE
SORT PROHIBITED BY THE AMENDMENT'S GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF
DISCUSSION.  FN20  IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296(1940), A
CONVICTION IN A STATE COURT OF THE COMMON-LAW CRIME OF BREACH OF THE
PEACE WAS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, FOUND TO BE A VIOLATION
OF THE AMENDMENT'S COMMANDS RELATING TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION.  IN
BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252(1941), ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE'S
COMMON-LAW RULE RELATING TO CONTEMPTS BY PUBLICATION WAS HELD TO BE
STATE ACTION INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  FN21  AND CF. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY R. CO. V.
CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226(1897). 

THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THAT FROM THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UNTIL THE PRESENT, IT HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT
RULING OF THIS COURT THAT THE ACTION OF THE STATES TO WHICH THE
AMENDMENT HAS REFERENCE INCLUDES ACTION OF STATE COURTS AND STATE
JUDICIAL OFFICIALS.  ALTHOUGH, IN CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, DIFFERENCES HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN EXPRESSED
AS TO WHETHER PARTICULAR TYPES OF STATE ACTION MAY BE SAID TO OFFEND
THE AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITORY PROVISIONS, IT HAS NEVER BEEN SUGGESTED
THAT STATE COURT ACTION IS IMMUNIZED FROM THE OPERATION OF THOSE
PROVISIONS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ACT IS THAT OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE
STATE GOVERNMENT. 

            III. 

AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND OF JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, EXTENDING OVER A
PERIOD OF SOME THREE-QUARTERS OF A CENTURY, WE ARE CALLED UPON TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ENFORCEMENT BY STATE COURTS OF THE RESTRICTIVE
AGREEMENTS IN THESE CASES MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE ACTS OF THOSE STATES;
AND, IF SO, WHETHER THAT ACTION HAS DENIED THESE PETITIONERS THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS WHICH THE AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO INSURE. 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THERE HAS BEEN STATE ACTION IN THESE CASES IN
THE FULL AND COMPLETE SENSE OF THE PHRASE.  THE UNDISPUTED FACTS
DISCLOSE THAT PETITIONERS WERE WILLING PURCHASERS OF PROPERTIES UPON
WHICH THEY DESIRED TO ESTABLISH HOMES.  THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES
WERE WILLING SELLERS; AND CONTRACTS OF SALE WERE ACCORDINGLY
CONSUMMATED.  IT IS CLEAR THAT BUT FOR THE ACTIVE INTERVENTION OF THE
STATE COURTS, SUPPORTED BY THE FULL PANOPLY OF STATE POWER, PETITIONERS
WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WITHOUT
RESTRAINT. 

THESE ARE NOT CASES, AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, IN WHICH THE STATES HAVE
MERELY ABSTAINED FROM ACTION, LEAVING PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS FREE TO
IMPOSE SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS AS THEY SEE FIT.  RATHER, THESE ARE CASES
IN WHICH THE STATES HAVE MADE AVAILABLE TO SUCH INDIVIDUALS THE FULL
COERCIVE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO DENY TO PETITIONERS, ON THE GROUNDS OF
RACE OR COLOR, THE ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN PREMISES WHICH
PETITIONERS ARE WILLING AND FINANCIALLY ABLE TO ACQUIRE AND WHICH THE
GRANTORS ARE WILLING TO SELL.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDICIAL
ENFORCEMENT AND NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IS THE
DIFFERENCE TO PETITIONERS BETWEEN BEING DENIED RIGHTS OF PROPERTY
AVAILABLE TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND BEING ACCORDED FULL
ENJOYMENT OF THOSE RIGHTS ON AN EQUAL FOOTING. 

THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS BY THE STATE COURTS IN
THESE CASES WAS DIRECTED PURSUANT TO THE COMMON-LAW POLICY OF THE
STATES AS FORMULATED BY THOSE COURTS IN EARLIER DECISIONS.  FN22  IN
THE MISSOURI CASE, ENFORCEMENT OF THE COVENANT WAS DIRECTED IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE AFTER THE TRIAL COURT
HAD DETERMINED THE AGREEMENT TO BE INVALID FOR WANT OF THE REQUISITE
NUMBER OF SIGNATURES.  IN THE MICHIGAN CASE, THE ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT
BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT.  FN23  THE
JUDICIAL ACTION IN EACH CASE BEARS THE CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE
IMPRIMATUR OF THE STATE.  WE HAVE NOTED THAT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT HAVE ESTABLISHED THE PROPOSITION THAT JUDICIAL ACTION IS NOT
IMMUNIZED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE
IT IS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE STATE'S COMMON-LAW POLICY.  FN24  NOR IS
THE AMENDMENT INEFFECTIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PARTICULAR PATTERN OF
DISCRIMINATION, WHICH THE STATE HAS ENFORCED, WAS DEFINED INITIALLY BY
THE TERMS OF A PRIVATE AGREEMENT.  STATE ACTION, AS THAT PHRASE IS
UNDERSTOOD FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, REFERS TO
EXERTIONS OF STATE POWER IN ALL FORMS.  AND WHEN THE EFFECT OF THAT
ACTION IS TO DENY RIGHTS SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THIS COURT TO ENFORCE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMANDS.    WE HOLD THAT IN GRANTING JUDICIAL
ENFORCEMENT OF THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS IN THESE CASES, THE STATES
HAVE DENIED PETITIONERS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND THAT,
THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURTS CANNOT STAND.  WE HAVE NOTED
THAT FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATES IN THE ENJOYMENT OF
PROPERTY RIGHTS WAS AMONG THE BASIC OBJECTIVES SOUGHT TO BE EFFECTUATED
BY THE FRAMERS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THAT SUCH DISCRIMINATION
HAS OCCURRED IN THESE CASES IS CLEAR.  BECAUSE OF THE RACE OR COLOR OF
THESE PETITIONERS THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP OR
OCCUPANCY ENJOYED AS A MATTER OF COURSE BY OTHER CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
RACE OR COLOR.  FN25  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DECLARES "THAT ALL
PERSONS, WHETHER COLORED OR WHITE, SHALL STAND EQUAL BEFORE THE LAWS OF
THE STATES, AND, IN REGARD TO THE COLORED RACE, FOR WHOSE PROTECTION
THE AMENDMENT WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED, THAT NO DISCRIMINATION SHALL BE
MADE AGAINST THEM BY LAW BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOR."  FN26  STRAUDER V.
WEST VIRGINIA, SUPRA AT 307.  ONLY RECENTLY THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO
DECLARE THAT A STATE LAW WHICH DENIED EQUAL ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY
RIGHTS TO A DESIGNATED CLASS OF CITIZENS OF SPECIFIED RACE AND
ANCESTRY, WAS NOT A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POLICE POWER BUT
VIOLATED THE GUARANTY OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  OYAMA V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633(1948).  NOR MAY THE DISCRIMINATIONS IMPOSED BY
THE STATE COURTS IN THESE CASES BE JUSTIFIED AS PROPER EXERTIONS OF
STATE POLICE POWER.  FN27  CF. BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, SUPRA. 

RESPONDENTS URGE, HOWEVER, THAT SINCE THE STATE COURTS STAND READY TO
ENFORCE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS EXCLUDING WHITE PERSONS FROM THE
OWNERSHIP OR OCCUPANCY OF PROPERTY COVERED BY SUCH AGREEMENTS,
ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS EXCLUDING COLORED PERSONS MAY NOT BE DEEMED A
DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO THE COLORED PERSONS WHO ARE
THEREBY AFFECTED.  FN28  THIS CONTENTION DOES NOT BEAR SCRUTINY.  THE
PARTIES HAVE DIRECTED OUR ATTENTION TO NO CASE IN WHICH A COURT, STATE
OR FEDERAL, HAS BEEN CALLED UPON TO ENFORCE A COVENANT EXCLUDING
MEMBERS OF THE WHITE MAJORITY FROM OWNERSHIP OR OCCUPANCY OF REAL
PROPERTY ON GROUNDS OF RACE OR COLOR.  BUT THERE ARE MORE FUNDAMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS.  THE RIGHTS CREATED BY THE FIRST SECTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE, BY ITS TERMS, GUARANTEED TO THE INDIVIDUAL. 
THE RIGHTS ESTABLISHED ARE PERSONAL RIGHTS.  FN29  IT IS, THEREFORE, NO
ANSWER TO THESE PETITIONERS TO SAY THAT THE COURTS MAY ALSO BE INDUCED
TO DENY WHITE PERSONS RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANCY ON GROUNDS OF
RACE OR COLOR.  EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS NOT ACHIEVED THROUGH
INDISCRIMINATE IMPOSITION OF INEQUALITIES. 

NOR DO WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUGGESTION THAT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE
PARTIES TO THESE AGREEMENTS ARE DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IF
DENIED ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS AND TO ASSERT PROPERTY RIGHTS WHICH THE STATE COURTS HAVE
HELD TO BE CREATED BY SUCH AGREEMENTS.  THE CONSTITUTION CONFERS UPON
NO INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ACTION BY THE STATE WHICH RESULTS IN
THE DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS.  AND
IT WOULD APPEAR BEYOND QUESTION THAT THE POWER OF THE STATE TO CREATE
AND ENFORCE PROPERTY INTERESTS MUST BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES
DEFINED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CF. MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S.
501(1946). 

THE PROBLEM OF DEFINING THE SCOPE OF THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IMPOSES UPON EXERTIONS OF POWER BY THE STATES HAS
GIVEN RISE TO MANY OF THE MOST PERSISTENT AND FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES WHICH
THIS COURT HAS BEEN CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER.  THAT PROBLEM WAS FOREMOST
IN THE MINDS OF THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND, SINCE THAT EARLY
DAY, HAS ARISEN IN A MULTITUDE OF FORMS.  THE TASK OF DETERMINING
WHETHER THE ACTION OF A STATE OFFENDS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IS ONE
WHICH MAY NOT BE UNDERTAKEN LIGHTLY.  WHERE, HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE ACTION OF THE STATE VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL CHARTER,
IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THIS COURT SO TO DECLARE. 

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAME A
PART OF THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN.  WHATEVER ELSE THE
FRAMERS SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MATTER OF PRIMARY
CONCERN WAS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EQUALITY IN THE ENJOYMENT OF BASIC
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS AND THE PRESERVATION OF THOSE RIGHTS FROM
DISCRIMINATORY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE STATES BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS
OF RACE OR COLOR.  SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO THIS COURT ANNOUNCED THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT ARE TO BE CONSTRUED WITH THIS FUNDAMENTAL
PURPOSE IN MIND.  FN30  UPON FULL CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
IN THESE CASES THE STATES HAVE ACTED TO DENY PETITIONERS THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HAVING
SO DECIDED, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER PETITIONERS HAVE
ALSO BEEN DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW OR DENIED
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN MUST BE REVERSED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WHICH
PETITIONERS SHELLEY SOUGHT TO PURCHASE WAS HELD BY ONE BISHOP, A REAL
ESTATE DEALER, WHO PLACED THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF JOSEPHINE
FITZGERALD.  BISHOP, WHO ACTED AS AGENT FOR PETITIONERS IN THE
PURCHASE, CONCEALED THE FACT OF HIS OWNERSHIP. 

FN2  KRAEMER V. SHELLEY, 355 MO. 814, 198 S.W.2D 679(1946). 

FN3  SIPES V. MCGHEE, 316 MICH. 614, 25 N.W.2D 638(1947). 

FN4  THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES:  "ALL
PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE
STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE.  NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW
WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY,
OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

FN5  CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY, 271 U.S. 323, 330-331(1926). 

FN6  BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60, 73(1917). 

FN7  SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 70, 81(1873).  SEE FLACK,
THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FN8  IN OYAMA V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633, 640(1948) THE SECTION OF
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT HEREIN CONSIDERED IS DESCRIBED AS THE FEDERAL
STATUTE, "ENACTED BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BUT VINDICATED BY
IT."  THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 WAS REENACTED IN SEC. 18 OF THE ACT
OF MAY 31, 1870, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  16 STAT. 144. 

FN9  14 STAT. 27, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 42. 

FN10  BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60, 79(1917). 

FN11  COURTS OF GEORGIA, MARYLAND, NORTH CAROLINA, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS,
AND VIRGINIA HAVE ALSO DECLARED SIMILAR STATUTES INVALID AS BEING IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  GLOVER V. ATLANTA, 148 GA.
285, 96 S.E. 562(1918); JACKSON V. STATE, 132 MD. 311, 103 A.
910(1918); CLINARD V. WINSTON-SALEM, 217 N.C. 119, 6 S.E.2D 867(1940);
ALLEN V. OKLAHOMA CITY, 175 OKLA. 421, 52 P.2D 1054(1936); LIBERTY
ANNEX CORP. V. DALLAS, 289 S.W. 1067(TEX.  CIV.  APP. 1927); IRVINE V.
CLIFTON FORGE, 124 VA. 781, 97 S.E. 310(1918). 

FN12  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. HARRIS, 106 U.S. 629(1883); UNITED
STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542(1876). 

FN13  AMONG THE PHRASES APPEARING IN THE OPINION ARE THE FOLLOWING:
"THE OPERATION OF STATE LAWS, AND THE ACTION OF STATE OFFICERS
EXECUTIVE OR JUDICIAL"; "STATE LAWS AND STATE PROCEEDINGS"; "STATE LAW
...  OR SOME STATE ACTION THROUGH ITS OFFICERS OR AGENTS"; "STATE LAWS
AND ACTS DONE UNDER STATE AUTHORITY"; "STATE LAWS, OR STATE ACTION OF
SOME KIND"; "SUCH LAWS AS THE STATES MAY ADOPT OR ENFORCE"; "SUCH ACTS
AND PROCEEDINGS AS THE STATES MAY COMMIT OR TAKE"; "STATE LEGISLATION
OR ACTION"; "STATE LAW OR STATE AUTHORITY." 

FN14  NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370, 397(1881); SCOTT V. MCNEAL, 154
U.S. 34, 45(1894): CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY R. CO. V. CHICAGO,
166 U.S. 226, 233-235(1897): HOVEY V. ELLIOTT, 167 U.S. 409, 417
418(1897); CARTER V. TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442, 447(1900); MARTIN V. TEXAS,
200 U.S. 316, 319(1906); RAYMOND V. CHICAGO UNION TRACTION CO., 207
U.S. 20, 35-36(1907); HOME TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO. V. LOS ANGELES,
227 U.S. 278, 286-287(1913); PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. CHEEK, 259
U.S. 530, 548(1922); AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. KENTUCKY, 273 U.S.
269, 274(1927); MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, 112-113(1935);
HANSBERRY V. LEE, 311 U.S. 32, 41(1940). 

FN15  AND SEE STANDARD OIL CO. V. MISSOURI, 224 U.S. 270, 281
282(1912); HANSBERRY V. LEE, 311 U.S. 32(1940). 

FN16  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278(1936); CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA,
309 U.S. 227(1940); ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143(1944); LEE V.
MISSISSIPPI, 332 U.S. 742(1948). 

FN17  SEE MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103(1935); PYLE V. KANSAS, 317
U.S. 213(1942). 

FN18  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45(1932); WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323
U.S. 471(1945); TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485(1945); DE MEERLEER V.
MICHIGAN, 329 U.S. 663(1947). 

FN19  IN APPLYING THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S.
64(1938), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COMMON-LAW RULES ENUNCIATED BY STATE
COURTS IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS ARE TO BE REGARDED AS A PART OF THE LAW OF
THE STATE. 

FN20  AND SEE BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769(1942);
CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. 293(1943). 

FN21  AND SEE PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331(1946); CRAIG V.
HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367(1947). 

FN22  SEE SWAIN V. MAXWELL, 355 MO. 448, 196 S.W.2D 780(1946);
KOEHLER V. ROWLAND, 275 MO. 573, 205 S.W. 217(1918).  SEE ALSO PARMALEE
V. MORRIS, 218 MICH. 625, 188 N.W. 330(1922).  CF. PORTER V. BARRETT,
233 MICH. 373, 206 N.W. 532(1925). 

FN23  CF. HOME TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S.
278(1913); RAYMOND V. CHICAGO UNION TRACTION CO., 207 U.S. 20(1907). 

FN24  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252(1941); AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321(1941). 

FN25  SEE YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356(1886); STRAUDER V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 303(1880); TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33(1915). 

FN26  RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS OF THE SORT INVOLVED IN THESE CASES HAVE
BEEN USED TO EXCLUDE OTHER THAN NEGROES FROM THE OWNERSHIP OR OCCUPANCY
OF REAL PROPERTY.  WE ARE INFORMED THAT SUCH AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN
DIRECTED AGAINST INDIANS, JEWS, CHINESE, JAPANESE, MEXICANS, HAWAIIANS,
PUERTO RICANS, AND FILIPINOS, AMONG OTHERS. 

FN27  SEE BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 261(1941); CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 307-308(1940). 

FN28  IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO
RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES INVOLVED IN THE BUCHANAN,
HARMON AND DEANS CASES, CITED SUPRA, AND DECLARED BY THIS COURT TO BE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, APPLIED
EQUALLY TO WHITE PERSONS AND NEGROES. 

FN29  MCCABE V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO., 235 U.S. 151, 161
162(1914); MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337(1938); OYAMA
V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633(1948). 

FN30  SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 81(1873); STRAUDER V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 303(1880).  SEE FLACK, THE ADOPTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 
..END :




HURD V. HODGE, 334 U.S. 24 


ARGUED JANUARY 15-16, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1948.  - 82 U.S. APP. D.C.
180, 162 F.2D 233, REVERSED. 


1.  COVENANTS INCORPORATED IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCES OF REAL ESTATE IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WHICH FORBID THE RENTAL, LEASE, SALE, TRANSFER
OR CONVEYANCE OF THE LAND TO ANY NEGRO ARE VALID; BUT THEIR ENFORCEMENT
BY THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS PROHIBITED BY R.S. SEC.
1978 GUARANTEEING TO ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES EQUAL RIGHTS TO
INHERIT, PURCHASE, LEASE, SELL, HOLD AND CONVEY REAL AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY.  PP. 30-34. 

(A)  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS INCLUDED IN THE PHRASE "EVERY STATE
AND TERRITORY," AS USED IN R.S. SEC. 1978.  P. 31. 

(B)  CONGRESS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ENACT SUCH LEGISLATION
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  P. 31. 

(C)  THE ACTION TOWARD WHICH R.S. SEC. 1978 IS DIRECTED IS
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION; AND IT DOES NOT INVALIDATE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS, SO
LONG AS THEIR PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED THROUGH VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE TO THEIR
TERMS.  P. 31. 

(D)  JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATORY COVENANTS IS
PROHIBITED BY R.S. SEC. 1978, WHICH IS DERIVED FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT AND CLOSELY RELATED TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 31-34. 

2.  THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF PRIVATE
AGREEMENTS IS AT ALL TIMES EXERCISED SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS AND
LIMITATIONS OF THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AS MANIFESTED IN
THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, FEDERAL STATUTES, AND APPLICABLE LEGAL
PRECEDENTS.  PP. 34-35. 

3.  EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE SUCH AS R.S. SEC. 1978, IT IS
NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO PERMIT
FEDERAL COURTS IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL TO EXERCISE GENERAL EQUITABLE
POWERS TO COMPEL ACTION DENIED THE STATE COURTS BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 34-36. 

HURD ET UX. V. HODGE ET AL. 

NO. 290.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 291, URCIOLO ET AL. V. HODGE ET AL., ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DECREEING ENFORCEMENT OF A
COVENANT INCORPORATED IN CONVEYANCES OF LAND AND FORBIDDING ITS RENTAL,
LEASE, SALE, TRANSFER OR CONVEYANCE TO ANY NEGRO.  82 U.S. APP. DC.
180, 162 F.2D 233.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 789. 
REVERSED, P. 36. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE COMPANION CASES TO SHELLEY V. KRAEMER AND MCGHEE V. SIPES,
ANTE, P. 1, AND COME TO THIS COURT ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

IN 1906, TWENTY OF THIRTY-ONE LOTS IN THE 100 BLOCK OF BRYANT STREET,
NORTHWEST, IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, WERE SOLD SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING COVENANT: 

"  ... THAT SAID LOT SHALL NEVER BE RENTED, LEASED, SOLD, TRANSFERRED
OR CONVEYED UNTO ANY NEGRO OR COLORED PERSON, UNDER A PENALTY OF TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000), WHICH SHALL BE A LIEN AGAINST SAID
PROPERTY." 

THE COVENANT IMPOSES NO TIME LIMITATION ON THE RESTRICTION. 

PRIOR TO THE SALES WHICH GAVE RISE TO THESE CASES, THE TWENTY LOTS
WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE COVENANTS WERE AT ALL TIMES OWNED AND OCCUPIED
BY WHITE PERSONS, EXCEPT FOR A BRIEF PERIOD WHEN THREE OF THE HOUSES
WERE OCCUPIED BY NEGROES WHO WERE EVENTUALLY INDUCED TO MOVE WITHOUT
LEGAL ACTION.  THE REMAINING ELEVEN LOTS IN THE SAME BLOCK,  FN1
HOWEVER, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT AND, AS FOUND BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, WERE OCCUPIED BY NEGROES FOR THE TWENTY YEARS PRIOR
TO THE INSTITUTION OF THIS LITIGATION. 

THESE CASES INVOLVE SEVEN OF THE TWENTY LOTS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE
TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.  IN NO. 290, PETITIONERS HURD,
FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT TO BE NEGROES,  FN2  PURCHASED ONE OF THE
RESTRICTED PROPERTIES FROM THE WHITE OWNERS.  IN NO. 291, PETITIONER
URCIOLO, A WHITE REAL ESTATE DEALER, SOLD AND CONVEYED THREE OF THE
RESTRICTED PROPERTIES TO THE NEGRO PETITIONERS ROWE, SAVAGE, AND
STEWART.  PETITIONER URCIOLO ALSO OWNS THREE OTHER LOTS IN THE BLOCK
SUBJECT TO THE COVENANTS.  IN BOTH CASES, THE NEGRO PETITIONERS ARE
PRESENTLY OCCUPYING AS HOMES THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES WHICH HAVE BEEN
CONVEYED TO THEM. 

SUITS WERE INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY RESPONDENTS, WHO OWN
OTHER PROPERTY IN THE BLOCK SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE COVENANTS,
PRAYING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIVE
AGREEMENT.  THE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL, AND AFTER A HEARING,
THE COURT ENTERED A JUDGMENT DECLARING NULL AND VOID THE DEEDS OF THE
NEGRO PETITIONERS; ENJOINING PETITIONER URCIOLO AND ONE RYAN, THE WHITE
PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAD SOLD THE HOUSES TO THE NEGRO PETITIONERS, FROM
LEASING, SELLING OR CONVEYING THE PROPERTIES TO ANY NEGRO OR COLORED
PERSON; ENJOINING THE NEGRO PETITIONERS FROM LEASING OR CONVEYING THE
PROPERTIES AND DIRECTING THOSE PETITIONERS "TO REMOVE THEMSELVES AND
ALL OF THEIR PERSONAL BELONGINGS" FROM THE PREMISES WITHIN SIXTY DAYS. 

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WITH
ONE JUSTICE DISSENTING, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
FN3  THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ACTION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CONSISTENT WITH EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS AND THAT THOSE DECISIONS SHOULD BE HELD DETERMINATIVE IN
THESE CASES. 

PETITIONERS HAVE ATTACKED THE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS IN THESE CASES ON A WIDE VARIETY OF GROUNDS.  PRIMARY
RELIANCE, HOWEVER, IS PLACED ON THE CONTENTION THAT SUCH GOVERNMENTAL
ACTION ON THE PART OF THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS
FORBIDDEN BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FN4 

WHETHER JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF RACIAL RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
HAS NEVER BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THIS COURT.  IN CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY, 271
U.S. 323(1926), AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT FROM A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WHICH
HAD AFFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE LOWER COURT GRANTING ENFORCEMENT TO A
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.  BUT AS WAS POINTED OUT IN OUR OPINION IN SHELLEY
V. KRAEMER, SUPRA, THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WHICH HAD BEEN RAISED
IN THE LOWER COURTS IN THE CORRIGAN CASE, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ONLY
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BEFORE THIS COURT ON APPEAL, RELATED TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS AS SUCH.  NOTHING IN THE OPINION OF
THIS COURT IN THAT CASE, THEREFORE, MAY PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS AN
ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE WHICH
CONCERNS, NOT THE VALIDITY OF THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS STANDING
ALONE, BUT THE VALIDITY OF COURT ENFORCEMENT OF THE RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  FN5
SEE SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, SUPRA AT P. 8. 

THIS COURT HAS DECLARED INVALID MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES RESTRICTING
OCCUPANCY IN DESIGNATED AREAS TO PERSONS OF SPECIFIED RACE AND COLOR AS
DENYING RIGHTS OF WHITE SELLERS AND NEGRO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY,
GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60(1917); HARMON V. TYLER, 273 U.S.
668(1927); RICHMOND V. DEANS, 281 U.S. 704(1930).  PETITIONERS URGE
THAT JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHOULD LIKEWISE BE HELD TO DENY RIGHTS OF WHITE
SELLERS AND NEGRO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY, GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PETITIONERS POINT OUT THAT THIS COURT
IN HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 100(1943), REACHED ITS
DECISION IN A CASE IN WHICH ISSUES UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WERE
PRESENTED, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT "RACIAL DISCRIMINATIONS ARE IN MOST
CIRCUMSTANCES IRRELEVANT AND THEREFORE PROHIBITED  ...  "  AND SEE
KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214, 216(1944). 

UPON FULL CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, WE HAVE FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO
RESOLVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WHICH PETITIONERS ADVANCE; FOR WE HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY THE
COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS IMPROPER FOR OTHER REASONS
HEREINAFTER STATED.  FN6 

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866,  FN7 PROVIDES: 

"ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT, IN
EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY, AS IS ENJOYED BY WHITE CITIZENS THEREOF TO
INHERIT, PURCHASE, LEASE, SELL, HOLD, AND CONVEY REAL AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY."  FN8 

ALL THE PETITIONERS IN THESE CASES, AS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT,
ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS INCLUDED WITHIN
THE PHRASE "EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY."  FN9 NOR CAN THERE BE DOUBT OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT SUCH LEGISLATION WITH
REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  FN10 

WE MAY START WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT
INVALIDATE PRIVATE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS SO LONG AS THE PURPOSES OF
THOSE AGREEMENTS ARE ACHIEVED BY THE PARTIES THROUGH VOLUNTARY
ADHERENCE TO THE TERMS.  THE ACTION TOWARD WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS DIRECTED IS GOVERNMENTAL ACTION.  SUCH
WAS THE HOLDING OF CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY, SUPRA. 

IN CONSIDERING WHETHER JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
IS THE KIND OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTION WHICH THE FIRST SECTION OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 WAS INTENDED TO PROHIBIT, REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO
THE SCOPE AND PURPOSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; FOR THAT STATUTE
AND THE AMENDMENT WERE CLOSELY RELATED BOTH IN INCEPTION AND IN THE
OBJECTIVES WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE. 

BOTH THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 AND THE JOINT RESOLUTION WHICH WAS
LATER ADOPTED AS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE PASSED IN THE FIRST
SESSION OF THE THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS.  FN11 FREQUENT REFERENCES TO THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT ARE TO BE FOUND IN THE RECORD OF THE LEGISLATIVE
DEBATES ON THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT.  FN12  IT IS CLEAR THAT IN
MANY SIGNIFICANT RESPECTS THE STATUTE AND THE AMENDMENT WERE
EXPRESSIONS OF THE SAME GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  INDEED, AS THE
LEGISLATIVE DEBATES REVEAL, ONE OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF MANY MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS IN SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS
TO INCORPORATE THE GUARANTIES OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 IN THE
ORGANIC LAW OF THE LAND.  FN13  OTHERS SUPPORTED THE ADOPTION OF THE
AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE DOUBT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AS APPLIED TO THE STATES.  FN14 

THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS GIVEN SPECIFIC RECOGNITION BY THIS COURT IN
BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, SUPRA AT 79.  THERE, THE COURT OBSERVED THAT, NOT
ONLY THROUGH THE OPERATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BUT ALSO BY
VIRTUE OF THE "STATUTES ENACTED IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS PURPOSE,"
INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS HERE CONSIDERED, A COLORED MAN IS GRANTED THE
RIGHT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FREE FROM INTERFERENCE BY DISCRIMINATORY
STATE LEGISLATION.  IN SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, SUPRA, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ALSO FORBIDS SUCH DISCRIMINATION WHERE IMPOSED BY
STATE COURTS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.  THAT HOLDING
IS CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF THE CONSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN TO THE RELEVANT
PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE COURTS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

MOREOVER, THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY CONGRESS TO EFFECTUATE
ITS PURPOSES LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS BY THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS
PROHIBITED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.  THAT STATUTE, BY ITS TERMS,
REQUIRES THAT ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE THE SAME
RIGHT "AS IS ENJOYED BY WHITE CITIZENS  ...  TO INHERIT, PURCHASE,
LEASE, SELL, HOLD, AND CONVEY REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY."  THAT THE
NEGRO PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN DENIED THAT RIGHT BY VIRTUE OF THE ACTION
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE DISTRICT IS CLEAR.  THE NEGRO PETITIONERS
ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS OF SALE WITH WILLING SELLERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
PROPERTIES UPON WHICH THEY DESIRED TO ESTABLISH HOMES.  SOLELY BECAUSE
OF THEIR RACE AND COLOR THEY ARE CONFRONTED WITH ORDERS OF COURT
DIVESTING THEIR TITLES IN THE PROPERTIES AND ORDERING THAT THE PREMISES
BE VACATED.  WHITE SELLERS, ONE OF WHOM IS A PETITIONER HERE, HAVE BEEN
ENJOINED FROM SELLING THE PROPERTIES TO ANY NEGRO OR COLORED PERSON. 
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, TO SUGGEST THAT THE NEGRO PETITIONERS HAVE
BEEN ACCORDED THE SAME RIGHTS AS WHITE CITIZENS TO PURCHASE, HOLD, AND
CONVEY REAL PROPERTY IS TO REJECT THE PLAIN MEANING OF LANGUAGE.  WE
HOLD THAT THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTED AGAINST THE NEGRO
PURCHASERS AND THE WHITE SELLERS DENIES RIGHTS INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO
BE PROTECTED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACTION
CANNOT STAND. 

BUT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE STATUTE, THERE ARE OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS IN THESE CASES IS JUDICIAL ACTION CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC
POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES,  FN15  AND AS SUCH SHOULD BE CORRECTED BY
THIS COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY POWERS OVER THE COURTS OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  FN16  THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO
ENFORCE THE TERMS OF PRIVATE AGREEMENTS IS AT ALL TIMES EXERCISED
SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS MANIFESTED IN THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, FEDERAL
STATUTES, AND APPLICABLE LEGAL PRECEDENTS.  FN17  WHERE THE ENFORCEMENT
OF PRIVATE AGREEMENTS WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF THAT POLICY, IT IS THE
OBLIGATION OF COURTS TO REFRAIN FROM SUCH EXERTIONS OF JUDICIAL POWER. 
FN18 

WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH ACTION OF FEDERAL COURTS OF SUCH A NATURE
THAT IF TAKEN BY THE COURTS OF A STATE WOULD VIOLATE THE PROHIBITORY
PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SHELLEY V. KRAEMER, SUPRA.  IT
IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO PERMIT
FEDERAL COURTS IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL TO EXERCISE GENERAL EQUITABLE
POWERS TO COMPEL ACTION DENIED THE STATE COURTS WHERE SUCH STATE ACTION
HAS BEEN HELD TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE GUARANTY OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS.  FN19  WE CANNOT PRESUME THAT THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE
UNITED STATES MANIFESTS A LESSER CONCERN FOR THE PROTECTION OF SUCH
BASIC RIGHTS AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY ACTION OF FEDERAL COURTS THAN
AGAINST SUCH ACTION TAKEN BY THE COURTS OF THE STATES.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE BLOCK IS ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF THE STREET, THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE STREET PROVIDING A
BOUNDARY FOR A PUBLIC PARK. 

FN2  PETITIONER JAMES M. HURD MAINTAINED THAT HE IS NOT A NEGRO BUT A
MOHAWK INDIAN. 

FN3  82 U.S. APP. D.C. 180, 162 F.2D 233(1947).    FN4  OTHER
CONTENTIONS MADE BY PETITIONERS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:  JUDICIAL
ENFORCEMENT OF THE COVENANTS IS CONTRARY TO SEC. 1978 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES, DERIVED FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, AND TO TREATY
OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CONTAINED IN THE UNITED NATIONS'
CHARTER; ENFORCEMENT OF THE COVENANTS IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC POLICY;
ENFORCEMENT OF THE COVENANTS IS INEQUITABLE. 

FN5  PRIOR TO THE PRESENT LITIGATION, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAD CONSIDERED CASES INVOLVING
ENFORCEMENT OF RACIAL RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS ON AT LEAST EIGHT
OCCASIONS.  CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY, 55 APP. D.C. 30, 299 F. 899(1924);
TORREY V. WOLFES, 56 APP. D.C. 4, 6 F.2D 702(1925); RUSSELL V. WALLACE,
58 APP. D.C. 357, 30 F.2D 981(1929); CORNISH V. O'DONOGHUE, 58 APP.
D.C. 359, 30 F.2D 983(1929); GRADY V. GARLAND, 67 APP. D.C. 73, 89 F.2D
817(1937); HUNDLEY V. GOREWITZ, 77 U.S. APP. D.C. 48, 132 F.2D
23(1942); MAYS V. BURGESS, 79 U.S. APP. D.C. 343, 147 F.2D 869(1945);
MAYS V. BURGESS, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 236, 152 F.2D 123(1945). 

IN CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY, SUPRA, THE FIRST OF THE CASES DECIDED BY THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AND RELIED ON IN MOST OF THE SUBSEQUENT
DECISIONS, THE OPINION OF THE COURT CONTAINS NO CONSIDERATION OF THE
SPECIFIC ISSUES PRESENTED TO THIS COURT IN THESE CASES.  AN APPEAL FROM
THE DECISION IN CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COURT.  271
U.S. 323(1926).  SEE DISCUSSION SUPRA.  IN HUNDLEY V. GOREWITZ, SUPRA,
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED ENFORCEMENT OF A RESTRICTIVE
AGREEMENT WHERE CHANGES IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD HAVE
RENDERED ENFORCEMENT INEQUITABLE. 

FN6  IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT THIS COURT WILL NOT
DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHERE OTHER GROUNDS ARE AVAILABLE AND
DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUES OF THE CASE.  RECENT EXPRESSIONS OF THAT
POLICY ARE TO BE FOUND IN ALMA MOTOR CO. V. TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO.,
329 U.S. 129(1946); RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S.
549(1947). 

FN7  14 STAT. 27.  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT PROVIDED:  " ...  THAT ALL
PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER,
EXCLUDING INDIANS NOT TAXED, ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES; AND SUCH CITIZENS, OF EVERY RACE AND COLOR, WITHOUT
REGARD TO ANY PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SLAVERY OR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE,
EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY
CONVICTED, SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT, IN EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY IN
THE UNITED STATES, TO MAKE AND ENFORCE CONTRACTS, TO SUE, BE PARTIES,
AND GIVE EVIDENCE, TO INHERIT, PURCHASE, LEASE, SELL, HOLD, AND CONVEY
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND TO FULL AND EQUAL BENEFIT OF ALL LAWS
AND PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY, AS IS ENJOYED
BY WHITE CITIZENS, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO LIKE PUNISHMENT, PAINS, AND
PENALTIES, AND TO NONE OTHER, ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION,
OR CUSTOM, TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." 

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 WAS REENACTED IN SEC. 18 OF THE ACT OF
MAY 31, 1870, 16 STAT. 144, PASSED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADOPTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SECTION 1977 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (8 U.S.C.
SEC. 41), DERIVED FROM SEC. 16 OF THE ACT OF 1870, WHICH IN TURN WAS
PATTERNED AFTER SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, PROVIDES:  "ALL
PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE THE
SAME RIGHT IN EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY TO MAKE AND ENFORCE CONTRACTS,
TO SUE, BE PARTIES, GIVE EVIDENCE, AND TO THE FULL AND EQUAL BENEFIT OF
ALL LAWS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SECURITY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY AS IS
ENJOYED BY WHITE CITIZENS, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO LIKE PUNISHMENT,
PAINS, PENALTIES, TAXES, LICENSES, AND EXACTIONS OF EVERY KIND, AND TO
NO OTHER." 

FN8  8 U.S.C. SEC. 42. 

FN9  CF. TALBOTT V. SILVER BOW COUNTY, 139 U.S. 438, 444(1891). 

FN10  SEE KELLER V. POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO., 261 U.S. 428, 442
443(1923). 

FN11  THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 BECAME LAW ON APRIL 9, 1866.  THE
JOINT RESOLUTION SUBMITTING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE STATES
PASSED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON JUNE 13, 1866, HAVING PREVIOUSLY
PASSED THE SENATE ON JUNE 8.  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3148
3149, 3042. 

FN12  SEE, E.G., CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2459, 2461, 2462,
2465, 2467, 2498, 2506, 2511, 2538, 2896, 2961, 3035. 

FN13  THUS, MR. THAYER OF PENNSYLVANIA, SPEAKING IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, STATED:  "AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT IS BUT INCORPORATING
IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS BILL WHICH HAS LATELY BECOME A LAW,  ...  IN ORDER  ...  THAT
THAT PROVISION SO NECESSARY FOR THE EQUAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW, SO
JUST IN ITS OPERATION, SO NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP, SHALL BE FOREVER INCORPORATED IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
2465.  AND NOTE THE REMARKS OF MR. STEVENS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN REPORTING
TO THE HOUSE THE JOINT RESOLUTION WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED AS THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ID. AT 2459.  SEE ALSO ID. AT 2462, 2896, 2961. 
THAT SUCH WAS UNDERSTOOD TO BE A PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS
MADE CLEAR NOT ONLY FROM STATEMENTS OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENT
BUT OF ITS OPPONENTS.  ID. AT 2467, 2538.  SEE FLACK, THE ADOPTION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 94-96. 

FN14  NO DOUBTS WERE EXPRESSED AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
SENATOR POLAND OF VERMONT STATED:  "IT CERTAINLY SEEMS DESIRABLE THAT
NO DOUBT SHOULD BE LEFT EXISTING AS TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENFORCE
PRINCIPLES LYING AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF ALL REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT IF
THEY BE DENIED OR VIOLATED BY THE STATES, AND I CANNOT DOUBT BUT THAT
EVERY SENATOR WILL REJOICE IN AIDING TO REMOVE ALL DOUBT UPON THIS
POWER OF CONGRESS."  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2961.  SEE ALSO
ID. AT 2461, 2498, 2506, 2511, 2896, 3035. 

FN15  SEE UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, 235(1941);
JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 163 F. 30, 32(1908). 

FN16  SECTION 240(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 43 STAT. 938, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 347(A), PROVIDES:  "IN ANY CASE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, IN A CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, OR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, IT SHALL BE COMPETENT FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, UPON THE PETITION OF ANY PARTY THERETO, WHETHER GOVERNMENT OR
OTHER LITIGANT, TO REQUIRE BY CERTIORARI, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER A
JUDGMENT OR DECREE BY SUCH LOWER COURT, THAT THE CAUSE BE CERTIFIED TO
THE SUPREME COURT FOR DETERMINATION BY IT WITH THE SAME POWER AND
AUTHORITY, AND WITH LIKE EFFECT, AS IF THE CAUSE HAD BEEN BROUGHT THERE
BY UNRESTRICTED WRIT OF ERROR OR APPEAL." 

FN17  MUSCHANY V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 49, 66(1945).  AND SEE
LICENSE TAX CASES, 5 WALL.  462, 469(1867). 

FN18  CF. KENNETT V. CHAMBERS, 14 HOW.  38(1852); TOOL CO. V. NORRIS,
2 WALL.  45(1865); SPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 20 WALL.  459(1874); TRIST
V. CHILD, 21 WALL.  441(1875); OSCANYAN V. ARMS CO., 103 U.S.
261(1881); BURT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., 187 U.S.
362(1902); SAGE V. HAMPE, 235 U.S. 99(1914).  AND SEE BEASLEY V. TEXAS
& PACIFIC R. CO., 191 U.S. 492(1903). 

FN19  CF. GANDOLFO V. HARTMAN, 49 F. 181, 183(1892). 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IN THESE CASES, THE PLAINTIFFS ASK EQUITY TO ENJOIN WHITE PROPERTY
OWNERS WHO ARE DESIROUS OF SELLING THEIR HOUSES TO NEGRO BUYERS SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE HOUSES WERE SUBJECT TO AN ORIGINAL AGREEMENT NOT TO HAVE
THEM PASS INTO NEGRO OWNERSHIP.  EQUITY IS ROOTED IN CONSCIENCE.  AN
INJUNCTION IS, AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN, "AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIAL
PROCESS WHICH IS GRANTED, NOT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT IN THE EXERCISE
OF A SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION."  MORRISON V. WORK, 266 U.S. 481, 490. 
IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, IT CANNOT BE "THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION" BY A FEDERAL COURT TO GRANT THE RELIEF HERE ASKED FOR WHEN
THE AUTHORIZATION OF SUCH AN INJUNCTION BY THE STATES OF THE UNION
VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION - AND VIOLATES IT, NOT FOR ANY NARROW
TECHNICAL REASON, BUT FOR CONSIDERATIONS THAT TOUCH RIGHTS SO BASIC TO
OUR SOCIETY THAT, AFTER THE CIVIL WAR, THEIR PROTECTION AGAINST
INVASION BY THE STATES WAS SAFEGUARDED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THIS IS TO
ME A SUFFICIENT AND CONCLUSIVE GROUND FOR REACHING THE COURT'S RESULT. 

..END :























TRADE COMM'N V. MORTON SALT CO., 334 U.S. 37 


NO. 464.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1948.  - 162 F.2D
949, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT SELLS TABLE SALT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO WHOLESALERS AND
RETAILERS ON A QUANTITY DISCOUNT BASIS.  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
AFTER A HEARING, FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD DISCRIMINATED IN PRICE
BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF LIKE GRADES AND QUALITIES, IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AS AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, AND
ISSUED A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER.  HELD: 

1.  RESPONDENT'S QUANTITY DISCOUNTS DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT, AND ARE PROHIBITED WHERE THEY HAVE THE PROSCRIBED
EFFECT ON COMPETITION.  PP. 42-44. 

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT SHOWS THAT
CONGRESS CONSIDERED IT TO BE AN EVIL THAT A LARGE BUYER COULD SECURE A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER A SMALL BUYER SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE FORMER'S
QUANTITY PURCHASING POWER; AND THE ACT WAS PASSED TO DEPRIVE A LARGE
BUYER OF SUCH ADVANTAGES EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT A LOWER PRICE COULD
BE JUSTIFIED BY REASON OF A SELLER'S DIMINISHED COSTS DUE TO QUANTITY
PRODUCTION, DELIVERY OR SALE, OR BY REASON OF THE SELLER'S GOOD FAITH
EFFORT TO MEET THE EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.  PP. 43-44. 

3.  UNDER THE ACT THE BURDEN IS UPON THE SELLER TO PROVE THAT ITS
QUANTITY DISCOUNT DIFFERENTIALS WERE JUSTIFIED BY COST SAVINGS; TO
ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF A "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE" IN A CASE
INVOLVING COMPETITIVE INJURY BETWEEN A SELLER'S CUSTOMERS, THE
COMMISSION NEED ONLY PROVE THAT THE SELLER HAS CHARGED ONE PURCHASER A
HIGHER PRICE FOR LIKE GOODS THAN HE HAS CHARGED ONE OR MORE OF THE
PURCHASER'S COMPETITORS.  PP. 44-45. 

4.  THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS MUST IN FACT
HAVE HARMED COMPETITION, BUT ONLY THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE
POSSIBILITY THEY MAY HAVE THAT EFFECT.  P. 46. 

5.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF
CERTAIN MERCHANTS WERE INJURED WHEN THEY HAD TO PAY RESPONDENT
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE FOR THEIR GOODS THAN THEIR COMPETITORS HAD TO PAY
CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF INJURY TO COMPETITION.  PP. 46-47. 

6.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF INJURY TO COMPETITION WERE
ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  PP. 47-51. 

(A)  THE EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT'S QUANTITY DISCOUNTS RESULTED IN
PRICE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN COMPETING PURCHASERS SUFFICIENT IN AMOUNT
TO INFLUENCE THEIR RESALE PRICE WAS IN ITSELF ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE
FINDINGS THAT THE EFFECT OF SUCH PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS "MAY BE
SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION  ...  AND TO INJURE, DESTROY, AND
PREVENT COMPETITION."  P. 47. 

(B) THE EVIDENCE WAS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF
REASONABLY POSSIBLE INJURY TO COMPETITION FROM RESPONDENT'S PRICE
DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN COMPETING CARLOAD AND LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
PURCHASERS.  SUCH DISCOUNTS, LIKE ALL OTHERS, CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY A
SELLER WHO PROVES THAT THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DISCOUNT IS BASED ON HIS
ACTUAL SAVINGS IN COST; BUT HERE THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO MAKE SUCH
PROOF.  PP. 47-48. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT'S LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SALES ARE VERY
SMALL IN COMPARISON WITH THE TOTAL VOLUME OF ITS BUSINESS, AND THE FACT
THAT SALT IS A SMALL ITEM IN MOST WHOLESALE AND RETAIL BUSINESSES AND
IN CONSUMERS' BUDGETS, DO NOT REQUIRE REJECTION OF THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING THAT THE EFFECT OF THE CARLOAD DISCRIMINATION MAY SUBSTANTIALLY
LESSEN COMPETITION AND MAY INJURE COMPETITION BETWEEN PURCHASERS WHO
ARE GRANTED AND THOSE WHO ARE DENIED THIS DISCRIMINATORY DISCOUNT.  PP.
48-50. 

(D)  THE POSSIBILITY THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER MIGHT
LEAD RESPONDENT TO INCREASE PRICES TO ITS CARLOAD PURCHASERS CANNOT
JUSTIFY REFUSAL OF THE REVIEWING COURT TO DECREE ENFORCEMENT.  P. 50. 

(E)  IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT THERE IS A "REASONABLE POSSIBILITY" THAT
COMPETITION MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A PRACTICE WHEREBY
MANUFACTURERS AND PRODUCERS SELL THEIR GOODS TO SOME CUSTOMERS
SUBSTANTIALLY CHEAPER THAN THEY SELL LIKE GOODS TO COMPETITORS OF SUCH
CUSTOMERS.  P. 50. 

7.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN PROVISOS WHICH THIS COURT REJECTS,
THE CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 51-55. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, SO FAR AS HERE APPROVED, IS SPECIFICALLY
AIMED AT THE PRICING PRACTICES FOUND UNLAWFUL, AND IS NEITHER TOO BROAD
NOR CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
312 U.S. 426.  PP. 51-52. 

(B)  PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER WHICH FORBID RESPONDENT FROM SELLING ITS
PRODUCT, REGARDLESS OF QUANTITIES, TO SOME WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS AT
A PRICE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH IT CHARGED COMPETING WHOLESALERS AND
RETAILERS FOR THE SAME GRADE, ARE HERE APPROVED.  PP. 52-53. 

(C)  PROVISOS PERMITTING 5-CENTS-PER-CASE DIFFERENTIALS IF THEY DO
NOT "TEND TO LESSEN, INJURE, OR DESTROY COMPETITION" ARE HERE REJECTED
BECAUSE THE QUALIFYING CLAUSE TENDS TO SHIFT TO THE COURTS A
RESPONSIBILITY IN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH CONGRESS HAS PRIMARILY
ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION.  PP. 53-55. 

(D)  SECTION 2(A) OF THE ACT AUTHORIZES A PROVISION OF THE ORDER
FORBIDDING SALES BY RESPONDENT TO ANY RETAILER AT PRICES LOWER THAN
THOSE CHARGED WHOLESALERS WHOSE CUSTOMERS COMPETE WITH SUCH RETAILER. 
P. 55. 

8.  ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE, THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO RECONSIDER THE PROVISOS IN ITS ORDER WHICH PERMIT 5-CENTS-PER-CASE
DIFFERENTIALS IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S REJECTION OF THE QUALIFYING
CLAUSES, AND TO REFASHION THESE PROVISOS AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY. 
P. 55. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. MORTON SALT CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IN A
PROCEEDING AGAINST RESPONDENT UNDER THE AMENDED CLAYTON ACT, TO
TERMINATE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS, 39 F.T.C. 35, WAS SET
ASIDE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  162 F.2D 949.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 850.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 55. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING, FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT, WHICH MANUFACTURES AND SELLS TABLE SALT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, HAD DISCRIMINATED IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF
LIKE GRADES AND QUALITIES, AND CONCLUDED THAT SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS WERE
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 730, AS AMENDED BY
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, 49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13.  FN1  IT
ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  39 F.T.C. 35.  FN2  UPON
PETITION OF THE RESPONDENT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND ORDER, DIRECTED THE
COMMISSION TO DISMISS ITS COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT, AND DENIED A
CROSS PETITION OF THE COMMISSION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  162
F.2D 949.  THE COURT'S JUDGMENT RESTED ON ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT,
ITS HOLDING THAT CRUCIAL FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION WERE EITHER NOT
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OR WERE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE, AND ITS
CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS TOO BROAD.  SINCE QUESTIONS
OF IMPORTANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT WERE
PRESENTED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 850.  DISPOSITION OF THESE
QUESTIONS REQUIRES ONLY A BRIEF NARRATION OF THE FACTS. 

RESPONDENT MANUFACTURES SEVERAL DIFFERENT BRANDS OF TABLE SALT  FN3
AND SELLS THEM DIRECTLY TO (1) WHOLESALERS OR JOBBERS, WHO IN TURN
RESELL TO THE RETAIL TRADE, AND (2) LARGE RETAILERS, INCLUDING CHAIN
STORE RETAILERS.  RESPONDENT SELLS ITS FINEST BRAND OF TABLE SALT,
KNOWN AS BLUE LABEL, ON WHAT IT TERMS A STANDARD QUANTITY DISCOUNT
SYSTEM AVAILABLE TO ALL CUSTOMERS.  UNDER THIS SYSTEM THE PURCHASERS
PAY A DELIVERED PRICE AND THE COST TO BOTH WHOLESALE AND RETAIL
PURCHASERS OF THIS BRAND DIFFERS ACCORDING TO THE QUANTITIES BOUGHT. 
THESE PRICES ARE AS FOLLOWS, AFTER MAKING ALLOWANCE FOR REBATES AND
DISCOUNTS:

                                            PER CASE 

LESS-THAN-CARLOAD PURCHASES.................................
$1.60 

CARLOAD PURCHASES...........................................
1.50 

5,000-CASE PURCHASES IN ANY CONSECUTIVE 12 MONTHS...........
1.40 

50,000-CASE PURCHASES IN ANY CONSECUTIVE 12 MONTHS..........
1.35 

ONLY FIVE COMPANIES HAVE EVER BOUGHT SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES OF
RESPONDENT'S SALT TO OBTAIN THE $1.35 PER CASE PRICE.  THESE COMPANIES
COULD BUY IN SUCH QUANTITIES BECAUSE THEY OPERATE LARGE CHAINS OF
RETAIL STORES IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.  FN4  AS A RESULT OF
THIS LOW PRICE THESE FIVE COMPANIES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SELL BLUE LABEL
SALT AT RETAIL CHEAPER THAN WHOLESALE PURCHASERS FROM RESPONDENT COULD
REASONABLY SELL THE SAME BRAND OF SALT TO INDEPENDENTLY OPERATED RETAIL
STORES, MANY OF WHOM COMPETED WITH THE LOCAL OUTLETS OF THE FIVE CHAIN
STORES. 

RESPONDENT'S TABLE SALTS, OTHER THAN BLUE LABEL, ARE ALSO SOLD UNDER
A QUANTITY DISCOUNT SYSTEM DIFFERING SLIGHTLY FROM THAT USED IN SELLING
BLUE LABEL.  SALES OF THESE OTHER BRANDS IN LESS-THAN-CARLOAD LOTS ARE
MADE AT LIST PRICE PLUS FREIGHT FROM PLANT TO DESTINATION.  CARLOAD
PURCHASERS ARE GRANTED APPROXIMATELY A 5 PER CENT DISCOUNT;
APPROXIMATELY A 10 PER CENT DISCOUNT IS GRANTED TO PURCHASERS WHO BUY
AS MUCH AS $50,000 WORTH OF ALL BRANDS OF SALT IN ANY CONSECUTIVE
TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD.  RESPONDENT'S QUANTITY DISCOUNTS ON BLUE LABEL AND
ON OTHER TABLE SALTS WERE ENJOYED BY CERTAIN WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS
WHO COMPETED WITH OTHER WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS TO WHOM THESE
DISCOUNTS WERE REFUSED. 

IN ADDITION TO THESE STANDARD QUANTITY DISCOUNTS, SPECIAL ALLOWANCES
WERE GRANTED CERTAIN FAVORED CUSTOMERS WHO COMPETED WITH OTHER
CUSTOMERS TO WHOM THEY WERE DENIED.  FN5 

FIRST.  RESPONDENT'S BASIC CONTENTION, WHICH IT ARGUES THIS CASE
HINGES UPON, IS THAT ITS "STANDARD QUANTITY DISCOUNTS, AVAILABLE TO ALL
ON EQUAL TERMS, AS CONTRASTED, FOR EXAMPLE, TO HIDDEN OR SPECIAL
REBATES, ALLOWANCES, PRICES OR DISCOUNTS, ARE NOT DISCRIMINATORY WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT."  THEORETICALLY, THESE
DISCOUNTS ARE EQUALLY AVAILABLE TO ALL, BUT FUNCTIONALLY THEY ARE NOT. 
FOR AS THE RECORD INDICATES (IF REFERENCE TO IT ON THIS POINT WERE
NECESSARY) NO SINGLE INDEPENDENT RETAIL GROCERY STORE, AND PROBABLY NO
SINGLE WHOLESALER, BOUGHT AS MANY AS 50,000 CASES OR AS MUCH AS $50,000
WORTH OF TABLE SALT IN ONE YEAR.  FURTHERMORE, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT,
WHILE CERTAIN PURCHASERS WERE ENJOYING ONE OR MORE OF RESPONDENT'S
STANDARD QUANTITY DISCOUNTS, SOME OF THEIR COMPETITORS MADE PURCHASES
IN SUCH SMALL QUANTITIES THAT THEY COULD NOT QUALIFY FOR ANY OF
RESPONDENT'S DISCOUNTS, EVEN THOSE BASED ON CARLOAD SHIPMENTS.  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR THAT CONGRESS CONSIDERED IT TO BE AN EVIL THAT A LARGE BUYER
COULD SECURE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER A SMALL BUYER SOLELY BECAUSE
OF THE LARGE BUYER'S QUANTITY PURCHASING ABILITY.  THE ROBINSON-PATMAN
ACT WAS PASSED TO DEPRIVE A LARGE BUYER OF SUCH ADVANTAGES EXCEPT TO
THE EXTENT THAT A LOWER PRICE COULD BE JUSTIFIED BY REASON OF A
SELLER'S DIMINISHED COSTS DUE TO QUANTITY MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY OR
SALE, OR BY REASON OF THE SELLER'S GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO MEET A
COMPETITOR'S EQUALLY LOW PRICE. 

NOTHING CONTAINED IN IT SHOULD PREVENT "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE  ...
ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN THE GRADE, QUALITY, OR QUANTITY OF THE
COMMODITY SOLD, OR THAT MAKES ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE
COST OF SELLING OR TRANSPORTATION ...  "  THAT SECTION HAS BEEN
CONSTRUED AS PERMITTING QUANTITY DISCOUNTS, SUCH AS THOSE HERE, WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF THE SELLER'S ACTUAL SAVINGS IN COST
ATTRIBUTABLE TO QUANTITY SALES OR QUANTITY DELIVERIES.  GOODYEAR TIRE &
RUBBER CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 101 F.2D 620.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
REPORT ON THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT CONSIDERED THAT THE CLAYTON ACT'S
PROVISO ALLOWING QUANTITY DISCOUNTS SO WEAKENED SEC. 2 "AS TO RENDER IT
INADEQUATE, IF NOT ALMOST A NULLITY."  FN6  THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED
THE PRESENT ROBINSON-PATMAN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 2 "OF GREAT IMPORTANCE." 
ITS PURPOSE WAS TO LIMIT "THE USE OF QUANTITY PRICE DIFFERENTIALS TO
THE SPHERE OF ACTUAL COST DIFFERENCES.  OTHERWISE," THE REPORT
CONTINUED, "SUCH DIFFERENTIALS WOULD BECOME INSTRUMENTS OF FAVOR AND
PRIVILEGE AND WEAPONS OF COMPETITIVE OPPRESSION."  FN7  THE SENATE
COMMITTEE REPORTING THE BILL EMPHASIZED THE SAME PURPOSE,  FN8  AS DID
THE CONGRESSMAN IN CHARGE OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT WHEN EXPLAINING IT
TO THE HOUSE JUST BEFORE FINAL PASSAGE.  FN9  AND IT WAS IN FURTHERANCE
OF THIS AVOWED PURPOSE - TO PROTECT COMPETITION FROM ALL PRICE
DIFFERENTIALS EXCEPT THOSE BASED IN FULL ON COST SAVINGS - THAT SEC.
2(A) OF THE AMENDMENT PROVIDED "THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL
PREVENT DIFFERENTIALS WHICH MAKE ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN
THE COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR DELIVERY RESULTING FROM THE DIFFERING
METHODS OR QUANTITIES IN WHICH SUCH COMMODITIES ARE TO SUCH PURCHASERS
SOLD OR DELIVERED." 

THE FOREGOING REFERENCES, WITHOUT REGARD TO OTHERS WHICH COULD BE
MENTIONED, ESTABLISH THAT RESPONDENT'S STANDARD QUANTITY DISCOUNTS ARE
DISCRIMINATORY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, AND ARE PROHIBITED BY IT
WHENEVER THEY HAVE THE DEFINED EFFECT ON COMPETITION.  SEE FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. STALEY CO., 324 U.S. 746, 751. 

SECOND.  THE GOVERNMENT INTERPRETS THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AS HAVING HELD THAT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH "DISCRIMINATION IN
PRICE" UNDER THE ACT THE BURDEN RESTED ON THE COMMISSION TO PROVE THAT
RESPONDENT'S QUANTITY DISCOUNT DIFFERENTIALS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED BY ITS
COST SAVINGS.  FN10  RESPONDENT DOES NOT SO UNDERSTAND THE COURT OF
APPEALS DECISION, AND FURTHERMORE ADMITS THAT NO SUCH BURDEN RESTS ON
THE COMMISSION.  WE AGREE THAT IT DOES NOT.  FIRST, THE GENERAL RULE OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING JUSTIFICATION OR
EXEMPTION UNDER A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITIONS OF A STATUTE
GENERALLY RESTS ON ONE WHO CLAIMS ITS BENEFITS,  FN11  REQUIRES THAT
RESPONDENT UNDERTAKE THIS PROOF UNDER THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(A). 
SECONDLY, SEC. 2(B) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSES THE BURDEN OF
SHOWING JUSTIFICATION UPON ONE WHO IS SHOWN TO HAVE DISCRIMINATED IN
PRICES.  AND THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE BILL EXPLAINED THAT THE
PROVISOS OF SEC. 2(A) THROW "UPON ANY WHO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THOSE
EXCEPTIONS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THEIR CASE FALLS WITHIN THEM." 
FN12  WE THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, AND THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY JUST CITED, SHOW THAT CONGRESS MEANT BY USING THE WORDS
"DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE" IN SEC. 2 THAT IN A CASE INVOLVING
COMPETITIVE INJURY BETWEEN A SELLER'S CUSTOMERS THE COMMISSION NEED
ONLY PROVE THAT A SELLER HAD CHARGED ONE PURCHASER A HIGHER PRICE FOR
LIKE GOODS THAN HE HAD CHARGED ONE OR MORE OF THE PURCHASER'S
COMPETITORS.  FN13 THIS CONSTRUCTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST
SENTENCE OF SEC. 2(A) IN WHICH IT IS MADE UNLAWFUL "TO DISCRIMINATE IN
PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES OF LIKE GRADE AND
QUALITY, WHERE EITHER OR ANY OF THE PURCHASES INVOLVED IN SUCH
DISCRIMINATION ARE IN COMMERCE  ...  AND WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH
DISCRIMINATION MAY BE  ...  TO INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT COMPETITION
WITH ANY PERSON WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF
SUCH DISCRIMINATION, OR WITH CUSTOMERS OF EITHER OF THEM:  ...  " 

THIRD.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE FINDINGS FAIL TO SHOW THAT RESPONDENT'S
DISCRIMINATORY DISCOUNTS HAD IN FACT CAUSED INJURY TO COMPETITION. 
THERE ARE SPECIFIC FINDINGS THAT SUCH INJURIES HAD RESULTED FROM
RESPONDENT'S DISCOUNTS, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
COMMISSION TO FIND THAT INJURY HAS ACTUALLY RESULTED.  THE STATUTE
REQUIRES NO MORE THAN THAT THE EFFECT OF THE PROHIBITED PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS "MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION  ...  OR TO
INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT COMPETITION."  AFTER A CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROVISION OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, WE HAVE
SAID THAT "THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS MUST
IN FACT HAVE HARMED COMPETITION, BUT ONLY THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE
POSSIBILITY THAT THEY 'MAY' HAVE SUCH AN EFFECT."  CORN PRODUCTS CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 324 U.S. 726, 742.  FN14  HERE THE COMMISSION
FOUND WHAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE OBVIOUS, THAT THE COMPETITIVE
OPPORTUNITIES OF CERTAIN MERCHANTS WERE INJURED WHEN THEY HAD TO PAY
RESPONDENT SUBSTANTIALLY MORE FOR THEIR GOODS THAN THEIR COMPETITORS
HAD TO PAY.  THE FINDINGS ARE ADEQUATE. 

FOURTH.  IT IS URGED THAT THE EVIDENCE IS INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF INJURY TO COMPETITION.  FN15  AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT TO BAR
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES UPON THE "REASONABLE POSSIBILITY" THAT DIFFERENT
PRICES FOR LIKE GOODS TO COMPETING PURCHASERS MAY HAVE THE DEFINED
EFFECT ON COMPETITION.  FN16  THAT RESPONDENT'S QUANTITY DISCOUNTS DID
RESULT IN PRICE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN COMPETING PURCHASERS SUFFICIENT
IN AMOUNT TO INFLUENCE THEIR RESALE PRICES OF SALT WAS SHOWN BY
EVIDENCE.  THIS SHOWING IN ITSELF IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE
COMMISSION'S APPROPRIATE FINDINGS THAT THE EFFECT OF SUCH PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS "MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION  ...  AND
TO INJURE, DESTROY, AND PREVENT COMPETITION." 

THE ADEQUACY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF
REASONABLY POSSIBLE INJURY TO COMPETITION FROM RESPONDENT'S PRICE
DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN COMPETING CARLOAD AND LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
PURCHASERS IS SINGLED OUT FOR SPECIAL ATTACKS HERE.  IT IS SUGGESTED
THAT IN CONSIDERING THE ADEQUACY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW INJURY TO
COMPETITION RESPONDENT'S CARLOAD DISCOUNTS AND ITS OTHER QUANTITY
DISCOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED ALIKE.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE IS
AN OBVIOUS SAVING TO A SELLER WHO DELIVERS GOODS IN CARLOAD LOTS. 
ASSUMING THIS TO BE TRUE, THAT FACT WOULD NOT TEND TO DISPROVE INJURY
TO THE MERCHANT COMPELLED TO PAY THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD PRICE.  FOR A
TEN-CENT CARLOAD PRICE DIFFERENTIAL AGAINST A MERCHANT WOULD INJURE HIM
COMPETITIVELY JUST AS MUCH AS A TEN-CENT DIFFERENTIAL UNDER ANY OTHER
NAME.  HOWEVER RELEVANT THE SEPARATE CARLOAD ARGUMENT MIGHT BE TO THE
QUESTION OF JUSTIFYING A DIFFERENTIAL BY COST SAVINGS, IT HAS NO
RELEVANCY IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE DIFFERENTIAL WORKS AN INJURY TO A
COMPETITOR.  SINCE CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO GIVE CARLOAD DISCOUNTS
ANY FAVORED CLASSIFICATION WE CANNOT DO SO.  SUCH DISCOUNTS, LIKE ALL
OTHERS, CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY A SELLER WHO PROVES THAT THE FULL AMOUNT OF
THE DISCOUNT IS BASED ON HIS ACTUAL SAVINGS IN COST.  THE TROUBLE WITH
THIS PHASE OF RESPONDENT'S CASE IS THAT IT HAS THUS FAR FAILED TO MAKE
SUCH PROOF.    IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT RESPONDENT'S LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
SALES ARE VERY SMALL IN COMPARISON WITH THE TOTAL VOLUME OF ITS
BUSINESS  FN17  AND FOR THAT REASON WE SHOULD REJECT THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING THAT THE EFFECT OF THE CARLOAD DISCRIMINATION MAY SUBSTANTIALLY
LESSEN COMPETITION AND MAY INJURE COMPETITION BETWEEN PURCHASERS WHO
ARE GRANTED AND THOSE WHO ARE DENIED THIS DISCRIMINATORY DISCOUNT.  TO
SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FACT THAT SALT IS A
SMALL ITEM IN MOST WHOLESALE AND RETAIL BUSINESSES AND IN CONSUMERS'
BUDGETS.  FOR SEVERAL REASONS WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION. 
THERE ARE MANY ARTICLES IN A GROCERY STORE THAT, CONSIDERED SEPARATELY,
ARE COMPARATIVELY SMALL PARTS OF A MERCHANT'S STOCK.  CONGRESS INTENDED
TO PROTECT A MERCHANT FROM COMPETITIVE INJURY ATTRIBUTABLE TO
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES ON ANY OR ALL GOODS SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
WHETHER THE PARTICULAR GOODS CONSTITUTED A MAJOR OR MINOR PORTION OF
HIS STOCK.  SINCE A GROCERY STORE CONSISTS OF MANY COMPARATIVELY SMALL
ARTICLES, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY EFFECTIVELY TO PROTECT A GROCER FROM
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES EXCEPT BY APPLYING THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACT TO
EACH INDIVIDUAL ARTICLE IN THE STORE. 

FURTHERMORE, IN ENACTING THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, CONGRESS WAS
ESPECIALLY CONCERNED WITH PROTECTING SMALL BUSINESSES WHICH WERE UNABLE
TO BUY IN QUANTITIES, SUCH AS THE MERCHANTS HERE WHO PURCHASED IN LESS
THAN-CARLOAD LOTS.  TO THIS END IT UNDERTOOK TO STRENGTHEN THIS VERY
PHASE OF THE OLD CLAYTON ACT.  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT EMPHASIZED A BELIEF THAT SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT HAD "BEEN
TOO RESTRICTIVE, IN REQUIRING A SHOWING OF GENERAL INJURY TO
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS  ...  "  THE NEW PROVISION, HERE CONTROLLING,
WAS INTENDED TO JUSTIFY A FINDING OF INJURY TO COMPETITION BY A SHOWING
OF "INJURY TO THE COMPETITOR VICTIMIZED BY THE DISCRIMINATION."  N18
SINCE THERE WAS EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
PURCHASERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN HANDICAPPED IN COMPETING WITH THE MORE
FAVORED CARLOAD PURCHASERS BY THE DIFFERENTIAL IN PRICE ESTABLISHED BY
RESPONDENT, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT COMPETITION
MIGHT HAVE THEREBY BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED OR HAVE BEEN INJURED
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 

APPREHENSION IS EXPRESSED IN THIS COURT THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER AGAINST RESPONDENT'S CONTINUED VIOLATIONS OF THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT MIGHT LEAD RESPONDENT TO RAISE TABLE SALT PRICES TO
ITS CARLOAD PURCHASERS.  SUCH A CONCEIVABLE, THOUGH, WE THINK, HIGHLY
IMPROBABLE, CONTINGENCY, COULD AFFORD US NO REASON FOR UPSETTING THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND DECLINING TO DIRECT COMPLIANCE WITH A STATUTE
PASSED BY CONGRESS. 

THE COMMISSION HERE WENT MUCH FURTHER IN RECEIVING EVIDENCE THAN THE
STATUTE REQUIRES.  IT HEARD TESTIMONY FROM MANY WITNESSES IN VARIOUS
PARTS OF THE COUNTRY TO SHOW THAT THEY HAD SUFFERED ACTUAL FINANCIAL
LOSSES ON ACCOUNT OF RESPONDENT'S DISCRIMINATORY PRICES.  EXPERTS WERE
OFFERED TO PROVE THE TENDENCY OF INJURY FROM SUCH PRICES.  THE EVIDENCE
COVERS ABOUT TWO THOUSAND PAGES, LARGELY DEVOTED TO THIS SINGLE ISSUE -
INJURY TO COMPETITION.  IT WOULD GREATLY HANDICAP EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE ACT TO REQUIRE TESTIMONY TO SHOW THAT WHICH WE BELIEVE TO BE
SELF-EVIDENT, NAMELY, THAT THERE IS A "REASONABLE POSSIBILITY" THAT
COMPETITION MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A PRACTICE UNDER WHICH
MANUFACTURERS AND PRODUCERS SELL THEIR GOODS TO SOME CUSTOMERS
SUBSTANTIALLY CHEAPER THAN THEY SELL LIKE GOODS TO THE COMPETITORS OF
THESE CUSTOMERS.  THIS SHOWING IN ITSELF IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY OUR
CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF INJURY TO COMPETITION WERE
ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. 

FIFTH.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD, AND RESPONDENT HERE
CONTENDS, THAT THE ORDER WAS TOO SWEEPING, THAT IT REQUIRED THE
RESPONDENT TO "CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS GENERALLY AT ITS PERIL," AND THAT
THE COMMISSION HAD EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN ENTERING SUCH AN
ORDER.  FN19  RELIANCE FOR THIS CONTENTION CHIEFLY RESTS ON LABOR BOARD
V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426.  THAT CASE HELD THAT THE LABOR
BOARD COULD NOT BROADLY ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE MERELY BECAUSE A SINGLE VIOLATION OF ONE OF THE ACT'S MANY
PROVISIONS HAD BEEN FOUND.  ID. AT 435-436.  BUT IT ALSO POINTED OUT
THAT THE LABOR BOARD, "HAVING FOUND THE ACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE  ...  IS FREE TO RESTRAIN THE PRACTICE AND OTHER
LIKE OR RELATED UNLAWFUL ACTS."  IT THERE POINTED OUT THAT THIS COURT
HAD APPLIED A SIMILAR RULE TO A FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ORDER IN
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BEECH-NUT CO., 257 U.S. 441, 455.  IN THE
LATTER CASE THE COURT NOT ONLY APPROVED RESTRAINT OF THE UNLAWFUL PRICE
FIXING PRACTICES FOUND, BUT "ANY OTHER EQUIVALENT COOPERATIVE MEANS OF
ACCOMPLISHING THE MAINTENANCE OF PRICES FIXED BY THE COMPANY."  SEE
ALSO MAY DEP'T STORES CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 326 U.S. 376, 392-393.  WE
THINK THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HERE, SAVE FOR THE PROVISOS IN (A) AND (B)
LATER CONSIDERED, IS SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT THE PRICING PRACTICES FOUND
UNLAWFUL, AND THEREFORE DOES NOT RUN COUNTER TO THE HOLDING IN THE
EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO. CASE.  CERTAINLY THE ORDER IN ITS RELATION TO
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IS ONLY DESIGNED "TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS,
THE THREAT OF WHICH IN THE FUTURE IS INDICATED BECAUSE OF THEIR
SIMILARITY OR RELATION TO THOSE UNLAWFUL ACTS WHICH THE BOARD
(COMMISSION) HAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE  ...  (RESPONDENT)
IN THE PAST."  LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., SUPRA, 436-437. 

THE SPECIFIC RESTRAINTS OF PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF THE ORDER ARE
IDENTICAL, EXCEPT THAT ONE APPLIES TO PRICES RESPONDENT CHARGES
WHOLESALERS AND THE OTHER TO PRICES CHARGED RETAILERS.  IT IS SEEN THAT
THE FIRST PART OF THESE PARAGRAPHS, PRECEDING THE PROVISOS, WOULD
ABSOLUTELY BAR RESPONDENT FROM SELLING ITS TABLE SALT, REGARDLESS OF
QUANTITIES, TO SOME WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS AT PRICES DIFFERENT FROM
THAT WHICH IT CHARGED COMPETING WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS FOR THE SAME
GRADE OF SALT.  THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD BEEN
CONTINUOUSLY ENGAGED IN SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS THROUGH THE USE OF
DISCOUNTS, REBATES AND ALLOWANCES.  IT HAD FURTHER FOUND THAT
RESPONDENT HAD FAILED TO SHOW JUSTIFICATION FOR THESE DIFFERENCES BY
REASON OF A CORRESPONDING DIFFERENCE IN ITS COSTS.  THUS THE RESTRAINTS
IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION UPON RESPONDENT ARE CONCERNED WITH THE
PRECISE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE ENGAGED FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS.  TRUE, THE COMMISSION DID NOT MERELY PROHIBIT FUTURE
DISCOUNTS, REBATES, AND ALLOWANCES IN THE EXACT MATHEMATICAL
PERCENTAGES PREVIOUSLY UTILIZED BY RESPONDENT.  HAD THE ORDER DONE NO
MORE THAN THAT, RESPONDENT COULD HAVE CONTINUED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
UNLAWFUL PRACTICES DESPITE THE ORDER BY SIMPLY ALTERING THE DISCOUNT
PERCENTAGES AND THE QUANTITIES OF SALT TO WHICH THE PERCENTAGES
APPLIED.  PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) UP TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISOS ARE
APPROVED. 

THE PROVISOS IN (A) AND (B) PRESENT A MORE DIFFICULT PROBLEM.  THEY
READ:  "PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SHALL NOT PREVENT PRICE
DIFFERENCES OF LESS THAN FIVE CENTS PER CASE WHICH DO NOT TEND TO
LESSEN, INJURE, OR DESTROY COMPETITION AMONG SUCH WHOLESALERS
(RETAILERS)."  THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE PROVISOS, BUT FOR THE SECOND
QUALIFYING CLAUSE, WOULD UNEQUIVOCALLY PERMIT RESPONDENT TO MAINTAIN
PRICE DIFFERENTIALS OF LESS THAN FIVE CENTS AS BETWEEN COMPETING
WHOLESALERS AND AS BETWEEN COMPETING RETAILERS.  FN20  THIS CLAUSE
WOULD APPEAR TO BENEFIT RESPONDENT, AND NO CHALLENGE TO IT, STANDING
ALONE, IS HERE RAISED.  BUT RESPONDENT SERIOUSLY OBJECTS TO THE SECOND
CLAUSE OF THE PROVISO WHICH QUALIFIES THE PERMISSIVE LESS-THAN-FIVE
CENT DIFFERENTIALS PROVIDED IN THE FIRST CLAUSE.  THAT QUALIFICATION
PERMITS SUCH DIFFERENTIALS ONLY IF THEY DO "NOT TEND TO LESSEN, INJURE,
OR DESTROY COMPETITION."  RESPONDENT POINTS OUT THAT WHERE A
DIFFERENTIAL TENDS IN NO WAY TO INJURE COMPETITION, THE ACT PERMITS IT.
"THE COMMISSION," SO RESPONDENT URGES, "MUST EITHER FIND AND RULE THAT
A GIVEN DIFFERENTIAL INJURES COMPETITION, AND THEN PROHIBIT IT, OR IT
MUST LEAVE THAT DIFFERENTIAL ENTIRELY ALONE."  WHETHER, AND UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, THE COMMISSION MIGHT PROHIBIT DIFFERENTIALS
WHICH DO NOT OF THEMSELVES TEND TO INJURE COMPETITION, WE NEED NOT
DECIDE, FOR THE COMMISSION HAS NOT IN EITHER (A) OR (B) TAKEN ACTION
WHICH FORBIDS SUCH NONINJURIOUS DIFFERENTIALS.  BUT OTHER OBJECTIONS
RAISED TO THE QUALIFYING CLAUSES REQUIRE CONSIDERATION. 

ONE OF THE REASONS FOR ENTRUSTING ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT PRIMARILY
TO THE COMMISSION, A BODY OF EXPERTS, WAS TO AUTHORIZE IT TO HEAR
EVIDENCE AS TO GIVEN DIFFERENTIAL PRACTICES AND TO MAKE FINDINGS
CONCERNING POSSIBLE INJURY TO COMPETITION.  SUCH FINDINGS ARE TO FORM
THE BASIS FOR CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS DEFINITELY RESTRAINING THE
PARTICULAR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES WHICH MAY TEND TO INJURE
COMPETITION WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.  THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ACT, INSOFAR AS THE ACT ENTRUSTS ADMINISTRATION TO THE COMMISSION,
WOULD BE GREATLY IMPAIRED IF, WITHOUT COMPELLING REASONS NOT HERE
PRESENT, THE COMMISSION'S CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS DID NO MORE THAN
SHIFT TO THE COURTS IN SUBSEQUENT CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR THEIR
VIOLATION THE VERY FACT QUESTIONS OF INJURY TO COMPETITION, ETC., WHICH
THE ACT REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE AS THE BASIS FOR ITS
ORDER.  THE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURTS, ONCE A COMMISSION
ORDER HAS BECOME FINAL EITHER BY LAPSE OF TIME OR BY COURT APPROVAL, 15
U.S.C. SECS. 21, 45, IS TO ADJUDICATE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ORDER'S
VIOLATION, NOT QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH SUPPORT THAT VALID ORDER. 

WHETHER ON THIS RECORD THE COMMISSION WAS COMPELLED TO EXEMPT CERTAIN
DIFFERENTIALS OF LESS THAN FIVE CENTS WE DO NOT DECIDE.  BUT ONCE THE
COMMISSION EXEMPTED THE DIFFERENTIALS IN QUESTION FROM ITS ORDER, WE
ARE CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT AS TO THOSE DIFFERENTIALS IT COULD NOT
THEN SHIFT TO THE COURTS A RESPONSIBILITY IN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS OF
TRYING ISSUES OF POSSIBLE INJURY TO COMPETITION, ISSUES WHICH CONGRESS
HAS PRIMARILY ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION. 

THIS LEAVES FOR CONSIDERATION THE OBJECTION TO PARAGRAPH (C) OF THE
ORDER WHICH READS:  "BY SELLING SUCH PRODUCTS TO ANY RETAILER AT PRICES
LOWER THAN PRICES CHARGED WHOLESALERS WHOSE CUSTOMERS COMPETE WITH SUCH
RETAILER."  THE ONLY CRITICISM HERE URGED TO (C) IS THAT IT BARS
RESPONDENT FROM SELLING TO A RETAILER AT A PRICE LOWER THAN THAT
CHARGED A WHOLESALER WHOSE CUSTOMERS COMPETE WITH THE RETAILER. 
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES WHICH TEND TO LESSEN OR INJURE COMPETITION WITH
"ANY PERSON WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH
DISCRIMINATION, OR WITH CUSTOMERS OF EITHER OF THEM."  THIS PROVISION
PLAINLY SUPPORTS PARAGRAPH (C) OF THE ORDER. 

WE SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PROVISOS
IN PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) PREVIOUSLY SET OUT.  SINCE THE QUALIFYING
CLAUSES CONSTITUTE AN IMPORTANT LIMITATION TO THE PROVISOS, WE THINK
THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER THE ENTIRE
PROVISOS IN LIGHT OF OUR REJECTION OF THE QUALIFYING CLAUSES, AND TO
REFASHION THESE PROVISOS AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY.  THIS THE
COMMISSION MAY DO UPON THE PRESENT EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OR IT MAY HEAR
OTHER EVIDENCE AND MAKE OTHER FINDINGS ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE,
SHOULD IT CONCLUDE TO DO SO.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. ROYAL MILLING
CO., 288 U.S. 212, 218. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
PROCEEDINGS ARE REMANDED TO THAT COURT TO BE DISPOSED OF IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 2(A) PROVIDES IN PART:  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, IN THE COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE, EITHER
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT
PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY, WHERE EITHER OR
ANY OF THE PURCHASES INVOLVED IN SUCH DISCRIMINATION ARE IN COMMERCE,
WHERE SUCH COMMODITIES ARE SOLD FOR USE, CONSUMPTION, OR RESALE WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES OR ANY TERRITORY THEREOF OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OR ANY INSULAR POSSESSION OR OTHER PLACE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION MAY BE
SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY
LINE OF COMMERCE, OR TO INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT COMPETITION WITH
ANY PERSON WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH
DISCRIMINATION, OR WITH CUSTOMERS OF EITHER OF THEM  ...  " 

FN2  THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS AND ORDER WERE MODIFIED BY THE COMMISSION
ON ITS OWN MOTION.  THE CONTROVERSY HERE DEALS ONLY WITH THE FINDINGS
AND ORDER AS MODIFIED. 

FN3  RESPONDENT ALSO PRODUCES AND SELLS OTHER KINDS OF SALT, BUT THE
TRADE PRACTICES HERE INVOLVED ONLY RELATE TO TABLE SALT. 

FN4  THESE CHAIN STORES ARE AMERICAN STORES COMPANY, NATIONAL TEA
COMPANY, KROGER GROCERY CO., SAFEWAY STORES, INC., AND GREAT ATLANTIC &
PACIFIC TEA COMPANY. 

FN5  ONE SUCH CUSTOMER, A WHOLESALER, RECEIVED A SPECIAL DISCOUNT OF
7 1/2 CENTS PER CASE ON PURCHASES OF CARLOAD LOTS OF BLUE LABEL SALT. 
RESPONDENT SOLD TO THIS WHOLESALER AT $1.42 1/2 PER CASE, ALTHOUGH
COMPETING WHOLESALERS WERE REQUIRED TO PAY $1.50 PER CASE ON CARLOAD
LOTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION ON THESE SPECIAL ALLOWANCES WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE, THAT THEY WERE NOT MAINTAINED TO MEET LOWER PRICES OF
RESPONDENT'S COMPETITORS, AND THAT THE ALLOWANCES WERE DISCRIMINATORY. 
IT NEVERTHELESS SET THE FINDINGS ASIDE ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING OF INJURY TO COMPETITION FROM THE DISCRIMINATIONS
ENGAGED IN BY RESPONDENT WAS TOO GENERAL AND HAD LITTLE EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT IT. WE THINK THE FINDING AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF INJURY TO
COMPETITION ON ACCOUNT OF THESE SPECIAL ALLOWANCES ARE SIMILAR TO THE
FINDING AND EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUANTITY DISCOUNT SYSTEM AND
NEED NOT BE SEPARATELY TREATED.    FN6  H.R. REP. NO. 2287, 74TH CONG.,
2D SESS. 7. 

FN7  ID. AT 9. 

FN8  SEN. REP. NO. 1502, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 4-6. 

FN9  80 CONG. REC. 9417.    FN10  SEE 42 ILL. L. REV. 556-561; 15 U.
OF CHI.  L. REV. 384-391; 60 HARV. L. REV. 1167-1169. 

FN11  JAVIERRE V. CENTRAL ALTAGRACIA, 217 U.S. 502, 507-508 AND CASES
CITED. 

FN12  SEN. REP. NO. 1502, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 3.  SEE ALSO 80 CONG.
REC. 3599, 8241, 9418. 

FN13  SEE MOSS, INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 148 F.2D 378, 379,
HOLDING THAT PROOF OF A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL IN ITSELF CONSTITUTED
"DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE," WHERE THE COMPETITIVE INJURY IN QUESTION WAS
BETWEEN SELLERS.  SEE ALSO FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CEMENT INSTITUTE,
333 U.S. 683, 721-726. 

FN14  THIS LANGUAGE IS TO BE READ ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT IN THE SAME CASE, DISCUSSING THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(A), AS
CONTAINED IN THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, IN RELATION TO SEC. 3 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT: 

"IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT SEC. 2(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE A FINDING THAT
THE DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE HAVE IN FACT HAD AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON
COMPETITION.  THE STATUTE IS DESIGNED TO REACH SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS 'IN
THEIR INCIPIENCY,' BEFORE THE HARM TO COMPETITION IS EFFECTED.  IT IS
ENOUGH THAT THEY 'MAY' HAVE THE PRESCRIBED EFFECT.  CF. STANDARD
FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258 U.S. 346, 356-357.  BUT AS WAS
HELD IN THE STANDARD FASHION CASE, SUPRA, WITH RESPECT TO THE LIKE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, PROHIBITING TYING CLAUSE
AGREEMENTS, THE EFFECT OF WHICH 'MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN
COMPETITION,' THE USE OF THE WORD 'MAY' WAS NOT TO PROHIBIT
DISCRIMINATIONS HAVING 'THE MERE POSSIBILITY' OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES,
BUT TO REACH THOSE WHICH WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE DEFINED EFFECT ON
COMPETITION."  324 U.S. AT 738; SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. LEXINGTON
MILL CO., 232 U.S. 399, 411. 

THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE ON THIS PROVISION OF
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT INDICATE THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO HAVE A BROADER
SCOPE THAN THE CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF THE OLD CLAYTON ACT.  SEE
NOTE 18 INFRA. 

FN15  AFTER DISCUSSING ALL OF RESPONDENT'S DISCRIMINATIONS, THE
COMMISSION STATED:  "THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE EFFECT OF THE
DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE, INCLUDING DISCOUNTS, REBATES, AND ALLOWANCES,
GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED HEREIN MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO
LESSEN COMPETITION IN THE LINE OF COMMERCE IN WHICH THE PURCHASER
RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF SAID DISCRIMINATORY PRICE IS ENGAGED AND TO
INJURE, DESTROY, AND PREVENT COMPETITION BETWEEN THOSE PURCHASERS
RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF SAID DISCRIMINATORY PRICES, DISCOUNTS,
REBATES, AND ALLOWANCES AND THOSE TO WHOM THEY ARE DENIED." 

FN16  THE STATUTE OUTLAWS ANY DISCRIMINATION THE EFFECT OF WHICH "MAY
BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION  ...  OR TO INJURE  ...
COMPETITION WITH ANY PERSON WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE
BENEFIT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION, OR WITH CUSTOMERS OF EITHER OF THEM:
...  " 

FN17  RESPONDENT INTRODUCED TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS INTENDED TO SHOW
THAT ONLY ONE-TENTH OF ONE PER CENT OF ITS SALES WERE MADE AT LESS-THAN
CARLOAD PRICES.  IT APPEARS THAT THIS FIGURE RELATES ONLY TO A SINGLE
ONE-YEAR PERIOD AND WAS OBTAINED BY LUMPING TOGETHER STATISTICS ON
RESPONDENT'S SALES OF TABLE SALT ALONG WITH THOSE ON SALES OF ITS OTHER
PRODUCTS, SUCH AS SALT TABLETS, COARSE ROCK SALT, AND SAL SODA.  SINCE
THIS PROCEEDING IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH DISCOUNTS ON TABLE SALTS, THESE
FIGURES ARE OF DUBIOUS VALUE.  FURTHERMORE, THEY ARE LIMITED TO SALES
IN RESPONDENT'S CHICAGO AREA, WHEREAS RESPONDENT CARRIED ON A NATION
WIDE BUSINESS. 

FN18  IN EXPLAINING THIS CLAUSE OF THE PROPOSED ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT,
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID: 

"THIS CLAUSE REPRESENTS A RECOMMENDED ADDITION TO THE BILL AS
REFERRED TO YOUR COMMITTEE.  IT TENDS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE BILL
OTHERWISE HARMLESS VIOLATIONS OF ITS LETTER, BUT ACCOMPLISHES A
SUBSTANTIAL BROADENING OF A SIMILAR CLAUSE NOW CONTAINED IN SECTION 2
OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  THE LATTER HAS IN PRACTICE BEEN TOO RESTRICTIVE,
IN REQUIRING A SHOWING OF GENERAL INJURY TO COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN
THE LINE OF COMMERCE CONCERNED; WHEREAS THE MORE IMMEDIATELY IMPORTANT
CONCERN IS IN INJURY TO THE COMPETITOR VICTIMIZED BY THE
DISCRIMINATION.  ONLY THROUGH SUCH INJURIES, IN FACT, CAN THE LARGER
GENERAL INJURY RESULT, AND TO CATCH THE WEED IN THE SEED WILL KEEP IT
FROM COMING TO FLOWER."  S. REP. NO. 1502, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 4.  SEE
ALSO H.R. REP. NO. 2287, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 8; 80 CONG. REC. 9417. 

FN19  THE PROHIBITING PARAGRAPHS OF THE ORDER WERE: 

"(A)  BY SELLING SUCH PRODUCTS TO SOME WHOLESALERS THEREOF AT PRICES
DIFFERENT FROM THE PRICES CHARGED OTHER WHOLESALERS WHO IN FACT COMPETE
IN THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH PRODUCTS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
THIS SHALL NOT PREVENT PRICE DIFFERENCES OF LESS THAN FIVE CENTS PER
CASE WHICH DO NOT TEND TO LESSEN, INJURE, OR DESTROY COMPETITION AMONG
SUCH WHOLESALERS. 

"(B)  BY SELLING SUCH PRODUCTS TO SOME RETAILERS THEREOF AT PRICES
DIFFERENT FROM THE PRICES CHARGED OTHER RETAILERS WHO IN FACT COMPETE
IN THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH PRODUCTS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
THIS SHALL NOT PREVENT PRICE DIFFERENCES OF LESS THAN FIVE CENTS PER
CASE WHICH DO NOT TEND TO LESSEN, INJURE, OR DESTROY COMPETITION AMONG
SUCH RETAILERS. 

"(C)  BY SELLING SUCH PRODUCTS TO ANY RETAILER AT PRICES LOWER THAN
PRICES CHARGED WHOLESALERS WHOSE CUSTOMERS COMPETE WITH SUCH RETAILER. 

"FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPARISON, THE TERM 'PRICE' AS USED IN THIS
ORDER TAKES INTO ACCOUNT DISCOUNTS, REBATES, ALLOWANCES, AND OTHER
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE." 

FN20  THE ONLY FINDING OF THE COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO
FIVE-CENT DIFFERENTIALS WAS: "SALT IS A STAPLE COMMODITY WITH A MEDIUM
TURNOVER AND IS GENERALLY SOLD BY WHOLESALERS TO THEIR RETAIL CUSTOMERS
ON A LOWER MARGIN OF PROFIT THAN THAT RECEIVED ON OTHER COMMODITIES. 
CONSEQUENTLY, THE PRICE AT WHICH THE WHOLESALER OFFERS HIS TABLE SALT
IS USUALLY CONTROLLING, AND A DIFFERENCE OF FIVE CENTS PER CASE MAY
RESULT IN THE LOSS OF A SALE TO A CUSTOMER, NOT ONLY OF THE SALT
INVOLVED BUT OF OTHER COMMODITIES AS WELL, THE ORDER FOR WHICH MIGHT BE
PLACED WITH THE SALE PURCHASE." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS,
DISSENTING IN PART. 

WHILE I AGREE WITH MUCH OF THE COURT'S OPINION, I CANNOT ACCEPT ITS
MOST SIGNIFICANT FEATURE, WHICH IS A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT THAT WILL SANCTION PROHIBITION OF ANY DISCOUNTS IF "THERE IS
A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY 'MAY' HAVE" THE EFFECT TO WIT:  TO
LESSEN, INJURE, DESTROY OR PREVENT COMPETITION.  I THINK THE LAW AS
WRITTEN BY THE CONGRESS AND AS ALWAYS INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT
REQUIRES THAT THE RECORD SHOW A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF THAT EFFECT. 
THE DIFFERENCE, AS EVERY LAWYER KNOWS, IS NOT UNIMPORTANT AND IN MANY
CASES WOULD BE DECISIVE. 

THE LAW RARELY AUTHORIZES JUDGMENTS ON PROOF OF MERE POSSIBILITIES. 
AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION THIS COURT HAS, AT LEAST THREE TIMES AND AS
LATE AS 1945, REFUSED TO INTERPRET THESE LAWS AS DOING SO.  IN 1922, IN
STANDARD FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258 U.S. 346, AT 356, A
UNANIMOUS COURT, CONSTRUING LIKE LANGUAGE IN SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT,
SAID:  "BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE PURPOSE IN USING THE WORD 'MAY'
WAS TO PROHIBIT THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF THE CONSEQUENCES DESCRIBED.  IT
WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT SUCH AGREEMENTS AS WOULD UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED PROBABLY LESSEN COMPETITION, OR CREATE AN
ACTUAL TENDENCY TO MONOPOLY." 

IN 1930, IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
280 U.S. 291, THE COURT SAID (AT P. 298) WITH RESPECT TO IDENTICAL
LANGUAGE IN SEC. 7 OF THE CLAYTON ACT:  "  ... THE ACT DEALS ONLY WITH
SUCH ACQUISITIONS AS PROBABLY WILL RESULT IN LESSENING COMPETITION TO A
SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE, STANDARD FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258
U.S. 346, 357  ...  "  AND MR. JUSTICE STONE WROTE FOR THE DISSENTING
JUSTICES (280 U.S. 306):  "NOR AM I ABLE TO SAY THAT THE MCELWAIN
COMPANY  ... WAS THEN IN SUCH FINANCIAL STRAITS AS TO PRECLUDE THE
REASONABLE INFERENCE BY THE COMMISSION THAT ITS BUSINESS  ...  WOULD
PROBABLY CONTINUE TO COMPETE WITH THAT OF PETITIONER.  SEE STANDARD
FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258 U.S. 346, 356-357." 

WITH THESE INTERPRETATIONS ON OUR BOOKS THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT WAS
PASSED. 

WHEN THE LATTER ACT CAME BEFORE THIS COURT IN 1945, THIS SAME
QUESTION WAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, WITH THE
CONCURRENCE OF ALL BUT TWO MEMBERS OF THE COURT AND WITH NO
DISAGREEMENT NOTED ON THIS POINT, WROTE: 

"IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT SEC. 2(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE A FINDING THAT
THE DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE HAVE IN FACT HAD AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON
COMPETITION.  THE STATUTE IS DESIGNED TO REACH SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS 'IN
THEIR INCIPIENCY,' BEFORE THE HARM TO COMPETITION IS EFFECTED.  IT IS
ENOUGH THAT THEY 'MAY' HAVE THE PRESCRIBED EFFECT.  CF. STANDARD
FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258 U.S. 346, 356-357.  BUT AS WAS
HELD IN THE STANDARD FASHION CASE, SUPRA, WITH RESPECT TO THE LIKE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, PROHIBITING TYING CLAUSE
AGREEMENTS, THE EFFECT OF WHICH 'MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN
COMPETITION,' THE USE OF THE WORD 'MAY' WAS NOT TO PROHIBIT
DISCRIMINATIONS HAVING 'THE MERE POSSIBILITY' OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES,
BUT TO REACH THOSE WHICH WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE DEFINED EFFECT ON
COMPETITION."  CORN PRODUCTS COMPANY V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 324
U.S. 726, 738. 

IT IS TRUE THAT LATER (324 U.S. AT 742) THE OPINION USES THE LANGUAGE
AS TO POSSIBILITY OF INJURY NOW QUOTED IN PART  FN1  BY THE COURT AS
THE HOLDING OF THAT CASE.  BUT THE PHRASE APPEARS IN SUCH FORM AND
CONTEXT AND IS SO IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE EARLIER CAREFUL AND COMPLETE
STATEMENT, SET OUT ABOVE, THAT THE INCONSISTENCY MUST APPEAR TO A FAIR
READER AS ONE OF THOSE INADVERTENCIES INTO WHICH THE MOST CAREFUL
JUDGES SOMETIMES FALL.  IT IS THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR MAKING A THRICE
REJECTED RULE OF INTERPRETATION A PREVAILING ONE.  I KNOW OF NO OTHER
INSTANCE IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS EVER HELD THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
APPLYING DRASTIC REGULATION OF BUSINESS PRACTICES MAY HANG ON SO
SLENDER A THREAD OF INFERENCE. 

THE COURT USES OVERTONES OF HOSTILITY TO ALL QUANTITY DISCOUNTS,
WHICH I DO NOT FIND IN THE ACT, BUT THEY ARE TRANSLATED INTO A RULE
WHICH IS FATAL TO ANY DISCOUNT THE COMMISSION SEES FIT TO ATTACK.  TO
SAY IT IS THE LAW THAT THE COMMISSION MAY STRIKE DOWN ANY DISCOUNT
"UPON THE 'REASONABLE POSSIBILITY' THAT DIFFERENT PRICES FOR LIKE GOODS
TO COMPETING PURCHASERS MAY" SUBSTANTIALLY INJURE COMPETITION, COUPLED
WITH THE ALMOST ABSOLUTE SUBSERVIENCE OF JUDICIAL JUDGMENT TO
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE, CF. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V.
CHENERY CORP., 332 U.S. 194, MEANS THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW IS A WORD OF
PROMISE TO THE EAR TO BE BROKEN TO THE HOPE.  THE LAW OF THIS CASE, IN
A NUTSHELL, IS THAT NO QUANTITY DISCOUNT IS VALID IF THE COMMISSION
CHOOSES TO SAY IT IS NOT.  THAT IS NOT THE LAW WHICH CONGRESS ENACTED
AND WHICH THIS COURT HAS UNIFORMLY STATED UNTIL TODAY. 

THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT ITSELF, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO QUANTITY
DISCOUNTS, SEEMS TO ME, ON ITS FACE AND IN LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY, TO
STRIVE FOR TWO RESULTS, BOTH OF WHICH SHOULD BE KEPT IN MIND WHEN
INTERPRETING IT. 

ON THE ONE HAND, IT RECOGNIZES THAT THE QUANTITY DISCOUNT MAY BE
UTILIZED ARBITRARILY AND WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION IN SAVINGS EFFECTED BY
QUANTITY SALES, TO GIVE A DISCRIMINATORY ADVANTAGE TO LARGE BUYERS OVER
SMALL ONES.  THIS EVIL IT WOULD PROHIBIT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT
RECOGNIZES THAT A BUSINESS PRACTICE SO OLD AND GENERAL IS NOT WITHOUT
SOME BASIS IN REASON, THAT MUCH THAT WE CALL OUR STANDARD OF LIVING IS
DUE TO THE WIDE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-PRICED GOODS, MADE POSSIBLE BY MASS
PRODUCTION AND QUANTITY DISTRIBUTION, AND HENCE THAT WHATEVER ECONOMIES
RESULT FROM QUANTITY TRANSACTIONS MAY, AND INDEED SHOULD, BE PASSED
DOWN THE LINE TO THE CONSUMER.  I THINK THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THIS
CASE PRETTY MUCH SANCTIONS AN OBLITERATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
DISCOUNTS WHICH THE ACT WOULD FOSTER AND THOSE IT WOULD CONDEMN. 

IT WILL ILLUSTRATE MY POINT TO DISCUSS ONLY TWO OF THE DISCOUNTS
INVOLVED - TWO WHICH THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT LUMP TOGETHER AND
TREAT EXACTLY ALIKE, BUT WHICH TO ME REQUIRE UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE QUITE DIFFERENT INFERENCES AS TO THEIR EFFECT ON COMPETITION. 

IN ADDITION TO A GENERAL TEN-CENT PER CASE CARLOAD LOT DISCOUNT,
THERE IS WHAT WE MAY CALL A QUOTA DISCOUNT, BY WHICH CUSTOMERS WHO
PURCHASE 5,000 OR MORE CASES IN A TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD GET A FURTHER
REBATE OF 10 CENTS PER CASE, WHILE THOSE WHO PURCHASE 50,000 OR MORE
CASES IN SUCH PERIODS GET AN ADDITIONAL 5 CENTS PER CASE.  THE
APPLICATION OF THIS SCHEDULE TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE TABLE SALT INVOLVED
IS SUBSTANTIALLY ILLUSTRATED BY ONE OF THE COMPANY'S EXHIBITS, FROM
WHICH WE FIND:

NUMBER       DISCOUNT 

CASES PURCHASED           CUSTOMERS       PER CASE 

1-500 ..................      3,643       0 

501-4,999 ..............        343              0 

5,000-10,000 ...........         35            .10    10,000-49,999
..........         14            .10 

50,000 AND OVER ........          5            .15 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT OUT OF APPROXIMATELY 4,000 CUSTOMERS ONLY 54
RECEIVE EITHER OF THESE TWO QUOTA DISCOUNTS IN PRACTICE, AND THE LARGER
ONE IS AVAILABLE TO ONLY FOUR OR FIVE MAJOR CHAIN STORE ORGANIZATIONS. 
THE QUOTA DISCOUNTS ALLOWED A CUSTOMER ARE NOT RELATED TO ANY APPARENT
DIFFERENCE IN HANDLING COSTS BUT ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE VOLUME OF HIS
PURCHASES, WHICH IN TURN DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE VOLUME OF HIS SALES,
AND THESE IN TURN ARE SURELY INFLUENCED BY HIS LOWERED COSTS WHICH HE
CAN REFLECT IN HIS RETAIL PRICES.    I AGREE THAT THESE FACTS WARRANT A
PRIMA FACIE INFERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION AND SUSTAIN A FINDING OF
DISCRIMINATION UNLESS THE COMPANY, WHICH BEST KNOWS WHY AND HOW THESE
DISCOUNTS ARE ARRIVED AT AND WHICH POSSESSES ALL THE DATA AS TO COSTS,
COMES FORWARD WITH A JUSTIFICATION.  I AGREE, TOO, THAT THE RESULTS OF
THIS SYSTEM ON RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMER LIST IS ENOUGH TO WARRANT THE
INFERENCE THAT THE EFFECTS "MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION
OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY." 

EVEN APPLYING THE STRICTER TEST OF PROBABILITY, I THINK THE INFERENCE
OF ADVERSE EFFECT ON COMPETITION IS WARRANTED BY THE FACTS AS TO THE
QUOTA DISCOUNTS.  IT IS NOT MERELY PROBABLE BUT I THINK IT IS ALMOST
INEVITABLE THAT THE FURTHER TEN-CENT OR FIFTEEN-CENT PER CASE
DIFFERENTIAL IN NET PRICE OF SALT BETWEEN THE LARGE NUMBER OF SMALL
MERCHANTS AND THE SMALL NUMBER OF VERY LARGE MERCHANTS, ACCELERATES THE
TREND OF THE FORMER TOWARDS EXTINCTION AND OF THE LATTER TOWARDS
MONOPOLY. 

HOWEVER, A VERY DIFFERENT PROBLEM IS PRESENTED BY THE DIFFERENTIAL OF
10 CENTS PER CASE WHEN DELIVERED IN CARLOAD LOTS.  THIS CARLOAD PRICE
APPLIES TO VARIOUS SMALL PURCHASERS WHO POOL THEIR ORDERS TO MAKE A
CARLOAD SHIPMENT AND TO ALL WHO PICK UP THEIR ORDERS, NO MATTER HOW
SMALL, AT THE COMPANY WAREHOUSES WHICH ARE MAINTAINED IN TEN CITIES. 
THE EVIDENCE IS THAT LESS THAN 1/10 OF 1% OF THE RESPONDENT'S TOTAL
SALT BUSINESS FAIL TO GET THE BENEFIT OF THIS CARLOAD-LOT DISCOUNT. 

IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME THAT ONE CAN FAIRLY DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT
COMPETITION PROBABLY IS AFFECTED BY THE CARLOAD-LOT DISCOUNT.  INDEED,
THE DISCOUNT IS SO SMALL IN PROPORTION TO PRICE, SALT IS SO SMALL AN
ITEM IN WHOLESALE OR RETAIL BUSINESS AND IN THE CONSUMER'S BUDGET THAT
I SHOULD THINK IT FARFETCHED EVEN TO FIND IT REASONABLY POSSIBLE THAT
COMPETITION WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED.  HENCE, THE DISCOUNT,
WHETHER MORE OR LESS THAN THE EXACT SAVINGS IN HANDLING, WOULD NOT FALL
UNDER CONDEMNATION OF THE STATUTE.  THE INCIDENCE OF THIS DISCOUNT ON
CUSTOMERS IS NOT ARBITRARILY DETERMINED BY THE VOLUME OF THEIR BUSINESS
BUT DEPENDS UPON AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE IN HANDLING AND DELIVERY COSTS. 

THE COMMISSION HAS FORBIDDEN RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE THIS CARLOAD-LOT
DIFFERENTIAL.  THE COMMISSION HAS NO POWER TO PRESCRIBE PRICES, SO THAT
IT CAN ORDER ONLY THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL BE ELIMINATED.  UNLESS
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE, THE RESPONDENT'S SELF
INTEREST WOULD DICTATE THAT IT ABOLISH THE DISCOUNT AND MAINTAIN THE
HIGHER BASE PRICE, RATHER THAN MAKE THE DISCOUNT UNIVERSALLY
APPLICABLE.  THE RESULT WOULD BE TO RAISE THE PRICE OF SALT 10 CENTS
PER CASE TO 99.9% OF RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS BECAUSE 1/10 OF 1% WERE NOT
IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT CARLOAD SHIPMENTS.  THIS IS A QUITE DIFFERENT
EFFECT THAN THE ELIMINATION OF THE QUOTA DISCOUNT. 

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A DISCOUNT WHICH GIVES A LOWERED COST TO SO LARGE
A PROPORTION OF RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS AND IS WITHHELD ONLY FROM THOSE
WHOSE CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY OBVIOUSLY IMPOSE GREATER HANDLING COSTS,
DOES NOT PERMIT THE SAME INFERENCES OF EFFECT ON COMPETITION AS THE
QUOTA DISCOUNTS WHICH REDUCE COSTS TO THE FEW ONLY AND THAT ON A BASIS
WHICH ULTIMATELY IS THEIR SIZE. 

THE TWO TYPES OF DISCOUNT INVOLVED HERE SEEM TO ME TO FALL UNDER
DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF THE ACT AND TO REQUIRE DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS OF
FACT AS TO EFFECT ON COMPETITION.  ACCORDINGLY, I SHOULD SUSTAIN THE
COURT BELOW INSOFAR AS IT SETS ASIDE THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AS TO
CARLOAD-LOT DISCOUNTS. 

FN1  THE FULL TEXT OF THE LATER REFERENCE, QUOTED IN PART BY THE
COURT, IS:  "AS WE HAVE SAID, THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE
DISCRIMINATIONS MUST IN FACT HAVE HARMED COMPETITION, BUT ONLY THAT
THERE IS A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY 'MAY' HAVE SUCH AN EFFECT. 
WE THINK THAT IT WAS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE COMMISSION TO INFER THAT THESE
DISCRIMINATORY ALLOWANCES WERE A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO COMPETITION." 

IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE COURT'S "AS WE HAVE SAID" REFERS TO THE
EARLIER STATEMENT THAT THE TEST IS "PROBABILITY" WHICH IS QUOTED IN
FULL ABOVE, PARTICULARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER CITATION OR
REFERENCE. 
..END :



















REPUBLIC GAS CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 334 U.S. 62 


NO. 134.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1948.  - 198 OKLA.
350, 180 P.2D 1009, APPEAL DISMISSED. 


ONE OF TWO PRODUCERS OF NATURAL GAS IN THE SAME OKLAHOMA FIELD WAS
ORDERED BY THE STATE COMMISSION TO TAKE GAS "RATABLY" FROM, AND TO
CONNECT ITS PIPELINE WITH THE WELL OF, THE OTHER, ON TERMS AND
CONDITIONS TO BE AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES OR TO BE FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION IF THE PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO AGREE.  THE VALIDITY UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE ORDER AND OF THE STATE LAW WHICH AUTHORIZED
IT WERE SUSTAINED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, WHICH INTERPRETED THE
ORDER AS GIVING THE RESPONDENT THE CHOICE OF TAKING AND PAYING FOR THE
GAS, MARKETING THE GAS AND ACCOUNTING THEREFOR, OR SHUTTING DOWN ITS
OWN WELLS.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS NOT
"FINAL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND THIS
COURT IS THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF AN APPEAL THEREFROM.  PP. 62
72. 

REPUBLIC NATURAL GAS CO. V. OKLAHOMA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

AN ORDER OF THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA, DIRECTING
THE APPELLANT TO TAKE GAS RATABLY FROM ANOTHER PRODUCER IN THE SAME
FIELD, WAS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  198 OKLA. 350, 180
P.2D 1009.  AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT IS HERE DISMISSED FOR THE WANT OF A
"FINAL" JUDGMENT, P. 72. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA,
ARISING FROM AN ORDER OF THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION WHICH
CONCERNED THE CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF OWNERS OF NATURAL GAS DRAWN FROM A
COMMON SOURCE. 

SINCE 1913, OKLAHOMA HAS REGULATED THE EXTRACTION OF NATURAL GAS,
PARTLY TO PREVENT WASTE AND PARTLY TO AVOID EXCESSIVE DRAINAGE AS
BETWEEN PRODUCERS SHARING THE SAME POOL.  THE LEGISLATION PROVIDED THAT
OWNERS MIGHT TAKE FROM A COMMON SOURCE AMOUNTS OF GAS PROPORTIONATE TO
THE NATURAL FLOW OF THEIR RESPECTIVE WELLS, BUT NOT MORE THAN 25% OF
THAT NATURAL FLOW WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CORPORATION COMMISSION;
THAT ANY PERSON TAKING GAS AWAY FROM A GAS FIELD, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN
SPECIFIED PURPOSES, "SHALL TAKE RATABLY FROM EACH OWNER OF THE GAS IN
PROPORTION TO HIS INTEREST IN SAID GAS"; AND THAT SUCH RATABLE TAKING
WAS TO BE UPON TERMS AGREED UPON BY THE VARIOUS WELL OWNERS, OR, IN THE
EVENT OF FAILURE TO AGREE, UPON TERMS FIXED BY THE CORPORATION
COMMISSION.  FN1 

THE HUGOTON GAS FIELD IS ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE UNITED STATES,
COVERING A VAST AREA IN SEVERAL STATES, INCLUDING OKLAHOMA.  IT WAS
DISCOVERED IN 1924 OR 1925, BUT THE OKLAHOMA PORTION WAS NOT DEVELOPED
UNTIL 1937.  REPUBLIC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, OBTAINED PERMISSION TO
DO BUSINESS IN OKLAHOMA IN 1938, PURCHASED GAS LEASES IN THIS FIELD AND
DRILLED WELLS, REMOVING THE GAS IN ITS OWN PIPELINES.  IN 1944, THE
PEERLESS OIL AND GAS COMPANY COMPLETED A WELL IN A PORTION OF THE GAS
FIELD OTHERWISE TAPPED ONLY BY REPUBLIC.  IT HAD NO MARKET FOR THE GAS
OBTAINED FROM THIS WELL, NOR MEANS OF TRANSPORTING SUCH GAS TO ANY
MARKET.  IT OFFERED TO SELL THE GAS TO REPUBLIC, WHICH REFUSED IT.
PEERLESS THEN APPLIED TO THE CORPORATION COMMISSION FOR AN ORDER
REQUIRING REPUBLIC TO TAKE SUCH GAS FROM IT "RATABLY" - THAT IS, TO
TAKE THE SAME PROPORTION OF THE NATURAL FLOW OF PEERLESS' WELL AS
REPUBLIC TOOK OF THE NATURAL FLOW OF ITS OWN WELLS.  AFTER A HEARING,
THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS IN THE HUGOTON
FIELD WAS IN EXCESS OF THE MARKET DEMAND; THAT REPUBLIC HAD QUALIFIED
TO DO BUSINESS IN OKLAHOMA WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTING
LEGISLATION REQUIRING THE RATABLE TAKING OF NATURAL GAS; AND THAT
REPUBLIC WAS TAKING MORE THAN ITS RATABLE SHARE OF GAS FROM THAT
PORTION OF THE FIELD TAPPED BOTH BY ITS WELLS AND THAT BELONGING TO
PEERLESS, THEREBY DRAINING GAS AWAY FROM PEERLESS' TRACT AND, IN
EFFECT, TAKING PROPERTY BELONGING TO PEERLESS.  THE COMMISSION ORDERED
REPUBLIC: 

"1.  ...  TO TAKE GAS RATABLY FROM APPLICANT'S (PEERLESS') WELL  ...
, AND TO MAKE NECESSARY CONNECTION AS SOON AS APPLICANT LAYS A LINE
CONNECTING SAID WELL WITH RESPONDENT'S (REPUBLIC'S) LINE, AND TO
CONTINUE TO DO SO UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COMMISSION; PROVIDED
THAT, APPLICANT SHALL LAY ITS LINE FROM ITS WELL TO THE LINES OF
RESPONDENT AT SOME POINT DESIGNATED BY THE RESPONDENT, BUT IN SAID
DRILLED; AND SAID RESPONDENT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE SAID DESIGNATION
IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT UNREASONABLE DELAY, AND IN EVENT OF FAILURE OF
RESPONDENT SO TO DO, RESPONDENT SHALL NO LONGER BE PERMITTED TO PRODUCE
ANY OF ITS WELLS LOCATED IN THE HUGOTON OKLAHOMA GAS FIELD. 

"2.  THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH TAKING OF NATURAL GAS BY
REPUBLIC NATURAL GAS COMPANY FROM SAID PEERLESS OIL AND GAS COMPANY'S
WELL SHALL BE DETERMINED AND AGREE UPON BY AND BETWEEN APPLICANT AND
RESPONDENT; AND IN THE EVENT SAID PARTIES ARE UNABLE TO AGREE,
APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT ARE HEREBY GRANTED THE RIGHT TO MAKE FURTHER
APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR AN ORDER FIXING SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS; AND THE COMMISSION RETAINS JURISDICTION HEREOF FOR SAID
PURPOSE." 

ON APPEAL, THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED, HOLDING THAT REPUBLIC
HAVING BEEN GIVEN LEAVE TO ENTER THE STATE ON THE BASIS OF THE
LEGISLATION GOVERNING NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION, MIGHT NOT CHALLENGE ITS
VALIDITY, AND THAT NEITHER THE ORDER NOR THE LEGISLATION ON WHICH IT IS
BASED RUNS COUNTER TO ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  198 OKLA. 350. 
THE COURT INTERPRETED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AS GIVING REPUBLIC "A
CHOICE BETWEEN TAKING THE GAS FROM PEERLESS AND PAYING THEREFOR DIRECT,
OR MARKETING THE GAS AND ACCOUNTING TO PEERLESS THEREFOR, OR TO SHUT IN
ITS OWN PRODUCTION FROM THE SAME COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY."  198 OKLA.
AT 356.  INVOKING BOTH THE DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, REPUBLIC APPEALED TO THIS COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES THORNY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF
FUGACIOUS MINERALS, OF MOMENT BOTH TO STATES WHOSE ECONOMY IS
ESPECIALLY INVOLVED AND TO THE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES WHICH DEVELOP THESE
NATURAL RESOURCES.  CF. THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES CORP.,
300 U.S. 55; RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 310 U.S.
573, 311 U.S. 570.  BEFORE REACHING THESE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, WE
MUST DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO SO. 

EVER SINCE 1789, CONGRESS HAS GRANTED THIS COURT THE POWER OF REVIEW
IN STATE LITIGATION ONLY AFTER "THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE IN WHICH A
DECISION IN A SUIT COULD BE HAD" HAS RENDERED A "FINAL JUDGMENT OR
DECREE."  SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344, REPHRASING
SEC. 25 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, 1 STAT. 73, 85.  DESIGNED TO
AVOID THE EVILS OF PIECEMEAL REVIEW, THIS REFLECTS A MARKED
CHARACTERISTIC OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, UNLIKE THAT OF SOME OF
THE STATES.  THIS PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE APPELLATE POWERS
OF THIS COURT IS ESPECIALLY PERTINENT WHEN A CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER IS
ASSERTED AGAINST A STATE COURT'S DECISION ON MATTERS PECULIARLY OF
LOCAL CONCERN.  CLOSE OBSERVANCE OF THIS LIMITATION UPON THE COURT IS
NOT REGARD FOR A STRANGLING TECHNICALITY.  HISTORY BEARS AMPLE
TESTIMONY THAT IT IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN SECURING HARMONIOUS STATE
FEDERAL RELATIONS. 

NO SELF-ENFORCING FORMULA DEFINING WHEN A JUDGMENT IS "FINAL" CAN BE
DEVISED.  TESTS HAVE BEEN INDICATED WHICH ARE HELPFUL IN GIVING
DIRECTION AND EMPHASIS TO DECISION FROM CASE TO CASE.  THUS, THE
REQUIREMENT OF FINALITY HAS NOT BEEN MET MERELY BECAUSE THE MAJOR
ISSUES IN A CASE HAVE BEEN DECIDED AND ONLY A FEW LOOSE ENDS REMAIN TO
BE TIED UP - FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE LIABILITY HAS BEEN DETERMINED AND ALL
THAT NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED IS THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES.  BRUCE V. TOBIN,
245 U.S. 18; MARTINEZ V. INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP., 220 U.S. 214,
223; MISSISSIPPI CENTRAL R. CO. V. SMITH, 295 U.S. 718.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, IF NOTHING MORE THAN A MINISTERIAL ACT REMAINS TO BE DONE, SUCH
AS THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT UPON A MANDATE, THE DECREE IS REGARDED AS
CONCLUDING THE CASE AND IS IMMEDIATELY REVIEWABLE.  BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS V. LUCAS, 93 U.S. 108; MOWER V. FLETCHER, 114 U.S. 127. 

THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHERE THE COURT HAS ENTERTAINED AN APPEAL
OF AN ORDER THAT OTHERWISE MIGHT BE DEEMED INTERLOCUTORY, BECAUSE THE
CONTROVERSY HAD PROCEEDED TO A POINT WHERE A LOSING PARTY WOULD BE
IRREPARABLY INJURED IF REVIEW WERE UNAVAILING.  CF. CLARK V. WILLIARD,
294 U.S. 211; GUMBEL V. PITKIN, 113 U.S. 545; AND COMPARE FORGAY V.
CONRAD, 6 HOW.  201, 204, WITH BARNARD V. GIBSON, 7 HOW.  650, 657. 
FOR RELATED REASONS, AN ORDER DECREEING IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF
POSSESSION OF PHYSICAL PROPERTY IS FINAL FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW EVEN
THOUGH AN ACCOUNTING FOR PROFITS IS TO FOLLOW.  IN SUCH CASES THE
ACCOUNTING IS DEEMED A SEVERED CONTROVERSY AND NOT PART OF THE MAIN
CASE.  FORGAY V. CONRAD, SUPRA; CARONDELET CANAL CO. V. LOUISIANA, 233
U.S. 362; RADIO STATION WOW V. JOHNSON, 326 U.S. 120.  BUT A DECISION
THAT A TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN IS FOR A PUBLIC USE, WHERE THE AMOUNT
OF COMPENSATION HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED, IS NOT DEEMED FINAL, CERTAINLY
WHERE THE PROPERTY WILL NOT CHANGE HANDS UNTIL AFTER THE AWARD OF
COMPENSATION.  GRAYS HARBOR LOGGING CO. V. COATS-FORDNEY CO., 243 U.S.
251; CF. LUXTON V. NORTH RIVER BRIDGE CO., 147 U.S. 337; CATLIN V.
UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 229.  FN2  ONE THING IS CLEAR.  THE
CONSIDERATIONS THAT DETERMINE FINALITY ARE NOT ABSTRACTIONS BUT HAVE
REFERENCE TO VERY REAL INTERESTS - NOT MERELY THOSE OF THE IMMEDIATE
PARTIES BUT, MORE PARTICULARLY, THOSE THAT PERTAIN TO THE SMOOTH
FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. 

ON WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE, HOWEVER FAINT AND FALTERING AT TIMES,
DIVIDING JUDGMENTS THAT WERE DEEMED "FINAL" FROM THOSE FOUND NOT TO BE
SO, DOES THE JUDGMENT BEFORE US FALL?  THE ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA
CORPORATION COMMISSION, AS AFFIRMED BELOW, TERMINATES SOME BUT NOT ALL
ISSUES IN THIS PROCEEDING.  REPUBLIC IS REQUIRED TO TAKE RATABLY FROM
PEERLESS, BUT IT MAY DO SO IN ANY ONE OF THREE WAYS.  IF, AS IS MOST
PROBABLE, REPUBLIC WOULD CHOOSE NOT TO CLOSE DOWN ITS OWN WELLS, UNDER
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IT MUST ALLOW PEERLESS TO CONNECT ITS WELL TO
REPUBLIC'S PIPELINE.  BUT THERE HAS BEEN LEFT OPEN FOR LATER
DETERMINATION, IN EVENT OF FAILURE TO REACH AGREEMENT, THE TERMS UPON
WHICH REPUBLIC MUST TAKE THE GAS, THE RATES WHICH IT MUST PAY ON
PURCHASE, OR MAY CHARGE IF IT SELLS AS AGENT OF PEERLESS.  DOES EITHER
ITS ALTERNATIVE CHARACTER, OR THE FACT THAT IT LEAVES MATTERS STILL
OPEN FOR DETERMINATION, SO QUALIFY THE ORDER AS TO MAKE IT SHORT OF
"FINAL" FOR PRESENT REVIEW? 

WE TURN FIRST TO THE LATTER POINT.  CERTAINLY WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE
CANNOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS MERELY "MINISTERIAL."  WHETHER OR NOT THE
AMOUNT OF GAS TO BE TAKEN BY REPUBLIC FROM PEERLESS CAN BE ASCERTAINED
THROUGH APPLICATION OF A FORMULA, THE DETERMINATION OF THE PRICE TO BE
PAID FOR THE GAS IF PURCHASED, OR THE FEES TO BE PAID TO REPUBLIC FOR
MARKETING IT IF SOLD ON BEHALF OF PEERLESS, CLEARLY REQUIRES THE
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT.  FN3  NOR IS THERE ANY IMMEDIATE THREAT OF
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO REPUBLIC, RENDERING POSTPONED REVIEW SO ILLUSORY
AS TO MAKE THE DECREE "FINAL" NOW OR NEVER.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
REQUIRES REPUBLIC TO DESIGNATE A POINT ON ITS PIPELINE AT WHICH
PEERLESS MIGHT ATTACH A LINE, AND AFTER PEERLESS HAD DONE SO TO CONNECT
IT IMMEDIATELY.  BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE ORDER REQUIRES
REPUBLIC TO COMMENCE TAKING PEERLESS' GAS BEFORE THE TERMS OF TAKING
HAVE EITHER BEEN AGREED UPON OR ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION.  NOR DOES IT
APPEAR THAT REPUBLIC WOULD HAVE TO BEAR THE EXPENSE OF CONNECTING THE
PIPELINE, NOR THAT SUCH EXPENSE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL.  INDEED, THE
INCURRING OF SOME LOSS, BEFORE A PROCESS PRELIMINARY TO REVIEW HERE IS
EXHAUSTED, IS NOT IN ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE OUR INTERVENTION. 
CF. MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 50-52.  BUT
EVEN IF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WERE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE REPUBLIC TO
TAKE AND DISPOSE OF PEERLESS' GAS IMMEDIATELY - AND WE ARE NOT SO
ADVISED BY THE STATE COURT - THERE IS NO GROUND FOR ASSUMING THAT ANY
LOSS THAT REPUBLIC MIGHT INCUR COULD NOT BE RECOVERED SHOULD THE
COMPLETED DIRECTION OF THE OKLAHOMA COMMISSION, ON AFFIRMANCE BY THAT
STATE'S SUPREME COURT, ULTIMATELY BE FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
MERELY BECAUSE A PARTY TO A LITIGATION MAY BE TEMPORARILY OUT OF
POCKET, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT IMMEDIATE REVIEW OF AN INCOMPLETE
STATE JUDGMENT.  APPELLANT, OF COURSE, HAS THE BURDEN OF AFFIRMATIVELY
ESTABLISHING THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION.  MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. V.
BEELER, 315 U.S. 649, 651.  THE POLICY AGAINST PREMATURE CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATIONS DEMANDS THAT ANY DOUBTS IN MAINTAINING THIS BURDEN BE
RESOLVED AGAINST JURISDICTION.  SEE CITATION OF CASES IN THE CONCURRING
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 341, 345, 348. 

THE CONDEMNATION PRECEDENTS ATTRACT THIS CASE MORE PERSUASIVELY THAN
DO THE ACCOUNTING CASES.  WHERE IT IS CLAIMED THAT A DECREE
TRANSFERRING PROPERTY OVERRIDES AN ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT, AS IN FORGAY
V. CONRAD, SUPRA, AND RADIO STATION WOW V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, NO
DISPOSITION OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNTING PROCEEDING CAN POSSIBLY MAKE
UP FOR THE DEFEATED PARTY'S LOSS, SINCE THE PARTY WHO HAS LOST THE
PROPERTY MUST ALSO PAY TO HIS OPPONENT WHAT THE ACCOUNTING DECREES. 
HENCE HIS DESIRE TO APPEAL THE ISSUE OF THE RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY WILL
ALMOST CERTAINLY PERSIST.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IN AN EMINENT DOMAIN
CASE, AS IN A CASE LIKE THIS, THE FATE OF THE WHOLE LITIGATION MAY WELL
BE AFFECTED BY THE FATE OF THE UNRESOLVED CONTINGENCIES OF THE
LITIGATION.  AN ADEQUATE AWARD IN AN EMINENT DOMAIN CASE OR A
PROFITABLE RATE IN THE CASE BEFORE US MIGHT WELL SATISFY THE LOSING
PARTY TO ACQUIESCE IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE EARLIER ISSUE.  IT IS OF
COURSE NOT OUR PROVINCE TO DISCOURAGE APPEALS.  BUT FOR THE SOUNDEST OF
REASONS WE OUGHT NOT TO PASS ON CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES BEFORE THEY HAVE
REACHED A DEFINITIVE STOP.  ANOTHER SIMILARITY BETWEEN THIS CASE AND
THE CONDEMNATION CASES CALLS FOR ABSTENTION UNTIL WHAT IS ORGANICALLY
ONE LITIGATION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED IN THE STATE.  IT IS THAT THE MATTERS
LEFT OPEN MAY GENERATE ADDITIONAL FEDERAL QUESTIONS.  THIS BRINGS INTO
VIVID RELEVANCE THE POLICY AGAINST FRAGMENTARY REVIEW.  IN ACCOUNTING
CASES, THAT WHICH STILL REMAINS TO BE LITIGATED CAN SCARCELY GIVE RISE
TO NEW FEDERAL QUESTIONS.  THE POLICY AGAINST FRAGMENTARY REVIEW HAS
THEREFORE LITTLE BEARING.  BUT CONTESTS OVER VALUATION IN EMINENT
DOMAIN CASES, AS PRICE-FIXING IN THIS TYPE OF CASE, ARE INHERENTLY
PROVOCATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS.  THIS POTENTIALITY OF ADDITIONAL
FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME CONTROVERSY HAS LED THIS
COURT TO FIND WANT OF THE NECESSARY FINALITY OF ADJUDICATED
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN CONDEMNATION DECREES BEFORE VALUATION HAS BEEN
MADE.  LIKE CONSIDERATIONS ARE RELEVANT HERE. 

IN SHORT, THE GUIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE
DECREE OF THE COURT BELOW POSSESSES REQUISITE FINALITY LEAD TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THIS CASE MUST AWAIT ITS CULMINATION IN THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS OF THE STATE BEFORE WE CAN ASSUME JURISDICTION.  "ONLY ONE
BRANCH OF THE CASE HAS BEEN FINALLY DISPOSED OF BELOW, THEREFORE NONE
OF IT IS RIPE FOR REVIEW BY THIS COURT."  COLLINS V. MILLER, 252 U.S.
364, 371.  THIS MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MERE FACT
THAT THE DECREE GAVE ALTERNATIVE COMMANDS PRECLUDED IT FROM BEING
FINAL.  CF. PADUCAH V. EAST TENNESSEE TEL. CO., 229 U.S. 476; JONES'S
ADM'R V. CRAIG, 127 U.S. 213; NOTE, 48 HARV. L. REV. 302, 305-306. 
SINCE THE JUDGMENT NOW APPEALED FROM LACKS THE NECESSARY FINALITY, WE
CANNOT CONSIDER THE MERITS.  ALL OF REPUBLIC'S CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTIONS ARE OF COURSE SAVED.  APPEAL DISMISSED. 

FN1  L. 1913, C. 198, SECS. 1-3(OKLA.  STAT.  (1941) TIT. 52, SECS.
231-33): 

"SECTION 1.  ALL NATURAL GAS UNDER THE SURFACE OF ANY LAND IN THIS
STATE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE AND IS THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNERS, OR
GAS LESSEES, OF THE SURFACE UNDER WHICH GAS IS LOCATED IN ITS ORIGINAL
STATE. 

"SECTION 2.  ANY OWNER, OR OIL AND GAS LESSEE, OF THE SURFACE, HAVING
THE RIGHT TO DRILL FOR GAS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SINK A WELL TO THE
NATURAL GAS UNDERNEATH THE SAME AND TO TAKE GAS THEREFROM UNTIL THE GAS
UNDER SUCH SURFACE IS EXHAUSTED.  IN CASE OTHER PARTIES, HAVING THE
RIGHT TO DRILL INTO THE COMMON RESERVOIR OF GAS, DRILL A WELL OR WELLS
INTO THE SAME, THEN THE AMOUNT OF GAS EACH OWNER MAY TAKE THEREFROM
SHALL BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE NATURAL FLOW OF HIS WELL OR WELLS TO THE
NATURAL FLOW OF THE WELL OR WELLS OF SUCH OTHER OWNERS OF THE SAME
COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY OF GAS, SUCH NATURAL FLOW TO BE DETERMINED BY
ANY STANDARD MEASUREMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH CALENDAR MONTH;
PROVIDED, THAT NOT MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE NATURAL FLOW
OF ANY WELL SHALL BE TAKEN, UNLESS FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, AND UPON
NOTICE AND HEARING THE CORPORATION COMMISSION MAY, BY PROPER ORDER,
PERMIT THE TAKING OF A GREATER AMOUNT.  THE DRILLING OF A GAS WELL OR
WELLS BY ANY OWNER OR LESSEE OF THE SURFACE SHALL BE REGARDED AS
REDUCING TO POSSESSION HIS SHARE OF SUCH GAS AS IS SHOWN BY HIS WELL. 

"SECTION 3.  ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION, TAKING GAS FROM A GAS
FIELD, EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING A GAS OR OIL FIELD, AND
OPERATING OIL WELLS, AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS OWN DOMESTIC USE, SHALL
TAKE RATABLY FROM EACH OWNER OF THE GAS IN PROPORTION TO HIS INTEREST
IN SAID GAS, UPON SUCH TERMS AS MAY BE AGREED UPON BETWEEN SAID OWNERS
AND THE PARTY TAKING SUCH, OR IN CASE THEY CANNOT AGREE AT SUCH A PRICE
AND UPON SUCH TERMS AS MAY BE FIXED BY THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AFTER
NOTICE AND HEARING; PROVIDED, THAT EACH OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
DELIVER HIS GAS TO A COMMON POINT OF DELIVERY ON OR ADJACENT TO THE
SURFACE OVERLYING SUCH GAS." 

SEE ALSO L. 1915, C. 197, SECS. 4, 5(OKLA.  STAT.  (1941) TIT. 52,
SECS. 239, 240): 

"SECTION 4.  THAT WHENEVER THE FULL PRODUCTION FROM ANY COMMON SOURCE
OF SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS IN THIS STATE IS IN EXCESS OF THE MARKET
DEMANDS, THEN ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION, HAVING THE RIGHT TO
DRILL INTO AND PRODUCE GAS FROM ANY SUCH COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY, MAY
TAKE THEREFROM ONLY SUCH PROPORTION OF THE NATURAL GAS THAT MAY BE
MARKETED WITHOUT WASTE, AS THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE WELL OR WELLS OWNED
OR CONTROLLED BY ANY SUCH PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION BEARS TO THE
TOTAL NATURAL FLOW OF SUCH COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY HAVING DUE REGARD TO
THE ACREAGE DRAINED BY EACH WELL, SO AS TO PREVENT ANY SUCH PERSON,
FIRM OR CORPORATION SECURING ANY UNFAIR PROPORTION OF THE GAS
THEREFROM; PROVIDED, THAT THE CORPORATION COMMISSION MAY BY PROPER
ORDER, PERMIT THE TAKING OF A GREATER AMOUNT WHENEVER IT SHALL DEEM
SUCH TAKING REASONABLE OR EQUITABLE.  THE SAID COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED
AND DIRECTED TO PRESCRIBE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE DETERMINATION
OF THE NATURAL FLOW OF ANY SUCH WELL OR WELLS, AND TO REGULATE THE
TAKING OF NATURAL GAS FROM ANY OR ALL SUCH COMMON SOURCES OF SUPPLY
WITHIN THE STATE, SO AS TO PREVENT WASTE, PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE
PUBLIC, AND OF ALL THOSE HAVING A RIGHT TO PRODUCE THEREFROM, AND TO
PREVENT UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF ANY ONE SUCH COMMON
SOURCE OF SUPPLY AS AGAINST ANOTHER. 

"SECTION 5.  THAT EVERY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION, NOW OR HEREAFTER
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS IN THIS
STATE, SHALL BE A COMMON PURCHASER THEREOF, AND SHALL PURCHASE ALL OF
THE NATURAL GAS WHICH MAY BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND WHICH MAY REASONABLY
BE REACHED BY ITS TRUNK LINES, OR GATHERING LINES WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF ONE PRODUCER AS AGAINST ANOTHER, OR IN FAVOR
OF ANY ONE SOURCE OF SUPPLY AS AGAINST ANOTHER SAVE AS AUTHORIZED BY
THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AFTER DUE NOTICE AND HEARING; BUT IF ANY
SUCH PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION, SHALL BE UNABLE TO PURCHASE ALL THE
GAS SO OFFERED, THEN IT SHALL PURCHASE NATURAL GAS FROM EACH PRODUCER
RATABLY.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY SUCH COMMON PURCHASER TO
DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN LIKE GRADES AND PRESSURES OF NATURAL GAS, OR IN
FAVOR OF ITS OWN PRODUCTION, OR OF PRODUCTION IN WHICH IT MAY BE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INTERESTED, EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BUT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PRORATING THE NATURAL GAS TO BE MARKETED, SUCH
PRODUCTION SHALL BE TREATED IN LIKE MANNER AS THAT OF ANY OTHER
PRODUCER OR PERSON, AND SHALL BE TAKEN ONLY IN THE RATABLE PROPORTION
THAT SUCH PRODUCTION BEARS TO THE TOTAL PRODUCTION AVAILABLE FOR
MARKETING.  THE CORPORATION COMMISSION SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE
REGULATIONS FOR THE DELIVERY, METERING AND EQUITABLE PURCHASING AND
TAKING OF ALL SUCH GAS AND SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO RELIEVE ANY SUCH
COMMON PURCHASER, AFTER DUE NOTICE AND HEARING, FROM THE DUTY OF
PURCHASING GAS OF AN INFERIOR QUALITY OR GRADE." 

FN2  IN THE CATLIN CASE OUR DECISION WAS BASED ON THE GENERAL RULE
THAT CONDEMNATION ORDERS PRIOR TO DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION
ARE NOT APPEALABLE.  THE WARTIME STATUTES THERE INVOLVED WERE URGED BY
THE CLAIMANTS AS A REASON FOR NOT APPLYING THE GENERAL RULE.  WE
REJECTED THIS CONTENTION. 

FN3  THIS CASE IS UNLIKE THOSE IN WHICH A RATE HAD BEEN FIXED,
SUBJECT TO A CONTINUING JURISDICTION TO MODIFY IT LATER.  CF. MARKET
STREET R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 324 U.S. 548; ST. LOUIS, IRON
MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO., 108 U.S. 24.  HERE,
NO RATES HAVE BEEN SET, AND THEIR FUTURE ESTABLISHMENT HAS BEEN LEFT
OPEN. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE OKLAHOMA COURT IS NOT "FINAL" MERELY BECAUSE IT
ESTABLISHES THAT REPUBLIC HAS NO RIGHT TO DRAIN AWAY THE PEERLESS GAS
WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT.  I THINK IT WOULD BE CONCEDED THAT, EVEN SO, THE
JUDGMENT WOULD NOT BE "FINAL" IF IT OFFERED APPELLANT THREE ALTERNATIVE
WAYS TO COMPLY AND THERE WERE DOUBTS AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY
ONE OF THEM.  THEN WE WOULD WAIT TO SEE WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES WAS
ULTIMATELY SELECTED OR IMPOSED BEFORE REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF ANY OF THEM.  BUT THERE WOULD BE NO MORE REASON TO DEFER DECISION ON
THE MERITS IN THAT CASE THAN IN THIS.  FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
WOULD BE ISOLATED IN EACH AND WE WOULD BE AS UNCERTAIN IN ONE AS IN THE
OTHER WHICH OF THE ALTERNATIVES WOULD ACTUALLY APPLY TO APPELLANT.  AND
THE PRINCIPLE SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE SAME EVEN WHEN A MAJORITY OF US
WOULD SUSTAIN THE ORDER WHATEVER ALTERNATIVE WAS CHOSEN AS ITS
SANCTION. 

THERE IS, OF COURSE, IN THE ONE CASE THE CHANCE OF SAVING THE ORDER
ONLY IF ONE REMEDY RATHER THAN ANOTHER IS CHOSEN, WHILE IN THE OTHER
THE ORDER WOULD SURVIVE WHICHEVER WAS CHOSEN.  BUT IN EACH WE WOULD BE
GIVING NEEDLESS CONSTITUTIONAL DISSERTATIONS ON SOME POINTS.  THAT IS
NONETHELESS TRUE IN A CASE WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS SEEM TO A
MAJORITY OF US SIMPLE, UNCOMPLICATED AND OF NO GREAT DIGNITY.  FOR THE
SINGLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION NECESSARY FOR DECISION WILL NOT BE
ISOLATED UNTIL THE PRECISE PINCH OF THE ORDER ON THE APPELLANT IS
KNOWN.  IT WILL NOT BE KNOWN IN THE PRESENT CASE AT LEAST UNTIL
APPELLANT ELECTS OR IS REQUIRED (1) TO SHUT DOWN, (2) TO BECOME A
CARRIER OF THE PEERLESS GAS, OR (3) TO PURCHASE IT. 

THE LEGAL, AS WELL AS THE ECONOMIC, RELATIONSHIP WHICH REPUBLIC WILL
BEAR TO PEERLESS WILL VARY AS ONE OR ANOTHER CHOICE IS MADE.  TO MAKE
REPUBLIC A "CARRIER" IS TO SUBMIT IT TO DIFFERENT BUSINESS RISKS THAN
TO MAKE IT A "PURCHASER."  THE FACT THAT EACH WOULD RAISE ONLY
QUESTIONS OF "DUE PROCESS" UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT MEAN
THAT THE QUESTIONS ARE IDENTICAL.  EVEN WHEN REASONABLENESS IS THE
TEST, JUDGES HAVE DEVELOPED GREAT CONTRARIETY OF OPINIONS.  THE POINT
IS THAT TODAY THE VARIABLES ARE PRESENTED ONLY IN THE ABSTRACT. 
TOMORROW THE FACTS WILL BE KNOWN, WHEN THE PRECISE IMPACT OF THE ORDER
ON APPELLANT WILL BE DETERMINED.  THUS TO ME THE POLICY AGAINST
PREMATURE CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION PRECLUDES US FROM SAYING THE
JUDGMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS "FINAL." 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT IS FINAL FOR THE
PURPOSES OF SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344, THAT THE
STATE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS VALID, AND THAT DEFERRING DECISION ON THE
MERITS TO SOME INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME WILL ONLY PROLONG AN ALREADY
LENGTHY LITIGATION UNNECESSARILY AND WITH POSSIBLE IRREPARABLE HARM TO
ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER. 

APPELLANT, REPUBLIC NATURAL GAS COMPANY, HAS OPERATED GAS WELLS IN
THE HUGOTON GAS FIELD FOR MANY YEARS.  IT WAS THE FIRST MAJOR PRODUCER
TO EXPLOIT THE OKLAHOMA PORTION OF THE FIELD,  FN1 HAVING CONSTRUCTED
ITS OWN GATHERING SYSTEM AND PIPE LINES EXTENDING FROM OKLAHOMA INTO
KANSAS.  WITH ONLY MINOR EXCEPTIONS REPUBLIC HAS NEVER CARRIED ANY BUT
ITS OWN GAS IN ITS PIPE LINES.  FN2 198 OKLA. AT 352. 

IN 1944 APPELLEE, PEERLESS COMPANY, COMPLETED ITS ONLY WELL IN
OKLAHOMA, IN THE HUGOTON FIELD.  THIS WELL IS NOT CONNECTED TO ANY PIPE
LINE.  IT THEREFORE PRESENTLY LIES DORMANT.  SURROUNDING REPUBLIC WELLS
DRILLED INTO THE SAME RESERVOIR CONCEDEDLY ARE DRAINING GAS CONSTANTLY
FROM UNDER THE PEERLESS LAND.  FN3  EXCEPT FOR THE PART OF REPUBLIC'S
GATHERING SYSTEM WHICH RUNS ACROSS THE PEERLESS LAND, NO MARKET OUTLET
THAT WOULD TAKE SUFFICIENT GAS TO JUSTIFY PRODUCTION OF THE PEERLESS
WELL IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO MAKE IT FINANCIALLY PRACTICAL FOR PEERLESS TO
CONSTRUCT ITS OWN PIPE LINE.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ONLY FEASIBLE
METHOD OF PRODUCING THE WELL IS TO REQUIRE REPUBLIC TO TAKE PEERLESS
GAS INTO ITS GATHERING SYSTEM.  FN4 

FOR THIS REASON PEERLESS APPLIED TO THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATE COMMISSION
FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING REPUBLIC TO CONNECT ITS PIPE LINE TO THE
PEERLESS WELL AND TO PURCHASE GAS FROM PEERLESS AT A PRICE TO BE FIXED
BY THE COMMISSION.  AFTER HEARING, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE
APPLICABLE OKLAHOMA STATUTES  FN5  REQUIRED IT TO ENFORCE RATABLE
TAKING AND RATABLE PRODUCTION OF GAS AS BETWEEN REPUBLIC AND PEERLESS. 

THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PROTECTING PEERLESS
FROM LOSS DUE TO DRAINAGE, FIRST BY ORDERING ALL WELLS IN THE AREA TO
SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY, AND SECOND BY ORDERING REPUBLIC TO PURCHASE FROM
PEERLESS.  SINCE THE FIRST METHOD WAS CONSIDERED HARSH, THE SECOND WAS
PREFERRED.  ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER REQUIRING
REPUBLIC TO TAKE GAS RATABLY FROM THE PEERLESS WELL AS SOON AS THE
NECESSARY CONNECTION COULD BE MADE, ALLOWING IT, HOWEVER, THE
ALTERNATIVE OF CLOSING DOWN ALL OF ITS WELLS IN THE OKLAHOMA PORTION OF
THE FIELD IF IT PREFERRED THIS TO TAKING THE PEERLESS GAS.  THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF THE TAKING WERE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PARTIES; BUT,
IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO AGREE, THEY WERE "GRANTED THE RIGHT TO MAKE
FURTHER APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR AN ORDER FIXING SUCH TERMS
AND CONDITIONS  ...  "  FN6  THE TAKING, HOWEVER, WAS NOT TO AWAIT THIS
AGREEMENT OR FURTHER ORDER; IT WAS TO BEGIN AT ONCE.  FN7 

AFFIRMING THE ORDER, THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA CONSTRUED THE STATE
STATUTES TO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  198 OKLA. 350.  THE
CASE THUS PRESENTS ON THE MERITS THE QUESTION WHETHER A STATE, AS A
MEANS OF ADJUSTING PRIVATE CORRELATIVE RIGHTS IN A COMMON RESERVOIR,
HAS THE POWER IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS THESE TO COMPEL ONE PRIVATE
PRODUCER TO SHARE HIS MARKET WITH ANOTHER, WHEN OTHERWISE HIS
PRODUCTION WOULD DRAIN OFF THAT OTHER'S RATABLE SHARE OF THE GAS IN
PLACE AND THUS APPROPRIATE IT TO HIMSELF. 

                                  I. 

THE MAJORITY CONSIDER THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE TRIBUNALS
HAVE NOT TERMINATED IN A FINAL JUDGMENT FROM WHICH APPEAL TO THIS COURT
LIES, AND THEREFORE REFUSE TO ADJUDICATE THIS QUESTION. 

IN THE STRICTEST SENSE THE STATE PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT BE COMPLETED
UNTIL THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
REPUBLIC'S TAKING OF GAS FROM PEERLESS OR, IF THEY DO NOT AGREE, UNTIL
THE COMMISSION HAS ISSUED AN ADDITIONAL ORDER FIXING THOSE TERMS. 
SINCE IT IS NOT CERTAIN THAT THE PARTIES WILL AGREE, THE POSSIBILITY
REMAINS THAT A FURTHER ORDER MAY BE REQUIRED BEFORE ALL PHASES OF THE
CONTROVERSY ARE DISPOSED OF.  IT IS THIS POSSIBILITY, AS I THINK A
REMOTE ONE, WHICH FURNISHES ONE OF THE GROUNDS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE
OKLAHOMA COURT'S JUDGMENT IS NOT FINAL WITHIN THE MEANING AND POLICY OF
SEC. 237.    THE FACT THAT ALL PHASES OF THE LITIGATION ARE NOT
CONCLUDED DOES NOT NECESSARILY DEFEAT OUR JURISDICTION.  THIS IS TRUE,
ALTHOUGH AS RECENTLY AS GOSPEL ARMY V. LOS ANGELES, 331 U.S. 543, WE
REITERATED THAT, FOR A JUDGMENT TO BE FINAL AND REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC.
237, "IT MUST END THE LITIGATION BY FULLY DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES, SO THAT NOTHING REMAINS TO BE DONE BY THE TRIAL COURT 'EXCEPT
THE MINISTERIAL ACT OF ENTERING THE JUDGMENT WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT
...  DIRECTED.'"  331 U.S. AT 546.  THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE, GROUNDED
IN A VARIETY OF CONSIDERATIONS REFLECTED IN THE STATUTORY COMMAND  FN8
AND COMING DOWN TO THE SUM THAT, IN EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION
CONFERRED BY SEC. 237, THIS COURT IS NOT TO BE CONCERNED WITH REVIEWING
INCONCLUSIVE, PIECEMEAL, OR REPETITIOUS DETERMINATIONS.  THE GOSPEL
ARMY CASE REPRESENTS A TYPICAL INSTANCE FOR APPLYING THE TERMS AND THE
POLICY OF SEC. 237.  FN9  BUT NOT EVERY DECISION BY A STATE COURT OF
LAST RESORT LEAVING THE CONTROVERSY OPEN TO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND
ORDERS IS EITHER INCONCLUSIVE OF THE ISSUES OR PREMATURE FOR PURPOSES
OF REVIEW UNDER SEC. 237.  THIS APPEARS MOST RECENTLY FROM THE DECISION
IN RADIO STATION WOW V. JOHNSON, 326 U.S. 120, WHICH APPLIED A SETTLED
LINE OF AUTHORITIES TO THAT EFFECT.  CF. RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE
BOARD, 329 U.S. 69. 

IN SUCH CASES THE FORMULATION OF THE TEST OF FINALITY MADE IN THE
GOSPEL ARMY AND LIKE DECISIONS HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.  INSTEAD THAT
QUESTION, IN THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS BEEN TREATED AS POSING
ESSENTIALLY A PRACTICAL PROBLEM, NOT ONE TO BE DETERMINED EITHER BY THE
LABEL ATTACHED TO THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT BY LOCAL LAW, RICHFIELD OIL
CORP. V. STATE BOARD, SUPRA, OR BY THE MERELY MECHANICAL INQUIRY
WHETHER SOME FURTHER ORDER OR PROCEEDING BEYOND "THE MINISTERIAL ACT OF
ENTERING THE JUDGMENT" MAY BE HAD OR NECESSARY AFTER OUR DECISION IS
RENDERED.  RADIO STATION WOW V. JOHNSON, SUPRA AT 125. 

THE WOW OPINION NOTED THAT THE TYPICAL CASE FOR APPLYING THE BROADER,
LESS MECHANICAL APPROACH TO THE QUESTION OF FINALITY HAD INVOLVED
JUDGMENTS DIRECTING THE IMMEDIATE DELIVERY OF PROPERTY, TO BE FOLLOWED
BY AN ACCOUNTING DECREED IN THE SAME ORDER.  IT STATED, WITH REFERENCE
TO THESE AND LIKE SITUATIONS:  "IN EFFECT, SUCH A CONTROVERSY IS A
MULTIPLE LITIGATION ALLOWING REVIEW OF THE ADJUDICATION WHICH IS
CONCLUDED BECAUSE IT IS INDEPENDENT OF, AND UNAFFECTED BY, ANOTHER
LITIGATION WITH WHICH IT HAPPENS TO BE ENTANGLED."  326 U.S. AT 126. 
ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE TWO PHASES OF THE CONTROVERSY WERE SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT, WE EXERCISED OUR JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE FEDERAL
QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE PHASE CONCLUDED BY THE STATE COURT'S
DECISION.  THIS WAS DONE, ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT REQUIRED FURTHER AND
POSSIBLY EXTENSIVE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE OTHER AND SEPARABLE
PHASE OF THE ACCOUNTING COULD REACH A FINAL DETERMINATION N10.  THOSE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INVOLVED VERY MUCH MORE THAN "MINISTERIAL ACTS";
INDEED THE DETERMINATION OF A COMPLICATED ACCOUNTING REQUIRES THE
HIGHEST ORDER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS AND DESPITE THE WANT OF STRICT FINALITY,
JURISDICTION WAS SUSTAINED BECAUSE A NUMBER OF FACTORS WERE FELT TO
REQUIRE THAT ACTION IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE POLICY OF SEC. 237
PROVIDING FOR REVIEW, RATHER THAN TO A MERELY MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF
ITS TERMS FOR DENYING REVIEW. 

THERE WAS NOTHING TENTATIVE OR INCONCLUSIVE ABOUT THE NEBRASKA
COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR IMMEDIATE DELIVERY OF THE PROPERTY.  NOR WAS IT
NECESSARY TO EXECUTION OF THAT PHASE OF THE JUDGMENT TO HAVE
CONTEMPORANEOUS CONCLUSION OF THE ACCOUNTING PHASE.  EXCEPT FOR THE
LATTER, THE JUDGMENT WAS RIPE FOR REVIEW.  INDEED IMMEDIATE EXECUTION
WITHOUT REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE DELIVERY PHASE
UNTIL AFTER THE ACCOUNTING HAD BEEN COMPLETED, OFFERED THE POSSIBILITY
OF IRREPARABLE HARM TO ONE OR POSSIBLY BOTH OF THE PARTIES.  THIS
FACTOR OBVIOUSLY TENDED TO MAKE LATER FULL REVIEW PARTLY OR WHOLLY
FUTILE.  MOREOVER, UNTIL THE DELIVERY PHASE HAD BEEN SETTLED, IT COULD
NOT BE KNOWN WHETHER THE ACCOUNTING WOULD BE NECESSARY, FOR THAT NEED
WAS CONSEQUENTIALLY INCIDENT TO AND DEPENDENT UPON DETERMINATION OF THE
CORE OF THE LITIGATION, WHICH WAS THE RIGHT TO DELIVERY. 

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED MORE CONSISTENT WITH
THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF SEC. 237 TO ALLOW IMMEDIATE REVIEW,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE POSSIBILITY OF A LATER FURTHER REVIEW IN THE
ACCOUNTING PHASE, THAN TO DENY REVIEW WITH THE CHANCE THAT A LATER ONE
MIGHT NOT FULLY SAVE THE PARTIES' RIGHTS.  THE SECTION'S POLICY TO
FURNISH FULL, ADEQUATE AND PROMPT REVIEW OUTWEIGHED ANY DESIGN TO
SECURE ABSOLUTE AND LITERAL "FINALITY." 

IN ALL THESE RESPECTS THIS CASE PRESENTS A PARALLEL TO THE WOW CASE
TOO CLOSE, IN MY OPINION, FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THEM.  REPUBLIC IS
NOT DIRECTED TO NEGOTIATE TERMS AND ON COMPLETING THE NEGOTIATION TO
MAKE ITS FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO PEERLESS.  IT IS ORDERED TO MAKE A
CONNECTION WITH PEERLESS AND TO BEGIN CARRYING GAS AT ONCE.  THAT PHASE
OF THE ORDER, LIKE THE DELIVERY PHASE IN THE ACCOUNTING CASES, DOES NOT
AWAIT THE FIXING OF THE TERMS WHETHER BY AGREEMENT OR BY FURTHER
ORDER.  FN11  IT IS A PRESENT OBLIGATION, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND
WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.  FN12 SEE KNOX LOAN ASSN. V. PHILLIPS, 300 U.S.
194, 198. 

MOREOVER THERE IS NOTHING TENTATIVE OR INCONCLUSIVE ABOUT THIS PHASE
OF THE ORDER OR THE STATE JUDGMENT SUSTAINING IT.  THAT PHASE NOT ONLY
IS SEPARABLE FROM THE MATTER OF FIXING THE TERMS; LIKE THE ORDER FOR
DELIVERY IN THE WOW CASE, IT IS THE MAIN CORE OF THE CONTROVERSY TO
WHICH THE ASPECT OF FIXING TERMS IS BOTH CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL. 
THE WOW ORDER REQUIRED IMMEDIATE DELIVERY OF PROPERTY, WITH CONSEQUENT
POSSIBILITY OF IRREPARABLE HARM.  HERE THE ORDER REQUIRED IMMEDIATE
ACCEPTANCE OF DELIVERY, WITH SIMILAR POSSIBILITY OF INJURY FOR ONE
PARTY OR THE OTHER.  FN13 

NEITHER IS THERE GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF PIECEMEAL CONSIDERATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER QUESTIONS THAN IN THE WOW CASE.  CF. 326 U.S.
AT 127.  THE MATTER OF FIXING TERMS HERE HARDLY CAN BE MORE DIFFICULT
PRACTICALLY OR MORE COMPLEX LEGALLY THAN MAKING THE ACCOUNTING IN THE
WOW CASE.  FN14  IT IS HARD ALSO TO SEE HOW ONE WOULD BE EITHER MORE OR
LESS LIKELY TO THROW UP NEW CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAN THE OTHER.  NOR
CAN THE WOW CASE BE TAKEN TO RULE THAT THIS COURT COULD NOT OR WOULD
NOT CONSIDER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARISING ON THE ACCOUNTING PHASE,
UNLIKELY THOUGH THE NECESSITY FOR ITS DOING SO MAY HAVE BEEN.  THERE IS
THUS A SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE PARALLEL BETWEEN THE SITUATION NOW
PRESENTED AND THAT IN THE WOW LINE OF CASES. 

IN ONE RESPECT THIS CASE IS STRONGER FOR FINDING APPEALABLE
FINALITY.  FOR HERE NO FURTHER ORDER MAY BE NECESSARY OR MADE, SINCE
PRESENT RESOLUTION OF THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM IN ALL
PROBABILITY WILL END THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY.  THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE
THE RESULT IF THE DECISION SHOULD GO AGAINST PEERLESS OR IF REPUBLIC
SHOULD ELECT TO SHUT DOWN PRODUCTION.  AND IF THE DECISION SHOULD BE IN
PEERLESS' FAVOR, IT IS HARDLY LIKELY THAT THE PARTIES WILL BE UNABLE TO
AGREE UPON TERMS SINCE, IN CASE OF FAILURE TO AGREE, THE COMMISSION
WILL PRESCRIBE THEM.  FN15 THE CASE INDEED IS NOT BASICALLY A
CONTROVERSY OVER TERMS AT ALL.  THEY PRESENT ONLY A CONTINGENT,
COLLATERAL MATTER.  WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY AT STAKE IS THE RIGHT OF
REPUBLIC TO TAKE THE GAS FROM BENEATH PEERLESS' LAND AND MARKET IT
WITHOUT PAYING PEERLESS FOR IT.  ONCE THAT QUESTION IS FINALLY
DETERMINED, AS IT CAN BE ONLY BY THIS COURT'S DECISION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, THE NEED FOR A FURTHER ORDER WILL BECOME
HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. 

THIS CASE THEREFORE IS ONE IN WHICH THE NEED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
MAY NEVER ARISE AND ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD NOT DO SO IF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WERE NOW DETERMINED.  INDEED, IN A CLOSER
FACTUAL APPLICATION THAN THE WOW CASE, IT PRESENTS IN THE
JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT AN ALMOST EXACT PARALLEL TO THE ORDER REVIEWED IN
PIERCE OIL CORP. V. PHOENIX REFINING CO., 259 U.S. 125, WHERE THE
OKLAHOMA COMMISSION REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO CARRY OIL FOR THE
APPELLEE AT UNSPECIFIED RATES.  CF. GULF REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES,
269 U.S. 125; CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112. 

THE PARALLEL TO THE WOW LINE OF DECISIONS, HOWEVER, IS PUT ASIDE AND
THIS CASE IS DECIDED BY ANALOGY TO CONDEMNATION CASES, PARTICULARLY
GRAYS HARBOR LOGGING CO. V. COATS-FORDNEY CO., 243 U.S. 251.  THE
ANALOGY IS INAPPOSITE.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN SUCH CASES THIS COURT
GENERALLY, THOUGH NOT UNIFORMLY,  FN6  HAS HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT IS NOT FINAL UNTIL AFTER THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION IS MADE. 
THE DECISIONS WERE PROPERLY RENDERED, BUT FOR REASONS NOT APPLICABLE
HERE.  IN THE GRAYS HARBOR CASE THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND CONTROLLING
LEGISLATION PROHIBITED THE TRANSFER OF THE CONDEMNED PROPERTY UNTIL
AFTER THE COMPENSATION HAD BEEN DETERMINED AND PAID.  THUS THE ISSUE OF
THE RIGHT TO TAKE WAS NECESSARILY DEPENDENT FOR FINAL RESOLUTION ON THE
DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.  FN17  THE CONTROVERSY WAS
NOT SEPARABLE INTO DISTINCT PHASES AS IN THE WOW CASE AND HERE.  243
U.S. AT 256.  FN18  NOR HAD THE STATE JUDGMENT ALREADY AFFECTED THE
APPELLANT'S PROPERTY RIGHTS, AS WAS TRUE IN THE WOW CASE AND IS TRUE
HERE. 

IN CATLIN V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 229, THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT
TO TAKE WAS SETTLED CONCLUSIVELY BELOW BEFORE THE AWARD OF DAMAGES WAS
FIXED.  BUT THERE TO HAVE PERMITTED AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER
TRANSFERRING POSSESSION WOULD HAVE PRODUCED DELAYS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE OVERRIDING PURPOSE AND POLICY OF THE WAR PURPOSES AND DECLARATION
OF TAKING ACTS.  26 STAT. 316, AS AMENDED BY 40 STAT. 241, 518; 46
STAT. 1421.  324 U.S. AT 235, 238, 240.  HERE THE CONVERSE IS TRUE, FOR
TO REFUSE TO PASS ON THE MERITS CAN SERVE ONLY TO PROLONG THE
LITIGATION WITHOUT COMPENSATING ADVANTAGE FOR THE POLICY OF SEC. 237 OR
OTHER ENACTMENT.  THERE IS NO OVERRIDING POLICY OF INDEPENDENT
LEGISLATION, COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE WAR PURPOSES AND DECLARATION OF
TAKING ACTS, DICTATING DENIAL OR DEFERRING OF REVIEW. 

THE ASSERTED ANALOGY TO THE GRAYS HARBOR, CATLIN AND LUXTON (SEE NOTE
17) CASES THEREFORE DOES NOT HOLD FOR THE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS
NOW PRESENTED.  IN THEM EITHER THERE WAS NO SEPARABLE PHASE OF THE
LITIGATION; OR STATUTORY POLICY INDEPENDENT OF SEC. 237 OR OTHER LIKE
REQUIREMENT OF FINALITY FORBADE REVIEW BEFORE ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF
EVERY PHASE OF THE LITIGATION IN THE STATE OR INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS. 
THE CONDEMNATION CASES THEREFORE, THOUGH GENERALLY UNIFORM IN DENYING
REVIEW OF ORDERS FOR CONDEMNATION PRIOR TO AWARD OF DAMAGES, ARE NOT
UNIFORM IN RESTING THIS RESULT WHOLLY ON THE REQUIREMENT OF "FINALITY"
MADE BY SEC. 237 AND LIKE PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW, BUT FREQUENTLY REST ON
OTHER AND INDEPENDENT GROUNDS PERTINENT TO THE APPLICATION OF THOSE
PROVISIONS. 

THE "PENUMBRAL AREA" OF APPEALABLE FINALITY, SEE 326 U.S. AT 124, MAY
NOT BE SWEEPING IN ITS SCOPE.  IT IS NEVERTHELESS ONE ESSENTIAL TO
PREVENT THE LETTER OF THE SECTION FROM OVERRIDING ITS REASON.  FOR THIS
PURPOSE IT WOULD SEEM TO COMPREHEND ANY SITUATION PRESENTING SEPARABLE
PHASES OF LITIGATION, ONE INVOLVING THE CORE OR CRUX OF THE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE OTHER COLLATERAL MATTERS DEPENDENT FOR THE
NECESSITY OF THEIR CONSIDERATION AND DECISION UPON FINAL AND
UNQUALIFIED DISPOSITION OF THE HUB OF THE DISPUTE.  IF A MERELY
MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF SEC. 237 IS TO BE AVOIDED, IT CANNOT BE TAKEN
THAT THE PRACTICAL APPROACH OF THE WOW LINE OF DECISIONS MUST BE
LIMITED EXCLUSIVELY TO CASES WHERE AN ACCOUNTING IS ORDERED TO FOLLOW
DELIVERY OF PROPERTY DECREED AT THE SAME TIME.  THE REASON OF THE
EXCEPTION, INDEED OF SEC. 237 ITSELF, IS NOT SO LIMITED.  BECAUSE THE
DELIVERY AND ACCOUNTING CASES ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES PRESENTING SUCH
PROBLEMS, JUDGMENT MUST BE GIVEN SOME PLAY IN OTHER SITUATIONS AS WELL
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE VICES EXCLUDED BY THE POLICIES UNDERLYING SEC.
237 ARE PRESENT, AS THEY MAY BE OR NOT ACCORDING TO THE CHARACTER AND
EFFECTS OF THE PARTICULAR DETERMINATION SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED. 

FINALLY, IT HARDLY CAN BE THAT MERELY THE ALTERNATIVE CHARACTER OF
THE ORDER PER SE DEPRIVES IT OF FINALITY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANY OF
THE ALTERNATIVES PRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  BECAUSE
REPUBLIC IS ALLOWED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SHUTTING DOWN ITS WELLS AND
CARRYING OR PURCHASING THE PEERLESS GAS, IT SEEMS TO BE THOUGHT THAT
THE ORDER LACKS FINALITY UNTIL THAT CHOICE IS MADE, EVEN THOUGH WHEN
MADE EITHER COURSE WOULD BE CLEARLY WITHIN THE STATE'S POWER TO
REQUIRE. 

THE ARGUMENT WOULD HAVE MORE FORCE IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
ALTERNATIVES WERE GREAT ENOUGH TO MAKE IT LIKELY THAT CONTRARY RESULTS
MIGHT BE REACHED ON THE DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES.  BUT WHERE AS HERE THE
DIFFERENCE EMPHASIZED, E.G., IS MERELY BETWEEN THE PASSAGE OF TITLE
BEFORE AND AFTER THE CARRIAGE, IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW THERE COULD BE
MORE DIFFICULTY WITH ONE ALTERNATIVE THAN WITH THE OTHER.  SEE PART II;
ALSO PART IV.  SO MINOR A DISTINCTION HARDLY FURNISHES A SUBSTANTIAL
BASIS FOR CONTRARIETY OF JUDICIAL OPINION ON DUE PROCESS QUESTIONS. 
NOR IS IT SUGGESTED THAT ALLOWING THE CHOICE BETWEEN EITHER OF THOSE
TWO COURSES AND SHUTTING DOWN PRESENTS GREATER DIFFICULTY.  GIVEN
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ALL ALTERNATIVES, IT NO MORE TRANSCENDS STATE
POWER TO PERMIT THE PARTY AFFECTED TO SELECT THE COURSE LEAST ONEROUS
THAN TO REQUIRE HIM TO FOLLOW THE ONE MOST BURDENSOME.  IT IS EQUALLY
HARD TO SEE HOW GIVING THE CHOICE DESTROYS THE ORDER'S FINALITY, UNLESS
AGAIN A WHOLLY MECHANICAL CONCEPTION OF THAT TERM AS USED IN SEC. 237
IS TO CONTROL.    THE SECTION'S POLICY IS AGAINST HYPOTHETICAL,
PREMATURE AND PIECEMEAL CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION, NOT AGAINST A CHOICE
OF ALTERNATIVES PRESENTING NO SUCH PROBLEM.  HERE THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER OKLAHOMA CAN OFFER REPUBLIC THE CHOICE OF SHUTTING DOWN
PRODUCTION OR TAKING AND PAYING FOR THE PEERLESS GAS.  EITHER COURSE
WILL PROTECT THE LATTER'S RIGHTS AGAINST DRAINAGE BY REPUBLIC.  EITHER
STANDING ALONE IN THE ORDER'S TERMS WOULD NOT AFFECT FINALITY. 
NEITHER, MERELY UPON THE PREMISE THAT ALTERNATIVE CHARACTER PER SE
DESTROYS FINALITY, PRESENTS A DOUBTFUL QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. 
AND FINALLY THE ALTERNATIVE OF SHUTTING DOWN, REALISTICALLY CONSIDERED,
IS MORE NEARLY SANCTION THAN ALTERNATIVE MODE OF COMPLIANCE.  FN19 

IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES TO SAY THAT COUPLING THE TWO COURSES
ALTERNATIVELY DEPRIVES THE ORDER OF FINALITY SEEMS TO ME TO BE GIVING
TO THE TERMS OF SEC. 237 A MECHANICAL APPLICATION OUT OF HARMONY WITH
THE SECTION'S POLICY, JUST AS DOES REFUSING TO DECIDE THE CASE BEFORE
IT IS KNOWN WHETHER A FURTHER ORDER MAY BE NECESSARY FOR FIXING THE
PRICE OF THE PEERLESS GAS.  SUCH A VIEW CAN ONLY HANDICAP
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION EITHER BY FORCING ORDERS TO SPECIFY A SINGLE
COURSE OF COMPLIANCE WHEN ALTERNATIVES MAY BE MUCH MORE DESIRABLE, OR
BY DELAYING REVIEW AND THUS EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNTIL ONE
OR PERHAPS ALL OF THE ALTERNATIVES IN TURN ARE TRIED OUT FIRST IN
ELECTION AND THEN IN REVIEW.  A DECISION NOW WOULD SETTLE EVERY
SUBSTANTIAL PENDING PHASE OF THE CONTROVERSY.  AT THE MOST BUT A MINOR
CONSEQUENTIAL AND SEPARABLE ASPECT WOULD REMAIN FOR REMOTELY POSSIBLE
FURTHER ACTION IN THE STATE TRIBUNALS.  IT IS TO THE INTEREST OF BOTH
PARTIES, AND THE STATE AUTHORITIES AS WELL, THAT THEIR RIGHTS BE
DETERMINED AND THE CONTROVERSY BE ENDED.  AND ON THE FACTS THE QUESTION
OF JURISDICTION IS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE MERITS. 

IN VIEW OF ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS, TO DENY THE PARTIES OUR JUDGMENT
NOW IS TO MAKE A FETISH OF TECHNICAL FINALITY WITHOUT SECURING ANY OF
THE SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION WHICH SEC.
237, IN THE LIGHT OF ITS UNDERLYING POLICIES, WAS DESIGNED TO ATTAIN. 
INSTEAD THAT SECTION BECOMES AN INSTRUMENT OF SHEER DELAY FOR THE
PERFORMANCE OF OUR FUNCTION, FOR EXECUTING THOSE OF STATE AGENCIES, AND
FOR SETTLING PARTIES' RIGHTS.  THE SECTION HAS NO SUCH OFFICE.  BY
DECLARING NOW THAT THE STATE MAY FOLLOW EITHER OF TWO CLEARLY
PERMISSIBLE COURSES AND ALLOW THOSE WITH WHOM IT DEALS TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN THEM, WE WOULD NOT SPEAK HYPOTHETICALLY OR PREMATURELY OR
VIOLATE ANY OTHER POLICY UNDERLYING SEC. 237. 

                                 II. 

BEYOND THE MATTER OF JURISDICTION, THERE IS IN THIS CASE NO SUCH
QUESTION CONCERNING ITS EXERCISE AS AROSE IN RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL
COURT, 331 U.S. 549.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE NOT SPECULATIVE,
PREMATURE OR PRESENTED ABSTRACTLY EN MASSE.  THE "ALTERNATIVE
CHARACTER" OF THE STATE JUDGMENT DOES NOT PREVENT THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS
FROM BEING SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE AND CONCRETE FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION
HERE, ALTHOUGH VARIOUS AMBIGUITIES HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED. 

THUS IT IS SAID THAT WE CANNOT TELL WHETHER THE ORDER COMPELS
REPUBLIC TO SHARE ITS MARKET OR MERELY REQUIRES IT TO CARRY GAS TO A
MARKET WHICH PEERLESS MUST OBTAIN FOR ITSELF.  CF. THOMPSON V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 300 U.S. 55.  THE ORDER HERE IS NOT SUBJECT TO
SUCH AN AMBIGUITY.  IT IN TERMS COMMANDS REPUBLIC TO TAKE PEERLESS GAS
AND TO PAY FOR IT.  FN20 

IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT WE CANNOT TELL WHETHER REPUBLIC WILL HAVE
TO PURCHASE GAS FROM PEERLESS OR JUST TRANSPORT THE GAS TO MARKET AND
ACCOUNT FOR THE PROFITS.  BUT WHETHER LEGAL TITLE PASSES AT ONE END OF
THE REPUBLIC LINE OR AT THE OTHER IS, AS WE HAVE NOTED, WHOLLY
IMMATERIAL AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  CF. THE PIPE LINE CASES,
234 U.S. 548.  IN EITHER EVENT UNDER THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT REPUBLIC
MUST TAKE PEERLESS GAS INTO ITS SYSTEM, MUST PAY FOR IT AND, UNLESS ITS
MARKET SHOULD EXPAND SUDDENLY FAR BEYOND PRESENT EXPECTATIONS, MUST
THEREFORE SHARE ITS MARKET WITH PEERLESS. 

IT IS SAID FURTHER THAT WE CANNOT BE SURE WHETHER THE COMMISSION
INTENDS TO MAKE REPUBLIC ACT AS A COMMON CARRIER.  THE ONLY BASIS FOR
THIS DOUBT IS THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS STATE THAT
REPUBLIC IS A COMMON CARRIER AND COMMON PURCHASER.  BUT THE STATE
SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE ORDER ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THOSE FINDINGS
WERE INCORRECT.  THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUIRING REPUBLIC TO CARRY
PEERLESS GAS IS BASED PRIMARILY ON THE FACT OF DRAINAGE CAUSED BY
REPUBLIC'S PRODUCTION. 

III. 

IT HAS BEEN NOTED PREVIOUSLY THAT THE QUESTION ON THE MERITS IS NOT
UNRELATED TO THE ISSUE OF FINALITY.  TO IT, ACCORDINGLY, ATTENTION IS
NOW DIRECTED.  THE REAL FIGHT, AS HAS BEEN STATED, IS OVER THE RIGHT OF
REPUBLIC TO DRAIN AWAY THE PEERLESS GAS WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT.  THE
QUESTION AS CAST IN LEGAL TERMS IS WHETHER THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DENY OKLAHOMA THE POWER
TO GIVE ONE PRIVATE PRODUCER FROM A COMMON POOL THE OPTION TO SHUT DOWN
PRODUCTION ALTOGETHER OR TO PURCHASE GAS FROM ANOTHER FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ADJUSTING THEIR CORRELATIVE RIGHTS IN THE POOL, WHEN THAT IS THE
ONLY PRACTICAL OR FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE CONSISTENT WITH PRODUCTION BY
BOTH TO PROTECT THE LATTER FROM DRAINAGE BY THE FORMER. 

REPUBLIC DENIES THE STATE'S POWER TO DO THIS.  ITS BASIC POSITION IS
THAT IT HAS A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRAIN OFF ALL THE GAS IN
THE FIELD, UNLESS OTHER OWNERS OF PRODUCING RIGHTS CAN SUPPLY THEIR OWN
FACILITIES FOR MARKETING THEIR PRODUCTION, REGARDLESS OF VARYING
CONDITIONS IN DIFFERENT COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS AND REGARDLESS OF ALL
CONSEQUENT PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING FEASIBILITY OF FURNISHING
SUCH FACILITIES. 

REPUBLIC HAS NO SUCH RIGHT.  THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT IMPRESS UPON
THE STATES IN A RIGID MOLD EITHER THE COMMON-LAW FEUDAL SYSTEM OF LAND
TENURES OR ANY OF THE MODIFIED AND VARIANT FORMS OF TENURE PREVAILING
IN THE STATES IN 1789.  RATHER IT LEFT THEM FREE TO DEVISE AND
ESTABLISH THEIR OWN SYSTEMS OF PROPERTY LAW ADAPTED TO THEIR VARYING
LOCAL CONDITIONS AND TO THE PECULIAR NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THEIR
INHABITANTS.  THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION PLACED NO EXPLICIT LIMITATION
UPON THE POWERS OF THE STATES IN THIS RESPECT.  FN21  NOT UNTIL THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED, NEARLY EIGHT DECADES LATER, WAS ONE
INTRODUCED. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO NULLIFY STATE POWER TO
CREATE INSTITUTIONS OF PROPERTY IN ACCORD WITH LOCAL NEEDS AND
POLICIES.  WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS INTENDED TO SECURE SUBSTANTIVE
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AS WELL AS PROCEDURAL ONES,  FN22  IT WAS NOT A
STRAIT JACKET IMMOBILIZING STATE POWER TO CHANGE OR ALTER INSTITUTIONS
OF PROPERTY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  FN23 ALMOST INNUMERABLE DECISIONS
HAVE DEMONSTRATED THIS, EVEN THOUGH THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE TO
CREATE SUBSTANTIAL LIMITATIONS UPON THE METHODS BY WHICH THE CHANGES
DEEMED NECESSARY MAY BE MADE. 

THE BASIC QUESTION HERE IS REALLY ONE OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.  IT
RELATES PRIMARILY TO WHETHER OKLAHOMA CAN CURTAIL THE UNQUALIFIED RIGHT
OF CAPTURE WHICH APPELLANT CONCEIVES IT ACQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF AND AS AN
UNALTERABLE INCIDENT TO ITS ACQUISITION OF SURFACE RIGHTS INCLUDING THE
RIGHT TO DRILL FOR GAS.  FOR, IN DENYING THAT THE STATE CAN ENFORCE THE
ONLY FEASIBLE METHOD OF LIMITATION CONSISTENT WITH PRODUCTION BY
PEERLESS, REPUBLIC IN EFFECT IS SAYING THAT THE STATE CANNOT RESTRICT
ITS RIGHT TO TAKE ALL GAS IN THE COMMON RESERVOIR, INCLUDING ALL THAT
CAN BE DRAINED FROM BENEATH PEERLESS' LEASE AND THE LANDS OF OTHER
OWNERS SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THIS IS, FOR THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES,
A DENIAL OF THE STATE'S POWER TO PROTECT CORRELATIVE RIGHTS IN THE
FIELD OR TO REGULATE APPELLANT'S TAKING IN THE INTEREST OF OTHERS
HAVING EQUAL RIGHTS PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR SURFACE HOLDINGS.  FOR,
THOUGH REPUBLIC CONCEDES IT IS BOUND BY OKLAHOMA'S STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT OF PRO RATA PRODUCTION, THAT REQUIREMENT BECOMES MERELY A
TIME FACTOR AFFECTING THE RATE AND LENGTH OF THE PERIOD OF REPUBLIC'S
DRAINAGE, NOT THE TOTAL QUANTITY EVENTUALLY TO BE TAKEN, IF REPUBLIC
CAN DEFY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AND THUS LEAVE PEERLESS IN ITS PRESENT
HELPLESS CONDITION. 

THE CONTENTION IS BOLD AND FAR REACHING, MORE ESPECIALLY WHEN ACCOUNT
IS TAKEN OF THE NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY.  NATURAL GAS IN PLACE IS
VOLATILE AND FUGITIVE, ONCE A SINGLE OUTLET IS OPENED.  WHEN EXTRACTED
IT CANNOT BE STORED IN QUANTITY, BUT MUST BE MARKETED ULTIMATELY AT
BURNER TIPS IN THE TIME NECESSARY FOR CONVEYANCE TO THEM FROM THE WELL
MOUTH.  THE COMPETITIVE STRUGGLE FOR THE INDUSTRY'S REWARDS IS
PARTICULARLY INTENSE IN THE INITIAL STAGE OF DEVELOPING A FIELD.  BY
THE INDUSTRY'S VERY NATURE LARGE OUTLAYS OF CAPITAL ARE REQUIRED FOR
SUCCESSFUL CONTINUING PRODUCTION AND MARKETING.  ALL THOSE FACTORS
HOWEVER TEND TOWARD MONOPOLY ONCE SUCCESS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN A
PARTICULAR FIELD. 

THESE PECULIAR QUALITIES, MOREOVER, HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE LEGAL
RIGHTS RELATING TO THE OWNERSHIP OF GAS IN PLACE, AS WELL AS ITS
EXTRACTION.  THEY HAVE BEEN ADAPTED TO ITS NATURE AND TO THAT OF THE
COMPETITIVE STRUGGLE REGARDING IT.  ONLY A SPECIALIST IN THIS BRANCH OF
THE LAW, WHICH VARIES FROM STATE TO STATE, CAN UNDERTAKE TO SAY WITH
ANY RELIABLE DEGREE OF PRECISION WHAT RIGHTS MAY BE IN PARTICULAR
SITUATIONS.  THESE DIFFICULTIES, INTENSIFIED BY THE COMPETITIVE
STRUGGLE FOR THE PRODUCT AND THE INADEQUACY OF COMMON-LAW IDEAS TO
CONTROL IT, HAVE FORCED BOTH THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
ADOPT EXTENSIVE REGULATORY MEASURES IN RECENT YEARS.  THIS HAS BEEN
NECESSARY BOTH TO CONSERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS RAPIDLY
DEPLETING NATURAL RESOURCE  FN24 AND TO SECURE FAIR ADJUSTMENT OF
PRIVATE RIGHTS IN THE INDUSTRY.  RATHER THAN BEING A SACRED,
UNTOUCHABLE ENCLAVE OF THE COMMON LAW, THE FIELD BY ITS VERY NATURE
LENDS ITSELF ESPECIALLY TO GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION FOR SUCH
PURPOSES.  IN THIS RESPECT IT IS HARDLY COMPARABLE TO SITUATIONS
COMPREHENDING ONLY CONVENTIONAL MANUFACTURERS AND MERCHANTS OF
CONSUMABLE GOODS. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH OKLAHOMA'S LAW, APPELLANT DOES NOT ASSERT TITLE TO
THE GAS IN PLACE.  IT ASSERTS ONLY THE RIGHT TO CAPTURE WHAT IT CAN
PRODUCE.  BUT THAT RIGHT, UNQUALIFIED, WOULD INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO TAKE
GAS FROM BENEATH OTHERS' LANDS.  SO TAKEN, IT DEFIES THEIR RIGHTS TO A
PROPORTIONATE SHARE AND THE STATE'S POWER TO SECURE THEM, IF FOR
REASONS RENDERING MARKETING THROUGH THEIR OWN FACILITIES UNFEASIBLE
THEY CANNOT JOIN IN THE UNRESTRAINED COMPETITIVE DRAINING. 

SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO SUCH
UNRESTRICTED FEE SIMPLE IN THE RIGHT TO DRAIN GAS FROM BENEATH AN
ADJACENT OWNER'S LAND.  IT IS FAR TOO LATE, IF IT EVER WAS OTHERWISE,
TO URGE THAT THE STATES ARE IMPOTENT TO RESTRICT THIS UNFETTERED RACE
OR TO PUT IT UPON TERMS OF PROPORTIONATE EQUALITY BY WHATEVER MEASURES
MAY BE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO THAT END.  INDEED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
HISTORY IS REPLETE WITH INSTANCES WHERE THE STATES HAVE ALTERED AND
RESTRICTED SCHEMES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND THE STATES' LOCAL NEEDS.  IN SOME CASES THIS HAS GONE TO
THE EXTENT OF ABOLISHING BASIC COMMON-LAW CONCEPTIONS ENTIRELY AND
SUBSTITUTING NEW ONES INDIGENOUS TO THEIR AREAS AND THE PROBLEMS THEY
PRESENT.  PERHAPS THE MOST EXTENSIVE AND OBVIOUS ILLUSTRATIONS ARE TO
BE FOUND IN THE SYSTEMS DEVELOPED IN OUR ARID AND MOUNTAINOUS WESTERN
STATES FOR GOVERNING RIGHTS IN THE WATERS OF FLOWING STREAMS AND MINING
RIGHTS IN RESPECT TO PRECIOUS METALS.  FN25  OTHERS ARE NOT LACKING. 
FN26 

IT HARDLY CAN BE MAINTAINED THAT THE CREATION AND CONTROL OF RIGHTS
RESPECTING THE OWNERSHIP, EXTRACTION AND MARKETING OF NATURAL GAS ARE
LESS BROADLY SUBJECT TO STATE CONTROL THAN THOSE RELATING TO WATERS FOR
IRRIGATION AND OTHER USES OR TO THE EXTRACTION OF PRECIOUS METALS IN
THE REGIONS WHERE THOSE MATTERS HAVE CALLED INTO PLAY THE STATES'
AUTHORITY TO ACT IN THE MANNER BEST SUITED TO LOCAL CONDITIONS AND THE
NEEDS OF THEIR INHABITANTS.  THE SIMILARITIES OF THE SITUATIONS AND THE
PROBLEMS, FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THOSE
POWERS, ARE SO OBVIOUS THEY DO NOT NEED TO BE SPECIFIED. 

HISTORICALLY, THE STATES' FREEDOM TO EXERCISE BROAD POWERS IN
DEFINING AND REGULATING RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP AND PRODUCTION OF NATURAL
GAS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED ALMOST AS LONG AND QUITE AS COMPLETELY AS THEIR
SIMILAR FREEDOMS TO ACT IN RELATION TO WATER RIGHTS AND MINING RIGHTS. 
IN A LINE OF CASES BEGINNING A HALF CENTURY AGO WITH OHIO OIL CO. V.
INDIANA, 177 U.S. 190, THIS COURT HAS UPHELD VARIOUS TYPES OF STATE
REGULATORY SCHEMES DESIGNED TO PREVENT WASTE AND TO PROTECT THE
"COEQUAL RIGHTS" OF THE SEVERAL OWNERS OF A COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY. 
FN27  THESE CASES CLEARLY RECOGNIZE THAT THE STATE REGULATION MAY BE
JUSTIFIED ON ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS, EITHER TO PREVENT WASTE OR TO ADJUST
PRIVATE CORRELATIVE RIGHTS.  FN28 

IT IS TRUE, AS APPELLANT POINTS OUT, THAT NONE OF THOSE CASES
PRESENTED THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF WHETHER THE STATE MAY ADJUST
CORRELATIVE RIGHTS INDEPENDENTLY OF A CONSERVATION PROGRAM.  BUT IT IS
NOT TRUE THAT THIS POWER IS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
OF THE STATE TO PRESERVE ITS NATURAL RESOURCES.  IN FACT, IF ONE POWER
WERE INCIDENTAL TO THE OTHER, THE OHIO OIL CASE WOULD SUPPORT THE VIEW
THAT WASTE PREVENTION IS JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE IT SERVES "THE PURPOSE OF
PROTECTING ALL THE COLLECTIVE OWNERS  ...  "  177 U.S. AT 210.  FN29
MOREOVER, IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE OPINION IN BANDINI PETROLEUM CO.
V. SUPERIOR COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE CALIFORNIA REGULATION IS
VALID ON ITS FACE, EVEN IF VIEWED AS A MEASURE DESIGNED PURELY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF CORRELATIVE RIGHTS.  284 U.S. 8, 22.  FN30    OKLAHOMA'S
POWER TO REGULATE CORRELATIVE RIGHTS IN THE HUGOTON FIELD THEREFORE
DOES NOT STEM FROM HER INTEREST MERELY IN THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES.  IT STEMS RATHER FROM THE BASIC AIM AND AUTHORITY OF ANY
GOVERNMENT WHICH SEEKS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS AND TO
SECURE A JUST ACCOMMODATION OF THEM WHEN THEY CLASH.  FN31  THAT
AUTHORITY IS CONSTANTLY EXERCISED IN OUR SYSTEM IN RELATION TO OTHER
TYPES OF PROPERTY.  FN32  IN VIEW OF THIS FACT AND OF WHAT HAS BEEN
SAID CONCERNING CONDITIONS IN THIS INDUSTRY, IT WOULD BE INCONGRUOUS
FOR US TO HOLD THAT OIL AND GAS LAW IS THE ONE PHASE OF PROPERTY LAW
THAT CANNOT BE MODIFIED EXCEPT FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.  ESPECIALLY
IN THE LIGHT OF ITS ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT IN A LAISSEZ FAIRE
ATMOSPHERE APPROPRIATE FOR FOSTERING INTENSE COMPETITIVE EXPANSIONS,
SEE MERRILL, THE EVOLUTION OF OIL AND GAS LAW, 13 MISS.  L.J. 281, THE
STATES SHOULD BE ALLOWED CERTAINLY NOT LESS FREEDOM TO EVOLVE NEW
PROPERTY RULES TO KEEP PACE WITH CHANGING INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS THAN
THEY POSSESS IN NEARLY EVERY OTHER BRANCH OF THE LAW.  FN33  HERE AS
ELSEWHERE, IN CONSIDERING THE PROPER SCOPE FOR STATE EXPERIMENTATION,
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE INDULGE EVERY REASONABLE PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR
OF THE STATES' ACTION.  THEY SHOULD BE FREE TO IMPROVE THEIR REGULATORY
TECHNIQUES AS SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ADVANCES, FOR HERE TOO
EXPERIMENTATION IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF PROGRESS.  SEE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS
DISSENTING IN NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262, 280. 

                                 IV. 

THE REMAINING NARROW ISSUE IS WHETHER THE MOST PRACTICAL METHOD OF
ACHIEVING A FAIR ACCOMMODATION OF THE CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES
IS INVALID BECAUSE REPUBLIC IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AND TO PAY FOR GAS THAT
IT DOES NOT WANT - AT LEAST DOES NOT WANT IF IT MUST PAY FOR IT. 

APPELLANT RELIES HEAVILY ON THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 300
U.S. 55, WHERE THIS COURT INVALIDATED AN ORDER LIMITING RESPONDENT'S
PRODUCTION SO SEVERELY THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO PURCHASE GAS FROM
UNCONNECTED WELLS IN ITS VICINITY IN ORDER TO SATISFY ITS COMMITMENTS. 
THUS THE NECESSARY EFFECT OF THAT ORDER WAS COMPARABLE TO THE EFFECT OF
THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW HERE. 

BUT THERE IS A CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CASES.  IN DECIDING THE
THOMPSON CASE THE COURT EXPLICITLY ASSUMED THAT THE ORDER COULD BE
UPHELD IF REASONABLY DESIGNED EITHER TO PREVENT WASTE OR "TO PREVENT
UNDUE DRAINAGE OF GAS FROM THE RESERVES OF WELL OWNERS LACKING PIPE
LINE CONNECTIONS."  FN34  BECAUSE OF A GEOLOGICAL ANOMALY THERE WAS A
GENERAL DRAINAGE IN THE GAS FIELD AWAY FROM THE CONNECTED WELLS TOWARD
THE UNCONNECTED WELLS, 300 U.S. AT 71-73, SO THAT THE PRODUCING WELLS,
RATHER THAN DRAINING GAS AWAY FROM THE DORMANT WELLS, WOULD ONLY REDUCE
THEIR OWN LOSS BY PRODUCING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.  THEREFORE THE
LIMITATION ON THEIR PRODUCTION COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED, SINCE IT WAS
NEITHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING WASTE NOR A REASONABLE REGULATION
OF CORRELATIVE RIGHTS.  INSTEAD OF PROTECTING ONE PARTY FROM LOSS, IT
OPERATED TO AGGRAVATE THE EFFECT OF THE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE OWNERS
OF CONNECTED WELLS.  THEY SUFFERED, NOT ONLY BY AN INCREASED DRAINAGE
LOSS, BUT ALSO BY THE CONSEQUENCE THAT THEY WERE FORCED TO SHARE THEIR
FACILITIES AND MARKET WITH THE VERY PARTIES WHO PROFITED BY THEIR
LOSS.  THE COURT HELD THAT SUCH AN ORDER REQUIRING ONE COMPANY TO SHARE
ITS MARKET WITH ANOTHER WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INASMUCH AS IT WAS NOT
JUSTIFIED EITHER AS A CONSERVATION MEASURE OR AS A REASONABLE
ADJUSTMENT OF CORRELATIVE RIGHTS.  THE LATTER JUSTIFICATION IS PRESENT
IN THIS CASE. 

THE FACT THAT REPUBLIC IS COMPELLED EITHER TO PURCHASE PEERLESS' GAS
OR TO CARRY IT TO MARKET AND ACCOUNT FOR THE PROFITS DOES NOT MAKE THE
REGULATION UNREASONABLE.  IF THAT WERE THE SOLE CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT,
THE STATE COULD TAKE THE MORE DRASTIC STEP OF REQUIRING ALL THE WELL
OWNERS TO SHUT DOWN COMPLETELY UNTIL ALL WERE ABLE TO PRODUCE ON A
RATABLE BASIS OR CAME TO SOME AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE TO MAKE THIS
POSSIBLE.  IT IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE STATE'S POWER TO REQUIRE REPUBLIC
TO COMPENSATE PEERLESS FOR THE GAS DRAINED FROM UNDER THE PEERLESS
LAND.  PATTERSON V. STANOLIND CO., 305 U.S. 376.  HERE, INSTEAD OF
REQUIRING REPUBLIC TO MAKE A CASH PAYMENT BASED ON THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT
OF DRAINAGE, THE COMMISSION HAS SELECTED WHAT IS UNQUESTIONABLY A MORE
ACCURATE METHOD OF ADJUSTING THE CORRELATIVE RIGHTS.  EVEN IF IT COULD
BE ASSUMED THAT THIS METHOD IMPOSED A SOMEWHAT HEAVIER BURDEN ON
REPUBLIC THAN POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE METHOD
SELECTED BY THE COMMISSION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FOR WE HAVE CONSTANTLY
RECOGNIZED THE PROPRIETY OF ALLOWING WIDE DISCRETION TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES WHO ARE BEST QUALIFIED TO SELECT THE MOST
REASONABLE SOLUTIONS TO THE THORNY PROBLEMS THAT ACCOMPANY REGULATION
IN THIS HIGHLY TECHNICAL FIELD.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS
OIL CO., 310 U.S. 573.  KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THAT PROPERTY LAW IS
PECULIARLY A MATTER OF LOCAL CONCERN, THE SPECIAL DIFFICULTY OF
DEFINING AND REGULATING PROPERTY RIGHTS IN NATURAL GAS, THE RESPECT DUE
TO EXPERTS IN THIS FIELD, AND THE RATHER UNUSUAL FACTS THIS RECORD
PRESENTS, I CANNOT SAY THAT THE STATE IS WITHOUT POWER TO ENTER THIS
ORDER. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE ORDER, SINCE IT INCLUDES THE REQUIREMENT OF
PURCHASE AND NOT MERELY OF TRANSPORTATION AND ACCOUNTING FOR PROFITS,
BECOMES INVALID BECAUSE IT SHIFTS FROM PEERLESS TO REPUBLIC THE
BUSINESS RISK INCIDENT TO OWNERSHIP AND SALE OF THE GAS.  POSSIBLY THIS
MIGHT FURNISH A MORE SERIOUS BASIS FOR OBJECTION IN MATERIALLY
DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.  BUT, APART FROM WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID,
IN THOSE NOW PRESENTED I CONCEIVE NO SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER HARM TO BE
POSSIBLE, FROM THE ORDER'S OPERATION, THAN DEPRIVING REPUBLIC OF THE
RIGHT TO DRAIN GAS FROM BENEATH PEERLESS' LEASE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO
PAY FOR THE GAS SO DRAINED. 

THIS ASSUMES THAT IF THE PARTIES SHOULD BE UNABLE TO AGREE UPON TERMS
THE COMMISSION WILL FIX THEM IN A MANNER TAKING DUE ACCOUNT OF
PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO THE PRICE TO BE PAID, AS WELL
AS REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF REPUBLIC'S FACILITIES.  WITH
THOSE LIMITATIONS PROPERLY APPLIED, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHAT GREAT
BUSINESS RISK WILL BE SHIFTED TO REPUBLIC.  FOR, AS WE HAVE ALREADY
NOTED, THE COMMODITY IS ONE NOT SUBJECT TO STORAGE, MUST BE SOLD AS
SOON AS IT IS TRANSPORTED TO THE POINT OF CONSUMPTION, AND THEREFORE
CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE WIDE FLUCTUATION IN SELLING PRICE BETWEEN
THE TIMES OF PURCHASE AND SALE BY REPUBLIC. 

THE FACTS HERE, IT SEEMS TO ME, JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION'S ACTION. 
WHETHER OTHERS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT MAY DO SO SHOULD BE LEFT TO BE
CONSIDERED WHEN THEY ARISE. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

FN1  REPUBLIC HAS 92 WELLS IN KANSAS AND 38 IN OKLAHOMA. 

FN2  THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
WHETHER REPUBLIC WAS EITHER A COMMON CARRIER OR A COMMON PURCHASER OF
GAS.  198 OKLA. AT 353.  THE TERM "COMMON PURCHASER" IS EXPLAINED IN
OKLA. STAT., TIT. 52, SEC. 240. 

FN3  APPELLANT CONCEDES THAT THE "OPERATION OF THE REPUBLIC WELLS IS
DRAINING GAS FROM UNDER THE DORMANT PEERLESS WELL."  THE FINDINGS OF
THE COMMISSION STATE:  "(D)  REPUBLIC  ...  IS TAKING AND WILL CONTINUE
TO TAKE MORE THAN ITS PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE NATURAL GAS IN SAID
FIELD UNLESS REQUIRED TO TAKE RATABLY FROM SAID WELL OF PEERLESS  ... 

"(E)  REPUBLIC  ...  IS DRAINING GAS FROM UNDERNEATH SAID SECTION 14
INTO WHICH SAID PEERLESS OIL AND GAS COMPANY'S WELL HAS BEEN DRILLED,
AND WILL CONTINUE TO DRAIN GAS FROM UNDERNEATH SAID SECTION 14 UNTIL
ALL THE GAS THEREUNDER HAS BEEN DRAINED AND PEERLESS  ...  WILL BE
PREVENTED FROM TAKING ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE NATURAL GAS IN THE
FIELD UNLESS REPUBLIC  ...  IS REQUIRED TO TAKE GAS RATABLY FROM
(PEERLESS)." 

FN4  THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION STATES:  "IT IS EVIDENT FROM ALL
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE THAT IF THE PEERLESS COMPANY
IS TO BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCE GAS FROM ITS WELL, THIS GAS MUST BE BY IT
TRANSPORTED FIFTEEN TO THIRTY MILES, UNLESS SAID GAS IS TRANSPORTED OR
DISPOSED OF BY THE REPUBLIC NATURAL GAS COMPANY. 

"IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT TO CONSTRUCT A
PIPELINE TO ANY CITY OR OTHER MARKET OUTLET THAT WOULD TAKE SUFFICIENT
GAS TO JUSTIFY THE PRODUCTION OF THIS WELL; AND IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE
TO ECONOMICALLY OPERATE THE WELL UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS EXISTING IN
THAT FIELD UNLESS THE GAS IS TAKEN INTO THE PIPELINE OF THE REPUBLIC
NATURAL GAS COMPANY." 

FN5  OKLA. STAT., TIT. 52, SECS. 232, 233, 239, 240, 243. 

FN6  THE ORDER REQUIRED REPUBLIC "1.  ...  TO TAKE GAS RATABLY FROM
(PEERLESS) AND TO MAKE NECESSARY CONNECTION AS SOON AS APPLICANT LAYS A
LINE CONNECTING SAID WELL WITH RESPONDENT'S LINE, AND TO CONTINUE TO DO
SO UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COMMISSION; PROVIDED THAT, APPLICANT
SHALL LAY ITS LINE FROM ITS WELL TO THE LINES OF RESPONDENT AT SOME
POINT DESIGNATED BY THE RESPONDENT, BUT IN SAID SECTION 14 IN WHICH
SAID WELL OF PEERLESS  ...  HAS BEEN DRILLED; AND SAID RESPONDENT IS
REQUIRED TO MAKE SAID DESIGNATION IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT UNREASONABLE
DELAY, AND IN EVENT OF FAILURE OF RESPONDENT SO TO DO, RESPONDENT SHALL
NO LONGER BE PERMITTED TO PRODUCE ANY OF ITS WELLS LOCATED IN THE
HUGOTON OKLAHOMA GAS FIELD. 

"2.  THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH TAKING OF NATURAL GAS BY
(REPUBLIC) FROM (PEERLESS) SHALL BE DETERMINED AND AGREED UPON BY AND
BETWEEN APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT; AND IN THE EVENT SAID PARTIES ARE
UNABLE TO AGREE, APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT ARE HEREBY GRANTED THE RIGHT
TO MAKE FURTHER APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR AN ORDER FIXING SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS; AND THE COMMISSION RETAINS JURISDICTION HEREOF
FOR SAID PURPOSE." 

FN7  SEE NOTE 6.  THE ORDER'S LANGUAGE LEAVES NO ROOM FOR THE
INFERENCE, WHICH APPEARS TO BE INJECTED HERE, THAT THE TAKING WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO BEGIN UNTIL THE TERMS HAD BEEN AGREED UPON OR DETERMINED BY
FURTHER ORDER. 

FN8  SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS ARE ENUMERATED IN RADIO STATION WOW
V. JOHNSON, 326 U.S. 120, 123-124. 

FN9  UNDER CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S UNQUALIFIED
ORDER FOR REVERSAL WAS "EFFECTIVE TO REMAND THE CASE 'FOR A NEW TRIAL
AND (PLACE) THE PARTIES IN THE SAME POSITION AS IF THE CASE HAD NEVER
BEEN TRIED.'"  331 U.S. AT 546 AND AUTHORITIES CITED.  THE EFFECT WAS
THUS TO LEAVE ALL ISSUES INCONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED PENDING FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT. 

FN10  THE TWO PRIOR DECISIONS DEEMED DECISIVE AGAINST MECHANICAL
DETERMINATION OF FINALITY IN SUCH SITUATIONS WERE FORGAY V. CONRAD, 6
HOW.  201, AND CARONDELET CANAL CO. V. LOUISIANA, 233 U.S. 362, THE
FORMER OF WHICH WE NOTED HAD "STOOD ON OUR BOOKS FOR NEARLY A HUNDRED
YEARS IN AN OPINION CARRYING THE AUTHORITY, ESPECIALLY WEIGHTY IN SUCH
MATTERS, OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY."  326 U.S. 120, 125. 

FN11  SEE NOTES 6, 7 SUPRA AND TEXT. 

FN12  IN THE REMOTE EVENT THAT REPUBLIC SHOULD ELECT TO SHUT DOWN
PRODUCTION, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A FURTHER ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF
THE PARTIES, AND THE PRESENTLY ERECTED OBSTACLE TO FINALITY WOULD BE
COMPLETELY REMOVED. 

FN13  TO PERMIT REPUBLIC TO CONTINUE DRAINAGE FROM BENEATH PEERLESS'
LAND FOR THE INDEFINITE PERIOD REQUIRED FOR SENDING THE CASE BACK TO
THE OKLAHOMA TRIBUNALS AND THEN BRINGING IT BACK HERE A SECOND TIME
WILL BE TO DEPRIVE PEERLESS OF THAT GAS UNLESS THE STATE LAW ALLOWS
COMPENSATION FOR SUCH CONTINUED TAKING FROM THE DATE OF THE PRESENT
ORDER.  IT IS AT LEAST HIGHLY DOUBTFUL THAT THE STATE LAW ALLOWS SUCH A
REMEDY, EVEN IF THE ORDER IS EVENTUALLY HELD VALID. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE ORDER SHOULD BE INVALIDATED ON THE DEFERRED
REVIEW, REPUBLIC WILL HAVE BEEN PUT TO FURTHER AND UNNECESSARY DELAY,
UNCERTAINTY AND EXPENSE IN ASCERTAINING ITS RIGHTS, MERELY TO SECURE A
DETERMINATION WHICH CANNOT POSSIBLY AFFECT THEM.  IF THIS MAY NOT BE
IRREPARABLE INJURY, IT CERTAINLY IS NOT THE POLICY OF SEC. 237. 

FN14  IN VIEW OF MARKETING CONDITIONS IN THIS INDUSTRY, NO SUCH
PROBLEM OF VALUATION OR OF REACHING AGREEMENT UPON IT WOULD BE
PRESENTED AS, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE CASE OF SEEKING TO PLACE A VALUE
UPON REAL ESTATE TAKEN BY CONDEMNATION FOR PUBLIC USE OR VALUATION OF
PROPERTY FOR RATE-MAKING PURPOSES.  THE IDEA THAT DETERMINING THE VALUE
OF THE GAS TAKEN HERE WOULD PRESENT ALL THE DIFFICULTIES OF VALUING A
RAILROAD FOR RATE-MAKING PURPOSES BLOWS THE MATTER UP BEYOND ALL THE
PRACTICALITIES OF THE SITUATION. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 14. 

FN16  WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO. V. WHEELING BRIDGE CO., 138 U.S.
287. 

FN17  THE SAME WAS SAID TO BE TRUE OF LUXTON V. NORTH RIVER BRIDGE
CO., 147 U.S. 337.  SEE ID. 341. 

FN18  MOREOVER, UNDER STATE PRACTICE REVIEW OF THE CONDEMNATION ORDER
BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS BY CERTIORARI, NOT BY APPEAL WHICH LAY
ONLY FROM THE ORDER FIXING DAMAGES.  AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW,
THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT ON THE CONDEMNATION ORDER WAS INTERLOCUTORY. 
SEE, HOWEVER, AS TO THIS CATLIN V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 229, 234;
LUXTON V. NORTH RIVER BRIDGE CO., 147 U.S. 337. 

FN19  CF. WABASH AND ERIE CANAL V. BEERS, 1 BLACK 54; MILWAUKEE AND
MINNESOTA R. CO. V. SOUTTER, 2 WALL.  440. 

CONTROL OF PRODUCTION, OF COURSE, IS THE CORE OF STATE CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS.  IN CHAMPLIN RFG.  CO. V. COMM'N, 286 U.S. 210, PRORATION
ORDERS LIMITING PRODUCTION OF OIL WELLS TO AS LITTLE AS SIX PER CENT OF
CAPACITY WERE SUSTAINED.  SEE P. 229.  CF. WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON CO.,
254 U.S. 300; LINDSLEY V. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61.  THE
POWER OF A STATE TO PROTECT CORRELATIVE RIGHTS HARDLY CAN BE REGARDED
AS FURNISHING A LESS SOLID BASIS FOR CONTROL OF PRODUCTION THAN THE
POWER TO PREVENT WASTE.  SEE NOTE 29 AND TEXT INFRA.    FN20  IN ITS
REPORT THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT REPUBLIC SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO "
...  ALLOW THE PEERLESS GAS TO ENTER THE REPUBLIC PIPELINE, AND PAY THE
PEERLESS COMPANY FOR THE GAS."  THE ORDER ITSELF IN UNQUALIFIED TERMS
DIRECTS REPUBLIC "TO TAKE GAS RATABLY FROM (PEERLESS)  ...  AS SOON AS
APPLICANT LAYS A LINE CONNECTING SAID WELL WITH RESPONDENT'S LINE  ...
"  SEE NOTES 6, 7. 

SINCE NEITHER THE COMMISSION'S REPORT NOR THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S
OPINION SUGGESTS THAT THE COMMAND WAS QUALIFIED BY THE CONDITION THAT
PEERLESS OBTAIN ITS OWN MARKET, WE NEED NOT READ SUCH A CONDITION INTO
THE ORDER.  THE COMMISSION REPORT STATES THAT "REPUBLIC OFFERS TO
TRANSPORT THE PEERLESS GAS IF MARKET CAN BE OBTAINED BY (PEERLESS)  ...
" 

FN21  THE NEAREST APPROXIMATIONS PERHAPS WERE IN THE PROHIBITIONS
AGAINST STATE LEGISLATION IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS AND
AGAINST EX POST FACTO LEGISLATION BEFORE THE LATTER WAS LIMITED TO
CRIMINAL AND PENAL CONSEQUENCES.  CALDER V. BULL, 3 DALL.  386.  SEE
HALE, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CONTRACT CLAUSE, 57 HARV. L. REV. 512,
621, 852. 

FN22  SEE MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTING IN MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS
WATER CO., 302 U.S. 419, 423; BOUDIN, TRUTH AND FICTION ABOUT THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 16 N.Y.U.L.Q. REV. 19. 

FN23  IT IS PRECISELY IN CASES WHERE THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN MADE THUS
EFFECTIVE, OFTEN BY GIVING EXPANSIVE SCOPE TO THE IDEA OF "PROPERTY,"
THAT ITS INTERPRETATIONS HAVE FAILED TO WITHSTAND THE TEST OF TIME. 
COMPARE RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE, 277 U.S. 350, WITH OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313
U.S. 236; ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161, AND COPPAGE V. KANSAS,
236 U.S. 1, WITH PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 187;
LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45, AND ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL,
261 U.S. 525, WITH WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379. 

FN24  CF. POWER COMM'N V. HOPE GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, DISSENTING
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AT 628. 

FN25  SEE CLARK V. NASH, 198 U.S. 361; FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
V. BRADLEY, 164 U.S. 112; KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46, 93-94;
UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE DAM & IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690, 702
703; STRICKLEY V. HIGHLAND BOY GOLD MINING CO., 200 U.S. 527; PARLEY'S
PARK SILVER MINING CO. V. KERR, 130 U.S. 256; BUTTE CITY WATER CO. V.
BAKER, 196 U.S. 119; KENDALL V. SAN JUAN SILVER MINING CO., 144 U.S.
658; CLASON V. MATKO, 223 U.S. 646. 

FN26  HEAD V. AMOSKEAG MFG. CO., 113 U.S. 9; WURTS V. HOAGLAND, 114
U.S. 606; BACON V. WALKER, 204 U.S. 311; CF. FERRY V. SPOKANE, P. &
S.R. CO., 258 U.S. 314; CAMPBELL V. CALIFORNIA, 200 U.S. 87. 

FN27  OHIO OIL CO. V. INDIANA, 177 U.S. 190; LINDSLEY V. NATURAL
CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61; WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON CO., 254 U.S.
300; BANDINI PETROLEUM CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8; CHAMPLIN
REFINING CO. V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210; HUNTER CO. V.
MCHUGH, 320 U.S. 222. 

FN28  SEE HARDWICKE, THE RULE OF CAPTURE, 13 TEX. L. REV. 391, 414
422; MARSHALL AND MEYERS, LEGAL PLANNING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTION, 41
YALE L.J. 33, 48-52; ELY, THE CONSERVATION OF OIL, 51 HARV. L. REV.
1209, 1222-1225; FORD, CONTROLLING THE PRODUCTION OF OIL, 30 MICH. L.
REV. 1170, 1181, 1192. 

FN29  INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY STATUTE, SEVERAL STATES HAVE GRANTED
EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST WASTE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CORRELATIVE
RIGHTS OF COMMON OWNERS OF A RESERVOIR OF GAS OR OIL.  LOUISVILLE GAS
CO. V. KENTUCKY HEATING CO., 117 KY. 71; MANUFACTURERS GAS AND OIL CO.
V. INDIANA NATURAL GAS AND OIL CO., 155 IND. 461, 474-475; ROSS V.
DAMM, 278 MICH. 388; HIGGINS OIL & FUEL CO. V. GUARANTY OIL CO., 145
LA. 233; ATKINSON V. VIRGINIA OIL & GAS CO., 72 W. VA. 707. 

FN30  THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS HAS RECENTLY UPHELD ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION DESIGNED SOLELY TO PROTECT CORRELATIVE RIGHTS.  CORZELIUS V.
HARRELL, 143 TEX. 509.  NOTE, 24 TEX. L. REV. 97. 

FN31  OKLAHOMA CAN PREVENT AGENTS OF REPUBLIC FROM GOING ON PEERLESS'
LAND BY FORCE OF ARMS AND THERE DRILLING A WELL AND STEALING GAS.  THE
STATE'S POWER TO PREVENT LARCENY AND TRESPASS AND TO ENJOIN ANY USE OF
PROPERTY THAT CREATES A NUISANCE FOR A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER ALSO
JUSTIFIES THE REGULATION OF COMMON PROPERTY FOR THE MUTUAL ADVANTAGE OF
ITS SEVERAL OWNERS.  HEAD V. AMOSKEAG MFG. CO., 113 U.S. 9; BACON V.
WALKER, 204 U.S. 311. 

UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES A STATE MAY COMPEL ONE INDIVIDUAL TO
SURRENDER PRIVATE PROPERTY SOLELY TO ENABLE ANOTHER TO EXPLOIT THE
POTENTIAL RESOURCES OF HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY.  THUS IN CLARK V. NASH,
198 U.S. 361, THE PLAINTIFF'S LAND COULD BE MADE PRODUCTIVE ONLY BY
ENLARGING AN IRRIGATION DITCH ACROSS DEFENDANT'S LAND, AND IN STRICKLEY
V. HIGHLAND BOY GOLD MINING COMPANY, 200 U.S. 527, THE MINING COMPANY
COULD DELIVER ITS ORE TO MARKET ONLY BY CONSTRUCTING AN AERIAL BUCKET
LINE ACROSS DEFENDANT'S LAND.  HERE PEERLESS CAN EXPLOIT ITS PROPERTY
ONLY IF REPUBLIC IS COMPELLED TO TAKE ITS GAS TO MARKET.  MOREOVER,
UNTIL PEERLESS IS ABLE TO PRODUCE THE GAS UNDER ITS LAND, THIS GAS WILL
CONTINUE TO BE WITHDRAWN BY REPUBLIC.  IN EFFECT REPUBLIC IS NOW
EXPLOITING PEERLESS' PROPERTY. 

FN32  E.G., HEAD V. AMOSKEAG MFG. CO., 113 U.S. 9; WURTS V. HOAGLAND,
114 U.S. 606; FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. BRADLEY, 164 U.S. 112;
BACON V. WALKER, 204 U.S. 311; PLYMOUTH COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232
U.S. 531; JACKMAN V. ROSENBAUM CO., 260 U.S. 22. 

FN33  "IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THROUGH THE JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE
PROCESSES CORRELATIVE RIGHT-DUTY RELATIONS AGAINST INJURY AND NON
COMPENSATED AND PREVENTABLE DRAINAGE DO EXIST, BUT THE DIFFICULTY OF
FINDING AND PROVING THE FACTS IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION IS SUCH THAT
THE USUAL REMEDIES OF DAMAGES AND INJUNCTION MIGHT NOT BE PRACTICABLE. 
IT SEEMS MORE ADVISABLE THAT LEGISLATURES ENACT STATUTES EXPRESSLY
DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF THESE CORRELATIVE RIGHT-DUTY RELATIONS IN
LANDOWNERS, APART FROM PUBLIC RIGHTS AGAINST WASTE, AND AUTHORIZE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, AFTER A FINDING OF FACTS, TO PROMULGATE RULES
AND REGULATIONS FOR THEIR PROTECTION AND AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION OR
PRIVATE OWNERS TO ENFORCE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS THROUGH ACTIONS IN
THE COURTS."  SUMMERS, LEGAL RIGHTS AGAINST DRAINAGE OF OIL AND GAS, 18
TEX. L. REV. 27, 47. 

FN34  300 U.S. AT 76-77.  THIS ASSUMPTION IS REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES
IN THE OPINION.  SEE 300 U.S. AT 58, 67, 69 AND 72-73. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100 


NO. 64.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1948.  - 68
F.SUPP.  180, REVERSED. 


1.  EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC INTENT TO RESTRAIN OR MONOPOLIZE
TRADE, IT IS VIOLATIVE OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT FOR FOUR
AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS OPERATING MOTION PICTURE THEATRES IN NUMEROUS
TOWNS IN THREE STATES AND HAVING NO COMPETITORS IN SOME OF THESE TOWNS
TO USE THE BUYING POWER OF THE ENTIRE CIRCUIT TO OBTAIN EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES FROM FILM DISTRIBUTORS WHICH PREVENT COMPETITORS FROM
OBTAINING ENOUGH FIRST- OR SECOND-RUN FILMS TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY. 
PP. 101-110. 

(A)  IT IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY TO FIND A SPECIFIC INTENT TO RESTRAIN
TRADE OR TO BUILD A MONOPOLY IN ORDER TO FIND THAT SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT A RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR MONOPOLY RESULTS AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT
OR BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS.  P. 105. 

(B)  SPECIFIC INTENT IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE COMMON LAW USED THE
TERM IS NECESSARY ONLY WHERE THE ACTS FALL SHORT OF THE RESULTS
PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 105. 

(C)  THE USE OF MONOPOLY POWER, HOWEVER LAWFULLY ACQUIRED, TO
FORECLOSE COMPETITION, TO GAIN A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, OR TO DESTROY A
COMPETITOR, IS UNLAWFUL.  PP. 106-107. 

(D)  IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR THE OPERATOR OF A CIRCUIT OF MOTION PICTURE
THEATRES TO USE HIS MONOPOLY IN TOWNS IN WHICH HE HAS NO COMPETITORS TO
OBTAIN EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO FILMS FOR TOWNS IN WHICH HE HAS
COMPETITORS.  PP. 107-109. 

(E)  THE EXHIBITORS IN THIS CASE HAVING COMBINED WITH EACH OTHER AND
WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS TO OBTAIN MONOPOLY RIGHTS, HAD FORMED A
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 109. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAVING ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN
THIS CASE WITHOUT MAKING ADEQUATE FINDINGS AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE
PRACTICES FOUND BY THIS COURT TO BE UNLAWFUL, THE CASE IS REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER FINDINGS AND THE FASHIONING OF A DECREE
WHICH WILL UNDO AS NEAR AS MAY BE THE WRONGS THAT WERE DONE AND PREVENT
THEIR RECURRENCE IN THE FUTURE.  PP. 109-110. 

UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. 

IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND
2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO
VIOLATION OF THE ACT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE MERITS.  68
F.SUPP.  180.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 110. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
PREVENT AND RESTRAIN APPELLEES FROM VIOLATING SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 50 STAT. 693, 15 U.S.C. SECS.
1, 2.  THE DISTRICT COURT, FINDING THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE ACT IN
ANY OF THE RESPECTS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT
ON THE MERITS.  68 F.SUPP.  180.  THE CASE IS HERE BY APPEAL UNDER SEC.
2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1903, 32 STAT. 823, AS AMENDED,
15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, AND SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

THE APPELLEES ARE FOUR AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS AND TWO INDIVIDUALS
WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM AS STOCKHOLDERS AND OFFICERS.  FN1  THE
CORPORATIONS OPERATE (OR OWN STOCK IN CORPORATIONS WHICH OPERATE)
MOVING PICTURE THEATRES IN OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, AND NEW MEXICO.  WITH MINOR
EXCEPTIONS, THE THEATRES WHICH EACH CORPORATION OWNS DO NOT COMPETE
WITH THOSE OF ITS AFFILIATES BUT ARE IN SEPARATE TOWNS.  IN APRIL,
1939, WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED, THE CORPORATE APPELLEES HAD
INTERESTS IN THEATRES IN 85 TOWNS.  IN 32 OF THOSE TOWNS THERE WERE
COMPETING THEATRES.  FIFTY-THREE OF THE TOWNS (62 PER CENT) WERE CLOSED
TOWNS, I.E. TOWNS IN WHICH THERE WERE NO COMPETING THEATRES.  FIVE
YEARS EARLIER THE CORPORATE APPELLEES HAD THEATRES IN APPROXIMATELY 37
TOWNS, 18 OF WHICH WERE COMPETITIVE AND 19 OF WHICH (51 PER CENT) WERE
CLOSED.  IT WAS DURING THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD THAT THE ACTS AND
PRACTICES OCCURRED WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT, CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

PRIOR TO THE 1938-1939 SEASON THESE EXHIBITORS USED A COMMON AGENT TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS FOR FILMS FOR THE ENTIRE CIRCUIT.  FN2
BEGINNING WITH THE 1938-1939 SEASON ONE AGENT NEGOTIATED FOR THE
CIRCUIT REPRESENTED BY TWO OF THE CORPORATE APPELLEES, AND ANOTHER
AGENT NEGOTIATED FOR THE CIRCUIT REPRESENTED BY THE OTHER TWO CORPORATE
APPELLEES.  A MASTER AGREEMENT WAS USUALLY EXECUTED WITH EACH
DISTRIBUTOR COVERING FILMS TO BE RELEASED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR DURING AN
ENTIRE SEASON.  FN3  THERE WERE VARIATIONS AMONG THE MASTER
AGREEMENTS.  BUT IN THE MAIN THEY PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:  (A)  THEY
LUMPED TOGETHER TOWNS IN WHICH THE APPELLEES HAD NO COMPETITION AND
TOWNS IN WHICH THERE WERE COMPETING THEATRES.  (B)  THEY GENERALLY
LICENSED THE FIRST-RUN EXHIBITION IN PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE THEATRES IN
WHICH APPELLEES HAD A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE
FILMS TO BE RELEASED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR DURING THE PERIOD OF A YEAR. 
FN4 (C)  THEY SPECIFIED THE TOWNS FOR WHICH SECOND RUNS WERE LICENSED
FOR EXHIBITION BY APPELLEES, THE SECOND-RUN RENTAL SOMETIMES BEING
INCLUDED IN THE FIRST-RUN RENTAL.  (D)  THE RENTAL SPECIFIED OFTEN WAS
THE TOTAL MINIMUM REQUIRED TO BE PAID (IN EQUAL WEEKLY OR QUARTERLY
INSTALLMENTS) BY THE CIRCUIT AS A WHOLE FOR USE OF THE FILMS THROUGHOUT
THE CIRCUIT, THE APPELLEES SUBSEQUENTLY ALLOCATING THE RENTAL AMONG THE
THEATRES WHERE THE FILMS WERE EXHIBITED.  (E)  FILMS COULD BE PLAYED
OUT OF THE ORDER OF THEIR RELEASE, SO THAT A SPECIFIED FILM NEED NOT BE
PLAYED IN A PARTICULAR THEATRE AT ANY SPECIFIED TIME.  FN5 

THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT CERTAIN EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES WHICH THESE
AGREEMENTS GRANTED THE APPELLEE EXHIBITORS OVER THEIR COMPETITORS
UNREASONABLY RESTRAINED COMPETITION BY PREVENTING THEIR COMPETITORS
FROM OBTAINING ENOUGH FIRST- OR SECOND-RUN FILMS FROM THE DISTRIBUTORS
FN6  TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY.  THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES CHARGED AS
VIOLATIONS WERE PREEMPTION IN THE SELECTION OF FILMS AND THE RECEIPT OF
CLEARANCES OVER COMPETING THEATRES.  IT ALSO CHARGED THAT THE USE OF
THE BUYING POWER OF THE ENTIRE CIRCUIT IN ACQUIRING THOSE EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES VIOLATED THE ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE APPELLEE EXHIBITORS
OR BETWEEN THEM AND THE DISTRIBUTORS, WHICH VIOLATED THE ACT.  IT FOUND
THAT THE AGREEMENTS UNDER WHICH FILMS WERE DISTRIBUTED WERE NOT IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE; THAT THE APPELLEES DID NOT MONOPOLIZE OR ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE THE LICENSING OR SUPPLY OF FILM FOR FIRST RUN OR FOR ANY
SUBSEQUENT RUN; THAT THE APPELLEES DID NOT CONSPIRE TO COMPEL THE
DISTRIBUTORS TO GRANT THEM THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF SELECTING FILMS
BEFORE THE FILMS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY COMPETING EXHIBITOR; THAT
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANTS AND DISTRIBUTORS GRANTING
DEFENDANTS UNREASONABLE CLEARANCES; THAT THE APPELLEES DID NOT COMPEL
OR ATTEMPT TO COMPEL DISTRIBUTORS TO GRANT THEM PRIVILEGES NOT GRANTED
THEIR COMPETITORS OR WHICH GAVE THEM ANY SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGE OVER
THEIR COMPETITORS; AND THAT APPELLEES DID NOT CONDITION THE LICENSING
OF FILMS IN ANY COMPETITIVE SITUATION ON THE LICENSING OF SUCH FILMS IN
A NON-COMPETITIVE SITUATION, OR VICE VERSA. 

THE APPELLANT INTRODUCED EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO SHOW THE EFFECT OF THE
MASTER AGREEMENTS IN SOME TWENTY-ODD COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT MADE DETAILED FINDINGS ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE TO THE
EFFECT THAT DIFFICULTIES WHICH COMPETITORS HAD IN GETTING DESIRABLE
FILMS AFTER APPELLEE EXHIBITORS ENTERED THEIR TOWNS, THE INROADS
APPELLEES MADE ON THE BUSINESS OF COMPETITORS, AND THE PURCHASES BY
APPELLEES OF THEIR COMPETITORS WERE NOT THE RESULT OF THREATS OR
COERCION NOR THE RESULT OF AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY, BUT SOLELY THE
CONSEQUENCE OF LAWFUL COMPETITIVE PRACTICES. 

IN UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, A GROUP OF
AFFILIATED EXHIBITORS, SUCH AS WE HAVE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WERE FOUND
TO HAVE VIOLATED SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE POOLING OF
THEIR BUYING POWER AND THE NEGOTIATION OF MASTER AGREEMENTS SIMILAR TO
THOSE WE HAVE HERE.  A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT CASE AND THE PRESENT
ONE, WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT DEEMED TO BE VITAL, WAS THAT IN THE
FORMER THE BUYING POWER WAS USED FOR THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING
COMPETITION AND OF ACQUIRING A MONOPOLY OF THEATRES IN THE SEVERAL
TOWNS, WHILE NO SUCH PURPOSE WAS FOUND TO EXIST HERE.  TO BE MORE
SPECIFIC, THE DEFENDANTS IN THE FORMER CASE THROUGH THE POOLING OF
THEIR BUYING POWER INCREASED THEIR LEVERAGE OVER THEIR COMPETITIVE
SITUATIONS BY INSISTING THAT THEY BE GIVEN MONOPOLY RIGHTS IN TOWNS
WHERE THEY HAD COMPETITION, ELSE THEY WOULD GIVE A DISTRIBUTOR NO
BUSINESS IN THEIR CLOSED TOWNS. 

IT IS, HOWEVER, NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY TO FIND A SPECIFIC INTENT TO
RESTRAIN TRADE OR TO BUILD A MONOPOLY IN ORDER TO FIND THAT THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT A RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR MONOPOLY RESULTS AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF A DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT
OR BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS.  UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 543;
UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 275.  TO REQUIRE A
GREATER SHOWING WOULD CRIPPLE THE ACT.  AS STATED IN UNITED STATES V.
ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, 432, "NO MONOPOLIST MONOPOLIZES
UNCONSCIOUS OF WHAT HE IS DOING."  SPECIFIC INTENT IN THE SENSE IN
WHICH THE COMMON LAW USED THE TERM IS NECESSARY ONLY WHERE THE ACTS
FALL SHORT OF THE RESULTS CONDEMNED BY THE ACT.  THE CLASSICAL
STATEMENT IS THAT OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN SWIFT
& CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 396: 

"WHERE ACTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT IN THEMSELVES TO PRODUCE A RESULT
WHICH THE LAW SEEKS TO PREVENT - FOR INSTANCE, THE MONOPOLY - BUT
REQUIRE FURTHER ACTS IN ADDITION TO THE MERE FORCES OF NATURE TO BRING
THAT RESULT TO PASS, AN INTENT TO BRING IT TO PASS IS NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO PRODUCE A DANGEROUS PROBABILITY THAT IT WILL HAPPEN. 
COMMONWEALTH V. PEASLEE, 177 MASSACHUSETTS, 267, 272.  BUT WHEN THAT
INTENT AND THE CONSEQUENT DANGEROUS PROBABILITY EXIST, THIS STATUTE,
LIKE MANY OTHERS AND LIKE THE COMMON LAW IN SOME CASES, DIRECTS ITSELF
AGAINST THAT DANGEROUS PROBABILITY AS WELL AS AGAINST THE COMPLETED
RESULT." 

AND SEE UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, SUPRA, PP. 431
432.  AND SO, EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS THAT
APPELLEES HAD NO INTENT OR PURPOSE UNREASONABLY TO RESTRAIN TRADE OR TO
MONOPOLIZE, WE ARE LEFT WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER A NECESSARY AND
DIRECT RESULT OF THE MASTER AGREEMENTS WAS THE RESTRAINING OR
MONOPOLIZING OF TRADE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

ANYONE WHO OWNS AND OPERATES THE SINGLE THEATRE IN A TOWN, OR WHO
ACQUIRES THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT A FILM, HAS A MONOPOLY IN THE
POPULAR SENSE.  BUT HE USUALLY DOES NOT VIOLATE SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT UNLESS HE HAS ACQUIRED OR MAINTAINED HIS STRATEGIC POSITION, OR
SOUGHT TO EXPAND HIS MONOPOLY, OR EXPANDED IT BY MEANS OF THOSE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WHICH ARE COGNIZABLE UNDER SEC. 1.  FOR THOSE
THINGS WHICH ARE CONDEMNED BY SEC. 2 ARE IN LARGE MEASURE MERELY THE
END PRODUCTS OF CONDUCT WHICH VIOLATES SEC. 1.  STANDARD OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 61.  BUT THAT IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE.  SECTION 1
COVERS CONTRACTS, COMBINATIONS, OR CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 
FN7  SECTION 2 IS NOT RESTRICTED TO CONSPIRACIES OR COMBINATIONS TO
MONOPOLIZE  FN8  BUT ALSO MAKES IT A CRIME FOR ANY PERSON TO MONOPOLIZE
OR TO ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN TRADE OR
COMMERCE.  SO IT IS THAT MONOPOLY POWER, WHETHER LAWFULLY OR UNLAWFULLY
ACQUIRED, MAY ITSELF CONSTITUTE AN EVIL AND STAND CONDEMNED UNDER SEC.
2 EVEN THOUGH IT REMAINS UNEXERCISED.  FN9  FOR SEC. 2 OF THE ACT IS
AIMED, INTER ALIA, AT THE ACQUISITION OR RETENTION OF EFFECTIVE MARKET
CONTROL.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416,
428, 429.  HENCE THE EXISTENCE OF POWER "TO EXCLUDE COMPETITION WHEN IT
IS DESIRED TO DO SO" IS ITSELF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2, PROVIDED IT IS
COUPLED WITH THE PURPOSE OR INTENT TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.  AMERICAN
TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 809, 811, 814.  IT IS
INDEED "UNREASONABLE, PER SE, TO FORECLOSE COMPETITORS FROM ANY
SUBSTANTIAL MARKET."  INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S.
392, 396.  THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS ARE AS MUCH VIOLATED BY THE PREVENTION
OF COMPETITION AS BY ITS DESTRUCTION.  UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF
AMERICA, SUPRA.  IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT THE USE OF MONOPOLY POWER,
HOWEVER LAWFULLY ACQUIRED, TO FORECLOSE COMPETITION, TO GAIN A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, OR TO DESTROY A COMPETITOR, IS UNLAWFUL. 

A MAN WITH A MONOPOLY OF THEATRES IN ANY ONE TOWN COMMANDS THE
ENTRANCE FOR ALL FILMS INTO THAT AREA.  IF HE USES THAT STRATEGIC
POSITION TO ACQUIRE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES IN A CITY WHERE HE HAS
COMPETITORS, HE IS EMPLOYING HIS MONOPOLY POWER AS A TRADE WEAPON
AGAINST HIS COMPETITORS.  IT MAY BE A FEEBLE, INEFFECTIVE WEAPON WHERE
HE HAS ONLY ONE CLOSED OR MONOPOLY TOWN.  BUT AS THOSE TOWNS INCREASE
IN NUMBER THROUGHOUT A REGION, HIS MONOPOLY POWER IN THEM MAY BE USED
WITH CRUSHING EFFECT ON COMPETITORS IN OTHER PLACES.  FN10  HE NEED NOT
BE AS CRASS AS THE EXHIBITORS IN UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT
CO., SUPRA, IN ORDER TO MAKE HIS MONOPOLY POWER EFFECTIVE IN HIS
COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS.  THOUGH HE MAKES NO THREAT TO WITHHOLD THE
BUSINESS OF HIS CLOSED OR MONOPOLY TOWNS UNLESS THE DISTRIBUTORS GIVE
HIM THE EXCLUSIVE FILM RIGHTS IN THE TOWNS WHERE HE HAS COMPETITORS,
THE EFFECT IS LIKELY TO BE THE SAME WHERE THE TWO ARE JOINED.  WHEN THE
BUYING POWER OF THE ENTIRE CIRCUIT IS USED TO NEGOTIATE FILMS FOR HIS
COMPETITIVE AS WELL AS HIS CLOSED TOWNS, HE IS USING MONOPOLY POWER TO
EXPAND HIS EMPIRE.  AND EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT A SPECIFIC INTENT TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT RESULT IS ABSENT, HE IS CHARGEABLE IN LEGAL
CONTEMPLATION WITH THAT PURPOSE SINCE THE END RESULT IS THE NECESSARY
AND DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT HE DID.  UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, SUPRA,
P. 543. 

THE CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH A USE OF MONOPOLY POWER IS THAT FILMS ARE
LICENSED ON A NON-COMPETITIVE BASIS IN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS.  THAT IS THE EFFECT WHETHER ONE EXHIBITOR MAKES
THE BARGAIN WITH THE DISTRIBUTOR OR WHETHER TWO OR MORE EXHIBITORS LUMP
TOGETHER THEIR BUYING POWER, AS APPELLEES DID HERE.  IT IS IN EITHER
CASE A MISUSE OF MONOPOLY POWER UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  IF MONOPOLY
POWER CAN BE USED TO BEGET MONOPOLY, THE ACT BECOMES A FEEBLE
INSTRUMENT INDEED.  LARGE-SCALE BUYING IS NOT, OF COURSE, UNLAWFUL PER
SE.  IT MAY YIELD PRICE OR OTHER LAWFUL ADVANTAGES TO THE BUYER.  IT
MAY NOT, HOWEVER, BE USED TO MONOPOLIZE OR TO ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE
INTERSTATE TRADE OR COMMERCE.  NOR, AS WE HOLD IN UNITED STATES V.
PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., POST, P. 131, MAY IT BE USED TO STIFLE
COMPETITION BY DENYING COMPETITORS LESS FAVORABLY SITUATED ACCESS TO
THE MARKET. 

APPELLEES WERE CONCEDEDLY USING THEIR CIRCUIT BUYING POWER TO OBTAIN
FILMS.  THEIR CLOSED TOWNS WERE LINKED WITH THEIR COMPETITIVE TOWNS. 
NO EFFORT OF CONCEALMENT WAS MADE AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE
RENTAL SPECIFIED WAS AT TIMES THE TOTAL MINIMUM AMOUNT REQUIRED TO BE
PAID BY THE CIRCUIT AS A WHOLE.  MONOPOLY RIGHTS IN THE FORM OF CERTAIN
EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES WERE BARGAINED FOR AND OBTAINED.  THESE EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGES, BEING ACQUIRED BY THE USE OF MONOPOLY POWER, WERE
UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED.  THE APPELLEES, HAVING COMBINED WITH EACH OTHER
AND WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS TO OBTAIN THOSE MONOPOLY RIGHTS, FORMED A
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT.  IT IS PLAIN FROM
THE COURSE OF BUSINESS THAT THE COMMERCE AFFECTED WAS INTERSTATE. 
UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, PP. 180, 183-184. 
WHAT EFFECT THESE PRACTICES ACTUALLY HAD ON THE COMPETITORS OF APPELLEE
EXHIBITORS OR ON THE GROWTH OF THE GRIFFITH CIRCUIT WE DO NOT KNOW. 
THE DISTRICT COURT, HAVING STARTED WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE USE OF
CIRCUIT BUYING POWER WAS WHOLLY LAWFUL, NATURALLY ATTRIBUTED NO EVIL TO
IT AND THUS TREATED THE MASTER AGREEMENTS AS LEGITIMATE WEAPONS OF
COMPETITION.  SINCE IT FOUND THAT NO COMPETITORS WERE DRIVEN OUT OF
BUSINESS, OR ACQUIRED BY APPELLEES, OR IMPEDED IN THEIR BUSINESS BY
THREATS OR COERCION, IT CONCLUDED THAT APPELLEES HAD NOT VIOLATED THE
SHERMAN ACT IN ANY OF THE WAYS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT.  THESE
FINDINGS ARE PLAINLY INADEQUATE IF WE START, AS WE MUST, FROM THE
PREMISE THAT THE CIRCUIT BUYING POWER WAS UNLAWFULLY EMPLOYED.  ON THE
RECORD AS WE READ IT, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE MONOPOLY POWER OF
APPELLEES HAD SOME EFFECT ON THEIR COMPETITORS AND ON THE GROWTH OF THE
GRIFFITH CIRCUIT.  ITS EXTENT MUST BE DETERMINED ON A REMAND OF THE
CAUSE.  WE REMIT TO THE DISTRICT COURT NOT ONLY THAT PROBLEM BUT ALSO
THE FASHIONING OF A DECREE WHICH WILL UNDO AS NEAR AS MAY BE THE WRONGS
THAT WERE DONE AND PREVENT THEIR RECURRENCE IN THE FUTURE.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, PP. 189-190; SCHINE CHAIN
THEATRES V. UNITED STATES, POST, P. 110; UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT
PICTURES, INC., POST, P. 131.  REVERSED. 

FN1  GRIFFITH AMUSEMENT CO., CONSOLIDATED THEATRES, INC., R.E.
GRIFFITH THEATRES, INC., WESTEX THEATRES, INC., H.J. GRIFFITH, AND L.C.
GRIFFITH.  R. E. GRIFFITH, A BROTHER OF H. J. AND L. C. GRIFFITH, WAS A
DEFENDANT, BUT DIED WHILE THE SUIT WAS PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AND THE ACTION WAS NOT REVIVED AGAINST HIS ESTATE OR PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE. 

FN2  THE CIRCUIT INCLUDES THE FOUR CORPORATE APPELLEES AND THEIR
AFFILIATED EXHIBITORS.  WHEN LESS THAN THE FULL OWNERSHIP OF A THEATRE
WAS ACQUIRED, THE CONTRACT WOULD PROVIDE THAT THE BUYING AND BOOKING OF
FILMS WAS EXCLUSIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE GRIFFITH INTERESTS. 

FN3  THE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BY THE COMMON AGENT WOULD BE EXECUTED
BETWEEN A DISTRIBUTOR AND EACH OF THE CORPORATE APPELLEES OR BETWEEN A
DISTRIBUTOR AND AN INDIVIDUAL EXHIBITOR. 

FN4  THERE WERE A FEW FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS COVERING FILMS TO BE
RELEASED BY A DISTRIBUTOR DURING A TERM OF YEARS, USUALLY FOR THREE
YEARS AND IN ONE INSTANCE FOR FIVE YEARS. 

THE THEATRES OF APPELLEES IN OKLAHOMA CITY WERE SECOND, NOT FIRST,
RUN THEATRES. 

FN5  THE PRIVILEGE WAS FREQUENTLY CONDITIONED ON THE PLAYING OF, OR
PAYING FOR, A DESIGNATED QUANTITY OF THE FILM OBLIGATION DURING STATED
PORTIONS OF THE SEASON. 

FN6  THOSE ARE THE EIGHT MAJOR FILM DISTRIBUTORS WHO ORIGINALLY WERE
DEFENDANTS.  THE CHARGE THAT THESE DISTRIBUTORS CONSPIRED WITH EACH
OTHER WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE COMPLAINT AND THEY WERE DISMISSED AS
DEFENDANTS BY STIPULATION OR ON MOTION OF APPELLANT.  BUT THE CHARGE
THAT EACH OF THE DISTRIBUTORS HAD CONSPIRED WITH THE APPELLEE
EXHIBITORS WAS RETAINED. 

FN7  SECTION 1 PROVIDES:  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF
TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED
TO BE ILLEGAL.  ...  " 

FN8  SECTION 2 PROVIDES:  "EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE, OR
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR
PERSONS, TO MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR  ...  " 

FN9  SO ALSO A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE VIOLATES SEC. 2 EVEN THOUGH
MONOPOLY POWER WAS NEVER ACQUIRED.  AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 789. 

FN10  IT WAS SAID IN UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251
U.S. 417, 451, THAT MERE SIZE IS NOT OUTLAWED BY SEC. 2.  BUT SIZE IS
OF COURSE AN EARMARK OF MONOPOLY POWER.  MOREOVER, AS STATED BY JUSTICE
CARDOZO, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 286
U.S. 106, 116, "SIZE CARRIES WITH IT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSE THAT IS
NOT TO BE IGNORED WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVED TO HAVE BEEN UTILIZED
IN THE PAST." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTS, SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS SET
FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 68 F.SUPP.  180. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :








SCHINE THEATRES V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 110 


NO. 10.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1948.  - 63
F.SUPP.  229, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


THE UNITED STATES SUED TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT BY A PARENT CORPORATION, THREE OF ITS OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS AND FIVE OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES, WHICH OWNED OR HAD A FINANCIAL
INTEREST IN A LARGE CHAIN OF MOTION PICTURE THEATRES LOCATED IN SIX
STATES.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THEY HAD USED THE COMBINED
BUYING POWER OF THE ENTIRE CIRCUIT TO NEGOTIATE MASTER AGREEMENTS WITH
THE MAJOR FILM DISTRIBUTORS, WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING
COMPETITORS OF FIRST- AND SECOND-RUN FILMS; OBTAINED FROM THE
DISTRIBUTORS UNREASONABLE "CLEARANCES," LONG-TERM AGREEMENTS FOR
RENTALS OF FILMS AND OTHER CONCESSIONS WHICH GAVE THEM UNREASONABLE
ADVANTAGES OVER COMPETITORS; THREATENED TO BUILD THEATRES OR TO OPEN
CLOSED THEATRES IN ORDER TO STOP OR PREVENT COMPETITION; CUT ADMISSION
PRICES; OBTAINED FROM COMPETITORS WHOM THEY BOUGHT OUT AGREEMENTS NOT
TO COMPETE FOR LONG TERMS OF YEARS, WHICH SOMETIMES EXTENDED TO TOWNS
OTHER THAN THOSE IN WHICH THE PURCHASED THEATRES OPERATED; AND THUS
CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH THE EIGHT MAJOR FILM DISTRIBUTORS TO
VIOLATE SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED
THESE PRACTICES AND ORDERED DEFENDANTS TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF CERTAIN
THEATRES.  DEFENDANTS APPEALED.  HELD: 

1.  IN NEGOTIATING FOR FILMS, THE COMBINING OF THEATRES IN TOWNS IN
WHICH THE CIRCUIT HAD A MONOPOLY WITH THOSE IN TOWNS IN WHICH IT HAD
COMPETITORS WAS A RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND A USE OF MONOPOLY POWER IN
VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  UNITED STATES V.
GRIFFITH, ANTE, P. 100.  P. 116. 

2.  THE CONCERTED ACTION OF THE PARENT COMPANY, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AND
CERTAIN OF THE PARENT COMPANY'S OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS IN THAT ENDEAVOR
WAS A CONSPIRACY WHICH WAS NOT IMMUNIZED BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE
MEMBERS WERE CLOSELY AFFILIATED RATHER THAN INDEPENDENT.  P. 116. 

3.  THE NEGOTIATIONS WHICH APPELLANTS HAD WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS AND
WHICH RESULTED IN THE EXECUTION OF MASTER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE
DISTRIBUTORS AND EXHIBITORS BROUGHT THE DISTRIBUTORS INTO THE UNLAWFUL
COMBINATION WITH THE DEFENDANTS.  P. 116. 

4.  A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE EXHIBITORS AND EACH OF THE NAMED
DISTRIBUTORS HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, INTER
OFFICE LETTERS AND MEMORANDA BETWEEN OFFICIALS OF THE DISTRIBUTORS WERE
ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL CONSPIRATORS AS DECLARATIONS OF SOME
OF THE ASSOCIATES, SO FAR AS THEY WERE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL
PROJECT.  PP. 116-117. 

5.  DETAILED CHALLENGES TO CERTAIN FINDINGS ON WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURT BASED ITS HOLDING THAT APPELLANTS HAD VIOLATED THE ACT ARE
EXAMINED AND THE FINDINGS ARE SUSTAINED (PP. 117-124), EXCEPT IN THE
FOLLOWING RESPECTS: 

(A)  THE FINDING THAT APPELLANTS OBTAINED FILM-RENTAL CONCESSIONS NOT
MADE AVAILABLE TO INDEPENDENT OPERATORS IS NOT INTELLIGIBLE AND IS SET
ASIDE, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY BE CLARIFIED ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE.  P.
120. 

(B)  A BARE FINDING THAT APPELLANTS AT TIMES CUT ADMISSION PRICES
WITHOUT A SHOWING THAT SUCH ACTION WAS IN PURPOSE OR EFFECT EMPLOYED AS
AN INSTRUMENT OF MONOPOLY POWER IS NOT ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST PRICE CUTTING.  PP. 120-121. 

(C)  THE FINDINGS AS TO "UNREASONABLE CLEARANCES" ARE SET ASIDE, IN
ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MAY MAKE FURTHER FINDINGS WHICH REFLECT
AN APPRAISAL OF THE COMPLEX FACTORS BEARING ON THE QUESTION OF
REASONABLENESS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., POST,
P. 131.  PP. 121-124. 

6.  DETAILED OBJECTIONS TO THOSE PARTS OF THE DECREE WHICH ENJOINED
APPELLANTS FROM SPECIFIED ACTS OR PRACTICES ARE CONSIDERED AND THE
DECREE IS SUSTAINED (PP. 125-126), EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS: 

(A)  TO THE EXTENT THAT PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ARE DIRECTED TO
PRACTICES REFLECTED IN FINDINGS SET ASIDE BY THIS COURT, THEY MUST BE
RE-EXAMINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE.  P. 125. 

(B)  THE GENERAL INJUNCTION AGAINST "MONOPOLIZING" FIRST- AND SECOND
RUN FILMS IS SET ASIDE, SINCE THE PRECISE PRACTICES FOUND TO HAVE
VIOLATED THE ACT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED.  PP. 125-126. 

7.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE WHICH REQUIRE APPELLANTS TO DIVEST
THEMSELVES OF CERTAIN THEATRES ARE SET ASIDE SO THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
CAN MAKE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR AN APPROPRIATE DECREE.  PP. 126
130. 

(A)  IN THIS TYPE OF CASE, AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE VIOLATIONS IS
NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND DIVESTITURE OR
DISSOLUTION IS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF THE DECREE.  P. 128. 

(B)  DIVESTITURE OR DISSOLUTION MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE PRESENT AND
FUTURE CONDITIONS OF THE PARTICULAR INDUSTRY AS WELL AS PAST
VIOLATIONS.  P. 128. 

(C)  IT SERVES SEVERAL FUNCTIONS:  (1) IT PUTS AN END TO THE
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY WHEN THAT IS ITSELF THE VIOLATION; (2) IT
DEPRIVES THE DEFENDANTS OF THE BENEFITS OF THEIR CONSPIRACY; AND (3) IT
IS DESIGNED TO BREAK UP OR RENDER IMPOTENT THE MONOPOLY POWER WHICH
VIOLATES THE ACT.  PP. 128-129. 

(D)  IN APPLYING THIS REMEDY, IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE DISTRICT COURT
TO DETERMINE WHAT WERE THE FRUITS OF THE UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY AND TO
CONSIDER WHAT IS THE BEST WAY OF REQUIRING APPELLANTS TO SURRENDER
THEM.  P. 129. 

(E)  EVEN AFTER APPELLANTS ARE DEPRIVED OF THE FRUITS OF THEIR
CONSPIRACY, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER
WHETHER APPELLANTS' THEATRE CIRCUIT WILL STILL CONSTITUTE A MONOPOLY
POWER OF THE KIND WHICH THE ACT CONDEMNS, IN SPITE OF THE RESTRICTIVE
PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE.  PP. 129-130. 

8.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE PROVIDING FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE
POOLING AGREEMENTS, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST BUYING OR BOOKING FILMS FOR
THEATRES IN WHICH APPELLANTS HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST, AND THE
RESTRICTION ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF THEATRES, ARE APPROVED.  PP. 127
130. 

SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND
2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY A LARGE CHAIN OF MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITORS, THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A DECREE ENJOINING CERTAIN PRACTICES AND
REQUIRING THE CHAIN TO DIVEST ITSELF OF CERTAIN THEATRES.  63 F.SUPP. 
229.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND
REMANDED, P. 130. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO NO. 64, UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE,
P. 100, AND IS HERE BY WAY OF APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE
APPELLANTS, WHO WERE DEFENDANTS BELOW, ARE A PARENT COMPANY, THREE OF
ITS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, AND FIVE OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES -
TO WHOM WE REFER COLLECTIVELY AS SCHINE.  AS OF MAY 19, 1942, SCHINE
OWNED OR HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN A CHAIN OF APPROXIMATELY 148
MOTION PICTURE THEATRES  FN1  LOCATED IN 76 TOWNS IN 6 STATES,  FN2 THE
GREATER PORTION BEING 78 THEATRES IN 41 TOWNS IN NEW YORK AND 36
THEATRES IN 17 TOWNS IN OHIO.  OF THE 76 TOWNS, 60 WERE CLOSED TOWNS,
I.E., PLACES WHERE SCHINE HAD THE ONLY THEATRE OR ALL THE THEATRES IN
TOWN.  FN3  THIS CHAIN WAS ACQUIRED BEGINNING IN 1920 AND IS THE
LARGEST INDEPENDENT THEATRE CIRCUIT IN THE COUNTRY.  SINCE 1931 SCHINE
ACQUIRED 118 THEATRES.  SINCE 1928 THE CLOSED TOWNS INCREASED BY 56. 
IN 1941 THERE WERE ONLY THREE TOWNS IN WHICH SCHINE'S COMPETITORS WERE
PLAYING MAJOR FILM PRODUCTS. 

THE UNITED STATES SUED TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN APPELLANTS FROM
VIOLATING SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  26 STAT. 209, 50 STAT.
693, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT THE SCHINE
INTERESTS BY POOLING THEIR ENTIRE CIRCUIT BUYING POWER IN THE
NEGOTIATION OF FILMS FROM THE DISTRIBUTORS SO AS TO COMBINE ITS CLOSED
AND OPEN TOWNS GOT ADVANTAGES FOR ITSELF AND IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON
ITS COMPETITORS WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE.  IT
CHARGED THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS GRANTED CERTAIN FAVORS TO SCHINE WHICH
WERE WITHHELD FROM SCHINE'S COMPETITORS, E.G., GIVING SCHINE THE FIRST
RUN, REFUSING AT TIMES SECOND RUNS TO SCHINE'S COMPETITORS, CHARGING
SCHINE WITH LOWER RENTALS THAN IT CHARGED OTHERS, LICENSING TO SCHINE
FILMS IN EXCESS OF SCHINE'S REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS. 

THE COMPLAINT ALSO CHARGED THAT SCHINE HAD FORCED OR ATTEMPTED TO
FORCE COMPETITORS OUT OF BUSINESS AND WHERE COMPETITORS WOULD NOT SELL
OUT TO SCHINE HAD THREATENED TO BUILD OR HAD BUILT AN OPPOSITION
THEATRE, HAD THREATENED TO DEPRIVE OR HAD DEPRIVED COMPETITORS OF A
DESIRABLE FILM OR RUN, HAD CUT ADMISSION PRICES, AND HAD ENGAGED IN
OTHER UNFAIR PRACTICES.  IN THESE AND OTHER WAYS IT WAS CHARGED THAT
SCHINE HAD USED ITS CIRCUIT BUYING POWER TO MAINTAIN ITS MONOPOLY AND
TO RESTRAIN TRADE.  THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED WAS BETWEEN THE SCHINE
DEFENDANTS THEMSELVES AND BETWEEN THEM AND THE DISTRIBUTORS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD CONSPIRED WITH EACH
OTHER AND WITH THE EIGHT MAJOR FILM DISTRIBUTORS N4 TO VIOLATE SEC. 1
AND SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  ITS FINDINGS MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS
FOLLOWS: 

THE ENTIRE CIRCUIT BUYING POWER WAS UTILIZED TO NEGOTIATE FILMS FOR
ALL THE THEATRES FROM THE DISTRIBUTORS, THE NEGOTIATIONS ENDING IN
MASTER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN A DISTRIBUTOR AND THE EXHIBITOR.  THIS LARGE
BUYING POWER  FN5  GAVE SCHINE THE "OPPORTUNITY TO EXERT PRESSURE ON
THE DISTRIBUTORS TO OBTAIN PREFERENCES."  MOREOVER, SCHINE BY COMBINING
ITS CLOSED AND OPEN TOWNS IN ITS NEGOTIATIONS FOR FILMS WAS ABLE "TO
DICTATE TERMS TO THE DISTRIBUTORS."  SCHINE BOUGHT FILMS FOR SOME
THEATRES IN WHICH IT HAD NO FINANCIAL INTEREST (BUT AS RESPECTS MOST OF
WHICH IT HAD AN OPTION TO PURCHASE).  IT ALSO PERFORMED THE SERVICE
(UNDER SO-CALLED POOLING AGREEMENTS) FOR GROUPS OF THEATRES IN WHICH IT
AND OTHERS WERE INTERESTED.  THROUGH THE USE OF SUCH BUYING POWER
SCHINE ARBITRARILY DEPRIVED COMPETITORS OF FIRST- AND SECOND-RUN
PICTURES, WAS ABLE IN MANY TOWNS TO SECURE UNREASONABLE CLEARANCES  FN6
YEAR AFTER YEAR OF FROM 90 TO 180 DAYS, OBTAINED LONG-TERM AGREEMENTS
FOR RENTAL OF FILM (FRANCHISES) WHICH GAVE IT PREFERENCES NOT GIVEN
INDEPENDENT OPERATORS,  FN7  AND RECEIVED MORE ADVANTAGEOUS CONCESSIONS
FROM THE DISTRIBUTORS RESPECTING ADMISSION PRICES THAN COMPETITORS WERE
ABLE TO GET.  SCHINE MADE THREATS TO BUILD OR TO OPEN CLOSED THEATRES
IN ORDER TO FORCE SALES OF THEATRES IN VARIOUS TOWNS OR TO PREVENT
ENTRY BY AN INDEPENDENT OPERATOR.  SCHINE CUT ADMISSION PRICES.  SCHINE
OBTAINED FROM COMPETITORS WHOM IT BOUGHT OUT AGREEMENTS NOT TO COMPETE
FOR LONG TERMS OF YEARS WHICH AGREEMENTS AT TIMES EXTENDED TO OTHER
TOWNS AS WELL.  SCHINE OBTAINED FILM-RENTAL CONCESSIONS NOT MADE
AVAILABLE TO INDEPENDENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A DECREE
ENJOINING THESE PRACTICES AND REQUIRING A DIVESTITURE BY SCHINE OF
VARIOUS OF ITS THEATRES.  63 F.SUPP.  229. 

FIRST.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE, P.
100, THE COMBINING OF THE OPEN AND CLOSED TOWNS FOR THE NEGOTIATION OF
FILMS FOR THE CIRCUIT WAS A RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND THE USE OF MONOPOLY
POWER IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 AND SEC. 2 OF THE ACT.  THE CONCERTED
ACTION OF THE PARENT COMPANY, ITS SUBSIDIARIES, AND THE NAMED OFFICERS
AND DIRECTORS IN THAT ENDEAVOR WAS A CONSPIRACY WHICH WAS NOT IMMUNIZED
BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE MEMBERS WERE CLOSELY AFFILIATED RATHER
THAN INDEPENDENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218,
227; UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173.  THE
NEGOTIATIONS WHICH SCHINE HAD WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS RESULTED IN THE
EXECUTION OF MASTER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE DISTRIBUTORS AND
EXHIBITORS.  THIS BROUGHT THE DISTRIBUTORS INTO UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS
WITH THE SCHINE DEFENDANTS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES,
INC., POST, P. 131.  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS MAKES PLAIN THAT THE
COMMERCE AFFECTED WAS INTERSTATE.  UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT
CO., SUPRA, PP. 180, 183-184. 

SECOND.  APPELLANTS OBJECT TO ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF NUMEROUS INTER
OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OFFICIALS OF THE DISTRIBUTORS WITH WHOM
SCHINE DEALT.  THE DISTRICT COURT PLACED CONSIDERABLE RELIANCE ON THEM
IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS.  WE WILL ADVERT LATER TO THE USE OF THESE
DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE UNREASONABLENESS OF CLEARANCES.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT AT THIS POINT TO SAY THAT SINCE A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN SCHINE
AND EACH OF THE NAMED DISTRIBUTORS WAS ESTABLISHED BY INDEPENDENT
EVIDENCE, THESE INTER-OFFICE LETTERS AND MEMORANDA WERE ADMISSIBLE
AGAINST ALL CONSPIRATORS AS DECLARATIONS OF SOME OF THE ASSOCIATES SO
FAR AS THEY WERE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL PROJECT.  HITCHMAN COAL
& COKE CO. V. MITCHELL, 245 U.S. 229, 249; UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT
AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, P. 184; UNITED STATES V. GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S.
364, 393. 

THIRD.  APPELLANTS MAKE DETAILED CHALLENGES TO MANY OF THE OTHER
FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON WHICH IT BASED ITS HOLDINGS THAT
APPELLANTS VIOLATED THE ACT. 

(1)  THEY VIGOROUSLY ATTACK THE FINDINGS THAT SCHINE ARBITRARILY
DEPRIVED INDEPENDENTS OF FIRST- AND SECOND-RUN PICTURES.  THEIR CHIEF
CONTENTION IS THAT THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR THE FINDING OF ARBITRARY
ACTION ON THE PART OF SCHINE, THAT SCHINE DID NOT BUY PICTURES BEYOND
ITS NEEDS IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM AWAY FROM ITS COMPETITORS, THAT ANY
SUCCESSFUL PURCHASER OF A FIRST- OR SECOND-RUN PICTURE HAS AN EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGE THAT NECESSARILY DEPRIVES COMPETITORS OF THE FILM FOR THE
PERIOD OF THE RUN, AND THAT ANY ADVANTAGE WHICH SCHINE OBTAINED IN THIS
REGARD WAS THE RESULT OF THE OPERATION OF FORCES OF COMPETITION. 

AS WE READ THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING THIS FINDING, IT WAS THE USE OF
SCHINE'S MONOPOLY POWER - REPRESENTED BY COMBINING THE BUYING POWER OF
THE OPEN AND CLOSED TOWNS - WHICH ENABLED IT TO OBTAIN THAT WHICH ITS
COMPETITORS COULD NOT OBTAIN.  DEPRIVATION OF COMPETITORS OF FIRST- AND
SECOND-RUN PICTURES IN THAT WAY WAS INDEED ARBITRARY IN THE SENSE THAT
IT WAS THE PRODUCT OF MONOPOLY POWER, NOT OF COMPETITIVE FORCES.  THAT
IS THE CONSTRUCTION WE GIVE THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT; AND AS
SO CONSTRUED IT IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  THERE MAY BE
EXCEPTIONS IN THE CASE OF SOME SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS.  BUT WE DO NOT STOP
TO RELATE THEM.  FOR EVEN IF WE LAY THEM ASIDE AS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS FOR
LACK OF SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE, THE CONCLUSION IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT
SCHINE SO USED ITS MONOPOLY POWER TO GAIN ADVANTAGES AND PREFERENCES
WHICH, ON A PURELY COMPETITIVE BASIS, IT COULD NOT HAVE ACHIEVED. 

(2)  DEFENSE OF THE LONG-TERM FILM-RENTAL AGREEMENTS - THE FRANCHISES
- IS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE ACCEPTED METHODS OF DOING
BUSINESS IN THE INDUSTRY,  FN8  THAT THEY WERE FAVORED BY DISTRIBUTORS
AS DEVICES TO STABILIZE THEIR END OF THE BUSINESS AND TO SAVE EXPENSE,
AND THAT THEY WERE NOT CHOSEN BY SCHINE AS INSTRUMENTS TO SUPPRESS
COMPETITION.  BUT IT SEEMS TO US APPARENT THAT THEIR USE SERVED TO
INTENSIFY THE IMPACT OF SCHINE'S MONOPOLY POWER ON ITS COMPETITORS. 
FOR WHEN SCHINE'S BUYING POWER WAS USED TO ACQUIRE FILMS PRODUCED BY A
DISTRIBUTOR FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS RATHER THAN FOR ONE YEAR ALONE, IT
PLAINLY STRENGTHENED THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF MONOPOLY POWER SUCH
DOMINANT POSITION AS SCHINE HAD OVER EACH OF ITS COMPETITORS. 

APPELLANTS ALSO CHALLENGE THE FINDING THAT SCHINE OBTAINED
PREFERENCES THROUGH THE FRANCHISES, IN ADDITION TO LONG-TERM SUPPLIES
OF PICTURES, WHICH WERE NOT GRANTED INDEPENDENT OPERATORS.  ONE OF
THESE PREFERENCES WAS FOUND TO BE THE UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE CLEARANCE
PROVISIONS; ANOTHER, SPECIAL FILM-RENTAL CONCESSIONS.  WE WILL CONSIDER
THESE LATER.  THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE FINDINGS WE DO NOT STOP TO
ANALYZE.  FOR THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AS EMPLOYED BY SCHINE ARE
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE FOR THE REASONS STATED; AND THEY MUST
BE PERMANENTLY ENJOINED, EVEN THOUGH WE ASSUME THEIR COLLATERAL ASPECTS
ARE NOT ACCURATELY DESCRIBED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND SO MAY NOT BE
CONDEMNED. 

(3)  APPELLANTS CHALLENGE THE FINDING THAT SCHINE MADE THREATS TO
BUILD THEATRES OR TO OPEN CLOSED ONES IN ORDER TO FORCE SALES OF
THEATRES IN VARIOUS TOWNS OR TO PREVENT ENTRY BY AN INDEPENDENT
OPERATOR.  THERE ARE INACCURACIES IN SOME OF THE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS. 
THERE ARE EPISODES WHICH ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO INTERPRETATIONS, ONE
WHOLLY INNOCENT AND THE OTHER UNLAWFUL.  THERE ARE STILL OTHER EPISODES
WHICH HAVE THE UNMISTAKABLE EARMARKS OF THE USE OF MONOPOLY POWER WITH
INTENT TO EXPAND AN EMPIRE AND TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION.  ON THE WHOLE
WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING THE INFERENCE OF
UNLAWFUL PURPOSE FROM THE AMBIGUOUS EPISODES AND THAT THOSE COUPLED
WITH THE OTHERS ARE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THESE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

(4)  WE REACH THE SAME RESULT AS RESPECTS THE AGREEMENTS NOT TO
COMPETE WHICH SCHINE EXACTED FROM COMPETITORS WHOM IT BOUGHT OUT.  IT
IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE AGREEMENTS MAY BE VALID UNDER LOCAL LAW.  EVEN
AN OTHERWISE LAWFUL DEVICE MAY BE USED AS A WEAPON IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR IN AN EFFORT TO MONOPOLIZE A PART OF TRADE OR COMMERCE. 
AGREEMENTS NOT TO COMPETE HAVE AT TIMES BEEN USED FOR THAT UNLAWFUL
PURPOSE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, 174;
UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, P. 181.  IF WE HAD HERE
ONLY AGREEMENTS NOT TO COMPETE, THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE DISTRICT
COURT MIGHT NOT BE WARRANTED.  BUT IN THE SETTING OF THIS RECORD, AND
AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF SCHINE'S OTHER MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES, IT
SEEMS TO US THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MIGHT INFER THAT THE REQUISITE
PURPOSE WAS PRESENT AND THAT THESE AGREEMENTS WERE ADDITIONAL WEAPONS
IN SCHINE'S ARSENAL OF POWER THROUGH THE USE OF WHICH ITS MONOPOLY WAS
SOUGHT TO BE EXTENDED. 

(5)  THE FINDING THAT SCHINE OBTAINED FILM-RENTAL CONCESSIONS NOT
MADE AVAILABLE TO INDEPENDENT OPERATORS IS NOT INTELLIGIBLE TO US.  FOR
THE DISTRICT COURT WENT ON TO STATE THAT "THESE PROVISIONS WERE ALSO IN
CONTRACTS WITH INDEPENDENTS."  HOW THOSE CONCESSIONS CONSTITUTE A
RESTRAINT OF TRADE IS THEREFORE NOT APPARENT.  WE SET ASIDE THIS
FINDING SO THAT IT MAY BE CLARIFIED ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE. 

(6)  THERE IS CHALLENGE TO THE FINDINGS THAT SCHINE'S RENTAL
AGREEMENTS CONTAINED MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICES, OR MINIMUM ADMISSION
PRICES LOWER THAN THOSE TO BE CHARGED BY THE INDEPENDENT OPERATORS FOR
SUBSEQUENT RUNS, OR RELIEVED SCHINE OF REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM
ADMISSION PRICES THOUGH IMPOSING THEM ON ITS COMPETITORS.  THERE IS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT MINIMUM PRICES WERE FIXED.  IT IS
WELL SETTLED THAT THE FIXING OF MINIMUM PRICES, LIKE OTHER TYPES OF
PRICE FIXING, IS UNLAWFUL PER SE.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL
CO., 310 U.S. 150.  THE FINDINGS THAT SCHINE WAS EITHER GRANTED MINIMUM
ADMISSION PRICES MORE FAVORABLE THAN THOSE REQUIRED OF ITS COMPETITORS,
OR THAT SCHINE, UNLIKE ITS COMPETITORS, WAS RELIEVED OF ALL
REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM PRICES, ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  IT IS
SAID THAT THESE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS WERE NOT ADHERED TO.  BUT
SINCE THEY DID EXIST, IT IS NOT FOR US TO SPECULATE AS TO WHAT FORCE OR
SANCTION THEY MAY HAVE HAD.    (7)  THERE IS ALSO CHALLENGE TO THE
FINDING THAT SCHINE CUT ADMISSION PRICES.  THIS SEEMS UNCONTROVERTED. 
BUT PRICE CUTTING WITHOUT MORE IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
IT IS INDEED A COMPETITIVE PRACTICE WHICH THIS RECORD SHOWS TO HAVE
BEEN COMMON IN THE INDUSTRY.  IT MAY BE USED IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 
THUS IT MAY BE THE INSTRUMENT OF MONOPOLY POWER TO ELIMINATE
COMPETITORS OR TO BRING THEM TO THEIR KNEES.  BUT SINCE IT IS NOT
UNLAWFUL PER SE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE ADDUCED TO SHOW THAT
IT WAS IN PURPOSE OR EFFECT EMPLOYED AS AN INSTRUMENT OF MONOPOLY
POWER.  HERE THERE IS NOTHING EXCEPT A BARE FINDING THAT AT TIMES
SCHINE CUT ADMISSION PRICES.  THAT FINDING IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY
DISCRIMINATING TO WITHSTAND ANALYSIS AND IS NOT ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST PRICE CUTTING. 

(8)  THE FINDING AS TO UNREASONABLE CLEARANCES PRESENTS RATHER LARGE
ISSUES.  WE HAVE ELABORATED THE POINT IN UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT
PICTURES, INC., POST, P. 131, AND NEED NOT REPEAT WHAT IS SAID THERE. 
CLEARANCE IS AN AGREEMENT BY A DISTRIBUTOR NOT TO EXHIBIT A FILM NOR TO
LICENSE OTHERS TO DO SO WITHIN A GIVEN AREA AND FOR A STATED PERIOD
AFTER THE LAST DATE OF THE SHOWING OF THE FILM BY THE LICENSEE WITH
WHOM THE AGREEMENT IS MADE.  FN9  IT IS, IN OTHER WORDS, AN AGREEMENT
BY A DISTRIBUTOR TO LICENSE FILMS ONLY FOR SPECIFIED SUCCESSIVE DATES. 
IT IS IN PART DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE VALUE OF THE LICENSE WHICH IS
GRANTED.  WHILE IT THUS PROTECTS THE INCOME OF THE FIRST EXHIBITOR,
THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT CLEARANCE AGREEMENTS ARE PER SE UNLAWFUL
RESTRAINTS ON COMPETITION BY REASON OF THE EFFECT THEY MAY HAVE ON
ADMISSION PRICES OR OTHERWISE.  ALL THE DISTRICT COURT PURPORTED TO
CONDEMN, AND ALL THE APPELLEE MAINTAINS IS UNLAWFUL, ARE "UNREASONABLE
CLEARANCES."  IF REASONABLENESS IS THE TEST, THE FACTORS WHICH BEAR ON
IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE NUMEROUS.  FN10  THE FINDINGS AND OPINION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, DO NOT GREATLY ILLUMINATE THE PROBLEM.  WHAT
STANDARDS OR CRITERIA OF UNREASONABLENESS WERE APPLIED DOES NOT CLEARLY
APPEAR.  THERE ARE, HOWEVER, IN SOME OF THE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS IN THIS
CASE A FEW CLUES AS TO THE BASIS USED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN
CLASSIFYING CLEARANCES AS UNREASONABLE.  THUS IT SAID THAT SCHINE GOT
SOME CLEARANCES "OVER TOWNS IN WHICH SCHINE DID NOT OPERATE."  BUT THAT
IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM OF REASONABLENESS OF CLEARANCES, SINCE BY
DEFINITION CLEARANCES RUN TO BOTH THEATRES AND TOWNS NOT OWNED BY HIM
WHO HAS THE CLEARANCE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO FOUND THAT CLEARANCES "WERE GIVEN OVER TOWNS
OVER WHICH THERE HAD BEEN NO PREVIOUS CLEARANCE."  BUT THAT WITHOUT
MORE WOULD NOT MAKE A CLEARANCE "UNREASONABLE."  THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND THAT SCHINE GOT CLEARANCES OVER "SOME TOWNS DISTANT FROM 10 TO
UPWARDS OF 20 MILES" AND THAT CLEARANCES WERE ALSO OBTAINED OVER
"OUTSIDE TOWNS OF COMPARABLY SMALL POPULATION, DISTANT SO FAR THAT NO
CLEARANCE IS JUSTIFIED."  IF THE BASIS FOR THESE FINDINGS IS THAT THE
TOWNS WERE IN DIFFERENT COMPETITIVE AREAS, IT WOULD COME CLOSEST TO
REVEALING THE STANDARD USED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE CLEARANCES WERE OR WERE NOT REASONABLE, UNLESS POSSIBLY IT
BE THE FINDING THAT IN A FEW INSTANCES SCHINE GOT CLEARANCES OVER TOWNS
WHERE THERE WERE NO THEATRES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CITES INSTANCES OF CLEARANCES WHICH IN ITS VIEW
WERE ILLEGAL BECAUSE UNREASONABLE AS TO TIME.  BUT SOME OF THESE TURN
OUT TO BE SITUATIONS WHERE CLEARANCES WERE GRANTED OVER TOWNS WHERE
SCHINE HAD THE ONLY THEATRE IN TOWN.  SO PERHAPS THE DISTRICT COURT
USED AS A BASIS FOR SOME OF ITS FINDINGS OF UNREASONABLE CLEARANCES THE
ABSENCE OF ANY COMPETITION BETWEEN THE THEATRES IN QUESTION.  BUT AS TO
THAT WE CAN ONLY GUESS IN EACH CASE AND THEN WONDER WHETHER OUR GUESS
WAS CORRECT, BECAUSE APPELLEE SUGGESTS THAT ONE VICE OF SCHINE'S
CLEARANCES WAS THAT THEY RAN NOT TO SPECIFIED THEATRES BUT TO SPECIFIED
TOWNS.  WE ARE, HOWEVER, LEFT SOMEWHAT IN THE DARK WHETHER THE DISTRICT
COURT FOLLOWED THAT THEORY OR MADE THE REASONABLENESS OF CLEARANCES
TURN ON WHETHER OR NOT THE THEATRES AFFECTED WERE IN DIFFERENT
COMPETITIVE AREAS. 

APPELLEE ALSO SUGGESTS THAT PROOF OF THE UNREASONABLENESS OF SCHINE'S
CLEARANCES IS THAT THEIR PERIODS WERE ALMOST UNIFORMLY THE SAME EVEN
THOUGH THERE WERE WIDE VARIATIONS IN THE CONDITION AND SIZE OF THEATRES
AND OF THE TYPE OF PICTURES PLAYED IN THE VARIOUS THEATRES.  BUT WE ARE
GIVEN NO CLUE IN THE FINDINGS WHETHER THAT WAS THE VIEW OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  ON ITS FACE IT SEEMS MORE LIKE AN ATTEMPT OF THE APPELLEE TO
SHOW WHAT FINDINGS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD HAD
SOME DISCRIMINATION BEEN MADE IN APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE. 

APPELLEE SEEMS TO ARGUE THAT STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS CAN BE
DISPENSED WITH BY REASON OF STATEMENTS IN THE INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDA OF
THE DISTRIBUTORS THAT MANY OF SCHINE'S CLEARANCES WERE "UNREASONABLE." 
ON THE MATTER OF CLEARANCES, HOWEVER, THE INTERESTS OF DISTRIBUTORS AND
EXHIBITORS ARE NOT NECESSARILY IDENTICAL.  FOR THE SELF-INTEREST OF
EXHIBITORS WHICH WOULD CALL FOR LONG CLEARANCES WOULD MILITATE AGAINST
THE BEST INTERESTS OF DISTRIBUTORS.  FN11  SO IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT
THESE DECLARATIONS CAN PROPERLY BE SAID TO FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
UNLAWFUL PROJECT WHICH THE TWO GROUPS WERE SPONSORING.  CF. PINKERTON
V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, 647-648.  BUT HOWEVER THAT MAY BE,
THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT ADVANCE US VERY FAR WITH THE PROBLEM BECAUSE
THEY TOO FAIL TO GIVE SPECIFIC CONTENT TO THE CONCEPT OF UNREASONABLE
AS APPLIED TO CLEARANCES. 

AS A LAST RESORT APPELLEE SEEKS TO SUSTAIN THESE FINDINGS ON THE
GROUND THAT SCHINE GOT AT LEAST SOME OF ITS CLEARANCES BY REFUSING TO
MAKE ANY DEAL FOR THE CIRCUIT UNLESS ITS TERMS WERE MET.  BUT ANY
CLEARANCE SO OBTAINED, THOUGH OTHERWISE REASONABLE, WOULD BE UNLAWFUL,
FOR IT WOULD BE THE PRODUCT OF THE EXERCISE OF MONOPOLY POWER.  IT IS
EVIDENT, HOWEVER, THAT THAT WAS NOT THE THEORY ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR IT DID NOT LOOK TO SEE WHAT CLEARANCES HAD BEEN OBTAINED IN
THAT MANNER. 

THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THAT SINCE WE DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN WHAT
THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON CLEARANCES MEAN, THEY MUST BE SET
ASIDE.  IN DOING SO WE OF COURSE DO NOT INTIMATE HERE, ANY MORE THAN WE
DO IN CASE OF THE OTHER FINDINGS WE HAVE SET ASIDE IN THE CASE, THAT
THE RECORD WOULD NOT SUSTAIN FINDINGS ADVERSE TO SCHINE.  WE ONLY HOLD
THAT BEFORE WE CAN PASS ON THE QUESTIONS TENDERED, FINDINGS ON
CLEARANCES MUST BE MADE WHICH REFLECT AN APPRAISAL OF THE COMPLEX OF
FACTORS BEARING ON THIS QUESTION OF REASONABLENESS.  THAT IS A FUNCTION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FOURTH.  THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINS APPELLANTS
FROM SPECIFIED ACTS OR PRACTICES.  FN12  TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE
PROVISIONS ARE DIRECTED TO PRACTICES REFLECTED IN FINDINGS WHICH WE SET
ASIDE, THEY MUST BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON REMAND OF THE
CASE. 

APPELLANTS OBJECT TO THE GENERALITY OF THE INJUNCTION AGAINST
"MONOPOLIZING" FIRST- AND SECOND-RUN FILMS.  FN13  THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT IS THAT THESE INJUNCTIONS "SHALL BE SPECIFIC IN TERMS, AND
SHALL DESCRIBE IN REASONABLE DETAIL, AND NOT BY REFERENCE TO THE BILL
OF COMPLAINT OR OTHER DOCUMENT, THE ACT OR ACTS SOUGHT TO BE
RESTRAINED."  38 STAT. 738, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 383.  AND SEE FED. R. CIV.
P., 65(D).  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROVISION IN QUESTION IF
READ, AS IT MUST BE, IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER PARAGRAPHS OF THE DECREE
(SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 311, 328) WOULD PASS MUSTER. 
FOR WE THINK THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES THAT A MORE SPECIFIC DECREE
BE ENTERED ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE.  THE PRECISE PRACTICES FOUND TO
HAVE VIOLATED THE ACT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE
INJUNCTION (APART FROM PROVISIONS AS TO DIVESTITURE WHICH WE DISCUSS
LATER) AND FIND THEM WITHOUT MERIT. 

FIFTH.  THE DISTRICT COURT INCLUDED IN ITS DECREE A DIVESTITURE
PROVISION ADJUDGING THAT APPELLANT COMPANIES BE "DISSOLVED, REALIGNED,
OR REORGANIZED IN THEIR OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL SO THAT FAIR COMPETITION
BETWEEN THEM AND OTHER THEATRES MAY BE RESTORED AND THEREAFTER
MAINTAINED."  THE PARTIES SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED VARIOUS PLANS AND
AFTER HEARINGS THE ONE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS
APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS.  THE PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE
DISSOLUTION OF THE SCHINE CIRCUIT THROUGH THE SEPARATION OF THE SEVERAL
AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS AS WAS DONE IN UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT
AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, PP. 188-189.  IT KEEPS THE CIRCUIT INTACT IN THAT
SENSE BUT REQUIRES SCHINE TO SELL CERTAIN THEATRES.  THE PLAN REQUIRES
SCHINE TO SELL ITS INTEREST IN ALL BUT ONE THEATRE OF ITS SELECTION IN
EACH OF 33 TOWNS, ALL BUT TWO IN EACH OF FOUR LARGER TOWNS, AND TWO OF
FOUR THEATRES IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK.  FN14  SCHINE IS TO BE DIVESTED
OF MORE THAN 50 OF ITS THEATRES.  THE TOWNS AFFECTED ARE OVER 40 OUT OF
THE 70-ODD IN WHICH SCHINE IS OPERATING.  FN15  THE ONE-THEATRE TOWNS
OF SCHINE ARE UNAFFECTED. 

THE DECREE ALSO DISSOLVES THE POOLING AGREEMENTS.  A TRUSTEE IS
APPOINTED TO MAKE THE SALES WHICH ARE ORDERED.  SCHINE IS PROHIBITED
FROM ACQUIRING ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ADDITIONAL THEATRES "EXCEPT
AFTER AN AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING THAT SUCH ACQUISITION WILL NOT
UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN COMPETITION."  SCHINE IS ORDERED NOT TO BUY OR
BOOK FILMS FOR ANY THEATRE OTHER THAN THOSE IN WHICH IT OWNS A
FINANCIAL INTEREST.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THIS PROGRAM OF
DIVESTITURE WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO RESTORE "FREE ENTERPRISE AND OPEN
COMPETITION AMONGST ALL BRANCHES OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY." 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE OF
UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, AND ORDER THE
DISSOLUTION OF THE COMBINATION OF THE AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS.  SCHINE
PRESENTED SUCH A PLAN AND IT WAS REJECTED.  THAT PLAN CONTEMPLATED THE
DIVISION OF THE SCHINE THEATRES AMONG THREE SEPARATE CORPORATIONS, WITH
MEMBERS OF THE SCHINE FAMILY OWNING EACH CORPORATION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT REJECTED THAT PLAN BECAUSE IT DID NOT FURNISH SUCH SEPARATION OF
OWNERSHIP AS WOULD ASSURE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRACTICES WHICH HAD
CONSTITUTED VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT PURSUE
FURTHER THE PROSPECT OF DISMEMBERMENT OF THE SCHINE CIRCUIT THROUGH
SEPARATION OF THE THEATRES INTO GEOGRAPHICAL GROUPINGS UNDER SEPARATE
AND UNAFFILIATED OWNERSHIPS.  NOR DO THE FINDINGS REFLECT AN INQUIRY TO
DETERMINE WHAT THEATRES HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY SCHINE THROUGH METHODS
WHICH VIOLATE THE ACT.  SO FAR AS THE FINDINGS REVEAL, THE THEATRES
WHICH ARE ORDERED DIVESTED MAY BE PROPERTIES WHICH IN WHOLE OR IN PART
WERE LAWFULLY ACQUIRED; AND THEATRES WHICH SCHINE IS PERMITTED TO
RETAIN MAY, SO FAR AS THE FINDINGS REVEAL, BE ONES WHICH IT OBTAINED AS
THE RESULT OF TACTICS VIOLATING THE ACT. 

IN THIS TYPE OF CASE WE START FROM THE PREMISE THAT AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST FUTURE VIOLATIONS IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  IF ALL THAT WAS DONE WAS TO FORBID A REPETITION OF THE
ILLEGAL CONDUCT, THOSE WHO HAD UNLAWFULLY BUILT THEIR EMPIRES COULD
PRESERVE THEM INTACT.  THEY COULD RETAIN THE FULL DIVIDENDS OF THEIR
MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES AND PROFIT FROM THE UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS OF TRADE
WHICH THEY HAD INFLICTED ON COMPETITORS.  SUCH A COURSE WOULD MAKE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT A FUTILE THING UNLESS PERCHANCE THE UNITED
STATES MOVED IN AT THE INCIPIENT STAGES OF THE UNLAWFUL PROJECT.  FOR
THESE REASONS DIVESTITURE OR DISSOLUTION IS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF
THESE DECREES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, P.
189, AND CASES CITED. 

TO REQUIRE DIVESTITURE OF THEATRES UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED IS NOT TO ADD
TO THE PENALTIES THAT CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN THE ANTITRUST LAWS. 
LIKE RESTITUTION IT MERELY DEPRIVES A DEFENDANT OF THE GAINS FROM HIS
WRONGFUL CONDUCT.  IT IS AN EQUITABLE REMEDY DESIGNED IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST TO UNDO WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED HAD THE DEFENDANTS NOT
OUTDISTANCED THE GOVERNMENT IN THEIR UNLAWFUL PROJECT.  NOR IS UNITED
STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319, 351-353, OPPOSED TO THIS
VIEW.  FOR IN THAT CASE THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE PLANTS SOUGHT TO
BE DIVESTED WERE EITHER UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED OR USED IN A MANNER
VIOLATIVE OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS. 

DIVESTITURE OR DISSOLUTION MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE PRESENT AND
FUTURE CONDITIONS IN THE PARTICULAR INDUSTRY AS WELL AS PAST
VIOLATIONS.  IT SERVES SEVERAL FUNCTIONS:  (1)  IT PUTS AN END TO THE
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY WHEN THAT IS ITSELF THE VIOLATION.  (2)  IT
DEPRIVES THE ANTITRUST DEFENDANTS OF THE BENEFITS OF THEIR CONSPIRACY. 
(3)  IT IS DESIGNED TO BREAK UP OR RENDER IMPOTENT THE MONOPOLY POWER
WHICH VIOLATES THE ACT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO.,
SUPRA, PP. 188-190; UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE, P. 100. 

THE LAST TWO PHASES OF THIS PROBLEM ARE THE ONES PRESENTED IN THIS
CASE.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT PURPORTED TO DEAL WITH ONLY ONE OF THEM. 
IT DID NOT DETERMINE WHAT DIVIDENDS SCHINE HAD OBTAINED FROM THE
CONSPIRACY.  IN UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, PP.
181, 189, SOME OF THE AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS THROUGH WHICH THAT EMPIRE
WAS BUILT WERE PRODUCTS OF THE CONSPIRACY.  HENCE THAT FACT WITHOUT
MORE JUSTIFIED THE DIRECTION IN THE DECREE TO UNSCRAMBLE THEM.  THERE
ARE NO FINDINGS WHICH WOULD WARRANT SUCH A COURSE IN THIS CASE.  BUT AN
EVEN MORE DIRECT METHOD OF CAUSING APPELLANTS TO SURRENDER THE GAINS
FROM THEIR CONSPIRACY IS TO REQUIRE THEM TO DISPOSE OF THEATRES
OBTAINED BY PRACTICES WHICH VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST ACTS.  WE DO NOT KNOW
WHAT FINDINGS ON THAT SCORE WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, FOR THE
DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ADDRESS ITSELF TO THE PROBLEM.  THE UPSHOT OF
THE MATTER IS THAT THE FINDINGS DO NOT REVEAL WHAT THE REWARDS OF THE
CONSPIRACY WERE; AND CONSEQUENTLY THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER WHAT WOULD
BE THE PREFERABLE WAY OF CAUSING APPELLANTS TO SURRENDER THEM.  THE
CASE MUST THEREFORE BE REMANDED SO THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MAY MAKE
APPROPRIATE FINDINGS ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE.    WHILE SUCH AN
INQUIRY IS THE STARTING POINT FOR DETERMINING TO WHAT EXTENT
DIVESTITURE SHOULD BE ORDERED, THE MATTER DOES NOT END THERE.  FOR IT
MAY BE THAT EVEN AFTER APPELLANTS ARE DEPRIVED OF THE FRUITS OF THEIR
CONSPIRACY, THE SCHINE CIRCUIT MIGHT STILL CONSTITUTE A MONOPOLY POWER
OF THE KIND WHICH THE ACT CONDEMNS (SEE AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 809, 811), IN SPITE OF THE RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS
OF THE DECREE.  MONOPOLY POWER IS NOT CONDEMNED BY THE ACT ONLY WHEN IT
WAS UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED.  THE MERE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER TO
MONOPOLIZE, TOGETHER WITH THE PURPOSE OR INTENT TO DO SO, CONSTITUTES
AN EVIL AT WHICH THE ACT IS AIMED.  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE, P.
100; UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, 432.  BUT
WHETHER THAT CONDITION WILL OBTAIN IN THIS CASE MUST AWAIT THE FINDINGS
ON THE OTHER PHASE OF THE CASE. 

WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE DIVESTITURE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE SO
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT CAN MAKE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR AN
APPROPRIATE DECREE.  WE APPROVE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE POOLING
AGREEMENTS, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST BUYING OR BOOKING FILMS FOR
THEATRES IN WHICH SCHINE HAS NO FINANCIAL INTEREST, AND THE RESTRICTION
ON FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF THEATRES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT
AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, PP. 185-187.  WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION OF THE
APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE TO SELL THEATRES AS THAT MERELY IMPLEMENTS THE
DIVESTITURE PROVISIONS WHICH MUST BE RECONSIDERED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED
IN PART AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THESE FIGURES DO NOT INCLUDE 18 WHICH WERE CLOSED AND HAD BEEN
OR WERE BEING CONVERTED TO OTHER USES. 

FN2  NEW YORK (78), OHIO (36), KENTUCKY (18), MARYLAND (12), DELAWARE
(2), VIRGINIA (2). 

FN3  SCHINE HAD THE ONLY THEATRE IN EACH OF 21 TOWNS, BOTH THEATRES
IN 21 TOWNS THAT HAD TWO EACH, ALL THEATRES IN 16 TOWNS THAT HAD THREE
EACH, AND ALL THEATRES IN ONE TOWN THAT HAD SIX THEATRES AND IN ANOTHER
THAT HAD FOUR THEATRES. 

OF THESE THEATRES APPROXIMATELY 87 PER CENT ARE LOCATED IN CITIES OR
VILLAGES WITH POPULATIONS UNDER 25,000 AND 60 PER CENT IN CITIES OR
VILLAGES WITH POPULATIONS UNDER 10,000. 

FN4  FOX, LOEW, PARAMOUNT, RKO, WARNER, COLUMBIA, UNIVERSAL, AND
UNITED ARTISTS. 

FN5  IN THE 1939-1940 SEASON SCHINE PAID $1,647,000 TO SIX
DISTRIBUTORS IN FILM RENTAL. 

FN6  BY CLEARANCE IS MEANT THE PERIOD OF TIME AGREED UPON WHICH MUST
ELAPSE BETWEEN RUNS OF THE SAME FEATURE WITHIN A PARTICULAR AREA OR IN
SPECIFIED THEATRES. 

FN7  THE DISTRICT COURT USED "INDEPENDENTS" OR "INDEPENDENT
OPERATORS" TO MEAN COMPETITORS OTHER THAN THE EXHIBITOR-DISTRIBUTORS. 
SCHINE, OF COURSE, IS AN INDEPENDENT CIRCUIT, AS THAT TERM IS USED IN
THE INDUSTRY. 

FN8  A CONSENT ORDER WAS ENTERED IN THE PRESENT CASE ON MAY 19, 1942,
WHICH PROVIDED, INTER ALIA, THAT APPELLANTS WOULD NOT ENTER INTO ANY
AGREEMENT LICENSING FILMS RELEASED BY ANY DISTRIBUTOR DURING A PERIOD
OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND THAT ALL AGREEMENTS IN EXISTENCE HAVING A
LONGER TERM SHOULD BE VOID AS TO ALL FILMS RELEASED AFTER THE THIRTIETH
DAY FOLLOWING THE DATE OF THE CONSENT ORDER. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN10  SEE BERTRAND, EVANS & BLANCHARD, THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY -
A PATTERN OF CONTROL 40-41(TNEC MONOGRAPH NO. 43, 1941): 

"THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CLEARANCE SCHEDULES IS AN INTRICATE PROCEDURE. 
IT INVOLVES A COMPLEX BARGAINING PROCESS AND THE BALANCE OF A VARIETY
OF OPPOSING ECONOMIC INTERESTS.  IT MAY BE STATED INITIALLY THAT THE
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THE DISTRIBUTOR IS, OF COURSE, TO MAXIMIZE HIS
TOTAL REVENUE FROM EACH PICTURE.  THIS AIM GIVES HIM A VERY DIRECT
INTEREST IN CLEARANCE PERIODS.  THE HIGHER RENTAL FEES PAID BY THE
PRIOR-RUN EXHIBITOR ARE DIRECTLY CONDITIONED ON THE EXTENT OF THE
PROTECTION WHICH HE IS GRANTED, AND IN GENERAL THE LONGER THE CLEARANCE
PERIOD BEFORE SUBSEQUENT SHOWING, THE HIGHER THE RENTAL FEE THE PRIOR
RUN EXHIBITOR WILL PAY. 

"ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DISTRIBUTOR'S REVENUE FROM SUBSEQUENT-RUN
EXHIBITION IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO HIM; THIS INCOME MAY MEAN THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BLACK OR RED INK ON HIS LEDGERS.  BUT THE LONGER THE
CLEARANCE PERIOD, THE SMALLER WILL BE THESE RETURNS - NOT ONLY BECAUSE
MORE CUSTOMERS WILL HAVE ATTENDED THE PRIOR SHOWING RATHER THAN WAIT
FOR SUBSEQUENT EXHIBITION, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE EFFECTS OF THE
ADVERTISING AND EXPLOITATION EFFORTS MADE WHEN THE PICTURE WAS RELEASED
WILL HAVE BEEN VITIATED OVER THIS TIME.  IN GENERAL, THE GREATER THE
TOTAL BOX-OFFICE RETURN EARNED BY A FILM IN ALL SHOWINGS, THE GREATER
WILL BE THE DISTRIBUTOR'S REVENUE. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"THE RELATION BETWEEN RUN, CLEARANCE AND ZONING, ADMISSION PRICE,
SEATING CAPACITY, AND RENTAL FEES IS INDEED A COMPLEX ONE.  THE RANGE
COVERED BY THESE FACTORS IS INDICATED BY THIS FACT:  A LICENSE FEE
AMOUNTING TO MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS MAY BE PAID FOR THE FIRST
SHOWING OF A FILM IN A LARGE METROPOLITAN THEATER, AND WITHIN A YEAR
THE SAME FILM MAY BE EXHIBITED IN SOME SMALL THEATER IN THE SAME CITY
FOR A FEE OF LESS THAN $20." 

FN11  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN12  THIS PART OF THE DECREE PROVIDES: 

"EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS IS HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED: 

"1.  FROM MONOPOLIZING THE SUPPLY OF MAJOR FIRST RUN FILMS IN ANY
SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A COMPETING THEATRE SUITABLE FOR FIRST RUN
EXHIBITION THEREOF AND FROM MONOPOLIZING THE SUPPLY OF SECOND RUN FILM
IN ANY SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A SUITABLE THEATRE FOR SECOND RUN
EXHIBITION THEREOF. 

"2.  FROM DEMANDING OR RECEIVING CLEARANCE OVER THEATRES OPERATED BY
OTHERS WHICH UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS THEIR ABILITY TO COMPETE WITH A
THEATRE OWNED OR OPERATED BY A DEFENDANT CORPORATION CONTROLLED BY IT
AND FROM ATTEMPTING TO CONTROL THE ADMISSION PRICES CHARGED BY OTHERS
BY AGREEMENT WITH DISTRIBUTORS, DEMANDS MADE UPON DISTRIBUTORS, OR BY
ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER. 

"3.  FROM CONDITIONING THE LICENSING OF FILMS IN ANY COMPETITIVE
SITUATION OUTSIDE OF BUFFALO, NEW YORK, UPON THE LICENSING OF FILMS IN
ANY OTHER SITUATION AND FROM ENTERING INTO ANY FILM FRANCHISE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"5.  FROM ENFORCING ANY EXISTING AGREEMENTS HERETOFORE ENTERED INTO
(1) NOT TO COMPETE OR (2) TO RESTRICT THE USE OF ANY REAL ESTATE TO NON
THEATRICAL PURPOSES. 

"6.  FROM USING ANY THREATS OR DECEPTION AS A MEANS WHEREBY A
COMPETITOR IS INDUCED TO SELL. 

"7.  FROM CONTINUING ANY CONTRACT, CONSPIRACY OR COMBINATION WITH
EACH OTHER OR WITH ANY OTHER PERSON WHICH HAS THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF
MAINTAINING THE EXHIBITION OR THEATRE MONOPOLIES OF THE DEFENDANTS OR
OF PREVENTING ANY OTHER THEATRE OR EXHIBITOR FROM COMPETING WITH THE
DEFENDANTS OR ANY OF THEM, AND FROM ENTERING INTO ANY SIMILAR CONTRACT,
CONSPIRACY, OR COMBINATION FOR THE PURPOSE OR WITH THE EFFECT OF
RESTRAINING OR MONOPOLIZING TRADE AND COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES." 

FN13  SEE NOTE 12, SUPRA, PARAGRAPH 1. 

FN14  IT ALSO REQUIRES SCHINE TO SELL SPECIFIC THEATRES REMAINING
UNSOLD UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE OF MAY 19, 1942. 

FN15  SCHINE HAD WITHDRAWN FROM FIVE TOWNS PURSUANT TO THE CONSENT
ORDER OF MAY 19, 1942. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THE CASE. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, 334 U.S. 131 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 9-11, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1948.  - 66 F.SUPP.  323 -
70 F.SUPP.  53, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


THE UNITED STATES SUED TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT BY (1) FIVE CORPORATIONS WHICH PRODUCE MOTION PICTURES AND
THEIR RESPECTIVE SUBSIDIARIES OR AFFILIATES WHICH DISTRIBUTE AND
EXHIBIT FILMS AND OWN OR CONTROL THEATRES, (2) TWO CORPORATIONS WHICH
PRODUCE MOTION PICTURES AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES WHICH DISTRIBUTE FILMS,
AND (3) ONE CORPORATION ENGAGED ONLY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MOTION
PICTURES.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT THE FIRST GROUP OF DEFENDANTS
CONSPIRED TO AND DID RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE TRADE IN THE
EXHIBITION OF MOTION PICTURES IN MOST OF THE LARGER CITIES OF THE
COUNTRY AND THAT THEIR COMBINATION OF PRODUCING, DISTRIBUTING AND
EXHIBITING MOTION PICTURES VIOLATED SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT.  IT ALSO
CHARGED THAT ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS, AS DISTRIBUTORS, CONSPIRED TO AND
DID RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE TRADE IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND
EXHIBITION OF FILMS.  AFTER A TRIAL, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED AN
INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF.  HELD: 

1.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACIES
EXISTED BETWEEN ALL DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN EACH DISTRIBUTOR-DEFENDANT
AND ITS LICENSEES, WHICH RESULTED IN EXHIBITORS BEING REQUIRED TO
CHARGE SUBSTANTIALLY UNIFORM MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICES, IS SUSTAINED. 
PP. 141-142. 

2.  ITS INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS OR THEIR AFFILIATES GRANTING
ANY LICENSE (EXCEPT TO THEIR OWN THEATRES) IN WHICH MINIMUM PRICES FOR
ADMISSION TO A THEATRE ARE FIXED, IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 142-144. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT DEFENDANTS OWNED COPYRIGHTS TO THEIR FILMS AND
MERELY LICENSED THEIR USE BY EXHIBITORS DID NOT ENTITLE THEM TO
CONSPIRE WITH EACH OTHER TO FIX UNIFORM PRICES OF ADMISSION TO BE
CHARGED BY EXHIBITORS.  P. 143. 

(B)  NOR DID IT JUSTIFY THE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN EACH DISTRIBUTOR
DEFENDANT AND ITS LICENSEES TO FIX AND MAINTAIN UNIFORM MINIMUM
ADMISSION PRICES WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF SUPPRESSING PRICE COMPETITION
BETWEEN EXHIBITORS.  PP. 143-144. 

(C)  A COPYRIGHT MAY NO MORE BE USED THAN A PATENT TO DETER
COMPETITION BETWEEN RIVALS IN THE EXPLOITATION OF THEIR LICENSES.  P.
144. 

3.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY TO
RESTRAIN TRADE BY IMPOSING UNREASONABLE "CLEARANCES" IS SUSTAINED.  PP.
144-147. 

4.  ITS INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AFFILIATES AGREEING
WITH EACH OTHER OR WITH ANY EXHIBITORS OR DISTRIBUTORS TO MAINTAIN A
SYSTEM OF "CLEARANCES," OR GRANTING ANY "CLEARANCE" BETWEEN THEATRES
NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION, OR GRANTING OR ENFORCING ANY
"CLEARANCE" AGAINST THEATRES IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION WITH THE
THEATRE RECEIVING THE LICENSE FOR EXHIBITION IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS
REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE LICENSEE, IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 147
148. 

(A)  A REQUEST THAT IT BE CONSTRUED OR MODIFIED SO AS TO ALLOW
LICENSORS IN GRANTING "CLEARANCES" TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT IS
REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR A FAIR RETURN TO THE LICENSOR IS REJECTED. 
PP. 147-148. 

(B)  IN THE SETTING OF THIS CASE, THE ONLY MEASURE OF REASONABLENESS
OF A CLEARANCE BY SHERMAN ACT STANDARDS IS THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE
LICENSEE FOR THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES IT AFFORDS.  P. 148. 

5.  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE THAT, "WHENEVER ANY CLEARANCE PROVISION
IS ATTACKED AS NOT LEGAL ...  THE BURDEN SHALL BE UPON THE DISTRIBUTOR
TO SUSTAIN THE LEGALITY THEREOF," IS SUSTAINED.  P. 148. 

6.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS HAD
"POOLING AGREEMENTS" WHEREBY NORMALLY COMPETITIVE THEATRES WERE
OPERATED AS A UNIT, OR MANAGED BY A JOINT COMMITTEE OR BY ONE OF THE
EXHIBITORS, THE PROFITS BEING SHARED ACCORDING TO PREARRANGED
PERCENTAGES, AND THAT THESE AGREEMENTS RESULTED IN THE ELIMINATION OF
COMPETITION PRO TANTO BOTH IN EXHIBITION AND IN DISTRIBUTION OF FEATURE
PICTURES, IS SUSTAINED.  P. 149. 

7.  ITS REQUIREMENT THAT EXISTING "POOLING AGREEMENTS" BE DISSOLVED
AND ITS INJUNCTION AGAINST ANY FUTURE ARRANGEMENT OF THAT CHARACTER ARE
SUSTAINED.  P. 149. 

8.  ITS FINDINGS AS TO THE RESTRAINT OF TRADE BY MEANS OF
ARRANGEMENTS UNDER WHICH MANY THEATRES ARE OWNED JOINTLY BY TWO OR MORE
EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS, ITS REQUIREMENT THAT THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS
TERMINATE SUCH JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THEATRES, AND ITS INJUNCTION AGAINST
FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF SUCH INTERESTS, ARE SUSTAINED.  PP. 149-151. 

9.  ITS ORDER THAT CERTAIN OTHER RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVING JOINT
OWNERSHIP OF THEATRES BY AN EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANT AND AN INDEPENDENT BE
DISSOLVED AND ITS INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF SUCH JOINT
INTERESTS MUST BE REVISED AFTER FURTHER INQUIRIES AND FINDINGS UPON
REMAND OF THE CASES.  PP. 151-153. 

(A)  IT ERRED IN FAILING TO INQUIRE INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH EACH PARTICULAR INTEREST HAD BEEN ACQUIRED AND IN TREATING ALL
RELATIONSHIPS ALIKE IN THIS PORTION OF THE DECREE.  P. 152. 

(B)  TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE ACQUISITIONS WERE THE FRUITS OF
MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES OR RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, THEY SHOULD BE DIVESTED
AND NO PERMISSION TO BUY OUT THE OTHER OWNER SHOULD BE GIVEN A
DEFENDANT.  P. 152. 

(C)  EVEN IF LAWFULLY ACQUIRED, DIVESTITURE OF SUCH INTERESTS WOULD
BE JUSTIFIED IF THEY HAVE BEEN UTILIZED AS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY TO
ELIMINATE OR SUPPRESS COMPETITION.  P. 152. 

(D)  IF THE JOINT OWNERSHIP IS AN ALLIANCE WITH ONE WHO IS OR WOULD
BE AN OPERATOR BUT FOR THE JOINT OWNERSHIP, DIVORCE SHOULD BE DECREED,
EVEN THOUGH THE AFFILIATION WAS INNOCENTLY ACQUIRED.  P. 153. 

(E)  IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE JOINT OWNERSHIP INVOLVES NO MORE THAN
INNOCENT INVESTMENTS BY THOSE WHO ARE NOT ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL OPERATORS
AND IT WAS NOT USED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND DID NOT RESULT
IN A MONOPOLY, ITS RETENTION BY DEFENDANTS WOULD BE JUSTIFIED AND THEY
MIGHT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO ACQUIRE THE INTERESTS OF THE INDEPENDENTS
ON A SHOWING BY THEM AND A FINDING BY THE COURT THAT NEITHER MONOPOLY
NOR UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN THE EXHIBITION OF FILMS WOULD
RESULT.  P. 153. 

10.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN "FORMULA DEALS"
COVERING THE EXHIBITION OF FEATURE PICTURES IN ENTIRE CIRCUITS OF
THEATRES AND CERTAIN "MASTER AGREEMENTS" COVERING THEIR EXHIBITION IN
TWO OR MORE THEATRES IN A PARTICULAR CIRCUIT UNLAWFULLY RESTRAIN TRADE,
AND ITS INJUNCTION AGAINST THE MAKING OR FURTHER PERFORMANCE OF SUCH
ARRANGEMENTS, ARE SUSTAINED.  PP. 153-155. 

(A)  SUCH ARRANGEMENTS ARE DEVICES FOR STIFLING COMPETITION AND
DIVERTING THE CREAM OF THE BUSINESS TO THE LARGE OPERATORS.  P. 154. 

(B)  THE POOLING OF THE PURCHASING POWER OF AN ENTIRE CIRCUIT IN
BIDDING FOR FILMS IS A MISUSE OF MONOPOLY POWER INSOFAR AS IT COMBINES
THEATRES HAVING NO COMPETITORS WITH THOSE HAVING COMPETITORS.  UNITED
STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE, P. 100; SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES V. UNITED
STATES, ANTE, P. 110.  PP. 154-155. 

(C)  DISTRIBUTORS WHO JOIN IN SUCH ARRANGEMENTS BY EXHIBITORS ARE
ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN EFFECTUATING A RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND A
MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICE.  P. 155. 

11.  THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT WITH REFERENCE TO "FRANCHISES"
WHEREBY EXHIBITORS OBTAIN ALL FEATURE PICTURES RELEASED BY A
DISTRIBUTOR OVER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN A MOTION PICTURE SEASON ARE SET
ASIDE, SO THAT THE COURT MAY EXAMINE THE PROBLEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE
ELIMINATION FROM THE DECREE OF THE PROVISION FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING. 
PP. 155-156. 

12.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT "FRANCHISES"
ARE ILLEGAL PER SE WHEN EXTENDED TO ANY THEATRE OR CIRCUIT NO MATTER
HOW SMALL.  P. 156. 

13.  THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS TO "BLOCK-BOOKING" AND ITS
INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS PERFORMING OR ENTERING INTO ANY LICENSE
IN WHICH THE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT ONE FEATURE IS CONDITIONED UPON THE
LICENSEE'S TAKING ONE OR MORE OTHER FEATURES, ARE SUSTAINED.  PP. 156
159. 

(A)  THE RESULT OF THIS PRACTICE IS TO ADD TO THE MONOPOLY OF THE
COPYRIGHT IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PATENT CASES INVOLVING
TYING CLAUSES.  P. 158. 

(B)  TRANSPARENT-WRAP MACHINE CORP. V. STOKES & SMITH CO., 329 U.S.
637, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 159. 

(C)  THE SELLING OF FILMS IN BLOCKS OR GROUPS, WHEN THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR THE PURCHASE OF MORE THAN ONE FILM
IS NOT ILLEGAL; BUT IT IS ILLEGAL TO REFUSE TO LICENSE ONE OR MORE
COPYRIGHTS UNLESS ANOTHER COPYRIGHT IS ACCEPTED.  P. 159. 

14.  THE PROVISION OF THE DECREE REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF
"BLINDSELLING," WHEREBY A DISTRIBUTOR LICENSES A FEATURE PICTURE BEFORE
THE EXHIBITOR IS AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW IT, IS SUSTAINED.  P.
157, N. 11. 

15.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS THAT DEFENDANTS HAD UNREASONABLY
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST SMALL INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS AND IN FAVOR OF
LARGE AFFILIATED AND UNAFFILIATED CIRCUITS THROUGH VARIOUS KINDS OF
CONTRACT PROVISIONS AND THAT THESE DISCRIMINATIONS RESULTED IN
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, ARE SUSTAINED. 
PP. 159-160. 

16.  ON REMAND OF THESE CASES, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD PROVIDE
EFFECTIVE RELIEF AGAINST CONTINUANCE OF THESE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES,
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ELIMINATION FROM THE DECREE OF THE PROVISION FOR
COMPETITIVE BIDDING.  P. 161. 

17.  THAT LARGE EXHIBITORS WITH WHOM DEFENDANTS DEALT FATHERED THE
ILLEGAL PRACTICES AND FORCED THEM ONTO DEFENDANTS IS NO EXCUSE, IF
TRUE; SINCE ACQUIESCENCE IN AN ILLEGAL SCHEME IS AS MUCH A VIOLATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT AS THE CREATION AND PROMOTION OF ONE.  P. 161. 

18.  THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DECREE THAT FILMS BE LICENSED ON A
COMPETITIVE BIDDING BASIS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED, BECAUSE IT WOULD
INVOLVE THE JUDICIARY TOO DEEPLY IN THE DAILY OPERATION OF THIS NATION
WIDE BUSINESS AND WOULD UPROOT BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS AND ESTABLISHED
RELATIONSHIPS WITHOUT OPENING UP TO COMPETITION THE MARKETS WHICH
DEFENDANTS' UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS HAVE DOMINATED.  PP. 161-166. 

19.  ON REMAND OF THESE CASES, THE FREEDOM OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO
RECONSIDER THE ADEQUACY OF THE DECREE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ELIMINATION
OF THE PROVISION FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING IS NOT LIMITED TO THOSE PARTS
SPECIFICALLY INDICATED.  P. 166. 

20.  MOTION PICTURES, LIKE NEWSPAPERS AND RADIO, ARE INCLUDED IN THE
PRESS WHOSE FREEDOM IS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT; BUT THE
PROBLEM INVOLVED IN THESE CASES BEARS ONLY REMOTELY, IF AT ALL, ON ANY
QUESTION OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, SAVE ONLY AS TIMELINESS OF RELEASE
MAY BE A FACTOR OF IMPORTANCE IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.  PP. 166-167. 

21.  THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE SUBJECTS OF MONOPOLY
IN EXHIBITION AND THE NEED FOR DIVESTITURE ARE SET ASIDE AS BEING
DEFICIENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES STATED IN THIS OPINION, IN
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE, P. 100, AND IN SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES
V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 110, AND BECAUSE OF THE ELIMINATION FROM THE
DECREE OF THE PROVISIONS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING.  THE INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE FIVE MAJOR DEFENDANTS EXPANDING THEIR THEATRE HOLDINGS IN
ANY MANNER IS ALSO SET ASIDE, IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MAY MAKE
AN ENTIRELY FRESH START ON THESE PHASES OF THE PROBLEMS.  PP. 167-175. 

(A)  IN DETERMINING THE NEED FOR DIVESTITURE, IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO
CONCLUDE, AS THE DISTRICT COURT DID, THAT NONE OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS
ORGANIZED OR HAS BEEN MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING A
"NATIONAL MONOPOLY," NOR THAT THE FIVE MAJOR DEFENDANTS THROUGH THEIR
PRESENT THEATRE HOLDINGS "ALONE" DO NOT AND CANNOT COLLECTIVELY OR
INDIVIDUALLY HAVE A MONOPOLY OF EXHIBITION.  P. 171. 

(B)  WHEN THE STARTING POINT IS A CONSPIRACY TO EFFECT A MONOPOLY
THROUGH RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, IT IS RELEVANT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE
RESULTS OF THE CONSPIRACY WERE, EVEN IF THEY FELL SHORT OF MONOPOLY. 
P. 171. 

(C)  WHILE A MONOPOLY RESULTING FROM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ONLY
THEATRE IN A TOWN USUALLY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, EVEN SUCH AN OWNERSHIP IS VULNERABLE IN A SUIT UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED, OR ITS STRATEGIC POSITION
MAINTAINED, AS A RESULT OF PRACTICES WHICH CONSTITUTE UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE, P. 100.  P.
171. 

(D)  THE PROBLEM OF THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT END WITH ENJOINING
CONTINUANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS NOR WITH DISSOLVING THE
COMBINATION WHICH LAUNCHED THEIR CONSPIRACY; ITS FUNCTION INCLUDES ALSO
UNDOING WHAT THE CONSPIRACY ACHIEVED.  P. 171. 

(E)  THE PROBLEM UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT SOLVED MERELY BY
MEASURING MONOPOLY IN TERMS OF SIZE OR EXTENT OF HOLDINGS OR BY
CONCLUDING THAT SINGLE OWNERSHIPS WERE NOT OBTAINED "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ACHIEVING A NATIONAL MONOPOLY."  P. 172. 

(F)  IT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE
TO THE POSITION OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE EXHIBITION FIELD (AND MORE
PARTICULARLY IN THE FIRST-RUN PHASE OF THAT BUSINESS) THAT IS OF FIRST
IMPORTANCE ON THE DIVESTITURE PHASE OF THESE CASES.  P. 172. 

(G)  THE FRUITS OF THE CONSPIRACY MUST BE DENIED TO THE FIVE MAJOR
DEFENDANTS, AS THEY WERE TO THE INDEPENDENTS IN SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES
V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 110.  P. 172. 

(H)  SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT OUTLAWS UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE INVOLVED AND SEC. 2
CONDEMNS MONOPOLY OF ANY APPRECIABLE PART OF TRADE OR COMMERCE.  P.
173.    (I)  SPECIFIC INTENT IS NOT A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF A PURPOSE OR
INTENT TO CREATE A MONOPOLY; THE REQUISITE PURPOSE OR INTENT IS PRESENT
IF MONOPOLY RESULTS AS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT WAS DONE.  P.
173. 

(J)  MONOPOLY POWER, WHETHER LAWFULLY OR UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED, MAY
VIOLATE SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT THOUGH IT REMAINS UNEXERCISED; THE
EXISTENCE OF THE POWER TO EXCLUDE COMPETITION WHEN IT IS DESIRED TO DO
SO IS ITSELF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2, IF IT IS COUPLED WITH THE PURPOSE
OR INTENT TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.  P. 173.    (K)  THE SETTING ASIDE OF
THE PROVISION OF THE DECREE ENJOINING THE FIVE MAJOR DEFENDANTS FROM
FURTHER EXPANDING THEIR THEATRE HOLDINGS IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS
INTIMATING IN ANY WAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN INCLUDING THIS
PROHIBITION.  P. 175. 

22.  VERTICAL INTEGRATION OF PRODUCING, DISTRIBUTING AND EXHIBITING
MOTION PICTURES IS NOT ILLEGAL PER SE; ITS LEGALITY DEPENDS UPON (1)
THE PURPOSE OR INTENT WITH WHICH IT WAS CONCEIVED OR (2) THE POWER IT
CREATES AND THE ATTENDANT PURPOSE OR INTENT.  PP. 173-174. 

(A)  IT VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT IF IT WAS A CALCULATED SCHEME TO
GAIN CONTROL OVER AN APPRECIABLE SEGMENT OF THE MARKET AND TO RESTRAIN
OR SUPPRESS COMPETITION, RATHER THAN AN EXPANSION TO MEET LEGITIMATE
BUSINESS NEEDS.  P. 174. 

(B)  A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE WILL CONSTITUTE A MONOPOLY
WHICH, THOUGH UNEXERCISED, VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT, IF A POWER TO
EXCLUDE COMPETITION IS COUPLED WITH A PURPOSE OR INTENT TO DO SO.  P.
174. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT THE POWER CREATED BY SIZE WAS UTILIZED IN THE PAST
TO CRUSH OR PREVENT COMPETITION IS POTENT EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUISITE
PURPOSE OR INTENT ATTENDS THE PRESENCE OF MONOPOLY POWER.  P. 174. 

(D)  LIKEWISE BEARING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER MONOPOLY POWER IS
CREATED BY A VERTICAL INTEGRATION, IS THE NATURE OF THE MARKET TO BE
SERVED AND THE LEVERAGE ON THE MARKET WHICH THE PARTICULAR VERTICAL
INTEGRATION CREATES OR MAKES POSSIBLE.  P. 174. 

23.  WHETHER AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE LICENSING OF FILMS AMONG THE
FIVE MAJOR DEFENDANTS WOULD, IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING,
SERVE AS A SHORT-RANGE REMEDY IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS TO DISSIPATE THE
EFFECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY IS A QUESTION FOR THE DISTRICT COURT.  P.
175. 

24.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAS NO POWER TO FORCE OR REQUIRE PARTIES TO
SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION IN LIEU OF THE REMEDIES AFFORDED BY CONGRESS FOR
ENFORCING THE ANTITRUST LAWS; BUT IT MAY AUTHORIZE THE MAINTENANCE OF A
VOLUNTARY SYSTEM OF ARBITRATION BY THOSE PARTIES WHO CONSENT, AND IT
MAY PROVIDE THE RULES AND PROCEDURE UNDER WHICH SUCH A SYSTEM IS TO
OPERATE.  P. 176. 

(A)  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CONSENT TO A PERMANENT SYSTEM OF
ARBITRATION UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE.  P. 176. 

(B)  WHETHER A VOLUNTARY SYSTEM OF ARBITRATION SHOULD BE INAUGURATED
IS FOR THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 176. 

25.  IN VIEW OF THE ELIMINATION FROM THE DECREE OF THE PROVISION FOR
COMPETITIVE BIDDING, THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF MOTIONS OF CERTAIN
ASSOCIATIONS OF EXHIBITORS AND A NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS FOR
LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN OPPOSITION TO THE SYSTEM OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING
IS AFFIRMED AND THEIR MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN THIS COURT ARE
DENIED.  PP. 176-178. 

UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC. ET AL. 

NO. 79.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 80, LOEW'S, INCORPORATED ET AL. V. UNITED STATES;
NO. 81, PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 82,
COLUMBIA PICTURES CORP. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 83, UNITED ARTISTS
CORP. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 84, UNIVERSAL CORP. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES; NO. 85, AMERICAN THEATRES ASSN., INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES
ET AL.; AND NO. 86, ALLRED ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL., ALSO ON
APPEAL FROM THE SAME COURT. 

IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND
2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY MAJOR MOTION PICTURE PRODUCERS, DISTRIBUTORS
AND EXHIBITORS, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED AN INJUNCTION AND OTHER
RELIEF.  66 F.SUPP.  323; 70 F.SUPP.  53.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED, P. 178. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES ARE HERE ON APPEAL  FN1  FROM A JUDGMENT OF A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT  FN2 HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD VIOLATED SEC. 1 AND
SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, 26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 50 STAT. 693, 15
U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2, AND GRANTING AN INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF.  66
F.SUPP.  323; 70 F.SUPP.  53. 

THE SUIT WAS INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF IT.  THE DEFENDANTS
FALL INTO THREE GROUPS:  (1) PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., LOEW'S,
INCORPORATED, RADIO-KEITH-ORPHEUM CORPORATION, WARNER BROS. PICTURES,
INC., TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORPORATION, WHICH PRODUCE MOTION
PICTURES, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUBSIDIARIES OR AFFILIATES WHICH
DISTRIBUTE AND EXHIBIT FILMS.  THESE ARE KNOWN AS THE FIVE MAJOR
DEFENDANTS OR EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS.  (2) COLUMBIA PICTURES CORPORATION
AND UNIVERSAL CORPORATION, WHICH PRODUCE MOTION PICTURES, AND THEIR
SUBSIDIARIES WHICH DISTRIBUTE FILMS.  (3) UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION,
WHICH IS ENGAGED ONLY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MOTION PICTURES.  THE FIVE
MAJORS, THROUGH THEIR SUBSIDIARIES OR AFFILIATES, OWN OR CONTROL
THEATRES; THE OTHER DEFENDANTS DO NOT. 

THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT THE PRODUCER DEFENDANTS HAD ATTEMPTED TO
MONOPOLIZE AND HAD MONOPOLIZED THE PRODUCTION OF MOTION PICTURES.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND TO THE CONTRARY AND THAT FINDING IS NOT CHALLENGED
HERE.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT ALL THE DEFENDANTS, AS DISTRIBUTORS,
HAD CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE AND HAD RESTRAINED AND
MONOPOLIZED INTERSTATE TRADE IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION OF
FILMS BY SPECIFIC PRACTICES WHICH WE WILL SHORTLY RELATE.  IT ALSO
CHARGED THAT THE FIVE MAJOR DEFENDANTS HAD ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO
RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE, AND HAD RESTRAINED AND MONOPOLIZED, INTERSTATE
TRADE IN THE EXHIBITION OF MOTION PICTURES IN MOST OF THE LARGER CITIES
OF THE COUNTRY.  IT CHARGED THAT THE VERTICAL COMBINATION OF PRODUCING,
DISTRIBUTING, AND EXHIBITING MOTION PICTURES BY EACH OF THE FIVE MAJOR
DEFENDANTS VIOLATED SEC. 1 AND SEC. 2 OF THE ACT.  IT CHARGED THAT EACH
DISTRIBUTOR-DEFENDANT HAD ENTERED INTO VARIOUS CONTRACTS WITH
EXHIBITORS WHICH UNREASONABLY RESTRAINED TRADE.  ISSUE WAS JOINED; AND
A TRIAL WAS HAD.  FN3 

FIRST.  RESTRAINT OF TRADE - (1) PRICE FIXING. 

NO FILM IS SOLD TO AN EXHIBITOR IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MOTION
PICTURES.  THE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT UNDER COPYRIGHT IS LICENSED.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANTS IN THE LICENSES THEY ISSUED
FIXED MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICES WHICH THE EXHIBITORS AGREED TO CHARGE,
WHETHER THE RENTAL OF THE FILM WAS A FLAT AMOUNT OR A PERCENTAGE OF THE
RECEIPTS.  IT FOUND THAT SUBSTANTIALLY UNIFORM MINIMUM PRICES HAD BEEN
ESTABLISHED IN THE LICENSES OF ALL DEFENDANTS.  MINIMUM PRICES WERE
ESTABLISHED IN MASTER AGREEMENTS OR FRANCHISES WHICH WERE MADE BETWEEN
VARIOUS DEFENDANTS AS DISTRIBUTORS AND VARIOUS DEFENDANTS AS EXHIBITORS
AND IN JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENTS MADE BY THE FIVE MAJORS WITH EACH
OTHER AND WITH INDEPENDENT THEATRE OWNERS COVERING THE OPERATION OF
CERTAIN THEATRES.  FN4  BY THESE LATER CONTRACTS MINIMUM ADMISSION
PRICES WERE OFTEN FIXED FOR DOZENS OF THEATRES OWNED BY A PARTICULAR
DEFENDANT IN A GIVEN AREA OF THE UNITED STATES.  MINIMUM PRICES WERE
FIXED IN LICENSES OF EACH OF THE FIVE MAJOR DEFENDANTS.  THE OTHER
THREE DEFENDANTS MADE THE SAME REQUIREMENT IN LICENSES GRANTED TO THE
EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS.  WE DO NOT STOP TO ELABORATE ON THESE FINDINGS. 
THEY ARE ADEQUATELY DETAILED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN ITS OPINION.  SEE
66 F.SUPP.  334-339. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT TWO PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACIES EXISTED -
A HORIZONTAL ONE BETWEEN ALL THE DEFENDANTS; A VERTICAL ONE BETWEEN
EACH DISTRIBUTOR-DEFENDANT AND ITS LICENSEES.  THE LATTER WAS BASED ON
EXPRESS AGREEMENTS AND WAS PLAINLY ESTABLISHED.  THE FORMER WAS
INFERRED FROM THE PATTERN OF PRICE-FIXING DISCLOSED IN THE RECORD.  WE
THINK THERE WAS ADEQUATE FOUNDATION FOR IT TOO.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
FIND AN EXPRESS AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO FIND A CONSPIRACY.  IT IS ENOUGH
THAT A CONCERT OF ACTION IS CONTEMPLATED AND THAT THE DEFENDANTS
CONFORMED TO THE ARRANGEMENT.  INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306
U.S. 208, 226-227; UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 275. 
THAT WAS SHOWN HERE. 

ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE THE MAIN ATTACK IS ON THE DECREE WHICH
ENJOINS THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AFFILIATES FROM GRANTING ANY LICENSE,
EXCEPT TO THEIR OWN THEATRES, IN WHICH MINIMUM PRICES FOR ADMISSION TO
A THEATRE ARE FIXED IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS.  THE ARGUMENT RUNS
AS FOLLOWS: UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, HELD
THAT AN OWNER OF A PATENT COULD, WITHOUT VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT,
GRANT A LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE AND VEND, AND COULD FIX THE PRICE AT
WHICH THE LICENSEE COULD SELL THE PATENTED ARTICLE.  IT IS POINTED OUT
THAT DEFENDANTS DO NOT SELL THE FILMS TO EXHIBITORS, BUT ONLY LICENSE
THEM AND THAT THE COPYRIGHT ACT (35 STAT. 1075, 1088, 17 U.S.C. SEC.
1), LIKE THE PATENT STATUTES, GRANTS THE OWNER EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS.  FN5
AND IT IS ARGUED THAT IF THE PATENTEE CAN FIX THE PRICE AT WHICH HIS
LICENSEE MAY SELL THE PATENTED ARTICLE, THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT
SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE SAME PRIVILEGE.  IT IS MAINTAINED THAT SUCH A
PRIVILEGE IS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECT THE VALUE OF THE COPYRIGHTED FILMS. 

WE START, OF COURSE, FROM THE PREMISE THAT SO FAR AS THE SHERMAN ACT
IS CONCERNED, A PRICE-FIXING COMBINATION IS ILLEGAL PER SE.  UNITED
STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150; UNITED STATES V.
MASONITE CORPORATION, SUPRA.  WE RECENTLY HELD IN UNITED STATES V.
GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364, 400, THAT EVEN PATENTEES COULD NOT REGIMENT
AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY BY LICENSES CONTAINING PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS. 
WHAT WAS SAID THERE IS ADEQUATE TO BAR DEFENDANTS, THROUGH THEIR
HORIZONTAL CONSPIRACY, FROM FIXING PRICES FOR THE EXHIBITION OF FILMS
IN THE MOVIE INDUSTRY.  CERTAINLY THE RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER ARE
NO GREATER THAN THOSE OF THE PATENTEE. 

NOR CAN THE RESULT BE DIFFERENT WHEN WE COME TO THE VERTICAL
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN EACH DISTRIBUTOR-DEFENDANT AND HIS LICENSEES.  THE
DISTRICT COURT STATED IN ITS FINDINGS: 

"IN AGREEING TO MAINTAIN A STIPULATED MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICE, EACH
EXHIBITOR THEREBY CONSENTS TO THE MINIMUM PRICE LEVEL AT WHICH IT WILL
COMPETE AGAINST OTHER LICENSEES OF THE SAME DISTRIBUTOR WHETHER THEY
EXHIBIT ON THE SAME RUN OR NOT.  THE TOTAL EFFECT IS THAT THROUGH THE
SEPARATE CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE DISTRIBUTOR AND ITS LICENSEES A PRICE
STRUCTURE IS ERECTED WHICH REGULATES THE LICENSEES' ABILITY TO COMPETE
AGAINST ONE ANOTHER IN ADMISSION PRICES." 

THAT CONSEQUENCE SEEMS TO US TO BE INCONTESTABLE.  WE STATED IN
UNITED STATES V. GYPSUM CO., SUPRA, P. 401, THAT "THE REWARDS WHICH
FLOW TO THE PATENTEE AND HIS LICENSEES FROM THE SUPPRESSION OF
COMPETITION THROUGH THE REGULATION OF AN INDUSTRY ARE NOT REASONABLY
AND NORMALLY ADAPTED TO SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE PATENTEE'S
MONOPOLY."  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE REWARDS OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS AND
THEIR LICENSEES IN THE PRESENT CASE.  FOR HERE TOO THE LICENSES ARE BUT
A PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION.  THE CASE WHERE A
DISTRIBUTOR FIXES ADMISSION PRICES TO BE CHARGED BY A SINGLE
INDEPENDENT EXHIBITOR, NO OTHER LICENSEES OR EXHIBITORS BEING IN
CONTEMPLATION, SEEMS TO BE WHOLLY ACADEMIC, AS THE DISTRICT COURT
POINTED OUT.  IT IS, THEREFORE, PLAIN THAT UNITED STATES V. GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA, AS APPLIED IN THE PATENT CASES, AFFORDS NO HAVEN
TO THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE.  FOR A COPYRIGHT MAY NO MORE BE USED
THAN A PATENT TO DETER COMPETITION BETWEEN RIVALS IN THE EXPLOITATION
OF THEIR LICENSES.  SEE INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P.
230. 

(2)  CLEARANCES AND RUNS. 

CLEARANCES ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT A PARTICULAR RUN OF A FILM AGAINST
A SUBSEQUENT RUN.  FN6 THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ALL OF THE
DISTRIBUTOR-DEFENDANTS USED CLEARANCE PROVISIONS AND THAT THEY WERE
STATED IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS OR IN COMBINATIONS:  IN TERMS OF A
GIVEN PERIOD BETWEEN DESIGNATED RUNS; IN TERMS OF ADMISSION PRICES
CHARGED BY COMPETING THEATRES; IN TERMS OF A GIVEN PERIOD OF CLEARANCE
OVER SPECIFICALLY NAMED THEATRES; IN TERMS OF SO MANY DAYS' CLEARANCE
OVER SPECIFIED AREAS OR TOWNS; OR IN TERMS OF CLEARANCES AS FIXED BY
OTHER DISTRIBUTORS. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MAINTAINED BELOW THAT CLEARANCES ARE
UNLAWFUL PER SE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  BUT THAT IS A QUESTION WE NEED
NOT CONSIDER, FOR THE DISTRICT COURT RULED OTHERWISE AND THAT
CONCLUSION IS NOT CHALLENGED HERE.  IN ITS VIEW THEIR JUSTIFICATION WAS
FOUND IN THE ASSURANCE THEY GIVE THE EXHIBITOR THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR
WILL NOT LICENSE A COMPETITOR TO SHOW THE FILM EITHER AT THE SAME TIME
OR SO SOON THEREAFTER THAT THE EXHIBITOR'S EXPECTED INCOME FROM THE RUN
WILL BE GREATLY DIMINISHED.  A CLEARANCE WHEN USED TO PROTECT THAT
INTEREST OF THE EXHIBITOR WAS REASONABLE, IN THE VIEW OF THE COURT,
WHEN NOT UNDULY EXTENDED AS TO AREA OR DURATION.  THUS THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT ALTHOUGH CLEARANCES MIGHT INDIRECTLY AFFECT ADMISSION
PRICES, THEY DO NOT FIX THEM AND THAT THEY MAY BE REASONABLE RESTRAINTS
OF TRADE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER A CLEARANCE IS
UNREASONABLE, THE FOLLOWING FACTORS ARE RELEVANT: 

(1)  THE ADMISSION PRICES OF THE THEATRES INVOLVED, AS SET BY THE
EXHIBITORS; 

(2)  THE CHARACTER AND LOCATION OF THE THEATRES INVOLVED, INCLUDING
SIZE, TYPE OF ENTERTAINMENT, APPOINTMENTS, TRANSIT FACILITIES, ETC.; 

(3)  THE POLICY OF OPERATION OF THE THEATRES INVOLVED, SUCH AS THE
SHOWING OF DOUBLE FEATURES, GIFT NIGHTS, GIVE-AWAYS, PREMIUMS, CUT-RATE
TICKETS, LOTTERIES, ETC.; 

(4)  THE RENTAL TERMS AND LICENSE FEES PAID BY THE THEATRES INVOLVED
AND THE REVENUES DERIVED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR-DEFENDANT FROM SUCH
THEATRES; 

(5)  THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE THEATRES INVOLVED COMPETE WITH EACH
OTHER FOR PATRONAGE; 

(6)  THE FACT THAT A THEATRE INVOLVED IS AFFILIATED WITH A DEFENDANT
DISTRIBUTOR OR WITH AN INDEPENDENT CIRCUIT OF THEATRES SHOULD BE
DISREGARDED; AND 

(7)  THERE SHOULD BE NO CLEARANCE BETWEEN THEATRES NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL
COMPETITION. 

IT REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE IN LIGHT OF THESE STANDARDS AND CONCLUDED
THAT MANY OF THE CLEARANCES GRANTED BY THE DEFENDANTS WERE
UNREASONABLE.  WE DO NOT STOP TO RETRACE THOSE STEPS.  THE EVIDENCE IS
AMPLE TO SHOW, AS THE DISTRICT COURT PLAINLY DEMONSTRATED, SEE 66
F.SUPP.  PP. 343-346, THAT MANY CLEARANCES HAD NO RELATION TO THE
COMPETITIVE FACTORS WHICH ALONE COULD JUSTIFY THEM.  FN7 THE CLEARANCES
WHICH WERE IN VOGUE HAD, INDEED, ACQUIRED A FIXED AND UNIFORM CHARACTER
AND WERE MADE APPLICABLE TO SITUATIONS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN THEM AS REASONABLE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  THE EVIDENCE IS AMPLE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF
THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE DEFENDANTS EITHER PARTICIPATED IN EVOLVING
THIS UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CLEARANCES OR ACQUIESCED IN IT AND SO FURTHERED
ITS EXISTENCE.  THAT EVIDENCE, LIKE THE EVIDENCE ON THE PRICE-FIXING
PHASE OF THE CASE, IS THEREFORE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF A
CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE BY IMPOSING UNREASONABLE CLEARANCES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED DEFENDANTS AND THEIR AFFILIATES FROM
AGREEING WITH EACH OTHER OR WITH ANY EXHIBITORS OR DISTRIBUTORS TO
MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF CLEARANCES, OR FROM GRANTING ANY CLEARANCE BETWEEN
THEATRES NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION, OR FROM GRANTING OR ENFORCING
ANY CLEARANCE AGAINST THEATRES IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION WITH THE
THEATRE RECEIVING THE LICENSE FOR EXHIBITION IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS
REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE LICENSEE IN THE RUN GRANTED.  IN
VIEW OF THE FINDINGS THIS RELIEF WAS PLAINLY WARRANTED. 

SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS ASK THAT THIS PROVISION BE CONSTRUED (OR, IF
NECESSARY, MODIFIED) TO ALLOW LICENSORS IN GRANTING CLEARANCES TO TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT IS REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR A FAIR RETURN TO
THE LICENSOR.  WE REJECT THAT SUGGESTION.  IF THAT WERE ALLOWED, THEN
THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS WOULD HAVE AN EASY METHOD OF KEEPING ALIVE AT
LEAST SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE EFFECTIVE CONSPIRACY WHICH THEY
LAUNCHED.  FOR THEY COULD THEN JUSTIFY CLEARANCES GRANTED BY OTHER
DISTRIBUTORS IN FAVOR OF THEIR THEATRES IN TERMS OF THE COMPETITIVE
REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE THEATRES, AND AT THE SAME TIME JUSTIFY THE
RESTRICTIONS THEY IMPOSE UPON INDEPENDENTS IN TERMS OF THE NECESSITY OF
PROTECTING THEIR FILM RENTAL AS LICENSOR.  THAT IS TOO POTENT A WEAPON
TO LEAVE IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WHOSE PROCLIVITY TO UNLAWFUL CONDUCT HAS
BEEN SO MARKED.  IT PLAINLY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED SO LONG AS THE
EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS OWN THEATRES.  FOR IN ITS BALDEST TERMS IT IS IN
THE HANDS OF THE DEFENDANTS NO LESS THAN A POWER TO RESTRICT THE
COMPETITION OF OTHERS IN THE WAY DEEMED MOST DESIRABLE BY THEM.  IN THE
SETTING OF THIS CASE THE ONLY MEASURE OF REASONABLENESS OF A CLEARANCE
BY SHERMAN ACT STANDARDS IS THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE LICENSEE FOR THE
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES IT AFFORDS. 

WHETHER THE SAME RESTRICTIONS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO A PRODUCER WHO
HAD NOT BEEN A PARTY TO SUCH A CONSPIRACY IS A QUESTION WE DO NOT
REACH. 

OBJECTION IS MADE TO A FURTHER PROVISION OF THIS PART OF THE DECREE
STATING THAT "WHENEVER ANY CLEARANCE PROVISION IS ATTACKED AS NOT LEGAL
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS DECREE, THE BURDEN SHALL BE UPON THE
DISTRIBUTOR TO SUSTAIN THE LEGALITY THEREOF."  WE THINK THAT PROVISION
WAS JUSTIFIED.  CLEARANCES HAVE BEEN USED ALONG WITH PRICE FIXING TO
SUPPRESS COMPETITION WITH THE THEATRES OF THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS AND
WITH OTHER FAVORED EXHIBITORS.  THE DISTRICT COURT COULD THEREFORE HAVE
ELIMINATED CLEARANCES COMPLETELY FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME, EVEN
THOUGH, AS IT THOUGHT, THEY WERE NOT ILLEGAL PER SE.  FOR EQUITY HAS
THE POWER TO UPROOT ALL PARTS OF AN ILLEGAL SCHEME - THE VALID AS WELL
AS THE INVALID - IN ORDER TO RID THE TRADE OR COMMERCE OF ALL TAINT OF
THE CONSPIRACY.  UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707,
724.  THE COURT CERTAINLY THEN COULD TAKE THE LESSER STEP OF MAKING
THEM PRIMA FACIE INVALID.  BUT WE DO NOT REST ON THAT ALONE.  AS WE
HAVE SAID, THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR CLEARANCES IN THE SETTING OF THIS
CASE IS IN TERMS OF THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE LICENSEE FOR THE
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES THEY AFFORD.  TO PLACE ON THE DISTRIBUTOR THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING THEIR REASONABLENESS IS TO PLACE IT ON THE ONE PARTY
IN THE BEST POSITION TO EVALUATE THEIR COMPETITIVE EFFECTS.  THOSE WHO
HAVE SHOWN SUCH A MARKED PROCLIVITY FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT ARE IN NO
POSITION TO COMPLAIN THAT THEY CARRY THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THEIR
FUTURE CLEARANCES COME WITHIN THE LAW.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT
AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 188. 

(3)  POOLING AGREEMENTS; JOINT OWNERSHIP. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS HAD AGREEMENTS WITH
EACH OTHER AND THEIR AFFILIATES BY WHICH THEATRES OF TWO OR MORE OF
THEM, NORMALLY COMPETITIVE, WERE OPERATED AS A UNIT, OR MANAGED BY A
JOINT COMMITTEE OR BY ONE OF THE EXHIBITORS, THE PROFITS BEING SHARED
ACCORDING TO PREARRANGED PERCENTAGES.  SOME OF THESE AGREEMENTS
PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES MIGHT NOT ACQUIRE OTHER COMPETITIVE THEATRES
WITHOUT FIRST OFFERING THEM FOR INCLUSION IN THE POOL.  THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THE RESULT OF THESE AGREEMENTS WAS TO ELIMINATE
COMPETITION PRO TANTO BOTH IN EXHIBITION AND IN DISTRIBUTION OF
FEATURES,  FN8  SINCE THE PARTIES WOULD NATURALLY DIRECT THE FILMS TO
THE THEATRES IN WHOSE EARNINGS THEY WERE INTERESTED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS HAD LIKE
AGREEMENTS WITH CERTAIN INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS.  THOSE ALLIANCES HAD,
IN ITS VIEW, THE EFFECT OF NULLIFYING COMPETITION BETWEEN THE ALLIED
THEATRES AND OF MAKING MORE EFFECTIVE THE COMPETITION OF THE GROUP
AGAINST THEATRES NOT MEMBERS OF THE POOL.  THE COURT FOUND THAT IN SOME
CASES THE OPERATING AGREEMENTS WERE ACHIEVED THROUGH LEASES OF
THEATRES, THE RENTALS BEING MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS EARNED
BY THE THEATRES IN THE POOL.  THE DISTRICT COURT REQUIRED THE
DISSOLUTION OF EXISTING POOLING AGREEMENTS AND ENJOINED ANY FUTURE
ARRANGEMENT OF THAT CHARACTER. 

THESE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE WILL STAND.  THE PRACTICES WERE BALD
EFFORTS TO SUBSTITUTE MONOPOLY FOR COMPETITION AND TO STRENGTHEN THE
HOLD OF THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS ON THE INDUSTRY BY ALIGNMENT OF
COMPETITORS ON THEIR SIDE.  CLEARER RESTRAINTS OF TRADE ARE DIFFICULT
TO IMAGINE. 

THERE WAS ANOTHER TYPE OF BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND TO HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS THE POOLING AGREEMENTS JUST
MENTIONED.  MANY THEATRES ARE OWNED JOINTLY BY TWO OR MORE EXHIBITOR
DEFENDANTS OR BY AN EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANT AND AN INDEPENDENT.  FN9  THE
RESULT IS, ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT THE THEATRES ARE
OPERATED "COLLECTIVELY, RATHER THAN COMPETITIVELY."  AND WHERE THE
JOINT OWNERS ARE AN EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANT AND AN INDEPENDENT THE EFFECT
IS, ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT, THE ELIMINATION BY THE EXHIBITOR
DEFENDANT OF "PUTATIVE COMPETITION BETWEEN ITSELF AND THE OTHER JOINT
OWNER, WHO OTHERWISE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO OPERATE THEATRES
INDEPENDENTLY."  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THESE JOINT OWNERSHIPS OF
THEATRES TO BE UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS TO DISAFFILIATE
BY TERMINATING THEIR JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THEATRES; AND IT ENJOINED
FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF SUCH INTERESTS.  ONE IS AUTHORIZED TO BUY OUT
THE OTHER IF IT SHOWS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND
THAT COURT FIRST FINDS THAT SUCH ACQUISITION "WILL NOT UNDULY RESTRAIN
COMPETITION IN THE EXHIBITION OF FEATURE MOTION PICTURES."  THIS
DISSOLUTION AND PROHIBITION OF JOINT OWNERSHIP AS BETWEEN EXHIBITOR
DEFENDANTS WAS PLAINLY WARRANTED.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE JOINT
INTERESTS IN THE OUTLETS FOR THEIR FILMS EACH IN PRACTICAL EFFECT
GRANTS THE OTHER A PRIORITY FOR THE EXHIBITION OF ITS FILMS.  FOR IN
THIS SITUATION, AS IN THE CASE WHERE THEATRES ARE JOINTLY MANAGED, THE
NATURAL GRAVITATION OF FILMS IS TO THE THEATRES IN WHOSE EARNINGS THE
DISTRIBUTORS HAVE AN INTEREST.  JOINT OWNERSHIP BETWEEN EXHIBITOR
DEFENDANTS THEN BECOMES A DEVICE FOR STRENGTHENING THEIR COMPETITIVE
POSITION AS EXHIBITORS BY FORMING AN ALLIANCE AS DISTRIBUTORS.  AN
EXPRESS AGREEMENT TO GRANT EACH OTHER THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE A MOST
EFFECTIVE WEAPON TO STIFLE COMPETITION.  A WORKING ARRANGEMENT OR
BUSINESS DEVICE THAT HAS THAT NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE GATHERS NO IMMUNITY
BECAUSE OF ITS SUBTLETY.  EACH IS A RESTRAINT OF TRADE CONDEMNED BY THE
SHERMAN ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO ORDERED DISAFFILIATION IN THOSE INSTANCES
WHERE THEATRES WERE JOINTLY OWNED BY AN EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANT AND AN
INDEPENDENT, AND WHERE THE INTEREST OF THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANT WAS
"GREATER THAN FIVE PER CENT UNLESS SUCH INTEREST SHALL BE NINETY-FIVE
PER CENT OR MORE," AN INDEPENDENT BEING DEFINED FOR THIS PART OF THE
DECREE AS "ANY FORMER, PRESENT OR PUTATIVE MOTION PICTURE THEATRE
OPERATOR WHICH IS NOT OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE DEFENDANT HOLDING THE
INTEREST IN QUESTION."  THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO
ACQUIRE EXISTING INTERESTS OF THE INDEPENDENTS IN THESE THEATRES IF
THEY ESTABLISH, AND IF THE DISTRICT COURT FIRST FINDS, THAT THE
ACQUISITION "WILL NOT UNDULY RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN THE EXHIBITION OF
FEATURE MOTION PICTURES."  ALL OTHER ACQUISITIONS OF SUCH JOINT
INTERESTS WERE ENJOINED. 

THIS PHASE OF THE DECREE IS STRENUOUSLY ATTACKED.  WE ARE ASKED TO
ELIMINATE IT FOR LACK OF FINDINGS TO SUPPORT IT.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT
THE FINDINGS SHOW NO MORE THAN THE EXISTENCE OF JOINT OWNERSHIP OF
THEATRES BY EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS AND INDEPENDENTS.  THE STATEMENT BY
THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE JOINT OWNERSHIP ELIMINATES "PUTATIVE
COMPETITION" IS SAID TO BE A MERE CONCLUSION WITHOUT EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT.  FOR IT IS SAID THAT THE FACTS OF THE RECORD SHOW THAT MANY OF
THE INSTANCES OF JOINT OWNERSHIP WITH AN INDEPENDENT INTEREST ARE CASES
WHOLLY DEVOID OF ANY HISTORY OF OR RELATIONSHIP TO RESTRAINTS OF TRADE
OR MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES.  SOME ARE SAID TO BE RATHER FORTUITOUS
RESULTS OF BANKRUPTCIES; OTHERS ARE SAID TO BE THE RESULTS OF
INVESTMENTS BY OUTSIDE INTERESTS WHO HAVE NO DESIRE OR CAPACITY TO
OPERATE THEATRES, AND SO ON. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MADE NO INQUIRY INTO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PARTICULAR INTEREST HAD BEEN ACQUIRED.  IT
TREATED ALL RELATIONSHIPS ALIKE, INSOFAR AS THE DISAFFILIATION
PROVISION OF THE DECREE IS CONCERNED.  IN THIS WE THINK IT ERRED. 

WE HAVE GONE INTO THE RECORD FAR ENOUGH TO BE CONFIDENT THAT AT LEAST
SOME OF THESE ACQUISITIONS BY THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS WERE THE
PRODUCTS OF THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES WHICH THE DEFENDANTS HAVE INFLICTED
ON THE INDUSTRY.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE ACQUISITIONS WERE THE FRUITS
OF MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES OR RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, THEY SHOULD BE
DIVESTED.  AND NO PERMISSION TO BUY OUT THE OTHER OWNER SHOULD BE GIVEN
A DEFENDANT.  UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, P. 189;
SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 110.  MOREOVER,
EVEN IF LAWFULLY ACQUIRED, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN UTILIZED AS PART OF THE
CONSPIRACY TO ELIMINATE OR SUPPRESS COMPETITION IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
ENDS OF THE CONSPIRACY.  IN THAT EVENT DIVESTITURE WOULD LIKEWISE BE
JUSTIFIED.  UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, PP. 189
190.  IN THAT SITUATION PERMISSION TO ACQUIRE THE INTEREST OF THE
INDEPENDENT WOULD HAVE THE UNLAWFUL EFFECT OF PERMITTING THE DEFENDANTS
TO COMPLETE THEIR PLAN TO ELIMINATE HIM. 

FURTHERMORE, IF THE JOINT OWNERSHIP IS AN ALLIANCE WITH ONE WHO IS OR
WOULD BE AN OPERATOR BUT FOR THE JOINT OWNERSHIP, DIVORCE SHOULD BE
DECREED EVEN THOUGH THE AFFILIATION WAS INNOCENTLY ACQUIRED.  FOR THAT
JOINT OWNERSHIP WOULD AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO PERPETUATE THE EFFECTS OF
THE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WHICH THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS HAVE INFLICTED
ON THE INDUSTRY. 

IT SEEMS, HOWEVER, THAT SOME OF THE CASES OF JOINT OWNERSHIP DO NOT
FALL INTO ANY OF THE CATEGORIES WE HAVE LISTED.  SOME APPARENTLY
INVOLVE NO MORE THAN INNOCENT INVESTMENTS BY THOSE WHO ARE NOT ACTUAL
OR POTENTIAL OPERATORS.  IF IN SUCH CASES THE ACQUISITION WAS NOT
IMPROPERLY USED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY, ITS RETENTION BY
DEFENDANTS WOULD BE JUSTIFIED ABSENT A FINDING THAT NO MONOPOLY
RESULTED.  AND IN THOSE INSTANCES PERMISSION MIGHT BE GIVEN THE
DEFENDANTS TO ACQUIRE THE INTERESTS OF THE INDEPENDENTS ON A SHOWING BY
THEM AND A FINDING BY THE COURT THAT NEITHER MONOPOLY NOR UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN THE EXHIBITION OF FILMS WOULD RESULT.  IN SHORT,
WE SEE NO REASON TO PLACE A BAN ON THIS TYPE OF OWNERSHIP, AT LEAST SO
LONG AS THEATRE OWNERSHIP BY THE FIVE MAJORS IS NOT PROHIBITED.  THE
RESULTS OF INQUIRY ALONG THE LINES WE HAVE INDICATED MUST AWAIT FURTHER
FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE. 

(4)  FORMULA DEALS, MASTER AGREEMENTS, AND FRANCHISES. 

A FORMULA DEAL IS A LICENSING AGREEMENT WITH A CIRCUIT OF THEATRES IN
WHICH THE LICENSE FEE OF A GIVEN FEATURE IS MEASURED, FOR THE THEATRES
COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT, BY A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE FEATURE'S
NATIONAL GROSS.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT PARAMOUNT AND RKO HAD
MADE FORMULA DEALS WITH INDEPENDENT AND AFFILIATED CIRCUITS.  THE
CIRCUIT WAS ALLOWED TO ALLOCATE PLAYING TIME AND FILM RENTALS AMONG THE
VARIOUS THEATRES AS IT SAW FIT.  THE INCLUSION OF THEATRES OF A CIRCUIT
INTO A SINGLE AGREEMENT GIVES NO OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHER THEATRE OWNERS
TO BID FOR THE FEATURE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS AND, IN THE VIEW OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, IS THEREFORE AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND SOME MASTER AGREEMENTS  FN10  OPEN TO THE SAME
OBJECTION.  THOSE ARE THE MASTER AGREEMENTS THAT COVER EXHIBITION IN
TWO OR MORE THEATRES IN A PARTICULAR CIRCUIT AND ALLOW THE EXHIBITOR TO
ALLOCATE THE FILM RENTAL PAID AMONG THE THEATRES AS IT SEES FIT AND TO
EXHIBIT THE FEATURES UPON SUCH PLAYING TIME AS IT DEEMS BEST, AND
LEAVES OTHER TERMS TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CIRCUIT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT ENJOINED THE MAKING OR FURTHER PERFORMANCE OF ANY FORMULA DEAL OF
THE TYPE DESCRIBED ABOVE.  IT ALSO ENJOINED THE MAKING OR FURTHER
PERFORMANCE OF ANY MASTER AGREEMENT COVERING THE EXHIBITION OF FEATURES
IN A NUMBER OF THEATRES. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THESE RESPECTS ARE SUPPORTED BY
FACTS, ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE FORMULA DEALS AND MASTER AGREEMENTS
CONSTITUTE RESTRAINT OF TRADE IS VALID, AND THE RELIEF IS PROPER.  THE
FORMULA DEALS AND MASTER AGREEMENTS ARE UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS OF TRADE IN
TWO RESPECTS.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEY ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF
BIDDING FOR FILMS THEATRE BY THEATRE.  IN THAT WAY THEY ELIMINATE THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SMALL COMPETITOR TO OBTAIN THE CHOICE FIRST RUNS,
AND PUT A PREMIUM ON THE SIZE OF THE CIRCUIT.  THEY ARE, THEREFORE,
DEVICES FOR STIFLING COMPETITION AND DIVERTING THE CREAM OF THE
BUSINESS TO THE LARGE OPERATORS.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE POOLING OF
THE PURCHASING POWER OF AN ENTIRE CIRCUIT IN BIDDING FOR FILMS IS A
MISUSE OF MONOPOLY POWER INSOFAR AS IT COMBINES THE THEATRES IN CLOSED
TOWNS WITH COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS.  THE REASONS HAVE BEEN STATED IN
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE, P. 100, AND SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES,
INC. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 110, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.  IT
IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO ADD THAT DISTRIBUTORS WHO JOIN IN SUCH
ARRANGEMENTS BY EXHIBITORS ARE ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN EFFECTUATING A
RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND A MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICE.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, P. 183. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO ENJOINED THE MAKING OR FURTHER PERFORMANCE OF
ANY FRANCHISE.  A FRANCHISE IS A CONTRACT WITH AN EXHIBITOR WHICH
EXTENDS OVER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN A MOTION PICTURE SEASON AND COVERS
THE EXHIBITION OF FEATURES RELEASED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR DURING THE
PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT A FRANCHISE
CONSTITUTED A RESTRAINT OF TRADE BECAUSE A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE
SEASON WAS TOO LONG AND THE INCLUSION OF ALL FEATURES WAS
DISADVANTAGEOUS TO COMPETITORS.  AT LEAST THAT IS THE WAY WE READ ITS
FINDINGS.    UNIVERSAL AND UNITED ARTISTS OBJECT TO THE OUTLAWRY OF
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS.  UNIVERSAL POINTS OUT THAT THE CHARGE OF
ILLEGALITY OF FRANCHISES IN THESE CASES WAS RESTRICTED TO FRANCHISES
WITH THEATRES OWNED BY THE MAJOR DEFENDANTS AND TO FRANCHISES WITH
CIRCUITS OR THEATRES IN A CIRCUIT, A CIRCUIT BEING DEFINED IN THE
COMPLAINT AS A GROUP OF MORE THAN FIVE THEATRES CONTROLLED BY THE SAME
PERSON OR A GROUP OF MORE THAN FIVE THEATRES WHICH COMBINE THROUGH A
COMMON AGENT IN LICENSING FILMS.  IT SEEMS, THEREFORE, THAT THE
LEGALITY OF FRANCHISES TO OTHER EXHIBITORS (EXCEPT AS TO BLOCK-BOOKING,
A PRACTICE TO WHICH WE WILL LATER ADVERT) WAS NOT IN ISSUE IN THE
LITIGATION.  MOREOVER, THE FINDINGS ON FRANCHISES ARE CLOUDED BY THE
STATEMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE OPINION THAT FRANCHISES
"NECESSARILY CONTRAVENE THE PLAN OF LICENSING EACH PICTURE, THEATRE BY
THEATRE, TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER."  AS WILL BE SEEN HEREAFTER, WE
ELIMINATE FROM THE DECREE THE PROVISION FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING.  BUT
FOR ITS INCLUSION OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING THE DISTRICT COURT MIGHT WELL
HAVE TREATED THE PROBLEM OF FRANCHISES DIFFERENTLY. 

WE CAN SEE HOW IF FRANCHISES WERE ALLOWED TO BE USED BETWEEN THE
EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS EACH MIGHT BE ABLE TO STRENGTHEN ITS STRATEGIC
POSITION IN THE EXHIBITION FIELD AND CONTINUE THE ILL EFFECTS OF THE
CONSPIRACY WHICH THE DECREE IS DESIGNED TO DISSIPATE.  FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED AS DEVICES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
SOME INDEPENDENTS IN FAVOR OF OTHERS.  WE KNOW FROM THE RECORD THAT
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS OFTEN CONTAINED DISCRIMINATORY CLAUSES OPERATING
IN FAVOR NOT ONLY OF THEATRES OWNED BY THE DEFENDANTS BUT ALSO OF THE
LARGE CIRCUITS.  BUT WE CANNOT SAY ON THIS RECORD THAT FRANCHISES ARE
ILLEGAL PER SE WHEN EXTENDED TO ANY THEATRE OR CIRCUIT NO MATTER HOW
SMALL.  THE FINDINGS DO NOT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE DOUBTLESSLY DUE TO THE
FACT THAT ANY SYSTEM OF FRANCHISES WOULD NECESSARILY CONFLICT WITH THE
SYSTEM OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  HENCE WE
SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS ON FRANCHISES SO THAT THE COURT MAY EXAMINE THE
PROBLEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE ELIMINATION FROM THE DECREE OF COMPETITIVE
BIDDING. 

WE DO NOT TAKE THAT COURSE IN THE CASE OF FORMULA DEALS AND MASTER
AGREEMENTS, FOR THE FINDINGS IN THESE INSTANCES SEEM TO STAND ON THEIR
OWN BOTTOM AND APPARENTLY HAVE NO NECESSARY DEPENDENCY ON THE PROVISION
FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING. 

(5)  BLOCK-BOOKING. 

BLOCK-BOOKING IS THE PRACTICE OF LICENSING, OR OFFERING FOR LICENSE,
ONE FEATURE OR GROUP OF FEATURES ON CONDITION THAT THE EXHIBITOR WILL
ALSO LICENSE ANOTHER FEATURE OR GROUP OF FEATURES RELEASED BY THE
DISTRIBUTORS DURING A GIVEN PERIOD.  THE FILMS ARE LICENSED IN BLOCKS
BEFORE THEY ARE ACTUALLY PRODUCED.  ALL THE DEFENDANTS, EXCEPT UNITED
ARTISTS, HAVE ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE.  BLOCK-BOOKING PREVENTS
COMPETITORS FROM BIDDING FOR SINGLE FEATURES ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL
MERITS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD IT ILLEGAL FOR THAT REASON AND FOR THE
REASON THAT IT "ADDS TO THE MONOPOLY OF A SINGLE COPYRIGHTED PICTURE
THAT OF ANOTHER COPYRIGHTED PICTURE WHICH MUST BE TAKEN AND EXHIBITED
IN ORDER TO SECURE THE FIRST."  THAT ENLARGEMENT OF THE MONOPOLY OF THE
COPYRIGHT WAS CONDEMNED BELOW IN RELIANCE ON THE PRINCIPLE WHICH
FORBIDS THE OWNER OF A PATENT TO CONDITION ITS USE ON THE PURCHASE OR
USE OF PATENTED OR UNPATENTED MATERIALS.  SEE ETHYL GASOLINE
CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 459; MORTON SALT CO. V.
SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488, 491; MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT
INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S. 661, 665.  THE COURT ENJOINED DEFENDANTS FROM
PERFORMING OR ENTERING INTO ANY LICENSE IN WHICH THE RIGHT TO EXHIBIT
ONE FEATURE IS CONDITIONED UPON THE LICENSEE'S TAKING ONE OR MORE OTHER
FEATURES.  FN11 

WE APPROVE THAT RESTRICTION.  THE COPYRIGHT LAW, LIKE THE PATENT
STATUTES, MAKES REWARD TO THE OWNER A SECONDARY CONSIDERATION.  IN FOX
FILM CORP. V. DOYAL, 286 U.S. 123, 127, CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES SPOKE AS
FOLLOWS RESPECTING THE COPYRIGHT MONOPOLY GRANTED BY CONGRESS, "THE
SOLE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRIMARY OBJECT IN CONFERRING
THE MONOPOLY LIE IN THE GENERAL BENEFITS DERIVED BY THE PUBLIC FROM THE
LABORS OF AUTHORS."  IT IS SAID THAT REWARD TO THE AUTHOR OR ARTIST
SERVES TO INDUCE RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC OF THE PRODUCTS OF HIS CREATIVE
GENIUS.  BUT THE REWARD DOES NOT SERVE ITS PUBLIC PURPOSE IF IT IS NOT
RELATED TO THE QUALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT.  WHERE A HIGH QUALITY FILM
GREATLY DESIRED IS LICENSED ONLY IF AN INFERIOR ONE IS TAKEN, THE
LATTER BORROWS QUALITY FROM THE FORMER AND STRENGTHENS ITS MONOPOLY BY
DRAWING ON THE OTHER.  THE PRACTICE TENDS TO EQUALIZE RATHER THAN
DIFFERENTIATE THE REWARD FOR THE INDIVIDUAL COPYRIGHTS.  EVEN WHERE ALL
THE FILMS INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE ARE OF EQUAL QUALITY, THE REQUIREMENT
THAT ALL BE TAKEN IF ONE IS DESIRED INCREASES THE MARKET FOR SOME. 
EACH STANDS NOT ON ITS OWN FOOTING BUT IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON THE
APPEAL WHICH ANOTHER FILM MAY HAVE.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT SAID, THE
RESULT IS TO ADD TO THE MONOPOLY OF THE COPYRIGHT IN VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE PATENT CASES INVOLVING TYING CLAUSES.  FN12 

IT IS ARGUED THAT TRANSPARENT-WRAP MACHINE CORP. V. STOKES & SMITH
CO., 329 U.S. 637, POINTS TO A CONTRARY RESULT.  THAT CASE HELD THAT
THE INCLUSION IN A PATENT LICENSE OF A CONDITION REQUIRING THE LICENSEE
TO ASSIGN IMPROVEMENT PATENTS WAS NOT PER SE ILLEGAL.  BUT THAT
DECISION, CONFINED TO IMPROVEMENT PATENTS, WAS GREATLY INFLUENCED BY
THE FEDERAL STATUTE GOVERNING ASSIGNMENTS OF PATENTS.  IT THEREFORE HAS
NO CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE HERE. 

COLUMBIA PICTURES MAKES AN EARNEST ARGUMENT THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE
RESTRICTION AS TO BLOCK-BOOKING WILL BE VERY DISADVANTAGEOUS TO IT AND
WILL GREATLY IMPAIR ITS ABILITY TO OPERATE PROFITABLY.  BUT THE POLICY
OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IS NOT QUALIFIED OR CONDITIONED BY THE
CONVENIENCE OF THOSE WHOSE CONDUCT IS REGULATED.  NOR CAN A VESTED
INTEREST IN A PRACTICE WHICH CONTRAVENES THE POLICY OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS RECEIVE JUDICIAL SANCTION. 

WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT FILMS MAY NOT BE SOLD IN BLOCKS OR GROUPS,
WHEN THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR THE PURCHASE OF
MORE THAN ONE FILM.  ALL WE HOLD TO BE ILLEGAL IS A REFUSAL TO LICENSE
ONE OR MORE COPYRIGHTS UNLESS ANOTHER COPYRIGHT IS ACCEPTED. 

(6)  DISCRIMINATION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT DEFENDANTS HAD DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
SMALL INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS AND IN FAVOR OF LARGE AFFILIATED AND
UNAFFILIATED CIRCUITS THROUGH VARIOUS KINDS OF CONTRACT PROVISIONS. 
THESE INCLUDED SUSPENSION OF THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT IF A CIRCUIT
THEATRE REMAINED CLOSED FOR MORE THAN EIGHT WEEKS WITH REINSTATEMENT
WITHOUT LIABILITY ON REOPENING; ALLOWING LARGE PRIVILEGES IN THE
SELECTION AND ELIMINATION OF FILMS; ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS IN FILM RENTALS
IF DOUBLE BILLS ARE PLAYED; GRANTING MOVEOVERS  FN13  AND EXTENDED
RUNS; GRANTING ROAD SHOW PRIVILEGES; FN14  ALLOWING OVERAGE AND
UNDERAGE N15; GRANTING UNLIMITED PLAYING TIME; EXCLUDING FOREIGN
PICTURES AND THOSE OF INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS; AND GRANTING RIGHTS TO
QUESTION THE CLASSIFICATION OF FEATURES FOR RENTAL PURPOSES.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF THESE
PROVISIONS WERE SO GREAT THAT THEIR INCLUSION IN CONTRACTS WITH THE
LARGER CIRCUITS AND THEIR EXCLUSION FROM CONTRACTS WITH THE SMALL
INDEPENDENTS CONSTITUTED AN UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE
LATTER.  EACH DISCRIMINATORY CONTRACT CONSTITUTED A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
LICENSOR AND LICENSEE.  HENCE THE DISTRICT COURT DEEMED IT UNNECESSARY
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD CONSPIRED AMONG THEMSELVES TO MAKE
THESE DISCRIMINATIONS.  NO PROVISION OF THE DECREE SPECIFICALLY ENJOINS
THESE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES BECAUSE THEY WERE THOUGHT TO BE
IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE SYSTEM OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING ADOPTED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT. 

THESE FINDINGS ARE AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  WE CONCUR IN THE
CONCLUSION THAT THESE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES ARE INCLUDED AMONG THE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT CONDEMNS.  SEE INTERSTATE
CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 231; UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT
AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, PP. 182-183.  IT WILL BE FOR THE DISTRICT COURT
ON REMAND OF THESE CASES TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THEIR
CONTINUANCE, AS OUR ELIMINATION OF THE PROVISION FOR COMPETITIVE
BIDDING LEAVES THIS PHASE OF THE CASES UNGUARDED. 

THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION ON THIS AS WELL AS ON OTHER PHASES OF THE
CASES THAT LARGE EXHIBITORS WITH WHOM DEFENDANTS DEALT FATHERED THE
ILLEGAL PRACTICES AND FORCED THEM ONTO THE DEFENDANTS.  BUT AS THE
DISTRICT COURT OBSERVED, THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IF TRUE DOES NOT HELP THE
DEFENDANTS.  FOR ACQUIESCENCE IN AN ILLEGAL SCHEME IS AS MUCH A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT AS THE CREATION AND PROMOTION OF ONE. 

SECOND - COMPETITIVE BIDDING. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE ONLY WAY COMPETITION COULD BE
INTRODUCED INTO THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF FIXED PRICES, CLEARANCES AND
RUNS WAS TO REQUIRE THAT FILMS BE LICENSED ON A COMPETITIVE BIDDING
BASIS.  FILMS ARE TO BE OFFERED TO ALL EXHIBITORS IN EACH COMPETITIVE
AREA.  FN16  THE LICENSE FOR THE DESIRED RUN IS TO BE GRANTED TO THE
HIGHEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, UNLESS THE DISTRIBUTOR REJECTS ALL OFFERS. 
THE LICENSES ARE TO BE OFFERED AND TAKEN THEATRE BY THEATRE AND PICTURE
BY PICTURE.  LICENSES TO SHOW FILMS IN THEATRES IN WHICH THE LICENSOR
OWNS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AN INTEREST OF NINETY-FIVE PER CENT OR MORE
ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING. 

PARAMOUNT IS THE ONLY ONE OF THE FIVE MAJORS WHO OPPOSES THE
COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM.  COLUMBIA PICTURES, UNIVERSAL, AND UNITED
ARTISTS OPPOSE IT.  THE INTERVENORS REPRESENTING CERTAIN INDEPENDENTS
OPPOSE IT.  AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHICH APPARENTLY PROPOSED
THE SYSTEM ORIGINALLY, SPEAKS STRONGLY AGAINST IT HERE. 

AT FIRST BLUSH THERE IS MUCH TO COMMEND THE SYSTEM OF COMPETITIVE
BIDDING.  THE TRADE VICTIMS OF THIS CONSPIRACY HAVE IN LARGE MEASURE
BEEN THE SMALL INDEPENDENT OPERATORS.  THEY ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE FELT
MOST KEENLY THE DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES AND PREDATORY ACTIVITIES IN
WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE FREELY INDULGED.  THEY HAVE BEEN THE VICTIMS OF
THE MASSED PURCHASING POWER OF THE LARGER UNITS IN THE INDUSTRY.  IT IS
LARGELY OUT OF THE RUINS OF THE SMALL OPERATORS THAT THE LARGE EMPIRES
OF EXHIBITORS HAVE BEEN BUILT.  THUS IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE A GREAT BOON
TO THEM TO SUBSTITUTE OPEN BIDDING FOR THE PRIVATE DEALS AND FAVORS ON
WHICH THE LARGE OPERATORS HAVE THRIVED.  BUT AFTER REFLECTION WE HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT COMPETITIVE BIDDING INVOLVES THE JUDICIARY SO DEEPLY IN
THE DAILY OPERATION OF THIS NATION-WIDE BUSINESS AND PROMISES SUCH
DUBIOUS BENEFITS THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE UNDERTAKEN. 

EACH FILM IS TO BE LICENSED ON A PARTICULAR RUN TO "THE HIGHEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, HAVING A THEATRE OF A SIZE, LOCATION AND EQUIPMENT
ADEQUATE TO YIELD A REASONABLE RETURN TO THE LICENSOR."  THE BID "SHALL
STATE WHAT RUN SUCH EXHIBITOR DESIRES AND WHAT HE IS WILLING TO PAY FOR
SUCH FEATURE, WHICH STATEMENT MAY SPECIFY A FLAT RENTAL, OR A
PERCENTAGE OF GROSS RECEIPTS, OR BOTH, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF RENTAL, AND
SHALL ALSO SPECIFY WHAT CLEARANCE SUCH EXHIBITOR IS WILLING TO ACCEPT,
THE TIME AND DAYS WHEN SUCH EXHIBITOR DESIRES TO EXHIBIT IT, AND ANY
OTHER OFFERS WHICH SUCH EXHIBITOR MAY CARE TO MAKE."  WE DO NOT DOUBT
THAT IF A COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM IS ADOPTED ALL THESE PROVISIONS
ARE NECESSARY.  FOR THE LICENSING OF FILMS AT AUCTION IS QUITE
OBVIOUSLY A MORE COMPLICATED MATTER THAN THE LIKE SALES FOR CASH OF
TOBACCO, WHEAT, OR OTHER PRODUCE.  COLUMBIA PUTS THESE PERTINENT
QUERIES:  "NO TWO EXHIBITORS ARE LIKELY TO MAKE THE SAME BID AS TO
DATES, CLEARANCE, METHOD OF FIXING RENTAL, ETC.  MAY BIDS CONTAINING
SUCH DIVERSE FACTORS BE READILY COMPARED?  MAY A FLAT RENTAL BID BE
COMPARED WITH A PERCENTAGE BID?  MAY THE VALUE OF ANY PERCENTAGE BID BE
DETERMINED UNLESS THE ADMISSION PRICE IS FIXED BY THE LICENSE?" 

THE QUESTION AS TO WHO IS THE HIGHEST BIDDER INVOLVES THE USE OF
STANDARDS INCAPABLE OF PRECISE DEFINITION BECAUSE THE BIDS BEING
COMPARED CONTAIN DIFFERENT INGREDIENTS.  DETERMINING WHO IS THE MOST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER LIKEWISE CANNOT BE REDUCED TO A FORMULA.  THE
DISTRIBUTOR'S JUDGMENT OF THE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF A PARTICULAR
EXHIBITOR MIGHT RESULT IN ACCEPTANCE OF A LOWER BID THAN OTHERS
OFFERED.  YET TO PROVE THAT FAVORITISM WAS SHOWN WOULD BE WELL-NIGH
IMPOSSIBLE, UNLESS PERHAPS ALL THE EXHIBITORS IN THE COUNTRY WERE GIVEN
CLASSIFICATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY.  IF, INDEED, THE CHOICE BETWEEN
BIDDERS IS NOT TO BE ENTRUSTED TO THE UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS, SOME EFFORT TO STANDARDIZE THE FACTORS INVOLVED IN
DETERMINING "A REASONABLE RETURN TO THE LICENSOR" WOULD SEEM
NECESSARY. 

WE MENTION THESE MATTERS MERELY TO INDICATE THE CHARACTER OF THE JOB
OF SUPERVISING SUCH A COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM.  IT WOULD INVOLVE THE
JUDICIARY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF INTRICATE AND DETAILED RULES
GOVERNING PRIORITY, PERIOD OF CLEARANCE, LENGTH OF RUN, COMPETITIVE
AREAS, REASONABLE RETURN, AND THE LIKE.  THE SYSTEM WOULD BE APT TO
REQUIRE AS CLOSE A SUPERVISION AS A CONTINUOUS RECEIVERSHIP, UNLESS THE
DEFENDANTS WERE TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH VAST DISCRETION.  THE JUDICIARY IS
UNSUITED TO AFFAIRS OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT; AND CONTROL THROUGH THE
POWER OF CONTEMPT IS CRUDE AND CLUMSY AND LACKING IN THE FLEXIBILITY
NECESSARY TO MAKE CONTINUOUS AND DETAILED SUPERVISION EFFECTIVE.  YET
DELEGATION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SYSTEM TO THE DISCRETION OF THOSE
WHO HAD THE GENIUS TO CONCEIVE THE PRESENT CONSPIRACY AND TO EXECUTE IT
WITH THE SUBTLETY WHICH THIS RECORD REVEALS, COULD BE DONE ONLY WITH
THE GREATEST RELUCTANCE.  AT LEAST SUCH CHOICES SHOULD NOT BE FACED
UNLESS THE NEED FOR THE SYSTEM IS GREAT AND ITS BENEFITS PLAIN. 

THE SYSTEM UPROOTS BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS AND ESTABLISHED
RELATIONSHIPS WITH NO APPARENT OVERALL BENEFIT TO THE SMALL INDEPENDENT
EXHIBITOR.  IF EACH FEATURE MUST GO TO THE HIGHEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER,
THOSE WITH THE GREATEST PURCHASING POWER WOULD SEEM TO BE IN A FAVORED
POSITION.  THOSE WITH THE LONGEST PURSE - THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS AND
THE LARGE CIRCUITS - WOULD SEEM TO STAND IN A PREFERRED POSITION.  IF
IN FACT THEY WERE ENABLED THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM TO
TAKE THE CREAM OF THE BUSINESS, ELIMINATE THE SMALLER INDEPENDENTS, AND
THUS INCREASE THEIR OWN STRATEGIC HOLD ON THE INDUSTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE
THE CLOAK OF THE COURT'S DECREE AROUND THEM FOR PROTECTION.  HENCE THE
NATURAL ADVANTAGE WHICH THE LARGER AND FINANCIALLY STRONGER EXHIBITORS
WOULD SEEM TO HAVE IN THE BIDDING GIVES US PAUSE.  IF A PREMIUM IS
PLACED ON PURCHASING POWER, THE COURT-CREATED SYSTEM MAY BE A POWERFUL
FACTOR TOWARDS INCREASING THE CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER IN THE
INDUSTRY RATHER THAN CLEANSING THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM OF UNWHOLESOME
PRACTICES.  FOR WHERE THE SYSTEM IN OPERATION PROMISES THE ADVANTAGE TO
THE EXHIBITOR WHO IS IN THE STRONGEST FINANCIAL POSITION, THE
INJUNCTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION  FN17  IS APT TO HOLD AN EMPTY
PROMISE.  IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE
INDEPENDENTS IN A GIVEN COMPETITIVE AREA DO NOT WANT COMPETITIVE
BIDDING, THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS CAN INVOKE THE SYSTEM. 

OUR DOUBTS CONCERNING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM ARE INCREASED BY
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANTS WHO OWN THEATRES ARE ALLOWED TO PRE-EMPT THEIR
OWN FEATURES.  THEY THUS START WITH AN INVENTORY WHICH ALL OTHER
EXHIBITORS LACK.  THE LATTER HAVE NO PROSPECT OF ASSURED RUNS EXCEPT
WHAT THEY GET BY COMPETITIVE BIDDING.  THE PROPOSED SYSTEM DOES NOT
OFFSET IN ANY WAY THE ADVANTAGES WHICH THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS HAVE BY
WAY OF THEATRE OWNERSHIP.  IT WOULD SEEM IN FACT TO INCREASE THEM.  FOR
THE INDEPENDENTS ARE DEPRIVED OF THE STABILITY WHICH FLOWS FROM
ESTABLISHED BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS.  UNDER THE PROPOSED SYSTEM THEY CAN
GET FEATURES ONLY IF THEY ARE THE HIGHEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS.  THEY
CAN NO LONGER DEPEND ON THEIR PRIVATE SOURCES OF SUPPLY WHICH THEIR
INGENUITY HAS CREATED.  THOSE SOURCES, BUILT PERHAPS ON PRIVATE
RELATIONSHIPS AND REPRESENTING IMPORTANT ITEMS OF GOOD WILL, ARE
BANNED, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE FREE OF ANY TAINT OF ILLEGALITY. 

THE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED, AS SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS PUT IT, TO REMEDY
THE DIFFICULTY OF ANY THEATRE TO BREAK INTO OR CHANGE THE EXISTING
SYSTEM OF RUNS AND CLEARANCES.  BUT WE DO NOT SEE HOW, IN PRACTICAL
OPERATION, THE PROPOSED SYSTEM OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING IS LIKELY TO OPEN
UP TO COMPETITION THE MARKETS WHICH DEFENDANTS' UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS
HAVE DOMINATED.  RATHER REAL DANGER SEEMS TO US TO LIE IN THE
OPPORTUNITIES THE SYSTEM AFFORDS THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS AND THE OTHER
LARGE OPERATORS TO STRENGTHEN THEIR HOLD IN THE INDUSTRY.  WE ARE
RELUCTANT TO ALTER DECREES IN THESE CASES WHERE THERE IS AGREEMENT WITH
THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATIONS.  UNITED STATES V.
CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, P. 185; INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 332 U.S. 392, 400.  BUT THE PROVISIONS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING
IN THESE CASES PROMISE LITTLE IN THE WAY OF RELIEF AGAINST THE REAL
EVILS OF THE CONSPIRACY.  THEY IMPLICATE THE JUDICIARY HEAVILY IN THE
DETAILS OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT IF SUPERVISION IS TO BE EFFECTIVE.  THEY
VEST POWERFUL CONTROL IN THE EXHIBITOR-DEFENDANTS OVER THEIR
COMPETITORS IF CLOSE SUPERVISION BY THE COURT IS NOT UNDERTAKEN.  IN
LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING
PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE SHOULD BE ELIMINATED SO THAT A MORE EFFECTIVE
DECREE MAY BE FASHIONED. 

WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED IN PRECEDING PARTS OF THIS OPINION THAT
THIS ALTERATION IN THE DECREE LEAVES A HIATUS OR TWO WHICH WILL HAVE TO
BE FILLED ON REMAND OF THE CASES.  WE WILL INDICATE HEREAFTER ANOTHER
PHASE OF THE PROBLEM WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD ALSO RECONSIDER IN
VIEW OF THIS ALTERATION IN THE DECREE.  BUT OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF
CAUTION WE ADD THIS ADDITIONAL WORD.  THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM
WAS PERHAPS THE CENTRAL ARCH OF THE DECREE DESIGNED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  ITS ELIMINATION MAY AFFECT THE CASES IN WAYS OTHER THAN THOSE
WHICH WE EXPRESSLY MENTION.  HENCE ON REMAND OF THE CASES THE FREEDOM
OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECONSIDER THE ADEQUACY OF DECREE IS NOT
LIMITED TO THOSE PARTS WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY INDICATED. 

THIRD.  MONOPOLY, EXPANSION OF THEATRE HOLDINGS, DIVESTITURE. 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT THE HOLD THE DEFENDANTS HAVE ON THE
INDUSTRY IS SO GREAT THAT A PROBLEM UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS
RAISED.  CF. ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1.  WE HAVE NO
DOUBT THAT MOVING PICTURES, LIKE NEWSPAPERS AND RADIO, ARE INCLUDED IN
THE PRESS WHOSE FREEDOM IS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THAT
ISSUE WOULD BE FOCUSED HERE IF WE HAD ANY QUESTION CONCERNING MONOPOLY
IN THE PRODUCTION OF MOVING PICTURES.  BUT MONOPOLY IN PRODUCTION WAS
ELIMINATED AS AN ISSUE IN THESE CASES, AS WE HAVE NOTED.  THE CHIEF
ARGUMENT AT THE BAR IS PHRASED IN TERMS OF MONOPOLY OF EXHIBITION,
RESTRAINTS ON EXHIBITION, AND THE LIKE.  ACTUALLY, THE ISSUE IS EVEN
NARROWER THAN THAT.  THE MAIN CONTEST IS OVER THE CREAM OF THE
EXHIBITION BUSINESS - THAT OF THE FIRST-RUN THEATRES.  BY DEFINING THE
ISSUE SO NARROWLY WE DO NOT INTEND TO BELITTLE ITS IMPORTANCE.  IT
SHOWS, HOWEVER, THAT THE QUESTION HERE IS NOT WHAT THE PUBLIC WILL SEE
OR IF THE PUBLIC WILL BE PERMITTED TO SEE CERTAIN FEATURES.  IT IS
CLEAR THAT UNDER THE EXISTING SYSTEM THE PUBLIC WILL BE DENIED ACCESS
TO NONE.  IF THE PUBLIC CANNOT SEE THE FEATURES ON THE FIRST-RUN, IT
MAY DO SO ON THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, OR LATER RUN.  THE CENTRAL
PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THESE CASES IS WHICH EXHIBITORS GET THE HIGHLY
PROFITABLE FIRST-RUN BUSINESS.  THAT PROBLEM HAS IMPORTANT ASPECTS
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  BUT IT BEARS ONLY REMOTELY, IF AT ALL, ON ANY
QUESTION OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, SAVE ONLY AS TIMELINESS OF RELEASE
MAY BE A FACTOR OF IMPORTANCE IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. 

THE CONTROVERSY OVER MONOPOLY RELATES TO MONOPOLY IN EXHIBITION AND
MORE PARTICULARLY MONOPOLY IN THE FIRST-RUN PHASE OF THE EXHIBITION
BUSINESS. 

THE FIVE MAJORS IN 1945 HAD INTERESTS IN SOMEWHAT OVER 17 PER CENT OF
THE THEATRES IN THE UNITED STATES - 3,137 OUT OF 18,076.  FN18  THOSE
THEATRES PAID 45 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL DOMESTIC FILM RENTAL RECEIVED BY
ALL EIGHT DEFENDANTS. 

IN THE 92 CITIES OF THE COUNTRY WITH POPULATIONS OVER 100,000 AT
LEAST 70 PER CENT OF ALL THE FIRST-RUN THEATRES ARE AFFILIATED WITH ONE
OR MORE OF THE FIVE MAJORS.  IN 4 OF THOSE CITIES THE FIVE MAJORS HAVE
NO THEATRES.  IN 38 OF THOSE CITIES THERE ARE NO INDEPENDENT FIRST-RUN
THEATRES.  IN NONE OF THE REMAINING 50 CITIES DID LESS THAN THREE OF
THE DISTRIBUTOR-DEFENDANTS LICENSE THEIR PRODUCT ON FIRST RUN TO
THEATRES OF THE FIVE MAJORS.  IN 19 OF THE 50 CITIES LESS THAN THREE OF
THE DISTRIBUTOR-DEFENDANTS LICENSED THEIR PRODUCT ON FIRST RUN TO
INDEPENDENT THEATRES.  IN A MAJORITY OF THE 50 CITIES THE GREATER SHARE
OF ALL OF THE FEATURES OF DEFENDANTS WERE LICENSED FOR FIRST-RUN
EXHIBITION IN THE THEATRES OF THE FIVE MAJORS. 

IN ABOUT 60 PER CENT OF THE 92 CITIES HAVING POPULATIONS OF OVER
100,000, INDEPENDENT THEATRES COMPETE WITH THOSE OF THE FIVE MAJORS IN
FIRST-RUN EXHIBITION.  IN ABOUT 91 PER CENT OF THE 92 CITIES THERE IS
COMPETITION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT THEATRES AND THE THEATRES OF THE FIVE
MAJORS OR BETWEEN THEATRES OF THE FIVE MAJORS THEMSELVES FOR FIRST-RUN
EXHIBITION.  IN ALL OF THE 92 CITIES THERE IS ALWAYS COMPETITION IN
SOME RUN EVEN WHERE THERE IS NO COMPETITION IN FIRST RUNS. 

IN CITIES BETWEEN 25,000 AND 100,000 POPULATIONS THE FIVE MAJORS HAVE
INTERESTS IN 577 OF A TOTAL OF 978 FIRST-RUN THEATRES OR ABOUT 60 PER
CENT.  IN ABOUT 300 ADDITIONAL TOWNS, MOSTLY UNDER 25,000, AN OPERATOR
AFFILIATED WITH ONE OF THE FIVE MAJORS HAS ALL OF THE THEATRES IN THE
TOWN. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE FIVE MAJORS COULD NOT BE TREATED
COLLECTIVELY SO AS TO ESTABLISH CLAIMS OF GENERAL MONOPOLIZATION IN
EXHIBITION.  IT FOUND THAT NONE OF THEM WAS ORGANIZED OR HAD BEEN
MAINTAINED "FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING A NATIONAL MONOPOLY" IN
EXHIBITION.  IT FOUND THAT THE FIVE MAJORS BY THEIR PRESENT THEATRE
HOLDINGS "ALONE" (WHICH AGGREGATE A LITTLE MORE THAN ONE-SIXTH OF ALL
THE THEATRES IN THE UNITED STATES), "DO NOT AND CANNOT COLLECTIVELY OR
INDIVIDUALLY, HAVE A MONOPOLY OF EXHIBITION."  THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO
FOUND THAT WHERE A SINGLE DEFENDANT OWNS ALL OF THE FIRST-RUN THEATRES
IN A TOWN, THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE ACQUISITION WAS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A MONOPOLY.  IT FOUND RATHER THAT SUCH
CONSEQUENCE RESULTED FROM THE INERTNESS OF COMPETITORS, THEIR LACK OF
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO BUILD THEATRES COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF THE FIVE
MAJORS, OR THE PREFERENCE OF THE PUBLIC FOR THE BEST-EQUIPPED
THEATRES.  AND THE PERCENTAGE OF FEATURES ON THE MARKET WHICH ANY OF
THE FIVE MAJORS COULD PLAY IN ITS OWN THEATRES WAS FOUND TO BE
RELATIVELY SMALL AND IN NOWISE TO APPROXIMATE A MONOPOLY OF FILM
EXHIBITION.  FN19 

EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE THEATRES JOINTLY OWNED OR JOINTLY OPERATED BY
THE DEFENDANTS WITH EACH OTHER OR WITH INDEPENDENTS, THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND NO MONOPOLY OR ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE.  THOSE JOINT AGREEMENTS OR
OWNERSHIP WERE FOUND ONLY TO BE UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT, INDEED, FOUND NO MONOPOLY ON ANY PHASE OF THE CASES,
ALTHOUGH IT DID FIND AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE IN THE FIXING OF PRICES,
THE GRANTING OF UNREASONABLE CLEARANCES, BLOCK-BOOKING AND THE OTHER
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED.  THE "ROOT OF
THE DIFFICULTIES," ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT, LAY NOT IN THEATRE
OWNERSHIP BUT IN THOSE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DID, HOWEVER, ENJOIN THE FIVE MAJORS FROM
EXPANDING THEIR PRESENT THEATRE HOLDINGS IN ANY MANNER.  FN20  IT
REFUSED TO GRANT THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR TOTAL
DIVESTITURE BY THE FIVE MAJORS OF THEIR THEATRE HOLDINGS.  IT FOUND
THAT TOTAL DIVESTITURE WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO THE FIVE MAJORS AND
DAMAGING TO THE PUBLIC.  ITS THOUGHT ON THE LATTER SCORE WAS THAT THE
NEW SET OF THEATRE OWNERS WHO WOULD TAKE THE PLACE OF THE FIVE MAJORS
WOULD BE UNLIKELY FOR SOME YEARS TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AS GOOD SERVICE AS
THOSE THEY SUPPLANTED "IN VIEW OF THE LATTER'S DEMONSTRATED EXPERIENCE
AND SKILL IN OPERATING WHAT MUST BE REGARDED AS IN GENERAL THE LARGEST
AND BEST EQUIPPED THEATRES."  DIVESTITURE WAS, IT THOUGHT, TOO HARSH A
REMEDY WHERE THERE WAS AVAILABLE THE ALTERNATIVE OF COMPETITIVE
BIDDING.  IT ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT DIVESTITURE WAS UNNECESSARY "AT
LEAST UNTIL THE EFFICIENCY OF THAT SYSTEM HAS BEEN TRIED AND FOUND
WANTING." 

IT IS CLEAR, SO FAR AS THE FIVE MAJORS ARE CONCERNED, THAT THE AIM OF
THE CONSPIRACY WAS EXCLUSIONARY, I.E. IT WAS DESIGNED TO STRENGTHEN
THEIR HOLD ON THE EXHIBITION FIELD.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE CONSPIRACY HAD
MONOPOLY IN EXHIBITION FOR ONE OF ITS GOALS, AS THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD.  PRICE, CLEARANCE, AND RUN ARE INTERDEPENDENT.  THE CLEARANCE AND
RUN PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSES FIXED THE RELATIVE PLAYING POSITIONS OF
ALL THEATRES IN A CERTAIN AREA; THE MINIMUM PRICE PROVISIONS WERE BASED
ON PLAYING POSITION - THE FIRST-RUN THEATRES BEING REQUIRED TO CHARGE
THE HIGHEST PRICES, THE SECOND-RUN THEATRES THE NEXT HIGHEST, AND SO
ON.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, "IN EFFECT, THE DISTRIBUTOR, BY THE
FIXING OF MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICES, ATTEMPTS TO GIVE THE PRIOR-RUN
EXHIBITORS AS NEAR A MONOPOLY OF THE PATRONAGE AS POSSIBLE." 

IT IS, THEREFORE, NOT ENOUGH IN DETERMINING THE NEED FOR DIVESTITURE
TO CONCLUDE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT NONE OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS
ORGANIZED OR HAS BEEN MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING A
"NATIONAL MONOPOLY," NOR THAT THE FIVE MAJORS THROUGH THEIR PRESENT
THEATRE HOLDINGS "ALONE" DO NOT AND CANNOT COLLECTIVELY OR INDIVIDUALLY
HAVE A MONOPOLY OF EXHIBITION.  FOR WHEN THE STARTING POINT IS A
CONSPIRACY TO EFFECT A MONOPOLY THROUGH RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, IT IS
RELEVANT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE CONSPIRACY WERE EVEN IF
THEY FELL SHORT OF MONOPOLY. 

AN EXAMPLE WILL ILLUSTRATE THE PROBLEM.  IN THE POPULAR SENSE THERE
IS A MONOPOLY IF ONE PERSON OWNS THE ONLY THEATRE IN TOWN.  THAT
USUALLY DOES NOT, HOWEVER, CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
BUT AS WE NOTED IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE, P. 100, AND SEE
SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 110, EVEN SUCH
AN OWNERSHIP IS VULNERABLE IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED, OR ITS STRATEGIC POSITION
MAINTAINED, AS A RESULT OF PRACTICES WHICH CONSTITUTE UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD BE REWARD FROM THE
CONSPIRACY THROUGH RETENTION OF ITS FRUITS.  HENCE THE PROBLEM OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT END WITH ENJOINING CONTINUANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL
RESTRAINTS NOR WITH DISSOLVING THE COMBINATION WHICH LAUNCHED THE
CONSPIRACY.  ITS FUNCTION INCLUDES UNDOING WHAT THE CONSPIRACY
ACHIEVED.  AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES, INC. V.
UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 110, THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEFENDANTS
RESTORE WHAT THEY UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED IS NO MORE PUNISHMENT THAN THE
FAMILIAR REMEDY OF RESTITUTION.  WHAT FINDINGS WOULD BE WARRANTED AFTER
SUCH AN INQUIRY IN THE PRESENT CASES, WE DO NOT KNOW.  FOR THE FINDINGS
OF THE DISTRICT COURT DO NOT COVER THIS POINT BEYOND STATING THAT
MONOPOLY WAS AN OBJECTIVE OF THE SEVERAL RESTRAINTS OF TRADE THAT STAND
CONDEMNED. 

MOREOVER, THE PROBLEM UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT SOLVED MERELY BY
MEASURING MONOPOLY IN TERMS OF SIZE OR EXTENT OF HOLDINGS OR BY
CONCLUDING THAT SINGLE OWNERSHIPS WERE NOT OBTAINED "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ACHIEVING A NATIONAL MONOPOLY."  IT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE TO THE POSITION OF THE DEFENDANTS IN
THE EXHIBITION FIELD (AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE FIRST-RUN PHASE OF
THAT BUSINESS) THAT IS OF FIRST IMPORTANCE ON THE DIVESTITURE PHASE OF
THESE CASES.  THAT IS THE POSITION WE HAVE TAKEN IN SCHINE CHAIN
THEATRES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 110, IN DEALING WITH A
PROJECTION OF THE SAME CONSPIRACY THROUGH CERTAIN LARGE CIRCUITS. 
PARITY OF TREATMENT OF THE UNAFFILIATED AND THE AFFILIATED CIRCUITS
REQUIRES THE SAME APPROACH HERE.  FOR THE FRUITS OF THE CONSPIRACY
WHICH ARE DENIED THE INDEPENDENTS MUST ALSO BE DENIED THE FIVE MAJORS. 
IN THIS CONNECTION THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT ONE RESULT OF THE
CONSPIRACY WAS A GEOGRAPHICAL DIVISION OF TERRITORY AMONG THE FIVE
MAJORS.  WE MENTION IT NOT TO INTIMATE THAT IT IS TRUE BUT ONLY TO
INDICATE THE APPROPRIATE EXTENT OF THE INQUIRY CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF
THE CONSPIRACY IN THEATRE OWNERSHIP BY THE FIVE MAJORS. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ARE DEFICIENT ON THAT SCORE AND
OBSCURE ON ANOTHER.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN ITS FINDINGS SPEAKS OF THE
ABSENCE OF A "PURPOSE" ON THE PART OF ANY OF THE FIVE MAJORS TO ACHIEVE
A "NATIONAL MONOPOLY" IN THE EXHIBITION OF MOTION PICTURES.  FIRST,
THERE IS NO FINDING AS TO THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MONOPOLY ON THE
PART OF THE FIVE MAJORS IN THE FIRST-RUN FIELD FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY,
IN THE FIRST-RUN FIELD IN THE 92 LARGEST CITIES OF THE COUNTRY, OR IN
THE FIRST-RUN FIELD IN SEPARATE LOCALITIES.  YET THE FIRST-RUN FIELD,
WHICH CONSTITUTES THE CREAM OF THE EXHIBITION BUSINESS, IS THE CORE OF
THE PRESENT CASES.  SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT OUTLAWS UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE INVOLVED
(UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 224, 225, N.
59), AND SEC. 2 CONDEMNS MONOPOLY OF "ANY PART" OF TRADE OR COMMERCE. 
"ANY PART" IS CONSTRUED TO MEAN AN APPRECIABLE PART OF INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN TRADE OR COMMERCE.  UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S.
218, 225.  SECOND, WE POINTED OUT IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE,
P. 100, THAT "SPECIFIC INTENT" IS NOT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A "PURPOSE
OR INTENT" TO CREATE A MONOPOLY BUT THAT THE REQUISITE "PURPOSE OR
INTENT" IS PRESENT IF MONOPOLY RESULTS AS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF
WHAT WAS DONE.  THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THIS PHASE OF THE
CASES ARE NOT CLEAR, THOUGH WE TAKE THEM TO MEAN BY THE ABSENCE OF
"PURPOSE" THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC INTENT.  SO CONSTRUED THEY ARE
INCONCLUSIVE.  IN ANY EVENT THEY ARE AMBIGUOUS AND MUST BE RECAST ON
REMAND OF THE CASES.  THIRD, MONOPOLY POWER, WHETHER LAWFULLY OR
UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED, MAY VIOLATE SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT THOUGH IT
REMAINS UNEXERCISED (UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE, P. 100), FOR AS
WE STATED IN AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 809,
811, THE EXISTENCE OF POWER "TO EXCLUDE COMPETITION WHEN IT IS DESIRED
TO DO SO" IS ITSELF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2, PROVIDED IT IS COUPLED WITH
THE PURPOSE OR INTENT TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.  THE DISTRICT COURT,
BEING PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE NUMBER AND EXTENT OF THE THEATRE
HOLDINGS OF DEFENDANTS, DID NOT ADDRESS ITSELF TO THIS PHASE OF THE
MONOPOLY PROBLEM.  HERE ALSO, PARITY OF TREATMENT AS BETWEEN
INDEPENDENTS AND THE FIVE MAJORS AS THEATRE OWNERS, WHO WERE TIED INTO
THE SAME GENERAL CONSPIRACY, NECESSITATES CONSIDERATION OF THIS
QUESTION. 

EXPLORATION OF THESE PHASES OF THE CASES WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY IF,
AS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARGUES, VERTICAL INTEGRATION OF PRODUCING,
DISTRIBUTING AND EXHIBITING MOTION PICTURES IS ILLEGAL PER SE.  BUT THE
MAJORITY OF THE COURT DOES NOT TAKE THAT VIEW.  IN THE OPINION OF THE
MAJORITY THE LEGALITY OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT
TURNS ON (1) THE PURPOSE OR INTENT WITH WHICH IT WAS CONCEIVED, OR (2)
THE POWER IT CREATES AND THE ATTENDANT PURPOSE OR INTENT.  FIRST, IT
RUNS AFOUL OF THE SHERMAN ACT IF IT WAS A CALCULATED SCHEME TO GAIN
CONTROL OVER AN APPRECIABLE SEGMENT OF THE MARKET AND TO RESTRAIN OR
SUPPRESS COMPETITION, RATHER THAN AN EXPANSION TO MEET LEGITIMATE
BUSINESS NEEDS.  UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26, 57; UNITED
STATES V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 254 U.S. 255, 269-270.  SECOND, A
VERTICALLY INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE, LIKE OTHER AGGREGATIONS OF BUSINESS
UNITS (UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416), WILL
CONSTITUTE MONOPOLY WHICH, THOUGH UNEXERCISED, VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT
PROVIDED A POWER TO EXCLUDE COMPETITION IS COUPLED WITH A PURPOSE OR
INTENT TO DO SO.  AS WE POINTED OUT IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, ANTE,
P. 100, 107, N. 10, SIZE IS ITSELF AN EARMARK OF MONOPOLY POWER.  FOR
SIZE CARRIES WITH IT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSE.  AND THE FACT THAT THE
POWER CREATED BY SIZE WAS UTILIZED IN THE PAST TO CRUSH OR PREVENT
COMPETITION IS POTENT EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUISITE PURPOSE OR INTENT
ATTENDS THE PRESENCE OF MONOPOLY POWER.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SWIFT &
CO., 286 U.S. 106, 116; UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA,
SUPRA, P. 430.  LIKEWISE BEARING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER MONOPOLY POWER
IS CREATED BY THE VERTICAL INTEGRATION, IS THE NATURE OF THE MARKET TO
BE SERVED (UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, SUPRA, P. 430),
AND THE LEVERAGE ON THE MARKET WHICH THE PARTICULAR VERTICAL
INTEGRATION CREATES OR MAKES POSSIBLE. 

THESE MATTERS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  FOR THAT
REASON, AS WELL AS THE OTHERS WE HAVE MENTIONED, THE FINDINGS ON
MONOPOLY AND DIVESTITURE WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THIS PART OF THE
OPINION WILL BE SET ASIDE.  THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT REASON FOR DOING
THAT.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED COMPETITIVE
BIDDING AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DIVESTITURE IN THE SENSE THAT IT CONCLUDED
THAT FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF DIVESTITURE SHOULD NOT BE HAD UNTIL
COMPETITIVE BIDDING HAD BEEN TRIED AND FOUND WANTING.  SINCE WE
ELIMINATE FROM THE DECREE THE PROVISIONS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING, IT IS
NECESSARY TO SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS ON DIVESTITURE SO THAT A NEW START
ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASES MAY BE MADE ON THEIR REMAND. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROVISION OF THE DECREE BARRING THE FIVE MAJORS
FROM FURTHER THEATRE EXPANSION SHOULD LIKEWISE BE ELIMINATED.  FOR IT
TOO IS RELATED TO THE MONOPOLY QUESTION; AND THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD
BE ALLOWED TO MAKE AN ENTIRELY FRESH START ON THE WHOLE OF THE
PROBLEM.  WE IN NO WAY INTIMATE, HOWEVER, THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED
IN PROHIBITING FURTHER THEATRE EXPANSION BY THE FIVE MAJORS. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MAINTAINS THAT IF TOTAL DIVESTITURE IS
DENIED, LICENSING OF FILMS AMONG THE FIVE MAJORS SHOULD BE BARRED.  AS
A PERMANENT REQUIREMENT IT WOULD SEEM TO BE ONLY AN INDIRECT WAY OF
FORCING DIVESTITURE.  FOR THE FINDINGS REVEAL THAT THE FIVE MAJORS
COULD NOT OPERATE THEIR THEATRES FULL TIME ON THEIR OWN FILMS.  FN21
WHETHER THAT STEP WOULD, IN ABSENCE OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING, SERVE AS A
SHORT-RANGE REMEDY IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS TO DISSIPATE THE EFFECTS OF
THE CONSPIRACY (UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241, 254;
UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., SUPRA, P. 724; UNITED STATES V.
CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA, P. 188) IS A QUESTION FOR THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

FOURTH. 

THE CONSENT DECREE CREATED AN ARBITRATION SYSTEM WHICH HAD, IN THE
VIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT, PROVED USEFUL IN ITS OPERATION.  THE COURT
INDEED THOUGHT THAT THE ARBITRATION SYSTEM HAD DEALT WITH THE PROBLEMS
OF CLEARANCES AND RUNS "WITH RARE EFFICIENCY."  BUT IT DID NOT THINK IT
HAD THE POWER TO CONTINUE AN ARBITRATION SYSTEM WHICH WOULD BE BINDING
ON THE PARTIES, SINCE THE CONSENT DECREE DID NOT BIND THE DEFENDANTS
WHO HAD NOT CONSENTED TO IT AND SINCE THE GOVERNMENT, ACTING PURSUANT
TO THE POWERS RESERVED UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE, MOVED FOR TRIAL OF THE
ISSUES CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT.  THE DISTRICT COURT RECOMMENDED,
HOWEVER, THAT SOME SUCH SYSTEM BE CONTINUED.  BUT IT INCLUDED NO SUCH
PROVISION IN ITS DECREE. 

WE AGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CONSENT TO A PERMANENT SYSTEM OF
ARBITRATION UNDER THE CONSENT DECREE AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS NO
POWER TO FORCE OR REQUIRE PARTIES TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION IN LIEU OF
THE REMEDIES AFFORDED BY CONGRESS FOR ENFORCING THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 
BUT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE THE MAINTENANCE OF
SUCH A SYSTEM BY THOSE PARTIES WHO CONSENT AND TO PROVIDE THE RULES AND
PROCEDURE UNDER WHICH IT IS TO OPERATE.  THE USE OF THE SYSTEM WOULD
NOT, OF COURSE, BE MANDATORY.  IT WOULD BE MERELY AN AUXILIARY
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE, BARRING NO ONE FROM THE USE OF OTHER REMEDIES
THE LAW AFFORDS FOR VIOLATIONS EITHER OF THE SHERMAN ACT OR OF THE
DECREE OF THE COURT.  WHETHER SUCH A SYSTEM OF ARBITRATION SHOULD BE
INAUGURATED IS FOR THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FIFTH - INTERVENTION. 

CERTAIN ASSOCIATIONS OF EXHIBITORS AND A NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT
EXHIBITORS, APPELLANT-INTERVENORS IN NOS. 85 AND 86, WERE DENIED LEAVE
TO INTERVENE IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THEY APPEAL FROM THOSE ORDERS. 
THEY ALSO FILED ORIGINAL MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN THIS COURT. 
WE POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF THE ORIGINAL MOTIONS AND OF OUR
JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEALS UNTIL A HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE
CASES. 

RULE 24(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR
INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT, READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "UPON TIMELY
APPLICATION ANYONE SHALL BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN AN ACTION: ...
(2) WHEN THE REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT'S INTEREST BY EXISTING
PARTIES IS OR MAY BE INADEQUATE AND THE APPLICANT IS OR MAY BE BOUND BY
A JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION." 

THE COMPLAINT OF THE INTERVENORS WAS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE SYSTEM OF
COMPETITIVE BIDDING.  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS THE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE PUBLIC IN THESE ANTI-TRUST SUITS.  SO FAR AS THE PROTECTION OF
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN FREE COMPETITION IS CONCERNED, THE INTERESTS OF
THOSE INTERVENORS WAS ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED.  THE INTERVENORS,
HOWEVER, CLAIM THAT THE SYSTEM OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING WOULD HAVE
OPERATED PREJUDICIALLY TO THEIR RIGHTS.  CF. UNITED STATES V. ST. LOUIS
TERMINAL, 236 U.S. 194, 199.  THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PLAN OF
COMPETITIVE BIDDING UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEFENDANTS WOULD BE A
CONCERT OF ACTION THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL BUT FOR THE DECREE.  IF
PURSUANT TO THE DECREE DEFENDANTS ACTED UNDER THAT PLAN, THEY WOULD
GAIN IMMUNITY FROM ANY LIABILITY UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WHICH
OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT HAVE TO THE INTERVENORS.  THUS, IT IS ARGUED, THE
DECREE WOULD AFFECT THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS AND BE BINDING ON THEM.  THE
REPRESENTATION OF THEIR INTERESTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON THAT
SCORE WAS SAID TO BE INADEQUATE SINCE THAT AGENCY PROPOSED THE IDEA OF
COMPETITIVE BIDDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 

WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THAT ARGUMENT.  EVEN IF WE ASSUME
THAT THE INTERVENORS ARE CORRECT IN THEIR POSITION, INTERVENTION SHOULD
BE DENIED HERE AND THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING LEAVE TO
INTERVENE MUST BE AFFIRMED.  NOW THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR COMPETITIVE
BIDDING HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE DECREE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
SAYING THAT THE DECREE AFFECTS THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS.  WHATEVER MAY HAVE
BEEN THE SITUATION BELOW, NO OTHER REASON APPEARS WHY AT THIS STAGE
THEIR INTERVENTION IS WARRANTED.  ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING THEM
PARTIES HAS DISAPPEARED. 

THE JUDGMENT IN THESE CASES IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART,
AND THE CASES ARE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1903, 32 STAT. 823,
AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, AND SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 938, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 345. 

FN2  THE COURT WAS CONVENED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF
APRIL 6, 1942, 56 STAT. 198, 199, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 28. 

FN3  BEFORE TRIAL, NEGOTIATIONS FOR A SETTLEMENT WERE UNDERTAKEN.  AS
A RESULT, A CONSENT DECREE AGAINST THE FIVE MAJOR DEFENDANTS WAS
ENTERED NOVEMBER 20, 1940.  THE CONSENT DECREE CONTAINED NO ADMISSION
OF VIOLATION OF LAW AND ADJUDICATED NO ISSUE OF FACT OR LAW, EXCEPT
THAT THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE DECREE RESERVED TO
THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT AT THE END OF A THREE-YEAR TRIAL PERIOD TO
SEEK THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT.  AFTER THE END OF
THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD THE UNITED STATES MOVED FOR TRIAL AGAINST ALL THE
DEFENDANTS. 

FN4  A MASTER AGREEMENT IS A LICENSING AGREEMENT OR "BLANKET DEAL"
COVERING THE EXHIBITION OF FEATURES IN A NUMBER OF THEATRES, USUALLY
COMPRISING A CIRCUIT. 

A FRANCHISE IS A LICENSING AGREEMENT, OR SERIES OF LICENSING
AGREEMENTS, ENTERED INTO AS PART OF THE SAME TRANSACTION, IN EFFECT FOR
MORE THAN ONE MOTION PICTURE SEASON AND COVERING THE EXHIBITION OF
FEATURES RELEASED BY ONE DISTRIBUTOR DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE
AGREEMENT. 

AN INDEPENDENT AS USED IN THESE CASES MEANS A PRODUCER, DISTRIBUTOR,
OR EXHIBITOR, AS THE CONTEXT REQUIRES, WHICH IS NOT A DEFENDANT IN THE
ACTION, OR A SUBSIDIARY OR AFFILIATE OF A DEFENDANT. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 12, INFRA. 

FN6  A CLEARANCE IS THE PERIOD OF TIME, USUALLY STIPULATED IN LICENSE
CONTRACTS, WHICH MUST ELAPSE BETWEEN RUNS OF THE SAME FEATURE WITHIN A
PARTICULAR AREA OR IN SPECIFIED THEATRES. 

RUNS ARE SUCCESSIVE EXHIBITIONS OF A FEATURE IN A GIVEN AREA, FIRST
RUN BEING THE FIRST EXHIBITION IN THAT AREA, SECOND-RUN BEING THE NEXT
SUBSEQUENT, AND SO ON, AND INCLUDE SUCCESSIVE EXHIBITIONS IN DIFFERENT
THEATRES, EVEN THOUGH SUCH THEATRES MAY BE UNDER A COMMON OWNERSHIP OR
MANAGEMENT. 

FN7  THUS THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND: 

"SOME LICENSES GRANTED CLEARANCE TO SELL TO ALL THEATRES WHICH THE
EXHIBITOR PARTY TO THE CONTRACT MIGHT THEREAFTER OWN, LEASE, CONTROL,
MANAGE, OR OPERATE AGAINST ALL THEATRES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF
THE EXHIBITOR'S THEATRE THEREAFTER ERECTED OR OPENED.  THE PURPOSE OF
THIS TYPE OF CLEARANCE AGREEMENTS WAS TO FIX THE RUN AND CLEARANCE
STATUS OF ANY THEATRE THEREAFTER OPENED NOT ON THE BASIS OF ITS
APPOINTMENTS, SIZE, LOCATION, AND OTHER COMPETITIVE FEATURES NORMALLY
ENTERING INTO SUCH DETERMINATION, BUT RATHER UPON THE SOLE BASIS OF
WHETHER IT WERE OPERATED BY THE EXHIBITOR PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT." 
FN8  A FEATURE IS ANY MOTION PICTURE, REGARDLESS OF TOPIC, THE LENGTH
OF FILM OF WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF 4,000 FEET. 

FN9 THEATRES JOINTLY OWNED WITH INDEPENDENTS: 

PARAMOUNT ....................   993 

WARNER .......................    20 

FOX ..........................    66    RKO
..........................   187 

LOEW'S .......................    21

                        ------ 

TOTAL ........................  1287 

THEATRES JOINTLY OWNED BY TWO DEFENDANTS: 

PARAMOUNT-FOX ................     6 

PARAMOUNT-LOEW'S .............    14 

PARAMOUNT-WARNER .............    25 

PARAMOUNT-RKO ................   150 

LOEW'S-RKO ...................     3 

LOEW'S-WARNER ................     5 

FOX-RKO ......................     1 

WARNER-RKO ...................    10

                            ------ 

TOTAL ........................   214 

OF THE 1287 JOINTLY OWNED WITH INDEPENDENTS, 209 WOULD NOT BE
AFFECTED BY THE DECREE SINCE ONE OF THE OWNERSHIP INTERESTS IS LESS
THAN 5 PER CENT, AN AMOUNT WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT TREATED AS DE
MINIMIS. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN11  BLIND-SELLING IS A PRACTICE WHEREBY A DISTRIBUTOR LICENSES A
FEATURE BEFORE THE EXHIBITOR IS AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW IT.  TO
REMEDY THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THAT PRACTICE THE DISTRICT COURT
INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING PROVISION IN ITS DECREE: 

"TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF THE FEATURES HAVE NOT BEEN TRADE SHOWN
PRIOR TO THE GRANTING OF THE LICENSE FOR MORE THAN A SINGLE FEATURE,
THE LICENSEE SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE LICENSOR THE RIGHT TO REJECT TWENTY
PER CENT OF SUCH FEATURES NOT TRADE SHOWN PRIOR TO THE GRANTING OF THE
LICENSE, SUCH RIGHT OF REJECTION TO BE EXERCISED IN THE ORDER OF
RELEASE WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THERE HAS BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED TO
THE LICENSEE TO INSPECT THE FEATURE." 

THE COURT ADVANCED THE FOLLOWING AS ITS REASON FOR INCLUSION OF THIS
PROVISION: 

"BLIND-SELLING DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AS INHERENTLY RESTRICTIVE OF
COMPETITION AS BLOCK-BOOKING, ALTHOUGH IT IS CAPABLE OF SOME ABUSE.  BY
THIS PRACTICE A DISTRIBUTOR COULD PROMISE A PICTURE OF GOOD QUALITY OR
OF A CERTAIN TYPE WHICH WHEN PRODUCED MIGHT PROVE TO BE OF POOR QUALITY
OR OF ANOTHER TYPE - A COMPETING DISTRIBUTOR MEANWHILE BEING UNABLE TO
MARKET ITS PRODUCT AND IN THE END LOSING ITS OUTLETS FOR FUTURE
PICTURES.  THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT TRADE-SHOWS, WHICH ARE DESIGNED
TO PREVENT SUCH BLIND-SELLING, ARE POORLY ATTENDED BY EXHIBITORS. 
ACCORDINGLY, EXHIBITORS WHO CHOOSE TO OBTAIN THEIR FILMS FOR EXHIBITION
IN QUANTITIES, NEED TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST BURDENSOME AGREEMENTS BY
BEING GIVEN AN OPTION TO REJECT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THEIR BLIND
LICENSED PICTURES WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THEY SHALL HAVE BECOME
AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION." 

WE APPROVE THIS PROVISION OF THE DECREE. 

FN12  THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT GRANTED BY THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 35 STAT.
1075, 17 U.S.C. SEC. 1, INCLUDES NO SUCH PRIVILEGE.  IT PROVIDES, SO
FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT ANY PERSON ENTITLED THERETO, UPON COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT, SHALL HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT: 

"(D)  TO PERFORM OR REPRESENT THE COPYRIGHTED WORK PUBLICLY IF IT BE
A DRAMA OR, IF IT BE A DRAMATIC WORK AND NOT REPRODUCED IN COPIES FOR
SALE, TO VEND ANY MANUSCRIPT OR ANY RECORD WHATSOEVER THEREOF; TO MAKE
OR TO PROCURE THE MAKING OF ANY TRANSCRIPTION OR RECORD THEREOF BY OR
FROM WHICH, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IT MAY IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY METHOD
BE EXHIBITED, PERFORMED, REPRESENTED, PRODUCED, OR REPRODUCED; AND TO
EXHIBIT, PERFORM, REPRESENT, PRODUCE, OR REPRODUCE IT IN ANY MANNER OR
BY ANY METHOD WHATSOEVER;" 

FN13  A MOVEOVER IS THE PRIVILEGE GIVEN A LICENSEE TO MOVE A PICTURE
FROM ONE THEATRE TO ANOTHER AS A CONTINUATION OF THE RUN AT THE
LICENSEE'S FIRST THEATRE. 

FN14  A ROAD SHOW IS A PUBLIC EXHIBITION OF A FEATURE IN A LIMITED
NUMBER OF THEATRES, IN ADVANCE OF ITS GENERAL RELEASE, AT ADMISSION
PRICES HIGHER THAN THOSE CUSTOMARILY CHARGED IN FIRST-RUN THEATRES IN
THOSE AREAS. 

FN15  UNDERAGE AND OVERAGE REFER TO THE PRACTICE OF USING EXCESS FILM
RENTAL EARNED IN ONE CIRCUIT THEATRE TO FULFILL A RENTAL COMMITMENT
DEFAULTED BY ANOTHER. 

FN16  COMPETITIVE BIDDING IS REQUIRED ONLY IN A "COMPETITIVE AREA"
WHERE IT IS "DESIRED BY THE EXHIBITORS."  AS THE DISTRICT COURT SAID,
"THE DECREE PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO BID FOR ANY EXHIBITOR IN A
COMPETITIVE AREA WHO MAY DESIRE TO DO SO." 

THE DETAILS OF THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING SYSTEM WILL BE FOUND IN 70
F.SUPP.  PP. 73-74. 

FN17  THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PART OF THE DECREE PROVIDES:  "EACH
LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED SOLELY UPON THE MERITS AND WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF AFFILIATES, OLD CUSTOMERS OR OTHERS." 

FN18  THE THEATRES WHICH EACH OF THE FIVE MAJORS OWNED INDEPENDENTLY
OF THE OTHERS WERE: PARAMOUNT 1,395 OR 7.72 PER CENT; WARNER 501 OR
2.77 PER CENT; LOEW'S 135 OR .74 PER CENT; FOX 636 OR 3.52 PER CENT;
RKO 109 OR .60 PER CENT.  THERE WERE IN ADDITION 361 THEATRES OR ABOUT
2 PER CENT IN WHICH TWO OR MORE OF THE FIVE MAJORS HAD JOINT
INTERESTS.  THESE FIGURES EXCLUDE CONNECTIONS THROUGH FILM-BUYING OR
MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS OR THROUGH CORPORATIONS IN WHICH A DEFENDANT OWNS
AN INDIRECT MINORITY STOCK INTEREST. 

THESE THEATRES ARE LOCATED IN 922 TOWNS IN 48 STATES AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.  FOR FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THEATRES
SEE BERTRAND, EVANS, AND BLANCHARD, THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY - A
PATTERN OF CONTROL 15-16(TNEC MONOGRAPH 43, 1941). 

FN19  THE NUMBER OF FEATURE FILMS RELEASED DURING THE 1943-44 SEASON
BY THE ELEVEN LARGEST DISTRIBUTORS IS AS FOLLOWS:

                                   PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL

                                                WITH     WITH

                  NO. OF FILMS                 "WESTERNS"
"WESTERNS"

            INCLUDED        EXCLUDED 

FOX ................ 33                              8.31
9.85 

LOEW'S ............. 33                              8.31   9.85 

PARAMOUNT .......... 31  7.81            9.25 

RKO ................ 38                 9.57           11.34 

WARNER ............. 19                              4.79
5.67 

COLUMBIA ........... 41                             10.32
12.24 

UNITED ARTISTS ..... 16                              4.04
4.78 

UNIVERSAL .......... 49             12.34           14.63 

REPUBLIC ...........-29 FEATURES                    14.86
8.66

      -30 "WESTERNS" 

MONOGRAM ...........-26 FEATURES                  10.58
7.76

                  -16 "WESTERNS" 

PRC ................-20 FEATURES         9.07            5.97

                  -16 "WESTERNS"

                  -------------------------- 

TOTALS .............397                            100.00
100.00

                  335 WITHOUT "WESTERNS" 

FN20  EXCEPTED FROM THIS PROHIBITION WAS THE ACQUISITION OF INTERESTS
IN THEATRES JOINTLY OWNED, A MATTER WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN A PRECEDING
PORTION OF THIS OPINION. 

FN21  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, "EXCEPT FOR A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF
THEATRES IN THE VERY LARGEST CITIES, THE 18,000 AND MORE THEATRES IN
THE UNITED STATES EXHIBIT THE PRODUCT OF MORE THAN ONE DISTRIBUTOR. 
SUCH THEATRES COULD NOT BE OPERATED ON THE PRODUCT OF ONLY ONE
DISTRIBUTOR." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING IN PART. 

"THE FRAMING OF DECREES SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE DISTRICT RATHER THAN
IN APPELLATE COURTS.  THEY ARE INVESTED WITH LARGE DISCRETION TO MODEL
THEIR JUDGMENTS TO FIT THE EXIGENCIES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE."  ON THIS
GUIDING CONSIDERATION, THE COURT EARLIER THIS TERM SUSTAINED A SHERMAN
LAW DECREE, WHICH WAS NOT THE OUTCOME OF A LONG TRIAL INVOLVING
COMPLICATED AND CONTESTED FACTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE, BUT THE
FORMULATION OF A SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BARE BONES OF PLEADINGS. 
INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392, 400-401.  THE
RECORD IN THIS CASE BESPEAKS MORE COMPELLING RESPECT FOR THE DECREE
FASHIONED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES TO PUT AN END TO
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN LAW AND TO PREVENT THE RECURRENCE, THAN THAT
WHICH LED THIS COURT NOT TO FIND ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN THE DECREE BY A
SINGLE DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SALT CASE. 

THIS COURT HAS BOTH THE AUTHORITY AND DUTY TO CONSIDER WHETHER A
DECREE IS WELL CALCULATED TO UNDO, AS FAR AS IS POSSIBLE, THE RESULT OF
TRANSACTIONS FORBIDDEN BY THE SHERMAN LAW AND TO GUARD AGAINST THEIR
REPETITION.  BUT IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT, AND IT WOULD ILL
DISCHARGE IT, TO DISPLACE THE DISTRICT COURTS AND WRITE DECREES DE
NOVO.  WE ARE, AFTER ALL, AN APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EVEN IN SHERMAN LAW
CASES.  IT COULD NOT BE FAIRLY CLAIMED THAT THIS COURT POSSESSES
GREATER EXPERIENCE, UNDERSTANDING AND PROPHETIC INSIGHT IN RELATION TO
THE MOVIE INDUSTRY, AND IS THEREFORE BETTER EQUIPPED TO FORMULATE A
DECREE FOR THE MOVIE INDUSTRY THAN WAS THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE,
PRESIDED OVER AS IT WAS BY ONE OF THE WISEST OF JUDGES. 

THE TERMS OF THE DECREE IN THIS LITIGATION AMOUNT, IN EFFECT, TO THE
FORMULATION OF A REGIME FOR THE FUTURE CONDUCT OF THE MOVIE INDUSTRY. 
THE TERMS OF SUCH A REGIME, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, ARE
NOT TO BE DERIVED FROM PRECEDENTS IN THE LAW REPORTS, NOR, FOR THAT
MATTER, FROM ANY OTHER AVAILABLE REPOSITORY OF KNOWLEDGE.  INESCAPABLY
THE TERMS MUST BE DERIVED FROM AN ASSESSMENT OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS,
NOT QUANTITATIVELY MEASURABLE, AND A PROPHECY REGARDING THE WORKINGS OF
UNTRIED REMEDIES FOR DEALING WITH DISCLOSED EVILS SO AS TO ADVANCE MOST
THE COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

THE CRUCIAL LEGAL QUESTION BEFORE US IS NOT WHETHER WE WOULD HAVE
DRAWN THE DECREE AS THE DISTRICT COURT DREW IT, BUT WHETHER, ON THE
BASIS OF WHAT CAME BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, WE CAN SAY THAT IN
FASHIONING REMEDIES IT DID NOT FAIRLY RESPOND TO DISCLOSED VIOLATIONS
AND THEREFORE ABUSED A DISCRETION, THE FAIR EXERCISE OF WHICH WE SHOULD
RESPECT AND NOT TREAT AS AN ABUSE.  DISCRETION MEANS A CHOICE OF
AVAILABLE REMEDIES.  AS BEARING UPON THIS QUESTION, IT IS MOST RELEVANT
TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT SHOWED A SYMPATHETIC OR MERE
NIGGLING AWARENESS OF THE PROPER SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN LAW AND THE RANGE
OF ITS CONDEMNATION.  ADEQUATE REMEDIES ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE FASHIONED
BY THOSE WHO ARE NOT HOSTILE TO EVILS TO BE REMEDIED.  THE DISTRICT
COURT'S OPINION MANIFESTS A STOUT PURPOSE ON THE PART OF THAT COURT TO
ENFORCE ITS THOROUGHGOING UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SHERMAN LAW AS ELUCIDATED BY THIS COURT.  AND SO WE HAVE BEFORE US THE
DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT THOROUGHLY AWARE OF THE DEMANDS OF THE
SHERMAN LAW AND MANIFESTLY DETERMINED TO ENFORCE IT IN ALL ITS RIGORS. 

HOW DID THE DISTRICT COURT GO ABOUT WORKING OUT THE TERMS OF THE
DECREE SOME OF WHICH THIS COURT NOW DISPLACES?  THE CASE WAS BEFORE
THAT COURT FROM OCTOBER 8, 1945, TO JANUARY 22, 1947.  A VAST BODY OF
THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAD TO BE CONSIDERED BELOW, AND MUST BE CONSIDERED
HERE IN OVERTURNING THE LOWER COURT'S DECREE, CONSISTED OF DOCUMENTS. 
A MERE ENUMERATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS, NOT PRINTED IN THE RECORD BEFORE
US, REQUIRED A PAMPHLET OF 42 PAGES.  IT TOOK 460 PAGES FOR A SELECTION
OF EXHIBITS DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR PRINTING BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE
PRINTED RECORD IN THIS COURT CONSISTS OF 3,841 PAGES.  IT IS ON THE
BASIS OF THIS VAST MASS OF EVIDENCE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT, ON JUNE
11, 1946, FILED ITS CAREFUL OPINION, APPROVED HERE, AS TO THE
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.  THEREAFTER, IT HEARD ARGUMENT FOR THREE DAYS AS TO
THE TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT.  THE PARTIES THEN SUBMITTED THEIR PROPOSALS
FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 
AFTER A LONG TRIAL, AN ELABORATE OPINION ON THE MERITS, FULL DISCUSSION
AS TO THE TERMS OF THE DECREE, MORE THAN TWO MONTHS FOR THE GESTATION
OF THE DECREE, THE TERMS WERE FINALLY PROMULGATED. 

I CANNOT BRING MYSELF TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRODUCT OF SUCH A
PAINSTAKING PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION AS TO A DECREE APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH
A COMPLICATED SITUATION AS THIS RECORD DISCLOSES WAS AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, ARRIVED AT AS IT WAS AFTER DUE ABSORPTION OF ALL THE LIGHT
THAT COULD BE SHED UPON REMEDIES APPROPRIATE FOR THE FUTURE.  AFTER
ALL, AS TO SUCH REMEDIES THERE IS NO TEST, ULTIMATELY, EXCEPT THE
WISDOM OF MEN JUDGED BY EVENTS. 

ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD AFFIRM THE DECREE EXCEPT AS TO ONE PARTICULAR,
THAT REGARDING AN ARBITRATION SYSTEM FOR CONTROVERSIES THAT MAY ARISE
UNDER THE DECREE.  THIS RAISES A PURE QUESTION OF LAW AND NOT A
JUDGMENT BASED UPON FACTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE, AS ARE THOSE FEATURES
OF THE DECREE WHICH THE COURT SETS ASIDE.  THE DISTRICT COURT INDICATED
THAT "IN VIEW OF ITS DEMONSTRATED USEFULNESS" SUCH AN ARBITRATION
SYSTEM WAS DESIRABLE TO AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DECREE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, DEEMED ITSELF POWERLESS TO CONTINUE AN
ARBITRATION SYSTEM WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES.  I DO NOT FIND
SUCH WANT OF POWER IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO SELECT THIS MEANS OF
ENFORCING THE DECREE MOST EFFECTIVELY, WITH THE LEAST FRICTION AND BY
THE MOST FRUITFUL METHODS.  A DECREE AS DETAILED AND AS COMPLICATED AS
IS NECESSARY TO FIT A SITUATION LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US IS BOUND, EVEN
UNDER THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES, TO RAISE CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING
CONFLICTING CLAIMS AS TO FACTS AND THEIR MEANING.  A COURT COULD
CERTAINLY APPOINT A MASTER TO DEAL WITH QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE
DECREE.  I DO NOT APPRECIATE WHY A PROVED SYSTEM OF ARBITRATION,
APPROPRIATE AS EXPERIENCE HAS FOUND IT TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR
ADJUDICATING NUMBERLESS QUESTIONS THAT ARISE UNDER SUCH A DECREE, IS
NOT TO BE TREATED IN EFFECT AS A STANDING MASTER FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
DECREE.  SEE EX PARTE PETERSON, 253 U.S. 300.  I WOULD THEREFORE LEAVE
IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH A
SYSTEM IS NOT AVAILABLE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF AUXILIARY ENFORCEMENT. 
WITH THIS EXCEPTION I WOULD AFFIRM THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
..END :


















SCHWABACHER V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 182 


NO. 258.  ARGUED JANUARY 6-7, 1948.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1948.  - 72
F.SUPP.  560, REVERSED. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED, APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED A VOLUNTARY MERGER OF
TWO RAILROAD COMPANIES INTO ONE CORPORATION.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE SERVED BY THE MERGER AND UNIFICATION OF
THEIR PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS AND THAT THE PLAN AS A WHOLE, AND AS
APPLIED TO EACH GROUP OF SHAREHOLDERS, WAS JUST AND REASONABLE; BUT IT
DISCLAIMED JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE CLAIMS OF DISSENTING
STOCKHOLDERS WHO OWNED A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF ONE CLASS OF STOCK OF ONE
OF THE COMPANIES AND WHO HAD INTERVENED AND CLAIMED THAT THE TERMS OF
THE MERGER DEPRIVED THEM OF CHARTER RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE
OF INCORPORATION OF THEIR COMPANY.  THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THAT THE
AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE CLAIMS OF THE DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS, HOWEVER
SETTLED, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO AFFECT THE SOLVENCY OF THE NEW COMPANY
OR JEOPARDIZE ITS OPERATIONS.  HELD:  THE COMMISSION WAS NOT FREE TO
RENOUNCE OR DELEGATE ITS POWER TO SETTLE FINALLY THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL
LIABILITIES OF THE NEW COMPANY AND THE PROPORTION OR AMOUNT THEREOF
WHICH EACH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS SHOULD RECEIVE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NEW ENTITY.  PP. 184-202. 

2.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER BOTH SEC. 5 AND SEC. 20A
IS MADE PLENARY AND EXCLUSIVE AND INDEPENDENT OF ALL OTHER STATE OR
FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  P. 197. 

3.  THE COMMISSION MAY NOT LEAVE CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF THE CAPITAL
STRUCTURE OF ONE OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES TO BE ADDED TO THE
OBLIGATIONS OF THE NEW COMPANY, CONTINGENT UPON THE DECISION OF SOME
OTHER TRIBUNAL OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES THEMSELVES, BUT MUST PASS
UPON AND APPROVE ALL CAPITAL LIABILITIES WHICH THE MERGED COMPANY WILL
ASSUME AND DISCHARGE AS A RESULT OF THE MERGER.  PP. 197-198. 

4.  THE COMMISSION MUST LOOK FOR STANDARDS IN PASSING ON A VOLUNTARY
MERGER ONLY TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 198. 

5.  THE RIGHTS OF SHAREHOLDERS OF RAILROADS MERGING VOLUNTARILY UNDER
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT ARE GOVERNED BY FEDERAL, NOT STATE, LAW;
AND, APART FROM MEETING THE TEST OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE MERGER
TERMS AS TO STOCKHOLDERS, MUST BE FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE.  PP.
198-199. 

6.  IN APPRAISING A STOCKHOLDER'S POSITION IN A MERGER AS TO JUSTICE
AND REASONABLENESS, IT IS NOT THE PROMISE THAT A CORPORATE CHARTER MADE
TO HIM BUT THE CURRENT WORTH OF THAT PROMISE THAT GOVERNS; IT IS NOT
WHAT HE ONCE PUT INTO A CONSTITUENT COMPANY BUT WHAT VALUE HE IS
CONTRIBUTING TO THE MERGER THAT IS TO BE MADE GOOD.  P. 199. 

7.  IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT TO ALLOW STATE LAW TO APPLY A
LIQUIDATION BASIS TO WHAT FEDERAL LAW DESIGNATES AS A BASIS FOR
CONTINUED PUBLIC SERVICE.  P. 200. 

8.  WHEN STOCKHOLDERS ARE GIVEN WHAT IT IS JUST AND REASONABLE THEY
SHOULD HAVE, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT STATE LAW TO
IMPOSE GREATER OBLIGATIONS ON THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE MERGING
RAILROADS WITH CONSEQUENT INCREASED CALLS UPON THEIR ASSETS OR EARNING
CAPACITY.  P. 201. 

9.  NO RIGHTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS
BY STATE LAW PROVISION CONCERNING LIQUIDATION SURVIVE THE MERGER
AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS AND APPROVED
BY THE COMMISSION AS JUST AND REASONABLE.  ANY SUCH RIGHTS ARE, AS A
MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, ACCORDED RECOGNITION IN THE OBLIGATION OF THE
COMMISSION NOT TO APPROVE ANY PLAN WHICH IS NOT JUST AND REASONABLE. 
P. 201. 

SCHWABACHER ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. 

A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A VOLUNTARY MERGER OF TWO RAILROADS WAS
DISMISSED BY A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES.  72 F.SUPP.  560.  A
DIRECT APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 202. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CONTROVERSY GROWS OUT OF THE VOLUNTARY MERGER OF CHESAPEAKE &
OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY AND PERE MARQUETTE RAILWAY COMPANY, WHICH
COMPANIES, TOGETHER WITH ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, SOUGHT APPROVAL BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  PERE MARQUETTE IS INCORPORATED UNDER
THE LAWS OF MICHIGAN, WHILE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO IS CHARTERED BY
VIRGINIA.  CHESAPEAKE & OHIO ACQUIRED AND FOR SOME YEARS EXERCISED
ACTIVE CONTROL OF PERE MARQUETTE, WHOSE PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS
COMPLEMENT RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH THOSE OF CHESAPEAKE & OHIO.  LATE
IN 1945 MERGER PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED UNDER ENABLING STATUTES OF
THE TWO STATES AND WERE CONSUMMATED WITH APPROVAL OF CONSIDERABLY MORE
THAN THE NUMBER OF SHARES MADE NECESSARY BY STATUTES OF THE RESPECTIVE
STATES.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOUND, AND THERE IS NO
ATTACK UPON THE FINDINGS, THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS SERVED BY MERGER
AND UNIFICATION OF THESE PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS.  THE COMMISSION
ALSO CONCLUDED THAT THE PLAN AS A WHOLE, AND AS APPLIED TO EACH GROUP
OF SHAREHOLDERS, IS JUST AND REASONABLE, AND THERE IS NO ATTACK UPON
THIS CONCLUSION EXCEPT THAT BY THE APPELLANTS WHICH IS TREATED FULLY
HEREIN.  CONSEQUENTLY, DETAILS OF THE PLAN ARE OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE TO
THIS LITIGATION. 

APPELLANTS ARE OWNERS OF 2,100 SHARES OF $100 PAR 5% CUMULATIVE
PREFERRED STOCK OF PERE MARQUETTE.  THEIR INTERESTS AGGREGATE A LITTLE
LESS THAN 2% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THIS CLASS.  DIVIDENDS ON THIS
STOCK HAVE BEEN UNPAID SINCE 1931 AND, AS OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS
CONTROVERSY, WERE IN ARREARS IN THE SUM OF $72.50 PER SHARE, AN AMOUNT
THAT IS INCREASING WITH TIME.  THE PERE MARQUETTE CHARTER PROVIDES FOR
FULL PAYMENT OF THE STOCK AT PAR, PLUS ACCRUED UNPAID DIVIDENDS, "IN
THE EVENT OF DISSOLUTION, LIQUIDATION, OR WINDING UP OF THE COMPANY,
VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY  ...  BEFORE ANY AMOUNTS ARE PAID TO HOLDERS
OF THE  ...  COMMON STOCK."  THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THE MERGER
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED TERMINATES THE CORPORATE EXISTENCE AND, UNDER
THIS CLAUSE AS CONSTRUED BY MICHIGAN LAW, AMOUNTS TO A "WINDING UP." 
THEY INSIST THAT SINCE THE MERGER MAKES PROVISION FOR SOME COMPENSATION
TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS THESE APPELLANTS HAVE THE RIGHT, UNDER MICHIGAN
LAW, TO HAVE THEIR SHARES RECOGNIZED ON THE BASIS OF AT LEAST $172.50
EACH.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THE MARKET VALUE PER SHARE RANGED, AT
DIFFERENT TIMES, FROM $87 TO $99, WHILE THE MERGER TERMS GIVE STOCKS IN
EXCHANGE WHICH WOULD HAVE REALIZED ABOUT $90 AND $111 PER SHARE ON THE
SAME DATES.  APPELLANTS DISSENTED FROM THE MERGER, BUT MICHIGAN LAW
PROVIDES NO SPECIFIC RIGHT OR PROCEDURE FOR APPRAISAL AND RETIREMENT OF
THE HOLDINGS OF A STOCKHOLDER DISSENTING FROM A RAILROAD MERGER. 

WHEN APPLICATION WAS FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED (49 U.S.C. SEC.
5), FOR APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE MERGER,  FN1  AS WELL AS FOR
OTHER RELIEF, APPELLANTS INTERVENED AND ASKED THAT BODY TO DETERMINE,
RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT THEIR ASSERTED RIGHT TO THE FULL LEGAL
LIQUIDATION FIGURE.  THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE MERGER AND THE MERGER
TERMS, FINDING THEM JUST AND REASONABLE AS TO EACH CLASS OF
STOCKHOLDERS.  HOWEVER, IT DISCLAIMED JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE
FURTHER CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANTS ASSERTED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR
INTERPRETATION OF MICHIGAN LAW.  IT REVIEWED AT SOME LENGTH THE
ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE STOCK.  IT RECITED THAT THESE SHARES HAD
RECEIVED NO DIVIDENDS SINCE 1931 AND THAT APPELLANTS' WITNESSES AGREED
THAT THESE STOCKHOLDERS COULD NOT EXPECT TO RECEIVE ANY DIVIDENDS FOR
MANY YEARS, APART FROM THE MERGER.  THE COMMISSION ALSO POINTED OUT THE
DEFICIT IN OPERATIONS OF PERE MARQUETTE FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1946
AS CONTRASTED WITH THE NET INCOME OF CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO, AND CONCLUDED
THAT "ON THE WHOLE, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE PROSPECTS OF PERE MARQUETTE
STOCKHOLDERS FOR RETURNS ON THEIR INVESTMENTS WOULD BE ENHANCED BY
MERGER OF THEIR COMPANY INTO THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO."  THE COMMISSION
DID NOT QUESTION THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS, ON LIQUIDATION, DISSOLUTION OR
WINDING UP OF PERE MARQUETTE, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO BE PAID IN FULL THE
PAR VALUE OF THEIR SHARES AND ACCUMULATED DIVIDENDS BEFORE ANY PAYMENT
TO HOLDERS OF COMMON STOCK.  IT DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE THE
ULTIMATE WORTH OF THESE STOCKS IN CASE OF AN ACTUAL LIQUIDATION, BUT IT
CONSIDERED THEIR PRESENT INTRINSIC VALUE ON A CAPITALIZED EARNINGS
BASIS, AN ACTUAL YIELD BASIS, AND ITS PRESENT MARKET POSITION AND
CONCLUDED:  "ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING PERE MARQUETTE'S INVESTMENT
ACCORDING TO ITS BOOKS, OTHER PROPERTY VALUES, THE COMPANY'S HISTORY AS
TO EARNINGS, ITS FUTURE PROSPECTS, AND THE MARKET APPRAISAL OF ITS
STOCKS, ALL AS SET FORTH ABOVE, WE FIND THAT, AS TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF
BOTH PARTIES GENERALLY, THE PROPOSED RATIOS OF EXCHANGE, STOCK ISSUES,
AND ASSUMPTIONS OF INDEBTEDNESS ARE JUST AND REASONABLE." 

THE COMMISSION THEN NOTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS THAT AS TO
THEM THE TERMS WERE NOT JUST AND REASONABLE, BECAUSE THEY ARE DEPRIVED
OF CONTRACT RIGHTS UNDER MICHIGAN LAW, WHICH THEY HAVE NOT WAIVED.  IT
IS CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT REMIT THE DISSENTING
STOCKHOLDERS TO REMEDIES IN STATE COURTS AS THE COMMISSION WOULD
THEREBY DECLINE THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY SEC. 5 AND SEC. 20A OF
THE ACT.  FN2  BUT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS ENTRUSTED WITH
AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ASPECTS OF THE MERGER OF THESE
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND THAT IT COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO ENTER
INTO THE QUESTION OF "COMPENSATION OF DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS ON
SPECIFIED BASES" BEFORE APPROVAL AND MERGER.  IT THOUGHT THAT, HAVING
FOUND THE TREATMENT OF EACH CLASS TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE, IT HAD
DONE ITS FULL DUTY "WHEN WE MAKE CERTAIN THAT ALL STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
SAME CLASS ARE TO BE TREATED ALIKE."  IT DECLINED TO DECIDE THE
MICHIGAN LAW QUESTION AS TO WHAT THE RIGHTS OF DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS
WERE, AND WHETHER THE MERGER WAS EQUIVALENT TO A LIQUIDATION, BUT SAID:
"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO AND THE PERE MARQUETTE
DO NOT REMAIN FREE TO SETTLE CONTROVERSIES WITH DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS
THROUGH NEGOTIATION AND LITIGATION IN THE COURTS." 

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE DISSENTING SHARES,
THE CURRENT ASSETS POSITION OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO, AND THE MAXIMUM
POSSIBLE COST TO THE MERGED COMPANY OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THESE CLAIMS
ON THE BASIS MOST FAVORABLE TO APPELLANTS, IT CONSIDERED THAT THE
COMPANY WAS AMPLY ABLE TO BEAR "ANY PROBABLE EXPENDITURE OF CASH THAT
IT MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE IN CONNECTION WITH THE MERGER. 
ACCORDINGLY, IT APPEARS THAT CONSUMMATION OF THE MERGER WILL NOT
INVOLVE A BURDEN OF EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE."  THE COMMISSION THUS LEFT
IN A STATE OF SUSPENSE, SUBJECT TO FURTHER LITIGATION OR NEGOTIATION,
THESE CLAIMS CONCERNING THE EXTENT OF THE CAPITAL OBLIGATIONS OF A
CONSTITUENT COMPANY, AFTER EXAMINING THEM SUFFICIENTLY TO DETERMINE
ONLY THAT, HOWEVER SETTLED, THEY DID NOT INVOLVE ENOUGH TO AFFECT THE
SOLVENCY OF THE NEW COMPANY OR JEOPARDIZE ITS OPERATIONS. 

THE COMMISSION DENIED APPELLANTS' PETITION FOR REHEARING AND THEY
FILED SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF VIRGINIA TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AUTHORIZING THE MERGER.  A COURT OF
THREE JUDGES, CONVENED AS REQUIRED BY LAW,  FN3  SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSION, 72 F.SUPP.  560.  APPELLANTS BRING TO US  FN4  THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE COMMISSION, IN VIEW OF ITS AUTHORITY OVER MERGERS, WHICH IS
DECLARED TO BE EXCLUSIVE AND PLENARY, COULD DECLINE TO DETERMINE JUST
WHAT THE DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS' LEGAL RIGHTS WERE UNDER THE MICHIGAN
LAW AND THE PERE MARQUETTE CHARTER, AND TO RECOGNIZE THEM IN FULL BY
THE TERMS OF THE MERGER. 

THE DISPOSITION OF APPELLANTS' CLAIMS, AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF THE
CLAIMS THEMSELVES, REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THE RELATIVE FUNCTION AND
AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW IN REGULATING AND APPROVING
VOLUNTARY RAILROAD MERGERS.  THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THEIR SHARE IN
THE MERGED COMPANY IS TO BE MEASURED BY, OR THEIR REMEDIES AS
DISSENTERS ARE TO BE FOUND IN, STATE LAW, BUT THAT THE FEDERAL AGENCY
IS BOUND TO DETERMINE AND APPLY THAT LAW.  THE COMMISSION ON THE OTHER
HAND REFUSES EITHER FINALLY TO FORECLOSE OR TO ALLOW THESE CLAIMS.  IT
APPARENTLY LEAVES IT OPEN TO THE STATE COURTS, OR TO THE PARTIES BY
NEGOTIATION, TO ADD TO THE SURVIVING CARRIER'S CAPITAL OBLIGATIONS,
WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE, OTHERS
FOUNDED ONLY IN STATE LAW AND AS TO WHICH IT HAS MADE NO SUCH
FINDINGS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT NEITHER POSITION IS WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH
THE FEDERAL STATUTORY PLAN FOR AUTHORIZATION AND APPROVAL OF MERGERS. 

IT IS NOT FOR US TO ADJUDICATE THE EXISTENCE OR THE MEASURE OF ANY
RIGHTS THAT MICHIGAN LAW MAY CONFER UPON DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS. 
NEITHER THE COMMISSION NOR THIS COURT CAN MAKE A PLENARY AND EXCLUSIVE
DECISION AS TO WHAT THE LAW OF A STATE MAY BE, FOR THE FUNCTION OF
DECLARING AND INTERPRETING ITS OWN LAW IS LEFT TO EACH STATE OF THE
UNION.  BUT THE EFFECT OF THE STATE LAW IN RELATION TO A CONSTITUTIONAL
ACT OF CONGRESS, IN VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT THE
LATTER SHALL BE "THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND," "LAWS OF ANY STATE TO
THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING," IS FOR US TO DETERMINE.  OUR FIRST
INQUIRY HERE, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT ACCORDS
RECOGNITION TO THOSE STATE LAW RIGHTS, IF ANY EXIST.  TO DETERMINE THIS
FEDERAL QUESTION WE ASSUME, BUT DO NOT DECIDE, THAT MICHIGAN LAW WOULD
CONSIDER THIS MERGER TO BE A LIQUIDATION, AND WOULD REGARD THE
RECOGNITION GIVEN TO THE COMMON STOCK AS ENTITLING THESE DISSENTERS TO
"FULL PAYMENT" IN CASH OR ITS EQUIVALENT FOR BOTH THE PAR VALUE OF
THEIR PREFERRED SHARES AND ACCRUED UNPAID DIVIDENDS THEREON.  ASSUMING
SUCH TO BE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE, WE MUST DECIDE
WHETHER APPROVAL OF A RAILROAD MERGER UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1940  FN5  IS CONDITIONED UPON OBSERVANCE OF SUCH STATE LAW RIGHTS OR
CAN BE MADE BY THE COMMISSION CONTINGENTLY SUBJECT TO THEM.  A RESUME
OF THE HISTORY OF THAT ACT THROWS LIGHT ON THE PROBLEM DEALT WITH BY
THAT LEGISLATION. 

THE BASIC RAILROAD FACILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES WERE CONSTRUCTED
UNDER STATE AUTHORIZATION AND RESTRICTIONS BY CORPORATIONS WHOSE POWERS
AND LIMITATIONS WERE PRESCRIBED BY STATE LEGISLATURES, OR RESULTED FROM
LIMITATIONS ON THE STATES THEMSELVES.  CONSTRUCTION IN REFERENCE
PRIMARILY TO LOCAL OR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS CREATED DUPLICATING
AND COMPETING FACILITIES IN SOME AREAS AND PROVIDED INADEQUATE ONES IN
OTHERS.  EXPANSION NECESSARY TO SERVE ADVANCING NATIONAL FRONTIERS WAS
STIMULATED BY EXTENSIVE SUBSIDIES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, LARGELY
IN THE FORM OF LAND GRANTS.  BUT THE STRESS AND STRAIN OF WORLD WAR I
BROUGHT HOME TO US THAT THE RAILROADS OF THE COUNTRY DID NOT FUNCTION
AS A REALLY NATIONAL SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION.  THAT CRISIS ALSO MADE
PLAIN THE CONFUSIONS, INEFFICIENCIES, INADEQUACIES AND DANGERS TO OUR
NATIONAL DEFENSE AND ECONOMY FLOWING FROM THE PATCHWORK RAILROAD
PATTERN THAT LOCAL INTERESTS UNDER LOCAL LAW HAD CREATED. 

THE DEMAND FOR AN INTEGRATED, EFFICIENT AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF
RAIL TRANSPORT, EQUAL TO THE NEEDS OF OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY AND DEFENSE,
RESULTED IN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920.  FN6  IN A SERIES OF
DECISIONS ON PARTICULAR PROBLEMS, THIS COURT DEFINED THE GENERAL
PURPOSES OF THAT ACT TO BE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW FEDERAL RAILWAY
POLICY N7 TO INSURE ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BY MEANS OF
SECURING A FAIR RETURN ON CAPITAL DEVOTED TO THE SERVICE, RESTORATION
OF IMPAIRED RAILROAD CREDIT, AND REGULATION OF RATES, SECURITY ISSUES,
CONSOLIDATIONS AND MERGERS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.  THE TENOR OF
ALL OF THESE WAS TO CONFIRM THE POWER AND DUTY OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, REGARDLESS OF STATE LAW, TO CONTROL RATE AND
CAPITAL STRUCTURES, PHYSICAL MAKE-UP AND RELATIONS BETWEEN CARRIERS, IN
THE LIGHT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN AN EFFICIENT NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN V. CHICAGO, B.
& Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563; NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184;
DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456; RAILROAD
COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 264 U.S. 331; TEXAS &
PACIFIC R. CO. V. GULF, COLORADO & SANTA FE R. CO., 270 U.S. 266.  FN8 

AS A MEANS TO THIS END, THE 1920 ACT REQUIRED  FN9  THE COMMISSION TO
PREPARE AND ADOPT A PLAN FOR NATION-WIDE CONSOLIDATIONS OF THE RAILWAY
PROPERTIES OF THE COUNTRY.  IT MADE THIS MASTER PLAN THE GOVERNING
CONSIDERATION IN APPROVING VOLUNTARY CONSOLIDATIONS OF RAILROADS WHICH
WERE PERMITTED ONLY IF IN HARMONY WITH AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
COMMISSION'S OVER-ALL PLANS.  FN10  IF THEY MET THAT TEST, CONGRESS
PROVIDED THAT MERGERS COULD BE CONSUMMATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY
RESTRAINT OR PROHIBITION BY STATE AUTHORITY.  FN11    BY 1940 IT HAD
BECOME APPARENT THAT THE AMBITIOUS NATION-WIDE PLAN OF CONSOLIDATION
WAS NOT BEARING FRUIT.  VARIOUS STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS  FN12  LED
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE BEST WAS AN ENEMY OF THE
GOOD, AND WAITING FOR THE PERFECT OFFICIAL PLAN WAS DEFEATING OR
POSTPONING LESS AMBITIOUS BUT MORE ATTAINABLE VOLUNTARY IMPROVEMENTS. 
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 RELIEVED THE COMMISSION OF FORMULATING A
NATION-WIDE PLAN OF CONSOLIDATIONS.  INSTEAD, IT AUTHORIZED APPROVAL BY
THE COMMISSION OF CARRIER-INITIATED, VOLUNTARY PLANS OF MERGER OR
CONSOLIDATION IF, SUBJECT TO SUCH TERMS, CONDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
AS THE COMMISSION MIGHT PRESCRIBE, THE PROPOSED TRANSACTIONS MET WITH
CERTAIN TESTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, JUSTICE AND REASONABLENESS, IN WHICH
CASE THEY SHOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE REGARDLESS OF STATE AUTHORITY.  FN13
THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY EVERY CONSIDERATION TO WHICH THE COMMISSION
MUST GIVE WEIGHT IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT ANY PLAN MEETS THE
TESTS.  SECTION 5(2) PROVIDES ONLY THAT, "AMONG OTHERS," THE COMMISSION
SHALL CONSIDER THE EFFECT UPON ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, THE
EFFECT OF INCLUSION OR FAILURE TO INCLUDE OTHER RAILROADS, TOTAL FIXED
CHARGES, AND THE INTERESTS OF THE CARRIER EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.  THIS
COURT HAS RECENTLY AND UNANIMOUSLY SAID IN REFERENCE TO THIS ACT,
"CONGRESS HAS LONG MADE THE MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN
ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT RAILROAD SYSTEM A MATTER OF PRIMARY NATIONAL
CONCERN.  ITS LEGISLATION MUST BE READ WITH THIS PURPOSE IN MIND." 
SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. DANIEL, 333 U.S. 118.  FN14 

SO READING THE LEGISLATION RELEVANT TO THIS MERGER, WE FIND THAT
APPROVAL OF A VOLUNTARY RAILROAD MERGER WHICH IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE ACT IS DEPENDENT UPON THREE, AND UPON ONLY THREE, CONSIDERATIONS:
FIRST, A FINDING THAT IT "WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  (SEC. 5(2)(B).)  SECOND, A FINDING THAT, SUBJECT TO ANY
MODIFICATION MADE BY THE COMMISSION, IT IS "JUST AND REASONABLE." 
(SEC. 5(2)(B).)  THIRD, ASSENT OF A "MAJORITY, UNLESS A DIFFERENT VOTE
IS REQUIRED UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW, IN WHICH CASE THE NUMBER SO
REQUIRED SHALL ASSENT, OF THE VOTES OF THE HOLDERS OF THE SHARES
ENTITLED TO VOTE."  (SEC. 5(11).)  WHEN THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN
COMPLIED WITH, THE COMMISSION-APPROVED TRANSACTION GOES INTO EFFECT
WITHOUT NEED FOR INVOKING ANY APPROVAL UNDER STATE AUTHORITY, AND THE
PARTIES ARE RELIEVED OF "RESTRAINTS, LIMITATIONS, AND PROHIBITIONS OF
LAW, FEDERAL, STATE, OR MUNICIPAL, INSOFAR AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO
ENABLE THEM TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE TRANSACTION SO APPROVED OR
PROVIDED FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IF ANY,
IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION, AND TO HOLD, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE ANY
PROPERTIES AND EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OR FRANCHISES ACQUIRED THROUGH SUCH
TRANSACTION."  (SEC. 5(11).) 

THE COMMISSION, UNDER THIS ACT AS WELL AS THE ACT OF 1920, WAS ALSO
GIVEN COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE TO RESULT FROM A
MERGER.  FN15  THE CARRIER, EVEN IF PERMITTED BY STATE LAW WHICH
CREATED IT, MAY ISSUE NO STOCK, BOND OR EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS
WITHOUT APPROVAL.  IT MAY ASSUME NO OBLIGATION IN RESPECT OF THE
SECURITIES OF ANOTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION EXCEPT WITH APPROVAL.  AND
THE APPROVAL IS TO BE GIVEN ONLY ON A FINDING THAT IT "(A) IS FOR SOME
LAWFUL OBJECT WITHIN ITS CORPORATE PURPOSES, AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR OR CONSISTENT
WITH THE PROPER PERFORMANCE BY THE CARRIER OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AS
A COMMON CARRIER, AND WHICH WILL NOT IMPAIR ITS ABILITY TO PERFORM THAT
SERVICE, AND (B) IS REASONABLY NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH
PURPOSE."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 20A (2). 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER BOTH SEC. 5 AND SEC. 20A IS
MADE PLENARY AND EXCLUSIVE AND INDEPENDENT OF ALL OTHER STATE OR
FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  SEC. 5(11); FN16  SEC. 20A (7).  FN17 

THE COMMISSION, AS WE HAVE SEEN, HAS FOUND THAT THE LIABILITIES
ASSERTED BY APPELLANTS, IF SETTLED BY LITIGATION OR NEGOTIATION, WILL
NOT IMPAIR THE CARRIER'S ABILITY TO PERFORM ITS SERVICE, BUT IT HAS NOT
FOUND THE ASSUMPTION OF SUCH LIABILITIES TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER SEC. 5 AND SEC. 20A.  INDEED, SINCE THESE CLAIMS
EXCEED WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE, IT
COULD HARDLY FIND THAT ASSUMPTION OF SUCH CLAIMS WOULD BE COMPATIBLE
WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

IT APPEARS TO US INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT  FN18
FOR THE COMMISSION TO LEAVE CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE
OF ONE OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES TO BE ADDED TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF
THE SURVIVING CARRIER, CONTINGENT UPON THE DECISION OF SOME OTHER
TRIBUNAL OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES THEMSELVES.  WE THINK THAT THE
COMMISSION MUST PASS UPON AND APPROVE ALL CAPITAL LIABILITIES WHICH THE
MERGED COMPANY WILL ASSUME OR DISCHARGE AS A RESULT OF MERGER.  IF SOME
GREATER AMOUNT THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT IS TO BE ALLOWED TO
ANY CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS, IT MUST EITHER DEPLETE THE CASH OR INFLATE
THE LIABILITIES OR CAPITAL ISSUES OF THE NEW COMPANY.  IT MAY BE THAT
IN THIS CASE THE MERGED COMPANY WILL BE STRONG ENOUGH TO CARRY THIS
BURDEN AND STILL PERFORM ITS PUBLIC SERVICE.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF THE SUPERVISION PROVIDED BY STATUTE.  IT IS ALSO IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST THAT NO CAPITALIZATION OR INDEBTEDNESS BE CARRIED OVER
EXCEPT THAT WHICH MEETS THE TEST OF THE ACT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS.  WE
THINK THE COMMISSION WAS IN ERROR IN ASSUMING THAT IT DID NOT HAVE, OR
WAS AT LIBERTY TO RENOUNCE OR DELEGATE, POWER FINALLY TO SETTLE THE
AMOUNT OF CAPITAL LIABILITIES OF THE NEW COMPANY AND THE PROPORTION OR
AMOUNT THEREOF WHICH EACH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS SHOULD RECEIVE ON
ACCOUNT OF ITS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NEW ENTITY. 

WE THINK IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION MUST LOOK FOR
STANDARDS IN PASSING ON A VOLUNTARY MERGER ONLY TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  IN MATTERS WITHIN ITS SCOPE IT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND.  ITS PURPOSE TO BRING WITHIN ITS SCOPE EVERYTHING PERTAINING TO
THE CAPITAL STRUCTURES OF SUCH MERGERS COULD HARDLY BE MADE MORE
PLAIN.  INDEED, THE VERY FACT ON WHICH APPELLANTS RELY HEAVILY, THAT
THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION IS "PLENARY" AND "EXCLUSIVE," ARGUES WITH
EQUAL FORCE THAT FEDERAL LAW IS ALSO PLENARY AND EXCLUSIVE.  THE
COMMISSION LIKELY WOULD NOT AND PROBABLY COULD NOT BE GIVEN PLENARY AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO INTERPRET AND APPLY ANY STATE'S LAW. 
WHATEVER RIGHTS THE APPELLANTS ASK THE COMMISSION TO ASSURE MUST BE
FOUNDED ON FEDERAL, NOT ON STATE, LAW. 

APART FROM MEETING THE TEST OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE MERGER TERMS,
AS TO STOCKHOLDERS, MUST BE FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE.  THESE
TERMS WOULD BE LARGELY MEANINGLESS TO THE STOCKHOLDERS IF THEIR
INTERESTS WERE ULTIMATELY TO BE SETTLED BY REFERENCE TO PROVISIONS OF
CORPORATE CHARTERS AND OF STATE LAWS.  SUCH CHARTERS AND LAWS USUALLY
HAVE BEEN DRAWN ON ASSUMPTIONS THAT TIME AND EXPERIENCE HAVE
UNSETTLED.  PUBLIC REGULATION IS NOT OBLIGED AND WE CANNOT LIGHTLY
ASSUME IT IS INTENDED TO RESTORE VALUES, EVEN IF PROMISED BY CHARTER
TERMS, IF THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN LOST THROUGH THE OPERATION OF ECONOMIC
FORCES.  CF. MARKET STREET R. CO. V. COMMISSION, 324 U.S. 548.  IN
APPRAISING A STOCKHOLDER'S POSITION IN A MERGER AS TO JUSTICE AND
REASONABLENESS, IT IS NOT THE PROMISE THAT A CHARTER MADE TO HIM BUT
THE CURRENT WORTH OF THAT PROMISE THAT GOVERNS, IT IS NOT WHAT HE ONCE
PUT INTO A CONSTITUENT COMPANY BUT WHAT VALUE HE IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE
MERGER THAT IS TO BE MADE GOOD. 

IN CONSTRUING THE WORDS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" IN A FEDERAL STATUTE OF
VERY SIMILAR PURPOSES, WE HAVE HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THE FULL PRIORITY
RULE APPLIES IN LIQUIDATION OF A SOLVENT HOLDING COMPANY PURSUANT TO A
FEDERAL STATUTE, THE PRIORITY IS SATISFIED BY GIVING EACH CLASS THE
FULL ECONOMIC EQUIVALENT OF WHAT THEY PRESENTLY HOLD, AND THAT, AS A
MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES PROVIDED BY THE CHARTER
DO NOT APPLY.  WE SAID THAT, ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY WAS IN FACT BEING
LIQUIDATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, THE RIGHTS OF
THE STOCKHOLDERS COULD BE VALUED "ON THE BASIS OF A GOING BUSINESS AND
NOT AS THOUGH A LIQUIDATION WERE TAKING PLACE."  CONSEQUENTLY THE
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES WERE ONLY ONE FACTOR IN VALUATION RATHER THAN
DETERMINATIVE OF AMOUNTS PAYABLE.  OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, 323 U.S. 624. 

THE APPELLANTS HERE, ALTHOUGH THE ENTERPRISE IS TO CONTINUE, INSIST
ON A VALUATION ACCORDING TO THE LETTER OF THE CHARTER.  BY THIS METHOD
THE LONGER THEIR STOCK IS IN DEFAULT OF DIVIDENDS OR EARNINGS, THE
GREATER INTEREST IT WOULD HAVE IN THE MERGED PROPERTIES IF THE COMMON
STOCK WAS TO BE RECOGNIZED AT ALL.  THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, DID NOT
CONSIDER THAT A LONG-CONTINUED DEFAULT AND THE PROSPECT OF FURTHER
DEFAULT ADDED GREATLY TO THE PRESENT INTRINSIC OR MARKET VALUE OF THE
STOCK IN EXCHANGE.  ITS MEASURING ROD WAS AN ECONOMIC RATHER THAN A
LEGALISTIC ONE.  THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE STOCK'S PAST YIELD,
PRESENT MARKET VALUE, AND FUTURE PROSPECTS.  IT FOUND THAT, ALL THINGS
CONSIDERED, THE MERGER TERMS GAVE TO THESE APPELLANTS IN NEW STOCK THE
FAIR ECONOMIC EQUIVALENT OF WHAT THEY ALREADY HELD.  IT CONSIDERED THE
DEAL JUST AND REASONABLE ON AN EXCHANGE BASIS FOR A CONTINUING
ENTERPRISE.  BUT IT DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO SAY WHETHER, UNDER THE LETTER
OF THEIR CHARTER AS CONSTRUED UNDER THE LAW OF MICHIGAN, THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS MAY NOT HAVE A CONTRACT THAT WOULD EXACT MORE THAN AN
ECONOMIC EQUIVALENT. 

SINCE THE FEDERAL LAW CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES MERGER AS A STEP IN
CONTINUING THE ENTERPRISE, IT FOLLOWS THAT WHAT MICHIGAN LAW MIGHT GIVE
THESE DISSENTERS ON A WINDING-UP OR LIQUIDATION IS IRRELEVANT, EXCEPT
INSOFAR AS IT MAY BE REFLECTED IN CURRENT VALUES FOR WHICH THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO AN EQUIVALENT.  IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT TO ALLOW STATE LAW
TO APPLY A LIQUIDATION BASIS TO WHAT FEDERAL LAW DESIGNATES AS A BASIS
FOR CONTINUED PUBLIC SERVICE.  FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THAT MERGER TERMS
BE JUST AND REASONABLE TO ALL GROUPS OF STOCKHOLDERS, IN CONTEMPLATION
OF THE CONTINUED USE OF THEIR CAPITAL IN THE PUBLIC CALLING TO WHICH IT
HAS BEEN DEDICATED.  CONGRESS HAS MADE NO PROVISION BY WHICH MINORITY
STOCKHOLDERS, DISSATISFIED WITH A PROPOSED RAILROAD MERGER, MAY BLOCK
IT OR COMPEL RETIREMENT OF THEIR CAPITAL, AS STATUTES OFTEN PERMIT TO
BE DONE IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS WHERE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
IS NOT MUCH CONCERNED WITH ITS EFFECT ON THE ENTERPRISE.  AND SINCE
CONGRESS DEALT WITH THE SUBJECT OF STOCKHOLDERS' CONSENT, ITS FAILURE
TO PROVIDE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF NONCONSENTING CAPITAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
AN OVERSIGHT TO BE SUPPLIED BY US.  A PART OF THE CAPITAL DEDICATED TO
A RAILROAD ENTERPRISE CANNOT WITHDRAW ITSELF WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ANY
MORE THAN ALL OF THE CAPITAL CAN WITHDRAW ITSELF AND ABANDON THE
RAILROAD WITHOUT APPROVAL.  IT MUST SUBMIT TO REGULATIONS AND TO
READJUSTMENTS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ON JUST AND REASONABLE TERMS. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER EACH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDER RECEIVES AN
EQUIVALENT OF WHAT IT TURNS IN, THE COMMISSION, OF COURSE, IS UNDER A
DUTY TO SEE THAT MINORITY INTERESTS ARE PROTECTED, ESPECIALLY WHEN
THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF ARM'S LENGTH BARGAINING OR THE TERMS OF THE
MERGER HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY MANAGEMENT INTERESTS ADVERSE TO ANY CLASS
OF STOCKHOLDERS.  THE COMMISSION INDICATES BOTH AWARENESS AND DISCHARGE
OF THIS DUTY IN THIS CASE.  ITS FINDING THAT THIS PLAN IS JUST AND
REASONABLE IS NOT CHALLENGED HERE EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF MICHIGAN LAW. 
WHEN STOCKHOLDERS ARE GIVEN WHAT IT IS JUST AND REASONABLE THEY SHOULD
HAVE, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT STATE LAW TO IMPOSE
GREATER OBLIGATIONS ON THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF THE MERGING RAILROADS
WITH CONSEQUENT INCREASED CALLS UPON THEIR ASSETS OR EARNING CAPACITY. 

WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT NO RIGHTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO
DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS BY STATE LAW PROVISION CONCERNING LIQUIDATION
SURVIVE THE MERGER AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF
STOCKHOLDERS AND APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AS JUST AND REASONABLE. 
ANY SUCH RIGHTS ARE, AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, ACCORDED RECOGNITION
IN THE OBLIGATION OF THE COMMISSION NOT TO APPROVE ANY PLAN WHICH IS
NOT JUST AND REASONABLE.  IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, THOSE RIGHTS
ARE TO BE CONSIDERED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY MAY AFFECT INTRINSIC OR
MARKET VALUES.  WHILE THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT WHAT THE APPELLANTS
ARE GIVEN IN THIS PLAN IS JUST AND REASONABLE, THE RECORD INDICATES
THAT IT MAY HAVE DECLINED TO CONSIDER THESE CLAIMS, EVEN IF THEY ARE
FOUND TO HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE STOCK, BECAUSE
IT THOUGHT IT LACKED JURISDICTION.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE
CANNOT BE SURE THAT IN ARRIVING AT ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE PLAN WAS
JUST AND REASONABLE IT DID NOT EXCLUDE SOME FACTORS THAT IT SHOULD
CONSIDER UNDER THE VIEWS SET OUT IN THIS OPINION.  WE THEREFORE REVERSE
THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION FOR
RECONSIDERATION UNDER THE PRINCIPLES HEREIN EXPRESSED.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 

FN1  SECTION 5 AS AMENDED PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"(2)(A)  IT SHALL BE LAWFUL, WITH THE APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE COMMISSION, AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (B) - 

"(I)  FOR TWO OR MORE CARRIERS TO CONSOLIDATE OR MERGE THEIR
PROPERTIES OR FRANCHISES, OR ANY PART THEREOF, INTO ONE CORPORATION FOR
THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATION OF THE PROPERTIES THERETOFORE
IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP  ... 

"(B)  WHENEVER A TRANSACTION IS PROPOSED UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH (A), THE
CARRIER OR CARRIERS OR PERSONS SEEKING AUTHORITY THEREFOR SHALL PRESENT
AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION, AND THEREUPON THE COMMISSION SHALL
NOTIFY THE GOVERNOR OF EACH STATE IN WHICH ANY PART OF THE PROPERTIES
OF THE CARRIERS INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION IS SITUATED, AND
ALSO SUCH CARRIERS AND THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANTS  ...  AND SHALL
AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE HEARD.  ...
IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT, SUBJECT TO SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND
SUCH MODIFICATIONS AS IT SHALL FIND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE, THE
PROPOSED TRANSACTION IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUBPARAGRAPH (A) AND WILL
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IT SHALL ENTER AN ORDER
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SUCH TRANSACTION, UPON THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, AND WITH THE MODIFICATIONS, SO FOUND TO BE JUST AND
REASONABLE  ... 

"(C)  IN PASSING UPON ANY PROPOSED TRANSACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS PARAGRAPH (2), THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE WEIGHT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS, AMONG OTHERS:  (1) THE EFFECT  ... UPON
ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC; (2) THE EFFECT UPON THE
PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE INCLUSION, OR FAILURE TO INCLUDE, OTHER
RAILROADS IN THE TERRITORY  ...  ; (3) THE TOTAL FIXED CHARGES
RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION; AND (4) THE INTEREST OF THE
CARRIER EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.  ... 

"(E)  NO TRANSACTION WHICH CONTEMPLATES A GUARANTY OR ASSUMPTION OF
PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS OR OF FIXED CHARGES, SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH (2) EXCEPT UPON A SPECIFIC FINDING BY
THE COMMISSION THAT SUCH GUARANTY OR ASSUMPTION IS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  ... 

"(4)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
PARAGRAPH (2), TO ENTER INTO ANY TRANSACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
SUBPARAGRAPH (A) THEREOF  ... 

"(11)  THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND
PLENARY, AND ANY CARRIER OR CORPORATION PARTICIPATING IN OR RESULTING
FROM ANY TRANSACTION APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION THEREUNDER, SHALL HAVE
FULL POWER (WITH THE ASSENT, IN THE CASE OF A PURCHASE AND SALE, A
LEASE, A CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION, OR A CORPORATE MERGER, OF A MAJORITY,
UNLESS A DIFFERENT VOTE IS REQUIRED UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW, IN
WHICH CASE THE NUMBER SO REQUIRED SHALL ASSENT, OF THE VOTES OF THE
HOLDERS OF THE SHARES ENTITLED TO VOTE OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF SUCH
CORPORATION AT A REGULAR MEETING OF SUCH STOCKHOLDERS, THE NOTICE OF
SUCH MEETING TO INCLUDE SUCH PURPOSE, OR AT A SPECIAL MEETING THEREOF
CALLED FOR SUCH PURPOSE) TO CARRY SUCH TRANSACTION INTO EFFECT AND TO
OWN AND OPERATE ANY PROPERTIES AND EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OR FRANCHISES
ACQUIRED THROUGH SAID TRANSACTION WITHOUT INVOKING ANY APPROVAL UNDER
STATE AUTHORITY; AND ANY CARRIERS OR OTHER CORPORATIONS, AND THEIR
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND ANY OTHER PERSONS, PARTICIPATING IN A
TRANSACTION APPROVED OR AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION
SHALL BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY RELIEVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
ANTITRUST LAWS AND OF ALL OTHER RESTRAINTS, LIMITATIONS, AND
PROHIBITIONS OF LAW, FEDERAL, STATE, OR MUNICIPAL, INSOFAR AS MAY BE
NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE TRANSACTION SO
APPROVED OR PROVIDED FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS,
IF ANY, IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION, AND TO HOLD, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE
ANY PROPERTIES AND EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OR FRANCHISES ACQUIRED THROUGH
SUCH TRANSACTION.  NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CREATE
OR PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OF A FEDERAL
CORPORATION, BUT ANY POWER GRANTED BY THIS SECTION TO ANY CARRIER OR
OTHER CORPORATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN ADDITION TO AND IN
MODIFICATION OF ITS POWERS UNDER ITS CORPORATE CHARTER OR UNDER THE
LAWS OF ANY STATE." 

FN2  FOR PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5 AND SEC. 20A SEE NOTES 1 AND
15 RESPECTIVELY. 

FN3  28 U.S.C. SEC. 47. 

FN4  28 U.S.C. SEC. 47(A); 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

FN5  ACT OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1940, 54 STAT. 898. 

FN6  ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1920, 41 STAT. 456. 

FN7  "IT IS MANIFEST  ...  THAT THE ACT MADE A NEW DEPARTURE.  ...  "
CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, IN RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN V. CHICAGO, B.
& Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 585. 

FN8  IN DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456,
478, IN REFERRING TO THE WISCONSIN CASE, 257 U.S. 563, AND THE NEW
ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID:  "IN
BOTH CASES IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TRANSPORTATION ACT ADDS A NEW
AND IMPORTANT OBJECT TO PREVIOUS INTERSTATE COMMERCE LEGISLATION, WHICH
WAS DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE OR DISCRIMINATORY RATES
AGAINST PERSONS AND LOCALITIES.  THE NEW ACT SEEKS AFFIRMATIVELY TO
BUILD UP A SYSTEM OF RAILWAYS PREPARED TO HANDLE PROMPTLY ALL THE
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC OF THE COUNTRY.  IT AIMS TO GIVE THE OWNERS OF THE
RAILWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EARN ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES AND
EQUIPMENT IN SUCH A STATE OF EFFICIENCY THAT THEY CAN CARRY WELL THIS
BURDEN.  TO ACHIEVE THIS GREAT PURPOSE, IT PUTS THE RAILROAD SYSTEMS OF
THE COUNTRY MORE COMPLETELY THAN EVER UNDER THE FOSTERING GUARDIANSHIP
AND CONTROL OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH IS TO SUPERVISE THEIR ISSUE OF
SECURITIES, THEIR CAR SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION, THEIR JOINT USE OF
TERMINALS, THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW LINES, THEIR ABANDONMENT OF OLD
LINES, AND BY A PROPER DIVISION OF JOINT RATES, AND BY FIXING ADEQUATE
RATES FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND IN CASE OF DISCRIMINATION, FOR
INTRASTATE COMMERCE, TO SECURE A FAIR RETURN UPON THE PROPERTIES OF THE
CARRIERS ENGAGED." 

FN9  SEC. 407(4). 

FN10  SEC. 407(6)(A). 

FN11  SEC. 407(8). 

FN12  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PRESIDENT'S
COMMITTEE OF SIX, APPOINTED SEPTEMBER 20, 1938, WHOSE REPORT DATED
DECEMBER 23, 1938, IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN14  THE ACT ITSELF INCLUDED A STATEMENT OF THE "NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY" IN THESE TERMS:  "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR
AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE
THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH; TO PROMOTE SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL,
AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN
TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE SEVERAL CARRIERS; TO ENCOURAGE THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF REASONABLE CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCES OR
ADVANTAGES, OR UNFAIR OR DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; TO
COOPERATE WITH THE SEVERAL STATES AND THE DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS
THEREOF; AND TO ENCOURAGE FAIR WAGES AND EQUITABLE WORKING CONDITIONS;
ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING, COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER, HIGHWAY, AND RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER
MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES,
OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE.  ALL OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW
TO CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE DECLARATION OF POLICY." 

FN15  REPEATED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OCCUPY THE FIELD OF REGULATION OF RAILROAD SECURITY ISSUES
AND ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATIONS WERE FOLLOWED IN 1920 BY ADDITION OF SEC.
20A TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (SEC. 439 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT
OF 1920, 41 STAT. 494). 

AS EARLY AS 1907 THE COMMISSION HAD STATED THAT "THE TIME HAS COME
WHEN SOME REASONABLE REGULATION SHOULD BE IMPOSED UPON THE ISSUANCE OF
SECURITIES BY RAILWAYS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  12 I.C.C. 277,
306.  THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS RENEWED IN THE COMMISSION'S ANNUAL REPORT
FOR 1907, P. 24, AND IN EVERY SUCCEEDING ANNUAL REPORT UP TO AND
INCLUDING 1919.  THE COMMISSION INCORPORATED IN THE 1919 REPORT THE
STATEMENT CONCERNING RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION IT HAD SUBMITTED TO THE
SENATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE, WHICH INCLUDED A RECOMMENDATION
FOR REGULATION OF SECURITY ISSUES. 

HOUSE REPORT NO. 456, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (NOVEMBER 10, 1919), SAID
WITH RESPECT TO THE SECTION WHICH LATER BECAME SEC. 20A:  "  ...  THE
ENACTMENT OF THE PENDING BILL WILL PUT THE CONTROL OVER STOCK AND BOND
ISSUES EXCLUSIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WILL
RESULT IN UNIFORMITY AND GREATER PROMPTNESS OF ACTION." 

TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 AND PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"(2)  ...  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CARRIER TO ISSUE ANY SHARE OF
CAPITAL STOCK OR ANY BOND OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF INTEREST IN OR
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CARRIER ...  OR TO ASSUME ANY OBLIGATION OR
LIABILITY AS LESSOR, LESSEE, GUARANTOR, INDORSER, SURETY, OR OTHERWISE,
IN RESPECT OF THE SECURITIES OF ANY OTHER PERSON, NATURAL OR
ARTIFICIAL, EVEN THOUGH PERMITTED BY THE AUTHORITY CREATING THE CARRIER
CORPORATION, UNLESS AND UNTIL, AND THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT, UPON
APPLICATION BY THE CARRIER, AND AFTER INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMISSION
OF THE PURPOSES AND USES OF THE PROPOSED ISSUE AND THE PROCEEDS
THEREOF, OR OF THE PROPOSED ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY IN
RESPECT OF THE SECURITIES OF ANY OTHER PERSON, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL,
THE COMMISSION BY ORDER AUTHORIZES SUCH ISSUE OR ASSUMPTION.  THE
COMMISSION SHALL MAKE SUCH ORDER ONLY IF IT FINDS THAT SUCH ISSUE OR
ASSUMPTION:  (A) IS FOR SOME LAWFUL OBJECT WITHIN ITS CORPORATE
PURPOSES, AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH IS NECESSARY
OR APPROPRIATE FOR OR CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPER PERFORMANCE BY THE
CARRIER OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AS A COMMON CARRIER, AND WHICH WILL
NOT IMPAIR ITS ABILITY TO PERFORM THAT SERVICE, AND (B) IS REASONABLY
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSE.  ... 

"(6)  UPON RECEIPT OF ANY SUCH APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY THE
COMMISSION SHALL CAUSE NOTICE THEREOF TO BE GIVEN TO AND A COPY FILED
WITH THE GOVERNOR OF EACH STATE IN WHICH THE APPLICANT CARRIER
OPERATES.  THE RAILROAD COMMISSIONS, PUBLIC SERVICE OR UTILITIES
COMMISSIONS, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE STATE AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE BEFORE THE COMMISSION SUCH REPRESENTATIONS AS
THEY MAY DEEM JUST AND PROPER FOR PRESERVING AND CONSERVING THE RIGHTS
AND INTERESTS OF THEIR PEOPLE AND THE STATES, RESPECTIVELY, INVOLVED IN
SUCH PROCEEDINGS.  THE COMMISSION MAY HOLD HEARINGS, IF IT SEES FIT, TO
ENABLE IT TO DETERMINE ITS DECISION UPON THE APPLICATION FOR
AUTHORITY. 

"(7)  THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION BY THIS SECTION
SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND PLENARY, AND A CARRIER MAY ISSUE SECURITIES AND
ASSUME OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS SECTION WITHOUT SECURING APPROVAL OTHER THAN AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. 
...  " 

FN16  FOR TEXT OF SEC. 5(11) SEE NOTE 1. 

FN17  FOR TEXT OF SEC. 20A (7) SEE NOTE 15. 

FN18  IN AN EARLY CASE (PITTSBURGH & W. VA. R. CO. V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 54 APP. D.C. 34, 293 F. 1001, APPEAL DISMISSED 266
U.S. 640) IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 20A HAD BEEN UPHELD,
THE COURT SAID:  "IF 'A FAIR RETURN ON CAPITAL DEVOTED TO THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE' (NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 189)
WAS TO BE INSURED THE RAILWAY COMPANIES, AND AT THE SAME TIME PROPER
SERVICE AND EQUITABLE RATES ACCORDED THE PUBLIC, THE SUPERVISION OF THE
ISSUANCE OF STOCK, THE INCURRING OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS, THE EXTENSION
AND CONSOLIDATION OF RAILWAY LINES, BECOMES OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE. 
WITHOUT THIS POWER TO SUPERVISE THE ISSUE OF STOCK AND BONDS, AND THUS
LIMIT THE DIVIDEND AND INTEREST OBLIGATIONS OF THE CARRIERS, AS WELL AS
THE EXPENDITURES IN EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS, THE FIXING OF ADEQUATE
RATES TO INSURE A JUST RETURN TO THE CARRIER, AND AT THE SAME TIME
EQUITABLE PROTECTION TO THE PUBLIC, WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.   ...  " 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE RAILROADS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE OPERATED BY NOT LESS THAN 693
CORPORATIONS.  THESE EXIST BY VIRTUE OF CHARTERS GRANTED BY THE SEVERAL
STATES,  FN1  THE LAWS OF WHICH GOVERN THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS, AND,
MORE PARTICULARLY, THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THEIR STOCKHOLDERS. 
THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO IS CHARTERED BY VIRGINIA, THE PERE MARQUETTE BY
MICHIGAN.  THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA AND MICHIGAN RESPECTIVELY DETERMINE THE
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH EACH MAY COMBINE WITH OTHER CORPORATIONS.  THE
VOTES OF SUFFICIENT STOCKHOLDERS OF THESE TWO CORPORATIONS TO SATISFY
THE LAWS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES WERE IN FAVOR OF A VOLUNTARY
AGREEMENT FOR THE ABSORPTION OF THE PERE MARQUETTE BY THE CHESAPEAKE &
OHIO.  TO CONSUMMATE THIS AGREEMENT, HOWEVER, REQUIRED THE
AUTHORIZATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER THE TERMS OF
SEC. 5(2) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED, IN SHORT, THAT THE
TOTAL OUTSTANDING SECURITIES OF THE PERE MARQUETTE, AMOUNTING TO
450,460 SHARES OF COMMON, 124,290 OF CUMULATIVE PREFERRED, AND 112,000
OF PRIOR PREFERENCE, WERE TO BE EXCHANGED FOR 211,429.4 SHARES OF
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO COMMON AND 312,272.2 PREFERRED.  ALL BUT 9% OF THE
SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE PERE MARQUETTE CUMULATIVE PREFERRED ASSENTED TO
THIS ARRANGEMENT.  THE APPELLANTS, HOLDING LESS THAN 2% OF THAT CLASS
OF STOCK, STOOD ON THEIR RIGHTS UNDER MICHIGAN LAW, CLAIMING THAT THEY
WERE ENTITLED TO THE DIVIDENDS UNPAID SINCE 1931, AMOUNTING TO $72.50
PER SHARE. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION APPROVED THE PROPOSED MERGER BUT
REFUSED TO PASS ON THE LEGAL CLAIMS THUS ASSERTED UNDER MICHIGAN LAW BY
THE APPELLANTS.  THE COMMISSION RULED THAT IT WAS NOT CALLED UPON TO
PASS UPON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AGAINST A MERGED ROAD WHEN THE POTENTIAL
RECOGNITION OF SUCH RIGHTS, UNDER APPROPRIATE STATE LAW, COULD NOT
AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH IT IS REQUISITE FOR THE COMMISSION TO
SAFEGUARD BEFORE AUTHORIZING A MERGER.  FOR THE COMMISSION HELD THAT,
EVEN IF THE APPELLANTS' CLAIMS WERE SUSTAINED BY MICHIGAN LAW, THE
AMOUNT INVOLVED WOULD IN NOWISE AFFECT EITHER THE SECURITY STRUCTURE OR
THE CASH POSITION OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO.    THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO IS
CAPITALIZED AT $191,433,919.  AN ADDITIONAL $28,949,745 OF STOCK IS TO
BE ISSUED, UNDER THE MERGER PLAN, FOR PERE MARQUETTE SHAREHOLDERS,
MAKING A TOTAL CAPITALIZATION FOR THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO, AFTER MERGER,
OF $220,383,595.  THE APPELLANTS OWN 2,100 SHARES OF PERE MARQUETTE
CUMULATIVE PREFERRED.  THE MERGER AGREEMENT OFFERED THEM SECURITIES
FOUND BY THE COMMISSION TO BE WORTH $111.60 PER SHARE, OR $234,360.  IF
THEIR CLAIM FOR FULL BOOK VALUE OF $172.50 PER SHARE WERE HONORED, IT
WOULD AMOUNT TO $362,250.  THIS CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF $127,890, THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED, DID NOT AFFECT ITS FINDING AS TO THE SOUNDNESS,
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE "PUBLIC INTEREST," OF THE FINANCIAL
STRUCTURE DEVISED AND APPROVED FOR THIS MERGER.  THE COMMISSION FURTHER
POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IF 2% OF EACH CLASS OF PERE MARQUETTE STOCK - THE
MAXIMUM NUMBER CONTEMPLATED BY THE AGREEMENT - WERE TO REFUSE TO
PARTICIPATE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO
SHARES OFFERED TO THEM AND THE BOOK VALUE OF THEIR PERE MARQUETTE
SHARES COULD, IF REQUIRED, READILY BE ABSORBED BY A SOUNDLY BASED
QUARTER-BILLION-DOLLAR CARRIER. 

BOTH THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
HERE URGE THIS VIEW OF THE LAW.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, READS THE
COMMISSION'S DUTY UNDER THE ACT QUITE DIFFERENTLY, ALTHOUGH IN REACHING
ITS CONCLUSION THE COMMISSION APPLIED ITS SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE. 

I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION WAS RIGHT IN THE VIEW IT TOOK OF ITS
POWERS AND DUTIES.  EVEN IF THE MATTER WERE DOUBTFUL, THE COURT DOES
NOT SEEM TO ME TO GIVE TO THE COMMISSION'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT THE
WEIGHT TO BE ACCORDED ITS EXPERIENCED JUDGMENT, WHICH WE HELD IN UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, 310 U.S. 534, 549, TO BE
REQUIRED.  SINCE THE COMMISSION DISCLAIMS RATHER THAN ASSERTS A POWER,
THERE IS ALL THE MORE REASON TO FEEL ASSURED OF ITS DISINTERESTEDNESS
AND TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITY IN FAVOR OF ITS CHOICE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

UNTIL THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, CARRIERS, WHILE SUBJECT TO THE
SHERMAN LAW, COULD COMBINE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  SEE NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S.
197.  THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920 REQUIRED THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE
COMMISSION FOR ACQUISITION BY ONE CARRIER OF THE CONTROL OVER ANOTHER,
TO THE EXTENT DEFINED BY SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS
AMENDED.  BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, THE VOLUNTARY MERGER OF
THE PROPERTIES OF TWO OR MORE CARRIERS INTO ONE CORPORATION WAS
SANCTIONED, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE SCRUTINY OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR THE DUE PROTECTION OF THE "PUBLIC INTEREST." 
CONGRESS DEFINED WITH PARTICULARITY THE FACTORS THAT CONSTITUTED THE
"PUBLIC INTEREST" PUT INTO THE COMMISSION'S KEEPING. 

THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT STATE LAW GOVERNING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN
STATE-CHARTERED CARRIERS AND THEIR STOCKHOLDERS IS IMPLIEDLY SUPPLANTED
AS TO THOSE WHO HAVE REFUSED TO ASSENT TO A MERGER, EVEN WHEN THE
COMMISSION FINDS THAT TO LEAVE THE ADJUDICATION OF THOSE RIGHTS TO THE
LAW THAT CREATED THEM IN NOWISE TOUCHES THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" THAT IS
THE SOLE CONDITION TO CARRYING OUT A WHOLLY VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT, AND
EVEN THOUGH SUCH A VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT BY ITSELF COULD NOT AFFECT THE
RIGHTS OF DISSENTERS.  I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS COULD COMPEL THE
UNIFICATION OF RAILROAD PROPERTIES THERETOFORE IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP
AND IN SO DOING OVERRIDE STATE-CREATED LEGAL RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS OF
THE CONSTITUENT CARRIERS.  IN THE CASE OF FINANCIALLY EMBARRASSED
CARRIERS, CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS BANKRUPTCY POWERS, HAS
EMPOWERED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO FORMULATE PLANS OF
REORGANIZATION, THE TERMS OF WHICH, IF FAIR AND EQUITABLE, MAY OVERRIDE
STATE-CREATED LEGAL RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS WHO DO NOT ASSENT.  IN THE
INTERESTS OF A MORE EFFICIENT NATIONAL RAILROAD SYSTEM, CONGRESS MAY
ACCOMPLISH LIKE RESULTS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BUT THAT IS
PRECISELY WHAT CONGRESS HAS REFUSED TO DO.  IT WAS BESOUGHT TO
ELIMINATE THE WASTE AND INEFFICIENCIES DUE TO THE CONGERIES OF
CORPORATE INSTRUMENTALITIES THROUGH WHICH THE RAILROADS OF THE UNITED
STATES OPERATE, BY PROVIDING FOR COMPULSORY CONSOLIDATIONS.  IT WAS
ALSO BESOUGHT TO DO AWAY WITH THE COMPLEXITIES AND CONFUSION RESULTING
FROM STATE CORPORATIONS CONDUCTING THE COUNTRY'S INTERSTATE RAILROAD
BUSINESS, BY REQUIRING FEDERAL INCORPORATION.  CONGRESS REJECTED BOTH
DEMANDS.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 650, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 63-64.  IT
LEFT MERGERS OF SEPARATE RAILROAD PROPERTIES INTO LARGER UNITS TO THE
WILL OF THEIR PRIVATE OWNERS, MERELY LODGING A VETO POWER IN THE
COMMISSION IF SUCH VOLUNTARY MERGERS RUN COUNTER TO THE DEFINED PUBLIC
INTEREST.  AND CONGRESS EXPLICITLY NEGATIVED THE POSSIBILITY OF
CONSTRUING SUCH SUPERVISION BY THE COMMISSION AS THE CREATION,
"DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OF A FEDERAL CORPORATION." 

THE COMMISSION WAS CHARGED WITH SEEING TO IT THAT THE VERY LIMITED
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 5(2) WERE OBSERVED, AND TO THAT END WAS GIVEN
"EXCLUSIVE AND PLENARY" AUTHORITY.  SEC. 5(11).  THE PURPOSE WAS TO
AUTHORIZE A VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT, TO SANCTION AN AGREEMENT, NOT TO
FORMULATE A PLAN AND TO COERCE ITS ADOPTION, AS IS TRUE OF SEC. 77. 
THE LAW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATES THE REQUIREMENTS THAT CONSTITUTE THE
"PUBLIC INTEREST" WHICH THE VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT MUST SATISFY TO SECURE
THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.  THESE ARE:  THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSAL ON
THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE; THE EFFECT OF INCLUDING OR FAILING
TO INCLUDE OTHER RAILROADS IN THE PLAN; THE RESULTING FIXED CHARGES;
AND THE INTEREST OF THE CARRIER EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.  THESE FACTORS HAVE
NO BEARING ON WHETHER THE APPELLANTS' CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED.  THE
GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE REQUIREMENTS AND THE DETAILED AND
COMPREHENSIVE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205, CARRIES A
SHARP LEGAL CONTRAST BETWEEN THE AUTHORIZATION WHICH CONGRESS REQUIRED
FOR VOLUNTARY MERGERS AND THE COERCION OF AN IMPOSED PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION IN THE CASE OF INSOLVENT ROADS. 

APPROPRIATE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE INTERESTS IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IS NEEDLESSLY SACRIFICED BY
ADDING, TO THE DETAILED PROVISIONS WHEREBY THE COMMISSION IS MERELY
AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE VOLUNTARY MERGERS, AN IMPLIED ABROGATION OF STATE
LAW IN NO RESPECT INCONSISTENT WITH SUCH LIMITED POWER OF
AUTHORIZATION, SINCE THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT SURVIVAL OF A CLAIM
UNDER STATE LAW WOULD NOT IMPINGE UPON "THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  IT
IGNORES THE SALUTARY PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION, SO STRIKINGLY
ILLUSTRATED BY THE LOS ANGELES TERMINAL CASES FROM WHICH IT WAS DRAWN,
"THAT THE CONGRESS MAY CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS REGULATION AND OCCUPY A LIMITED
FIELD, AND THAT THE INTENTION TO SUPERSEDE THE EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF
ITS AUTHORITY AS TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS
NOT TO BE IMPLIED UNLESS THE ACT OF CONGRESS FAIRLY INTERPRETED IS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE."  ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE. R.
CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 380, 392-93.  SEE ALSO PALMER V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79. 

SINCE IT IS NEEDLESS, IT IS UNDESIRABLE TO DRAW AN IMPLICATION SO
DESTRUCTIVE OF STATE LAW FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL SCHEME FOR ALLOWING
VOLUNTARY MERGERS.  IN FACT, CONGRESS HAS MANIFESTED NOT AN INTENTION
TO ABROGATE STATE LAW WHERE THE COMMISSION FINDS NO COLLISION WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST; IT HAS MANIFESTED AN INTENTION NOT TO ABROGATE STATE
LAW UNLESS IT INTERFERES WITH CARRYING OUT AN APPROVED MERGER.  THUS,
IT MADE THE NECESSARY PROPORTION OF ASSENTING STOCKHOLDERS DEPENDENT ON
STATE LAW.  IT HARDLY SEEMS CONGRUOUS TO PROVIDE THAT STATE LAW SHOULD
DETERMINE WHEN THE OPPOSITION OF STOCKHOLDERS MAY PREVENT A VOLUNTARY
MERGER, BUT SHOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE RIGHTS WHICH SUCH DISSENTERS
HAVE UNDER STATE LAW, EVEN WHERE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
FINDS NO NATIONAL INTEREST INVOLVED IN DETERMINING AND ENFORCING SUCH
RIGHTS.  AGAIN, WHILE SEC. 5(11) RELIEVES PARTIES TO AN APPROVED MERGER
FROM THE RESTRAINTS OF OTHER LAWS, "FEDERAL, STATE, OR MUNICIPAL," IT
DOES SO ONLY "INSOFAR AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO CARRY INTO
EFFECT THE TRANSACTION SO APPROVED OR PROVIDED FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IF ANY, IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION  ...  "
THIS PARAGRAPH FURTHER CONTAINS AN EXPRESSED DISCLAIMER OF
AUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL INCORPORATION.  THE PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL
INCORPORATION SURELY IMPLIED A DESIRE TO RETAIN TO THE FULLEST POSSIBLE
EXTENT THE TIES BETWEEN THE STATES AND THEIR CHARTERED CORPORATIONS. 
ONE OF THE VITAL CONSEQUENCES OF INCORPORATION IN A GIVEN STATE IS THE
SUBJECTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STOCKHOLDERS AND THEIR
CORPORATION TO THE LAW OF THAT STATE EXCEPT INSOFAR AS FEDERAL LAW
UNMISTAKABLY OVERRIDES IT. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO VOLUNTARY RAILROAD MERGERS SHARPLY
DIFFER FROM THOSE THAT CONTROL LIQUIDATIONS AND REORGANIZATIONS UNDER
SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  (SEE ALSO RAILROAD REORGANIZATION ACT
OF 1948, 62 STAT. 162.)  A RAILROAD IN REORGANIZATION IS ADMINISTERED
BY A BANKRUPTCY COURT WHICH HAS CONTROL OF ALL ITS ASSETS.  THE POWER
OF DEALING WITH ALL CLAIMS IS INEVITABLY CONCENTRATED IN THAT COURT. 
IN MERGER PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO OBSTACLE TO THE PRACTICE
PURSUED BY THE COMMISSION OF DECIDING WHAT IS "JUST AND REASONABLE" AND
IN "THE PUBLIC INTEREST" AS TO EACH CLASS OF SECURITIES, WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME PERMITTING ANY DISSENTER TO STAND ON THE TERMS OF THE
PARTICULAR STOCK ISSUE, LEAVING TO STATE LAW TO DETERMINE WHAT THOSE
TERMS ARE, PROVIDED ONLY THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE NEW CORPORATION, AS
PART OF AN ECONOMIC AND EFFICIENT NATIONAL RAILROAD SYSTEM, WOULD NOT
BE AFFECTED BY ALLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIMS.  THE COMMISSION HAS HERE RULED
THAT THE APPELLANTS ASSERT AN UNLIQUIDATED CLAIM AGAINST THE PERE
MARQUETTE SUFFICIENTLY NEGLIGIBLE NOT TO AFFECT THE FINANCIAL POSITION
OF ITS SUCCESSOR, EVEN IF IT BE ULTIMATELY ALLOWED IN FULL.  I FAIL TO
SEE THAT THE EFFECT ON THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO WILL BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN
THAT OF NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS FOR THE SAME AMOUNT.  EVERY OPERATING
RAILROAD IS LIKELY TO HAVE SUCH CLAIMS OUTSTANDING AGAINST IT AT ALL
TIMES.  THEIR EXISTENCE DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE CONSUMMATION OF A
VOLUNTARY MERGER.  A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF CONTINGENT OBLIGATIONS MAY
EASILY BE ALLOWED FOR.  IN ANY EVENT, THE DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT
EVENTUAL LIABILITY FOR CONTINGENT CLAIMS OF DISSENTING STOCKHOLDERS ARE
SUCH AS TO AFFECT "THE PUBLIC INTEREST" REQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED BY
AUTHORIZATION OF A PROPOSED MERGER IS PRECISELY THE FUNCTION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND SHOULD APPROPRIATELY BE LEFT TO THE
EXERCISE OF ITS INFORMED DISCRETION. 

THE COMMISSION HAS CONTROL, UNDER SEC. 20A, OVER SECURITIES, WHICH OF
COURSE IT DOES NOT HAVE OVER A CONTINGENT DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION FOR
LOSS RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE.  BUT DIFFERENCES IN THE FOUNDATION OF
CONTINGENT CLAIMS DO NOT DETERMINE THEIR RELEVANCE TO THE COMMISSION'S
AUTHORITY IN APPROVING A MERGER AND IN LEAVING THE DETERMINATION OF
SUCH CLAIMS TO STATE LAW.  WHILE THE RIGHTS ASSERTED BY THE APPELLANTS
ARISE OUT OF THEIR HOLDING OF SECURITIES, THEY MAY BE PAID OFF IN CASH,
IF THEIR CLAIMS TURN OUT TO BE WELL FOUNDED, AND NEED NOT BE SATISFIED
OUT OF THE SECURITIES OF THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION. 

NEITHER WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN, NOR WHAT IT HAS IMPLIED BY THE
PURPOSE UNDERLYING WHAT IT HAS WRITTEN, PERSUADES ME THAT A POWER WHICH
THE COMMISSION ITSELF HAS VIGOROUSLY DISCLAIMED IT MUST NOW EXERCISE. 
THE COMMISSION HAS CONSISTENTLY DECLINED TO ADJUDICATE AS A MATTER OF
STATE LAW - OR WHAT IS NOW FOUND TO BE FEDERAL LAW - CONTESTED CLAIMS
NOT DEEMED RELEVANT TO ITS DETERMINATION OF "THE PUBLIC INTEREST." 
E.G., SULLIVAN-PURCHASE-SERVICE FREIGHT LINE, INC., 38 M.C.C. 621;
JESSUP-CONTROL-SEFEWAY TRAILS, INC., 39 M.C.C. 233, 241; LEE-CONTROL;
CAROLINA M. EXP.  LINES, INC. - LEASE AND PURCHASE - REED, 40 M.C.C.
405, 407.  SEE ALSO NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES,
287 U.S. 12, 26-27; CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 404, 414. 

THE COURT IS HOLDING, IN ESSENCE, THAT WHILE STATE LAW GOVERNS THE
RIGHTS OF RAILROAD STOCKHOLDERS BEFORE AND AFTER VOLUNTARY MERGER
PROCEEDINGS IT IS SUPPLANTED DURING SUCH PROCEEDINGS.  IN THUS
THRUSTING UPON THE COMMISSION A JURISDICTION WHICH IT ITSELF HAS
REJECTED, THE COURT IS DEPRIVING THE STATES OF A MEASURE OF CONTROL
OVER THEIR OWN CORPORATIONS WHEN THIS IS NOT REQUIRED BY A FAIR READING
OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, AND ALTHOUGH THE SURVIVAL OF SUCH STATE LAW
DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST AS FOUND BY THE AGENCY
SELECTED BY CONGRESS FOR DETERMINING THAT INTEREST. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  ACCORDING TO THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF CLASS I AND CLASS II CARRIERS
ON FILE WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THERE IS AT PRESENT
ONLY ONE OPERATING CARRIER CHARTERED BY CONGRESS:  THE TEXAS AND
PACIFIC RAILWAY.  SEE THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1871, 16 STAT. 573, AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 9, 1923, 42 STAT. 1223. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :













TRADE COMM'N V. CEMENT INSTITUTE, 333 U.S. 683 


ARGUED OCTOBER 20-21, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1948.  - 157 F.2D 533,
REVERSED. 


THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INSTITUTED A PROCEEDING BEFORE ITSELF
AGAINST AN UNINCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATION COMPOSED OF CORPORATIONS
WHICH MANUFACTURE, SELL AND DISTRIBUTE CEMENT; CORPORATE MEMBERS OF THE
ASSOCIATION; AND OFFICERS AND AGENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION.  THE COMPLAINT
CHARGED:  (1) THAT RESPONDENTS HAD ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
BY ACTING IN CONCERT TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF CEMENT THROUGH USE OF A MULTIPLE BASING-POINT DELIVERED
PRICE SYSTEM, WHICH RESULTED IN THEIR QUOTING AND MAINTAINING IDENTICAL
PRICES AND TERMS OF SALE FOR CEMENT AT ANY GIVEN DESTINATION; AND (2)
THAT THIS SYSTEM OF SALES RESULTED IN PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS VIOLATIVE
OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT. 
UPON A HEARING AND FINDINGS THE COMMISSION ORDERED RESPONDENTS TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM ANY CONCERTED ACTION TO DO SPECIFIED THINGS, INCLUDING
USE OF THE MULTIPLE BASING-POINT DELIVERED-PRICE SYSTEM TO MAINTAIN
IDENTICAL PRICES FOR CEMENT.  HELD: 

1.  THE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION TO CONCLUDE THAT CONDUCT TENDING
TO RESTRAIN TRADE IS AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION VIOLATIVE OF SEC.
5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE SELFSAME CONDUCT
MAY ALSO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 689-693. 

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT SHOWS
THAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS NOT ONLY TO CONTINUE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FEDERAL COURTS BUT
ALSO TO SUPPLEMENT THAT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.  PP. 692-693. 

3.  THE FILING BY THE UNITED STATES OF A CIVIL ACTION IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS FROM VIOLATING
SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THOUGH BASED LARGELY ON THE SAME ALLEGED
MISCONDUCT AS IN THE COMMISSION PROCEEDING, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE
COMMISSION PROCEEDING BE DISMISSED.  PP. 693-695. 

4.  SINCE ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE CHARGED WITH COMBINING TO
MAINTAIN A DELIVERED-PRICE SYSTEM IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE PRICE
COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SOME WHO SOLD CEMENT IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE EXCLUSIVELY WERE NEVERTHELESS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION AND
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  PP. 695-696. 

5.  THE COMMISSION WAS NOT DISQUALIFIED TO PASS UPON THE ISSUES
INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION, AS A RESULT OF ITS PRIOR EX PARTE INVESTIGATIONS, HAD
PREVIOUSLY FORMED THE OPINION THAT THE MULTIPLE BASING-POINT SYSTEM
OPERATED AS A PRICE-FIXING RESTRAINT OF TRADE VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  PP. 700-703. 

6.  IT WAS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR THE COMMISSION TO ACT IN
THESE PROCEEDINGS AFTER HAVING EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT INDUSTRY-WIDE
USE OF THE BASING-POINT SYSTEM WAS ILLEGAL.  TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S.
510, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 702-703. 

7.  ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGED COMBINATION BE TREATED AS HAVING HAD ITS
BEGINNING IN 1929, EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES DURING YEARS
LONG PRIOR THERETO AND DURING THE NRA PERIOD WAS ADMISSIBLE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SHOWING THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTINUING COMBINATION AMONG
RESPONDENTS TO UTILIZE THE BASING-POINT PRICING SYSTEM.  PP. 703-706. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF RESPONDENTS' PRE-1929 AND NRA
CODE ACTIVITIES WAS WITHIN THE RULE THAT TESTIMONY AS TO PRIOR OR
SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS, WHICH FOR SOME REASON ARE BARRED FROM FORMING
THE BASIS FOR A SUIT, MAY NEVERTHELESS BE INTRODUCED IF IT TENDS
REASONABLY TO SHOW THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR
TRANSACTIONS UNDER SCRUTINY.  PP. 704-705. 

(B)  ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES SUCH AS THE COMMISSION ARE NOT
RESTRICTED BY RIGID RULES OF EVIDENCE.  PP. 705-706. 

(C)  A LETTER WRITTEN PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT BY ONE,
SINCE DECEASED, WHO WAS PRESIDENT OF A RESPONDENT COMPANY AND AN ACTIVE
TRUSTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION, IN WHICH HE STATED THAT FREE COMPETITION
WOULD BE RUINOUS TO THE CEMENT INDUSTRY, WAS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
EVEN THOUGH THE STATEMENT MAY HAVE BEEN ONLY THE WRITER'S CONCLUSION. 
P. 706. 

8.  CEMENT MFRS.  PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588, IS
NOT DECISIVE OF THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CASE.  PP. 706-709. 

9.  INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT OR CONCERTED ACTION MAY FALL SHORT OF
VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT AND YET CONSTITUTE AN "UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION" PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  P. 708. 

10.  THE COMMISSION MADE ADEQUATE FINDINGS THAT RESPONDENTS
COLLECTIVELY MAINTAINED A MULTIPLE BASING-POINT DELIVERED-PRICE SYSTEM
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPRESSING COMPETITION.  PP. 709-712. 

11.  THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE FINDINGS.  PP.
712-720. 

12.  MAINTENANCE BY CONCERTED ACTION OF THE BASING-POINT DELIVERED
PRICE SYSTEM EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENTS IS AN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  PP. 720-721. 

13.  RESPONDENTS' MULTIPLE BASING-POINT DELIVERED-PRICE SYSTEM
RESULTED IN PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN PURCHASERS, IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AS AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  CORN
PRODUCTS CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 324 U.S. 726; FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. STALEY CO., 324 U.S. 746.  PP. 721-726. 

14.  THE DIFFERENCES IN RESPONDENTS' NET RETURNS FROM DIFFERENT SALES
IN DIFFERENT LOCALITIES, RESULTING FROM USE OF THE MULTIPLE BASING
POINT DELIVERED-PRICE SYSTEM, WERE NOT JUSTIFIABLE UNDER SEC. 2(B) OF
THE AMENDED CLAYTON ACT AS PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS "MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO
MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR."  PP. 721-726. 

15.  THE OBJECTIONS TO THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER ARE WITHOUT MERIT.  PP. 726-730. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CEMENT INSTITUTE ET AL. 

NO. 23.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 24, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. AETNA PORTLAND CEMENT
CO. ET AL.; NO. 25, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. MARQUETTE CEMENT MFG. CO.;
NO. 26, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CALAVERAS CEMENT CO. ET AL.; NO. 27,
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. HURON PORTLAND CEMENT CO.; NO. 28, FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. SUPERIOR PORTLAND CEMENT, INC.; NO. 29, FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. NORTHWESTERN PORTLAND CEMENT CO.; NO. 30, FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. RIVERSIDE CEMENT CO.; NO. 31, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
UNIVERSAL ATLAS CEMENT CO.; NO. 32, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CALIFORNIA
PORTLAND CEMENT CO.; NO. 33, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. MONOLITH PORTLAND
CEMENT CO. ET AL.; AND NO. 34, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. SMITH ET AL.,
ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IN
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
AND THE AMENDED CLAYTON ACT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  157 F.2D 533.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 815
816.  REVERSED, P. 730. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WHICH, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, VACATED AND SET ASIDE A CEASE
AND DESIST ORDER ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS.  157 F.2D 533.  THOSE RESPONDENTS ARE:  THE CEMENT
INSTITUTE, AN UNINCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATION COMPOSED OF 74
CORPORATIONS  FN1  WHICH MANUFACTURE, SELL AND DISTRIBUTE CEMENT; THE
74 CORPORATE MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTE; FN2  AND 21 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTITUTE.  IT TOOK THREE YEARS FOR A TRIAL
EXAMINER TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE WHICH CONSISTS OF ABOUT 49,000 PAGES OF
ORAL TESTIMONY AND 50,000 PAGES OF EXHIBITS.  EVEN THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMISSION COVER 176 PAGES.  THE BRIEFS WITH
ACCOMPANYING APPENDIXES SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES CONTAIN MORE THAN
4,000 PAGES.  THE LEGAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THE
DIFFERENT RESPONDENTS ARE MANY AND VARIED.  SOME CONTENTIONS ARE URGED
BY ALL RESPONDENTS AND CAN BE JOINTLY CONSIDERED.  OTHERS REQUIRE
SEPARATE TREATMENT.  IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR OPINION WITHIN REASONABLE
LIMITS, WE MUST RESTRICT OUR RECORD REFERENCES TO THE MINIMUM
CONSISTENT WITH AN ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS WE
DISCUSS. 

THE PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGUN BY A COMMISSION COMPLAINT OF TWO COUNTS. 
THE FIRST CHARGED THAT CERTAIN ALLEGED CONDUCT SET OUT AT LENGTH
CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  38 STAT. 719, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45. 
THE CORE OF THE CHARGE WAS THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD RESTRAINED AND
HINDERED COMPETITION IN THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CEMENT BY MEANS OF
A COMBINATION AMONG THEMSELVES MADE EFFECTIVE THROUGH MUTUAL
UNDERSTANDING OR AGREEMENT TO EMPLOY A MULTIPLE BASING POINT SYSTEM OF
PRICING.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THIS SYSTEM RESULTED IN THE QUOTATION OF
IDENTICAL TERMS OF SALE AND IDENTICAL PRICES FOR CEMENT BY THE
RESPONDENTS AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN THE UNITED STATES.  THIS SYSTEM HAD
WORKED SO SUCCESSFULLY, IT WAS FURTHER CHARGED, THAT FOR MANY YEARS
PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, ALL CEMENT BUYERS THROUGHOUT THE
NATION, WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS, HAD BEEN UNABLE TO PURCHASE CEMENT FOR
DELIVERY IN ANY GIVEN LOCALITY FROM ANY ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS AT A
LOWER PRICE OR ON MORE FAVORABLE TERMS THAN FROM ANY OF THE OTHER
RESPONDENTS. 

THE SECOND COUNT OF THE COMPLAINT, RESTING CHIEFLY ON THE SAME
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT SET OUT IN COUNT I, CHARGED THAT THE MULTIPLE
BASING POINT SYSTEM OF SALES RESULTED IN SYSTEMATIC PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN THE CUSTOMERS OF EACH RESPONDENT.  THESE
DISCRIMINATIONS WERE MADE, IT WAS ALLEGED, WITH THE PURPOSE OF
DESTROYING COMPETITION IN PRICE BETWEEN THE VARIOUS RESPONDENTS IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 730, AS AMENDED BY THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, 49 STAT. 1526.  THAT SECTION, WITH CERTAIN
CONDITIONS WHICH NEED NOT HERE BE SET OUT, MAKES IT "UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE,  ...  EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO
DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES OF
LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY  ...  "  15 U.S.C. SEC. 13. 

RESTING UPON ITS FINDINGS, THE COMMISSION ORDERED THAT RESPONDENTS
CEASE AND DESIST FROM "CARRYING OUT ANY PLANNED COMMON COURSE OF
ACTION, UNDERSTANDING, AGREEMENT, COMBINATION, OR CONSPIRACY" TO DO A
NUMBER OF THINGS, 37 F.T.C. 87, 258-262, ALL OF WHICH THINGS, THE
COMMISSION ARGUES, HAD TO BE RESTRAINED IN ORDER EFFECTIVELY TO RESTORE
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF ACTION AMONG THE SEPARATE UNITS IN THE CEMENT
INDUSTRY.  CERTAIN CONTENTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORDER WILL LATER
REQUIRE A MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF ITS TERMS.  FOR THE PRESENT IT IS
SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT, IF THE ORDER STANDS, ITS TERMS ARE BROAD ENOUGH
TO BAR RESPONDENTS FROM ACTING IN CONCERT TO SELL CEMENT ON A BASING
POINT DELIVERED PRICE PLAN WHICH SO ELIMINATES COMPETITION THAT
RESPONDENTS' PRICES ARE ALWAYS IDENTICAL AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN THE
UNITED STATES. 

WE SHALL NOT NOW DETAIL THE NUMEROUS CONTENTIONS URGED AGAINST THE
ORDER'S VALIDITY.  A STATEMENT OF THESE CONTENTIONS CAN BEST AWAIT THE
SEPARATE CONSIDERATION WE GIVE THEM. 

JURISDICTION. - AT THE VERY BEGINNING WE ARE MET WITH A CHALLENGE TO
THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE COMPLAINT AND TO ACT ON
IT.  THIS CONTENTION IS PRESSED BY RESPONDENT MARQUETTE CEMENT
MANUFACTURING CO. AND IS RELIED UPON BY OTHER RESPONDENTS.  COUNT I OF
THE COMPLAINT IS DRAWN UNDER THE PROVISION IN SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT WHICH DECLARES THAT "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION
...  ARE HEREBY DECLARED UNLAWFUL."  MARQUETTE CONTENDS THAT THE FACTS
ALLEGED IN COUNT I DO NOT CONSTITUTE "AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 5.  ITS ARGUMENT RUNS THIS WAY:  COUNT I IN
REALITY CHARGES A COMBINATION TO RESTRAIN TRADE.  SUCH A COMBINATION
CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT WHICH OUTLAWS
"EVERY  ...  COMBINATION  ...  IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE."  26 STAT. 209,
15 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  SECTION 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT PROVIDES THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL INSTITUTE SUITS UNDER THE ACT ON BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND THAT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH SUITS.  HENCE, CONTINUE RESPONDENTS, THE
COMMISSION, WHOSE JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO "UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION," IS WITHOUT POWER TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS OR TO ISSUE AN
ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE COMBINATION IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE CHARGED IN
COUNT I. MARQUETTE THEN ARGUES THAT SINCE THE FACT ALLEGATIONS OF COUNT
I ARE THE CHIEF RELIANCE FOR THE CHARGE IN COUNT II, THIS LATTER COUNT
ALSO MUST BE INTERPRETED AS CHARGING A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE CONDUCT CHARGED IN EACH COUNT
CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION
DOES HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH CONDUCT MAY ALSO BE AN
UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION AND HENCE CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SEC. 5
OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT. 

AS EARLY AS 1920 THIS COURT CONSIDERED IT AN "UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION" TO ENGAGE IN PRACTICES "AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE OF
THEIR DANGEROUS TENDENCY UNDULY TO HINDER COMPETITION OR CREATE
MONOPOLY."  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. GRATZ, 253 U.S. 421, 427.  IN 1922,
THE COURT IN FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO., 257 U.S.
441, SUSTAINED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST A RESALE PRICE
MAINTENANCE PLAN BECAUSE SUCH A PLAN "NECESSARILY CONSTITUTES A SCHEME
WHICH RESTRAINS THE NATURAL FLOW OF COMMERCE AND THE FREEDOM OF
COMPETITION IN THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE TRADE WHICH IT HAS BEEN THE
PURPOSE OF ALL THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS TO MAINTAIN."  ID. AT 454.  THE
COURT, IN HOLDING THAT THE SCHEME BEFORE IT CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR
METHOD OF COMPETITION, NOTED THAT THE CONDUCT IN QUESTION WAS
PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT PREVIOUSLY DECLARED UNLAWFUL IN DR.
MILES MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S. 373, AND UNITED STATES
V. SCHRADER'S SON, INC., 252 U.S. 85, THE LATTER A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER
SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  AGAIN IN 1926 THIS COURT SUSTAINED A
COMMISSION UNFAIR-METHOD-OF-COMPETITION ORDER AGAINST DEFENDANTS WHO
HAD ENGAGED IN A PRICE-FIXING COMBINATION, A PLAIN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. PACIFIC STATES PAPER TRADE
ASSN., 273 U.S. 52.  IN 1941 WE REITERATED THAT CERTAIN CONDUCT OF A
COMBINATION FOUND TO CONFLICT WITH THE POLICY OF THE SHERMAN ACT COULD
BE SUPPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION AS AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION. 
FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457, 465. 
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS SUSTAINED IN THE FASHION ORIGINATORS' CASE
NOT ONLY BECAUSE THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT VIOLATED THE CLAYTON ACT BUT
ALSO BECAUSE THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS BROUGHT THE "COMBINATION IN ITS
ENTIRETY WELL WITHIN THE INHIBITION OF THE POLICIES DECLARED BY THE
SHERMAN ACT ITSELF."  IN OTHER CASES THIS COURT HAS POINTED OUT MANY
REASONS WHICH SUPPORT INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE "UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION" IN SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT AS INCLUDING
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN3  THUS IT APPEARS THAT SOON AFTER
ITS CREATION THE COMMISSION BEGAN TO INTERPRET THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC.
5 AS INCLUDING THOSE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WHICH ALSO WERE OUTLAWED BY
THE SHERMAN ACT,  FN4  AND THAT THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY APPROVED
THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT. 

DESPITE THIS LONG AND CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 5, WE ARE URGED TO HOLD THAT THESE PRIOR
INTERPRETATIONS WERE WRONG AND THAT THE TERM "UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION" SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS EMBRACING ANY CONDUCT WITHIN
THE AMBIT OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, MARQUETTE
CHIEFLY RELIES UPON ITS READING OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
COMMISSION ACT.  WE HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THIS CONTENTION
BECAUSE OF THE EARNESTNESS WITH WHICH IT IS PRESSED.  MARQUETTE POINTS
TO PARTICULAR STATEMENTS OF SOME OF THE ACT'S SPONSORS WHICH, TAKEN OUT
OF THEIR CONTEXT, MIGHT LEND FAINT SUPPORT TO ITS CONTENTION THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE COMMISSION TO CONCERN ITSELF WITH CONDUCT
THEN PUNISHABLE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  BUT ON THE WHOLE THE ACT'S
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS A STRONG CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE NOT ONLY TO
CONTINUE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AND THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS BUT ALSO TO SUPPLEMENT THAT ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF THE NEW TRADE COMMISSION.  FAR
FROM BEING REGARDED AS A RIVAL OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
DISTRICT COURTS IN DISSOLVING COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, THE
NEW COMMISSION WAS ENVISIONED AS AN AID TO THEM AND WAS SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED TO ASSIST THEM IN THE DRAFTING OF APPROPRIATE DECREES IN
ANTITRUST LITIGATION.  FN5  ALL OF THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND THE
STATEMENTS OF THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT REVEAL AN
ABIDING PURPOSE TO VEST BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS WITH
ADEQUATE POWERS TO HIT AT EVERY TRADE PRACTICE, THEN EXISTING OR
THEREAFTER CONTRIVED, WHICH RESTRAINED COMPETITION OR MIGHT LEAD TO
SUCH RESTRAINT IF NOT STOPPED IN ITS INCIPIENT STAGES.  THESE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSES ARE REVEALED IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CITED
BELOW, MOST OF WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN RESPONDENTS' BRIEFS.  FN6  WE
CAN CONCEIVE OF NO GREATER OBSTACLE THIS COURT COULD CREATE TO THE
FULFILLMENT OF THESE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSES THAN TO INJECT INTO EVERY
TRADE COMMISSION PROCEEDING BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 5 AND INTO EVERY SHERMAN
ACT SUIT BROUGHT BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT A POSSIBLE JURISDICTIONAL
QUESTION. 

WE ADHERE TO OUR FORMER RULINGS.  THE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION TO
DECLARE THAT CONDUCT TENDING TO RESTRAIN TRADE IS AN UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION EVEN THOUGH THE SELFSAME CONDUCT MAY ALSO VIOLATE THE
SHERMAN ACT. 

THERE IS A RELATED JURISDICTIONAL ARGUMENT PRESSED BY MARQUETTE WHICH
MAY BE DISPOSED OF AT THIS TIME.  WHILE REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER WAS PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FILED A CIVIL ACTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR DENVER,
COLORADO, TO RESTRAIN THE CEMENT INSTITUTE, MARQUETTE AND 88 OTHER
CEMENT COMPANIES, INCLUDING ALL OF THE PRESENT RESPONDENTS, FROM
VIOLATING SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION IN THIS PROCEEDING MIGHT ALSO BE RELEVANT IN THAT CASE,
WHICH, WE ARE INFORMED, HAS NOT THUS FAR BEEN BROUGHT TO TRIAL. 
MARQUETTE URGES THAT THE COMMISSION PROCEEDING SHOULD NOW BE DISMISSED
BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO FORCE RESPONDENTS TO
DEFEND BOTH A COMMISSION PROCEEDING AND A SHERMAN ACT SUIT BASED
LARGELY ON THE SAME ALLEGED MISCONDUCT. 

WE FIND NOTHING TO JUSTIFY A HOLDING THAT THE FILING OF A SHERMAN ACT
SUIT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REQUIRES THE TERMINATION OF THESE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, ALTHOUGH ALL CONDUCT
VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN ACT MAY LIKEWISE COME WITHIN THE UNFAIR TRADE
PRACTICE PROHIBITIONS OF THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT, THE CONVERSE IS NOT
NECESSARILY TRUE.  IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE MANY
UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION THAT DO NOT ASSUME THE PROPORTIONS OF
SHERMAN ACT VIOLATIONS.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. R.F. KEPPEL & BRO.,
291 U.S. 304; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. GRATZ, 253 U.S. 421, 427.  HENCE
A CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENTS' CONDUCT CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEIR SAME ACTIVITIES WOULD
ALSO BE FOUND TO VIOLATE SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN THE SECOND
PLACE, THE FACT THAT THE SAME CONDUCT MAY CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF
BOTH ACTS IN NOWISE REQUIRES US TO DISMISS THIS COMMISSION PROCEEDING. 
JUST AS THE SHERMAN ACT ITSELF PERMITS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BRING
SIMULTANEOUS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SUITS AGAINST A DEFENDANT BASED ON THE
SAME MISCONDUCT, SO THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT
PROVIDE THE GOVERNMENT WITH CUMULATIVE REMEDIES AGAINST ACTIVITY
DETRIMENTAL TO COMPETITION.  BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE TRADE
COMMISSION ACT AND ITS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE INDICATE A CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE, NOT TO CONFINE EACH OF THESE PROCEEDINGS WITHIN NARROW,
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE LIMITS, BUT RATHER TO PERMIT THE SIMULTANEOUS USE OF
BOTH TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS.  MARQUETTE'S OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION ARE OVERRULED. 

OBJECTIONS TO COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION BY CERTAIN RESPONDENTS ON
GROUND THAT THEY WERE NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  - ONE OTHER
CHALLENGE TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION IS SPECIALLY RAISED BY
NORTHWESTERN PORTLAND AND SUPERIOR PORTLAND.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
"NORTHWESTERN PORTLAND MAKES NO SALES OR SHIPMENTS OUTSIDE THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON," AND THAT "SUPERIOR PORTLAND, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, MAKES
SALES AND SHIPMENTS OUTSIDE THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ONLY TO ALASKA." 
THESE TWO RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT, SINCE THEY DID NOT ENGAGE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SINCE SEC. 5 OF THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT
APPLIES ONLY TO UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTER AN ORDER AGAINST THEM
UNDER COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT.  FOR THIS CONTENTION THEY CHIEFLY RELY
ON FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349.  THEY ALSO ARGUE
THAT FOR THE SAME REASON THE COMMISSION LACKED JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
AGAINST THEM THE PRICE DISCRIMINATION CHARGE IN COUNT II OF THE
COMPLAINT. 

WE CANNOT SUSTAIN THIS CONTENTION.  THE CHARGE AGAINST THESE
RESPONDENTS WAS NOT THAT THEY, APART FROM THE OTHER RESPONDENTS, HAD
ENGAGED IN UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS
SIMPLY BY MAKING INTRASTATE SALES.  INSTEAD, THE CHARGE WAS, AS
SUPPORTED BY THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, THAT THESE RESPONDENTS IN
COMBINATION WITH OTHERS AGREED TO MAINTAIN A DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM IN
ORDER TO ELIMINATE PRICE COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF CEMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COMBINATION, AS FOUND, INCLUDES THE INSTITUTE
AND CEMENT COMPANIES LOCATED IN MANY DIFFERENT STATES.  THE COMMISSION
HAS FURTHER FOUND THAT "IN GENERAL, SAID CORPORATE RESPONDENTS HAVE
MAINTAINED, AND NOW MAINTAIN, A CONSTANT COURSE OF TRADE AND COMMERCE
IN CEMENT AMONG AND BETWEEN THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES." 
THE FACT THAT ONE OR TWO OF THE NUMEROUS PARTICIPANTS IN THE
COMBINATION HAPPEN TO BE SELLING ONLY WITHIN THE BORDERS OF A SINGLE
STATE IS NOT CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION.  THE IMPORTANT FACTOR IS THAT THE CONCERTED ACTION OF ALL
OF THE PARTIES TO THE COMBINATION IS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO MAKE WHOLLY
EFFECTIVE THE RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  FN7  THE
COMMISSION WOULD BE RENDERED HELPLESS TO STOP UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION IN THE FORM OF INTERSTATE COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES IF
ITS JURISDICTION COULD BE DEFEATED ON A MERE SHOWING THAT EACH
CONSPIRATOR HAD CAREFULLY CONFINED HIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE
BORDERS OF A SINGLE STATE.  WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION DID HAVE
JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ORDER AGAINST SUPERIOR PORTLAND AND
NORTHWESTERN PORTLAND. 

THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM.  - SINCE THE
MULTIPLE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM OF FIXING PRICES AND TERMS
OF CEMENT SALES IS THE NUB OF THIS CONTROVERSY, IT WILL BE HELPFUL AT
THIS PRELIMINARY STAGE TO POINT OUT IN GENERAL WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT
WORKS.  A BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF
"FACTORY" OR "MILL PRICES" AND "DELIVERED PRICES" IS OF IMPORTANCE TO
AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM HERE
INVOLVED. 

GOODS MAY BE SOLD AND DELIVERED TO CUSTOMERS AT THE SELLER'S MILL OR
WAREHOUSE DOOR OR MAY BE SOLD FREE ON BOARD (F.O.B.)  TRUCKS OR
RAILROAD CARS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SELLER'S MILL OR WAREHOUSE. 
IN EITHER EVENT THE ACTUAL COST OF THE GOODS TO THE PURCHASER IS,
BROADLY SPEAKING, THE SELLER'S "MILL PRICE" PLUS THE PURCHASER'S COST
OF TRANSPORTATION.  HOWEVER, IF THE SELLER FIXES A PRICE AT WHICH HE
UNDERTAKES TO DELIVER GOODS TO THE PURCHASER WHERE THEY ARE TO BE USED,
THE COST TO THE PURCHASER IS THE "DELIVERED PRICE."  A SELLER WHO MAKES
THE "MILL PRICE" IDENTICAL FOR ALL PURCHASERS OF LIKE AMOUNT AND
QUALITY SIMPLY DELIVERS HIS GOODS AT THE SAME PLACE (HIS MILL) AND FOR
THE SAME PRICE (PRICE AT THE MILL).  HE THUS RECEIVES FOR ALL F.O.B.
MILL SALES AN IDENTICAL NET AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR LIKE GOODS FROM ALL
CUSTOMERS.  BUT A "DELIVERED PRICE" SYSTEM CREATES COMPLICATIONS WHICH
MAY RESULT IN A SELLER'S RECEIVING DIFFERENT NET RETURNS FROM THE SALE
OF LIKE GOODS.  THE COST OF TRANSPORTING 500 MILES IS ALMOST ALWAYS
MORE THAN THE COST OF TRANSPORTING 100 MILES.  CONSEQUENTLY IF
CUSTOMERS 100 AND 500 MILES AWAY PAY THE SAME "DELIVERED PRICE," THE
SELLER'S NET RETURN IS LESS FROM THE MORE DISTANT CUSTOMER.  THIS
DIFFERENCE IN THE PRODUCER'S NET RETURN FROM SALES TO CUSTOMERS IN
DIFFERENT LOCALITIES UNDER A "DELIVERED PRICE" SYSTEM IS AN IMPORTANT
ELEMENT IN THE CHARGE UNDER COUNT I OF THE COMPLAINT AND IS THE CRUX OF
COUNT II. 

THE BEST KNOWN EARLY EXAMPLE OF A BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEM WAS
CALLED "PITTSBURGH PLUS."  IT RELATED TO THE PRICE OF STEEL.  THE
PITTSBURGH PRICE WAS THE BASE PRICE, PITTSBURGH BEING THEREFORE CALLED
A PRICE BASING POINT.  IN ORDER FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK, SALES HAD TO BE
MADE ONLY AT DELIVERED PRICES.  UNDER THIS SYSTEM THE DELIVERED PRICE
OF STEEL FROM ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES TO A POINT OF DELIVERY
ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES WAS IN GENERAL THE PITTSBURGH PRICE PLUS
THE RAILROAD FREIGHT RATE FROM PITTSBURGH TO THE POINT OF DELIVERY. 
FN8  TAKE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE OPERATION AND
CONSEQUENCES OF THE SYSTEM.  A CHICAGO STEEL PRODUCER WAS NOT FREE TO
SELL HIS STEEL AT COST PLUS A REASONABLE PROFIT.  HE MUST SELL IT AT
THE PITTSBURGH PRICE PLUS THE RAILROAD FREIGHT RATE FROM PITTSBURGH TO
THE POINT OF DELIVERY.  CHICAGO STEEL CUSTOMERS WERE BY THIS PRICING
PLAN THUS ARBITRARILY REQUIRED TO PAY FOR CHICAGO PRODUCED STEEL THE
PITTSBURGH BASE PRICE PLUS WHAT IT WOULD HAVE COST TO SHIP THE STEEL BY
RAIL FROM PITTSBURGH TO CHICAGO HAD IT BEEN SHIPPED.  THE THEORETICAL
COST OF THIS FICTITIOUS SHIPMENT BECAME KNOWN AS "PHANTOM FREIGHT." 
BUT HAD IT BEEN ECONOMICALLY POSSIBLE UNDER THIS PLAN FOR A CHICAGO
PRODUCER TO SHIP HIS STEEL TO PITTSBURGH, HIS "DELIVERED PRICE" WOULD
HAVE BEEN MERELY THE PITTSBURGH PRICE, ALTHOUGH HE ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE
BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY THE FREIGHT FROM CHICAGO TO PITTSBURGH.  THUS THE
"DELIVERED PRICE" UNDER THESE LATTER CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRED A CHICAGO
(NON-BASING POINT) PRODUCER TO "ABSORB" FREIGHT COSTS.  THAT IS, SUCH A
SELLER'S NET RETURNS BECAME SMALLER AND SMALLER AS HIS DELIVERIES
APPROACHED CLOSER AND CLOSER TO THE BASING POINT. 

SEVERAL RESULTS OBVIOUSLY FLOW FROM USE OF A SINGLE BASING POINT
SYSTEM SUCH AS "PITTSBURGH PLUS" ORIGINALLY WAS.  ONE IS THAT THE
"DELIVERED PRICES" OF ALL PRODUCERS IN EVERY LOCALITY WHERE DELIVERIES
ARE MADE ARE ALWAYS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE PRODUCERS' DIFFERENT
FREIGHT COSTS.  ANOTHER IS THAT SALES MADE BY A NON-BASE MILL FOR
DELIVERY AT DIFFERENT LOCALITIES RESULT IN NET RECEIPTS TO THE SELLER
WHICH VARY IN AMOUNTS EQUIVALENT TO THE "PHANTOM FREIGHT" INCLUDED IN,
OR THE "FREIGHT ABSORPTION" TAKEN FROM THE "DELIVERED PRICE." 

AS COMMONLY EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENTS, THE BASING POINT SYSTEM IS NOT
SINGLE BUT MULTIPLE.  THAT IS, INSTEAD OF ONE BASING POINT, LIKE THAT
IN "PITTSBURGH PLUS," A NUMBER OF BASING POINT LOCALITIES ARE USED.  IN
THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT SYSTEM, JUST AS IN THE SINGLE BASING POINT
SYSTEM, FREIGHT ABSORPTION OR PHANTOM FREIGHT IS AN ELEMENT OF THE
DELIVERED PRICE ON ALL SALES NOT GOVERNED BY A BASING POINT ACTUALLY
LOCATED AT THE SELLER'S MILL.  FN9  AND ALL SELLERS QUOTE IDENTICAL
DELIVERED PRICES IN ANY GIVEN LOCALITY REGARDLESS OF THEIR DIFFERENT
COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND THEIR DIFFERENT FREIGHT EXPENSES.  THUS THE
MULTIPLE AND SINGLE SYSTEMS FUNCTION IN THE SAME GENERAL MANNER AND
PRODUCE THE SAME CONSEQUENCES - IDENTITY OF PRICES AND DIVERSITY OF NET
RETURNS.  FN10  SUCH DIFFERENCES AS THERE ARE IN MATTERS HERE PERTINENT
ARE THEREFORE DIFFERENCES OF DEGREE ONLY. 

ALLEGED BIAS OF THE COMMISSION.  - ONE YEAR AFTER THE TAKING OF
TESTIMONY HAD BEEN CONCLUDED AND WHILE THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE STILL
PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE RESPONDENT MARQUETTE ASKED THE
COMMISSION TO DISQUALIFY ITSELF FROM PASSING UPON THE ISSUES INVOLVED. 
MARQUETTE CHARGED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD PREVIOUSLY PREJUDGED THE
ISSUES, WAS "PREJUDICED AND BIASED AGAINST THE PORTLAND CEMENT INDUSTRY
GENERALLY," AND THAT THE INDUSTRY AND MARQUETTE IN PARTICULAR COULD NOT
RECEIVE A FAIR HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION.  AFTER HEARING ORAL
ARGUMENT THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY ITSELF.  THIS CONTENTION,
REPEATED HERE, WAS ALSO URGED AND REJECTED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ONE YEAR BEFORE THAT COURT REVIEWED THE MERITS OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  MARQUETTE CEMENT MFG. CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N,
147 F.2D 589. 

MARQUETTE INTRODUCED NUMEROUS EXHIBITS INTENDED TO SUPPORT ITS
CHARGES.  IN THE MAIN THESE EXHIBITS WERE COPIES OF THE COMMISSION'S
REPORTS MADE TO CONGRESS OR TO THE PRESIDENT, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 6 OF
THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 46.  THESE REPORTS, AS WELL
AS THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION BEFORE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT LONG BEFORE THE FILING OF
THIS COMPLAINT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, OR AT LEAST
SOME OF THEM, WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE OPERATION OF THE MULTIPLE
BASING POINT SYSTEM AS THEY HAD STUDIED IT WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A
PRICE FIXING RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  WE
THEREFORE DECIDE THIS CONTENTION, AS DID THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SUCH AN OPINION HAD BEEN FORMED BY THE ENTIRE
MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION AS A RESULT OF ITS PRIOR OFFICIAL
INVESTIGATIONS.  BUT WE ALSO AGREE WITH THAT COURT'S HOLDING THAT THIS
BELIEF DID NOT DISQUALIFY THE COMMISSION. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ENTERTAINED SUCH
VIEWS AS THE RESULT OF ITS PRIOR EX PARTE INVESTIGATIONS DID NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE MINDS OF ITS MEMBERS WERE IRREVOCABLY CLOSED
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE RESPONDENTS' BASING POINT PRACTICES.  HERE, IN
CONTRAST TO THE COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATIONS, MEMBERS OF THE CEMENT
INDUSTRY WERE LEGALLY AUTHORIZED PARTICIPANTS IN THE HEARINGS.  THEY
PRODUCED EVIDENCE - VOLUMES OF IT.  THEY WERE FREE TO POINT OUT TO THE
COMMISSION BY TESTIMONY, BY CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, AND BY
ARGUMENTS, CONDITIONS OF THE TRADE PRACTICES UNDER ATTACK WHICH THEY
THOUGHT KEPT THESE PRACTICES WITHIN THE RANGE OF LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 

MOREOVER, MARQUETTE'S POSITION, IF SUSTAINED, WOULD TO A LARGE EXTENT
DEFEAT THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSES WHICH PROMPTED PASSAGE OF THE TRADE
COMMISSION ACT.  HAD THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION
DISQUALIFIED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THESE RESPONDENTS, THIS
COMPLAINT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACTED UPON BY THE COMMISSION OR BY ANY
OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR NO SUCH
CONTINGENCY.  IT HAS NOT DIRECTED THAT THE COMMISSION DISQUALIFY ITSELF
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS NOT PROVIDED FOR SUBSTITUTE COMMISSIONERS
SHOULD ANY OF ITS MEMBERS DISQUALIFY, AND HAS NOT AUTHORIZED ANY OTHER
GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO HOLD HEARINGS, MAKE FINDINGS, AND ISSUE CEASE AND
DESIST ORDERS IN PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES.  FN11  YET
IF MARQUETTE IS RIGHT, THE COMMISSION, BY MAKING STUDIES AND FILING
REPORTS IN OBEDIENCE TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND, COMPLETELY IMMUNIZED THE
PRACTICES INVESTIGATED, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE "UNFAIR," FROM ANY CEASE
AND DESIST ORDER BY THE COMMISSION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. 

THERE IS NO WARRANT IN THE ACT FOR REACHING A CONCLUSION WHICH WOULD
THUS FRUSTRATE ITS PURPOSES.  IF THE COMMISSION'S OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN
CONGRESSIONALLY REQUIRED REPORTS WOULD BAR ITS MEMBERS FROM ACTING IN
UNFAIR TRADE PROCEEDINGS, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN
THE FIRST BASING POINT UNFAIR TRADE PROCEEDING WOULD SIMILARLY
DISQUALIFY THEM FROM EVER PASSING ON ANOTHER.  SEE MORGAN V. UNITED
STATES, 313 U.S. 409, 421.  THUS EXPERIENCE ACQUIRED FROM THEIR WORK AS
COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE A HANDICAP INSTEAD OF AN ADVANTAGE.  SUCH WAS
NOT THE INTENDMENT OF CONGRESS.  FOR CONGRESS ACTED ON A COMMITTEE
REPORT STATING:  "IT IS MANIFESTLY DESIRABLE THAT THE TERMS OF THE
COMMISSIONERS SHALL BE LONG ENOUGH TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ACQUIRE THE EXPERTNESS IN DEALING WITH THESE SPECIAL QUESTIONS
CONCERNING INDUSTRY THAT COMES FROM EXPERIENCE."  REPORT OF COMMITTEE
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NO. 597, JUNE 13, 1914, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 10
11. 

MARQUETTE ALSO SEEMS TO ARGUE THAT IT WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR
THE COMMISSION TO ACT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AFTER HAVING EXPRESSED THE
VIEW THAT INDUSTRY-WIDE USE OF THE BASING POINT SYSTEM WAS ILLEGAL.  A
NUMBER OF CASES ARE CITED AS GIVING SUPPORT TO THIS CONTENTION.  TUMEY
V. OHIO, 273 U.S. 510, IS AMONG THEM.  BUT IT PROVIDES NO SUPPORT FOR
THE CONTENTION.  IN THAT CASE TUMEY HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE, FINED, AND COMMITTED TO JAIL BY A JUDGE WHO HAD A DIRECT,
PERSONAL, SUBSTANTIAL, PECUNIARY INTEREST IN REACHING HIS CONCLUSION TO
CONVICT.  A CRIMINAL CONVICTION BY SUCH A TRIBUNAL WAS HELD TO VIOLATE
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  BUT THE COURT THERE POINTED OUT THAT MOST
MATTERS RELATING TO JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION DID NOT RISE TO A
CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL.  ID. AT 523.    NEITHER THE TUMEY DECISION NOR
ANY OTHER DECISION OF THIS COURT WOULD REQUIRE US TO HOLD THAT IT WOULD
BE A VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS FOR A JUDGE TO SIT IN A CASE
AFTER HE HAD EXPRESSED AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN TYPES OF
CONDUCT WERE PROHIBITED BY LAW.  IN FACT, JUDGES FREQUENTLY TRY THE
SAME CASE MORE THAN ONCE AND DECIDE IDENTICAL ISSUES EACH TIME,
ALTHOUGH THESE ISSUES INVOLVE QUESTIONS BOTH OF LAW AND FACT. 
CERTAINLY, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CANNOT POSSIBLY BE UNDER
STRONGER CONSTITUTIONAL COMPULSIONS IN THIS RESPECT THAN A COURT. 
FN12 

THE COMMISSION PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISQUALIFY ITSELF.  WE THUS NEED
NOT REVIEW THE ADDITIONAL HOLDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT
MARQUETTE'S OBJECTION ON THE GROUND OF THE ALLEGED BIAS OF THE
COMMISSION WAS FILED TOO LATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THAT AGENCY TO
WARRANT CONSIDERATION. 

ALLEGED ERRORS IN RE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE.  - THE COMPLAINT
BEFORE THE COMMISSION, FILED JULY 2, 1937, ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENTS HAD
MAINTAINED AN ILLEGAL COMBINATION FOR "MORE THAN 8 YEARS LAST PAST." 
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND IN THIS COURT THE GOVERNMENT
TREATED ITS CASE ON THE BASIS THAT THE COMBINATION BEGAN IN AUGUST,
1929, WHEN THE RESPONDENT CEMENT INSTITUTE WAS ORGANIZED.  THE
GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED MUCH EVIDENCE OVER RESPONDENTS' OBJECTIONS,
HOWEVER, WHICH SHOWED THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CEMENT INDUSTRY FOR MANY
YEARS PRIOR TO 1929, SOME OF IT AS FAR BACK AS 1902.  IT ALSO
INTRODUCED EVIDENCE AS TO RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES FROM 1933 TO MAY 27,
1935, MUCH OF WHICH RELATED TO THE PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
THE NRA CODE FOR THE CEMENT INDUSTRY PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, 48 STAT. 195, HELD INVALID BY THIS COURT MAY
27, 1935, IN SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495. 
ALL OF THE TESTIMONY TO WHICH OBJECTION WAS MADE RELATED TO THE
INITIATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND CARRYING ON OF THE BASING POINT
PRACTICES. 

RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE PRE-1929 EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY THAT PRIOR
TO 1919, IS PATENTLY INADMISSIBLE WITH REFERENCE TO A 1929 COMBINATION,
MANY OF WHOSE ALLEGED MEMBERS WERE NON-EXISTENT IN 1919.  THEY ALSO
URGE THAT EVIDENCE OF ACTIVITIES DURING THE NRA PERIOD WAS IMPROPERLY
ADMITTED BECAUSE SEC. 5 OF TITLE I OF THE NRA PROVIDED THAT ANY ACTION
TAKEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE PROVISIONS OF AN INDUSTRY SHOULD BE
"EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES."  AND SOME OF THE NRA PERIOD TESTIMONY RELATING TO BASING POINT
PRACTICES DID INVOLVE REFERENCES TO CODE PROVISIONS.  THE GOVERNMENT
CONTENDS THAT EVIDENCE OF BOTH THE PRE-1929 AND THE NRA PERIOD
ACTIVITIES OF MEMBERS OF THE CEMENT INDUSTRY TENDS TO SHOW A CONTINUOUS
COURSE OF CONCERTED EFFORTS ON THE PART OF THE INDUSTRY, OR AT LEAST
MOST OF IT, TO UTILIZE THE BASING POINT SYSTEM AS A MEANS TO FIX
UNIFORM TERMS AND PRICES AT WHICH CEMENT WOULD BE SOLD, AND THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD PROPERLY SO REGARDED THIS EVIDENCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AGREED WITH RESPONDENTS THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ERRONEOUSLY
CONSIDERED BOTH THE NRA PERIOD EVIDENCE AND THE PRE-1929 EVIDENCE IN
MAKING ITS FINDINGS OF THE EXISTENCE OF A COMBINATION AMONG
RESPONDENTS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT BOTH TYPES OF EVIDENCE WERE ADMISSIBLE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SHOWING THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTINUING COMBINATION AMONG
RESPONDENTS TO UTILIZE THE BASING POINT PRICING SYSTEM.  FN13 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE ITS FINDINGS OF POST-1929 COMBINATION, IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, ON THE PREMISE THAT ANY OF RESPONDENTS' PRE-1929 OR
NRA CODE ACTIVITIES WERE ILLEGAL.  THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN THESE
ACTIVITIES BY THE COMMISSION WAS WELL WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL
RULE OF EVIDENCE THAT TESTIMONY OF PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS,
WHICH FOR SOME REASON ARE BARRED FROM FORMING THE BASIS FOR A SUIT, MAY
NEVERTHELESS BE INTRODUCED IF IT TENDS REASONABLY TO SHOW THE PURPOSE
AND CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS UNDER SCRUTINY.  STANDARD
OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 46-47; UNITED STATES V. READING
CO., 253 U.S. 26, 43-44.  HERE THE TRADE PRACTICES OF AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION.  RESPONDENTS, ON THE ONE HAND,
INSISTED THAT THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM
REPRESENTED A NATURAL EVOLUTION OF BUSINESS PRACTICES ADOPTED BY THE
DIFFERENT CEMENT COMPANIES, NOT IN CONCERT, BUT SEPARATELY IN RESPONSE
TO CUSTOMERS' NEEDS AND DEMANDS.  THAT THE SEPARATELY ADOPTED BUSINESS
PRACTICES PRODUCED UNIFORM TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE IN ALL
LOCALITIES WAS, SO THE RESPONDENTS CONTENDED, NOTHING BUT AN INEVITABLE
RESULT OF LONG-CONTINUED COMPETITION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT, DESPITE SHIFTS IN OWNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUAL
CEMENT COMPANIES, WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE FROM 1902 TO THE DATE THE
COMPLAINT WAS FILED SHOWED CONTINUED CONCERTED ACTION ON THE PART OF
ALL CEMENT PRODUCERS TO DEVELOP AND IMPROVE THE BASING POINT SYSTEM SO
THAT IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY ELIMINATE COMPETITION.  IN THE GOVERNMENT'S
VIEW THE INSTITUTE WHEN FORMED IN 1929 SIMPLY TOOK UP THE OLD PRACTICES
FOR THE OLD PURPOSE AND AIDED ITS MEMBER COMPANIES TO CARRY IT STRAIGHT
ON THROUGH AND BEYOND THE NRA PERIOD.  SEE FORT HOWARD PAPER CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 156 F.2D 899, 906. 

FURTHERMORE, ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES LIKE THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION HAVE NEVER BEEN RESTRICTED BY THE RIGID RULES OF EVIDENCE. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25, 44.  AND OF COURSE
RULES WHICH BAR CERTAIN TYPES OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL OR QUASI-CRIMINAL
CASES ARE NOT CONTROLLING IN PROCEEDINGS LIKE THIS, WHERE THE EFFECT OF
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS NOT TO PUNISH OR TO FASTEN LIABILITY ON
RESPONDENTS FOR PAST CONDUCT BUT TO BAN SPECIFIC PRACTICES FOR THE
FUTURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL MANDATE OF CONGRESS. 

THE FOREGOING LIKEWISE LARGELY ANSWERS RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION THAT
THERE WAS ERROR IN THE ADMISSION OF A LETTER WRITTEN BY ONE TREANOR IN
1934 TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NRA CODE AUTHORITY FOR THE CEMENT
INDUSTRY.  TREANOR, WHO DIED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS
AT THE TIME PRESIDENT OF ONE OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES AND ALSO AN
ACTIVE TRUSTEE OF THE INSTITUTE.  IN THE LETTER HE STATED AMONG OTHER
THINGS THAT THE CEMENT INDUSTRY WAS ONE "ABOVE ALL OTHERS THAT CANNOT
STAND FREE COMPETITION, THAT MUST SYSTEMATICALLY RESTRAIN COMPETITION
OR BE RUINED."  THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE AS PART OF HIS CRITICISM OF THE
CEMENT INDUSTRY'S PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN IN DEFENSE OF THE BASING POINT
SYSTEM.  THE RELEVANCE OF THIS STATEMENT INDICATING THIS INSTITUTE
OFFICIAL'S INFORMED JUDGMENT IS OBVIOUS.  THAT IT MIGHT BE ONLY HIS
CONCLUSION DOES NOT RENDER THE STATEMENT INADMISSIBLE IN THIS
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING. 

ALL CONTENTIONS IN REGARD TO THE INTRODUCTION OF TESTIMONY HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED.  NONE OF THEM JUSTIFY REFUSAL TO ENFORCE THIS ORDER. 

THE OLD CEMENT CASE.  - THIS COURT'S OPINION IN CEMENT MFRS. 
PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588, KNOWN AS THE OLD
CEMENT CASE, IS RELIED ON BY THE RESPONDENTS IN ALMOST EVERY CONTENTION
THEY PRESENT.  WE THINK IT HAS LITTLE RELEVANCE, IF ANY AT ALL, TO THE
ISSUES IN THIS CASE. 

IN THAT CASE THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT TO ENJOIN AN ALLEGED COMBINATION TO VIOLATE SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  THE RESPONDENTS WERE THE CEMENT MANUFACTURERS PROTECTIVE
ASSOCIATION, FOUR OF ITS OFFICERS, AND NINETEEN CEMENT MANUFACTURERS. 
THE DISTRICT COURT HELD HEARINGS, MADE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ISSUED AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST THOSE RESPONDENTS.  THIS COURT, WITH THREE JUSTICES
DISSENTING, REVERSED UPON A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.  IT DID SO BECAUSE
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CHARGE AND THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW "ANY
AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEFENDANTS PLACING LIMITATIONS
ON EITHER PRICES OR PRODUCTION," OR ANY AGREEMENT TO UTILIZE THE BASING
POINT SYSTEM AS A MEANS OF FIXING PRICES.  THE COURT SAID "BUT HERE THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RELY UPON AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING, AND THIS
RECORD WHOLLY FAILS TO ESTABLISH, EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY INFERENCE, ANY
CONCERTED ACTION OTHER THAN THAT INVOLVED IN THE GATHERING AND
DISSEMINATION OF PERTINENT INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF CEMENT TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED; AND IT FAILS TO SHOW
ANY EFFECT ON PRICE AND PRODUCTION EXCEPT SUCH AS WOULD NATURALLY FLOW
FROM THE DISSEMINATION OF THAT INFORMATION IN THE TRADE AND ITS NATURAL
INFLUENCE ON INDIVIDUAL ACTION."  ID. AT 606.  IN THE OLD CEMENT CASE
AND IN MAPLE FLOORING ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563, DECIDED THE
SAME DAY, THE COURT'S ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON THE RIGHTS OF A TRADE
ASSOCIATION, DESPITE THE SHERMAN ACT, OPENLY TO GATHER AND DISSEMINATE
STATISTICS AND INFORMATION AS TO PRODUCTION COSTS, OUTPUT, PAST PRICES,
MERCHANDISE ON HAND, SPECIFIC JOB CONTRACTS, FREIGHT RATES, ETC., SO
LONG AS THE ASSOCIATION DID THESE THINGS WITHOUT ATTEMPTS TO FOSTER
AGREEMENTS OR CONCERTED ACTION WITH REFERENCE TO PRICES, PRODUCTION, OR
TERMS OF SALE.  SUCH ASSOCIATIONS WERE DECLARED GUILTLESS OF VIOLATING
THE SHERMAN ACT, BECAUSE "IN FACT, NO PROHIBITED CONCERT OF ACTION WAS
FOUND."  CORN PRODUCTS CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 324 U.S. 726, 735. 

THE COURT'S HOLDING IN THE OLD CEMENT CASE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
INCONSISTENT WITH A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HERE,
EVEN HAD THE TWO CASES BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT THE SAME DAY.  THE ISSUES
IN THE PRESENT COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE IN
THE OLD CEMENT CASE, ALTHOUGH MANY OF THE TRADE PRACTICES SHOWN HERE
WERE ALSO SHOWN THERE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, UNLIKE THE OLD CEMENT CASE,
THE COMMISSION DOES HERE SPECIFICALLY CHARGE A COMBINATION TO UTILIZE
THE BASING POINT SYSTEM AS A MEANS TO BRING ABOUT UNIFORM PRICES AND
TERMS OF SALE.  AND HERE THE COMMISSION HAS FOCUSED ATTENTION ON THIS
ISSUE, HAVING INTRODUCED EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE WHICH COVERS THOUSANDS
OF PAGES.  FURTHERMORE, UNLIKE THE TRIAL COURT IN THE OLD CEMENT CASE,
THE COMMISSION HAS SPECIFICALLY FOUND THE EXISTENCE OF A COMBINATION
AMONG RESPONDENTS TO EMPLOY THE BASING POINT SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SELLING AT IDENTICAL PRICES. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, INDIVIDUAL CONDUCT, OR CONCERTED CONDUCT, WHICH
FALLS SHORT OF BEING A SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION MAY AS A MATTER OF LAW
CONSTITUTE AN "UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION" PROHIBITED BY THE TRADE
COMMISSION ACT.  A MAJOR PURPOSE OF THAT ACT, AS WE HAVE FREQUENTLY
SAID, WAS TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO RESTRAIN PRACTICES AS "UNFAIR"
WHICH, ALTHOUGH NOT YET HAVING GROWN INTO SHERMAN ACT DIMENSIONS WOULD,
MOST LIKELY DO SO IF LEFT UNRESTRAINED.  THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS
WERE TO DETERMINE WHAT CONDUCT, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT THEN BE SHORT OF A
SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION, WAS AN "UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION."  THIS
GENERAL LANGUAGE WAS DELIBERATELY LEFT TO THE "COMMISSION AND THE
COURTS" FOR DEFINITION BECAUSE IT WAS THOUGHT THAT "THERE IS NO LIMIT
TO HUMAN INVENTIVENESS IN THIS FIELD"; THAT CONSEQUENTLY, A DEFINITION
THAT FITTED PRACTICES KNOWN TO LEAD TOWARDS AN UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF
TRADE TODAY WOULD NOT FIT TOMORROW'S NEW INVENTIONS IN THE FIELD; AND
THAT FOR CONGRESS TO TRY TO KEEP ITS PRECISE DEFINITIONS ABREAST OF
THIS COURSE OF CONDUCT WOULD BE AN "ENDLESS TASK."  SEE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. R.F. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304, 310-312, AND
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE REPORTS THERE QUOTED. 

THESE MARKED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT A COURT MUST DECIDE IN A
SHERMAN ACT PROCEEDING AND THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION IN DETERMINING
WHETHER CONDUCT IS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION
ARE ENOUGH IN AND OF THEMSELVES TO MAKE THE OLD CEMENT DECISION WHOLLY
INAPPLICABLE TO OUR PROBLEM IN REVIEWING THE FINDINGS IN THIS CASE. 
THAT BASIC PROBLEM IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION MADE FINDINGS OF CONCERTED
ACTION, WHETHER THOSE FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, AND IF SO
WHETHER THE FINDINGS ARE ADEQUATE AS A MATTER OF LAW TO SUSTAIN THE
COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT SYSTEM AS
PRACTICED CONSTITUTES AN "UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION," BECAUSE IT
EITHER RESTRAINS FREE COMPETITION OR IS AN INCIPIENT MENACE TO IT. 

FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE.  - IT IS STRONGLY URGED THAT THE COMMISSION
FAILED TO FIND, AS CHARGED IN BOTH COUNTS OF THE COMPLAINT, THAT THE
RESPONDENTS HAD BY COMBINATION, AGREEMENTS, OR UNDERSTANDINGS AMONG
THEMSELVES UTILIZED THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM AS
A RESTRAINT TO ACCOMPLISH UNIFORM PRICES AND TERMS OF SALE.  A
SUBSIDIARY CONTENTION IS THAT ASSUMING THE COMMISSION DID SO FIND,
THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING.  WE THINK
THAT ADEQUATE FINDINGS OF COMBINATION WERE MADE AND THAT THE FINDINGS
HAVE SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE. 

THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT SET OUT AT GREAT LENGTH AND WITH
PAINSTAKING DETAIL NUMEROUS CONCERTED ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON IN ORDER TO
MAKE THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT SYSTEM WORK IN SUCH WAY THAT COMPETITION
IN QUALITY, PRICE AND TERMS OF SALE OF CEMENT WOULD BE NON-EXISTENT,
AND THAT UNIFORM PRICES, JOB CONTRACTS, DISCOUNTS, AND TERMS OF SALE
WOULD BE CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAINED.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT MANY OF
THESE ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED ON BY THE CEMENT INSTITUTE, THE
INDUSTRY'S UNINCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATION, AND THAT IN OTHER
INSTANCES THE ACTIVITIES WERE UNDER THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL OF GROUPS OF
RESPONDENTS.  AMONG THE COLLECTIVE METHODS USED TO ACCOMPLISH THESE
PURPOSES, ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS, WERE BOYCOTTS; DISCHARGE OF
UNCOOPERATIVE EMPLOYEES; ORGANIZED OPPOSITION TO THE ERECTION OF NEW
CEMENT PLANTS; SELLING CEMENT IN A RECALCITRANT PRICE CUTTER'S SALES
TERRITORY AT A PRICE SO LOW THAT THE RECALCITRANT WAS FORCED TO ADHERE
TO THE ESTABLISHED BASING POINT PRICES; DISCOURAGING THE SHIPMENT OF
CEMENT BY TRUCK OR BARGE; AND PREPARING AND DISTRIBUTING FREIGHT RATE
BOOKS WHICH PROVIDED RESPONDENTS WITH SIMILAR FIGURES TO USE AS ACTUAL
OR "PHANTOM" FREIGHT FACTORS, THUS GUARANTEEING THAT THEIR DELIVERED
PRICES (BASE PRICES PLUS FREIGHT FACTORS) WOULD BE IDENTICAL ON ALL
SALES WHETHER MADE TO INDIVIDUAL PURCHASERS UNDER OPEN BIDS OR TO
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES UNDER SEALED BIDS.  THESE ARE BUT A FEW OF THE
MANY ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
DONE IN COMBINATION TO REDUCE OR DESTROY PRICE COMPETITION IN CEMENT. 
AFTER HAVING MADE THESE DETAILED FINDINGS OF CONCERTED ACTION, THE
COMMISSION FOLLOWED THEM BY A GENERAL FINDING THAT "THE CAPACITY,
TENDENCY, AND EFFECT OF THE COMBINATION MAINTAINED BY THE RESPONDENTS
HEREIN IN THE MANNER AFORESAID  ...  IS TO  ... PROMOTE AND MAINTAIN
THEIR MULTIPLE BASING-POINT DELIVERED-PRICE SYSTEM AND OBSTRUCT AND
DEFEAT ANY FORM OF COMPETITION WHICH THREATENS OR TENDS TO THREATEN THE
CONTINUED USE AND MAINTENANCE OF SAID SYSTEM AND THE UNIFORMITY OF
PRICES CREATED AND MAINTAINED BY ITS USE."  FN14  THE COMMISSION THEN
CONCLUDED THAT "THE AFORESAID COMBINATION AND ACTS AND PRACTICES OF
RESPONDENTS PURSUANT THERETO AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AS
HEREINABOVE FOUND, UNDER THE CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH,
CONSTITUTE UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE WITHIN THE INTENT
AND MEANING OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT."  AND THE COMMISSION'S
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER PROHIBITED RESPONDENTS "FROM ENTERING INTO,
CONTINUING, COOPERATING IN, OR CARRYING OUT ANY PLANNED COMMON COURSE
OF ACTION, UNDERSTANDING, AGREEMENT, COMBINATION, OR CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
AND AMONG ANY TWO OR MORE OF SAID RESPONDENTS  ...  " TO DO CERTAIN
THINGS THERE ENUMERATED. 

THUS WE HAVE A COMPLAINT WHICH CHARGED COLLECTIVE ACTION BY
RESPONDENTS DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN A SALES TECHNIQUE THAT RESTRAINED
COMPETITION, DETAILED FINDINGS OF COLLECTIVE ACTIVITIES BY GROUPS OF
RESPONDENTS TO ACHIEVE THAT END, THEN A GENERAL FINDING THAT
RESPONDENTS MAINTAINED THE COMBINATION, AND FINALLY AN ORDER
PROHIBITING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE COMBINATION.  IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO
CONCEIVE THAT ANYONE READING THESE FINDINGS IN THEIR ENTIRETY COULD
DOUBT THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS COLLECTIVELY
MAINTAINED A MULTIPLE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUPPRESSING COMPETITION IN CEMENT SALES.  THE FINDINGS ARE
SUFFICIENT.  THE CONTENTION THAT THEY ARE NOT IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE. 

DISPOSITION OF THIS QUESTION BRINGS US TO THE RELATED CONTENTION THAT
THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS.  WE MIGHT
WELL DISPOSE OF THE CONTENTION AS THIS COURT DISMISSED A LIKE ONE WITH
REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS IN A CIVIL SUIT BROUGHT UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT IN SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553, 601:
"AFTER A HEARING OF EXTRAORDINARY LENGTH, IN WHICH NO PERTINENT FACT
WAS PERMITTED TO ESCAPE CONSIDERATION, THE TRIAL COURT SUBJECTED THE
EVIDENCE TO A THOROUGH AND ACUTE ANALYSIS WHICH HAS LEFT BUT SLIGHT
ROOM FOR DEBATE OVER MATTERS OF FACT.  OUR EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD
DISCLOSES NO REASON FOR OVERRULING THE COURT'S FINDINGS IN ANY MATTER
ESSENTIAL TO OUR DECISION."  IN THIS CASE, WHICH INVOLVES THE EVIDENCE
AND FINDINGS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, WE LIKEWISE SEE NO REASON
FOR UPSETTING THE ESSENTIAL FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.  NEITHER DO WE
FIND IT NECESSARY TO REFER TO ALL THE VOLUMINOUS TESTIMONY IN THIS
RECORD WHICH TENDS TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS. 

ALTHOUGH THERE IS MUCH MORE EVIDENCE TO WHICH REFERENCE COULD BE
MADE, WE THINK THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS SHOWN BY EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD, SOME OF WHICH ARE IN DISPUTE, ARE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING OF CONCERTED ACTION. 

WHEN THE COMMISSION RENDERED ITS DECISION THERE WERE ABOUT 80 CEMENT
MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES OPERATING ABOUT 150
MILLS.  TEN COMPANIES CONTROLLED MORE THAN HALF OF THE MILLS AND THERE
WERE SUBSTANTIAL CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AMONG MANY OF THE OTHERS.  THIS
CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY MADE CONCERTED ACTION FAR LESS
DIFFICULT THAN IT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN.  THE BELIEF IS PREVALENT
IN THE INDUSTRY THAT BECAUSE OF THE STANDARDIZED NATURE OF CEMENT,
AMONG OTHER REASONS, PRICE COMPETITION IS WHOLLY UNSUITED TO IT.  THAT
BELIEF IS HISTORIC.  IT HAS RESULTED IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES TO DEVISE
MEANS AND MEASURES TO DO AWAY WITH COMPETITION IN THE INDUSTRY.  OUT OF
THOSE ACTIVITIES CAME THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE
SYSTEM.  EVIDENCE SHOWS IT TO BE A HANDY INSTRUMENT TO BRING ABOUT
ELIMINATION OF ANY KIND OF PRICE COMPETITION.  THE USE OF THE MULTIPLE
BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM BY THE CEMENT PRODUCERS HAS BEEN
COINCIDENT WITH A SITUATION WHEREBY FOR MANY YEARS, WITH RARE
EXCEPTIONS, CEMENT HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR SALE IN EVERY GIVEN LOCALITY AT
IDENTICAL PRICES AND TERMS BY ALL PRODUCERS.  THOUSANDS OF SECRET
SEALED BIDS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES WHICH CORRESPONDED IN
PRICES OF CEMENT DOWN TO A FRACTIONAL PART OF A PENNY.  FN15 

OCCASIONALLY FOREIGN CEMENT HAS BEEN IMPORTED, AND CEMENT DEALERS
HAVE SOLD IT BELOW THE DELIVERED PRICE OF THE DOMESTIC PRODUCT. 
DEALERS WHO PERSISTED IN SELLING FOREIGN CEMENT WERE BOYCOTTED BY THE
DOMESTIC PRODUCERS.  OFFICERS OF THE INSTITUTE TOOK THE LEAD IN
SECURING PLEDGES BY PRODUCERS NOT TO PERMIT SALES F.O.B. MILL TO
PURCHASERS WHO FURNISHED THEIR OWN TRUCKS, A PRACTICE REGARDED AS
SERIOUSLY DISRUPTIVE OF THE ENTIRE DELIVERED PRICE STRUCTURE OF THE
INDUSTRY. 

DURING THE DEPRESSION IN THE 1930'S, SLOW BUSINESS PROMPTED SOME
PRODUCERS TO DEVIATE FROM THE PRICES FIXED BY THE DELIVERED PRICE
SYSTEM.  MEETINGS WERE HELD BY OTHER PRODUCERS; AN EFFECTIVE PLAN WAS
DEVISED TO PUNISH THE RECALCITRANTS AND BRING THEM INTO LINE.  THE PLAN
WAS SIMPLE BUT SUCCESSFUL.  OTHER PRODUCERS MADE THE RECALCITRANT'S
PLANT AN INVOLUNTARY BASE POINT.  THE BASE PRICE WAS DRIVEN DOWN WITH
RELATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT LOSSES TO THE PRODUCERS WHO IMPOSED THE
PUNITIVE BASING POINT, BUT WITH HEAVY LOSSES TO THE RECALCITRANT WHO
HAD TO MAKE ALL ITS SALES ON THIS BASIS.  IN ONE INSTANCE, WHERE A
PRODUCER HAD MADE A LOW PUBLIC BID, A PUNITIVE BASE POINT PRICE WAS PUT
ON ITS PLANT AND CEMENT WAS REDUCED 10[ PER BARREL; FURTHER REDUCTIONS
QUICKLY FOLLOWED UNTIL THE BASE PRICE AT WHICH THIS RECALCITRANT HAD TO
SELL ITS CEMENT DROPPED TO 75[ PER BARREL, SCARCELY ONE-HALF OF ITS
FORMER BASE PRICE OF $1.45.  WITHIN SIX WEEKS AFTER THE BASE PRICE HIT
75[ CAPITULATION OCCURRED AND THE RECALCITRANT JOINED A PORTLAND CEMENT
ASSOCIATION.  CEMENT IN THAT LOCALITY THEN BOUNCED BACK TO $1.15, LATER
TO $1.35, AND FINALLY TO $1.75. 

THE FOREGOING ARE BUT ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PRACTICES SHOWN TO HAVE
BEEN UTILIZED TO MAINTAIN THE BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEM.  RESPONDENTS
OFFERED TESTIMONY THAT CEMENT IS A STANDARDIZED PRODUCT, THAT "CEMENT
IS CEMENT," THAT NO DIFFERENCES EXISTED IN QUALITY OR USEFULNESS, AND
THAT PURCHASERS DEMANDED DELIVERED PRICE QUOTATIONS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH
COST OF TRANSPORTATION FROM MILL TO DEALER.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE,
HOWEVER, THAT THE INSTITUTE AND ITS MEMBERS HAD, IN THE INTEREST OF
ELIMINATING COMPETITION, SUPPRESSED INFORMATION AS TO THE VARIATIONS IN
QUALITY THAT SOMETIMES EXIST IN DIFFERENT CEMENTS.  FN16  RESPONDENTS
INTRODUCED THE TESTIMONY OF ECONOMISTS TO THE EFFECT THAT COMPETITION
ALONE COULD LEAD TO THE EVOLUTION OF A MULTIPLE BASING POINT SYSTEM OF
UNIFORM DELIVERED PRICES AND TERMS OF SALE FOR AN INDUSTRY WITH A
STANDARDIZED PRODUCT AND WITH RELATIVELY HIGH FREIGHT COSTS.  THESE
ECONOMISTS TESTIFIED THAT FOR THE ABOVE REASONS NO INFERENCES OF
COLLUSION, AGREEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE ADMITTED
FACT THAT CEMENT PRICES OF ALL UNITED STATES PRODUCERS HAD FOR MANY
YEARS ALMOST INVARIABLY BEEN THE SAME IN EVERY GIVEN LOCALITY IN THE
COUNTRY.  THERE WAS ALSO CONSIDERABLE TESTIMONY BY OTHER ECONOMIC
EXPERTS THAT THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT SYSTEM OF DELIVERED PRICES AS
EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENTS CONTRAVENED ACCEPTED ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES AND
COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED THROUGH COLLUSION. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT ADOPT THE VIEWS OF THE ECONOMISTS PRODUCED BY
THE RESPONDENTS.  IT DECIDED THAT EVEN THOUGH COMPETITION MIGHT TEND TO
DRIVE THE PRICE OF STANDARDIZED PRODUCTS TO A UNIFORM LEVEL, SUCH A
TENDENCY ALONE COULD NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ALMOST PERFECT IDENTITY IN
PRICES, DISCOUNTS, AND CEMENT CONTAINERS WHICH HAD PREVAILED FOR SO
LONG A TIME IN THE CEMENT INDUSTRY.  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE
UNIFORMITY AND ABSENCE OF COMPETITION IN THE INDUSTRY WERE THE RESULTS
OF UNDERSTANDINGS OR AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO OR CARRIED OUT BY CONCERT
OF THE INSTITUTE AND THE OTHER RESPONDENTS.  IT MAY POSSIBLY BE TRUE,
AS RESPONDENTS' ECONOMISTS TESTIFIED, THAT CEMENT PRODUCERS WILL,
WITHOUT AGREEMENT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED AND WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING EXPLICIT
OR TACIT, ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES (FOR SUCH HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
CASE HERE) CHARGE FOR THEIR CEMENT PRECISELY, TO THE FRACTIONAL PART OF
A PENNY, THE PRICE THEIR COMPETITORS CHARGE.  CERTAINLY IT RUNS COUNTER
TO WHAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE BELIEVED, NAMELY, THAT WITHOUT AGREEMENT,
PRICES WILL VARY - THAT THE DESIRE TO SELL WILL SOMETIMES BE SO STRONG
THAT A SELLER WILL BE WILLING TO LOWER HIS PRICES AND TAKE HIS
CHANCES.  WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT COMPELLED TO
ACCEPT THE VIEWS OF RESPONDENTS' ECONOMIST-WITNESSES THAT ACTIVE
COMPETITION WAS BOUND TO PRODUCE UNIFORM CEMENT PRICES.  THE COMMISSION
WAS AUTHORIZED TO FIND UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FROM EVIDENCE
THAT THE INDUSTRY'S INSTITUTE ACTIVELY WORKED, IN COOPERATION WITH
VARIOUS OF ITS MEMBERS, TO MAINTAIN THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT DELIVERED
PRICE SYSTEM; THAT THIS PRICING SYSTEM IS CALCULATED TO PRODUCE, AND
HAS PRODUCED, UNIFORM PRICES AND TERMS OF SALE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY;
AND THAT ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS HAVE SOLD THEIR CEMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN
ACCORD WITH THE PATTERN REQUIRED BY THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT SYSTEM. 
FN17 

SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT PARTICULARLY AS TO THEM CRUCIAL
FINDINGS OF PARTICIPATION BY THEM IN COLLECTIVE ACTION TO ELIMINATE
PRICE COMPETITION AND TO BRING ABOUT UNIFORMITY OF CEMENT PRICES ARE
WITHOUT TESTIMONIAL SUPPORT.  ON THIS GROUND THEY SEEK TO HAVE THE
PROCEEDINGS DISMISSED AS TO THEM EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE ADEQUATE
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND ORDER AS TO OTHER
RESPONDENTS.  THE COMMISSION REJECTED THEIR CONTENTIONS; THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT CONSIDER THEM IN ITS OPINION.  THOSE
RESPONDENTS WHOSE INDIVIDUAL CONTENTIONS IN THIS RESPECT DESERVE
SPECIAL MENTION ARE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CEMENT COMPANIES;
SUPERIOR PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY AND NORTHWESTERN PORTLAND CEMENT
COMPANY, BOTH OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; HURON PORTLAND CEMENT
COMPANY, WHICH DOES BUSINESS IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION; AND MARQUETTE
CEMENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY WITH PLANTS IN ILLINOIS AND MISSOURI. 

THESE COMPANIES SUPPORT THEIR SEPARATE CONTENTIONS FOR PARTICULARIZED
CONSIDERATION BY POINTING OUT AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT THERE WAS RECORD
EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MANY OF THEIR SALES METHODS
AND THOSE PRACTICED BY OTHER RESPONDENTS.  EACH SAYS THAT THERE WAS NO
DIRECT EVIDENCE TO CONNECT IT WITH ALL OF THE PRACTICES FOUND TO HAVE
BEEN USED BY THE INSTITUTE AND OTHER RESPONDENTS TO ACHIEVE DELIVERED
PRICE UNIFORMITY. 

THE RECORD DOES SHOW SUCH DIFFERENCES AS THOSE SUGGESTED.  IT IS
CORRECT TO SAY, THEREFORE, THAT THE SALES PRACTICES OF THESE PARTICULAR
RESPONDENTS, AND PERHAPS OF OTHER RESPONDENTS AS WELL, WERE NOT AT ALL
TIMES PRECISELY LIKE THE SALES PRACTICES OF ALL OR ANY OF THE OTHERS. 
FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT IN 1929 ALL OF THE CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA MILLS BECAME BASING POINTS.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE
INSTITUTE'S RATE BOOKS DID NOT EXTEND TO THE STATES IN WHICH SOME OF
THE CALIFORNIA COMPANIES DID BUSINESS.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT "IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE BASING-POINT SYSTEM OF PRICING IS MODIFIED BY
AN ELABORATE SYSTEM OF ZONE PRICES APPLICABLE IN CERTAIN AREAS," THAT
THE CALIFORNIA SYSTEM DOES NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE CALCULATIONS TO
DETERMINE THE DELIVERED PRICE AT EACH DESTINATION, BUT THAT COMPLETE
PRICE LISTS WERE PUBLISHED BY THE COMPANIES SHOWING DELIVERED PRICES AT
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL DELIVERY POINTS.  NORTHWESTERN AND SUPERIOR ASSERT
THAT AMONG OTHER DISTINCTIVE PRACTICES OF THEIRS, THEY WERE WILLING TO
AND DID BID FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS ON A MILL PRICE RATHER THAN A
DELIVERED PRICE BASIS.  HURON POINTS OUT THAT IT PERMITTED THE USE OF
TRUCKS TO DELIVER CEMENT, WHICH PRACTICE, FAR FROM BEING CONSISTENT
WITH THE PLAN OF OTHERS TO MAINTAIN THE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE
FORMULAS, WAS FROWNED ON BY THE INSTITUTE AND OTHERS AS ENDANGERING THE
SUCCESS OF THE PLAN.  MARQUETTE EMPHASIZES THAT IT DID NOT FOLLOW ALL
THE PRACTICES USED TO CARRY OUT THE ANTI-COMPETITION PLAN, AND URGES
THAT ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY FOUND THAT IT HAD UPON OCCASION
UNDERCUT ITS COMPETITORS, IT ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT ITS ADMITTED
ABANDONMENT OF PRICE CUTTING WAS DUE TO THE COMBINED PRESSURE OF OTHER
RESPONDENTS, INCLUDING THE INSTITUTE. 

WHAT THESE PARTICULAR RESPONDENTS EMPHASIZE DOES SERVE TO UNDERSCORE
CERTAIN FINDINGS WHICH SHOW THAT SOME RESPONDENTS WERE MORE ACTIVE AND
INFLUENTIAL IN THE COMBINATION THAN WERE OTHERS,  FN18 AND THAT SOME
COMPANIES PROBABLY UNWILLINGLY ABANDONED COMPETITIVE PRACTICES AND
ENTERED INTO THE COMBINATION.  BUT NONE OF THE DISTINCTIONS MENTIONED,
OR ANY OTHER DIFFERENCES RELIED ON BY THESE PARTICULAR RESPONDENTS,
JUSTIFIES A HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT THEY COOPERATED WITH ALL THE OTHERS TO
ACHIEVE THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF ALL - THE ELIMINATION OF PRICE
COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF CEMENT.  THESE RESPONDENTS' SPECIAL
CONTENTIONS ONLY ILLUSTRATE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS CALLED UPON TO
RESOLVE FACTUAL ISSUES AS TO EACH OF THEM IN THE LIGHT OF WHATEVER
RELEVANT DIFFERENCES IN THEIR PRACTICES WERE SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE. 
FOR ASIDE FROM THE TESTIMONY INDICATING THE DIFFERENCES IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL SALES PRACTICES, THERE WAS ABUNDANT EVIDENCE AS TO COMMON
PRACTICES OF THESE RESPONDENTS AND THE OTHERS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE
COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING COOPERATIVE CONDUCT AMONG ALL TO
ACHIEVE DELIVERED PRICE UNIFORMITY. 

THE EVIDENCE COMMONLY APPLICABLE TO THESE AND THE OTHER RESPONDENTS
SHOWED THAT ALL WERE MEMBERS OF THE INSTITUTE AND THAT THE OFFICERS OF
SOME OF THESE PARTICULAR RESPONDENTS WERE OR HAD BEEN OFFICERS OF THE
INSTITUTE.  WE HAVE ALREADY SUSTAINED FINDINGS THAT THE INSTITUTE WAS
ORGANIZED TO MAINTAIN THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT SYSTEM AS ONE OF THE
"CUSTOMS AND USAGES" OF THE INDUSTRY AND THAT IT PARTICIPATED IN
NUMEROUS ACTIVITIES INTENDED TO ELIMINATE PRICE COMPETITION THROUGH THE
COLLECTIVE EFFORTS OF THE RESPONDENTS.  EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
ALSO SHOWED THAT THE DELIVERED PRICES OF THESE RESPONDENTS, LIKE THOSE
OF ALL THE OTHER RESPONDENTS, WERE, WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS, IDENTICAL
WITH THE DELIVERED PRICES OF ALL THEIR COMPETITORS.  FURTHERMORE, THERE
WAS EVIDENCE THAT ALL OF THESE RESPONDENTS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO SOLD
CEMENT ON A ZONE BASIS IN SECTIONS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, EMPLOYED THE
MULTIPLE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM ON A PORTION OF THEIR
SALES. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS THAT ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS, INCLUDING THE CALIFORNIA
COMPANIES, NORTHWESTERN PORTLAND AND SUPERIOR PORTLAND, HURON AND
MARQUETTE, COOPERATED IN CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE BASING
POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM. 

UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION.  - WE SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S HOLDING
THAT CONCERTED MAINTENANCE OF THE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM
IS AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT.  IN SO DOING WE GIVE GREAT WEIGHT TO THE COMMISSION'S
CONCLUSION, AS THIS COURT HAS DONE IN OTHER CASES.  FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. R.F. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304, 314; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N
V. PACIFIC STATES PAPER TRADE ASSN., 273 U.S. 52, 63.  IN THE KEPPEL
CASE THE COURT CALLED ATTENTION TO THE EXPRESS INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO
CREATE AN AGENCY WHOSE MEMBERSHIP WOULD AT ALL TIMES BE EXPERIENCED, SO
THAT ITS CONCLUSIONS WOULD BE THE RESULT OF AN EXPERTNESS COMING FROM
EXPERIENCE.  WE ARE PERSUADED THAT THE COMMISSION'S LONG AND CLOSE
EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS IT HERE DECIDED HAS PROVIDED IT WITH
PRECISELY THE EXPERIENCE THAT FITS IT FOR PERFORMANCE OF ITS STATUTORY
DUTY.  THE KIND OF SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE CONGRESS WANTED ITS AGENCY TO
HAVE WAS AN EXPERTNESS THAT WOULD FIT IT TO STOP AT THE THRESHOLD EVERY
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - THAT KIND OF PRACTICE WHICH, IF LEFT ALONE,
"DESTROYS COMPETITION AND ESTABLISHES MONOPOLY."  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N
V. RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643, 647, 650.  AND SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N
V. RALADAM CO., 316 U.S. 149, 152. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION IS WRONG IN CONCLUDING THAT THE
DELIVERED-PRICE SYSTEM AS HERE USED PROVIDES AN EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT
WHICH, IF LEFT FREE FOR USE OF THE RESPONDENTS, WOULD RESULT IN
COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF COMPETITION AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MONOPOLY
IN THE CEMENT INDUSTRY.  THAT THE BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEM MAY LEND
ITSELF TO INDUSTRY-WIDE ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES IS ILLUSTRATED IN
THE FOLLOWING AMONG OTHER CASES:  UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM
CO., 333 U.S. 364, SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553.  WE
UPHOLD THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT THE BASING POINT DELIVERED
PRICE SYSTEM EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENTS IS AN UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE WHICH
THE TRADE COMMISSION MAY SUPPRESS.  FN19 

THE PRICE DISCRIMINATION CHARGE IN COURT TWO.  - THE COMMISSION FOUND
THAT RESPONDENTS' COMBINATION TO USE THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT
DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM HAD EFFECTED SYSTEMATIC PRICE DISCRIMINATION IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AS AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT.  49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13.  SECTION 2(A) OF THAT
ACT DECLARES IT TO "BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE  ...
EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN
DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY  ...
WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN
COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF COMMERCE, OR TO
INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT COMPETITION WITH ANY PERSON WHO EITHER
GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION, OR
WITH CUSTOMERS OF EITHER OF THEM  ...  " SECTION 2(B) PROVIDES THAT
PROOF OF DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE (SELLING THE SAME KIND OF GOODS
CHEAPER TO ONE PURCHASER THAN TO ANOTHER) MAKES OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE
OF VIOLATION, BUT PERMITS THE SELLER TO REBUT "THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE
THUS MADE BY SHOWING THAT HIS LOWER PRICE  ...  WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH
TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR  ...  " 

THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE VARYING MILL NETS RECEIVED BY
RESPONDENTS ON SALES BETWEEN CUSTOMERS IN DIFFERENT LOCALITIES
CONSTITUTED A "DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS"
WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 2(A), AND THAT THE EFFECT OF THIS
DISCRIMINATION WAS THE SUBSTANTIAL LESSENING OF COMPETITION BETWEEN
RESPONDENTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE COMMISSION ON
THIS COUNT.  IT AGREED THAT RESPONDENTS' PRICES WERE UNLAWFUL INSOFAR
AS THEY INVOLVED THE COLLECTION OF PHANTOM FREIGHT, BUT IT HELD THAT
PRICES INVOLVING ONLY FREIGHT ABSORPTION CAME WITHIN THE "GOOD FAITH"
PROVISO OF SEC. 2(B). 

THE RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN THEIR NET RETURNS
FROM SALES IN DIFFERENT LOCALITIES WHICH RESULT FROM USE OF THE
MULTIPLE BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM ARE NOT PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(A).  IF HELD THAT THESE
NET RETURN DIFFERENCES ARE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS PROHIBITED BY SEC.
2(A), THEY CONTEND THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE JUSTIFIED UNDER SEC.
2(B) BECAUSE "MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR."  PRACTICALLY ALL THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY RESPONDENTS IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTIONS WERE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT AND REJECTED
IN 1945 IN CORN PRODUCTS CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 324 U.S. 726, AND
IN THE RELATED CASE OF FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. STALEY CO., 324 U.S.
746.  AS STATED IN THE CORN PRODUCTS OPINION AT 730, CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED IN THOSE TWO CASES BECAUSE THE "QUESTIONS INVOLVED" WERE "OF
IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT IN VIEW OF THE
WIDESPREAD USE OF BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEMS."  FOR THIS REASON THE
QUESTIONS THERE RAISED WERE GIVEN THOROUGH CONSIDERATION. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WE SEE NO REASON FOR AGAIN REVIEWING THE QUESTIONS THAT
WERE THERE DECIDED. 

IN THE CORN PRODUCTS CASE THE COURT, IN HOLDING ILLEGAL A SINGLE
BASING POINT SYSTEM, SPECIFICALLY RESERVED DECISION UPON THE LEGALITY
UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT OF A MULTIPLE BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEM, BUT ONLY
IN VIEW OF THE "GOOD FAITH" PROVISO OF SEC. 2(B), AND REFERRED AT THAT
POINT TO THE COMPANION STALEY OPINION.  324 U.S. AT 735.  THE LATTER
CASE HELD THAT A SELLER COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE ADOPTION OF A
COMPETITOR'S BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEM UNDER SEC. 2(B) AS A GOOD FAITH
ATTEMPT TO MEET THE LATTER'S EQUALLY LOW PRICE.  THUS THE COMBINED
EFFECT OF THE TWO CASES WAS TO FORBID THE ADOPTION FOR SALES PURPOSES
OF ANY BASING POINT PRICING SYSTEM.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE COMMISSION'S
COMPLAINT IN THE CORN PRODUCTS AND STALEY CASES SIMPLY CHARGED THE
INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS WITH DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE THROUGH USE OF A
BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEM, AND DID NOT, AS HERE, ALLEGE A CONSPIRACY OR
COMBINATION TO USE THAT SYSTEM.  BUT THE HOLDINGS IN THOSE TWO CASES
THAT SEC. 2 FORBIDS A BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEM ARE EQUALLY CONTROLLING
HERE, WHERE THE USE OF SUCH A SYSTEM IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN THE RESULT
OF A COMBINATION.  RESPONDENTS DENY, HOWEVER, THAT THE CORN PRODUCTS
AND STALEY CASES PASSED ON THE QUESTIONS THEY HERE URGE. 

CORN PRODUCTS CO. WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF
GLUCOSE.  IT HAD TWO PLANTS, ONE IN CHICAGO, ONE IN KANSAS CITY.  BOTH
PLANTS SOLD "ONLY AT DELIVERED PRICES, COMPUTED BY ADDING TO A BASE
PRICE AT CHICAGO THE PUBLISHED FREIGHT TARIFF FROM CHICAGO TO THE
SEVERAL POINTS OF DELIVERY, EVEN THOUGH DELIVERIES ARE IN FACT MADE
FROM THEIR FACTORY AT KANSAS CITY AS WELL AS FROM THEIR CHICAGO
FACTORY."  324 U.S. AT 729.  THIS PRICE SYSTEM WE HELD RESULTED IN CORN
PRODUCTS CO. RECEIVING FROM DIFFERENT PURCHASERS DIFFERENT NET AMOUNTS
CORRESPONDING TO DIFFERENCES IN THE AMOUNTS OF PHANTOM FREIGHT
COLLECTED OR OF ACTUAL FREIGHT CHARGES ABSORBED.  WE FURTHER HELD THAT
"PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS ARE NECESSARILY INVOLVED WHERE THE PRICE BASING
POINT IS DISTANT FROM THE POINT OF PRODUCTION," BECAUSE IN SUCH
SITUATIONS PRICES "USUALLY INCLUDE AN ITEM OF UNEARNED OR PHANTOM
FREIGHT OR REQUIRE THE ABSORPTION OF FREIGHT WITH THE CONSEQUENT
VARIATIONS IN THE SELLER'S NET FACTORY PRICES.  SINCE SUCH FREIGHT
DIFFERENTIALS BEAR NO RELATION TO THE ACTUAL COST OF DELIVERY, THEY ARE
SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATIONS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 2(A), WHENEVER THEY HAVE
THE DEFINED EFFECT UPON COMPETITION."  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. STALEY,
SUPRA AT 750-751.  THIS WAS A DIRECT HOLDING THAT A PRICING SYSTEM
INVOLVING BOTH PHANTOM FREIGHT AND FREIGHT ABSORPTION VIOLATES SEC.
2(A) IF UNDER THAT SYSTEM PRICES ARE COMPUTED FOR PRODUCTS ACTUALLY
SHIPPED FROM ONE LOCALITY ON THE FICTION THAT THEY WERE SHIPPED FROM
ANOTHER.  THIS COURT MADE THE HOLDING DESPITE ARGUMENTS, WHICH ARE NOW
REPEATED HERE, THAT IN PASSING THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, CONGRESS
MANIFESTED ITS PURPOSE TO SANCTION SUCH PRICING SYSTEMS; THAT THIS
COURT HAD APPROVED THE SYSTEM IN MAPLE FLOORING ASSN. V. UNITED STATES,
268 U.S. 563, AND IN CEMENT MFRS.  ASSN.  V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S.
588; AND THAT THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATION UNDER THIS SYSTEM BETWEEN
BUYERS AT THE SAME POINT OF DELIVERY. 

RESPONDENTS ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THEIR MULTIPLE BASING POINT
PRICING SYSTEM FROM THOSE PREVIOUSLY HELD UNLAWFUL BY POINTING OUT THAT
IN SOME SITUATIONS THEIR SYSTEM INVOLVES NEITHER PHANTOM FREIGHT NOR
FREIGHT ABSORPTION; FOR EXAMPLE, SALES BY A BASE MILL AT ITS BASE PRICE
PLUS ACTUAL FREIGHT FROM THE MILL TO THE POINT OF DELIVERY INVOLVE
NEITHER PHANTOM FREIGHT NOR FREIGHT ABSORPTION.  BUT THE CORN PRODUCTS
PRICING SYSTEM WHICH WAS CONDEMNED BY THIS COURT RELATED TO A BASE
MILL, THAT AT CHICAGO, AS WELL AS TO A NON-BASE MILL, AT KANSAS CITY. 
THE COURT DID NOT PERMIT THIS FACT TO RELIEVE THE PRICING SYSTEM FROM
APPLICATION OF SEC. 2, OR TO REQUIRE ANY MODIFICATION OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  SO HERE, WE COULD NOT REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO
ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SALES MADE BY A BASE MILL INVOLVING
ACTUAL FREIGHT COSTS AND ALL OTHER SALES MADE BY BOTH BASE AND NON-BASE
MILLS, WHEN ALL MILLS ADHERE TO A COMMON PRICING SYSTEM. 

PRICE THAN IT SELLS TO ANOTHER IF THE PRICE IS "MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO
MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR."  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN
THAT SEC. 2(B) PERMITS A SELLER TO USE A SALES SYSTEM WHICH CONSTANTLY
RESULTS IN HIS GETTING MORE MONEY FOR LIKE GOODS FROM SOME CUSTOMERS
THAN HE DOES FROM OTHERS.  WE HELD TO THE CONTRARY IN THE STALEY CASE. 
THERE WE SAID THAT THE ACT "SPEAKS ONLY OF THE SELLER'S 'LOWER' PRICE
AND OF THAT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS MADE 'IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET
AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.'  THE ACT THUS PLACES EMPHASIS ON
INDIVIDUAL COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS, RATHER THAN UPON A GENERAL SYSTEM OF
COMPETITION."  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. STALEY, SUPRA AT 753.  EACH OF
THE RESPONDENTS, WHETHER ALL ITS MILLS WERE BASING POINTS OR NOT, SOLD
SOME CEMENT AT PRICES DETERMINED BY THE BASING POINT FORMULA AND
GOVERNED BY OTHER BASE MILLS.  THUS, ALL RESPONDENTS TO THIS EXTENT
ADOPTED A DISCRIMINATORY PRICING SYSTEM CONDEMNED BY SEC. 2.  AS THIS
IN ITSELF WAS EVIDENCE OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE MULTIPLE BASING POINT
SYSTEM BY THE RESPONDENTS AS A PRACTICE RATHER THAN AS A GOOD FAITH
EFFORT TO MEET "INDIVIDUAL COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS," WE THINK THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE USE OF THIS
CEMENT BASING POINT SYSTEM VIOLATED THE ACT.  NOR CAN WE DISCERN UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE "GOOD FAITH" PROVISO AS
APPLIED TO A SITUATION INVOLVING ONLY PHANTOM FREIGHT AND ONE INVOLVING
ONLY FREIGHT ABSORPTION.  NEITHER COMES WITHIN ITS TERMS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENTS'
PRICING SYSTEM RESULTS IN PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS.  ITS FINDING THAT THE
DISCRIMINATIONS SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED COMPETITION BETWEEN RESPONDENTS
AND THAT THEY WERE NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET A COMPETITOR'S PRICE
ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED
IN ISSUING A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST A CONTINUATION OF THE
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRICING SYSTEM. 

THE ORDER.  - THERE ARE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION'S CEASE
AND DESIST ORDER.  WE CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS, HAVING IN MIND THAT THE
LANGUAGE OF ITS PROHIBITIONS SHOULD BE CLEAR AND PRECISE IN ORDER THAT
THEY MAY BE UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE AGAINST WHOM THEY ARE DIRECTED.  SEE
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMM'N V. THOMSON, 318 U.S. 675, 685.  BUT WE ALSO
HAVE IN MIND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS A WIDE DISCRETION GENERALLY IN THE
CHOICE OF REMEDIES TO COPE WITH TRADE PROBLEMS ENTRUSTED TO IT BY THE
COMMISSION ACT.  JACOB SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 327 U.S.
608, 611-613.   THERE IS A SPECIAL REASON, HOWEVER, WHY COURTS SHOULD
NOT LIGHTLY MODIFY THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS MADE IN EFFORTS TO SAFEGUARD
A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY.  CONGRESS WHEN IT PASSED THE TRADE COMMISSION
ACT FELT THAT COURTS NEEDED THE ASSISTANCE OF MEN TRAINED TO COMBAT
MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES IN THE FRAMING OF JUDICIAL DECREES IN ANTITRUST
LITIGATION.  CONGRESS ENVISIONED A COMMISSION TRAINED IN THIS TYPE OF
WORK BY EXPERIENCE IN CARRYING OUT THE FUNCTIONS IMPOSED UPON IT.  FN20
TO THIS END IT PROVIDED IN SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 47, THAT
COURTS MIGHT, IF IT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS
ENTITLED TO A DECREE IN AN ANTITRUST CASE, REFER THAT CASE "TO THE
COMMISSION, AS A MASTER IN CHANCERY, TO ASCERTAIN AND REPORT AN
APPROPRIATE FORM OF DECREE THEREIN."  THE COURT COULD THEN ADOPT OR
REJECT SUCH A REPORT. 

IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING THE COMMISSION HAS EXHIBITED THE
FAMILIARITY WITH THE COMPETITIVE PROBLEMS BEFORE IT WHICH CONGRESS
ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED THE COMMISSION WOULD ACHIEVE FROM ITS
EXPERIENCE.  THE ORDER IT HAS PREPARED IS WE THINK CLEAR AND
COMPREHENSIVE.  AT THE SAME TIME THE PROHIBITIONS IN THE ORDER FORBID
NO ACTIVITIES EXCEPT THOSE WHICH IF CONTINUED WOULD DIRECTLY AID IN
PERPETUATING THE SAME OLD UNLAWFUL PRACTICES.  NOR DO WE FIND MERIT TO
THE CHARGES OF SURPLUSAGE IN THE ORDER'S TERMS. 

MOST OF THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER APPEAR TO REST ON THE PREMISE
THAT ITS TERMS WILL BAR AN INDIVIDUAL CEMENT PRODUCER FROM SELLING
CEMENT AT DELIVERED PRICES SUCH THAT ITS NET RETURN FROM ONE CUSTOMER
WILL BE LESS THAN FROM ANOTHER, EVEN IF THE PARTICULAR SALE BE MADE IN
GOOD FAITH TO MEET THE LOWER PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.  THE COMMISSION
DISCLAIMS THAT THE ORDER CAN POSSIBLY BE SO UNDERSTOOD.  NOR DO WE SO
UNDERSTAND IT.  AS WE READ THE ORDER, ALL OF ITS SEPARATE PROHIBITING
PARAGRAPHS AND SUBPARAGRAPHS, WHICH NEED NOT HERE BE SET OUT, ARE
MODIFIED AND LIMITED BY A PREAMBLE.  THIS PREAMBLE DIRECTS THAT ALL OF
THE RESPONDENTS "DO FORTHWITH CEASE AND DESIST FROM ENTERING INTO,
CONTINUING, COOPERATING IN, OR CARRYING OUT ANY PLANNED COMMON COURSE
OF ACTION, UNDERSTANDING, AGREEMENT, COMBINATION, OR CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
AND AMONG ANY TWO OR MORE OF SAID RESPONDENTS, OR BETWEEN ANY ONE OR
MORE OF SAID RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS NOT PARTIES HERETO, TO DO OR
PERFORM ANY OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS  ...  "  THEN FOLLOW THE
PROHIBITORY SENTENCES.  IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE ORDER BY ITS TERMS
IS DIRECTED SOLELY AT CONCERTED, NOT INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF
THE RESPONDENTS. 

RESPONDENTS HAVE OBJECTED TO THE PHRASE "PLANNED COMMON COURSE OF
ACTION" IN THE PREAMBLE.  THE OBJECTION IS TWOFOLD; FIRST, THAT IT ADDS
NOTHING TO THE WORDS THAT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW IT; AND SECOND, THAT IF IT
DOES ADD ANYTHING, "THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO STATE WHAT
THIS NOVEL PHRASE MEANS IN THIS ORDER AND WHAT IT ADDS TO THE FOUR
WORDS."  IT SEEMS QUITE CLEAR TO US WHAT THE PHRASE MEANS.  IT IS
MERELY AN EMPHATIC STATEMENT THAT THE COMMISSION IS PROHIBITING
CONCERTED ACTION - PLANNED CONCERTED ACTION.  THE COMMISSION CHOSE A
PHRASE PERHAPS MORE READILY UNDERSTOOD BY BUSINESSMEN THAN THE
ACCOMPANYING LEGAL WORDS OF LIKE IMPORT. 

THEN THERE IS OBJECTION TO THAT PHRASE IN THE PREAMBLE WHICH WOULD
PREVENT RESPONDENTS, OR ANY OF THEM, FROM DOING THE PROHIBITED THINGS
WITH "OTHERS NOT PARTIES HERETO."  WE SEE NO MERIT IN THIS OBJECTION. 
THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT THE CEMENT PRODUCERS HAVE FROM TIME TO
TIME SECURED THE AID OF OTHERS OUTSIDE THE INDUSTRY WHO ARE NOT PARTIES
TO THIS PROCEEDING IN CARRYING OUT THEIR PROGRAM FOR PRESERVING THE
BASING POINT PRICING SYSTEM AS AN INSTRUMENT TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION. 
MOREOVER, THERE WILL VERY LIKELY BE CHANGES IN THE PRESENT OWNERSHIP OF
CEMENT MILLS, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MILLS IN THE FUTURE MAY BE
REASONABLY ANTICIPATED.  IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE COMMISSION WAS
AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ITS ORDER BROAD ENOUGH EFFECTIVELY TO RESTRAIN
RESPONDENTS FROM COMBINING WITH OTHERS AS WELL AS AMONG THEMSELVES. 

ONE OTHER SPECIFIC OBJECTION TO THE ORDER WILL BE NOTED.  PARAGRAPH 1
PROHIBITS RESPONDENTS FROM "QUOTING OR SELLING CEMENT PURSUANT TO OR IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ANY OTHER PLAN OR SYSTEM WHICH RESULTS IN IDENTICAL
PRICE QUOTATIONS OR PRICES FOR CEMENT AT POINTS OF QUOTATION OR SALE OR
TO PARTICULAR PURCHASERS BY RESPONDENTS USING SUCH PLAN OR SYSTEM, OR
WHICH PREVENTS PURCHASERS FROM FINDING ANY ADVANTAGE IN PRICE IN
DEALING WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST ANY OF THE OTHER
RESPONDENTS."  THIS PARAGRAPH LIKE ALL THE OTHERS IN THE ORDER IS
LIMITED BY THE PREAMBLE WHICH REFERS TO CONCERTED CONDUCT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AGREEMENT OR PLANNED COMMON COURSE OF ACTION.  THE PARAGRAPH IS
MERELY DESIGNED TO FORBID RESPONDENTS FROM ACTING IN HARMONY TO BRING
ABOUT NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IN WHATEVER FASHION THEY MAY SEEK BY
COLLECTIVE ACTION TO ACHIEVE THAT RESULT.  WE THINK THAT NO ONE WOULD
FIND AMBIGUITY IN THIS LANGUAGE WHO CONCLUDED IN GOOD FAITH TO ABANDON
THE OLD PRACTICES.  THERE IS LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN EFFECT BETWEEN
PARAGRAPH 1 TO WHICH OBJECTION IS HERE RAISED AND PARAGRAPH 5 WHICH WAS
SUSTAINED AS PROPER IN FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BEECH-NUT PKG.  CO., 257
U.S. 441, 456(1922), ONE OF THE FIRST TRADE COMMISSION CASES TO COME
BEFORE THIS COURT.  PARAGRAPH 5 IN THE BEECH-NUT CASE READ:  "  ...  BY
UTILIZING ANY OTHER EQUIVALENT COOPERATIVE MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING THE
MAINTENANCE OF PRICES FIXED BY THE COMPANY." 

MANY OTHER ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY RESPONDENTS.  ALL HAVE
BEEN EXAMINED, BUT WE FIND THEM WITHOUT MERIT. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  ITS JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED
TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENFORCE THE ORDER.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE COMMISSION DISMISSED THE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AGAINST RESPONDENT CASTALIA PORTLAND CEMENT CO., WHICH WENT INTO
BANKRUPTCY. 

FN2  RESPONDENT VALLEY FORGE CEMENT CO. IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
INSTITUTE ONLY BY REASON OF ITS AFFILIATION WITH A MEMBER COMPANY. 

FN3  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. R.F. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304, 310;
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643, 649-650; SEE ALSO
UNITED STATES ALKALI ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 196, AND SEE
EUGENE DIETZGEN CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 142 F.2D 321, 326-327, AND
CASES THERE CITED, AMONG THE NUMEROUS CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS CASES
ON THE SAME SUBJECT. 

FN4  "THE COMMISSION HAD ISSUED UP TO OCTOBER, 1939 A TOTAL OF 267
ORDERS TO CEASE AND DESIST IN CASES INVOLVING COOPERATION, CONSPIRACY
OR COMBINATION."  BEER, FEDERAL TRADE LAW AND PRACTICE, 94(1942). 
OTHER WRITERS HAVE ALSO COMMENTED ON THE RECOGNITION BY THE COMMISSION
AND COURTS THAT UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION INCLUDE VIOLATIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  HANDLER, UNFAIR COMPETITION AND THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 8 G.W.L. REV., 399, 416-417, 419.  MONTAGUE, THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER PRACTICES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE:  A
LARGE-SCALE METHOD OF MASS ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, 8 G.W.L.
REV. 365; MILLER, UNFAIR COMPETITION, CHAPTER XI (1941); HENDERSON, THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, A STUDY IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE,
22-28(1924); BEER, FEDERAL TRADE LAW AND PRACTICE, 93 ET SEQ. (1942). 

FN5  SECTION 7 OF THE ACT EMPOWERED THE COMMISSION, UPON THE REQUEST
OF THE DISTRICT COURTS, TO SERVE AS A MASTER IN CHANCERY IN FRAMING
APPROPRIATE DECREES IN ANTITRUST SUITS BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.  SECTION 6(C) AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE
COMPLIANCE WITH ANTITRUST DECREES UPON APPLICATION OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND TO REPORT ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO HIM.  38
STAT. 722, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 47, 46. 

FN6  51 CONG. REC. 11083, 11104, 11528-11533, 12146, 12622-12623,
12733-12734, 12787, 13311-13312, 14251, 14460, 14926, 14929; H.R. REP.
NO. 533, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 1, 6(1914); H.R. REP. NO. 1142, 63D CONG.,
2D SESS. 18-19(1914); SEN. REP. NO. 597, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 12
13(1914). 

FN7  SEE RAMSAY CO. V. BILL POSTERS ASSN., 260 U.S. 501, 511; STEVENS
CO. V. FOSTER & KLEISER CO., 311 U.S. 255, 260-261; UNITED STATES V.
FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES, 324 U.S. 293, 297-298. 

FN8  THIS WAS NOT TRUE AS TO STEEL PRODUCED AND SHIPPED FROM
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA.  UNDER THE SYSTEM BIRMINGHAM STEEL HAD TO BE SOLD
AT THE PITTSBURGH PRICE PLUS AN ARBITRARY ADDITION OF $5 PER TON. 
THERE WERE ALSO OTHER MINOR VARIATIONS FROM THE SYSTEM AS HERE
DESCRIBED.  SEE UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. ET AL., 8 F.T.C. 1. 

FN9  A BASE MILL SELLING CEMENT FOR DELIVERY AT A POINT OUTSIDE THE
AREA IN WHICH ITS BASE PRICE GOVERNS, AND INSIDE THE AREA WHERE ANOTHER
BASE MILL'S LOWER DELIVERED PRICE GOVERNS, ADOPTS THE LATTER'S LOWER
DELIVERED PRICE.  THE FIRST BASE MILL THUS ABSORBS FREIGHT AND BECOMES
AS TO SUCH SALES A NON-BASE MILL. 

FN10  THE COMMISSION IN ITS FINDINGS EXPLAINED HOW THE MULTIPLE
BASING POINT SYSTEM AFFECTS A SELLER'S NET RETURN ON SALES IN DIFFERENT
LOCALITIES AND HOW THE DELIVERED PRICE IS DETERMINED AT ANY PARTICULAR
POINT.  "SUBSTANTIALLY ALL SALES OF CEMENT BY THE CORPORATE RESPONDENTS
ARE MADE ON THE BASIS OF A DELIVERED PRICE; THAT IS, AT A PRICE
DETERMINED BY THE LOCATION AT WHICH ACTUAL DELIVERY OF THE CEMENT IS
MADE TO THE PURCHASER.  IN DETERMINING THE DELIVERED PRICE WHICH WILL
BE CHARGED FOR CEMENT AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION, RESPONDENTS USE A MULTIPLE
BASING-POINT SYSTEM.  THE FORMULA USED TO MAKE THIS SYSTEM OPERATIVE IS
THAT THE DELIVERED PRICE AT ANY LOCATION SHALL BE THE LOWEST
COMBINATION OF BASE PRICE PLUS ALL-RAIL FREIGHT.  THUS, IF MILL A HAS A
BASE PRICE OF $1.50 PER BARREL, ITS DELIVERED PRICE AT EACH LOCATION
WHERE IT SELLS CEMENT WILL BE $1.50 PER BARREL PLUS THE ALLRAIL FREIGHT
FROM ITS MILL TO THE POINT OF DELIVERY, EXCEPT THAT WHEN A SALE IS MADE
FOR DELIVERY AT A LOCATION AT WHICH THE COMBINATION OF THE BASE PRICE
PLUS ALL-RAIL FREIGHT FROM ANOTHER MILL IS A LOWER FIGURE, MILL A USES
THIS LOWER COMBINATION SO THAT ITS DELIVERED PRICE AT SUCH LOCATION
WILL BE THE SAME AS THE DELIVERED PRICE OF THE OTHER MILL.  AT ALL
LOCATIONS WHERE THE BASE PRICE OF MILL A PLUS FREIGHT IS THE LOWEST
COMBINATION, MILL A RECOVERS $1.50 NET AT THE MILL, AND AT LOCATIONS
WHERE THE COMBINATION OF BASE PRICE PLUS FREIGHT OF ANOTHER MILL IS
LOWER, MILL A SHRINKS ITS MILL NET SUFFICIENTLY TO EQUAL THAT PRICE. 
UNDER THESE CONDITIONS IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE HIGHEST MILL NET WHICH
CAN BE RECOVERED BY MILL A IS $1.50 PER BARREL, AND ON SALES WHERE IT
HAS BEEN NECESSARY TO SHRINK ITS MILL NET IN ORDER TO MATCH THE
DELIVERED PRICE OF ANOTHER MILL, ITS NET RECOVERY AT THE MILL IS LESS
THAN $1.50."  37 F.T.C. AT 147-148. 

FN11  MARQUETTE IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE COMMISSION
URGED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE COMMISSION HAD CONCURRENT
POWER OR JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
147 F.2D AT 593. 

FN12  "SECTION 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE
PRIVATE PERSONS WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY FOR PRIVATE WRONGS."  THE
COMMISSION IS NOT A COURT.  IT CAN RENDER NO JUDGMENT, CIVIL OR
CRIMINAL.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. KLESNER, 280 U.S. 19, 25; AND SEE
HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 602, 628; LOUISVILLE &
N.R. CO. V. GARRETT, 231 U.S. 298, 307. 

FN13  WE NEED NOT HERE DETERMINE WHAT PROTECTION WAS AFFORDED
RESPONDENTS BY THE EXEMPTION FROM THE ANTITRUST LAWS CONFERRED BY THE
ACT LATER HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  NOR NEED WE DECIDE WHETHER THIS
PROVISION ALSO EXEMPTED RESPONDENTS FROM THE UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION PROVISIONS OF THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  THE GOVERNMENT
DOES NOT PRESS EITHER CONTENTION HERE. 

FN14  PARAGRAPH 26 OF THE FINDINGS IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE COMMISSION CONCLUDES FROM THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD AND THEREFORE
FINDS THAT THE CAPACITY, TENDENCY, AND EFFECT OF THE COMBINATION
MAINTAINED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN THE MANNER AFORESAID AND THE
ACTS AND PRACTICES PERFORMED THEREUNDER AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BY
SAID RESPONDENTS, AS SET OUT HEREIN, HAS BEEN AND IS TO HINDER, LESSEN,
RESTRAIN, AND SUPPRESS COMPETITION IN THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
CEMENT IN, AMONG, AND BETWEEN THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES;
TO DEPRIVE PURCHASERS OF CEMENT, BOTH PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENTAL, OF THE
BENEFITS OF COMPETITION IN PRICE; TO SYSTEMATICALLY MAINTAIN ARTIFICIAL
AND MONOPOLISTIC METHODS AND PRICES IN THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
CEMENT, INCLUDING COMMON RATE FACTORS USED AND USEFUL IN THE PRICING OF
CEMENT; TO PREVENT PURCHASERS FROM UTILIZING MOTORTRUCKS OR WATER
CARRIERS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF CEMENT AND FROM OBTAINING BENEFITS
WHICH MIGHT ACCRUE FROM THE USE OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES; TO
REQUIRE THAT PURCHASES OF CEMENT BE MADE ON A DELIVERED PRICE BASIS,
AND TO PREVENT AND DEFEAT EFFORTS OF PURCHASERS TO AVOID THIS
REQUIREMENT; FREQUENTLY TO DEPRIVE AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
OF THE BENEFITS OF ALL OR A PART OF THE LOWER LAND-GRANT RATES
AVAILABLE TO SUCH PURCHASERS; TO REQUIRE CERTAIN AGENCIES OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PURCHASE THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF CEMENT THROUGH
DEALERS AT HIGHER PRICES THAN ARE AVAILABLE IN DIRECT PURCHASES FROM
MANUFACTURERS; TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN AGREED CLASSIFICATION OF
CUSTOMERS WHO MAY PURCHASE CEMENT FROM MANUFACTURERS THEREOF; TO
MAINTAIN UNIFORM TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE; TO HINDER AND OBSTRUCT
THE SALE OF IMPORTED CEMENT THROUGH RESTRAINTS UPON THOSE WHO DEAL IN
SUCH CEMENT; AND OTHERWISE TO PROMOTE AND MAINTAIN THEIR MULTIPLE
BASING-POINT DELIVERED-PRICE SYSTEM AND OBSTRUCT AND DEFEAT ANY FORM OF
COMPETITION WHICH THREATENS OR TENDS TO THREATEN THE CONTINUED USE AND
MAINTENANCE OF SAID SYSTEM AND THE UNIFORMITY OF PRICES CREATED AND
MAINTAINED BY ITS USE."  37 F.T.C. AT 257-258.    FN15  THE FOLLOWING
IS ONE AMONG MANY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AS TO THE IDENTITY OF
SEALED BIDS:  AN ABSTRACT OF THE BIDS FOR 6,000 BARRELS OF CEMENT TO
THE UNITED STATES ENGINEER OFFICE AT TUCUMCARI, NEW MEXICO, OPENED
APRIL 23, 1936, SHOWS THE FOLLOWING: 

NAME OF BIDDER      PRICE PER BBL.      NAME OF BIDDER      PRICE PER
BBL. 

MONARCH ............$3.286854          OKLAHOMA ...........$3.286854 

ASH GROVE ..........3.286854            CONSOLIDATED .......3.286854 

LEHIGH .............3.286854            TRINITY ............3.286854 

SOUTHWESTERN .......3.286854            LONE STAR ..........3.286854 
U.S. PORTLAND                           UNIVERSAL ..........3.286854 

CEMENT CO...........3.286854            COLORADO ...........3.286854 

ALL BIDS SUBJECT TO 10[ PER BARREL DISCOUNT FOR PAYMENT IN 15 DAYS. 
(COM. EX. 175-A.)  SEE 157 F.2D AT 576. 

FN16  SEE SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553, 600:  "THE
FACT THAT, BECAUSE SUGAR IS A STANDARDIZED COMMODITY, THERE IS A STRONG
TENDENCY TO UNIFORMITY OF PRICE, MAKES IT THE MORE IMPORTANT THAT SUCH
OPPORTUNITIES AS MAY EXIST FOR FAIR COMPETITION SHOULD NOT BE
IMPAIRED." 

FN17  IT IS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A FINDING OF A "COMBINATION" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT PERSONS, WITH
KNOWLEDGE THAT CONCERTED ACTION WAS CONTEMPLATED AND INVITED, GIVE
ADHERENCE TO AND THEN PARTICIPATE IN A SCHEME.  INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V.
UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208, 226-227; UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP.,
316 U.S. 265, 275; UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707,
722-723; UNITED STATES V. U.S. GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364, 393-394.  SEE
UNITED STATES MALTSTERS ASSN. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 152 F.2D 161,
164:  "WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT A PRICE
FIXING AGREEMENT EXISTED MUST BE ACCEPTED.  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD
DO VIOLENCE TO COMMON SENSE AND THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION.  THE
FACT THAT PETITIONERS UTILIZED A SYSTEM WHICH ENABLED THEM TO DELIVER
MALT AT EVERY POINT OF DESTINATION AT EXACTLY THE SAME PRICE IS A
PERSUASIVE CIRCUMSTANCE IN ITSELF.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS SO WHEN IT IS
CONSIDERED THAT PETITIONERS' PLANTS ARE LOCATED IN FOUR DIFFERENT
STATES AND THAT THE BARLEY FROM WHICH THE MALT IS MANUFACTURED IS
PROCURED FROM EIGHT OR NINE DIFFERENT STATES."  SEE ALSO MILK & ICE
CREAM CAN INSTITUTE V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 152 F.2D 478, 481; FORT
HOWARD PAPER CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 156 F.2D 899, 907. 

FN18  FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWED THAT HURON'S
OFFICIALS PARTICIPATED IN MEETINGS HELD IN CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER
RESPONDENT'S PRACTICES DEEMED INIMICAL TO THE POLICY OF NON
COMPETITION.  AS A RESULT OF THAT MEETING THE OFFENDING COMPANY AGREED
THAT IT WOULD "PLAY THE GAME 100%"; THAT IT WOULD NOT COUNTENANCE
"CHISELING"; THAT IT WOULD NOT KNOWINGLY INVADE TERRITORY OF ITS
COMPETITORS, OR "TEAR DOWN THE PRICE STRUCTURE." 

FN19  WHILE WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF COMBINATION
WERE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EXISTENCE OF A
"COMBINATION" IS AN INDISPENSABLE INGREDIENT OF AN "UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION" UNDER THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N
V. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO., 257 U.S. 441, 455. 

FN20  IN SPEAKING OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE COMMISSION TO AID THE
COURTS IN DRAFTING ANTITRUST DECREES, THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SAID: 

"THESE POWERS, PARTLY ADMINISTRATIVE AND PARTLY QUASI JUDICIAL, ARE
OF GREAT IMPORTANCE AND WILL BRING BOTH TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TO
THE COURT THE AID OF SPECIAL EXPERT EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING IN MATTERS
REGARDING WHICH NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NOR THE COURTS CAN BE
EXPECTED TO BE PROFICIENT. 

"WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE KNIGHT CASE, THE SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER
FAILED TO CONDEMN AND TO BREAK UP ANY ORGANIZATION FORMED IN VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN LAW WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION; BUT THE
DECREES OF THE COURT, WHILE DECLARING THE LAW SATISFACTORILY AS TO THE
DISSOLUTION OF THE COMBINATIONS, HAVE APPARENTLY FAILED IN MANY
INSTANCES IN THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COURTS AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAVE LACKED THE EXPERT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE
NECESSARY TO BE APPLIED TO THE DISSOLUTION OF THE COMBINATIONS AND THE
REASSEMBLING OF THE DIVIDED ELEMENTS IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE
LAW."  SEN. REP. NO. 597, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 12(1914). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

WHILE THIS DISSENT IS WRITTEN WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO CASE NO. 23
AGAINST THE CEMENT INSTITUTE, ET AL., ITS CONCLUSIONS APPLY TO CASES
NOS. 23-34, ALL OF WHICH WERE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS COURT HAS DISAGREED WITH THE
CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT BELOW AS TO THE MATERIAL FACTS CONSTITUTING
THE PREMISE ON WHICH THAT COURT AND THIS HAVE BASED THEIR RESPECTIVE
CONCLUSIONS.  ACCORDINGLY, THIS COURT HAS NEITHER REVERSED NOR DIRECTLY
PASSED UPON THE PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION OF LAW REACHED BY THE COURT
BELOW.  THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THAT COMBINATION AMONG THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTRAIN THE
COMPETITION IN PRICE THAT WAS CHARGED IN BOTH COUNTS OF THE COMPLAINT. 
FN1  THE COURT BELOW EVEN DOUBTED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD CLEARLY
STATED THAT IT FOUND SUCH A COMBINATION EXISTED.  HOWEVER, RATHER THAN
SEND THE CASE BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT, THE COURT OF APPEALS ASSUMED THAT THOSE
FINDINGS DID STATE THAT SUCH A COMBINATION EXISTED.  THE COURT THEN
CONCLUDED THAT, EVEN IF THE COMMISSION HAD SO FOUND, THERE WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING.  FN2  ACCORDINGLY, THE
COURT BELOW APPLIED THE LAW OF THE CASE TO A SET OF FACTS THAT DID NOT
INCLUDE SUCH A COMBINATION.  ON THAT BASIS, IT HELD THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST SHOULD BE SET ASIDE.  I AGREE
WITH THE COURT BELOW IN BOTH OF THESE CONCLUSIONS.  FN3  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THIS COURT TODAY HAS HELD NOT ONLY THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND THE
EXISTENCE OF THE COMBINATION AS CHARGED, BUT THAT SUCH FINDING IS
SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.  THIS COURT
ACCORDINGLY HAS APPLIED THE LAW OF THE CASE TO A SET OF FACTS WHICH
INCLUDES A COMBINATION AMONG THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN
PRICE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.  THE RESULTING EFFECT IS THAT, WHILE
THE COURT BELOW HAS HELD THAT WITHOUT SUCH A COMBINATION THERE WAS NOT
THE ALLEGED VIOLATION EITHER OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT  FN4  OR OF SEC. 2 OF THE AMENDED CLAYTON ACT,  FN5  YET ON THE
OTHER HAND, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT, INCLUDING SUCH A COMBINATION,
THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF EACH OF THOSE SECTIONS TO THE EXTENT CHARGED
IN THE SEVERAL CASES.  THIS COURT, THEREFORE, HAS NOT HERE DETERMINED
THE RELATION, IF ANY, OF EITHER OF THE FOREGOING STATUTES TO THE
ABSORPTION OF FREIGHT CHARGES BY INDIVIDUALS WHEN NOT PARTICIPATING IN
A COMBINATION OF THE KIND CHARGED BY THE COMMISSION.  FN6 

THE COMMISSION BASED ITS CONCLUSION UPON ITS FINDING OF THE EXISTENCE
OF THE COMBINATION CHARGED IN ITS COMPLAINT.  FN7  THE COURT BELOW WAS
IN A POSITION TO, AND DID, JUDICIALLY EXAMINE THE RECORD AT LENGTH,
HEAR EXTENDED ARGUMENT UPON IT AND PASS UPON THE MANY INFERENCES TO BE
DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE IT CONTAINED.  IN THE LIGHT OF THAT COURT'S
RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH MANY CASES IN THIS PARTICULAR FIELD OF THE LAW,
AND OF WHAT IT HAS DESCRIBED AS ITS "LONG AND CAREFUL STUDY OF THE
SITUATION," IT CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A FINDING OF THE COMBINATION CHARGED.  ITS OPINION REVIEWED THE
EVIDENCE AND POINTED OUT MANY WEAKNESSES IN THE INFERENCES UPON WHICH
THE COMMISSION HAD BASED ITS FINDING OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ALLEGED
UNLAWFUL COMBINATION.  FN8 

THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE
COMMISSION WAS ESPECIALLY IMPRESSIVE IN THE CASES CONCERNING THE
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA GROUP, THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROUP, THE WASHINGTON
OREGON GROUP  FN9  AND THE HURON PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY.  THE DECISION
OF THE COMMISSION AND OF THIS COURT EVEN IN THOSE CASES WAS MADE
DEPENDENT UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A COMBINATION,
HOWEVER ATTENUATED THE BASIS FOR THAT CONCLUSION MIGHT BE.  FN10  THE
CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS IN ALL OF THESE CASES ARE THEREFORE TO BE
REGARDED AS BASED UPON THE UNIQUE AND EXTENDED RECORD PRESENTED IN THIS
CASE, INCLUDING WHAT THIS COURT REFERS TO AS "ABUNDANT EVIDENCE AS TO
COMMON PRACTICES OF THESE RESPONDENTS AND THE OTHERS ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING COOPERATIVE CONDUCT AMONG
ALL TO ACHIEVE DELIVERED PRICE UNIFORMITY." 

ON THE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN BY THE COURT BELOW AND BY ME, THAT
EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING OF THE COMBINATION
AS CHARGED.  UNLIKE THE COMMISSION AND THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT, THE
LOWER COURT AND I, THEREFORE, HAVE FACED THE FURTHER ISSUE PRESENTED BY
THE COMMISSION'S CHARGES UNSUPPORTED BY A FINDING OF THE ALLEGED
COMBINATION.  THIS HAS LED US TO CONSIDER AN ISSUE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM
THAT DECIDED BY THIS COURT TODAY.  THAT ISSUE LIES WITHIN THE LONG
ESTABLISHED AND WIDESPREAD PRACTICE BY INDIVIDUALS OF BONA FIDE
COMPETITION BY FREIGHT ABSORPTION WITH WHICH PRACTICE CONGRESS HAS
DECLINED TO INTERFERE, ALTHOUGH ASKED TO DO SO.  FN11 THIS IS THE FIELD
WHERE A PRODUCER, FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES AND WITHOUT COLLUSION, OFTEN
SHIPS HIS PRODUCT TO A CUSTOMER WHO, IN TERMS OF FREIGHT CHARGES, IS
LOCATED NEARER TO ONE OR MORE OF THE PRODUCER'S COMPETITORS THAN TO THE
PRODUCER HIMSELF.  IN SELLING TO SUCH A CUSTOMER, THIS PRODUCER IS AT
AN OBVIOUS FREIGHT DISADVANTAGE.  TO MEET THE LOWER DELIVERED-PRICE OF
HIS COMPETITOR, THE PRODUCER, THEREFORE, REDUCES HIS DELIVERED-PRICE IN
THAT AREA BY A SUM SUFFICIENT TO ABSORB HIS FREIGHT DISADVANTAGE.  HE
MIGHT DO THIS FOR MANY REASONS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THIS CUSTOMER MIGHT BE
SUCH A LARGE CUSTOMER THAT THE VOLUME OF HIS ORDERS WOULD YIELD SUCH A
RETURN TO THE PRODUCER THAT THE PRODUCER, BY DISTRIBUTING HIS FIXED
CHARGES OVER THE RESULTINGLY INCREASED VOLUME OF BUSINESS, COULD ABSORB
THE FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WITHOUT LOSS OF PROFIT TO HIS BUSINESS AS A
WHOLE AND WITHOUT RAISING ANY CHARGES TO HIS OTHER CUSTOMERS.  THE
SECURING OF THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS MIGHT EVEN ENABLE THE PRODUCER TO
REDUCE HIS OWN BASIC FACTORY PRICE TO ALL HIS CUSTOMERS.  IT MIGHT MAKE
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROFITABLE AND A LOSING BUSINESS, RESULTING IN
THE PRODUCER'S SOLVENCY OR BANKRUPTCY.  IF THE ADVANTAGE TO BE DERIVED
FROM THIS CUSTOMER'S BUSINESS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT, IN ITSELF, THUS
COMPLETELY TO ABSORB THE FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL, THE PRODUCER MIGHT
ABSORB ALL OR PART OF SUCH DIFFERENTIAL BY A REDUCTION IN HIS NET
EARNINGS WITHOUT AFFECTING HIS OTHER CUSTOMERS.  WHETHER OR NOT HE
WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN ABSORBING ANY OR ALL OF THIS FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL
BY INCREASING HIS CHARGES TO OTHER CUSTOMERS, IN HIS OWN FREIGHT
ADVANTAGE AREA, RAISES A SEPARATE QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF SUCH
AN INCREASE.  THE COMMISSION AND THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT DID NOT
REACH THE QUESTION OF INDIVIDUAL AND INDEPENDENT ABSORPTIONS OF FREIGHT
CHARGES BY ONE OR MORE PRODUCERS TO MEET LOWER PRICES OF COMPETITORS IN
SUCH COMPETITORS' RESPECTIVE AREAS OF FREIGHT ADVANTAGE. 

I CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE
BEEN AFFIRMED, BUT I EMPHASIZE WHAT I REGARD AS EQUALLY IMPORTANT -
THAT THIS COURT, IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, HAS DONE SO
ON SUCH A DIFFERENT PREMISE THAT IT HAS NOT PASSED UPON THE VALIDITY OF
FREIGHT ABSORPTIONS MADE IN SALES BY ONE OR MORE PRODUCERS IN THE
COURSE OF BONA FIDE COMPETITION, WHERE SUCH PRODUCERS HAVE NOT ACTED AS
PART OF A COMBINATION TO HINDER, LESSEN, RESTRAIN OR SUPPRESS
COMPETITION IN THE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRODUCTS SO SOLD. 

FN1  "  ...  FOR MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS LAST PAST, RESPONDENTS HAVE
MAINTAINED AND NOW HAVE IN EFFECT A COMBINATION AMONG THEMSELVES TO
HINDER, LESSEN, RESTRICT AND RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN PRICE, AMONG
PRODUCING RESPONDENTS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR AFORESAID COMMERCE AMONG
THE STATES.  THE SAID COMBINATION IS MADE EFFECTIVE BY MUTUAL
UNDERSTANDING OR AGREEMENT TO EMPLOY, AND BY THE ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT OF,
THE METHODS AND PRACTICES SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS FIVE TO SEVEN
INCLUSIVE, OF THIS COUNT."  COUNT I, PARAGRAPH FOUR, OF COMPLAINT. 

"  ...  AS PARAGRAPHS ONE TO FIVE, INCLUSIVE, OF COUNT II OF THIS
COMPLAINT THE COMMISSION HEREBY INCORPORATES PARAGRAPHS ONE TO FIVE,
INCLUSIVE, OF COUNT I TO PRECISELY THE SAME EXTENT AS IF EACH AND ALL
OF THEM WERE SET FORTH IN FULL AND REPEATED VERBATIM IN THIS COUNT." 
COUNT II, PARAGRAPHS ONE TO FIVE, INCLUSIVE, OF COMPLAINT.  37 F.T.C.
AT PP. 102, 117. 

FN2  THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED IT A "HIGHLY CONTROVERTED ISSUE"
AS TO WHETHER THE FINDINGS AS MADE BY THE COMMISSION, EVEN IF SUPPORTED
BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, WOULD "SUSTAIN THE CHARGE OF
COMBINATION ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT."  157 F.2D 533, 543.  THAT COURT
THEN SAID THAT IF - 

"THIS WERE AN ORDINARY PROCEEDING WE WOULD RETURN IT TO THE
COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISING ITS FINDINGS IF IT COULD AND SO
DESIRED IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT WE HAVE SAID.  HOWEVER, WE ARE CONFRONTED
WITH WHAT MIGHT BE TERMED AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION.  AS ALREADY
OBSERVED, IT WILL SOON BE TEN YEARS SINCE THIS PROCEEDING WAS
INITIATED.  ...  WE THINK THE CASE SHOULD BE ON ITS WAY UP AND NOT
DOWN.  FOR THIS REASON WE SHALL NOT RETURN IT TO THE COMMISSION BUT
SHALL PROCEED TO DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED."  ID. AT P.    FN3
THE LAW OF THE CASE REPRESENTS A DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW IN RELATION TO
DELIVERED-PRICE SYSTEMS.  SEE ESPECIALLY, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
STALEY MFG. CO., 324 U.S. 746; CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V. FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N, 324 U.S. 726; SUGAR INSTITUTE, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 297
U.S. 553; FAIRMONT CREAMERY CO. V. MINNESOTA, 274 U.S. 1; CEMENT MFRS. 
PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588; MAPLE FLOORING
MANUFACTURERS ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563; UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN LINSEED OIL CO., 262 U.S. 371; AETNA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 157 F.2D 533(C.C.A.7TH)(THIS CASE BELOW); FORT
HOWARD PAPER CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 156 F.2D 899(C.C.A.7TH);
UNITED STATES MALTSTERS ASSN. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 152 F.2D
161(C.C.A.7TH). 

FN4  "SEC.  5.  (A) UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE, AND
UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN COMMERCE, ARE HEREBY DECLARED
UNLAWFUL. 

"THE COMMISSION IS HEREBY EMPOWERED AND DIRECTED TO PREVENT PERSONS,
PARTNERSHIPS, OR CORPORATIONS,  ...  FROM USING UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION IN COMMERCE AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN
COMMERCE. 

"(B)  WHENEVER THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY
SUCH PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, OR CORPORATION HAS BEEN OR IS USING ANY
UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION OR UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE IN
COMMERCE, AND IF IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COMMISSION THAT A PROCEEDING BY
IT IN RESPECT THEREOF WOULD BE TO THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, IT SHALL
ISSUE AND SERVE UPON SUCH PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, OR CORPORATION A
COMPLAINT STATING ITS CHARGES IN THAT RESPECT AND CONTAINING A NOTICE
OF A HEARING UPON A DAY AND AT A PLACE THEREIN FIXED  ...  IF UPON SUCH
HEARING THE COMMISSION SHALL BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE METHOD OF
COMPETITION OR THE ACT OR PRACTICE IN QUESTION IS PROHIBITED BY THIS
ACT, IT SHALL MAKE A REPORT IN WRITING IN WHICH IT SHALL STATE ITS
FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS AND SHALL ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED ON SUCH
PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, OR CORPORATION AN ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON,
PARTNERSHIP, OR CORPORATION TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM USING SUCH METHOD
OF COMPETITION OR SUCH ACT OR PRACTICE.  ...  " 

     .         .         . .         . 

52 STAT. 111-112, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45. 

FN5  SEC. 2.  (A)  ...  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED
IN COMMERCE, IN THE COURSE OF SUCH COMMERCE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF
COMMODITIES OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY,  ...  WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH
DISCRIMINATION MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO
CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF COMMERCE, OR TO INJURE, DESTROY, OR
PREVENT COMPETITION WITH ANY PERSON WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY
RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION, OR WITH CUSTOMERS OF
EITHER OF THEM:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT
DIFFERENTIALS WHICH MAKE ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE COST
OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR DELIVERY RESULTING FROM THE DIFFERING METHODS
OR QUANTITIES IN WHICH SUCH COMMODITIES ARE TO SUCH PURCHASERS SOLD OR
DELIVERED:  ... 

"(B)  UPON PROOF BEING MADE, AT ANY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT UNDER THIS
FACILITIES FURNISHED, THE BURDEN OF REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS
MADE BY SHOWING JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE UPON THE PERSON CHARGED WITH A
VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, AND UNLESS JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE
AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN, THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AN ORDER
TERMINATING THE DISCRIMINATION:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT A SELLER REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS
MADE BY SHOWING THAT HIS LOWER PRICE OR THE FURNISHING OF SERVICES OR
FACILITIES TO ANY PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO
MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR, OR THE SERVICES OR
FACILITIES FURNISHED BY A COMPETITOR." 

.         .         .         .         . 49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 13. 

FN6  THE FINAL SECTION OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT MAKES APPROPRIATE
DISCLAIMERS AS TO THE BREADTH OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AND OF ITS OWN
DECISION SUSTAINING THAT ORDER.  AMONG THESE IS THE STATEMENT THAT "THE
ORDER BY ITS TERMS IS DIRECTED SOLELY AT CONCERTED, NOT INDIVIDUAL
ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENTS."  THESE DISCLAIMERS ARE
FURTHER SUPPORTED BY SUCH STATEMENTS AS THE FOLLOWING IN THE BRIEF
FILED FOR THE COMMISSION IN THIS COURT: 

"IT IS PLAIN THAT UNDER THIS ORDER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF ITS
PROVISIONS ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS A 'PLANNED COMMON COURSE OF
ACTION, UNDERSTANDING, AGREEMENT, COMBINATION, OR CONSPIRACY' TO WHICH
A RESPONDENT IS A PARTY TO DO SOMETHING SPECIFIED IN THE NUMBERED
PARAGRAPHS OF THE ORDER.  THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION OF THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THESE PARAGRAPHS.  THE ORDER THEREFORE LEAVES EACH
RESPONDENT FREE - PROVIDED HE ACTS INDIVIDUALLY AND WITH THAT
VARIABILITY IN ACTION RESPECTING PARTICULAR COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS
WHICH IS CHARACTERISTIC OF GENUINE COMPETITIVE ENDEAVOR AND A FREE
MARKET - TO ABSORB FREIGHT IN ORDER TO MEET A COMPETITOR'S LOW PRICE OR
TO SELL AT A DELIVERED PRICE. 

"WHAT THE ORDER DOES IS TO BAR ACTING IN CONCERT IN ADOPTING,
CONTINUING, OR IMPLEMENTING THE MULTIPLE BASING-POINT DELIVERED-PRICE
SYSTEM OR ANY SIMILAR SYSTEM WHICH NECESSARILY OPERATES TO SUPPRESS
PRICE COMPETITION.  THE ORDER IS AIMED AT UPROOTING THE PRICING SYSTEM
WHICH HAS FLOURISHED BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT AMONG RESPONDENTS,
CHARGED AND FOUND, TO STIFLE PRICE COMPETITION BY SELLING CEMENT AT
IDENTICAL PRICES. 

"THE ERROR OF THE COURT BELOW IS EPITOMIZED IN ITS STATEMENT THAT
'THIS COURT IS NOW URGED TO HOLD THAT THE (MULTIPLE BASING-POINT
DELIVERED-PRICE) SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL PER SE, AND TO REQUIRE THAT CEMENT
BE SOLD ON AN F.O.B. PLANT BASIS'  ...  THE SYSTEM AS SUCH WAS NOT
ATTACKED; WHAT WAS ATTACKED WAS AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN AND IMPLEMENT THE
SYSTEM AND TO ELIMINATE PRICE COMPETITION. 

"  ...  HAD THE COMMISSION INFERRED AGREEMENT FROM THE SYSTEM ALONE,
IT MIGHT LOOSELY BE SAID THAT THE SYSTEM ITSELF WAS ATTACKED AS ILLEGAL
PER SE.  BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT THE COMMISSION DID.  ITS SEARCHING
INQUIRY DISCLOSED IN SPECIFIC DETAIL THE COLLECTIVE ACTION WHICH HAD
BEEN TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT AND CONTINUE THE SYSTEM.  AND FROM ALL THESE
FACTS, AS WELL AS THE EXISTENCE OF THE SYSTEM ITSELF, THE COMMISSION
FOUND COMBINATION AMONG RESPONDENTS TO SUPPRESS PRICE COMPETITION." 

THE STATEMENT BY THIS COURT, IN ITS NOTE 19, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
COURT DOES NOT HOLD "THAT EXISTENCE OF A 'COMBINATION' IS AN
INDISPENSABLE INGREDIENT OF AN 'UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION' UNDER THE
TRADE COMMISSION ACT" IS ACCOMPANIED BY A CITATION WHICH SHOWS THAT
THAT STATEMENT IS ONE OF GENERAL APPLICATION AND THAT IT IS NOT
INTENDED AS A DENIAL THAT THE COMBINATION FOUND BY THE COMMISSION IN
THIS CASE IS NOT A HIGHLY MATERIAL AND POSSIBLY DECISIVE FACTOR IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE. 

FN7  SEE PARAGRAPH TWENTY-SIX OF THE COMMISSION'S "FINDINGS AS TO
FACTS AND CONCLUSION": 

"  ...  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDES FROM THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD AND
THEREFORE FINDS THAT THE CAPACITY, TENDENCY, AND EFFECT OF THE
COMBINATION MAINTAINED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN THE MANNER
AFORESAID AND THE ACTS AND PRACTICES PERFORMED THEREUNDER AND IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH BY SAID RESPONDENTS, AS SET OUT HEREIN, HAS BEEN
AND IS TO HINDER, LESSEN, RESTRAIN, AND SUPPRESS COMPETITION IN THE
SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CEMENT IN, AMONG, AND BETWEEN THE SEVERAL
STATES OF THE UNITED STATES; TO DEPRIVE PURCHASERS OF CEMENT, BOTH
PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENTAL, OF THE BENEFITS OF COMPETITION IN PRICE; TO
SYSTEMATICALLY MAINTAIN ARTIFICIAL AND MONOPOLISTIC METHODS AND PRICES
IN THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF CEMENT, INCLUDING COMMON RATE FACTORS
USED AND USEFUL IN THE PRICING OF CEMENT; ...  "  37 F.T.C. AT P. 257. 

THE COMMISSION FOLLOWED THIS PARAGRAPH TWENTY-SIX IMMEDIATELY WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION OF LAW: 

"THE AFORESAID COMBINATION AND ACTS AND PRACTICES OF RESPONDENTS
PURSUANT THERETO AND IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AS HEREINABOVE FOUND,
UNDER THE CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH, CONSTITUTE UNFAIR
METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE WITHIN THE INTENT AND MEANING OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT; AND THE DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE BY
RESPONDENTS, AS HEREINABOVE SET OUT, CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF
SUBSECTION (A) OF SECTION 2 OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO
SUPPLEMENT EXISTING LAWS AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' APPROVED OCTOBER 15, 1914(THE CLAYTON ACT), AS
AMENDED BY ACT APPROVED JUNE 19, 1936(THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT)."  ID.
AT P. 258. 

FN8  A FURTHER REVIEW OF THE INSUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED INFERENCES
WOULD BE OF LITTLE VALUE HERE.  BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION, HOWEVER, IT MAY
BE NOTED THAT THE COMMISSION AND THIS COURT, IN ITS NOTE 15, HAVE
EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT SECRET SEALED BIDS FOR 6,000 BARRELS OF CEMENT
WERE RECEIVED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY FROM TEN OR MORE OF THE RESPONDENT
COMPANIES AND THAT THE BID OF EACH COMPANY WAS PRECISELY $3.286854 A
BARREL.  SUCH A FRACTIONAL IDENTITY OF PRICE WOULD, ON ITS FACE, CREATE
AN INFERENCE OF COLLUSION.  HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION FAILED TO EXPLAIN,
AS HAS THE COURT BELOW, THAT THE HIGHLY FRACTIONAL FIGURE MERELY
REFLECTED THE FREIGHT CHARGE.  THE BID, APART FROM THE FREIGHT CHARGE,
WAS $2.10 PER BARREL WHILE "THE LAND GRANT FREIGHT RATE TO WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED FROM THE NEAREST MILL OF THE ELEVEN BIDDERS WAS
$1.1865854($1.186854) PER BARREL."  AETNA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 157 F.2D 533, 567. 

FN9  THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA GROUP REFERS TO THE FOLLOWING
RESPONDENTS: 

CALAVERAS CEMENT COMPANY, 

PACIFIC PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, 

SANTA CRUZ PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, 

YOSEMITE PORTLAND CEMENT CORPORATION. 

THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROUP TO: 

CALIFORNIA PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, 

MONOLITH PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, 

RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY, 

SOUTHWESTERN PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY (VICTORVILLE, CALIFORNIA,
PLANT). 

THE WASHINGTON-OREGON GROUP TO: 

BEAVER PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, 

LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY (METALINE FALLS, WASHINGTON, PLANT), 

NORTHWESTERN PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, 

OREGON PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, 

SPOKANE PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, 

SUPERIOR PORTLAND CEMENT, INC. 

FN10  IN A GENERAL FINDING THE COMMISSION INDICATED THAT THE EVIDENCE
CONCERNING CERTAIN OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES WAS LESS CONCLUSIVE THAN
THAT RELATING TO SOME OF THE OTHER RESPONDENTS. 

"SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN PARTIES TO SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF
THESE ACTIVITIES; OTHER RESPONDENTS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A LESSER
DEGREE, OR FULLY OR PARTIALLY FOR SHORTER PERIODS OF TIME; OTHER
RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN MERE FOLLOWERS, ADOPTING AND SUPPORTING THE
PRACTICES OF THEIR MORE ACTIVE ASSOCIATES; AND A FEW RESPONDENTS HAVE
FROM TIME TO TIME, FOR VARIOUS REASONS, PARTICIPATED ONLY RELUCTANTLY
IN SOME OF THE PRACTICES, AND HAVE OCCASIONALLY OPPOSED FOR A TIME
PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF GROUP ACTION."  COMMISSION'S "FINDINGS AS TO
FACTS AND CONCLUSION," PARAGRAPH SIX (A).  37 F.T.C. AT P. 144. 

FN11  "FURTHERMORE, THE BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEM HAS BEEN IN USE BY
INDUSTRY FOR ALMOST A HALF CENTURY.  THERE HAS BEEN AND IS A MARKED
DIVERSITY OF OPINION AMONG ECONOMISTS, LAWMAKERS AND PEOPLE GENERALLY
AS TO WHETHER IT IS GOOD OR BAD.  NUMEROUS BILLS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED
IN CONGRESS SEEKING TO OUTLAW ITS USE.  COUNTLESS TIME HAS BEEN SPENT
IN HEARINGS BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, BEFORE WHOM IT HAS BEEN
ASSAILED AND DEFENDED.  THE PAGES OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD BEAR MUTE
BUT INDISPUTABLE PROOF OF THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS REPEATEDLY REFUSED
TO DECLARE ITS USE ILLEGAL.  THERE IS NO OCCASION TO RELATE THIS
CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY.  IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON AND GENERAL
KNOWLEDGE.  IN THE CORN PRODUCTS CASE, THE COURT IN COMMENTING UPON
SOME OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY STATED (324 U.S. AT PAGE 737, 65 S.
CT. AT PAGE 967, 89 L. ED. 1320):  'WE THINK THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
INDICATES ONLY THAT CONGRESS WAS UNWILLING TO REQUIRE F.O.B. FACTORY
PRICING, AND THUS TO MAKE ALL UNIFORM DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEMS AND ALL
BASING POINT SYSTEMS ILLEGAL PER SE.'  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS
CONGRESSIONAL ATTITUDE AS RECOGNIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT, THIS COURT
IS NOW URGED TO HOLD THAT THE SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL PER SE, AND TO REQUIRE
THAT CEMENT BE SOLD ON AN F.O.B. PLANT BASIS. 

"IN OUR JUDGMENT, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE BASING POINT PRICE
SYSTEM SHOULD BE DECLARED ILLEGAL RESTS CLEARLY WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE
DOMAIN.  WE KNOW OF NO CRITICISM SO OFTEN AND SO FORCIBLY DIRECTED AT
COURTS, PARTICULARLY FEDERAL COURTS, AS THEIR PROPENSITY FOR USURPING
THE FUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS.  IF THIS PRICING SYSTEM WHICH CONGRESS HAS
OVER THE YEARS STEADFASTLY REFUSED TO DECLARE ILLEGAL, ALTHOUGH
VIGOROUSLY URGED TO DO SO, IS NOW TO BE OUTLAWED BY THE COURTS, IT WILL
MARK THE HIGH TIDE IN JUDICIAL USURPATION."  AETNA PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, SUPRA, AT P. 573. 

SEE SECS. 1 AND 2, SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, APPROVED JULY 2, 1890, 26
STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1 AND 2; SEC. 5, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT, APPROVED SEPTEMBER 26, 1914, 38 STAT. 719; SEC. 2, CLAYTON ACT,
APPROVED OCTOBER 15, 1914, 38 STAT. 730; SEC. 2, CLAYTON ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, APPROVED JUNE 19, 1936, 49 STAT.
1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13; SEC. 5, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, AS
AMENDED, MARCH 21, 1938, 52 STAT. 111, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45.  SEE BILL "TO
PREVENT UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL CROSS-HAULING" INTRODUCED BY SENATOR
WHEELER IN 1936 BANNING BASING-POINT SYSTEMS BY STATUTE, BUT NOT
REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE.  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 4055, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1936), AND SEE P.
325.  SEE ALSO, H.R. REP. NO. 2287, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 14(1936), AND
DEBATES UPON THE ROBINSON-PATMAN BILL, 80 CONG. REC. 8102, 8118, 8140,
8223-8224(1936). 
..END :























ANDRES V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 740 


NO. 431.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1948.  - 163
F.2D 468, REVERSED. 


1.  WHETHER A VERDICT OF GUILTY IN A PROSECUTION IN A FEDERAL COURT
FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE SHOULD BE QUALIFIED BY ADDING THERETO
"WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT," AS AUTHORIZED BY 18 U.S.C. SEC. 567, IS
ENTIRELY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE JURY; AND THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE
TRIAL COURT ON THIS POINT IN THE INSTANT CASE WERE ADEQUATE.  PP. 742
744. 

2.  THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT'S USE, IN ITS
INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS CASE, OF CERTAIN LANGUAGE OBJECTED TO BY THE
PETITIONER AS INDICATING TO THE JURY THAT THE GRAND JURY HAD FOUND THAT
HE WAS PROBABLY GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE - ALTHOUGH THE
LANGUAGE WAS MISLEADING WHEN READ OUT OF CONTEXT AND COULD WELL HAVE
BEEN OMITTED.  PP. 744-745. 

3.  IN THE PROVISION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 542 THAT "THE MANNER OF
INFLICTING THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH SHALL BE THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY
THE LAWS OF THE STATE WITHIN WHICH THE SENTENCE IS IMPOSED," THE WORD
"STATE" INCLUDES THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII.  P. 745. 

4.  WHERE AN ACCUSED IN A PROSECUTION IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR MURDER
IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS FOUND GUILTY, THE VERDICT OF THE JURY, UNDER 18
U.S.C. SEC. 567, MUST BE UNANIMOUS BOTH AS TO GUILT AND AS TO WHETHER
THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED.  PP. 746-749. 

5.  IN A TRIAL IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, THE
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY WERE SUCH THAT THE JURY MIGHT REASONABLY
CONCLUDE THAT, IF THEY AGREED UNANIMOUSLY UPON A VERDICT OF GUILTY BUT
COULD NOT AGREE UNANIMOUSLY AS TO WHETHER "WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT"
SHOULD BE ADDED, THE VERDICT OF GUILTY MUST STAND UNQUALIFIED.  THE
JURY RETURNED AN UNQUALIFIED VERDICT OF GUILTY.  HELD:  THESE
INSTRUCTIONS DID NOT FULLY PROTECT THE ACCUSED, THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.  PP. 749-752. 

ANDRES V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
TERRITORY OF HAWAII OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND WAS SENTENCED TO
DEATH BY HANGING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  163 F.2D
468.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 843.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL, P. 752. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON DECEMBER 17, 1943, THE PETITIONER, TIMOTEO MARIANO ANDRES, WAS
INDICTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  18 U.S.C. SECS. 451, 452.  THE
INDICTMENT RECITED THAT ANDRES "ON OR ABOUT THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER,
1943, AT CIVILIAN HOUSING AREA NO. 3, PEARL HARBOR, ISLAND OF OAHU,
SAID CIVILIAN HOUSING AREA NO. 3 BEING ON LANDS RESERVED OR ACQUIRED
FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  ...  DID  ...  KILL  ...
CARMEN GAMI SAGUID  ...  "  ANDRES WAS TRIED BEFORE A JURY WHICH
RETURNED THIS VERDICT: 

"WE, THE JURY, DULY EMPANELED AND SWORN IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE,
DO HEREBY FIND THE DEFENDANT, TIMOTEO MARIANO ANDRES, GUILTY OF MURDER
IN THE FIRST DEGREE." 

HE WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH BY HANGING.  HE APPEALED HIS CONVICTION TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.  THAT COURT
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT, UNANIMOUSLY.  163 F.2D 468. 
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS FILED IN THIS COURT AND THAT
PETITION WAS GRANTED.  332 U.S. 843. 

FOUR QUESTIONS WERE PRESENTED IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  THREE
OF THESE WE DO NOT CONSIDER OF SUFFICIENT DOUBT OR IMPORTANCE TO
JUSTIFY AN EXTENDED DISCUSSION.  WE SHALL DISPOSE OF THEM BEFORE WE
REACH WHAT IS, FOR US, THE DECISIVE ISSUE OF THIS CASE. 

ANDRES CONTENDS THAT 18 U.S.C. SEC. 567, FN1  AS INTERPRETED BY
WINSTON V. UNITED STATES, 172 U.S. 303,  FN2  REQUIRES THAT THE TRIAL
COURT EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THE SCOPE OF THEIR DISCRETION IN GRANTING
MERCY TO A DEFENDANT.  IN THE WINSTON CASE, THE JUDGE HAD CHARGED THE
JURY THAT THEY COULD NOT QUALIFY THEIR VERDICT EXCEPT "  ...  IN CASES
THAT COMMEND THEMSELVES TO THE GOOD JUDGMENT OF THE JURY, CASES THAT
HAVE PALLIATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD SEEM TO JUSTIFY AND REQUIRE
IT."  172 U.S. AT 306.  THIS COURT HELD THAT INSTRUCTION ERRONEOUS. 
THE COURT READ THE STATUTE TO PLACE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACCUSED
SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE CAPITALLY PUNISHED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE JURY; AN EXERCISE OF THAT DISCRETION COULD BE BASED
UPON ANY CONSIDERATION WHICH APPEALED TO THE JURY.  FN3  IN THE CASE
NOW BEFORE US, THE TRIAL JUDGE GAVE THE INSTRUCTIONS SET FORTH IN THE
MARGIN.  FN4  IT IS CLEAR THAT HE LEFT THE QUESTION OF THE PUNISHMENT
TO BE IMPOSED - DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT - TO THE DISCRETION OF THE
JURY.  WE HOLD THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS ISSUE
SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE. 

IT IS NEXT CONTENDED THAT THE TRIAL WAS UNFAIR BECAUSE THE
INSTRUCTIONS QUOTED BELOW  FN5 INDICATED TO THE JURY THAT THE
INDICTMENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER REFLECTED A FINDING BY THE GRAND JURY
THAT HE WAS PROBABLY GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE.  PERHAPS THE ITALICIZED LANGUAGE IN THE CHARGE, READ OUT OF
CONTEXT, IS MISLEADING AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BETTER TO OMIT IT
COMPLETELY.  HOWEVER, WHEN THE LANGUAGE COMPLAINED OF IS READ IN
CONTEXT, IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NO REAL GROUND FOR
COMPLAINT.  NO MATERIAL ERROR RESULTED FROM THE WORDS. 

THE PETITIONER ALSO ARGUES THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY
OF HAWAII DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SENTENCE HIM TO DEATH BY HANGING. 
18 U.S.C. SEC. 542 PROVIDES:  "THE MANNER OF INFLICTING THE PUNISHMENT
OF DEATH SHALL BE THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE WITHIN
WHICH THE SENTENCE IS IMPOSED.  ...  IF THE LAWS OF THE STATE WITHIN
WHICH SENTENCE IS IMPOSED MAKE NO PROVISION FOR THE INFLICTION OF THE
PENALTY OF DEATH, THEN THE COURT SHALL DESIGNATE SOME OTHER STATE IN
WHICH SUCH SENTENCE SHALL BE EXECUTED IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE
LAWS THEREOF."  THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE PHRASE "LAWS OF THE
STATE" LIMITS THE STATUTE TO THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES AND, CONSEQUENTLY,
PROVIDES FOR NO METHOD OF INFLICTING THE DEATH PENALTY WHERE THAT
SENTENCE IS IMPOSED BY A DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN A TERRITORY.  FN6 WE
REJECT THAT CONTENTION AS BEING WITHOUT MERIT.  IN MANY CONTEXTS
"STATE" MAY MEAN ONLY THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES.  HERE,
HOWEVER, WE HOLD THAT ITS MEANING INCLUDES THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII. 

THE LAST AND MOST DIFFICULT ISSUE RAISED BY ANDRES IS THE QUESTION OF
THE PROPRIETY OF THOSE INSTRUCTIONS BY WHICH THE TRIAL JUDGE ATTEMPTED
TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNANIMITY IN THEIR VERDICT. 
THIS ISSUE IS A COMPOSITE OF TWO PROBLEMS:  (1) THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION
OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 567; AND (2) THE CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THE
INSTRUCTION GIVEN CLEARLY CONVEYED TO THE JURY THE CORRECT STATUTORY
MEANING. 

ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE  ...
THE JURY MAY QUALIFY THEIR VERDICT BY ADDING THERETO 'WITHOUT CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT'; AND WHENEVER THE JURY SHALL RETURN A VERDICT QUALIFIED AS
AFORESAID, THE PERSON CONVICTED SHALL BE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR
LIFE."  IF A QUALIFIED VERDICT IS NOT RETURNED, THE DEATH PENALTY IS
MANDATORY.  FN7  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT SEC. 567 PROPERLY CONSTRUED
REQUIRES THAT THE JURY FIRST UNANIMOUSLY DECIDE THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED AND, THEN, WITH THE SAME UNANIMITY DECIDE WHETHER A QUALIFIED
VERDICT SHALL BE RETURNED.  AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE DEATH PENALTY
ON A VERDICT OF GUILTY, THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE JURY ACTS
UNANIMOUSLY IN FINDING GUILT AND THE LAW EXACTS THE PENALTY.  IT
FOLLOWS, THAT IF ALL TWELVE OF THE JURORS CANNOT AGREE TO ADD THE WORDS
"WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT," THE ORIGINAL VERDICT OF GUILT STANDS AND
THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH MUST BE IMPOSED.  THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT
SEC. 567 MUST BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE UNANIMITY IN RESPECT TO BOTH
GUILT AND PUNISHMENT BEFORE A VERDICT CAN BE RETURNED.  IT FOLLOWS THAT
ONE JUROR CAN PREVENT A VERDICT WHICH REQUIRES THE DEATH PENALTY,
ALTHOUGH THERE IS UNANIMITY IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT UNANIMITY OF
THE JURY WAS REQUIRED BOTH AS TO GUILT AND THE REFUSAL TO QUALIFY THE
VERDICT BY THE WORDS "WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT."  IT INTERPRETED THE
INSTRUCTIONS, HOWEVER, AS REQUIRING THIS UNANIMITY. 

THE FIRST CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDED IN AN ACT OF APRIL
30, 1790:  "THAT IF ANY PERSON OR PERSONS SHALL, WITHIN ANY FORT,
ARSENAL, DOCK-YARD, MAGAZINE, OR IN ANY OTHER PLACE OR DISTRICT OF
COUNTRY, UNDER THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, COMMIT THE CRIME OF WILFUL MURDER, SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS ON
BEING THEREOF CONVICTED SHALL SUFFER DEATH."  FN8  THIS WAS THE FEDERAL
LAW, IN THE RESPECTS HERE RELEVANT, UNTIL 1897.  IN THAT YEAR CONGRESS
PASSED AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE ACT OF JANUARY 15, 1897.  FN9  THAT
STATUTE PROVIDED: 

"THAT IN ALL CASES WHERE THE ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
MURDER OR OF RAPE UNDER SECTIONS FIFTY-THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINE OR
FIFTY-THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIVE, REVISED STATUTES, THE JURY MAY
QUALIFY THEIR VERDICT BY ADDING THERETO 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT;'
AND WHENEVER THE JURY SHALL RETURN A VERDICT QUALIFIED AS AFORESAID THE
PERSON CONVICTED SHALL BE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT AT HARD LABOR FOR
LIFE." 

IT IS THIS LANGUAGE, SUBSTANTIALLY UNCHANGED, WHICH WE MUST CONSTRUE
IN THIS CASE.  FN10 

THE REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND THE DEBATES ON THE
FLOOR OF CONGRESS DO NOT DISCUSS THE PARTICULAR PROBLEM WITH WHICH WE
ARE NOW CONCERNED.  FN11  THERE ARE, HOWEVER, MANY EXPRESSIONS WHICH
INDICATE THAT THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE WAS TO LIMIT THE
SEVERITY OF THE OLD LAW.  FN12 

UNANIMITY IN JURY VERDICTS IS REQUIRED WHERE THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH
AMENDMENTS APPLY.  FN13  IN CRIMINAL CASES THIS REQUIREMENT OF
UNANIMITY EXTENDS TO ALL ISSUES - CHARACTER OR DEGREE OF THE CRIME,
GUILT AND PUNISHMENT - WHICH ARE LEFT TO THE JURY.  A VERDICT EMBODIES
IN A SINGLE FINDING THE CONCLUSIONS BY THE JURY UPON ALL THE QUESTIONS
SUBMITTED TO IT.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO THE
JURY BY SEC. 567 TO QUALIFY THEIR VERDICT PERMITS A PROCEDURE WHEREBY A
UNANIMOUS JURY MUST FIRST FIND GUILT AND THEN A UNANIMOUS JURY
ALLEVIATE ITS RIGOR.  THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC.
567 URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE PROVEN ERRONEOUS WITH CERTAINTY,
SINCE THE STATUTE CONTAINS NO LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRING UNANIMITY
ON BOTH GUILT AND PUNISHMENT BEFORE A VERDICT CAN BE BROUGHT IN, WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE STATUTE BY THE LOWER
COURT IS CORRECT - THAT THE JURY'S DECISION UPON BOTH GUILT AND WHETHER
THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH SHOULD BE IMPOSED MUST BE UNANIMOUS.  THIS
CONSTRUCTION IS MORE CONSONANT WITH THE GENERAL HUMANITARIAN PURPOSE OF
THE STATUTE AND THE HISTORY OF THE ANGLO-AMERICAN JURY SYSTEM THAN THAT
PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FN14 

THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE INSTRUCTIONS
GIVEN BY THE TRIAL JUDGE CLEARLY CONVEYED TO THE JURY A CORRECT
UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUTE.  THERE WAS A GENERAL CHARGE THAT "THE
UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT OF THE JURY IS NECESSARY TO A VERDICT."  LATER, AND
THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION CAN BEST BE
UNDERSTOOD BY THE COLLOQUY, THE FOLLOWING TOOK PLACE: 

"(AT 3:45 O'CLOCK, P.M., THE JURY RETURNED TO THE COURTROOM, AND THE
FOLLOWING OCCURRED:) 

"THE COURT:  NOTE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AND THE DEFENDANT TOGETHER
WITH HIS ATTORNEY.  I AM ADVISED BY THE BAILIFF THAT THE JURY WISHES TO
ASK THE COURT A QUESTION.  WHICH GENTLEMEN IS THE FOREMAN - YOU, MR.
HAM?  YOU ARE MR. HAM? 

"THE FOREMAN:  ...  THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF A
VERDICT OF GUILTY IN THE FIRST DEGREE WAS BROUGHT IN, WHETHER IT WOULD
BE MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE TO SENTENCE THE MAN TO DEATH, OR
HANGING, OR USE HIS OWN DISCRETION. 

"THE COURT:  JUST A MINUTE.  I WANT TO BE RIGHT IN MY ANSWER.  YOU
MAY SIT DOWN.  WILL THE COUNSEL COME TO THE BENCH, PLEASE?  (DISCUSSION
OFF THE RECORD.) 

"THE COURT:  GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, THE STATUTE, AS I RECALL, ANSWERS
THAT QUESTION, BUT I WANTED TO LOOK AT IT ONCE AGAIN BEFORE I GAVE YOU
A POSITIVE ANSWER.  THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS THAT, IN THE ABSENCE
OF A QUALIFIED VERDICT, IF THE VERDICT IS GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, THE COURT HAS NO DISCRETION, FOR THE STATUTE PROVIDES IN SUCH
EVENT THAT THE PERSON SO CONVICTED OF SUCH AN OFFENSE - MURDER IN THE
FIRST DEGREE - SHALL SUFFER THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.  AS I TOLD YOU IN
YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, THERE IS ANOTHER FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH ENABLES YOU
GENTLEMEN TO QUALIFY YOUR VERDICT AND TO ADD, IN THE EVENT YOU SHOULD
FIND THE PERSON GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, TO ADD TO THAT
VERDICT, I REPEAT, THE PHRASE 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.'  IN THAT
EVENT THE MAN, OF COURSE, UNDER THE STATUTE SO CONVICTED WOULD NOT
SUFFER THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH BUT IT WOULD LIFE IMPRISONMENT, AS I
RECALL IT UNDER THE STATUTE. 

"DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? 

"THE FOREMAN:  YES. 

"THE COURT:  DON'T DISCUSS YOUR PROBLEMS HERE, BUT IF IT IS AN ANSWER
TO YOUR QUESTION, YOU GENTLEMEN CAN RETIRE TO YOUR JURY ROOM IF THERE
ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. 

"THE FOREMAN:  NO OTHER. 

"THE COURT:  COUNSEL HAVE ASKED ME TO REREAD THE INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU
ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT AS AN AMPLIFICATION OF MY ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION.  WILL YOU BEAR WITH ME JUST A MOMENT UNTIL I FIND THAT
INSTRUCTION?  I WILL REREAD ONE OR TWO INSTRUCIONS TO YOU WHICH BEAR ON
THE QUESTION WHICH YOU HAVE ASKED: 

"'YOU MAY RETURN A QUALIFIED VERDICT IN THIS CASE BY ADDING THE WORDS
"WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT" TO YOUR VERDICT.  THIS POWER IS CONFERRED
SOLELY UPON 

YOU AND IN THIS CONNECTION THE COURT CAN NOT EXTEND OR PRESCRIBE TO
YOU ANY DEFINITE RULE DEFINING THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER, BUT COMMITS
THE ENTIRE MATTER OF ITS EXERCISE TO YOUR JUDGMENT.' 

"'EVEN IF YOU SHOULD UNANIMOUSLY AGREE FROM THE EVIDENCE BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY AS CHARGED, YOU MAY, AS I
HAVE SAID, QUALIFY YOUR VERDICT BY ADDING THERETO "WITHOUT CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT," IN WHICH CASE THE DEFENDANT SHALL NOT SUFFER THE DEATH
PENALTY.' 

"'IN THIS CONNECTION, I FURTHER INSTRUCT YOU THAT YOU ARE AUTHORIZED
TO ADD TO YOUR VERDICT THE WORDS "WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT," AND THIS
YOU MAY DO NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE MAY BE AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
EXISTENCE OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.' 

"AND, FINALLY, YOU WILL RECALL I SAID THAT YOU ARE INSTRUCTED THAT
BEFORE YOU MAY RETURN A QUALIFIED VERDICT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE
WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, THAT YOUR DECISION TO DO SO MUST, LIKE YOUR
REGULAR VERDICT, BE UNANIMOUS." 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT, IF THE PETITIONER'S INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. 567 IS ACCEPTED, THESE INSTRUCTIONS WERE INADEQUATE; AND WE FIND
OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS CONCESSION.  THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED
THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE PROPER AND THAT THEY DID NOT MISLEAD THE
JURY.  FN15 IT BASED ITS CONCLUSION UPON TWO FACTORS:  (1) THE COMMON
UNDERSTANDING OF JURORS THAT "THEY ARE UNDER NO LEGAL COMPULSION TO
JOIN IN A VERDICT WITH WHICH THEY ARE IN DISAGREEMENT, EITHER IN WHOLE
OR IN PART  ...  "; FN16  AND (2) THE GENERAL ADMONITION OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE THAT "THE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT OF THE JURY IS NECESSARY TO A
VERDICT."  FN17    IT SEEMS TO US, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE A JURY IS TOLD
FIRST THAT THEIR VERDICT MUST BE UNANIMOUS, AND LATER, IN RESPONSE TO A
QUESTION DIRECTED TO THE PARTICULAR PROBLEM OF QUALIFIED VERDICTS, THAT
IF THEIR VERDICT IS FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AND THEY DESIRE TO QUALIFY IT,
THEY MUST BE UNANIMOUS IN SO DOING, THE JURY MIGHT REASONABLY CONCLUDE
THAT, IF THEY CANNOT ALL AGREE TO GRANT MERCY, THE VERDICT OF GUILT
MUST STAND UNQUALIFIED.  THAT REASONABLE MEN MIGHT DERIVE A MEANING
FROM THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN OTHER THAN THE PROPER MEANING OF SEC. 567
IS PROBABLE.  IN DEATH CASES DOUBTS SUCH AS THOSE PRESENTED HERE SHOULD
BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.  THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 567 DOES NOT
DEFY ACCURATE AND PRECISE EXPRESSION.  FOR EXAMPLE:  AN INSTRUCTION
THAT A JUROR SHOULD NOT JOIN A VERDICT OF GUILTY, WITHOUT
QUALIFICATION, IF HE IS CONVINCED THAT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT BE
INFLICTED, WOULD HAVE SATISFIED THE STATUTE AND PROTECTED THE
DEFENDANT.  OR THE JURY MIGHT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT ITS CONCLUSION
ON BOTH GUILT AND PUNISHMENT MUST BE UNANIMOUS BEFORE ANY VERDICT COULD
BE FOUND. 

AS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN ON THIS ISSUE
DID NOT FULLY PROTECT THE PETITIONER, THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT
IS REVERSED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "IN ALL CASES WHERE THE ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, OR RAPE, THE JURY MAY QUALIFY THEIR VERDICT
BY ADDING THERETO 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT'; AND WHENEVER THE JURY
SHALL RETURN A VERDICT QUALIFIED AS AFORESAID, THE PERSON CONVICTED
SHALL BE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE." 

FN2  IN WINSTON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE QUESTION PRESENTED WAS
THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF JANUARY 15, 1897.  29
STAT. 487.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 567, IN ITS RELEVANT PART, HAS LANGUAGE
IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE EARLIER STATUTE. 

FN3  172 U.S. AT 312-13: 

"THE RIGHT TO QUALIFY A VERDICT OF GUILTY, BY ADDING THE WORDS
'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,' IS THUS CONFERRED UPON THE JURY IN ALL
CASES OF MURDER.  THE ACT DOES NOT ITSELF PRESCRIBE, NOR AUTHORIZE THE
COURT TO PRESCRIBE, ANY RULE DEFINING OR CIRCUMSCRIBING THE EXERCISE OF
THIS RIGHT; BUT COMMITS THE WHOLE MATTER OF ITS EXERCISE TO THE
JUDGMENT AND THE CONSCIENCES OF THE JURY.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE JURY TO
DECIDE THAT THE ACCUSED SHALL NOT BE PUNISHED CAPITALLY IS NOT LIMITED
TO CASES IN WHICH THE COURT, OR THE JURY, IS OF OPINION THAT THERE ARE
PALLIATING OR MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.  BUT IT EXTENDS TO EVERY CASE
IN WHICH, UPON A VIEW OF THE WHOLE EVIDENCE, THE JURY IS OF OPINION
THAT IT WOULD NOT BE JUST OR WISE TO IMPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  HOW
FAR CONSIDERATIONS OF AGE, SEX, IGNORANCE, ILLNESS OR INTOXICATION, OF
HUMAN PASSION OR WEAKNESS, OF SYMPATHY OR CLEMENCY, OR THE
IRREVOCABLENESS OF AN EXECUTED SENTENCE OF DEATH, OR AN APPREHENSION
THAT EXPLANATORY FACTS MAY EXIST WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT,
OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION WHATEVER, SHOULD BE ALLOWED WEIGHT IN
DECIDING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACCUSED SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE
CAPITALLY PUNISHED, IS COMMITTED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS TO THE SOUND
DISCRETION OF THE JURY, AND OF THE JURY ALONE." 

FN4  "I INSTRUCT YOU THAT YOU MAY RETURN A QUALIFIED VERDICT IN THIS
CASE BY ADDING THE WORDS 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT' TO YOUR VERDICT. 
THIS POWER IS CONFERRED SOLELY UPON YOU AND IN THIS CONNECTION THE
COURT CAN NOT EXTEND OR PRESCRIBE TO YOU ANY DEFINITE RULE DEFINING THE
EXERCISE OF THIS POWER, BUT COMMITS THE ENTIRE MATTER OF ITS EXERCISE
TO YOUR JUDGMENT. 

"I INSTRUCT YOU, GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY THAT EVEN IF YOU SHOULD
UNANIMOUSLY AGREE FROM THE EVIDENCE BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY AS CHARGED, YOU MAY QUALIFY YOUR VERDICT BY
ADDING THERETO 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT' IN WHICH CASE THE DEFENDANT
SHALL NOT SUFFER THE DEATH PENALTY. 

"IN THIS CONNECTION, I FURTHER INSTRUCT YOU THAT YOU ARE AUTHORIZED
TO ADD TO YOUR VERDICT THE WORDS 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,' AND THIS
YOU MAY DO NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE MAY BE AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
EXISTENCE OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES." 

FN5  "TO THE INDICTMENT WHICH THE GRAND JURY RETURNED AGAINST THIS
DEFENDANT, THIS DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY.  THAT IS TO
SAY, HE DENIED THE CHARGE STATED IN THE INDICTMENT AND PLACED HIMSELF
UPON HIS COUNTRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRIAL.  THE BURDEN IS UPON THE
GOVERNMENT TO SHOW TO YOUR SATISFACTION, GENTLEMEN, THAT THIS DEFENDANT
IS GUILTY BEYOND EVERY REASONABLE DOUBT.  THIS BURDEN DOES NOT CHANGE
AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL.  THE DEFENDANT IS PRESUMED
INNOCENT OF THE CHARGE STATED IN THE INDICTMENT UNTIL HE IS PROVEN
GUILTY BY THE DEGREE OF PROOF TO WHICH I HAVE PREVIOUSLY REFERRED.  THE
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT A MERE
FORMALITY TO BE DISREGARDED BY THE JURY AT ITS PLEASURE.  IT IS A
SUBSTANTIVE PART OF OUR CRIMINAL LAW.  THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
CONTINUES WITH THE DEFENDANT THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL UNTIL YOU ARE
CONVINCED BY THE EVIDENCE THAT HE IS GUILTY BEYOND EVERY REASONABLE
DOUBT. 

"WHEN THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED BY THE GRAND JURY AGAINST THIS
DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT HAD HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS SIDE OF
THE CASE.  THE INDICTMENT WAS FOUND BY THE GRAND JURY UPON EVIDENCE
PRESENTED TO IT BY THE GOVERNMENT ALONE, AND CREATED IN THE MINDS OF
THE GRAND JURY A BELIEF THAT IT WAS PROBABLE THAT A CRIME HAD BEEN
COMMITTED AND THAT THIS DEFENDANT PROBABLY COMMITTED THAT CRIME. 

"UPON THE EVIDENCE (WHICH) IT HEARD, THE GRAND JURY INDICTED THIS
DEFENDANT, THEREBY INDICATING THAT IT WAS PROBABLE THAT A CRIME HAD
BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF IN THIS COURT WHERE BOTH
SIDES COULD BE HEARD, AND THIS IS THE STAGE WHICH WE HAVE NOW REACHED. 

"I ADVISE YOU, GENTLEMEN, THAT IT IS THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE
WHICH FRAMES THE ISSUES OF THE CASE." 

PETITIONER COMPLAINS OF THE ITALICIZED LANGUAGE. 

FN6  SECTION 542, BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT IN 1937, READ:  "THE MANNER OF
INFLICTING THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH SHALL BE BY HANGING."  35 STAT.
1151.  THE CHANGES IN THE STATUTE FROM THAT LANGUAGE TO THE PRESENT
LANGUAGE WERE PROMPTED BY THE FACT THAT "MANY STATES  ...  USE (D) MORE
HUMANE METHODS OF EXECUTION, SUCH AS ELECTROCUTION, OR GAS.  ...
(THEREFORE,) IT APPEARED) DESIRABLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LIKEWISE
TO CHANGE ITS LAW IN THIS RESPECT  ...  "  H.R. REP. NO. 164, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., 1.  SINCE CONGRESS WAS WELL AWARE THAT FEDERAL COURTS
HAD JURISDICTION IN TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS, IT WOULD BE
INCONGRUOUS TO HOLD THAT THEY DID NOT USE THE WORD "STATE" TO COVER
SUCH AREAS.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS REMEDIAL:  THE
ADOPTION OF THE LOCAL MODE OF EXECUTION.  THE INTENT OF CONGRESS WOULD
BE FRUSTRATED BY CONSTRUING THE STATUTE TO CREATE THAT HIATUS FOR WHICH
THE PETITIONER CONTENDS. 

FN7  18 U.S.C. SEC. 454:  "EVERY PERSON GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE SHALL SUFFER DEATH.  ...  " 

FN8  1 STAT. 113. 

FN9  29 STAT. 487. 

FN10  THE ACT OF JANUARY 15, 1897, WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE CRIMINAL
CODE OF 1909 AS SEC. 330 WITH CHANGES THAT ARE HERE UNIMPORTANT.  35
STAT. 1152.  SECTION 330 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE IS NOW 18 U.S.C. SEC.
567. 

FN11  DISSATISFACTION OVER THE HARSHNESS AND ANTIQUITY OF THE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL LAWS LED IN 1894 TO THE INTRODUCTION BY N.M. CURTIS OF NEW
YORK OF A BILL TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CRIMES FOR WHICH THE PENALTY OF
DEATH COULD BE IMPOSED AND TO GIVE THE JURY THE RIGHT TO "QUALIFY THEIR
VERDICT (IN DEATH CASES) BY ADDING THERETO 'WITHOUT CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT.'"  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 545, 53D CONG., 2D SESS.  THE BILL AS
INTRODUCED DIVIDED MURDER INTO DEGREES, SECS. 1, 2 OF H.R. 5836, 53D
CONG., 2D SESS.; IT WAS PASSED BY THE HOUSE WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES.  27 CONG. REC. 823.  AFTER SEVERE AMENDMENT IT WAS FAVORABLY
REPORTED TO THE SENATE BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.  SEE S. REP.
NO. 846, 53D CONG., 3D SESS.  THESE AMENDMENTS, HOWEVER, DID NOT AFFECT
SEC. 5 OF THE ORIGINAL BILL, THE SECTION WHICH PROVIDED FOR QUALIFIED
VERDICTS; THAT SECTION WAS RETAINED AND BECAME SEC. 1 OF THE NEW BILL. 
ID. AT P. 2.  THE COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, "THOUGHT IT INADVISABLE TO MAKE
DEGREES IN THE CRIME OF MURDER, OR ATTEMPT NEW DEFINITIONS."  IBID.
CONSEQUENTLY, IT STRUCK OUT THE SECTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL BILL WHICH
CONCERNED THEMSELVES WITH THESE MATTERS.  THE COMMITTEE REPORT STATED
THAT "THE LEADING OBJECT OF THIS BILL IS TO DIMINISH THE INFLICTION OF
THE DEATH PENALTY BY LIMITING THE OFFENSES UPON WHICH IT IS DENOUNCED,
AND BY PROVIDING IN ALL CASES A LATITUDE IN THE TRIBUNAL WHICH SHALL
TRY THEM TO WITHHOLD THE EXTREMEST PUNISHMENT WHEN DEEMED TOO SEVERE." 
ID. AT P. 1.  THE BILL AS AMENDED WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE AND LATER BY
THE HOUSE. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA; 28 CONG. REC. 2649-2650, 3098-3111, 3651. 

FN13  SEE AMERICAN PUBLISHING CO. V. FISHER, 166 U.S. 464. 

FN14  THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 47 F.2D
518, WHICH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PRESENT CASE, APPEARS TO BE THE
ONLY FEDERAL DECISION ON THIS QUESTION. 

FN15  ANDRES V. UNITED STATES, 163 F.2D 468, 471. 

FN16  ID. AT P. 471. 

FN17  IBID. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

HAVING HAD MORE DIFFICULTY THAN DID MY BRETHREN IN REACHING THEIR
RESULT, I DEEM IT NECESSARY TO STATE MORE AT LENGTH THAN DOES THE
COURT'S OPINION THE REASONS THAT OUTWEIGH MY DOUBTS, WHICH HAVE NOT
BEEN WHOLLY DISSIPATED. 

THIS CASE AFFORDS A STRIKING ILLUSTRATION OF THE TASK CAST UPON
COURTS WHEN LEGISLATION IS MORE AMBIGUOUS THAN THE LIMITS OF REASONABLE
FORESIGHT IN DRAFTSMANSHIP JUSTIFY.  IT ALSO PROVES THAT WHEN THE
LEGISLATIVE WILL IS CLOUDED, WHAT IS CALLED JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION HAS
AN INEVITABLE ELEMENT OF JUDICIAL CREATION.  CONSTRUCTION MUST MAKE A
CHOICE BETWEEN TWO MEANINGS, EQUALLY SUSTAINABLE AS A MATTER OF
RATIONAL ANALYSIS, ON CONSIDERATIONS NOT DERIVED FROM A MERE READING OF
THE TEXT. 

FOR THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS GOVERNMENT
ONE GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WAS
SENTENCED TO DEATH.  SINCE 1897 A JURY, AFTER IT FOUND AN ACCUSED
"GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE  ...  MAY QUALIFY
THEIR VERDICT BY ADDING THERETO 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT;' AND
WHENEVER THE JURY SHALL RETURN A VERDICT QUALIFIED AS AFORESAID, THE
PERSON CONVICTED SHALL BE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE."  ACT OF
JANUARY 15, 1897, 29 STAT. 487, AS AMENDED, 35 STAT. 1151, 1152, SEC.
330 CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 567. 

THE STATUTE REFLECTS THE MOVEMENT, ACTIVE DURING THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY, AGAINST THE DEATH SENTENCE.  THE MOVEMENT WAS IMPELLED BOTH BY
ETHICAL AND HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AS WELL
AS BY THE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION THAT JURORS WERE RELUCTANT TO BRING
IN VERDICTS WHICH INEVITABLY CALLED FOR ITS INFLICTION.  ALMOST EVERY
STATE PASSED MITIGATING LEGISLATION.  FN1  ONLY FIVE STATES MET THE
DOUBTS AND DISQUIETUDES ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BY ITS ABOLITION. 
MOST OF THE OTHER STATES PLACED IN THE JURY'S HANDS SOME POWER TO
RELIEVE FROM A DEATH SENTENCE.  BUT THE SCOPE OF A JURY'S POWER TO SAVE
ONE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE FROM A DEATH SENTENCE IS
BOUND TO GIVE RISE TO A PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WHEN THE
LEGISLATION DOES NOT DEFINE THE POWER WITH EXPLICITNESS. 

A LEGISLATURE WHICH SEEKS TO RETAIN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AS A POLICY
BUT DOES NOT MAKE ITS IMPOSITION AFTER A FINDING OF GUILTY IMPERATIVE
HAS THESE MAIN CHOICES THAT LEAVE LITTLE ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION: 

(1)  LEGISLATION MAY LEAVE WITH THE JURY THE DUTY OF FINDING AN
ACCUSED GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE BUT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT OF
REMISSION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE, PROVIDED THERE IS UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT
ON SUCH REMISSION.  ANY JUROR, OF COURSE, HAS IT IN HIS POWER TO
DEADLOCK A JURY OUT OF SHEER WILFULNESS OR UNREASONABLE OBSTINACY.  BUT
UNDER SUCH A STATUTE THE DUTY LAID UPON HIS CONSCIENCE IS TO FIND GUILT
IF THERE IS GUILT.  THE JURY CAN SAVE AN ACCUSED FROM DEATH ONLY IF
THEY CAN REACH A UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT TO RELIEVE FROM THE DOOM. 

(2)  THE LEGISLATURE MAY NOT REQUIRE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON REMISSION
OF THE DEATH SENTENCE, BUT MAY MAKE SUCH REMISSION EFFECTIVE BY A
MAJORITY VOTE OF THE JURY, OR, AS IN THE CASE OF THE MISSISSIPPI
STATUTE, IT MAY EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT 

"EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL BE CONVICTED OF MURDER SHALL SUFFER DEATH,
UNLESS THE JURY RENDERING THE VERDICT SHALL FIX THE PUNISHMENT AT
IMPRISONMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY FOR THE LIFE OF THE CONVICT; OR UNLESS
THE JURY SHALL CERTIFY ITS DISAGREEMENT AS TO THE PUNISHMENT  ...  IN
WHICH CASE THE COURT SHALL FIX THE PUNISHMENT AT IMPRISONMENT FOR
LIFE."  (MISS.  CODE ANN. SEC. 2217(1942).) 

(3)  THE LEGISLATURE MAY REQUIRE THE JURY TO SPECIFY THE PUNISHMENT
IN THEIR VERDICT.  UNDER SUCH LEGISLATION IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE
JURY'S VERDICT NOT ONLY TO PRONOUNCE GUILT BUT ALSO TO PRESCRIBE THE
SENTENCE. 

(4)  THE JURY MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO QUALIFY THE TRADITIONAL VERDICT OF
GUILTY SO AS TO ENABLE THE COURT TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE OTHER THAN
DEATH.  THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY GIVING SUCH DISCRETIONARY POWER TO
THE COURT SIMPLICITER, OR UPON RECOMMENDATION OF MERCY BY THE JURY. 

NONE OF THESE TYPES OF LEGISLATION WOULD LEAVE ANY REASONABLE DOUBT
AS TO THE POWER AND DUTY OF A JURY.  UNFORTUNATELY, THE ALLEVIATING
FEDERAL LEGISLATION OF 1897, TO WHICH THE COURT MUST NOW GIVE
AUTHORITATIVE MEANING, WAS NOT CAST IN ANY ONE OF THE FOREGOING FORMS. 
CONGRESS EXPRESSED ITSELF AS FOLLOWS:    "IN ALL CASES WHERE THE
ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, OR
RAPE, THE JURY MAY QUALIFY THEIR VERDICT BY ADDING THERETO 'WITHOUT
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT;' AND WHENEVER THE JURY SHALL RETURN A VERDICT
QUALIFIED AS AFORESAID, THE PERSON CONVICTED SHALL BE SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE."  (29 STAT. 487, AS AMENDED, 35 STAT. 1151,
1152, SEC. 330 CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 567.) 

THE FAIR SPONTANEOUS READING OF THIS PROVISION, IN CONNECTION WITH
SEC. 275 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE - "EVERY PERSON GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE
FIRST DEGREE SHALL SUFFER DEATH."  (35 STAT. 1143, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 454)
WOULD BE THAT CONGRESS HAS CONTINUED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AS ITS POLICY;
THAT ONE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE MUST SUFFER DEATH
IF THE JURY REACHES SUCH A VERDICT BUT THAT "THE JURY MAY QUALIFY THEIR
VERDICT BY ADDING THERETO 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT;'" THAT, SINCE
FEDERAL JURY ACTION REQUIRES UNANIMITY, WHEN UNANIMITY IS NOT ATTAINED
BY THE JURY IN ORDER TO "QUALIFY THEIR VERDICT" BY "ADDING" THE PHRASE
OF ALLEVIATION, THE VERDICT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ALREADY
REACHED MUST STAND.  CERTAINLY, IF CONSTRUCTION CALLED FOR NO MORE THAN
READING THE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS AS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS, TO
INTERPRET IT AS JUST INDICATED WOULD NOT BE BLINDLY LITERAL READING OF
LEGISLATION IN DEFIANCE OF THE INJUNCTION THAT THE LETTER KILLETH.  ON
THE CONTRARY, IT WOULD HEED THE DOMINANT POLICY OF CONGRESS THAT "EVERY
PERSON GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE SHALL SUFFER DEATH" UNLESS
THE JURY "QUALIFY THEIR VERDICT BY ADDING THERETO" THE TERMS OF
REMISSION. 

BUT IN A MATTER OF THIS SORT JUDGES DO NOT READ WHAT CONGRESS WROTE
AS THOUGH IT WERE MERELY A LITERARY COMPOSITION.  SUCH LEGISLATION IS
AN AGENCY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND NOT A MERE DOCUMENT.  WHILE THE
PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE POWER OF QUALIFICATION ENTRUSTED TO THE JURY
BY THE ACT OF 1897 IS BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME UPON FULL
CONSIDERATION, THE ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED MORE THAN SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO
BY ONE OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  IT REJECTED THE CONSTRUCTION
FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT NOW CONTENDS.  SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 47 F.2D
518.  WHILE A FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SEEK A REVIEW OF THAT
DECISION BY THIS COURT HAS NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE, ACQUIESCENCE BY THE
GOVERNMENT IN AN IMPORTANT RULING IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL
LAW, PARTICULARLY ONE AFFECTING THE CRIME OF MURDER, CARRIES INTRINSIC
IMPORTANCE WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIESCED IS
NOT ONE THAT OBVIOUSLY IS REPELLED BY THE POLICY WHICH PRESUMABLY
CONGRESS COMMANDED. 

MOREOVER, WE ARE DEALING WITH A FIELD MUCH CLOSER TO THE EXPERIENCE
OF THE STATE COURTS, AS THE GUARDIANS OF THOSE DEEP INTERESTS OF
SOCIETY WHICH ARE REFLECTED IN LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THE PUNISHMENT
FOR MURDER AND WHICH ARE PREDOMINANTLY THE CONCERN OF THE STATES.  FN2
IF THE STRONGEST CURRENT OF OPINION IN STATE COURTS DEALING WITH
LEGISLATION SUBSTANTIALLY AS AMBIGUOUS AS THAT BEFORE US HAS RESOLVED
THE AMBIGUITY IN THE WAY IN WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT RESOLVED IT IN THE SMITH CASE, THE MOMENTUM OF SUCH A
CURRENT SHOULD PROPERLY CARRY US TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.  HISTORY AND
EXPERIENCE OUTWEIGH CLAIMS OF VIRGIN ANALYSIS OF A STATUTE WHICH HAS
SUCH WIDE SCOPE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND THE INCIDENCE OF WHICH IS
FAR GREATER IN THE STATE COURTS THAN IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THIS WAS
THE APPROACH OF THE COURT IN WINSTON V. UNITED STATES, 172 U.S. 303,
WHERE WE HELD, AFTER REVIEWING THE STATE LEGISLATION AND ADJUDICATION,
THAT THE STATUTE DID NOT LIMIT THE JURY'S DISCRETION TO CASES WHERE
THERE WERE PALLIATING OR MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

AND SO WE TURN TO STATE LAW. 

A. IN ONLY FOUR STATES IS DEATH THE INEVITABLE PENALTY FOR MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE: CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, NORTH CAROLINA, AND
VERMONT.  SUCH HAS BEEN, UNTIL THE OTHER DAY, THE LAW OF ENGLAND
DESPITE PERSISTENT AND IMPRESSIVE EFFORTS TO MODITY IT.  SEE, E.G.,
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT (1930).  IT IS WORTHY OF NOTE THAT THIS EFFORT HAS JUST
PREVAILED BY THE PASSAGE, ON A FREE VOTE, OF A PROVISION ABOLISHING THE
DEATH PENALTY FOR AN EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS.  SEE 449 H.C.
DEB.  (HANSARD) CLS. 981 ET SEQ. (APRIL 14, 1948), AND STATEMENT OF THE
HOME SECRETARY THAT DEATH SENTENCES WILL BE SUSPENDED ON THE BASIS OF
THIS VOTE, EVEN BEFORE THE MEASURE GETS ON THE STATUTE BOOKS.  ID.,
CLS. 1307 ET SEQ. (APRIL 16, 1948). 

B. IN FIVE STATES THE DEATH SENTENCE HAS BEEN ABOLISHED FOR MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE:  MAINE, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, RHODE ISLAND, AND
WISCONSIN. 

C. MOST OF THE STATES - 39 OF THEM - LEAVE SCOPE FOR WITHHOLDING THE
DEATH SENTENCE.  THE STATE ENACTMENTS GREATLY VARY AS TO THE EXTENT OF
THIS POWER OF ALLEVIATION AND IN THE MANNER OF ITS EXERCISE, AS BETWEEN
COURT AND JURY. 

I. IN THREE STATES A JURY'S RECOMMENDATION OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IS
NOT BINDING ON THE TRIAL COURT:  DELAWARE, NEW MEXICO, AND UTAH. 

II.  IN FIFTEEN STATES THE JURY'S VERDICT MUST SPECIFY WHETHER THE
SENTENCE IS TO BE DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT:  ARKANSAS, COLORADO,
ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, MISSOURI, NORTH DAKOTA,
OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, AND VIRGINIA. 

III.  IN EIGHT OTHER STATES THE SAME RESULT IS REACHED, ALTHOUGH THE
LEGISLATION IS PHRASED THAT ONE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE SUFFERS DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT "AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
JURY":  ALABAMA, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, MONTANA,
NEBRASKA, AND NEVADA. 

IV.  IN TWO STATES THE PUNISHMENT IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT UNLESS THE
JURY SPECIFIES THE DEATH PENALTY:  NEW HAMPSHIRE AND WASHINGTON. 

V. NINE STATES HAVE STATUTES MORE OR LESS LIKE THE FEDERAL PROVISION
HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION: LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK,
OHIO, OREGON, SOUTH CAROLINA, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WYOMING. 

VI.  TWO STATES FRANKLY RECOGNIZE THAT DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ARE
LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN THE JURY HAS POWER TO MITIGATE THE DEATH SENTENCE
AND PROVIDE FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT EVEN WHEN THE JURY IS NOT UNANIMOUS:
FLORIDA AND MISSISSIPPI. 

AN EXAMINATION OF STATE LAW SHOWS THAT ALL BUT FOUR STATES HAVE
ABANDONED THE DEATH SENTENCE AS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE FINDING
OF GUILT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE; THAT MOST OF THE STATES WHICH
HAVE RETAINED THE DEATH SENTENCE HAVE ENTRUSTED THE JURY WITH REMISSION
OF THE DEATH SENTENCE, ALTHOUGH SENTENCING IS TRADITIONALLY THE COURT'S
FUNCTION, AND THIS IS TRUE EVEN IN THOSE STATES WHERE THE LEGISLATURE
HAS NOT IN SO MANY WORDS PUT THIS POWER IN THE JURY'S KEEPING; THAT
EVEN WHERE THE JURY IS NOT REQUIRED TO DESIGNATE THE PUNISHMENT BUT
MERELY HAS THE POWER OF RECOMMENDING OR "ADDING" TO THE VERDICT THE
LIGHTER PUNISHMENT, THE MOST THOROUGHLY CANVASSED JUDICIAL
CONSIDERATION OF SUCH POWER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE DEATH SENTENCE DOES
NOT, AS A MATTER OF JURY DUTY, AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW A FINDING BY THEM
OF GUILT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, WHEN THE JURY CANNOT
UNANIMOUSLY AGREE THAT LIFE IMPRISONMENT SHOULD BE IMPOSED. 

OF THE NINE STATES THAT HAVE ENACTED LEGISLATION MORE OR LESS LIKE
THE FEDERAL PROVISION UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE STATUTES OF FOUR -
LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WYOMING - ARE VIRTUALLY IN THE
IDENTICAL FORM.  WHILE THE HIGHEST COURTS OF THESE STATES HAVE NOT
PASSED UPON THE PRECISE QUESTION BEFORE US, THEY HAVE ALL CONSTRUED
THEIR RESPECTIVE STATUTES AS GIVING THE JURY A FREE CHOICE AS TO WHICH
OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENTS ARE TO BE IMPOSED, ALTHOUGH IT CAN
FAIRLY BE SAID THAT SUCH CONSTRUCTION RUNS COUNTER TO THE OBVIOUS
READING THAT THE SENTENCE IS DEATH UNLESS ALL OF THE JURORS ARE AGREED
AS TO ADDING "WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT."  FN3  THREE OF THE NINE
STATES - OHIO, OREGON, AND SOUTH CAROLINA - HAVE STATUTES PROVIDING
THAT THE PENALTY IS DEATH UNLESS THE JURY RECOMMENDS "MERCY" OR "LIFE
IMPRISONMENT" IN WHICH CASE THE PUNISHMENT SHALL BE LIFE IMPRISONMENT. 
THESE HAVE ALL BEEN CONSTRUED AS PROVIDING FOR ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT
IN THE DISCRETION OF THE JURY.  FN4  WHILE A SIMILAR NEW JERSEY STATUTE
HAS BEEN GIVEN THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTION HERE ESPOUSED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, THE HISTORY OF THAT STATE'S LEGISLATION ONLY SERVES TO
UNDERSCORE THE FORCE OF THE DECISIONS IN THE OTHER STATES.  FN5  THE
NINTH STATE, NEW YORK, IN 1937, AMENDED ITS LEGISLATION, WHICH HAD MADE
THE DEATH PENALTY MANDATORY UPON ALL CONVICTIONS FOR FIRST-DEGREE
MURDER, BY PROVIDING THAT IN FELONY MURDER CASES THE JURY "MAY, AS A
PART OF ITS VERDICT, RECOMMEND THAT THE DEFENDANT BE IMPRISONED FOR THE
TERM OF HIS NATURAL LIFE.  UPON SUCH RECOMMENDATION, THE COURT MAY
SENTENCE THE DEFENDANT TO IMPRISONMENT FOR THE TERM OF HIS NATURAL
LIFE."  N.Y. CRIM.  CODE AND PEN.  LAW SEC. 1045-A.  IN PEOPLE V.
HICKS, 287 N.Y. 165, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THE FOLLOWING
INSTRUCTION ERRONEOUS: 

"THERE CANNOT BE ANY RECOMMENDATION UNLESS THE TWELVE OF YOU AGREE. 
BUT IF YOU HAVE ALL AGREED THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY, IT IS
NEVERTHELESS YOUR DUTY TO REPORT THAT VERDICT TO THE COURT.  IS THAT
CLEAR?  EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT AGREE ON THE RECOMMENDATION.  IN OTHER
WORDS, YOU CANNOT USE THE RECOMMENDATION AS BAIT, IN DETERMINING THE
GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANT.  ...  IF YOU ARE ALL UNANIMOUS
THAT THERE SHOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO BRING IN THE
RECOMMENDATION; BUT IF YOU ARE NOT UNANIMOUS ON THAT PROPOSITION IT IS
NEVERTHELESS YOUR DUTY TO BRING IN THE VERDICT OF GUILTY OF MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE, EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT AGREE ON THE OTHER.  IS THAT
PLAIN?"  (287 N.Y. AT 167-68.) 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY EMPOWERED THE
JURY TO MAKE A LIFE-IMPRISONMENT RECOMMENDATION A PART OF THEIR
VERDICT; THAT IT DID NOT EXPRESSLY, OR BY IMPLICATION, REQUIRE THE JURY
TO RENDER A VERDICT OF GUILTY WITHOUT THE RECOMMENDATION WHERE THEY
WERE NOT ALL AGREED UPON SO DOING; THAT, UNTIL THE JURY REACHED
AGREEMENT ON EVERY PART OF THEIR VERDICT, THEY HAD NOT AGREED UPON THE
VERDICT; THAT IN SUCH CASES THE LEGISLATURE REQUIRED THE JURY TO
DETERMINE 

"FIRST, WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED; SECOND,
WHETHER THE SENTENCE SHALL BE DEATH OR WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE MAY
PRONOUNCE A SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  BOTH QUESTIONS MUST BE
DETERMINED BY THE JURY, AND THE JURY'S ANSWER TO BOTH QUESTIONS MUST BE
EMBODIED IN ITS VERDICT.  A JUROR CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
AN ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED CAN NO LONGER BE INFLUENCED
CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY BY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE FINDING OF GUILT OF
THE CRIME CHARGED WILL ENTAIL A MANDATORY PENALTY WHICH IN HIS OPINION
IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE DEGREE OF MORAL GUILT OF THE ACCUSED.  EACH
JUROR SHOULD NOW KNOW THAT THE FINDING OF GUILT DOES NOT CARRY THAT
MANDATORY PENALTY UNLESS THE JURY FAILS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF
LIFE IMPRISONMENT A PART OF THE VERDICT AND EACH JUROR SHOULD KNOW THAT
HE IS ONE OF THE TWELVE JUDGES WHO SHALL DECIDE WHAT THE VERDICT SHALL
BE IN ALL ITS PARTS. 

UNTIL THE TWELVE JUDGES HAVE AGREED ON EVERY PART OF THE VERDICT THEY
HAVE NOT AGREED ON ANY VERDICT."  (ID. AT 171.) 

AND SO WE REACH THE REAL QUESTION OF THIS CASE.  SHOULD A FEDERAL
JURY REPORT AS THEIR VERDICT THAT PART OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS WHICH
RESULTED IN THE FINDING OF GUILT OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER IF THEY CANNOT
AGREE ON THE ALLEVIATING QUALIFICATION, OR SHOULD THEY BE ADVISED THAT
THEIR DISAGREEMENT ON THE QUESTION OF APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT MAY
CONSCIENTIOUSLY BE ADHERED TO SO THAT, IF THERE BE NO LIKELIHOOD OF AN
AGREEMENT AFTER MAKING SUCH AN EFFORT AS IS DUE FROM A CONSCIENTIOUS
JURY, THERE WOULD BE NO ESCAPE FROM REPORTING DISAGREEMENT.  AFTER
CONSIDERABLE DOUBT, AS I HAVE INDICATED, I FIND THAT THE WEIGHT OF
CONSIDERATIONS LIES WITH GIVING THE JURY THE WIDER POWER WHICH THE
COURT'S CONSTRUCTION AFFORDS. 

"THE DECISIONS IN THE HIGHEST COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES UNDER
SIMILAR STATUTES ARE NOT ENTIRELY HARMONIOUS, BUT THE GENERAL CURRENT
OF OPINION APPEARS TO BE IN ACCORD WITH OUR CONCLUSION."  WINSTON V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT P. 313.  THE FAIR SIGNIFICANCE TO BE DRAWN
FROM STATE LEGISLATION AND THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO IT IS
THAT IT PLACES INTO THE JURY'S HANDS THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE
SENTENCE IS TO BE DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT,  FN6  AND, SINCE THAT IS
THE JURY'S RESPONSIBILITY, IT IS FOR THEM TO DECIDE WHETHER DEATH
SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR FINDING THAT THE
ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  SINCE THE
DETERMINATION OF THE SENTENCE IS THUS, IN EFFECT, A PART OF THEIR
VERDICT, THERE MUST BE ACCORD BY THE ENTIRE JURY IN REACHING THE FULL
CONTENT OF THE VERDICT. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT BECAUSE OF ITS "CLEAR TERMS" LITTLE
WEIGHT SHOULD BE ACCORDED THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO REPUDIATE THE
INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON SEC. 330 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE BY THE SMITH
CASE IN 1931.  THAT DECISION AND ACQUIESCENCE IN IT ANSWER THE CLAIM
THAT THE SECTION PRECLUDES A READING OF IT OPPOSED TO THAT WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT OFFERS.  MOREOVER, IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE PROPOSED
REVISION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE  FN7  LEAVES THE FORM OF THIS PROVISION
UNCHANGED.  THIS REVISION DOUBTLESS HAD THE EXPERT SCRUTINY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,  FN8  AND THAT DEPARTMENT MUST HAVE HAD
KNOWLEDGE OF THE JUDICIAL GLOSS PUT UPON THE RETAINED PROVISION BY THE
SMITH CASE.  FN9 

THE CARE THAT TRIAL JUDGES SHOULD EXERCISE IN MAKING CLEAR TO JURIES
THEIR POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY IN TRIALS FOR MURDER IS EMPHASIZED BY
THE UNCERTAINTIES REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATE TO THE JURY'S
POWER TO AFFECT THE PUNISHMENT ON A FINDING OF GUILT OF MURDER IN THE
FIRST DEGREE, NOW RESOLVED BY THIS DECISION.  IT FELL UPON THE TRIAL
JUDGE HERE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THIS POWER.  WAS HIS CHARGE IN
ACCORD WITH THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED BY US?  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT
IT WAS; THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT WAS NOT.  THE CHARGE AND THE
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN WERE SUCH AS TO PERMIT REASONABLE MINDS TO DIFFER ON
THIS ISSUE, AND THEREIN LIES THE ERROR.  FN10  CHARGING A JURY IS NOT A
MATTER OF ABRACADABRA.  NO PART OF THE CONDUCT OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL LAYS
A HEAVIER TASK UPON THE PRESIDING JUDGE.  THE CHARGE IS THAT PART OF
THE WHOLE TRIAL WHICH PROBABLY EXERCISES THE WEIGHTIEST INFLUENCE UPON
JURORS.  IT SHOULD GUIDE THEIR UNDERSTANDING AFTER JURORS HAVE BEEN
SUBJECTED TO CONFUSION AND DEFLECTION FROM THE RELEVANT BY THE STIFF
PARTISANSHIP OF COUNSEL. 

TO AVOID REVERSAL ON APPEAL, TRIAL JUDGES ERR, AS THEY SHOULD, ON THE
SIDE OF CAUTION.  BUT CAUTION OFTEN SEEKS SHELTER IN MEANINGLESS
ABSTRACTIONS DEVOID OF GUIDING CONCRETENESS.  CLARITY CERTAINLY DOES
NOT REQUIRE A BROAD HINT TO A JUROR THAT HE CAN HANG THE JURY IF HE
CANNOT HAVE HIS WAY IN REGARD TO THE POWER GIVEN TO HIM BY CONGRESS IN
DETERMINING THE SENTENCE OF ONE GUILTY OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, CONSCIENTIOUS JURORS ARE NOT LIKELY TO DERIVE CLEAR
GUIDANCE IF TOLD THAT "ON BOTH GUILT AND PUNISHMENT (THEY) MUST BE
UNANIMOUS BEFORE ANY VERDICT CAN BE FOUND."  THEY SHOULD BE TOLD IN
SIMPLE, COLLOQUIAL ENGLISH THAT THEY ARE UNDER DUTY TO COME TO AN
AGREEMENT IF AT ALL POSSIBLE WITHIN CONSCIENCE, FOR A VERDICT MUST BE
UNANIMOUS; THAT A VERDICT INVOLVES A DETERMINATION NOT ONLY OF GUILT
BUT ALSO OF THE PUNISHMENT THAT IS TO FOLLOW UPON A FINDING OF GUILT;
THAT THE VERDICT AS TO BOTH GUILT AND PUNISHMENT IS SINGLE AND
INDIVISIBLE; THAT IF THEY CANNOT REACH AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SENTENCE
THAT SHOULD FOLLOW A FINDING OF GUILT, THEY CANNOT RENDER A VERDICT;
AND THIS MEANS THAT THEY MUST BE UNANIMOUS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE
SENTENCE SHOULD BE DEATH, WHICH WOULD FOLLOW AS A MATTER OF COURSE IF
THEY BRING IN A VERDICT THAT "THE ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIME
OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE," AND THEY MUST BE EQUALLY UNANIMOUS IF
THEY DO NOT WISH A FINDING OF GUILT TO BE FOLLOWED BY A DEATH SENTENCE,
WHICH THEY MUST EXPRESS BY A FINDING OF GUILT "WITHOUT CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT." 

FN1  FOR REFERENCES TO THE STATE LEGISLATION SEE APPENDIX, PP. 767
770. 

FN2  THERE WERE ONLY TWENTY-THREE CONVICTIONS OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER
IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, THE
TERRITORIES, AND THE POSSESSIONS, EXCLUSIVE OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, DURING THE SIX-YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING JULY 1, 1941, AND ENDING
JUNE 30, 1947.  EIGHT OF THE DEFENDANTS CONVICTED WERE SENTENCED TO
DEATH, AND FIFTEEN WERE GIVEN LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  OF THE EIGHT
SENTENCED TO DEATH, THREE WERE EXECUTED (SEE ARWOOD V. UNITED STATES,
134 F.2D 1007; RUHL V. UNITED STATES, 148 F.2D 173; UNITED STATES V.
AUSTIN NELSON, DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA, FIRST
DIVISION, APRIL 18, 1947(UNREPORTED)); THE SENTENCE OF ONE WAS COMMUTED
TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT (SEE PADDY V. UNITED STATES, 143 F.2D 847); AND
THE SENTENCES OF FOUR (INCLUDING THE PETITIONER HERE) HAVE BEEN STAYED
PENDING THEIR APPEALS (SEE UNITED STATES V. SAM RICHARD SHOCKLEY AND
UNITED STATES V. MIRAN EDGAR THOMPSON, DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, DEC. 21, 1946(UNREPORTED); UNITED STATES V.
CARLOS ROMERO OCHOA, DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, MAY 19, 1947(UNREPORTED)). 

I AM INDEBTED FOR THESE STATISTICS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES COURTS. 

FN3  THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NOTED THAT "IN CAPITAL CASES, IT
IS ENTIRELY LEFT TO THE JURY TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE PUNISHMENT
IN THE EVENT OF CONVICTION.  THE JURORS, IN SUCH CASES, ARE ENTIRELY
FREE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN A QUALIFIED AND AN UNQUALIFIED VERDICT, BECAUSE
THE LAW GIVES THEM THE UNQUESTIONED DISCRETION TO RETURN EITHER ONE OR
THE OTHER."  STATE V. HENRY, 196 LA. 217, 233.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND HELD THAT "IN OUR OPINION, IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO
EMPOWER JURIES TO UNITE IN A CHOICE OF PUNISHMENTS; THAT IS, A CHOICE
BETWEEN LIMITING PUNISHMENT TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND LEAVING THE COURT
UNRESTRICTED IN FIXING THE PUNISHMENT; AND IT WAS INTENDED THAT ALL
JURORS SHOULD EXERCISE A DISCRETION IN MAKING THAT CHOICE."  PRICE V.
STATE, 159 MD. 491, 494.  THE SUPREME COURT OF WEST VIRGINIA HAS HELD
THAT UNDER THAT STATE'S STATUTE THE JURY FIXES THE SENTENCE AND THAT,
THEREFORE, IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO FAIL TO
"INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT IT WAS ITS DUTY TO FIND, IN THE EVENT OF A
VERDICT OF GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, WHETHER THE ACCUSED
SHOULD BE HANGED OR SENTENCED TO THE PENITENTIARY FOR LIFE."  STATE V.
GOINS, 120 W. VA. 605, 609.  AND THE SUPREME COURT OF WYOMING IN A CASE
WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAD ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, HELD THAT "A DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A JURY NOT ONLY TO
TRY THE ISSUE OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE, BUT ALSO TO DECIDE WHAT THE
PUNISHMENT SHALL BE.  THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF GUILT OR
INNOCENCE MAY BE WAIVED BY A PLEA OF GUILTY, WHICH LEAVES ONLY THE
QUESTION OF PUNISHMENT TO BE DECIDED BY THE JURY."  STATE V. BEST, 44
WYO. 383, 389-90; SEE ALSO STATE V. BROWN, 60 WYO. 379, 403(WHERE AN
INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY THAT "A PERSON WHO IS FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE SHALL SUFFER DEATH OR BE IMPRISONED IN THE
PENITENTIARY AT HARD LABOR FOR LIFE, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE JURY
TRYING THE CASE" WAS UPHELD). 

FN4  WHILE THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DIFFERED IN THEIR
VIEWS AS TO WHETHER THE JURY IN MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION WERE
RESTRICTED TO CONSIDERATIONS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE, THEY WERE IN
AGREEMENT THAT THE STATUTE GAVE THE JURY FULL AND EXCLUSIVE DISCRETION
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION.  HOWELL V. STATE, 102
OHIO ST. 411.  IN OREGON AND SOUTH CAROLINA IT IS SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE
THE JURY THAT THEY MAY BRING IN EITHER VERDICT.  STATE V. HECKER, 109
ORE.  520, 559-60; STATE V. MCLAUGHLIN, 208 S.C. 462, 468. 

FN5  PRIOR TO 1916 THE DEATH PENALTY WAS MANDATORY IN NEW JERSEY.  IN
THAT YEAR THE STATE LEGISLATURE AMENDED THE LAW BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE
JURY RECOMMENDATION FORM OF STATUTE.  IN 1919 THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF
ERRORS AND APPEALS CONSTRUED THE STATUTE TO GIVE THE JURY ABSOLUTE
DISCRETION TO BRING IN EITHER VERDICT, AND, BY A CLOSE DECISION, HELD
THAT THE JURY WAS NOT CONFINED TO THE EVIDENCE IN DETERMINING WHETHER
OR NOT TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION.  STATE V. MARTIN, 92 N.J.L. 436. 
THAT SAME YEAR THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED INTO LAW THE VIEWS OF THE
DISSENTING JUDGES REQUIRING THAT THE JURY MUST MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION
"BY ITS VERDICT, AND AS A PART THEREOF, UPON AND AFTER THE
CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE."  N.J. STAT. ANN. SEC. 2:138
4(1939).  IN STATE V. MOLNAR, 133 N.J.L. 327, 335, THE COURT CONSTRUED
THE AMENDED STATUTE TO MEAN THAT "  ...  THE PENALTY IS DEATH,
DETERMINED NOT BY THE JURY, BUT BY THE STATUTE, AND PRONOUNCED BY THE
COURT.  IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE JURY IMPOSES THE SENTENCE OF
DEATH WHERE IT DOES NOT CHOOSE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR LIFE
IMPRISONMENT." 

FN6  INDEED, WE SAID IN THE WINSTON CASE THAT CONGRESS BY THE ACT OF
1897 ESTABLISHED THE "SIMPLE AND FLEXIBLE RULE OF CONFERRING UPON THE
JURY, IN EVERY CASE OF MURDER, THE RIGHT OF DECIDING WHETHER IT SHALL
BE PUNISHED BY DEATH OR BY IMPRISONMENT."  172 U.S. AT 312. 

FN7  H.R. 3190, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 1111(B), AS PASSED BY THE
HOUSE ON MAY 12, 1947, 93 CONG. REC. 5049. 

FN8  SEE ID. AT 5048; HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1600 AND H.R. 2055, 80TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 33-35.  IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED REVISION
ITSELF CONTAINS MOST OF THE DIFFERENT FORMS BY WHICH LEGISLATURES HAVE
RETAINED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AS A PENALTY FOR THE COMMISSION OF CERTAIN
CRIMES BUT HAVE NOT MADE ITS IMPOSITION MANDATORY UPON A FINDING OF
GUILTY.  E.G., SEC. 2113(E)(MURDER IN COMMISSION OF BANK ROBBERY - "NOT
LESS THAN TEN YEARS, OR PUNISHED BY DEATH IF THE VERDICT OF THE JURY
SHALL SO DIRECT"); SEC. 1992(WRECKING TRAIN WHICH RESULTS IN DEATH OF
ANY PERSON - "DEATH PENALTY OR TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE, IF THE JURY
SHALL IN ITS DISCRETION SO DIRECT"); SEC. 1201(A)(KIDNAPPING - "(1) BY
DEATH IF THE KIDNAPED PERSON HAS NOT BEEN LIBERATED UNHARMED, AND IF
THE VERDICT OF THE JURY SHALL SO RECOMMEND, OR (2) BY IMPRISONMENT FOR
ANY TERM OF YEARS OR FOR LIFE, IF THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT IMPOSED");
SEC. 2031(RAPE - "DEATH, OR IMPRISONMENT FOR ANY TERM OF YEARS OR FOR
LIFE").  THERE IS NOTHING IN EITHER THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT OR THE
REVISER'S NOTES ON THESE SECTIONS TO INDICATE WHETHER THESE ARE
DIFFERENCES IN FORM OR IN SUBSTANCE.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 304, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN9  THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES ARE APT TO SEE DECISIONS
ADVERSE TO THEM FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THEIR LIMITED PREOCCUPATION
AND TOO OFTEN ARE EAGER TO SEEK REVIEW FROM ADVERSE DECISIONS WHICH
SHOULD STOP WITH THE LOWER COURTS.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, HOWEVER,
MUST TAKE A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW IN DETERMINING WHEN CERTIORARI SHOULD BE
SOUGHT.  HE IS THEREFORE UNDER SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY, AS OCCUPANTS OF
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE HAVE RECOGNIZED, TO RESIST IMPORTUNITIES
FOR REVIEW BY THE AGENCIES, WHEN FOR DIVERS REASONS UNRELATED TO THE
MERITS OF A DECISION, REVIEW OUGHT NOT TO BE SOUGHT.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE SMITH CASE PRESENT A SPECIAL SITUATION, AND THE INTENTION TO
CARRY THE IMPLICATION OF "ACQUIESCENCE" BEYOND SUCH SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES IS EMPHATICALLY DISAVOWED. 

FN10  THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED THAT "BEFORE YOU MAY RETURN A QUALIFIED
VERDICT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT THAT
YOUR DECISION TO DO SO MUST BE UNANIMOUS."  BY AND OF ITSELF THIS
INSTRUCTION WAS CONSONANT WITH EITHER CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  IF
THE JURY HAD ALSO BEEN INSTRUCTED EITHER THAT "BEFORE YOU MAY RETURN A
VERDICT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE YOUR DECISION NOT TO ADD THE
QUALIFICATION 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT' MUST BE UNANIMOUS" OR THAT
"IF YOU ARE ALL AGREED THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY BUT YOU ARE NOT ALL
AGREED TO ADD 'WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT' YOU MUST RETURN A VERDICT OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE WITHOUT THE QUALIFICATION," THEY WOULD HAVE
KNOWN WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE THE TRIAL JUDGE ADOPTED, AND SO
WOULD WE. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 

           APPENDIX. 

          STATE LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE PUNISHMENT FOR FIRST

                     DEGREE MURDER.* 

*IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GIVE WARNING THAT THE MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO
SOME OF THE STATUTES BY THIS CLASSIFICATION DOES NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT
OF GUIDING STATE ADJUDICATION.  THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE STATUTE WHEN THERE IS NOT A CLEAR RULING BY THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THAT STATE IS TREACHEROUS BUSINESS.  NOR CAN ONE BE
WHOLLY CONFIDENT THAT HE HAS FOUND THE LATEST FORM OF STATE
LEGISLATION. 

A. DEATH PENALTY MANDATORY: 

(1)  CONN. GEN. STAT. SEC. 6044(1930). 

(2)  MASS. GEN. LAWS C. 265, SEC. 2(1932). 

(3)  N.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 4200(1939). 

(4)  VT. PUB. LAWS SEC. 8376(1933). 

B. DEATH PENALTY ABOLISHED: 

(5)  ME. REV. STAT. C. 117, SEC. 1(1944). 

(6)  MICH. STAT. ANN. SEC. 28.548(1938). 

(7)  MINN. STAT. SEC. 619.07(1945). 

(8)  R.I. GEN. LAWS C. 606, SEC. 2(1938)(PENALTY FOR MURDER IN FIRST
DEGREE IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT UNLESS PERSON IS UNDER LIFE IMPRISONMENT
SENTENCE AT TIME OF CONVICTION). 

(9)  WIS. STAT. SEC. 340.02(1945). 

C. DEATH PENALTY NOT MANDATORY: 

I. STATES WHERE JURY RECOMMENDATION OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IS NOT
BINDING ON TRIAL COURT: 

(10)  DEL. REV. CODE SEC. 5330(1935). 

(11)  N.M. STAT. ANN. SEC. 105-2226(1929). 

(12)  UTAH REV. STAT. ANN. SEC. 103-28-4(1933). 

II.  STATES WHERE JURY'S VERDICT MUST SPECIFY WHETHER THE SENTENCE IS
TO BE DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT: 

(13)  ARK. DIG.  STAT.  SEC. 4042(1937)(AS INTERPRETED BY THE
COURTS). 

(14) COLO. STAT. ANN. C. 48, SEC. 32(1935). 

(15)  ILL. ANN. STAT. C. 38, SEC. 360(1935). 

(16)  IND. ANN. STAT. SECS. 10-3401 AND 9-1819(BURNS 1942). 

(17)  IOWA CODE SEC. 12911(1939). 

(18)  KAN. GEN. STAT. ANN. SEC. 21-403(1935). 

(19)  KY. REV. STAT. ANN. SECS. 435.010 AND 431.130. 

(20)  MO. REV. STAT. ANN. SEC. 4378(1939)(AS INTERPRETED BY THE
COURTS). 

(21)  N.D. COMP. LAWS ANN. SEC. 9477(1913). 

(22)  OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 21, SEC. 707(1937). 

(23)  PA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 18, SEC. 4701(1945). 

(24)  S.D. SESS. LAWS 1939, C. 30, AMENDING S.D. CODE SEC.
13.2012(1939)(BUT EVEN IF JURY SPECIFIES DEATH SENTENCE, COURT "MAY
NEVERTHELESS PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT"). 

(25)  TENN. CODE ANN. SEC. 10772(WILLIAMS 1934). 

(26)  TEX. PEN.  CODE ANN. ART. 1257(1936).  ("THE PUNISHMENT FOR
MURDER SHALL BE DEATH OR CONFINEMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY FOR LIFE OR
FOR ANY TERM OF YEARS NOT LESS THAN TWO."  - COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED
STATUTE AS REQUIRING JURY TO SPECIFY PENALTY.) 

(27)  VA. CODE ANN. SEC. 4394(1936)(AS INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS). 

III.  STATES WHERE SENTENCE OF DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT IS AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE JURY: 

(28) ALA. CODE ANN. TIT. 14, SEC. 318(1940). 

(29)  ARIZ. CODE ANN. SEC. 43-2903(1939). 

(30)  CAL. PEN.  CODE SEC. 190(1941). 

(31)  GA. CODE ANN. SEC. 26-1005(1936). 

(32)  IDAHO CODE ANN. SEC. 17-1104(1932). 

(33)  MONT. REV. CODE ANN. SEC. 10957(1935). 

(34)  NEB. REV. STAT. SEC. 28-401(1943). 

(35)  NEV. COMP. LAWS ANN. SEC. 10068(1929). 

IV.  STATES WHERE THE PUNISHMENT IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT UNLESS THE JURY
SPECIFIES THE DEATH PENALTY: 

(36)  N.H. REV. LAWS C. 455, SEC. 4(1942). 

(37)  WASH. REV. STAT. ANN. SEC. 2392(1932). 

V. STATES THAT HAVE STATUTES MORE OR LESS LIKE THE FEDERAL PROVISION
UNDER CONSIDERATION: 

(38)  LA. CODE CRIM. LAW & PROC. ANN. ART. 409(1943). 

(39)  MD. ANN. CODE GEN. LAWS ART. 27, SEC. 481(1939). 

(40)  N.J. STAT. ANN. SEC. 2:138-4(1939). 

(41)  N.Y. CRIM. CODE AND PEN.  LAW SEC. 1045-A. 

(42)  OHIO GEN. CODE ANN. SEC. 12400(1939). 

(43)  ORE.  COMP.  LAWS ANN. SEC. 23-411(1940). 

(44)  S.C. CODE ANN.  SEC. 1102(1942). 

(45)  W. VA. CODE ANN. SEC. 6204(1943). 

(46)  WYO. COMP. STAT. ANN. SEC. 9-201(1945). 

VI.  STATES THAT GIVE EFFECT TO JURY RECOMMENDATION FOR LIFE
IMPRISONMENT EVEN WHEN JURY IS NOT UNANIMOUS IN MAKING THAT
RECOMMENDATION: 

(47)  FLA. STAT. ANN. SEC. 919.23(1944).  ("WHOEVER IS CONVICTED OF A
CAPITAL OFFENSE AND RECOMMENDED TO THE MERCY OF THE COURT BY A MAJORITY
OF THE JURY IN THEIR VERDICT, SHALL BE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR
LIFE.") 

(48)  MISS.  CODE ANN. SEC. 2217(1942).  ("EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL BE
CONVICTED OF MURDER SHALL SUFFER DEATH, UNLESS THE JURY RENDERING THE
VERDICT SHALL FIX THE PUNISHMENT AT IMPRISONMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY
FOR THE LIFE OF THE CONVICT; OR UNLESS THE JURY SHALL CERTIFY ITS
DISAGREEMENT AS TO THE PUNISHMENT  ...  IN WHICH CASE THE COURT SHALL
FIX THE PUNISHMENT AT IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.") 
..END :














UNITED STATES V. SOUTH BUFFALO R. CO., 333 U.S. 771 


NO. 198.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1948.  - 69
F.SUPP.  456, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT DOES NOT
PREVENT A RAILROAD FROM TRANSPORTING COMMODITIES OF A CORPORATION
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF WHOSE STOCK IS OWNED BY A HOLDING COMPANY WHICH
ALSO OWNS SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE STOCK OF THE RAILROAD, UNLESS THE
CONTROL OF THE RAILROAD IS SO EXERCISED AS TO MAKE IT THE ALTER EGO OF
THE HOLDING COMPANY.  UNITED STATES V. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO., 298 U.S.
492.  PP. 772-785. 

2. IN THE LIGHT OF THE EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
AND THE FACT THAT CONGRESS REJECTED AS TOO DRASTIC AN AMENDMENT
PROPOSED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE, INTER ALIA, OF SETTING ASIDE THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO., SUPRA,
THIS COURT DECLINES TO OVERRULE THAT INTERPRETATION.  PP. 773-784. 

3.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE HOLDING
COMPANY, IN EITHER THE LEGAL OR ECONOMIC SENSE, DISREGARDED THE
SEPARATE ENTITY OF ITS SUBSIDIARY RAILROAD OR TREATED IT AS ITS ALTER
EGO.  PP. 784-785. 

4.  VOLUNTARILY ABANDONED COURSES OF CONDUCT ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR
INJUNCTION, THOUGH THEY MAY SOMETIMES BE RELEVANT EVIDENCE OF INTENT OR
SIMILAR ISSUES.  P. 774. 

UNITED STATES V. SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

A DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
1(8).  69 F.SUPP.  456.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P.
785. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE GOVERNMENT, BY DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT,  FN1
INVITES US TO RECONSIDER AND OVERRULE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
COMMODITIES CLAUSE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT  FN2 PROMULGATED IN
UNITED STATES V. ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN R. CO., 298 U.S. 492.  THAT
HOLDING, IN SUBSTANCE, IS THAT THE PROHIBITION  FN3  AGAINST A RAILROAD
COMPANY TRANSPORTING ANY COMMODITY WHICH IT OWNS OR IN WHICH IT HAS AN
INTEREST, EXCEPT FOR ITS OWN USE, DOES NOT PREVENT IT FROM TRANSPORTING
COMMODITIES OF A CORPORATION WHOSE STOCK IS WHOLLY OWNED BY A HOLDING
COMPANY WHICH ALSO OWNS ALL OF THE STOCK OF THE RAILWAY, UNLESS THE
CONTROL OF THE RAILWAY IS SO EXERCISED AS TO MAKE IT THE ALTER EGO OF
THE HOLDING COMPANY. 

THE PRESENT CHALLENGE TO THAT DOCTRINE IS PREDICATED ON THE FOLLOWING
FACTS:  BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION (THE HOLDING COMPANY) OWNS
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE STOCKS OF SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY COMPANY (SOUTH
BUFFALO) AND OF BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY (THE STEEL COMPANY).  AT ITS
LACKAWANNA PLANT, NEAR BUFFALO, N.Y., THE STEEL COMPANY PRODUCES STEEL
AND FROM IT FABRICATES VARIOUS PRODUCTS.  THESE COMMODITIES ARE
TRANSPORTED BY THE SOUTH BUFFALO FROM THE PLANT TO THE RAILS OF TRUNK
LINE CARRIERS.  IN FACT, SOUTH BUFFALO PROVIDES THE SOLE TERMINAL
CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS INDUSTRY AND THE TRUNK-LINE RAILROADS.  IT
OPERATES ABOUT 6 MILES OF MAIN-LINE TRACK AND 81 MILES OF SPUR TRACK,
58 MILES OF ITS TRACKAGE BEING ON LEASED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE STEEL
PLANT WHERE IT CONNECTS WITH OTHER TRACKAGE OWNED BY THE STEEL COMPANY
ITSELF. 

WHILE ABOUT 70% OF SOUTH BUFFALO REVENUES HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE
STEEL COMPANY TRAFFIC, IT ALSO RENDERS TERMINAL SWITCHING FOR 27
UNRELATED INDUSTRIES, SOME OF CONSIDERABLE SIZE.  IT ENABLES ALL OF
THEM TO SHIP, BY DIRECT CONNECTION, OVER FIVE TRUNK-LINE SYSTEMS AND
THROUGH INTERCHANGE OVER SEVEN MORE. 

SOUTH BUFFALO PERFORMS NO TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND OWNS NO
FACILITIES OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHERE IT OPERATES ONLY
WITHIN THE BUFFALO SWITCHING DISTRICT.  IT IS CLASSIFIED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AS AN "S-1" CARRIER, WHICH IS DEFINED AS
ONE ENGAGED IN "PERFORMING SWITCHING SERVICES ONLY."  IT FILES TARIFFS
COVERING SWITCHING SERVICE, BOTH WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AND WITH THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.  IT DOES
NOT APPEAR TO PARTICIPATE WITH ANY LINE-HAUL RAILROAD IN A THROUGH
INTERSTATE ROUTE OR TO RECEIVE A DIVISION OF ANY JOINT OR THROUGH
RATE. 

IN 1936 THIS COURT DECIDED UNITED STATES V. ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN
R. CO., 298 U.S. 492, AND HELD THAT THE PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION
SET-UP OF THE UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, ONE OF BETHLEHEM'S
COMPETITORS, DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE.  THEREUPON,
BETHLEHEM MADE A STUDY OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ITSELF, SOUTH BUFFALO
AND THE STEEL COMPANY IN THE LIGHT OF THIS DECISION.  IT REVISED ITS
INTERCORPORATE RELATIONSHIP IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS TO COMPLY, AS IT WAS
ADVISED, WITH THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THIS COURT HAD FOUND THE
STATUTE INAPPLICABLE TO UNITED STATES STEEL.  IT DOES NOT SEEM
NECESSARY TO RECITE THE COMPLEX DETAILS OF INTERCORPORATE DEALINGS
BEFORE THE REORGANIZATION ABOUT 1940 AS THIS ACTION FOR INJUNCTION WAS
NOT BEGUN UNTIL 1943 AND THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WAS A
CONTEMPORANEOUS VIOLATION OR A THREAT OF VIOLATION AGAINST WHICH THE
WRIT OF THE COURT SHOULD BE DIRECTED.  VOLUNTARILY ABANDONED COURSES OF
CONDUCT ARE NOT GROUNDS FOR INJUNCTION, THOUGH THEY MAY SOMETIMES BE
RELEVANT EVIDENCE OF INTENT OR SIMILAR ISSUES. 

AT ALL TIMES CRUCIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE, BETHLEHEM CONTROLLED
THE STOCK OF BOTH THE SHIPPER AND THE CARRIER CORPORATIONS.  IT
UNQUESTIONABLY HAD POWER TO FAVOR ITS SHIPPING SUBSIDIARY AT THE
EXPENSE OF ITS CARRYING SUBSIDIARY, OR VICE VERSA.  THE FIRST QUESTION
IS WHETHER WE WILL NOW HOLD THAT MERE POSSESSION OF THE POWER,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS EXERCISED OR REMAINS DORMANT, MAKES OUT A
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE.  THIS COURT SAID IN THE ELGIN CASE THAT IT
DOES NOT. 

IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE ELGIN DECISION
MISCONSTRUED THE ACT, MISUNDERSTOOD ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND
MISAPPLIED THE COURT'S OWN PRIOR DECISIONS.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THE
VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE TO DECIDE TO WHAT EXTENT, IF ANY, THESE
CONTENTIONS ARE CORRECT.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT IF THE ELGIN CASE
WERE BEFORE US AS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, ITS DOCTRINE MIGHT NOT
NOW BE APPROVED.  BUT WE DO NOT WRITE ON A CLEAN SLATE.  WHAT THE COURT
HAS WRITTEN BEFORE IS BUT ONE OF A SERIES OF EVENTS, WHICH CONVINCES US
THAT ITS OVERRULING OR MODIFICATION SHOULD BE LEFT TO CONGRESS.  AS THE
COURT HELD ON OUR LAST DECISION DAY, WHEN THE QUESTIONS ARE OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, NOT OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORT, CONGRESS CAN
RECTIFY OUR MISTAKE, IF SUCH IT WAS, OR CHANGE ITS POLICY AT ANY TIME,
AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES REVERSAL IS NOT READILY TO BE MADE. 
MASSACHUSETTS V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 611, DECIDED APRIL 19, 1948. 
MOREOVER, IN THIS CASE, UNLIKE THE CITED ONE, CONGRESS HAS CONSIDERED
THE ALLEGED MISTAKE AND DECIDED NOT TO CHANGE IT. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AFTER REPEATEDLY CALLING THE
ATTENTION OF CONGRESS TO THE ELGIN CASE DURING ITS PENDENCY, IN 1936
REPORTED ITS DEFEAT IN THE LITIGATION.  REFERRING TO COMMODITIES CLAUSE
CASES IT SAID, "WE RECOMMEND THAT CONGRESS, IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS
ALREADY MADE AVAILABLE IN OUR REPORTS AND IN REPORTS OF INVESTIGATIONS
CONDUCTED BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, SHALL DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE
LIMIT OF OUR JURISDICTION IN SUCH CASES AND WHETHER FURTHER LEGISLATION
TO EXTEND THAT JURISDICTION IS NECESSARY."  FN4  CONGRESS TOOK NO
ACTION. 

BUT ITS INACTION HAS NOT BEEN FROM INADVERTENCE OR FAILURE TO
APPRECIATE THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION.  A BILL WAS
INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE CONTAINING LANGUAGE RELATING TO AFFILIATES AND
SUBSIDIARIES CALCULATED IN EFFECT TO SET ASIDE THE ELGIN DECISION.  FN5

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CARRIER BY RAILROAD AND, ON AND AFTER
JANUARY 1, 1941, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CARRIER, OTHER THAN A
CARRIER BY AIR, TO TRANSPORT, IN COMMERCE SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, ANY
ARTICLE OR COMMODITY, OTHER THAN TIMBER AND THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS
THEREOF, MANUFACTURED, MINED, OR PRODUCED BY OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
SUCH CARRIER OR ANY SUBSIDIARY, AFFILIATE, OR CONTROLLING PERSON OF
SUCH CARRIER, OR ANY SUCH ARTICLE OR COMMODITY IN WHICH SUCH CARRIER,
SUBSIDIARY, AFFILIATE, OR CONTROLLING PERSON HAS ANY INTEREST, DIRECT
OR INDIRECT, LEGAL OR EQUITABLE, EXCEPT SUCH ARTICLES OR COMMODITIES AS
MAY BE NECESSARY OR INTENDED FOR USE IN THE CONDUCT OF THE CARRIER
BUSINESS OF SUCH CARRIER." 

THE ITALICIZED PORTIONS INDICATE THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS WHICH WOULD
HAVE EXTENDED THE CLAUSE TO COVER (1) CARRIERS OTHER THAN RAILROADS,
AND (2) SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES AND CONTROLLING PERSONS. 

AT THE BEGINNING OF HEARINGS THEREON BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITS CHAIRMAN SAID THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE
COMMODITIES CLAUSE, THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS "TO MAKE EFFECTIVE THE
INTENT OF CONGRESS IN PROHIBITING RAILROADS, OR OTHER CARRIERS AFTER
JANUARY 1, 1941, FROM TRANSPORTING PRODUCTS NOT UTILIZED IN THE CONDUCT
OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS BUT IN WHICH THEY HAVE AN INTEREST,
DIRECT OR INDIRECT."  FN6  A WEEK LATER, IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARINGS
WHEN EVIDENCE BEGAN TO BE OFFERED SHOWING THE EFFECT THE PROPOSED
CLAUSE MIGHT HAVE ON VARIOUS INDUSTRIES, THE CHAIRMAN MADE THIS
STATEMENT: 

"LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE, SO
THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A LOT OF TIME WASTED ON IT.  I AM SPEAKING FOR
MYSELF AND NOT FOR THE COMMITTEE.  I THINK THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE WILL
HAVE TO BE CHANGED; AND IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SUCH DRASTIC CHANGES IN
THE COMMODITY CLAUSE AS THIS BILL WOULD SUGGEST, I THINK IT OUGHT NOT
TO BE INCORPORATED IN THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION, BUT SHOULD
COME UP AS A SEPARATE PIECE OF LEGISLATION SO THAT WE CAN DEVOTE
CONSIDERABLE TIME AND THOUGHT TO THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT.  THIS WOULD
SO CHANGE THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF A LOT OF INDUSTRIES THAT I THINK IT
IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION IN A
SEPARATE PIECE OF LEGISLATION."  FN7 

IN A FURTHER DISCUSSION THE CHAIRMAN ADDED:  "I MIGHT SAY, ALSO, THAT
IF THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE SHOULD STAY IN AS IT IS AT THE PRESENT TIME
IT WOULD DISRUPT A GREAT MANY INDUSTRIES, AND I WOULD SERIOUSLY
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT I WANTED TO ATTEMPT ANYTHING OF THAT KIND
AT THIS TIME, PARTICULARLY IN THIS SPECIFIC PIECE OF LEGISLATION." 
FN8 

WHEN THE BILL WAS REPORTED TO THE SENATE, THE PROPOSED CHANGE HAD
BEEN ELIMINATED AND THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE ACT RETAINED.  THE
COMMITTEE, IN REPORTING THE BILL, SAID, "THE REWRITTEN COMMODITIES
CLAUSE WAS CONSIDERED FAR TOO DRASTIC AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE EARLY
DECIDED AGAINST ANY CHANGE THEREIN."  FN9 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE REJECTED
REVISED COMMODITIES CLAUSE AS "TOO DRASTIC" WAS BASED ON THE PROPOSED
EXTENSION OF ITS TERMS TO ALL COMMON CARRIERS AND NOT ON THE PROPOSAL
TO INCLUDE A "SUBSIDIARY, AFFILIATE, OR CONTROLLING PERSON" OF A
CARRIER.  WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT A FAIR READING OF THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE "DRASTIC READJUSTMENT" FEARED
BY THE COMMITTEE WAS THAT EXPECTED FROM THE APPLICATION SOUGHT HERE BY
THE GOVERNMENT, AT LEAST AS MUCH AS THAT FEARED FROM EXTENSION OF THE
CLAUSE TO COVER CARRIERS OTHER THAN RAILROADS.  IF THE COMMITTEE
OBJECTED ONLY TO EXTENDING THE CLAUSE TO OTHER CARRIERS, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN A SIMPLE MATTER TO DELETE THE SHORT SERIES OF WORDS WHICH WOULD
HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT CHANGE, AND STILL LEAVE UNDISTURBED THE MORE
COMPLICATED PROVISION CONCERNING SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, SINCE THE
TEXT OF EACH PROVISION IS WHOLLY DISCONNECTED FROM THE OTHER. 

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT WHEN, IN DISCUSSING
WHETHER OR NOT THIS REVISED CLAUSE WOULD HAVE "PREVENTED THE STEEL
COMPANY, OR SOMEBODY IN THAT POSITION, FROM OPERATING THEIR OWN
RAILROAD," THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SAID "I DID NOT INTEND SUCH A
RESULT," HE EXPRESSED THE VIEW WHICH PREVAILED IN THE COMMITTEE AND IN
THE CONGRESS. 

THE GOVERNMENT NOW ASKS US TO APPLY THE UNCHANGED LANGUAGE AS IF
CONGRESS HAD ADOPTED THE PROPOSAL WHICH IT REJECTED AS "FAR TOO
DRASTIC."  THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE
PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION WOULD REQUIRE SEPARATE
LEGISLATION AND PARTICULAR CONSIDERATION SEEMS TO US TO REQUIRE THAT
THE PROBLEM BE LEFT TO LEGISLATION RATHER THAN TO THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS.  AND THE PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH
ARE SET OUT AT LENGTH IN THE MARGIN  FN10  INDICATE CLEARLY, WE THINK,
THAT THIS SENATE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE FOR S. 2009, WHICH BECAME THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, DELIBERATELY REFUSED TO RECOMMEND AND THE
CONGRESS REFUSED TO LEGISLATE INTO THE LAW THE CHANGE WE ARE NOW ASKED
TO MAKE BY JUDICIAL DECISION. 

WE COULD, OF COURSE, REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE ELGIN PRECEDENT, AND APPLY
A DIFFERENT AND MORE DRASTIC RULE TO BETHLEHEM THAN APPLIES TO ITS
COMPETITOR.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, IN MAKING A RULE FOR THE FUTURE, CAN
MAKE ONE OF IMPARTIAL APPLICATION TO ALL LIKE SITUATIONS.  LIMITATIONS
THAT ARE TRADITIONAL UPON OUR POWERS DO SEEM NOT TO PERMIT US TO DO
SO. 

WHATEVER MAY BE SAID OF THE ELGIN DECISION, WHEN THE COMMITTEE OF
CONGRESS FACED THE READJUSTMENTS ITS OVERRULING WOULD FORCE, AND WITH
SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE STEEL INDUSTRY,  FN11 IT CONCLUDED THE
DECISION SHOULD BE ALLOWED, AT LEAST FOR THE PRESENT, TO STAND.  WE
CANNOT IGNORE THE CONSIDERATIONS THEY FOUND TO BE SO PERSUASIVE, AND
WHICH ARE EQUALLY INVOLVED IN THE REQUEST THAT WE DO WHAT CONGRESS
CONSIDERED AND ABANDONED. 

THE RELIEF ASKED OF US AS A COURT OF EQUITY IS SO DRASTIC IN NATURE
AS TO AFFORD AN EXAMPLE OF AN "UPSET" IN AN INDUSTRY OWNING A SHORT
LINE OF RAILROAD OF THE TYPE REFERRED TO BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE, WHO SAID "IT IS
QUESTIONABLE WHETHER WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SUCH A RADICAL DEPARTURE
FROM THE PRESENT SYSTEM."  THE DEMAND IS FOR AN INJUNCTION PERPETUALLY
TO ENJOIN AND RESTRAIN SOUTH BUFFALO FROM TRANSPORTING COMMODITIES IN
WHICH THE STEEL COMPANY OR THE HOLDING COMPANY OWNS AN INTEREST.  THERE
IS NO OTHER RAIL ROUTE BY WHICH INBOUND RAW MATERIALS OR OUTBOUND
PRODUCTS OF THIS HUGE INDUSTRY CAN REACH TRUNK-LINE RAILROADS.  AND THE
TRAFFIC THAT WE ARE ASKED THUS TO PROHIBIT YIELDS 70% OF THE RAILROAD'S
REVENUES, AND IF TAKEN AWAY WOULD DOUBTLESS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE
COST OF SERVICE TO THE UNAFFILIATED INDUSTRIES THAT WOULD REMAIN TO BE
SERVED.  OF COURSE, WHAT IS LITERALLY ASKED IS PROBABLY NOT WHAT IS
ULTIMATELY DESIRED.  TO FORBID THE PHYSICAL OPERATION AS NOW CONDUCTED
WOULD BE NEEDLESSLY DAMAGING TO BOTH SHIPPER AND CARRIER.  WHAT IS
AIMED AT, WE SUPPOSE, IS TO FORCE SUCH A CHANGE OF FINANCIAL STRUCTURE
AS WILL DIVORCE SHIPPER INTEREST FROM ALL TRANSPORTATION INTEREST.  IT
SEEMS CLEAR, HOWEVER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THAT
THIS IS THE KIND OF OPERATION THAT CONGRESS DID NOT WANT TO PROHIBIT
BECAUSE THE PROHIBITION WAS THOUGHT TOO DRASTIC.  IF AN INDEPENDENT
OWNERSHIP COULD BE FOUND FOR SOUTH BUFFALO, IT MIGHT BE DESIRABLE.  BUT
INDEPENDENT OWNERSHIP OF A DEPENDENT FACILITY WEDGED IN BETWEEN
SHIPPERS, ONE OF WHOM CONTROLS 70% OF ITS REVENUES, AND THE TRUNK-LINE
RAILROADS, IS NOT SHOWN TO BE LIKELY.  UNDER THE GOVERNMENT'S THEORY,
NO OTHER SHIPPER OR GROUP OF SHIPPERS ANY MORE THAN BETHLEHEM COULD OWN
THE ROAD.  NOR IS IT CLEAR THAT ANY EVILS EXIST OR ARE THREATENED WHICH
WOULD BE ELIMINATED IF THIS OPERATION WERE TRANSFERRED TO CONTROL OF
ONE OF THE TRUNK-LINE RAILROADS OR TO A POOL OF THEM.  THIS ROAD,
DESPITE ITS SHIPPER OWNERSHIP, IS BOUND BY BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE LAW
TO SERVE ALL SHIPPERS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATIONS OR UNREASONABLE CHARGES. 
THE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO EXACT COMPLIANCE WITH THESE DUTIES.  THE
ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, IS THAT A SITUATION EXISTS WHICH PRESENTS
OPPORTUNITY AND TEMPTATION FOR ABUSE AND FOR CONCEALED EVASIONS OF
DUTY.  BUT TO FORESTALL POSSIBLE ABUSES WE ARE ASKED TO APPLY A REMEDY
WHICH THERE IS INDICATION FAILED OF CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL BECAUSE ITS
APPLICATION TO MANY SITUATIONS WOULD BE TOO DRASTIC AND WOULD DO
GREATER INJURY TO SHIPPER AND TRANSPORTATION INTERESTS THAN COULD
RESULT FROM ITS WITHHOLDING.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE HISTORY OF THIS
CLAUSE SINCE THE ELGIN DECISION AND THE EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, WE DECLINE TO OVERRULE THE INTERPRETATION
CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO SET ASIDE. 

THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT EVEN ACCEPTING THE ELGIN DECISION THE
EVIDENCE HERE ESTABLISHES THAT BETHLEHEM HAS SO EXERCISED ITS POWER
OVER SOUTH BUFFALO AS TO REDUCE THE RAILROAD TO A MERE DEPARTMENT OF
BETHLEHEM.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND CONSIDERED
THAT ON THIS SUBJECT THIS CASE CONTAINS MUCH LESS PROOF TO SUSTAIN AN
INJUNCTION THAN DID THE ELGIN CASE.  WITHOUT RECITING THE VOLUMINOUS
EVIDENCE IN DETAIL, WE AGREE.  BETHLEHEM, AS A STOCKHOLDER, OF COURSE
CONTROLLED SOUTH BUFFALO.  IT DID NOT, HOWEVER, DISREGARD IN EITHER THE
LEGAL OR ECONOMIC SENSE, THE SEPARATE ENTITY OF ITS SUBSIDIARY OR TREAT
IT AS ITS OWN ALTER EGO.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT RATHER OSTENTATIOUSLY
MAINTAINED THE FORMALITIES OF SEPARATE EXISTENCE, CHOOSING AS DIRECTORS
SEVERAL BUFFALO CITIZENS WHO WERE NOT INTERESTED IN BETHLEHEM.  WE ARE
NOT NAIVE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT BETHLEHEM CHOSE MEN FOR THE POSTS
WHOSE INTERESTS OR RECORDS LEFT ANY FAIR PROBABILITY THAT THEY WOULD
ACT ADVERSELY TO BETHLEHEM IN REPRESENTING ITS INTEREST AS CHIEF
STOCKHOLDER OF THE RAILROAD.  NOR HAS ANY INSTANCE BEEN CITED IN WHICH
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE RAILROAD WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO DO SO.  SO
LONG AS CONGRESS CONSIDERS IT INADVISABLE TO EXTEND THE PROHIBITION OF
THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE TO SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES, WE SEE NOTHING
THAT BETHLEHEM HAS DONE TO INCUR LIABILITY FOR ITS VIOLATION.  OF
COURSE, IT COULD NOT EXPECT THE COMMISSION OR THE COURTS TO RESPECT A
CORPORATE ENTITY WHICH BETHLEHEM ITSELF DISREGARDED; BUT THAT IT HAS
NOT DONE.  THE SUBSIDIARY WOULD NOT HAVE TO ESTABLISH ITS SEPARATE
IDENTITY BY A COURSE OF HOSTILITY TO ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER OR ITS CHIEF
CUSTOMER.  ITS IDENTITY HAS BEEN PRESERVED IN FORM AND IN SUBSTANCE -
THE SUBSTANCE OF SEPARATE CORPORATE EXISTENCE BEING ITSELF LARGELY A
MATTER OF FORM.  UNDER THE ELGIN CASE AND UNTIL CONGRESS SHALL
OTHERWISE DECIDE, THIS IS SUFFICIENT.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 U.S.C. SEC. 45; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

FN2  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(8). 

FN3  THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE PROVIDES:  "FROM AND
AFTER MAY FIRST, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHT, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR
ANY RAILROAD COMPANY TO TRANSPORT FROM ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO ANY OTHER STATE, TERRITORY, OR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, OR TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY, ANY ARTICLE OR COMMODITY, OTHER
THAN TIMBER AND THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS THEREOF, MANUFACTURED, MINED,
OR PRODUCED BY IT, OR UNDER ITS AUTHORITY, OR WHICH IT MAY OWN IN WHOLE
OR IN PART, OR IN WHICH IT MAY HAVE ANY INTEREST, DIRECT OR INDIRECT,
EXCEPT SUCH ARTICLES OR COMMODITIES AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND INTENDED
FOR ITS USE IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS AS A COMMON CARRIER." 

FN4  50TH ANNUAL REPORT I.C.C. 30(1936). 

FN5  S. 2009, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., MARCH 30(LEGISLATIVE DAY MARCH
28) 1939. 

FN6 HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S.
2009, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 3(APRIL 3, 1939). 

FN7  ID., AT 427(APRIL 10, 1939). 

FN8  IBID. 

FN9  SENATE REPORT NO. 433, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 15(MAY 16,
LEGISLATIVE DAY MAY 8, 1939). 

FN10  THE EXTENT OF THE CONSIDERATION WHICH THE SENATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMITTEE GAVE TO THE PROPOSED REVISION OF THE COMMODITIES
CLAUSE IS INDICATED BY THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS FROM HEARINGS ON S. 2009,
HELD FROM APRIL 3 TO APRIL 14, 1939: 

IN OPENING THE HEARING, SENATOR WHEELER, CHAIRMAN, STATED THAT, WITH
RESPECT TO THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE, THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS "TO MAKE
EFFECTIVE THE INTENT OF CONGRESS IN PROHIBITING RAILROADS, OR OTHER
CARRIERS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1941, FROM TRANSPORTING PRODUCTS NOT UTILIZED
IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS BUT IN WHICH THEY HAVE
AN INTEREST, DIRECT OR INDIRECT." 

DURING THE TESTIMONY OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN
RAILROADS, THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUIES TOOK PLACE: 

"SENATOR REED.  JUDGE, IN SECTION 12 THERE IS SOME NEW LANGUAGE.  I
HAVE MARKED IT 'O.K.'  HERE.  THAT IS TO COVER THE DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT IN THE E.J. & E. CASE? 

MR. FLETCHER.  I WILL GET TO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT.  THERE IS NEW
LANGUAGE IN THERE.  ... 

     .         .         .      .         . 

MR. FLETCHER.  I COME TO SECTION 12, THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE, ABOUT
WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A WORD. 

IT WAS THE THOUGHT OF THOSE WHO DREW THE BILL, H.R. 4862, TO UNDERTAKE
TO PUT INTO STATUTORY FORM THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF SIX
THAT THEY OUGHT TO EXTEND THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE, WHICH NOW APPLIES
ONLY TO RAILROADS, TO WATER CARRIERS AND MOTOR CARRIERS AS WELL. 

NOW, I THINK THE WATER CARRIER PEOPLE WILL OBJECT TO THAT.  ... 

...  I THINK SOME OF THE STEEL COMPANIES HAVE WATER OPERATIONS OF
THAT KIND.  I MENTION THAT AS A CHANGE IN THE LAW SUGGESTED BY THE
DRAFTSMEN WHO PREPARED THE BILL, REFLECTING THE VIEWS OF THE COMMITTEE
OF SIX. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  JUDGE, SOMEBODY CALLED ME ON THE PHONE THE OTHER DAY
...  AND ASKED ME AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IN MY OPINION THIS PREVENTED THE
STEEL COMPANY, OR SOMEBODY IN THAT POSITION, FROM OPERATING THEIR OWN
RAILROAD, WHERE THEY HAVE A SMALL RAILROAD THAT THEY ARE OPERATING.  I
DID NOT INTEND SUCH A RESULT. 

MR. FLETCHER.  THIS BILL HAS NO RELATION TO THAT.  ONE OF MY
ASSOCIATES SUGGESTS, SENATOR, THAT POSSIBLY THIS LANGUAGE, WHICH I WAS
JUST ABOUT TO MENTION AND WHICH WAS CALLED TO MY ATTENTION A FEW
MINUTES AGO BY SENATOR REED, MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE THAT EFFECT. 

SENATOR REED.  I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY BE SO
BOLD.  I THINK THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE WOULD HAVE THAT EFFECT IN THE
BILL THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY DISCUSSING. 

MR. FLETCHER.  WHEN I SAID SO PROMPTLY AND PERHAPS RASHLY THAT I DID
NOT THINK IT DID, I DID NOT HAVE IN MIND THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT,
WHICH I WILL NOW MENTION. 

SENATOR REED.  I AM PERFECTLY WILLING THAT IT SHOULD HAVE THAT
EFFECT. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  WELL, I DOUBT THAT IT SHOULD.  FOR INSTANCE, A LUMBER
COMPANY MAY OWN SOME RAILROAD. 

SENATOR REED.  YOU EXEMPT THAT? 

MR. FLETCHER.  YOU EXEMPT THE LUMBER COMPANY? 

THE CHAIRMAN.  YES. 

MR. FLETCHER.  IT MIGHT NOT BE ALTOGETHER LUMBER. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  I WAS SPEAKING, FOR INSTANCE, OF SOME STEEL COMPANY OR
SOME OTHER INDUSTRIAL COMPANY WHICH MIGHT OWN A SHORT RAILROAD. 

SENATOR REED.  THE UNITED STATES STEEL CO. OWNS THE UNION RAILROAD
CO. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE UNION RAILROAD CO. IS. 

SENATOR REED.  IT IS A SHORT ROAD. 

MR. FLETCHER.  I THINK THE E.J. & E. STARTED ALL THIS SHOUTING. 

SENATOR REED.  IN SECTION 12, ON PAGE 44, BEGINNING AT LINE 22, IT
READS:  'OR PRODUCED BY OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SUCH CARRIER OR ANY
SUBSIDIARY, AFFILIATE' - AND THIS IS THE LANGUAGE - 'OR CONTROLLING
PERSON OF SUCH CARRIER.' 

MR. FLETCHER.  THAT IS NEW, YOU SEE. 

SENATOR REED.  THAT IS NEW.  I AM IN ACCORD WITH THE CHAIRMAN ON THAT
LANGUAGE. 

MR. FLETCHER.  I DO NOT KNOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT I DO THINK IT IS A
TRIFLE UNFORTUNATE TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH SO DRASTIC A THING IN A BILL OF
THIS KIND, THE THOUGHT OF WHICH WAS TO REPRODUCE EXISTING LAW. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  I AM VERY DOUBTFUL ABOUT IT.  I AM AFRAID THAT IT WILL
CAUSE SUCH A DRASTIC READJUSTMENT. 

MR. FLETCHER.  THE E.J. & E. CO. (CASE) - 

THE CHAIRMAN (INTERPOSING).  I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE E.J. & E.
CASE. 

MR. FLETCHER (CONTINUING).  - BROUGHT ABOUT THIS SUGGESTION HERE. 
THERE THE UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION DOES NOT OWN THE E.J. & E.
DIRECTLY, BUT THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THE ILLINOIS STEEL CORPORATION, A
SUBSIDIARY OF THE UNITED STATES STEEL CO. - AND I MAY GET THAT A LITTLE
CONFUSED - 

SENATOR REED (INTERPOSING).  YOU HAVE. 

MR. FLETCHER.  MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION OWNS A COMPANY - YOU MIGHT CALL IT A HOLDING COMPANY -
WHICH HOLDING COMPANY OWNS BOTH THE E.J. & E. AND THE STEEL
CORPORATION. 

IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT WHEN THE E.J. & E.
TRANSPORTED FREIGHT FOR THE ILLINOIS STEEL CORPORATION THEY WERE
VIOLATING THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE, BECAUSE EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
THE RAILROAD OWNED THIS TRAFFIC THAT WAS BEING TRANSPORTED, BUT THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HELD NOT, BUT WHERE YOU HAD ONE
COMPANY OR PERSON WHO OWNED BOTH THE RAILROAD AND THE COMMERCIAL
ENTERPRISES THAT PRODUCED THE TONNAGE, THE TRANSPORTATION BY THE
RAILROAD OF THAT TONNAGE WAS NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION BY
THE RAILROAD OF TONNAGE WHICH IT OWNED. 

SENATOR REED.  JUDGE, YOU REMEMBER THAT JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, AND JUSTICE CARDOZO DISSENTED FROM THAT MAJORITY OPINION OF
THE SUPREME COURT IN THE E.J. & E. CASE. 

MR. FLETCHER.  THAT IS RIGHT. 

SENATOR REED.  AND JUSTICE STONE WROTE THE DISSENTING OPINION. 

MR. FLETCHER.  YES. 

SENATOR REED.  I AM INCLINED TO THINK THAT THE SUPREME, AS PRESENTLY
CONSTITUTED, WOULD HOLD WITH WHAT WAS THE MINORITY VIEW. 

MR. FLETCHER.  I WOULD NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THAT. 

SENATOR REED.  I SPEAK FRANKLY, BEING NO LAWYER MYSELF. 

MR. FLETCHER.  WHETHER THAT IS WISE OR UNWISE, I DOUBT IF IT OUGHT TO
BE DONE IN THIS LEGISLATION AND IN THIS BILL. 

SENATOR REED.  I THOUGHT JUSTICE STONE WROTE A MORE LOGICAL OPINION
THAT JUSTICE BUTLER DID.  I THINK IT WAS JUSTICE BUTLER WHO WROTE THE
MAJORITY OPINION IN THAT E.J. & E. CASE. 

MR. FLETCHER.  I THINK IT WAS."  (JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS WROTE THE
OPINION OF THE COURT.) 

LATER, DURING THE TESTIMONY OF COUNSEL FOR MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM
CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE
COMMODITIES CLAUSE WERE MADE: 

"SENATOR REED.  ...  AND I THINK WE MIGHT GIVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION
TO THAT COMMODITIES CLAUSE. 

MR. BAYLESS.  IT IS TOO DRASTIC, ALSO. 

SENATOR REED.  IT WAS PROBABLY TIGHTENED UP WHEN, WHICH I SAY AS A
LAYMAN AND THEREFORE NOT IN FEAR OF BEING CRITICIZED, THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES MADE A STRANGE DECISION IN THE E.J. & E. CASE. 
THIS WAS TIGHTENED TO MEET THAT E.J. & E. DECISION, BECAUSE I THINK
THAT WAS A STRANGE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW ON THE PART OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES." 

TESTIMONY BY COUNSEL FOR COAL OPERATORS LED TO THE FOLLOWING: 

"SENATOR WHITE.  WHAT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE COMMODITIES
CLAUSE? 

MR. NORMAN.  VERY SUBSTANTIAL ONES. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  VERY SUBSTANTIAL. 

MR. NORMAN.  THAT IS ON PAGE 44. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  WHAT WE TRIED TO DO, TO BE FRANK WITH YOU, WAS TO TRY
TO ADAPT IT TO MEET THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE E.J. & E.
CASE. 

SENATOR REED.  I THINK, OF COURSE, WHAT MR. NORMAN HAS IN MIND IS
THAT IT GOES FURTHER THAN THAT, IN THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME WE ARE
APPLYING THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE TO WATER CARRIERS. 

SENATOR WHITE.  I UNDERSTOOD THAT, BUT IN WHAT OTHER RESPECTS? 

SENATOR REED.  I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY RESPECT. 

MR. NORMAN.  WELL, NO; AS THE SENATOR SAYS, IT PROBABLY WOULD GET
AROUND THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE E.J. & E. CASE, BECAUSE IT
PUTS IN THERE THE WORDS 'SUBSIDIARY, AFFILIATE, OR CONTROLLING PERSON
OF SUCH CARRIER.' 

THE CHAIRMAN.  THAT IS RIGHT." 

A DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECT ON COAL-INDUSTRY CONTRACT CARRIERS
FOLLOWED.  THEN: 

"MR. NORMAN.  SO THAT COMMODITIES CLAUSE, AGAIN, IS A BIG ONE AND
CERTAINLY OUGHT TO BE STUDIED BEFORE THERE ARE ANY CHANGES MADE IN IT.
IT IS LOADED WITH DYNAMITE SO FAR AS BUSINESS IS CONCERNED. 

SENATOR REED.  YOU MAY HAVE ONE KIND IN MIND, BUT THERE ARE MANY OF
THEM. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  THERE ARE DIFFICULTIES ON THAT QUESTION, IN MY MIND. 
SUPPOSE WE REENACTED THE LAW AS IT IS.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
COURTS MIGHT SAY, IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION, 'IN
REENACTING THE LAW YOU APPROVED THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.'" 

ON APRIL 10, 1939, THE CHAIRMAN, IN ADDITION TO THE STATEMENTS QUOTED
IN THE BODY OF THIS OPINION ALSO SAID: 

"  ...  I WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK IT IS FOOLISH FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE
TO COME IN HERE AND WASTE OUR TIME AND THEIR OWN TIME IN TALKING ABOUT
THAT (THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE), AND FOR THAT REASON I WANTED TO MAKE IT
CLEAR BY THAT STATEMENT.  ...    "AS I SAID BEFORE, THIS IS SUCH A
BROAD SUBJECT AND IT WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY CAUSE A TREMENDOUS UPSET IN MANY
LINES OF BUSINESS, THAT IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER WE WOULD WANT TO
MAKE SUCH A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESENT SYSTEM." 

AS POINTED OUT IN THE TEXT, WHEN THE BILL WAS REPORTED TO THE SENATE,
THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE HAD BEEN ABANDONED.  THE
COMMITTEE REPORT STATED: 

"  ...  THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE, FORBIDDING A CARRIER BY RAILROAD TO
TRANSPORT ANY ARTICLE OR COMMODITY IN WHICH IT HAS AN INTEREST DIRECT
OR INDIRECT, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT VERY MATERIAL (TIMBER AND
TIMBER PRODUCTS), HAS BEEN RETAINED.  ...  " 

"SECTION 12.  COMMODITIES CLAUSE.  THIS PROVISION RETAINS THE
'COMMODITIES CLAUSE' (SEC. 1(8) OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT), NOW
APPLICABLE ONLY TO RAILROADS, IN ITS PRESENT FORM.  THE REWRITTEN
COMMODITIES CLAUSE WAS CONSIDERED FAR TOO DRASTIC AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE
EARLY DECIDED AGAINST ANY CHANGE THEREIN." 

FN11  SEE NOTE 10. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THIS IS ANOTHER CASE WHERE THE COURT SADDLES CONGRESS WITH THE LOAD
OF CORRECTING ITS OWN EMASCULATION OF A STATUTE, BY DRAWING FROM
CONGRESS' FAILURE EXPLICITLY TO OVERRULE IT THE UNJUSTIFIED INFERENCE
THAT CONGRESS APPROVES THE MISTAKE.  I THINK THAT UNITED STATES V.
ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN R. CO., 298 U.S. 492, WAS DECIDED IN THE
TEETH OF THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(8), THAT IT SHOULD
NOW BE OVERRULED, AND THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS DICTATED BY THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH THE COURT MISREADS, IN MY OPINION, AS GIVING
BASIS FOR THE OPPOSITE ONE. 

THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE FORBIDS "ANY RAILROAD COMPANY TO TRANSPORT
...  ANY ARTICLE OR COMMODITY ...  IN WHICH IT MAY HAVE ANY INTEREST,
DIRECT OR INDIRECT.  ...  "  THE ELGIN DECISION MADE THE CLAUSE "IN
WHICH IT MAY HAVE ANY INTEREST, DIRECT OR INDIRECT" READ, IN EFFECT,
"IN WHICH IT MAY HAVE ANY INTEREST, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, UNLESS THE
INTEREST IS INDIRECTLY HELD THROUGH 100 PER CENT STOCK OWNERSHIP OF
ANOTHER CORPORATION AND HENCE 100 PER CENT INTEREST IN THAT COMPANY'S
PROFITS, OR THROUGH SOME OTHER CORPORATE ARRANGEMENT HAVING LIKE
EFFECTS." 

THE SIMPLE QUESTION FOR DECISION UNDER THE STATUTE IS WHETHER THE
SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY HAS AN INTEREST, "DIRECT OR INDIRECT," IN THE
COMMODITIES WHICH IT HAULS FOR THE AFFILIATED BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY. 
ANY ATTEMPT TO ANSWER BY A FACTUAL INQUIRY INTO THE DEGREE OF CONTROL
WHICH THE HOLDING COMPANY OR THE STEEL COMPANY HAS ACTUALLY EXERCISED
OVER THE RAILROAD CAN ONLY COMPLICATE A SIMPLE PROBLEM.  FN1  ONLY BY
THE MOST SOPHISTICATED, OR UNSOPHISTICATED, PROCESS OF REASONING CAN IT
BE CONCLUDED THAT ANY ONE OF THE MANY SUBSIDIARY MEMBERS OF THIS
INTEGRATED STEEL-PRODUCING EMPIRE  FN2  HAS NO INTEREST IN THE
OPERATIONS OF EVERY OTHER MEMBER.  PARTICULARLY, THE RAILROAD HAS AN
INTEREST IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE STEEL COMPANY, "FOR ALL OF THE
PROFITS REALIZED FROM THE OPERATIONS OF THE TWO MUST FIND THEIR WAY
ULTIMATELY INTO ITS (THE HOLDING COMPANY) TREASURY,  - ANY
DISCRIMINATING PRACTICE WHICH WOULD HARM THE GENERAL SHIPPER  FN3
WOULD PROFIT THE HOLDING COMPANY."  UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253
U.S. 26, 61.  HERE A RAILROAD AND ONE OF ITS CUSTOMERS ARE BOTH WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SAME HOLDING COMPANY.  IT IS CLEAR TO ME, AND
THE COURT DOES NOT DENY, THAT THE RAILROAD IN FACT IS OCCUPYING THE
INCONSISTENT POSITIONS OF CARRIER AND SHIPPER WHICH THE COMMODITIES
CLAUSE WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.  UNITED STATES V. READING CO., SUPRA.
FN4 

THE COURT DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT IT WOULD SO HOLD IF THE CLAUSE HAD
NOT BEEN CONSTRUED DIFFERENTLY IN THE ELGIN CASE.  BUT EVEN ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE STATUTE WAS THEN MISCONSTRUED, THE COURT IS
UNWILLING TO CORRECT ITS OWN ERROR BECAUSE IT CONCLUDES THAT CONGRESS
HAS SUBSEQUENTLY INDICATED APPROVAL OF THE ELGIN DECISION.  THIS
CONCLUSION IS BASED ON A DISTORTED VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, PARTICULARLY OF SEC. 12 OF S. 2009,
WHICH WOULD HAVE AMENDED THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE IF ADOPTED.  SINCE THE
PROPOSED SEC. 12 WOULD HAVE OVERRULED THE ELGIN CASE, AND SINCE IT WAS
REJECTED IN COMMITTEE AS "FAR TOO DRASTIC," FN5  IT IS INFERRED THAT
CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSED APPROVAL OF THAT CASE. 

THE CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW BECAUSE THE PREMISE IS WRONG.  THE
ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS THE CRUCIAL INQUIRY, NAMELY, THE REASON FOR WHICH
CONGRESS CONSIDERED THE PROPOSED SEC. 12 "FAR TOO DRASTIC."  IF THIS
REASON HAD BEEN AN OBJECTION TO APPLYING THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE TO THE
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIPS PRESENT IN THIS AND THE ELGIN
CASES, THE ARGUMENT MIGHT HAVE SOME PERTINENCE.  BUT THAT WAS NOT THE
REASON.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE TWO SENATORS WHO WERE MOST ACTIVE IN
SPONSORING THE BILL AND IN THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARINGS ON IT FELT THAT
NO LEGISLATION WOULD BE NECESSARY IF NO MORE WERE INTENDED THAN A
REVERSAL OF THE ELGIN CASE.  FN6  THAT WAS ONLY ONE OF SEVERAL BROAD
PURPOSES OF THE BILL, OTHERS BEING MUCH MORE SWEEPING.  THE NEW
COMMODITIES CLAUSE, INSTEAD OF APPLYING ONLY TO RAILROADS, WOULD HAVE
APPLIED TO ALL TYPES OF CARRIERS EXCEPT AIR CARRIERS.  IT IS PERFECTLY
CLEAR FROM A READING OF THE HEARINGS THAT THIS PROPOSED APPLICATION TO
CARRIERS OF ALL TYPES WAS WHAT WAS CONSIDERED "FAR TOO DRASTIC" A
CHANGE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940. 

THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF THIS EXTENSION IS ABUNDANTLY SHOWN FROM THE
VIGOROUS OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF PARTIES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED
BY EXTENDING THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE TO WATER CARRIERS,  FN7  TO PIPE
LINES,  FN8  AND TO MOTOR CARRIERS.  FN9  IT WAS ARGUED REPEATEDLY THAT
IT WAS PROPER FOR SHIPPERS TO CONTROL INTERESTS IN THESE CARRIERS FOR
REASONS NOT APPLICABLE TO CARRIERS BY RAIL.  THESE ARGUMENTS CANNOT BE
READ WITHOUT CONCLUDING THAT THE CHANGE, WHETHER DESIRABLE OR NOT,
WOULD HAVE BEEN DRASTIC INDEED AND WOULD HAVE GONE FAR BEYOND THE
INTENDED COVERAGE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  FN10  RATHER THAN
JEOPARDIZE THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM COMPREHENDED BY THE ACT,
FN11  THE COMMITTEE NATURALLY DECIDED THAT SOUND STRATEGY REQUIRED
SEPARATE CONSIDERATION OF THIS NARROWER, BUT STILL BROAD AND HIGHLY
CONTROVERSIAL PROBLEM. 

STATEMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SHOW THAT THIS WAS THE REAL
BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN "FAR TOO
DRASTIC."  FN12  INDEED THEY SHOW, TOGETHER WITH OTHER STATEMENTS
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, THAT THE ELGIN DECISION WAS REGARDED AS
UNFORTUNATE AND LIKELY TO BE OVERRULED WHEN ANOTHER CASE SHOULD ARISE. 
FN13  EVEN THE OPPOSITION BY THE SHORT-LINE RAILROADS WAS BASED NOT ON
THE ARGUMENT THAT AN OVERRULING OF THE ELGIN CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO
DRASTIC, BUT RATHER ON THE FACT THAT THE AMENDED SEC. 12, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER PROPOSED LEGISLATION, WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED THE
TRANSPORTATION OF COMMODITIES FOR ANYONE WHO OWNED, EVEN AS AN
INVESTMENT, AS MUCH AS TEN PER CENT OF THE STOCK OF THE RAILROAD N14. 
AND OTHER GROUPS ARGUED THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS TOO DRASTIC BECAUSE IT
WAS NOT LIMITED TO COMMON CARRIERS.  FN15  IN SUM, THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT WAS INDEED DRASTIC, BUT NOT BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE
ACCOMPLISHED WHAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ASSUMED THIS COURT WOULD AND
SHOULD DO WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE AID.  FN16  IT IS THEREFORE MOST
UNREASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH PROMPTED THE
SENATE COMMITTEE TO REJECT A PROPOSED EXTENSION OF THE COMMODITIES
CLAUSE TO ALL TYPES OF CARRIER COMPEL THIS COURT TO DENY A REQUEST TO
OVERRULE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE CLAUSE ON RAILROADS
WHICH THE MOST ACTIVE SPONSORS REGARDED AS ERRONEOUS. 

THE HOST OF REASONS WHICH MAY HAVE INDUCED THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE TO FOREGO THE EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL AND DRASTIC EXTENSIONS
FORBIDS ANY INFERENCE THAT THE COMMITTEE ACTION WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF
APPROVAL OF THE ELGIN CASE BY THE ENTIRE CONGRESS.  IN FACT, THE
DIFFICULTY OF INTERPRETING THE VIEWS OF EVEN ONE LEGISLATOR WITHOUT
TAKING ACCOUNT OF ALL HE HAS HAD TO SAY, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE
DISCUSSION IN NOTE 6, SHOULD SERVE AS A WARNING THAT THE WILL OF
CONGRESS SELDOM IS TO BE DETERMINED FROM ITS WHOLLY NEGATIVE ACTIONS
SUBSEQUENT TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE CONSTRUED.  IN THIS CASE THE
REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS NOT MORE, INDEED I THINK IT IS
LESS, INDICATIVE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE THAN COMPLETE INACTIVITY
WOULD HAVE BEEN.  EVEN IF THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE THE "SILENCE OF
CONGRESS" MAY HAVE SOME WEIGHT, THAT AMBIGUOUS DOCTRINE DOES NOT
REQUIRE OR SUPPORT THE RESULT WHICH THE COURT REACHES TODAY.  GIROUARD
V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 61; CF. CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S.
14, CONCURRING OPINION AT 21. 

NOR IS THAT RESULT JUSTIFIED BY THE "EQUITABLE" CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
THE COURT'S OPINION SOMEWHAT OBLIQUELY ADVANCES.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT
A REFUSAL TO FOLLOW THE ELGIN PRECEDENT WOULD BE TO APPLY A DIFFERENT
AND MORE DRASTIC RULE TO BETHLEHEM THAN APPLIES TO ITS COMPETITOR, THE
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION.  BUT, ASIDE FROM THE SPECIOUS
CHARACTER OF AN ARGUMENT THAT PERMITS X TO VIOLATE THE LAW ON THE
GROUND THAT Y ALSO VIOLATES IT, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE OVERRULING OF THE ELGIN CASE WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT
ON UNITED STATES STEEL.  THE POLICY OF RES JUDICATA WOULD NOT APPLY,
CF. COMMISSIONER V. SUNNEN, 333 U.S. 591, AND UNITED STATES STEEL,
INSTEAD OF BEING PREJUDICED BY THE COURSE OF DECISION, ACTUALLY HAS
BEEN BENEFITED BY MORE THAN A DECADE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE ELGIN ROAD,
CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE'S PLAIN TERMS AND POLICY. 

THE COURT ALSO FEELS THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED IS TOO DRASTIC BECAUSE
BETHLEHEM WOULD BE COMPELLED TO SELL ITS SHORT-LINE RAILROADS, THE
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT INDEPENDENT OWNERSHIP OF THESE RAILROADS
IS LIKELY, NOR HAS IT SHOWN THAT EVILS EXIST WHICH WOULD BE REMEDIED BY
THIS RELIEF.  THESE ARE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY INFLUENCED THE
MAJORITY IN THE ELGIN CASE, SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY IT WOULD SEEM FROM THE
MAJORITY IN THIS ONE, BUT WHICH THE DISSENTING JUSTICES FELT HAD BEEN
FORECLOSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION OF POLICY.  RELIANCE ON
SUCH ARGUMENTS TODAY SEEMS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATEMENT "THAT IF THE
ELGIN CASE WERE BEFORE US AS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, ITS DOCTRINE
MIGHT NOT NOW BE APPROVED."  MOREOVER, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THIS
COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS EQUITY JURISDICTION COULD NOT ADAPT THE
RELIEF AFFORDED SO AS TO GIVE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY FOR MAKING THE
ADJUSTMENTS NECESSARY TO SECURE CONFORMITY WITH THE STATUTE IN AN
ORDERLY AND INOPPRESSIVE MANNER.  INDEED IT WOULD BE THE COURT'S DUTY
TO DO THIS. 

THE ARGUMENTS ON THIS LEVEL ARE MOST EFFECTIVELY ANSWERED BY THE
DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE STONE, WHO WAS JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, IN THE ELGIN CASE:  "THE LANGUAGE OF
THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE, READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
CAN LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO WITHHOLD FROM EVERY
INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIER THE INDUCEMENT AND FACILITY FOR FAVORITISM AND
ABUSE OF ITS POWERS AS A COMMON CARRIER, WHICH EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN ARE
LIKELY TO OCCUR WHEN A SINGLE BUSINESS INTEREST OCCUPIES THE
INCONSISTENT POSITION OF CARRIER AND SHIPPER.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
READING CO., 253 U.S. 26, 60, 61.  BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE
COMMODITIES CLAUSE, CONGRESS, BY SWEEPING PROHIBITIONS, HAD MADE
UNLAWFUL EVERY FORM OF REBATE TO SHIPPERS AND EVERY FORM OF
DISCRIMINATION IN CARRIER RATES, SERVICE AND FACILITIES, INJURIOUS TO
SHIPPERS OR THE PUBLIC.  BY THE SHERMAN ACT IT HAD FORBIDDEN
COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT IT DID NOT STOP
THERE.  THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE WAS AIMED, NOT AT THE PRACTICES OF
RAILROADS ALREADY PENALIZED, BUT AT THE SUPPRESSION OF THE POWER AND
THE FAVORABLE OPPORTUNITY, INSEPARABLE FROM ACTUAL CONTROL OF BOTH
SHIPPER AND CARRIER BY THE SAME INTEREST, TO ENGAGE IN PRACTICES
ALREADY FORBIDDEN AND OTHERS INIMICAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CARRIER
DUTIES TO THE PUBLIC.  SEE DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
231 U.S. 363, 370; UNITED STATES V. READING CO., SUPRA."  298 U.S. AT
504.  FN17 

IN MY OPINION THIS EXPRESSES THE INTENT OF THE LETTER AND THE POLICY
OF THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE, AND WE SHOULD NOW RETURN TO IT ON OUR OWN
RESPONSIBILITY.  CONGRESS SHOULD NOT AGAIN BE REQUIRED TO REENACT WHAT
IT HAS ONCE PROVIDED FOR, ONLY TO HAVE ITS MANDATE NULLIFIED IN PART BY
THIS COURT'S MISCONSTRUCTION. 

FN1  SEE COMMENT, THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE AND THE REGULATION OF
INDUSTRIAL RAILROADS, 46 YALE L.J. 299; 36 COL. L. REV. 1175. 

FN2  THE HOLDING COMPANY OWNS SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE STOCK IN
APPROXIMATELY 57 SUBSIDIARIES, INCLUDING THE STEEL COMPANY AND THE
SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY COMPANY.  SOME OF THESE PRODUCE ORE IN CHILE,
VENEZUELA, CUBA AND IN THE UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONS; OTHERS CONTROL
COAL MINES IN WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA.  TWO SUBSIDIARIES OPERATE
OCEAN-GOING STEAMSHIP LINES, HAULING RAW MATERIALS TO STEEL PLANTS
CONTROLLED BY OTHER SUBSIDIARIES.  A GREAT LAKES SHIPPING COMPANY OWNED
BY THE HOLDING COMPANY CARRIES ORE FROM A MINING SUBSIDIARY TO A
PRODUCING SUBSIDIARY.  SEVEN SHORT-LINE RAILROADS INCLUDING SOUTH
BUFFALO, EACH WHOLLY OWNED BY THE HOLDING COMPANY AND HAVING COMMON
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, TRANSPORT PRODUCTS FOR THE VARIOUS BETHLEHEM
STEEL PLANTS. 

FN3  THE OPINION OF THE COURT SEEMS TO ASSUME THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
COMMODITIES CLAUSE WAS TO PREVENT THE HOLDING COMPANY FROM FAVORING
"ITS SHIPPING SUBSIDIARY AT THE EXPENSE OF ITS CARRYING SUBSIDIARY, OR
VICE VERSA." 

FN4  MOREOVER, THE CONCLUSION IS FACTUALLY JUSTIFIED BY THE HISTORY
OF COMPLETE DOMINATION PRIOR TO 1940 PLUS THE FACT THAT FORMER
EMPLOYEES OF THE STEEL COMPANY CONTINUE TO BE THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF
SOUTH BUFFALO AS WELL AS THE OTHER BETHLEHEM SHORT-LINE RAILROADS. 
"HISTORICAL TIES AND ASSOCIATIONS, COMBINED WITH STRATEGIC HOLDINGS OF
STOCK, CAN ON OCCASION SERVE AS A POTENT SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MORE
OBVIOUS MODES OF CONTROL."  NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686,
693.    FN5  SEN. REP. NO. 433, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 15; HEARINGS
BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 2009, 76TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 427, 590, 772. 

FN6  SENATOR REED EXPRESSLY SO STATED:  "JUDGE, YOU REMEMBER THAT
JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BRANDEIS, AND JUSTICE CARDOZO DISSENTED FROM
THAT MAJORITY OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE E.J. & E. CASE....  I
AM INCLINED TO THINK THAT THE SUPREME, AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED, WOULD
HOLD WITH WHAT WAS THE MINORITY VIEW."  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON S. 2009, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 68.  HE LATER SAID THAT HE
THOUGHT THE ELGIN DECISION "WAS A STRANGE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW ON
THE PART OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  ID. AT 309. 

THE VIEWS OF SENATOR WHEELER SEEM CLEARLY TO THE SAME EFFECT.  WHEN
IT WAS FIRST SUGGESTED THAT THE PROPOSED COMMODITIES CLAUSE WOULD
OVERRULE THE ELGIN CASE, HE STATED (APPARENTLY BECAUSE HE WAS
INTERESTED PRIMARILY IN EXTENDING THE CLAUSE TO APPLY TO OTHER TYPES OF
CARRIERS):  "I DID NOT INTEND SUCH A RESULT."  WHEN THE EFFECT OF THE
CLAUSE WAS POINTED OUT TO HIM, HE EXPRESSED DOUBT WHETHER THAT CASE
SHOULD BE OVERRULED, NOT BECAUSE HE APPROVED IT, BUT AS HE EXPLAINED
BECAUSE "I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE E.J. & E. CASE."  ID. 67-68. 

THREE DAYS LATER, WHEN THE POINT WAS AGAIN UNDER DISCUSSION, SENATOR
WHEELER, AT THIS TIME APPARENTLY REFRESHED IN RECOLLECTION OF THE ELGIN
CASE, FRANKLY STATED THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE REVISED CLAUSE WAS
TO MEET THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN IT.  THE WITNESS THEN EXPRESSED
THE VIEW THAT THE REVISED CLAUSE WENT CONSIDERABLY BEYOND THE DECISION
BECAUSE IT APPLIED TO OTHER TYPES OF CARRIERS, AND TO SITUATIONS WHERE
THE SHIPPER OWNED ONLY TEN PER CENT OF THE CARRIER'S STOCK.  THE
WITNESS SUGGESTED THAT, IF THE INTENT WAS MERELY TO REVERSE THE ELGIN
CASE, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO LEAVE THE CLAUSE IN ITS PRESENT FORM,
BECAUSE "I DO NOT BELIEVE THE DECISION IN THE E.J. & E. CASE IS GOING
TO PROVE TO BE ONE OF THE LAWS OF THE MEDES AND THE PERSIANS."  ID.
385. 

AFTER MORE DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDED VERSION ON WATER
CARRIERS AND PIPE LINES, SENATOR WHEELER REMARKED:  "THERE ARE
DIFFICULTIES ON THAT QUESTION, IN MY MIND.  SUPPOSE WE REENACTED THE
LAW AS IT IS.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COURTS MIGHT SAY, IN VIEW OF
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION, 'IN REENACTING THE LAW, YOU APPROVED THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.'"  ID. 386. 

THE SENATOR THUS WAS FACED WITH A DILEMMA.  AT THIS POINT HE WAS
APPARENTLY PERSUADED THAT THE EXTENSION OF THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE TO
ALL CARRIERS WAS A MORE DRASTIC CHANGE THAN HE HAD ORIGINALLY REALIZED,
BUT HESITATED TO REENACT THE OLD VERSION LEST THE REENACTMENT BE
CONSTRUED AS LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF THE ELGIN CASE.  HIS FEAR HAS NOW
BEEN JUSTIFIED BY TODAY'S DECISION.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING
WEEK THAT HE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DRASTIC NATURE OF THE
PROPOSED CHANGE OUTWEIGHED THE RISK THAT REENACTMENT WOULD BE CONSTRUED
AS APPROVAL OF THAT CASE.  ID. 427; AND SEE STATEMENTS QUOTED IN NOTE
12 INFRA.  SUCH A CHOICE HARDLY CAN BE CONSTRUED INTO "APPROVAL" OF THE
DECISION. 

FN7  ID. 236, 284-286, 308-310, 385-387, 427-432, 492, 623, 632-633,
692, 753-754, 926-928. 

FN8  ID. 386, 589-597, 606-610, 611-612, 654-660, 736-742. 

FN9  ID. 127, 432-433. 

FN10  FOR EXAMPLE, THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY STRENUOUSLY OPPOSED THE
PROVISION BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE EFFECTED THE DIVORCEMENT OF PIPE-LINE
COMPANIES FROM PRODUCERS.  SEE NOTE 8 SUPRA; CF. ID. AT 935. 
OPPOSITION BY FARM LOBBIES WAS DIRECTED PARTICULARLY AT THE NEW
COMMODITIES CLAUSE: "SECTION 12 APPEARS TO ENDANGER THE ACTIVITIES OF
MORE THAN 100,000 FARMERS OF OUR AREA WHO HAVE COOPERATIVELY ASSOCIATED
THEMSELVES TOGETHER AND WHO, BECAUSE OF EXORBITANT RAIL RATES, ARE
TRANSPORTING INCREASING TONNAGE OF GRAIN, LIVESTOCK, AND PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS BOTH THROUGH COOPERATIVE TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS AND BY TRUCKS
OWNED BY LOCAL OR REGIONAL COOPERATIVES."  ID. 432-433.  SEE ALSO ID.
311.  THE MOST VIGOROUS OPPOSITION, HOWEVER, CAME FROM PARTIES WHO
WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CLAUSE TO WATER
CARRIERS.  SEE NOTE 7 SUPRA.  THEY POINTED OUT, AS AN INSTANCE OF THE
FAR-REACHING EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT, THAT 65 PER CENT OF THE PRIVATELY
OWNED AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE. 

FN11  SEE HEARINGS 772; CF. NOTE 10 SUPRA. 

FN12  SENATOR WHEELER EXPLAINED THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION TO ABANDON
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MORE THAN ONCE.  TO SHORTEN TESTIMONY BY
WITNESSES INTERESTED IN THE EFFECT OF THE CLAUSE ON PIPE LINES AND
WATER CARRIERS HE STATED:  "YOU MIGHT AS WELL QUIT WASTING YOUR TIME,
BECAUSE I MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT YESTERDAY WITH REFERENCE TO THAT, AND I
HOPE YOU PEOPLE WILL NOT COME HERE WITH THE IDEA OF TAKING UP A LOT OF
TIME ON THAT.  I HAVE SAID THAT PIPE LINES ARE A SUBJECT THAT OUGHT TO
BE GIVEN INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION, AND WE CANNOT TAKE IT UP AND GIVE
IT THE NECESSARY TIME AND STUDY IN THIS BILL.  THAT MAY BE MODIFIED OR
ELIMINATED, SO FAR AS PIPE LINES AND WATER CARRIERS ARE CONCERNED." 
ID. 590.  LATER HE SAID: "I HAVE FELT, FRANKLY, THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR
LEGISLATION, WHICH DOES DIVORCE, SHIPS FROM INDUSTRY, THAT IT WAS SUCH
A BROAD SUBJECT, AND ONE WHICH REQUIRED SO MUCH INDEPENDENT STUDY, THAT
IT OUGHT TO BE HANDLED BY SEPARATE LEGISLATION.  NO ONE IN THE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE SEEMS TO HAVE MADE A STUDY OF THE QUESTION.  I FELT
THAT IT OUGHT TO BE ELIMINATED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL AT THIS
TIME, AND BE INTRODUCED AS SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT LEGISLATION, AS HAS
BEEN DONE IN THE PAST."  ID. 772. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 6. 

FN14  HEARINGS 541; AND SEE ID. 285, 385-386. 

FN15  ID. 421, 435, 841. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 6. 

FN17  SEE ALSO NOTE 4. 
..END :

















UNITED STATES V. SCOPHONY CORP., 333 U.S. 795 


NO. 41.  ARGUED JANUARY 12-13, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1948.  - 69
F.SUPP.  666, REVERSED. 


A BRITISH CORPORATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN LONDON
ENGAGED IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN VARIOUS BUT CONTINUING
EFFORTS TO CONSERVE AND EXPLOIT ITS TELEVISION INVENTIONS AND PATENTS. 
THIS WAS DONE THROUGH A SERIES OF COMPLEX CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS MADE
WITH CERTAIN AMERICAN CORPORATIONS AND INVOLVED THE BRITISH COMPANY'S
CONSTANT INTERVENTION AND SUPERVISION.  THE COMPANY WAS REPRESENTED IN
THE NEW YORK DISTRICT BY TWO OF ITS DIRECTORS, ONE OF WHOM HELD A
COMPREHENSIVE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO PROTECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE UNITED
STATES.  HELD: THE COMPANY WAS "TRANSACTING BUSINESS" AND WAS "FOUND"
IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 12 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT, SO THAT IT COULD BE SUED AND SERVED THERE IN A CIVIL
PROCEEDING CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
PP. 796-818. 

(A)  THE VENUE PROVISION OF SEC. 12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT PERMITTING
SUIT IN ANY DISTRICT WHEREIN A CORPORATION "TRANSACTS BUSINESS" IS MET
BY THE CARRYING ON OF BUSINESS "OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER." 
PRACTICAL, NONTECHNICAL BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL STANDARDS ARE TO BE
APPLIED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED.  P. 810. 

(B)  SECTION 12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED IN A MANNER
TO BRING BACK THE OBSTACLES TO ENFORCEMENT OF ANTITRUST POLICIES AND
REMEDIES WHICH IT WAS ENACTED TO ELIMINATE.  IN THIS CASE, THE
DETERMINATION WHETHER THE BRITISH CORPORATION WAS "FOUND" WITHIN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SO THAT IT COULD BE SERVED THERE IS NOT
TO BE MADE BY ATOMIZING THE ENTERPRISE INTO MINUTE PARTS OR EVENTS, IN
DISREGARD OF THE UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF THE WHOLE COURSE OF CONDUCT. 
P. 817. 

UNITED STATES V. SCOPHONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AND CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND
2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT QUASHED SERVICE OF PROCESS AND
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AS TO A BRITISH CORPORATION HAVING ITS
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN LONDON.  69 F.SUPP.  666.  ON DIRECT
APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 818. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLEE SCOPHONY, LIMITED IS A BRITISH CORPORATION WHICH HAS ITS
OFFICES AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN LONDON, ENGLAND.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT COMPANY "TRANSACTED BUSINESS" AND WAS "FOUND"
WITHIN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT,  FN1 SO THAT IT COULD BE SUED AND SERVED THERE IN A CIVIL
PROCEEDING CHARGING VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  26
STAT. 209, 50 STAT. 693, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2.  THE VIOLATIONS STATED
WERE THAT SCOPHONY AND THE OTHER DEFENDANTS  FN2  HAD MONOPOLIZED,
ATTEMPTED TO MONOPOLIZE, AND CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN PRODUCTS, PATENTS AND INVENTIONS
USEFUL IN TELEVISION AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES.  THE CAUSE IS HERE ON
DIRECT APPEAL  FN3 FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTING
SCOPHONY'S MOTION TO QUASH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS AND DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT AS TO IT.  69 F.SUPP.  666. 

SCOPHONY MANUFACTURES AND SELLS TELEVISION APPARATUS AND IS THE OWNER
AND LICENSOR OF INVENTIONS AND PATENTS COVERING TELEVISION RECEPTION
AND TRANSMISSION.  FN4  WITH THE OUTBREAK OF THE EUROPEAN WAR IN 1939,
THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION STOPPED TELEVISION BROADCASTING. 
CONSEQUENTLY IT BECAME IMPOSSIBLE FOR SCOPHONY TO CONTINUE IN THE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF TELEVISION EQUIPMENT IN
ENGLAND.  IT THEREFORE SENT PERSONNEL TO THE UNITED STATES, OPENED AN
OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY, AND BEGAN DEMONSTRATIONS OF ITS PRODUCT AND
OTHER ACTIVITIES PRELIMINARY TO ESTABLISHING A MANUFACTURING AND
SELLING BUSINESS IN THIS COUNTRY. 

LATE IN 1941 SCOPHONY FOUND ITSELF IN FINANCIAL DISTRESS, IN PART
BECAUSE OF RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON THE EXPORT
OF CURRENCY.  IT BECAME IMPERATIVE THAT NEW CAPITAL FROM AMERICAN
SOURCES BE FOUND FOR THE ENTERPRISE.  ACCORDINGLY, ARTHUR LEVEY, A
DIRECTOR OF SCOPHONY AND ONE OF ITS FOUNDERS, UNDERTOOK NEGOTIATIONS IN
NEW YORK WITH AMERICAN MOTION PICTURE AND TELEVISION INTERESTS,
INCLUDING PARAMOUNT AND GENERAL PRECISION.  THEY CULMINATED IN THE
EXECUTION OF THREE INTERLACING CONTRACTS, THE SO-CALLED MASTER
AGREEMENT OF JULY 31, 1942, AND TWO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS OF AUGUST
11, 1942.  COPIES OF THE LATTER HAD BEEN ATTACHED TO THE MASTER
AGREEMENT, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THEIR LATER EXECUTION, AND THEY WHEN
EXECUTED IN EFFECT CARRIED OUT ITS TERMS.  THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
THE SHERMAN ACT CENTER AROUND THESE AGREEMENTS. 

THE MASTER AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BY SCOPHONY, WILLIAM GEORGE ELCOCK,
AS MORTGAGEE OF ALL OF SCOPHONY'S ASSETS, GENERAL PRECISION, AND
PRODUCTIONS, THE LATTER A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PARAMOUNT.  IT
PROVIDED FOR THE FORMATION OF A NEW DELAWARE CORPORATION, AMERICAN
SCOPHONY, WITH AN AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK OF 1,000 CLASS "A" SHARES
AND A LIKE NUMBER OF CLASS "B" SHARES.  SCOPHONY AND INDIVIDUALS
INTERESTED IN IT  FN5  WERE TO BE GIVEN THE CLASS "A" SHARES.  UNDER
THE AGREEMENT, OWNERSHIP OF THOSE SHARES CONFERRED THE RIGHT TO ELECT
THREE OF AMERICAN SCOPHONY'S FIVE DIRECTORS AND ITS PRESIDENT, VICE
PRESIDENT AND TREASURER.  THE CLASS "B" SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO GENERAL
PRECISION AND PRODUCTIONS.  BY VIRTUE OF SUCH OWNERSHIP THOSE TWO
CORPORATIONS WERE ENTITLED TO NAME THE REMAINING TWO DIRECTORS AND THE
SECRETARY AND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF AMERICAN SCOPHONY.  LEVEY WAS
NAMED IN THE AGREEMENT AS THE PRESIDENT AND A DIRECTOR OF THE NEW
CORPORATION. 

THE MASTER AGREEMENT SET FORTH THE GENERAL DESIRE OF THE PARTIES TO
PROMOTE THE UTILIZATION OF THE SCOPHONY INVENTIONS "PARTICULARLY IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND GENERALLY IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE."  IT
THEN STATED THAT AMERICAN SCOPHONY HAD BEEN ORGANIZED "AS A MEANS
THEREFOR."  SCOPHONY AGREED TO TRANSFER ALL ITS TELEVISION EQUIPMENT
THEN IN THE UNITED STATES TO AMERICAN SCOPHONY AND TO ENTER INTO THE
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.  SCOPHONY, WITH THE OTHER PARTIES, ALSO
UNDERTOOK TO CAUSE AMERICAN SCOPHONY TO ENTER INTO BOTH SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENTS.  FOR THE "B" STOCK IN AMERICAN SCOPHONY AND OTHER RIGHTS
ACQUIRED, GENERAL PRECISION AND PRODUCTIONS AGREED TO ENTER INTO THE
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT AND TO PAY SPECIFIED SUMS IN CASH TO
SCOPHONY OR FOR ITS BENEFIT IN LIQUIDATION OF LISTED OBLIGATIONS. 

PURSUANT TO THE MASTER AGREEMENT'S TERMS, THE FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BY SCOPHONY, ELCOCK, AS MORTGAGEE OF ITS ASSETS,
AND AMERICAN SCOPHONY; THE OTHER, BY AMERICAN SCOPHONY, GENERAL
PRECISION, AND PRODUCTIONS.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IT IS NECESSARY TO
SET FORTH ONLY THE GENERAL EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENTS TAKEN TOGETHER. 
SCOPHONY TRANSFERRED TO AMERICAN SCOPHONY NOT ONLY ALL OF ITS EQUIPMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT ALSO ALL PATENTS AND OTHER INTERESTS IN THE
SCOPHONY INVENTIONS WITHIN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.  GENERAL PRECISION
AND PRODUCTIONS WERE GRANTED EXCLUSIVE LICENSES UNDER AMERICAN
SCOPHONY'S PATENTS.  THEY AGREED TO PAY ROYALTIES ON THE PRODUCTS
PRODUCED UNDER THE LICENSES AND AMERICAN SCOPHONY UNDERTOOK TO TRANSMIT
FIFTY PER CENT OF SUCH ROYALTIES TO SCOPHONY.  AMERICAN SCOPHONY GAVE
SCOPHONY AN EXCLUSIVE SUBLICENSE FOR THE EASTERN HEMISPHERE ON A
ROYALTY BASIS UNDER ALL PATENTS LICENSED TO AMERICAN SCOPHONY BY
GENERAL PRECISION AND PRODUCTIONS.  PROVISION WAS ALSO MADE FOR THE
INTERCHANGE OF TECHNICAL DATA AND INFORMATION RESPECTING THE SCOPHONY
INVENTIONS.  FINALLY, IT WAS AGREED THAT SCOPHONY WOULD NOT MARKET ANY
PRODUCT INVOLVING THE SCOPHONY INVENTIONS IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE AND
THAT GENERAL PRECISION AND PRODUCTIONS WOULD NOT EXPORT ANY SUCH
PRODUCT TO THE EASTERN HEMISPHERE.  FN6 

THIS RATHER COMPLEX PLAN SOON FELL OF ITS OWN WEIGHT.  STARTING IN
1943, AN IMPASSE DEVELOPED IN THE AFFAIRS OF AMERICAN SCOPHONY.  IT
STEMMED FROM THE FAILURE AND UNWILLINGNESS OF GENERAL PRECISION AND
PRODUCTIONS TO EXPLOIT THE SCOPHONY INVENTIONS THEMSELVES AND THEIR
REFUSAL TO MODIFY THE AGREEMENTS TO PERMIT THE LICENSING OF OTHER
AMERICAN FIRMS UNDER THE INVENTIONS.  SEVERAL MANUFACTURERS EXPRESSED
AN INTEREST IN OBTAINING LICENSES.  BUT IN EACH INSTANCE THE DIRECTORS
REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN INTERESTS HOLDING THE CLASS "B" SHARES WERE
UNWILLING TO APPROVE THE NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS IN THE EXISTING
ARRANGEMENTS.  IN JULY, 1945, THE DIRECTORS REPRESENTING THE "B"
INTERESTS RESIGNED.  THIS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR AMERICAN SCOPHONY TO
TRANSACT BUSINESS, SINCE CHARTER AND BY-LAW PROVISIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO THE MASTER AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS REQUIRED THE PRESENCE OF AT
LEAST ONE CLASS "B" DIRECTOR FOR A QUORUM.  ADDING TO THE DIFFICULTIES
WERE AMERICAN SCOPHONY'S SHORTAGE OF FUNDS AND THE APPARENT RELUCTANCE
OF THE AMERICAN INTERESTS TO COOPERATE IN EFFORTS TO PLACE AMERICAN
SCOPHONY ON FIRMER FINANCIAL FOOTING.  AMERICAN SCOPHONY'S AFFAIRS WERE
FURTHER COMPLICATED BY THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT ANTITRUST
PROCEEDING ON DECEMBER 18, 1945. 

LEVEY KEPT SCOPHONY ADVISED OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN
THE "A" AND "B" FACTIONS AND OTHERWISE MADE PROGRESS REPORTS TO
SCOPHONY ON ITS INTERESTS IN THE UNITED STATES.  AS THE IMPASSE
HEIGHTENED, OTHER INDIVIDUALS WERE AUTHORIZED BY SCOPHONY TO ACT IN ITS
BEHALF IN THE UNITED STATES.  FN7  SERVICE OF PROCESS AS TO SCOPHONY
WAS MADE FIRST ON LEVEY IN NEW YORK CITY ON DECEMBER 20, 1945.  FN8 

ON APRIL 5, 1946, A SUMMONS AND A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DIRECTED TO
SCOPHONY WERE ALSO SERVED ON ELCOCK IN NEW YORK CITY.  HE WAS A
DOMINANT FIGURE IN SCOPHONY.  HE ARRIVED IN THIS COUNTRY IN MARCH,
1946, WITH THE MISSION OF INVESTIGATING AND ENDING THE IMPASSE AND
DISPOSING OF SCOPHONY'S INTEREST IN AMERICAN SCOPHONY.  ELCOCK NOT ONLY
WAS MORTGAGEE OF SCOPHONY'S ASSETS BY VIRTUE OF HAVING MADE A LARGE
LOAN TO THE COMPANY.  HE WAS ALSO ITS FINANCIAL COMPTROLLER AND A
MEMBER OF ITS BOARD.  AT THE TIME OF SERVICE ON HIM, HE HELD A
COMPREHENSIVE POWER OF ATTORNEY, IRREVOCABLE UNTIL MARCH, 1947, GIVING
HIM COMPLETE POWER TO ACT WITH REGARD TO SCOPHONY'S INTERESTS IN THE
UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THOSE IN AMERICAN SCOPHONY.  FN9 

THE DISTRICT COURT, IN GRANTING THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE AND
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS TO SCOPHONY, HELD THAT IT WAS NOT "FOUND" IN
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 12.  THE
COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT SCOPHONY WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
BY REASON OF THE ACTIVITIES OF ITS AGENTS.  IT CONCLUDED THAT NONE OF
THOSE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO SCOPHONY'S ORDINARY BUSINESS OF
MANUFACTURING, SELLING AND LICENSING TELEVISION APPARATUS, BUT ALL WERE
CONFINED TO PROTECTING SCOPHONY'S INTEREST IN AMERICAN SCOPHONY.  IT
ALSO FOUND THAT THE CONDUCT OF AMERICAN SCOPHONY DID NOT SERVE TO BRING
SCOPHONY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION.  69 F.SUPP.  666. 

I. 

VENUE FOR ANTITRUST SUITS AGAINST CORPORATIONS; SECOND, TO DETERMINE
WHERE PROCESS IN SUCH SUITS MAY BE SERVED.  VENUE MAY BE HAD "NOT ONLY
IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHEREOF IT IS AN INHABITANT, BUT ALSO IN ANY
DISTRICT WHEREIN IT MAY BE FOUND OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS."  AND ALL
PROCESS MAY BE SERVED "IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH IT IS AN INHABITANT, OR
WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND." 

A PLAIN AND LITERAL READING OF THE SECTION'S WORDS GIVES IT
DECEPTIVELY SIMPLE APPEARANCE.  THE SOURCE OF TROUBLE LIES IN THE USE
OF VERBS DESCRIPTIVE OF THE BEHAVIOR OF HUMAN BEINGS TO DESCRIBE THAT
OF ENTITIES CHARACTERIZED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL AS "ARTIFICIAL  ...
, INVISIBLE, INTANGIBLE, AND EXISTING ONLY IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW." 
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT.  518, 636.  FN10 

THE PROCESS OF TRANSLATING GROUP OR INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS IN TERMS
OF INDIVIDUAL ONES, AND SO KEEPING THEM DISTINCT FROM THE NONGROUP
RELATIONS OF THE PEOPLE WHOSE GROUP RIGHTS ARE THUS INTEGRATED, IS
PERENNIAL, NOT ONLY BECAUSE THE LAW'S NORM IS SO MUCH THE INDIVIDUAL
MAN, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE CONTINUING EVOLUTION OF INSTITUTIONS MORE AND
MORE COMPELS FITTING THEM INTO INDIVIDUALISTICALLY CONCEIVED LEGAL
PATTERNS.  PERHAPS IN NO OTHER FIELD HAVE THE VAGARIES OF THIS PROCESS
BEEN EXEMPLIFIED MORE OR MORE OFTEN THAN IN THE DETERMINATION OF
MATTERS OF JURISDICTION, VENUE AND LIABILITY TO SERVICE OF PROCESS IN
OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  FN11  IT HAS GONE ON FROM BANK V. DEVEAUX, 5
CRANCH 61, AND BAPTIST ASSOCIATION V. HART'S EXECUTORS, 4 WHEAT.  1, TO
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, AND NOW THIS CASE. 
FN12 

THE TRANSLATION, OR RATHER THE NECESSITY FOR IT, PERMEATES EVERY
SIGNIFICANT WORD OF SEC. 12, NOT WHOLLY EXCLUDING "OR TRANSACTS
BUSINESS."  IF THE STATUTORY SLATE WERE CLEAN, ONE MIGHT READILY
CONCLUDE THAT THE WORDS "INHABITANT" AND "FOUND" WOULD HAVE THE SAME
MEANING FOR LOCATING BOTH VENUE AND THE PROPER PLACE FOR SERVING
PROCESS.  BUT EVEN SO, EACH OF THOSE TERMS AND INDEED THE TERM
"TRANSACTS BUSINESS" WOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN SPECIFIC CONTENT ACTUALLY
DESCRIPTIVE OF CORPORATE EVENTS TAKING PLACE WITHIN SPECIFIED AREAS. 
BECAUSE ALL CORPORATE ACTION MUST BE VICARIOUS, THAT CONTENT COULD BE
DETERMINED ONLY BY AN ACT OF JUDGMENT WHICH SELECTS AND ATTRIBUTES TO
THE CORPORATION, FROM THE MASS OF ACTIVITY DONE OR PURPORTING TO BE
DONE ON ITS BEHALF, THOSE ACTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR
THE PARTICULAR STATUTORY PURPOSES AND POLICIES IN HAND. 

THE STATUTORY SLATE, HOWEVER, IS NEITHER ENTIRELY NEW NOR CLEAN. 
BOTH LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL HANDS HAVE WRITTEN UPON IT.  THE WRITING
IS MEANDERING, UNCLEAR IN PART, AND PARTLY ERASED.  BUT IT CANNOT BE
DISREGARDED.  WHAT IS LEGIBLE MUST FURNISH GUIDANCE TO DECISION.  WE
DEAL HERE WITH A PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, NOT ONE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORT.  FN13  NOR DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTION OF THE
EXERCISE OF CONGRESS' POWER TO ITS FARTHEST LIMIT.  THE ISSUE IS SIMPLY
HOW FAR CONGRESS MEANT TO GO, AND SPECIFICALLY WHETHER IT INTENDED TO
CREATE VENUE AND LIABILITY TO SERVICE OF PROCESS THROUGH THE OCCURRENCE
WITHIN A DISTRICT OF THE KINDS OF ACTS DONE HERE ON SCOPHONY'S BEHALF. 

SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.  EASTMAN CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S.
359.  THE EARLIER STATUTE PROVIDED FOR SUIT IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH
THE DEFENDANT "RESIDES OR IS FOUND."  26 STAT. 210.  THAT WORDING
CONTROLLED FOR BOTH VENUE AND FIXING THE PLACES FOR SERVICE OF
PROCESS. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO REVIEW THE DECISIONS CONSTRUING SEC. 7 AND SIMILAR
STATUTES, CF. SUTTLE V. REICH BROS., 333 U.S. 163; SEE INTERNATIONAL
SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, AT 317-319, EXCEPT TO REFER TO PEOPLE'S
TOBACCO CO. V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 246 U.S. 79.  THERE THE FOREIGN
CORPORATION WAS SUED IN A DISTRICT IN WHICH IT DID NOT "RESIDE." 
BECAUSE THE COURT FOUND THAT THE COMPANY HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATE
IN WHICH THE DISTRICT WAS LOCATED AND HAD REVOKED THE AUTHORITY OF ITS
PRINCIPAL AGENTS THERE, IT HELD THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT "FOUND" IN
THE DISTRICT, ALTHOUGH CERTAIN CORPORATE ACTIVITIES CONTINUED.    THE
CONVENTIONAL RATIONALIZATION APPLIED EQUATED "FOUND" IN SEQUENCE TO
"PRESENCE," TO "DOING BUSINESS BY ITS AGENTS THERE," TO "OF A CHARACTER
WARRANTING INFERENCE OF SUBJECTION TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTION."  FN14
THE FACTS THAT THE COMPANY CONTINUED TO ADVERTISE ITS GOODS IN THE
STATE AND DISTRICT, TO MAKE INTERSTATE SALES TO JOBBERS THERE, TO SEND
IN DRUMMERS WHO SOLICITED RETAIL ORDERS TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE
JOBBERS, AND FINALLY TO OWN STOCK IN LOCAL SUBSIDIARIES, WERE HELD NOT
TO CONSTITUTE THE SORT OF "DOING BUSINESS" WARRANTING THE INFERENCE OF
SUBJECTION TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTION FOR THE STATUTE'S PURPOSES. 
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 579, WAS NARROWLY
DISTINGUISHED.  246 U.S. AT 87. 

THE SUIT IN THE PEOPLE'S TOBACCO CASE WAS BEGUN IN 1912, BUT THE
DECISION WAS NOT RENDERED UNTIL 1918.  MEANWHILE, IN 1914, CONGRESS HAD
ENACTED THE CLAYTON ACT, INCLUDING SEC. 12.  THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE
EASTMAN CASE, SUPRA, WAS BEGUN IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 
PROCESS ISSUED AND WAS SERVED UNDER SEC. 12 ON THE DEFENDANT, A NEW
YORK CORPORATION, AT ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ROCHESTER.  IN
1927 THIS COURT SUSTAINED BOTH THE VENUE AND THE SERVICE, AS AGAINST
OBJECTIONS THAT SEC. 12 HAD NOT BROADENED SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
BUT MERELY MADE EXPLICIT WHAT HAD BEEN DECIDED UNDER IT.  FN15 

THE ARGUMENT WAS CERTAINLY PLAUSIBLE, BUT FOR THE FACT THAT IT MADE
THE ADDITION OF "OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS" TO "INHABITANT" AND "FOUND" IN
SEC. 12 REDUNDANT AND MEANINGLESS.  THE COURT REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE
ARGUMENT, BECAUSE DOING SO WOULD HAVE DEFEATED THE PLAIN REMEDIAL
PURPOSE OF SEC. 12.  FN16  THAT SECTION WAS ENACTED, IT HELD, TO
ENLARGE THE JURISDICTION GIVEN BY SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT OVER
CORPORATIONS BY ADDING THOSE WORDS, "SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE VENUE OF
SUCH A SUIT NOT ONLY, AS THERETOFORE, IN A DISTRICT IN WHICH THE
CORPORATION RESIDES OR IS 'FOUND,' BUT ALSO IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH IT
'TRANSACTS BUSINESS' - ALTHOUGH NEITHER RESIDING NOR 'FOUND' THEREIN -
IN WHICH CASE THE PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED TO AND SERVED IN A DISTRICT IN
WHICH THE CORPORATION EITHER RESIDES OR IS 'FOUND.'"  273 U.S. AT 372. 
FN17 

THIS CONSTRUCTION GAVE THE WORDS "TRANSACTS BUSINESS" A MUCH BROADER
MEANING FOR ESTABLISHING VENUE THAN THE CONCEPT OF "CARRYING ON
BUSINESS" DENOTED BY "FOUND" UNDER THE PREEXISTING STATUTE AND
DECISIONS.  THE SCOPE OF THE ADDITION WAS INDICATED BY THE STATEMENT
"THAT A CORPORATION IS ENGAGED IN TRANSACTING BUSINESS IN A DISTRICT
...  IF IN FACT, IN THE ORDINARY AND USUAL SENSE, IT 'TRANSACTS
BUSINESS' THEREIN OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER."  ID. AT 373. 

IN OTHER WORDS, FOR VENUE PURPOSES, THE COURT SLOUGHED OFF THE HIGHLY
TECHNICAL DISTINCTIONS THERETOFORE GLOSSED UPON "FOUND" FOR FILLING
THAT TERM WITH PARTICULARIZED MEANING, OR EMPTYING IT, UNDER THE
TRANSLATION OF "CARRYING ON BUSINESS."  IN THEIR STEAD IT SUBSTITUTED
THE PRACTICAL AND BROADER BUSINESS CONCEPTION OF ENGAGING IN ANY
SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS OPERATIONS.  CF. FRENE V. LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO.,
77 U.S. APP. D.C. 129, 134 F.2D 511; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V.
WASHINGTON, SUPRA.  REFINEMENTS SUCH AS PREVIOUSLY WERE MADE UNDER THE
"MERE SOLICITATION" AND "SOLICITATION PLUS" CRITERIA, CF. FRENE V.
LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO., SUPRA, AND LIKE THOSE DRAWN, E.G., BETWEEN THE
PEOPLE'S TOBACCO AND INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CASES, SUPRA, WERE NO
LONGER DETERMINATIVE.  THE PRACTICAL, EVERYDAY BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL
CONCEPT OF DOING OR CARRYING ON BUSINESS "OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER"
BECAME THE TEST OF VENUE. 

APPLYING IT, THE COURT STATED THAT "MANIFESTLY" THE EASTMAN COMPANY
WAS NOT "PRESENT" IN THE GEORGIA DISTRICT UNDER THE EARLIER TESTS OF
SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, EITHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF VENUE OR AS BEING
AMENABLE TO SERVICE OF PROCESS.  P. 371.  IT THUS ALIGNED THE CASE
UNDER THOSE TESTS WITH THE PEOPLE'S TOBACCO DECISION RATHER THAN THE
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER ONE.  BUT, UNDER THE BROADER ROOM GIVEN BY SEC.
12, VENUE WAS HELD TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED.  FN18 

THUS, BY SUBSTITUTING PRACTICAL, BUSINESS CONCEPTIONS FOR THE
PREVIOUS HAIR-SPLITTING LEGAL TECHNICALITIES ENCRUSTED UPON THE "FOUND"
"PRESENT"-"CARRYING-ON-BUSINESS" SEQUENCE, THE COURT YIELDED TO AND
MADE EFFECTIVE CONGRESS' REMEDIAL PURPOSE.  THEREBY IT RELIEVED PERSONS
INJURED THROUGH CORPORATE VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS FROM THE
"OFTEN INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE" OF RESORTING TO DISTANT FORUMS FOR REDRESS
OF WRONGS DONE IN THE PLACES OF THEIR BUSINESS OR RESIDENCE.  A FOREIGN
CORPORATION NO LONGER COULD COME TO A DISTRICT, PERPETRATE THERE THE
INJURIES OUTLAWED, AND THEN BY RETREATING OR EVEN WITHOUT RETREATING
FN19  TO ITS HEADQUARTERS DEFEAT OR DELAY THE RETRIBUTION DUE. 

WITH VENUE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE NEW AND BROADER APPROACH, THE
EASTMAN CASE PRESENTED NO PROBLEM REGARDING THE SERVICE OF PROCESS,
EXCEPT POSSIBLY FOR THE RULING THAT PROCESS MIGHT RUN TO ANOTHER
DISTRICT THAN THE ONE IN WHICH SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  273 U.S. AT 374.  FOR
BY WHATEVER TEST, WHETHER OF THE OLD SEC. 7 OR THE NEW SEC. 12, THE
SERVICE WAS GOOD.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE PROCESS HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO
AND SERVED IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE EASTMAN COMPANY WAS AN
"INHABITANT."  FN20 THERE WAS THEREFORE NO NECESSITY FOR RULING UPON
THE MEANING OF "FOUND" AS RELATING TO ANY OTHER DISTRICT.  ANY SUCH
RULING NECESSARILY COULD BE NO MORE THAN DICTUM, SINCE NO SUCH ISSUE
WAS PRESENTED BY THE FACTS. 

NEVERTHELESS, FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS SEC. 12 HAD SPECIFIED "THE
DISTRICT OF WHICH IT IS AN INHABITANT, OR WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND"
WITHOUT ADDING "OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS," AS WAS DONE IN THE VENUE
CLAUSE.  ACCORDINGLY THE COURT TOOK ACCOUNT OF THIS DIFFERENCE AND WENT
ON TO INDICATE THAT FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY TO SERVICE THE SECTION
MERELY CARRIED FORWARD THE PREEXISTING LAW, SO THAT IN SOME SITUATIONS
SERVICE IN A DISTRICT WOULD NOT BE VALID, EVEN THOUGH VENUE WERE
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED UNDER SEC. 12.  FN21 

BUT REGARDLESS OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT'S EFFECT, THE DECISION, BY
RESOLVING THE VENUE PROBLEM, SUBSTANTIALLY REMOVED THE SERIOUS
OBSTACLES AND PRACTICAL IMMUNITIES TO SUIT WHICH HAD GROWN UP UNDER
SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IN BY FAR THE LARGER NUMBER OF ANTITRUST
CASES, I.E., FOR THOSE NOT INVOLVING COMPANIES INCORPORATED OUTSIDE THE
UNITED STATES.  IN THEM THE FACT THAT SERVICE MAY BE DUBIOUS IN THE
DISTRICT OF SUIT AND CAN BE ASSURED ONLY BY CAUSING PROCESS TO RUN TO
ANOTHER DISTRICT, AS IN THE EASTMAN CASE, PRESENTS NO SUCH OBSTACLE TO
BRINGING AND MAINTAINING THE SUIT AS EXISTED PRIOR TO SEC. 12.  THE
NECESSITY, IF IT IS THAT, FOR DIRECTING PROCESS TO ANOTHER DISTRICT,
CREATES AT MOST SOME SLIGHT INCONVENIENCE AND ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. 

                                 II. 

IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, WE DEAL WITH A COMPANY INCORPORATED OUTSIDE
THE UNITED STATES.  BUT THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF
"JURISDICTION," IN THE SENSE OF VENUE UNDER SEC. 12, OVER SCOPHONY IN
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  TO SAY THAT ON THE FACTS PRESENTED
SCOPHONY TRANSACTED NO BUSINESS "OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER" THERE
DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY INSTITUTION OF THE SUIT AND THE TIMES OF
SERVING PROCESS WOULD BE TO DISREGARD THE PRACTICAL, NONTECHNICAL,
BUSINESS STANDARD SUPPLIED BY "OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS" IN THE VENUE
PROVISION.  IT WOULD BE ALSO TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT SCOPHONY THEN AND
THERE WAS CARRYING ON LARGELY, IF NOT EXCLUSIVELY, THE ONLY BUSINESS IN
WHICH IT COULD ENGAGE AT THE TIME. 

SCOPHONY'S OPERATIONS IN NEW YORK WERE A CONTINUOUS COURSE OF
BUSINESS BEFORE AND THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD IN QUESTION HERE.  THEY
CONSISTED IN STRENUOUS EFFORTS NOT SIMPLY TO SAVE AN AMERICAN
"INVESTMENT," AS IS URGED, BUT TO SALVAGE AND RESUSCITATE SCOPHONY'S
WHOLE ENTERPRISE FROM THE DISASTERS BROUGHT UPON IT BY THE WAR.  AS
WITH SUCH EFFORTS GENERALLY, CHANGES IN METHOD AND IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE
TOOK PLACE AS EACH ONE TRIED IN TURN FAILED TO WORK OUT.  BUT THOSE
CHANGES BROUGHT NONE IN ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE, NAMELY, TO FIND A MODE OF
SAVING AND PROFITABLY EXPLOITING THE SCOPHONY INVENTIONS; AND NONE IN
THE INTENSITY OR CONTINUITY WITH WHICH THAT OBJECT WAS PURSUED IN NEW
YORK. 

FIRST WAS THE PHASE OF ATTEMPTING TO SET UP IN THIS COUNTRY AS
MANUFACTURER AND SELLER OF TELEVISION EQUIPMENT.  WHEN THAT FAILED, THE
COMPANY TURNED TO LICENSING AND EXPLOITING ITS PATENTS BY OTHER MEANS. 
THIS WAS DONE THROUGH THE COMPLICATED ARRANGEMENTS FOR WHAT PRACTICALLY
IF NOT ALSO TECHNICALLY WAS A JOINT ADVENTURE WITH OTHER COMPANIES. 
THAT PROJECT WAS CARRIED OUT NOT MERELY THROUGH CORPORATE FORMS AND
ARRANGEMENTS BUT BY CONTRACTS BINDING THE PARTICIPATING COMPANIES TO
THE COMMON ENTERPRISE, AS WELL AS THE SPECIAL MEDIUM OF EXECUTING IT,
AMERICAN SCOPHONY.  IN THIS EACH CORPORATE PARTICIPANT HAD ITS SPECIAL
FUNCTIONS, CONTROLS AND RESTRICTIONS CREATED IN PART BY SHARE OWNERSHIP
IN AMERICAN SCOPHONY, BUT ALSO IN IMPORTANT RESPECTS BY CONTRACT BOTH
BEYOND THE STOCK CONTROLS AND DICTATING THEIR CHARACTER.  FN22
FINALLY, AS THE AFFAIRS OF THE KEYSTONE OF THE STRUCTURE, AMERICAN
SCOPHONY, CAME TO AND CONTINUED IN STALEMATE, THE IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE
SHIFTED ONCE MORE, TO GETTING OUT OF THE TRAP.  AGAIN THE SHIFT WAS IN
DIRECT AND CONSTANT PURSUIT OF SCOPHONY'S PRIMARY AND CONTINUING
OBJECT, TO FIND A WAY TO SAVE AND TO EXPLOIT ITS PATENTS. 

THIS IS A STORY OF BUSINESS IN TROUBLE, EVEN DESPERATE.  WE MAY HAVE
SYMPATHY FOR THE COMPANY'S PLIGHT.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT SUCH
CONTINUING, INTENSIVE ACTIVITIES TO SAVE THE BUSINESS AND PUT IT ON A
NORMAL COURSE, EVEN THOUGH SHIFTING AS THEY DID IN THE SUCCESSIVE WINDS
THAT BLEW, DID NOT CONSTITUTE "TRANSACTING BUSINESS" OF "ANY
SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER."  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT ANY OF THE MAJOR SHIFTS IN
TACKING TOWARD THE ULTIMATE END STOPPED OR INTERRUPTED THE COURSE OF
THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS ACTIVITY.  AT NO TIME WAS THE DRIVE TOWARD
ACHIEVING ITS BASIC OBJECTS SUSPENDED. 

APPELLEE WOULD AVOID THIS VIEW AND ITS CONSEQUENCES BY TAKING AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE.  IT EMPHASIZES THAT
SCOPHONY'S CORPORATE OBJECTS, AS STATED IN ITS CHARTER, WERE TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL TELEVISION EQUIPMENT.  HENCE IT CONCLUDES THAT
WHEN ALL NEW YORK ACTIVITY DIRECTLY POINTING TO THAT END CEASED, AND
WAS FOLLOWED BY THE PHASE OF SEEKING TO EXPLOIT THE PATENTS THROUGH THE
ARRANGEMENTS CENTERING AROUND AMERICAN SCOPHONY, THE BRITISH COMPANY
CEASED TO BE ENGAGED IN PROMOTING ITS CORPORATE OBJECTS AND THUS IN
CARRYING ON OR DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK FOR THE RELEVANT STATUTORY
PURPOSES.  FROM THEN ON, IT IS CLAIMED, SCOPHONY BECAME CONCERNED
SOLELY WITH CREATING AND PROTECTING AN "INVESTMENT," NAMELY, IN
AMERICAN SCOPHONY'S SHARES.  NOR DID SCOPHONY RESUME THE DOING OF
BUSINESS WHEN THAT EFFORT ALSO FAILED AND THE FINAL STAGE OF SEEKING TO
BREAK THE IMPASSE ARRIVED, BECAUSE MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF EQUIPMENT
WERE NOT REVIVED. 

TO THIS VIEW OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS APPELLEE THEN SEEKS TO APPLY
THIS COURT'S DECISIONS INTERPRETING "FOUND" UNDER SEC. 7 AND SIMILAR
REQUIREMENTS IN APPLICATION TO MANUFACTURING AND SELLING COMPANIES,
FN23  AND ALSO THE LIKE EASTMAN DICTUM CONCERNING SEC. 12.  IN DOING
THIS IT SEEKS ESPECIALLY TO INVALIDATE THE SERVICE BY CASTING UP FROM
THOSE DECISIONS A CHECK LIST OF SPECIFIC AND OFTEN MINOR INCIDENTS OF
THAT SORT OF BUSINESS DONE OR NOT DONE AS RELEVANT TO WHETHER BUSINESS
IS BEING CARRIED ON, AND THEN MATCHING AGAINST THE LIST SCOPHONY'S NEW
YORK ACTIVITIES AS OF THE TIMES OF SERVICE.  FN24 

OBVIOUSLY THIS VIEW OF THE FACTS AND OF THE DETERMINATIVE LEGAL
APPROACH IS AT WIDE VARIANCE FROM THE ONES WE HAVE TAKEN IN DEALING
WITH THE QUESTION OF VENUE.  BUT WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY, IN ORDER
TO REJECT IT FOR PURPOSES OF SUSTAINING THE SERVICE, TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THE PROCESS CLAUSE OF SEC. 12 SHOULD BE GIVEN SCOPE BEYOND THAT
INDICATED BY THE EASTMAN DICTUM.  FOR IN ANY EVENT WE THINK THAT
APPELLEE AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAVE MISCONCEIVED THE EFFECTS OF THE
FACTS AND OF THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THEY RELY, FOR DETERMINING THE
VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE IN THIS CASE. 

CERTAINLY APPELLEE'S CONCLUSIONARY PREMISE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED, THAT
ITS SOLE AUTHORIZED OR ACTUAL BUSINESS WAS MANUFACTURING AND SELLING
EQUIPMENT; OR THEREFORE THE FURTHER ONE THAT NO OTHER ACTIVITY ON ITS
BEHALF COULD CONSTITUTE DOING OR ENGAGING IN BUSINESS.  INDEED IT WAS
AUTHORIZED TO TAKE OUT, HOLD AND EXPLOIT TELEVISION PATENTS, AND DOING
THIS WAS CERTAINLY AS MUCH PART OF ITS BUSINESS AS MANUFACTURING AND
SELLING THE EQUIPMENT THEY COVERED.  THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT
SCOPHONY WAS RESTRICTED BY ITS CHARTER OR OTHERWISE TO EXPLOITING ITS
PATENTS EXCLUSIVELY BY DIRECT MANUFACTURE AND SALE.  WHEN THEREFORE,
AFTER THAT METHOD HAD FAILED, THE COMPANY CHOSE ANOTHER, IT WAS NOT
CEASING TO DO BUSINESS.  THAT CONSEQUENCE DID NOT FOLLOW MERELY BECAUSE
IT DISCONTINUED THE ACTIVITIES INCIDENT TO CONTINUING THE DISCARDED
METHOD. 

THE ALTERNATIVE ONE CHOSEN WAS NOT A MATTER SIMPLY OF LICENSING
PATENTS TO OTHERS, FOR ACTIVE EXPLOITATION BY THEM.  NOR WAS IT ONLY A
CASUAL ACT OR ACTS OF CONTRACTING.  THE WHOLE FRAMEWORK OF THIS PHASE
OF THE NEW YORK ACTIVITIES WAS DICTATED BY THE MASTER AND SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENTS.  THESE WERE NOT MERE LICENSING ARRANGEMENTS, NOR DID THEY
MAKE SCOPHONY NOTHING MORE THAN A SHAREHOLDER FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES,
WITH ONLY SUCH A SHAREHOLDER'S VOTING RIGHTS AND CONTROL IN AMERICAN
SCOPHONY.  THE CONTRACTS CREATED CONTROLS IN SCOPHONY, AND IN THE
AMERICAN INTERESTS AS WELL, WHICH TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STOCK
CONTROLS CALLED FOR CONTINUING EXERCISE OF SUPERVISION OVER AND
INTERVENTION IN AMERICAN SCOPHONY'S AFFAIRS.  FN25  WE NEED NOT DECIDE
WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE AGREEMENTS' CONTINUING AND PERVASIVE EFFECTS,
THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED AS SUFFICING IN THEMSELVES TO MAKE SCOPHONY
"FOUND" WITHIN THE NEW YORK DISTRICT.  FN26  WHETHER SO OR NOT, THEY
SET THE PATTERN FOR A REGULAR AND CONTINUING PROGRAM OF PATENT
EXPLOITATION REQUIRING, AS WE HAVE SAID, SCOPHONY'S CONSTANT
SUPERVISION AND INTERVENTION.    THAT NECESSITY WAS SHOWN, AMONG OTHER
WAYS, BY THE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR INTERCHANGE OF DATA AND
INFORMATION, AND FURTHER BY THE FACT THAT THERE WAS SUSTAINED
INTERCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LEVEY AND SCOPHONY DEVOTED TO
SCOPHONY'S AFFAIRS AND INTERESTS IN THIS COUNTRY.  LEVEY KEPT SCOPHONY
INFORMED FULLY OF ALL THAT WENT ON HERE, AND IN TURN RECEIVED AND
CARRIED OUT ITS INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING AMERICAN SCOPHONY'S AFFAIRS AND
ITS OWN. 

IN ALL THIS HE WAS NOT ACTING MERELY AS AN OFFICER OF AMERICAN
SCOPHONY.  RATHER HE WAS ALSO SCOPHONY'S DIRECTOR AND REPRESENTATIVE,
AUTHORIZED TO ACT IN ITS BEHALF AND INTEREST.  INDEED IT WAS AS
SCOPHONY'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT HE WAS NAMED AS PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN
SCOPHONY.  HIS POSITION WAS A DUAL ONE.  HE WAS NOT A MERE
SHAREHOLDER'S OR INVESTOR'S AGENT SEEKING INFORMATION ABOUT THAT
CORPORATION'S AFFAIRS FOR PURPOSES OF DEALING WITH THE STOCK.  HIS
FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES WERE MUCH BROADER AND RELATED TO SCOPHONY'S
INTERESTS AS MUCH AS TO AMERICAN SCOPHONY'S.  SCOPHONY'S NEW YORK
ACTIVITIES THEREFORE WERE NOT CONFINED TO NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF
THE AGREEMENTS.  NEITHER WERE THEY CONCERNED ONLY WITH MERE STOCK
OWNERSHIP OR "INVESTMENT" AS IS URGED, NOR WERE THEY SIMPLY OCCASIONAL
ACTS OF CONTRACTING, LIKE THOSE IN THE DECISIONS APPELLEE CITES. 

MOREOVER, OTHER INDIVIDUALS CARRIED ON FOR SCOPHONY IN CONTINUING
EFFORTS  FN27  TO RESOLVE THE IMPASSE.  APART FROM WHAT WAS DONE BY
OTHERS, ELCOCK CAME TO NEW YORK WITH UNRESTRICTED AND IRREVOCABLE POWER
TO ACT ON SCOPHONY'S BEHALF.  INDEED IT MIGHT ALMOST BE SAID, IN VIEW
OF HIS TRIPLE POSITION AS MORTGAGEE, CORPORATE OFFICER AND ATTORNEY-IN
FACT, THAT FOR ALL RELEVANT PURPOSES AT THIS PHASE OF SCOPHONY'S
ACTIVITY, HE WAS THE COMPANY.  THE STALEMATE PUT SCOPHONY'S AFFAIRS IN
THIS COUNTRY AT A STANDSTILL ALONG WITH THOSE OF AMERICAN SCOPHONY. 
AND SCOPHONY'S EFFORTS TO EXTRICATE ITSELF WERE BOTH STRENUOUS AND
CONTINUOUS. 

THOSE EFFORTS WERE NOT CESSATION OF ENGAGING IN BUSINESS.  THEY WERE
DIRECTED ENTIRELY TO WARDING OFF THAT FATE.  THEIR OBJECT WAS NOT TO
LIQUIDATE, IT WAS TO RESUSCITATE THE BUSINESS OF SCOPHONY AND, AS IN
ALL PREVIOUS STAGES, PUT IT ON A NORMAL COURSE AGAIN.  IN DOING ALL
THIS, SCOPHONY WAS ENGAGING IN BUSINESS CONSTANTLY AND CONTINUOUSLY,
NOT RETIRING FROM IT OR INTERRUPTING IT.  CF. MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.
V. SPRATLEY, 172 U.S. 602; PENNSYLVANIA LUMBERMEN'S INSURANCE CO. V.
MEYER, 197 U.S. 407; ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. ALEXANDER, 227 U.S. 218. 
THE INTERRUPTIONS WERE ONLY IN PARTICULAR PHASES OF ITS AUTHORIZED
ADVENTURE, NOT IN THE CONTINUITY, INTENSITY OR TOTALITY OF THE
ADVENTURE ITSELF. 

IN SUM, WE HAVE NO SUCH SITUATION AS WAS PRESENTED IN THE
MANUFACTURING AND SELLING CASES ON WHICH APPELLEE RELIES.  THEY
CONCERNED ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FACTS AND ENTERPRISES.  IN NONE WAS THERE
A SHIFTING FROM A COURSE OF BUSINESS IN PURSUIT OF ONE CORPORATE OBJECT
OR OBJECTS, VIZ., MANUFACTURING AND SELLING, TO ANOTHER CONTINUING MODE
OF ACHIEVING A BASIC CORPORATE OBJECTIVE, NAMELY, THE EXPLOITING OF
PATENTS BY COMPLEX WORKING ARRANGEMENTS PARTAKING PRACTICALLY OF THE
CHARACTER OF A COMMON ENTERPRISE WITH OTHERS AND REQUIRING CONSTANT
SUPERVISION AND INTERVENTION BEYOND NORMAL EXERCISE OF SHAREHOLDERS'
RIGHTS BY THE PARTICIPATING COMPANIES' REPRESENTATIVES QUA SUCH. 

WE KNOW OF NO DECISION WHICH HAS HELD OR INDICATED THAT ON SUCH FACTS
THE PROCESS CLAUSE OF SEC. 12 IS NOT ADEQUATE TO CONFER POWER TO MAKE
VALID SERVICE.  SUCH A CONTINUING AND FAR-REACHING ENTERPRISE IS NOT TO
BE GOVERNED IN THIS RESPECT BY RULES EVOLVED WITH REFERENCE TO THE VERY
DIFFERENT BUSINESSES AND ACTIVITIES OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING.  NOR,
WHAT COMES TO THE SAME THING, IS THE DETERMINATION TO BE MADE FOR SUCH
AN ENTERPRISE BY ATOMIZING IT INTO MINUTE PARTS OR EVENTS, IN DISREGARD
OF THE ACTUAL UNITY AND CONTINUITY OF THE WHOLE COURSE OF CONDUCT, BY
THE PROCESS SOMETIMES APPLIED IN BORDERLINE CASES INVOLVING
MANUFACTURING AND SELLING ACTIVITIES. 

FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THOSE DECISIONS MAY BE LEFT UNTOUCHED FOR THE
FACTS AND SITUATIONS IN WHICH THEY HAVE ARISEN AND TO WHICH THEY HAVE
BEEN APPLIED.  BUT THERE COULD BE NO VALID OBJECT IN EXPANDING THEIR
PULVERIZING APPROACH TO SITUATIONS AS DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT AS THIS
ONE, COMPREHENDED WITHIN NEITHER THEIR RULINGS NOR THEIR EFFECTS.  MORE
ESPECIALLY WOULD SUCH AN EXTENSION BE INAPPROPRIATE, WHEN IT IS
RECALLED THAT SEC. 12 GOVERNS VENUE AND SERVICE IN ANTITRUST SUITS
AGAINST CORPORATIONS.  FOR, IN CASES AGAINST COMPANIES INCORPORATED
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, THAT EXTENSION WOULD BRING BACK ALL THE
OBSTACLES TO ENFORCEMENT OF ANTITRUST POLICIES AND REMEDIES WHICH
EXISTED FOR DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS BEFORE SEC. 12 WAS ENACTED TO GIVE
RELIEF FROM THOSE OBSTACLES.  EVEN THOUGH VENUE WERE CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED, AS HERE, THE EXTENSION OFTEN WOULD MAKE VALID SERVICE
IMPOSSIBLE, SINCE PROCESS COULD NOT BE ISSUED TO RUN FOR SUCH
CORPORATIONS TO THE FOREIGN COUNTRIES OF WHICH THEY ARE "INHABITANTS." 
WE ARE UNWILLING TO CONSTRUE SEC. 12 IN A MANNER TO BRING BACK THE
EVILS IT ABOLISHED, FOR SITUATIONS NOT FORECLOSED BY PRIOR DECISIONS,
AND THUS TO DEFEAT ITS POLICY TOGETHER WITH THAT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS,
SO AS TO MAKE ANOTHER AMENDMENT NECESSARY. 

WE THINK THAT SCOPHONY NOT ONLY WAS "TRANSACTING BUSINESS" OF A
SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER IN THE NEW YORK DISTRICT AT THE TIMES OF SERVICE,
SO AS TO ESTABLISH VENUE THERE, BUT ALSO ON THE SUM OF THE FACTS
REGARDING ITS ACTIVITIES WAS "FOUND" THERE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SERVICE-OF-PROCESS CLAUSE OF SEC. 12.  OF COURSE SUCH A RULING PRESENTS
NO CONCEIVABLE ELEMENT OF OFFENSE TO "TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY
AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE."  SEE INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON,
SUPRA, AT 316; CF. HUTCHINSON V. CHASE & GILBERT, 45 F.2D 139, 141. 

IT REMAINS ONLY TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER WHETHER, AS IS
ARGUED, LEVEY'S AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR SCOPHONY HAD EXPIRED OR BEEN
REVOKED AT THE TIME SERVICE WAS MADE BY DELIVERY OF PROCESS TO HIM. 
FOR WHEN SERVICE WAS MADE BY DELIVERY TO ELCOCK, HE HAD UNREVOKED AND
IRREVOCABLE AUTHORITY TO ACT IN SCOPHONY'S BEHALF IN THE NEW YORK
DISTRICT, AND THAT SERVICE WAS VALID TO CONFER PERSONAL JURISDICTION
OVER SCOPHONY. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  "SEC.  12,  THAT ANY SUIT, ACTION, OR PROCEEDING UNDER THE
ANTITRUST LAWS AGAINST A CORPORATION MAY BE BROUGHT NOT ONLY IN THE
JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHEREOF IT IS AN INHABITANT, BUT ALSO IN ANY DISTRICT
WHEREIN IT MAY BE FOUND OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS; AND ALL PROCESS IN SUCH
CASES MAY BE SERVED IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH IT IS AN INHABITANT, OR
WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND."  38 STAT. 736, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 22. 

FN2  THE SUIT WAS INSTITUTED AGAINST SCOPHONY, LIMITED (DESIGNATED IN
THIS OPINION AS "SCOPHONY"), SCOPHONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
(DESIGNATED "AMERICAN SCOPHONY"), GENERAL PRECISION EQUIPMENT
CORPORATION (DESIGNATED "GENERAL PRECISION"), TELEVISION PRODUCTION,
INC. (DESIGNATED "PRODUCTIONS"), PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC. (DESIGNATED
"PARAMOUNT"), AND THREE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, ARTHUR LEVEY AND THE
PRESIDENTS OF GENERAL PRECISION AND PRODUCTIONS.  THE CORPORATIONS,
EXCEPT SCOPHONY, ARE INCORPORATED IN THE UNITED STATES. 

FN3  PURSUANT TO SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1903,
32 STAT. 823, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, AND SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 43
STAT. 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

FN4  THE INVENTIONS AND PATENTS IN THE MAIN RELATE TO TWO SYSTEMS OF
TELEVISION TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION, ONE KNOWN AS THE "SUPERSONIC"
SYSTEM AND THE OTHER AS THE "SKIATRON" SYSTEM.  WE SHALL AT TIMES REFER
TO THE PRESENT AND FUTURE PATENTS, PROCESSES, DESIGNS, TECHNICAL DATA,
ETC., RELATING TO THESE TWO SYSTEMS AS THE SCOPHONY INVENTIONS. 

A THIRD SYSTEM, THE CATHODE-FLUORESCENT SYSTEM, WAS DEVELOPED EARLY
IN THIS CENTURY AND IS THE PRINCIPAL METHOD OF TELEVISION TRANSMISSION
AND RECEPTION USED IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY. 

FN5  AN AGREEMENT OF FEBRUARY 4, 1943, AMENDED THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT
SO AS TO GIVE TWO-THIRDS OF THE "A" SHARES TO SCOPHONY, THE REMAINDER
TO INDIVIDUALS. 

FN6  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE EFFECTS OF THE AGREEMENTS AND
UNDERSTANDINGS WERE TO CREATE A TERRITORIAL DIVISION OF THE MANUFACTURE
AND SALE OF TELEVISION PRODUCTS, ASSIGNING THE EASTERN HEMISPHERE TO
SCOPHONY AND THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE TO GENERAL PRECISION AND
PRODUCTIONS; TO SUPPRESS AND RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN THE MANUFACTURE
AND SALE OF TELEVISION EQUIPMENT, BOTH IN THE DOMESTIC AND IN THE
EXPORT MARKETS; AND TO GIVE GENERAL PRECISION AND PRODUCTIONS MONOPOLY
POWER OVER THE SCOPHONY INVENTIONS WHICH ENABLED THEM TO SUPPRESS THEIR
EXPLOITATION AND DEPRIVE OTHERS OF THEIR USE. 

FN7  THESE INCLUDED AT VARIOUS TIMES TWO AMERICAN ATTORNEYS, A MEMBER
OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, AND AN ENGLISH OFFICER. 

FN8  LEVEY IMMEDIATELY INFORMED SCOPHONY IN ENGLAND OF THIS ACTION
AND ADVISED IT TO DESIGNATE APPROPRIATE COUNSEL.  ON DECEMBER 21, 1945,
HE SENT A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO SCOPHONY BY AIRMAIL. 

FN9  THE POWER OF ATTORNEY SET FORTH SCOPHONY'S DESIRE TO APPOINT
ELCOCK TO ACT "AND BIND THE COMPANY IN ALL OR ANY MATTERS AFFECTING THE
COMPANY'S INTERESTS IN THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  IT THEN AUTHORIZED
ELCOCK TO INSTITUTE AND PROSECUTE ALL PROCEEDINGS NECESSARY TO CONSERVE
SCOPHONY'S INTERESTS; TO DEFEND OR COMPROMISE ANY SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST
SCOPHONY; TO SETTLE ACCOUNTS; TO ENGAGE OR DISMISS SUBAGENTS; TO BORROW
MONEY; TO DISPOSE OF ANY AND ALL OF SCOPHONY'S PROPERTY AND INTERESTS
IN THE UNITED STATES; AND "GENERALLY TO REPRESENT THE COMPANY IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN ALL MATTERS IN ANY WAY AFFECTING OR
PERTAINING TO THE COMPANY  ...  " 

FN10  MORE THAN ONCE MARSHALL HAD DIFFICULTY IN TRANSFERRING TO
CORPORATIONS OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS LEGAL CONCEPTIONS AND RELATIONS
SHAPED IN NOMENCLATURE AND IN FACT FROM NORMATIVE EVOLUTION IN RELATION
TO PERSONS OF FLESH AND BLOOD. 

SEE, E.G., BANK V. DEVEAUX, 5 CRANCH 61, WHERE HE WAS UNABLE TO ADAPT
THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE "INHABITANCY," APPLIED IN DECISIONS HE CITED,
FOR FITTING THE CORPORATION INTO THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME OF DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION.  HIS INDIVIDUALISTIC SOLUTION BROUGHT DIFFICULTIES WHICH
LASTED FOR DECADES.  SEE HENDERSON, THE POSITION OF FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 50-76; HARRIS, A
CORPORATION AS A CITIZEN, 1 VA. L. REV. 507.  CF. BAPTIST ASSOCIATION
V. HART'S EXECUTORS, 4 WHEAT.  1. 

FN11  SEE, E.G., CAHILL, JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS WHO CARRY ON BUSINESS WITHIN THE TERRITORY, 30 HARV. L.
REV. 676; SCOTT, JURISDICTION OVER NONRESIDENTS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN A
STATE, 32 HARV. L. REV. 871; BULLINGTON, JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS, 6 N.C.L. REV. 147; NOTE, WHAT CONSTITUTES DOING BUSINESS
BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION, 29 COL. L. REV.
187. 

FN12  THE VERY FEDERALISM OF OUR STRUCTURE MAGNIFIES THE PROBLEM, BY
MULTIPLYING STATE AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BOUNDARIES ACROSS WHICH
CORPORATE ACTIVITY RUNS WITH THE GREATEST FREEDOM.  THE PROBLEM ARISES
ON CONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL AS STATUTORY AND COMMON-LAW LEVELS.  CF.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310; PUERTO RICO V.
RUSSELL & CO., 288 U.S. 476. 

FN13  APPELLEE MAKES NO SUGGESTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  THE
GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, SUGGESTS THAT, IN VIEW OF OUR RECENT DECISION IN
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, WHICH WAS CONCERNED
WITH THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE OVER A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR
PURPOSES OF SUIT AND SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND IN VIEW OF ASPECTS OF
SIMILARITY BETWEEN THAT PROBLEM AND THE ONE NOW PRESENTED, WE EXTEND TO
THIS CASE AND TO SEC. 12 THE CRITERIA THERE FORMULATED AND APPLIED. 
THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR DOING SO.  THE FACTS OF THE TWO CASES ARE
CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT AND, AS WE HAVE SAID, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE
WITH FINDING THE UTMOST REACH OF CONGRESS' POWER. 

FN14  THE COURT SAID:  "THE GENERAL RULE DEDUCIBLE FROM ALL OUR
DEDISIONS IS THAT THE BUSINESS MUST BE OF SUCH NATURE AND CHARACTER AS
TO WARRANT THE INFERENCE THAT THE CORPORATION HAS SUBJECTED ITSELF TO
THE LOCAL JURISDICTION, AND IS BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS OR
AGENTS PRESENT WITHIN THE STATE OR DISTRICT WHERE SERVICE IS
ATTEMPTED.  PHILADELPHIA & READING RY. CO. V. MCKIBBIN, 243 U.S. 264;
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. V. ALEXANDER, 227 U.S. 218, 226."  246
U.S. 79, 87. 

FN15  COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT EQUATED THE WORDS "INHABITANT" AND
"FOUND" OF SEC. 12 TO "RESIDES OR IS FOUND" OF SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  THEY THEN WENT ON TO ARGUE THAT THE ADDITION OF "OR TRANSACTS
BUSINESS" IN THE VENUE CLAUSE OF SEC. 12 DID NOT BROADEN THE SECTION,
BUT MERELY MADE EXPLICIT WHAT THE COURT HAD ALREADY DECIDED UNDER THE
EARLIER STATUTE.  273 U.S. AT 361.  THIS, BECAUSE "OR TRANSACTS
BUSINESS" WAS SAID TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN "CARRYING ON BUSINESS,"
WHICH WAS THE CONTENT THE COURT HAD GIVEN TO "IS FOUND" IN SEC. 7, BY
THE PEOPLE'S TOBACCO CASE AND OTHERS.    FN16  RATHER, THE COURT SAID,
THE SECTION SUPPLEMENTS "THE REMEDIAL PROVISION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT
FOR THE REDRESS OF INJURIES RESULTING FROM ILLEGAL RESTRAINTS UPON
INTERSTATE TRADE, BY RELIEVING THE INJURED PERSON FROM THE NECESSITY OF
RESORTING FOR THE REDRESS OF WRONGS COMMITTED BY A NON-RESIDENT
CORPORATION, TO A DISTRICT, HOWEVER DISTANT, IN WHICH IT RESIDES OR MAY
BE 'FOUND' - OFTEN AN INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE - AND ENABLING HIM TO
INSTITUTE THE SUIT IN A DISTRICT, FREQUENTLY THAT OF HIS OWN RESIDENCE,
IN WHICH THE CORPORATION IN FACT TRANSACTS BUSINESS, AND BRING IT
BEFORE THE COURT BY THE SERVICE OF PROCESS IN A DISTRICT IN WHICH IT
RESIDES OR MAY BE 'FOUND.'"  273 U.S. 359, 373.    FN17  SEE ALSO NOTE
16. 

FN18  THE CONCRETE FACTS HELD TO SUSTAIN THE VENUE WERE THAT THE
EASTMAN COMPANY WAS ENGAGED "NOT ONLY IN SELLING AND SHIPPING ITS GOODS
TO DEALERS WITHIN THE GEORGIA DISTRICT, BUT ALSO IN SOLICITING ORDERS
THEREIN THROUGH ITS SALESMEN AND PROMOTING THE DEMAND FOR ITS GOODS
THROUGH ITS DEMONSTRATORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING ITS SALES  ...
"  273 U.S. AT 374. 

THE COURT ALSO EXPRESSLY STATED THAT, IN CONTRAST TO PRIOR
LIMITATIONS, THE COMPANY WAS "NONE THE LESS ENGAGED IN TRANSACTING
BUSINESS  ...  BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT SUCH BUSINESS MAY BE ENTIRELY
INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER AND BE TRANSACTED BY AGENTS WHO DO NOT RESIDE
WITHIN THE DISTRICT," REFERRING IN THIS CONNECTION TO INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 579, 587, AND DAVIS V. FARMERS CO
OPERATIVE CO., 262 U.S. 312, 316.  273 U.S. 359, 373. 

FN19  I.E., BY ARTFUL ARRANGEMENT OF AGENTS' AUTHORITY, OR OF THEIR
COMINGS AND GOINGS, OR OF THE GEOGRAPHY OF MINUTE INCIDENTS IN
CONTRACTING.  CF. PEOPLE'S TOBACCO CO. V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 246
U.S. 79.  SUCH ARTIFICE SAW ITS DAY END FOR CREATING SUBSTANTIVE
LIABILITY THROUGH A COURSE OF DEALING CONTRARY TO THE ANTITRUST
STATUTES, BUT WITHOUT THEREBY ALSO CREATING VENUE TO ENFORCE IT, WITH
THE ADVENT OF SEC. 12. 

FN20  AS HAS BEEN STATED, THE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN NEW YORK
AND HAD ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ROCHESTER. 

FN21  ALTHOUGH DIFFERENCE OF THAT SORT MAY APPEAR TO BE GENERALLY
INCONGRUOUS, SINCE ORDINARILY IT WOULD SEEM THAT SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SUIT
IN A DISTRICT SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY AMENABILITY TO PROCESS THERE,
SUCH THINGS OF COURSE ARE FOR CONGRESS' DETERMINATION AS MATTERS OF
POLICY RELATING TO THE SCOPE AND CORRELATION, OR LACK OF IT, OF VENUE
AND SERVICE PROVISIONS.  THERE IS CERTAINLY NO CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT THAT THE TWO BE COEXTENSIVE.  AND TO SUPPORT THE DICTUM, IF
IT WERE NOW NECESSARY TO RULE ON THE MATTER, CONSIDERATIONS BEYOND THE
VERBAL DIFFERENCE TO WHICH THE EASTMAN OPINION POINTED MIGHT BE
STATED. 

FN22  E.G., THE HEMISPHERIC DIVISION OF TERRITORIES BETWEEN THE
BRITISH AND AMERICAN INTERESTS; THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSING AGREEMENTS
WHICH PREVENTED SCOPHONY FROM GRANTING LICENSES TO INTERESTED AMERICAN
COMPANIES; AND THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE INTERCHANGE OF TECHNICAL
INFORMATION WERE CONTRACTUAL, NOT CHARTER LIMITATIONS ON CORPORATE
POWERS.  THE PARTICULAR CORPORATE MEDIUM USED, AMERICAN SCOPHONY, AND
THE REFINEMENTS IN ITS CHARTER AND BY-LAWS GIVING GENERAL PRECISION AND
PRODUCTIONS AN EFFECTIVE VETO POWER OVER ITS OPERATIONS WERE THEMSELVES
ASPECTS OF THE CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKINGS EMBODIED IN THE MASTER
AGREEMENT AND THE TWO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS.  THE MASTER AGREEMENT
ALSO DESIGNATED THE PERSONS TO BECOME OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF
AMERICAN SCOPHONY, AS REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE BRITISH AND THE
AMERICAN INTERESTS. 

FN23  E.G., CANNON MFG. CO. V. CUDAHY CO., 267 U.S. 333; CONSOLIDATED
TEXTILE CORP. V. GREGORY, 289 U.S. 85; PEOPLE'S TOBACCO CO. V. AMERICAN
TOBACCO CO., 246 U.S. 79. 

FN24  THE CATALOGUE EMPHASIZES THINGS NOT BEING DONE AS OF THE DATES
OF SERVICE, E.G., MAINTAINING AN OFFICE, WAREHOUSE OR PLACE OF
BUSINESS; OWNING REALTY OR OTHER PHYSICAL PROPERTY; KEEPING A STAFF OF
EMPLOYEES; HAVING AGENTS "OTHER THAN COUNSEL IN THIS CASE AND  ...
ELCOCK"; KEEPING A TELEPHONE OR A LISTING; MAKING SALES; CONDUCTING
RESEARCH; SOLICITING ORDERS.  CORRESPONDINGLY APPELLEE ATOMIZES THE
THINGS THEN BEING DONE INTO SEPARATE, DISCONNECTED EVENTS, VIZ., STOCK
OWNERSHIP (IN AMERICAN SCOPHONY); CONTRACTING WITH AMERICAN SCOPHONY
AND THE OTHER CORPORATIONS FOR TRANSFER AND LICENSING OF PATENTS;
ACTIVITIES TO PROTECT SCOPHONY'S AMERICAN "INTERESTS" BY RESOLVING THE
IMPASSE. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 22 SUPRA.  INDEED THE CONTRACTS SHAPED THE NATURE OF
THE CORPORATE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS AND VOTING RIGHTS, SO AS TO MAKE
THEM CONFORM TO THE OVER-ALL CHARACTER AND OBJECTS OF THE LARGER COMMON
ENTERPRISE.  THE CHARTER AND BY-LAW PROVISIONS OF AMERICAN SCOPHONY
THEREFORE NOT ONLY WERE GOVERNED BY THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BUT
CARRIED THEM INTO EXECUTION. 

FN26  ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SEC. 12 FIXES VENUE AND THE
PLACES FOR SERVING PROCESS IN ANTITRUST SUITS, THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE
SOUND BASIS FOR DIFFERENTIATING THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS SO ALL
PERVASIVE AND FAR-REACHING IN THEIR EFFECTS UPON THE STATUTORY POLICIES
FROM RUN--OF-MINE CASUAL OR INTERMITTENT SALES OF COMMODITIES BY A
MANUFACTURING OR SELLING COMPANY, FOR THE SECTION'S PURPOSES. 

FN27  SEE NOTE 7. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO STATE WHY I CONCUR MERELY IN THE COURT'S
RESULT. 

THE ONLY QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER SCOPHONY LIMITED, A BRITISH
CORPORATION, WHICH HAS ITS OFFICES AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN
LONDON, MAY BE MADE A PARTY DEFENDANT IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES
FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW PENDING IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK.  THE CORPORATION MAY BE BROUGHT INTO COURT IN THAT DISTRICT
IF ITS ACTIVITIES THERE SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 12 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT.  ACCORDING TO THIS PROVISION, SCOPHONY LIMITED IS PROPERLY
A PARTY DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT ONLY IF, BY VIRTUE OF ITS ACTIVITIES, IT
IS "FOUND OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS" IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,
AND IT MAY BE SERVED IN THAT DISTRICT IF IT IS "FOUND" THERE. 

WHETHER A CORPORATION "TRANSACTS BUSINESS" IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT
IS A QUESTION OF FACT IN ITS ORDINARY UNTECHNICAL MEANING.  THE ANSWER
TURNS ON AN APPRAISAL OF THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR
SITUATION.  AND A CORPORATION CAN BE "FOUND" ANYWHERE, WHENEVER THE
NEEDS OF LAW MAKE IT APPROPRIATE TO ATTRIBUTE LOCATION TO A
CORPORATION, ONLY IF ACTIVITIES ON ITS BEHALF THAT ARE MORE THAN
EPISODIC ARE CARRIED ON BY ITS AGENTS IN A PARTICULAR PLACE.  THIS
AGAIN PRESENTS A QUESTION OF FACT TURNING ON THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF A PARTICULAR SITUATION, TO BE ASCERTAINED AS SUCH QUESTIONS OF FACT
ARE EVERY DAY DECIDED BY JUDGES. 

WHAT WAS DONE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ON BEHALF OF
SCOPHONY LIMITED, AS DETAILED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, ESTABLISHES THAT
THE CORPORATION WAS THERE TRANSACTING BUSINESS AND WAS FOUND THERE IN
THE ONLY SENSE IN WHICH A CORPORATION EVER "TRANSACTS BUSINESS" OR IS
"FOUND."  ACCORDINGLY, SCOPHONY LIMITED WAS AMENABLE TO SUIT AND
SERVICE IN THE DISTRICT WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 12 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT. 

TO REACH THIS RESULT, HOWEVER, I DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO OPEN UP
DIFFICULT AND SUBTLE PROBLEMS REGARDING THE LAW'S ATTITUDE TOWARD
CORPORATIONS.  I ABSTAIN FROM JOINING THE COURT'S OPINION NOT BECAUSE I
AM IN DISAGREEMENT WITH WHAT IS SAID BUT BECAUSE I AM NOT PREPARED TO
AGREE.  AND I AM NOT PREPARED TO AGREE BECAUSE I DO NOT WISH TO
FORECAST, WHICH AGREEMENT WOULD ENTAIL, THE BEARING OF THE COURT'S
DISCUSSION UPON SITUATIONS NOT NOW BEFORE US BUT AS TO WHICH SUCH
THEORETICAL DISCUSSION IS BOUND TO BE INFLUENTIAL.  LAW, NO DOUBT, IS
CONCERNED WITH "PRACTICAL AND SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, NOT TO MAINTAIN
THEORIES."  DAVIS V. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451, 457.  BUT THEORIES OFTEN
DETERMINE RIGHTS.  SINCE I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE OPINION IN THIS CASE
WILL TAKE ME IN THE FUTURE, I PREFER TO REACH ITS DESTINATION BY THE
MUCH SHORTER ROUTE OF RECOGNIZING THAT A CORPORATION AS SUCH NEVER
TRANSACTS BUSINESS AND IS NEVER FOUND ANYWHERE, BUT DOES "TRANSACT
BUSINESS" AND IS "FOUND" SOMEWHERE BY ATTRIBUTION TO THE CORPORATION OF
WHAT HUMAN BEINGS DO FOR IT.  NO DOUBT LEGAL REASONING MUST BE ON ITS
GUARD NOT TO OVERSIMPLIFY.  DANGERS ALSO LURK IN OVERCOMPLICATING. 

FROM EARLIEST TIMES THE LAW HAS ENFORCED RIGHTS AND EXACTED
LIABILITIES BY UTILIZING A CORPORATE CONCEPT - BY RECOGNIZING, THAT IS,
JURISTIC PERSONS OTHER THAN HUMAN BEINGS.  THE THEORIES BY WHICH THIS
MODE OF LEGAL OPERATION HAS DEVELOPED, HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED, QUALIFIED,
AND DEFINED ARE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF A VERY SIZABLE LIBRARY.  THE
HISTORIC ROOTS OF A PARTICULAR SOCIETY, ECONOMIC PRESSURES, PHILOSOPHIC
NOTIONS, ALL HAVE HAD THEIR SHARE IN THE LAW'S RESPONSE TO THE WAYS OF
MEN IN CARRYING ON THEIR AFFAIRS THROUGH WHAT IS NOW THE FAMILIAR
DEVICE OF THE CORPORATION.  LAW HAS ALSO RESPONDED TO RELIGIOUS NEEDS
IN RECOGNIZING JURISTIC PERSONS OTHER THAN HUMAN BEINGS.  THUS, IN THE
HINDU LAW AN IDOL HAS STANDING IN COURT TO ENFORCE ITS RIGHTS.  SEE,
E.G., PRAMATHA NATH MULLICK V. PRADYUMNA KUMAR MULLICK, 52 L.R.I.A.
245(1925).  ATTRIBUTION OF LEGAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES TO A JURISTIC PERSON
OTHER THAN MAN IS NECESSARILY A METAPHORICAL PROCESS.  AND NONE THE
WORSE FOR IT.  NO DOUBT, "METAPHORS IN LAW ARE TO BE NARROWLY WATCHED,"
CARDOZO, J., IN BERKEY V. THIRD AVENUE R. CO., 244 N.Y. 84, 94.  BUT
ALL INSTRUMENTS OF THOUGHT SHOULD BE NARROWLY WATCHED LEST THEY BE
ABUSED AND FAIL IN THEIR SERVICE TO REASON. 
..END :





















ANDERSON V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 333 U.S. 821 


NO. 620.  DECIDED APRIL 26, 1948.  - 31 CAL.2D 117, 187 P.2D 729,
REVERSED. 


IN A SUIT AGAINST A RAILROAD IN A STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF A
CONDUCTOR, A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT HE DISAPPEARED FROM A MOVING TRAIN
IN VERY COLD WEATHER AT A TIME WHEN HIS DUTY REQUIRED HIS PRESENCE ON
THE REAR VESTIBULE, THAT HIS ABSENCE WAS DISCOVERED BY OTHER TRAINMEN,
THAT THEY NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO MAKE PROMPT EFFORTS TO HAVE HIM
RESCUED, AND THAT HE DIED FROM THE RESULTING EXPOSURE, HELD SUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF, IF A JURY SHOULD FIND UNDER
APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE DEATH RESULTED "IN WHOLE OR IN PART"
FROM FAILURE OF THE RAILROAD'S AGENTS TO DO WHAT "A REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT MAN WOULD ORDINARILY HAVE DONE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  PP.
821-823. 

ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA. 

IN A SUIT AGAINST A RAILROAD UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE ALLEGED WRONGFUL DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE, A
STATE COURT HELD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, EVEN IF TRUE,
WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF, AND ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  31 CAL.2D
117, 187 P.2D 729.  CERTIORARI GRANTED, JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND CAUSE
REMANDED, P. 823. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER, AS ADMINISTRATRIX, FILED A COMPLAINT IN A CALIFORNIA
STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC.
51, TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE ALLEGED WRONGFUL DEATH OF ONE L. C.
BRISTOW.  THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT,
EVEN IF TRUE, WERE TOTALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT FOR
PLAINTIFF, AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  THE STATE SUPREME
COURT, TWO JUDGES DISSENTING, AFFIRMED ON THE SAME GROUND.  31 CAL.2D
117, 187 P.2D 729.  FN1 

THE COMPLAINT'S ALLEGATIONS AND THE INFERENCES FAIRLY DRAWN FROM THEM
IN SUMMARY ARE AS FOLLOWS: NOVEMBER 24, 1942, THE DECEASED WAS A
CONDUCTOR ON RESPONDENT'S PASSENGER TRAIN WESTBOUND FROM AMARILLO,
TEXAS, TO BELEN, NEW MEXICO.  AT ABOUT 5:30 A.M., WHILE THE TRAIN WAS
MOVING APPROXIMATELY OPPOSITE DEFENDANT'S STATION AT GALLAHER, NEW
MEXICO, DECEDENT FELL FROM THE TRAIN'S REAR VESTIBULE WHERE IT WAS
NECESSARY FOR HIM TO BE IN ORDER PROPERLY TO PERFORM THE DUTY IN WHICH
HE WAS THEN ENGAGED, "CHECKING A CERTAIN TRAIN ORDER SIGNAL AT SAID
STATION" OF GALLAHER.  DECEDENT'S FALL RESULTED IN INJURIES WHICH MADE
IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SECURE HELP BY HIS OWN EFFORTS.  AT THE NEXT
STATION WHERE THE TRAIN STOPPED, ST. VRAIN, RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES
"MADE NOTE OF THE ABSENCE OF DECEDENT," BUT PASSED BY IT AND THREE
OTHER STATION STOPS, MELROSE, TAIBAN, AND FORT SUMNER, WITHOUT TAKING
ANY STEPS OF ANY KIND TO ASCERTAIN THE WHEREABOUTS OF DECEDENT OR WHAT
HAD HAPPENED TO HIM.  FINALLY, HOWEVER, AT YESO, NEW MEXICO, THE
REGULAR TRAIN CONDUCTOR DIRECTED RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES THERE TO WIRE
OTHER EMPLOYEES ALONG THE ROUTE THE TRAIN HAD TRAVERSED TO ASCERTAIN
DECEDENTHS WHEREABOUTS.  THE YESO EMPLOYEES "CARELESSLY AND
NEGLIGENTLY" FAILED TO TRANSMIT ANY MESSAGE "FOR AN UNNECESSARILY LONG
PERIOD OF TIME," AND WHEN THE MESSAGE WAS FINALLY RECEIVED BY OTHER OF
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES AT CLOVIS, NEW MEXICO, THEY "CARELESSLY AND
NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO INSTITUTE AND PURSUE A SEARCH FOR DECEDENT WITHIN
A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME."  WHEN SEARCH WAS ULTIMATELY MADE DECEDENT
WAS FOUND LYING ALONGSIDE THE TRACK ADJACENT TO THE POINT WHERE HE HAD
FALLEN WHILE PERFORMING HIS DUTIES ON THE REAR VESTIBULE OPPOSITE THE
STATION AT GALLAHER.  THREE DAYS LATER DECEDENT DIED, DUE TO EXPOSURE
TO THE VERY COLD WEATHER FROM THE TIME HE FELL UNTIL HE WAS FINALLY
RESCUED. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT WE HAVE A COMPLAINT WHICH CHARGES THAT A
CONDUCTOR DISAPPEARS FROM A MOVING TRAIN IN BITTER COLD WEATHER AT A
TIME WHEN HIS DUTY REQUIRES HIM TO BE ON THE REAR VESTIBULE, HIS
ABSENCE IS DISCOVERED, AND EFFORTS OF ANY KIND TO ASCERTAIN AND SAVE
HIM FROM HIS PROBABLE PERIL ARE NOT PROMPTLY MADE BY OTHER TRAIN
EMPLOYEES, THE ONLY PERSONS LIKELY TO KNOW OF HIS DISAPPEARANCE AND THE
PROBABLE DANGERS INCIDENT TO IT.  WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE THAT HAD
PETITIONER BEEN PERMITTED TO INTRODUCE ALL EVIDENCE RELEVANT UNDER HER
ALLEGATIONS, THE FACTS WOULD HAVE REVEALED A SITUATION AS TO WHICH A
JURY UNDER APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS COULD NOT HAVE FOUND THAT
DECEDENT'S EXPOSURE AND CONSEQUENT DEATH WERE DUE "IN WHOLE OR IN PART"
TO FAILURE OF RESPONDENT'S AGENTS TO DO WHAT "A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
MAN WOULD ORDINARILY HAVE DONE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
SITUATION."  TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, 67. 
SEE ALSO JAMISON V. ENCARNACION, 281 U.S. 635, 640, 641; BAILEY V.
CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO., 319 U.S. 350, 353; BLAIR V. BALTIMORE & O.R.
CO., 323 U.S. 600, 604; LILLIE V. THOMPSON, 332 U.S. 459, 461-462. 

CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WAS
RAISED UNDER CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE BY AN OBJECTION OF RESPONDENT TO
HEARING EVIDENCE.  SUCH A PROCEDURE, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD, IS
IN THE NATURE OF A GENERAL DEMURRER UNDER WHICH ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED TRUE. 
..END :



















MASSACHUSETTS V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 611 


NO. 157.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 19, 1948.  - 160
F.2D 614, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466, THE UNITED STATES HAS PRIORITY FOR PAYMENT
FROM AN INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S ESTATE OF FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION
TAXES UNDER TITLE 8 AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAXES UNDER TITLE 9
OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AS AGAINST A STATE'S CLAIM FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION TAXES IMPOSED BY A STATE STATUTE CONFORMING TO THE FEDERAL
ACT'S REQUIREMENTS, ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 8; ILLINOIS V.
CAMPBELL, 329 U.S. 362 - EVEN THOUGH THE FUND AVAILABLE FOR
DISTRIBUTION WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO PAY EITHER THE TITLE 8 OR
TITLE 9 TAXES TO THE UNITED STATES BUT INSUFFICIENT TO PAY BOTH AND THE
DEBTOR'S ASSIGNEE HAD PAID TO THE STATE THE FULL AMOUNT OF ITS CLAIM. 
PP. 612-623. 

(A)  UPON THE INTERVENTION OF AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY, R.S. SEC. 3466
CUT OFF THE TAXPAYER'S RIGHT UNDER TITLE 9 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
TO PAY THE STATE 90% OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAX AND TAKE
FEDERAL CREDIT THEREFOR.  PP. 615-617. 

2.  WHERE THE TOTAL ASSETS OF AN INSOLVENT DEBTOR WERE NOT SUFFICIENT
TO PAY ALL CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER R.S.
SEC. 3466, THE PART REMAINING FOR APPLICATION TO ITS CLAIM UNDER TITLE
9 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AFTER ALL OTHER CLAIMS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED
CANNOT BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE, BUT MUST
BE APPLIED IN SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 623
629. 

(A)  THE EFFECT OF R.S. SEC. 3466 DEPENDS ON THE FACT OF INSOLVENCY,
NOT ON THE DEGREE OF IT. P. 625. 

(B)  THE PRIORITY GIVEN TO THE UNITED STATES BY R.S. SEC. 3466 IS
ABSOLUTE, NOT CONDITIONAL; ONCE ATTACHING IT IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE,
AND NOT SUBJECT TO DEFEASANCE.  PP. 625-628. 

(C)  SECTION 902 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT NEITHER CREATED AN
EXCEPTION TO R.S. SEC. 3466 IN FAVOR OF STATE CLAIMS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION TAXES NOR GIVES THE STATE A CLAIM PRIOR TO THAT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR 90% OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAXES.  PP. 628-629. 

3.  ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 8, AND ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL,
329 U.S. 362, CONSIDERED AND REAFFIRMED.  PP. 629-635. 

MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER FROM AN INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S
ESTATE FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION TAXES UNDER TITLE 8 AND
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAXES UNDER TITLE 9 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT, UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466, THE UNITED
STATES HAD PRIORITY AS TO THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE TITLE 8 TAXES DUE IT
AND AS TO 10% OF THE TITLE 9 TAXES DUE IT.  65 F.SUPP.  763.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF ALL ITS CLAIMS, INCLUDING THE TITLE 9
TAXES.  160 F.2D 614.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 754. 
AFFIRMED, P. 635. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES A RENEWAL OF THE LITIGATION
RECENTLY HERE IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 8, AND THE
COMPANION CASE OF ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, 329 U.S. 362.  THE FORMER
UNANIMOUSLY HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS PRIORTY, BY VIRTUE OF REV.
STAT. SEC. 3466, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 191, FOR PAYMENT FROM AN INSOLVENT
DEBTOR'S ESTATE OF FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION TAXES UNDER TITLE 8
AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAXES UNDER TITLE 9 OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT. 620, AS AGAINST A STATE'S CLAIM FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION TAXES IMPOSED BY ITS STATUTE CONFORMING TO THE FEDERAL
ACT'S REQUIREMENTS.  THE CAMPBELL CASE, WHICH WAS REARGUED ON OTHER
ISSUES, RESTED ON THIS RULING FOR DISPOSITION OF THE COMMON ISSUE
CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF SEC. 3466. 

THE FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THOSE IN ILLINOIS V.
UNITED STATES,  FN1  EXCEPT IN TWO RESPECTS.  ONE IS THAT THE FUND
AVAILABLE HERE FOR DISTRIBUTION IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO PAY EITHER
THE TITLE 8 OR THE TITLE 9 TAXES, THOUGH INADEQUATE TO PAY BOTH, WHILE
IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES THE FUND WAS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO SATISFY
EITHER TAX IN FULL.  HERE TOO THE DEBTOR'S ASSIGNEE HAS PAID TO THE
COMMONWEALTH THE FULL AMOUNT OF ITS CLAIM,  FN2  WHILE IN THE ILLINOIS
CASES THE FUND REMAINED IN THE ASSIGNEE'S HANDS FOR DISTRIBUTION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE FEDERAL PRIORITY FOR CAPITAL STOCK
AND TITLE 8 TAXES IN FULL, AND FOR 10 PER CENT OF THE TITLE 9 CLAIM. 
IT THEREFORE DEFERRED PAYMENT OF ANY PART OF THE STATE'S CLAIM UNTIL
THOSE CLAIMS WERE FULLY PAID.  BUT THE COURT HELD THE UNITED STATES NOT
ENTITLED TO PRIORITY FOR THE REMAINING 90 PER CENT OF THE TITLE 9
CLAIM, ON THE GROUND THAT TITLE 9, SEC. 902,  FN3  GIVES THE ASSIGNEE
"THE ALTERNATIVE RIGHT" TO PAY THAT AMOUNT TO AN APPROVED STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.  ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT ORDERED MASSACHUSETTS TO
PAY OVER TO THE UNITED STATES, FROM THE $803.72 RECEIVED FROM THE
ASSIGNEE, SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO SATISFY IN FULL THE FEDERAL PRIORITIES
SUSTAINED, AND TO RETAIN THE SMALL BALANCE REMAINING AFTER MAKING THOSE
PAYMENTS TO APPLY ON ITS CLAIM FOR 90 PER CENT OF THE TITLE 9 TAXES. 
65 F.SUPP.  763.  THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE VIEW THAT, WHILE OUR
PREVIOUS DECISIONS HAD SUSTAINED THE FEDERAL PRIORITY FOR THE CAPITAL
STOCK AND TITLE 8 TAXES, THEY HAD NOT DETERMINED THE QUESTION FOR TITLE
9 CLAIMS.  FN4 

HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY BOTH PARTIES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD
THE UNITED STATES ENTITLED, UNDER THE ILLINOIS RULINGS, TO PRIORITY FOR
THE FULL AMOUNT OF ALL ITS CLAIMS, INCLUDING THE TITLE 9 TAXES.  THAT
COURT THEREFORE AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT EXCEPT INSOFAR
AS IT DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S TITLE 9 CLAIM.  AS TO THIS IT REVERSED
THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULING.  160 F.2D 614. 

BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS CONFUSION CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF OUR PRIOR
DECISIONS AND THE ASSERTED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE
ILLINOIS CASES, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  332 U.S. 754. 

                                  I. 

MASSACHUSETTS SEEKS TO RETAIN THE ENTIRE $803.72 SHE HAS RECEIVED, IN
PRIORITY TO ALL THE FEDERAL CLAIMS.  SHE AGREES WITH THE DISTRICT COURT
THAT SEC. 902 GIVES THE TAXPAYER AN "OPTIONAL RIGHT" OF PAYMENT, BUT
DOES NOT ACCEPT ITS ALLOCATION CREATING PRIORITIES FOR ALL FEDERAL
CLAIMS EXCEPT 90 PER CENT OF THE TITLE 9 TAXES.  TO SUSTAIN THIS BROAD
CLAIM WOULD REQUIRE REVERSAL OF BOTH OF THE ILLINOIS DECISIONS.  IN NO
OTHER WAY, ON THE FACTS, COULD MASSACHUSETTS RETAIN THE WHOLE AMOUNT
SHE WAS PAID.  FN5 

ILLINOIS AS AMICUS CURIAE TAKES A NARROWER POSITION, CONCEDING THAT
THE ILLINOIS CASES STAND AS DECISIVE ADJUDICATIONS OF PRIORITY FOR
TITLE 8 TAXES BUT DISPUTING THAT EFFECT FOR TITLE 9 CLAIMS.  FN6  THIS
POSITION SEEKS AN ALLOCATION PAYING THE STATE'S CLAIM AFTER THE TITLE 8
AND OTHER FEDERAL CLAIMS, INCLUDING 10 PER CENT OF THE TITLE 9 TAXES,
BUT BEFORE OR RATHER IN "SATISFACTION" OF THE REMAINING 90 PER CENT OF
THEM.  FN7 

NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES, THE TWO STATES REST
THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS ON THE SAME BASIC ARGUMENTS, WHICH UPON
EXAMINATION TURN OUT TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THOSE VIGOROUSLY PRESENTED BY
ILLINOIS IN THE EARLIER CASES, EXCEPT FOR WORDING AND DETAIL.  MUCH IS
MADE OF THE FACT THAT HERE THE DEBTOR'S ASSIGNEE HAS PAID TO THE
COMMONWEALTH THE FULL AMOUNT OF ITS CLAIM, WHILE IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED
STATES THE FUND REMAINED IN THE ASSIGNEE'S HANDS.  BOTH STATES URGE
THAT SEC. 902 GIVES THE TAXPAYER, AND HERE HIS ASSIGNEE, THE "OPTIONAL
RIGHT" OF PAYMENT TO THE STATE.  MOREOVER, WITH RESPECT TO THE
REQUIREMENT OF REV. STAT. SEC. 3466 THAT "THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED
STATES SHALL BE FIRST SATISFIED," IT IS SAID THAT PAYMENT TO THE STATE
WITH RESULTING CREDIT TO THE UNITED STATES FOR 90 PER CENT OF THE TITLE
9 CLAIM "SATISFIES" THE GOVERNMENT'S DEBT AS MUCH AS PAYMENT TO IT IN
CASH. 

IN THE ILLINOIS CASES THE FOUNDATION FOR THE STATE'S CLAIM TO BE PAID
IN PREFERENCE TO ANY OF THE FEDERAL CLAIMS LAY IN THE CREDIT PROVISION
OF SEC. 902, WHICH IS THE IDENTICAL PROVISION FOR "OPTIONAL PAYMENT." 
THERE WAS NO QUESTION WHATEVER THAT SEC. 902 GAVE THE TAXPAYER THE
"ALTERNATE RIGHT."  BUT THE PRECISE ISSUE IN BOTH CASES WAS WHETHER
THAT RIGHT HAD BEEN CUT OFF BY REV. STAT. SEC. 3466 WHEN HE BECAME
INSOLVENT. 

OBVIOUSLY THERE COULD HAVE BEEN BUT LITTLE POINT OR EFFECT TO OUR
DECISIONS IF, DESPITE THEM, THE ASSIGNEE COULD HAVE TURNED AROUND
IMMEDIATELY AND DEPRIVED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRIORITIES ESTABLISHED
SIMPLY BY EXERCISING A RIGHT TO MAKE THE OPTIONAL PAYMENT TO THE
STATE.  NOR WOULD THE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE SENSIBLE OR
EFFECTIVE, HAD THEY PURPORTED TO SUSTAIN THE FEDERAL PRIORITIES WHEN
THE ASSIGNEE HAS RETAINED THE FUND, BUT TO DISALLOW THEM IF HE HAS PAID
THE STATE BEFORE THE FEDERAL CLAIMS ARE FILED.  WE MADE NO SUCH
INEFFECTIVE OR CAPRICIOUS RULINGS.  THE DECISION WAS BROADLY THAT BY
INTERVENTION OF THE INSOLVENCY AND THE CONSEQUENT BRINGING OF REV.
STAT. SEC. 3466 INTO PLAY, THE TAXPAYER'S RIGHT TO PAY THE STATE AND
TAKE FEDERAL CREDIT HAD BEEN CUT OFF.  FN8 

OUR DECISIONS WENT TO THE MERITS OF THAT RIGHT WND NOT MERELY TO RULE
THAT THE STATE WAS NOT A PROPER PARTY TO ENFORCE ITS EXERCISE.  THE
TAXES DUE THE UNITED STATES WERE HELD TO BE DEBTS; AND BY VIRTUE OF
SEC. 3466 THE DEBTOR'S PRIOR OBLIGATION ATTACHING AS OF THE DATE OF HIS
INSOLVENCY WAS TO THE GOVERNMENT, NOT TO THE STATE.  IT FOLLOWED
NECESSARILY THAT THE ASSIGNEE COULD NOT "SATISFY" IT BY PAYING THE
STATE AND GIVING THE GOVERNMENT "CREDIT."  THIS WAS THE VERY QUESTION
AT ISSUE AND THE ONE ADJUDICATED.  THE "ALTERNATE RIGHT" CONTENTION AND
THE ONE THAT "SATISFIED" IN SEC. 3466 MEANS "CREDIT" ARE ONLY VERBAL
REDRESSINGS OF THE BASIC ISSUE DECIDED IN THE ILLINOIS CASES. 

   II. 

THIS IS AS TRUE OF THE ARGUMENT'S BEARING ON ILLINOIS' NARROWER
POSITION AS IT IS FOR MASSACHUSETTS' BROADER ONE.  BUT ILLINOIS,
APPARENTLY WITH MASSACHUSETTS' SUPPORT, BRINGS FORWARD TO SUSTAIN THE
LESS SWEEPING ATTACK THE ADDITIONAL CONTENTION THAT THE ILLINOIS
DECISIONS DID NOT ADJUDICATE TITLE 9 PRIORITY, ALTHOUGH PURPORTING TO
DO SO.  MOREOVER, THE FACTS PRESENT THIS NARROWER ISSUE OF
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN TITLE 9 AND OTHER FEDERAL CLAIMS IN SHARPER
FACTUAL FOCUS THAN DID THE ILLINOIS CASES.  FOR IF THE CAPITAL STOCK
AND TITLE 8 CLAIMS ARE FIRST PAID IN FULL, AS THE DISTRICT COURT
REQUIRED, A SMALL BALANCE OF THE FUND WILL REMAIN, TO BE APPLIED EITHER
IN PART PAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL TITLE 9 CLAIM OR IN SOME FORM OF
ALLOCATION BETWEEN IT AND MASSACHUSETTS' CLAIM.  THIS WAS NOT TRUE OF
ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, OR INDEED OF ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, IN THE
POSTURE IN WHICH THAT CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE. 

THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT IS THAT THE TITLE 9 TAXES, THOUGH LITIGATED IN
THE ILLINOIS COURTS, WERE NOT INVOLVED ON THE FACTS IN THE ILLINOIS
CASES AS THEY CAME TO AND WERE DECIDED BY THIS COURT.  HENCE IT IS SAID
WE DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE TITLE 9 CLAIMS.  THE ARGUMENT
IS CORRECT CONCERNING ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL.  FN9  BUT IT IS SURPRISING
AS APPLIED TO ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, IN VIEW OF THE STATE SUPREME
COURT'S ADVERSE DECISION ON THE TITLE 9 ISSUE; ILLINOIS' EXPLICIT
APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI ON THAT ISSUE AND ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS
HERE TO REVERSE THE STATE COURT'S DECISION; FN10  THE NECESSITY ON THE
FACTS FOR THE STATE TO BRING THE QUESTION UP AND SECURE REVERSAL IN
ORDER TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM; FN11  AND FINALLY OUR OPINION'S CLEAR AND
EXPLICIT TERMS, INDEED EMPHASIS, IN DECIDING THE TITLE 9 ISSUE,
TOGETHER WITH THE TITLE 8 ONE, AGAINST ILLINOIS.  FN12 

THE IDEA THAT THE STATE COURT DECIDED ONLY THE TITLE 8 ISSUE
COMPLETELY MISCONCEIVES ITS ACTION, AND SERVES ONLY TO CONFUSE THE
JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE WITH THE ONE IN ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL.  INDEED IT
SEEKS TO INFUSE INTO THE FORMER THE LATTER'S DENIAL OF TITLE 9
PRIORITY.  NOT ONLY IS THIS WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH ILLINOIS' EARLIER
POSITION; IT IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE STATE COURT DISPOSED OF THE
TITLE 9 ISSUE IN BOTH CASES, BUT IN OPPOSITE WAYS ON ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUES. 

IN ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, THE STATE COURT DID NOT REACH THE BASIC
QUESTION OF THE FORCE OF REV. STAT. SEC. 3466 TO CREATE PRIORITY FOR
FEDERAL TITLE 9 CLAIMS; RATHER, IT EXPRESSLY AVOIDED DECIDING THAT
QUESTION.  391 ILL. 29, 32.  THIS WAS BECAUSE THE INSOLVENT'S ASSETS
WERE IN THE HANDS OF A COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVER, ID. 31, AND IN THAT
SITUATION SEC. 602(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943, 58 STAT. 77,  FN13
EXPRESSLY ALLOWED THE RECEIVER TO PAY THE STATE AND TAKE CREDIT UP TO
90 PER CENT OF THE TITLE 9 TAX.  THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT EXPRESSLY
SO HELD, AND ON THIS GROUND ALONE DENIED THE FEDERAL TITLE 9 CLAIM. 
391 ILL. 29, 34.  THE EFFECT WAS TO RULE THAT SEC. 602(B) CREATED A
LEGISLATIVE EXCEPTION TO SEC. 3466, LIMITED TO PAYMENTS BY SUCH
RECEIVERS, WITHIN THE TIMES AND FOR THE TAX PERIODS SPECIFIED, UP TO 90
PER CENT OF THE TITLE 9 TAXES.  FN14 

BUT SEC. 602(B) DID NOT APPLY IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, BECAUSE
THE INSOLVENT'S ASSETS WERE HELD BY A COMMON-LAW ASSIGNEE, NOT A COURT
APPOINTED OFFICIAL.  FN15  SO HOLDING, 391 ILL. AT 37, THE ILLINOIS
COURT WENT ON TO RULE THAT THE FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR TITLE 8 AND TITLE 9
TAXES WERE DEBTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3466 AND WERE THEREFORE
ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER THE STATE'S CLAIM.  IT NOT ONLY REJECTED THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE CREDIT PROVISION OF TITLE 9, SEC. 902, MADE THAT
CLAIM "IN REALITY A CLAIM OF THE NATION  ...  TANTAMOUNT TO A CLAIM OF
THE UNITED STATES," FN16  BUT ALSO CAREFULLY GUARDED THE WORDING OF THE
OPINION'S DISPOSITIVE PARAGRAPHS  FN17  AND THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN THE
TRIAL COURT FOR ENTERING THE JUDGMENTS ON REMAND SO AS TO DIFFERENTIATE
THE TWO CASES AND TO AVOID ANY DIRECTION THAT THE FUND IN ILLINOIS V.
UNITED STATES APPLY ON ONLY ONE OF THE FEDERAL CLAIMS.  FN18  THE
JUDGMENT THUS LEFT THE UNITED STATES FREE TO APPLY IT IN PARTIAL
SATISFACTION OF EITHER CLAIM OR BOTH. 

THIS WAS ALSO THE EFFECT OF OUR OWN DECISION AND JUDGMENT.  IT
GENERALLY AND WITHOUT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TITLE 8 AND TITLE 9
CLAIMS ADJUDICATED PRIORITY FOR BOTH.  AS IN THE ILLINOIS COURT'S
DECISION, NO RESTRICTION WAS PLACED UPON ALLOCATION OF THE FUND, NOR IS
ANY HINT TO BE FOUND IN THE OPINION THAT SUCH AN ALLOCATION WAS
INTENDED.  INDEED WE WERE NOT ASKED TO MAKE ONE AND TO HAVE DONE SO
WOULD HAVE DISREGARDED THE BASIC POSITION OF BOTH PARTIES, EACH OF
WHICH SOUGHT A FULL AND FAVORABLE DISPOSITION OF THE CONTROVERSY
INCLUDING DECISION UPON ALL THE ISSUES PRESENTED.  FN19 

IT IS TRUE THAT, AS IN THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT, THE DECISION AND
JUDGMENT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE NARROWER BASIS THAT THE TITLE 8
CLAIM WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO EXHAUST THE FUND, AND THEREFORE TO
SUSTAIN THE PRIORITY FOR THAT CLAIM ALONE WOULD DISPOSE OF THE CASE. 
BUT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN EQUALLY TRUE OF THE TITLE 9 CLAIM.  NEITHER
CLAIM WAS EITHER MORE OR LESS ESSENTIAL TO DECISION THAN THE OTHER,
INDEED DECISION UPON BOTH WAS NECESSARY TO A JUDGMENT FAVORABLE TO
ILLINOIS.  TO HAVE ELIMINATED EITHER WOULD HAVE REQUIRED SOME
INDICATION OF THAT PURPOSE.  SINCE NONE WAS GIVEN, IT CANNOT BE SAID
THAT THE JUDGMENT RESTED ON THE ONE GROUND OR CLAIM MORE THAN THE
OTHER.    WHILE THEREFORE THE CASE IS ONE WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN DECIDED
ON EITHER OF TWO INDEPENDENT GROUNDS FAVORABLY TO THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS
NEITHER ONE IN WHICH THAT COURSE WAS FOLLOWED NOR ONE WHICH COULD HAVE
BEEN DETERMINED THE OPPOSITE WAY IN THAT MANNER.  INSTEAD, AS WE WERE
ASKED TO DO AND RIGHTLY COULD DO ON THE RECORD AND THE ISSUES, WE
DECIDED BOTH ISSUES, AND THE JUDGMENT RESTED AS MUCH UPON THE ONE
DETERMINATION AS THE OTHER.  IN SUCH A CASE THE ADJUDICATION IS
EFFECTIVE FOR BOTH.  UNITED STATES V. TITLE INS. CO., 265 U.S. 472;
UNION PACIFIC CO. V. MASON CITY CO., 199 U.S. 160; SEE RICHMOND CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 331, 340. 

                                 III.  FINALLY, IT IS URGED THAT IN
ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES WE HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER AND HENCE OUR
OPINION DID NOT DISCUSS WHETHER IN A CASE LIKE THIS, WHERE THE FUND IS
MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL FEDERAL CLAIMS EXCEPT 100 PER CENT OF
THE TITLE 9 CLAIM, THE BALANCE REMAINING AFTER PAYING THOSE OTHER
CLAIMS MUST GO FIRST TO PAY THE FEDERAL TITLE 9 CLAIM IN FULL, OR MAY
BE ALLOCATED BETWEEN THAT CLAIM AND THE STATE CLAIM TO PAY 10 PER CENT
OF THE FEDERAL CLAIM FIRST AND THEN TO APPLY WHAT REMAINS ON THE STATE
CLAIM.  FN20 

CLOSELY RELATED TO THIS, THOUGH NOT INVOLVED ON THE FACTS IN ILLINOIS
V. UNITED STATES OR HERE, FN21  IS THE GOVERNMENT'S APPARENT CONCESSION
THAT IF ALL THE FEDERAL CLAIMS ARE PAID IN FULL, INCLUDING 100 PER CENT
OF THE TITLE 9 CLAIM, AND ANY BALANCE THEN REMAINS IN THE FUND, THE
INSOLVENT TAXPAYER IS NEVERTHELESS GIVEN THE RIGHT BY SEC. 902 TO PAY
THAT BALANCE TO THE STATE AND RECEIVE CREDIT ON HIS FEDERAL TITLE 9
TAX.  IN SUCH A CASE, IT IS SAID, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE OVERPAID ON
TITLE 9 TAXES AND OBLIGATED TO REFUND THE EXCESS.  THEN THE TAXPAYER
COULD APPLY THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN FURTHER PAYMENT OF THE STATE CLAIM,
WITH CORRESPONDING FEDERAL CREDIT, OVERPAYMENT AND REFUND, ONLY TO
START THE CYCLE AGAIN AND REPEAT IT UNTIL HE HAD PAID THE STATE ITS
CLAIM IN FULL AND RECEIVED THE ENTIRE 90 PER CENT CREDIT.  FN22  HENCE
IN THIS SITUATION, IT IS SAID, SHORT-CUT DISTRIBUTION MIGHT WELL BE
MADE TO THE STATE IN THE FIRST PLACE, TO ELIMINATE THE CYCLE. 

THE EFFECT OF THE CONCESSION, IF IT IS VALID, GOES FAR TOWARD CUTTING
THE GROUND FROM BENEATH THE GOVERNMENT'S BASIC POSITION.  FN23  THAT
EFFECT IS HEIGHTENED BY THE FURTHER SURPRISING STATEMENT IN ITS BRIEF
THAT IN A CASE LIKE THIS, NOT COVERED BY THE CONCESSION, COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CREDIT CONDITIONS OF SEC. 902 BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE "NOT BECAUSE
BECAUSE THE TERMS OF SECTION 902 ITSELF DENY IT (CREDIT) WHERE NO
PAYMENT CAN BE MADE."  THE STATEMENT WOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE, IF IT HAD
BEEN THAT SEC. 3466 AND SEC. 902 BOTH WORK TO DENY THE CREDIT IN THIS
SITUATION.  BUT TO SAY THAT SEC. 3466 HAS NO EFFECT TO CUT OFF THE
RIGHT TO CREDIT EITHER IN THE PRESENT SITUATION OR IN THE DIFFERENT
HYPOTHETICAL ONE STATED IS TO TAKE AWAY THE BASIC GROUNDING OF ALL
FEDERAL PRIORITY AS AGAINST THE STATE'S CLAIM. 

THE CONCESSIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE EFFECT
OF SEC. 3466 DEPENDS ON THE FACT OF INSOLVENCY, NOT ON THE DEGREE OF IT
AS THE FIRST CONCESSION SEEMS TO CONTEMPLATE.  AND IT IS ONLY BY FORCE
OF SEC. 3466 THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS ANY PRIORITY AT ALL.  SECTION 902
MAY WORK TO DENY CREDIT, IF ITS CONDITIONS FOR CREDIT ARE NOT
FULFILLED.  BUT IT DOES NOT GIVE FEDERAL PRIORITY OVER VALID STATE
CLAIMS.  MOREOVER, BOTH CONCESSIONS ARE ALTOGETHER INCONSISTENT WITH
THE BASIC DECISIONS IN THE ILLINOIS CASES AND THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY
RESTED.  THE MATTER REQUIRES BRIEF RESTATEMENT.  IT IS ONE WHICH GOES
FUNDAMENTALLY TO THE EFFECT OF REV. STAT. SEC. 3466, AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM, THOUGH NOT UNRELATED TO, SEC. 902 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 
THESE OF COURSE ARE ENTIRELY DISTINCT STATUTES, WITH DIFFERENT
FUNCTIONS. 

REV. STAT. SEC. 3466 GIVES PRIORITY EXPLICITLY FOR "DEBTS DUE TO THE
UNITED STATES" AND THE PRIORITY GIVEN IS IN TERMS ABSOLUTE, NOT
CONDITIONAL.  ONCE ATTACHING, IT IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  A LONG LINE
OF DECISIONS HAS HELD THAT TAXES DUE THE GOVERNMENT ARE "DEBTS" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE SECTION.  FN24  IN THE ILLINOIS CASES WE APPLIED
THIS RULING TO TITLE 8 AND TITLE 9 TAXES AS AGAINST THE STATE'S CLAIM
FOR "CONTRIBUTIONS."  PRIOR DECISIONS ALSO HAVE HELD THAT THE PRIORITY
ATTACHES AS OF THE TIME OF THE INSOLVENCY,  FN25  A RULING ALSO APPLIED
IN THE ILLINOIS CASES. 

BUT IF CREDIT CAN BE TAKEN AFTER SEC. 3466 ATTACHES, I.E., AFTER
INSOLVENCY, EFFECTIVE TO SET ASIDE THE FEDERAL PRIORITY UP TO 90 PER
CENT OF THE TITLE 9 CLAIM, THE PRIORITY TO THAT EXTENT BECOMES
CONDITIONAL, NOT ABSOLUTE.  ITS EFFECTIVENESS THEN BECOMES CONTINGENT
UPON THE HAPPENING OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS, NAMELY, THE CONCURRENCE OF THE
CONDITIONS OF SEC. 902 FOR PAYING THE STATE AND TAKING THE CREDIT
TOGETHER WITH THE TAXPAYER'S ELECTION TO DO THIS.  IN SHORT, SEC. 3466
NEVER CONCLUSIVELY ATTACHED AND SEC. 902 WORKS RETROACTIVELY ON
OCCURRENCE OF THOSE CONTINGENCIES TO UPSET THE PRIORITY. 

A FURTHER EFFECT MIGHT BE TO MAKE THE STATUTE APPLICABLE BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THE TERM "DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES."  FOR IF THE
TAXPAYER'S SUBSEQUENT ELECTION CAN DESTROY THE PRIORITY RETROACTIVELY,
NOT ONLY THE PRIORITY BUT THE "DEBT" ITSELF BECOMES CONTINGENT.  AND IT
IS AT LEAST DOUBTFUL ON THE STATUTE'S WORDING THAT OBLIGATIONS WHOLLY
CONTINGENT FOR ULTIMATE MATURITY AND OBLIGATION UPON THE HAPPENING OF
EVENTS AFTER INSOLVENCY CAN BE SAID TO FALL WITHIN THE REACH OF "DEBTS
DUE" AS OF THE TIME OF INSOLVENCY.  FN26 

HOWEVER THIS MAY BE, WE KNOW OF NO PREVIOUS APPLICATION OF SEC. 3466
CREATING SUCH A CONDITIONAL PRIORITY.  FN27  NOR DO WE SEE HOW ONE
COULD BE MADE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE SECTION'S TERMS OR PURPOSES.  THE
ONLY SUCH CONSISTENT APPLICATION WOULD SEEM TO BE ONE GIVING THE
GOVERNMENT THE PRIOR AND INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO TAKE THE FUND AVAILABLE,
UP TO THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO PAY ITS CLAIM AS OF THE DATE THE PRIORITY
ATTACHES, NOT AS IT MAY BE AFFECTED BY LATER CONTINGENCIES OTHER THAN
PAYMENT.  FN28  IN ENACTING SEC. 3466 CONGRESS GAVE NO INDICATION
WHATEVER OF INTENT TO CREATE DEFEASIBLE PRIORITIES. 

THE DEFEASANCE CONCEDED POSSIBLE BY THE GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE,
TOGETHER WITH THE FURTHER CONCEDED INEFFECTIVENESS OF SEC. 3466(THOUGH
NOT OF SEC. 902) IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE TO DENY THE RIGHT TO
CREDIT, DESTROYS THE FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER OF THE PRIORITY CREATED BY
SEC. 3466 AND THEREBY REMOVES THE FOUNDATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S
BASIC POSITION, WHICH IS THAT SEC. 3466 APPLIES AS OF THE TIME OF
INSOLVENCY TO CREATE THE PRIORITY IT CONTEMPLATES.  THROUGH THESE
CONCESSIONS THE SECTION IS MADE, BY VIRTUE OF THE EFFECT OF SEC. 902,
TO CREATE ONLY A DEFEASIBLE FEDERAL PRIORITY AS AGAINST CLAIMS FOR
CREDIT.  THIS ACTUALLY IS BUT ANOTHER WAY OF MAKING SEC. 902 EFFECTIVE
AS AN EXCEPTION TO REV. STAT. SEC. 3466, LIKE SEC. 602(A) AND (B) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943, NOTED ABOVE IN PART II. 

THIS OF COURSE WAS ILLINOIS' EARLIER POSITION, REJECTED BY THIS
COURT.  IF THAT POSITION IS NOW TO BE ACCEPTED, WE DO NOT SEE HOW SEC.
3466 CAN BE REGARDED AS APPLYING TO TITLE 9 TAXES OR, INDEED, HOW THE
EFFECT OF TREATING SEC. 902 AS AN EXCEPTION CAN BE LIMITED TO TITLE 9
TAXES.  FOR IF SEC. 902 WORKS AS AN EXCEPTION TO SEC. 3466, THEN
ILLINOIS WAS RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THE EXCEPTION WOULD SEEM TO
APPLY TO ALL FEDERAL TAXES, NOT JUST THE ONE.  FN29 

ACCORDINGLY, THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS
CONSISTENT EITHER WITH OUR PRIOR DECISIONS OR WITH ITS OWN BASIC
POSITION IN THE ILLINOIS CASES AND THIS ONE.  THAT POSITION, APART FROM
THE CONCESSIONS, RESTS ULTIMATELY ON SEC. 3466 AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO
THESE CLAIMS.  THIS NECESSARILY DENIES THAT SEC. 902 CREATES AN
EXCEPTION TO SEC. 3466 OR A QUALIFICATION INCONSISTENT WITH ITS TERMS. 
THE QUALIFICATIONS NOW CONCEDED ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THOSE TERMS,
FOR THEY DO NOT CONTEMPLATE THE TENUOUS, DESTRUCTIBLE SORT OF
"PRIORITY" THE CONCESSIONS INVOLVE. 

MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES WE DID NOT
DISCUSS EXPRESSLY THE 10-90 PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OF TITLE 9 TAXES NOW
SUGGESTED DOES NOT MEAN THAT OUR DECISION DID NOT ENCOMPASS THAT
POSSIBILITY.  IT EXTENDED GENERALLY TO ALL CASES WHERE CREDIT IS SOUGHT
AFTER INSOLVENCY.  IT WAS FEDERAL PRIORITY ATTACHING AS OF THE TIME OF
INSOLVENCY THAT WE ADJUDICATED, NOT SOMETHING LESS.  AS WE HAVE
INDICATED, IN MAKING THE ADJUDICATION WE NEITHER WERE NOR COULD HAVE
BEEN IGNORANT OF SEC. 902'S ALLOWANCE OF THE TAXPAYER'S ELECTION.  OUR
DECISION HELD THAT RIGHT CUT OFF BY THE INCIDENCE OF SEC. 3466 AT THE
TIME OF INSOLVENCY.  ANY OTHER WOULD HAVE BEEN WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH
THE RULING THAT SEC. 3466 APPLIES AS AGAINST THE STATE'S CLAIM FOR
"CONTRIBUTIONS" OR THE TAXPAYER'S RIGHT TO MAKE THEM AFTER THE
INCIDENCE OF HIS INSOLVENCY. 

                    IV. 

WE HAVE TAKEN PAINS TO STATE THE EFFECT OF OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS,
BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSION CONCERNING THEM AND THE FACT THAT TWO STATES
HAVE EARNESTLY PRESENTED THE QUESTIONS.  ORDINARILY THIS WOULD END THE
MATTER.  BUT, AGAIN FOR THOSE REASONS, WE TURN BRIEFLY TO THE MERITS
AND TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ILLINOIS DECISIONS SHOULD NOW BE
REVERSED. 

APART FROM THE ARGUMENTS ALREADY DISCUSSED, TWO STAND OUT AS REASONS
FOR THE CHANGE SOUGHT.  BOTH REITERATE CONTENTIONS REJECTED IN THE
ILLINOIS CASES.  THE PRIMARY ONE IS THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE LEGISLATION
WILL BE DEFEATED UNLESS THE CHANGE IS MADE, NAMELY, THE ENCOURAGEMENT
OF THE STATE SYSTEMS AND CORRESPONDINGLY OF TAXPAYERS TO MAKE
"CONTRIBUTIONS" TO STATE FUNDS, THEREBY INSURING THAT THE MONEYS SO
PAID IN WILL GO OUT FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS RATHER THAN INTO THE
TREASURY AS REVENUE.  THE SECOND IS A HEIGHTENED EMPHASIS ON THE
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 902 AS SHOWING CONGRESS' INTENT TO WAIVE,
IN PROGRESSIVELY BROADENING SCOPE THOUGH STILL ONLY IN SPECIFIED
SITUATIONS, THE ORIGINAL LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 902 UPON SECURING CREDIT. 
FN30 

FROM THE SECOND CONTENTION IS DRAWN THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS, BY
ITS CAREFULLY, EVEN METICULOUSLY DRAWN RELAXATIONS, MEANT CREDIT TO BE
GIVEN NOT ONLY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO CAREFULLY PRESCRIBED BUT ALSO IN
OTHER SITUATIONS NOT WITHIN THOSE PRESCRIPTIONS.  THIS CONCLUSION WHEN
ADDED TO THE FIRST ARGUMENT AMOUNTS IN SUM TO REITERATING THAT THE
STATE EXACTION IS "TANTAMOUNT TO A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES," AND
THAT NOT TO DISREGARD THE TAX AND CREDIT STRUCTURE IN WHICH CONGRESS
MOLDED THE ACT WOULD BE TO "OBSERVE THE FORM AND IGNORE THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE LEGISLATION." 

WE SHALL NOT REPEAT THE ANSWERS MADE IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES,
EXCEPT TO SAY THAT "WHILE THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS WERE TO
COOPERATE, THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF THE FEDERAL ACT WAS TO KEEP THE
STATE AND FEDERAL SYSTEMS SEPARATELY ADMINISTERED."  328 U.S. 8, 11. 
TO THE CONSIDERATIONS THERE STATED, HOWEVER, WE NOW ADD THE FOLLOWING
ONES, NOT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED IN THE EARLIER OPINION, PREFACED HOWEVER
WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE GROUNDING OF EACH PLEA FOR REVERSAL
AFFORDS BASIS FOR CONCLUSION AGAINST THAT ACTION AS WELL AS IN ITS
FAVOR. 

THUS THE MANY RELAXATIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS MADE RESPECTING THE
CONDITIONS PERMITTED FOR TAKING CREDIT, BY FORCE OF THEIR VERY NUMBER
AND CAREFUL LIMITATION, SHOW THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT OFFERING A BROADSIDE
EXEMPTION TO BE APPLIED IN SITUATIONS, SUCH AS THIS CASE, OTHER THAN
THOSE SPECIFICALLY DEFINED.  FN31  RATHER THE INTENTION DISCLOSED IS TO
LIMIT THE CREDIT TO THE PRECISE SITUATIONS SPECIFIED FOR ALLOWING IT.
THAT VIEW ACCORDS WITH CONGRESS' DELIBERATE CHOICE OF THE TAX AND
CONDITIONAL CREDIT DEVICES FOR FRAMING THE ACT'S STRUCTURE.  THESE ARE
WELL-KNOWN TECHNIQUES, ADOPTED APPARENTLY IN THIS INSTANCE FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS.  FN32  BUT THOSE VERY
MOTIVATIONS WARN US TO BE WARY OF DISREGARDING THE FORM WHICH CONGRESS
HAS CHOSEN ADVISEDLY, IN ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE A SUBSTANCE WE CAN ONLY BE
DOUBTFUL IT MAY HAVE INTENDED.  FN33 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT IF PAYMENT TO THE STATE IS NOT ALLOWED AND THE
RIGHT TO RECEIVE CREDIT IS CUT OFF, THE MONEY WILL NOT BE PAID OUT IN
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BUT WILL GO INTO THE TREASURY AS GENERAL REVENUE;
THE STATES WILL BE COMPELLED TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE INSOLVENT'S
EMPLOYEES; AND THUS THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF THE ACT WILL BE DEFEATED. 
THERE ARE SEVERAL ANSWERS. 

ONE IS THAT CONGRESS HAS GUARANTEED THE SOLVENCY OF THE STATE FUNDS
AND, IF NEED BE, THE REVENUES THUS PAID INTO THE TREASURY WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE.  FN34  MOREOVER, BUT ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF
THIS GUARANTY, IT MAY BE MORE LIKELY THAT THE FUNDS, IF PAID INTO THE
TREASURY RATHER THAN TO THE STATE, WILL BE SAVED FOR APPLICATION TO THE
ACT'S PURPOSES.  FOR THERE IS NO ASSURANCE, IF THE STATE'S PRIOR RIGHT
TO THEM IS ONCE ESTABLISHED, THAT THEY WILL GO FOR THE PAYMENT OF
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH AN INSOLVENT'S
ASSETS.  AND THE STATES HAVE STATUTES BY WHICH SUCH ASSETS ARE
DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO LOCAL PRIORITIES WHENEVER SEC. 3466 IS NOT
OPERATIVE.  ONLY A FEW OF THEM PLACE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AT THE TOP. 
FN35  DEPENDING THEREFORE UPON THE NUMBER AND THE AMOUNTS OF CLAIMS
STANDING AHEAD OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT CLAIMS IN THE PARTICULAR
STATE WOULD BE THE CERTAINTY OR PROBABILITY OF PAYMENT OF THE LATTER. 
IN SHORT, REVERSING OUR DECISIONS AND CONCEDING THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATE'S POSITION, EITHER AS TO TITLE 9 TAXES ALONE OR AS TO ALL FEDERAL
TAXES, WOULD GIVE NO DEFINITE AND CERTAIN ASSURANCE THAT THE FUNDS THUS
ACQUIRED BY THE STATES WOULD GO TO SATISFY THE ACT'S PURPOSES.  FN36
IN MANY CASES PAYMENT TO THE STATE WOULD BE THE MEANS OF DIVERTING THEM
TO WHOLLY EXTRANEOUS OBJECTS.  ESPECIALLY WOULD THIS BE TRUE WHEN
SMALLER EMPLOYERS WITHIN THE ACT'S TERMS ARE INVOLVED, AS THEY SEEM TO
BE MUCH MORE OFTEN THAN OTHERS.  FN37  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLICIT
OR CLEARLY IMPLIED DIRECTION WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
TO REQUIRE THAT THE STATE'S CLAIM FOR UNEMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTIONS TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER DEBTS OF THE INSOLVENT OR TO AUTHORIZE US TO
MAKE THIS A CONDITION OF ALLOWING PAYMENT TO THE STATE TO BE MADE FROM
HIS ESTATE.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENT PURPOSE THUS BROADLY TO UPSET STATE
SCHEMES OF PRIORITY.    THESE EXAMPLES ARE ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE
PREMISES OF THE STATES' CONTENTIONS ARE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING OTHER
CONCLUSIONS THAN THEY DRAW FROM THEM.  OTHER EXAMPLES MIGHT BE STATED. 
BUT IN EACH INSTANCE THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE STATES ARE
COUNTERBALANCED WITH OPPOSING ONES QUITE OR NEARLY AS TENABLE.  IN SOME
THEY ARE OF GREATER WEIGHT. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT MASSACHUSETTS AND ILLINOIS HAVE NOT SHOWN THE CLEAR
INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE ACT'S EXPLICIT TERMS AND OUR PREVIOUS
DECISIONS, ON THE ONE HAND, AND ACHIEVING THE ACT'S PURPOSES, ON THE
OTHER, WHICH IS NECESSARY TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR REVERSAL AND THUS FOR
NEGATING THE FORCE OF REV. STAT. SEC. 3466 AS CREATING FEDERAL
PRIORITIES FOR TITLE 9 OR OTHER FEDERAL TAX CLAIMS.  THE ILLINOIS
DECISIONS WERE ADVISEDLY MADE, AFTER FULL DELIBERATION.  THERE WAS NO
DISSENT ON THE BASIC QUESTION OF PRIORITY, EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE SEEMED
CLOSE.  NO SUBSTANTIALLY NEW ARGUMENT OR CONSIDERATION OF POLICY HAS
BEEN PUT FORWARD.  THE CASE FOR REVERSAL IS NO MORE CLEAR OR CONVINCING
THAN ILLINOIS' POSITION ON THE MERITS IN THE EARLIER LITIGATION. 

NOR ARE WE PERSUADED THAT OUR FORMER DECISIONS WERE ERRONEOUS.  FOR
THE STRICT POLICY OF SEC. 3466 HAD PERMITTED FEW EXCEPTIONS  FN38  AND,
AS WE REPEATED IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, QUOTING UNITED STATES V.
EMORY, 314 U.S. 423, 433, "ONLY THE PLAINEST INCONSISTENCY WOULD
WARRANT OUR FINDING AN IMPLIED EXCEPTION TO THE OPERATION OF SO CLEAR A
COMMAND AS THAT OF SEC. 3466."  328 U.S. 8, 12.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES
V. REMUND, 330 U.S. 539, 544-545.  THERE IS NO SUCH INCONSISTENCY
HERE. 

UNTIL THE FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR TAXES, WHETHER UNDER TITLE 8, TITLE 9 OR
OTHER TAXING PROVISION, ARE PAID IN FULL, THE STATES ARE NOT ENTITLED
EITHER TO COLLECT OR TO RETAIN ANY PART OF THE INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S
ASSETS.  WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT ANY OF THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE PROGRAMS WILL FAIL OR BE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED BY REASON OF THIS
DECISION, OR THEIR CONSEQUENT FAILURE TO SECURE THE SMALL SUMS
CHARACTERISTICALLY AT STAKE IN THIS EXTENDED LITIGATION AND,
APPARENTLY, IN OTHER CASES MOST LIKELY TO PRODUCE SIMILAR CONTROVERSY. 
NOR WOULD THE FEDERAL TREASURY HAVE BEEN RENDERED BANKRUPT BY A
CONTRARY RESULT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  HERE, AS IN THAT CASE, THE DEBTOR MADE A COMMON-LAW ASSIGNMENT
FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.  THE ASSIGNEE HERE REALIZED $1,135.11
FROM SALE OF THE ASSETS.  THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES FOR TITLE 9
TAXES AMOUNTED TO $963.08; FOR TITLE 8 TAXES, $690.05; AND FOR CAPITAL
STOCK TAXES, $21.  THE COMMONWEALTH'S CLAIM WAS FOR $803.72 IN
UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES.  WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED, BUT FOR INTERVENTION OF
THE INSOLVENCY, THE ASSIGNEE PAID THE STATE'S CLAIM IN FULL AND THEN
PAID THE REMAINING ASSETS OF $331.39 TO THE COLLECTOR.  HE APPLIED THIS
SUM ON ACCOUNT OF THE TITLE 8 TAXES, THUS LEAVING UNPAID THE FEDERAL
CLAIMS FOR CAPITAL STOCK AND TITLE 9 TAXES AS WELL AS $358.66 PLUS
INTEREST ON THE TITLE 8 CLAIM. 

FN2  THE COMMONWEALTH IN EFFECT HAS UNDERTAKEN TO INDEMNIFY THE
ASSIGNEE, BY PAYING OVER TO THE UNITED STATES THE $803.72, IF THE
PAYMENT TO THE STATE SHOULD TURN OUT TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY MADE. 
THE UNITED STATES HAS AGREED THAT IF IT PREVAILS THE JUDGMENT SHALL BE
LIMITED TO $803.72. 

FN3  THE ORIGINAL SEC. 902, 49 STAT. 639, PROVIDED THAT THE TAXPAYER
MIGHT CREDIT AGAINST TITLE 9 TAXES 90 PER CENT OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS
UNDER AN APPROVED STATE PROGRAM.  SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS DID NOT ALTER
THE CONCEPTION OF A BASIC 90 PER CENT CREDIT.  SEE, E.G., NOTES 13,
15.  THE PRESENT "CREDIT AGAINST TAX" SECTION IS INCORPORATED IN THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1601. 

FN4  THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THAT IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES,
THE TITLE 9 ISSUE HAD BECOME MOOT EITHER BEFORE OR AS OF THE TIME THE
CASE REACHED THIS COURT, AND THAT THEREFORE WE "HAD NO OCCASION TO
CONSIDER THE PROBLEM WHETHER AS TO 90 PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE FOR
TITLE IX TAXES THE UNITED STATES (BY SEC. 902) HAD NOT GIVEN THE
TAXPAYER THE OPTION TO MAKE PAYMENT TO ILLINOIS INSTEAD OF TO THE
UNITED STATES."  65 F.SUPP.  763, 765.  THE COURT THUS REGARDED THE
TITLE 9 QUESTION AS LEFT OPEN AND "NICELY ANALYZED  ...  TO BE ONE NOT
OF PRIORITY BUT OF ALTERNATIVE OBLIGATION."  ID. AT 764. 

FN5  SINCE THE INSOLVENT'S ASSETS ARE NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO PAY EITHER
THE TITLE 8 OR THE TITLE 9 CLAIM AND LEAVE ENOUGH TO PAY THE STATE
CLAIM IN FULL.  SEE NOTE 1. 

IN THE BRIEF MASSACHUSETTS STATES THE FEDERAL QUESTION AS BEING
WHETHER THE ASSIGNEE MAY "MAKE PAYMENT OF THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX TO
THE EXCLUSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CLAIM FOR TITLE IX TAXES OR ANY
OTHER TAXES DUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM THE TAXPAYER?" 

FN6  ILLINOIS HAS APPEARED WITH LEAVE, BOTH BY BRIEF AND IN THE ORAL
ARGUMENT.  IT NEITHER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS NOR EXPRESSLY SUPPORTS
MASSACHUSETTS' BROAD POSITION FOR REVERSAL.  FN7  ON THE FACTS, SEE
NOTE 1, AFTER PAYING THE CAPITAL STOCK CLAIM, THE TITLE 8 CLAIM AND 10
PER CENT OF THE TITLE 9 CLAIM, THIS WOULD LEAVE $327.75 TO APPLY ON THE
STATE'S CLAIM; AND HENCE REQUIRE MASSACHUSETTS TO PAY OVER TO THE
UNITED STATES $475.97 PLUS INTEREST FROM THE $803.72 SHE HAS RECEIVED,
IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PAYMENT IN FULL OF THE TITLE 8 CLAIM. 

ACTUALLY THIS REPRESENTS THE DISTRICT COURT'S SPECIFIC ALLOCATION,
NOT EXACTLY THAT OF EITHER MASSACHUSETTS OR ILLINOIS.  EACH WOULD APPLY
A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT METHOD OF ALLOCATION.  SEE NOTE 20. 

FN8  SEE PART III.  THE FEDERAL PRIORITY UNDER SEC. 3466 ATTACHES
FROM THE TIME THE INSOLVENT DEBTOR TRANSFERS OR LOSES CONTROL OVER HIS
PROPERTY.  ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, 329 U.S. 362, 370; UNITED STATES V.
WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. 353, 355-358; UNITED STATES V. OKLAHOMA, 261 U.S.
253, 260. 

FN9  THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT HAD SUSTAINED THE FEDERAL
PRIORITY FOR TITLE 8 TAXES, ORDERING THEM PAID FIRST AND THE SMALL
REMAINING BALANCE OF ABOUT $150 TO BE PAID TO THE STATE.  THIS LEFT THE
TITLE 9 TAXES UNPAID.  THE COURT DENIED PRIORITY FOR THAT CLAIM BECAUSE
IT FELL WITHIN THE EXPLICIT EXCEPTION OF SEC. 602(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1943.  SEE TEXT INFRA AT NOTES 13, 14.  THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO
APPLY FOR CERTIORARI AS TO THE $150 ELIMINATED THE TITLE 9 ISSUE FROM
THE CASE IN THIS COURT. 

FN10  ILLINOIS ALMOST UNIFORMLY PUT THE ISSUES AS INVOLVING TITLE 8
AND TITLE 9 TAXES INDISCRIMINATELY.  THUS, IN STATING "THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED," THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI SPOKE OF PRIORITY FOR "SOCIAL
SECURITY EXCISE TAXES AND CAPITAL STOCK TAXES," NECESSARILY
ENCOMPASSING TITLE 8 AND TITLE 9 LEVIES.  THIS WAS REPEATEDLY TRUE OF
THE STATE'S BRIEF.  FURTHER, THE PETITION AT ONE POINT SAID:  "IN
HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER WAS SUBORDINATE TO THE CLAIMS
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR CAPITAL STOCK TAX AND FOR TAXES ARISING UNDER
TITLES VIII AND IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS LOOKED TO FORM, NOT SUBSTANCE, AND DISREGARDED THE CHARACTER
AND SIGNIFICANCE OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM."  THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEFS WERE
EQUALLY POSITIVE IN SEEKING DISPOSITION OF THE TITLE 9 CLAIM. 

FN11  THE FEDERAL CLAIMS ASSERTED WERE AS FOLLOWS:  CAPITAL STOCK
TAXES, $58.73; TITLE 8 TAXES, $1,065.52; TITLE 9 TAXES, $1,284.36; ALL
PLUS INTEREST FROM THE DATE DUE.  THE ILLINOIS CLAIM FOR STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CONTRIBUTIONS WAS $721.29.  AND THE FUND
AVAILABLE TO SATISFY ALL THESE CLAIMS WAS $1,010.81. 

SINCE THE ASSETS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY IN FULL EITHER THE TITLE 8
OR THE TITLE 9 CLAIM, ILLINOIS HAD TO OVERRIDE BOTH TO ESTABLISH HER
CLAIM.  ILLINOIS RECOGNIZED THIS BOTH BY HER APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AND
BY THE BROAD ARGUMENT THAT THE STATE CLAIM WAS TANTAMOUNT TO A FEDERAL
TAX AND THE CREDIT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 902 EXEMPTED IT COMPLETELY FROM
THE PRIORITY OF REV. STAT. SEC. 3466 FOR ALL FEDERAL TAXES, NOT SIMPLY
ONE. 

FN12  THE OPINION IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES EXPLICITLY STATED:
"THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES IS FOR FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION TAXES UNDER TITLE 9 AND FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
TAXES UNDER TITLE 8 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT. 620."  328
U.S. 8, 9.  THE OPINION THROUGHOUT TREATED TITLE 9 TAXES ON A PARITY
WITH THOSE UNDER TITLE 8.  WE ACCEPTED FULLY THE STATE'S VIEW THAT THE
CREDIT OR "OPTIONAL PAYMENT" PROVISION OF SEC. 902 WAS DESIGNED TO
STIMULATE THE CREATION OF SOUND STATE SYSTEMS.  328 U.S. 8, 10.  SEE
ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, 329 U.S. 362, 367, N. 5.  BUT WE REJECTED THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE STATE CLAIM WAS TANTAMOUNT TO A FEDERAL ONE AND SAID:
"BUT WE CANNOT AGREE THAT CONGRESS THEREBY INTENDED IN EFFECT TO AMEND
SEC. 3466, BY MAKING ITS PRIORITY PROVISIONS INAPPLICABLE TO STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT TAX CLAIMS."  328 U.S. 8, 11.  THE RULING APPLIED TO BOTH
TYPES OF TAX WITHOUT DISTINCTION. 

FN13  THIS SECTION WAS ONE OF THE RELAXING AMENDMENTS, SEE PART IV,
TO TITLE 9, SEC. 902, OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  FOR TITLE 9 TAXES
DUE FOR THE YEARS 1939, 1940, 1941 AND 1942 IT ALLOWED CREDIT UP TO 90
PER CENT, WITHOUT REGARD TO PREVIOUS FAILURE TO PAY AS REQUIRED, IF THE
ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR HAD BEEN, DURING THE PERIOD SPECIFIED, "IN THE
CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF A RECEIVER, TRUSTEE, OR OTHER FIDUCIARY APPOINTED
BY, OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF, A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION." 

RELAXATION OF SEC. 902, FOR TITLE 9 TAXES DUE FOR THE YEARS 1936, 1937
AND 1938, WITH CREDIT LIMITED HOWEVER TO 81 PER CENT, WHEN THE STATE
PAYMENTS FOR THOSE YEARS WERE MADE AFTER DECEMBER 6, 1940.  THIS
STATES REJECTED BY THE ILLINOIS COURT.  SEE NOTE 15. 

FN14  SEE ALSO PART IV.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, IN GIVING DIRECTIONS FOR
THE DECREE TO BE ENTERED BY THE TRIAL COURT ORDERED THE FEDERAL TITLE 8
CLAIM PAID FIRST IN FULL "AND ANY BALANCE REMAINING" TO THE STATE.  391
ILL. AT 46; SEE ALSO ID. 42.  THUS APPARENTLY IT INADVERTENTLY LOST
SIGHT OF THE FACT, EARLIER EXPRESSLY NOTED, ID. 34, 39, THAT SEC.
602(B) ALLOWED THE RECEIVER TO TAKE CREDIT ONLY UP TO 90 PER CENT OF
THE TITLE 9 TAXES. 

THIS OVERSIGHT SEEMINGLY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COURT'S FAILURE TO
AWARD PRIORITY TO THE UNITED STATES FOR 10 PER CENT OF ITS TITLE 9
CLAIM, FROM THE SMALL BALANCE REMAINING AFTER PAYING THE TITLE 8
TAXES.  CF. NOTE 9.  HAD THIS AMOUNT, SOME $128, ALSO BEEN AWARDED TO
THE UNITED STATES, ROUGHLY ONLY $22 WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT FOR THE
STATE.  THE OPINION GAVE NO CONSIDERATION TO THIS QUESTION, AND BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO APPLY FOR CERTIORARI REGARDING IT WE WERE
PREVENTED FROM CONSIDERING IT. 

FN15  AN ADDITIONAL REASON WAS THAT THE TAXES AGAINST WHICH CREDIT
WAS CLAIMED WERE NOT TAXES FOR THE YEARS TO WHICH SEC. 602(B) EXPRESSLY
LIMITED THE CREDIT IT ALLOWED.  INSTEAD SEC. 602(A) OF THE 1943 ACT,
SEE NOTE 13, ALLOWED CONDITIONAL CREDIT FOR THE TAX YEARS INVOLVED IN
ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES AND THE STATE SOUGHT TO SECURE IT.  BUT THE
ILLINOIS COURT HELD SEC. 602(A) ALSO INAPPLICABLE ON THE FACTS AND
DENIED THE 81 PER CENT CREDIT BECAUSE THE ASSETS WERE IN THE HANDS OF A
COMMON-LAW ASSIGNEE, NOT IN THE CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF A COURT-APPOINTED
RECEIVER OR OTHER OFFICIAL AS THE SECTION REQUIRED FOR THE CREDIT TO BE
AVAILABLE.  391 ILL. AT 37. 

FN16  391 ILL. AT 39, 40; CF. 328 U.S. AT 11.  THE ILLINOIS COURT
HELD "THE FULL AMOUNT" OF THE PAYROLL (TITLE 9) TAXES TO BE "TAXES DUE
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."  IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, IT SAID, THIS WAS TRUE
OF "100 PER CENT OF THE TAXES LEVIED," WHICH "CONTINUES TO BE TAXES DUE
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EITHER UNTIL IT IS ALL PAID TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, OR 90 PER CENT IS PAID TO THE STATE AND THE BALANCE TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."  THE PROVISIONS FOR CREDIT, THE OPINION CONTINUED,
"DO NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE TAXES IMPOSED.  THEY ARE STILL
TAXES DUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTE A DEBT DUE TO THE
UNITED STATES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 3466 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES."  ID. 40, 41. 

FN17  391 ILL. 42, 46. 

FN18  IBID.  THE ORDER FOR JUDGMENT IN ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES
MERELY REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CAUSE "WITH
DIRECTIONS TO ENTER A DECREE FINDING THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED
TO PRIORITY OF PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT, AND
ORDERING DISTRIBUTION ACCORDINGLY."  391 ILL. AT 46.  SEE NOTE 14 FOR
THE DIRECTIONS IN THE CAMPBELL CASE. 

FN19  SEE NOTES 10, 11.  THE CASES WERE OBVIOUSLY TEST CASES DESIGNED
TO SETTLE THE QUESTION OF PRIORITY GENERALLY, I.E., NOT MERELY FOR ONE
BUT FOR ALL FEDERAL TAXES AND THUS PROVIDE A CERTAIN BASIS FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT IN BOTH ITS INSURANCE AND ITS
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FEATURES. 

FN20  CF. THE DISTRICT COURT'S VIEW, NOTE 4 SUPRA; AND NOTE 7. 
ILLINOIS AND MASSACHUSETTS IN FACT URGE DIFFERENT METHODS OF
ALLOCATION, EACH DIFFERING FROM THE ONE APPLIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 
FROM THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR TITLE 9 DISTRIBUTION, MASSACHUSETTS WOULD
PAY THE STATE CLAIM FIRST AND CORRESPONDINGLY REDUCE THE FEDERAL
CLAIM.  ILLINOIS WOULD MAKE A PRO RATA DISTRIBUTION OF 10 PER CENT OF
THE AVAILABLE FUNDS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND 90 PER CENT TO THE
STATE, WHILE THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD PAY THE FEDERAL 10 PER CENT FIRST
AND APPLY THE BALANCE REMAINING ON THE STATE CLAIM.    FN21  SINCE THE
FUND WAS NOT LARGE ENOUGH IN EITHER CASE TO PAY ALL THE FEDERAL CLAIMS
IN FULL. 

FN22  HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLES ARE STATED IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S
OPINION, 65 F.SUPP.  763, AND IN THE BRIEFS FILED HERE. 

FN23  POSSIBLY THE CONCESSION WAS INTENDED AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE
ALTERNATIVE TO OTHER AND BROADER POSITIONS.  IN ANY EVENT, WE ARE NOT
BOUND TO ACCEPT IT AS EITHER SOUND OR CONCLUSIVE OF THE LITIGATION.  IT
IS NOT, EVEN IN TERMS, A CONFESSION OF ERROR. 

THESE OBSERVATIONS APPLY EQUALLY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S FURTHER DAMAGING
STATEMENT SET FORTH IN THE SENTENCE FOLLOWING THE ONE TO WHICH THIS
FOOTNOTE IS APPENDED. 

FN24  THE FEDERAL PRIORITY HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY SUSTAINED FOR TAX
CLAIMS.  UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. 353(UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION TAXES AND A DEBT ARISING OUT OF A FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION TRANSACTION); UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 314 U.S.
480(GASOLINE TAXES); NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S. 290(INCOME TAXES AND
A CLAIM FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE REPLACEMENT OF A BUOY DAMAGED BY
THE INSOLVENT); SPOKANE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 80(INCOME
TAXES AND PENALTIES); PRICE V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 492(INCOME TAXES
AND CUSTOMS DUTIES); STRIPE V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 503(INCOME,
EXCESS PROFITS, AND CAPITAL STOCK TAXES). 

JUDGMENTS RECOVERED BY THE UNITED STATES ALSO ARE DEBTS ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY.  UNITED STATES V. KNOTT, 298 U.S. 544(AGAINST SURETY ON
ESTREATED BAIL BONDS); HUNTER V. UNITED STATES, 5 PET. 173(AGAINST
SURETY). 

OTHER DEBTS FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO HAVE PRIORITY
UNDER SEC. 3466 ARE:  UNITED STATES V. REMUND, 330 U.S. 539(EMERGENCY
LOANS MADE BY FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION); UNITED STATES V. EMORY, 314
U.S. 423(SUM DUE ON NOTE HELD UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT); BRAMWELL
V. U.S. FIDELITY CO., 269 U.S. 483(INDIAN FUNDS DEPOSITED IN BANK);
UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 254 U.S. 73(LOSSES WHERE
CONTRACTOR DEFAULTED); BAYNE V. UNITED STATES, 93 U.S.
642(MISAPPROPRIATED ARMY PAYMASTER FUNDS); LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 92
U.S. 618(FUNDS HELD BY NAVY DISBURSING AGENTS); UNITED STATES V. STATE
BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, 6 PET. 29(BONDS FOR CUSTOMS DUTIES); UNITED
STATES V. FISHER, 2 CRANCH 358(CLAIM AGAINST ENDORSER OF PROTESTED BILL
OF EXCHANGE). 

FN25  SEE NOTE 8 SUPRA. 

FN26  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TERM "DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES"
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED WITH SOME LIBERALITY.  SEE, E.G., PRICE V. UNITED
STATES, 269 U.S. 492, 500; UNITED STATES V. EMORY, 314 U.S. 423, 426. 
AND THERE IS APPARENTLY NO DECISION EXPRESSLY RULING THE MATTERS OF
CONTINGENCY OF THE OBLIGATION OR OF THE PRIORITY UPON SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
NOT CERTAIN.  CF. UNITED STATES V. MARXEN, 307 U.S. 200.  BUT THE FACT
THAT THE PROBLEM HAS NOT SQUARELY ARISEN IN THE LONG HISTORY OF SEC.
3466 AND THAT ALL OF THE DECISIONS SUSTAINING THE PRIORITY WERE FOR
DEBTS CLEARLY DUE AND OWING, ADDS FORCE TO THE CLEAR INFERENCES
IMPLICIT IN THE STATUTE'S WORDING, VIZ., THAT CONGRESS NOT ONLY CREATED
A CONCLUSIVE PRIORITY ATTACHING AS OF THE TIME OF INSOLVENCY BUT IN
DOING SO DREW THE LINE FOR ITS OPERATION CLOSE TO, IF NOT AT, THE
COMMONLY ACCEPTED MEANING OF "DEBT" AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER FORMS
OF OBLIGATION. 

FN27  SEE NOTES 24, 26. 

FN28  AGAIN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "PAYMENT" AND "SATISFACTION"
BECOMES PERTINENT.  TO CONSTRUE THE TERM "SATISFIED" IN SEC. 3466 AS
BEING FULFILLED BY TAKING SUBSEQUENT CREDIT, AS THE STATES URGE, WOULD
BE TO QUALIFY THE WORD "DEBTS" SO AS TO MAKE IT INCLUDE CONDITIONAL
OBLIGATIONS. 

FN29  CONGRESS, OF COURSE, COULD PROVIDE FOR FEDERAL PRIORITY AS TO
ALL TAXES EXCEPT TITLE 9 CLAIMS.  BUT, APART FROM THE EXPLICIT
EXCEPTIONS CREATED BY SEC. 602(A) AND (B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943
WITH REFERENCE TO FUNDS OF INSOLVENTS IN THE HANDS OF COURT-APPOINTED
OFFICIALS, SEE PART II, NOTES 13, 15, CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE SO EITHER
BY ANY WORDING OR INTENT OF REV. STAT. SEC. 3466, NOR IN OUR VIEW BY
SEC. 902 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT IT INTENDED
TO MAKE THE STATE'S CLAIM SUBJECT TO ALL OTHER FEDERAL TAXES, BUT PRIOR
TO ALL BUT 10 PER CENT OF THE TITLE 9 TAXES.  SEE TEXT INFRA PART IV.
NO INSTANCE HAS BEEN FOUND WHERE SEC. 3466 HAS BEEN APPLIED TO CREATE
SUCH A SELECTIVE PRIORITY AS AMONG FEDERAL CLAIMS QUALIFYING AS "DEBTS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3466. 

FN30  OF THE SEVERAL AMENDMENTS, NONE IS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. 
THE ONLY ONES RELATING EXPRESSLY TO INSOLVENTS' ESTATES ARE THOSE NOTED
IN PART II, SEE NOTES 13, 15 AND TEXT, 31, APPLYING TO PAYMENTS BY
COURT-APPOINTED RECEIVERS, ETC. 

FN31  THUS, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT AND CREDIT
GIVEN BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943, SECS. 602(A)(3) AND (B), 58 STAT. 77,
IS LIMITED TO SITUATIONS WHERE AN INSOLVENT'S ASSETS WERE UNDER THE
CONTROL OF A COURT OR ITS APPOINTED OFFICIAL.  CONGRESS QUITE OBVIOUSLY
HAD THE INSOLVENT TAXPAYER IN MIND.  BUT EVEN SO IT EXCLUDED NON
JUDICIAL CUSTODIANS OF HIS ASSETS BY ITS FAILURE TO EXTEND THE
RELAXATION TO THEM.  THE OMISSION CANNOT BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN
UNINTENTIONAL THE NECESSARY EFFECT IN THE ONE CASE WAS TO CREATE A
LEGISLATIVE EXCEPTION TO SEC. 3466, IN THE OTHER TO DENY IT BY THE
WITHHOLDING OF THE LIKE PRIVILEGE.  SO ALSO WITH THE OTHER EASING
AMENDMENTS. 

FN32  CF. STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548. 

FN33  IT IS PRECISELY IN MATTERS WHERE CONGRESS HAS USED THE TAX AND
CREDIT TECHNIQUE THAT DISREGARDING THE FORM CHOSEN OFFERS THE GRAVEST
DANGERS OF PERVERTING A STATUTE'S PURPOSES.  WE THINK THAT POSSIBILITY
IS EQUALLY AS GREAT HERE FROM IGNORING CONGRESS' EXPRESSED INTENT, BOTH
IN LIMITING THE RIGHT OF CREDIT TO DEFINED SITUATIONS AND IN ITS
FAILURE EXPRESSLY TO QUALIFY THE BROAD POLICY OF SEC. 3466, AS WOULD BE
THE OTHER ONE OF REACHING ITS PURPOSE BY GIVING EFFECT TO ITS EXPLICIT
LIMITATIONS. 

FN34  SECTIONS 904 AND 1201 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 58 STAT. 789,
50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946) SECS. 1666-1667, AS AMENDED, 61 STAT.
793, 794, SECS. 4-5.  SECTION 904 ESTABLISHED A FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT
ACCOUNT IN THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, AND APPROPRIATED THE EXCESS OF
TITLE 9 TAXES OVER UNEMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO SUCH
ACCOUNT.  SECTION 1201 AUTHORIZED LOANS FROM SUCH ACCOUNT TO THE STATES
FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS WHEN A STATE'S UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE FUND BECOMES DANGEROUSLY LOW, REPAYMENT OF SUCH ADVANCES NOT
BEING REQUIRED UNLESS THE STATE FUND REGAINS A STABLE CONDITION.  SEE
S. REP. NO. 477, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 9-10. 

FN35  SEE, E.G., MASS. ANN. LAWS, C. 151A, SEC. 17(1942); CAL. GEN.
LAWS, ACT 8780D, SEC. 46(1944); IOWA CODE, SEC. 96.14(3)(1946); OKLA.
STAT., TIT. 40, SEC. 224(C)(1941). 

FN36  UNLESS IN THIS CASE WE SHOULD UNDERTAKE TO SAY, AS WE HAVE NOT
BEEN ASKED OR AUTHORIZED TO DO, THAT BY IMPLIED FORCE OF SEC. 902,
STATE PRIORITIES ARE RELEGATED TO A POSITION INFERIOR TO THE TAXPAYER'S
RIGHT TO PAY THE STATE AND TAKE FEDERAL CREDIT.  NOTHING IN THE STATUTE
SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE THE TAXPAYER OR THIS COURT THE
POWER THUS TO DISORDER THE STATES' SCHEMES OF PRIORITIES. 

FN37  IF THE LITIGATED CASES, OF WHICH THE ONES THAT HAVE COME HERE
SEEM TO BE TYPICAL, AND COMMON OBSERVATION MAY BE TAKEN AS FAIRLY
ACCURATE BASES FOR JUDGMENT. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN SOME CASES OF INSOLVENCY THE BUSINESS CONTINUES
WITHOUT BEING WOUND UP.  BUT THIS PERHAPS IS MUCH MORE OFTEN THE CASE
WHEN OPERATION IS CONTINUED UNDER JUDICIAL CONTROL THAN OTHERWISE.  AND
WHEN THAT IS THE SITUATION, INSOFAR AS THE 1943 AMENDMENT APPLIES THE
PAYMENT MAY BE MADE AND CREDIT OBTAINED.  INSOFAR AS IT DOES NOT APPLY
THE AMENDMENT IS A CLEAR MANDATE AGAINST ALLOWING THAT TO BE DONE. 

FN38  THE ORIGINAL DEPARTURES INDEED DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT
EXCEPTIONS WERE BEING MADE.  THEY CONCEIVED THAT THE FUNDS OR PROPERTY
AFFECTED, BEING COVERED BY MORTGAGE, BELONGED IN FACT TO THIRD PERSONS,
NOT TO THE INSOLVENT DEBTOR.  THELUSSON V. SMITH, 2 WHEAT.  396, 426;
CONARD V. ATLANTIC INS. CO., 1 PET. 386; BRENT V. BANK OF WASHINGTON,
10 PET. 596, 611; SEE SAVINGS SOCIETY V. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, 169 U.S.
421, 428; CF. UNITED STATES V. FISHER, 2 CRANCH 358; UNITED STATES V.
HOOE, 3 CRANCH 73.  THE COURT HAS BEEN LOATH TO EXPAND THESE
EXCEPTIONS, CF. ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, 329 U.S. 362, 370, TO INCLUDE
OTHER TYPES OF LIEN.  THE CLAIMS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND ILLINOIS DO NOT
FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THOSE EXCEPTIONS OR OF OTHERS AS TO WHICH THE
COURT HAS FELT THAT SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION AUTHORIZED THEM.  CF. COOK
COUNTY NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445; UNITED STATES V.
GUARANTY TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THIS DECISION ANNOUNCES AN UNNECESSARILY RUTHLESS INTERPRETATION OF A
STATUTE THAT AT ITS BEST IS AN ARBITRARY ONE.  THE STATUTE BY WHICH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GIVES ITS OWN CLAIMS AGAINST AN INSOLVENT PRIORITY
OVER CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF A STATE GOVERNMENT MUST BE APPLIED BY COURTS,
NOT BECAUSE FEDERAL CLAIMS ARE MORE MERITORIOUS OR EQUITABLE, BUT ONLY
BECAUSE THAT GOVERNMENT HAS MORE POWER.  BUT THE PRIORITY STATUTE IS AN
ASSERTION OF FEDERAL SUPREMACY AS AGAINST ANY CONTRARY STATE POLICY. 
IT IS NOT A LIMITATION ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF, NOT AN
ASSERTION THAT THE PRIORITY POLICY SHALL PREVAIL OVER ALL OTHER FEDERAL
POLICIES.  ITS GENERALITIES SHOULD NOT LIGHTLY BE CONSTRUED TO
FRUSTRATE A SPECIFIC POLICY EMBODIED IN A LATER FEDERAL STATUTE. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS SUED TO ENFORCE A PERSONAL LIABILITY
AGAINST ONE WHO, AS ASSIGNEE, PAID TO THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS FUNDS
WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CLAIMS BY VIRTUE OF ITS STATUTORY
PRIORITY.  DEFENDANT WAS THE ASSIGNEE OF A SMALL CONCERN UNDER A COMMON
LAW ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.  THE ASSETS DID NOT REALIZE
ENOUGH TO PAY BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE TAX CLAIMS.  THE UNITED STATES
FILED A CLAIM, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR 100% OF THE TAXES LAID BY TITLE
9 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, WHICH, HOWEVER, PROVIDES FOR A 90% CREDIT
AGAINST THE FEDERAL TAX IF THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID INTO AN APPROVED
STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND.  BELIEVING THAT HE WAS ENTITLED
THEREBY TO PAY THE STATE AND TO CLAIM THE CREDIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL
TAX, THIS ASSIGNEE PAID $803.72 ON THE CLAIM OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR TAXES
UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT.  THIS IS THE SUM
NOW DEMANDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

THE REASONING ON WHICH THE ASSIGNEE IS HELD LIABLE AND THE STATE IS
REQUIRED TO TURN THIS AMOUNT OVER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THIS:
TRUE SEC. 902 GIVES A 90% CREDIT.  BUT, LITERALLY, IT IS ONLY FOR
ACTUAL PAYMENT TO THE STATE.  ON INSOLVENCY, THE FEDERAL PRIORITY
STATUTE, SO IT IS HELD, INTERVENES AND FREEZES THE FUNDS IN THE
ASSIGNEE'S HANDS SO THAT HE CANNOT PAY THE STATE UNTIL HE HAS FIRST
PAID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  HENCE, UNLESS HE HAS ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY
BOTH CLAIMS IN FULL, THE PRIORITY STATUTE PREVENTS HIM FROM TAKING THE
CREDIT WHICH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT GRANTS HIM, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
COLLECTS A WINDFALL TEN TIMES WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE ITS DUE, AND THE
STATE GOVERNMENT GETS NOTHING ON ITS TAX CLAIM.  THIS COURT NOW SO
CONSTRUES THE PRIORITY STATUTE AS NOT MERELY TO PREFER NET CLAIMS OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT ALSO AS A PROHIBITION AGAINST COURTS
MARSHALING THE ASSETS OF AN INSOLVENT IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE DECLINED TO SUPPORT THIS HARSH REASONING.  HE IS
ONE WHOSE VIEWS OF THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT ARE ENTITLED
TO GREAT WEIGHT, BECAUSE OF HIS EXPERIENCE WITH IT.  SEE STEWARD
MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, AT 553.  HE CONSIDERED THAT AS TO
90% OF THE FEDERAL TAX, THE TAXPAYER IN EFFECT WAS GIVEN AN OPTION TO
PAY IT TO THE APPROVED STATE FUND OR TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  HE
SAID: 

"THE FORCE OF THAT ANALYSIS SEEMED TO ME THE MORE PERSUASIVE WHEN THE
TRUE NATURE OF TITLE IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AS PORTRAYED IN
CHARLES C. STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, ...  WAS
STRESSED.  AS TO 90 PER CENT OF THE TAXES UNDER THAT TITLE THE
OBJECTIVE OF CONGRESS WAS NOT TO COLLECT FEDERAL REVENUES BUT TO
STIMULATE THE CREATION OF AND PAYMENT TO STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION FUNDS.  IT WOULD DEFEAT OBVIOUS CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO
LAY DOWN A RULE WHICH REQUIRED THAT THIS 90 PER CENT SHOULD GO TO
SATISFY A TITLE IX TAX CLAIM INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE DIRECT BENEFIT OF
CLAIMANTS UNDER STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PLANS." 

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS COURT'S REFUSAL TO FOLLOW HIS REASONING ARE
SO INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT THAT THEY
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY A REASONABLE CONGRESS.  WHAT THE COURT
IS DOING PRACTICALLY IS THIS: 

1.  THE COURT IS GIVING THE FEDERAL TREASURY A PAYMENT FROM AN
INSOLVENT TAXPAYER TEN TIMES AS LARGE AS CONGRESS EXACTED FROM A
SOLVENT TAXPAYER UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE 90% WAS NEVER
CONTEMPLATED AS FEDERAL REVENUE, BUT CREDIT FOR THAT AMOUNT WAS
INTENDED TO BE AVAILED OF, TO INDUCE STATES TO CREATE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION FUNDS AND TO MAINTAIN THEM IN SOLVENT CONDITION. 

2.  THE COURT IS DEPRIVING THE STATE OF A REVENUE CONGRESS NOT ONLY
TRIED TO ASSURE IT, BUT ONE WHICH IT USED THE TAX AND CREDIT DEVICE TO
IMPEL THE STATE TO COLLECT.  SEE STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S.
548. 

3.  THIS UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE
DEPLETION OF STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUNDS IS ACCOMPLISHED BY HOLDING THAT
THE PRIORITY STATUTE PROHIBITS SIMULTANEOUS DISTRIBUTION TO EACH, STATE
AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OF THE NET AMOUNT ACTUALLY DUE, TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT SUCH SIMULTANEOUS PAYMENTS, AND BY REQUIRING INSTEAD THAT THE
TOTAL FEDERAL TAX BE PAID IN FULL AND FIRST IN POINT OF TIME, WHICH IN
THIS CASE DEPLETES THE ESTATE SO THAT THE ASSIGNEE CANNOT THEREAFTER
MAKE THE STATE PAYMENT TO OBTAIN THE FEDERAL CREDIT.  IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THE FEDERAL PRIORITY STATUTE CANNOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO DO MORE
THAN SECURE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHAT BECOMES FAIRLY DUE IT ON A
MARSHALING OF ASSETS AS COURTS OF EQUITY USUALLY DO.    4.  THIS
INTERPRETATION PREJUDICES GENERAL CREDITORS BY PLACING AHEAD OF THEM
$190 OF TAX CLAIMS FOR EVERY $100 ACTUALLY OWING.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE
MAXIMUM TAX FOR BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS IS THAT LAID BY
THE FEDERAL ACT - LET US SAY IT AMOUNTS TO $1,000.  IT CAN BE
DISCHARGED BY PAYMENT OF $1,000, $900 PAID TO THE APPROVED STATE FUND
AND $100 TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  BUT UNDER THIS RULING THE
INSOLVENT MUST PAY THE $1,000 IN FULL TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THAT,
OF COURSE, LEAVES THE STATE TAX UNDISCHARGED, WHICH CALLS FOR PAYMENT
OF ANOTHER $900 BEFORE ANYTHING CAN BE LEFT FOR THE GENERAL CREDITORS. 
THUS, WHERE AN EQUITABLE MARSHALING OF ASSETS TO PAY JUST CLAIMS WOULD
PUT $1,000 OF TAXES AHEAD OF GENERAL CREDITORS, THE COURT'S RULING PUTS
$1,900 AHEAD OF GENERAL CREDITORS.  THE COURT EVEN GOES SO FAR AS TO
REJECT CONCESSIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT DESIGNED TO MITIGATE, IN THIS
RESPECT AT LEAST, THE HARSHNESS OF THIS RULE. 

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PRIORITY ACT TO THUS GOUGE THE STATES AND
PRIVATE CREDITORS IS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE AND SPIRIT OF THE ACT
ITSELF.  OVER A CENTURY AGO MR. JUSTICE STORY DEFINED THE "MOTIVES OF
PUBLIC POLICY" WHICH UNDERLIE THE PRIORITY STATUTES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO BE "IN ORDER TO SECURE AN ADEQUATE REVENUE TO SUSTAIN THE
PUBLIC BURTHENS AND DISCHARGE THE PUBLIC DEBTS...."  UNITED STATES V.
STATE BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA (1832), 6 PET. 29, 35.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT
AS TO THE 90% OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAX HERE INVOLVED, IT WAS NOT
CONTEMPLATED AS FEDERAL REVENUE TO MEET FEDERAL BURDENS BUT WAS LAID TO
INDUCE AND TO ENABLE THE STATE TO ASSUME SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS TO THE
UNEMPLOYED.  THE PRIORITY STATUTE IS NOW INVOKED TO DENY, IN THIS CLASS
OF CASES, THE AID PROMISED IN MEETING THESE OBLIGATIONS. 

WHEN A LATER STATUTE HAS ENACTED A COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL POLICY IN
ANOTHER FIELD AND CREATED A FEDERAL INTEREST IN THE ADVERSE CLAIMANT'S
SOLVENCY OR FUNCTION, THIS COURT HAS RARELY, AND NEVER UNTIL RECENTLY,
HESITATED TO INTERPRET THE OLD AND GENERAL PRIORITY STATUTE AS YIELDING
TO THE NEWER AND SPECIFIC STATUTORY SCHEME.  COOK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK
V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445; UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO.,
280 U.S. 478; CF. CALLAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 285 U.S. 515.  SEE ALSO
DISSENT IN UNITED STATES V. EMORY, 314 U.S. 423 AT 433.  THE PROBLEM
HERE IS NOT WHETHER A MERE STATE CLAIM CAN DEFEAT ONE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, BUT WHETHER ONE FEDERAL STATUTE WILL BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO
DEFEAT THE MANIFEST POLICY OF ANOTHER. 

THE COURT'S OPINION, HOWEVER, GOES TO SOME LENGTHS TO SHOW THAT THE
COURT AS A WHOLE AND WITHOUT DISSENT ON THIS POINT HAS BECOME COMMITTED
TO THE INTERPRETATION IT ADOPTS, AND BY UNUSUAL DEFERENCE TO THE
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS DECLARES ITSELF BOUND HAND AND FOOT TO FULL
FEDERAL PRIORITY.  I AM UNABLE TO DETECT THE COMMITMENT WHICH THE COURT
SO CLEARLY SEES.  BUT IF I HAVE AGREED TO ANY PRIOR DECISION WHICH
FORECLOSES WHAT NOW SEEMS TO BE A SENSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ACT, I
MUST FRANKLY ADMIT THAT I WAS UNAWARE OF IT.  HOWEVER, NO RIGHTS HAVE
VESTED AND NO PREJUDICIAL ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN IN RELIANCE UPON SUCH A
RULING.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF
CONGRESS AND IN EFFECT APPROVED BY FAILURE TO ACT.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, EXCEPT FOR ANY PERSONAL HUMILIATION INVOLVED IN
ADMITTING THAT I DO NOT ALWAYS UNDERSTAND THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT, I
SEE NO REASON WHY I SHOULD BE CONSCIOUSLY WRONG TODAY BECAUSE I WAS
UNCONSCIOUSLY WRONG YESTERDAY. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND ALLOW FEDERAL PRIORITY ONLY SUBJECT
TO THE 90% CREDIT FOR SUMS DISBURSED TO THE STATE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAX. 
..END :












BUTE V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 640 


NO. 398.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 19, 1948.  - 396
ILL. 588, 72 N.E.2D 813, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PETITIONER, A 57-YEAR-OLD MAN, PLEADED GUILTY IN A STATE COURT TO
TWO INDICTMENTS FOR THE NONCAPITAL OFFENSE OF "TAKING INDECENT
LIBERTIES WITH CHILDREN" AND WAS SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR ONE TO 20
YEARS FOR EACH OFFENSE.  THE INDICTMENTS WERE IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE AND
EASY TO UNDERSTAND; AND THERE WAS NO CLAIM THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO
UNDERSTAND THEM OR THAT HE WAS INCAPABLE OF INTELLIGENTLY AND
COMPETENTLY PLEADING GUILTY.  THE RECORDS SHOWED THAT PETITIONER
APPEARED "IN HIS OWN PROPER PERSON" AND THAT, BEFORE ACCEPTING HIS
PLEAS OF GUILTY, THE COURT EXPLAINED THE CONSEQUENCES AND PENALTIES;
BUT THE RECORDS WERE SILENT ON THE SUBJECT OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE. 
HELD: 

(A)  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, SUCH SILENCE IN THE RECORDS
AS TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE DOES NOT SUFFICE TO INVALIDATE THE
SENTENCES UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
PP. 644, 670-677. 

(B)  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING BEYOND THAT IN THE RECORDS IN THIS
CASE, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT
REQUIRE THE STATE COURT TO INQUIRE AS TO PETITIONER'S DESIRE TO BE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, HIS ABILITY TO PROCURE COUNSEL, OR HIS DESIRE
TO HAVE COUNSEL ASSIGNED TO HIM; NOR DID IT REQUIRE THE STATE COURT TO
OFFER OR ASSIGN COUNSEL TO HIM.  PP. 644, 670-677. 

2.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THE SEVERAL STATES TO CONFORM THE PROCEDURE OF THEIR STATE
CRIMINAL TRIALS TO THE PRECISE PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, EVEN TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IS PRESCRIBED BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR BILL OF RIGHTS.  PP. 649, 656. 

3.  IT HAS REFERENCE RATHER TO A STANDARD OF PROCESS THAT MAY COVER
MANY VARIETIES OF PROCESSES THAT ARE EXPRESSIVE OF DIFFERING
COMBINATIONS OF HISTORICAL OR MODERN, LOCAL OR OTHER JURIDICAL
STANDARDS, PROVIDED THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE "FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR
CIVIL AND POLITICAL SITUATIONS."  P. 649. 

4.  IT LEAVES ROOM FOR MUCH OF THE FREEDOM WHICH, UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PURPOSES, WAS ORIGINALLY
RESERVED TO THE STATES FOR THEIR EXERCISE OF THEIR OWN POLICE POWERS
AND FOR THEIR CONTROL OVER THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN CRIMINAL
TRIALS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COURTS IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
HISTORIES AND NEEDS.  PP. 649-653, 663, 675. 

5.  IT IS DESCRIPTIVE OF A BROAD REGULATORY POWER OVER EACH STATE AND
NOT OF A MAJOR TRANSFER BY THE STATES TO THE UNITED STATES OF THE
PRIMARY AND PRE-EXISTING POWER OF THE STATES OVER COURT PROCEDURES IN
STATE CRIMINAL CASES.  P. 653. 

6.  BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION, DURING NEARLY 80 FORMATIVE YEARS,
PERMITTED EACH STATE TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ACCUSTOM ITS PEOPLE TO
ITS OWN FORMS OF "DUE PROCESS OF LAW," A SUBSTANTIAL PRESUMPTION ARISES
IN FAVOR OF, RATHER THAN AGAINST, THE LAWFULNESS OF THOSE PROCEDURES
AND IN FAVOR OF THEIR RIGHT TO CONTINUED RECOGNITION BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AS "DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  P. 653. 

7.  WHILE SUCH A PRESUMPTION DOES NOT ARISE IN FAVOR OF ANY PRACTICE
AGAINST WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS PARTICULARLY DIRECTED, THERE
IS NO REASON TO FEEL THAT IT WAS PARTICULARLY DIRECTED AGAINST THE
PRACTICE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  PP. 653-654. 

8.  A PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY A STATE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS SHOULD NOT BE
HELD TO VIOLATE THE STANDARD OF PERMISSIBLE PROCESS OF LAW BROADLY
RECOGNIZED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UNLESS IT VIOLATES "THE VERY
ESSENCE OF A SCHEME OF ORDERED LIBERTY" AND ITS CONTINUANCE WOULD
"VIOLATE A 'PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE SO ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND
CONSCIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AS TO BE RANKED AS FUNDAMENTAL.'"  P. 659. 

9.  RULE 44 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PERTAINING TO
THE ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL TO DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES IN FEDERAL
COURTS, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS DEFINING, EVEN BY ANALOGY, THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS FOR THE STATES UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 662-663. 

10.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THIS COURT TO
REQUIRE ALL STATES TO ENFORCE IN SUBSTANCE EITHER RULE 44 OF THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OR SEC. 203 OF THE PROPOSED CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RECOMMENDED BY THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE.  P. 665. 

11.  IT IS NOT THE PROVINCE OF THIS COURT TO PRESCRIBE WHICH
PROCEDURE IT CONSIDERS PREFERABLE AMONG MANY PERMISSIBLE PROCEDURES
WHICH COULD BE FOLLOWED BY A STATE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH COUNSEL FOR
THE DEFENSE OF A PARTY ACCUSED OF A STATE CRIME.  P. 670. 

12.  IT IS THE PROVINCE OF THIS COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PRACTICE
FOLLOWED BY A STATE COURT IN A PARTICULAR CASE, ALTHOUGH ADMITTEDLY IN
CONFORMITY WITH STATE LAW, WAS SO CLEARLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURE CONSTITUTING "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT THAT THE JUDGMENTS MUST BE COMPLETELY INVALIDATED.  P. 670. 

13.  THE COMMON-LAW RECORD OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN A STATE COURT FOR A
NONCAPITAL OFFENSE IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED UNRELIABLE SOLELY BECAUSE IT
IS ALMOST EXACTLY IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATE STATUTE PRESCRIBING THE
PROCEDURE IN SUCH CASES.  P. 670. 

14.  IN PASSING UPON CLAIMS OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW CONTRARY
TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN STATE CRIMINAL TRIALS, DOUBTS SHOULD BE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE INTEGRITY, COMPETENCE AND PROPER PERFORMANCE
OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES BY THE JUDGE AND THE STATE'S ATTORNEY LAWFULLY
CHOSEN TO DISCHARGE SERIOUS PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THEIR OATHS
OF OFFICE.  PP. 671-672. 

15.  IF ANY PRESUMPTION IS TO BE INDULGED AS A RESULT OF SILENCE
REGARDING COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE IN THE RECORD OF A STATE CRIMINAL
TRIAL FOR A NONCAPITAL OFFENSE, IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED THAT THE STATE
COURT CONSTITUTIONALLY DISCHARGED, RATHER THAN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
DISREGARDED, ITS STATE AND FEDERAL DUTIES TO THE DEFENDANT, INCLUDING
THOSE RELATING TO HIS RIGHT, IF ANY, TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  P.
672. 

16. AFFIRMANCE OF THE SENTENCES BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT
CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.  P. 668. 

17.  WHILE SUCH A FINDING OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW IS NOT
NECESSARILY SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT IS HELPFUL, IN MEASURING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE LATTER, TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WERE THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW. 
PP. 668-670. 

18.  IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE STATUTES (QUOTED IN THE
OPINION AT PP. 668-670), THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE SENTENCES BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT, AND THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS TO THE CONTRARY, THE SILENCE
OF THE RECORDS IS ADEQUATE GROUND FOR THE MINIMUM CONCLUSION THAT
PETITIONER DID NOT REQUEST COUNSEL AND DID NOT STATE UNDER OATH THAT HE
WAS "UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL."  PP. 672-673. 

19.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REQUEST BY PETITIONER FOR COUNSEL AND IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATEMENT BY HIM THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO PROCURE
COUNSEL, THE COURT DID NOT VIOLATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY THE PROCEDURE WHICH IT FOLLOWED
AND WHICH ACCORDED WITH THE PROCEDURE APPROVED BY THE STATE FOR
NONCAPITAL CASES SUCH AS THESE.  PP. 673-674. 

20.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER PETITIONER, BY HIS PLEA
OF GUILTY OR OTHERWISE, AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVED ANY RIGHT TO COUNSEL, FOR
NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL HAD ARISEN IN HIS
FAVOR.  P. 673. 

21.  SINCE THE OFFENSES WITH WHICH PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WERE OF A
NONCAPITAL NATURE, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
IN AND OF ITSELF, DID NOT REQUIRE THE STATE TRIAL COURT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES TO INITIATE AN INQUIRY INTO HIS DESIRE TO
BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OR INTO HIS ABILITY TO OBTAIN COUNSEL, NOR,
IN THE EVENT OF HIS INABILITY TO OBTAIN COUNSEL, DID IT REQUIRE THE
TRIAL COURT TO ASSIGN COUNSEL TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE - THOUGH IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN REQUIRED BOTH BY THE STATE STATUTE AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO TAKE SOME SUCH STEPS IF HE HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH A CAPITAL
OFFENSE.  P. 674. 

BUTE V. ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AFFIRMED PETITIONER'S CONVICTIONS UNDER
TWO INDICTMENTS FOR THE NONCAPITAL OFFENSE OF "TAKING INDECENT
LIBERTIES WITH CHILDREN."  396 ILL. 588, 72 N.E.2D 813.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 756.  AFFIRMED, P. 677. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LA SALLE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THE PETITIONER,
ROY BUTE, PLEADED GUILTY TO THE CRIME OF "TAKING INDECENT LIBERTIES
WITH CHILDREN" AS CHARGED IN EACH OF TWO INDICTMENTS AND, ON EACH PLEA,
WAS SENTENCED TO CONFINEMENT IN THE ILLINOIS STATE PENITENTIARY FOR NOT
LESS THAN ONE NOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, THE SENTENCES TO RUN
CONSECUTIVELY.  EACH COMMON LAW RECORD IS SILENT ON THE SUBJECT OF
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER'S DEFENSE.  THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT
EACH STATE SENTENCE SHALL BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES  FN1  BECAUSE EACH COMMON LAW RECORD SHOWS THAT
THE PETITIONER APPEARED "IN HIS OWN PROPER PERSON" AND DOES NOT SHOW
THAT THE COURT INQUIRED AS TO THE PETITIONER'S DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL, OR HIS ABILITY TO PROCURE COUNSEL, OR HIS DESIRE TO HAVE
COUNSEL ASSIGNED TO HIM TO ASSIST HIM IN HIS DEFENSE, OR THAT SUCH
COUNSEL WAS OFFERED OR ASSIGNED TO HIM.  WE HOLD THAT SUCH A SILENCE IN
THE RESPECTIVE RECORDS DOES NOT SUFFICE TO INVALIDATE THE SENTENCES. 
WE HOLD FURTHER THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING BEYOND THAT IN
THESE RECORDS, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID
NOT REQUIRE THE ILLINOIS COURT TO MAKE THE INQUIRIES OR THE OFFER OR
ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL NOW CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT OF THE
PETITIONER. 

AT THE TIME OF THESE INDICTMENTS, JUNE 17, 1938, THE PETITIONER WAS
57 YEARS OLD.  EACH INDICTMENT, IN ITS FIRST COUNT, CHARGED HIM WITH
TAKING INDECENT LIBERTIES ON MAY 19, 1938, WITH A GIRL UNDER THE AGE OF
15, AND, IN ITS SECOND COUNT, WITH ATTEMPTING TO DO SO.  THE FIRST
INDICTMENT RELATED TO A GIRL OF EIGHT AND THE SECOND TO A GIRL OF 11. 
THE OFFENSES CHARGED WERE VIOLATIONS OF ILL. REV. STAT. C. 38, SEC.
109(1937).  FN2 

THE INTELLIGIBILITY OF THE INDICTMENTS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING
LANGUAGE QUOTED FROM THE FIRST: 

"THAT ROY BUTE LATE OF SAID COUNTY, ON TO WIT:  THE 19TH DAY OF MAY
IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT AT
AND WITHIN THE SAID COUNTY OF LA SALLE, THE SAID ROY BUTE BEING A MALE
PERSON OF THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS AND UPWARDS, DID THEN AND
THERE UNLAWFULLY AND FELONIOUSLY TAKE CERTAIN IMMORAL, IMPROPER AND
INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH A CERTAIN FEMALE CHILD, UNDER THE AGE OF
FIFTEEN (15) YEARS, AND OF THE AGE OF EIGHT (8) YEARS, TO-WIT, ...
WITH INTENT OF AROUSING, APPEALING TO AND GRATIFYING THE LUST, PASSION
AND SEXUAL DESIRES OF HIM THE SAID ROY BUTE CONTRARY TO THE FORM OF THE
STATUTE IN SUCH CASE MADE AND PROVIDED, AND AGAINST THE PEACE AND
DIGNITY OF THE SAME PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS."  FN3 

THE MATERIAL PORTIONS OF THE RECORDS IN THESE CASES ARE IDENTICAL,
EXCEPT FOR THE NAMES AND AGES OF THE CHILDREN.  THEY CONTAIN ALL THAT
WAS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS OR THAT IS BEFORE THIS COURT. 
THE FOLLOWING APPEARS IN EACH:

            "ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA OF GUILTY - JUNE 20, 1938 

"NOW ON THIS DAY COME THE SAID PEOPLE BY TAYLOR E. WILHELM, STATE'S
ATTORNEY, AND THE SAID DEFENDANT IN HIS OWN PROPER PERSON ALSO COMES;
WHEREUPON THE SAID DEFENDANT IS FURNISHED WITH A COPY OF THE
INDICTMENT, A LIST OF WITNESSES AND JURORS HEREIN. 

"AND THE SAID DEFENDANT BEING NOW ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE BAR OF THIS
COURT MOVES THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO ENTER HIS PLEA OF GUILTY OF THE
CRIME OF TAKING INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH CHILDREN IN MANNER AND FORM AS
CHARGED IN THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT HEREIN; AND THE COURT
HAVING ADMONISHED AND EXPLAINED TO THE SAID DEFENDANT THE CONSEQUENCES
AND PENALTIES, WHICH WILL RESULT FROM SAID PLEA, AND THE SAID DEFENDANT
STILL PERSISTING IN HIS DESIRE TO ENTER HIS PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE CRIME
OF TAKING INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH CHILDREN, IN MANNER AND FORM AS
CHARGED IN THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT HEREIN, THE COURT GRANTS
SUCH LEAVE. 

"THEREUPON THE SAID DEFENDANT ENTERS HIS PLEA OF GUILTY OF THE CRIME
OF TAKING INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH CHILDREN, IN MANNER AND FORM AS
CHARGED IN THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT HEREIN. 

"THEREUPON THE COURT FINDS THE AGE OF THE SAID DEFENDANT TO BE FIFTY
SEVEN (57) YEARS. 

                               "JUDGMENT 

"NOW AGAIN ON THIS DAY COME THE SAID PEOPLE BY TAYLOR E. WILHELM,
STATE'S ATTORNEY, AND THE SAID DEFENDANT ROY BUTE, IN HIS OWN PROPER
PERSON ALSO COMES, AND THE SAID DEFENDANT, ROY BUTE, NOT SAYING
ANYTHING FURTHER WHY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT SHOULD NOT NOW BE
PRONOUNCED AGAINST HIM ON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF TAKING
INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH CHILDREN IN MANNER AND FORM AS CHARGED IN THE
FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT HEREIN, HERETOFORE ENTERED HEREIN. 

"WHEREUPON IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT THE SAID DEFENDANT, ROY
BUTE, BE AND HE IS HEREBY SENTENCED ON SAID PLEA OF GUILTY AS AFORESAID
TO CONFINEMENT IN THE ILLINOIS STATE PENITENTIARY AT JOLIET FOR A
PERIOD OF NOT LESS THAN ONE (1) YEAR, NOR MORE THAN TWENTY (20)
YEARS." 

IN OCTOBER, 1946, THE PETITIONER, WHILE SERVING HIS SENTENCE IN THE
ILLINOIS STATE PENITENTIARY, AND APPEARING PRO SE, FILED IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS MOTIONS ASKING LEAVE "TO SUE AS A POOR PERSON FOR
WRIT OF ERROR  ...  " TO REVIEW EACH OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. 
THESE WERE GRANTED AND HE FILED HIS PETITIONS, PRO SE, BASED UPON THE
COMMON LAW RECORDS IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES.  HE RELIED PARTICULARLY
UPON THE CLAIM THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL, THAT
THE TRIAL COURT HAD NOT ADVISED HIM OF HIS RIGHTS OR OF HIS RIGHT TO
THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND THAT HE HAD BEEN RUSHED TO TRIAL WITH
SUCH EXPEDITION AS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL, ALL OF
WHICH RIGHTS HE CLAIMED WERE GUARANTEED TO HIM BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AFFIRMED BOTH JUDGMENTS.  396 ILL. 588,
72 N.E.2D 813.  IT DENIED EXPRESSLY EACH OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CLAIMS
AND DENIED A REHEARING.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN RECOGNITION OF THE
FREQUENTLY ARISING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.  332 U.S. 756. 
THE PETITIONER'S PRESENTATIONS, PRO SE, WERE MARKED WITH PROFESSIONAL
ACCURACY AND CLARITY BUT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI STATES THAT THE
PETITIONER IS IGNORANT OF THE LAW AS HE WAS AT THE TIME OF HIS TRIAL,
AND THAT THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY HIM PRO SE HAD BEEN PREPARED FOR HIM. 
WE APPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT TO ACT AS COUNSEL FOR
THE PETITIONER HERE AND THE PETITIONER'S CLAIMS HAVE BEEN FULLY AND
COMPETENTLY PRESENTED TO THIS COURT. 

                   EFFECT OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE CASES TURN UPON THE MEANING OF "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN RELATION TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE
DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED IN STATE CRIMINAL TRIALS SUCH AS THESE.  IN
POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, THIS COURT GRANTED RELIEF IN A GROUP OF
CAPITAL CASES WHICH DEMONSTRATED THE ESSENTIAL NEED FOR APPLYING THE
FULL FORCE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE INVALIDATION OF
PURPORTEDLY VALID JUDGMENTS RENDERED IN A STATE COURT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THERE SHOWN.  THOSE AND OTHER LESS EXTREME CASES HAVE
WELL ILLUSTRATED THE KIND OF SERVICE TO THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WHICH CAN
BE RENDERED BY THIS COURT IN THUS GIVING EFFECT TO THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

"THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW CLAUSE IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
TAKE UP THE STATUTES OF THE SEVERAL STATES AND MAKE THEM THE TEST OF
WHAT IT REQUIRES; NOR DOES IT ENABLE THIS COURT TO REVISE THE DECISIONS
OF THE STATE COURTS ON QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW.  WHAT IT DOES REQUIRE IS
THAT STATE ACTION, WHETHER THROUGH ONE AGENCY OR ANOTHER, SHALL BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH
LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND NOT
INFREQUENTLY ARE DESIGNATED AS 'LAW OF THE LAND.'  THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE
APPLICABLE ALIKE IN ALL THE STATES AND DO NOT DEPEND UPON OR VARY WITH
LOCAL LEGISLATION."  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316-317. 

"THIS COURT HAS NEVER ATTEMPTED TO DEFINE WITH PRECISION THE WORDS
'DUE PROCESS OF LAW,' NOR IS IT NECESSARY TO DO SO IN THIS CASE.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLES OF
JUSTICE WHICH INHERE IN THE VERY IDEA OF FREE GOVERNMENT WHICH NO
MEMBER OF THE UNION MAY DISREGARD, AS THAT NO MAN SHALL BE CONDEMNED IN
HIS PERSON OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING
HEARD IN HIS DEFENCE."  HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366, 389-390. 

THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS WERE REFERRED TO WITH APPROVAL IN POWELL V.
ALABAMA, SUPRA, AT PP. 67, 71-72. 

THE PRESENT CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, ILLUSTRATES EQUALLY WELL THE
KIND OF JUDGMENTS BY A STATE COURT THAT SHOULD NOT BE INVALIDATED AS
LACKING IN THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW REQUIRED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THIS IS SO, ALTHOUGH THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED, IN 1938, BY
THE STATE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASES, AS TO COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
MIGHT NOT HAVE SATISFIED THE PRACTICE THEN REQUIRED OF A FEDERAL COURT
IN THE CASE OF COMPARABLE FEDERAL CRIMES.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
HOWEVER, DOES NOT SAY THAT NO STATE SHALL DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIBERTY
WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE FEDERAL PROCESS OF LAW AS PRESCRIBED FOR THE
FEDERAL COURTS IN COMPARABLE FEDERAL CASES.  IT SAYS MERELY "NOR SHALL
ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW; ...  "  THIS DUE PROCESS IS NOT AN EQUIVALENT FOR THE
PROCESS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS OR FOR THE PROCESS OF ANY PARTICULAR
STATE.  IT HAS REFERENCE RATHER TO A STANDARD OF PROCESS THAT MAY COVER
MANY VARIETIES OF PROCESSES THAT ARE EXPRESSIVE OF DIFFERING
COMBINATIONS OF HISTORICAL OR MODERN, LOCAL OR OTHER JURIDICAL
STANDARDS, PROVIDED THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE "FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR
CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS  ...  "  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA,
AT P. 316.  THIS CLAUSE IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LEAVES ROOM FOR
MUCH OF THE FREEDOM WHICH, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PURPOSES, WAS ORIGINALLY RESERVED TO THE
STATES FOR THEIR EXERCISE OF THEIR OWN POLICE POWERS AND FOR THEIR
CONTROL OVER THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THEIR
RESPECTIVE COURTS.  IT RECOGNIZES THAT DIFFERENCES ARISE NATURALLY
BETWEEN THE PROCEDURES IN THE STATE COURTS AND THOSE IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  FN4 

ONE OF THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SCIENCE OF GOVERNMENT THAT WAS
MADE BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ITS DIVISION OF
POWERS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE COMPROMISE
BETWEEN STATE RIGHTS AND THOSE OF A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WAS FULLY
CONSIDERED IN SECURING THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1787 AND
1788.  FN5  IT WAS EMPHASIZED IN THE "BILL OF RIGHTS," RATIFIED IN
1791.  IN THE TEN AMENDMENTS CONSTITUTING SUCH BILL, ADDITIONAL
RESTRICTIONS WERE PLACED UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PARTICULARLY
UPON PROCEDURE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  FN6  NONE WERE PLACED UPON THE
STATES.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES AND OF THE
PEOPLE WERE EMPHASIZED IN THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS.  FN7  THE
CONSTITUTION WAS CONCEIVED IN LARGE PART IN THE SPIRIT OF THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WHICH DECLARED THAT TO SECURE SUCH
"UNALIENABLE RIGHTS" AS THOSE OF "LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF
HAPPINESS  ...  GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR
JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,  ...  "  IT SOUGHT TO
KEEP THE CONTROL OVER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS CLOSE TO THE PEOPLE THROUGH
THEIR STATES.  WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE STATES,
THE CONGRESS AND THE COURTS IN SOME OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE, THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE THAT HAS
TAKEN FROM THE STATES THEIR UNDERLYING CONTROL OVER THEIR LOCAL POLICE
POWERS AND STATE COURT PROCEDURES.  THEY RETAINED THIS CONTROL FROM THE
BEGINNING AND, IN SOME STATES, LOCAL CONTROL OF THESE MATTERS LONG
ANTEDATED THE CONSTITUTION.  THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE STILL ARE THE
REPOSITORIES OF THE "POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE
CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES,  ...  "  FN8  THE
UNDERLYING CONTROL OVER THE PROCEDURE IN ANY STATE COURT, DEALING WITH
DISTINCTLY LOCAL OFFENSES SUCH AS THOSE HERE INVOLVED, CONSEQUENTLY
REMAINS IN THE STATE.  THE DIFFERING NEEDS AND CUSTOMS OF THE
RESPECTIVE STATES AND EVEN OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES WITHIN EACH
STATE EMPHASIZE THE PRINCIPLE THAT FAMILIARITY WITH, AND COMPLETE
UNDERSTANDING OF, LOCAL CHARACTERISTICS, CUSTOMS AND STANDARDS ARE
FOUNDATION STONES OF SUCCESSFUL SELF-GOVERNMENT.  LOCAL PROCESSES OF
LAW ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF ANY GOVERNMENT CONDUCTED BY THE PEOPLE. 
NO NATIONAL AUTHORITY, HOWEVER BENEVOLENT, THAT GOVERNS OVER
130,000,000 PEOPLE IN 48 STATES, CAN BE AS CLOSELY IN TOUCH WITH THOSE
WHO ARE GOVERNED AS CAN THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN THE SEVERAL STATES AND
THEIR SUBDIVISIONS.  THE PRINCIPLE OF "HOME RULE" WAS AN AXIOM AMONG
THE AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  AFTER ALL, THE VITAL TEST OF SELF
GOVERNMENT IS NOT SO MUCH ITS SATISFACTORINESS WEIGHED IN THE SCALES OF
OUTSIDERS AS IT IS ITS SATISFACTORINESS WEIGHED IN THE SCALES OF "THE
GOVERNED."  FN9  WHILE, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS EACH STATE GOVERNMENT, IS AT BOTTOM
A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE, NEVERTHELESS, THE FEDERAL SPHERE OF
GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN LARGELY LIMITED TO CERTAIN DELEGATED POWERS.  THE
BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING A DELEGATION OF POWER TO THE UNITED STATES OR
THE PROHIBITION OF POWER TO THE STATES IS UPON THOSE MAKING THE CLAIM. 
THIS POINT OF VIEW IS MATERIAL IN THE INSTANT CASES IN INTERPRETING THE
LIMITATION WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACES UPON THE PROCESSES OF
LAW THAT MAY BE PRACTICED BY THE SEVERAL STATES, INCLUDING ILLINOIS. 
IN OUR OPINION THIS LIMITATION IS DESCRIPTIVE OF A BROAD REGULATORY
POWER OVER EACH STATE AND NOT OF A MAJOR TRANSFER BY THE STATES TO THE
UNITED STATES OF THE PRIMARY AND PRE-EXISTING POWER OF THE STATES OVER
COURT PROCEDURES IN STATE CRIMINAL CASES. 

UNTIL THE TAKING EFFECT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN 1868, THERE
WAS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE STATES WERE FREE TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN
COURT PROCEDURES.  THIS FREEDOM INCLUDED STATE PRACTICE AS TO THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL TO BE PERMITTED OR ASSIGNED TO THE ACCUSED FOR
HIS DEFENSE IN STATE CRIMINAL CASES.  BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, DURING NEARLY 80 FORMATIVE YEARS, THUS PERMITTED EACH
STATE TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND ACCUSTOM ITS PEOPLE TO THAT STATE'S
OWN FORMS OF "DUE PROCESS OF LAW," A SUBSTANTIAL PRESUMPTION ARISES IN
FAVOR OF, RATHER THAN AGAINST, THE LAWFULNESS OF THOSE PROCEDURES AND
IN FAVOR OF THEIR RIGHT TO CONTINUED RECOGNITION BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AS "DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  WHILE SUCH A PRESUMPTION DOES NOT
ARISE IN FAVOR OF ANY PRACTICE AGAINST WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
WAS PARTICULARLY DIRECTED, THERE IS NO REASON TO FEEL THAT, IN 1868,
SUCH AMENDMENT WAS PARTICULARLY DIRECTED AGAINST THE PRACTICE NOW
BEFORE US.

                 ILLINOIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. 

FROM THE INCEPTION OF THEIR STATEHOOD, THE PEOPLE OF ILLINOIS HAVE
RECOGNIZED THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LOCAL DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THAT STATE.  THEY DEALT AT LENGTH WITH SUCH MATTERS IN
THEIR ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OF 1818.  IN ARTICLE VIII THEY PROVIDED - 

"THAT THE GENERAL, GREAT AND ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND FREE
GOVERNMENT MAY BE RECOGNIZED AND UNALTERABLY ESTABLISHED, WE DECLARE: 

.         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 9.  THAT IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED HATH A RIGHT
TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL; TO DEMAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF
THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM; TO MEET THE WITNESSES FACE TO FACE; TO HAVE
COMPULSORY PROCESS TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR;
AND IN PROSECUTIONS BY INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION, A SPEEDY PUBLIC TRIAL
BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE VICINAGE, AND THAT HE SHALL NOT BE
COMPELLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIMSELF."  FN10  REPRINTED IN ILL.
REV. STAT. (1937). 

THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1848 CONTAINED A COMPARABLE "DECLARATION
OF RIGHTS" IN ARTICLE XIII.  AMONG THAT ARTICLE'S 26 SECTIONS WERE
SECS. 8 AND 9, SUBSTANTIALLY READOPTING LANGUAGE USED IN SECS. 8 AND 9
OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.  FN11 

IN THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1870, A "BILL OF RIGHTS" WAS SET
FORTH IN ARTICLE II DEALING WITH THESE SUBJECTS AND INCLUDING SECS. 2
AND 9 IN THE FOLLOWING FORM: 

"SEC. 2.  NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY,
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

     .         .         .         .   . 

"SEC. 9.  IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS THE ACCUSED SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT TO APPEAR AND DEFEND IN PERSON AND BY COUNSEL, TO DEMAND THE
NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION AND TO HAVE A COPY THEREOF, TO MEET
THE WITNESSES FACE TO FACE, AND TO HAVE PROCESS TO COMPEL THE
ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES IN HIS BEHALF, AND A SPEEDY PUBLIC TRIAL BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE COUNTY OR DISTRICT IN WHICH THE OFFENSE IS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED."  REPRINTED IN ILL. REV. STAT. (1937). 

THESE LATTER PROVISIONS WERE IN EFFECT IN ILLINOIS AT THE TIME OF THE
TRIAL OF THE INSTANT CASES.  THERE IS AND CAN BE NO QUESTION RAISED
HERE BUT THAT THE PROCEDURE IN THE INSTANT CASES CONFORMED TO THE
ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT
STATE. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES THUS LEFT THE POWER TO REGULATE
THE PROCEDURE AS TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE
ACCUSED IN STATE CRIMINAL CASES TO THE DISCRETION OF THE RESPECTIVE
STATES, AT LEAST UNTIL 1868.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THEN WAS ADOPTED
TO MEET THE CRYING NEEDS OF THAT TIME.  FN12

           JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

AFTER EXHAUSTIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBJECT, THIS COURT HAS DECIDED
THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT, THROUGH ITS DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OR OTHERWISE, HAVE THE EFFECT OF REQUIRING THE SEVERAL STATES TO
CONFORM THE PROCEDURE OF THEIR STATE CRIMINAL TRIALS TO THE PRECISE
PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, EVEN TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROCEDURE
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IS PRESCRIBED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR BILL
OF RIGHTS.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY
STATING THAT THE LONG RECOGNIZED AND THEN EXISTING POWER OF THE STATES
OVER THE PROCEDURE OF THEIR OWN COURTS IN CRIMINAL CASES WAS TO BE
PROHIBITED OR EVEN LIMITED.  UNLIKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT MADE NO MENTION OF ANY REQUIREMENT OF GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS
OR INDICTMENTS AS A PRELIMINARY STEP IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS;
ANY UNIVERSAL PROHIBITION AGAINST THE ACCUSED BEING COMPELLED, IN A
CRIMINAL CASE, TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF; ANY JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENT OF JURIES IN ALL CRIMINAL TRIALS; ANY GUARANTY TO THE
ACCUSED THAT HE HAVE A RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS
DEFENSE IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS; OR ANY NEED TO OBSERVE THE RULES
OF THE COMMON LAW IN THE RE-EXAMINATION OF ALL FACTS TRIED BY A JURY. 
FN13  IN SPITE OF SUCH OMISSIONS, IT IS CLAIMED HERE, ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER, THAT EVEN THOUGH THE FAILURE OF THE STATE COURT IN THESE
CASES TO INQUIRE OF THE ACCUSED AS TO HIS DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, OR HIS ABILITY TO PROCURE COUNSEL, OR HIS DESIRE TO HAVE
COUNSEL ASSIGNED TO HIM TO ASSIST HIM IN HIS DEFENSE, AND EVEN THOUGH
THE FAILURE OF THE STATE COURT IN THESE CASES TO OFFER OR ASSIGN
COUNSEL TO THE ACCUSED FOR HIS DEFENSE MAY HAVE SATISFIED THE ILLINOIS
LAW AND HAVE AMOUNTED TO "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" UNDER THE ILLINOIS
CONSTITUTION,  FN14  YET SUCH PRACTICES DID NOT SATISFY THE "DUE
PROCESS OF LAW" REQUIRED OF THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

TO SUSTAIN THIS CLAIM, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PETITIONER TO
ESTABLISH THAT, IN SPITE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROCESS OF LAW
DEVELOPED BY ILLINOIS IN ITS OWN CRIMINAL CASES, PRIOR TO 1868, YET
THAT SAME ILLINOIS PROCESS OF LAW, AFTER 1868, NO LONGER IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID AS "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS PART OF THE
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND UNDER ARTICLE VI OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION,
SUPERSEDES "ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE
CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  THE IMPORTANT QUESTION REMAINS, HOWEVER:
WHAT SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE TO THE CONTRARY?  IT IS THE ESTABLISHED
POLICY OF BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TO TREAT POSSIBLE
CONFLICTS BETWEEN THEIR POWERS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO PRODUCE AS LITTLE
CONFLICT AND FRICTION AS POSSIBLE.  SO HERE THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY
ILLINOIS SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO VIOLATE THE STANDARD OF PERMISSIBLE
PROCESS OF LAW BROADLY RECOGNIZED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UNLESS
THE ILLINOIS PROCEDURE VIOLATES "THE VERY ESSENCE OF A SCHEME OF
ORDERED LIBERTY" AND ITS CONTINUANCE WOULD "VIOLATE A 'PRINCIPLE OF
JUSTICE SO ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AS TO
BE RANKED AS FUNDAMENTAL.'"  CARDOZO, J., IN PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302
U.S. 319, 325, WITH QUOTATION FROM HIS OPINION IN SNYDER V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 105.  SEE FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134,
137; ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46, CONCURRING OPINION AT PP. 61
67; BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 465; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S.
278, 285-286; POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 61-62, 67, 71-72; HEBERT
V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78;
HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366, 389-390; HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S.
516, 532, 535, 537. 

IT IS NATURAL FOR STATE PROCEDURES TO DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER IN MANY
WAYS.  IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE STATES TO ESTABLISH WAYS OF
SAFEGUARDING THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS OF THE PROSECUTION AND OF THE
ACCUSED IN THEIR COURTS.  THESE MAY DIFFER FROM COMPARABLE PRACTICES
DEVELOPED IN THE COURTS OF OTHER STATES OR OF THE UNITED STATES. 
BEFORE EXAMINING THE ILLINOIS PRACTICE AND THE PRECISE FACTS OF THE
CASES BEFORE US, IT IS HELPFUL TO SEE WHAT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ESPECIALLY TO SEE WHAT SUCH PRACTICE
WAS IN 1938, AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL OF THE INSTANT CASES.  WHILE SUCH
FEDERAL COURT PRACTICE DOES NOT ESTABLISH A CONSTITUTIONAL MINIMUM
STANDARD OF DUE PROCESS WHICH MUST BE OBSERVED IN EACH STATE UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, YET SUCH PRACTICE DOES AFFORD AN EXAMPLE APPROVED
BY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT THUS CONTRIBUTES SOMETHING
TOWARD ESTABLISHING A GENERAL STANDARD OF DUE PROCESS CURRENTLY AND
PROPERLY APPLICABLE TO THE STATES UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

      PRACTICE IN FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE PRACTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO
HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS DERIVED FROM THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
WHICH EXPRESSLY REQUIRES THAT, IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ACCUSED SHALL HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE.  FN15  THERE IS NO PROOF POSSIBLE THAT THE
SAME PRACTICE WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT HAD THERE BEEN NO SPECIFIC PROVISION ON THE SUBJECT IN
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  IT IS OBVIOUS ALSO THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC
PROVISION IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT COMPARABLE TO THAT IN THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT.  FURTHERMORE, AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE IN 1938,
THE RULE OF PRACTICE EVEN IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WAS NOT AS CLEAR AS IT
IS TODAY.  THE FEDERAL STATUTES WERE THEN, AND THEY ARE NOW, IN
PRACTICALLY THE SAME FORM AS WHEN THEY WERE ENACTED IN 1789 AND 1790. 
THEY PROVIDED MERELY FOR A RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS BY THE ACCUSED'S OWN COUNSEL AND REQUIRED ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL
BY THE COURT ONLY ON ACCUSATIONS FOR TREASON OR OTHER CAPITAL CRIMES. 
FN16  IN FACT, UNTIL THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN MAY, 1938(ONE MONTH
BEFORE THE TRIAL OF THE INSTANT CASES IN THE ILLINOIS STATE COURT), IN
JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, THERE WAS LITTLE IN THE DECISIONS OF
ANY COURTS TO INDICATE THAT THE PRACTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, EXCEPT
IN CAPITAL CASES, REQUIRED THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO ASSIST THE
ACCUSED IN HIS DEFENSE, AS CONTRASTED WITH THE RECOGNIZED RIGHT OF THE
ACCUSED TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OF HIS OWN IF HE SO DESIRED.  THAT
PRE-1938 PRACTICE, HOWEVER, WAS IN THE FACE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT WHICH WAS HELD IN JOHNSON V. ZERBST, SUPRA, TO REQUIRE
THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN ANY FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASE WHERE THE
ACCUSED HAD NO COUNSEL AND DID NOT WAIVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 
FN17  "THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WITHHOLDS FROM FEDERAL COURTS, IN ALL
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO DEPRIVE AN ACCUSED OF
HIS LIFE OR LIBERTY UNLESS HE HAS OR WAIVES THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL."  ID. AT P. 463.  SEE POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 68, 69
AND PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276, 308, AS QUOTED IN THE ZERBST
CASE.  SEE ALSO, WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275. 

THE VIEW OF THIS COURT AS TO THE PRACTICE BEST ADAPTED TO THE NEEDS
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS AND MOST RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES AS WELL AS TO THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT IS NOW STATED IN RULE 44 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 1946.  FN18  IN VIEW,
HOWEVER, OF THE APPLICABILITY TO THE STATE COURTS OF THE FOURTEENTH
RATHER THAN THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, THIS NEW RULE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS
DEFINING, EVEN BY ANALOGY, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS FOR
THE STATES UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE NEW RULE IS EVIDENCE
ONLY OF WHAT THIS COURT CONSIDERS SUITABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AND
THE STATES, IN THEIR DISCRETION, MAY OR MAY NOT FOLLOW IT.  THE STATES
ARE FREE TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN PRACTICE AS TO THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL, SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL LIMITATION THAT SUCH PRACTICE SHALL NOT
DEPRIVE THE ACCUSED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  ACCORDINGLY, THE LACK OF CONFORMITY OF ILLINOIS PRACTICE IN 1938
TO THE STANDARDS ILLUSTRATED BY THE PRESENT FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE IS BY NO MEANS DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUE BEFORE US.

                      PRACTICE IN STATE COURTS. 

AS THROWING LIGHT ON THE GENERAL PRACTICE IN THE SEVERAL STATES, THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, UNDER THE
CHAIRMANSHIP OF GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM, IN ITS REPORT ON PROSECUTION IN
1931, SAID: 

"IN AMERICA COUNSEL WAS ALLOWED FROM AN EARLY DATE AND STATE AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS GUARANTEE TO ACCUSED IN ALL PROSECUTIONS 'THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE,' IN THIS OR SOME EQUIVALENT
LANGUAGE.  IT WILL BE SEEN FROM THIS BIT OF HISTORY THAT, AS INDEED THE
COURTS HAVE HELD, THE RIGHT GUARANTEED IS ONE OF EMPLOYING COUNSEL, NOT
ONE OF HAVING COUNSEL PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF
THE GUARANTY MOST OF THE STATES HAVE BY LEGISLATION AUTHORIZED OR EVEN
REQUIRED THE COURTS TO ASSIGN COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE OF INDIGENT AND
UNREPRESENTED PRISONERS.  AS TO CAPITAL CASES, ALL THE STATES SO
PROVIDE.  THIRTY-FOUR STATES SO PROVIDE FOR FELONIES AND 28 FOR
MISDEMEANORS."  VOL. I, P. 30.    THE FOREGOING SUGGESTS THE EXISTENCE
OF A GRADUAL VOLUNTARY TREND AMONG THE STATES TOWARD THE AUTHORIZATION
BY THEM OF THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO ASSIST THE ACCUSED IN HIS
DEFENSE IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGE FACED AND TO THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE ACCUSED
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.  MUCH OF THIS TREND HAS TAKEN
PLACE SINCE 1868.  IT IS NEITHER UNIVERSAL NOR UNIFORM.  THE ABOVE
SUMMARY SHOWS THAT 20 STATES, IN 1931, HAD NO STATUTE AUTHORIZING SUCH
APPOINTMENTS OF COUNSEL IN MISDEMEANOR CASES AND 14 HAD NONE, EVEN IN
FELONY CASES, UNLESS THE CHARGES WERE FOR CAPITAL OFFENSES. 
FURTHERMORE, SOME OF THESE AUTHORIZATIONS, AS IN ILLINOIS, WERE SUBJECT
TO SPECIAL LIMITATIONS REQUIRING AN AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING TO BE MADE BY
THE ACCUSED OF HIS INABILITY TO PROCURE COUNSEL FOR HIMSELF. 

ANOTHER INDICATION OF THE OPINION OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS OF THE
BENCH, BAR AND LAW SCHOOL FACULTIES APPEARS IN THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION
FROM SEC. 203 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, APPROVED BY THE
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE IN 1930: 

"BEFORE THE DEFENDANT IS ARRAIGNED ON A CHARGE OF FELONY IF HE IS
WITHOUT COUNSEL THE COURT SHALL, UNLESS THE DEFENDANT OBJECTS, ASSIGN
HIM COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM IN THE CAUSE.  COUNSEL SO ASSIGNED SHALL
SERVE WITHOUT COST TO THE DEFENDANT, AND SHALL HAVE FREE ACCESS TO THE
DEFENDANT, IN PRIVATE, AT ALL REASONABLE HOURS WHILE ACTING AS COUNSEL
FOR HIM.  ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL SHALL NOT DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF THE
RIGHT TO ENGAGE OTHER COUNSEL AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL ASSIGNED HIM BY THE COURT."  AT P. 88. 

THE COMMENTARY OF THE INSTITUTE ACCOMPANYING THIS SECTION SHOWS THAT
THE ASSISTANCE RECOMMENDED FOR THE ACCUSED IN SEC. 203 OF THE PROPOSED
CODE WAS THEN FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE STATUTES IN MOST OF THE STATES. 
THE COMMENTARY ALSO ILLUSTRATES THE VARIATIONS EXISTING AMONG THE
PROCESSES ADOPTED BY THE STATES IN THEIR SEARCH FOR A SATISFACTORY
PROCESS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD.  IT DEMONSTRATES THAT, UP TO 1930, BUT
LIMITED PROGRESS HAD BEEN MADE BY STATUTE TOWARD THE STANDARD NOW
CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER TO HAVE BECOME CONSTITUTIONALLY ESSENTIAL TO
A VALID JUDGMENT IN THE INSTANT CASES IN 1938.  FN19  IT ILLUSTRATES
THE WIDE DIFFERENCE NATURALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY EXISTING BETWEEN
WHAT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED BY THE SEVERAL STATES AND WHAT HAS BEEN
RECOMMENDED TO THEM BY THE INSTITUTE.  WE DO NOT FIND IN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AUTHORITY FOR THIS COURT TO DO WHAT IS ASKED OF US HERE,
NAMELY, TO REQUIRE ALL THE STATES TO ENFORCE IN SUBSTANCE EITHER RULE
44 OF THE NEW FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OR THE PROPOSED SEC.
203 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RECOMMENDED BY THE AMERICAN LAW
INSTITUTE, ALL UNDER PENALTY OF THE INVALIDATION OF EVERY PAST AND
FUTURE NONCONFORMING STATE JUDGMENT. 

IN REVIEWING THE SITUATION FURTHER, IN 1942, THIS COURT, IN BETTS V.
BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, INDICATED THAT IT DID NOT REGARD IT TO BE A
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FOR A MARYLAND TRIAL COURT TO
REFUSE TO APPOINT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT CHARGED
WITH ROBBERY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE.  FN20  WE THERE
STATED THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
INCORPORATE, AS SUCH, THE SPECIFIC GUARANTEES FOUND IN THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH A DENIAL BY A STATE OF RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES
SPECIFICALLY EMBODIED IN THAT AND OTHERS OF THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS
MAY, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, OR IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER ELEMENTS,
OPERATE, IN A GIVEN CASE, TO DEPRIVE A LITIGANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH.  ...  ASSERTED DENIAL (OF COUNSEL) IS
TO BE TESTED BY AN APPRAISAL OF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS IN A GIVEN CASE. 
THAT WHICH MAY, IN ONE SETTING, CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF FUNDAMENTAL
FAIRNESS, SHOCKING TO THE UNIVERSAL SENSE OF JUSTICE, MAY, IN OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, FALL SHORT OF
SUCH DENIAL.  IN THE APPLICATION OF SUCH A CONCEPT, THERE IS ALWAYS THE
DANGER OF FALLING INTO THE HABIT OF FORMULATING THE GUARANTEE INTO A
SET OF HARD AND FAST RULES, THE APPLICATION OF WHICH IN A GIVEN CASE
MAY BE TO IGNORE THE QUALIFYING FACTORS THEREIN DISCLOSED."  ID. AT PP.
461-462.  FN21 

IF, IN THE FACE OF THESE WIDELY VARYING STATE PROCEDURES, THIS COURT
WERE TO SELECT THE RULE CONTENDED FOR BY THE PETITIONER AND HOLD
INVALID ALL PROCEDURE NOT REACHING THAT STANDARD, IT NOT ONLY WOULD
DISREGARD THE BASIC AND HISTORIC POWER OF THE STATES TO PRESCRIBE THEIR
OWN LOCAL COURT PROCEDURES (SUBJECT ONLY TO A BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITION IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST THE ABUSE OF THAT
POWER) BUT IT WOULD INTRODUCE EXTRAORDINARY CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY
INTO LOCAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHERE CLARITY AND CERTAINTY ARE THE
PRIMARY ESSENTIALS OF LAW AND ORDER. 

                     PRACTICE IN ILLINOIS COURTS. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE SENTENCES IN THE TWO
ILLINOIS CASES BEFORE US VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HAS AFFIRMED BOTH SENTENCES, SUPRA, 396 ILL.
588, 72 N.E.2D 813.  IT HAS THUS CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THEIR
COMPLIANCE WITH ILLINOIS LAW.  WHILE SUCH A FINDING OF COMPLIANCE WITH
LOCAL LAW IS NOT NECESSARILY SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF
DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WE SHALL BE HELPED, IN
MEASURING THE COMPLIANCE OF THESE JUDGMENTS WITH SUCH DUE PROCESS, IF
WE NOTE EXACTLY THE REQUIREMENTS OF ILLINOIS LAW WITH WHICH THE SUPREME
COURT OF THAT STATE HAS FOUND COMPLIANCE. 

THE MATERIAL SECTIONS OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION HAVE BEEN QUOTED. 
ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1870, ART. II, SECS. 2 AND 9, SUPRA.  THEY
PROVIDED THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THAT, IN ALL CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAR AND DEFEND IN PERSON
AND BY COUNSEL.  THE STATUTES OF ILLINOIS IN EFFECT IN 1938 CONTAINED
THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE ALLOWANCE AND ASSIGNMENT OF
COUNSEL TO A PERSON CHARGED WITH CRIME AND DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THE
PROCEDURE REQUIRED IN A CAPITAL CASE AND THAT REQUIRED IN OTHER CASES: 

"EVERY PERSON CHARGED WITH CRIME SHALL BE ALLOWED COUNSEL, AND WHEN
HE SHALL STATE UPON OATH THAT HE IS UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL, THE
COURT SHALL ASSIGN HIM COMPETENT COUNSEL, WHO SHALL CONDUCT HIS
DEFENSE.  IN ALL CASES COUNSEL SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO PERSONS CONFINED,
AND SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE AND CONSULT SUCH PERSONS IN PRIVATE. 

"WHENEVER IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COURT THAT A DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS
INDICTED IN A CAPITAL CASE, IS OR ARE INDIGENT AND UNABLE TO PAY
COUNSEL FOR HIS OR HER DEFENSE, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO
APPOINT ONE OR MORE COMPETENT COUNSEL FOR SAID DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS,
...  " ILL. REV. STAT. C. 38, SEC. 730(1937). 

AN ILLINOIS STATUTE ALSO PROVIDED EXPRESSLY FOR CASES IN WHICH THE
PARTY ACCUSED HAD PLEADED "GUILTY."  THE RECORD IN THE INSTANT CASES
SHOWS COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PROVISION WHICH, IN EFFECT, PLACED
UPON THE TRIAL COURT PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEEING TO IT THAT THE
PROCEDURE MET ALL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER OF STATE OR FEDERAL
ORIGIN. 

"IN CASES WHERE THE PARTY PLEADS 'GUILTY,' SUCH PLEA SHALL NOT BE
ENTERED UNTIL THE COURT SHALL HAVE FULLY EXPLAINED TO THE ACCUSED THE
CONSEQUENCES OF ENTERING SUCH PLEA; AFTER WHICH, IF THE PARTY PERSIST
IN PLEADING 'GUILTY,' SUCH PLEA SHALL BE RECEIVED AND RECORDED, AND THE
COURT SHALL PROCEED TO RENDER JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION THEREON, AS IF HE
HAD BEEN FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY.  IN ALL CASES WHERE THE COURT
POSSESSES ANY DISCRETION AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE PUNISHMENT, IT SHALL
BE THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO EXAMINE WITNESSES AS TO THE AGGRAVATION AND
MITIGATION OF THE OFFENSE."  ILL. REV. STAT. C. 38, SEC. 732(1937). 

   PRACTICE IN THE INSTANT CASES. 

IT IS NOT OUR PROVINCE TO PRESCRIBE WHICH PROCEDURE WE CONSIDER
PREFERABLE AMONG MANY PERMISSIBLE PROCEDURES WHICH LAWFULLY COULD BE
FOLLOWED BY AN ILLINOIS OR ANY OTHER STATE COURT IN CONNECTION WITH
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE OF A PARTY ACCUSED OF A STATE CRIME.  IT IS OUR
PROVINCE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PRACTICE OF THE ILLINOIS COURT IN THESE
CASES, ALTHOUGH ADMITTEDLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, WAS
SO CLEARLY AT VARIANCE WITH PROCEDURE CONSTITUTING "DUE PROCESS OF LAW"
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THAT THESE SENTENCES MUST BE COMPLETELY
INVALIDATED.  THIS BRINGS US TO AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRECISE FACTS
PRESENTED BY THE RECORDS.  EACH CRIME WAS PUNISHABLE BY A MANDATORY
SENTENCE OF FROM ONE TO 20 YEARS IN THE PENITENTIARY.  THE CHARGES WERE
STATED IN SIMPLE TERMS, NOT ORDINARILY CAPABLE OF BEING MISUNDERSTOOD
BY A 57-YEAR OLD MAN, HOWEVER ELEMENTARY OR PRIMITIVE HIS
UNDERSTANDING.  THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT THIS PETITIONER FAILED TO
UNDERSTAND THE CHARGES.  BEFORE HE PLEADED GUILTY, THE COURT
"ADMONISHED AND EXPLAINED TO THE SAID DEFENDANT THE CONSEQUENCES AND
PENALTIES,  ...  "  WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM HIS PLEA OF GUILTY IF
MADE.  THE RECORDS THEN RECITE, LARGELY IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE,
THAT "THE SAID DEFENDANT STILL PERSISTING IN HIS DESIRE TO ENTER HIS
PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE CRIME OF TAKING INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH CHILDREN,
IN MANNER AND FORM AS CHARGED IN THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT
HEREIN, THE COURT GRANTS SUCH LEAVE."  WE DO NOT ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT
THAT THESE RECORDS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED UNRELIABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE
ALMOST EXACTLY IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.  THE IMPORTANT POINT IS
NOT SO MUCH THAT A CERTAIN PHRASEOLOGY IS USED, AS IT IS THAT THE COURT
ACTUALLY REPRESENTED THE STATE AT THE TRIAL AND THAT THE COURT DID WHAT
THE STATUTE REQUIRED OF IT.  IT CANNOT BE ARGUED, WITHOUT FACTUAL
SUPPORT, THAT THE COURT FAILED TO DO ITS FULL DUTY WITH AN INTELLIGENT,
COMPETENT AND UNDERSTANDING APPRECIATION OF ALL OF ITS STATE AND
FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS.  IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MUST
HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO THE JUDGE PRESIDING IN THE COURTROOM, BUT ARE
INCAPABLE OF REPRODUCTION HERE, THE COURT GRANTED LEAVE TO THE
PETITIONER TO ENTER HIS PLEA OF GUILTY IN EACH CASE.  BEFORE SENTENCE
WAS PASSED, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE STATE'S ATTORNEY AND THE
PETITIONER, IN HIS OWN PROPER PERSON, CAME BEFORE THE COURT AND THE
PETITIONER "NOT SAYING ANYTHING FURTHER WHY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
SHOULD NOT NOW BE PRONOUNCED  ...  " THE COURT PRONOUNCED, IN EACH
CASE, THE MANDATORY SENTENCE FOR THE CRIME TO WHICH THE PETITIONER HAD
PLEADED GUILTY.  ON THE FACTS THUS BEFORE US IN THESE RECORDS, WHICH
MUST BE OUR SOLE GUIDES IN THESE CASES, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO
DOUBT EITHER THE DUE PROCESS OR THE PROPRIETY OF THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED
BY THE TRIAL COURT.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORDS ON WHICH TO BASE A
CLAIM THAT THE PETITIONER'S CONDUCT DID NOT FIT THE CHARGES MADE
AGAINST HIM.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THEM ON WHICH TO BASE A CLAIM OF
ABNORMALITY, INTOXICATION, OR INSANITY ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER OR
ON WHICH TO BASE A CLAIM THAT THERE WAS ANY INDIGNATION, PREJUDICE OR
EMOTIONAL INFLUENCE AFFECTING THE CONDUCT OR THOUGHT OF ANYONE
CONNECTED WITH THESE TRIALS.  THE PRESENCE OF THE JUDGE, THE STATE'S
ATTORNEY, AND THE PETITIONER, TOGETHER WITH A NATURAL WISH ON THE PART
OF THE PETITIONER NOT TO EXPAND UPON THE SHAME OF THESE CRIMES, PROVIDE
NO GROUND FOR A CONCLUSION THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY FAILURE, MUCH LESS
ANY CONSTITUTIONAL FAILURE, OF FAIR JUDICIAL PROCESS.  DOUBTS SHOULD BE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE INTEGRITY, COMPETENCE AND PROPER PERFORMANCE
OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES BY THE JUDGE AND THE STATE'S ATTORNEY.  THEY
WERE STATE OFFICIALS LAWFULLY CHOSEN TO DISCHARGE SERIOUS PUBLIC
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE.  ESPECIALLY IN A SELF
GOVERNING STATE AND NATION, GOVERNMENTAL STABILITY DEPENDS UPON THE
GIVING OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN FORM, SUBSTANCE AND SPIRIT TO PUBLIC
ACTS, RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS NOT ONLY AMONG THE STATES BUT
AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND BETWEEN THEIR STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS. 

ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS DISCLOSE NO AFFIRMATIVE BASIS FOR INVALIDATING
THE SENTENCES, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT AN ERROR OF OMISSION APPEARS IN THE
FAILURE OF THE RECORDS TO SHOW EITHER THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE
ACCUSED, OR AN INQUIRY BY THE COURT AS TO COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED, OR
THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL BY THE COURT TO ASSIST THE ACCUSED.  HERE
ALSO IF ANY PRESUMPTION IS TO BE INDULGED IT SHOULD BE ONE OF
REGULARITY RATHER THAN THAT OF IRREGULARITY.  EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE
TRIAL, IN THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY, SUCH A
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY INDICATES THAT THE COURT CONSTITUTIONALLY
DISCHARGED, RATHER THAN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISREGARDED, ITS STATE AND
FEDERAL DUTIES TO THE PETITIONER, INCLUDING THOSE RELATING TO HIS
RIGHT, IF ANY, TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  PEOPLE V. FUHS, 390 ILL.
67, 60 N.E.2D 205.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY, HOWEVER, FOR US TO DEPEND UPON
SUCH A PRESUMPTION. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE INSTANT JUDGMENTS BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIAL COURT AT LEAST DID NOT VIOLATE ANY
EXPRESS REQUIREMENTS OF ANY STATE STATUTES CALLING FOR AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION BY THE COURT.  PEOPLE V. RUSSELL, 394 ILL. 192, 67 N.E.2D 895;
PEOPLE V. STACK, 391 ILL. 15, 62 N.E.2D 807; PEOPLE V. FUHS, SUPRA;
PEOPLE V. BRANER, 389 ILL. 190, 58 N.E.2D 869; PEOPLE V. CORRIE, 387
ILL. 587, 56 N.E.2D 767; PEOPLE V. CORBETT, 387 ILL. 41, 55 N.E.2D 74;
PEOPLE V. CHILDERS, 386 ILL. 312, 53 N.E.2D 878.  IN VIEW OF THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS PREVIOUSLY QUOTED (ILL. REV. STAT. C. 38, SEC.
730(1937)), THE SILENCE OF THE RECORDS AFFORDS ADEQUATE GROUND FOR THE
MINIMUM CONCLUSIONS THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT REQUEST COUNSEL AND DID
NOT, UNDER OATH, STATE THAT HE, THE PETITIONER, WAS "UNABLE TO PROCURE
COUNSEL."  IN FACT, THE PETITIONER DOES NOT NOW CLAIM THAT HE DID
EITHER OF THOSE THINGS.  THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, WHETHER, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY REQUEST BY THE PETITIONER FOR COUNSEL AND, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY STATEMENT UNDER OATH BY THE PETITIONER THAT HE WAS
UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL, THE COURT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY THE PROCEDURE WHICH IT TOOK AND WHICH
ACCORDED WITH THE PROCEDURE APPROVED BY ILLINOIS FOR NONCAPITAL CASES
SUCH AS THESE.  THIS PROCEDURE CALLED UPON THE COURT TO USE ITS OWN
JUDGMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSES, THE AGE,
APPEARANCE, CONDUCT AND STATEMENTS OF THE PETITIONER IN COURT.  THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDED THE PETITIONER'S PLEA OF GUILTY, PERSISTED IN
AFTER THE COURT'S ADMONISHMENT OF HIM AND EXPLANATION TO HIM OF THE
CONSEQUENCES AND PENALTIES INVOLVED IN HIS PLEA.  THE COURT THEREUPON
GRANTED LEAVE TO THE PETITIONER TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY AND SUCH A
PLEA WAS ENTERED BY THE PETITIONER IN EACH CASE. 

IN THIS VIEW OF THE TWO CASES BEFORE US IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE PETITIONER, BY HIS PLEA OF GUILTY OR OTHERWISE,
AFFIRMATIVELY WAIVED ANY RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN HIS
DEFENSE, FOR, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
SUCH ASSISTANCE HAD ARISEN IN HIS FAVOR.  UNDER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED
BY THE TRIAL COURT, THERE WAS NO AFFIRMATIVE DUTY UPON IT, EITHER OF
STATE OR FEDERAL ORIGIN, TO DO MORE THAN IT DID.  IN THE PRESENT CASES
THE STATE STATUTE ALLOWED THE PETITIONER TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
IF THE PETITIONER DESIRED TO BE SO REPRESENTED.  THE STATE STATUTE AND
PRACTICE, HOWEVER, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT THE ACCUSED MUST BE SO
REPRESENTED OR THAT THE TRIAL COURT MUST INITIATE INQUIRY INTO THE
PETITIONER'S DESIRES.  THE STATUTE DID REQUIRE THAT THE COURT MUST
ASSIGN COUNSEL TO CONDUCT THE DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED IF THE ACCUSED
STATED UNDER OATH THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THESE RECORDS, HOWEVER, EITHER UNDER OATH OR OTHERWISE, TO
SHOW THAT THE PETITIONER, AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, EITHER DESIRED COUNSEL
OR WAS UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL. 

THE FINAL QUESTION IS THEREFORE, WHETHER, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
STATE REQUIREMENT TO THAT EFFECT, THE PROVISION REQUIRING DUE PROCESS
OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IN AND OF ITSELF, REQUIRED THE
COURT IN THESE CASES TO INITIATE AN INQUIRY INTO THE DESIRE OF THE
ACCUSED TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, TO INQUIRE INTO THE ABILITY OF
THE ACCUSED TO PROCURE COUNSEL OR, IN THE EVENT OF THE INABILITY OF THE
ACCUSED TO PROCURE COUNSEL, TO ASSIGN COMPETENT COUNSEL TO THE ACCUSED
TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE.  WE RECOGNIZE THAT, IF THESE CHARGES HAD BEEN
CAPITAL CHARGES, THE COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED, BOTH BY THE STATE
STATUTE AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT INTERPRETING THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, TO TAKE SOME SUCH STEPS. 

THESE, HOWEVER, WERE NOT CAPITAL CHARGES.  THEY WERE CHARGES OF THE
COMMISSION OF TWO ELEMENTARY OFFENSES, CARRYING MANDATORY SENTENCES OF
FROM ONE TO 20 YEARS EACH.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES AS SHOWN BY THESE RECORDS.  WE DO NOT FIND IN THEM
ADEQUATE GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE STATE COURT, BY FAILING TO TAKE
THE AFFIRMATIVE PROCEDURE SUGGESTED, VIOLATED DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION IT IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR US TO RELY UPON THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE OF ILLINOIS.  IT
IS APPROPRIATE, HOWEVER, FOR US TO CONSIDER THE ILLINOIS STATUTES AND
PRACTICE, AS WELL AS THE STATUTES AND PRACTICES OF OTHER STATES, AS
INDICATIVE THAT, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE PEOPLE OF MANY OF THE STATES,
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REQUIRE FURTHER ASSURANCE OF ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL TO CONDUCT THE DEFENSE OF A PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIMES OF THIS
CHARACTER AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS PERMISSIBLE AND WELL WITHIN "DUE PROCESS
OF LAW" FOR A PERSON, ACCUSED OF SUCH CRIMES, TO WAIVE HIS RIGHTS, IF
ANY, TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE, WHETHER OR NOT THE
ACCUSED ALSO SHALL PLEAD GUILTY.  FN22  IF SUCH WAIVER IS TO BE
EFFECTIVE, IT MUST BE INTELLIGENTLY, COMPETENTLY, UNDERSTANDINGLY AND
VOLUNTARILY MADE.  IN THE INSTANT CASES, THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEFORE US OF
ANY AFFIRMATIVE WAIVER OF A RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IF ANY
SUCH RIGHT EXISTED, APPEARS IN THE PETITIONER'S PLEAS OF GUILTY.  THERE
WAS, HOWEVER, NO NEED IN THESE CASES FOR A WAIVER BY THE PETITIONER OF
ADDITIONAL ACTION BY THE TRIAL COURT BECAUSE THE PETITIONER HAD NO
STATE OR FEDERAL RIGHT TO SUCH ACTION.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO INQUIRE INTO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PETITIONER'S PLEAS
AS AMOUNTING TO WAIVERS OF COUNSEL, AS WELL AS ADMISSIONS OF GUILT. 

IT MAY BE THAT THE STATE LAWS OF SOME OTHER STATES WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED AFFIRMATIVE INQUIRIES TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE COURT.  IT MAY
BE THAT, SOME DAY, ALL OF THE STATES WILL HAVE ADOPTED PRACTICES
CORRESPONDING TO THE NEW RULE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS  FN23  OR TO THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, SUPRA.  HOWEVER, AS THE
MATTER NOW STANDS, THE STATES HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DISCRETION TO DETERMINE,
IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE HISTORIES AND NEEDS, MANY PRACTICES IN
THEIR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, INCLUDING THIS PRACTICE. 

THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASES IS ONLY WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION
TAKEN BY THE STATE COURT VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN
ANSWERING THAT QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE, THIS OPINION FOLLOWS THE
PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT IN PASSING UPON
SOMEWHAT SIMILAR ISSUES WHERE THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN TRIED IN A STATE
COURT FOR A NONCAPITAL OFFENSE AND WHERE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN MADE THAT
THERE WAS VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  RECENTLY, THIS COURT SAID THAT, ALTHOUGH FAILURE TO ASSIGN
COUNSEL TO ASSIST AN ACCUSED IN HIS DEFENSE IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR A
NONCAPITAL CRIME MIGHT VIOLATE THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT, THAT DID NOT MEAN THAT A LIKE FAILURE TO DO SO IN AN
ILLINOIS PROSECUTION FOR THE NONCAPITAL FELONY OF BURGLARY WOULD
VIOLATE DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FOSTER V.
ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134.  A COMPARABLE CONCLUSION HAS BEEN REACHED UNDER
THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AS TO SELF-INCRIMINATION BY A
DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE, PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT OF
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE TO COMMENT ON THE DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO
TESTIFY.  ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46.  REFUSAL BY A MARYLAND
COURT TO APPOINT COUNSEL REQUESTED BY THE ACCUSED TO ASSIST HIM IN HIS
DEFENSE AGAINST A CHARGE OF COMMISSION OF THE NON-CAPITAL FELONY OF
ROBBERY WAS HELD NOT TO VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BETTS V.
BRADY, 316 U.S. 455.  IN THAT CASE THE COMMISSION OR NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE CHARGED WAS NOT THE ISSUE BECAUSE THE DEFENSE WAS MERELY THAT
OF AN ALIBI. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS COURT REPEATEDLY HAS HELD THAT FAILURE TO
APPOINT COUNSEL TO ASSIST A DEFENDANT OR TO GIVE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO
THE DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL TO ASSIST HIM IN HIS DEFENSE WHERE CHARGED WITH
A CAPITAL CRIME IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173; HAWK V. OLSON,
326 U.S. 271; TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485; WILLIAMS V. KAISER,
323 U.S. 471; POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45; MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261
U.S. 86.  SEE ALSO, DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN, 329 U.S. 663(CONVICTED OF
FIRST DEGREE MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT). 

IN A NONCAPITAL STATE FELONY CASE, THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR
HIS DEFENSE WHEN THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING THAT,
OTHERWISE, THE DEFENDANT WOULD NOT ENJOY THAT FAIR NOTICE AND ADEQUATE
HEARING WHICH CONSTITUTE THE FOUNDATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THE
TRIAL OF ANY CRIMINAL CHARGE.  RICE V. OLSON, 324 U.S. 786.  IN THAT
CASE THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE WAS ONE OF WAIVER, BUT THE UNDERLYING QUESTION
INVOLVED A CHARGE OF BURGLARY AGAINST AN IGNORANT INDIAN, COUPLED WITH
A COMPLEX LEGAL ISSUE ARISING FROM THE CLAIM THAT THE CRIME WAS
COMMITTED ON AN INDIAN RESERVATION.  FOR DISCUSSIONS BEARING ON THE
ABSENCE OF DUE PROCESS RESULTING FROM THE INABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT,
INTELLIGENTLY AND COMPETENTLY, EITHER TO PLEAD GUILTY OR TO DEFEND
HIMSELF IN CERTAIN NONCAPITAL CASES SEE FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S.
134, 137-138; CANIZIO V. NEW YORK, 327 U.S. 82, 84-85(ROBBERY IN THE
FIRST DEGREE); HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42, 45-46(BURGLARY); SMITH V.
O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329, 332-334(BURGLARY); POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S.
45, 70(DICTUM AS TO DEPORTATION CASES). 

FOR THE GOING REASONS, AND UNDER THE PRINCIPLES PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED
BY THIS COURT, THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "  ...  NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL
ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES;
NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY,
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."  U.S. CONST. AMEND.
XIV, SEC. 1. 

FN2  "  ...  ANY PERSON OF THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN YEARS AND UPWARDS WHO
SHALL TAKE, OR ATTEMPT TO TAKE, ANY IMMORAL, IMPROPER OR INDECENT
LIBERTIES WITH ANY CHILD OF EITHER SEX, UNDER THE AGE OF FIFTEEN YEARS,
WITH THE INTENT OF AROUSING, APPEALING TO OR GRATIFYING THE LUST OR
PASSIONS OR SEXUAL DESIRES, EITHER OF SUCH PERSON OR OF SUCH CHILD, OR
OF BOTH SUCH PERSON AND SUCH CHILD, ...  SHALL BE IMPRISONED IN THE
PENITENTIARY NOT LESS THAN ONE YEAR NOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS: ...  " 

FN3  AN INDICTMENT STATING THIS OFFENSE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE LANGUAGE
OF THE STATUTE, THOUGH NOT SETTING OUT FACTS CONSTITUTING THE ELEMENTS
OF THE CRIME, WAS SUFFICIENT.  PEOPLE V. ROGERS, 324 ILL. 224, 229, 154
N.E. 909, 911; PEOPLE V. BUTLER, 268 ILL. 635, 641, 109 N.E. 677, 679;
PEOPLE V. SCATTURA, 238 ILL. 313, 314-315, 87 N.E. 332, 333. 

A COPY OF EACH INDICTMENT, WITH BOTH COUNTS ON THE SAME SHEET, WAS
FURNISHED TO THE PETITIONER AND THE DEVASTATING FRANKNESS OF THE SECOND
COUNT IN DESCRIBING THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF RENDERED IMPOSSIBLE ANY
MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CHARGE.  THE PETITIONER DOES NOT CONTEND THAT
HE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND IT.  BY LEAVE OF COURT, THE STATE ENTERED
"NOLLE PROSEQUI" AS TO EACH SECOND COUNT. 

FN4  ONE LONG RECOGNIZED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TRIAL PROCEDURE IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THAT IN MANY STATE COURTS IS THE GREATER FREEDOM
THAT IS ALLOWED TO A FEDERAL COURT, AS COMPARED WITH THAT ALLOWED TO A
STATE COURT, TO COMMENT UPON THE EVIDENCE WHEN SUBMITTING A CASE TO A
JURY.  SEE QUERCIA V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 466, 469; PATTON V.
UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276, 288; SIMMONS V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S.
148, 155.  THE FEDERAL PRACTICE IS BASED UPON THE RULES OF COMMON LAW
COMPARABLE TO THOSE MENTIONED IN THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT.  THE FEDERAL
AND STATE PRACTICES HAVE THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS, BUT
BOTH PRACTICES UNQUESTIONABLY REPRESENT "DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 

FN5  SEE THE FEDERALIST, NUMBER XLIV, RESTRICTIONS ON THE AUTHORITY OF
THE SEVERAL STATES; NUMBER XLV, THE ALLEGED DANGER FROM THE POWERS OF
THE UNION TO THE STATE GOVERNMENTS CONSIDERED; NUMBER XLVI, THE
INFLUENCE OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS COMPARED. 

FN6  "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES,
PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL
NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,
SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE
TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED. 

"NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL, OR OTHERWISE
INFAMOUS CRIME, UNLESS ON A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY,
EXCEPT IN CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR IN THE MILITIA,
WHEN IN ACTUAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER; NOR SHALL ANY
PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF
LIFE OR LIMB; NOR SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A
WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY,
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR
PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. 

"IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A
SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT
WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH DISTRICT SHALL HAVE
BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, AND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE
AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES
AGAINST HIM; TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS
FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE. 

"IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED
TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED, AND NO
FACT TRIED BY A JURY, SHALL BE OTHERWISE RE-EXAMINED IN ANY COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES, THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW. 

"EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED,
NOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED."  U.S. CONST. AMEND. IV,
V, VI, VII AND VIII. 

FN7  "THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL
NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. 
"THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR
PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES
RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE."  U.S. CONST. AMEND. IX AND X. 

FN8  U.S. CONST. AMEND. X, NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN9  "  ...  DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THE LATTER (I.E., THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT) REFERS TO THAT LAW OF THE LAND WHICH DERIVES ITS AUTHORITY
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS CONFERRED UPON CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES, EXERCISED WITHIN THE LIMITS THEREIN PRESCRIBED,
AND INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW.  IN THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BY PARITY OF REASON, IT REFERS TO THAT LAW OF THE
LAND IN EACH STATE, WHICH DERIVES ITS AUTHORITY FROM THE INHERENT AND
RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATE, EXERTED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THOSE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH LIE AT THE BASE OF
ALL OUR CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, AND THE GREATEST SECURITY FOR
WHICH RESIDES IN THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN LAWS, AND
ALTER THEM AT THEIR PLEASURE."  HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516,
535. 

FN10  ARTICLE VIII OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1818 CONTAINED 23
FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS.  ON THE SUBJECT OF "DUE PROCESS" IT INCLUDED
THE FOLLOWING: 

"SEC. 8.  THAT NO FREEMAN SHALL BE IMPRISONED OR DISSEIZED OF HIS
FREEHOLD, LIBERTIES OR PRIVILEGES, OR OUTLAWED OR EXILED, OR IN ANY
MANNER DEPRIVED OF HIS LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY, BUT BY THE JUDGMENT
OF HIS PEERS OR THE LAW OF THE LAND.  ...  " 

FN11  ARTICLE XIII OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1848 CONTAINED THE
FOLLOWING: 

"THAT THE GENERAL, GREAT AND ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND FREE
GOVERNMENT MAY BE RECOGNIZED AND UNALTERABLY ESTABLISHED, WE DECLARE: 

     .         .         .    .         . 

"SEC. 8.  THAT NO FREEMAN SHALL BE IMPRISONED OR DISSEIZED OF HIS
FREEHOLD, LIBERTIES OR PRIVILEGES, OR OUTLAWED OR EXILED, OR IN ANY
MANNER DEPRIVED OF HIS LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, BUT BY THE JUDGMENT
OF HIS PEERS, OR THE LAW OF THE LAND. 

"SEC. 9.  THAT IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS THE ACCUSED HATH A RIGHT
TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL; TO DEMAND THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF
THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM; TO MEET THE WITNESSES FACE TO FACE; TO HAVE
COMPULSORY PROCESS TO COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR;
AND IN PROSECUTIONS BY INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION, TO SPEEDY PUBLIC
TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE COUNTY OR DISTRICT WHEREIN THE
OFFENSE SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH COUNTY OR DISTRICT SHALL HAVE
BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, AND THAT HE SHALL NOT BE COMPELLED
TO GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIMSELF."  REPRINTED IN ILL. REV. STAT.
(1937). 

FN12  FOR HISTORICAL TREATMENTS OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS IN DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INSTANT CASES SEE ESPECIALLY, ADAMSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 468 CONCURRING OPINION PP. 61-68, DISSENTING
OPINION PP. 68-123; BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 464-472, DISSENTING
OPINION PP. 477-480; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 462-463; PALKO V.
CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 322-328; POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 59
69; HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516, 520-538, DISSENTING OPINION
PP. 538-558; DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97, 100-104. 

FN13  A CLASSIC STATEMENT OF WHY IT IS DUE PROCESS TO DO MANY THINGS
IN THE STATE COURTS, PARTICULARLY OF A PROCEDURAL NATURE, THAT MAY NOT
BE DONE IN FEDERAL COURTS BECAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS WAS MADE BY MR. JUSTICE
CARDOZO IN THE LIGHT OF HIS LONG EXPERIENCE IN STATE COURTS. 

"WE HAVE SAID THAT IN APPELLANT'S VIEW THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS TO
BE TAKEN AS EMBODYING THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE FIFTH.  HIS THESIS IS
EVEN BROADER.  WHATEVER WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE ORIGINAL BILL OF
RIGHTS (AMENDMENTS I TO VIII) IF DONE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOW
EQUALLY UNLAWFUL BY FORCE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IF DONE BY A
STATE.  THERE IS NO SUCH GENERAL RULE. 

"THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT NO PERSON
SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME
UNLESS ON PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY.  THIS COURT HAS
HELD THAT, IN PROSECUTIONS BY A STATE, PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT BY A
GRAND JURY MAY GIVE WAY TO INFORMATIONS AT THE INSTANCE OF A PUBLIC
OFFICER.  HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516; GAINES V. WASHINGTON,
277 U.S. 81, 86.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES ALSO THAT NO PERSON
SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF.  THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT, IN PROSECUTIONS BY A STATE, THE
EXEMPTION WILL FAIL IF THE STATE ELECTS TO END IT.  TWINING V. NEW
JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 106, 111, 112.  CF. SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS,
SUPRA, P. 105; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278, 285.  THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT CALLS FOR A JURY TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES AND THE SEVENTH FOR
A JURY TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES AT COMMON LAW WHERE THE VALUE IN
CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS.  THIS COURT HAS RULED THAT
CONSISTENTLY WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS TRIAL BY JURY MAY BE MODIFIED BY A
STATE OR ABOLISHED ALTOGETHER.  WALKER V. SAUVINET, 92 U.S. 90; MAXWELL
V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581; NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. WHITE, 243 U.S. 188,
208; WAGNER ELECTRIC MFG. CO. V. LYNDON, 262 U.S. 226, 232.  AS TO THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT, ONE SHOULD REFER TO WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S.
383, 398, AND AS TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SIXTH, TO WEST V.
LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 323
324. 

FN14  ART. II, SEC. 2, OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1870, SUPRA. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA.  "BY VIRTUE OF THAT PROVISION (IN THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT), COUNSEL MUST BE FURNISHED TO AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT
PROSECUTED IN A FEDERAL COURT IN EVERY CASE, WHATEVER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES."  FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134, 136-137.  SEE ALSO,
BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 461, 464-465; GLASSER V. UNITED STATES,
315 U.S. 60, 70; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT,
302 U.S. 319, 327. 

FN16  "IN ALL THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES THE PARTIES MAY PLEAD
AND MANAGE THEIR OWN CAUSES PERSONALLY, OR BY THE ASSISTANCE OF SUCH
COUNSEL OR ATTORNEYS AT LAW AS, BY THE RULES OF THE SAID COURTS,
RESPECTIVELY, ARE PERMITTED TO MANAGE AND CONDUCT CAUSES THEREIN." 
JUD.  CODE, SEC. 272, 36 STAT. 1164, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 394. 

THIS IS ALMOST VERBATIM AS IT WAS ENACTED AS SEC. 35 IN THE FIRST
JUDICIARY ACT, SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, 1 STAT. 92. 

"EVERY PERSON WHO IS INDICTED OF TREASON OR OTHER CAPITAL CRIME,
SHALL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE HIS FULL DEFENSE BY COUNSEL LEARNED IN THE
LAW; AND THE COURT BEFORE WHICH HE IS TRIED, OR SOME JUDGE THEREOF,
SHALL IMMEDIATELY, UPON HIS REQUEST, ASSIGN TO HIM SUCH COUNSEL, NOT
EXCEEDING TWO, AS HE MAY DESIRE, AND THEY SHALL HAVE FREE ACCESS TO HIM
AT ALL SEASONABLE HOURS.  ...  " R.S. SEC. 1034, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 563. 

THIS CONFORMS CLOSELY TO SEC. 29 IN THE FIRST FEDERAL CRIMES ACT,
APPROVED APRIL 30, 1790, 1 STAT. 118. 

FN17  "IT IS PROBABLY SAFE TO SAY THAT FROM ITS ADOPTION IN 1791
UNTIL 1938, THE RIGHT CONFERRED ON THE ACCUSED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
'TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE' WAS GENERALLY
UNDERSTOOD AS MEANING THAT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS THE DEFENDANT IN A
CRIMINAL CASE WAS ENTITLED TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL RETAINED BY
HIM.  IT WAS NOT ASSUMED THAT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE COMPRISED
THE RIGHT OF A PRISONER TO HAVE COUNSEL ASSIGNED TO HIM BY THE COURT
IF, FOR FINANCIAL OR OTHER REASONS, HE WAS UNABLE TO RETAIN COUNSEL. 
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WAS NOT REGARDED AS IMPOSING ON THE TRIAL JUDGE IN
A FEDERAL COURT THE DUTY TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT. 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"THE MARKED DEPARTURE EFFECTED BY THE DECISION IN JOHNSON V. ZERBST
CREATED A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN RESPECT TO CASES PREVIOUSLY TRIED. 
NO OBSTACLE EXISTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICATION OF THIS RULING
TO SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS."  HOLTZOFF, THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL UNDER THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT, 20 N.Y.U.L.Q. REV. 1, 7-8, 10(1944). 

AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE ABOVE STATEMENT, JUDGE HOLTZOFF WAS THE
SECRETARY FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE. 

FN18  "RULE 44.  ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL.  IF THE DEFENDANT APPEARS IN
COURT WITHOUT COUNSEL, THE COURT SHALL ADVISE HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO
COUNSEL AND ASSIGN COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM AT EVERY STAGE OF THE
PROCEEDING UNLESS HE ELECTS TO PROCEED WITHOUT COUNSEL OR IS ABLE TO
OBTAIN COUNSEL."  FED. R. CRIM. P., EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 1946, 327 U.S.
866-867, 18 U.S.C. 1946 ED., FOLLOWING SEC. 687. 

"THIS RULE IS A RESTATEMENT OF EXISTING LAW IN REGARD TO THE
DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF COUNSEL AS DEFINED IN RECENT
JUDICIAL DECISIONS.   ...  THE PRESENT EXTENT OF THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL
HAS BEEN DEFINED RECENTLY IN JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458; WALKER V.
JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275; AND GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60.  THE
RULE IS A RESTATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THESE
DECISIONS."  NOTES TO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, MARCH, 1945, P.
38(REVISED EDITION, PP. 40-41). 

FN19  THE TABULATIONS SHOW THAT, AS OF 1930, 13 STATES "PROVIDE THAT
IF THE DEFENDANT APPEAR FOR ARRAIGNMENT WITHOUT COUNSEL HE SHALL BE
INFORMED BY THE COURT THAT IT IS HIS RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL BEFORE BEING
ARRAIGNED, AND HE SHALL BE ASKED IF HE DESIRE THE AID OF COUNSEL."  SIX
STATES "PROVIDE THAT THE ACCUSED HAS A RIGHT TO COUNSEL:  ...  "
EIGHTEEN STATES, INCLUDING ILLINOIS, PROVIDE UNDER VARYING CONDITIONS
"THAT THE COURT SHALL ASSIGN COUNSEL IF THE ACCUSED DESIRE IT, AND BE
UNABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL:  ...  "  FIFTEEN STATES, INCLUDING ILLINOIS,
PROVIDE UNDER VARYING CONDITIONS "THAT THE COURT SHALL ASSIGN COUNSEL
IF THE ACCUSED BE UNABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL:  ...  "  BOTH ILLINOIS AND
LOUISIANA REQUIRED A SHOWING OF INABILITY TO BE MADE BY THE ACCUSED
UNDER OATH.  FIVE STATES "PROVIDE THAT THE COURT SHALL ASSIGN COUNSEL
IF ACCUSED DESIRE IT:  ... "  THREE STATES PROVIDE THAT THE COURT MAY
APPOINT ONE OR MORE ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT THE ACCUSED AND 14 "PROVIDE
THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL BY THE COURT FOR DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED
SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO:  ...  "  THIRTEEN STATES "PROVIDE THAT COUNSEL
FOR THE DEFENSE SHALL HAVE FREE ACCESS TO THE PRISONER AT ALL
REASONABLE HOURS:  ...  "  CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, COMMENTARY TO
SEC. 203(1930) 630-634. 

FN20  THIS COURT SUMMARIZED THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE COMMISSION OF A ROBBERY. 
THE STATE'S CASE CONSISTED OF EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING THE PETITIONER AS
THE PERPETRATOR.  THE DEFENSE WAS AN ALIBI.  PETITIONER CALLED AND
EXAMINED WITNESSES TO PROVE THAT HE WAS AT ANOTHER PLACE AT THE TIME OF
THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.  THE SIMPLE ISSUE WAS THE VERACITY OF
THE TESTIMONY FOR THE STATE AND THAT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  AS JUDGE BOND
SAYS, THE ACCUSED WAS NOT HELPLESS, BUT WAS A MAN FORTY-THREE YEARS
OLD, OF ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE, AND ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF HIS OWN
INTERESTS ON THE TRIAL OF THAT NARROW ISSUE.  HE HAD ONCE BEFORE BEEN
IN A CRIMINAL COURT, PLEADED GUILTY TO LARCENY AND SERVED A SENTENCE
AND WAS NOT WHOLLY UNFAMILIAR WITH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE."  ID. AT P.
472. 

FN21  THE COURT ALSO REVIEWED THE MATERIAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL STATES.  ID. AT P. 467. 
IT THEN SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS CURRENTLY IN FORCE: 

"THE CONSTITUTIONS OF ALL THE STATES, PRESENTLY IN FORCE, SAVE THAT
OF VIRGINIA, CONTAIN PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL TRIALS.  THOSE OF NINE STATES MAY BE SAID TO EMBODY
A GUARANTEE TEXTUALLY THE SAME AS THAT OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, OR OF
LIKE IMPORT.  IN THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF MOST STATES, HOWEVER, THE
LANGUAGE USED INDICATES ONLY THAT A DEFENDANT IS NOT TO BE DENIED THE
PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"IN EIGHTEEN STATES THE STATUTES NOW REQUIRE THE COURT TO APPOINT IN
ALL CASES WHERE DEFENDANTS ARE UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL.  ...  AND IT
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ASSUMED BY MANY LEGISLATURES THAT THE MATTER WAS ONE
FOR REGULATION FROM TIME TO TIME AS DEEMED NECESSARY, SINCE LAWS
REQUIRING APPOINTMENT IN ALL CASES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO REQUIRE IT
ONLY IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN OFFENSES."  ID. AT PP. 467-468, 470-471. 

PARTICULARLY FROM THE FAILURE OF THE STATES TO TREAT THE REQUIREMENT
OF INQUIRY BY THE COURT AS TO COUNSEL OR THE REQUIREMENT OF APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL, EITHER UNIFORMLY OR AS A MATTER FOR INCORPORATION IN THE
STATE CONSTITUTIONS, THE COURT CONCLUDED - 

"WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS INCORPORATED IN
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OBLIGATES THE STATES, WHATEVER MAY BE THEIR
OWN VIEWS, TO FURNISH COUNSEL IN EVERY SUCH CASE.  EVERY COURT HAS
POWER, IF IT DEEMS PROPER, TO APPOINT COUNSEL WHERE THAT COURSE SEEMS
TO BE REQUIRED IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS."  ID. AT PP. 471-472. 
THE DISSENTING OPINION ALSO MARSHALS THE STATES AND COLLECTS THEM UNDER
THE FOLLOWING HEADINGS: 35 STATES, INCLUDING ILLINOIS, BY
CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISION OR BY JUDICIAL DECISION OR
ESTABLISHED PRACTICE JUDICIALLY APPROVED, REQUIRE "THAT INDIGENT
DEFENDANTS IN NON-CAPITAL AS WELL AS CAPITAL CRIMINAL CASES BE PROVIDED
WITH COUNSEL ON REQUEST:..."  OF THE REMAINING 13, NINE "ARE WITHOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, STATUTES, OR JUDICIAL DECISIONS CLEARLY
ESTABLISHING THIS REQUIREMENT:  ...  "; THERE ARE TWO STATES "IN WHICH
DICTA OF JUDICIAL OPINIONS ARE IN HARMONY WITH THE DECISION BY THE
COURT BELOW IN THIS CASE:  ...  "  (HERE AFFIRMED); AND THERE ARE TWO
STATES "IN WHICH THE REQUIREMENT OF COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN
NON-CAPITAL CASES HAS BEEN AFFIRMATIVELY REJECTED:  ...  "  ID. AT PP.
477-480.  FOR THE INSTANT CASES, THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THIS
TABULATION SHOWS THAT ONLY 35 STATES REQUIRED THE APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN NONCAPITAL CASES, EVEN UPON THE
ACCUSED'S REQUEST FOR SUCH APPOINTMENT.  NO SUCH REQUEST WAS PRESENT
HERE. 

FN22  CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173, 174-175; RICE V. RICE V.
OLSON, 324 U.S. 786, 788-789; ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN,
317 U.S. 269, 276-279; WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275, 286; JOHNSON
V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 467-469.  SEE THE RIGHT TO BENEFIT OF
COUNSEL UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, 42 COL. L. REV. 271, 277
280(1942). 

FN23  SEE NOTE 17, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

IN CONSIDERING CASES LIKE THIS AND THE ILL-STARRED DECISION IN BETTS
V. BRADY,  FN1  316 U.S. 455, WE SHOULD ASK OURSELVES THIS QUESTION:
OF WHAT VALUE IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF A FAIR TRIAL IF AN
ACCUSED DOES NOT HAVE COUNSEL TO ADVISE AND DEFEND HIM? 

THE FRAMERS DEEMED THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL INDISPENSABLE, FOR THEY WROTE
INTO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT THAT IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS THE ACCUSED
"SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT  ...  TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS
DEFENCE."  HENCE, IF THIS CASE HAD BEEN TRIED IN THE FEDERAL COURT,
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WOULD HAVE BEEN MANDATORY, EVEN THOUGH BUTE DID
NOT REQUEST IT.  SEE JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 463.  I DO NOT
THINK THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS OR FAIRNESS DEPEND ON WHAT COURT AN
ACCUSED IS IN.  I THINK THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS APPLICABLE TO ALL
COURTS AT ALL TIMES.  MR. JUSTICE BLACK DEMONSTRATED IN HIS DISSENT IN
ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46, 68, 71, THAT A CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS TO PROTECT THE SAFEGUARDS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS AGAINST INVASION BY THE STATES.  IF DUE PROCESS AS DEFINED IN
THE BILL OF RIGHTS REQUIRES APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO REPRESENT
DEFENDANTS IN FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS, DUE PROCESS DEMANDS THAT THE SAME
BE DONE IN STATE PROSECUTIONS.  THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR FAIR TRIALS
ARE THOSE WHICH THE FRAMERS DEEMED SO IMPORTANT TO PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS THAT THEY WROTE THEM INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THUS MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR EITHER LEGISLATURES OR COURTS TO TINKER WITH THEM.  I
FAIL TO SEE WHY IT IS DUE PROCESS TO DENY AN ACCUSED THE BENEFIT OF
COUNSEL IN A STATE COURT WHEN BY CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS THAT BENEFIT
COULD NOT BE WITHHELD FROM HIM IN A FEDERAL COURT. 

BUT IF WE TAKE THE VIEW MORE HOSTILE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
AND ASSUME THAT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT PROVIDES LESSER SAFEGUARDS THAN THOSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
THE RESULT SHOULD BE THE SAME.  THEN THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR BUTE WAS REQUIRED "BY NATURAL, INHERENT, AND
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS."  BETTS V. BRADY, SUPRA, P. 464. 

ILLINOIS ALLOWS COUNSEL TO EVERYONE CHARGED WITH CRIME.  TO OBTAIN
COUNSEL, HOWEVER, THE ACCUSED HAS TO ASK FOR ONE AND ALSO TO STATE UPON
OATH THAT HE IS UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL.  FN2  PEOPLE V. VAN HORN,
396 ILL. 496, 498, 72 N.E.2D 187, 188.  BUT, AS HELD BY THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COURT NEED NOT ADVISE HIM OF HIS
RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  FN3 THE ILLINOIS RULE APPARENTLY PROCEEDS FROM THE
PREMISE THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON KNOWS OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND
RESORTS TO AN ATTORNEY IN CASE HE GETS CAUGHT IN THE TOILS OF THE LAW. 
THAT VIEW, IF LOGICALLY APPLIED, WOULD NOT REQUIRE APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL IN ANY CASE - CAPITAL OR OTHERWISE.  FOR A MAN CHARGED WITH
MURDER USUALLY KNOWS WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HIS BLOW OR SHOT THAT KILLED
THE DECEASED AND THEREFORE WHETHER HE IS UNJUSTLY ACCUSED.  AND HE
CERTAINLY KNOWS HE IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE WHEN HE IS FACED WITH SUCH A
CHARGE.  THE LOGIC OF THE ILLINOIS VIEW WOULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE AVERAGE MAN IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD KNOW ENOUGH TO DEMAND
A LAWYER TO DEFEND HIM AND THAT THE COURT NEED NOT OFFER ONE TO HIM. 

FORTUNATELY FOR THE LIBERAL TRADITION THE LAW HAS FOLLOWED A
DIFFERENT COURSE.  AT LEAST WHERE THE OFFENSE CHARGED IS A CAPITAL ONE,
DUE PROCESS REQUIRES APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN STATE AS WELL AS IN
FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS.  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45; WILLIAMS V.
KAISER, 323 U.S. 471; DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN, 329 U.S. 663.  THE
REASON IS THAT THE GUILTY AS WELL AS THE INNOCENT ARE ENTITLED TO A
FAIR TRIAL, THAT A LAYMAN WITHOUT THE EXPERIENCE AND SKILL OF COUNSEL
TO GUIDE HIM MAY GET LOST IN THE INTRICACIES OF THE LAW AND LOSE
ADVANTAGES WHICH IT EXTENDS TO EVERY ACCUSED, THAT WITHOUT EXPERT
APPRAISAL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS ARREST, DETENTION,
ARRAIGNMENT, AND CONVICTION THE PENALTIES HE SUFFERS MAY BE AGGRAVATED
BY HIS OWN IGNORANCE OR BY OVERREACHING OF THE PROSECUTION OR POLICE. 
FN4  HENCE THE NEED FOR COUNSEL EXISTS IN CAPITAL CASES WHETHER THE
ACCUSED CONTESTS THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM OR PLEADS GUILTY.  FOSTER V.
ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134, 137. 

THOSE CONSIDERATIONS ARE EQUALLY GERMANE THOUGH LIBERTY RATHER THAN
LIFE HANGS IN THE BALANCE.  CERTAINLY DUE PROCESS SHOWS NO LESS
SOLICITUDE FOR LIBERTY THAN FOR LIFE.  A MAN FACING A PRISON TERM MAY,
INDEED, HAVE AS MUCH AT STAKE AS LIFE ITSELF. 

BUTE WAS CHARGED WITH A MOST REPULSIVE CRIME.  IT MAY SEEM EASY TO
SAY THAT IT IS A SIMPLE AND UNCOMPLICATED ONE, AND THEREFORE THAT HE
SHOULD KNOW WHETHER HE COMMITTED IT AND WHETHER HE STOOD IN NEED OF
COUNSEL.  BUT IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE CHARGE OF TAKING
INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH A CHILD IS, LIKE RAPE, "AN ACCUSATION EASILY TO
BE MADE AND HARD TO BE PROVED, AND HARDER TO BE DEFENDED BY THE PARTY
ACCUSED, THE NEVER SO INNOCENT."  1 HALE'S PLEAS OF THE CROWN 634.  AS
STATED BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT IN PEOPLE V. FREEMAN, 244 ILL.
590, 594, 91 N.E. 708, 709-710, "PUBLIC INDIGNATION IS EVEN MORE APT TO
BE AROUSED IN PROSECUTIONS FOR CRIMES OF THIS KIND AGAINST CHILDREN
THAN WHEN THE CHARGE IS BROUGHT BY AN ADULT."  CERTAINLY THE APPRAISAL
OF SUCH IMPONDERABLES, THE WEIGHT OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE, THE
CHARACTER OF THE DEFENSE WHICH IS AVAILABLE  FN5  ARE ALL QUESTIONS
WHICH ONLY A SKILLED LAWYER CAN CONSIDER INTELLIGENTLY.  A LAYMAN MIGHT
RUSH TO CONFESSION WHERE COUNSEL WOULD SEE ADVANTAGES IN A TRIAL BEFORE
JUDGE OR JURY.  COUNSEL MIGHT SEE WEAKNESS IN THE PROSECUTION'S CASE
WHICH COULD BE UTILIZED EITHER IN STANDING TRIAL OR IN PLEADING GUILTY
TO A LESSER OFFENSE.  THESE ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE
WHICH BUTE USES TO APPEAL TO OUR CONSCIENCE.  THEY WITHOUT MORE
CONVINCE ME THAT WE COULD BE SURE BUTE HAD A FAIR TRIAL ONLY IF COUNSEL
HAD STOOD AT HIS SIDE AND GUIDED HIM ACROSS THE TREACHEROUS GROUND HE
HAD TO TRAVERSE. 

BETTS V. BRADY, SUPRA, HOLDS THAT WE MUST DETERMINE CASE BY CASE,
RATHER THAN BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, WHETHER AN ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO
COUNSEL.  A MAN WHO SUFFERS UP TO 20 YEARS IN PRISON AS A PENALTY IS
UNDERGOING ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS OF ALL PUNISHMENTS.  IT MIGHT NOT BE
NONSENSE TO DRAW THE BETTS V. BRADY LINE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THAT CASE
AND THE CASE OF ONE CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF A PARKING ORDINANCE, AND
TO SAY THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL IN THE FORMER BUT NOT IN THE
LATTER.  BUT TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THIS CASE AND CASES WHERE THE
MAXIMUM PENALTY IS DEATH IS TO MAKE A DISTINCTION WHICH MAKES NO SENSE
IN TERMS OF THE ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF NEED FOR COUNSEL.  YET IT IS THE
NEED FOR COUNSEL THAT ESTABLISHES THE REAL STANDARD FOR DETERMINING
WHETHER THE LACK OF COUNSEL RENDERED THE TRIAL UNFAIR.  AND THE NEED
FOR COUNSEL, EVEN BY BETTS V. BRADY STANDARDS, IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE
COMPLEXITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASE OR THE ABILITY OF THE PARTICULAR
PERSON WHO STANDS AS AN ACCUSED BEFORE THE COURT.  THAT NEED IS
MEASURED BY THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE AND THE ABILITY OF THE AVERAGE MAN
TO FACE IT ALONE, UNAIDED BY AN EXPERT IN THE LAW.  AS POWELL V.
ALABAMA, SUPRA, INDICATES, THE NEED FOR COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES IS
GREAT EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT IS AN INTELLIGENT AND EDUCATED LAYMAN. 
THE NEED IS EQUALLY AS GREAT WHEN ONE STANDS ACCUSED OF THE SERIOUS
CHARGE CONFRONTING BUTE. 

FN1  BETTS V. BRADY WAS DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  BENJAMIN V. COHEN AND
ERWIN N. GRISWOLD, WRITING IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUGUST 2, 1942,
STATED: 

"MOST AMERICANS - LAWYERS AND LAYMEN ALIKE - BEFORE THE DECISION IN
BETTS V. BRADY WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO
COUNSEL IN A SERIOUS CRIMINAL CASE WAS UNQUESTIONABLY A PART OF OUR OWN
BILL OF RIGHTS.  CERTAINLY THE MAJORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT WHICH
RENDERED THE DECISION IN BETTS V. BRADY WOULD NOT WISH THEIR DECISION
TO BE USED TO DISCREDIT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT RIGHT AND THE
IMPORTANCE OF ITS OBSERVANCE. 

"YET AT A CRITICAL PERIOD IN WORLD HISTORY, BETTS V. BRADY
DANGEROUSLY TILTS THE SCALES AGAINST THE SAFEGUARDING OF ONE OF THE
MOST PRECIOUS RIGHTS OF MAN.  FOR IN A FREE WORLD NO MAN SHOULD BE
CONDEMNED TO PENAL SERVITUDE FOR YEARS WITHOUT HAVING THE RIGHT TO
COUNSEL TO DEFEND HIM.  THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, FOR THE POOR AS WELL AS
THE RICH, IS AN INDISPENSABLE SAFEGUARD OF FREEDOM AND JUSTICE UNDER
LAW." 

FN2  "EVERY PERSON CHARGED WITH CRIME SHALL BE ALLOWED COUNSEL, AND
WHEN HE SHALL STATE UPON OATH THAT HE IS UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL, THE
COURT SHALL ASSIGN HIM COMPETENT COUNSEL, WHO SHALL CONDUCT HIS
DEFENSE.  IN ALL CASES COUNSEL SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO PERSONS CONFINED,
AND SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE AND CONSULT SUCH PERSONS IN PRIVATE. 

"WHENEVER IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COURT THAT A DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS
INDICTED IN A CAPITAL CASE, IS OR ARE INDIGENT AND UNABLE TO PAY
COUNSEL FOR HIS OR HER DEFENSE, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO
APPOINT ONE OR MORE COMPETENT COUNSEL FOR SAID DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS,
...  " ILL. REV. STAT. C. 38, SEC. 730(1937). 

FN3  FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ILLINOIS CASES, SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION
OF MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE IN FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134, 143-144. 

FN4  THE CLASSIC STATEMENT IS THAT OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND IN
POWELL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, PP. 68-69: 

"THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD WOULD BE, IN MANY CASES, OF LITTLE AVAIL IF IT
DID NOT COMPREHEND THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY COUNSEL.  EVEN THE
INTELLIGENT AND EDUCATED LAYMAN HAS SMALL AND SOMETIMES NO SKILL IN THE
SCIENCE OF LAW.  IF CHARGED WITH CRIME, HE IS INCAPABLE, GENERALLY, OF
DETERMINING FOR HIMSELF WHETHER THE INDICTMENT IS GOOD OR BAD.  HE IS
UNFAMILIAR WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.  LEFT WITHOUT THE AID OF COUNSEL
HE MAY BE PUT ON TRIAL WITHOUT A PROPER CHARGE, AND CONVICTED UPON
INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE, OR EVIDENCE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OR OTHERWISE
INADMISSIBLE.  HE LACKS BOTH THE SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE ADEQUATELY TO
PREPARE HIS DEFENSE, EVEN THOUGH HE HAVE A PERFECT ONE.  HE REQUIRES
THE GUIDING HAND OF COUNSEL AT EVERY STEP IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
HIM.  WITHOUT IT, THOUGH HE BE NOT GUILTY, HE FACES THE DANGER OF
CONVICTION BECAUSE HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE.  IF
THAT BE TRUE OF MEN OF INTELLIGENCE, HOW MUCH MORE TRUE IS IT OF THE
IGNORANT AND ILLITERATE, OR THOSE OF FEEBLE INTELLECT." 

FN5  THE SPECIFIC INTENT WHICH IS AN INGREDIENT OF THIS OFFENSE MAY
BE DISPROVED BY A SHOWING OF INTOXICATION (PEOPLE V. KLEMANN, 383 ILL.
236, 48 N.E.2D 957) OR INSANITY.  ILL. REV. STAT. (1937) C. 38, SECS.
590, 592. 
..END :



















PARKER V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 571 


NO. 270.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1948.  - 396
ILL. 583, 72 N.E.2D 848, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED BY AN ILLINOIS COURT TO 90 DAYS IN JAIL FOR
CONTEMPT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED A DIRECT REVIEW.  THE TRIAL
COURT THEN ISSUED AN AMENDED ORDER ADJUDGING PETITIONER GUILTY OF
CONTEMPT AND SENTENCING HIM TO JAIL FOR 90 DAYS.  PETITIONER APPEALED
FROM THIS ORDER TO AN INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT, WHICH SUSTAINED IT ON
STATE GROUNDS.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  NEITHER THE
INTERMEDIATE COURT NOR THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED PETITIONER'S
CLAIMED DENIAL OF RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  UNDER
ILLINOIS PRACTICE, A CASE INVOLVING A CLAIM OF FEDERAL RIGHT MUST BE
TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE TRIAL COURT TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, ELSE
THE FEDERAL QUESTION IS DEEMED WAIVED.  HELD: 

1.  IN APPEALING THE AMENDED ORDER TO THE INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT
RATHER THAN DIRECTLY TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, PETITIONER WAIVED HIS
CLAIM OF RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  CENTRAL UNION CO. V.
EDWARDSVILLE, 269 U.S. 190.  PP. 572-576. 

2.  WHEN FEDERAL RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER A CLAIMANT'S FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE DESIGNED
BY A STATE FOR THEIR PROTECTION CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF THEM.  P. 574. 

3.  THE ILLINOIS PRACTICE OF REQUIRING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS TO BE
TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, AND REFUSING TO REVIEW THEM
IF REVIEW IS FIRST SOUGHT IN AN INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT, AFFORDS
LITIGANTS A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE STATE COURT, AND IS VALID.  PP. 574-575. 

4.  THE FACT THAT A PETITION TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF
THE AMENDED ORDER MAY HAVE SEEMED FUTILE, IN VIEW OF THAT COURT'S
DENIAL OF DIRECT REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER, DOES NOT EXCUSE
PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO PROCEED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER.  PP. 575
576. 

5.  IF THE PETITION TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI BE CONSIDERED AS
INVOLVING ONLY THE ORIGINAL ORDER, IT IS OUT OF TIME; IF IT INVOLVES
THE AMENDED ORDER, IT PRESENTS FEDERAL QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN
WAIVED.  PP. 575-576. 

6.  THE RESULT IN THIS CASE IS NO DIFFERENT IF THE ORIGINAL AND
AMENDED ORDERS ARE REGARDED AS THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE THOUGH SEPARATE IN
POINT OF TIME AND FORM, SINCE IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE FOR ILLINOIS TO
REFUSE A SECOND APPEAL.  P. 576. 

PARKER V. ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED DIRECT REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF A TRIAL
COURT SENTENCING PETITIONER TO IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT.  AN AMENDED
ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY AN APPELLATE COURT, 328 ILL.
APP. 46, AND BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, 396 ILL. 583, 72 N.E.2D 848. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 846.  AFFIRMED, P. 577. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN LITIGATION IN THE ILLINOIS COURTS WITH
ONE SHAMBERG, WAS ORDERED ON A MOTION FOR DISCOVERY TO PRODUCE CERTAIN
DOCUMENTS.  HE PRODUCED THEM BY FILING THEM WITH THE CLERK OF THE
ILLINOIS COURTS.  SHAMBERG THEREUPON MOVED THAT PETITIONER BE PUNISHED
FOR CONTEMPT BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS REFLECTED ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE
COURT.  AFTER A HEARING PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT. 
THE COURT HELD THAT THE ORDER REQUIRED ONLY THAT PETITIONER PRODUCE THE
DOCUMENTS, NOT THAT HE FILE THEM IN COURT SO AS TO MAKE THEM PUBLIC
RECORDS; AND THAT THE FILING OF THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINING STATEMENTS
DEEMED TO BE SCURRILOUS CONSTITUTED AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND AN
ABUSE OF THE PROCESSES OF THE COURT, TENDING TO LESSEN THE COURT'S
DIGNITY AND AUTHORITY.  FN1  PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED TO JAIL FOR 90
DAYS.  THAT WAS ON JANUARY 15, 1945.  PETITIONER THEREUPON SOUGHT A
WRIT OF ERROR IN THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF
JANUARY 15.  THE WRIT OF ERROR WAS REFUSED ON JANUARY 23, 1945.  LATER
IN THE SAME DAY THE TRIAL COURT, OVER PETITIONER'S OBJECTION AND IN HIS
PRESENCE, ISSUED AN AMENDED ORDER ADJUDGING HIM GUILTY OF CONTEMPT AND
SENTENCING HIM TO JAIL FOR 90 DAYS.  THIS AMENDMENT WAS MADE, IT IS
SAID, TO CURE CERTAIN DEFECTS IN THE ORDER OF JANUARY 15 AND TO BRING
IT INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ILLINOIS LAW. 

THE AMENDED ORDER OF JANUARY 23 IS THE ONE BEFORE US.  PETITIONER DID
NOT SEEK TO TAKE IT DIRECTLY TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.  RATHER, HE
TOOK IT FIRST TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS WHERE HE SOUGHT TO
ATTACK IT ON THE GROUNDS, INTER ALIA, THAT IT VIOLATED THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  BUT THE ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  IT
SUSTAINED THE AMENDED ORDER OF JANUARY 23 ON STATE GROUNDS.  328 ILL.
APP. 46, 65 N.E.2D 457.  ON WRIT OF ERROR THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT.  396 ILL. 583, 72 N.E.2D
848.  IT LIKEWISE DID NOT CONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH
PETITIONER PRESENTED.  FOR IT IS WELL-SETTLED LAW IN ILLINOIS THAT IF
AN APPELLANT TAKES HIS CASE TO THE APPELLATE COURT WHERE ERRORS ARE
ASSIGNED OF WHICH THAT COURT HAS JURISDICTION, HE IS DEEMED TO HAVE
WAIVED ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  PEOPLE V. ROSENTHAL, 370 ILL.
244, 247, 18 N.E.2D 450, 452; PEOPLE V. MCDONNELL, 377 ILL. 568, 569,
37 N.E.2D 159, 160.  THAT WAS THE REASON NEITHER OF THE COURTS BELOW
PASSED ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS TENDERED BY PETITIONER. 
FN2  SEE 328 ILL. APP. 46, 55, 65 N.E.2D 457, 461; 396 ILL. 583, 587,
72 N.E.2D 848, 850-851.  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE PETITIONER HAD TAKEN
THE ORDER OF JANUARY 15 DIRECTLY TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DID NOT
CAUSE THAT COURT TO EXCEPT THIS CASE FROM THAT WELL-SETTLED RULE OF
ILLINOIS PRACTICE. 

THIS COURT HELD IN CENTRAL UNION CO. V. EDWARDSVILLE, 269 U.S. 190,
THAT FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH ILLINOIS HELD HAD BEEN
WAIVED FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW ITS PROCEDURE WOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED
HERE.  THE NATURE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE PRESENT CASE SEEMED
TO US TO WARRANT A GRANT OF THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE RULE OF THE EDWARDSVILLE CASE WAS APPLICABLE TO
THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED HERE. 

WHEN FEDERAL RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, IT IS, OF COURSE, FOR THIS COURT
FINALLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE
DESIGNED BY A STATE FOR THEIR PROTECTION CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF THEM. 
DAVIS V. O'HARA, 266 U.S. 314; CENTRAL UNION CO. V. EDWARDSVILLE,
SUPRA.  THE COURT SAID IN THE EDWARDSVILLE CASE THAT WHEN THE WAIVER IS
FOUNDED ON A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE APPELLATE PRACTICE OF A STATE,
THE QUESTION TURNS ON WHETHER THAT PRACTICE GIVES LITIGANTS "A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE ISSUE AS TO THE CLAIMED RIGHT HEARD
AND DETERMINED" BY THE STATE COURT.  269 U.S., PP. 194-195.  IT WAS
THERE HELD THAT THE ILLINOIS PRACTICE OF REQUIRING CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS TO BE TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT AND OF
REFUSING TO REVIEW THEM IF REVIEW WAS FIRST SOUGHT IN THE APPELLATE
COURT SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT.  WE ADHERE TO THAT DECISION.  THE
CHANNEL THROUGH WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, RAISED BY
PETITIONER IN HIS ATTACK ON THE AMENDED ORDER, COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN
ALL THE WAY TO THIS COURT WAS NOT ONLY CLEARLY MARKED, IT WAS ALSO OPEN
AND UNOBSTRUCTED. 

PETITIONER APPEARS HERE PRO SE.  BUT AT THE CRITICAL STAGES OF THIS
LITIGATION HE WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OF RECORD.  FOR THE LAWYER THE
CHOICE WAS PLAIN.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES PETITIONER PLAINLY HAD A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HIS FEDERAL QUESTIONS PASSED UPON BY THE
STATE COURT.  WHEN PETITIONER ACTING THROUGH COUNSEL DECIDED TO SEEK
REVIEW IN THE APPELLATE COURT HE MADE A CHOICE WHICH INVOLVED
ABANDONMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH HE HAD RAISED IN THE
PROCEEDINGS.  THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT PETITIONER DEEMED IT USELESS
TO TRY TO TAKE THE AMENDED ORDER OF JANUARY 23 TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT SINCE ACCESS TO THAT COURT HAD BEEN DENIED HIM WHEN REVIEW OF THE
ORDER OF JANUARY 15 WAS SOUGHT.  BUT EVEN THOUGH THE ATTEMPT MAY HAVE
SEEMED FUTILE,  FN3  IT WAS ONLY BY FIRST SEEKING REVIEW IN THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT THAT HE COULD BRING TO THIS COURT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED UNDER THE AMENDED ORDER OF JANUARY 23. 
IT IS NOT AN ANSWER TO SAY THAT HE WENT TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF JANUARY 15.  FN4  THAT IS NOT THE ORDER
UNDER WHICH HE STANDS COMMITTED; IT IS NOT THE ORDER REVIEWED BY THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE.  NOR COULD DENIAL BY THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT OF HIS PETITION FOR A REVIEW OF THAT EARLIER ORDER HAVE
BEEN THE FOUNDATION FOR THIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  REVIEW OF THAT
ORDER WAS DENIED BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ON JANUARY 23, 1945. 
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED HERE AUGUST 15, 1947.  HIS PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI IS NOT TIMELY IF IT CHALLENGES THE EARLIER ORDER.  FN5
IT PRESENTS FEDERAL QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN WAIVED IF IT INVOLVES, AS
IT PLAINLY DOES, THE AMENDED ORDER. 

THE RESULT IS NO DIFFERENT IF THE ORDERS ARE TREATED AS BEING THE
SAME IN SUBSTANCE THOUGH SEPARATE IN POINT OF TIME AND FORM.  FOR IF
THE JANUARY 15 ORDER BE REGARDED AS MERELY AN INTERLOCUTORY VERSION OF
THE AMENDED ORDER OF JANUARY 23, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE LATTER ORDER
WAS NOT TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT BUT TO THE
ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES WE HAVE INDICATED.  WE
FIND IT NO MORE UNREASONABLE FOR ILLINOIS TO REQUIRE A SECOND APPEAL
THAN FOR THIS COURT TO DO SO, AS IT DOES WHEN IT REFUSES TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT OF A LOWER STATE COURT ABSENT A SECOND APPEAL TO THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE, THOUGH THAT BE A MERE FORMALITY BECAUSE GOVERNED BY
THE LAW OF THE CASE ESTABLISHED IN AN EARLIER APPEAL.  MCCOMB V.
COMMISSIONERS OF KNOX COUNTY, 91 U.S. 1; GREAT WESTERN TELEGRAPH CO. V.
BURNHAM, 162 U.S. 339. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IN THIS CASE THERE COULD BE NO FINAL JUDGMENT
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344, WHICH COULD BE BROUGHT HERE BY CERTIORARI UNTIL ALL QUESTIONS OF
STATE LAW HAD BEEN RESOLVED BY THE ILLINOIS COURTS.  BUT THERE WOULD BE
NOTHING OTHER THAN MINISTERIAL ACTS LEFT TO BE DONE BY THE TRIAL COURT
ONCE THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DENIED DIRECT REVIEW OF THE ORDER.  CF.
RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329 U.S. 69, 72-73.  ANY FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN THE ILLINOIS COURTS WOULD BE SOLELY AT THE OPTION OF
PETITIONER.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, A JUDGMENT IS NO LESS FINAL FOR
PURPOSES OF OUR JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED
SOLELY ON FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  FN6  THAT CONSEQUENCE IS
INHERENT IN THE RULE FORMULATED IN CENTRAL UNION CO. V. EDWARDSVILLE,
SUPRA.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE REVIEWED IN 328 ILL. APP. 46,
50-54, 65 N.E.2D 457, 459-461. 

FN2 CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE TO BE REVIEWED DIRECTLY BY THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.  ILL. REV. STAT. C. 110, SEC. 199(1947).  AS
HELD IN THIS CASE THOSE INCLUDE QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  AND SEE CENTRAL UNION CO. V. EDWARDSVILLE, 269 U.S. 190,
194.  THE PROCEDURE IS APPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL AS WELL AS CIVIL CASES. 
PEOPLE V. TERRILL, 362 ILL. 61, 199 N.E. 97; PEOPLE V. ROSENTHAL,
SUPRA; PEOPLE V. MCDONNELL, SUPRA. 

FN3  CF. GREAT WESTERN TELEGRAPH CO. V. BURNHAM, 162 U.S. 339. 

FN4  THE WRIT OF ERROR BY WHICH PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF
JANUARY 15 DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE PRESENT RECORD.  WE ASSUME MOST
FAVORABLY TO PETITIONER THAT THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WERE
PRESENTED THERE AS PETITIONER SEEKS TO HAVE ADJUDICATED HERE. 

FN5  SEC. 8(A) OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT.
936, 940, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 350. 

FN6  IF DIRECT REVIEW OF THE AMENDED ORDER WERE OBTAINED IN THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT, RATHER THAN DENIED FOR LACK OF A SUBSTANTIAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, THAT COURT WOULD PASS NOT ONLY UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BUT UPON ALL OTHER QUESTIONS AS WELL.  GROOME
V. FREYN ENGINEERING CO., 374 ILL. 113, 28 N.E.2D 274; PEOPLE V. KELLY,
367 ILL. 616, 618, 12 N.E.2D 612, 613; GEIGER V. MERLE, 360 ILL. 497,
505, 507, 196 N.E. 497, 500-501. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY AGREE, DISSENTING. 

PETITIONER HAS BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT
FOR COMPLYING WITH AN ORDER OF COURT TO PRODUCE SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS. 
TECHNICALLY HE WAS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT
BE PRODUCED.  AFTER HIS OBJECTIONS TO THAT ORDER WERE OVERRULED HE
COMPLIED BY BRINGING THE DOCUMENTS INTO COURT AND FILING THEM WITH THE
CLERK.  FN1  THEREUPON HE WAS CITED FOR CONTEMPT BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS
REFLECTED ON THE COURT'S INTEGRITY AND WAS SENTENCED TO 90 DAYS IN
JAIL. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE GIVEN GROUND FOR PUNISHMENT
IF THEY HAD BEEN PUBLISHED VOLUNTARILY BY PETITIONER,  FN2  THE EFFECT
OF THE CONTEMPT JUDGMENT COUPLED WITH THAT OF THE ORDER FOR PRODUCTION
FN3  HAS BEEN FIRST TO COMPEL PETITIONER TO PUBLISH THE STATEMENTS BY
FILING THEM AND THEN TO SEND HIM TO JAIL FOR OBEYING THE COURT'S
ORDER.  CF. ENTICK V. CARRINGTON, 19 HOW.  ST. TR. 1029, 1073.  I KNOW
OF NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER WHICH PERMITS A STATE TO FORCE A CITIZEN
INTO SUCH A DILEMMA, AND I THINK THE MOST ELEMENTARY CONCEPTION OF DUE
PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS ANY SUCH ACTION. 

YET THIS COURT NOW ACQUIESCES IN THIS SUBSTANTIAL AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION OF PETITIONER'S LIBERTY BY ACCEPTING AN
ASSERTED PROCEDURAL WAIVER OF PETITIONER'S SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS WHICH, IN
MY OPINION, NO MORE COMPORTS WITH BASIC CONCEPTIONS OF DUE PROCESS THAN
DOES THE SUBSTANTIVE ORDER FOR COMMITMENT.  CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MAY
BE NULLIFIED QUITE AS READILY AND COMPLETELY BY HYPERTECHNICAL
PROCEDURAL OBSTRUCTIONS TO THEIR EFFECTIVE ASSERTION AND MAINTENANCE AS
BY OUTRIGHT SUBSTANTIVE DENIAL.  MARINO V. RAGEN, 332 U.S. 561,
CONCURRING OPINION AT 563. 

THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE COURT'S ACTION IS THAT THE ORIGINAL CONTEMPT
ORDER OF JANUARY 15 AND THE SO-CALLED AMENDED ORDER OF JANUARY 23 ARE
DIFFERENT ORDERS; PETITIONER IS DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY TAKING AN APPEAL FROM THE LATTER ORDER TO THE
ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT RATHER THAN TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT. 
THE CASE SEEMS SIMPLE BECAUSE IT IS SAID TO BE "WELL-SETTLED ILLINOIS
LAW" THAT BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE WAIVED BY
TAKING THIS APPELLATE ROUTE, AND BECAUSE THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY
DETERMINED THAT THIS APPELLATE PRACTICE GIVES LITIGANTS A REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.  SEE CENTRAL UNION CO. V. EDWARDSVILLE, 269
U.S. 190, 194-195. 

I CANNOT ACCEPT THIS HYPERTECHNICAL PROCEDURAL NULLIFICATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN A CASE INVOLVING THE LIBERTY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL.  THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF JANUARY 15 AND THE SO-CALLED AMENDED
ORDER ARE IN REALITY THE SAME ORDER.  MOREOVER, PRIOR TO THIS CASE
THERE WAS NO "WELL-SETTLED ILLINOIS LAW" TO APPRISE PETITIONER THAT HIS
APPEAL TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT WOULD CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF HIS
RIGHTS IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THESE, WHERE HE HAD ALREADY SOUGHT
REVIEW OF HIS FEDERAL QUESTIONS IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  AND
FINALLY, EVEN IF THE CONTRARY HAD BEEN TRUE, I WOULD NOT CONSIDER THIS
APPELLATE PRACTICE REASONABLE WITHIN THE DOCTRINE OF THE CENTRAL UNION
CASE. 

PETITIONER FILED THE "SCURRILOUS AFFIDAVITS" WHICH LED TO THE
CONTEMPT ORDER ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.  THE FIRST WAS ON JANUARY 4
IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO PRODUCE THEM FOR INSPECTION.  THE SECOND
WAS ON JANUARY 15 AS PART OF HIS ANSWER TO SHAMBERG'S MOTION FOR A RULE
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT FOR FILING
DOCUMENTS WHICH HE WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO PRODUCE FOR INSPECTION.  ON
THIS SECOND OCCASION THE DOCUMENTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE PLEADINGS
BECAUSE RELEVANT TO HIS DEFENSE THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE THEREIN WERE
TRUE.  FN4  THE COURT ADJUDGED PETITIONER IN CONTEMPT FOR BOTH
FILINGS.  FN5    IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEMPT ORDER OF JANUARY 15 THE COURT
SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN FILED
TWICE BEFORE, IDENTIFIED THEM CAREFULLY, AND STATED THAT THEY "SHOULD
BE BY REFERENCE INCORPORATED IN THIS ORDER AND MADE A PART HEREOF FOR
GREATER CERTAINTY."  AT A LATER POINT IN THE ORDER THE DOCUMENTS WERE
AGAIN LISTED AND ADJUDGED TO BE "HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN
THIS ORDER AND MADE A PART HEREOF WITH THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS IF
SET FORTH HEREIN."  THUS THE DOCUMENTS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE CONTEMPT
ORDER WERE TWICE MADE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AND TWICE INCORPORATED
IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEMPT ORDER. 

THE SO-CALLED AMENDED ORDER OF JANUARY 23 IS ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL
WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER WITH THE IMMATERIAL EXCEPTION THAT THE
DOCUMENTS, IN ADDITION TO BEING INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER BY REFERENCE
WERE ALSO "MADE A PART HEREOF AND MARKED EXHIBITS 'A' AND 'B'
RESPECTIVELY."  THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE IS PROBABLY EXPLAINED BY
ILLINOIS CASES SUCH AS PEOPLE V. HOGAN, 256 ILL. 496, HOLDING THAT THE
RECORD ON REVIEW OF A CONTEMPT ORDER IS LIMITED TO THE ORDER ITSELF. 
BUT RESPONDENT HAS NOT CALLED OUR ATTENTION TO ANY ILLINOIS CASES
HOLDING THAT INCORPORATION OF MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD INTO AN ORDER BY
REFERENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE THAT MATTER PART OF THE ORDER. 
INDEED, THIS VERY PROCEEDING INDICATES THAT THIS REQUIREMENT IS NOT
STRICTLY APPLIED.  FOR THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT SET ASIDE ONE ORDER
ADJUDGING PETITIONER IN CONTEMPT FOR THE TONE OF HIS ANSWER TO A
CERTAIN PLEADING FILED BY SHAMBERG ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHARGES IN
SHAMBERG'S PLEADING, WHICH WAS NOT MADE A PART OF THE CONTEMPT ORDER,
JUSTIFIED THE TONE OF THE ANSWER.  328 ILL. APP. 46, 60-68.  BUT EVEN
IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ILLINOIS LAW, IT WAS OF SUCH A TRIVIAL AND MINISTERIAL
NATURE THAT IT OBVIOUSLY DID NOT AFFECT THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL ALLEGATIONS. 

WHEN PETITIONER SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL CONTEMPT ORDER IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HE OBTAINED THE ONLY REVIEW OF THOSE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTIONS WHICH THE STATE PROCEDURE OFFERED HIM.  THAT
COURT BY DENYING THE WRIT OF ERROR MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE PASSED ON
THE MERITS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IN THE CASE.  IT IS
INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE PASSED ON THEM ANY
DIFFERENTLY IF REVIEW OF THE SO-CALLED AMENDED ORDER HAD LATER BEEN
REQUESTED.  FOR, AS FAR AS THAT COURT IS CONCERNED, IT IS LIKELY THAT
THE LAW OF THE CASE AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WAS ALREADY
SETTLED.  BUT EVEN IF IT WERE TAKEN THAT THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT HAVE
REVERSED ITS DECISION, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE SO-CALLED AMENDED
ORDER WAS THE SAME ORDER AS THE ORIGINAL JANUARY 15 ORDER OF WHICH
REVIEW HAD ALREADY BEEN DENIED.  PETITIONER IS DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED
HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS NOT BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SEEK REVIEW
IN THE SUPREME COURT, BUT BECAUSE HE FAILED TO DO SO TWICE. 

IT IS DEFINITELY NOT "WELL-SETTLED ILLINOIS LAW" THAT A WAIVER
RESULTS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN ALL OF THE CASES CITED IN THE
OPINION OF THE COURT AND IN RESPONDENT'S BRIEF THE PETITIONER INITIALLY
SOUGHT REVIEW IN THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT.  IN NONE DID HE DO
SO ONLY AFTER HAVING THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENY AN APPLICATION FOR
REVIEW.  THERE IS NO "WELL-SETTLED ILLINOIS LAW" TO THE EFFECT THAT TWO
APPLICATIONS TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO AVOID
WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  AND IF SUCH A REQUIREMENT DID EXIST
IT CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE.  FN6  CONSEQUENTLY I AM UNABLE TO
AGREE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF WAIVER APPLIED HERE TO DEPRIVE A MAN OF HIS
PERSONAL FREEDOM IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS A
REASONABLE STATE PROCEDURE WITHIN THE CENTRAL UNION CASE.  FN7 

BY STATING THAT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS NOT TIMELY IF IT
CHALLENGES THE ORIGINAL ORDER, THE COURT REPEATS ITS MISTAKE OF
TREATING THE SO-CALLED AMENDED ORDER AS SOMETHING ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT FROM THE ORIGINAL CONTEMPT ORDER.  BUT WITH THE TWO ORDERS
VIEWED AS THE SAME, THERE IS CLEARLY NO QUESTION OF TIMELINESS.  FOR
THE DENIAL OF WRIT OF ERROR BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT LEFT STATE
ISSUES THAT WENT TO THE CORE OF THE LITIGATION FOR DETERMINATION BY
APPEAL THROUGH THE INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT.  THE SITUATION THEREFORE
IS NOT THE ONE PRESENTED IN RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329
U.S. 69, WHERE THE ONLY THINGS REMAINING TO BE DONE WERE MINISTERIAL
ACTS IN THE TRIAL COURT.  HERE, EVEN IF NOTHING MORE WAS LEFT FOR THE
TRIAL COURT TO DO, A GREAT DEAL MORE WAS LEFT TO BE DONE BY THE
ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT, NAMELY, TO REVIEW AND DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS
OF STATE LAW PRESENTED IN THE CASE.  FN8  THE RICHFIELD DECISION HAD NO
RELATION TO A SPLIT PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW IN THE STATE COURTS SUCH AS
THIS, SENDING FEDERAL QUESTIONS TO ONE TRIBUNAL AND STATE QUESTIONS TO
ANOTHER.  UNTIL THE FINAL JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS ON MAY 19, 1947, IN REVIEW OF THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT'S
JUDGMENT, THE CORE OF THE LITIGATION HAD NOT BEEN TERMINATED "BY FULLY
DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES."  GOSPEL ARMY V. LOS ANGELES,
331 U.S. 543, 546.  FOR ONLY THEN WERE THE STATE QUESTIONS FINALLY
ADJUDICATED.  HENCE ANY EARLIER APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI WOULD HAVE
MET WITH THE INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE THAT WE WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION,
FOR WANT OF ANY FINAL JUDGMENT.  FN9 

PETITIONER WAS THUS PLACED IN A SECOND DILEMMA, ARISING IN THE
APPELLATE STAGE OF THE STATE PROCEEDINGS.  HE FIRST FOLLOWED THE ONLY
COURSE AFFORDED BY THE STATE PROCEDURE FOR SECURING REVIEW OF HIS
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  WHEN THEY WERE DETERMINED AGAINST
HIM HE WAS BARRED FROM COMING HERE BECAUSE STATE QUESTIONS REMAINED TO
BE DECIDED BY THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND THUS AS A MATTER OF
FEDERAL LAW UNDER OUR DECISIONS THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT FINAL.  IN ORDER
TO SURMOUNT THIS JURISDICTIONAL HURDLE PETITIONER THEN WENT TO THE ONLY
PLACE HE COULD GO, THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT.  WHEN IT DECIDED
THE STATE ISSUES AGAINST HIM, HE TOOK THE NECESSARY FURTHER STEP OF
GOING AGAIN TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  ITS ADVERSE DECISION FINALLY
CLOSED THE TRAP UPON HIM.  FOR THE FIRST TIME A JUDGMENT DISPOSITIVE OF
THE WHOLE CONTROVERSY WAS RENDERED, AND THUS THE WAY OPENED UNDER
FEDERAL LAW FOR REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS HERE.  BUT AT THE SAME
INSTANT THAT DOOR WAS CLOSED, BY APPLICATION OF THE ILLINOIS RULE THAT
TAKING APPEAL TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT "WAIVED" PETITIONER'S FEDERAL
RIGHTS.  AND THAT RULING HELD ON HIS APPLICATION FOR REHEARING. 

I CAN IMAGINE NO BETTER WAY TO ANNIHILATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BOTH
SUBSTANTIVELY AND PROCEDURALLY, THAN THUS DOVETAILING FEDERAL
JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS WITH STATE PROCEDURAL ONES.  TO SECURE
REVIEW OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS HERE, PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST HIS STATE
REMEDIES.  BUT IF HE EXHAUSTS THOSE REMEDIES HE "WAIVES" THE FEDERAL
QUESTIONS. 

THIS IS NOT WAIVER.  IT IS NULLIFICATION.  I DO NOT THINK CONGRESS
INTENDED TO COUNTENANCE SUCH A DENIAL BY THE REQUIREMENT OF FINALITY OR
THAT ITS EFFECT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH STATE PROCEDURES, SHOULD BE TO CUT
OFF THE VERY RIGHTS WHICH THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR
REVIEWING FINAL JUDGMENTS WAS ENACTED TO SAFEGUARD. 

THE ISSUE OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE IN THIS CASE IS NOT ONE OF
TIMELINESS.  IT IS RATHER ONE OF FINALITY, NOW APPLIED TO DENY RATHER
THAN TO ASSURE REVIEW IN PROTECTION OF PERSONAL LIBERTY FROM INVASION
BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE ACTION.  CENTRAL UNION CO. V. EDWARDSVILLE,
SUPRA, CONTEMPLATED NO SUCH PARADOX.  FN10  NOR, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS
ANY OTHER DECISION OF THIS COURT.  AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE
PETITIONER DID NOT WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS EITHER BY FAILING TO
SEEK CERTIORARI FROM THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT OF JANUARY
23, 1945, OR BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO SEEK THE WRIT WHEN HE
APPEALED TO THE STATE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  AT THIS TIME PETITIONER WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THERE
WAS A SLIGHT DEVIATION FROM A STRICTLY ACCURATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
COURT'S DIRECTIVE.  BUT EVEN IF HE HAD HAD COUNSEL, THE DEVIATION WAS
MINUSCULE.  IT COULD NOT HAVE FURNISHED A SUFFICIENT BASIS, WITHOUT
MORE, FOR SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF CONTEMPT AND COMMITMENT AS FOR
DISOBEDIENCE.  THE COURT'S ORDER INDEED DID NOT REST ON ANY SUCH
GROUND.  IT RESTED RATHER ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE "FILING OF SAID
SCURRILOUS AFFIDAVIT AND EXHIBITS  ...  CONSTITUTES AN OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE AND AN ABUSE OF THE (COURT'S) PROCESSES  ...  AND TENDED TO
LESSEN  ...  (ITS) DIGNITY AND AUTHORITY  ...  "  OBVIOUSLY THE MERE
FILING OF DOCUMENTS NOT SCURRILOUS COULD HAVE GIVEN NO GROUND FOR
ENTERING OR SUSTAINING SUCH AN ORDER.  CF. NOTE 3. 

FN2  CF. CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367; PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328
U.S. 331; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252. 

FN3  THE STATE MAKES A WEAK EFFORT TO AVOID THE ORDER'S EFFECT BY
ATTEMPTING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT BE PRODUCED AND ONE FOR THEIR PRODUCTION.  WE HAVE
BEEN CITED TO NO AUTHORITY HOLDING THAT IN ILLINOIS THE ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE DOES NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF AN ORDER FOR PRODUCTION IF CAUSE IS
NOT SHOWN OR, IN THAT EVENT, WOULD NOT SUPPORT AN ORDER OF CONTEMPT FOR
FAILING TO PRODUCE. 

FN4  PETITIONER NEVER OBTAINED A HEARING ON THE TRUTH OF THE
STATEMENTS IN THE DOCUMENTS EVEN THOUGH THAT ISSUE WAS RELEVANT TO THE
MERITS OF THE SLANDER ACTION AGAINST SHAMBERG WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  SINCE THIS SLANDER ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON THE
MERITS WITHOUT TRIAL, IT IS OF INTEREST THAT THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE
COURT POINTED OUT IN REVIEW OF THE CONTEMPT ORDER DISCUSSED IN NOTE 5
INFRA:  "WHEN SHAMBERG'S PETITION IS CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FACT THAT PARKER HAD DEMANDED A JURY TRIAL IN THE SLANDER CASE, IT
SEEMS REASONABLY CLEAR THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED
PARKER TO ANSWER THE PETITION, AS THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF THAT PLEADING
WAS TO HAVE THE TRIAL COURT PREJUDGE FACTS THAT PARKER INSISTED SHOULD
BE SUBMITTED TO A JURY."  328 ILL. APP. 46, 63. 

FN5  ON JANUARY 23 THE COURT ALSO ISSUED AN ADDITIONAL CONTEMPT ORDER
BASED ON THE TONE OF PETITIONER'S ANSWER TO STILL ANOTHER MOTION FILED
BY SHAMBERG ASKING THAT PETITIONER BE PLACED IN CONTEMPT FOR NOT
PRODUCING ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS LISTED IN THE MOTION TO PRODUCE.  THIS
CONTEMPT ORDER WAS SET ASIDE BY THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT.  SEE NOTE
4 SUPRA.  AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT COURT STATED:  "(SHAMBERG'S) PETITION
IS A HIGHLY PROVOCATIVE PLEADING, AND SHAMBERG PROBABLY INTENDED THAT
IT SHOULD HAVE THAT EFFECT.  THERE IS SOME FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF
PARKER THAT THE PETITION WAS DESIGNED TO PROVOKE HIM INTO MAKING SOME
ANSWER OR STATEMENT THAT WOULD SUBJECT HIM TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  THERE IS ALSO FORCE IN PARKER'S ARGUMENT THAT IF
THE STATEMENTS HE MADE IN HIS ANSWER, UPON WHICH SHAMBERG NOW RELIES,
CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT, WHY DID NOT THE MANY CHARGES MADE AGAINST
PARKER IN THE PETITION ALSO CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT?  ...  WE
THINK THAT WHEN THE STATEMENTS MADE BY PARKER IN HIS ANSWER ARE
CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SERIOUS CHARGES THAT WERE MADE AGAINST
PARKER AND THE PURITAN CHURCH IN THE PETITION, THE ANSWER SEEMS TO BE A
FAIRLY TEMPERATE PLEADING."  328 ILL. APP. 46, 67-68. 

FN6  EVEN THE OPINIONS OF THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURTS IN THIS
PROCEEDING WOULD NOT ENLIGHTEN FUTURE LITIGANTS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT
MENTION THE FACT THAT WRIT OF ERROR WAS DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT
BEFORE REVIEW IN THE APPELLATE COURT WAS SOUGHT.  SEE 328 ILL. APP. 46
AND 396 ILL. 583. 

FN7  THAT CASE DECLARED THAT THE STATE PROCEDURE "SHOULD BIND US
UNLESS SO UNFAIR OR UNREASONABLE IN ITS APPLICATION TO THOSE ASSERTING
A FEDERAL RIGHT AS TO OBSTRUCT IT."  269 U.S. 190, 195. 

FN8  THESE QUESTIONS ARE DISCUSSED IN 328 ILL. APP. 46 AND 396 ILL.
583. 

FN9  CF. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. CHEEK, 252 U.S. 567, 259 U.S. 530. 
IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT ON THE RECORD WE CANNOT ASCERTAIN WHETHER
THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S DENIAL OF REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF JANUARY
15TH WAS ON FEDERAL OR STATE GROUNDS.  BUT WHEN THE ONLY PURPOSE OF
REVIEW UNDER STATE LAW CAN BE TO SECURE DECISION OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS
AND NO MORE APPEARS FROM THE STATE COURT'S ORDER THAN THAT THE
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW WAS DENIED, THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW A
PRESUMPTION THAT THE DENIAL WAS ON STATE GROUNDS ONLY TO CUT OFF REVIEW
HERE OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS DETERMINATIVE OF THE CITIZEN'S
LIBERTY.  WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471, 478, AND AUTHORITIES
CITED. 

FN10  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE CENTRAL UNION CASE IMPLICITLY HELD
THAT A JUDGMENT OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT ADJUDICATING THE FEDERAL
ISSUES IN A CASE IS FINAL EVEN THOUGH STATE ISSUES REMAIN UNRESOLVED. 
THAT CASE, HOWEVER, WAS DECIDED ON THE EXPRESS ASSUMPTION THAT THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT WOULD PASS ON THE FEDERAL QUESTION "TOGETHER
WITH ALL THE OTHER QUESTIONS IN THE CASE."  269 U.S. 190, 195.  OF
COURSE THE STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IS FINAL WHEN IT SETTLES ALL
THE STATE ISSUES AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL ISSUES. 
..END :
















SHADE V. DOWNING, 333 U.S. 586 


NO. 448.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 1948.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1948. 


THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING, BROUGHT
UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1918, TO DETERMINE THE HEIRSHIP OF A DECEASED
CITIZEN ALLOTTEE OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES.  PP. 586-590. 

SHADE V. DOWNING ET AL. 

ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENTS IN AN OKLAHOMA STATE
COURT, CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN LANDS OF A DECEASED CITIZEN ALLOTTEE OF
THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES.  UPON MOTION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, WHO HAD BEEN SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE
PROCEEDING, THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR RESPONDENTS.  ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS CERTIFIED A QUESTION TO THIS COURT FOR DETERMINATION.  THE
QUESTION CERTIFIED IS HERE ANSWERED "NO," P. 590. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ACTING UNDER
JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 239, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346, HAS CERTIFIED THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION FOR OUR DETERMINATION: 

"(1)  IS THE UNITED STATES A NECESSARY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING TO
DETERMINE THE HEIRSHIP OF A DECEASED CITIZEN ALLOTTEE OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES BROUGHT UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 19(14), 1918, 40 STAT.
606?" 

ON JANUARY 4, 1935, THE COUNTY COURT OF CHEROKEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA,
DECREED THAT THE SOLE AND ONLY HEIRS OF THOMPSON DOWNING, A FULL-BLOOD
CHEROKEE, WERE HIS THREE DAUGHTERS, THE APPELLEES BELOW.  SOMETIME
THEREAFTER PEGGY SHADE BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN AN OKLAHOMA COURT TO CLAIM,
AS THE ONLY HEIR OF DOWNING'S SECOND WIFE, AN UNDIVIDED ONE-FOURTH
INTEREST IN DOWNING'S ALLOTTED LANDS.  SHE ATTACKED THE 1935 DECREE ON
THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT NO NOTICE OF THE PENDENCY OF THE
HEIRSHIP PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN SERVED ON THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES UNDER THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926, 44 STAT. 239, 240
241.  FN1  NOTICE OF THE PENDENCY OF THE PRESENT ACTION WAS DULY SERVED
UPON THE SUPERINTENDENT AND ON HIS MOTION THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA.  JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED FOR DEFENDANTS ON JUNE 6, 1945, THE COURT HOLDING THAT THE
UNITED STATES WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY TO THE 1935 HEIRSHIP
PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT NOTICE UNDER THE 1926 ACT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO
THE VALIDITY OF THAT DECREE.  ON APPEAL, THE COURT BELOW CERTIFIED THE
ABOVE QUESTION FOR OUR DETERMINATION. 

THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1918, 40 STAT. 606, 25 U.S.C. SECS. 375, 355,
FN2  VESTED IN THE OKLAHOMA COURTS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE HEIRSHIP
OF RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS AND TO ENTERTAIN PROCEEDINGS TO PARTITION
SUCH LANDS.  FN3  SEE SECS. 1 AND 2.  IT IS A JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE
ONLY (SEE UNITED STATES V. HELLARD, 322 U.S. 363, 365) AND LEAVES OPEN
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE UNITED STATES IS A NECESSARY OR INDISPENSABLE
PARTY TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER EITHER SECTION. 

WE HELD IN UNITED STATES V. HELLARD, SUPRA, THAT THE UNITED STATES IS
A NECESSARY PARTY TO PARTITION PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 2 OF THAT
ACT.  THAT HOLDING WAS BASED UPON THE DIRECT AND IMPORTANT INTERESTS OF
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE COURSE AND OUTCOME OF PARTITION PROCEEDINGS,
INTERESTS FLOWING FROM THE STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION OF
ALLOTTED LANDS.  LANDS PARTITIONED IN KIND TO FULL-BLOOD INDIANS REMAIN
RESTRICTED UNDER SEC. 2.  THUS THE UNITED STATES, AS GUARDIAN OF THE
INDIANS, IS DIRECTLY INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A PARTITION IN KIND, WHERE
THAT COURSE CONFORMS TO ITS POLICY OF PRESERVING RESTRICTED LANDS FOR
THE INDIANS, OR, IF A SALE IS DESIRABLE, IN INSURING THAT THE BEST
POSSIBLE PRICE IS OBTAINED.  MOREOVER, IF THE LANDS ARE BOTH RESTRICTED
AND TAX-EXEMPT, IT HAS AN INTEREST IN THE REINVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS
OF THE SALE IN SIMILARLY TAX-EXEMPT AND RESTRICTED LANDS.  ACT OF JUNE
30, 1932, 47 STAT. 474, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 409A.  AND THERE IS A FURTHER
INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO PURCHASE THE LAND FOR ANOTHER INDIAN UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE
ACT OF JUNE 26, 1936, 49 STAT. 1967.  FOR THESE REASONS WE HELD IN
UNITED STATES V. HELLARD, SUPRA, THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS A NECESSARY
PARTY TO THE PARTITION PROCEEDINGS, EVEN ABSENT A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT
TO THAT EFFECT. 

HEIRSHIP PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, PRESENT QUITE DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS.  THEY INVOLVE NO GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE DIGNITY
OF THOSE INVOLVED IN PARTITION PROCEEDINGS.  RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION
DO NOT PREVENT INHERITANCE.  UNITED STATES V. HELLARD, SUPRA, P. 365. 
DEATH OF THE ALLOTTEE OPERATES TO REMOVE THE STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON
ALIENATION; AND THE DETERMINATION OF HEIRSHIP DOES NOT OF ITSELF
INVOLVE A SALE OF LAND.  FN4  THE HEIRSHIP PROCEEDING INVOLVES ONLY "A
DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION OF FACT AS TO WHO ARE THE HEIRS OF ANY
DECEASED CITIZEN ALLOTTEE OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES."  FN5  AS SUCH,
IT IS LITTLE MORE THAN AN IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE WHO BY LAW ARE
ENTITLED TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION AND DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE
RESTRICTIONS ON THE LAND OR THE LAND ITSELF.  IMPORTANT AS THESE
PROCEEDINGS MAY BE TO THE STABILITY OF INDIAN LAND TITLES,  FN6  THEY
ARE OF PRIMARY INTEREST ONLY TO THE IMMEDIATE PARTIES.  THE UNITED
STATES IS, INDEED, HARDLY MORE THAN A STAKEHOLDER IN THE LITIGATION. 

THAT IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PARTITION AND HEIRSHIP PROCEEDINGS
WHICH WE RECOGNIZED IN UNITED STATES V. HELLARD, SUPRA, PP. 365-366. 
WE ADHERE TO IT.  FN7  ACCORDINGLY THE QUESTION CERTIFIED IS ANSWERED
"NO."  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEC. 3 OF THE ACT, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, PROVIDES:  "ANY ONE
OR MORE OF THE PARTIES TO A SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS IN THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA OR IN THE STATE COURTS OF OKLAHOMA TO WHICH A
RESTRICTED MEMBER OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA, OR THE
RESTRICTED HEIRS OR GRANTEES OF SUCH INDIAN ARE PARTIES, AS PLAINTIFF,
DEFENDANT, OR INTERVENOR, AND CLAIMING OR ENTITLED TO CLAIM TITLE TO OR
AN INTEREST IN LANDS ALLOTTED TO A CITIZEN OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES
OR THE PROCEEDS, ISSUES, RENTS, AND PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE SAME, MAY
SERVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE PENDENCY OF SUCH SUIT UPON THE
SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, AND THE UNITED STATES MAY
APPEAR IN SAID CAUSE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS THEREAFTER, OR WITHIN SUCH
EXTENDED TIME AS THE TRIAL COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY PERMIT, AND
AFTER SUCH APPEARANCE OR THE EXPIRATION OF SAID TWENTY DAYS OR ANY
EXTENSION THEREOF THE PROCEEDINGS AND JUDGMENT IN SAID CAUSE SHALL BIND
THE UNITED STATES AND THE PARTIES THERETO TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH
NO INDIAN LAND OR QUESTION WERE INVOLVED.  ...  PROVIDED, THAT WITHIN
TWENTY DAYS AFTER THE SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE ON THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR
THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES OR WITHIN SUCH EXTENDED TIME AS THE TRIAL
COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY PERMIT THE UNITED STATES MAY BE, AND HEREBY
IS, GIVEN THE RIGHT TO REMOVE ANY SUCH SUIT PENDING IN A STATE COURT TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT BY FILING IN SUCH SUIT IN THE STATE
COURT A PETITION FOR THE REMOVAL OF SUCH SUIT INTO THE SAID UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT, TO BE HELD IN THE DISTRICT WHERE SUCH SUIT IS
PENDING, TOGETHER WITH THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PLEADINGS IN SUCH SUIT
SERVED ON THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES AS
HEREINBEFORE PROVIDED.  IT SHALL THEN BE THE DUTY OF THE STATE COURT TO
ACCEPT SUCH PETITION AND PROCEED NO FURTHER IN SAID SUIT.  ...  "  SEE
UNITED STATES V. RICE, 327 U.S. 742, CF. 61 STAT. 731, 732, SEC. 3(C);
H.R. REP. NO. 740, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4. 

FN2  SEC. 1 PROVIDES:  "THAT A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION OF FACT
AS TO WHO ARE THE HEIRS OF ANY DECEASED CITIZEN ALLOTTEE OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES OF INDIANS WHO MAY DIE OR MAY HAVE HERETOFORE DIED,
LEAVING RESTRICTED HEIRS, BY THE PROBATE COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
HAVING JURISDICTION TO SETTLE THE ESTATE OF SAID DECEASED, CONDUCTED IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY THE LAWS OF SAID STATE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
HEIRSHIP IN CLOSING UP THE ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS, SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE OF SAID QUESTION  ...  " 

SEC. 2 PROVIDES:  "THAT THE LANDS OF FULL-BLOOD MEMBERS OF ANY OF THE
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES ARE HEREBY MADE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE
OF OKLAHOMA, PROVIDING FOR THE PARTITION OF REAL ESTATE.  ANY LAND
ALLOTTED IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS TO A FULL-BLOOD INDIAN, OR CONVEYED TO HIM
UPON HIS ELECTION TO TAKE THE SAME AT THE APPRAISEMENT, SHALL REMAIN
SUBJECT TO ALL RESTRICTIONS UPON ALIENATION AND TAXATION OBTAINING
PRIOR TO SUCH PARTITION.  IN CASE OF A SALE UNDER ANY DECREE, OR
PARTITION, THE CONVEYANCE THEREUNDER SHALL OPERATE TO RELIEVE THE LAND
DESCRIBED OF ALL RESTRICTIONS OF EVERY CHARACTER." 

FN3  IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORITY TO SELECT STATE
AGENCIES TO PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS.  UNITED STATES V. HELLARD, SUPRA,
P. 365. 

FN4  THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926, PROVIDES IN PART:  "THE DEATH OF ANY
ALLOTTEE OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES SHALL OPERATE TO REMOVE ALL
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE ALIENATION OF SAID ALLOTTEE'S LAND:  PROVIDED,
THAT HEREAFTER NO CONVEYANCE BY ANY FULL-BLOOD INDIAN OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES OF ANY INTEREST IN LANDS RESTRICTED BY SECTION 1 OF
THIS ACT ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE OR DEVISE FROM AN ALLOTTEE OF SUCH
LANDS SHALL BE VALID UNLESS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED ALLOTTEE
OR TESTATOR  ...  "  SEE ALSO 61 STAT. 731, SEC. 1.  WE DO NOT HAVE
BEFORE US THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE UNITED STATES IS A
NECESSARY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING TO OBTAIN COURT APPROVAL OF A DEED
UNDER THE 1926 ACT. 

FN5  SEE SEC. 1 OF THE 1918 ACT, NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 330, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 1. 

FN7  SUBSEQUENT TO THE INSTITUTION OF THESE HEIRSHIP PROCEEDINGS, AND
AFTER THE DECISION IN THE HELLARD CASE, CONGRESS MARKED THIS
DISTINCTION BY PROVIDING THAT THE OKLAHOMA STATE COURTS SHOULD HAVE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN ALL ACTIONS TO DETERMINE HEIRSHIP UNDER SEC.
1 OF THE 1918 ACT AND THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A NECESSARY OR
INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS.  61 STAT. 731, 732, SEC. 3(A)
AND (B).  MOREOVER, CONGRESS BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1945, 59
STAT. 313, 314, PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER, JUDGMENT OR DECREE IN PARTITION
MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE 1918 ACT AND PRIOR TO THE 1945 ACT AND INVOLVING
INHERITED RESTRICTED LANDS OF ENROLLED AND UNENROLLED MEMBERS OF THE
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES NOR ANY CONVEYANCE PURSUANT THERETO SHOULD BE
INVALID BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT A PARTY OR WAS NOT SERVED
WITH ANY NOTICE OR PROCESS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE BECAUSE, IN THEIR VIEW,
THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS TO PERMIT THE INTERVENTION OF THE UNITED
STATES IN CASES IN WHICH A RESTRICTED MEMBER OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED
TRIBES IS A PARTY AND THEREFORE THE UNITED STATES IS A NECESSARY PARTY
TO THE PROCEEDINGS. 
..END :














COMMISSIONER V. SUNNEN, 333 U.S. 591 


NO. 227.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1948.  - 161
F.2D 171, REVERSED. 


1.  A TAXPAYER OWNED 89% OF THE STOCK OF A MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
AND HIS WIFE OWNED 10%. THE CORPORATION WAS MANAGED BY FIVE DIRECTORS,
INCLUDING THE TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE, ELECTED ANNUALLY BY THE
STOCKHOLDERS.  A VOTE OF THREE DIRECTORS WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE BINDING
ACTION.  IN EXCHANGE FOR A SPECIFIED ROYALTY, THE TAXPAYER GAVE THE
CORPORATION NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSES TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL DEVICES
COVERED BY CERTAIN PATENTS WHICH HE OWNED.  THE LICENSES WERE
CANCELLABLE BY EITHER PARTY UPON GIVING APPROPRIATE NOTICE, SPECIFIED
NO MINIMUM ROYALTIES, AND DID NOT BIND THE CORPORATION TO MANUFACTURE
AND SELL ANY PARTICULAR NUMBER OF THE PATENTED DEVICES.  THE TAXPAYER
ASSIGNED HIS INTEREST IN THE ROYALTY AGREEMENTS TO HIS WIFE, WHO
REPORTED THE INCOME THEREFROM AS HERS.  HELD:  THE FACTS WERE
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY THE TAX COURT THAT THE TAXPAYER
RETAINED SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN THE ROYALTY CONTRACTS AND SUFFICIENT
CONTROL OVER THE AMOUNT OF INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM TO JUSTIFY TAXING
THE INCOME AS HIS.  PP. 607-610. 

2.  THE GENERAL RULE OF RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO TAX PROCEEDINGS
INVOLVING THE SAME CLAIM AND THE SAME TAX YEAR, WHILE THE DOCTRINE OF
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, WHICH IS A NARROWER VERSION OF THE RES JUDICATA
RULE, APPLIES TO TAX PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING SIMILAR OR UNLIKE CLAIMS AND
DIFFERENT TAX YEARS.  P. 598. 

3.  AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS INVOLVING A
SIMILAR ROYALTY AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT BUT DIFFERENT LICENSE
CONTRACTS AND DIFFERENT TAX YEARS WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE OF THE CONTROVERSY
UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.  P. 602. 

4.  AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS INVOLVING THE
SAME FACTS, ISSUES AND PARTIES BUT DIFFERENT TAX YEARS AND MADE PRIOR
TO THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331;
HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112; HELVERING V. EUBANK, 311 U.S. 122;
HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, 312 U.S. 579; COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, 327 U.S.
280; AND LUSTHAUS V. COMMISSIONER, 327 U.S. 293, WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE OF
THE CONTROVERSY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.  PP. 602
607. 

5.  THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT IS
NOT MEANT TO CREATE VESTED RIGHTS IN DECISIONS THAT HAVE BECOME
OBSOLETE OR ERRONEOUS WITH TIME, THEREBY CAUSING INEQUITIES AMONG
TAXPAYERS.  P. 599. 

6.  WHERE TWO CASES INVOLVE INCOME TAXES IN DIFFERENT TAX YEARS,
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MUST BE CONFINED TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE MATTER
RAISED IN THE SECOND SUIT IS IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS WITH THAT
DECIDED IN THE FIRST AND WHERE THE CONTROLLING FACTS AND APPLICABLE
LEGAL RULES REMAIN UNCHANGED.  PP. 599-600. 

7. THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IS INAPPLICABLE IN LITIGATION
REGARDING INCOME TAXES FOR DIFFERENT YEARS WHERE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT INTERVENING BETWEEN THE EARLIER AND LATER LITIGATION HAVE CHANGED
THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES.  P. 600. 

8.  IF THE RELEVANT FACTS IN TWO CASES INVOLVING INCOME TAXES FOR
DIFFERENT YEARS ARE SEPARABLE, EVEN THOUGH THEY BE SIMILAR OR
IDENTICAL, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT GOVERN THE LEGAL ISSUES WHICH
RECUR IN THE SECOND CASE.  P. 601. 

9.  THE CLARIFICATION AND GROWTH OF THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE
EFFECT OF INTRA-FAMILY ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS ON LIABILITY FOR
INCOME TAXES THROUGH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT SINCE 1939 EFFECTED A
SUFFICIENT CHANGE IN THE LEGAL CLIMATE TO RENDER A 1935 DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS INAPPLICABLE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL
ESTOPPEL TO CASES ARISING SUBSEQUENTLY AND INVOLVING THESE PRINCIPLES. 
PP. 606-607. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. SUNNEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

THE TAX COURT HELD A HUSBAND TAXABLE ON THE INCOME FROM CERTAIN
ROYALTIES ASSIGNED BY HIM TO HIS WIFE BUT NOT TAXABLE ON THE INCOME
FROM CERTAIN OTHER ROYALTIES FOR A CERTAIN YEAR.  6 T.C. 431.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE PART OF THE JUDGMENT FAVORABLE TO
THE TAXPAYER AND REVERSED THE PART ADVERSE TO HIM.  161 F.2D 171.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 756.  REVERSED, P. 610. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE. 

THE PROBLEM OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES OF INTRA-FAMILY
ASSIGNMENTS OF INCOME IS BROUGHT INTO FOCUS AGAIN BY THIS CASE. 

THE STIPULATED FACTS CONCERN THE TAXABLE YEARS 1937 TO 1941,
INCLUSIVE, AND MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

THE RESPONDENT TAXPAYER WAS AN INVENTOR-PATENTEE AND THE PRESIDENT OF
THE SUNNEN PRODUCTS COMPANY, A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE
AND SALE OF PATENTED GRINDING MACHINES AND OTHER TOOLS.  HE HELD 89% OR
1,780 OUT OF A TOTAL OF 2,000 SHARES OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE
CORPORATION.  HIS WIFE HELD 200 SHARES, THE VICE-PRESIDENT HELD 18
SHARES AND TWO OTHERS CONNECTED WITH THE CORPORATION HELD ONE SHARE
EACH.  THE CORPORATION'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSISTED OF FIVE MEMBERS,
INCLUDING THE TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE.  THIS BOARD WAS ELECTED ANNUALLY
BY THE STOCKHOLDERS.  A VOTE OF THREE DIRECTORS WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE
BINDING ACTION. 

THE TAXPAYER HAD ENTERED INTO SEVERAL NON-EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENTS
WHEREBY THE CORPORATION WAS LICENSED TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL VARIOUS
DEVICES ON WHICH HE HAD APPLIED FOR PATENTS.  FN1  IN RETURN, THE
CORPORATION AGREED TO PAY TO THE TAXPAYER A ROYALTY EQUAL TO 10% OF THE
GROSS SALES PRICE OF THE DEVICES.  THESE AGREEMENTS DID NOT REQUIRE THE
CORPORATION TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL ANY PARTICULAR NUMBER OF DEVICES;
NOR DID THEY SPECIFY A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF ROYALTIES.  EACH PARTY HAD THE
RIGHT TO CANCEL THE LICENSES, WITHOUT LIABILITY, BY GIVING THE OTHER
PARTY WRITTEN NOTICE OF EITHER SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR.  FN2  IN THE
ABSENCE OF CANCELLATION, THE AGREEMENTS WERE TO CONTINUE IN FORCE FOR
TEN YEARS.  THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZED THE CORPORATION TO
EXECUTE EACH OF THESE CONTRACTS.  NO NOTICES OF CANCELLATION WERE
GIVEN.  TWO OF THE AGREEMENTS WERE IN EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE TAXABLE
YEARS 1937-1941, WHILE THE OTHER TWO WERE IN EXISTENCE AT ALL PERTINENT
TIMES AFTER JUNE 20, 1939. 

THE TAXPAYER AT VARIOUS TIMES ASSIGNED TO HIS WIFE ALL HIS RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE VARIOUS LICENSE CONTRACTS.  FN3  SHE WAS
GIVEN EXCLUSIVE TITLE AND POWER OVER THE ROYALTIES ACCRUING UNDER THESE
CONTRACTS.  ALL THE ASSIGNMENTS WERE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AND WERE
MADE AS GIFTS TO THE WIFE, THOSE OCCURRING AFTER 1932 BEING REPORTED BY
THE TAXPAYER FOR GIFT TAX PURPOSES.  THE CORPORATION WAS NOTIFIED OF
EACH ASSIGNMENT. 

IN 1937 THE CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO THIS ARRANGEMENT, PAID THE WIFE
ROYALTIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,881.35 ON THE LICENSE CONTRACT MADE IN
1928; NO OTHER ROYALTIES ON THAT CONTRACT WERE PAID DURING THE TAXABLE
YEARS IN QUESTION.  THE WIFE RECEIVED ROYALTIES FROM OTHER CONTRACTS
TOTALING $15,518.68 IN 1937, $17,318.80 IN 1938, $25,243.77 IN 1939,
$50,492.50 IN 1940, AND $149,002.78 IN 1941.  SHE INCLUDED ALL THESE
PAYMENTS IN HER INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THOSE YEARS, AND THE TAXES SHE
PAID THEREON HAVE NOT BEEN REFUNDED. 

RELYING UPON ITS OWN PRIOR DECISION IN ESTATE OF DODSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 1 T.C. 416,  FN4  THE TAX COURT HELD THAT, WITH ONE
EXCEPTION, ALL THE ROYALTIES PAID TO THE WIFE FROM 1937 TO 1941 WERE
PART OF THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER.  6 T.C. 431.  THE ONE
EXCEPTION CONCERNED THE ROYALTIES OF $4,881.35 PAID IN 1937 UNDER THE
1928 AGREEMENT.  IN AN EARLIER PROCEEDING IN 1935, THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS DEALT WITH THE TAXPAYER'S INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR THE YEARS
1929-1931; IT CONCLUDED THAT HE WAS NOT TAXABLE ON THE ROYALTIES PAID
TO HIS WIFE DURING THOSE YEARS UNDER THE 1928 LICENSE AGREEMENT.  THIS
PRIOR DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD CAUSED THE TAX COURT TO APPLY THE
PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA TO BAR A DIFFERENT RESULT AS TO THE ROYALTIES
PAID PURSUANT TO THE SAME AGREEMENT DURING 1937. 

THE TAX COURT'S DECISION WAS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART BY
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  161 F.2D 171.  APPROVAL WAS GIVEN
TO THE TAX COURT'S APPLICATION OF THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE TO EXCLUDE
FROM THE TAXPAYER'S INCOME THE $4,881.35 IN ROYALTIES PAID IN 1937
UNDER THE 1928 AGREEMENT.  BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TAXPAYER HAD BEEN
HELD TAXABLE ON ROYALTIES PAID TO HIS WIFE DURING THE TAXABLE YEARS OF
1937-1941, THE DECISION WAS REVERSED ON THE THEORY THAT SUCH PAYMENTS
WERE NOT INCOME TO HIM.  BECAUSE OF THAT CONCLUSION, THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE THE TAXPAYER'S ADDITIONAL
CLAIM THAT THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE APPLIED AS WELL TO THE OTHER
ROYALTIES (THOSE ACCRUING APART FROM THE 1928 AGREEMENT) PAID IN THE
TAXABLE YEARS.  WE THEN BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI, THE
COMMISSIONER ALLEGING THAT THE RESULT BELOW CONFLICTS WITH PRIOR
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

IF THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IS PROPERLY APPLICABLE SO THAT ALL
THE ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE DURING 1937-1941 ARE GOVERNED BY THE PRIOR
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THE CASE MAY BE DISPOSED OF
WITHOUT REACHING THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY.  WE ACCORDINGLY CAST
OUR ATTENTION INITIALLY ON THAT POSSIBILITY, ONE THAT HAS BEEN EXPLORED
BY THE TAX COURT AND THAT HAS BEEN FULLY ARGUED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE
US. 

IT IS FIRST NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING OF THE RECOGNIZED
MEANING AND SCOPE OF RES JUDICATA, A DOCTRINE JUDICIAL IN ORIGIN.  THE
GENERAL RULE OF RES JUDICATA APPLIES TO REPETITIOUS SUITS INVOLVING THE
SAME CAUSE OF ACTION.  IT RESTS UPON CONSIDERATIONS OF ECONOMY OF
JUDICIAL TIME AND PUBLIC POLICY FAVORING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAINTY
IN LEGAL RELATIONS.  THE RULE PROVIDES THAT WHEN A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION HAS ENTERED A FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS OF A CAUSE OF
ACTION, THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT AND THEIR PRIVIES ARE THEREAFTER BOUND
"NOT ONLY AS TO EVERY MATTER WHICH WAS OFFERED AND RECEIVED TO SUSTAIN
OR DEFEAT THE CLAIM OR DEMAND, BUT AS TO ANY OTHER ADMISSIBLE MATTER
WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR THAT PURPOSE."  CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF
SAC, 94 U.S. 351, 352.  THE JUDGMENT PUTS AN END TO THE CAUSE OF
ACTION, WHICH CANNOT AGAIN BE BROUGHT INTO LITIGATION BETWEEN THE
PARTIES UPON ANY GROUND WHATEVER, ABSENT FRAUD OR SOME OTHER FACTOR
INVALIDATING THE JUDGMENT.  SEE VON MOSCHZISKER, "RES JUDICATA," 38
YALE L.J. 299; RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF JUDGMENTS, SECS. 47, 48. 

BUT WHERE THE SECOND ACTION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES IS UPON A
DIFFERENT CAUSE OR DEMAND, THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS APPLIED
MUCH MORE NARROWLY.  IN THIS SITUATION, THE JUDGMENT IN THE PRIOR
ACTION OPERATES AS AN ESTOPPEL, NOT AS TO MATTERS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN
LITIGATED AND DETERMINED, BUT "ONLY AS TO THOSE MATTERS IN ISSUE OR
POINTS CONTROVERTED, UPON THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH THE FINDING OR
VERDICT WAS RENDERED."  CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, SUPRA, 353.  AND SEE
RUSSELL V. PLACE, 94 U.S. 606; SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 168 U.S. 1, 48; MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT CO., 320 U.S.
661, 671.  SINCE THE CAUSE OF ACTION INVOLVED IN THE SECOND PROCEEDING
IS NOT SWALLOWED BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE PRIOR SUIT, THE PARTIES ARE
FREE TO LITIGATE POINTS WHICH WERE NOT AT ISSUE IN THE FIRST
PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH SUCH POINTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TENDERED AND
DECIDED AT THAT TIME.  BUT MATTERS WHICH WERE ACTUALLY LITIGATED AND
DETERMINED IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING CANNOT LATER BE RELITIGATED.  ONCE A
PARTY HAS FOUGHT OUT A MATTER IN LITIGATION WITH THE OTHER PARTY, HE
CANNOT LATER RENEW THAT DUEL.  IN THIS SENSE, RES JUDICATA IS USUALLY
AND MORE ACCURATELY REFERRED TO AS ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT, OR COLLATERAL
ESTOPPEL.  SEE RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF JUDGMENTS, SECS. 68, 69, 70;
SCOTT, "COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT," 56 HARV. L. REV. 1. 

THESE SAME CONCEPTS ARE APPLICABLE IN THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX FIELD. 
INCOME TAXES ARE LEVIED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.  EACH YEAR IS THE ORIGIN OF
A NEW LIABILITY AND OF A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION.  THUS IF A CLAIM OF
LIABILITY OR NON-LIABILITY RELATING TO A PARTICULAR TAX YEAR IS
LITIGATED, A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS IS RES JUDICATA AS TO ANY
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING INVOLVING THE SAME CLAIM AND THE SAME TAX YEAR. 
BUT IF THE LATER PROCEEDING IS CONCERNED WITH A SIMILAR OR UNLIKE CLAIM
RELATING TO A DIFFERENT TAX YEAR, THE PRIOR JUDGMENT ACTS AS A
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL ONLY AS TO THOSE MATTERS IN THE SECOND PROCEEDING
WHICH WERE ACTUALLY PRESENTED AND DETERMINED IN THE FIRST SUIT. 
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OPERATES, IN OTHER WORDS, TO RELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE TAXPAYER OF "REDUNDANT LITIGATION OF THE IDENTICAL QUESTION OF
THE STATUTE'S APPLICATION TO THE TAXPAYER'S STATUS."  TAIT V. WESTERN
MD. R. CO., 289 U.S. 620, 624. 

BUT COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IS A DOCTRINE CAPABLE OF BEING APPLIED SO AS
TO AVOID AN UNDUE DISPARITY IN THE IMPACT OF INCOME TAX LIABILITY.  A
TAXPAYER MAY SECURE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF A PARTICULAR TAX
MATTER, A MATTER WHICH MAY RECUR WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION FOR SOME
YEARS THEREAFTER.  BUT A SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION OF THE SIGNIFICANT
FACTS OR A CHANGE OR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
MAY MAKE THAT DETERMINATION OBSOLETE OR ERRONEOUS, AT LEAST FOR FUTURE
PURPOSES.  IF SUCH A DETERMINATION IS THEN PERPETUATED EACH SUCCEEDING
YEAR AS TO THE TAXPAYER INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL LITIGATION, HE IS
ACCORDED A TAX TREATMENT DIFFERENT FROM THAT GIVEN TO OTHER TAXPAYERS
OF THE SAME CLASS.  AS A RESULT, THERE ARE INEQUALITIES IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS, DISCRIMINATORY DISTINCTIONS IN TAX
LIABILITY, AND A FERTILE BASIS FOR LITIGIOUS CONFUSION.  COMPARE UNITED
STATES V. STONE & DOWNER CO., 274 U.S. 225, 235-236.  SUCH
CONSEQUENCES, HOWEVER, ARE NEITHER NECESSITATED NOR JUSTIFIED BY THE
PRINCIPLE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.  THAT PRINCIPLE IS DESIGNED TO
PREVENT REPETITIOUS LAWSUITS OVER MATTERS WHICH HAVE ONCE BEEN DECIDED
AND WHICH HAVE REMAINED SUBSTANTIALLY STATIC, FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY. 
IT IS NOT MEANT TO CREATE VESTED RIGHTS IN DECISIONS THAT HAVE BECOME
OBSOLETE OR ERRONEOUS WITH TIME, THEREBY CAUSING INEQUITIES AMONG
TAXPAYERS. 

AND SO WHERE TWO CASES INVOLVE INCOME TAXES IN DIFFERENT TAXABLE
YEARS, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MUST BE USED WITH ITS LIMITATIONS CAREFULLY
IN MIND SO AS TO AVOID INJUSTICE.  IT MUST BE CONFINED TO SITUATIONS
WHERE THE MATTER RAISED IN THE SECOND SUIT IS IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS
WITH THAT DECIDED IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING AND WHERE THE CONTROLLING
FACTS AND APPLICABLE LEGAL RULES REMAIN UNCHANGED.  TAIT V. WESTERN MD.
R. CO., SUPRA.  IF THE LEGAL MATTERS DETERMINED IN THE EARLIER CASE
DIFFER FROM THOSE RAISED IN THE SECOND CASE, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL HAS NO
BEARING ON THE SITUATION.  SEE TRAVELERS INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 161
F.2D 93.  AND WHERE THE SITUATION IS VITALLY ALTERED BETWEEN THE TIME
OF THE FIRST JUDGMENT AND THE SECOND, THE PRIOR DETERMINATION IS NOT
CONCLUSIVE.  SEE STATE FARM INS. CO. V. DUEL, 324 U.S. 154, 162; 2
FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS (5TH ED. 1925) SEC. 713.  AS DEMONSTRATED BY BLAIR
V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 9, A JUDICIAL DECLARATION INTERVENING
BETWEEN THE TWO PROCEEDINGS MAY SO CHANGE THE LEGAL ATMOSPHERE AS TO
RENDER THE RULE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL INAPPLICABLE.  FN5  BUT THE
INTERVENING DECISION NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE THAT OF A STATE COURT, AS
IT WAS IN THE BLAIR CASE.  WHILE SUCH A STATE COURT DECISION MAY BE
CONSIDERED AS HAVING CHANGED THE FACTS FOR FEDERAL TAX LITIGATION
PURPOSES, A MODIFICATION OR GROWTH IN LEGAL PRINCIPLES AS ENUNCIATED IN
INTERVENING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT MAY ALSO EFFECT A SIGNIFICANT
CHANGE IN THE SITUATION.  TAX INEQUALITY CAN RESULT AS READILY FROM
NEGLECTING LEGAL MODULATIONS BY THIS COURT AS FROM DISREGARDING FACTUAL
CHANGES WRONGHT BY STATE COURTS.  IN EITHER EVENT, THE SUPERVENING
DECISION CANNOT JUSTLY BE IGNORED BY BLIND RELIANCE UPON THE RULE OF
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL.  HENRICKSEN V. SEWARD, 135 F.2D 986, 988-989;
PELHAM HALL CO. V. HASSETT, 147 F.2D 63, 68-69; COMMISSIONER V. ARUNDEL
BROOKS CONCRETE CORP., 152 F.2D 225, 227; CORRIGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 155
F.2D 164, 165; AND SEE WEST COAST LIFE INS. CO. V. MERCED IRR.  DIST.,
114 F.2D 654, 661-662; CONTRA:  COMMISSIONER V. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.,
141 F.2D 774, 778.  IT NATURALLY FOLLOWS THAT AN INTERPOSED ALTERATION
IN THE PERTINENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR TREASURY REGULATIONS CAN MAKE
THE USE OF THAT RULE UNWARRANTED.  TAIT V. WESTERN MD. R. CO., SUPRA,
625.  FN6 

OF COURSE, WHERE A QUESTION OF FACT ESSENTIAL TO THE JUDGMENT IS
ACTUALLY LITIGATED AND DETERMINED IN THE FIRST TAX PROCEEDING, THE
PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THAT DETERMINATION IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING EVEN
THOUGH THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS DIFFERENT.  SEE THE EVERGREENS V. NUNAN,
141 F.2D 927.  AND IF THE VERY SAME FACTS AND NO OTHERS ARE INVOLVED IN
THE SECOND CASE, A CASE RELATING TO A DIFFERENT TAX YEAR, THE PRIOR
JUDGMENT WILL BE CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE SAME LEGAL ISSUES WHICH APPEAR,
ASSUMING NO INTERVENING DOCTRINAL CHANGE.  BUT IF THE RELEVANT FACTS IN
THE TWO CASES ARE SEPARABLE, EVEN THOUGH THEY BE SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL,
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT GOVERN THE LEGAL ISSUES WHICH RECUR IN THE
SECOND CASE.  FN7  THUS THE SECOND PROCEEDING MAY INVOLVE AN INSTRUMENT
OR TRANSACTION IDENTICAL WITH, BUT IN A FORM SEPARABLE FROM, THE ONE
DEALT WITH IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING.  IN THAT SITUATION, A COURT IS FREE
IN THE SECOND PROCEEDING TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE
LEGAL MATTERS AT ISSUE.  IT MAY THEN REACH A DIFFERENT RESULT OR, IF
CONSISTENCY IN DECISION IS CONSIDERED JUST AND DESIRABLE, RELIANCE MAY
BE PLACED UPON THE ORDINARY RULE OF STARE DECISIS.  BEFORE A PARTY CAN
INVOKE THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
LEGAL MATTER RAISED IN THE SECOND PROCEEDING MUST INVOLVE THE SAME SET
OF EVENTS OR DOCUMENTS AND THE SAME BUNDLE OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT
CONTRIBUTED TO THE RENDERING OF THE FIRST JUDGMENT.  TAIT V. WESTERN
MD. R. CO., SUPRA.  AND SEE GRISWOLD, "RES JUDICATA IN FEDERAL TAX
CASES," 46 YALE L.J. 1320; PAUL AND ZIMET, "RES JUDICATA IN FEDERAL
TAXATION," APPEARING IN PAUL, SELECTED STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION (2D
SERIES, 1938), P. 104. 

IT IS READILY APPARENT IN THIS CASE THAT THE ROYALTY PAYMENTS GROWING
OUT OF THE LICENSE CONTRACTS WHICH WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE EARLIER
ACTION BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND WHICH CONCERNED DIFFERENT
TAX YEARS ARE FREE FROM THE EFFECTS OF THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
DOCTRINE.  THAT IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH THOSE CONTRACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN
ALL IMPORTANT RESPECTS WITH THE 1928 CONTRACT, THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS
BEFORE THE BOARD, AND EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE AS TO THOSE CONTRACTS IS
THE SAME AS THAT RAISED BY THE 1928 CONTRACT.  FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES,
WHAT IS DECIDED AS TO ONE CONTRACT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO ANY OTHER
CONTRACT WHICH IS NOT THEN IN ISSUE, HOWEVER, SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL IT
MAY BE.  IN THIS RESPECT, THE INSTANT CASE THUS DIFFERS VITALLY FROM
TAIT V. WESTERN MD. R. CO., SUPRA, WHERE THE TWO PROCEEDINGS INVOLVED
THE SAME INSTRUMENTS AND THE SAME SURROUNDING FACTS. 

A MORE DIFFICULT PROBLEM IS POSED AS TO THE $4,881.35 IN ROYALTIES
PAID TO THE TAXPAYER'S WIFE IN 1937 UNDER THE 1928 CONTRACT.  HERE
THERE IS COMPLETE IDENTITY OF FACTS, ISSUES AND PARTIES AS BETWEEN THE
EARLIER BOARD PROCEEDING AND THE INSTANT ONE.  THE COMMISSIONER CLAIMS,
HOWEVER, THAT LEGAL PRINCIPLES DEVELOPED IN VARIOUS INTERVENING
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE MADE PLAIN THE ERROR OF THE BOARD'S
CONCLUSION IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDING, THUS CREATING A SITUATION LIKE
THAT INVOLVED IN BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  THIS CHANGE IN THE
LEGAL PICTURE IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY SUCH CASES AS
HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331; HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112;
HELVERING V. EUBANK, 311 U.S. 122; HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, 312 U.S. 579;
COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, 327 U.S. 280; AND LUSTHAUS V. COMMISSIONER, 327
U.S. 293.  .THESE CASES ALL IMPOSED INCOME TAX LIABILITY ON TRANSFERORS
WHO HAD ASSIGNED OR TRANSFERRED VARIOUS FORMS OF INCOME TO OTHERS
WITHIN THEIR FAMILY GROUPS, ALTHOUGH NONE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE
ASSIGNMENT OF PATENT LICENSE CONTRACTS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE SAME
FAMILY.  IT MUST THEREFORE BE DETERMINED WHETHER THIS CLIFFORD-HORST
LINE OF CASES REPRESENTS AN INTERVENING LEGAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS
PERTINENT TO THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE 1928 AGREEMENT
AND WHICH MAKES MANIFEST THE ERROR OF THE RESULT REACHED IN 1935 BY THE
BOARD.  IF THAT IS THE SITUATION, THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
BECOMES INAPPLICABLE.  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS THEN PERMISSIBLE AS TO THE
ROYALTIES PAID IN 1937 UNDER THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION.  BUT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE CLIFFORD-HORST SERIES OF CASES HAS SUCH AN EFFECT
ON THE INSTANT PROCEEDING NECESSARILY REQUIRES INQUIRY INTO THE MERITS
OF THE CONTROVERSY GROWING OUT OF THE VARIOUS CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS FROM
THE TAXPAYER TO HIS WIFE.  TO THAT CONTROVERSY WE NOW TURN.  FN8 

HAD THE TAXPAYER RETAINED THE VARIOUS LICENSE CONTRACTS AND ASSIGNED
TO HIS WIFE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE ROYALTY PAYMENTS ACCRUING
THEREUNDER, SUCH PAYMENTS WOULD CLEARLY HAVE BEEN TAXABLE INCOME TO
HIM.  IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE MERE ASSIGNMENT OF THE
RIGHT TO RECEIVE INCOME IS NOT ENOUGH TO INSULATE THE ASSIGNOR FROM
INCOME TAX LIABILITY.  LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111; BURNET V.
LEININGER, 285 U.S. 136.  AS LONG AS THE ASSIGNOR ACTUALLY EARNS THE
INCOME OR IS OTHERWISE THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE AND ENJOY THE
INCOME, HE REMAINS TAXABLE.  THE PROBLEM HERE IS WHETHER ANY DIFFERENT
RESULT FOLLOWS BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER ASSIGNED THE UNDERLYING CONTRACTS
TO HIS WIFE IN ADDITION TO GIVING HER THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE ROYALTY
PAYMENTS. 

IT IS THE TAXPAYER'S CONTENTION THAT THE LICENSE CONTRACTS RATHER
THAN THE PATENTS AND THE PATENT APPLICATIONS WERE THE ULTIMATE SOURCE
OF THE ROYALTY PAYMENTS AND CONSTITUTED INCOME-PRODUCING PROPERTY, THE
ASSIGNMENT OF WHICH FREED THE TAXPAYER FROM FURTHER INCOME TAX
LIABILITY.  WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY, HOWEVER, TO MEET THAT CONTENTION IN
THIS CASE.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO TRACE INCOME TO THE PROPERTY WHICH IS
ITS TRUE SOURCE, A MATTER WHICH MAY BECOME MORE METAPHYSICAL THAN
LEGAL.  NOR IS THE TAX PROBLEM WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED NECESSARILY
ANSWERED BY THE FACT THAT SUCH PROPERTY, IF IT CAN BE PROPERLY
IDENTIFIED, HAS BEEN ASSIGNED.  THE CRUCIAL QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER
THE ASSIGNOR RETAINS SUFFICIENT POWER AND CONTROL OVER THE ASSIGNED
PROPERTY OR OVER RECEIPT OF THE INCOME TO MAKE IT REASONABLE TO TREAT
HIM AS THE RECIPIENT OF THE INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES.  AS WAS SAID IN
CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376, 378, "TAXATION IS NOT SO MUCH
CONCERNED WITH THE REFINEMENTS OF TITLE AS IT IS WITH ACTUAL COMMAND
OVER THE PROPERTY TAXED - THE ACTUAL BENEFIT FOR WHICH THE TAX IS
PAID." 

IT IS IN THE REALM OF INTRA-FAMILY ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS THAT THE
CLIFFORD-HORST LINE OF CASES HAS PECULIAR APPLICABILITY.  WHILE
SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO SHORT-TERM FAMILY TRUSTS, THE CLIFFORD CASE
MAKES CLEAR THAT WHERE THE PARTIES TO A TRANSFER ARE MEMBERS OF THE
SAME FAMILY GROUP, SPECIAL SCRUTINY IS NECESSARY "LEST WHAT IS IN
REALITY BUT ONE ECONOMIC UNIT BE MULTIPLIED INTO TWO OR MORE BY DEVICES
WHICH, THOUGH VALID UNDER STATE LAW, ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE SO FAR AS SEC.
22(A) IS CONCERNED."  309 U.S. AT 335.  THAT DECISION POINTS OUT
VARIOUS KINDS OF DOCUMENTED AND DIRECT BENEFITS WHICH, IF RETAINED BY
THE TRANSFEROR OF PROPERTY, MAY CAUSE HIM TO REMAIN TAXABLE ON THE
INCOME THEREFROM.  AND IT ALSO RECOGNIZES THAT THE FACT THAT THE
PARTIES ARE INTIMATELY RELATED, CAUSING THE INCOME TO REMAIN WITHIN THE
FAMILY GROUP, MAY MAKE THE TRANSFER GIVE RISE TO INFORMAL AND INDIRECT
BENEFITS TO THE TRANSFEROR SO AS TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE CLEAR THAT IT IS
JUST TO TAX HIM.  EVEN MORE DIRECTLY PERTINENT, HOWEVER, IS THE HORST
CASE, TOGETHER WITH THE ACCOMPANYING EUBANK CASE.  SEE 2 MERTENS, LAW
OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1942), SECS. 18.02, 18.14.  IT WAS THERE
HELD THAT THE CONTROL OF THE RECEIPT OF INCOME, WHICH CAUSES AN
ASSIGNOR OF PROPERTY TO REMAIN TAXABLE, IS NOT LIMITED TO SITUATIONS
WHERE THE ASSIGNEE'S REALIZATION OF INCOME DEPENDS UPON THE FUTURE
RENDITION OF SERVICES BY THE ASSIGNOR.  SEE LUCAS V. EARL, SUPRA;
BURNET V. LEININGER, SUPRA.  SUCH MAY ALSO BE THE CASE WHERE THE
ASSIGNOR CONTROLS THE RECEIPT OF INCOME THROUGH ACTS OR SERVICES
PRECEDING THE TRANSFER.  OR IT MAY BE EVIDENCED BY THE POSSIBILITY OF
SOME SUBSEQUENT ACT BY THE ASSIGNOR, OR SOME FAILURE TO ACT, CAUSING
THE INCOME OR PROPERTY TO REVERT TO HIM.  MOREOVER, THE HORST CASE
RECOGNIZES THAT THE ASSIGNOR MAY REALIZE INCOME IF HE CONTROLS THE
DISPOSITION OF THAT WHICH HE COULD HAVE RECEIVED HIMSELF AND DIVERTS
PAYMENT FROM HIMSELF TO THE ASSIGNEE AS A MEANS OF PROCURING THE
SATISFACTION OF HIS WANTS, THE RECEIPT OF INCOME BY THE ASSIGNEE MERELY
BEING THE FRUITION OF THE ASSIGNOR'S ECONOMIC GAIN. 

IN HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, SUPRA, 582, IT WAS AGAIN EMPHASIZED THAT
"ONE VESTED WITH THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE INCOME DID NOT ESCAPE THE TAX BY
ANY KIND OF ANTICIPATORY ARRANGEMENT, HOWEVER SKILLFULLY DEVISED, BY
WHICH HE PROCURES PAYMENT OF IT TO ANOTHER, SINCE, BY THE EXERCISE OF
HIS POWER TO COMMAND THE INCOME, HE ENJOYS THE BENEFIT OF THE INCOME ON
WHICH THE TAX IS LAID."  AND IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT "EVEN THOUGH THE
GIFT OF INCOME BE IN FORM ACCOMPLISHED BY THE TEMPORARY DISPOSITION OF
THE DONOR'S PROPERTY WHICH PRODUCES THE INCOME, THE DONOR RETAINING
EVERY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN IT, WE HAVE NOT ALLOWED THE FORM TO
OBSCURE THE REALITY."  312 U.S. AT 583.  COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, SUPRA,
AND ITS COMPANION CASE, LUSTHAUS V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, REITERATED THE
VARIOUS PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE EARLIER DECISIONS AND APPLIED THEM
TO INCOME ARISING FROM FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS. 

THE PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE THUS BEEN RECOGNIZED AND DEVELOPED BY THE
CLIFFORD AND HORST CASES, AND THOSE FOLLOWING THEM, ARE DIRECTLY
APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSFER OF PATENT LICENSE CONTRACTS BETWEEN MEMBERS
OF THE SAME FAMILY.  THEY ARE GUIDEPOSTS FOR THOSE WHO SEEK TO
DETERMINE IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE WHETHER SUCH AN ASSIGNOR RETAINS
SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE ASSIGNED CONTRACTS OR OVER THE RECEIPT OF
INCOME BY THE ASSIGNEE TO MAKE IT FAIR TO IMPOSE INCOME TAX LIABILITY
ON HIM. 

MOREOVER, THE CLARIFICATION AND GROWTH OF THESE PRINCIPLES THROUGH
THE CLIFFORD-HORST LINE OF CASES CONSTITUTE, IN OUR OPINION, A
SUFFICIENT CHANGE IN THE LEGAL CLIMATE TO RENDER INAPPLICABLE, IN THE
INSTANT PROCEEDING, THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL RELATIVE TO THE
ASSIGNMENT OF THE 1928 CONTRACT.  TRUE, THESE CASES DID NOT ORIGINATE
THE CONCEPT THAT AN ASSIGNOR IS TAXABLE IF HE RETAINS CONTROL OVER THE
ASSIGNED PROPERTY OR POWER TO DEFEAT THE RECEIPT OF INCOME BY THE
ASSIGNEE.  BUT THEY GAVE MUCH ADDED EMPHASIS AND SUBSTANCE TO THAT
CONCEPT, MAKING IT MORE SUITED TO MEET THE "ATTENUATED SUBTLETIES"
CREATED BY TAXPAYERS.  SO SUBSTANTIAL WAS THE AMPLIFICATION OF THIS
CONCEPT AS TO JUSTIFY A RECONSIDERATION OF EARLIER TAX COURT DECISIONS
REACHED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPANDED NOTIONS, DECISIONS WHICH
ARE NOW SOUGHT TO BE PERPETUATED REGARDLESS OF THEIR PRESENT
CORRECTNESS.  THUS IN THE EARLIER LITIGATION IN 1935, THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS WAS UNABLE TO BRING TO BEAR ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE 1928
CONTRACT THE FULL BREADTH OF THE IDEAS ENUNCIATED IN THE CLIFFORD-HORST
SERIES OF CASES.  AND, AS WE SHALL SEE, A PROPER APPLICATION OF THE
PRINCIPLES AS THERE DEVELOPED MIGHT WELL HAVE PRODUCED A DIFFERENT
RESULT, SUCH AS WAS REACHED BY THE TAX COURT IN THIS CASE IN REGARD TO
THE ASSIGNMENTS OF THE OTHER CONTRACTS.  UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED BY THE TAX COURT IN THE
INSTANT PROCEEDING TO PERPETUATE THE 1935 VIEWPOINT OF THE ASSIGNMENT. 

THE INITIAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE VARIOUS
CONTRACTS RENDERED THE TAXPAYER IMMUNE FROM INCOME TAX LIABILITY WAS
ONE TO BE MADE BY THE TAX COURT.  THAT IS THE AGENCY DESIGNATED BY LAW
TO FIND AND EXAMINE THE FACTS AND TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHETHER A
PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT LEFT THE ASSIGNOR WITH SUBSTANTIAL CONTROL OVER
THE ASSIGNED PROPERTY OR THE INCOME WHICH ACCRUES TO THE ASSIGNEE.  AND
IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT ITS DECISION IS TO BE RESPECTED ON APPEAL
IF FIRMLY GROUNDED IN THE EVIDENCE AND IF CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW. 
COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN CO., 323 U.S. 119; DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489.  THAT IS THE STANDARD, THEREFORE, FOR
MEASURING THE PROPRIETY OF THE TAX COURT'S DECISION ON THE MERITS OF
THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS CASE. 

THE FACTS RELATIVE TO THE ASSIGNMENTS OF THE CONTRACTS ARE
UNDISPUTED.  AS TO THE LEGAL FOUNDATION OF THE TAX COURT'S JUDGMENT ON
THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSIGNMENTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT ITS
INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THOSE FACTS ARE UNREASONABLE IN THE
LIGHT OF THE PERTINENT STATUTORY OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS OR THAT
THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THE
CLIFFORD-HORST LINE OF CASES.  INDEED, DUE REGARD FOR THOSE PRINCIPLES
LEADS ONE INESCAPABLY TO THE TAX COURT'S RESULT.  THE TAXPAYER'S
PURPORTED ASSIGNMENT TO HIS WIFE OF THE VARIOUS LICENSE CONTRACTS MAY
PROPERLY BE SAID TO HAVE LEFT HIM WITH SOMETHING MORE THAN A MEMORY. 
HE RETAINED VERY SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS IN THE CONTRACTS THEMSELVES, AS
WELL AS POWER TO CONTROL THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES TO HIS WIFE, THEREBY
SATISFYING THE VARIOUS CRITERIA OF TAXABILITY SET FORTH IN THE CLIFFORD
HORST GROUP OF CASES.  THAT FACT IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FOLLOWING
CONSIDERATIONS: 

(1)  AS PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR AND OWNER OF 89% OF THE STOCK OF THE
CORPORATION, THE TAXPAYER REMAINED IN A POSITION TO EXERCISE EXTENSIVE
CONTROL OVER THE LICENSE CONTRACTS AFTER ASSIGNING THEM TO HIS WIFE. 
THE CONTRACTS ALL PROVIDED THAT EITHER PARTY MIGHT CANCEL WITHOUT
LIABILITY UPON GIVING THE REQUIRED NOTICE.  THIS GAVE THE TAXPAYER, IN
HIS DOMINANT POSITION IN THE CORPORATION, POWER TO PROCURE THE
CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.  THAT POWER WAS
NONETHELESS SUBSTANTIAL BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER HAD BUT ONE OF THE THREE
DIRECTORS' VOTES NECESSARY TO SANCTION SUCH ACTION BY THE CORPORATION. 
SHOULD A MAJORITY OF THE DIRECTORS PROVE UNAMENABLE TO HIS DESIRES, THE
FRUSTRATION WOULD LAST NO LONGER THAN THE DATE OF THE NEXT ANNUAL
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS BY THE STOCKHOLDERS, AN ELECTION WHICH THE
TAXPAYER COULD CONTROL BY REASON OF HIS EXTENSIVE STOCK HOLDINGS.  THE
WIFE, AS ASSIGNEE AND AS A PARTY TO CONTRACTS EXPRESSLY TERMINABLE BY
THE CORPORATION WITHOUT LIABILITY, COULD NOT PREVENT CANCELLATION
PROVIDED THAT THE NECESSARY NOTICE WAS GIVEN. 

AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ASSUME THAT SUCH CANCELLATION WOULD AMOUNT
TO A FRAUD ON THE CORPORATION, A FRAUD WHICH COULD BE ENJOINED OR
OTHERWISE PREVENTED.  CANCELLATION CONCEIVABLY COULD OCCUR BECAUSE THE
TAXPAYER AND HIS CORPORATION WERE READY TO MAKE NEW LICENSE CONTRACTS
ON TERMS MORE FAVORABLE TO THE CORPORATION, IN WHICH CASE NO FRAUD
WOULD NECESSARILY BE PRESENT.  ALL THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH HERE IS
THE POWER TO PROCURE CANCELLATION, NOT WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH
POWER MIGHT BE ABUSED.  AND ONCE IT IS EVIDENT THAT SUCH POWER EXISTS. 
THE CONCLUSION IS UNAVOIDABLE THAT THE TAXPAYER RETAINED A SUBSTANTIAL
INTEREST IN THE LICENSE CONTRACTS WHICH HE ASSIGNED.    (2)  THE
TAXPAYER'S CONTROLLING POSITION IN THE CORPORATION ALSO PERMITTED HIM
TO REGULATE THE AMOUNT OF ROYALTIES PAYABLE TO HIS WIFE.  THE CONTRACTS
SPECIFIED NO MINIMUM ROYALTIES AND DID NOT BIND THE CORPORATION TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL ANY PARTICULAR NUMBER OF DEVICES.  HENCE, BY
CONTROLLING THE PRODUCTION AND SALES POLICIES OF THE CORPORATION, THE
TAXPAYER WAS ABLE TO INCREASE OR LOWER THE ROYALTIES; OR HE COULD STOP
THOSE ROYALTIES COMPLETELY BY ELIMINATING THE MANUFACTURE OF THE
DEVICES COVERED BY THE ROYALTIES WITHOUT CANCELLING THE CONTRACTS. 

(3)  THE TAXPAYER REMAINED THE OWNER OF THE PATENTS AND THE PATENT
APPLICATIONS.  SINCE THE LICENSES WHICH HE GAVE THE CORPORATION WERE
NON-EXCLUSIVE IN NATURE, THERE WAS NOTHING TO PREVENT HIM FROM
LICENSING OTHER FIRMS TO EXPLOIT HIS PATENTS, THEREBY DIVERTING SOME OR
ALL OF THE ROYALTIES FROM HIS WIFE. 

(4)  THERE IS ABSENT ANY INDICATION THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE
CONTRACTS EFFECTED ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE TAXPAYER'S ECONOMIC
STATUS.  DESPITE THE ASSIGNMENTS, THE LICENSE CONTRACTS AND THE ROYALTY
PAYMENTS ACCRUING THEREUNDER REMAINED WITHIN THE TAXPAYER'S INTIMATE
FAMILY GROUP.  HE WAS ABLE TO ENJOY, AT LEAST INDIRECTLY, THE BENEFITS
RECEIVED BY HIS WIFE.  AND WHEN THAT FACT IS ADDED TO THE LEGAL
CONTROLS WHICH HE RETAINED OVER THE CONTRACTS AND THE ROYALTIES, IT CAN
FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE TAXPAYER RETAINED THE SUBSTANCE OF ALL THE
RIGHTS WHICH HE HAD PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENTS.  SEE HELVERING V.
CLIFFORD, SUPRA, 335-336. 

THESE FACTORS MAKE REASONABLE THE TAX COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE
ASSIGNMENTS OF THE LICENSE CONTRACTS MERELY INVOLVED A TRANSFER OF THE
RIGHT TO RECEIVE INCOME RATHER THAN A COMPLETE DISPOSITION OF ALL THE
TAXPAYER'S INTEREST IN THE CONTRACTS AND THE ROYALTIES.  THE EXISTENCE
OF THE TAXPAYER'S POWER TO TERMINATE THOSE CONTRACTS AND TO REGULATE
THE AMOUNT OF THE ROYALTIES RENDERED INEFFECTIVE FOR TAX PURPOSES HIS
ATTEMPT TO DISPOSE OF THE CONTRACTS AND ROYALTIES.  THE TRANSACTIONS
WERE SIMPLY A REALLOCATION OF INCOME WITHIN THE FAMILY GROUP, A
REALLOCATION WHICH DID NOT SHIFT THE INCIDENCE OF INCOME TAX
LIABILITY. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED
FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MAY BE NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE VARIOUS DEVICES INVOLVED WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

(1)  A CYLINDER GRINDER.  THE TAXPAYER APPLIED FOR A PATENT ON NOV.
17, 1927, AND WAS ISSUED ONE ON DEC. 4, 1934.  THE ROYALTY AGREEMENT TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL THIS DEVICE WAS DATED JAN. 10, 1928.  THIS
AGREEMENT EXPIRED ON JAN. 10, 1938; A RENEWAL AGREEMENT IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TERMS WAS THEN EXECUTED FOR THE BALANCE OF THE
LIFE OF THE PATENT, WHICH ENDS ON DEC. 4, 1951. 

(2)  A PINHOLE GRINDER.  THE TAXPAYER APPLIED FOR A PATENT ON DEC. 4,
1931, AND WAS ISSUED ONE ON JUNE 13, 1933.  THE ROYALTY AGREEMENT TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL THIS DEVICE WAS DATED DEC. 5, 1931. 

(3)  A CRANKSHAFT GRINDER.  THE TAXPAYER APPLIED FOR A PATENT ON MAY
22, 1939, AND WAS ISSUED ONE ON MAY 6, 1941.  THE ROYALTY AGREEMENT TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL THIS DEVICE WAS DATED JUNE 20, 1939. 

(4)  ANOTHER CRANKSHAFT GRINDER.  THE TAXPAYER APPLIED FOR A PATENT
ON DEC. 29, 1939.  HE ASSIGNED THIS APPLICATION TO HIS WIFE ON DEC. 29,
1942, AND SHE WAS ISSUED A PATENT ON JAN. 26, 1943.  THE ROYALTY
AGREEMENT TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL THIS DEVICE WAS DATED JUNE 20, 1939. 

THE TAXPAYER REMAINED THE OWNER OF THE FIRST THREE PATENTS THROUGHOUT
THE YEAR 1941, AND HE REMAINED THE OWNER OF THE PATENT APPLICATION ON
THE FOURTH DEVICE THROUGHOUT THAT YEAR. 

FN2  SIX MONTHS' NOTICE WAS PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT DATED JAN. 10,
1928, COVERING THE CYLINDER GRINDER.  THE OTHER THREE AGREEMENTS
PROVIDED FOR ONE YEAR'S NOTICE OF CANCELLATION. 

FN3  ON JAN. 8, 1929, THE TAXPAYER ASSIGNED TO HIS WIFE "ALL MY
RIGHTS TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO THE ROYALTY WHICH SHALL ACCRUE
HEREAFTER TO ME" UPON THE ROYALTY CONTRACT OF JAN. 10, 1928, WITH
RESPECT TO THE CYLINDER GRINDER DEVICE.  SINCE THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE RAISED SOME QUESTION AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY AND
COMPLETENESS OF THIS ASSIGNMENT, THE TAXPAYER EXECUTED A FURTHER
ASSIGNMENT ON DEC. 21, 1931.  THIS SECOND ASSIGNMENT CONFIRMED THE
FIRST ONE AND STATED FURTHER THAT HIS WIFE WAS ASSIGNED "ALL OF MY
RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO SAID ROYALTY CONTRACT OF JANUARY
10, 1928  ....  AND I HEREBY STATE THAT THE ROYALTIES ACCRUING UNDER
SAID ROYALTY CONTRACT HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN AND ARE HEREAFTER THE SOLE
AND EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE SAID CORNELIA SUNNEN (HIS WIFE), AND
HEREBY DECLARE THAT SAID ROYALTIES SHALL BE PAID TO THE SAID CORNELIA
SUNNEN OR TO HER ORDER, AND THAT SHE SHALL HAVE THE SOLE RIGHT TO
COLLECT, RECEIVE, RECEIPT FOR, RETAIN OR SUE FOR SAID ROYALTIES." 

ASSIGNMENTS SIMILAR IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF DEC.
21, 1931, WERE MADE AS TO THE OTHER THREE ROYALTY CONTRACTS. 

FN4  IN THE DODSON CASE, DODSON OWNED 51% OF THE STOCK OF A
CORPORATION AND HIS WIFE OWNED THE OTHER 49%.  HE WAS THE OWNER OF A
FORMULA AND TRADE MARK.  PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HE MADE WITH THE
CORPORATION, THE CORPORATION WAS GIVEN THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE FORMULA
AND TRADE MARK FOR 5 YEARS, RENEWABLE FOR A LIKE PERIOD.  DODSON WAS TO
RECEIVE IN RETURN A ROYALTY MEASURED BY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE NET
SALES.  HE THEN ASSIGNED A ONE-HALF INTEREST IN THE CONTRACT TO HIS
WIFE, RETAINING HIS FULL INTEREST IN THE FORMULA AND TRADE MARK.  THE
TAX COURT HELD THAT HIS DOMINANT STOCK POSITION PERMITTED HIM TO CANCEL
OR MODIFY THE CONTRACT AT ANY TIME, THUS RENDERING HIM TAXABLE ON THE
INCOME FLOWING FROM HIS WIFE'S SHARE IN THE CONTRACT. 

FN5  SEE ALSO HENRICKSEN V. SEWARD, 135 F.2D 986; MONTEITH BROS. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 139; PELHAM HALL CO. V. HASSETT, 147 F.2D
63; COMMISSIONER V. ARUNDEL-BROOKS CONCRETE CORP., 152 F.2D 225;
CORRIGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 155 F.2D 164.  COMPARE GRANDVIEW DAIRY V.
JONES, 157 F.2D 5. 

FN6  AND SEE COMMISSIONER V. SECURITY-FIRST NAT. BANK, 148 F.2D 937. 

FN7  STODDARD V. COMMISSIONER, 141 F.2D 76, 80; CAMPANA CORPORATION
V. HARRISON, 135 F.2D 334; ENGINEER'S CLUB OF PHILADELPHIA V. UNITED
STATES, 42 F.SUPP.  182. 

FN8  THE PERTINENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE OF LITTLE HELP TO THE
MATTER IN ISSUE.  SECTION 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT.
1648, AND SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 447, COVER
THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION.  THOSE SECTIONS, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL
WITH THE CURRENT SEC. 22(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, DEFINE "GROSS
INCOME" TO INCLUDE "GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES,
WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN
WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES,
COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL,
GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY;
ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF
ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND
INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER."  SEE ALSO ART. 22(A)-1 OF
TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1936 ACT; ART. 22(A)-1
OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1938 ACT; AND SEC.
19.22(A)-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, PROMULGATED UNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON BELIEVE THE JUDGMENT
OF THE TAX COURT IS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE LAW, AND WOULD AFFIRM THAT JUDGMENT FOR REASONS STATED IN
DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, AND COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH
AMERICAN CO., 323 U.S. 119. 
..END :
















COMMISSIONER V. SOUTH TEXAS CO., 333 U.S. 496 


NO. 384.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1948.  - 162
F.2D 866, REVERSED. 


1.  A CORPORATE TAXPAYER WHICH FILED ITS FEDERAL INCOME AND EXCESS
PROFITS TAX RETURN ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS, BUT ELECTED TO REPORT INCOME
FROM CERTAIN INSTALLMENT SALES ON THE INSTALLMENT BASIS AS AUTHORIZED
BY SEC. 44 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, MAY NOT, IN COMPUTING ITS
EXCESS PROFITS TAX CREDIT UNDER SEC. 714, INCLUDE IN "INVESTED CAPITAL"
(AS "ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS") THE UNREALIZED AND UNREPORTED
PROFITS FROM SUCH INSTALLMENT SALES.  PP. 497-506. 

2.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 29.115-3 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 111,
APPLICABLE TO EXCESS PROFITS TAX AS WELL AS TO INCOME TAX, THAT "A
CORPORATION COMPUTING INCOME ON THE INSTALLMENT BASIS AS PROVIDED IN
SEC. 44 SHALL, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSTALLMENT TRANSACTION, COMPUTE
EARNINGS AND PROFITS ON SUCH BASIS," IS VALID.  PP. 500-503. 

3.  TREASURY REGULATIONS CONSTITUTE CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTIONS OF
THE REVENUE STATUTES BY THOSE CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THESE
STATUTES, AND SHOULD NOT BE INVALIDATED EXCEPT FOR WEIGHTY REASONS.  P.
501. 

4.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 29.115-3 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 111 HERE
IN QUESTION IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH SECS. 115(L), 111, 112, AND 113 OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  PP. 504-506. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. SOUTH TEXAS LUMBER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S REDETERMINATION OF RESPONDENT'S INCOME AND EXCESS
PROFITS TAX WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TAX COURT.  7 T.C. 669.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  162 F.2D 866.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 829.  REVERSED, P. 506. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES A QUESTION AS TO RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY FOR THE
TAXABLE YEAR 1943 UNDER THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX ACT OF 1940 AS AMENDED. 
54 STAT. 975, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 710, ET SEQ. THE LAW WAS PASSED TO TAX
ABNORMALLY HIGH PROFITS DUE TO LARGE GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES ABOUT TO
BE MADE FROM APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.  FN1  THE EXCESS
PROFITS TAX WAS A GRADUATED SURTAX UPON A PORTION OF CORPORATE INCOME,
AND WAS IMPOSED IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR INCOME TAX.  IT APPLIED TO
ALL CORPORATE PROFITS AND GAINS OVER AND ABOVE WHAT CONGRESS DEEMED TO
BE A FAIR AND NORMAL RETURN FOR THE CORPORATE BUSINESS TAXED. 

UNDER THE CONTROLLING 1943 LAW THE AMOUNT OF INCOME SUBJECT TO THIS
EXCESS PROFITS TAX IS COMPUTED BY SUBTRACTING FROM THE NET INCOME
SUBJECT TO REGULAR INCOME TAX THE AMOUNT OF EARNINGS CONGRESS DEEMED TO
BE A TAXPAYER'S NORMAL AND FAIR RETURN.  FN2  THIS DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT,
CALLED THE EXCESS PROFITS CREDIT, WAS TO BE COMPUTED IN ONE OF TWO
WAYS, WHICHEVER RESULTED IN THE LESSER TAX.  SEC. 712.  THE FIRST, NOT
USED HERE, PERMITS A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE COMPANY'S
AVERAGE NET INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE YEARS 1936 TO 1939 INCLUSIVE.  SEC.
713.  THE SECOND, USED HERE, PERMITS A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
8 PER CENTUM OF THE TAXPAYER'S INVESTED CAPITAL FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR. 
FN3  SEC. 714.  AN INCLUDABLE ELEMENT OF THE "INVESTED CAPITAL" IS THE
"ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS AS OF THE BEGINNING OF SUCH TAXABLE
YEAR."  IT THUS APPEARS THAT BY THIS METHOD CONGRESS INTENDED, WITH
MINOR EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE RELEVANT, TO IMPOSE THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX ON
ALL ANNUAL NET INCOME IN EXCESS OF 8% OF A CORPORATION'S WORKING
CAPITAL, INCLUDING ITS ACCUMULATED PROFITS.  THE CONTROVERSY HERE IS
OVER THE TAXPAYER'S CLAIM THAT IN COMPUTING ITS 1943 TAX THE STATUTE
ALLOWS IT TO INCLUDE IN THIS 8% DEDUCTION ITS "ACCUMULATED PROFITS"
FROM CERTAIN INSTALLMENT SALES, WHICH PROFITS THE TAXPAYER, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH AN OPTION CONFERRED UPON HIM, HAD ELECTED NOT TO REPORT
AS A PART OF ITS TAXABLE INCOME IN PRIOR YEARS. 

BEGINNING IN 1937 AND EXTENDING OVER A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD, RESPONDENT
SOLD PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE, GAVE DEEDS, AND TOOK INSTALLMENT NOTES,
WHICH WERE SECURED BY MORTGAGES AND VENDORS' LIENS.  IT KEPT ITS BOOKS
GENERALLY ON A CALENDAR YEAR ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, A BASIS UNDER
WHICH ALL OBLIGATIONS OF A COMPANY APPLICABLE TO A YEAR ARE LISTED AS
EXPENDITURES, WHETHER PAID THAT YEAR OR NOT, AND ALL OBLIGATIONS TO IT
INCURRED BY OTHERS APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR ARE SET UP AS INCOME ON THE
SAME BASIS.  UNDER 26 U.S.C. SEC. 41 AN INCOME TAXPAYER MAY REPORT
INCOME AND EXPENDITURES EITHER ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS OR ON A CASH BASIS -
UNDER WHICH LATTER METHOD ANNUAL NET INCOME IS MEASURED BY THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL CASH RECEIVED AND PAID OUT WITHIN THE TAXABLE
YEAR.  IN ANY EVENT, THE BASIS USED MUST, IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 41,
"CLEARLY REFLECT THE INCOME." 

RESPONDENT DID NOT REPORT THE VALUE OF ITS LAND INSTALLMENT NOTES AS
INCOME ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS AS IT COULD HAVE DONE UNDER SEC. 41. 
INSTEAD, FROM 1937 UP TO AND INCLUDING 1943, IT HAS CONSISTENTLY
REPORTED ITS ANNUAL INCOME FROM THE INSTALLMENT SALES ON A THIRD OR
"INSTALLMENT" BASIS, EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF
INSTALLMENT SALES BY 26 U.S.C. SEC. 44.  THAT SECTION PERMITS A
TAXPAYER TO RETURN AS TAXABLE INCOME FOR A GIVEN YEAR ONLY "THAT
PROPORTION OF THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS ACTUALLY RECEIVED IN THAT YEAR
WHICH THE GROSS PROFIT REALIZED OR TO BE REALIZED WHEN PAYMENT IS
COMPLETED, BEARS TO THE TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE."  THUS RESPONDENT'S
INSTALLMENT INCOME HAS ACTUALLY BEEN REPORTED FOR TAXES ALL ALONG
SUBSTANTIALLY ON A MODIFIED CASH RECEIPTS BASIS, AND THE TAXPAYER'S NET
INCOME, WHICH IS SUBJECTED BOTH TO THE NORMAL INCOME TAX AND TO THE
EXCESS PROFITS TAX, HAS NOT IN ANY OF THESE YEARS REFLECTED THE UNPAID
BALANCES ON THE INSTALLMENT NOTES, OR ANY PART OF THEM.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THESE BALANCES WERE LISTED ON RESPONDENT'S TAX RETURNS DURING
THESE YEARS AS "UNREALIZED PROFIT INSTALLMENT SALES." 

ON ITS 1943 EXCESS PROFITS TAX RETURN RESPONDENT NEVERTHELESS
REPORTED AS "ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS" THE AMOUNT OF
"UNREALIZED PROFIT INSTALLMENT SALES" SHOWN ON ITS BOOKS AT THE END OF
1942,  FN4  AND INCLUDED THIS AMOUNT IN "INVESTED CAPITAL."  IT THUS
SOUGHT TO DEDUCT 8% OF ITS THERETOFORE DESIGNATED "UNREALIZED PROFIT"
IN COMPUTING ITS EXCESS PROFITS TAX.  THE COMMISSIONER REDETERMINED THE
TAX FOR 1943 AFTER ELIMINATING THIS ITEM FROM "INVESTED CAPITAL."  THE
TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S REDETERMINATION, 7 T.C. 669,
RELYING ON ITS OPINION IN KIMBRELL'S HOME FURNISHINGS, INC. V.
COMMISSIONER, 7 T.C. 339.  FN5  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ONE
JUSTICE DISSENTING, REVERSED ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS DECISION IN
COMMISSIONER V. SHENANDOAH CO., 138 F.2D 792.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ALLEGED THAT THE RESULT REACHED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WAS COUNTER TO THE COMMISSIONER'S REGULATIONS AND TO
LONG-STANDING TAX PRACTICES RECOGNIZED BY STATUTES AND JUDICIAL
OPINIONS, UNDER WHICH PRACTICES A TAXPAYER NORMALLY CANNOT REPORT
TAXABLE INCOME ON ONE ACCOUNTING BASIS AND ADJUSTMENTS OF THAT INCOME
ON ANOTHER.  THE QUESTIONS THEREBY RAISED ARE OF IMPORTANCE IN TAX
ADMINISTRATION AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER THEM. 

A TREASURY REGULATION, SET OUT IN PART BELOW,  FN6  APPLICABLE TO
BOTH THE NORMAL INCOME TAX AND THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX,  FN7
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT "A CORPORATION COMPUTING INCOME ON THE
INSTALLMENT BASIS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 44 SHALL, WITH RESPECT TO THE
INSTALLMENT TRANSACTIONS, COMPUTE EARNINGS AND PROFITS ON SUCH BASIS." 
FN8  SINCE RESPONDENT COMPUTED ITS TAXABLE INCOME FROM INSTALLMENT
SALES ON THE INSTALLMENT OR MODIFIED CASH RECEIPTS BASIS, BUT COMPUTED
ITS EARNINGS AND PROFITS FROM THESE SAME SALES ON ANOTHER BASIS, THE
ACCRUAL, IT CONTENDS THAT THE REGULATION IS INVALID BECAUSE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNING CODE PROVISIONS.  VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATION IS THEREFORE THE CRUCIAL QUESTION. 

THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES DECLARED THAT TREASURY REGULATIONS MUST BE
SUSTAINED UNLESS UNREASONABLE AND PLAINLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE REVENUE
STATUTES AND THAT THEY CONSTITUTE CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTIONS BY
THOSE CHARGED WITH ADMINISTRATION OF THESE STATUTES WHICH SHOULD NOT BE
OVERRULED EXCEPT FOR WEIGHTY REASONS.  SEE, E.G., FAWCUS MACHINE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 375, 378. 

THIS REGULATION IS IN HARMONY WITH THE LONG-ESTABLISHED CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY THAT A TAXPAYER GENERALLY CANNOT COMPUTE INCOME TAXES BY
REPORTING ANNUAL INCOME ON A CASH BASIS AND DEDUCTIONS ON AN ACCRUAL
BASIS.  SUCH A PRACTICE HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY HELD INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT
RESULTS IN A DISTORTED PICTURE WHICH MAKES A TAX RETURN FAIL TRULY TO
REFLECT NET INCOME.  THIS HAS BEEN THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN INCOME,
ESTATE, AND PREVIOUS EXCESS PROFITS TAX LAWS BY ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICIALS, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, AND THE COURTS.  FN9 

THE REGULATION'S REASONABLENESS AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATUTES
WHICH IMPOSE THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX ON INCOMES IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY.  THE PRESENT "INVESTED
CAPITAL" DEDUCTION IS PATTERNED AFTER A SIMILAR PROVISION IN SEC.
326(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, 40 STAT. 1057, 1088, 1092.  THAT
CAPITAL THERE INCLUDED "PAID-IN OR EARNED SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED
PROFITS."  UNDER THAT LAW THE ADMINISTRATION, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS,
AND THE COURTS HAVE UNIFORMLY HELD THAT A TAXPAYER, HAVING ELECTED TO
ADOPT THE INSTALLMENT BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, COULD NOT THEREAFTER DISTORT
HIS TRUE EXCESS PROFITS TAX INCOME BY INCLUDING UNCOLLECTED INSTALLMENT
OBLIGATIONS IN HIS "INVESTED CAPITAL" DEDUCTION BASE.  FN10  A
TAXPAYER, HAVING CHOSEN TO REPORT HIS TAXABLE INCOME FROM INSTALLMENT
SALES ON THE INSTALLMENT CASH RECEIPTS PLAN, THEREBY SPREADING ITS
GROSS EARNINGS AND PROFITS FROM SUCH SALES OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS AND
AVOIDING HIGH TAX RATES, WAS NOT PERMITTED TO OBTAIN A FURTHER
REDUCTION BY SHIFTING TO AN ACCRUAL PLAN AND TREATING UNCOLLECTED
BALANCES ON THESE INSTALLMENT SALES AS THOUGH THEY HAD ACTUALLY BEEN
RECEIVED IN THE YEAR OF THE SALE. 

THE HISTORY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE OPTIONAL INSTALLMENT
BASIS ALSO SUPPORTS THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER TO ADOPT THE
REGULATION HERE INVOLVED.  PRIOR TO 1926 THE RIGHT OF A TAXPAYER TO
REPORT ON THE INSTALLMENT PLAN RESTED ONLY ON TREASURY REGULATIONS. 
FN11  IN 1925, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD THESE REGULATIONS WERE
WITHOUT STATUTORY SUPPORT.  FN12  CONGRESS PROMPTLY, IN SEC. 212(D) OF
THE 1926 REVENUE ACT, ADOPTED THE PRESENT STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR AN
ELECTIVE INSTALLMENT BASIS FOR REPORTING INCOME, THE SENATE COMMITTEE
REPORT ON THE MEASURE DESIGNATING IT AS A "THIRD BASIS, THE INSTALLMENT
BASIS."  FN13  THIS NEW STATUTORY PROVISION WAS STRIKINGLY SIMILAR TO
THE TREASURY REGULATIONS PREVIOUSLY HELD UNAUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS.  THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS PARTICULARLY INTENDED BY
CONGRESS TO HAVE BROAD RULE-MAKING POWER UNDER THE REGULATION WAS
MANIFESTED BY THE FIRST WORDS IN THE NEW INSTALLMENT BASIS SECTION
WHICH ONLY PERMITTED TAXPAYERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT "UNDER
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
SECRETARY  ...  "  THE CLAUSE IS STILL CONTAINED IN SEC. 44 OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THIS GIVES ADDED REASONS WHY INTERPRETATIONS OF
THE ACT AND REGULATIONS UNDER IT SHOULD NOT BE OVERRULED BY THE COURTS
UNLESS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE WILL OF CONGRESS.  SEE BURNET V. S. & L.
BLDG. CORP., 288 U.S. 406, 415. 

THE INSTALLMENT BASIS OF REPORTING WAS ENACTED, AS SHOWN BY ITS
HISTORY, TO RELIEVE TAXPAYERS WHO ADOPTED IT FROM HAVING TO PAY AN
INCOME TAX IN THE YEAR OF SALE BASED ON THE FULL AMOUNT OF ANTICIPATED
PROFITS WHEN IN FACT THEY HAD RECEIVED IN CASH ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF
THE SALES PRICE.  ANOTHER REASON WAS THE DIFFICULT AND TIME-CONSUMING
EFFORT OF APPRAISING THE UNCERTAIN MARKET VALUE OF INSTALLMENT
OBLIGATIONS.  FN14  THERE IS NO INDICATION IN ANY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
HISTORY, HOWEVER, THAT BY PASSAGE OF THIS LAW CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED
THAT THOSE TAXPAYERS WHO ELECTED TO ADOPT THIS ACCOUNTING METHOD FOR
THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE COULD BY THIS MEANS OBTAIN A FURTHER TAX ADVANTAGE
DENIED ALL OTHER TAXPAYERS, WHEREBY THEY COULD, AS TO THE SAME TAXABLE
TRANSACTION, REPORT IN PART ON A CASH RECEIPTS BASIS AND IN PART ON AN
ACCRUAL BASIS. 

WE FIND NOTHING UNREASONABLE IN THE REGULATIONS HERE.  SEE
COMMISSIONER V. WHEELER, 324 U.S. 542. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, CONGRESS BY
ENACTING SEC. 501 OF THE 1940 SECOND REVENUE ACT, 54 STAT. 974, 1004,
26 U.S.C. SEC. 115(L), HAD PROVIDED A DEFINITION OF "EARNINGS AND
PROFITS" WHICH INCLUDES THESE UNPAID INSTALLMENT OBLIGATIONS AND THAT
THE REGULATION HERE CONFLICTS WITH SEC. 115(L),  FN15  WHICH IS
APPLICABLE ALIKE TO BOTH THE INCOME AND THE EXCESS PROFITS TAXES. 
THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO REASONS WHY WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT.  IN
THE FIRST PLACE, NEITHER SEC. 115(L) NOR ANY OTHER PURPORTS TO ALTER
THE COMMISSIONER'S POWER TO PROMULGATE REASONABLE REGULATIONS WHICH
REQUIRE TAXPAYERS WHO ADOPT THE INSTALLMENT BASIS OF ACCOUNTING TO USE
AN ACCOUNTING METHOD THAT REFLECTS TRUE INCOME.  THE HYBRID METHOD HERE
URGED WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH THAT RESULT. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE RESPONDENT'S
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 115(L).  HE ARGUES THAT "EARNINGS AND PROFITS"
DERIVED FROM A SALE OF PROPERTY ARE DEFINED IN SEC. 115(L) CONSIDERED
IN THE LIGHT OF SECS. 111, 112, AND 113; THAT THESE SECTIONS TOGETHER
DEFINE SUCH EARNINGS AND PROFITS AS ALL GAIN "REALIZED" IN THE YEAR OF
SALE AND "RECOGNIZED" UNDER THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR OF SALE;
THAT ALL THE ANTICIPATED PROFITS FROM THESE INSTALLMENT SALES WERE
"REALIZED" WHEN THE SALES WERE MADE BECAUSE THE INSTALLMENT OBLIGATIONS
OF THE PURCHASERS WERE RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT IN THE YEAR OF SALE AND
THEY MUST BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN WORTH THEIR FACE VALUE; THAT THEY
WERE "RECOGNIZED" AS TAXABLE BY SEC. 111(C), THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE
YEAR OF SALE; AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE COMMISSIONER WAS COMPELLED TO
ACCEPT THESE LAWFULLY "REALIZED" AND "RECOGNIZED" ACCUMULATED PROFITS
AS "INVESTED CAPITAL" FOR EXCESS PROFITS TAX PURPOSES, EVEN THOUGH NOT
PREVIOUSLY REPORTED AS TAXABLE INCOME FOR EITHER INCOME TAX OR EXCESS
PROFITS TAX PURPOSES.  FINALLY RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT SEC. 44 MERELY
CONFERRED UPON IT A PRIVILEGE TO DEFER PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX ON ITS TAX
"RECOGNIZED" PROFITS REALIZED FROM INSTALLMENT SALES UNTIL THE UNPAID
INSTALLMENT OBLIGATIONS WERE COLLECTED.    THE CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS ON
SEC. 115(L) DO NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA THAT GAINS NOT INCLUDED
IN TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE TAXPAYER'S METHOD OF ACCOUNTING MAY
NEVERTHELESS BE CONSIDERED "REALIZED" AND "RECOGNIZED" FOR COMPUTING
TAX ADJUSTMENTS OR DEDUCTIONS SO LONG AS THEY MIGHT HAVE ENTERED INTO
SUCH COMPUTATIONS UNDER A DIFFERENT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING.  FN16
FURTHERMORE, NEITHER SEC. 111, SEC. 112, NOR SEC. 113 REQUIRES A
"RECOGNITION" OF THE FULL FACE VALUE OF INSTALLMENT PAPER.  IT IS TRUE
THAT SEC. 111(B) DOES PROVIDE THAT GAIN OR LOSS "REALIZED" FROM THE
SALE OF PROPERTY SHALL BE MEASURED BY THE "SUM OF ANY MONEY RECEIVED
PLUS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY (OTHER THAN MONEY) RECEIVED"
AND SEC. 111(C) PROVIDES THAT THE EXTENT OF GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE
"RECOGNIZED" AS DETERMINED "UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 112."  BUT
SEC. 111(D) PROVIDES THAT NOTHING IN SEC. 111 "SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
PREVENT (IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY SOLD UNDER CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR
PAYMENT IN INSTALLMENTS) THE TAXATION OF THAT PORTION OF ANY
INSTALLMENT PAYMENT REPRESENTING GAIN OR PROFIT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH
SUCH PAYMENT IS RECEIVED."  THIS MEANS THAT WHERE A TAXPAYER HAS
VALIDLY REPORTED ITS INCOME FROM INSTALLMENT SALES ON THE INSTALLMENT
BASIS PROVIDED BY SEC. 44, THAT SECTION, NOT SECS. 111, 112, AND 113,
PRESCRIBES THE EXTENT TO WHICH RECEIPTS FROM SUCH SALES ARE
"RECOGNIZED" AS TAXABLE AND THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH RECEIPTS ARE
"RECOGNIZED" IN COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME.  SECTION 44 PROVIDES FOR THE
RETURN AS INCOME "IN ANY TAXABLE YEAR THAT PROPORTION OF THE
INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS ACTUALLY RECEIVED IN THAT YEAR WHICH THE GROSS
PROFIT REALIZED OR TO BE REALIZED WHEN PAYMENT IS COMPLETED, BEARS TO
THE TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE."  UNLIKE SEC. 111, SEC. 44 DOES NOT RECOGNIZE
AS SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX LIABILITY THE "MARKET VALUE" OF DEFERRED
INSTALLMENT OBLIGATIONS.  THEY MAY NEVER BE RECOGNIZED BY A TAXPAYER ON
THE INSTALLMENT BASIS FOR TAX PURPOSES UNDER SEC. 44 OR ANY OTHER
ANTICIPATED PROFITS FROM THESE DEFERRED OBLIGATIONS ARE RECOGNIZED AND
TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 44 ONLY IF THE OBLIGATIONS ARE PAID AND WHEN THEY
ARE PAID, UNLESS THEY ARE SOLD OR TRANSFERRED BEFORE PAYMENT.  THUS,
WHATEVER MEANING IS GIVEN TO THE WORDS "REALIZED" AND "RECOGNIZED," THE
REGULATION HERE CONSIDERED IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH SECS. 115(L), 111,
112, AND 113. 

THE REGULATION IS VALID.  THE RESPONDENT CAN INCLUDE IN ITS EQUITY
INVESTED CAPITAL ONLY THAT PORTION OF ITS PROFITS FROM INSTALLMENT
PAYMENTS WHICH IT HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND ON WHICH IT HAS ALREADY
PAID INCOME TAXES IN THE YEARS OF RECEIPT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  H.R. REP. NO. 2894, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., 1-2. 

FN2  OTHER ADJUSTMENTS NOT HERE MATERIAL ARE PROVIDED, BUT THE CHIEF
DEDUCTION OR "ADJUSTMENT" IS THE ONE NOTED ABOVE. 

FN3  THE STRAIGHT 8% FIGURE OF 1940 WAS MODIFIED IN SEVERAL RESPECTS
NOT HERE MATERIAL IN 1941 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  55 STAT. 699; 56 STAT.
911; 58 STAT. 55. 

FN4  IN ITS 1943 RETURN RESPONDENT ALSO REPORTED THE AMOUNT OF SUCH
UNREALIZED PROFITS SHOWN ON ITS BOOKS AS OF THE END OF THE TWO
PRECEDING YEARS FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING THE EXCESS PROFITS CREDIT
CARRYOVER AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 710(C). 

FN5  THE KIMBRELL CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED BUT NOT ON THE
CONTENTION HERE URGED.  159 F.2D 608. 

FN6  SECTION 29.115-3 OF REGULATIONS 111:  "EARNINGS OR PROFITS.   -
IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF EARNINGS OR PROFITS (WHETHER OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR, OR ACCUMULATED SINCE FEBRUARY 28, 1913, OR ACCUMULATED
PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1913) DUE CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE FACTS,
AND, WHILE MERE BOOKKEEPING ENTRIES INCREASING OR DECREASING SURPLUS
WILL NOT BE CONCLUSIVE, THE AMOUNT OF THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS IN ANY
CASE WILL BE DEPENDENT UPON THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROPERLY EMPLOYED
IN COMPUTING NET INCOME.  FOR INSTANCE, A CORPORATION KEEPING ITS BOOKS
AND FILING ITS INCOME TAX RETURNS UNDER SECTIONS 41, 42, AND 43 ON THE
CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS BASIS MAY NOT USE THE ACCRUAL BASIS IN
DETERMINING EARNINGS AND PROFITS; A CORPORATION COMPUTING INCOME ON THE
INSTALLMENT BASIS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 44 SHALL, WITH RESPECT TO THE
INSTALLMENT TRANSACTIONS, COMPUTE EARNINGS AND PROFITS ON SUCH BASIS;
...  " 

FN7  THE MEANING OF ALL TERMS USED IN THE SUBCHAPTER DEALING WITH THE
INCOME TAX WAS EXPRESSLY MADE APPLICABLE TO TERMS USED IN THE EXCESS
PROFITS SUBCHAPTER.  SEC. 728.  TREASURY REGULATIONS 112 PROVIDED:  "
...  IN GENERAL, THE CONCEPT OF 'ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS' FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX IS THE SAME AS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THE INCOME TAX."  SEC. 35.718-2.  SEE ALSO H.R. REP. NO. 2894, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS., 41. 

FN8  THIS PART OF THE REGULATION WAS ADDED AS AN AMENDMENT TO REG.
103, SEC. 19.115-3, NOW SEC. 29.115-3 OF REG. 111, AFTER ADOPTION OF
THE 1940 EXCESS PROFITS TAX LAW.  T.D. 5059, JULY 8, 1941. 

FN9  G.C.M. 2951, VII-I CUM. BULL.  160(1928); I.T. 3253, 1939-1 CUM.
BULL.  178; CONSOLIDATED ASPHALT CO., 1 B.T.A. 79, 82; HENRY REUBEL
EXECUTOR, 1 B.T.A. 676, 678-680; B.B. TODD, INC., 1 B.T.A. 762, 766;
BANK OF HARTSVILLE, 1 B.T.A. 920, 921; ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 2
B.T.A. 892, 894-895; UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, 269 U.S. 422, 440;
JACOB BROS. V. COMM'R, 50 F.2D 394, 396; JENKINS V. BITGOOD, 22
F.SUPP.  16, 17-18, AFF'D, 101 F.2D 17. 

FN10  SCHMOLLER & MUELLER PIANO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 67 CT. CL. 428;
JOHN M. BRANT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 40 F.2D 126; STANDARD COMPUTING
SCALE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 52 F.2D 1018; JACOB BROS. V. COMM'R, 50
F.2D 394; TULL & GIBBS V. UNITED STATES, 48 F.2D 148; APPEAL OF BLUM'S,
INC., 7 B.T.A. 737, 771; NEW ENGLAND FURNITURE & CARPET CO. V. COMM'R,
9 B.T.A. 334; GREEN FURNITURE CO. V. COMM'R, 14 B.T.A. 508; S. DAVIDSON
& BROS. V. COMM'R, 21 B.T.A. 638, 644; FEDERAL ST. & PLEASANT VALLEY
PASSENGER R. CO. V. COMM'R, 24 B.T.A. 262, 266. 

FN11  ARTICLE 117 OF REGULATIONS 33(REVISED), PROMULGATED JAN. 2,
1918, AND ARTICLE 42 OF REGULATIONS 45, PROMULGATED APRIL 17, 1919. 

FN12  B.B. TODD, INC., 1 B.T.A. 762; H.B. GRAVES CO., 1 B.T.A. 859;
HOOVER-BOND CO., 1 B.T.A. 929; SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY WEST END AVENUE
CO., 2 B.T.A. 958. 

FN13  S. REP. NO. 52, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 19, THE SENATE FINANCE
COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 9, 23. 

FN14  S. REP. NO. 52, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 19; WILLCUTS V. GRADWOHL,
58 F.2D 587, 589-590. 

FN15  SECTION 115(L) PROVIDES:  "THE GAIN OR LOSS REALIZED FROM THE
SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION ...  OF PROPERTY BY A CORPORATION -  ... 

"(2)  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF
THE CORPORATION FOR ANY PERIOD BEGINNING AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913, SHALL
BE DETERMINED BY USING AS THE ADJUSTED BASIS THE ADJUSTED BASIS (UNDER
THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION
WAS MADE) FOR DETERMINING GAIN. 

"GAIN OR LOSS SO REALIZED SHALL INCREASE OR DECREASE THE EARNINGS AND
PROFITS TO, BUT NOT BEYOND, THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH A REALIZED GAIN OR
LOSS WAS RECOGNIZED IN COMPUTING NET INCOME UNDER THE LAW APPLICABLE TO
THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SALE OR DISPOSITION WAS MADE." 

FN16  THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF
1940, 54 STAT. 974, SAID WITH REFERENCE TO SEC. 115(L):  "THE
PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS, THAT GAIN OR LOSS SO REALIZED
SHALL INCREASE OR DECREASE THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS TO, BUT NOT BEYOND,
THE EXTENT RECOGNIZED IN COMPUTING NET INCOME UNDER THE LAW APPLICABLE
TO THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SALE OR DISPOSITION WAS MADE, ARE RETAINED. 
AS USED IN THIS SUBSECTION THE TERM 'RECOGNIZED' RELATES TO A REALIZED
GAIN OR LOSS WHICH IS RECOGNIZED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, FOR
EXAMPLE, SEE SECTION 112 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  IT DOES NOT
RELATE TO LOSSES DISALLOWED OR NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT."  CONF. REP. NO.
3002, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., 60. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT. 
..END :


















WINTERS V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 507 


NO. 3.  ARGUED MARCH 27, 1946.  - REARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1946.  -
REARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1948.  - 294 N.Y. 545,
63 N.E.2D 98, REVERSED. 


SUBSECTION 2 OF SEC. 1141 OF THE NEW YORK PENAL LAW, AS CONSTRUED BY
THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS TO PROHIBIT DISTRIBUTION OF A MAGAZINE
PRINCIPALLY MADE UP OF NEWS OR STORIES OF CRIMINAL DEEDS OF BLOODSHED
OR LUST SO MASSED AS TO BECOME VEHICLES FOR INCITING VIOLENT AND
DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON, HELD SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE AS TO
VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY PROHIBITING ACTS WITHIN THE
PROTECTION OF THE GUARANTY OF FREE SPEECH AND PRESS.  PP. 508-520. 

WINTERS V. NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS OF NEW YORK CITY. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED FOR HAVING CERTAIN MAGAZINES IN HIS
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL THEM, IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION 2 OF
SEC. 1141 OF THE NEW YORK PENAL LAW.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED.  268 APP. DIV. 30, 48 N.Y. SUPP.
230.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED, 294 N.Y. 545, 63
N.E.2D 98, AND AMENDED ITS REMITTITUR TO THE TRIAL COURT SO AS TO SHOW
THAT IT HAD HELD THAT THE CONVICTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  294 N.Y. 979, 63 N.E.2D 713.  REVERSED, P. 520. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT IS A NEW YORK CITY BOOKDEALER, CONVICTED, ON INFORMATION,
FN1  OF A MISDEMEANOR FOR HAVING IN HIS POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL
CERTAIN MAGAZINES CHARGED TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION 2 OF SEC. 1141 OF THE
NEW YORK PENAL LAW.  IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 1141.  OBSCENE PRINTS AND ARTICLES 

1.  A PERSON  ...  WHO, 

2.  PRINTS, UTTERS, PUBLISHES, SELLS, LENDS, GIVES AWAY, DISTRIBUTES
OR SHOWS, OR HAS IN HIS POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, LEND, GIVE
AWAY, DISTRIBUTE OR SHOW, OR OTHERWISE OFFERS FOR SALE, LOAN, GIFT OR
DISTRIBUTION, ANY BOOK, PAMPHLET, MAGAZINE, NEWSPAPER OR OTHER PRINTED
PAPER DEVOTED TO THE PUBLICATION, AND PRINCIPALLY MADE UP OF CRIMINAL
NEWS, POLICE REPORTS, OR ACCOUNTS OF CRIMINAL DEEDS, OR PICTURES, OR
STORIES OF DEEDS OF BLOODSHED, LUST OR CRIME; ... 

     .         .         .        .         . 

IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR,  ...  "  UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF
SPECIAL SESSIONS, THE TRIAL COURT, THE CONVICTION WAS UPHELD BY THE
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, 268 APP. DIV. 30, 48
N.Y.S.2D 230, WHOSE JUDGMENT WAS LATER UPHELD BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS.  294 N.Y. 545, 63 N.E.2D 98. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION IN THE STATE COURTS
AS REPUGNANT TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES IN THAT IT DENIED THE ACCUSED THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND PRESS, PROTECTED AGAINST STATE INTERFERENCE BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666; PENNEKAMP
V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, 335.  THE PRINCIPLE OF A FREE PRESS COVERS
DISTRIBUTION AS WELL AS PUBLICATION.  LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, 303
U.S. 444, 452.  AS THE VALIDITY OF THE SECTION WAS UPHELD IN A FINAL
JUDGMENT BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE AGAINST THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGE, THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
237(A).  THIS APPEAL WAS ARGUED AT THE OCTOBER 1945 TERM OF THIS COURT
AND SET DOWN FOR REARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL BENCH AT THE OCTOBER 1946
TERM.  IT WAS THEN REARGUED AND AGAIN SET DOWN FOR FURTHER REARGUMENT
AT THE PRESENT TERM. 

THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE SUBSECTION VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH AND PRESS BECAUSE IT IS VAGUE AND INDEFINITE.  IT IS SETTLED
THAT A STATUTE SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE, IN FORM AND AS INTERPRETED, AS
TO PERMIT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS LANGUAGE THE PUNISHMENT OF INCIDENTS
FAIRLY WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH IS VOID,
ON ITS FACE, AS CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 369; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 258.  A
FAILURE OF A STATUTE LIMITING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION TO GIVE FAIR NOTICE
OF WHAT ACTS WILL BE PUNISHED AND SUCH A STATUTE'S INCLUSION OF
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST EXPRESSIONS, PROTECTED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, VIOLATES AN ACCUSED'S RIGHTS UNDER PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR PRESS.  WHERE THE ALLEGED VAGUENESS OF
A STATE STATUTE HAD BEEN CURED BY AN OPINION OF THE STATE COURT,
CONFINING A STATUTE PUNISHING THE CIRCULATION OF PUBLICATIONS "HAVING A
TENDENCY TO ENCOURAGE OR INCITE THE COMMISSION OF ANY CRIME" TO
"ENCOURAGING AN ACTUAL BREACH OF LAW," THIS COURT AFFIRMED A CONVICTION
UNDER THE STATED LIMITATION OF MEANING.  THE ACCUSED PUBLICATION WAS
READ AS ADVOCATING THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF INDECENT EXPOSURE. 
FOX V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273, 277. 

WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EXERCISE OF A STATE'S POLICE POWER
TO MINIMIZE ALL INCENTIVES TO CRIME, PARTICULARLY IN THE FIELD OF
SANGUINARY OR SALACIOUS PUBLICATIONS WITH THEIR STIMULATION OF JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY.  ALTHOUGH WE ARE DEALING WITH AN ASPECT OF A FREE PRESS IN
ITS RELATION TO PUBLIC MORALS, THE PRINCIPLES OF UNRESTRICTED
DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS ADMONISH US OF THE PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE
OF A MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS OF CERTAINTY IN THE FIELD OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
DISTRIBUTION.  WE DO NOT ACCEDE TO APPELLEE'S SUGGESTION THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR A FREE PRESS APPLIES ONLY TO THE
EXPOSITION OF IDEAS.  THE LINE BETWEEN THE INFORMING AND THE
ENTERTAINING IS TOO ELUSIVE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THAT BASIC RIGHT. 
EVERYONE IS FAMILIAR WITH INSTANCES OF PROPAGANDA THROUGH FICTION. 
WHAT IS ONE MAN'S AMUSEMENT, TEACHES ANOTHER'S DOCTRINE.  THOUGH WE CAN
SEE NOTHING OF ANY POSSIBLE VALUE TO SOCIETY IN THESE MAGAZINES, THEY
ARE AS MUCH ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH AS THE BEST OF
LITERATURE.  CF. HANNEGAN V. ESQUIRE, 327 U.S. 146, 153, 158.  THEY ARE
EQUALLY SUBJECT TO CONTROL IF THEY ARE LEWD, INDECENT, OBSCENE OR
PROFANE.  EX PARTE JACKSON, 96 U.S. 727, 736; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568. 

THE SECTION OF THE PENAL LAW, SEC. 1141(2), UNDER WHICH THE
INFORMATION WAS FILED IS A PART OF THE "INDECENCY" ARTICLE OF THAT
LAW.  IT COMES UNDER THE CAPTION "OBSCENE PRINTS AND ARTICLES."  OTHER
1141(1), A SECTION NOT HERE IN ISSUE BUT UNDER THE SAME CAPTION,
PUNISHES THE DISTRIBUTION OF OBSCENE, LEWD, LASCIVIOUS, FILTHY,
INDECENT OR DISGUSTING MAGAZINES.  FN2  SECTION 1141(2) ORIGINALLY WAS
AIMED AT THE PROTECTION OF MINORS FROM THE DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS
DEVOTED PRINCIPALLY TO CRIMINAL NEWS AND STORIES OF BLOODSHED, LUST OR
CRIME.  FN3  IT WAS LATER BROADENED TO INCLUDE ALL THE POPULATION AND
OTHER PHASES OF PRODUCTION AND POSSESSION. 

ALTHOUGH MANY OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR STATUTES, THEY, LIKE THE
EARLY STATUTES RESTRICTING PAUPERS FROM CHANGING RESIDENCE, HAVE LAIN
DORMANT FOR DECADES.  EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160, 176.  ONLY
TWO OTHER STATE COURTS, WHOSE REPORTS ARE PRINTED, APPEAR TO HAVE
CONSTRUED LANGUAGE IN THEIR LAWS SIMILAR TO THAT HERE INVOLVED.  IN
STROHM V. ILLINOIS, 160 ILL. 582, 43 N.E. 622, A STATUTE TO SUPPRESS
EXHIBITING TO ANY MINOR CHILD PUBLICATIONS OF THIS CHARACTER WAS
CONSIDERED.  THE CONVICTION WAS UPHELD.  THE CASE, HOWEVER, APPARENTLY
DID NOT INVOLVE ANY PROBLEM OF FREE SPEECH OR PRESS OR DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS FOR UNCERTAINTY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

IN STATE V. MCKEE, 73 CONN. 18, 46 A. 409, THE COURT CONSIDERED A
CONVICTION UNDER A STATUTE WHICH MADE CRIMINAL THE SALE OF MAGAZINES
"DEVOTED TO THE PUBLICATION, OR PRINCIPALLY MADE UP OF CRIMINAL NEWS,
POLICE REPORTS, OR PICTURES AND STORIES OF DEEDS OF BLOODSHED, LUST, OR
CRIME."  THE GIST OF THE OFFENSE WAS THOUGHT TO BE A "SELECTION OF
IMMORALITIES SO TREATED AS TO EXCITE ATTENTION AND INTEREST SUFFICIENT
TO COMMAND CIRCULATION FOR A PAPER DEVOTED MAINLY TO THE COLLECTION OF
SUCH MATTERS."  PAGE 27.  IT WAS SAID, APROPOS OF THE STATE'S
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AS TO FREE SPEECH, THAT THE ACT DID NOT
VIOLATE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION RELATING TO THE FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS.  IT WAS HELD, P. 31, THAT THE PRINCIPAL EVIL AT WHICH THE
STATUTE WAS DIRECTED WAS "THE CIRCULATION OF THIS MASSED IMMORALITY." 
AS THE CHARGE STATED THAT THE OFFENSE MIGHT BE COMMITTED "WHENEVER THE
OBJECTIONABLE MATTER IS A LEADING FEATURE OF THE PAPER OR WHEN SPECIAL
ATTENTION IS DEVOTED TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE PROHIBITED ITEMS," THE
COURT FELT THAT IT FAILED TO STATE THE FULL MEANING OF THE STATUTE AND
REVERSED.  AS IN THE STROHM CASE, DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR UNCERTAINTY
WAS NOT RAISED. 

ON ITS FACE, THE SUBSECTION HERE INVOLVED VIOLATES THE RULE OF THE
STROMBERG AND HERNDON CASES, SUPRA, THAT STATUTES WHICH INCLUDE
PROHIBITIONS OF ACTS FAIRLY WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF A FREE PRESS ARE
VOID.  IT COVERS DETECTIVE STORIES, TREATISES ON CRIME, REPORTS OF
BATTLE CARNAGE, ET CETERA.  IN RECOGNITION OF THIS OBVIOUS DEFECT, THE
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS LIMITED THE SCOPE BY CONSTRUCTION.  ITS ONLY
INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF THE PERTINENT SUBSECTION IS THAT GIVEN
IN THIS CASE.  AFTER POINTING OUT THAT NEW YORK STATUTES AGAINST
INDECENT OR OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS HAVE GENERALLY BEEN CONSTRUED TO REFER
TO SEXUAL IMPURITY, IT INTERPRETED THE SECTION HERE IN QUESTION TO
FORBID THESE PUBLICATIONS AS "INDECENT OR OBSCENE" IN A DIFFERENT
MANNER.  THE COURT HELD THAT COLLECTIONS OF CRIMINAL DEEDS OF BLOODSHED
OR LUST "CAN BE SO MASSED AS TO BECOME VEHICLES FOR INCITING VIOLENT
AND DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON AND IN THAT CASE SUCH
PUBLICATIONS ARE INDECENT OR OBSCENE IN AN ADMISSIBLE SENSE,  ...  "
294 N.Y. AT 550.  "THIS IDEA," ITS OPINION GOES ON TO SAY, "WAS THE
PRINCIPAL REASON FOR THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE."  THE COURT LEFT
OPEN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER "THE STATUTE EXTENDS TO ACCOUNTS OF
CRIMINAL DEEDS NOT CHARACTERIZED BY BLOODSHED OR LUST" BECAUSE THE
MAGAZINES IN QUESTION "ARE NOTHING BUT STORIES AND PICTURES OF CRIMINAL
DEEDS OF BLOODSHED AND LUST."  AS THE STATUTE IN TERMS EXTENDED TO
OTHER CRIMES, IT MAY BE SUPPOSED THAT THE RESERVATION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF
DOUBTS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF SO WIDE A PROHIBITION.  THE COURT
DECLARED:  "IN SHORT, WE HAVE HERE BEFORE US ACCUMULATIONS OF DETAILS
OF HEINOUS WRONGDOING WHICH PLAINLY CARRIED AN APPEAL TO THAT PORTION
OF THE PUBLIC WHO (AS MANY RECENT RECORDS REMIND US) ARE DISPOSED TO
TAKE TO VICE FOR ITS OWN SAKE."  FURTHER, THE COURT OF APPEALS, 294
N.Y. AT 549, LIMITED THE STATUTE SO AS NOT TO "OUTLAW ALL COMMENTARIES
ON CRIME FROM DETECTIVE TALES TO SCIENTIFIC TREATISES" ON THE GROUND
THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND SUCH LITERALNESS OF CONSTRUCTION. 
IT THOUGHT THAT THE MAGAZINES THE POSSESSION OF WHICH CAUSED THE FILING
OF THE INFORMATION WERE INDECENT IN THE SENSE JUST EXPLAINED.  THE
COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO AND DID NOT WEIGH THE CHARACTER OF THE
MAGAZINE EXHIBITS BY THE MORE FREQUENTLY USED SCALES OF SEC. 1141(1),
PRINTED IN NOTE 2.  IT DID NOT INTERPRET SEC. 1141(2) TO PUNISH
DISTRIBUTION OF INDECENT OR OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS, IN THE USUAL SENSE,
BUT THAT THE PRESENT MAGAZINES WERE INDECENT AND OBSCENE BECAUSE THEY
"MASSED" STORIES OF BLOODSHED AND LUST TO INCITE CRIMES.  THUS
INTERPRETING SEC. 1141(2) TO INCLUDE THE EXPANDED CONCEPT OF INDECENCY
AND OBSCENITY STATED IN ITS OPINION, THE COURT OF APPEALS MET
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION OF INVALIDITY FROM INDEFINITENESS AND
UNCERTAINTY OF THE SUBSECTION BY SAYING, 294 N.Y. AT 551, 

"IN THE NATURE OF THINGS THERE CAN BE NO MORE PRECISE TEST OF WRITTEN
INDECENCY OR OBSCENITY THAN THE CONTINUING AND CHANGEABLE EXPERIENCE OF
THE COMMUNITY AS TO WHAT TYPES OF BOOKS ARE LIKELY TO BRING ABOUT THE
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC MORALS OR OTHER ANALOGOUS INJURY TO THE PUBLIC
ORDER.  CONSEQUENTLY, A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR PUBLICATION
IS INDECENT OR OBSCENE IN THAT SENSE IS A QUESTION OF THE TIMES WHICH
MUST BE DETERMINED AS MATTER OF FACT, UNLESS THE APPEARANCES ARE
THOUGHT TO BE NECESSARILY HARMLESS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PUBLIC ORDER
OR MORALITY." 

THE OPINION WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT PUBLICATION OF ANY CRIME MAGAZINE
WOULD BE NO MORE HAZARDOUS UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION THAN ANY QUESTION
OF DEGREE AND CONCLUDED, P. 552, 

"SO WHEN REASONABLE MEN MAY FAIRLY CLASSIFY A PUBLICATION AS
NECESSARILY OR NATURALLY INDECENT OR OBSCENE, A MISTAKEN VIEW BY THE
PUBLISHER AS TO ITS CHARACTER OR TENDENCY IS IMMATERIAL." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS BY THIS AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION MADE THE
SUBSECTION APPLICABLE TO PUBLICATIONS THAT, BESIDES MEETING THE OTHER
PARTICULARS OF THE STATUTE, SO MASSED THEIR COLLECTION OF PICTURES AND
STORIES OF BLOODSHED AND OF LUST "AS TO BECOME VEHICLES FOR INCITING
VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON."  THUS, THE STATUTE
FORBIDS THE MASSING OF STORIES OF BLOODSHED AND LUST IN SUCH A WAY AS
TO INCITE TO CRIME AGAINST THE PERSON.  THIS CONSTRUCTION FIXES THE
MEANING OF THE STATUTE FOR THIS CASE.  THE INTERPRETATION BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS PUTS THESE WORDS IN THE STATUTE AS DEFINITELY AS IF IT HAD
BEEN SO AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE.  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312,
317; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69, 79.  WE ASSUME THAT THE
DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME HE ACTED, WAS CHARGEABLE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE
SCOPE OF SUBSEQUENT INTERPRETATION.  COMPARE LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY,
306 U.S. 451.  AS LEWDNESS IN PUBLICATIONS IS PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC.
1141(1) AND THE USUAL RUN OF STORIES OF BLOODSHED, SUCH AS DETECTIVE
STORIES, ARE EXCLUDED, IT IS THE MASSING AS AN INCITATION TO CRIME THAT
BECOMES THE IMPORTANT ELEMENT. 

ACTS OF GROSS AND OPEN INDECENCY OR OBSCENITY, INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC
MORALS, ARE INDICTABLE AT COMMON LAW, AS VIOLATIVE OF THE PUBLIC POLICY
THAT REQUIRES FROM THE OFFENDER RETRIBUTION FOR ACTS THAT FLAUNT
ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.  1 BISHOP, CRIMINAL LAW (9TH ED.), SEC.
500; WHARTON, CRIMINAL LAW (12TH ED.), SEC. 16.  WHEN A LEGISLATIVE
BODY CONCLUDES THAT THE MORES OF THE COMMUNITY CALL FOR AN EXTENSION OF
THE IMPERMISSIBLE LIMITS, AN ENACTMENT AIMED AT THE EVIL IS PLAINLY
WITHIN ITS POWER, IF IT DOES NOT TRANSGRESS THE BOUNDARIES FIXED BY THE
CONSTITUTION FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  THE STANDARDS OF CERTAINTY IN
STATUTES PUNISHING FOR OFFENSES IS HIGHER THAN IN THOSE DEPENDING
PRIMARILY UPON CIVIL SANCTION FOR ENFORCEMENT.  THE CRIME "MUST BE
DEFINED WITH APPROPRIATE DEFINITENESS."  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 306, 311.  THERE MUST BE
ASCERTAINABLE STANDARDS OF GUILT.  MEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE CANNOT BE
REQUIRED TO GUESS AT THE MEANING OF THE ENACTMENT N4.  THE VAGUENESS
MAY BE FROM UNCERTAINTY IN REGARD TO PERSONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
ACT, LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451, OR IN REGARD TO THE
APPLICABLE TESTS TO ASCERTAIN GUILT.  FN5 

OTHER STATES THAN NEW YORK HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED WITH SIMILAR PROBLEMS
INVOLVING STATUTORY VAGUENESS IN CONNECTION WITH FREE SPEECH.  IN STATE
V. DIAMOND, 27 NEW MEXICO 477, 202 P. 988, A STATUTE PUNISHING "ANY ACT
OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER WHICH HAS FOR ITS PURPOSE OR AIM THE DESTRUCTION
OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL, STATE OR MUNICIPAL, OR TO DO OR CAUSE
TO BE DONE ANY ACT WHICH IS ANTAGONISTIC TO OR IN OPPOSITION TO SUCH
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT, OR INCITE OR ATTEMPT TO INCITE REVOLUTION OR
OPPOSITION TO SUCH ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT" WAS CONSTRUED.  THE COURT
SAID, P. 479: "UNDER ITS TERMS NO DISTINCTION IS MADE BETWEEN THE MAN
WHO ADVOCATES A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF OUR GOVERNMENT BY CONSTITUTIONAL
MEANS, OR ADVOCATES THE ABANDONMENT OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT BY PEACEFUL
METHODS, AND THE MAN WHO ADVOCATES THE OVERTHROW OF OUR GOVERNMENT BY
ARMED REVOLUTION, OR OTHER FORM OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE."  LATER IN THE
OPINION THE STATUTE WAS HELD VOID FOR UNCERTAINTY, P. 485: 

"WHERE THE STATUTE USES WORDS OF NO DETERMINATIVE MEANING, OR THE
LANGUAGE IS SO GENERAL AND INDEFINITE AS TO EMBRACE NOT ONLY ACTS
COMMONLY RECOGNIZED AS REPREHENSIBLE, BUT ALSO OTHERS WHICH IT IS
UNREASONABLE TO PRESUME WERE INTENDED TO BE MADE CRIMINAL, IT WILL BE
DECLARED VOID FOR UNCERTAINTY." 

AGAIN IN STATE V. KLAPPROTT, 127 N.J.L. 395, 22 A.2D 877, A STATUTE
WAS HELD INVALID ON AN ATTACK AGAINST ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER STATE
AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAT PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL'S
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  THE STATUTE READ AS FOLLOWS, P. 396: 

"ANY PERSON WHO SHALL, IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS, IN ANY
LANGUAGE, MAKE OR UTTER ANY SPEECH, STATEMENT OR DECLARATION, WHICH IN
ANY WAY INCITES, COUNSELS, PROMOTES, OR ADVOCATES HATRED, ABUSE,
VIOLENCE OR HOSTILITY AGAINST ANY GROUP OR GROUPS OF PERSONS RESIDING
OR BEING IN THIS STATE BY REASON OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION OR MANNER OF
WORSHIP, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEAMEANOR." 

THE COURT SAID, PP. 401-2: 

"IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE STATUTE, SUPRA, BY PUNITIVE SANCTION, TENDS
TO RESTRICT WHAT ONE MAY SAY LEST BY ONE'S UTTERANCES THERE BE INCITED
OR ADVOCATED HATRED, HOSTILITY OR VIOLENCE AGAINST A GROUP 'BY REASON
OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION OR MANNER OF WORSHIP.'  BUT ADDITIONALLY AND
LOOKING NOW TO STRICT STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, IS THE STATUTE DEFINITE,
CLEAR AND PRECISE SO AS TO BE FREE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY OF
THE VAGUE AND INDEFINITE?  THAT THE TERMS 'HATRED,' 'ABUSE,'
'HOSTILITY,' ARE ABSTRACT AND INDEFINITE ADMITS OF NO CONTRADICTION. 
WHEN DO THEY ARISE?  IS IT TO BE LEFT TO A JURY TO CONCLUDE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT WHEN THE EMOTION OF HATRED OR HOSTILITY IS AROUSED IN
THE MIND OF THE LISTENER AS A RESULT OF WHAT A SPEAKER HAS SAID? 
NOTHING IN OUR CRIMINAL LAW CAN BE INVOKED TO JUSTIFY SO WIDE A
DISCRETION.  THE CRIMINAL CODE MUST BE DEFINITE AND INFORMATIVE SO THAT
THERE MAY BE NO DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE CITIZENRY THAT THE INTERDICTED
ACT OR CONDUCT IS ILLICIT." 

THIS COURT GOES FAR TO UPHOLD STATE STATUTES THAT DEAL WITH OFFENSES,
DIFFICULT TO DEFINE, WHEN THEY ARE NOT ENTWINED WITH LIMITATIONS ON
FREE EXPRESSION.  FN6  WE HAVE THE SAME ATTITUDE TOWARD FEDERAL
STATUTES.  FN7  ONLY A DEFINITE CONVICTION BY A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT
THAT THE CONVICTION VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT JUSTIFIES
REVERSAL OF THE COURT PRIMARILY CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
PERSONS FROM CONVICTION UNDER A VAGUE STATE STATUTE. 

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF DEFINING THE PRECISE LINE BETWEEN PERMISSIBLE
UNCERTAINTY IN STATUTES CAUSED BY DESCRIBING CRIMES BY WORDS WELL
UNDERSTOOD THROUGH LONG USE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW - OBSCENE, LEWD,
LASCIVIOUS, FILTHY, INDECENT OR DISGUSTING - AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
VAGUENESS THAT LEAVES A PERSON UNCERTAIN AS TO THE KIND OF PROHIBITED
CONDUCT - MASSING STORIES TO INCITE CRIME - HAS RESULTED IN THREE
ARGUMENTS OF THIS CASE IN THIS COURT.  THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES IN
DRAFTSMANSHIP OBVIOUSLY HAVE THE SAME DIFFICULTY AS DO THE JUDICIAL IN
INTERPRETATION.  NEVERTHELESS DESPITE THE DIFFICULTIES, COURTS MUST DO
THEIR BEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE VAGUENESS IS OF SUCH A
CHARACTER "THAT MEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AT
ITS MEANING."  CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTR.  CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391. 
THE ENTIRE TEXT OF THE STATUTE OR THE SUBJECTS DEALT WITH MAY FURNISH
AN ADEQUATE STANDARD N8.  THE PRESENT CASE AS TO A VAGUE STATUTE
ABRIDGING FREE SPEECH INVOLVES THE CIRCULATION OF ONLY VULGAR
MAGAZINES.  THE NEXT MAY CALL FOR DECISION AS TO FREE EXPRESSION OF
POLITICAL VIEWS IN THE LIGHT OF A STATUTE INTENDED TO PUNISH SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES. 

THE SUBSECTION OF THE NEW YORK PENAL LAW, AS NOW INTERPRETED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS, PROHIBITS DISTRIBUTION OF A MAGAZINE PRINCIPALLY MADE
UP OF CRIMINAL NEWS OR STORIES OF DEEDS OF BLOODSHED OR LUST, SO MASSED
AS TO BECOME VEHICLES FOR INCITING VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST
THE PERSON.  BUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE GLOSS PUT UPON THE LITERAL
MEANING BY THE COURT OF APPEALS' RESTRICTION OF THE STATUTE TO
COLLECTIONS OF STORIES "SO MASSED AS TO BECOME VEHICLES FOR INCITING
VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON  ...  NOT NECESSARILY
...  SEXUAL PASSION," WE FIND THE SPECIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS,
PROHIBITED FROM DISTRIBUTION, TOO UNCERTAIN AND INDEFINITE TO JUSTIFY
THE CONVICTION OF THIS PETITIONER.  EVEN THOUGH ALL DETECTIVE TALES AND
TREATISES ON CRIMINOLOGY ARE NOT FORBIDDEN, AND THOUGH PUBLICATIONS
MADE UP OF CRIMINAL DEEDS NOT CHARACTERIZED BY BLOODSHED OR LUST ARE
OMITTED FROM THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WE THINK FAIR
USE OF COLLECTIONS OF PICTURES AND STORIES WOULD BE INTERDICTED BECAUSE
OF THE UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE ACTOR OR THE TRIER TO KNOW WHERE THIS
NEW STANDARD OF GUILT WOULD DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE ALLOWABLE AND THE
FORBIDDEN PUBLICATIONS.  NO INTENT OR PURPOSE IS REQUIRED - NO
INDECENCY OR OBSCENITY IN ANY SENSE HERETOFORE KNOWN TO THE LAW.  "SO
MASSED AS TO INCITE TO CRIME" CAN BECOME MEANINGFUL ONLY BY CONCRETE
INSTANCES.  THIS ONE EXAMPLE IS NOT ENOUGH.  THE CLAUSE PROPOSES TO
PUNISH THE PRINTING AND CIRCULATION OF PUBLICATIONS THAT COURTS OR
JURIES MAY THINK INFLUENCE GENERALLY PERSONS TO COMMIT CRIMES OF
VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON.  NO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS
REQUIRED.  SEE MUSSER V. UTAH, 333 U.S. 95.  IT IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE
NOTICE OF NEW CRIME.  THE CLAUSE HAS NO TECHNICAL OR COMMON LAW
MEANING.  NOR CAN LIGHT AS TO THE MEANING BE GAINED FROM THE SECTION AS
A WHOLE OR THE ARTICLE OF THE PENAL LAW UNDER WHICH IT APPEARS.  AS
SAID IN THE COHEN GROCERY COMPANY CASE, SUPRA, P. 89: 

"IT LEAVES OPEN, THEREFORE, THE WIDEST CONCEIVABLE INQUIRY, THE SCOPE
OF WHICH NO ONE CAN FORESEE AND THE RESULT OF WHICH NO ONE CAN
FORESHADOW OR ADEQUATELY GUARD AGAINST." 

THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS DOES NOT LIMIT
PUNISHMENT TO THE INDECENT AND OBSCENE, AS FORMERLY UNDERSTOOD.  WHEN
STORIES OF DEEDS OF BLOODSHED, SUCH AS MANY IN THE ACCUSED MAGAZINES,
ARE MASSED SO AS TO INCITE TO VIOLENT CRIMES, THE STATUTE IS VIOLATED. 
IT DOES NOT SEEM TO US THAT AN HONEST DISTRIBUTOR OF PUBLICATIONS COULD
KNOW WHEN HE MIGHT BE HELD TO HAVE IGNORED SUCH A PROHIBITION. 
COLLECTIONS OF TALES OF WAR HORRORS, OTHERWISE UNEXCEPTIONABLE, MIGHT
WELL BE FOUND TO BE "MASSED" SO AS TO BECOME "VEHICLES FOR INCITING
VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES."  WHERE A STATUTE IS SO VAGUE AS TO MAKE
CRIMINAL AN INNOCENT ACT, A CONVICTION UNDER IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 
HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 259. 

TO SAY THAT A STATE MAY NOT PUNISH BY SUCH A VAGUE STATUTE CARRIES NO
IMPLICATION THAT IT MAY NOT PUNISH CIRCULATION OF OBJECTIONABLE PRINTED
MATTER, ASSUMING THAT IT IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, BY THE USE OF APT WORDS TO DESCRIBE THE PROHIBITED
PUBLICATIONS.  SECTION 1141, SUBSECTION 1, QUOTED IN NOTE 2, IS AN
EXAMPLE.  NEITHER THE STATES NOR CONGRESS ARE PREVENTED BY THE
REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFICITY FROM CARRYING OUT THEIR DUTY OF ELIMINATING
EVILS TO WHICH, IN THEIR JUDGMENT, SUCH PUBLICATIONS GIVE RISE. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COUNTS OF THE INFORMATION UPON WHICH APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED
CHARGED, AS THE STATE COURT OPINIONS SHOW, VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION 2 OF
SEC. 1141.  AN EXAMPLE FOLLOWS:

                             "FOURTH COUNT 

"AND I, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AFORESAID, BY THIS INFORMATION, FURTHER
ACCUSE THE SAID DEFENDANT OF THE CRIME OF UNLAWFULLY POSSESSING OBSCENE
PRINTS, COMMITTED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE SAID DEFENDANT, ON THE DAY AND IN THE YEAR AFORESAID, AT THE
CITY AND IN THE COUNTY AFORESAID, WITH INTENT TO SELL, LEND, GIVE AWAY
AND SHOW, UNLAWFULLY DID OFFER FOR SALE AND DISTRIBUTION, AND HAVE IN
HIS POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, LEND, GIVE AWAY AND SHOW, A CERTAIN
OBSCENE, LEWD, LASCIVIOUS, FILTHY, INDECENT AND DISGUSTING MAGAZINE
ENTITLED 'HEADQUARTERS DETECTIVE, TRUE CASES FROM THE POLICE BLOTTER,
JUNE 1940', THE SAME BEING DEVOTED TO THE PUBLICATION AND PRINCIPALLY
MADE UP OF CRIMINAL NEWS, POLICE REPORTS, AND ACCOUNTS OF CRIMINAL
DEEDS, AND PICTURES AND STORIES OF DEEDS OF BLOODSHED, LUST AND
CRIME." 

FN2  "SEC.  1141.  ...  1.  A PERSON WHO SELLS, LENDS, GIVES AWAY,
DISTRIBUTES OR SHOWS, OR OFFERS TO SELL, LEND, GIVE AWAY, DISTRIBUTE,
OR SHOW, OR HAS IN HIS POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, LEND, DISTRIBUTE
OR GIVE AWAY, OR TO SHOW, OR ADVERTISES IN ANY MANNER, OR WHO OTHERWISE
OFFERS FOR LOAN, GIFT, SALE OR DISTRIBUTION, ANY OBSCENE, LEWD,
LASCIVIOUS, FILTHY, INDECENT OR DISGUSTING BOOK, MAGAZINE, PAMPHLET,
NEWSPAPER, STORY PAPER, WRITING, PAPER, PICTURE, DRAWING, PHOTOGRAPH,
FIGURE OR IMAGE, OR ANY WRITTEN OR PRINTED MATTER OF AN INDECENT
CHARACTER; ... 

     .       .         .         .         . 

"IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR,  ...  " 

FN3  CH. 380, NEW YORK LAWS, 1884; CH. 692, NEW YORK LAWS, 1887; CH.
925, NEW YORK LAWS, 1941. 

FN4  CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391-92: 

"BUT IT WILL BE ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES TO SAY GENERALLY THAT THE
DECISIONS OF THE COURT UPHOLDING STATUTES AS SUFFICIENTLY CERTAIN,
RESTED UPON THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY EMPLOYED WORDS OR PHRASES HAVING A
TECHNICAL OR OTHER SPECIAL MEANING, WELL ENOUGH KNOWN TO ENABLE THOSE
WITHIN THEIR REACH TO CORRECTLY APPLY THEM,  ...  OR A WELL-SETTLED
COMMON LAW MEANING, NOTWITHSTANDING AN ELEMENT OF DEGREE IN THE
DEFINITION AS TO WHICH ESTIMATES MIGHT DIFFER,  ...  OR, AS BROADLY
STATED BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE IN UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY
CO., 255 U.S. 81, 92, 'THAT, FOR REASONS FOUND TO RESULT EITHER FROM
THE TEXT OF THE STATUTES INVOLVED OR THE SUBJECTS WITH WHICH THEY
DEALT, A STANDARD OF SOME SORT WAS AFFORDED.'" 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81, 89-93; CHAMPLIN
REFINING CO. V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, 242; SMITH V.
CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553, 564. 

FN6  OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246 U.S. 343; WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. V.
TEXAS, 212 U.S. 86. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1; GORIN V. UNITED STATES,
312 U.S. 19. 

FN8  HYGRADE PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497, 501; MUTUAL FILM
CORP. V. OHIO INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 236 U.S. 230, 245-46; SCREWS V.
UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, 94-100. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINED BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR.
JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

BY TODAY'S DECISION THE COURT STRIKES DOWN AN ENACTMENT THAT HAS BEEN
PART OF THE LAWS OF NEW YORK FOR MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS,  FN1  AND NEW
YORK IS BUT ONE OF TWENTY STATES HAVING SUCH LEGISLATION.  FOUR MORE
STATES HAVE STATUTES OF LIKE TENOR WHICH ARE BROUGHT INTO QUESTION BY
THIS DECISION, BUT VARIATIONS OF NICETY PRECLUDE ONE FROM SAYING THAT
THESE FOUR ENACTMENTS NECESSARILY FALL WITHIN THE CONDEMNATION OF THIS
DECISION.  MOST OF THIS LEGISLATION IS ALSO MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS OLD. 
THE LATEST OF THE STATUTES WHICH CANNOT BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM NEW
YORK'S LAW, THAT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, DATES FROM 1909.  IT
DESERVES ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE LEGISLATION WAS JUDICIALLY APPLIED
AND SUSTAINED NEARLY FIFTY YEARS AGO.  SEE STATE V. MCKEE, 73 CONN. 18,
46 A. 409.  NOR IS THIS AN INSTANCE WHERE THE PRESSURE OF PROXIMITY OR
PROPAGANDA LED TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE SAME MEASURE IN A CONCENTRATED
REGION OF STATES.  THE IMPRESSIVENESS OF THE NUMBER OF STATES WHICH
HAVE THIS LAW ON THEIR STATUTE BOOKS IS REINFORCED BY THEIR
DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND THE TIME RANGE OF THE ADOPTION
OF THE MEASURE.  FN2  CF. HUGHES, C.J., IN WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379, 399. 

THESE ARE THE STATUTES THAT FALL BY THIS DECISION:  FN3 

1.  GEN. STAT. CONN. (1930) C. 329, SEC. 6245, DERIVED FROM L. 1885,
C. 47, SEC. 2* . 

2.  ILL. ANN. STAT. (SMITH-HURD) C. 38, SEC. 106, DERIVED FROM ACT OF
JUNE 3, 1889, P. 114, SEC. 1(MINORS). 

3.  IOWA CODE (1946) SEC. 725.8, DERIVED FROM 21 ACTS, GEN. ASSEMBLY,
C. 177, SEC. 4(1886)(MINORS).    4.  GEN. STATS. KANS. (1935) SEC. 21
1102, DERIVED FROM L. 1886, C. 101, SEC. 1. 

5.  KY. REV. STAT. (1946) SEC. 436.110, DERIVED FROM L. 1891-93, C.
182, SEC. 217(1893)(SIMILAR). 

6.  REV. STAT. MAINE (1944) C. 121, SEC. 27, DERIVED FROM ACTS AND
RESOLVES 1885, C. 348, SEC. 1(MINORS). 

7.  ANN. CODE MD. (1939) ART. 27, SEC. 496, DERIVED FROM L. 1894, C.
271, SEC. 2. 

8.  ANN. LAWS MASS. (1933) C. 272, SEC. 30, DERIVED FROM ACTS AND
RESOLVES 1885, C. 305(MINORS). 

9.  MICH. STAT. ANN. (1938) SEC. 28.576, DERIVED FROM L. 1885, NO.
138. 

10. MINN. STAT. (1945) SEC. 617.72, DERIVED FROM L. 1885, C. 268,
SEC. 1(MINORS). 

11.  MO. REV. STAT. (1939) SEC. 4656, DERIVED FROM ACT OF APRIL 2,
1885, P. 146, SEC. 1(MINORS). 

12.  REV. CODE MONT. (1935) SEC. 11134, DERIVED FROM ACT OF MARCH 4,
1891, P. 255, SEC. 1(MINORS). 

13.  REV. STAT. NEB. (1943) SEC. 28-924, DERIVED FROM L. 1887, C.
113, SEC. 4(MINORS). 

14.  N.Y. CONSOL.  L. (1938) PENAL LAW, ART. 106, SEC. 1141(2),
DERIVED FROM L. 1884, C. 380. 

15.  N.D. REV. CODE (1943) SEC. 12-2109, DERIVED FROM L. 1895, C. 84,
SEC. 1(SIMILAR). 

16.  OHIO CODE ANN. (THROCKMORTON, 1940) SEC. 13035, DERIVED FROM 82
SESS. L. 184(1885)(SIMILAR). 

17.  ORE.  COMP.  L. ANN. (1940) SEC. 23-924, DERIVED FROM ACT OF
FEB. 25, 1885, P. 126(SIMILAR). 

18.  PA. STAT. ANN. (1945) TIT. 18, SEC. 4524, DERIVED FROM L. 1887,
P.L. 38, SEC. 2. 

19.  REV. STAT. WASH. (REMINGTON, 1932) SEC. 2459(2), DERIVED FROM L.
1909, C. 249, SEC. 207(2). 

20.  WIS. STAT. (1945) SEC. 351.38(4), DERIVED FROM L. 1901, C. 256. 

*SINCE THIS OPINION WAS FILED, CONN. L. 1935, C. 216, REPEALING THIS
PROVISION, HAS BEEN CALLED TO MY ATTENTION. 

THE FOLLOWING STATUTES ARE SOMEWHAT SIMILAR, BUT MAY NOT NECESSARILY
BE RENDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE COURT'S DECISION IN THE INSTANT
CASE: 

1.  COLO. STAT. ANN. (1935) C. 48, SEC. 217, DERIVED FROM ACT OF
APRIL 9, 1885, P. 172, SEC. 1. 

2.  IND. STAT. ANN. (1934) SEC. 2607, DERIVED FROM L. 1895, C. 109. 

3.  S.D. CODE (1939) SEC. 13.1722(4), DERIVED FROM L. 1913, C. 241,
SEC. 4. 

4.  TEX. STAT. (VERNON, 1936), PENAL CODE, ART. 527, DERIVED FROM L.
1897, C. 116. 

THIS BODY OF LAWS REPRESENTS BUT ONE OF THE MANY ATTEMPTS BY
LEGISLATURES TO SOLVE WHAT IS PERHAPS THE MOST PERSISTENT, INTRACTABLE,
ELUSIVE, AND DEMANDING OF ALL PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY - THE PROBLEM OF
CRIME, AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, OF ITS PREVENTION.  BY THIS DECISION THE
COURT INVALIDATES SUCH LEGISLATION OF ALMOST HALF THE STATES OF THE
UNION.  THE DESTRUCTIVENESS OF THE DECISION IS EVEN MORE FAR-REACHING. 
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE POWER IS DENIED TO THE STATES
BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO THE NATION.  THESE ENACTMENTS ARE INVALIDATED ON
THE GROUND THAT THEY FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE "VAGUE
CONTOURS" OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  THE DECISION THUS OPERATES
EQUALLY AS A LIMITATION UPON CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH
CRIME, AND, MORE ESPECIALLY, WITH JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.  THESE FAR
REACHING CONSEQUENCES RESULT FROM THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT WHAT NEW
YORK, AMONG A SCORE OF STATES, HAS PROHIBITED, IS SO EMPTY OF MEANING
THAT NO ONE DESIROUS OF OBEYING THE LAW COULD FAIRLY BE AWARE THAT HE
WAS DOING THAT WHICH WAS PROHIBITED. 

FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS OF COURSE REQUIRES THAT PEOPLE BE GIVEN NOTICE
OF WHAT TO AVOID.  IF THE PURPOSE OF A STATUTE IS UNDISCLOSED, IF THE
LEGISLATURE'S WILL HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED, IT OFFENDS REASON THAT
PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE METED OUT FOR CONDUCT WHICH AT THE TIME OF ITS
COMMISSION WAS NOT FORBIDDEN TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE WHO WISHED
TO OBSERVE THE LAW.  THIS REQUIREMENT OF FAIR NOTICE THAT THERE IS A
BOUNDARY OF PROHIBITED CONDUCT NOT TO BE OVERSTEPPED IS INCLUDED IN THE
CONCEPTION OF "DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  THE LEGAL JARGON FOR SUCH FAILURE
TO GIVE FOREWARNING IS TO SAY THAT THE STATUTE IS VOID FOR
"INDEFINITENESS." 

BUT "INDEFINITENESS" IS NOT A QUANTITATIVE CONCEPT.  IT IS NOT EVEN A
TECHNICAL CONCEPT OF DEFINITE COMPONENTS.  IT IS ITSELF AN INDEFINITE
CONCEPT.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "INDEFINITENESS" IN THE ABSTRACT,
BY WHICH THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE REQUIREMENT EXPRESSED BY THE TERM MAY
BE ASCERTAINED.  THE REQUIREMENT IS FAIR NOTICE THAT CONDUCT MAY ENTAIL
PUNISHMENT.  BUT WHETHER NOTICE IS OR IS NOT "FAIR" DEPENDS UPON THE
SUBJECT MATTER TO WHICH IT RELATES.  UNLIKE THE ABSTRACT STUFF OF
MATHEMATICS, OR THE QUANTITATIVELY ASCERTAINABLE ELEMENTS OF MUCH OF
NATURAL SCIENCE, LEGISLATION IS GREATLY CONCERNED WITH THE MULTIFORM
PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPLEXITIES OF INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL CONDUCT. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE DEMANDS UPON LEGISLATION, AND ITS RESPONSES, ARE
VARIABLE AND MULTIFORM.  THAT WHICH MAY APPEAR TO BE TOO VAGUE AND EVEN
MEANINGLESS AS TO ONE SUBJECT MATTER MAY BE AS DEFINITE AS ANOTHER
SUBJECT-MATTER OF LEGISLATION PERMITS, IF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO DEAL
WITH SUCH A SUBJECT IS NOT TO BE ALTOGETHER DENIED.  THE STATUTE BOOKS
OF EVERY STATE ARE FULL OF INSTANCES OF WHAT MAY LOOK LIKE UNSPECIFIC
DEFINITIONS OF CRIME, OF THE DRAWING OF WIDE CIRCLES OF PROHIBITED
CONDUCT. 

IN THESE MATTERS LEGISLATURES ARE CONFRONTED WITH A DILEMMA.  IF A
LAW IS FRAMED WITH NARROW PARTICULARITY, TOO EASY OPPORTUNITIES ARE
AFFORDED TO NULLIFY THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION.  IF THE
LEGISLATION IS DRAFTED IN TERMS SO VAGUE THAT NO ASCERTAINABLE LINE IS
DRAWN IN ADVANCE BETWEEN INNOCENT AND CONDEMNED CONDUCT, THE PURPOSE OF
THE LEGISLATION CANNOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE NO PURPOSE IS DEFINED.  IT
IS NOT MERELY IN THE ENACTMENT OF TAX MEASURES THAT THE TASK OF
RECONCILING THESE EXTREMES - OF AVOIDING THROTTLING PARTICULARITY OR
UNFAIR GENERALITY - IS ONE OF THE MOST DELICATE AND DIFFICULT
CONFRONTING LEGISLATORS.  THE RECONCILIATION OF THESE TWO
CONTRADICTORIES IS NECESSARILY AN EMPIRIC ENTERPRISE LARGELY DEPENDING
ON THE NATURE OF THE PARTICULAR LEGISLATIVE PROBLEM. 

WHAT RISKS DO THE INNOCENT RUN OF BEING CAUGHT IN A NET NOT DESIGNED
FOR THEM?  HOW IMPORTANT IS THE POLICY OF THE LEGISLATION, SO THAT
THOSE WHO REALLY LIKE TO PURSUE INNOCENT CONDUCT ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE
CAUGHT UNAWARE?  HOW EASY IS IT TO BE EXPLICITLY PARTICULAR?  HOW
NECESSARY IS IT TO LEAVE A SOMEWHAT PENUMBRAL MARGIN BUT SUFFICIENTLY
REVEALED BY WHAT IS CONDEMNED TO THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO SAIL CLOSE TO
THE SHORE OF QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT?  THESE AND LIKE QUESTIONS CONFRONT
LEGISLATIVE DRAFTSMEN.  ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT TO BE FOUND
IN ANY LEGISLATIVE MANUAL NOR IN THE WORK OF GREAT LEGISLATIVE
DRAFTSMEN.  THEY ARE NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT. 
THESE ARE QUESTIONS OF JUDGMENT, PECULIARLY WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY
AND THE COMPETENCE OF LEGISLATURES.  THE DISCHARGE OF THAT
RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE SET AT NAUGHT BY ABSTRACT NOTIONS ABOUT
"INDEFINITENESS." 

THE ACTION OF THIS COURT TODAY IN INVALIDATING LEGISLATION HAVING THE
SUPPORT OF ALMOST HALF THE STATES OF THE UNION RESTS ESSENTIALLY ON
ABSTRACT NOTIONS ABOUT "INDEFINITENESS."  THE COURT'S OPINION COULD
HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY ONE WHO HAD NEVER READ THE ISSUES OF "HEADQUARTERS
DETECTIVE" WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THE PROSECUTION BEFORE US, WHO HAD
NEVER DEEMED THEIR CONTENTS AS RELEVANT TO THE FORM IN WHICH THE NEW
YORK LEGISLATION WAS CAST, HAD NEVER CONSIDERED THE BEARING OF SUCH
"LITERATURE" ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, IN THE ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT OF THE
LEGISLATURE.  SUCH ABSTRACTIONS DISREGARD THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY
WELL HAVE MOVED AND JUSTIFIED THE STATE IN NOT BEING MORE EXPLICIT THAN
THESE STATE ENACTMENTS ARE.  ONLY SUCH ABSTRACT NOTIONS WOULD REJECT
THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATES THAT THEY HAVE OUTLAWED WHAT THEY HAVE A
RIGHT TO OUTLAW, IN THE EFFORT TO CURB CRIMES OF LUST AND VIOLENCE, AND
THAT THEY HAVE NOT DONE IT SO RECKLESSLY AS TO OCCASION REAL HAZARD
THAT OTHER PUBLICATIONS WILL THEREBY BE INHIBITED, OR ALSO BE SUBJECTED
TO PROSECUTION. 

THIS BRINGS OUR IMMEDIATE PROBLEM INTO FOCUS.  NO ONE WOULD DENY, I
ASSUME, THAT NEW YORK MAY PUNISH CRIMES OF LUST AND VIOLENCE. 
PRESUMABLY ALSO, IT MAY TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO LOWER THE CRIME
RATE.  BUT HE MUST BE A BOLD MAN INDEED WHO IS CONFIDENT THAT HE KNOWS
WHAT CAUSES CRIME.  THOSE WHOSE LIVES ARE DEVOTED TO AN UNDERSTANDING
OF THE PROBLEM ARE CERTAIN ONLY THAT THEY ARE UNCERTAIN REGARDING THE
ROLE OF THE VARIOUS ALLEGED "CAUSES" OF CRIME.  BIBLIOGRAPHIES OF
CRIMINOLOGY REVEAL A DEPRESSING VOLUME OF WRITINGS ON THEORIES OF
CAUSATION.  SEE, E.G., KUHLMAN, A GUIDE TO MATERIAL ON CRIME AND
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (1929) ITEM NOS. 292 TO 1211; CULVER, BIBLIOGRAPHY OF
CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE (1927-1931) ITEM NOS. 877-1475, AND (1932
1937) ITEM NOS. 799-1560.  IS IT TO BE SERIOUSLY QUESTIONED, HOWEVER,
THAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OR THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY
MAKE INCITEMENT TO CRIME ITSELF AN OFFENSE?  HE TOO WOULD INDEED BE A
BOLD MAN WHO DENIED THAT INCITEMENT MAY BE CAUSED BY THE WRITTEN WORD
NO LESS THAN BY THE SPOKEN.  IF "THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
ENACT MR. HERBERT SPENCER'S SOCIAL STATICS," (HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN
LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45, 75), NEITHER DOES IT ENACT THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL DOGMAS OF THE SPENCERIAN ERA.  THE PAINFUL EXPERIENCE
WHICH RESULTED FROM CONFUSING ECONOMIC DOGMAS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL
EDICTS OUGHT NOT TO BE REPEATED BY FINDING CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO A
STATE'S POLICY REGARDING CRIME, BECAUSE IT MAY RUN COUNTER TO OUR
INEXPERT PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS OR OFFEND OUR PRESUPPOSITIONS
REGARDING INCITEMENTS TO CRIME IN RELATION TO THE CURTAILMENT OF
UTTERANCE.  THIS COURT IS NOT READY, I ASSUME, TO PRONOUNCE ON
CAUSATIVE FACTORS OF MENTAL DISTURBANCE AND THEIR RELATION TO CRIME. 
WITHOUT FORMALLY PROFESSING TO DO SO, IT MAY ACTUALLY DO SO BY
INVALIDATING LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THESE PROBLEMS AS TOO
"INDEFINITE." 

NOT TO MAKE THE MAGAZINES WITH WHICH THIS CASE IS CONCERNED PART OF
THE COURT'S OPINION IS TO PLAY "HAMLET" WITHOUT HAMLET.  BUT THE COURT
SUFFICIENTLY SUMMARIZES ONE ASPECT OF WHAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK HERE
CONDEMNED WHEN IT SAYS "WE CAN SEE NOTHING OF ANY POSSIBLE VALUE TO
SOCIETY IN THESE MAGAZINES."  FROM WHICH IT JUMPS TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT, NEVERTHELESS, "THEY ARE AS MUCH ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF
FREE SPEECH AS THE BEST OF LITERATURE."  WHOLLY NEUTRAL FUTILITIES, OF
COURSE, COME UNDER THE PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH AS FULLY AS DO KEATS'
POEMS OR DONNE'S SERMONS.  BUT TO SAY THAT THESE MAGAZINES HAVE
"NOTHING OF ANY POSSIBLE VALUE TO SOCIETY" IS ONLY HALF THE TRUTH. 
THIS MERELY DENIES THEM GOODNESS.  IT DISREGARDS THEIR MISCHIEF.  AS A
RESULT OF APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, THESE MAGAZINES WERE
FOUND TO COME WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE LAW AGAINST INCITING
"VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON," AND THE DEFENDANT WAS
CONVICTED BECAUSE HE EXPOSED FOR SALE SUCH MATERIALS.  THE ESSENCE OF
THE COURT'S DECISION IS THAT IT GIVES PUBLICATIONS WHICH HAVE "NOTHING
OF ANY POSSIBLE VALUE TO SOCIETY" CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION BUT DENIES
TO THE STATES THE POWER TO PREVENT THE GRAVE EVILS TO WHICH, IN THEIR
RATIONAL JUDGMENT, SUCH PUBLICATIONS GIVE RISE.  THE LEGISLATURES OF
NEW YORK AND THE OTHER STATES WERE CONCERNED WITH THESE EVILS AND NOT
WITH NEUTRAL ABSTRACTIONS OF HARMLESSNESS.  NOR WAS THE NEW YORK COURT
OF APPEALS MERELY RESTING, AS IT MIGHT HAVE DONE, ON A DEEP-SEATED
CONVICTION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF AN EVIL AND AS TO THE APPROPRIATE
MEANS FOR CHECKING IT.  THAT COURT DREW ON ITS EXPERIENCE, AS REVEALED
BY "MANY RECENT RECORDS" OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS BEFORE IT, FOR ITS
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRACTICAL CONCRETE REASONS THAT LED THE
LEGISLATURES OF A SCORE OF STATES TO PASS THE ENACTMENTS NOW HERE
STRUCK DOWN. 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS THUS SPOKE OUT OF EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE
REGARDING INCITEMENTS TO CRIMES OF VIOLENCE.  IN SUCH MATTERS, LOCAL
EXPERIENCE, AS THIS COURT HAS SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN, SHOULD CARRY THE
GREATEST WEIGHT AGAINST OUR DENYING A STATE AUTHORITY TO ADJUST ITS
LEGISLATION TO LOCAL NEEDS.  BUT NEW YORK IS NOT PECULIAR IN CONCLUDING
THAT "COLLECTIONS OF PICTURES OR STORIES OF CRIMINAL DEEDS OF BLOODSHED
OR LUST UNQUESTIONABLY CAN BE SO MASSED AS TO BECOME VEHICLES FOR
INCITING VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON."  294 N.Y. AT
550.  A RECENT MURDER CASE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA SHEDS
LIGHT ON THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MAY WELL HAVE INDUCED LEGISLATION
SUCH AS THAT NOW BEFORE US, AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED ITS VALIDITY.  THE MURDER WAS COMMITTED BY A
LAD WHO HAD JUST TURNED SEVENTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND THE VICTIM WAS THE
DRIVER OF A TAXICAB.  I QUOTE THE FOLLOWING FROM THE OPINION OF MR.
JUSTICE DIXON:  "IN HIS EVIDENCE ON THE VOIR DIRE GRAHAM (A FRIEND OF
THE DEFENDANT AND APPARENTLY A VERY RELIABLE WITNESS) SAID THAT HE KNEW
BOYD SINCLAIR (THE MURDERER) AND HIS MOODS VERY WELL AND THAT HE JUST
LEFT HIM; THAT BOYD HAD ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS OUTLINED PLANS FOR
EMBARKING ON A LIFE OF CRIME, PLANS BASED MAINLY ON MAGAZINE THRILLERS
WHICH HE WAS READING AT THE TIME.  THEY INCLUDED THE OBTAINING OF A
MOTOR CAR AND AN AUTOMATIC GUN."  SINCLAIR V. THE KING, 73 COMM. L.R.
316, 330.    "MAGAZINE THRILLERS" HARDLY CHARACTERIZES WHAT NEW YORK
HAS OUTLAWED.  NEW YORK DOES NOT LAY HOLD OF PUBLICATIONS MERELY
BECAUSE THEY ARE "DEVOTED TO AND PRINCIPALLY MADE UP OF CRIMINAL NEWS
OR POLICE REPORTS OR ACCOUNTS OF CRIMINAL DEEDS, REGARDLESS OF THE
MANNER OF TREATMENT."  SO THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS AUTHORITATIVELY
INFORMED US.  294 N.Y. AT 549.  THE AIM OF THE PUBLICATION MUST BE
INCITATION TO "VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON" BY SO
MASSING "PICTURES AND STORIES OF CRIMINAL DEEDS OF BLOODSHED OR LUST"
AS TO ENCOURAGE LIKE DEEDS IN OTHERS.  IT WOULD BE SHEER DOGMATISM IN A
FIELD NOT WITHIN THE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE OF JUDGES TO DENY TO THE
NEW YORK LEGISLATURE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT OF THE TYPE
OF PUBLICATIONS WHICH IT HAS PROSCRIBED IS TO CATER TO MORBID AND
IMMATURE MINDS - WHETHER CHRONOLOGICALLY OR PERMANENTLY IMMATURE.  IT
WOULD BE SHEER DOGMATISM TO DENY THAT IN SOME INSTANCES, AS IN THE CASE
OF YOUNG BOYD SINCLAIR, DEEPLY EMBEDDED, UNCONSCIOUS IMPULSES MAY BE
DISCHARGED INTO DESTRUCTIVE AND OFTEN FATAL ACTION. 

IF LEGISLATION LIKE THAT OF NEW YORK "HAS BEEN ENACTED UPON A BELIEF
OF EVILS THAT IS NOT ARBITRARY WE CANNOT MEASURE THEIR EXTENT AGAINST
THE ESTIMATE OF THE LEGISLATURE."  TANNER V. LITTLE, 240 U.S. 369,
385.  THE COURT FAILS TO GIVE ENOUGH FORCE TO THE INFLUENCE OF THE
EVILS WITH WHICH THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE WAS CONCERNED "UPON CONDUCT
AND HABIT, NOT ENOUGH TO THEIR INSIDIOUS POTENTIALITIES."  RAST V. VAN
DEMAN & LEWIS CO., 240 U.S. 342, 364.  THE OTHER DAY WE INDICATED THAT,
IN ORDER TO SUPPORT ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY, LEGISLATION NEED NOT EMPLOY
THE OLD PRACTICE OF PREAMBLES, NOR BE ACCOMPANIED BY A MEMORANDUM OF
EXPLANATION SETTING FORTH THE REASONS FOR THE ENACTMENT.  SEE WOODS V.
CLOYD W. MILLER CO., 333 U.S. 138, 144.  ACCORDINGLY, THE NEW YORK
STATUTE, WHEN CHALLENGED FOR WANT OF DUE PROCESS ON THE SCORE OF
"INDEFINITENESS," MUST BE CONSIDERED BY US AS THOUGH THE LEGISLATURE
HAD THUS SPELLED OUT ITS CONVICTIONS AND BELIEFS FOR ITS ENACTMENT: 

WHEREAS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE DESTRUCTIVE AND ADVENTUROUS
POTENTIALITIES OF BOYS AND ADOLESCENTS, AND OF ADULTS OF WEAK CHARACTER
OR THOSE LEADING A DRAB EXISTENCE ARE OFTEN STIMULATED BY COLLECTIONS
OF PICTURES AND STORIES OF CRIMINAL DEEDS OF BLOODSHED OR LUST SO
MASSED AS TO INCITE TO VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON;
AND 

WHEREAS, WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH JUVENILES AND OTHER SUSCEPTIBLE
CHARACTERS DO IN FACT COMMIT SUCH CRIMES AT LEAST PARTLY BECAUSE
INCITED TO DO SO BY SUCH PUBLICATIONS, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO
EXPLOIT SUCH SUSCEPTIBLE CHARACTERS; AND 

WHEREAS, SUCH BELIEF, EVEN THOUGH NOT CAPABLE OF STATISTICAL
DEMONSTRATION, IS SUPPORTED BY OUR EXPERIENCE AS WELL AS BY THE
OPINIONS OF SOME SPECIALISTS QUALIFIED TO EXPRESS OPINIONS REGARDING
CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY AND NOT DISPROVED BY OTHERS; AND 

WHEREAS, IN ANY EVENT THERE IS NOTHING OF POSSIBLE VALUE TO SOCIETY
IN SUCH PUBLICATIONS, SO THAT THERE IS NO GAIN TO THE STATE, WHETHER IN
EDIFICATION OR ENLIGHTENMENT OR AMUSEMENT OR GOOD OF ANY KIND; AND 

WHEREAS, THE POSSIBILITY OF HARM BY RESTRICTING FREE UTTERANCE
THROUGH HARMLESS PUBLICATIONS IS TOO REMOTE AND TOO NEGLIGIBLE A
CONSEQUENCE OF DEALING WITH THE EVIL PUBLICATIONS WITH WHICH WE ARE
HERE CONCERNED; 

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED THAT - 

UNLESS WE CAN SAY THAT SUCH BELIEFS ARE INTRINSICALLY NOT REASONABLY
ENTERTAINABLE BY A LEGISLATURE, OR THAT THE RECORD DISPROVES THEM, OR
THAT FACTS OF WHICH WE MUST TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE PRECLUDE THE
LEGISLATURE FROM ENTERTAINING SUCH VIEWS, WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE
LEGISLATURE WAS DEALING WITH A REAL PROBLEM TOUCHING THE COMMISSION OF
CRIME AND NOT WITH FANCIFUL EVILS, AND THAT THE MEASURE WAS ADAPTED TO
THE SERIOUS EVILS TO WHICH IT WAS ADDRESSED.  THE VALIDITY OF SUCH
LEGISLATIVE BELIEFS OR THEIR IMPORTANCE OUGHT NOT TO BE REJECTED OUT OF
HAND. 

SURELY THIS COURT IS NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT NEW YORK CANNOT
PROHIBIT TRAFFIC IN PUBLICATIONS EXPLOITING "CRIMINAL DEEDS OF
BLOODSHED OR LUST" SO "AS TO BECOME VEHICLES FOR INCITING VIOLENT AND
DEPRAVED CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON."  LAWS HAVE HERE BEEN SUSTAINED
OUTLAWING UTTERANCE FAR LESS CONFINED.  A WASHINGTON STATUTE, DIRECTED
AGAINST PRINTED MATTER TENDING TO ENCOURAGE AND ADVOCATE DISRESPECT FOR
LAW, WAS JUDGED AND FOUND NOT WANTING ON THESE BROAD LINES: 

"WE UNDERSTAND THE STATE COURT BY IMPLICATION AT LEAST TO HAVE READ
THE STATUTE AS CONFINED TO ENCOURAGING AN ACTUAL BREACH OF LAW. 
THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS ACT IS BOTH AN UNJUSTIFIABLE
RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY AND TOO VAGUE FOR A CRIMINAL LAW MUST FAIL.  IT
DOES NOT APPEAR AND IS NOT LIKELY THAT THE STATUTE WILL BE CONSTRUED TO
PREVENT PUBLICATIONS MERELY BECAUSE THEY TEND TO PRODUCE UNFAVORABLE
OPINIONS OF A PARTICULAR STATUTE OR OF LAW IN GENERAL.  IN THIS PRESENT
CASE THE DISRESPECT FOR LAW THAT WAS ENCOURAGED WAS DISREGARD OF IT -
AN OVERT BREACH AND TECHNICALLY CRIMINAL ACT.  IT WOULD BE IN ACCORD
WITH THE USAGES OF ENGLISH TO INTERPRET DISRESPECT AS MANIFESTED
DISRESPECT, AS ACTIVE DISREGARD GOING BEYOND THE LINE DRAWN BY THE
LAW.  THAT IS ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED AS YET, AND WE SEE NO REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT THE STATUTE WILL BE STRETCHED BEYOND THAT POINT. 

"IF THE STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS GOING NO FARTHER THAN IT IS
NECESSARY TO GO IN ORDER TO BRING THE DEFENDANT WITHIN IT, THERE IS NO
TROUBLE WITH IT FOR WANT OF DEFINITENESS."  FOX V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S.
273, 277. 

IN SHORT, THIS COURT RESPECTED THE POLICY OF A STATE BY RECOGNIZING
THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION WHICH THE STATE COURT GAVE TO THE STATUTE IN
THE CASE BEFORE IT.  THIS COURT REJECTED CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY
BASED ON A REMOTE POSSIBILITY THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE,
ABSTRACTLY CONSIDERED, MIGHT BE APPLIED WITH UNBRIDLED LOOSENESS. 

SINCE CONGRESS AND THE STATES MAY TAKE MEASURES AGAINST "VIOLENT AND
DEPRAVED CRIMES," CAN IT BE CLAIMED THAT "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" BARS
MEASURES AGAINST INCITEMENT TO SUCH CRIMES?  BUT IF THEY HAVE POWER TO
DEAL WITH INCITEMENT, CONGRESS AND THE STATES MUST BE ALLOWED THE
EFFECTIVE MEANS FOR TRANSLATING THEIR POLICY INTO LAW.  NO DOUBT SUCH A
LAW PRESENTS DIFFICULTIES IN DRAFTSMANSHIP WHERE PUBLICATIONS ARE THE
INSTRUMENTS OF INCITEMENT.  THE PROBLEM IS TO AVOID CONDEMNATION SO
UNBOUNDED THAT NEITHER THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE NOR ITS SUBJECT MATTER
AFFORDS "A STANDARD OF SOME SORT" (UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO.,
255 U.S. 81, 92).  LEGISLATION MUST PUT PEOPLE ON NOTICE AS TO THE KIND
OF CONDUCT FROM WHICH TO REFRAIN.  LEGISLATION MUST ALSO AVOID SO TIGHT
A PHRASING AS TO LEAVE THE AREA FOR EVASION AMPLER THAN THAT WHICH IS
CONDEMNED.  HOW TO ESCAPE, ON THE ONE HAND, HAVING A LAW RENDERED
FUTILE BECAUSE NO STANDARD IS AFFORDED BY WHICH CONDUCT IS TO BE
JUDGED, AND, ON THE OTHER, A LAW SO PARTICULARIZED AS TO DEFEAT ITSELF
THROUGH THE OPPORTUNITIES IT AFFORDS FOR EVASION, INVOLVES AN EXERCISE
OF JUDGMENT WHICH IS AT THE HEART OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  IT CALLS
FOR THE ACCOMMODATION OF DELICATE FACTORS.  BUT THIS ACCOMMODATION IS
FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE AND FOR US TO RESPECT, WHEN IT CONCERNS A
SUBJECT SO CLEARLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POLICE POWER AS THE CONTROL
OF CRIME.  HERE WE ARE ASKED TO DECLARE VOID THE LAW WHICH EXPRESSES
THE BALANCE SO STRUCK BY THE LEGISLATURE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS NOT EXPRESSED ITS POLICY CLEARLY ENOUGH.  THAT IS WHAT
IT GETS DOWN TO. 

WHAT WERE THE ALTERNATIVES OPEN TO THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE?  IT
COULD OF COURSE CONCLUDE THAT PUBLICATIONS SUCH AS THOSE BEFORE US
COULD NOT "BECOME VEHICLES FOR INCITING VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES." 
BUT SURELY NEW YORK WAS ENTITLED TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.  IT IS NOT FOR
THIS COURT TO IMPOSE ITS BELIEF, EVEN IF ENTERTAINED, THAT NO "MASSING
OF PRINT AND PICTURES" COULD BE FOUND TO BE EFFECTIVE MEANS FOR
INCITING CRIME IN MINDS OPEN TO SUCH STIMULATION.  WHAT GIVES JUDGES
COMPETENCE TO SAY THAT WHILE PRINT AND PICTURES MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
OUTLAWED BECAUSE JUDGES DEEM THEM "OBSCENE," PRINT AND PICTURES WHICH
IN THE JUDGMENT OF HALF THE STATES OF THE UNION OPERATE AS INCITEMENTS
TO CRIME ENJOY A CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVE?  WHEN ON OCCASION THIS
COURT HAS PRESUMED TO ACT AS AN AUTHORITATIVE FACULTY OF CHEMISTRY, THE
RESULT HAS NOT BEEN FORTUNATE.  SEE BURNS BAKING CO. V. BRYAN, 264 U.S.
504, WHERE THIS COURT VENTURED A VIEW OF ITS OWN AS TO WHAT IS
REASONABLE "TOLERANCE" IN BREADMAKING.  CONSIDERING THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THE WHOLE DOMAIN OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY HAS ONLY RECENTLY BEEN
TRANSFORMED AND HOW LARGELY THE TRANSFORMATION IS STILL IN A PIONEER
STAGE, I SHOULD SUPPOSE THAT THE COURT WOULD FEEL EVEN LESS CONFIDENCE
IN ITS VIEWS ON PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES.  AT ALL EVENTS, IT OUGHT NOT TO
PREFER ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEWS - FOR, AT BOTTOM, JUDGMENT ON
PSYCHOLOGICAL MATTERS UNDERLIES THE LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE - TO THOSE
IMPLICIT IN AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF ENACTMENTS AND EXPLICITLY GIVEN BY
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, OUT OF THE ABUNDANCE OF ITS EXPERIENCE,
AS THE REASON FOR SUSTAINING THE LEGISLATION WHICH THE COURT IS
NULLIFYING. 

BUT WE ARE TOLD THAT NEW YORK HAS NOT EXPRESSED A POLICY, THAT WHAT
LOOKS LIKE A LAW IS NOT A LAW BECAUSE IT IS SO VAGUE AS TO BE
MEANINGLESS.  SUPPOSE THEN THAT THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE NOW WISHES TO
MEET THE OBJECTION OF THE COURT.  WHAT STANDARD OF DEFINITENESS DOES
THE COURT FURNISH THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE IN FINDING INDEFINITENESS IN
THE PRESENT LAW?  SHOULD THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE ENUMERATE BY NAME THE
PUBLICATIONS WHICH IN ITS JUDGMENT ARE "INCITING VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED
CRIMES"?  SHOULD THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE SPELL OUT IN DETAIL THE
INGREDIENTS OF STORIES OR PICTURES WHICH ACCOMPLISH SUCH "INCITING"? 
WHAT IS THERE IN THE CONDEMNED LAW THAT LEAVES MEN IN THE DARK AS TO
WHAT IS MEANT BY PUBLICATIONS THAT EXPLOIT "CRIMINAL DEEDS OF BLOODSHED
OR LUST" THEREBY "INCITING VIOLENT AND DEPRAVED CRIMES"?  WHAT REAL
RISK DO THE CONAN DOYLES, THE EDGAR ALLEN POES, THE WILLIAM ROUGHEADS,
THE ORDINARY TRIBE OF DETECTIVE STORY WRITERS, THEIR PUBLISHERS, OR
THEIR BOOKSELLERS RUN? 

INSOFAR AS THERE IS UNCERTAINTY, THE UNCERTAINTY DERIVES NOT FROM THE
TERMS OF CONDEMNATION, BUT FROM THE APPLICATION OF A STANDARD OF
CONDUCT TO THE VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF DIFFERENT CASES.  THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUCH FALLIBILITIES OF JUDGMENT IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY MEN.  OUR PENAL CODES ARE LOADED WITH
PROHIBITIONS OF CONDUCT DEPENDING ON ASCERTAINMENT THROUGH FALLIBLE
JUDGES AND JURIES OF A MAN'S INTENT OR MOTIVE - ON ASCERTAINMENT, THAT
IS, FROM WITHOUT OF A MAN'S INNER THOUGHTS, FEELINGS AND PURPOSES.  OF
COURSE A MAN RUNS THE RISK OF HAVING A JURY OF HIS PEERS MISJUDGE HIM. 
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES HAS GIVEN THE CONCLUSIVE ANSWER TO THE SUGGESTION
THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PROTECTS AGAINST SUCH A HAZARD:  "THE LAW
IS FULL OF INSTANCES WHERE A MAN'S FATE DEPENDS ON HIS ESTIMATING
RIGHTLY, THAT IS, AS THE JURY SUBSEQUENTLY ESTIMATES IT, SOME MATTER OF
DEGREE.  IF HIS JUDGMENT IS WRONG, NOT ONLY MAY HE INCUR A FINE OR A
SHORT IMPRISONMENT, AS HERE; HE MAY INCUR THE PENALTY OF DEATH."  NASH
V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 377.  TO WHICH IT IS COUNTERED THAT
SUCH UNCERTAINTY NOT IN THE STANDARD BUT IN ITS APPLICATION IS NOT
OBJECTIONABLE IN LEGISLATION HAVING A LONG HISTORY, BUT IS INADMISSIBLE
AS TO MORE RECENT LAWS.  IS THIS NOT ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT WHEN
NEW CIRCUMSTANCES OR NEW INSIGHTS LEAD TO NEW LEGISLATION THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE DENIES TO LEGISLATURES THE POWER TO FRAME LEGISLATION
WITH SUCH REGARD FOR THE SUBJECT MATTER AS LEGISLATURES HAD IN THE
PAST?  WHEN NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION NOR LEGISLATION HAS FORMULATED
LEGAL PRINCIPLES FOR COURTS, AND THEY MUST PRONOUNCE THEM, THEY FIND IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPOSE UPON THEMSELVES SUCH A DUTY OF DEFINITENESS AS
THIS DECISION EXACTS FROM LEGISLATURES. 

THE COURT HAS BEEN LED INTO ERROR, IF I MAY RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST, BY
CONFUSING WANT OF CERTAINTY AS TO THE OUTCOME OF DIFFERENT PROSECUTIONS
FOR SIMILAR CONDUCT, WITH WANT OF DEFINITENESS IN WHAT THE LAW
PROHIBITS.  BUT DIVERSITY IN RESULT FOR SIMILAR CONDUCT IN DIFFERENT
TRIALS UNDER THE SAME STATUTE IS AN UNAVOIDABLE FEATURE OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE.  SO LONG AS THESE DIVERSITIES ARE NOT DESIGNED CONSEQUENCES
BUT DUE MERELY TO HUMAN FALLIBILITY, THEY DO NOT DEPRIVE PERSONS OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. 

IN CONSIDERING WHETHER NEW YORK HAS STRUCK AN ALLOWABLE BALANCE
BETWEEN ITS RIGHT TO LEGISLATE IN A FIELD THAT IS SO CLOSELY RELATED TO
THE BASIC FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE DUTY TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT
FROM BEING PUNISHED FOR CROSSING THE LINE OF WRONGDOING WITHOUT
AWARENESS, IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN UPHELD
AS PUTTING LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE ON SUFFICIENT NOTICE, BY A COURT THAT HAS
BEEN ASTUTELY ALERT TO THE HAZARDS OF VAGUELY PHRASED PENAL LAWS AND
ZEALOUSLY PROTECTIVE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AGAINST "INDEFINITENESS." 
SEE, E.G., PEOPLE V. PHYFE, 136 N.Y. 554, 32 N.E. 978; PEOPLE V.
BRIGGS, 193 N.Y. 457, 86 N.E. 522; PEOPLE V. SHAKUN, 251 N.Y. 107, 167
N.E. 187; PEOPLE V. GROGAN, 260 N.Y. 138, 183 N.E. 273.  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE MAKE IT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO REMIND,
EVEN AGAINST A CONFIDENT JUDGMENT OF THE INVALIDITY OF LEGISLATION ON
THE VAGUE GROUND OF "INDEFINITENESS," THAT CERTITUDE IS NOT THE TEST OF
CERTAINTY.  IF MEN MAY REASONABLY DIFFER WHETHER THE STATE HAS GIVEN
SUFFICIENT NOTICE THAT IT IS OUTLAWING THE EXPLOITATION OF CRIMINAL
POTENTIALITIES, THAT IN ITSELF OUGHT TO BE SUFFICIENT, ACCORDING TO THE
REPEATED PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THIS COURT, TO LEAD US TO ABSTAIN FROM
DENYING POWER TO THE STATES.  AND IT DESERVES TO BE REPEATED THAT THE
COURT IS NOT DENYING POWER TO THE STATES IN ORDER TO LEAVE IT TO THE
NATION.  IT IS DENYING POWER TO BOTH.  BY THIS DECISION CONGRESS IS
DENIED POWER, AS PART OF ITS EFFORT TO GRAPPLE WITH THE PROBLEMS OF
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN WASHINGTON, TO PROHIBIT WHAT TWENTY STATES HAVE
SEEN FIT TO OUTLAW.  MOREOVER, A DECISION LIKE THIS HAS A DESTRUCTIVE
MOMENTUM MUCH BEYOND THE STATUTES OF NEW YORK AND OF THE OTHER STATES
IMMEDIATELY INVOLVED.  SUCH JUDICIAL NULLIFICATION CHECKS RELATED
LEGISLATION WHICH THE STATES MIGHT DEEM HIGHLY DESIRABLE AS A MATTER OF
POLICY, AND THIS COURT MIGHT NOT FIND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.    ALMOST BY
HIS VERY LAST WORD ON THIS COURT, AS BY HIS FIRST, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES
ADMONISHED AGAINST EMPLOYING "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" TO STRIKE DOWN
ENACTMENTS WHICH, THOUGH SUPPORTED ON GROUNDS THAT MAY NOT COMMEND
THEMSELVES TO JUDGES, CAN HARDLY BE DEEMED OFFENSIVE TO REASON ITSELF. 
IT IS NOT MERELY IN THE DOMAIN OF ECONOMICS THAT THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE SUBTLY SUPPLANTED BY THE JUDICIAL JUDGMENT.  "I
CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO GIVE US CARTE BLANCHE
TO EMBODY OUR ECONOMIC OR MORAL BELIEFS IN ITS PROHIBITIONS."  SO WROTE
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN SUMMING UP HIS PROTEST FOR NEARLY THIRTY YEARS
AGAINST USING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO CUT DOWN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THE STATES.  BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586,
595(DISSENTING). 

INDEED, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IS A GOOD GUIDE IN DECIDING THIS CASE.  IN
THREE OPINIONS IN WHICH, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, HE DEALT WITH THE
PROBLEM OF "INDEFINITENESS" IN RELATION TO THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE
PROCESS, HE INDICATED THE DIRECTIONS TO BE FOLLOWED AND THE CRITERIA TO
BE APPLIED.  PURSUIT OF THOSE DIRECTIONS AND DUE REGARD FOR THE
CRITERIA REQUIRE THAT WE HOLD THAT THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE HAS NOT
OFFENDED THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HAS PLACED UPON
THE POWER OF STATES TO COUNTERACT AVOIDABLE INCITEMENTS TO VIOLENT AND
DEPRAVED CRIMES. 

REFERENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE TO THE FIRST OF THE TRILOGY, NASH V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA. THERE THE COURT REPELLED THE OBJECTION THAT THE
SHERMAN LAW "WAS SO VAGUE AS TO BE INOPERATIVE ON ITS CRIMINAL SIDE." 
THE OPINION RESTED LARGELY ON A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE REQUIREMENT OF
"DEFINITENESS" IN CRIMINAL STATUTES TO BE DRAWN FROM THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  I HAVE ALREADY QUOTED THE ADMONISHING GENERALIZATION THAT "THE
LAW IS FULL OF INSTANCES WHERE A MAN'S FATE DEPENDS ON HIS ESTIMATING
RIGHTLY, THAT IS, AS THE JURY SUBSEQUENTLY ESTIMATES IT, SOME MATTER OF
DEGREE."  229 U.S. AT 377.  INASMUCH AS "THE COMMON LAW AS TO RESTRAINT
OF TRADE" WAS "TAKEN UP" BY THE SHERMAN LAW, THE OPINION IN THE NASH
CASE ALSO DREW SUPPORT FROM THE SUGGESTION THAT LANGUAGE IN A CRIMINAL
STATUTE WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE APPEAR INDEFINITE MAY DERIVE DEFINITENESS
FROM PAST USAGE.  HOW MUCH DEFINITENESS "THE COMMON LAW OF RESTRAINT OF
TRADE" HAS IMPARTED TO "THE RULE OF REASON," WHICH IS THE GUIDING
CONSIDERATION IN APPLYING THE SHERMAN LAW, MAY BE GATHERED FROM THE
FACT THAT SINCE THE NASH CASE THIS COURT HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY DIVIDED
IN AT LEAST A DOZEN CASES IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTICULAR SITUATION
FELL WITHIN THE UNDEFINED LIMITS OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  FN4  THE COURT'S
OPINION IN THIS CASE INVOKES THIS DOCTRINE OF "PERMISSIBLE UNCERTAINTY"
IN CRIMINAL STATUTES AS TO WORDS THAT HAVE HAD LONG USE IN THE CRIMINAL
LAW, AND ASSUMES THAT "LONG USE" GIVES ASSURANCE OF CLEAR MEANING.  I
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE LAW REPORTS PERMIT ONE TO SAY THAT STATUTES
CONDEMNING "RESTRAINT OF TRADE" OR "OBSCENITY" ARE MUCH MORE
UNEQUIVOCAL GUIDES TO CONDUCT THAN THIS STATUTE FURNISHES, NOR DO THEY
CAST LESS RISK OF "ESTIMATING RIGHTLY" WHAT JUDGES AND JURIES WILL
DECIDE THAN DOES THIS LEGISLATION. 

THE SECOND OF THIS SERIES OF CASES, INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 216, LIKEWISE CONCERNED ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION.  BUT
THAT CASE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT A STATUTE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE
SHERMAN LAW.  HOWEVER INDEFINITE THE TERMS OF THE LATTER, WHEREBY "IT
THROWS UPON MEN THE RISK OF RIGHTLY ESTIMATING A MATTER OF DEGREE," IT
IS POSSIBLE BY DUE CARE TO KEEP TO THE LINE OF SAFETY.  BUT THE
KENTUCKY STATUTE WAS SUCH THAT NO AMOUNT OF CARE WOULD GIVE SAFETY.  TO
COMPEL MEN, WROTE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES "TO GUESS ON PERIL OF INDICTMENT
WHAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE GIVEN FOR THEM (COMMODITIES) IF THE
CONTINUALLY CHANGING CONDITIONS WERE OTHER THAN THEY ARE, TO AN
UNCERTAIN EXTENT; TO DIVINE PROPHETICALLY WHAT THE REACTION OF ONLY
PARTIALLY DETERMINATE FACTS WOULD BE UPON THE IMAGINATIONS AND DESIRES
OF PURCHASERS, IS TO EXACT GIFTS THAT MANKIND DOES NOT POSSESS."  234
U.S. AT 223-224.  THE VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS KENTUCKY STATUTE AND
THE NEW YORK LAW, SO FAR AS FOREWARNING GOES, NEEDS NO LABORING. 

THE TEACHING OF THE NASH AND THE HARVESTER CASES IS THAT IT IS NOT
VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOR A LEGISLATURE IN FRAMING ITS
CRIMINAL LAW TO CAST UPON THE PUBLIC THE DUTY OF CARE AND EVEN OF
CAUTION, PROVIDED THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT WARNING TO ONE BENT ON
OBEDIENCE THAT HE COMES NEAR THE PROSCRIBED AREA.  IN HIS LAST OPINION
ON THIS SUBJECT, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES APPLIED THIS TEACHING ON BEHALF OF
A UNANIMOUS COURT, UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH, 280 U.S. 396, 399.  THE
CASE SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.  WHAT
HE WROTE IS TOO RELEVANT TO THE MATTER IN HAND NOT TO BE FULLY QUOTED: 

"IT IS ARGUED AT SOME LENGTH THAT THE STATUTE, IF EXTENDED BEYOND THE
POLITICAL PURPOSES UNDER THE CONTROL OF CONGRESS, IS TOO VAGUE TO BE
VALID.  THE OBJECTION TO UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE PERSONS EMBRACED
NEED NOT TROUBLE US NOW.  THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE WORDS INCLUDE
REPRESENTATIVES, AND IF THERE IS ANY DIFFICULTY, WHICH WE ARE FAR FROM
INTIMATING, IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER IT WHEN RAISED BY
SOMEONE WHOM IT CONCERNS.  THE OTHER OBJECTION IS TO THE MEANING OF
'POLITICAL PURPOSES.'  THIS WOULD BE OPEN EVEN IF WE ACCEPTED THE
LIMITATIONS THAT WOULD MAKE THE LAW SATISFACTORY TO THE RESPONDENT'S
COUNSEL.  BUT WE IMAGINE THAT NO ONE NOT IN SEARCH OF TROUBLE WOULD
FEEL ANY.  WHENEVER THE LAW DRAWS A LINE THERE WILL BE CASES VERY NEAR
EACH OTHER ON OPPOSITE SIDES.  THE PRECISE COURSE OF THE LINE MAY BE
UNCERTAIN, BUT NO ONE CAN COME NEAR IT WITHOUT KNOWING THAT HE DOES SO,
IF HE THINKS, AND IF HE DOES SO IT IS FAMILIAR TO THE CRIMINAL LAW TO
MAKE HIM TAKE THE RISK.  NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373." 

ONLY A WORD NEEDS TO BE SAID REGARDING LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306
U.S. 451.  THE CASE INVOLVED A NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF THE TYPE THAT SEEK
TO CONTROL "VAGRANCY."  THESE STATUTES ARE IN A CLASS BY THEMSELVES, IN
VIEW OF THE FAMILIAR ABUSES TO WHICH THEY ARE PUT.  SEE NOTE, 47 COL.
L. REV. 613, 625.  DEFINITENESS IS DESIGNEDLY AVOIDED SO AS TO ALLOW
THE NET TO BE CAST AT LARGE, TO ENABLE MEN TO BE CAUGHT WHO ARE VAGUELY
UNDESIRABLE IN THE EYES OF POLICE AND PROSECUTION, ALTHOUGH NOT
CHARGEABLE WITH ANY PARTICULAR OFFENSE.  IN SHORT, THESE "VAGRANCY
STATUTES" AND LAWS AGAINST "GANGS" ARE NOT FENCED IN BY THE TEXT OF THE
STATUTE OR BY THE SUBJECT MATTER SO AS TO GIVE NOTICE OF CONDUCT TO BE
AVOIDED. 

AND SO I CONCLUDE THAT NEW YORK, IN THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US, HAS
NOT EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO CONTROL CRIME.  THE COURT
STRIKES DOWN LAWS THAT FORBID PUBLICATIONS INCITING TO CRIME, AND AS
SUCH NOT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF FREE SPEECH, BECAUSE IN
EFFECT IT DOES NOT TRUST STATE TRIBUNALS, NOR ULTIMATELY THIS COURT, TO
SAFEGUARD INOFFENSIVE PUBLICATIONS FROM CONDEMNATION UNDER THIS
LEGISLATION.  EVERY LEGISLATIVE LIMITATION UPON UTTERANCE, HOWEVER
VALID, MAY IN A PARTICULAR CASE SERVE AS AN INROAD UPON THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS.  SEE, E.G., CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, AND MR. JUSTICE HOLMES' DISSENT IN ABRAMS V.
UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 624.  THE DECISION OF THE COURT IS
CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE, AND THIS OPINION IS
RESTRICTED TO THAT ISSUE. 

FN1  THE ORIGINAL STATUTE, N.Y.L. 1884, C. 380, HAS TWICE SINCE BEEN
AMENDED IN MINOR DETAILS.  N.Y.L. 1887, C. 692; N.Y.L. 1941, C. 925. 
IN ITS PRESENT FORM, IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 1141.  OBSCENE PRINTS AND ARTICLES 

"1.  A PERSON  ...  WHO, 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"2.  PRINTS, UTTERS, PUBLISHES, SELLS, LENDS, GIVES AWAY, DISTRIBUTES
OR SHOWS, OR HAS IN HIS POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, LEND, GIVE
AWAY, DISTRIBUTE OR SHOW, OR OTHERWISE OFFERS FOR SALE, LOAN, GIFT OR
DISTRIBUTION, ANY BOOK, PAMPHLET, MAGAZINE, NEWSPAPER OR OTHER PRINTED
PAPER DEVOTED TO THE PUBLICATION, AND PRINCIPALLY MADE UP OF CRIMINAL
NEWS, POLICE REPORTS, OR ACCOUNTS OF CRIMINAL DEEDS, OR PICTURES, OR
STORIES OF DEEDS OF BLOODSHED, LUST OR CRIME; ... 

     .  .         .         .         . 

"IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR  ...  " 

THAT THIS LEGISLATION WAS NEITHER A CASUAL ENACTMENT NOR A PASSING
WHIM IS SHOWN BY THE WHOLE COURSE OF ITS HISTORY.  THE ORIGINAL STATUTE
WAS PASSED AS THE RESULT OF A CAMPAIGN BY THE NEW YORK SOCIETY FOR THE
SUPPRESSION OF VICE AND THE NEW YORK SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF
CRUELTY TO CHILDREN.  SEE 8TH ANN. REP., N.Y. SOC. FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF VICE (1882) P. 7; 9TH ID. (1883) P. 9; 10TH ID. (1884) P. 8; 11TH
ID. (1885) PP. 7-8.  THE FORMER ORGANIZATION, AT LEAST, HAD SOUGHT
LEGISLATION COVERING MANY MORE TYPES OF LITERATURE AND CONDUCT.  SEE
8TH ID. (1882) PP. 6-9; 9TH ID. (1883) PP. 9-12.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IN
1887, THE LIMITATION OF THE STATUTE TO SALES, ETC., TO CHILDREN WAS
REMOVED.  N.Y.L. 1887, C. 692.  MORE RECENTLY, IT HAS BEEN FOUND
DESIRABLE TO ADD TO THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE STATE TO COMBAT THIS
TYPE OF LITERATURE.  A 1941 STATUTE CONFERRED JURISDICTION UPON THE
SUPREME COURT, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE COMMUNITY,
TO ENJOIN THE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH LITERATURE.  N.Y.L. 1941, C.
925, SEC. 2, N.Y. CODE CRIM. PROC. SEC. 22-A.  (THE ADDITIONAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS THAT MIGHT BE RAISED BY SUCH INJUNCTIONS, CF.
NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, ARE OF COURSE NOT BEFORE US.) 

FN2 WE HAVE NO STATISTICS OR OTHER RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE
INCIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF THESE LAWS, NOR AS TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR
ENFORCEMENT.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE HIGHEST COURTS OF THREE OF THE
MOST INDUSTRIALIZED STATES - CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, AND NEW YORK - HAVE
HAD THIS LEGISLATION BEFORE THEM. 

FN3  THIS ASSUMES A SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME
LAWS. 

FN4  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO., 247 U.S.
32; UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417; UNITED
STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26; AMERICAN COLUMN & LUMBER CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 377; MAPLE FLOORING MFRS.  ASSN.  V. UNITED
STATES, 268 U.S. 563; CEMENT MFRS.  PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. UNITED STATES,
268 U.S. 588; UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392;
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208; UNITED STATES
V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150; UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN
UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES,
326 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 333 U.S. 287. 
..END :


















CONNECTICUT INS. CO. V. MOORE, 333 U.S. 541 


NO. 337.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1948.  - 297
N.Y. 1, 74 N.E.2D 24, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AS APPLIED TO POLICIES OF INSURANCE ISSUED BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
FOR DELIVERY IN NEW YORK ON THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK, WHERE
THE INSURED PERSONS CONTINUE TO BE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND THE
BENEFICIARIES ARE RESIDENTS AT THE MATURITIES OF THE POLICIES, ARTICLE
VII OF THE ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW OF NEW YORK, REQUIRING PAYMENT TO THE
STATE OF MONIES HELD OR OWING BY LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATIONS AND
REMAINING UNCLAIMED FOR SEVEN YEARS BY THE PERSONS ENTITLED THERETO,
DOES NOT IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART.
I, SEC. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 545-548. 

2.  NOR DOES IT DEPRIVE FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES OF THEIR PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SINCE
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK AND ITS RESIDENTS WHO ABANDON CLAIMS
AGAINST FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW
YORK AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES QUALIFYING TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW
YORK ARE SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE TO GIVE NEW YORK JURISDICTION.  PP. 548
551. 

3.  THE PROBLEM OF WHAT ANOTHER STATE MAY DO AS TO CUSTODY OF
ABANDONED INSURANCE MONIES OF COMPANIES INCORPORATED THEREIN IS NOT
PRESENTED IN THIS CASE AND IS NOT PASSED UPON.  P. 548. 

4.  DECISION IS RESERVED AS TO INSTANCES WHERE INSURED PERSONS, AFTER
DELIVERY OF THE POLICIES, CEASE TO BE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK OR WHERE
THE BENEFICIARIES ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AT THE MATURITIES OF
THE POLICIES.  P. 549. 

5.  A DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE SUSTAINING GENERALLY
THE VALIDITY OF A STATE ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW AND HAVING THE EFFECT OF
REQUIRING APPELLANTS TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE LAW, IS REVIEWABLE IN
THIS COURT ON AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE WHEN
PRECISE QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ARE PRESENTED,
EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION ARISES OUT OF A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT PRESENTING THE QUESTIONS ABSTRACTLY AND NOT OUT OF A CONCRETE
CASE INVOLVING PARTICULAR FUNDS AND FACTS.  PP. 550-551. 

CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. ET AL. V. MOORE, COMPTROLLER OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

IN A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK
SUSTAINED (WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS) THE VALIDITY OF ARTICLE VII OF THE
ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW OF NEW YORK, AS APPLIED TO FOREIGN INSURANCE
COMPANIES.  187 MISC. 1004, 65 N.Y.S.2D 143.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION
AFFIRMED.  271 APP. DIV. 1002, 69 N.Y.S.2D 323.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.  297 N.Y. 1, 47 N.E.2D 24.  ON APPEAL TO
THIS COURT, AFFIRMED EXCEPT AS TO ISSUES SPECIFICALLY RESERVED, P.
551. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED IN THIS SUIT TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW YORK
ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW AS APPLIED TO POLICIES OF INSURANCE ISSUED FOR
DELIVERY IN NEW YORK ON THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK BY COMPANIES
INCORPORATED IN STATES OTHER THAN NEW YORK. 

ARTICLE VII OF THE ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW, HEADED "UNCLAIMED LIFE
INSURANCE FUNDS," WAS ENACTED IN 1943.  IN 1944 THE LAW WAS AMENDED SO
AS TO COVER INSURANCE COMPANIES INCORPORATED OUT OF THE STATE.  FN1
COMPANIES IN THE FOLLOWING THREE CLASSES OF POLICIES ISSUED ON THE
LIVES OF RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK SHALL BE DEEMED ABANDONED PROPERTY:  (1)
MATURED ENDOWMENT POLICIES WHICH HAVE BEEN UNCLAIMED FOR SEVEN YEARS;
(2) POLICIES PAYABLE ON DEATH WHERE THE INSURED, IF LIVING, WOULD HAVE
ATTAINED THE LIMITING AGE UNDER THE MORTALITY TABLE ON WHICH THE
RESERVES ARE BASED (AN AGE VARYING FROM 96 TO 100), AS TO WHICH NO
TRANSACTION HAS OCCURRED FOR SEVEN YEARS; AND (3) POLICIES PAYABLE ON
DEATH IN WHICH THE INSURED HAS DIED AND NO CLAIM BY THE PERSON ENTITLED
THERETO HAS BEEN MADE FOR SEVEN YEARS.  FN2 OTHER SECTIONS OF ART. VII
PROVIDE THAT INSURANCE CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK SHALL
MAKE AN ANNUAL REPORT OF ABANDONED PROPERTY FALLING WITHIN THE
DEFINITIONS OF SEC. 700, THE LISTS SHALL BE ADVERTISED, AND IF THE
ABANDONED PROPERTY ADVERTISED REMAINS UNCLAIMED, THE AMOUNTS DUE AND
OWING SHALL BE PAID TO THE STATE COMPTROLLER SO AS TO BE IN THE CARE
AND CUSTODY OF THE STATE.  ART. VII, SEC. 703, ART. XIV, SEC. 1402;
STATE FINANCE LAW SEC. 95.  UPON PAYMENT TO THE STATE, THE COMPANIES
ARE DISCHARGED OF ANY OBLIGATION, AND ANY PERSON SUBSEQUENTLY SETTING
UP A CLAIM MUST FILE A CLAIM WITH THE COMPTROLLER.  A PENALTY OF $100 A
DAY IS PROVIDED FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE REQUIRED REPORT.  ART. XIV,
SEC. 1412. 

THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY NINE INSURANCE COMPANIES,
INCORPORATED IN STATES OTHER THAN NEW YORK, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
YORK FOR A DECLARATION OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW
OF NEW YORK, AS APPLIED TO THE PLAINTIFFS, AND TO ENJOIN THE STATE
COMPTROLLER AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING UNDER STATE AUTHORITY FROM
TAKING ANY STEPS UNDER THE STATUTE.  THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE
ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW WAS VOID IN SO FAR AS IT APPLIED TO POLICIES OF
LIFE INSURANCE ISSUED FOR DELIVERY OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK BY FOREIGN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANIES.  AS NO APPEAL FROM THIS RULING WAS TAKEN BY THE
STATE, IT IS NOT BEFORE US.  THE SUPREME COURT RESERVED TO THE
APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANIES THE RIGHT TO ASSERT THE INVALIDITY OF THE
ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW OR ANY APPLICATION THEREOF IN SO FAR AS SUCH LAW
OR STATE ACTION THEREUNDER SOUGHT TO DEPRIVE THEM OF ANY DEFENSE
AGAINST ANY CLAIM UNDER ANY LIFE INSURANCE POLICY.  WITH THE ABOVE
EXCEPTIONS, THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE LIFE INSURANCE SECTIONS OF THE
ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW AGAINST APPELLANTS' ATTACK.  THE APPELLATE
DIVISION AFFIRMED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPREME COURT IN SO FAR AS IT RESERVED TO THE COMPANIES FURTHER RIGHT
TO ASSERT DEFENSE AGAINST CLAIMS UNDER THE POLICIES.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS BY ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW YORK STATUTE LEFT OPEN TO THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES ALL DEFENSES EXCEPT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, NON
COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY PROVISIONS CALLING FOR PROOF OF DEATH OR OF
OTHER DESIGNATED CONTINGENCY AND FAILURE TO SURRENDER A POLICY ON
MAKING A CLAIM.  297 N.Y. 1, 74 N.E.2D 24.  WITH THIS MODIFICATION, IT
AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT.  FN3  APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS
PERFECTED UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AND PROBABLE
JURISDICTION NOTED ON OCTOBER 20, 1947. 

IN ADDITION TO OBJECTIONS UNDER NEW YORK LAW, APPELLANTS RAISED IN
THEIR COMPLAINT AND HAVE CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED THAT THE STATUTE
IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART. I, SEC.
10, OF THE CONSTITUTION AND DEPRIVES THEM OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THEIR ARGUMENT UNDER
THE CONTRACT CLAUSE IS THAT THE STATUTE TRANSFORMS INTO A LIQUIDATED
OBLIGATION AN OBLIGATION WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY ONLY CONDITIONAL.  THEIR
ARGUMENT UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS THAT NEW YORK HAS NO POWER TO
SEQUESTER FUNDS OF THESE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO MEET THE
COMPANIES' OBLIGATIONS ON INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED ON NEW YORK
RESIDENTS FOR DELIVERY IN NEW YORK. 

I. IN SUPPORT OF THEIR FIRST CONTENTION APPELLANTS NOTE THAT THE
POLICY TERMS PROVIDE THAT THE INSURER SHALL BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION
UNTIL PROOF OF DEATH OR OTHER CONTINGENCY IS SUBMITTED AND THE POLICY
SURRENDERED.  THEY CONTEND THAT IN DISPENSING WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE
STATUTE TRANSFORMS AN OBLIGATION WHICH IS MERELY CONDITIONAL INTO ONE
THAT IS LIQUIDATED.  THEY FURTHER CLAIM THAT UNLESS PROOF OF DEATH OR
OTHER CONTINGENCY IS SUBMITTED, THEY WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY IN
ESTABLISHING OTHER COMPLETE OR PARTIAL DEFENSES, SUCH AS THE FACT THAT
THE INSURED UNDERSTATED HIS AGE IN HIS APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE, THAT
THE INSURED DIED AS A RESULT OF SUICIDE, MILITARY SERVICE, OR AVIATION,
AND THAT THE INSURED WAS NOT LIVING AND IN GOOD HEALTH WHEN THE POLICY
WAS DELIVERED.  WE ASSUME THAT APPELLANTS MAY FIND IT MORE DIFFICULT TO
ESTABLISH OTHER DEFENSES, BUT WE DO NOT REGARD THE STATUTE AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF THESE ENFORCED VARIATIONS FROM THE POLICY
PROVISIONS. 

UNLESS THE STATE IS ALLOWED TO TAKE POSSESSION OF SUMS IN THE HANDS
OF THE COMPANIES CLASSIFIED BY SEC. 700 AS ABANDONED, THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES WOULD RETAIN MONEYS CONTRACTED TO BE PAID ON CONDITION AND
WHICH NORMALLY THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY.  WE THINK THAT THE
CLASSIFICATION OF ABANDONED PROPERTY ESTABLISHED BY THE STATUTE
DESCRIBES PROPERTY THAT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE ABANDONED PROPERTY AND
SUBJECT TO THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF THE STATE AND ULTIMATELY TO
ESCHEAT.  THE FACT THAT CLAIMANTS AGAINST THE COMPANIES WOULD UNDER THE
POLICIES BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN POLICY CONDITIONS DOES NOT
AFFECT OUR CONCLUSION.  THE STATE MAY MORE PROPERLY BE CUSTODIAN AND
BENEFICIARY OF ABANDONED PROPERTY THAN ANY PERSON. 

WE THINK THAT THE STATE HAS THE SAME POWER TO SEIZE ABANDONED LIFE
INSURANCE MONEYS AS ABANDONED BANK DEPOSITS, ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK V.
LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233; SECURITY BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 263 U.S. 282, AND
ABANDONED DEPOSITS IN A COURT REGISTRY, UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 303
U.S. 276.  THERE ARE, OF COURSE, DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE STEPS A
DEPOSITOR MUST TAKE TO WITHDRAW A BANK DEPOSIT AND THOSE THAT A
BENEFICIARY OF A POLICY MUST TAKE TO COLLECT HIS INSURANCE.  EACH,
HOWEVER, MUST MAKE APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIONS ACCORDING TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF HIS CONTRACT WITH BANK OR INSURANCE COMPANY.  WHEN THE
STATE UNDERTAKES THE PROTECTION OF ABANDONED CLAIMS, IT WOULD BE BEYOND
A REASONABLE REQUIREMENT TO COMPEL THE STATE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS
THAT MAY BE QUITE PROPER AS BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING PARTIES.  THE STATE
IS ACTING AS A CONSERVATOR, NOT AS A PARTY TO A CONTRACT.  ABANDONED
PROPERTY LAW, ART. XIV, SEC. 1404; STATE FINANCE LAW, SEC. 95; ANDERSON
NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT, SUPRA, AT 241. 

WE SEE NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY A STATE MAY NOT PROCEED
ADMINISTRATIVELY, AS HERE, TO TAKE OVER THE CARE OF ABANDONED PROPERTY
RATHER THAN ADOPT A PLAN THROUGH JUDICIAL PROCESS AS IN SECURITY BANK
V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA.  THERE IS AMPLE PROVISION FOR NOTICE TO
BENEFICIARIES AND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL HEARING OF THEIR
CLAIMS AND PAYMENT OF SAME.  FN4  THERE IS NO POSSIBLE INJURY TO ANY
BENEFICIARY.  THE RIGHT OF APPROPRIATION BY THE STATE OF ABANDONED
PROPERTY HAS EXISTED FOR CENTURIES IN THE COMMON LAW.  SEE ANDERSON
NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT, SUPRA, AT 240 AND 251.  WE FIND NO REASON FOR
INVALIDATING THE STATUTORY PLAN UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE. 

II.  NOR DO WE AGREE WITH APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT THAT NEW YORK LACKS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO TAKE OVER UNCLAIMED MONEYS DUE TO ITS RESIDENTS
ON POLICIES ISSUED FOR DELIVERY IN THE STATE BY LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATIONS CHARTERED OUTSIDE THE STATE.  THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT
ONLY THE STATE OF INCORPORATION COULD TAKE THESE ABANDONED MONEYS. 
THEY SAY THAT ONLY ONE STATE MAY TAKE CUSTODY OF A DEBT.  FN5  THE
STATUTORY REFERENCE TO "ANY MONEYS HELD OR OWING" DOES NOT REFER TO ANY
SPECIFIC ASSETS OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY, BUT SIMPLY TO THE OBLIGATION
OF THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY.  THE PROBLEM OF WHAT ANOTHER
STATE THAN NEW YORK MAY DO IS NOT BEFORE US.  THAT QUESTION IS NOT
PASSED UPON.  TO PREVAIL APPELLEE NEED ONLY SHOW, AS HE DOES AS TO
POLICIES ON RESIDENTS ISSUED FOR DELIVERY IN NEW YORK, THAT THERE MAY
BE ABANDONED MONEYS, OVER WHICH NEW YORK HAS POWER, IN THE HANDS OF
APPELLANTS.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAS
SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH THE TRANSACTIONS HERE IN QUESTION TO JUSTIFY
THE EXERTION OF THE POWER TO SEIZE ABANDONED MONEYS DUE TO ITS
RESIDENTS.  APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE
DETERMINATIVE IN CHOOSING THE STATE OF INCORPORATION AS THE STATE FOR
CONSERVATION OF ABANDONED INDEBTEDNESS, IF SUCH MONEYS ARE TO BE TAKEN
FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE CORPORATIONS.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE
PRESENT RESIDENCE OF MISSING POLICYHOLDERS IS UNKNOWN; THAT WITH OUR
SHIFTING POPULATION RESIDENCE IS A CHANGEABLE FACTOR; THAT AS THE
INSURED CHOSE A FOREIGN CORPORATION AS HIS INSURER, HIS CHOICE SHOULD
BE RESPECTED; THAT MONEYS SHOULD ESCHEAT TO THE SOVEREIGNTY THAT GUARDS
THEM AT THE TIME OF ABANDONMENT.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IT IS URGED
THAT RESTRICTING ESCHEAT OR CONSERVANCY TO THE STATE OF INCORPORATION
AVOIDS CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN STATES AS TO THE LOCATION OF
ABANDONED PROPERTY AND SIMPLIFIES THE CORPORATIONS' REPORTS BY LIMITING
THEM TO ONE STATE WITH ONE LAW.  ATTENTION IS CALLED TO PRESENTLY
ENACTED STATUTES IN PENNSYLVANIA,  FN6  NEW JERSEY,  FN7  AND
MASSACHUSETTS N8.  NONE OF THESE STATUTES APPLY TO CORPORATIONS
CHARTERED OUTSIDE OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES.  FURTHERMORE, IT IS ARGUED
THAT THE ANALOGOUS BANK DEPOSIT CASES HAVE UPHELD ESCHEAT OR
CONSERVANCY BY THE STATE OF THE BANK'S INCORPORATION.  FN9  FINALLY
RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE POLICIES ARE PAYABLE
AT THE OUT-OF-STATE MAIN OFFICES OF THE CORPORATIONS, THE EVIDENCES OF
THEIR INTANGIBLE ASSETS ARE THERE LOCATED AND THERE CLAIMS MUST BE MADE
AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS CARRIED ON. 

THESE ARE REASONS WHICH HAVE NO DOUBT BEEN WEIGHED IN LEGISLATIVE
CONSIDERATION.  WE ARE HERE DEALING WITH A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER.  POWER TO DEMAND THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF THE MONEYS DUE THESE
BENEFICIARIES IS CLAIMED BY NEW YORK, UNDER ART. VII OF THE ABANDONED
PROPERTY LAW AS CONSTRUED BY ITS COURTS, ONLY WHERE THE POLICIES WERE
ISSUED FOR DELIVERY IN NEW YORK UPON THE LIVES OF PERSONS THEN RESIDENT
IN NEW YORK.  WE SUSTAIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS
AS THUS INTERPRETED WITH THESE EXCEPTIONS.  WE DO NOT PASS UPON THE
VALIDITY IN INSTANCES WHERE INSURED PERSONS, AFTER DELIVERY, CEASE TO
BE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK OR WHERE THE BENEFICIARY IS NOT A RESIDENT OF
NEW YORK AT MATURITY OF THE POLICY.  AS INTERESTS OF OTHER POSSIBLE
PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED HERE MAY BE AFFECTED BY OUR CONCLUSIONS AND AS
NO SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF THOSE TYPES APPEAR IN THE RECORD, WE RESERVE
ANY CONCLUSION AS TO NEW YORK'S POWER IN SUCH SITUATIONS.  THE
APPELLANTS SOUGHT A DECLARATION PURSUANT TO NEW YORK PROCEDURE OF THE
INVALIDITY OF ART. VII OF THE NEW YORK ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW, DIRECTED
AT UNCLAIMED LIFE INSURANCE FUNDS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO
ACCEPT APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS FOR INVALIDATION OF THE LAW ON FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL OR ANY OTHER GROUNDS.  THIS DECISION COMPELLED THE
APPELLANTS TO COMPLY WITH ART. VII, EXCEPT AS THEIR DEFENSES WERE SAVED
BY THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, UNLESS THIS COURT REVIEWED THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND DECIDED THEM IN APPELLANTS' FAVOR. 
CONSEQUENTLY A CASE OR CONTROVERSY ARISING FROM A STATUTE INTERPRETED
BY THE STATE COURT IS HERE WITH PRECISE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS AS TO POLICIES ISSUED FOR DELIVERY IN NEW YORK UPON THE LIVES
OF PERSONS THEN RESIDENT THEREIN WHERE THE INSURED CONTINUES TO BE A
RESIDENT AND THE BENEFICIARY IS A RESIDENT AT THE MATURITY OF THE
POLICY.  A JUDGMENT ON THAT CLASS OF POLICIES SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY
THIS COURT.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249,
259; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALTERS, 294 U.S. 405.  SEE
ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, 459-63.  WE
PASS ONLY UPON NEW YORK'S POWER TO TAKE OVER THE CARE OF ABANDONED
MONEYS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.    THERE HAVE BEEN, OVER THE YEARS, A
CLOSE SUPERVISION AND REGULATION BY STATES OF THE BUSINESS OF INSURING
THE LIVES OF THEIR CITIZENS.  THERE HAS BEEN COMPLETE RECOGNITION OF
THIS RELATIONSHIP.  SEE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S.
408.  FN10  NEW YORK HAS PRACTICED SUCH REGULATION.  FN11  FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS MUST OBTAIN STATE AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS, SEGREGATE
SECURITIES, SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION AND STATE PROCESS.  THE BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH THE PURCHASE OF INSURANCE BY NEW YORK
RESIDENTS NORMALLY TAKE PLACE IN NEW YORK.  IT IS THE BENEFICIARY OF
THE POLICY, NOT THE INSURER, WHO HAS ABANDONED THE MONEYS.  UNDOUBTEDLY
THE RELATIONSHIP IS VERY CLOSE.  FN12 CERTAINLY THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN NEW YORK AND FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES AS TO POLICIES HERE
UNDER DISCUSSION IS AS CLOSE AS THAT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND ITS STATE
OF INCORPORATION.  FN13  THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THIS POINT SAID: 

"FOR THE CORE OF THE DEBTOR OBLIGATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANIES
WAS CREATED THROUGH ACTS DONE IN THIS STATE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF ITS
LAWS, AND THE TIES THEREBY ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE COMPANIES AND THE
STATE WERE WITHOUT MORE SUFFICIENT TO VALIDATE THE JURISDICTION HERE
ASSERTED BY THE LEGISLATURE." 

WE AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT AND HOLD THAT NEW YORK HAD POWER TO TAKE
OVER THESE ABANDONED MONEYS IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANTS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK IS AFFIRMED EXCEPT
AS TO ISSUES SPECIFICALLY RESERVED. 

FN1  THE FIRST STATUTE WHICH INCLUDED INSURANCE POLICIES AS ABANDONED
PROPERTY WAS ENACTED IN 1939, CH. 923 OF THE LAWS OF 1939.  THAT
STATUTE APPLIED ONLY TO COMPANIES INCORPORATED IN NEW YORK, BUT COVERED
ALL POLICIES ISSUED BY SUCH COMPANIES.  CHAPTER 602 OF THE LAWS OF 1940
AMENDED THE STATUTE SO AS TO APPLY ONLY TO POLICIES ISSUED ON THE LIVES
OF RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK.  CHAPTER 697 OF THE LAWS OF 1943 REENACTED
THE PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF THE EARLIER STATUTES AS ART. VII, AND CC. 497
AND 498(SEC.  2) OF THE LAWS OF 1944 MADE THE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO
FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES.  CHAPTER 452 OF THE LAWS OF 1946 AMENDED
ART. VII SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH HAD PAID
THE PROCEEDS OF A POLICY TO THE STATE COULD SUBSEQUENTLY PAY A SECOND
TIME TO A CLAIMANT AND ACQUIRE THE RIGHTS OF THE CLAIMANT AGAINST THE
COMPTROLLER. 

FN2  "SEC.  700.  UNCLAIMED LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION MONEYS. 

"1.  THE FOLLOWING UNCLAIMED PROPERTY HELD OR OWING BY LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATIONS SHALL BE DEEMED ABANDONED PROPERTY: 

"(A)  ANY MONEYS HELD OR OWING BY ANY LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
WHICH SHALL HAVE REMAINED UNCLAIMED FOR SEVEN YEARS BY THE PERSON OR
PERSONS APPEARING TO BE ENTITLED THERETO UNDER MATURED LIFE INSURANCE
POLICIES ON THE ENDOWMENT PLAN ISSUED ON THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS OF THIS
STATE. 

"(B)  ANY MONEYS HELD OR OWING BY ANY LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION
WHICH ARE PAYABLE UNDER OTHER KINDS OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED
ON THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS OF THIS STATE WHERE THE INSURED, IF LIVING,
WOULD, PRIOR TO THE THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER NEXT PRECEDING THE
REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION SEVEN HUNDRED ONE, HAVE ATTAINED THE
LIMITING AGE UNDER THE MORTALITY TABLE ON WHICH THE RESERVES ARE BASED,
EXCLUSIVE OF 

"(I)  ANY POLICY WHICH HAS WITHIN SEVEN YEARS BEEN ASSIGNED,
READJUSTED, KEPT IN FORCE BY PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, REINSTATED OR
SUBJECTED TO LOAN, OR 

"(II)  ANY POLICY WITH RESPECT TO WHICH SUCH CORPORATION HAS ON FILE
WRITTEN EVIDENCE RECEIVED WITHIN SEVEN YEARS THAT THE PERSON OR PERSONS
APPARENTLY ENTITLED TO CLAIM THEREUNDER HAVE KNOWLEDGE THEREOF. 

"(C)  ANY MONEYS HELD OR OWING BY ANY LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION DUE
TO BENEFICIARIES UNDER POLICIES ISSUED ON THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS OF
THIS STATE WHO HAVE DIED, WHICH MONEYS SHALL HAVE REMAINED UNCLAIMED BY
THE PERSON OR PERSONS ENTITLED THERETO FOR SEVEN YEARS. 

"2.  ANY SUCH ABANDONED PROPERTY HELD OR OWING BY A LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION TO WHICH THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SAME IS ESTABLISHED TO
THE SATISFACTION OF SUCH CORPORATION SHALL CEASE TO BE DEEMED
ABANDONED." 

FN3  187 MISC. 1004, 65 N.Y.S.2D 143; 271 APP. DIV. 1002, 69 N.Y.S.2D
323; 297 N.Y. 1, 74 N.E.2D 24. 

FN4  ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW, ART. XIV, SEC. 1404: 

"1.  THE CARE AND CUSTODY, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE DUTY OF CONVERSION
PRESCRIBED IN SECTION FOURTEEN HUNDRED TWO OF THIS CHAPTER, OF ALL
ABANDONED PROPERTY HERETOFORE PAID TO THE STATE, EXCEPT 

"(I)  ABANDONED PROPERTY IN INDIVIDUAL AMOUNTS OF LESS THAN ONE
DOLLAR SO PAID PURSUANT TO CHAPTER ONE HUNDRED SEVEN OF THE LAWS OF
NINETEEN HUNDRED FORTY-TWO; AND OF ALL ABANDONED PROPERTY PAID TO THE
STATE COMPTROLLER PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER, IS HEREBY ASSUMED FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THOSE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE SAME, AND THE STATE SHALL HOLD
ITSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL CLAIMS ESTABLISHED THERETO
PURSUANT TO LAW, LESS ANY LAWFUL DEDUCTIONS, WHICH CANNOT BE PAID FROM
THE ABANDONED PROPERTY FUND." 

     .         .   .         .         . 

SEE ALSO SECS. 702, 1402, 1406(1)(A) AND (B), AND ANDERSON NATIONAL
BANK V. LUCKETT, SUPRA, AT 242. 

FN5  COMPARE STATE TAX COMMISSION V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174; NORTHWEST
AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292, 293, 294. 

FN6  PURDON'S PA. STAT., TITLE 27, SECS. 434-437. 

FN7  N.J. REV. STAT. SECS. 17:34-49 - 34-58(CUM.  SUPP., LAWS OF 1945
1947). 

FN8  CH. 455, MASS. ACTS AND RESOLVES (1946). 

FN9  SEE ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT, SUPRA; SECURITY BANK V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; IN RE RAPOPORT'S ESTATE, 317 MICH. 291, 26 N.W.2D
777. 

FN10  AN OLD PROVISION MAKES NEW YORK LAW APPLICABLE TO POLICIES
ISSUED FOR DELIVERY IN NEW YORK.  INSURANCE LAW SEC. 143(2). 

FN11  NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW, SECS. 42, 59, 103, 143, 208(5),
216(6). 

FN12  SEE GREENOUGH V. TAX ASSESSORS, 331 U.S. 486; CURRY V.
MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357.  COMPARE INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON,
326 U.S. 310, 320:  "IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE OPERATIONS ESTABLISH
SUFFICIENT CONTACTS OR TIES WITH THE STATE OF THE FORUM TO MAKE IT
REASONABLE AND JUST, ACCORDING TO OUR TRADITIONAL CONCEPTION OF FAIR
PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, TO PERMIT THE STATE TO ENFORCE THE
OBLIGATIONS WHICH APPELLANT HAS INCURRED THERE." 

FN13  SEE NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. WOODWORTH, 111
U.S. 138; EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369, 377; MORGAN V. MUTUAL
BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE CO., 189 N.Y. 447, 82 N.E. 438. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

MY BROTHER JACKSON'S OPINION, WITH WHICH I SUBSTANTIALLY AGREE,
PERSUADES ME THAT WE SHOULD DECLINE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN THIS
CASE.  THE WISE PRACTICE GOVERNING CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION REQUIRES
IT.  FOR THIS PROCEEDING POSES MERELY HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS, ALL OF
WHICH ARE INTERTWINED AND CONCERN INTERESTS NOT REPRESENTED BEFORE US.
CIRCUMSTANCES NOT MORE COMPELLING, SURELY, THAN THIS RECORD DISCLOSES
LED US IN A SERIES OF RECENT CASES TO AVOID BORROWING TROUBLE BY
DECLINING TO ADJUDICATE PREMATURE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.  ALABAMA STATE
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450; UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS OF
AMERICA V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75; RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331
U.S. 549. 

IN APPEARANCE THIS IS A SUIT BETWEEN A FEW INSURANCE COMPANIES AND
THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  BUT AT THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY ARE THE
CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF SEVERAL STATES IN A HOTCHPOT OF UNDIFFERENTIATED
OBLIGATIONS.  THE PROCEEDS OF "ABANDONED" LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES
CANNOT, I ASSUME, BE SEIZED AS FOR ESCHEAT MORE THAN ONCE.  SINCE THE
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES GROWING OUT OF SUCH POLICIES ARE, TO A VAST
EXTENT, THE RESULT OF A PROCESS THAT CONCERNS TWO OR MORE STATES, THEIR
INTERESTS MAY COME INTO CONFLICT WHEN, IN EXIGENT SEARCH FOR REVENUE,
THEY INVOKE THE OPPORTUNITIES OF ESCHEAT AGAINST UNCLAIMED PROCEEDS
FROM INSURANCE POLICIES.  I ASSUME MERELY CONFLICTING STATE INTERESTS
AND LAY ASIDE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE DECISION IN
UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, 322 U.S. 533. 

IN THE VIGILANT SEARCH FOR NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE, SEVERAL STATES
HAVE ALREADY SOUGHT TO TAP FOR THEIR OWN EXCHEQUERS THE MATURED
OBLIGATIONS OF UNCLAIMED POLICIES.  IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL NOT TO
ASSUME THAT OTHER STATES WILL DO LIKEWISE.  ONLY NEW YORK'S CLAIM IS
BEFORE US.  IT IS VITAL TO DEFINE THE PRECISE NATURE OF THIS CLAIM. 
NEW YORK DOES NOT LAY CLAIM TO A PARTICULAR FUND CONSTITUTING THE
PROCEEDS OF ABANDONED MATURED OBLIGATIONS.  THIS LITIGATION, IT IS
CONCEDED, SEEKS TO TEST ABSTRACTLY THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NEW
YORK STATUTE PROVIDING FOR TURNING OVER TO HER THE AVAILS OF ABANDONED
MATURED INSURANCE POLICIES.  NEW YORK ASKS THAT HER RIGHT TO THE
HOTCHPOT OF UNDIFFERENTIATED OBLIGATIONS BE ACKNOWLEDGED.  OF COURSE
NEW YORK MAY ENABLE ITS COURTS TO PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF A
COMPREHENSIVE STATUTE UNRELATED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF SPECIFIC CLAIMS
TO SPECIFIC FUNDS THAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
DIFFERING IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW,
HOWEVER, THAT WHAT THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAS ADJUDICATED WE
MUST REVIEW. 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE POWER OF NEW YORK TO
CLAIM ESCHEAT ON ABANDONED INSURANCE MATURITIES FROM FOREIGN INSURANCE
COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK ON THE BASIS OF THE INSURED'S
RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK AT THE TIME OF THE DELIVERY OF THE POLICY IN NEW
YORK.  ACCORDING TO THIS VIEW, AS MR. JUSTICE JACKSON POINTS OUT,
CHANGE OF RESIDENCE OF THE INSURED OR OF THE BENEFICIARY LONG BEFORE
MATURITY OF THE POLICY, OR NON-RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK OF A BENEFICIARY,
OTHER THAN THE INSURED, AT ANY TIME, BECOME UTTERLY IMMATERIAL.  THESE
ARE ONLY SOME OF THE FAMILIAR SITUATIONS THAT ARE ENCOMPASSED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS VALIDATION OF THE NEW YORK STATUTE. 

THIS COURT DOES NOT PURPORT TO AFFIRM ALL THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE NEW
YORK JUDGMENT.  IT IS FAIR, HOWEVER, TO SAY THAT THE COURT'S OPINION
DOES NOT ENUMERATE WHAT POSSIBLE SITUATIONS INCLUDED IN THE JUDGMENT
BELOW IT HAS NOT PASSED UPON.  IT IS EXPLICIT IN PUTTING TO ONE SIDE
THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW YORK STATUTE IN "INSTANCES WHERE INSURED
PERSONS, AFTER DELIVERY, CEASE TO BE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK OR WHERE THE
BENEFICIARY IS NOT A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK AT MATURITY OF THE POLICY. 
AS INTERESTS OF OTHER POSSIBLE PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED HERE MAY BE
AFFECTED BY OUR CONCLUSIONS AND AS NO SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF THOSE TYPES
APPEAR IN THE RECORD, WE RESERVE ANY CONCLUSION AS TO NEW YORK'S POWER
IN SUCH SITUATIONS."  BUT "NO SPECIFIC INSTANCES" OF ANY TYPE APPEAR IN
THE RECORD.  INDEED, IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE ONLY INSTANCES OF TYPES OF
TRANSACTIONS AS TO WHICH ESCHEAT IS CLAIMED THAT ARE IN THE RECORD ARE
THE TYPES ON WHICH THE OPINION OF THE COURT DECLINES TO PASS.  THE
COMPLAINT SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH POLICIES ARE
ISSUED UPON THE LIVES OF NEW YORK RESIDENTS FOR NON-NEW YORK
BENEFICIARIES, AS WELL AS THE EXTENT WITH WHICH HOLDERS OF POLICIES
CHANGE THEIR RESIDENCE.  ON THE STATE OF THE PLEADINGS, THESE
ALLEGATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE.  TO BE SURE, NEW YORK LAYS CLAIM
TO ALL FUNDS REFLECTING THESE SITUATIONS, AND ITS HIGHEST COURT HAS
SUSTAINED THIS GENERALIZED CLAIM.  BUT, AS ALREADY INDICATED, THIS IS
NOT A SUIT FOR ANY SPECIFIC FUND.  FOR ALL WE KNOW THERE ARE NO FUNDS
IN NEW YORK TO WHICH THAT STATE COULD LAY CLAIM EVEN WITHIN THE
CIRCUMSCRIBED AFFIRMANCE BY THIS COURT OF THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT. 

WHATEVER THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S DECISION, IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL
DECISION.  NEW YORK HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BELOW IN AN ABSTRACT ASSERTION
OF AUTHORITY AGAINST FUNDS NOT CLAIMED NOR DEFINED, EXCEPT
COMPENDIOUSLY DEFINED AS THE RIGHT TO GO AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANIES
DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK FOR THE PROCEEDS OF POLICIES DELIVERED IN
NEW YORK UPON THE LIVES OF INSURED THEN RESIDENT IN NEW YORK.  THIS
GENERALIZED DECISION THE COURT REJECTS.  INSTEAD, IT CARVES OUT
DIFFERENT AND LIMITED CLAIMS FOR WHICH NEW YORK MAY GO WITHOUT ANY
INDICATION THAT THERE IS ANYTHING ON WHICH SUCH CLAIMS COULD FEED.  IN
ANY EVENT, SUCH A MUTILATED AFFIRMANCE OF THE DECISION OF THE NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS, WITH EVERYTHING ELSE LEFT OPEN, IS BOUND TO HATCH A
BROOD OF FUTURE LITIGATION.  CLAIMS OF THE STATES OF DOMICILE OF THE
INSURING COMPANIES, CLAIMS OF THE STATES OF RESIDENCE OF THE INSURED AT
THE TIME OF MATURITY, CLAIMS OF THE STATES OF RESIDENCE OF
BENEFICIARIES OTHER THAN THE INSURED AT THE TIME OF MATURITY, ARE ALL
PUT TO ONE SIDE HERE AS NOT PRESENTED BY THE RECORD THOUGH THEY ARE AS
MUCH PRESENTED AS WHAT IS DECIDED.  TO REVENUE-EAGER STATES THESE ARE
PRACTICAL SITUATIONS FULL OF POTENTIALITIES.  THIS COURT IS ALL TOO
FAMILIAR WITH THE SPECIAL POSITION OF CONTROL CLAIMED BY A CHARTERING
STATE AND THE SPECIAL POWERS THE DOMICILIARY STATE OF A DECEASED
ASSERTS OVER HIS "INTANGIBLES." 

HOW THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF THE STATES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED CALLS
FOR PROPER PRESENTATION BY THE VARIOUS STATES OF THEIR DIFFERENT
CLAIMS.  WORDS MAY SEEK TO RESTRICT A DECISION PURPORTING TO PASS ON A
SMALL FRAGMENT OF WHAT IS IN TRUTH AN ORGANIC COMPLEXITY TO THAT
ISOLATED PART.  BUT SUCH AN EFFORT TO CIRCUMSCRIBE WHAT HAS BEEN
DECIDED IS SELF-DEFEATING.  A DECISION HAS A MOMENTUM OF ITS OWN, AND
IT IS NOTHING NEW THAT LEGAL DOCTRINES HAVE THE FACULTY OF SELF
GENERATING EXTENSION.  WE OUGHT NOT TO DECIDE ANY OF THESE INTERRELATED
ISSUES UNTIL THEY ARE DULY PRESSED HERE BY THE AFFECTED STATES, SO THAT
A MATURE JUDGMENT UPON THIS INTERRELATION MAY BE REACHED.  ALL THE
CONSIDERATIONS OF PREVENTIVE ADJUDICATION - THE AVOIDANCE OF A
TRUNCATED DECISION OF INDETERMINATE SCOPE, WITH THE INEVITABLE DUTY OF
RECONSIDERING IT OR UNCONSCIOUSLY BEING INFLUENCED BY IMPLICIT
OVERTONES OF SUCH A DECISION - REQUIRE THAT DECISION AWAIT THE RIPENING
PROCESS OF A DEFINED CONTEST OVER PARTICULAR FUNDS AS TO WHICH
DIFFERENT STATES MAKE CONCRETE CLAIMS.    THE WAY IS OPEN TO SECURE A
DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DIFFERENT STATES IN
THE VARIANT SITUATIONS PRESENTED BY ABANDONED OBLIGATIONS ON MATURED
INSURANCE POLICIES.  IT IS PRECISELY FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF SUCH
CONTROVERSIES AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES THAT THE CONSTITUTION CONFERRED
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UPON THIS COURT.  IF FLORIDA, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW
YORK AND TEXAS COULD BRING HERE FOR DETERMINATION THEIR RIGHT TO LEVY A
DEATH TAX IN RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR SUCCESSION, TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306
U.S. 398, EVEN MORE FITTING IS IT THAT THE CLAIMS OF VARIOUS STATES TO
SEIZE THE MATURED OBLIGATIONS OF ABANDONED INSURANCE POLICIES SHOULD BE
PRESENTED BY THOSE STATES AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT AND BE ADJUDICATED
HERE AFTER FULL REFLECTION ON ALL THESE CLAIMS.  OF COURSE THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE INTERESTS TO PROTECT AND TO PRESENT.  BUT THE
ESSENTIAL PROBLEM IS THE LEGAL ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS
OF DIFFERENT STATES, BECAUSE EACH MAY HAVE SOME RELATION TO
TRANSACTIONS WHICH GIVE RISE TO FUNDS THAT UNDOUBTEDLY ARE SUBJECT TO
ESCHEAT.  UNTIL THAT IS DULY BEFORE US WE SHOULD NOT PECK AT THE
PROBLEM IN AN ABSTRACT, HYPOTHETICAL WAY. 

THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

I FIND MYSELF UNABLE TO JOIN THE COURT IN THIS CASE.  I CANNOT AGREE
THAT WE MAY AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW WITHOUT FACING, OR BY RESERVING
OUR OPINION UPON, THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION INHERENT IN THIS STATUTE
BY WHICH NEW YORK WOULD ESCHEAT UNCLAIMED INSURANCE PROCEEDS NOT
LOCATED EITHER ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY IN NEW YORK AND WHICH ARE THE
PROPERTY OF A BENEFICIARY WHO MAY NEVER HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OR CITIZEN
OF NEW YORK. 

THIS ACTION IS ONE FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF
THE ACT AND WE ARE THEREFORE PASSING ON THE ACT AS AN ENTIRETY AND IN
THE ABSTRACT.  THE CASES OF NON-RESIDENT BENEFICIARIES ARE BEFORE US AS
MUCH AS ANY OTHER CONCRETE CASE.  THE ACT PURPORTS TO ESCHEAT IN EVERY
CASE IN WHICH THE POLICY WAS ISSUED FOR DELIVERY IN NEW YORK AND THE
INSURED WAS THEN A RESIDENT OF THAT STATE.  THE UNCHALLENGED COMPLAINT
ALLEGES THE COMPTROLLER'S INSTRUCTIONS TO BE THAT REMOVAL OF THE
INSURED FROM THE STATE AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY DOES NOT TAKE A
CASE OUT OF THE ACT.  THE STATUTE, AS WRITTEN AND AS AFFIRMED,
OBVIOUSLY INTENDS TO REACH NONRESIDENT CLAIMANTS AND INSURED PERSONS,
FOR IT PROVIDES FOR BINDING THEM BY PUBLICATION (SEC. 702(2)), AND BY
PUBLICATION WITHIN NEW YORK AT THAT.  MOREOVER, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
IN REACHING THE JUDGMENTS WHICH WE AFFIRM, THE OPINION OF THE SPECIAL
TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, WHILE HOLDING SOME FEATURES OF THE ACT
INVALID, EXPRESSLY CONSIDERED AND UPHELD THESE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
AND THE COURT OF APPEALS INDICATED NO DISAGREEMENT.  OUR AFFIRMANCE
NECESSARILY SUSTAINS THE WHOLE JUDGMENT BELOW AND THAT SUSTAINS THE ACT
IN THESE PARTICULARS.  IT IS PERHAPS UNFORTUNATE TO ADJUDICATE
CONSTITUTIONALITY IN SUCH A MANNER.  IF WE HAD BEFORE US A CONCRETE
CASE, CONTESTED BY ADVERSARY STATE CLAIMANTS TO THE RIGHT OF ESCHEAT
AND BASED ON A RECORD THAT WOULD SHOW SOME FACTS AS TO RESIDENCE OF
PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTIONS, WE WOULD KNOW BETTER WHAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT.  BUT SINCE IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WE CAN HAVE ONLY
HYPOTHETICAL CASES BEFORE US, I CANNOT IGNORE ONE WHICH CERTAINLY
OCCURS FREQUENTLY AND ONE EMBRACED WITHIN BOTH THE ACT AND THE DECISION
BELOW. 

NEITHER THE ACT NOR THE DECISION BELOW CONTEMPLATES THAT THE RIGHT TO
ESCHEAT IS BASED ON RESIDENCE OF THE OWNER OF THE PROCEEDS AT THE TIME
OF ESCHEAT, OR AT ANY OTHER TIME, BUT RATHER ON THESE TWO FACTS:  (1)
THAT THE POLICY WAS ISSUED FOR DELIVERY IN NEW YORK, AND (2) THAT THE
INSURED WAS THEN A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK.  THUS, THE STATE CLAIMS POWER
TO ESCHEAT WHAT IS DUE A BENEFICIARY SOLELY BECAUSE IT WAS THE
RESIDENCE OF THE INSURED WHEN THE POLICY WAS ISSUED AND IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE NONRESIDENCE AT THAT TIME AND AT ALL TIMES OF THE BENEFICIARY WHOSE
PROPERTY IT TAKES.  THUS, THE ESCHEAT OF ONE MAN'S PROPERTY IS BASED ON
ANOTHER MAN'S ONE-TIME RESIDENCE IN THE STATE.  FURTHER, THE SEIZURE OF
TODAY IS BASED NOT EVEN ON THE ASSURED'S RESIDENCE AT THE TIME THE
POLICY MATURED, BUT ON HIS RESIDENCE AT SOME PRIOR DATE, WHICH, IN VIEW
OF THE LONG-TERM NATURE OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS, MAY HAVE BEEN MANY
YEARS AGO. 

THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT UPHOLDING THIS
STATUTE IS THAT A RESIDENCE BY THE INSURED IN NEW YORK AT THE TIME A
POLICY WAS "ISSUED FOR DELIVERY" THERE SHOWS "SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH
THE TRANSACTION," SO THAT THE STATE MAY ESCHEAT PROCEEDS OWNED BY A
BENEFICIARY WHO MAY NEVER HAVE LIVED IN THAT STATE.  EVEN IN THE
ABSTRACT, I FIND THE CONCEPT OF "SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH THE
TRANSACTION" TOO VAGUE TO BE HELPFUL IN DEFINING PRACTICAL BOUNDS OF A
STATE'S JURISDICTION OR POWER TO ESCHEAT.  WE ARE GIVEN NO
ENLIGHTENMENT AS TO WHY ANY ONE OR MORE EVENTS IS REGARDED AS
"SUFFICIENT," NOR AS TO WHAT JURISPRUDENTIAL CONTEXT IS TO BE GIVEN TO
THE TERM "CONTACT," WHICH SEEMS TAKEN OVER FROM SOME VERNACULAR OTHER
THAN THAT OF THE LAW.  I CANNOT EVEN TELL HERE WHAT THE COURT THINKS
THE CONTROLLING "TRANSACTION" IS.  IF IT IS ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY THAT
IS THE "CONTACTED" TRANSACTION, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE STATE WHERE IT
WAS ISSUED, WHERE PREMIUMS WERE PAID, OR WHERE IT WAS ACTUALLY
DELIVERED, WOULD BE MORE CONTROLLING THAN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS
"ISSUED FOR DELIVERY."  IF IT IS THE MATURING OF THE CLAIM, I SEE LESS
"CONTACT" FROM A SOMETIME AND REMOTE RESIDENCE THAN FROM A LATER ONE,
OR ONE AT THE TIME OF EVENTS WHICH MATURED THE POLICY. 

THE WEAKNESS OF THE COURT'S TEST OF SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH THE
"TRANSACTION" IS MORE FULLY REVEALED WHEN WE CONSIDER THAT BY ITS
APPLICATION TODAY OTHER STATES ARE CUT OFF FROM ESCHEATING THE PROCEEDS
(UNLESS THE COMPANY IS SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE ESCHEATS), ALTHOUGH BY THE
SAME TESTS THEY HAVE MANY MORE AND MUCH CLOSER "CONTACTS" WITH SOME
PART OF THE TRANSACTION.  IF WE SAY NEW YORK MAY STEP INTO THE
BENEFICIARY'S SHOES AND COLLECT HIS UNCLAIMED INSURANCE PROCEEDS SOLELY
BECAUSE THE INSURED LIVED IN NEW YORK WHEN THE POLICY ISSUED FOR
DELIVERY THERE, HOW CAN WE DENY THE CLAIM OF ANOTHER STATE TO ESCHEAT
THE SAME FUND WHEN ITS CLAIM IS ASSERTED UNDER ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:  (1)  IT IS THE STATE IN WHICH THE INSURED HAS
DIED OR WHERE SOME OTHER CONTINGENCY OCCURRED WHICH BROUGHT THE CLAIM
TO MATURITY.  (2)  IT IS THE STATE IN WHICH THE BENEFICIARY ALWAYS HAS
RESIDED AND WAS LAST KNOWN TO RESIDE.  (3)  IT IS THE STATE OF A PROVED
LATER AND LONGER RESIDENCE OF THE INSURED.  (4)  IT IS THE STATE TO
WHICH BOTH THE INSURED AND THE BENEFICIARY REMOVED AND RESIDED AFTER
THE POLICY WAS TAKEN OUT IN NEW YORK.  (5)  IT IS THE STATE OF ACTUAL
PERMANENT DOMICILE, AS OPPOSED TO MERE RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK, OF THE
INSURED AND THE BENEFICIARY.  (6)  IT IS THE STATE OF ACTUAL DELIVERY
OF THE POLICY, THOUGH IT WAS "ISSUED FOR DELIVERY" IN NEW YORK.  (7)
IT IS THE STATE WHERE THE CLAIM IS PAYABLE AND WHERE FUNDS FOR ITS
DISCHARGE ARE AND AT ALL TIMES HAVE BEEN LOCATED.  CERTAINLY THE
FOREGOING ARE "CONTACTS" AS I WOULD UNDERSTAND THE TERM, AND SOME OF
THEM OR SOME COMBINATION OF THEM SEEM MORE PERSUASIVE OF A RIGHT TO
ESCHEAT THAN THE GROUNDS ON WHICH WE ARE AFFIRMING NEW YORK'S RIGHT TO
DO SO. 

I AM NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE COURT'S PRONOUNCEMENT THAT IT DOES NOT
DECIDE WHAT A STATE OTHER THAN NEW YORK MAY DO AND THAT IT EXCEPTS FROM
ITS APPROVAL "INSTANCES WHERE INSURED PERSONS, AFTER DELIVERY, CEASE TO
BE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK OR WHERE THE BENEFICIARY IS NOT A RESIDENT OF
NEW YORK AT MATURITY OF THE POLICY."  AS TO THOSE CASES, THE COURT SAYS
IT RESERVES ANY CONCLUSION.  BUT HOW CAN IT RESERVE A CONCLUSION AS TO
WHETHER "CONTACTS" HERE DETERMINED TO BE SUFFICIENT IN THE CASE OF NEW
YORK WILL BE SUFFICIENT IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER STATE?  THE ISSUE OF
"SUFFICIENCY OF CONTACTS" IS SETTLED BY THIS DECISION.  THE PREMISES
THAT ARE BEING APPLIED TODAY LEAD INESCAPABLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
OTHER STATES HAVE EQUALLY GOOD GROUNDS (I.E., "SUFFICIENT CONTACTS") TO
ESCHEAT THE SAME CLAIMS.  ARE WE GOING TO REPUDIATE OUR REASONING IN
THIS CASE THE FIRST TIME ANOTHER STATE INVOKES IT IN CONFLICT WITH NEW
YORK, OR WILL WE HOLD THE REASONING IMPECCABLE AND, HENCE, THE COMPANY
SUBJECT TO A DOUBLE OR MULTIPLE LIABILITY TO ESCHEAT?  THE EFFORT TO
REMAIN UNCOMMITTED TO ANY CONCLUSION IS SELF-DELUSIVE WHEN IT IS
ACCOMPANIED, AS IT IS HERE, BY A COMMITMENT AS TO ALL OF THE FACTORS
WHICH SHAPE THE CONCLUSION "RESERVED." 

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE WE ARE APPLYING HERE,
IF WE ARE CONSISTENT IN ITS APPLICATION, LEAVES US IN THIS DILEMMA:  IN
SUSTAINING THE BROAD CLAIMS OF NEW YORK, WE EITHER CUT OFF SIMILAR AND
PERHAPS BETTER RIGHTS OF ESCHEAT BY OTHER STATES OR WE RENDER INSURANCE
COMPANIES LIABLE TO TWO OR MORE PAYMENTS OF THEIR SINGLE LIABILITY.  IF
WE IMPALE OURSELVES, AND THE STATE AND INSURANCE COMPANIES ALONG WITH
US, ON EITHER HORN OF THIS DILEMMA, I THINK THE FAULT IS IN OURSELVES,
NOT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. 

FOR THE JURIDICAL BASIS ON WHICH ESCHEAT HAS FROM TIME TO TIME
RESTED, WE NEED GO NO FARTHER THAN THE LAW OF NEW YORK ITSELF AS
EXPOUNDED BY JUDGE CARDOZO.  ESCHEAT SURVIVES ONLY AS AN "INCIDENT OF
SOVEREIGNTY," WHETHER THE SUBJECT OF ESCHEAT IS PERSONAL OR REAL
ESTATE.  MATTER OF PEOPLE (MELROSE AVE.), 234 N.Y. 48, 136 N.E. 235. 
BUT SOVEREIGNTY BY ITSELF MEANS NOTHING; SOVEREIGNTY EXISTS IN RESPECT
OF SOMETHING OR OVER SOMEONE.  THE TWO USUAL EXAMPLES OF ESCHEAT
PROPERLY INCIDENTS OF SOVEREIGNTY ARE: 

FIRST, SOVEREIGNTY IN THE SENSE OF ACTUAL DOMINION OVER THE PROPERTY
ESCHEATED.  THE STATE ON THIS BASIS MAY, OF COURSE, TAKE UNTO ITSELF
LANDS WHICH FAIL OF PRIVATE OWNERS THROUGH WANT OF HEIRS, AND TANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY LOST OR ABANDONED IN THE STATE.  THE RIGHT TO
APPROPRIATE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTIVELY WITHIN THE STATE ALSO
HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THIS COURT ON GROUNDS THAT "THE DEPOSITS ARE DEBTOR
OBLIGATIONS OF THE BANK, INCURRED AND TO BE PERFORMED IN THE STATE
WHERE THE BANK IS LOCATED, AND HENCE ARE SUBJECT TO THE STATE'S
DOMINION."  ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233; SECURITY
BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 263 U.S. 282.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 303
U.S. 276.  BUT NEW YORK CAN SHOW NEITHER ACTUAL NOR CONSTRUCTIVE
DOMINION OVER THE PROPERTY SOUGHT NOW TO BE ESCHEATED.  THE PROCEEDS TO
BE ESCHEATED ARE HELD BY OUT-OF-THE-STATE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND BY NO
STRETCH OF IMAGINATION ARE THEY WITHIN NEW YORK'S DOMINION.  AND
CERTAINLY RESIDENCE OF THE INSURED AT THE TIME THE POLICY ISSUED CANNOT
GENERATE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF EITHER THE BENEFICIARY'S CLAIM OR
THE ACTUAL PROCEEDS AT MATURITY OR AT THE TIME OF ABANDONMENT. 

SECOND, SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE PERSON, AS A RESIDENT OR CITIZEN, WILL
JUSTIFY THE STATE IN STEPPING INTO HIS SHOES AS CLAIMANT OF ABANDONED
PROPERTY.  OUR FEDERAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT PRESUPPOSES A DUAL
ALLEGIANCE.  IN ADDITION TO A GENERAL ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES,
EACH PERSON HAS A PARTICULAR ALLEGIANCE TO THE STATE OF WHICH HE IS A
RESIDENT, AND HENCE, UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IS A CITIZEN. 
THIS STATUS, WHILE IT LASTS, SUBJECTS HIM AND WHAT IS HIS TO STATE
POWER.  BUT NEW YORK, UNDER THIS STATUTE, DOES NOT RELY ON THIS
RELATIONSHIP TO SUSTAIN THIS ESCHEAT.  IT WOULD STEP INTO THE SHOES OF
BENEFICIARIES LAST KNOWN TO BE CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES AND EVEN IF
THEY WERE SO UNFORTUNATE AS NEVER TO HAVE BEEN IN NEW YORK STATE.  THE
STATE BASES ITS RIGHT TO SEIZE SUCH A NON-RESIDENT'S ASSETS SOLELY ON
THE FACT THAT THE INSURED WAS THERE WHEN THE POLICY ISSUED.  BUT EVEN
IF THE ALLEGIANCE OF THE INSURED WOULD IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY
ESCHEAT OF THE BENEFICIARIES' PAYMENTS, HOW CAN IT DO SO AFTER THE
ALLEGIANCE HAS LONG SINCE CEASED?  THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO MIGRATE
FROM ONE STATE OF THE UNION TO ANOTHER, CF. EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314
U.S. 160, CARRIES WITH IT, OF NECESSITY, THE RIGHT OF EXPATRIATION, A
RIGHT FOR WHICH THIS NATION HAS ALWAYS CONTENDED.  A STATE CANNOT
FASTEN ITS POWER AND WILL UPON A RESIDENT SO THAT IT ADHERES TO HIM FOR
LIFE.  I HAVE NEVER BEFORE HEARD IT DENIED THAT ONE, IF HE MAKES HIS
INTENT SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR, MAY BY MIGRATION BRING TO AN END HIS
ALLEGIANCE TO A STATE AND WITH IT THE STATE'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER HIM. 
BUT NEW YORK'S PLAN REQUIRES US TO SAY NOT ONLY THAT SOVEREIGNTY OVER
AN INSURED REACHES THE PROPERTY OF A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY BUT THAT
SUCH A CONSEQUENCE FOLLOWS BOTH PARTIES FOR LIFE, ALTHOUGH THE INSURED
MAY HAVE DELIBERATELY ACQUIRED A NEW ALLEGIANCE AND BECOME A CITIZEN OF
ANOTHER STATE, AND THE BENEFICIARY MAY NEVER HAVE BEEN IN NEW YORK. 

CONSIDERATION OF THESE CONVENTIONAL AND ESTABLISHED GROUNDS OF
ESCHEAT SHOWS NOT ONLY THAT THEY FAIL TO SUPPORT THE NEW YORK STATUTE
IN THIS CLASS OF CASES, BUT ALSO THAT THEY ESTABLISH A SUPERIOR RIGHT
OF ESCHEAT IN OTHER STATES AS AN INCIDENT OF THEIR SOVEREIGNTY.  OF
COURSE, THE TWO GROUNDS I HAVE MENTIONED MAY BRING TWO STATES INTO
CONFLICT.  INDEED, SUCH A CONFLICT NOW EXISTS.  PENNSYLVANIA,
APPARENTLY RELYING ON THE THEORY OF THE BANK DEPOSIT CASES, UNDERTAKES
TO ESCHEAT ALL UNCLAIMED FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF COMPANIES IT HAS
CHARTERED, EVEN THOUGH THE INSURED MAY HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK
WHEN THE POLICY ISSUED, SO THAT NEW YORK WOULD CLAIM THE SAME FUND. 
CAN WE NOW SAY NEW YORK MAY TAKE, WITHOUT SAYING PENNSYLVANIA MUST
GIVE?  DO WE SAY THE COMPANY MUST PAY TWICE?  THIS MAKES PERTINENT THE
QUESTION WHETHER WE SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO DECIDE SUCH ISSUES AS ARE
HERE INVOLVED WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTED ONLY IN THE ABSTRACT BY A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION.  SEE ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V.
MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, 461.    BUT IF WE ARE TO ENTERTAIN THE CASE, I
THINK WE SHOULD DECIDE IT, NOT BY EXTEMPORIZED GENERALITIES LIKE
"SUFFICIENT CONTACTS WITH THE TRANSACTION," BUT BY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS
HAVING DEFINITE CONNOTATIONS IN THE LAW.  NEW YORK IS NOT THE ONLY
STATE WITH AN INTEREST IN THESE QUESTIONS.  NEW YORK IS MERELY THE SOLE
STATE WHOSE ARGUMENT WE HAVE HEARD.  THE MOBILITY OF OUR POPULATION AND
THE COMPLEXITY OF OUR LIFE CREATE MANY CONFUSIONS IN WHICH THE STATES
MAY PROPERLY LOOK TO US FOR SOME STANDARD BY WHICH THEY MAY KNOW WHAT
AND WHOM TO CLAIM FOR THEIR OWN.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD NOT
UNNECESSARILY CONFOUND WHAT AT BEST IS CONFUSION, BY REMOVING THE
LANDMARKS OF STATE JURISDICTION ERECTED BY YEARS OF TRIAL AND ERROR. 
CF. DISSENTING OR CONCURRING OPINION IN DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S.
390; STATE TAX COMMISSION V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174; WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287; GENERAL TRADING COMPANY V. STATE TAX
COMMISSION, 322 U.S. 335; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. WISCONSIN, 322
U.S. 435; NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292; GREENOUGH V.
TAX ASSESSORS, 331 U.S. 486; BOB-LO EXCURSION CO. V. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S.
28; AND OTHERS, PROBABLY, YET TO COME. 

WHILE WE MAY EVADE IT FOR A TIME, THE COMPETITION AND CONFLICT
BETWEEN STATES FOR "ESCHEATS" WILL FORCE US TO SOME LAWYERLIKE
DEFINITION OF STATE POWER OVER THIS SUBJECT.  IT IS NAIVE BEYOND EVEN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE TO ASSUME THAT THIS LATELY MANIFEST
CONCERN OF THE STATES OVER ABANDONED INSURANCE PROCEEDS REFLECTS ONLY
SOLICITUDE FOR THE UNKNOWN CLAIMANTS.  IF IT DID, THE STATES' CLAIMS
MIGHT RECONCILE MORE EASILY.  BUT ESCHEAT OF THESE INTERESTS IS A NEWLY
EXPLOITED, IF NOT NEWLY DISCOVERED, SOURCE OF STATE REVENUE.  ESCHEAT,
OF COURSE, IS NOT TO BE DENIED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS MERELY BECAUSE
THE MOTIVE OF THE STATES SAVORS MORE OF THE PUBLICAN THAN OF THE
GUARDIAN.  BUT IT IS RELEVANT TO THE CAUTION AND PRECISION WE SHOULD
USE IN SUSTAINING ONE STATE'S CLAIM, LEST WE BE FORECLOSING OTHER
BETTER-FOUNDED ONES. 

THIS COMPETITION AND CONFLICT BETWEEN STATES ALREADY REQUIRE US, IN
ALL FAIRNESS TO THEM, TO DEFINE THE BASIS ON WHICH A STATE MAY
ESCHEAT.  THE FIRST ACT OF THIS KIND WAS BY PENNSYLVANIA IN 1937.  ACT
OF JUNE 25, 1937, PAMPHLET LAWS 2063, PURDON'S PA. STAT., TITLE 27,
SEC. 434.  IT IS ALSO ALLEGED, AND NOT DENIED, THAT TWO OTHER STATES
HAVE ENACTED SIMILAR LAWS WHICH ARE NOW IN FORCE.  THE PENNSYLVANIA
STATUTE "ESCHEATS," AS THE COURT SAYS, ONLY PROCEEDS OF POLICIES ISSUED
BY COMPANIES INCORPORATED IN PENNSYLVANIA.  BUT IT ESCHEATS ALL OF
THOSE REGARDLESS OF RESIDENCE OF THE INSURED OR OF WHERE THE POLICY WAS
DELIVERED.  ITS CONFLICT WITH THE LAW BEFORE US IS PATENT AND
IMMEDIATE.  WE CANNOT SUSTAIN NEW YORK'S STATUTE WITHOUT, TO THE EXTENT
HERE INDICATED, STRIKING DOWN THAT OF PENNSYLVANIA, WHICH IS NOT A
PARTY HERE AND WHOSE CLAIMS HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD.  THE ORIGINAL NEW YORK
STATUTE, CH. 923, LAWS OF 1939, WAS SIMILAR TO THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT. 
IT WAS ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. PINK,
NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, DEC. 21, 1939, P. 2257, BUT WAS AMENDED TO APPLY
ONLY TO POLICIES ISSUED BY NEW YORK COMPANIES ON THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS
OF NEW YORK.  CH. 602, LAWS OF 1940.  IN 1943 THESE ACTS WERE REMOVED
FROM THE INSURANCE LAW, RE-ENACTED AS PART OF THE ABANDONED PROPERTY
LAW.  CH. 697, LAWS OF 1943.  IN 1944 THESE PRESENT STATUTES WERE
ENACTED, EXTENDING TO FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES AND ON THE BASIS HERE
IN QUESTION.  CHS.  497, 498, LAWS OF 1944.  THUS, IT REPRESENTS A
DELIBERATE STATE PLAN OF ESCHEAT BASED ONLY ON ISSUANCE, FOR DELIVERY
IN NEW YORK, OF A POLICY INSURING THE LIFE OF A THEN NEW YORK RESIDENT,
AND IRRESPECTIVE OF LOCATION OF THE INSURER OR RESIDENCE OF THE
BENEFICIARY. 

FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED HEREIN, I SHOULD EXPRESS DISAPPROVAL OF THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BELOW, DECLINE TO CERTIFY THE VALIDITY OF THIS
LEGISLATION AT THIS TIME, AND DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM ONLY AS PRESENTED
BY CONCRETE CASES OR CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING PARTICULAR FUNDS AND
FACTS.  BUT IF WE ARE TO RENDER A DECISION IN THE ABSTRACT, I SHOULD
SAY THAT NEW YORK BY THIS STATUTE OVERREACHES ITS SISTER STATES BY THE
TESTS I HAVE SET FORTH. 
..END :








MOORE V. NEW YORK, 333 U.S. 565 


NO. 485.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1948.  - 297
N.Y. 734, 77 N.E.2D 25, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE VALIDITY OF NEW YORK SPECIAL JURY STATUTES UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IS SUSTAINED AS AGAINST A CLAIM OF INVALIDITY BASED ON THE
RATIO OF CONVICTIONS TO ACQUITTALS IN CASES TRIED BY SPECIAL JURIES AND
IN CASES TRIED BY ORDINARY JURIES.  FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 261.  PP.
566-567. 

2.  THE CLAIM OF SYSTEMATIC, INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE EXCLUSION OF
NEGROES FROM THE JURY IS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE.  PP.
567-569. 

MOORE ET AL. V. NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED OF MURDER BY A SPECIAL JURY IN A NEW YORK
STATE COURT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED THE
CONVICTIONS.  297 N.Y. 734, 77 N.E.2D 25.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 843.  AFFIRMED, P. 569. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED IN BRONX COUNTY, NEW YORK, ON FEBRUARY 11,
1947, FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY MOVED THE COURT FOR AN ORDER THAT THE TRIAL BE BY A SPECIAL
JURY, PURSUANT TO NEW YORK LAW, WHICH MOTION WAS GRANTED OVER
OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS BY ASSIGNED COUNSEL.  ONE HUNDRED
AND FIFTY NAMES WERE DRAWN FROM THE SPECIAL JURY PANEL, UNDER
SUPERVISION OF A JUSTICE OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL AND WITHOUT OBJECTION. 

WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR TRIAL DEFENDANTS, AS PERMITTED BY THE
STATE PRACTICE, SERVED A WRITTEN CHALLENGE TO THE PANEL OF JURORS UPON
THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 

1.  THAT SEC. 749-AA OF THE JUDICIARY LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IS
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES. 

2.  THAT QUALIFIED NEGRO JURORS WERE IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE
LIST OF SPECIAL JURORS, FROM WHICH SAID JURY PANEL WAS DRAWN. 

3.  THAT QUALIFIED WOMEN JURORS WERE IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE
LIST OF SPECIAL JURORS, FROM WHICH SAID JURY PANEL WAS DRAWN. 

AFTER FULL HEARING, THE CHALLENGE WAS DISALLOWED AND PETITIONERS WERE
TRIED AND CONVICTED.  ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE THIRD
GROUND OF CHALLENGE TO THE JURY PANEL WAS ABANDONED AND THE CONVICTIONS
WERE AFFIRMED.  297 N.Y. 734, 77 N.E.2D 25.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON A
PETITION RAISING THE REMAINING GROUNDS.  332 U.S. 843. 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NEW YORK SPECIAL JURY STATUTES HAS BUT
RECENTLY BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT, FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 261,
AGAINST A BETTER SUPPORTED CHALLENGE THAN IS HERE PRESENTED, AND THE
ISSUE WARRANTS LITTLE DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME. 

SOME EFFORT IS MADE BY STATISTICS TO DIFFERENTIATE THIS CASE FROM THE
PRECEDENT ONE AS TO THE RATIO OF CONVICTIONS BEFORE SPECIAL JURIES
CONTRASTED WITH THAT BEFORE ORDINARY JURIES.  THE DEFENDANTS PRESENT TO
US A STUDY FROM JULY 1, 1937, TO JUNE 30, 1946, WHICH INDICATES THAT
SPECIAL JURIES IN BRONX COUNTY RETURNED 15 CONVICTIONS AND 4 ACQUITTALS
DURING THE PERIOD AND CONCLUDES THAT THE SPECIAL JURY CONVICTED IN 79%
OF THE CASES WHILE THE GENERAL JURIES CONVICTED IN 57%. THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY RESPONDS THAT IN 5 OF THESE 19 CASES, THE SPECIAL JURY
RETURNED CONVICTION IN A LESSER DEGREE THAN THAT CHARGED AND, HENCE IN
9 OUT OF 19 CASES WITHHELD ALL OR PART OF WHAT THE STATE ASKED. 
MOREOVER, IT IS SAID THAT ALL BUT TWO WERE CAPITAL CASES, ANOTHER WAS
FOR MANSLAUGHTER AND ONE FOR CRIMINALLY RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.  IT
SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE NUMBER OF CASES INVOLVED IN THESE
STATEMENTS IS TOO SMALL TO AFFORD A SECURE BASIS FOR GENERALIZING AS TO
THE CONVICTING PROPENSITIES OF THE TWO JURY PANELS, EVEN IF THE CASES
WERE COMPARABLE.  BUT IT APPEARS THAT IN BRONX COUNTY A SYSTEM OF
SPECIAL AND INTENSIVE INVESTIGATION IS APPLIED TO CAPITAL CASES FROM
THE MOMENT THEY ARE REPORTED, MORE CAREFUL PREPARATION IS GIVEN THEM
AND THEY ARE TRIED BY THE MOST EXPERIENCED PROSECUTORS.  THIS MAKES
THIS CLASS OF CASES NOT FAIRLY COMPARABLE WITH THE RUN-OF-THE-MILL
CASES, FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR, THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINARY JURY
STATISTICS.  MOREOVER, NONE OF THESE FACTS WERE LAID BEFORE THE TRIAL
COURT, WHICH WAS IN THE BEST POSITION TO ANALYZE, SUPPLEMENT OR
INTERPRET THEM.  WE THINK ON THIS PART OF THE CHALLENGE NO QUESTION IS
PRESENTED THAT WAS NOT DISPOSED OF IN FAY V. NEW YORK, SUPRA.  INDEED,
ON OPENING THE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' CHALLENGE THE TRIAL COURT SAID,
"I UNDERSTAND THE INQUIRY NOW IS TO BE DIRECTED TO THE INTENTIONAL
ELIMINATION OR DISQUALIFICATION OF WOMEN AND NEGROES ON THE SPECIAL
JURY PANEL."  COUNSEL FOR BOTH DEFENDANTS ASSENTED TO THIS DEFINITION
OF THE ISSUES AND NO EVIDENCE ON OTHER SUBJECTS WAS OFFERED. 

PETITIONERS' REMAINING POINT IS THAT "THE TRIAL OF THE PETITIONERS,
NEGROES, BY A JURY SELECTED FROM A PANEL FROM WHICH NEGROES WERE
SYSTEMATICALLY, INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED, DENIED
PETITIONERS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW
GUARANTEED THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  IF THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE ASSUMPTION OF FACT INCLUDED IN THIS STATEMENT,
THE POINT WOULD BE OF COMPELLING MERIT.  THE LAW ON THIS SUBJECT IS NOW
SO SETTLED THAT WE NO LONGER FIND IT NECESSARY TO WRITE OUT EXPOSITIONS
OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THIS REGARD.  SEE BRUNSON V. NORTH CAROLINA, 333
U.S. 851, DECIDED MARCH 15, 1948. 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT ON THIS PANEL OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THERE WERE
NO NEGROES.  BUT NOT ONLY IS THE RECORD WANTING IN PROOF OF INTENTIONAL
AND SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION - THE ONLY WITNESSES SWORN TESTIFIED THAT
THERE WAS NO SUCH PRACTICE OR INTENT.  NOTHING IN THE BACKGROUND FACTS
DISCREDITS THIS TESTIMONY.  THE CENSUS FIGURES GIVE A PROPORTION OF
NEGRO-TO-WHITE POPULATION IN THAT COUNTY OF .7% IN 1920, 1.0% IN 1930,
AND 1.7% IN 1940.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT SINCE THE LAST CENSUS THE NEGRO
POPULATION HAS CONSIDERABLY INCREASED.  ACCORDING TO ONE ESTIMATE, THE
NUMBER OF COLORED INHABITANTS, WHICH IN 1940 WAS 24,892, HAS INCREASED
TO 192,066 IN 1948.  THE SAME ESTIMATOR LATER REVISED THE FIGURES TO
BETWEEN 65,000 AND 70,000.  NEITHER ESTIMATE WAS BEFORE THE TRIAL
COURT, AND NO EVIDENCE OR FINDING GIVES US JUDICIALLY APPROVED DATA. 
OF COURSE, NEW WARTIME ARRIVALS TAKE SOME TIME TO QUALIFY AS ACTIVE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND ITS MACHINERY OF JUSTICE CANNOT BE
EXPECTED INSTANTANEOUSLY TO REFLECT THEIR PRESENCE.  THE OFFICIAL WHO
COMPILED THE JURY LISTS TESTIFIED AS TO NEGRO JURORS THAT "FROM 1946 ON
I MUST HAVE EXAMINED AT LEAST 500 MYSELF."  THE NUMBER ACCEPTED FOR
SERVICE COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE RECORDS, WHICH MAKE NO
NOTATION OF COLOR, BUT HE TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE "MAYBE TWO DOZEN;
MAYBE THREE DOZEN."  FOR THE SPECIAL PANEL, HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD
EXAMINED AN ESTIMATED ONE HUNDRED NEGROES AND HAD ACCEPTED "MAYBE A
DOZEN."  THE TESTIMONY IS UNDENIED. 

THE RECORD IS UTTERLY DEVOID OF PROOF OF SYSTEMATIC, INTENTIONAL AND
DELIBERATE EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM JURY DUTY. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE REPRESENTS A TRAGIC CONSEQUENCE THAT CAN FLOW FROM THE USE
OF THE "BLUE RIBBON" JURY.  TWO MEN MUST FORFEIT THEIR LIVES AFTER
HAVING BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER NOT BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS, NOT BY A
JURY CHOSEN FROM A FAIR CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT BY A JURY
DRAWN FROM A SPECIAL GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS SINGLED OUT IN A MANNER
INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS OF THE JURY SYSTEM.  THAT GROUP
WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE THEY POSSESSED SOME TRAIT OR CHARACTERISTIC WHICH
DISTINGUISHED THEM FROM THE GENERAL PANEL OF JURORS, SOME QUALIFICATION
WHICH MADE THEM MORE DESIRABLE FOR THE STATE'S PURPOSE OF SECURING THE
CONVICTION OF THE TWO PETITIONERS.  SUCH A BASIS FOR JURY SELECTION HAS
NO PLACE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL WAY OF LIFE.  IT CONTRAVENES THE MOST
ELEMENTARY NOTIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND I CAN NO MORE ACQUIESCE IN
ITS USE IN THIS CASE THAN I WAS ABLE TO DO IN FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S.
261. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY OF THIS "BLUE RIBBON" SYSTEM DOES NOT
DEPEND UPON PROOF OF THE SYSTEMATIC AND INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION OF ANY
ECONOMIC, RACIAL OR SOCIAL GROUP.  NOR DOES IT REST UPON A
DEMONSTRATION THAT "BLUE RIBBON" JURIES ARE MORE INCLINED TO CONVICT
THAN ORDINARY JURIES.  SUCH FACTORS ARE FREQUENTLY, IF NOT INVARIABLY,
PRESENT IN "BLUE RIBBON" SITUATIONS, THOUGH PROOF IS EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT.  BUT THEY ARE AT BEST ONLY THE END PRODUCTS OF THE SYSTEM,
NOT THE ROOT EVIL. 

THE VICE LIES IN THE VERY CONCEPT OF "BLUE RIBBON" PANELS - THE
SYSTEMATIC AND INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION OF ALL BUT THE "BEST" OR THE MOST
LEARNED OR INTELLIGENT OF THE GENERAL JURORS.  SUCH PANELS ARE
COMPLETELY AT WAR WITH THE DEMOCRATIC THEORY OF OUR JURY SYSTEM, A
THEORY FORMULATED OUT OF THE EXPERIENCE OF GENERATIONS.  ONE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO BE JUDGED BY A FAIR SAMPLING OF ALL ONE'S
NEIGHBORS WHO ARE QUALIFIED, NOT MERELY THOSE WITH SUPERIOR
INTELLIGENCE OR LEARNING.  JURY PANELS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL QUALIFIED CLASSES.  WITHIN THOSE CLASSES, OF
COURSE, ARE PERSONS WITH VARYING DEGREES OF INTELLIGENCE, WEALTH,
EDUCATION, ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE.  BUT IT IS FROM THAT WELTER OF
QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS, WHO MEET SPECIFIED MINIMUM STANDARDS, THAT
JURIES ARE TO BE CHOSEN.  ANY METHOD THAT PERMITS ONLY THE "BEST" OF
THESE TO BE SELECTED OPENS THE WAY TO GRAVE ABUSES.  THE JURY IS THEN
IN DANGER OF LOSING ITS DEMOCRATIC FLAVOR AND BECOMING THE INSTRUMENT
OF THE SELECT FEW. 

HENCE THE "BLUE RIBBON" METHOD OF SELECTING ONLY THE "BEST" OF THE
GENERAL JURORS, A METHOD INSTITUTED WITH THE HIGHEST OF INTENTIONS,
DOES VIOLENCE TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS OF THE JURY SYSTEM.  APPEALS
TO ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE DO NOT SOFTEN THAT VIOLENCE.  AND SINCE
THE METHOD DEPRIVES THE DEFENDANT OF THE PROTECTION ACCORDED OTHERS WHO
ARE ABLE TO DRAW UPON THE GENERAL PANEL, IT FALLS UNDER THE BAN OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  I WOULD THEREFORE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 
..END :
























ECCLES V. PEOPLES BANK, 333 U.S. 426 


NO. 101.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1948.  - 82 U.S.
APP. D.C. 126, 161 F.2D 636, REVERSED. 


IN ADMITTING A STATE BANK TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,
THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS PRESCRIBED A CONDITION THAT, IF A PARTICULAR
BANK HOLDING COMPANY ACQUIRED STOCK IN THE BANK, THE BANK WOULD
WITHDRAW FROM MEMBERSHIP WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE FROM THE
BOARD.  THE HOLDING COMPANY ACQUIRED LESS THAN 11% OF THE BANK'S
STOCK.  THE BANK SUED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE CONDITION WAS
INVALID AND FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ITS ENFORCEMENT.  ITS CLAIMS OF
THREATENED INJURY WERE SUPPORTED ENTIRELY BY AFFIDAVITS.  THE BOARD
DISAVOWED ANY PRESENT INTENTION OF ENFORCING THE CONDITION, ON THE
GROUND THAT IT HAD SATISFIED ITSELF THAT THE BANK'S INDEPENDENCE HAD
NOT BEEN AFFECTED AND THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRED NO ACTION. 
HELD:  THE BANK'S NEED FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF IS TOO REMOTE AND
SPECULATIVE TO JUSTIFY A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT - ESPECIALLY AGAINST AN
AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ON THE BASIS OF AFFIDAVITS.  PP. 426-435. 

ECCLES ET AL. V. PEOPLES BANK OF LAKEWOOD VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A CONDITION
PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IN
ADMITTING A STATE BANK TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM WAS
INVALID AND DENIED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED.  82 U.S.
APP. D.C. 126, 161 F.2D 636.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S.
755.  REVERSED, P. 435. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A PROCEEDING UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 48 STAT.
955, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400.  ITS AIM IS TO HAVE DECLARED INVALID A
CONDITION UNDER WHICH THE RESPONDENT BECAME A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL
RESERVE SYSTEM.  THE CALIFORNIA STATE BANKING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RESPONDENT PROVIDED IT OBTAINED FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE.  THIS REQUIREMENT COULD BE MET EITHER BY DIRECT APPLICATION
TO THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OR THROUGH MEMBERSHIP IN
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.  SEC. 12 B (E) AND (F) OF THE FEDERAL
RESERVE ACT, 48 STAT. 162, 170, 49 STAT. 684, 687, 12 U.S.C. SEC.
264(E) AND (F).  RESPONDENT SOUGHT SUCH MEMBERSHIP BUT ITS APPLICATION
WAS REJECTED.  THE PROMOTERS OF THE BANK, HAVING REQUESTED THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM TO RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION
FOR MEMBERSHIP, WERE ADVISED THAT FAVORABLE ACTION DEPENDED ON A
SHOWING THAT THE TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION, A POWERFUL BANK HOLDING
COMPANY, DID NOT HAVE, NOR WAS INTENDED TO HAVE, ANY INTEREST IN THIS
BANK.  HAVING BEEN SATISFIED ON THIS POINT, THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
GRANTED MEMBERSHIP TO RESPONDENT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF WHICH THE
FOURTH IS THE BONE OF CONTENTION IN THIS LITIGATION. 

THIS CONDITION READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"4.  IF, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, TRANS-AMERICA CORPORATION OR ANY UNIT OF
THE TRANSAMERICA GROUP, INCLUDING BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND
SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, OR ANY HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE OR ANY SUBSIDIARY
THEREOF, ACQUIRES, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THROUGH THE MECHANISM OF
EXTENSION OF LOANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING BANK STOCK, OR IN ANY
OTHER MANNER, ANY INTEREST IN SUCH BANK, OTHER THAN SUCH AS MAY ARISE
OUT OF USUAL CORRESPONDENT BANK RELATIONSHIPS, SUCH BANK, WITHIN 60
DAYS AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE FROM THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL
RESERVE SYSTEM, SHALL WITHDRAW FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE FEDERAL RESERVE
SYSTEM." 

THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS GAVE THE RESPONDENT THIS EXPLANATION FOR THE
CONDITION: 

"THE APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP HAS BEEN APPROVED UPON
REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE BANK IS A BONA FIDE LOCAL INDEPENDENT
INSTITUTION AND THAT NO HOLDING COMPANY GROUP HAS ANY INTEREST IN THE
BANK AT THE TIME OF ITS ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP, AND THAT THE DIRECTORS
AND STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK HAVE NO PLANS, COMMITMENTS OR
UNDERSTANDINGS LOOKING TOWARD A CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF THE BANK AS A
LOCAL INDEPENDENT INSTITUTION.  CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP NUMBERED 4 IS
DESIGNED TO MAINTAIN THAT STATUS." 

SOME TIME LATER, IN 1944, TRANSAMERICA, WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF
THE RESPONDENT, ACQUIRED 540 OF THE 5,000 SHARES OF ITS OUTSTANDING
STOCK.  THE BANK DULY ADVISED THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THIS FACT, BUT
REQUESTED THAT IT BE RELIEVED OF CONDITION NO. 4.  THIS, THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS DECLINED TO DO.  THEN FOLLOWED THIS ACTION, IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AGAINST THE BOARD
OF GOVERNORS FOR A DECLARATION THAT CONDITION NO. 4 WAS INVALID AND FOR
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ITS ENFORCEMENT.  A MOTION BY THE DEFENDANTS TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, IN THAT IT FAILED TO SET FORTH A JUSTICIABLE
CONTROVERSY, WAS DENIED.  64 F.SUPP.  811.  THE DEFENDANTS ANSWERED,
CLAIMING THAT THE BANK'S ACCEPTANCE OF MEMBERSHIP BARRED IT FROM
QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF CONDITION NO. 4, AND THAT IN ANY CASE THE
CONDITION WAS VALID, AND MOVED FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.  THE
BANK, HAVING FILED A NUMBER OF AFFIDAVITS, MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 
THE DISTRICT COURT, IN AN UNREPORTED OPINION, HELD THAT THE BANK WAS
BOUND BY THE CONDITION ON WHICH IT HAD ACCEPTED MEMBERSHIP IN THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING,
REVERSED.  IT REJECTED THE DEFENSE OF ESTOPPEL AND SUSTAINED THE
VALIDITY OF THE CONDITION "ONLY AS A STATEMENT THAT, IF THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS SHOULD DETERMINE, AFTER HEARING, THAT TRANS-AMERICA'S
OWNERSHIP OF THE BANK'S SHARES HAS RESULTED IN A CHANGE FOR THE WORSE
IN THE CHARACTER OF THE BANK'S PERSONNEL, IN ITS BANKING POLICIES, IN
THE SAFETY OF ITS DEPOSITS OR IN ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL WAY, IT MAY
REQUIRE THE BANK TO WITHDRAW FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM."  161
F.2D 636, 643-44.  ACCORDINGLY, IT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT CONSTRUING CONDITION NO. 4 TO SUCH
EFFECT.  SINCE THIS RULING INVOLVES A MATTER OF IMPORTANCE TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE. 
332 U.S. 755. 

CONDITION NO. 4 PROVIDES FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, FOR VIOLATION OF ITS PROVISIONS, "WITHIN 60
DAYS AFTER WRITTEN NOTICE FROM THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS ...  "  SECTION 9
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT AUTHORIZES THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS TO REVOKE
THE MEMBERSHIP STATUS OF A BANK "AFTER HEARING."  FN1  IF THE CASE
CONTAINED NO MORE THAN THE FOREGOING ELEMENTS, THREE QUESTIONS WOULD
EMERGE: 

(1)  WAS THIS ACTION PREMATURE, BROUGHT AS IT WAS BEFORE THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS COMMENCED REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS? 

(2)  IF NOT, COULD THE RESPONDENT ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF A CONDITION
ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED, AND HAD ENJOYED,
MEMBERSHIP?  COMPARE FAHEY V. MALLONEE, 332 U.S. 245, 255. 

(3)  IF SO, DID THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAVE POWER TO IMPOSE THE
CONDITION AS A MEANS OF GUARDING AGAINST ACQUISITION BY TRANSAMERICA OF
AN INTEREST IN RESPONDENT? 

HOWEVER, WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT SHOULD GUIDE US
IN RENDERING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, THE RECORD AS A WHOLE REQUIRES US
TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE WITHOUT REACHING ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS. 

EXTENDED CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MARRINER S. ECCLES, THE THEN CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, AND A.P.
GIANNINI, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRANSAMERICA, TOGETHER
WITH THE TESTIMONY OF ECCLES BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND
CURRENCY, SET FORTH THE REASON FOR THE BOARD'S INSISTENCE ON THE FOURTH
CONDITION.  THE BOARD SOUGHT TO BLOCK "ACQUISITION BY TRANSAMERICA OF
STOCK IN INDEPENDENT UNIT BANKS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CONSTITUTES A MEANS
OF EVADING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL AGENCIES WHO WILL NOT PERMIT
ITS BANKS TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL BRANCHES."  HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE
ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 2634, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 15.  THE BOARD WAS CONCERNED NOT THAT TRANSAMERICA
MIGHT PURCHASE SOME SHARES OF INDEPENDENT BANKS FOR THE ORDINARY
PURPOSES OF INVESTMENT, BUT THAT IT WOULD BUY INTO BANKS IN ORDER TO
ACQUIRE CONTROL, AND THEREBY TURN BANKS, THOUGH OUTWARDLY INDEPENDENT,
INTO PARTS OF ITS OWN BANKING NETWORK.  THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS WAS
THEREFORE CARRYING OUT THE POLICY UNDERLYING CONDITION NO. 4 WHEN IT
FORMALLY DISAVOWED ANY INTENTION TO INVOKE THAT CONDITION AGAINST
RESPONDENT MERELY BECAUSE OF ACQUISITION BY TRANSAMERICA OF AN INTEREST
IN THE BANK, WITH NO INDICATION OF SUBVERSION OF ITS INDEPENDENCE N2. 
THIS ACTION BY THE BOARD WAS TAKEN AFTER IT HAD SATISFIED ITSELF THAT
TRANSAMERICA'S HOLDING DID NOT AFFECT THE BANK'S CONTROL.  THE BANK HAD
VIGOROUSLY INSISTED ON ITS CONTINUED INDEPENDENCE, IN URGING UPON THE
BOARD THE HARMLESSNESS OF TRANSAMERICA'S OWNERSHIP OF SOME OF THE
BANK'S STOCK, AND THE BOARD, UPON INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION FOUND SUCH
TO BE THE FACT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT "THE PUBLIC
INTEREST" CALLED FOR NO ACTION. 

A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, LIKE OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE RELIEF, SHOULD
BE GRANTED ONLY AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION, EXERCISED IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  BRILLHART V. EXCESS INSURANCE CO., 316 U.S. 491;
GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, 297-98; H.R.
REP. NO. 1264, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2; BORCHARD, DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS (2D ED. 1941) PP. 312-14.  IT IS ALWAYS THE DUTY OF A COURT
OF EQUITY TO STRIKE A PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE NEEDS OF THE PLAINTIFF
AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF GIVING THE DESIRED RELIEF.  ESPECIALLY WHERE
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION IS INVOLVED, COURTS SHOULD NOT INTERVENE UNLESS THE
NEED FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF IS CLEAR, NOT REMOTE OR SPECULATIVE. 

THE ACTUALITY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S NEED FOR A DECLARATION OF HIS RIGHTS
IS THEREFORE OF DECISIVE IMPORTANCE.  AND SO WE TURN TO THE FACTS OF
THE CASE AT BAR.  THE BANK HAS ALWAYS INSISTED THAT IT IS INDEPENDENT
OF TRANSAMERICA; THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAS SUSTAINED THE CLAIM.  THE
BANK STANDS ON ITS RIGHT TO REMAIN IN THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM; THE
BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT RIGHT.  THE BANK DISCLAIMS ANY INTENTION TO
GIVE UP ITS INDEPENDENCE; THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, HAVING IMPOSED THE
CONDITION TO SAFEGUARD THIS INDEPENDENCE, DISAVOWS ANY ACTION TO
TERMINATE THE BANK'S MEMBERSHIP, SO LONG AS THE BANK MAINTAINS THE
INDEPENDENCE ON WHICH IT INSISTS.  WHAT THE BANK REALLY FEARS, AND FOR
WHICH IT NOW SEEKS RELIEF, IS THAT UNDER CHANGED CONDITIONS, AT SOME
FUTURE TIME, IT MAY BE REQUIRED TO WITHDRAW FROM MEMBERSHIP, AND IF
THIS HAPPENS, SO THE ARGUMENT RUNS, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY,
ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, HAS
AGREED WITH THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO REFUSE ANY APPLICATION BY THE
BANK FOR DEPOSIT INSURANCE AS A NON-MEMBER. 

THUS THE BANK SEEKS A DECLARATION OF ITS RIGHTS IF IT SHOULD LOSE ITS
INDEPENDENCE, OR IF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS SHOULD REVERSE ITS POLICY
AND SEEK TO INVOKE THE CONDITION EVEN THOUGH THE BANK REMAINS
INDEPENDENT AND IF THEN THE DIRECTORS OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION SHOULD NOT CHANGE THEIR POLICY NOT TO GRANT DEPOSIT
INSURANCE TO THE BANK AS A NON-MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. 
THE CONCURRENCE OF THESE CONTINGENT EVENTS, NECESSARY FOR INJURY TO BE
REALIZED, IS TOO SPECULATIVE TO WARRANT ANTICIPATORY JUDICIAL
DETERMINATIONS.  COURTS SHOULD AVOID PASSING ON QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC LAW
EVEN SHORT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY THAT ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY PRESSING. 
MANY OF THE SAME REASONS ARE PRESENT WHICH IMPEL THEM TO ABSTAIN FROM
ADJUDICATING CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS AGAINST A STATUTE BEFORE IT
EFFECTIVELY AND PRESENTLY IMPINGES ON SUCH CLAIMS. 

IT APPEARS THAT THE RESPONDENT COULD, IF IT WISHED, PROTECT ITSELF
FROM THE LOSS OF ITS INDEPENDENCE THROUGH ADOPTION OF BY-LAWS
FORBIDDING ANY FURTHER SALE OR PLEDGE OF ITS SHARES TO TRANSAMERICA OR
ITS AFFILIATES.  SEE CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE, L. 1947, C. 1038,
SEC. 501(G).  FN3  TO THIS THE BANK REPLIES THAT EVEN IF ITS
INDEPENDENCE IS MAINTAINED, THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS MAY CHANGE ITS
POLICY, AND SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITION NO. 4, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH
ENFORCEMENT IS REQUIRED BY "THE PUBLIC INTEREST" IN HAVING INDEPENDENT
BANKS, WHICH THE CONDITION NOW SERVES.  SUCH AN ARGUMENT REVEALS THE
HYPOTHETICAL CHARACTER OF THE INJURY ON THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH A
JURISDICTION ROOTED IN DISCRETION IS TO BE EXERCISED.  IN THE LIGHT OF
ALL THIS, THE DIFFICULTIES DEDUCED FROM THE PRESENT UNCERTAINTY
REGARDING THE FUTURE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONDITION, POSSIBLY LEADING TO
UNINSURED DEPOSITS, ARE TOO TENUOUS TO CALL FOR ADJUDICATION OF
IMPORTANT ISSUES OF PUBLIC LAW.  FN4  WE ARE ASKED TO CONTEMPLATE AS A
SERIOUS DANGER THAT A BODY ENTRUSTED WITH SOME OF THE MOST DELICATE AND
GRAVE RESPONSIBILITIES IN OUR GOVERNMENT WILL CHANGE A DELIBERATELY
FORMULATED POLICY AFTER URGING IT ON THIS COURT AGAINST THE BANK'S
STANDING TO ASK FOR RELIEF. 

A DETERMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY MAY OF COURSE BE MADE AT
THE BEHEST OF ONE SO IMMEDIATELY AND TRULY INJURED BY A REGULATION
CLAIMED TO BE INVALID, THAT HIS NEED IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPELLING TO
JUSTIFY JUDICIAL INTERVENTION EVEN BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE BANK'S GRIEVANCE
HERE IS TOO REMOTE AND INSUBSTANTIAL, TOO SPECULATIVE IN NATURE, TO
JUSTIFY AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, AND THEREFORE
EQUALLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY
TRUE IN VIEW OF THE TYPE OF PROOF OFFERED BY THE BANK.  ITS CLAIMS OF
INJURY WERE SUPPORTED ENTIRELY BY AFFIDAVITS.  JUDGMENT ON ISSUES OF
PUBLIC MOMENT BASED ON SUCH EVIDENCE, NOT SUBJECT TO PROBING BY JUDGE
AND OPPOSING COUNSEL, IS APT TO BE TREACHEROUS.  CAUTION IS APPROPRIATE
AGAINST THE SUBTLE TENDENCY TO DECIDE PUBLIC ISSUES FREE FROM THE
SAFEGUARDS OF CRITICAL SCRUTINY OF THE FACTS, THROUGH USE OF A
DECLARATORY SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  MODERN EQUITY PRACTICE HAS TENDED AWAY
FROM A PROCEDURE BASED ON AFFIDAVITS AND INTERROGATORIES, BECAUSE OF
ITS PROVEN INSUFFICIENCIES.  EQUITY RULE 46 FORBADE SUCH PRACTICE SAVE
IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES.  SEE LOS ANGELES BRUSH MFG. CORP. V. JAMES, 272
U.S. 701; CF. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 43(A).  AGAIN, NOT THE
LEAST OF THE EVILS THAT LED TO THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS THE
FREQUENT PRACTICE OF ISSUING LABOR INJUNCTIONS UPON THE BASIS OF
AFFIDAVITS RATHER THAN AFTER ORAL PROOF PRESENTED IN OPEN COURT.  SEE
AMIDON, J., IN GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. BROSSEAU, 286 F. 414, 416;
SWAN, J., IN AEOLIAN CO. V. FISCHER, 29 F.2D 679, 681-82.    WHERE
ADMINISTRATIVE INTENTION IS EXPRESSED BUT HAS NOT YET COME TO FRUITION
(ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 324), OR WHERE
THAT INTENTION IS UNKNOWN (GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V.
GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412, 429-30), WE HAVE HELD THAT THE CONTROVERSY IS
NOT YET RIPE FOR EQUITABLE INTERVENTION.  SURELY, WHEN A BODY SUCH AS
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD HAS NOT ONLY NOT ASSERTED A CHALLENGED POWER
BUT HAS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED ITS INTENTION TO GO BEYOND THE LEGITIMATE
"PUBLIC INTEREST" CONFIDED TO IT, A COURT SHOULD STAY ITS HAND. 
JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  "IF AT ANY TIME IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM THAT A MEMBER BANK HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION OR THE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM MADE PURSUANT THERETO, OR HAS CEASED TO
EXERCISE BANKING FUNCTIONS WITHOUT A RECEIVER OR LIQUIDATING AGENT
HAVING BEEN APPOINTED THEREFOR, IT SHALL BE WITHIN THE POWER OF THE
BOARD AFTER HEARING TO REQUIRE SUCH BANK TO SURRENDER ITS STOCK IN THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AND TO FORFEIT ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF
MEMBERSHIP.  THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM MAY
RESTORE MEMBERSHIP UPON DUE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS
IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION."  38 STAT. 251, 260, AS AMENDED, 46 STAT. 250,
251, 49 STAT. 684, 704, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 327.  SEE ALSO SEC. 5 OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 60 STAT. 237, 239, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 1004. 

FN2  THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD ON JANUARY 28, 1946: 

"UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE LATEST REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF THE
PEOPLES BANK, LAKEWOOD VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA, FROM WHICH THE BOARD
CONCLUDED THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE CONTROL,
MANAGEMENT OR POLICY OF THE BANK RESULTING FROM THE ACQUISITION BY
TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION OF CERTAIN SHARES OF THE BANK'S STOCK, THE
BOARD, BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, DECIDED THAT THERE WAS NO PRESENT NEED IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST FOR ANY ACTION BY THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE BANK RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF ITS
STOCK BY TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION." 

FN3  "501.  THE BY-LAWS OF A CORPORATION MAY MAKE PROVISIONS NOT IN
CONFLICT WITH LAW OR ITS ARTICLES FOR: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(G)  SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE SHAREHOLDERS, AND
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS UPON THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER OR HYPOTHECATE
SHARES." 

LIKEWISE, THE SHAREHOLDERS, OR SUCH OF THEM AS CHOSE TO, COULD
PRESUMABLY BIND THEMSELVES NOT TO SELL OR PLEDGE TO TRANSAMERICA, AND
BY NOTING THIS AGREEMENT ON THEIR CERTIFICATES COULD BIND THEIR
TRANSFEREES.  CF. VANNUCCI V. PEDRINI, 217 CAL. 138, 17 P.2D 706. 

FN4  THE BANK ASSERTED, IN ITS AFFIDAVITS, NOT THAT LACK OF
CONFIDENCE HAD DETERRED DEPOSITORS, BUT THAT DEPOSITS HAD BEEN SO HEAVY
THAT CAPITAL EXPANSION WAS IN ORDER, BUT MIGHT BE DISADVANTAGED BY FEAR
OF PROSPECTIVE INVESTORS TO RISK PERSONAL ASSESSMENT IF DEPOSITS WERE
UNINSURED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

IN ORDER TO GET ADMISSION INTO THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, THE
RESPONDENT WAS REQUIRED TO PUT INTO ITS CHARTER A PROVISION WHICH WAS
ALLEGEDLY BEYOND THE POWER OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE SYSTEM TO
REQUIRE.  IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE REQUIREMENT WAS A RESTRICTION ON
THE MARKET FOR THE RESPONDENT'S STOCK AND THEREFORE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS, A CONTINUING THREAT OF THE BOARD TO EXCLUDE
RESPONDENT FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE SYSTEM. 

RESPONDENT DESIRED TO BE FREE OF WHAT IT REGARDED AS AN ILLEGAL
REQUIREMENT.  THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS HAS NOT AGREED THAT IT WILL NEVER
ENFORCE THE PROHIBITION BUT HOLDS IT AS A THREAT TO FORCE THE
RESPONDENT TO RESIGN FROM THE SYSTEM UPON ACQUISITION OF CONTROL BY
THOSE DEEMED UNDESIRABLE BY THE BOARD. 

CERTAINLY, AS I SEE IT, THERE IS NOT ONLY THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE
INJURY BUT A PRESENT INJURY BY REASON OF THE THREAT TO THE
MARKETABILITY OF RESPONDENT'S STOCK.  IT MAY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL BEARING
UPON THE WILLINGNESS OF CUSTOMERS TO ESTABLISH BANKING RELATIONS WITH
IT, ESPECIALLY MAJOR RELATIONSHIPS LOOKING TOWARD LONG AND CLOSE
ASSOCIATIONS OF INTERESTS.  IT REQUIRES NO ELABORATION TO CONVINCE ME
THAT THE THREAT IS A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE BY ALLEGEDLY
ILLEGAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTION.  AS THAT THREAT HAS TAKEN A DEFINITE FORM
BY THE ENFORCED AGREEMENT FOR WITHDRAWAL, WE HAVE NOT SOMETHING THAT
MAY HAPPEN BUT A CONCRETE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIRING WITHDRAWAL BY THIS
RESPONDENT FROM THE SYSTEM ON THE HAPPENING OF A FACT WHICH IS CONTRARY
TO THE BOARD'S IDEA OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WHETHER THE BOARD'S IDEA
OF A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST IS CORRECT IS THE VERY POINT AT ISSUE. 

IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, THE CLAIM
OF A RIGHT AND A PRESENT THREAT TO DEPRIVE A PARTICULAR PERSON OF THE
RIGHT CLAIMED.  THE DAMAGE FROM ITS ACTUAL OR THREATENED ENFORCEMENT
IS, OF COURSE, IRREMEDIABLE.  ANY BANK WOULD BE SERIOUSLY INJURED BY
EVEN AN EFFORT TO OUST IT FROM THE SYSTEM.  THIS GIVES JURISDICTION
UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 274D. 

THIS COURT HAS DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO CONSIDER A PETITION FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND AN INJUNCTION TO STOP A THREATENED OR EXISTING
INJURY.  FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, 461.  THAT
DISCRETION IS NOT UNFETTERED.  ALTVATER V. FREEMAN, 319 U.S. 359, 363. 
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECLARATORY SUITS INVOLVING AN EQUITABLE
REMEDY AND OTHER EQUITY SUITS.  WHERE AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY WITH
FEDERAL JURISDICTION EXISTS OVER THE LEGAL RELATIONS OF ADVERSE
PARTIES, DISCRETION USUALLY CANNOT PROPERLY BE EXERCISED BY REFUSING AN
ADJUDICATION.  MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228; CF. BELL V.
HOOD, 327 U.S. 678.  UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT HERE PRESENT, SUCH AS
OTHER PENDING SUITS, BRILLHART V. EXCESS INSURANCE CO., 316 U.S. 491,
OR SUPERSESSION OF STATE AUTHORITY, GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V.
HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, SOMETIMES JUSTIFY REFUSAL OF RELIEF. 

UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HOWEVER, IT SEEMS IMPROPER TO REFUSE AN
ADJUDICATION AT THIS TIME.  IF GOVERNMENTAL POWER IS BEING UNLAWFULLY
USED TO CONSTRAIN RESPONDENT'S OPERATION OF ITS BUSINESS, RESPONDENT IS
ENTITLED TO PROTECTION, NOW.  SEE COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM V.
UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407, A CASE WHERE PREMATURITY WAS CLEARER THAN
HERE. 

I WOULD DECIDE THIS CASE ON THE MERITS. 
..END :















BAKERY DRIVERS UNION V. WAGSHAL, 333 U.S. 437 


NO. 225.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17-18, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1948.  - 82
U.S. APP. D.C. 138, 161 F.2D 380, AFFIRMED. 


IN A SUIT BY A DELICATESSEN STORE TO ENJOIN A BOYCOTT OF ITS BUSINESS
BY A LABOR UNION, THE PLEADINGS AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS ALLEGED THAT:
BECAUSE THE HOURS OF DELIVERY WERE INCONVENIENT, THE STORE STOPPED
BUYING BREAD FROM ONE BAKERY AND STARTED BUYING FROM ANOTHER; ALTHOUGH
THE STORE HAD ALWAYS MADE PAYMENTS FOR THE BREAD DIRECT TO THE FIRST
BAKERY AND NOT TO THE DRIVER EMPLOYED BY THE BAKERY, A REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE BAKERY DRIVERS' UNION DEMANDED THAT PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE DUE
FOR BREAD PREVIOUSLY BOUGHT FROM THE FIRST BAKERY BE MADE TO THE DRIVER
WHO HAD DELIVERED IT AND THAT THE STORE DISCONTINUE THE SALE OF A
CERTAIN NON-UNION PRODUCT; THERE WAS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF THE
BILL; THE STORE DISCONTINUED THE SALE OF THE NON-UNION PRODUCT BUT
REFUSED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR THE BREAD TO THE DRIVER; AND THE UNION
INSTITUTED A BOYCOTT WHICH PREVENTED THE STORE FROM OBTAINING BREAD
FROM OTHER BAKERIES OR RETAIL STORES.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
UNION'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT AND GRANTED AN INJUNCTION PENDENTE
LITE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED AN APPEAL.  HELD: 

1.  THE BOYCOTT DID NOT GROW OUT OF A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, AND THE ORDER GRANTING AN
INJUNCTION PENDENTE LITE WAS THEREFORE NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT.  PP.
442-445. 

(A)  THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE HOUR OF DELIVERY WAS NOT A "LABOR
DISPUTE," SINCE IT WAS BETWEEN THE STORE AND THE BAKERY AND NOT BETWEEN
THE STORE AND THE DRIVER OR HIS UNION.  MOREOVER, IT WAS A DEAD
CONTROVERSY.  PP. 442-443. 

(B)  THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE AMOUNT OF THE BILL WAS BETWEEN THE
STORE AND THE BAKERY, AND IT DID NOT BECOME A "LABOR DISPUTE" MERELY
BECAUSE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION UNDERTOOK TO COLLECT THE BILL. 
PP. 443-444. 

(C)  SINCE IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT THAT THE
BOYCOTT WAS ADDRESSED ONLY TO THE QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF THE BILL AND
THAT THE INCIDENTAL CONTROVERSY OVER THE SALE OF A NON-UNION ITEM
(WHICH HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED) WAS A MERE PRETEXT, THE LATTER IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE CASE ONE GROWING OUT OF A "LABOR DISPUTE."  P.
444. 

2.  THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF 1947, 61 STAT. 136, SEC.
10(H), DID NOT REMOVE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT UPON
THE POWER TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST A SECONDARY BOYCOTT WHERE THE
INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT BY A PRIVATE PARTY.  P. 442. 

3.  SINCE THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT A STAY WAS GRANTED PENDING
REVIEW HERE, IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE UNION'S ACTION IN LIFTING THE
BOYCOTT WAS MERELY OBEDIENCE TO THE JUDGMENT HERE FOR REVIEW; AND THE
CASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BECOME MOOT BY REASON OF THE LIFTING
OF THE BOYCOTT.  P. 442. 

4.  A CONTENTION THAT A DETERMINATION WHETHER THERE IS A LABOR
DISPUTE SHOULD NOT REST UPON AFFIDAVITS IS NOT RULED UPON, BECAUSE THE
AFFIDAVITS IN THIS CASE WERE MERELY A GLOSS ON THE COMPLAINT,
CONSTITUTED AN INFORMAL AMENDMENT, AND SERVED ONLY AS ALLEGATIONS AND
NOT PROOF.  PP. 444-445. 

BAKERY SALES DRIVERS LOCAL UNION NO. 33 ET AL. V. WAGSHAL, TRADING AS
WAGSHAL'S DELICATESSEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISMISSED AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTING AN
INJUNCTION PENDENTE LITE AGAINST A BOYCOTT BY A LABOR UNION AND DENYING
A MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT.  82 U.S. APP. D.C. 138, 161 F.2D 380. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 756.  AFFIRMED, P. 445. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION BROUGHT IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN
INTERFERENCE WITH A BUSINESS, AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COMPLAINT
SUBJECTS THAT COURT TO THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT UPON ITS EQUITY JURISDICTION. 

THIS IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COMPLAINT.  RESPONDENT OWNS A
DELICATESSEN STORE WHICH SELLS FOOD AND SERVES MEALS.  SHE OBTAINED
BREAD FOR THE DELICATESSEN STORE FROM HINKLE'S BAKERY.  DELIVERIES WERE
MADE BY A DRIVER, AN EMPLOYEE OF HINKLE AND A MEMBER OF LOCAL UNION NO.
33, ONE OF THE PETITIONERS.  THE DRIVER DELIVERED THE BREAD AT NOON,
WHICH INCONVENIENCED THE RESPONDENT, SINCE THE CHECKING OF DELIVERIES
AT THAT HOUR INTERFERED WITH THE SERVING OF LUNCHES.  RESPONDENT
"REQUIRED" THE DRIVER TO BRING THE BREAD AT ANOTHER HOUR.  SHORTLY
THEREAFTER, HINKLE INFORMED THE RESPONDENT THAT IT WOULD NO LONGER
FURNISH HER WITH BAKERY PRODUCTS.  AND SO, RESPONDENT MADE ARRANGEMENTS
WITH ANOTHER BAKERY, WHICH DELIVERED AT A MORE CONVENIENT HOUR. 

THREE WEEKS LATER, THE PETITIONER ANDRE, PRESIDENT OF THE UNION,
VISITED THE DELICATESSEN STORE AND STATED THAT THE RESPONDENT OWED THE
DRIVER APPROXIMATELY $150 AND REQUESTED IMMEDIATE PAYMENT.  RESPONDENT
REPLIED THAT SHE HAD NEVER HAD DEALINGS WITH THE DRIVER, BUT HAD PAID
HINKLE DIRECTLY BY CHECK, AND WOULD PAY THE BILL IN DUE COURSE.  ANDRE
REPLIED THAT THE PAYMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE TO THE DRIVER IN FULL;
FURTHERMORE, THAT IF THE RESPONDENT DID NOT CEASE CARRYING A CERTAIN
NON-UNION ARTICLE OF FOOD HE NOTICED ON DISPLAY, DELIVERY OF BREAD,
MILK, AND OTHER PRODUCTS NECESSARY TO THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS WOULD
BE CUT OFF.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE RESPONDENT SENT A CHECK TO HINKLE
FOR THE BALANCE OF HER BILL.  IT WAS RETURNED BY THE UNION, WITH A
LETTER SIGNED BY ANDRE ASSERTING THAT THE PAYMENT WAS OWED TO ITS
MEMBER, THE DRIVER, AND COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED.  THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE
BAKERY WHICH HAD BEEN SERVING RESPONDENT AFTER HINKLE HAD STOPPED DOING
SO, CEASED TO DEAL WITH HER, EXPLAINING THAT THE UNION HAD THREATENED
OTHERWISE "TO PULL OUT ALL ITS DRIVERS."  THROUGH AN EFFECTIVE BOYCOTT,
THE UNION KEPT THE RESPONDENT FROM OBTAINING BREAD FROM OTHER BAKERIES
OR RETAIL STORES.  THE DELICATESSEN STORE WAS ALSO PICKETED. 

THE COMPLAINT PRAYED FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST
THE BOYCOTT AND OTHER INTERFERENCE WITH RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS, THE
PAYMENT OF DAMAGES, AND THE USUAL CATCH-ALL RELIEF.  PETITIONERS MOVED
TO DISMISS THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTROVERSY AS SET FORTH
IN THE COMPLAINT INVOLVED A "LABOR DISPUTE" UNDER THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT, 47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 101 ET SEQ. RESPONDENT FILED AN
"ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS," ATTACHED TO WHICH WERE AFFIDAVITS,
INCLUDING ONE OF BENJAMIN WAGSHAL, MANAGER OF THE DELICATESSEN STORE,
ELABORATING THE INCIDENTS NARRATED IN THE COMPLAINT.  AMONG OTHER
MATTERS SET FORTH, HE STATED THAT PAYMENT FOR BREAD PURCHASED FROM
HINKLE HAD ALWAYS BEEN MADE BY CHECK SENT DIRECTLY TO HINKLE AND WAS
NEVER MADE TO A DRIVER, AND THAT NEITHER THE UNION NOR ANY OF ITS
DRIVERS HAD EVER PREVIOUSLY QUESTIONED THIS PRACTICE; THAT ANDRE HAD
ASSERTED BY MAIL AND AT THE DELICATESSEN STORE THAT THE CHECK WHICH THE
RESPONDENT HAD SENT TO HINKLE WAS $12.22 SHORT OF THE AMOUNT OWED; AND
THAT THE NON-UNION ITEM ON SALE TO WHICH ANDRE HAD OBJECTED WAS NOT A
SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY BUT MERELY AN EXCUSE FOR ANDRE'S ATTEMPT, ON HIS
VISIT TO THE DELICATESSEN STORE, TO ENFORCE HIS DEMANDS CONCERNING THE
BILL, AND THAT IN ANY EVENT ITS SALE HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED AN INJUNCTION PENDENTE LITE, RESTRAINING
THE PETITIONERS FROM INTERFERING WITH RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS OR
PREVENTING SALE AND DELIVERY OF BAKERY PRODUCTS TO THE RESPONDENT, BY
BOYCOTT AND PICKETING.  AT THE SAME TIME, IT DENIED THE PETITIONERS'
MOTION TO DISMISS.  PETITIONERS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND RESPONDENTS MOVED TO
DISMISS THE APPEAL. 

IF THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE A "LABOR DISPUTE" UNDER THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, AN APPEAL AS OF RIGHT COULD NOT BE HAD IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  31 STAT. 1189, 1225, AS AMENDED,
D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 17-101.  HOWEVER, SEC. 10 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT, 47 STAT. 70, 72, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 110, PROVIDES FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW
OF AN ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING "ANY TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN A CASE
INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE  ...  "  FN1  THE COURT OF
APPEALS, ONE JUSTICE DISSENTING, HELD THAT THIS WAS NOT SUCH A CASE,
AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL.  161 F.2D 380.  BECAUSE OF ASSERTED CONFLICT
BETWEEN THIS DECISION AND PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ON THE SCOPE OF
"LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 756. 

A PRELIMINARY CLAIM MUST BE MET, THAT THE CASE HAS BECOME MOOT.  THE
SHORT ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT OF
1947, 61 STAT. 136, 149, SEC. 10(H), HAS REMOVED THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT UPON THE POWER TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS AGAINST WHAT
ARE KNOWN AS SECONDARY BOYCOTTS, IS THAT THE LAW HAS BEEN CHANGED ONLY
WHERE AN INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
NOT WHERE PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED BY A PRIVATE PARTY.  THE CLAIM OF
MOOTNESS IS ALSO BASED ON AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT AFTER DISMISSAL OF
THE APPEAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE UNION LIFTED ITS BOYCOTT. 
SINCE THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT A STAY OF THE INJUNCTION WAS
GRANTED PENDING ACTION IN THIS COURT, WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE UNION'S
ACTION WAS MERELY OBEDIENCE TO THE JUDGMENT NOW HERE FOR REVIEW.  WE
THEREFORE TURN TO THE MERITS. 

THE PETITIONERS ATTACH SIGNIFICANCE TO THREE INCIDENTS FOR THEIR
CLAIM THAT A "LABOR DISPUTE" IS HERE INVOLVED. 

1.  THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE HOUR OF DELIVERY.  THE PETITIONERS CLAIM
THAT THIS WAS A DISPUTE "CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF (THE
DRIVER'S) EMPLOYMENT," THEREBY RAISING A LABOR DISPUTE, "WHETHER OR NOT
THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE."  SEC. 13(C) OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  BUT THE RESPONDENT
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF HINKLE'S EMPLOYEES,
INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY.  HER ONLY DESIRE WAS TO HAVE THE BREAD
COME AT AN HOUR SUITABLE FOR HER BUSINESS, AND SHE HAD NO INTEREST IN
WHAT ARRANGEMENTS HINKLE MADE TO SATISFY THAT DESIRE RATHER THAN RUN
THE RISK OF LOSING HER TRADE - TO HAVE THE BREAD DELIVERED BY THE SAME
DRIVER AT A DIFFERENT HOUR, OR BY ANOTHER DRIVER, BY AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR, OR THROUGH SOME OTHER RESOURCEFUL CONTRIVANCE.  TO HOLD
THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES A FAILURE OF TWO BUSINESSMEN TO COME TO
TERMS CREATED A LABOR DISPUTE MERELY BECAUSE WHAT ONE OF THEM SOUGHT
MIGHT HAVE AFFECTED THE WORK OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE OF THE OTHER,
WOULD BE TO TURN ALMOST EVERY CONTROVERSY BETWEEN SELLERS AND BUYERS
OVER PRICE, QUANTITY, QUALITY, DELIVERY, PAYMENT, CREDIT, OR ANY OTHER
BUSINESS TRANSACTION INTO A "LABOR DISPUTE."  CF. COLUMBIA RIVER
PACKERS ASSN. V. HINTON, 315 U.S. 143.  FURTHERMORE, ON THE BASIS OF
WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, RESPONDENT'S DISAGREEMENT WITH HINKLE OVER THE
DELIVERY HOUR WAS A DEAD CONTROVERSY, NOT INVOLVED IN THE SUBSEQUENT
DISPUTE WITH THE UNION, OR IN THE BOYCOTT AGAINST WHICH THE INJUNCTION
WAS DIRECTED. 

2.  THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE BILL.  THE PETITIONERS REGARD BOTH THE
QUESTION WHETHER PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE TO THE DRIVER RATHER THAN TO
HINKLE, AND THE DISAGREEMENT OVER THE DISPUTED SUM OF $12.22, AS A
MATTER CONCERNING THE DRIVER'S WAGES, AND THEREFORE A CONDITION OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT.  BUT, ON THE ALLEGATIONS NOW HERE, RESPONDENT HAD NOTHING
TO DO WITH THE PAYMENT OF THE DRIVER'S WAGES.  THE DELICATESSEN STORE
WAS HINKLE'S CUSTOMER.  ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGATIONS TO BE
CONSIDERED, THE DRIVER WOULD RECEIVE HIS PAY WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT
PAID HER BILL.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE DRIVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE
CONDUIT FOR PAYMENT - AS DRIVERS WHO DELIVER PACKAGES NORMALLY ARE. 
THE SAME IS TRUE AS TO THE DISPUTED ITEM OF $12.22.  THE MERE FACT THAT
IT IS A LABOR UNION REPRESENTATIVE RATHER THAN A BILL COLLECTOR WHO,
WITH OR WITHOUT THE CREDITOR'S CONSENT, SEEKS TO OBTAIN PAYMENT OF AN
OBLIGATION, DOES NOT TRANSMUTE A BUSINESS CONTROVERSY INTO A NORRIS
LAGUARDIA "LABOR DISPUTE."  CF. DORCHY V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306, 311. 

3. THE NON-UNION ITEM ON SALE IN THE DELICATESSEN STORE.  SALE BY A
MERCHANT OF NON-UNION COMMODITIES IS, NO DOUBT, A TRADITIONAL SOURCE OF
LABOR DISPUTES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  WHILE THE
COMPLAINT ITSELF DID NOT INDICATE THE HISTORY OF THIS MATTER AFTER
ANDRE'S VISIT, THE AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED TO THE "ANSWER TO MOTION TO
DISMISS" SETS FORTH THAT IT WAS NOT A BONA FIDE BONE OF CONTENTION, BUT
A MERE PRETEXT, AND, FURTHER, THAT THE RESPONDENT THEREAFTER WITHDREW
THE ITEM FROM SALE.  WHILE THE CONCLUSION OF THE INCIDENT GIVING RISE
TO A CONTROVERSY MAY NOT NECESSARILY TERMINATE A LABOR DISPUTE (CF.
HUNT V. CRUMBOCH, 325 U.S. 821), WHAT IS BEFORE US LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT
THE SUBSEQUENT BOYCOTT WAS ADDRESSED ONLY TO THE QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF
THE BILL.  PETITIONERS SUGGEST THAT SINCE NO INJUNCTION MAY ISSUE IN A
CASE GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE, EXCEPT UPON ORAL TESTIMONY,
DETERMINATION WHETHER THERE IS A LABOR DISPUTE SHOULD NOT REST ON
AFFIDAVITS.  BUT IN THIS CASE THE AFFIDAVITS WERE MERELY A GLOSS ON THE
COMPLAINT AND AS SUCH CONSTITUTED AN INFORMAL AMENDMENT.  THEY SERVE
HERE AS ALLEGATIONS, NOT PROOF. 

THIS CASE WAS DECIDED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS.  ALL THAT WAS
DETERMINED WAS THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS, WHICH THE
PETITIONERS CHOSE NOT TO CONTROVERT, THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT DID NOT
APPLY.  SINCE THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT BELOW, AND THEREFORE
BEFORE US, WAS THE APPEALABILITY OF THE ORDER FOR AN INJUNCTION
PENDENTE LITE, WHICH IN TURN DEPENDED ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, OTHER QUESTIONS RAISED ARE NOT NOW OPEN HERE. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 13 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70, 73, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 113, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 13.  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT, AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT -
(A)  A CASE SHALL BE HELD TO INVOLVE OR TO GROW OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE
WHEN THE CASE INVOLVES PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY,
TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION; OR HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTERESTS
THEREIN; OR WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME EMPLOYER; OR WHO ARE MEMBERS
OF THE SAME OR AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYEES;
WHETHER SUCH DISPUTE IS (1) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR
ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
EMPLOYEES; (2) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
EMPLOYERS AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS; OR
(3) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYEES AND ONE
OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYEES; OR WHEN THE CASE
INVOLVES ANY CONFLICTING OR COMPETING INTERESTS IN A 'LABOR DISPUTE'
(AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED) OF 'PERSONS PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED'
THEREIN (AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED). 

"(B)  A PERSON OR ASSOCIATION SHALL BE HELD TO BE A PERSON
PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE IF RELIEF IS SOUGHT
AGAINST HIM OR IT, AND IF HE OR IT IS ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY,
TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION IN WHICH SUCH DISPUTE OCCURS, OR HAS A
DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST THEREIN, OR IS A MEMBER, OFFICER, OR AGENT
OF ANY ASSOCIATION COMPOSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF EMPLOYERS OR
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN SUCH INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION. 

"(C)  THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING
TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION OR
REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING,
CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE
RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. 

"(D)  THE TERM 'COURT OF THE UNITED STATES' MEANS ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES WHOSE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN OR MAY BE CONFERRED OR
DEFINED OR LIMITED BY ACT OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING THE COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
DISSENT.  MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















FRANCIS V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 333 U.S. 445 


NO. 400.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1948.  - 162
F.2D 813, AFFIRMED. 


1.  BASING JURISDICTION ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, CERTAIN MINOR
CHILDREN SUED AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD IN A FEDERAL COURT IN UTAH TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF THEIR FATHER, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
RAILROAD, WHO WAS KILLED IN UTAH WHILE RIDING THE RAILROAD AS AN
INTERSTATE PASSENGER ON A FREE PASS, NOT IN CONNECTION WITH HIS DUTIES
AS AN EMPLOYEE.  THE PASS PROVIDED THAT THE USER ASSUMED ALL RISK OF
INJURY AND ABSOLVED THE RAILROAD FROM ANY LIABILITY THEREFOR.  UNDER
INSTRUCTIONS WITHHOLDING AN ISSUE OF THE RAILROAD'S ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE
AND SUBMITTING ONLY AN ISSUE OF ITS WANTON NEGLIGENCE, THE JURY FOUND
FOR THE RAILROAD.  HELD:  JUDGMENT FOR THE RAILROAD AFFIRMED.  PP. 446
450. 

(A)  IN VIEW OF A SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH TO
SIMILAR EFFECT, THIS COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT DEFENSES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
AVAILABLE IN A SUIT BY THE DECEDENT WERE AVAILABLE IN A SUIT BY THE
HEIRS ON A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION CREATED BY UTAH LAW;
AND, THEREFORE, THIS COURT WILL NOT OVERRULE THAT HOLDING UNDER ERIE R.
CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  PP. 447-448. 

(B)  UNDER THE HEPBURN ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1940, THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYEE OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED WHILE RIDING ON A FREE PASS IS GOVERNED
BY FEDERAL LAW.  PP. 448-450. 

(C)  THE WELL-SETTLED FEDERAL RULE SUSTAINING WAIVERS OF LIABILITY
FOR ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE CONTAINED IN FREE PASSES ISSUED TO EMPLOYEES BY
INTERSTATE RAILROADS HAS BECOME PART OF THE WARP AND WOOF OF THE
HEPBURN ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  PP. 448
450. 

2.  AFTER A VERDICT HAS BEEN RENDERED IN A CIVIL CASE IN A FEDERAL
COURT, IT IS TOO LATE TO OBJECT FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE JURY WAS
SELECTED FROM A PANEL FROM WHICH PERSONS WHO WORK FOR DAILY WAGES WERE
INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED.  PP. 450-451. 

FRANCIS ET AL. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY MINOR CHILDREN OF A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER DAMAGES
FOR HIS DEATH WHILE TRAVELING ON A FREE PASS AS AN INTERSTATE
PASSENGER, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT FOR THE
DEFENDANT.  162 F.2D 813.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S.
835.  AFFIRMED, P. 451. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE THE MINOR CHILDREN OF JACK R. FRANCIS WHO WAS KILLED
WHILE RIDING AS AN INTERSTATE PASSENGER ON ONE OF RESPONDENT'S TRAINS. 
THEY BROUGHT THIS SUIT, ACTING THROUGH THEIR GENERAL GUARDIANS, TO
RECOVER DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH.  JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL
COURT WAS FOUNDED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE TRIAL JUDGE
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ONLY THE QUESTION OF RESPONDENT'S WANTON
NEGLIGENCE.  THE ERROR ALLEGED IS HIS REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY THE
ISSUE OF ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR
RESPONDENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  162 F.2D 813. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT UTAH LAW CREATES A RIGHT OF
ACTION IN THE HEIRS FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF THE DECEDENT AND THAT THE
ACTION IS DISTINCT FROM ANY WHICH DECEDENT MIGHT HAVE MAINTAINED HAD HE
SURVIVED.  BUT THE COURT HELD THAT THE ACTION IS MAINTAINABLE ONLY
WHERE THE DECEDENT COULD HAVE RECOVERED DAMAGES FOR HIS INJURY IF DEATH
HAD NOT ENSUED.  IN THIS CASE THE DECEDENT, AN EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENT,
WAS RIDING ON A FREE PASS NOT IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DUTIES HE HAD AS
AN EMPLOYEE BUT AS A PASSENGER ONLY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
THEREFORE HELD AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW THAT RESPONDENT WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN LIABLE TO DECEDENT FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE,
RELYING ON NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. ADAMS, 192 U.S. 440.  IT
CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT HAD THE SAME DEFENSE AGAINST THE HEIRS.  WE
GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REEXAMINE THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL LAW AND FEDERAL LAW RESPECTING THE LIABILITY
OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS UNDER FREE PASSES. 

IN VAN WAGONER V. UNION PAC. R. CO.,  - UTAH - , 186 P.2D 293,
DECIDED AFTER THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS
FILED, THE HEIRS SUED TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT
IN A GRADE-CROSSING ACCIDENT.  THE COURT HELD THAT A DEFENSE OF
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WHICH WOULD HAVE BARRED RECOVERY BY THE
DECEDENT LIKEWISE BARS THE HEIRS.  IN VIEW OF THIS RULING BY THE UTAH
SUPREME COURT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
PLAIN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT HAD THE SAME DEFENSES AGAINST
PETITIONERS AS IT WOULD HAVE HAD AGAINST THE DECEDENT.  FN1  YET IT
REQUIRES SUCH SHOWING OF ERROR FOR US TO OVERRULE THE LOWER COURTS IN
THEIR APPLICATIONS OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  SEE PALMER
V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109, 118; MACGREGOR V. STATE MUTUAL CO., 315 U.S.
280; STEELE V. GENERAL MILLS, 329 U.S. 433, 439.  CF. WICHITA CO. V.
CITY BANK, 306 U.S. 103. 

THE FREE PASS IN THE PRESENT CASE STATED THAT "THE USER ASSUMES ALL
RISK OF INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY AND OF LOSS OF PROPERTY WHETHER BY
NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE, AND ABSOLVES THE ISSUING COMPANY  ...  FROM
ANY LIABILITY THEREFOR."  IN NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. ADAMS, SUPRA, A
SIMILAR PROVISION IN A FREE PASS WAS SUSTAINED AS A DEFENSE TO AN
ACTION BROUGHT UNDER AN IDAHO STATUTE BY THE HEIRS OF A PASSENGER.  FN2
THAT WAS IN 1904.  THE ADAMS DECISION WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY BOERING V.
CHESAPEAKE BEACH R. CO., 193 U.S. 442.  THEN IN 1906 CAME THE HEPBURN
ACT WHICH UNDER PAIN OF A CRIMINAL PENALTY PROHIBITED A COMMON CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THE ACT FROM ISSUING A "FREE PASS" EXCEPT, INTER ALIA, TO
"ITS EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES."  34 STAT. 584, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
1(7).  THEREAFTER IN 1914 THE COURT HELD THAT THE RULE OF THE ADAMS
CASE WAS APPLICABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE AND THAT THE "FREE PASS"
WAS NONETHELESS A GRATUITY THOUGH ISSUED TO AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
CARRIER.  CHARLESTON & W.C.R. CO. V. THOMPSON, 234 U.S. 576.  KANSAS
CITY SO. R. CO. V. VAN ZANT, 260 U.S. 459, FOLLOWED IN 1923 AND HELD
THAT THE LIABILITY OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER TO ONE RIDING ON A "FREE
PASS" WAS DETERMINED NOT BY STATE LAW BUT BY THE HEPBURN ACT.  THE
COURT SAID, P. 468, "THE PROVISION FOR PASSES, WITH ITS SANCTION IN
PENALTIES, IS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE COMPLETION OF
WHICH THE DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE PASSES IS NECESSARY.  WE
THINK, THEREFORE, FREE PASSES IN THEIR ENTIRETY ARE TAKEN CHARGE OF,
NOT ONLY THEIR PERMISSION AND USE, BUT THE LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS
UPON THEIR USE.  OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, AND TO SPECIALIZE, THE
RELATION OF THEIR USERS TO THE RAILROAD WHICH ISSUED THEM, THE FACT AND
MEASURE OF RESPONSIBILITY THE RAILROAD INCURS BY THEIR ISSUE, AND THE
EXTENT OF THE RIGHT THE PERSON TO WHOM ISSUED ACQUIRES, ARE TAKEN
CHARGE OF." 

FOR YEARS THIS HAS BEEN THE ACCEPTED AND WELL-SETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF
THE HEPBURN ACT.  DURING THAT LONG PERIOD IT STOOD UNCHALLENGED IN THIS
COURT AND, SO FAR AS WE CAN ASCERTAIN, IN CONGRESS TOO.  THEN CAME THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 898, 900, WITH ITS COMPREHENSIVE
REVISION OF THE STATUTES OF WHICH THE HEPBURN ACT WAS PART.  AMENDMENTS
WERE MADE TO THE FREE-PASS PROVISION OF THE ACT TO PERMIT FREE
TRANSPORTATION OF ADDITIONAL CLASSES OF PERSONS.  FN3  NO OTHER
AMENDMENTS TO THE FREE-PASS PROVISION WERE MADE.  IT WAS REENACTED
WITHOUT FURTHER CHANGE OR QUALIFICATION.  IN VIEW OF THIS HISTORY WE DO
NOT REACH THE QUESTION OF WHAT CONSTRUCTION WE WOULD GIVE THE HEPBURN
ACT WERE WE WRITING ON A CLEAN SLATE.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE SHOULD
RELY UPON SUCH HISTORY IS ALWAYS A DIFFICULT QUESTION WHICH HAS
FREQUENTLY TROUBLED THE COURT IN MANY FIELDS OF LAW AND WITH VARIED
RESULTS.  SEE GIROUARD V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 61, 69, 70; HELVERING
V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 119, 123.  BUT IN THE SETTING OF THIS CASE,
WE FIND THE LONG AND WELL-SETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT PLUS
REENACTMENT OF THE FREE-PASS PROVISION WITHOUT CHANGE OF THE
ESTABLISHED INTERPRETATION MOST PERSUASIVE INDICATIONS THAT THE RULE OF
THE ADAMS, THOMPSON, AND VAN ZANT CASES HAS BECOME PART OF THE WARP AND
WOOF OF THE LEGISLATION.  SEE MISSOURI V. ROSS, 299 U.S. 72, 75; UNITED
STATES V. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO., 298 U.S. 492, 500; UNITED STATES V.
RYAN, 284 U.S. 167, 175; HECHT V. MALLEY, 265 U.S. 144, 153; ELECTRIC
BATTERY CO. V. SHIMADZU, 307 U.S. 5, 14.  ANY STATE LAW WHICH CONFLICTS
WITH THIS FEDERAL RULE GOVERNING INTERSTATE CARRIERS MUST THEREFORE
GIVE WAY BY VIRTUE OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.  FOR IT WAS HELD IN THE VAN
ZANT CASE THAT THE FREE-PASS PROVISION OF THE HEPBURN ACT WAS A
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE "TO THE COMPLETION OF WHICH THE
DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE PASSES IS NECESSARY."  THUS THERE IS
NO ROOM FOR THE APPLICATION OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, ON THIS
PHASE OF THE CASE.  THE VAN ZANT CASE AROSE NOT IN A LOWER FEDERAL
COURT BUT IN A STATE COURT; THE HOLDING WAS NOT A DECLARATION OF A
"GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" BUT A RULING THAT "THE INCIDENTS AND
CONSEQUENCES" OF THE PASS WERE CONTROLLED BY THE FEDERAL ACT "TO THE
EXCLUSION OF STATE LAWS AND STATE POLICIES."  260 U.S. AT 469. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE JURY PANEL FROM WHICH THE JURY IN THIS
CASE WAS SELECTED WAS DRAWN CONTRARY TO THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.,
328 U.S. 217.  WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE INTO THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM. 
THE OBJECTION WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL.  IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN AN AFTERTHOUGHT, AS THE THIEL CASE WAS
DECIDED A FEW WEEKS AFTER THE VERDICT OF THE JURY IN THE PRESENT CASE. 
IF NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT, IT IS AN EFFORT TO RETRIEVE A POSITION THAT WAS
FORSAKEN WHEN IT WAS DECIDED TO TAKE A GAMBLE ON THE EXISTING JURY
PANEL.  IN EITHER CASE THE OBJECTION COMES TOO LATE.  CF. QUEENAN V.
OKLAHOMA, 190 U.S. 548, 552.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE UTAH SUPREME COURT IN ITS ORIGINAL OPINION IN THE VAN
WAGONER CASE STATED THAT THE RIGHT GRANTED THE HEIRS IS A "RIGHT TO
PROCEED AGAINST THE WRONGDOER SUBJECT TO THE DEFENSES AVAILABLE AGAINST
THE DECEASED, HAD HE LIVED AND PROSECUTED THE SUIT."  ON PETITION FOR
REHEARING THAT STATEMENT WAS ELIMINATED AND THE FOLLOWING ONE
SUBSTITUTED:  "UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE RIGHT TO PROCEED
AGAINST THE WRONGDOER IS SUBJECT TO THE DEFENSE OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE."  189 P.2D 701. 

THAT RULING IS NO DEVIATION FROM THE UTAH LAW AS CONSTRUED BY THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  IT SUPPORTS THE VIEW OF UTAH LAW TAKEN BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND IS IN LINE WITH THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IN
THE STATE COURTS.  SEE MELLON V. GOODYEAR, 277 U.S. 335, 344-345. 
HENCE WE DO NOT DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE CASE FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THE INTERVENING DECISION IN THE VAN WAGONER CASE.  CF.
HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232. 

FN2  THE COURT SAID, PP. 453-454: 

"THE RAILWAY COMPANY WAS NOT AS TO ADAMS A CARRIER FOR HIRE.  IT
WAIVED ITS RIGHT AS A COMMON CARRIER TO EXACT COMPENSATION.  IT OFFERED
HIM THE PRIVILEGE OF RIDING IN ITS COACHES WITHOUT CHARGE IF HE WOULD
ASSUME THE RISKS OF NEGLIGENCE.  HE WAS NOT IN THE POWER OF THE COMPANY
AND OBLIGED TO ACCEPT ITS TERMS.  THEY STOOD ON AN EQUAL FOOTING.  IF
HE HAD DESIRED TO HOLD IT TO ITS COMMON LAW OBLIGATIONS TO HIM AS A
PASSENGER, HE COULD HAVE PAID HIS FARE AND COMPELLED THE COMPANY TO
RECEIVE AND CARRY HIM.  HE FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY CHOSE TO ACCEPT THE
PRIVILEGE OFFERED, AND HAVING ACCEPTED THAT PRIVILEGE CANNOT REPUDIATE
THE CONDITIONS.  IT WAS NOT A BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, BUT DOING A
RAILROAD BUSINESS FOR PROFIT; AND FREE PASSENGERS ARE NOT SO MANY AS TO
INDUCE NEGLIGENCE ON ITS PART.  SO FAR AS THE ELEMENT OF CONTRACT
CONTROLS, IT WAS A CONTRACT WHICH NEITHER PARTY WAS BOUND TO ENTER
INTO, AND YET ONE WHICH EACH WAS AT LIBERTY TO MAKE, AND NO PUBLIC
POLICY WAS VIOLATED THEREBY." 

FN3  SEE H.R. REP. 2016, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 59. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE JOIN, DISSENTING. 

UTAH LAW PERMITS RECOVERY AGAINST A RAILROAD WHEN ITS NEGLIGENCE IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR A PASSENGER'S DEATH, WHETHER THAT PASSENGER RIDES ON A
FREE PASS CONTAINING AN ATTEMPTED WAIVER OF LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
PAYS HIS FARE IN MONEY.  BECAUSE I BELIEVE UTAH LAW SHOULD GOVERN THIS
CASE I WOULD REVERSE THIS JUDGMENT.  BUT I THINK AFFIRMANCE OF THE
JUDGMENT IS EQUALLY WRONG WHETHER THE CASE IS TO BE CONSIDERED GOVERNED
WHOLLY BY UTAH LAW, BY FEDERAL LAW, OR IN PART BY BOTH. 

NO ACT OF CONGRESS HAS ENTRENCHED UPON THE LONG-EXISTING POWER OF ALL
THE STATES, INCLUDING UTAH, TO PROVIDE DAMAGES FOR SUCH WRONGFUL DEATHS
AS THIS COMPLAINT ALLEGED.  IF THERE IS HERE ANY BARRIER TO RECOVERY
BASED UPON FEDERAL LAW, IT IS GROUNDED IN JUDGE-MADE "GENERAL
COMMERCIAL LAW" ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT IN THE YEAR 1904 IN NORTHERN
PAC. R. CO. V. ADAMS, 192 U.S. 440.  THE RULE LAID DOWN IN THAT CASE
WAS THAT A RAILROAD COULD BY STIPULATION VALIDLY EXEMPT ITSELF FROM
LIABILITY UNDER A STATE STATUTE FOR NEGLIGENT INJURIES INFLICTED WITHIN
THAT STATE UPON PASSENGERS CARRIED WHOLLY GRATUITOUSLY.  CREATION OF
THE 1904 ADAMS RULE BY THIS COURT WAS UNDER AUTHORITY OF A POWER THEN
EXERCISED, BUT REPUDIATED IN 1938 IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S.
64, WHEREBY FEDERAL COURTS, IN PASSING UPON QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW UPON
WHICH THERE WAS NO CONTROLLING STATE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT, DECLARED
THE "GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" OF A STATE ON THE FEDERAL COURT'S NOTION
OF WISE PUBLIC POLICY, INDEPENDENTLY OF STATE COURT DECISIONS. 

THIS COURT FOLLOWED THE ADAMS "GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" STATE RULE
SEVERAL TIMES BETWEEN ITS CREATION IN 1904 AND REPUDIATION OF THIS
COURT'S POWER TO CREATE STATE LAW IN 1938 - THE LAST APPLICATION OF THE
ADAMS RULE HAVING BEEN MADE BY THIS COURT IN 1923 IN KANSAS CITY SO. R.
CO. V. VAN ZANT, 260 U.S. 459.  THAT DECISION STATED THAT AN ACT OF
CONGRESS HAD MADE THE EFFECT OF THE CONDITIONS IN AN EMPLOYEE'S PASS A
FEDERAL QUESTION, BUT DECIDED THAT "FEDERAL" QUESTION ENTIRELY BY
RELIANCE ON THE OLD ADAMS "GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" STATE RULE.  SINCE
THE ERIE-TOMPKINS DECISION IN 1938, AND IN FACT SINCE 1923, THE ADAMS
RULE HAS NEVER BEEN APPLIED BY THIS COURT UNTIL TODAY.  NOW IT IS
APPLIED NOT AS A FEDERALLY CREATED STATE RULE OF "GENERAL COMMERCIAL
LAW" BUT AS A JUDICIALLY CREATED POST-ERIE-TOMPKINS RULE OF PURELY
FEDERAL LAW.  WHILE THIS COURT MAY LOOK TO THE 1904 PRE-ERIE-TOMPKINS
STATE RULE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW "AS A CONVENIENT SOURCE OF
REFERENCE FOR FASHIONING" A POST-ERIE-TOMPKINS FEDERAL RULE, CLEARFIELD
TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363, 367, IT SHOULD NOT, AS THE
COURT DOES HERE, AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPT THE OLD STATE RULE AS A FEDERAL
RULE, WITHOUT ANY APPRAISAL OF ITS SOUNDNESS IN RELATION TO PRESENT DAY
CONDITIONS.  NO SUCH APPRAISAL HAS BEEN MADE HERE.  THE OLD ADAMS RULE,
QUESTIONABLE ENOUGH IN ITS 1904 ENVIRONMENT, SHOULD IN MY JUDGMENT BE
CRITICALLY EXAMINED AND THEN ABANDONED AS WHOLLY INCONGRUOUS WITH THE
ACCEPTED PATTERN OF OUR MODERN SOCIETY AS EMBODIED IN LEGISLATIVE
ENACTMENTS.    FURTHERMORE, THE 1904 ADAMS RULE, EVEN IN ITS ORIGINAL
NARROW SCOPE, MARKED A DEPARTURE FROM THE PHILOSOPHY OF THIS COURT'S
PREVIOUS DECISIONS.  ONE SUBSEQUENT LINE OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS HAS
TENDED TO LIMIT THE 1904 RULE'S SCOPE WHILE ANOTHER HAS TENDED TO
EXPAND IT.  TODAY'S OPINION EXPANDS THAT RULE BEYOND ANY POINT IT HAS
BEFORE REACHED.  AS INDICATED, I THINK THE ADAMS "GENERAL COMMERCIAL
LAW" STATE RULE IS AN OBSTACLE TO THE EXECUTION OF PRESENT
CONGRESSIONAL POLICIES EMBODIED IN STATUTES.  THAT OBSTACLE I THINK
SHOULD BE REMOVED BY THIS COURT WHICH FASHIONED THE OLD RULE.  IN ANY
EVENT, I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT EXPAND THE OLD ADAMS RULE TO COVER THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE.                                  I. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED AT THE OUTSET THAT TORT LAW HAS BEEN FASHIONED
LARGELY BY JUDGES, TOO LARGELY ACCORDING TO THE IDEAS OF MANY.  BUT IF
JUDGES MAKE RULES OF LAW, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THEY SHOULD KEEP THEIR
MINDS OPEN IN ORDER TO EXERCISE A CONTINUING AND HELPFUL SUPERVISION
OVER THE MANNER IN WHICH THEIR LAWS SERVE THE PUBLIC.  EXPERIENCE MIGHT
PROVE THAT A RULE CREATED BY JUDGES SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CREATED AT
ALL, OR THAT THEIR RULE, THOUGH ORIGINALLY SOUND, HAD BECOME WHOLLY
UNSUITED TO NEW PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS DEVELOPED BY A DYNAMIC
SOCIETY.  A REVALUATION OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INTERESTS AFFECTED BY
THE OLD RULE MIGHT REVEAL THE UNWISDOM OF ITS EXPANSION OR IMPERATIVELY
REQUIRE ITS REVISION OR ABANDONMENT. 

THE COURT'S UNCRITICAL RELIANCE TODAY ON THE 1904 JUDICIALLY CREATED
RULE, WHICH TO ME IS BOTH UNDESIRABLE AND UNCERTAIN IN SCOPE,
EMPHASIZES ONE OF THE INHERENT DANGERS IN JUDGE-MADE LAWS POINTED OUT
BY AN EMINENT LEGAL COMMENTATOR IN THE FIELD OF TORT LAW.  PROFESSOR
BOHLEN, IN HIS STUDIES IN THE LAW OF TORTS, 610-611(1926), HAD THIS TO
SAY ABOUT "DANGERS" OF COURT-MADE TORT STANDARDS:  "THE FIRST IS THAT
OF THE UNDUE RIGIDITY WHICH RESULTS FROM THE UNFORTUNATE FEELING, THAT
ANY DECISION OF A COURT CREATES A RULE OF LAW WHICH, AS LAW, IS
ABSOLUTELY AND ETERNALLY VALID.  ...  TO REGARD A STANDARD OF CONDUCT
AS FIXED AND IMMUTABLE BECAUSE JUDICIALLY ANNOUNCED, IS TO CREATE A
STANDARD WHICH, HOWEVER JUST OR EVEN NECESSARY AT THE TIME, MAY BECOME
A SCANDAL AND A HISSING IN THE FUTURE."  FN1

                                 II. 

IN 1944, JACK FRANCIS, AGED 30, HIS WIFE, AGED 29, AND THEIR THREE
CHILDREN, AGED 3, 6, AND 8, LIVED IN CARLIN, NEVADA.  JACK WAS THEN AND
HAD BEEN FOR SEVERAL YEARS A CONDUCTOR AND BRAKEMAN FOR THE RESPONDENT,
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY.  HIS FATHER, RAY E. FRANCIS, HAD SERVED THE
RESPONDENT IN THE SAME CAPACITY FOR 35 YEARS.  THE ELDER FRANCIS AND
HIS WIFE LIVED IN OGDEN, UTAH, AND THE YOUNG FRANCIS FAMILY VISITED
THEM CHRISTMAS WEEK.  IN THE EARLY MORNING OF DECEMBER 31, JACK AND HIS
WIFE BOARDED A SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRAIN AT OGDEN BOUND FOR CARLIN.  THEY
TOOK SEATS IN THE REAR CAR.  BOTH HAD PASSES GRANTED BY THE RESPONDENT
BECAUSE THE HUSBAND WAS ITS EMPLOYEE.  EACH PASS CONTAINED A PRINTED
STIPULATION THAT THE USER ASSUMED "ALL RISK OF INJURY TO PERSON" AND
ABSOLVED THE RAILROAD "FROM ANY LIABILITY THEREFOR."  A SHORT DISTANCE
OUT OF OGDEN, WHILE THE TRAIN WAS STILL IN UTAH, AN ENGINE AND TRAIN OF
CARS CRASHED INTO THE REAR CAR.  HUSBAND AND WIFE WERE KILLED. 

THIS IS ONE OF TWO SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST THE RAILROAD BY THE
GRANDPARENTS AS GUARDIANS OF THE THREE CHILDREN TO RECOVER DAMAGES ON
ACCOUNT OF THEIR PARENTS' DEATHS.  THE ACTIONS WERE BROUGHT UNDER A
UTAH LAW SINCE CONGRESS HAS NEVER PASSED ANY ACT WHICH PROVIDES
REMEDIES AGAINST RAILROADS FOR NEGLIGENTLY INJURING OR KILLING RAILROAD
PASSENGERS, EVEN INTERSTATE PASSENGERS ON INTERSTATE RAILROADS. 
WHETHER PASSENGERS OR THEIR DEPENDENTS SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF ACTION
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN A QUESTION LEFT BY CONGRESS FOR
REGULATION BY THE STATE IN WHICH THE INJURY OR DEATH OCCURRED.  SEE,
E.G., CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. MAUCHER, 248 U.S. 359, 363.  SEE ALSO
CASES COLLECTED IN 76 A.L.R. 428-435. 

FOR MANY YEARS THE STATES DID NOT GENERALLY AUTHORIZE SUITS FOR
WRONGFUL DEATH.  THEIR OMISSION OF SUCH REMEDIES WAS DUE TO TRADITIONAL
"COMMON LAW" HOSTILITY TO RECOVERIES FOR DEATH.  THIS HOSTILITY
PROVOKED MUCH LAY CRITICISM, ECHOES OF WHICH MAY BE FOUND IN THE CASES
CITED BELOW.  FN2 ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE LAST CENTURY, BECAUSE OF
"DISSATISFACTION WITH THE ARCHAISMS OF THE LAW," STATE LEGISLATURES
BEGAN TO ABOLISH THE COMMON LAW RULE BY SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING SUITS
FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND NOW ALL STATES HAVE SUCH STATUTES.  VAN BEECK V.
SABINE TOWING CO., 300 U.S. 342, 346, 350-351.  SO STRONG IS UTAH'S
ANTIPATHY TO THE COMMON LAW ATTITUDE THAT ART. XVI, SEC. 5, OF THE UTAH
CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO ABROGATE THE RIGHT TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH.  THIS SUIT FOR DAMAGES WAS BROUGHT
UNDER THE UTAH STATUTE ENACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY.  UTAH CODE ANN. SEC. 104-3-11(1943).  AND IN A
CASE INVOLVING A FEDERAL WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE THIS COURT HAS SAID "IT
WOULD BE A MISFORTUNE IF A NARROW OR GRUDGING PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION
WERE TO EXEMPLIFY AND PERPETUATE THE VERY EVILS TO BE REMEDIED" BY SUCH
STATUTES.  VAN BEECK V. SABINE TOWING CO., SUPRA AT 350-351. 

ONE COUNT OF THE COMPLAINT HERE ALLEGED ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE; THE
OTHER ALLEGED GROSS NEGLIGENCE.  EITHER TYPE OF NEGLIGENCE WOULD
JUSTIFY A RECOVERY UNDER THE UTAH STATUTE.  AND SINCE THE COMPLAINT
CLAIMED RECOVERY UNDER THE UTAH STATUTE, LIABILITY, IF ANY, SPRINGS
FROM THAT STATUTE.  SEE SPOKANE & I.E.R. CO. V. WHITLEY, 237 U.S. 487,
494-495.  UNDER UTAH LAW THE RAILROAD HERE COULD NOT HAVE DEFEATED
LIABILITY IN THIS CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PASSES STIPULATED THAT
THE USERS WOULD ASSUME THE RISK OF INJURY.  THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED THE
JURY, HOWEVER, THAT BECAUSE OF OPINIONS OF THIS COURT THE PASS
EXEMPTION STIPULATION WAS VALID AND BARRED RECOVERY "FOR JUST ORDINARY
NEGLIGENCE."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE BASIS OF
THIS COURT'S ADAMS AND VAN ZANT CASES.  162 F.2D 813, 816.  THE ACTION
OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION OF
THIS COURT'S OPINIONS NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT LONG AGO THE UTAH
SUPREME COURT, IN DECLARING STATE LAW, REJECTED SUCH A CONTENTION IN
THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:  "IT IS ARGUED THAT EVEN IF THE TICKET WAS A
FREE PASS GRATUITOUSLY POSSESSED WITH THE CONDITIONS PRINTED THEREON,
STILL THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR ITS NEGLIGENCE.  WE
BELIEVE THE PLAINTIFF IS CORRECT IN THIS CONTENTION."  WILLIAMS V.
OREGON SHORT LINE R. CO., 18 UTAH 210, 221, 54 P. 991, 994(1898).  SEE
ALSO HOUTZ V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 33 UTAH 175, 179, 93 P. 439, 441;
HANSEN V. OREGON SHORT LINE R. CO., 55 UTAH 577, 581-582, 188 P. 852,
854.  THIS COURT HAS ITSELF RECOGNIZED AND ACTED ON THE FACT THAT IT IS
THE LAW OF UTAH THAT "WHEN A COMMON CARRIER ACCEPTS A PERSON AS A
PASSENGER, HE IS NOT PERMITTED TO DENY THAT HE OWES TO HIM THE DUTY OF
DILIGENCE, PRUDENCE, AND SKILL, WHICH, AS CARRYING ON A PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT, HE OWES TO ALL HIS PASSENGERS; AND THAT HE CANNOT ESCAPE
LIABILITY FOR A NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE OF THAT DUTY RESULTING IN INJURY
BY URGING THAT THE PASS OR COMMISSION WAS ISSUED, OR THE GRATUITOUS
PASSAGE PERMITTED, BY HIM, IN VIOLATION OF LAW."  SOUTHERN PAC. CO. V.
SCHUYLER, 227 U.S. 601, 609-610.  FN3 

IN THE SCHUYLER CASE THIS COURT SUSTAINED A UTAH JUDGMENT UNDER THE
UTAH WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE, WHICH JUDGMENT PERMITTED RECOVERY FOR
DEATH OF A "GRATUITOUS" PASSENGER KILLED WHILE RIDING FREE, ALTHOUGH
ASSUMING HE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF A GROUP TO WHOM THE CARRIER MIGHT
LAWFULLY ISSUE PASSES UNDER THE HEPBURN ACT.  THE SCHUYLER CASE HELD
THAT THE HEPBURN ACT DID NOT DEPRIVE SCHUYLER, WHO VIOLATED IT, "OF THE
BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF THE LAW OF THE STATE," BECAUSE "SUCH A
VIOLATOR" WAS "A HUMAN BEING, OF WHOSE SAFETY THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
(RAILROAD) HAD UNDERTAKEN THE CHARGE."  JACK FRANCIS AND HIS WIFE WERE
NOT VIOLATORS OF THE HEPBURN ACT OR ANY OTHER ACT, FEDERAL OR STATE. 
EACH OF THEM "WAS A HUMAN BEING OF WHOSE SAFETY THE RAILROAD HAD TAKEN
CHARGE."  BUT BY TODAY'S DECISION THEIR CHILDREN ARE DENIED THE BENEFIT
OF UTAH'S LAW.  A FEDERAL RULE OF LAW IS SAID TO COMPEL THIS COURT TO
BAR RECOVERY UNDER UTAH'S STATUTE. 

            III. 

WHAT IS THIS FEDERAL RULE OF LAW?  WHERE DID A RULE EMANATE WHICH
TODAY CONSTRAINS THIS COURT, WITHOUT APPRAISAL OF THE RULE'S SCOPE OR
MERITS, TO DENY THESE CHILDREN A RIGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM A
RAILROAD THAT NEGLIGENTLY KILLED THEIR PARENTS?  I SAY "NEGLIGENTLY
KILLED" BECAUSE THAT MUST BE ASSUMED SINCE THE COURT AFFIRMS A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE CHILDREN IN A CASE WHERE THE JURY WAS DENIED A RIGHT TO
AWARD DAMAGES FOR A KILLING CAUSED BY THE "ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE" OF THE
RAILROAD. 

THE COURT POINTS TO NO RECORDS AND I CAN FIND NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF
EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS HAS EVER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, EXPLICITLY OR
IMPLIEDLY, THROUGH THE HEPBURN ACT, OR THROUGH ANY OTHER ACT,
AUTHORIZED RAILROADS TO CONTRACT AGAINST LIABILITY FOR THEIR NEGLIGENCE
WHICH RESULTS IN THE INJURY OR DEATH OF A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE OR ANY
OTHER PERSON LEGALLY RIDING ON A RAILROAD PASS.  THE ORIGINAL RULE
FOLLOWED IN AN EXPANDED FORM BY THE COURT TODAY IS ACTUALLY A JUDICIAL
PRODUCT OF THE OLD DAYS OF SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1(1842), DAYS IN
WHICH FEDERAL COURTS INVOKED "A TRANSCENDENTAL BODY OF LAW OUTSIDE OF
ANY PARTICULAR STATE  ...  USING THEIR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT
IT WAS."  HOLMES, J., DISSENTING, BLACK & WHITE TAXI.  CO. V. BROWN &
YELLOW TAXI.  CO., 276 U.S. 518, 533. 

AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, OUR DECISION IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
SUPRA, REPUDIATED IN TOTO THE OLD SWIFT V. TYSON, "TRANSCENDENTAL" OR
"GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS.  BUT AS I SEE THIS
CASE, THE COURT NOW PERPETUATES AND STRENGTHENS THE OLD RULE BASED ON
THE REPUDIATED SWIFT V. TYSON DOCTRINE, AND THE RULE APPLIED TODAY
RESTS ON NO OTHER FOUNDATION THAN A COMPLETELY UNCRITICAL ADOPTION OF
THIS COURT'S 1904 "INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT."  THAT JUDGMENT HELD IT TO BE
BAD PUBLIC POLICY, INDEED, OFFENSIVE TO THE COURT'S "MORAL SENSE," FOR
A STATE TO PROVIDE THAT AN INJURED PASSENGER WHO RODE ON A WHOLLY
GRATUITOUS AND GUEST BASIS COULD RECOVER DAMAGES IF A RAILROAD HAD
CAUTIOUSLY STIPULATED IN ADVANCE THAT SUCH A FREE PASSENGER MUST ASSUME
THE RISKS OF RAILROAD NEGLIGENCE.  AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EVOLUTION OF
THE "RULE" FROM ITS 1904 BEGINNING AND APPLICATION TO ITS MUCH BROADER
APPLICATION TODAY WILL DEMONSTRATE, I BELIEVE, THAT IT IS ROOTED NOW,
AS IN 1904, IN NOTHING BUT THE ORIGINAL "TRANSCENDENTAL GENERAL LAW"
SOURCE. 

      IV. 

THE BACKGROUND OF THE 1904 RULE THROWS LIGHT ON ITS JUDICIAL "GENERAL
LAW" ORIGIN.  IN 1852 THIS COURT WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE KIND OF DUTY OWED BY A RAILROAD TO ITS PAYING AND NON
PAYING PASSENGERS; "PUBLIC POLICY AND SAFETY" WERE HELD TO REQUIRE THAT
A RAILROAD EXERCISE "THE GREATEST POSSIBLE CARE AND DILIGENCE" FOR THE
SAFETY OF ALL PASSENGERS, AND ANY LESS MEASURE OF CARE ENTITLED AN
INJURED PASSENGER TO RECOVER.  PHILADELPHIA & READING R. CO. V. DERBY,
14 HOW.  468, 485-486.  FN4  THIS PRINCIPLE WAS REAFFIRMED THE NEXT
YEAR IN A WATER CARRIAGE CASE "AS RESTING, NOT ONLY ON PUBLIC POLICY,
BUT ON SOUND PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  THE STEAMBOAT NEW WORLD V. KING, 16
HOW.  469, 474; AND SEE TO THE SAME EFFECT RAILROAD COMPANY V.
LOCKWOOD, 17 WALL.  357, 382-383.  IN 1873, THIS COURT IN AN ELABORATE
AND WELL-REASONED OPINION HELD THAT IT WAS AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AND PUBLIC POLICY TO PERMIT COMMON CARRIERS TO STIPULATE AGAINST THE
RESULTS OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEMSELVES OR THEIR AGENTS, AND THAT WHILE
THE RULE APPLIED BOTH TO CARRIAGE OF GOODS AND PASSENGERS, IT APPLIED
WITH "SPECIAL FORCE TO THE LATTER."  RAILROAD COMPANY V. LOCKWOOD,
SUPRA AT 384.  THE PASSENGER IN THE LOCKWOOD CASE WAS A DROVER
TRAVELING ON A FREE PASS TO LOOK AFTER CATTLE; THE COURT RESERVED
DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE RULE WOULD APPLY TO A STRICTLY FREE
PASSENGER.  FOUR YEARS LATER THE COURT APPLIED THE SAME REASONING TO A
RAILROAD-DESIGNATED "FREE PASS" PASSENGER, FINDING THAT IN FACT THERE
WAS CONSIDERATION FOR THE CARRIAGE AND THAT IT WAS NOT A "MATTER OF
CHARITY" OR A "MERE GRATUITY."  RAILWAY COMPANY V. STEVENS, 95 U.S.
655, 658, 660.  THE LOCKWOOD AND STEVENS CASES PLAINLY STAND FOR THE
PRINCIPLE THAT WHERE THERE IS ANY BENEFIT DERIVED BY THE RAILROAD A
PASS IS NOT "FREE," AND THAT A PASSENGER RIDING ON SUCH A PASS MAY
RECOVER FOR INJURIES DUE TO THE RAILROAD'S NEGLIGENCE, REGARDLESS OF
STIPULATIONS IN HIS PASS. 

IN THE LOCKWOOD CASE THIS COURT REFUSED TO FOLLOW DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, THE STATE WHERE THE CARRIAGE CONTRACT WAS
MADE AND WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, BUT INSTEAD, SINCE THERE WAS NO
CONTROLLING NEW YORK STATUTE, EXPRESSLY DECIDED THE POINT AS ONE OF
"GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW."  17 WALL.  AT 368.  AND SEE CHICAGO,
MILWAUKEE & ST. P.R. CO. V. SOLAN, 169 U.S. 133, 136-137.  OUT OF THIS
"GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" BACKGROUND EMERGED THE "RULE" RELIED ON BY THE
COURT IN THE ADAMS CASE. 

                                  V. 

THE BEGINNING OF THE DOCTRINE THAT A RAILROAD COULD BY STIPULATION
EXEMPT ITSELF FROM LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENT INJURY TO STRICTLY FREE
PASSENGERS WAS IN NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. V. ADAMS, SUPRA, AND BOERING V.
CHESAPEAKE BEACH R. CO., 193 U.S. 442, BOTH DECIDED IN 1904.  THE
DECISIONS IN THESE CASES BEAR INTERNAL PROOF THAT THEY RESTED ON THE
"GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" GROUND.  THE ADAMS OPINION TREATED THE NEWLY
ANNOUNCED DOCTRINE AS NO MORE THAN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF
"GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" OF THE LOCKWOOD CASE, WHICH RULE DENIED
RAILROADS POWER TO EXEMPT THEMSELVES FROM THE EFFECTS OF THEIR
NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE DEVICE OF "FREE" PASSES.    AS BEARING ON THE
NARROW SCOPE OF THE ADAMS RULE AND ITS "TRANSCENDENTAL LAW" ORIGIN, IT
IS OF IMPORTANCE THAT THE ADAMS AND BOERING CASES WERE DECIDED IN 1904,
TWO YEARS BEFORE CONGRESS OUTLAWED POLITICAL PASSES IN THE HEPBURN
ACT.  THERE EXISTED AT THAT TIME A WIDESPREAD HOSTILITY TO THE USE OF
"STRICTLY FREE" RAILROAD PASSES.  THE PASS IN THE BOERING CASE AS WELL
AS IN THE ADAMS CASE WAS "STRICTLY FREE."  ADAMS, THE DECEASED, WAS A
LAWYER BUT NOT EMPLOYED BY THE RAILROAD THAT GAVE HIM THE PASS.  MANY
BELIEVED, AS SHOWN BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE HEPBURN ACT, THAT
RAILROADS WERE USING PASSES TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC MEN TO FAVOR RAILROADS
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC GOOD.  CONSEQUENTLY, PASS GIVERS AND PASS
USERS OF "STRICTLY FREE" PASSES, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM GIVERS AND USERS
OF EMPLOYEES' PASSES, WERE IN BAD REPUTE.  THE ADAMS AND BOERING
DECISIONS PLAINLY REFLECT THIS SENTIMENT.  BOTH DECISIONS SPOTLIGHTED
THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING "THOSE WHO ACCEPT GRATUITIES AND ACTS OF
HOSPITALITY" STAND BY THEIR CONTRACTS TO ASSUME THE RISKS OF INJURY
INCIDENT TO RIDING.  IN THE LOCKWOOD AND STEVENS CASES, WHERE NO MONEY
WAS PAID FOR PASSAGE, BUT NEITHER CARRIAGE WAS STRICTLY FREE, INTERESTS
OF THE PUBLIC IN A CAREFULLY OPERATED RAILROAD SYSTEM WERE EXPRESSLY
HELD TO OUTWEIGH SANCTITY OF CONTRACTS AND ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS; IN
THE ADAMS AND BOERING CASES, SANCTITY OF CONTRACTS, PARTICULARLY
CONTRACTS MADE TO OBTAIN STRICTLY FREE TRANSPORTATION, WAS GIVEN
GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN SAFE TRANSPORTATION.  FN5
BUT ALL THE CASES ALIKE TURNED OUT JUDGE-MADE RULES OF "GENERAL
COMMERCIAL LAW."  NOW LET US FOLLOW THE ADAMS RULE TO ITS APPEARANCE IN
OTHER CASES RELIED ON BY THE COURT TODAY FOR THE STATEMENT THAT THIS
RULE OF "GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" HAS BECOME PART OF THE "WARP AND WOOF"
OF THE HEPBURN ACT. 

CHARLESTON & W.C.R. CO. V. THOMPSON, 234 U.S. 576, IS THE NEXT CASE
RELIED ON HERE.  IT WAS DECIDED IN 1914, EIGHT YEARS AFTER PASSAGE OF
THE HEPBURN ACT, WHICH HAD, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, PROHIBITED
ISSUANCE OF PASSES BY RAILROADS.  34 STAT. 584, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(7). 
THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE WIFE OF A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER FOR
INJURIES SUSTAINED BY HER WHILE AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD PASSENGER RIDING
ON A PASS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA CONSIDERED IT TO BE THE
GENERAL RULE THAT STRICTLY FREE PASS PASSENGERS COULD NOT RECOVER FOR
INJURIES IF THEIR PASSES CONTAINED A STIPULATION REQUIRING THE
PASSENGER TO ASSUME THE RISK OF RAILROAD NEGLIGENCE.  BUT THAT COURT
WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE HEPBURN ACT, BY SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING
ISSUANCE OF PASSES TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES, HAD PUT
THEM IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY FROM "PURELY GRATUITOUS" PASSENGERS.  THE
COURT REGARDED PASSES ISSUED TO MEMBERS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S FAMILY AS
PARTIAL COMPENSATION FOR THE EMPLOYEE'S SERVICES, AND FOR THAT REASON
DISTINGUISHED PERSONS RIDING ON SUCH PASSES FROM STRICTLY FREE PASS
PASSENGERS, TO WHOM THE HARSH ADAMS RULE APPLIED.  13 GA. APP. 528, 80
S.E. 1097.  THIS COURT REVERSED, SAYING THAT "THE MAIN QUESTION IS
WHETHER WHEN THE STATUTE PERMITS THE ISSUE OF A 'FREE PASS' TO ITS
EMPLOYES AND THEIR FAMILIES IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS."  IT DID NOT FIND
THAT THE PASS ON WHICH THE INJURED WIFE OF THE EMPLOYEE HAD RIDDEN WAS
FREE IN FACT, BUT HELD THAT THE "PASS WAS FREE UNDER THE STATUTE,"
THEREBY TREATING EMPLOYEES' PASSES AS THOUGH THEY WERE STRICTLY FREE,
WITHOUT STATING ANY REASON EXCEPT THAT THE HEPBURN ACT HAD REFERRED TO
PASSES AS "FREE."  CF. NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. CHATMAN, 244 U.S.
276, 280-281.  THE COURT THEN WENT FURTHER AND UPHELD THE PASS
STIPULATIONS FOR RAILROAD EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE.  BUT
THE COURT DID NOT AT ALL RELY ON THE HEPBURN ACT FOR THIS LATTER
HOLDING.  INSTEAD IT WAS SAID THAT "AS THE PASS WAS FREE UNDER THE
STATUTE  ...  THE VALIDITY OF ITS STIPULATIONS" WAS "ESTABLISHED BY THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT," RELYING COMPLETELY UPON THE ADAMS AND BOERING
CASES.  THUS THE CHARLESTON & W.C.R. CO. CASE DID NOT DISCOVER THE
ADAMS RULE IN AN ACT OF CONGRESS; THE RULE IT RELIED ON HAD BEEN
JUDICIALLY CREATED IN 1904 BY AN EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S
"TRANSCENDENTAL" LAW POWER. 

KANSAS CITY SO. R. CO. V. VAN ZANT, 260 U.S. 459, DECIDED IN 1923, IS
THE NEXT AND THE LAST CASE RELIED ON BY THE COURT TODAY.  THAT CASE
DECIDED THAT THE "INCIDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES" OF AN EMPLOYEE'S PASS
RAISE A FEDERAL QUESTION.  CF. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. V. SCHUYLER, 227 U.S.
601, 610; CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. MAUCHER, 248 U.S. 359, 363.  IT
THEN REPEATED THE STATEMENT MADE IN CHARLESTON & W.C.R. CO. V.
THOMPSON, SUPRA, THAT AN EMPLOYEE'S PASS TRANSPORTATION IS "FREE,"
AGAIN WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION OF WHY.  TO THIS EXTENT IT MAY BE SAID
THAT THE COURT WAS THEN CONSTRUING THE HEPBURN ACT, THOUGH I THINK ITS
CONSTRUCTION WAS WRONG.  BUT THE COURT DID NOT, EVEN IN THIS LAST CASE
(1923), HOLD OR INTIMATE THAT THE HEPBURN ACT OF ITSELF PUT EMPLOYEE
PASS PASSENGERS IN A SEPARATE CLASS, TO BE NEGLIGENTLY KILLED OR
INJURED WITH IMPUNITY.  TO DEGRADE RAILROAD EMPLOYEE PASSENGERS TO THIS
UNFORTUNATE LEVEL THIS COURT IN THE VAN ZANT CASE AGAIN RELIED ON THE
RULE IT HAD FASHIONED IN THE ADAMS AND BOERING DECISIONS.  SO LONG AS
ONE AGREED WITH THE SOUNDNESS OF THE ADAMS CASE RULE AND WITH THIS
COURT'S EXERCISE OF A POWER TO DECLARE "GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW" UNDER
THE SWIFT V. TYSON, DOCTRINE, THE RESULT OF THE VAN ZANT CASE COULD NOT
BE QUESTIONED IN 1923.  BUT THAT WAS FIFTEEN YEARS PRIOR TO ERIE R. CO.
V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, IN WHICH WE ABANDONED THE "TRANSCENDENTAL" LAW
DOCTRINE, AS TYPIFIED BY THE ADAMS RULE, AND TODAY'S DECISION IS TEN
YEARS AFTER WE TOOK THAT SALUTARY STEP. 

IN APPLYING THIS PRE-ERIE-TOMPKINS COURT-MADE TRANSCENDENTAL LAW RULE
AT THIS TIME, THE COURT NOT ONLY IN PART NEUTRALIZES OUR ERIE-TOMPKINS
DECISION.  IT ACTUALLY LEAVES A RULE STANDING WHICH MIGHT HAVE ALREADY
FALLEN UNDER THE REPUDIATED SWIFT V. TYSON DOCTRINE SO FAR AS IT
GOVERNED.  FOR THOUGH A PURELY TRANSCENDENTAL LAW RULE JUDICIALLY
CREATED BY THIS COURT UNDER THE PRE-ERIE-TOMPKINS DOCTRINE WAS "NONE
THE LESS THE LAW OF THE STATE," IT NEED ONLY HAVE REMAINED THE "LAW OF
THE STATE" UNTIL "CHANGED BY ITS LEGISLATURE."  CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, &
ST. P.R. CO. V. SOLAN, 169 U.S. 133, 136-137.  HENCE, HAD THE SWIFT
TYSON DOCTRINE NOT BEEN REPUDIATED, THE ADAMS RULE AS APPLIED TO
PERSONS INJURED IN UTAH SHOULD HAVE FALLEN OF ITS OWN WEIGHT HAD THE
UTAH LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW AUTHORIZING A MAN'S CHILDREN TO RECOVER
FROM A RAILROAD THAT NEGLIGENTLY KILLED THEIR PARENTS WHILE THEY WERE
"FREE PASS" PASSENGERS.  UTAH HAS A STATUTE BROAD ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE
SUCH RECOVERIES.  THE ONLY BARRIER TO RECOVERY UNDER THAT STATE STATUTE
IS GROUNDED ON A COURT-ANNOUNCED "COMMERCIAL LAW" RULE, A POOR EXCUSE
INDEED FOR DEPRIVING A STATE OF EXERCISING ITS TRADITIONAL POWER TO
CONTROL ACTIONS FOR LOCAL WRONGFUL DEATHS.  OF COURSE THIS IS AN
INTERSTATE CARRIER AND WE SHOULD NOT CONSTRICT CONGRESSIONAL POWERS
OVER IT BY NARROW STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS.  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N
V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349.  BUT THE VERY ABSENCE OF A FEDERAL
STATUTE TO TAKE THE PLACE OF LOCAL WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTES SHOULD BE
THE EQUIVALENT OF A LOUD CONGRESSIONAL WARNING TO COURTS TO REFRAIN
FROM ENCROACHING ON STATE POWERS HERE. 

                                 VI. 

IT IS SAID HOWEVER THAT CONGRESS, ALTHOUGH AWARE OF THE ADAMS
TRANSCENDENTAL LAW RULE, HAS NEVER CHANGED IT.  INDULGING FOR THE
MOMENT THE CONVENIENT FICTION THAT CONGRESS KNOWS ALL ABOUT THAT RULE
AND WHAT IT MEANS, WHY SHOULD IT THINK THAT OLD RULES LAID DOWN BY THIS
COURT AND BASED ON THE SWIFT V. TYSON DOCTRINE COULD SURVIVE OUR
DECISION IN ERIE V. TOMPKINS?  AND WHY SHOULD CONGRESS THINK THAT A
RULE WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN APPLIED BY THIS COURT TO BAR THE CHILDREN OF
A DECEASED EMPLOYEE WOULD BE EXTENDED TO BAR RECOVERY BY THOSE
CHILDREN?  I VENTURE THE SUGGESTION THAT IT WOULD BE SHOCKING TO
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, EVEN THOSE WHO ARE IN CLOSEST TOUCH WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE LEGISLATION, TO BE TOLD THAT THEIR "SILENCE" IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR APPLICATION TODAY OF A RULE WHICH IS OUT OF STEP WITH
THE TREND OF ALL CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION FOR MORE THAN THE PAST
QUARTER OF A CENTURY.  THERE ARE SOME FIELDS IN WHICH CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES HAVE SUCH CLOSE LIAISON WITH AGENCIES IN REGARD TO SOME
MATTERS, THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME AN AWARENESS OF CONGRESS WITH
RELEVANT JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS.  BUT I CAN FIND NO
GROUND FOR AN ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS HAS KNOWN ABOUT THE ADAMS RULE
AND DELIBERATELY LEFT IT ALONE BECAUSE IT FAVORED SUCH AN ARCHAIC
DOCTRINE.  FN6  I REJECT THE IDEA THAT CONGRESS EVER HAS APPROVED SUCH
A RULE, AND NONE OF ITS LEGISLATION FOR THE PAST QUARTER OF A CENTURY
INDICATES THAT IT EVER WOULD HAVE APPROVED IT.

                                 VII. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE HEPBURN ACT'S FREE PASS PROVISION
SHOWS THAT APPLICATION OF THE ADAMS DOCTRINE TO EMPLOYEES' PASSES IS
NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUT DIRECTLY HOSTILE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE IN PERMITTING EMPLOYEE PASSES.  THAT CONGRESS NEVER WOULD HAVE
PASSED AN ACT WHICH SO PENALIZED EMPLOYEES, MAY BE SEEN BY READING EVEN
THE FEW PORTIONS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
CITED BELOW.  FN7  IN VERY BRIEF SUMMARY THAT HISTORY SHOWS: 

PRIOR TO 1906, THERE GREW UP A DEMAND BY THE PEOPLE THAT RAILROADS
CEASE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SOME SHIPPERS IN FAVOR OF OTHERS AND CEASE
USING FREE PASSES AS A MEANS TO OBTAIN SPECIAL FAVORS FROM PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  PUBLIC COMPLAINT WAS NOT
AGAINST EMPLOYEES USING PASSES.  IN FACT, SOME UNIONS HAD BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS FOR PASSES, AND CONGRESSMEN WHO SPOKE ON THE HEPBURN BILL
CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES' PASSES TO BE A PART OF THE INDUCEMENT TO WORK FOR
RAILROADS.  PASSES WERE SPOKEN OF BY THOSE WHO DISCUSSED LEGISLATION ON
THE HOUSE AND SENATE FLOORS AS PART OF THE COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES. 
THE SUBJECT WAS AN IMPORTANT ONE AND WAS SO TREATED.  AT ONE TIME A
CONFERENCE REPORT RECOMMENDED TO BOTH HOUSES THAT ALL PASSES BE
PROHIBITED.  40 CONG. REC. 7741.  THIS REPORT WAS DEFEATED AND THE
DEBATES INDICATE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT TO PASS A BILL WHICH
FAILED TO PERMIT ISSUANCE OF PASSES TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES - NOT IN THE
SPIRIT OF GIVING ALMS TO BEGGARS OR FAVORS TO POLITICIANS, BUT TO
REQUITE MEN FOR FAITHFUL WORK. 

IF ANY SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN DISCUSSING THE HEPBURN ACT HAD EVER
HEARD OF THE ADAMS RULE, HE FAILED TO MENTION IT.  BUT IT MUST BE
CONCEDED THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HIM TO MENTION IT, SINCE THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT BORE NO RELATION, DIRECTLY OR REMOTELY, TO LIABILITY OF A
RAILROAD FOR INJURY TO PASSENGERS WHETHER RIDING ON PASSES OR PAYING
THEIR FARES.  EVEN IF SOME MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAD BEEN ACQUAINTED WITH
THE ADAMS RULE AND HAD THOUGHT THAT THE HEPBURN ACT BORE SOME REMOTE
RELATION TO THE LIABILITY OF RAILROADS FOR INJURY TO PASSENGERS, STILL
HE WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THIS COURT WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY
EXPAND THAT RULE, THEN APPLICABLE ONLY TO "STRICTLY FREE PASS"
PASSENGERS, TO PENALIZE EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS TO
RIDE ON PASSES.  AS I SEE IT, TODAY'S DECISION UNDERMINES THE PURPOSE
CONGRESS HAD IN MIND IN APPROVING THE LONG-STANDING PRACTICE OF
EMPLOYEES' PASSES.  IT PERVERTS AN ADVANTAGE EXPRESSLY SAVED TO
EMPLOYEES INTO A PENALTY FOR MAKING USE OF IT.  IT MAKES TRAPS OF THESE
PASSES. 

                 VIII. 

MOREOVER, THE SUBJECTION OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WHILE PASSENGERS TO
THE HAZARDS OF UNCOMPENSATED INJURIES IS AT WAR WITH THE BASIC
PHILOSOPHY WHICH HAS FOUND EXPRESSION IN OTHER INDUSTRIAL AND SOCIAL
LEGISLATION FOR MANY YEARS.  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACTS, COMPENSATION
ACTS, SOCIAL INSURANCE LEGISLATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND
VARIOUS STATES, AND A HOST OF OTHER LEGISLATIVE POLICIES HAVE BEEN
GROUNDED UPON THE BASIC PREMISE THAT CARE OF THE ACCIDENTALLY INJURED
SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS A MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC CONCERN.  CONGRESS HAS
ALSO ERASED EVERY VESTIGE OF THE OLD JUDICIALLY CREATED FELLOW-SERVANT
AND ASSUMPTION-OF-RISK DOCTRINES IN CONNECTION WITH SUITS BY RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES ON ACCOUNT OF INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT.  TILLER V. ATLANTIC C.L.R. CO., 318 U.S. 54.  THE ANALOGY
BETWEEN THESE NOW REPUDIATED JUDICIALLY CREATED TORT-LAW DOCTRINES AND
THE PRESENT RULE WAS PRESSED ON THE COURT IN BRIEFS FOR THE RAILROAD IN
THE ADAMS CASE.  CONGRESS HAS ALSO EMPHATICALLY OUTLAWED ALL KINDS OF
STIPULATIONS AND CONTRACTS TO EXEMPT RAILROADS FROM LIABILITY FOR THEIR
NEGLIGENCE IN EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT CASES.  DUNCAN V. THOMPSON, 315
U.S. 1.  ALL OF THIS BODY OF LEGISLATION, AND MUCH MORE TO WHICH
REFERENCE COULD BE MADE, HAS DEPARTED FROM THE PREMISE OF THE ADAMS AND
BOERING DECISIONS THAT IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO SOCIETY THAT MEN ABIDE
BY TICKET AND CONTRACT STIPULATIONS  FN8  THAN IT IS TO HAVE A SYSTEM
WHICH PROVIDES COMPENSATION FOR THE INDUSTRIALLY INJURED AND THE
DEPENDENTS OF THOSE WHO ARE KILLED.  FOR OUR SOCIETY ATTEMPTS TO TAKE
CARE OF ITS AGED, UNEMPLOYED, CRIPPLED AND DISABLED, AS WELL AS THE
DEPENDENTS OF THOSE KILLED BY OUR INDUSTRIAL MACHINE.  SEE GEORGETOWN
COLLEGE V. HUGHES, 76 U.S. APP. D.C. 123, 130 F.2D 810, 822-825;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. RAILWAY LABOR ASSN., 315 U.S. 373, 376
378.  AND THE PRESENT RAILROAD REGULATORY SYSTEM IS SUCH THAT PAYMENT
BY RAILROADS FOR INJURIES INFLICTED BY THEM UPON PASSENGERS IS JUST AS
CERTAINLY BORNE BY THE PUBLIC AS THOUGH THOSE INJURED AND THEIR
DEPENDENTS WERE DIRECTLY SUPPORTED BY GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS. 

WHETHER ALLOWANCE OF DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT DEATH IS THE BEST WAY TO
MEET THE PROBLEMS INCIDENT TO TRANSPORTATION DANGERS IS BESIDE THE
POINT.  MANY COURTS GENERALLY, INCLUDING THIS ONE AND UTAH'S, MAY HAVE
BEEN WRONG IN THINKING THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING TO PAY DAMAGES
FOR DEATHS OF PASSENGERS DUE TO RAILROAD NEGLIGENCE WOULD MAKE
RAILROADS MORE CAUTIOUS.  FN9  PERHAPS SOCIETY COULD TAKE CARE OF
INJURED PASSENGERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS IN A LESS WASTEFUL MANNER.  BUT
SO LONG AS CONGRESS LEAVES THE STATES FREE TO ADOPT THIS METHOD OF
MEETING THE PROBLEM, I THINK THIS COURT SHOULD NOT HANDICAP THE
STATES.  CONGRESS COULD PROVIDE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE STATE LAWS; WE
CANNOT.                                       IX. 

TODAY'S DECISION LEAVES STATES FREE TO PROVIDE THAT RAILROADS MUST
PAY FOR INJURY OR DEATH OF PASSENGERS WHO CAN AND DO PAY A FULL MONEY
FARE FOR PASSAGE.  THIS GROUP IS FAR MORE LIKELY TO INCLUDE SOME PEOPLE
WHO ARE BETTER ABLE FINANCIALLY TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES IN CASE OF
INJURY THAN ARE THE MEMBERS OF SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS PERMITTED BY
THE HEPBURN ACT TO RIDE ON FREE PASSES, ALL OF WHOM ARE PENALIZED BY
TODAY'S DECISION.  THESE GROUPS ARE IN ADDITION TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES
AND THEIR FAMILIES, EMPLOYEES OF OTHER RAILROADS; MINISTERS OF
RELIGION; YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION WORKERS; INMATES OF
ELEEMOSYNARY INSTITUTIONS; INDIGENT, DESTITUTE, AND HOMELESS PERSONS;
DISABLED SOLDIERS; AND OTHERS IN ANALOGOUS CATEGORIES.  IN FOLLOWING A
COURSE TODAY THAT TAKES ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUPS OUT FROM UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF STATE LAWS, THE COURT IGNORES THE SIGNS ERECTED BY
CONGRESS, ALL OF WHICH POINT IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.  ASSUMING THE
COURT IS RIGHT IN SAYING THAT A RULE WITH SUCH CONSEQUENCES HAS BECOME
A PART OF THE WARP AND WOOF OF THE HEPBURN ACT, IT IS A DEFECTIVE PART
WHICH THIS COURT ALONE HAS WOVEN INTO THE ACT AND WHICH CLASHES WITH
THE CONGRESSIONALLY FASHIONED FABRIC AND DESIGN.  THE RESULT IS A
MOTLEY PATTERN.  I WOULD RESTORE THE ORIGINAL CONGRESSIONAL DESIGN. 

NO SOUND ARGUMENT HAS BEEN OR CAN BE ADVANCED FOR APPLICATION OF THE
1904 ADAMS RULE IN TODAY'S ENTIRELY DIFFERENT JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE
ENVIRONMENT, EVEN AS THE RULE WAS FIRST NARROWLY APPLIED TO A PURELY
GRATUITOUS CARRIAGE, EXCEPT THAT IT WAS UNQUESTIONINGLY ACCEPTED 34 AND
25 YEARS AGO IN CASES WHERE THE RULE'S SOUNDNESS WAS NOT CHALLENGED. 
WHEN PRECEDENT AND PRECEDENT ALONE IS ALL THE ARGUMENT THAT CAN BE MADE
TO SUPPORT A COURT-FASHIONED RULE, IT IS TIME FOR THE RULE'S CREATOR TO
DESTROY IT. 

THE VAN ZANT CASE DID HOLD THAT SINCE THE HEPBURN ACT THE "INCIDENTS
AND CONSEQUENCES" OF AN EMPLOYEE'S PASS RAISED A FEDERAL QUESTION.  IT
THEN HELD THAT THE USER OF AN EMPLOYEE'S PASS MUST STAND BY HIS
CONTRACT TO ASSUME THE RISKS OF NEGLIGENT INJURY BY THE RAILROAD. 
NEITHER IT, NOR ANY OTHER CASE SINCE THE HEPBURN ACT, UNTIL THE CASE
TODAY, HAS HELD THAT THE PENALIZING CONSEQUENCES OF THE FATHER'S
CONTRACT MUST BE VISITED UPON HIS CHILDREN.  I WOULD NOT SO EXTEND THE
MORE THAN DUBIOUS VAN ZANT DOCTRINE. 

FN1  MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO SAID THIS ABOUT THE QUEST FOR UNVARYING AND
ETERNAL CERTAINTY IN THE LAW:  "I WAS MUCH TROUBLED IN SPIRIT, IN MY
FIRST YEARS UPON THE BENCH, TO FIND HOW TRACKLESS WAS THE OCEAN ON
WHICH I HAD EMBARKED.  I SOUGHT FOR CERTAINTY.  I WAS OPPRESSED AND
DISHEARTENED WHEN I FOUND THAT THE QUEST FOR IT WAS FUTILE.  ...  AS
THE YEARS HAVE GONE BY, AND AS I HAVE REFLECTED MORE AND MORE UPON THE
NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, I HAVE BECOME RECONCILED TO THE
UNCERTAINTY, BECAUSE I HAVE GROWN TO SEE IT AS INEVITABLE.  I HAVE
GROWN TO SEE THAT THE PROCESS IN ITS HIGHEST REACHES IS NOT DISCOVERY,
BUT CREATION; AND THAT THE DOUBTS AND MISGIVINGS, THE HOPES AND FEARS,
ARE PART OF THE TRAVAIL OF MIND, THE PANGS OF DEATH AND THE PANGS OF
BIRTH, IN WHICH PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE SERVED THEIR DAY EXPIRE, AND NEW
PRINCIPLES ARE BORN."  THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, BENJAMIN N.
CARDOZO, 166-67(1921).  "SOMEWHERE BETWEEN WORSHIP OF THE PAST AND
EXALTATION OF THE PRESENT, THE PATH OF SAFETY WILL BE FOUND."  ID. AT
160. 

FN2  VAN AMBURG V. VICKSBURG, S. & P.R. CO., 37 LA. ANN. 650, 651,
65, 55 AM. REP. 517, 518; ROWE V. RICHARDS, 35 S.D. 201, 206-207, 151
N.W. 1001, 1003; SALSEDO V. PALMER, 278 F. 92, 94; MANEY V. CHICAGO, B.
& Q.R. CO., 49 ILL. APP. 105, 112-113.  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE STATE
WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTES, SEE ANNOTATIONS:  L.R.A. 1915E, 1075, 1095,
1163; 23 A.L.R. 1262; 27 L.R.A. (N.S.)  176. 

FN3  THE RECENT VAN WAGONER UTAH SUPREME COURT DECISION CITED BY THE
COURT IS NOT OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE ABOVE CASES BUT, AS AMENDED ON
REHEARING, IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO A HOLDING THAT CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE OF A DECEDENT MAY BAR RECOVERY UNDER THE UTAH STATUTE ON THE
PART OF HIS HEIRS.  THAT HOLDING SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE DEATH WAS NOT
"WRONGFUL" UNDER THE STATUTE.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHERE THERE IS
COMPANY NEGLIGENCE UTAH WOULD HOLD THAT A RAILROAD COULD BARTER AWAY
THE BENEFICIARY'S RIGHTS. 

AND AS I READ THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE CASE
NOW BEFORE US, IT DID NOT HOLD THAT UNDER UTAH LAW AN ACTION IS
MAINTAINABLE ONLY WHERE "THE DECEDENT COULD HAVE MAINTAINED AN ACTION
TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR HIS INJURY IF DEATH HAD NOT ENSUED."  FOR THAT
STATEMENT IN ITS OPINION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RELIED ONLY ON
THE ADAMS CASE AND SEVERAL OTHER OPINIONS OF THIS COURT.  IT DID NOT
PURPORT TO BE CONSTRUING UTAH LAW.  ON THIS POINT, THEREFORE, THERE IS
NO QUESTION PRESENTED AS TO WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MADE A
"PLAIN ERROR" IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE LAW.  THE STATE LAW ON THAT
SUBJECT HAS BEEN VERY CLEARLY STATED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO THE
EFFECT THAT IT "IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO TAKE FROM THE
DEPENDENTS OF AN EMPLOYEE THEIR CLAIM AGAINST THE EMPLOYER, WHERE SUCH
EMPLOYEE DIES AS THE RESULT OF A WRONGFUL INJURY BY THE EMPLOYER." 
HALLING V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N OF UTAH, 71 UTAH 112, 120-121, 263 P. 78,
80-81. 

FN4  THE COURT SAID:  "  ...  IT IS TRUE, A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN
TAKEN, IN SOME CASES, BETWEEN SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE, AND GREAT OR GROSS
NEGLIGENCE; AND IT IS SAID, THAT ONE WHO ACTS GRATUITOUSLY IS LIABLE
ONLY FOR THE LATTER.  BUT THIS CASE DOES NOT CALL UPON US TO DEFINE THE
DIFFERENCE, (IF IT BE CAPABLE OF DEFINITION,) AS THE VERDICT HAS FOUND
THIS TO BE A CASE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. 

"WHEN CARRIERS UNDERTAKE TO CONVEY PERSONS BY THE POWERFUL BUT
DANGEROUS AGENCY OF STEAM, PUBLIC POLICY AND SAFETY REQUIRE THAT THEY
BE HELD TO THE GREATEST POSSIBLE CARE AND DILIGENCE.  AND WHETHER THE
CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION BE PECUNIARY OR OTHERWISE, THE
PERSONAL SAFETY OF THE PASSENGERS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT TO THE SPORT OF
CHANCE OR THE NEGLIGENCE OF CARELESS AGENTS.  ANY NEGLIGENCE, IN SUCH
CASES, MAY WELL DESERVE THE EPITHET OF 'GROSS.'" 

FN5 A NOTE APPENDED TO THE LOCKWOOD CASE AS REPORTED IN 21 L. ED. 627
CITES CASES IN SUPPORT OF THE POSITION THERE TAKEN THAT THE ADAMS RULE
WAS CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.  AND SEE 22 L.R.A.
794; 37 L.R.A. (N.S.)  235; 37 ANN. CAS. 623. 

FN6  THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 899, 900, 49 U.S.C.
1(7), EXPANDED THE GROUPS ELIGIBLE TO RIDE ON "FREE PASSES."  BUT NO
LANGUAGE USED IN THAT ACT AND NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT I HAVE FOUND
INDICATES ANY CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE
PENALIZING ADAMS RULE, MUCH LESS APPROVAL OF IT.  FAR FROM INDICATING A
PURPOSE TO ACQUIESCE IN ANY KIND OF REDUCED EMPLOYEE PROTECTION,
CONGRESS IN SEC. 7(2)(F) OF THAT ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(2)(F), PROVIDED
A NEW AND EXTRAORDINARY PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES WHOSE JOBS MIGHT BE
AFFECTED BY RAILROAD MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS.  SEE SEN. REP. NO.
433, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 4, 21; H.R. REP. NO. 2832, 76TH CONG., 3D
SESS., 68-69; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. RAILWAY LABOR ASSN., 315
U.S. 373, 379-380. 

FN7  40 CONG. REC. 7741, 7851-7852, 7920-7940, 7978-7998.  THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS TYPICAL OF THE SENTIMENT THAT BROUGHT INTO THE
HEPBURN ACT THE EXCEPTION THAT PERMITTED ISSUANCE OF PASSES TO AND USE
OF THEM BY EMPLOYEES:  "WHILE I AM ON MY FEET I WILL TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SAY IN REGARD TO THE PASS AMENDMENT OR PROVISION THAT I
HAVE RECEIVED, AS OTHER SENATORS HAVE, A GREAT MANY TELEGRAMS FROM
RAILWAY EMPLOYEES AND FROM ORGANIZATIONS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
PROTESTING AGAINST ANY PROVISION BEING INCORPORATED HERE THAT WILL
PREVENT THEM FROM BEING SUPPLIED WITH OR FROM ACCEPTING FREE
TRANSPORTATION.  I SHALL NOT TAKE TIME TO DISCUSS THAT, AS IT HAS BEEN
FULLY DISCUSSED.  I SIMPLY WISH TO SAY THAT I FULLY AGREE WITH THEM,
AND I BELIEVE THAT WE OUGHT NOT TO ENACT ANY SUCH LEGISLATION, AND
SHOULD WE DO SO IT WOULD, IN MY JUDGMENT, BE PERPETRATING A VERY GREAT
INJUSTICE UPON THOSE PEOPLE.  THE MATTER OF FREE TRANSPORTATION, AS THE
SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN (MR. SPOONER) SAID YESTERDAY, ENTERS PARTLY INTO
THE CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR EMPLOYMENT, AND WE HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO
DEPRIVE THEM OF THAT PRIVILEGE."  40 CONG. REC. 7981.  SEE ALSO ID. AT
7984-7985.  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 1242, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., VIEWS OF MR.
TILLMAN AND MR. NEWLANDS, PP. 10, 16; 1 SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION 44(1931); SASSAMAN V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 144 F.2D
950, 956, NN. 7 AND 8. 

FN8  THE BOERING CASE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:  "THE
RESULT WE HAVE REACHED CONFORMS THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT ISSUE
TO THAT MORAL SENSE WHICH JUSTLY HOLDS THOSE WHO ACCEPT GRATUITIES AND
ACTS OF HOSPITALITY TO PERFORM THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH THEY ARE
GRANTED."  193 U.S. AT 451. 

FN9  RAILROAD CO. V. LOCKWOOD, 17 WALL.  357, 368.  SEE JACOBUS V.
ST. PAUL & C.R. CO., 20 MINN. 125, 130:  "WHETHER THE CASE BE ONE OF A
PASSENGER FOR HIRE,  - A MERELY GRATUITOUS PASSENGER,  - OR OF A
PASSENGER UPON A CONDITIONED FREE PASS, AS IN THIS INSTANCE, THE
INTEREST OF THE STATE IN THE SAFETY OF THE CITIZEN IS OBVIOUSLY THE
SAME.  THE MORE STRINGENT THE RULE AS TO THE DUTY AND LIABILITY OF THE
CARRIER, AND THE MORE RIGIDLY IT IS ENFORCED, THE GREATER WILL BE THE
CARE EXERCISED, AND THE MORE APPROXIMATELY PERFECT THE SAFETY OF THE
PASSENGER." 
..END :






















WOODS V. STONE, 333 U.S. 472 


NO. 392.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1948.  - 163
F.2D 393, REVERSED. 


1.  THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 205(E) OF
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 AS AMENDED, ON AN ACTION
AGAINST A LANDLORD ON ACCOUNT OF AN OVERCHARGE IN RENT OF PROPERTY
WHICH THE LANDLORD HAD FAILED TO REGISTER AS REQUIRED BY RENT
REGULATIONS, BEGINS TO RUN NOT FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE RENT BUT
FROM THE DATE OF THE LANDLORD'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A REFUND ORDER. 
PP. 473-478. 

2.  FAILURE OF THE LANDLORD TO MAKE REFUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REFUND ORDER IS A VIOLATION OF AN "ORDER  ...  PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM"
RENT UNDER SEC. 205(E) AND GIVES RISE TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION CREATED BY
THAT SECTION.  P. 477. 

3.  THE LANDLORD'S OWN FAILURE TO REGISTER THE PROPERTY HAVING
RENDERED THE PAYMENTS OF RENT SUBJECT TO REVISION AND TO REFUND, UNDER
LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS IN FORCE WHEN THE PAYMENT WERE MADE, THE
OBJECTION TO THE REFUND ORDER AS RETROACTIVE CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED.  PP.
477-478. 

WOODS, HOUSING EXPEDITER, V. STONE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, PREDECESSOR OF THE HOUSING EXPEDITER,
BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC. 205(E) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 AS AMENDED, ON ACCOUNT OF AN
OVERCHARGE IN THE RENTAL OF PROPERTY.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE
PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE ACT BEGAN TO RUN FROM THE TIME OF THE
OVERCHARGE, AND NOT FROM THE TIME OF THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO MAKE
REFUND PURSUANT TO A REFUND ORDER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  163 F.2D 393.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO THE
QUESTION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  332 U.S. 835.  REVERSED, P.
478. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT STONE OWNED A HOUSE IN MOORESVILLE, INDIANA WHICH HE
RENTED TO ONE LOCKE FOR $75 PER MONTH BEGINNING ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 1,
1944.  AS THIS WAS THE FIRST RENTAL OF THE PREMISES, THE APPLICABLE LAW
FN1  AND REGULATIONS N2 IMPOSED ON THE OWNER A DUTY TO FILE A
REGISTRATION STATEMENT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS. 

THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO REGISTER THE PROPERTY.  HE SOLD IT IN APRIL
1945 AND REGISTRATION BY THE NEW OWNER BROUGHT NOTICE TO THE AREA RENT
DIRECTOR OF RESPONDENT'S PRIOR RENTING OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT
COMPLYING WITH THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.  ON JUNE 28, 1945, THE
DIRECTOR, PURSUANT TO THE REGULATIONS, REDUCED THE RENTAL FROM $75 TO
$45 PER MONTH, EFFECTIVE FROM THE FIRST RENTAL, AND ORDERED THE EXCESS
REFUNDED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS THEREAFTER.  RESPONDENT FAILED TO REFUND,
THE TENANT DID NOT SUE AND THIS ACTION WAS INSTITUTED BY THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR.  THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, HELD THAT THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN FROM
THE DATES OF PAYMENT OF THE RENTALS.  163 F.2D 393.  THIS CONFLICTED
WITH THE HOLDING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT WHICH,
UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HELD THAT THE LIMITATION PERIOD STARTED
UPON DEFAULT IN REFUNDING THE EXCESS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE
REFUND ORDER.  CREEDON V. BABCOCK, 163 F.2D 480.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
LIMITED TO THIS QUESTION.  332 U.S. 835. 

NO QUESTION IS RAISED, AND NONE COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS
PROCEEDING, AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEVANT REGULATIONS AND THE
REFUND ORDER, EITHER ON THE GROUND OF RETROACTIVITY OR OTHERWISE,
BECAUSE ANY CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF EITHER WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 924;
BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503.  SEE ALSO WOODS V. CLOYD W. MILLER
CO., 333 U.S. 138.  TAKING THE LEGISLATION, THE REGULATIONS AND THE
ORDER TO BE VALID EXERCISES OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER, AS WE ARE THUS
REQUIRED TO DO, THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHEN DO EXCESSIVE
COLLECTIONS BY THE LANDLORD BEGIN TO ENJOY THE SHELTER OF THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS? 

UNDER THE SYSTEM OF RENT CONTROL AS ESTABLISHED, A LANDLORD IS
REQUIRED TO REGISTER RENTED ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER
THEY ARE FIRST DEVOTED TO THAT USE.  THIS BRINGS NOTICE TO THE CONTROL
AUTHORITY THAT THE PREMISES ARE WITHIN ITS OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND
PROVIDES DATA FOR QUICK, IF TENTATIVE, DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE
RENTAL EXACTED EXCEEDS THE LEVEL PERMITTED BY THE POLICY OF CONGRESS
SET OUT IN THE STATUTE. 

BUT WHEN, AS IN THIS CASE, THE LANDLORD DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THIS
REQUIREMENT, THERE IS LIKELIHOOD THAT, AS HAPPENED HERE, HIS
TRANSACTION WILL BE OVERLOOKED FOR SOME TIME OR PERHAPS ESCAPE SCRUTINY
ENTIRELY.  BUT THE LANDLORD IS NOT ALLOWED THUS TO PROFIT FROM HIS OWN
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE LAW.  IF HE COULD KEEP THE EXCESS COLLECTIONS BY
THUS RETARDING OR PREVENTING SCRUTINY OF HIS CONTRACT, HE WOULD GAIN AN
ADVANTAGE OVER ALL LANDLORDS WHO COMPLIED WITH THE ACT AS WELL AS OVER
TENANTS WHOSE NECESSITY FOR SHELTER IS TOO PRESSING TO ADMIT OF
BARGAINING OVER PRICE.  THE PLAN THEREFORE PROVIDES THAT, DESPITE HIS
FAILURE TO REGISTER, THE LANDLORD MAY CONTINUE TO COLLECT HIS
UNAPPROVED PRICE, BUT ONLY ON CONDITION THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION
BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND TO A REFUND OF ANYTHING THEN FOUND TO HAVE
BEEN EXCESSIVE.  FN3 

THE PLAN OF THE STATUTE AND THE REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO IT WAS
APPLIED IN THIS CASE.  THE LANDLORD FAILED TO REGISTER THE PROPERTY. 
HIS RENTAL OPERATIONS ESCAPED NOTICE OF THE AUTHORITIES UNTIL
FORTUITOUSLY DISCLOSED.  HE COLLECTED AS HE HAD A RIGHT TO DO, BUT
SUBJECT TO READJUSTMENT, A RENTAL FIXED BY HIMSELF THAT WAS FOUND ON
INQUIRY TO EXCEED BY 66-2/3% WHAT WAS FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY.  HE WAS ORDERED TO REFUND THE EXCESS.  HE NOW CONTENDS THAT
HE CAN KEEP ALL OF IT THAT HE COLLECTED UPWARDS OF A YEAR BEFORE THE
ACTION WAS COMMENCED, UPON THE GROUND THAT THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS RUNS,  FN4  NOT FROM THE DATE OF HIS DEFAULT IN OBEYING THE
REFUND ORDER, BUT FROM THE DATE OF EACH COLLECTION OF RENTAL. 

WE CANNOT SUSTAIN HIS CONTENTION.  THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS MADE
HIS RENTALS TENTATIVE BUT NOT UNLAWFUL.  UNTIL THE CONTINGENCY OF
READJUSTMENT OCCURRED, THE TENANT COULD HAVE HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
RECOVERY OF ANY PART OF THE RENTAL EXACTED BY THE LANDLORD.  THE CAUSE
OF ACTION NOW DOES NOT REST UPON, AND HENCE CANNOT DATE FROM, MERE
COLLECTION.  THE DUTY TO REFUND WAS CREATED AND MEASURED BY THE REFUND
ORDER AND WAS NOT BREACHED UNTIL THAT ORDER WAS DISOBEYED.  IT WOULD BE
UNUSUAL, TO SAY THE LEAST, IF A STATUTORY SCHEME WERE TO BE CONSTRUED
TO INCLUDE A PERIOD DURING WHICH AN ACTION COULD NOT BE COMMENCED AS A
PART OF THE TIME WITHIN WHICH IT WOULD BECOME BARRED.  UNITED STATES V.
WURTS, 303 U.S. 414.  WE THINK NO SUCH RESULT WAS EXPRESSED OR
INTENDED.  IT WAS FROM THE VIOLATION WHICH OCCURRED WHEN THE ORDER WAS
NOT OBEYED WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
COMMENCED TO RUN.  CF. RAWLINGS V. RAY, 312 U.S. 96; FISHER V. WHITON,
317 U.S. 217; COPE V. ANDERSON, 331 U.S. 461. 

IT IS NOW SUGGESTED THAT NO CAUSE OF ACTION CAN BE BASED ON A REFUND
ORDER, IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS VALIDITY.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THE
VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION AND ORDER ARE CONCLUSIVE UPON US HERE.  THIS
CAUSE OF ACTION IS BASED UPON VIOLATION OF AN "ORDER  ...  PRESCRIBING
A MAXIMUM (RENT)  ...  "  THE COMMAND TO REFUND CANNOT BE TREATED AS A
THING APART, BUT MUST BE TAKEN IN ITS SETTING AS AN INTEGRAL AND
NECESSARY PART OF THE ORDER FIXING THE MAXIMUM RENT.  IT WAS THIS ORDER
THAT WAS DISOBEYED.  IT WOULD BE A STRANGE SITUATION IF THERE WERE
AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE LANDLORD TO MAKE A REFUND BUT NO LEGAL
OBLIGATION ON HIS PART TO PAY IT.  WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT DEFAULT IN
OBEDIENCE TO THE REQUIREMENT OF REFUND GIVES RISE TO THE CAUSE OF
ACTION SUED UPON HEREIN. 

IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE REFUND ORDER APPLIES THE LAW TO THE
LANDLORD RETROACTIVELY.  QUITE APART FROM THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN
OBJECTION TO THE ORDER ITSELF RATHER THAN TO THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION
OF TIME, WE THINK THE SUGGESTION TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.  THIS IS NOT THE
CASE OF A NEW LAW REACHING BACKWARDS TO MAKE PAYMENTS ILLEGAL THAT WERE
FREE OF INFIRMITY WHEN MADE.  BY LEGISLATION AND REGULATION IN FORCE
BEFORE THE COLLECTIONS WERE MADE, THE LANDLORD'S OWN DEFAULT IN
REGISTERING HAD RENDERED THESE PAYMENTS CONDITIONAL, SUBJECT TO
REVISION AND TO REFUND.  READJUSTMENT UNDER THESE CONDITIONS CANNOT BE
SAID TO BE RETROACTIVE LAW MAKING. 

WE HOLD THAT THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN TO RUN ON THE
DATE THAT A DUTY TO REFUND WAS BREACHED, AND ON THIS POINT ONLY WE
REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW.  REVERSED. 

FN1  EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 23, AS AMENDED BY
STABILIZATION EXTENSION ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 632, 50 U.S.C. APP.
(SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 901 ET SEQ. 

FN2  SECTION 7, RENT REGULATIONS FOR HOUSING, 8 FED. REG. 14663, 10
FED. REG. 3436, PROVIDING IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "REGISTRATION - (A)
REGISTRATION STATEMENT.  ON OR BEFORE THE DATE SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE A
OF THIS REGULATION, OR WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE PROPERTY IS FIRST
RENTED, WHICHEVER DATE IS THE LATER, EVERY LANDLORD OF HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS RENTED OR OFFERED FOR RENT SHALL FILE IN TRIPLICATE A
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON THE FORM PROVIDED THEREFOR TO BE KNOWN AS A
REGISTRATION STATEMENT.  THE STATEMENT SHALL IDENTIFY EACH DWELLING
UNIT AND SPECIFY THE MAXIMUM RENT PROVIDED BY THIS REGULATION FOR SUCH
DWELLING UNIT AND SHALL CONTAIN SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS THE
ADMINISTRATOR SHALL REQUIRE.  THE ORIGINAL SHALL REMAIN ON FILE WITH
THE ADMINISTRATOR AND HE SHALL CAUSE ONE COPY TO BE DELIVERED TO THE
TENANT AND ONE COPY, STAMPED TO INDICATE THAT IT IS A CORRECT COPY OF
THE ORIGINAL, TO BE RETURNED TO THE LANDLORD.  ...  " 

FN3  SECTION 4, RENT REGULATIONS FOR HOUSING, 8 FED. REG. 14663, 10
FED. REG. 3436, PROVIDING IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "MAXIMUM RENTS.  ...
(E) FIRST RENT AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE.  FOR (1) NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS WITHOUT PRIORITY RATING FIRST RENTED ON OR AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION, OR (2) HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS CHANGED ON
OR AFTER SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE SO AS TO RESULT IN AN INCREASE OR DECREASE
OF THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN SUCH HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, OR (3)
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS NOT RENTED AT ANY TIME DURING THE TWO MONTHS
ENDING ON THE MAXIMUM RENT DATE NOR BETWEEN THAT DATE AND THE EFFECTIVE
DATE, THE FIRST RENT FOR SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS AFTER THE CHANGE OR THE
EFFECTIVE DATE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BUT IN NO EVENT MORE THAN THE
MAXIMUM RENT PROVIDED FOR SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS BY ANY ORDER OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 22, 1942.  WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER
SO RENTING THE LANDLORD SHALL REGISTER THE ACCOMMODATIONS AS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 7.  THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY ORDER A DECREASE IN THE MAXIMUM
RENT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5(C). 

"IF THE LANDLORD FAILS TO FILE A PROPER REGISTRATION STATEMENT WITHIN
THE TIME SPECIFIED (EXCEPT WHERE A REGISTRATION STATEMENT WAS FILED
PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1943), THE RENT RECEIVED FOR ANY RENTAL PERIOD
COMMENCING ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE FIRST RENTING OR OCTOBER 1,
1943, WHICHEVER IS THE LATER, SHALL BE RECEIVED SUBJECT TO REFUND TO
THE TENANT OF ANY AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM RENT WHICH MAY LATER
BE FIXED BY AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 5(C)(1).  SUCH AMOUNT SHALL BE
REFUNDED TO THE TENANT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE
ORDER.  ...  " 

FN4  SECTION 205(E) OF THE ACT AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V,
1946) SEC. 925(E) PROVIDES: "IF ANY PERSON SELLING A COMMODITY VIOLATES
A REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PRICE OR
MAXIMUM PRICES, THE PERSON WHO BUYS SUCH COMMODITY FOR USE OR
CONSUMPTION OTHER THAN IN THE COURSE OF TRADE OR BUSINESS MAY, WITHIN
ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION, EXCEPT AS
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, BRING AN ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER ON ACCOUNT OF
THE OVERCHARGE.  ...  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION THE PAYMENT OR
RECEIPT OF RENT FOR DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS SHALL BE DEEMED
THE BUYING OR SELLING OF A COMMODITY, AS THE CASE MAY BE  ...  IF ANY
PERSON SELLING A COMMODITY VIOLATES A REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE
SCHEDULE PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PRICE OR MAXIMUM PRICES, AND THE BUYER
EITHER FAILS TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION OR IS NOT
ENTITLED FOR ANY REASON TO BRING THE ACTION, THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY
INSTITUTE SUCH ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN SUCH ONE
YEAR PERIOD.  ...  " 

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR WERE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO
THE HOUSING EXPEDITER WHO APPEARS AS PETITIONER HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

I HAD SUPPOSED THAT NO RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION WAS BETTER
SETTLED THAN THAT THE COURT SHOULD RESTRICT ITSELF TO THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHERE,
AS HERE, THE PETITION WAS GRANTED BUT "LIMITED TO THE QUESTION AS TO
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT," 332
U.S. 835, AND THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SUMMARY DOCKET.  THE
EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RULE ARE RARE, AS WHERE THE JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT OR OF THE LOWER COURTS IS PLAINLY WANTING, OR WHERE A PATENT
ERROR IN FAVOREM VITAE IS TO BE NOTED.  IN ANY EVENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT
THIS CASE COULD NOT BE ONE OF THEM.  THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
PROVISIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT MAY WELL PRECLUDE OUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE "RETROACTIVE ORDER."  BUT SINCE AN
ISSUE OTHER THAN THAT PERTAINING TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS BEEN
DEALT WITH, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A FEW WORDS TO MR. JUSTICE JACKSON'S
OPINION, INASMUCH AS HIS IMMODERATE RESTRAINT DOES NOT LAY BARE THE
"MERITS" OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS THAT WHERE A LANDLORD RENTS NEW HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS BUT, AS HERE, DISOBEYS THE REGULATORY SCHEME AND FAILS
TO FILE A REGISTRATION STATEMENT, IF HE CHOOSES TO COLLECT THE RENT
THAT HE HIMSELF HAS FIXED, HE CAN DO SO ONLY CONTINGENTLY.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR MAY CATCH UP WITH HIM AND FIX WHAT WAS THE PROPER AMOUNT
FROM THE BEGINNING.  THE EXCESS IS ILLEGAL AND MUST THEREFORE BE
REFUNDED.    THERE IS NOTHING NOVEL ABOUT A REGULATORY SCHEME WHEREBY
LANDLORDS WHO VIOLATE THE LAW ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO PROFIT THEREBY. 
IT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN UPHELD BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  150
EAST 47TH STREET CORP. V. CREEDON, 162 F.2D 206; SEE SENDEROWITZ V.
CLARK, 162 F.2D 912, 917; CF. EASLEY V. FLEMING, 159 F.2D 422.  WHEN
CONGRESS PROVIDED IN SEC. 2(G) OF THE ACT THAT REGULATIONS "MAY CONTAIN
SUCH PROVISIONS AS THE ADMINISTRATOR DEEMS NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE
CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION THEREOF," 56 STAT. 23, 27, 50 U.S.C. (SUPP. V,
1946) SEC. 902(G), IT PLAINLY AUTHORIZED EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES FOR DEALING WITH EVASION. 

IF SUCH AN ORDER IS TO BE TERMED "RETROACTIVE," IT COMES WITHIN THE
COURT'S RECENT RULING THAT "SUCH RETROACTIVITY MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST
THE MISCHIEF OF PRODUCING A RESULT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO A STATUTORY
DESIGN OR TO LEGAL AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  IF THAT MISCHIEF IS
GREATER THAN THE ILL EFFECT OF THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF A NEW
STANDARD, IT IS NOT THE TYPE OF RETROACTIVITY WHICH IS CONDEMNED BY
LAW."  SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. CHENERY CORP., 332 U.S. 194,
203. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK IT IS PLAIN THAT A "REFUND ORDER" IS NOT A MAXIMUM RENT ORDER
SINCE IT DOES MORE THAN FIX A RENT CEILING.  I WOULD NOT STRETCH A
POINT TO CALL IT SUCH, IN VIEW OF THE AVERSION OUR LAW HAS TO THE
CREATION OF RETROACTIVE LIABILITIES.  THE COURT FINDS FAIRNESS IN THE
RESULT BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  YET IT
RECOGNIZES A CAUSE OF ACTION CREATED NOT BY CONGRESS BUT BY THOSE WHO
ADMINISTER THE LAW.  THAT CAUSE OF ACTION IS WRITTEN INTO THE STATUTE
THROUGH THE ADDITION OF RETROACTIVE LIABILITIES. 

THE RENT COLLECTED BY THIS LANDLORD WAS THE MAXIMUM RENT WHICH HE
COULD AT THE TIME LAWFULLY COLLECT.  AT NO TIME DID HE COLLECT RENT IN
EXCESS OF THE CEILING THEN PREVAILING N1.  ALMOST A YEAR LATER THE
CEILING WAS REDUCED - FROM $75 A MONTH TO $45 A MONTH - AND THE
REDUCTION WAS MADE RETROACTIVE BY A "REFUND ORDER."  THE LANDLORD IS
NOW SUED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR TREBLE THE AMOUNT OF THE SO-CALLED
OVERCHARGE. 

THE STATUTE GIVES A RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST ANYONE WHO COLLECTS MORE
THAN THE PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM PRICE OR RENT.  SEC. 205(E).  FN2  NO RIGHT
OF ACTION TO SUE FOR OVERCHARGES PRESCRIBED BY A "REFUND ORDER" IS
CONTAINED IN SEC. 205(E) WHICH DEFINES THE CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED.  FN3  THE
CAUSE OF ACTION THERE DESCRIBED IS BASED ON A VIOLATION OF A MAXIMUM
RENT ORDER.  THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS "FROM THE DATE OF THE
OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION."  IT WILL NOT DO TO SAY THAT THE DATE OF
THE VIOLATION IN THIS SITUATION MUST RELATE TO THE "REFUND ORDER"
BECAUSE PRIOR THERETO THERE WAS NO VIOLATION.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION
REWRITES SEC. 205(E) AND CREATES A CAUSE OF ACTION NOT ONLY FOR
VIOLATING A RENT CEILING BUT ALSO FOR VIOLATING A "REFUND ORDER."  THAT
CHANGES THE SCHEME OF THE SECTION.  THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN A RETURN OF
MONEY PAID NORMALLY TURNS ON CONDITIONS EXISTING WHEN IT WAS PAID.  THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS USUALLY STARTS TO RUN THEN AND NOT AT SOME LATER
TIME.  CERTAINLY IT IS NOVEL LAW WHICH MAKES THE LEGALITY OF RENT
PAYMENTS TURN ON THE UNPREDICTABLE FUTURE ACTION OF AN OFFICIAL WHO IN
THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION DETERMINES THAT A LOWER RENTAL SHOULD
HAVE BEEN PAID.  YET THE COURT HAS TO ENTER THAT FIELD OF RETROACTIVE
LAW IN ORDER TO MAKE A "REFUND ORDER" A MAXIMUM RENT ORDER FOR THE
PURPOSES OF SEC. 205(E). 

CONGRESS HERE SAID IN EFFECT THAT ALL PAYMENTS FOR HOUSING AND
COMMODITIES IN EXCESS OF THE PREVAILING CEILING WERE UNLAWFUL; AND ALL
PAYMENTS AT THE CEILING WERE LAWFUL.  THE COURT IN ITS CONSTRUCTION OF
SEC. 205(E) DOES VIOLENCE TO THAT POLICY.  FOR IT EXPANDS THE STATUTORY
CAUSE OF ACTION SO AS TO PENALIZE THOSE WHO IN YESTERDAY'S TRANSACTIONS
EXACTED NO MORE THAN THE LAW AND REGULATIONS PERMITTED.  ANY SUCH USE
OF RETROACTIVE LAW TO CONSTRUE SEC. 205(E) MAKES IT MOST DOUBTFUL THAT
CONGRESS EVER ADOPTED THE MEANING NOW GIVEN THE SECTION.  I WOULD
CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS HAD TAKEN THAT COURSE ONLY IF IT HAD SAID SO IN
UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS.  BUT ONE WHO READS SEC. 205(E) TO FIND ANY REFERENCE
TO LIABILITIES BASED ON "REFUND ORDERS" READS IN VAIN.  AND IT IS ONLY
VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDERS DESCRIBED IN THAT SECTION WHICH GIVE RISE TO
THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER IT. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT NO QUESTION CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF THE
"REFUND ORDER" CAN BE CONSIDERED HERE BECAUSE ANY CHALLENGE TO ITS
VALIDITY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  I DO NOT
DISPUTE THAT VIEW.  SEE BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503; YAKUS V.
UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414.  FOR CONGRESS IN SEC. 203 AND SEC. 204 OF
THE ACT PROVIDED A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR TESTING THE
VALIDITY OF ANY PROVISION OF A "REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE,"
A PROCEDURE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHICH WE HAVE SUSTAINED.  SEE
LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182; YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  BUT
WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH THE POWER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ISSUE
A "REFUND ORDER."  OUR QUESTION IS DIFFERENT AND INVOLVES ONLY A
QUESTION OF LAW TURNING ON THE MEANING OF SEC. 205(E).  WHAT WE HAVE TO
DECIDE IS WHETHER A "REFUND ORDER" IS A "REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE
SCHEDULE PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PRICE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
205(E).  THAT IS THE FIRST STEP IN DETERMINING THE TIME FROM WHICH THE
STATUTORY PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS IS MEASURED. 

IN SHORT, THE CAUSE OF ACTION HERE AT ISSUE CAN BE CREATED ONLY BY
THE STATUTE, NOT BY REGULATIONS.  THE QUESTION IS NOT ONE OF VALIDITY
OF THE REGULATIONS BUT OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION; NOT AN
INTERPRETATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES THE
REGULATIONS, BUT WHETHER IT AUTHORIZES THE SUIT. 

FN1  THE MAXIMUM RENT FOR THE TYPE OF HOUSING INVOLVED HERE WAS THE
FIRST RENT AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATIONS, VIZ., $75 A
MONTH.  SEE RENT REGULATION FOR HOUSING, SEC. 4(E)(3), 8 F.R. 14663, 10
F.R. 3436. 

FN2  SECTION 205(E) PROVIDES, SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL, AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF ANY PERSON SELLING A COMMODITY VIOLATES A REGULATION, ORDER, OR
PRICE SCHEDULE PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PRICE  ...  THE PERSON WHO BUYS
SUCH COMMODITY  ...  MAY, WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE
OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION,  ...  BRING AN ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER
ON ACCOUNT OF THE OVERCHARGE.  ...  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION
THE PAYMENT OR RECEIPT OF RENT  ...  SHALL BE DEEMED THE BUYING OR
SELLING OF A COMMODITY, AS THE CASE MAY BE; AND THE WORD 'OVERCHARGE'
SHALL MEAN THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE CONSIDERATION EXCEEDS THE APPLICABLE
MAXIMUM PRICE." 

FN3  IT MAY BE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR COULD SUE TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REFUND ORDER UNDER SEC. 205(A).  SEE PORTER V. WARNER CO., 328
U.S. 395.  THERE MAY BE OTHER REMEDIES ARISING FROM RESPONDENT'S
FAILURE TO FILE A REGISTRATION STATEMENT.  THUS SEC. 4(E) OF THE RENT
REGULATIONS FOR HOUSING STATES:  "THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS AND ANY
REFUND THEREUNDER DO NOT AFFECT ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PROVIDED BY THE ACT FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 7."  THERE IS NO NEED TO CANVASS THOSE
POSSIBILITIES HERE AS SEC. 205(E) SUPPLIES THE ONLY BASIS FOR
PETITIONER'S JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. EVANS, 333 U.S. 483 


NO. 15.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1948.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 8 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 DOES NOT MAKE IT A
PUNISHABLE OFFENSE TO CONCEAL OR HARBOR ALIENS NOT ENTITLED TO ENTER OR
RESIDE IN THE UNITED STATES, IN VIEW OF THE AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTE AS
TO THE SCOPE OF THE OFFENSE AND AS TO THE PENALTY WHICH CONGRESS
INTENDED TO PRESCRIBE.  PP. 483-495. 

2.  ALTHOUGH CONGRESS INTENDED BY SEC. 8 TO MAKE CRIMINAL AND TO
PUNISH CONCEALING OR HARBORING OF ALIENS, THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE
NATURE OF THE OFFENSE OR OFFENSES AND AS TO THE APPLICABLE PENALTY
POSES A PROBLEM WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
AND CAN BE SOLVED ONLY BY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  P. 495. 

UNITED STATES V. EVANS. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

RESPONDENT WAS INDICTED FOR CONCEALING AND HARBORING ALIENS, IN
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 8 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917.  THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT.  THE UNITED
STATES APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT. 
AFFIRMED, P. 495. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


"THAT ANY PERSON  ...  WHO SHALL BRING INTO OR LAND IN THE UNITED
STATES  ...  (OR SHALL ATTEMPT TO DO SO) OR SHALL CONCEAL OR HARBOR, OR
ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL OR HARBOR, OR ASSIST OR ABET ANOTHER TO CONCEAL OR
HARBOR IN ANY PLACE  ...  ANY ALIEN NOT DULY ADMITTED BY AN IMMIGRANT
INSPECTOR OR NOT LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO ENTER OR TO RESIDE WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE
NOT EXCEEDING $2,000 AND BY IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING FIVE
YEARS, FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN SO LANDED OR BROUGHT IN OR ATTEMPTED TO
BE LANDED OR BROUGHT IN."  39 STAT.  880, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 144. 

APPELLEE AND ANOTHER WERE INDICTED FOR CONCEALING AND HARBORING FIVE
NAMED ALIENS IN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 8.  BEFORE TRIAL APPELLEE
MOVED THAT THE INDICTMENT BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT
CHARGE A PUNISHABLE OFFENSE.  HE ARGUED THAT ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE
PROVIDED FOR TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES, ONE LANDING OR BRINGING IN
UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS, AND THE OTHER CONCEALING OR HARBORING SUCH ALIENS,
PUNISHMENT WAS PRESCRIBED IN TERMS ONLY FOR THE FORMER CRIME.  THE
DISTRICT COURT ACCEPTED THIS ARGUMENT AND GRANTED THE MOTION TO
DISMISS.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT PURSUANT TO
THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345, AND WE NOTED PROBABLE
JURISDICTION. 

THE CASE PRESENTS AN UNUSUAL AND A DIFFICULT PROBLEM IN STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION.  IT CONCERNS NOT SO MUCH CONGRESS' INTENTION TO MAKE
CONCEALING OR HARBORING CRIMINAL AS IT DOES THE PENALTY TO BE APPLIED
TO THOSE OFFENSES INCLUDING ATTEMPTS.  THE CHOICE, AS MIGHT APPEAR ON
GLANCING AT THE STATUTE, IS NOT SIMPLY BETWEEN NO PENALTY, AT THE ONE
EXTREME, AND, AT THE OTHER, FINE PLUS IMPRISONMENT UP TO THE SPECIFIED
MAXIMA FOR EACH ALIEN CONCEALED OR HARBORED.  THE PROBLEM IS RATHER ONE
OF MULTIPLE CHOICE, PRESENTING AT LEAST THREE, AND PERHAPS FOUR,
POSSIBLE YET INCONSISTENT ANSWERS ON THE STATUTE'S WORDING. 
FURTHERMORE, AS WILL APPEAR, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS NEITHER CLEAR
NOR GREATLY HELPFUL IN ASCERTAINING WHICH OF THE POSSIBILITIES CALLING
FOR PUNISHMENT WAS THE ONE CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED. 

BEFORE DISCUSSING SPECIFICALLY THE ALTERNATIVES, WE NOTE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT RESTS PRIMARILY ON THE CLARITY WITH WHICH SEC. 8 INDICATES
CONGRESS' PURPOSE TO MAKE CONCEALING OR HARBORING CRIMINAL, RATHER THAN
UPON ANY LIKE INDICATION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT CONCERNING THE PENALTY. 
FN1 BECAUSE THE PURPOSE TO PROSCRIBE THE CONDUCT IS CLEAR, IT IS SAID,
WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THAT PURPOSE TO FAIL BECAUSE OF AMBIGUITY
CONCERNING THE PENALTY.  RATHER WE ARE ASKED TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE BY
APPLYING THAT ONE OF THE POSSIBILITIES WHICH SEEMS MOST NEARLY TO
ACCORD WITH THE CRIMINAL PROSCRIPTION AND THE TERMS OF THE PENALIZING
PROVISION. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, APPELLEE DOES NOT REALLY DISPUTE THAT CONGRESS
MEANT, BY INSERTING THE AMENDMENT PROHIBITING CONCEALING OR HARBORING,
FN2  TO MAKE THOSE ACTS CRIMINAL.  BUT HE DENIES THAT IT IS POSSIBLE,
EITHER FROM THE SECTION'S WORDING OR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, TO
ASCERTAIN WITH ANY FAIR DEGREE OF ASSURANCE WHICH ONE OF THE POSSIBLE
PENAL CONSEQUENCES CONGRESS MAY HAVE HAD IN MIND.  FROM THIS HE FALLS
BACK UPON THE CONCLUSION INDICATED BY THE PREMISE, NAMELY, THAT THE
TASK OF RESOLVING THE DIFFICULTY GOES BEYOND DISPELLING AMBIGUITY IN
THE USUAL SENSE OF JUDICIALLY CONSTRUING STATUTES FN3  AND, IF
ATTEMPTED, WOULD REQUIRE THIS COURT TO INVADE THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION
AND, IN EFFECT, FIX THE PENALTY.  THE ARGUMENT IS THEREFORE NOT MERELY
THAT A RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE APPLIED IN PETITIONER'S
FAVOR.  IT IS RATHER THAT THE CHOICE THE GOVERNMENT ASKS US TO MAKE IS
SO BROAD AND SO DEEP, RESTING AMONG SUCH EQUALLY TENABLE THOUGH
INCONSISTENT POSSIBILITIES, THAT WE HAVE NO BUSINESS TO MAKE IT AT
ALL. 

EVEN IN CRIMINAL MATTERS A STRONG CASE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BRING
ABOUT THE RESULT APPELLEE SEEKS.  FOR, WHERE CONGRESS HAS EXHIBITED
CLEARLY THE PURPOSE TO PROSCRIBE CONDUCT WITHIN ITS POWER TO MAKE
CRIMINAL AND HAS NOT ALTOGETHER OMITTED PROVISION FOR PENALTY, EVERY
REASONABLE PRESUMPTION ATTACHES TO THE PROSCRIPTION TO REQUIRE THE
COURTS TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE IN ACCORD WITH THE EVIDENT PURPOSE.  THIS
IS AS TRUE OF PENALTY PROVISIONS AS IT IS OF OTHERS.  UNITED STATES V.
BROWN, 333 U.S. 18. 

BUT STRONG AS THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY MAY BE, THERE ARE LIMITS
BEYOND WHICH WE CANNOT GO IN FINDING WHAT CONGRESS HAS NOT PUT INTO SO
MANY WORDS OR IN MAKING CERTAIN WHAT IT HAS LEFT UNDEFINED OR TOO VAGUE
FOR REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF ITS MEANING.  IN OUR SYSTEM, SO FAR AT
LEAST AS CONCERNS THE FEDERAL POWERS, DEFINING CRIMES AND FIXING
PENALTIES ARE LEGISLATIVE, NOT JUDICIAL, FUNCTIONS.  FN4  BUT GIVEN
SOME LEGISLATIVE EDICT, THE MARGIN BETWEEN THE NECESSARY AND PROPER
JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF CONSTRUING STATUTES AND THAT OF FILLING GAPS SO
LARGE THAT DOING SO BECOMES ESSENTIALLY LEGISLATIVE, IS NECESSARILY ONE
OF DEGREE. 

WE TURN THEN TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS ASKING THAT WE DO
TOO MUCH WHEN IT PUTS FORWARD A PREFERRED READING OF THE PENAL
PROVISION, PERHAPS SUGGESTS ANOTHER AS A PERMISSIBLE ALTERNATIVE, AND
IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT A THIRD, THOUGH DISAVOWING ITS COMPLETE
CONSISTENCY WITH CONGRESS' INTENT, IF NEITHER OF THE OTHERS IS
ADOPTED. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S PREFERRED READING WOULD IMPOSE THE SAME PENALTY FOR
CONCEALING OR HARBORING AS FOR BRINGING IN OR LANDING, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE "FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN" CLAUSE IS LIMITED EXPRESSLY TO ALIENS
"SO LANDED OR BROUGHT IN OR ATTEMPTED TO BE LANDED OR BROUGHT IN." 
UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION THE EFFECT OF THAT CLAUSE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT, AS STATED IN THE BRIEF, "WHERE THE CRIME OF
LANDING OR BRINGING IN ALIENS OR THE CRIME OF CONCEALING OR HARBORING
ALIENS INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE ALIEN BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY
ILLEGALLY." 

THIS CONSTRUCTION IS ADMITTEDLY UNGRAMMATICAL AND THE FAILURE TO
INTEGRATE THE WORDING OF THE "EACH AND EVERY ALIEN" CLAUSE WITH THE
LANGUAGE OF THE 1917 AMENDMENT ADDING THE CONCEALING AND HARBORING
OFFENSES IS CONCEDED TO HAVE BEEN POSSIBLY DUE TO OVERSIGHT. 

IF ONLY IMPERFECT GRAMMAR STOOD IN THE WAY, THE CONSTRUCTION MIGHT BE
ACCEPTED.  BUT WE AGREE WITH APPELLEE THAT MORE IS INVOLVED.  THE
GOVERNMENT IN EFFECT CONCEDES THAT IN TERMS THE SECTION PRESCRIBES NO
PENALTY FOR CONCEALING OR HARBORING.  BUT IT ARGUES THAT INCLUSION OF
THEM AS OFFENSES BECOMES MEANINGLESS UNLESS THE PENALTY PROVISION, IN
SPITE OF ITS WORDING, IS CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO THEM AS WELL AS TO
BRINGING IN OR LANDING.  IN OTHER WORDS, BECAUSE CONGRESS INTENDED TO
AUTHORIZE PUNISHMENT, BUT FAILED TO DO SO, PROBABLY AS A RESULT OF
OVERSIGHT, WE SHOULD PLUG THE HOLE IN THE STATUTE. 

TO DO THIS WOULD BE TO GO VERY FAR INDEED, UPON THE SHEER WORDING OF
THE SECTION.  FOR IT WOULD MEAN IN EFFECT THAT WE WOULD ADD TO THE
CONCLUDING CLAUSE THE WORDS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT'S READING INSERTS,
"AND FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN SO CONCEALED OR HARBORED."  IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT CONGRESS MAY HAVE INTENDED THIS.  BUT FOR MORE THAN ONE
REASON WE CANNOT BE SURE OF THAT FACT. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE SECTION AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED WAS LIMITED TO
ACTS OF SMUGGLING.  AND THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY THAT THE ADDITION OF CONCEALING OR HARBORING WAS MEANT TO BE
LIMITED TO THOSE ACTS ONLY WHEN CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH BRINGING IN OR
LANDING, SO AS TO MAKE A CHAIN OF OFFENSES CONSISTING OF SUCCESSIVE
STAGES IN THE SMUGGLING PROCESS.  FN5 

BUT THAT EVIDENCE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  FN6  AND THE SECTION'S WORDING
IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF MUCH BROADER CONSTRUCTIONS.  ON THE LANGUAGE IT IS
POSSIBLE NOT ONLY TO TREAT CONCEALING OR HARBORING AS OFFENSES DISTINCT
AND DISCONNECTED FROM SMUGGLING OPERATIONS; IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE TO
REGARD THEM AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER.  AND ON THE
BROADEST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION, GIVING INDEPENDENT EFFECT TO THE
WORDS "OR NOT LAWFULLY ENTITLED  ...  TO RESIDE WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES,"  FN7  THE SECTION COULD BE TAKEN TO APPLY TO CONCEALING OR
HARBORING OF ALIENS LAWFULLY ADMITTED BUT UNLAWFULLY REMAINING WITHIN
THE COUNTRY. 

IN THAT EVENT AN INNKEEPER FURNISHING LODGING TO AN ALIEN LAWFULLY
COMING IN BUT UNLAWFULLY OVERSTAYING HIS VISA WOULD BE GUILTY OF
HARBORING, IF HE KNEW OF THE ILLEGAL REMAINING.  AND, WITH HIM, ONE
HARBORING AN ALIEN KNOWN TO HAVE ENTERED ILLEGALLY AT SOME EARLIER,
EVEN REMOTE, TIME WOULD INCUR THE PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR SMUGGLING, IF
THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION GIVING IMPLIED EXTENSION OF THE PENALTY
PROVISION WERE ACCEPTED. 

WE DO NOT MENTION THESE POSSIBILITIES TO INTIMATE OPINION CONCERNING
THE REACH OF THE STATUTE WITH REFERENCE TO COVERING THEM, FOR NO SUCH
QUESTION IS SQUARELY BEFORE US.  BUT WE POINT THEM OUT BECAUSE THEY ARE
RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM OF ASSURANCE OR REASONABLE CERTAINTY IN
ASSERTING THAT CONGRESS BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION INTENDED TO EXTEND THE
PENALTIES ORIGINALLY AND STILL CLEARLY PROVIDED FOR SMUGGLING TO ALL
OFFENSES COVERED BY THE LANGUAGE DEFINING THE CRIMES. 

THE VERY REAL DOUBT AND AMBIGUITY CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THE ACTS
FORBIDDEN, IF ANY, BEYOND THOSE CLEARLY AND PROXIMATELY CONNECTED WITH
SMUGGLING RAISE EQUAL OR GREATER DOUBT THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO ENCOMPASS
ALL THOSE ACTS WITHIN THE PENAL PROVISIONS FOR SMUGGLING.  IF ACTS
DISCONNECTED FROM THAT PROCESS ARE FORBIDDEN, THE SEPARATE OFFENSES OF
CONCEALING AND MORE PARTICULARLY OF HARBORING, IF THE TWO ARE DISTINCT,
MIGHT REQUIRE, IN ANY SOUND LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT, VERY DIFFERENT
PENALTIES FROM THOSE DESIGNED TO PREVENT OR DISCOURAGE SMUGGLING IN ITS
VARIOUS PHASES.  THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SORT OF JUDGMENT LEGISLATURES
RATHER THAN COURTS SHOULD MAKE. 

THE POSITION THE GOVERNMENT ASKS US TO TAKE INVOLVES THEREFORE A
MAJOR TASK IN TWO RESPECTS, NOT MERELY ONE.  THE FIRST IS TO EXPAND THE
PENAL LANGUAGE BEYOND THE EXPLICIT LIMITATION "FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN
SO LANDED OR BROUGHT IN," SO AS TO APPLY THE PENALTIES DESIGNED FOR
SMUGGLING TO ALL OFFENSES COVERED BY THE SECTION.  THE SECOND IS TO DO
THIS BLINDLY IN REFERENCE TO THE SCOPE AND QUALITY OF THE FORBIDDEN
ACTS TO WHICH THE EXTENSION IS TO BE MADE, THAT IS, WITHOUT RESOLVING
BEFOREHAND THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE NOTED AS ARISING ON THE FACE OF THE
OR HARBORING.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ASK US TO UNDERTAKE NOW TO SAY
HOW FAR THE SECTION MAY OR MAY NOT GO IN THESE NUMEROUS ASPECTS OF
DEFINING COVERAGE.  FN8  WE ARE NOT WILLING TO UNDERTAKE EXTENSION OF
THE PENALTY PROVISION BLINDFOLD, WITHOUT KNOWING IN ADVANCE TO WHAT
ACTS THE PENALTIES MAY BE APPLIED.  NOR ARE WE ANY MORE WILLING TO
DECIDE WHOLESALE AMONG THE VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES OF COVERAGE.  THAT
PROBLEM, SQUARELY PRESENTED IN CONCRETE INSTANCES, MIGHT BE RESOLVED
STEP BY STEP, WERE THERE NO DIFFICULTY OVER THE PENALTY.  BUT TO
RESOLVE IT BROADSIDE NOW FOR ALL CASES THE SECTION MAY COVER, ON THIS
INDIRECT PRESENTATION, WOULD BE TO PROCEED IN AN ESSENTIALLY
LEGISLATIVE MANNER FOR THE DEFINITION AND SPECIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTS, IN ORDER TO MAKE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE AND
CHARACTER OF THE PENALTY. 

BEYOND THE DIFFICULTIES ARISING ON THE SECTION'S WORDING, THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS SUFFICENT IN ONE RESPECT, WHEN ADDED TO THE
OTHER OBSTACLES, TO MAKE THEM INSUPERABLE FOR ACCEPTING THE
GOVERNMENT'S PREFERRED READING.  IT DISCLOSES THAT BOTH BEFORE  FN9
AND AFTER  FN10  THE 1917 AMENDMENT THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES AND
PARTICULARLY THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL REPEATEDLY SOUGHT FROM CONGRESS
THE SPECIFIC PENAL WORDING THE GOVERNMENT NOW ASKS US TO INSERT.  THESE
EFFORTS WERE MADE AS CONFLICTING JUDICIAL DECISIONS DEMONSTRATED THAT
THE COURTS WERE VERY MUCH AT SEA  FN11 AND THEIR FLOUNDERING WAS
BROUGHT TO CONGRESSIONAL ATTENTION.  FN12  IN EACH INSTANCE
NEVERTHELESS THE EFFORT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. 

IT MAY WELL BE, AS THE GOVERNMENT INFERS, THAT THIS ONLY INCREASES
THE MYSTERY OF CONGRESS' FAILURE TO INCLUDE EXPLICIT PENALTIES WHEN IT
ADDED THE NEW OFFENSES.  IT IS POSSIBLE THAT CONGRESS MAY HAVE THOUGHT
NONE WERE NEEDED.  BUT THAT VIEW HARDLY EXPLAINS SATISFACTORILY THE
SUBSEQUENT REPEATED FAILURES TO CLARIFY THE MATTER, AFTER EXPERIENCE
HAD SHOWN THAT NEED.  WE CANNOT TAKE THEM AS IMPORTING CLEAR DIRECTION
TO THE COURTS TO DO WHAT CONGRESS ITSELF EITHER REFUSED OR FAILED ON
NOTICE TO DO UPON SO MANY OCCASIONS AND IMPORTUNITIES. 

WE ARE NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO PUT FORWARD
AS AN ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION THE READING, ALREADY DISCUSSED, WHICH
WOULD EXTEND THE SMUGGLING PENALTIES TO THE SECTION'S BROADEST POSSIBLE
CONSTRUCTION IN RELATION TO DEFINITION AND COVERAGE OF CRIMINAL ACTS,
I.E., TO CONCEALING OR HARBORING OF ALIENS LAWFULLY ADMITTED BUT
UNLAWFULLY REMAINING.  BUT APPELLEE REGARDS THIS AS A TENDERED
POSSIBILITY AND SPECIFIED STATEMENTS IN THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF APPEAR
TO SUSTAIN HIS VIEW.  FN13  WHETHER APPELLEE IS CORRECT IN TAKING THE
STATEMENTS AS SUGGESTING AN INDEPENDENT ALTERNATIVE OR, ON THE OTHER
HAND, THEY WERE MADE, THOUGH NOT ACCURATELY PHRASED FOR THE PURPOSE, IN
SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PREFERRED POSITION, IS NOT GREATLY
MATERIAL.  FOR, IN ANY EVENT, WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT EXTENDING THE
PENALTY TO INCLUDE THE NARROWER RANGE OF FORBIDDEN ACTS APPLIES TO THE
BROADER ONE WITH EVEN GREATER FORCE AS CALLING FOR THE EXTENSION'S
REJECTION. 

THERE IS, FINALLY, THE THIRD POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT CONCEDES NOT WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY PURPOSE,
BUT SAYS NEVERTHELESS IS CLEARLY AUTHORIZED "IF A STRICTLY GRAMMATICAL
CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 8 IS EMPLOYED."  THIS WOULD READ THE "FOR EACH
AND EVERY ALIEN" CLAUSE OUT OF THE SECTION INSOFAR AS OFFENSES OF
CONCEALING OR HARBORING ARE CONCERNED, WHILE LEAVING IT EFFECTIVE FOR
BRINGING IN OR LANDING.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE READING WOULD
DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO CLASSES OF OFFENSES FOR APPLYING THE PENALTY
PROVISION.  THE PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM PENALTIES WOULD BE MADE EFFECTIVE
FOR CONCEALING OR HARBORING, BUT WITHOUT AUGMENTING THEM ACCORDING TO
THE NUMBER OF ALIENS CONCEALED OR HARBORED, EVEN THOUGH PREVIOUSLY
LANDED OR BROUGHT IN, AT THE SAME TIME.  THAT INCREASE HOWEVER WOULD
CONTINUE IN FORCE FOR BRINGING IN OR LANDING.  FN14 

THE WORDING OF SEC. 8 CAN BE MADE TO SUPPORT THIS INTERPRETATION ONLY
BY TREATING THE "FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN" CLAUSE AS AMBIVALENTLY
SEPARABLE IN RELATION TO THE TWO CLASSES OF OFFENSES.  NOTHING ON THE
FACE OF THE SECTION SUGGESTS SUCH A READING.  THE COMMA PRECEDING THE
FINAL CLAUSE IS NOT EQUAL TO THE BURDEN OF SUPPORTING THE
CONSTRUCTION.  THE CLAUSE WAS PART OF THE SECTION BEFORE THE CONCEALING
AND HARBORING OFFENSES WERE ADDED.  PREVIOUSLY THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO
POSSIBLE INTENT OR PURPOSE TO APPLY THE CLAUSE TO SOME OF THE OFFENSES
BUT NOT TO OTHERS.  THE CLAUSE'S FUNCTION WAS SOLELY TO AUGMENT THE
PENALTY WHEN MORE THAN ONE ALIEN WAS INVOLVED.  THAT FUNCTION WAS NOT
CHANGED WHEN THE NEW OFFENSES WERE ADDED.  FN15  NEITHER THE
AMENDMENT'S WORDING NOR ITS HISTORY EVINCES ANY PURPOSE TO INCREASE
PUNISHMENT, PROPORTIONATELY TO THE NUMBER OF ALIENS INVOLVED, FOR ONE
CLASS OF OFFENDERS BUT NOT FOR THE OTHER.  THE CONSTRUCTION, LIKE THE
PREFERRED ONE, IS A CONSTRUCTION OF NECESSITY, TO BE JUSTIFIED IF AT
ALL ONLY BY THE FACT THAT WITHOUT IT THE STATUTE BECOMES UNENFORCEABLE
FOR THE OFFENSES OF CONCEALING OR HARBORING. 

IF THERE WERE LESS INCONSISTENCY AMONG THE TENTATIVE POSSIBILITIES
PUT FORWARD OR GREATER CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECTION'S WORDING IMPLICIT
IN ONE, RESOLUTION OF THE DIFFICULTY BY JUDICIAL ACTION WOULD INVOLVE A
LESS WIDE DEPARTURE FROM THE COMMON FUNCTION OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
OF STATUTES THAN IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY THIS CASE.  BUT HERE THE TASK
IS TOO LARGE.  WITH BOTH OF THE PARTIES WE AGREE THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO
MAKE CRIMINAL AND TO PUNISH ACTS OF CONCEALING OR HARBORING.  BUT WE DO
NOT KNOW, WE CAN ONLY GUESS WITH TOO LARGE A DEGREE OF UNCERTAINTY,
WHICH ONE OF THE SEVERAL POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTIONS CONGRESS THOUGHT TO
APPLY.  THE UNCERTAINTY EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO THE INCONSISTENT PENALTIES
SAID TO SATISFY THE SECTION, EITHER GRAMMATICALLY OR SUBSTANTIVELY IF
NOT GRAMMATICALLY.  IT ALSO INCLUDES WITHIN VARYING RANGES AT LEAST
POSSIBLE, AND WE THINK SUBSTANTIAL, DOUBT OVER THE SECTION'S REACH TO
BRING IN VERY DIFFERENT ACTS WHICH CONCEIVABLY MIGHT BE HELD TO BE
CONCEALING OR HARBORING.  THE LATTER AMBIGUITY AFFECTS THE FORMER AND
THEIR SUM MAKES A TASK FOR US WHICH AT BEST COULD BE ONLY GUESSWORK. 

THIS IS A TASK OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION.  IT IS
BETTER FOR CONGRESS, AND MORE IN ACCORD WITH ITS FUNCTION, TO REVISE
THE STATUTE THAN FOR US TO GUESS AT THE REVISION IT WOULD MAKE.  THAT
TASK IT CAN DO WITH PRECISION.  WE COULD DO NO MORE THAN MAKE
SPECULATION LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SINCE THE ISSUES ARISE ON DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT WHICH
CHARGES BOTH CONCEALING AND HARBORING, AS WELL AS ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL
AND HARBOR, WE ARE NOT ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER "CONCEAL OR HARBOR"
AS USED IN SEC. 8 SPECIFIES ONLY ONE OFFENSE OR TWO DISTINCT ONES OR,
IF THE LATTER, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.  CF. NOTES 7 AND 8 INFRA
AND TEXT. 

FN2  SECTION 8 AS ENACTED ORIGINALLY IN 1907, 34 STAT. 900, COVERED
ONLY BRINGING IN OR LANDING AND ATTEMPTS TO BRING IN OR LAND.  THE
PROHIBITION OF CONCEALING OR HARBORING AND OF ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL OR
HARBOR WAS ADDED BY AMENDMENT IN 1917.  39 STAT. 880. 

FN3  INDEED APPELLEE ASSERTS THAT THE WORDS OF SEC. 8 ARE
UNAMBIGUOUSLY TO THE EFFECT THAT FINE AND IMPRISONMENT ARE TO BE
IMPOSED "FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN SO LANDED OR BROUGHT IN  ...  ," NOT
"FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN SO CONCEALED OR HARBORED."  THIS VIEW REGARDS
THE CONCLUDING "FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN" CLAUSE AS AN INTEGRAL AND
INSEPARABLE PART OF THE PENALTY PROVISION FOR ALL OFFENSES PUNISHABLE
UNDER THE SECTION. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. HUDSON AND GOODWIN, 7 CRANCH 32; UNITED STATES
V. BRITTON, 108 U.S. 199; UNITED STATES V. EATON, 144 U.S. 677; VIERECK
V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 236, 241, 243-244. 

FN5  THE SENATE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE 1917 AMENDMENT STATED THAT
"SUCH NEW PROVISIONS AS ARE INCLUDED ARE MERELY TO COMPLETE THE
DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF SMUGGLING ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES AND
RELATED OFFENSES  ...  "  SEN. REP. NO. 352, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 9. 

FN6  THERE IS NO INDICATION OF THE DEGREE OR CHARACTER OF THE
RELATION SUGGESTED BY THE WORDS "AND RELATED OFFENSES," SEE THE
PRECEDING NOTE, WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROXIMITY OF THE ACTS PROSCRIBED,
IN TIME AND PLACE, TO SMUGGLING OPERATIONS. 

FN7  THIS POSSIBILITY APPARENTLY IS NOT COMPREHENDED BY THE
INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE, WHICH SUBSTITUTES "AND" FOR THE "OR" GIVEN BY
THE STATUTORY WORDING IN DESCRIBING THE ALIENS CHARGED TO HAVE BEEN
CONCEALED AND HARBORED, VIZ., "WHICH SAID ALIEN PERSONS THEN AND THERE
WERE ALIENS NOT DULY ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES BY AN IMMIGRANT
INSPECTOR AND NOT LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO ENTER OR RESIDE IN THE UNITED
STATES...." 

EVEN IF THIS USE OF THE CONJUNCTIVE IN PLACE OF THE STATUTORY
DISJUNCTIVE, SEE TEXT OF SEC. 8 QUOTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS
OPINION, WOULD PREVENT APPLYING THIS INDICTMENT TO A CASE INVOLVING NO
ILLEGAL ENTRY, BUT ONLY ILLEGAL REMAINING, THAT FACT WOULD NOT PREVENT
THE DRAFTING OF OTHER INDICTMENTS TO COVER SUCH CASES OR PERHAPS
AMENDING THIS ONE TO GIVE IT THE DISJUNCTIVE EFFECT.  THESE
POSSIBILITIES ARE AS PERTINENT TO WHETHER THE SUGGESTED PENAL EXTENSION
SHOULD BE MADE AS IF ACTUALLY PRESENTED ON THE INDICTMENT IN ITS
PRESENT FORM. 

FN8  THE INDICTMENT NOT ONLY CONJOINS ILLEGAL REMAINING WITH ILLEGAL
ENTRY, CF. NOTE 7, BUT CHARGES THAT PETITIONER CONCEALED AND HARBORED
ALIENS "NOT DULY ADMITTED  ...  AND NOT LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO ENTER OR
RESIDE  ...  "  THUS, THE SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE SAID
TO BE LIMITED TO SMUGGLING, FOR NO WORDING OF THE STATUTE RELATING TO
BRINGING IN OR LANDING IS INCLUDED.  SUCH A LIMITATION COULD BE READ
INTO THE INDICTMENT ONLY BY NOW DECLARING THE STATUTE TO BE LIMITED AS
A WHOLE TO ACTS CONSTITUTING PART OF THE SMUGGLING PROCESS. 

FN9  THE BILLS PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL WOULD HAVE
CLEARLY PRESCRIBED THE SAME PENALTY FOR CONCEALING OR HARBORING AS FOR
LANDING OR BRINGING IN.  THE PENALTY PROVISION OF ONE DRAFT STATED THAT
THE PENALTY SHOULD APPLY "FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN SO LANDED OR BROUGHT
IN OR ATTEMPTED TO BE LANDED OR BROUGHT IN, OR SO CONCEALED OR
HARBORED, OR WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THERE HAS BEEN SUCH AN ATTEMPT TO
CONCEAL OR HARBOR, OR ASSISTING OR ABETTING ANOTHER TO CONCEAL OR
HARBOR."  SEE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1909 OF THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL OF
IMMIGRATION, 168.  THE SIMPLE CLAUSE "FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN TO WHOM
THIS SECTION IS APPLICABLE" WAS SUBSTITUTED IN THE BILL PROPOSED IN THE
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1910.  (P. 170.)  IN 1911 A BILL INCORPORATING MANY
OF THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL'S SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT WAS
INTRODUCED, BUT THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8 WERE NOT MADE
APPLICABLE TO CONCEALING OR HARBORING.  S. 3175, 62D CONG., 2D SESS.
THIS OMISSION WAS NOT CORRECTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT DRAFTS THAT
EVENTUALLY RESULTED IN THE 1917 STATUTE.  SEE H.R. 6060, 63D CONG., 2D
SESS.; H.R. 10384, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN10  IN HIS 1931 AND 1932 ANNUAL REPORTS THE COMMISSIONER GENERAL
SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 8 WAS NECESSARY
BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN INTERPRETED TO PROVIDE NO PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE
OF CONCEALING AND HARBORING.  A BILL INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN 1934, BUT NOT ENACTED, INCLUDED AN AMENDMENT TO SEC.
8 TO MAKE THE PENALTY APPLY "FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN IN RESPECT TO
WHOM ANY OF THE FOREGOING OFFENSES HAVE OCCURRED."  H.R. 9366, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS.  AT THE HEARINGS ON THIS BILL, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
EXPRESSLY POINTED OUT THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED "TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE WILL BE NO QUESTION THAT WE CAN INFLICT THIS PENALTY FOR
CONCEALING A SMUGGLED ALIEN."  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 9366, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 22. 

IN 1940 THE GENERAL PROBLEM WAS AGAIN BEFORE CONGRESS WHEN IT WAS
MADE UNLAWFUL TO STOW AWAY IN ORDER TO FACILITATE ENTRY INTO THE UNITED
STATES OR TO AID OR ABET A STOWAWAY, 54 STAT. 306, AND AGAIN WHEN THE
ACT WAS AMENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE DEPORTATION OF ANY ALIEN WHO,
KNOWINGLY AND FOR GAIN, ENCOURAGED, INDUCED OR ASSISTED ANOTHER ALIEN
TO EFFECT AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY.  54 STAT. 671. 

FN11 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT CONSTRUES THE
AUTHORIZE INCREASED PENALTIES WHERE MORE THAN ONE ALIEN IS CONCERNED,
AS IS THE CASE FOR THE OFFENSE OF LANDING OR BRINGING IN.  MEDEIROS V.
KEVILLE, 63 F.2D 187, SEE NOTE 14 INFRA.  IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA IT HAS BEEN HELD BOTH THAT NO PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED FOR
CONCEALING OR HARBORING, UNITED STATES V. NIROKU KOMAI, 286 F. 450;
UNITED STATES V. KINZO ICHIKI, 43 F.2D 1007, AND THAT THE SAME PENALTY
IS PRESCRIBED FOR CONCEALING OR HARBORING AS FOR LANDING OR BRINGING
IN, UNITED STATES V. ROBERTS, UNREPORTED DECISION BY YANKWICH, J., ON
APRIL 29, 1946; UNITED STATES V. PIAMONTE, UNREPORTED DECISION BY
WEINBERGER, J., ON MAY 21, 1946. 

FN12  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION ON H.R. 9366, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 22. 

FN13  ILLUSTRATIVE IS THE STATEMENT, "WE SUBMIT, THEREFORE, THAT A
PROPER READING OF SECTION 8 IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CAN
LEAVE NO DOUBT OF CONGRESS' INTENTION THAT THE PENAL PROVISIONS SHOULD
APPLY TO THE OFFENSE OF CONCEALING OR HARBORING AN ALIEN NOT DULY
ADMITTED OR NOT LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO ENTER OR RESIDE WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES." 

FN14  THIS WAS THE VIEW TAKEN IN MEDEIROS V. KEVILLE, 63 F.2D 187, BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, WHICH APPEARS TO BE
THE ONLY APPELLATE DECISION ON THE MATTER.  THE GOVERNMENT SUCCESSFULLY
OPPOSED THE GRANTING OF CERTIORARI IN THAT CASE, ALTHOUGH CONSISTENTLY
WITH ITS PRESENT PREFERRED POSITION IT NOW ASSERTS THAT, CONTRARY TO
THE RULING, THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO PUNISH CONCEALING AND HARBORING
PROPORTIONATELY TO THE NUMBER OF ALIENS INVOLVED IS "EQUALLY AS CLEAR
AS THE INTENT TO MAKE THOSE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE AT ALL." 

IN RESPONSE TO APPELLEE'S SUGGESTION OF INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THAT
POSITION AND THE ONE NOW TAKEN, THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT ITS
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ALSO URGED THAT THE MEDEIROS DECISION WAS, IN ANY
EVENT, CORRECT ON OTHER GROUNDS. 

FN15  INDEED IT WAS IN EFFECT REINFORCED BY THE 1917 AMENDMENT.  FOR
THAT AMENDMENT NOT ONLY ADDED THE NEW OFFENSES BUT SUBSTANTIALLY
INCREASED THE MAXIMA OF THE AUTHORIZED FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  CONGRESS
THUS GAVE SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO THE PENAL PROVISION IN ADDITION TO
EXPANDING THE CRIMINAL ACTS, AND IN THIS RESPECT FOLLOWED THE
COMMISSIONER GENERAL'S RECOMMENDATION.  YET IT DECLINED AT THE SAME
TIME TO ALTER THE "FOR EACH AND EVERY ALIEN" CLAUSE, WHICH HE ALSO
ASKED TO HAVE CHANGED. 
..END :








KING V. ORDER OF TRAVELERS, 333 U.S. 153 


NO. 171.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10-11, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 161
F.2D 108, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE RULES OF DECISION ACT (SEC. 34 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789,
R.S. SEC. 721, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 725), AS APPLIED IN ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, A FEDERAL COURT, IN A DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
CASE ARISING IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND TURNING ON A QUESTION OF STATE LAW
ON WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO DECISION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE,
NEED NOT FOLLOW A DECISION ON THE QUESTION BY A SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WHOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT REPORTED AND, UNDER
STATE PRACTICE, ARE BINDING ONLY ON THE PARTIES TO THE PARTICULAR CASE
AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE PRECEDENTS IN ANY OTHER CASE IN THAT COURT OR IN
ANY OTHER COURT OF THE STATE.  PP. 153-162. 

KING V. ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS OF AMERICA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP CASE, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AWARDED
A JUDGMENT AGAINST AN INSURER TO THE BENEFICIARY OF A LIFE INSURANCE
POLICY.  65 F.SUPP.  740.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  161
F.2D 108.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 754.  AFFIRMED, P.
162. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT TO OBTAIN PAYMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF A $5,000
INSURANCE POLICY.  FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED ON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP, AND, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, SOUTH CAROLINA LAW IS
CONTROLLING.  FN1  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI N2 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' REFUSAL TO FOLLOW THE ONLY SOUTH
CAROLINA DECISION DIRECTLY IN POINT, THE DECISION OF A COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS, WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF DECISION ACT  FN3 AS APPLIED IN
ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64(1938), AND SUBSEQUENT CASES. 

THE PETITIONER, MRS. KING, IS THE BENEFICIARY OF THE POLICY; HER
HUSBAND, LIEUTENANT KING, WAS THE INSURED; AND THE RESPONDENT ORDER OF
UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS OF AMERICA IS THE INSURER.  THE POLICY
INSURED AGAINST KING'S ACCIDENTAL DEATH, BUT CONTAINED A CLAUSE
EXEMPTING THE RESPONDENT FROM LIABILITY FOR "DEATH RESULTING FROM
PARTICIPATION  ...  IN AVIATION."  IT IS THIS AVIATION EXCLUSION CLAUSE
WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE LITIGATION NOW BEFORE US. 

KING LOST HIS LIFE ONE DAY IN THE WINTER OF 1943 WHEN A LAND-BASED
CIVIL AIR PATROL PLANE IN WHICH HE WAS FLIGHT OBSERVER MADE AN
EMERGENCY LANDING THIRTY MILES OFF THE COAST OF NORTH CAROLINA.  THE
PLANE SANK, BUT KING WAS NOT SERIOUSLY HURT AND MANAGED TO GET OUT OF
THE PLANE AND DON HIS LIFE JACKET.  HE WAS STILL ALIVE TWO AND A HALF
HOURS LATER, WHEN AN ACCOMPANYING PLANE WAS FORCED TO LEAVE THE SCENE. 
WHEN PICKED UP ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF HOURS AFTER THE LANDING, HOWEVER,
HE WAS DEAD.  THE MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS WAS "DROWNING AS A RESULT OF
EXPOSURE IN THE WATER." 

THE RESPONDENT TOOK THE POSITION THAT DEATH, WHILE "ACCIDENTAL,"
RESULTED FROM "PARTICIPATION ...  IN AVIATION."  ACCORDINGLY, IT
REFUSED TO PAY MRS. KING THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY.  A RESIDENT OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, SHE THEN SUED THE RESPONDENT IN A COURT OF THAT STATE,
CONTENDING THAT DROWNING RATHER THAN THE AIRPLANE FLIGHT WAS THE CAUSE
OF DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE POLICY.  THE RESPONDENT, AN OHIO
CORPORATION, EXERCISED ITS STATUTORY RIGHT TO REMOVE THE CAUSE TO THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 
FN4 

THE PARTIES AGREED THAT SOUTH CAROLINA LAW WAS CONTROLLING, BUT UP TO
THE TIME OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION NEITHER OF THEM HAD LOCATED
ANY DECISION ON AVIATION EXCLUSION CLAUSES BY ANY SOUTH CAROLINA
COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURT THEREFORE FELL BACK ON WHAT IT DEEMED TO BE
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF SOUTH CAROLINA INSURANCE LAW, AS ENUNCIATED BY
THE STATE SUPREME COURT:  THAT AMBIGUITIES IN AN INSURANCE CONTRACT ARE
TO BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE BENEFICIARY, AND THAT THE CAUSE OF
DEATH, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ACCIDENT INSURANCE POLICIES, IS THE
IMMEDIATE, NOT THE REMOTE CAUSE.  FN5  APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES, THE
COURT HELD THAT KING'S DEATH RESULTED FROM DROWNING, NOT FROM
PARTICIPATION IN AVIATION, AND THAT MRS. KING WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER. 
FN6 

TWO MONTHS LATER, A SOUTH CAROLINA COURT, THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY, LIKEWISE RULED IN FAVOR OF MRS. KING IN A SUIT
AGAINST A DIFFERENT INSURER ON A $2,500 POLICY WHICH CONTAINED AN
ALMOST IDENTICAL AVIATION EXCLUSION CLAUSE.  THE JUDGE FOLLOWED THE
SAME REASONING AS THE DISTRICT COURT HAD AND RELIED, AT LEAST IN PART,
ON THAT COURT'S DECISION.  UNDER SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES THE INSURER IN
THIS SECOND CASE HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT,
FN7  BUT DID NOT DO SO. 

ON APPEAL OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED
THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR MRS. KING.  FN8  THE COURT
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT UNDER SOUTH CAROLINA LAW AMBIGUITIES IN INSURANCE
POLICIES ARE TO BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER, BUT IT FOUND NO
AMBIGUITY IN THE AVIATION EXCLUSION CLAUSE INSOFAR AS ITS APPLICATION
TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WAS CONCERNED.  ON THE CONTRARY, KING'S DEATH
WAS THOUGHT CLEARLY TO HAVE RESULTED FROM "PARTICIPATION  ...  IN
AVIATION."  NOTHING IN SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, IT WAS
SAID, WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS VIEW, WHEREAS THAT COURT'S ACCEPTED
THEORIES OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IN TORT CASES SUPPORTED IT. FN9  UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS EXPRESSED ITS
DISBELIEF THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA WOULD HAVE RULED FOR
MRS. KING, HAD HER CASE BEEN BEFORE IT, "IN THE FACE OF REASON AND THE
VERY CONSIDERABLE AUTHORITY" FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS.  FN10  THE
COMMON PLEAS DECISION IN MRS. KING'S FAVOR, IT WAS THOUGHT, WAS NOT
BINDING ON THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS A FINAL EXPRESSION OF SOUTH
CAROLINA LAW SINCE IT WAS NOT BINDING ON OTHER SOUTH CAROLINA COURTS
AND SINCE THE COURT RENDERING IT HAD RELIED ON THE DISTRICT COURT'S
RULING IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

AFTER WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, A NEW FACTOR WAS INTERJECTED IN THE
CASE.  ANOTHER SOUTH CAROLINA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, THE ONE FOR
GREENVILLE COUNTY, HANDED DOWN AN OPINION WHICH, SO FAR AS RELEVANT
HERE, EXPRESSLY REJECTED THE REASONING OF THE SPARTANBURG COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS AND ESPOUSED THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, WE SHOULD GIVE TO THIS SECOND COMMON PLEAS
DECISION BECOMES AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR INQUIRY ONLY IF IT IS FIRST
DETERMINED THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE
SPARTANBURG DECISION, WHICH WAS THE ONLY ONE OUTSTANDING AT THE TIME OF
ITS ACTION.  FN11  WE THEREFORE ADDRESS OURSELVES FIRST TO THAT
QUESTION. 

THE RULES OF DECISION ACT  FN12  COMMANDS FEDERAL COURTS TO REGARD AS
"RULES OF DECISION" THE SUBSTANTIVE "LAWS" OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE,
EXCEPT ONLY WHERE THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED
STATES PROVIDE OTHERWISE.  AND THE ERIE R. CO. CASE DECIDED THAT
"LAWS," IN THIS CONTEXT, INCLUDE NOT ONLY STATE STATUTES, BUT ALSO THE
UNWRITTEN LAW OF A STATE AS PRONOUNCED BY ITS COURTS. 

THE IDEAL AIMED AT BY THE ACT IS, OF COURSE, UNIFORMITY OF DECISION
WITHIN EACH STATE.  SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT IMPINGE ON FEDERAL
INTERESTS, A STATE MAY SHAPE ITS OWN LAW IN ANY DIRECTION IT SEES FIT,
AND IT IS INADMISSIBLE THAT CASES DEPENDENT ON THAT LAW SHOULD BE
DECIDED DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO WHETHER THEY ARE BEFORE FEDERAL OR
STATE COURTS.  THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE WHERE ACCIDENTAL FACTORS SUCH
AS DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY ENABLE ONE OF
THE PARTIES TO CHOOSE WHETHER THE CASE IS TRIED IN A FEDERAL OR A STATE
COURT. 

EFFECTUATION OF THAT POLICY IS COMPARATIVELY EASY WHEN THE ISSUE
CONFRONTING A FEDERAL COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DECIDED BY THE HIGHEST
COURT IN THE APPROPRIATE STATE; THE ERIE R. CO. CASE DECIDED THAT
DECISIONS AND OPINIONS OF THAT COURT ARE BINDING ON FEDERAL COURTS. 
THE ERIE R. CO. CASE LEFT OPEN, HOWEVER, THE MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION OF
THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO DECISIONS BY LOWER STATE COURTS ON POINTS
NEVER PASSED ON BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT. 

TWO YEARS LATER, A SERIES OF FOUR CASES PRESENTED SOME ASPECTS OF
THAT QUESTION.  IN THREE OF THE CASES THIS COURT HELD THAT FEDERAL
COURTS ARE BOUND BY DECISIONS OF A STATE'S INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURTS UNLESS THERE IS PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE HIGHEST STATE COURT
WOULD RULE OTHERWISE.  SIX COMPANIES V. HIGHWAY DISTRICT, 311 U.S.
180(1940); WEST V. AMERICAN T. & T. CO., 311 U.S. 223(1940); AND STONER
V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 311 U.S. 464(1940).  FN13  IN THE FOURTH
CASE, FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO. V. FIELD, 311 U.S. 169(1940), THE COURT
WENT FURTHER AND HELD THAT A FEDERAL COURT HAD TO FOLLOW TWO DECISIONS
ANNOUNCED FOUR YEARS EARLIER BY THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF CHANCERY, A
COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. 

THE FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO. CASE DID NOT, HOWEVER, LAY DOWN ANY
GENERAL RULE AS TO THE RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED STATE TRIAL COURT
DECISIONS.  THIS COURT TOOK PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT THE STATUS OF THE
NEW JERSEY COURT OF CHANCERY WAS NOT THAT OF THE USUAL NISI PRIUS
COURT.  IT HAD STATE-WIDE JURISDICTION.  ITS STANDING ON THE EQUITY
SIDE WAS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF NEW JERSEY'S INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURTS ON THE LAW SIDE.  A UNIFORM RULING BY THE COURT OF CHANCERY OVER
A COURSE OF YEARS WAS SELDOM SET ASIDE BY THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT. 
AND CHANCERY DECREES WERE ORDINARILY TREATED AS BINDING IN LATER CASES
IN CHANCERY. 

THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES NO ATTACK ON THE POLICY OF THE RULES OF
DECISION ACT, THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ERIE R. CO. CASE, OR THE SOUNDNESS
OF THE OTHER CASES REFERRED TO ABOVE.  IT INVOLVES THE PRACTICAL
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT; AND THE QUESTION IT RAISES IS WHETHER, IN
THE LONG RUN, IT WOULD PROMOTE UNIFORMITY IN THE APPLICATION OF SOUTH
CAROLINA LAW IF FEDERAL COURTS CONFRONTED WITH QUESTIONS UNDER THAT LAW
WERE OBLIGED TO FOLLOW THE RULING OF A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 

THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS MAKE UP SOUTH CAROLINA'S BASIC SYSTEM OF
TRIAL COURTS FOR CIVIL ACTIONS.  FN14  THERE ARE FOURTEEN JUDGES FOR
THESE COURTS, ONE FOR EACH OF THE JUDICIAL CIRCUITS INTO WHICH THE
STATE'S FORTY-SIX COUNTIES ARE GROUPED.  FN15  A CIRCUIT JUDGE HEARS
CIVIL CASES AT SPECIFIED TIMES IN EACH COUNTY COMPRISING THE CIRCUIT TO
WHICH HE IS THEN ASSIGNED, AND AT SUCH TIMES HIS COURT IS CALLED THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THAT PARTICULAR COUNTY.  FN16  IN ADDITION,
HE PRESIDES OVER A PARALLEL SET OF CRIMINAL COURTS, THE COURTS OF
GENERAL SESSIONS.  SOUTH CAROLINA HAS NO TIER OF INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURTS, AND APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS DECISIONS IS DIRECTLY, AND AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT, TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  FN17 

WHILE THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS ARE DENOMINATED COURTS OF RECORD,
THEIR DECISIONS ARE NOT PUBLISHED OR DIGESTED IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER. 
THEY ARE FILED ONLY IN THE COUNTIES IN WHICH THE CASES ARE TRIED, AND
EVEN THERE THE SOLE INDEX IS BY THE PARTIES' NAMES.  FN18  PERHAPS
BECAUSE THESE FACTS PRECLUDE READY AVAILABILITY TO BENCH AND BAR, THE
COMMON PLEAS DECISIONS SEEM TO BE ACCORDED LITTLE WEIGHT AS PRECEDENTS
IN SOUTH CAROLINA'S OWN COURTS.  IN THIS CONNECTION, RESPONDENT HAS
SUBMITTED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
SOUTH CAROLINA TO THE EFFECT THAT "UNDER THE PRACTICE IN THIS STATE AN
UNAPPEALED DECISION OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IS BINDING ONLY UPON
THE PARTIES WHO ARE BEFORE THE COURT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE AND WOULD
NOT CONSTITUTE A PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE IN THAT COURT OR IN ANY
OTHER COURT IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA." 

CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTS LEADS US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT COMMIT ERROR.  WHILE THAT COURT
PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED SOME WEIGHT TO THE SPARTANBURG COMMON PLEAS
DECISION, WE BELIEVE THAT IT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE DECISION NOT
CONTROLLING AND IN PROCEEDING TO MAKE ITS OWN DETERMINATION OF WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA WOULD PROBABLY RULE IN A SIMILAR CASE. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE
SUCH IMPORTANCE AND COMPETENCE WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA'S OWN JUDICIAL
SYSTEM THAT ITS DECISIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS AUTHORITATIVE EXPOSITIONS
OF THAT STATE'S "LAW."  IN FUTURE CASES BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTIES, AS
INDICATED ABOVE, A COMMON PLEAS DECISION DOES NOT EXACT CONFORMITY FROM
EITHER THE SAME COURT OR LESSER COURTS FN19  WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION; AND IT MAY APPARENTLY BE IGNORED BY OTHER COURTS OF
COMMON PLEAS WITHOUT THE COMPUNCTIONS WHICH COURTS OFTEN EXPERIENCE IN
REACHING RESULTS DIVERGENT FROM THOSE REACHED BY ANOTHER COURT OF
COORDINATE JURISDICTION.  THUS A COMMON PLEAS DECISION DOES NOT, SO FAR
AS WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED, OF ITSELF EVIDENCE ONE OF THE "RULES OF
DECISION COMMONLY ACCEPTED AND ACTED UPON BY THE BAR AND INFERIOR
COURTS."  FN20  FURTHERMORE, AS WE HAVE BUT RECENTLY HAD OCCASION TO
REMARK, A FEDERAL COURT ADJUDICATING A MATTER OF STATE LAW IN A
DIVERSITY SUIT IS, "IN EFFECT, ONLY ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE"; FN21
IT WOULD BE INCONGRUOUS INDEED TO HOLD THE FEDERAL COURT BOUND BY A
DECISION WHICH WOULD NOT BE BINDING ON ANY STATE COURT. 

SECONDLY, THE DIFFICULTY OF LOCATING COMMON PLEAS DECISIONS IS A
MATTER OF GREAT PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.  LITIGANTS COULD FIND ALL THE
DECISIONS ON ANY GIVEN SUBJECT ONLY BY LABORIOUSLY SEARCHING THE
JUDGMENT ROLLS IN ALL OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S FORTY-SIX COUNTIES.  TO HOLD
THAT FEDERAL COURTS MUST ABIDE BY COMMON PLEAS DECISIONS MIGHT WELL PUT
A PREMIUM ON THE FINANCIAL ABILITY REQUIRED FOR EXHAUSTIVE SCREENING OF
THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OR FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE RECORDS.  IN CASES
WHERE THE PARTIES COULD NOT AFFORD SUCH PRACTICES, THE RESULT WOULD
OFTEN BE TO MAKE THEIR RIGHTS DEPENDENT ON CHANCE; FOR EVERY DECISION
CITED BY COUNSEL THERE MIGHT BE A DOZEN ADVERSE DECISIONS OUTSTANDING
BUT UNDISCOVERED.  FN22 

IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION BELOW, WE ARE DECIDING ONLY THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY.  WE DO NOT PURPORT TO
DETERMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF ITS RULING ON THE MERITS.  NOR IS OUR
DECISION TO BE TAKEN AS PROMULGATING A GENERAL RULE THAT FEDERAL COURTS
NEED NEVER ABIDE BY DETERMINATIONS OF STATE LAW BY STATE TRIAL COURTS. 
AS INDICATED BY THE FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO. CASE, OTHER SITUATIONS IN
OTHER STATES MAY WELL CALL FOR A DIFFERENT RESULT.    IT MAY ALSO BE
WELL TO ADD THAT, EVEN IF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD BEEN IN
ERROR AT THE TIME OF ITS DECISION, REVERSAL OF ITS JUDGMENT WOULD NOT
NECESSARILY BE APPROPRIATE PROPRIATE IN VIEW OF THE SECOND COMMON PLEAS
DECISION.  FN23  BUT WE PREFER TO REGARD THAT SECOND DECISION AS AN
ILLUSTRATION OF THE PERILS OF INTERPRETING A COMMON PLEAS DECISION AS A
DEFINITIVE EXPRESSION OF "SOUTH CAROLINA LAW," NOT AS A CONTROLLING
FACTOR IN OUR DECISION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BOTH COURTS BELOW SO HELD, AND UNTIL THE CASE WAS BRIEFED FOR
THIS COURT, NEITHER PARTY TOOK ISSUE WITH THIS HOLDING OR RAISED ANY
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT QUESTION.  HENCE IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO
CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS OF AMERICA V.
WOLFE, 331 U.S. 586(1947), IS APPLICABLE. 

FN2  332 U.S. 754. 

FN3  JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, SEC. 34, R.S. SEC. 721, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
725. 

FN4  28 U.S.C. SEC. 71. 

FN5  FOR THIS PROPOSITION THE COURT CITED GOETHE V. NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO., 183 S.C. 199, 190 S.E. 451(1937).  IN THAT CASE THEINSURED
DIED FOLLOWING VIGOROUS EFFORTS TO PUT OUT A FIRE.  THERE WAS DISPUTED
MEDICAL EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER THE SYMPTOMS SHOWN JUST BEFORE DEATH
INDICATED HEATSTROKE OR HEART DISEASE AS THE CAUSE OF DEATH.  THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE THAT THE INSURED SUFFERED FROM HEART DISEASE BEFORE THAT
TIME.  THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA UPHELD A JURY DETERMINATION
THAT HEATSTROKE CAUSED DEATH, AND THEN, ON THE MOST DISPUTED POINT IN
THE CASE, RULED THAT HEATSTROKE WAS A "BODILY INJURY" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF AN ACCIDENT INSURANCE POLICY.  IT SEEMS TO US, AS IT
APPARENTLY DID TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, QUESTIONABLE WHETHER
THIS CASE SUPPORTS THE PRINCIPLE FOR WHICH IT WAS CITED. 

FN6  65 F.SUPP.  740(1946). 

FN7  1 S.C. CODE ANN. SECS. 26 AND 780. 

FN8  161 F.2D 108(1947). 

FN9  THE COURT CITED HORNE V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 177 S.C.
461, 181 S.E. 642(1935). 

FN10  AMONG THE CASES CITED WERE NEEL V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW
YORK, 131 F.2D 159(C.C.A. 2, 1942), AND GREEN V. MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE
INS. CO., 144 F.2D 55(C.C.A. 1, 1944). 

FN11  ALTHOUGH THE DECISION BY THE SPARTANBURG COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
WAS RENDERED AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION, IT WAS PROPER FOR THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO CONSIDER IT.  SEE VANDENBARK V. OWENS
ILLINOIS CO., 311 U.S. 538(1941). 

FN12  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN13  IN ALL THREE CASES THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAD REFUSED TO
REVIEW THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT DECISION; IN THE WEST AND
STONER CASES, THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT'S DECISION HAD INVOLVED
THE SAME PARTIES ENGAGED IN THE SUBSEQUENT CASE BEFORE THE FEDERAL
COURTS; AND IN THE SIX COMPANIES CASE, THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT'S DECISION HAD REMAINED ON THE BOOKS FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS
WITHOUT DISAPPROVAL.  THESE FACTORS WERE MENTIONED IN OUR OPINIONS, BUT
WERE NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINATIVE.  SEE FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO. V.
FIELD, 311 U.S. 169, 178(1940). 

FN14  S.C. CONST., ART. 5, SEC. 15.  THESE COURTS ALSO HAVE LIMITED
APPELLATE JURISDICTION, VARYING SOMEWHAT FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY.  THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY HANDLES APPEALS FROM THE
COUNTY'S PROBATE COURT, 1 S.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 228, ITS COURT OF
DOMESTIC RELATIONS, 1 ID. SECS. 256-24 AND 256-44, AND ITS MAGISTRATES
COURTS.  THE LATTER HAVE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONCURRENT WITH THE COURTS
OF COMMON PLEAS ONLY IN SUITS INVOLVING LESS THAN $100, 1 ID. SEC.
257. 

THE COUNTY COURT FOR SPARTANBURG COUNTY HAS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
IN CIVIL SUITS INVOLVING LESS THAN $3,000, BUT APPEAL FROM ITS
DECISIONS IS DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1 ID.
SECS. 184 AND 190. 

FN15  S.C. CONST., ART. 5, SEC. 13; 1 S.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 50.  THERE
IS PROVISION FOR PERIODIC INTERCHANGE OF JUDGES AMONG THE CIRCUITS.  1
S.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 22. 

FN16  S.C. CONST., ART. 5, SEC. 16; 1 S.C. CODE ANN. SECS. 51-64. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 7 SUPRA. 

FN18  S.C. CIRCUIT COURT RULE 39.  THERE IS A CLERK OF THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS FOR EACH COUNTY.  S.C. CONST., ART. 5, SEC. 27. 

FN19  I.E., COUNTY COURTS, MAGISTRATES COURTS, PROBATE COURTS, AND
COURTS OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS.  SEE NOTE 14 SUPRA. 

FN20  WEST V. AMERICAN T. & T. CO., 311 U.S. 223, 236(1940). 

FN21  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, 108(1945). 

FN22  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SPARTANBURG DECISION CAME TO LIGHT
BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD BEEN A PARTY TO IT, THE GREENVILLE DECISION
BECAUSE RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL HAD BEEN A PARTY TO IT. 

FN23  SEE VANDENBARK V. OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 311 U.S. 538(1941). 
..END :











SUTTLE V. REICH BROS. CO., 333 U.S. 163 


NO. 214.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 161
F.2D 289, AFFIRMED. 


A RESIDENT AND CITIZEN OF MISSISSIPPI BROUGHT AN ACTION BASED ON
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AGAINST A PARTNERSHIP AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
WHO WERE RESIDENTS OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AND A TEXAS
CORPORATION WHICH HAD QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN LOUISIANA AND MADE
ITSELF AMENABLE TO SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR EITHER THE EASTERN OR
WESTERN DISTRICT OF THAT STATE.  HELD:  THE VENUE WAS IMPROPER AS TO
THE PARTNERSHIP AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AND THE SUIT WAS PROPERLY
DISMISSED AS TO THEM, SINCE NONE OF THE PARTIES WAS A RESIDENT OF THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 51 AND 52 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE.  PP. 164-169. 

(A)  THE "RESIDENCE" OF A CORPORATION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
VENUE STATUTES, IS ONLY IN THE STATE AND DISTRICT IN WHICH IT WAS
INCORPORATED.  PP. 166-168. 

(B)  WHILE, CONCEDEDLY, THE TEXAS CORPORATION HAD MADE ITSELF
AMENABLE TO SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF EITHER DISTRICT IN LOUISIANA
BY QUALIFYING TO DO BUSINESS IN THAT STATE, SUCH ACTION ON THE PART OF
THE CORPORATION DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER BY THE PARTNERSHIP AND ITS
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE PRIVILEGES CONFERRED UPON THEM BY THE VENUE
STATUTES.  P. 168. 

SUTTLE, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. REICH BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DISMISSED AS
TO RESPONDENTS (RESIDENTS OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT), ON THE GROUND OF
IMPROPER VENUE, A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THEM AND A FOREIGN CORPORATION
BY A RESIDENT OF MISSISSIPPI.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
161 F.2D 289.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 755.  AFFIRMED,
P. 169. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE TO CONSIDER A QUESTION ARISING
UNDER THE FEDERAL VENUE STATUTES.  PETITIONER, A RESIDENT AND CITIZEN
OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, BROUGHT A NEGLIGENCE ACTION BASED ON
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF LOUISIANA.  THE DEFENDANTS IN THAT SUIT WERE THE RESPONDENTS REICH
BROS. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP, AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS,
RESIDENTS OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, AND HIGHWAY INSURANCE
UNDERWRITERS, A TEXAS CORPORATION WHICH HAD QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN
LOUISIANA PURSUANT TO A STATUTE OF THAT STATE. 

JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED ONLY ON THE FACT THAT THE ACTION IS BETWEEN
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, SUIT SHALL BE BROUGHT ONLY IN THE
DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF EITHER THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT." 
FN1  THIS GENERAL PROVISION IS QUALIFIED BY SEC. 52 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, WHICH STATES THAT "  ...  IF THERE ARE TWO OR MORE DEFENDANTS,
RESIDING IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS OF THE STATE,  ...  (SUIT) MAY BE
BROUGHT IN EITHER DISTRICT,  ...  "  FN2 

IT IS CONCEDED BY THE PARTIES THAT THE TEXAS CORPORATION, HIGHWAY
INSURANCE, HAVING QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN LOUISIANA IS AMENABLE TO
SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR EITHER THE EASTERN OR WESTERN DISTRICT
OF THAT STATE.  FN3  THE CRITICAL ISSUE OF THE CASE IS WHETHER HIGHWAY
INSURANCE MAY BE REGARDED AS A "RESIDENT" OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
LOUISIANA WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 52 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, SO THAT
RESPONDENTS REICH BROS. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
MAY PROPERLY BE SUED AS CO-DEFENDANTS OF THE CORPORATION IN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDENTS
OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF THAT STATE. 

THE RESPONDENTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE ACTION ON THE GROUND OF IMPROPER
VENUE.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTION, AND THE SUIT WAS
DISMISSED AS TO RESPONDENTS, LEAVING THE ACTION PENDING AGAINST THE
CORPORATION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN4 

THE ISSUE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO RESOLVE IS A NARROW ONE.  WE ARE NOT
CONFRONTED WITH THE ABSTRACT QUESTION WHETHER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
OR FOR ANY PURPOSES, A FOREIGN CORPORATION MAY PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS
ACQUIRING "RESIDENCE" IN A STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH IT WAS
INCORPORATED.  NOR IS OUR PROBLEM THAT OF DISCOVERING WHETHER, UNDER
STATE LAW, A QUALIFIED FOREIGN CORPORATION IS TREATED AS A "RESIDENT"
OF THE STATE IN WHICH IT IS DOING BUSINESS.  FN5 THE SOLE ISSUE OF THIS
CASE RELATES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM "RESIDENCE," APPEARING IN
THE PARTICULAR FEDERAL VENUE STATUTES UNDER CONSIDERATION, AS IT
APPLIES TO A FOREIGN CORPORATION. 

THE "RESIDENCE" OF A CORPORATION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THESE
STATUTES HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT
FOR A PERIOD OF OVER HALF A CENTURY.  SHORTLY AFTER CONGRESS HAD
ENACTED SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE IN SUBSTANTIALLY ITS PRESENT FORM,
THIS COURT DECLARED THAT THE "RESIDENCE" OF A CORPORATION, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE VENUE STATUTES, IS ONLY IN "THE STATE AND DISTRICT IN
WHICH IT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED."  FN6  THUS, IN SHAW V. QUINCY MINING
CO., 145 U.S. 444, 450(1892), IT WAS SAID:  "THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN
OFTEN REAFFIRMED BY THIS COURT, WITH SOME CHANGE OF PHRASE, BUT ALWAYS
RETAINING THE IDEA THAT THE LEGAL EXISTENCE, THE HOME, THE DOMICIL, THE
HABITAT, THE RESIDENCE, THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE CORPORATION CAN ONLY BE
IN THE STATE BY WHICH IT WAS CREATED, ALTHOUGH IT MAY DO BUSINESS IN
OTHER STATES WHOSE LAWS PERMIT IT." 

FOR ALMOST SIXTY YEARS, IN AN UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS, THIS COURT
HAS APPLIED THE SAME CONSTRUCTION.  FN7  THAT VIEW WAS REAFFIRMED AS
RECENTLY AS 1946 IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN MISSISSIPPI PUBLISHING
CORP. V. MURPHREE, 326 U.S. 438, 441.  FN8 

CONGRESS HAS REVEALED A SIMILAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM "RESIDENCE"
WHEN ENACTING SPECIAL VENUE STATUTES IN SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT WAS
INTENDED THAT, AT THE ELECTION OF THE PLAINTIFF, A CORPORATION SHOULD
BECOME AMENABLE TO SUIT EITHER IN THE STATE OF INCORPORATION OR IN
STATES IN WHICH IT IS CARRYING ON CORPORATE ACTIVITIES.  IN THOSE
STATUTES, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT THE VENUE OF SUCH SUITS SHOULD BE
LOCATED NOT ONLY IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE CORPORATION IS A
"RESIDENT" OR AN "INHABITANT," BUT ALSO IN DISTRICTS IN WHICH IT MAY BE
"FOUND," "TRANSACTS BUSINESS," OR HAS AN AGENT TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF
PROCESS.  FN9 

NOR DOES THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM
SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S. 165(1939), REQUIRE THAT THE TERM
"RESIDENCE" BE CONSTRUED DIFFERENTLY.  IN THAT CASE, THE PLAINTIFFS,
CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF NEW JERSEY, BROUGHT SUIT BASED ON DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE VENUE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS MAY BE WAIVED AND THAT THE
DEFENDANT, SINCE IT HAD APPOINTED AN AGENT TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF
PROCESS IN NEW YORK PURSUANT TO A STATUTE OF THAT STATE, MIGHT NOT
INSIST UPON SUIT BEING BROUGHT IN DELAWARE, THE STATE OF ITS
INCORPORATION, OR IN NEW JERSEY, THE STATE IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS
RESIDED.  BUT THIS COURT DID NOT HOLD THAT IN LOSING THE PRIVILEGE OF
INSISTING UPON SUIT IN DISTRICTS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION THEREBY ACQUIRED "RESIDENCE" IN NEW
YORK, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE VENUE STATUTES.  INDEED, THE COURT
SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE SUIT "WAS NOT BROUGHT 'IN THE DISTRICT OF
THE RESIDENCE OF EITHER THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT.'"  FN10 

FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE HOLD THAT THE HIGHWAY INSURANCE
UNDERWRITERS, A TEXAS CORPORATION AND RESPONDENTS' CO-DEFENDANT, IS NOT
A RESIDENT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN WHICH SUIT WAS
BROUGHT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 52 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  WHILE,
CONCEDEDLY, THE TEXAS CORPORATION HAS MADE ITSELF AMENABLE TO SUIT IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS OF EITHER DISTRICT IN LOUISIANA BY QUALIFYING TO DO
BUSINESS IN THAT STATE, SUCH ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATION MAY
IN NO WAY BE REGARDED AS A WAIVER BY RESPONDENTS OF THE PRIVILEGES
CONFERRED UPON THEM BY THE VENUE STATUTES.  SECTION 51 IN GENERAL TERMS
PROVIDES THAT A DIVERSITY SUIT OF THE SORT INVOLVED HERE MUST BE
BROUGHT EITHER IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES OR IN
WHICH THE DEFENDANT RESIDES.  THIS SUIT, BROUGHT IN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, SATISFIES NEITHER REQUIREMENT.  RESPONDENTS'
PRIVILEGE CONFERRED BY SEC. 51 CAN BE DEFEATED EITHER BY WAIVER ON THE
PART OF RESPONDENTS OR, AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 52, BY PETITIONER BRINGING
SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS IN A DISTRICT IN LOUISIANA IN WHICH
ONE OF THE CO-DEFENDANTS HAS ACQUIRED RESIDENCE BUT IN WHICH
RESPONDENTS DO NOT RESIDE.  NEITHER CIRCUMSTANCE IS PRESENT HERE. 
RESPONDENTS MADE TIMELY ASSERTION OF THEIR PRIVILEGE AND MAY NOT BE
DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED THEIR VENUE OBJECTIONS.  AS WE HAVE HELD, THEIR
CO-DEFENDANT, HIGHWAY INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS A
RESIDENT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN WHICH SUIT WAS
BROUGHT.  IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THAT RESPONDENTS' OBJECTIONS TO VENUE
WERE WELL TAKEN, AND THAT, IN SUSTAINING THOSE OBJECTIONS, THE DISTRICT
COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REACHED A RESULT IN ACCORD WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL VENUE STATUTES AS CONSISTENTLY
CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT.  IF THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE ALTERED, IT
IS A TASK WHICH MUST BE UNDERTAKEN BY CONGRESS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, 24 STAT. 552, AS CORRECTED BY ACT OF
AUGUST 13, 1888, 25 STAT. 433, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 112. 

FN2  R.S. SEC. 740, 36 STAT. 1101, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 113.  THE SECTION
IN ITS ENTIRETY FOLLOWS: "WHEN A STATE CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE DISTRICT,
EVERY SUIT NOT OF A LOCAL NATURE, IN THE DISTRICT COURT THEREOF,
AGAINST A SINGLE DEFENDANT, INHABITANT OF SUCH STATE, MUST BE BROUGHT
IN THE DISTRICT WHERE HE RESIDES; BUT IF THERE ARE TWO OR MORE
DEFENDANTS, RESIDING IN DIFFERENT DISTRICTS OF THE STATE, IT MAY BE
BROUGHT IN EITHER DISTRICT, AND A DUPLICATE WRIT MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST
THE DEFENDANTS, DIRECTED TO THE MARSHAL OF ANY OTHER DISTRICT IN WHICH
ANY DEFENDANT RESIDES.  THE CLERK ISSUING THE DUPLICATE WRIT SHALL
ENDORSE THEREON THAT IT IS A TRUE COPY OF A WRIT SUED OUT OF THE COURT
OF THE PROPER DISTRICT; AND SUCH ORIGINAL AND DUPLICATE WRITS, WHEN
EXECUTED AND RETURNED INTO THE OFFICE FROM WHICH THEY ISSUE, SHALL
CONSTITUTE AND BE PROCEEDED ON AS ONE SUIT; AND UPON ANY JUDGMENT OR
DECREE RENDERED THEREIN, EXECUTION MAY BE ISSUED, DIRECTED TO THE
MARSHAL OF ANY DISTRICT IN THE SAME STATE." 

FN3  SEE NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S.
165(1939); OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 309
U.S. 4(1940). 

FN4  161 F.2D 289(1947). 

FN5  SEE MISSISSIPPI PUBLISHING CORP. V. MURPHREE, 326 U.S. 438, 443
444(1946); NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S. 165,
175(1939); EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369, 377(1878). 

FN6  SHAW V. QUINCY MINING CO., 145 U.S. 444, 449(1892). 

FN7  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. DENTON, 146 U.S. 202, 205(1892); IN RE
KEASBEY AND MATTISON CO., 160 U.S. 221, 229(1895); MACON GROCERY CO. V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 215 U.S. 501, 509(1910); LADEW V. TENNESSEE
COPPER CO., 218 U.S. 357, 367(1910); MALE V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA
FE R. CO., 240 U.S. 97, 102(1916); GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE
& MICHIGAN SOUTHERN R. CO., 260 U.S. 261, 274-279(1922); SEABOARD RICE
MILLING CO. V. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC R. CO., 270 U.S. 363,
366(1926); LUCKETT V. DELPARK, INC., 270 U.S. 496, 499(1926); BURNRITE
COAL BRIQUETTE CO. V. RIGGS, 274 U.S. 208, 211(1927).  AND SEE IN RE
HOHORST, 150 U.S. 653, 662(1893); GALVESTON, HARRISBURG AND SAN ANTONIO
R. CO. V. GONZALES, 151 U.S. 496, 503-504, 506(1894). 

FN8  SECTION 52 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE QUALIFIES OR PROVIDES AN
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 51.  THERE WOULD BE NO
BASIS FOR THE SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO ATTRIBUTE A MEANING
TO THE TERM "RESIDENCE" IN SEC. 51 DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN SEC. 52. 

FN9  SEE, E.G., SEC. 12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 736, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 22:  "ANY SUIT, ACTION, OR PROCEEDING UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS
AGAINST A CORPORATION MAY BE BROUGHT NOT ONLY IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT
WHEREOF IT IS AN INHABITANT, BUT ALSO IN ANY DISTRICT WHEREIN IT MAY BE
FOUND OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS; AND ALL PROCESS IN SUCH CASES MAY BE
SERVED IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH IT IS AN INHABITANT, OR WHEREVER IT MAY
BE FOUND."  SEE ALSO SEC. 48 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 29 STAT. 695, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 109; SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 15; 36 STAT. 291, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 56. 

FN10  NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S. 165,
167(1939). 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., 333 U.S. 169 


NO. 223.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3-4, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 71
F.SUPP.  499, REVERSED. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER UNDER THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT TO ORDER A RAILROAD TO MAKE DELIVERIES OF INTERSTATE
CARLOAD SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION TO A SHIPPER ON
THE SHIPPER'S PRIVATE SIDETRACK, EVEN THOUGH COMPLIANCE WITH THAT ORDER
WILL REQUIRE THE RAILROAD TO USE AN INTERMEDIATE SEGMENT OF TRACK
MAINTAINED AND OPERATED BY THE RAILROAD BUT OWNED BY AND LEASED FROM A
COMPETING SHIPPER WHOSE LEASE TO THE RAILROAD PRECLUDES USE OF SUCH
TRACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING SUCH DELIVERIES TO ITS COMPETITORS. 
PP. 175-178. 

(A)  THE DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN SECS. 1(1)(A) AND 1(3)(A) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT MAKE ALL TRACKAGE "IN USE BY ANY COMMON
CARRIER" SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH
NOT OWNED BY THE CARRIER BUT ONLY USED BY IT UNDER A LEASE.  P. 176. 

(B)  THE COMMAND OF CONGRESS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION CANNOT BE
SUBORDINATED TO THE COMMAND OF A TRACK OWNER THAT A RAILROAD USING THE
TRACK PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION.  P. 177. 

2.  IT DOES NOT DEPRIVE AN OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW TO DENY HIM THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE CONDITIONS UPON ITS USE WHICH
CONFLICT WITH THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE RAILROADS SO AS TO
SECURE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF SHIPPERS.  P. 177. 

3.  UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ELKINS ACT, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN
INCLUDING, IN AN ORDER AGAINST CERTAIN RAILROADS TO CEASE
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES, A NON-CARRIER OWNER OF A SEGMENT OF TRACK WHO
REQUIRED SUCH DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT LEASING
SUCH TRACK TO ONE OF THE RAILROADS.  P. 171, N. 2. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ISSUED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
REQUIRING CERTAIN INTERSTATE RAILROADS AND THE OWNER OF A SEGMENT OF
RAILROAD TRACK LEASED TO ONE OF THE RAILROADS TO DESIST FROM CERTAIN
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS.  266
I.C.C. 55.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER.  71 F.SUPP.  499.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 178. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS PROPERLY HERE ON APPEAL, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345, FROM A
DISTRICT COURT DECREE ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  71 F.SUPP.  499.  THE ORDER
ENJOINED REQUIRED THE FIVE RAILROAD APPELLEES FN1  TO ABSTAIN FROM
REFUSING TO DELIVER INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK TO THE SIDETRACK
OF SWIFT & COMPANY'S PACKING PLANT AT CLEVELAND, OHIO, AND TO ESTABLISH
TARIFFS FOR SUCH DELIVERIES.  SWIFT'S SIDETRACK HAS ONLY ONE CONNECTION
WITH A RAILROAD.  THAT CONNECTION IS WITH THE MAIN LINE OF THE NEW YORK
CENTRAL BY WAY OF A SPUR TRACK, KNOWN AS "SPUR NO. 245," OPERATED BY
THAT RAILROAD.  ONE END OF THIS SPUR OWNED BY THE NEW YORK CENTRAL
CONNECTS WITH ITS MAIN LINE; THE OTHER END OF THE SPUR, ALSO OWNED BY
THE RAILROAD, CONNECTS WITH SWIFT'S SIDETRACK AND WITH OTHER PRIVATE
SIDETRACKS.  A 1619-FOOT MIDDLE SEGMENT OF THE SPUR, KNOWN AS "TRACK
1619," IS OWNED BY THE CLEVELAND UNION STOCK YARDS COMPANY.  UNDER THE
TERMS OF A TRACKAGE AGREEMENT WITH STOCK YARDS, NEW YORK CENTRAL USES
TRACK 1619 FOR DELIVERIES TO SWIFT'S SIDETRACK AND OTHER PRIVATE
SIDETRACKS CONNECTED WITH SPUR NO. 245.  THUS ALL INTERSTATE RAILROAD
SHIPMENTS TO SWIFT'S SIDING AND TO OTHERS SIMILARLY LOCATED CAN BE MADE
ONLY OVER THE SEGMENT OF TRACK OWNED BY STOCK YARDS.  BECAUSE OF ITS
INTEREST IN TRACK 1619, STOCK YARDS WAS MADE A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND WAS INCLUDED IN ITS CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
ALONG WITH THE RAILROADS.  FN2  SO LONG AS STOCK YARDS CONTINUES TO OWN
TRACK 1619, DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK AND OTHER FREIGHT BY NEW YORK CENTRAL
TO SWIFT AND OTHERS SIMILARLY LOCATED DEPENDS UPON WHETHER AND TO WHAT
EXTENT STOCK YARDS WILL GRANT OR HAS GRANTED NEW YORK CENTRAL A RIGHT
TO OPERATE OVER TRACK 1619.  THIS PRESENT CASE INVOLVES THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE RAILROADS, AND PARTICULARLY NEW YORK CENTRAL, IN MAKING
DELIVERIES OF LIVESTOCK OVER TRACK 1619 TO SWIFT'S SIDETRACK MUST
COMPLY WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY STOCK YARDS IN ITS PRESENT
AGREEMENT WITH NEW YORK CENTRAL. 

TRACK 1619 WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1899 ON STOCK YARDS' PROPERTY BY STOCK
YARDS AND NEW YORK CENTRAL'S PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST.  A
CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITTEN AGREEMENT, CANCELLABLE ON 60-DAYS' WRITTEN
NOTICE BY THE RAILROAD, GAVE THE RAILROAD A RIGHT TO USE THE TRACK FOR
RAILROAD PURPOSES, PROVIDED THE USE DID NOT INTERFERE WITH STOCK YARDS'
BUSINESS.  IN 1910, AFTER NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RAILROAD, SWIFT BUILT
ITS SIDETRACK, AND THE RAILROAD EXTENDED ITS SPUR NO. 245 BY A TRACK
WHICH CONNECTED TRACK 1619 WITH SWIFT'S SIDING.  THE 1899 WRITTEN
TRACKAGE AGREEMENT WAS SUPERSEDED BY ANOTHER IN 1924.  THIS ONE WAS
CANCELLABLE BY EITHER PARTY ON 30-DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE.  IT PROVIDED
THAT THE RAILROAD SHOULD MAINTAIN THE TRACKS AT ITS OWN EXPENSE, AND IT
GRANTED TO THE RAILROAD "THE FREE AND UNINTERRUPTED USE OF ANY AND ALL
TRACKS OR PORTIONS THEREOF BELONGING TO THE INDUSTRY AND LOCATED ON ITS
LAND."  FROM 1910, WHEN SWIFT'S SIDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, TO 1924, AND
FOR MANY YEARS THEREAFTER, THE RAILROAD CONTINUED TO DELIVER ALL KINDS
OF COMMODITIES TO SWIFT AND TO OTHER PACKERS LIKEWISE SERVED ONLY BY
WAY OF SPUR NO. 245 AND TRACK 1619. 

IN THE EARLY 1930'S STOCK YARDS CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS LOSING
PATRONAGE AND FEES BECAUSE OF DELIVERY OF LIVESTOCK TO SWIFT AT ITS
SIDING.  A LARGE PART OF STOCK YARDS' INCOME COMES FROM FEES IT CHARGES
FOR UNLOADING AND DELIVERING INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK TO PENS
WITHIN ITS YARD.  STOCK CARRIED OVER TRACK 1619 TO SWIFT'S SIDING AND
TO OTHER PRIVATE SIDINGS ARE UNLOADED AT THOSE SIDINGS; AS A RESULT
STOCK YARDS LOSES THE FEES IT WOULD RECEIVE IF LIVESTOCK CONSIGNED TO
SWIFT AND TO OTHER PACKERS WERE UNLOADED AT THE STOCK YARDS.  WITH A
VIEW TOWARD COLLECTING UNLOADING FEES FROM SWIFT AND OTHER PACKERS
SERVED BY SPUR NO. 245, STOCK YARDS INSTITUTED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
NEW YORK CENTRAL WHICH IN 1935 RESULTED IN A MODIFICATION OF THEIR 1924
AGREEMENT.  THE OLD 1924 AGREEMENT HAD UNCONDITIONALLY GRANTED
"RAILROAD, (A) THE FREE AND UNINTERRUPTED USE OF ANY AND ALL TRACKS
... "  THE 1935 MODIFIED AGREEMENT ALSO GRANTED NEW YORK CENTRAL "THE
FREE AND UNINTERRUPTED USE" OF STOCK YARDS' TRACKS, BUT ADDED "EXCEPT
FOR COMPETITIVE TRAFFIC A CHARGE FOR WHICH USE SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF
A SEPARATE AGREEMENT." 

AFTER THIS 1935 RESTRICTIVE MODIFICATION STOCK YARDS DEMANDED THAT
THE RAILROAD ADOPT ONE OF TWO COURSES WITH REGARD TO LIVESTOCK, WHICH
THE PARTIES AGREED WAS THE "COMPETITIVE TRAFFIC" THE MODIFIED AGREEMENT
WAS DESIGNED TO SUPPRESS.  THE RAILROAD MUST EITHER STOP CARRYING
LIVESTOCK OVER TRACK 1619 TO SWIFT AND OTHER PACKERS OR PAY STOCK
YARDS, FOR USE OF TRACK 1619 IN CARRYING LIVESTOCK TO THESE PACKERS, AN
AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO FEES STOCK YARDS WOULD HAVE COLLECTED HAD THE
LIVESTOCK CONSIGNED TO THEM BEEN UNLOADED AND DELIVERED IN THE YARD. 
THIS AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED EXORBITANT BY NEW YORK CENTRAL AND THE OTHER
RAILROADS FOR WHOM NEW YORK CENTRAL PERFORMED SWITCHING CHARGES, AND
THEY THEREFORE REFUSED TO PAY IT.  THE RESULT WAS THAT IN 1938 THE
RAILROADS CEASED DELIVERING LIVESTOCK TO THE SIDINGS OF SWIFT AND OTHER
PACKERS SERVED BY SPUR NO. 245,  FN3  ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE UNDER
AGREEMENT WITH STOCK YARDS CONTINUED TO USE THE SPUR FOR DELIVERY OF
ALL OTHER KINDS OF COMMODITY SHIPMENTS TO THESE SIDINGS.  SWIFT
DEMANDED THAT THE RAILROADS DELIVER LIVESTOCK TO ITS SIDING, AND IN
1941 FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UPON
THEIR REFUSAL TO MAKE DELIVERIES. 

AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE RAILROAD'S
REFUSAL TO CARRY LIVESTOCK TO SWIFT VIOLATED SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  IT WAS FOUND TO VIOLATE SEC. 3(1) BECAUSE OF
THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A SINGLE COMMODITY, LIVESTOCK, AND BECAUSE
NEW YORK CENTRAL'S DELIVERIES OF LIVESTOCK TO THE SIDETRACKS OF SOME OF
SWIFT'S NEARBY COMPETITORS, WHOSE SIDINGS WERE SERVED WITHOUT USING
TRACK 1619, SUBJECTED SWIFT TO UNDUE PREJUDICE AND GAVE THOSE
COMPETITORS AN UNDUE PREFERENCE.  THE COMMISSION ALSO FOUND THAT THE
FAILURE TO DELIVER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN WAS A VIOLATION OF
SEC. 1(6) WHICH FORBIDS UNREASONABLE PRACTICES AFFECTING THE MANNER AND
METHOD OF DELIVERING FREIGHT, AND ALSO A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1(9) WHICH
REQUIRES RAILROADS TO OPERATE SWITCH CONNECTIONS WITH PRIVATE SIDE
TRACKS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE COMMISSION
FOUND TO EXIST HERE. 

THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT ARE NOT CHALLENGED.  THERE CAN BE
NO DOUBT THAT THOSE FACTS FOUND WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE
RAILROAD.  OWNERSHIP OF TRACK 1619 BY STOCK YARDS AND ITS OBJECTION TO
LIVESTOCK DELIVERIES IS, IN FACT, THE ONLY REASON SUGGESTED FOR THE
RAILROADS' FAILURE TO DELIVER SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK TO SWIFT AS THEY
DO TO NEIGHBORING PACKERS, AND FOR THEIR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SWITCHING
CONNECTIONS FOR LIVESTOCK SHIPMENTS.  FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID OUR
QUESTION IS THIS:  CAN THE NONCARRIER OWNER OF A SEGMENT OF RAILROAD
TRACK WHO CONTRACTS FOR AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD'S USE OF THE SEGMENT AS
PART OF ITS LINE RESERVE A RIGHT TO REGULATE THE TYPE OF COMMODITIES
THAT THE RAILROAD MAY TRANSPORT OVER THE SEGMENT, OR WOULD SUCH A
RESERVATION BE INVALID UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT? 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IS ONE OF THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE
PREHENSIVE REGULATORY PLANS THAT CONGRESS HAS EVER UNDERTAKEN.  THE
FIRST ACT, AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO IT, HAVE AIMED AT WIPING OUT
DISCRIMINATIONS OF ALL TYPES, NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 284,
296, AND LANGUAGE OF THE BROADEST SCOPE HAS BEEN USED TO ACCOMPLISH ALL
THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  UNITED STATES V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 323
U.S. 612, 616.  IT WOULD BE STRANGE HAD THIS LEGISLATION LEFT A WAY
OPEN WHEREBY CARRIERS COULD ENGAGE IN DISCRIMINATIONS MERELY BY
ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE USE OF TRACKAGE.  IN FACT THIS COURT
HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO PREVENT CERTAIN
TYPES OF DISCRIMINATIONS AND PREJUDICIAL PRACTICES COULD NOT BE
FRUSTRATED BY CONTRACTS, EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACTS WERE EXECUTED BEFORE
ENACTMENT OF THE LEGISLATION.  SEE PHILADELPHIA, BALT.  & WASH. R. CO.
V. SCHUBERT, 224 U.S. 603, 613-614; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V.
MOTTLEY, 219 U.S. 467, 483, 485-86. 

WE THINK THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PLAINLY
EMPOWERED THE COMMISSION TO ENTER THIS ORDER AGAINST THE DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES FOUND, DESPITE OWNERSHIP OF TRACK 1619 BY STOCK YARDS. 
CARRIERS "WHOLLY BY RAILROAD."  SECTION 1(3)(A) DEFINES THE TERM
"RAILROAD" AS INCLUDING "ALL THE ROAD IN USE BY ANY COMMON CARRIER
OPERATING A RAILROAD, WHETHER OWNED OR OPERATED UNDER A CONTRACT,
AGREEMENT, OR LEASE, AND ALSO ALL SWITCHES, SPURS, TRACKS  ...  "  AS
ONE OF THE MANY OTHER INDICATIONS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND ITS
RAILROAD REGULATORY PROVISIONS TO DEPEND ON WHO HAD LEGAL TITLE TO
TRANSPORTATION INSTRUMENTALITIES, SEC. 1(3)(A) ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE
WORD "TRANSPORTATION" AS USED IN THE ACT SHALL BROADLY INCLUDE
"LOCOMOTIVES  ...  AND ALL INSTRUMENTALITIES AND FACILITIES OF SHIPMENT
OR CARRIAGE, IRRESPECTIVE OF OWNERSHIP OR OF ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, FOR THE USE THEREOF  ...  "  IT IS TRUE, AS APPELLEES ARGUE,
THAT THE ABOVE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1(3)(A) IS DEFINITIONAL ONLY.  ELLIS V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 237 U.S. 434.  BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT
THESE DEFINITIONS BY THEIR UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE MAKE ALL TRACKAGE "IN
USE BY ANY COMMON CARRIER" SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT, EVEN THOUGH NOT OWNED BY THE CARRIER BUT ONLY USED BY IT UNDER A
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT.  THUS TRACK 1619, THOUGH OWNED BY STOCK YARDS,
WAS SUBJECT TO THE ACT BECAUSE OF ITS USE BY THE NEW YORK CENTRAL UNDER
TRACKAGE AGREEMENTS. 

IT IS JUST AS PREJUDICIAL TO SHIPPERS AND THE PUBLIC FOR A RAILROAD
THAT USES A PORTION OF TRACK UNDER LEASE OR CONTRACT TO DISCRIMINATE AS
IT IS FOR THE DISCRIMINATION TO BE INFLICTED BY A RAILROAD THAT OWNS
ITS ENTIRE TRACK.  PRACTICALLY THE ONLY ARGUMENT SUGGESTED TO JUSTIFY
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE IS THAT AN OWNER
HAS A RIGHT TO LET OTHERS USE HIS LAND SUBJECT TO WHATSOEVER CONDITIONS
THE OWNER CHOOSES TO IMPOSE.  IT IS EVEN ARGUED THAT TO CONSTRUE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS LIMITING THAT RIGHT WOULD RESULT IN
DEPRIVING AN OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  BUT NO
SUCH BROAD GENERALIZATION CAN BE ACCEPTED.  PROPERTY CAN BE USED EVEN
BY ITS OWNER ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND CONDITIONS ITS OWNER
PLACES ON ITS USE BY ANOTHER ARE SUBJECT TO LIKE LIMITATIONS.  OF
COURSE IT DOES NOT DEPRIVE AN OWNER OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW TO DENY HIM THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE CONDITIONS UPON ITS USE WHICH
CONFLICT WITH THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE RAILROADS SO AS TO
SECURE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF THOSE WHOM THE RAILROADS SERVE. 

HERE CONGRESS UNDER ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY HAS PROVIDED THAT NO
RAILROAD SHALL ENGAGE IN CERTAIN TYPES OF DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT IN
VIOLATION OF THREE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT HERE.  THE EXCUSE OFFERED BY THE RAILROADS IS
THAT THE OWNER OF TRACK 1619 REQUIRED THEM TO DO THE PROHIBITED
THINGS.  BUT THE COMMAND OF CONGRESS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION CANNOT BE
SUBORDINATED TO THE COMMAND OF A TRACK OWNER THAT A RAILROAD USING THE
TRACK PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION. 

WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND
THAT IT DOES NOT DEPRIVE STOCK YARDS OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  IN DOING SO WE DO NOT PASS UPON ANY QUESTIONS IN
RELATION TO THE DEDICATION OF TRACK 1619 TO RAILROAD USE.  NEITHER DO
WE DECIDE WHAT ARE THE RELATIVE FINANCIAL RIGHTS OF STOCK YARDS AND NEW
YORK CENTRAL UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS, NOR WHETHER STOCK YARDS CAN CANCEL
THE CONTRACT WITH NEW YORK CENTRAL, NOR WHAT WOULD BE THE DUTY OF NEW
YORK CENTRAL SHOULD STOCK YARDS ATTEMPT TO TERMINATE ITS RIGHT TO USE
TRACK 1619.  WE ONLY HOLD THAT STOCK YARDS' OWNERSHIP OF TRACK 1619
DOES NOT VEST IT WITH POWER TO COMPEL THE RAILROADS TO OPERATE IN A WAY
WHICH VIOLATES THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS VALID AND SHOULD BE ENFORCED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE RAILROAD APPELLEES ARE BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY,
THE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, THE WHEELING & LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY,
THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD
COMPANY.    FN2  APPELLEES ARGUE THAT STOCK YARDS WAS IMPROPERLY MADE A
PARTY AND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT POWER TO INCLUDE STOCK YARDS
IN ITS CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  WE THINK SEC. 2 OF THE ELKINS ACT, 32
STAT. 848, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 42, JUSTIFIED THE COMMISSION'S ACTION AND
FIND NO MERIT TO THE CONTENTION THAT WE SHOULD BY INTERPRETATION
RESTRICT THAT SECTION'S BROAD LANGUAGE AUTHORIZING INCLUSION AS PARTIES
OF "ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN OR AFFECTED BY THE RATE, REGULATION, OR
PRACTICE UNDER CONSIDERATION" BY THE COMMISSION OR BY A COURT, AND
WHICH PROVIDES THAT DECREES MAY BE MADE WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH
ADDITIONAL PARTIES TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH THEY WERE CARRIERS. 

FN3  IN 1938 NEW YORK CENTRAL CEASED TO SWITCH LIVESTOCK CARLOADS OF
OTHER CARRIERS OVER SPUR NO. 245 TO SWIFT'S SIDING, AND IT CANCELED ITS
TARIFFS FOR THIS SERVICE.  SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAS BEEN NO SPECIFIC
TARIFF AUTHORITY FOR MOVEMENT OF LIVESTOCK TO SWIFT'S SIDING WHEN
SHIPPED TO CLEVELAND OVER LINES OTHER THAN THE NEW YORK CENTRAL. 
ALTHOUGH NEW YORK CENTRAL HAS NEVER CANCELED ITS TARIFF FOR LIVESTOCK
SHIPMENTS TO SWIFT'S CLEVELAND SIDING FROM POINTS OF ORIGIN ON ITS OWN
LINES, IT HAS DELIVERED ALL LIVESTOCK CONSIGNED TO SWIFT'S SIDING TO
STOCK YARDS SINCE 1938.  SWIFT HAS BEEN FORCED TO PAY CHARGES TO STOCK
YARDS TO OBTAIN POSSESSION OF LIVESTOCK UNLOADED AT THE YARDS. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS
CASE, 71 F.SUPP.  499, I BELIEVE THAT THE ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION AND THAT THE JUDGMENT
PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN
AFFIRMED. 
..END :

















DONALDSON V. READ MAGAZINE, 333 U.S. 178 


NO. 50.  ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 1947.  REARGUED JANUARY 5, 1948.  - DECIDED
MARCH 8, 1948.  - 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 339, 158 F.2D 542, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL HAS ISSUED A FRAUD ORDER UNDER 39
U.S.C. SECS. 259, 732, AND LATER CONCLUDES THAT IT IS BROADER THAN
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, HE HAS POWER TO MODIFY THE ORDER SO AS
TO MAKE IT LESS INCLUSIVE - EVEN THOUGH THERE BE PENDING IN THIS COURT
AT THE TIME A REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF A FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER.  PP. 183-185. 

2.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING
OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL THAT RESPONDENTS' ADVERTISEMENTS OF A SO
CALLED "PUZZLE CONTEST" HAD BEEN DELIBERATELY CONTRIVED TO DIVERT
READERS' ATTENTION FROM MATERIAL BUT ADROITLY OBSCURED FACTS AND THAT
RESPONDENTS WERE CONDUCTING A SCHEME TO OBTAIN MONEY THROUGH THE MAILS
BY MEANS OF FALSE AND FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS IN VIOLATION OF 39
U.S.C. SECS. 259, 732.  PP. 185-189. 

3.  THE FRAUD ORDER STATUTES, 39 U.S.C. SECS. 259, 732, AS
INTERPRETED AND APPLIED BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL IN THIS CASE, ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL.  PUBLIC CLEARING HOUSE V. COYNE, 194 U.S. 497.  PP. 189
192. 

DONALDSON, POSTMASTER GENERAL, V. READ MAGAZINE, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF A FRAUD ORDER ISSUED BY
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL UNDER 39 U.S.C. SECS. 259, 732.  63 F.SUPP. 
318.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 339, 158 F.2D
542.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 331 U.S. 798, AND SUBSTITUTED
DONALDSON FOR HANNEGAN AS PETITIONER.  332 U.S. 840.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, P. 192. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS QUESTIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER ISSUED BY
PETITIONER, THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, WHICH DIRECTED THAT MAIL ADDRESSED
TO SOME OF RESPONDENTS BE RETURNED TO THE SENDERS MARKED "FRAUDULENT,"
AND THAT POSTAL MONEY ORDER SUMS PAYABLE TO THEIR ORDER BE RETURNED TO
THE REMITTERS. 

THE RESPONDENT PUBLISHERS SERVICE COMPANY HAS CONDUCTED MANY CONTESTS
TO PROMOTE THE CIRCULATION OF NEWSPAPERS IN WHICH IT HAS ADVERTISED
THAT PRIZES WOULD BE GIVEN FOR THE SOLUTION OF PUZZLES.  THROUGH ITS
CORPORATE SUBSIDIARIES, RESPONDENTS LITERARY CLASSICS, INC., AND READ
MAGAZINE, INC., IT PUBLISHES BOOKS AND TWO MONTHLY MAGAZINES CALLED
READ AND FACTS.  THE PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN NEW YORK CITY. 

IN 1945 RESPONDENTS TO PROMOTE SALES OF THEIR BOOKS PUT ON A
NATIONALLY ADVERTISED PROJECT, KNOWN AS THE FACTS MAGAZINE HALL OF FAME
PUZZLE CONTEST.  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL AFTER A HEARING FOUND "UPON
EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO HIM" THAT THE "PUZZLE CONTEST" WAS "A SCHEME
OR DEVICE FOR OBTAINING MONEY THROUGH THE MAILS BY MEANS OF FALSE AND
FRAUDULENT PRETENSES, REPRESENTATIONS, AND PROMISES, IN VIOLATION OF
POSTMASTER GENERAL FOUND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS WERE FALSE AND
FRAUDULENT FOR TWO PRINCIPAL REASONS.  FIRST, THAT PROSPECTIVE
CONTESTANTS WERE FALSELY LED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE TO
WIN PRIZES UPON PAYMENT OF $3 AS A MAXIMUM SUM WHEN IN REALITY THE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT WAS $9, AND AS IT LATER DEVELOPED THEY WERE FINALLY
CALLED ON TO PAY AS MUCH AS $42 TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR INCREASED PRIZE
OFFERS.  SECOND, THE POSTMASTER GENERAL FOUND THAT THOUGH THE CONTEST
WAS EMPHASIZED IN ADVERTISEMENTS AS A "PUZZLE CONTEST" IT WAS NOT A
PUZZLE CONTEST; THAT RESPONDENTS KNEW FROM EXPERIENCE THAT THE PUZZLES
WERE SO EASY THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD SOLVE ALL THE "PUZZLES" AND THAT
PRIZES WOULD BE AWARDED ONLY AS A RESULT OF A TIE-BREAKING LETTER-ESSAY
CONTEST; AND THAT CONTESTANTS WERE DELIBERATELY MISLED CONCERNING ALL
THESE FACTS BY ARTFULLY COMPOSED ADVERTISEMENTS. 

THE CONTEST WAS UNDER THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OF RESPONDENTS HENRY
WALSH LEE AND JUDITH S. JOHNSON, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND "CONTEST EDITOR"
RESPECTIVELY OF FACTS.  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S ORIGINAL FRAUD ORDER
RELATED TO MAIL AND MONEY ORDERS DIRECTED TO 

"PUZZLE CONTEST, FACTS MAGAZINE; CONTEST EDITOR, FACTS MAGAZINE;
JUDITH S. JOHNSON, CONTEST EDITOR; MISS J. S. JOHNSON, CONTEST EDITOR;
CONTEST EDITOR; FACTS MAGAZINE; AND HENRY WALSH LEE, EDITOR IN CHIEF,
FACTS MAGAZINE, AND THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS AS SUCH, AT NEW YORK, NEW
YORK." 

RESPONDENTS FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  THEY
ALLEGED ITS INVALIDITY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S FINDINGS OF FRAUD, AND
THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH THE ORDER WAS ISSUED
AUTHORIZE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO ACT AS A CENSOR AND HENCE VIOLATE
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER BUT DIRECTED THAT PENDING FURTHER ORDERS RESPONDENTS SHOULD
DEPOSIT IN COURT ALL MONEYS AND THE PROCEEDS OF ALL CHECKS AND MONEY
ORDERS RECEIVED THROUGH THE MAILS AS QUALIFYING FEES FOR THE HALL OF
FAME PUZZLE CONTEST.  AFTER A HEARING THE RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE FINDINGS WERE NOT
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  63 F.SUPP.  318.  THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFFIRMED ON THE SAME
GROUND, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  158 F.2D 542.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE CASE HAS BEEN TWICE ARGUED IN THIS COURT.  BRIEFS OF BOTH PARTIES
ON THE FIRST ARGUMENT DEALT ONLY WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL'S FINDINGS OF FRAUD WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  BUT ASSUMING VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS, QUESTIONS AROSE
DURING THE FIRST ORAL ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THE FRAUD
ORDER.  THAT ORDER HAD INCLUDED A DIRECTION TO THE NEW YORK POSTMASTER
TO REFUSE TO DELIVER ANY MAIL OR TO PAY ANY MONEY ORDERS TO FACTS, ITS
OFFICERS AND AGENTS, INCLUDING ITS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, WHO WAS ALSO EDITOR
OF READ.  THE TWO MONTHLY MAGAZINES, BOTH PUBLISHED IN NEW YORK, HAD AN
AGGREGATE CIRCULATION OF NEARLY FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND COPIES.  WE WERE
TOLD THE TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT OF FACTS AND OF THE EDITOR OF
THE TWO MAGAZINES TO RECEIVE MAIL AND TO CASH MONEY ORDERS WOULD
PRACTICALLY PUT BOTH MAGAZINES OUT OF BUSINESS.  SEE MILWAUKEE
PUBLISHING CO. V. BURLESON, 255 U.S. 407.  FURTHERMORE, THE ORDER WAS
OF INDEFINITE DURATION AND FACTS AND ITS AFFILIATES HAVE MADE A
BUSINESS OF CONDUCTING CONTESTS TO PROMOTE THE CIRCULATION OF BOOKS AND
MAGAZINES.  THE ORDER, IF INDEFINITELY ENFORCED, MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN
BARRING DELIVERY OF MAIL AND PAYMENT OF MONEY ORDERS IN RELATION TO
OTHER NON-FRAUDULENT CONTESTS AS WELL AS LEGITIMATE MAGAZINE BUSINESS. 
ALL OF THE FOREGOING RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY AND SCOPE OF
THE ORIGINAL ORDER, IF UNMODIFIED, WHICH WE DEEMED OF SUFFICIENT
IMPORTANCE TO JUSTIFY FURTHER ARGUMENT.  FOR THAT REASON WE SET THE
CASE DOWN FOR REARGUMENT, REQUESTING PARTIES TO DISCUSS THE VALIDITY
AND SCOPE OF THE ORDER, AND WHETHER, IF INVALID BY REASON OF ITS SCOPE,
IT COULD BE SO MODIFIED AS TO FREE IT FROM STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTIONS.  FN1 

THEREAFTER, AND BEFORE REARGUMENT, THE POSTMASTER GENERAL REVOKED THE
ORDER INSOFAR AS IT APPLIED TO FACTS MAGAZINE, ITS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, AND
ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS.  AS MODIFIED, THE ORDER BARS DELIVERY OF MAIL
AND PAYMENT OF MONEY ORDERS ONLY TO ADDRESSEES DESIGNATED IN THE
CONTEST ADVERTISEMENTS: 

"PUZZLE CONTEST, FACTS MAGAZINE; CONTEST EDITOR, FACTS MAGAZINE;
JUDITH S. JOHNSON, CONTEST EDITOR; MISS J. S. JOHNSON, CONTEST EDITOR;
CONTEST EDITOR." 

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, SO WE ARE INFORMED, DOES NOT CONSTRUE THE
MODIFIED ORDER AS FORBIDDING DELIVERY OF MAIL OR PAYMENT OF MONEY
ORDERS TO FACTS MAGAZINE OR EVEN TO MISS JUDITH (J. S.)  JOHNSON,
INDIVIDUALLY.  SO CONSTRUED, THE ORDER IS NARROWLY RESTRICTED TO MAIL
AND MONEY ORDERS SENT IN RELATION TO THE HALL OF FAME PUZZLE CONTEST
FOUND FRAUDULENT, AND WOULD NOT BAR DELIVERIES TO THE MAGAZINES, TO
THEIR EDITOR, OR TO THE THREE CORPORATE RESPONDENTS.  IT WOULD BAR
DELIVERIES TO JUDITH (J. S.)  JOHNSON, ONLY IF SENT TO HER AT THE
DESIGNATED ADDRESS AND IN HER CAPACITY AS "CONTEST EDITOR."  LIKEWISE
THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER IMPOUNDING FUNDS IS LIMITED TO QUALIFYING
FEES RECEIVED IN THE HALL OF FAME PUZZLE CONTEST.  IF THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL'S ACTION IN MODIFYING THE ORDER IS VALID, THE QUESTIONS WE
ASKED TO HAVE ARGUED HAVE LARGELY BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE ORIGINAL
ORDER. 

RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS NOW ARE:  (1)  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL LACKED
POWER TO MODIFY HIS ORIGINAL FRAUD ORDER, AND HENCE THAT ORDER REMAINS
SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL OF ITS ORIGINAL INFIRMITIES.  (2)  THE FINDINGS
ON WHICH THE ORDER IS BASED ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
(3) THE STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE ORDER WAS ISSUED VIOLATE VARIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. 

FIRST.  RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION THAT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO MODIFY THE ORDER BY ELIMINATION OF FACTS MAGAZINE, ITS
EDITOR, AND ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS IS BASED ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR
TWO OTHER GROUNDS FOR ASSERTING INVALIDITY OF THE ORDER.  OF COURSE, IF
THE ORDER WERE WHOLLY INVALID AS TO ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS FOR THESE
REASONS, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALIDATED MERELY BY ELIMINATING SOME OF
THEM FROM ITS TERMS.  BUT LAYING ASIDE RESPONDENTS' OTHER CONTENTIONS
FOR THE MOMENT, WE HAVE NO DOUBT AS TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S
AUTHORITY TO MODIFY THE FRAUD ORDER. 

HAVING CONCLUDED THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS BROADER THAN NECESSARY
TO REACH THE FRAUD PROVED, THE POSTMASTER GENERAL NOT ONLY POSSESSED
THE POWER BUT HE HAD THE DUTY TO REDUCE ITS SCOPE TO WHAT WAS ESSENTIAL
FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE PURPOSE OF MAIL FRAUD ORDERS IS NOT PUNISHMENT,
BUT PREVENTION OF FUTURE INJURY TO THE PUBLIC BY DENYING THE USE OF THE
MAILS TO AID A FRAUDULENT SCHEME.  SEE COMM'R V. HEININGER, 320 U.S.
467, 474.  SUCH ORDERS IF TOO BROAD COULD WORK GREAT HARDSHIPS AND
INFLICT UNNECESSARY INJURIES UPON INNOCENT PERSONS AND BUSINESSES.  NO
PERSUASIVE REASON HAS BEEN SUGGESTED WHY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL SHOULD
BE WITHOUT POWER TO MODIFY AN ORDER OF THIS KIND.  SUCH AN ORDER IS
SIMILAR TO AN EQUITABLE INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN FUTURE CONDUCT, AND LIKE
SUCH AN INJUNCTION SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION WHENEVER IT
APPEARS THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED ARE NO LONGER NEEDED
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.  UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 286 U.S. 106,
114; SEE SKINNER & EDDY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 557, 570. 

FURTHERMORE, THE MODIFICATION HERE INVOLVED WAS FOR RESPONDENTS'
BENEFIT; IT GAVE THEM A PART OF THE VERY RELIEF FOR WHICH THEY PRAYED. 
IT REMOVED THE BAN AGAINST DELIVERY OF MAIL AND PAYMENT OF MONEY ORDERS
TO THEIR MAGAZINE, ITS EDITOR AND ITS AGENTS - A BAN WHICH WE WERE TOLD
WOULD HAVE DONE THEM IRREPARABLE INJURY IF LEFT IN EFFECT.  THE
POSSIBILITY THAT ANOTHER ORDER MIGHT BE ENTERED AGAINST THE ELIMINATED
RESPONDENTS IS TOO REMOTE TO REQUIRE US TO CONSIDER THE ORIGINAL ORDER
AS THOUGH THE MODIFICATION HAD NEVER BEEN MADE.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
HAMBURG-AMERICAN CO., 239 U.S. 466, 475-476. 

NOR DOES THE MODIFICATION SUBJECT RESPONDENTS TO ANY DISADVANTAGE IN
THIS CASE IN REFERENCE TO THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS.  THOSE FUNDS ARE SUMS
SENT IN AS QUALIFYING FEES FOR THE SCHEME FOUND FRAUDULENT.  THEY ARE
IN COURT CUSTODY BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S RESTRAINING ORDER; BUT FOR IT
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO THE SENDERS AS ORDERED BY THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL.  NOW, AS BEFORE THE FRAUD ORDER WAS MODIFIED, THEIR
DISPOSITION IS DEPENDENT ENTIRELY UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE FINDING OF
FRAUD.  RESPONDENTS COULD THUS CLAIM THE FUNDS ONLY BY ASSERTING A
RIGHT GROWING OUT OF THE SCHEME FOUND FRAUDULENT.  THE COURT HAVING
LAWFUL COMMAND OF SUCH FUNDS MUST ALLOCATE THEM TO THE REMITTERS IF THE
ORDER IS VALID.  SEE INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153,
156-158; UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 194-195. 

SECOND.  RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S FINDINGS THAT THEY HAD REPRESENTED
THAT PRIZES COULD BE WON (1) ON PAYMENT OF ONLY THREE DOLLARS AS
CONTEST FEES OR (2) BY THE MERE SOLUTION OF PUZZLES.  THEY SAY THAT THE
VERY ADVERTISEMENTS AND CIRCULAR LETTERS TO CONTESTANTS FROM WHICH
THESE INFERENCES WERE DRAWN BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL CONTAINED
LANGUAGE WHICH SHOWED THAT THE FIRST $3 SERIES OF PUZZLES MIGHT RESULT
IN TIES, MAKING NECESSARY A SECOND AND MAYBE A THIRD $3 PUZZLE SERIES,
AND THAT IF THESE THREE EFFORTS FAILED TO DETERMINE THE PRIZE WINNERS,
THEY WOULD THEN BE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF COMPETITIVE LETTERS,
WRITTEN BY THE TIED CONTESTANTS ON THE SUBJECT "THE PUZZLE I FOUND MOST
INTERESTING AND EDUCATIONAL IN THIS CONTEST." 

THERE WERE SENTENCES IN THE RESPONDENTS' ADVERTISEMENTS AND
COMMUNICATIONS WHICH, STANDING ALONE, WOULD HAVE CONVEYED TO A CAREFUL
READER INFORMATION AS TO THE NINE-DOLLAR FEES AND THE LETTER-ESSAY
FEATURE OF THE CONTEST.  HAD THESE SENTENCES STOOD ALONE, DOUBTLESS THE
FRAUD FINDINGS OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
JUSTIFIED.  BUT THEY DID NOT STAND ALONE.  THEY WERE BUT SMALL AND
INCONSPICUOUS PORTIONS OF LENGTHY DESCRIPTIONS USED BY RESPONDENTS TO
PRESENT THEIR CONTEST TO THE PUBLIC IN THEIR ADVERTISEMENTS AND
LETTERS.  IN REVIEWING FRAUD FINDINGS OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
NEITHER THIS COURT NOR ANY OTHER IS AUTHORIZED TO PICK OUT PARTS OF THE
ADVERTISEMENTS ON WHICH RESPONDENTS PARTICULARLY RELY, DECIDE THAT
THESE EXCERPTS WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED DIFFERENT FINDINGS, AND SET ASIDE
HIS ORDER FOR THAT REASON.  WE CONSIDER ALL THE CONTENTS OF THE
ADVERTISEMENTS AND LETTERS, AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, NOT TO RESOLVE
CONTRADICTORY INFERENCES, BUT ONLY TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S FINDINGS OF FRAUD.  LEACH V.
CARLILE, 258 U.S. 138, 140. 

RESPONDENTS' ADVERTISEMENTS WERE LONG; THEIR FORM LETTERS TO
CONTESTANTS DISCUSSING THE CONTEST, ITS TERMS, AND ITS PROMISES WERE
EVEN LONGER THAN THE ADVERTISEMENTS.  PARADOXICALLY, THE ADVERTISEMENTS
CONSTITUTED AT THE SAME TIME MODELS OF CLARITY AND OF OBSCURITY -
CLARITY IN REFERRING TO PRIZES AND TO A "PUZZLE CONTEST," OBSCURITY IN
REFERRING TO A REMOTE POSSIBILITY OF A LETTER-ESSAY CONTEST.  IN BOLD
TYPE, ALMOST AN INCH HIGH, THEIR ADVERTISEMENTS REFERRED TO "$10,000
FIRST PRIZE PUZZLE CONTEST."  TIME AFTER TIME THEY USED THE WORDS
"PUZZLE" AND "PUZZLE CONTEST."  CONSPICUOUS PICTURES OF SAMPLE
"PUZZLES" COVERED A LARGE PART OF A PAGE.  REBUS "PUZZLES" NOS. 1 TO 4
OF THE CONTEST WERE THERE.  AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT EACH REPRESENTED
APPEARED ABOVE IT.  THE FIRST, IT WAS EXPLAINED, REPRESENTED "THE
INVENTOR OF THE PHONOGRAPH AND ELECTRIC LIGHT," THE SECOND "A
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT WHO BECAME CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT." 
THE LAST TWO CONTAINED EQUALLY HELPFUL CLUES TO THE "PUZZLES."  THE
ADVERTISEMENTS LEFT NO DOUBT THAT THE CONTEST PRESENTED AN OPPORTUNITY
TO WIN LARGE PRIZES IN CONNECTION WITH SOLUTION OF PUZZLES, WHICH
PUZZLES, TO SAY THE LEAST, WOULD NOT BE TOO TAXING ON THE IMAGINATION. 
READERS WHO MIGHT HAVE FELT SOME RELUCTANCE ABOUT PAYING THEIR MONEY
TO ENTER AN ESSAY CONTEST WERE NOT SO IMPRESSIVELY AND CONSPICUOUSLY
INFORMED ABOUT THAT PROSPECT; HERE THE ADVERTISEMENT BECAME A MODEL OF
OBSCURITY.  IN THE LOWER LEFT CORNER OF ONE OF THE ADVERTISING PAGES
APPEARED THE "OFFICIAL RULES OF THE CONTEST," TO WHICH RULES REFERENCES
WERE CAREFULLY PLACED IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE ADVERTISEMENT, AND WHICH
WERE PRINTED, AS THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION OBSERVED, "IN SMALL
TYPE."  THERE WERE TEN RULES.  ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF RULE 9 APPEARED THE
ONLY REFERENCE TO THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR LETTERS AS A MEANS OF BREAKING
TIES.  AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL DREW AN
UNREASONABLE INFERENCE IN CONCLUDING THAT COMPETITIVE LETTER-WRITING
THUS OBSCURELY REFERRED TO WAS MENTIONED ONLY AS A REMOTE AND
UNEXPECTED CONTINGENCY.  THE SAME KIND OF OBSCURITY AND DOUBT OCCURS IN
REFERENCE TO THE COST OF THE CONTEST.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN AN OPINION
HOLDING THAT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S FINDINGS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY
THE EVIDENCE HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT ONE ADVERTISEMENT WHICH WAS WIDELY
USED: 

"INDEED, THE ADVERTISEMENT IS BY NO MEANS A MODEL OF CLARITY AND
LUCIDITY.  IT IS DIFFUSE AND PROLIX, AND AT TIMES SOMEWHAT OBSCURE. 
MANY OF ITS SALIENT PROVISIONS ARE PRINTED IN RATHER SMALL TYPE.  AN
INTENSIVE AND CONCENTRATED READING OF THE ENTIRE TEXT IS INDISPENSABLE
IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENTIRE SCHEME. 
NEVERTHELESS, A CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THIS MATERIAL DISCLOSES THE COMPLETE
PLAN.  NOTHING IS OMITTED, CONCEALED OR MISREPRESENTED.  THERE IS NO
DECEPTION.  THE WELL-FOUNDED CRITICISMS OF THE PLAINTIFFS' LITERATURE
ARE A FAR CRY FROM JUSTIFYING A CONCLUSION THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS A
FRAUD ON THE PUBLIC.  ...  THE CONCLUSION IS INEVITABLE THAT THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF FACT ON WHICH THE FRAUD ORDER IS
BASED AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER." 

WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE INTELLECTUALLY
CAPABLE OF DISCOVERING THE COST AND NATURE OF THIS CONTEST BY
"INTENSIVE AND CONCENTRATED READING" AND BY CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THESE
ADVERTISEMENTS.  NEVERTHELESS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
COULD REASONABLY HAVE CONCLUDED, AS HE DID, THAT THE ADVERTISEMENTS AND
OTHER WRITINGS HAD BEEN ARTFULLY CONTRIVED AND COMPOSED IN SUCH MANNER
THAT THEY WOULD CONFUSE READERS, DISTRACT THEIR ATTENTION FROM THE FACT
THAT THE SCHEME WAS IN REALITY AN ESSAY CONTEST, AND MISLEAD THEM INTO
THINKING THAT THEY WERE ENTERING A "REBUS PUZZLE" CONTEST, IN WHICH
PRIZES COULD BE WON BY AN EXPENDITURE OF NOT MORE THAN $3.  THAT
RESPONDENTS' PAST EXPERIENCE IN SIMILAR CONTESTS ENABLED THEM TO KNOW
AT THE BEGINNING THAT ESSAY WRITING, NOT PUZZLE SOLUTIONS, WOULD
DETERMINE PRIZE WINNERS IS HARDLY CONTROVERTIBLE ON THIS RECORD.  THAT
EXPERIENCE WAS BORNE OUT IN THIS CONTEST BY THE FACT THAT OF THE 90,000
CONTESTANTS WHO SUBMITTED ANSWERS TO THE FIRST SERIES OF 80 PUZZLES,
35,000 SOLVED ALL OF THEM, AND OF THAT NUMBER 27,000 HAD COMPLETED THE
FIRST SET OF "TIE-BREAKING PUZZLES" WHEN THE FRAUD ORDER WAS ISSUED. 
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO ADVERTISE THIS AS A PUZZLE CONTEST INSTEAD
OF WHAT IT ACTUALLY WAS CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO A MERE DIFFERENCE IN
"NOMENCLATURE"; SUCH CONDUCT FALLS FAR SHORT OF THAT FAIR DEALING OF
WHICH FRAUD IS THE ANTITHESIS. 

ADVERTISEMENTS AS A WHOLE MAY BE COMPLETELY MISLEADING ALTHOUGH EVERY
SENTENCE SEPARATELY CONSIDERED IS LITERALLY TRUE.  THIS MAY BE BECAUSE
THINGS ARE OMITTED THAT SHOULD BE SAID, OR BECAUSE ADVERTISEMENTS ARE
COMPOSED OR PURPOSEFULLY PRINTED IN SUCH WAY AS TO MISLEAD.  WISER V.
LAWLER, 189 U.S. 260, 264; FARLEY V. SIMMONS, 99 F.2D 343, 346; SEE
ALSO CASES COLLECTED IN 6 ENG. RUL. CAS. 129-131.  THAT EXCEPTIONALLY
ACUTE AND SOPHISTICATED READERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE BY PENETRATING
ANALYSIS TO HAVE DECIPHERED THE TRUE NATURE OF THE CONTEST'S TERMS IS
NOT SUFFICIENT TO BAR FINDINGS OF FRAUD BY A FACT-FINDING TRIBUNAL. 
QUESTIONS OF FRAUD MAY BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE EFFECT
ADVERTISEMENTS WOULD MOST PROBABLY PRODUCE ON ORDINARY MINDS.  DURLAND
V. UNITED STATES, 161 U.S. 306-313, 314; WISER V. LAWLER, SUPRA AT 264;
OESTING V. UNITED STATES, 234 F. 304, 307.  PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO
ASSUME THAT FRAUDULENT ADVERTISING TRAPS WILL NOT BE LAID TO ENSNARE
THEM.  "LAWS ARE MADE TO PROTECT THE TRUSTING AS WELL AS THE
SUSPICIOUS."  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. STANDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY, 302
U.S. 112, 116. 

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS' ADVERTISEMENTS HAD
BEEN DELIBERATELY CONTRIVED TO DIVERT READERS' ATTENTION FROM MATERIAL
BUT ADROITLY OBSCURED FACTS.  THAT FINDING HAS SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN
THE EVIDENCE.  THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS WERE WRONG
IN HOLDING THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT. 

THIRD.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT SECS. 259 AND 732 OF 39 U.S.C., THE
VARIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND THAT THE STATUTES SHOULD BE HELD
UNENFORCEABLE FOR THIS REASON.  SPECIFICALLY, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE
AMENDMENT; AUTHORIZE UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IN VIOLATION OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT; VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT; DENY THE KIND OF TRIAL GUARANTEED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND BY ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 3; AND INFLICT UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. 

IN 1872 CONGRESS FIRST AUTHORIZED THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO FORBID
DELIVERY OF REGISTERED LETTERS AND PAYMENT OF MONEY ORDERS TO PERSONS
OR COMPANIES FOUND BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO BE CONDUCTING AN
ENTERPRISE TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FALSE PRETENSES THROUGH THE USE OF THE
MAILS.  17 STAT. 322-323, 39 U.S.C. SEC. 732.  IN THE SAME STATUTE
CONGRESS MADE IT A CRIME TO PLACE LETTERS, CIRCULARS, ADVERTISEMENTS,
ETC., IN THE MAILS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT SUCH FRAUDULENT
ARTIFICES OR SCHEMES.  17 STAT. 323, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 338.  IN 1889
CONGRESS DECLARED "NON-MAILABLE" LETTERS AND OTHER MATTER SENT TO HELP
PERPETRATE FRAUDS.  25 STAT. 874, 39 U.S.C. SEC. 256.  IN 1895 THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL'S FRAUD ORDER POWERS WERE EXTENDED TO COVER ALL
LETTERS OR OTHER MATTER SENT BY MAIL.  28 STAT. 964, 39 U.S.C. SEC.
259.  AND CONGRESS HAS PASSED MANY MORE STATUTES, SUCH, FOR
ILLUSTRATION, AS THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT, 48 STAT. 77, 906, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 77(E), AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT AS AMENDED, 52
STAT. 114, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 52, TO PROTECT PEOPLE AGAINST FRAUDULENT USE
OF THE MAILS. 

ALL OF THE FOREGOING STATUTES, AND OTHERS WHICH NEED NOT BE REFERRED
TO SPECIFICALLY, MANIFEST A PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO UTILIZE ITS POWERS,
PARTICULARLY OVER THE MAILS AND IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO PROTECT
PEOPLE AGAINST FRAUD.  THIS GOVERNMENTAL POWER HAS ALWAYS BEEN
RECOGNIZED IN THIS COUNTRY AND IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.  THE PARTICULAR
STATUTES HERE ATTACKED HAVE BEEN REGULARLY ENFORCED BY THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS AND THE COURTS FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY.  THEY ARE NOW
PART AND PARCEL OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL FABRIC.  THIS COURT IN 1904, IN THE
CASE OF PUBLIC CLEARING HOUSE V. COYNE, 194 U.S. 497, SUSTAINED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE LAWS.  THE DECISION THERE
REJECTED ALL THE CONTENTIONS NOW URGED AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTES IN THEIR ENTIRETY, INSOFAR AS THE PRESENT CONTENTIONS HAVE ANY
POSSIBLE MERIT.  NO DECISION OF THIS COURT EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE
COYNE CASE HAS QUESTIONED THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PASS THESE LAWS. 
THE COYNE CASE HAS BEEN CITED WITH APPROVAL MANY TIMES. 

RECOGNIZING THAT PAST DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IF ADHERED TO PRECLUDE
ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR CONTENTIONS, RESPONDENTS URGE THAT CERTAIN OF OUR
DECISIONS SINCE THE COYNE CASE HAVE PARTIALLY UNDERMINED THE PHILOSOPHY
ON WHICH IT RESTED.  RESPONDENTS REFER PARTICULARLY TO COMPARATIVELY
RECENT DECISIONS UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS NONE OF THE
RECENT CASES TO WHICH RESPONDENTS REFER, HOWEVER, PROVIDE THE SLIGHTEST
SUPPORT FOR A CONTENTION THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS INCLUDE COMPLETE FREEDOM,
UNCONTROLLABLE BY CONGRESS, TO USE THE MAILS FOR PERPETRATION OF
SWINDLING SCHEMES. 

WE REJECT THE CONTENTION THAT WE SHOULD OVERRULE THE COYNE CASE AND
DECLARE THESE FRAUD ORDER STATUTES TO BE WHOLLY VOID AND
UNENFORCEABLE. 

AN ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT URGED BY RESPONDENTS IS THAT THE FRAUD ORDER
STATUTES AS INTERPRETED AND APPLIED BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL IN THIS
CASE VIOLATE SOME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ABOVE MENTIONED.  WE
CONSIDER THIS SUGGESTION ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE MODIFIED ORDER. 
ITS FUTURE EFFECT IS MERELY TO ENJOIN THE CONTINUATION OF CONDUCT FOUND
FRAUDULENT.  CARRIED NO FURTHER THAN THIS, THE ORDER HAS NOT EVEN A
SLIGHT RESEMBLANCE TO PUNISHMENT - IT ONLY KEEPS RESPONDENTS FROM
GETTING THE MONEY OF OTHERS BY FALSE PRETENSES AND DEPRIVES THEM OF A
RIGHT TO SPEAK OR PRINT ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PROTECT OTHERS
FROM THEIR FRAUDULENT ARTIFICES.  AND SO FAR AS THE IMPOUNDING ORDER IS
CONCERNED, OF COURSE RESPONDENTS CAN HAVE NO JUST OR LEGAL CLAIM TO
MONEY MAILED TO THEM AS A RESULT OF THEIR FRAUDULENT PRACTICES.  NOR
DOES THE MODIFIED ORDER JEOPARDIZE RESPONDENTS' MAGAZINE EXCEPT TO THE
EXTENT, IF ANY, THAT ITS CIRCULATION MIGHT BE DEPENDENT ON MONIES
RECEIVED FROM THIS CONTEST SCHEME FOUND FRAUDULENT.  A CONTENTION
CANNOT BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHICH ASSUMES THAT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
INCLUDES A RIGHT TO RAISE MONEY TO PROMOTE CIRCULATION BY DECEPTION OF
THE PUBLIC. 

THE ORDER AS MODIFIED IS VALID AND ITS ENFORCEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN ENJOINED.  THE JUDGMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND OF THE DISTRICT COURT ARE REVERSED.  THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR
INJUNCTION AND TO PROVIDE FOR PROPER RETURN TO THE REMITTERS OF THE
IMPOUNDED FUNDS SENT IN RESPONSE TO THE FRAUDULENT ADVERTISEMENTS AND
COMMUNICATIONS.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "THIS CASE IS ORDERED RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT.  ON
REARGUMENT COUNSEL NEED NOT FURTHER DISCUSS THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S FINDINGS.  THEY ARE
REQUESTED TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING: 

"1.  DOES THE FRAUD ORDER PROHIBIT DELIVERY OF MAIL AND POSTAL MONEY
ORDERS TO FACTS MAGAZINE AND ALL ITS EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING ITS EDITOR-IN
CHIEF?  IF SO, 

"(A)  IS THE ORDER WITHIN THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S AUTHORITY UNDER 39
U.S.C. SECS. 259, 732? 

"(B)  IF SO, DO THESE CODE PROVISIONS, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT OR ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM
OF SPEECH OR PRESS OF EITHER THE SENDERS OR THE SENDEES OF THE MAIL OR
THE MONEY ORDERS? 

"2. DOES THE FRAUD ORDER PROHIBIT INDEFINITELY THE DELIVERY OF MAIL
OR MONEY ORDERS WHICH RELATE TO SUBJECT MATTERS OR CONTESTS OTHER THAN
THE CONTEST ON WHICH THE ORDER IS BASED?  IF SO, 

"(A)  IS THE ORDER WITHIN THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S STATUTORY
AUTHORITY? 

"(B)  IF SO, ARE THESE CODE PROVISIONS IN CONFLICT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES? 

"3.  ASSUMING THAT THE ORDER IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE CODE PROVISIONS
OR THE CONSTITUTION, CAN IT BE MODIFIED IN SUCH WAY AS TO FREE IT FROM
STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS?  IF SO, BY WHOM CAN THE ORDER
BE MODIFIED AND BY WHAT PROCEDURE?" 

FN2  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 245-249; NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 713, ET SEQ.; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S.
252, 260-263; CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367; MILWAUKEE PUBLISHING CO.
V. BURLESON, 255 U.S. 407. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE TWO LOWER COURTS REVIEWED IN DETAIL THE FACTS IN THIS CASE.  BOTH
HELD THAT THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PRESENT POSTMASTER GENERAL EXCEEDED
HIS AUTHORITY IN ISSUING HIS STRINGENT ORDER OF OCTOBER 1, 1945.  THE
MODIFICATION OF THAT ORDER ON DECEMBER 8, 1947, BY THE PRESENT
POSTMASTER GENERAL, THEN SERVING AS ACTING POSTMASTER GENERAL, HAS
RESTRICTED IT TO APPROPRIATE PARTIES.  IT HAS NOT ALTERED, HOWEVER, THE
PRIMARY BASIS FOR THE LOWER COURT'S INJUNCTION OF NOVEMBER 27, 1945,
AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  THAT INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED
BECAUSE THE RECORD FAILED TO SHOW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
DRASTIC ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN RELIANCE UPON THE LOTTERY AND
FRAUD SECTIONS OF THE MAIL AND MONEY ORDER STATUTES.  R.S. SECS. 3929
AND 4041, AS AMENDED, 26 STAT. 466, 28 STAT. 964; 39 U.S.C. SECS. 259
AND 732.  THIS DISSENT PROTESTS THE OVERRULING OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF
THE LOWER COURTS ON THIS ISSUE AND SEEKS ESPECIALLY TO DISCOURAGE ANY
INCREASE, OR EVEN REPETITION, OF THE DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP EVIDENCED BY
THIS ORDER. 

THE FORMER POSTMASTER GENERAL APPLIED HERE THE DRASTIC SUMMARY POLICE
POWERS ENTRUSTED TO HIS OFFICE BY CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH FRAUDULENT
SWINDLERS USING THE MAIL IN THE CONDUCT OF LOTTERIES OR ANY OTHER
SCHEME FOR OBTAINING MONEY BY FALSE OR FRAUDULENT PRETENSES.  NO CHARGE
OF A LOTTERY OR SCHEME OF CHANCE WAS MADE THE BASIS FOR THE ORDER
BEFORE US.  THIS PARTICULAR PUZZLE AND LETTER-WRITING CONTEST, TO WHICH
THE ORDER WAS LIMITED, WAS A CONTEST OF THE FAMILIAR TYPE WHICH OFFERS
PRIZES AND THEREBY SEEKS TO ATTRACT PROSPECTS FOR LATER SALES.  THE
SPONSOR CANDIDLY STATED THAT THIS CONTEST WAS CONDUCTED FOR ADVERTISING
PURPOSES AND IT DISTRIBUTED TO THE CONTESTANTS SAMPLES FROM A SERIES OF
BOOKS PUBLISHED BY ITS SUBSIDIARY, LITERARY CLASSICS, INC. THE ENTRANCE
FEES OF 15 CENTS, REQUIRED TO ACCOMPANY THE RESPECTIVE SETS OF PUZZLE
SOLUTIONS, MIGHT WELL ADD UP TO MORE THAN ALL THE EXPENSES OF THE
PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE SUBSTANTIAL PRIZES, PROVIDED THE RESPONSES WERE
MANY.  SUCH FEES, HOWEVER, WOULD FAIL TO MEET THOSE EXPENSES IF THE
RESPONSES WERE FEW.  THE FINANCIAL SUCCESS OF THE CONTEST DEPENDED UPON
THE NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS CHOOSING TO ENTER IT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND: 

"THESE CONSIDERATIONS,  ...  , DO NOT JUSTIFY AN INFERENCE OF FRAUD. 
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, CAN THE PUZZLE CONTEST AND ITS
DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE BE CONSIDERED A FRAUDULENT DEVICE OR STRATEGEM
(STRATAGEM) FOR OBTAINING MONEY.  THE CONCLUSION IS INEVITABLE THAT
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF FACT ON WHICH THE FRAUD
ORDER IS BASED AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER."  READ
MAGAZINE V. HANNEGAN, 63 F.SUPP.  318, 322. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND: 

"APPELLANT DOES NOT CLAIM THAT ANY STATEMENT IN THE ADVERTISEMENTS
WAS UNTRUE OR THAT THERE WAS ANY DEPARTURE FROM THE PROCEDURE ANNOUNCED
IN THE OFFICIAL RULES OF THE CONTEST.  THERE IS NO CLAIM BY HIM THAT
THE JUDGING OF THE LETTERS WAS TO BE OTHER THAN BONA FIDE, OR THAT ANY
CONTESTANT FAILED TO RECEIVE THE PROMISED BOOKS.  NO CONTESTANT, SO FAR
AS THE RECORD SHOWS, COMPLAINED OF BEING MISLED OR DEFRAUDED.  IN OTHER
WORDS, THE FRAUD ORDER IS NOT PREMISED UPON SPECIFIC OR AFFIRMATIVE
MISSTATEMENTS, OR UPON FAILURE TO PERFORM AS PROMISED, BUT IS PREMISED
UPON AN IMPRESSION WHICH APPELLANT SAYS IS CONVEYED BY THE
ADVERTISEMENTS AS A WHOLE.  HE DERIVES THE IMPRESSION FROM THE
HEADLINES IN THE ADVERTISEMENTS AND THE COMPARATIVE URGENCY WHICH HE
FINDS IN SOME OF THE EXPRESSIONS IN THEM. 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"TO SUPPORT APPELLANT'S CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE, ONE MUST ASCRIBE TO
THE ADVERTISEMENTS AN IMPRESSION DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE STATED RULES
OF THE CONTEST.  ONE MUST THUS ASSUME THAT READERS WERE LED NOT TO READ
THE RULES, OR WERE LED TO IGNORE THEM OR TO MISUNDERSTAND THEM OR TO
BELIEVE SOMETHING ELSE CONTRARY TO THEIR STATEMENT.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE, WE THINK, TO SUPPORT ANY OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.  THE RULES
WERE LEGIBLY PRINTED.  THEY WERE EMPHASIZED, RATHER THAN MINIMIZED, IN
THE TEXT.  THEY WERE CLEAR TO ANY REASONABLE MIND.  NO CONTRADICTORY
EXPRESSIONS OCCURRED ELSEWHERE. 

"THAT THIS CONTEST WAS AN ADVERTISING DEVICE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THE
BOOK-PUBLISHING BUSINESS OF APPELLEES MUST HAVE BEEN PLAIN TO THE MOST
CASUAL READER.  THE ADVERTISEMENTS SPECIFICALLY TOLD HIM, 'THIS CONTEST
WITH FACTS MAGAZINE AS SPONSOR, IS BEING PRESENTED AS A MEANS OF
POPULARIZING THE LITERARY CLASSICS BOOK CLUB.'  ... 

"WE FAIL TO SEE THAT THE LETTERS WHICH WERE WRITTEN TO THE
CONTESTANTS WHO SUCCESSFULLY SOLVED THE FIRST SERIES OF PUZZLES, CAST
ANY COMPLEXION UPON THE VENTURE DIFFERENT FROM THAT CAST BY THE
ORIGINAL ADVERTISEMENTS THEMSELVES. 

     .         .         .       .         . 

"WE THINK THAT THE ADVERTISEMENTS BEFORE US FAIRLY URGED CONTESTANTS
TO READ THE RULES AND THAT THE RULES STATED FAIRLY, IN STYLE OF TYPE,
PLACEMENT, AND TERMS, WHAT WAS PROPOSED.  THAT BEING SO, AND THERE
BEING NO AMBIGUITY IN OR DEPARTURE FROM THE PROPOSALS STATED, A FINDING
OF FALSE PRETENSES, REPRESENTATIONS, OR PROMISES COULD NOT PROPERLY BE
MADE."  HANNEGAN V. READ MAGAZINE, 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 339, 341-343, 158
F.2D 542, 544, 545-546. 

NOT ONLY DO I FAIL TO FIND ADEQUATE REASON TO OVERRULE THE FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS BUT, ON EXAMINATION OF THE
RECORD, I AGREE WITH THEM.  I BELIEVE THAT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY WHEN HE APPLIED HIS DRASTIC CENSORSHIP AND FRAUD
ORDER TO THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM.  THERE WAS NO COMPULSION ON ANYONE TO
ENTER THIS CONTEST.  EVERYONE WHO DID SO RECEIVED, AS ADVERTISED,
CERTAIN REPRINTS OF CLASSICAL LITERATURE AND, UNTIL THE CONTEST WAS
STOPPED, EACH CONTESTANT HAD THE ADVERTISED OPPORTUNITY TO WIN CERTAIN
CASH PRIZES. 

ANYONE WHO ENTERED THIS CONTEST TO WIN SUBSTANTIAL PRIZES BY DOING SO
LITTLE TO WIN THEM SHOULD AT LEAST EXAMINE THE EXACT TERMS OF THE
CONTEST AND MAKE HIMSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE RULES PRESCRIBED
BY THOSE OFFERING TO MAKE THE GIFTS HE SOUGHT.  THE CONTESTANTS
RENDERED NO SERVICES FOR WHICH THEY HAD A RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.  THEY
MERELY PAID A SMALL ENTRANCE FEE.  FOR THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE
THE CONTEST CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES STATED. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURTS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO
CLAIM OF FAILURE OR IMPENDING FAILURE BY THE SPONSOR TO CARRY OUT THE
TERMS OF THE CONTEST.  THE RECORD SHOWS NO COMPLAINT FROM ANY
CONTESTANT.  NEVERTHELESS, THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF
TO STOP THE CONTEST.  ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM AND BEFORE THE COURTS,
THIS WAS AN ABUSE OF HIS DISCRETION.  IT WAS "PALPABLY WRONG AND
THEREFORE ARBITRARY."  SEE LEACH V. CARLILE, 258 U.S. 138, 140. 
..END :



















COLE V. ARKANSAS, 333 U.S. 196 


NO. 373.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4-5, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 211
ARK. 836, 202 S.W.2D 770, REVERSED. 


PETITIONERS WERE TRIED IN A STATE COURT UNDER AN INFORMATION CHARGING
THEM ONLY WITH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF A STATE STATUTE, MAKING IT AN
OFFENSE TO PROMOTE AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE.  THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED
THE JURY THAT THEY WERE CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 2; AND THEY
WERE CONVICTED.  THEY APPEALED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, CONTENDING,
INTER ALIA, THAT SEC. 2 WAS CONTRARY TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
WITHOUT PASSING ON THAT QUESTION, THE STATE SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED
THEIR CONVICTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE INFORMATION CHARGED AND THE
EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT PETITIONERS HAD VIOLATED SEC. 1 OF THE SAME
STATUTE, WHICH DESCRIBES THE DISTINCT OFFENSE OF USING FORCE AND
VIOLENCE.  HELD:  PETITIONERS WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE
JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 197-202. 

(A)  IT IS AS MUCH A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS TO SEND AN ACCUSED TO
PRISON FOLLOWING A CONVICTION OF A CHARGE ON WHICH HE WAS NEVER TRIED
AS IT WOULD BE TO CONVICT HIM UPON A CHARGE THAT WAS NEVER MADE.  P.
201. 

(B)  TO CONFORM TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO
HAVE THE VALIDITY OF THEIR CONVICTIONS APPRAISED ON CONSIDERATION OF
THE CASE AS IT WAS TRIED AND AS THE ISSUES WERE DETERMINED IN THE TRIAL
COURT.  P. 202. 

COLE ET AL. V. ARKANSAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

PETITIONERS WERE TRIED AND CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF A
STATE STATUTE.  THEIR CONVICTIONS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD VIOLATED SEC. 1, DESCRIBING A
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT OFFENSE.  211 ARK. 836, 202 S.W.2D 770.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 834.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P.
202. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED OF A FELONY IN AN ARKANSAS STATE COURT
AND SENTENCED TO SERVE ONE YEAR IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING ON THE GROUND THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTIONS.  211 ARK. 836,
202 S.W.2D 770.  A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HERE ALLEGED DEPRIVATION OF
IMPORTANT RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE RECORD INDICATED THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED WAS SUBSTANTIAL.  THAT QUESTION, IN THE PRESENT
STATE OF THE RECORD, IS THE ONLY ONE WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO
CONSIDER.  THE QUESTION IS:  "WERE THE PETITIONERS DENIED DUE PROCESS
OF LAW  ...  IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THEIR CONVICTIONS WERE AFFIRMED UNDER A CRIMINAL
STATUTE FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH THEY HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED?" 

THE PRESENT CONVICTIONS ARE UNDER AN INFORMATION.  THE PETITIONERS
URGE THAT THE INFORMATION CHARGED THEM WITH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF
ACT 193 OF THE 1943 ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE AND THAT THEY WERE TRIED AND
CONVICTED OF VIOLATING ONLY SEC. 2.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED
THEIR CONVICTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE INFORMATION HAD CHARGED AND
THE EVIDENCE HAD SHOWN THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD VIOLATED SEC. 1 OF THE
ARKANSAS ACT WHICH DESCRIBES AN OFFENSE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE
OFFENSE DESCRIBED IN SEC. 2. 

THE INFORMATION CHARGED: 

"  ...  WALTER TED CAMPBELL, ACTING IN CONCERT WITH OTHER PERSONS,
ASSEMBLED AT THE SOUTHERN COTTON OIL COMPANY'S PLANT IN PULASKI COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, WHERE A LABOR DISPUTE EXISTED, AND BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE
PREVENTED OTHA WILLIAMS FROM ENGAGING IN A LAWFUL VOCATION.  THE SAID
ROY COLE, LOUIS JONES AND JESSIE BEAN,  FN1  IN THE COUNTY AND STATE
AFORESAID, ON THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1945, DID UNLAWFULLY AND
FELONIOUSLY, ACTING IN CONCERT WITH EATH N OTHER, PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE
AND AID SUCH UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS." 

THE FOREGOING LANGUAGE DESCRIBING THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE
INFORMATION IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 2 OF THE ARKANSAS ACT.  THAT SECTION PROVIDES: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ACTING IN CONCERT WITH ONE OR
MORE OTHER PERSONS, TO ASSEMBLE AT OR NEAR ANY PLACE WHERE A 'LABOR
DISPUTE' EXISTS AND BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE PREVENT ...  ANY PERSON FROM
ENGAGING IN ANY LAWFUL VOCATION, OR FOR ANY PERSON ACTING  ...  IN
CONCERT WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER PERSONS, TO PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE OR AID
ANY SUCH UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE." 

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROSE-CUTING
ATTORNEY, THE TRIAL JUDGE READ SEC. 2 TO THE JURY.  HE THEN INSTRUCTED
THEM THAT SEC. 2 "INCLUDES TWO OFFENSES, FIRST, THE CONCERT OF ACTION
BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS RESULTING IN THE PREVENTION OF A PERSON BY
MEANS OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE FROM ENGAGING IN A LAWFUL VOCATION.  AND,
SECOND, IN PROMOTING, ENCOURAGING OR AIDING OF SUCH UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE
BY CONCERT OF ACTION AMONG THE DEFENDANTS AS IS CHARGED IN THE
INFORMATION HERE.  THE LATTER OFFENSE IS THE ONE ON TRIAL IN THIS
CASE." 

THE TRIAL COURT ALSO INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THEY COULD NOT CONVICT
PETITIONERS UNLESS "CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY
PROMOTED, ENCOURAGED, AND AIDED IN AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE AT THE PLANT
OF THE SOUTHERN COTTON OIL COMPANY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING OTHA
WILLIAMS FROM ENGAGING IN A LAWFUL VOCATION."  THIS INSTRUCTION, LIKE
THE PRECEDING ONE, TOLD THE JURY THAT THE TRIAL OF PETITIONERS WAS FOR
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2, SINCE SEC. 2 MAKES AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE AN
INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE IT DEFINES AND SEC. 1  FN2  DOES NOT.  THUS
THE PETITIONERS WERE CLEARLY TRIED AND CONVICTED BY THE JURY FOR
PROMOTING AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE MADE AN OFFENSE BY SEC. 2, AND WERE
NOT TRIED FOR THE OFFENSE OF USING FORCE AND VIOLENCE AS DESCRIBED IN
SEC. 1.  FN3 

WHEN THE CASE REACHED THE STATE SUPREME COURT ON APPEAL, THAT COURT
RECOGNIZED THAT THE INFORMATION AS DRAWN DID INCLUDE A CHARGE THAT
PETITIONERS VIOLATED SEC. 2 OF THE ACT.  THAT COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE
INFORMATION ACCUSED PETITIONERS OF "USING FORCE AND VIOLENCE TO PREVENT
WILLIAMS FROM WORKING," AND THAT THE "USE OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE, OR
THREAT OF THE USE OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE, IS MADE UNLAWFUL BY SEC. 1." 
FOR THIS REASON THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT IT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS
OF THE PETITIONERS "WITHOUT INVOKING ANY PART OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT  ...
"  THAT COURT ACCORDINGLY REFUSED TO PASS UPON PETITIONERS' FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO SEC. 2.  IT LATER DENIED A PETITION FOR
REHEARING IN WHICH PETITIONERS ARGUED:  "TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION ON
GROUNDS NOT CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION AND WHICH THE JURY HAD NO
OPPORTUNITY TO PASS UPON, DEPRIVES THE DEFENDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL AND A
TRIAL BY JURY, AND DENIES THE DEFENDANTS THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW
GUARANTEED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION." 

WE THEREFORE HAVE THIS SITUATION.  THE PETITIONERS READ THE
INFORMATION AS CHARGING THEM WITH AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT,
THE LANGUAGE OF WHICH THE INFORMATION HAD USED.  THE TRIAL JUDGE
CONSTRUED THE INFORMATION AS CHARGING AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 2.  HE
INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO THAT EFFECT.  HE CHARGED THE JURY THAT
PETITIONERS WERE ON TRIAL FOR THE OFFENSE OF PROMOTING AN UNLAWFUL
ASSEMBLAGE, NOT FOR THE OFFENSE "OF USING FORCE AND VIOLENCE."  WITHOUT
COMPLETELY IGNORING THE JUDGE'S CHARGE, THE JURY COULD NOT HAVE
CONVICTED PETITIONERS FOR HAVING COMMITTED THE SEPARATE, DISTINCT, AND
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT OFFENSE DEFINED IN SEC. 1.  FN4  YET THE STATE
SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE CONVICTIONS UNDER
SEC. 2, FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH PETITIONERS WERE TRIED AND CONVICTED. 
IT AFFIRMED THEIR CONVICTIONS AS THOUGH THEY HAD BEEN TRIED FOR
VIOLATING SEC. 1, AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE NEITHER TRIED NOR
CONVICTED. 

NO PRINCIPLE OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS MORE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED
THAN THAT NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGE, AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD IN A
TRIAL OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THAT CHARGE, IF DESIRED, ARE AMONG THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EVERY ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN ALL
COURTS, STATE OR FEDERAL.  IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257, 273, DECIDED
TODAY, AND CASES THERE CITED.  IF, AS THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD,
PETITIONERS WERE CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1, IT IS DOUBTFUL
BOTH THAT THE INFORMATION FAIRLY INFORMED THEM OF THAT CHARGE AND THAT
THEY SOUGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST SUCH A CHARGE; IT IS CERTAIN
THAT THEY WERE NOT TRIED FOR OR FOUND GUILTY OF IT.  IT IS AS MUCH A
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS TO SEND AN ACCUSED TO PRISON FOLLOWING
CONVICTION OF A CHARGE ON WHICH HE WAS NEVER TRIED AS IT WOULD BE TO
CONVICT HIM UPON A CHARGE THAT WAS NEVER MADE.  DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299
U.S. 353, 362. 

FURTHERMORE, SINCE ARKANSAS PROVIDES FOR AN APPEAL TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AND ON THAT APPEAL CONSIDERS QUESTIONS RAISED UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE PROCEEDINGS IN THAT COURT ARE A PART OF THE
PROCESS OF LAW UNDER WHICH THE PETITIONERS' CONVICTIONS MUST STAND OR
FALL.  FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 327.  CF. MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294
U.S. 103, 113.  THAT COURT HAS NOT AFFIRMED THESE CONVICTIONS ON THE
BASIS OF THE TRIAL PETITIONERS WERE AFFORDED.  THE CONVICTIONS WERE FOR
A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2.  PETITIONERS URGED IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT
THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THEIR CONVICTIONS OF A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2.  THEY ALSO RAISED SERIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE
VALIDITY OF THAT SECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  FN5  NONE OF THEIR CONTENTIONS WERE PASSED UPON BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT.  IT AFFIRMED THEIR CONVICTIONS AS THOUGH THEY HAD
BEEN TRIED AND CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 WHEN IN TRUTH THEY
HAD BEEN TRIED AND CONVICTED ONLY OF A VIOLATION OF A SINGLE OFFENSE
CHARGED IN SEC. 2, AN OFFENSE WHICH IS DISTINCTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN SEC. 1.  TO CONFORM TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE VALIDITY OF THEIR
CONVICTIONS APPRAISED ON CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE AS IT WAS TRIED AND
AS THE ISSUES WERE DETERMINED IN THE TRIAL COURT. 

WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN DENIED
SAFEGUARDS GUARANTEED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW - SAFEGUARDS ESSENTIAL TO
LIBERTY IN A GOVERNMENT DEDICATED TO JUSTICE UNDER LAW. 

IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD WE CANNOT PASS UPON THOSE
CONTENTIONS WHICH CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 2 OF THE ARKANSAS
ACT.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT
FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 

FN1  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT BEAN'S CONVICTION WAS BASED ON
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, REVERSED HIS CONVICTION, AND DIRECTED THAT THE
CAUSE BE DISMISSED AS TO HIM. 

FN2  "SECTION 1.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON BY THE USE OF
FORCE OR VIOLENCE, OR THREAT OF THE USE OF FORCE OR VIOLENCE, TO
PREVENT OR ATTEMPT TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY LAWFUL
VOCATION WITHIN THIS STATE.  ANY PERSON GUILTY OF VIOLATING THIS
SHALL BE PUNISHED BY CONFINEMENT IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY FOR NOT LESS
THAN ONE (1) YEAR, NOR MORE THAN TWO (2) YEARS."  ACT 193, ARKANSAS
ACTS OF 1943. 

FN3  A PREVIOUS CONVICTION OF PETITIONERS UNDER AN INDICTMENT
CHARGING THEM WITH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 WAS SET ASIDE BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT BECAUSE OF THE ERRONEOUS ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE BY THE
TRIAL COURT.  COLE V. STATE, 210 ARK. 433, 196 S.W.2D 582. 

FN4  "UNDER ANY REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION SECTION 1 CREATES SEPARATE
OFFENSES, AS DOES SECTION 2, AND AN INDICTMENT THAT ALLEGES CRIMES
COVERED BY A PART OF SECTION 1 DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON THE DEFENDANT A
DUTY TO DEFEND UNDER SECTION 2 OR AGAINST 'THREAT' PROVISIONS OF

FN5  THE OBJECTIONS PRESSED IN THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT AND ALSO
ARGUED HERE WERE:  (1) THAT PETITIONERS WERE DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY BY REASON OF THEIR CONVICTIONS UNDER SEC. 2; (2)
THAT THEIR CONVICTIONS WERE BASED UPON A STATUTE OR CHARGES TOO VAGUE
AND INDEFINITE TO CONFORM TO DUE PROCESS; AND (3) THAT ACT 193 DEPRIVED
THEM OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS BY MAKING CERTAIN CONDUCT,
WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN A MISDEMEANOR, A FELONY WHEN COMMITTED
BY STRIKING WORKMEN. 
..END :






MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203 


NO. 90.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 396 ILL.
14, 71 N.E.2D 161, REVERSED. 


WITH THE PERMISSION OF A BOARD OF EDUCATION, GRANTED UNDER ITS GENERAL
SUPERVISORY POWERS OVER THE USE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS, RELIGIOUS
TEACHERS, EMPLOYED SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL AND SUPERVISION OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS BY A PRIVATE RELIGIOUS GROUP INCLUDING
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT AND JEWISH FAITHS, GAVE
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS ONCE EACH WEEK. 
PUPILS WHOSE PARENTS SO REQUESTED WERE EXCUSED FROM THEIR SECULAR
CLASSES DURING THE PERIODS OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION AND WERE REQUIRED
TO ATTEND THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES; BUT OTHER PUPILS WERE NOT RELEASED
FROM THEIR PUBLIC SCHOOL DUTIES, WHICH WERE COMPULSORY UNDER STATE
LAW.  A RESIDENT AND TAXPAYER OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHOSE CHILD WAS
ENROLLED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS SUED IN A STATE COURT FOR A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS REQUIRING THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO TERMINATE THIS PRACTICE. 
HELD: 

1.  A JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT SUSTAINING DENIAL OF THE
WRIT OF MANDAMUS ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE STATUTES GRANTED THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH SUCH A PROGRAM DREW INTO
QUESTION "THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE" OF THE STATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND WAS APPEALABLE TO THIS COURT.  P.
206. 

2.  AS A RESIDENT AND TAXPAYER OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE PARENT
OF A CHILD REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO ATTEND THE SCHOOL, APPELLANT HAD
STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT.  P. 206. 

3.  BOTH STATE COURTS HAVING RULED EXPRESSLY ON APPELLANT'S CLAIM
THAT THE STATE PROGRAM VIOLATED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, A MOTION TO
DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT FAILED PROPERLY TO
PRESENT THAT QUESTION IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 
P. 207. 

4.  THIS UTILIZATION OF THE STATE'S TAX-SUPPORTED PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM AND ITS MACHINERY FOR COMPULSORY PUBLIC SCHOOL ATTENDANCE TO
ENABLE SECTARIAN GROUPS TO GIVE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION TO PUBLIC SCHOOL
PUPILS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION, MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 209-212. 

ILLINOIS EX REL. MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
71, CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AFFIRMED A DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS REQUIRING A BOARD OF EDUCATION TO TERMINATE THE GIVING
OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION BY PRIVATE TEACHERS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
396 ILL. 14, 71 N.E.2D 161.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 212. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RELATES TO THE POWER OF A STATE TO UTILIZE ITS TAX
SUPPORTED PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IN AID OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION INSOFAR
AS THAT POWER MAY BE RESTRICTED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THE APPELLANT, VASHTI MCCOLLUM, BEGAN THIS ACTION FOR MANDAMUS
AGAINST THE CHAMPAIGN BOARD OF EDUCATION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS.  HER ASSERTED INTEREST WAS THAT OF A
RESIDENT AND TAXPAYER OF CHAMPAIGN AND OF A PARENT WHOSE CHILD WAS THEN
ENROLLED IN THE CHAMPAIGN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  ILLINOIS HAS A COMPULSORY
EDUCATION LAW WHICH, WITH EXCEPTIONS, REQUIRES PARENTS TO SEND THEIR
CHILDREN, AGED SEVEN TO SIXTEEN, TO ITS TAX-SUPPORTED PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHERE THE CHILDREN ARE TO REMAIN IN ATTENDANCE DURING THE HOURS WHEN
THE SCHOOLS ARE REGULARLY IN SESSION.  PARENTS WHO VIOLATE THIS LAW
COMMIT A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE UNLESS THE CHILDREN ATTEND
PRIVATE OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS WHICH MEET EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS FIXED BY
THE STATE.  DISTRICT BOARDS OF EDUCATION ARE GIVEN GENERAL SUPERVISORY
POWERS OVER THE USE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE SCHOOL
DISTRICTS.  ILL. REV. STAT. CH. 122, SECS. 123, 301(1943). 

APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR MANDAMUS ALLEGED THAT RELIGIOUS TEACHERS,
EMPLOYED BY PRIVATE RELIGIOUS GROUPS, WERE PERMITTED TO COME WEEKLY
INTO THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS DURING THE REGULAR HOURS SET APART FOR
SECULAR TEACHING, AND THEN AND THERE FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY MINUTES
SUBSTITUTE THEIR RELIGIOUS TEACHING FOR THE SECULAR EDUCATION PROVIDED
UNDER THE COMPULSORY EDUCATION LAW.  THE PETITIONER CHARGED THAT THIS
JOINT PUBLIC-SCHOOL RELIGIOUS-GROUP PROGRAM VIOLATED THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  THE PRAYER OF
HER PETITION WAS THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION BE ORDERED TO "ADOPT AND
ENFORCE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ALL INSTRUCTION IN AND
TEACHING OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN CHAMPAIGN
SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 71, ...  AND IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL HOUSES AND
BUILDINGS IN SAID DISTRICT WHEN OCCUPIED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS." 

THE BOARD FIRST MOVED TO DISMISS THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT
UNDER ILLINOIS LAW APPELLANT HAD NO STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE ACTION. 
THIS MOTION WAS DENIED.  AN ANSWER WAS THEN FILED, WHICH ADMITTED THAT
REGULAR WEEKLY RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN DURING SCHOOL HOURS TO
THOSE PUPILS WHOSE PARENTS CONSENTED AND THAT THOSE PUPILS WERE
RELEASED TEMPORARILY FROM THEIR REGULAR SECULAR CLASSES FOR THE LIMITED
PURPOSE OF ATTENDING THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES.  THE ANSWER DENIED THAT
THIS COORDINATED PROGRAM OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION VIOLATED THE STATE OR
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  MUCH EVIDENCE WAS HEARD, FINDINGS OF FACT WERE
MADE, AFTER WHICH THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS WAS DENIED ON THE GROUND
THAT THE SCHOOL'S RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION PROGRAM VIOLATED NEITHER THE
FEDERAL NOR STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOKED BY THE APPELLANT. 
ON APPEAL THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  396 ILL. 14, 71 N.E.2D
161.  APPELLANT APPEALED TO THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), AND
WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION ON JUNE 2, 1947. 

THE APPELLEES PRESS A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON SEVERAL
GROUNDS, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME
COURT DOES NOT DRAW IN QUESTION THE "VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF ANY
STATE" AS REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A).  THIS CONTENTION RESTS ON
THE ADMITTED FACT THAT THE CHALLENGED PROGRAM OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
WAS NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE.  BUT THE STATE SUPREME COURT
HAS SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE PROGRAM ON THE GROUND THAT THE
ILLINOIS STATUTES GRANTED THE BOARD AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH SUCH A
PROGRAM.  THIS HOLDING IS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE VALIDITY OF AN
ILLINOIS STATUTE WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 344(A).  HAMILTON V. REGENTS OF U. OF CAL., 293 U.S. 245, 258.  A
SECOND GROUND FOR THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS THAT THE APPELLANT LACKS
STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE ACTION, A GROUND WHICH IS ALSO WITHOUT MERIT. 
COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, 443, 445, 464.  A THIRD GROUND FOR THE
MOTION IS THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED PROPERLY TO PRESENT IN THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HER CHALLENGE THAT THE STATE PROGRAM VIOLATED THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  BUT IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS RULINGS OF BOTH STATE COURTS
ON THIS QUESTION, THE ARGUMENT CANNOT BE SUCCESSFULLY MAINTAINED.  THE
MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IS DENIED. 

ALTHOUGH THERE ARE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO VARIOUS
INFERENCES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT PROPERLY BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE
CONCERNING THE RELIGIOUS PROGRAM, THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE SHOWN BY THE
RECORD WITHOUT DISPUTE.  FN1  IN 1940 INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE JEWISH,
ROMAN CATHOLIC, AND A FEW OF THE PROTESTANT FAITHS FORMED A VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATION CALLED THE CHAMPAIGN COUNCIL ON RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.  THEY
OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO OFFER CLASSES IN
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION TO PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS IN GRADES FOUR TO NINE
INCLUSIVE.  CLASSES WERE MADE UP OF PUPILS WHOSE PARENTS SIGNED PRINTED
CARDS REQUESTING THAT THEIR CHILDREN BE PERMITTED TO ATTEND; FN2  THEY
WERE HELD WEEKLY, THIRTY MINUTES FOR THE LOWER GRADES, FORTY-FIVE
MINUTES FOR THE HIGHER.  THE COUNCIL EMPLOYED THE RELIGIOUS TEACHERS AT
NO EXPENSE TO THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, BUT THE INSTRUCTORS WERE SUBJECT
TO THE APPROVAL AND SUPERVISION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS.  FN3
THE CLASSES WERE TAUGHT IN THREE SEPARATE RELIGIOUS GROUPS BY
PROTESTANT TEACHERS,  FN4  CATHOLIC PRIESTS, AND A JEWISH RABBI,
ALTHOUGH FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS THERE HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN NO
CLASSES INSTRUCTED IN THE JEWISH RELIGION.  CLASSES WERE CONDUCTED IN
THE REGULAR CLASSROOMS OF THE SCHOOL BUILDING.  STUDENTS WHO DID NOT
CHOOSE TO TAKE THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION WERE NOT RELEASED FROM PUBLIC
SCHOOL DUTIES; THEY WERE REQUIRED TO LEAVE THEIR CLASSROOMS AND GO TO
SOME OTHER PLACE IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING FOR PURSUIT OF THEIR SECULAR
STUDIES.  ON THE OTHER HAND, STUDENTS WHO WERE RELEASED FROM SECULAR
STUDY FOR THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT AT THE
RELIGIOUS CLASSES.  REPORTS OF THEIR PRESENCE OR ABSENCE WERE TO BE
MADE TO THEIR SECULAR TEACHERS.  FN5 

THE FOREGOING FACTS, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO OTHERS THAT APPEAR IN THE
RECORD, SHOW THE USE OF TAX-SUPPORTED PROPERTY FOR RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION AND THE CLOSE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES
AND THE RELIGIOUS COUNCIL IN PROMOTING RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.  THE
OPERATION OF THE STATE'S COMPULSORY EDUCATION SYSTEM THUS ASSISTS AND
IS INTEGRATED WITH THE PROGRAM OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION CARRIED ON BY
SEPARATE RELIGIOUS SECTS.  PUPILS COMPELLED BY LAW TO GO TO SCHOOL FOR
SECULAR EDUCATION ARE RELEASED IN PART FROM THEIR LEGAL DUTY UPON THE
CONDITION THAT THEY ATTEND THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES.  THIS IS BEYOND ALL
QUESTION A UTILIZATION OF THE TAX-ESTABLISHED AND TAX-SUPPORTED PUBLIC
SCHOOL SYSTEM TO AID RELIGIOUS GROUPS TO SPREAD THEIR FAITH.  AND IT
FALLS SQUARELY UNDER THE BAN OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (MADE APPLICABLE TO
THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH) AS WE INTERPRETED IT IN EVERSON V. BOARD
OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1.  THERE WE SAID:  "NEITHER A STATE NOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN SET UP A CHURCH.  NEITHER CAN PASS LAWS WHICH
AID ONE RELIGION, AID ALL RELIGIONS, OR PREFER ONE RELIGION OVER
ANOTHER.  FN6  NEITHER CAN FORCE OR INFLUENCE A PERSON TO GO TO OR TO
REMAIN AWAY FROM CHURCH AGAINST HIS WILL OR FORCE HIM TO PROFESS A
BELIEF OR DISBELIEF IN ANY RELIGION.  NO PERSON CAN BE PUNISHED FOR
ENTERTAINING OR PROFESSING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR DISBELIEFS, FOR CHURCH
ATTENDANCE OR NON-ATTENDANCE.  NO TAX IN ANY AMOUNT, LARGE OR SMALL,
CAN BE LEVIED TO SUPPORT ANY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES OR INSTITUTIONS,
WHATEVER THEY MAY BE CALLED, OR WHATEVER FORM THEY MAY ADOPT TO TEACH
OR PRACTICE RELIGION.  FN7  NEITHER A STATE NOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CAN, OPENLY OR SECRETLY, PARTICIPATE IN THE AFFAIRS OF ANY RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS OR GROUPS AND VICE VERSA.  IN THE WORDS OF JEFFERSON, THE
CLAUSE AGAINST ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION BY LAW WAS INTENDED TO ERECT
'A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.'"  ID. AT 15-16.  THE
MAJORITY IN THE EVERSON CASE, AND THE MINORITY AS SHOWN BY QUOTATIONS
FROM THE DISSENTING VIEWS IN OUR NOTES 6 AND 7, AGREED THAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT'S LANGUAGE, PROPERLY INTERPRETED, HAD ERECTED A WALL OF
SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.  THEY DISAGREED AS TO THE FACTS
SHOWN BY THE RECORD AND AS TO THE PROPER APPLICATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT'S LANGUAGE TO THOSE FACTS. 

RECOGNIZING THAT THE ILLINOIS PROGRAM IS BARRED BY THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS IF WE ADHERE TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BOTH BY THE
MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY IN THE EVERSON CASE, COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS CHALLENGE THOSE VIEWS AS DICTA AND URGE THAT WE RECONSIDER
AND REPUDIATE THEM.  THEY ARGUE THAT HISTORICALLY THE FIRST AMENDMENT
WAS INTENDED TO FORBID ONLY GOVERNMENT PREFERENCE OF ONE RELIGION OVER
ANOTHER, NOT AN IMPARTIAL GOVERNMENTAL ASSISTANCE OF ALL RELIGIONS.  IN
ADDITION THEY ASK THAT WE DISTINGUISH OR OVERRULE OUR HOLDING IN THE
EVERSON CASE THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MADE THE "ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION" CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLICABLE AS A PROHIBITION
AGAINST THE STATES.  AFTER GIVING FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE ARGUMENTS
PRESENTED WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT EITHER OF THESE CONTENTIONS. 

TO HOLD THAT A STATE CANNOT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS UTILIZE ITS PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM TO AID ANY OR
ALL RELIGIOUS FAITHS OR SECTS IN THE DISSEMINATION OF THEIR DOCTRINES
AND IDEALS DOES NOT, AS COUNSEL URGE, MANIFEST A GOVERNMENTAL HOSTILITY
TO RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS.  A MANIFESTATION OF SUCH HOSTILITY
WOULD BE AT WAR WITH OUR NATIONAL TRADITION AS EMBODIED IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  FOR THE FIRST
AMENDMENT RESTS UPON THE PREMISE THAT BOTH RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT CAN
BEST WORK TO ACHIEVE THEIR LOFTY AIMS IF EACH IS LEFT FREE FROM THE
OTHER WITHIN ITS RESPECTIVE SPHERE.  OR, AS WE SAID IN THE EVERSON
CASE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS ERECTED A WALL BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE
WHICH MUST BE KEPT HIGH AND IMPREGNABLE. 

HERE NOT ONLY ARE THE STATE'S TAX-SUPPORTED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS
USED FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES.  THE STATE ALSO
AFFORDS SECTARIAN GROUPS AN INVALUABLE AID IN THAT IT HELPS TO PROVIDE
PUPILS FOR THEIR RELIGIOUS CLASSES THROUGH USE OF THE STATE'S
COMPULSORY PUBLIC SCHOOL MACHINERY.  THIS IS NOT SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE. 

THE CAUSE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 

FN1  APPELLANT, TAKING ISSUE WITH THE FACTS FOUND BY THE ILLINOIS
COURTS, ARGUES THAT THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION PROGRAM IN QUESTION IS
INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FOR ANY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
REASONS:  (1) IN ACTUAL PRACTICE CERTAIN PROTESTANT GROUPS HAVE
OBTAINED AN OVERSHADOWING ADVANTAGE IN THE PROPAGATION OF THEIR FAITHS
OVER OTHER PROTESTANT SECTS; (2) THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION PROGRAM WAS
VOLUNTARY IN NAME ONLY BECAUSE IN FACT SUBTLE PRESSURES WERE BROUGHT TO
BEAR ON THE STUDENTS TO FORCE THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN IT; AND (3) THE
POWER GIVEN THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT TO REJECT TEACHERS SELECTED BY
RELIGIOUS GROUPS AND THE POWER GIVEN THE LOCAL COUNCIL ON RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION TO DETERMINE WHICH RELIGIOUS FAITHS SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE
PROGRAM WAS A PRIOR CENSORSHIP OF RELIGION. 

IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THESE
ARGUMENTS OR THE DISPUTED FACTS UPON WHICH THEY DEPEND. 

FN2  THE SUPREME COURT DESCRIBED THE REQUEST CARD SYSTEM AS FOLLOWS:
"  ...  ADMISSION TO THE CLASSES WAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY UPON THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN REQUEST OF PARENTS, AND THEN ONLY TO CLASSES DESIGNATED
BY THE PARENTS.  ...  CARDS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THE PARENTS OF
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS BY THE PUBLIC-SCHOOL TEACHERS REQUESTING THEM TO
INDICATE WHETHER THEY DESIRED THEIR CHILDREN TO RECEIVE RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION.  AFTER BEING FILLED OUT, THE CARDS WERE RETURNED TO THE
TEACHERS OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION CLASSES EITHER BY THE PUBLIC-SCHOOL
TEACHERS OR THE CHILDREN.  ...  "  ON THIS SUBJECT THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND THAT "  ...  THOSE STUDENTS WHO HAVE OBTAINED THE WRITTEN CONSENT
OF THEIR PARENTS THEREFOR ARE RELEASED BY THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES FROM
THEIR SECULAR WORK, AND IN THE GRADE SCHOOLS FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY
MINUTES' INSTRUCTION IN EACH WEEK DURING SAID SCHOOL HOURS, AND FORTY
FIVE MINUTES DURING EACH WEEK IN THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, RECEIVE
TRAINING IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.  ...  CERTAIN CARDS ARE USED FOR
OBTAINING PERMISSION OF PARENTS FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO TAKE SAID
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION COURSES, AND THEY ARE MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE
OFFICES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AND THROUGH THE HANDS OF
PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS TO THE PUPILS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.  SAID
CARDS ARE PREPARED AT THE COST OF THE COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. 
THE HANDLING AND DISTRIBUTION OF SAID CARDS DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
DUTIES OR SUSPEND THE REGULAR SECULAR WORK OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
DEFENDANT.  ...  "    FN3  THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAID:  "THE RECORD
FURTHER DISCLOSES THAT THE TEACHERS CONDUCTING THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES
WERE NOT TEACHERS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUT WERE SUBJECT TO THE
APPROVAL AND SUPERVISION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT.  ...  "  THE TRIAL
COURT FOUND:  "BEFORE ANY FAITH OR OTHER GROUP MAY OBTAIN PERMISSION
FROM THE DEFENDANT FOR THE SIMILAR, FREE AND EQUAL USE OF ROOMS IN THE
PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS SAID FAITH OR GROUP MUST MAKE APPLICATION TO
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF SAID SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 71, WHO IN
TURN WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS PRACTICAL FOR SAID GROUP TO
TEACH IN SAID SCHOOL SYSTEM."  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD
TESTIFIED:  " ...  THE PROTESTANTS WOULD HAVE ONE GROUP AND THE
CATHOLICS, AND WOULD BE GIVEN A ROOM WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE THE CLASS
AND WE WOULD GO ALONG WITH THE PLAN OF THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.  THEY WERE
ALL TO BE TREATED ALIKE, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TEACHERS THEY
WOULD BRING INTO THE SCHOOL WERE APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT.  ...
THE SUPERINTENDENT WAS THE LAST WORD SO FAR AS THE INDIVIDUAL WAS
CONCERNED.   ...  " 

FN4  THERE WERE TWO TEACHERS OF THE PROTESTANT FAITH.  ONE WAS A
PRESBYTERIAN AND HAD BEEN A FOREIGN MISSIONARY FOR THAT CHURCH.  THE
SECOND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:  "I AM AFFILIATED WITH THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH.  I ALSO WORK IN THE METHODIST CHURCH AND I TAUGHT AT THE
PRESBYTERIAN.  I AM MARRIED TO A LUTHERAN." 

FN5  THE DIRECTOR OF THE CHAMPAIGN COUNCIL ON RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
TESTIFIED:  "  ...  IF ANY PUPIL IS ABSENT WE TURN IN A SLIP JUST LIKE
ANY TEACHER WOULD TO THE SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE.  THE SLIP IS A PIECE
OF PAPER WITH A NUMBER OF HOURS IN THE SCHOOL DAY AND A SQUARE, AND THE
TEACHER OF THE PARTICULAR ROOM FOR THE PARTICULAR HOUR RECORDS THE
ABSENTEES.  IT HAS THEIR NAMES AND THE GRADE AND THE SECTION TO WHICH
THEY BELONG.  IT IS THE SAME SHEET THAT THE GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY
TEACHERS AND ALL THE OTHER TEACHERS USE, AND IS FURNISHED BY THE
SCHOOL.  ...  " 

FN6  THE DISSENT, AGREED TO BY FOUR JUDGES, SAID:  "THE PROBLEM THEN
CANNOT BE CAST IN TERMS OF LEGAL DISCRIMINATION OR ITS ABSENCE.  THIS
WOULD BE TRUE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE IN GIVING AID SHOULD TREAT ALL
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION ALIKE.  ...  AGAIN, IT WAS THE FURNISHING OF
'CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF OPINIONS WHICH HE
DISBELIEVES' THAT THE FATHERS OUTLAWED.  THAT CONSEQUENCE AND EFFECT
ARE NOT REMOVED BY MULTIPLYING TO ALL-INCLUSIVENESS THE SECTS FOR WHICH
SUPPORT IS EXACTED.  THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, NOT COMPREHENSIVE
IDENTIFICATION OF STATE WITH RELIGION, BUT COMPLETE SEPARATION." 
EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1, 59, 60. 

FN7  THE DISSENTING JUDGES SAID:  "IN VIEW OF THIS HISTORY NO FURTHER
PROOF IS NEEDED THAT THE AMENDMENT FORBIDS ANY APPROPRIATION, LARGE OR
SMALL, FROM PUBLIC FUNDS TO AID OR SUPPORT ANY AND ALL RELIGIOUS
EXERCISES.  ...  LEGISLATURES ARE FREE TO MAKE, AND COURTS TO SUSTAIN,
APPROPRIATIONS ONLY WHEN IT CAN BE FOUND THAT IN FACT THEY DO NOT AID,
PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE OR SUSTAIN RELIGIOUS TEACHING OR OBSERVANCES, BE THE
AMOUNT LARGE OR SMALL."  EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1, 41,
52-53. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING OPINION, IN WHICH MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON, MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN* . 

*MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURRED ALSO IN THE
COURT'S OPINION. 

WE DISSENTED IN EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1, BECAUSE IN
OUR VIEW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE REQUIRING SEPARATION OF CHURCH
AND STATE COMPELLED INVALIDATION OF THE ORDINANCE SUSTAINED BY THE
MAJORITY.  ILLINOIS HAS HERE AUTHORIZED THE COMMINGLING OF SECTARIAN
WITH SECULAR INSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES FORBIDS THIS. 

THIS CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVERSON DECISION, DEMONSTRATES ANEW
THAT THE MERE FORMULATION OF A RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE IS THE
BEGINNING OF THE SOLUTION OF A PROBLEM, NOT ITS ANSWER.  THIS IS SO
BECAUSE THE MEANING OF A SPACIOUS CONCEPTION LIKE THAT OF THE
SEPARATION OF CHURCH FROM STATE IS UNFOLDED AS APPEAL IS MADE TO THE
PRINCIPLE FROM CASE TO CASE.  WE ARE ALL AGREED THAT THE FIRST AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS HAVE A SECULAR REACH FAR MORE PENETRATING IN THE
CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT THAN MERELY TO FORBID AN "ESTABLISHED CHURCH." 
BUT AGREEMENT, IN THE ABSTRACT, THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED
TO ERECT A "WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE," DOES NOT
PRECLUDE A CLASH OF VIEWS AS TO WHAT THE WALL SEPARATES.  INVOLVED IS
NOT ONLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE BUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW IN ITS ENFORCEMENT.  ACCOMMODATION OF LEGISLATIVE FREEDOM AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS UPON THAT FREEDOM CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY A
MERE PHRASE.  WE CANNOT ILLUMINATINGLY APPLY THE "WALL-OF-SEPARATION"
METAPHOR UNTIL WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION IN AMERICA, THE PLACE OF THE "RELEASED TIME" MOVEMENT IN THAT
HISTORY, AND ITS PRECISE MANIFESTATION IN THE CASE BEFORE US. 

TO UNDERSTAND THE PARTICULAR PROGRAM NOW BEFORE US AS A CONSCIENTIOUS
ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE THE ALLOWABLE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AND THE
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF THE CHURCH WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR CONSTITUTION
AND WITH DUE REGARD TO THE KIND OF SOCIETY FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED,
WE MUST PUT THIS CHAMPAIGN PROGRAM OF 1940 IN ITS HISTORIC SETTING. 
TRADITIONALLY, ORGANIZED EDUCATION IN THE WESTERN WORLD WAS CHURCH
EDUCATION.  IT COULD HARDLY BE OTHERWISE WHEN THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN
WAS PRIMARILY STUDY OF THE WORD AND THE WAYS OF GOD.  EVEN IN THE
PROTESTANT COUNTRIES, WHERE THERE WAS A LESS CLOSE IDENTIFICATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE, THE BASIS OF EDUCATION WAS LARGELY THE BIBLE, AND ITS
CHIEF PURPOSE INCULCATION OF PIETY.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATE
INTERVENED, IT USED ITS AUTHORITY TO FURTHER AIMS OF THE CHURCH. 

THE EMIGRANTS WHO CAME TO THESE SHORES BROUGHT THIS VIEW OF EDUCATION
WITH THEM.  COLONIAL SCHOOLS CERTAINLY STARTED WITH A RELIGIOUS
ORIENTATION.  WHEN THE COMMON PROBLEMS OF THE EARLY SETTLERS OF THE
MASSACHUSETTS BAY COLONY REVEALED THE NEED FOR COMMON SCHOOLS, THE
OBJECT WAS THE DEFEAT OF "ONE CHIEF PROJECT OF THAT OLD DELUDER, SATAN,
TO KEEP MEN FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCRIPTURES."  THE LAWS AND
LIBERTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS, 1648 EDITION (CAMBRIDGE 1929) 47.  FN1 

THE EVOLUTION OF COLONIAL EDUCATION, LARGELY IN THE SERVICE OF
RELIGION, INTO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM OF TODAY IS THE STORY OF
CHANGING CONCEPTIONS REGARDING THE AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, OF THE
FUNCTIONS OF STATE-MAINTAINED EDUCATION IN SUCH A SOCIETY, AND OF THE
ROLE THEREIN OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION BY THE PEOPLE.  THE
MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL DERIVED FROM A PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM REFLECTED IN
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THAT THE REMONSTRANCE
OF JAMES MADISON, AN EVENT BASIC IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY,
WAS CALLED FORTH BY A PROPOSAL WHICH INVOLVED SUPPORT TO RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION.  SEE MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE'S OPINION IN THE EVERSON CASE,
SUPRA, 330 U.S. AT 36-37.  AS THE MOMENTUM FOR POPULAR EDUCATION
INCREASED AND IN TURN EVOKED STRONG CLAIMS FOR STATE SUPPORT OF
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, CONTESTS NOT UNLIKE THAT WHICH IN VIRGINIA HAD
PRODUCED MADISON'S REMONSTRANCE APPEARED IN VARIOUS FORMS IN OTHER
STATES.  NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS PROVIDE FAMOUS CHAPTERS IN THE
HISTORY THAT ESTABLISHED DISSOCIATION OF RELIGIOUS TEACHING FROM STATE
MAINTAINED SCHOOLS.  IN NEW YORK, THE RISE OF THE COMMON SCHOOLS LED,
DESPITE FIERCE SECTARIAN OPPOSITION, TO THE BARRING OF TAX FUNDS TO
CHURCH SCHOOLS, AND LATER TO ANY SCHOOL IN WHICH SECTARIAN DOCTRINE WAS
TAUGHT.  FN2  IN MASSACHUSETTS, LARGELY THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF HORACE
MANN, ALL SECTARIAN TEACHINGS WERE BARRED FROM THE COMMON SCHOOL TO
SAVE IT FROM BEING RENT BY DENOMINATIONAL CONFLICT.  FN3  THE UPSHOT OF
THESE CONTROVERSIES, OFTEN LONG AND FIERCE, IS FAIRLY SUMMARIZED BY
SAYING THAT LONG BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUBJECTED THE STATES
TO NEW LIMITATIONS, THE PROHIBITION OF FURTHERANCE BY THE STATE OF
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION BECAME THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE, IN LAW AND FEELING,
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  IN SUSTAINING STEPHEN GIRARD'S WILL, THIS
COURT REFERRED TO THE INEVITABLE CONFLICTS ENGENDERED BY MATTERS
"CONNECTED WITH RELIGIOUS POLITY" AND PARTICULARLY "IN A COUNTRY
COMPOSED OF SUCH A VARIETY OF RELIGIOUS SECTS AS OUR COUNTRY."  VIDAL
V. GIRARD'S EXECUTORS, 2 HOW.  127, 198.  THAT WAS MORE THAN ONE
HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 

SEPARATION IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION, THEN, WAS NOT IMPOSED UPON
UNWILLING STATES BY FORCE OF SUPERIOR LAW.  IN THIS RESPECT THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MERELY REFLECTED A PRINCIPLE THEN DOMINANT IN OUR
NATIONAL LIFE.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION THUS MADE IT
BINDING UPON THE STATES, THE BASIS OF THE RESTRICTION IS THE WHOLE
EXPERIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE.  ZEALOUS WATCHFULNESS AGAINST FUSION OF
SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES BY GOVERNMENT ITSELF, THROUGH ANY OF
ITS INSTRUMENTS BUT ESPECIALLY THROUGH ITS EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES, WAS
THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY TO THE PARTICULAR
NEEDS OF A YOUNG AND GROWING NATION, UNIQUE IN THE COMPOSITION OF ITS
PEOPLE.  FN4  A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION ELSEWHERE, AS ILLUSTRATED
FOR INSTANCE BY THE ENGLISH PROVISIONS FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN STATE
MAINTAINED SCHOOLS, ONLY SERVES TO ILLUSTRATE THAT FREE SOCIETIES ARE
NOT CAST IN ONE MOULD.  SEE THE EDUCATION ACT OF 1944, 7 AND 8 GEO. VI,
C. 31.  DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS EVOLVE FROM DIFFERENT HISTORIC
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IT IS PERTINENT TO REMIND THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS PRINCIPLE OF
SEPARATION IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION WAS NOT DUE TO ANY DECLINE IN THE
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE PEOPLE.  HORACE MANN WAS A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN,
AND THE DEEP RELIGIOUS FEELING OF JAMES MADISON IS STAMPED UPON THE
REMONSTRANCE.  THE SECULAR PUBLIC SCHOOL DID NOT IMPLY INDIFFERENCE TO
THE BASIC ROLE OF RELIGION IN THE LIFE OF THE PEOPLE, NOR REJECTION OF
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF FOSTERING IT.  THE CLAIMS OF RELIGION
WERE NOT MINIMIZED BY REFUSING TO MAKE THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AGENCIES FOR
THEIR ASSERTION.  THE NON-SECTARIAN OR SECULAR PUBLIC SCHOOL WAS THE
MEANS OF RECONCILING FREEDOM IN GENERAL WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  THE
SHARP CONFINEMENT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO SECULAR EDUCATION WAS A
RECOGNITION OF THE NEED OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY TO EDUCATE ITS
CHILDREN, INSOFAR AS THE STATE UNDERTOOK TO DO SO, IN AN ATMOSPHERE
FREE FROM PRESSURES IN A REALM IN WHICH PRESSURES ARE MOST RESISTED AND
WHERE CONFLICTS ARE MOST EASILY AND MOST BITTERLY ENGENDERED.  DESIGNED
TO SERVE AS PERHAPS THE MOST POWERFUL AGENCY FOR PROMOTING COHESION
AMONG A HETEROGENEOUS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE, THE PUBLIC SCHOOL MUST KEEP
SCRUPULOUSLY FREE FROM ENTANGLEMENT IN THE STRIFE OF SECTS.  THE
PRESERVATION OF THE COMMUNITY FROM DIVISIVE CONFLICTS, OF GOVERNMENT
FROM IRRECONCILABLE PRESSURES BY RELIGIOUS GROUPS, OF RELIGION FROM
CENSORSHIP AND COERCION HOWEVER SUBTLY EXERCISED, REQUIRES STRICT
CONFINEMENT OF THE STATE TO INSTRUCTION OTHER THAN RELIGIOUS, LEAVING
TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S CHURCH AND HOME, INDOCTRINATION IN THE FAITH OF HIS
CHOICE. 

THIS DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL AS A SYMBOL OF OUR SECULAR
UNITY WAS NOT A SUDDEN ACHIEVEMENT NOR ATTAINED WITHOUT VIOLENT
CONFLICT.  FN5  WHILE IN SMALL COMMUNITIES OF COMPARATIVELY HOMOGENEOUS
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, THE NEED FOR ABSOLUTE SEPARATION PRESENTED NO
URGENCIES, ELSEWHERE THE GROWTH OF THE SECULAR SCHOOL ENCOUNTERED THE
RESISTANCE OF FEELING STRONGLY ENGAGED AGAINST IT.  BUT THE
INEVITABILITY OF SUCH ATTEMPTS IS THE VERY REASON FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE PROTECTION OF MINORITY GROUPS. 
AND SUCH SECTS ARE SHIFTING GROUPS, VARYING FROM TIME TO TIME, AND
PLACE TO PLACE, THUS REPRESENTING IN THEIR TOTALITY THE COMMON INTEREST
OF THE NATION. 

ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID TO INDICATE THAT WE ARE DEALING NOT WITH A FULL
BLOWN PRINCIPLE, NOR ONE HAVING THE DEFINITENESS OF A SURVEYOR'S METES
AND BOUNDS.  BUT BY 1875 THE SEPARATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM CHURCH
ENTANGLEMENTS, OF THE STATE FROM THE TEACHING OF RELIGION, WAS FIRMLY
ESTABLISHED IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE NATION.  IN THAT YEAR PRESIDENT
GRANT MADE HIS FAMOUS REMARKS TO THE CONVENTION OF THE ARMY OF THE
TENNESSEE: 

"ENCOURAGE FREE SCHOOLS, AND RESOLVE THAT NOT ONE DOLLAR APPROPRIATED
FOR THEIR SUPPORT SHALL BE APPROPRIATED TO THE SUPPORT OF ANY SECTARIAN
SCHOOLS.  RESOLVE THAT NEITHER THE STATE NOR NATION, NOR BOTH COMBINED,
SHALL SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING OTHER THAN THOSE SUFFICIENT TO
AFFORD EVERY CHILD GROWING UP IN THE LAND THE OPPORTUNITY OF A GOOD
COMMONSCHOOL EDUCATION, UNMIXED WITH SECTARIAN, PAGAN, OR ATHEISTICAL
DOGMAS.  LEAVE THE MATTER OF RELIGION TO THE FAMILY ALTAR, THE CHURCH,
AND THE PRIVATE SCHOOL, SUPPORTED ENTIRELY BY PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS. 
KEEP THE CHURCH AND THE STATE FOREVER SEPARATE."  "THE PRESIDENT'S
SPEECH AT DES MOINES," 22 CATHOLIC WORLD 433, 434-35(1876). 

SO STRONG WAS THIS CONVICTION, THAT RATHER THAN REST ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PROHIBITIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS,
PRESIDENT GRANT URGED THAT THERE BE WRITTEN INTO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION PARTICULAR ELABORATIONS, INCLUDING A SPECIFIC PROHIBITION
AGAINST THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR SECTARIAN EDUCATION,  FN6  SUCH AS
HAD BEEN WRITTEN INTO MANY STATE CONSTITUTIONS.  FN7  BY 1894, IN
URGING THE ADOPTION OF SUCH A PROVISION IN THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION,
ELIHU ROOT WAS ABLE TO SUMMARIZE A CENTURY OF THE NATION'S HISTORY:
"IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF RELIGION, OR OF CREED, OR OF PARTY; IT IS A
QUESTION OF DECLARING AND MAINTAINING THE GREAT AMERICAN PRINCIPLE OF
ETERNAL SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE."  ROOT, ADDRESSES ON
GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENSHIP, 137, 140.  FN8  THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS
PRINCIPLE WAS DEEMED A PRESUPPOSITION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IS
STRIKINGLY ILLUSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT EVERY STATE ADMITTED INTO THE
UNION SINCE 1876 WAS COMPELLED BY CONGRESS TO WRITE INTO ITS
CONSTITUTION A REQUIREMENT THAT IT MAINTAIN A SCHOOL SYSTEM "FREE FROM
AND SECULAR INSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL IS OF COURSE ONLY HALF THE
STORY.  A RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WAS NATURALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PART OF
THE CHILD'S EDUCATION ENTRUSTED "TO THE FAMILY ALTAR, THE CHURCH, AND
THE PRIVATE SCHOOL."  THE PROMOTION OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION TOOK MANY
FORMS.  LABORING UNDER FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND EXERCISING ONLY
PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY, VARIOUS DENOMINATIONS FELT HANDICAPPED IN THEIR
TASK OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.  ABORTIVE ATTEMPTS WERE THEREFORE
FREQUENTLY MADE TO OBTAIN PUBLIC FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.  FN10
BUT THE MAJOR EFFORTS OF RELIGIOUS INCULCATION WERE A RECOGNITION OF
THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHURCH SCHOOLS
PRIVATELY SUPPORTED.  PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS WERE MAINTAINED BY VARIOUS
DENOMINATIONS.  THESE, HOWEVER, WERE OFTEN BESET BY SERIOUS HANDICAPS,
FINANCIAL AND OTHERWISE, SO THAT THE RELIGIOUS AIMS WHICH THEY
REPRESENTED FOUND OTHER DIRECTIONS.  THERE WERE EXPERIMENTS WITH
VACATION SCHOOLS, WITH SATURDAY AS WELL AS SUNDAY SCHOOLS.  FN11  THEY
ALL FELL SHORT OF THEIR PURPOSE.  IT WAS URGED THAT BY APPEARING TO
MAKE RELIGION A ONE-DAY-A-WEEK MATTER, THE SUNDAY SCHOOL, WHICH
ACQUIRED NATIONAL ACCEPTANCE, TENDED TO RELEGATE THE CHILD'S RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION, AND THEREBY HIS RELIGION, TO A MINOR ROLE NOT UNLIKE THE
ENFORCED PIANO LESSON. 

OUT OF THESE INADEQUATE EFFORTS EVOLVED THE WEEK-DAY CHURCH SCHOOL,
HELD ON ONE OR MORE AFTERNOONS A WEEK AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC
SCHOOL.  BUT CHILDREN CONTINUED TO BE CHILDREN; THEY WANTED TO PLAY
WHEN SCHOOL WAS OUT, PARTICULARLY WHEN OTHER CHILDREN WERE FREE TO DO
SO. CHURCH LEADERS DECIDED THAT IF THE WEEK-DAY CHURCH SCHOOL WAS TO
SUCCEED, A WAY HAD TO BE FOUND TO GIVE THE CHILD HIS RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION DURING WHAT THE CHILD CONCEIVED TO BE HIS "BUSINESS HOURS." 

THE INITIATION OF THE MOVEMENT  FN12  MAY FAIRLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO DR.
GEORGE U. WENNER.  THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION OF HIS PROPOSAL, MADE AT
THE INTERFAITH CONFERENCE ON FEDERATION HELD IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1905,
WAS THAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOL UNDULY MONOPOLIZED THE CHILD'S TIME AND THAT
THE CHURCHES WERE ENTITLED TO THEIR SHARE OF IT.  FN13  THIS, THE
SCHOOLS SHOULD "RELEASE."  ACCORDINGLY, THE FEDERATION, CITING THE
EXAMPLE OF THE THIRD REPUBLIC OF FRANCE,  FN14  URGED THAT UPON THE
REQUEST OF THEIR PARENTS CHILDREN BE EXCUSED FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL ON
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, SO THAT THE CHURCHES COULD PROVIDE "SUNDAY SCHOOL
ON WEDNESDAY."  THIS WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT ON CHURCH PREMISES UNDER
CHURCH AUTHORITY.  THOSE NOT DESIRING TO ATTEND CHURCH SCHOOLS WOULD
CONTINUE THEIR NORMAL CLASSES.  LEST THESE PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASSES
UNFAIRLY COMPETE WITH THE CHURCH EDUCATION, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE
SCHOOL AUTHORITIES REFRAIN FROM SCHEDULING COURSES OR ACTIVITIES OF
COMPELLING INTEREST OR IMPORTANCE. 

THE PROPOSAL AROUSED CONSIDERABLE OPPOSITION AND IT TOOK ANOTHER
DECADE FOR A "RELEASED TIME" SCHEME TO BECOME PART OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM.  GARY, INDIANA, INAUGURATED THE MOVEMENT.  AT A TIME WHEN
INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION STRAINED THE COMMUNAL FACILITIES OF THE CITY,
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS WIRT SUGGESTED A FULLER USE OF THE SCHOOL
BUILDINGS.  BUILDING ON THEORIES WHICH HAD BECOME MORE OR LESS CURRENT,
HE ALSO URGED THAT EDUCATION WAS MORE THAN INSTRUCTION IN A CLASSROOM. 
THE SCHOOL WAS ONLY ONE OF SEVERAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.  THE LIBRARY,
THE PLAYGROUND, THE HOME, THE CHURCH, ALL HAVE THEIR FUNCTION IN THE
CHILD'S PROPER UNFOLDING.  ACCORDINGLY, WIRT'S PLAN SOUGHT TO ROTATE
THE SCHEDULES OF THE CHILDREN DURING THE SCHOOL-DAY SO THAT SOME WERE
IN CLASS, OTHERS WERE IN THE LIBRARY, STILL OTHERS IN THE PLAYGROUND. 
AND SOME, HE SUGGESTED TO THE LEADING MINISTERS OF THE CITY, MIGHT BE
RELEASED TO ATTEND RELIGIOUS CLASSES IF THE CHURCHES OF THE CITY
COOPERATED AND PROVIDED THEM.  THEY DID, IN 1914, AND THUS WAS
"RELEASED TIME" BEGUN.  THE RELIGIOUS TEACHING WAS HELD ON CHURCH
PREMISES AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAD NO HAND IN THE CONDUCT OF THESE
CHURCH SCHOOLS.  THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CHOICE OF INSTRUCTORS OR
THE SUBJECT MATTER TAUGHT.  NOR DID THEY ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
ATTENDANCE, CONDUCT OR ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CHILD IN A CHURCH SCHOOL; AND
HE RECEIVED NO CREDIT FOR IT.  THE PERIOD OF ATTENDANCE IN THE
RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN A PLAY PERIOD FOR THE
CHILD, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ARRANGEMENT DID NOT CUT INTO PUBLIC
SCHOOL INSTRUCTION OR TRULY AFFECT THE ACTIVITIES OR FEELINGS OF THE
CHILDREN WHO DID NOT ATTEND THE CHURCH SCHOOLS.  FN15 

FROM SUCH A BEGINNING "RELEASED TIME" HAS ATTAINED SUBSTANTIAL
PROPORTIONS.  IN 1914-15, UNDER THE GARY PROGRAM, 619 PUPILS LEFT THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR THE CHURCH SCHOOLS DURING ONE PERIOD A WEEK. 
ACCORDING TO RESPONSIBLE FIGURES ALMOST 2,000,000 IN SOME 2,200
COMMUNITIES PARTICIPATED IN "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAMS DURING 1947.  FN16
A MOVEMENT OF SUCH SCOPE INDICATES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM TO
WHICH THE "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAMS ARE DIRECTED.  BUT TO THE EXTENT
THAT ASPECTS OF THESE PROGRAMS ARE OPEN TO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION,
THE MORE EXTENSIVELY THE MOVEMENT OPERATES, THE MORE OMINOUS THE
BREACHES IN THE WALL OF SEPARATION. 

OF COURSE, "RELEASED TIME" AS A GENERALIZED CONCEPTION, UNDEFINED BY
DIFFERENTIATING PARTICULARITIES, IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION.  LOCAL PROGRAMS DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER IN MANY AND
CRUCIAL RESPECTS.  SOME "RELEASED TIME" CLASSES ARE UNDER SEPARATE
DENOMINATIONAL AUSPICES, OTHERS ARE CONDUCTED JOINTLY BY SEVERAL
DENOMINATIONS, OFTEN EMBRACING ALL THE RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS OF A
COMMUNITY.  SOME CLASSES IN RELIGION TEACH A LIMITED SECTARIANISM;
OTHERS EMPHASIZE DEMOCRACY, UNITY AND SPIRITUAL VALUES NOT ANCHORED IN
A PARTICULAR CREED.  INSOFAR AS THESE ARE MANIFESTATIONS MERELY OF THE
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, THEY ARE QUITE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL
CONCERN, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE COURT MAY BE CALLED UPON TO PROTECT THE
RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  IT IS ONLY WHEN CHALLENGE IS MADE TO THE
SHARE THAT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE IN THE EXECUTION OF A PARTICULAR
"RELEASED TIME" PROGRAM THAT CLOSE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY IS DEMANDED OF THE
EXACT RELATION BETWEEN THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION AND THE PUBLIC
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN THE SPECIFIC SITUATION BEFORE THE COURT.  FN17 

THE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES AMONG ARRANGEMENTS LUMPED TOGETHER AS
"RELEASED TIME" EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE
FACTS TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST OF SEPARATION IS TO BE APPLIED. 
HOW DOES "RELEASED TIME" OPERATE IN CHAMPAIGN?  PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS
DISTRIBUTE TO THEIR PUPILS CARDS SUPPLIED BY CHURCH GROUPS, SO THAT THE
PARENTS MAY INDICATE WHETHER THEY DESIRE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION FOR
THEIR CHILDREN.  FOR THOSE DESIRING IT, RELIGIOUS CLASSES ARE CONDUCTED
IN THE REGULAR CLASSROOMS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BY TEACHERS OF RELIGION
PAID BY THE CHURCHES AND APPOINTED BY THEM, BUT, AS THE STATE COURT
FOUND, "SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL AND SUPERVISION OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT."  THE COURSES DO NOT PROFESS TO GIVE SECULAR
INSTRUCTION IN SUBJECTS CONCERNING RELIGION.  THEIR CANDID PURPOSE IS
CLASSES OFFERED, A PARTICULAR SECT WISHING A TEACHER FOR ITS DEVOTEES
REQUIRES THE PERMISSION OF THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT "WHO IN TURN WILL
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS PRACTICAL FOR SAID GROUP TO TEACH IN
SAID SCHOOL SYSTEM."  IF NO PROVISION IS MADE FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
IN THE PARTICULAR FAITH OF A CHILD, OR IF FOR OTHER REASONS THE CHILD
IS NOT ENROLLED IN ANY OF THE OFFERED CLASSES, HE IS REQUIRED TO ATTEND
A REGULAR SCHOOL CLASS, OR A STUDY PERIOD DURING WHICH HE IS OFTEN LEFT
TO HIS OWN DEVICES.  REPORTS OF ATTENDANCE IN THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES ARE
SUBMITTED BY THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTOR TO THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES, AND
THE CHILD WHO FAILS TO ATTEND IS PRESUMABLY DEEMED A TRUANT. 

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION SO CONDUCTED ON SCHOOL TIME AND PROPERTY IS
PATENTLY WOVEN INTO THE WORKING SCHEME OF THE SCHOOL.  THE CHAMPAIGN
ARRANGEMENT THUS PRESENTS POWERFUL ELEMENTS OF INHERENT PRESSURE BY THE
SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE INTEREST OF RELIGIOUS SECTS.  THE FACT THAT THIS
POWER HAS NOT BEEN USED TO DISCRIMINATE IS BESIDE THE POINT. 
SEPARATION IS A REQUIREMENT TO ABSTAIN FROM FUSING FUNCTIONS OF
GOVERNMENT AND OF RELIGIOUS SECTS, NOT MERELY TO TREAT THEM ALL
EQUALLY.  THAT A CHILD IS OFFERED AN ALTERNATIVE MAY REDUCE THE
CONSTRAINT; IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE OPERATION OF INFLUENCE BY THE
SCHOOL IN MATTERS SACRED TO CONSCIENCE AND OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL'S
DOMAIN.  THE LAW OF IMITATION OPERATES, AND NON-CONFORMITY IS NOT AN
OUTSTANDING CHARACTERISTIC OF CHILDREN.  THE RESULT IS AN OBVIOUS
PRESSURE UPON CHILDREN TO ATTEND.  FN18  AGAIN, WHILE THE CHAMPAIGN
SCHOOL POPULATION REPRESENTS ONLY A FRACTION OF THE MORE THAN TWO
HUNDRED AND FIFTY SECTS OF THE NATION, NOT EVEN ALL THE PRACTICING
INSTRUCTION.  THE CHILDREN BELONGING TO THESE NON-PARTICIPATING SECTS
WILL THUS HAVE INCULCATED IN THEM A FEELING OF SEPARATISM WHEN THE
SCHOOL SHOULD BE THE TRAINING GROUND FOR HABITS OF COMMUNITY, OR THEY
WILL HAVE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN A FAITH WHICH IS NOT THAT OF THEIR
PARENTS.  AS A RESULT, THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM OF CHAMPAIGN ACTIVELY
FURTHERS INCULCATION IN THE RELIGIOUS TENETS OF SOME FAITHS, AND IN THE
PROCESS SHARPENS THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES AT LEAST
AMONG SOME OF THE CHILDREN COMMITTED TO ITS CARE.  THESE ARE
CONSEQUENCES NOT AMENABLE TO STATISTICS.  BUT THEY ARE PRECISELY THE
CONSEQUENCES AGAINST WHICH THE CONSTITUTION WAS DIRECTED WHEN IT
PROHIBITED THE GOVERNMENT COMMON TO ALL FROM BECOMING EMBROILED,
HOWEVER INNOCENTLY, IN THE DESTRUCTIVE RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS OF WHICH THE
HISTORY OF EVEN THIS COUNTRY RECORDS SOME DARK PAGES.  FN19 

MENTION SHOULD NOT BE OMITTED THAT THE INTEGRATION OF RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION WITHIN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AS PRACTICED IN CHAMPAIGN IS
SUPPORTED BY ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM EDUCATIONAL THEORIES AS DIVERSE AS
THOSE DERIVED FROM CATHOLIC CONCEPTIONS AND FROM THE WRITINGS OF JOHN
DEWEY.  FN20 MOVEMENTS LIKE "RELEASED TIME" ARE SELDOM SINGLE IN ORIGIN
OR AIM.  NOR CAN THE INTRUSION OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION INTO THE PUBLIC
SCHOOL SYSTEM OF CHAMPAIGN BE MINIMIZED BY SAYING THAT IT ABSORBS LESS
THAN AN HOUR A WEEK; IN FACT, THAT AFFORDS EVIDENCE OF A DESIGN
CONSTITUTIONALLY OBJECTIONABLE.  IF IT WERE MERELY A QUESTION OF
ENABLING A CHILD TO OBTAIN RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION WITH A RECEPTIVE MIND,
THE THIRTY OR FORTY-FIVE MINUTES COULD READILY BE FOUND ON SATURDAY OR
SUNDAY.  IF THAT WERE ALL, CHAMPAIGN MIGHT HAVE DRAWN UPON THE FRENCH
SYSTEM, KNOWN IN ITS AMERICAN MANIFESTATION AS "DISMISSED TIME,"
WHEREBY ONE SCHOOL DAY IS SHORTENED TO ALLOW ALL CHILDREN TO GO WHERE
THEY PLEASE, LEAVING THOSE WHO SO DESIRE TO GO TO A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL. 
FN21 THE MOMENTUM OF THE WHOLE SCHOOL ATMOSPHERE AND SCHOOL PLANNING IS
PRESUMABLY PUT BEHIND RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, AS GIVEN IN CHAMPAIGN,
PRECISELY IN ORDER TO SECURE FOR THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION SUCH
MOMENTUM AND PLANNING.  TO SPEAK OF "RELEASED TIME" AS BEING ONLY HALF
OR THREE QUARTERS OF AN HOUR IS TO DRAW A THREAD FROM A FABRIC. 

WE DO NOT CONSIDER, AS INDEED WE COULD NOT, SCHOOL PROGRAMS NOT
BEFORE US WHICH, THOUGH COLLOQUIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS "RELEASED TIME,"
PRESENT SITUATIONS DIFFERING IN ASPECTS THAT MAY WELL BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY CRUCIAL.  DIFFERENT FORMS WHICH "RELEASED TIME" HAS
TAKEN DURING MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS OF GROWTH INCLUDE PROGRAMS WHICH,
LIKE THAT BEFORE US, COULD NOT WITHSTAND THE TEST OF THE CONSTITUTION;
OTHERS MAY BE FOUND UNEXCEPTIONABLE.  WE DO NOT NOW ATTEMPT TO WEIGH IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCALE EVERY SEPARATE DETAIL OR VARIOUS COMBINATION
OF FACTORS WHICH MAY ESTABLISH A VALID "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAM.  WE
FIND THAT THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE SEPARATION WAS
VIOLATED WHEN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, SPEAKING THROUGH ITS SUPREME
COURT, SUSTAINED THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES OF CHAMPAIGN IN SPONSORING AND
EFFECTIVELY FURTHERING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BY ITS EDUCATIONAL
ARRANGEMENT. 

SEPARATION MEANS SEPARATION, NOT SOMETHING LESS.  JEFFERSON'S
METAPHOR IN DESCRIBING THE RELATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE SPEAKS OF
A "WALL OF SEPARATION," NOT OF A FINE LINE EASILY OVERSTEPPED.  THE
PUBLIC SCHOOL IS AT ONCE THE SYMBOL OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE MOST
PERVASIVE MEANS FOR PROMOTING OUR COMMON DESTINY.  IN NO ACTIVITY OF
THE STATE IS IT MORE VITAL TO KEEP OUT DIVISIVE FORCES THAN IN ITS
SCHOOLS, TO AVOID CONFUSING, NOT TO SAY FUSING, WHAT THE CONSTITUTION
SOUGHT TO KEEP STRICTLY APART.  "THE GREAT AMERICAN PRINCIPLE OF
ETERNAL SEPARATION" - ELIHU ROOT'S PHRASE BEARS REPETITION - IS ONE OF
THE VITAL RELIANCES OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM FOR ASSURING UNITIES
AMONG OUR PEOPLE STRONGER THAN OUR DIVERSITIES.  IT IS THE COURT'S DUTY
TO ENFORCE THIS PRINCIPLE IN ITS FULL INTEGRITY. 

WE RENEW OUR CONVICTION THAT "WE HAVE STAKED THE VERY EXISTENCE OF
OUR COUNTRY ON THE FAITH THAT COMPLETE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE STATE AND
RELIGION IS BEST FOR THE STATE AND BEST FOR RELIGION."  EVERSON V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. AT 59.  IF NOWHERE ELSE, IN THE RELATION
BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE, "GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS." 

FN1  FOR AN EXPOSITION OF THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF AMERICAN EDUCATION,
SEE S. W. BROWN, THE SECULARIZATION OF AMERICAN EDUCATION (1912) CC. I,
II; KNIGHT, EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES (2D REV. ED. 1941) CC. III,
V; CUBBERLEY, PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES (1934) CC. II,
III.    FN2  SEE BOESE, PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK (1869)
C. XIV; HALL, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE STATE
AND CITY OF NEW YORK (1914) CC. VI, VII; PALMER, THE NEW YORK PUBLIC
SCHOOL (1905) CC. VI, VII, X, XII.  AND SEE NEW YORK LAWS 1842, C. 150,
SEC. 14, AMENDED, NEW YORK LAWS 1844, C. 320, SEC. 12. 

FN3  S. M. SMITH, THE RELATION OF THE STATE TO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN
MASSACHUSETTS (1926) C. VII; CULVER, HORACE MANN AND RELIGION IN THE
MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS (1929). 

FN4  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT SECULAR EDUCATION IN THIS COUNTRY IS
THE INEVITABLE "PRODUCT OF 'THE UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY OF HARMONIZING
MULTIFORM CREEDS.'"  T. W. M. MARSHALL, SECULAR EDUCATION IN ENGLAND
AND THE UNITED STATES, 1 AMERICAN CATHOLIC QUARTERLY REVIEW 278, 308. 
IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THIS "UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY" THAT THE FATHERS
PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPLETE "HANDSOFF," FOR A
PEOPLE AS RELIGIOUSLY HETEROGENEOUS AS OURS. 

FN5  SEE CUBBERLEY, PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES (1934) PP.
230 ET SEQ.; ZOLLMANN, THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, IN LOTZ AND
CRAWFORD, STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (1931) 403, 418 ET SEQ.;
PAYSON SMITH, THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, IN RELIGION
AND EDUCATION (SPERRY, EDITOR, 1945) PP. 32 ET SEQ.; ALSO MAHONEY, THE
RELATION OF THE STATE TO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN EARLY NEW YORK 1633
1825(1941) C. VI; MCLAUGHLIN, A HISTORY OF STATE LEGISLATION AFFECTING
PRIVATE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1870
1945(1946) C. I; AND SEE NOTE 10, INFRA. 

FN6  PRESIDENT GRANT'S ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, DECEMBER 7, 1875,
4 CONG. REC. 175 ET SEQ.; AMES, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE FIRST CENTURY OF ITS
HISTORY, H.R. DOC. NO. 353, PT. 2, 54TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 277-78. 
IN ADDITION TO THE FIRST PROPOSAL, "THE BLAINE AMENDMENT," FIVE OTHERS
TO SIMILAR EFFECT ARE CITED BY AMES.  THE REASON FOR THE FAILURE OF
THESE ATTEMPTS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN IN PART THAT THE "PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE CONSTITUTIONS ARE IN ALMOST ALL INSTANCES ADEQUATE ON THIS
SUBJECT, AND NO AMENDMENT IS LIKELY TO BE SECURED."  ID. 

IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT PASSED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE
BLAINE AMENDMENT READ AS FOLLOWS:  "NO STATE SHALL MAKE ANY LAW
RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE
EXERCISE THEREOF; AND NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A
QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER ANY STATE.  NO PUBLIC
PROPERTY, AND NO PUBLIC REVENUE OF, NOR ANY LOAN OF CREDIT BY OR UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF, THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT,
OR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SHALL BE APPROPRIATED TO, OR MADE OR USED
FOR, THE SUPPORT OF ANY SCHOOL, EDUCATIONAL OR OTHER INSTITUTION, UNDER
THE CONTROL OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR ANTI-RELIGIOUS SECT, ORGANIZATION, OR
DENOMINATION, OR WHEREIN THE PARTICULAR CREED OR TENETS OF ANY
RELIGIOUS OR ANTI-RELIGIOUS SECT, ORGANIZATION, OR DENOMINATION SHALL
BE TAUGHT.  AND NO SUCH PARTICULAR CREED OR TENETS SHALL BE READ OR
TAUGHT IN ANY SCHOOL OR INSTITUTION SUPPORTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY
SUCH REVENUE OR LOAN OF CREDIT; AND NO SUCH APPROPRIATION OR LOAN OF
CREDIT SHALL BE MADE TO ANY RELIGIOUS OR ANTI-RELIGIOUS SECT,
ORGANIZATION, OR DENOMINATION, OR TO PROMOTE ITS INTERESTS OR TENETS. 
THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT THE READING OF THE
BIBLE IN ANY SCHOOL OR INSTITUTION; AND IT SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT TO
IMPAIR RIGHTS OF PROPERTY ALREADY VESTED.  ...  " H. RES. 1, 44TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1876). 

FN7  SEE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE STATES AND UNITED STATES, III REPORT OF
THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE (1938) INDEX,
PP. 1766-67. 

FN8  IT IS WORTHY OF INTEREST THAT ANOTHER FAMOUS AMERICAN LAWYER,
AND INDEED ONE OF THE MOST DISTINGUISHED OF AMERICAN JUDGES, JEREMIAH
S. BLACK, EXPRESSED SIMILAR VIEWS NEARLY FORTY YEARS BEFORE MR. ROOT:
"THE MANIFEST OBJECT OF THE MEN WHO FRAMED THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS
COUNTRY, WAS TO HAVE A STATE WITHOUT RELIGION, AND A CHURCH WITHOUT
POLITICS - THAT IS TO SAY, THEY MEANT THAT ONE SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS
AN ENGINE FOR ANY PURPOSE OF THE OTHER  ...  OUR FATHERS SEEM TO HAVE
BEEN PERFECTLY SINCERE IN THEIR BELIEF THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH
WOULD BE MORE PATRIOTIC, AND THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE MORE RELIGIOUS,
BY KEEPING THEIR RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS ENTIRELY SEPARATE.  FOR THAT
REASON THEY BUILT UP A WALL OF COMPLETE AND PERFECT PARTITION BETWEEN
THE TWO."  FROM RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (1856) IN BLACK, ESSAYS AND SPEECHES
(1886) 51, 53; CF. BRIGANCE, JEREMIAH SULLIVAN BLACK (1934).  WHILE
JEREMIAH S. BLACK AND ELIHU ROOT HAD MANY THINGS IN COMMON, THERE WERE
ALSO IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM, PERHAPS BEST ILLUSTRATED BY
THE FACT THAT ONE BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE TO PRESIDENT BUCHANAN, THE
OTHER TO THEODORE ROOSEVELT.  THAT TWO MEN, WITH SUCH DIFFERENT
POLITICAL ALIGNMENT, SHOULD HAVE SHARED IDENTIC VIEWS ON A MATTER SO
BASIC TO THE WELL-BEING OF OUR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AFFORDS STRIKING
PROOF OF THE RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED TO THAT PRINCIPLE. 

FN9  25 STAT. 676, 677, APPLICABLE TO NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA,
MONTANA AND WASHINGTON, REQUIRED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS OF
THOSE STATES "PROVIDE, BY ORDINANCES IRREVOCABLE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE UNITED STATES AND THE PEOPLE OF SAID STATES  ...  FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SYSTEMS OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHICH SHALL
BE OPEN TO ALL THE CHILDREN OF SAID STATES, AND FREE FROM SECTARIAN
CONTROL  ...  "  THE SAME PROVISION WAS CONTAINED IN THE ENABLING ACT
FOR UTAH, 28 STAT. 107, 108; OKLAHOMA, 34 STAT. 267, 270; NEW MEXICO
AND ARIZONA, 36 STAT. 557, 559, 570.  IDAHO AND WYOMING WERE ADMITTED
AFTER ADOPTION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONS; THAT OF WYOMING CONTAINED AN
IRREVOCABLE ORDINANCE IN THE SAME TERMS.  WYOMING CONSTITUTION, 1889,
ORDINANCES, SEC. 5.  THE CONSTITUTION OF IDAHO, WHILE IT CONTAINED NO
IRREVOCABLE ORDINANCE, HAD A PROVISION EVEN MORE EXPLICIT IN ITS
ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATION.  IDAHO CONSTITUTION, 1889, ART. IX, SEC.
5. 

FN10  SEE, E.G., THE NEW YORK EXPERIENCE, INCLUDING, INTER ALIA, THE
FAMOUS HUGHES CONTROVERSY OF 1840-42, THE CONFLICT CULMINATING IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1894, AND THE ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE AID TO
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS BY REVISION OF THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER, IN 1901,
AND AT THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1938.  SEE MCLAUGHLIN, A
HISTORY OF STATE LEGISLATION AFFECTING PRIVATE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1870-1945(1946) PP. 119-25; MAHONEY, THE
RELATION OF THE STATE TO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN EARLY NEW YORK 1633
1825(1941) C. VI; HALL, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF
THE STATE AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK (1914) PP. 46-47; BOESE, PUBLIC
EDUCATION IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK (1869) C. XIV; COMPARE NEW YORK LAWS
1901, VOL. 3, SEC. 1152, P. 492, WITH AMENDMENT, ID., P. 668; SEE
NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER, RELIGION AND EDUCATION (EDITORIAL) IN 22
EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 101, JUNE, 1901; NEW YORK TIMES, APRIL 8, 1901, P.
1, COL. 1; APRIL 9, 1901, P. 2, COL. 5; APRIL 19, 1901, P. 2, COL. 2;
APRIL 21, 1901, P. 1, COL. 3; EDITORIAL, APRIL 22, 1901, P. 6, COL. 1. 

COMPARE S. 2499, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., PROVIDING FOR FEDERAL AID TO
EDUCATION, AND THE CONTROVERSY ENGENDERED OVER THE INCLUSION IN THE AID
PROGRAM OF SECTARIAN SCHOOLS, FULLY DISCUSSED IN, E.G., "THE NATION'S
SCHOOLS," JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, 1947. 

FN11  FOR SURVEYS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION,
SEE, E.G., A. A. BROWN, A HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN RECENT
TIMES (1923); ATHEARN, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
(1917); BURNS AND KOHLBRENNER, A HISTORY OF CATHOLIC EDUCATION IN THE
UNITED STATES (1937); LOTZ AND CRAWFORD, STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
(1931) PARTS I AND IV. 

FN12  REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO JACOB GOULD SCHURMAN, WHO IN 1903
PROPOSED A PLAN BEARING CLOSE RESEMBLANCE TO THAT OF CHAMPAIGN.  SEE
SYMPOSIUM, 75 THE OUTLOOK 635, 636, NOVEMBER 14, 1903; CROOKER,
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN AMERICAN EDUCATION (1903) PP. 39 ET SEQ. 

FN13  FOR THE TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION, A BRIEF IN ITS SUPPORT, AS WELL
AS AN EXPOSITION OF SOME OF THE OPPOSITION IT INSPIRED, SEE WENNER'S
BOOK, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL (REV. ED. 1913). 

FN14  THE FRENCH EXAMPLE IS CITED NOT ONLY BY WENNER BUT ALSO BY
NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER, WHO THOUGHT RELEASED TIME WAS "RESTORING THE
AMERICAN SYSTEM IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK."  THE PLACE OF RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, 7 VITAL SPEECHES 167, 168(NOV. 
28, 1940); SEE ALSO REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY,
1934, PP. 22-24.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT THE FRENCH
PRACTICE MUST BE VIEWED AS THE RESULT OF THE STRUGGLE TO EMANCIPATE THE
FRENCH SCHOOLS FROM CONTROL BY THE CHURCH.  THE LEADERS OF THIS
REVOLUTION, MEN LIKE PAUL BERT, FERDINAND BUISSON, AND JULES FERRY,
AGREED TO THIS MEASURE AS ONE PART OF A GREAT STEP TOWARDS, RATHER THAN
A RETREAT FROM, THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION.  THE HISTORY OF THESE
EVENTS IS DESCRIBED IN MUZZEY, STATE, CHURCH, AND SCHOOL IN FRANCE, THE
SCHOOL REVIEW, MARCH THROUGH JUNE, 1911. 

IN EFFECT, MOREOVER, THE FRENCH PRACTICE DIFFERS IN CRUCIAL RESPECTS
FROM BOTH THE WENNER PROPOSAL AND THE CHAMPAIGN SYSTEM.  THE LAW OF
1882 PROVIDED THAT "PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WILL BE CLOSED ONE DAY A
WEEK IN ADDITION TO SUNDAY IN ORDER TO PERMIT PARENTS, IF THEY SO
DESIRE, TO HAVE THEIR CHILDREN GIVEN RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OUTSIDE OF
SCHOOL BUILDINGS."  LAW NO. 11,696, MARCH 28, 1882, BULLETIN DES LOIS,
NO. 690.  THIS THEN APPROXIMATES THAT ASPECT OF RELEASED TIME GENERALLY
KNOWN AS "DISMISSED TIME."  NO CHILDREN WENT TO SCHOOL ON THAT DAY, AND
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL WAS THEREFORE NOT AN ALTERNATIVE USED TO IMPEL THE
CHILDREN TOWARDS THE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL.  THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION WAS
GIVEN "OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS." 

THE VICHY GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO INTRODUCE A PROGRAM OF RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO THAT
IN EFFECT IN CHAMPAIGN.  THE PROPOSAL WAS DEFEATED BY INTENSE
OPPOSITION WHICH INCLUDED THE PROTEST OF THE FRENCH CLERGY, WHO
APPARENTLY FEARED STATE CONTROL OF THE CHURCH.  SEE SCHWARTZ, RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION UNDER PETAIN, 58 CHRISTIAN CENTURY 1170, SEPT. 24, 1941. 

FN15  OF THE MANY EXPOSITIONS OF THE GARY PLAN, SEE, E.G., A. A.
BROWN, THE WEEK-DAY CHURCH SCHOOLS OF GARY, INDIANA, 11 RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION 5(1916); WIRT, THE GARY PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE CHURCHES, ID.
AT 221(1916). 

FN16  SEE THE 1947 YEARBOOK, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION, P. 76; ALSO NEW YORK TIMES, SEPTEMBER 21, 1947, P. 22, COL.
1. 

FN17  RESPECTS IN WHICH PROGRAMS DIFFER INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
AMOUNT OF SUPERVISION BY THE PUBLIC SCHOOL OF ATTENDANCE AND
PERFORMANCE IN THE RELIGIOUS CLASS, OF THE COURSE OF STUDY, OF THE
SELECTION OF TEACHERS; METHODS OF ENROLMENT AND DISMISSAL FROM THE
SECULAR CLASSES; THE AMOUNT OF SCHOOL TIME DEVOTED TO OPERATION OF THE
PROGRAM; THE EXTENT TO WHICH SCHOOL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
MACHINERY ARE INVOLVED; THE EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAM OF THE
INTRODUCTION OF "RELEASED TIME"; THE PROPORTION OF STUDENTS WHO SEEK TO
BE EXCUSED; THE EFFECT OF THE PROGRAM ON NON-PARTICIPANTS; THE AMOUNT
AND NATURE OF THE PUBLICITY FOR THE PROGRAM IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 

THE STUDIES OF DETAIL IN "RELEASED TIME" PROGRAMS ARE VOLUMINOUS. 
MOST OF THESE MAY BE FOUND IN THE ISSUES OF SUCH PERIODICALS AS THE
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, AND
CHRISTIAN CENTURY.  FOR SOME OF THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES FOUND
ELSEWHERE, SEE DAVIS, WEEKDAY CLASSES IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, U.S.
OFFICE OF EDUCATION BULLETIN 1941, NO. 3; GORHAM, A STUDY OF THE STATUS
OF WEEKDAY CHURCH SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES (1934); LOTZ, THE
WEEKDAY CHURCH SCHOOL, IN LOTZ AND CRAWFORD, STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION (1931) C. XII; FORSYTH, WEEK-DAY CHURCH SCHOOLS (1930);
SETTLE, THE WEEKDAY CHURCH SCHOOL, EDUCATIONAL BULLETIN NO. 601 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (1930); SHAVER, PRESENT
DAY TRENDS IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (1928) CC. VII, VIII; GOVE, RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION ON PUBLIC SCHOOL TIME (1926). 

FN18  IT DESERVES NOTICE THAT IN DISCUSSING WITH THE RELATOR HER
SON'S INABILITY TO GET ALONG WITH HIS CLASSMATES, ONE OF HIS TEACHERS
SUGGESTED THAT "ALLOWING HIM TO TAKE THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION COURSE
MIGHT HELP HIM TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE GROUP." 

FN19  THE DIVERGENT VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE BRIEFS SUBMITTED HERE ON
BEHALF OF VARIOUS RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, AS AMICI CURIAE, IN
THEMSELVES SUGGEST THAT THE MOVEMENT HAS BEEN A DIVISIVE AND NOT AN
IRENIC INFLUENCE IN THE COMMUNITY:  THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION;
THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS; THE JOINT CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC RELATIONS SET UP BY THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST
CONVENTION, THE NORTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION, THE NATIONAL BAPTIST
CONVENTION INC., AND THE NATIONAL BAPTIST CONVENTION; THE PROTESTANT
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK; AND THE SYNAGOGUE COUNCIL OF AMERICA
AND NATIONAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL. 

FN20  THERE IS A PROLIFIC LITERATURE ON THE EDUCATIONAL, SOCIAL AND
RELIGIOUS MERITS OF THE "RELEASED TIME" MOVEMENT.  IN SUPPORT OF
"RELEASED TIME" THE FOLLOWING MAY BE MENTIONED:  THE INTERNATIONAL
COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, AND PARTICULARLY THE WRITINGS OF DR.
ERWIN L. SHAVER, FOR SOME YEARS DIRECTOR OF ITS DEPARTMENT OF WEEK-DAY
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, IN PUBLICATIONS OF THE COUNCIL AND IN NUMEROUS
ISSUES OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (E.G., THEY
REACH ONE-THIRD, DEC., 1943, P. 11; WEEKDAY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION TODAY,
JAN., 1944, P. 6), AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (E.G., SURVEY OF WEEK-DAY
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, FEB., 1922, P. 51; THE MOVEMENT FOR WEEKDAY
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, JAN.-FEB., 1946, P. 6); SEE ALSO INFORMATION
SERVICE, FEDERAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF CHRIST, MAY 29, 1943.  SEE ALSO
CUTTON, ANSWERING THE ARGUMENTS, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION, JUNE, 1930, P. 9, AND RELEASED TIME, ID., SEPT., 1942, P.
12; HAUSER, "HANDS OFF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL?", RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, MAR.
APR., 1942, P. 99; COLLINS, RELEASE TIME FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION,
NATIONAL CATHOLIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION BULLETIN, MAY, 1945, PP. 21, 27
28; WEIGLE, PUBLIC EDUCATION AND RELIGION, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, APR.
JUNE, 1940, P. 67; NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER, THE PLACE OF RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, 7 VITAL SPEECHES 167(NOV.  28,
1940); HOWLETT, RELEASED TIME FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN NEW YORK CITY,
64 EDUCATION 523, MAY, 1944; BLAIR, A CASE FOR THE WEEKDAY CHURCH
SCHOOL, 7 FRONTIERS OF DEMOCRACY 75, DEC. 15, 1940; CF. ALLRED, LEGAL
ASPECTS OF RELEASE TIME (NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE, 1947). 
FAVORABLE VIEWS ARE ALSO CITED IN THE STUDIES IN NOTE 17, SUPRA.  MANY
NOT OPPOSED TO "RELEASED TIME" HAVE DECLARED IT "HARDLY ENOUGH" OR
"PITIFULLY INADEQUATE."  E.G., FLEMING, GOD IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS (2D
ED. 1944), PP. 80-86; HOWLETT, RELEASED TIME FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN
NEW YORK CITY, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, MAR.-APR., 1942, P. 104; CAVERT,
POINTS OF TENSION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICA TODAY, IN CHURCH
AND STATE IN THE MODERN WORLD (1937) 161, 168; F. E. JOHNSON, THE
CHURCH AND SOCIETY (1935) 125; HUBNER, PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES TOWARD
RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1900(1944)
108-109, 113; CF. RYAN, A PROTESTANT EXPERIMENT IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION,
THE CATHOLIC WORLD, JUNE, 1922; ELLIOTT, ARE WEEKDAY CHURCH SCHOOLS THE
SOLUTION?, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, NOV.,
1940, P. 8; ELLIOTT, REPORT OF THE DISCUSSION, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION,
JULY-SEPT., 1940, P. 158. 

FOR OPPOSING VIEWS, SEE V.T. THAYER, RELIGION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION
(1947) CC. VII, VIII; MOEHLMAN, THE CHURCH AS EDUCATOR (1947) C. X;
CHAVE, A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (1947) 104-107; A.
W. JOHNSON, THE LEGAL STATUS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE
UNITED STATES (1934) 129-130; NEWMAN, THE SECTARIAN INVASION OF OUR
PUBLIC SCHOOLS (1925).  SEE ALSO PAYSON SMITH, THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, IN RELIGION AND EDUCATION (SPERRY, EDITOR, 1945)
32, 42-47; HERRICK, RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF AMERICA, 46
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL 119, NOV., 1945; KALLEN, CHURCHMEN'S CLAIMS
ON THE PUBLIC SCHOOL, THE NATION'S SCHOOLS, MAY, 1942, P. 49; JUNE,
1942, P. 52.  AND CF. JOHN DEWEY, RELIGION IN OUR SCHOOLS (1908),
REPRINTED IN 2 CHARACTERS AND EVENTS (1929) 504, 508, 514.  "RELEASED
TIME" WAS INTRODUCED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK OVER
THE OPPOSITION OF ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE PUBLIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
AND THE UNITED PARENTS ASSOCIATIONS. 

THE ARGUMENTS AND SOURCES PRO AND CON ARE COLLECTED IN HUBNER,
PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDES TOWARD RELIGION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE
UNITED STATES SINCE 1900(1944) 94 ET SEQ. AND SEE THE SYMPOSIA,
TEACHING RELIGION IN A DEMOCRACY, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, NOV., 1940, PP. 6-16; THE AIMS OF WEEK-DAY
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, FEB., 1922, P. 11; RELEASED
TIME IN NEW YORK CITY, ID., JAN.-FEB., 1943, P. 15; PROGRESS IN WEEK
DAY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, ID., JAN.-FEB., 1946, P. 6; CAN OUR PUBLIC
SCHOOLS DO MORE ABOUT RELIGION?, 125 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 245, NOV.,
1942, ID. AT 273, DEC., 1942; RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION ON SCHOOL TIME, 7
FRONTIERS OF DEMOCRACY 72-77, DEC. 15, 1940; AND THE ARTICLES IN 64
EDUCATION 519 ET SEQ., MAY, 1944. 

FN21  SEE NOTE 14, SUPRA.  INDICATIONS ARE THAT "DISMISSED TIME" IS
USED IN AN INCONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF THE COMMUNITIES EMPLOYING RELEASED
TIME.  DAVIS, WEEKDAY CLASSES IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, U.S. OFFICE OF
EDUCATION BULLETIN 1941, NO. 3, P. 22; SHAVER, THE MOVEMENT FOR WEEKDAY
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, JAN.-FEB., 1946, PP. 6, 9. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND CONCUR IN THE
RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT, BUT WITH THESE RESERVATIONS:  I THINK IT
IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ESTABLISH JURISDICTION IN
THIS COURT, BUT IN ANY EVENT THAT WE SHOULD PLACE SOME BOUNDS ON THE
DEMANDS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH LOCAL SCHOOLS THAT WE ARE EMPOWERED OR
WILLING TO ENTERTAIN.  I MAKE THESE RESERVATIONS A MATER OF RECORD IN
VIEW OF THE NUMBER OF LITIGATIONS LIKELY TO BE STARTED AS A RESULT OF
THIS DECISION. 

A FEDERAL COURT MAY INTERFERE WITH LOCAL SCHOOL AUTHORITIES ONLY WHEN
THEY INVADE EITHER A PERSONAL LIBERTY OR A PROPERTY RIGHT PROTECTED BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  ORDINARILY THIS WILL COME ABOUT IN EITHER OF
TWO WAYS: 

FIRST.  WHEN A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO SOME RELIGIOUS RITE OR
INSTRUCTION OR IS DEPRIVED OR THREATENED WITH DEPRIVATION OF HIS
FREEDOM FOR RESISTING SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT.  WE MAY THEN
SET HIM FREE OR ENJOIN HIS PROSECUTION.  TYPICAL OF SUCH CASES WAS WEST
VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624.  THERE
PENALTIES WERE THREATENED AGAINST BOTH PARENT AND CHILD FOR REFUSAL OF
THE LATTER TO PERFORM A COMPULSORY RITUAL WHICH OFFENDED HIS
CONVICTIONS.  WE INTERVENED TO SHIELD THEM AGAINST THE PENALTY.  BUT
HERE, COMPLAINANT'S SON MAY JOIN RELIGIOUS CLASSES IF HE CHOOSES AND IF
HIS PARENTS SO REQUEST, OR HE MAY STAY OUT OF THEM.  THE COMPLAINT IS
THAT WHEN OTHERS JOIN AND HE DOES NOT, IT SETS HIM APART AS A
DISSENTER, WHICH IS HUMILIATING.  EVEN ADMITTING THIS TO BE TRUE, IT
MAY BE DOUBTED WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION WHICH, OF COURSE, PROTECTS THE
RIGHT TO DISSENT, CAN BE CONSTRUED ALSO TO PROTECT ONE FROM THE
EMBARRASSMENT THAT ALWAYS ATTENDS NONCONFORMITY, WHETHER IN RELIGION,
POLITICS, BEHAVIOR OR DRESS.  SINCE NO LEGAL COMPULSION IS APPLIED TO
COMPLAINANT'S SON HIMSELF AND NO PENALTY IS IMPOSED OR THREATENED FROM
WHICH WE MAY RELIEVE HIM, WE CAN HARDLY BASE JURISDICTION ON THIS
GROUND. 

SECOND.  WHERE A COMPLAINANT IS DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY BY BEING TAXED
FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, SUCH AS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO
SUPPORT A RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT.  WE CAN PROTECT A TAXPAYER AGAINST
SUCH A LEVY.  THIS WAS THE EVERSON CASE, 330 U.S. 1, AS I SAW IT THEN
AND SEE IT NOW.  IT WAS COMPLAINED IN THAT CASE THAT THE SCHOOL
TREASURER DREW A CHECK ON PUBLIC FUNDS TO REIMBURSE PARENTS FOR A
CHILD'S BUS FARE IF HE WENT TO A CATHOLIC PAROCHIAL SCHOOL OR A PUBLIC
SCHOOL, BUT NOT IF HE WENT TO ANY OTHER PRIVATE OR DENOMINATIONAL
SCHOOL.  REFERENCE TO THE RECORD IN THAT CASE WILL SHOW THAT THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT WAS NOT OPERATING BUSSES, SO IT WAS NOT A QUESTION OF ALLOWING
CATHOLIC CHILDREN TO RIDE PUBLICLY OWNED BUSSES ALONG WITH OTHERS, IN
THE INTERESTS OF THEIR SAFETY, HEALTH OR MORALS.  THE CHILD HAD TO
TRAVEL TO AND FROM PAROCHIAL SCHOOL ON COMMERCIAL BUSSES LIKE OTHER
PAYING PASSENGERS AND ALL OTHER SCHOOL CHILDREN, AND HE WAS EXPOSED TO
THE SAME DANGERS.  IF IT COULD, IN FAIRNESS, HAVE BEEN SAID THAT THE
EXPENDITURE WAS A MEASURE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SAFETY, HEALTH OR
MORALS OF YOUNGSTERS, IT WOULD NOT MERELY HAVE BEEN CONSTITUTIONAL TO
GRANT IT; IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO REFUSE IT TO ANY CHILD
MERELY BECAUSE HE WAS A CATHOLIC.  BUT IN THE EVERSON CASE THERE WAS A
DIRECT, SUBSTANTIAL AND MEASURABLE BURDEN ON THE COMPLAINANT AS A
TAXPAYER TO RAISE FUNDS THAT WERE USED TO SUBSIDIZE TRANSPORTATION TO
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS.  HENCE, WE HAD JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LEVY AND TO PROTECT AGAINST IT IF A MAJORITY
HAD AGREED THAT THE SUBSIDY FOR TRANSPORTATION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, ANY COST OF THIS PLAN TO THE TAXPAYERS IS
INCALCULABLE AND NEGLIGIBLE.  IT CAN BE ARGUED, PERHAPS, THAT RELIGIOUS
CLASSES ADD SOME WEAR AND TEAR ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND THAT THEY SHOULD
BE CHARGED WITH SOME EXPENSE FOR HEAT AND LIGHT, EVEN THOUGH THE
SESSIONS DEVOTED TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION DO NOT ADD TO THE LENGTH OF
THE SCHOOL DAY.  BUT THE COST IS NEITHER SUBSTANTIAL NOR MEASURABLE,
AND NO ONE SERIOUSLY CAN SAY THAT THE COMPLAINANT'S TAX BILL HAS BEEN
PROVED TO BE INCREASED BECAUSE OF THIS PLAN.  I THINK IT IS DOUBTFUL
WHETHER THE TAXPAYER IN THIS CASE HAS SHOWN ANY SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY
INJURY. 

IF, HOWEVER, JURISDICTION IS FOUND TO EXIST, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE
CIRCUMSCRIBE OUR DECISION WITH SOME CARE.  WHAT IS ASKED IS NOT A
DEFENSIVE USE OF JUDICIAL POWER TO SET ASIDE A TAX LEVY OR REVERSE A
CONVICTION, OR TO ENJOIN THREATS OF PROSECUTION OR TAXATION.  THE
RELIEF DEMANDED IN THIS CASE IS THE EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO
TELL THE LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION WHAT IT MUST DO.  THE PRAYER FOR
RELIEF IS THAT A WRIT ISSUE AGAINST THE BOARD OF EDUCATION "ORDERING IT
TO IMMEDIATELY ADOPT AND ENFORCE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ALL
INSTRUCTION IN AND TEACHING OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN ALL PUBLIC
SCHOOLS  ...  AND IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL HOUSES AND BUILDINGS IN SAID
DISTRICT WHEN OCCUPIED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS."  THE PLAINTIFF, AS SHE HAS
EVERY RIGHT TO BE, IS AN AVOWED ATHEIST.  WHAT SHE HAS ASKED OF THE
COURTS IS THAT THEY NOT ONLY END THE "RELEASED TIME" PLAN BUT ALSO BAN
EVERY FORM OF TEACHING WHICH SUGGESTS OR RECOGNIZES THAT THERE IS A
GOD.  SHE WOULD BAN ALL TEACHING OF THE SCRIPTURES.  SHE ESPECIALLY
MENTIONS AS AN EXAMPLE OF INVASION OF HER RIGHTS "HAVING PUPILS LEARN
AND RECITE SUCH STATEMENTS AS, 'THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT
WANT.'"  AND SHE OBJECTS TO TEACHING THAT THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE
BIBLE "IS CALLED THE CHRISTIAN'S GUIDE BOOK, THE HOLY WRIT AND THE WORD
OF GOD," AND MANY OTHER SIMILAR MATTERS.  THIS COURT IS DIRECTING THE
ILLINOIS COURTS GENERALLY TO SUSTAIN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHOUT
EXCEPTION OF ANY OF THESE GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATING
BETWEEN THEM AND WITHOUT LAYING DOWN ANY STANDARDS TO DEFINE THE LIMITS
OF THE EFFECT OF OUR DECISION. 

TO ME, THE SWEEP AND DETAIL OF THESE COMPLAINTS IS A DANGER SIGNAL
WHICH WARNS OF THE KIND OF LOCAL CONTROVERSY WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO
ARBITRATE IF WE DO NOT PLACE APPROPRIATE LIMITATION ON OUR DECISION AND
EXACT STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  AUTHORITIES
LIST 256 SEPARATE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELIGIOUS BODIES TO EXIST IN THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.  EACH OF THEM, THROUGH THE SUIT OF SOME
DISCONTENTED BUT UNPENALIZED AND UNTAXED REPRESENTATIVE, HAS AS GOOD A
RIGHT AS THIS PLAINTIFF TO DEMAND THAT THE COURTS COMPEL THE SCHOOLS TO
SIFT OUT OF THEIR TEACHING EVERYTHING INCONSISTENT WITH ITS DOCTRINES. 
IF WE ARE TO ELIMINATE EVERYTHING THAT IS OBJECTIONABLE TO ANY OF THESE
WARRING SECTS OR INCONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THEIR DOCTRINES, WE WILL
LEAVE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN SHREDS.  NOTHING BUT EDUCATIONAL CONFUSION
AND A DISCREDITING OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM CAN RESULT FROM
SUBJECTING IT TO CONSTANT LAW SUITS. 

WHILE WE MAY AND SHOULD END SUCH FORMAL AND EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION AS
THE CHAMPAIGN PLAN AND CAN AT ALL TIMES PROHIBIT TEACHING OF CREED AND
CATECHISM AND CEREMONIAL AND CAN FORBID FORTHRIGHT PROSELYTING IN THE
SCHOOLS, I THINK IT REMAINS TO BE DEMONSTRATED WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE,
EVEN IF DESIRABLE, TO COMPLY WITH SUCH DEMANDS AS PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLETELY TO ISOLATE AND CAST OUT OF SECULAR EDUCATION ALL THAT SOME
PEOPLE MAY REASONABLY REGARD AS RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.  PERHAPS
SUBJECTS SUCH AS MATHEMATICS, PHYSICS OR CHEMISTRY ARE, OR CAN BE,
COMPLETELY SECULARIZED.  BUT IT WOULD NOT SEEM PRACTICAL TO TEACH
EITHER PRACTICE OR APPRECIATION OF THE ARTS IF WE ARE TO FORBID
EXPOSURE OF YOUTH TO ANY RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES.  MUSIC WITHOUT SACRED
MUSIC, ARCHITECTURE MINUS THE CATHEDRAL, OR PAINTING WITHOUT THE
SCRIPTURAL THEMES WOULD BE ECCENTRIC AND INCOMPLETE, EVEN FROM A
SECULAR POINT OF VIEW.  YET THE INSPIRATIONAL APPEAL OF RELIGION IN
THESE GUISES IS OFTEN STRONGER THAN IN FORTHRIGHT SERMON.  EVEN SUCH A
"SCIENCE" AS BIOLOGY RAISES THE ISSUE BETWEEN EVOLUTION AND CREATION AS
AN EXPLANATION OF OUR PRESENCE ON THIS PLANET.  CERTAINLY A COURSE IN
ENGLISH LITERATURE THAT OMITTED THE BIBLE AND OTHER POWERFUL USES OF
OUR MOTHER TONGUE FOR RELIGIOUS ENDS WOULD BE PRETTY BARREN.  AND I
SHOULD SUPPOSE IT IS A PROPER, IF NOT AN INDISPENSABLE, PART OF
PREPARATION FOR A WORLDLY LIFE TO KNOW THE ROLES THAT RELIGION AND
RELIGIONS HAVE PLAYED IN THE TRAGIC STORY OF MANKIND.  THE FACT IS
THAT, FOR GOOD OR FOR ILL, NEARLY EVERYTHING IN OUR CULTURE WORTH
TRANSMITTING, EVERYTHING WHICH GIVES MEANING TO LIFE, IS SATURATED WITH
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES, DERIVED FROM PAGANISM, JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY -
BOTH CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT - AND OTHER FAITHS ACCEPTED BY A LARGE
PART OF THE WORLD'S PEOPLES.  ONE CAN HARDLY RESPECT A SYSTEM OF
EDUCATION THAT WOULD LEAVE THE STUDENT WHOLLY IGNORANT OF THE CURRENTS
OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT THAT MOVE THE WORLD SOCIETY FOR A PART IN WHICH HE
IS BEING PREPARED. 

BUT HOW ONE CAN TEACH, WITH SATISFACTION OR EVEN WITH JUSTICE TO ALL
FAITHS, SUCH SUBJECTS AS THE STORY OF THE REFORMATION, THE INQUISITION,
OR EVEN THE NEW ENGLAND EFFORT TO FOUND "A CHURCH WITHOUT A BISHOP AND
A STATE WITHOUT A KING," IS MORE THAN I KNOW.  IT IS TOO MUCH TO EXPECT
THAT MORTALS WILL TEACH SUBJECTS ABOUT WHICH THEIR CONTEMPORARIES HAVE
PASSIONATE CONTROVERSIES WITH THE DETACHMENT THEY MAY SUMMON TO
TEACHING ABOUT REMOTE SUBJECTS SUCH AS CONFUCIUS OR MOHAMMED.  WHEN
INSTRUCTION TURNS TO PROSELYTING AND IMPARTING KNOWLEDGE BECOMES
EVANGELISM IS, EXCEPT IN THE CRUDEST CASES, A SUBTLE INQUIRY. 

THE OPINIONS IN THIS CASE SHOW THAT PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITIES
HAVE EVOLVED A CONSIDERABLE VARIETY OF PRACTICES IN DEALING WITH THE
RELIGIOUS PROBLEM.  NEIGHBORHOODS DIFFER IN RACIAL, RELIGIOUS AND
CULTURAL COMPOSITIONS.  IT MUST BE EXPECTED THAT THEY WILL ADOPT
DIFFERENT CUSTOMS WHICH WILL GIVE EMPHASIS TO DIFFERENT VALUES AND WILL
INDUCE DIFFERENT EXPERIMENTS.  AND IT MUST BE EXPECTED THAT, NO MATTER
WHAT PRACTICE PREVAILS, THERE WILL BE MANY DISCONTENTED AND POSSIBLY
BELLIGERENT MINORITIES.  WE MUST LEAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO MEET LOCAL
CONDITIONS, SOME CHANCE TO PROGRESS BY TRIAL AND ERROR.  WHILE I AGREE
THAT THE RELIGIOUS CLASSES INVOLVED HERE GO BEYOND PERMISSIBLE LIMITS,
I ALSO THINK THE COMPLAINT DEMANDS MORE THAN PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO
HAVE GRANTED.  SO FAR AS I CAN SEE THIS COURT DOES NOT TELL THE STATE
COURT WHERE IT MAY STOP, NOR DOES IT SET UP ANY STANDARDS BY WHICH THE
STATE COURT MAY DETERMINE THAT QUESTION FOR ITSELF.    THE TASK OF
SEPARATING THE SECULAR FROM THE RELIGIOUS IN EDUCATION IS ONE OF
MAGNITUDE, INTRICACY AND DELICACY.  TO LAY DOWN A SWEEPING
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE AS DEMANDED BY COMPLAINANT AND APPARENTLY
APPROVED BY THE COURT, APPLICABLE ALIKE TO ALL SCHOOL BOARDS OF THE
NATION, "TO IMMEDIATELY ADOPT AND ENFORCE RULES AND REGULATIONS
PROHIBITING ALL INSTRUCTION IN AND TEACHING OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN
ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS," IS TO DECREE A UNIFORM, RIGID AND, IF WE ARE
CONSISTENT, AN UNCHANGING STANDARD FOR COUNTLESS SCHOOL BOARDS
REPRESENTING AND SERVING HIGHLY LOCALIZED GROUPS WHICH NOT ONLY DIFFER
FROM EACH OTHER BUT WHICH THEMSELVES FROM TIME TO TIME CHANGE
ATTITUDES.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TO DO SO IS TO ALLOW ZEAL FOR OUR OWN
IDEAS OF WHAT IS GOOD IN PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TO INDUCE US TO ACCEPT THE
ROLE OF A SUPER BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE
NATION. 

IT IS IDLE TO PRETEND THAT THIS TASK IS ONE FOR WHICH WE CAN FIND IN
THE CONSTITUTION ONE WORD TO HELP US AS JUDGES TO DECIDE WHERE THE
SECULAR ENDS AND THE SECTARIAN BEGINS IN EDUCATION.  NOR CAN WE FIND
GUIDANCE IN ANY OTHER LEGAL SOURCE.  IT IS A MATTER ON WHICH WE CAN
FIND NO LAW BUT OUR OWN PREPOSSESSIONS.  IF WITH NO SURER LEGAL
GUIDANCE WE ARE TO TAKE UP AND DECIDE EVERY VARIATION OF THIS
CONTROVERSY, RAISED BY PERSONS NOT SUBJECT TO PENALTY OR TAX BUT WHO
ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE WAY SCHOOLS ARE DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM, WE
ARE LIKELY TO HAVE MUCH BUSINESS OF THE SORT.  AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY,
WE ARE LIKELY TO MAKE THE LEGAL "WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND
STATE" AS WINDING AS THE FAMOUS SERPENTINE WALL DESIGNED BY MR.
JEFFERSON FOR THE UNIVERSITY HE FOUNDED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

THE DECISIONS REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
INTERPRET THE PROHIBITION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AGAINST THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, MADE EFFECTIVE AS TO THE STATES BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, TO FORBID PUPILS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ELECTING,
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THEIR PARENTS, COURSES IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. 
THE COURSES ARE GIVEN, UNDER THE SCHOOL LAWS OF ILLINOIS AS APPROVED BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE, BY LAY OR CLERICAL TEACHERS SUPPLIED
AND DIRECTED BY AN INTERDENOMINATIONAL, LOCAL COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION.  FN1  THE CLASSES ARE HELD IN THE RESPECTIVE SCHOOL
BUILDINGS OF THE PUPILS AT STUDY OR RELEASED TIME PERIODS SO AS TO
AVOID CONFLICT WITH RECITATIONS.  THE TEACHERS AND SUPPLIES ARE PAID
FOR BY THE INTERDENOMINATIONAL GROUP.  FN2  AS I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS ERRONEOUS, I FEEL IMPELLED TO
EXPRESS THE REASONS FOR MY DISAGREEMENT.  BY DIRECTING ATTENTION TO THE
MANY INSTANCES OF CLOSE ASSOCIATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN AMERICAN
SOCIETY AND BY RECALLING THAT MANY OF THESE RELATIONS ARE SO MUCH A
PART OF OUR TRADITION AND CULTURE THAT THEY ARE ACCEPTED WITHOUT MORE,
THIS DISSENT MAY HELP IN AN APPRAISAL OF THE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION AND OF THE
REASONS WHICH LEAD TO THE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE JUDGMENT
BELOW. 

THE REASONS FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE ILLINOIS JUDGMENT, AS THEY APPEAR
IN THE RESPECTIVE OPINIONS, MAY BE SUMMARIZED BY THE FOLLOWING
EXCERPTS.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT, AFTER STATING THE FACTS, SAYS:
"THE FOREGOING FACTS, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO OTHERS THAT APPEAR IN THE
RECORD, SHOW THE USE OF TAX-SUPPORTED PROPERTY FOR RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION AND THE CLOSE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES
AND THE RELIGIOUS COUNCIL IN PROMOTING RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.   ...  AND
IT FALLS SQUARELY UNDER THE BAN OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (MADE APPLICABLE
TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH) AS WE INTERPRETED IT IN EVERSON V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1."  ANOTHER OPINION PHRASES IT THUS:  "WE
DO NOT NOW ATTEMPT TO WEIGH IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCALE EVERY SEPARATE
DETAIL OR VARIOUS COMBINATION OF FACTORS WHICH MAY ESTABLISH A VALID
'RELEASED TIME' PROGRAM.  WE FIND THAT THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE SEPARATION WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, SPEAKING THROUGH ITS SUPREME COURT, SUSTAINED THE SCHOOL
AUTHORITIES OF CHAMPAIGN IN SPONSORING AND EFFECTIVELY FURTHERING
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BY ITS EDUCATIONAL ARRANGEMENT."  THESE EXPRESSIONS
IN THE DECISIONS SEEM TO LEAVE OPEN FOR FURTHER LITIGATION VARIATIONS
FROM THE CHAMPAIGN PLAN.  ACTUALLY, HOWEVER, FUTURE CASES MUST RUN THE
GANTLET NOT ONLY OF THE JUDGMENT ENTERED BUT OF THE ACCOMPANYING WORDS
OF THE OPINIONS.  I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT FROM THE OPINIONS ANY
CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT IT IS IN THE CHAMPAIGN PLAN THAT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IS IT THE USE OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS FOR RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION; THE RELEASE OF PUPILS BY THE SCHOOLS FOR RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION DURING SCHOOL HOURS; THE SO-CALLED ASSISTANCE BY TEACHERS
IN HANDING OUT THE REQUEST CARDS TO PUPILS, IN KEEPING LISTS OF THEM
FOR RELEASE AND RECORDS OF THEIR ATTENDANCE; OR THE ACTION OF THE
PRINCIPALS IN ARRANGING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CLASSES AND THE
APPEARANCE OF THE COUNCIL'S INSTRUCTORS?  NONE OF THE REVERSING
OPINIONS SAY WHETHER THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAMPAIGN PLAN FOR RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION DURING SCHOOL HOURS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR WHETHER IT IS
SOME INGREDIENT USED IN OR OMITTED FROM THE FORMULA THAT MAKES THE PLAN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

FROM THE TENOR OF THE OPINIONS I CONCLUDE THAT THEIR TEACHINGS ARE
THAT ANY USE OF A PUPIL'S SCHOOL TIME, WHETHER THAT USE IS ON OR OFF
THE SCHOOL GROUNDS, WITH THE NECESSARY SCHOOL REGULATIONS TO FACILITATE
ATTENDANCE, FALLS UNDER THE BAN.  I REACH THIS CONCLUSION
NOTWITHSTANDING ONE SENTENCE OF INDEFINITE MEANING IN THE SECOND
OPINION:  "WE DO NOT CONSIDER, AS INDEED WE COULD NOT, SCHOOL PROGRAMS
NOT BEFORE US WHICH, THOUGH COLLOQUIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS 'RELEASED
TIME,' PRESENT SITUATIONS DIFFERING IN ASPECTS THAT MAY WELL BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY CRUCIAL."  THE USE OF THE WORDS "COOPERATION,"
"FUSION," "COMPLETE HANDS-OFF," "INTEGRATE" AND "INTEGRATED" TO
DESCRIBE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND THE COUNCIL IN THE PLAN
EVIDENCES THIS.  SO DOES THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD "AID."  THE
CRITICIZED "MOMENTUM OF THE WHOLE SCHOOL ATMOSPHERE," "FEELING OF
SEPARATISM" ENGENDERED IN THE NON-PARTICIPATING SECTS, "OBVIOUS
PRESSURE ...  TO ATTEND," AND "DIVISIVENESS" LEAD TO THE STATED
CONCLUSION.  FROM THE HOLDING AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPINIONS, I CAN
ONLY DEDUCE THAT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN DURING
SCHOOL HOURS IS PROHIBITED.  THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION IS
AGAINST SUCH AN INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

THE OPINIONS DO NOT SAY IN WORDS THAT THE CONDEMNED PRACTICE OF
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IS A LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION
CONTRARY TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THE PRACTICE IS ACCEPTED AS A STATE
LAW BY ALL.  I TAKE IT THAT WHEN THE OPINION OF THE COURT SAYS THAT
"THE OPERATION OF THE STATE'S COMPULSORY EDUCATION SYSTEM THUS ASSISTS
AND IS INTEGRATED WITH THE PROGRAM OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION CARRIED ON
BY SEPARATE RELIGIOUS SECTS" AND CONCLUDES "THIS IS BEYOND ALL QUESTION
A UTILIZATION OF THE TAX-ESTABLISHED AND TAX-SUPPORTED PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM TO AID RELIGIOUS GROUPS TO SPREAD THEIR FAITH," THE INTENTION OF
ITS AUTHOR IS TO RULE THAT THIS PRACTICE IS A LAW "RESPECTING AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION."  THAT WAS THE BASIS OF EVERSON V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1.  IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE ACTION OF THE SCHOOL
BOARD IN PERMITTING RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN CERTAIN GRADES OF THE
SCHOOLS BY ALL FAITHS DID NOT PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. 
EVEN ASSUMING THAT CERTAIN CHILDREN WHO DID NOT ELECT TO TAKE
INSTRUCTION ARE EMBARRASSED TO REMAIN OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSES, ONE CAN
HARDLY SPEAK OF THAT EMBARRASSMENT AS A PROHIBITION AGAINST THE FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  AS NO ISSUE OF PROHIBITION UPON THE FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION IS BEFORE US, WE NEED ONLY EXAMINE THE SCHOOL
BOARD'S ACTION TO SEE IF IT CONSTITUTES AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. 

THE FACTS, AS STATED IN THE REVERSING OPINIONS, ARE ADEQUATELY SET
OUT IF WE INTERPRET THE ABSTRACT WORDS USED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CONCRETE INCIDENTS OF THE RECORD.  IT IS CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE
PARENTS "CONSENTED" TO THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF THE CHILDREN, IF WE
UNDERSTAND "CONSENT" TO MEAN THE SIGNING OF A CARD LIKE THE ONE IN THE
MARGIN.  FN3  IT IS CORRECT TO SAY THAT "INSTRUCTORS WERE SUBJECT TO
THE APPROVAL AND SUPERVISION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS," IF IT
IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WERE NO DEFINITIVE WRITTEN RULES AND THAT THE
PRACTICE WAS AS IS SHOWN IN THE EXCERPTS FROM THE FINDINGS BELOW.  FN4
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION COURSE IS DETERMINED BY THE
MEMBERS OF THE VARIOUS CHURCHES ON THE COUNCIL, NOT BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT.  FN5  THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS SET OUT IN THE TWO
PRECEDING NOTES CONVINCE ME THAT THE "APPROVAL AND SUPERVISION"
REFERRED TO ABOVE ARE NOT OF THE TEACHERS AND THE COURSE OF STUDIES BUT
OF THE ORDERLY PRESENTATION OF THE COURSES TO THOSE STUDENTS WHO MAY
ELECT THE INSTRUCTION.  THE TEACHING LARGELY COVERED BIBLICAL
INCIDENTS.  FN6  THE RELIGIOUS TEACHERS AND THEIR TEACHINGS, IN EVERY
REAL SENSE, WERE FINANCED AND REGULATED BY THE COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION, NOT THE SCHOOL BOARD. 

THE PHRASE "AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" MAY HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY
CONGRESS TO BE AIMED ONLY AT A STATE CHURCH.  WHEN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
WAS PENDING IN CONGRESS IN SUBSTANTIALLY ITS PRESENT FORM, "MR. MADISON
SAID, HE APPREHENDED THE MEANING OF THE WORDS TO BE, THAT CONGRESS
SHOULD NOT ESTABLISH A RELIGION, AND ENFORCE THE LEGAL OBSERVATION OF
IT BY LAW, NOR COMPEL MEN TO WORSHIP GOD IN ANY MANNER CONTRARY TO
THEIR CONSCIENCE."  FN7  PASSING YEARS, HOWEVER, HAVE BROUGHT ABOUT
ACCEPTANCE OF A BROADER MEANING, ALTHOUGH NEVER UNTIL TODAY, I BELIEVE,
HAS THIS COURT WIDENED ITS INTERPRETATION TO ANY SUCH DEGREE AS HOLDING
THAT RECOGNITION OF THE INTEREST OF OUR NATION IN RELIGION, THROUGH THE
GRANTING, TO QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PRINCIPAL FAITHS, OF
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT RELIGION AS AN OPTIONAL, EXTRACURRICULAR SUBJECT
DURING RELEASED SCHOOL TIME IN PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS, WAS EQUIVALENT
TO AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.  A READING OF THE GENERAL STATEMENTS
OF EMINENT STATESMEN OF FORMER DAYS, REFERRED TO IN THE OPINIONS IN
THIS CASE AND IN EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA, WILL SHOW THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE IN THIS CASE WERE FAR FROM THE MINDS OF THE
AUTHORS.  THE WORDS AND SPIRIT OF THOSE STATEMENTS MAY BE
WHOLEHEARTEDLY ACCEPTED WITHOUT IN THE LEAST IMPUGNING THE JUDGMENT OF
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.  FN8 

MR. JEFFERSON, AS ONE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA,
A SCHOOL WHICH FROM ITS ESTABLISHMENT IN 1819 HAS BEEN WHOLLY GOVERNED,
MANAGED AND CONTROLLED BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, FN9  WAS FACED WITH
THE SAME PROBLEM THAT IS BEFORE THIS COURT TODAY:  THE QUESTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION UPON RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 
IN HIS ANNUAL REPORT AS RECTOR, TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF THE
LITERARY FUND, DATED OCTOBER 7, 1822, APPROVED BY THE VISITORS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF WHOM MR. MADISON WAS ONE,  FN10  MR. JEFFERSON SET FORTH
HIS VIEWS AT SOME LENGTH.  FN11  THESE SUGGESTIONS OF MR. JEFFERSON
WERE ADOPTED  FN12  AND CH. II, SEC. 1, OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF OCTOBER 4, 1824, PROVIDED THAT: 

"SHOULD THE RELIGIOUS SECTS OF THIS STATE, OR ANY OF THEM, ACCORDING
TO THE INVITATION HELD OUT TO THEM, ESTABLISH WITHIN, OR ADJACENT TO,
THE PRECINCTS OF THE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOLS FOR INSTRUCTION IN THE
RELIGION OF THEIR SECT, THE STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY WILL BE FREE,
AND EXPECTED TO ATTEND RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE SECTS, IN THE MORNING, AND IN TIME TO MEET THEIR SCHOOL IN
THE UNIVERSITY AT ITS STATED HOUR."  FN13  THUS, THE "WALL OF
SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE" THAT MR. JEFFERSON BUILT AT THE
UNIVERSITY WHICH HE FOUNDED DID NOT EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION FROM
THAT SCHOOL.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GENERALITY OF HIS STATEMENTS
ON THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE AND THE SPECIFICITY OF HIS
CONCLUSIONS ON EDUCATION ARE CONSIDERABLE.  A RULE OF LAW SHOULD NOT BE
DRAWN FROM A FIGURE OF SPEECH. 

MR. MADISON'S MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE AGAINST RELIGIOUS
ASSESSMENTS,  FN14  RELIED UPON BY THE DISSENTING JUSTICES IN EVERSON,
IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE.  FN15  MR. MADISON WAS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL
OPPONENTS IN THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF A BILL ESTABLISHING A
PROVISION FOR TEACHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.  THE MONIES RAISED BY
THE TAXING SECTION  FN16  OF THAT BILL WERE TO BE APPROPRIATED "BY THE
VESTRIES, ELDERS, OR DIRECTORS OF EACH RELIGIOUS SOCIETY,  ...  TO A
PROVISION FOR A MINISTER OR TEACHER OF THE GOSPEL OF THEIR
DENOMINATION, OR THE PROVIDING PLACES OF DIVINE WORSHIP, AND TO NONE
OTHER USE WHATSOEVER  ...  "  THE CONCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE STRUGGLE OVER
THIS ACT TOOK PLACE IN THE FALL OF 1785, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS.  THE REMONSTRANCE HAD BEEN ISSUED BEFORE THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY CONVENED AND WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN THE FINAL DEFEAT OF THE ACT,
WHICH DIED IN COMMITTEE.  THROUGHOUT THE REMONSTRANCE, MR. MADISON
SPEAKS OF THE "ESTABLISHMENT" SOUGHT TO BE EFFECTED BY THE ACT.  IT IS
CLEAR FROM ITS HISTORICAL SETTING AND ITS LANGUAGE THAT THE
REMONSTRANCE WAS A PROTEST AGAINST AN EFFORT BY VIRGINIA TO SUPPORT
CHRISTIAN SECTS BY TAXATION.  ISSUES SIMILAR TO THOSE RAISED BY THE
INSTANT CASE WERE NOT DISCUSSED.  THUS, MR. MADISON'S APPROVAL OF MR.
JEFFERSON'S REPORT AS RECTOR GIVES, IN MY OPINION, A CLEARER INDICATION
OF HIS VIEWS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN PUBLIC
SCHOOLS THAN HIS GENERAL STATEMENTS ON A DIFFERENT SUBJECT.    THIS
COURT SUMMARIZED THE AMENDMENT'S ACCEPTED REACH INTO THE RELIGIOUS
FIELD, AS I UNDERSTAND ITS SCOPE, IN EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION,
SUPRA.  THE COURT'S OPINION QUOTES THE GIST OF THE COURT'S REASONING IN
EVERSON.  I AGREE, AS THERE STATED, THAT NONE OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITIES CAN "SET UP A CHURCH."  I AGREE THAT THEY CANNOT "AID" ALL OR
ANY RELIGIONS OR PREFER ONE "OVER ANOTHER."  BUT "AID" MUST BE
UNDERSTOOD AS A PURPOSEFUL ASSISTANCE DIRECTLY TO THE CHURCH ITSELF OR
TO SOME RELIGIOUS GROUP OR ORGANIZATION DOING RELIGIOUS WORK OF SUCH A
CHARACTER THAT IT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE PERFORMING ECCLESIASTICAL
FUNCTIONS.  "PREFER" MUST GIVE AN ADVANTAGE TO ONE "OVER ANOTHER."  I
AGREE THAT PUPILS CANNOT "BE RELEASED IN PART FROM THEIR LEGAL DUTY" OF
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE UPON CONDITION THAT THEY ATTEND RELIGIOUS CLASSES. 
BUT AS ILLINOIS HAS HELD THAT IT IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE SCHOOL
BOARD TO PERMIT ABSENCE FROM SCHOOL FOR RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION NO LEGAL
DUTY OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IS VIOLATED.  396 ILL. 14, 71 N.E.2D 161.  IF
THE SENTENCE IN THE COURT'S OPINION, CONCERNING THE PUPILS' RELEASE
FROM LEGAL DUTY, IS INTENDED TO MEAN THAT THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS A
SCHOOL TO EXCUSE A PUPIL FROM SECULAR CONTROL DURING SCHOOL HOURS TO
ATTEND VOLUNTARILY A CLASS IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, WHETHER IN OR OUT OF
SCHOOL BUILDINGS, I DISAGREE.  OF COURSE, NO TAX CAN BE LEVIED TO
SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS INTENDED "TO TEACH OR PRACTICE RELIGION."  I
AGREE TOO THAT THE STATE CANNOT INFLUENCE ONE TOWARD RELIGION AGAINST
HIS WILL OR PUNISH HIM FOR HIS BELIEFS.  CHAMPAIGN'S RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION COURSE DOES NONE OF THESE THINGS. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT THE "AID" REFERRED TO BY THE COURT IN THE
EVERSON CASE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THOSE INCIDENTAL ADVANTAGES THAT
RELIGIOUS BODIES, WITH OTHER GROUPS SIMILARLY SITUATED, OBTAIN AS A BY
PRODUCT OF ORGANIZED SOCIETY.  THIS EXPLAINS THE WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT
ALL CHURCHES RECEIVE "AID" FROM GOVERNMENT IN THE FORM OF FREEDOM FROM
TAXATION.  THE EVERSON DECISION ITSELF JUSTIFIED THE TRANSPORTATION OF
CHILDREN TO CHURCH SCHOOLS BY NEW JERSEY FOR SAFETY REASONS.  IT
ACCORDS WITH COCHRAN V. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 281 U.S.
370, WHERE THIS COURT UPHELD A FREE TEXTBOOK STATUTE OF LOUISIANA
AGAINST A CHARGE THAT IT AIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS ON THE GROUND THAT THE
BOOKS WERE FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN, NOT TO AID RELIGIOUS
SCHOOLS.  LIKEWISE THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT AIDS ALL SCHOOL
CHILDREN ATTENDING TAX-EXEMPT SCHOOLS.  FN17  IN BRADFIELD V. ROBERTS,
175 U.S. 291, THIS COURT HELD PROPER THE PAYMENT OF MONEY BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BUILD AN ADDITION TO A HOSPITAL, CHARTERED BY
INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE MEMBERS OF A ROMAN CATHOLIC SISTERHOOD, AND
OPERATED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.  THIS WAS
DONE OVER THE OBJECTION THAT IT AIDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. 
FN18  WHILE OBVIOUSLY IN THESE INSTANCES THE RESPECTIVE CHURCHES, IN A
CERTAIN SENSE, WERE AIDED, THIS COURT HAS NEVER HELD THAT SUCH "AID"
WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST OR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

WELL-RECOGNIZED AND LONG-ESTABLISHED PRACTICES SUPPORT THE VALIDITY
OF THE ILLINOIS STATUTE HERE IN QUESTION.  THAT STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED
IN THIS CASE, IS COMPARABLE TO THOSE IN MANY STATES.  FN19  ALL DIFFER
TO SOME EXTENT.  NEW YORK MAY BE TAKEN AS A FAIR EXAMPLE.  FN20  IN
MANY STATES THE PROGRAM IS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A RELIGIOUS COUNCIL
COMPOSED OF DELEGATES WHO ARE THEMSELVES COMMUNICANTS OF VARIOUS
FAITHS.  FN21  AS IS SHOWN BY BRADFIELD V. ROBERTS, SUPRA, THE FACT
THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL HAVE RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS IS NOT
SIGNIFICANT.  IN SOME, INSTRUCTION IS GIVEN OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL
BUILDINGS; IN OTHERS, WITHIN THESE BUILDINGS.  METROPOLITAN CENTERS
LIKE NEW YORK USUALLY WOULD HAVE AVAILABLE QUARTERS CONVENIENT TO
SCHOOLS.  UNLESS SMALLER CITIES AND RURAL COMMUNITIES USE THE SCHOOL
BUILDING AT TIMES THAT DO NOT INTERFERE WITH RECITATIONS, THEY MAY BE
COMPELLED TO GIVE UP RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.  I UNDERSTAND THAT PUPILS NOT
TAKING RELIGIOUS EDUCATION USUALLY ARE GIVEN OTHER WORK OF A SECULAR
NATURE WITHIN THE SCHOOLS.  FN22  SINCE ALL THESE STATES USE THE
FACILITIES OF THE SCHOOLS TO AID THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION TO SOME
EXTENT, THEIR DESIRE TO PERMIT RELIGIOUS EDUCATION TO SCHOOL CHILDREN
IS THWARTED BY THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT.  FN23  UNDER IT, AS I UNDERSTAND
ITS LANGUAGE, CHILDREN CANNOT BE RELEASED OR DISMISSED FROM SCHOOL TO
ATTEND CLASSES IN RELIGION WHILE OTHER CHILDREN MUST REMAIN TO PURSUE
SECULAR EDUCATION.  TEACHERS CANNOT KEEP THE RECORDS AS TO WHICH PUPILS
ARE TO BE DISMISSED AND WHICH RETAINED.  TO DO SO IS SAID TO BE AN
"AID" IN ESTABLISHING RELIGION; THE USE OF PUBLIC MONEY FOR RELIGION. 

CASES RUNNING INTO THE SCORES HAVE BEEN IN THE STATE COURTS OF LAST
RESORT THAT INVOLVED RELIGION AND THE SCHOOLS.  EXCEPT WHERE THE
EXERCISES WITH RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE PARTOOK OF THE CEREMONIAL
PRACTICE OF SECTS OR GROUPS, THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY HAS BEEN GENERALLY
UPHELD.  FN24 ILLINOIS ITSELF PROMPTLY STRUCK DOWN AS VIOLATIVE OF ITS
OWN CONSTITUTION REQUIRED EXERCISES PARTAKING OF A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. 
PEOPLE EX REL. RING V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 245 ILL. 334, 92 N.E. 251. 
IN THAT CASE COMPULSORY RELIGIOUS EXERCISES - A READING FROM THE KING
JAMES BIBLE, THE LORD'S PRAYER AND THE SINGING OF HYMNS - WERE
FORBIDDEN AS "WORSHIP SERVICES."  IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE RING CASE, THE ACTIVITIES IN THE
SCHOOL WERE CEREMONIAL AND COMPULSORY; IN THIS, VOLUNTARY AND
EDUCATIONAL.  396 ILL. 14, 20-21, 71 N.E.2D 161, 164. 

THE PRACTICES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFER MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS
KIND OF "AID" BY THE STATE TO RELIGION.  THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES HAS A CHAPLAIN FOR EACH HOUSE WHO DAILY INVOKES DIVINE BLESSINGS
AND GUIDANCE FOR THE PROCEEDINGS.  FN25  THE ARMED FORCES HAVE
COMMISSIONED CHAPLAINS FROM EARLY DAYS.  FN26  THEY CONDUCT THE PUBLIC
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LITURGICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE FAITHS, ASHORE AND AFLOAT, EMPLOYING FOR THE PURPOSE
PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES AND DEDICATED TO THE SERVICES
OF RELIGION.  FN27  UNDER THE SERVICEMEN'S READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1944,
ELIGIBLE VETERANS MAY RECEIVE TRAINING AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FOR THE
MINISTRY IN DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS.  FN28  THE SCHOOLS OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA HAVE OPENING EXERCISES WHICH "INCLUDE A READING FROM THE
BIBLE WITHOUT NOTE OR COMMENT, AND THE LORD'S PRAYER."  FN29 

IN THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY AND THE UNITED STATES MILITARY
ACADEMY, SCHOOLS WHOLLY SUPPORTED AND COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. 
CHAPLAINS ARE ATTACHED TO BOTH SCHOOLS.  ATTENDANCE AT CHURCH SERVICES
ON SUNDAY IS COMPULSORY AT BOTH THE MILITARY AND NAVAL ACADEMIES.  FN30
AT WEST POINT THE PROTESTANT SERVICES ARE HELD IN THE CADET CHAPEL,
THE CATHOLIC IN THE CATHOLIC CHAPEL, AND THE JEWISH IN THE OLD CADET
CHAPEL; AT ANNAPOLIS ONLY PROTESTANT SERVICES ARE HELD ON THE
RESERVATION, MIDSHIPMEN OF OTHER RELIGIOUS PERSUASIONS ATTEND THE
CHURCHES OF THE CITY OF ANNAPOLIS.  THESE FACTS INDICATE THAT BOTH
SCHOOLS SINCE THEIR EARLIEST BEGINNINGS HAVE MAINTAINED AND ENFORCED A
PATTERN OF PARTICIPATION IN FORMAL WORSHIP. 

WITH THE GENERAL STATEMENTS IN THE OPINIONS CONCERNING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE NATION AND THE STATES, BY VIRTUE OF
THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS N31, MAY "MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION," I AM IN AGREEMENT.  BUT, IN THE LIGHT OF
THE MEANING GIVEN TO THOSE WORDS BY THE PRECEDENTS, CUSTOMS, AND
PRACTICES WHICH I HAVE DETAILED ABOVE, I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT WHEN PUPILS COMPELLED BY LAW TO GO TO SCHOOL FOR
SECULAR EDUCATION ARE RELEASED FROM SCHOOL SO AS TO ATTEND THE
RELIGIOUS CLASSES, CHURCHES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AIDED.  WHATEVER MAY
BE THE WISDOM OF THE ARRANGEMENT AS TO THE USE OF THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS
MADE WITH THE CHAMPAIGN COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, IT IS CLEAR TO
ME THAT PAST PRACTICE SHOWS SUCH COOPERATION BETWEEN THE SCHOOLS AND A
NON-ECCLESIASTICAL BODY IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  WHEN
ACTUAL CHURCH SERVICES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PERMITTED ON GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY, THE MERE USE OF THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS BY A NON-SECTARIAN GROUP
FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION OUGHT NOT TO BE CONDEMNED AS AN ESTABLISHMENT
OF RELIGION.  FOR A NON-SECTARIAN ORGANIZATION TO GIVE THE TYPE OF
INSTRUCTION HERE OFFERED CANNOT BE SAID TO VIOLATE OUR RULE AS TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION BY THE STATE.  THE PROHIBITION OF ENACTMENTS
RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION DO NOT BAR EVERY FRIENDLY
GESTURE BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.  IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION
AGAINST EVERY CONCEIVABLE SITUATION WHERE THE TWO MAY WORK TOGETHER,
ANY MORE THAN THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT - FREE
SPEECH, FREE PRESS - ARE ABSOLUTES.  FN32  IF ABUSES OCCUR, SUCH AS THE
USE OF THE INSTRUCTION HOUR FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES, I HAVE NO DOUBT, IN
VIEW OF THE RING CASE, THAT ILLINOIS WILL PROMPTLY CORRECT THEM.  IF
THEY ARE OF A KIND THAT TEND TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHURCH OR
INTERFERE WITH THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, THIS COURT IS OPEN FOR A
REVIEW OF ANY ERRONEOUS DECISION.  THIS COURT CANNOT BE TOO CAUTIOUS IN
UPSETTING PRACTICES EMBEDDED IN OUR SOCIETY BY MANY YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE.  A STATE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE GREAT LEEWAY IN ITS
LEGISLATION WHEN DEALING WITH THE IMPORTANT SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF ITS
POPULATION.  FN33  A DEFINITE VIOLATION OF LEGISLATIVE LIMITS MUST BE
ESTABLISHED.  THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE STRETCHED TO FORBID
NATIONAL CUSTOMS IN THE WAY COURTS ACT TO REACH ARRANGEMENTS TO AVOID
FEDERAL TAXATION.  FN34  DEVOTION TO THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY SHOULD NOT LEAD US INTO A RIGID INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT CONFLICTS WITH ACCEPTED HABITS OF OUR
PEOPLE.  THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE, FOR ME, THE HISTORY OF PAST
PRACTICES IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE MEANING OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE,
NOT A DECOROUS INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF ITS TEXT.  THE JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT:  "'THE CHAMPAIGN COUNCIL OF
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION' (IS) A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION MADE UP OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH, ROMAN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT FAITHS IN
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT." 

FN2  THERE IS NO EXTRA COST TO THE STATE BUT AS A THEORETICAL
ACCOUNTING PROBLEM IT MAY BE CORRECT TO CHARGE TO THE CLASSES THEIR
COMPARABLE PROPORTION OF THE STATE EXPENSE FOR BUILDINGS, OPERATION AND
TEACHERS.  IN CONNECTION WITH THE CLASSES, THE TEACHERS NEED ONLY KEEP
A RECORD OF THE PUPILS WHO ATTEND.  INCREASED CUSTODIAL REQUIREMENTS
ARE LIKEWISE NOMINAL.  IT IS CUSTOMARY TO USE SCHOOL BUILDINGS FOR
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES WHEN NOT NEEDED FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES.  SEE ILL.
REV. STAT., CH. 122, SEC. 123. 

FN3  "CHAMPAIGN COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

   1945-1946

                         PARENT'S REQUEST CARD 

PLEASE PERMIT ........................ IN GRADE .. AT ..........
SCHOOL TO ATTEND A CLASS IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION ONE PERIOD A WEEK UNDER
THE AUSPICES OF THE CHAMPAIGN COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. 

(CHECK  WHICH) 

DATE ....................  (  ) INTERDENOMINATIONAL

                         (  ) PROTESTANT

                         (  ) ROMAN CATHOLIC

                         (  ) JEWISH

            SIGNED ....................

                      (PARENT NAME) 

PARENT'S CHURCH ........................ 

TELEPHONE NO. ..........  ADDRESS .................... 

A FEE OF 25 CENTS A SEMESTER IS CHARGED EACH PUPIL TO HELP COVER THE
COST OF MATERIAL USED. 

IF YOU WISH YOUR CHILD TO RECEIVE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, PLEASE SIGN
THIS CARD AND RETURN TO THE SCHOOL. 

           MAE CHAPIN, DIRECTOR." 

MAE CHAPIN, THE DIRECTOR, WAS NOT A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE. 

FN4  "THE SUPERINTENDENT TESTIFIED THAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OR ANY
OTHER SECT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TEACH PROVIDED THEIR TEACHERS HAD PROPER
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, SO THAT BAD GRAMMAR, FOR INSTANCE, WOULD
NOT BE TAUGHT TO THE PUPILS.  A SIMILAR SITUATION DEVELOPED WITH
REFERENCE TO THE MISSOURI SYNOD OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.  THE EVIDENCE
TENDS TO SHOW THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL THAT GROUP INDICATED
IT WOULD AFFILIATE WITH THE COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. 

"BEFORE ANY FAITH OR OTHER GROUP MAY OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE
DEFENDANT FOR THE SIMILAR, FREE AND EQUAL USE OF ROOMS IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOL BUILDINGS SAID FAITH OR GROUP MUST MAKE APPLICATION TO THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF SAID SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 71, WHO IN
TURN WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS PRACTICAL FOR SAID GROUP TO
TEACH IN SAID SCHOOL SYSTEM. 

"THE COURT FEELS FROM ALL THE FACTS IN THE RECORD THAT AN HONEST
ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE AND IS BEING MADE TO PERMIT RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION
TO BE GIVEN BY QUALIFIED OUTSIDE TEACHERS OF ANY SECT TO PEOPLE OF
THEIR OWN FAITH IN THE MANNER ABOVE OUTLINED.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT
NO SECT OR RELIGIOUS GROUP HAS EVER BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO USE THE
SCHOOLS IN THIS MANNER." 

FN5 A FINDING READS:  "THE CURRICULUM OF STUDIES IN THE PROTESTANT
CLASSES IS DETERMINED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE PROTESTANT MEMBERS OF THE
COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AFTER CONSULTATION WITH REPRESENTATIVES
OF ALL THE DIFFERENT FAITHS INCLUDED IN SAID COUNCIL.  THE JEWISH
CLASSES OF COURSE WOULD DENY THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST.  THE
TEACHING IN THE CATHOLIC CLASSES OF COURSE EXPLAINS TO CATHOLIC PUPILS
THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION, AND ARE NOT SHARED BY OTHER
STUDENTS WHO ARE PROTESTANTS OR JEWS.  THE TEACHINGS IN THE PROTESTANT
CLASSES WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY, FROM THE EVIDENCE, TEACH SOME DOCTRINES THAT
WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE OTHER TWO RELIGIONS."    FN6  IT WAS
FOUND:  "THE TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT SECTARIAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
CONDUCTED IN THE SCHOOLS.  THE TESTIMONY OF THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
TEACHERS, THE SECULAR TEACHERS WHO TESTIFIED, AND THE MANY CHILDREN,
MOSTLY FROM PROTESTANT FAMILIES, WHO EITHER TOOK OR DID NOT TAKE
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION COURSES, IS TO THE EFFECT THAT RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
CLASSES HAVE FOSTERED TOLERANCE RATHER THAN INTOLERANCE."    THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS SAID:  "THE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION COURSES DO
NOT GO TO THE EXTENT OF BEING WORSHIP SERVICES AND DO NOT INCLUDE
PRAYERS OR THE SINGING OF HYMNS."  396 ILL. 14, 21, 71 N.E.2D 161,
164. 

FN7  1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 730. 

FN8  FOR EXAMPLE, MR. JEFFERSON'S STRIKING PHRASE AS TO THE "WALL OF
SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE" APPEARS IN A LETTER ACKNOWLEDGING
"THE AFFECTIONATE SENTIMENTS OF ESTEEM AND APPROBATION" INCLUDED IN A
TESTIMONIAL TO HIMSELF.  IN ITS CONTEXT IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"BELIEVING WITH YOU THAT RELIGION IS A MATTER WHICH LIES SOLELY
BETWEEN MAN AND HIS GOD, THAT HE OWES ACCOUNT TO NONE OTHER FOR HIS
FAITH OR HIS WORSHIP, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT REACH
ACTIONS ONLY, AND NOT OPINIONS, I CONTEMPLATE WITH SOVEREIGN REVERENCE
THAT ACT OF THE WHOLE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHICH DECLARED THAT THEIR
LEGISLATURE SHOULD 'MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF,' THUS BUILDING A
WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE."  8 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS
JEFFERSON (WASHINGTON ED., 1861) 113. 

FN9  ACTS OF THE ASSEMBLY OF 1818-19(1819) 15; PHILLIPS V. THE RECTOR
AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, 97 VA. 472, 474-75, 34 S.E.
66, 67. 

FN10  19 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (MEMORIAL EDITION, 1904)
408, 409. 

FN11  ID., PP. 414-17: 

"IT WAS NOT, HOWEVER, TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT INSTRUCTION IN RELIGIOUS
OPINION AND DUTIES WAS MEANT TO BE PRECLUDED BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES,
AS INDIFFERENT TO THE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
RELATIONS WHICH EXIST BETWEEN MAN AND HIS MAKER, AND THE DUTIES
RESULTING FROM THOSE RELATIONS, ARE THE MOST INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT
TO EVERY HUMAN BEING, AND THE MOST INCUMBENT ON HIS STUDY AND
INVESTIGATION.  THE WANT OF INSTRUCTION IN THE VARIOUS CREEDS OF
RELIGIOUS FAITH EXISTING AMONG OUR CITIZENS PRESENTS, THEREFORE, A
CHASM IN A GENERAL INSTITUTION OF THE USEFUL SCIENCES.  ...  A REMEDY,
HOWEVER, HAS BEEN SUGGESTED OF PROMISING ASPECT, WHICH, WHILE IT
EXCLUDES THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FROM THE DOMAIN OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,
WILL GIVE TO THE SECTARIAN SCHOOLS OF DIVINITY THE FULL BENEFIT THE
PUBLIC PROVISIONS MADE FOR INSTRUCTION IN THE OTHER BRANCHES OF
SCIENCE.  ...  IT HAS, THEREFORE, BEEN IN CONTEMPLATION, AND SUGGESTED
BY SOME PIOUS INDIVIDUALS, WHO PERCEIVE THE ADVANTAGES OF ASSOCIATING
OTHER STUDIES WITH THOSE OF RELIGION, TO ESTABLISH THEIR RELIGIOUS
SCHOOLS ON THE CONFINES OF THE UNIVERSITY, SO AS TO GIVE TO THEIR
STUDENTS READY AND CONVENIENT ACCESS AND ATTENDANCE ON THE SCIENTIFIC
LECTURES OF THE UNIVERSITY; AND TO MAINTAIN, BY THAT MEANS, THOSE
DESTINED FOR THE RELIGIOUS PROFESSIONS ON AS HIGH A STANDING OF
SCIENCE, AND OF PERSONAL WEIGHT AND RESPECTABILITY, AS MAY BE OBTAINED
BY OTHERS FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE UNIVERSITY.  SUCH ESTABLISHMENTS
WOULD OFFER THE FURTHER AND GREATER ADVANTAGE OF ENABLING THE STUDENTS
OF THE UNIVERSITY TO ATTEND RELIGIOUS EXERCISES WITH THE PROFESSOR OF
THEIR PARTICULAR SECT, EITHER IN THE ROOMS OF THE BUILDING STILL TO BE
ERECTED, AND DESTINED TO THAT PURPOSE UNDER IMPARTIAL REGULATIONS, AS
PROPOSED IN THE SAME REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS, OR IN THE LECTURING
ROOM OF SUCH PROFESSOR.   ...  SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WOULD COMPLETE THE
CIRCLE OF THE USEFUL SCIENCES EMBRACED BY THIS INSTITUTION, AND WOULD
FILL THE CHASM NOW EXISTING, ON PRINCIPLES WHICH WOULD LEAVE INVIOLATE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF RELIGION, THE MOST INALIENABLE AND SACRED
OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, OVER WHICH THE PEOPLE AND AUTHORITIES OF THIS
STATE, INDIVIDUALLY AND PUBLICLY, HAVE EVER MANIFESTED THE MOST
WATCHFUL JEALOUSY:  AND COULD THIS JEALOUSY BE NOW ALARMED, IN THE
OPINION OF THE LEGISLATURE, BY WHAT IS HERE SUGGESTED, THE IDEA WILL BE
RELINQUISHED ON ANY SURMISE OF DISAPPROBATION WHICH THEY MIGHT THINK
PROPER TO EXPRESS." 

MR. JEFFERSON COMMENTED UPON THE REPORT ON NOVEMBER 2, 1822, IN A
LETTER TO DR. THOMAS COOPER, AS FOLLOWS:  "AND BY BRINGING THE SECTS
TOGETHER, AND MIXING THEM WITH THE MASS OF OTHER STUDENTS, WE SHALL
SOFTEN THEIR ASPERITIES, LIBERALIZE AND NEUTRALIZE THEIR PREJUDICES,
AND MAKE THE GENERAL RELIGION A RELIGION OF PEACE, REASON, AND
MORALITY."  12 FORD, THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, (FED. ED., 1905),
272. 

FN12  3 RANDALL, LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (1858) 471. 

FN13  19 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (MEMORIAL EDITION, 1904)
449. 

FN14  THE TEXTS OF THE MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE AND THE BILL AGAINST
WHICH IT WAS AIMED, TO WIT, A BILL ESTABLISHING A PROVISION FOR
TEACHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ARE SET FORTH IN EVERSON V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1, 28, 63-74. 

FN15  SEE, GENERALLY, THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, 330 U.S.
1, 28. 

FN16  330 U.S. AT 72-73: 

"BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THAT FOR THE
SUPPORT OF CHRISTIAN TEACHERS, PER CENTUM ON THE AMOUNT, OR IN THE
POUND ON THE SUM PAYABLE FOR TAX ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN THIS
COMMONWEALTH, IS HEREBY ASSESSED, AND SHALL BE PAID BY EVERY PERSON
CHARGEABLE WITH THE SAID TAX AT THE TIME THE SAME SHALL BECOME DUE; AND
THE SHERIFFS OF THE SEVERAL COUNTIES SHALL HAVE POWER TO LEVY AND
COLLECT THE SAME IN THE SAME MANNER AND UNDER THE LIKE RESTRICTIONS AND
LIMITATIONS, AS ARE OR MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS FOR RAISING THE
REVENUES OF THIS STATE. 

"AND BE IT ENACTED, THAT FOR EVERY SUM SO PAID, THE SHERIFF OR
COLLECTOR SHALL GIVE A RECEIPT, EXPRESSING THEREIN TO WHAT SOCIETY OF
CHRISTIANS THE PERSON FROM WHOM HE MAY RECEIVE THE SAME SHALL DIRECT
THE MONEY TO BE PAID, KEEPING A DISTINCT ACCOUNT THEREOF IN HIS BOOKS. 
...  " 

FN17  60 STAT. 230, CH. 281, SECS. 4, 11(D)(3). 

FN18  SEE SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366, 390; QUICK BEAR V.
LEUPP, 210 U.S. 50. 

FN19  ED. CODE OF CAL. (DEERING, 1944) SEC. 8286; 6 IND. STAT. ANN.
(BURNS, 1933) 1945 SUPP. SEC. 28-505A; 1 CODE OF IOWA CH. 299, SEC.
299.2(1946); KY. REV. STAT. (1946) SEC. 158.220; 1 REV. STAT. OF MAINE
(1944) CH. 37, SEC. 131; 2 ANN. LAWS OF MASS. (1945) CH. 76, SEC. 1;
MINN. STAT. (1945) SEC. 132.05; N.Y. EDUCATION LAW SEC. 3210(1); 8
ORE.  COMP.  LAWS ANN. (1940) SEC. 111-3014; 24 PA. STAT. ANN. (PURDON,
1930) 1947 SUPP. SEC. 1563; 1 CODE OF S.D. (1939) SEC. 15.3202; 1 CODE
OF W. VA. (1943) SEC. 1847. 

FN20  EDUCATION LAW SEC. 3210(1) PROVIDES THAT:  "A.  A MINOR
REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF PART ONE OF THIS ARTICLE TO ATTEND UPON
INSTRUCTION SHALL ATTEND REGULARLY AS PRESCRIBED WHERE HE RESIDES OR IS
EMPLOYED, FOR THE ENTIRE TIME THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR CLASSES
ARE IN SESSION AND SHALL BE SUBORDINATE AND ORDERLY WHILE SO
ATTENDING. 

"B.  ABSENCE FOR RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE AND EDUCATION SHALL BE
PERMITTED UNDER RULES THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHALL ESTABLISH." 

ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW YORK LAW, THE STATE
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION ISSUED, ON JULY 4, 1940, THESE REGULATIONS: 

"1  ABSENCE OF A PUPIL FROM SCHOOL DURING SCHOOL HOURS FOR RELIGIOUS
OBSERVANCE AND EDUCATION TO BE HAD OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL BUILDING AND
GROUNDS WILL BE EXCUSED UPON THE REQUEST IN WRITING SIGNED BY THE
PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF THE PUPIL. 

"2  THE COURSES IN RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE AND EDUCATION MUST BE
MAINTAINED AND OPERATED BY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF A DULY CONSTITUTED
RELIGIOUS BODY OR OF DULY CONSTITUTED RELIGIOUS BODIES. 

"3  PUPILS MUST BE REGISTERED FOR THE COURSES AND A COPY OF THE
REGISTRATION FILED WITH THE LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITIES. 

"4  REPORTS OF ATTENDANCE OF PUPILS UPON SUCH COURSES SHALL BE FILED
WITH THE PRINCIPAL OR TEACHER AT THE END OF EACH WEEK. 

"5  SUCH ABSENCE SHALL BE FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE HOUR EACH WEEK AT THE
CLOSE OF A SESSION AT A TIME TO BE FIXED BY THE LOCAL SCHOOL
AUTHORITIES. 

"6  IN THE EVENT THAT MORE THAN ONE SCHOOL FOR RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE
AND EDUCATION IS MAINTAINED IN ANY DISTRICT, THE HOUR FOR ABSENCE FOR
EACH PARTICULAR PUBLIC SCHOOL IN SUCH DISTRICT SHALL BE THE SAME FOR
ALL SUCH RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS." 

ON NOVEMBER 13, 1940, RULES TO GOVERN THE RELEASED TIME PROGRAM OF
THE NEW YORK CITY SCHOOLS WERE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK.  UNDER THESE RULES THE PRACTICE OF THE RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION PROGRAM IS THIS:  CLASSES IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION ARE TO BE
HELD OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS; ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROGRAM RESTS IN
THE INITIATIVE OF THE CHURCH AND HOME; ENROLLMENT IS VOLUNTARY AND
ACCOMPLISHED BY THIS TECHNIQUE:  THE CHURCH DISTRIBUTES CARDS TO THE
PARENTS AND THESE ARE FILLED OUT AND PRESENTED TO THE SCHOOL; RECORDS
OF ENROLLMENT AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR RELEASE ARE HANDLED BY SCHOOL
AUTHORITIES; DISCIPLINE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHURCH; AND
CHILDREN WHO DO NOT ATTEND ARE KEPT AT SCHOOL AND GIVEN OTHER WORK. 
SEE RULES OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ADOPTED
NOV. 13, 1940; PUBLIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, RELEASED TIME FOR
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN NEW YORK CITY'S SCHOOLS (1943); ID. (1945). 

CONSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS OF THESE
PRACTICES WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF EDUCATION LAW SEC. 3210(1). 
PEOPLE EX REL. LEWIS V. GRAVES, 245 N.Y. 195, 156 N.E. 663. 

FN21  THE NEW YORK CITY PROGRAM IS SUPERVISED BY THE GREATER NEW YORK
COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON RELEASED TIME, A GROUP OF LAYMEN DRAWN FROM
JEWS, PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS.  THIS COMMITTEE IS AN EXAMPLE OF
A BROAD NATIONAL EFFORT TO BRING ABOUT RELIGIOUS EDUCATION OF CHILDREN
THROUGH COOPERATIVE ACTION OF SCHOOLS AND GROUPS OF MEMBERS OF VARIOUS
RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.  THE METHODS VARY IN DIFFERENT STATES AND
CITIES BUT ARE BASICALLY LIKE THE WORK OF THE NEW YORK CITY COMMITTEE. 
SEE BRIEF SKETCHES OF WEEKDAY CHURCH SCHOOLS, DEPARTMENT OF WEEKDAY
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (1944). 

FN22  SEE NOTE 20 SUPRA. 

FN23  THE USE OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS IS NOT UNUSUAL.  SEE DAVIS, WEEKDAY
CLASSES IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION (BULLETIN
1941, NO. 3) 27; NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, THE STATE AND
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION ADVISES THAT CHURCH
BUILDINGS BE USED IF POSSIBLE.  SHAVER, REMEMBER THE WEEKDAY,
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (1946). 

"TODAY, APPROXIMATELY TWO THOUSAND COMMUNITIES IN ALL BUT TWO STATES
PROVIDE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN COOPERATION WITH THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR
MORE THAN A MILLION AND A HALF OF PUPILS."  SHAVER, THE MOVEMENT FOR
WEEKDAY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION (JAN.-FEB.  1946), P.
7. 

FN24  MANY USES OF RELIGIOUS MATERIAL IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN A
MANNER THAT HAS SOME RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED BY
STATE COURTS.  THESE PRACTICES HAVE BEEN PERMITTED:  READING SELECTIONS
FROM THE KING JAMES BIBLE WITHOUT COMMENT; READING THE BIBLE AND
REPEATING THE LORD'S PRAYER; TEACHING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; SAYING
PRAYERS; AND USING TEXTBOOKS BASED UPON THE BIBLE AND EMPHASIZING ITS
FUNDAMENTAL TEACHINGS.  WHEN CONDUCTED IN A SECTARIAN MANNER READING
FROM THE BIBLE AND SINGING HYMNS IN THE SCHOOL'S MORNING EXERCISE HAVE
BEEN PROHIBITED AS HAS USING THE BIBLE AS A TEXTBOOK.  THERE IS A
CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY ON THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
WEARING RELIGIOUS GARB WHILE TEACHING IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  IT HAS
BEEN HELD TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL FOR SCHOOL AUTHORITIES TO PROHIBIT THE
READING OF THE BIBLE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  THERE IS A CONFLICT OF
AUTHORITY ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE USE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL
BUILDINGS FOR RELIGIOUS SERVICES HELD OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL HOURS.  THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY, UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS, OF FURNISHING FREE
TEXTBOOKS AND FREE TRANSPORTATION TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOL CHILDREN IS IN
CONFLICT.  SEE NICHOLS V. HENRY, 301 KY. 434, 191 S.W.2D 930; FINDLEY
V. CITY OF CONNEAUT, 12 OHIO SUPP. 161.  THE EARLIER CASES ARE
COLLECTED IN 5 A.L.R. 866 AND 141 A.L.R. 1144. 

FN25  RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (1943) RULE VII; SENATE
MANUAL (1947) 6, FN. 2. 

FN26  3 STAT. 297(1816). 

FN27  ARMY REG., NO. 60-5(1944); U.S. NAVY REG. (1920), CH. 1, SEC. 2
AND CH. 34, SECS. 1-2. 

FN28  58 STAT. 289. 

FN29 BOARD OF EDUCATION RULES, CH. VI, SEC. 4. 

FN30  REG. FOR THE U.S. CORPS OF CADETS (1947) 47:  "ATTENDANCE AT
CHAPEL IS PART OF A CADET'S TRAINING; NO CADET WILL BE EXEMPTED.  EACH
CADET WILL RECEIVE RELIGIOUS TRAINING IN ONE OF THE THREE PRINCIPAL
FAITHS:  CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, OR JEWISH."  U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY REG.,
ART. 4301(B): "MIDSHIPMEN SHALL ATTEND CHURCH SERVICES ON SUNDAYS AT
THE NAVAL ACADEMY CHAPEL OR AT ONE OF THE REGULARLY ESTABLISHED
CHURCHES IN THE CITY OF ANNAPOLIS." 

MORNING PRAYERS ARE ALSO REQUIRED AT ANNAPOLIS.  U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY
REG., ART. 4301(A):  "DAILY, EXCEPT ON SUNDAYS, A CHAPLAIN WILL CONDUCT
PRAYERS IN THE MESSHALL, IMMEDIATELY BEFORE BREAKFAST."  PROTESTANT AND
CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS TAKE THEIR TURN IN LEADING THESE PRAYERS. 

FN31  THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WERE ABSORBED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331, 335. 

FN32  SEE WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 371; REYNOLDS V.
UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 166; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296,
303; COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 574, 576; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 571; PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158. 
FN33  CF. BOB-LO EXCURSION CO. V. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28. 

FN34  HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473; HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S.
331; COMM'R V. TOWER, 327 U.S. 280; LUSTHAUS V. COMM'R, 327 U.S. 293. 
..END :





IN RE OLIVER, 333 U.S. 257 


NO. 215.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 318
MICH. 7, 27 N.W.2D 323, REVERSED. 


IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA, PETITIONER APPEARED AS A WITNESS BEFORE A
MICHIGAN CIRCUIT JUDGE WHO WAS THEN CONDUCTING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
MICHIGAN LAW, A SECRET "ONE-MAN GRAND JURY" INVESTIGATION OF CRIME. 
AFTER PETITIONER HAD GIVEN CERTAIN TESTIMONY, THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY,
ACTING IN THE BELIEF THAT HIS TESTIMONY WAS FALSE AND EVASIVE (WHICH
BELIEF WAS BASED PARTLY ON TESTIMONY GIVEN BY AT LEAST ONE OTHER
WITNESS IN PETITIONER'S ABSENCE), SUMMARILY CHARGED HIM WITH CONTEMPT,
CONVICTED HIM, AND SENTENCED HIM TO SIXTY DAYS IN JAIL.  THESE
PROCEEDINGS WERE SECRET AND PETITIONER HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE
COUNSEL, TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE, TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OTHER GRAND-JURY
WITNESS, OR TO SUMMON WITNESSES TO REFUTE THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM. 
HELD: 

1.  THE SECRECY OF PETITIONER'S TRIAL FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT VIOLATED
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 266-273, 278. 

(A)  THE REASONS ADVANCED TO SUPPORT THE SECRECY OF GRAND-JURY
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEEDINGS DO NOT JUSTIFY SECRECY IN THE TRIAL OF A
DEFENDANT ACCUSED OF AN OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE MAY BE FINED OR SENT TO
JAIL.  PP. 264-266. 

(B)  AN ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO A PUBLIC TRIAL, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT
OF HAVING HIS FRIENDS, RELATIVES AND COUNSEL PRESENT - NO MATTER WITH
WHAT OFFENSE HE MAY BE CHARGED.  PP. 271-272. 

2.  THE FAILURE TO AFFORD PETITIONER A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGE OF GIVING FALSE AND EVASIVE TESTIMONY
WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP. 273-278. 

(A)  AS A MINIMUM, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT AN ACCUSED BE GIVEN
REASONABLE NOTICE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM, THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE THE
WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, THE RIGHT TO TESTIFY IN HIS OWN BEHALF, AND THE
RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  P. 273. 

(B)  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE DID NOT JUSTIFY DENIAL OF THESE
RIGHTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL WAS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT COMMITTED
IN THE COURT'S ACTUAL PRESENCE.  EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 273-278. 

IN RE OLIVER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED
PETITIONER'S RELEASE FROM IMPRISONMENT UPON A SENTENCE FOR CONTEMPT. 
318 MICH. 7, 27 N.W.2D 323.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S.
755.  REVERSED, P. 278. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A MICHIGAN CIRCUIT JUDGE SUMMARILY SENT THE PETITIONER TO JAIL FOR
CONTEMPT OF COURT.  WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER HE WAS DENIED THE
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA THE PETITIONER APPEARED AS A WITNESS
BEFORE A MICHIGAN CIRCUIT JUDGE WHO WAS THEN CONDUCTING, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MICHIGAN LAW, A "ONE-MAN GRAND JURY" INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED
GAMBLING AND OFFICIAL CORRUPTION.  THE INVESTIGATION PRESUMABLY TOOK
PLACE IN THE JUDGE'S CHAMBERS, THOUGH THAT IS NOT CERTAIN.  TWO OTHER
CIRCUIT JUDGES WERE PRESENT IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY.  FN1  A PROSECUTOR
MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENT.  A STENOGRAPHER WAS MOST LIKELY THERE.  THE
RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHAT OTHER MEMBERS, IF ANY, OF THE JUDGE'S
INVESTIGATORIAL STAFF PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS CERTAIN,
HOWEVER, THAT THE PUBLIC WAS EXCLUDED - THE QUESTIONING WAS SECRET IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRADITIONAL GRAND JURY METHOD. 

AFTER PETITIONER HAD GIVEN CERTAIN TESTIMONY, THE JUDGEGRAND JURY,
STILL IN SECRET SESSION, TOLD PETITIONER THAT NEITHER HE NOR HIS
ADVISORS BELIEVED PETITIONER'S STORY - THAT IT DID NOT "JELL."  THIS
BELIEF OF THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY WAS NOT BASED ENTIRELY ON WHAT THE
PETITIONER HAD TESTIFIED.  AS WILL LATER BE SEEN, IT RESTED IN PART ON
BELIEFS OR SUSPICIONS OF THE JUDGE-JURY DERIVED FROM THE TESTIMONY OF
AT LEAST ONE OTHER WITNESS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN EVIDENCE IN
SECRET.  PETITIONER HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT WHEN THAT WITNESS TESTIFIED
AND SO FAR AS APPEARS WAS NOT EVEN AWARE THAT HE HAD TESTIFIED.  BASED
ON ITS BELIEFS THUS FORMED - THAT PETITIONER'S STORY DID NOT "JELL" -
THE JUDGEGRAND JURY IMMEDIATELY CHARGED HIM WITH CONTEMPT, IMMEDIATELY
CONVICTED HIM, AND IMMEDIATELY SENTENCED HIM TO SIXTY DAYS IN JAIL. 
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HASTE AND SECRECY, PETITIONER, OF COURSE,
HAD NO CHANCE TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF COUNSEL, NO CHANCE TO PREPARE
HIS DEFENSE, AND NO OPPORTUNITY EITHER TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OTHER GRAND
JURY WITNESS OR TO SUMMON WITNESSES TO REFUTE THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM. 

THREE DAYS LATER A LAWYER FILED ON PETITIONER'S BEHALF IN THE
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS NOW UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  IT ALLEGED AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT THE PETITIONER'S
ATTORNEY HAD NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO CONFER WITH HIM AND THAT, TO THE BEST
OF THE ATTORNEY'S KNOWLEDGE, THE PETITIONER WAS NOT HELD IN JAIL UNDER
ANY JUDGMENT, DECREE OR EXECUTION, AND WAS "NOT CONFINED BY VIRTUE OF
ANY LEGAL COMMITMENT DIRECTED TO THE SHERIFF AS REQUIRED BY LAW."  AN
ORDER WAS THEN ENTERED SIGNED BY THE CIRCUIT JUDGE THAT HE HAD WHILE
"SITTING AS A ONE-MAN GRAND JURY" CONVICTED THE PETITIONER OF CONTEMPT
OF COURT BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD TESTIFIED "EVASIVELY" AND HAD GIVEN
"CONTRADICTORY ANSWERS" TO QUESTIONS.  THE ORDER DIRECTED THAT
PETITIONER "BE CONFINED IN THE COUNTY JAIL  ...  FOR A PERIOD OF SIXTY
(60) DAYS OR UNTIL SUCH TIME AS HE  ...  SHALL APPEAR AND ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS HERETOFORE PROPOUNDED TO HIM BY THIS COURT ...  " 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, ON GROUNDS DETAILED IN THE COMPANION
CASE OF IN RE HARTLEY, 317 MICH. 441, 27 N.W.2D 48,  FN2  REJECTED
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE SUMMARY MANNER IN WHICH HE HAD BEEN
SENTENCED TO JAIL IN THE SECRECY OF THE GRAND JURY CHAMBER HAD DEPRIVED
HIM OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM THE KIND OF NOTICE,
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF, AND TRIAL WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES.  FN3  IN RE OLIVER, 318 MICH. 7,
27 N.W.2D 323.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER THESE PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS QUESTIONS. 

THE CASE REQUIRES A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF MICHIGAN'S UNIQUE ONE-MAN
GRAND JURY SYSTEM.  FN4  THAT STATE'S FIRST CONSTITUTION (1835), LIKE
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, REQUIRED THAT MOST
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS BE BEGUN BY PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND
JURY.  ART. I, SEC. 11.  THIS COMPULSORY PROVISION WAS LEFT OUT OF THE
1850 CONSTITUTION AND FROM THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION (1908).  HOWEVER,
MICHIGAN JUDGES MAY STILL IN THEIR DISCRETION SUMMON GRAND JURIES, BUT
WE ARE TOLD BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THIS DISCRETION IS RARELY
EXERCISED AND THAT THE "ONE-MAN GRAND JURY" HAS TAKEN THE PLACE OF THE
OLD MICHIGAN 16 TO 23-MEMBER GRAND JURY, PARTICULARLY IN PROBES OF
ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS. 

THE ONE-MAN GRAND JURY LAW WAS PASSED IN 1917 FOLLOWING A
RECOMMENDATION OF THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION THAT, IN THE INTEREST OF
MORE RIGOROUS LAW ENFORCEMENT, GREATER EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PUT UPON THE
"INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE" FOR "PROBING" AND FOR "DETECTING" CRIME.  FN5
WITH THIS NEED UPPERMOST IN ITS THINKING THE BAR ASSOCIATION
RECOMMENDED A BILL WHICH PROVIDED THAT JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BE VESTED
WITH THE INQUISITORIAL POWERS TRADITIONALLY CONFERRED ONLY ON CORONERS
AND GRAND JURIES.  THE BILL AS PASSED IMPOSED THE RECOMMENDED
INVESTIGATORY POWERS NOT ONLY ON JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, BUT ON POLICE
JUDGES AND JUDGES OF COURTS OF RECORD AS WELL.  MICH. LAWS 1917, ACT
196. 

WHENEVER THIS JUDGE-GRAND JURY MAY SUMMON A WITNESS TO APPEAR, IT IS
HIS DUTY TO GO AND TO ANSWER ALL MATERIAL QUESTIONS THAT DO NOT
INCRIMINATE HIM.  SHOULD HE FAIL TO APPEAR, FAIL TO ANSWER MATERIAL
QUESTIONS, OR SHOULD THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY BELIEVE HIS EVIDENCE FALSE
AND EVASIVE, OR DELIBERATELY CONTRADICTORY, HE MAY BE FOUND GUILTY OF
CONTEMPT.  THIS OFFENSE MAY BE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL NOT EXCEEDING
SIXTY DAYS, OR BOTH, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY.  IF
AFTER HAVING BEEN SO SENTENCED HE APPEARS AND SATISFACTORILY ANSWERS
THE QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY THE JUDGE-JURY, HIS SENTENCE MAY, WITHIN
THE JUDGE-JURY'S DISCRETION, BE COMMUTED OR SUSPENDED.  AT THE END OF
HIS FIRST SENTENCE HE CAN BE RESUMMONED AND SUBJECTED TO THE SAME
INQUIRIES.  SHOULD THE JUDGE-JURY AGAIN BELIEVE HIS ANSWERS FALSE AND
EVASIVE, OR CONTRADICTORY, HE CAN BE SENTENCED TO SERVE SIXTY DAYS MORE
UNLESS HE REAPPEARS BEFORE THE JUDGE-JURY DURING THE SECOND 60-DAY
PERIOD AND SATISFACTORILY ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS, AND THE JUDGE-JURY
WITHIN ITS DISCRETION THEN DECIDES TO COMMUTE OR SUSPEND HIS SENTENCE. 
FN6 

IN CARRYING OUT THIS AUTHORITY A JUDGE-GRAND JURY IS AUTHORIZED TO
APPOINT ITS OWN PROSECUTORS, DETECTIVES AND AIDES AT PUBLIC EXPENSE,
FN7  ALL OR ANY OF WHOM MAY, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE OR JUDGE, BE ADMITTED TO THE INQUIRY.  MICH. STAT. ANN. SEC.
28.944(HENDERSON 1938).  A WITNESS MAY BE ASKED QUESTIONS ON ALL
SUBJECTS AND NEED NOT BE ADVISED OF HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION, EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTIONING IS IN SECRET.  FN8  AND
THESE SECRET INTERROGATIONS CAN BE CARRIED ON DAY OR NIGHT, IN A PUBLIC
PLACE OR A "HIDEOUT," A COURTHOUSE, AN OFFICE BUILDING, A HOTEL ROOM, A
HOME, OR A PLACE OF BUSINESS; SO WELL IS THIS AMBULATORY POWER
UNDERSTOOD IN MICHIGAN THAT THE ONE-MAN GRAND JURY IS ALSO POPULARLY
REFERRED TO AS THE "PORTABLE GRAND JURY."  FN9 

IT WAS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE-GRAND JURY BEFORE WHICH PETITIONER
TESTIFIED.  THAT JUDGE-JURY FILED IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT AN ANSWER
TO THIS PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  THE ANSWER CONTAINED FRAGMENTS OF
WHAT WAS APPARENTLY A STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY
GIVEN BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.  IT WAS THESE FRAGMENTS OF TESTIMONY, SO
THE ANSWER STATED, THAT THE "GRAND JURY" HAD CONCLUDED TO BE "FALSE AND
EVASIVE."  THE PETITIONER THEN FILED A VERIFIED MOTION WITH THE STATE
SUPREME COURT SEEKING TO HAVE THE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE JUDGE-JURY PRODUCED FOR THE HABEAS CORPUS HEARING.  HE
ALLEGED THAT A FULL REPORT OF HIS TESTIMONY WOULD DISCLOSE THAT HE HAD
FREELY, PROMPTLY, AND TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY, ANSWERED ALL
QUESTIONS ASKED, AND THAT THE FULL TRANSCRIPT WOULD REFUTE THE CHARGE
THAT HE HAD TESTIFIED EVASIVELY OR FALSELY.  IN HIS ANSWER TO THE
MOTION THE CIRCUIT JUDGE DID NOT DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS.  HOWEVER, HE
ASSERTED THAT THE FRAGMENTS CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL ANSWER SHOWED
"ALL OF THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY NECESSARY TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING"
AND THAT "THE FULL DISCLOSURE OF PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY WOULD SERIOUSLY
RETARD GRAND JURY ACTIVITIES."  THE STATE SUPREME COURT THEN DENIED THE
PETITIONER'S MOTION.  THUS WHEN THAT COURT LATER DISMISSED THE PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS IT HAD SEEN ONLY A COPY OF A PORTION OF THE RECORD OF
THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. 

THE PETITIONER DOES NOT HERE CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF
MICHIGAN TO GRANT TRADITIONAL INQUISITORIAL GRAND JURY POWER TO A
SINGLE JUDGE, AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT CONCERN OURSELVES WITH THAT
QUESTION.  IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THIS COUNTRY HOWEVER THAT THE
TRADITIONAL 12 TO 23-MEMBER GRAND JURIES MAY EXAMINE WITNESSES IN
SECRET SESSIONS.  OATHS OF SECRECY ARE ORDINARILY TAKEN BOTH BY THE
MEMBERS OF SUCH GRAND JURIES AND BY WITNESSES BEFORE THEM.  MANY
REASONS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO SUPPORT GRAND JURY SECRECY.  SEE, E.G.,
HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 58-66; STATE V. BRANCH, 68 N.C. 186.  BUT
THOSE REASONS HAVE NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO JUSTIFY SECRECY IN THE TRIAL
OF AN ACCUSED CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF LAW FOR WHICH HE MAY BE FINED
OR SENT TO JAIL.  GRAND JURIES INVESTIGATE, AND THE USUAL END OF THEIR
INVESTIGATION IS EITHER A REPORT, A "NO-BILL" OR AN INDICTMENT.  THEY
DO NOT TRY AND THEY DO NOT CONVICT.  THEY RENDER NO JUDGMENT.  WHEN
THEIR WORK IS FINISHED BY THE RETURN OF AN INDICTMENT, IT CANNOT BE
USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PERSON INDICTED.  NOR MAY HE BE FINED OR
SENTENCED TO JAIL UNTIL HE HAS BEEN TRIED AND CONVICTED AFTER HAVING
BEEN AFFORDED THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REQUIRED BY DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  EVEN WHEN WITNESSES BEFORE GRAND JURIES REFUSE TO ANSWER PROPER
QUESTIONS, THE GRAND JURIES DO NOT ADJUDGE THE WITNESSES GUILTY OF
CONTEMPT OF COURT IN SECRET OR IN PUBLIC OR AT ALL.  FN10  WITNESSES
WHO REFUSE TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURIES ARE TRIED ON CONTEMPT CHARGES
BEFORE JUDGES SITTING IN OPEN COURT.  AND THOUGH THE POWERS OF A JUDGE
EVEN WHEN ACTING AS A ONE-MAN GRAND JURY MAY BE, AS MICHIGAN HOLDS,
JUDICIAL IN THEIR NATURE,  FN11  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE MAY APPLY WITH
ONE EFFECT ON THE JUDGE'S GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION, BUT WITH QUITE A
DIFFERENT EFFECT WHEN THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY SUDDENLY MAKES A WITNESS
BEFORE IT A DEFENDANT IN A CONTEMPT CASE. 

HERE WE ARE CONCERNED, NOT WITH PETITIONER'S RIGHTS AS A WITNESS IN A
SECRET GRAND JURY SESSION, BUT WITH HIS RIGHTS AS A DEFENDANT IN A
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  THE POWERS OF THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY WHO TRIED AND
CONVICTED HIM IN SECRET AND SENTENCED HIM TO JAIL ON A CHARGE OF FALSE
AND EVASIVE SWEARING MUST LIKEWISE BE MEASURED, NOT BY THE LIMITATIONS
APPLICABLE TO GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, BUT BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO COURT PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH AN ACCUSED MAY BE
SENTENCED TO FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.  THUS OUR FIRST QUESTION IS
THIS:  CAN AN ACCUSED BE TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT IN
GRAND JURY SECRECY? 

FIRST.  COUNSEL HAVE NOT CITED AND WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND A
SINGLE INSTANCE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL CONDUCTED IN CAMERA IN ANY FEDERAL,
FN12  STATE, OR MUNICIPAL COURT DURING THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY. 
NOR HAVE WE FOUND ANY RECORD OF EVEN ONE SUCH SECRET CRIMINAL TRIAL IN
ENGLAND SINCE ABOLITION OF THE COURT OF STAR CHAMBER IN 1641, AND
WHETHER THAT COURT EVER CONVICTED PEOPLE SECRETLY IS IN DISPUTE. 
SUMMARY TRIALS FOR ALLEGED MISCONDUCT CALLED CONTEMPT OF COURT  FN13
HAVE NOT BEEN REGARDED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THIS UNIVERSAL RULE AGAINST
SECRET TRIALS, UNLESS SOME OTHER MICHIGAN ONE-MAN GRAND JURY CASE MAY
REPRESENT SUCH AN EXCEPTION. 

THIS NATION'S ACCEPTED PRACTICE OF GUARANTEEING A PUBLIC TRIAL TO AN
ACCUSED HAS ITS ROOTS IN OUR ENGLISH COMMON LAW HERITAGE.  THE EXACT
DATE OF ITS ORIGIN IS OBSCURE, BUT IT LIKELY EVOLVED LONG BEFORE THE
SETTLEMENT OF OUR LAND AS AN ACCOMPANIMENT OF THE ANCIENT INSTITUTION
OF JURY TRIAL.  FN14  IN THIS COUNTRY THE GUARANTEE TO AN ACCUSED OF
THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL FIRST APPEARED IN A STATE CONSTITUTION IN
1776.  FN15  FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION IN 1791 OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION'S SIXTH AMENDMENT, WHICH COMMANDS THAT "IN ALL CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC
TRIAL  ...  "  MOST OF THE ORIGINAL STATES AND THOSE SUBSEQUENTLY
ADMITTED TO THE UNION ADOPTED SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  FN16
TODAY ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION  FN17  EVERY STATE BY CONSTITUTION N18,
STATUTE,  FN19  OR JUDICIAL DECISION, FN20  REQUIRES THAT ALL CRIMINAL
TRIALS BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. 

THE TRADITIONAL ANGLO-AMERICAN DISTRUST FOR SECRET TRIALS HAS BEEN
VARIOUSLY ASCRIBED TO THE NOTORIOUS USE OF THIS PRACTICE BY THE SPANISH
INQUISITION,  FN21  TO THE EXCESSES OF THE ENGLISH COURT OF STAR
CHAMBER,  FN22  AND TO THE FRENCH MONARCHY'S ABUSE OF THE LETTRE DE
CACHET.  FN23 ALL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS OBVIOUSLY SYMBOLIZED A MENACE
TO LIBERTY.  IN THE HANDS OF DESPOTIC GROUPS EACH OF THEM HAD BECOME AN
INSTRUMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS HERESIERS IN
RUTHLESS DISREGARD OF THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO A FAIR TRIAL. 
WHATEVER OTHER BENEFITS THE GUARANTEE TO AN ACCUSED THAT HIS TRIAL BE
CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC MAY CONFER UPON OUR SOCIETY,  FN24  THE GUARANTEE
HAS ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST ANY ATTEMPT TO EMPLOY
OUR COURTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF PERSECUTION.  THE KNOWLEDGE THAT EVERY
CRIMINAL TRIAL IS SUBJECT TO CONTEMPORANEOUS REVIEW IN THE FORUM OF
PUBLIC OPINION IS AN EFFECTIVE RESTRAINT ON POSSIBLE ABUSE OF JUDICIAL
POWER.  FN25  ONE NEED NOT WHOLLY AGREE WITH A STATEMENT MADE ON THE
SUBJECT BY JEREMY BENTHAM OVER 120 YEARS AGO TO APPRECIATE THE FEAR OF
SECRET TRIALS FELT BY HIM, HIS PREDECESSORS AND CONTEMPORARIES. 
BENTHAM SAID:  "  ...  SUPPOSE THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE COMPLETELY SECRET,
AND THE COURT, ON THE OCCASION, TO CONSIST OF NO MORE THAN A SINGLE
JUDGE,  - THAT JUDGE WILL BE AT ONCE INDOLENT AND ARBITRARY:  HOW
CORRUPT SOEVER HIS INCLINATION MAY BE, IT WILL FIND NO CHECK, AT ANY
RATE NO TOLERABLY EFFICIENT CHECK, TO OPPOSE IT.  WITHOUT PUBLICITY,
ALL OTHER CHECKS ARE INSUFFICIENT:  IN COMPARISON OF PUBLICITY, ALL
OTHER CHECKS ARE OF SMALL ACCOUNT.  RECORDATION, APPEAL, WHATEVER OTHER
INSTITUTIONS MIGHT PRESENT THEMSELVES IN THE CHARACTER OF CHECKS, WOULD
BE FOUND TO OPERATE RATHER AS CLOAKS THAN CHECKS; AS CLOAKS IN REALITY,
AS CHECKS ONLY IN APPEARANCE."  FN26 

IN GIVING CONTENT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY COMMANDS THAT
AN ACCUSED BE GIVEN A PUBLIC TRIAL, THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS HAVE
DIFFERED OVER WHAT GROUPS OF SPECTATORS, IF ANY, COULD PROPERLY BE
EXCLUDED FROM A CRIMINAL TRIAL.  FN27  BUT, UNLESS IN MICHIGAN AND IN
ONE-MAN GRAND JURY CONTEMPT CASES, NO COURT IN THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER
BEFORE HELD, SO FAR AS WE CAN FIND, THAT AN ACCUSED CAN BE TRIED,
CONVICTED, AND SENT TO JAIL, WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE IS DENIED ENTRANCE TO
THE COURT, EXCEPT THE JUDGE AND HIS ATTACHES.  FN28  AND WITHOUT
EXCEPTION ALL COURTS HAVE HELD THAT AN ACCUSED IS AT THE VERY LEAST
ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS FRIENDS, RELATIVES AND COUNSEL PRESENT, NO MATTER
WITH WHAT OFFENSE HE MAY BE CHARGED.  FN29  IN GAINES V. WASHINGTON,
277 U.S. 81, 85-86, THIS COURT ASSUMED THAT A CRIMINAL TRIAL CONDUCTED
IN SECRET WOULD VIOLATE THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT'S DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, ALTHOUGH ITS ACTUAL HOLDING THERE WAS
THAT NO VIOLATION HAD IN FACT OCCURRED, SINCE THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER
BARRING THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAD NOT BEEN ENFORCED.  CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS
IN A JUDGE'S CHAMBERS, INCLUDING CONVICTIONS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT,
HAVE OCCASIONALLY BEEN COUNTENANCED BY STATE COURTS,  FN30  BUT THERE
HAS NEVER BEEN ANY INTIMATION THAT ALL OF THE PUBLIC, INCLUDING THE
ACCUSED'S RELATIVES, FRIENDS, AND COUNSEL, WERE BARRED FROM THE TRIAL
CHAMBER. 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE PETITIONER WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS TO
TESTIFY IN SECRET BEFORE A ONE-MAN GRAND JURY CONDUCTING A GRAND JURY
INVESTIGATION.  IN THE MIDST OF PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY THE PROCEEDINGS
ABRUPTLY CHANGED.  THE INVESTIGATION BECAME A "TRIAL," THE GRAND JURY
BECAME A JUDGE, AND THE WITNESS BECAME AN ACCUSED CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT
OF COURT - ALL IN SECRET.  FOLLOWING A CHARGE, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE,
THE PETITIONER WAS LED AWAY TO PRISON - STILL WITHOUT ANY BREAK IN THE
SECRECY.  EVEN IN JAIL, ACCORDING TO UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS, HIS LAWYER
WAS DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE AND CONFER WITH HIM.  AND THAT WAS NOT
THE END OF SECRECY.  HIS LAWYER FILED IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT THIS
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING.  EVEN THERE, THE MANTLE OF SECRECY ENVELOPED
THE TRANSACTION AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT ORDERED HIM SENT BACK TO
JAIL WITHOUT EVER HAVING SEEN A RECORD OF HIS TESTIMONY, AND WITHOUT
KNOWING ALL THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE SECRECY OF THE JUDGE'S CHAMBERS.  IN
VIEW OF THIS NATION'S HISTORIC DISTRUST OF SECRET PROCEEDINGS, THEIR
INHERENT DANGERS TO FREEDOM, AND THE UNIVERSAL REQUIREMENT OF OUR
FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS THAT CRIMINAL TRIALS BE PUBLIC, THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE THAT NO ONE SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF HIS
LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW MEANS AT LEAST THAT AN ACCUSED
CANNOT BE THUS SENTENCED TO PRISON. 

SECOND.  WE FURTHER HOLD THAT FAILURE TO AFFORD THE PETITIONER A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGE OF FALSE
AND EVASIVE SWEARING WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  A PERSON'S
RIGHT TO REASONABLE NOTICE OF A CHARGE AGAINST HIM, AND AN OPPORTUNITY
TO BE HEARD IN HIS DEFENSE - A RIGHT TO HIS DAY IN COURT - ARE BASIC IN
OUR SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE; AND THESE RIGHTS INCLUDE, AS A MINIMUM, A
RIGHT TO EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, TO OFFER TESTIMONY, AND TO
BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  FN31  MICHIGAN, NOT DENYING THE EXISTENCE
OF THESE RIGHTS IN CRIMINAL CASES GENERALLY, APPARENTLY CONCEDES THAT
THE SUMMARY CONVICTION HERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS BUT FOR THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE, NAMELY, A CONTEMPT OF COURT,
COMMITTED, THE STATE URGES, IN THE COURT'S ACTUAL PRESENCE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT COURTS HAVE LONG EXERCISED A POWER SUMMARILY TO
PUNISH CERTAIN CONDUCT COMMITTED IN OPEN COURT WITHOUT NOTICE,
TESTIMONY OR HEARING.  EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289, WAS SUCH A CASE. 
THERE TERRY COMMITTED ASSAULT ON THE MARSHAL WHO WAS AT THE MOMENT
REMOVING A HECKLER FROM THE COURTROOM.  THE "VIOLENCE AND MISCONDUCT"
OF BOTH THE HECKLER AND THE MARSHAL'S ASSAILANT OCCURRED WITHIN THE
"PERSONAL VIEW" OF THE JUDGE, "UNDER HIS OWN EYE," AND ACTUALLY
INTERRUPTED THE TRIAL OF A CAUSE THEN UNDER WAY.  THIS COURT HELD THAT
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES A JUDGE HAS POWER TO PUNISH AN OFFENDER AT
ONCE, WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITHOUT HEARING, ALTHOUGH HIS CONDUCT MAY ALSO
BE PUNISHABLE AS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.  THIS COURT REACHED ITS CONCLUSION
BECAUSE IT BELIEVED THAT A COURT'S BUSINESS COULD NOT BE CONDUCTED
UNLESS IT COULD SUPPRESS DISTURBANCES WITHIN THE COURTROOM BY IMMEDIATE
PUNISHMENT.  HOWEVER, THIS COURT RECOGNIZED THAT SUCH DEPARTURE FROM
THE ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS WAS CAPABLE OF GRAVE ABUSES, AND
FOR THAT REASON GAVE NO ENCOURAGEMENT TO ITS EXPANSION BEYOND THE
SUPPRESSION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE COURT-DISRUPTING MISCONDUCT WHICH
ALONE JUSTIFIED ITS EXERCISE.  INDEED IN THE TERRY CASE THE COURT CITED
WITH APPROVAL ITS DECISION IN ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6 WHEAT.  204, WHICH
HAD MARKED THE LIMITS OF CONTEMPT AUTHORITY IN GENERAL AS BEING "THE
LEAST POSSIBLE POWER ADEQUATE TO THE END PROPOSED."  ID. AT 231.  AND
SEE IN RE MICHAEL, 326 U.S. 224, 227. 

THAT THE HOLDING IN THE TERRY CASE IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN
UNLIMITED ABANDONMENT OF THE BASIC DUE PROCESS PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS,
EVEN IN CONTEMPT CASES, WAS SPELLED OUT WITH EMPHATIC LANGUAGE IN COOKE
V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517, A CONTEMPT CASE ARISING IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT.  THERE IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT FOR A COURT TO EXERCISE
THE EXTRAORDINARY BUT NARROWLY LIMITED POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT
WITHOUT ADEQUATE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, THE COURT
DISTURBING MISCONDUCT MUST NOT ONLY OCCUR IN THE COURT'S IMMEDIATE
PRESENCE, BUT THAT THE JUDGE MUST HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF IT
ACQUIRED BY HIS OWN OBSERVATION OF THE CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT.  THIS
COURT SAID THAT KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED FROM THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS, OR
EVEN FROM THE CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED, WOULD NOT JUSTIFY CONVICTION
WITHOUT A TRIAL IN WHICH THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEFENSE. 
FURTHERMORE, THE COURT EXPLAINED THE TERRY RULE AS REACHING ONLY SUCH
CONDUCT AS CREATED "AN OPEN THREAT TO THE ORDERLY PROCEDURE OF THE
COURT AND SUCH A FLAGRANT DEFIANCE OF THE PERSON AND PRESENCE OF THE
JUDGE BEFORE THE PUBLIC" THAT, IF "NOT INSTANTLY SUPPRESSED AND
PUNISHED, DEMORALIZATION OF THE COURT'S AUTHORITY WILL FOLLOW."  ID. AT
536. 

EXCEPT FOR A NARROWLY LIMITED CATEGORY OF CONTEMPTS, DUE PROCESS OF
LAW AS EXPLAINED IN THE COOKE CASE REQUIRES THAT ONE CHARGED WITH
CONTEMPT OF COURT BE ADVISED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, HAVE A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THEM BY WAY OF DEFENSE OR EXPLANATION,
HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AND HAVE A CHANCE TO
TESTIFY AND CALL OTHER WITNESSES IN HIS BEHALF, EITHER BY WAY OF
DEFENSE OR EXPLANATION.  THE NARROW EXCEPTION TO THESE DUE PROCESS
REQUIREMENTS INCLUDES ONLY CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT, IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JUDGE, WHICH DISTURBS THE COURT'S BUSINESS, WHERE ALL
OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE MISCONDUCT ARE UNDER THE EYE OF THE
COURT, ARE ACTUALLY OBSERVED BY THE COURT, AND WHERE IMMEDIATE
PUNISHMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT "DEMORALIZATION OF THE COURT'S
AUTHORITY" BEFORE THE PUBLIC.  IF SOME ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE
OFFENSE ARE NOT PERSONALLY OBSERVED BY THE JUDGE, SO THAT HE MUST
DEPEND UPON STATEMENTS MADE BY OTHERS FOR HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THESE
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES, ACCORDING TO THE COOKE CASE,
THAT THE ACCUSED BE ACCORDED NOTICE AND A FAIR HEARING AS ABOVE SET
OUT. 

THE FACTS SHOWN BY THIS RECORD PUT THIS CASE OUTSIDE THE NARROW
CATEGORY OF CASES THAT CAN BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT WITHOUT NOTICE,
HEARING AND COUNSEL.  SINCE THE PETITIONER'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT ALL
OCCURRED IN SECRET, THERE COULD BE NO POSSIBILITY OF A DEMORALIZATION
OF THE COURT'S AUTHORITY BEFORE THE PUBLIC.  FURTHERMORE, THE ANSWER OF
THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY TO THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS SHOWED THAT HIS
CONCLUSION THAT THE PETITIONER HAD TESTIFIED FALSELY WAS BASED, AT
LEAST IN PART, UPON THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE HIM BY ONE OR MORE
WITNESSES OTHER THAN PETITIONER.  PETITIONER AND ONE HARTLEY BOTH
TESTIFIED THE SAME DAY; BOTH WERE PIN-BALL MACHINE OPERATORS; BOTH HAD
BOUGHT OR HAD IN THEIR POSSESSION CERTAIN SO-CALLED BONDS PURCHASED
FROM ONE MITCHELL; BOTH WERE SENT TO JAIL FOR CONTEMPT THE SAME DAY. 
IN RE HARTLEY, 317 MICH. 441, 27 N.W.2D 48.  THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY
PRESSED BOTH PETITIONER AND HARTLEY TO STATE WHY THEY BOUGHT BONDS
WHICH WERE PATENTLY WORTHLESS.  THE PETITIONER WAS ALSO REPEATEDLY
ASKED WHAT HE HAD DONE WITH THE WORTHLESS BONDS.  HE ANSWERED EVERY
QUESTION ASKED HIM, ACCORDING TO THE FRAGMENTARY PORTIONS OF HIS
TESTIMONY REPORTED TO THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT, MOST OF WHICH IS
INCLUDED IN THAT COURT'S OPINION.  HE STEADFASTLY DENIED THAT HE KNEW
PRECISELY WHAT HE HAD DONE WITH THE WORTHLESS BONDS, BUT MADE SEVERAL
DIFFERENT STATEMENTS AS TO HOW HE MIGHT HAVE DISPOSED OF THEM, SUCH AS
THAT HE MIGHT HAVE THROWN THEM INTO THE WASTEBASKET, OR TRASH CAN, OR
MIGHT HAVE BURNED THEM. 

IN UPHOLDING THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY'S CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER HAD
TESTIFIED FALSELY AND EVASIVELY, THE MAJORITY OF THE MICHIGAN SUPREME
COURT GAVE AS ONE REASON A STATEMENT IN THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY'S ANSWER
"THAT THE GRAND JURY, AFTER INVESTIGATION, IS SATISFIED THAT THE BONDS
SOLD BY THE SAID CARMAN A. MITCHELL TO THE SAID WILLIAM D. OLIVER ARE
THE SAME AS THOSE SOLD BY THE SAID CARMAN A. MITCHELL TO LEO THOMAS
HARTLEY."  NOTHING IN THE PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY AS REPORTED COULD HAVE
REMOTELY JUSTIFIED THE JUDGE-JURY IN DRAWING SUCH A CONCLUSION.  THE
JUDGE-JURY WAS OBVIOUSLY APPRAISING THE TRUTH OF OLIVER'S TESTIMONY IN
LIGHT OF TESTIMONY GIVEN THE SAME DAY IN PETITIONER'S ABSENCE BY
HARTLEY AND POSSIBLY BY OTHER WITNESSES.  THE TERRY CASE AND OTHERS
LIKE IT PROVIDE NO SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINING PETITIONER'S CONVICTION OF
CONTEMPT OF COURT UPON TESTIMONY GIVEN IN PETITIONER'S ABSENCE.  THIS
CASE WOULD BE LIKE THE TERRY CASE ONLY IF THE JUDGE THERE HAD NOT
PERSONALLY WITNESSED TERRY'S ASSAULT UPON THE MARSHAL BUT HAD
NEVERTHELESS SENT HIM TO JAIL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AFTER HEARING THE
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AGAINST TERRY IN TERRY'S ABSENCE.  IT MAY BE
CONCEIVABLE, AS IS HERE URGED, THAT A JUDGE CAN UNDER SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES CORRECTLY DETECT FALSITY AND EVASIVENESS FROM SIMPLY
LISTENING TO A WITNESS TESTIFY.  BUT THIS IS PLAINLY NOT A CASE IN
WHICH THE FINDING OF FALSITY RESTED ON AN EXERCISE OF THIS ALLEGED
POWER.  FOR THIS REASON WE NEED NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION ARGUED IN THE
BRIEFS WHETHER A JUDGE CAN, CONSISTENTLY WITH PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS,
CONVICT A WITNESS OF TESTIFYING FALSELY AND EVASIVELY SOLELY ON THE
JUDGE'S ABILITY TO DETECT IT FROM MERELY OBSERVING A WITNESS AND
HEARING HIM TESTIFY. 

NOR IS THERE ANY REASON SUGGESTED WHY "DEMORALIZATION OF THE COURT'S
AUTHORITY" WOULD HAVE RESULTED FROM GIVING THE PETITIONER A REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND OFFER A DEFENSE IN OPEN COURT TO A CHARGE OF
PERJURY OR TO THE CHARGE OF CONTEMPT.  THE TRADITIONAL GRAND JURIES
HAVE NEVER PUNISHED CONTEMPTS.  FN32  THE PRACTICE THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN
FOLLOWED WITH RECALCITRANT GRAND JURY WITNESSES IS TO TAKE THEM INTO
OPEN COURT, AND THAT PRACTICE, CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS, HAS NOT
DEMORALIZED THE AUTHORITY OF COURTS.  REPORTED CASES REVEAL NO
INSTANCES IN WHICH WITNESSES BELIEVED BY GRAND JURIES ON THE BASIS OF
OTHER TESTIMONY TO BE PERJURERS HAVE BEEN CONVICTED FOR CONTEMPT, OR
FOR PERJURY, WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGES AGAINST THEM, AND
OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE A DEFENSE, TO OBTAIN COUNSEL, TO CROSS-EXAMINE
THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM AND TO OFFER EVIDENCE IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE. 
THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN OPEN COURT BEFORE ONE IS CONDEMNED IS TOO
VALUABLE TO BE WHITTLED AWAY UNDER THE GUISE OF "DEMORALIZATION OF THE
COURT'S AUTHORITY." 

IT IS "THE LAW OF THE LAND" THAT NO MAN'S LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY
BE FORFEITED AS A PUNISHMENT UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A CHARGE FAIRLY MADE
AND FAIRLY TRIED IN A PUBLIC TRIBUNAL.  SEE CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309
U.S. 227, 236-237.  THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WITHOUT THAT KIND OF
TRIAL. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR DISPOSITION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES MICHIGAN LAW PERMITS CIRCUIT JUDGES
TO SIT WITH OTHER CIRCUIT JUDGES IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY.  MICH. STAT.
ANN. SEC. 27.188(HENDERSON 1938); MICH. COMP. LAWS 1929 SEC. 13666. 
FN2  IN GIVING REASONS IN ITS HARTLEY OPINION FOR REJECTING THIS
PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTIONS, THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAID
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN "IDLE GESTURE TO REQUIRE SUCH ADJOURNMENT OF THE
GRAND JURY AND ITS RECONVENING AS A CIRCUIT COURT.  THE CIRCUIT JUDGE,
WHILE ACTING AS A ONE-MAN GRAND JURY MAY, IN APPROPRIATE CASES,
SUMMARILY ADJUDGE A WITNESS TESTIFYING BEFORE HIM GUILTY OF CONTEMPT
AND IMPOSE SENTENCE FORTHWITH. 

"PLAINTIFF'S CONTEMPT, IF ANY, WAS COMMITTED IN THE FACE OF THE COURT
AND REQUIRED NO EXTRANEOUS PROOFS AS TO ITS OCCURRENCE.  IT WAS DIRECT
AND THERE WAS, THEREFORE, NO NECESSITY FOR FILING OF CHARGES, NOTICE TO
ACCUSED AND HEARING AS PROVIDED IN 3 COMP. LAWS OF 1929, SEC.
13912(STAT.  ANN.  SEC. 27.513).  IT WAS PROPERLY DEALT WITH
SUMMARILY.  3 COMP. LAWS 1929, SECS. 13910, 13911(STAT.  ANN.  SECS.
27.511, 27.512)."  317 MICH. AT 444-445, 27 N.W.2D AT 50. 

FN3  BY A FOUR TO FOUR VOTE THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THERE WAS
"EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING" OF THE JUDGE-GRAND JURY THAT
PETITIONER HAD TESTIFIED FALSELY.  PETITIONER HAS ARGUED HERE THAT
THERE WAS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE WHICH UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES COULD
HAVE CONCEIVABLY SUPPORTED THIS FINDING AND THUS THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED
OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  IN THE VIEW THAT WE TAKE OF
THIS CASE WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
CONTENTION. 

FN4  THE LAWS AUTHORIZING THE SYSTEM ARE FOUND IN MICHIGAN COMP. LAWS
1929, SEC. 17217, ET SEQ.; MICH. STAT. ANN. SEC. 28.943, ET SEQ.
(HENDERSON 1938).  A SUMMARY OF THE TEN STATES' STATUTES WHICH HAVE
SOME SIMILARITIES TO MICHIGAN'S APPEARS IN WINTERS, THE MICHIGAN ONE
MAN GRAND JURY, 28 J. AM. JUD.  SOC.  137.  SEE, E.G., CONN. GEN. STAT.
SEC. 889F (SUPP. 1941); MCCARTHY V. CLANCY, 110 CONN. 482, 148 A. 551;
OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 37, SEC. 83; TIT. 21 SEC. 951(1937); EX PARTE
BALLEW, 20 OKLA. CR. 105, 201 P. 525. 

FN5  PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MICHIGAN
STATE BAR ASSOCIATION 101-105(1916). 

FN6  IN RE WARD, 295 MICH. 742, 747, 295 N.W. 483, 485.  (FIRST 60
DAY CONVICTION MAY 31, 1940, FOLLOWED BY SECOND 60-DAY CONVICTION JULY
29, 1940.  A $100 FINE WAS ALSO IMPOSED IN EACH INSTANCE.) 

FN7  IN RE INVESTIGATION OF RECOUNT, 270 MICH. 328, 331, 258 N.W.
776, 777; IN RE SLATTERY, 310 MICH. 458, 479, 17 N.W.2D 251, 259. 

FN8  PEOPLE V. WOLFSON, 264 MICH. 409, 413, 250 N.W. 260, 262; IN RE
WATSON, 293 MICH. 263, 269, 291 N.W. 652, 655; PEOPLE V. BUTLER, 221
MICH. 626, 631-632, 192 N.W. 685, 687. 

FN9  WINTERS, THE MICHIGAN ONE-MAN GRAND JURY, 28 J. AM. JUD.  SOC. 
137, 143; UNPRECEDENTED SUCCESS IN CRIMINAL COURTS, 26 J. AM. JUD. 
SOC.  42-43. 

FN10  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 8 A.L.R. 1579-1580; ORFIELD, CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE FROM ARREST TO APPEAL 161(1947). 

FN11  IN RE SLATTERY, 310 MICH. 458, 466-468, 17 N.W.2D 251, 254-255;
KLOKA V. STATE TREASURER, 318 MICH. 87, 90, 27 N.W.2D 507, 508; CF.
TODD V. UNITED STATES, 158 U.S. 278, 284; INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447, 481, 489; UNITED STATES V.
FERREIRA, 13 HOW.  40, 44-48. 

FN12  CASES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS MARTIAL MAY BE REGARDED
AS AN EXCEPTION.  EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, 43; KING V. GOVERNOR OF
LEWES PRISON, 61 SOL.  J. 294, 30 HARV. L. REV. 771.  WHATEVER MAY BE
THE CLASSIFICATION OF JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS, THEY ARE OFTEN
CONDUCTED WITHOUT ADMITTING ALL THE PUBLIC.  BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE
PRACTICE WHOLLY TO EXCLUDE PARENTS, RELATIVES, AND FRIENDS, OR TO
REFUSE JUVENILES THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL. 

FN13  UNDER MICHIGAN LAW CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A WITNESS
BEFORE A ONE-MAN GRAND JURY ARE CRIMINAL IN NATURE.  IN RE WILKOWSKI,
270 MICH. 687, 259 N.W. 658.  BUT THIS CHARACTERIZATION IS NOT MATERIAL
IN RESOLVING THIS DUE PROCESS QUESTION.  CF. GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES,
233 U.S. 604, 610-611. 

FN14  RADIN, THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL, 6 TEMP.  L.Q. 381-384. 
EARLY COMMENTATORS MENTION THAT PUBLIC TRIALS WERE COMMONLY HELD
WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO TRACE THEIR ORIGIN.  SIR THOMAS SMITH IN 1565 IN
HIS DE REPUBLICA ANGLORUM BK. 2, PP. 79, 101(ALSTON ED. 1906); SIR
MATTHEW HALE ABOUT 1670 IN HIS HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND 343
345(RUNNINGTON ED. 1820).  IN 1649, A FEW YEARS AFTER THE LONG
PARLIAMENT ABOLISHED THE COURT OF STAR CHAMBER, AN ACCUSED CHARGED WITH
HIGH TREASON BEFORE A SPECIAL COMMISSION OF OYER AND TERMINER CLAIMED
THE RIGHT TO PUBLIC TRIAL AND APPARENTLY WAS GIVEN SUCH A TRIAL.  TRIAL
OF JOHN LILBURNE, 4 HOW.  ST. TR. 1270, 1274.  "BY IMMEMORIAL USAGE,
WHEREVER THE COMMON LAW PREVAILS, ALL TRIALS ARE IN OPEN COURT, TO
WHICH SPECTATORS ARE ADMITTED."  2 BISHOP, NEW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEC.
957(2D ED. 1913). 

FN15  PENN.  CONST., DECLARATION OF RIGHTS IX (1776); N.C. CONST.,
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS IX (1776)(CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS ONLY BY JURY
VERDICT IN "OPEN COURT"). 

FN16  SEE, E.G., VT. CONST., CH. I, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, XI (1787);
DEL. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 7(1792); KY. CONST., ART. XII, CL. 10(1792);
TENN. CONST., ART. XI, SEC. 9(1796); MISS.  CONST., ART. I, SEC.
10(1817); MICH. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 10(1835); TEX. CONST., ART. I,
SEC. 8(1845). 

FN17  FOUR STATES, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, VIRGINIA AND
WYOMING, APPEAR TO HAVE NEITHER STATUTORY NOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
SPECIFICALLY REQUIRING THAT CRIMINAL TRIALS BE HELD IN PUBLIC, ALTHOUGH
ALL HAVE CONSTITUTIONS GUARANTEEING AN ACCUSED THE RIGHT TO A JURY
TRIAL.  MASS. CONST., PT. I, ART. XII; N.H. CONST., PT. FIRST, ARTS.
15TH, 16TH; VA. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8; WYO. CONST., ART. 1, SEC. 10. 
MASSACHUSETTS BY IMPLICATION HAS RECOGNIZED THAT AN ACCUSED HAS A RIGHT
TO A PUBLIC TRIAL AS WELL.  A STATUTE OF THAT STATE PERMITS THE
EXCLUSION OF SPECTATORS IN ONLY A LIMITED CATEGORY OF CASES.  MASS.
GEN. LAWS C. 278, SEC. 16A (1932).  IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND WYOMING NO
STATUTE OR DECISION HAS BEEN FOUND IN WHICH THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO
A PUBLIC TRIAL IS MENTIONED.  IN VIRGINIA, ALTHOUGH NO DECISION HAS
BEEN DISCOVERED, A STATUTE PROVIDES:  "IN THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMINAL
CASES, WHETHER THE SAME BE FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR CASES, THE COURT MAY,
IN ITS DISCRETION, EXCLUDE FROM THE TRIAL ANY OR ALL PERSONS WHOSE
PRESENCE IS NOT DEEMED NECESSARY."  VA. CODE ANN. SEC. 4906(1942). 

FN18  FORTY-ONE STATES:  ALA. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 6; ARIZ. CONST.,
ART. II, SEC. 24; ARK. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 10; CAL. CONST., ART. I,
SEC. 13; COLO. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 16; CONN. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 9;
DEL. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 7; FLA. CONST., DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SEC.
11; GA. CONST., ART. I, SEC. I, PAR. V; IDAHO CONST., ART. I, SEC. 13;
ILL. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 9; IND. CONST., ART. 1, SEC. 13; IOWA
CONST., ART. I, SEC. 10; KAN. CONST., BILL OF RIGHTS, SEC. 10; KY.
CONST., SEC. 11; LA. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 9; ME. CONST., ART. I, SEC.
6; MICH. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 19; MINN. CONST., ART. 1, SEC. 6; MISS. 
CONST., ART. 3, SEC. 26; MO. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 18; MONT. CONST.,
ART. III, SEC. 16; NEB. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 11; N.J. CONST., ART. I,
SEC. 8; N.M. CONST., ART. II, SEC. 14; N.C. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 13(NO
CONVICTIONS FOR CRIME EXCEPT BY JURY VERDICT IN "OPEN COURT"); N.D.
CONST., ART. I, SEC. 13; OHIO CONST., ART. I, SEC. 10; OKLA. CONST.,
ART. II, SEC. 20; ORE.  CONST., ART. I, SEC. 11; PA. CONST., ART. I,
SEC. 9; R.I. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 10; S.C. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 18;
S.D. CONST., ART. 6, SEC. 7; TENN. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 9; TEX. CONST.,
ART. I, SEC. 10; UTAH CONST., ART. I, SEC. 12; VT. CONST., CH. I, ART.
10TH; WASH. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 22; W. VA. CONST., ART. III, SEC. 14;
WIS. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 7. 

FN19  TWO STATES:  NEV. COMP. LAWS ANN. SEC. 10654(1929); N.Y. CIVIL
RIGHTS LAW SEC. 12. 

FN20  THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS HAS APPARENTLY INTERPRETED THE
STATE CONSTITUTION AS PROHIBITING SECRET TRIALS.  DUTTON V. STATE, 123
MD. 373, 386-388, 91 A. 417, 422-423. 

FN21  RADIN, THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL, 6 TEMP.  L.Q. 381, 389. 
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE CIVIL LAW COUNTRIES LONG RESEMBLED THAT
OF THE INQUISITION IN THAT THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED,
THE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, AND THE TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED WERE
CONDUCTED IN SECRET.  ESMEIN, A HISTORY OF CONTINENTAL CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE 183-382(1913); PLOSCOWE, DEVELOPMENT OF INQUISITORIAL AND
ACCUSATORIAL ELEMENTS IN FRENCH PROCEDURE, 23 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY
372-386.  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS OF GREAT BRITAIN, WHICH
INTERMITTENTLY EXERCISED A LIMITED CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
ADOPTED A PROCEDURE DESCRIBED AS "IN NAME AS WELL AS IN FACT AN
INQUISITION, DIFFERING FROM THE SPANISH INQUISITION IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT DID NOT AT ANY TIME AS FAR AS WE ARE AWARE EMPLOY
TORTURE, AND THAT THE BULK OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COURTS WAS OF A
COMPARATIVELY UNIMPORTANT KIND  ...  "  2 STEPHEN, HISTORY OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND, 402(1883).  THE SECRECY OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL
COURTS AND THE CIVIL LAW COURTS WAS OFTEN POINTED OUT BY COMMENTATORS
WHO PRAISED THE PUBLICITY OF THE COMMON LAW COURTS.  SEE E.G., 3
BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES* 373; 1 BENTHAM, RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL
EVIDENCE, 594-595, 603(1827).  THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW COURTS WHICH
SUCCEEDED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS HAVE
RENOUNCED ALL CLAIM TO HOLD SECRET SESSIONS IN CASES FORMERLY WITHIN
THE ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION, EVEN IN CIVIL SUITS.  SEE, E.G., SCOTT
V. SCOTT, (1913) A.C. 417. 

FN22  DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 247 F. 394, 395; KEDDINGTON V. STATE,
19 ARIZ. 457, 459, 172 P. 273; WILLIAMSON V. LACY, 86 ME. 80, 82-83, 29
A. 943, 944; DUTTON V. STATE, 123 MD. 373, 387, 91 A. 417, 422; JENKS,
THE BOOK OF ENGLISH LAW 91(3D ED. 1932).  SOME AUTHORITIES HAVE SAID
THAT TRIALS IN THE STAR CHAMBER WERE PUBLIC, BUT THAT WITNESSES AGAINST
THE ACCUSED WERE EXAMINED PRIVATELY WITH NO OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO
DISCREDIT THEM.  APPARENTLY ALL AUTHORITIES AGREE THAT THE ACCUSED
HIMSELF WAS GRILLED IN SECRET, OFTEN TORTURED, IN AN EFFORT TO OBTAIN A
CONFESSION AND THAT THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE OF THE STAR CHAMBER'S
PRACTICES WAS ITS ASSERTED PREROGATIVE TO DISREGARD THE COMMON LAW
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN THE OCCASION DEMANDED.  5 HOLDSWORTH,
A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 163, 165, 180-197(2D ED. 1937); RADIN, THE
RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL, 6 TEMP.  L.Q. 381, 386-388; WASHBURN, THE
COURT OF STAR CHAMBER, 12 AM. L. REV. 21, 25-31. 

FN23  RADIN, THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL, 6 TEMP.  L.Q. 381, 388. 
THE LETTRE DE CACHET WAS AN ORDER OF THE KING THAT ONE OF HIS SUBJECTS
BE FORTHWITH IMPRISONED OR EXILED WITHOUT A TRIAL OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO
DEFEND HIMSELF.  IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY THEY WERE OFTEN ISSUED IN
BLANK TO LOCAL POLICE.  LOUIS XV IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ISSUED MORE THAN
150,000 LETTRES DE CACHET DURING HIS REIGN.  THIS DEVICE WAS THE
PRINCIPAL MEANS EMPLOYED TO PROSECUTE CRIMES OF OPINION, ALTHOUGH IT
WAS ALSO USED BY THE ROYALTY AS A CONVENIENT METHOD OF PREVENTING THE
PUBLIC AIRING OF INTRA-FAMILY SCANDALS.  VOLTAIRE, MIRABEAU AND
MONTESQUIEU, AMONG OTHERS, DENOUNCED THE USE OF THE LETTRE DE CACHET,
AND IT WAS ABOLISHED AFTER THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, THOUGH LATER
TEMPORARILY REVIVED BY NAPOLEON.  13 ENCYC.  BRIT.  971; 3 ENCYC. 
SOC.  SCI. 137. 

FN24  OTHER BENEFITS ATTRIBUTED TO PUBLICITY HAVE BEEN:  (1) PUBLIC
TRIALS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF KEY WITNESSES UNKNOWN TO THE PARTIES. 
THESE WITNESSES MAY THEN VOLUNTARILY COME FORWARD AND GIVE IMPORTANT
TESTIMONY.  6 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE SEC. 1834(3D ED. 1940); TANKSLEY V.
UNITED STATES, 145 F.2D 58, 59. 

(2)  THE SPECTATORS LEARN ABOUT THEIR GOVERNMENT AND ACQUIRE
CONFIDENCE IN THEIR JUDICIAL REMEDIES.  6 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE SEC.
1834(3D ED. 1940); 1 BENTHAM, RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL EVIDENCE 525(1827);
STATE V. KEELER, 52 MONT. 205, 156 P. 1080; 20 HARV. L. REV. 489. 

FN25  JENKS, THE BOOK OF ENGLISH LAW 91(1932); AULD, COMPARATIVE
JURISPRUDENCE OF CRIMINAL PROCESS, 1 U. OF TORONTO L.J. 82, 99; RADIN,
THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL, 6 TEMP.  L.Q. 381; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN
SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND, 108 EDINBURGH REV. 174, 181-182; HOLMES, J. IN
COWLEY V. PULSIFER, 137 MASS. 392, 394; STATE V. OSBORNE, 54 ORE.  289,
295-297, 103 P. 62, 64-66.  PEOPLE V. MURRAY, 89 MICH. 276, 286, 50
N.W. 995, 998:  "IT IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS ACCUSED OF
CRIME - THE INNOCENTLY ACCUSED, THAT THEY MAY NOT BECOME THE VICTIM OF
AN UNJUST PROSECUTION, AS WELL AS THE GUILTY, THAT THEY MAY BE AWARDED
A FAIR TRIAL - THAT ONE RULE (AS TO PUBLIC TRIALS) MUST BE OBSERVED AND
APPLIED TO ALL."  FREQUENTLY QUOTED IS THE STATEMENT IN 1 COOLEY,
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (8TH ED. 1927) AT 647:  "THE REQUIREMENT OF
A PUBLIC TRIAL IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ACCUSED; THAT THE PUBLIC MAY
SEE HE IS FAIRLY DEALT WITH AND NOT UNJUSTLY CONDEMNED, AND THAT THE
PRESENCE OF INTERESTED SPECTATORS MAY KEEP HIS TRIERS KEENLY ALIVE TO A
SENSE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS
...  " 

FN26  1 BENTHAM, RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL EVIDENCE 524(1827). 

FN27  COMPARE PEOPLE V. MURRAY, 89 MICH. 276, 50 N.W. 995; AND PEOPLE
V. YEAGER, 113 MICH. 228, 71 N.W. 491, WITH REAGAN V. UNITED STATES,
202 F. 488.  FOR COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE CASES, SEE 6 WIGMORE,
EVIDENCE SEC. 1834(3D ED. 1940); ORFIELD, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FROM
ARREST TO APPEAL 385-387(1947); RADIN, THE RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL, 6
TEMP.  L.Q. 381, 389-391; NOTE, 35 MICH. L. REV. 474; 8 U. OF DET. 
L.J. 129; 156 A.L.R. 265. 

FN28  "FOR THE PURPOSES CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE PRESENCE OF THE OFFICERS OF THE COURT, MEN WHOM N, IT
IS SAFE TO SAY, WERE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE COURT, MADE THE TRIAL
NO MORE PUBLIC THAN IF THEY TOO HAD BEEN EXCLUDED."  PEOPLE V. HARTMAN,
103 CAL. 242, 244, 37 P. 153, 154.    FN29  SEE, E.G., STATE V.
BECKSTEAD, 96 UTAH 528, 88 P.2D 461(ERROR TO EXCLUDE FRIENDS AND
RELATIVES OF ACCUSED); BENEDICT V. PEOPLE, 23 COLO. 126, 46 P.
637(EXCLUSION OF ALL EXCEPT WITNESSES, MEMBERS OF BAR AND LAW STUDENTS
UPHELD); PEOPLE V. HALL, 51 APP. DIV. 57, 64 N.Y.S. 433(EXCLUSION OF
GENERAL PUBLIC UPHELD WHERE ACCUSED PERMITTED TO DESIGNATE FRIENDS WHO
REMAINED).  "NO COURT HAS GONE SO FAR AS AFFIRMATIVELY TO EXCLUDE THE
PRESS."  NOTE, 35 MICH. L. REV. 474, 476.  EVEN THOSE WHO DEPLORE THE
SENSATIONALISM OF CRIMINAL TRIALS AND ADVOCATE THE EXCLUSION OF THE
GENERAL PUBLIC FROM THE COURTROOM WOULD PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF THE
ACCUSED BY REQUIRING THE ADMISSION OF THE PRESS, FRIENDS OF THE
ACCUSED, AND SELECTED MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.  RADIN, THE RIGHT TO A
PUBLIC TRIAL, 6 TEMP.  L.Q. 381, 394-395; 20 J. AM. JUD.  SOC.  83. 

FN30  CASES ARE COLLECTED IN 27 ANN. CAS. 35. 

FN31  THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT INVOLVING VARIOUS KINDS
OF PROCEEDINGS ARE AMONG THE MULTITUDE THAT SUPPORT THE ABOVE
STATEMENT:  SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 116; POWELL V.
ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 68-70; HOVEY V. ELLIOTT, 167 U.S. 409, 418;
HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366, 390-391; MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304
U.S. 1, 14-15, AND CASES THERE CITED. 

FN32  SEE NOTE 10 SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND DECISION.  BUT THERE IS MORE WHICH
NEEDS TO BE SAID. 

MICHIGAN'S ONE-MAN GRAND JURY, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THIS RECORD,
COMBINES IN A SINGLE OFFICIAL THE HISTORICALLY SEPARATE POWERS OF GRAND
JURY, COMMITTING MAGISTRATE, PROSECUTOR, TRIAL JUDGE AND PETIT JURY. 
THIS AGGREGATED AUTHORITY DENIES TO THE ACCUSED NOT ONLY THE RIGHT TO A
PUBLIC TRIAL, BUT ALSO THOSE OTHER BASIC PROTECTIONS SECURED BY THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT, NAMELY, THE RIGHTS "TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND
CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; FN1  TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES
AGAINST HIM; FN2  TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN
HIS FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE."  IT
TAKES AWAY THE SECURITY AGAINST BEING TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY FOR THE
SAME OFFENSE  FN3  AND DENIES THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS BY
LEAVING TO THE COMMITTING FUNCTIONARY'S SOLE DISCRETION THE SCOPE AND
CONTENTS OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL.  FN4 U.S. CONST. AMEND. V AND XIV. 

THIS AGGREGATION OF POWERS AND INHERENTLY CONCOMITANT DENIAL OF
HISTORIC FREEDOMS WERE UNKNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW AT THE TIME OUR
INSTITUTIONS CRYSTALLIZED IN THE CONSTITUTION.  THEY ARE ALTOGETHER AT
VARIANCE WITH OUR TRADITION AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  THEY CANNOT
STAND THE TEST OF CONSTITUTIONALITY FOR PURPOSES OF DEPRIVING ANY
PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY.  THERE IS NO SEMBLANCE OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW IN THE SCHEME WHEN IT IS USED FOR THOSE ENDS.  FN5 

THE CASE DEMONSTRATES HOW FAR THIS COURT DEPARTED FROM OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL PLAN WHEN, AFTER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S ADOPTION, IT
PERMITTED SELECTIVE DEPARTURE BY THE STATES FROM THE SCHEME OF ORDERED
PERSONAL LIBERTY ESTABLISHED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  FN6  IN THE GUISE
OF PERMITTING THE STATES TO EXPERIMENT WITH IMPROVING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE COURT LEFT THEM FREE TO SUBSTITUTE, "IN
SPITE OF THE ABSOLUTISM OF CONTINENTAL GOVERNMENTS," THEIR "IDEAS AND
PROCESSES OF CIVIL JUSTICE" IN PLACE OF THE TIME-TRIED "PRINCIPLES AND
INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMON LAW"  FN7 PERPETUATED FOR US IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.  ONLY BY AN EXERCISE OF THIS FREEDOM HAS MICHIGAN BEEN ENABLED
TO ADOPT AND APPLY HER SCHEME AS WAS DONE IN THIS CASE.  IT IS THE
IMMEDIATE OFFSPRING OF HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516, AND LATER
LIKE CASES.  FN8 

SO LONG AS THEY STAND, SO LONG AS THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS REGARDED HERE
AS A STRAIT JACKET OF EIGHTEENTH CENTURY PROCEDURES RATHER THAN A BASIC
CHARTER OF PERSONAL LIBERTY, LIKE EXPERIMENTATIONS MAY BE EXPECTED FROM
THE STATES.  AND THE ONLY CHECK AGAINST THEIR EFFECTIVENESS WILL BE THE
AGREEMENT OF A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT THAT THE EXPERIMENT VIOLATES
FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS OF JUSTICE IN CIVILIZED SOCIETY. 

I DO NOT CONCEIVE THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS, APART FROM THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, INCORPORATES ALL SUCH IDEAS.  BUT AS FAR
AS ITS PROVISIONS GO, I KNOW OF NO BETTER SUBSTITUTES.  A FEW MAY BE
INCONVENIENT.  BUT RESTRICTIONS UPON AUTHORITY FOR SECURING PERSONAL
LIBERTY, AS WELL AS FAIRNESS IN TRIAL TO DEPRIVE ONE OF IT, ARE ALWAYS
INCONVENIENT - TO THE AUTHORITY SO RESTRICTED.  AND IN TIMES LIKE THESE
I DO NOT THINK SUBSTITUTIONS IMPORTED FROM OTHER SYSTEMS, INCLUDING
CONTINENTAL ONES, OFFER PROMISE ON THE WHOLE OF MORE IMPROVEMENT THAN
HARM, EITHER FOR THE CAUSE OF PERFECTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
OR FOR THAT OF SECURING AND PERPETUATING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, WHICH IS
THE MAIN END OF OUR SOCIETY AS IT IS OF OUR CONSTITUTION. 

ONE CANNOT ATTRIBUTE THE COLLAPSE OF LIBERTY IN EUROPE AND ELSEWHERE
DURING RECENT YEARS SOLELY TO THE "IDEAS AND PROCESSES OF CIVIL
JUSTICE" PREVAILING IN THE NATIONS WHICH HAVE SUFFERED THAT LOSS. 
NEITHER CAN ONE DENY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THEIR
SUCCESS IN MAINTAINING SYSTEMS OF ORDERED LIBERTY AND THAT OF OTHER
NATIONS WHICH IN THE MAIN HAVE ADHERED MORE CLOSELY TO THE SCHEME OF
PERSONAL FREEDOMS THE BILL OF RIGHTS SECURES.  THIS EXPERIENCE
DEMONSTRATES, I THINK, THAT IT IS BOTH WISER AND SAFER TO PUT UP WITH
WHATEVER INCONVENIENCES THAT CHARTER CREATES THAN TO RUN THE RISK OF
LOSING ITS HARD-WON GUARANTIES BY DUBIOUS, IF ALSO MORE CONVENIENT,
SUBSTITUTIONS IMPORTED FROM ALIEN TRADITIONS.  FN9 

THE STATES HAVE SURVIVED WITH THE NATION THROUGH GREAT VICISSITUDES,
FOR THE GREATER PART OF OUR HISTORY, WITHOUT WIDE DEPARTURES OR
NUMEROUS ONES FROM THE PLAN OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THEY ACCEPTED THAT
PLAN FOR THE NATION WHEN THEY RATIFIED THOSE AMENDMENTS.  THEY ACCEPTED
IT FOR THEMSELVES, IN MY OPINION, WHEN THEY RATIFIED THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46, DISSENTING OPINIONS, AT
68, 123.  IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR OUR FATHERS.  I THINK IT SHOULD BE
GOOD ENOUGH FOR THIS COURT AND FOR THE STATES. 

ROOM ENOUGH THERE IS BEYOND THE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS FOR THE STATES TO EXPERIMENT TOWARD IMPROVING THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE.  WITHIN THOSE LIMITATIONS THERE SHOULD BE NO LABORATORY
EXCURSIONS, UNLESS OR UNTIL THE PEOPLE HAVE AUTHORIZED THEM BY THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROVIDED METHOD.  THIS IS NO TIME TO EXPERIMENT WITH
ESTABLISHED LIBERTIES.  THAT PROCESS CARRIES THE DANGERS OF DILUTION
AND DENIAL WITH THE CHANCES OF ENFORCING AND STRENGTHENING. 

IT REMAINS ONLY TO SAY THAT, IN THE FACE OF SO BROAD A DEPARTURE FROM
SO MANY SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OR, IF THE OTHER VIEW IS TO
CONTROL, FROM THEIR AGGREGATE SUMMARIZED IN THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS
AS REPRESENTING FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF FAIR PLAY AND JUSTICE IN CIVILIZED
SOCIETY, SUCH AS THE RECORD IN THIS CASE PRESENTS, THIS COURT'S EYES
NEED NOT REMAIN CLOSED NOR ITS HAND IDLE UNTIL THE CASE IS RETURNED TO
THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR REAFFIRMATION OF ITS POSITION OR
CONFIRMATION OF OUR VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  NEITHER
RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, NOR MUSSER V. UTAH, 333
U.S. 95, PRESENTED A SITUATION LIKE THE ONE TENDERED HERE, WHETHER IN
RELATION TO THE DISENTANGLEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES FROM QUESTIONS
OF STATE LAW OR, CONSEQUENTLY, IN RESPECT TO THE BREADTH AND CLARITY OF
THE STATE'S DEPARTURE FROM FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMMANDS.  NEITHER
CASE THEREFORE REQUIRES OR JUSTIFIES THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CAUSE
ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE THERE FOLLOWED.  THIS CASE IS NEITHER UNRIPE
FOR DECISION NOR WANTING OF SUFFICIENT BASIS IN THE RECORD FOR EXERCISE
OF THAT FUNCTION. 

FN1  THE REQUIREMENT, OF COURSE, CONTEMPLATES THAT THE ACCUSED BE SO
INFORMED SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL OR SENTENCE TO ENABLE HIM TO
DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE PLEA TO BE ENTERED AND TO PREPARE HIS
DEFENSE IF ONE IS TO BE MADE.  CF. WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760, 764;
POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45. 

FN2  THE ONLY "WITNESS" IN THIS CASE WAS THE GRAND JURY-JUDGE WHO, SO
FAR AS THE RECORD DISCLOSES, DID NOT SUBMIT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

FN3  AS THE COURT'S OPINION NOTES, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD
THAT THE WITNESS MAY BE REEXAMINED AND RECOMMITTED FOR A FURTHER 60-DAY
PERIOD AFTER SERVING THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THAT LENGTH, UNLESS HE
REAPPEARS AND ANSWERS THE SAME QUESTIONS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ONE
MAN GRAND JURY.  IN RE WARD, 295 MICH. 742, 747. 

FN4  CF. COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, ONLY
PERSONS COMMITTED OR FINED BY A ONE-MAN GRAND JURY ARE SUBJECTED IN
MICHIGAN TO THIS ATTENUATED APPELLATE PROCEDURE.  OTHERS CONVICTED OF
CRIME, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, APPARENTLY ARE AFFORDED RIGHTS TO
COMPLETE AND NONDISCRETIONARY RECORDS ON APPEAL. 

FN5  THE IMMEDIATE SHIFT OF THE PROCEEDING FROM INQUISITORIAL TO
PUNITIVE FUNCTION CONVERTS IT FROM A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION TO A
PROCEEDING IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. 

FN6  CF. ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46, DISSENTING OPINION OF
MR. JUSTICE BLACK AT 68. 

FN7  SEE HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516, 531. 

FN8 E.G., TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78; ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA,
332 U.S. 46. 

FN9  I DO NOT THINK IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT STATE SYSTEMS, FREED
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS' "INCONVENIENCES," HAVE BEEN MORE FAIR, JUST, OR
EFFICIENT THAN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF ADMINISTERING CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN CLEAR OF THEIR RESTRAINTS. 

NOTWITHSTANDING BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, AND ITS PROGENY, I
CANNOT IMAGINE THAT STATE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL BEYOND THAT
PERMISSIBLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OR INDEED OF ANY OTHER GUARANTY OF
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT COULD BRING AN IMPROVEMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE. 

THE GUARANTIES SEEMINGLY CONSIDERED MOST OBSTRUCTIVE TO THAT PROCESS
ARE THOSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REQUIRING PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF
A GRAND JURY AND SECURING THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION; THE
RIGHTS TO JURY TRIAL AND TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL SECURED BY THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT; AND THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SUITS AT COMMON LAW
OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT.  WHATEVER INCONVENIENCES THESE OR ANY OF THEM
MAY BE THOUGHT TO INVOLVE ARE FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE AGGREGATE OF
SECURITY TO THE INDIVIDUAL AFFORDED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THAT
AGGREGATE CANNOT BE SECURED, INDEED IT MAY BE LARGELY DEFEATED, SO LONG
AS THE STATES ARE LEFT FREE TO MAKE BROADLY SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF
ITS PROTECTIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, A STATE MAY SURELY ADOPT AS ITS OWN A
PROCEDURE WHICH WAS THE ESTABLISHED METHOD FOR PROSECUTING CRIME IN
NEARLY HALF THE STATES WHICH RATIFIED THAT AMENDMENT.  AND SO, IT MAY
ABOLISH THE GRAND JURY,  FN1  OR IT MAY REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE GRAND
JURY, AND EVEN TO A SINGLE MEMBER.  A STATE HAS GREAT LEEWAY IN
DEVISING ITS JUDICIAL INSTRUMENTS FOR PROBING INTO CONDUCT AS A BASIS
FOR CHARGING THE COMMISSION OF CRIME.  IT MAY, AT THE SAME TIME,
SURROUND SUCH PRELIMINARY INQUIRY WITH SAFEGUARDS, NOT ONLY THAT CRIME
MAY BE DETECTED AND CRIMINALS PUNISHED, BUT ALSO THAT CHARGES MAY BE
SIFTED IN SECRET SO AS NOT TO INJURE OR EMBARRASS THE INNOCENT. 

FLOUTING OF SUCH A JUDICIAL INVESTIGATORY SYSTEM MAY BE PREVENTED BY
THE HITHERTO CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. 
THERE MUST, HOWEVER, BE SUCH RECALCITRANCE, WHERE THE BASIS OF
PUNISHMENT IS TESTIMONY GIVEN OR WITHHELD, THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE IS ACTIVELY BLOCKED.  SEE EX PARTE HUDGINGS, 249 U.S. 378.  AND
THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS OF "DUE PROCESS" MUST BE OBSERVED.  DUE
NOTICE OF THE CHARGE AND A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO MEET IT, ARE
INDISPENSABLE.  THIS INVOLVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CANVASS THE CHARGE IN
THE OPEN AND NOT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.  SO LONG AS A MAN HAS AMPLE
OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE HIS INNOCENCE BEFORE HE IS HUSTLED OFF TO
JAIL, HE CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT A STATE HAS SEEN FIT TO DEVISE A NEW
PROCEDURE FOR SATISFYING THAT OPPORTUNITY.  JUST AS IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE
OF DUE PROCESS FOR A STATE TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE AND
LEAVE TO A LATER STAGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VINDICATION OF THE RIGHT TO
COMPENSATION, IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME THAT IT WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF DUE
PROCESS TO ALLOW THE JUDGE-GRAND JUROR OF MICHIGAN TO FIND CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT FOR CONDUCT IN HIS PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT THE FAMILIAR ELEMENTS
OF AN OPEN TRIAL, PROVIDED THAT THE STATE FURNISHES THE ACCUSED A
PUBLIC TRIBUNAL BEFORE WHICH HE HAS FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE QUIT OF THE
FINDING. 

BUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET A CHARGE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT MUST BE A
FAIR OPPORTUNITY.  IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR, IF IN THE COURT IN WHICH THE
ACCUSED CAN CONTEST FOR THE FIRST TIME THE VALIDITY OF THE CHARGE
AGAINST HIM, HE COMES HANDICAPPED WITH A FINDING AGAINST HIM WHICH HE
DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF RESISTING. 

WE ARE HERE DEALING WITH THE ATTEMPT OF A STATE HAVING THE SEVENTH
LARGEST POPULATION IN THE UNION TO CURB OR MITIGATE THE COMMISSION OF
CRIMES BY EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION.  THIS PROCEDURE HAS BEEN IN OPERATION
FOR OVER THIRTY YEARS.  IT WAS NOT HEEDLESSLY ENTERED INTO NOR HAS IT
BEEN SPORADICALLY PURSUED.  IN A SERIES OF CASES IT HAS HAD THE
SANCTION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF MICHIGAN.  WHILE THERE ARE INDICATIONS
IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN FROM WHICH WE COULD
INFER THE CONSTITUTIONAL INADEQUACY OF THE PROCEDURE PURSUED IN THIS
CASE, WE SHOULD NOT DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND CONCLUDE THAT THE
MICHIGAN SYSTEM OFFENDS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WITHOUT
A CLEARER FORMULATION OF WHAT IT IS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS UNDER THIS
SYSTEM, OR DID HAPPEN HERE, THAN THE CASE BEFORE US REVEALS. 

IT IS TO ME SIGNIFICANT THAT THE PRECISE ISSUES ON WHICH THIS COURT
DECIDES THIS CASE HAVE NEVER BEEN EXPLICITLY CHALLENGED BEFORE, OR
PASSED ON, BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN IN THE SERIES OF CASES IN
WHICH THAT COURT HAD ADJUDICATED CONTROVERSIES ARISING UNDER THE
MICHIGAN GRAND JURY SYSTEM.  IF A STATE HAS DENIED THE DUE PROCESS
REQUIRED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT IS MORE CONSONANT WITH THE
DELICATE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND THE STATES AND THE COURTS OF THE STATES, THAT THE
COURTS OF THE STATES BE GIVEN THE FULLEST OPPORTUNITY, BY PROPER
PRESENTATION OF THE ISSUES, TO MAKE SUCH A FINDING OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.    I DO NOT THINK THAT WE HAVE HAD THAT IN THIS
CASE.  FOR INSTANCE, WHILE I COULD REGARD IT INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO HAVE ONLY A PARTIAL AND MUTILATED RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE GRAND JUROR-JUDGE WHEN THE CONTEMNOR FOR THE
FIRST TIME HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM
PUBLICLY, THE PETITIONER HIMSELF IN THIS CASE SEEMS TO REPEL THE
SUGGESTION THAT THAT IS HIS COMPLAINT.  FN2  CERTAINLY, AS MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON POINTS OUT, THE FIRST GROUND OF THE COURT'S OPINION WAS NOT
MADE THE BASIS FOR INVITING OUR REVIEW HERE.  I AGREE WITH HIM IN
CONCLUDING THAT IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISION THE OTHER DAY IN MUSSER V.
UTAH, 333 U.S. 95, IN CONJUNCTION WITH RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT,
331 U.S. 549, THE CAUSE SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
MICHIGAN TO ENABLE THAT COURT TO PASS UPON THESE ISSUES. 

FN1  IN SUSTAINING THIS POWER OF THE STATES, THE COURT ENUNCIATED A
PRINCIPLE THE FORCE OF WHICH HAS NOT LESSENED WITH TIME:  "THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ORDAINED, IT IS TRUE, BY
DESCENDANTS OF ENGLISHMEN, WHO INHERITED THE TRADITIONS OF ENGLISH LAW
AND HISTORY; BUT IT WAS MADE FOR AN UNDEFINED AND EXPANDING FUTURE, AND
FOR A PEOPLE GATHERED AND TO BE GATHERED FROM MANY NATIONS AND OF MANY
TONGUES.  AND WHILE WE TAKE JUST PRIDE IN THE PRINCIPLES AND
INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMON LAW, WE ARE NOT TO FORGET THAT IN LANDS
WHERE OTHER SYSTEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE PREVAIL, THE IDEAS AND PROCESSES
OF CIVIL JUSTICE ARE ALSO NOT UNKNOWN.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN SPITE OF
THE ABSOLUTISM OF CONTINENTAL GOVERNMENTS, IS NOT ALIEN TO THAT CODE
WHICH SURVIVED THE ROMAN EMPIRE AS THE FOUNDATION OF MODERN
CIVILIZATION IN EUROPE, AND WHICH HAS GIVEN US THAT FUNDAMENTAL MAXIM
OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE - SUUM CUIQUE TRIBUERE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN
MAGNA CHARTA, RIGHTLY CONSTRUED AS A BROAD CHARTER OF PUBLIC RIGHT AND
LAW, WHICH OUGHT TO EXCLUDE THE BEST IDEAS OF ALL SYSTEMS AND OF EVERY
AGE; AND AS IT WAS THE CHARACTERISTIC PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON LAW TO
DRAW ITS INSPIRATION FROM EVERY FOUNTAIN OF JUSTICE, WE ARE NOT TO
ASSUME THAT THE SOURCES OF ITS SUPPLY HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  ON THE
CONTRARY, WE SHOULD EXPECT THAT THE NEW AND VARIOUS EXPERIENCES OF OUR
OWN SITUATION AND SYSTEM WILL MOULD AND SHAPE IT INTO NEW AND NOT LESS
USEFUL FORMS."  HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516, 530-31. 

FN2  "NEITHER IN OUR BRIEF NOR IN OUR ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COURT HAVE
WE URGED THIS COURT TO REVERSE THIS CONVICTION MERELY BECAUSE THE
PARTIAL RETURN OF THE WITNESS'S TESTIMONY TO THE SUPREME COURT
CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  ...  THE QUESTIONS WE PRESENT ARE
MUCH MORE BASIC,  - THE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN THE ORIGINAL
COMMITMENT.   ...  (TO) US IT IS MUCH MORE SHOCKING THAT AN ACCUSED
CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT NOT COMMITTED IN OPEN COURT BE DENIED ANY TRIAL
IN THE LOWER COURT THAN THAT HE BE GIVEN A TRIAL ONLY UPON AN
INCOMPLETE RECORD IN THE APPELLATE COURT."  PETITIONER'S "BRIEF IN
ANSWER TO BRIEF OF STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN," PP. 13-14. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AGREES,
DISSENTING. 

THE PRINCIPAL GROUND ASSIGNED FOR REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION IS THE ALLEGED SECRECY OF THE CONTEMPT PROCEDURE.  THAT
GROUND WAS NOT ASSIGNED FOR REVIEW IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO
THIS COURT.  NOR WAS IT RAISED IN THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN THE STATE COURTS.  THEREFORE, IT HAS NOT BEEN LITIGATED AND
THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN MADE WITH REFERENCE TO IT.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION RAISED BY THE PETITION TO THIS COURT AND ARGUED
BY THE STATE IS NOT DECIDED BY THE COURT'S OPINION. 

WHEN A CASE HERE FROM A STATE COURT INVOLVES A QUESTION NOT LITIGATED
BELOW, NOT RAISED BY PETITIONER HERE AND WHICH THE STATE COURT HAS HAD
NO OPPORTUNITY TO PASS UPON, WE SHOULD REMAND THE CASE FOR ITS FURTHER
CONSIDERATION, AS WAS JUST DONE IN MUSSER V. UTAH, 333 U.S. 95. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 333 U.S. 287 


NO. 8.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1947.  REARGUED NOVEMBER 12-13, 1947.  -
DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 64 F.SUPP.  970, REVERSED. 


1.  ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN TWO PATENTEES FOR CROSS-LICENSING OF THEIR
INTERDEPENDENT PRODUCT PATENTS, AND FOR LICENSING EXCLUSIVELY BY ONE OF
THEM OF OTHER MANUFACTURERS TO MAKE AND VEND UNDER BOTH PATENTS, WHICH
ARRANGEMENTS, TOGETHER WITH THOSE ENTERED INTO SEPARATELY WITH OTHER
LICENSEES, WERE INTENDED TO AND DID CONTROL THE PRICES AT WHICH
PRODUCTS EMBODYING BOTH PATENTS WERE SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY THE
PATENTEES AND ALL LICENSEES, HELD VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  PP. 288-299, 305-315. 

(A)  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 299-305, 310-312. 

(B)  SUCH A PRICE-FIXING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PATENTEES
TRANSCENDS THE LIMITS OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY GRANTED TO EACH OF THEM;
AND IT VIOLATES SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT NO MATTER HOW ADVANTAGEOUS IT
MAY BE TO STIMULATE THE BROADER USE OF THE PATENTS.  PP. 310-313, 314
315. 

2.  LICENSEES WHO, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH ARRANGEMENTS, ENTER INTO
LICENSES CONTAINING PRICE-MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS ARE LIKWISE SUBJECT TO
THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 315. 

UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT SUIT UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO
RESTRAIN AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 BY THE APPELLEES.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  64 F.SUPP.  970.  THE UNITED STATES
APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 315. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION UNDER SECS. 1 AND 4 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT  FN1  IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST CONTINUANCE OF
VIOLATIONS OF THAT ACT BY AN ALLEGEDLY UNLAWFUL COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN APPELLEES, THROUGH CONTRACTS, TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE
TRADE IN CERTAIN PATENTED ELECTRICAL DEVICES.  THE RESTRAINT ALLEGED
AROSE FROM A CROSS-LICENSE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE PATENT OWNERS, LINE
MATERIAL COMPANY AND SOUTHERN STATES EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, TO FIX THE
SALE PRICE OF THE DEVICES, TO WHICH ARRANGEMENT THE OTHER APPELLEES,
LICENSEES TO MAKE AND VEND, ADHERED BY SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACTS.  FN2 

THE DISTRICT COURT, 64 F.SUPP.  970, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AS TO
ALL DEFENDANTS UPON ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE RULE OF UNITED STATES V.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, WAS CONTROLLING.  THAT CASE
APPROVED AS LAWFUL A PATENTEE'S LICENSE TO MAKE AND VEND WHICH REQUIRED
THE LICENSEE IN ITS SALES OF THE PATENTED DEVICES TO CONFORM TO THE
LICENSOR'S SALE PRICE SCHEDULE.  APPEAL WAS TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT, 32 STAT. 823, AND PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED HERE ON OCTOBER
21, 1946.  WE HAVE JURISDICTION.  FN3

                      I. THE FACTS. 

THE CHALLENGED ARRANGEMENTS CENTER AROUND THREE PRODUCT PATENTS,
WHICH ARE USEFUL IN PROTECTING AN ELECTRIC CIRCUIT FROM THE DANGERS
INCIDENT TO A SHORT CIRCUIT OR OTHER OVERLOAD.  TWO OF THEM ARE DROPOUT
FUSE CUTOUTS AND THE THIRD IS A HOUSING SUITABLE FOR USE WITH ANY
CUTOUT.  DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS MAY BE USED WITHOUT ANY HOUSING.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT 40.77% OF ALL CUTOUTS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD
BY THESE DEFENDANTS WERE PRODUCED UNDER THESE PATENTS.  THIS WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS MADE IN THE UNITED STATES. 
THERE ARE COMPETITIVE DEVICES THAT PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTIONS
MANUFACTURED BY APPELLEES AND OTHERS UNDER DIFFERENT PATENTS THAN THOSE
HERE INVOLVED. 

THE DOMINANT PATENT, NO. 2,150,102, IN THE FIELD OF DROPOUT FUSE
CUTOUTS WITH DOUBLE JOINTED HINGE CONSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED MARCH 7,
1939, TO THE SOUTHERN STATES EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, ASSIGNEE, ON AN
APPLICATION OF GEORGE N. LEMMON.  FN4  THIS PATENT READS UPON A PATENT
NO. 2,176,227, REISSUED DECEMBER 21, 1943, RE. 22,412, ISSUED OCTOBER
17, 1939 TO LINE MATERIAL COMPANY, ASSIGNEE, ON AN APPLICATION BY
SCHULTZ AND STEINMAYER.  FN5  THE HOUSING PATENT NO. 1,781,876,
REISSUED MARCH 31, 1931, AS RE. 18,020, AND AGAIN FEBRUARY 5, 1935, AS
RE. 19,449, WAS ISSUED NOVEMBER 18, 1930 TO LINE, ASSIGNEE, ON AN
APPLICATION BY W.D. KYLE.  THE KYLE PATENT COVERS A WET-PROCESS
PORCELAIN BOX WITH GREAT DIELECTRIC STRENGTH, WHICH MAY BE ECONOMICALLY
CONSTRUCTED AND HAS BEEN COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL.  WE GIVE NO WEIGHT TO
THE PRESENCE OF THE KYLE PATENT IN THE LICENSES. 

THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE LEMMON AND SCHULTZ PATENTS WERE PENDING
SIMULTANEOUSLY.  THEY WERE DECLARED IN INTERFERENCE AND A CONTEST
RESULTED.  THE DECISION OF THE PATENT OFFICE AWARDING DOMINANT CLAIMS
TO SOUTHERN AND SUBSERVIENT CLAIMS TO LINE ON THE LEMMON AND THE
SCHULTZ APPLICATIONS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY MANUFACTURER TO USE
BOTH PATENTS WHEN LATER ISSUED WITHOUT SOME CROSS-LICENSING
ARRANGEMENT.  CF. TEMCO ELECTRIC MOTOR CO. V. APCO MFG. CO., 275 U.S.
319, 328.  ONLY WHEN BOTH PATENTS COULD BE LAWFULLY USED BY A SINGLE
MAKER COULD THE PUBLIC OR THE PATENTEES OBTAIN THE FULL BENEFIT OF THE
EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY OF THE INVENTIONS.  NEGOTIATIONS WERE STARTED BY
LINE WHICH EVENTUATED IN THE CHALLENGED ARRANGEMENTS. 

THE FIRST DEFINITIVE DOCUMENT WAS A BILATERAL, ROYALTY-FREE, CROSS
LICENSE AGREEMENT OF MAY 23, 1938, BETWEEN SOUTHERN AND LINE AFTER THE
PATENT OFFICE AWARD BUT BEFORE THE PATENTS ISSUED.  THIS, SO FAR AS
HERE PERTINENT, WAS A LICENSE TO SOUTHERN BY LINE TO MAKE AND VEND THE
PROSPECTIVE SCHULTZ PATENTED APPARATUS WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
GRANT LICENSES OR SUBLICENSES TO OTHERS.  LINE ALSO GRANTED SOUTHERN
THE RIGHT TO MAKE AND VEND BUT NOT TO SUBLICENSE THE KYLE PATENT. 
SOUTHERN LICENSED LINE TO MAKE AND VEND BUT NOT TO SUBLICENSE THE
PROSPECTIVE LEMMON PATENT FOR DEFINED EQUIPMENT WHICH INCLUDED THE
SCHULTZ APPARATUS.  SUBLICENSE ROYALTIES AND EXPENSES WERE TO BE
DIVIDED BETWEEN LINE AND SOUTHERN.  ALTHOUGH A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
OF JANUARY 12, 1938, BETWEEN THE PARTIES HAD NO SUCH REQUIREMENT, LINE
AGREED TO SELL EQUIPMENT COVERED BY THE SOUTHERN PATENT AT PRICES NOT
LESS THAN THOSE FIXED BY SOUTHERN.  SOUTHERN MADE THE SAME AGREEMENT
FOR EQUIPMENT COVERED SOLELY BY THE LINE PATENT.  NO REQUIREMENT FOR
PRICE LIMITATION UPON SALES BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS UNDER LICENSE WAS
INCLUDED. 

SIX OF THE OTHER MANUFACTURERS  FN6  HERE INVOLVED WERE ADVISED BY
LINE BY LETTER, DATED JUNE 13, 1938, THAT SOUTHERN HAD AUTHORITY TO
GRANT LICENSES UNDER THE SCHULTZ PROSPECTIVE PATENT.  ON OCTOBER 3,
1938, KEARNEY TOOK FROM SOUTHERN A LICENSE TO PRACTICE THE LEMMON AND
SCHULTZ PATENTS.  THE LICENSE HAD A PRICE, TERM AND CONDITION OF SALE
CLAUSE, GOVERNED BY SOUTHERN'S PRICES, WHICH BOUND KERNEY TO MAINTAIN
THE PRICES ON ITS SALES OF DEVICES COVERED BY THE PATENTS.  ON OCTOBER
7, 1938, THE FIVE OTHER MANUFACTURERS MENTIONED ABOVE WERE OFFERED BY
SOUTHERN THE SAME CONTRACT AS THE STANDARD LICENSOR'S AGREEMENT.  THE
KEARNEY CONTRACT WAS DISCUSSED AT CHICAGO IN OCTOBER, 1938, BY ALL OF
THE ABOVE MANUFACTURERS EXCEPT RAILWAY.  PACIFIC ALSO PARTICIPATED.  IT
NEVER WAS ENFORCED.  THE FIRST PATENT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE DID NOT
ISSUE UNTIL MARCH, 1939.  THOSE MANUFACTURERS WHO WERE MAKING DOUBLE
JOINTED OPEN AND ENCLOSED DROPOUT CUTOUTS WANTED TO AND DID EXPLORE
COOPERATIVELY (F.F. 15) THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS.  THEY FAILED TO
FIND A SATISFACTORY BASIS FOR ATTACK.  THEY WERE FACES WITH
INFRINGEMENT SUITS.  OTHER REASONS DEVELOPED FOR THE REFUSAL OF THE SIX
MANUFACTURERS TO ACCEPT THE KEARNEY FORM CONTRACTS (F.F. 16 & 17)
UNNECESSARY TO DETAIL HERE.  ONE REASON WAS THAT THE PROSPECTIVE
SUBLICENSEES PREFERRED LINE TO SOUTHERN AS LICENSOR BECAUSE OF THE FACT
THAT LINE, AS OWNER AND MANUFACTURER, WOULD LICENSE THE KYLE PATENT. 
NEW ARRANGEMENTS WERE PROPOSED FOR THE LICENSEES.  AFTER MUTUAL
DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE LICENSEES AND PATENTEES, THESE NEW AGREEMENTS
WERE SUBMITTED.  A FINDING TO WHICH NO OBJECTION IS MADE STATES: 

"ON OCTOBER 24, 1939, GENERAL ELECTRIC, WESTINGHOUSE, KEARNEY,
MATTHEWS, SCHWEITZER AND CONRAD, AND RAILWAY MET WITH LINE IN CHICAGO
AND JOINTLY DISCUSSED DRAFTS OF THE PROPOSED LICENSE AGREEMENTS UNDER
THE LEMMON, SCHULTZ, AND KYLE PATENTS.  THEREAFTER, IDENTICAL SETS OF
REVISED LICENSES WERE SENT BY LINE TO GENERAL ELECTRIC, WESTINGHOUSE,
MATTHEWS, SCHWEITZER AND CONRAD, AND THE ATTORNEYS FOR RAILWAY AND
KEARNEY." 

A FORM FOR A PROPOSED LICENSING AGREEMENT THAT CONTAINED THE
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE PRICE PROVISION ULTIMATELY INCLUDED IN THE
LICENSES HAD BEEN CIRCULATED AMONG PROSPECTIVE LICENSEES BY LINE BY
LETTERS UNDER DATE OF OCTOBER 6, 1939. 

TO MEET THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS OF THE FUTURE LICENSEES, THE AGREEMENT
OF MAY 23, 1938, BETWEEN SOUTHERN AND LINE WAS REVISED AS OF JANUARY
12, 1940.  EXCEPT FOR THE SUBSTITUTION OF LINE FOR SOUTHERN AS LICENSOR
OF OTHER MANUFACTURERS, IT FOLLOWS GENERALLY THE FORM OF THE EARLIER
AGREEMENT.  THERE WERE ROYALTY-FREE CROSS-LICENSES OF THE SCHULTZ AND
LEMMON PATENTS SUBSTANTIALLY AS BEFORE.  LINE WAS GIVEN THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO GRANT SUBLICENSES TO OTHERS FOR LEMMON.  FN7 SOUTHERN RETAINED
THE PRIVILEGE, ROYALTY FREE, OF MAKING AND VENDING THE KYLE PATENT,
ALSO.  SOUTHERN BOUND ITSELF TO MAINTAIN PRICES, SO LONG AS LINE
REQUIRED OTHER LICENSEES TO DO SO.  FN8 EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE
PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE LINE-SOUTHERN AGREEMENT PERMITTED SOUTHERN
TO MANUFACTURE UNDER ITS OWN LEMMON PATENT WITHOUT PRICE CONTROL, THE
PRACTICAL RESULT IS THAT SOUTHERN DOES HAVE ITS PRICE FOR ITS PRODUCTS
FIXED BECAUSE THE ONLY COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL FABRICATION IS UNDER A
COMBINATION OF THE LEMMON AND SCHULTZ PATENTS.  FINDINGS OF FACT 7 AND
10. 

THE PRICE MAINTENANCE FEATURE WAS REFLECTED IN ALL THE LICENSES TO
MAKE AND VEND GRANTED BY LINE, UNDER THE LINE-SOUTHERN CONTRACT, TO THE
OTHER APPELLEES.  THERE WERE VARIATIONS IN THE PRICE PROVISIONS THAT
ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT FOR THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE.  A FAIR EXAMPLE
APPEARS BELOW.  FN9 THE EXECUTION OF THESE SUBLICENSES BY THE OTHER
APPELLEES, EXCEPT JOHNSON AND ROYAL, FN10  FOLLOWED WITHIN A YEAR. 
LICENSES WERE EXECUTED BY THE TWO ON JUNE 15, 1943, AND MARCH 24, 1944,
RESPECTIVELY.  AFTER AUGUST 1, 1940, SINCE A NUMBER OF THE APPELLEES
HAD EXECUTED THE LICENSE CONTRACTS, TWO CONSULTATIONS OF THE LICENSEES
AND THE PATENTEES WERE HELD TO CLASSIFY THE PRODUCTS OF THE VARIOUS
LICENSEES IN COMPARISON WITH THE LICENSOR'S DEVICES.  FN11  THE TRIAL
JUDGE FOUND THAT PRICES WERE NOT DISCUSSED.  THESE WERE FIXED BY LINE
WITHOUT DISCUSSION WITH OR ADVICE FROM ANY OTHER APPELLEE.  THERE CAN
BE NO DOUBT, HOWEVER, THAT EACH LICENSEE KNEW OF THE PROPOSED PRICE
PROVISIONS IN THE LICENSES OF OTHER LICENSEES FROM THE CIRCULATION OF
PROPOSED FORM OF LICENSE ON OCTOBER 6, 1939, SUBSEQUENT CONSULTATIONS
AMONG THE LICENSEES AND AN ESCROW AGREEMENT, FULFILLED JULY 11, 1940. 
THAT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO AFTER GENERAL ELECTRIC TOOK ITS LICENSE
AND REQUIRED FOR FULFILLMENT THE ACCEPTANCE OF IDENTICAL LICENSES BY
MATTEWS, KEARNEY AND RAILWAY.  THE LICENSES THAT WERE THE SUBJECT OF
THE ESCROW CONTAINED THE PRICE PROVISIONS OF GENERAL ELECTRIC'S
LICENSE.  THIS AWARENESS BY EACH SIGNER OF THE PRICE PROVISIONS IN
PRIOR CONTRACTS IS CONCEDED BY APPELLEES' BRIEF.  A PRICE SCHEDULE
BECAME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 18, 1941.  THEREAFTER, ALL THE APPELLEES TRIED
TO MAINTAIN PRICES.  WHERE THERE WAS ACCIDENTAL VARIATION, LINE WROTE
THE LICENSEE CALLING ATTENTION TO THE FAILURE.  FN12 

THE LICENSES WERE THE RESULT OF ARM'S LENGTH BARGAINING IN EACH
INSTANCE.  PRICE LIMITATION WAS ACTIVELY OPPOSED IN TOTO OR RESTRICTION
OF ITS SCOPE SOUGHT BY SEVERAL OF THE LICENSEES, INCLUDING GENERAL
ELECTRIC, THE LARGEST PRODUCER OF THE PATENTED APPLIANCES.  A NUMBER
TRIED ENERGETICALLY TO FIND SUBSTITUTES FOR THE DEVICES.  ALL THE
LICENSEES, HOWEVER, WERE FORCED TO ACCEPT THE TERMS OR CEASE
MANUFACTURE.  BY ACCEPTING THEY SECURED RELEASE FROM CLAIMS FOR PAST
INFRINGEMENT THROUGH A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT IN THE LICENSE.  THE
PATENTEES THROUGH THE LICENSES SOUGHT SYSTEM IN THEIR ROYALTY
COLLECTIONS AND PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THEIR PATENT MONOPOLY. 
UNDOUBTEDLY ONE PURPOSE OF THE ARRANGEMENTS WAS TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE
USE BY EACH MANUFACTURER OF THE LEMMON AND SCHULTZ PATENTS.  THESE
PATENTS IN SEPARATE HANDS PRODUCED A DEADLOCK.  LEMMON BY HIS BASIC
PATENT "BLOCKED" SCHULTZ'S IMPROVEMENT.  CROSS-LICENSES FURNISHED
APPELLEES A SOLUTION. 

ON CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREEMENTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING
THEIR NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE
ARRANGEMENTS, AS A WHOLE, WERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH, TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE
MANUFACTURE BY ALL APPELLEES OF THE PATENTED DEVICES, TO GAIN A
LEGITIMATE RETURN TO THE PATENTEES ON THE INVENTIONS; AND THAT, APART
FROM THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS, THERE WAS NO UNDERTAKING BETWEEN THE
APPELLEES OR ANY OF THEM TO FIX PRICES.  FN13  BEING CONVINCED, AS WE
INDICATED AT THE FIRST OF THIS OPINION, THAT THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE
CONTROLLED AND PERMITTED SUCH PRICE ARRANGEMENTS AS ARE DISCLOSED IN
THE CONTRACTS, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE
GOVERNMENT ATTACKS THE RATIONALE OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE AND URGES
THAT IT BE OVERRULED, LIMITED AND EXPLAINED OR DIFFERENTIATED. 

           II.  THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE. 

THAT CASE WAS DECIDED IN 1926 BY A UNANIMOUS COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE
TAFT WRITING.  IT INVOLVED A BILL IN EQUITY TO ENJOIN FURTHER
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  WHILE VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT BY
AGREEMENTS FIXING THE RESALE PRICE OF PATENTED ARTICLES (INCANDESCENT
LIGHT BULBS) SOLD TO DEALERS ALSO WERE ALLEGED IN THE BILL, SO FAR AS
HERE MATERIAL THE PERTINENT ALLEGED VIOLATION WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
GENERAL ELECTRIC AND WESTINGHOUSE COMPANY THROUGH WHICH WESTINGHOUSE
WAS LICENSED TO MANUFACTURE LAMPS UNDER A NUMBER OF GENERAL ELECTRIC'S
PATENTS, INCLUDING A PATENT ON THE USE OF TUNGSTEN FILAMENT IN THE
BULB, ON CONDITION THAT IT SHOULD SELL THEM AT PRICES FIXED BY THE
LICENSOR.  ON CONSIDERING AN OBJECTION TO THE FIXING OF PRICES ON BULBS
WITH A TUNGSTEN FILAMENT, THE PRICE AGREEMENT WAS UPHELD AS A VALID
EXERCISE OF PATENT RIGHTS BY THE LICENSOR. 

SPEAKING OF THE ARRANGEMENT, THIS COURT SAID:  "IF THE PATENTEE  ...
LICENSES THE SELLING OF THE ARTICLES (BY A LICENSEE TO MAKE), MAY HE
LIMIT THE SELLING BY LIMITING THE METHOD OF SALE AND THE PRICE?  WE
THINK HE MAY DO SO, PROVIDED THE CONDITIONS OF SALE ARE NORMALLY AND
REASONABLY ADAPTED TO SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE PATENTEE'S
MONOPOLY."  P. 490.  THIS PROVISO MUST BE READ AS DIRECTED AT
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN A PATENTEE AND A LICENSEE TO MAKE AND VEND.  THE
ORIGINAL CONTEXT OF THE WORDS JUST QUOTED MAKES CLEAR THAT THEY CARRY
NO IMPLICATION OF APPROVAL OF ALL A PATENTEE'S CONTRACTS WHICH TEND TO
INCREASE EARNINGS ON PATENTS.  THE OPINION RECOGNIZES THE FIXED RULE
THAT A SALE OF THE PATENTED ARTICLE PUTS CONTROL OF THE PURCHASER'S
RESALE PRICE BEYOND THE POWER OF THE PATENTEE.  P. 489.  COMPARE UNITED
STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241.  NOR CAN ANYTHING BE FOUND IN
THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE WHICH WILL SERVE AS A BASIS TO ARGUE
OTHERWISE THAN THAT THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE GRANT DEFINE THE LIMITS OF
A PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY AND THE AREA IN WHICH THE PATENTEE IS FREED FROM
COMPETITION OF PRICE, SERVICE, QUALITY OR OTHERWISE.  COMPARE MERCOID
CORPORATION V. MID-CONTINENT INV. CO., 320 U.S. 661, 665, 666; UNITED
STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 277-78, 280; MOTION PICTURE
PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO., 243 U.S. 502, 510. 

GENERAL ELECTRIC IS A CASE THAT HAS PROVOKED CRITICISM AND APPROVAL. 
IT HAD ONLY BARE RECOGNITION IN ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES,
309 U.S. 436, 456.  THAT CASE EMPHASIZED THE RULE AGAINST THE EXTENSION
OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY, P. 456, TO RESALE PRICES OR TO AVOID
COMPETITION AMONG BUYERS.  PAGES 457-58.  WE FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO
RECONSIDER THE RULE IN UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265,
277, ALTHOUGH THE ARRANGEMENT THERE WAS FOR SALE OF PATENTED ARTICLES
AT FIXED PRICES BY DEALERS WHOM THE PATENTEE CLAIMED WERE DEL CREDERE
AGENTS.  AS WE CONCLUDED THE PATENT PRIVILEGE WAS EXHAUSTED BY A
TRANSFER OF THE ARTICLES TO CERTAIN AGENTS WHO WERE PART OF THE SALES
ORGANIZATION OF COMPETITORS, DISCUSSION OF THE PRICE-FIXING LIMITATION
WAS NOT REQUIRED.  IN KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO MFG. CO., 329 U.S. 394,
398, WHERE A SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RECOVER ROYALTIES ON A LICENSE WITH
PRICE LIMITATIONS, THIS COURT REFUSED TO EXAMINE THE GENERAL ELECTRIC
RULE BECAUSE OF THE CLAIMED ILLEGALITY OF THE KATZINGER PATENT.  IF THE
PATENT WERE INVALID, THE PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENT WOULD BE UNLAWFUL.  WE
AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN REMANDING THE
CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT. 
THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE WAS CITED WITH APPROVAL IN CARBICE CORP. V.
AMERICAN PATENTS DEVELOPMENT CORP., 283 U.S. 27, 31.  OTHER COURTS HAVE
EXPLAINED OR DISTINGUISHED THE GENERAL ELECTRIC RULE.  FN14  AS A
REASON FOR ASKING THIS COURT TO REEXAMINE THE RULE OF THE GENERAL
ELECTRIC CASE, THE GOVERNMENT STATES THAT PRICE MAINTENANCE UNDER
PATENTS THROUGH VARIOUS TYPES OF AGREEMENTS IS INVOLVED IN CERTAIN
PENDING CASES.  FN15  FURTHERMORE, THE POINT IS MADE THAT THERE IS SUCH
A "HOST OF DIFFICULT AND UNSETTLED QUESTIONS" ARISING FROM THE GENERAL
ELECTRIC HOLDING THAT THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION IS TO OVERRULE THE
PRECEDENT ON THE POWER OF A PATENTEE TO ESTABLISH SALE PRICES OF A
LICENSEE TO MAKE AND VEND A PATENTED ARTICLE.  FN16 

SUCH A LIQUIDATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF A PATENTEE'S POWER TO DETERMINE
A LICENSEE'S SALE PRICE OF A PATENTED ARTICLE WOULD SOLVE PROBLEMS
ARISING FROM ITS ADOPTION.  SINCE 1902, HOWEVER, WHEN BEMENT V.
NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, WAS DECIDED, A PATENTEE HAS BEEN ABLE
TO CONTROL HIS LICENSEE'S SALE PRICE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PATENT
MONOPOLY.  FN17  LITIGATION THAT THE RULE HAS ENGENDERED PROVES THAT
BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY, EVEN THOUGH HESITATINGLY,
MADE IN RELIANCE UPON THE CONTRACTORS' INTERPRETATION OF ITS MEANING. 
APPELLEES URGE THAT CONGRESS HAS TAKEN NO STEPS TO MODIFY THE RULE. 
FN18  SUCH LEGISLATIVE ATTITUDE IS TO BE WEIGHED WITH THE
COUNTERBALANCING FACT THAT THE RULE OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE GREW
OUT OF A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  THE WRITER ACCEPTS THE RULE OF THE
GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE AS INTERPRETED BY THE THIRD SUBDIVISION OF THIS
OPINION.  AS A MAJORITY OF THE COURT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THAT POSITION,
THE CASE CANNOT BE REAFFIRMED ON THAT BASIS.  NEITHER IS THERE A
MAJORITY TO OVERRULE GENERAL ELECTRIC.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE MUST
PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT GENERAL ELECTRIC
CONTINUES AS A PRECEDENT.  FURTHERMORE, WE DO NOT THINK IT WISE TO
UNDERTAKE TO EXPLAIN, FURTHER THAN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE REQUIRE, OUR
VIEWS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF PATENT PRICE LIMITATION IN THE VARIOUS
SITUATIONS LISTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  ON THAT ASSUMPTION WHERE A
CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE OR AN EFFORT TO MONOPOLIZE IS NOT
INVOLVED, A PATENTEE MAY LICENSE ANOTHER TO MAKE AND VEND THE PATENTED
DEVICE WITH A PROVISION THAT THE LICENSEE'S SALE PRICE SHALL BE FIXED
BY THE PATENTEE.  THE ASSUMPTION IS STATED IN THIS WAY SO AS TO LEAVE
ASIDE THE MANY VARIABLES OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC RULE THAT MAY ARISE. 
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MAY BE AN AGGREGATION OF PATENTS TO OBTAIN DOMINANCE
IN A PATENT FIELD, BROAD OR NARROW, OR A PATENT MAY BE USED AS A PEG
UPON WHICH TO ATTACH CONTRACTS WITH FORMER OR PROSPECTIVE COMPETITORS,
TOUCHING BUSINESS RELATIONS OTHER THAN THE MAKING AND VENDING OF
PATENTED DEVICES.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO.,
POST, P. 364, DECIDED TODAY; UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S.
265. 

IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO SPECIFY CERTAIN POINTS THAT EITHER ARE NOT
CONTESTED OR ARE NOT DECIDED IN THIS CASE.  THE AGREEMENTS, IF ILLEGAL,
RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONTRARY TO THE SHERMAN ACT.  NO ISSUE OF
MONOPOLY IS INVOLVED.  (F.F. 31.)  CF. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 788.  THAT IS TO SAY, THE COMPLAINT CHARGES
RESTRAINT OF TRADE UNDER SEC. 1 AND DOES NOT CHARGE "MONOPOLY" UNDER
SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, SO THAT WE NEED NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS
OF CONSOLIDATION, MERGER, PURCHASE OF COMPETITORS OR SIZE OF BUSINESS
AS TENDING TOWARD ATTAINING MONOPOLY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE
MACHINERY CO., 247 U.S. 32, 44-55; UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF
AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, 427-31; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO.,
221 U.S. 106, 181-83; UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251
U.S. 417, 451.  WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A CHARGE OF MONOPOLY OR
RESTRAINT BECAUSE OF THE AGGREGATION OF PATENTS, BY POOLING OR
PURCHASE, BY AN OWNER OR OWNERS, IN A SINGLE INDUSTRY OR FIELD.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO., 247 U.S. 32.  WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF THE PATENTEE'S RIGHTS UNDER HIS PATENT, MONOPOLY OF THE
PROCESS OR PRODUCT BY HIM IS AUTHORIZED BY THE PATENT STATUTES.  IT IS
STIPULATED BY THE UNITED STATES THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS IS NOT
IN ISSUE.  WITH THESE POINTS LAID ASIDE, WE PROCEED TO THE ISSUES
PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD. 

                III.  THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE. 

UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASSUMPTION AS TO GENERAL ELECTRIC, THE
ULTIMATE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION ON THIS APPEAL MAY BE STATED,
SUCCINCTLY AND ABSTRACTLY, TO BE AS TO WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE
PROHIBITION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, NOTE 1, SUPRA, TWO OR MORE
PATENTEES IN THE SAME PATENT FIELD MAY LEGALLY COMBINE THEIR VALID
PATENT MONOPOLIES TO SECURE MUTUAL BENEFITS FOR THEMSELVES THROUGH
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS, BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND OTHER LICENSEES, FOR
CONTROL OF THE SALE PRICE OF THE PATENTED DEVICES. 

THE APPELLEES URGE THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, QUOTED IN
NOTE 13 SUPRA, STAND AS BARRIERS TO A CONCLUSION HERE THAT SEC. 1 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY THE LICENSES.  SINCE THERE WAS
MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING OF THE
EVIDENTIARY FACTS AND THE COURT NECESSARILY WEIGHED THE CREDIBILITY OF
THE WITNESSES AND THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THEIR TESTIMONY TO ESTABLISH
APPELLEES' CONTENTIONS, APPELLEES INSIST THAT THE INFERENCES OR
CONCLUSIONS AS TO VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, DRAWN BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, MUST BE ACCEPTED BY US.  FN19 AS TO THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS
HERETOFORE STATED, THERE IS NO DISPUTE.  FROM THEM THE DISTRICT COURT
MADE FINDINGS OF FACT NOS. 32 TO 36, INCLUSIVE, HEREINBEFORE SET OUT IN
NOTE 13.  EVEN THOUGH WE ACCEPT, AS WE DO, THESE FINDINGS ON
PRELIMINARY FACTS AS CORRECT, THE LAST SENTENCE IN FINDINGS 32 AND 34
CRUMBLES THEIR ASSERTED BAR TO AN EXAMINATION BY US AS TO WHETHER THE
AGREEMENTS ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THOSE SENTENCES ARE TO
THE EFFECT THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO FIX PRICES BETWEEN ALL
PARTIES IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACTS AS SET OUT IN NOTES 8 AND 9
SUPRA.  IF THE PATENT RIGHTS DO NOT EMPOWER THE PATENTEES TO FIX SALE
PRICES FOR OTHERS, THE AGREEMENTS DO VIOLATE THE ACT.  THE PREVIOUS
SUMMARY IN THIS OPINION OF THE AGREEMENTS WHICH COMPOSE THESE
ARRANGEMENTS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE AGREEMENTS WERE INTENDED TO AND DID
FIX PRICES ON THE PATENTED DEVICES.  COMPARE INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V.
UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208, 226.  WHILE LINE'S SUBLICENSES TO OTHERS
THAN GENERAL ELECTRIC, NOTE 9, GAVE TO LINE THE POWER WHICH IT
EXERCISED TO FIX PRICES ONLY FOR DEVICES EMBODYING ITS OWN SCHULTZ
PATENT, THE SUBLICENSE AGREEMENTS LICENSED THE USE OF THE DOMINANT
LEMMON PATENT.  AS THE SCHULTZ PATENT COULD NOT BE PRACTICED WITHOUT
THE LEMMON, THE RESULT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUTHERN AND LINE FOR
LINE'S SUBLICENSING OF THE LEMMON PATENT WAS TO COMBINE IN LINE'S HANDS
THE AUTHORITY TO FIX THE PRICES OF THE COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL DEVICES
EMBODYING BOTH THE SCHULTZ AND LEMMON PATENTS.  THUS, THOUGH THE
SUBLICENSES IN TERMS FOLLOWED THE PATTERN OF GENERAL ELECTRIC IN FIXING
PRICES ONLY ON LINE'S OWN PATENTS, THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT GIVEN TO LINE
BY THE LICENSE AGREEMENT OF JANUARY 12, 1940, BETWEEN SOUTHERN AND
LINE, TO BE THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSOR OF THE DOMINANT LEMMON PATENT, MADE
ITS PRICE FIXING OF ITS OWN SCHULTZ DEVICES EFFECTIVE OVER DEVICES
EMBODYING ALSO THE NECESSARY LEMMON PATENT.  SEE NOTE 9.  BY THE
PATENTEES' AGREEMENT THE DOMINANT LEMMON AND THE SUBSERVIENT SCHULTZ
PATENTS WERE COMBINED TO FIX PRICES.  IN THE ABSENCE OF PATENT OR OTHER
STATUTORY  FN20 AUTHORIZATION, A CONTRACT TO FIX OR MAINTAIN PRICES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS ILLEGAL PER SE UNDER
THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN21  THIS IS TRUE WHETHER THE FIXED PRICE IS
REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE.  IT IS ALSO TRUE WHETHER IT IS A PRICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRODUCERS FOR SALE OR BETWEEN PRODUCER AND
DISTRIBUTOR FOR RESALE. 

IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE POSSESSION OF A VALID PATENT OR
PATENTS DOES NOT GIVE THE PATENTEE ANY EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
THE SHERMAN ACT BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY.  FN22  BY
AGGREGATING PATENTS IN ONE CONTROL, THE HOLDER OF THE PATENTS CANNOT
ESCAPE THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  SEE STANDARD SANITARY MFG.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20; UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES
GYPSUM CO., POST, P. 364.  DURING ITS TERM, A VALID PATENT EXCLUDES ALL
EXCEPT ITS OWNER FROM THE USE OF THE PROTECTED PROCESS OR PRODUCT. 
UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO., 247 U.S. 32, 58; SPECIAL
EQUIPMENT CO. V. COE, 324 U.S. 370, 378.  THIS MONOPOLY MAY BE ENJOYED
EXCLUSIVELY BY THE PATENTEE OR HE MAY ASSIGN THE PATENT "OR ANY
INTEREST THEREIN" TO OTHERS.  REV. STAT. SEC. 4898, AS AMENDED 55 STAT.
634.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, A PATENTEE MAY LICENSE OTHERS TO MAKE AND
VEND HIS INVENTION AND COLLECT A ROYALTY THEREFOR.  THUS WE HAVE A
STATUTORY MONOPOLY BY THE PATENT AND BY THE SHERMAN ACT A PROHIBITION,
NOT ONLY OF MONOPOLY OR ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE, BUT OF EVERY AGREEMENT
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  PUBLIC POLICY HAS CONDEMNED MONOPOLIES FOR
CENTURIES.  THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES, DARCY V. ALLEIN, 11 CO. REP. 84-B.
SEE UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, 428-49. 
SEE EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1946, SEC. 2, 60 STAT. 23.  OUR CONSTITUTION
ALLOWS PATENTS.  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 8.  THE PROGRESS OF OUR ECONOMY
HAS OFTEN BEEN SAID TO OWE MUCH TO THE STIMULUS TO INVENTION GIVEN BY
THE REWARDS ALLOWED BY PATENT LEGISLATION.  THE SHERMAN ACT WAS ENACTED
TO PREVENT RESTRAINTS OF COMMERCE BUT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS
RECOGNIZING THAT PATENT GRANTS WERE AN EXCEPTION.  BEMENT V. NATIONAL
HARROW CO., SUPRA, 92, 21 CONG. REC. 2457.  PUBLIC SERVICE
ORGANIZATIONS, GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE, ASIDE, OUR ECONOMY IS BUILT
LARGELY UPON COMPETITION IN QUALITY AND PRICES.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V.
UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 12-14.  VALIDATION BY CONGRESS OF AGREEMENTS
TO EXCLUDE COMPETITION IS UNUSUAL.  FN23  MONOPOLY IS A PROTEAN THREAT
TO FAIR PRICES.  IT IS A TANTALIZING OBJECTIVE TO ANY BUSINESS
COMPELLED TO MEET THE EFFORTS OF COMPETITORS TO SUPPLY THE MARKET. 
PERHAPS NO SINGLE FACT MANIFESTS THE POWER AND WILL TO MONOPOLIZE MORE
THAN PRICE CONTROL OF THE ARTICLE MONOPOLIZED.  THERE CAN BE NO CLEARER
EVIDENCE OF RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE EVIL SOCIAL EFFECT
OF CUTTHROAT COMPETITION ON PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS THROUGH THE
LOWERING OF LABOR STANDARDS AND THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCE AND THE
OBLITERATION OF THE MARGINAL TO THE BENEFIT OF THE SURVIVING AND LOW
COST PRODUCERS, THE ADVANTAGES OF COMPETITION IN OPENING REWARDS TO
MANAGEMENT, IN ENCOURAGING INITIATIVE, IN GIVING LABOR IN EACH INDUSTRY
AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS AND CONSUMERS A
SELECTION OF PRODUCT AND PRICE, HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO OVERBALANCE THE
DISADVANTAGES.  THE STRENGTH OF SIZE ALONE, THE DISAPPEARANCE OF SMALL
BUSINESS ARE EVER-PRESENT DANGERS IN COMPETITION.  DESPITE POSSIBLE
ADVANTAGES TO A STABLE ECONOMY FROM EFFICIENT CARTELS WITH FIRM OR
FIXED PRICES FOR PRODUCTS, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY AND ACCEPTED JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT THAT
COMPETITION ON PRICES IS THE RULE OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND THAT,
WHERE EXCEPTIONS ARE MADE, CONGRESS SHOULD MAKE THEM.  THE MONOPOLY
GRANTED BY THE PATENT LAWS IS A STATUTORY EXCEPTION TO THIS FREEDOM FOR
COMPETITION AND CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN CONSTRUED AS LIMITED TO THE
PATENT GRANT.  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436,
452, 455; UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241; HARTFORD
EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386.  IT IS NOT THE MONOPOLY OF
THE PATENT THAT IS INVALID.  IT IS THE IMPROPER USE OF THAT MONOPOLY. 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PATENTS BY SEPARATE CORPORATIONS OR BY COOPERATING
UNITS OF AN INDUSTRY THROUGH AN ORGANIZED RESEARCH GROUP IS A WELL
KNOWN PHENOMENON.  HOWEVER FAR ADVANCED OVER THE LONE INVENTOR'S
EXPERIMENTATION THIS METHOD OF SEEKING IMPROVEMENT IN THE PRACTICES OF
THE ARTS AND SCIENCES MAY BE, THERE CAN BE NO OBJECTION, ON THE SCORE
OF ILLEGALITY, EITHER TO THE MERE SIZE OF SUCH A GROUP OR THE
THOROUGHNESS OF ITS RESEARCH.  IT MAY BE TRUE, AS CARLYLE SAID, THAT
"GENIUS IS AN INFINITE CAPACITY FOR TAKING PAINS."  CERTAINLY THE
DOCTRINE THAT CONTROL OF PRICES, OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF A PATENT
MONOPOLY, VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT IS AS WELL UNDERSTOOD BY CONGRESS AS
BY ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES. 

WE ARE THUS CALLED UPON TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE LAWFUL
RESTRAINT ON TRADE OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY AND THE ILLEGAL RESTRAINT
PROHIBITED BROADLY BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  THAT ADJUSTMENT HAS ALREADY
REACHED THE POINT, AS THE PRECEDENTS NOW STAND, THAT A PATENTEE MAY
VALIDLY LICENSE A COMPETITOR TO MAKE AND VEND WITH A PRICE LIMITATION
UNDER THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE AND THAT THE GRANT OF PATENT RIGHTS IS
THE LIMIT OF FREEDOM FROM COMPETITION UNDER THE CASES FIRST CITED AT
NOTE 22. 

WITH THE POSTULATES IN MIND THAT PRICE LIMITATIONS ON PATENTED
DEVICES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF A PATENT MONOPOLY VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT
AND THAT PATENT GRANTS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY, THE QUESTION OF
THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE PRICE LIMITATIONS IN THESE AGREEMENTS MAY BE
READILY ANSWERED.  NOTHING IN THE PATENT STATUTE SPECIFICALLY GIVES A
RIGHT TO FIX THE PRICE AT WHICH A LICENSEE MAY VEND THE PATENTED
ARTICLE.  35 U.S.C. SECS. 40, 47.  WHILE THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE
HOLDS THAT A PATENTEE MAY, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, LAWFULLY CONTROL
THE PRICE THE LICENSEE OF HIS SEVERAL PATENTS MAY CHARGE FOR THE
PATENTED DEVICE, NO CASE OF THIS COURT HAS CONSTRUED THE PATENT AND
ANTI-MONOPOLY STATUTES TO PERMIT SEPARATE OWNERS OF SEPARATE PATENTS BY
CROSS-LICENSES OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS TO FIX THE PRICES TO BE CHARGED BY
THEM AND THEIR LICENSEES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE PRODUCTS.  WHERE TWO OR
MORE PATENTEES WITH COMPETITIVE, NON-INFRINGING PATENTS COMBINE THEM
AND FIX PRICES ON ALL DEVICES PRODUCED UNDER ANY OF THE PATENTS,
COMPETITION IS IMPEDED TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN WHERE A SINGLE PATENTEE
FIXES PRICES FOR HIS LICENSEES.  THE STRUGGLE FOR PROFIT IS LESS
ACUTE.  EVEN WHEN, AS HERE, THE DEVICES ARE NOT COMMERCIALLY
COMPETITIVE BECAUSE THE SUBSERVIENT PATENT CANNOT BE PRACTICED WITHOUT
CONSENT OF THE DOMINANT, THE STATEMENT HOLDS GOOD.  THE STIMULUS TO
SEEK COMPETITIVE INVENTIONS IS REDUCED BY THE MUTUALLY ADVANTAGEOUS
PRICE-FIXING ARRANGEMENT.  COMPARE, AS TO ACTS BY A SINGLE ENTITY AND
THOSE DONE IN COMBINATION WITH OTHERS, SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES,
196 U.S. 375, 396; UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 226 U.S. 324, 357;
EASTERN STATES LUMBER DEALERS' ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600;
BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291.  THE MERGING OF THE BENEFITS
OF PRICE FIXING UNDER THE PATENTS RESTRAINS TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT IN THE SAME WAY AS WOULD THE FIXING OF PRICES BETWEEN
PRODUCERS OF NONPATENTABLE GOODS. 

IF THE OBJECTION IS MADE THAT A PRICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN A PATENTEE
AND A LICENSEE EQUALLY RESTRAINS TRADE, THE ANSWER IS NOT THAT THERE IS
NO RESTRAINT IN SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT BUT, WHEN THE VALIDITY OF THE
GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE IS ASSUMED, THAT REASONABLE RESTRAINT ACCORDS
WITH THE PATENT MONOPOLY GRANTED BY THE PATENT LAW.  WHERE A PATENTEE
UNDERTAKES TO EXPLOIT HIS PATENT BY PRICE FIXING THROUGH AGREEMENTS
WITH ANYONE, HE MUST GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT ON SUCH ACTION.  THE PATENT STATUTES GIVE AN EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO THE PATENTEE TO MAKE, USE AND VEND AND TO ASSIGN ANY INTEREST
IN THIS MONOPOLY TO OTHERS.  THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE CONSTRUES THAT
AS GIVING A RIGHT TO A PATENTEE TO LICENSE ANOTHER TO MAKE AND VEND AT
A FIXED PRICE.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE PATENT STATUTES OF
AUTHORITY TO COMBINE WITH OTHER PATENT OWNERS TO FIX PRICES ON ARTICLES
COVERED BY THE RESPECTIVE PATENTS.  AS THE SHERMAN ACT PROHIBITS
AGREEMENTS TO FIX PRICES, ANY ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PATENTEES RUNS AFOUL
OF THAT PROHIBITION AND IS OUTSIDE THE PATENT MONOPOLY. 

WE TURN NOW TO THE SITUATION HERE PRESENTED OF AN AGREEMENT WHERE ONE
OF THE PATENTEES IS AUTHORIZED TO FIX PRICES UNDER THE PATENTS.  THE
ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENTS IS THAT IF A PATENTEE MAY CONTRACT WITH HIS
LICENSEE TO FIX PRICES, IT IS LOGICAL TO PERMIT ANY NUMBER OF PATENTEES
TO COMBINE THEIR PATENTS AND AUTHORIZE ONE PATENTEE TO FIX PRICES FOR
ANY NUMBER OF LICENSEES.  IN THIS PRESENT AGREEMENT SOUTHERN AND LINE
HAVE ENTERED INTO AN ARRANGEMENT BY WHICH LINE IS AUTHORIZED TO AND HAS
FIXED PRICES FOR DEVICES PRODUCED UNDER THE LEMMON AND SCHULTZ
PATENTS.  IT SEEMS TO US, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH ARGUMENT FAILS TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF SUCH MULTIPLE AGREEMENTS IN
ESTABLISHING AN INTENTION TO RESTRAIN.  THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE AND EFFECT
OF THE AGREEMENT WAS TO ENABLE LINE TO FIX PRICES FOR THE PATENTED
DEVICES.  EVEN WHERE THE AGREEMENTS TO FIX PRICES ARE LIMITED TO A
SMALL NUMBER OF PATENTEES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT CROSSES THE
BARRIER ERECTED BY THE SHERMAN ACT AGAINST RESTRAINT OF TRADE THOUGH
THE RESTRAINT IS BY PATENTEES AND THEIR LICENSEES. 

AS EARLY AS 1912, IN STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226
U.S. 20, THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY CONDEMNED PRICE LIMITATION UNDER POOLED
FN24  PATENT LICENSES.  FN25  AS THE ARRANGEMENT WAS COUPLED WITH AN
AGREEMENT FOR LIMITATION ON JOBBERS' RESALE PRICES, THE CASE MAY BE
SAID TO BE INDECISIVE ON PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS FOR PRICE CONTROL OF
A PRODUCT WITHOUT THE JOBBER'S RESALE PROVISION.  NO SUCH DISTINCTION
APPEARS IN THE OPINION.  THIS COURT HAS NOT DEPARTED FROM THAT
CONDEMNATION OF PRICE FIXING.  EVEN IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 163, WHERE AN ARRANGEMENT BY WHICH THE PATENTEES
POOLED THEIR OIL CRACKING PATENTS AND DIVIDED AMONG THEMSELVES
ROYALTIES FROM LICENSEES FIXED BY THE POOLING CONTRACTS WAS UPHELD, THE
THEORY WAS REITERATED THAT A PRICE LIMITATION FOR THE PRODUCT WAS
UNLAWFUL PER SE.  PP. 170, 173, 175.  OF COURSE, IF A PURPOSE OR PLAN
TO MONOPOLIZE OR RESTRAIN TRADE IS FOUND, THE ARRANGEMENT IS UNLAWFUL. 
P. 174.  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION IN THAT CASE THAT THE LIMITATION
ON ROYALTIES IN ITSELF VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT BY FIXING AN ELEMENT IN
THE PRICE WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT
CONTROLLED ROYALTIES WERE EFFECTIVE AS PRICE REGULATORS ONLY WHEN THE
PATENTEES DOMINATED THE INDUSTRY.  P. 174.  THIS DOMINATION WAS THOUGHT
BY THIS COURT NOT TO HAVE BEEN PROVEN. 

WHEN A PLAN FOR THE PATENTEE TO FIX THE SALE PRICES OF PATENTED
SYNTHETIC HARDBOARD ON SALES MADE THROUGH FORMERLY COMPETING
MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS, DESIGNATED AS DEL CREDERE AGENTS, FN26
CAME BEFORE THIS COURT ON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE PLAN WAS IN VIOLATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT, WE INVALIDATED THE SCHEME.  WE SAID THAT THE PATENTEE
COULD NOT USE ITS COMPETITOR'S SALES ORGANIZATION AS ITS OWN AGENTS SO
AS TO CONTROL PRICES.  THE PATENT MONOPOLY, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES,
WE SAID, WAS EXHAUSTED ON DISPOSITION OF THE PRODUCT TO THE
DISTRIBUTOR.  WE REASONED THAT SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WAS A RESTRICTION ON
OUR FREE ECONOMY, "A POWERFUL INDUCEMENT TO ABANDON COMPETITION," AND
THAT IT DEROGATED "FROM THE GENERAL LAW (AGAINST PRICE LIMITATION)
BEYOND THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS OF THE PATENT STATUTE."  UNITED
STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 281, 280. 

WE THINK THAT THIS GENERAL RULE AGAINST PRICE LIMITATION CLEARLY
APPLIES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  EVEN IF A PATENTEE HAS A
RIGHT IN THE ABSENCE OF A PURPOSE TO RESTRAIN OR MONOPOLIZE TRADE, TO
FIX PRICES ON A LICENSEE'S SALE OF THE PATENTED PRODUCT IN ORDER TO
EXPLOIT PROPERLY HIS INVENTION OR INVENTIONS, WHEN PATENTEES JOIN IN AN
AGREEMENT AS HERE TO MAINTAIN PRICES ON THEIR SEVERAL PRODUCTS, THAT
AGREEMENT, HOWEVER ADVANTAGEOUS IT MAY BE TO STIMULATE THE BROADER USE
OF PATENTS, IS UNLAWFUL PER SE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT IS MORE THAN
AN EXPLOITATION OF PATENTS.  THERE IS THE VICE THAT PATENTEES HAVE
COMBINED TO FIX PRICES ON PATENTED PRODUCTS.  IT IS NOT THE CROSS
LICENSING TO PROMOTE EFFICIENT PRODUCTION WHICH IS UNLAWFUL.  THERE IS
NOTHING UNLAWFUL IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT A LICENSEE SHOULD PAY A
ROYALTY TO COMPENSATE THE PATENTEE FOR THE INVENTION AND THE USE OF THE
PATENT.  THE UNLAWFUL ELEMENT IS THE USE OF THE CONTROL THAT SUCH CROSS
LICENSING GIVES TO FIX PRICES.  THE MERE FACT THAT A PATENTEE USES HIS
PATENT AS WHOLE OR PART CONSIDERATION IN A CONTRACT BY WHICH HE AND
ANOTHER OR OTHER PATENTEES IN THE SAME PATENT FIELD ARRANGE FOR THE
PRACTICE OF ANY PATENT INVOLVED IN SUCH A WAY THAT ROYALTIES OR OTHER
EARNINGS OR BENEFITS FROM THE PATENT OR PATENTS ARE SHARED AMONG THE
PATENTEES, PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT, SUBJECTS THAT CONTRACT TO THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT WHENEVER THE SELLING PRICE, FOR THINGS
PRODUCED UNDER A PATENT INVOLVED, IS FIXED BY THE CONTRACT OR A LICENSE
AUTHORIZED BY THE CONTRACT.  LICENSEES UNDER THE CONTRACT WHO AS HERE
ENTER INTO LICENSE ARRANGEMENTS, WITH PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS, WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTRACT, ARE EQUALLY SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITIONS. 

THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED
FOR THE ENTRY OF AN APPROPRIATE DECREE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS
OPINION. 

FN1  26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED BY 36 STAT. 1167: 

"SEC. 1.  EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL.  ...  " 

"SEC. 4.  THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THIS
ACT; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY TO PREVENT AND
RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS.  ...  " 

FN2  THE NAMES OF APPELLEES AND THE ABBREVIATIONS HEREINAFTER USED AS
WELL AS THE PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION OF THE DROPOUT FUSE DEVICES
MANUFACTURED UNDER THE PATENTS ARE LISTED BELOW:

              APPELLEE                    ABBREVIATED TITLE
PERCENT 

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. ...................GENERAL ELECTRIC ........
29.2 

LINE MATERIAL CO. ......................LINE ....................
25.4 

JAMES R. KEARNEY CORP. .................KEARNEY .................
18.9 

SOUTHERN STATES EQUIPMENT CORP. ........SOUTHERN ................
7.9 

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. ............WESTINGHOUSE ............
5.3 

SCHWEITZER & CONRAD, INC. ..............SCHWEITZER & CONRAD .....
5.1 

RAILWAY & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CO. ...RAILWAY .................
3.8 

W.N. MATTHEWS CORP. ....................MATTHEWS ................
2.0 PORCELAIN PRODUCTS CO. ...$LPORCELAIN ...$R1.5 

ROYAL ELECTRIC MFG. CO. ................ROYAL ...................
.5 

PACIFIC ELECTRIC MFG. CO. ..............PACIFIC .................
.2 

T. F. JOHNSON.  .........................JOHNSON .................
.2

   ----------

                        100.0 

ALL ARE CORPORATIONS OF VARIOUS STATES EXCEPT T. F. JOHNSON, DOING
BUSINESS AS JOHNSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA. 

FN3  THE CASE WAS ARGUED APRIL 29, 1947, AND AT OUR REQUEST REARGUED
NOVEMBER 12-13, 1947.  UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO.,
DECIDED TODAY, POST, P. 364, CONSIDERS RELATED PHASES OF SHERMAN ACT
LEGISLATION. 

FN4  "  ...  THE LEMMON DEVICE CONSISTS ESSENTIALLY OF AN EXPULSION
TUBE SUPPORTED BY A DOUBLE JOINTED HINGE AT ITS LOWER END.  AS THE TUBE
MOVES INTO CLOSED CIRCUIT POSITION, THE HINGE IS LOCKED AND A LATCH
ENGAGES A TERMINAL ON TOP OF THE TUBE TO HOLD THE TUBE IN PLACE.  THE
HINGE IS RELEASED BY A RELATIVELY COMPLICATED AND EXPENSIVE SOLENOID
MECHANISM WHEN THE CURRENT BECOMES EXCESSIVE BECAUSE OF A SHORT CIRCUIT
OR OVERLOAD.  THEREUPON THE CIRCUIT IS BROKEN IN THE TUBE AND THE TUBE
DROPS DOWNWARDLY, ITS UPPER END DISENGAGING FROM THE LATCH, WHICH
PERMITS THE TUBE TO SWING OUT AND DOWN.  BY REASON OF CLAIMS COVERING
THE DOUBLE JOINTED HINGE CONSTRUCTION IN CUTOUTS, THIS PATENT DOMINATES
THE MANUFACTURE OF DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT." 
FINDINGS OF FACT, NO. 6. 

FN5  "  ...  THE SCHULTZ PATENT COVERS A DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUT WHICH IS
AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE DEVICE DISCLOSED IN THE LEMMON PATENT, AND IS
DOMINATED BY THE LEMMON PATENT.  IN THE SCHULTZ STRUCTURE AN EXPULSION
TUBE IS SUPPORTED BY A DOUBLE JOINTED HINGE WHICH IS HELD RIGID BY A
FUSE LINK.  ON OVERLOAD, THE FUSE MELTS, BREAKING THE CIRCUIT IN THE
TUBE AND THE HINGE IS RELEASED AUTOMATICALLY, WHICH PERMITS THE TUBE TO
DROP DOWN AND THEN SWING OUTWARDLY.  THIS SCHULTZ DROPOUT FUSE IS MUCH
SIMPLER, AND CAN BE MANUFACTURED AT CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN THE COST OF
A COMPARABLE SOLENOID OPERATED CUTOUT, AND HAS MET WIDESPREAD
COMMERCIAL DEMAND AND USE."  FINDINGS OF FACT, NO. 7. 

FN6  SCHWEITZER & CONRAD, GENERAL ELECTRIC, WESTINGHOUSE, RAILWAY,
KEARNEY, MATTHEWS. 

FN7  "THE SOUTHERN CORPORATION GRANTS TO THE LINE COMPANY A FULLY PAID
LICENSE TO MAKE, USE AND SELL, WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO GRANT SUB
LICENSES TO OTHERS TO MAKE, USE AND SELL, EXPULSION TUBE ELECTRIC
CIRCUIT INTERRUPTING EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE CIRCUIT INTERRUPTION IS
CAUSED BY THE THERMALLY INITIATED RUPTURING OF A CURRENT CARRYING
ELEMENT IN AN EXPULSION TUBE, COMING UNDER CLAIMS 3, 4 TO 10,
INCLUSIVE, 15 TO 22 INCLUSIVE, 25, AND 27 TO 30 OF THE PATENT TO G. N.
LEMMON, NO. 2,150,102, DATED MARCH 7, 1939, ENTITLED "CIRCUIT BREAKER"
AND/OR ANY DIVISION, CONTINUATION, SUBSTITUTE, RENEWAL AND/OR REISSUE
THEREOF."    FN8  "15.  THE LICENSES HEREBY GRANTED OR AGREED TO BE
GRANTED ARE ON THE EXPRESS CONDITION THAT THE PRICES, TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF SALE OF THE SOUTHERN CORPORATION FOR ELECTRIC FUSE
EQUIPMENT MADE AND SOLD UNDER THE LICENSES HEREIN GRANTED SHALL, SO
LONG AS SUCH ELECTRIC FUSE EQUIPMENT CONTINUES TO BE COVERED BY LETTERS
PATENT OF THE LINE COMPANY UNDER WHICH A LICENSE IS GRANTED BY THIS
AGREEMENT, BE NOT MORE FAVORABLE TO THE CUSTOMER THAN THOSE ESTABLISHED
FROM TIME TO TIME AND FOLLOWED BY THE LINE COMPANY IN MAKING ITS
SALES. 

"IT IS THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS AGREEMENT THAT THERE SHALL NOT
BE DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY, ANY MODIFICATION OF THE PRICES SET BY THE
LINE COMPANY AS THEY EXIST FROM TIME TO TIME, AS FOR INSTANCE, BY
INCLUDING IN THE TRANSACTION OTHER MATERIAL OR PARTS, OR LABOR, OR
SERVICES, AT LESS THAN THE REGULAR PRICES AT WHICH THE PARTY MAKING THE
SAME IS AT THE TIME SELLING SUCH OTHER MATERIAL OR PARTS OR FURNISHING
SUCH LABOR OR SERVICES OR BY MAKING ALLOWANCES FOR FREIGHT OR TERMS OF
PAYMENT OTHER THAN THOSE EMPLOYED BY THE LINE COMPANY. 

"PRICES, TERMS AND/OR CONDITIONS OF SALE MAY BE CHANGED BY THE LINE
COMPANY FROM TIME TO TIME THROUGH REASONABLE NOTICE IN WRITING TO THE
SOUTHERN CORPORATION, BUT NOT LESS THAN TEN (10) DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE
SHALL BE GIVEN BEFORE THE CHANGE SHALL GO INTO EFFECT. 

"IT IS AGREED THAT IF THE LINE COMPANY SHALL GRANT A LICENSE TO A
THIRD PARTY UNDER ANY OF THE PATENTS OF THIS AGREEMENT (BUT EXCEPTING
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH A LICENSE TO BE GRANTED TO
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY OF SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK, UNDER SAID KYLE
REISSUE PATENT 19,449), WITHOUT A PROVISION FOR MAINTENANCE BY SAID
THIRD PARTY OF PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALES AS SET FORTH IN
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS SECTION, THEN SOUTHERN CORPORATION SHALL BE
RELIEVED FROM ITS OBLIGATION UNDER SAID SECTION." 

FN9 IN THE LINE-GENERAL ELECTRIC LICENSE AGREEMENT OF MARCH 15, 1940,
THE FIRST UNDER THE REVISED LINE-SOUTHERN CONTRACT, THE PRICE
MAINTENANCE PROVISION WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"9.  THE LICENSE HEREBY GRANTED BY THE LICENSOR IS SUBJECT TO THE
EXPRESS LIMITATIONS THAT 

AS TO DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY LICENSEE WHICH
ARE COMPARABLE IN RESPECT TO GENERAL TYPE AND PURPOSE, AMPERE AND
VOLTAGE RATING, AND RUPTURING CAPACITY, TO DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY LICENSOR, 

LICENSEE'S PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE OF DROPOUT FUSE
CUTOUTS 

FOR USE IN THE UNITED STATES MADE UNDER THE LICENSE HEREIN GRANTED TO
LICENSEE UNDER THE AFORESAID LETTERS PATENT, LEMMON NO. 2,150,102, AND
SCHULTZ AND STEINMAYER NO. 2,176,227, AND AS LONG AS SUCH DROPOUT FUSE
CUTOUTS CONTINUE TO BE COVERED BY SUCH LETTERS PATENT, 

SHALL BE NO MORE FAVORABLE TO A CUSTOMER OF THE LICENSEE THAN THOSE
ESTABLISHED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FOLLOWED BY THE LICENSOR IN ITS
SALES.  THE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE AS AT PRESENT
ESTABLISHED AND IN FORCE ARE THOSE SET FORTH IN SCHEDULE A ANNEXED
HERETO AND FORMING A PART HEREOF.  THIS SCHEDULE OF PRICES MAY BE
CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE LICENSOR UPON TEN (10) DAYS' NOTICE IN
WRITING TO THE LICENSEE. 

"10.  THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, CONTEMPLATES
THAT IN NO TRANSACTION SHALL THERE BE ANY MODIFICATION OF LICENSEE'S
PRICES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AS FOR INSTANCE BY INCLUSION IN
THE TRANSACTION OF OTHER MATERIAL OR PARTS OR SERVICES OR LABOR AT LESS
THAN THE REGULAR PREVAILING PRICES AT WHICH THE PARTY MAKING THE SALE
IS AT THE TIME ACCUSTOMED TO SELL SUCH OTHER MATERIAL OR PARTS OR
FURNISH SUCH SERVICES OR LABOR, AS WILL SERVE IN EFFECT TO REDUCE
LICENSEE'S PRICES BELOW THOSE NAMED IN SCHEDULE A AS IT EXISTS FROM
TIME TO TIME." 

THIS WAS REPEATED IN THE LINE-GENERAL ELECTRIC REVISED AGREEMENT OF
NOVEMBER 17, 1941.  A VARIABLE APPEARS IN THE WESTINGHOUSE AND OTHER
LICENSES.  IN ITS PRICE PROVISIONS, THE LEMMON PATENT IS NOT MENTIONED
BUT THE LEMMON PATENT WAS INCLUDED IN ITS GRANT OF LICENSE AND THE
SUBSIDIARY SCHULTZ PATENT COULD NOT BE PRACTICED WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO
USE THE DOMINANT LEMMON. 

FN10  THESE TWO PRODUCED AN AGGREGATE OF LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE
DEVICES. 

FN11  ALL APPELLEES, EXCEPT ROYAL, PACIFIC AND JOHNSON, ATTENDED ONE
OR ANOTHER OF THESE CONFERENCES.  WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE SELLING PRICES ALSO OF THE LICENSEES WERE
BEFORE THE CONFERENCE.  THE AGREEMENTS ADEQUATELY SHOW AN INTENTION TO
FIX PRICES. 

FN12  THE LICENSES CONTAINED PROVISIONS FOR RECORDS OF SALE,
INSPECTION THEREOF AND CANCELLATION OF THE LICENSE FOR BREACH. 

FN13  FINDINGS OF FACT: 

"32.  THE PRICE LIMITATION PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE VARIOUS
LICENSE AGREEMENTS HERE IN EVIDENCE WERE INSISTED UPON BY THE PATENT
OWNER AND WERE INTENDED AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO PROTECT ITS OWN
BUSINESS AND SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY.  EACH
OF THE LICENSES GRANTED TO THE LICENSEE-DEFENDANTS WAS TAKEN AND
GRANTED IN GOOD FAITH, THE PARTIES TO THE LICENSES BELIEVING A LICENSE
UNDER THE PATENTS TO BE NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT THE LICENSEE COULD
CONTINUE LAWFULLY TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL ITS DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS. 
APART FROM THE WRITTEN LICENSE AGREEMENTS HERE IN EVIDENCE, THERE WAS
NO AGREEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BETWEEN THE LICENSOR AND ANY
LICENSEE, OR BETWEEN ANY TWO OR MORE LICENSEES, WITH RESPECT TO THE
PRICES OF LICENSED DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS. 

"33.  ALL OF THE DEVICES FOR WHICH MINIMUM PRICES WERE ESTABLISHED BY
LINE WERE COMPARABLE TO, AND COMPETITIVE WITH, DEVICES WHICH LINE
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD REGULARLY OR WHICH IT WAS READY TO MANUFACTURE
AND SELL TO ITS CUSTOMERS ON SPECIAL ORDER. 

"34.  THE CROSS-LICENSE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LINE AND SOUTHERN WERE
LIMITED TO THE COMMERCIALLY PRACTICABLE DEVICE COVERED BY THE
SUBSERVIENT SCHULTZ PATENT, AND DID NOT CREATE ADDITIONAL POWER FOR
PRICE CONTROL OF THE LICENSED CUTOUTS OVER THAT WHICH EACH HAD BEFORE
ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENTS.  THE INFLEXIBLE INTENTION TO INSIST UPON
PRICE LIMITATION EXISTED INDEPENDENTLY IN EACH OF THE PATENT OWNERS
PRIOR TO ANY DISCUSSIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THEM.  SUCH CROSS
LICENSE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF FIXING PRICES IN THE INDUSTRY BUT TO PERMIT THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE
OF THE CHEAPER DEVICE COVERED BY THE SUBSERVIENT PATENT, TO FACILITATE
THE NEGOTIATION OF LICENSES, AND TO PROVIDE ROYALTY INCOME.  THERE WAS
NO AGREEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BETWEEN LINE AND SOUTHERN WITH
RESPECT TO PRICES ON CUTOUTS OTHER THAN THE WRITTEN CROSS-LICENSE
AGREEMENTS. 

"35.  THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS HERE IN EVIDENCE DID NOT RESTRAIN TRADE
BUT PROMOTED IT BY MAKING AVAILABLE SEVERAL SOURCES WHERE THE PATENTED
DEVICES COULD BE OBTAINED, THUS INCREASING COMPETITION IN SUCH DEVICES,
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN, QUALITY AND SERVICE.  COMPETITION
AMONG THE DEFENDANTS FOR BUSINESS IN THESE DEVICES CONTINUED TO BE
VIGOROUS AFTER THE MAKING OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 

"36.  THERE WAS NO COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY AMONG THE DEFENDANTS, OR
ANY OF THEM, TO FIX, MAINTAIN OR CONTROL PRICES OF DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS
OR PARTS THEREOF, OR TO RESTRAIN TRADE OR COMMERCE THEREIN." 

FN14  FOR ILLUSTRATION AND WITHOUT IMPLICATION AS TO THIS COURT'S
POSITION ON THE ISSUES, WE CALL ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING: 

BARBER-COLMAN CO. V. NATIONAL TOOL CO., 136 F.2D 339.  IN A SUIT BY
THE LICENSOR AGAINST THE LICENSEE, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO COMPEL
COMPLIANCE WITH A PRICE-FIXING PROVISION IN THE PATENT LICENSE WAS
DENIED.  THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE WAS HELD NOT TO PERMIT THE PATENTEE
TO FIX PRICES ON UNPATENTED HOBS WHICH WERE PRODUCED UNDER A PROCESS
PATENT BY A PATENTED MACHINE. 

CUMMER-GRAHAM CO. V. STRAIGHT SIDE BASKET CORP., 142 F.2D 646. 
LICENSEE WAS DENIED RELIEF IN AN ACTION AGAINST LICENSOR FOR FAILING TO
REQUIRE OTHER LICENSEES TO COMPLY WITH PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS;
LICENSOR OF A PATENT ON AN ATTACHMENT TO A BASKET-MAKING MACHINE MAY
NOT FIX PRICES ON BASKETS PRODUCED BY THE MACHINE. 

UNITED STATES V. VEHICULAR PARKING, LTD., 54 F.SUPP.  828.  ANTITRUST
PROCEEDING AGAINST PATENT HOLDING COMPANY AND MANUFACTURING LICENSEES
IN PARKING METER INDUSTRY.  THE PATENT LICENSES FIXED THE PRICES AT
WHICH PARKING METERS COULD BE SOLD AND CONTAINED RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS
ON MARKETING PRACTICES.  IN ORDERING COMPULSORY LICENSING AT A
REASONABLE ROYALTY, THE COURT DISTINGUISHED THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE
PRINCIPALLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PATENTEE IN THIS CASE DID NOT ITSELF
MANUFACTURE THE PARKING METERS; OTHER DISTINCTIONS NOTED WERE THE
NUMBER AND ACTIVE CONCERT OF LICENSEES, THE WEAKNESS OF THE PATENTS,
THE FIXING OF PRICES ON UNPATENTED ARTICLES, AND THE EXISTENCE OF
MARKETING RESTRICTIONS. 

FN15  FOR EXAMPLE, SUCH PRICE ARRANGEMENTS UNDER THE TYPE OF
AGREEMENT INDICATED ARE IN LITIGATION AS FOLLOWS: 

UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORP., D.N.J. CIVIL 45-83,
STAINLESS STEEL COMPANY OWNING PATENTS ON A PARTICULAR TYPE OF
STAINLESS STEEL ALLEGEDLY ISSUED LICENSES FIXING PRICES ON ALL TYPES OF
STAINLESS STEEL. 

UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN OPTICAL CO., S.D.N.Y. CIVIL 10-391, OPTICAL
PATENTS OWNED BY PATENT HOLDING COMPANY WHICH GAVE EXCLUSIVE LICENSES;
EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE SUBLICENSED TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS WHO AGREED TO
MAINTAIN PRICES AND COMPLY WITH MARKETING RESTRICTIONS. 

UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL CO., S.D.N.Y. CIVIL 10-394,
PATENT HOLDING COMPANY ISSUED LICENSES TO TWO LICENSEES TO MANUFACTURE
BIFOCAL LENSES, THE LICENSES FIXING PRICES AT WHICH THE BIFOCAL LENSES
WERE TO BE SOLD AND THE SELECTION OF WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS FOR THE
LENSES. 

UNITED STATES V. CATALIN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, D.N.J. CIVIL 7743,
MANUFACTURER OF PHENOLIC RESINS LICENSED OTHER MANUFACTURERS UNDER ITS
PROCESS PATENTS, THE LICENSEES AGREEING TO SELL AT PRICES ESTABLISHED
BY THE LICENSOR. 

UNITED STATES V. GENERAL CABLE CORP., S.D.N.Y. CIVIL 40-76, CROSS
LICENSES AMONG HOLDERS OF PATENTS ON FLUID FILLED CABLE, THE LICENSEES
AGREEING TO ADHERE TO UNIFORM PRICES AND TO OBSERVE TERRITORIAL
MARKETING LIMITATIONS. 

UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., D.N.J. CIVIL 1364, CROSS
LICENSING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS OF ELECTRICAL BULBS
PROVIDING FOR PRICE AND QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS. 

UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., FRIED.  KRUPP, S.D.N.Y. CR.
110-412, CROSS-LICENSING OF TUNGSTEN CARBIDE PATENTS WITH PRICE AND
TERRITORIAL RESTRICTIONS. 

UNITED STATES V. GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORP., D.N.J. CR. 3960-C, CIVIL
8586, OWNERS OF VARIABLE CONDENSER PATENTS ASSIGNED PATENTS TO HOLDING
COMPANY AND TOOK BACK LICENSES WITH PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS; EXPLICIT
PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED BUT ALLEGEDLY CONTINUED BY
TACIT AGREEMENT. 

UNITED STATES V. PHILLIPS SCREW CO., N.D. ILL. CIVIL 47-C-147, HOLDER
OF PATENTS ON CROSS RECESSED HEAD SCREWS GRANTED EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO
LEADING SCREW MANUFACTURER WHO SUBLICENSED TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS;
PATENT HOLDER, EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE, AND SUBLICENSEES AGREED ON PRICE
TERMS FOR ALL SCREWS PRODUCED. 

FN16  THE UNITED STATES LISTS:  UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE NATURE OF THE
PATENT, PROCESS OR PRODUCT, WHICH JUSTIFIES PRICE CONTROL; EXTENT OF
PATENT DOMINATION OVER THE DEVICE; MAY A PATENT POOLING CORPORATION
CONTROL ALL LICENSEES' SALE PRICES; EXTENT OF PRICE CONTROL IN AN
INDUSTRY.  U.S. BRIEF 65 ET SEQ. 

FN17  IN EARLIER CASES INVOLVING THE NATIONAL HARROW COMPANY THE
LOWER COURTS HELD THAT AN INDUSTRY-WIDE COMBINATION TO FIX PRICES WAS
ILLEGAL.  NATIONAL HARROW CO. V. HENCH, 83 F. 36; NATIONAL HARROW CO.
V. QUICK, 67 F. 130, AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 74 F. 236.  COMPARE
RUBBER TIRE WHEEL CO. V. MILWAUKEE RUBBER WORKS CO., 154 F. 358, AND
INDIANA MANUFACTURING CO. V. J.I. CASE THRESHING MACHINE CO., 154 F.
365, UPHOLDING INDUSTRY-WIDE PRICE FIXING, WITH BLOUNT MANUFACTURING
CO. V. YALE & TOWNE MANUFACTURING CO., 166 F. 555, HOLDING SUCH PRICE
FIXING ILLEGAL. 

FN18  BILLS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED WHICH WOULD OUTLAW PRICE LIMITATION
IN PATENT LICENSES: H.R. 22345, 62D CONG., 2D SESS. (1912); S. 2730,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942); S. 2491, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942), AND
HEARINGS THEREON; H.R. 7713, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942); H.R. 109,
78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1943); H.R. 1371, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1943);
H.R. 3874, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1943); H.R. 97, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1945); H.R. 3462, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945); S. 2482, 79TH CONG.,
2D SESS. (1946); S. 72, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1947). 

SEE FINAL REPORT OF TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, SEN. DOC.
NO. 35, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1941), P. 36; REPORT OF THE NATIONAL
PATENT PLANNING COMMISSION, H.R. DOC. NO. 239, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1943), P. 9. 

FN19  RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 52: 

FINDINGS BY THE COURT.  - "(A)  EFFECT.  IN ALL ACTIONS TRIED UPON
THE FACTS WITHOUT A JURY, THE COURT SHALL FIND THE FACTS SPECIALLY AND
STATE SEPARATELY ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THEREON AND DIRECT THE ENTRY OF
THE APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT; AND IN GRANTING OR REFUSING INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTIONS THE COURT SHALL SIMILARLY SET FORTH THE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHICH CONSTITUTE THE GROUNDS OF ITS ACTION. 
REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW. 
FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND
DUE REGARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES.  THE FINDINGS OF A MASTER,
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT ADOPTS THEM, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS THE
FINDINGS OF THE COURT."    FN20  E.G., MILLER-TYDINGS ACT, 50 STAT.
693. 

FN21  DR. MILES MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S. 373; BOSTON
STORE V. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO., 246 U.S. 8; UNITED STATES V. UNITED
SHOE MACHINERY CO., 247 U.S. 32, 58; UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES
CO., 273 U.S. 392; UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S.
150, 222-24; UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241, 250; SOLA
ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S. 173; KATZINGER CO. V.
CHICAGO MFG. CO., 329 U.S. 394. 

APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344, CANNOT BE CITED TO
SUPPORT A CONTRARY VIEW.  IN THAT CASE, THIS COURT HELD THAT "THE PLAN
CANNOT BE SAID EITHER TO CONTEMPLATE OR INVOLVE THE FIXING OF MARKET
PRICES."  P. 373.  SEE THE SOCONY-VACUUM CASE, SUPRA, 214 ET SEQ.
PERHAPS ARBITRARY OR MONOPOLY PRICES WERE IN MIND IN APPALACHIAN.  PP.
358, 359, 365, 371. 

FN22  UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319; HARTFORD
EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 406; STANDARD OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. AT 169 AND CASES CITED; STANDARD SANITARY MFG.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 48-49.  SEE TRANSPARENT-WRAP MACHINE
CORP. V. STOKES & SMITH CO., 329 U.S. 637, 641, 647, AND CASES CITED. 

FN23  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AUTHORIZES CARRIERS TO POOL
REVENUES AND AUTHORIZES MERGERS OF CARRIERS, PROVIDED THAT APPROVAL OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS OBTAINED.  THE ANTITRUST LAWS ARE
INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH AGREEMENTS.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(1), (2) AND (11). 

FN24  THE WORDS "PATENT POOL" ARE NOT WORDS OF ART. THE EXPRESSION IS
USED IN THIS OPINION TO CONVEY THE IDEA OF A LINKING OF THE RIGHT TO
USE PATENTS ISSUED TO MORE THAN ONE PATENTEE. 

FN25  226 U.S. AT 48: 

"THE AGREEMENTS CLEARLY, THEREFORE, TRANSCENDED WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THE USE OF THE PATENT OR THE MONOPOLY WHICH THE LAW CONFERRED
UPON IT.  THEY PASSED TO THE PURPOSE AND ACCOMPLISHED A RESTRAINT OF
TRADE CONDEMNED BY THE SHERMAN LAW.  IT HAD, THEREFORE, A PURPOSE AND
ACCOMPLISHED A RESULT NOT SHOWN IN THE BEMENT CASE.  THERE WAS A
CONTENTION IN THAT CASE THAT THE CONTRACT OF THE NATIONAL HARROW
COMPANY WITH BEMENT & SONS WAS PART OF A CONTRACT AND COMBINATION WITH
MANY OTHER COMPANIES AND CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW,
BUT THE FACT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED AND THE CASE WAS TREATED AS ONE
BETWEEN THE PARTICULAR PARTIES, THE ONE GRANTING AND THE OTHER
RECEIVING A RIGHT TO USE A PATENTED ARTICLE WITH CONDITIONS SUITABLE TO
PROTECT SUCH USE AND SECURE ITS BENEFITS.  AND THERE IS NOTHING IN
HENRY V. A.B. DICK CO., 224 U.S. 1, WHICH CONTRAVENES THE VIEWS HEREIN
EXPRESSED." 

FN26  CF. UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN, CONCURRING. 

WHILE I HAVE JOINED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, ITS DISCUSSION OF
THE PROBLEM IS FOR ME NOT ADEQUATE FOR A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE
BASIC ISSUE PRESENTED.  MY VIEW COMES TO THIS - IT IS A PART OF
PRACTICAL WISDOM AND GOOD LAW NOT TO PERMIT UNITED STATES V. GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, TO GOVERN THIS SITUATION, THOUGH IF ITS
PREMISE BE ACCEPTED, LOGIC MIGHT MAKE ITS APPLICATION TO THIS CASE
WHOLLY DEFENSIBLE.  BUT I WOULD BE RID OF UNITED STATES V. GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO. MY REASONS FOR OVERRULING IT START WITH THE CONSTITUTION
ITSELF. 

THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS CONGRESS THE POWER "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS
OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS, BY SECURING FOR LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS
AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITINGS AND
DISCOVERIES."  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 8.  IT IS TO BE NOTED FIRST THAT ALL
THAT IS SECURED TO INVENTORS IS "THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT" TO THEIR
INVENTIONS; AND SECOND THAT THE REWARD TO INVENTORS IS WHOLLY
SECONDARY, THE AIM AND PURPOSE OF PATENT STATUTES BEING LIMITED BY THE
CONSTITUTION TO THE PROMOTION OF THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL
ARTS.  UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 278 AND CASES
CITED. 

CONGRESS, FAITHFUL TO THAT STANDARD, HAS GRANTED PATENTEES ONLY THE
"EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE, AND VEND THE INVENTION OR DISCOVERY." 
REV. STAT. SEC. 4884, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 40.  AND AS EARLY AS 1853 THE
COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, DEFINED THE NARROW AND
LIMITED MONOPOLY GRANTED UNDER THE STATUTES AS FOLLOWS:  "THE FRANCHISE
WHICH THE PATENT GRANTS, CONSISTS ALTOGETHER IN THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE
EVERY ONE FROM MAKING, USING, OR VENDING THE THING PATENTED, WITHOUT
THE PERMISSION OF THE PATENTEE."  BLOOMER V. MCQUEWAN, 14 HOW.  539,
549.  BUT THE INGENUITY OF MAN HAS CONCEIVED MANY WAYS TO GRAFT
ATTRACTIVE PRIVATE PERQUISITES ONTO PATENTS.  THE EFFORT THROUGH THE
YEARS HAS BEEN TO EXPAND THE NARROW MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT.  THE COURT,
HOWEVER, HAS GENERALLY BEEN FAITHFUL TO THE STANDARD OF THE
CONSTITUTION, HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST COMES FIRST AND
REWARD TO INVENTORS SECOND, AND HAS REFUSED TO LET THE SELF-INTEREST OF
PATENTEES COME INTO THE ASCENDENCY.  AS WE STATED IN B.B. CHEMICAL CO.
V. ELLIS, 314 U.S. 495, 498, "THE PATENT MONOPOLY IS NOT ENLARGED BY
REASON OF THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT TO THE PATENTEE TO
HAVE IT SO, OR BECAUSE HE CANNOT AVAIL HIMSELF OF ITS BENEFITS WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF THE GRANT."  FROM MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL
FILM MFG. CO., 243 U.S. 502, WHICH OVERRULED HENRY V. A.B. DICK CO.,
224 U.S. 1, TO INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 392,
DECIDED ONLY THE OTHER DAY, THE COURT HAS QUITE CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO
ALLOW THE PATENTEE'S "RIGHT TO EXCLUDE" TO BE EXPANDED INTO A RIGHT TO
LICENSE THE PATENT ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE PATENTEE MIGHT CHOOSE. 
FOR THE POWER TO ATTACH CONDITIONS WOULD ENABLE THE PATENTEE TO ENLARGE
HIS MONOPOLY BY CONTRACT AND EVADE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL LAW
APPLICABLE TO ALL PROPERTY.  THE PHILOSOPHY OF THOSE DECISIONS WAS
SUMMED UP IN MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S.
661, 666, WHERE WE SAID: 

"THE NECESSITIES OR CONVENIENCE OF THE PATENTEE DO NOT JUSTIFY ANY
USE OF THE MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT TO CREATE ANOTHER MONOPOLY.  THE FACT
THAT THE PATENTEE HAS THE POWER TO REFUSE A LICENSE DOES NOT ENABLE HIM
TO ENLARGE THE MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT BY THE EXPEDIENT OF ATTACHING
CONDITIONS TO ITS USE.  ...  THE PATENT IS A PRIVILEGE.  BUT IT IS A
PRIVILEGE WHICH IS CONDITIONED BY A PUBLIC PURPOSE.  IT RESULTS FROM
INVENTION AND IS LIMITED TO THE INVENTION WHICH IT DEFINES.  WHEN THE
PATENTEE TIES SOMETHING ELSE TO HIS INVENTION, HE ACTS ONLY BY VIRTUE
OF HIS RIGHT AS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY TO MAKE CONTRACTS CONCERNING IT
AND NOT OTHERWISE.  HE THEN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE LIMITATIONS UPON THAT
RIGHT WHICH THE GENERAL LAW IMPOSES UPON SUCH CONTRACTS." 

THE COURT, HOWEVER, ALLOWED AN EXCEPTION IN THIS LONG LINE OF CASES. 
IN UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA, DECIDED IN 1926, IT
FOLLOWED BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, DECIDED IN 1902,
AND SUSTAINED A PRICE-FIXING PROVISION OF A LICENSE TO MAKE AND VEND
THE PATENTED INVENTION.  BY THAT DECISION PRICE-FIXING COMBINATIONS
WHICH ARE OUTLAWED BY THE SHERMAN ACT (UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM
OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150) WERE HELD TO BE LAWFUL WHEN THE PROPERTY
INVOLVED WAS A PATENT.  BY WHAT AUTHORITY WAS THIS DONE? 

THE PATENT STATUTES DO NOT SANCTION PRICE-FIXING COMBINATIONS.  THEY
ARE INDEED WHOLLY SILENT ABOUT COMBINATIONS.  SO FAR AS RELEVANT HERE,
ALL THEY GRANT, AS ALREADY NOTED, IS THE "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE,
AND VEND THE INVENTION OR DISCOVERY."  REV. STAT. SEC. 4884, 35 U.S.C.
SEC. 40.  THERE IS NO GRANT OF POWER TO COMBINE WITH OTHERS TO FIX THE
PRICE OF PATENTED PRODUCTS.  SINCE THE PATENT STATUTES ARE SILENT ON
THE SUBJECT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE VALIDITY OF PRICE-FIXING
COMBINATIONS IN THIS FIELD WOULD BE GOVERNED BY GENERAL LAW.  AND SINCE
THE SHERMAN ACT OUTLAWS PRICE-FIXING COMBINATIONS IT WOULD SEEM LOGICAL
AND IN KEEPING WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY EXPRESSED IN THAT LEGISLATION TO
APPLY ITS PROHIBITIONS TO PATENTS AS WELL AS TO OTHER PROPERTY.  THE
COURT MADE AN EXCEPTION IN THE CASE OF THESE PRICE-FIXING COMBINATIONS
IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PATENT MONOPOLY A MORE VALUABLE ONE TO THE
PATENTEE.  IT WAS CONCERNED WITH GIVING HIM AS HIGH A REWARD AS
POSSIBLE.  IT REASONED THAT IF THE PATENTEE COULD NOT CONTROL THE PRICE
AT WHICH HIS LICENSEES SOLD THE PATENTED ARTICLE, THEY MIGHT UNDERSELL
HIM; THAT A PRICE-FIXING COMBINATION WOULD GIVE HIM PROTECTION AGAINST
THAT CONTINGENCY AND THEREFORE WAS A REASONABLE DEVICE TO SECURE HIM A
PECUNIARY REWARD FOR HIS INVENTION.  THUS THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE
INVERTED CL. 8 OF ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND MADE THE
INVENTOR'S REWARD THE PRIME RATHER THAN AN INCIDENTAL OBJECT OF THE
PATENT SYSTEM. 

IN THAT MANNER THE COURT SADDLED THE ECONOMY WITH A VICIOUS
MONOPOLY.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIS FORM OF PRICE FIXING UNDERWRITES
THE HIGH-COST PRODUCER.  BY PROTECTING HIM AGAINST COMPETITION FROM LOW
COST PRODUCERS, IT STRENGTHENS AND ENLARGES HIS MONOPOLY.  IT IS SAID
IN REPLY THAT HE, THE PATENTEE, HAS THAT MONOPOLY ANYWAY - THAT HIS
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE, AND VEND WOULD GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO
EXCLUDE OTHERS AND MANUFACTURE THE INVENTION AND MARKET IT AT ANY PRICE
HE CHOSE.  THAT IS TRUE.  BUT WHAT HE GETS BY THE PRICE-FIXING
AGREEMENT WITH HIS COMPETITORS IS MUCH MORE THAN THAT.  HE THEN GETS
NOT A BENEFIT INHERENT IN THE RIGHT OF EXCLUSION BUT A BENEFIT WHICH
FLOWS FROM SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION BY COMBINATION WITH HIS
COMPETITORS.  THEN HE GETS THE BENEFITS OF THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING
FACILITIES OF COMPETITORS WITHOUT THE RISKS OF PRICE COMPETITION.  CF.
COMPETITORS WITHOUT THE RISKS OF PRICE COMPETITION.  CF. AND HIS
ASSOCIATES GET THE BENEFITS OF A CONSPIRACY OR COMBINATION IN RESTRAINT
OF COMPETITION.  THAT IS MORE THAN AN "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT" TO AN
INVENTION; IT'S AN "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT" TO FORM A COMBINATION WITH
COMPETITORS TO FIX THE PRICES OF THE PRODUCTS OF INVENTION.  THE
PATENTEE CREATES BY THAT METHOD A POWERFUL INDUCEMENT FOR THE
ABANDONMENT OF COMPETITION, FOR THE CESSATION OF LITIGATION CONCERNING
THE VALIDITY OF PATENTS, FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF PATENTS NO MATTER HOW
DUBIOUS, FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF RESEARCH IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
COMPETING PATENTS.  THOSE WHO CAN GET STABILIZED MARKETS, ASSURED
PATENTS.  THOSE WHO CAN GET STABILIZED MARKETS, ASSURED MARGINS, AND
FREEDOM FROM PRICE CUTTING WILL FIND A PRICE-FIXING METHODS OF
MAINTAINING THEIR COMPETITIVE POSITIONS.  COMPETITION TENDS TO BECOME
IMPAIRED NOT BY REASON OF THE PUBLIC'S PREFERENCE FOR THE PATENTED
ARTICLE BUT BECAUSE OF THE PREFERENCE OF COMPETITORS FOR PRICE FIXING
AND FOR THE INCREASED PROFITS WHICH THAT METHOD OF DOING BUSINESS
PROMISES. 

PRICE FIXING IN ANY FORM IS PERHAPS THE MOST POWERFUL OF ALL
INDUCEMENTS FOR ABANDONMENT OF COMPETITION.  IT OFFERS SECURITY AND
STABILITY; IT ELIMINATES MUCH OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF COMPETITIVE
PRACTICES; IT PROMISES HIGH PROFITS.  IT IS THEREFORE ONE OF THE MOST
EFFECTIVE DEVICES TO REGIMENT WHOLE INDUSTRIES AND EXACT A MONOPOLY
PRICE FROM THE PUBLIC.  THE BENEFITS OF COMPETITION DISAPPEAR.  THE
PRICES CHARGED BY THE REGIMENTED INDUSTRY ARE DETERMINED NOT BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC, AS IN THE CASE OF ELECTRIC, WATER, AND
GAS RATES, BUT BY PRIVATE PARTIES WHO INCLINE TO CHARGE ALL THE TRAFFIC
WILL BEAR.  AND THE TYPE OF COMBINATION IN THIS CASE HAS THE POWER TO
INFLICT PRECISELY THE TYPE OF PUBLIC INJURY WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT
CONDEMNS.  THIS PRICE-FIXING SCHEME DOES FAR MORE THAN SECURE TO
INVENTORS "THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT" TO THEIR DISCOVERIES WITHIN THE MEANING
OF CL. 8 OF ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT GIVES THEM A
LEVERAGE ON THE MARKET WHICH ONLY A COMBINATION, NOT A PATENT BY
ITSELF, CAN CREATE.  YET IT IS "EVERY" COMBINATION IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE WHICH SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT CONDEMNS, PRICE-FIXING
COMBINATIONS DEALING WITH PATENTS NOT EXCLUDED. 

CONGRESS HAS MUCH TO SAY AS TO THE PATTERN OF OUR ECONOMIC
ORGANIZATION.  BUT I AM NOT CLEAR THAT CONGRESS COULD EXPAND "THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT" SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION INTO A RIGHT OF
INVENTORS TO UTILIZE THROUGH A PRICE-FIXING COMBINATION THE PRODUCTION
AND MARKETING FACILITIES OF COMPETITORS TO PROTECT THEIR OWN HIGH COSTS
OF PRODUCTION AND ELIMINATE OR SUPPRESS COMPETITION.  IT IS NOT
APPARENT THAT ANY SUCH RESTRICTION OR CONDITION PROMOTES THE PROGRESS
OF SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS.  BUT HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, THE
CONSTITUTION PLACES THE REWARDS TO INVENTORS IN A SECONDARY ROLE.  IT
MAKES THE PUBLIC INTEREST THE PRIMARY CONCERN IN THE PATENT SYSTEM.  TO
ALLOW THESE PRICE-FIXING SCHEMES IS TO REVERSE THE ORDER AND PLACE THE
REWARDS TO INVENTORS FIRST AND THE PUBLIC SECOND.  THIS IS NOT THE ONLY
WAY A PATENTEE CAN RECEIVE A PECUNIARY REWARD FOR HIS INVENTION.  HE
CAN CHARGE A ROYALTY WHICH HAS NO RELATION TO PRICE FIXING.  OR HE CAN
MANUFACTURE AND SELL AT SUCH PRICE AS HE MAY CHOOSE.  CERTAINLY IF WE
READ THE PATENT STATUTES SO AS TO HARMONIZE THEM AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE
WITH THE POLICY OF ANTI-TRUST LAWS, WE WILL STRIKE DOWN A COMBINATION
WHICH IS NOT NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF THE PATENT
STATUTES.  IF WE DID THAT IN THIS CASE WE WOULD OVERRULE THE GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO. CASE. 

THIS COURT, NOT CONGRESS, WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE DOCTRINE FOLLOWED IN
THAT CASE.  THE RULE IT SANCTIONS IS ANOTHER OF THE PRIVATE PERQUISITES
WHICH THE COURT HAS WRITTEN INTO THE PATENT LAWS.  SEE SPECIAL
EQUIPMENT CO. V. COE, 324 U.S. 370, 383.  SINCE WE CREATED IT, WE
SHOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN ELIMINATING IT.  IT IS HARD FOR ME TO
SQUARE IT WITH THE STANDARDS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS SET FOR OUR
PATENT SYSTEM.  IT PLAINLY DOES VIOLENCE TO THE COMPETITIVE STANDARDS
WHICH CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN INTO THE SHERMAN ACT.    MR. JUSTICE BURTON,
WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCUR,
DISSENTING. 

THIS DISSENT IS IMPELLED BY REGARD FOR THE SOUNDNESS, AUTHORITY AND
APPLICABILITY TO THIS CASE OF THE UNANIMOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN
BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, AND UNITED STATES V.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476. 

THE COMPLAINT CHARGES VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST
ACT  FN1  BY THE DEFENDANT PATENT OWNERS AND CROSS-LICENSORS, LINE
MATERIAL COMPANY AND SOUTHERN STATES EQUIPMENT CORPORATION (HERE CALLED
RESPECTIVELY LINE AND SOUTHERN), AND ALSO BY THE TEN DEFENDANTS WHO
HOLD LICENSES UNDER THE TWO COMPLEMENTARY PATENTS, OWNED RESPECTIVELY
BY LINE AND SOUTHERN.  THESE PATENTS ARE FOR DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS. 
SOUTHERN'S PATENT IS THE DOMINANT PATENT BUT THE PRODUCT MADE UNDER IT
ALONE HAS NOT BEEN COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL.  LINE'S PATENT IS FOR AN
IMPROVEMENT OF THAT PRODUCT WHICH HAS MADE IT COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL. 
EACH OF THE TWELVE DEFENDANTS HAS RECEIVED AND EXERCISED AUTHORITY
UNDER BOTH PATENTS TO MAKE AND SELL THIS IMPROVED PRODUCT, BUT THE
GOVERNMENT CHARGES THEM WITH HAVING ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL COMBINATION
AND CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE TO FIX, MAINTAIN AND CONTROL THE
PRICES AT WHICH THEY HAVE SOLD, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THEIR
RESPECTIVE PRODUCTS UNDER THESE PATENTS.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE
SALES WERE MADE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF
FACT DEMONSTRATE, HOWEVER, THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PRICES OF THESE PRODUCTS
OTHER THAN THE PRICE-LIMITING PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
LICENSES.  FN2  THE FINDINGS OF FACT SHOW ALSO THAT, UNLESS THE
GOVERNMENT SUSTAINS ITS CONTENTION THAT THOSE PROVISIONS CONSTITUTE,
PER SE, AN UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF TRADE, ITS COMPLAINT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED.  FN3 

THE QUESTION THUS PRESENTED IS:  DO THE PRICE-LIMITING PROVISIONS IN
SOME OR ALL OF THE LICENSES UNDER LINE'S OR SOUTHERN'S PATENTS
CONSTITUTE A RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT?  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THEY DO NOT.  FN4  THE PRICE
LIMITING PROVISIONS IN THIS CASE ARE COMPARABLE TO THOSE WHICH, IN THE
BEMENT AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CASES, SUPRA, WERE HELD NOT TO VIOLATE THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE AGREEMENT IN THE BEMENT CASE
BECAUSE THE SHERMAN ACT - 

"CLEARLY DOES NOT REFER TO THAT KIND OF A RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHICH MAY ARISE FROM REASONABLE AND LEGAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED
UPON THE ASSIGNEE OR LICENSEE OF A PATENT BY THE OWNER THEREOF,
RESTRICTING THE TERMS UPON WHICH THE ARTICLE MAY BE USED AND THE PRICE
TO BE DEMANDED THEREFOR.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT WE HAVE NO
DOUBT WAS NEVER CONTEMPLATED BY ITS FRAMERS."  (AT P. 92.) 

THE LICENSE IN THAT CASE WAS ISSUED UNDER SEVERAL PATENTS AND, AS
HERE, IT LIMITED THE PRICES AT WHICH THE LICENSEE WAS AUTHORIZED TO
SELL ARTICLES PRODUCED BY THE LICENSEE UNDER THAT LICENSE.  IN THE
GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, THIS COURT, IN SPEAKING OF THE PATENT HOLDER'S
RIGHT TO LIMIT THE SELLING PRICES OF HIS LICENSEE'S PRODUCTS, SAID: 

"WE THINK HE (THE PATENT HOLDER) MAY DO SO, PROVIDED THE CONDITIONS
OF SALE ARE NORMALLY AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD
FOR THE PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY.  ONE OF THE VALUABLE ELEMENTS OF THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF A PATENTEE IS TO ACQUIRE PROFIT BY THE PRICE AT
WHICH THE ARTICLE IS SOLD."  (AT P. 490.) 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF LICENSE AGREEMENTS.  THE
PRICE-LIMITING PROVISIONS ARE THE SAME IN EACH.  THE FIRST TYPE IS THAT
OF THE CROSS-LICENSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN LINE AND SOUTHERN.  IN IT LINE
GRANTED TO SOUTHERN A NONEXCLUSIVE, ROYALTY-FREE LICENSE TO MAKE AND
SELL THE PRODUCTS HERE IN QUESTION.  LINE ALSO PRESCRIBED THAT
SOUTHERN'S PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE SHOULD BE "NOT MORE
FAVORABLE TO THE CUSTOMER THAN THOSE ESTABLISHED FROM TIME TO TIME AND
FOLLOWED BY THE LINE COMPANY IN MAKING ITS SALES."  THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LINE'S AGREEMENTS WITH EACH OF THE
OTHER DEFENDANTS IS THAT SOUTHERN, IN RETURN FOR THIS LICENSE, INSTEAD
OF PAYING CASH ROYALTIES TO LINE, ISSUED TO LINE A LIMITED CROSS
LICENSE UNDER SOUTHERN'S COMPLEMENTARY PATENT ON A DROPOUT FUSE
CUTOUT.  SOUTHERN ALSO GRANTED TO LINE AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO ISSUE SUB
LICENSES UNDER THAT PATENT.  SOUTHERN INSERTED NO PRICE LIMITATION IN
ITS CROSS-LICENSE TO LINE AND LINE MADE NO COMMITMENT TO INSERT PRICE
LIMITATIONS IN ANY SUB-LICENSE WHICH IT MIGHT ISSUE UNDER SOUTHERN'S
PATENT.  AS FAR AS PRICE LIMITATIONS WERE CONCERNED, THEY ALL WERE
CONTAINED IN THE ROYALTY-FREE, NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE FROM LINE TO
SOUTHERN AND WERE APPLICABLE ONLY TO PRODUCTS MADE AND SOLD BY THE
LATTER UNDER LINE'S PATENT.  ASSUMING THAT THE LIMITATIONS THUS PLACED
BY LINE ON THE PRICE OF SOUTHERN'S PRODUCTS, MADE AND SOLD BY IT UNDER
LINE'S COMPLEMENTARY PATENT, WERE REASONABLE LIMITATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN
RELATION TO LINE'S OWN OPERATIONS UNDER THE SAME PATENT, THEY
REPRESENTED A LAWFUL PROTECTION OF LINE'S PATENT INTERESTS.  THEY
EVIDENCED A NORMAL EXERCISE BY A MANUFACTURING PATENTEE "OF THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF A PATENTEE  ...  TO ACQUIRE PROFIT BY THE PRICE AT
WHICH THE ARTICLE IS SOLD."  FN5  IN SOME WAYS, THEY WERE EVEN MORE
NATURAL AND REASONABLE PROVISIONS FOR INSERTION BY LINE THAN WOULD HAVE
BEEN A BARE PROVISION FOR ROYALTIES.  LINE EVIDENTLY NEEDED THESE PRICE
LIMITATIONS TO ENABLE IT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE AND SELL THE PRODUCT WHICH
ITS OWN IMPROVEMENT HAD CONVERTED FROM A COMMERCIAL FAILURE INTO A
COMMERCIAL SUCCESS.  IT WILL BE DEMONSTRATED LATER THAT LINE'S RECEIPT
OF A ROYALTY-FREE, UNCONDITIONAL CROSS-LICENSE UNDER SOUTHERN'S
COMPLEMENTARY PATENT, AS CONSIDERATION FOR LINE'S LICENSE TO SOUTHERN,
DID NOT, PER SE, CONVERT THIS OTHERWISE LAWFULLY LIMITED LICENSE INTO
AN INVALID LICENSE VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE OTHER TYPE OF LICENSE THAT WAS USED BY LINE WAS THAT OF A DIRECT
LICENSE ISSUED SEPARATELY TO EACH OF THE TEN OTHER LICENSEE
DEFENDANTS.  THESE LICENSES CLOSELY RESEMBLED EACH OTHER.  EACH WAS A
NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE CALLING FOR THE PAYMENT OF A MODEST ROYALTY TO
LINE ON EACH PRODUCT MADE AND SOLD BY THE LICENSEE UNDER LINE'S
PATENT.  EACH INCLUDED PRICE LIMITATIONS COMPARABLE TO THOSE IN LINE'S
LICENSE TO SOUTHERN.  THESE PRICE-LIMITING LICENSES FROM LINE ARE, AS
SUCH, ENTIRELY COMPARABLE TO THOSE IN THE BEMENT AND GENERAL ELECTRIC
CASES.  EACH LICENSE, HOWEVER, ALSO INCLUDED A SUBLICENSE ISSUED BY
LINE UNDER SOUTHERN'S COMPLEMENTARY PATENT.  THE ROYALTIES ON THE
PRODUCTS MADE AND SOLD UNDER THE TWO COMPLEMENTARY PATENTS WERE TO BE
DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN LINE AND SOUTHERN.  IT WILL BE DEMONSTRATED
LATER THAT THIS SUBLICENSE UNDER SOUTHERN'S COMPLEMENTARY PATENT AND
THE AGREEMENT BY LINE TO DIVIDE WITH SOUTHERN THE ROYALTIES RECEIVED
UPON PRODUCTS MADE AND SOLD UNDER THE TWO PATENTS DID NOT, PER SE,
CONVERT THESE OTHERWISE LAWFULLY LIMITED LICENSES INTO INVALID LICENSES
VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT. 

LINE ALSO GRANTED TO CERTAIN LICENSEE-DEFENDANTS DESIRING IT, A
LICENSE UNDER LINE'S SO-CALLED "KYLE PATENT" FOR ENCLOSED FUSE BOXES. 
SOME OF THESE LICENSES CARRIED PRICE LIMITATIONS ON PRODUCTS MADE AND
SOLD BY THE LICENSEE UNDER THE KYLE PATENT.  THESE LICENSES ARE
ENTIRELY COMPARABLE TO THOSE IN THE BEMENT AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CASES. 
THEY ARE WELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THOSE PRECEDENTS AND CARRY NO
SUGGESTED BASIS FOR A DISTINCTION CLAIMED TO CONVERT THEM INTO INVALID
LICENSES VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE GOVERNMENT NOW ASKS THIS COURT TO OVERRULE THE BEMENT AND GENERAL
ELECTRIC CASES.  THE OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE REED REJECTS THAT REQUEST
BUT SEEKS TO JUSTIFY A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW BY DISTINGUISHING
THIS CASE FROM THOSE PRECEDENTS.  THIS DISSENT UNDERTAKES NOT ONLY TO
EMPHASIZE THE SOUNDNESS OF THE BEMENT AND GENERAL ELECTRIC DECISIONS,
BUT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BASIC PRINCIPLES WHICH SUSTAIN THOSE
DECISIONS APPLY TO THIS CASE WITH AT LEAST EQUAL FORCE.  THIS INITIAL
DISCUSSION WILL OMIT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CROSS-LICENSE FROM
SOUTHERN TO LINE, THE GRANT FROM SOUTHERN TO LINE OF THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO ISSUE SUBLICENSES UNDER THE SOUTHERN PATENT AND THE AGREEMENT
FOR THE DIVISION OF ROYALTIES BETWEEN SOUTHERN AND LINE.  THE BEMENT
AND GENERAL ELECTRIC DECISIONS ARE AUTHORITY FOR UPHOLDING THE
REMAINING PORTIONS OF SUCH AGREEMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE PREVIOUSLY
MENTIONED FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH SHOW THAT THE AGREEMENTS "ARISE FROM
REASONABLE AND LEGAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON THE ASSIGNEE OR LICENSEE
OF A PATENT BY THE OWNER THEREOF, RESTRICTING THE TERMS UPON WHICH THE
ARTICLE MAY BE USED AND THE PRICE TO BE DEMANDED THEREFOR"  FN6  AND
THAT "THE CONDITIONS OF SALE ARE NORMALLY AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO
SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY."  FN7  THIS
DISSENT ACCORDINGLY RE-EXAMINES THE FOUNDATION FOR THOSE DECISIONS AND
EMPHASIZES THE DEVELOPMENT, NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE PATENT RIGHTS
WHICH ARE DECISIVE OF THE MAIN ISSUE BOTH IN THOSE CASES AND IN THIS. 

          PATENT RIGHTS. 

AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND OF THE NATURE OF
PATENT RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES IS ESSENTIAL TO A DISCUSSION OF THE
RELATION BETWEEN THEM AND THE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE PROHIBITED BY THE
SHERMAN ACT.  AMERICAN PATENT RIGHTS FIND THEIR ORIGIN IN GREAT
BRITAIN.  THAT NATION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TO ISSUE "PATENTS"
TO SECURE TO INVENTORS FOR LIMITED TIMES EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO THEIR
RESPECTIVE DISCOVERIES.  THESE "PATENTS" WERE CALLED "LITERAE
PATENTES," I.E., "OPEN LETTERS," BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT SEALED UP BUT
WERE EXPOSED TO VIEW WITH THE GREAT SEAL PENDANT AT THE BOTTOM.  THEY
WERE ADDRESSED BY THE SOVEREIGN TO ALL SUBJECTS OF THE REALM.  SUCH
INSTRUMENTS WERE, AND TO A DEGREE STILL ARE, THE COMMON FORM USED FOR
MAKING GRANTS OF DIGNITIES, SUCH AS PEERAGES, APPOINTMENTS TO CERTAIN
OFFICES AND GRANTS OF PRIVILEGE OF VARIOUS KINDS.  THEIR FORM,
THEREFORE, WAS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE "PATENTS" USED TO GRANT EXCLUSIVE
RIGHTS OR "MONOPOLIES" TO TRADE GUILDS, CORPORATIONS AND, IN SOME
CASES, INDIVIDUALS, PERMITTING THEM TO EXCLUDE COMPETITORS FROM THE
CONDUCT OF CERTAIN LINES OF PROFITABLE BUSINESS.  FN8 

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THESE TWO KINDS OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS IN THEIR
RELATION TO THE PUBLIC WAS REFLECTED LATER IN ACTS OF THE BRITISH
PARLIAMENT AND IN THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
A PATENT TO AN INVENTOR TOOK NOTHING FROM THE PUBLIC WHICH THE PUBLIC
OR THE INVENTOR'S COMPETITORS ALREADY HAD.  BY HYPOTHESIS, IT DEALT
WITH A NEW ASSET AVAILABLE TO CIVILIZATION ONLY THROUGH ITS INVENTOR. 
THE ROYAL PATENT SERVED TO ENCOURAGE THE INVENTOR TO DISCLOSE HIS
INVENTION.  BY GRANTING TO THE INVENTOR THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHERS
FROM MAKING, USING OR SELLING THE INVENTION FOR A LIMITED TIME, IT WAS
FELT THAT THE PUBLIC WAS WELL SERVED BY THE INVENTION'S DISCLOSURE, ITS
EARLY AVAILABILITY UNDER THE PATENT AND ITS LATER GENERAL AVAILABILITY
TO EVERYONE.  THIS PROCEDURE WAS POPULAR.  ON THE OTHER HAND, ROYAL
PATENTS SECURING EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO PRIVATE PARTIES TO CONDUCT
PROFITABLE ENTERPRISES TO THE EXCLUSION OF EXISTING OR AVAILABLE
COMPETITORS WERE ISSUED TO SHOW ROYAL FAVOR OR TO SECURE FUNDS AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC.  SUCH PATENTS BECAME HIGHLY UNPOPULAR.  THE
COURTS, AT AN EARLY DATE, HELD THEM INVALID.  FN9 

AS EARLY AS 1602, FRANCIS BACON, IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, SUPPORTED
THE PRINCIPLE THAT A MONOPOLY SHOULD BE GRANTED ONLY FOR A "NEW
MANUFACTURE."  IN 1623, THERE WAS ENACTED THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES (21
JAC.  I, C. 3, SEC. I; 1 WALKER ON PATENTS, PP. 18-21(DELLER'S ED.
1937)) WHICH DECLARED VOID ALL MONOPOLIES AND LETTERS PATENT "OF OR FOR
THE SOLE BUYING, SELLING, MAKING, WORKING OR USING OF ANY THING WITHIN
THIS REALM,  ...  "  HOWEVER, SEC. VI OF THIS ACT MADE AN EXPRESS
EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS.  FN10  THAT SECTION HAS
BECOME THE FOUNDATION OF THE PATENT LAW SECURING EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO
INVENTORS NOT ONLY IN GREAT BRITAIN BUT THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. 

THE RESULT, HISTORICALLY AND IN PRINCIPLE, HAS NOT BEEN A CONFLICT
BETWEEN TWO LEGISLATIVE MANDATES.  IT HAS BEEN RATHER A LONG STANDING
APPROVAL, BOTH BY THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT AND THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES, OF THE UNIQUE VALUE OF THE EXERCISE, FOR LIMITED PERIODS, OF
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS BY INVENTORS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE INVENTIONS,
PARALLELED BY AN EQUALLY SUSTAINED AND EMPHATIC DISAPPROVAL OF CERTAIN
OTHER RESTRAINTS OF TRADE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF
INVENTORS TO THEIR INVENTIONS. 

THE LONG AND UNFALTERING DEVELOPMENT OF OUR PATENT LAW OFTEN HAS BEEN
TOUCHED UPON IN OUR DECISIONS.  HOWEVER, IN THE FACE OF THE DIRECT
ATTACK NOW MADE UPON SOME OF ITS UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES, THE INFINITE
IMPORTANCE OF OUR INVENTIONS JUSTIFIES A BRIEF REVIEW HERE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AND NATURE OF THE PATENT RIGHTS ATTACKED.  THE DECISION IN
THIS CASE MUST TURN UPON THIS COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATION
BETWEEN THE LICENSES BEFORE IT, THE PATENT RIGHTS TO WHICH THEY RELATE
AND THE SHERMAN ACT.  AS INTERPRETER OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ACTS THAT
HAVE EXPRESSED THE PATENT POLICY OF THIS NATION SINCE ITS BEGINNING,
THIS COURT IS ENTRUSTED WITH THE PROTECTION OF THAT POLICY AGAINST
INTRUSIONS UPON IT.  THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF
INVENTIONS AND DISCOVERIES IS NOT LIMITED TO THIS NATION.  AS THE
POPULATION OF THE WORLD HAS INCREASED, ITS GEOGRAPHICAL FRONTIERS HAVE
SHRUNK.  HOWEVER, THE FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE HAVE EXPANDED UNTIL
CIVILIZATION NOW DEPENDS LARGELY UPON DISCOVERIES ON THOSE FRONTIERS TO
MEET THE INFINITE NEEDS OF THE FUTURE.  THE UNITED STATES, THUS FAR,
HAS TAKEN A LEADING PART IN MAKING THOSE DISCOVERIES AND IN PUTTING
THEM TO USE.    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES THAT
"THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE
AND USEFUL ARTS, BY SECURING FOR LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS
THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITINGS AND DISCOVERIES; ...
"  ART. I, SEC. 8. 

THE STATUTES PRIMARILY IMPLEMENTING THIS PROVISION STATE: 

"ANY PERSON WHO HAS INVENTED OR DISCOVERED ANY NEW AND USEFUL ART,
MACHINE, MANUFACTURE, OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER, OR ANY NEW AND USEFUL
IMPROVEMENTS THEREOF,  ...  NOT KNOWN OR USED BY OTHERS IN THIS
COUNTRY, BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, AND NOT PATENTED OR
DESCRIBED IN ANY PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THIS OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY,
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, OR MORE THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR
TO HIS APPLICATION, AND NOT IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE IN THIS COUNTRY
FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS APPLICATION, UNLESS THE SAME IS
PROVED TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED, MAY, UPON PAYMENT OF THE FEES REQUIRED
BY LAW, AND OTHER DUE PROCEEDING HAD, OBTAIN A PATENT THEREFOR."  R.S.
SEC. 4886, AS AMENDED, 46 STAT. 376, 53 STAT. 1212, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 31. 

"EVERY PATENT SHALL CONTAIN A SHORT TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF THE
INVENTION OR DISCOVERY, CORRECTLY INDICATING ITS NATURE AND DESIGN, AND
A GRANT TO THE PATENTEE, HIS HEIRS OR ASSIGNS, FOR THE TERM OF
SEVENTEEN YEARS, OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE, AND VEND THE
INVENTION OR DISCOVERY  ...  THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND THE
TERRITORIES THEREOF, REFERRING TO THE SPECIFICATION FOR THE PARTICULARS
THEREOF.  ...  "  R.S. SEC. 4884, AS AMENDED, 46 STAT. 376, 35 U.S.C.
SEC. 40.  FN11 

"EVERY APPLICATION FOR PATENT OR PATENT OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN SHALL
BE ASSIGNABLE IN LAW BY AN INSTRUMENT IN WRITING, AND THE APPLICANT OR
PATENTEE OR HIS ASSIGNS OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MAY IN LIKE MANNER
GRANT AND CONVEY AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT UNDER HIS APPLICATION FOR PATENT OR
PATENT TO THE WHOLE OR ANY SPECIFIED PART OF THE UNITED STATES...." 
R.S. SEC. 4898, AS AMENDED, 55 STAT. 634, 35 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946)
SEC. 47. 

CONWAY P. COE, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM 1933
TO 1945, DISCUSSED THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EARLY
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AMERICAN PATENT SYSTEM IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE
TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE IN 1939.  HE SAID: 

"THE AMERICAN PATENT SYSTEM WAS ESTABLISHED AT A TIME WHEN MECHANICAL
INVENTIONS HAD ALREADY BEGUN TO AFFECT NOT ONLY THE INDUSTRIAL
CONDITIONS, BUT ALSO THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL STATUS OF
EUROPE AND THE NEW NATION JUST ERECTED ON THIS CONTINENT.  THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INVENTIONS PUT TO WORK IN ENGLAND AND THE STATES OF
THE CONFEDERATION WAS REALIZED BY THE AMERICAN STATESMEN OF THAT ERA. 
IT IS AGREED THAT THEIR RECOGNITION OF THE VALUE OF THESE NEW ECONOMIC
FACTORS PROMPTED THEM TO WRITE INTO THE CONSTITUTION THE PROVISION OF
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, EMPOWERING CONGRESS 'TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF
SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS BY SECURING FOR LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND
INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITINGS AND
DISCOVERIES.'  THIS PROVISION, BY THE WAY, IS IMPRESSIVE NOT ONLY
BECAUSE IT IS INCLUDED IN THE CONSTITUTION AS ONE OF THE MAJOR GRANTS
OF POWER TO CONGRESS, BUT EQUALLY BECAUSE IT BESTOWS ON PATENTEES A
COMPLETE MONOPOLY, AND THEREFORE RAISES A QUESTION AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ATTEMPT TO COMPEL THE OWNER OF A PATENT TO
SHARE WITH OTHERS THE TITLE, USE, AND AVAIL OF HIS PROPERTY.  I DO NOT
PRESUME TO DETERMINE THE POINT; BUT I MUST CONTEMPLATE IT AS AN ISSUE
TO BE MET HERE OR HEREAFTER. 

"THE AUTHORS OF OUR PATENT SYSTEM, JUDGING BY THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE
I, SECTION 8, HELD THE EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE RIGHTS VESTED IN A PATENTEE
AS A POWERFUL AID TO PROGRESS IN ARTS AND SCIENCES."  FN12  HEARINGS
BEFORE THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
839-840(1939). 

HE ANALYZED THE "PATENT RIGHTS" GRANTED TO THE INVENTOR AND STATED
HIS REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE "MONOPOLY" VESTED IN A PATENTEE IS
NOT IN CONFLICT WITH OUR ANTITRUST LAWS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT OCCURS TO ME THAT A GREAT DEAL OF MISAPPREHENSION RESULTS FROM
THE FAILURE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE MONOPOLY OR PRIVILEGE VESTED IN
A PATENTEE AND THE SORT OF MONOPOLY THAT BRITISH SOVEREIGNS ONCE
CONFERRED.  IT IS ONLY WHEN WE APPRECIATE THIS DISTINCTION THAT WE CAN
UNDERSTAND HOW JEFFERSON COULD CONSISTENTLY ADVOCATE THE MONOPOLY OF
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS WHILE CONDEMNING THE TRADITIONAL FORM OF
MONOPOLY. 

"AMERICANS GENERALLY DETEST MONOPOLY IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE TERM
BECAUSE IT MAKES POSSIBLE THE RUTHLESS EXERCISE OF POWER.  INDEED, THE
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS PRECIPITATED BY POPULAR RESENTMENT OF THE
MONOPOLY ON TEA HELD BY THE EAST INDIA CO. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, HAVE
BEEN EXCEEDINGLY STRANGE IF, ONLY A FEW YEARS LATER, THE DELEGATES SENT
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION BY MASSACHUSETTS AND THE OTHER
COLONIES HAD BEEN WILLING TO SANCTION AN EQUIVALENT FORM OF MONOPOLY
UNDER THE NEW GOVERNMENT THEY WERE CREATING.  IN THE SIXTEENTH AND
SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES A KING OR QUEEN OF ENGLAND COULD REWARD A
FAVORITE BY GRANTING HIM A MONOPOLY ON SALT OR SOME OTHER NECESSARY OF
LIFE.  THIS BENEFICIARY OF ROYAL FAVOR WAS NOT, OF COURSE, THE
DISCOVERER OF SALT.  THAT CAME READY-MADE FROM THE HANDS OF THE CREATOR
EONS BEFORE THE ADVENT OF MAN.  WHAT THE DARLING OF HIS OR HER MAJESTY
RECEIVED WAS THE POWER TO COMPEL OTHERS TO USE SALT SOLELY OF HIS
SUPPLYING AND ONLY ON TERMS OF HIS DICTATION. 

"BUT A PATENT IS NO SUCH MONOPOLY.  IT IS A REWARD FOR THE INVENTION
OR DISCOVERY OF SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING BEFORE UNKNOWN, SOMETHING
ADDED TO THE SUM TOTAL OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE, UTILITY, WELL-BEING;
SOMETHING WHICH THE INVENTOR OR DISCOVERER, DESPISING THE LURE OF MONEY
OR FAME, MIGHT HAVE WITHHELD FROM HIS FELLOW MEN.  BY THE MONOPOLY THAT
GOES WITH A PATENT, THEN, THE GOVERNMENT RECOMPENSES AND, FOR A LIMITED
TIME, PROTECTS THE INVENTOR OR DISCOVERER WHO GIVES TO THE WORLD THE
USE AND BENEFIT OF HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY.  THIS IS A KIND AND A
DEGREE OF MUTUALITY THAT NEGATIVES MONOPOLY IN THE OLD OR THE CURRENT
CONCEPT.  MONOPOLY IN THE LATTER SENSE OF THE TERM GAVE TO AN
INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP COMPLETE DOMINION OF SOMETHING ALREADY EXISTENT. 
A PATENT AWARDS MONOPOLY TO THE PRODUCER OF SOMETHING ORIGINAL,
SOMETHING SUPERADDED TO THE COMMON STORE.  SO IT IS THAT TWO THINGS
BEARING THE SAME NAME NEED NOT BE OF THE SAME NATURE. 

"IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THERE SOMETIMES OCCURS A CLASH BETWEEN
THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE PATENT STATUTES.  I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT SINCE
THE FIRST ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION IN 1890, THE PATENT LAWS AND THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS HAVE COEXISTED WITHOUT ANY IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN
THEM.  THEY HAVE EACH OF THEM AT LEAST ONE COMMON OBJECTIVE, NAMELY,
THE RETENTION BY THE PUBLIC OF A RIGHT ONCE ACQUIRED BY IT.  AS A
MATTER OF FACT, PATENTS ACCOMPLISH MORE THAN THE RETENTION OF THE
ACQUIRED RIGHTS.  THEIR INFLUENCE IS CREATIVE; THEY OPERATE TO MULTIPLY
AND EXPAND ACQUISITIONS BY THE PUBLIC."  (ID. AT PP. 840-841.) 

A COMPARABLE ANALYSIS OF THE NATURE OF THE GRANT TO INVENTORS OF THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE INVENTIONS OR DISCOVERIES FOR A
LIMITED TIME HAS BEEN MADE BY THIS COURT. 

"THOUGH OFTEN SO CHARACTERIZED, A PATENT IS NOT, ACCURATELY SPEAKING,
A MONOPOLY, FOR IT IS NOT CREATED BY THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY AT THE
EXPENSE AND TO THE PREJUDICE OF ALL THE COMMUNITY EXCEPT THE GRANTEE OF
THE PATENT.  SEYMOUR V. OSBORNE, 11 WALL.  516, 533.  THE TERM MONOPOLY
CONNOTES THE GIVING OF AN EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE FOR BUYING, SELLING,
WORKING OR USING A THING WHICH THE PUBLIC FREELY ENJOYED PRIOR TO THE
GRANT.  THUS A MONOPOLY TAKES SOMETHING FROM THE PEOPLE.  AN INVENTOR
DEPRIVES THE PUBLIC OF NOTHING WHICH IT ENJOYED BEFORE HIS DISCOVERY,
BUT GIVES SOMETHING OF VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY BY ADDING TO THE SUM OF
HUMAN KNOWLEDGE.  UNITED STATES V. BELL TELEPHONE CO., 167 U.S. 224,
239; PAPER BAG PATENT CASE, 210 U.S. 405, 424; BROOKS V. JENKINS, 3
MCLEAN 432, 437; PARKER V. HAWORTH, 4 MCLEAN 370, 372; ALLEN V. HUNTER,
6 MCLEAN 303, 305-306; ATTORNEY GENERAL V. RUMFORD CHEMICAL WORKS, 2
BANN.  & ARD.  298, 302.  HE MAY KEEP HIS INVENTION SECRET AND REAP ITS
FRUITS INDEFINITELY.  IN CONSIDERATION OF ITS DISCLOSURE AND THE
CONSEQUENT BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY, THE PATENT IS GRANTED.  AN
EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT IS GUARANTEED HIM FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS, BUT UPON THE
EXPIRATION OF THAT PERIOD, THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INVENTION ENURES TO THE
PEOPLE, WHO ARE THUS ENABLED WITHOUT RESTRICTION TO PRACTICE IT AND
PROFIT BY ITS USE.  KENDALL V. WINSOR, 21 HOW.  322, 327; UNITED STATES
V. BELL TELEPHONE CO., SUPRA, P. 239.  TO THIS END THE LAW REQUIRES
SUCH DISCLOSURE TO BE MADE IN THE APPLICATION FOR PATENT THAT OTHERS
SKILLED IN THE ART MAY UNDERSTAND THE INVENTION AND HOW TO PUT IT TO
USE."  UNITED STATES V. DUBILIER CONDENSER CORP., 289 U.S. 178, 186
187.  FN13 

THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE POLICY TOWARD INVENTIONS IS
SPECIFIC IN CONTRAST WITH THE GENERALITY OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE SHERMAN
ACT OF 1890.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND LONG STANDING STATUTORY APPROVAL
OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF AN INVENTOR TO MAKE, USE AND SELL PRODUCTS
OF HIS INVENTION FOR A LIMITED TIME WAS AN AMPLE GUARANTY THAT THE
SHERMAN ACT DID NOT DIRECTLY OR IMPLIEDLY REPEAL SUCH APPROVAL.  THE
PROHIBITION OF UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE AND THE APPROVAL OF
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF INVENTORS TO THEIR INVENTIONS FOR LIMITED PERIODS
OF TIME CONTINUED TO EXIST TOGETHER.  THIS WAS NOTHING NEW.  AS LONG AS
THE INVENTORS KEPT WITHIN THEIR STATUTORY EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS, THEY WERE
NOT ENGAGING IN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE VIOLATING THE SHERMAN
ACT. 

THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE AN INTENT THAT THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF
THE SHERMAN ACT WAS TO CHANGE THE NATION'S TRADITIONAL AND SPECIFICALLY
STATED POLICY TOWARDS INVENTIONS.  THAT POLICY HAD BEEN WIDELY REGARDED
AS HAVING MADE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATION'S EXCEPTIONAL
ECONOMIC PROGRESS.  THE SHERMAN ACT UNQUESTIONABLY APPLIED TO ANY ABUSE
OF A PATENTEE'S EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS WHICH EXCEEDED THE LIMIT OF THOSE
RIGHTS AND WHICH AMOUNTED TO AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
TRADE.  HOWEVER, THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE SHERMAN ACT
RESTRICTED THE TRADITIONAL PATENT RIGHTS.  BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW
CO., SUPRA, AT P. 92. 

                     LIMITED LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 

THE PRIMARY ISSUE IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT LINE BY THE ISSUANCE OF ITS RESTRICTED LICENSES HAS THEREBY SOUGHT
TO EXERCISE ANY RIGHT THAT IS IN EXCESS OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT SECURED
TO LINE BY THE PATENT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  IF IT HAS DONE SO,
THEN SUCH LICENSES, LIKE OTHER AGREEMENTS, MUST BE SCRUTINIZED TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY CREATE AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE
IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE FIRST CONSIDERATION IS THE RELATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO
PROVISIONS IN A LICENSE AGREEMENT WHICH PLACE LIMITATIONS - AS IN THE
BEMENT AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CASES - UPON THE PRICES WHICH MAY BE
CHARGED BY THE LICENSEE FOR PRODUCTS MADE AND SOLD BY IT UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF ITS LICENSE.  THE ISSUE CORRESPONDS TO THAT RAISED BY THE
WESTINGHOUSE LICENSE IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE.  FN14  THE SHERMAN
ACT'S INVALIDATION OF AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE APPLIES ONLY TO
THOSE IN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND THE DEFINITION OF SUCH
UNREASONABLENESS DEPENDS LARGELY UPON THE COMMON LAW MEANING OF
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  FN15  THIS PERMITS SUCH INVALIDATION WHERE, FOR
EXAMPLE, A LICENSE IS A MERE SUBTERFUGE FOR PRICE FIXING WHICH
OTHERWISE WOULD AMOUNT TO UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. U.S. GYPSUM CO., POST, P.
364, DECIDED CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS CASE.  FN16 

THE SHERMAN ACT'S PROHIBITION OF UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE,
ACCORDINGLY, WOULD NOT INVALIDATE AN UNCONDITIONAL, NONEXCLUSIVE
LICENSE AGREEMENT WHICH SERVED ONLY TO RELEASE THE LICENSEE FROM THE
RIGHT OF THE PATENT HOLDER TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM MAKING, USING OR SELLING
A PATENTED ARTICLE.  THE ORIGINAL, EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE PATENT
HOLDER, BEING SECURED TO HIM THROUGH THE TERMS OF HIS PATENT, WAS NOT
IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  ACCORDINGLY, HIS RELEASE OR WAIVER OF
A PART OF THAT EXCLUSIVE RIGHT BY ISSUANCE OF AN UNCONDITIONAL,
NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE, PER SE, DECREASED RATHER THAN INCREASED THE
STATUTORY RESTRAINT OF TRADE TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED. 

THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE INSERTION IN SUCH A LICENSE OF SOME
LIMITATION UPON THE LICENSEE'S RIGHT TO SELL THE ARTICLES MADE BY THE
LICENSEE UNDER THE PATENT, PER SE, CONVERTS THIS OTHERWISE LAWFUL
AGREEMENT INTO AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE VIOLATIVE OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THE ANSWER IS NO. JUST AS AN UNLIMITED LICENSE IS A
PARTIAL, BUT LAWFUL, RELAXATION OF THE LAWFUL RESTRAINT OF TRADE
IMPOSED BY THE PATENT, SO A LIMITED LICENSE IS BUT A CORRESPONDINGLY
LESS RELAXATION OF THAT SAME RESTRAINT. 

THE FACT THAT THE LIMITATION IN THE LICENSE IS A LIMITATION ON THE
PRICE WHICH MAY BE CHARGED BY THE LICENSEE IN MAKING SALES OF THE
ARTICLE MADE BY THE LICENSEE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENT DOES
NOT CHANGE THE ANSWER, PROVIDED THE PRICE PRESCRIBED IS "NORMALLY AND
REASONABLY ADAPTED TO SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE PATENTEE'S
MONOPOLY."  FN17  HERE AGAIN, THE RESTRAINT OF TRADE IMPOSED BY THE
PATENT ITSELF IS LAWFUL.  THEREFORE, AS LONG AS THE LICENSE AGREEMENT
HAS ONLY THE EFFECT OF REDUCING THE LAWFUL RESTRAINT IMPOSED BY THE
PATENT, SUCH AGREEMENT MERELY CONVERTS THE ORIGINAL LAWFUL RESTRAINT
INTO A LESSER RESTRAINT, EQUALLY LAWFUL. 

SUCH AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEY DO NOT INTRODUCE NEW RESTRICTIONS WHICH, AS JUDICIALLY CONSTRUED,
UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN TRADE AND THUS VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN THE
INSTANT CASE THE FINDINGS ELIMINATE SUCH POSSIBILITIES AND THUS REDUCE
THE ISSUE HERE TO ONE COMPARABLE WITH THE ISSUE IN THE BEMENT AND
GENERAL ELECTRIC CASES.    THIS BRINGS US TO A FURTHER DISCUSSION OF
THE NATURE OF THE LICENSE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND OF THE PRECISE
LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN IT.  THIS REQUIRES, FIRST OF ALL, A
CONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND
SELL THE PATENTED PRODUCT.  THE PRECISE NATURE OF SUCH A "PATENT RIGHT"
HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BY CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT IN A UNANIMOUS
OPINION OF THIS COURT:    "IT IS THE FACT THAT THE PATENTEE HAS
INVENTED OR DISCOVERED SOMETHING USEFUL AND THUS HAS THE COMMON LAW
RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND VEND IT HIMSELF WHICH INDUCES THE GOVERNMENT TO
CLOTHE HIM WITH POWER TO EXCLUDE EVERYONE ELSE FROM MAKING, USING OR
VENDING IT.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE PATENT CONFERS ON SUCH COMMON LAW
RIGHT THE INCIDENT OF EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT AND IT IS THE COMMON LAW
RIGHT WITH THIS INCIDENT WHICH A PATENTEE OR AN ASSIGNEE MUST HAVE (IN
ORDER TO BRING A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT).  THAT IS THE IMPLICATION OF
THE DESCRIPTIVE WORDS OF THE GRANT 'THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE
AND VEND THE INVENTION.'  THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT GRANTING THE COMMON LAW
RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND VEND, BUT IT IS GRANTING THE INCIDENT OF
EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THAT COMMON LAW RIGHT, WHICH CAN NOT BE ENJOYED
SAVE WITH THE COMMON LAW RIGHT.  A PATENT CONFERS A MONOPOLY.  SO THIS
COURT HAS DECIDED IN THE PAPER BAG CASE, SUPRA (210 U.S. 405), AND IN
MANY OTHER CASES.  THE IDEA OF MONOPOLY HELD BY ONE IN MAKING, USING
AND VENDING CONNOTES THE RIGHT IN HIM TO DO THAT THING FROM WHICH HE
EXCLUDES OTHERS."  CROWN CO. V. NYE TOOL WORKS, 261 U.S. 24, 36-37. 

THIS ANALYSIS IS THE KEY TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US.  IT DEMONSTRATES
THAT THE COMMON LAW RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND SELL THE PRODUCT OF AN
UNPATENTED INVENTION EXISTS WITHOUT ANY RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM SO
MAKING, USING OR SELLING SUCH PRODUCT.  THE ADDITIONAL "EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT," OR SO-CALLED "PATENT RIGHT," WHICH IS ADDED TO THE COMMON LAW
RIGHT OF THE INVENTOR IS ADDED BY AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF
THE FEDERAL STATUTES, SO AS TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE, THE
USEFUL ARTS AND, NO DOUBT, THE GENERAL WELFARE.  THE PATENT OR ANY
INTEREST THEREIN MAY BE ASSIGNED.  R.S. SEC. 4898, AS AMENDED, 55 STAT.
634, 35 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 47.  FN18  AN ASSIGNEE, EXERCISING
HIS RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS DURING THE LIFE OF THE PATENT FROM MAKING,
USING OR SELLING ARTICLES UNDER PROTECTION OF THE PATENT, DOES NOT
PRACTICE A RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT ANY MORE
THAN WOULD HIS ASSIGNOR IF THE ASSIGNMENT HAD NOT BEEN MADE. 

ANY ATTEMPTED ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER SHORT OF THOSE INDICATED IN THE
STATUTE "IS A MERE LICENSE, GIVING THE LICENSEE NO TITLE IN THE PATENT,
AND NO RIGHT TO SUE AT LAW IN HIS OWN NAME FOR AN INFRINGEMENT."  FN19
THE LEGAL POSITION OF THE HOLDER OF A SIMPLE, UNCONDITIONAL,
NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE IS IMPORTANT.  FN20  BEFORE HIS RECEIPT OF HIS
LICENSE, HE HAD THE COMMON LAW RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND SELL THE PATENTED
ARTICLE AS WELL AS OTHER ARTICLES, EXCEPT TO THE IMPORTANT EXTENT
PREVENTED BY THE PATENTEE'S EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS.  THE LICENSE CHANGED THAT
POSITION BY WITHDRAWING FROM THE LICENSEE, TO THE EXTENT OF THE
LICENSE, THE RESTRICTION WHICH THE PATENT PLACED UPON HIM. 
ACCORDINGLY, TO THE EXTENT OF HIS LICENSE, THE RESTRAINT PLACED UPON
TRADE BY THE PATENT WAS DIMINISHED.  IN RELATION TO THE SHERMAN ACT HIS
LICENSE, INSTEAD OF CREATING AN ADDED GROUND FOR ASSERTING A VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THUS, PER SE, RELAXED AN EXISTING RESTRAINT OF
TRADE.  THE PREVIOUS RESTRAINT IMPOSED BY THE PATENT WAS NOT A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE MERE LESSENING OF THAT
RESTRAINT WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THAT ACT.  THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THE
NEED TO SEE TO IT THAT THE LESSENING OF THE RESTRAINT RESULTING FROM
THE ISSUANCE OF EITHER AN ABSOLUTE LICENSE OR A LIMITED LICENSE IS, IN
FACT, NO MORE THAN A MERE WITHDRAWAL OF THE LAWFUL RESTRAINT IMPOSED BY
THE PATENT AND IS NOT EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AN IMPOSITION OF A
NEW RESTRAINT NOT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PATENT RIGHT.  AN
UNCONDITIONAL, NONEXCLUSIVE AND ROYALTY-FREE LICENSE PRESENTS, PER SE,
NO NEED FOR SPECIAL SCRUTINY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  A ROYALTY-YIELDING
LICENSE PRESENTS THE ISSUE SUGGESTED BY THE LANGUAGE IN THE GENERAL
ELECTRIC CASE.  IN ORDER NOT TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT, THE ROYALTY
MUST BE "NORMALLY AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR
THE PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY."  FN21  HOWEVER, AS WELL EXPLAINED IN THAT
CASE, A ROYALTY MAY NOT, BY ITSELF, SATISFY THE NEEDS OF THE PATENT
HOLDER.  LIMITATIONS ON THE PRICE OF SALES BY THE LICENSEE OF PRODUCTS
MADE BY THE LICENSEE UNDER THE PATENT MAY BE THE BEST, OR EVEN THE
ONLY, CONDITION THAT IS THUS "NORMALLY AND REASONABLY ADAPTED" TO THE
SITUATION. 

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ILLUSTRATE THE DIRECTNESS WITH WHICH THIS
COURT REPEATEDLY HAS DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF LIMITED
LICENSES WHEN THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN BEFORE IT: 

"  ...  THE GENERAL RULE IS ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IN THE USE OR SALE OF
RIGHTS UNDER THE PATENT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE VERY OBJECT OF
THESE LAWS IS MONOPOLY, AND THE RULE IS, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, THAT ANY
CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT IN THEIR VERY NATURE ILLEGAL WITH REGARD TO
THIS KIND OF PROPERTY, IMPOSED BY THE PATENTEE AND AGREED TO BY THE
LICENSEE FOR THE RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE OR USE OR SELL THE ARTICLE, WILL
BE UPHELD BY THE COURTS.  THE FACT THAT THE CONDITIONS IN THE CONTRACTS
KEEP UP THE MONOPOLY OR FIX PRICES DOES NOT RENDER THEM ILLEGAL." 
BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., SUPRA, AT P. 91. 

"AS WAS SAID IN UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476,
489, THE PATENTEE MAY GRANT A LICENSE 'UPON ANY CONDITION THE
PERFORMANCE OF WHICH IS REASONABLY WITHIN THE REWARD WHICH THE PATENTEE
BY THE GRANT OF THE PATENT IS ENTITLED TO SECURE.'  THE RESTRICTION
HERE IMPOSED (UPON THE LICENSEE TO MANUFACTURE AND TO SELL THE PATENTED
ARTICLE FOR CERTAIN USES ONLY) IS OF THAT CHARACTER.  THE PRACTICE OF
GRANTING LICENSES FOR A RESTRICTED USE IS AN OLD ONE, SEE RUBBER
COMPANY V. GOODYEAR, 9 WALL.  788, 799, 800; GAMEWELL FIRE-ALARM
TELEGRAPH CO. V. BROOKLYN, 14 F. 255.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, ITS LEGALITY
HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED."  GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN
ELECTRIC CO., 305 U.S. 124, 127. 

THE NORMALITY, REASONABLENESS AND PRACTICAL NECESSITY FOR INSERTING A
PRICE-LIMITING CONDITION IN CERTAIN LICENSES, WITHOUT TRESPASSING UPON
THE PROHIBITED AREA OF UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, IS EFFECTIVELY
SUMMARIZED IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, AT P. 490: 

"IF THE PATENTEE GOES FURTHER, AND LICENSES THE SELLING OF THE
ARTICLES, MAY HE LIMIT THE SELLING BY LIMITING THE METHOD OF SALE AND
THE PRICE?  WE THINK HE MAY DO SO, PROVIDED THE CONDITIONS OF SALE ARE
NORMALLY AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE
PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY.  ONE OF THE VALUABLE ELEMENTS OF THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT OF A PATENTEE IS TO ACQUIRE PROFIT BY THE PRICE AT WHICH THE
ARTICLE IS SOLD.  THE HIGHER THE PRICE, THE GREATER THE PROFIT, UNLESS
IT IS PROHIBITORY.  WHEN THE PATENTEE LICENSES ANOTHER TO MAKE AND
VEND, AND RETAINS THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE AND VEND ON HIS OWN
ACCOUNT, THE PRICE AT WHICH HIS LICENSEE WILL SELL WILL NECESSARILY
AFFECT THE PRICE AT WHICH HE CAN SELL HIS OWN PATENTED GOODS.  IT WOULD
SEEM ENTIRELY REASONABLE THAT HE SHOULD SAY TO THE LICENSEE, 'YES, YOU
MAY MAKE AND SELL ARTICLES UNDER MY PATENT, BUT NOT SO AS TO DESTROY
THE PROFIT THAT I WISH TO OBTAIN BY MAKING THEM AND SELLING THEM
MYSELF.'  HE DOES NOT THEREBY SELL OUTRIGHT TO THE LICENSEE THE
ARTICLES THE LATTER MAY MAKE AND SELL, OR VEST ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP IN
THEM.  HE RESTRICTS THE PROPERTY AND INTEREST THE LICENSEE HAS IN THE
GOODS HE MAKES AND PROPOSES TO SELL."  FN22 

DURING THE HEARINGS OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,
TESTIMONY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND
MANUFACTURERS FAMILIAR WITH THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PATENTED
PRODUCTS BEARING ON THE REASONABLENESS AND PROPRIETY OF PRICE
LIMITATIONS IN PATENT LICENSES COMPARABLE TO THOSE IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  IT WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL MECHANICAL
INVENTIONS, SUCH AS THOSE IN THE ELECTRICAL, COMMUNICATIONS AND
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, USUALLY REPRESENT NOT ONLY THE INTRINSIC MERIT
OF THE INVENTIONS THEMSELVES BUT A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH,
EXPERIMENTATION AND PROMOTION.  IF, AFTER THE DISCLOSURE OF THE
INVENTION, OTHERS ARE TO BE LICENSED TO MAKE THE PATENTED ARTICLE, THE
COSTS OF PRODUCTION BY SUCH LICENSEES WILL REFLECT NONE OF THE
INVESTMENTS ABOVE-MENTIONED.  IF THE PATENTEE IS TO BE REIMBURSED FOR
HIS EXPENDITURES, HE WILL NEED, THEREFORE, TO SECURE THE BENEFIT OF A
ROYALTY SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS OR OF A RESTRICTION ON THE PRICE
AT WHICH LICENSEES MAY SELL THEIR PRODUCTS UNDER THE PATENT.  THIS
PRICE WOULD HAVE TO BE ONE THAT WOULD ENABLE THE PATENTEE TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE ARTICLE IN SUCH QUANTITIES AND AT SUCH PRICES
AS WOULD PRODUCE A RETURN TO HIM COMMENSURATE WITH HIS INVESTMENT IN
IT.  HE MIGHT PRESCRIBE BOTH A ROYALTY AND A RESTRICTION.  AS LONG AS
THE ROYALTIES AND THE PRICES WERE "NORMALLY AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO
SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY"  FN23  THEY WOULD
PERFORM MUCH THE SAME FUNCTION.  FN24 

IN CASES WHERE PATENTS ARE OWNED BY COMPARATIVELY SMALL INDUSTRIAL
PRODUCERS BUT LICENSES ARE TO BE ISSUED BY THEM TO COMPARATIVELY LARGE
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCERS IN THE SAME FIELD, THE NECESSITY FOR EARLY
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE PATENT OWNERS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT COSTS IS CLEAR
AND THE DANGER THAT A LARGE LICENSEE WILL UNDERSELL HIS SMALLER
LICENSOR IS OBVIOUS.  THIS IS THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AND THE WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION ARE
AMONG THE LICENSEES OF THE MUCH SMALLER PATENT HOLDERS, LINE AND
SOUTHERN.  SIMILARLY, WHERE OUTSIDE CAPITAL IS NEEDED TO FINANCE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN INVENTION, IT IS NORMAL AND REASONABLE FOR THE
INVESTORS TO REQUIRE NOT ONLY A VALID PATENT BUT ALSO TO INSIST THAT
ANY LICENSES ISSUED DURING THE INITIAL OPERATING PERIOD SHALL CONTAIN
SUCH PRICE LIMITATIONS AS WILL ALLOW THE PATENT HOLDER TO AMORTIZE HIS
ORIGINAL INVESTMENT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.  IN THIS CASE, FINDING OF
FACT NO. 32 SHOWS THAT "THE PRICE LIMITATION PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
THE VARIOUS LICENSE AGREEMENTS HERE IN EVIDENCE WERE INSISTED UPON BY
THE PATENT OWNER AND WERE INTENDED AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO PROTECT
ITS OWN BUSINESS AND SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE PATENTEE'S
MONOPOLY."  FN25 

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY CONWAY P. COE, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS,
BEFORE THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE IN 1939, REINFORCES
THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS: 

"SPECULATIVE CAPITAL MUST BE ENCOURAGED TO FALL IN BEHIND A NEW
ENTERPRISE AND THIS IS TRUE WHETHER THE ENTERPRISE IS WHOLLY NEW OR
REPRESENTS MERELY AN EXPANSION OF AN ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATION.  SOME
TESTIMONY HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THIS COMMITTEE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF
LARGE CORPORATIONS THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO INVENT, AND INVENT, AND
INVENT, AND RESEARCH, RESEARCH, AND RESEARCH WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE
REWARDED BY THE PATENT GRANT, BUT, IF YOU WILL INVESTIGATE, I BELIEVE
YOU WILL FIND THAT WHENEVER THESE LARGE CORPORATIONS, THEMSELVES FIRMLY
ESTABLISHED, UNDERTAKE A NEW DEVELOPMENT, THAT DEVELOPMENT IS LIKELY TO
BE FOUNDED UPON PATENT PROTECTION.  WHATEVER OPINIONS HAVE BEEN
EXPRESSED TO THIS COMMITTEE OR MAY HEREAFTER BE EXPRESSED AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT THE INVENTOR WILL CONTINUE TO INVENT WITHOUT THE PATENT SYSTEM,
I THINK I CAN PRESENT TO YOU INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT SPECULATIVE
CAPITAL WILL NOT BACK NEW INVENTIONS WITHOUT THE PATENT PROTECTION. 
AND IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS THIS IS THE CRUX AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
IN THE WHOLE PATENT QUESTION."  N26  HEARINGS BEFORE THE TEMPORARY
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, SUPRA, AT PP. 857-858. 

THE FOREGOING SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN THE BEMENT AND
GENERAL ELECTRIC CASES, SUPRA. THE BASIS FOR SUCH SUPPORT IS
SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO LEAD TO THE SAME RESULT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

SUBLICENSES AND CROSS-LICENSES. 

UNDER THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES AND AUTHORITIES, A SIMPLE PRICE
LIMITING PATENT LICENSE, IN WHICH THE PRICE LIMITATIONS MEET THE TEST
STATED IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, IS A LAWFUL AGREEMENT.  SUCH A
LICENSE WOULD INVOLVE, AS A POSSIBLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE, ONLY THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND SELL THE PATENTED PRODUCT.  THAT
RESTRAINT WOULD EXIST BY VIRTUE OF THE STATUTE AND CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION LONG ANTEDATING THE SHERMAN ACT.  IF THE LIMITATIONS IN A
LICENSE REACH BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY PATENT RIGHTS, THEN
THEY MUST BE TESTED BY THE TERMS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  ASSUMING THAT IN
THE INSTANT CASE THE PRICE LIMITATIONS DO NOT REACH BEYOND THE
RESTRAINT OF THE PATENT, THE NEXT QUESTION IS:  DOES THE ADDITIONAL
SUBLICENSE ISSUED BY LINE UNDER THE SOUTHERN PATENT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? 
THE ANSWER IS NO. 

THE SUBLICENSE, PER SE, FURTHER DIMINISHES THE STATUTORY RESTRAINT OF
TRADE IMPOSED BY THE PATENT LAW.  IT ADDS A RELEASE FROM THE RESTRAINT
OF SOUTHERN'S PATENT.  LINE'S AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE SUBLICENSE WAS AN
EXPRESS GRANT BY SOUTHERN TO LINE OF AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO ISSUE IT.
PER SE, THIS SUBLICENSE CERTAINLY AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN ANOTHER
LICENSE UNDER ANOTHER PATENT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS UNDER A
COMPLEMENTARY PATENT WITHOUT WHICH LINE'S LICENSE WOULD BE WITHOUT
COMMERCIAL VALUE.  FOR THAT VERY REASON IT IS A REASONABLE AND
NECESSARY PART OF THE TRANSACTION.  IN BOTH THE BEMENT AND GENERAL
ELECTRIC CASES, THE LICENSE IN QUESTION WAS ISSUED NOT MERELY UNDER
ONE, BUT UNDER MANY PATENTS HELD BY THE LICENSOR.  IN THOSE CASES,
APPARENTLY, IT WAS NOT THOUGHT NECESSARY TO QUESTION THE RELATION OF
THOSE PATENTS TO ONE ANOTHER OR THE AUTHORITY OF THE LICENSOR TO ISSUE
THE LICENSE UNDER EACH OF THEM.  IN ANY EVENT, THERE HARDLY COULD HAVE
EXISTED IN THOSE CASES ANY CLOSER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PATENTS
INVOLVED OR A MORE ESSENTIAL AND NORMAL REASON, OF A PATENT NATURE, FOR
COMBINING RIGHTS UNDER THEM THAN EXISTED HERE BETWEEN LINE'S AND
SOUTHERN'S COMPLEMENTARY PATENTS.  EXCEPT FOR THE CROSS-LICENSING
FEATURE, TO BE NEXT CONSIDERED, THE SITUATION IN RELATION TO THE
SHERMAN ACT IS THE SAME HERE AS THOUGH LINE HAD RECEIVED AN ASSIGNMENT
OF SOUTHERN'S PATENT AND ISSUED LICENSES UNDER IT AS WELL AS UNDER
LINE'S PATENT.    IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE ARE TEN LICENSEE
DEFENDANTS INSTEAD OF ONE AS IN EACH OF THE BEMENT AND GENERAL ELECTRIC
CASES.  IN VIEW OF THE POSITIVE FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT OR
UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE LICENSEES AMOUNTING TO AN UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT OF TRADE, THIS MERE MULTIPLICATION OF ONE LICENSE BY TEN
PRODUCES A REPETITION OF THE SAME ISSUE RATHER THAN A DIFFERENT ISSUE. 
IT IS APPARENT ALSO FROM THE RECORD IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE THAT,
IN THAT CASE, IN ADDITION TO THE WESTINGHOUSE LICENSE, THERE WERE
LICENSES TO 13 OTHER MANUFACTURERS, WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE
LICENSOR, ALTHOUGH THE LICENSEES UNDER THEM WERE NOT MADE PARTIES TO
THE SUIT.  15 F.2D 715, 716. 

IT IS SUGGESTED ALSO THAT THE BEMENT AND GENERAL ELECTRIC RULE DOES
NOT APPLY BECAUSE THERE IS A CROSS-LICENSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN LINE AND
SOUTHERN.  THE SUGGESTION APPARENTLY IS THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT, PER SE,
REACHES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES UNDER
THE PATENTS AND CONVERTS THE PRICE LIMITATIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE
LICENSES INTO UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE VIOLATING THE SHERMAN
ACT. 

THE CROSS-LICENSE FROM SOUTHERN CARRIES NO PRICE-LIMITING FEATURE. 
AT MOST IT IS A ROYALTY-FREE CROSS-LICENSE ISSUED TO LINE IN
CONSIDERATION OF LINE'S LICENSE TO SOUTHERN.  IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A
GRANT FROM SOUTHERN TO LINE OF AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO GRANT
SUBLICENSES UNDER SOUTHERN'S PATENT.  PROVISION IS MADE ALSO FOR THE
EQUAL DIVISION BETWEEN SOUTHERN AND LINE OF SUCH ROYALTIES AS SHALL BE
RECEIVED BY LINE UPON PRODUCTS MADE AND SOLD BY THE RESPECTIVE
LICENSEES UNDER THE SOUTHERN AND LINE PATENTS. 

THESE SUBLICENSES AND THE ROYALTIES DERIVED FROM THEM DO NOT,
HOWEVER, INCREASE THE RESTRAINTS ON TRADE BEYOND THOSE RESTRAINTS WHICH
ARE INHERENT IN THE RESPECTIVE PATENTS.  IN FACT, EACH ORIGINAL LICENSE
DECREASED THOSE RESTRAINTS UNDER LINE'S PATENT AND EACH SUBLICENSE DID
THE SAME UNDER SOUTHERN'S PATENT.  BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEMENTARY
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PATENTS, THESE SUBLICENSES HAVE SERVED
SUBSTANTIALLY TO REMOVE THE RESTRAINTS WHICH THE RESPECTIVE PATENTS,
WHEN HELD SEPARATELY, PUT IN THE WAY OF PRODUCTION.  THE TWO PATENTS
TOGETHER COMPLETELY COVERED THE PRODUCT.  IF THE PRICE LIMITATIONS WERE
VALID UNDER LINE'S LICENSES, THE ISSUANCE BY LINE OF THE SUBLICENSES
UNDER SOUTHERN'S PATENT HAS NO MORE EFFECT ON THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN
THIS CASE THAN IF SOUTHERN, INSTEAD OF GRANTING TO LINE AN EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO ISSUE SUBLICENSES UNDER SOUTHERN'S PATENT, HAD ASSIGNED THAT
PATENT TO LINE AND LINE HAD THEN ISSUED ORIGINAL LICENSES UNDER IT ON
THE SAME TERMS AS LINE ISSUED THE SUBLICENSES. 

THE NEXT CONSIDERATION IS THE EFFECT OF THE CROSS-LICENSE BY SOUTHERN
TO LINE, COUPLED WITH THE GRANT OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO ISSUE THE
ABOVE-MENTIONED SUBLICENSES UNDER SOUTHERN'S PATENT AND THE DIVISION OF
CERTAIN ROYALTIES RECEIVED BY LINE.  WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS NO
AGREEMENT, COURSE OF DEALING OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE THAN THE EXISTENCE
OF THE CROSS-LICENSES BETWEEN COMPLEMENTARY PATENT HOLDERS, THE CROSS
LICENSING AGREEMENTS DO NOT, PER SE, REACH BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE
PATENT RIGHTS. 

PATENT POOLS, ESPECIALLY THOSE INCLUDING UNRELATED OR DISTANTLY
RELATED PATENTS AND INVOLVING THE ISSUANCE OF MANY FORMS OF ROYALTY
FREE, ROYALTY-BEARING OR PRICE-LIMITING LICENSES AND CROSS-LICENSES,
MIGHT PRESENT A DIFFERENT PICTURE FROM THAT IN THIS CASE.  SUCH
ARRANGEMENTS MIGHT BE BUT A SCREEN FOR, OR INCIDENT TO, AN UNLAWFUL
AGREEMENT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT.  HERE WE
HAVE NO SUCH FACTS.  THE FINDINGS ELIMINATE ALL BASES FOR THE CLAIM OF
INVALIDITY EXCEPT THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, PER SE.  WE ARE
NOT HERE CONFRONTED WITH THE EFFECT OF CROSS-LICENSES BETWEEN UNRELATED
PATENTS.  HERE WE HAVE ONLY THAT NATURAL SITUATION, COMMON UNDER OUR
PATENT LAWS, WHERE TWO OR MORE COMPLEMENTARY PATENTS ARE SEPARATELY
OWNED.  ONE IS FOR AN IMPROVEMENT THAT IS COMMERCIALLY ESSENTIAL TO THE
OTHER.  IN SUCH A CASE ONE SOLUTION IS TO COMBINE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
TWO BY PURCHASE AND COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT.  THAT, PER SE, WOULD NOT
INVOLVE AN UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

THE SOLUTION IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS EVEN MORE NATURAL THAN A
CONSOLIDATION OF THE PATENTS BY PURCHASE.  IT CONDUCED EVEN MORE TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF COMPETITION.  EACH PATENTEE GRANTED TO THE OTHER A
NONEXCLUSIVE, ROYALTY-FREE LICENSE.  THIS CROSS-LICENSING AMOUNTED TO A
WAIVER BY EACH PATENT HOLDER OF HIS RIGHT TO EXCLUDE THE OTHER FROM
MAKING, USING OR SELLING THE PATENTED PRODUCT.  THIS RESULTED IN A
DIMINUTION OF THE RESTRAINT CREATED BY THE PATENT STATUTE.  THIS, PER
SE, WAS, THEREFORE, WELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PATENT AND NOT A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  BOTH PATENTEES BECAME PRODUCERS. 

UNLESS THE TERMS OF THE CROSS-LICENSES REACH BEYOND THOSE THAT ARE
NORMALLY AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO THE PATENT RELATIONSHIPS OF THE
PARTIES, THE CROSS-LICENSES ARE NO MORE OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTION OF
THE PATENT LAW THAN WOULD BE DIRECT LICENSES.  A REASONABLE PRICE
LIMITING PROVISION IN AT LEAST ONE OF TWO CROSS-LICENSES IS JUST AS
NORMAL AND REASONABLE A PATENT PROVISION AS IT WOULD BE IN A DIRECT
LICENSE.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE VALIDITY OF THE PRICE LIMITATION IN
LINE'S LICENSE TO SOUTHERN IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME JUDICIAL SUPPORT AND
FOR THE SAME REASONS AS IF NO CROSS-LICENSE HAD BEEN ISSUED IN
EXCHANGE. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NEED FOR THE PRICE-LIMITING PROVISIONS, BOTH
IN THE LICENSE TO SOUTHERN AND IN THE LICENSES TO THE OTHER TEN
DEFENDANTS, RESTS UPON THE NEED OF THE PATENT HOLDER TO PROTECT ITS
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THE MANUFACTURE OF ITS OWN PATENTED PRODUCT. 
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SITUATION IS THAT THE PATENT HOLDER NEEDS TO
PROTECT ITSELF PRECISELY AS MUCH AND IN THE SAME WAY AS IN THE CASE OF
A DIRECT LICENSE STANDING ALONE.  THE SHERMAN ACT TRADITIONALLY TESTS
ITS VIOLATION NOT BY THE FORM BUT BY THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION. 

IN DISTINCTION FROM PATENT POOLS AND FROM CROSS-LICENSES BETWEEN
HOLDERS OF COMPETING OR EVEN NONCOMPETING BUT UNRELATED PATENTS, WE
HAVE HERE A CASE OF A CROSS-LICENSE AND A DIVISION OF ROYALTIES BETWEEN
HOLDERS OF PATENTS WHICH ARE COMPLEMENTARY AND VITALLY DEPENDENT UPON
EACH OTHER.  WE HAVE HERE COMPLEMENTARY PATENTS EACH OF WHICH ALONE IS
COMMERCIALLY OF LITTLE VALUE, BUT BOTH OF WHICH, TOGETHER, SPELL
COMMERCIAL SUCCESS FOR THE PRODUCT.  CROSS-LICENSES BETWEEN THEIR
HOLDERS, ON TERMS WITHIN THE NEEDS OF THEIR PATENT MONOPOLIES, ARE
ESSENTIAL TO THE REALIZATION OF THE BENEFITS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PATENT
STATUTES.  FAR FROM BEING UNLAWFUL AGREEMENTS VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, SUCH AGREEMENTS PROVIDE IN FACT THE ONLY REASONABLE MEANS FOR
RELEASING TO THE PUBLIC THE BENEFITS INTENDED FOR THE PUBLIC BY THE
PATENT LAWS.  A CROSS-LICENSE BETWEEN MUTUALLY DEADLOCKED COMPLEMENTARY
PATENTS IS, PER SE, A DESIRABLE PROCEDURE.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 170, ET SEQ. ITS VALIDITY MUST DEPEND UPON THE
TERMS AND SUBSTANCE OF THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE RECORD IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE DISCLOSES THAT THE LICENSE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AND WESTINGHOUSE WHICH
WAS THERE UPHELD WAS ITSELF A CROSS-LICENSING AGREEMENT.  FN27  IN
FACT, THE OPINION OF THE LOWER COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE COMMENTED ON
THAT CROSS-LICENSE AS FOLLOWS: 

"A CROSS-LICENSE AGREEMENT EXISTED BETWEEN GENERAL ELECTRIC AND
WESTINGHOUSE WHICH CONTAINED AGREEMENTS EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE
PRICE PROTECTION PROVISIONS OF THE CROSS-LICENSES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
AT BAR."  UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 64 F.SUPP.  970, 975. 

THE OPINION IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN
CROSS-LICENSES AND DIRECT LICENSES.  THAT CASE, THEREFORE, IS ITSELF A
PRECEDENT FOR UPHOLDING A CROSS-LICENSING AGREEMENT UNDER FACTS
CHARACTERIZED BELOW AS BEING "EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE" THAN THOSE HERE
PRESENTED. 

THE ACQUISITION BY A SINGLE PARTY OF PATENTS ON NONCOMPETING MACHINES
HAS BEEN HELD NOT TO BE, PER SE, A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN
UNITED STATES V. WINSLOW, 227 U.S. 202, 217, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, IN A
UNANIMOUS OPINION OF THE COURT, SAID: 

"THE MACHINES ARE PATENTED, MAKING THEM IS A MONOPOLY IN ANY CASE,
THE EXCLUSION OF COMPETITORS FROM THE USE OF THEM IS OF THE VERY
ESSENCE OF THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY THE PATENTS, PAPER BAG PATENT CASE,
210 U.S. 405, 429, AND IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE SUCCESS OF THE
SEVERAL GROUPS WAS DUE TO THEIR PATENTS HAVING BEEN THE BEST.  AS,  ...
THEY DID NOT COMPETE WITH ONE ANOTHER, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY THE
COLLECTIVE BUSINESS SHOULD BE ANY WORSE THAN ITS COMPONENT PARTS.  ...
WE CAN SEE NO GREATER OBJECTION TO ONE CORPORATION MANUFACTURING
SEVENTY PER CENT. OF THREE NONCOMPETING GROUPS OF PATENTED MACHINES
COLLECTIVELY USED FOR MAKING A SINGLE PRODUCT THAN TO THREE
CORPORATIONS MAKING THE SAME PROPORTION OF ONE GROUP EACH.  THE
DISINTEGRATION AIMED AT BY THE STATUTE DOES NOT EXTEND TO REDUCING ALL
MANUFACTURE TO ISOLATED UNITS OF THE LOWEST DEGREE." 

SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACH. CO., 247 U.S. 32, 45,
51, ET SEQ.; UNITED SHOE MACH. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451, 463
464. 

IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 170-171, 175, MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS SPOKE AS FOLLOWS FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT (EXCEPT FOR MR.
JUSTICE STONE WHO TOOK NO PART IN THE CASE): 

"THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL FOR THE PRIMARY
DEFENDANTS TO CROSS-LICENSE EACH OTHER AND THE RESPECTIVE LICENSEES;
AND THAT ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION CAN LEGALLY BE DEMANDED FOR SUCH
GRANTS.  BUT IT CONTENDS THAT THE INSERTION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS IN THESE AGREEMENTS RENDERS THEM ILLEGAL.  IT URGES, FIRST,
THAT THE MERE INCLUSION OF THE PROVISIONS FOR THE DIVISION OF
ROYALTIES, CONSTITUTES AN UNLAWFUL COMBINATION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT
BECAUSE IT EVIDENCES AN INTENT TO OBTAIN A MONOPOLY.  THIS CONTENTION
IS UNSOUND.  SUCH PROVISIONS FOR THE DIVISION OF ROYALTIES ARE NOT IN
THEMSELVES CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ILLEGALITY.  WHERE THERE ARE
LEGITIMATELY CONFLICTING CLAIMS OR THREATENED INTERFERENCES, A
SETTLEMENT BY AGREEMENT, RATHER THAN LITIGATION, IS NOT PRECLUDED BY
THE ACT.  ...  AN INTERCHANGE OF PATENT RIGHTS AND A DIVISION OF
ROYALTIES ACCORDING TO THE VALUE ATTRIBUTED BY THE PARTIES TO THEIR
RESPECTIVE PATENT CLAIMS IS FREQUENTLY NECESSARY IF TECHNICAL
ADVANCEMENT IS NOT TO BE BLOCKED BY THREATENED LITIGATION N28.  ... 

.         .         .         .         . 

"BUT AN AGREEMENT FOR CROSS-LICENSING AND DIVISION OF ROYALTIES
VIOLATES THE ACT ONLY WHEN USED TO EFFECT A MONOPOLY, OR TO FIX PRICES,
OR TO IMPOSE OTHERWISE AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE." 

IN THE ABOVE CONTEXT, AND FOR THE REASONS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED, IT IS
EVIDENT THAT THE AGREEMENTS EFFECTING A PRICE FIXATION WHICH THUS MAY
VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT ARE ONLY THOSE WHICH "IMPOSE  ...  AN
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE SHERMAN ACT READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE PATENT LAWS.  FN29  THE
AGREEMENTS WHICH REMAIN WITHIN THE AMBITS OF THE PATENTS TO WHICH THEY
RELATE STILL ARE LAWFUL AGREEMENTS BY VIRTUE OF THE PATENT LAWS, JUST
AS THEY HAVE BEEN THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF OUR PATENT SYSTEM. 

           JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SINCE THE GENERAL

                    ELECTRIC CASE. 

NEITHER THE BEMENT NOR THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, SUPRA, HAS BEEN
OVERRULED AND THE REASONING UPON WHICH THEY ARE BASED HAS NOT BEEN
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REJECTED BY THIS COURT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS
COURT REPEATEDLY HAS RECOGNIZED THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRINCIPLES
ANNOUNCED IN THEM.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS
DEVELOPMENT CORP., 283 U.S. 27, 31; GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V.
WESTERN ELECTRIC CORP., 305 U.S. 124, 127: 

"APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS WERE FREE TO LICENSE THE
FILMS FOR EXHIBITION SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS, JUST AS A PATENTEE IN
A LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE PATENTED ARTICLE MAY FIX THE
PRICE AT WHICH THE LICENSEE MAY SELL IT."  (CITING THE BEMENT AND
GENERAL ELECTRIC CASES.)  INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. V. UNITED STATES,
306 U.S. 208, 228.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S.
241, 252; UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 277. 

THE RULE OF STARE DECISIS APPLIES TO THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO THE
PATENT STATUTES AND TO THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE BEMENT AND GENERAL
ELECTRIC CASES.  THERE IS NO OCCASION HERE FOR SUCH A RELAXATION OF
THAT RULE AS WAS SUGGESTED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN CASES
INTERPRETING BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL PHRASES.  SEE HIS DISSENT IN BURNET
V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, 410.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
PRESENT HOLDINGS ARE BASED UPON OPINIONS OF THIS COURT, THAT ELEMENT IS
INHERENT IN THE RULE OF STARE DECISIS. 

THE EXCEPTIONAL RECENT ACTIVITY IN SEEKING, BY STATUTORY AMENDMENT, A
CHANGE IN THE PATENT LAWS AS INTERPRETED IN THE BEMENT AND GENERAL
ELECTRIC CASES INDICATES A WIDESPREAD UNDERSTANDING THAT, IF SUCH
INTERPRETATION IS TO BE CHANGED, THE REMEDY CALLS FOR CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION.  THE RESISTANCE TO SUCH A CHANGE WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN BY
CONGRESS IS IMPRESSIVE.  FN30  IT INDICATES NO DISSATISFACTION WITH THE
INTERPRETATION OF EXISTING LAW AS EXPRESSED IN THE BEMENT AND GENERAL
ELECTRIC CASES. 

THERE APPEARS, THEREFORE, TO BE NEITHER ADEQUATE REASON NOR AUTHORITY
FOR OVERRULING THE BEMENT AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CASES OR FOR
DISTINGUISHING THIS CASE FROM THEM. 

FN1  26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 50 STAT. 693, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN2  "32....  APART FROM THE WRITTEN LICENSE AGREEMENTS HERE IN
EVIDENCE, THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BETWEEN THE
LICENSOR AND ANY LICENSEE, OR BETWEEN ANY TWO OR MORE LICENSEES, WITH
RESPECT TO THE PRICES OF LICENSED DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS. 

     .         .        .         .         . 

"34.  ...  THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BETWEEN LINE
AND SOUTHERN WITH RESPECT TO PRICES ON CUTOUTS OTHER THAN THE WRITTEN
CROSS-LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"36.  THERE WAS NO COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY AMONG THE DEFENDANTS, OR
ANY OF THEM, TO FIX, MAINTAIN OR CONTROL PRICES OF DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS
OR PARTS THEREOF, OR TO RESTRAIN TRADE OR COMMERCE THEREIN."  (FINDINGS
OF FACT.) 

FN3  IN ADDITION TO THE FINDINGS QUOTED IN NOTE 2, SUPRA, THE TRIAL
COURT FOUND: 

"9.  THE VALIDITY OF THE UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENT INVOLVED IN THE
LICENSES OF THE DEFENDANTS IS NOT CONTESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS
ACTION, AND THEREFORE IS NOT HERE IN ISSUE. 

  .         .         .         .         . 

"27.  NONE OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS AFORESAID RESTRAINS TRADE IN ANY
ARTICLE MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND NONE OF THEM WAS ENTERED
INTO AS A RESULT OF ANY CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN SUCH TRADE. 

"28.  ...  THE PRICES LISTED IN SCHEDULE A ARE LINE'S OWN SELLING
PRICES, DETERMINED SOLELY BY LINE WITHOUT DISCUSSION WITH OR ADVICE
FROM ANY OTHER DEFENDANT. 

"29.  UNDER THE CROSS-LICENSES WITH SOUTHERN AND ITS LICENSES TO
OTHERS, LINE ESTABLISHED MINIMUM PRICES ONLY FOR STRUCTURES WITHIN THE
AMBIT OF THE CLAIMS OF ITS OWN PATENTS.  THE CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULES
ATTACHED TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS WERE ONLY SUCH AS WERE REASONABLY
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE BUSINESS OF THE LICENSOR AND IMPLEMENT THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT SO AS TO PREVENT EVASION BY A LICENSEE OF LAWFUL
PRICE LIMITATION PROVISIONS.  LINE DID NOT ESTABLISH MINIMUM SELLING
PRICES FOR ANY DEVICE NOT COVERED BY A CLAIM OF ITS SCHULTZ PATENT RE.
22,412 OR ITS KYLE PATENT RE. 19,449. 

    .         .         .         .         . 

"31.  THERE IS NO CHARGE OF MONOPOLY BY THE DEFENDANTS.  THERE WAS NO
FIXING OF RESALE PRICES ON LICENSED DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS BY THE
DEFENDANTS OR ANY OF THEM.  ... 

"32.  THE PRICE LIMITATION PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE VARIOUS
LICENSE AGREEMENTS HERE IN EVIDENCE WERE INSISTED UPON BY THE PATENT
OWNER AND WERE INTENDED AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO PROTECT ITS OWN
BUSINESS AND SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY.  EACH
OF THE LICENSES GRANTED TO THE LICENSEE-DEFENDANTS WAS TAKEN AND
GRANTED IN GOOD FAITH, THE PARTIES TO THE LICENSES BELIEVING A LICENSE
UNDER THE PATENTS TO BE NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT THE LICENSEE COULD
CONTINUE LAWFULLY TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL ITS DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS. 
... 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"34.  THE CROSS-LICENSE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN LINE AND SOUTHERN WERE
LIMITED TO THE COMMERCIALLY PRACTICABLE DEVICE COVERED BY THE
SUBSERVIENT SCHULTZ (LINE'S) PATENT, AND DID NOT CREATE ADDITIONAL
POWER FOR PRICE CONTROL OF THE LICENSED CUTOUTS OVER THAT WHICH EACH
HAD BEFORE ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENTS.  ...  SUCH CROSS-LICENSE
AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FIXING PRICES IN THE INDUSTRY BUT TO PERMIT THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF
THE CHEAPER DEVICE COVERED BY THE SUBSERVIENT PATENT, TO FACILITATE THE
NEGOTIATION OF LICENSES, AND TO PROVIDE ROYALTY INCOME.  ... 

"35.  THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS HERE IN EVIDENCE DID NOT RESTRAIN TRADE
BUT PROMOTED IT BY MAKING AVAILABLE SEVERAL SOURCES WHERE THE PATENTED
DEVICES COULD BE OBTAINED, THUS INCREASING COMPETITION IN SUCH DEVICES,
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN, QUALITY AND SERVICE.  COMPETITION
AMONG THE DEFENDANTS FOR BUSINESS IN THESE DEVICES CONTINUED TO BE
VIGOROUS AFTER THE MAKING OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS." 

THAT THE PATENTS DID NOT REPRESENT AN INDUSTRY-WIDE CONTROL APPEARS
FROM THE FOLLOWING FINDING: 

"5.  THE DEFENDANTS ARE ALL MANUFACTURERS OF ELECTRICAL DEVICES OF
VARIOUS KINDS.  THE DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS MANUFACTURED BY THE DEFENDANTS
UNDER THE PATENT LICENSES HAVE BEEN AND ARE IN OPEN COMPETITION WITH
MANY OTHER DEVICES WHICH PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTIONS AND ARE NOT
MANUFACTURED UNDER THE PATENT LICENSES, SUCH AS OPEN SINGLE HINGE
DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS; OPEN NON-DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS; NON-DROPOUT FUSE
CUTOUTS ENCLOSED IN MATERIALS OTHER THAN CAST WET-PROCESS PORCELAIN,
SUCH AS PRESTITE; AUTOMATIC CIRCUIT BREAKER CUTOUTS; AND OTHERS LISTED
IN DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT L-23.  THE AVERAGE AGGREGATE ANNUAL SALES OF
LICENSED DROPOUT FUSE CUTOUTS MANUFACTURED BY ALL THE DEFENDANTS FROM
1940 TO 1944 WAS $1,918,247.78 AND CONSTITUTED ONLY 40.77% OF THE
AVERAGE AGGREGATE ANNUAL SALES OF ALL LICENSED AND COMPETITIVE CUTOUTS
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY ALL THE DEFENDANTS, AND WERE DISTRIBUTED AMONG
THE DEFENDANTS AS FOLLOWS:  GENERAL ELECTRIC, 29.2%; LINE (,) 25.4% (;)
KEARNEY, 18.9%; SOUTHERN, 7.9%; WESTINGHOUSE, 5.3%; SCHWEITZER AND
CONRAD, 5.1%; RAILWAY, 3.8%; MATTHEWS, 2%; PORCELAIN, 1.5%; ROYAL,
0.5%; PACIFIC, 0.2%; AND JOHNSON, 0.2%." 

FN4  "2.  THE CROSS-LICENSES AND THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE VARIOUS DEFENDANTS, AS SET FORTH IN THE PRECEDING FINDINGS
OF FACT, ARE LAWFUL AGREEMENTS."  (CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.) 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA, AT P. 490. 

FN6  BEMENT CASE, SUPRA, AT P. 92. 

FN7  GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, SUPRA, AT P. 490. 

FN8  AN EARLY PATENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW INDUSTRY WAS
GRANTED TO A FLEMISH WEAVER IN 1331.  THERE ARE RECORDS OF A MERCHANT,
IN 1347, HAVING A MONOPOLY FOR EXPORTING CORNISH TEA AND OF AN
INDIVIDUAL, IN 1376, HAVING A MONOPOLY TO SELL SWEET WINES IN THE CITY
OF LONDON.  THE FIRST PATENT FOR A NEW INVENTION THAT HAS BEEN FOUND IN
THE RECORDS DATES FROM 1561 AND COVERS THE MANUFACTURE OF SALTPETRE. 
MEINHARDT, INVENTIONS, PATENTS AND MONOPOLY, PP. 30, 35(LONDON, 1946). 

FN9  IN 1602, IN THE CASE OF MONOPOLIES, DARCY V. ALLEIN, 6 CO. REP.,
(Q.B.)  159, PART XI-84B; 1 AM. & ENG. PAT.  CAS.  (ABBOTT) 1; WEBS. 
PAT.  CAS. 1; A ROYAL GRANT OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE PLAYING
CARDS WITHIN THE REALM WAS HELD VOID AS VIOLATING THE COMMON LAW AND
SEVERAL ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.  AND SEE 1 WALKER ON PATENTS, PP. 12
16(DELLER'S ED. 1937). 

FN10  "VI.  PROVIDED ALSO, AND BE IT DECLARED AND ENACTED, THAT ANY
DECLARATION BEFORE-MENTIONED SHALL NOT EXTEND TO ANY LETTERS PATENTS
AND GRANTS OF PRIVILEGE FOR THE TERM OF FOURTEEN YEARS OR UNDER,
HEREAFTER TO BE MADE, OF THE SOLE WORKING OR MAKING OF ANY MANNER OF
NEW MANUFACTURES WITHIN THIS REALM, TO THE TRUE AND FIRST INVENTOR AND
INVENTORS OF SUCH MANUFACTURES, WHICH OTHERS AT THE TIME OF MAKING SUCH
LETTERS PATENTS AND GRANTS SHALL NOT USE, SO AS ALSO THEY BE NOT
CONTRARY TO THE LAW, NOR MISCHIEVOUS TO THE STATE, BY RAISING PRICES OF
COMMODITIES AT HOME, OR HURT OF TRADE, OR GENERALLY INCONVENIENT:  THE
SAID FOURTEEN YEARS TO BE ACCOUNTED FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST LETTERS
PATENTS, OR GRANT OF SUCH PRIVILEGE HEREAFTER TO BE MADE, BUT THAT THE
SAME SHALL BE OF SUCH FORCE AS THEY SHOULD BE, IF THIS ACT HAD NEVER
BEEN MADE, AND OF NONE OTHER."  21 JAC.  I, C. 3(1623). 

"THE STATUTE OF MONOPOLIES CREATED NO NEW RIGHT EITHER IN THE CROWN
OR THE PEOPLE; IT WAS SIMPLY DECLARATORY OF THE COMMON LAW AND ENACTED
INTO STATUTE LAW, WHICH BOUND THE SOVEREIGN, THE DOCTRINES THAT THE
COURTS HAD REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED, AND REITERATED THOSE PRINCIPLES OF THE
MAGNA CHARTA (9 HENRY III, CH. XXXVII, A.D. 1225) WHICH DECLARED THAT
THE LIBERTIES OF HIS SUBJECTS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED OR BROKEN BY ROYAL
USURPATION, AND IT LIMITED THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE TO CERTAIN DEFINITE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IT MIGHT BE LAWFULLY EXERCISED.  IT IS
TO BE NOTED THAT THERE WAS A RESERVATION OF LETTERS PATENT AND GRANTS
OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE SOLE WORKING OR MAKING OF ANY NEW MANUFACTURES
WITHIN THE REALM TO THE TRUE AND FIRST INVENTOR; CONFERRING UPON HIM AN
EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE FOR THE TERM OF FOURTEEN YEARS."  1 WALKER ON
PATENTS, SUPRA, AT P. 22. 

FN11  THE FIRST ACT TO IMPLEMENT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WAS
APPROVED APRIL 10, 1790.  IT PROVIDED: 

"SECTION 1.  ...  , THAT UPON THE PETITION OF ANY PERSON OR PERSONS
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR, AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, SETTING FORTH, THAT HE, SHE,
OR THEY, HATH OR HAVE INVENTED OR DISCOVERED ANY USEFUL ART,
MANUFACTURE, ENGINE, MACHINE, OR DEVICE, OR ANY IMPROVEMENT THEREIN NOT
BEFORE KNOWN OR USED, AND PRAYING THAT A PATENT MAY BE GRANTED
THEREFOR, IT SHALL AND MAY BE LAWFUL TO AND FOR THE SAID SECRETARY OF
STATE, THE SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR, AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, OR ANY TWO OF THEM, IF THEY SHALL DEEM THE INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY SUFFICIENTLY USEFUL AND IMPORTANT, TO CAUSE LETTERS PATENT TO
BE MADE OUT IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES, TO BEAR TESTE BY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, RECITING THE ALLEGATIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS OF THE SAID PETITION, AND DESCRIBING THE SAID INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY, CLEARLY, TRULY AND FULLY, AND THEREUPON GRANTING TO SUCH
PETITIONER OR PETITIONERS, HIS, HER OR THEIR HEIRS, ADMINISTRATORS OR
ASSIGNS FOR ANY TERM NOT EXCEEDING FOURTEEN YEARS, THE SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND LIBERTY OF MAKING, CONSTRUCTING, USING AND VENDING
TO OTHERS TO BE USED, THE SAID INVENTION OR DISCOVERY; ...."  1 STAT.
109-110. 

FN12  THE COMMISSIONER REFERRED TO THE SPECIAL INTEREST OF PRESIDENT
JEFFERSON IN THIS SUBJECT: 

"NO AMERICAN AMONG HIS CONTEMPORARIES OR HIS SUCCESSORS HAS ACHIEVED
A GREATER REPUTATION AS AN OPPONENT OF MONOPOLY THAN THOMAS JEFFERSON. 
YET HE NOT MERELY SANCTIONED, HE ELOQUENTLY ADVOCATED THE FORM OF
MONOPOLY REPRESENTED IN PATENTS.  I CITE HIS COMMENTARY ON AN EARLY ACT
OF CONGRESS, PRESUMABLY THAT OF 1790, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF WHICH HE
COLLABORATED WITH HENRY KNOX, SECRETARY OF WAR, AND EDMUND RANDOLPH,
ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

'AN ACT OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF PATENTS FOR NEW
DISCOVERIES HAS GIVEN A SPRING TO INVENTION BEYOND MY CONCEPTION. 
BEING AN INSTRUMENT OF GRANTING THE PATENTS, I AM ACQUAINTED WITH THEIR
DISCOVERIES. 

     .         .   .         .         . 

'IN THE ARTS, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE MECHANICAL ARTS, MANY INGENIOUS
IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE PATENT-RIGHT GIVING
EXCLUSIVE USE OF THEM FOR 14 YEARS. 

'CERTAINLY AN INVENTOR OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED A RIGHT TO THE BENEFIT OF
HIS INVENTION FOR SOME CERTAIN TIME.  NOBODY WISHES MORE THAN I DO THAT
INGENUITY SHOULD RECEIVE LIBERAL ENCOURAGEMENT.'"  HEARINGS BEFORE THE
TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, SUPRA, AT P. 840. 

SOME CONCEPTION OF THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE PRESENT PATENT SYSTEM HAS
BEEN RESORTED TO IS FOUND IN COMMISSIONER COE'S TESTIMONY THAT, UP TO
1939, OVER 2,000,000 PATENTS HAD BEEN ISSUED, APART FROM DESIGN PATENTS
AND REISSUES.  THE FIGURE IS NOW APPROXIMATELY 2,500,000 OF WHICH ALL
BUT ABOUT 100,000 HAVE BEEN ISSUED SINCE 1870.  HE SHOWED ALSO THAT
ONLY ABOUT 60% OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED ARE FINALLY GRANTED.  (ID. AT
P. 844, AND EXHIBITS 179 AND 180.)  SEE ALSO, OFFICIAL GAZETTE, U.S.
PAT.  OFF., VOL. 605, P. 714(DEC.  30, 1947).   AFTER THE FINAL REPORT
OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8977, DECEMBER 12, 1941, 1 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 1040,
ESTABLISHING THE NATIONAL PATENT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONDUCT A
COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY AND STUDY OF THE AMERICAN PATENT SYSTEM AND, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, TO -    "CONSIDER WHETHER THE SYSTEM NOW PROVIDES THE
MAXIMUM SERVICE IN STIMULATING THE INVENTIVE GENIUS OF OUR PEOPLE IN
EVOLVING INVENTIONS AND IN FURTHERING THEIR PROMPT UTILIZATION FOR THE
PUBLIC GOOD; ...  WHETHER THERE ARE OBSTRUCTIONS IN OUR EXISTING SYSTEM
OF PATENT LAWS, AND IF SO, HOW THEY CAN BE ELIMINATED; ...  AND WHAT
METHODS AND PLANS MIGHT BE DEVELOPED TO PROMOTE INVENTIONS AND
DISCOVERIES WHICH WILL INCREASE COMMERCE, PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT, AND FULLY
UTILIZE EXPANDED DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES DURING NORMAL TIMES." 

THE PRESIDENT APPOINTED CHARLES F. KETTERING, CHAIRMAN, CHESTER C.
DAVIS, FRANCIS P. GAINES, EDWARD F. MCGRADY AND OWEN D. YOUNG AS
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.  THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE, TRANSMITTED BY
THE PRESIDENT TO CONGRESS JUNE 18, 1943(H.R. DOC. NO. 239, 78TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 1), CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING: 

"THE AMERICAN PATENT SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION GIVING
CONGRESS THE 'POWER TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL
ARTS,' IS OVER 150 YEARS OLD.  THE SYSTEM HAS ACCOMPLISHED ALL THAT THE
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED.  IT IS THE ONLY PROVISION OF THE
GOVERNMENT FOR THE PROMOTION OF INVENTION AND DISCOVERY AND IS THE
BASIS UPON WHICH OUR ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION RESTS. 

"THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEIR GOVERNMENT SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTNESS AND FAIRNESS OF PROTECTING THE CREATIONS OF ITS
INVENTORS BY THE PATENT GRANT.  THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE PRESENT
SYSTEM SHOULD BE PRESERVED.  THE SYSTEM HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE GROWTH
AND GREATNESS OF OUR NATION; IT HAS - 

(1)  ENCOURAGED AND REWARDED INVENTIVENESS AND CREATIVENESS,
PRODUCING NEW PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES WHICH HAVE PLACED THE UNITED
STATES FAR AHEAD OF OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE FIELD OF SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNOLOGICAL ENDEAVOR; 

(2)  STIMULATED AMERICAN INVENTORS TO ORIGINATE A MAJOR PORTION OF
THE IMPORTANT INDUSTRIAL AND BASIC INVENTIONS OF THE PAST 150 YEARS; 

(3)  FACILITATED THE RAPID DEVELOPMENT AND GENERAL APPLICATION OF NEW
DISCOVERIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO AN EXTENT EXCEEDING THAT OF ANY
OTHER COUNTRY; 

(4)  CONTRIBUTED TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING
THAT ANY NATION HAS EVER ENJOYED; 

(5)  STIMULATED CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES
NECESSARY TO ARM THE NATION AND TO WAGE SUCCESSFUL WAR; 

(6)  CONTRIBUTED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE
PUBLIC SAFETY; AND 

(7)  OPERATED TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL AND SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS
DURING THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF A NEW ENTERPRISE. 

THE STRONGEST INDUSTRIAL NATIONS HAVE THE MOST EFFECTIVE PATENT
SYSTEMS AND AFTER A CAREFUL STUDY, THE COMMISSION HAS REACHED THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE AMERICAN SYSTEM IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD." 

IN ITS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IT ADDED: 

"THE PATENT SYSTEM IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN ENTERPRISE AND HAS
DEMONSTRATED ITS VALUE OVER A PERIOD COEXTENSIVE WITH THE LIFE OF OUR
GOVERNMENT.  THE PRINCIPLE OF RECOGNIZING A PROPERTY RIGHT IN
INTELLECTUAL CREATION IS SOUND AND SHOULD BE CONTINUED AS CONTEMPLATED
IN THE CONSTITUTION."  (ID. AT P. 9.) 

FN13  IN GRANT V. RAYMOND, 6 PET. 218, 241-242, 243, CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL SAID: 

"THE LAW FARTHER DECLARES THAT THE PATENT 'SHALL BE GOOD AND
AVAILABLE TO THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES BY FORCE OF THIS ACT, TO ALL AND
EVERY INTENT AND PURPOSE HEREIN CONTAINED.'  THE EMENDATORY ACT OF 1793
CONTAINS THE SAME LANGUAGE, AND IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE SETTLED
PURPOSE OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER BEEN, AND CONTINUES TO BE, TO
CONFER ON THE AUTHORS OF USEFUL INVENTIONS AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT IN THEIR
INVENTIONS FOR THE TIME MENTIONED IN THEIR PATENT.  IT IS THE REWARD
STIPULATED FOR THE ADVANTAGES DERIVED BY THE PUBLIC FOR THE EXERTIONS
OF THE INDIVIDUAL, AND IS INTENDED AS A STIMULUS TO THOSE EXERTIONS. 
THE LAWS WHICH ARE PASSED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THIS PURPOSE OUGHT, WE
THINK, TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN MADE; AND
TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT FAIRLY ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES, WHERE
THE FULL BENEFIT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY RECEIVED:  IF THIS CAN BE DONE
WITHOUT TRANSCENDING THE INTENTION OF THE STATUTE, OR COUNTENANCING
ACTS WHICH ARE FRAUDULENT OR MAY PROVE MISCHIEVOUS.  THE PUBLIC YIELDS
NOTHING WHICH IT HAS NOT AGREED TO YIELD; IT RECEIVES ALL WHICH IT HAS
CONTRACTED TO RECEIVE.  THE FULL BENEFIT OF THE DISCOVERY, AFTER ITS
ENJOYMENT BY THE DISCOVERER FOR FOURTEEN YEARS, IS PRESERVED; AND FOR
HIS EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT OF IT DURING THAT TIME THE PUBLIC FAITH IS
PLEDGED.  ... 

.         .         .         .         . 

"THE GREAT OBJECT AND INTENTION OF THE ACT IS TO SECURE TO THE PUBLIC
THE ADVANTAGES TO BE DERIVED FROM THE DISCOVERIES OF INDIVIDUALS, AND
THE MEANS IT EMPLOYS ARE THE COMPENSATION MADE TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS FOR
THE TIME AND LABOUR DEVOTED TO THESE DISCOVERIES, BY THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND SELL, THE THINGS DISCOVERED FOR A LIMITED
TIME." 

FN14  THERE IS NO ISSUE HERE CORRESPONDING TO THE OTHER ISSUE
EXAMINED AND UPHELD IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, NAMELY, THAT
INVOLVING THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTEE'S AGENCY SYSTEM OF SALES OF ITS
PATENTED ARTICLE.  ANOTHER SYSTEM FOR MAKING SALES OF A PATENTED
ARTICLE HAS BEEN HELD INVALID WHERE THE "AGENCIES" WERE FOUND NOT TO BE
BONA FIDE AGENCIES.  UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265. 
THAT CASE, IN TURN, DID NOT REACH THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE WESTINGHOUSE
LICENSE IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE.  THE COURT THERE SAID (P. 277):
"WE NEED NOT REACH THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW
CO., 186 U.S. 70, AND THAT PART OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE WHICH
DEALT WITH THE LICENSE TO WESTINGHOUSE COMPANY." 

FN15  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, 179-180. 
SEE ALSO, STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1. 

FN16  THE INSTANT CASE ALSO IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED SHARPLY FROM THOSE
IN WHICH THE PARTIES TO A LICENSE HAVE SOUGHT TO FIX PRICES FOR THE
RESALE BY THE LICENSEE OF PATENTED PRODUCTS PREVIOUSLY SOLD TO THE
LICENSEE BY THE PATENTEE OR OTHERS.  UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO.,
316 U.S. 241, 252; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436,
452, 456-457; MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO.,
243 U.S. 502, 516; STRAUS V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO., 243 U.S. 490,
500-501; BAUER & CIE V. O'DONNELL, 229 U.S. 1, 16-17.  SEE ALSO,
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 169; UNITED SHOE MACH.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451, 463-464; STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 48-49; ADAMS V. BURKE, 17 WALL.  453,
455-456. 

FN17  GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, SUPRA, AT P. 490. 

FN18  IN DISCUSSING THIS PATENT MONOPOLY AND THE PATENT LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES THIS COURT LONG AGO SAID: 

"THE MONOPOLY THUS GRANTED IS ONE ENTIRE THING, AND CANNOT BE DIVIDED
INTO PARTS, EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THOSE LAWS.  THE PATENTEE OR HIS
ASSIGNS MAY, BY INSTRUMENT IN WRITING, ASSIGN, GRANT AND CONVEY,
EITHER, 1ST, THE WHOLE PATENT, COMPRISING THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE,
USE AND VEND THE INVENTION THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES; OR, 2D, AN
UNDIVIDED PART OR SHARE OF THAT EXCLUSIVE RIGHT; OR, 3D, THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT UNDER THE PATENT WITHIN AND THROUGHOUT A SPECIFIED PART OF THE
UNITED STATES.  REV. STAT. SEC. 4898.  ...  ANY ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER,
SHORT OF ONE OF THESE, IS A MERE LICENSE, GIVING THE LICENSEE NO TITLE
IN THE PATENT, AND NO RIGHT TO SUE AT LAW IN HIS OWN NAME FOR AN
INFRINGEMENT.  REV. STAT. SEC. 4919; GAYLER V. WILDER, 10 HOW.  477,
494, 495; MOORE V. MARSH, 7 WALL.  515."  WATERMAN V. MACKENZIE, 138
U.S. 252, 255. 

THIS WAS QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN CROWN CO. V. NYE TOOL WORKS, 261
U.S. 24, 37, AND WAS ENLARGED UPON IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, SUPRA,
AT P. 489. 

FN19  SEE NOTE 18, SUPRA. 

FN20  "'AS A LICENSE PASSES NO INTEREST IN THE MONOPOLY, IT HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED AS A MERE WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO SUE BY THE PATENTEE,'  ...
"  QUOTED WITH APPROVAL BY CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT IN A UNANIMOUS OPINION OF
THE COURT IN DE FOREST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 236, 242. 

FN21  GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, SUPRA, AT P. 490. 

FN22  CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, AT PP. 490-491, MADE THE FOLLOWING
SIGNIFICANT REFERENCES TO THE BEMENT CASE: 

"THIS QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF BEMENT V.
NATIONAL HARROW COMPANY, 186 U.S. 70.  A COMBINATION OF MANUFACTURERS
OWNING A PATENT TO MAKE FLOAT SPRING TOOL HARROWS, LICENSED OTHERS TO
MAKE AND SELL THE PRODUCTS UNDER THE PATENT, ON CONDITION THAT THEY
WOULD NOT DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE LICENSE SELL THE PRODUCTS AT A
LESS PRICE, OR ON MORE FAVORABLE TERMS OF PAYMENT AND DELIVERY TO
PURCHASERS, THAN WERE SET FORTH IN A SCHEDULE MADE PART OF THE
LICENSE.  THAT WAS HELD TO BE A VALID USE OF THE PATENT RIGHTS OF THE
OWNERS OF THE PATENT.  IT WAS OBJECTED THAT THIS MADE FOR A MONOPOLY. 
THE COURT, SPEAKING BY MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, SAID (P. 91): 

"'THE VERY OBJECT OF THESE LAWS IS MONOPOLY, AND THE RULE IS, WITH
FEW EXCEPTIONS, THAT ANY CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT IN THEIR VERY NATURE
ILLEGAL WITH REGARD TO THIS KIND OF PROPERTY, IMPOSED BY THE PATENTEE
AND AGREED TO BY THE LICENSEE FOR THE RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE OR USE OR
SELL THE ARTICLE, WILL BE UPHELD BY THE COURTS.  THE FACT THAT THE
CONDITIONS IN THE CONTRACTS KEEP UP THE MONOPOLY OR FIX PRICES DOES NOT
RENDER THEM ILLEGAL.' 

"SPEAKING OF THE CONTRACT, HE SAID (P. 93): 

"THE PROVISION IN REGARD TO THE PRICE AT WHICH THE LICENSEE WOULD
SELL THE ARTICLE MANUFACTURED UNDER THE LICENSE WAS ALSO AN APPROPRIATE
AND REASONABLE CONDITION.  IT TENDED TO KEEP UP THE PRICE OF THE
IMPLEMENTS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD, BUT THAT WAS ONLY RECOGNIZING THE
NATURE OF THE PROPERTY DEALT IN, AND PROVIDING FOR ITS VALUE SO FAR AS
POSSIBLE.  THIS THE PARTIES WERE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DO.  THE OWNER OF
A PATENTED ARTICLE CAN, OF COURSE, CHARGE SUCH PRICE AS HE MAY CHOOSE,
AND THE OWNER OF A PATENT MAY ASSIGN IT OR SELL THE RIGHT TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE ARTICLE PATENTED UPON THE CONDITION THAT THE
ASSIGNEE SHALL CHARGE A CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR SUCH ARTICLE.'" 

JUDGE WESTENHAVER, WHOSE JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS AFFIRMED
BY THIS COURT IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, SAID: 

"IF BOTH LICENSOR AND LICENSEE ARE MAKING AND SELLING, IT IS QUITE
CONCEIVABLE THAT THE OWNER OF THE PATENT COULD NOT SAFELY GRANT
LICENSES AT ALL ON ANY OTHER TERMS; OTHERWISE, HE WOULD RISK HAVING HIS
BUSINESS DESTROYED, AND HENCE, AS A MATTER OF ORDINARY BUSINESS
PRUDENCE, WOULD FEEL OBLIGED TO KEEP HIS PATENT MONOPOLY WHOLLY WITHIN
HIS OWN HANDS.  AND IT WAS SO HELD IN BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO.,
186 U.S. 70, 22 S. CT. 747, 46 L. ED. 1058."  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO., 15 F.2D 715, 718. 

FN23  GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, SUPRA, AT P. 490. 

FN24  HEARINGS BEFORE THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,
SUPRA; CONWAY P. COE, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, PP. 839, ET SEQ., 857,
ET. SEQ.; I. JOSEPH FARLEY, PATENT COUNSEL, FORD MOTOR CO., DETROIT,
MICHIGAN, P. 262, ET SEQ.; DR. VANNEVAR BUSH, PRESIDENT, CARNEGIE
INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, D.C., P. 898, ET SEQ.; RALPH E. FLANDERS,
PRESIDENT, JONES & LAMSON, SPRINGFIELD, VERMONT (NOW U.S. SENATOR FROM
VERMONT), P. 928, ET SEQ.; JOHN A. GRAHAM, PRESIDENT, MOTOR
IMPROVEMENTS, INC., NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, P. 938, ET SEQ.; DR. FRANK B.
JEWETT, PRESIDENT, BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES, INC., NEW YORK CITY, P.
958, ET SEQ.; MAURICE H. GRAHAM, INDEPENDENT INVENTOR, MINNEAPOLIS,
MINNESOTA, P. 1076, ET SEQ.; AND GEORGE BAEKELAND, VICE PRESIDENT,
BAKELITE CORPORATION, NEW YORK CITY, P. 1082, ET SEQ. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN26  IN 1939, THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS TESTIFIED THAT OF THE
PATENTS ISSUED, EXCLUSIVE OF DESIGN PATENTS AND REISSUES, LARGE
CORPORATIONS (HAVING RESPECTIVELY OVER $50,000,000 OF ASSETS) RECEIVED
BUT 17.2%, SMALL CORPORATIONS (HAVING RESPECTIVELY LESS THAN
$50,000,000 OF ASSETS) 34.5%, FOREIGN CORPORATIONS 5.4% AND INDIVIDUALS
42.9%.  SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNMENTS DID NOT MATERIALLY AFFECT THESE
PROPORTIONS.  HEARINGS BEFORE THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE, SUPRA, AT P. 846. 

CLARENCE C. CARLTON, PRESIDENT OF THE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS AND EQUIPMENT
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, TESTIFIED THAT IN THE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
INDUSTRY: 

"PATENTS ARE VALUED SO MUCH MORE BY THE SMALL MANUFACTURER THAN THEY
ARE BY THE LARGE MANUFACTURER.  ...  IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO THIS
PATENT SYSTEM THE FELLOW WHO WOULD BE HURT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE WOULD
BE THE SMALLER MANUFACTURER."  (ID. AT PP. 1057, 1058.) 

FN27  "AS A PART CONSIDERATION FOR THE GRANTING OF THE FOREGOING
LICENSES, THE LICENSEE (WESTINGHOUSE) HEREBY GRANTS AND AGREES TO GRANT
TO THE LICENSOR (GENERAL ELECTRIC) A NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE UNDER THE
UNITED STATES PATENTS WHICH IT NOW OWNS OR CONTROLS AND UNDER THOSE
WHICH MAY ISSUE ON PENDING APPLICATIONS NOW OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY IT,
AND UNDER ANY UNITED STATES PATENTS WHICH THE LICENSEE MAY OWN OR
CONTROL, DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT, FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN
INCANDESCENT LAMPS SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS A, B, C AND D OF ARTICLE 2,
TO MAKE, USE AND SELL THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND THE TERRITORIES
THEREOF INCANDESCENT LAMPS OF THE KINDS SPECIFIED IN SAID PARAGRAPHS OF
ARTICLE 2 HEREOF, SUCH LICENSE BEING PERSONAL, NON-ASSIGNABLE,
INDIVISIBLE AND NON-TRANSFERABLE EXCEPT TO SUCCESSORS TO SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ENTIRE GOOD WILL AND BUSINESS OF THE LICENSOR, AND TO CONTINUE FOR
THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LICENSES FROM THE LICENSOR TO THE LICENSEE
REMAIN IN FORCE."  PAR. (8) OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY AND WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, MARCH 1,
1912, EXHIBIT A, AT P. 117 OF THE RECORD IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, NO. 113, O.T. 1926.    FN28  IN THAT STANDARD OIL CASE
THE FOOTNOTE AT THIS POINT STATED (P. 171): 

"THIS IS OFTEN THE CASE WHERE PATENTS COVERING IMPROVEMENTS OF A
BASIC PROCESS, OWNED BY ONE MANUFACTURER, ARE GRANTED TO ANOTHER.  A
PATENT MAY BE RENDERED QUITE USELESS, OR 'BLOCKED,' BY ANOTHER
UNEXPIRED PATENT WHICH COVERS A VITALLY RELATED FEATURE OF THE
MANUFACTURING PROCESS.  UNLESS SOME AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED, THE
PARTIES ARE HAMPERED AND EXPOSED TO LITIGATION.  AND, FREQUENTLY, THE
COST OF LITIGATION TO A PATENTEE IS GREATER THAN THE VALUE OF A PATENT
FOR A MINOR IMPROVEMENT." 

FN29  BEFORE MAKING THIS STATEMENT, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS ALREADY HAD
JOINED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, SUPRA,
AND WRITTEN THE OPINION IN CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS
DCVELOPMENT CORP., 283 U.S. 27. 

FN30  MANY BILLS RELATING TO THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN
CONGRESS AND REFERRED TO APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES.  NOT ONE HAS BEEN
REPORTED BACK TO EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS. 

AS EARLY AS 1912, H.R. 22345, 62D CONG., 2D SESS., PROPOSED THAT A
PATENTEE BE NOT PERMITTED TO FIX THE PRICE OF ARTICLES TO BE SOLD BY
OTHERS UNDER HIS PATENT. 

DURING THE HEARINGS HELD BY THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RECOMMENDED MANY FUNDAMENTAL AS
WELL AS MINOR CHANGES IN THE PATENT LAW.  THESE INCLUDED THE
PROHIBITION OF PRICE-LIMITING PATENT LICENSES COMPARABLE TO THOSE HERE
AT ISSUE.  PRELIMINARY REPORT, TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,
SEN. DOC. NO. 95, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 16-17(1939).  THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE TOOK AN OPPOSITE POSITION.  IT SUBMITTED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
RETAINING BUT IMPROVING THE PATENT SYSTEM SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ITS TRADITIONAL UNDERLYING POLICIES.  THE FINAL REPORT OF THE
TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE INCORPORATED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
PROPOSALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  IT INCLUDED A RECOMMENDATION
THAT PATENTEES BE NOT PERMITTED TO LIMIT THE PRICE AT WHICH A LICENSEE
MIGHT SELL A PRODUCT MADE UNDER THE LICENSE.  FINAL REPORT, TEMPORARY
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, SEN. DOC. NO. 35, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 36
37(1941). 

IN 1941, THE PRESIDENT APPOINTED THE NATIONAL PATENT PLANNING
COMMISSION TO SUBMIT RECOMMENDATIONS ON QUESTIONS DEALT WITH IN THE
REPORT.  (SEE NOTE 12, SUPRA.) IN 1943, AMONG THE EXAMPLES OF THE
PROPOSED REFORMS WHICH IT CONCLUDED "WOULD NOT BE A BENEFICIAL
INNOVATION IN OUR PATENT SYSTEM," IT LISTED "OUTLAWING CERTAIN
LIMITATIONS IN PATENT LICENSES,  ...  "  THIS EVIDENTLY REFERRED TO THE
ABOVE-MENTIONED PROPOSALS OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
TO OUTLAW PRICE RESTRICTIONS AND OTHER LIMITATIONS IN PATENT LICENSES. 
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL PATENT PLANNING COMMISSION, H.R. DOC. 239, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 9(1943). 

BILLS TO THE SAME GENERAL EFFECT AS THE PROPOSALS OF THE TEMPORARY
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED AND REFERRED TO
COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS BUT HAVE ADVANCED NO FURTHER.  AMONG THEM HAVE
BEEN THE FOLLOWING: 

S. 2491(SEC.  4), S. 2730(SEC.  3), H.R. 7713(SEC.  3), 77TH CONG.,
2D SESS. (1942); H.R. 109(SEC.  3), H.R. 1371(SEC.  29), H.R.
3874(SEC.  29), 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1943); H.R. 97(SEC.  29), H.R.
3462(SEC.  29), 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945); S. 2482, 79TH CONG., 2D
SESS. (1946); S. 72, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1947).  SECTION 3 OF S.
2730, SUPRA, PROPOSED THAT - 

"EVERY SALE, ASSIGNMENT, OR CONVEYANCE OF A PATENT AND EVERY GRANT OF
A LICENSE THEREUNDER, IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CONDITION, AGREEMENT, OR
UNDERSTANDING WHICH RESTRICTS THE PRICE AT WHICH THE PURCHASER,
ASSIGNEE, GRANTEE, OR LICENSE (LICENSEE) MAY SELL ANY ARTICLE
PRODUCIBLE UNDER THE PATENT AND CUSTOMARILY MARKETED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL." 
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364 


NO. 13.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14-15, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 53
F.SUPP.  889, 67 F.SUPP.  397, REVERSED. 


A COMPLAINT IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD VIOLATED
SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT BY A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE
INTERSTATE TRADE IN GYPSUM PRODUCTS.  IT ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS
ACTED IN CONCERT IN ENTERING INTO PATENT LICENSING AGREEMENTS; THAT ONE
OF THE DEFENDANTS, DOMINANT IN THE INDUSTRY, GRANTED PATENT LICENSES
AND THE OTHER DEFENDANTS ACCEPTED LICENSES WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL
OTHER CONCERNS IN THE INDUSTRY WOULD ACCEPT SIMILAR LICENSES; AND THAT,
AS A RESULT OF SUCH CONCERT OF ACTION, COMPETITION WAS ELIMINATED BY
FIXING THE PRICE OF PATENTED BOARD, ELIMINATING THE PRODUCTION OF
UNPATENTED BOARD, REGULATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF PATENTED BOARD, AND
STABILIZING THE PRICE OF UNPATENTED PLASTER.  UPON CONCLUSION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CASE THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, HELD: 

1.  THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 368
386, 388-393, 400-402. 

2.  THE PLAN OF THE CONSPIRACY TO CONTROL PRICES AND DISTRIBUTION WAS
NOT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY.  UNITED STATES V.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 389-391, 400
402. 

3.  THE INDUSTRY-WIDE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, ENTERED INTO WITH KNOWLEDGE
ON THE PART OF LICENSOR AND LICENSEES OF THE ADHERENCE OF OTHERS, UNDER
WHICH CONTROL WAS EXERCISED OVER PRICES AND METHODS OF DISTRIBUTION,
WERE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF CONSPIRACY.  PP. 388
389. 

4.  PATENT EXPLOITATION OF THE KIND HERE ATTEMPTED IS WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, REGARDLESS OF THE MOTIVES OF THE
PARTICIPANTS.  PP. 391-393. 

5.  WITH THE CONSPIRACY FULLY ESTABLISHED, THE DECLARATIONS AND ACTS
OF THE VARIOUS PARTICIPANTS, EVEN THOUGH MADE OR DONE PRIOR TO THE
ADHERENCE OF SOME TO THE CONSPIRACY, BECAME ADMISSIBLE AGAINST ALL AS
DECLARATIONS OR ACTS OF CO-CONSPIRATORS IN AID OF THE CONSPIRACY.  PP.
388-393. 

6.  WHEN A GROUP OF COMPETITORS ENTERS INTO A SERIES OF SEPARATE BUT
SIMILAR AGREEMENTS WITH COMPETITORS OR OTHERS, A STRONG INFERENCE
ARISES THAT SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE THE RESULT OF CONCERTED ACTION.  P.
394. 

7.  UNDER RULE 52(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, A FINDING OF
FACT BY THE TRIAL COURT IS "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS" WHEN, ALTHOUGH THERE IS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, THE REVIEWING COURT ON THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE IS
LEFT WITH THE DEFINITE AND FIRM CONVICTION THAT A MISTAKE HAS BEEN
COMMITTED.  PP. 394-395. 

8.  WHERE DENIALS BY ALLEGED CONSPIRATORS THAT THEY HAD ACTED IN
CONCERT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THEY CAN BE GIVEN
LITTLE WEIGHT, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CRUCIAL ISSUES INVOLVE MIXED
QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW.  PP. 395-396. 

9.  THE FINDING BY THE TRIAL COURT THAT DEFENDANTS HAD NOT ASSOCIATED
THEMSELVES IN A PLAN TO BLANKET THE INDUSTRY UNDER PATENT LICENSES AND
STABILIZE PRICES IS SET ASIDE AS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  PP. 393-394. 

10.  THE PROVISION IN THE PATENT LICENSING AGREEMENTS FOR PAYMENT OF
ROYALTIES ON THE PRODUCTION OF UNPATENTED BOARD IS STRONGLY INDICATIVE
OF AN AGREEMENT NOT TO MANUFACTURE UNPATENTED BOARD; AND THE TESTIMONY
IN THIS CASE IS AMPLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING, IF NOT A
FORMAL AGREEMENT, THAT ONLY PATENTED BOARD WOULD BE SOLD.  SUCH AN
ARRANGEMENT IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT INCREASED THE AREA OF THE PATENT
MONOPOLY AND IS INVALID.  P. 397. 

11.  WHERE THE PURPOSE IS TO PREVENT COMPETITION BY UNCONTROLLED
RESALE PRICES, AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THE ELIMINATION OF JOBBERS DOES NOT
FALL WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENT GRANT.  FINDINGS BY THE TRIAL
COURT THAT DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CONSPIRED TO ELIMINATE JOBBERS ARE HERE
SET ASIDE.  PP. 397-398. 

12.  FINDINGS BY THE TRIAL COURT THAT DEFENDANTS HAD NOT STABILIZED
THE PRICE OF UNPATENTED PLASTER SOLD IN CONJUNCTION WITH PATENTED BOARD
ARE HERE SET ASIDE.  PP. 398-399. 

13.  THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A PATENTEE, ACTING
IN CONCERT WITH ALL MEMBERS OF AN INDUSTRY, TO ISSUE SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL LICENSES TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRY UNDER THE TERMS OF
WHICH AN INDUSTRY IS COMPLETELY REGIMENTED, THE PRODUCTION OF
COMPETITIVE UNPATENTED PRODUCTS SUPPRESSED, A CLASS OF DISTRIBUTORS
SQUEEZED OUT, AND PRICES ON UNPATENTED PRODUCTS STABILIZED.  PP. 400
401. 

14.  THE "RULE OF REASON" IS APPLICABLE TO EFFORTS TO MONOPOLIZE
THROUGH PATENTS.  PP. 400-401. 

15.  EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SPECIFIC ABUSES IN THIS CASE, WHICH
FALL WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IT WOULD
BE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANTS, CONSTITUTING ALL FORMER
COMPETITORS IN AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY, HAD ACTED IN CONCERT TO RESTRAIN
COMMERCE IN THE INDUSTRY UNDER PATENT LICENSES IN ORDER TO ORGANIZE THE
INDUSTRY AND STABILIZE PRICES.  P. 401. 

16.  IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IN
WHICH THE DEFENDANTS RELY UPON PATENTS, THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO
AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THAT THE PATENTS ARE INVALID.  PP. 386-388. 

UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RESTRAIN
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE
APPELLEES.  UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT, A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS
CONSTITUTED TO HEAR THE CASE.  UPON PRESENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  53 F.SUPP.  889, 67
F.SUPP.  397.  THE UNITED STATES APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER
THE EXPEDITING ACT.  REVERSED, P. 402. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTED THIS SUIT ON AUGUST 15, 1940, IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AGAINST UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, FIVE OTHER CORPORATE DEFENDANTS,
AND SEVEN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, AS A CIVIL PROCEEDING UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT THE APPELLEES HAD VIOLATED
BOTH SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY CONSPIRING TO FIX PRICES ON
PATENTED GYPSUM BOARD AND UNPATENTED GYPSUM PRODUCTS, TO STANDARDIZE
GYPSUM BOARD AND ITS METHOD OF PRODUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ELIMINATING COMPETITION, AND TO REGULATE THE DISTRIBUTION OF GYPSUM
BOARD BY ELIMINATING JOBBERS AND FIXING RESALE PRICES OF MANUFACTURING
DISTRIBUTORS. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FILED AN EXPEDITING CERTIFICATE ON DECEMBER 16,
1941, AND ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1942, A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS CONSTITUTED TO
HEAR THE CASE.  BY AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED
THAT THE ARTICLE CLAIMS OF FIVE PATENTS OWNED BY UNITED STATES GYPSUM
WERE INVALID AND VOID.  THE APPELLEES MOVED TO STRIKE THE AMENDMENT TO
THE COMPLAINT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE
AMENDMENT.  ON NOVEMBER 15, 1943, THE COURT GRANTED APPELLEES' MOTION
FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO STANDING
TO ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS IN AN ANTITRUST PROCEEDING.  THE
CASE THEREUPON WENT TO TRIAL AND UPON CONCLUSION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
CASE ON APRIL 20, 1944, THE APPELLEES MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
UNDER RULE 41(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE UPON THE
GROUND THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW THE GOVERNMENT HAD SHOWN NO RIGHT
TO RELIEF.  ON JUNE 15, 1946, THE COURT FILED AN OPINION HOLDING THAT
THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED, AND ON AUGUST 5, 1946, THE COURT FILED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ENTERED JUDGMENT DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT, 32
STAT. 823, AND PROBABLE JURISDICTION WAS NOTED ON DECEMBER 16, 1946. 
THE DECISIONS BELOW ARE REPORTED AS UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES
GYPSUM CO., 53 F.SUPP.  889 AND 67 F.SUPP.  397.  UNITED STATES V. LINE
MATERIAL CO., DECIDED TODAY, ANTE, P. 287, WILL BE OF VALUE TO THE
READER IN CONSIDERING THIS OPINION. 

                                  I. 

THE APPELLEES ARE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GYPSUM AND THE
MANUFACTURE OF GYPSUM PRODUCTS, INCLUDING GYPSUM PLASTERBOARD, GYPSUM
LATH, GYPSUM WALLBOARD, AND GYPSUM PLASTER.  AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED
CONSPIRACY, APPELLEES SOLD NEARLY ALL OF THE FIRST THREE PRODUCTS WHICH
WERE MARKETED IN STATES EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, AND A SUBSTANTIAL
PORTION OF THE PLASTER SOLD IN THE SAME AREA.  GYPSUM PRODUCTS ARE
WIDELY USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.  IN 1939, THE SALES VALUE OF
GYPSUM PRODUCTS WAS APPROXIMATELY $42,000,000, OF WHICH $23,000,000 WAS
ACCOUNTED FOR BY GYPSUM BOARD (PLASTERBOARD, LATH, AND WALLBOARD),
$17,000,000 BY GYPSUM PLASTER AND THE REMAINDER BY GYPSUM BLOCK AND
TILE AND OTHER PRODUCTS.  OVER 90% OF ALL PLASTER USED IN BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES IS MADE WITH GYPSUM. 

GYPSUM IS FOUND IN NUMEROUS DEPOSITS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  GYPSUM
BOARD IS MADE BY TAKING THE CRUSHED AND CALCINED MINERAL, ADDING WATER,
AND SPREADING THE GYPSUM SLURRY BETWEEN TWO PAPER LINERS.  WHEN THE
GYPSUM HARDENS, THE MINERAL ADHERES TO THE PAPER AND THE RESULTING
PRODUCT IS USED IN CONSTRUCTION.  PLASTERBOARD AND LATH HAVE A ROUGH
SURFACE AND ARE USED AS A WALL AND CEILING BASE FOR PLASTER; WALLBOARD
HAS A FINISHED SURFACE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ADDITION OF PLASTER. 

SINCE ITS ORGANIZATION IN 1901, UNITED STATES GYPSUM HAS BEEN THE
DOMINANT CONCERN IN THE GYPSUM INDUSTRY.  IN 1939, IT SOLD 55% OF ALL
GYPSUM BOARD IN THE EASTERN AREA.  BY DEVELOPMENT AND PURCHASE IT HAS
ACQUIRED THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PATENTS COVERING THE MANUFACTURE OF
GYPSUM BOARD, AND BEGINNING IN 1926, UNITED STATES GYPSUM OFFERED
LICENSES UNDER ITS PATENTS TO OTHER CONCERNS IN THE INDUSTRY, ALL
LICENSES CONTAINING A PROVISION THAT UNITED STATES GYPSUM SHOULD FIX
THE MINIMUM PRICE AT WHICH THE LICENSEE SOLD GYPSUM PRODUCTS EMBODYING
THE PATENTS.  SINCE 1929, UNITED STATES GYPSUM HAS FIXED PRICES AT
WHICH THE OTHER DEFENDANTS HAVE SOLD GYPSUM BOARD. 

THE OTHER CORPORATE APPELLEES ARE NATIONAL GYPSUM CO., CERTAIN-TEED
PRODUCTS CORP., CELOTEX CORP., EBSARY GYPSUM CO., AND NEWARK PLASTER
CO. APPELLEE GLOYD IS THE OWNER OF AN UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS TRADING
UNDER THE NAME OF TEXAS CEMENT PLASTER CO. NATIONAL PRODUCED 23% OF ALL
GYPSUM BOARD SOLD IN THE EASTERN AREA IN 1939, CERTAIN-TEED 11%, AND
THE OTHER FOUR COMPANIES CORRESPONDINGLY SMALLER AMOUNTS.  SEVEN
COMPANIES WHICH WERE ACTIVE WHEN THE LICENSING PLAN WAS EVOLVED IN 1929
AND BEFORE HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY OTHER COMPANIES, AND DEFENDANT CELOTEX
ENTERED THE INDUSTRY IN 1939 WHEN THE LICENSING PLAN WAS FULLY IN
EFFECT BY ACQUIRING THE ASSETS AND LICENSES OF AMERICAN GYPSUM
COMPANY.  THE SEVEN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE PRESIDENTS OF THE
CORPORATE DEFENDANTS.  THE TABULATION ON THE NEXT PAGE LISTS THE
CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, AND SHOWS THE CORPORATE CHANGES
WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE.  FN1 

PRIOR TO 1912, GYPSUM BOARD WAS MANUFACTURED WITH AN OPEN EDGE,
LEAVING THE GYPSUM CORE EXPOSED ON ALL FOUR SIDES.  IN 1912, UNITED
STATES GYPSUM RECEIVED AS ASSIGNEE A PATENT ISSUED TO ONE UTZMAN, NO.
1,034,746, COVERING BOTH PROCESS AND PRODUCT CLAIMS ON BOARD WITH
CLOSED SIDE EDGES, THE LOWER PAPER LINER BEING FOLDED OVER THE EXPOSED
GYPSUM CORE.  CLOSED-EDGE BOARD WAS SUPERIOR IN QUALITY TO OPEN-EDGE
BOARD, AS IT WAS CHEAPER TO PRODUCE, DID NOT BREAK SO EASILY IN
SHIPMENT, AND WAS LESS SUBJECT TO CRUMBLING AT THE EDGES WHEN NAILED IN
PLACE.  UNITED STATES GYPSUM ALSO ACQUIRED A NUMBER OF OTHER PATENTS
RELATING TO THE PROCESS OF MAKING CLOSED-EDGE BOARD.  IN 1917, UNITED
STATES GYPSUM SUED A COMPETITOR CLAIMING INFRINGEMENT OF THE UTZMAN
PATENT AND IN 1921 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT
HOLDING THAT THE UTZMAN PATENT WAS VALID AND INFRINGED N2.  UNITED
STATES GYPSUM SETTLED WITH AN INFRINGER, BEAVER PRODUCTS CO., IN 1926,
BY GRANTING BEAVER A LICENSE TO PRACTICE THE CLOSED-EDGE BOARD PATENT
WITH A PROVISION THAT UNITED STATES GYPSUM SHOULD FIX THE PRICE AT
WHICH BEAVER SOLD PATENTED BOARD.  SHORTLY BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT WITH
BEAVER, UNITED STATES GYPSUM INSTITUTED SUITS AGAINST AMERICAN GYPSUM
CO., UNIVERSAL GYPSUM AND LIME CO., AND GAVE NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT TO
NIAGARA GYPSUM CO. UNIVERSAL DID NOT CONTEST THE SUIT BUT ACCEPTED A
LICENSE WITH PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS, AND TWO OTHER SMALL COMPANIES
FOLLOWED SUIT IN 1927.  AMERICAN AND NIAGARA WOULD NOT SETTLE, AND IN
1928 JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED AGAINST AMERICAN HOLDING THAT AMERICAN'S
PARTIALLY CLOSED-EDGE BOARD INFRINGED ONE OF UNITED STATES GYPSUM'S
PATENTS.  UNITED STATES GYPSUM ALSO INSTITUTED SUITS FOR INFRINGEMENT
AGAINST NATIONAL GYPSUM CO. IN 1926 AND 1928 WHICH WERE SETTLED BY THE
EXECUTION OF A LICENSE AND PAYMENT OF DAMAGES AS PART OF THE INDUSTRY
WIDE SETTLEMENT WITH ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS IN 1929.  IN THAT YEAR, TWO
SETS OF LICENSE AGREEMENTS WERE SIGNED IN WHICH UNITED STATES GYPSUM
LICENSED ALL BUT TWO COMPANIES MANUFACTURING GYPSUM BOARD IN
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TERMS AND FROM THAT DATE UNITED STATES GYPSUM
HAS MAINTAINED RIGID CONTROL OVER THE PRICE AND TERMS OF SALE OF
VIRTUALLY ALL GYPSUM BOARD.  SINCE 1937 THE CONTROL HAS BEEN COMPLETE. 

UP TO THIS POINT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE FACTS.  THE GOVERNMENT
CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTED IN CONCERT IN ENTERING INTO THE
LICENSING AGREEMENTS, THAT UNITED STATES GYPSUM GRANTED LICENSES AND
THE OTHER DEFENDANTS ACCEPTED LICENSES WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL
OTHER CONCERNS IN THE INDUSTRY WOULD ACCEPT SIMILAR LICENSES, AND THAT
AS A RESULT OF SUCH CONCERT OF ACTION, COMPETITION WAS ELIMINATED BY
FIXING THE PRICE OF PATENTED BOARD, ELIMINATING THE PRODUCTION OF
UNPATENTED BOARD, AND REGULATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF PATENTED BOARD. 
TO SUPPORT ITS ALLEGATIONS, THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE THE
LICENSE AGREEMENTS, MORE THAN 600 DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS CONSISTING OF
LETTERS AND MEMORANDA WRITTEN BY OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS,
AND EXAMINED 28 WITNESSES, MOST OF WHOM WERE OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATE
DEFENDANTS.  SINCE THE APPELLEES' MOTION TO DISMISS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
HAD FINISHED ITS CASE WAS SUSTAINED, THE APPELLEES INTRODUCED NO
EVIDENCE.  THEY DID CROSS-EXAMINE THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES.  THE
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS PRESENT A FULL PICTURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THE NEGOTIATION OF THE PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS, AND ARE
CHIEFLY RELIED ON BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ITS CASE. 

ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRY-WIDE NETWORK OF PATENT LICENSES WAS NOT
ACHIEVED UNTIL 1929, THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT THE DOCUMENTARY
EXHIBITS SHOW THAT THE PROCESS OF FORMULATION OF THE PLAN BEGAN IN
1925.  ON DECEMBER 12, 1925, AUGUSTUS S. BLAGDEN, PRESIDENT OF BEAVER,
SENT A MEMORANDUM TO SEWELL AVERY, PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES GYPSUM. 
BEAVER HAD BEEN ADJUDGED AN INFRINGER OF THE UTZMAN PATENT, AND BLAGDEN
AND AVERY HAD NEGOTIATED TERMS FOR SETTLING THE SUIT.  BLAGDEN
TESTIFIED THAT AVERY HAD OFFERED TO SETTLE WITH BEAVER BY GRANTING
BEAVER A LICENSE WITH A PRICE-FIXING LIMITATION AND PROVISION THAT
BEAVER SHOULD PAY DAMAGES FOR PAST INFRINGEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE
VALIDITY OF UNITED STATES GYPSUM'S PATENTS.  IN THE MEMORANDUM BLAGDEN
ANALYZED IN DETAIL THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FLOW FROM FIVE POSSIBLE
DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IF THE DECREE ADJUDGING
BEAVER AN INFRINGER WERE APPEALED.  BLAGDEN NOTED THAT WHETHER THE
COURT UPHELD OR DENIED UNITED STATES GYPSUM'S CLAIM, UNITED STATES
GYPSUM "WOULD LOSE, PERHAPS IRREVOCABLY, ITS PRESENT OPPORTUNITY TO
ORGANIZE THE INDUSTRY AND STABILIZE PRICES."  THE MEMORANDUM FURTHER
POINTED OUT THAT IF THE SUIT WERE SETTLED ON THE TERMS OFFERED BY
AVERY, THE RESULT WOULD BE MORE FAVORABLE TO UNITED STATES GYPSUM THAN
ANY POSSIBLE DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  BEAVER WOULD ACCEPT A
LICENSE AND "WOULD AGREE TO USE ITS BEST ENDEAVORS" TO INDUCE OTHER
MANUFACTURERS TO ACCEPT SIMILAR LICENSES; IF BEAVER WERE SUCCESSFUL IN
PERSUADING OTHER MANUFACTURERS TO EXECUTE LICENSES, UNITED STATES
GYPSUM COULD "MAINTAIN A LAWFUL PRICE CONTROL AND AVOID THE NECESSITY
OF A REDUCTION BY PLAINTIFF (UNITED STATES GYPSUM) OF CURRENT PRICES TO
MEET COMPETITION."  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, UNITED STATES GYPSUM
"WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE A DOMINATING POSITION IN THE INDUSTRY WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL OR AT LEAST TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONTROL OF
PRICES THROUGH LEGITIMATE MEANS OF PATENT LICENSES." 

ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO PROOF THAT AVERY APPROVED BLAGDEN'S MEMORANDUM,
BLAGDEN DID ACCEPT A LICENSE ON THE TERMS OFFERED BY AVERY IN JULY,
1926, AND BLAGDEN TESTIFIED THAT HE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM OTHER COMPANIES AND URGED THEM TO ACCEPT LICENSES
FROM UNITED STATES GYPSUM.  FRANK J. GRISWOLD, GENERAL MANAGER OF
AMERICAN GYPSUM COMPANY, ALSO WAS ACTIVE IN PROMOTING A SCHEME OF
INDUSTRY-WIDE LICENSING.  ON MAY 12, 1926, GRISWOLD WROTE A LETTER TO
THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN, STATING THAT HE HAD TALKED TO BLAGDEN, AND
ADDED THAT "THIS MATTER WILL BE DISCUSSED BY ALL INDEPENDENT WALL BOARD
MANUFACTURERS AT A MEETING IN CHICAGO NEXT WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON." 
GRISWOLD CONCLUDED THE LETTER WITH THE STATEMENT:  "ACCORDING TO THE
PLANS WE HAVE WE FIGURE THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF US HOLDING THE
PRICE STEADY ON WALL BOARD FOR THE NEXT FOURTEEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS WHICH
MEANS MUCH TO THE INDUSTRY." 

BLAGDEN AND GRISWOLD DID NOT SUCCEED IN PERSUADING OTHER
MANUFACTURERS TO ACCEPT LICENSES IN 1926.  UNIVERSAL ACCEPTED A LICENSE
IN SEPTEMBER, 1926, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BLAGDEN AND GRISWOLD
PLAYED ANY PART IN NEGOTIATING THE SETTLEMENT.  GRISWOLD SUGGESTED TO
AVERY THAT UNITED STATES GYPSUM OFFER A SHORTER TERM LICENSE, BUT AVERY
WAS UNWILLING TO MAKE SUCH A CONCESSION.  DURING 1927 GRISWOLD AND
BLAGDEN CONTINUED THEIR NEGOTIATIONS.  GRISWOLD AND SAMUEL M. GLOYD,
OWNER OF THE TEXAS CEMENT PLASTER CO., CORRESPONDED WITH EACH OTHER IN
REGARD TO THE LICENSING PROPOSAL.  WHEN GRISWOLD INFORMED GLOYD THAT
ATLANTIC GYPSUM CO. HAD SIGNED A LONG-TERM LICENSE WITH UNITED STATES
GYPSUM, GLOYD REPLIED THAT HE WOULD APPLY FOR A LICENSE RIGHT AWAY. 
PREVIOUSLY GLOYD HAD BEEN TRYING TO SECURE A SHORTER TERM LICENSE. 
GLOYD AND ATLANTIC BOTH SIGNED LICENSES SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL LICENSE
GRANTED TO BEAVER.    IN JANUARY 1928 CERTAIN-TEED PRODUCTS CORP.
PURCHASED THE ASSETS OF BEAVER.  CERTAIN-TEED HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN
MAKING OPEN-EDGE BOARD AND SELLING IT AT LOWER PRICES THAN THE CLOSED
EDGE BOARD MANUFACTURED BY UNITED STATES GYPSUM AND ITS LICENSEES. 
CERTAIN-TEED REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT OF BEAVER AND
UNITED STATES GYPSUM FILED SUIT TO COMPEL CERTAIN-TEED TO ACCEPT THE
LICENSE.  CERTAIN-TEED POSTED A MILLION DOLLAR BOND AND COMMENCED TO
MAKE OPEN-EDGE BOARD AT ALL BEAVER PLANTS.  GEORGE M. BROWN, PRESIDENT
OF CERTAIN-TEED, AND AVERY HAD SEVERAL CONFERENCES AT WHICH THEY
ATTEMPTED TO COMPOSE THEIR DIFFERENCES, BUT WITHOUT RESULT.  THE
GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE A MEMORANDUM WRITTEN BY BROWN, DATED
MARCH 1, 1928, IN WHICH BROWN EXPRESSED CONFIDENCE THAT HE COULD MAKE
OPEN-EDGE BOARD AND SELL IT IN COMPETITION WITH UNITED STATES GYPSUM,
AND THAT HE WAS AFRAID TO SIGN UP A LICENSE WITH PRICE-FIXING
PROVISIONS BECAUSE HIS COMPETITORS WOULD GRANT SECRET REBATES.  BROWN
CONCLUDED THAT CERTAIN-TEED SHOULD ANSWER THE SUIT OF UNITED STATES
GYPSUM TO ENFORCE THE BEAVER LICENSE BY CLAIMING THAT THE SUIT WAS
FILED NOT IN THE INTEREST OF ROYALTIES BUT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
TRADE DOMINATION AND MONOPOLY AND PRICE CONTROL.  BROWN CONCLUDED WITH
THE STATEMENT THAT UNITED STATES GYPSUM'S "DETERMINATION TO GATHER IN A
MONOPOLY, IF POSSIBLE, LEADS THEM TO RISK EVERYTHING FOR SUCH
DOMINATION BECAUSE OF THE BIG REWARDS POSSIBLE, IF THEY CAN SUCCEED." 
CERTAIN-TEED DID FILE AN ANSWER TO THE SUIT COUCHED IN THOSE TERMS. 
GRISWOLD TESTIFIED THAT IN A CONVERSATION WITH BROWN IN THE FOLLOWING
MONTH BROWN STATED THAT HE MIGHT POSSIBLY CONSIDER TAKING OUT A LICENSE
IF "ALL OF THE OTHER MANUFACTURERS, OR CERTAIN ONES OF THEM" TOOK OUT A
LICENSE.  GRISWOLD ALSO WROTE THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN THAT HE HAD HAD
A CONFERENCE WITH BROWN AT WHICH BROWN HAD SAID THAT "THEY WERE WILLING
AT THAT TIME TO ENTER INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITHOUT ANY PARTICULAR
CHANGES IN IT PROVIDING ALL OF THE MANUFACTURERS, INCLUDING EBSARY,
WOULD ENTER INTO IT AND MAKE IT ONE HUNDRED PERCENT." 

NO SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED BETWEEN UNITED STATES GYPSUM AND CERTAIN
TEED IN 1928, AND NO OTHER LICENSE AGREEMENTS WERE SIGNED.  A MEETING
OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PRINCIPAL NON-LICENSEE MANUFACTURERS TOOK
PLACE IN OCTOBER, AND IN NOVEMBER THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE OFFICIALS OF THE COMPANY TO ENTER
INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT.  BESIDES CERTAIN-TEED AND NATIONAL, AMERICAN,
EBSARY, NIAGARA, AND KELLEY PLASTERBOARD COMPANY MANUFACTURED GYPSUM
BOARD BUT DID NOT HOLD LICENSES FROM UNITED STATES GYPSUM. 

THE PATENT LICENSES IN FORCE AT THE BEGINNING OF 1929 PROVIDED THAT
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COULD FIX PRICES ONLY DURING THE TERM OF THE
PRINCIPAL UTZMAN PATENT, WHICH WAS SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE ON AUGUST 6,
1929, ALTHOUGH THE REMAINING FEATURES OF THE AGREEMENTS WERE TO REMAIN
IN FORCE UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE LAST PATENT INCLUDED UNDER THE
LICENSE, WHICH WAS IN 1937.  IN NEGOTIATIONS IN 1929, VARIOUS
DEFENDANTS EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE POSSIBILITY OF AN EFFECTIVE PLAN
OF PRICE FIXING IN VIEW OF THE IMMINENT EXPIRATION OF THE UTZMAN
PATENT.  IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 9, J. F. HAGGERTY, PRESIDENT OF
NATIONAL, WROTE EUGENE HOLLAND, PRESIDENT OF UNIVERSAL, ASKING HIS
VIEWS AS TO POSSIBILITY OF CONTINUING PRICE CONTROL AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE UTZMAN PATENT.  HOLLAND IN REPLY WROTE AS FOLLOWS: 

"YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT MR. AVERY MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO US THAT IF
THIS PLAN COULD NOT BE WORKED OUT ON THE UTZMAN PATENT THAT THERE WERE
OTHER PATENTS AVAILABLE AND WE WERE ALL AGREED THAT THE FACT THAT THE
UTZMAN PATENT EXPIRES NEXT AUGUST IS NOT A PRACTICAL REASON FOR
CONTINUING THE CONFLICT." 

HOLLAND ALSO STATED:  "I AM QUITE SURE THAT MR. AVERY WOULD NOT BE
INTERESTED IN NEGOTIATING SETTLEMENTS UNLESS EVERYONE INVOLVED WAS
INCLUDED."  IN POINT OF FACT, HOLLAND'S INTERPRETATION OF AVERY'S VIEWS
WAS INCORRECT; SEVERAL MONTHS LATER LICENSES WERE GRANTED TO FOUR
UNLICENSED MANUFACTURERS BUT NOT TO AMERICAN OR KELLEY.  OTHER EXHIBITS
SUGGEST THAT THE PROSPECTIVE LICENSEES WERE INTERESTED IN ACCEPTING
LICENSES AT THE SAME TIME.  IN HIS LETTER OF JANUARY 9, HAGGERTY WROTE
AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE QUESTION NOW IN MY MIND IS WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER FOUR BOARD
MAKERS, WHO ARE OUTSIDE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT, FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE
ADVANTAGEOUS TO GO IN WITHOUT THE AMERICAN GYPSUM COMPANY.  IT WOULD
SEEM TO ME THAT THE CHIEF VALUE IN A MEETING WOULD BE TO DISCUSS THAT
POINT." 

ON MAY 14, 1929, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL HELD A MEETING
"FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE LICENSE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED TO ALL
THE MANUFACTURERS OF GYPSUM PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES EAST OF THE
ROCKY MOUNTAINS BY THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO."  THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING FURTHER QUOTED THE CHAIRMAN AS SAYING THAT "HE HAD BEEN
DEFINITELY INFORMED THAT ALL OTHER MANUFACTURERS OF GYPSUM PRODUCTS
EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, EXCEPT THE AMERICAN GYPSUM COMPANY, HAD
AGREED TO SIGN THE LICENSE CONTRACT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM AS
SUBMITTED TO THIS BOARD."  THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZED THE
EXECUTION OF THE PROPOSED LICENSE CONTRACT. 

TWO DAYS LATER NATIONAL SIGNED THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.  ON THE
FOLLOWING DAY NATIONAL SENT A TELEGRAM TO AVERY AS FOLLOWS: 

"OUR CONTRACT SIGNED AND IN MAIL REEB (OF NIAGARA) READY STOP WE ARE
WORKING WITH EBSARY WITH HOPE OF EVERYBODY BEING SET BY SATURDAY TO
JUSTIFY YOUR CALLING MEETING ALL BOARD MAKERS MONDAY IF YOU LIKE." 

ON MAY 18 AVERY DISPATCHED IDENTICAL TELEGRAMS TO UNITED STATES
GYPSUM'S LICENSEES, AND TO CERTAIN-TEED AND EBSARY, AS FOLLOWS: 

"MR. KLING (OF AMERICAN) HAS SENT IN A CONTRACT WITH MATERIAL CHANGES
AND DECLARES HE WILL NOT ATTEND MEETING UNLESS THESE CHANGES ARE
ACCEPTED BY US STOP WE CANNOT ACCEPT THEM AND REGRET THAT THE TUESDAY
MEETING WILL BE FUTILE UNLESS OTHER COMPANIES WISH TO PROCEED AS
OUTLINED WITHOUT AMERICAN LICENSE." 

ON MAY 20 AVERY WROTE GLOYD OF TEXAS CEMENT PLASTER, A LICENSEE SINCE
1927, STATING THAT ALTHOUGH AMERICAN WAS UNWILLING TO ACCEPT A LICENSE,
OFFICERS OF CERTAIN-TEED, NIAGARA, EBSARY, AND NATIONAL HAD EXPRESSED
THEMSELVES FAVORABLY "TO THIS ADJUSTMENT" AND "IT IS NOT IMPROBABLE
THAT THE MATTER MAY BE CLOSED AT THE MEETING TOMORROW OR SOON
THEREAFTER." 

ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, A MEETING OF REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL BUT ONE OF
THE LICENSED MANUFACTURERS, AND ALL UNLICENSED MANUFACTURERS EXCEPT
AMERICAN AND KELLEY, TOOK PLACE IN CHICAGO.  THE THREE UNLICENSED
MANUFACTURERS WHO WERE PRESENT - CERTAIN-TEED, EBSARY AND NIAGARA -
SIGNED LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 

AT THE SAME MEETING, AVERY EXPLAINED TO THE LICENSEES THAT UNITED
STATES GYPSUM HAD ACQUIRED APPLICATIONS FOR A PATENT COVERING SO-CALLED
"BUBBLE BOARD" AND SUGGESTED THAT THE LICENSEES TAKE OUT LICENSES UNDER
THESE APPLICATIONS.  THE APPLICATIONS COVERED A PROCESS FOR MAKING
GYPSUM BOARD BY INTRODUCING A SOAP FOAM IN THE GYPSUM SLURRY WHICH
WOULD RESULT IN A LIGHTER AND CHEAPER BOARD.  AVERY SUBSEQUENTLY MAILED
PROPOSED LICENSE AGREEMENTS UNDER THE "BUBBLE BOARD" APPLICATIONS TO
THE LICENSEES.  GEORGE M. BROWN OF CERTAIN-TEED ON JUNE 4TH
ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF THE LICENSE PROPOSAL IN A NONCOMMITTAL REPLY,
BUT COMPOSED A MEMORANDUM FOR HIS OWN FILES IN WHICH HE COMMENTED THAT
THE SAVINGS RESULTING FROM TAKING A LICENSE WOULD BE DOUBTFUL, AND THEN
ADDED: 

"THEY WOULD HAVE A PRICE CONTROL OF OUR BUSINESS, WHICH MIGHT BE TO
OUR ADVANTAGE AND MIGHT BE TO OUR DISADVANTAGE IN FUTURE.  THEY SHOULD
BE JUST AS ANXIOUS TO HAVE US USE THIS AS WE SHOULD BE TO GET IT IF
THERE ARE TO BE THE BENEFITS THAT THEY ANTICIPATE IN STABILIZING THE
WHOLE INDUSTRY BY MAKING A UNIFORM PRODUCT AND GET AWAY FROM THE FIERCE
WARFARES BETWEEN DIFFERENT PRODUCTS LIKE WE HAVE RECENTLY HAD.  THE
SAVING IS TOO SLIGHT TO CAUSE US VERY GREAT WORRY EVEN IF NEVER
PERMITTED TO USE IT AND THE DOOR WILL CERTAINLY BE OPEN LATER FOR ITS
USE IF IT HAS THE MERIT THAT THEY BELIEVE IT HAS.  UNDER A CONTRACT
SUFFICIENTLY LIBERAL, WE WOULD PROCEED AT ONCE." 

ON JUNE 6TH THE LICENSEES MET AGAIN IN CHICAGO TO DISCUSS THE
QUESTION OF ACCEPTING A LICENSE UNDER THE "BUBBLE BOARD" PATENTS. 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER CERTAIN-TEED AGREED TO TAKE OUT A LICENSE.  NATIONAL
ALSO AGREED TO ACCEPT A LICENSE; THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON JULY 23 READ IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE PRESIDENT STATED THAT THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY HAS BEEN
WORKING ON A PLAN TO STABILIZE THE GYPSUM INDUSTRY AND HAS OFFERED TO
LICENSE THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY UNDER THE NEW METHOD OF MANUFACTURING
GYPSUM WALL BOARD KNOWN AS THE 'BUBBLE SYSTEM.'  THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS
SUBMITTED TO EACH OF THE WALL BOARD MANUFACTURERS CONTAIN PRICE FIXING
CLAUSES AND UNDER THE AGREEMENTS SUBMITTED THE PRICES OF WALL BOARD
WOULD BE FIXED FOR THE WHOLE INDUSTRY FOR THE TERM OF APPROXIMATELY
SEVENTEEN YEARS." 

THE BOARD PASSED A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO
NEGOTIATE A LICENSE AGREEMENT, "PROVIDED THAT THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM
COMPANY, BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THIS CORPORATION AND WITH
OTHER MANUFACTURERS OF GYPSUM WALL BOARD, SHALL CONTROL THE PRICE OF
WALL BOARD SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS POSSESSIONS." 

TWO DAYS LATER ANOTHER CONFERENCE OF LICENSEES WAS HELD IN CHICAGO. 
C. O. BROWN, VICE-PRESIDENT OF CERTAIN-TEED, PREPARED A MEMORANDUM FOR
GEORGE M. BROWN, PRESIDENT OF CERTAIN-TEED, DESCRIBING WHAT HAPPENED AT
THAT MEETING.  ACCORDING TO THE MEMORANDUM, NATIONAL AND UNIVERSAL WERE
UNWILLING TO ACCEPT "BUBBLE BOARD" LICENSES UNTIL THEY HAD SETTLED
THEIR LITIGATION OVER NATIONAL'S INFRINGEMENT OF UNIVERSAL'S STARCH
PATENT.  THAT PATENT INCLUDED PROCESS AND PRODUCT CLAIMS ON WALLBOARD
MADE WITH STARCH.  BROWN NOTED THAT UNITED STATES GYPSUM WAS WORKING ON
A PROPOSAL TO COMBINE THE STARCH AND "BUBBLE BOARD" PROCESSES; ALTHOUGH
SUCH A COMBINATION WOULD HAVE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES, BROWN COMMENTED
ON THE FACT THAT THE STARCH PATENT HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED "SO A
COMBINATION OF THE TWO SYSTEMS WOULD GIVE A PATENT TO WORK UNDER IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GYPSUM WALLBOARD IMMEDIATELY, WHEREAS UNDER
ONLY THE BUBBLE PROCESS THERE WOULD BE AN INTERIM BETWEEN AUGUST 6TH
AND THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE BUBBLE PATENT WHERE THERE WOULD BE NO
PATENT CONTROL.  THERE IS, OF COURSE, CONSIDERABLE BENEFIT TO HAVING
PATENT CONTROL CONTINUE WITHOUT A BREAK."  BROWN FURTHER NOTED THAT
AVERY WAS TRYING TO WORK OUT A PROPOSITION WITH HOLLAND TO BUY THE
STARCH PATENT OR TO LICENSE THE INDUSTRY UNDER BOTH PROCESSES. 

ANOTHER MEETING OF LICENSEES WAS HELD IN CHICAGO ON AUGUST 6, THE DAY
ON WHICH THE UTZMAN PATENT EXPIRED.  IN A MEMORANDUM SUMMARIZING WHAT
HAPPENED AT THE MEETING, C. O. BROWN SAID THAT IT HAD BEEN AGREED THAT
UNIVERSAL WOULD ASSIGN THE STARCH PATENT TO UNITED STATES GYPSUM, AND
THE LATTER COMPANY WOULD ISSUE A SINGLE LICENSE CONTRACT COVERING ALL
PATENTS AND PATENT APPLICATIONS.  BROWN FURTHER REPORTED THAT "ALL OF
THE INDEPENDENT GYPSUM COMPANIES ARE WILLING TO SIGN ON THIS BASIS" AND
THAT "THE ATTORNEYS FEEL THAT SUCH A CONTRACT WOULD BE EXCEPTIONALLY
STRONG AND PRICE CONTROL COULD BE MAINTAINED FOR THE LIFE OF THE
CONTRACT WITHOUT DIFFICULTY."  ON AUGUST 27 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
NATIONAL HELD A MEETING AT WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN A
LICENSE WITH UNITED STATES GYPSUM COVERING THE "BUBBLE BOARD" AND
STARCH PATENTS "PROVIDED THAT ALL THE PRESENT LICENSEES OF THE UNITED
STATES GYPSUM COMPANY ENTER INTO A SIMILAR LICENSE AND PROVIDED FURTHER
THAT IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRESIDENT SUCH ACTION WILL RESULT IN LEGAL
STABILIZATION OF THE MARKETS." 

SOON THEREAFTER, NATIONAL, CERTAIN-TEED, EBSARY, NIAGARA AND ATLANTIC
EXECUTED LICENSES WITH UNITED STATES GYPSUM, TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ON THE
DATE WHEN UNIVERSAL'S RECEIVER TRANSFERRED THE STARCH PATENTS TO UNITED
STATES GYPSUM.  ON NOVEMBER 5 THE STARCH PATENTS WERE ASSIGNED TO
UNITED STATES GYPSUM, AND ON THE SAME DATE UNIVERSAL ALSO ACCEPTED A
LICENSE.  ON NOVEMBER 25 AMERICAN SETTLED ITS LITIGATION WITH UNITED
STATES GYPSUM AND ACCEPTED A LICENSE.  ALL MANUFACTURERS OF GYPSUM
BOARD WERE NOW LICENSED BY UNITED STATES GYPSUM, EXCEPT KELLEY
PLASTERBOARD CO., AND THAT CONCERN ACCEPTED A LICENSE IN APRIL OF THE
FOLLOWING YEAR.  TEXAS CEMENT PLASTER, A LICENSEE UNDER THE UTZMAN
PATENT, DID NOT ACCEPT A LICENSE UNDER THE STARCH AND "BUBBLE BOARD"
PATENTS UNTIL 1937 WHEN THE ORIGINAL LICENSE EXPIRED.  TEXAS WAS THUS
FREE TO SELL BOARD AT ANY PRICE FROM 1929 TO 1937. 

THE CONTRACTS WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE IN NOVEMBER 1929 WERE IN
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TERMS.  THE LICENSE WITH UNIVERSAL CONTAINED
PREFERENTIAL ROYALTY TERMS WHICH WERE GRANTED AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE
TRANSFER OF THE STARCH PATENTS; EVERY OTHER LICENSE (EXCEPT THAT OF
TEXAS) PROVIDED THAT IF THE LICENSOR SHOULD SUBSEQUENTLY GRANT MORE
FAVORABLE TERMS TO ANY LICENSEE (EXCEPT UNIVERSAL), THE SAME MORE
FAVORABLE TERMS WOULD BE GRANTED TO THE FIRST LICENSEE.  EACH LICENSEE
AGREED TO PAY AS ROYALTY A STIPULATED PERCENTAGE ON THE SELLING PRICE
OF "ALL PLASTER BOARD AND GYPSUM WALLBOARD OF EVERY KIND" WHETHER OR
NOT MADE BY PATENTED PROCESSES OR EMBODYING PRODUCT CLAIMS.  THE
CONTRACT COVERED FIFTY PATENTS AND SEVEN PATENT APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING
THE STARCH PATENT AND THE "BUBBLE BOARD" APPLICATIONS; THE CONTRACT WAS
TO RUN UNTIL THE MOST JUNIOR PATENT EXPIRED.  AS TWO "BUBBLE BOARD"
PATENTS WERE ISSUED IN 1937, THE LICENSES RAN UNTIL 1954.  THE
LICENSEES AGREED NOT TO SELL PATENTED WALLBOARD TO MANUFACTURING
DISTRIBUTORS UNLESS UNITED STATES GYPSUM GAVE ITS CONSENT AS TO EACH
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER.  AS IN THE PREVIOUS CONTRACTS, UNITED STATES
GYPSUM RESERVED THE RIGHT TO FIX THE MINIMUM PRICE AT WHICH EACH
LICENSEE SOLD WALLBOARD EMBODYING THE LICENSOR'S PATENTS, THE LICENSOR
AGREEING THAT SUCH MINIMUM PRICE WOULD BE NOT GREATER THAN THE PRICE AT
WHICH THE LICENSOR ITSELF OFFERED TO SELL.  THE MORE IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE TO THIS LITIGATION ARE SET FORTH IN AN
APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION, POST, P. 404.  NOTHING HAS BEEN OMITTED THAT
APPEARS TO BE SIGNIFICANT ON THE ISSUES CONSIDERED.    IN 1934 AND 1935
UNITED STATES GYPSUM OFFERED SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSES TO PRACTICE A PATENT
COVERING METALLIZED BOARD, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY ALMOST ALL LICENSEES,
AND IN 1936 UNITED STATES GYPSUM OFFERED LICENSES UNDER ITS PERFORATED
LATH PATENT WHICH WERE ALSO ACCEPTED BY MOST LICENSEES.  THESE
SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSES CONTAINED PROVISIONS ALLOWING UNITED STATES
GYPSUM TO FIX THE MINIMUM PRICE ON BOARD MADE ACCORDING TO THE PATENTS
WHICH WERE LICENSED.    THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED THAT THE EXECUTION OF
THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS IN MAY AND NOVEMBER 1929 MARKED A TURNING POINT
IN THE GYPSUM INDUSTRY.  THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED EVIDENCE TENDING TO
SHOW THAT THE PRICE OF FIRST QUALITY WALLBOARD WAS RAISED, THAT UNITED
STATES GYPSUM STANDARDIZED THE TYPE OF BOARD SOLD BY REQUIRING ITS
LICENSEES TO SELL NO. 2 WALLBOARD AND SECONDS AT THE SAME PRICE AS
STANDARD WALLBOARD, AND STANDARDIZED THE METHODS OF SALE SO THAT NO
LICENSEE COULD OFFER MORE FAVORABLE TERMS TO A CUSTOMER THAN ANY OTHER
LICENSEE. 

ALTHOUGH THE LICENSE CONTRACTS GAVE THE LICENSOR THE RIGHT ONLY TO
FIX THE MINIMUM PRICE AT WHICH THE LICENSEE SHOULD SELL, UNITED STATES
GYPSUM ISSUED A SERIES OF BULLETINS WHICH DEFINED IN MINUTE DETAIL BOTH
THE PRICES AND TERMS OF SALE FOR PATENTED GYPSUM BOARD.  THEY ARE
PRINTED ON NEARLY A THOUSAND PAGES OF THE RECORD.  THE BULLETINS
ADOPTED A BASING POINT SYSTEM OF PRICING, ACCORDING TO WHICH EACH
LICENSEE WAS REQUIRED TO QUOTE A PRICE DETERMINED BY TAKING THE MILL
PRICE AT THE NEAREST BASING POINT AND ADDING THE ALL RAIL FREIGHT FROM
THE BASING POINT TO THE DESTINATION.  THE FREIGHT WAS TO BE COMPUTED ON
SPECIFIED UNIFORM BILLING WEIGHTS, IN ORDER TO PREVENT VARIATIONS IN
FREIGHT ARISING FROM THE DIFFERENCES IN WEIGHT OF BOARD MADE BY
DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS, AND EACH LICENSEE WAS DIRECTED TO CHARGE
EXACTLY THE SAME SWITCHING, CARTAGE, AND EXTRA DELIVERY CHARGES. 
SPECIFIED BOARD SIZES AND MINIMUM QUANTITIES WERE PRESCRIBED, LICENSEES
WERE FORBIDDEN TO EMPLOY COMMISSION SALESMEN WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
CONSENT OF THE LICENSOR, REGULATIONS WERE PRESCRIBED AS TO THE SIZE,
QUANTITY AND MARKINGS OF GYPSUM BOARD USED FOR PACKING SHIPMENTS,
GRANTING OF LONG-TERM CREDIT WAS PROHIBITED, SALES ON CONSIGNMENT WERE
ENJOINED AND LICENSEES WERE FORBIDDEN TO DELIVER BOARD DIRECTLY TO A
BUILDING SITE. 

IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE TO QUOTE ONE OF THE HUNDREDS OF COMPREHENSIVE
BULLETINS ON PRICES AND TERMS.  THE INDUSTRY ACCEPTED DIRECTIONS FOR
DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCT AS COROLLARY TO PRICE CONTROL, SO THAT PRICES
WOULD NOT BE INFRINGED BY VARIATIONS OF SELLER CONTRACTS.  THE DETAIL
OF DIRECTIVES IS WELL ILLUSTRATED BY THE DIRECTIVE FOR COMPUTATION OF
FREIGHT TO BE ADDED TO THE MILL PRICE AND THE PROVISION AGAINST SUBTLE
PRICE REDUCTION.  THE EXCERPTS BELOW ARE FROM THE BOARD LICENSE
BULLETIN OF JUNE 10, 1939.  FN3 

IN ORDER TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRICE BULLETINS, UNITED STATES
GYPSUM ESTABLISHED A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY IN 1932 NAMED BOARD
SURVEY, INC. LICENSEES WERE INVITED TO SEND IN COMPLAINTS AS TO
VIOLATIONS OF PRICING BULLETINS TO BOARD SURVEY AND THAT ORGANIZATION
FORWARDED THE COMPLAINTS TO THE ALLEGED DELINQUENT LICENSEES.  BOARD
SURVEY WAS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE A THOROUGH CHECK-UP OF ALL REPORTED
VIOLATIONS AND TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS IT MIGHT DEEM NECESSARY OR PROPER
TO PROTECT UNITED STATES GYPSUM'S RIGHTS UNDER THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS
AND PATENTS.  ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO INSTANCE IN WHICH BOARD
SURVEY TOOK OR EVEN THREATENED TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ANY
LICENSEE, THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH BOARD SURVEY SENT LETTERS
TO LICENSEES REQUESTING AN EXPLANATION AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS. 
MEETINGS OF LICENSEES WERE HELD AT WHICH DOUBTFUL PROVISIONS OF THE
PRICE BULLETINS WERE EXPLAINED.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT "IN THE
MAIN" LICENSEES COMPLIED WITH THE BULLETIN CONDITIONS. 

THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD DISCONTINUED
THE PRODUCTION OF UNPATENTED OPEN-EDGE BOARD, ELIMINATED JOBBERS BY
REQUIRING JOBBERS TO PURCHASE BOARD AT THE SAME PRICE AS BOARD SOLD TO
DEALERS, INDUCED MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTORS TO OBSERVE BULLETIN PRICES
UPON RESALE OF BOARD PURCHASED FROM LICENSEES, AND STABILIZED THE PRICE
OF GYPSUM PLASTER AND OTHER UNPATENTED PRODUCTS. 

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT AFTER 1929 THE DEFENDANTS CEASED TO MANUFACTURE
OPEN-EDGE BOARD; THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT PRODUCTION OF THE
UNPATENTED BOARD WAS DISCONTINUED IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PATENTED
BOARD FROM COMPETITION.  PRIOR TO 1929 OPEN-EDGE BOARD HAD SOLD AT
LOWER PRICES THAN CLOSED-EDGE BOARD, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBITS SHOW
THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS REALIZED THAT THERE COULD
BE NO EFFECTIVE STABILIZATION OF PRICES ON CLOSED-EDGE BOARD AS LONG AS
OPEN-EDGE BOARD WAS SOLD WITHOUT PRICE CONTROL.  THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS
PROVIDED THAT ROYALTIES SHOULD BE PAID ON THE SALES OF ALL BOARD SOLD,
PATENTED OR UNPATENTED, A PROVISION WHICH WOULD TEND TO DISCOURAGE THE
PRODUCTION OF HIGHER COST UNPATENTED BOARD.  ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT
PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEFENDANTS TO
ELIMINATE PRODUCTION OF OPEN-EDGE BOARD, CORPORATE OFFICERS OF THE
LICENSEES TESTIFIED THAT THEY ANTICIPATED THAT ONE RESULT OF INDUSTRY
WIDE LICENSING WOULD BE THE ELIMINATION OF OPEN-EDGE BOARD. 

THE MAY 1929 LICENSES REQUIRED LICENSEES TO OBTAIN THE CONSENT OF THE
LICENSOR BEFORE SELLING BOARD TO MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTORS OR TO
JOBBERS AND A PRICE BULLETIN ISSUED UNDER THOSE LICENSES ALLOWED
LICENSEES TO GRANT A 10% DISCOUNT TO BOTH CLASSES.  THE NOVEMBER 1929
LICENSES, HOWEVER, ELIMINATED THE CONSENT REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO
JOBBERS, ALTHOUGH IT WAS RETAINED WITH RESPECT TO MANUFACTURING
DISTRIBUTORS. 

THE JOBBERS' DISCOUNT WAS CONTINUED IN BULLETINS ISSUED UNDER THE
LATER LICENSES UNTIL AUGUST 8, 1930, WHEN UNITED STATES GYPSUM ORDERED
THAT THE DISCOUNT BE ELIMINATED.  ALTHOUGH JOBBERS COULD STILL BUY
BOARD IF THEY SO DESIRED, JOBBERS COULD REMAIN IN BUSINESS ONLY BY
SELLING TO DEALERS AT AN ADVANCE OVER THE BULLETIN PRICES.  THE COURT
BELOW FOUND THAT SOME JOBBERS WERE ABLE TO REMAIN IN BUSINESS BY
SELLING BOARD IN ODD LOTS TO DEALERS WHO DID NOT WISH TO BUY THE
MINIMUM LOT REQUIRED IN THE PRICE BULLETINS.  THE GOVERNMENT POINTS TO
THE DEFINITION OF "JOBBER" IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS AS "THOSE WHO DO
NOT MANUFACTURE BUT BUY AND SELL PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD IN
STRAIGHT CARS OR IN MIXED CARS WITH OTHER BUILDING MATERIAL AND WHO DO
NOT SELL AT RETAIL," AND POINTS TO UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY THAT
JOBBERS AS SO DEFINED WERE ELIMINATED. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO SET FORTH THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
RELIED TO SUPPORT ITS CHARGE THAT THE DEFENDANTS FIXED PRICES AT WHICH
MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTORS SOLD GYPSUM BOARD WHICH THEY HAD PURCHASED
FROM UNITED STATES GYPSUM OR ITS LICENSEES, AS THAT ISSUE IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR A DECISION OF THE CASE.  TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE OF
STABILIZING THE PRICE OF UNPATENTED PLASTER, THE GOVERNMENT CITED
LETTERS WRITTEN BY OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS SHOWING THAT
THEY ANTICIPATED THAT PRICE STABILIZATION IN PATENTED BOARD WOULD BE
ACCOMPANIED WITH STABILIZATION OF ALL GYPSUM PRODUCTS.  THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND THAT THE PRICE OF PLASTER AND MISCELLANEOUS GYPSUM PRODUCTS IN
FACT DID INCREASE AFTER 1929.  THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED THAT PLASTER
PRICES WERE STABILIZED BY REQUIRING LICENSEES WHO SOLD PLASTER TOGETHER
WITH PATENTED BOARD TO SELL PLASTER AT PREVAILING PRICES.  BOARD AND
PLASTER WERE USUALLY SOLD TOGETHER AND THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM THAT
CUTTING OF PRICES ON PLASTER, IN SALES OF THE TWO TOGETHER, OPERATED IN
EFFECT AS A REBATE ON THE PRICE OF BOARD, AND HENCE WAS LEGALLY SUBJECT
TO CONTROL.  THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE A LARGE NUMBER OF
COMPLAINTS TO BOARD SURVEY BY LICENSEES AS TO THEIR COMPETITORS'
FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PREVAILING PRICES ON PLASTER.  A BULLETIN PROVISION
FORBIDDING REBATES AND ALLOWANCES STATED THAT A SALE OF BOARD AT POSTED
PRICES WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE LICENSE IF THE LICENSEE REDUCED THE
PRICE OF OTHER PRODUCTS, AND BOARD SURVEY IN SUMMARIZING VIOLATIONS OF
BULLETIN TERMS REVEALED THROUGH AUDIT OF THE LICENSEES' BOOKS LISTED
"PRICE CONCESSIONS ON OTHER MATERIAL IN CONNECTION WITH BOARD SALES." 

     II. 

APPELLEES ADMIT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF WHATEVER PROTECTION IS
AFFORDED BY VALID PATENTS THE LICENSING ARRANGEMENTS DESCRIBED WOULD BE
IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO
AMEND ITS COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE THAT THE "BUBBLE BOARD" PATENTS WERE NOT
VALID.  THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ESTOPPED TO ATTACK
THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING, ON THE GROUND
THAT SUCH ATTACK WOULD CONSTITUTE A REVIEW OF ACTION BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, WHICH WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE.  FN4  THE
TRIAL COURT THOUGHT THAT THE ISSUE WAS CONTROLLED BY UNITED STATES V.
BELL TELEPHONE CO., 167 U.S. 224, IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS HELD
WITHOUT STANDING TO BRING A SUIT IN EQUITY TO CANCEL A PATENT ON THE
GROUND OF INVALIDITY. 

WHILE THIS ISSUE NEED NOT BE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE, IT
SEEMS INADVISABLE TO LEAVE THE DECISION AS A PRECEDENT.  HURN V.
OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238, 240.  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE
TRIAL COURT.  THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE PATENTS ARE
INVALID BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT
AND THAT A DECREE SHOULD ISSUE CANCELING THE PATENTS; RATHER THE
GOVERNMENT CHARGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT
BECAUSE THEY GRANTED LICENSES UNDER PATENTS WHICH IN FACT WERE
INVALID.  IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE TO SUCCEED IN SHOWING THAT THE PATENTS
WERE IN FACT INVALID, SUCH A FINDING WOULD NOT IN ITSELF RESULT IN A
JUDGMENT FOR CANCELLATION OF THE PATENTS.  FN5 

IN AN ANTITRUST SUIT INSTITUTED BY A LICENSEE AGAINST HIS LICENSOR WE
HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE LICENSEE MAY ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE
PATENT UNDER WHICH HE WAS LICENSED, BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
FREE COMPETITION, EVEN THOUGH THE LICENSEE HAS AGREED IN HIS LICENSE
NOT TO DO SO.  SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S.
173; KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO MFG. CO., 329 U.S. 394; MACGREGOR V.
WESTINGHOUSE CO., 329 U.S. 402.  IN A SUIT TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BY ENJOINING VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT THE ASSERTED SHIELD OF
PATENTABILITY DOES NOT EXIST.  OF COURSE, THIS APPEAL MUST BE
CONSIDERED ON A RECORD THAT ASSUMES THE VALIDITY OF ALL THE PATENTS
INVOLVED.  *GIII. 

THE TRIAL COURT RULED THAT, ON MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE
41(B), THE COURT SHOULD WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND GRANT THE MOTION IF THE
GOVERNMENT FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE, AND THE COURT FURTHER RULED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD THE
BURDEN OF PROVING BOTH THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY AND THE CHARGE THAT THE
LICENSING AGREEMENTS WERE NOT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENT
GRANT.  FN6  WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THOSE RULINGS.  THEY ARE NOT OF
IMPORTANCE IN THIS CASE AS WE THINK THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE AT
THE CONCLUSION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE INDICATED A VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT, HOWEVER, THE RULING OF THE COURT THAT
DECLARATIONS OF EACH DEFENDANT WERE ADMISSIBLE ONLY AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT MAKING THE DECLARATION.  FN7  A CONSIDERATION OF THAT POINT
REALLY INVOLVES THE HEART OF THE CASE SINCE THE TREATMENT OF THE
DECLARATIONS MAY VITALLY AFFECT THE OUTCOME.  SOME MAY HAVE DOUBTS AS
TO WHETHER THE AGREEMENTS AND BULLETINS ALONE ARE SUFFICIENT TO
ESTABLISH A CONSPIRACY BUT THE ADMISSION OF THE SEPARATE DECLARATIONS
AGAINST ALL GREATLY STRENGTHENS THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION.  WE THINK
THAT THE INDUSTRY-WIDE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, ENTERED INTO WITH KNOWLEDGE
ON THE PART OF LICENSOR AND LICENSEES OF THE ADHERENCE OF OTHERS, WITH
THE CONTROL OVER PRICES AND METHODS OF DISTRIBUTION THROUGH THE
AGREEMENTS AND THE BULLETINS, WERE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA
FACIE CASE OF CONSPIRACY.  EACH LICENSEE, AS IS SHOWN BY THE
UNCONTRADICTED REFERENCES TO THE MEETINGS AND DISCUSSION THAT WERE
PRELIMINARY TO THE EXECUTION OF THE LICENSES, COULD NOT HAVE FAILED TO
BE AWARE OF THE INTENTION OF UNITED STATES GYPSUM AND THE OTHER
LICENSEES TO MAKE THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LICENSES INDUSTRY-WIDE.  THE
LICENSE AGREEMENTS THEMSELVES, ON THEIR FACE, SHOWED THIS PURPOSE.  THE
LICENSOR WAS TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES BINDING BOTH ON ITSELF AND ITS
LICENSEES; THE ROYALTY WAS TO BE MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE
OF ALL GYPSUM PRODUCTS, PATENTED OR UNPATENTED; THE LICENSE COULD NOT
BE TRANSFERRED WITHOUT THE LICENSOR'S CONSENT; THE LICENSEE OPENED ITS
BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO THE LICENSOR; THE LICENSEE WAS PROTECTED AGAINST
COMPETITION WITH MORE FAVORABLE LICENSES AND THERE WAS A CANCELLATION
CLAUSE FOR FAILURE TO LIVE UP TO THE ARRANGEMENTS.  SEE THE APPENDIX,
POST, P. 404.  FURTHERMORE, THE BULLETINS GAVE DIRECTIONS TO THE
INDUSTRY AS TO ITS PRICES AND METHODS OF OPERATION IN UNMISTAKABLE
TERMS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ACCEPT THE FOREGOING FACTS AS
DEFINITE EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY.  TO US, THESE FACTS ARE PROOF OF A
CONSPIRACY.  CERTAINLY THEY ARE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF A PLAN OF THE
LICENSOR AND LICENSEES TO FIX PRICES AND REGULATE OPERATIONS IN THE
GYPSUM BOARD INDUSTRY. 

IF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD THOUGHT THAT A PLAN SUCH AS IS EVIDENCED BY
THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND THE BULLETINS WAS ILLEGAL UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT, IT MIGHT HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ON THE QUESTION OF THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DECLARATIONS OF SOME APPELLEES AGAINST ALL.  ITS
POSITION STEMMED LOGICALLY FROM ITS UNDERSTANDING OF UNITED STATES V.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476.  FN8  THE OPINIONS IN UNITED STATES
V. LINE MATERIAL CO., DECIDED TODAY, ANTE, P. 287, WHATEVER MAY BE THE
DIFFERENT VIEWS EXPRESSED, MAKE CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
INTERPRETATION OF GENERAL ELECTRIC DIFFERS FROM THAT OF THIS COURT. 
WITH ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE OF GENERAL ELECTRIC, THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BALANCE THE PRIVILEGES OF UNITED STATES
GYPSUM AND ITS LICENSEES UNDER THE PATENT GRANTS WITH THE PROHIBITIONS
OF THE SHERMAN ACT AGAINST COMBINATIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO MONOPOLIZE. 
CONSPIRACIES TO CONTROL PRICES AND DISTRIBUTION, SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE,
WE BELIEVE TO BE BEYOND ANY PATENT PRIVILEGE.    UNDER ITS VIEW OF THE
GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT ONLY A LACK OF
GOOD FAITH BY DEFENDANTS IN THE EXECUTION OF WHAT THAT COURT CONSIDERED
LEGITIMATE EXPLOITATION OF THE PATENTS COULD JUSTIFY IN THIS CASE A
DETERMINATION ADVERSE TO THE DEFENDANTS.  FN9  THE TRIAL COURT HELD
THAT AN ASSOCIATION OF DEFENDANTS IN A COMMON PLAN TO ORGANIZE THE
GYPSUM INDUSTRY AND STABILIZE PRICES THROUGH A NETWORK OF PATENT
LICENSES WAS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE, AND THAT IN ANY EVENT THE GOVERNMENT
FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD ASSOCIATED THEMSELVES IN SUCH A
PLAN.  THE TRIAL COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS WERE
ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH, IN RELIANCE UPON UNITED STATES V. GENERAL
ELECTRIC, SUPRA, AND BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, AND
WERE INTENDED TO BIND THE PARTIES TO THE PROMISES MADE; THAT THE
EXPLICIT TERMS IN THE LICENSES WERE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PATENT
GRANT, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD FAILED TO PROVE ANY AGREEMENT AMONG
THE DEFENDANTS TO TAKE ACTIONS WHICH WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
PATENT GRANT.  SPECIFICALLY, THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO
AGREEMENT AMONG THE DEFENDANTS TO RAISE THE PRICE OF BOARD TO ARBITRARY
AND NON-COMPETITIVE LEVELS, TO STANDARDIZE THE PRODUCTION OF BOARD BY
PRICING NO. 2 BOARD AND SECONDS OUT OF THE MARKET, TO ELIMINATE THE
PRODUCTION OF OPEN-EDGE BOARD, TO ELIMINATE JOBBERS, TO CONTROL THE
RESALE PRICE OF BOARD SOLD TO MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTORS, OR TO
STABILIZE THE PRICE OF UNPATENTED GYPSUM PRODUCTS.  THE COURT FURTHER
HELD THAT AS TO ALL THOSE CHARGES EXCEPT THE LAST TWO THE DEFENDANTS
WOULD HAVE BEEN ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PATENT GRANT EVEN IF
THEY HAD AGREED TO DO THE THINGS CHARGED.  WE CONCLUDE THAT REGARDLESS
OF MOTIVE, THE SHERMAN ACT BARS PATENT EXPLOITATION OF THE KIND THAT
WAS HERE ATTEMPTED.  THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND THE BULLETINS ESTABLISH
THE CONSPIRACY OF THE LICENSOR AND EACH LICENSEE TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN
ACT.  WITH THE CONSPIRACY THUS FULLY ESTABLISHED, THE DECLARATIONS AND
ACTS OF THE VARIOUS MEMBERS, EVEN THOUGH MADE OR DONE PRIOR TO THE
ADHERENCE OF SOME TO THE CONSPIRACY, BECOME ADMISSIBLE AGAINST ALL AS
DECLARATIONS OR ACTS OF CO-CONSPIRATORS IN AID OF THE CONSPIRACY.  FN10
WE THINK THAT ALL OF THE DECLARATIONS AND ACTS WHICH WE HAVE SET FORTH
IN THIS OPINION ARE IN AID OF THE ULTIMATE CONSPIRACY.  WE DO NOT
ATTEMPT TO FIX A DATE WHEN THE CONSPIRACY WAS FIRST FORMED.  AT LEAST,
THE DECLARATIONS WHICH WE HAVE QUOTED WERE MADE WITH THE PURPOSE OF
ADVANCING A PLAN WHICH ULTIMATELY EVENTUATED IN THE LICENSES OF 1929. 

                            IV. 

WE TURN NOW TO A DIFFERENT PHASE OF THE CASE - THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
FINDINGS.  THE TRIAL COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH IF ACCURATE
WOULD BAR A REVERSAL OF ITS ORDER.  IN FINDING 118 THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE "FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT DEFENDANTS ASSOCIATED
THEMSELVES IN A PLAN TO BLANKET THE INDUSTRY UNDER PATENT LICENSES AND
STABILIZE PRICES."  THE OPINION INDICATES THAT IN MAKING THIS FINDING
THE TRIAL COURT ASSUMED ARGUENDO THAT DECLARATIONS OF ONE DEFENDANT
WERE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST ALL.  67 F.SUPP.  AT 500.  IN EXAMINING THE
FINDING WE FOLLOW INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208,
AND UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, AS TO THE QUANTUM OF
PROOF REQUIRED FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM THAT THE
DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO ACHIEVE CERTAIN ENDS.  IN THOSE CASES, AS HERE,
SEPARATE IDENTICAL AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED BETWEEN ONE PARTY AND A
NUMBER OF OTHER PARTIES.  THIS COURT, IN INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, CONCLUDED
THAT PROOF OF AN EXPRESS UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH PARTY WOULD SIGN THE
AGREEMENTS WAS NOT A "PREREQUISITE TO AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY."  WE HELD
THAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT IF ALL THE DEFENDANTS HAD ENGAGED IN A CONCERT
OF ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO ENTER INTO THE
AGREEMENTS.  IN MASONITE THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD
NOT ACTED IN CONCERT AND THAT FINDING WAS REVERSED BY THIS COURT.  ONE
OF THE THINGS THOSE TWO CASES ESTABLISH IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN A
GROUP OF COMPETITORS ENTERS INTO A SERIES OF SEPARATE BUT SIMILAR
AGREEMENTS WITH COMPETITORS OR OTHERS, A STRONG INFERENCE ARISES THAT
SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE THE RESULT OF CONCERTED ACTION.  THAT INFERENCE IS
STRENGTHENED WHEN CONTEMPORANEOUS DECLARATIONS INDICATE THAT SUPPOSEDLY
SEPARATE ACTIONS ARE PART OF A COMMON PLAN. 

IN SO FAR AS FINDING 118 AND THE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS WERE BASED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT ON ITS BELIEF THAT THE GENERAL ELECTRIC RULE
JUSTIFIED THE ARRANGEMENTS OR BECAUSE OF A MISAPPLICATION OF MASONITE
OR INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, ERRORS OF LAW OCCURRED.  THESE WE CAN, OF
COURSE, CORRECT.  IN SO FAR AS THIS FINDING AND OTHERS TO WHICH WE
SHALL REFER ARE INFERENCES DRAWN FROM DOCUMENTS OR UNDISPUTED FACTS,
HERETOFORE DESCRIBED OR SET OUT, RULE 52(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE IS APPLICABLE.  THAT RULE PRESCRIBES THAT FINDINGS OF FACT IN
ACTIONS TRIED WITHOUT A JURY "SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS, AND DUE REGARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE
TRIAL COURT TO JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES."  IT WAS
INTENDED, IN ALL ACTIONS TRIED UPON THE FACTS WITHOUT A JURY, TO MAKE
APPLICABLE THE THEN PREVAILING EQUITY PRACTICE.  FN11 SINCE JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURTS DOES NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY OR
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FINDINGS BY
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES  FN12  OR BY A JURY,  FN13 THIS COURT MAY
REVERSE FINDINGS OF FACT BY A TRIAL COURT WHERE "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS." 
THE PRACTICE IN EQUITY PRIOR TO THE PRESENT RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
WAS THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, WHEN DEPENDENT UPON ORAL
TESTIMONY WHERE THE CANDOR AND CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES WOULD BEST
BE JUDGED, HAD GREAT WEIGHT WITH THE APPELLATE COURT.  THE FINDINGS
WERE NEVER CONCLUSIVE, HOWEVER.  FN14  A FINDING IS "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS"
WHEN ALTHOUGH THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, THE REVIEWING COURT ON
THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE IS LEFT WITH THE DEFINITE AND FIRM CONVICTION THAT
A MISTAKE HAS BEEN COMMITTED. 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIED VERY LARGELY ON DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS, AND
CALLED AS WITNESSES MANY OF THE AUTHORS OF THE DOCUMENTS.  BOTH ON
DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION COUNSEL WERE PERMITTED TO PHRASE THEIR
QUESTIONS IN EXTREMELY LEADING FORM, SO THAT THE IMPORT OF THE
WITNESSES' TESTIMONY WAS CONFLICTING.  ON CROSS-EXAMINATION MOST OF THE
WITNESSES DENIED THAT THEY HAD ACTED IN CONCERT IN SECURING PATENT
LICENSES OR THAT THEY HAD AGREED TO DO THE THINGS WHICH IN FACT WERE
DONE.  WHERE SUCH TESTIMONY IS IN CONFLICT WITH CONTEMPORANEOUS
DOCUMENTS WE CAN GIVE IT LITTLE WEIGHT, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CRUCIAL
ISSUES INVOLVE MIXED QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT.  DESPITE THE
OPPORTUNITY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO APPRAISE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
WITNESSES, WE CANNOT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE RULE
OTHERWISE THAN THAT FINDING 118 IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 

IN FINDINGS 54, 56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 89 AND 90, THE TRIAL COURT
MADE FINDINGS ADVERSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM THAT THE DEFENDANTS
CONSPIRED TO ELIMINATE THE PRODUCTION OF OPEN-EDGE BOARD.  FN15  THE
TENOR OF THOSE FINDINGS IS THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT AMONG THE
LICENSEES TO DISCONTINUE THE PRODUCTION OF OPEN-EDGE BOARD, ALTHOUGH
THE TRIAL COURT CONCEDED THAT IT MIGHT BE "INFERRED" THAT EACH LICENSEE
DID NOT EXPECT TO CONTINUE THE MANUFACTURE OF OPEN-EDGE BOARD.  THE
PROVISION IN THE LICENSE CONTRACTS THAT ROYALTIES SHOULD BE PAID ON THE
PRODUCTION OF UNPATENTED BOARD IS STRONGLY INDICATIVE OF AN AGREEMENT
NOT TO MANUFACTURE UNPATENTED BOARD, AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES
IS AMPLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING, IF NOT A FORMAL
AGREEMENT, THAT ONLY PATENTED BOARD WOULD BE SOLD.  SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT
IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT INCREASED THE AREA OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY AND IS
INVALID. 

IN FINDINGS 75-79, 99-102,  FN16  THE TRIAL COURT CONSIDERED THE
PROBLEM OF JOBBERS.  THOSE FINDINGS STATE, IN EFFECT, THAT THE LICENSE
AGREEMENTS WERE NOT EXECUTED WITH THE INTENT OF ELIMINATING JOBBERS,
THAT THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE JOBBERS' DISCOUNT WAS AN EXERCISE BY
UNITED STATES GYPSUM OF ITS RIGHT TO ESTABLISH A PRICE FOR A PATENTED
PRODUCT, AND THAT COMPLAINTS BY LICENSEES THAT OTHER LICENSEES HAD SOLD
TO JOBBERS AT A DISCOUNT DID NOT ESTABLISH CONCERTED ACTION TO
ELIMINATE JOBBERS.  WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE TO THESE HOLDINGS.  SINCE
THE DEFENDANTS ENTERED INTO A COMMON SCHEME TO STABILIZE THE INDUSTRY,
AND SINCE THE ELIMINATION OF JOBBERS WAS UNDERTAKEN BY UNITED STATES
GYPSUM IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT PURPOSE, A FINDING OF SPECIFIC INTENT AS
TO EACH LICENSEE IS NOT NECESSARY.  NOR DO WE AGREE THAT THE
ELIMINATION OF JOBBERS FALLS WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENT GRANT
WHEN THE PURPOSE, AS HERE, IS TO PREVENT COMPETITION BY UNCONTROLLED
RESALE PRICES.  THE INFERENCE WE DRAW FROM THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE
IS THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTED IN CONCERT TO ELIMINATE AN IMPORTANT CLASS
OF JOBBERS. 

IN FINDINGS 73, 94-97,  FN17  THE TRIAL COURT DEALT WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S CHARGE THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD STABILIZED THE PRICE OF
UNPATENTED GYPSUM PRODUCTS.  THOSE FINDINGS HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO
UNDERSTANDING OR AGREEMENT THAT PRICES WOULD BE RAISED OR FIXED UPON
PLASTER OR ANY UNPATENTED PRODUCT, THAT THE BULLETIN PROVISION
PROHIBITING THE REDUCTION OF PRICE ON UNPATENTED PRODUCTS WAS DESIGNED
TO PROTECT THE PRICE OF PATENTED BOARD, AND WAS NOT USED TO STABILIZE
THE PRICE OF UNPATENTED MATERIALS.  WE REJECT ALL THESE FINDINGS AS
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  THE BULLETIN PROVISION AND THE COMPLAINTS BY
LICENSEES ADDRESSED TO BOARD SURVEY CONVINCE US THAT THE DEFENDANTS
ATTEMPTED TO STABILIZE PLASTER PRICES, AND THE FACT THAT PLASTER PRICES
WERE STABILIZED ONLY WHEN PLASTER WAS SOLD IN CONJUNCTION WITH BOARD
APPEARS TO US TO BE IMMATERIAL. 

THE TRIAL COURT MADE MANY OTHER FINDINGS TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
OBJECTED AND YET TO DETERMINE HERE WHETHER EACH IS ERRONEOUS IS
UNNECESSARY.  FN18 PERHAPS LOOKED AT IN ISOLATION SOME OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CHARGES ARE NOT PROVEN WITH THAT FULLNESS THAT WOULD
JUSTIFY OUR REVERSAL OF THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE
POINT.  IT MAY BE THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THIS OPINION THE DISTRICT COURT
WILL CONCLUDE THAT MANY SUCH FINDINGS ARE NO LONGER SIGNIFICANT IN
REACHING ITS DECISION.  AS TO OTHERS A DIFFERENT RESULT WILL BE
REQUIRED.  ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID AS TO THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE, WE
THINK, TO ENABLE THE DISTRICT COURT TO PASS UPON THE FACTS THAT MAY
COME BEFORE IT ON FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORD WITH OUR PRESENT
RULING. 

                                  V. 

THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION FORESHADOWS OUR CONCLUSION.  WHAT WE HAVE
SAID ABOVE UNDER III ON THE INVALIDITY OF THE ARRANGEMENTS AS TESTED BY
THE SHERMAN ACT IN DISCUSSING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DECLARATIONS AND
ACTS OF SEPARATE DEFENDANTS AGAINST ALL OTHERS IS APPLICABLE HERE. 
THESE LICENSES AND BULLETINS SHOW PLAINLY A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE
SHERMAN ACT.  PRICE FIXING OF THIS TYPE OFFENDS.  IT IS WELL SETTLED
THAT PRICE FIXING, WITHOUT AUTHORIZING STATUTES, IS ILLEGAL, PER SE.
SEE NOTE 21, UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., ANTE, P. 287.  PATENTS
GRANT NO PRIVILEGE TO THEIR OWNERS OF ORGANIZING THE USE OF THOSE
PATENTS TO MONOPOLIZE AN INDUSTRY THROUGH PRICE CONTROL, THROUGH
ROYALTIES FOR THE PATENTS DRAWN FROM PATENT-FREE INDUSTRY PRODUCTS AND
THROUGH REGULATION OF DISTRIBUTION.  HERE PATENTS HAVE BEEN PUT TO SUCH
USES AS TO COLLIDE WITH THE SHERMAN ACT'S PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM
EVIL CONSEQUENCES.  UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319,
327; HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 406; STANDARD
OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 170-74; STANDARD SANITARY MFG.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20.  THE DEFENDANTS DID UNDERTAKE TO
CONTROL PRICES AND DISTRIBUTION IN GYPSUM BOARD.  THEY DID UTILIZE AN
AGENCY, BOARD SURVEY, INC., TO MAKE THIS CONTROL EFFECTIVE.  FASHION
ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457, 465. 
SUCH FACTS, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER INDICIA OF INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE THE
GYPSUM BOARD INDUSTRY, HEREINBEFORE DETAILED AS TO THE AGREEMENTS,
BULLETINS AND DECLARATIONS, CONVINCE US THAT THE DEFENDANTS VIOLATED
THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE AFFORDS NO CLOAK FOR THE COURSE OF CONDUCT
REVEALED IN THE VOLUMINOUS RECORD IN THIS CASE.  THAT CASE GIVES NO
SUPPORT FOR A PATENTEE, ACTING IN CONCERT WITH ALL MEMBERS OF AN
INDUSTRY, TO ISSUE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL LICENSES TO ALL MEMBERS OF
THE INDUSTRY UNDER THE TERMS OF WHICH THE INDUSTRY IS COMPLETELY
REGIMENTED, THE PRODUCTION OF COMPETITIVE UNPATENTED PRODUCTS
SUPPRESSED, A CLASS OF DISTRIBUTORS SQUEEZED OUT, AND PRICES ON
UNPATENTED PRODUCTS STABILIZED.  WE APPLY THE "RULE OF REASON" OF
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, TO EFFORTS TO MONOPOLIZE
THROUGH PATENTS AS WELL AS IN NON-PATENT FIELDS.  EVEN IN THE ABSENCE
OF THE SPECIFIC ABUSES IN THIS CASE, WHICH FALL WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL
PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT
THE DEFENDANTS, CONSTITUTING ALL FORMER COMPETITORS IN AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY, HAD ACTED IN CONCERT TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE IN AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY UNDER PATENT LICENSES IN ORDER TO ORGANIZE THE INDUSTRY AND
STABILIZE PRICES.  THAT CONCLUSION FOLLOWS DESPITE THE ASSUMED LEGALITY
OF EACH SEPARATE PATENT LICENSE, FOR IT IS FAMILIAR DOCTRINE THAT
LAWFUL ACTS MAY BECOME UNLAWFUL WHEN TAKEN IN CONCERT.  FN19  SUCH
CONCERTED ACTION IS AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT TO COMPETITION; AS WE SAID
IN MASONITE, P. 281:    "THE POWER OF MASONITE TO FIX THE PRICE OF THE
PRODUCT WHICH IT MANUFACTURES, AND WHICH THE ENTIRE GROUP SELLS AND
WITH RESPECT TO WHICH ALL HAVE BEEN AND ARE NOW ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL
COMPETITORS, IS A POWERFUL INDUCEMENT TO ABANDON COMPETITION.  ...
ACTIVE AND VIGOROUS COMPETITION THEN TENDS TO BE IMPAIRED, NOT FROM ANY
PREFERENCE OF THE PUBLIC FOR THE PATENTED PRODUCT, BUT FROM THE
PREFERENCE OF THE COMPETITORS FOR A MUTUAL ARRANGEMENT FOR PRICE-FIXING
WHICH PROMISES MORE PROFIT IF THE PARTIES ABANDON RATHER THAN MAINTAIN
COMPETITION.  ...  " 

THE REWARDS WHICH FLOW TO THE PATENTEE AND HIS LICENSEES FROM THE
SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION THROUGH THE REGULATION OF AN INDUSTRY ARE
NOT REASONABLY AND NORMALLY ADAPTED TO SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE
PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY. 

BY THE RECORD NOW PRESENTED, VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS CLEAR. 
AS THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL CAME AT THE END OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
PRESENTATION ON APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 41(B) FN20  OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE ORDER IS REVERSED AND THE
CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION*
. 

*(FOR APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT, SEE P. 404.) 

FN2 (CHART OMITTED) 

FN2  BESTWALL MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 270 F. 542. 

FN3  "IN COMPUTING THE DELIVERED MINIMUM PRICE HEREUNDER, RAIL
FREIGHT, WHEREVER MENTIONED IN THIS BULLETIN, SHALL MEAN RAIL FREIGHT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH RAIL RATES PUBLISHED IN REGULAR FREIGHT TARIFFS,
USING THE WEIGHTS SHOWN ABOVE, AND SHALL INCLUDE ALL STOPOVER,
SWITCHING, CARTAGE AND OTHER EXTRA DELIVERY CHARGES APPLICABLE TO THE
SHIPMENT.  ... 

"REBATES, ALLOWANCES, ETC.: 

"ANY SALE OF PATENTED PRODUCTS, THOUGH OSTENSIBLY MADE AT OR ABOVE
THE MINIMUM PRICE ESTABLISHED BY LICENSOR, WILL NEVERTHELESS BE
CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE IF LICENSEE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REDUCES THE ACTUAL PRICE CHARGED BY LICENSEE
BELOW SUCH MINIMUM PRICE BY GRANTING THE CUSTOMER REBATES, UNEARNED OR
UNWARRANTED REFUNDS, CREDITS OR DISCOUNTS, BY REDUCING THE PRICE OF
OTHER PRODUCTS, BY HIRING CUSTOMERS' TRUCKS, BY GRANTING ALLOWANCES FOR
ADVERTISING OR OTHER PURPOSES, BY SPLITTING OF SALESMEN'S COMPENSATION
OR COMMISSIONS WITH CUSTOMERS, BY OVERSHIPMENT OF PATENTED PRODUCTS, BY
INCLUDING BOARD UNDER THE GUISE OF DUNNAGE, OR BY MAKING ANY OTHER
PAYMENT OR ALLOWANCE IN THE FORM OF MONEY OR OTHERWISE WHICH HAS FOR
ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT REDUCING THE PRICE CHARGED BY LICENSEE BELOW
SUCH MINIMUM PRICE." 

FN4  53 F.SUPP.  889. 

FN5  COMPARE BECHER V. CONTOURE LABORATORIES, 279 U.S. 388. 

FN6  67 F.SUPP.  397, 417, 441. 

FN7  SEE DISCUSSION OF "THE RULE CONCERNING ADMISSIBILITY OF
DECLARATIONS OF ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS," 67 F.SUPP.  AT 451, AND
"SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, ASSUMING THE DECLARATIONS CONNECTED,"
ID., AT 500. 

FN8  TO THE DISTRICT COURT THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE ESTABLISHES
"THAT A PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT GRANTING THE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND
VEND A PATENTED PRODUCT, UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDING PRICES,
FIXED BY THE LICENSOR, IS LAWFUL.  SUCH A LICENSE AGREEMENT ORDINARILY,
AND, WHEN THE PRICES ARE (AS IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE) A PART OF
THE LICENSE CONTRACT, NECESSARILY, INVOLVES NEGOTIATION AND DISCUSSION
BETWEEN THE LICENSOR AND THE LICENSEE AND AGREEMENT UPON THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, A PURPOSE TO EXECUTE AND CARRY OUT THE AGREEMENT, COMBINED
ACTION IN SIGNING THE AGREEMENT AND IN PERFORMING THE OBLIGATIONS
THEREOF, WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WILL RESULT IN A STABILIZED AND
PRESUMABLY PROFITABLE PRICE FOR THE PATENTED PRODUCT AS BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AND IN THE INDUSTRY (SINCE THE PARTIES ARE, BY VIRTUE OF THE
PATENT, THE ONLY ONES HAVING A RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND SELL THE SUPERIOR
PATENTED PRODUCT) AND WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WILL RESULT IN A MONOPOLY
(I.E., A DIVIDED PATENT MONOPOLY), IN PROBABLE DISCONTINUANCE OF
MANUFACTURE AND SALE BY THE LICENSEE OF INFERIOR MATERIALS (THE
LICENSEE'S INCENTIVE TO TAKE A LICENSE IS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE
SUPERIOR PRODUCT), AND IN CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION.  WHAT A LAWFUL
PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT NORMALLY INVOLVES CANNOT BE UNLAWFUL. 
ADDITIONALLY, SINCE A PATENT OWNER MAY LAWFULLY DIVIDE HIS PATENT
MONOPOLY WITH A PLURALITY OF LICENSEES, THERE WILL IN THE USUAL COURSE
BE WITH EACH OF SUCH LICENSEES THE SAME NEGOTIATION AND DISCUSSION,
AGREEMENT UPON TERMS, PURPOSE TO EXECUTE AND CARRY OUT A LICENSE
CONTRACT AND TO ACCOMPLISH ITS NORMAL RESULTS, AND COMBINED IN SO
DOING, AS IN THE CASE OF A SINGLE LICENSEE.  AND EACH LICENSEE WILL BE
INFORMED OF AND DISCUSS WITH THE LICENSOR THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THE PROPOSED LICENSES; OTHERWISE NO MORE THAN A SINGLE LICENSE COULD BE
EXECUTED.  A PATENT OWNER WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LICENSE COMPETING
MANUFACTURERS UPON DIFFERENT PRICE TERMS; NO ONE SUCH WOULD BE WILLING
TO SUFFER COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGES; NO ONE SUCH WOULD BE WILLING TO
SIGN IN THE DARK AS TO THE TERMS TO BE EXTENDED TO THE OTHERS;
ORDINARILY, MOREOVER, THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION AT LARGE, I.E., WITHIN
THE TRADE, OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE LICENSES PROPOSED
BY THE PATENT OWNER.  EACH OF A PLURALITY OF LICENSEES WILL, MOREOVER,
HAVE THE SAME PURPOSE TO TAKE A LICENSE AND TO SECURE ITS RESULTING
ADVANTAGES.  THE LICENSOR AND EACH LICENSEE OF SUCH A PLURALITY
CONSTITUTE A 'COMBINATION' TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THEIR
LICENSE.  SINCE A PLURALITY OF LICENSES IS LAWFUL, ALL OF THIS MUST BE
LAWFUL.  FURTHER, IF IN PRACTICAL EFFECT THE LICENSOR AND THE PLURALITY
OF LICENSEES ARE A 'COMBINATION' TO THE SAME END, SUCH A 'COMBINATION'
IS NOT STIGMATIZED BY THE LAW - PROVIDED IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT IT DOES
NOT SECURE TO THE PATENT OWNER MORE THAN THE NORMAL REWARD OF A PATENT
MONOPOLY, NOR TO ANY OF THE LICENSEES WITH WHOM THAT MONOPOLY IS
DIVIDED MORE THAN THE ADVANTAGES WHICH NATURALLY RESULT TO A LICENSEE,
AS WELL AS TO A LICENSOR, FROM PATENT LICENSING.  ALL OF THIS
NECESSARILY FOLLOWS FROM THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE."  67 F.SUPP.  AT
439-40. 

REFERRING TO THE EVIDENCE ABOVE, THE DISTRICT COURT SAID, ID., P.
457:  "THESE ITEMS DO NOT PROVE THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED BECAUSE THEY DO
NOT SHOW THAT THE LICENSES WERE NOT BONA FIDE OR THAT THEY WERE
EXECUTED TO ACCOMPLISH RESTRAINTS OUTSIDE THE PROPER LIMITS OF A PATENT
MONOPOLY." 

FN9  67 F.SUPP.  500-501: 

"BUT IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CASE AND THE CONSEQUENT
PROBABILITY THAT IT WILL REACH A HIGHER TRIBUNAL, WE THINK IT DESIRABLE
ALSO TO STATE OUR VIEWS AS TO THE MEANING OF THE EVIDENCE WHEN THE
DECLARATIONS ARE CONSIDERED AS BINDING NOT MERELY UPON THE DECLARANT
BUT ALSO UPON ALL OF THE ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED
THE EVIDENCE IN THIS LIGHT, AND WE THINK THE GOVERNMENT STILL HAS NOT
PROVED THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED NOT AS BONA FIDE
LICENSE AGREEMENTS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SECURE TO USG THE PECUNIARY
REWARDS OF ITS PATENT MONOPOLY BUT ONLY AS SHAM AGREEMENTS TO GIVE
COLOR OF LEGALITY TO THE ILLEGAL PURPOSES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND
HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE OPERATIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE CARRIED
BEYOND THE PROPER LIMITS OF THE USG PATENT MONOPOLY, AND THEREFORE HAS
NOT PROVED THE COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY CHARGED.  THE EVIDENCE
DISCUSSED IN TOPICS V AND VI NO MORE PROVES LACK OF BONA FIDES IN THE
EXECUTION OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, OR OPERATIONS BEYOND THE LIMITS OF
THE PATENT MONOPOLY, WHEN THE DECLARATIONS ARE REGARDED AS BINDING UPON
ALL OF THE ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS, THAN IT DOES WHEN SUCH DECLARATIONS
ARE CONSIDERED AS BINDING ONLY UPON THE DECLARANT.  THIS IS NECESSARILY
SO - IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECLARATIONS. 
SINCE, AS DEMONSTRATED IN TOPICS V AND VI, THEY FAIL TO CONVICT THE
DECLARANTS THEMSELVES OF LACK OF BONA FIDES IN THE EXECUTION OF THE
LICENSES, OR OF OPERATIONS BEYOND THE PROPER LIMITS OF THE USG PATENT
MONOPOLY, THEY CANNOT CONVICT OTHERS THEREOF." 

FN10  VAN RIPER V. UNITED STATES, 13 F.2D 961, 967; LEFCO V. UNITED
STATES, 74 F.2D 66, 68; DEACON V. UNITED STATES, 124 F.2D 352, 358;
UNITED STATES V. COMPAGNA, 146 F.2D 524, 530. 

FN11  H.R. DOC. NO. 588, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., NOTES TO THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE; REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, ON RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, APRIL, 1937, RULE 59 AND
NOTES; PRELIMINARY DRAFT, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 1936, RULE 68 AND NOTES. 

FN12  CORN PRODUCTS CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 324 U.S. 726, 739;
LABOR BOARD V. GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 268. 

FN13  LAWRENCE V. MCCALMONT, 2 HOW.  426, 453; RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORP. V. BANKERS TRUST CO., 318 U.S. 163, 170. 

FN14  2 STREET, FEDERAL EQUITY PRACTICE (1909) SECS. 1510, 1514;
FURRER V. FERRIS, 145 U.S. 132; TILGHMAN V. PROCTOR, 125 U.S. 136, 149
50; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. PACE, 320 U.S. 698, 701; VIRGINIAN R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 658, 675. 

FN15  WE QUOTE FINDINGS 54 AND 89 AS TYPICAL: 

"54.  THE FACT THAT FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE PATENTS, ROYALTIES
ARE FIXED IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS AT AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO A
DESIGNATED PERCENTAGE OF THE SELLING PRICE OF THE LICENSEES OF ALL
GYPSUM BOARD MANUFACTURED BY THEM, WHETHER OR NOT PATENTED, DOES NOT
ESTABLISH AN AGREEMENT TO MAKE ONLY THE PATENTED PRODUCT AND DOES NOT
ESTABLISH THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED IN BAD FAITH.  THE
PATENTS WERE NUMEROUS AND COVERED NOT ONLY THE PATENTED BOARD BUT
MACHINES AND PROCESSES IN THE MANUFACTURE OF BOARD, AND THE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES GRANTED WERE OF GREAT VALUE TO THE MANUFACTURERS OF GYPSUM
BOARD.  THIS ROYALTY PROVISION IS IN EFFECT A PROVISION FOR A
PERCENTAGE OF GROSS SALES, AND AS SUCH IS BUT A CONVENIENT MEANS OF
MEASURING THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE
PATENTS.  IT MIGHT WITH EQUAL PROPRIETY HAVE BEEN A LUMP SUM.  THIS
PROVISION IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE A
ROYALTY UPON AN UNPATENTED PRODUCT, NOR WAS IT INTENDED TO DRIVE OPEN
EDGE BOARD OFF THE MARKET, NOR DID IT HAVE THAT EFFECT." 

"89.  THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT BY ANY OF THEIR OPERATIONS UNDER THE
LICENSE AGREEMENTS, NOR DID THEY BY ANY AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING,
ACCOMPLISH ANY IMPROPER STANDARDIZATION OF GYPSUM BOARD OR ITS METHOD
OF PRODUCTION, AS CHARGED BY THE GOVERNMENT." 

FN16  WE QUOTE FINDINGS 75 AND 77 AS TYPICAL: 

"75.  THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS WERE NOT EXECUTED WITH AN INTENT TO
EFFECTUATE IMPROPER RESTRICTION UPON THE DISTRIBUTION OF GYPSUM BOARD,
PLASTER OR MISCELLANEOUS GYPSUM PRODUCTS, SPECIFICALLY, TO 'ELIMINATE'
JOBBERS THROUGH THE DISCONTINUANCE OF A SALES DISCOUNT." 

"77.  THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ANY OF THE
PARTIES TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS IN THE INSTANT CASE WHEREBY JOBBERS
WOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM THE GYPSUM BOARD DISTRIBUTIVE SYSTEM.  NOR WAS
THERE ANY UNDERSTANDING OR AGREEMENT THAT JOBBERS' DISCOUNTS WOULD BE
DISCONTINUED.  THE ISSUANCE OF THE BULLETIN OF AUGUST 8, 1930(EXHIBIT
430) MAKING THE PRICE TO JOBBERS THE SAME AS TO DEALERS WAS THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF USG TO ESTABLISH A PRICE FOR THE PATENTED
PRODUCT." 

FN17  WE QUOTE FINDINGS 73 AND 95 AS TYPICAL: 

"73.  THERE WAS AT NO TIME ANY UNDERSTANDING OR AGREEMENT AMONG ANY
OF THE PARTIES TO THE RESPECTIVE LICENSE AGREEMENTS THAT THE PRICES
WOULD BE RAISED OR FIXED UPON PLASTER OR ANY UNPATENTED GYPSUM
PRODUCT.  NOR WERE THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS IN THE INSTANT CASE EXECUTED
WITH AN INTENT TO RAISE, MAINTAIN AND STABILIZE THE PRICES OF
UNPATENTED MATERIALS SUCH AS PLASTER AND MISCELLANEOUS GYPSUM
PRODUCTS.  THE PARTIES TO THE RESPECTIVE LICENSE AGREEMENTS KNEW THAT
THE LICENSOR'S RIGHT TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES WAS LIMITED TO THE PRICES ON
PATENTED BOARD MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY THE RESPECTIVE LICENSEES." 

"95.  THE BULLETIN PROVISION THAT 'ANY SALE OF PATENTED PRODUCTS,
THOUGH OSTENSIBLY MADE AT OR ABOVE THE MINIMUM PRICE ESTABLISHED BY
LICENSOR, WILL NEVERTHELESS BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THE LICENSE IF LICENSEE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REDUCES THE ACTUAL
PRICE CHARGED BY LICENSEE BELOW SUCH MINIMUM PRICE  ... BY REDUCING THE
PRICE OF OTHER PRODUCTS  ...  ' IS BUT PART OF A LARGER PROVISION
CONCERNING REBATES AND ALLOWANCES MADE FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE
EFFECT OF REDUCING THE LICENSEE'S PRICE ON PATENTED BOARD BELOW THE
MINIMUM PRICE THEREFOR - A PRICE PROTECTIVE PROVISION.  IT WAS NOT A
DEVICE TO RAISE, MAINTAIN OR STABILIZE THE PRICE OF PLASTER OR
MISCELLANEOUS GYPSUM PRODUCTS, AND IT WAS NOT APPLIED BY THE DEFENDANTS
TO THAT END.  NOR DID IT HAVE THAT EFFECT.  ON THE CONTRARY THE
PROVISION IN QUESTION WAS A PROPER PRICE PROTECTIVE MEASURE REASONABLY
DESIGNED TO SECURE TO USG THE PECUNIARY REWARD OF ITS PATENT MONOPOLY. 
IN OPERATION, IT WAS NOT USED TO RAISE, MAINTAIN OR STABILIZE THE PRICE
OF UNPATENTED MATERIALS." 

FN18  OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THOSE FINDINGS WHICH HELD THAT THE
DEFENDANTS HAD NOT CONSPIRED TO FIX RESALE PRICES OF BOARD SOLD TO
MANUFACTURING DISTRIBUTORS. 

FN19  BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291; EASTERN STATES LUMBER
DEALERS' ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600; UNITED STATES V. READING
CO., 226 U.S. 324, 357; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375,
396. 

FN20  4 FED. RULES SERV. (PIKE & FISCHER) 931; GULBENKIAN V.
GULBENKIAN, 147 F.2D 173, 177.  WE KNOW OF NO REASON WHY THE STATEMENT
IN THE GULBENKIAN CASE THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THE APPELLANT TO
OFFER HIS EVIDENCE A SECOND TIME IS NOT HERE APPLICABLE.    MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IN PART II OF THE OPINION THE COURT CONFESSEDLY DEALS WITH AN ISSUE
THAT "NEED NOT BE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE."  DELIBERATE DICTA,
I HAD SUPPOSED, SHOULD BE DELIBERATELY AVOIDED.  ESPECIALLY SHOULD WE
AVOID PASSING GRATUITOUSLY ON AN IMPORTANT ISSUE OF PUBLIC LAW WHERE
DUE CONSIDERATION OF IT HAS BEEN CROWDED OUT BY COMPLICATED AND
ELABORATE ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE DECIDED.  ACCORDINGLY, I JOIN IN THE
COURT'S OPINION, EXCEPT PART II. 

THE COURT IS AGREED THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS CHALLENGED BY THE
GOVERNMENT AS VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN LAW CANNOT FIND SHELTER UNDER
THE PATENT LAW, HOWSOEVER VALID THE PATENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS MAY BE.
IN SHORT, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS IN THE SUIT IS
IRRELEVANT TO THE INVALIDITY OF THE ARRANGEMENTS BASED UPON THEM. 
WHILE FULLY RECOGNIZING THIS, THE COURT NEEDLESSLY CONSIDERS THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT MAY, IN VIEW OF UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE CO., 167 U.S. 224, ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE
PATENTS IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING. 

IT DOES SO BECAUSE "IT SEEMS INADVISABLE TO LEAVE  ...  AS A
PRECEDENT" THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT "THE GOVERNMENT WAS
ESTOPPED TO ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS IN THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING."  BUT, SURELY, IT IS EASY ENOUGH TO STERILIZE THE TRIAL
COURT'S DECISION BY THE EXPLICIT DECLARATION THAT THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE
DECIDED. 

I SHALL NOT FOLLOW THE COURT'S LEAD AND INDULGE IN DICTA ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER, IN A SUIT LIKE THIS, THE ISSUE OF PATENTABILITY CAN
BE CONTESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  BUT, AS BEARING UPON THE
UNDESIRABILITY OF ANNOUNCING DICTA ON THIS ISSUE, IT IS PERTINENT TO
POINT OUT THAT THE CASES ON WHICH THE COURT RELIES FOR ITS
PRONOUNCEMENT HARDLY DISPOSE OF THE PROBLEM.  THEY ARE CASES IN WHICH A
LICENSEE RESISTED CLAIMS FOR ROYALTIES ON WHAT PURPORTED TO BE VALID
PATENTS.  ROYALTIES WERE REFUSED BECAUSE THERE WERE NO PATENTS ON WHICH
THEY WERE OWED.  SUCH WAS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V.
JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S. 173; KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO MFG.
CO., 329 U.S. 394; MACGREGOR V. WESTINGHOUSE CO., 329 U.S. 402. 
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS COME INTO PLAY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS A
DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN BELL
TELEPHONE CO., SUPRA.  I AM NOT REMOTELY INTIMATING THAT THE
DIFFERENCES ARE DECISIVE.  I AM MERELY SUGGESTING THAT A DUE WEIGHING
OF THE DIFFERENCES, IN THE LIGHT OF THE BELL TELEPHONE CASE, SHOULD
AWAIT THE DUTY OF ADJUDICATION.  IT SHOULD NOT BE THE UNDESIRABLE
PRODUCT OF DELIBERATE DICTA. 

THE COURT REFERS TO HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238, 240, AS REASON FOR
PASSING ON AN ISSUE THAT "NEED NOT BE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE,"
BECAUSE "IT SEEMS INADVISABLE TO LEAVE THE (TRIAL COURT'S) DECISION AS
A PRECEDENT."  AS TO OUR PROBLEM, HURN V. OURSLER WAS EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE FROM THIS CASE.  THE ISSUE ON WHICH THIS COURT PRONOUNCED IN
HURN V. OURSLER WAS INESCAPABLY THE ISSUE THAT HAD TO BE DECIDED TO
DISPOSE OF THE CASE. 

THE ISSUE IN HURN V. OURSLER WAS THIS:  WHERE A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT
OF A COPYRIGHTED PLAY WAS BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT AND WITH IT WAS
JOINED A NON-FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON UNFAIR COMPETITION IN
REGARD TO THAT PLAY, HAS THE FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION TO PASS ON THE
MERITS OF THE CLAIM OF UNFAIR COMPETITION AFTER THE COURT HAD REJECTED
THE FEDERALLY-BASED SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT?  THE TRIAL COURT HELD NOT,
AND DISMISSED THE NON-FEDERAL CLAIM FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AFTER
DISMISSING THE FEDERAL CLAIM ON THE MERITS.  WHEN THE CASE CAME HERE
THIS COURT COULD NOT POSSIBLY SUSTAIN THE TRIAL COURT (WHICH HAD BEEN
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS) WITHOUT NECESSARILY AFFIRMING
THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION.  THIS COURT
REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT ON THAT ISSUE AND HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
HAD JURISDICTION.  IT FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD
HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BUT ON THE MERITS.  ACCORDINGLY, THIS COURT
MODIFIED THE DECREE SO THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS ON THE MERITS AND NOT FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THIS COURT COULD NOT HAVE REACHED THE MERITS
WITHOUT FIRST DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS JURISDICTION TO REACH
THEM.  IN SHORT, IN HURN V. OURSLER THE PRECEDENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
HAD TO BE SET ASIDE IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE CASE.  HERE, THE "PRECEDENT"
OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS UPON AN ISSUE WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY IRRELEVANT,
AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THE ERROR OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
PRONOUNCING UPON AN ISSUE WHICH "NEED NOT BE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THIS
CASE." 

    APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT. 

       LICENSE AGREEMENT. 

THIS AGREEMENT MADE THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, A.D. 1929, BY AND
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, OF
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LICENSOR, AND EBSARY
GYPSUM CO., INC. A NEW YORK CORPORATION, OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY,
HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LICENSEE, WITNESSETH, THAT 

     .         .      .         .         . 

2.  LICENSOR HAS AGREED TO AND DOES HEREBY GIVE AND GRANT UNTO
LICENSEE AN INDIVISIBLE AND NON-EXCLUSIVE RIGHT, LICENSE AND PRIVILEGE
OF USING THE PROCESS OR PROCESSES AND MAKING AND USING THE MACHINES
AND/OR INVENTIONS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN ANY AND ALL OF SAID PATENTS
AND/OR APPLICATIONS FOR LETTERS PATENT SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A ATTACHED
HERETO IN THE MANUFACTURE OF GYPSUM PLASTERBOARD AND/OR GYPSUM
WALLBOARD AT THE PLANTS OR FACTORIES NOW OWNED AND/OR OPERATED BY
LICENSEE, OR AT ANY OTHER PLANT OR FACTORY HEREAFTER OWNED AND/OR
OPERATED OR CONTROLLED BY IT OR ANY SUBSIDIARY, ASSOCIATED OR
AFFILIATED COMPANY, AND OF MANUFACTURING AT ANY SUCH PLACE OR PLACES,
SELLING AND USING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE TERRITORIES
AND POSSESSIONS THEREOF GYPSUM PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD
MANUFACTURED AT ANY SUCH PLACE OR PLACES AND EMBODYING THE INVENTIONS
AND IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN SAID PATENTS AND/OR
APPLICATIONS FOR LETTERS PATENT DESCRIBED IN SAID EXHIBIT A, FOR THE
FULL TERM OF SAID LETTERS PATENT OR OF ANY LETTERS PATENT WHICH MAY BE
GRANTED FOR OR UPON ANY OF SAID APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING ANY EXTENSIONS
AND/OR REISSUES HEREOF. 

IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THE INDIVISIBLE AND NON
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT, LICENSE AND PRIVILEGE AFORESAID IS GRANTED UPON
CONDITION THAT THE LICENSOR SHALL HAVE AND IT HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT
TO DETERMINE AND FIX AT ANY TIME AND TO CHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME DURING
THE EXISTENCE OF SAID PATENTS AND SO LONG AS SAID LICENSE SHALL
CONTINUE, THE MINIMUM PRICE OR PRICES AT WHICH LICENSEE SHALL SELL ANY
PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD MANUFACTURED BY LICENSEE BY USE OF ANY
OF THE MACHINES OR APPLIANCES COVERED BY ANY OF SAID LETTERS PATENT AND
WHICH SHALL EMBODY THE INVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND
CLAIMED IN ANY OF SAID PATENTS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY ISSUED, OR ANY OF
SAID PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD MANUFACTURED BY SECOND PARTIES
AND WHICH SHALL EMBODY THE INVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND
CLAIMED IN EITHER PATENT NUMBER 1,500,452 OR PATENT NUMBER 1,230,297,
OR COMMENCING WITH THE DATE WHEN A PATENT SHALL HAVE BEEN GRANTED OR
ISSUED FOR OR UPON ANY OF THE SAID ROOS OR BAYER INVENTIONS AND/OR
APPLICATIONS ANY OF SAID PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD MANUFACTURED
BY LICENSEE, THE BODY OR CORE OF WHICH IS MADE ACCORDING TO THE PROCESS
SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN ANY PATENT GRANTED FOR OR UPON ANY OF SAID
ROOS OR BAYER INVENTIONS AND/OR APPLICATIONS, AND IN CASE LICENSOR
SHALL EXERCISE THE RIGHT SO RESERVED, IT SHALL FIRST SERVE WRITTEN
NOTICE OF ITS INTENTION SO TO DO UPON LICENSEE, ACCOMPANIED WITH A
STATEMENT OF THE MINIMUM PRICE OR PRICES AT WHICH LICENSEE SHALL SELL
SAID GYPSUM PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD, AND THEREAFTER SHALL GIVE
TO LICENSEE WRITTEN OR TELEGRAPHIC NOTICE OF ANY CHANGE IN SUCH PRICE
OR PRICES, AND LICENSEE EXPRESSLY COVENANTS AND AGREES THAT IT WILL
NOT, SO LONG AS THIS AGREEMENT SHALL CONTINUE IN FORCE AND EFFECT AND
AFTER RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE GIVEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS HEREOF, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, SELL OR OFFER FOR SALE ANY
GYPSUM PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD MANUFACTURED BY IT BY USE OF
ANY OF THE MACHINES OR APPLIANCES COVERED BY ANY OF SAID PATENTS AND
WHICH DURING THE EXISTENCE THEREOF SHALL EMBODY THE INVENTIONS AND
IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN ANY OF SAID PATENTS WHICH ARE
PRESENTLY ISSUED, OR ANY GYPSUM PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD
MANUFACTURED BY SECOND PARTIES AND WHICH DURING THE EXISTENCE THEREOF
SHALL EMBODY THE INVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN
EITHER PATENT NUMBER 1,500,452 OR PATENT NUMBER 1,230,297, OR ANY
GYPSUM PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD MANUFACTURED BY LICENSEE AFTER
A PATENT SHALL HAVE ISSUED UPON ANY OF THE SAID ROOS OR BAYER
INVENTIONS AND/OR APPLICATIONS AND DURING THE EXISTENCE THEREOF, THE
BODY OR CORE OF WHICH IS MADE ACCORDING TO THE PROCESS SET FORTH AND
CLAIMED IN ANY PATENT GRANTED FOR OR UPON ANY OF SAID INVENTIONS AND/OR
APPLICATIONS, AT A PRICE OR PRICES LESS THAN THAT STATED BY LICENSOR IN
SAID NOTICE OR IN ANY SUCH WRITTEN OR TELEGRAPHIC NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN
SUCH PRICE OR PRICES. 

SAID MINIMUM PRICE SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN THAT PRICE AT WHICH
LICENSOR DETERMINES TO SELL PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD EMBODYING
THE INVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN SAID PATENTS
TO ITS OWN LIKE TRADE IN THE SAME MARKET. 

3.  LICENSEE AGREES TO PAY TO LICENSOR FOR SAID DISCLOSURES,
INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE AND THE AGREEMENTS OF LICENSOR HEREIN
CONTAINED, AND FOR THE RIGHT, LICENSE AND PRIVILEGE OF USING THE
PROCESSES AND MAKING AND USING THE MACHINES AND/OR INVENTIONS IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF PLASTERBOARD AND GYPSUM WALLBOARD COVERED BY SAID
PATENTS AND APPLICATIONS FOR LETTERS PATENT DESCRIBED IN SAID EXHIBIT
A, AND FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF MANUFACTURING, USING AND/OR SELLING
PLASTERBOARD AND GYPSUM WALLBOARD EMBODYING THE INVENTIONS AND
IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN SAID PATENTS AND APPLICATIONS FOR
LETTERS PATENT, AN AMOUNT (HEREINAFTER FOR CONVENIENCE REFERRED TO AS A
LICENSE FEE OR ROYALTY) EQUIVALENT TO THREE AND ONE-HALF PER CENT (3
1/2%) OF THE SELLING PRICE OF LICENSEE OF ALL PLASTERBOARD AND GYPSUM
WALLBOARD OF EVERY KIND, WHETHER OR NOT MADE BY THE USE OF SAID
MACHINES AND/OR EMBODYING THE INVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND
CLAIMED IN SAID LETTERS PATENT OR APPLICATIONS FOR LETTERS PATENT,
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY LICENSEE BETWEEN THE DATE HEREOF AND FEBRUARY
10, 1937, THE DATE OF THE EXPIRATION OF PATENT NUMBER 1,330,413
MENTIONED IN SAID EXHIBIT A, AND THEREAFTER AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO TWO
PER CENT (2%) OF THE SELLING PRICE OF LICENSEE OF ALL SUCH PLASTERBOARD
AND GYPSUM WALLBOARD MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY IT BETWEEN FEBRUARY 10,
1937, AND JULY 8, 1941, THE DATE OF THE EXPIRATION OF SAID PATENT
NUMBER 1,500,452, AND THEREAFTER AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO ONE PER CENT
(1%) OF THE SELLING PRICE OF LICENSEE OF ALL SUCH PLASTERBOARD AND
GYPSUM WALLBOARD MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY IT BETWEEN JULY 8, 1941, AND
THE DATE OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE LAST TO EXPIRE OF ANY PATENT GRANTED
OR ISSUED FOR OR UPON ANY OF THE SAID ROOS OR BAYER APPLICATIONS; ... 

     .   .         .         .         . 

5.  IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THE LICENSE HEREIN
GRANTED SHALL BE PERSONAL TO THE LICENSEE, AND THAT THE SAME OR ANY
RIGHT HEREIN OR THEREUNDER SHALL NOT BE SOLD OR ASSIGNED OR TRANSFERRED
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF LICENSOR, OR TRANSFERRED BY OPERATION OF
LAW; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE SAME MAY BE ASSIGNED BY LICENSEE TO
ANY COMPANY ACQUIRING ALL THE ASSETS AND BUSINESS OR ALL OF THE CAPITAL
STOCK OF LICENSEE, ON CONDITION THAT LICENSEE SHALL FIRST OBTAIN AN
AGREEMENT IN WRITING FROM ANY SUCH ASSIGNEE AGREEING TO ASSUME ALL OF
THE OBLIGATIONS OF LICENSEE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND TO BE BOUND BY ALL
OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREOF AND SHALL DELIVER SUCH AGREEMENT TO
LICENSOR.  LICENSEE AGREES NOT TO SELL ALL OF ITS ASSETS AND BUSINESS
OR ALL OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK OR TO TRANSFER AND CONVEY ITS PLASTERBOARD
AND/OR WALLBOARD BUSINESS, OR ITS ASSETS USED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
WITHOUT REQUIRING THE PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS THEREOF TO ASSUME, IN
WRITING, ALL OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF LICENSEE HEREUNDER, AND TO AGREE TO
BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT, AND
DELIVER SUCH AGREEMENT TO LICENSOR. 

6.  LICENSEE AGREES TO KEEP SEPARATE FULL AND ACCURATE BOOKS OF
ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS SHOWING THE EXACT QUANTITY OF ALL PLASTERBOARD AND
GYPSUM WALLBOARD MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY IT, AS WELL AS A SEPARATE
RECORD OF ALL PLASTERBOARD AND/OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD SOLD BY IT IN
BUNDLES,  ... 

7.  LICENSOR, OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT AT ALL REASONABLE TIMES DURING BUSINESS HOURS TO INSPECT THE
BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RECORDS OF LICENSEE REFERRED TO IN THE NEXT
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH HEREOF, INCLUDING ALL RECORDS OF EVERY KIND SHOWING
THE QUANTITY OF SAID PLASTERBOARD AND GYPSUM WALLBOARD MANUFACTURED AND
SOLD BY IT AND THE QUANTITY THEREOF PUT UP AND SOLD BY IT IN BUNDLES
AND THE PRICE OR PRICES AT WHICH THE SAME WAS SOLD, AND TO MAKE COPIES
THEREOF AND MEMORANDA THEREFROM; ... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

9.  HAVING REGARD FOR THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OR MAY BE CERTAIN
MANUFACTURERS OF PLASTER OR GYPSUM PRODUCTS, JOBBERS OR OTHER WHOLESALE
DISTRIBUTORS OF SUCH PRODUCTS, WHO DO NOT OR MAY NOT MANUFACTURE GYPSUM
WALLBOARD OR PLASTERBOARD BUT WHO DESIRE OR MAY DESIRE TO HAVE GYPSUM
WALLBOARD OR PLASTERBOARD MANUFACTURED FOR THEM, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND
AGREED THAT LICENSEE MAY MANUFACTURE FOR JOBBERS (BEING THOSE WHO DO
NOT MANUFACTURE BUT BUY AND SELL PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD IN
STRAIGHT CARS OR IN MIXED CARS WITH OTHER BUILDING MATERIAL AND WHO DO
NOT SELL AT RETAIL) GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTERBOARD EMBODYING THE
INVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN SAID LETTERS
PATENT OR IN ANY LETTERS PATENT AFTER THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN ISSUED,
GRANTED FOR OR UPON ANY OF THE SAID APPLICATIONS AND MAY WITH THE
WRITTEN CONSENT OF FIRST PARTY MANUFACTURE FOR ANY SUCH OTHER
MANUFACTURER OR OTHER WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTOR, GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR
PLASTERBOARD EMBODYING THE SAID INVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE SAID LICENSE FEE OR ROYALTY TO BE PAID TO LICENSOR AS
HEREINBEFORE PROVIDED SHALL BE BASED UPON ALL GYPSUM WALLBOARD AND
PLASTERBOARD MANUFACTURED FOR AND SOLD AND INVOICED TO SUCH OTHER
MANUFACTURER, JOBBER OR WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTOR AND UPON THE REGULAR
SELLING PRICE OF LICENSEE OF SUCH PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD TO
ITS REGULAR DEALER TRADE AT THE TIME OF SUCH SALE AND INVOICE, AND
SHALL NOT BE BASED UPON THE PRICE AT WHICH PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM
WALLBOARD IS SOLD AND INVOICED BY LICENSEE TO SUCH OTHER MANUFACTURER,
JOBBER OR WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTOR.  NOTHING HEREINBEFORE CONTAINED IN
THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO GIVE LICENSEE THE RIGHT TO
MANUFACTURE GYPSUM PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD EMBODYING THE
INVENTIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN ANY OF SAID
LETTERS PATENT OR IN ANY LETTERS PATENT AFTER THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN
GRANTED FOR OR UPON ANY OF SAID APPLICATIONS FOR SAID OTHER
MANUFACTURERS OR WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS AND TO SELL THE SAME, WITHOUT
THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF LICENSOR. 

     .         .         .         .     . 

12.  IN THE EVENT THAT EITHER PARTY SHALL AT ANY TIME NEGLECT, FAIL
OR REFUSE TO KEEP OR PERFORM ANY OF THE CONDITIONS OR AGREEMENTS HEREIN
TO BE KEPT BY IT AND PERFORMED, THEN THE OTHER PARTY, AT ITS ELECTION,
MAY SERVE UPON THE PARTY IN DEFAULT WRITTEN NOTICE OF INTENTION TO
TERMINATE THIS LICENSE, WHICH NOTICE SHALL SPECIFY THE ALLEGED NEGLECT,
FAILURE OR REFUSAL, AND IF WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
DELIVERY OF SAID NOTICE THE PARTY IN DEFAULT SHALL NOT CURE THE DEFAULT
SPECIFIED IN SAID NOTICE, THEN THE OTHER PARTY MAY CANCEL AND TERMINATE
THIS AGREEMENT BY NOTIFYING THE PARTY IN DEFAULT IN WRITING OF ITS
ELECTION SO TO DO, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF ANY COURT ACTION; ... 

     .         .         .         . . 

15.  IN CASE LICENSOR SHALL, SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF,
GRANT TO ANY OTHER PERSON EXCEPT ABEL DAVIS AND EUGENE HOLLAND,
RECEIVERS OF THE UNIVERSAL GYPSUM & LIME CO. OR THEIR SUCCESSORS OR TO
THE SAID UNIVERSAL GYPSUM & LIME CO., ANY LICENSE UNDER SAID PATENTS OR
APPLICATIONS FOR LETTERS PATENT SET FORTH IN SAID EXHIBIT A AND
PARAGRAPH 4 HEREOF FOR THE MANUFACTURE, SALE OR USE OF GYPSUM
PLASTERBOARD OR GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR BUNDLES THEREOF, EMBODYING THE
CLAIMS OR INVENTIONS SET FORTH AND CLAIMED IN SAID PATENTS OR SAID
APPLICATIONS, OR SHALL GRANT ANY RIGHT UNDER ANY SUCH LICENSE, UPON
TERMS MORE FAVORABLE THAN THOSE GRANTED HEREUNDER TO THIS LICENSEE,
THEN IT WILL GRANT TO THIS LICENSEE A LICENSE ON THE SAME TERMS OR
EXTEND TO IT THE SAME RIGHT GRANTED TO ANY SUCH OTHER PERSON.  THIS
PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY LICENSE GRANTED ON OR PRIOR TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF, NOR SHALL THE SAME APPLY TO THE TERMS OF
SETTLEMENT OF ANY CLAIM OF LICENSOR OR PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PAYMENT THEREOF, CONTAINED IN ANY SUCH LICENSE. 
..END :





















MITCHELL V. COHEN, 333 U.S. 411 


ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1948.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 160 F.2D 915,
REVERSED. 


1.  PART-TIME SERVICE WITH THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE OF THE
COAST GUARD RESERVE DOES NOT ENTITLE ONE TO VETERANS' PREFERENCE IN
FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944.  PP. 412
423. 

2.  THOSE WHO SERVED TEMPORARILY ON A PART-TIME BASIS WITH THE
VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE ARE NOT "EX-SERVICEMEN" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT.  PP. 417-420. 

3.  THE TERM "EX-SERVICEMEN" IN THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT IS TO BE
CONSTRUED AS EMBRACING ONLY THOSE WHO PERFORMED MILITARY SERVICE ON
FULL-TIME ACTIVE DUTY WITH MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES, AND WHO THEREBY
DISLOCATED THE FABRIC OF THEIR NORMAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIFE.  PP.
421-422. 

4.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 2 OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT
ESTABLISHING PREFERENCE ELIGIBILITY FOR UNMARRIED WIDOWS OF EX
SERVICEMEN, EVEN THOUGH THESE WIDOWS MAY HAVE CONTINUED THEIR NORMAL
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT DURING THE WAR, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT "EX
SERVICEMEN" BE CONSTRUED MORE BROADLY THAN ABOVE INDICATED.  PP. 420
421. 

5.  ONE WHO, ON THE DATE WHEN THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT BECAME
LAW, HAD NOT DISENROLLED FROM THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE COULD
NOT HAVE ACQUIRED VESTED PREFERENCE RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 18 OF THE ACT, BY
VIRTUE OF A CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RULING EXTENDING PREFERENCE RIGHTS
UNDER PRIOR LAWS TO THOSE WHO HAD SERVED WITH THE VOLUNTEER PORT
SECURITY FORCE.  PP. 422-423. 

MITCHELL ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, V. COHEN. 

NO. 130.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 131, MITCHELL ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, V. HUBICKEY, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

RESPONDENTS BROUGHT SUITS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH THEIR STATUS AS PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES IN FEDERAL
EMPLOYMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENTS IN THEIR
FAVOR.  69 F.SUPP.  54.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  160 F.2D 915. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 754.  REVERSED, P. 423. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PROBLEM HERE IS WHETHER TEMPORARY MEMBERS OF THE VOLUNTEER PORT
SECURITY FORCE OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE ARE ENTITLED TO VETERANS'
PREFERENCE IN FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE
ACT OF 1944.  FN1 

PURSUANT TO SEC. 207 OF THE COAST GUARD AUXILIARY AND RESERVE ACT OF
1941,  FN2  APPROXIMATELY 70,000 PERSONS WERE ENROLLED AS TEMPORARY
MEMBERS OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE.  THE RESERVE WAS A MILITARY
ORGANIZATION ESTABLISHED AS A COMPONENT PART OF THE COAST GUARD "TO
ENABLE THAT SERVICE TO PERFORM SUCH EXTRAORDINARY DUTIES AS MAY BE
NECESSITATED BY EMERGENCY CONDITIONS."  FN3  THE COAST GUARD, IN TURN,
WAS CREATED AS A MILITARY SERVICE AND CONSTITUTES "A BRANCH OF THE LAND
AND NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN4  ON NOVEMBER 1, 1941, THE
PRESIDENT DIRECTED THAT THE COAST GUARD OPERATE AS PART OF THE NAVY
SUBJECT TO THE ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.  FN5 

OF THE VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF TEMPORARY MEMBERS OF THE COAST
GUARD RESERVE,  FN6  THE LARGEST WAS KNOWN AS THE VOLUNTEER PORT
SECURITY FORCE.  SERVICE THEREIN WAS PURELY VOLUNTARY AND WAS DEVOTED
TO SUCH ACTIVITIES AS THE PATROL AND GUARDING OF HARBORS, WATERFRONTS,
DOCKS, BRIDGES, SHIPS AND INDUSTRIAL SHORE ESTABLISHMENTS.  THE MEMBERS
OF THIS FORCE TOOK THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE REQUIRED OF THE REGULAR
MEMBERS OF THE COAST GUARD.  THEY WERE ENROLLED "FOR THE DURATION OF
THE WAR UPON THE COMPLETION OF WHICH YOU WILL BE DISENROLLED UNLESS THE
PERIOD OF YOUR ENROLLMENT IS SOONER TERMINATED BY COAST GUARD
AUTHORITY."  FN7  IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, HOWEVER, THE MEMBERS WERE USUALLY
PERMITTED TO LEAVE THE FORCE AT ANY TIME BY MAKING A REQUEST TO THE
COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE UNIT TO WHICH THEY WERE ASSIGNED.  THEY WERE
GIVEN A "CERTIFICATE OF DISENROLLMENT" UPON SEVERANCE FROM THE FORCE,
HONORABLE DISCHARGES AND MUSTERING-OUT PAY NOT BEING PROVIDED. 

MEMBERS OF THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE WERE OBLIGATED TO BE ON
ACTIVE DUTY "ONLY AS DIRECTED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR A MINIMUM OF
12 HOURS PER WEEK."  FN8  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEIR ACTIVE DUTY
EXCEEDED THAT AMOUNT TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE.  BECAUSE OF THE SMALL
NUMBER OF HOURS OF SERVICE, MOST MEMBERS WERE ABLE TO CONTINUE THEIR
REGULAR CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT WITH LITTLE OR NO INTERFERENCE.  THEY COULD
NOT BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE CITIES IN WHICH THEY LIVED WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT.  EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE COAST GUARD TO ASSIGN THE 12-HOUR
WEEKLY DUTY PERIODS TO FIT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE MEMBERS.  AND MANY OF
THEM WERE DISENROLLED AT THEIR OWN REQUEST UPON REPRESENTATIONS THAT
THEIR DUTY ASSIGNMENTS CONFLICTED WITH THEIR CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT.  THEY
COULD ALSO BE EXCUSED FROM DUTY IF THEY FOUND IT TEMPORARILY
INCONVENIENT. 

THESE MEMBERS PERFORMED THEIR DUTIES WITHOUT PAY.  IN MOST CASES,
HOWEVER, THEY RECEIVED AN ALLOWANCE FOR UNIFORMS; AND IN SOME INSTANCES
THEY RECEIVED FOOD OR SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY. 
MILITARY STATUS ATTACHED TO THEM ONLY DURING PERIODS WHEN THEY WERE
ACTUALLY ENGAGED ON ACTIVE DUTY OR EN ROUTE TO AND FROM SUCH DUTY. 
WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY THEY WORE THEIR UNIFORMS, WERE SUBJECT TO THE
USUAL COAST GUARD DISCIPLINE AND WERE VESTED WITH THE SAME AUTHORITY AS
MEMBERS OF THE REGULAR COAST GUARD OF SIMILAR RANK. 

AT ALL TIMES THE MEMBERS OF THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE
REMAINED SUBJECT TO THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940. 
THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REGISTER AND WERE LIABLE FOR INDUCTION INTO THE
REGULAR ARMED FORCES.  IN FACT, MANY OF THEM DID ENLIST OR WERE DRAFTED
INTO THOSE FORCES, THEREBY NECESSITATING THEIR DISENROLLMENT AS
TEMPORARY MEMBERS OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE.  IF ILLNESS OR DISEASE
OCCURRED WHILE ON DUTY, THEY WERE ACCORDED THE SAME HOSPITAL TREATMENT
AS MEMBERS OF THE REGULAR COAST GUARD.  BUT IF THEY WERE INJURED OR
KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY, THEY WERE ENTITLED ONLY TO THE BENEFITS
PRESCRIBED BY LAW FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
MOREOVER, THEY WERE INELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFITS OF NATIONAL SERVICE
LIFE INSURANCE. 

RESPONDENT COHEN ENROLLED ON APRIL 13, 1944, AS A MEMBER OF THE
VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE AND WAS ASSIGNED TO DUTY WITH THE CAPTAIN
OF THE PORT, WASHINGTON, D.C.  HE PERFORMED HIS PART-TIME DUTIES
WITHOUT COMPENSATION AND WITHOUT INTERRUPTION TO HIS REGULAR EMPLOYMENT
AS A CIVILIAN ECONOMIST IN THE WAR DEPARTMENT.  HE WAS DISENROLLED ON
SEPTEMBER 5, 1945, HAVING SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY ON 58 DAYS FOR A TOTAL
SERVICE OF 398 HOURS.  RESPONDENT HUBICKEY WAS ENROLLED IN THE FORCE ON
OCTOBER 18, 1944, AND WAS ASSIGNED TO DUTY WITH THE CAPTAIN OF THE
PORT, PHILADELPHIA, PA.  HE TOO PERFORMED HIS PART-TIME DUTIES WITHOUT
COMPENSATION AND WITHOUT INTERFERENCE WITH HIS REGULAR WORK AS A
CIVILIAN NAVAL ARCHITECT IN THE NAVY DEPARTMENT.  ON SEPTEMBER 30,
1945, HE WAS DISENROLLED, HAVING SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY ON 32 DAYS FOR A
TOTAL SERVICE OF 250 HOURS. 

ON APRIL 4, 1944, BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT,
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION HAD RULED THAT THE DUTIES PERFORMED BY
THOSE ENROLLED IN THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE ENTITLED THEM TO
VETERANS' PREFERENCE IN FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE THEN EXISTING
PREFERENCE LAWS.  FN9  BUT ON NOVEMBER 4, 1944, AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF
THE STATUTE IN QUESTION AND PURSUANT TO A RECOMMENDATION OF THE ACTING
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, THE COMMISSION CHANGED THIS RULING AND DECIDED
THAT SUCH DUTIES DID NOT ENTITLE ONE TO VETERANS' PREFERENCE UNDER THE
TERMS OF THE STATUTE.  FN10 

THE TWO RESPONDENTS WERE DENIED VETERANS' PREFERENCE IN THEIR
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S SECOND
RULING.  DUE TO GENERAL REDUCTIONS IN FORCE, RESPONDENT COHEN WAS
DISCHARGED FROM THE WAR DEPARTMENT AND RESPONDENT HUBICKEY WAS NOTIFIED
THAT HE WOULD BE DISCHARGED FROM THE NAVY DEPARTMENT.  THEY THEN
BROUGHT THESE ACTIONS TO COMPEL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO
CLASSIFY THEM AS PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES; THEY ALSO ASKED THE COURT TO
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THEM ENTITLED TO THE STATUS OF PREFERENCE ELIGIBLES
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENTS IN THEIR FAVOR.  69 F.SUPP.  54.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, ONE JUSTICE DISSENTING.  160 F.2D 915.  WE
BROUGHT THE CASES HERE ON CERTIORARI, THE PROBLEM RAISED BEING ONE OF
IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT. 

THE PERTINENT PORTION OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT IS TO BE FOUND
NEAR THE END OF SEC. 2.  THAT ESTABLISHES PREFERENCE IN GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYMENT FOR "THOSE EX-SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE SERVED ON ACTIVE
DUTY IN ANY BRANCH OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, DURING ANY
WAR, ...  AND HAVE BEEN SEPARATED THEREFROM UNDER HONORABLE
CONDITIONS." 

RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT THEIR SERVICE WITH THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY
FORCE BRINGS THEM SQUARELY WITHIN THIS STATUTORY PROVISION, HENCE
ENTITLING THEM TO VETERANS' PREFERENCE.  IT IS UNDISPUTED, OF COURSE,
THAT THEY DID SERVE PART-TIME ON ACTIVE DUTY IN A BRANCH OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES DURING WORLD WAR II AND THAT THEY WERE
SEPARATED THEREFROM UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS.  THE CRUCIAL QUESTION
IS WHETHER THEY THEREBY ARE "EX-SERVICEMEN" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
PARTICULAR STATUTE.  ON THAT SCORE, RESPONDENTS URGE THAT THIS TERM
MUST BE GIVEN ITS ORDINARY AND LITERAL MEANING SO AS TO REFER TO ALL
THOSE WHO PERFORMED MILITARY SERVICE.  FN11 THE LENGTH OR CONTINUITY OF
ACTIVE DUTY AND THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF COMPENSATION BECOME
IMMATERIAL FROM RESPONDENTS' POINT OF VIEW; THE MERE PERFORMANCE OF
SOME TYPE OF MILITARY SERVICE IS THOUGHT TO BE SUFFICIENT.  SINCE
RESPONDENTS CONCEDEDLY DID PERFORM MILITARY SERVICE WHILE ON
INTERMITTENT ACTIVE DUTY WITH THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE, THE
CONCLUSION IS REACHED THAT THEY ARE "EXSERVICEMEN" WITHIN THE
CONTEMPLATION OF THIS STATUTE.  RESORT TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND
OTHER SECONDARY SOURCES IS SAID TO BE UNWARRANTED, SO CLEAR AND OBVIOUS
IS THE MEANING OF THAT TERM. 

IN OUR OPINION, HOWEVER, THE TERM "EX-SERVICEMEN" HAS NO SINGLE,
PRECISE DEFINITION WHICH PERMITS US TO READ AND APPLY THAT TERM WITHOUT
HELP FROM THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT APPEARS AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT
WAS INSERTED IN THE STATUTE.  EX-SERVICEMEN ARE INDEED THOSE WHO HAVE
PERFORMED MILITARY SERVICE.  AND THEY MAY INCLUDE THOSE WHO HAVE SERVED
ON ACTIVE DUTY ONLY PART-TIME AND WITHOUT COMPENSATION.  BUT THIS
DESIGNATION MAY ALSO BE CONFINED TO A MORE DEFINITE AND NARROW CLASS OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO PERFORMED MILITARY SERVICE, TO THOSE WHOSE FULL TIME
AND EFFORTS WERE AT THE DISPOSAL OF MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND WHOSE
COMPENSATION INCLUDED MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES.  SUCH EX-SERVICEMEN
ARE THOSE WHO COMPLETELY DISASSOCIATED THEMSELVES FROM THEIR CIVILIAN
STATUS AND THEIR CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT DURING THE PERIOD OF THEIR
MILITARY SERVICE, SUFFERING IN MANY CASES FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND
SEPARATION FROM HOME AND FAMILY.  THEY FORMED THE GREAT BULK OF THE
REGULAR ARMED FORCES DURING WORLD WAR II.  IN THE POPULAR MIND, THEY
WERE TYPIFIED BY THE FULLFLEDGED SOLDIER, SAILOR, MARINE OR COAST
GUARDSMAN.  OUR PROBLEM, OF COURSE, IS WHETHER CONGRESS USED THE TERM
"EX-SERVICEMEN" IN THE BROAD OR NARROW SENSE WHEN IT ENACTED THE
VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT.  AND THE ANSWER TO THAT PROBLEM IS TO BE
DETERMINED BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME RATHER THAN BY
RELIANCE UPON DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS. 

THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT WAS ENACTED IN 1944 TO AID IN THE
READJUSTMENT AND REHABILITATION OF WORLD WAR II VETERANS.  IT WAS FELT
THAT THE PROBLEMS OF THESE RETURNING VETERANS WERE PARTICULARLY ACUTE
AND MERITED SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.  THEIR NORMAL EMPLOYMENT AND MODE OF
LIFE HAD BEEN SERIOUSLY DISRUPTED BY THEIR SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES
AND IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THEY COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RESUME THEIR
REGULAR ACTIVITIES WITHOUT REEMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION AIDS.  THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IN ITS CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYER, DETERMINED TO TAKE
THE LEAD IN SUCH A PROGRAM.  FN12  THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT WAS
ACCORDINGLY ADOPTED, CREATING SPECIAL PREFERENCE AND PROTECTION FOR
RETURNING VETERANS AT EVERY STAGE OF FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT. 

THROUGHOUT THE LEGISLATIVE REPORTS AND DEBATES LEADING TO THE BIRTH
OF THIS STATUTE IS EVIDENT A CONSISTENT DESIRE TO HELP ONLY THOSE WHO
HAD SACRIFICED THEIR NORMAL PURSUITS AND SURROUNDINGS TO AID IN THE
STRUGGLE TO WHICH THIS NATION HAD DEDICATED ITSELF.  FN13  IT WAS THE
VETERANS OR EX-SERVICEMEN WHO HAD BEEN COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM THEIR
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT BY REASON OF THEIR FULL-TIME SERVICE WITH THE ARMED
FORCES WHO WERE THE OBJECTS OF CONGRESSIONAL SOLICITUDE.  REEMPLOYMENT
AND REHABILITATION WERE CONSIDERED TO BE NECESSARY ONLY AS TO THEM. 

THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE LEGISLATIVE MIND IN THIS
INSTANCE WAS DIRECTED TOWARD GRANTING SPECIAL BENEFITS OR REWARDS TO
THOSE WHO PERFORMED MILITARY SERVICE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR
NORMAL EMPLOYMENT AND MODE OF LIFE.  AS TO THEM, ASSISTANCE IN
REEMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION WAS THOUGHT UNNECESSARY.  THEIR
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT STATUS REMAINED UNCHANGED BY REASON OF THEIR
MILITARY SERVICE.  AND SINCE THEIR CIVILIAN LIFE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY
UNALTERED, THERE WAS NO PROBLEM OF AIDING THEIR READJUSTMENT BACK TO
SUCH A LIFE.  INDEED, TO HAVE GIVEN THEM PREFERENCE RIGHTS SOLELY
BECAUSE OF THEIR PART-TIME MILITARY SERVICE WOULD HAVE BEEN
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROFESSED AIMS OF THE STATUTORY FRAMERS.  SUCH
PREFERENCE WOULD HAVE DILUTED THE BENEFITS CONFERRED ON THOSE EX
SERVICEMEN WHO HAD MADE FULL-SCALE SACRIFICES; AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
INEQUITABLE TO THE MANY CIVILIANS WHO ALSO HAD PARTICIPATED VOLUNTARILY
IN ESSENTIAL WAR AND DEFENSE ACTIVITIES BUT WHO HAD NOT BEEN DIRECTLY
CONNECTED WITH A BRANCH OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 2 OF THE ACT ESTABLISHES PREFERENCE ELIGIBILITY
FOR THE UNMARRIED WIDOWS OF DECEASED EX-SERVICEMEN DESPITE THE FACT
THAT THESE WIDOWS MAY HAVE CONTINUED THEIR NORMAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
DURING THE WAR.  BUT THE PREFERENCE RIGHTS THEREBY GRANTED ARE
DERIVATIVE IN NATURE.  THEY ARE CONFERRED ON THE WIDOWS BECAUSE OF THE
DISLOCATION AND SEVERANCE FROM CIVIL LIFE WHICH THEIR DECEASED HUSBANDS
SUFFERED WHILE PERFORMING FULL-TIME MILITARY DUTIES AND IN PARTIAL
SUBSTITUTION FOR THE LOSS IN FAMILY EARNING POWER OCCASIONED BY THEIR
HUSBANDS' DEATHS.  CONGRESS FELT THAT THIS WAS ONE WAY OF EXPRESSING
THE MORAL OBLIGATION AND THE DEBT OF GRATITUDE WHICH THIS NATION WAS
THOUGHT TO OWE THESE WIDOWS.  SUCH A PROVISION CERTAINLY AFFORDS NO
BASIS FOR WIDENING THE CONCEPT OF "EX-SERVICEMEN" BEYOND THAT WHICH WE
HAVE INDICATED.  THE WIDOWS OF EX-SERVICEMEN ARE IN A SPECIAL CATEGORY
WHICH CANNOT BE COMPARED, IN TERMS OF SACRIFICE OR NEED FOR
REEMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION, WITH ANY GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO
PERFORMED PART-TIME MILITARY DUTIES.  FN14    IN THE LIGHT OF THE VERY
CLEAR PURPOSE WHICH CONGRESS HAD IN MIND IN ADOPTING THE VETERANS'
PREFERENCE ACT, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO DEFINE THE TERM "EX-SERVICEMEN,"
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE, AS RELATING ONLY TO THOSE
WHO PERFORMED MILITARY SERVICE ON FULL-TIME ACTIVE DUTY WITH MILITARY
PAY AND ALLOWANCES, THEREBY DISLOCATING THE FABRIC OF THEIR NORMAL
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIFE.  FN15  IT THUS BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT
RESPONDENTS' SERVICE WITH THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE OF THE
COAST GUARD RESERVE CANNOT QUALIFY THEM AS "EX-SERVICEMEN" ENTITLED TO
VETERANS' PREFERENCE UNDER THIS ENACTMENT.  THEY CONTINUED THEIR NORMAL
CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT WITH THE WAR DEPARTMENT AND THE NAVY DEPARTMENT
DURING THE WAR, EMPLOYMENT WHICH SUFFERED AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE FROM
THEIR MILITARY SERVICE; THEY SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR ONLY RELATIVELY
SHORT PERIODS EACH WEEK AND COULD BE DISENROLLED AT THEIR OWN REQUEST;
THEY RECEIVED NO MILITARY PAY AND VERY FEW ALLOWANCES; THEY COULD NOT
BE TRANSFERRED AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.  THEY WERE
THEREFORE ABLE TO RETAIN THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THEIR CIVILIAN
LIFE.  AS TO THEM, THERE WAS NO PROBLEM OF REEMPLOYMENT OR
REHABILITATION CAUSED BY THEIR MILITARY SERVICE.  THEY ARE NOT AMONG
THE "EX-SERVICEMEN" WHOM CONGRESS DESIRED TO ASSIST BY MEANS OF THE
VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT. 

ONE OTHER MATTER REMAINS.  RESPONDENTS CLAIM, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS HELD, THAT THEY ACQUIRED VESTED PREFERENCE RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 18
OF THE ACT.  IN PERTINENT PART, SEC. 18 PROVIDES THAT "THIS ACT SHALL
NOT BE CONSTRUED TO TAKE AWAY FROM ANY PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE ANY RIGHTS
HERETOFORE GRANTED TO, OR POSSESSED BY, HIM UNDER ANY EXISTING LAW,
EXECUTIVE ORDER, CIVIL-SERVICE RULE OR REGULATION, OF ANY DEPARTMENT OF
THE GOVERNMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF."  IT IS SAID THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION'S RULING OF APRIL 4, 1944, EXTENDING PREFERENCE RIGHTS UNDER
THE THEN EXISTING LAWS TO THOSE WHO HAD PERFORMED SERVICE WITH THE
VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE, GAVE RESPONDENTS VESTED RIGHTS WHICH
WERE PRESERVED BY SEC. 18 WHEN THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED. 

THIS CONTENTION IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  VETERANS' PREFERENCE RIGHTS BY
THEIR VERY NATURE DO NOT ACCRUE UNTIL ONE HAS BECOME A VETERAN THROUGH
SEPARATION FROM THE ARMED FORCES.  ON JUNE 27, 1944, WHEN THE VETERANS'
PREFERENCE ACT BECAME LAW, NEITHER OF THE RESPONDENTS HAD AS YET
DISENROLLED FROM THE VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE.  IN FACT,
RESPONDENT HUBICKEY HAD NOT EVEN ENROLLED BY THAT DATE.  THUS THEY
COULD NOT BE CLASSED AS VETERANS OR EX-SERVICEMEN, WHATEVER DEFINITION
BE GIVEN THOSE TERMS, ON JUNE 27, 1944, AND THEY COULD NOT HAVE EARNED
ANY VETERANS' PREFERENCE RIGHTS PRIOR TO THAT DATE.  THE COMMISSION'S
RULING OF APRIL 4, 1944, DID NO MORE THAN INFORM RESPONDENTS THAT THEY
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO VETERANS' PREFERENCE UPON DISENROLLMENT, PROVIDED
SUCH RULING WAS LAWFUL AND STILL IN EFFECT.  IT DID NOT PURPORT TO GIVE
THEM PREFERENCE RIGHTS AS OF APRIL 4, 1944, OR TO CAUSE THOSE RIGHTS TO
ACCRUE BEFORE DISENROLLMENT.  SINCE THEY DID NOT POSSESS AND HAD NOT
BEEN GRANTED ANY SUCH RIGHTS UNDER PRIOR LAW, RESPONDENTS WERE
COMPLETELY UNAFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 18.  THAT SECTION WAS
PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO PERPETUATE PREFERENCES GRANTED EARLIER TO
VETERANS WHO HAD SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES DURING PEACETIME AND WHO
WERE THEN IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT OR ON CIVIL-SERVICE REGISTERS.  FN16
RESPONDENTS WERE OBVIOUSLY NOT VETERANS OF THAT TYPE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  58 STAT. 387, 5 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 851. 

FN2  55 STAT. 9, 12, AS AMENDED, 14 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 307. 

FN3  SEC. 201 OF THE COAST GUARD AUXILIARY AND RESERVE ACT OF 1941,
55 STAT. 9, 11, AS AMENDED, 14 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 301. 

FN4  55 STAT. 585, 14 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN5  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8929, 6 FED. REG. 5581. 

FN6  THE OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS WERE:  (1) FULL-TIME ACTIVE DUTY WITH
MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES; (2) PILOTS WITHOUT PAY AND ALLOWANCES
OTHER THAN FOR UNIFORMS, BUT PAID BY THEIR OWN COMPANIES; (3) OFFICERS
OF GREAT LAKES VESSELS WITHOUT PAY AND ALLOWANCES OTHER THAN FOR
UNIFORMS, BUT PAID BY THEIR OWN COMPANIES; (4) COAST GUARD POLICE
WITHOUT PAY AND ALLOWANCES; (5) CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF THE COAST
GUARD ENROLLED FOR FULL-TIME ACTIVE DUTY WITHOUT PAY OTHER THAN
COMPENSATION FOR THEIR CIVILIAN POSITIONS. 

FN7  FROM THE FORM ENTITLED "TEMPORARY MEMBER OF COAST GUARD RESERVE
ENROLLMENT AND ACTIVE DUTY ASSIGNMENT." 

FN8  IBID.  IT ALSO APPEARS FROM THIS FORM THAT THOSE MENTIONED IN
CLASSIFICATIONS (2) AND (5) IN FOOTNOTE 6, SUPRA, WERE SUBJECT TO CALL
AT ALL TIMES.  APPARENTLY THE OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS, INCLUDING THE
VOLUNTEER PORT SECURITY FORCE, WERE NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH A CALL. 

FN9  CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 4145 TO REGIONAL DIRECTORS AND DIVISION
CHIEFS OF THE COMMISSION.  THIS PROVIDED THAT ACTIVE DUTY PERFORMED BY
TEMPORARY MEMBERS OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE, WHETHER FULL-TIME, PART
TIME, OR INTERMITTENTLY, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT PAY, INCLUDING
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ENROLLED WITHOUT PAY OTHER THAN THE COMPENSATION
OF THEIR CIVILIAN POSITIONS, CONSTITUTED ACTIVE DUTY AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM TRAINING DUTY AND ENTITLED THE MEMBER PERFORMING SUCH DUTY TO
PREFERENCE BENEFITS UNDER THE THEN EXISTING PREFERENCE LAWS. 

FN10  DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR NO. 508 TO HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND
INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENTS.  THIS MODIFIED THE EARLIER RULING AND
PROVIDED THAT ONLY THOSE TEMPORARY COAST GUARD RESERVISTS PERFORMING
FULL-TIME DUTY WITH PAY AND ALLOWANCES AT SHORE STATIONS OR ABOARD
COAST GUARD VESSELS WERE ENTITLED TO PREFERENCE UNDER THE VETERANS'
PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944. 

FN11  RESPONDENTS POINT OUT THAT THE WORD "SERVICEMAN" IS DEFINED AS
"ONE WHO HAS PERFORMED MILITARY SERVICE."  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY, 2D ED. (1942). 

FN12  "I BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FUNCTIONING IN ITS
CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYER, SHOULD TAKE THE LEAD IN ASSURING THOSE WHO ARE
IN THE ARMED SERVICES THAT WHEN THEY RETURN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION WILL
BE GIVEN TO THEM IN THEIR EFFORTS TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT.  IT IS
ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE MILLIONS OF OUR YOUNG MEN OUT OF THEIR
NORMAL PURSUITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIGHTING TO PRESERVE THE NATION, AND
THEN EXPECT THEM TO RESUME THEIR NORMAL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT HAVING ANY
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION SHOWN THEM. 

"THE PROBLEMS OF READJUSTMENT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR ALL OF US.  THEY
WILL BE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SPENT MONTHS AND EVEN
YEARS AT THE BATTLE FRONTS ALL OVER THE WORLD.  SURELY A GRATEFUL
NATION WILL WANT TO EXPRESS ITS GRATITUDE IN DEEDS AS WELL AS IN
WORDS." 

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO REP. RAMSPECK, QUOTED IN H.R. REP. NO.
1289, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 5. 

FN13  H.R. REP. NO. 1289, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 907, 78TH
CONG., 2D SESS.; 90 CONG. REC. 3501-3507.  THE HOUSE REPORT STATED (P.
3):  "PRIVATE EMPLOYERS AND CORPORATIONS, AS WELL AS STATE, COUNTY, AND
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS, HAVE BEEN URGED THROUGH THE SELECTIVE-SERVICE
LAW AND OTHERWISE TO AFFORD REEMPLOYMENT TO VETERANS WHEN THEY LEAVE
THE ARMED FORCES.  YOUR COMMITTEE FEELS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SHOULD SET THE PACE, AND THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE
REEMPLOYMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM."  THE SENATE REPORT STATED (P.
1): "THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES RAPIDLY ARE BEING RETURNED TO CIVILIAN LIFE, THE BILL
SHOULD BE ENACTED WITHOUT DELAY." 

FN14  THE SAME OBSERVATIONS APPLY TO THE PROVISION IN SEC. 2 GIVING
VETERANS' PREFERENCE TO THE WIVES OF EX-SERVICEMEN WHO HAVE A SERVICE
CONNECTED DISABILITY AND WHO THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO QUALIFY FOR
ANY CIVIL-SERVICE APPOINTMENT.  SEE ALSO 62 STAT. 3, EXTENDING
VETERANS' PREFERENCE BENEFITS TO THE WIDOWED MOTHERS OF DECEASED OR
PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED EX-SERVICEMEN.  H.R. REP. NO. 697,
80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 480, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN15  THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS MATTER COINCIDES WITH THAT EXPRESSED
BY THE SUPPORTERS OF H.R. 1389, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THAT BILL, AS
AMENDED, PROPOSED TO CHANGE SEC. 2 OF THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT BY
PROVIDING THAT "'ACTIVE DUTY' IN ANY BRANCH OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL MEAN ACTIVE FULL-TIME DUTY WITH MILITARY PAY AND
ALLOWANCES IN ANY BRANCH OF THE ARMED FORCES DURING ANY CAMPAIGN OR
EXPEDITION (FOR WHICH A CAMPAIGN BADGE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED)." 

HEARINGS WERE HELD BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE.  THE BILL WAS UNANIMOUSLY REPORTED OUT BY THE COMMITTEE,
H.R. REP. NO. 465, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AND WAS ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE
BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 93 CONG. REC. 7315-7318.  A UNANIMOUS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE ALSO REPORTED THE BILL FAVORABLY, S.
REP. NO. 396, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., BUT THE SENATE ADJOURNED WITHOUT
CONSIDERING THE BILL. 

THE PROPONENTS OF THE BILL AND THE TWO COMMITTEES CONSIDERED IT AS A
CLARIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AS TO THE MEANING OF
"EX-SERVICEMEN."  IT WAS STATED THAT THE COUNTRY OWES A DEBT OF
GRATITUDE TO THE TEMPORARY COAST GUARD RESERVISTS, "BUT THEY ARE NOT TO
BE CLASSED AS EX-SERVICEMEN, WHO WERE ACTUALLY UPROOTED FROM THEIR
CIVILIAN OCCUPATIONS AND SUBJECTED TO THE RIGORS OF FULL-TIME MILITARY
TRAINING AND COMBAT.  IT IS TO THE LATTER GROUP THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE."  93 CONG. REC.
7315.  THE NEED FOR CLARIFICATION OF SEC. 2 WAS SAID TO BE THE
CONFUSION CREATED BY THE LOWER COURT DECISIONS IN THE INSTANT CASES. 

FN16  SEE S. REP. NO. 907, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2; H.R. REP. NO.
1289, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 3.  THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT DOES
NOT GRANT BENEFITS TO FUTURE PEACETIME VETERANS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :
















MOGALL V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 424 


NO. 48.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1948.  - 158 F.2D
792, REVERSED. 


THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS IMPOSED NO LEGAL OBLIGATION UPON AN
EMPLOYER OF A REGISTRANT UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT
TO REPORT TO THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD FACTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN
THE REGISTRANT BEING PLACED IN A DIFFERENT DRAFT CLASSIFICATION; AND AN
EMPLOYER'S FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH REPORTS WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF SEC. 11
OF THE ACT.  P. 425. 

MOGALL V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  158
F.2D 792.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 797.  REVERSED, P.
425. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER AND HIS EMPLOYEE, ONE PERNICIARO, WERE JOINTLY INDICTED
AND TRIED ON THE CHARGES CONTAINED IN AN EIGHT-COUNT INDICTMENT.  THE
DEFENDANTS WERE ACQUITTED UNDER COUNTS 1 TO 7, THE FIRST OF WHICH
CHARGED PETITIONER AND PERNICIARO WITH CONSPIRING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ENABLING PERNICIARO TO EVADE MILITARY SERVICE BY FAILING TO MAKE KNOWN
TO THE DRAFT BOARD FACTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN PERNICIARO BEING
PLACED IN A DIFFERENT DRAFT CLASSIFICATION.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE
CONVICTED UNDER COUNT 8, HOWEVER, WHICH CHARGED PETITIONER AND
PERNICIARO WITH FAILING TO REPORT FACTS IN WRITING TO THE LOCAL DRAFT
BOARD WHICH MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN PERNICIARO BEING PLACED IN A
DIFFERENT DRAFT CLASSIFICATION, CONTRARY TO SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 894, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 311 AND
SEC. 626.1(B) OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS. 

THE GOVERNMENT NOW CONCEDES THAT THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS
IMPOSED NO LEGAL OBLIGATION UPON PETITIONER, AS AN EMPLOYER OF A
REGISTRANT UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, TO MAKE SUCH
REPORTS TO THE LOCAL BOARD.  IT IS ALSO CONCEDED THAT PETITIONER WAS
TRIED AND CONVICTED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT HE WAS UNDER SUCH A LEGAL
OBLIGATION.  WE AGREE THAT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE REGULATION AND THE
RECORD OF THIS CASE SUPPORT THESE CONCLUSIONS. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST
PETITIONER SHOULD BE REVERSED, THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
SINCE THE PROSECUTION MAY WISH TO TRY PETITIONER A SECOND TIME ON THE
CHARGES CONTAINED IN COUNT 8, AS AN AIDER AND ABETTOR. 

THERE IS NO SHOWING OF FACTS SUFFICIENT FOR US TO PASS JUDGMENT ON
THE QUESTION.  ACCORDINGLY, WE INTIMATE NO OPINION ON THE PROPRIETY OF
THIS PROCEDURE OR THE ISSUES WHICH IT MIGHT PRESENT.  SEE SEALFON V.
UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 575(1948).  THOSE QUESTIONS WILL BE OPEN IN THE
DISTRICT COURT ON OUR REMAND OF THE CAUSE.  REVERSED. 
..END :


















SEABOARD R. CO. V. DANIEL, 333 U.S. 118 


NO. 390.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 1948.  - 211
S.C. 122, 43 S.E.2D 839, REVERSED. 


IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, A VIRGINIA
CORPORATION, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
SUCCEEDED TO THE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF A UNITARY RAILROAD SYSTEM
IN SIX STATES, INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA.  IN GRANTING ITS APPROVAL, THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT, FOR THE CORPORATION TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA FORBIDDING THE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF RAILROADS IN
THE STATE BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, WOULD RESULT IN "SUBSTANTIAL DELAY
AND NEEDLESS EXPENSE" AND "WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  THE CORPORATION SUED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
TO ENJOIN THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM ENFORCING THESE STATE LAWS
AGAINST IT OR COLLECTING THE HEAVY STATUTORY PENALTIES FOR
NONCOMPLIANCE.  HELD: 

1.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT, WITH POWER
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S ORDER EXEMPTED THE CORPORATION
FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE RAILROAD CORPORATION LAWS AND, IF SO,
WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD TRANSCENDED ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN
MAKING THE ORDER.  PP. 122-123. 

2.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS INTENDED TO EXEMPT THE CORPORATION
FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE STATE'S LAWS FORBIDDING FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO
OWN OR OPERATE RAILROADS IN THE STATE.  P. 124. 

3.  THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SUCH AN ORDER BY SEC. 5 OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1940.  TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 522.  PP. 124-126. 

4.  IT WAS NOT PREVENTED FROM DOING SO BY SEC. 5(11), WHICH FORBIDS
CREATION OF A FEDERAL CORPORATION BUT AUTHORIZES A STATE RAILROAD
CORPORATION TO EXERCISE THE POWERS THEREIN GRANTED IN ADDITION TO THOSE
BESTOWED UPON IT BY THE STATE OF ITS CREATION.  PP. 126-127. 

5.  THE CORPORATION IS ENTITLED TO THE INJUNCTION IT SOUGHT.  P.
127. 

SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD CO. V. DANIEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA DISMISSED A SUIT BROUGHT THEREIN
BY A VIRGINIA RAILROAD CORPORATION TO ENJOIN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
SOUTH CAROLINA FROM ENFORCING AGAINST IT CERTAIN STATE LAWS FORBIDDING
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO OWN OR OPERATE RAILROADS IN THE STATE.  211
S.C. 122, 43 S.E.2D 839.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 127. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES OF SOUTH CAROLINA PROVIDE THAT RAILROAD
LINES WITHIN THAT STATE CAN BE OWNED AND OPERATED ONLY BY STATE-CREATED
CORPORATIONS; A RAILROAD CORPORATION CHARTERED ONLY UNDER THE LAWS OF
ANOTHER STATE IS FORBIDDEN UNDER HEAVY PENALTIES TO EXERCISE SUCH
POWERS WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA.  FN1  THERE IS A WAY, HOWEVER, IN WHICH A
FOREIGN RAILROAD CORPORATION MAY, UNDER SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES,
INDIRECTLY EXERCISE SOME POWERS OVER ITS SOUTH CAROLINA OPERATIONS.  IT
MAY ORGANIZE A SOUTH CAROLINA SUBSIDIARY.  IN ADDITION, IT MAY, UNDER
SOUTH CAROLINA LAW, CONSOLIDATE THAT CORPORATION WITH ITSELF.  IN THAT
EVENT, SO FAR AS SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES CAN GOVERN, THE CONSOLIDATED
RESULT WOULD BE A CORPORATION BOTH OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND OF ANOTHER
STATE.  FN2 

IN 1946 THE APPELLANT, SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, SUCCEEDED TO THE
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF A UNITARY RAILROAD SYSTEM WITH 4,200 RAILWAY
MILES IN SIX SOUTHERN STATES.  SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SIX MILES OF
ITS LINES TRAVERSE SOUTH CAROLINA CONNECTING WITH ITS LINES IN
ADJOINING STATES.  APPELLANT IS A VIRGINIA CREATED CORPORATION, HAS NO
SOUTH CAROLINA SUBSIDIARY, AND HAS EFFECTED NO CONSOLIDATION WITH A
SOUTH CAROLINA CREATED CORPORATION.  IT IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE
PENALTIES PROVIDED BY SOUTH CAROLINA LAW IF THAT LAW CAN VALIDLY BE
APPLIED TO IT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY APPELLANT IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME
COURT TO ENJOIN THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT
THE STATUTORY PENALTIES FROM APPELLANT OR TO ENFORCE THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS AGAINST IT.  FN3  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FOLLOWING FACTS,
ABOUT WHICH THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE.  APPELLANT APPLIED TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF ITS PURCHASE OF THE
RAILWAY SYSTEM PURSUANT TO SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS
AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 5.  AFTER NOTICE TO THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH
CAROLINA AND OTHERS, THE COMMISSION CONDUCTED HEARINGS AND MADE A
REPORT IN WHICH IT FOUND THAT COMPLIANCE BY APPELLANT WITH THE SOUTH
CAROLINA RAILROAD CORPORATION LAWS WOULD RESULT IN "SUBSTANTIAL DELAY
AND NEEDLESS EXPENSE."  IT FURTHER FOUND THAT COMPLIANCE "WOULD NOT BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST" - THE CRITERION WHICH SEC. 5
REQUIRED THE COMMISSION TO USE IN PASSING UPON A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP OR
CONTROL OF A RAILROAD.  THE COMMISSION THEN ENTERED AN ORDER WHICH
AUTHORIZED APPELLANT, AS A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, TO OWN AND OPERATE THE
ENTIRE SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SOUTH CAROLINA MILEAGE.  THE COMPLAINT ALSO
ASSERTED THAT THE ORDER, BY EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION
FINDING IN ITS REPORT, AFFIRMATIVELY AUTHORIZED APPELLANT TO OWN AND
OPERATE THE ENTIRE RAILWAY SYSTEM WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE SOUTH
CAROLINA RAILROAD CORPORATION LAWS.  FN4 

THE ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT DID NOT CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER OF CONGRESS TO RELIEVE APPELLANT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SOUTH
CAROLINA'S REQUIREMENTS OF STATE INCORPORATION.  IT TOOK THE POSITION
THAT INSOFAR AS THE COMMISSION ORDER COULD BE INTERPRETED AS AN ATTEMPT
TO OVERRIDE STATE LAWS IN THIS RESPECT IT WAS VOID BECAUSE OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  THE APPELLANT THEN
FILED A DEMURRER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ANSWER AS A MATTER OF LAW
CONSTITUTED NEITHER A DEFENSE NOR A COUNTERCLAIM SINCE IT ADMITTED ALL
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT IN THE COMPLAINT, AND ADVANCED NOTHING MORE THAN
ERRONEOUS LEGAL CONCLUSIONS AS ASSERTED REASONS WHY APPELLANT SHOULD
NOT BE GRANTED THE RELIEF FOR WHICH IT PRAYED. 

NO EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT DECIDED THE CASE ON
THE PLEADINGS.  THAT COURT CONSTRUED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AS
RELIEVING APPELLANT FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN ISSUE, BUT IT AGREED WITH THE RESPONDENTS
THAT THE COMMISSION LACKED POWER UNDER SEC. 5 TO ENTER SUCH AN ORDER. 
ACCORDINGLY THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVOKED THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER IT HAD PREVIOUSLY ISSUED, DENIED THE REQUESTED INJUNCTION, AND
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  211 S.C. 122, 43 S.E.2D 839.  THE CASE IS
PROPERLY HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS
AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

FIRST.  THE COMPLAINT LARGELY RELIED ON AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AS A BASIS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  THE ANSWER
QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY AND SCOPE OF THAT ORDER BUT DID NOT SEEK A
DECREE TO SET IT ASIDE OR SUSPEND IT.  FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS HAVE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF SUITS TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL OR SUSPEND
AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  IN SUCH SUITS THE UNITED STATES IS AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 46.  ALTHOUGH THE JURISDICTION OF
THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT WAS THERE CONCEDED, AND IS NOT HERE
CHALLENGED, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO PASS UPON IT. 

SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT IS CONCERNED, THIS IS NOT THE
KIND OF ACTION TO "SET ASIDE" A COMMISSION ORDER OF WHICH THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  WHILE THE ACTION DOES
INVOLVE THE SCOPE AND VALIDITY OF A COMMISSION ORDER, THE RELIEF
REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT WAS THE REMOVAL OF AN OBSTRUCTION TO THE
RAILROAD'S OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER, NOT ITS SUSPENSION OR ANNULMENT. 
NOR DID THE ANSWER SEEK TO HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER ENJOINED,
ALTHOUGH IT DID QUESTION ITS VALIDITY AS A BASIS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT
IN THE COMPLAINT. 

THE APPELLANT WAS IN THIS DILEMMA.  FEDERAL LAW REQUIRED IT TO OBEY
THE ORDER SO LONG AS IT REMAINED IN EFFECT; FOR A FAILURE TO ABIDE BY
ITS TERMS SERIOUS FEDERAL PENALTIES COULD BE IMPOSED ON IT.  49 U.S.C.
SECS. 10(1), 16(7), (8), (9), (10).  ON THE OTHER HAND, SOUTH CAROLINA
STATUTES PROVIDED PENALTIES FOR OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER, WHICH SOUTH
CAROLINA OFFICIALS ASSERTED WERE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST APPELLANT DESPITE
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THERE WAS THUS A BONA FIDE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
APPELLANT AND THE STATE OFFICIALS OVER THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER. 
APPELLANT WANTED TO OBEY THE ORDER; THE STATE OFFICIALS INSISTED
APPELLANT MUST OBEY THEIR STATUTES INSTEAD.  FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED SPECIAL JURISDICTION TO REVIEW AND CONFIRM ORDERS
OF THE COMMISSION AT THE SUIT OF RAILROADS WISHING TO OBEY SUCH
ORDERS. 

UNDER THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES APPELLANT WAS NOT COMPELLED TO WAIT
UNTIL SOMEONE WHO HAD STANDING TO ATTACK THE COMMISSION'S ORDER MIGHT
DECIDE TO SEEK ITS ANNULMENT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  IT PROPERLY
SOUGHT RELIEF FROM A COURT WHICH COULD OBTAIN JURISDICTION OF THE
PARTIES WHOSE REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE THE ORDER GAVE RISE TO ITS
PREDICAMENT.  AND THE STATE COURT THEN HAD POWER, BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES
RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT AND BECAUSE OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE ORDER, PROPERLY INTERPRETED, DID EXEMPT APPELLANT
FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE RAILROAD CORPORATION LAWS AND, IF SO,
WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD TRANSCENDED ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN
MAKING THE ORDER.  ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N,
245 U.S. 493, 502-505.  SEE LAMBERT RUN COAL CO. V. BALTIMORE & O.R.
CO., 258 U.S. 377, 381-382; CENTRAL NEW ENGLAND R. CO. V. BOSTON & A.R.
CO., 279 U.S. 415, 420-421. 

SECOND.  IT IS HERE CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DID NOT
MANIFEST A CLEAR PURPOSE TO AUTHORIZE THE EXEMPTION OF APPELLANT FROM
OBEDIENCE TO THE STATE'S DOMESTIC CORPORATION POLICY.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT
THAT THE COMMISSION INTENDED ITS ORDER TO HAVE THIS EFFECT.  ITS FINAL
ORDER EXPRESSLY STATED THAT, SUBJECT TO A CONDITION NOT HERE RELEVANT,
IT APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED "THE PURCHASE  ...  AND THE OPERATION" BY
THE APPELLANT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA AND OTHER RAILROAD PROPERTIES. 
FURTHERMORE, THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE SOUTH CAROLINA REQUIREMENTS
IN ITS REPORT AND THEREIN MADE FINDINGS THAT COMPLIANCE BY APPELLANT
WITH THEM "WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  THESE
REFERENCES WERE MADE TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA PROVISIONS, ACCORDING TO THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT, IN RESPONSE TO THE APPELLANT'S SUGGESTION THAT IT
WOULD "AVOID COMPLICATIONS" IF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT SHOWED "ON ITS
FACE THAT OUR ORDER IS INTENDED TO OVERRIDE THEM." 

THIRD.  RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE COMMISSION LACKED STATUTORY
AUTHORITY TO ENTER AN ORDER WHICH WOULD PERMIT A VIRGINIA CORPORATION
TO OPERATE THESE RAILROAD LINES IN AND THROUGH SOUTH CAROLINA CONTRARY
TO THAT STATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  THEY POINT TO
THE BROAD POWERS STATES HAVE ALWAYS EXERCISED IN EXCLUDING FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS AND IN ADMITTING THEM WITHIN THEIR BORDERS UPON
CONDITIONS.  THEY ALSO EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS REGULATORY
POWER TO THE STATES, AND URGE THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS LANGUAGE
REQUIRING IT, SEC. 5 SHOULD BE CONSTRUED NEITHER TO RESTRICT THAT STATE
POWER NOR TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO OVERRIDE STATE ENACTMENTS. 
RECOGNIZING THE FORCE OF THESE ARGUMENTS IN GENERAL, WE NOTE THE
FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH RENDER THEM INAPPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 

CONGRESS HAS LONG MADE THE MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN
ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT RAILROAD SYSTEM A MATTER OF PRIMARY NATIONAL
CONCERN.  ITS LEGISLATION MUST BE READ WITH THIS PURPOSE IN MIND.  IN
KEEPING WITH THIS PURPOSE CONGRESS HAS OFTEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE
NATION'S RAILROADS SHOULD HAVE SOUND CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL STRUCTURES
AND HAS TAKEN APPROPRIATE STEPS TO THIS END.  THE PURCHASE OF THIS VERY
RAILROAD BY APPELLANT RESULTED FROM EXTENSIVE REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS APPLICABLE
TO RAILROADS.  IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS CONGRESSIONAL POLICY THESE
AGENCIES APPROVED REORGANIZATION PLANS WHICH CALLED FOR THE PURCHASE
AND OPERATION OF THESE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE PORTION IN SOUTH
CAROLINA, BY APPELLANT, AS A VIRGINIA CORPORATION. 

THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED A COMMISSION ORDER ENTERED IN A
SEC. 5 CONSOLIDATION PROCEEDING WHICH GRANTED A RAILROAD RELIEF FROM
STATE LAWS ANALOGOUS TO THE STATE REQUIREMENTS HERE.  TEXAS V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 522(1934).  MOST OF THE REASONS WHICH JUSTIFIED THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THAT CASE ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE. 
FURTHERMORE, SINCE THAT CASE WAS DECIDED CONGRESS HAS GIVEN ADDITIONAL
PROOF OF ITS PURPOSE TO GRANT ADEQUATE POWER TO THE COMMISSION TO
OVERRIDE STATE LAWS WHICH MAY INTERFERE WITH EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL
RAILROAD OPERATION.  BY SEC. 5(11) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 908, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
5(11), CONGRESS GRANTED THE COMMISSION "EXCLUSIVE AND PLENARY"
AUTHORITY IN REFUSING OR APPROVING RAILROAD CONSOLIDATIONS, MERGERS,
ACQUISITIONS, ETC.  THE BREADTH OF THIS GRANT OF POWER CAN BE
UNDERSTOOD ONLY BY REFERENCE TO SEC. 5(2)(B) WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
COMMISSION TO CONDITION ITS APPROVAL UPON "SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS
AND SUCH MODIFICATIONS AS IT SHALL FIND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE." 
ALL OF THIS POWER CAN BE EXERCISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE
COMMISSION MAY FIND TO BE "CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  THE
PURCHASER OF RAILROAD PROPERTY WITH COMMISSION APPROVAL IS AUTHORIZED
BY SEC. 5(11) "TO OWN AND OPERATE ANY PROPERTIES  ...  ACQUIRED THROUGH
SAID TRANSACTION WITHOUT INVOKING ANY APPROVAL UNDER STATE AUTHORITY,"
AND SUCH AN APPROVED OWNER, ACCORDING TO THAT PARAGRAPH, IS "RELIEVED
FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND OF ALL OTHER RESTRAINTS,
LIMITATIONS, AND PROHIBITIONS OF LAW, FEDERAL, STATE, OR MUNICIPAL,
INSOFAR AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE
TRANSACTION SO APPROVED  ...  AND TO HOLD, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE ANY
PROPERTIES  ...  ACQUIRED THROUGH SUCH TRANSACTION." 

THIS LANGUAGE VERY CLEARLY REPOSES POWER IN THE COMMISSION TO EXEMPT
RAILROADS UNDER A SEC. 5 PROCEEDING FROM STATE LAWS WHICH BAR THEM FROM
OPERATING IN THE STATE OR IMPOSE CONDITIONS UPON SUCH OPERATION.  THE
STATE COURT NEVERTHELESS THOUGHT THAT THE LAST SENTENCE OF SEC. 5(11)
NEGATIVED A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO EMPOWER THE COMMISSION TO RELIEVE
RAILROADS FROM STATE LAWS SUCH AS SOUTH CAROLINA'S.  THAT SENTENCE
READS:  "NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CREATE OR
PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OF A FEDERAL
CORPORATION, BUT ANY POWER GRANTED BY THIS SECTION TO ANY CARRIER OR
OTHER CORPORATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN ADDITION TO AND IN
MODIFICATION OF ITS POWERS UNDER ITS CORPORATE CHARTER OR UNDER THE
LAWS OF ANY STATE."  WE SEE NOTHING IN THIS SENTENCE THAT DETRACTS FROM
THE BROAD POWERS GRANTED THE COMMISSION BY SEC. 5.  IN FACT, THE
LANGUAGE OF THE SENTENCE APPEARS TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S POWER HERE
EXERCISED.  ALTHOUGH THE SENTENCE BARS CREATION OF A FEDERAL
CORPORATION, IT CLEARLY AUTHORIZES A RAILROAD CORPORATION TO EXERCISE
THE POWERS THEREIN GRANTED OVER AND ABOVE THOSE BESTOWED UPON IT BY THE
STATE OF ITS CREATION.  THESE FEDERALLY CONFERRED POWERS CAN BE
EXERCISED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THOUGH THEY HAD BEEN GRANTED TO A
FEDERALLY CREATED CORPORATION.  SEE CALIFORNIA V. CENTRAL PACIFIC R.
CO., 127 U.S. 1, 38, 40-45.  HERE, JUST AS A FEDERALLY CREATED RAILROAD
CORPORATION COULD FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES OPERATE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, SO
CAN THIS VIRGINIA CORPORATION EXERCISE ITS FEDERALLY GRANTED POWER TO
OPERATE IN THAT STATE.    OTHER ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED AND FOUND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.  APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE
INJUNCTION IT SOUGHT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT DENYING THE
INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  S.C. CONST. ART. 9, SEC. 8; S.C. CODE ANN. SEC. 7784(1942). 
VIOLATIONS ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINES OF $500 FOR EACH COUNTY IN WHICH THE
RAILROAD OPERATES.  APPARENTLY EACH DAY'S OPERATION OF THE RAILROAD
CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE OFFENSE.  THE APPELLANT IN THIS SUIT OPERATES IN
30 SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTIES. 

FN2  S.C. CONST. ART. 9, SEC. 8; S.C. CODE ANN. SECS. 7777, 7778,
7779, 7785, 7789(1942).  SEE GERATY V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 80
S.C. 355, 361, 60 S.E. 936, 937. 

FN3  THE APPELLANT ALSO PRAYED FOR A MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE SECRETARY
OF STATE TO ACCEPT AND FILE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS TENDERED BY APPELLANT
SEEKING AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION
UNDER OTHER SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES.  THAT PHASE OF THE CASE IS NOT
PRESSED HERE. 

FN4  THE COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGED, AND IT IS ARGUED HERE, THAT THE
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS IMPOSED BURDENS ON THIS
INTERSTATE RAILROAD IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE VIEW WE TAKE MAKES IT
UNNECESSARY FOR US TO PASS ON THIS CONTENTION. 
..END :




















FUNK BROS. SEED CO. V. KALO CO., 333 U.S. 127 


NO. 280.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 1948.  - 161
F.2D 981, REVERSED. 


1.  CERTAIN PRODUCT CLAIMS OF BOND PATENT NO. 2,200,532, ON CERTAIN
MIXED CULTURES OF ROOT-NODULE BACTERIA CAPABLE OF INOCULATING THE SEEDS
OF LEGUMINOUS PLANTS BELONGING TO SEVERAL CROSS-INOCULATION GROUPS,
HELD INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  PP. 128-132. 

2.  DISCOVERY OF THE FACT THAT CERTAIN STRAINS OF EACH SPECIES OF
THESE BACTERIA CAN BE MIXED WITHOUT HARMFUL EFFECT ON THE PROPERTIES OF
EITHER IS NOT PATENTABLE, SINCE IT IS NO MORE THAN THE DISCOVERY OF A
PHENOMENON OF NATURE.  P. 131. 

3.  THE APPLICATION OF THIS NEWLY-DISCOVERED NATURAL PRINCIPLE TO THE
PROBLEM OF PACKAGING INOCULANTS WAS NOT INVENTION OR DISCOVERY WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE PATENT LAWS.  PP. 131-132. 

FUNK BROTHERS SEED CO. V. KALO INOCULANT CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD CERTAIN
PRODUCT CLAIMS INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  161 F.2D 981.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332
U.S. 755.  REVERSED, P. 132. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT.  THE CHARGE
OF INFRINGEMENT IS LIMITED TO CERTAIN PRODUCT CLAIMS  FN1  OF PATENT
NO. 2,200,532 ISSUED TO BOND ON MAY 14, 1940.  PETITIONER FILED A
COUNTERCLAIM ASKING FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ENTIRE PATENT
BE ADJUDGED INVALID.  FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE PRODUCT CLAIMS
INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  IT ALSO
DISMISSED THE COUNTERCLAIM.  BOTH PARTIES APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE PRODUCT CLAIMS WERE VALID AND
INFRINGED AND THAT THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 
161 F.2D 981.  THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY IS THE ONLY QUESTION PRESENTED
BY THIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

THROUGH SOME MYSTERIOUS PROCESS LEGUMINOUS PLANTS ARE ABLE TO TAKE
NITROGEN FROM THE AIR AND FIX IT IN THE PLANT FOR CONVERSION TO ORGANIC
NITROGENOUS COMPOUNDS.  THE ABILITY OF THESE PLANTS TO FIX NITROGEN
FROM THE AIR DEPENDS ON THE PRESENCE OF BACTERIA OF THE GENUS RHIZOBIUM
WHICH INFECT THE ROOTS OF THE PLANT AND FORM NODULES ON THEM.  THESE
ROOT-NODULE BACTERIA OF THE GENUS RHIZOBIUM FALL INTO AT LEAST SIX
SPECIES.  NO ONE SPECIES WILL INFECT THE ROOTS OF ALL SPECIES OF
LEGUMINOUS PLANTS.  BUT EACH WILL INFECT WELL-DEFINED GROUPS OF THOSE
PLANTS.  FN3  EACH SPECIES OF ROOT-NODULE BACTERIA IS MADE UP OF
DISTINCT STRAINS WHICH VARY IN EFFICIENCY.  METHODS OF SELECTING THE
STRONG STRAINS AND OF PRODUCING A BACTERIAL CULTURE FROM THEM HAVE LONG
BEEN KNOWN.  THE BACTERIA PRODUCED BY THE LABORATORY METHODS OF CULTURE
ARE PLACED IN A POWDER OR LIQUID BASE AND PACKAGED FOR SALE TO AND USE
BY AGRICULTURISTS IN THE INOCULATION OF THE SEEDS OF LEGUMINOUS
PLANTS.  THIS ALSO HAS LONG BEEN WELL KNOWN. 

IT WAS THE GENERAL PRACTICE, PRIOR TO THE BOND PATENT, TO MANUFACTURE
AND SELL INOCULANTS CONTAINING ONLY ONE SPECIES OF ROOT-NODULE
BACTERIA.  THE INOCULANT COULD THEREFORE BE USED SUCCESSFULLY ONLY IN
PLANTS OF THE PARTICULAR CROSS-INOCULATION GROUP CORRESPONDING TO THIS
SPECIES.  THUS IF A FARMER HAD CROPS OF CLOVER, ALFALFA, AND SOY BEANS
HE WOULD HAVE TO USE THREE SEPARATE INOCULANTS N4.  THERE HAD BEEN A
FEW MIXED CULTURES FOR FIELD LEGUMES.  BUT THEY HAD PROVED GENERALLY
UNSATISFACTORY BECAUSE THE DIFFERENT SPECIES OF THE RHIZOBIA BACTERIA
PRODUCED AN INHIBITORY EFFECT ON EACH OTHER WHEN MIXED IN A COMMON
BASE, WITH THE RESULT THAT THEIR EFFICIENCY WAS REDUCED.  HENCE IT HAD
BEEN ASSUMED THAT THE DIFFERENT SPECIES WERE MUTUALLY INHIBITIVE.  BOND
DISCOVERED THAT THERE ARE STRAINS OF EACH SPECIES OF ROOT-NODULE
BACTERIA WHICH DO NOT EXERT A MUTUALLY INHIBITIVE EFFECT ON EACH
OTHER.  HE ALSO ASCERTAINED THAT THOSE MUTUALLY NON-INHIBITIVE STRAINS
CAN, BY CERTAIN METHODS OF SELECTION AND TESTING, BE ISOLATED AND USED
IN MIXED CULTURES.  THUS HE PROVIDED A MIXED CULTURE OF RHIZOBIA
CAPABLE OF INOCULATING THE SEEDS OF PLANTS BELONGING TO SEVERAL CROSS
INOCULATION GROUPS.  IT IS THE PRODUCT CLAIMS WHICH DISCLOSE THAT MIXED
CULTURE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD VALID. 

WE DO NOT HAVE PRESENTED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE METHODS OF
SELECTING AND TESTING THE NON-INHIBITIVE STRAINS ARE PATENTABLE.  WE
HAVE HERE ONLY PRODUCT CLAIMS.  BOND DOES NOT CREATE A STATE OF
INHIBITION OR OF NON-INHIBITION IN THE BACTERIA.  THEIR QUALITIES ARE
THE WORK OF NATURE.  THOSE QUALITIES ARE OF COURSE NOT PATENTABLE.  FOR
PATENTS CANNOT ISSUE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF THE PHENOMENA OF NATURE.  SEE
LE ROY V. TATHAM, 14 HOW.  156, 175.  THE QUALITIES OF THESE BACTERIA,
LIKE THE HEAT OF THE SUN, ELECTRICITY, OR THE QUALITIES OF METALS, ARE
PART OF THE STOREHOUSE OF KNOWLEDGE OF ALL MEN.  THEY ARE
MANIFESTATIONS OF LAWS OF NATURE, FREE TO ALL MEN AND RESERVED
EXCLUSIVELY TO NONE.  HE WHO DISCOVERS A HITHERTO UNKNOWN PHENOMENON OF
NATURE HAS NO CLAIM TO A MONOPOLY OF IT WHICH THE LAW RECOGNIZES.  IF
THERE IS TO BE INVENTION FROM SUCH A DISCOVERY, IT MUST COME FROM THE
APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF NATURE TO A NEW AND USEFUL END.  SEE
TELEPHONE CASES, 126 U.S. 1, 532-533; DEFOREST RADIO CO. V. GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO., 283 U.S. 664, 684-685; MACKAY RADIO & TEL. CO. V. RADIO
CORP., 306 U.S. 86, 94; CAMERON SEPTIC TANK CO. V. SARATOGA SPRINGS,
159 F. 453, 462-463.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT BOND
DID MUCH MORE THAN DISCOVER A LAW OF NATURE, SINCE HE MADE A NEW AND
DIFFERENT COMPOSITION OF NON-INHIBITIVE STRAINS WHICH CONTRIBUTED
UTILITY AND ECONOMY TO THE MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL
INOCULANTS.  BUT WE THINK THAT THAT AGGREGATION OF SPECIES FELL SHORT
OF INVENTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PATENT STATUTES. 

DISCOVERY OF THE FACT THAT CERTAIN STRAINS OF EACH SPECIES OF THESE
BACTERIA CAN BE MIXED WITHOUT HARMFUL EFFECT TO THE PROPERTIES OF
EITHER IS A DISCOVERY OF THEIR QUALITIES OF NON-INHIBITION.  IT IS NO
MORE THAN THE DISCOVERY OF SOME OF THE HANDIWORK OF NATURE AND HENCE IS
NOT PATENTABLE.  THE AGGREGATION OF SELECT STRAINS OF THE SEVERAL
SPECIES INTO ONE PRODUCT IS AN APPLICATION OF THAT NEWLY-DISCOVERED
NATURAL PRINCIPLE.  BUT HOWEVER INGENIOUS THE DISCOVERY OF THAT NATURAL
PRINCIPLE MAY HAVE BEEN, THE APPLICATION OF IT IS HARDLY MORE THAN AN
ADVANCE IN THE PACKAGING OF THE INOCULANTS.  EACH OF THE SPECIES OF
ROOT-NODULE BACTERIA CONTAINED IN THE PACKAGE INFECTS THE SAME GROUP OF
LEGUMINOUS PLANTS WHICH IT ALWAYS INFECTED.  NO SPECIES ACQUIRES A
DIFFERENT USE.  THE COMBINATION OF SPECIES PRODUCES NO NEW BACTERIA, NO
CHANGE IN THE SIX SPECIES OF BACTERIA, AND NO ENLARGEMENT OF THE RANGE
OF THEIR UTILITY.  EACH SPECIES HAS THE SAME EFFECT IT ALWAYS HAD.  THE
BACTERIA PERFORM IN THEIR NATURAL WAY.  THEIR USE IN COMBINATION DOES
NOT IMPROVE IN ANY WAY THEIR NATURAL FUNCTIONING.  THEY SERVE THE ENDS
NATURE ORIGINALLY PROVIDED AND ACT QUITE INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY EFFORT OF
THE PATENTEE. 

THERE IS, OF COURSE, AN ADVANTAGE IN THE COMBINATION.  THE FARMER
NEED NOT BUY SIX DIFFERENT PACKAGES FOR SIX DIFFERENT CROPS.  HE CAN
BUY ONE PACKAGE AND USE IT FOR ANY OR ALL OF HIS CROPS OF LEGUMINOUS
PLANTS.  AND, AS RESPONDENT SAYS, THE PACKAGES OF MIXED INOCULANTS ALSO
HOLD ADVANTAGES FOR THE DEALERS AND MANUFACTURERS BY REDUCING INVENTORY
PROBLEMS AND THE LIKE.  BUT A PRODUCT MUST BE MORE THAN NEW AND USEFUL
TO BE PATENTED; IT MUST ALSO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY.  CUNO ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., 314 U.S.
84, 90, 91, AND CASES CITED; 35 U.S.C. SEC. 31, R.S. SEC. 4886.  THE
APPLICATION OF THIS NEWLY-DISCOVERED NATURAL PRINCIPLE TO THE PROBLEM
OF PACKAGING OF INOCULANTS MAY WELL HAVE BEEN AN IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL
ADVANCE.  BUT ONCE NATURE'S SECRET OF THE NON-INHIBITIVE QUALITY OF
CERTAIN STRAINS OF THE SPECIES OF RHIZOBIUM WAS DISCOVERED, THE STATE
OF THE ART MADE THE PRODUCTION OF A MIXED INOCULANT A SIMPLE STEP. 
EVEN THOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE PRODUCT OF SKILL, IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT
THE PRODUCT OF INVENTION.  THERE IS NO WAY IN WHICH WE COULD CALL IT
SUCH UNLESS WE BORROWED INVENTION FROM THE DISCOVERY OF THE NATURAL
PRINCIPLE ITSELF.  THAT IS TO SAY, THERE IS NO INVENTION HERE UNLESS
THE DISCOVERY THAT CERTAIN STRAINS OF THE SEVERAL SPECIES OF THESE
BACTERIA ARE NON-INHIBITIVE AND MAY THUS BE SAFELY MIXED IS INVENTION. 
BUT WE CANNOT SO HOLD WITHOUT ALLOWING A PATENT TO ISSUE ON ONE OF THE
ANCIENT SECRETS OF NATURE NOW DISCLOSED.  ALL THAT REMAINS, THEREFORE,
ARE ADVANTAGES OF THE MIXED INOCULANTS THEMSELVES.  THEY ARE NOT
ENOUGH. 

SINCE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PRODUCT CLAIMS DO NOT DISCLOSE AN
INVENTION OR DISCOVERY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PATENT STATUTES, WE DO
NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN 35
U.S.C. SEC. 31, R.S. SEC. 4886, ARE SATISFIED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE PRODUCT CLAIMS IN SUIT ARE 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, AND 14. 
CLAIM 4 IS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE INVENTION WHICH IS CHALLENGED.  IT READS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"AN INOCULANT FOR LEGUMINOUS PLANTS COMPRISING A PLURALITY OF
SELECTED MUTUALLY NON-INHIBITIVE STRAINS OF DIFFERENT SPECIES OF
BACTERIA OF THE GENUS RHIZOBIUM, SAID STRAINS BEING UNAFFECTED BY EACH
OTHER IN RESPECT TO THEIR ABILITY TO FIX NITROGEN IN THE LEGUMINOUS
PLANT FOR WHICH THEY ARE SPECIFIC." 

FN2  THE PATENT ALSO CONTAINS PROCESS CLAIMS. 

FN3  THE SIX WELL-RECOGNIZED SPECIES OF BACTERIA AND THE
CORRESPONDING GROUPS (CROSS-INOCULATION GROUPS) OF LEGUMINOUS PLANTS
ARE: 

RHIZOBIUM TRIFOLII         RED CLOVER, CRIMSON CLOVER,

             MAMMOTH CLOVER, ALSIKE CLOVER 

RHIZOBIUM MELILOTI         ALFALFA, WHITE OR YELLOW

    SWEET CLOVERS 

RHIZOBIUM PHASEOLI         GARDEN BEANS 

RHIZOBIUM LEGUMINOSARUM    GARDEN PEAS AND VETCH 

RHIZOBIUM LUPINI           LUPINES 

RHIZOBIUM JAPONICUM        SOY BEANS 

FN4  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

MY UNDERSTANDING OF BOND'S CONTRIBUTION IS THAT PRIOR TO HIS
ATTEMPTS, PACKAGES OF MIXED CULTURES OF INOCULANTS PRESUMABLY
APPLICABLE TO TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT KINDS OF LEGUMES HAD FROM TIME TO
TIME BEEN PREPARED, BUT HAD MET WITH INDIFFERENT SUCCESS.  THE REASONS
FOR FAILURE WERE NOT UNDERSTOOD, BUT THE AUTHORITIES HAD CONCLUDED THAT
IN GENERAL PURE CULTURE INOCULANTS WERE ALONE RELIABLE BECAUSE MIXTURES
WERE INEFFECTIVE DUE TO THE MUTUAL INHIBITION OF THE COMBINED STRAINS
OF BACTERIA.  BOND CONCLUDED THAT THERE MIGHT BE SPECIAL STRAINS WHICH
LACKED THIS MUTUAL INHIBITION, OR WERE AT ALL EVENTS MUTUALLY
COMPATIBLE.  USING TECHNIQUES THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DEVELOPED TO
TEST EFFICIENCY IN PROMOTING NITROGEN FIXATION OF VARIOUS BACTERIAL
STRAINS, BOND TESTED SUCH EFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS MIXTURES OF STRAINS. 
HE CONFIRMED HIS NOTION THAT SOME STRAINS WERE MUTUALLY COMPATIBLE BY
FINDING THAT MIXTURES OF THESE COMPATIBLE STRAINS GAVE GOOD NITROGEN
FIXATION IN TWO OR MORE DIFFERENT KINDS OF LEGUMES, WHILE OTHER
MIXTURES OF CERTAIN OTHER STRAINS PROVED MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE. 

IF THIS IS A CORRECT ANALYSIS OF BOND'S ENDEAVORS, TWO DIFFERENT
CLAIMS OF ORIGINALITY ARE INVOLVED:  (1) THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE
COMPATIBLE STRAINS, AND (2) THE EXPERIMENTAL DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE
WERE IN FACT SOME COMPATIBLE STRAINS.  INSOFAR AS THE COURT BELOW
CONCLUDED THAT THE PACKAGING OF A PARTICULAR MIXTURE OF COMPATIBLE
STRAINS IS AN INVENTION AND AS SUCH PATENTABLE, I AGREE, PROVIDED NOT
ONLY THAT A NEW AND USEFUL PROPERTY RESULTS FROM THEIR COMBINATION, BUT
ALSO THAT THE PARTICULAR STRAINS ARE IDENTIFIABLE AND ADEQUATELY
IDENTIFIED.  I DO NOT FIND THAT BOND'S COMBINATION OF STRAINS SATISFIES
THESE REQUIREMENTS.  THE STRAINS BY WHICH BOND SECURED COMPATIBILITY
ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AND ARE IDENTIFIABLE ONLY BY THEIR COMPATIBILITY. 

UNLESS I MISCONCEIVE THE RECORD, BOND MAKES NO CLAIM THAT FUNK
BROTHERS USED THE SAME COMBINATION OF STRAINS THAT HE HAD FOUND
MUTUALLY COMPATIBLE.  HE APPEARS TO CLAIM THAT SINCE HE WAS THE
ORIGINATOR OF THE IDEA THAT THERE MIGHT BE MUTUALLY COMPATIBLE STRAINS
AND HAD PRACTICALLY DEMONSTRATED THAT SOME SUCH STRAINS EXIST, EVERYONE
ELSE IS FORBIDDEN TO USE A COMBINATION OF STRAINS WHETHER THEY ARE OR
ARE NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE COMBINATIONS THAT BOND SELECTED AND PACKAGED
TOGETHER.  IT WAS THIS CLAIM THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND NOT TO BE PATENTABLE, BUT WHICH, IF VALID, HAD BEEN
INFRINGED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DEFINED THE CLAIMS TO "COVER A COMPOSITE
CULTURE IN WHICH ARE INCLUDED A PLURALITY OF SPECIES OF BACTERIA
BELONGING TO THE GENERAL RHIZOBIUM GENUS, CARRIED IN A CONVENTIONAL
BASE."  161 F.2D 981, 983.  BUT THE PHRASE "THE CLAIMS COVER A
COMPOSITE CULTURE" MIGHT MEAN "A PARTICULAR COMPOSITE CULTURE" OR "ANY
COMPOSITE CULTURE."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE
PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ONLY "A PARTICULAR COMPOSITE CULTURE"
WAS DEVISED AND PATENTED BY BOND, AND THEN APPLIES IT TO "ANY COMPOSITE
CULTURE" ARRIVED AT BY DELETION OF MUTUALLY INHIBITING STRAINS, BUT
STRAINS WHICH MAY BE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM BOND'S COMPOSITE CULTURE. 

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A CONCLUSION CALL FOR ITS REJECTION.  ITS
ACCEPTANCE WOULD REQUIRE, FOR INSTANCE IN THE FIELD OF ALLOYS, THAT IF
ONE DISCOVERED A PARTICULAR MIXTURE OF METALS, WHICH WHEN ALLOYED HAD
SOME PARTICULAR DESIRABLE PROPERTIES, HE COULD PATENT NOT MERELY THIS
PARTICULAR MIXTURE BUT THE IDEA OF ALLOYING METALS FOR THIS PURPOSE,
AND THUS EXCLUDE EVERYONE ELSE FROM CONTRIVING SOME OTHER COMBINATION
OF METALS WHICH, WHEN ALLOYED, HAD THE SAME DESIRABLE PROPERTIES.  IN
PATENTING AN ALLOY, I ASSUME THAT BOTH THE QUALITIES OF THE PRODUCT AND
ITS SPECIFIC COMPOSITION WOULD NEED TO BE SPECIFIED.  THE STRAINS THAT
BOND PUT TOGETHER IN THE PRODUCT WHICH HE PATENTED CAN BE SPECIFIED
ONLY BY THE PROPERTIES OF THE MIXTURE.  THE DISTRICT COURT, WHILE
PRAISING BOND'S ACHIEVEMENT, FOUND WANT OF PATENTABILITY.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT BY USE OF
AN UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE - THAT THE CLAIMS COVER A "COMPOSITE CULTURE" -
IN THE SYLLOGISM WHEREBY THEY FOUND PATENTABILITY.    IT ONLY CONFUSES
THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, TO INTRODUCE SUCH TERMS AS "THE WORK OF NATURE" AND
THE "LAWS OF NATURE."  FOR THESE ARE VAGUE AND MALLEABLE TERMS INFECTED
WITH TOO MUCH AMBIGUITY AND EQUIVOCATION.  EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS MAY
BE DEEMED "THE WORK OF NATURE," AND ANY PATENTABLE COMPOSITE
EXEMPLIFIES IN ITS PROPERTIES "THE LAWS OF NATURE."  ARGUMENTS DRAWN
FROM SUCH TERMS FOR ASCERTAINING PATENTABILITY COULD FAIRLY BE EMPLOYED
TO CHALLENGE ALMOST EVERY PATENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SUGGESTION
THAT "IF THERE IS TO BE INVENTION FROM SUCH A DISCOVERY, IT MUST COME
FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF NATURE TO A NEW AND USEFUL END" MAY
READILY VALIDATE BOND'S CLAIM.  NOR CAN IT BE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS
NO INVENTION BECAUSE THE COMPOSITE HAS NO NEW PROPERTIES OTHER THAN ITS
INGREDIENTS IN ISOLATION.  BOND'S MIXTURE DOES IN FACT HAVE THE NEW
PROPERTY OF MULTI-SERVICE APPLICABILITY.  MULTI-PURPOSE TOOLS,
MULTIVALENT VACCINES, VITAMIN COMPLEX COMPOSITES, ARE EXAMPLES OF
COMPLEXES WHOSE SOLE NEW PROPERTY IS THE CONJUNCTION OF THE PROPERTIES
OF THEIR COMPONENTS.  SURELY THE COURT DOES NOT MEAN UNWITTINGLY TO
PASS ON THE PATENTABILITY OF SUCH PRODUCTS BY FORMULATING CRITERIA BY
WHICH FUTURE ISSUES OF PATENTABILITY MAY BE PREJUDGED.  IN FINDING
BOND'S PATENT INVALID I HAVE TRIED TO AVOID A FORMULATION WHICH, WHILE
IT WOULD IN FACT JUSTIFY BOND'S PATENT, WOULD LAY THE BASIS FOR DENYING
PATENTABILITY TO A LARGE AREA WITHIN EXISTING PATENT LEGISLATION. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

ON THE GROUNDS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

WHEN THE PATENTEE DISCOVERED THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN STRAINS OF
BACTERIA WHICH, WHEN COMBINED WITH CERTAIN OTHER STRAINS OF BACTERIA,
WOULD INFECT TWO OR MORE LEGUMINOUS PLANTS WITHOUT LOSS OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE NITROGEN-FIXING EFFICIENCIES, AND UTILIZED THIS DISCOVERY BY
SEGREGATING SOME OF THESE MUTUALLY NON-INHIBITIVE STRAINS AND COMBINING
SUCH STRAINS INTO COMPOSITE INOCULANTS, WE AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER THAT THE COMBINATIONS SO PRODUCED SATISFIED THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS OF INVENTION OR DISCOVERY.  FN1  THESE PRODUCTS WERE A
PROMPT AND SUBSTANTIAL COMMERCIAL SUCCESS, FILLING A LONG-SOUGHT AND
IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL NEED. 

HOWEVER, WE DO NOT AGREE THAT THE PATENT ISSUED FOR SUCH PRODUCTS IS
INVALID FOR WANT OF A CLEAR, CONCISE DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE
COMBINATIONS WERE MADE AND USED.  THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE
INVENTOR OR DISCOVERER - 

"SHALL FILE IN THE PATENT OFFICE A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THE SAME,
AND OF THE MANNER AND PROCESS OF MAKING, CONSTRUCTING, COMPOUNDING, AND
USING IT, IN SUCH FULL, CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EXACT TERMS AS TO ENABLE
ANY PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART OR SCIENCE TO WHICH IT APPERTAINS, OR
WITH WHICH IT IS MOST NEARLY CONNECTED, TO MAKE, CONSTRUCT, COMPOUND,
AND USE THE SAME; AND IN CASE OF A MACHINE, HE SHALL EXPLAIN THE
PRINCIPLE THEREOF, AND THE BEST MODE IN WHICH HE HAS CONTEMPLATED
APPLYING THAT PRINCIPLE, SO AS TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER INVENTIONS;
AND HE SHALL PARTICULARLY POINT OUT AND DISTINCTLY CLAIM THE PART,
IMPROVEMENT, OR COMBINATION WHICH HE CLAIMS AS HIS INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY.   ...  NO PLANT PATENT SHALL BE DECLARED INVALID ON THE
GROUND OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION IF THE DESCRIPTION IS MADE AS
COMPLETE AS IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE."  FN2 

THE COMPLETENESS AND CHARACTER OF THE DESCRIPTION MUST VARY WITH THE
SUBJECT TO BE DESCRIBED.  MACHINES LEND THEMSELVES READILY TO
DESCRIPTIONS IN TERMS OF MECHANICAL PRINCIPLES AND PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MAY BE THAT A COMBINATION OF
STRAINS OF BACTERIAL SPECIES, WHICH STRAINS ARE DISTINGUISHED FROM ONE
ANOTHER AND RECOGNIZED IN PRACTICE SOLELY BY THEIR OBSERVED EFFECTS,
CAN BE DEFINABLE REASONABLY ONLY IN TERMS OF THOSE EFFECTS.  IN THE
PRESENT CASE, THE PATENTEE HAS DEFINED THE COMBINATIONS IN TERMS OF
THEIR MUTUALLY INHIBITING AND NON-INHIBITING EFFECTS UPON THEIR
RESPECTIVE ABILITIES TO TAKE FREE NITROGEN FROM THE AIR AND PLACE IT IN
THE SOIL.  THESE COMBINATIONS WERE DISCOVERED BY OBSERVATION OF THESE
EFFECTS - THEY ARE IN PRACTICE IDENTIFIED BY THESE EFFECTS FOR THE
COMMERCIAL USES FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE.  IT IS THESE EFFECTS THAT
DIFFERENTIATE THEM FROM THE OTHER BACTERIA HERETOFORE GENERALLY
IDENTIFIED ONLY AS COMMON MEMBERS OF THE SAME SPECIES AND NOT
COMMERCIALLY VALUABLE FOR USE WITH LEGUMINOUS PLANTS OF MORE THAN ONE
OF THE GROUPS NAMED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  THE IDENTIFICATION OF
THE STRAINS STATED IN THE PATENT IS THAT WHICH THE PATENTEE USED IN
MAKING THE NOVEL COMBINATIONS OF THEM THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE HIGHLY
USEFUL.  THERE APPEARS TO BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE
NOW ABLE TO IDENTIFY AND USE THE STRAINS IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED IN THE
PATENT.  THE RECORD THUS INDICATES THAT THE DESCRIPTION IS SUFFICIENTLY
FULL, CLEAR, CONCISE AND EXACT TO ENABLE PERSONS SKILLED IN THE ART OR
SCIENCE TO WHICH THIS DISCOVERY APPERTAINS OR WITH WHICH IT IS MOST
NEARLY CONNECTED TO MAKE, CONSTRUCT, COMPOUND AND USE THE SAME.  THERE
IS NO SUGGESTION AS TO HOW IT WOULD BE REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE
THE PATENTED PRODUCT MORE COMPLETELY.  THE PATENT COVERS ALL COMPOSITE
CULTURES OF BACTERIAL STRAINS OF THE SPECIES DESCRIBED WHICH DO NOT
INHIBIT EACH OTHER'S ABILITY TO FIX NITROGEN.  BACTERIOLOGISTS, SKILLED
IN THE APPLICABLE ART, WILL NOT HAVE DIFFICULTY IN SELECTING THE NON
INHIBITIVE STRAINS BY EMPLOYING SUCH STANDARD AND RECOGNIZED LABORATORY
TESTS AS ARE DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THIS PATENT. 

THE STATUTE ITSELF SHOWS THAT CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THE INHERENT
DIFFICULTY PRESENTED.  WHILE THIS PATENT MAY NOT BE TECHNICALLY A
"PLANT PATENT" IN THE PRECISE SENSE IN WHICH THAT TERM IS USED IN THIS
DESCRIPTIONS EXPECTED IN MECHANICAL PATENTS AND PLANT PATENTS OBVIOUSLY
SUPPORT THE POSITION HERE TAKEN.  AN INVENTOR SHOULD NOT BE DENIED A
PATENT UPON AN OTHERWISE PATENTABLE DISCOVERY MERELY BECAUSE THE NATURE
OF THE DISCOVERY DEFIES DESCRIPTION IN CONVENTIONAL TERMS.  TERMS
ORDINARILY UNSUITABLE TO DESCRIBE AND DISTINGUISH PRODUCTS THAT ARE
CAPABLE OF DESCRIPTION AND DISTINCTION BY THEIR APPEARANCE MAY BE THE
MOST APPROPRIATE IN WHICH TO DESCRIBE AND DISTINGUISH OTHER PRODUCTS
THAT ARE NOT REASONABLY POSSIBLE OF IDENTIFICATION BY THEIR APPEARANCE,
BUT WHICH ARE EASILY IDENTIFIED BY THEIR EFFECTS WHEN BEING SOUGHT FOR
OR DESCRIBED BY THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART. 

FN1  R.S. SEC. 4886, AS AMENDED, 46 STAT. 376; 53 STAT. 1212, 35
U.S.C. SEC. 31. 

FN2  R.S. SEC. 4888, AS AMENDED, 38 STAT. 958-959; 46 STAT. 376, 35
U.S.C. SEC. 33. 
..END :

















WOODS V. MILLER CO., 333 U.S. 138 


NO. 486.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 1948.  - 74
F.SUPP.  546, REVERSED. 


1.  TITLE II OF THE HOUSING AND RENT ACT OF 1947, ENACTED AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION TERMINATING HOSTILITIES
ON DECEMBER 31, 1946, AND LIMITING THE RENT WHICH MAY BE CHARGED FOR
CERTAIN HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN "DEFENSE-RENTAL AREAS," IS A VALID
EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER OF CONGRESS.  HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY
DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. 146; RUPPERT V. CAFFEY, 251 U.S. 264;
STEWART V. KAHN, 11 WALL.  493.  PP. 141-146. 

2.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTION TAKEN BY CONGRESS DOES NOT DEPEND
ON RECITALS OF THE POWER WHICH IT UNDERTAKES TO EXERCISE; AND THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS THAT CONGRESS WAS INVOKING ITS WAR POWER TO
COPE WITH A CURRENT CONDITION OF WHICH THE WAR WAS A DIRECT AND
IMMEDIATE CAUSE.  P. 144. 

3.  THE ACT PRESCRIBES ADEQUATE STANDARDS FOR THE GUIDANCE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE
LEGISLATIVE POWER.  PP. 144-145. 

4.  BY ITS EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS,
THE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 145. 

5.  THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY REGULATED SUFFERS A DECREASE IN VALUE
IS NO MORE FATAL TO THE EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER THAN IT IS WHERE THE
POLICE POWER IS INVOKED TO THE SAME END.  P. 146. 

WOODS, HOUSING EXPEDITER, V. CLOYD W. MILLER CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

THE HOUSING EXPEDITER SUED TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF TITLE II OF THE
HOUSING AND RENT ACT OF 1947.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  74
F.SUPP.  546.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 146. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON A DIRECT APPEAL, ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT.
752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 349A, FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT HOLDING
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TITLE II OF THE HOUSING AND RENT ACT OF 1947.  61
STAT. 193, 196. 

THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 1947, AND THE FOLLOWING DAY THE
APPELLEE DEMANDED OF ITS TENANTS INCREASES OF 40% AND 60% FOR RENTAL
ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE CLEVELAND DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA, AN ADMITTED
VIOLATION OF THE ACT AND REGULATIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT THERETO.  FN1
APPELLANT THEREUPON INSTITUTED THIS PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 206(B) OF THE
ACT  FN2  TO ENJOIN THE VIOLATIONS.  A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED. 
AFTER A HEARING IT WAS DISSOLVED AND A PERMANENT INJUNCTION DENIED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO
REGULATE RENTS BY VIRTUE OF THE WAR POWER (SEE BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM,
321 U.S. 503) ENDED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION TERMINATING
HOSTILITIES ON DECEMBER 31, 1946,  FN3  SINCE THAT PROCLAMATION
INAUGURATED "PEACE-IN-FACT" THOUGH IT DID NOT MARK TERMINATION OF THE
WAR.  IT ALSO CONCLUDED THAT, EVEN IF THE WAR POWER CONTINUES, CONGRESS
DID NOT ACT UNDER IT BECAUSE IT DID NOT SAY SO, AND ONLY IF CONGRESS
SAYS SO, OR ENACTS PROVISIONS SO IMPLYING, CAN IT BE HELD THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO EXERCISE SUCH POWER.  THAT CONGRESS DID NOT SO INTEND, SAID
THE DISTRICT COURT, FOLLOWS FROM THE PROVISION THAT THE HOUSING
EXPEDITER CAN END CONTROLS IN ANY AREA WITHOUT REGARD TO THE OFFICIAL
TERMINATION OF THE WAR,  FN4  AND FROM THE FACT THAT THE PRECEDING
FEDERAL RENT CONTROL LAWS (WHICH WERE CONCEDEDLY EXERCISES OF THE WAR
POWER) WERE NEITHER AMENDED NOR EXTENDED.  THE DISTRICT COURT EXPRESSED
THE FURTHER VIEW THAT RENT CONTROL IS NOT WITHIN THE WAR POWER BECAUSE
"THE EMERGENCY CREATED BY HOUSING SHORTAGE CAME INTO EXISTENCE LONG
BEFORE THE WAR."  IT HELD THAT THE ACT "LACKS IN UNIFORMITY OF
APPLICATION AND DISTINCTLY CONSTITUTES A DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER NOT WITHIN THE GRANT OF CONGRESS" BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORIZATION TO
THE HOUSING EXPEDITER TO LIFT CONTROLS IN ANY AREA BEFORE THE ACT'S
EXPIRATION.  IT ALSO HELD THAT THE ACT IN EFFECT PROVIDES "LOW RENTALS
FOR CERTAIN GROUPS WITHOUT TAKING THE PROPERTY OR COMPENSATING THE
OWNER IN ANY WAY."  SEE 74 F.SUPP.  546. 

WE CONCLUDE, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT THE WAR POWER SUSTAINS THIS
LEGISLATION.  THE COURT SAID IN HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO.,
251 U.S. 146, 161, THAT THE WAR POWER INCLUDES THE POWER "TO REMEDY THE
EVILS WHICH HAVE ARISEN FROM ITS RISE AND PROGRESS" AND CONTINUES FOR
THE DURATION OF THAT EMERGENCY.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE CONSEQUENCES WHEN
WAR IS OFFICIALLY TERMINATED N5, THE WAR POWER DOES NOT NECESSARILY END
WITH THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES.  WE RECENTLY HELD THAT IT IS
ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS CREATED BY WARTIME
LEGISLATION, FLEMING V. MOHAWK WRECKING & LUMBER CO., 331 U.S. 111. 
BUT IT HAS A BROADER SWEEP.  IN HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO.,
SUPRA, AND RUPPERT V. CAFFEY, 251 U.S. 264, PROHIBITION LAWS WHICH WERE
ENACTED AFTER THE ARMISTICE IN WORLD WAR I WERE SUSTAINED AS EXERCISES
OF THE WAR POWER BECAUSE THEY CONSERVED MANPOWER AND INCREASED
EFFICIENCY OF PRODUCTION IN THE CRITICAL DAYS DURING THE PERIOD OF
DEMOBILIZATION, AND HELPED TO HUSBAND THE SUPPLY OF GRAINS AND CEREALS
DEPLETED BY THE WAR EFFORT.  THOSE CASES FOLLOWED THE REASONING OF
STEWART V. KAHN, 11 WALL.  493, WHICH HELD THAT CONGRESS HAD THE POWER
TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE STATES DURING THE PERIOD WHEN
THE PROCESS OF THEIR COURTS WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO LITIGANTS DUE TO THE
CONDITIONS OBTAINING IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PRESENT LEGISLATION FOLLOWS A
FORTIORI FROM THOSE CASES.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PRESENT ACT
MAKES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THERE HAS NOT YET BEEN ELIMINATED THE
DEFICIT IN HOUSING WHICH IN CONSIDERABLE MEASURE WAS CAUSED BY THE
HEAVY DEMOBILIZATION OF VETERANS AND BY THE CESSATION OR REDUCTION IN
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DURING THE PERIOD OF HOSTILITIES DUE TO THE
ALLOCATION OF BUILDING MATERIALS TO MILITARY PROJECTS.  FN6 SINCE THE
WAR EFFORT CONTRIBUTED HEAVILY TO THAT DEFICIT, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER
EVEN AFTER THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES TO ACT TO CONTROL THE FORCES
THAT A SHORT SUPPLY OF THE NEEDED ARTICLE CREATED.  IF THAT WERE NOT
TRUE, THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE, ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 18, WOULD BE
DRASTICALLY LIMITED IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE SEVERAL WAR POWERS.  THE
COURT HAS DECLINED TO FOLLOW THAT COURSE IN THE PAST.  HAMILTON V.
KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., SUPRA, PP. 155, 156; RUPPERT V. CAFFEY,
SUPRA, PP. 299, 300.  WE DECLINE TO TAKE IT TODAY.  THE RESULT WOULD BE
PARALYZING.  IT WOULD RENDER CONGRESS POWERLESS TO REMEDY CONDITIONS
THE CREATION OF WHICH NECESSARILY FOLLOWED FROM THE MOBILIZATION OF MEN
AND MATERIALS FOR SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.  SO TO READ THE
CONSTITUTION WOULD BE TO MAKE IT SELF-DEFEATING. 

WE RECOGNIZE THE FORCE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE EFFECTS OF WAR UNDER
MODERN CONDITIONS MAY BE FELT IN THE ECONOMY FOR YEARS AND YEARS, AND
THAT IF THE WAR POWER CAN BE USED IN DAYS OF PEACE TO TREAT ALL THE
WOUNDS WHICH WAR INFLICTS ON OUR SOCIETY, IT MAY NOT ONLY SWALLOW UP
ALL OTHER POWERS OF CONGRESS BUT LARGELY OBLITERATE THE NINTH AND THE
TENTH AMENDMENTS AS WELL.  THERE ARE NO SUCH IMPLICATIONS IN TODAY'S
DECISION.  WE DEAL HERE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF A HOUSING DEFICIT
GREATLY INTENSIFIED DURING THE PERIOD OF HOSTILITIES BY THE WAR
EFFORT.  ANY POWER, OF COURSE, CAN BE ABUSED.  BUT WE CANNOT ASSUME
THAT CONGRESS IS NOT ALERT TO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.  AND
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE WAR POWER HAS BEEN PROPERLY EMPLOYED IN CASES
SUCH AS THIS IS OPEN TO JUDICIAL INQUIRY.  HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY
DISTILLERIES CO., SUPRA; RUPPERT V. CAFFEY, SUPRA. 

THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTION TAKEN BY CONGRESS
DOES NOT DEPEND ON RECITALS OF THE POWER WHICH IT UNDERTAKES TO
EXERCISE.  HERE IT IS PLAIN FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT CONGRESS
WAS INVOKING ITS WAR POWER TO COPE WITH A CURRENT CONDITION OF WHICH
THE WAR WAS A DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CAUSE.  FN7  ITS JUDGMENT ON THAT
SCORE IS ENTITLED TO THE RESPECT GRANTED LIKE LEGISLATION ENACTED
PURSUANT TO THE POLICE POWER.  SEE BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135; MARCUS
BROWN CO. V. FELDMAN, 256 U.S. 170; CHASTLETON CORP. V. SINCLAIR, 264
U.S. 543. 

UNDER THE PRESENT ACT THE HOUSING EXPEDITER IS AUTHORIZED TO REMOVE
THE RENT CONTROLS IN ANY DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA IF IN HIS JUDGMENT THE
NEED NO LONGER EXISTS BY REASON OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OR SATISFACTION OF
DEMAND IN OTHER WAYS.  FN8  THE POWERS THUS DELEGATED ARE FAR LESS
EXTENSIVE THAN THOSE SUSTAINED IN BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, SUPRA, PP. 512
515.  NOR IS THERE HERE A GRANT OF UNBRIDLED ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION.  THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED PASS MUSTER UNDER OUR DECISIONS. 
SEE BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, SUPRA, PP. 514-516, AND CASES CITED. 

OBJECTION IS MADE THAT THE ACT BY ITS EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS FN9  VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  A SIMILAR
ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHEN NEW YORK MADE
LIKE EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE RENT-CONTROL STATUTE WHICH WAS HERE FOR
REVIEW IN MARCUS BROWN CO. V. FELDMAN, SUPRA, PP. 195, 198-199. 
CERTAINLY CONGRESS IS NOT UNDER GREATER LIMITATIONS.  IT NEED NOT
CONTROL ALL RENTS OR NONE.  IT CAN SELECT THOSE AREAS OR THOSE CLASSES
OF PROPERTY WHERE THE NEED SEEMS THE GREATEST.  SEE BARCLAY & CO. V.
EDWARDS, 267 U.S. 442, 450.  THIS ALONE IS ADEQUATE ANSWER TO THE
OBJECTION, EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE ORIGINAL ACT SUSTAINED IN BOWLES
V. WILLINGHAM, SUPRA, THAT THE PRESENT ACT LACKS UNIFORMITY IN
APPLICATION. 

THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY REGULATED SUFFERS A DECREASE IN VALUE IS
NO MORE FATAL TO THE EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER (BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM,
SUPRA, PP. 517, 518) THAN IT IS WHERE THE POLICE POWER IS INVOKED TO
THE SAME END.  SEE BLOCK V. HIRSH, SUPRA.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 204(B) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "NO PERSON SHALL DEMAND,
ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE ANY RENT FOR THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF ANY CONTROLLED
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM RENT ESTABLISHED UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED,
AND IN EFFECT WITH RESPECT THERETO ON JUNE 30, 1947."  CONTROLLED
HOUSING RENT REGULATION, 12 FED. REG. 4331, CONTAINS SIMILAR
PROVISIONS.  SECS. 2(A), 4(A).  PROVISIONS OF THIS STATUTE AND
REGULATION, NOT HERE MATERIAL, ALLOW ADJUSTMENT OF MAXIMUM RENTALS WHEN
NECESSARY TO CORRECT INEQUITIES AND PERMIT A 15% INCREASE IF NEGOTIATED
BETWEEN LANDLORD AND TENANT AND INCORPORATED IN A LEASE OF A DESIGNATED
TERM. 

FN2  SECTION 206(A) MAKES IT UNLAWFUL "TO OFFER, SOLICIT, DEMAND,
ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE ANY RENT FOR THE USE OR OCCUPANCY OF ANY CONTROLLED
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM RENT PRESCRIBED UNDER
TO ANY FEDERAL, STATE, OR TERRITORIAL COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION
FOR AN ORDER ENJOINING "ANY ACT OR PRACTICE WHICH CONSTITUTES OR WILL
CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION." 

FN3  PROCLAMATION 2714, 12 FED. REG. 1.  THAT PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZED
THAT "A STATE OF WAR STILL EXISTS."  ON JULY 25, 1947, ON APPROVING
S.J. RES. 123 TERMINATING CERTAIN WAR STATUTES, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED A
STATEMENT IN WHICH HE DECLARED THAT "THE EMERGENCIES DECLARED BY THE
PRESIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1939, AND MAY 27, 1941, AND THE STATE OF WAR
CONTINUE TO EXIST, HOWEVER, AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME TO
PROVIDE FOR TERMINATING ALL WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS." 

FN4  SECTION 204(C) PROVIDES:  "THE HOUSING EXPEDITER IS HEREBY
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO REMOVE ANY OR ALL MAXIMUM RENTS BEFORE THIS
TITLE CEASES TO BE IN EFFECT, IN ANY DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA, IF IN HIS
JUDGMENT THE NEED FOR CONTINUING MAXIMUM RENTS IN SUCH AREA NO LONGER
EXISTS DUE TO SUFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS OR
WHEN THE DEMAND FOR RENTAL HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS HAS BEEN OTHERWISE
REASONABLY MET." 

FN5  SEE COMMERCIAL TRUST CO. V. MILLER, 262 U.S. 51, 57. 

FN6  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 317, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1, 2, 3, 10
11. 

THE REPORT STATES, P. 2: 

"THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS, IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL INCREASE IN
POPULATION, WHICH HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE EXISTING HOUSING SHORTAGE. 
THESE INCLUDE DEMOBILIZATION OF A LARGE NUMBER OF VETERANS, SHIFTS IN
POPULATION, LESS INTENSIVE USE OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, AMOUNT OF NEW
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, TREND AWAY FROM CONSTRUCTION OF RENTAL UNITS, AND
CHANGE FROM TENANT TO OWNER OCCUPANCY." 

AS TO THE EFFECT OF DEMOBILIZATION OF VETERANS THE REPORT STATES, P.
2: 

"HEAVY DEMOBILIZATION OF MEMBERS OF OUR ARMED FORCES, PARTICULARLY IN
LATE 1945 AND THE FIRST HALF OF 1946, MADE EFFECTIVE AN IMPORTANT
DEMAND FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS.  IN 1945 AN ESTIMATED 6,279,000
VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II WERE RETURNED TO CIVILIAN LIFE, IN 1946 THE
NUMBER SO RETURNED WAS 5,659,000, AND IN 1947 TO FEBRUARY 28 AN
ADDITIONAL 212,000 VETERANS WERE DEMOBILIZED.  STATISTICS ARE NOT
AVAILABLE AS TO THE NUMBER OF NEW FAMILY UNITS CREATED BY RETURNING
VETERANS BUT UNDOUBTEDLY THE FIGURE IS SUBSTANTIAL AND IN MANY CASES
CREATION OF NEW FAMILY UNITS WAS DELAYED UNTIL THESE VETERANS WERE
RETURNED TO CIVILIAN LIFE.  THE IMPORTANCE AND DELAYED IMPACT OF THE
11,938,000 VETERANS RETURNED TO CIVILIAN LIFE IN 1945 AND 1946 ON AN
ALREADY ACUTE HOUSING SHORTAGE IS READILY APPARENT." 

THE EFFECT OF THE WAR UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLING UNITS IS
SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

        TOTAL NON-FARM DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED 

1937................336,000   1943................350,000 

1938................406,000   1944................169,000 

1939................515,000   1945................247,000 

1940................603,000   1946................776,200 

1941................715,000   1947(11 MONTHS).....799,000 

1942................497,000 

THE FIGURES FOR THE YEARS 1937-1945 INCLUSIVE ARE TAKEN FROM H.R.
REP. NO. 317, SUPRA, P. 3.  THOSE FOR 1946 AND 1947 ARE TAKEN FROM U.S.
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, CONSTRUCTION, DEC. 1947, P. 4. 

FN7  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 317, SUPRA, NOTE 6, AND STATEMENT OF
REPRESENTATIVE WOLCOTT, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND
CURRENCY WHICH REPORTED THE RENT BILL, 93 CONG. REC. 4395. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN9  SEC. 202(C) PROVIDES:  "THE TERM 'CONTROLLED HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS' MEANS HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN ANY DEFENSE-RENTAL
AREA, EXCEPT THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE - (1) THOSE HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS, IN ANY ESTABLISHMENT WHICH IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS A HOTEL
IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED, WHICH ARE OCCUPIED BY PERSONS
WHO ARE PROVIDED CUSTOMARY HOTEL SERVICES SUCH AS MAID SERVICE,
FURNISHING AND LAUNDERING OF LINEN, TELEPHONE AND SECRETARIAL OR DESK
SERVICE, USE AND UPKEEP OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURES, AND BELLBOY SERVICE;
OR (2) ANY MOTOR COURT, OR ANY PART THEREOF; OR ANY TOURIST HOME
SERVING TRANSIENT GUESTS EXCLUSIVELY, OR ANY PART THEREOF; OR (3) ANY
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS (A) THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH WAS COMPLETED ON
OR AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 1947, OR WHICH ARE ADDITIONAL HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS CREATED BY CONVERSION ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 1947,
EXCEPT THAT CONTRACTS FOR THE RENTAL OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS TO
VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, THE CONSTRUCTION
OF WHICH WAS ASSISTED BY ALLOCATIONS OR PRIORITIES UNDER PUBLIC LAW
388, SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS, APPROVED MAY 22, 1946, SHALL REMAIN IN
FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, OR (B) WHICH AT NO TIME DURING THE PERIOD
FEBRUARY 1, 1945, TO JANUARY 31, 1947, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, WERE
RENTED (OTHER THAN TO MEMBERS OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF THE OCCUPANT)
AS HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THIS OPINION BECAUSE IT DECIDES NO
MORE THAN WAS DECIDED IN HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251
U.S. 146, AND JACOB RUPPERT V. CAFFEY, 251 U.S. 264, AND MERELY APPLIES
THOSE DECISIONS TO THE SITUATION NOW BEFORE THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE RESULT IN THIS CASE, BUT THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN ADDRESSED TO US LEAD ME TO UTTER MORE EXPLICIT MISGIVINGS ABOUT
WAR POWERS THAN THE COURT HAS DONE.  THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THIS LEGISLATION OTHER THAN THIS VAGUE,
UNDEFINED AND UNDEFINABLE "WAR POWER." 

NO ONE WILL QUESTION THAT THIS POWER IS THE MOST DANGEROUS ONE TO
FREE GOVERNMENT IN THE WHOLE CATALOGUE OF POWERS.  IT USUALLY IS
INVOKED IN HASTE AND EXCITEMENT WHEN CALM LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION IS DIFFICULT.  IT IS EXECUTED IN A TIME OF
PATRIOTIC FERVOR THAT MAKES MODERATION UNPOPULAR.  AND, WORST OF ALL,
IT IS INTERPRETED BY JUDGES UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE SAME PASSIONS
AND PRESSURES.  ALWAYS, AS IN THIS CASE, THE GOVERNMENT URGES HASTY
DECISION TO FORESTALL SOME EMERGENCY OR SERVE SOME PURPOSE AND PLEADS
THAT PARALYSIS WILL RESULT IF ITS CLAIMS TO POWER ARE DENIED OR THEIR
CONFIRMATION DELAYED. 

PARTICULARLY WHEN THE WAR POWER IS INVOKED TO DO THINGS TO THE
LIBERTIES OF PEOPLE, OR TO THEIR PROPERTY OR ECONOMY THAT ONLY
INDIRECTLY AFFECT CONDUCT OF THE WAR AND DO NOT RELATE TO THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE WAR ITSELF, THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS SHOULD BE
SCRUTINIZED WITH CARE. 

I THINK WE CAN HARDLY DENY THAT THE WAR POWER IS AS VALID A GROUND
FOR FEDERAL RENT CONTROL NOW AS IT HAS BEEN AT ANY TIME.  WE STILL ARE
TECHNICALLY IN A STATE OF WAR.  I WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO HOLD THAT WAR
POWERS MAY BE INDEFINITELY PROLONGED MERELY BY KEEPING LEGALLY ALIVE A
STATE OF WAR THAT HAD IN FACT ENDED.  I CANNOT ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT
WAR POWERS LAST AS LONG AS THE EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF WAR, FOR IF
SO THEY ARE PERMANENT - AS PERMANENT AS THE WAR DEBTS.  BUT I FIND NO
REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT WE COULD FIND FAIRLY THAT THE PRESENT STATE OF
WAR IS MERELY TECHNICAL.  WE HAVE ARMIES ABROAD EXERCISING OUR WAR
POWER AND HAVE MADE NO PEACE TERMS WITH OUR ALLIES, NOT TO MENTION OUR
PRINCIPAL ENEMIES.  I THINK THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WAR POWER HAS BEEN
APPLICABLE DURING THE LIFETIME OF THIS LEGISLATION IS UNAVOIDABLE. 
..END :









FISHER V. HURST, 333 U.S. 147 


NO. 325, MISC. DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 1948. 


THE ORDER OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT QUOTED IN THE OPINION DID NOT
DEPART FROM THE MANDATE ISSUED BY THIS COURT IN SIPUEL V. BOARD OF
REGENTS, 332 U.S. 631; AND A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THAT MANDATE IS DENIED.  PP.
147-151. 

FISHER V. HURST, CHIEF JUSTICE, ET AL. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER MOVES FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH OUR MANDATE ISSUED JANUARY 12, 1948, IN
SIPUEL V. BOARD OF REGENTS, 332 U.S. 631.  WE THERE SAID: 

"THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO SECURE LEGAL EDUCATION AFFORDED BY A
STATE INSTITUTION.  TO THIS TIME, IT HAS BEEN DENIED HER ALTHOUGH
DURING THE SAME PERIOD MANY WHITE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN AFFORDED LEGAL
EDUCATION BY THE STATE.  THE STATE MUST PROVIDE IT FOR HER IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND PROVIDE IT AS SOON AS IT DOES FOR APPLICANTS OF ANY OTHER GROUP. 
MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337(1938)." 

PETITIONER STATES THAT ON JANUARY 17, 1948, THE SUPREME COURT OF
OKLAHOMA RENDERED AN OPINION IN WHICH IT WAS SAID: 

"SAID BOARD OF REGENTS IS HEREBY DIRECTED, UNDER THE AUTHORITY
CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 13-A, CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, AND TITLE 70 O.S. 1941, SECS. 1976, 1979, TO AFFORD
TO PLAINTIFF, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AN OPPORTUNITY TO
COMMENCE THE STUDY OF LAW AT A STATE INSTITUTION AS SOON AS CITIZENS OF
OTHER GROUPS ARE AFFORDED SUCH OPPORTUNITY, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES
OF THIS STATE REQUIRING SEGREGATION OF THE RACES IN THE SCHOOLS OF THIS
STATE.  ART. 13, SEC. 3, CONSTITUTION OF OKLAHOMA; 70 O.S. 1941, SECS.
451-457. 

"REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT TO TAKE SUCH PROCEEDINGS
AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO FULLY CARRY OUT THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES AND THIS OPINION.  THE MANDATE IS ORDERED TO ISSUE
FORTHWITH." 

IT IS FURTHER STATED BY PETITIONER THAT THE DISTRICT COURT OF
CLEVELAND COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA ENTERED AN ORDER ON JANUARY 22, 1948, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED BY THIS COURT THAT
UNLESS AND UNTIL THE SEPARATE SCHOOL OF LAW FOR NEGROES, WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA IN EFFECT DIRECTED THE OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION TO ESTABLISH 

'WITH ADVANTAGES FOR EDUCATION SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THE ADVANTAGES
AFFORDED TO WHITE STUDENTS,' 

IS ESTABLISHED AND READY TO FUNCTION AT THE DESIGNATED TIME
APPLICANTS OF ANY OTHER GROUP MAY HEREAFTER APPLY FOR ADMISSION TO THE
FIRST-YEAR CLASS OF THE SCHOOL OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA,
AND IF THE PLAINTIFF HEREIN MAKES TIMELY AND PROPER APPLICATION TO
ENROLL IN SAID CLASS, THE DEFENDANTS, BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, ET AL., BE, AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY ORDERED AND
DIRECTED TO EITHER: 

"(1)  ENROLL PLAINTIFF, IF SHE IS OTHERWISE QUALIFIED, IN THE FIRST
YEAR CLASS OF THE SCHOOL OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, IN WHICH
SCHOOL SHE WILL BE ENTITLED TO REMAIN ON THE SAME SCHOLASTIC BASIS AS
OTHER STUDENTS THEREOF UNTIL SUCH A SEPARATE LAW SCHOOL FOR NEGROES IS
ESTABLISHED AND READY TO FUNCTION, 

"(2)  NOT ENROLL ANY APPLICANT OF ANY GROUP IN SAID CLASS UNTIL SAID
SEPARATE SCHOOL IS ESTABLISHED AND READY TO FUNCTION. 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT IF SUCH A SEPARATE
LAW SCHOOL IS SO ESTABLISHED AND READY TO FUNCTION, THE DEFENDANTS,
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, ET AL., BE, AND THE
SAME ARE HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED TO NOT ENROLL PLAINTIFF IN THE
FIRST-YEAR CLASS OF THE SCHOOL OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA. 

"THE COST OF THIS CASE IS TAXED TO DEFENDANTS. 

"THIS COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OF THIS CAUSE TO HEAR AND DETERMINE
ANY QUESTION WHICH MAY ARISE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF AND
PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES PRESCRIBED BY THIS ORDER." 

THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE US ON THIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
IS WHETHER OR NOT OUR MANDATE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY DID NOT DEPART FROM OUR MANDATE. 

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN SIPUEL V. BOARD OF REGENTS, DID NOT
PRESENT THE ISSUE WHETHER A STATE MIGHT NOT SATISFY THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY ESTABLISHING A
SEPARATE LAW SCHOOL FOR NEGROES.  ON SUBMISSION, WE WERE CLEAR IT WAS
NOT AN ISSUE HERE.  THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE REFUSAL TO
ADMIT PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT SHE HAD FAILED TO DEMAND
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SEPARATE SCHOOL AND ADMISSION TO IT.  ON REMAND, THE
DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD OUR DECISION TO HOLD THAT THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE PERMITS NO SUCH DEFENSE. 

NOTHING WHICH MAY HAVE TRANSPIRED SINCE THE ORDERS OF THE OKLAHOMA
COURTS WERE ISSUED IS IN THE RECORD BEFORE US, NOR COULD WE CONSIDER IT
ON THIS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IF IT WERE.  THE OKLAHOMA
DISTRICT COURT HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ANY
QUESTION ARISING UNDER ITS ORDER.  WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER IS FOLLOWED
OR DISOBEYED SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY IT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  THE
MANNER IN WHICH, OR THE METHOD BY WHICH, OKLAHOMA MAY HAVE SATISFIED,
OR COULD SATISFY, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT, AS
APPLIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY IN ITS ORDER OF
JANUARY 22, 1948, IS NOT BEFORE US. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY IS OF THE OPINION THAT A HEARING SHOULD BE HAD IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE OKLAHOMA COURTS SUBSEQUENT
TO THE ISSUANCE OF THIS COURT'S MANDATE CONSTITUTES AN EVASION OF THAT
MANDATE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I AM UNABLE TO JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION OR IN ITS DISPOSITION OF
THE PETITION.  IN MY JUDGMENT NEITHER THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF OKLAHOMA NOR THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY,
FOLLOWING UPON THE DECISION AND ISSUANCE OF OUR MANDATE IN NO. 369,
SIPUEL V. BOARD OF REGENTS, 332 U.S. 631, IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR
OPINION IN THAT CAUSE OR THEREFORE WITH OUR MANDATE WHICH ISSUED
FORTHWITH.  FN1 

IT IS POSSIBLE UNDER THOSE ORDERS FOR THE STATE'S OFFICIALS TO
DISPOSE OF PETITIONER'S DEMAND FOR A LEGAL EDUCATION EQUAL TO THAT
AFFORDED TO WHITE STUDENTS BY ESTABLISHING OVERNIGHT A SEPARATE LAW
SCHOOL FOR NEGROES OR TO CONTINUE AFFORDING THE PRESENT ADVANTAGES TO
WHITE STUDENTS WHILE DENYING THEM TO PETITIONER.  THE LATTER COULD BE
DONE EITHER BY EXCLUDING ALL APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE FIRST-YEAR
CLASS OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL AFTER THE DATE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S ORDER OR, DEPENDING UPON THE MEANING OF THAT ORDER, BY
EXCLUDING SUCH APPLICANTS AND ASKING ALL FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS ENROLLED
PRIOR TO THAT ORDER'S DATE TO WITHDRAW FROM SCHOOL. 

NEITHER OF THOSE COURSES, IN MY OPINION, WOULD COMPLY WITH OUR
MANDATE.  IT PLAINLY MEANT, TO ME AT ANY RATE, THAT OKLAHOMA SHOULD END
THE DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED AGAINST PETITIONER AT ONCE, NOT AT SOME
LATER TIME, NEAR OR REMOTE.  IT ALSO MEANT THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE, IF
NOT BY EXCLUDING ALL STUDENTS, THEN BY AFFORDING PETITIONER THE
ADVANTAGES OF A LEGAL EDUCATION EQUAL TO THOSE AFFORDED TO WHITE
STUDENTS.  AND IN MY COMPREHENSION THE EQUALITY REQUIRED WAS EQUALITY
IN FACT, NOT IN LEGAL FICTION. 

OBVIOUSLY NO SEPARATE LAW SCHOOL COULD BE ESTABLISHED ELSEWHERE
OVERNIGHT CAPABLE OF GIVING PETITIONER A LEGAL EDUCATION EQUAL TO THAT
AFFORDED BY THE STATE'S LONG-ESTABLISHED AND WELL-KNOWN STATE
UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL.  NOR COULD THE NECESSARY TIME BE TAKEN TO CREATE
SUCH FACILITIES, WHILE CONTINUING TO DENY THEM TO PETITIONER, WITHOUT
INCURRING THE DELAY WHICH WOULD CONTINUE THE DISCRIMINATION OUR MANDATE
REQUIRED TO END AT ONCE.  NEITHER WOULD THE STATE COMPLY WITH IT BY
CONTINUING TO DENY THE REQUIRED LEGAL EDUCATION TO PETITIONER WHILE
AFFORDING IT TO ANY OTHER STUDENT, AS IT COULD DO BY EXCLUDING ONLY
STUDENTS IN THE FIRST-YEAR CLASS FROM THE STATE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL. 

SINCE THE STATE COURTS' ORDERS ALLOW THE STATE AUTHORITIES AT THEIR
ELECTION TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE COURSES, SOME OF WHICH DO NOT COMPLY
WITH OUR MANDATE, I THINK THOSE ORDERS INCONSISTENT WITH IT.
ACCORDINGLY I DISSENT FROM THE COURT'S OPINION AND DECISION IN THIS
CASE. 

FN1  THE MANDATE REVERSED THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE TO IT "FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION." 
..END :












JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 46 


NO. 138.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1948.  - 160
F.2D 789, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  WHILE TWO SEAMEN WERE WORKING TOGETHER, A BLOCK HELD BY ONE FELL
AND INJURED THE OTHER.  THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE INJURED SEAMAN WAS NOT NEGLIGENT.  THERE WAS
NO PROOF AS TO THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, THOUGH THE TESTIMONY
OF THE FELLOW SEAMAN WAS AVAILABLE AND WAS NOT PUT IN EVIDENCE.  HELD:
THE TRIAL COURT WAS WARRANTED UNDER THE RULE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR IN
FINDING THAT THE INJURY RESULTED FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE FELLOW
SEAMAN AND THAT THE SHIPOWNER WAS LIABLE UNDER THE JONES ACT OF MARCH
4, 1915, AS AMENDED BY THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920.  PP. 46-50. 

2.  THE RULE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR MEANS THAT THE FACTS OF THE
OCCURRENCE WARRANT THE INFERENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, NOT THAT THEY COMPEL
SUCH AN INFERENCE.  P. 48. 

3.  IT IS APPLICABLE TO THE ACTS OF A FELLOW SERVANT.  P. 49. 

4.  NO ACT NEED BE EXPLICABLE ONLY IN TERMS OF NEGLIGENCE IN ORDER
FOR THE RULE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR TO BE INVOKED, SINCE THE RULE DEALS
ONLY WITH PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES FROM UNEXPLAINED EVENTS.  P. 49. 

5.  THE JONES ACT OF MARCH 4, 1915, AS AMENDED BY THE MERCHANT MARINE
ACT OF 1920, MAKES THE STANDARD OF LIABILITY OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT APPLICABLE TO SUITS BY SEAMEN FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
SUFFERED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, SO THAT THE SHIPOWNER
BECOMES LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A SEAMAN RESULTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART
FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANOTHER EMPLOYEE.  P. 49. 

6.  THERE BEING AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE TWO
LOWER COURTS THAT A SEAMAN INJURED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT HAD
INCURRED NO EXPENSE OR LIABILITY FOR HIS CARE AND SUPPORT AT THE HOME
OF HIS PARENTS, DENIAL OF HIS CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE WHILE
LIVING WITH HIS PARENTS IS SUSTAINED.  P. 50. 

JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY A SEAMAN UNDER THE JONES ACT OF MARCH 4, 1915, AS
AMENDED, THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDED HIM DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING
AND LOSS OF WAGES RESULTING FROM PERSONAL INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT BUT DENIED RECOVERY FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE AFTER
A CERTAIN DATE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT FOR
PAIN AND SUFFERING AND LOSS OF WAGES AND AFFIRMED THE DENIAL OF
MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  160 F.2D 789.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
332 U.S. 754.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, P. 50. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE SEEMING MISAPPLICATION BY THE COURT BELOW OF
JESIONOWSKI V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., 329 U.S. 452. 

PETITIONER WAS A SEAMAN ON S.S. MISSION SOLEDAD, A STEAM TANKER OWNED
AND OPERATED BY THE UNITED STATES.  HE WAS ON THE MAIN DECK ROUNDING IN
TWO BLOCKS, AN OPERATION WHICH FOLLOWED THE CRADLING OF THE BOOM.  ONE
BLOCK WAS ATTACHED TO THE OUTER END OF THE BOOM BY A WIRE ROPE.  THE
OTHER BLOCK WAS BEING HELD BY A SHIPMATE, ONE DUDDER, WHO STOOD ABOVE
PETITIONER ON THE MECCANO DECK, A STRUCTURE OF BEAMS WHICH HAD BEEN
ERECTED ON THE MAIN DECK.  PETITIONER WAS TAKING IN THE SLACK BY
PULLING ON THE FREE END OF THE ROPE WHICH RAN THROUGH THE TWO BLOCKS. 
AS HE PULLED ON THE ROPE THE TWO BLOCKS WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER.  WHEN
THAT WAS DONE DUDDER HAD TO WALK FORWARD WITH THE BLOCK HE HELD AT A
RATE OF SPEED CONTROLLED BY PETITIONER.  THE OPERATION WENT FORWARD
SMOOTHLY.  PETITIONER WOULD PULL ON THE ROPE, DUDDER WOULD WALK
FORWARD, AND THEN PETITIONER WOULD STOP TO COIL THE ACCUMULATED FREE
LINE.  PETITIONER AND DUDDER HAD WORKED HARMONIOUSLY, NEITHER ONE
JERKING ON THE LINE NOR INTERFERING WITH THE OTHER'S FUNCTION.  THERE
WAS NO FOULING OF THE LINES; THE ROPE WAS TAUT AND RAN FREE. 

WE HAVE ONLY A PARTIAL ACCOUNT OF HOW THE INJURY TO PETITIONER
OCCURRED.  DUDDER WAS NOT CALLED.  THE ONLY TESTIMONY WE HAVE IS FROM
PETITIONER AND HIS VERSION OF THE EPISODE IS UNCONTRADICTED.  THE BLOCK
WHICH IT WAS DUDDER'S DUTY TO HOLD (AND WHICH WEIGHED 25 OR 30 POUNDS)
WAS PERMITTED TO FALL; IT HIT PETITIONER ON THE HEAD AND CAUSED THE
INJURY FOR WHICH THIS LIBEL IN PERSONAM (SEE 41 STAT. 525, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 742) WAS FILED UNDER THE JONES ACT, 38 STAT. 1185, AS AMENDED, 41
STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688.  DUDDER, AS WE HAVE SAID, WAS STANDING
ABOVE PETITIONER.  IT IS NOT CERTAIN WHY THE BLOCK FELL.  PETITIONER
WAS HIT WITHOUT WARNING.  WHEN HIT, HE WAS BENDING OVER COILING THE
LINE ON THE DECK. 

THE RULE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED IN JESIONOWSKI V. BOSTON &
MAINE R. CO., SUPRA, MEANS THAT "THE FACTS OF THE OCCURRENCE WARRANT
THE INFERENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, NOT THAT THEY COMPEL SUCH AN INFERENCE." 
SWEENEY V. ERVING, 228 U.S. 233, 240.  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHAT THE
RESULT WOULD BE IF IT WERE SHOWN THAT PETITIONER WAS PULLING ON THE
ROPE WHEN THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED.  FOR THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE IS
THAT HE WAS NOT PULLING ON THE ROPE BUT WAS BENDING OVER COILING IT ON
THE DECK.  A MAN WHO IS CAREFUL DOES NOT ORDINARILY DROP A BLOCK ON A
MAN WORKING BELOW HIM.  SOME EXTERNAL FORCE MIGHT CONCEIVABLY COMPEL
HIM TO DO SO.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE INJURED PERSON IS NOT IMPLICATED
(JESIONOWSKI V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., SUPRA), THE FALLING OF THE BLOCK
IS ALONE SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR AN INFERENCE THAT THE MAN WHO HELD THE
BLOCK WAS NEGLIGENT.  IN SHORT, DUDDER ALONE REMAINS IMPLICATED, SINCE
ON THE RECORD EITHER HE OR PETITIONER WAS THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT AND
IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE. 

THE JONES ACT MAKES APPLICABLE TO THESE SUITS THE STANDARD OF
LIABILITY OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, AS
AMENDED, 53 STAT. 1404, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51.  THUS THE SHIPOWNER BECOMES
LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A SEAMAN RESULTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE
NEGLIGENCE OF ANOTHER EMPLOYEE.  SEE DE ZON V. AMERICAN PRESIDENT
LINES, 318 U.S. 660, 665.  AND THERE IS NO REASON IN LOGIC OR
EXPERIENCE WHY RES IPSA LOQUITUR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ACTS OF A FELLOW
SERVANT.  SEE LEJEUNE V. GENERAL PETROLEUM CORP., 128 CAL. APP. 404, 18
P.2D 429; JOHNSON V. METROPOLITAN STREET R. CO., 104 MO. APP. 588, 592
593, 78 S.W. 275, 276.  TRUE, THE DOCTRINE FINDS MOST FREQUENT
APPLICATION IN CASES OF INJURIES ARISING FROM INSTRUMENTS OR PROPERTIES
UNDER THE EMPLOYER'S EXCLUSIVE CONTROL.  SAN JUAN LIGHT & TRANSIT CO.
V. REQUENA, 224 U.S. 89; JESIONOWSKI V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., SUPRA;
LUKON V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 131 F.2D 327; SWEETING V. PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO., 142 F.2D 611.  INHERENT, HOWEVER, IN THE NEGLIGENCE INFERRED IN
THAT TYPE OF CASE IS AN ACT OR FAILURE TO ACT BY AN INDIVIDUAL.  WHILE
THE ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE UNDERLYING SUCH ACCIDENTS MAY REACH HIGHER INTO
THE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY THAN THE ONE INVOLVED HERE, THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT COMPELS US TO GO NO HIGHER THAN A FELLOW
SERVANT.  SEE TERMINAL R. ASSN. V. STAENGEL, 122 F.2D 271. 

NO ACT NEED BE EXPLICABLE ONLY IN TERMS OF NEGLIGENCE IN ORDER FOR
THE RULE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR TO BE INVOKED.  THE RULE DEALS ONLY WITH
PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES FROM UNEXPLAINED EVENTS.  IN THIS CASE THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND NEGLIGENCE FROM DUDDER'S ACT OF DROPPING THE BLOCK
SINCE ALL THAT PETITIONER WAS DOING AT THE TIME WAS COILING THE ROPE. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 160 F.2D 789, FEELING THAT
PETITIONER MIGHT HAVE PULLED THE BLOCK OUT OF DUDDER'S HANDS.  IT
REASONED THAT, ALTHOUGH PETITIONER TESTIFIED HE WAS BENDING OVER
COILING THE ROPE WHEN THE BLOCK HIT HIM, THE CONCUSSION MAY HAVE CAUSED
A LAPSE OF MEMORY WHICH ANTEDATED THE ACTUAL INJURY.  THE INQUIRY,
HOWEVER, IS NOT AS TO POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THE ACCIDENT BUT WHETHER A
SHOWING THAT PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT FAULT AND WAS INJURED BY THE
DROPPING OF THE BLOCK IS THE BASIS OF A FAIR INFERENCE THAT THE MAN WHO
DROPPED THE BLOCK WAS NEGLIGENT.  WE THINK IT IS, FOR HUMAN EXPERIENCE
TELLS US THAT CAREFUL MEN DO NOT CUSTOMARILY DO SUCH AN ACT. 

PETITIONER PRESSES HERE HIS CLAIM FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE WHICH WAS
REJECTED BY BOTH COURTS BELOW.  HE WAS HOSPITALIZED BY RESPONDENT FOR A
NUMBER OF WEEKS FOLLOWING THE ACCIDENT.  HE WAS THEN FOUND UNFIT FOR
SEA DUTY AND DOCTORS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE RECOMMENDED THAT HE
ENTER VARIOUS GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS.  HE REFUSED AND WENT INSTEAD TO
LIVE ON THE RANCH OF HIS PARENTS.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT DOCTORS FOR OUT-PATIENT
TREATMENT AND REST AT HIS HOME MIGHT BE INFERRED.  CF. REY V. COLONIAL
NAVIGATION CO., 116 F.2D 580; MOYLE V. NATIONAL PETROLEUM TRANSPORT
CORP., 150 F.2D 840.  FOR THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
FINDINGS OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS THAT PETITIONER HAD INCURRED NO
EXPENSE OR LIABILITY FOR HIS CARE AND SUPPORT AT THE HOME OF HIS
PARENTS.  SEE FIELD V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 104 F.2D 849.  ON THAT
ISSUE WE AFFIRM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  ON THE ISSUE OF
NEGLIGENCE WE REVERSE IT.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTING IN PART. 

WHAT IS THIS CASE?  IT IS A SUIT BY THE PETITIONER, A SEAMAN, FOR AN
INJURY SUSTAINED WHILE WORKING ON A VESSEL OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE
UNITED STATES.  UNDER EXISTING LAW THE UNITED STATES IS LIABLE ONLY IF
IT FAILED IN ITS DUTY OF EXERCISING REASONABLE CARE IN SAFEGUARDING ITS
EMPLOYEES - THE UNITED STATES IS LIABLE, THAT IS, ONLY IF IT WAS
NEGLIGENT.  AND IT IS UP TO THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE SUCH NEGLIGENCE. 

WHAT IS THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM HERE?  IT IS THAT WHILE THE PETITIONER
AND A FELLOW SEAMAN NAMED DUDDER WERE WORKING TOGETHER IN AN OPERATION
KNOWN AS "ROUNDING IN" BLOCKS TO BRING TWO BLOCKS OF A BLOCK AND TACKLE
TOGETHER, SOMEHOW OR OTHER A BLOCK FELL AND STRUCK THE PETITIONER, WHO
WAS OPERATING ON A DECK BELOW DUDDER, ON THE HEAD.  THE CLAIM IS THAT
THE BLOCK WHICH HIT PETITIONER WAS NEGLIGENTLY RELEASED BY DUDDER AND
THAT THE UNITED STATES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DUDDER'S NEGLIGENCE.  (THE
"FELLOW SERVANT RULE" IS NOT A DEFENSE UNDER THE JONES ACT WHICH
AUTHORIZES THIS SUIT.  38 STAT. 1185, AS AMENDED, 41 STAT. 1007, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 688.)  THERE WERE NO WITNESSES TO THIS HAPPENING BESIDES
DUDDER AND JOHNSON.  THE ONLY SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE FOR ASCERTAINING
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED - WHETHER FAULT LAY WITH DUDDER OR JOHNSON OR
WITH NOBODY, AS THE LAW DETERMINES FAULT - WERE THE ACCOUNTS WHICH
DUDDER AND JOHNSON MIGHT FURNISH AND SUCH INFERENCES AS HUMAN
EXPERIENCE COULD REASONABLY DRAW FROM THE OCCURRENCE ITSELF. 

WHAT EVIDENCE DOES THE RECORD DISCLOSE?  OF THE TWO AVAILABLE
WITNESSES ONLY ONE TESTIFIED.  THAT WAS THE PETITIONER.  IT IS ACCURATE
TO STATE, THEREFORE, THAT HIS VERSION OF WHAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE
INJURY WAS UNCONTRADICTED.  BUT IT IS NO LESS TRUE THAT HE WAS UNABLE
TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE CAUSE OF THE HAPPENING.  FN1
HIS TESTIMONY HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS THE CARELESSNESS OF
DUDDER THAT CAUSED THE BLOCK TO FALL OUT OF DUDDER'S HAND RATHER THAN A
CARELESS JERK OF THE ROPE BY HIMSELF WHICH CAUSED SUCH RELEASE.  DUDDER
WAS AVAILABLE AS A WITNESS BUT HE WAS NOT CALLED.  THE UNITED STATES IN
FACT HAD DUDDER'S DEPOSITION TAKEN BEFORE THE TRIAL, AND IT WAS PLACED
AT JOHNSON'S DISPOSAL.  NEITHER PARTY, FOR REASONS OF ITS OWN, CALLED
DUDDER AS A WITNESS OR INTRODUCED HIS DEPOSITION. 

WHAT CONCLUSIONS ARE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS AS THEY WERE
DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL?  IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THIS COURT TO
CONDUCT THE TRIAL OF A CASE OR, EVEN WHERE A CASE IS TECHNICALLY OPEN
HERE ON THE FACTS, TO SIT IN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON THE FACTS.  IF A
CASE LIKE THIS IS TO BE ALLOWED TO COME HERE AT ALL, WE SIT IN JUDGMENT
ON THE PROCEEDINGS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.  THIS IS A PROCEEDING IN
ADMIRALTY TRIED BY A JUDGE AND NOT A JURY.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, WHO HEARD
THE TESTIMONY AND WHO WAS IN THE BEST POSSIBLE POSITION TO WEIGH WHAT
HE HEARD AND SAW, DIED BEFORE HE GAVE HIS VIEW OF THE TESTIMONY.  BY
AGREEMENT, THE CAUSE WAS THEN SUBMITTED FOR JUDGMENT BY ANOTHER
DISTRICT JUDGE ON THE BASIS OF THE COLD RECORD.  HE DECIDED FOR THE
PETITIONER.  THE UNITED STATES THEN APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.  THREE OTHER JUDGES ON THE BASIS OF THE
SAME DEAD RECORD REVERSED THE DISTRICT JUDGE.  160 F.2D 789.  THE
RESULT IS THAT ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE UNITED STATES IS LIABLE BECAUSE
ONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES WAS NEGLIGENT - THAT IS, WHETHER DUDDER IN FACT
CARELESSLY LET THE BLOCK SLIP OUT OF HIS HANDS - ONE JUDGE SAID YES,
AND THREE JUDGES SAID NO. 

WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE LAW?  MY BRETHREN SAY THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPEAK
FOR THEMSELVES IN ESTABLISHING DUDDER'S NEGLIGENCE.  THIS MEANS THAT
THE THREE JUDGES BELOW SHOULD HAVE FOUND, AND THIS COURT MUST NOW FIND,
THAT THE RECORD PROVES THAT THE INJURY CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED BY
DUDDER'S CARELESSNESS - FOR THE PETITIONER, IT DESERVES REPEATING, MUST
HAVE ESTABLISHED DUDDER'S CARELESSNESS IN ORDER TO HOLD THE UNITED
STATES LIABLE.  I AGREE THAT IF THE RULE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR
DETERMINES THIS CASE, THE SCOPE OF THAT RULE IS FOUND IN SWEENEY V.
ERVING, 228 U.S. 233, REAFFIRMED LAST TERM AS A "DECISION WHICH CUT
THROUGH THE MASS OF VERBIAGE BUILT UP AROUND THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA
LOQUITUR."  JESIONOWSKI V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., 329 U.S. 452, 457. 
BUT THESE TWO SENTENCES ARE A VITAL PART OF THE SWEENEY CASE:  "RES
IPSA LOQUITUR, WHERE IT APPLIES, DOES NOT CONVERT THE DEFENDANT'S
GENERAL ISSUE INTO AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.  WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCE IS
IN, THE QUESTION FOR THE JURY IS, WHETHER THE PREPONDERANCE IS WITH THE
PLAINTIFF."  228 U.S. AT 240.  THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE RULE OF RES IPSA
LOQUITUR IS HERE RELEVANT, IT SHOULD NOT BY ITSELF SUSTAIN A FINDING
FOR THE PETITIONER, "FOR THE REASON THAT IN CASES WHERE THAT RULE DOES
APPLY, IT HAS NOT THE EFFECT OF SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF."  228
U.S. AT 238.  SINCE WE CANNOT TELL FROM THE RECORD HOW THE INJURY TO
THE PETITIONER OCCURRED - IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT ESTABLISHED WHY THE
BLOCK FELL - I CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO
SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING BY A FAIR PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
THAT HIS INJURIES WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE. 
CF. THE JESIONOWSKI CASE, SUPRA AT P. 454. 

BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT RES IPSA LOQUITUR IS APPLICABLE HERE.  IT
IS, AFTER ALL, A "RULE OF NECESSITY TO BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN NECESSARY
EVIDENCE IS ABSENT AND NOT READILY AVAILABLE."  SEE COOLEY, TORTS (4TH
ED.)  SEC.  480.  HERE THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE CAUSE OF PETITIONER'S
INJURIES WAS ADMITTEDLY AVAILABLE, AND IT WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW THAT
SINCE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED, IT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED.  THEREFORE, I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT BELOW BUT MODIFY ITS MANDATE SO THAT THERE MAY BE A NEW TRIAL ON
THIS ISSUE AND AN ADJUDICATION BASED UPON AN ADEQUATE DETERMINATION. 

WHILE A COURT ROOM IS NOT A LABORATORY FOR THE SCIENTIFIC PURSUIT OF
TRUTH, A TRIAL JUDGE IS SURELY NOT CONFINED TO AN ACCOUNT, OBVIOUSLY
FRAGMENTARY, OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A HAPPENING, HERE THE MEAGRE
TESTIMONY OF JOHNSON, WHEN HE HAS AT HIS COMMAND THE MEANS OF EXPLORING
THEM FULLY, OR AT LEAST MORE FULLY, BEFORE PASSING LEGAL JUDGMENT.  A
TRIAL IS NOT A GAME OF BLIND MAN'S BUFF; AND THE TRIAL JUDGE -
PARTICULARLY IN A CASE WHERE HE HIMSELF IS THE TRIER OF THE FACTS UPON
WHICH HE IS TO PRONOUNCE THE LAW - NEED NOT BLINDFOLD HIMSELF BY
FAILING TO CALL AN AVAILABLE VITAL WITNESS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PARTIES,
FOR REASONS OF TRIAL TACTICS, CHOOSE TO WITHHOLD HIS TESTIMONY. 
FEDERAL JUDGES ARE NOT REFEREES AT PRIZE-FIGHTS BUT FUNCTIONARIES OF
JUSTICE.  SEE HERRON V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 283 U.S. 91, 95; QUERCIA
V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 466, 469.  AS SUCH THEY HAVE A DUTY OF
INITIATIVE TO SEE THAT THE ISSUES ARE DETERMINED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE PLEADINGS, NOT LEFT TO COUNSEL'S CHOSEN ARGUMENT.  SEE NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 279 U.S. 310, 318.  JUST AS A FEDERAL JUDGE
MAY BRING TO HIS AID AN AUDITOR, WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, TO
EXAMINE BOOKS AND PAPERS, HEAR TESTIMONY, CLARIFY THE ISSUES, AND
SUBMIT A REPORT, IN ORDER TO "RENDER POSSIBLE AN INTELLIGENT
CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE BY COURT AND JURY," EX PARTE PETERSON, 253
U.S. 300, 306, AND IN SO DOING HAS THE POWER TO TAX THE EXPENSE AS
COSTS "NECESSARY TO THE TRUE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CAUSE ON BOTH SIDES,"
WHIPPLE V. CUMBERLAND COTTON CO., 3 STORY 84, 86, HE HAS THE POWER TO
CALL AND EXAMINE WITNESSES TO ELICIT THE TRUTH.  SEE GLASSER V. UNITED
STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 82.  HE SURELY HAS THE DUTY TO DO SO BEFORE
RESORTING TO GUESSWORK IN ESTABLISHING LIABILITY FOR FAULT. 

DUDDER'S ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED SURELY COULD SUPPLEMENT JOHNSON'S
AS A BASIS FOR RECREATING THE EVENTS WHICH LED TO JOHNSON'S INJURY. 
NEITHER PARTY SAW FIT TO USE HIS AVAILABLE TESTIMONY.  INSTEAD OF
ENTERING JUDGMENT FOR THE PARTY WHO HAD THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND DID NOT
MEET IT, THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE CALLED DUDDER AS THE
COURT'S WITNESS.  AS JUDGE SIBLEY OBSERVED IN A CASE WHERE WITNESSES
WHO KNEW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED HAD NOT BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY:  "WE
THINK THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED BY A NEW AND MORE
ORDERLY TRIAL, WHICH CAN EASILY BE MANAGED  ...  WILLIAMS AND BATSON
(THE WITNESSES) CERTAINLY KNOW THE TRUTH OF THE THINGS IN DISPUTE.  IF
NEITHER PARTY WILL RISK CALLING A WITNESS WHO KNOWS IMPORTANT FACTS, IT
IS IN THE POWER OF THE COURT TO CALL AND EXAMINE SUCH A WITNESS, IN THE
INTEREST OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE, ALLOWING BOTH PARTIES THE RIGHT OF CROSS
EXAMINATION AND IMPEACHMENT."  CHALMETTE PETROLEUM CORP. V. CHALMETTE
OIL DISTRIBUTING CO., 143 F.2D 826, 828-9. 

THREE COURTS AND THIRTEEN JUDGES HAVE NOW PASSED ON THIS CASE WHEN IN
GOOD REASON A SITUATION LIKE THIS OUGHT NEVER TO GET INTO COURT AT
ALL.  THE CRUX OF THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT AN INDUSTRIAL INJURY SUCH AS
THE PETITIONER SUFFERED IS AS TO INTERSTATE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AND
SEAMEN STILL DETERMINED BY THE ARCHAIC LAW OF NEGLIGENCE INSTEAD OF BY
A JUST SYSTEM OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.  OCCURRENCES LIKE THE ONE NOW
IN CONTROVERSY ARE INHERENT IN INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT AND TO MAKE
LIABILITY DEPEND ON A FINDING OF "NEGLIGENCE" IS TO PURSUE UNREALITY. 
ENGLAND ABOLISHED NEGLIGENCE AS THE BASIS OF LIABILITY FIFTY YEARS
AGO.  THE STATES, LONG LAGGARDS IN MAKING LAW CONFORM TO THE
ACTUALITIES OF INDUSTRY, HAVE NOW, WITH ONLY A SINGLE EXCEPTION,
SUPPLANTED THE OUTMODED LIABILITY FOR FAULT BY A RATIONAL SYSTEM OF
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS, AND CONGRESS HAS ENACTED COMPENSATION LAWS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AND FOR LONGSHOREMEN
AND HARBOR WORKERS.  "IT IS REASONABLE THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD PAY THE
WHOLE COST OF PRODUCING WHAT IT WANTS AND A PART OF THAT COST IS THE
PAIN AND MUTILATION INCIDENT TO PRODUCTION."  HOLMES, J., IN ARIZONA
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 250 U.S. 400, 433.  BUT SO LONG AS CONGRESS
SEES FIT TO HAVE LIABILITY FOR INJURIES BY RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AND
SEAMEN BASED SOLELY ON PROOF OF FAULT, IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO
TORTURE AND TWIST THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE SO AS TO MAKE IT IN RESULT A
LAW NOT OF LIABILITY FOR FAULT BUT A LAW OF LIABILITY FOR INJURIES. 

ONE CANNOT BE UNMINDFUL THAT "THE RADIATING POTENCIES OF A DECISION
MAY GO BEYOND THE ACTUAL HOLDING."  HAWKS V. HAMILL, 288 U.S. 52, 58. 
LOWER COURTS READ THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT WITH A NOT UNNATURAL
ALERTNESS TO CATCH INTIMATIONS BEYOND THE PRECISE RATIO DECIDENDI.  A
DECISION LIKE THIS EXERTS AN INFLUENCE, HOWEVER UNWITTINGLY, WELL
CALCULATED TO LEAD LOWER COURT JUDGES TO AVOID REVERSALS BY DECIDING
COMPASSIONATELY FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THESE NEGLIGENCE CASES CONFIDENT
THAT SUCH DECISIONS ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE REVIEWED HERE. 

I WOULD HAVE THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  PETITIONER TESTIFIED: 

"Q.  NOW, WHEN YOU WERE STANDING THERE JUST BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, IN
THE LAST THING YOU KNEW BEFORE THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED, WHAT WERE YOU
DOING? 

"A.  I WAS COILING THE LINE ON THE WELL DECK OR THE MACCANO DECK. 

"Q.  STANDING UP OR LEANING OVER? 

"A.  I WAS BENDING OVER. 

"Q.  THEN WHAT HAPPENED? 

"A.  THAT IS ALL I REMEMBER." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :
















MAGGIO V. ZEITZ, 333 U.S. 56 


NO. 38.  SUBMITTED OCTOBER 13, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1948.  - 157
F.2D 951, JUDGMENTS VACATED AND CASE REMANDED. 


1.  IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST A BANKRUPT FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO TURN OVER TO THE TRUSTEE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE
FOUND TO BE IN HIS POSSESSION OR UNDER HIS CONTROL AT THE TIME SUCH
ORDER WAS ISSUED (20 MONTHS EARLIER IN THIS CASE), THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
SHOULD NOT ADJUDGE THE BANKRUPT IN CONTEMPT AND COMMIT HIM TO JAIL TO
COERCE COMPLIANCE IF IT APPEARS THAT HE IS PRESENTLY UNABLE TO COMPLY -
EVEN THOUGH THE PREVIOUS FINDING THAT HE HAD POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY
WHEN THE TURNOVER ORDER WAS ISSUED HAS BECOME RES JUDICATA.  PP. 69
78. 

2.  COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO COMPENSATE FOR ANY
NEGLECT OR LACK OF ZEAL IN APPLYING THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS PRESCRIBED
BY THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BY PERVERSION OF CIVIL REMEDIES TO ENDS OF
PUNISHMENT.  P. 62. 

3.  THE SUMMARY TURNOVER PROCEDURE, FASHIONED BY BANKRUPTCY COURTS AS
A MEANS OF RETRIEVING CONCEALED ASSETS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IS
ESSENTIALLY A PROCEEDING FOR RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY RATHER THAN
INDEMNIFICATION; AND THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF RELIEF IS POSSESSION OF
EXISTING CHATTELS OR THEIR PROCEEDS CAPABLE OF BEING SURRENDERED BY THE
PERSON ORDERED TO DO SO. PP. 62-63. 

4.  RESORT TO A TURNOVER PROCEEDING IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHEN THE
PROPERTY AND ITS PROCEEDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISSIPATED, NO MATTER WHEN
THAT DISSIPATION OCCURRED.  PP. 63-64. 

5.  IN A TURNOVER PROCEEDING, THE BURDEN IS UPON THE TRUSTEE TO PROVE
BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ABSTRACTED
FROM THE BANKRUPT ESTATE AND IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PARTY
PROCEEDED AGAINST.  ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358.  P. 64. 

6.  THE PRESUMPTION THAT POSSESSION OF PROPERTY OF A BANKRUPT, ONCE
PROVEN, CONTINUES UNTIL THE POSSESSOR EXPLAINS WHEN AND HOW POSSESSION
CEASED IS NOT A RULE OF LAW TO BE APPLIED IN ALL CASES, BUT A RULE OF
EVIDENCE TO BE APPLIED ONLY WHEN THE TIME ELEMENT AND OTHER FACTORS
MAKE THAT A FAIR AND REASONABLE INFERENCE.  PP. 64-66. 

7.  A TURNOVER ORDER SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED OR AFFIRMED ON A
PRESUMPTION THOUGHT TO ARISE FROM SOME ISOLATED CIRCUMSTANCE, SUCH AS
ONE-TIME POSSESSION, WHEN THE REVIEWING COURT FINDS FROM THE WHOLE
RECORD THAT THE ORDER IS UNREALISTIC AND UNJUST.  PP. 66-67. 

8.  WHEN A TURNOVER PROCEEDING IS COMPLETED AND TERMINATED IN A FINAL
ORDER, IT BECOMES RES JUDICATA AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK
IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING IN CIVIL CONTEMPT TO COERCE OBEDIENCE.  PP.
68-69. 

9.  EVEN THOUGH A TURNOVER ORDER HAS BECOME RES JUDICATA AS TO THE
ISSUE OF POSSESSION OF THE GOODS IN QUESTION AT THE TIME OF THE
TURNOVER PROCEEDINGS, A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING IN CIVIL CONTEMPT TO
COERCE COMPLIANCE TENDERS THE ISSUE AS TO PRESENT WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE,
WHICH MUST BE TRIED LIKE ANY OTHER ISSUE; AND THE COURT IS ENTITLED TO
CONSIDER ALL EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO IT. PP. 74-75. 

10.  IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING TO COERCE COMPLIANCE WITH A
TURNOVER ORDER, THE BANKRUPT MAY NOT CHALLENGE THE PREVIOUS
ADJUDICATION OF POSSESSION MADE WHEN THE TURNOVER ORDER WAS ISSUED; BUT
HE MAY BE PERMITTED TO DENY HIS PRESENT POSSESSION AND TO GIVE ANY
EVIDENCE OF PRESENT CONDITIONS OR INTERVENING EVENTS WHICH CORROBORATE
SUCH DENIAL.  PP. 75-76. 

11.  IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE A TURNOVER ORDER, A
TRIAL COURT IS OBLIGED TO WEIGH NOT MERELY THE FACTS THAT A TURNOVER
ORDER HAS ISSUED AND HAS NOT BEEN OBEYED BUT ALSO ALL OTHER EVIDENCE
PROPERLY BEFORE IT, IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ACTUALLY A
PRESENT ABILITY TO COMPLY AND WHETHER FAILURE TO DO SO CONSTITUTES
DELIBERATE DEFIANCE WHICH A JAIL TERM WILL BREAK.  PP. 76-77. 

12.  THIS COURT REGARDS TURNOVER AND CONTEMPT ORDERS, AND PETITIONS
FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THEM, AS USUALLY RAISING ONLY QUESTIONS OF
FACT TO BE SOLVED BY A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE, WHICH SHOULD TAKE
PLACE IN THE LOWER COURTS; AND THIS COURT IS LOATH TO REVIEW PARTICULAR
CASES, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE ORDER CARRIES APPROVAL OF THE REFEREE, THE
DISTRICT COURT, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 70. 

13.  WHEN A MISAPPREHENSION OF THE LAW HAS LED BOTH COURTS BELOW TO
ADJUDICATE RIGHTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING ESSENTIAL FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF
THE CONTROLLING LAW, THIS COURT WILL VACATE THE JUDGMENTS AND REMAND
THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH
THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THIS COURT'S OPINION.  P. 77. 

MAGGIO V. ZEITZ, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

A REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY FOUND THE BANKRUPT IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH A TURNOVER ORDER PREVIOUSLY AFFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED AND
ORDERED THE BANKRUPT COMMITTED TO JAIL UNTIL HE COMPLIED OR UNTIL
FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,
ALTHOUGH IT SAID IT KNEW THAT THE BANKRUPT COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE
TURNOVER ORDER.  157 F.2D 951.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  330
U.S. 816.  JUDGMENTS VACATED AND CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT,
P. 78. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

JOSEPH MAGGIO, THE PETITIONER, WAS PRESIDENT AND MANAGER OF LUMA
CAMERA SERVICE, INC., WHICH WAS ADJUDGED BANKRUPT ON APRIL 23, 1942. 
IN JANUARY OF 1943 THE TRUSTEE ASKED THE COURT TO DIRECT MAGGIO TO TURN
OVER A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MERCHANDISE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN
FROM THE BANKRUPT CONCERN IN 1941, AND STILL IN MAGGIO'S POSSESSION OR
CONTROL.  AFTER HEARING, THE REFEREE FOUND THAT "THE TRUSTEE
ESTABLISHED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE MERCHANDISE
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, BELONGING TO THE ESTATE OF THE BANKRUPT, WAS
KNOWINGLY AND FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED BY THE RESPONDENT (MAGGIO) FROM
THE TRUSTEE HEREIN AND THAT SAID MERCHANDISE IS NOW IN THE POSSESSION
OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE RESPONDENT."  A TURNOVER ORDER ISSUED AND
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THEN UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT, WITHOUT OPINION OTHER THAN
CITATION OF ITS OWN PRIOR CASES.  ZEITZ V. MAGGIO, 145 F.2D 241. 
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS DENIED BY THIS COURT.  324 U.S. 841. 

AS MAGGIO FAILED TO TURN OVER THE PROPERTY OR ITS PROCEEDS, THE
REFEREE FOUND HIM IN CONTEMPT.  AFTER HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED AND ORDERED MAGGIO TO BE JAILED UNTIL HE COMPLIED OR UNTIL
FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT.  AGAIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  157 F.2D 951. 

BUT IN AFFIRMING THE COURT SAID:  "ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT MAGGIO
CANNOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, WE MUST KEEP A STRAIGHT FACE AND PRETEND
THAT HE CAN, AND MUST THUS AFFIRM ORDERS WHICH FIRST DIRECT MAGGIO 'TO
DO AN IMPOSSIBILITY, AND THEN PUNISH HIM FOR REFUSAL TO PERFORM IT.'" 
WHETHER THIS IS TO BE READ LITERALLY AS ITS DELIBERATE JUDGMENT OF THE
LAW OF THE CASE OR IS SOMETHING OF A DECOY INTENDED TO ATTRACT OUR
ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM, THE DECLARATION IS ONE WHICH THIS COURT, IN
VIEW OF ITS SUPERVISORY POWER OVER COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY, CANNOT
IGNORE.  FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCIES PROBABLY PRESENT MORE DIFFICULTIES TO
THE COURTS IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT THAN THEY DO ELSEWHERE.  THESE
CONDITIONS ARE REFLECTED IN CONFLICTING VIEWS WITHIN THE COURT OF
APPEALS, WHICH WE NEED NOT DETAIL AS THEY ARE ALREADY SET OUT IN THE
BOOKS:  IN RE SCHOENBERG, 70 F.2D 321; DANISH V. SOFRANSKI, 93 F.2D
424; IN RE PINSKY-LAPIN & CO., 98 F.2D 776; SELIGSON V. GOLDSMITH, 128
F.2D 977; ROSENBLUM V. MARINELLO, 133 F.2D 674; ROBBINS V. GOTTBETTER,
134 F.2D 843; COHEN V. JESKOWITZ, 144 F.2D 39; ZEITZ V. MAGGIO, 145
F.2D 241. 

THE PROBLEM IS ILLUSTRATED BY THIS CASE.  THE COURT BELOW SAYS THAT
IN THE TURNOVER PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THAT,
TOWARDS THE END OF 1941, A SHORTAGE OCCURRED IN THIS BANKRUPT'S STOCK
OF MERCHANDISE.  IT SEEMS ALSO TO REGARD IT AS PROVED THAT MAGGIO
PERSONALLY TOOK POSSESSION OF THE CORPORATION'S VANISHING ASSETS.  BUT
THIS ABSTRACTION BY MAGGIO OCCURRED SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE BANKRUPTCY
AND OVER A YEAR BEFORE THE TURNOVER ORDER WAS APPLIED FOR.  THE ONLY
EVIDENCE THAT THE GOODS THEN WERE IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF
MAGGIO WAS THE PROOF OF HIS ONETIME POSSESSION SUPPLEMENTED BY A
"PRESUMPTION" THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION BY MAGGIO
OF HIS DISPOSITION OF THE GOODS, HE CONTINUES IN POSSESSION OF THEM OR
THEIR PROCEEDS.  BECAUSE THE COURT OF APPEALS FELT CONSTRAINED BY ITS
OPINIONS TO ADHERE TO THIS "PRESUMPTION" OR "FICTION" IT AFFIRMED THE
TURNOVER ORDER.  NOW IT SAYS IT IS CONVINCED THAT IN REALITY MAGGIO DID
NOT RETAIN THE GOODS OR THEIR PROCEEDS UP TO THE TIME OF THE TURNOVER
PROCEEDINGS AND THAT THE TURNOVER ORDER WAS UNJUST.  BUT IT CONSIDERS
THE TURNOVER ORDER RES JUDICATA AND THE INJUSTICE BEYOND REACH ON
REVIEW OF THE CONTEMPT ORDER. 

THE PROCEEDING WHICH LEADS TO COMMITMENT CONSISTS OF TWO SEPARATE
STAGES WHICH EASILY BECOME OUT-OF-JOINT BECAUSE THE DEFENSE TO THE
SECOND OFTEN IN SUBSTANCE IS AN EFFORT TO RELITIGATE, PERHAPS BEFORE
ANOTHER JUDGE, THE ISSUE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN SETTLED IN THE FIRST,
AND BECAUSE WHILE THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE TRUSTEE, FREQUENTLY
EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS IS ENTIRELY IN POSSESSION OF HIS ADVERSARY, THE
BANKRUPT, WHO IS ADVANTAGED BY NONDISCLOSURE.  BECAUSE THESE SEPARATE
BUT INTERDEPENDENT TURNOVER AND CONTEMPT PROCEDURES ARE IMPORTANT TO
SUCCESSFUL BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION, WE RESTATE SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES
APPLICABLE TO EACH, CONSCIOUS HOWEVER OF THE RISK THAT WE MAY DO MORE
TO STIR NEW THAN TO SETTLE OLD CONTROVERSIES. 

                                  I. 

THE TURNOVER PROCEDURE IS ONE NOT EXPRESSLY CREATED OR REGULATED BY
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  IT IS A JUDICIAL INNOVATION BY WHICH THE COURT
SEEKS EFFICIENTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY TO ACCOMPLISH ENDS PRESCRIBED BY
THE STATUTE, WHICH, HOWEVER, LEFT THE MEANS LARGELY TO JUDICIAL
INGENUITY. 

THE COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY ARE INVESTED "WITH SUCH JURISDICTION IN LAW
AND IN EQUITY AS WILL ENABLE THEM" TO "CAUSE THE ESTATES OF BANKRUPTS
TO BE COLLECTED, REDUCED TO MONEY AND DISTRIBUTED, AND DETERMINE
CONTROVERSIES IN RELATION THERETO  ...  "  11 U.S.C. SEC. 11(A)(7). 
AND THE FUNCTION TO "COLLECT AND REDUCE TO MONEY THE PROPERTY OF THE
ESTATES" IS ALSO LAID UPON THE TRUSTEE.  11 U.S.C. SEC. 75(A)(1).  A
CORRELATIVE DUTY IS IMPOSED UPON THE BANKRUPT FULLY AND EFFECTUALLY TO
TURN OVER ALL OF HIS PROPERTY AND INTERESTS, AND IN CASE OF A
CORPORATION THE DUTY RESTS UPON ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS OR
STOCKHOLDERS.  11 U.S.C. SEC. 25. 

TO COMPEL THESE PERSONS TO DISCHARGE THEIR DUTY, THE STATUTE IMPOSES
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.  IT DENOUNCES A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF FRAUDS,
CONCEALMENTS, FALSIFICATIONS, MUTILATION OF RECORDS AND OTHER ACTS THAT
WOULD DEFEAT OR OBSTRUCT COLLECTION OF THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE, AND
PRESCRIBES HEAVY PENALTIES OF FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.  11 U.S.C.
SEC. 52(B).  IT ALSO CONFERS ON THE COURTS POWER TO ARRAIGN, TRY AND
PUNISH PERSONS FOR VIOLATIONS, BUT "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF
PROCEDURE" REGULATING TRIALS OF CRIMES.  11 U.S.C. SEC. 11(A)(4).  AND
IT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR JURY TRIAL OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  11 U.S.C. SEC. 42(A), (C).  SPECIAL PROVISIONS ARE
ALSO MADE TO INDUCE VIGILANCE IN PROSECUTING SUCH OFFENSES.  IT IS THE
DUTY OF THE REFEREE AND TRUSTEE TO REPORT ANY PROBABLE GROUNDS FOR
BELIEVING SUCH AN OFFENSE HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, WHO THEREUPON IS REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT TO THE
REFEREE.  IN A PROPER CASE HE IS DIRECTED TO PRESENT THE MATTER TO THE
GRAND JURY WITHOUT DELAY, AND IF HE THINKS IT NOT A PROPER CASE HE MUST
REPORT THE FACTS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ABIDE HIS INSTRUCTIONS. 
11 U.S.C. SEC. 52(E). 

COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO COMPENSATE FOR ANY NEGLECT
OR LACK OF ZEAL IN APPLYING THESE PRESCRIBED CRIMINAL SANCTIONS BY
PERVERSION OF CIVIL REMEDIES TO ENDS OF PUNISHMENT, AS SOME JUDGES OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS SUGGEST IS BEING DONE. 

UNFORTUNATELY, CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS DO NOT RECOVER CONCEALED
TREASURE.  AND THE TRUSTEE, AS WELL AS THE COURT, IS COMMANDED TO
COLLECT THE PROPERTY.  THE ACT VESTS TITLE TO ALL PROPERTY OF THE
BANKRUPT, INCLUDING ANY TRANSFERRED IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS, IN THE
TRUSTEE, AS OF THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY, 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 110, WHICH PUTS HIM IN POSITION TO PURSUE ALL PLENARY OR SUMMARY
REMEDIES TO OBTAIN POSSESSION. 

TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITIONS OF THE TRUSTEE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT NOT
ONLY IS VESTED WITH "JURISDICTION OF ALL CONTROVERSIES AT LAW AND IN
EQUITY" BETWEEN TRUSTEES AND ADVERSE CLAIMANTS CONCERNING PROPERTY
ACQUIRED OR CLAIMED BY THE TRUSTEE, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 46, BUT IT ALSO IS
GIVEN A WIDE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION TO ACCOMPLISH THE ENDS OF THE
ACT, OR IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE TO "MAKE SUCH ORDERS, ISSUE SUCH
PROCESS, AND ENTER SUCH JUDGMENTS, IN ADDITION TO THOSE SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED FOR, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS TITLE."  11 U.S.C. SEC. 11(A)(15). 

IN APPLYING THESE GRANTS OF POWER, COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY HAVE
FASHIONED THE SUMMARY TURNOVER PROCEDURE AS ONE NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH
THEIR FUNCTION OF ADMINISTRATION.  IT ENABLES THE COURT SUMMARILY TO
RETRIEVE CONCEALED AND DIVERTED ASSETS OR SECRETED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE
WITHHOLDING OF WHICH, PENDING THE OUTCOME OF PLENARY SUITS, WOULD
INTOLERABLY OBSTRUCT AND DELAY ADMINISTRATION.  WHEN SUPPORTED BY
"CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE," THE TURNOVER ORDER HAS BEEN SUSTAINED
AS AN APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY STEP IN ENFORCING THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358; COOPER V. DASHER, 290 U.S. 106.  SEE
ALSO FARMERS & MECHANICS NATIONAL BANK V. WILKINSON, 266 U.S. 503. 

BUT THIS PROCEDURE IS ONE PRIMARILY TO GET AT PROPERTY RATHER THAN TO
GET AT A DEBTOR.  WITHOUT PUSHING THE ANALOGY TOO FAR, IT MAY BE SAID
THAT THE THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THIS REMEDY IS FOUND IN THE COMMON LAW
ACTIONS TO RECOVER POSSESSION - DETINUE FOR UNLAWFUL DETENTION OF
CHATTELS AND REPLEVIN FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL TAKING - AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
ACTIONS IN TRESPASS OR TROVER TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE WITHHOLDING OR
FOR THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  OF COURSE THE MODERN REMEDY DOES NOT
EXACTLY FOLLOW ANY OF THESE ANCIENT AND OFTEN OVERLAPPING PROCEDURES,
BUT THE OBJECT - POSSESSION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY - IS THE SAME.  THE
ORDER FOR POSSESSION MAY EXTEND TO PROCEEDS OF PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN
DISPOSED OF, IF THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED AS SUCH.  BUT IT IS
ESSENTIALLY A PROCEEDING FOR RESTITUTION RATHER THAN INDEMNIFICATION,
WITH SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF A PROCEEDING IN REM; THE PRIMARY CONDITION
OF RELIEF IS POSSESSION OF EXISTING CHATTELS OR THEIR PROCEEDS CAPABLE
OF BEING SURRENDERED BY THE PERSON ORDERED TO DO SO.  IT IS IN NO SENSE
BASED ON A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR TORTIOUS CONDUCT SUCH AS
EMBEZZLEMENT, MISAPPROPRIATION OR IMPROVIDENT DISSIPATION OF ASSETS. 

THE NATURE AND DERIVATION OF THE REMEDY MAKE CLEAR THAT IT IS
APPROPRIATE ONLY WHEN THE EVIDENCE SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHES THE
EXISTENCE OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS PROCEEDS, AND POSSESSION THEREOF BY
THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE PROCEEDING.  WHILE SOME COURTS HAVE
TAKEN THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY AS THE TIME TO WHICH THE INQUIRY IS
DIRECTED, WE DO NOT CONSIDER RESORT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROCEEDING
APPROPRIATE IF, AT THE TIME IT IS INSTITUTED, THE PROPERTY AND ITS
PROCEEDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISSIPATED, NO MATTER WHEN THAT DISSIPATION
OCCURRED.  CONDUCT WHICH HAS PUT PROPERTY BEYOND THE LIMITED REACH OF
THE TURNOVER PROCEEDING MAY BE A CRIME, OR, IF IT VIOLATES AN ORDER OF
THE REFEREE, A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, BUT NO SUCH ACTS, HOWEVER
REPREHENSIBLE, WARRANT ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER WHICH CREATES A DUTY
IMPOSSIBLE OF PERFORMANCE, SO THAT PUNISHMENT CAN FOLLOW.  IT SHOULD
NOT BE NECESSARY TO SAY THAT IT WOULD BE A FLAGRANT ABUSE OF PROCESS TO
ISSUE SUCH AN ORDER TO EXERT PRESSURE ON FRIENDS AND RELATIVES TO
RANSOM THE ACCUSED PARTY FROM BEING JAILED. 

          II. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE REAL ISSUE AS TO TURNOVER ORDERS CONCERNS THE
BURDEN OF PROOF THAT WILL BE PUT ON THE TRUSTEE AND HOW HE CAN MEET IT.
THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT THE TURNOVER ORDER MUST BE SUPPORTED BY
"CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE," ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358, AND
THAT INCLUDES PROOF THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ABSTRACTED FROM THE
BANKRUPT ESTATE AND IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PARTY PROCEEDED
AGAINST.  IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE TRUSTEE TO PRODUCE THIS EVIDENCE,
HOWEVER DIFFICULT HIS TASK MAY BE. 

THE TRUSTEE USUALLY CAN SHOW THAT THE MISSING ASSETS WERE IN THE
POSSESSION OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE BANKRUPT AT THE TIME OF
BANKRUPTCY.  TO BRING THIS PAST POSSESSION DOWN TO THE DATE INVOLVED IN
THE TURNOVER PROCEEDINGS, THE TRUSTEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF
WHAT IS CALLED A PRESUMPTION THAT THE POSSESSION CONTINUES UNTIL THE
POSSESSOR EXPLAINS WHEN AND HOW IT CEASED.  THIS INFERENCE, WHICH MIGHT
BE ENTIRELY PERMISSIBLE IN SOME CASES, SEEMS TO HAVE SETTLED INTO A
RIGID PRESUMPTION WHICH IT IS SAID THE LOWER COURTS APPLY WITHOUT
REGARD TO ITS REASONABLENESS IN THE PARTICULAR CASE. 

HOWEVER, NO SUCH PRESUMPTION, AND NO SUCH FICTION, IS CREATED BY THE
BANKRUPTCY STATUTE.  NONE CAN BE FOUND IN ANY DECISION OF THIS COURT
DEALING WITH THIS PROCEDURE.  FN1  LANGUAGE CAN, OF COURSE, BE GLEANED
FROM JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND TEXTS THAT CONDITIONS ONCE EXISTING
MAY BE PRESUMED TO CONTINUE UNTIL THEY ARE SHOWN TO HAVE CHANGED.  BUT
SUCH GENERALIZATIONS, USEFUL ENOUGH, PERHAPS, IN SOLVING SOME PROBLEM
OF A PARTICULAR CASE, ARE NOT RULES OF LAW TO BE APPLIED TO ALL CASES,
WITH OR WITHOUT REASON.    SINCE NO AUTHORITY IMPOSES UPON EITHER THE
COURT OF APPEALS OR THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ANY PRESUMPTION OF LAW, EITHER
CONCLUSIVE OR DISPUTABLE, WHICH WOULD FORBID OR DISPENSE WITH FURTHER
INQUIRY OR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, TURNOVER
ORDERS SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED, OR APPROVED ON APPEAL, MERELY ON PROOF
THAT AT SOME PAST TIME PROPERTY WAS IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THE
ACCUSED PARTY, UNLESS THE TIME ELEMENT AND OTHER FACTORS MAKE THAT A
FAIR AND REASONABLE INFERENCE.  FN2  UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES IT MAY BE
PERMISSIBLE, IN RESOLVING THE UNKNOWN FROM THE KNOWN, TO REACH THE
CONCLUSION OF PRESENT CONTROL FROM PROOF OF PREVIOUS POSSESSION.  SUCH
A PROCESS, SOMETIMES CHARACTERIZED AS A "PRESUMPTION OF FACT," IS,
HOWEVER, NOTHING MORE THAN A PROCESS OF REASONING FROM ONE FACT TO
ANOTHER, AN ARGUMENT WHICH INFERS A FACT OTHERWISE DOUBTFUL FROM A FACT
WHICH IS PROVED. 

OF COURSE, THE FACT THAT A MAN AT ONE TIME HAD A GIVEN ITEM OF
PROPERTY IS A CIRCUMSTANCE TO BE WEIGHED IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE MAY
PROPERLY BE FOUND TO HAVE IT AT A LATER DATE.  BUT THE INFERENCE FROM
YESTERDAY'S POSSESSION IS ONE THING, THAT PERMISSIBLE FROM POSSESSION
TWENTY MONTHS AGO QUITE ANOTHER.  WITH WHAT KIND OF PROPERTY DO WE
DEAL?  WAS IT SALABLE OR CONSUMABLE?  THE INFERENCE OF CONTINUED
POSSESSION MIGHT BE WARRANTED WHEN APPLIED TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH
ARE NOT CONSUMABLE OR MARKETABLE, BUT QUITE INAPPROPRIATE UNDER THE
SAME CIRCUMSTANCES IF APPLIED TO PERISHABLE MERCHANDISE OR SALABLE
GOODS IN CONSIDERABLE DEMAND.  SUCH AN INFERENCE IS ONE THING WHEN
APPLIED TO A THRIFTY PERSON WHO WITHDRAWS HIS SAVINGS ACCOUNT AFTER
BEING INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT, FOR NO APPARENT PURPOSE EXCEPT TO GET IT
BEYOND THE REACH OF A TORT CREDITOR, SEE ROSENBLUM V. MARINELLO, 133
F.2D 674; IT IS VERY DIFFERENT WHEN APPLIED TO A STOCK OF WARES BEING
SOLD BY A FAST-LIVING ADVENTURER USING THE PROCEEDS TO MAKE UP THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME AND OUTGO. 

TURNOVER ORDERS SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED OR AFFIRMED ON A PRESUMPTION
THOUGHT TO ARISE FROM SOME ISOLATED CIRCUMSTANCE, SUCH AS ONETIME
POSSESSION, WHEN THE REVIEWING COURT FINDS FROM THE WHOLE RECORD THAT
THE ORDER IS UNREALISTIC AND UNJUST.  NO RULE OF LAW REQUIRES THAT
JUDGMENT BE THUS FETTERED; NOR HAS THIS COURT EVER SO PRESCRIBED.  OF
COURSE, DEFERENCE IS DUE TO THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT, AS
PRESCRIBED BY OUR RULES, BUT EVEN THIS PRESUPPOSES THAT THE TRIER OF
FACT BE ACTUALLY EXERCISING HIS JUDGMENT, NOT MERELY APPLYING SOME
SUPPOSED RULE OF LAW.  IN ANY EVENT, RULES OF EVIDENCE AS TO INFERENCES
FROM FACTS ARE TO AID REASON, NOT TO OVERRIDE IT.  AND THERE DOES NOT
APPEAR TO BE ANY REASON FOR ALLOWING ANY SUCH PRESUMPTION TO OVERRIDE
REASON WHEN REVIEWING A TURNOVER ORDER. 

WE ARE WELL AWARE THAT THESE GENERALITIES DO LITTLE TO SOLVE CONCRETE
ISSUES.  THE LATTER CAN BE RESOLVED ONLY BY THE SOUND SENSE AND GOOD
JUDGMENT OF TRIAL COURTS, MINDFUL THAT THE ORDER SHOULD ISSUE ONLY AS A
RESPONSIBLE AND FINAL ADJUDICATION OF POSSESSION AND ABILITY TO
DELIVER, NOT AS A QUESTIONABLE EXPERIMENT IN COERCION WHICH WILL RECOIL
TO THE DISCREDIT OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IF TIME PROVES THE
ADJUDICATION TO HAVE BEEN IMPROVIDENT AND REQUIRES THE COURTS TO
ABANDON ITS ENFORCEMENT. 

               III. 

UNLIKE THE JUDICIALLY DEVELOPED TURNOVER PROCEEDINGS, CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF A LAWFUL ORDER ARE SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED BY TWO SEPARATE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ARE OF TWO
DISTINCT KINDS.  THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO "ENFORCE OBEDIENCE BY
PERSONS TO ALL LAWFUL ORDERS, BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT."  11 U.S.C. SEC. 11(A)(13).  THIS CREATES THE CIVIL
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING TO COERCE OBEDIENCE, NOW BEFORE US.  THERE IS ALSO
PROVISION FOR A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WHOSE END IS TO PENALIZE
CONTUMACY, THE COURT ALSO BEING AUTHORIZED TO "PUNISH PERSONS FOR
CONTEMPTS COMMITTED BEFORE REFEREES."  11 U.S.C. SEC. 11(A)(16).  THESE
CONTEMPTS BEFORE REFEREES ARE DEFINED TO INCLUDE DISOBEDIENCE OR
RESISTANCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER, AND THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR A SUMMARY
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE WHO, IF THE EVIDENCE "IS SUCH AS
TO WARRANT HIM IN SO DOING," MAY PUNISH THE ACCUSED OR COMMIT HIM UPON
CONDITIONS.  11 U.S.C. SEC. 69. 

THE PROCEEDING BEFORE US SOUGHT ONLY A COERCIVE OR ENFORCEMENT
SANCTION.  THE PETITION ASKED COMMITMENT "UNTIL HE SHALL HAVE COMPLIED
WITH THE AFORESAID TURNOVER ORDER."  THE COMMITMENT WAS ONLY UNTIL HE
"SHALL HAVE PURGED HIMSELF OF SUCH CONTEMPT BY COMPLYING WITH SAID
TURNOVER ORDER, OR UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT."  THUS NO
PUNISHMENT WHATEVER WAS IMPOSED FOR PAST DISOBEDIENCE, AND EVERY
PENALTY WAS CONTINGENT UPON FAILURE TO OBEY.  THIS IS A DECISIVE
CHARACTERISTIC OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AND OF THE TRULY COERCIVE COMMITMENT
FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES, WHICH, AS OFTEN IS SAID, LEAVES THE CONTEMNOR
TO "CARRY THE KEY OF HIS PRISON IN HIS OWN POCKET."  PENFIELD CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 330 U.S. 585.  WE THUS HAVE BEFORE US
NOW A CIVIL CONTEMPT OF THE SAME KIND THAT WAS BEFORE THE COURT IN
ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358, 363.  WHAT WE SAY, THEREFORE, IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS DESIGNED SOLELY FOR
PUNISHMENT AND VINDICATION OF THE COURT'S FLOUTED AUTHORITY, SUCH, FOR
EXAMPLE, AS A PROCEEDING TO SENTENCE ONE FOR DESTROYING OR MUTILATING
BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION WHICH THE COURT HAD
ORDERED HIM TO TURN OVER. 

THE QUESTION NOW ARISES AS TO WHETHER, IN THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING,
THE COURT MAY INQUIRE INTO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TURNOVER ORDER
ITSELF.  IT IS CLEAR HOWEVER THAT THE TURNOVER PROCEEDING IS A SEPARATE
ONE AND, WHEN COMPLETED AND TERMINATED IN A FINAL ORDER, IT BECOMES RES
JUDICATA AND NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS.  THIS WE LONG AGO SETTLED IN ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S.
358, AND, WE THINK, SETTLED RIGHTLY. 

THE COURT ORDER IS INCREASINGLY RESORTED TO, ESPECIALLY BY STATUTE,
FN3  TO COERCE PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES UNDER SANCTION OF CONTEMPT.  IT
WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO THE LAW IF WE WERE TO DEPART FROM THE LONG
STANDING RULE THAT A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING DOES NOT OPEN TO
RECONSIDERATION THE LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS OF THE ORDER ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN DISOBEYED AND THUS BECOME A RETRIAL OF THE ORIGINAL CONTROVERSY. 
THE PROCEDURE TO ENFORCE A COURT'S ORDER COMMANDING OR FORBIDDING AN
ACT SHOULD NOT BE SO INCONCLUSIVE AS TO FOSTER EXPERIMENTATION WITH
DISOBEDIENCE.  EVERY PRECAUTION SHOULD BE TAKEN THAT ORDERS ISSUE, IN
TURNOVER AS IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS, ONLY AFTER LEGAL GROUNDS ARE SHOWN
AND ONLY WHEN IT APPEARS THAT OBEDIENCE IS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE
PARTY BEING COERCED BY THE ORDER.  BUT WHEN IT HAS BECOME FINAL,
DISOBEDIENCE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY RE-TRYING THE ISSUES AS TO WHETHER
THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE ISSUED IN THE FIRST PLACE.  UNITED STATES V.
UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258; ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358. 
COUNSEL APPEARS TO RECOGNIZE THIS RULE, FOR THE RECORD IN THE CASE NOW
BEFORE US DOES NOT INCLUDE THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE TURNOVER ORDER WAS
BASED.  WE COULD LEARN OF IT ONLY BY GOING OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENT
RECORD TO THAT IN THE FORMER CASE, WHICH WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY
BECAUSE AN APPLICATION WAS MADE TO THIS COURT TO REVIEW THAT EARLIER
PROCEEDING. 

WE THEREFORE THINK THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT INSOFAR AS IT
CONCLUDED THAT THE TURNOVER ORDER IS SUBJECT ONLY TO DIRECT ATTACK, AND
THAT ITS ALLEGED INFIRMITIES CANNOT BE RELITIGATED OR CORRECTED IN A
SUBSEQUENT CONTEMPT PROCEEDING. 

                 IV. 

BUT DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE LOWER COURTS "MUST THUS AFFIRM ORDERS
WHICH FIRST DIRECT A BANKRUPT 'TO DO AN IMPOSSIBILITY, AND THEN PUNISH
HIM FOR REFUSAL TO PERFORM IT'"? 

WHETHER THE STATEMENT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT IT KNOWS MAGGIO
CANNOT COMPLY WITH THE TURNOVER ORDER IS JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE IN
THIS RECORD, WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE.  WE HAVE REGARDED TURNOVER AND
CONTEMPT ORDERS, AND PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THEM, AS
USUALLY RAISING ONLY QUESTIONS OF FACT TO BE SOLVED BY THE CAREFUL
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE WHICH WE EXPECT TO TAKE PLACE IN THE TWO LOWER
COURTS.  THE ADVANTAGE OF THE REFEREE AND THE DISTRICT COURT IN HAVING
THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES BEFORE THEM, INSTEAD OF JUDGING ON A COLD
RECORD, IS CONSIDERABLE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR EACH CIRCUIT ALSO
HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF CLOSER FAMILIARITY WITH THE CAPABILITIES,
TENDENCIES, AND PRACTICES OF THE REFEREE AND DISTRICT JUDGE.  BOTH
LOWER COURTS BETTER KNOW THE FRUITS OF THEIR COURSE OF DECISION IN
ACTUAL PRACTICE THAN CAN WE.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE HAVE BEEN LOATH TO
VENTURE A REVIEW OF PARTICULAR CASES, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE TURNOVER
ORDER CARRIES APPROVAL OF THE REFEREE, THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS. 

HOWEVER, THE COURT BELOW APPEARS TO HAVE AFFIRMED THE ORDER FOR
COMMITMENT IN THIS CASE BY RELYING ON THE EARLIER FINDING OF PREVIOUS
POSSESSION TO RAISE A PRESUMPTION OF WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE CONTINUING TO
THE TIME OF COMMITMENT, EVEN THOUGH THAT CONCLUSION IS REJECTED BY THE
COURT'S GOOD JUDGMENT.  WHILE THE COURT PROTESTS THAT SUCH A PRESUMED
CONTINUANCE OF POSSESSION FROM THE TIME OF BANKRUPTCY TO THE TIME OF
THE TURNOVER ORDER IS UNREALISTIC, IT SEEMS TO HAVE AFFIRMED THE
CONTEMPT ORDER BY EXTENDING THE PRESUMPTION FROM THE TIME OF THE
TURNOVER ORDER TO THE TIME OF THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH
PERSUADED THAT MAGGIO HAD OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION IF IT WERE
REBUTTABLE. 

THE FACT THAT THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING MUST BEGIN WITH ACCEPTANCE OF
THE TURNOVER ORDER DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT MUST END WITH IT.  MAGGIO
MAKES NO EXPLANATION AS TO THE WHEREABOUTS OR DISPOSITION OF THE
PROPERTY WHICH THE ORDER, EARLIER AFFIRMED, DECLARED HIM TO POSSESS. 
BUT TIME HAS ELAPSED BETWEEN ISSUANCE OF THAT ORDER AND INITIATION OF
THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE.  HE DOES TENDER EVIDENCE OF HIS
EARNINGS AFTER THE TURNOVER PROCEEDINGS AND UP UNTIL NOVEMBER 1944; HIS
UNEMPLOYMENT AFTER THAT TIME ALLEGEDLY DUE TO HIS FAILING HEALTH; AND
OF HIS FAMILY OBLIGATIONS AND MANNER OF LIVING DURING THE INTERVENING
PERIOD.  HE HAS ALSO SWORN THAT NEITHER HE NOR HIS FAMILY HAS AT ANY
TIME SINCE THE TURNOVER PROCEEDINGS POSSESSED ANY REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY WHICH COULD BE USED TO SATISFY THE TRUSTEE'S DEMANDS.  AND HE
REPEATS HIS DENIAL THAT HE POSSESSES THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING
ATTACHED LITTLE OR NO SIGNIFICANCE TO MAGGIO'S EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY,
ALTHOUGH THE COURT GAVE NO INDICATION THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS
INCREDIBLE.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN ITS OPINION CITES ONLY IN RE
SIEGLER, 31 F.2D 972, IN WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED A DISTRICT
JUDGE WHO, BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE BANKRUPT'S TESTIMONY, HAD REFUSED TO
COMMIT HIM FOR CONTEMPT.  THE SIEGLER CASE AND OTHER CASES DECIDED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS APPARENTLY LED THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO CONCLUDE THAT
NO DECISION OTHER THAN COMMITMENT OF MAGGIO WOULD BE APPROVED BY THAT
COURT. 

NOR DID THE COURT OF APPEALS REJECT THIS VIEW.  INDEED IT AFFIRMED
THE COMMITMENT FOR CONTEMPT BECAUSE IT CONSIDERED EITHER THAT PRESENT
INABILITY TO COMPLY IS OF NO RELEVANCE OR THAT THERE IS AN IRREBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUING ABILITY TO COMPLY EVEN IF THE RECORD
ESTABLISHES PRESENT INABILITY IN FACT.  IT SEEMS TO BE OF THE VIEW THAT
THIS PRESUMPTION STANDS INDEFINITELY, IF NOT PERMANENTLY, AND CAN BE
OVERCOME BY THE ACCUSED ONLY WHEN HE AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS SOME
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY BY HIM SUBSEQUENT TO THE TURNOVER
PROCEEDINGS.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THESE VIEWS ARE REQUIRED BY ORIEL V.
RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358, DESPITE SOME CONFLICTING STATEMENTS IN THE
OPINION, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSTRUED AS COMPELLING AFFIRMANCE
OF THE CONTEMPT DECREE. 

THIS COURT SAID IN THE ORIEL CASE THAT "A MOTION TO COMMIT THE
BANKRUPT FOR FAILURE TO OBEY AN ORDER OF THE COURT TO TURN OVER TO THE
RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY THE PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT IS A CIVIL CONTEMPT
AND IS TO BE TREATED AS A MERE STEP IN THE PROCEEDINGS TO ADMINISTER
THE ASSETS OF THE BANKRUPT AS PROVIDED BY LAW, AND IN AID OF THE
SEIZURE OF THOSE ASSETS AND THEIR PROPER DISTRIBUTION.  WHILE IN A
SENSE THEY ARE PUNITIVE, THEY ARE NOT MERE PUNISHMENT - THEY ARE
ADMINISTRATIVE BUT COERCIVE, AND INTENDED TO COMPEL, AGAINST THE
RELUCTANCE OF THE BANKRUPT, PERFORMANCE BY HIM OF HIS LAWFUL DUTY." 
278 U.S. 358 AT 363. 

OF COURSE, TO JAIL ONE FOR A CONTEMPT FOR OMITTING AN ACT HE IS
POWERLESS TO PERFORM WOULD REVERSE THIS PRINCIPLE AND MAKE THE
PROCEEDING PURELY PUNITIVE, TO DESCRIBE IT CHARITABLY.  AT THE SAME
TIME, IT WOULD ADD NOTHING TO THE BANKRUPT ESTATE.  THAT THIS COURT IN
THE ORIEL CASE CONTEMPLATED NO SUCH RESULT APPEARS FROM LANGUAGE WHICH
IT BORROWED FROM A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OPINION WHICH, AFTER
POINTING OUT THAT CONFINEMENT OFTEN FAILED TO PRODUCE THE MONEY OR
GOODS, SAID, "'WHERE IT HAS FAILED, AND WHERE A REASONABLE INTERVAL OF
TIME HAS SUPPLIED THE PREVIOUS DEFECT IN THE EVIDENCE, AND HAS MADE
SUFFICIENTLY CERTAIN WHAT WAS DOUBTFUL BEFORE, NAMELY, THE BANKRUPT'S
INABILITY TO OBEY THE ORDER, HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN RELEASED, AND I NEED
HARDLY SAY THAT HE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RELEASED, AS SOON
AS THE FACT BECOMES CLEAR THAT HE CAN NOT OBEY.'"  FN4  MOREOVER, THE
AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON IN CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT'S OPINION  FN5 MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT HIS DECISION DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT A COERCIVE CONTEMPT
ORDER SHOULD ISSUE WHEN IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS AT THAT TIME NO WILFUL
DISOBEDIENCE BUT ONLY AN INCAPACITY TO COMPLY.  FN6  INDEED, THE
QUOTATION FROM IN RE EPSTEIN, CITED SUPRA (NOTE 4), ALSO STATED AT P.
569:  "IN THE PENDING CASE, OR IN ANY OTHER, THE COURT MAY BELIEVE THE
BANKRUPT'S ASSERTION THAT HE IS NOT NOW IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THE
MONEY OR THE GOODS, AND IN THAT EVENT THE CIVIL INQUIRY IS AT AN END
...  "  FN7    THE SOURCE OF DIFFICULTIES IN THESE CASES HAS BEEN THAT
IN THE TWO SUCCESSIVE PROCEEDINGS THE SAME QUESTION OF POSSESSION AND
ABILITY TO PRODUCE THE GOODS OR THEIR PROCEEDS IS AT ISSUE, BUT AS OF
DIFFERENT POINTS OF TIME.  THE EARLIER ORDER MAY NOT BE IMPEACHED,
AVOIDED OR ATTACKED IN THE LATER PROCEEDINGS AND NO RELIEF CAN BE
SOUGHT AGAINST ITS COMMAND.  BUT WHEN THE TRUSTEE INSTITUTES THE LATER
PROCEEDING TO COMMIT, HE TENDERS THE ISSUE AS TO PRESENT WILFUL
DISOBEDIENCE, AGAINST WHICH THE COURT IS ASKED TO DIRECT ITS
SANCTIONS.  THE LATTER ISSUE MUST BE TRIED JUST AS ANY OTHER ISSUE, AND
THE COURT IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDER ALL EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO IT.  THE
TURNOVER ORDER ADJUDGES THE DEFENDANT TO BE IN POSSESSION AT THE DATE
OF ITS INQUIRY, BUT DOES IT ALSO CUT OFF EVIDENCE AS TO NON-POSSESSION
AT THE LATER TIME?  THUS, THE REAL PROBLEM CONCERNS THE EVIDENCE
ADMISSIBLE IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  OF COURSE WE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO
LAY DOWN A COMPREHENSIVE OR DETAILED SET OF RULES ON THIS SUBJECT. 
THEY WILL HAVE TO BE FORMULATED AS SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE CASES PRESENT
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM. 

IN ORIEL'S CASE, THIS COURT SAID:  "  ...  ON THE MOTION FOR
COMMITMENT THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED IS THE EVIDENCE OF
SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE TURNOVER ORDER WAS MADE SHOWING
THAT SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAS NEWLY ARISEN AN INABILITY ON THE PART OF
THE BANKRUPT TO COMPLY WITH THE TURNOVER ORDER."  THIS LANGUAGE THE
COURT OF APPEALS HAS CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT THE ACCUSED CAN OFFER NO
EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE DOES NOT NOW HAVE THE GOODS IF THAT EVIDENCE,
IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING OF WHEN AND HOW HE DISPOSED OF
THE GOODS, MIGHT TEND TO INDICATE THAT HE NEVER HAD THEM AND HENCE TO
CONTRADICT FINDINGS OF THE TURNOVER ORDER ITSELF.  WE AGREE WITH THE
COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE TURNOVER ORDER MAY NOT BE ATTACKED IN THE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE IT IS RES JUDICATA ON THIS ISSUE OF
POSSESSION AT THE TIME AS OF WHICH IT SPEAKS.  BUT APPLICATION OF THAT
RULE IN THESE CIVIL CONTEMPT CASES MEANS ONLY THAT THE BANKRUPT,
CONFRONTED BY THE ORDER ESTABLISHING PRIOR POSSESSION, AT A TIME WHEN
CONTINUANCE THEREOF IS THE REASONABLE INFERENCE, IS THEREBY CONFRONTED
BY A PRIMA FACIE CASE WHICH HE CAN SUCCESSFULLY MEET ONLY WITH A
SHOWING OF PRESENT INABILITY TO COMPLY.  HE CANNOT CHALLENGE THE
PREVIOUS ADJUDICATION OF POSSESSION, BUT THAT DOES NOT PREVENT HIM FROM
ESTABLISHING LACK OF PRESENT POSSESSION.  OF COURSE, IF HE OFFERS NO
EVIDENCE AS TO HIS INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE TURNOVER ORDER, OR
STANDS MUTE, HE DOES NOT MEET THE ISSUE.  NOR DOES HE DO SO BY EVIDENCE
OR BY HIS OWN DENIALS WHICH THE COURT FINDS INCREDIBLE IN CONTEXT. 
FN8 

BUT THE BANKRUPT MAY BE PERMITTED TO DENY HIS PRESENT POSSESSION AND
TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCE OF PRESENT CONDITIONS OR INTERVENING EVENTS WHICH
CORROBORATE HIM.  THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS DENIAL IS TO BE WEIGHED IN THE
LIGHT OF HIS PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT IS EVERYWHERE ADMITTED THAT
EVEN IF HE IS COMMITTED, HE WILL NOT BE HELD IN JAIL FOREVER IF HE DOES
NOT COMPLY.  HIS DENIAL OF POSSESSION IS GIVEN CREDIT AFTER
DEMONSTRATION THAT A PERIOD IN PRISON DOES NOT PRODUCE THE GOODS.  THE
FACT THAT HE HAS BEEN UNDER THE SHADOW OF PRISON GATES MAY BE ENOUGH,
COUPLED WITH HIS DENIAL AND THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE MENTIONED ABOVE, TO
CONVINCE THE COURT THAT HIS IS NOT A WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE WHICH WILL
YIELD TO COERCION. 

THE TRIAL COURT IS OBLIGED TO WEIGH NOT MERELY THE TWO FACTS, THAT A
TURNOVER ORDER HAS ISSUED AND THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN OBEYED, BUT ALL THE
EVIDENCE PROPERLY BEFORE IT IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING IN DETERMINING
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ACTUALLY A PRESENT ABILITY TO COMPLY AND
WHETHER FAILURE SO TO DO CONSTITUTES DELIBERATE DEFIANCE WHICH A JAIL
TERM WILL BREAK. 

THIS DUTY HAS NOWHERE BEEN MORE CLEARLY EXPRESSED THAN IN THE ORIEL
CASE:  FN9  "  ...  THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, OF COURSE, OF ERROR AND
HARDSHIP, BUT THE CONSCIENCE OF JUDGES IN WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE UNDER A
CLEAR PERCEPTION OF THE CONSEQUENCES, TOGETHER WITH THE OPPORTUNITY OF
APPEAL AND REVIEW, IF PROPERLY TAKEN, WILL RESTRAIN THE COURTS FROM
RECKLESSNESS OF BANKRUPT'S RIGHTS ON THE ONE HAND AND PREVENT THE
BANKRUPT FROM FLOUTING THE LAW ON THE OTHER.  ...  " 

SUCH A CAREFUL BALANCING WAS SAID TO BE REQUIRED IN TURNOVER
PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE "COERCIVE METHODS BY IMPRISONMENT ARE PROBABLE AND
ARE FORESHADOWED."  FN10  CERTAINLY THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRE AS
CAREFUL AND CONSCIENTIOUS WEIGHING OF THE EVIDENCE RELEVANT IN THE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  AT THAT STAGE, IMPRISONMENT IS NOT ONLY PROBABLE
AND FORESHADOWED - IT IS IMMINENT.  AND, WITHOUT SUCH A WEIGHING, IT
BECOMES INEVITABLE. 

 V. 

WE DEAL HERE WITH A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS PERSUADED
THAT THE BANKRUPT'S DISOBEDIENCE WAS NOT WILFUL.  IT APPEARS, HOWEVER,
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT, IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, WEIGH AND
EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT BUT FELT BOUND ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY TO
ORDER MAGGIO'S COMMITMENT IN DEFERENCE TO CLEAR PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  MOREOVER, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
COMMITMENT ORDER ALTHOUGH IT WAS CONVINCED THAT MAGGIO WAS NOT
DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING BUT HAD ESTABLISHED HIS CONTENTION THAT HE WAS
UNABLE TO COMPLY.  ON SUCH FINDINGS THE ORIEL CASE WOULD REQUIRE
MAGGIO'S DISCHARGE EVEN IF HE WERE ALREADY IN JAIL.  IT IS HARDLY
CONSISTENT WITH THAT CASE, OR WITH GOOD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, TO
ORDER HIS COMMITMENT ON FINDINGS THAT REQUIRE HIS IMMEDIATE RELEASE. 

WHEN SUCH A MISAPPREHENSION OF THE LAW HAS LED BOTH COURTS BELOW TO
ADJUDICATE RIGHTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING ESSENTIAL FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF
THE CONTROLLING LAW, THIS COURT WILL VACATE THE JUDGMENTS AND REMAND
THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH
THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THIS COURT'S OPINION.  MANUFACTURERS'
FINANCE CO. V. MCKEY, 294 U.S. 442, 453, GERDES V. LUSTGARTEN, 266 U.S.
321, 327, AND CASES CITED.  FN11  THAT PRACTICE IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS
CASE IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HEREIN CONCERNING THE JUDGMENTS
BELOW.  VACATED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THE COURT OF APPEALS ITSELF SAID:  "  ...  THE SUPREME COURT HAS
NEVER DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE FICTITIOUS 'PRESUMPTION' HERE INVOKED. 
... "  157 F.2D 951, 954. 

FN2  OTHER CIRCUITS HAVE TREATED THE PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUED
POSSESSION AS ONE WHICH "GROWS WEAKER AS TIME PASSES, UNTIL IT FINALLY
CEASES TO EXIST" (C.C.A.8TH IN MARIN V. ELLIS, 15 F.2D 321) AND AS ONE
"ONLY AS STRONG AS THE NATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMITS" AND WHICH
"LOSES ITS FORCE AND EFFECT AS TIME INTERVENES AND AS CIRCUMSTANCES
INDICATE THAT THE BANKRUPT IS NO LONGER IN POSSESSION OF THE MISSING
GOODS OR THEIR PROCEEDS" (C.C.A.4TH IN BRUNE V. FRAIDIN, 149 F.2D
325).  SEE ALSO COMMENTS IN 95 U. OF PA. L. REV. 789(1947) AND 42 ILL.
L. REV. 396(1947). 

FN3  FOR EXAMPLES OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS, SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 12(3); SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 78(U)(C); PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 79(R)(D); COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 409(D);
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 161(2); FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 49; ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF
1946, 5 U.S.C. 1946 ED. SEC. 1005(C); AND ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1946, 42
U.S.C.A. (1947 SUPP.) SEC. 1816(D). 

FN4  278 U.S. 358, 366, QUOTING FROM IN RE EPSTEIN (CITED AS EPSTEIN
V. STEINFELD), 206 F. 568, 570. 

FN5  278 U.S. 358, 364. 

FN6  THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID "  ...  THE FOLLOWING SEEM TO US TO
LAY DOWN MORE NEARLY THE CORRECT VIEW," AND CITED TOPLITZ V. WALSER, 27
F.2D 196, A CONTEMPT CASE IN WHICH IT IS SAID (AT P. 197) "THE SOLE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE BANKRUPT IS PRESENTLY ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE
TURNOVER ORDER PREVIOUSLY MADE AND, ACCORDINGLY, WHETHER HE IS
DISOBEYING THAT ORDER  ...  "; EPSTEIN V. STEINFELD, 210 F. 236, A
TURNOVER PROCEEDING, IN WHICH THE COURT DELINEATES BOTH TURNOVER AND
CONTEMPT PROCEDURES AND STATES THAT A CONTEMPT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE
ISSUED UNLESS THERE IS PRESENT ABILITY TO COMPLY; SCHMID V. ROSENTHAL,
230 F. 818, A TURNOVER CASE, CITING EPSTEIN V. STEINFELD, SUPRA;
FREDERICK V. SILVERMAN, 250 F. 75, A CONTEMPT CASE, RECITING THE
NECESSITY FOR PRESENT ABILITY TO COMPLY; REARDON V. PENSONEAU, 18 F.2D
244, A CONTEMPT CASE, HOLDING THE EVIDENCE THERE INSUFFICIENT TO
ESTABLISH PRESENT INABILITY TO COMPLY; UNITED STATES EX REL. PALEAIS V.
MOORE, 294 F. 852, INVOLVING A COMMITMENT FOR CONTEMPT, STATING "  ...
THE COURT SHOULD BE SATISFIED OF THE PRESENT ABILITY OF THE BANKRUPT TO
COMPLY  ...  "; IN RE FRANKEL, 184 F. 539, A CONTEMPT CASE IN WHICH THE
EVIDENCE WAS HELD INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW PRESENT INABILITY TO COMPLY;
DRAKEFORD V. ADAMS, 98 GA. 722, 25 S.E. 833, A STATE CONTEMPT CASE
REQUIRING PRESENT ABILITY TO COMPLY TO BE "CLEARLY AND SATISFACTORILY
ESTABLISHED"; AND COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY (GILBERT'S ED., 1927) 652.  THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THESE AUTHORITIES SEEMS CLEARLY TO BE THAT, WHILE
A BANKRUPT'S DENIAL OF PRESENT POSSESSION, STANDING ALONE, MAY NOT BE
SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE PROPERTY OR ITS
PROCEEDS, IF THE COURT IS SATISFIED, FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE PROPERLY
BEFORE IT, THAT THE BANKRUPT HAS NOT THE PRESENT ABILITY TO COMPLY, THE
COMMITMENT ORDER SHOULD NOT ISSUE. 

OTHER DECISIONS ARE TO THE SAME EFFECT.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, AMERICAN
TRUST CO. V. WALLIS, 126 F. 464; SAMEL V. DODD, 142 F. 68, CERT. DEN. 
201 U.S. 646; IN RE NISENSON, 182 F. 912; IN RE HOLDEN, 203 F. 229,
CERT. DEN.  229 U.S. 621; IN RE MCNAUGHT, 225 F. 511; DITTMAR V.
MICHELSON, 281 F. 116; IN RE DAVISON, 143 F. 673; IN RE MARKS, 176 F.
1018; IN RE ELIAS, 240 F. 448; FREED V. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF ILLINOIS,
215 F. 873; IN RE NEVIN, 278 F. 601; JOHNSON V. GOLDSTEIN, 11 F.2D 702;
IN RE MAGEN, 14 F.2D 469; ID., 18 F.2D 288; IN RE WALT, 17 F.2D 588;
CLARK V. MILENS, 28 F.2D 457; BERKOWER V. MIELZINER, 29 F.2D 65, CERT.
DEN.  279 U.S. 848; IN RE TABAK, 34 F.2D 209; IN RE WEISBERGER, 43 F.2D
258.  SEE ALSO COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  PP. 244-249; 2 ID. PP.
535-542; 5 REMINGTON, BANKRUPTCY (4TH ED.)  PP. 624-681; 8 C.J.S. PP.
681-686; 6 AM. JUR.  SEC.  369, PP. 752-753. 

FN7  SIMILARLY, THE FOLLOWING CASES INVOLVING CONTEMPT ORDERS FOR
FAILURE TO PAY ALIMONY WERE CITED (278 U.S. AT 365) AS ILLUSTRATING
RULES OF EVIDENCE CONCERNING ABILITY TO COMPLY, "MUCH THE SAME AS ARE
HERE LAID DOWN FOR BANKRUPTCY":  SMILEY V. SMILEY, 99 WASH. 577, 169 P.
962, AFFIDAVIT AS TO LACK OF ABILITY TO COMPLY BEING UNDENIED,
COMMITMENT FOR CONTEMPT BY FAILURE TO PAY HELD ERRONEOUS; BARTON V.
BARTON, 99 KAN. 727, 163 P. 179, EVIDENCE HELD SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY
COMMITMENT ALTHOUGH IT IS SAID "  ...  THE DEFENDANT CAN NOT, OF
COURSE, BE COMMITTED FOR THE FAILURE TO DO SOMETHING WHICH IS BEYOND
HIS POWER.  ...  "; IN RE VON GERZABEK, 58 CAL. APP. 230, 208 P. 318, A
SHOWING OF INABILITY TO COMPLY SAID TO BE "THE MOST EFFECTUAL ANSWER"
TO A CONTEMPT ORDER; HURD V. HURD, 63 MINN. 443, 65 N.W. 728,
HEFLEBOWER V. HEFLEBOWER, 102 OHIO ST. 674, 133 N.E. 455, AND FOWLER V.
FOWLER, 61 OKLA. 280, 161 P. 227, DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO
ESTABLISH INABILITY TO COMPLY WHICH WOULD HAVE PREVENTED COMMITMENT. 

FN8  THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE CASES CITED IN THE ORIEL
CASE AS LAYING DOWN "MORE NEARLY THE CORRECT VIEW."  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA.
OF COURSE CASES SUCH AS GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES (233 U.S. 604),
MICHAELSON V. UNITED STATES (266 U.S. 42), PENDERGAST V. UNITED STATES
(317 U.S. 412) AND COOKE V. UNITED STATES (267 U.S. 517), ALL INVOLVING
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CHARGES, ARE OF NO RELEVANCE HERE, AS WE DEAL ONLY
WITH CIVIL CONTEMPTS.  SEE TEXT, P. 10. 

FN9  278 U.S. AT 364. 

FN10  278 U.S. AT 363. 

FN11  CF. KAY V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 1, 10; PRAIRIE FARMER
PUBLISHING CO. V. INDIANA FARMER'S PUB. CO., 299 U.S. 156, 159;
BUZYNSKI V. LUCKENBACH S.S.CO., 277 U.S. 226, 228. 

SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
CONCURS. 

AUGUST 9, 1943, THE REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD
POSSESSION OF CERTAIN MERCHANDISE BELONGING TO A BANKRUPT CORPORATION
AND ORDERED HIM TO TURN IT OR THE PROCEEDS OVER TO THE BANKRUPTCY
TRUSTEE.  IN THESE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS (APRIL 18, 1945) THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO PROVE HE NO LONGER HAD
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, AND ORDERED HIM TO BE HELD IN JAIL UNTIL HE
DELIVERED THE PROPERTY OR ITS PROCEEDS TO THE TRUSTEE. 

HAD THE PETITIONER BEEN CHARGED WITH EMBEZZLING THIS SAME PROPERTY
AFTER THE 1943 TURNOVER ORDER, DOUBTLESS NO ONE WOULD EVEN ARGUE THAT A
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA BARRED HIM FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE TO SHOW
THAT THE TURNOVER FINDINGS OF POSSESSION WERE WRONG, AND THAT IN TRUTH
HE DID NOT HAVE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS PROCEEDS EITHER ON,
BEFORE, OR AFTER AUGUST 9, 1943, OR APRIL 18, 1945.  ONE BASIC REASON
WHY THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN A TURNOVER PROCEEDING WOULD NOT BE RES
JUDICATA IN AN EMBEZZLEMENT PROCEEDING IS THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS
DIFFERENT IN THE TWO TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS.  IN THE FIRST, A TURNOVER
PROCEEDING, "CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF" IS ENOUGH; IN THE SECOND,
EMBEZZLEMENT, "PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" IS REQUIRED.  THE
BURDEN OF PROOF IS HEAVIER IN THE EMBEZZLEMENT CASE BECAUSE A JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION MAY EMBODY A CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT, WHILE A TURNOVER
JUDGMENT DOES NOT - IT IS MERELY AN ORDER FOR THE SURRENDER OF
PROPERTY, SIMILAR TO AN ORDER OF DELIVERY IN A REPLEVIN SUIT. 

THERE IS NO SUCH REASON FOR DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS OF PROOF IN
CONTEMPT AND EMBEZZLEMENT CASES; CONSEQUENTIALLY, THE TWO ARE ALMOST
IDENTICAL.  FINE, IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH CAN RESULT FROM A CONVICTION OF
EITHER.  HERE IF THIS CONTEMPT JUDGMENT IS CARRIED OUT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER, HE MIGHT BE COMPELLED TO REMAIN IN PRISON LONGER THAN HE
WOULD HAD HE BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED ON A CHARGE OF EMBEZZLEMENT. 
IT IS TRUE THAT, IF THE COURT WAS CORRECT IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER
HAD POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS PROCEEDS (AND IF HE STILL HAS
IT), HE CARRIES THE KEYS OF THE JAIL IN HIS POCKET, BECAUSE HE CAN TURN
THE PROPERTY OR PROCEEDS OVER TO THE TRUSTEE AT ANY TIME AND THUS GET
HIS FREEDOM.  THE CRUCIAL QUESTION TO PETITIONER IN THIS CONTEMPT
PROCEEDING WAS WHETHER HE HAD POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS
PROCEEDS JUNE 5, 1945.  AND THAT CRUCIAL QUESTION WAS DECIDED AGAINST
PETITIONER BY THE TRIAL COURT WITHOUT HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS
SUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PETITIONER STILL HAD
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.    I AM UNWILLING TO AGREE TO APPLICATION
OF A DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA THAT RESULTS IN SENDING PEOPLE TO JAIL
FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT UPON A MEASURE OF PROOF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS
THAT WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE RENDITION OF A CIVIL JUDGMENT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF ON A PROMISSORY NOTE, AN OPEN ACCOUNT, OR SOME OTHER DEBT. 
ALL COURT PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER DESIGNATED AS CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
OF COURT OR GIVEN SOME OTHER NAME, WHICH MAY RESULT IN FINE, PRISON
SENTENCES, OR BOTH, SHOULD IN MY JUDGMENT REQUIRE THE SAME MEASURE OF
PROOF, AND THAT MEASURE SHOULD BE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  SEE
GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 604, 610-611; MICHAELSON V. UNITED
STATES, 266 U.S. 42, 66-67; PENDERGAST V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 412,
417-418. 

THE FOREGOING IS WRITTEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE TURNOVER-CONTEMPT
PROCEDURE IS LEGAL, AN ASSUMPTION WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT.  I SHARE THE
OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THIS PROCEDURE IS
UNAUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE THE
PLACE OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR FRAUD AS APPARENTLY WAS DONE HERE. 
FN1 THIS WHOLE PROCEDURE SAVORS TOO MUCH OF THE OLD DISCREDITED
PRACTICE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBTS - DEBTS WHICH PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO
PAY.  FOR HERE, IF PETITIONER DID WRONGFULLY DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY,
WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS GUILTY OF A CRIME, HE WAS PROBABLY LIABLE IN SOME
SORT OF CIVIL ACTION, BASICALLY SIMILAR TO, IF NOT ACTUALLY, ONE FOR
DEBT.  HAD A JUDGMENT BEEN OBTAINED AGAINST HIM IN SUCH A CIVIL CASE, I
DOUBT IF IT WOULD BE THOUGHT AT THIS PERIOD THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
COULD HAVE THROWN PETITIONER IN JAIL FOR HIS FAILURE TO OBEY WHAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT A COURT ORDER TO PAY THE DEBT EMBODIED IN THE
JUDGMENT. 

FURTHERMORE, THE FINDING OF POSSESSION OF THE MERCHANDISE AS OF 1943
MAY REST ON AN EVIDENTIAL FOUNDATION FIRM ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A CIVIL
TURNOVER ORDER BUT IT IS TOO SHAKY TO SUPPORT A SENTENCE TO PRISON. 
ACCEPTING THAT FINDING, HOWEVER, THE PRESUMPTION OF PRESENT OR 1945
POSSESSION FROM THE POSSIBLE 1941 OR 1943 POSSESSION ACHIEVES A
PROCEDURAL RESULT WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO BASIC PRACTICES IN OUR SYSTEM
OF LAWS.  FOR AS THE DISTRICT COURT SAID, IT GAVE THE PROSECUTION THE
ADVANTAGE OF A "PRESUMPTION" WHICH, OF ITSELF, WAS HELD TO RELIEVE IT
FROM OFFERING FURTHER PROOF OF PETITIONER'S GUILT IN A CASE WHERE
FORFEITURE OF HIS PERSONAL LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WAS SOUGHT; IT THREW
UPON THE PETITIONER THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIS INNOCENCE.  FN2 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, AMONG OTHERS, I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DIRECTIONS THAT THE PETITIONER BE
RELEASED AND THAT NO FURTHER CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS BE INSTITUTED AGAINST
HIM BASED ON HIS REFUSAL TO OBEY THE TURNOVER ORDER. 

FN1  "WE WOULD HOLD THAT A TURNOVER PROCEEDING MAY NOT, VIA A
FICTION, BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION SO AS TO DEPRIVE A
MAN OF A BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.  WE
WOULD NOTE, TOO, THAT ONE CONSEQUENCE OF THE FICTION IS THAT THE
RESPONDENT MAY BE TWICE PUNISHED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, SINCE, IF HE IS
LATER INDICTED FOR VIOLATION OF 11 U.S.C.A. SEC. 52(B), HIS
IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT WILL NOT SERVE AS A DEFENSE.  WE WOULD ADD
THAT NOWHERE IN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT HAS CONGRESS EVEN INTIMATED AN
INTENTION TO AUTHORIZE SUCH RESULTS, AND THAT THEY STEM SOLELY FROM A
JUDGE-MADE GLOSS ON THE STATUTE."  IN RE LUMA CAMERA SERVICE, 157 F.2D
951, 953-954. 

FN2  IN HOLDING PETITIONER IN CONTEMPT, THE DISTRICT COURT SAID:
"RESPONDENT HAS NOT SUSTAINED HIS BURDEN OF SATISFACTORILY ACCOUNTING
FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE ASSETS BY HIS MERE DENIAL OF POSSESSION
UNDER OATH."  IT THEN MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF FACT:  "4.  THE
RESPONDENT, JOSEPH F. MAGGIO, HAS WHOLLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SAID
TURNOVER ORDER, AND HE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THIS COURT HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE RARE CASES WHERE I FIND MYSELF IN SUBSTANTIAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE DIRECTION AND MAIN VIEWS OF AN OPINION, BUT AM
THEREBY LED TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  TOO OFTEN WE ARE CALLED UPON TO
DISENTANGLE A SNARLED SKEIN OF FACTS INTO A THREAD OF LEGAL
PRINCIPLES.  IN THIS CASE, THE COURT'S OPINION SEEMS TO ME TO SNARL A
STRAIGHT THREAD OF FACTS INTO A CONFUSING SKEIN OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES. 
IT WAS THE RECORD IN A PRIOR CASE INVOLVING THE SAME LITIGANTS THAT
INVITED CORRECTION OF A RULE OF BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION IN THE SECOND
CIRCUIT.  WE DENIED REVIEW.  FN1 THE RECORD IN THIS CASE PRECLUDES SUCH
CORRECTION, BUT THE COURT'S OPINION IS AN EFFORT TO WHIP THE DEVIL
ROUND THE STUMP. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION BEFORE US MAY BE SIMPLY STATED.  THE DISTRICT
COURT ORDERED THE BANKRUPT TO TURN OVER GOODS WITHHELD BY HIM FROM THE
TRUSTEE.  ON THE BASIS OF TWO PRIOR CASES,  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THIS ORDER, PER CURIAM.  145 F.2D 241.  THESE EARLIER
CASES IN TURN RELIED ON A PREVIOUS CASE.  FN3  ALL THREE ENFORCED A
RULE OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT THAT GOODS IN THE POSSESSION OF A BANKRUPT
ON THE DAY OF BANKRUPTCY ARE PRESUMED TO CONTINUE IN HIS POSSESSION
REGARDLESS OF THE TIME THAT MAY HAVE ELAPSED.  IN ALL THREE CASES, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD AFFIRMED THE TURNOVER ORDERS ALTHOUGH IT
WAS MAINTAINED THAT THE BANKRUPTS COULD NOT OBEY THEM.  FN4  LIKEWISE,
IN ALL THREE CASES, THAT COURT HAD DECLARED ITS IMPOTENCE TO CHANGE
WHAT IT REGARDED AS AN UNTENABLE RULE OF BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION,
ALTHOUGH FASHIONED BY IT AND NOT BY THIS COURT.  FN5  IN ALMOST
IMPRECATING LANGUAGE REVIEW AND REVERSAL BY THIS COURT IN THESE CASES
WERE INVITED N6.  IN ONE OF THESE CASES, THE BANKRUPT FILED A PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI, WHICH THIS COURT DENIED.  FN7  THEN CAME THE PRIOR CASE
INVOLVING THE LITIGANTS NOW BEFORE US, WITH THIS COURT'S REFUSAL TO
REVIEW THE TURNOVER ORDER.  TO BE SURE, THE DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI CARRIES NO SUBSTANTIVE IMPLICATIONS.  REFERENCE TO IT HERE
IS RELEVANT AS PROOF OF THE FINALITY WITH WHICH THE TURNOVER ORDER, AS
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WAS INVESTED. 

IN ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358, A UNANIMOUS BENCH, INCLUDING IN
ITS MEMBERSHIP JUDGES OF WIDE EXPERIENCE WITH BANKRUPTCY LAW,  FN8
HELD THAT UPON A CITATION FOR CONTEMPT TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE OF A
TURNOVER ORDER THE ISSUES ADJUDICATED BY THAT ORDER COULD NOT BE
RELITIGATED.  THAT CASE DECIDED NOTHING IF IT DID NOT DECIDE THAT WHAT
THE TURNOVER ORDER ADJUDICATED - THAT THE BANKRUPT WITHHELD CERTAIN
PROPERTY FROM THE BANKRUPT ESTATE AND WAS STILL IN CONTROL OF THIS
PROPERTY ON THE DAY HE WAS ORDERED TO TURN IT OVER - IS THE DEFINITIVE
STARTING POINT FOR CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS TO EXACT OBEDIENCE TO THE
TURNOVER ORDER.  IN SHORT, THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS MUST PROCEED FROM
THE TURNOVER ORDER AND CANNOT GO BEHIND IT.  WE SHOULD NOT IGNORE THIS
RELEVANT SENTENCE IN ORIEL V. RUSSELL:  "THEREAFTER ON THE MOTION FOR
COMMITMENT THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED IS THE EVIDENCE OF
SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE TURNOVER ORDER WAS MADE SHOWING
THAT SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAS NEWLY ARISEN AN INABILITY ON THE PART OF
THE BANKRUPT TO COMPLY WITH THE TURNOVER ORDER."  FN9 

THE COURT TODAY REAFFIRMS ORIEL V. RUSSELL.  AT THE SAME TIME IT
MAKES INROAD ON THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ORIEL V. RUSSELL.  ON
VIRTUALLY AN IDENTICAL RECORD  FN10  IT REVERSES WHERE ORIEL V. RUSSELL
AFFIRMED.  THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE INROAD ARE UNCERTAIN BECAUSE THE
COURT'S OPINION, TO THE BEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, LEAVES UNDEFINED HOW
THE DISTRICT COURT IS TO RESPECT BOTH ORIEL V. RUSSELL AND TODAY'S
DECISION. 

ABOUT SOME ASPECTS OF OUR PROBLEM THERE OUGHT TO BE NO DISPUTE.  WE
ARE ALL AGREED THAT WHILE THE BANKRUPT CANNOT RELITIGATE THE
DETERMINATION OF A TURNOVER ORDER THAT HE HAD SUCH AND SUCH GOODS ON
THE DAY OF THE ORDER, HE CAN AVOID THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO THAT ORDER
IF HE "CAN SHOW A CHANGE OF SITUATION AFTER THE TURNOVER ORDER
RELIEVING HIM FROM COMPLIANCE."  FN11  THE RIGHT TO BE RELIEVED FROM
OBEYING THE TURNOVER ORDER BY SUSTAINING THE BURDEN OF INABILITY TO
PERFORM, ON PROOF OF CIRCUMSTANCES NOT QUESTIONING THE TURNOVER ORDER,
HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED.  AGAIN, IF A JUDGMENT OF CIVIL CONTEMPT IS
RENDERED AND THE BANKRUPT IS SENT TO JAIL UNTIL HE CHOOSES TO OBEY THE
COURT'S COMMAND, HE WILL NOT BE KEPT THERE WHEN KEEPING HIM NO LONGER
GIVES PROMISE OF PERFORMANCE.  ORIEL V. RUSSELL SO PRONOUNCED.  FN12 

AND SO, SINCE THE FACT THAT THE BANKRUPT HAD POSSESSION OF THE GOODS
ON THE DAY OF THE TURNOVER ORDER IS A FACT THAT CANNOT BE CONTROVERTED
OR RELITIGATED BECAUSE HIS POSSESSION OF THE GOODS ON THAT DAY WAS THE
VERY THING ADJUDICATED, THE CASE REDUCES ITSELF TO THIS SIMPLE
QUESTION:  WHERE, ON FAILURE TO OBEY THE TURNOVER ORDER, THE BANKRUPT
STANDS MUTE, OFFERS NO EVIDENCE AS TO A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE
THE ORDER OR OFFERS EVIDENCE OF A KIND WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT MAY
JUSTIFIABLY DISBELIEVE, HAS HE MET HIS BURDEN OF PROOF SO AS TO
PRECLUDE THE DISTRICT COURT FROM ENFORCING OBEDIENCE BY COMMITMENT FOR
CIVIL CONTEMPT? 

ON THE RECORD AND THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT THIS IS THE
PRECISE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED.  THERE IS NOTHING ELSE IN THE RECORD,
EXCEPT JUDGE FRANK'S STATEMENT BELOW THAT THE BANKRUPT WAS ORDERED TO
PERFORM ALTHOUGH THE COURT KNEW THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO
PERFORM.  FN13  BUT THIS ASSERTION OF "IMPOSSIBILITY" WAS NOT DERIVED
FROM THE RECORD IN THESE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  IT DERIVES FROM JUDGE
FRANK'S FAMILIAR HOSTILITY TO WHAT HE DEEMS THE UNFAIRNESS OF HIS
COURT'S RULE OF PRESUMPTION IN ORDERING TURNOVER.  FN14  JUDGE FRANK
HERE MERELY REPEATS HIS CONVICTION THAT A TURNOVER ORDER LIKE THAT
RENDERED AGAINST MAGGIO IS AN ORDER TO TURN OVER GOODS WHICH COULD NOT
BE TURNED OVER.  BUT THAT WAS WATER OVER THE DAM IN THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDING.  TO GIVE IT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE WHEN ENFORCEMENT OF THE
TURNOVER ORDER IS IN ISSUE IS TO UTTER CONTRADICTORY THINGS FROM THE
TWO CORNERS OF THE MOUTH.  IT IS SAYING THAT THE TURNOVER ORDER CANNOT
BE RELITIGATED - THAT WE CANNOT GO BACK ON THE ADJUDICATION THAT THE
BANKRUPT HAD THE GOODS AT THE TIME HE WAS ORDERED TO TURN THEM OVER -
BUT WE KNOW HE DID NOT HAVE THE GOODS, SO WE CONTRADICT THE TURNOVER
ORDER AND DO NOT RESPECT IT AS RES JUDICATA. 

I CANNOT RECONCILE MYSELF TO SAYING THAT WE ADHERE TO ORIEL V.
RUSSELL AND YET REJECT ITS ONLY MEANING, NAMELY, THAT WE CANNOT GO
BEHIND THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION MADE BY THE TURNOVER ORDER THAT THE
BANKRUPT ON SUCH AND SUCH A DAY HAD THE ENUMERATED GOODS.  MOREOVER,
THE AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON IN CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT'S OPINION  FN15  MAKE
IT CLEAR THAT HIS DECISION DID CONTEMPLATE THAT A COERCIVE CONTEMPT
ORDER SHOULD ISSUE WHEN IT APPEARS THAT THE BANKRUPT HAS INTRODUCED NO
EVIDENCE OR, WHAT IS THE SAME, EVIDENCE THAT MAY PROPERLY NOT SATISFY
THE DISTRICT COURT BY ESTABLISHING INCAPACITY TO COMPLY SINCE THE
TURNOVER ORDER.  FN16  IN THIS CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ENTIRELY
WARRANTED IN FINDING THAT THE BANKRUPT HAD PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE TO
CONTRADICT THE ADJUDICATION OF THE TURNOVER ORDER THAT HE HAD THE GOODS
WHEN HE WAS TOLD TO TURN THEM OVER, UNLESS, IN PLACE OF WHAT IS USUALLY
DEEMED EVIDENCE, AN INFIRMITY HAS BEEN FOUND TO SEEP, BY A PROCESS OF
OSMOSIS, INTO THE TURNOVER ORDER RESPECT FOR WHICH IN ITS ENTIRETY IS
THE STARTING POINT OF OUR PROBLEM. 

THE TIME TO HAVE ACTED ON THE INFERENCE OF IMPOSSIBILITY OF
PERFORMANCE OF THE TURNOVER ORDER, OR TO HAVE TAKEN NOTICE OF THE
IMPRISONING RULE OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT AS TO THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONTINUED POSSESSION OF A BANKRUPT'S WITHHELD GOODS, WAS WHEN WE WERE
ASKED TO REVIEW THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' DENIGRATING AFFIRMANCE OF
THE TURNOVER ORDER.  FN17  WHEN WE DECLINED TO REVIEW THAT TURNOVER
ORDER, IT BECAME A FINAL AND BINDING ADJUDICATION.  NEITHER COURT BELOW
WAS UNDER A MISAPPREHENSION AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW IN THE INSTANT
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  THE DISTRICT COURT RELIED ON IN RE SIEGLER, 31
F.2D 972.  BUT SURELY RELIANCE ON A CASE THAT WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED IS
HARDLY AN INDICATION OF MISAPPREHENSION OF LAW.  IF THE SIEGLER
DECISION HAD PRECEDED INSTEAD OF FOLLOWED  FN18  ORIEL V. RUSSELL, IT
MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON IN CHIEF
JUSTICE TAFT'S OPINION.  FN19  NOR DO WE HAVE TO SPECULATE AS TO
WHETHER JUDGE FRANK'S CONCLUSION THAT MAGGIO WAS UNABLE TO COMPLY WAS
BASED ON EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD OR ON DOUBT AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF THE
TURNOVER ORDER.  WE HAVE THE SAME PRINTED RECORD BEFORE US THAT HE HAD
AND IT IS BARREN OF SUCH EVIDENCE.  PRESUMABLY JUDGE FRANK DID NOT
TRAVEL OUTSIDE THIS RECORD AND ACT ON UNDISCLOSED PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE. 
THE WHOLE COURSE OF THIS ISSUE IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN RECENT YEARS
MAKES IT OBVIOUS THAT HIS OBSERVATION WAS MERELY ANOTHER ANIMADVERSION
ON THAT CIRCUIT'S PRACTICE IN ISSUING TURNOVER ORDERS.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT PURPORT TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF
MAGGIO'S EVIDENCE BEARING ON HIS INCAPACITY TO OBEY THE TURNOVER
ORDER.  IT WAS BEYOND ITS POWER TO DO SO.  THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS NOT AT
LARGE.  ITS POWER WAS LIMITED TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE JUSTIFIABILITY
OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD BEFORE THAT
COURT.    THE CURE FOR THIS PROCEDURAL SITUATION, IF CURE IS CALLED
FOR, IS CORRECTION OF THE RULE OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT REGARDING
PRESUMPTIONS IN TURNOVER ORDERS.  FN20  IT OUGHT NOT TO BE DEALT WITH
INDIRECTLY AND AT THE COST OF BECLOUDING THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
IN PROCEEDINGS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT.  IF MAGGIO HAS BECOME THE UNHAPPY
VICTIM OF THE PROCEDURAL SNARL INTO WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS INVOLVED ITSELF BY ITS DECISIONS ON THE
APPEALS OF TURNOVER ORDERS AND BY THIS COURT'S REFUSAL TO REVIEW SUCH
ADJUDICATIONS, THE LAW IS NOT WITHOUT AMPLE REMEDIES.  THE DISTRICT
COURT HAS POWER TO DISCHARGE A CONTEMNOR WHEN CONFINEMENT HAS BECOME
FUTILE, OR RELEASE MAY BE HAD THROUGH USE OF HABEAS CORPUS, WHICH, IN
THE NOW CLASSIC LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, "CUTS THROUGH ALL FORMS
AND GOES TO THE VERY TISSUE OF THE STRUCTURE.  IT COMES IN FROM THE
OUTSIDE, NOT IN SUBORDINATION TO THE PROCEEDINGS  ...  " FRANK V.
MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 346.  THESE ARE MEANS AVAILABLE TO CORRECT
WHATEVER SPECIFIC HARDSHIP THIS CASE MAY PRESENT WITHOUT GENERATING
CLOUDINESS INDETERMINATE IN RANGE UPON A LEGAL PRINCIPLE OF SUCH SOCIAL
SIGNIFICANCE AS THAT OF RES JUDICATA AND UPON A REMEDY SO VITAL AS
CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR THE STURDY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

HOW IS THE CONSCIENTIOUS DISTRICT COURT TO CARRY OUT THE DIRECTIONS
CONVEYED BY THE COURT'S OPINION?  IF THE DISTRICT COURT GIVES
UNQUESTIONED RESPECT, AS IT IS TOLD TO DO, TO THE TURNOVER ORDER OF
AUGUST 9, 1943, IT WILL START WITH THE FACT THAT ON AUGUST 9, 1943, THE
BANKRUPT WAS ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THAT ORDER.  WITH THAT AS A STARTING
POINT, WILL THE DISTRICT COURT NOT BE ENTITLED TO FIND AGAIN, AS IT HAS
ALREADY FOUND,  FN21  THAT NOTHING PRESENTED BY THE BANKRUPT IN
EXCULPATION FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE TURNOVER ORDER DISPROVES THAT HE
CONTINUED TO HAVE THE PROPERTY, WHICH HE WAS FOUND TO HAVE HAD AS OF
AUGUST 9, 1943?  IF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD SO FIND, WOULD NOT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THIS COURT, IF THE CASE CAME HERE FOR
REVIEW, BE DUTY BOUND TO HOLD THAT, ON THE BASIS OF THE SITUATION AS
ADJUDICATED BY THE TURNOVER ORDER, THE DISTRICT COURT COULD REASONABLY
MAKE SUCH A FINDING?  OR IS THE DISTRICT COURT TO INFER THAT IN VIEW OF
THE SNARL INTO WHICH THESE PROCEEDINGS HAVE GOT BY REASON OF THE
FAILURE TO UPSET THE TURNOVER ORDER WHEN DIRECTLY UNDER REVIEW, THIS
COURT WAS INDULGING IN BENIGN JUDICIAL WINKING - THAT WHILE THE FACT OF
THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TURNOVER
ORDER AND COULD NOT VERBALLY BE QUESTIONED, THE DISTRICT COURT NEED NOT
ACCEPT THE DETERMINATION OF THAT ORDER AS FACTS?  BUT IF THE DISTRICT
COURT MAY SO DRAIN THE ADJUDICATION OF THE TURNOVER ORDER OF ITS ONLY
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE, WHY ASSERT THAT ORIEL V. RUSSELL IS LEFT WITHOUT A
SCRATCH?  WHY REAFFIRM THAT AN ADJUDICATION SUSTAINING A TURNOVER ORDER
MAY NOT BE RELITIGATED WHEN OBEDIENCE IS SOUGHT TO SUCH TURNOVER
ORDER?  THESE ARE QUESTIONS WHICH WILL CONFRONT NOT MERELY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE WILL BE REMANDED.  AFTER ALL, WE ARE CONCERNED
WITH THE PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BY DISTRICT
JUDGES ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES. 

BY ABSTAINING FROM EXPRESSING VIEWS REGARDING THE REQUISITES OF A
TURNOVER ORDER, I MEAN NEITHER TO AGREE NOR DISAGREE WITH OBSERVATIONS
MADE BY THE COURT.  THERE HAS BEEN OPPORTUNITY IN THE PAST FOR
ADJUDICATION OF THAT MATTER, AND THERE MAY BE SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY IN
THE FUTURE.  THIS CASE DOES NOT PRESENT IT.  FROM ALL OF WHICH I
CONCLUDE THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED, LEAVING FOR
ANOTHER DAY, WHEN THE OCCASION MAKES IT APPROPRIATE, TO CONSIDER
DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT SHOULD GOVERN THE ISSUE OF
TURNOVER ORDERS BY BANKRUPTCY COURTS.  FN22 

FN1  324 U.S. 841. 

FN2  ROBBINS V. GOTTBETTER, 134 F.2D 843, AND COHEN V. JESKOWITZ, 144
F.2D 39. 

FN3  SELIGSON V. GOLDSMITH, 128 F.2D 977. 

FN4  SELIGSON V. GOLDSMITH, 128 F.2D 977, 978-79; ROBBINS V.
GOTTBETTER, 134 F.2D 843, 844; COHEN V. JESKOWITZ, 144 F.2D 39,
41(CONCURRING OPINION OF FRANK, J.). 

FN5  PRESUMABLY, THIS AVOWED INABILITY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT TO FREE ITSELF FROM ITS OWN PRIOR
DECISION IN THIS SITUATION IS NOT THE REFLECTION OF A PRINCIPLE SIMILAR
TO THAT WHICH BINDS THE HOUSE OF LORDS TO ITS PAST PRECEDENTS.  IT MUST
BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FACT THAT THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS SIX CIRCUIT
JUDGES WHO NEVER SIT EN BANC AND THAT PRESUMABLY THEY DEEM IT
UNDESIRABLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF ONE PANEL TO HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM
THAT OF A MAJORITY OF ANOTHER PANEL. 

FN6  128 F.2D AT 979; 134 F.2D AT 844; 144 F.2D AT 40-41. 

FN7  IN THE FIRST TWO OF THESE CASES, THE BANKRUPT DID NOT SEEK
REVIEW IN THIS COURT; IN THE JESKOWITZ CASE, THE BANKRUPT TOOK THE
HINT, BUT THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI.  323 U.S. 787. 

FN8  JUDGE A. N. HAND'S OBSERVATION CONCURRING, IN THE ROBBINS CASE,
134 F.2D AT 845, IS ALSO PERTINENT:  "  ... ALL THE JUSTICES OF A COURT
OF WHICH THOSE EXCEPTIONALLY ALERT GUARDIANS OF CIVIL RIGHTS, JUSTICES
HOLMES, BRANDEIS AND STONE, WERE MEMBERS, UNANIMOUSLY CONCURRED IN THE
OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT  ...  " 

FN9  278 U.S. AT 363. 

FN10  SEE APPENDIX. 

FN11  278 U.S. AT 364. 

FN12  "'I HAVE KNOWN A BRIEF CONFINEMENT TO PRODUCE THE MONEY
PROMPTLY, THUS JUSTIFYING THE COURT'S INCREDULITY, AND I HAVE ALSO
KNOWN IT TO FAIL.  WHERE IT HAS FAILED, AND WHERE A REASONABLE INTERVAL
OF TIME HAS SUPPLIED THE PREVIOUS DEFECT IN THE EVIDENCE, AND HAS MADE
SUFFICIENTLY CERTAIN WHAT WAS DOUBTFUL BEFORE, NAMELY, THE BANKRUPT'S
INABILITY TO OBEY THE ORDER, HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN RELEASED, AND I NEED
HARDLY SAY THAT HE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RELEASED, AS SOON
AS THE FACT BECOMES CLEAR THAT HE CAN NOT OBEY.'"  278 U.S. AT 366,
QUOTING FROM JUDGE MCPHERSON'S OPINION IN IN RE EPSTEIN, 206 F. 568,
570. 

FN13  "ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THAT MAGGIO CANNOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, WE
MUST KEEP A STRAIGHT FACE AND PRETEND THAT HE CAN, AND MUST THUS AFFIRM
ORDERS WHICH FIRST DIRECT MAGGIO 'TO DO AN IMPOSSIBILITY, AND THEN
PUNISH HIM FOR REFUSAL TO PERFORM IT.'"  157 F.2D AT 955.  JUDGE FRANK
MADE THIS STATEMENT CONCERNING THE PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUED POSSESSION
IN TURNOVER ORDER PROCEEDINGS, AND WAS NOT ADDRESSING HIS REMARKS TO
THE RECORD BEFORE HIM IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  THE DICTUM BEGAN
WITH THIS SENTENCE:  "WERE THIS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION INVOLVING
THE VALIDITY OF A TURNOVER ORDER, WE WOULD NOT ACCEPT SUCH REASONING." 
157 F.2D 951, 953.  THE "THUS" IN HIS STATEMENT INDICATES HOSTILITY TO
THE BASIS OF THE TURNOVER ORDER BECAUSE OF A VIRUS WHICH THE LOWER
COURT FEELS UNABLE TO EXTRACT BUT WHICH AUTOMATICALLY INFECTS THE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS. 

FN14  "WITH THE TURNOVER ORDER ONCE SUSTAINED, THE CONTEMPT ORDER
NECESSARILY FOLLOWED."  ID. AT 954. 

FN15  278 U.S. 358, 364. 

FN16  THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID "  ...  THE FOLLOWING SEEM TO US TO LAY
DOWN MORE NEARLY THE CORRECT VIEW," AND CITED TOPLITZ V. WALSER, 27
F.2D 196, A THIRD CIRCUIT CONTEMPT CASE IN WHICH IT IS SAID (AT P. 197)
"IT THEREFORE DEVOLVES UPON THE BANKRUPT IN THE LATTER (CONTEMPT)
PROCEEDING TO SHOW HOW AND WHEN THE PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY ADJUDGED IN HIS
POSSESSION OR CONTROL HAD PASSED OUT OF HIS POSSESSION OR CONTROL  ...
THE TROUBLE WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, THE ONLY
EVIDENCE PROPERLY HERE FOR REVIEW, IS THAT IT IS DIRECTED TO THE ISSUE
OF THE BANKRUPT'S POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF PROPERTY AT THE DATE OF
BANKRUPTCY RAISED AND DEFINITELY DECIDED AGAINST HER IN THE TURNOVER
PROCEEDING  ...  THOUGH NOT IN FORM THIS IS IN SUBSTANCE A COLLATERAL
ATTACK UPON THE NOW FINALLY ESTABLISHED TURNOVER ORDER, WHICH OF COURSE
IS NOT PERMISSIBLE."  ; EPSTEIN V. STEINFELD, 210 F. 236, A TURNOVER
PROCEEDING, IN WHICH THE THIRD CIRCUIT DELINEATED ITS PROCEDURE,
DIFFERENT FROM THAT FOLLOWED IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT, WHEREBY IF THE
REFEREE FOUND A SHORTAGE AT THE TIME OF BANKRUPTCY THE TURNOVER ORDER
WAS AUTOMATICALLY ENTERED, AND THE QUESTION OF PRESENT POSSESSION OR
ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THAT ORDER WAS LEFT OPEN FOR POSSIBLE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS, THE PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUED POSSESSION BEING APPLIED IN
SUCH PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE BANKRUPT HAD TO SHOW THAT BY REASON OF
EVENTS OCCURRING SINCE THE BANKRUPTCY HE WAS UNABLE TO COMPLY (CF. IN
RE EISENBERG, 130 F.2D 160)(THIS DISTINCTION HAS NO REAL BEARING ON THE
INSTANT ISSUE AS TO EITHER COLLATERAL ATTACK OR THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONTINUED POSSESSION); SCHMID V. ROSENTHAL, 230 F. 818, A THIRD CIRCUIT
TURNOVER CASE, CITING EPSTEIN V. STEINFELD, SUPRA; FREDERICK V.
SILVERMAN, 250 F. 75, A THIRD CIRCUIT CONTEMPT CASE CITING EPSTEIN V.
STEINFELD, SUPRA; REARDON V. PENSONEAU, 18 F.2D 244, AN EIGHTH CIRCUIT
CONTEMPT CASE, HOLDING THAT THE BANKRUPT HAD NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING PRESENT INABILITY TO COMPLY, IN WHICH IT IS SAID (AT PP.
245-46) "THEY (TURNOVER ORDERS) ESTABLISH THE BANKRUPT'S POSSESSION AND
CONTROL ON THE DAY THE REFEREE'S ORDER WAS MADE.  THE BURDEN WAS ON HIM
TO SHOW WHAT DISPOSITION HAD BEEN MADE OF THE $6,900.  UNTIL THAT
SHOWING IS MADE RELIEVING HIM OF AN INTENTIONAL LOSS OF ITS POSSESSION
AND CONTROL, IT MUST BE PRESUMED THAT HE STILL HAS IT.  ...  A BANKRUPT
CANNOT ESCAPE AN ORDER FOR THE SURRENDER OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO HIS
ESTATE 'BY SIMPLY DENYING UNDER OATH THAT HE HAS IT.'"; UNITED STATES
EX REL. PALEAIS V. MOORE, 294 F. 852, A SECOND CIRCUIT HABEAS CORPUS
CASE FOLLOWING A COMMITMENT FOR CONTEMPT, STATING (AT P. 857) "IF, AT
THE TIME THE TURN-OVER ORDER WAS MADE, THE BOOKS AND PAPERS WERE IN THE
BANKRUPT'S HANDS, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THEY CONTINUED TO BE IN HIS
POSSESSION OR UNDER HIS CONTROL UNTIL HE HAS SATISFACTORILY ACCOUNTED
TO THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY FOR THEIR SUBSEQUENT DISPOSITION OR
DISAPPEARANCE.  THE BURDEN IS UPON HIM SATISFACTORILY TO SO ACCOUNT FOR
THEM.  HE CANNOT ESCAPE AN ORDER FOR THEIR SURRENDER BY SIMPLY DENYING
UNDER OATH THAT HE NO LONGER HAS THEM."; IN RE FRANKEL, 184 F. 539, A
CONTEMPT CASE IN WHICH L. HAND, THEN A DISTRICT JUDGE, REFUSED TO
COMMIT FOR CONTEMPT BECAUSE HE DID NOT DEEM THE TURNOVER ORDER BINDING
AS RES JUDICATA, BUT ON REHEARING REVERSED HIMSELF, HOLDING THAT THE
BANKRUPT COULD NOT SHOW PRESENT INABILITY BY EVIDENCE CONSTITUTING AN
INDIRECT ATTACK ON THE TURNOVER ORDER, STATING (AT P. 542) "THEREFORE,
IN SO FAR AS THE (TURNOVER) ORDER DIRECTS ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING, HE MAY
NOT IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING QUESTION THE PROPRIETY OF THE DIRECTION;
AND IN SO FAR AS THE ORDER DETERMINES AN EXISTING FACT, WHICH IS
NECESSARY IN LAW TO THE VALIDITY OF THE DIRECTION, HE MAY NOT QUESTION
ITS TRUTH.  TO QUESTION SUCH A FACT IS TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE
DIRECTION WHICH DEPENDS UPON IT, AND IS ONLY AN INDIRECT WAY OF
REVIEWING THE ORDER.  THEREFORE NOW TO DENY THE FACT THAT THE BANKRUPT
HAD THE MONEY IN HIS POSSESSION IS IN THIS CASE TO ASSERT THAT THE
ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PAY IT OVER WAS ERRONEOUS.  ON THIS ACCOUNT,
THEREFORE, THAT FACT IS CONCLUDED, ONCE IT BE GRANTED THAT IT WAS
NECESSARY TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER, WHICH I HAVE SHOWN.  QUITE
RELUCTANTLY, THEREFORE, I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT I WAS WRONG ORIGINALLY
TO INQUIRE INTO THE MERITS, AND THAT A COMMITTAL MUST ISSUE."  THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THESE AUTHORITIES IS THAT A BANKRUPT'S DENIAL OF
PRESENT POSSESSION, STANDING ALONE, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH HIS
INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE PROPERTY OR ITS PROCEEDS, AND THAT THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT WILL NOT PERMIT THE BANKRUPT TO PROVE PRESENT
INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE TURNOVER ORDER BY EVIDENCE WHICH
INDIRECTLY CONSTITUTES A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THAT ORDER. 

FN17  FOR ALMOST FORTY YEARS, THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS TENACIOUSLY
ABIDED BY THE PRESUMPTION OF CONTINUED POSSESSION.  WHILE THIS
PRESUMPTION WAS PREVIOUSLY SUB SILENTIO UTILIZED (E.G., IN RE
SCHLESINGER, 102 F. 117, AFFIRMING 97 F. 930), IN RE STAVRAHN IN 1909,
174 F. 330, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S CASE OF FIRST
IMPRESSION, AND THE DECISION THAT SIRED THE PRESUMPTION.  THERE THE
COURT STATED THAT THE BANKRUPT COULD NOT DEFEND AGAINST A CONTEMPT
CITATION FOLLOWING A TURNOVER ORDER ON THE ASSERTION THAT HE HAD NEVER
TAKEN THE ASSETS IN QUESTION, BUT HAD TO COME FORWARD WITH SOME
REASONABLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT HAD BECOME OF THE ASSETS SINCE THE
TURNOVER ORDER.  IN 1912, THE SECOND CIRCUIT REITERATED THE REASONING
OF ITS EARLIER DECISION IN IN RE WEBER CO., 200 F. 404.  THE
PRESUMPTION HAD BEEN SOMEWHAT INARTICULATELY PHRASED IN THE EARLIER
OPINION, AND THE COURT IN THIS CASE COMMENDED THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
APTLY CARRYING OUT THE MANDATE OF THE STAVRAHN DECISION.  THE CASES UP
TO 1925 AND BEFORE THE ORIEL CASE ARE LISTED AND DISCUSSED AT LENGTH IN
IN RE H. MAGEN CO., 10 F.2D 91, IN WHICH THE COURT OBSERVED THAT "THE
LAW RELATING TO TURN-OVER ORDERS IS PRETTY WELL ESTABLISHED IN THIS
CIRCUIT."  10 F.2D AT 93.  IN RE SIEGLER, NOTE 18 SUPRA, WAS DECIDED
THREE MONTHS AFTER THIS COURT'S DECISION IN THE ORIEL CASE.  THEN CAME:
DANISH V. SOFRANSKI, 93 F.2D 424; IN RE PINSKY-LAPIN & CO., 98 F.2D
776; SELIGSON V. GOLDSMITH, NOTE 3 SUPRA; ROBBINS V. GOTTBETTER, NOTE 2
SUPRA; COHEN V. JESKOWITZ, NOTE 2 SUPRA; AND THE PER CURIAM AFFIRMANCE
OF THE TURNOVER ORDER IN THE INSTANT BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. 

FN18  "ANY DIFFERENCE OF OPINION RESPECTING THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A
TURNOVER ORDER, WHICH MAY HAVE PREVAILED BEFORE THE DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT, IN PRELA V. HUBSHMAN (COMPANION CASE TO ORIEL V.
RUSSELL)  ...  IS NOW OUT OF PLACE IN ANY DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT." 
31 F.2D AT 973. 

FN19  CF. IN RE FRANKEL, NOTE 16 SUPRA. 

FN20  CF. BRUNE V. FRAIDIN, 149 F.2D 325.    FN21  IN THE OPINION
DATED APRIL 18, 1945, HOLDING PETITIONER IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, THE
DISTRICT COURT STATED THAT:  "RESPONDENT (PETITIONER HERE) HAS NOT
SUSTAINED HIS BURDEN OF SATISFACTORILY ACCOUNTING FOR THE DISPOSITION
OF THE ASSETS BY HIS MERE DENIAL OF POSSESSION UNDER OATH."  AND THAT
COURT'S FOURTH FINDING OF FACT WAS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE RESPONDENT, JOSEPH
F. MAGGIO, HAS WHOLLY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SAID TURNOVER ORDER, AND HE
HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THIS COURT HIS FAILURE TO
COMPLY." 

FN22  "THE PROCEEDINGS IN THESE TWO CASES HAVE BEEN SO LONG DRAWN OUT
BY EFFORTS ON THE PART OF THE BANKRUPTS TO RETRY THE ISSUE PRESENTED ON
THE MOTION TO TURN OVER AS TO BE, OF THEMSELVES, CONVINCING ARGUMENT
THAT IF THE BANKRUPTCY STATUTE IS NOT TO BE FRITTERED AWAY IN CONSTANT
DELAYS AND FAILURES OF ENFORCEMENT OF LAWFUL ORDERS, THE RULE WE HAVE
LAID DOWN IS THE PROPER ONE."  278 U.S. AT 363. 

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF FRANKFURTER, J.

        (CHART OMITTED)
..END :











MUSSER V. UTAH, 333 U.S. 95 


NO. 60.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1947.  - REARGUED JANUARY 5, 1948.  -
DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1948.  - 110 UTAH 533, 175 P.2D 724, VACATED AND
REMANDED. 


WHEN THERE ARE INHERENT IN AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A JUDGMENT OF
THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW WHICH WERE NOT
PRESENTED TO, OR CONSIDERED BY, THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, THIS
COURT WILL VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THAT COURT FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THOSE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW.  PP. 96-98. 

MUSSER ET AL. V. UTAH. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH AFFIRMED A CONVICTION OF APPELLANTS FOR
CONSPIRACY "TO COMMIT ACTS INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC MORALS" IN VIOLATION OF
THE UTAH CODE ANN., 1943, SEC. 103-11-1.  110 UTAH 533, 175 P.2D 724. 
JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED, P. 98. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANTS SOUGHT REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF A DECISION BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF UTAH ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE CONVICTED THEM IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  IN
THE TRIAL COURT A MOTION TO DISMISS THE CHARGE AT THE CLOSE OF THE
EVIDENCE BROADLY INDICATED RELIANCE ON THE FOURTEENTH AS WELL AS THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, AND SUCH RELIANCE WAS INDICATED IN REQUESTS FOR
INSTRUCTIONS.  A PRELIMINARY MOTION TO QUASH THE INFORMATION WAS STATED
IN BROAD TERMS WHICH IT IS CLAIMED ADMITTED ARGUMENT OF ANY FEDERAL
GROUNDS.  TRIAL RESULTED IN CONVICTION AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OVERRULED ALL CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS AND AFFIRMED. 

ON ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT, INQUIRIES FROM THE BENCH SUGGESTED A
FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED BY DEFENDANTS
IN THIS COURT, NOR IN ANY COURT BELOW, ALTHOUGH GENERAL TRANSGRESSION
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAD BEEN ALLEGED.  THIS QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE UTAH STATUTE, FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH THE APPELLANTS ARE AMERCED, IS
SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE THAT IT FAILS ADEQUATELY TO DEFINE THE OFFENSE
OR TO GIVE REASONABLE STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING GUILT.  THE QUESTION
GREW OUT OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES: 

DEFENDANTS WERE TRIED ON AN INFORMATION WHICH CHARGED VIOLATION OF
SEC. 103-11-1, UTAH CODE ANN. 1943, IN THAT THEY CONSPIRED "TO COMMIT
ACTS INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC MORALS AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: ...  "  IT THEN
SPECIFIED ACTS WHICH AMOUNT BRIEFLY TO CONSPIRING TO COUNSEL, ADVISE,
AND PRACTICE POLYGAMOUS OR PLURAL MARRIAGE, AND IT SET FORTH A SERIES
OF OVERT ACTS IN FURTHERANCE THEREOF.  THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED
THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS UNDER PARAGRAPH (5) OF 103-11-1 WHICH, SO FAR
AS RELEVANT, DEFINES CONSPIRACY, "(5) TO COMMIT ANY ACT INJURIOUS TO
THE PUBLIC HEALTH, TO PUBLIC MORALS, OR TO TRADE OR COMMERCE, OR FOR
THE PERVERSION OR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE LAWS  ...  " 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS NO NARROWLY DRAWN STATUTE.  WE DO NOT
PRESUME TO GIVE AN INTERPRETATION AS TO WHAT IT MAY INCLUDE.  STANDING
BY ITSELF, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE WARRANT FOR CONVICTION FOR AGREEMENT TO
DO ALMOST ANY ACT WHICH A JUDGE AND JURY MIGHT FIND AT THE MOMENT
CONTRARY TO HIS OR ITS NOTIONS OF WHAT WAS GOOD FOR HEALTH, MORALS,
TRADE, COMMERCE, JUSTICE OR ORDER.  IN SOME STATES THE PHRASE
"INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC MORALS" WOULD BE LIKELY TO PUNISH ACTS WHICH IT
WOULD NOT PUNISH IN OTHERS BECAUSE OF THE VARYING POLICIES ON SUCH
MATTERS AS USE OF CIGARETTES OR LIQUOR AND THE PERMISSIBILITY OF
GAMBLING.  THIS LED TO THE INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE STATUTE ATTEMPTS
TO COVER SO MUCH THAT IT EFFECTIVELY COVERS NOTHING.  STATUTES DEFINING
CRIMES MAY FAIL OF THEIR PURPOSE IF THEY DO NOT PROVIDE SOME REASONABLE
STANDARDS OF GUILT.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY
CO., 255 U.S. 81.  LEGISLATION MAY RUN AFOUL OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
BECAUSE IT FAILS TO GIVE ADEQUATE GUIDANCE TO THOSE WHO WOULD BE LAW
ABIDING, TO ADVISE DEFENDANTS OF THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE WITH WHICH
THEY ARE CHARGED, OR TO GUIDE COURTS IN TRYING THOSE WHO ARE ACCUSED. 

WHEN THE ADEQUACY OF THIS STATUTE IN THESE RESPECTS WAS QUESTIONED,
THE STATE ASKED AND WAS GRANTED REARGUMENT HERE.  REHEARING CONVINCES
US THAT QUESTIONS ARE INHERENT IN THIS APPEAL WHICH WERE NOT PRESENTED
TO OR CONSIDERED BY THE UTAH SUPREME COURT AND WHICH INVOLVE
DETERMINATION OF STATE LAW.  WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE PART OF THE STATUTE
WE HAVE QUOTED DOES NOT STAND BY ITSELF AS THE LAW OF UTAH BUT IS PART
OF THE WHOLE BODY OF COMMON AND STATUTE LAW OF THAT STATE AND IS TO BE
JUDGED IN THAT CONTEXT.  IT IS ARGUED THAT WHILE PARAGRAPH (5) AS
QUOTED IS ADMITTEDLY VERY GENERAL, THE PRESENT CHARGE IS SUSTAINABLE
UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) THEREOF WHICH MAKES A CRIME OF ANY CONSPIRACY TO
COMMIT A CRIME AND THAT THE SWEEP OF PARAGRAPH (5) IS OR MAY BE SO
LIMITED BY ITS CONTEXT OR BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION AS TO SUPPLY MORE
DEFINITE STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING GUILT.  IT IS ALSO SAID THAT THE
POINT, SO FAR AS THIS CASE IS CONCERNED, HAS BEEN WAIVED OR LOST
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TIMELY OR SUFFICIENT ASSIGNMENT OF IT AS GROUND
FOR DISMISSAL TO COMPLY WITH STATE PRACTICE.  WE BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT
PASS UPON THE QUESTIONS RAISED HERE UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH HAS
HAD OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH THIS ULTIMATE ISSUE OF FEDERAL LAW AND
WITH ANY STATE LAW QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO IT. 

THIS TRIAL WAS NOT CONDUCTED IN FEDERAL COURT NOR FOR VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL LAW.  IT IS A PROSECUTION BY THE STATE, IN ITS COURTS, TO
VINDICATE ITS OWN LAWS.  OUR SOLE CONCERN WITH IT IS TO SEE THAT NO
CONVICTION CONTRARY TO A VALID OBJECTION RAISED UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS UPHELD.  WHAT THE STATUTES OF A STATE MEAN, THE EXTENT TO
WHICH ANY PROVISION MAY BE LIMITED BY OTHER ACTS OR BY OTHER PARTS OF
THE SAME ACT, ARE QUESTIONS ON WHICH THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAS
THE FINAL WORD.  THE RIGHT TO SPEAK THIS WORD IS ONE WHICH STATE COURTS
SHOULD JEALOUSLY MAINTAIN AND WHICH WE SHOULD SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVE.  IN
ORDER THAT THE CONTROVERSY MAY BE RESTORED TO THE CONTROL OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF UTAH, ITS PRESENT JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH.  VACATED AND
REMANDED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION OF THE CASE.  I THINK A DEEPER
VICE INFECTS THESE CONVICTIONS THAN THEIR APPARENT INVALIDITY FOR
VAGUENESS OF THE UTAH STATUTE, FIRST SUGGESTED ON THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT
HERE, EVEN IF FURTHER CONSTRUCTION BY THE UTAH COURTS MIGHT POSSIBLY
REMOVE THAT GROUND FOR REVERSAL.  THE CRUCIAL QUESTION, WHICH THE CASE
WAS BROUGHT TO THIS COURT TO REVIEW, IS WHETHER THE STATE SUPREME COURT
HAS CONSTRUED THE UTAH STATUTE TO AUTHORIZE PUNISHMENT FOR EXERCISING
THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THE STATUTE WHICH APPELLANTS HAVE VIOLATED PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE
A CRIME FOR TWO OR MORE PERSONS TO CONSPIRE "TO COMMIT ANY ACT
INJURIOUS  ...  TO PUBLIC MORALS."  THE OPINION OF THE STATE SUPREME
COURT CONSTRUES THESE WORDS TO APPLY TO CONDUCT WHICH INDUCES PEOPLE TO
ENTER INTO BIGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, TO THE
ADVOCACY OF THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY.  IT HELD THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE
PROPERLY CONVICTED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE PROVED THAT THEY WERE PARTIES
TO "AN AGREEMENT TO ADVOCATE, COUNSEL, ADVISE AND URGE THE PRACTICE OF
POLYGAMY AND UNLAWFUL COHABITATION BY OTHER PERSONS." 

ALTHOUGH THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE TRIAL HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT HERE, IT
IS CLEAR THAT SOME APPELLANTS URGED CERTAIN PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS TO
PRACTICE POLYGAMY.  FN1  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES I ASSUME THAT SUCH DIRECT
AND PERSONALIZED ACTIVITY AMOUNTING TO INCITATION TO COMMIT A CRIME MAY
BE PROSCRIBED BY THE STATE.  HOWEVER THE CHARGE WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO A
CLAIM THAT APPELLANTS HAD CONSPIRED TO URGE PARTICULAR VIOLATIONS OF
THE LAW.  INSTEAD, THE INFORMATION AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT
BROADLY CONDEMNED THE CONSPIRACY TO ADVOCATE AND URGE THE PRACTICE OF
POLYGAMY.  FN2 THIS ADVOCACY WAS AT LEAST IN PART CONDUCTED IN
RELIGIOUS MEETINGS WHERE, ALTHOUGH PRESSURE MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN APPLIED
TO INDIVIDUALS, CONSIDERABLE GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE RELIGIOUS DUTY
TO ENTER INTO PLURAL MARRIAGES WAS CARRIED ON.  FN3 

NEITHER THE STATUTE, THE INFORMATION, NOR THE PORTIONS OF THE CHARGE
TO THE JURY WHICH ARE PRESERVED IN THE PRINTED RECORD DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THE SPECIFIC INCITATIONS AND THE MORE GENERALIZED DISCUSSIONS. 
CF. THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516.  THUS THE TRIAL AND CONVICTIONS
PROCEEDED ON THE THEORY THAT THE STATUTE APPLIED INDISCRIMINATELY TO
BOTH TYPES OF ACTIVITY.  THIS IS MADE DOUBLY CLEAR BY THE FACT THAT THE
STATE SUPREME COURT SET ASIDE THE CONVICTIONS OF SEVERAL DEFENDANTS WHO
HAD DONE NO MORE THAN ATTEND MEETINGS, GIVE OPINIONS ON RELIGIOUS
SUBJECTS AND CRITICIZE LEGISLATION.  FN4  BY SETTING ASIDE THESE
CONVICTIONS THAT COURT INDICATED THAT IT DID NOT CONSIDER EVERY
DISCUSSION OF POLYGAMY, OR ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS WHERE THE PRACTICE IS
ADVOCATED, TO BE "AN ACT INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC MORALS."  SUCH A
LIMITATION ON THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE WAS UNQUESTIONABLY REQUIRED BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  BUT AS I READ THE OPINION OF THE STATE
COURT, IT DID NOT MAKE A FURTHER LIMITATION ALSO REQUIRED BY THE FIRST
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  THE UTAH STATUTE WAS CONSTRUED TO PROSCRIBE
ANY AGREEMENT TO ADVOCATE THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY.  FN5  THUS THE LINE
WAS DRAWN BETWEEN DISCUSSION AND ADVOCACY. 

THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE STATUTE BE LIMITED MORE NARROWLY. 
AT THE VERY LEAST THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN BETWEEN ADVOCACY AND
INCITEMENT, AND EVEN THE STATE'S POWER TO PUNISH INCITEMENT MAY VARY
WITH THE NATURE OF THE SPEECH, WHETHER PERSUASIVE OR COERCIVE, THE
NATURE OF THE WRONG INDUCED, WHETHER VIOLENT OR MERELY OFFENSIVE TO THE
MORES, AND THE DEGREE OF PROBABILITY THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL ACTUALLY
WILL RESULT.  SEE BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 262-263. 

IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT A DEMOCRATIC STATE MAY NOT DENY ITS CITIZENS THE
RIGHT TO CRITICIZE EXISTING LAWS AND TO URGE THAT THEY BE CHANGED.  AND
YET, IN ORDER TO SUCCEED IN AN EFFORT TO LEGALIZE POLYGAMY IT IS
OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY TO CONVINCE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT
SUCH CONDUCT IS DESIRABLE.  BUT CONVICTION THAT THE PRACTICE IS
DESIRABLE HAS A NATURAL TENDENCY TO INDUCE THE PRACTICE ITSELF.  FN6
THUS, DEPENDING ON WHERE THE CIRCULAR REASONING IS STARTED, THE
ADVOCACY OF POLYGAMY MAY EITHER BE UNLAWFUL AS INDUCING A VIOLATION OF
LAW, OR BE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AS ESSENTIAL TO THE PROPER
FUNCTIONING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. 

IN THE ABSTRACT THE PROBLEM COULD BE SOLVED IN VARIOUS WAYS.  AT ONE
EXTREME IT COULD BE SAID THAT SOCIETY CAN BEST PROTECT ITSELF BY
PROHIBITING ONLY THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL AND RELYING ON A COMPLETELY FREE
INTERCHANGE OF IDEAS AS THE BEST SAFEGUARD AGAINST DEMORALIZING
PROPAGANDA.  FN7 OR WE MIGHT PERMIT ADVOCACY OF LAWBREAKING, BUT ONLY
SO LONG AS THE ADVOCACY FALLS SHORT OF INCITEMENT.  FN8  BUT THE OTHER
EXTREME POSITION, THAT THE STATE MAY PREVENT ANY CONDUCT WHICH INDUCES
PEOPLE TO VIOLATE THE LAW, OR ANY ADVOCACY OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, CANNOT
BE SQUARED WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  AT THE VERY LEAST, AS WE HAVE
INDICATED, UNDER THE CLEAR-AND-PRESENT-DANGER RULE, THE SECOND
ALTERNATIVE STATED MARKS THE LIMIT OF THE STATE'S POWER AS RESTRICTED
BY THE AMENDMENT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH HAS IN EFFECT ADOPTED THE THIRD POSITION
STATED ABOVE.  IT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS ON THE THEORY THAT AN
AGREEMENT TO ADVOCATE POLYGAMY IS UNLAWFUL.  THE TRIAL COURT CERTAINLY
PROCEEDED ON THIS THEORY, IF IT DID NOT GO FURTHER AND CONSIDER
DISCUSSION OF POLYGAMY AS INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC MORALS AS WELL. 
THEREFORE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT APPELLANTS MAY HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF
CONDUCT WHICH THE STATE MAY PROPERLY RESTRAIN, THE CONVICTIONS SHOULD
BE SET ASIDE.  A GENERAL VERDICT WAS RETURNED, AND HENCE IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE JURY CONVICTED APPELLANTS ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY CONSPIRED MERELY TO ADVOCATE POLYGAMY OR ON THE GROUND
THAT THE CONSPIRACY WAS INTENDED TO INCITE PARTICULAR AND IMMEDIATE
VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.  SINCE THEREFORE THE CONVICTIONS MAY REST ON A
GROUND INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, I WOULD REVERSE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT.  CF. THOMAS V. COLLINS, SUPRA; WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287; STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359. 

FN1  "AT ONE OF THESE MEETINGS, ONE HEBER C. SMITH, JR. WAS MADE THE
SPECIFIC OBJECT OF REMARKS OF VARIOUS DEFENDANTS."  110 UTAH 533, 554,
175 P.2D 724, 735. 

FN2  ALTHOUGH THE INFORMATION IN TERMS CHARGED A CONSPIRACY TO
ADVOCATE AND PRACTICE POLYGAMY, THE STATE COURT CONSTRUED IT AS THOUGH
IT CHARGED A CONSPIRACY TO ADVOCATE THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY.  110 UTAH
533, 544-545, 175 P.2D 724, 730. 

FN3  "IT IS TRUE  ...  THAT AT CERTAIN MEETINGS SPEAKERS DISCUSSED
POLYGAMY, READING FROM THE BIBLE AND MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THE ANCIENT
POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE SYSTEM WAS INSTITUTED OF GOD, AND THAT 'PLURAL
MARRIAGE IS A LAW OF GOD'; THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS AT THESE MEETINGS
DECLARED THAT LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY VIOLATES
THE SPIRIT OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; THAT
SOME SPEAKERS DENOUNCED OFFICIALS OF THE MORMON CHURCH FOR
EXCOMMUNICATION OF PEOPLE FOR TEACHING OR PRACTICING PLURAL MARRIAGE,
STATING THAT THE LEADERS OF SAID CHURCH HAVE 'NO DIVINE AUTHORITY' AND
THAT SUCH CHURCH IS APOSTATE; AND THAT SOME SERVICES WERE CONDUCTED AS
'TESTIMONIAL MEETINGS' AT WHICH MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATION AROSE
VOLUNTARILY TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON ANY SUBJECT, AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE
GRATITUDE TO GOD."  110 UTAH 533, 551-552, 175 P.2D 724, 734.    FN4
"IF IT WERE TRUE THAT NONE OF THE DEFENDANTS DID ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO
ATTEND MEETINGS AS INDICATED ABOVE (SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA), EXPRESSING
DISAGREEMENT WITH SOME OTHER DENOMINATION, CRITICIZING LEGISLATION, AND
GIVING OPINIONS ON RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS, NONE OF THE CONVICTIONS COULD BE
UPHELD.  THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH CANNOT BE CURTAILED BY INDIRECTION
THROUGH A CHARGE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY."  110 UTAH 533, 552, 175 P.2D
724, 734. 

FN5  THE COURT HELD "THAT AN AGREEMENT TO ADVOCATE, TEACH, COUNSEL,
ADVISE AND URGE OTHER PERSONS TO PRACTICE POLYGAMY AND UNLAWFUL
COHABITATION, IS AN AGREEMENT TO COMMIT ACTS INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC MORALS
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE."  110 UTAH 533, 546-547,
175 P.2D 724, 731. 

FN6  "POLITICAL AGITATION, BY THE PASSIONS IT AROUSES OR THE
CONVICTIONS IT ENGENDERS, MAY IN FACT STIMULATE MEN TO THE VIOLATION OF
LAW.  DETESTATION OF EXISTING POLICIES IS EASILY TRANSFORMED INTO
FORCIBLE RESISTANCE OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH PUTS THEM IN EXECUTION, AND
IT WOULD BE FOLLY TO DISREGARD THE CAUSAL RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO. 
YET TO ASSIMILATE AGITATION, LEGITIMATE AS SUCH, WITH DIRECT INCITEMENT
TO VIOLENT RESISTANCE, IS TO DISREGARD THE TOLERANCE OF ALL METHODS OF
POLITICAL AGITATION WHICH IN NORMAL TIMES IS A SAFEGUARD OF FREE
GOVERNMENT.  THE DISTINCTION IS NOT A SCHOLASTIC SUBTERFUGE, BUT A HARD
BOUGHT ACQUISITION IN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, AND THE PURPOSE TO
DISREGARD IT MUST BE EVIDENT WHEN THE POWER EXISTS.  IF ONE STOPS SHORT
OF URGING UPON OTHERS THAT IT IS THEIR DUTY OR THEIR INTEREST TO RESIST
THE LAW, IT SEEMS TO ME ONE SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO
CAUSE ITS VIOLATION."  JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN MASSES PUB. CO. V. PATTEN,
244 F. 535, 540. 

FN7  "WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THE DEMORALIZING REASONINGS OF
SOME, IF OTHERS ARE LEFT FREE TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR ERRORS AND
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LAW STANDS READY TO PUNISH THE FIRST CRIMINAL ACT
PRODUCED BY THE FALSE REASONINGS; THESE ARE SAFER CORRECTIONS THAN THE
CONSCIENCE OF A JUDGE."  EXCERPT FROM LETTER WRITTEN BY THOMAS
JEFFERSON TO ELIJAH BOARDMAN OF NEW MILFORD, CONNECTICUT, ON JULY 3,
1801, QUOTED BY CHARLES A. BEARD, THE NATION, JULY 7, 1926, VOL. 123,
P. 8. 

FN8  "BUT EVEN ADVOCACY OF VIOLATION, HOWEVER REPREHENSIBLE MORALLY,
IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR DENYING FREE SPEECH WHERE THE ADVOCACY FALLS
SHORT OF INCITEMENT AND THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE ADVOCACY
WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ACTED ON."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, CONCURRING IN
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. AT 376. 
..END :















C. & S. AIR LINES V. WATERMAN CORP., 333 U.S. 103 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1948.  - 159 F.2D 828,
REVERSED. 


OF CERTAIN ORDERS OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, DOES NOT APPLY TO
ORDERS GRANTING OR DENYING APPLICATIONS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN OVERSEAS AND FOREIGN AIR
TRANSPORTATION WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER
SEC. 801.  PP. 104-114. 

(A)  ORDERS OF THE BOARD AS TO CERTIFICATES FOR OVERSEAS OR FOREIGN
AIR TRANSPORTATION ARE NOT MATURE AND THEREFORE ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW UNTIL THEY ARE MADE FINAL BY PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL, AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 801.  P. 114. 

(B)  AFTER SUCH APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN, THE FINAL ORDERS EMBODY
PRESIDENTIAL DISCRETION AS TO POLITICAL MATTERS BEYOND THE COMPETENCE
OF THE COURTS TO ADJUDICATE.  P. 114. 

CHICAGO & SOUTHERN AIR LINES, INC. V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP. 

NO. 78.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 88, CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP
CORP., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED A MOTION TO DISMISS A PETITION
SEEKING REVIEW OF CERTAIN ORDERS OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD
GRANTING AND DENYING CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN AMERICAN AIR CARRIERS TO ENGAGE IN OVERSEAS AND
FOREIGN AIR TRANSPORTATION AFTER SUCH ORDERS HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE
PRESIDENT UNDER SEC. 801 OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT.  159 F.2D 828. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 802.  REVERSED, P. 114. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION OF LAW WHICH BRINGS THIS CONTROVERSY HERE IS WHETHER
SEC. 1006 OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 646, AUTHORIZING
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DESCRIBED ORDERS OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,
INCLUDES THOSE WHICH GRANT OR DENY APPLICATIONS BY CITIZEN CARRIERS TO
ENGAGE IN OVERSEAS AND FOREIGN AIR TRANSPORTATION WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER SEC. 801 OF THE ACT.  49 U.S.C. SEC.
601. 

BY PROCEEDINGS NOT CHALLENGED AS TO REGULARITY, THE BOARD, WITH
EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, ISSUED AN ORDER WHICH DENIED
WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FOR AN AIR ROUTE AND GRANTED ONE TO CHICAGO AND SOUTHERN AIR
LINES, A RIVAL APPLICANT.  ROUTES SOUGHT BY BOTH CARRIER INTERESTS
INVOLVED OVERSEAS AIR TRANSPORTATION, SEC. 1(21)(B), BETWEEN
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND CARIBBEAN POSSESSIONS AND ALSO FOREIGN
AIR TRANSPORTATION, SEC. 1(21)(C), BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  WATERMAN FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER SEC.
1006 OF THE ACT WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT.  CHICAGO AND SOUTHERN INTERVENED.  BOTH THE LATTER AND THE
BOARD MOVED TO DISMISS, THE GROUNDS PERTINENT HERE BEING THAT BECAUSE
THE ORDER REQUIRED AND HAD APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, UNDER SEC. 801 OF
THE ACT, IT WAS NOT REVIEWABLE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DISCLAIMED ANY
POWER TO QUESTION OR REVIEW EITHER THE PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL OR HIS
DISAPPROVAL, BUT IT REGARDED ANY BOARD ORDER AS INCOMPLETE UNTIL COURT
REVIEW, AFTER WHICH "THE COMPLETED ACTION MUST BE APPROVED BY THE
PRESIDENT AS TO CITIZEN AIR CARRIERS IN CASES UNDER SEC. 801."  159
F.2D 828.  ACCORDINGLY, IT REFUSED TO DISMISS THE PETITION AND ASSERTED
JURISDICTION.  ITS DECISION CONFLICTS WITH ONE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  PAN AMERICAN AIRWAYS CO. V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS
BOARD, 121 F.2D 810.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BOTH TO THE CHICAGO AND
SOUTHERN AIR LINES, INC. (NO. 78) AND TO THE BOARD (NO. 88) TO RESOLVE
THE CONFLICT. 

CONGRESS HAS SET UP A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR REGULATION OF COMMON
CARRIERS BY AIR.  MANY STATUTORY PROVISIONS APPLY INDIFFERENTLY WHETHER
THE CARRIER IS A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER OR A CITIZEN AIR CARRIER, AND
WHETHER THE CARRIAGE INVOLVED IS "INTERSTATE AIR COMMERCE," "OVERSEAS
AIR COMMERCE" OR "FOREIGN AIR COMMERCE," EACH BEING APPROPRIATELY
DEFINED.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 401(20).  ALL AIR CARRIERS BY SIMILAR
PROCEDURES MUST OBTAIN FROM THE BOARD CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY BY SHOWING A PUBLIC INTEREST IN ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROUTE
AND THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO SERVE IT.  BUT WHEN A FOREIGN CARRIER
ASKS FOR ANY PERMIT, OR A CITIZEN CARRIER APPLIES FOR A CERTIFICATE TO
ENGAGE IN ANY OVERSEAS OR FOREIGN AIR TRANSPORTATION, A COPY OF THE
APPLICATION MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT BEFORE HEARING; AND
ANY DECISION, EITHER TO GRANT OR TO DENY, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE
PRESIDENT BEFORE PUBLICATION AND IS UNCONDITIONALLY SUBJECT TO THE
PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL.  ALSO THE STATUTE SUBJECTS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
"ANY ORDER, AFFIRMATIVE OR NEGATIVE, ISSUED BY THE BOARD UNDER THIS
ACT, EXCEPT ANY ORDER IN RESPECT OF ANY FOREIGN AIR CARRIER SUBJECT TO
THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 801 OF THIS ACT." 
IT GRANTS NO EXPRESS EXEMPTION TO AN ORDER SUCH AS THE ONE BEFORE US,
WHICH CONCERNS A CITIZEN CARRIER BUT WHICH MUST HAVE PRESIDENTIAL
APPROVAL BECAUSE IT INVOLVES OVERSEAS AND FOREIGN AIR TRANSPORTATION. 
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER AN EXEMPTION IS TO BE IMPLIED. 

THIS COURT LONG HAS HELD THAT STATUTES WHICH EMPLOY BROAD TERMS TO
CONFER POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ARE NOT ALWAYS TO BE READ LITERALLY. 
WHERE CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED REVIEW OF "ANY ORDER" OR USED OTHER
EQUALLY INCLUSIVE TERMS, COURTS HAVE DECLINED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MAGNIFY THEIR JURISDICTION, BY SELF-DENYING CONSTRUCTIONS WHICH DO NOT
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONTROL ORDERS WHICH, FROM THEIR NATURE, FROM THE
CONTEXT OF THE ACT, OR FROM THE RELATION OF JUDICIAL POWER TO THE
SUBJECT-MATTER, ARE INAPPROPRIATE FOR REVIEW.  EXAMPLES ARE SET FORTH
BY CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. EDISON CO., 304
U.S. 375, 384.  CF. ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307
U.S. 125, 130. 

THE WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION URGES THAT REVIEW OF THE PROBLEMS
INVOLVED IN ESTABLISHING FOREIGN AIR ROUTES ARE OF NO MORE
INTERNATIONAL DELICACY OR STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE THAN THOSE INVOLVED IN
ROUTES FOR WATER CARRIAGE.  IT SAYS, "IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO
BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONDUCT OF THE FOREIGN COMMERCE OF THE
UNITED STATES BY AIR OR BY SEA."  FROM THIS PREMISE IT REASONS THAT WE
SHOULD INTERPRET THIS STATUTE TO FOLLOW THE PATTERN OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
ADOPTED IN RELATION TO ORDERS AFFECTING FOREIGN COMMERCE BY RAIL, LEWIS
SIMAS-JONES CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 283 U.S. 654; NEWS SYNDICATE
CO. V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 275 U.S. 179, OR COMMUNICATIONS BY
WIRE, UNITED STATES V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 272 F. 893, OR BY
RADIO, MACKAY RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, 68 APP. D.C. 336, 97 F.2D 641; AND IT LIKENS THE
SUBJECTMATTER OF AERONAUTICS LEGISLATION TO THAT OF TITLE VI OF THE
MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1171, AND THE FUNCTION OF
THE AERONAUTICS BOARD IN RESPECT TO OVERSEAS AND FOREIGN AIR
TRANSPORTATION TO THAT OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION TO SUCH COMMERCE WHEN
WATER-BORNE. 

WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT THE CONGRESS EITHER ENTERTAINED OR
FOSTERED THE NARROW CONCEPT THAT AIR-BORNE COMMERCE IS A MERE OUTGROWTH
OR OVERGROWTH OF SURFACE-BOUND TRANSPORT.  OF COURSE, AIR
TRANSPORTATION, WATER TRANSPORTATION, RAIL TRANSPORTATION, AND MOTOR
TRANSPORTATION ALL HAVE A KINSHIP IN THAT ALL ARE FORMS OF
TRANSPORTATION AND THEIR COMMON FEATURES OF PUBLIC CARRIAGE FOR HIRE
MAY BE AMENABLE TO KINDRED REGULATIONS.  BUT THESE RESEMBLANCES MUST
NOT BLIND US TO THE FACT THAT LEGALLY, AS WELL AS LITERALLY, AIR
COMMERCE, WHETHER AT HOME OR ABROAD, SOARED INTO A DIFFERENT REALM THAN
ANY THAT HAD GONE BEFORE.  ANCIENT DOCTRINES OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF
THE AIR AS APPURTENANT TO LAND TITLES HAD TO BE REVISED TO MAKE
AVIATION PRACTICALLY SERVICEABLE TO OUR SOCIETY.  A WAY OF TRAVEL WHICH
QUICKLY ESCAPES THE BOUNDS OF LOCAL REGULATIVE COMPETENCE CALLED FOR A
MORE PENETRATING, UNIFORM AND EXCLUSIVE REGULATION BY THE NATION THAN
HAD BEEN THOUGHT APPROPRIATE FOR THE MORE EASILY CONTROLLED COMMERCE OF
THE PAST.  WHILE TRANSPORT BY LAND AND BY SEA BEGAN BEFORE ANY EXISTING
GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED AND THEIR RESPECTIVE CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES
MATURED INTO BODIES OF CARRIER LAW INDEPENDENTLY OF LEGISLATION, AIR
TRANSPORT BURST SUDDENLY UPON MODERN GOVERNMENTS, OFFERING NEW
ADVANTAGES, DEMANDING NEW RIGHTS AND CARRYING NEW THREATS WHICH SOCIETY
COULD MEET WITH TIMELY ADJUSTMENTS ONLY BY PROMPT INVOCATION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.  HOWEVER USEFUL PARALLELS WITH OLDER FORMS OF
TRANSIT MAY BE IN ADJUDICATING PRIVATE RIGHTS, WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE
EFFORTS OF THE CONGRESS TO FOSTER AND REGULATE DEVELOPMENT OF A
REVOLUTIONARY COMMERCE THAT OPERATES IN THREE DIMENSIONS SHOULD BE
JUDICIALLY CIRCUMSCRIBED WITH ANALOGIES TAKEN OVER FROM TWO-DIMENSIONAL
TRANSIT. 

THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" THAT ENTERS INTO AWARDS OF ROUTES FOR AERIAL
CARRIERS, WHO IN EFFECT OBTAIN ALSO A SPONSORSHIP BY OUR GOVERNMENT IN
FOREIGN VENTURES, IS NOT CONFINED TO ADEQUACY OF TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE, AS WE HAVE HELD WHEN THAT TERM IS APPLIED TO RAILROADS.  TEXAS
V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 522, 531.  THAT AERIAL NAVIGATION ROUTES AND
BASES SHOULD BE PRUDENTLY CORRELATED WITH FACILITIES AND PLANS FOR OUR
OWN NATIONAL DEFENSES AND RAISE NEW PROBLEMS IN CONDUCT OF FOREIGN
RELATIONS, IS A FACT OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE.  CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND
DEBATES EXTENDING OVER SEVERAL SESSIONS AND DEPARTMENTAL STUDIES OF
MANY YEARS SHOW THAT THE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES HAVE
PROCEEDED IN FULL RECOGNITION OF THESE FACTS. 

IN THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL AERONAUTICS, THE STATUTE CONFERS ON
THE BOARD MANY POWERS CONVENTIONAL IN OTHER CARRIER REGULATION UNDER
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMERCE POWER.  THEY ARE EXERCISED THROUGH USUAL
PROCEDURES AND APPLY SETTLED STANDARDS WITH ONLY CUSTOMARY
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY.  CONGRESS EVIDENTLY THOUGHT OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION IN TERMS USED BY THIS COURT OF ANOTHER OF ITS
AGENCIES IN EXERCISING INTERSTATE COMMERCE POWER:  "SUCH A BODY CANNOT
IN ANY PROPER SENSE BE CHARACTERIZED AS AN ARM OR AN EYE OF THE
EXECUTIVE.  ITS DUTIES ARE PERFORMED WITHOUT EXECUTIVE LEAVE AND, IN
THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE STATUTE, MUST BE FREE FROM EXECUTIVE
CONTROL."  HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 602, 628. 
THOSE ORDERS WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL ARE SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW TO ASSURE APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS CONGRESS HAS
LAID DOWN. 

BUT WHEN A FOREIGN CARRIER SEEKS TO ENGAGE IN PUBLIC CARRIAGE OVER
THE TERRITORY OR WATERS OF THIS COUNTRY, OR ANY CARRIER SEEKS THE
SPONSORSHIP OF THIS GOVERNMENT TO ENGAGE IN OVERSEAS OR FOREIGN AIR
TRANSPORTATION, CONGRESS HAS COMPLETELY INVERTED THE USUAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  INSTEAD OF ACTING INDEPENDENTLY OF EXECUTIVE
CONTROL, THE AGENCY IS THEN SUBORDINATED TO IT. INSTEAD OF ITS ORDER
SERVING AS A FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE APPLICATION, ITS FORCE IS
EXHAUSTED WHEN IT SERVES AS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PRESIDENT.  INSTEAD
OF BEING HANDED DOWN TO THE PARTIES AS THE CONCLUSION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT, BEFORE
PUBLICATION EVEN CAN TAKE PLACE.  NOR IS THE PRESIDENT'S CONTROL OF THE
ULTIMATE DECISION A MERE RIGHT OF VETO.  IT IS NOT ALONE ISSUANCE OF
SUCH AUTHORIZATIONS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO HIS APPROVAL, BUT DENIAL,
TRANSFER, AMENDMENT, CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION, AS WELL.  AND LIKEWISE
SUBJECT TO HIS APPROVAL ARE THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF
THE ORDER.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 601.  THUS, PRESIDENTIAL CONTROL IS NOT
LIMITED TO A NEGATIVE BUT IS A POSITIVE AND DETAILED CONTROL OVER THE
BOARD'S DECISIONS, UNPARALLELED IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES. 

CONGRESS MAY OF COURSE DELEGATE VERY LARGE GRANTS OF ITS POWER OVER
FOREIGN COMMERCE TO THE PRESIDENT.  NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294; UNITED STATES V. BUSH & CO., 310 U.S.
371.  THE PRESIDENT ALSO POSSESSES IN HIS OWN RIGHT CERTAIN POWERS
CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION ON HIM AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND AS THE
NATION'S ORGAN IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THE ORDER
DRAWS VITALITY FROM EITHER OR BOTH SOURCES.  LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE
POWERS ARE POOLED OBVIOUSLY TO THE END THAT COMMERCIAL STRATEGIC AND
DIPLOMATIC INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY MAY BE COORDINATED AND ADVANCED
WITHOUT COLLISION OR DEADLOCK BETWEEN AGENCIES. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS SEEM CONTROLLING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
BOARD'S ACTION ON OVERSEAS AND FOREIGN AIR TRANSPORTATION APPLICATIONS
BY CITIZENS ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION OR OVERTHROW BY THE COURTS. 

IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT A LITERAL READING OF SEC. 1006 SUBJECTS THIS
ORDER TO RE-EXAMINATION BY THE COURTS.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE
LANGUAGE WAS DELIBERATELY EMPLOYED BY CONGRESS, ALTHOUGH NOTHING
INDICATES THAT CONGRESS FORESAW OR INTENDED THE CONSEQUENCES ASCRIBED
TO IT BY THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW.  THE LETTER OF THE TEXT MIGHT
WITH EQUAL CONSISTENCY BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE ANY ONE OF THREE THINGS:
FIRST, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE PRESIDENT; SECOND,
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A BOARD ORDER BEFORE IT ACQUIRES FINALITY THROUGH
PRESIDENTIAL ACTION, THE COURT'S DECISION ON REVIEW BEING A BINDING
LIMITATION ON THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION; THIRD, A JUDICIAL REVIEW BEFORE
ACTION BY THE PRESIDENT, THE LATTER BEING AT LIBERTY WHOLLY TO
DISREGARD THE COURT'S JUDGMENT.  WE THINK NONE OF THESE RESULTS IS
REQUIRED BY USUAL CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION. 

IN THIS CASE, SUBMISSION OF THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS MADE TO THE
PRESIDENT, WHO DISAPPROVED CERTAIN PORTIONS OF IT AND ADVISED THE BOARD
OF THE CHANGES WHICH HE REQUIRED.  THE BOARD COMPLIED AND SUBMITTED A
REVISED ORDER AND OPINION WHICH THE PRESIDENT APPROVED.  ONLY THEN WERE
THEY MADE PUBLIC, AND THAT WHICH WAS MADE PUBLIC AND WHICH IS BEFORE US
IS ONLY THE FINAL ORDER AND OPINION CONTAINING THE PRESIDENT'S
AMENDMENTS AND BEARING HIS APPROVAL.  ONLY AT THAT STAGE WAS REVIEW
SOUGHT, AND ONLY THEN COULD IT BE PURSUED, FOR THEN ONLY WAS THE
DECISION CONSUMMATED, ANNOUNCED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES.    WHILE
THE CHANGES MADE AT DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT MAY BE IDENTIFIED, THE
REASONS THEREFOR ARE NOT DISCLOSED BEYOND THE STATEMENT THAT "BECAUSE
OF CERTAIN FACTORS RELATING TO OUR BROAD NATIONAL WELFARE AND OTHER
MATTERS FOR WHICH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE HAS SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY, HE
HAS REACHED CONCLUSIONS WHICH REQUIRE" CHANGES IN THE BOARD'S OPINION. 

THE COURT BELOW CONSIDERED, AND WE THINK QUITE RIGHTLY, THAT IT COULD
NOT REVIEW SUCH PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER AS RESULTED FROM PRESIDENTIAL
DIRECTION.  THE PRESIDENT, BOTH AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND AS THE
NATION'S ORGAN FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HAS AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
WHOSE REPORTS ARE NOT AND OUGHT NOT TO BE PUBLISHED TO THE WORLD.  IT
WOULD BE INTOLERABLE THAT COURTS, WITHOUT THE RELEVANT INFORMATION,
SHOULD REVIEW AND PERHAPS NULLIFY ACTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE TAKEN ON
INFORMATION PROPERLY HELD SECRET.  NOR CAN COURTS SIT IN CAMERA IN
ORDER TO BE TAKEN INTO EXECUTIVE CONFIDENCES.  BUT EVEN IF COURTS COULD
REQUIRE FULL DISCLOSURE, THE VERY NATURE OF EXECUTIVE DECISIONS AS TO
FOREIGN POLICY IS POLITICAL, NOT JUDICIAL.  SUCH DECISIONS ARE WHOLLY
CONFIDED BY OUR CONSTITUTION TO THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT, EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE.  THEY ARE DELICATE, COMPLEX, AND
INVOLVE LARGE ELEMENTS OF PROPHECY.  THEY ARE AND SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN
ONLY BY THOSE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE WHOSE WELFARE THEY
ADVANCE OR IMPERIL.  THEY ARE DECISIONS OF A KIND FOR WHICH THE
JUDICIARY HAS NEITHER APTITUDE, FACILITIES NOR RESPONSIBILITY AND WHICH
HAS LONG BEEN HELD TO BELONG IN THE DOMAIN OF POLITICAL POWER NOT
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL INTRUSION OR INQUIRY.  COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S.
433, 454; UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 319-321;
OETJEN V. CENTRAL LEATHER CO., 246 U.S. 297, 302.  WE THEREFORE AGREE
THAT WHATEVER OF THIS ORDER EMANATES FROM THE PRESIDENT IS NOT
SUSCEPTIBLE OF REVIEW BY THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 

THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT THIS DISABILITY COULD BE OVERCOME BY
REGARDING THE BOARD AS A REGULATORY AGENT OF CONGRESS TO PASS ON SUCH
MATTERS AS THE FITNESS, WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT, AND
THAT THE BOARD'S OWN DETERMINATION OF THESE MATTERS IS SUBJECT TO
REVIEW.  THE COURT, SPEAKING OF THE BOARD'S ACTION, SAID:  "IT IS NOT
FINAL TILL THE BOARD AND THE COURT HAVE COMPLETED THEIR FUNCTIONS. 
THEREAFTER THE COMPLETED ACTION MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AS TO
CITIZEN AIR CARRIERS IN CASES UNDER SEC. 801."  THE LEGAL INCONGRUITY
OF INTERPOSING JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN THE ACTION BY THE BOARD AND THAT
BY THE PRESIDENT ARE AS GREAT AS THE PRACTICAL DISADVANTAGES.  THE
LATTER ARISE CHIEFLY FROM THE INEVITABLE DELAY AND OBSTRUCTION IN THE
MIDST OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.  THE FORMER ARISES FROM THE
FACT THAT UNTIL THE PRESIDENT ACTS THERE IS NO FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION TO REVIEW.  THE STATUTE WOULD HARDLY HAVE FORBIDDEN
PUBLICATION BEFORE SUBMISSION IF IT HAD CONTEMPLATED INTERPOSITION OF
THE COURTS AT THIS INTERMEDIATE STAGE.  NOR COULD IT HAVE EXPECTED THE
COURTS TO STAY THE PRESIDENT'S HAND AFTER SUBMISSION WHILE THEY
DELIBERATE ON THE INCHOATE DETERMINATION.  THE DIFFICULTY IS MANIFEST
IN THIS CASE.  REVIEW COULD NOT BE SOUGHT UNTIL THE ORDER WAS MADE
AVAILABLE, AND AT THAT TIME IT HAD CEASED TO BE MERELY THE BOARD'S
TENTATIVE DECISION AND HAD BECOME ONE FINALIZED BY PRESIDENTIAL
DISCRETION. 

UNTIL THE DECISION OF THE BOARD HAS PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL, IT GRANTS
NO PRIVILEGE AND DENIES NO RIGHT.  IT CAN GIVE NOTHING AND CAN TAKE
NOTHING AWAY FROM THE APPLICANT OR A COMPETITOR.  IT MAY BE A STEP
WHICH IF ERRONEOUS WILL MATURE INTO A PREJUDICIAL RESULT, AS AN ORDER
FIXING VALUATIONS IN A RATE PROCEEDING MAY FORESHOW AND COMPEL A
PREJUDICIAL RATE ORDER.  BUT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ARE NOT REVIEWABLE
UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY IMPOSE AN OBLIGATION, DENY A RIGHT OR FIX SOME
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP AS A CONSUMMATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. 
UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE R. CO., 273 U.S. 299; UNITED
STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 244 U.S. 82; ROCHESTER TELEPHONE
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 131.  THE DILEMMA FACED BY THOSE
WHO DEMAND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S ORDER IS THAT BEFORE
PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL IT IS NOT A FINAL DETERMINATION EVEN OF THE
BOARD'S ULTIMATE ACTION, AND AFTER PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL THE WHOLE
ORDER, BOTH IN WHAT IS APPROVED WITHOUT CHANGE AS WELL AS IN AMENDMENTS
WHICH HE DIRECTS, DERIVES ITS VITALITY FROM THE EXERCISE OF
UNREVIEWABLE PRESIDENTIAL DISCRETION. 

THE COURT BELOW CONSIDERED THAT AFTER IT REVIEWED THE BOARD'S ORDER
ITS JUDGMENT WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT, THAT HIS POWER TO
DISAPPROVE WOULD APPLY AFTER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE COURT ACTS, AND
HENCE THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANCE OF A DEADLOCK AND NO CONFLICT OF
FUNCTION.  BUT IF THE PRESIDENT MAY COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT, IT WOULD BE ONLY BECAUSE IT IS ONE THE COURTS WERE NOT
AUTHORIZED TO RENDER.  JUDGMENTS WITHIN THE POWERS VESTED IN COURTS BY
THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION MAY NOT LAWFULLY BE REVISED,
OVERTURNED OR REFUSED FAITH AND CREDIT BY ANOTHER DEPARTMENT OF
GOVERNMENT. 

TO REVISE OR REVIEW AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION WHICH HAS ONLY THE
FORCE OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE TO RENDER AN
ADVISORY OPINION IN ITS MOST OBNOXIOUS FORM - ADVICE THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS NOT ASKED, TENDERED AT THE DEMAND OF A PRIVATE LITIGANT, ON A
SUBJECT CONCEDEDLY WITHIN THE PRESIDENT'S EXCLUSIVE, ULTIMATE CONTROL. 
THIS COURT EARLY AND WISELY DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD NOT GIVE ADVISORY
OPINIONS EVEN WHEN ASKED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.  IT HAS ALSO BEEN THE
FIRM AND UNVARYING PRACTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS TO RENDER NO
JUDGMENTS NOT BINDING AND CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTIES AND NONE THAT ARE
SUBJECT TO LATER REVIEW OR ALTERATION BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. 
HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 DALL.  409; UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA, 13 HOW.  40;
GORDON V. UNITED STATES, 117 U.S. 697; IN RE SANBORN, 148 U.S. 222;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447; LA ABRA SILVER
MINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 423; MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES,
219 U.S. 346; UNITED STATES V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 291 U.S. 386. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT ORDERS OF THE BOARD AS TO CERTIFICATES FOR OVERSEAS
OR FOREIGN AIR TRANSPORTATION ARE NOT MATURE AND ARE THEREFORE NOT
SUSCEPTIBLE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AT ANY TIME BEFORE THEY ARE FINALIZED BY
PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL.  AFTER SUCH APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN, THE FINAL
ORDERS EMBODY PRESIDENTIAL DISCRETION AS TO POLITICAL MATTERS BEYOND
THE COMPETENCE OF THE COURTS TO ADJUDICATE.  THIS MAKES IT UNNECESSARY
TO EXAMINE THE OTHER QUESTIONS RAISED.  THE PETITION OF THE WATERMAN
STEAMSHIP CORP. SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE REED
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS OF
THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD OF THE KIND INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  THAT
REVIEW CAN BE HAD WITHOUT INTRUDING ON THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE.  AND BY GRANTING IT WE GIVE EFFECT TO THE INTERESTS OF
BOTH THE CONGRESS AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN THIS FIELD. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS CONGRESS CONTROL OVER
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  ART. I, SEC. 8.  THE PRESENT ACT IS
AN EXERCISE OF THAT POWER.  CONGRESS CREATED THE BOARD AND DEFINED ITS
FUNCTIONS.  IT SPECIFIED THE STANDARDS WHICH THE BOARD IS TO APPLY IN
GRANTING CERTIFICATES FOR OVERSEAS AND FOREIGN AIR TRANSPORTATION.  FN1
IT EXPRESSLY MADE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW ORDERS OF THE BOARD
GRANTING OR DENYING CERTIFICATES TO CITIZENS AND WITHHELD JUDICIAL
REVIEW WHERE THE APPLICANTS ARE NOT CITIZENS.  FN2  IF THIS WERE ALL,
THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION. 

BUT CONGRESS DID NOT LEAVE THE MATTER ENTIRELY TO THE BOARD. 
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANT ROLE THE PRESIDENT PLAYS IN MILITARY AND
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, IT MADE HIM A PARTICIPANT IN THE PROCESS. 
APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF THE TYPE INVOLVED HERE ARE TRANSMITTED
TO HIM BEFORE HEARING, ALL DECISIONS ON THE APPLICATIONS ARE SUBMITTED
TO HIM BEFORE THEIR PUBLICATION, AND THE ORDERS ARE "SUBJECT TO" HIS
APPROVAL.  FN3  SINCE HIS DECISIONS IN THESE MATTERS ARE OF A CHARACTER
WHICH INVOLVES AN EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS OR
MILITARY MATTERS, I DO NOT THINK CONGRESS INTENDED THEM TO BE SUBJECT
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

BUT REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION DOES NOT RESULT FROM READING THE
STATUTE IN THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN.  CONGRESS MADE REVIEWABLE BY THE
COURTS ONLY ORDERS "ISSUED BY THE BOARD UNDER THIS ACT."  FN4  THOSE
ORDERS CAN BE REVIEWED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY CONDUCT OF THE
PRESIDENT, FOR THAT PART OF THE ORDERS WHICH IS THE WORK OF THE BOARD
IS PLAINLY IDENTIFIABLE.  FN5  THE PRESIDENT IS PRESUMABLY CONCERNED
ONLY WITH THE IMPACT OF THE ORDER ON FOREIGN RELATIONS OR MILITARY
MATTERS.  TO THE EXTENT THAT HE DISAPPROVES ACTION TAKEN BY THE BOARD,
HIS ACTION CONTROLS.  BUT WHERE THAT IS NOT DONE, THE BOARD'S ORDER HAS
AN EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT OF PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL, TRACING TO CONGRESS'
POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE.  APPROVAL BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER THIS
STATUTORY SCHEME HAS RELEVANCE FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW ONLY AS
INDICATING WHEN THE ACTION OF THE BOARD IS REVIEWABLE.  WHEN THE BOARD
HAS FINISHED WITH THE ORDER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION IS ENDED. 
WHEN THE ORDER FIXES RIGHTS, ON CLEARANCE BY THE PRESIDENT, IT BECOMES
REVIEWABLE.  BUT THE ACTION OF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT BROADEN THE
REVIEW.  REVIEW IS RESTRICTED TO THE ACTION OF THE BOARD AND THE BOARD
ALONE. 

THE STATUTE, AS I CONSTRUE IT, CONTEMPLATES THAT CERTIFICATES ISSUED
WILL REST ON ORDERS OF THE BOARD WHICH SATISFY THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED
BY CONGRESS.  PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL CANNOT MAKE VALID INVALID ORDERS OF
THE BOARD.  HIS APPROVAL SUPPLEMENTS RATHER THAN SUPERSEDES BOARD
ACTION.  ONLY WHEN THE BOARD HAS ACTED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS
AUTHORITY HAS THE BASIS BEEN LAID FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES.  THE
REQUIREMENT THAT A VALID BOARD ORDER UNDERLIE EACH CERTIFICATE THUS
PROTECTS THE PRESIDENT AS WELL AS THE LITIGANTS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AGAINST UNLAWFUL BOARD ACTION. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IS EVIDENCED BY THE CHARACTER OF CASES
CONTROLLED BY THIS DECISION.  THE PRESENT RULING IS NOT LIMITED TO
CASES GRANTING OR DENYING CERTIFICATES FOR AIR TRANSPORTATION TO AND
FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  IT ALSO DENIES POWER TO REVIEW ORDERS
GOVERNING AIR TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TWO POINTS IN ALASKA, BETWEEN TWO
POINTS IN HAWAII, BETWEEN SEATTLE AND JUNEAU, BETWEEN NEW ORLEANS AND
SAN JUAN.  FN6  ALL OF THOSE ARE NOW BEYOND JUDICIAL REVIEW.  AND SO
THEY SHOULD BE SO FAR AS CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT IS CONCERNED.  BUT
CONGRESS HAS COMMANDED OTHERWISE AS TO ACTION BY THE BOARD.  THE BOARD
CAN ACT IN A LAWLESS WAY.  WITH THAT IN MIND, CONGRESS SOUGHT TO
PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BY MAKING JUDICIAL
REVIEW A CHECK ON BOARD ACTION.  THAT WAS THE AIM OF CONGRESS, NOW
DEFEATED BY A LEGALISM WHICH IN MY VIEW DOES NOT SQUARE WITH REALITY. 

IN THIS PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE RESPONDENT CHARGED THAT THE BOARD
HAD NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS FINDINGS THAT CHICAGO AND
SOUTHERN AIR LINES WAS FIT, WILLING AND ABLE TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS
UNDER THE CERTIFICATE; AND IT CHARGED THAT WHEN A CHANGE OF CONDITIONS
AS TO CHICAGO AND SOUTHERN AIR LINES' ABILITY TO PERFORM WAS CALLED TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD, THE BOARD REFUSED TO REOPEN THE CASE.  I DO
NOT KNOW WHETHER THERE IS MERIT IN THOSE CONTENTIONS.  BUT NO MATTER
HOW SUBSTANTIAL AND IMPORTANT THE QUESTIONS, THEY ARE NOW BEYOND
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  TODAY A LITIGANT TENDERS QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE
ARBITRARY CHARACTER OF THE BOARD'S RULING.  TOMORROW THOSE QUESTIONS
MAY RELATE TO THE RIGHT TO NOTICE, ADEQUACY OF HEARINGS, OR THE LACK OF
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  BUT NO MATTER HOW EXTREME THE ACTION OF
THE BOARD, THE COURTS ARE POWERLESS TO CORRECT IT UNDER TODAY'S
DECISION.  THUS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IS FRUSTRATED. 

JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD ASSURE THE PRESIDENT, THE LITIGANTS AND THE
PUBLIC THAT THE BOARD HAD ACTED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS AUTHORITY.  IT
WOULD CARRY OUT THE AIM OF CONGRESS TO GUARD AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION WHICH EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY BOUNDS.  IT WOULD GIVE EFFECT TO THE
INTERESTS OF BOTH CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT IN THIS FIELD. 

FN1  SEE SECS. 401, 408(B), 52 STAT. 987, 1001, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 481,
488. 

FN2  SECTION 1006(A) PROVIDES IN PART:  "ANY ORDER, AFFIRMATIVE OR
NEGATIVE, ISSUED BY THE BOARD UNDER THIS ACT, EXCEPT ANY ORDER IN
RESPECT OF ANY FOREIGN AIR CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
PRESIDENT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 801 OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UPON
PETITION, FILED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF SUCH ORDER, BY ANY
PERSON DISCLOSING A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN SUCH ORDER."  52 STAT.
1024, 54 STAT. 1235, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 646(A). 

BEFORE ENGAGING IN AIR TRANSPORTATION.  52 STAT. 987, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
481(A).  THERE IS THE SAME REQUIREMENT IN CASE OF A FOREIGN AIR
CARRIER.  SEC. 402(A), 52 STAT. 991, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 482(A).  AN AIR
CARRIER IS DEFINED AS A CITIZEN WHO UNDERTAKES TO ENGAGE IN AIR
TRANSPORTATION (SEC. 1(2), 52 STAT. 977, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 401(2)), AND A
FOREIGN AIR CARRIER IS DEFINED AS ANY PERSON NOT A CITIZEN WHO
UNDERTAKES TO ENGAGE IN FOREIGN AIR TRANSPORTATION.  SEC. 1(19), 52
STAT. 978, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 401(19). 

FN3  SEC. 801, 52 STAT. 1014, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 601. 

FN4  SEC. 1006(A), SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN5  THE BOARD HAD CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING 29 APPLICATIONS FOR
CERTIFICATES TO ENGAGE IN AIR TRANSPORTATION WHICH WERE FILED BY 15
APPLICANTS.  THE PRESIDENT'S PARTIAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
DISPOSITION OF THESE APPLICATIONS DID NOT RELATE TO THE APPLICATIONS
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  AS TO THEM, THE ACTION OF THE BOARD STANDS
UNALTERED.    FN6  BY SEC. 801 THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT EXTENDS TO
ORDERS "AUTHORIZING AN AIR CARRIER TO ENGAGE IN OVERSEAS OR FOREIGN AIR
TRANSPORTATION, OR AIR TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN PLACES IN THE SAME
TERRITORY OR POSSESSION."  52 STAT. 1014, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 601.  SECTION
1(21) INCLUDES IN OVERSEAS AIR TRANSPORTATION COMMERCE BETWEEN A PLACE
IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND A PLACE IN A TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR BETWEEN A PLACE IN A TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES AND A PLACE IN ANY OTHER TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION.  52 STAT. 979, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 401(21). 
..END :










LE MAISTRE V. LEFFERS, 333 U.S. 1 


NO. 362.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1948.  - 159
FLA. 122, 31 SO.2D 155, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 205 OF THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT OF
1940, AS AMENDED, TOLLS THE RUNNING OF THE TIME GRANTED UNDER STATE LAW
TO REDEEM LAND SOLD OR FORFEITED FOR TAXES FOR SO LONG AS THE OWNER WAS
IN MILITARY SERVICE AFTER OCTOBER 6, 1942, AND GIVES HIM A PERIOD IN
WHICH TO REDEEM AFTER HIS DISCHARGE EQUAL TO THAT PORTION OF THE STATE
STATUTORY PERIOD WHICH DID NOT RUN BECAUSE IT WAS SUSPENDED BY THIS
PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  P. 3. 

2.  IT IS NOT LIMITED TO CASES WHERE THE STATE LAW PROVIDES FOR
TRANSFER OF TITLE TO A PURCHASER AT A TAX SALE SUBJECT TO DEFEASANCE BY
REDEMPTION, BUT APPLIES AS WELL TO CASES IN WHICH THE TAX SALE RESULTS
IN THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE ENTITLING THE HOLDER TO APPLY FOR A
TAX DEED AFTER THE LAPSE OF A SPECIFIED TIME.  PP. 3-4. 

3.  IT APPLIES TO ALL KINDS OF LAND AND IS NOT LIMITED BY SEC. 500 TO
"REAL PROPERTY OWNED AND OCCUPIED FOR DWELLING, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS,
OR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES."  PP. 4-6. 

4.  THE ACT MUST BE READ WITH AN EYE FRIENDLY TO THOSE WHO DROPPED
THEIR AFFAIRS TO ANSWER THEIR COUNTRY'S CALL.  P. 6. 

LE MAISTRE V. LEFFERS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT DENYING RELIEF UNDER
SEC. 205 OF THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT OF 1940, AS
AMENDED.  159 FLA. 122, 31 SO.2D 155.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
332 U.S. 814.  REVERSED, P. 6. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

54 STAT. 1178, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 769, 770, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. V,
SEC. 525, PROVIDES IN PART THAT NO PORTION OF THE PERIOD OF MILITARY
SERVICE  FN1  WHICH OCCURS AFTER OCTOBER 6, 1942,  FN2  SHALL BE
INCLUDED "IN COMPUTING ANY PERIOD NOW OR HEREAFTER PROVIDED BY ANY LAW
FOR THE REDEMPTION OF REAL PROPERTY SOLD OR FORFEITED TO ENFORCE ANY
OBLIGATION, TAX, OR ASSESSMENT." 

PETITIONER OWNED LAND IN FLORIDA ON WHICH TAXES BECAME DELINQUENT
APRIL 1, 1940.  UNDER FLORIDA STATUTORY PROCEDURE N3 THE TAX COLLECTOR
AFTER NOTICE SELLS THE LAND AT PUBLIC SALE AND ISSUES A TAX CERTIFICATE
TO THE PURCHASER.  AT ANY TIME AFTER TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE
CERTIFICATE THE HOLDER THEREOF MAY APPLY FOR A TAX DEED.  NOTICE IS
GIVEN, A PUBLIC SALE IS HAD, AND A TAX DEED IS ISSUED.  THE OWNER MAY
REDEEM THE LAND AT ANY TIME AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE AND
BEFORE ISSUANCE OF THE TAX DEED. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PROCEDURE A TAX CERTIFICATE ON PETITIONER'S
LANDS WAS ISSUED AUGUST 5, 1940.  PETITIONER WAS ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE
NAVY FROM AUGUST 18, 1942, UNTIL HIS DISCHARGE ON DECEMBER 18, 1945. 
APPLICATION FOR A TAX DEED WAS MADE BY ONE CONROD IN JANUARY, 1943, AND
THE DEED ISSUED TO HIM ON MARCH 1, 1943.  IT IS THROUGH HIM THAT
RESPONDENTS CLAIM BY MESNE CONVEYANCES. 

PETITIONER FILED THIS SUIT IN EQUITY ON MARCH 25, 1946, SEEKING TO
SET ASIDE THE TAX DEED BY REASON OF SEC. 205 OF THE SOLDIERS' AND
SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT.  THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED A
JUDGMENT DENYING THE RELIEF, 159 FLA. 122, 31 SO.2D 155, ON THE
AUTHORITY OF ITS EARLIER DECISION IN DE LOACH V. CALIHAN, 158 FLA. 639,
30 SO.2D 910.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL ACT
SEEMED TO US NOT ONLY A DUBIOUS ONE BUT ALSO AT VARIANCE WITH ILLINOIS
NAT. BANK V. GWINN, 390 ILL. 345, 61 N.E.2D 249. 

UNDER FLORIDA LAW PETITIONER CONCEDEDLY COULD HAVE REDEEMED ANY TIME
BETWEEN AUGUST 5, 1940, WHEN THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED, AND MARCH 1,
1943, WHEN THE TAX DEED WAS ISSUED.  THE PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL ACT
WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED BECAME EFFECTIVE DURING THAT PERIOD -
OCTOBER 6, 1942.  AT THAT TIME PETITIONER WAS IN THE NAVY AND AT ONCE
BECAME A BENEFICIARY OF IT.  THAT MEANS THAT THE RUNNING OF THE TIME
GRANTED HIM UNDER FLORIDA LAW TO REDEEM WAS TOLLED AS LONG AS HE WAS IN
THE MILITARY SERVICE.  SINCE HE WOULD HAVE HAD FROM OCTOBER 6, 1942, TO
MARCH 1, 1943, TO REDEEM, THE EFFECT OF THE ACT WAS TO GIVE HIM THE
SAME LENGTH OF TIME AFTER HIS DISCHARGE FOR THAT PURPOSE.  HIS PRESENT
ACTION BEING TIMELY, THERE IS THUS NO BARRIER TO HIS RECOVERY SO FAR AS
THE ACT IS CONCERNED. 

TWO REASONS, HOWEVER, ARE ADVANCED AGAINST IT.  FIRST, IT IS ARGUED
THAT SEC. 205 APPLIES ONLY WHERE STATE LAW PROVIDES FOR TRANSFER OF
TITLE TO THE PURCHASER SUBJECT TO DEFEASANCE BY REDEMPTION.  THE
FLORIDA PROCEDURE IS SAID TO BE NOT COVERED BY SEC. 205 SINCE TITLE
PASSES ONLY ON ISSUANCE OF THE DEED, WHICH ENDS THE PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION.  WE DO NOT THINK SEC. 205 DESERVES SUCH A TECHNICAL
READING.  THE PROVISION IN QUESTION WAS ADDED IN 1942 TO REMEDY WHAT
THIS COURT HAD HELD TO BE A CASUS OMISSUS IN A PRECEDING ACT.  FN4
EBERT V. POSTON, 266 U.S. 548, 554.  ITS LANGUAGE DOES NOT COMPEL THE
NARROW READING THAT IS SUGGESTED; AND THE SPIRIT OF THE AMENDMENT
REPELS ANY SUCH RESTRICTION.  IT COVERS "ANY PERIOD  ...  PROVIDED BY
ANY LAW FOR THE REDEMPTION OF REAL PROPERTY SOLD OR FORFEITED," ETC.
WE SEE NEITHER IN THAT LANGUAGE NOR IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
PROVISION ANY PURPOSE TO RESTRICT ITS APPLICATION TO CASES WHERE
REDEMPTION FOLLOWS PASSAGE OF TITLE. 

THE SECOND REASON URGED AGAINST PETITIONER IS THE ONE ADOPTED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN DE LOACH V. CALIHAN, SUPRA.  IT HELD THAT
SEC. 205 IS LIMITED BY SEC. 500.  THE LATTER SECTION GIVES ADDED
PROTECTION TO A PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE BY PROVIDING THAT NO SALE
FOR TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE EXCEPT UPON LEAVE OF COURT "IN
RESPECT OF  ...  REAL PROPERTY OWNED AND OCCUPIED FOR DWELLING,
PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS, OR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES," AND BY GRANTING A
GIVEN PERIOD FOR REDEMPTION.  FN5  THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HELD
THAT SEC. 500 DESCRIBES THE CLASS OF REAL PROPERTY ON WHICH A SOLDIER
OR SAILOR IS GRANTED INDULGENCE, WHILE SEC. 205 INDICATES THE PERIOD OF
THE INDULGENCE.  UNDER THAT VIEW PETITIONER WOULD FAIL BECAUSE THE
PROPERTY IN QUESTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE LAND "OWNED AND OCCUPIED FOR
DWELLING, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS, OR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES." 

WE DO NOT, HOWEVER, READ THE ACT SO RESTRICTIVELY.  THE TWO SECTIONS
205 AND 500 - SUPPLEMENT EACH OTHER.  SECTION 500, APPLICABLE TO
RESTRICTED TYPES OF REAL PROPERTY, GIVES GREATER PROTECTION THAN SEC.
205.  IT RESTRAINS THE SALE FOR TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS OF SPECIFIED TYPES
OF REAL PROPERTY EXCEPT UPON LEAVE OF COURT AND PRESCRIBES FOR THEM A
SPECIFIED TIME WITHIN WHICH THE RIGHT TO REDEEM MAY BE EXERCISED IF THE
PROPERTY IS SOLD.  SECTION 205 EXTENDS IN TERMS TO ALL LAND AND ONLY
TOLLS THE TIME FOR REDEMPTION FOR THE PERIOD OF MILITARY SERVICE.  THE
OTHER CONSTRUCTION ATTRIBUTES TO CONGRESS A PURPOSE TO PROTECT ONLY
CERTAIN CLASSES OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THOSE IN THE ARMED SERVICES. 
WE CANNOT DO THAT WITHOUT DRASTICALLY CONTRACTING THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.
205 AND CLOSING OUR EYES TO ITS BENEFICENT PURPOSE.  BUT AS WE
INDICATED ON ANOTHER OCCASION, THE ACT MUST BE READ WITH AN EYE
FRIENDLY TO THOSE WHO DROPPED THEIR AFFAIRS TO ANSWER THEIR COUNTRY'S
CALL.  BOONE V. LIGHTNER, 319 U.S. 561, 575.  REVERSED. 

FN1 THE TERM IS DEFINED IN SEC. 101(2) OF THE ACT AS FOLLOWS: 

"FOR PERSONS IN ACTIVE SERVICE AT THE DATE OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS
ACT IT SHALL BEGIN WITH THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS ACT; FOR PERSONS
ENTERING ACTIVE SERVICE AFTER THE DATE OF THIS ACT, WITH THE DATE OF
ENTERING ACTIVE SERVICE.  IT SHALL TERMINATE WITH THE DATE OF DISCHARGE
FROM ACTIVE SERVICE OR DEATH WHILE IN ACTIVE SERVICE, BUT IN NO CASE
LATER THAN THE DATE WHEN THIS ACT CEASES TO BE IN FORCE." 

FN2  THAT WAS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT WHICH ADDED THIS
PROVISION TO SEC. 205. 

FN3  FLA. STATS. CC. 193, 194(1941). 

FN4  THE PURPOSE WAS STATED AS FOLLOWS:  "THE RUNNING OF THE
STATUTORY PERIOD DURING WHICH REAL PROPERTY MAY BE REDEEMED AFTER SALE
TO ENFORCE ANY OBLIGATION, TAX, OR ASSESSMENT IS LIKEWISE TOLLED DURING
THE PART OF SUCH PERIOD WHICH OCCURS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE
SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1942.  ALTHOUGH
THE TOLLING OF SUCH PERIODS IS NOW WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, IT HAS
NOT BEEN HELD TO BE WITHIN THE LETTER THEREOF (I.R. 1269 C.B., JUNE
1922, P. 311; EBERT V. POSTON, 266 U.S. 549)."  SEN. REP. NO. 1558,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4. 

FN5  SECTION 500 READS IN PART: 

"(1)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHEN ANY TAXES OR
ASSESSMENTS, WHETHER GENERAL OR SPECIAL (OTHER THAN TAXES ON INCOME),
WHETHER FALLING DUE PRIOR TO OR DURING THE PERIOD OF MILITARY SERVICE,
IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, MONEY, OR CREDITS, OR REAL PROPERTY
OWNED AND OCCUPIED FOR DWELLING, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS, OR
AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY A PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE OR HIS DEPENDENTS
AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF HIS PERIOD OF MILITARY SERVICE AND STILL SO
OCCUPIED BY HIS DEPENDENTS OR EMPLOYEES ARE NOT PAID. 

"(2)  NO SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE MADE TO ENFORCE THE
COLLECTION OF SUCH TAX OR ASSESSMENT, OR ANY PROCEEDING OR ACTION FOR
SUCH PURPOSE COMMENCED, EXCEPT UPON LEAVE OF COURT GRANTED UPON
APPLICATION MADE THEREFOR BY THE COLLECTOR OF TAXES OR OTHER OFFICER
WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO ENFORCE THE COLLECTION OF TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS. 
THE COURT THEREUPON, UNLESS IN ITS OPINION THE ABILITY OF THE PERSON IN
MILITARY SERVICE TO PAY SUCH TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS IS NOT MATERIALLY
AFFECTED BY REASON OF SUCH SERVICE, MAY STAY SUCH PROCEEDINGS OR SUCH
SALE, AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, FOR A PERIOD EXTENDING NOT MORE THAN SIX
MONTHS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF MILITARY SERVICE OF SUCH
PERSON." 

"(3)  WHEN BY LAW SUCH PROPERTY MAY BE SOLD OR FORFEITED TO ENFORCE
THE COLLECTION OF SUCH TAX OR ASSESSMENT, SUCH PERSON IN MILITARY
SERVICE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REDEEM OR COMMENCE AN ACTION TO REDEEM
SUCH PROPERTY, AT ANY TIME NOT LATER THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE
TERMINATION OF SUCH SERVICE, BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER
THE DATE WHEN THIS ACT CEASES TO BE IN FORCE; BUT THIS SHALL NOT BE
TAKEN TO SHORTEN ANY PERIOD, NOW OR HEREAFTER PROVIDED BY THE LAWS OF
ANY STATE OR TERRITORY FOR SUCH REDEMPTION." 
..END :




















FONG HAW TAN V. PHELAN, 333 U.S. 6 


NO. 370.  ARGUED JANUARY 8-9, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1948.  - 162
F.2D 663, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917, AS AMENDED, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT AN ALIEN WHO IS "SENTENCED MORE THAN ONCE" TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR OR MORE BECAUSE OF CONVICTION OF A
CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE COMMITTED AFTER ENTRY SHALL BE
DEPORTED, DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ALIEN WHO, IN A SINGLE TRIAL, HAS BEEN
CONVICTED ON TWO DIFFERENT COUNTS OF A SINGLE INDICTMENT FOR MURDERING
TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  PP. 7-10. 

2.  THIS PROVISION OF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES DEPORTATION ONLY WHERE
AN ALIEN, HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE AND HAVING
BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, ONCE AGAIN COMMITS A CRIME OF THAT NATURE
AND IS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR IT.  P. 9. 

3.  BECAUSE DEPORTATION IS A DRASTIC PENALTY EQUIVALENT TO BANISHMENT
OR EXILE, THIS SECTION SHOULD BE GIVEN THE NARROWEST OF SEVERAL
POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS USED.  P. 10. 

FONG HAW TAN V. PHELAN, ACTING DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN ALIEN'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION PENDING DEPORTATION. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  162 F.2D 663.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 814.  REVERSED, P. 10. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN ALIEN WHO IS "SENTENCED MORE THAN ONCE" TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM
OF ONE YEAR OR MORE BECAUSE OF CONVICTION IN THIS COUNTRY OF A CRIME
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE COMMITTED AFTER HIS ENTRY SHALL, WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE, BE DEPORTED.  SECTION 19(A)  FN1  OF THE
IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, 39 STAT. 889, AS AMENDED 54 STAT.
671, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A).  IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER, A NATIVE OF
CHINA, WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER UNDER EACH OF TWO COUNTS OF AN
INDICTMENT, ONE COUNT CHARGING THE MURDER OF ONE LAI QUAN, THE OTHER
CHARGING THE MURDER ON OR ABOUT THE SAME DATE OF ONE ONG KIM.  FN2  THE
JURY FIXED THE PUNISHMENT FOR EACH MURDER AT LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  HE WAS
THEREUPON SENTENCED TO PRISON FOR THE PERIOD OF HIS NATURAL LIFE BY ONE
JUDGMENT, CONSTRUED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO IMPOSE THAT
SENTENCE ON HIM FOR EACH OF THE CONVICTIONS.  SOMETIME THEREAFTER A
WARRANT FOR HIS DEPORTATION TO CHINA ISSUED.  LATER HE WAS PAROLED,
RELEASED FROM PRISON, AND TAKEN INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE IMMIGRATION
SERVICE.  HE THEN FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF HIS DETENTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED
THE PETITION ON THE AUTHORITY OF NISHIMOTO V. NAGLE, 44 F.2D 304.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  162 F.2D 663.  THE CASE IS HERE ON
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS AMONG THE CIRCUITS CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTORY WORDS, "SENTENCED MORE THAN ONCE." 

THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIEW IS THAT A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR MORE
THAN ONE OFFENSE, WHETHER AT THE SAME OR DIFFERENT TIMES AND WHETHER
CARRYING CONCURRENT OR CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES, SATISFY THE STATUTE. 
THAT WAS THE POSITION TAKEN IN NISHIMOTO V. NAGLE, SUPRA, AND FOLLOWED
BELOW.  THE SECOND CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT AN ALIEN WHO IS GIVEN CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCES IS SENTENCED MORE THAN ONCE, WHILE AN ALIEN WHO IS GIVEN
CONCURRENT SENTENCES IS NOT, EVEN THOUGH THE CRIMES ARE DISTINCT. 
JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 28 F.2D 810; UNITED STATES EX REL. MIGNOZZI
V. DAY, 51 F.2D 1019.  THE FOURTH CIRCUIT TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE
STATUTE IS SATISFIED WHETHER OR NOT THE SENTENCES IMPOSED RUN
CONCURRENTLY OR CONSECUTIVELY PROVIDED THAT THE TWO CRIMES WHICH ARE
COMMITTED AND FOR WHICH SEPARATE SENTENCES ARE IMPOSED ARISE OUT OF
SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS.  TASSARI V. SCHMUCKER, 53 F.2D 570.  THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT TAKES THE VIEW THAT AN ALIEN IS "SENTENCED ONCE WHEN, AFTER A
CONVICTION OR PLEA OF GUILTY, HE IS CALLED BEFORE THE BAR AND RECEIVES
JUDGMENT, WHETHER FOR ONE OR SEVERAL CRIMES, WITH ONE OR SEVERAL TERMS
OF IMPRISONMENT.  HE IS SENTENCED MORE THAN ONCE WHEN THAT HAPPENS
AGAIN."  WALLIS V. TECCHIO, 65 F.2D 250, 252.  THAT VIEW IS AN
ADAPTATION OF THE POSITION TAKEN EARLIER BY A DISTRICT COURT IN THE
SAME CIRCUIT THAT CONGRESS BY THIS PROVISION AIMED TO DEPORT
"REPEATERS," VIZ. "PERSONS WHO COMMIT A CRIME AND ARE SENTENCED, AND
THEN COMMIT ANOTHER AND ARE SENTENCED AGAIN."  OPOLICH V. FLUCKEY, 47
F.2D 950. 

THE LATTER IS THE READING WE GIVE THE STATUTE.  THERE IS A TRACE OF
THAT PURPOSE FOUND IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  CONGRESSMAN SABATH WHO
PROPOSED THE PROVISION AS AN AMENDMENT SAID IT WAS AIMED AT THE ALIEN
"WHO IS A CRIMINAL AT HEART, A MAN WHO IS GUILTY OF A SECOND OFFENSE
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE AND FOR THE SECOND TIME IS CONVICTED."  53
CONG. REC. 5167.  CONGRESSMAN BURNETT, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE BILL ON
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, GAVE THE SAME EMPHASIS WHEN HE SAID THAT THE
AMENDMENT PROPOSED "THAT THOSE WHO COMMITTED A SECOND CRIME INVOLVING
MORAL TURPITUDE SHOWED THEN A CRIMINAL HEART AND A CRIMINAL TENDENCY,
AND THEY SHOULD THEN BE DEPORTED."  ID., P. 5168.  THE COMMITTEE REPORT
IN THE SENATE PUT THE MATTER INTO SHARPER FOCUS WHEN IT STATED THAT THE
PROVISION WAS "INTENDED TO REACH THE ALIEN WHO AFTER ENTRY SHOWS
HIMSELF TO BE A CRIMINAL OF THE CONFIRMED TYPE."  S. REP. NO. 352, 64TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 15.  PERHAPS THE PLAINEST "CONFIRMED TYPE" OF
CRIMINAL IS THE REPEATER.  WE GIVE EXPRESSION TO THAT VIEW BY READING
THIS PROVISION OF THE STATUTE TO AUTHORIZE DEPORTATION ONLY WHERE AN
ALIEN HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE AND HAVING
BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, ONCE AGAIN COMMITS A CRIME OF THAT NATURE
AND IS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR IT. 

WE RESOLVE THE DOUBTS IN FAVOR OF THAT CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE
DEPORTATION IS A DRASTIC MEASURE AND AT TIMES THE EQUIVALENT OF
BANISHMENT OR EXILE, DELGADILLO V. CARMICHAEL, 332 U.S. 388.  IT IS THE
FORFEITURE FOR MISCONDUCT OF A RESIDENCE IN THIS COUNTRY.  SUCH A
FORFEITURE IS A PENALTY.  TO CONSTRUE THIS STATUTORY PROVISION LESS
GENEROUSLY TO THE ALIEN MIGHT FIND SUPPORT IN LOGIC.  BUT SINCE THE
STAKES ARE CONSIDERABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, WE WILL NOT ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS MEANT TO TRENCH ON HIS FREEDOM BEYOND THAT WHICH IS REQUIRED
BY THE NARROWEST OF SEVERAL POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS USED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 19(A) SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE PROVIDES: 

"  ...  EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, ANY ALIEN WHO IS HEREAFTER
SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR OR MORE BECAUSE OF
CONVICTION IN THIS COUNTRY OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE,
COMMITTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE ALIEN TO THE UNITED
STATES, OR WHO IS HEREAFTER SENTENCED MORE THAN ONCE TO SUCH A TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT BECAUSE OF CONVICTION IN THIS COUNTRY OF ANY CRIME
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, COMMITTED AT ANY TIME AFTER ENTRY  ...
SHALL, UPON THE WARRANT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
AND DEPORTED.  ...  THE PROVISION OF THIS SECTION RESPECTING THE
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS CONVICTED OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
SHALL NOT APPLY TO ONE WHO HAS BEEN PARDONED, NOR SHALL SUCH
DEPORTATION BE MADE OR DIRECTED IF THE COURT, OR JUDGE THEREOF,
SENTENCING SUCH ALIEN FOR SUCH CRIME SHALL, AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING
JUDGMENT OR PASSING SENTENCE OR WITHIN THIRTY DAYS THEREAFTER, DUE
NOTICE HAVING FIRST BEEN GIVEN TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE, MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT SUCH ALIEN SHALL NOT BE
DEPORTED IN PURSUANCE OF THIS ACT; NOR SHALL ANY ALIEN CONVICTED AS
AFORESAID BE DEPORTED UNTIL AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HIS IMPRISONMENT
...  " 

FN2  WHETHER THE TWO MURDERS RESULTED FROM ONE ACT OR FROM TWO DOES
NOT APPEAR. 
..END :



JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 333 U.S. 10 


NO. 329.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1948.  - 162
F.2D 562, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE OFFICERS DETECTED THE ODOR OF BURNING OPIUM EMANATING FROM A
HOTEL ROOM, ENTERED WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT AND WITHOUT KNOWING WHO
WAS THERE, ARRESTED THE ONLY OCCUPANT, SEARCHED THE ROOM AND FOUND
OPIUM AND SMOKING APPARATUS, THE SEARCH VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; AND A CONVICTION FOR A VIOLATION OF THE
FEDERAL NARCOTIC LAWS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THUS OBTAINED CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED.  PP. 11-17. 

2.  AS A GENERAL RULE, THE QUESTION WHEN THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY MUST
REASONABLY YIELD TO THE RIGHT OF SEARCH MUST BE DECIDED BY A JUDICIAL
OFFICER, NOT BY A POLICEMAN OR GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT AGENT.  PP. 13
14. 

3.  THERE WERE NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE SUFFICIENT
TO JUSTIFY THE FAILURE OF THE OFFICER TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT.  PP.
14-15. 

4.  IT BEING CONCEDED THAT THE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO
ARREST PETITIONER UNTIL HE ENTERED THE ROOM AND FOUND HER TO BE THE
SOLE OCCUPANT, THE SEARCH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS BEING INCIDENT TO A
VALID ARREST.  PP. 15-16. 

5.  THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME JUSTIFY AN ARREST BY A
SEARCH AND JUSTIFY THE SEARCH BY THE ARREST.  PP. 16-19. 

6.  AN OFFICER GAINING ACCESS TO PRIVATE LIVING QUARTERS UNDER COLOR
OF HIS OFFICE AND OF THE LAW MUST THEN HAVE SOME VALID BASIS IN LAW FOR
THE INTRUSION.  P. 17. 

JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON EVIDENCE
OBTAINED BY A SEARCH MADE WITHOUT A WARRANT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  162 F.2D 562.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332
U.S. 807.  REVERSED, P. 17. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED ON FOUR COUNTS CHARGING VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
NARCOTIC LAWS.  FN1  THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH BRINGS THE CASE HERE IS
WHETHER IT WAS LAWFUL, WITHOUT A WARRANT OF ANY KIND, TO ARREST
PETITIONER AND TO SEARCH HER LIVING QUARTERS. 

TAKING THE GOVERNMENT'S VERSION OF DISPUTED EVENTS, DECISION WOULD
REST ON THESE FACTS: 

AT ABOUT 7:30 P.M. DETECTIVE LIEUTENANT BELLAND, AN OFFICER OF THE
SEATTLE POLICE FORCE NARCOTIC DETAIL, RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMER, WHO WAS ALSO A KNOWN NARCOTIC USER, THAT UNKNOWN
PERSONS WERE SMOKING OPIUM IN THE EUROPE HOTEL.  THE INFORMER WAS TAKEN
BACK TO THE HOTEL TO INTERVIEW THE MANAGER, BUT HE RETURNED AT ONCE
SAYING HE COULD SMELL BURNING OPIUM IN THE HALLWAY.  BELLAND
COMMUNICATED WITH FEDERAL NARCOTIC AGENTS AND BETWEEN 8:30 AND 9
O'CLOCK WENT BACK TO THE HOTEL WITH FOUR SUCH AGENTS.  ALL WERE
EXPERIENCED IN NARCOTIC WORK AND RECOGNIZED AT ONCE A STRONG ODOR OF
BURNING OPIUM WHICH TO THEM WAS DISTINCTIVE AND UNMISTAKABLE.  THE ODOR
LED TO ROOM 1.  THE OFFICERS DID NOT KNOW WHO WAS OCCUPYING THAT ROOM. 
THEY KNOCKED AND A VOICE INSIDE ASKED WHO WAS THERE.  "LIEUTENANT
BELLAND," WAS THE REPLY.  THERE WAS A SLIGHT DELAY, SOME "SHUFFLING OR
NOISE" IN THE ROOM AND THEN THE DEFENDANT OPENED THE DOOR.  THE OFFICER
SAID, "I WANT TO TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT."  SHE THEN, AS HE DESCRIBES
IT, "STEPPED BACK ACQUIESCENTLY AND ADMITTED US."  HE SAID, "I WANT TO
TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS OPIUM SMELL IN THE ROOM HERE."  SHE DENIED THAT
THERE WAS SUCH A SMELL.  THEN HE SAID, "I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER YOURSELF
UNDER ARREST BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO SEARCH THE ROOM."  THE SEARCH
TURNED UP INCRIMINATING OPIUM AND SMOKING APPARATUS, THE LATTER BEING
WARM, APPARENTLY FROM RECENT USE.  THIS EVIDENCE THE DISTRICT COURT
REFUSED TO SUPPRESS BEFORE TRIAL AND ADMITTED OVER DEFENDANT'S
OBJECTION AT THE TRIAL.  CONVICTION RESULTED AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN2 

THE DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE SEARCH OF HER HOME AS A VIOLATION OF THE
RIGHTS SECURED TO HER, IN COMMON WITH OTHERS, BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSTITUTION.  THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDS THE SEARCH AS LEGALLY
JUSTIFIABLE, MORE PARTICULARLY AS INCIDENT TO WHAT IT URGES WAS A
LAWFUL ARREST OF THE PERSON. 

                                  I. 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
PROVIDES: 

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES,
PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL
NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,
SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE
TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

ENTRY TO DEFENDANT'S LIVING QUARTERS, WHICH WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE
SEARCH, WAS DEMANDED UNDER COLOR OF OFFICE.  IT WAS GRANTED IN
SUBMISSION TO AUTHORITY RATHER THAN AS AN UNDERSTANDING AND INTENTIONAL
WAIVER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  CF. AMOS V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S.
313. 

AT THE TIME ENTRY WAS DEMANDED THE OFFICERS WERE POSSESSED OF
EVIDENCE WHICH A MAGISTRATE MIGHT HAVE FOUND TO BE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR
ISSUING A SEARCH WARRANT.  WE CANNOT SUSTAIN DEFENDANT'S CONTENTION,
ERRONEOUSLY MADE, ON THE STRENGTH OF TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S.
1, THAT ODORS CANNOT BE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE PROBABLE
GROUNDS FOR ANY SEARCH.  THAT DECISION HELD ONLY THAT ODORS ALONE DO
NOT AUTHORIZE A SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT.  IF THE PRESENCE OF ODORS IS
TESTIFIED TO BEFORE A MAGISTRATE AND HE FINDS THE AFFIANT QUALIFIED TO
KNOW THE ODOR, AND IT IS ONE SUFFICIENTLY DISTINCTIVE TO IDENTIFY A
FORBIDDEN SUBSTANCE, THIS COURT HAS NEVER HELD SUCH A BASIS
INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT.  INDEED IT MIGHT
VERY WELL BE FOUND TO BE EVIDENCE OF MOST PERSUASIVE CHARACTER. 

THE POINT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WHICH OFTEN IS NOT GRASPED BY
ZEALOUS OFFICERS, IS NOT THAT IT DENIES LAW ENFORCEMENT THE SUPPORT OF
THE USUAL INFERENCES WHICH REASONABLE MEN DRAW FROM EVIDENCE.  ITS
PROTECTION CONSISTS IN REQUIRING THAT THOSE INFERENCES BE DRAWN BY A
NEUTRAL AND DETACHED MAGISTRATE INSTEAD OF BEING JUDGED BY THE OFFICER
ENGAGED IN THE OFTEN COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE OF FERRETING OUT CRIME. 
FN3  ANY ASSUMPTION THAT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A MAGISTRATE'S
DISINTERESTED DETERMINATION TO ISSUE A SEARCH WARRANT WILL JUSTIFY THE
OFFICERS IN MAKING A SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT WOULD REDUCE THE
AMENDMENT TO A NULLITY AND LEAVE THE PEOPLE'S HOMES SECURE ONLY IN THE
DISCRETION OF POLICE OFFICERS.  FN4  CRIME, EVEN IN THE PRIVACY OF
ONE'S OWN QUARTERS, IS, OF COURSE, OF GRAVE CONCERN TO SOCIETY, AND THE
LAW ALLOWS SUCH CRIME TO BE REACHED ON PROPER SHOWING.  THE RIGHT OF
OFFICERS TO THRUST THEMSELVES INTO A HOME IS ALSO A GRAVE CONCERN, NOT
ONLY TO THE INDIVIDUAL BUT TO A SOCIETY WHICH CHOOSES TO DWELL IN
REASONABLE SECURITY AND FREEDOM FROM SURVEILLANCE.  WHEN THE RIGHT OF
PRIVACY MUST REASONABLY YIELD TO THE RIGHT OF SEARCH IS, AS A RULE, TO
BE DECIDED BY A JUDICIAL OFFICER, NOT BY A POLICEMAN OR GOVERNMENT
ENFORCEMENT AGENT. 

THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH, ON BALANCING THE NEED
FOR EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY, IT MAY BE
CONTENDED THAT A MAGISTRATE'S WARRANT FOR SEARCH MAY BE DISPENSED
WITH.  BUT THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE.  NO REASON IS OFFERED FOR NOT
OBTAINING A SEARCH WARRANT EXCEPT THE INCONVENIENCE TO THE OFFICERS AND
SOME SLIGHT DELAY NECESSARY TO PREPARE PAPERS AND PRESENT THE EVIDENCE
TO A MAGISTRATE.  THESE ARE NEVER VERY CONVINCING REASONS AND, IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, CERTAINLY ARE NOT ENOUGH TO BY-PASS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT.  NO SUSPECT WAS FLEEING OR LIKELY TO TAKE FLIGHT.  THE
SEARCH WAS OF PERMANENT PREMISES, NOT OF A MOVABLE VEHICLE.  NO
EVIDENCE OR CONTRABAND WAS THREATENED WITH REMOVAL OR DESTRUCTION,
EXCEPT PERHAPS THE FUMES WHICH WE SUPPOSE IN TIME WOULD DISAPPEAR.  BUT
THEY WERE NOT CAPABLE AT ANY TIME OF BEING REDUCED TO POSSESSION FOR
PRESENTATION TO COURT.  THE EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE BEFORE THE
SEARCH WAS ADEQUATE AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE OFFICERS TO THAT EFFECT
WOULD NOT PERISH FROM THE DELAY OF GETTING A WARRANT. 

IF THE OFFICERS IN THIS CASE WERE EXCUSED FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DUTY OF PRESENTING THEIR EVIDENCE TO A MAGISTRATE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
THINK OF A CASE IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED. 

                                 II. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT
MUST BE HELD VALID BECAUSE INCIDENT TO AN ARREST.  THIS ALLEGED GROUND
OF VALIDITY REQUIRES EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
ARREST ITSELF WAS LAWFUL.  SINCE IT WAS WITHOUT WARRANT, IT COULD BE
VALID ONLY IF FOR A CRIME COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ARRESTING
OFFICER OR FOR A FELONY OF WHICH HE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE
DEFENDANT GUILTY.  FN5 

THE GOVERNMENT, IN EFFECT, CONCEDES THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICER DID
NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PETITIONER UNTIL HE HAD ENTERED HER
ROOM AND FOUND HER TO BE THE SOLE OCCUPANT.  FN6  IT POINTS OUT
SPECIFICALLY, REFERRING TO THE TIME JUST BEFORE ENTRY, "FOR AT THAT
TIME THE AGENTS DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THERE WAS ONE OR SEVERAL PERSONS
IN THE ROOM.  IT WAS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE ROOM MIGHT HAVE
BEEN AN OPIUM SMOKING DEN."  AND IT SAYS, "  ...  THAT WHEN THE AGENTS
WERE ADMITTED INTO THE ROOM AND FOUND ONLY PETITIONER PRESENT THEY HAD
A REASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING THAT SHE HAD BEEN SMOKING OPIUM AND
THUS ILLICITLY POSSESSED THE NARCOTIC."  THUS THE GOVERNMENT QUITE
PROPERLY STAKES THE RIGHT TO ARREST, NOT ON THE INFORMER'S TIP AND THE
SMELL THE OFFICERS RECOGNIZED BEFORE ENTRY, BUT ON THE KNOWLEDGE THAT
SHE WAS ALONE IN THE ROOM, GAINED ONLY AFTER, AND WHOLLY BY REASON OF,
THEIR ENTRY OF HER HOME.  IT WAS THEREFORE THEIR OBSERVATIONS INSIDE OF
HER QUARTERS, AFTER THEY HAD OBTAINED ADMISSION UNDER COLOR OF THEIR
POLICE AUTHORITY, ON WHICH THEY MADE THE ARREST.  FN7 

THUS THE GOVERNMENT IS OBLIGED TO JUSTIFY THE ARREST BY THE SEARCH
AND AT THE SAME TIME TO JUSTIFY THE SEARCH BY THE ARREST.  THIS WILL
NOT DO.  AN OFFICER GAINING ACCESS TO PRIVATE LIVING QUARTERS UNDER
COLOR OF HIS OFFICE AND OF THE LAW WHICH HE PERSONIFIES MUST THEN HAVE
SOME VALID BASIS IN LAW FOR THE INTRUSION.  ANY OTHER RULE WOULD
UNDERMINE "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS,
HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS,"  FN8  AND WOULD OBLITERATE ONE OF THE
MOST FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WHERE
OFFICERS ARE UNDER THE LAW, AND THE POLICE-STATE WHERE THEY ARE THE
LAW.  REVERSED. 

FN1  TWO COUNTS CHARGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 2553(A) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE (26 U.S.C. SEC. 2553(A)) AND TWO COUNTS CHARGED VIOLATION
OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS IMPORT AND EXPORT ACT AS AMENDED (21 U.S.C. SEC.
174). 

FN2  162 F.2D 562. 

FN3  IN UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452, 464, THIS COURT
SAID:  "  ...  THE INFORMED AND DELIBERATE DETERMINATIONS OF
MAGISTRATES EMPOWERED TO ISSUE WARRANTS AS TO WHAT SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ARE TO BE PREFERRED
OVER THE HURRIED ACTION OF OFFICERS AND OTHERS WHO MAY HAPPEN TO MAKE
ARRESTS.  SECURITY AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCHES IS MORE LIKELY TO BE
ATTAINED BY RESORT TO SEARCH WARRANTS THAN BY RELIANCE UPON THE CAUTION
AND SAGACITY OF PETTY OFFICERS WHILE ACTING UNDER THE EXCITEMENT THAT
ATTENDS THE CAPTURE OF PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIME.  ...  " 

FN4  "BELIEF, HOWEVER WELL FOUNDED, THAT AN ARTICLE SOUGHT IS
CONCEALED IN A DWELLING HOUSE FURNISHES NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A SEARCH
OF THAT PLACE WITHOUT A WARRANT.  AND SUCH SEARCHES ARE HELD UNLAWFUL
NOTWITHSTANDING FACTS UNQUESTIONABLY SHOWING PROBABLE CAUSE."  AGNELLO
V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, 33. 

FN5  THIS IS THE WASHINGTON LAW.  STATE V. SYMES, 20 WASH. 484, 55 P.
626; STATE V. LINDSEY, 192 WASH. 356, 73 P.2D 738; STATE V. KRANTZ, 24
WASH.2D 350, 164 P.2D 453; STATE V. ROBBINS, 25 WASH.2D 110, 169 P.2D
246.  STATE LAW DETERMINES THE VALIDITY OF ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT. 
UNITED STATES V. DI RE, 332 U.S. 581. 

FN6  THE GOVERNMENT BRIEF STATES THAT THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS
"WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ARREST OF PETITIONER FOR
POSSESSING OPIUM PREPARED FOR SMOKING AND THE SEARCH OF HER ROOM IN A
HOTEL INCIDENT THERETO FOR THE CONTRABAND OPIUM, WHERE EXPERIENCED
NARCOTIC AGENTS UNMISTAKABLY DETECTED AND TRACED THE PUNGENT,
IDENTIFIABLE ODOR OF BURNING OPIUM EMANATING FROM HER ROOM AND KNEW,
BEFORE THEY ARRESTED HER, THAT SHE WAS THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM." 

FN7  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO SUGGESTS THAT "IN A SENSE, THE ARREST WAS
MADE IN 'HOT PURSUIT.'  ... "  HOWEVER, WE FIND NO ELEMENT OF "HOT
PURSUIT" IN THE ARREST OF ONE WHO WAS NOT IN FLIGHT, WAS COMPLETELY
SURROUNDED BY AGENTS BEFORE SHE KNEW OF THEIR PRESENCE, WHO CLAIMS
WITHOUT DENIAL THAT SHE WAS IN BED AT THE TIME, AND WHO MADE NO ATTEMPT
TO ESCAPE.  NOR WOULD THESE FACTS SEEM TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WASHINGTON "UNIFORM LAW ON FRESH PURSUIT."  SESSION LAWS 1943, CH.
261. 

FN8  IN GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 303, 304, THIS COURT SAID:
"IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD TO THE EMPHASIS WITH WHICH THE FRAMERS
OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND THIS COURT (IN BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S.
616, IN WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, AND IN SILVERTHORNE
LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385) HAVE DECLARED THE IMPORTANCE
TO POLITICAL LIBERTY AND TO THE WELFARE OF OUR COUNTRY OF THE DUE
OBSERVANCE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION BY THESE TWO
(FOURTH AND FIFTH) AMENDMENTS.  THE EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS CITED IS:
THAT SUCH RIGHTS ARE DECLARED TO BE INDISPENSABLE TO THE 'FULL
ENJOYMENT OF PERSONAL SECURITY, PERSONAL LIBERTY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY';
THAT THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
LIBERTY; AND THAT THE GUARANTY OF THEM IS AS IMPORTANT AND AS
IMPERATIVE AS ARE THE GUARANTIES OF THE OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN,  - THE RIGHT, TO TRIAL BY JURY, TO THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
DECIDED THAT THESE AMENDMENTS SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION, SO
AS TO PREVENT STEALTHY ENCROACHMENT UPON OR 'GRADUAL DEPRECIATION' OF
THE RIGHTS SECURED BY THEM, BY IMPERCEPTIBLE PRACTICE OF COURTS OR BY
WELL-INTENTIONED BUT MISTAKENLY OVER-ZEALOUS EXECUTIVE OFFICERS." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR.
JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. BROWN, 333 U.S. 18 


NO. 100.  ARGUED JANUARY 5-6, 1948.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1948.  - 160
F.2D 310, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE FEDERAL ESCAPE ACT, A SENTENCE FOR ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT TO
ESCAPE WHILE SERVING ONE OF SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IS TO BE
SUPERIMPOSED UPON ALL PRIOR SENTENCES SERVICE OF WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
COMPLETED AND IS TO BEGIN UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE LAST OF THE PRIOR
SENTENCES.  PP. 18-27. 

2.  THE CANON IN FAVOR OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL STATUTES IS
NOT AN INEXORABLE COMMAND TO OVERRIDE COMMON SENSE AND EVIDENT
STATUTORY PURPOSE.  P. 25. 

UNITED STATES V. BROWN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF A SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON HIM FOR
AN OFFENSE UNDER THE FEDERAL ESCAPE ACT WAS OVERRULED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  67 F.SUPP.  116.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  160 F.2D 310.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 755.  REVERSED, P. 27. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL ESCAPE ACT REQUIRES THAT A SENTENCE FOR ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT
TO ESCAPE "SHALL BEGIN UPON THE EXPIRATION OF, OR UPON LEGAL RELEASE
FROM, ANY SENTENCE UNDER WHICH SUCH PERSON IS HELD AT THE TIME OF" THE
ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT.  FN1  THE NARROW QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ACT
REQUIRES THAT A SENTENCE FOR ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE SHALL BEGIN UPON THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PARTICULAR SENTENCE BEING SERVED WHEN THE ATTEMPT
OCCURS OR AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE AGGREGATE TERM OF CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCES THEN IN EFFECT, OF WHICH THE ONE BEING SERVED IS THE FIRST. 

THE FACTS ARE THESE.  RESPONDENT WAS CHARGED UNDER TWO INDICTMENTS IN
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.  ONE CONTAINED
TWO COUNTS, THE FIRST CHARGING CONSPIRACY TO ESCAPE, THE SECOND ATTEMPT
TO ESCAPE.  THE OTHER INDICTMENT WAS FOR VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT ACT.  41 STAT. 324, 59 STAT. 536.  RESPONDENT
PLEADED GUILTY TO ALL THREE CHARGES.  ON OCTOBER 26, 1945, HE WAS
SENTENCED AS FOLLOWS:  UNDER THE FIRST INDICTMENT CHARGING THE ESCAPE
OFFENSES, IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR ON THE SECOND COUNT, AND FOR TWO
YEARS ON THE FIRST COUNT, THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY IN THAT
ORDER; UNDER THE MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT INDICTMENT, IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO
YEARS, TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE OTHER TWO.  THUS THE AGGREGATE OF
THE THREE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WAS FIVE YEARS. 

ON NOVEMBER 2, 1945, RESPONDENT WAS SERVING THE ONE-YEAR TERM OF THE
FIRST SENTENCE AS ORDERED BY THE COURT.  ON THAT DATE HE WAS BEING
TRANSPORTED IN CUSTODY OF A UNITED STATES MARSHAL FROM AN ARKANSAS JAIL
TO LEAVENWORTH PENITENTIARY IN KANSAS.  FN2  DURING THE JOURNEY'S
PROGRESS THROUGH MISSOURI HE ATTEMPTED TO ESCAPE.  THIS RESULTED IN
ANOTHER INDICTMENT, IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, TO WHICH ALSO
RESPONDENT PLEADED GUILTY.  THE DISTRICT COURT SENTENCED HIM TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE YEARS, THE TERM "TO BEGIN AT THE EXPIRATION OF
ANY SENTENCE HE IS NOW SERVING, OR TO BE SERVED WHICH WAS IMPOSED PRIOR
TO THIS DATE  ...  " 

RESPONDENT FILED A MOTION TO CORRECT THIS LAST SENTENCE.  HE
CONTENDED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE LAST ATTEMPT HE WAS BEING "HELD,"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE FEDERAL ESCAPE ACT, ONLY
UNDER THE ONE-YEAR SENTENCE PRONOUNCED IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
ARKANSAS, AND THAT THE ACT REQUIRED THE FIVE-YEAR SENTENCE UNDER THE
INDICTMENT RETURNED IN MISSOURI TO COMMENCE AT THE EXPIRATION OF THAT
ONE-YEAR TERM. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE MOTION.  IT HELD THAT UNDER THE
STATUTE THE SENTENCING COURT COULD ORDER THAT THE SENTENCE BEGIN TO RUN
AFTER THE SERVICE OF ANY ONE OR ALL OF RESPONDENT'S THREE PRIOR
SENTENCES.  67 F.SUPP.  116.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER,
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  RELYING ON THE CANON OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF
CRIMINAL STATUTES, IT EQUATED THE STATUTORY WORD "HELD" TO "SERVING,"
AND CONCLUDED THAT A SENTENCE FOR ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE MUST
BEGIN AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE PARTICULAR SENTENCE WHICH THE PRISONER
IS SERVING AT THE TIME THE ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT OCCURS.  ACCORDINGLY THE
COURT REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO
CORRECT THE FIVE-YEAR SENTENCE SO THAT IT WOULD BEGIN UPON EXPIRATION
OF OR LEGAL RELEASE FROM THE ONE-YEAR SENTENCE.  160 F.2D 310.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL ESCAPE ACT. 

ALTHOUGH PRISON BREACH OR OTHER ESCAPE BY PRISONERS FROM CUSTODY WAS
A CRIME UNDER THE COMMON LAW,  FN3  THERE WAS NO FEDERAL STATUTE
PROSCRIBING SUCH CONDUCT PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ORIGINAL FEDERAL
ESCAPE ACT IN 1930, 46 STAT. 327.  THAT ACT DEALT ONLY WITH ESCAPE OR
ATTEMPTED ESCAPE WHILE UNDER SENTENCE.  IT WAS ENACTED AS PART OF A
PROGRAM SPONSORED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE REORGANIZATION AND
IMPROVED ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL PENAL SYSTEM.  H.R. REP. NO.
106, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS.  THE ACT TOOK ITS PRESENT FORM IN 1935, WHEN
IT WAS BROADENED AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REQUEST  FN4  TO COVER
ESCAPE WHILE IN CUSTODY ON A FEDERAL CHARGE PRIOR TO CONVICTION.  FN5 

THE LEGISLATION REFLECTS AN UNMISTAKABLE INTENTION TO PROVIDE
PUNISHMENT FOR ESCAPE OR ATTEMPTED ESCAPE TO BE SUPERIMPOSED UPON THE
PUNISHMENT METED OUT FOR PREVIOUS OFFENSES.  THIS APPEARS FROM THE FACE
OF THE STATUTE ITSELF.  IT FIRST PROVIDES THAT PERSONS ESCAPING OR
ATTEMPTING TO ESCAPE WHILE IN CUSTODY, WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER
CONVICTION, SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE.  THEN FOLLOW PROVISIONS FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER THE OFFENSE SHALL BE A FELONY OR A MISDEMEANOR,
WITH CORRESPONDING PRESCRIPTIONS OF PENALTIES. 

AT THIS POINT THE STATUTE HAD NO NEED TO GO FURTHER IF THE INTENTION
HAD BEEN MERELY TO LEAVE TO THE COURT'S DISCRETION WHETHER THE
PENALTIES, WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED, SHOULD RUN CONCURRENTLY OR
CONSECUTIVELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERALLY PREVAILING PRACTICE.  ON
THAT ASSUMPTION THE STATUTE WAS COMPLETE, WITHOUT ADDITION OF THE LAST
TWO SENTENCES.  BUT IN THAT FORM THE ACT WOULD HAVE LEFT THE COURT WITH
DISCRETION TO MAKE THE SENTENCE RUN CONCURRENTLY OR CONSECUTIVELY WITH
THE OTHER SENTENCES PREVIOUSLY IN EFFECT OR PUT INTO EFFECT IN THE CASE
OR CASES PENDING WHEN THE ESCAPE OCCURRED. 

PRECISELY TO AVOID THIS MORE WAS ADDED, IN THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS
THAT "THE SENTENCE IMPOSED HEREUNDER SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO AND
INDEPENDENT OF ANY SENTENCE IMPOSED IN THE CASE IN CONNECTION WITH
WHICH SUCH PERSON IS HELD IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME OF SUCH ESCAPE OR
ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE.  IF SUCH PERSON BE UNDER SENTENCE AT THE TIME OF
SUCH OFFENSE, THE SENTENCE IMPOSED HEREUNDER SHALL BEGIN UPON THE
EXPIRATION OF, OR UPON LEGAL RELEASE FROM, ANY SENTENCE UNDER WHICH
SUCH PERSON IS HELD AT THE TIME OF SUCH ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE." 

THESE SENTENCES FORECLOSED, AND WERE INTENDED TO FORECLOSE, WHAT THE
EARLIER PORTIONS OF THE ACT HAD LEFT OPEN, NAMELY, THE COURT'S POWER TO
MAKE THE ESCAPE SENTENCE RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE OTHER SENTENCES. 
FN6  WHETHER THE ESCAPE WAS BEFORE OR AFTER CONVICTION, ADDITIONAL
PUNISHMENT WAS MADE MANDATORY, IN THE ONE CASE BY THE EXPLICIT
REQUIREMENT, "IN ADDITION TO AND INDEPENDENT OF" ANY SENTENCE IMPOSED;
IN THE OTHER BY THE COMMAND THAT THE ESCAPE SENTENCE "SHALL BEGIN UPON
THE EXPIRATION OF, OR UPON LEGAL RELEASE FROM, ANY SENTENCE," ETC.  THE
DIFFERING VERBAL FORMULATIONS WERE NECESSARY TO MEET THE DIFFERENT
"BEFORE" AND "AFTER" CONVICTION SITUATIONS.  BUT THE TWO PROVISIONS HAD
ONE AND THE SAME PURPOSE, TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT FOR THE
ESCAPE OFFENSE.  THE IDEA OF ALLOWING THE ESCAPE SENTENCES TO RUN
CONCURRENTLY WITH THE OTHER SENTENCES WAS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS COMMON AND PRIMARY OBJECT, AS WELL AS WITH THE WORDING OF THE TWO
CONCLUDING CLAUSES.  IN MANY CASES SUCH CONCURRENT SENTENCES WOULD
NULLIFY THE STATUTORY PURPOSE ALTOGETHER; IN OTHERS, THEY WOULD DO SO
PARTIALLY.  FN7 

MOREOVER, IMPOSITION OF SUCH ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT HAD BEEN THE PRIME
OBJECT, INDEED THE ONLY ONE, OF THE ORIGINAL ESCAPE ACT, WHICH WAS
APPLICABLE ONLY TO ESCAPES AFTER CONVICTION.  IT MADE SUCH ESCAPES OR
ATTEMPTS "OFFENSES," PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE
YEARS, "SUCH SENTENCE TO BEGIN UPON THE EXPIRATION OF OR UPON LEGAL
RELEASE FROM THE SENTENCE FOR WHICH SAID PERSON WAS ORIGINALLY
CONFINED."  FN8  THIS PROVISION, THOUGH DIFFERING FROM THE WORDING OF
THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE PRESENT ACT, HAD THE SAME PRIME OBJECT. 
CONCURRENT SENTENCES WERE AS INCONSISTENT WITH ITS TERMS AS WITH THOSE
OF THE PRESENT ACT, FOR IN MANY CASES LIKE THIS ONE THEY WOULD HAVE
ADDED NO FURTHER PUNISHMENT IN FACT. 

CONGRESS, IT IS TRUE, DID NOT CAST THE ORIGINAL ACT IN TERMS
SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO A SITUATION COMPREHENDING CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCES EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT, AS MORE
CAREFUL DRAFTING OF THE ACT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED TO INSURE ACHIEVING THE
OBJECT OF ADDING INDEPENDENT PUNISHMENT IN ALL CASES.  ITS
CONCENTRATION UPON THAT MAIN ASPECT OF THE LEGISLATION APPARENTLY LED
IT TO REDUCED EMPHASIS UPON AND CARE IN THE DEFINITION OF THE
SITUATIONS TO WHICH THE ACT WOULD APPLY. 

NEVERTHELESS IN VIEW OF THE ACT'S BROAD PURPOSE, IT WOULD BE DIFFCULT
TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ORIGINAL PHRASING, "THE SENTENCE FOR WHICH SAID
PERSON WAS ORIGINALLY CONFINED," WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE
SENTENCE, ONE OF SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE ONES, WHICH THE PRISONER HAPPENED
TO BE SERVING WHEN THE ESCAPE OR THE ATTEMPT OCCURRED, OR THAT THE ACT
WOULD BE EFFECTIVE ONLY WHERE THE PRISONER WAS SERVING TIME UNDER A
SINGLE SENTENCE, WHICH WAS PERHAPS THE MORE COMMON OF THE SITUATIONS
WHICH CONGRESS HAD IN MIND.  THE SAME BASIC REASONS WHICH REQUIRE
REJECTION OF EITHER OF THOSE VIEWS OF THE PRESENT ACT WOULD APPLY TO
THE ORIGINAL ONE. 

BUT, IN ANY EVENT, CONGRESS CHANGED THE WORDING OF THE "AFTER
EXPIRATION OR RELEASE" CLAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL STATUTE WHEN ENACTING THE
AMENDED ONE.  "THE SENTENCE FOR WHICH SAID PERSON WAS ORIGINALLY
CONFINED" BECAME "ANY SENTENCE UNDER WHICH SUCH PERSON IS HELD AT THE
TIME OF SUCH ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE."  THIS CHANGE IS NOT WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANCE.  FOR USE OF THE WORDS "ANY SENTENCE UNDER WHICH SUCH
PERSON IS HELD" MEANS SOMETHING MORE THAN THE NARROWEST POSSIBLE
CONSTRUCTION OF "THE SENTENCE FOR WHICH SAID PERSON WAS ORIGINALLY
CONFINED," UNLESS THE CHANGE IS TO BE TAKEN AS MEANINGLESS.  WE THINK
IT WAS INTENDED, AS WERE THE OTHER AMENDMENTS MADE AT THE SAME TIME, TO
BROADEN THE ACT'S COVERAGE OR TO ASSURE ITS BROAD COVERAGE, FN9  AND
THEREFORE TO INCLUDE SITUATIONS WHERE THE PRISONER WAS BEING "HELD"
UNDER MORE THAN ONE SENTENCE.  OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR
OR MEANING IN THE CHANGE. 

WE THINK THEREFORE THAT THE ACT CONTEMPLATES "ADDITIONAL" AND
"INDEPENDENT" PUNISHMENT IN BOTH THE CONCLUDING CLAUSES IN A PRACTICAL
SENSE, NOT MERELY IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES HAVING
NO EFFECT TO CONFINE THE PRISONER FOR ANY ADDITIONAL TIME.  IN A VERY
PRACTICAL SENSE, A PERSON IN CUSTODY UNDER SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCES IS BEING "HELD" UNDER THE COMBINED SENTENCES.  AND THE
LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE IS A NATURAL, THOUGH NOT NICELY PRECISE, WAY OF
STATING THE PURPOSE THAT THE SENTENCE FOR ESCAPE SHALL BEGIN UPON THE
EXPIRATION OF THE AGGREGATE OF THE TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED BY
EARLIER SENTENCES.  GRANTED THAT THE PRESENT PROBLEM COULD HAVE BEEN
OBVIATED BY EVEN MORE ASTUTE DRAFTSMANSHIP, THE STATUTE ON ITS FACE AND
TAKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY SUFFICIENTLY EXPRESSES THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE
THAT THE SENTENCE FOR ESCAPE IS TO BE SUPERIMPOSED UPON ALL PRIOR
SENTENCES. 

WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE MAXIM THAT PENAL STATUTES ARE TO BE STRICTLY
CONSTRUED.  AND WE WOULD NOT HESITATE, PRESENT ANY COMPELLING REASON,
TO APPLY IT AND ACCEPT THE RESTRICTED INTERPRETATION.  BUT NO SUCH
REASON IS TO BE FOUND HERE.  THE CANON IN FAVOR OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION
IS NOT AN INEXORABLE COMMAND TO OVERRIDE COMMON SENSE AND EVIDENT
STATUTORY PURPOSE.  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE MAGNIFIED EMPHASIS UPON A
SINGLE AMBIGUOUS WORD IN ORDER TO GIVE IT A MEANING CONTRADICTORY TO
THE FAIR IMPORT OF THE WHOLE REMAINING LANGUAGE.  AS WAS SAID IN UNITED
STATES V. GASKIN, 320 U.S. 527, 530, THE CANON "DOES NOT REQUIRE
DISTORTION OR NULLIFICATION OF THE EVIDENT MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION."  NOR DOES IT DEMAND THAT A STATUTE BE GIVEN THE
"NARROWEST MEANING"; IT IS SATISFIED IF THE WORDS ARE GIVEN THEIR FAIR
MEANING IN ACCORD WITH THE MANIFEST INTENT OF THE LAWMAKERS.  UNITED
STATES V. RAYNOR, 302 U.S. 540, 552; UNITED STATES V. GILES, 300 U.S.
41, 48; GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124, 128; UNITED STATES V.
CORBETT, 215 U.S. 233, 242. 

TO ACCEPT THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WOULD LEAD TO
BIZARRE RESULTS.  THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE WOULD BE FRUSTRATED, IN
PART AT LEAST, IN EVERY SITUATION WHERE AN ESCAPE IS EFFECTED OR
ATTEMPTED DURING THE PRISONER'S SERVICE OF ANY BUT THE LAST OF TWO OR
MORE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES, POSSIBLY EVEN IN THAT INSTANCE.  BARRING
INTERVENTION OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY NULLIFIED IN
ALL CASES WHERE THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WHICH THE PRISONER HAS NOT
YET BEGUN TO SERVE AGGREGATE FIVE YEARS OR MORE.  IN THE LATTER
SITUATION THE PRISONER COULD ATTEMPT ANY NUMBER OF JAIL BREAKS WITH
IMPUNITY.  A COURT WOULD BE POWERLESS TO IMPOSE ADDED CONFINEMENT FOR
VIOLATION OF THE ESCAPE ACT. 

THE HOLDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THUS PLACES IT BEYOND THE
POWER OF THE JUDGE TO SUPERIMPOSE ADDITIONAL IMPRISONMENT FOR ESCAPE IN
THOSE INSTANCES WHERE SUCH PUNISHMENT IS MOST GLARINGLY NEEDED AS A
DETERRENT.  FN10  THERE IS ALSO THIS FURTHER STRIKING INCONGRUITY.  THE
JUDGE IS COMPLETELY INTERDICTED FROM IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL SENTENCE
FOR ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE, THE ONE TYPE OF OFFENSE WHICH CONGRESS
UNMISTAKABLY INTENDED TO BE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE AND ADDED PUNISHMENT,
ALTHOUGH HE MAY DIRECT THAT A SENTENCE FOR ANY OTHER FEDERAL OFFENSE
SHALL BEGIN AT THE EXPIRATION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES THERETOFORE
IMPOSED.    NO RULE OF CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATES OUR ACCEPTANCE OF AN
INTERPRETATION RESULTING IN PATENTLY ABSURD CONSEQUENCES.  AND THE
ABSENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, OTHER THAN HAS BEEN
RELATED, MAY BE INDICATIVE THAT CONGRESS CONSIDERED THAT THERE WAS NO
SUCH PROBLEM AS IS NOW SOUGHT TO BE INJECTED IN THE STATUTORY WORDING
OR THAT BY THE 1935 AMENDMENT IT HAD CURED THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING
ONE.  THE LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL MUST BE SCRUPULOUSLY PROTECTED. 
BUT THE SAFEGUARDS OF CHERISHED RIGHTS ARE NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE
DOCTRINAIRE APPLICATION OF THE TENET OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION.  NEITHER
AN ORDERED SYSTEM OF LIBERTY NOR THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
WOULD BE SERVED BY BLIND NULLIFICATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT
CLEARLY REFLECTED IN THE FEDERAL ESCAPE ACT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE ACT IS AS FOLLOWS:  "ANY PERSON COMMITTED TO THE CUSTODY OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, OR WHO IS
CONFINED IN ANY PENAL OR CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION PURSUANT TO THE
DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR WHO IS IN CUSTODY BY VIRTUE OF
ANY PROCESS ISSUED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES BY ANY COURT,
JUDGE, OR COMMISSIONER, OR WHO IS IN CUSTODY OF AN OFFICER OF THE
UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO LAWFUL ARREST, WHO ESCAPES OR ATTEMPTS TO
ESCAPE FROM SUCH CUSTODY OR INSTITUTION, SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN
OFFENSE.  IF THE CUSTODY OR CONFINEMENT IS BY VIRTUE OF AN ARREST ON A
CHARGE OF FELONY, OR CONVICTION OF ANY OFFENSE WHATSOEVER, THE OFFENSE
OF ESCAPING OR ATTEMPTING TO ESCAPE THEREFROM SHALL CONSTITUTE A FELONY
AND ANY PERSON CONVICTED THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR
NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR BOTH;
AND IF THE CUSTODY OR CONFINEMENT IS BY VIRTUE OF AN ARREST OR CHARGE
OF OR FOR A MISDEMEANOR, AND PRIOR TO CONVICTION, THE OFFENSE OF
ESCAPING OR ATTEMPTING TO ESCAPE THEREFROM SHALL CONSTITUTE A
MISDEMEANOR AND ANY PERSON CONVICTED THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$1,000, OR BOTH.  THE SENTENCE IMPOSED HEREUNDER SHALL BE IN ADDITION
TO AND INDEPENDENT OF ANY SENTENCE IMPOSED IN THE CASE IN CONNECTION
WITH WHICH SUCH PERSON IS HELD IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME OF SUCH ESCAPE OR
ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE.  IF SUCH PERSON BE UNDER SENTENCE AT THE TIME OF
SUCH OFFENSE, THE SENTENCE IMPOSED HEREUNDER SHALL BEGIN UPON THE
EXPIRATION OF, OR UPON LEGAL RELEASE FROM, ANY SENTENCE UNDER WHICH
SUCH PERSON IS HELD AT THE TIME OF SUCH ESCAPE OR ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE." 
49 STAT. 513, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 753H. 

FN2  THE SENTENCE BEGAN TO RUN AS OF THE TIME RESPONDENT WAS
COMMITTED TO JAIL TO AWAIT TRANSPORTATION TO THE LEAVENWORTH
PENITENTIARY.  47 STAT. 381, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 709A. 

FN3  MILLER, CRIMINAL LAW 463-465. 

FN4  H.R. REP. NO. 803, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 1021, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN5  THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF APTLY SUMMARIZES SOME OF THE MORE SERIOUS
CONSIDERATIONS LEADING TO ADOPTION OF THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDED ACTS, AS
FOLLOWS:  "ESCAPES AND ATTEMPTED ESCAPES FROM PENAL INSTITUTIONS OR
FROM OFFICIAL CUSTODY PRESENT A MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM OF PENAL
DISCIPLINE.  THEY ARE OFTEN VIOLENT, MENACING, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE,
THE LIVES OF GUARDS AND CUSTODIANS, AND CARRY IN THEIR WAKE OTHER
CRIMES ATTENDANT UPON PROCURING MONEY, WEAPONS AND TRANSPORTATION AND
UPON RESISTING RECAPTURE." 

FN6  BUT SEE RUTLEDGE V. UNITED STATES, 146 F.2D 199. 

FN7  DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE TERM OF THE SENTENCE FOR ESCAPE, AS OF
THE TIME OF ITS IMPOSITION, IS SHORTER OR LONGER THAN THE PERIODS OF
THE OTHER SENTENCES REMAINING UNSERVED. 

FN8  THE ACT WAS AS FOLLOWS:  "ANY PERSON PROPERLY COMMITTED TO THE
CUSTODY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR WHO
IS CONFINED IN ANY PENAL OR CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, PURSUANT TO THE
DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO ESCAPES OR ATTEMPTS TO ESCAPE
THEREFROM SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE AND UPON APPREHENSION AND
CONVICTION OF ANY SUCH OFFENSE IN ANY UNITED STATES COURT SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, SUCH SENTENCE TO
BEGIN UPON THE EXPIRATION OF OR UPON LEGAL RELEASE FROM THE SENTENCE
FOR WHICH SAID PERSON WAS ORIGINALLY CONFINED."  46 STAT. 327. 

FN9 EITHER BY ELIMINATING THE ORIGINAL WORDING'S AMBIGUITY BY
REJECTING THE NARROW CONSTRUCTION OR, IF THAT CONSTRUCTION WERE THOUGHT
VALID, BY CHANGING THE ACT'S TERMS TO INSURE A DIFFERENT RESULT. 

FN10  THE $5,000 FINE THAT COULD BE IMPOSED FOR EACH ESCAPE ATTEMPT,
SEE NOTE 1 SUPRA, WOULD BE NO DETERRENT TO AN IMPECUNIOUS OFFENDER, AND
LITTLE MORE THAN AN EMPTY THREAT TO THE LONG-INCARCERATED ONE WHOSE ALL
CONSUMING INTEREST IS FREEDOM. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT. 
..END :











BOB-LO EXCURSION CO. V. MICHIGAN, 333 U.S. 28 


NO. 374.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16-17, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1948.  -
317 MICH. 686, 27 N.W.2D 139, AFFIRMED. 


1.  APPELLANT, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION ENGAGED CHIEFLY IN THE ROUND
TRIP TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS FROM DETROIT TO BOIS BLANC ISLAND,
CANADA, WAS CONVICTED IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER THE MICHIGAN
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT FOR REFUSING PASSAGE TO A NEGRO SOLELY BECAUSE OF
COLOR.  HELD:  IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL LOCAL INTEREST ATTACHING TO
APPELLANT'S BUSINESS IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, SUCH
APPLICATION OF THE STATE ACT TO THE APPELLANT, ALTHOUGH ENGAGED IN
FOREIGN COMMERCE, DID NOT CONTRAVENE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 29-40. 

2.  A DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE THAT, AS A MATTER OF
LOCAL LAW, THE STATE STATUTE WAS APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT'S BUSINESS IS
BINDING HERE UPON REVIEW.  P. 33. 

3.  APPELLANT'S TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BETWEEN DETROIT,
MICHIGAN, AND BOIS BLANC ISLAND, CANADA, IS FOREIGN COMMERCE WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 34. 

4.  HALL V. DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485, AND MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S.
373, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 39-40. 

BOB-LO EXCURSION CO. V. MICHIGAN. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

APPELLANT'S CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE
MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE.  317 MICH. 686, 27 N.W.2D 139.  UPON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
AFFIRMED, P. 40. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BOIS BLANC ISLAND IS PART OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO, CANADA.  IT
LIES JUST ABOVE THE MOUTH OF THE DETROIT RIVER, SOME FIFTEEN MILES FROM
MICHIGAN'S METROPOLIS UPSTREAM.  THE ISLAND, KNOWN IN DETROIT BY THE
CORRUPTION "BOB-LO," HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS THAT CITY'S CONEY
ISLAND. 

APPELLANT OWNS ALMOST ALL OF BOIS BLANC IN FEE.  FN1  FOR MANY YEARS
IT HAS OPERATED THE ISLAND, DURING THE SUMMER SEASONS, AS A PLACE OF
DIVERSE AMUSEMENTS FOR DETROIT'S VARIED POPULATION.  APPELLANT ALSO
OWNS AND OPERATES TWO STEAMSHIPS FOR TRANSPORTING ITS PATRONS OF THE
ISLAND'S ATTRACTIONS FROM DETROIT TO BOIS BLANC AND RETURN.  THE
VESSELS ENGAGE IN NO OTHER BUSINESS ON THESE TRIPS.  FN2  NO FREIGHT,
MAIL OR EXPRESS IS CARRIED; THE ONLY PASSENGERS ARE THE PATRONS BENT ON
PLEASURE, WHO BOARD SHIP AT DETROIT; THEY GO ON ROUND-TRIP ONE-DAY
LIMIT  FN3  TICKETS WHICH INCLUDE THE PRIVILEGE OF LANDING AT BOIS
BLANC AND GOING BACK BY A LATER BOAT.  FN4  NO INTERMEDIATE STOPS ARE
MADE ON THESE EXCURSIONS. 

IN CONDUCTING THIS BUSINESS OF AMUSEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION,
APPELLANT LONG HAS FOLLOWED THE POLICY, BY ADVERTISEMENT AND OTHERWISE,
TO INVITE AND ENCOURAGE ALL COMERS, EXCEPT TWO CLASSES.  ONE IS THE
DISORDERLY; THE OTHER, COLORED PEOPLE.  FN5  FROM THE LATTER EXCLUSION
THIS CASE ARISES. 

IN JUNE OF 1945 SARAH ELIZABETH RAY, THE COMPLAINING WITNESS, WAS
EMPLOYED BY THE DETROIT ORDNANCE DISTRICT.  SHE AND SOME FORTY OTHER
GIRLS WERE ALSO MEMBERS OF A CLASS CONDUCTED AT THE COMMERCE HIGH
SCHOOL UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ORDNANCE DISTRICT.  THE CLASS PLANNED
AN EXCURSION TO BOIS BLANC FOR JUNE 21 UNDER THE DISTRICT'S
SPONSORSHIP. 

ON THAT MORNING THIRTEEN GIRLS WITH THEIR TEACHER APPEARED AT
APPELLANT'S DOCK IN DETROIT TO GO ON THE OUTING.  ALL WERE WHITE EXCEPT
MISS RAY.  EACH GIRL PAID EIGHTY-FIVE CENTS TO ONE OF THE GROUP, WHO
PURCHASED ROUND-TRIP TICKETS AND DISTRIBUTED THEM.  THE PARTY THEN
PASSED THROUGH THE GATE, EACH MEMBER GIVING IN HER TICKET WITHOUT
QUESTION FROM THE TICKET TAKER.  THEY THEN CHECKED THEIR COATS, WENT TO
THE UPPER DECKS AND TOOK CHAIRS. 

SHORTLY AFTERWARD DEVEREAUX, APPELLANT'S ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
AND A STEWARD NAMED FOX APPEARED AND STATED THAT MISS RAY COULD NOT GO
ALONG BECAUSE SHE WAS COLORED.  AT FIRST SHE REMONSTRATED AGAINST THE
DISCRIMINATION AND REFUSED TO LEAVE.  BUT WHEN IT APPEARED SHE WOULD BE
EJECTED FORCIBLY, SHE SAID SHE WOULD GO.  DEVEREAUX AND FOX THEN
ESCORTED HER ASHORE, SAYING THE COMPANY WAS A PRIVATE CONCERN AND COULD
EXCLUDE HER IF IT WISHED.  THEY TOOK HER TO THE TICKET OFFICE AND
OFFERED TO RETURN HER FARE.  SHE REFUSED TO ACCEPT IT, TOOK THEIR
NAMES, AND LEFT THE COMPANY'S PREMISES.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT
SHE OR ANY MEMBER OF HER PARTY WAS GUILTY OF UNBECOMING CONDUCT.  NOR
IS THERE ANY DISPUTE CONCERNING THE FACTS. 

THIS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOLLOWED IN THE RECORDER'S COURT FOR
DETROIT, FOR VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT  FN6  IN THE
DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED AGAINST MISS RAY.  JURY TRIAL BEING FORMALLY
WAIVED, THE COURT AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT FOUND APPELLANT
GUILTY AS CHARGED AND SENTENCED IT TO PAY A FINE OF $25.  FN7  ON
APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT, HOLDING THE
STATUTE APPLICABLE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED BY THE CASE AND VALID
IN THAT APPLICATION, AS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER OBJECTIONS
PUT FORWARD.  317 MICH. 686.  IN DUE COURSE PROBABLE JURISDICTION WAS
NOTED HERE.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237(A). 

THE MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, SEC. 146, ENACTS: 

"ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED
TO FULL AND EQUAL ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES AND PRIVILEGES
OF INNS, HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, EATING HOUSES, BARBER SHOPS, BILLIARD
PARLORS, STORES, PUBLIC CONVEYANCES ON LAND AND WATER, THEATRES, MOTION
PICTURE HOUSES, PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, IN ELEVATORS, ON
ESCALATORS, IN ALL METHODS OF AIR TRANSPORTATION AND ALL OTHER PLACES
OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, AMUSEMENT, AND RECREATION, WHERE REFRESHMENTS
ARE OR MAY HEREAFTER BE SERVED, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONDITIONS AND
LIMITATIONS ESTABLISHED BY LAW AND APPLICABLE ALIKE TO ALL CITIZENS AND
TO ALL CITIZENS ALIKE, WITH UNIFORM PRICES."  FN8 

BY SEC. 147, ANY OWNER, LESSEE, PROPRIETOR, AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY
SUCH PLACE WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITHHOLDS ANY ACCOMMODATION
SECURED BY SEC. 146, ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED OR COLOR, BECOMES GUILTY
OF A MISDEMEANOR, PUNISHABLE AS THE SECTION STATES, AND LIABLE TO A
CIVIL ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES.  FN9 

THE MICHIGAN STATUTE IS ONE OF THE FAMILIAR TYPE ENACTED BY MANY
STATES BEFORE AND AFTER THIS COURT'S INVALIDATION OF CONGRESS' SIMILAR
LEGISLATION IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3.  FN10 THE MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT HELD THE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT'S BUSINESS OVER
ITS OBJECTION THAT AS A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW IT IS NOT A "PUBLIC
CONVEYANCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 146.  FN11  WE ACCEPT THIS
CONCLUSION OF THE STATE COURT AS A MATTER OF COURSE.  THAT COURT ALSO
IMPLIEDLY REJECTED APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS BASED UPON
ALLEGED DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ISSUES NOW ELIMINATED FROM THE CASE. 
FN12 

WE HAVE THEREFORE ONLY TO CONSIDER THE SINGLE AND NARROW QUESTION
WHETHER THE STATE COURTS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, ART.
I, SEC. 8, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, DOES NOT FORBID APPLYING THE
MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT'S CONVICTION.  WE AGREE
WITH THEIR DETERMINATION. 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT APPELLANT'S TRANSPORTATION OF ITS PATRONS
IS FOREIGN COMMERCE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ART. I, SEC. 8.  FN13 LORD V.
STEAMSHIP CO., 102 U.S. 541; CF. EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160. 
APPELLANT'S VESSELS SAIL TO AND FROM A PORT OR PLACE IN FOREIGN
TERRITORY WHOLLY UNDER ANOTHER NATION'S SOVEREIGNTY.  THEY CROSS THE
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY, WHICH IS THE THREAD OF THE DETROIT RIVER,
SEVERAL TIMES IN THE COURSE OF EACH SHORT TRIP.  APPELLANT NECESSARILY
COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO FOREIGN COMMERCE,
INCLUDING THOSE GOVERNING CUSTOMS, IMMIGRATION AND NAVIGATION MATTERS. 
IT LIKEWISE SATISFIES SIMILAR REGULATIONS OF THE CANADIAN AUTHORITIES. 
FN14 

OF COURSE WE MUST BE WATCHFUL OF STATE INTRUSION INTO INTERCOURSE
BETWEEN THIS COUNTRY AND ONE OF ITS NEIGHBORS.  BUT IF ANY SEGMENT OF
FOREIGN COMMERCE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE A SPECIAL LOCAL INTEREST, APART
FROM THE NECESSITY OF SAFEGUARDING THE FEDERAL INTEREST IN SUCH MATTERS
AS IMMIGRATION, CUSTOMS AND NAVIGATION, THE TRANSPORTATION OF
APPELLANT'S PATRONS FALLS IN THAT CHARACTERIZATION.  IT WOULD BE HARD
TO FIND A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS TOUCHING FOREIGN SOIL OF MORE HIGHLY
LOCAL CONCERN.  EXCEPT FOR THE SMALL FENCED-OFF PORTION RESERVED FOR
THE LIGHTHOUSE AND THREE COTTAGE SITES,  FN15  THE ISLAND IS
ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY, THOUGH NOT POLITICALLY, AN AMUSEMENT ADJUNCT
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.  NOT ONLY CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATIONS REGULATIONS
OF BOTH COUNTRIES, BUT PHYSICAL BARRIERS PREVENT INTERCOURSE, BOTH
COMMERCIAL AND SOCIAL, BETWEEN CANADIANS AND APPELLANT'S PATRONS,
EXCEPT AS THE FORMER MAY COME FIRST BY OTHER MEANS TO DETROIT, THEN GO
TO THE ISLAND FROM AMERICAN SOIL ON APPELLANT'S VESSELS, AND RETURN
FROM THE HOLIDAY BY THE SAME ROUNDABOUT ROUTE. 

THE RECORD INDICATES THERE ARE NO ESTABLISHED MEANS OF ACCESS FROM
THE CANADIAN SHORE TO THE ISLAND.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVEN
SURREPTITIOUS ENTRY FROM THE CANADIAN MAINLAND.  APPELLANT'S VESSELS
NOT ONLY ARE THE SOLE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THE ISLAND,
BUT CARRY ONLY ITS OWN PATRONS OF BOIS BLANC'S RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES.  THESE TRAVEL EXCLUSIVELY ON ROUND-TRIP TICKETS FOR PASSAGE
BEGINNING AND ENDING ON AMERICAN SOIL.  THEY ARE PRINCIPALLY RESIDENTS
OF DETROIT AND VICINITY.  ALL GO ABOARD THERE AND RETURN THE SAME DAY. 
NONE GO FROM THE ISLAND TO THE CANADIAN BANK OF THE RIVER.  THE ONLY
BUSINESS CONDUCTED AT THE ISLAND IS THE OPERATION OF APPELLANT'S
RECREATIONAL AND ACCESSORY FACILITIES, WHICH APPARENTLY DO NOT INCLUDE
PROVISION FOR OVERNIGHT GUESTS.  NO OTHER PERSONS THAN APPELLANT'S
PATRONS COME TO THE ISLAND, OR HAVE A RIGHT TO COME, FROM CANADA'S
MAINLAND OR ELSEWHERE, OR GO FROM THE ISLAND TO DETROIT. 

THE SUM OF THESE FACTS MAKES BOIS BLANC AN ISLAND IN MORE THAN THE
GEOGRAPHIC SENSE.  THEY INSULATE IT AND APPELLANT'S BUSINESS DONE IN
CONNECTION WITH IT FROM ALL COMMERCIAL OR SOCIAL INTERCOURSE AND
TRAFFIC WITH THE PEOPLE OF ANOTHER COUNTRY USUALLY CHARACTERISTIC OF
FOREIGN COMMERCE, IN SHORT FROM THE NORMAL FLOW AND INCIDENTS OF SUCH
COMMERCE.  SINCE THE ENTERPRISE IS CONDUCTED IN THIS HIGHLY CLOSED AND
LOCALIZED MANNER WITH CANADA'S FULL CONSENT, NO DETRACTION WHATEVER
FROM THAT FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR'S SOVEREIGNTY IS IMPLIED BY SAYING THAT THE
BUSINESS ITSELF IS ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY AN ISLAND OF LOCAL DETROIT
BUSINESS, ALTHOUGH SO LARGELY CARRIED ON IN CANADIAN WATERS.  AS NOW
CONDUCTED, APART FROM PRESENTLY APPLICABLE CANADIAN AND FEDERAL
REGULATIONS AND UNTIL CANADA OR CONGRESS OR BOTH COUNTRIES BY TREATY
SEE FIT TO ADD OTHERS, THE BUSINESS IS OF GREATER CONCERN TO DETROIT
AND THE STATE OF MICHIGAN THAN TO DOMINION OR ONTARIO INTERESTS OR TO
THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES IN REGULATING OUR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

THE REGULATION IN THIS APPLICATION CONTAINS NOTHING OUT OF HARMONY,
MUCH LESS INCONSISTENT, WITH OUR FEDERAL POLICY IN THE REGULATION OF
COMMERCE BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES; NOR, SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED, WITH
CANADIAN LAW AND POLICY.  FN16  APPELLANT URGES, HOWEVER, THAT CANADA
MIGHT ADOPT REGULATIONS IN CONFLICT WITH MICHIGAN'S CIVIL RIGHTS ACT,
THUS PLACING IT IN AN INESCAPABLE DILEMMA IF THAT ACT MAY BE APPLIED TO
ITS OPERATIONS.  CONCEDING THE POSSIBILITY, WE THINK THE STATE IS RIGHT
IN VIEWING IT AS SO REMOTE THAT IT IS HARDLY MORE THAN CONCEIVABLE. 
THE SAME THING, WE THINK, IS TRUE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT CONGRESS
MIGHT TAKE CONFLICTING ACTION. 

IF THEREFORE IN ANY CASE A STATE MAY REGULATE FOREIGN COMMERCE, THE
FACTS HERE WOULD SEEM CLEARLY TO JUSTIFY MICHIGAN'S APPLICATION OF HER
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.  IT IS FAR TOO LATE TO MAINTAIN THAT THE STATES
POSSESS NO REGULATORY POWERS OVER SUCH COMMERCE.  FROM THE FIRST
MEETING OF CONGRESS THEY HAVE REGULATED IMPORTANT PHASES OF BOTH
FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE, PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO
TRANSPORTATION BY WATER, WITH CONGRESS' EXPRESS CONSENT N17.  AND
WITHOUT SUCH CONSENT FOR NEARLY A HUNDRED YEARS THEY HAVE EXERCISED
LIKE POWER UNDER THE LOCAL DIVERSITY BRANCH OF THE FORMULA ANNOUNCED IN
COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299.  FN18  SEE UNION BROKERAGE
CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1 AND
AUTHORITIES CITED IN BOTH CASES.  INDEED THE COOLEY CRITERION HAS BEEN
APPLIED SO FREQUENTLY IN CASES CONCERNING ONLY COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES THAT IT IS OFTEN FORGOTTEN THAT THAT HISTORIC DECISION
DEALT INDISCRIMINATELY WITH SUCH COMMERCE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  FN19 

APPELLANT HARDLY SUGGESTS THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER FOREIGN
COMMERCE EXCLUDES ALL REGULATION BY THE STATES.  BUT IT VERGES ON THAT
VIEW IN REGARDING HALL V. DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485, SUPPLEMENTED BY MORGAN
V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373, AND PRYCE V. SWEDISH-AMERICAN LINES, 30
F.SUPP.  371, AS FLATLY CONTROLLING THIS CASE.  WE NEED ONLY SAY THAT
NO ONE OF THOSE DECISIONS IS COMPARABLE IN ITS FACTS, WHETHER IN THE
DEGREE OF LOCALIZATION OF THE COMMERCE INVOLVED; IN THE ATTENUATING
EFFECTS, IF ANY, UPON THE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES LIKELY TO BE PRODUCED BY APPLYING THE STATE REGULATION;
OR IN ANY ACTUAL PROBABILITY OF CONFLICTING REGULATIONS BY DIFFERENT
SOVEREIGNTIES.  NONE INVOLVED SO COMPLETELY AND LOCALLY INSULATED A
SEGMENT OF FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE N20.  IN NONE WAS THE
BUSINESS AFFECTED MERELY AN ADJUNCT OF A SINGLE LOCALITY OR COMMUNITY
AS IS THE BUSINESS HERE SO LARGELY.  AND IN NONE WAS A COMPLETE
EXCLUSION FROM PASSAGE MADE.  THE PRYCE CASE, OF COURSE, IS NOT
AUTHORITY IN THIS COURT, AND WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THE PROBLEM IT
PRESENTED.  THE REGULATION OF TRAFFIC ALONG THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, SUCH
AS THE HALL CASE COMPREHENDED, AND OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIAGE OF
PASSENGERS BY COMMON CARRIERS LIKE THAT IN THE MORGAN CASE, ARE NOT
FACTUALLY COMPARABLE TO THIS REGULATION OF APPELLANT'S HIGHLY LOCALIZED
BUSINESS, AND THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT HERE. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE WHAT NATIONAL INTEREST OR POLICY, WHETHER
OF SECURING UNIFORMITY IN REGULATING COMMERCE AFFECTING RELATIONS WITH
FOREIGN NATIONS OR OTHERWISE, COULD REASONABLY BE FOUND TO BE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY APPLYING MICHIGAN'S STATUTE TO THESE FACTS OR TO OUTWEIGH
HER INTEREST IN DOING SO.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NO NATIONAL INTEREST
WHICH OVERRIDES THE INTEREST OF MICHIGAN TO FORBID THE TYPE OF
DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED HERE.  AND, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE RULING
WOULD BE STRANGE INDEED, TO COME FROM THIS COURT, THAT MICHIGAN COULD
NOT APPLY HER LONG-SETTLED POLICY AGAINST RACIAL AND CREEDAL
DISCRIMINATION TO THIS SEGMENT OF FOREIGN COMMERCE, SO PECULIARLY AND
ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY AFFECTING HER PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS.    THE
SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN CONCLUDED "THAT HOLDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MICHIGAN STATUTE EFFECTIVE AND APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE RESULTS
ONLY IN THIS, DEFENDANT WILL BE REQUIRED IN OPERATING ITS SHIPS AS
'PUBLIC CONVEYANCES' TO ACCEPT AS PASSENGERS PERSONS OF THE NEGRO RACE
INDISCRIMINATELY WITH OTHERS.  OUR REVIEW OF THIS RECORD DOES NOT
DISCLOSE THAT SUCH A REQUIREMENT WILL IMPOSE ANY UNDUE BURDEN ON
DEFENDANT IN ITS BUSINESS IN FOREIGN COMMERCE."  317 MICH. 686, 694. 
THOSE CONCLUSIONS WERE RIGHT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  A SMALL FENCED-OFF TRACT AT ONE END IS RESERVED FOR LIGHTHOUSE
PURPOSES, AND THREE SMALL COTTAGE LOTS.  APPELLANT IS A MICHIGAN
CORPORATION, AUTHORIZED BY ITS CHARTER TO "LEASE, OWN AND OPERATE
AMUSEMENT PARKS IN CANADA, AND TO CHARTER, LEASE, OWN AND OPERATE
EXCURSION STEAMERS AND FERRY BOATS IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
TOGETHER WITH DOCK AND TERMINAL FACILITIES PERTAINING THERETO," AS WELL
AS TO ACQUIRE, OWN, USE AND DISPOSE OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY "AS
MAY BE NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE AFORESAID
BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY." 

FN2  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AT TIMES DURING THE SEASON APPELLANT USES
THESE SHIPS TO PROVIDE EXCURSION TRIPS FOR RESIDENTS OF THE PROVINCE OF
ONTARIO, BUT THESE EXCURSIONS ARE KEPT ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM THOSE
BETWEEN DETROIT AND BOIS BLANC AND WE ARE CONCERNED WITH NO QUESTION
RELATING TO THEM. 

FN3  APPARENTLY NO FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED AT THE ISLAND FOR
OVERNIGHT GUESTS. 

FN4  THE COMPANY FIXES ITS OWN RATES.  THE USUAL ROUND-TRIP CHARGE IS
85[, EXCEPT FOR SATURDAY NIGHTS AND SUNDAYS WHEN A HIGHER RATE
APPLIES.  SPECIAL EXCURSIONS AT TIMES ARE ARRANGED FOR CHURCHES, SUNDAY
DAY SCHOOLS, CLUBS, LODGES, ETC., FOR WHICH THE REGULAR CHARGE IS PAID
BY THE PASSENGER BUT THE COMPANY ALLOWS THE ORGANIZATION A DISCOUNT
WHICH PERMITS IT TO MAKE A PROFIT.  THE DISCOUNTS ARE NOT UNIFORM. 

FN5  APPELLANT'S ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, DEVEREAUX, TESTIFIED:
"THE DEFENDANT ADOPTED THE POLICY OF EXCLUDING SO-CALLED 'ZOOT
SUITERS,' THE ROWDYISH, THE ROUGH AND THE BOISTEROUS AND IT ALSO
ADOPTED THE POLICY OF EXCLUDING COLORED." 

APPELLANT PRINTED ON THE BACK OF EACH TICKET:  "RIGHT RESERVED TO
REJECT THIS TICKET BY REFUNDING THE PURCHASE PRICE."  THE RECORD
CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EXCLUSION OR POLICY OF EXCLUSION OF OTHERS
THAN DISORDERLY OR COLORED PERSONS. 

FN6  MICH. PENAL CODE SECS. 146-148, AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 117, MICH.
PUB. ACTS 1937; MICH. COMP. LAWS (SUPP. 1940) SECS. 17115-146 TO 17115
148; MICH. STAT. ANN. (1946 CUM. SUPP.) SECS. 28.343-28.346.  THESE
ACT NO. 130, MICH. PUB. ACTS 1885.  SEE NOTES 8 AND 10. 

FN7  APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR "DIRECTED" VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY WAS
DENIED, AS WAS ALSO ITS MOTION AFTER JUDGMENT FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THE
TRIAL COURT FILED A WRITTEN OPINION WHICH IS UNREPORTED. 

FN8  THE APPROPRIATE STATUTORY CITATIONS ARE SET FORTH IN NOTE 6. 

FN9  SECTION 147 IS AS FOLLOWS:  "ANY PERSON BEING AN OWNER, LESSEE,
PROPRIETOR, MANAGER, SUPERINTENDENT, AGENT OR EMPLOYE OF ANY SUCH PLACE
WHO SHALL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REFUSE, WITHHOLD FROM OR DENY TO ANY
PERSON ANY OF THE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES AND PRIVILEGES
THEREOF OR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY PUBLISH, CIRCULATE, ISSUE, DISPLAY,
POST OR MAIL ANY WRITTEN OR PRINTED COMMUNICATIONS, NOTICE OR
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT ANY OF THE ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES,
FACILITIES AND PRIVILEGES OF ANY SUCH PLACES SHALL BE REFUSED, WITHHELD
FROM OR DENIED TO ANY PERSON ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED OR COLOR OR THAT
ANY PARTICULAR RACE, CREED OR COLOR IS NOT WELCOME, OBJECTIONABLE OR
NOT ACCEPTABLE, NOT DESIRED OR SOLICITED, SHALL FOR EVERY SUCH OFFENSE
BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE
FINED NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT LESS THAN
FIFTEEN DAYS OR BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT IN THE DISCRETION OF
THE COURT; AND EVERY PERSON BEING AN OWNER, LESSEE, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGER, SUPERINTENDENT, AGENT OR EMPLOYE OF ANY SUCH PLACE, AND WHO
VIOLATES ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE
INJURED PARTY, IN TREBLE DAMAGES SUSTAINED, TO BE RECOVERED IN A CIVIL
ACTION:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER THIS SECTION
SHALL BE UNASSIGNABLE." 

NO SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT THE PHRASE "ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED OR
COLOR" DOES NOT APPLY TO THE WITHHOLDING AND DENYING PROVISIONS OF THE
ADVERTISEMENTS SPECIFIED. 

OR COLOR IN SELECTING GRAND AND PETIT JURORS. 

FN10  THESE CASES WERE DECIDED IN 1883.  THE MICHIGAN STATUTE WAS
ENACTED ORIGINALLY IN 1885.  SEVENTEEN OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR, AND
IN MANY INSTANCES SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL, LEGISLATION.  THE STATUTORY
CITATIONS ARE GIVEN IN MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373, 382, N. 24. 

FN11  APPELLANT URGED THAT IT WAS NOT A COMMON CARRIER, A PUBLIC
UTILITY, OR A "PUBLIC CONVEYANCE" WITHIN THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF SEC.
146.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAID:  "THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE
CONCLUSION THAT DEFENDANT HEREIN IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
OPERATING 'PUBLIC CONVEYANCES' BY WATER, AND THE MICHIGAN STATUTE
PROVIDES:  'ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO FULL AND EQUAL ACCOMMODATIONS' AFFORDED BY SUCH
CONVEYANCES.  THE MICHIGAN ENACTMENT HAS BEEN HELD CONSTITUTIONAL. 
BOLDEN V. GRAND RAPIDS OPERATING CORP., 239 MICH. 318(53 A.L.R. 183). 
OUR CONCLUSION IS  ...  THAT THE MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT  ...  IS
APPLICABLE TO THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY DEFENDANT  ...  "  317 MICH.
686, 695. 

THE COURT DISTINGUISHED MEISNER V. DETROIT, BELLE ISLE & WINDSOR
FERRY CO., 154 MICH. 545, IN WHICH APPELLANT'S CORPORATE PREDECESSOR
WAS HELD NOT LIABLE IN TORT FOR BREACH OF AN ALLEGED DUTY AS A COMMON
CARRIER OF PASSENGERS, BY POINTING OUT THAT NO RIGHT APPARENTLY HAD
BEEN ASSERTED IN THAT CASE GROUNDED ON THE STATE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.  317
MICH. 686, 696. 

FN12  THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT SOUGHT REVIEW OF THESE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ISSUE.  BUT
APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF STATES:  "THE CAUSE BEFORE US IS A BUSINESS
CASE ARISING UNDER THE MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE; NOT ONE ARISING UNDER THE (FEDERAL) CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND THE
14TH AMENDMENT."  AND WE WERE GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND AT THE ORAL ARGUMENT,
IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC INQUIRY, THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ON WHICH DECISION
WAS SOUGHT AS OF THAT TIME WAS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE QUESTION. 

THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT DID NOT REFER EXPLICITLY IN ITS OPINION TO
APPELLANT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONTENTIONS, BUT THE RECORD SHOWS THEY
WERE PRESENTED TO THAT COURT IN THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ON APPEAL AND
WERE THEREFORE NECESSARILY REJECTED BY ITS AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
OF THE RECORDER'S COURT. 

FN13  UNTIL THE CASE REACHED THIS COURT, APPARENTLY, THE STATE HAD
MAINTAINED THAT FOREIGN COMMERCE WAS NOT INVOLVED AND THE TRIAL COURT
SO HELD, ALTHOUGH THE RULING WAS HEDGED WITH THE FURTHER ONE THAT, IF
IT WAS ERRONEOUS, STILL THE STATE'S POWER TO APPLY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
WAS NOT NULLIFIED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

FN14  E.G., ON ARRIVAL AT BOIS BLANC ALL PASSENGERS WHO LAND PASS
THROUGH CANADIAN CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION INSPECTION.  PRIOR TO THE LATE
WAR, ON RETURNING TO DETROIT, SIMILAR INSPECTIONS WERE MADE BY UNITED
STATES AUTHORITIES.  DURING THE WAR THE LATTER INSPECTION WAS
SUSPENDED, APPELLANT FILING A BOND TO INDEMNIFY THE TREASURY AGAINST
LOSS OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES ARISING FROM ANY FREE IMPORTATION OF
DUTIABLE GOODS FROM BOIS BLANC OR CANADA AND AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
IMMIGRATION SERVICE NOT TO BRING IN ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR ENTRY. 

FN15  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THESE SITES ARE INHABITED, BUT
PRESUMABLY A KEEPER OF THE LIGHTHOUSE OCCUPIES SOME PART OF THE
RESERVED PREMISES. 

FN16  THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO ENACTED IN 1944 ITS RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION ACT, SESSION LAWS 1944, C. 51. 

FEDERAL LEGISLATION HAS INDICATED A NATIONAL POLICY AGAINST RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION IN THE REQUIREMENT, NOT URGED HERE TO BE SPECIFICALLY
APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT THAT CARRIERS
SUBJECT TO ITS PROVISIONS PROVIDE EQUAL FACILITIES FOR ALL PASSENGERS,
49 U.S.C. SEC. 3(1), EXTENDED TO CARRIERS BY WATER AND AIR, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 815; 49 U.S.C. SECS. 484, 905.  CF. MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 313
U.S. 80.  FEDERAL LEGISLATION ALSO COMPELS A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGENT TO REPRESENT ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE.  45 U.S.C. SECS. 151 ET SEQ. STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 323 U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN, 323 U.S. 210.  THE DIRECTION OF
NATIONAL POLICY IS CLEARLY IN ACCORD WITH MICHIGAN POLICY.  CF. ALSO
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81; KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES,
323 U.S. 214; EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283. 

FN17  IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO RECALL AGAIN THAT BY THE ACT OF
AUGUST 7, 1789, THE FIRST CONGRESS DECLARED THAT PILOTAGE IN BAYS,
INLETS, RIVERS, HARBORS AND PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CONTINUE
TO BE REGULATED IN CONFORMITY WITH EXISTING STATE LAWS OR OTHERS
THEREAFTER ENACTED UNTIL FURTHER ACTION BY CONGRESS.  1 STAT. 54. 
CONGRESS ON OCCASION HAS MODIFIED SUCH STATE LEGISLATION, E.G., BY THE
ACT OF MARCH 2, 1837, 5 STAT. 153, MAKING IT LAWFUL FOR VESSELS
NAVIGATING WATERS CONSTITUTING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN TWO STATES TO TAKE
ON PILOTS QUALIFIED UNDER THE LAWS OF EITHER. 

FN18  IN OLSEN V. SMITH, 195 U.S. 332, THE COURT SUSTAINED A TEXAS
STATUTE REGULATING PILOTAGE OF A BRITISH VESSEL COMING FROM A FOREIGN
PORT.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE WAS WITHOUT POWER TO LEGISLATE IN
THIS FIELD WAS DISPOSED OF IN ONE SENTENCE.  "THE UNSOUNDNESS OF THIS
CONTENTION IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,
SINCE IT HAS LONG SINCE BEEN SETTLED THAT EVEN ALTHOUGH STATE LAWS
CONCERNING PILOTAGE ARE REGULATIONS OF COMMERCE, 'THEY FALL WITHIN THAT
CLASS OF POWERS WHICH MAY BE EXERCISED BY THE STATES UNTIL CONGRESS HAS
SEEN FIT TO ACT UPON THE SUBJECT.'  (CITING THE COOLEY AND OTHER
CASES)."  195 U.S. 341.  OTHER CASES UPHOLDING STATE REGULATION OF
FOREIGN COMMERCE ARE TO THE SAME EFFECT.  STEAMSHIP CO. V. JOLIFFE, 2
WALL.  450; WILSON V. MCNAMEE, 102 U.S. 572; ANDERSON V. PACIFIC COAST
S.S. CO., 225 U.S. 187.  CF. CLYDE MALLORY LINES V. ALABAMA, 296 U.S.
261, AND CASES CITED; PIGEON RIVER CO. V. COX CO., 291 U.S. 138, 158
159. 

FN19  THE COURT'S OPINION IN THAT CASE DEALS EXPRESSLY BUT
INDISCRIMINATELY WITH BOTH TYPES OF COMMERCE.  AND FROM THE RECORD AND
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT BOTH WERE ACTUALLY INVOLVED. 
THERE WERE TWO CASES RELATING TO TWO DIFFERENT VESSELS, THE CONSUL,
WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN COASTWISE TRADE BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA AND NEW YORK,
AND THE UNDINE, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE DESTINATION, WHETHER FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, OF THE
UNDINE IS NOT SHOWN BY THE RECORD, WHICH MERELY STATES THAT IT SAILED
"FROM THE PORT OF PHILADELPHIA TO A CERTAIN PORT NOT WITHIN THE RIVER
DELAWARE  ...  "  BUT FROM THE SPECIFIC "ADDITION" BY COUNSEL FOR
ARGUMENTATIVE PURPOSES, 12 HOW.  AT 302-303, OF THE FACTS THAT THE
CONSUL HELD A FEDERAL COASTING LICENSE AND WAS BOUND FROM ONE DOMESTIC
PORT TO ANOTHER, PLUS THE OMISSION OF ANY REFERENCE IN ARGUMENT OR IN
THE RECORD TO A SIMILAR LICENSE FOR THE UNDINE (WHEN SUCH A REFERENCE
WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT), THE INFERENCE SEEMS
JUSTIFIED THAT THE UNDINE HAD SAILED FOR A FOREIGN PORT.  MOREOVER
COUNSEL ARGUED THAT BOTH SHIPS WERE ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE,
ALTHOUGH ONLY THE CONSUL WAS ENGAGED IN COASTWISE TRADING. 

FN20  CF. PORT RICHMOND FERRY V. HUDSON COUNTY, 234 U.S. 317, 331
332. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

THE CASE IS, I THINK, CONTROLLED BY A PRINCIPLE WHICH CUTS DEEPER
THAN THAT ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT AND WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT THAT IT
DESERVES TO BE STATED SEPARATELY. 

HALL V. DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485, AND MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373,
PRESENTED PHASES OF THE PROBLEM OF SEGREGATION.  THE FORMER HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL A LOUISIANA LAW FORBIDDING STEAMBOATS (WHICH PLIED THE
MISSISSIPPI) FROM SEGREGATING PASSENGERS ACCORDING TO RACE.  THE LATTER
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL A VIRGINIA LAW REQUIRING SEGREGATION OF
PASSENGERS ON INTERSTATE MOTOR BUSES.  IT WAS HELD THAT DIVERSE
REGULATIONS OF THAT CHARACTER BY THE SEVERAL STATES THROUGH WHICH THE
TRAFFIC MOVED WOULD BE AN UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  BUT THE QUESTION HERE IS A SIMPLER ONE.  IT IS WHETHER A
STATE CAN PREVENT A CARRIER IN FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM DENYING PASSAGE TO
A PERSON BECAUSE OF HIS RACE OR COLOR.  FOR THIS IS A CASE OF A
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A NEGRO BY A CARRIER'S COMPLETE DENIAL OF
PASSAGE TO HER BECAUSE OF HER RACE. 

IT IS UNTHINKABLE TO ME THAT WE WOULD STRIKE DOWN A STATE LAW WHICH
REQUIRED ALL CARRIERS - LOCAL AND INTERSTATE - TO TRANSPORT ALL PERSONS
REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE OR COLOR.  THE COMMON-LAW DUTY OF CARRIERS WAS
TO PROVIDE EQUAL SERVICE TO ALL, A DUTY WHICH THE COURT HAS HELD A
STATE MAY REQUIRE OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS IN THE ABSENCE OF A
CONFLICTING FEDERAL LAW.  MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. LARABEE FLOUR
MILLS CO., 211 U.S. 612, 619, 623-624.  AND THE POLICE POWER OF A STATE
UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IS ADEQUATE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BY REASON OF RACE
OR COLOR.  RAILWAY MAIL ASSN. V. CORSI, 326 U.S. 88.  MOREOVER, IN THIS
SITUATION THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ITSELF
DEFEATS SUCH A LAW.  THIS REGULATION WOULD NOT PLACE A BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR CASES.  IT DOES NOT
IMPOSE A REGULATION WHICH DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
WHICH, BY SPECIFYING THE MODE IN WHICH IT SHALL BE CONDUCTED, DISTURBS
THE UNIFORMITY ESSENTIAL TO ITS PROPER FUNCTIONING.  SEE SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761; MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, SUPRA.  I SEE
NOTHING IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHICH PLACES FOREIGN COMMERCE ON A MORE
PROTECTED LEVEL.    THERE IS IN EVERY CASE, OF COURSE, A POSSIBILITY
THAT CONGRESS MAY PASS LAWS REGULATING FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IN CONFLICT WITH REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY A STATE.  OR IN THE CASE OF
FOREIGN COMMERCE THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT ACT THROUGH A TREATY. 
INCONSISTENT STATE LAW WOULD THEN GIVE WAY TO ANY EXERCISE OF FEDERAL
POWER WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.  BUT I AM AWARE OF
NO POWER WHICH CONGRESS HAS TO CREATE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP
ACCORDING TO COLOR SO AS TO GRANT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IN THE CHANNELS
OF COMMERCE TO CERTAIN CLASSES ONLY.  CF. EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314
U.S. 160, 177-181.  THE FEDERAL POLICY REFLECTED IN ACTS OF CONGRESS
INDEED BARS ANY SUCH DISCRIMINATION (SEE MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 313
U.S. 80) AND SO IS WHOLLY IN HARMONY WITH MICHIGAN'S LAW.  AND NO
TREATY REVEALS A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE. 

MOREOVER, THERE IS NO DANGER OF BURDEN AND CONFUSION FROM DIVERSE
STATE LAWS IF MICHIGAN'S REGULATION IS SUSTAINED.  IF A SISTER STATE
UNDERTOOK TO BAR NEGROES FROM PASSAGE ON PUBLIC CARRIERS, THAT LAW
WOULD NOT ONLY CONTRAVENE THE FEDERAL RULE BUT ALSO INVADE A
"FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHT WHICH IS GUARANTEED AGAINST STATE ACTION
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P.
94.  NOTHING SHORT OF AT LEAST "EQUALITY OF LEGAL RIGHT" (MISSOURI EX
REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337, 350) IN OBTAINING TRANSPORTATION
CAN SATISFY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  HENCE I DO NOT SEE HOW
APPROVAL OF MICHIGAN'S LAW IN ANY WAY INTERFERES WITH THE UNIFORMITY
ESSENTIAL FOR THE MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES IN COMMERCE.  THE ONLY
CONSTITUTIONAL UNIFORMITY IS UNIFORMITY IN THE MICHIGAN PATTERN. 

IF A STATE'S LAW MADE A HEAD-ON COLLISION WITH THE POLICY OF A
FOREIGN POWER WHOSE SHORES WERE REACHED BY OUR VESSELS, A DIFFERENT
PROBLEM MIGHT BE PRESENTED.  BUT NO SUCH CONFLICT IS PRESENT HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WHO JOINS IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, CONCURS
ALSO IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AGREES, DISSENTING. 

THIS MICHIGAN STATUTE UNDOUBTEDLY IS VALID WHEN APPLIED TO MICHIGAN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE, JUST AS A CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT OF LIKE TENOR
WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE VALID AS TO COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES AND WITH
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  THE QUESTION HERE, HOWEVER, IS WHETHER THE MICHIGAN
STATUTE CAN VALIDLY BE APPLIED TO THAT COMMERCE WHICH IS SET APART BY
THE CONSTITUTION FOR REGULATION BY THE CONGRESS. 

THE SPHERE OF A STATE'S POWER HAS NOT BEEN THOUGHT TO EXPAND OR
CONTRACT BECAUSE OF THE POLICY EMBODIED IN A PARTICULAR REGULATION.  A
STATE STATUTE REQUIRING EQUALITY OF ACCOMMODATIONS FOR WHITE AND NEGRO
PASSENGERS WAS HELD INVALID AS APPLIED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HALL V.
DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485.  ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE A STATE STATUTE REQUIRING
SEGREGATION WAS HELD INVALID AS APPLIED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MORGAN
V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373.  HERETOFORE THE COURT STEADILY HAS HELD THAT
THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO ENACT A LAW ON THIS SPECIFIC SUBJECT DOES
NOT OPERATE TO EXPOSE INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE BURDEN OF LOCAL RULES,
NO MATTER WHAT POLICY IN THIS HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL MATTER A STATE
SOUGHT TO ADVANCE.  IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE BEEN SO APPARENT TO THE COURT THAT IT WOULD NOT
PERMIT LOCAL POLICIES TO BURDEN NATIONAL COMMERCE, ARE EVEN MORE
OBVIOUS IN RELATION TO FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

CERTAINLY IF ANY STATE CAN ENFORCE REGULATIONS CONCERNING EMBARKATION
AND LANDING, IT CAN IN EFFECT CONTROL MUCH THAT PERTAINS TO THE FOREIGN
JOURNEY.  TO DETERMINE WHAT PERSONS AND COMMODITIES SHALL BE TAKEN
ABROAD IS TO CONTROL WHAT PERSONS AND COMMODITIES MAY BECOME THE
SUBJECT OF FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND THAT IS TO CONTROL THE LIFEBLOOD OF
THE COMMERCE ITSELF.  THESE ARE IDENTICAL WITH MATTERS IN WHICH THIS
COMMERCE IS SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY FEDERAL AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.  THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES ACTIVE CONTROL OF THE INBOUND MOVEMENT OF
GOODS BY VIRTUE OF ITS CUSTOMS SERVICE AND OF THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS
BY VIRTUE OF ITS IMMIGRATION SERVICE ACROSS THESE BOUNDARIES.  THE
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT DOES THE SAME ON THE OUTBOUND CROSSING OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LINE.  IT DOES SO IN THIS CASE, AND IT DOES SO EVEN IF
THE BULK OF THE TRAVELERS DO NOT GO VERY FAR OR STAY VERY LONG AND ARE
MERELY AMUSEMENT BENT. 

THE WHOLESOME AND AMIABLE SITUATION DETAILED IN THE COURT'S OPINION
IS MADE POSSIBLE ONLY BY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS WHOLLY CONTROLLED BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IT ALONE CAN EFFECTIVELY PROTECT OR FOSTER
THIS KIND OF COMMERCE, AND IT ALONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BURDEN IT.  IF
WE ARE TO CONCEDE THIS POWER OVER FOREIGN COMMERCE TO ONE STATE, IT
WOULD SEEM THAT IT COULD LOGICALLY BE CLAIMED BY EVERY STATE WHICH HAS
A PORT, BORDER, OR LANDING FIELD USED BY FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

THE COURT ADMITS THAT THE COMMERCE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS FOREIGN
COMMERCE, BUT SUBJECTS IT TO THE STATE POLICE POWER ON THE GROUND THAT
IT IS NOT VERY FOREIGN.  IT FAILS TO LAY DOWN ANY STANDARD BY WHICH WE
CAN JUDGE WHEN FOREIGN COMMERCE IS FOREIGN ENOUGH TO BECOME FREE OF
LOCAL REGULATION.  THE COMMERCE INVOLVED HERE IS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE
FROM A GREAT DEAL OF THE TRAFFIC ACROSS OUR CANADIAN AND MEXICAN
BORDERS, EXCEPT PERHAPS IN VOLUME.  COMMUNITIES HAVE SPRUNG UP ON
EITHER SIDE, WHOSE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS ARE INTERDEPENDENT,
BUT ARE CONDUCTED WITH SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR THE INTERNATIONAL
BOUNDARY.  LOCALITIES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE LINE MAY DEVELOP IN
RELIANCE ON A CERTAIN RECIPROCITY AND STABILITY OF POLICY WHICH HAS
CHARACTERIZED TWO NATIONS FOR YEARS, WHEN THEY CANNOT RELY ON SIMILAR
STABILITY OR FARSIGHTEDNESS IN LOCAL POLICY. 

IT SEEMS TO ME NO ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM A
MULTITUDE AND DIVERSITY OF BURDENING AND CAPRICIOUS LOCAL REGULATIONS
THAT THIS COURT MAY STAND READY, AS IN THIS CASE, TO APPLY ITSELF TO AN
ANALYSIS OF THE TRAFFIC INVOLVED AND DETERMINE IN EACH CASE WHETHER THE
LOCAL INTEREST IN IT IS SUFFICIENTLY STRONG AND THE FOREIGN ELEMENT IS
SUFFICIENTLY WEAK SO THAT WE WILL PERMIT THE REGULATION TO STAND.  WE
DO NOT AND APPARENTLY CANNOT ENUNCIATE ANY LEGAL CRITERIA BY WHICH
THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN FOREIGN COMMERCE CAN PREDICT WHICH CLASSIFICATION
WE WILL IMPOSE UPON ANY PARTICULAR OPERATION AND WE LAY DOWN NO RULE
OTHER THAN OUR PASSING IMPRESSION TO GUIDE OURSELVES OR OUR
SUCCESSORS.  ALL IS LEFT TO CASE-BY-CASE CONJECTURE.  THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE WAS INTENDED TO PROMOTE COMMERCE RATHER THAN LITIGATION. 

I BELIEVE THAT ONCE IT IS CONCEDED, AS IT IS IN THIS CASE, THAT THE
COMMERCE INVOLVED IS FOREIGN COMMERCE, THAT FACT ALONE SHOULD BE ENOUGH
TO PREVENT A STATE FROM CONTROLLING WHAT MAY, OR WHAT MUST, MOVE IN THE
STREAM OF THAT COMMERCE. 
..END :




OYAMA V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 633 


NO. 44.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1948.  - 29
CAL.2D 164, 173 P.2D 794, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND LAW, AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE TO EFFECT
AN ESCHEAT TO THE STATE OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LANDS RECORDED IN THE
NAME OF A MINOR AMERICAN CITIZEN BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN PAID FOR BY HIS
FATHER, A JAPANESE ALIEN INELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION WHO WAS
APPOINTED THE SON'S GUARDIAN, HELD TO HAVE DEPRIVED THE SON OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND OF HIS PRIVILEGES AS AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN, CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND R.S. SEC. 1978.  PP.
640-647. 

2.  THE ALIEN LAND LAW, AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST THE CITIZEN SON IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS: 

(A)  BY A STATUTORY PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION THAT CONVEYANCES FINANCED
BY HIS FATHER AND RECORDED IN THE SON'S NAME WERE NOT GIFTS TO THE SON
BUT THAT THE LAND WAS HELD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FATHER; WHEREAS, FOR
MOST MINORS, CALIFORNIA APPLIES THE RULE THAT WHERE A PARENT PAYS FOR A
CONVEYANCE TO HIS CHILD IT IS PRESUMED THAT A GIFT WAS INTENDED.  PP.
641-642, 644-645. 

(B)  BECAUSE, UNDER THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA AS APPLIED BY ITS COURTS
WHEN THE FATHER IS INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP, FACTS WHICH WOULD
USUALLY BE CONSIDERED INDICIA OF THE SON'S OWNERSHIP ARE USED TO MAKE
THAT OWNERSHIP SUSPECT; WHEREAS, IF THE FATHER WERE NOT AN INELIGIBLE
ALIEN, THE SAME FACTS WOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT A COMPLETED GIFT WAS
INTENDED.  P. 642. 

(C)  BY BEING REQUIRED TO COUNTER EVIDENCE THAT HIS FATHER WAS REMISS
IN HIS DUTIES AS GUARDIAN; WHEREAS NO OTHER CALIFORNIA CASE HAS BEEN
CALLED TO THIS COURT'S ATTENTION IN WHICH THE PENALTY FOR A GUARDIAN'S
DERELICTIONS HAS FALLEN ON THE WARD.  PP. 642-644. 

3.  THE SOLE BASIS FOR THIS DISCRIMINATION, WHICH RESULTED IN A
CITIZEN LOSING THE LAND IRRETRIEVABLY AND WITHOUT COMPENSATION, WAS THE
FACT THAT HIS FATHER WAS JAPANESE.  COCKRILL V. CALIFORNIA, 268 U.S.
258, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 644-645. 

4.  SUCH DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A CITIZEN ON THE BASIS OF HIS RACIAL
DESCENT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO
PREVENT EVASION OF THE STATE'S LAWS PROHIBITING THE OWNERSHIP OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND BY ALIENS WHO ARE INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP.  PP.
646-647. 

OYAMA ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AFFIRMED A DECISION OF A STATE TRIAL
COURT DECLARING ESCHEATED TO THE STATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND
LAW, 1 CAL. GEN. LAWS, ACT 261, AS AMENDED, CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL LANDS
RECORDED IN THE NAME OF A MINOR AMERICAN CITIZEN, WHICH LANDS HAD BEEN
PAID FOR BY HIS FATHER, A JAPANESE CITIZEN INELIGIBLE FOR
NATURALIZATION.  29 CAL.2D 164, 173 P.2D 794.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 818.  REVERSED, P. 647. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CALIFORNIA'S ALIEN
LAND LAW  FN1  AS IT HAS BEEN APPLIED IN THIS CASE TO EFFECT AN ESCHEAT
OF TWO SMALL PARCELS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.  FN2  ONE OF THE PETITIONERS
IS FRED OYAMA, A MINOR AMERICAN CITIZEN IN WHOSE NAME TITLE WAS TAKEN. 
THE OTHER IS HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN, KAJIRO OYAMA, A JAPANESE CITIZEN
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION,  FN3 WHO PAID THE PURCHASE PRICE. 

PETITIONERS PRESS THREE ATTACKS ON THE ALIEN LAND LAW AS IT HAS BEEN
APPLIED IN THIS CASE: FIRST, THAT IT DEPRIVES FRED OYAMA OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND OF HIS PRIVILEGES AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN;
SECONDLY, THAT IT DENIES KAJIRO OYAMA EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS;
AND, THIRDLY, THAT IT CONTRAVENES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BY SANCTIONING
A TAKING OF PROPERTY AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS
PERIOD.  PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THESE CLAIMS HAS BEEN LAID IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BELOW. 

IN APPROACHING CASES, SUCH AS THIS ONE, IN WHICH FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE ASSERTED, IT IS INCUMBENT ON US TO INQUIRE
NOT MERELY WHETHER THOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DENIED IN EXPRESS TERMS, BUT
ALSO WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT.  WE MUST
REVIEW INDEPENDENTLY BOTH THE LEGAL ISSUES AND THOSE FACTUAL MATTERS
WITH WHICH THEY ARE COMMINGLED.  FN4 

IN BROAD OUTLINE, THE ALIEN LAND LAW FORBIDS ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP TO ACQUIRE, OWN, OCCUPY, LEASE, OR TRANSFER
AGRICULTURAL LAND.  FN5  IT ALSO PROVIDES THAT ANY PROPERTY ACQUIRED IN
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE SHALL ESCHEAT AS OF THE DATE OF ACQUISITION
FN6 AND THAT THE SAME RESULT SHALL FOLLOW ANY TRANSFER MADE WITH
"INTENT TO PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID" ESCHEAT.  FN7  IN ADDITION, THAT
INTENT IS PRESUMED, PRIMA FACIE, WHENEVER AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN PAYS THE
CONSIDERATION FOR A TRANSFER TO A CITIZEN OR ELIGIBLE ALIEN.  FN8 

THE FIRST OF THE TWO PARCELS IN QUESTION, CONSISTING OF SIX ACRES OF
AGRICULTURAL LAND IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, WAS PURCHASED IN 1934, WHEN
FRED OYAMA WAS SIX YEARS OLD.  KAJIRO OYAMA PAID THE $4,000
CONSIDERATION, AND THE SELLER EXECUTED A DEED TO FRED.  THE DEED WAS
DULY RECORDED. 

SOME SIX MONTHS LATER, THE FATHER PETITIONED THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR
SAN DIEGO COUNTY TO BE APPOINTED FRED'S GUARDIAN, STATING THAT FRED
OWNED THE SIX ACRES.  AFTER A HEARING, THE COURT FOUND THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE PETITION TRUE AND KAJIRO OYAMA "A COMPETENT AND PROPER PERSON"
TO BE APPOINTED FRED'S GUARDIAN.  THE APPOINTMENT WAS THEN ORDERED, AND
THE FATHER POSTED THE NECESSARY BOND. 

IN 1936 AND AGAIN IN 1937, THE FATHER AS GUARDIAN SOUGHT PERMISSION
TO BORROW $4,000, PAYABLE IN SIX MONTHS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING
THE NEXT SEASON'S CROPS AND TO MORTGAGE THE SIX-ACRE PARCEL AS
SECURITY.  IN EACH CASE NOTICE OF THE PETITION AND DATE FOR HEARING WAS
PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER, THE COURT THEN APPROVED THE BORROWING AS
ADVANTAGEOUS TO FRED OYAMA'S ESTATE, AND THE FATHER POSTED A BOND FOR
$8,000.  SO FAR AS APPEARS FROM THE RECORD, BOTH LOANS WERE OBTAINED,
USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE, AND REPAID ON MATURITY. 

THE SECOND PARCEL, AN ADJOINING TWO ACRES, WAS ACQUIRED IN 1937, WHEN
FRED WAS NINE YEARS OLD.  IT WAS SOLD BY THE GUARDIAN OF ANOTHER MINOR,
AND THE COURT SUPERVISING THAT GUARDIANSHIP CONFIRMED THE SALE "TO FRED
OYAMA" AS HIGHEST BIDDER AT A PUBLICLY ADVERTISED SALE.  A COPY OF THE
COURT'S ORDER WAS RECORDED.  FRED'S FATHER AGAIN PAID THE PURCHASE
PRICE, $1,500. 

FROM THE TIME OF THE TWO TRANSFERS UNTIL THE DATE OF TRIAL, HOWEVER,
KAJIRO OYAMA DID NOT FILE THE ANNUAL REPORTS WHICH THE ALIEN LAND LAW
REQUIRES OF ALL GUARDIANS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO MINOR
CHILDREN OF INELIGIBLE ALIENS.  FN9 

IN 1942, FRED AND HIS FAMILY WERE EVACUATED FROM THE PACIFIC COAST
ALONG WITH ALL OTHER PERSONS OF JAPANESE DESCENT.  AND IN 1944, WHEN
FRED WAS SIXTEEN AND STILL FORBIDDEN TO RETURN HOME, THE STATE FILED A
PETITION TO DECLARE AN ESCHEAT OF THE TWO PARCELS ON THE GROUND THAT
THE CONVEYANCES IN 1934 AND 1937 HAD BEEN WITH INTENT TO VIOLATE AND
EVADE THE ALIEN LAND LAW. 

AT THE TRIAL THE ONLY WITNESS, OTHER THAN A COURT OFFICIAL TESTIFYING
TO RECORDS SHOWING THE FACTS SET FORTH ABOVE, WAS ONE JOHN KURFURST,
WHO HAD BEEN LEFT IN CHARGE OF THE LAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVACUATION. 
HE TESTIFIED THAT THE OYAMA FAMILY ONCE LIVED ON THE LAND BUT HAD NOT
OCCUPIED IT FOR SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THE EVACUATION.  AFTER THE
EVACUATION, KURFURST AND THOSE TO WHOM HE RENTED THE PROPERTY DREW
CHECKS TO FRED OYAMA FOR THE RENTALS (LESS EXPENSES), AND KURFURST
TRANSMITTED THEM TO FRED OYAMA THROUGH THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY. 
THE CANCELED CHECKS WERE RETURNED ENDORSED "FRED OYAMA," AND NO
EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE SIGNATURES WERE NOT BY THE SON. 
MOREOVER, THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY FOR THE
FUNDS TRANSMITTED BY KURFURST WERE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF FRED OYAMA, AND
KURFURST IDENTIFIED A LETTER SIGNED "FRED OYAMA" DIRECTING HIM TO TURN
THE PROPERTY OVER TO A LOCAL BANK FOR MANAGEMENT. 

ON DIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE STATE'S ATTORNEY, HOWEVER, KURFURST ALSO
TESTIFIED THAT HE KNEW THE FATHER AS "FRED," BUT HE ADDED THAT HE HAD
NEVER HEARD THE FATHER REFER TO HIMSELF BY THAT NAME.  IN ADDITION, HE
TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT HE HAD ONCE HEARD THE FATHER SAY,
"SOME DAY THE BOY WILL HAVE A GOOD PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT IS
GOING TO BE VALUABLE."  HE ALSO ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW "THE FATHER WAS
RUNNING THE BOY'S BUSINESS" AND THAT "THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE BOY
AND TO JUNE KUSHINO" (FRED'S COUSIN, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN).  KURFURST
FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN A LETTER HE HAD WRITTEN ABOUT THE PROPERTY
AND HAD HEADED "RE:  FRED YOSHIHIRO OYAMA AND JUNE KUSHINO" HE MEANT BY
"FRED YOSHIHIRO OYAMA" THE BOY, NOT THE FATHER.  HE ALSO UNDERSTOOD A
LETTER WRITTEN TO HIM BY THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY "RE:  FRED OYAMA"
TO REFER TO THE BOY. 

FROM THIS EVIDENCE THE TRIAL COURT FOUND AS FACTS THAT THE FATHER HAD
HAD THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE LAND AND THAT THE TRANSFERS WERE
SUBTERFUGES EFFECTED WITH INTENT TO PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID ESCHEAT. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT ENTERED ITS CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT THE PARCELS
HAD VESTED IN THE STATE AS OF THE DATE OF THE ATTEMPTED TRANSFERS IN
1934 AND 1937. 

THE TRIAL COURT FILED NO WRITTEN OPINION BUT INDICATED ORALLY THAT
ITS FINDINGS WERE BASED PRIMARILY ON FOUR INFERENCES:  (1) THE
STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT ANY CONVEYANCE IS WITH "INTENT TO PREVENT,
EVADE OR AVOID" ESCHEAT IF AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN PAYS THE CONSIDERATION;
FN10  (2) AN INFERENCE OF SIMILAR INTENT FROM THE MERE FACT THAT THE
CONVEYANCES RAN TO A MINOR CHILD; FN11 (3) AN INFERENCE OF LACK OF BONA
FIDES AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL TRANSACTIONS FROM THE FACT THAT THE
FATHER THEREAFTER FAILED TO FILE ANNUAL GUARDIANSHIP REPORTS; AND (4)
AN INFERENCE FROM THE FATHER'S FAILURE TO TESTIFY THAT HIS TESTIMONY
WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVERSE TO HIS SON'S CAUSE.  NO COUNTERVAILING
INFERENCE WAS WARRANTED BY THE EXHIBITS IN FRED'S NAME, THE JUDGE SAID,
"BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS LITTLE IN A NAME." 

IN HOLDING THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF INTENT FULLY JUSTIFIED BY
THE EVIDENCE, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA POINTED TO THE SAME FOUR
INFERENCES.  IT ALSO RULED THAT CALIFORNIA COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY
EXCLUDE INELIGIBLE ALIENS FROM ANY INTEREST IN AGRICULTURAL LAND,  FN12
AND THAT FRED OYAMA WAS DEPRIVED OF NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES SINCE
THE LAND HAD PASSED TO THE STATE WITHOUT EVER VESTING IN HIM. 

WE AGREE WITH PETITIONERS' FIRST CONTENTION, THAT THE ALIEN LAND LAW,
AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, DEPRIVES FRED OYAMA OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
CALIFORNIA'S LAWS AND OF HIS PRIVILEGES AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.  IN OUR
VIEW OF THE CASE, THE STATE HAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FRED OYAMA; THE
DISCRIMINATION IS BASED SOLELY ON HIS PARENTS' COUNTRY OF ORIGIN; AND
THERE IS ABSENT THE COMPELLING JUSTIFICATION WHICH WOULD BE NEEDED TO
SUSTAIN DISCRIMINATION OF THAT NATURE. 

BY FEDERAL STATUTE, ENACTED BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BUT
VINDICATED BY IT, THE STATES MUST ACCORD TO ALL CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO
TAKE AND HOLD REAL PROPERTY.  FN13  CALIFORNIA, OF COURSE, RECOGNIZES
BOTH THIS RIGHT AND THE FACT THAT INFANCY DOES NOT INCAPACITATE A MINOR
FROM HOLDING REALTY.  FN14  IT IS ALSO ESTABLISHED UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
THAT INELIGIBLE ALIENS MAY ARRANGE GIFTS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO THEIR
CITIZEN CHILDREN.  FN15  LIKEWISE, WHEN A MINOR CITIZEN DOES BECOME THE
OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, BY GIFT OR OTHERWISE, HIS FATHER MAY BE
APPOINTED GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE, WHETHER THE FATHER BE A CITIZEN, AN
ELIGIBLE ALIEN, OR AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN.  FN16  AND, ONCE APPOINTED, A
GUARDIAN IS ENTITLED TO HAVE CUSTODY OF THE ESTATE AND TO MANAGE AND
HUSBAND IT FOR THE WARD'S BENEFIT.  FN17  TO THAT EXTENT FRED OYAMA IS
OSTENSIBLY ON A PAR WITH MINORS OF DIFFERENT LINEAGE. 

AT THIS POINT, HOWEVER, THE ROAD FORKS.  THE CALIFORNIA LAW POINTS IN
ONE DIRECTION FOR MINOR CITIZENS LIKE FRED OYAMA, WHOSE PARENTS CANNOT
BE NATURALIZED, AND IN ANOTHER FOR ALL OTHER CHILDREN - FOR MINOR
CITIZENS WHOSE PARENTS ARE EITHER CITIZENS OR ELIGIBLE ALIENS, AND EVEN
FOR MINORS WHO ARE THEMSELVES ALIENS THOUGH ELIGIBLE FOR
NATURALIZATION. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, FOR MOST MINORS CALIFORNIA HAS THE CUSTOMARY RULE
THAT WHERE A PARENT PAYS FOR A CONVEYANCE TO HIS CHILD THERE IS A
PRESUMPTION THAT A GIFT IS INTENDED; THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OF A
RESULTING TRUST, NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE MINOR TAKES THE LAND FOR THE
BENEFIT OF HIS PARENT.  FN18  WHEN A GIFT IS THUS PRESUMED AND THE DEED
IS RECORDED IN THE CHILD'S NAME, THE RECORDING SUFFICES FOR DELIVERY,
FN19  AND, ABSENT EVIDENCE THAT THE GIFT IS DISADVANTAGEOUS, ACCEPTANCE
IS ALSO PRESUMED.  FN20  THUS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THERE WAS IN
FACT NO COMPLETED BONA FIDE GIFT FALLS TO HIM WHO WOULD ATTACK ITS
VALIDITY. 

FRED OYAMA, ON THE OTHER HAND, FACED AT THE OUTSET THE NECESSITY OF
OVERCOMING A STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT CONVEYANCES FINANCED BY HIS
FATHER AND RECORDED IN FRED'S NAME WERE NOT GIFTS AT ALL.  SOMETHING
VERY AKIN TO A RESULTING TRUST WAS PRESUMED AND, AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE,
FRED WAS PRESUMED TO HOLD TITLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS PARENT.  FN21 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, WHEN IT CAME TO REBUTTING THIS STATUTORY
PRESUMPTION, FRED OYAMA RAN INTO OTHER OBSTACLES WHICH, SO FAR AS WE
CAN ASCERTAIN, DO NOT BESET THE PATH OF MOST MINOR DONEES IN
CALIFORNIA. 

THUS THE CALIFORNIA COURTS SAID THAT THE VERY FACT THAT THE TRANSFER
PUT THE LAND BEYOND THE FATHER'S POWER TO DEAL WITH IT DIRECTLY - TO
DEED IT AWAY, TO BORROW MONEY ON IT, AND TO MAKE FREE DISPOSITION OF IT
IN ANY OTHER WAY - SHOWED THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT COMPLETE, THAT IT
WAS MERELY COLORABLE.  THE FACT THAT THE FATHER ATTACHED NO STRINGS TO
THE TRANSFER WAS TAKEN TO INDICATE THAT HE MEANT, IN EFFECT, TO ACQUIRE
THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP HIMSELF.  THE CALIFORNIA LAW PURPORTS TO
PERMIT CITIZEN SONS TO TAKE GIFTS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THEIR
FATHERS, REGARDLESS OF THE FATHERS' NATIONALITY.  YET, AS INDICATED BY
THIS CASE, IF THE FATHER IS INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP, FACTS WHICH
WOULD USUALLY BE CONSIDERED INDICIA OF THE SON'S OWNERSHIP ARE USED TO
MAKE THAT OWNERSHIP SUSPECT; IF THE FATHER IS NOT AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN,
HOWEVER, THE SAME FACTS WOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT A COMPLETED GIFT WAS
INTENDED. 

FURTHERMORE, FRED OYAMA HAD TO COUNTER EVIDENCE THAT HIS FATHER WAS
REMISS IN HIS DUTIES AS GUARDIAN.  ACTS SUBSEQUENT TO A TRANSFER MAY,
OF COURSE, BE RELEVANT TO INDICATE A TRANSFEROR'S INTENT AT THE TIME OF
THE TRANSFER.  IN THIS CASE THE TRIAL COURT ITSELF HAD RESERVATIONS AS
TO THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE FATHER'S OMISSIONS; FN22  WITH THESE WE
AGREE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME REASON TO BELIEVE REPORTS WERE
NOT REQUIRED OF HIM UNTIL 1943,  FN23  AND HE HAD BEEN EXCLUDED FROM
THE STATE FROM 1942 ON.  MORE IMPORTANT TO THE ISSUE OF EQUAL
PROTECTION, HOWEVER, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED TO NO OTHER CASE IN
WHICH THE PENALTY FOR A GUARDIAN'S DERELICTIONS HAS FALLEN ON ANY ONE
BUT THE GUARDIAN.  AT ANY TIME THE COURT SUPERVISING THE GUARDIANSHIP
COULD HAVE DEMANDED THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND, IF APPROPRIATE, COULD HAVE
REMOVED KAJIRO OYAMA AS GUARDIAN; SEVERE PUNISHMENT COULD ALSO HAVE
BEEN METED OUT.  FN24  THE WHOLE THEORY OF GUARDIANSHIPS IS TO PROTECT
THE WARD DURING HIS PERIOD OF INCAPACITY TO PROTECT HIMSELF.  IN FRED
OYAMA'S CASE, HOWEVER, THE FATHER'S DEEDS WERE VISITED ON THE SON; THE
WARD BECAME THE GUARANTOR OF HIS GUARDIAN'S CONDUCT.    THE CUMULATIVE
EFFECT, WE BELIEVE, WAS CLEARLY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST FRED OYAMA.  HE
WAS SADDLED WITH AN ONEROUS BURDEN OF PROOF WHICH NEED NOT BE BORNE BY
CALIFORNIA CHILDREN GENERALLY.  THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION AND THE TWO
ANCILLARY INFERENCES, WHICH WOULD NOT BE USED AGAINST MOST CHILDREN,
WERE GIVEN SUCH PROBATIVE VALUE AS TO PREVAIL IN THE FACE OF A DEED
ENTERED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS, FOUR COURT ORDERS RECOGNIZING FRED OYAMA
AS THE OWNER OF THE LAND, SEVERAL NEWSPAPER NOTICES TO THE SAME EFFECT,
AND TESTIMONY THAT BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS REGARDING THE LAND WERE
GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE ON HIS BEHALF.  IN SHORT, FRED OYAMA LOST
HIS GIFT, IRRETRIEVABLY AND WITHOUT COMPENSATION, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE
EXTRAORDINARY OBSTACLES WHICH THE STATE SET BEFORE HIM. 

THE ONLY BASIS FOR THIS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN AMERICAN CITIZEN,
MOREOVER, WAS THE FACT THAT HIS FATHER WAS JAPANESE AND NOT AMERICAN,
RUSSIAN, CHINESE, OR ENGLISH.  BUT FOR THAT FACT ALONE, FRED OYAMA, NOW
A LITTLE OVER A YEAR FROM MAJORITY, WOULD BE THE UNDISPUTED OWNER OF
THE EIGHT ACRES IN QUESTION. 

THE STATE ARGUES THAT RACIAL DESCENT IS NOT THE BASIS FOR WHATEVER
DISCRIMINATION HAS TAKEN PLACE.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE SAME
STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD WOULD APPLY ALIKE TO ANY PERSON TAKING
AGRICULTURAL LAND PAID FOR BY KAJIRO OYAMA, WHETHER THE RECIPIENT WAS
FRED OYAMA OR A STRANGER OF ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANCESTRY.  WE DO NOT
KNOW HOW REALISTIC IT IS TO SUPPOSE THAT KAJIRO OYAMA WOULD ATTEMPT
GIFTS OF LAND TO OTHERS THAN HIS CLOSE RELATIVES.  BUT IN ANY EVENT,
THE STATE'S ARGUMENT IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE GENERALLY APPLICABLE
CALIFORNIA LAW TREATS CONVEYANCES TO THE TRANSFEROR'S CHILDREN
DIFFERENTLY FROM CONVEYANCES TO STRANGERS.  WHENEVER A CHINESE OR
ENGLISH PARENT, TO TAKE AN EXAMPLE, PAYS A THIRD PARTY TO DEED LAND TO
A STRANGER, A RESULTING TRUST IS PRESUMED TO ARISE, AND THE STRANGER IS
PRESUMED TO HOLD THE LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSON PAYING THE
CONSIDERATION N25; WHEN THE ALIEN LAND LAW APPLIES A SIMILAR
PRESUMPTION TO A LIKE TRANSFER BY KAJIRO OYAMA TO A STRANGER, IT
APPEARS MERELY TO REITERATE THE GENERALLY APPLICABLE LAW OF RESULTING
TRUSTS.  WHEN, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SAME CHINESE OR ENGLISH FATHER
USES HIS OWN FUNDS TO BUY LAND IN HIS CITIZEN SON'S NAME, AN
INDEFEASIBLE TITLE IS PRESUMED TO VEST IN THE BOY; FN26  BUT WHEN
KAJIRO OYAMA ARRANGES A SIMILAR TRANSFER TO FRED OYAMA, THE ALIEN LAND
LAW INTERPOSES A PRESUMPTION JUST TO THE CONTRARY.  THUS, AS BETWEEN
THE CITIZEN CHILDREN OF A CHINESE OR ENGLISH FATHER AND THE CITIZEN
CHILDREN OF A JAPANESE FATHER, THERE IS DISCRIMINATION; AS BETWEEN
STRANGERS TAKING FROM THE SAME TRANSFERORS, THERE APPEARS TO BE NONE. 

IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT COCKRILL V. CALIFORNIA, 268 U.S.
258(1925), DOES NOT SUPPORT THE STATE'S POSITION.  IN THAT CASE AN
INELIGIBLE ALIEN PAID FOR LAND AND HAD TITLE PUT IN A STRANGER'S NAME,
AND THIS COURT AFFIRMED A DECISION UPHOLDING THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION
OF THE ALIEN LAND LAW AS THERE APPLIED.  FN27 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CITIZENS
ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RACIAL DESCENT, AS REVEALED IN THIS CASE, IS
JUSTIFIABLE.  HERE WE START WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT ONLY THE MOST
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES CAN EXCUSE DISCRIMINATION ON THAT BASIS IN
THE FACE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND A FEDERAL STATUTE GIVING
ALL CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO OWN LAND.  FN28  IN HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED
STATES, THIS COURT SUSTAINED A WAR MEASURE WHICH INVOLVED RESTRICTIONS
AGAINST CITIZENS OF JAPANESE DESCENT.  BUT THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT,
AS A GENERAL RULE, "DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CITIZENS SOLELY BECAUSE OF
THEIR ANCESTRY ARE BY THEIR VERY NATURE ODIOUS TO A FREE PEOPLE WHOSE
INSTITUTIONS ARE FOUNDED UPON THE DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY."  320 U.S. 81,
100(1943). 

THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION URGED UPON US BY THE STATE IS THAT THE
DISCRIMINATION IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT EVASION OF THE ALIEN LAND LAW'S
PROHIBITION AGAINST THE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY INELIGIBLE
ALIENS.  THIS REASONING PRESUPPOSES THE VALIDITY OF THAT PROHIBITION, A
PREMISE WHICH WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY AND THEREFORE INAPPROPRIATE TO
REEXAMINE IN THIS CASE.  BUT ASSUMING, FOR PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT ONLY,
THAT THE BASIC PROHIBITION IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT TO THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE USED TO
ENFORCE IT.  IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE STATE, THIS CASE
PRESENTS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATE'S RIGHT TO FORMULATE A POLICY OF
LANDHOLDING WITHIN ITS BOUNDS AND THE RIGHT OF AMERICAN CITIZENS TO OWN
LAND ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES.  WHEN THESE TWO RIGHTS CLASH, THE
RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN MAY NOT BE SUBORDINATED MERELY BECAUSE OF HIS
FATHER'S COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. 

SINCE THE VIEW WE TAKE OF PETITIONERS' FIRST CONTENTION REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF THE DECISION BELOW, WE DO NOT REACH THEIR OTHER
CONTENTIONS:  THAT THE ALIEN LAND LAW DENIES INELIGIBLE ALIENS THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND THAT FAILURE TO APPLY ANY LIMITATIONS
PERIOD TO ESCHEAT ACTIONS UNDER THAT LAW TAKES PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  REVERSED. 

FN1  1 CAL. GEN. LAWS, ACT 261(DEERING 1944, 1945 SUPP.). 

FN2  29 CAL.2D 164, 173 P.2D 794(1946). 

FN3  AT THE TIME THE ALIEN LAND LAW WAS ADOPTED THE RIGHT TO BE
NATURALIZED EXTENDED ONLY TO FREE WHITE PERSONS AND PERSONS OF AFRICAN
NATIVITY OR DESCENT.  IN 1940, DESCENDANTS OF RACES INDIGENOUS TO THE
WESTERN HEMISPHERE WERE ALSO MADE ELIGIBLE, 54 STAT. 1140; IN 1943
CHINESE WERE MADE ELIGIBLE, 57 STAT. 601; AND IN 1946 FILIPINOS AND
PERSONS OF RACES INDIGENOUS TO INDIA WERE MADE ELIGIBLE, 60 STAT. 416,
8 U.S.C.A. SEC. 703(1946 SUPP.).  WHILE IT IS NOT ALTOGETHER CLEAR
WHETHER THE STATUTE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE OR TO EXCLUDE
CERTAIN PEOPLES, SEE NOTE, 54 HARV. L. REV. 860, 864-5(1941), IT SEEMS
TO BE ACCEPTED THAT JAPANESE ARE AMONG THE FEW GROUPS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
CITIZENSHIP. 

FN4  SEE PATTON V. MISSISSIPPI, 332 U.S. 463(1947); CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 228-9(1940); NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587,
590(1935). 

FN5  SECS. 1 AND 2. 

FN6  SEC. 7. 

FN7  SEC. 9. 

FN8  SEC. 9(A). 

FN9  SECS. 4 AND 5.  THIS WAS THE HOLDING OF THE STATE COURTS. 
PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT UNTIL 1943 THERE WAS SOME DOUBT AS TO WHETHER
REPORTS WERE REQUIRED.  SEE NOTE 23, INFRA. 

FN10  SEC. 9(A) OF THE ALIEN LAND LAW. 

FN11  THE JUDGE STATED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A STRONG REASON PEOPLE
JUST DO NOT TAKE TITLE TO REAL ESTATE IN THE NAME OF THEIR SEVEN-YEAR
OLD CHILDREN - THEREBY PUTTING IT BEYOND THE POWER OF THE PARENTS TO
DEAL WITH IT DIRECTLY, TO DEED IT AWAY, TO BORROW MONEY ON IT AND TO
MAKE FREE DISPOSITION OF IT. 

FN12  THIS CONCLUSION WAS BASED IN LARGE MEASURE ON A SERIES OF CASES
DECIDED WITHIN A WEEK OF EACH OTHER IN 1923:  TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263
U.S. 197; PORTERFIELD V. WEBB, 263 U.S. 225; WEBB V. O'BRIEN, 263 U.S.
313; AND FRICK V. WEBB, 263 U.S. 326. 

FN13  "ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT,
IN EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY, AS IS ENJOYED BY WHITE CITIZENS THEREOF
TO INHERIT, PURCHASE, LEASE, SELL, HOLD, AND CONVEY REAL AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY."  R.S. SEC. 1978, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 42. 

FN14  THE STATE IN ITS BRIEF CONCEDES THAT THIS IS SO.  SEE ALSO
ESTATE OF YANO, 188 CAL. 645, 649, 206 PAC. 995, 998(1922); PEOPLE V.
FUJITA, 215 CAL. 166, 169, 8 P.2D 1011, 1012(1932). 

FN15  THE STATE ALSO CONCEDES THE ACCURACY OF THIS PROPOSITION.  SEE
ALSO PEOPLE V. FUJITA, SUPRA NOTE 14. 

FN16  A STATUTE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY REQUIRES THAT PARENTS BE
GIVEN PREFERENCE IN THE APPOINTMENT OF A MINOR'S GUARDIAN.  CAL. PROB. 
CODE ANN. SEC. 1407. 

INELIGIBLE ALIEN FROM BECOMING THE GUARDIAN OF THAT PART OF HIS CHILD'S
ESTATE WHICH CONSISTED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.  CAL. STATS. 1921, P.
LXXXIII.  THIS SECTION WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ESTATE OF YANO,
SUPRA NOTE 14. 

FN17  SEE DEGREAYER V. SUPERIOR COURT, 117 CAL. 640, 49 PAC.
983(1897). 

FN18  GOMEZ V. CECENA, 15 CAL.2D 363, 101 P.2D 477(1940); QUINN V.
REILLY, 198 CAL. 465, 245 PAC. 1091(1926); RUSS V. MEBIUS, 16 CAL.
350(1860); CF. LEZINSKY V. MASON MALT WHISKEY DISTILLING CO., 185 CAL.
240, 250, 196 PAC. 884, 889(1921); HAMILTON V. HUBBARD, 134 CAL. 603,
605, 65 PAC. 321, 322(1901). 

FN19  PEOPLE V. FUJITA, 215 CAL. 166, 169, 8 P.2D 1011, 1012(1932);
ESTATE OF YANO, 188 CAL. 645, 649, 206 PAC. 995, 998(1922); CF. TURNER
V. TURNER, 173 CAL. 782, 786, 161 PAC. 980, 982(1916). 

FN20  PEOPLE V. FUJITA AND ESTATE OF YANO, BOTH SUPRA NOTE 19;
DELEVILLAIN V. EVANS, 39 CAL. 120, 123(1870). 

FN21  IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN TWO PREVIOUS CASES THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS EXPLICITLY STATED THAT WHERE ALIENS ARE
PROHIBITED FROM HOLDING LANDS, AN IMPLIED TRUST BY OPERATION OF LAW
WILL NOT ARISE IN THEIR FAVOR.  ESTATE OF YANO AND PEOPLE V. FUJITA,
BOTH SUPRA, NOTE 19.  BOTH CASES WERE DECIDED BEFORE PURCHASE OF EITHER
OF THE PARCELS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE
APPARENTLY REPRESENTED THE ESTABLISHED STATE LAW. 

FN22  WHILE RELYING TO SOME EXTENT ON THIS INFERENCE THE TRIAL COURT
INDICATED THAT IT DID NOT CONSIDER IT A STRONG ONE "BECAUSE SOMETIMES
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT INFORMED AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW IN
CONNECTION WITH THOSE MATTERS SIMPLY FAIL TO DO THE THING THAT THE LAW
REQUIRES." 

FN23  SECTION 4 OF THE ALIEN LAND LAW, AS AMENDED IN 1920, PROHIBITED
INELIGIBLE ALIENS FROM BECOMING GUARDIANS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY
THEIR MINOR CHILDREN, CAL. STATS. 1921, P. LXXXIII, WHILE SEC. 5
REQUIRED CERTAIN REPORTS OF PERSONS WHO COULD AND DID BECOME GUARDIANS
OF SUCH LAND - I.E., PERSONS OTHER THAN THE PARENTS.  SECTION 4 WAS
HELD INVALID IN 1922 IN ESTATE OF YANO, SUPRA NOTE 21, AND WAS NOT
REPLACED UNTIL 1943, WHEN THERE WAS ENACTED A NEW SEC. 4 ENUNCIATING
REQUIREMENTS FOR INELIGIBLE ALIEN GUARDIANS.  SECTION 5 HAS REMAINED ON
THE BOOKS CONTINUOUSLY. 

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AT LEAST A JUSTIFIABLE
BELIEF ON THE PART OF INELIGIBLE ALIENS SUCH AS KAJIRO OYAMA THAT THEY
WERE NOT REQUIRED TO FILE GUARDIANSHIP REPORTS UNTIL 1943.  AS
INFERENTIAL CORROBORATION OF THIS VIEW, THEY POINT TO THE FAILURE OF
BOTH THE GUARDIANSHIP COURT AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO TAKE ACTION
AGAINST KAJIRO OYAMA UNDER SEC. 5 BETWEEN 1935 AND 1943. 

FN24  IF, AS THE STATE CONTENDS, SEC. 5 OF THE ACT REQUIRED KAJIRO
OYAMA TO FILE ANNUAL REPORTS, THE SAME SECTION SET AS THE PENALTY FOR
VIOLATION A FINE UP TO $1,000 AND IMPRISONMENT UP TO A YEAR.  OTHER
STATUTES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY SUBJECT GUARDIANS TO THE LAW OF
TRUSTS AND AUTHORIZE THE COURT TO REMOVE A GUARDIAN FOR MISMANAGEMENT
OR FAILURE TO RENDER ACCOUNTS.  CAL. PROB.  CODE SECS. 1400, 1580. 
FURTHERMORE, SINCE 1943 THE STATUTE HAS PROVIDED THAT BREACH OF SEC. 4
MAY SUBJECT THE GUARDIAN TO A MAXIMUM OF 10 YEARS' IMPRISONMENT AND A
$5,000 FINE. 

FN25  CAL. CIVIL CODE SEC. 853. 

FN26  SEE NOTE 18 SUPRA. 

FN27  IN THE COCKRILL CASE THE INELIGIBLE ALIEN, ONE IKADA, FIRST
ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE THE LAND IN HIS OWN NAME.  WHEN THE SELLER
QUESTIONED THE LEGALITY OF THE TRANSFER, IT WAS ARRANGED FOR TITLE TO
BE PUT IN THE NAME OF COCKRILL, IKADA'S ATTORNEY.  THAT WAS DONE, AND
IMMEDIATELY ON EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE, IKADA HIMSELF ENTERED
INTO POSSESSION.  THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED
AND WAS BEING HELD FOR IKADA'S AMERICAN-BORN CHILDREN, BUT A JURY FOUND
IKADA AND COCKRILL GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE ALIEN LAND LAW. 
IN AFFIRMING, THE CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT POINTED OUT THAT NO MOVE
HAD BEEN MADE TOWARD HAVING A GUARDIAN APPOINTED FOR THE CHILDREN.  62
CAL. APP. 22, 45, 216 PAC. 78, 88.  BEFORE THIS COURT IKADA AND
COCKRILL ARGUED THAT THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION
TO THE JAPANESE, NOT TO THE DONEE AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

SINCE WE DO NOT REACH PETITIONERS' SECOND ARGUMENT, THAT IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A STATE TO FORBID THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND BY AN
INELIGIBLE ALIEN, WE DO NOT THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO REEXAMINE EITHER
THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 12, SUPRA, OR THE NECESSARY IMPLICATION IN THE
COCKRILL CASE THAT THE BASIC PROHIBITION OF THE ALIEN LAND LAW IS
VALID. 

FN28  SEE NOTE 13 SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AGREES, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT AND ITS OPINION.  BUT I SHOULD
PREFER TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT ON THE BROADER GROUNDS THAT THE BASIC
PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND LAW VIOLATE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL
LAWS AND TREATIES GOVERNING THE IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS AND THEIR RIGHTS
AFTER ARRIVAL IN THIS COUNTRY.  THE CALIFORNIA LAW IN ACTUAL EFFECT
SINGLES OUT ALIENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, REQUIRES THE ESCHEAT OF ANY
REAL ESTATE THEY OWN, AND ITS LANGUAGE IS BROAD ENOUGH TO MAKE IT A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE, PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT UP TO TEN YEARS, FOR THEM
TO ACQUIRE, ENJOY, USE, POSSESS, CULTIVATE, OCCUPY, OR TRANSFER REAL
PROPERTY.  FN1  IT WOULD THEREFORE APPEAR TO BE A CRIME FOR AN ALIEN OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY TO OWN A HOME IN CALIFORNIA, AT LEAST IF THE LAND
AROUND IT IS SUITABLE FOR CULTIVATION.  FN2  THIS IS TRUE ALTHOUGH THE
STATUTE DOES NOT NAME THE JAPANESE AS SUCH, AND ALTHOUGH ITS TERMS ALSO
APPLY TO A COMPARATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF ALIENS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. 
THAT THE EFFECT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
JAPANESE BECAUSE THEY ARE JAPANESE IS TOO PLAIN TO CALL FOR MORE THAN A
STATEMENT OF THAT WELL-KNOWN FACT. 

WE ARE TOLD, HOWEVER, THAT, DESPITE THE SWEEPING PROHIBITION AGAINST
JAPANESE OWNERSHIP OR OCCUPANCY, IT IS NO VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR A
JAPANESE TO WORK ON LAND AS A HIRED HAND FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS OR FOR
FOREIGN NATIONALS PERMITTED TO OWN CALIFORNIA LANDS.  AND A JAPANESE
MAN OR WOMAN MAY ALSO USE OR OCCUPY LAND IF ACTING ONLY IN THE CAPACITY
OF A SERVANT.  IN OTHER WORDS, BY THIS ALIEN LAND LAW CALIFORNIA PUTS
ALL JAPANESE ALIENS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES ON THE LOWEST POSSIBLE
ECONOMIC LEVEL.  AND THIS LAND LAW HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER WHICH
NOW BARS JAPANESE FROM THE FISHING INDUSTRY.  CAL. STATS. 1945, C. 181;
SEE TAKAHASHI V. FISH & GAME COMM'N, 30 CAL.2D 719, 185 P.2D 805.  IF
THERE IS ANY ONE PURPOSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THAT IS WHOLLY
OUTSIDE THE REALM OF DOUBT, IT IS THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO
BAR STATES FROM DENYING TO SOME GROUPS, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE OR
COLOR, ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES ACCORDED TO OTHER
GROUPS.  I WOULD NOW OVERRULE THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT
SUSTAINED STATE LAND LAWS WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE OF JAPANESE
ORIGIN RESIDING IN THIS COUNTRY.  FN3    CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED STRICT
IMMIGRATION TESTS AND QUOTAS.  IT HAS ALSO ENACTED LAWS TO REGULATE
ALIENS AFTER ADMISSION INTO THE COUNTRY.  OTHER STATUTES PROVIDE FOR
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS.  ALTHOUGH JAPANESE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BECOME
CITIZENS BY THE ORDINARY PROCESS OF NATURALIZATION, STILL CONGRESS
PERMITTED THE ADMISSION OF SOME JAPANESE INTO THIS COUNTRY.  ALL OF
THIS MEANS THAT CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS EXCLUSIVE POWER OVER
IMMIGRATION, TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, 42, DECIDED THAT CERTAIN
JAPANESE, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LAWS, MIGHT COME TO AND LIVE IN ANY ONE OF
THE STATES OF THE UNION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAS SAID THAT
ONE PURPOSE OF THAT STATE'S LAND LAW IS TO "DISCOURAGE THE COMING OF
JAPANESE INTO THIS STATE  ...  "  ESTATE OF YANO, 188 CAL. 645, 658,
206 P. 995, 1001.  CALIFORNIA SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO ERECT
OBSTACLES DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE IMMIGRATION OF PEOPLE WHOM CONGRESS
HAS AUTHORIZED TO COME INTO AND REMAIN IN THE COUNTRY.  SEE HINES V.
DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52, 68.  THERE ARE ADDITIONAL REASONS NOW WHY THAT
LAW STANDS AS AN OBSTACLE TO THE FREE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF OUR POLICY IN
THE INTERNATIONAL FIELD.  ONE OF THESE REASONS IS THAT WE HAVE RECENTLY
PLEDGED OURSELVES TO COOPERATE WITH THE UNITED NATIONS TO "PROMOTE  ...
UNIVERSAL RESPECT FOR, AND OBSERVANCE OF, HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS FOR ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION AS TO RACE, SEX, LANGUAGE, OR
RELIGION."  FN4 HOW CAN THIS NATION BE FAITHFUL TO THIS INTERNATIONAL
PLEDGE IF STATE LAWS WHICH BAR LAND OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANCY BY ALIENS
ON ACCOUNT OF RACE ARE PERMITTED TO BE ENFORCED? 

FN1  SECTION 10(A) OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY INITIATIVE ACT PROVIDES:
"ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE
PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR OR
IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY NOT EXCEEDING 10 YEARS, OR BY A FINE NOT TO
EXCEED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000) OR BOTH."  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT
PROVIDES THAT ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP "MAY ACQUIRE, POSSESS,
ENJOY, USE, CULTIVATE, OCCUPY AND TRANSFER REAL PROPERTY, OR ANY
INTEREST THEREIN" IN CALIFORNIA ONLY TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY TREATY
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE NATION OF WHICH THE ALIEN IS A
CITIZEN. 

FN2  THE UNITED STATES-JAPANESE TREATY OF 1911, WHICH GUARANTEED
JAPANESE IN THIS COUNTRY THE RIGHT TO OWN AND LEASE LAND "FOR
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PURPOSES," 37 STAT. 1504, WAS ABROGATED
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 26, 1940.  DEPT. OF STATE BULL., JULY 29, 1939, P.
81.  SINCE THE ABROGATION OF THIS TREATY, IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER
JAPANESE ALIENS IN CALIFORNIA MAY OWN OR RENT A HOME OR A BUSINESS.  WE
ARE TOLD THAT A RECENT INTERMEDIATE COURT DECISION UPHOLDING THE RIGHT
OF JAPANESE ALIENS TO RENT A BUILDING FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, PALMERO V.
STOCKTON THEATRES, 172 P.2D 103(1946), HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

FN3  TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197; PORTERFIELD V. WEBB, 263 U.S.
225; WEBB V. O'BRIEN, 263 U.S. 313; FRICK V. WEBB, 263 U.S. 326. 

FN4  UNITED NATIONS CHARTER, ARTICLES 55C AND 56; 59 STAT. 1045,
1046(1945). 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOINS,
CONCURRING. 

TO ME THE CONTROLLING ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA
ALIEN LAND LAW ON ITS FACE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.  CAN A STATE PROHIBIT ALL ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP FROM ACQUIRING, OWNING, OCCUPYING, ENJOYING, LEASING OR
TRANSFERRING AGRICULTURAL LAND?  DOES SUCH A PROHIBITION SQUARE WITH
THE LANGUAGE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THAT NO STATE SHALL "DENY TO
ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS"? 

THE NEGATIVE ANSWER TO THOSE QUERIES IS DICTATED BY THE
UNCOMPROMISING OPPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO RACISM, WHATEVER CLOAK
OR DISGUISE IT MAY ASSUME.  THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE IN QUESTION, AS I
VIEW IT, IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN OUTRIGHT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.  AS
SUCH, IT DESERVES CONSTITUTIONAL CONDEMNATION.  AND SINCE THE VERY CORE
OF THE STATUTE IS SO DEFECTIVE, I CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO GIVE VOICE
TO THAT FACT EVEN THOUGH I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN ITS ARGUMENT BEFORE US, CALIFORNIA HAS DISCLAIMED ANY IMPLICATION
THAT THE ALIEN LAND LAW IS RACIST IN ITS ORIGIN, PURPOSE OR EFFECT. 
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FACT THAT NOWHERE IN THE STATUTE IS THERE A
SINGLE MENTION OF RACE, COLOR, CREED OR PLACE OF BIRTH OR ALLEGIANCE AS
A DETERMINANT OF WHO MAY NOT OWN OR HOLD FARM LAND.  THE DISCRIMINATION
ESTABLISHED BY THE STATUTE IS SAID TO BE ENTIRELY INNOCENT OF THE USE
OF SUCH FACTORS, BEING GROUNDED SOLELY UPON THE REASONABLE DISTINCTIONS
CREATED BY CONGRESS IN ITS NATURALIZATION LAWS.  HOWEVER, AN
EXAMINATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ORIGINAL ENACTMENT OF
THIS LAW IN 1913, ITS REENACTMENT IN 1920 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT
APPLICATION REVEALS QUITE A DIFFERENT STORY.  FN1 

THE CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND LAW WAS SPAWNED OF THE GREAT ANTI-ORIENTAL
VIRUS WHICH, AT AN EARLY DATE, INFECTED MANY PERSONS IN THAT STATE. 
THE HISTORY OF THIS ANTI-ORIENTAL AGITATION IS NOT ONE THAT DOES CREDIT
TO A NATION THAT PRIDES ITSELF, AT LEAST HISTORICALLY, ON BEING THE
FRIENDLY HAVEN OF THE TIRED AND THE OPPRESSED OF OTHER LANDS. 
BEGINNING IN 1850, WITH THE ARRIVAL OF SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF CHINESE
IMMIGRANTS, RACIAL PREJUDICES AND DISCRIMINATIONS BEGAN TO MOUNT.  MUCH
OF THE OPPOSITION TO THESE CHINESE CAME FROM TRADE UNIONISTS, WHO
FEARED ECONOMIC COMPETITION, AND FROM POLITICIANS, WHO SOUGHT UNION
SUPPORT.  OTHER GROUPS ALSO SHARED IN THIS OPPOSITION.  VARIOUS LAWS
AND ORDINANCES WERE ENACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCOURAGING THE
IMMIGRANTS AND DRAMATIZING THE NATIVE DISSATISFACTION.  INDIVIDUAL
CHINESE WERE SUBJECTED TO MANY ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  EVENTUALLY, CONGRESS
RESPONDED TO THIS POPULAR AGITATION AND ADOPTED CHINESE EXCLUSION
LAWS. 

IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1900 THAT JAPANESE BEGAN TO ARRIVE IN CALIFORNIA IN
LARGE NUMBERS.  BY THAT TIME THE REPRESSIVE MEASURES DIRECTED AT THE
CHINESE HAD ACHIEVED MUCH OF THEIR DESIRED EFFECT; THE CHINESE
POPULATION HAD MATERIALLY DECREASED AND THE ANTIPATHY OF THE AMERICANS
WAS ON THE DECLINE.  BUT THE ARRIVAL OF THE JAPANESE FANNED ANEW THE
FLAMES OF ANTI-ORIENTAL PREJUDICE.  HISTORY THEN BEGAN TO REPEAT
ITSELF.  WHITE WORKERS RESENTED THE NEW INFLUX, A RESENTMENT WHICH
READILY LENT ITSELF TO POLITICAL EXPLOITATION.  DEMANDS WERE MADE THAT
JAPANESE IMMIGRATION BE LIMITED OR PROHIBITED ENTIRELY.  FN2  NUMEROUS
ACTS OF VIOLENCE WERE PERPETRATED AGAINST JAPANESE BUSINESSMEN AND
WORKERS, COMBINED WITH PRIVATE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS DESIGNED TO DRIVE
THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.  CHARGES OF ESPIONAGE, UNASSIMILATIVENESS,
CLANNISHNESS AND CORRUPTION OF YOUNG CHILDREN WERE MADE AGAINST THESE
"MONGOLIAN INVADERS."  CAMPAIGNS WERE ORGANIZED TO SECURE SEGREGATED
SCHOOLS AND TO PRESERVE "AMERICA FOR THE AMERICANS." 

INDEED, SO LOUD DID THIS ANTI-JAPANESE CLAMOR BECOME THAT THE
JAPANESE GOVERNMENT MADE FORMAL PROTESTS TO THE UNITED STATES. 
PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT THEREUPON INVESTIGATED AND INTERVENED IN
THE CALIFORNIA SITUATION.  HE WAS ABLE TO SECURE A SLIGHT
AMELIORATION.  FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
RESULTED IN A SO-CALLED "GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT," WHEREBY THE JAPANESE
GOVERNMENT AGREED TO LIMIT PASSPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES TO
NONLABORERS AND TO OTHERS WHO HAD ALREADY ESTABLISHED CERTAIN BUSINESS
AND PERSONAL INTERESTS IN THIS COUNTRY.  FN3 

BUT THE AGITATION DID NOT DIE AND ANTI-JAPANESE MEASURES CONTINUED TO
BE PROPOSED IN WHOLESALE FASHION.  THE FIRST ANTI-JAPANESE LAND BILLS
WERE INTRODUCED IN THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IN 1907, BUT THE COMBINED
EFFORTS OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND GOVERNOR GILLETT PREVENTED THEIR
PASSAGE.  AT LEAST SEVENTEEN ANTI-JAPANESE BILLS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE
1909 SESSION, INCLUDING ANOTHER LAND BILL.  PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AGAIN
INTERVENED.  THIS TIME HE SUCCEEDED IN HAVING THE LAND BILL AMENDED TO
APPLY TO ALL ALIENS, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE BILL WAS DEFEATED; FN4
HE WAS ALSO INSTRUMENTAL IN PREVENTING THE PASSAGE OF A SCHOOL
SEGREGATION BILL.  THE FLOOD OF ANTI-JAPANESE PROPOSALS CONTINUED IN
THE 1911 SESSION, AT WHICH MORE THAN TWENTY SUCH MEASURES WERE
INTRODUCED.  AMONG THEM, OF COURSE, WAS STILL ANOTHER ALIEN LAND BILL. 
IT PROVIDED THAT "NO ALIEN WHO IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP" SHOULD
HOLD REAL PROPERTY IN CALIFORNIA.  THE PROSPECTS FOR THE PASSAGE OF
THIS BILL SEEMED GOOD, FOR BY THIS TIME ALL POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE
STATE HAD ANTI-JAPANESE PLANKS IN THEIR PLATFORMS.  BUT PRESIDENTIAL
INTERVENTION WAS ONCE AGAIN SUCCESSFUL AND THE BILL DIED IN COMMITTEE. 
FN5 

IN 1913, HOWEVER, NOTHING COULD STOP THE PASSAGE OF THE ORIGINAL
VERSION OF WHAT IS NOW THE ALIEN LAND LAW.  FN6  THIS MEASURE, THOUGH
LIMITED TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS, REPRESENTED THE FIRST OFFICIAL ACT OF
DISCRIMINATION AIMED AT THE JAPANESE.  MANY JAPANESE WERE ENGAGED IN
AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS IN 1913 AND THEY CONSTITUTED A SUBSTANTIAL
SEGMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM LABOR SUPPLY.  FROM 1900 TO 1910,
JAPANESE-CONTROLLED FARMS IN CALIFORNIA HAD INCREASED FROM 4,698 ACRES
TO 99,254 ACRES.  THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION THUS OFFERED A FRUITFUL
TARGET FOR THE ANTI-JAPANESE FORCES, WHO HAD BEEN BALKED IN THEIR
ATTEMPTS TO SECURE A BAN ON ALL JAPANESE IMMIGRATION AND TO OUTLAW
JAPANESE ACQUISITION AND ENJOYMENT OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY.  IN THIS NEW ENDEAVOR THEY WERE EMINENTLY SUCCESSFUL. 
SECRETARY OF STATE BRYAN, ACTING ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT WILSON, MADE A
PERSONAL APPEARANCE IN CALIFORNIA TO PLEAD FOR CAUTION, BUT HIS REQUEST
WAS IGNORED AS THE LEGISLATORS VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOR OF THE
BILL.  THIS 1913 LAW DENIED "ALIENS INELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP" THE
PRIVILEGE OF BUYING LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES IN CALIFORNIA, AND
ALLOWED THEM TO LEASE LAND FOR SUCH PURPOSES FOR NO MORE THAN THREE
YEARS.  THE MEASURE WAS SO DRAWN AS NOT TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
JAPANESE-AMERICAN TREATY OF 1911, WHICH AUTHORIZED JAPANESE IN THIS
COUNTRY TO LEASE AND OCCUPY LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES.  BUT SINCE THE TREATY MADE NO MENTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND,
LEGISLATION ON THE MATTER BY CALIFORNIA DID NOT PRESENT A SQUARE
CONFLICT. 

THE PASSAGE OF THE LAW WAS AN INTERNATIONAL INCIDENT.  THE JAPANESE
GOVERNMENT MADE AN IMMEDIATE PROTEST ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE WAS
AN INDICATION OF UNFRIENDLINESS TOWARDS ITS PEOPLE.  INDEED, THE
RESENTMENT WAS SO VIOLENT INSIDE JAPAN THAT DEMANDS WERE MADE THAT WAR
BE DECLARED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  ANTI-AMERICAN AGITATION GREW
RAPIDLY.  FN7  THE QUESTION WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH ON THE DIPLOMATIC
LEVEL.  IT WAS DECLARED BY THE JAPANESE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
THAT THE STATUTE "IS ESSENTIALLY UNFAIR AND INVIDIOUSLY DISCRIMINATORY
AGAINST MY COUNTRYMEN, AND INCONSISTENT AS WELL WITH THE SENTIMENTS OF
AMITY AND GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH HAVE PRESIDED OVER THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES  ...  "  FN8  BUT THE MATTER WAS ALLOWED TO
LAPSE AS BOTH COUNTRIES BECAME INCREASINGLY OCCUPIED WITH THE
DEVELOPMENTS OF WORLD WAR I. 

THE INTENTION OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 1913 LAW WAS PLAIN.  THE
"JAPANESE MENACE" WAS TO BE DEALT WITH ON A RACIAL BASIS.  THE
IMMEDIATE PURPOSE, OF COURSE, WAS TO RESTRICT JAPANESE FARM
COMPETITION.  AS SUBSEQUENTLY STATED BY GOVERNOR STEPHENS OF
CALIFORNIA, "IN 1913 THE LEGISLATURE OF THIS STATE PASSED A STATUTE
FORBIDDING THE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY JAPANESE AND LIMITING
THEIR TENURE TO THREE-YEAR LEASEHOLDS.  IT WAS THE HOPE AT THAT TIME
THAT THE ENACTMENT OF THIS STATUTE MIGHT PUT A STOP TO THE
ENCROACHMENTS OF THE JAPANESE AGRICULTURIST."  N9 ACTUALLY, HOWEVER,
THE LAW HAD LITTLE EFFECT ON THE FARM SITUATION.  IT FAILED TO PROHIBIT
THE ACQUISTION OF FARMS IN THE FUTURE OR TO DIVEST ANY EXISTING
HOLDINGS; AND THERE WAS NO LIMITATION ON THE RENEWAL OF LEASES.  THE
JAPANESE FARM POPULATION REMAINED LARGELY INTACT. 

THE MORE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE WAS TO IRRITATE THE JAPANESE,
TO MAKE ECONOMIC LIFE IN CALIFORNIA AS UNCOMFORTABLE AND UNPROFITABLE
FOR THEM AS LEGALLY POSSIBLE.  IT WAS THUS BUT A STEP IN THE LONG
CAMPAIGN TO DISCOURAGE THE JAPANESE FROM ENTERING CALIFORNIA AND TO
DRIVE OUT THOSE WHO WERE ALREADY THERE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA ADMITTED AS MUCH IN ITS STATEMENT THAT THE ALIEN LAND LAW
WAS FRAMED SO AS "TO DISCOURAGE THE COMING OF JAPANESE INTO THIS
STATE."  ESTATE OF TETSUBUMI YANO, 188 CAL. 645, 658, 206 P. 995,
1001.  EVEN MORE CANDID WAS THE DECLARATION IN 1913 BY ULYSSES S. WEBB,
ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE LAW AND AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA. 
HE STATED:  "THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF ALL LEGISLATION UPON THIS
SUBJECT, STATE AND FEDERAL, HAS BEEN, AND IS, RACE UNDESIRABILITY.  IT
IS UNIMPORTANT AND FOREIGN TO THE QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION WHETHER A
PARTICULAR RACE IS INFERIOR.  THE SIMPLE AND SINGLE QUESTION IS, IS THE
RACE DESIRABLE  ...  IT (THE ALIEN LAND LAW) SEEKS TO LIMIT THEIR
PRESENCE BY CURTAILING THEIR PRIVILEGES WHICH THEY MAY ENJOY HERE; FOR
THEY WILL NOT COME IN LARGE NUMBERS AND LONG ABIDE WITH US IF THEY MAY
NOT ACQUIRE LAND.  AND IT SEEKS TO LIMIT THE NUMBERS WHO WILL COME BY
LIMITING THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR ACTIVITY HERE WHEN THEY ARRIVE." 
FN10    FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE RACIAL PREJUDICE UNDERLYING THE ALIEN
LAND LAW IS TO BE FOUND IN THE EVENTS RELATING TO THE REENACTMENT AND
STRENGTHENING OF THE STATUTE BY POPULAR INITIATIVE IN 1920.  MORE
SEVERE AND EFFECTIVE THAN THE 1913 LAW, THE INITIATIVE MEASURE
PROHIBITED INELIGIBLE ALIENS FROM LEASING LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL
PURPOSES; AND IT PLUGGED VARIOUS OTHER LOOPHOLES IN THE EARLIER
PROVISIONS.  A SPIRITED CAMPAIGN WAS WAGED TO SECURE POPULAR APPROVAL,
A CAMPAIGN WITH A BITTER ANTI-JAPANESE FLAVOR.  ALL THE PROPAGANDA
DEVICES THEN KNOWN - NEWSPAPERS, SPEECHES, FILMS, PAMPHLETS, LEAFLETS,
BILLBOARDS, AND THE LIKE - WERE UTILIZED TO SPREAD THE ANTI-JAPANESE
POISON.  FN11  THE JAPANESE WERE DEPICTED AS DEGENERATE MONGRELS AND
THE VOTERS WERE URGED TO SAVE "CALIFORNIA - THE WHITE MAN'S PARADISE"
FROM THE "YELLOW PERIL," WHICH HAD SOMEWHAT LAPSED IN THE PUBLIC MIND
SINCE 1913.  CLAIMS WERE MADE THAT THE BIRTH RATE OF THE JAPANESE WAS
SO HIGH THAT THE WHITE PEOPLE WOULD EVENTUALLY BE REPLACED AND DIRE
WARNINGS WERE MADE THAT THE LOW STANDARD OF LIVING OF THE JAPANESE
ENDANGERED THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY.  OPPONENTS
OF THE INITIATIVE MEASURE WERE LABELED "JAPLOVERS."  THE FIRES OF
RACIAL ANIMOSITY WERE THUS REKINDLED AND THE FLAMES ROSE TO NEW
HEIGHTS. 

IN A PAMPHLET OFFICIALLY MAILED TO ALL VOTERS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION,
THEY WERE TOLD THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE NEW MEASURE WAS "TO
PROHIBIT ORIENTALS WHO CANNOT BECOME AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM CONTROLLING
OUR RICH AGRICULTURAL LANDS  ...  ORIENTALS, AND MORE PARTICULARLY
JAPANESE, (HAVE) COMMENCED TO SECURE CONTROL OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN
CALIFORNIA  ...  "  FN12  THE ARGUMENTS IN THE PAMPHLET IN SUPPORT OF
THE MEASURE WERE REPEATEDLY DIRECTED AGAINST THE JAPANESE ALONE,
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO OTHER ORIENTALS OR TO OTHERS WHO WERE INELIGIBLE
FOR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  IN THIS ATMOSPHERE HEAVY WITH RACE HATRED,
THE VOTERS GAVE DECISIVE APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSAL, 668,483 TO 222,086,
THOUGH THE MAJORITY CONSTITUTED LESS THAN HALF OF THE TOTAL
ELECTORATE.  BUT SO VIRULENT HAD BEEN THE CAMPAIGN AND SO DEEP HAD BEEN
THE NATURAL RESENTMENT IN JAPAN THAT ONCE AGAIN THE THREAT OF WAR
APPEARED ON THE HORIZON, ONLY TO DIE IN THE RUSH OF OTHER EVENTS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE ALIEN LAND LAW, IN ITS ORIGINAL AND AMENDED FORM,
FAILS TO MENTION JAPANESE ALIENS BY NAME.  SOME OF THE PROPOSALS
PRECEDING THE ADOPTION OF THE ORIGINAL MEASURE IN 1913 HAD IN FACT MADE
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO JAPANESE ALIENS.  BUT THE EXPANSION OF THE
DISCRIMINATION TO INCLUDE ALL ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP DID NOT
INDICATE ANY RETREAT FROM THE AVOWED ANTI-JAPANESE PURPOSE.  ADOPTION
OF THE CONGRESSIONAL STANDARD OF INELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP WAS ONLY
AN INDIRECT, BUT NO LESS EFFECTIVE, MEANS OF ACHIEVING THE DESIRED
END.  THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION AT ALL PERTINENT TIMES HAS BEEN SO DRAWN
AS TO EXCLUDE JAPANESE ALIENS FROM AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  FN13  THIS
COURT HAS SAID, IN REFERRING TO SUCH LEGISLATION, THAT "A PERSON OF THE
JAPANESE RACE, IF NOT BORN A CITIZEN, IS INELIGIBLE TO BECOME A
CITIZEN, I.E., TO BE NATURALIZED."  MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S.
82, 85.  THE FRAMERS OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW WERE THEREFORE ABLE TO
UTILIZE THE FEDERAL STANDARD WITH FULL ASSURANCE THAT THE RESULT WOULD
BE TO EXCLUDE JAPANESE ALIENS FROM THE OWNERSHIP AND USE OF FARM LAND. 
CONGRESS SUPPLIED A READY-MADE VEHICLE FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
JAPANESE ALIENS, A VEHICLE WHICH CALIFORNIA WAS PROMPT TO GRASP AND
EXPAND TO PURPOSES QUITE BEYOND THE SCOPE OR OBJECT OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE. 

MOREOVER, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE PROPONENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA LAW WERE AT ANY TIME CONCERNED WITH THE USE OR OWNERSHIP OF
FARM LAND BY INELIGIBLE ALIENS OTHER THAN THOSE OF JAPANESE ORIGIN. 
AMONG THOSE INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP WHEN THE LAW WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION WERE CHINESE ALIENS.  BUT THE CHINESE IN CALIFORNIA WERE
GENERALLY ENGAGED IN SMALL COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES RATHER THAN IN
AGRICULTURAL OCCUPATIONS AND, IN ADDITION, WERE NOT CONSIDERED A MENACE
BECAUSE OF THE CHINESE EXCLUSION ACTS.  FN14  NO MENTION WAS MADE BY
THE STATUTE'S PROPONENTS OF THE HINDUS OR THE MALAY AND POLYNESIAN
ALIENS WHO WERE RESIDENT IN CALIFORNIA.  ALIENS OF THE LATTER TYPES
WERE SO NUMERICALLY INSIGNIFICANT AS TO AROUSE NO INTEREST OR
ANIMOSITY.  FN15  ONLY THE JAPANESE ALIENS PRESENTED THE REAL PROBLEM. 
IT WAS THEY, THE "YELLOW HORDE," WHO WERE THE OBJECT OF THE
LEGISLATION. 

THAT FACT HAS BEEN FURTHER DEMONSTRATED BY THE SUBSEQUENT ENFORCEMENT
OF THE ALIEN LAND LAW.  AT LEAST 79 ESCHEAT ACTIONS HAVE BEEN
INSTITUTED BY THE STATE SINCE THE STATUTE BECAME EFFECTIVE.  OF THESE
79 PROCEEDINGS, 4 INVOLVED HINDUS, 2 INVOLVED CHINESE AND THE REMAINING
73 INVOLVED JAPANESE.  FN16  CURIOUSLY ENOUGH, 59 OF THE 73 JAPANESE
CASES WERE BEGUN BY THE STATE SUBSEQUENT TO PEARL HARBOR, DURING THE
PERIOD WHEN THE HYSTERIA GENERATED BY WORLD WAR II MAGNIFIED THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR EFFECTIVE ANTI-JAPANESE PROPAGANDA.  FN17  VIGOROUS
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ALIEN LAND LAW HAS BEEN BUT ONE OF THE CRUEL
DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS WHICH HAVE MARKED THIS NATION'S TREATMENT SINCE
1941 OF THOSE RESIDENTS WHO CHANCED TO BE OF JAPANESE ORIGIN. 

THE ALIEN LAND LAW, IN SHORT, WAS DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE A PURELY
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, TO PROHIBIT A JAPANESE ALIEN FROM OWNING OR
USING AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLELY BECAUSE HE IS A JAPANESE ALIEN.  IT IS
ROOTED DEEPLY IN RACIAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ANTAGONISMS.  THE QUESTION
CONFRONTING US IS WHETHER SUCH A STATUTE, VIEWED AGAINST THE BACKGROUND
OF RACISM, CAN MOUNT THE HURDLE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CAN A STATE DISREGARD IN THIS MANNER THE
HISTORIC IDEAL THAT THOSE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THIS NATION ARE NOT TO
BE DENIED RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES BECAUSE THEY ARE OF A PARTICULAR RACE? 
I SAY THAT IT CANNOT. 

THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IS TOO CLEAR TO ADMIT OF ANY OTHER
CONCLUSION.  IT PROVIDES THAT NO STATE SHALL "DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."  THE WORDS "ANY
PERSON" HAVE SUFFICIENT SCOPE TO INCLUDE RESIDENT ALIENS, WHETHER
ELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP OR NOT.  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356;
TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33.  HENCE JAPANESE ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR
CITIZENSHIP MUST BE ACCORDED EQUAL PROTECTION.  AND THE LAWS AS TO
WHICH EQUAL PROTECTION MUST BE GIVEN CERTAINLY INCLUDE THOSE PROTECTING
THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN COMMON OCCUPATIONS LIKE FARMING, YICK WO V.
HOPKINS, SUPRA, AND THOSE PERTAINING TO THE USE AND OWNERSHIP OF
AGRICULTURAL LANDS, BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60.  THE CONCEPT OF
EQUAL PROTECTION, HOWEVER, MAY IN RARE CASES PERMIT A STATE TO SINGLE
OUT A CLASS OF PERSONS, SUCH AS INELIGIBLE ALIENS, FOR DISTINCTIVE
TREATMENT.  THE CRUCIAL TEST IN THESE EXCEPTIONAL INSTANCES IS WHETHER
THERE IS A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE PARTICULAR KIND OF DISCRIMINATION
INVOLVED.  ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLASS SUCH AS TO PROVIDE A
RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT? 

SUCH A RATIONAL BASIS IS COMPLETELY LACKING WHERE, AS HERE, THE
DISCRIMINATION STEMS DIRECTLY FROM RACIAL HATRED AND INTOLERANCE.  THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AS I READ IT, EMBODIES THE HIGHEST
POLITICAL IDEALS OF WHICH MAN IS CAPABLE.  IT INSISTS THAT OUR
GOVERNMENT, WHETHER STATE OR FEDERAL, SHALL RESPECT AND OBSERVE THE
DIGNITY OF EACH INDIVIDUAL, WHATEVER MAY BE THE NAME OF HIS RACE, THE
COLOR OF HIS SKIN OR THE NATURE OF HIS BELIEFS.  IT THUS RENDERS
IRRATIONAL, AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR DISCRIMINATION, THOSE FACTORS WHICH
REFLECT RACIAL ANIMOSITY.  YET THE HISTORY OF THE ALIEN LAND LAW SHOWS
BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT FACTORS OF THAT NATURE MAKE UP THE FOUNDATION
UPON WHICH RESTS THE DISCRIMINATION ESTABLISHED THEREIN.  AND SUCH
FACTORS ARE AT ONCE EVIDENT WHEN THE LEGAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE DISCRIMINATION ARE SUBJECTED
TO RIGID SCRUTINY. 

FIRST.  IT IS SAID THAT THE RULE ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS FOR
DETERMINING THOSE CLASSES OF ALIENS WHO MAY BECOME CITIZENS FURNISHES
IN AND OF ITSELF A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE DISCRIMINATION INVOLVED IN
THE ALIEN LAND LAW. 

THE PROPOSITION THAT THE "PLENARY" POWER OF CONGRESS OVER
NATURALIZATION IS UNINHIBITED, EVEN BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION
OF RACISM, IS ONE THAT IS OPEN TO GRAVE DOUBTS IN MY MIND.  FN18 RACISM
HAS NO JUSTIFIABLE PLACE WHATEVER IN OUR WAY OF LIFE, EVEN WHEN IT
APPEARS UNDER THE GUISE OF "PLENARY" POWER.  CF. CONCURRING OPINION IN
BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135, 161-162.  BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT
CONGRESS HAS MADE RACIAL DISTINCTIONS IN ESTABLISHING NATURALIZATION
STANDARDS.  AND THOSE DISTINCTIONS IN LARGE PART HAVE GROWN OUT OF THE
DEMANDS OF RACIALLY INTOLERANT GROUPS, INCLUDING MANY OF THOSE WHO WERE
AMONG THE FOREMOST PROPONENTS OF THE ALIEN LAND LAW.  YET IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW, EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT CONGRESS WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING SUCH
RACIAL DISTINCTIONS, THAT CALIFORNIA CAN BLINDLY ADOPT THOSE
DISTINCTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHO MAY OWN AND ENJOY
AGRICULTURAL LAND.  WHAT MAY BE REASONABLE AND CONSTITUTIONAL FOR
CONGRESS FOR ONE PURPOSE MAY NOT BE REASONABLE OR CONSTITUTIONAL FOR A
STATE LEGISLATURE FOR ANOTHER AND WHOLLY DISTINCT PURPOSE.  OTHERWISE
THERE WOULD BE FEW PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS TO THE POWER OF A STATE TO
DISCRIMINATE AMONG THOSE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, THERE BEING A
PLETHORA OF FEDERAL CLASSIFICATIONS WHICH COULD BE COPIED.  FN19 

IN OTHER WORDS, IF A STATE WISHES TO BORROW A FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION,
IT MUST SEEK TO RATIONALIZE THE ADOPTED DISTINCTION IN THE NEW
SETTING.  IS THE DISTINCTION A REASONABLE ONE FOR THE PURPOSES FOR
WHICH THE STATE DESIRES TO USE IT?  TO THAT QUESTION IT IS NO ANSWER
THAT THE DISTINCTION WAS TAKEN FROM A FEDERAL STATUTE OR THAT THE
DISTINCTION MAY BE RATIONALIZED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH CONGRESS USED
IT.  THE STATE'S USE OF THE DISTINCTION MUST STAND OR FALL ON ITS OWN
MERITS.  AND IF IT APPEARS THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE FORBIDS THE
STATE FROM USING THE DISTINCTION FOR THE DESIRED PURPOSE, THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS IS FREE TO ADOPT THE DISTINCTION IN SOME OTHER CONNECTION
GIVES THE STATE NO ADDITIONAL POWER TO ACT UPON IT.  THUS THE STATE
ACQUIRES NO POWER WHATEVER TO IMPOSE RACIAL DISCRIMINATIONS UPON
RESIDENT ALIENS FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO EXCLUDE SOME OR ALL
ALIENS ON A RACIAL BASIS. 

SECOND.  IT IS SAID THAT ELIGIBILITY FOR AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS
INHERENTLY RELATED TO LOYAL ALLEGIANCE AND DESIRE TO WORK FOR THE
SUCCESS AND WELFARE OF THE STATE, WHICH HAS A VITAL INTEREST IN THE
FARM LANDS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  HENCE IT MAY LIMIT THE OWNERSHIP AND
USE OF FARMS TO THOSE WHO ARE OR WHO MAY BECOME CITIZENS. 

SUCH A CLAIM IS OUTLAWED BY REALITY.  IN 1940 THERE WERE 4,741,971
ALIENS RESIDING IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, OF WHOM 48,158 WERE
INELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION.  FN20  MANY OF THESE INELIGIBLE ALIENS
HAVE LONG BEEN DOMICILED IN THIS COUNTRY.  THEY HAVE GONE INTO VARIOUS
BUSINESSES AND PROFESSIONS.  THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED HOMES AND REARED
CHILDREN, WHO HAVE THE STATUS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
BIRTH IN THIS COUNTRY.  AND THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO THE SOCIAL AND
RELIGIOUS FABRICS OF THEIR COMMUNITIES.  SUCH INELIGIBLE ALIENS THUS
HAVE A VITAL INTEREST IN THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND POLITICAL WELL-BEING
OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY RESIDE AND THEIR LOYALTY HAS BEEN PROVED
MANY TIMES.  FN21  THE FACT THAT THEY ARE INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP
DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, MAKE THEM INCAPABLE OF FORMING THESE TIES AND
INTERESTS.  NOR DOES THEIR INELIGIBILITY NECESSARILY PRECLUDE THEM FROM
POSSESSING THE LOYALTY AND ALLEGIANCE WHICH THE STATE RIGHTLY DESIRES. 

LOYALTY AND THE DESIRE TO WORK FOR THE WELFARE OF THE STATE, IN
SHORT, ARE INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN GROUP CHARACTERISTICS.  AN INELIGIBLE
ALIEN MAY OR MAY NOT BE LOYAL; HE MAY OR MAY NOT WISH TO WORK FOR THE
SUCCESS AND WELFARE OF THE STATE OR NATION.  BUT THE SAME CAN BE SAID
OF AN ELIGIBLE ALIEN OR A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.  IT IS THE ESSENCE OF
NAIVETE TO INSIST THAT THESE DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS ARE ALWAYS
LACKING IN A RACIALLY INELIGIBLE ALIEN, WHOSE INELIGIBILITY MAY BE
REMEDIED TOMORROW BY CONGRESS.  FN22  THESE ARE MATTERS WHICH DEPEND
UPON FACTORS FAR MORE SUBTLE AND PENETRATING THAN THE PREVAILING
NATURALIZATION STANDARDS.  AS THIS COURT HAS SAID, "LOYALTY IS A MATTER
OF THE HEART AND MIND, NOT OF RACE, CREED, OR COLOR."  EX PARTE ENDO,
323 U.S. 283, 302.  AND SO RACIAL ELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP IS AN
IRRATIONAL BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHO IS LOYAL OR WHO DESIRES TO WORK
FOR THE WELFARE OF THE STATE. 

THIRD.  IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT IF INELIGIBLE ALIENS COULD LEASE OR OWN
FARMS, IT IS WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY THAT THEY MIGHT ACQUIRE
EVERY FOOT OF LAND IN CALIFORNIA WHICH IS FIT FOR AGRICULTURE. 

IF WE ASSUME THAT IT IS WRONG FOR INELIGIBLE ALIENS TO OWN OR USE ALL
THE FARM LAND IN CALIFORNIA, SUCH A CONTENTION IS STATISTICALLY
ABSURD.  FN23  THE JAPANESE POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA, BOTH CITIZEN AND
ALIEN, HAS INCREASED FROM 41,356(MORE THAN ONE-TENTH OF THEM CITIZENS)
IN 1910 TO 71,952(ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THEM CITIZENS) IN 1920 TO
93,717(ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THEM CITIZENS) IN 1940.  OF THE TOTAL FARMS
IN CALIFORNIA IN 1920, JAPANESE CITIZENS AND ALIENS CONTROLLED 4.4%,
COMPRISING 1.2% OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE.  IN 1930 THEY CONTROLLED 2.9% OF
THE FARMS, OR 0.6% OF THE ACREAGE.  AND IN 1940 THEY CONTROLLED 3.9% OF
THE FARMS, OR 0.7% OF THE ACREAGE.  SINCE WE ARE CONCERNED HERE ONLY
WITH THE JAPANESE ALIENS, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE FARMS AND ACREAGE
CONTROLLED BY THEM IS MATERIALLY LESS THAN THE FOREGOING FIGURES.  THUS
THE POSSIBILITY OF ALL THE CALIFORNIA FARM LAND FALLING UNDER THE
CONTROL OF JAPANESE ALIENS IS QUITE REMOTE, TO SAY THE LEAST. 
MOREOVER, THE NATURE OF THE JAPANESE ALIEN SEGMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA
POPULATION IS SIGNIFICANT.  IN 1940 THERE WERE 33,569 JAPANESE ALIENS
IN THAT STATE, BUT THE NUMBER IS NOW SMALLER, THE BEST ESTIMATE BEING
ABOUT 25,000.  FN24  THE 33,569 FIGURE REPRESENTS THOSE WHO ENTERED
BEFORE 1924, WHEN CONGRESS PROHIBITED FURTHER IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS
INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP.  FN25  BY 1940, ALL BUT 2,760 OF THESE
INDIVIDUALS WERE 35 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.  MORE THAN HALF OF THEM WERE
50 YEARS OR MORE IN AGE.  THESE AGE FIGURES HAVE RISEN TO 43 AND 58
DURING THE PAST EIGHT YEARS AND DEATH IS BEGINNING TO TAKE A MORE RAPID
TOLL.  DEPORTATION, VOLUNTARY RETURN TO JAPAN AND DEPARTURE TO OTHER
STATES HAVE ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE DECLINE.  THE NUMBER OF THESE
ALIENS DECREASED 42% BETWEEN 1920 AND 1940 AND AN EVER-INCREASING LOSS
IS INEVITABLE. 

FURTHER DEDUCTIONS FROM THIS DECLINING TOTAL OF JAPANESE ALIENS MUST
BE MADE, FOR OUR PURPOSES, FOR MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE ENGAGED IN NON
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.  IN 1940 ABOUT 58% OF THEM RESIDED IN URBAN
CENTERS OF 2,500 POPULATION OR MORE.  OUT OF 23,208 ALIEN JAPANESE,
FOURTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, ONLY 10,512 WERE REPORTED AS ENGAGED IN
FARMING OCCUPATIONS.  WHILE THE ALIEN LAND LAW HAS UNDOUBTEDLY
DISCOURAGED SOME FROM BECOMING FARMERS, THE NUMBER WHO WOULD NORMALLY
BE NON-FARMERS REMAINS RELATIVELY SUBSTANTIAL.  THE FARMERS, ACTUAL AND
POTENTIAL, AMONG THIS DECLINING GROUP ARE NUMERICALLY MINUTE. 

ONE OTHER FACT SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN THIS CONNECTION.  "MANY OF
THESE AGED AND AGING JAPANESE ALIENS SUFFERED HEAVY PECUNIARY LOSSES
INCIDENT TO THEIR EVACUATION DURING THE WAR.  SUDDENLY ORDERED TO
ABANDON THEIR PROPERTIES AND THEIR HOMES, MANY FELT COMPELLED TO SELL
AT SACRIFICIAL PRICES.  OTHERS LOST THROUGH UNFAITHFUL CUSTODIANSHIP OF
THEIR PROPERTIES DURING THEIR ABSENCE.  CONFINED TO SO-CALLED
RELOCATION CENTERS, THEY WERE CUT OFF FOR NEARLY THREE YEARS FROM ANY
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.  THE RESULT IS THAT MANY OF THE WELL-TO-DO AMONG
THEM RETURNED TO CALIFORNIA BROKEN IN FORTUNE, WITH VERY FEW YEARS OF
LIFE LEFT FOR FINANCIAL RECUPERATION."  FN26 

SUCH IS THE NATURE OF THE GROUP TO WHOM CALIFORNIA WOULD DENY THE
RIGHT TO OWN AND OCCUPY AGRICULTURAL LAND.  THESE ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS,
WHO HAVE RESIDED IN THIS COUNTRY FOR AT LEAST TWENTY-THREE YEARS AND
WHO ARE CONSTANTLY SHRINKING IN NUMBER, ARE SAID TO CONSTITUTE A
MENACE, A "YELLOW PERIL," TO THE WELFARE OF CALIFORNIA.  THEY ARE SAID
TO BE ENCROACHING ON THE AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS. 
THEY ARE SAID TO THREATEN TO TAKE OVER ALL THE RICH FARM LAND OF
CALIFORNIA.  THEY ARE SAID TO BE SO EFFICIENT THAT AMERICANS CANNOT
COMPETE WITH THEM.  THEY ARE SAID TO BE SO DISLOYAL AND SO UNDESIROUS
OF WORKING FOR THE WELFARE OF THE STATE THAT THEY MUST BE DENIED THE
RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING BY FARMING.  THE MERE STATEMENT OF THESE
CONTENTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ACTUAL SITUATION IS ENOUGH TO
DEMONSTRATE THEIR SHALLOWNESS AND UNREALITY.  THE EXISTENCE OF A FEW
THOUSAND AGING RESIDENTS, POSSESSING NO RACIAL CHARACTERISTIC DANGEROUS
TO THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF CALIFORNIA, CAN HARDLY JUSTIFY A RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED. 

FOURTH.  IT IS STATED THAT JAPANESE ALIENS ARE SO EFFICIENT IN THEIR
FARMING OPERATIONS AND THAT THEIR LIVING STANDARD IS SO LOW THAT
AMERICAN FARMERS CANNOT COMPETE SUCCESSFULLY WITH THEM.  THEIR RIGHT TO
OWN AND USE FARM LANDS MUST THEREFORE BE DENIED IF ECONOMIC CONFLICTS
ARE TO BE AVOIDED. 

THAT JAPANESE IMMIGRANTS BROUGHT WITH THEM HIGHLY DEVELOPED
TECHNIQUES OF CULTIVATION IS NOT TO BE DENIED.  IN JAPAN THEY HAD
LEARNED TO OBTAIN THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE YIELD FROM EACH NARROW STRIP OF
SOIL.  AND THEY POSSESSED THE WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO PERFORM THE
GREAT AMOUNT OF LABOR NECESSARY FOR INTENSIVE FARMING.  WHEN THEY CAME
TO CALIFORNIA THEY PUT THEIR EFFICIENT METHODS INTO OPERATION.  THERE
THEY PIONEERED IN THE PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS CROPS AND RECLAIMED LARGE
AREAS, DEVELOPING SOME OF THE RICHEST AGRICULTURAL REGIONS IN THE
STATE.  IN PERFORMING THESE TASKS, HOWEVER, THE JAPANESE CAUSED NO
SUBSTANTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF AMERICAN FARMERS.  THE AREAS WHICH THEY
CULTIVATED WERE, FOR THE MOST PART, DESERTED OR UNDESIRED BY OTHERS. 
FN27 

BUT EVENTUALLY, THE JAPANESE CONCENTRATED ALL OF THEIR AGRICULTURAL
EFFORTS IN THE PRODUCTION OF VEGETABLES, SMALL FRUITS AND GREENHOUSE
PRODUCTS, EXPERIENCE HAVING SHOWN THAT THEY COULD NOT COMPETE
SUCCESSFULLY IN LARGER FARMING ENDEAVORS.  WITHIN THIS TRUCK-FARM
SPHERE, THE JAPANESE ACHIEVED A NEAR-MONOPOLY BY THEIR DILIGENCE AND
EFFICIENCY.  WHILE THEY HAD, AS WE HAVE SEEN, AN INFINITESIMAL
PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL FARM ACREAGE IN CALIFORNIA, THEIR 1941 TRUCK
CROPS COVERED 42% OF THE STATE'S ACREAGE DEVOTED TO SUCH PRODUCTION. 
FN28  IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE, THEY RAISED 64% OF THE TRUCK CROPS
FOR PROCESSING AND 87% OF THE VEGETABLES FOR FRESH MARKETING.  FN29
THIS CONCENTRATION OF EFFORT BY THE JAPANESE, MANY OF WHOM WERE NOT
ALIENS, NATURALLY GAVE STRONG COMPETITION TO OTHER PRODUCERS AND FORCED
SOME OF THEM OUT OF THE FIELD. 

THE SUCCESS THUS ACHIEVED THROUGH DILIGENCE AND EFFICIENCY, HOWEVER,
DOES NOT JUSTIFY PROHIBITING THE JAPANESE FROM OWNING OR USING FARM
LANDS.  FREE COMPETITION AND THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ARE SUPPOSEDLY
VITAL ELEMENTS IN THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC STRUCTURE.  AND THOSE WHO ARE
INJURED BY THE FAIR OPERATION OF SUCH ELEMENTS CAN MAKE NO LEGITIMATE
OBJECTION.  IT WOULD INDEED BE STRANGE IF EFFICIENCY IN AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION WERE TO BE CONSIDERED A RATIONAL BASIS FOR DENYING ONE THE
RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN THAT PRODUCTION.  CERTAINLY FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDPOINT, SUPERIORITY IN EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY HAS NEVER BEEN
THOUGHT TO JUSTIFY DISCRIMINATION. 

COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF THE JAPANESE
IMMIGRANTS MAY HAVE BEEN LOW AT FIRST.  BUT THEY HAVE WORKED TO RAISE
THEIR STANDARD DESPITE SUCH OBSTACLES AS THE ALIEN LAND LAW.  LIKE MANY
OTHER FIRST-GENERATION IMMIGRANTS, THE JAPANESE WERE OFTEN FORCED TO
WORK LONG HOURS FOR LOW PAY.  YET NOTHING HAS INDICATED THAT, GIVEN A
FAIR OPPORTUNITY, THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF IMPROVING THEIR ECONOMIC
STATUS.  AT THE VERY LEAST, A LOW STANDARD OF LIVING IS HARDLY A
JUSTIFICATION FOR A STATUTE WHICH OPERATES TO KEEP THAT STANDARD LOW. 
SOMETHING MORE THAN ITS OWN BOOTSTRAPS IS NEEDED TO PULL SUCH A LAW UP
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL. 

FIFTH.  CLOSELY KNIT WITH THE FOREGOING ARE A HOST OF OTHER
CONTENTIONS WHICH MAKE NO PRETENSE AT CONCEALING RACIAL BIGOTRY AND
WHICH HAVE BEEN USED SO SUCCESSFULLY BY PROPONENTS AND SUPPORTERS OF
THE ALIEN LAND LAW.  THESE RELATE TO THE ALLEGED DISLOYALTY,
CLANNISHNESS, INABILITY TO ASSIMILATE, RACIAL INFERIORITY AND RACIAL
UNDESIRABILITY OF THE JAPANESE, WHETHER CITIZENS OR ALIENS.  THE
MISREPRESENTATIONS, HALF-TRUTHS AND DISTORTIONS WHICH MARK SUCH
CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN EXPOSED MANY TIMES AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED
HERE.  SEE DISSENTING OPINION IN KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S.
214, 236-240.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT FACTORS OF THIS TYPE FORM NO
RATIONAL BASIS FOR A STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION. 

UNQUESTIONABLY THERE WERE AND ARE CULTURAL, LINGUISTIC AND RACIAL
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JAPANESE ALIENS AND NATIVE AMERICANS NOT OF
JAPANESE ORIGIN OR ANCESTRY.  FN30  THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
JAPANESE, THEIR DIFFERENT CUSTOMS AND HABITS, THEIR PAST CONNECTIONS
WITH JAPAN, THEIR UNIQUE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, THEIR ORIENTAL RELIGION,
AND THEIR EXTREME EFFICIENCY ALL CONTRIBUTED TO THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONFLICTS WHICH UNFORTUNATELY DEVELOPED.  BUT THE CRUCIAL MISTAKE THAT
WAS MADE, THE MISTAKE THAT MADE THE ATTITUDE OF MANY AMERICANS ONE OF
INTOLERANCE AND BIGOTRY, WAS THE QUICK ASSUMPTION THAT THESE
DIFFERENCES WERE ALL RACIAL AND UNCHANGEABLE.  FROM THAT MISTAKE IT WAS
AN EASY STEP TO CHARGE THAT THE JAPANESE RACE WAS UNDESIRABLE AND THAT
ALL JAPANESE PERSONS WERE UNASSIMILABLE.  AND FROM THAT MISTAKE FLOWED
THE MANY PROPOSALS TO DEAL WITH THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONFLICTS ON A
GROUP OR RACIAL BASIS.  IT WAS JUST SUCH A PROPOSAL THAT BECAME THE
ALIEN LAND LAW. 

HENCE THE BASIC VICE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY, OF THE ALIEN LAND
LAW IS THAT ITS DISCRIMINATION RESTS UPON AN UNREAL RACIAL FOUNDATION. 
IT ASSUMES THAT THERE IS SOME RACIAL CHARACTERISTIC, COMMON TO ALL
JAPANESE ALIENS, THAT MAKES THEM UNFIT TO OWN OR USE AGRICULTURAL LAND
IN CALIFORNIA.  THERE IS NO SUCH CHARACTERISTIC.  NONE HAS EVEN BEEN
SUGGESTED.  THE ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATUTE MAKE NO ATTEMPT
WHATEVER TO DISCOVER ANY TRUE RACIAL FACTOR.  THEY MERELY REPRESENT
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANTAGONISMS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED INTO FALSE
RACIAL TERMS.  AS SUCH, THEY CANNOT FORM THE RATIONALIZATION NECESSARY
TO CONFORM THE STATUTE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ACCORDINGLY, I BELIEVE THAT THE
PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT GIVING SANCTION TO THIS ATTEMPT TO
LEGALIZE RACISM SHOULD BE OVERRULED.  FN31 

ADDED TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, OF COURSE, IS THE FACT THAT THE
ALIEN LAND LAW FROM ITS INCEPTION HAS PROVED AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  THIS STATUTE HAS BEEN MORE THAN A LOCAL
REGULATION OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS.  IT HAS OVERFLOWED INTO THE REALM OF
FOREIGN POLICY; IT HAS HAD DIRECT AND UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES ON THIS
COUNTRY'S RELATIONS WITH JAPAN.  DRAWN ON A BACKGROUND OF RACIAL
ANIMOSITY, THE LAW WAS SO PATENT IN ITS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JAPANESE
ALIENS AS TO CAUSE SERIOUS ANTAGONISM IN JAPAN, EVEN TO THE POINT OF
DEMANDS FOR WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE SITUATION WAS SO
FRAUGHT WITH DANGER THAT THREE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES WERE
FORCED TO INTERVENE IN AN EFFORT TO PREVENT THE ALIEN LAND LAW FROM
COMING INTO EXISTENCE.  A SECRETARY OF STATE MADE A PERSONAL PLEA THAT
THE PASSAGE OF THE LAW MIGHT TURN JAPAN INTO AN UNFRIENDLY NATION. 
EVEN AFTER THE LAW BECAME EFFECTIVE, FEDERAL AUTHORITIES FEARED THAT
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS PROVISIONS MIGHT JEOPARDIZE OUR RELATIONS WITH
JAPAN.  THAT FEAR WAS IN LARGE PART RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL NON
ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II.  BUT THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF THE LAW UNDOUBTEDLY HAS CAUSED MANY IN JAPAN TO BEAR ILL
FEELING TOWARD THIS COUNTRY, THUS MAKING FRIENDLY RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
TWO NATIONS THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. 

MOREOVER, THIS NATION HAS RECENTLY PLEDGED ITSELF, THROUGH THE UNITED
NATIONS CHARTER, TO PROMOTE RESPECT FOR, AND OBSERVANCE OF, HUMAN
RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FOR ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION AS TO RACE,
SEX, LANGUAGE AND RELIGION.  THE ALIEN LAND LAW STANDS AS A BARRIER TO
THE FULFILLMENT OF THAT NATIONAL PLEDGE.  ITS INCONSISTENCY WITH THE
CHARTER, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY RATIFIED AND ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES,
IS BUT ONE MORE REASON WHY THE STATUTE MUST BE CONDEMNED. 

AND SO IN ORIGIN, PURPOSE, ADMINISTRATION AND EFFECT, THE ALIEN LAND
LAW DOES VIOLENCE TO THE HIGH IDEALS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS.  IT IS AN UNHAPPY
FACSIMILE, A DISHEARTENING REMINDER, OF THE RACIAL POLICY PURSUED BY
THOSE FORCES OF EVIL WHOSE DESTRUCTION RECENTLY NECESSITATED A
DEVASTATING WAR.  IT IS RACISM IN ONE OF ITS MOST MALIGNANT FORMS. 
FORTUNATELY, THE MAJORITY OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
THE MAJORITY OF THOSE IN CALIFORNIA,  FN32  REJECT RACISM AND ALL OF
ITS IMPLICATIONS.  THEY RECOGNIZE THAT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION ALL
PERSONS ARE ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS WITHOUT REGARD
TO THEIR RACIAL ANCESTRY.  HUMAN LIBERTY IS IN TOO GREAT A PERIL TODAY
TO WARRANT IGNORING THAT PRINCIPLE IN THIS CASE.  FOR THAT REASON I
BELIEVE THAT THE PENALTY OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY SHOULD BE IMPOSED UPON
THE ALIEN LAND LAW. 

FN1  THE STORY IS A FAMILIAR ONE AND HAS BEEN TOLD MANY TIMES.  SEE
THE FOLLOWING SOURCES: 

TREATISES. - MILLIS, THE JAPANESE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES
(1915); ICHIHASHI, JAPANESE IN THE UNITED STATES (1932); STRONG, THE
SECOND GENERATION JAPANESE PROBLEM (1934); MCWILLIAMS, PREJUDICE
(1944); KONVITZ, THE ALIEN AND THE ASIATIC IN AMERICAN LAW (1946), CH.
5. 

ARTICLES. - BUELL, "THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANTI-JAPANESE AGITATION IN THE
UNITED STATES," 37 POL.  SCI.  Q. 605, 38 ID. 57; BAILEY, "CALIFORNIA,
JAPAN, AND THE ALIEN LAND LEGISLATION OF 1913," 1 PAC. HIST. REV. 36;
MCGOVNEY, "THE ANTI-JAPANESE LAND LAWS OF CALIFORNIA AND TEN OTHER
STATES," 35 CALIF. L. REV. 7; FERGUSON, "THE CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND LAW
AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT," 35 CALIF. L. REV. 61; COMMENT, 56 YALE
L.J. 1017. 

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.  - H.R. REP. NO. 2124, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.;
U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR, W.R.A., PEOPLE IN MOTION:  THE POSTWAR
ADJUSTMENT OF THE EVACUATED JAPANESE AMERICANS (1947). 

FN2  "IN NOVEMBER OF 1904 THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, IN ANNUAL
CONVENTION IN SAN FRANCISCO, RESOLVED TO EXCLUDE JAPANESE AND KOREAN,
AS WELL AS CHINESE LABORERS.  THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE IN FEBRUARY
1905 BEGAN THE PUBLICATION OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES CAPTIONED: 'CRIME
AND POVERTY GO HAND IN HAND WITH ASIATIC LABOR,' 'BROWN MEN AN EVIL IN
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,' 'JAPANESE A MENACE TO AMERICAN WOMEN,' 'JAPS
THROTTLE PROGRESS IN THE RICH FRUIT SECTION.'  THE CAMPAIGN WAS
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE.  IN EARLY MARCH THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE,
FOLLOWED BY THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE, PASSED A RESOLUTION DEMANDING
IMMEDIATE ACTION TO LIMIT THE IMMIGRATION OF JAPANESE LABORERS.  AND IN
MAY 1905 THE ASIATIC EXCLUSION LEAGUE, ORIGINALLY THE JAPANESE AND
KOREAN EXCLUSION LEAGUE, WAS ORGANIZED IN SAN FRANCISCO  ... 

"THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF THE LEAGUE WAS TO PRESERVE NORTH AMERICA FOR
AMERICANS, BY PREVENTING OR MINIMIZING THE IMMIGRATION OF ASIATICS, WHO
WERE SAID TO BE UNASSIMILABLE, AND ILL-SUITED TO COMPLEMENT THE MACHINE
PROCESSES OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL LIFE.  THE LEAGUE DECLARED ITSELF IN
FAVOR OF SEGREGATION OF JAPANESE IN THE SCHOOLS AND A BOYCOTT AGAINST
JAPANESE WORKERS AND BUSINESSMEN.  IN CALIFORNIA ALONE, IT WAS CLAIMED
THAT MEMBERSHIP OF THE LEAGUE WAS 110,000 IN FEBRUARY OF 1908.  OF THE
238 AFFILIATED BODIES COMPOSING THE LEAGUE, 202 WERE LABOR UNIONS; THE
REST WERE FRATERNAL, CIVIC, BENEVOLENT, POLITICAL, AND MILITARY
SOCIETIES."  H.R. REP. NO. 2124, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 72-73. 
FN3  SEE ICHIHASHI, JAPANESE IN THE UNITED STATES (1932), CH. XVI. 

FN4  DURING THE LEGISLATIVE DEBATE ON THIS BILL, ONE OF THE
ASSEMBLYMEN STATED:  "I WOULD RATHER EVERY FOOT OF CALIFORNIA WAS IN
ITS NATIVE WILDERNESS THAN TO BE CURSED BY THE FOOT OF THESE YELLOW
INVADERS, WHO ARE A CURSE TO THE COUNTRY, A MENACE TO OUR INSTITUTIONS,
AND DESTRUCTIVE OF EVERY PRINCIPLE OF AMERICANISM.  I WANT NO ALIENS,
WHITE, RED, BLACK OR YELLOW, TO OWN A FOOT OF LAND IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA."  ANOTHER ASSEMBLYMAN SAID THAT HE INTENSELY AND
UNALTERABLY HATED THE JAPANESE, WHOM HE CHARACTERIZED AS "A BANDY
LEGGED BAGABOO, MISERABLE CRAVEN SIMIAN, DEGENERATED ROTTEN LITTLE
DEVIL."  FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, FEBRUARY 3, 1909, QUOTED IN
ICHIHASHI, JAPANESE IN THE UNITED STATES (1932), P. 262. 

FN5  ALSO OPPOSING THE BILL AT THIS TIME WAS THE PANAMA PACIFIC
EXPOSITION COMPANY AND ITS SUPPORTERS.  THEY DESIRED NOT TO ANTAGONIZE
JAPAN AND THUS JEOPARDIZE THE CHANCES OF JAPAN'S PARTICIPATION IN THE
EXPOSITION, WHICH WAS SOON TO BE HELD AT SAN FRANCISCO. 

FN6  "BY 1913 THE POLITICAL SITUATION WAS RIPE FOR THE PASSAGE OF AN.
ANTI-JAPANESE LAND LAW.  THE STATE ADMINISTRATION IN CALIFORNIA
REMAINED PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICAN WHILE THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
BECAME DEMOCRATIC AND EXERCISED LESS INFLUENCE OVER THE STATE
LEGISLATURE.  THE EXPOSITION HAD PROGRESSED TO THE POINT WHERE THE
APPEAL FOR ITS SUCCESS WAS NO LONGER SUFFICIENTLY EFFECTIVE. 
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL CAME ONLY FROM A FEW RELATIVELY INEFFECTIVE
GROUPS."  FERGUSON, "THE CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND LAW AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT," 35 CALIF. L. REV. 61, 66. 

FN7  "THE LAND ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PASSED AT A MORE INOPPORTUNE
TIME.  SHORTLY PRIOR TO ITS ADOPTION, THIS COUNTRY HAD AROUSED
CONSIDERABLE RESENTMENT IN JAPAN BY ITS RECOGNITION OF THE NEWLY
ESTABLISHED CHINESE REPUBLIC.  ...  FURTHERMORE THE LAND ACT WAS
PASSED, AS MR. A. M. POOLEY HAS POINTED OUT, 'SHORTLY AFTER THE TOKIO
MOB HAD SUCCEEDED IN SHATTERING THE THIRD KATSURA MINISTRY.'  PASSAGE
OF THE BILL OCCASIONED VIOLENT RESENTMENT IN JAPAN.  'REVELLING IN THE
RECENT DISCOVERY OF ITS POWER,' WRITES MR. POOLEY, 'THE MOB, INFLAMED
BY THE OPPOSITION, ENDEAVORED TO USE THE SAME METHODS TO FORCE A
SETTLEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA QUESTION ON THE GOVERNMENT' THAT IT HAD
USED IN OUSTING THE KATSURA MINISTRY.  THROUGHOUT APRIL AND MAY, 1913,
THE JAPANESE PRESS ADOPTED A MOST THREATENING AND TRUCULENT TONE. 
CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPERS ON APRIL 18, 1913, CARRIED A DISPATCH FROM TOKYO
TO THE EFFECT THAT 'A DEMAND THAT JAPAN RESORT TO ARMS WAS HYSTERICALLY
CHEERED AT A MASS MEETING HERE TONIGHT TO PROTEST AGAINST THE ALIEN
LAND BILL NOW PENDING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE.  TWENTY
THOUSAND PERSONS ASSEMBLED.' 

"'MORE UNFORTUNATE STILL,' OBSERVED MR. POOLEY, 'THE WAVE OF
EXCITEMENT GREW UNDER THE STIMULUS OF ANTI-AMERICAN SOCIETIES FORMED BY
MEN IN RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS.  THE AGITATION OF APRIL AND MAY, 1913,
BECAME A NATIONAL MOVEMENT AND OF SUCH VOLUME THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD
TO PAY RESPECT TO IT.  THE ANTI-AMERICAN MOVEMENT SPREAD, ASSOCIATIONS
SPRANG UP LIKE MUSHROOMS TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER.'"  MCWILLIAMS,
PREJUDICE (1944), P. 46. 

FN8  QUOTED IN ICHIHASHI, JAPANESE IN THE UNITED STATES (1932), P.
274. 

FN9  REPORT OF CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF CONTROL, CALIFORNIA AND THE
ORIENTAL (1920), P. 11. 

FN10  FROM A SPEECH BEFORE THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB OF SAN FRANCISCO ON
AUGUST 9, 1913, QUOTED IN ICHIHASHI, JAPANESE IN THE UNITED STATES
(1932), P. 275. 

APPARENTLY ONE FACTOR WHICH, IN MR. WEBB'S MIND, MADE THE JAPANESE AN
"UNDESIRABLE" RACE WAS THEIR EFFICIENCY IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.  IN
A BRIEF SIGNED BY HIM AND SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT IN PORTERFIELD V.
WEBB, 263 U.S. 225(NO. 28, OT 1923), P. 25, HE STATED: 

"THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS NOT ONE OF RACE DISCRIMINATION.  IT IS A
QUESTION OF RECOGNIZING THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT THE AMERICAN FARM, WITH
ITS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS OF CULTIVATION, ENVIRONMENT, AND INCLUDING
THE HOME LIFE OF ITS OCCUPANTS, CAN NOT EXIST IN COMPETITION WITH A
FARM DEVELOPED BY ORIENTALS WITH THEIR TOTALLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND
IDEAS OF CULTIVATION OF THE SOIL, OF LIVING AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS. 

"IF THE ORIENTAL FARMER IS THE MORE EFFICIENT, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
SOIL PRODUCTION, THERE IS JUST THAT MUCH GREATER CERTAINTY OF AN
ECONOMIC CONFLICT WHICH IT IS THE DUTY OF STATESMEN TO AVOID. 

"THE CONSERVATIVE AND INTELLIGENT STATESMEN OF JAPAN HAVE RECOGNIZED
THIS TRUTH JUST AS FULLY AS HAVE THOSE OF AMERICA.  IT IS FAR BETTER TO
HAVE AN OCCASIONAL OUTBURST FROM EXTREMISTS WHO REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE THE
UNDERLYING REASON FOR SUCH LEGISLATION, THAN TO PERMIT OF A CONDITION
THAT WOULD LEAD TO RESULTS FAR MORE SERIOUS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE
FRIENDLY RELATIONS OF THE TWO NATIONS." 

FN11  "IN POINT OF VIRULENCE, THE 1920 AGITATION FAR EXCEEDED ANY
SIMILAR DEMONSTRATION IN CALIFORNIA.  IN SUPPORT OF THE INITIATIVE
MEASURES, THE AMERICAN LEGION EXHIBITED A MOTION PICTURE THROUGHOUT THE
STATE ENTITLED 'SHADOWS OF THE WEST.'  ALL THE CHARGES EVER MADE
AGAINST THE JAPANESE WERE ENACTED IN THIS FILM.  THE FILM SHOWED A
MYSTERIOUS ROOM FITTED WITH WIRELESS APPARATUS BY WHICH 'A HEAD
JAPANESE TICKED OUT PRICES WHICH CONTROLLED A STATE-WIDE VEGETABLE
MARKET'; SPIES DARTED IN AND OUT OF THE SCENES, JAPANESE WERE SHOWN
DUMPING VEGETABLES INTO THE HARBOR TO MAINTAIN HIGH PRICES; TWO WHITE
GIRLS WERE ABDUCTED BY A GROUP OF JAPANESE MEN ONLY TO BE RESCUED, AT
THE LAST MOMENT, BY A SQUAD OF AMERICAN LEGIONNAIRES.  WHEN MEETINGS
WERE CALLED TO PROTEST THE EXHIBITION OF THIS SCURRILOUS FILM, THE
MEETINGS WERE BROKEN UP."  MCWILLIAMS, PREJUDICE (1944), P. 60. 

FN12  FROM THE PAMPHLET, "ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSED ALIEN LAND
LAW," QUOTED IN MCGOVNEY, "THE ANTI-JAPANESE LAND LAWS OF CALIFORNIA
AND TEN OTHER STATES," 35 CALIF. L. REV. 7, 14. 

FN13  SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 703, AS LAST AMENDED ON JULY 2, 1946, 60
STAT. 416.  THIS EXTENDS THE RIGHT TO BECOME A NATURALIZED CITIZEN ONLY
TO WHITE PERSONS, PERSONS OF AFRICAN NATIVITY OR DESCENT, PERSONS WHO
ARE DESCENDANTS OF RACES INDIGENOUS TO THE CONTINENTS OF NORTH OR SOUTH
AMERICA OR ADJACENT ISLANDS, FILIPINO PERSONS, CHINESE PERSONS AND
PERSONS OF CHINESE DESCENT, AND PERSONS OF RACES INDIGENOUS TO INDIA. 
BUT CHINESE AND HINDUS WERE NOT ELIGIBLE AT THE TIME THE ALIEN LAND LAW
WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

FN14  "THE PEOPLE OF THAT STATE (CALIFORNIA) DID NOT OBJECT
PARTICULARLY TO CHINESE AND NEGROES, WHO WERE RACIALLY DIFFERENT BUT
WHO STAYED IN THEIR PLACE.  BUT THEY DID OBJECT TO THE JAPANESE BECAUSE
THEY WERE EFFICIENT, THRIFTY, AMBITIOUS, AND, ABOVE ALL, UNWILLING TO
REMAIN 'MUDSILLERS.'"  BAILEY, "CALIFORNIA, JAPAN, AND THE ALIEN LAND
LEGISLATION OF 1913," 1 PAC. HIST. REV. 36, 57. 

FN15  THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF CONTROL COLLECTED STATISTICS IN
1920 AS TO CITY LOTS AND FARM LANDS OCCUPIED BY ORIENTALS, BOTH
AMERICAN CITIZENS AND ALIENS.  OF THE TOTAL OF 27,931,444 ACRES OF FARM
LAND IN THE STATE, JAPANESE OWNED 74,769 ACRES, CHINESE OWNED 12,076
ACRES AND HINDUS OWNED 2,099 ACRES.  AT THE SAME TIME, JAPANESE HELD
UNDER LEASE OR CROP CONTRACT 383,287 ACRES, CHINESE HELD 65,181 ACRES
AND HINDUS HELD 86,340.  THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT ANY OTHER ALIENS
THEN INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP HELD ANY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FARM
LANDS.  REPORT, CALIFORNIA AND THE ORIENTAL (1920), P. 47. 

FN16  THESE STATISTICS HAVE BEEN COMPILED BY THE PETITIONER (APPENDIX
B OF BRIEF IN THIS COURT) FROM THE BIENNIAL REPORTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FROM 1912-14 THROUGH 1944-46, AS SUPPLEMENTED
BY THE STATE'S BRIEF IN THIS CASE (P. 47). 

FN17  IN 1944 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA EXPLAINED THAT THE
SUBSTANTIAL NON-ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II WAS "A
REFLECTION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY TO REFRAIN FROM ACTS WHICH MIGHT BE
REGARDED AS UNFRIENDLY TO THE JAPANESE RACE AND THE JAPANESE EMPIRE." 
PROCEEDINGS, CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION (38TH ANN. CONF. 1944),
P. 97.  SUCH WAS ALSO THE REASON GIVEN BY A CALIFORNIA SENATE FACT
FINDING COMMITTEE ON JAPANESE RESETTLEMENT (REPORT OF MAY 1, 1945), P.
3:  "THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES SINCE THE BEGINNING HAVE NOT LOOKED WITH
FAVOR UPON THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW JUST AS THEY OPPOSED ITS
ENACTMENT IN THE BEGINNING.  THE PRINCIPAL REASON FOR THIS ATTITUDE
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THAT EXPRESSED BY WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN WHEN, AS
SECRETARY OF STATE, HE CAME TO CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS LAW.  HE STATED THAT THE ENACTMENT OF THE LAW MIGHT
TURN A NOW FRIENDLY NATION INTO AN UNFRIENDLY NATION.  UNDOUBTEDLY THE
ATTITUDE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ON THIS MATTER HAS BEEN AN
IMPORTANT INFLUENCE." 

FN18  SEE GORDON, "THE RACIAL BARRIER TO AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP," 93 U.
OF PA. L. REV. 237. 

FN19  SEE ARROWSMITH V. VOORHIES, 55 F.2D 310, HOLDING INVALID A
MICHIGAN STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITED "UNDESIRABLE ALIENS," AS DEFINED BY
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM ESTABLISHING OR MAINTAINING LEGAL
RESIDENCE IN THAT STATE OR FROM SECURING EMPLOYMENT IN THAT STATE.  SEE
ALSO HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52. 

FN20  OF THE 48,158 ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR NATURALIZATION, 47,305 WERE
JAPANESE, 749 WERE KOREAN, 9 WERE POLYNESIAN, AND 95 BELONGED TO OTHER
ASIATIC GROUPS.  16TH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940,
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NONWHITE POPULATION, P. 2. 

FN21  THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY SABOTAGE OR OTHER SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES IN THE PERIOD SURROUNDING PEARL HARBOR ON THE PART OF
JAPANESE ALIENS LONG RESIDENT IN THIS COUNTRY. 

FN22  THUS SEE THE RECENT AMENDMENT TO THE NATURALIZATION ACT, 56
STAT. 182, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 1001, PERMITTING THE NATURALIZATION OF EVERY
PERSON WHO HONORABLY SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES
DURING WORLD WAR II WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE RACIAL
INELIGIBILITY.  PRESUMABLY A JAPANESE ALIEN COULD OWN OR USE FARM LAND
IN CALIFORNIA IF HE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PROVISION. 

FN23  THE STATISTICS WHICH FOLLOW ARE TAKEN FROM THE 16TH CENSUS OF
THE UNITED STATES:  1940, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NONWHITE POPULATION. 
SEE ALSO MCGOVNEY, "THE ANTI-JAPANESE LAND LAWS OF CALIFORNIA AND TEN
OTHER STATES," 35 CALIF. L. REV. 7, 15-16. 

FN24  MCGOVNEY, "THE ANTI-JAPANESE LAND LAWS OF CALIFORNIA AND TEN
OTHER STATES," 35 CALIF. L. REV. 7, 14. 

FN25  43 STAT. 161, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 213(C). 

FN26  MCGOVNEY, "THE ANTI-JAPANESE LAND LAWS OF CALIFORNIA AND TEN
OTHER STATES," 35 CALIF. L. REV. 7, 16-17. 

FN27  MCWILLIAMS, PREJUDICE (1944), PP. 79-80. 

FN28  H.R. REP. NO. 2124, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 117-118.  IN 1941
THE JAPANESE PRODUCED 90% OR MORE OF CALIFORNIA'S SNAP BEANS FOR
MARKETING, SPRING AND SUMMER CELERY, PEPPERS AND STRAWBERRIES; 50% TO
90% OF THE ARTICHOKES, SNAP BEANS FOR CANNING, CAULIFLOWER, FALL AND
WINTER CELERY, CUCUMBERS, FALL PEAS, SPINACH AND TOMATOES; 25% TO 50%
OF THE ASPARAGUS, CABBAGE, CANTALOUPES, CARROTS, LETTUCE, ONIONS, AND
WATERMELONS. 

FN29  ID., P. 118. 

FN30  SEE MCWILLIAMS, PREJUDICE (1944), CH. III. 

FN31  TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197; PORTERFIELD V. WEBB, 263
U.S. 225; WEBB V. O'BRIEN, 263 U.S. 313; FRICK V. WEBB, 263 U.S. 326. 

FN32  ON NOVEMBER 5, 1946, THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA REJECTED BY
1,143,780 TO 797,067 AN ATTEMPT TO "CLOSE LOOPHOLES IN LEGISLATIVE
ENACTMENTS (THE ALIEN LAND LAWS) BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS."  THE
REJECTED AMENDMENT VALIDATED VARIOUS ADDITIONS TO THE ALIEN LAND LAW
WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OF THAT
LAW.  U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR, W.R.A., PEOPLE IN MOTION:  THE POSTWAR
ADJUSTMENT OF THE EVACUATED JAPANESE AMERICANS (1947), PP. 41-45. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT'S OPINION ASSUMES ARGUENDO THAT THE CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND
LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  AS WE READ THE OPINION, IT HOLDS THAT THE
ALIEN LAND LAWS OF CALIFORNIA, AS HERE APPLIED, DISCRIMINATE IN AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER AGAINST AN AMERICAN CITIZEN - A SON BORN IN THE
UNITED STATES TO RESIDENT PARENTS OF JAPANESE NATIONALITY.  FROM THIS
HOLDING WE DISSENT. 

CALIFORNIA, THROUGH AN EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER, WHICH HAS BEEN
REPEATEDLY APPROVED BY US, FN1  HAS PROHIBITED OWNERSHIP OF LAND WITHIN
THE STATE BY ALIENS INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP.  FN2 RECOGNIZING THAT
THE BENEFITS FLOWING FROM OWNERSHIP CAN BE ENJOYED THROUGH SUBTERFUGES
BY PERSONS NOT THE HOLDERS OF LEGAL OR EQUITABLE TITLE, CALIFORNIA HAS
PROSCRIBED AS TO THE STATE EVERY "CONVEYANCE  ...  MADE WITH INTENT TO
PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID ESCHEAT  ...  "  FN3  TRANSFERS OF REAL
PROPERTY MADE WITH THIS INTENT "SHALL BE VOID AS TO THE STATE AND THE
INTEREST THEREBY CONVEYED OR SOUGHT TO BE CONVEYED SHALL ESCHEAT TO THE
STATE AS OF THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER  ... "  TO ASSIST IN THE PROOF OF
"INTENT TO PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID ESCHEAT," THE STATE WAS GIVEN THE
BENEFIT OF A "PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION THAT THE CONVEYANCE IS MADE WITH
SUCH INTENT  ...  " WHERE THE STATE PROVES:  "THE TAKING OF THE
PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF A PERSON OTHER THAN (AN ALIEN WHO CANNOT HOLD
LAND)  ...  IF THE CONSIDERATION IS PAID OR AGREED OR UNDERSTOOD TO BE
PAID BY AN ALIEN (WHO CANNOT HOLD LAND)  ...  "  THUS THE STATE HAS
MADE VOID AS TO IT, TWO SUBSTANTIVE ACTS: (1) OWNERSHIP OF LAND BY
INELIGIBLE ALIENS AND (2) TRANSFERS MADE TO AVOID BY INDIRECTION THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST OWNERSHIP OF LAND BY INELIGIBLE ALIENS.  THE
STATUTORY SCHEME RECOGNIZES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ALIEN LAND LAWS
CANNOT BE ACHIEVED UNLESS ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE BASIC PROHIBITION OF
THE LAW ARE PENALIZED.  ANY LAW AIMED AT THE PREVENTION OF OWNERSHIP BY
INELIGIBLE ALIENS, WHICH DID NOT PENALIZE BOTH THE ACT OF OWNING AND
THE ACT OF ATTEMPTING TO ENJOY THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP THROUGH A CLOAK,
WOULD BE DEFECTIVE AND READILY AVOIDED.    THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT
THE TRANSFERS CHALLENGED BY CALIFORNIA IN THIS CASE WERE MADE WITH AN
"INTENT TO PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID ESCHEAT"; IN SO FINDING THE COURT
CONSIDERED THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER EVIDENCE
DETAILED IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND CONCLUDED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD
NOT MET THE STATUTORY BURDEN OF PROOF IMPOSED BY SEC. 9.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA AFFIRMED. 

WE DO NOT HAVE IN THIS REVIEW A BALANCING OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS;
ON ONE HAND, THE RIGHT OF CALIFORNIA TO EXCLUDE INELIGIBLE ALIENS FROM
LAND OWNERSHIP AND, ON THE OTHER, THE RIGHT OF THEIR CITIZEN SONS TO
HOLD LAND.  CALIFORNIA DOES NOT DENY THE RIGHT TO OWN LAND IN
CALIFORNIA TO A CITIZEN SON OF AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN.  IF THAT CITIZEN
OBTAINS THE LAND IN ANY WAY NOT MADE VOID AS A VIOLATION OF LAW, HE MAY
HOLD IT.  UNDER SEC. 9 THE LAND ESCHEATS BECAUSE OF THE FATHER'S
VIOLATION OF LAW BEFORE IT REACHES THE SON.  THE DENIAL TO THE FATHER
BY CALIFORNIA OF THE PRIVILEGE OF LAND OWNERSHIP IS NOT CHALLENGED. 
NEITHER IS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THAT DENIAL BY AN ESCHEAT OF THE LAND
ON THE FATHER'S ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA LAND
LAW.  ACTUALLY, THE ONLY PROBLEM IS WHETHER THE PRESUMPTION ARISING
FROM THE PAYMENT OF MONEY FOR LAND BY THE INELIGIBLE FATHER DENIES
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW TO THE SON.  WE UNDERSTAND THE MAJORITY
OPINION TO HOLD THAT PRESUMPTION (A) OF SEC. 9, WITH ITS SO-CALLED
ANCILLARY INFERENCES BECAUSE OF THE SON'S MINORITY AND THE FATHER'S
FAILURE TO FILE GUARDIANSHIP REPORTS OR TESTIFY, AS HERE APPLIED,
DISCRIMINATES UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AGAINST FRED OYAMA.  IF THAT
PRESUMPTION, WITH THE INFERENCES, HAD BEEN HELD CONSTITUTIONAL,
APPARENTLY THE COURT WOULD HAVE AFFIRMED THE OPINION BELOW BECAUSE THE
ISSUE THEN REMAINING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FINDINGS OF
FACT BY THE TRIAL JUDGE.  NO ONE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE CORRECTNESS OF
THOSE FINDINGS COULD BE CHALLENGED HERE; THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTED
ISSUES OF FACT IN NON-CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS IS FOR THE STATE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM.  THIS COURT DOES NOT INTIMATE THAT IT DISAGREES WITH
CALIFORNIA'S FACTUAL CONCLUSION.  ITS RULING IS BASED ON THE
"CUMULATIVE EFFECT" OF THE "STATUTORY PRESUMPTION" AND "TWO ANCILLARY
INFERENCES."  ON REMAND TO THE COURTS OF CALIFORNIA, THE CASE MAY BE
TRIED AGAIN.  ON THAT RETRIAL ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED AT THE FIRST
TRIAL MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE TRIERS OF FACT FOR NO ONE SAYS THAT THE
ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE FATHER'S PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION,
INTRODUCED BY THE STATE ARE INADMISSIBLE.  A MAJOR VICE OF THE STATE'S
APPLICATION OF THE LAW APPARENTLY WAS THE RELIANCE UPON A PRESUMPTION
AND INFERENCES THAT THIS COURT HOLDS DENY EQUAL PROTECTION.  IF AN
INTENT TO "PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID ESCHEAT" IS FOUND ON THE SAME
EVIDENCE, AN ESCHEAT WILL AGAIN TAKE PLACE. 

PRESUMPTION (A) OF SEC. 9 HAS BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT:  "THAT IF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE REAL
PROPERTY IS PAID BY AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN AND THE TITLE IS TAKEN IN THE
NAME OF A THIRD PERSON, IT WILL BE PRESUMED, IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER
EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, THAT IT WAS THE INTENT OF BOTH THE ALIEN AND
THE GRANTEE TO 'PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID' THE ESCHEAT AT LAW.  ...  BUT
THE PRESUMPTION IS RECOGNIZED AS DISPUTABLE AND AS DISAPPEARING IN THE
FACE OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE OF SUFFICIENT STRENGTH TO MEET OUR RULE ON
CONFLICT OF TESTIMONY."  FN4  WE DO NOT INTERPRET THE OPINION OF OUR
BRETHREN TO SAY THAT THE PRESUMPTION, IF VALID, IS IRREBUTTABLE; OR, TO
PUT THE MATTER DIFFERENTLY, THAT THE EFFECT OF THE PRESUMPTION, IF
VALID, IS TO MAKE IT INEVITABLE THAT ALL GIFTS OF REAL PROPERTY BY AN
ALIEN-JAPANESE FATHER TO HIS CHILD CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY ESCHEATED BY THE
STATE.  AS THE CASES PROVE, AN ALIEN-JAPANESE FATHER CAN GIVE
CALIFORNIA LANDS TO HIS SON IN SPITE OF THE PRESUMPTION.  FN5  THE
EFFECT OF THE PRESUMPTION, IF VALID, IS RATHER TO PLACE A BURDEN, AN
"ONEROUS BURDEN" TO ADOPT THE PHRASE OF THE MAJORITY OPINION, UPON ALL
GRANTEES WHO TAKE LAND UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SEC. 9. 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, IS NEITHER THE VALIDITY OF THE
CALIFORNIA PROHIBITION AGAINST THE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY A
PERSON INELIGIBLE TO BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, NOR THE VALIDITY OF A
LAW, SEC. 9, THAT AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE THAT PROHIBITION SHALL BE
PENALIZED BY ESCHEAT.  THE VALIDITY OF BOTH OF THESE PROVISIONS IS
UNCHALLENGED BY THIS COURT'S OPINION.  THE ISSUE HERE IS THE VALIDITY
OF THE PRESUMPTION THAT WHEN AN INELIGIBLE PERSON PAYS THE
CONSIDERATION FOR LAND CONVEYED TO AN ELIGIBLE PERSON, THERE IS A PRIMA
FACIE PRESUMPTION THAT THE CONVEYANCE IS MADE TO AVOID THE PROHIBITED
OWNERSHIP.  THE ESSENCE OF THE ARGUMENT IN THE OPINION IS THIS:  WHEN
AN ALIEN-ENGLISH FATHER PURCHASES LAND FROM A THIRD PARTY AND PUTS
TITLE IN HIS CHILD, ACCEPTANCE BY THE CHILD AND DELIVERY OF THE DEED
ARE PRESUMED; HOWEVER, IF AN ALIEN-JAPANESE FATHER ENGAGES IN THE SAME
TRANSACTION, HIS CHILD MUST MEET THE "ONEROUS BURDEN" OF THE
PRESUMPTION; THEREFORE, FRED JOHNSON AND FRED OYAMA ARE NOT TREATED
EQUALLY BY THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA AND FRED OYAMA IS DENIED EQUAL
PROTECTION BY THOSE LAWS.  THESE FACTS ARE ACCURATE; THE FLAW IS THAT
THE CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW.  CALIFORNIA HAS, AS AGAINST THE STATE,
MADE ILLEGAL A PARTICULAR CLASS OF TRANSACTIONS:  TRANSFERS MADE WITH
THE INTENT TO EVADE ESCHEAT OF LANDS.  ANYONE, NO MATTER WHAT HIS
RACIAL ORIGIN MAY BE, WHO AS A GRANTEE IS A PARTY TO A SALE OF LAND
WHICH THE STATE ATTACKS AS BEING WITHIN THE PROSCRIBED CLASS MUST
OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF SEC. 9 TO ESTABLISH THE LEGALITY OF THE
TRANSFER.  THIS PRESUMPTION OPERATES WITH A MECHANICAL IMPARTIALITY. 
WHOEVER THE GRANTEE IN A TRANSFER QUESTIONED BY THE STATE IS, BE HE
FRED JOHNSON OR FRED OYAMA, HE MUST BEAR THE "ONEROUS BURDEN"; HE MUST
BEAR IT NOT BECAUSE OF DESCENT OR NATIONALITY BUT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN A
PARTY TO A TRANSACTION WHICH THE STATE CHALLENGES AS ILLEGAL UNDER AN
ADMITTEDLY VALID LAW. 

AS WE SEE THE COURT'S ARGUMENT, IT FOCUSES ATTENTION UPON WHAT IT
CONTENDS ARE TWO PARALLEL SITUATIONS:  THE GIFT OF AN ENGLISH FATHER TO
A CITIZEN SON AND THE GIFT OF A JAPANESE FATHER TO A CITIZEN SON.  UPON
EXAMINATION OF THE RELEVANT STATE LAWS, IT CONCLUDES THAT THE SON OF
THE JAPANESE FATHER IS PLACED IN A POSITION LESS ADVANTAGEOUS THAN THAT
OF THE SON OF AN ENGLISH FATHER.  THAT IS SO, BUT FOR OUR PURPOSES IT
IS THE REASON FOR THE RESULT, AND NOT THE RESULT ITSELF, THAT IS
IMPORTANT.  THE LEGAL POSITIONS OF THE TWO SONS ARE DIFFERENT ONLY
BECAUSE THE SITUATIONS ARE NOT PARALLEL.  THE JAPANESE FATHER AND HIS
CITIZEN SON ARE PARTIES TO AN ILLEGAL TRANSACTION IF THE LAND WAS
TRANSFERRED WITH THE "INTENT TO PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID ESCHEAT"; AS AN
ENGLISH FATHER IS NOT PREVENTED FROM HOLDING REAL PROPERTY, HIS GIFT
CANNOT BE CHALLENGED ON THAT GROUND BY THE STATE.  THE CAPACITIES OF
THE DONORS ARE DIFFERENT AND IT IS THIS DIFFERENCE, AND NOTHING ELSE,
WHICH RAISES IN ONE CASE AND FAILS TO RAISE IN THE OTHER, THE
PRESUMPTION COMPLAINED OF BY OYAMA.  FN6  IT IS NOT A DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION FOR A STATE TO CLASSIFY TRANSACTIONS READILY LEADING TO LAW
EVASIONS DIFFERENTLY FROM THOSE WITHOUT SUCH A POSSIBILITY.  SUCH
CLASSIFICATION IS PERMISSIBLE. 

LET US TEST THE COURT'S REASONING BY APPLYING IT TO A DIFFERENT SET
OF FACTS.  FOR PURPOSES OF ILLUSTRATION, WE PUT THESE CASES:  (1) A
SOLVENT FATHER PURCHASES LAND FROM A THIRD PARTY AND PUTS THE TITLE IN
HIS SON; AND (2) AN INSOLVENT FATHER PURCHASES LAND FROM A THIRD PARTY
AND PUTS THE TITLE IN HIS SON.  IN EXAMPLE (2), THE CREDITORS OF THE
FATHER IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE SON TO SUBJECT THE LAND TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE FATHER, CAN RAISE A PRIMA
FACIE PRESUMPTION THAT THE TRANSFER WAS FRAUDULENT AS TO THEM BY
PROVING THAT THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE
FATHER'S INSOLVENCY.  FN7  HERE THE SON OF THE INSOLVENT FATHER BEARS
AN "ONEROUS BURDEN" TO WHICH THE SON OF A SOLVENT FATHER IS NOT
SUBJECTED; HE BEARS THIS BURDEN BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN A PARTY TO A
TRANSACTION WHICH CREDITORS CHALLENGE AS VOIDABLE.  THE DISABILITY OF
THE FATHER TAINTS THE SON'S RIGHT AND, THEREFORE, HE IS PLACED IN A
POSITION LESS ADVANTAGEOUS THAN THAT OF THE SON OF A SOLVENT FATHER. 
WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO SAY THAT THE SON OF THE INSOLVENT FATHER HAS
BEEN DENIED "EQUAL PROTECTION" AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE PRESUMPTION IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?  NO ONE WOULD SO CONTEND.  THE INEQUALITY BETWEEN THE
SONS OF ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE LANDOWNERS DOES NOT SEEM TO US TO
DIFFER. 

AS WE UNDERSTAND PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT IN BRIEFS AND BEFORE THIS
COURT, THE PETITIONERS IN THEIR DISCUSSION OF THE DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION TO THE CITIZEN SON DEPENDED SOLELY UPON THE INVALIDITY OF
THE PRESUMPTION ARISING FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE MONEY BY THE FATHER. 
THIS COURT'S OPINION RECOGNIZES THAT PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT INCLUDES
DISCRIMINATION, AMOUNTING TO A LACK OF EQUAL PROTECTION, ARISING (1)
FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 9 THAT THE SON MUST TAKE THE BURDEN OF
PROVING AFFIRMATIVELY THE BONA FIDES OF THE GIFT FROM THE FATHER; (2)
BECAUSE THE GIFT TO THE INFANT SON OF A JAPANESE IS PRESUMED INVALID
WHILE THE GIFT TO AN INFANT SON OF AN ELIGIBLE ALIEN IS PRESUMED VALID;
(3) BECAUSE THE COURT TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE FATHER'S OMISSION TO
FILE GUARDIAN REPORTS AFTER THE TRANSFER.  NORMALLY, THE COURT SAYS, A
GUARDIAN'S SUBSEQUENT IMPROPER CONDUCT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF
A GIFT TO A CHILD.  BECAUSE OF WHAT IS DEEMED ADDITIONAL BURDENS THUS
PLACED UPON THE SON, THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT: 

"THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT, WE BELIEVE, WAS CLEARLY TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST FRED OYAMA.  ... 

"THE ONLY BASIS FOR THIS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN AMERICAN CITIZEN,
MOREOVER, WAS THE FACT THAT HIS FATHER WAS JAPANESE AND NOT AMERICAN,
RUSSIAN, CHINESE, OR ENGLISH." 

THESE DISCRIMINATIONS, IF SUCH THEY ARE, SEEM TO US MERE ELABORATIONS
OF THE CENTRAL THEORY THAT THE CHALLENGED PRESUMPTION OF SEC. 9 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION.  IT IS OF COURSE TRUE
THAT THE SON OF A CITIZEN OF JAPAN CANNOT RECEIVE A GIFT FROM AN
INELIGIBLE FATHER AS READILY AS A SON OF AN ALIEN ENTITLED TO
NATURALIZATION BUT AGAIN SUCH A CLASSIFICATION IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE
WHEN WE ONCE ASSUME THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS A RIGHT TO
PROHIBIT THE OWNERSHIP OF CALIFORNIA LAND DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY A
JAPANESE. 

DISCRIMINATION IN THE SENSE OF PLACING MORE BURDENS UPON SOME THAN
UPON OTHERS IS NOT IN ITSELF UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IF ALL TYPES OF
DISCRIMINATION WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OUR SOCIETY WOULD BE INCAPABLE OF
LEGISLATION UPON MANY IMPORTANT AND VITAL QUESTIONS.  ALL REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION PUTS ITS SUBJECTS INTO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES WHERE THEY
MAY HAVE ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES THAT FLOW FROM THEIR POSITIONS. 
FN8  THE GROUPING OF ALL THOSE WHO TAKE LAND AS GRANTEES, IN A
TRANSACTION IN WHICH AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN PAYS THE CONSIDERATION, IN A
CLASS SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OF SEC. 9 AND OTHER
INFERENCES WHICH ARE REASONABLY RELATED TO THE TRANSFER, SHOULD NOT BE
STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  UNLESS THE CALIFORNIA LAND LAWS ARE
TO BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WE THINK THE PRESUMPTION AND ITS RESULTING
EFFECTS MUST BE ACCEPTED AS LEGAL. 

FN1  SEE FOOTNOTE 12 OF THE MAJORITY OPINION. 

FN2  SEC. 1:  "ALL ALIENS ELIGIBLE TO CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES MAY ACQUIRE, POSSESS, ENJOY, USE, CULTIVATE, OCCUPY,
TRANSFER, TRANSMIT AND INHERIT REAL PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN,
IN THIS STATE, AND HAVE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE BENEFICIAL USE THEREOF,
IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE." 

SEC. 2:  "ALL ALIENS OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SECTION ONE OF
THIS ACT MAY ACQUIRE, POSSESS, ENJOY, USE, CULTIVATE, OCCUPY AND
TRANSFER REAL PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN, IN THIS STATE, AND
HAVE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE BENEFICIAL USE THEREOF, IN THE MANNER AND
TO THE EXTENT, AND FOR THE PURPOSES PRESCRIBED BY ANY TREATY NOW
EXISTING BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE NATION OR
COUNTRY OF WHICH SUCH ALIEN IS A CITIZEN OR SUBJECT, AND NOT
OTHERWISE." 

SEC. 7:  "ANY REAL PROPERTY HEREAFTER ACQUIRED IN FEE IN VIOLATION OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT BY ANY ALIEN MENTIONED IN SECTION 2 OF THIS
ACT, OR BY ANY COMPANY, ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION MENTIONED IN SECTION
3 OF THIS ACT, SHALL ESCHEAT AS OF THE DATE OF SUCH ACQUIRING, TO, AND
BECOME AND REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  ...  " 

FN3  SEC. 9:  "EVERY TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY, OR OF AN INTEREST
THEREIN, THOUGH COLORABLE IN FORM, SHALL BE VOID AS TO THE STATE AND
THE INTEREST THEREBY CONVEYED OR SOUGHT TO BE CONVEYED SHALL ESCHEAT TO
THE STATE AS OF THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER, IF THE PROPERTY INTEREST
INVOLVED IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT AN ALIEN MENTIONED IN SECTION 2
HEREOF IS INHIBITED FROM ACQUIRING, POSSESSING, ENJOYING, USING,
CULTIVATING, OCCUPYING, TRANSFERRING, TRANSMITTING OR INHERITING IT,
AND IF THE CONVEYANCE IS MADE WITH INTENT TO PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID
ESCHEAT AS PROVIDED FOR HEREIN. 

"A PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION THAT THE CONVEYANCE IS MADE WITH SUCH
INTENT SHALL ARISE UPON PROOF OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING GROUP OF FACTS: 

"(A)  THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF A PERSON OTHER THAN
THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2 HEREOF IF THE CONSIDERATION IS PAID
OR AGREED OR UNDERSTOOD TO BE PAID BY AN ALIEN MENTIONED IN SECTION 2
HEREOF;    "(B)  THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF A COMPANY,
ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION IF THE MEMBERSHIPS OR SHARES OF STOCK
THEREIN HELD BY ALIENS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2 HEREOF, TOGETHER WITH THE
MEMBERSHIPS OR SHARES OF STOCK HELD BY OTHERS BUT PAID FOR OR AGREED OR
UNDERSTOOD TO BE PAID FOR BY SUCH ALIENS, WOULD AMOUNT TO A MAJORITY OF
THE MEMBERSHIP OR ISSUED CAPITAL STOCK OF SUCH COMPANY, ASSOCIATION OR
CORPORATION; 

"(C)  THE EXECUTION OF A MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF AN ALIEN MENTIONED IN
MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY.    "IN EACH OF THE FOREGOING INSTANCES THE
BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE UPON THE DEFENDANT TO SHOW THAT THE CONVEYANCE
WAS NOT MADE WITH INTENT TO PREVENT, EVADE OR AVOID ESCHEAT. 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"THE ENUMERATION IN THIS SECTION OF CERTAIN PRESUMPTIONS SHALL NOT BE
SO CONSTRUED AS TO PRECLUDE OTHER PRESUMPTIONS OR INFERENCES THAT
REASONABLY MAY BE MADE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF INTENT TO PREVENT, EVADE
OR AVOID ESCHEAT AS PROVIDED FOR HEREIN." 

PRESUMPTION (A) HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS.  SUCH
AN ATTACK WOULD BE FUTILE AS THERE IS A "RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN
THE (FACTS) PROVED AND THE ULTIMATE FACT PRESUMED."  TOT V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 463, 467.  IN COCKRILL V. CALIFORNIA, 268 U.S. 258,
THIS COURT HELD THAT PRESUMPTION (A) DID NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS. 

FN4  PEOPLE V. FUJITA, 215 CAL. 166, 170-71, 8 P.2D 1011-12; SEE
TAKEUCHI V. SCHMUCK, 206 CAL. 782, 276 P. 345.  INDEED, A HOLDING THAT
THIS PRESUMPTION WAS CONCLUSIVE MIGHT OPEN IT TO A SERIOUS ATTACK BASED
UPON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS.  SEE HEINER V. DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312. 

FN5  PEOPLE V. FUJITA, 215 CAL. 166, 8 P.2D 1011; SEE ESTATE OF YANO,
188 CAL. 645, 206 P. 995. 

FN6  MOBILE, J. & K.C.R. CO. V. TURNIPSEED, 219 U.S. 35, 42-43: 

"LEGISLATION PROVIDING THAT PROOF OF ONE FACT SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE MAIN FACT IN ISSUE IS BUT TO ENACT A RULE OF
EVIDENCE, AND QUITE WITHIN THE GENERAL POWER OF GOVERNMENT.  STATUTES,
NATIONAL AND STATE, DEALING WITH SUCH METHODS OF PROOF IN BOTH CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL CASES ABOUND, AND THE DECISIONS UPHOLDING THEM ARE
NUMEROUS.  ... 

"THAT A LEGISLATIVE PRESUMPTION OF ONE FACT FROM EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER
MAY NOT CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW OR A DENIAL OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IT IS ONLY ESSENTIAL THAT THERE SHALL BE
SOME RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FACT PROVED AND THE ULTIMATE FACT
PRESUMED, AND THAT THE INFERENCE OF ONE FACT FROM PROOF OF ANOTHER
SHALL NOT BE SO UNREASONABLE AS TO BE A PURELY ARBITRARY MANDATE.  SO,
ALSO, IT MUST NOT, UNDER GUISE OF REGULATING THE PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE, OPERATE TO PRECLUDE THE PARTY FROM THE RIGHT TO PRESENT HIS
DEFENSE TO THE MAIN FACT THUS PRESUMED." 

SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S. 86, 90; BANDINI CO. V.
SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8, 18-19; UNITED STATES EX REL. ST. LOUIS S.R.
CO. V. I.C.C., 264 U.S. 64, 77. 

FN7  BAILEY V. BLACKMON, 3 F.2D 252, 253, AFF'D ON REHEARING, 14 F.2D
16; HEDRICK V. HOCKFIELD, 283 F. 574, 576-77; RYAN V. WOHL, SOUTH &
CO., 241 ALA. 123, 124-25, 1 SO.2D 292, 293; JUDSON V. LYFORD, 84 CAL.
505, 509, 24 P. 286, 287-288; SWARTZ V. HAZLETT, 8 CAL. 118, 128;
CHRISMAN V. GREER, 239 KY. 378, 380, 39 S.W.2D 678, 679; PRUYN V.
YOUNG, 51 LA. ANN. 320, 322, 25 SO. 125, 126; LUSK V. RIGGS, 65 NEB.
258, 261, 91 N.W. 243, 244; GRAMBLING, SPALDING & CO. V. DICKEY, 118
N.C. 986, 988, 24 S.E. 671, 672; WILLAMETTE GROCERY CO. V. SKIFF, 118
ORE.  685, 689, 248 P. 143, 144. 

THIS ANALOGY IS EXACT BECAUSE IN MOST JURISDICTIONS THE FACT OF A
BLOOD RELATIONSHIP ALONE RAISES NO PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD.  GOTTLIEB V.
THATCHER, 151 U.S. 271, 279; GRAY V. GALPIN, 98 CAL. 633, 635, 33 P.
725, 726.  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 27 C.J. 827, NOTE 99; 37 C.J.S. 1084,
NOTE 9. 

FN8  LINDSLEY V. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61, 78-79: 

"THE RULES BY WHICH THIS CONTENTION MUST BE TESTED, AS IS SHOWN BY
REPEATED DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, ARE THESE:  1.  THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT TAKE FROM THE STATE THE
POWER TO CLASSIFY IN THE ADOPTION OF POLICE LAWS, BUT ADMITS OF THE
EXERCISE OF A WIDE SCOPE OF DISCRETION IN THAT REGARD, AND AVOIDS WHAT
IS DONE ONLY WHEN IT IS WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE BASIS AND THEREFORE IS
PURELY ARBITARY.  2.  A CLASSIFICATION HAVING SOME REASONABLE BASIS
DOES NOT OFFEND AGAINST THAT CLAUSE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT MADE WITH
MATHEMATICAL NICETY OR BECAUSE IN PRACTICE IT RESULTS IN SOME
INEQUALITY.  3.  WHEN THE CLASSIFICATION IN SUCH A LAW IS CALLED IN
QUESTION, IF ANY STATE OF FACTS REASONABLY CAN BE CONCEIVED THAT WOULD
SUSTAIN IT, THE EXISTENCE OF THAT STATE OF FACTS AT THE TIME THE LAW
WAS ENACTED MUST BE ASSUMED.  4.  ONE WHO ASSAILS THE CLASSIFICATION IN
SUCH A LAW MUST CARRY THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT IT DOES NOT REST UPON
ANY REASONABLE BASIS, BUT IS ESSENTIALLY ARBITRARY." 

FINLEY V. CALIFORNIA, 222 U.S. 28. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I AM UNABLE TO SEE HOW THIS COURT LOGICALLY CAN SET ASIDE THIS
JUDGMENT UNLESS IT IS PREPARED TO INVALIDATE THE CALIFORNIA ALIEN LAND
LAWS, ON WHICH IT IS BASED.  IF THIS JUDGMENT OF ESCHEAT SEEMS HARSH AS
TO THE OYAMAS, IT IS ONLY BECAUSE IT FAITHFULLY CARRIES OUT A
LEGISLATIVE POLICY, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH THIS COURT DOES NOT
QUESTION. 

THE STATE'S ARGUMENT IS AS SIMPLE AS THIS:  IF CALIFORNIA HAS POWER
TO FORBID CERTAIN ALIENS TO OWN ITS LANDS, IT MUST HAVE INCIDENTAL
POWER TO PREVENT EVASION OF THAT PROHIBITION BY USE OF AN INFANT'S NAME
TO CLOAK A FORBIDDEN OWNERSHIP.  IF IT HAS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT ITSELF
AGAINST SUCH EVASION, ITS COURTS MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE THE
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A GIVEN TRANSACTION CONSTITUTES AN EVASION. 
AND IF ITS COURTS HAVE TO APPLY THE ACT, THE STATE HAS POWER TO AID
THEM BY CREATING REASONABLE PRESUMPTIONS.  I CANNOT FIND THAT THIS
REASONING IS DEFECTIVE OR THAT IT FAILS TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT BELOW,
HOWEVER LITTLE I LIKE THE RESULT. 

IN THIS CASE THE ELDER OYAMA ARRANGED TO ACQUIRE SOME SIX ACRES OF
AGRICULTURAL LANDS.  HE COULD NOT TAKE TITLE IN HIS OWN NAME BECAUSE OF
HIS CLASSIFICATION AS AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN, AND HENCE ONE FORBIDDEN TO
ACQUIRE SUCH LANDS.  TITLE WAS TAKEN IN THE NAME OF FRED, HIS SON. 
WHEN THIS WAS HAPPENING FRED WAS SIX YEARS OLD.  HE HAD NO FUNDS AND
THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY THE FATHER.  WE CAN HARDLY
CRITICIZE THE STATE COURT FOR CONCLUDING, ESPECIALLY IN ABSENCE OF ANY
PROOF TO THE CONTRARY, THAT A 6-YEAR-OLD CHILD DID NOT DECIDE FOR
HIMSELF TO GO INTO AGRICULTURE, OR THAT THESE PARTICULAR LANDS WOULD BE
SUITABLE FOR HIM IF HE DID.  THE LANDS WOULD REQUIRE CONTINUOUS
CULTIVATION IF THEY WERE NOT TO REVERT TO A STATE OF NATURE AND IT WAS
NOT UNREASONABLE TO DOUBT THAT THE 6-YEAR-OLD SON COULD SUPPLY EITHER
THE MANUAL LABOR OR THE OVERSIGHT NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE INVESTMENT
OR TO MAKE IT YIELD A RETURN.  MOREOVER, THE RETURN FROM THE LANDS,
EVEN IF APPLIED TO THE SUPPORT OF YOUNG OYAMA, OPERATED TO REDUCE THE
PARENTAL OBLIGATION.  IN SHORT, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS 6-YEAR-OLD
CHILD CONTRIBUTED TO THE PURCHASE OF THESE LANDS EITHER FUNDS, JUDGMENT
OR DESIRE.  THE CALIFORNIA COURT CONSIDERED THAT HIS NAME WAS USED IN
THE TRANSACTION WITHOUT THE INFANT'S UNDERSTANDING CONSENT.  EVEN IF
THERE WERE NO PRESUMPTION CREATED BY STATUTE, I SHOULD FIND IT
DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS AN UNREASONABLE ONE. 

NOR DO I THINK WE COULD SAY THAT IT WOULD OFFEND THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IF THE STATE, TO MAKE ADMITTEDLY CONSTITUTIONAL
LEGISLATION EFFECTIVE, SHOULD GO SO FAR AS TO CREATE A PRESUMPTION THAT
WHERE THE CONSIDERATION IS PAID BY AN INELIGIBLE FATHER AND THE TITLE
IS TAKEN IN THE NAME OF HIS INFANT SON, IT IS TO BE DEEMED THE FATHER'S
PURCHASE.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COURT TO SAY THAT THIS IS A
FARFETCHED OR UNREASONABLE INFERENCE FROM SUCH FACTS.  IT SEEMS TO SAY,
HOWEVER, THAT A PRESUMPTION, WHICH IT CONSTRUES IN THIS WAY, IS INVALID
BECAUSE IT OPERATES ONLY AGAINST SONS OF PERSONS INELIGIBLE FOR
CITIZENSHIP.  IF EVEN SUCH A PRESUMPTION STRIKES ONLY A LIMITED CLASS,
IT IS BECAUSE THE BASIC PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACT STRIKE ONLY A LIMITED
CLASS.  IF THE STATE CAN VALIDLY CLASSIFY CERTAIN ASIATICS AS A
SEPARATE CLASS FOR EXCLUSION FROM LAND OWNERSHIP, I DO NOT SEE WHY IT
COULD NOT DO SO FOR PURPOSES OF A PRESUMPTION. 

BUT THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE HAS NOT MADE A PRESUMPTION APPLICABLE ONLY
AGAINST SONS OF THE EXCLUDED ASIATICS.  THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION, SO
FAR AS IT APPLIES HERE, IS CAST IN THIS LANGUAGE: 

"A PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION THAT THE CONVEYANCE IS MADE WITH SUCH
INTENT SHALL ARISE UPON PROOF OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING GROUP OF FACTS: 

"(A)  THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF A PERSON OTHER THAN
THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2 HEREOF (THE EXCLUDED ALIEN) IF THE
CONSIDERATION IS PAID OR AGREED OR UNDERSTOOD TO BE PAID BY AN ALIEN
MENTIONED IN SECTION 2 HEREOF  ...  " 

THE SAME PRESUMPTION WOULD BE RAISED BY THE STATUTE AGAINST ANY
AMERICAN CITIZEN OR ANY ALIEN OR ANY PERSON WHATSOEVER IF HE RECEIVED
THE TITLE AND ANY INELIGIBLE ALIEN PAID THE CONSIDERATION.  THE COURT'S
DECISION IS THAT THE PRESUMPTION DENIES FRED OYAMA THE EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS BECAUSE GRANTEES ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IF THEY ARE SONS
OF INELIGIBLE ALIENS THAN IF THEY ARE THE SONS OF OTHERS.  THIS ACT
MAKES NO SUCH CLASSIFICATION.  THE PRESUMPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM
BECAUSE HE IS THE SON OF AN INELIGIBLE FATHER - IT APPLIES BECAUSE HE
IS A GRANTEE OF LANDS PAID FOR BY AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN.  THE COURT
ITSELF READS THIS FATHER AND SON CLASSIFICATION INTO THE ACT, QUITE
UNJUSTIFIED BY ITS WORDS.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN THIS CASE THE
RELATIONSHIP OF FATHER AND SON ALSO EXISTS, BUT THAT IS NOT THE
RELATIONSHIP THAT CALLS THE PRESUMPTION INTO OPERATION. 

THE ACT CLASSIFIES GRANTEES ONLY AS THOSE WHOSE LANDS HAVE BEEN PAID
FOR BY AN INELIGIBLE ALIEN AND THOSE WHOSE LANDS HAVE NOT.  EVERY
MEMBER OF THE CLASS WHOSE LANDS HAVE BEEN PAID FOR BY SUCH AN ALIEN
MUST OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION.  EVERY GRANTEE SIMILARLY SITUATED IS
SADDLED BY THE IDENTICAL BURDEN IMPOSED ON FRED OYAMA WHETHER HE IS THE
SON OF A JAPANESE, THE SON OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OR THE SON OF AN
ELIGIBLE ALIEN.  THUS THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION APPARENT ON ITS FACE
IN THE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE WHICH THE COURT STRIKES DOWN. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT A DISCRIMINATION IS LATENT IN THIS PRESUMPTION
FROM THE FACT THAT OTHER FATHERS MAY GIVE LAND TO THEIR SONS AND NO
PRESUMPTION WOULD APPLY.  THAT THERE IS A DISCRIMINATION IN THIS
SITUATION NO ONE WILL DENY; IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL ONE, WHICH THE COURT
DOES NOT TOUCH, BY WHICH THE ELDER OYAMA COULD NOT, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, ACQUIRE THIS LAND WHILE MANY OTHER FATHERS COULD.  THE
PRESUMPTION, OF COURSE, WOULD NOT APPLY IF THE CONSIDERATION WERE PAID
BY A PERSON TO WHOM THE STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY.  BUT FRED OYAMA, THE
SON, IS IN NO DIFFERENT POSITION AS TO THE PRESUMPTION THAN THE SON OF
ANY OTHER PERSON WHATSOEVER.  IF A CITIZEN'S SON RECEIVED THIS LAND
FROM OYAMA, SENIOR UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS, HE WOULD BE CONFRONTED
WITH THE SAME PRESUMPTION AND ESCHEAT.  IF THE OYAMA LAD, ON THE OTHER
HAND, RECEIVED THIS LAND FROM A CITIZEN, HE WOULD TAKE IT AS FREE OF
PRESUMPTION AND ESCHEAT AS ANY CALIFORNIA LAD COULD DO.  THE ONLY
DISCRIMINATION WHICH PREJUDICES YOUNG OYAMA IS THE ONE WHICH MAKES HIS
FATHER INELIGIBLE TO OWN LAND OR BE A DONOR OF IT.  THAT DISCRIMINATION
IS PASSED BY AS VALID, AND ONE THAT SEEMS TO ME WHOLLY FICTITIOUS IS
FIRST ERECTED BY THIS COURT AND THEN STRUCK DOWN. 

I DO NOT FIND ANYTHING IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHICH AUTHORIZES
US TO STRIP A STATE OF ITS POWER TO ENACT REASONABLE PRESUMPTIONS WHICH
PUT THE BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE UPON THE ONLY PERSON WHO POSSESSES
IT.  THIS PRESUMPTION IS NOT MADE CONCLUSIVE AND THE CALIFORNIA COURTS
HAVE SOMETIMES HELD IT TO BE OVERCOME BY EVIDENCE.  IN THIS CASE, IF
THERE IS ANY EXPLANATION OF THIS TRANSACTION OTHER THAN THAT OYAMA USED
HIS SON'S NAME TO ACQUIRE BENEFICIAL INTERESTS FOR HIMSELF WHICH HE WAS
FORBIDDEN TO ACQUIRE IN HIS OWN NAME, NO ONE KNOWS THOSE FACTS BETTER
THAN THE SENIOR OYAMA.  HE DID NOT TAKE THE WITNESS STAND.  HE LEFT
UNREBUTTED BOTH THE PRESUMPTION OF THE STATUTE AND THE INFERENCE THAT
MOST REASONABLE PERSONS, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE, WOULD DRAW
FROM THE FACTS. 

THIS COURT ALSO SAYS THAT CALIFORNIA USED THE DEFAULT OF THE FATHER,
IN FAILING TO FILE ACCOUNTINGS AS TRUSTEE FOR THE INFANT, AS EVIDENCE
AGAINST THE INFANT AND SEEMS TO IMPLY THIS WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PROCEDURE.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THIS INFANT WAS OF SUCH TENDER YEARS THAT
HE HAD NEITHER IDEAS NOR WILL NOR UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE PURCHASE. 
THE ONLY PERSON'S INTENTION WHICH WOULD STAMP THIS TRANSACTION AS ONE
IN GOOD FAITH OR AS AN EVASION OF THE STATUTE WAS THE INTENTION OF THE
FATHER.  HE WAS THE ONLY ACTOR; HE GAVE THE LAND TO THE SON AND
ACCEPTED ON HIS BEHALF, SO WE ARE TOLD.  CERTAINLY IT WAS COMPETENT FOR
THE CALIFORNIA COURTS, AS BEARING ON HIS INTENTIONS AND GOOD FAITH, TO
RECEIVE EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT THE SOLE ACTOR DID NOT CONSIDER
HIMSELF UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO ACCOUNT AS THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO
DO IF THE PROPERTY REALLY BELONGED TO AN INFANT AND HE WERE A TRUSTEE. 

WHILE I THINK THAT CALIFORNIA HAS PURSUED A POLICY OF UNNECESSARY
SEVERITY BY WHICH THE OYAMAS LOSE BOTH LAND AND INVESTMENT, I DO NOT
SEE HOW THIS COURT, WHILE CONCEDING THE STATE'S RIGHT TO KEEP THE
POLICY ON ITS BOOKS, CAN STRIP THE STATE OF THE RIGHT TO MAKE ITS ACT
EFFECTIVE.  WHAT WE SEEM TO BE HOLDING IS THAT WHILE THE STATE HAS
POWER TO EXCLUDE THE ALIEN FROM LAND OWNERSHIP, THE ALIEN HAS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO NULLIFY THE POLICY BY A DEVICE WE WOULD BE
PROMPT TO CONDEMN IF IT WERE USED TO EVADE A FEDERAL STATUTE.    A
MAJORITY OF THE COURT AGREES THAT THE GROUND ASSIGNED BY THE COURT'S
OPINION IS SUFFICIENT TO DECIDE THIS LITIGATION.  IT DOES NOT THEREFORE
SEEM NECESSARY OR HELPFUL TO ENTER INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ALIEN LAND LAWS THEMSELVES. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN, 332 U.S. 689 


NO. 121.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1948.  - 161
F.2D 629, REVERSED. 


1.  IT IS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 301(K) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND
COSMETIC ACT OF 1938 FOR A RETAIL DRUGGIST WHO HAS PURCHASED
SULFATHIAZOLE TABLETS FROM A WHOLESALER IN THE SAME STATE (WHO HAD
OBTAINED THEM BY WAY OF AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT) TO REMOVE A DOZEN OF
THEM FROM A PROPERLY LABELED BULK CONTAINER IN WHICH THEY WERE SHIPPED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN WHICH THEY WERE BEING HELD FOR RESALE,
PLACE THEM IN A PILL BOX LABELED "SULFATHIAZOLE" BUT NOT CONTAINING THE
STATUTORILY REQUIRED DIRECTIONS FOR USE OR WARNINGS OF DANGER, AND SELL
THEM LOCALLY TO A RETAIL PURCHASER.  PP. 695-697. 

(A)  THE REMOVAL OF DRUGS FROM A CONTAINER LABELED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT TO ONE NOT SO LABELED IS THE DOING OF AN
ACT WHICH RESULTS IN THEIR BEING "MISBRANDED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 301(K).  P. 695. 

(B)  ALTHOUGH A PREVIOUS INTRASTATE SALE HAD OCCURRED FOLLOWING THE
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT AND ALTHOUGH THE RETAIL SALE IN QUESTION OCCURRED
OVER SIX MONTHS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE SULFATHIAZOLE TABLETS IN THIS CASE WERE "HELD FOR SALE
AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
301(K).  PP. 695-696. 

(C)  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO SAFEGUARD THE CONSUMER BY APPLYING
ITS REQUIREMENTS TO ARTICLES FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR INTRODUCTION INTO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALL THE WAY TO THE MOMENT OF THEIR DELIVERY TO THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMER.  PP. 696-697. 

2.  AS THUS CONSTRUED, THE ACT DOES NOT EXCEED THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR INVADE THE POWERS
RESERVED TO THE STATES.  MCDERMOTT V. WISCONSIN, 228 U.S. 115.  PP. 697
698. 

3.  A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN A STATUTE MERELY
BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO DEPART FROM CUSTOM OR BECAUSE GIVING
EFFECT TO THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY CONGRESS MIGHT REQUIRE A
COURT TO FACE A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  PP. 692-694. 

4.  THE SCOPE OF THE OFFENSE WHICH CONGRESS DEFINED IN SEC. 301(K) OF
THE ACT IS NOT TO BE JUDICIALLY NARROWED AS APPLIED TO DRUGS BY
ENVISIONING EXTREME POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS RELATING TO
FOOD AND COSMETICS, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE BROAD DISCRETION GIVEN
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO EXCUSE MINOR VIOLATIONS WITH A WARNING AND TO
ISSUE REGULATIONS EXEMPTING MANY ARTICLES FROM THE LABELING
REQUIREMENTS WHEN COMPLIANCE IS IMPRACTICAL.  PP. 694-695. 

UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN, TRADING AS SULLIVAN'S PHARMACY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF VIOLATING
SEC. 301(K) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT OF 1938.  67
F.SUPP.  192.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  161 F.2D 629. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 753.  REVERSED, P. 698. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, A RETAIL DRUGGIST IN COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, WAS CHARGED IN
TWO COUNTS OF AN INFORMATION WITH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 301(K) OF THE
FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT OF 1938.  THAT SECTION PROHIBITS
"THE DOING OF ANY  ...  ACT WITH RESPECT TO, A  ...  DRUG  ...  IF SUCH
ACT IS DONE WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RESULTS IN SUCH ARTICLE BEING MISBRANDED."  N1
ITS LABELING BEARS (1) ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS FOR USE; AND (2) SUCH
ADEQUATE WARNINGS AGAINST USE  ...  DANGEROUS TO HEALTH, OR AGAINST
UNSAFE DOSAGE  ...  AS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF USERS."  THE
INFORMATION CHARGED SPECIFICALLY THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD PERFORMED
CERTAIN ACTS WHICH RESULTED IN SULFATHIAZOLE BEING "MISBRANDED" WHILE
"HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE THESE: A LABORATORY HAD SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FROM CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, TO A CONSIGNEE AT ATLANTA, GEORGIA, A
NUMBER OF BOTTLES, EACH CONTAINING 1,000 SULFATHIAZOLE TABLETS.  THESE
BOTTLES HAD LABELS AFFIXED TO THEM, WHICH, AS REQUIRED BY SEC.
502(F)(1) AND (2) OF THE ACT, SET OUT ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS FOR THE USE
OF THE TABLETS AND ADEQUATE WARNINGS TO PROTECT ULTIMATE CONSUMERS FROM
DANGERS INCIDENT TO THIS USE.  FN2 RESPONDENT BOUGHT ONE OF THESE
PROPERLY LABELED BOTTLES OF SULFATHIAZOLE TABLETS FROM THE ATLANTA
CONSIGNEE, TRANSFERRED IT TO HIS COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, DRUGSTORE, AND
THERE HELD THE TABLETS FOR RESALE.  ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS TWELVE
TABLETS WERE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERLY LABELED AND BRANDED BOTTLE,
PLACED IN PILL BOXES, AND SOLD TO CUSTOMERS.  THESE BOXES WERE LABELED
"SULFATHIAZOLE."  THEY DID NOT CONTAIN THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED
ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS FOR USE OR WARNINGS OF DANGER. 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION WAS OVERRULED, A JURY
WAS WAIVED, EVIDENCE WAS HEARD, AND RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED UNDER BOTH
COUNTS.  67 F.SUPP.  192. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  161 F.2D 629.  THE COURT
THOUGHT THAT AS A RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S ACTION THE SULFATHIAZOLE
BECAME "MISBRANDED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL ACT, AND THAT IN
ITS "BROADEST POSSIBLE SENSE" THE ACT'S LANGUAGE "MAY INCLUDE WHAT
HAPPENED."  HOWEVER, IT WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE ACT OUGHT NOT
TO BE TAKEN SO BROADLY "BUT HELD TO APPLY ONLY TO THE HOLDING FOR THE
FIRST SALE BY THE IMPORTER AFTER INTERSTATE SHIPMENT."  THUS THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INTERPRETED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF SEC.
301(K) "WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AS THOUGH CONGRESS HAD SAID "WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS
HELD FOR SALE BY A PERSON WHO HAD HIMSELF RECEIVED IT BY WAY OF A
SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THIS
IMPORTANT QUESTION CONCERNING THE ACT'S COVERAGE.  332 U.S. 753. 

FIRST.  THE NARROW CONSTRUCTION GIVEN SEC. 301(K) RESTED NOT SO MUCH
UPON ITS LANGUAGE AS UPON THE CIRCUIT COURT'S VIEW OF THE CONSEQUENCES
THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM THE BROADER INTERPRETATION URGED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE RETAIL SALES HERE INVOLVED
WERE MADE IN COLUMBUS NINE MONTHS AFTER THIS SULFATHIAZOLE HAD BEEN
SHIPPED FROM CHICAGO TO ATLANTA.  IT WAS IMPRESSED BY THE FACT THAT, IF
THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE "WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS HELD FOR SALE AFTER
SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" SHOULD BE GIVEN ITS LITERAL MEANING,
THE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELIED ON WOULD "APPLY TO ALL INTRASTATE SALES
OF IMPORTED DRUGS AFTER ANY NUMBER OF INTERMEDIATE SALES WITHIN THE
STATE AND AFTER ANY LAPSE OF TIME; AND NOT ONLY TO SUCH SALES OF DRUGS,
BUT ALSO TO SIMILAR RETAIL SALES OF FOODS, DEVICES AND COSMETICS, FOR
ALL THESE ARE EQUALLY COVERED BY THESE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT."  THE
COURT EMPHASIZED THAT SUCH CONSEQUENCES WOULD RESULT IN FAR-REACHING
INROADS UPON CUSTOMARY CONTROL BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF TRADITIONALLY
LOCAL ACTIVITIES, AND THAT A PURPOSE TO AFFORD LOCAL RETAIL PURCHASERS
FEDERAL PROTECTION FROM HARMFUL FOODS, DRUGS AND COSMETICS SHOULD NOT
BE ASCRIBED TO CONGRESS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAR
MANDATE, CITING FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349. 
ANOTHER REASON OF THE COURT FOR REFRAINING FROM CONSTRUING THE ACT AS
APPLICABLE TO ARTICLES MISBRANDED WHILE HELD FOR RETAIL SALE, EVEN
THOUGH THE ARTICLES HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
WAS ITS OPINION THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD RAISE GRAVE DOUBTS AS TO
THE ACT'S CONSTITUTIONALITY.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS POSITION THE COURT
CITED LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 30, AND
SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495. 

A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN A STATUTE MERELY
BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO DEPART FROM CUSTOM OR BECAUSE GIVING
EFFECT TO THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY CONGRESS MIGHT REQUIRE A
COURT TO FACE A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  AND NONE OF THE FOREGOING
CASES, NOR ANY OTHER ON WHICH THEY RELIED, AUTHORIZES A COURT IN
INTERPRETING A STATUTE TO DEPART FROM ITS CLEAR MEANING.  WHEN IT IS
REASONABLY PLAIN THAT CONGRESS MEANT ITS ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN
CONDUCT, NO ONE OF THE ABOVE REFERENCES JUSTIFIES A DISTORTION OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, NOT EVEN IF THE CLEARLY CORRECT PURPOSE MAKES
MARKED DEVIATIONS FROM CUSTOM OR LEADS INEVITABLY TO A HOLDING OF
CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY.  ALTHOUGH CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST BE SO
PRECISE AND UNAMBIGUOUS THAT THE ORDINARY PERSON CAN KNOW HOW TO AVOID
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, SEE KRAUS & BROS., INC. V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S.
614, 621-622, EVEN IN DETERMINING WHETHER SUCH STATUTES MEET THAT TEST,
THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN THEIR FAIR MEANING IN ACCORD WITH THE EVIDENT
INTENT OF CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES V. RAYNOR 302 U.S. 540, 552. 

SECOND.  ANOTHER CONSIDERATION THAT MOVED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TO GIVE THE STATUTE A NARROW CONSTRUCTION WAS ITS BELIEF THAT
THE HOLDING IN THIS CASE WITH REFERENCE TO MISBRANDING OF DRUGS BY A
RETAIL DRUGGIST WOULD NECESSARILY APPLY ALSO TO "SIMILAR RETAIL SALES
OF FOODS, DEVICES AND COSMETICS, FOR ALL OF THESE," THE COURT SAID,
"ARE EQUALLY COVERED BY THE SAME PROVISIONS OF THE ACT."  AND IN THIS
COURT THE EFFECT OF SUCH A POSSIBLE COVERAGE OF THE ACT IS GRAPHICALLY
MAGNIFIED.  WE ARE TOLD THAT ITS APPLICATION TO THESE LOCAL SALES OF
SULFATHIAZOLE WOULD LOGICALLY REQUIRE ALL RETAIL GROCERS AND BEAUTY
PARLOR OPERATORS TO REPRODUCE THE BULK CONTAINER LABELS ON EACH
INDIVIDUAL ITEM WHEN IT IS TAKEN FROM THE CONTAINER TO SELL TO A
PURCHASER.  IT IS EVEN PROPHESIED THAT, IF SEC. 301(K) IS GIVEN THE
INTERPRETATION URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT WILL LATER BE APPLIED SO AS
TO REQUIRE RETAIL MERCHANTS TO LABEL STICKS OF CANDY AND SARDINES WHEN
REMOVED FROM THEIR CONTAINERS FOR SALE. 

THE SCOPE OF THE OFFENSE WHICH CONGRESS DEFINED IS NOT TO BE
JUDICIALLY NARROWED AS APPLIED TO DRUGS BY ENVISIONING EXTREME POSSIBLE
APPLICATIONS OF ITS DIFFERENT MISBRANDING PROVISIONS WHICH RELATE TO
FOOD, COSMETICS, AND THE LIKE.  THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY ENOUGH TO
CONSIDER SUCH CONTINGENCIES SHOULD THEY EVER ARISE.  IT MAY NOW BE
NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ACT IS GIVEN RATHER BROAD
DISCRETION - BROAD ENOUGH UNDOUBTEDLY TO ENABLE HIM TO PERFORM HIS
DUTIES FAIRLY WITHOUT WASTING HIS EFFORTS ON WHAT MAY BE NO MORE THAN
TECHNICAL INFRACTIONS OF LAW.  AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S DISCRETION, SEC. 306 PERMITS HIM TO EXCUSE MINOR
VIOLATIONS WITH A WARNING IF HE BELIEVES THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL
THEREBY BE ADEQUATELY SERVED.  AND THE ADMINISTRATOR IS GIVEN EXTENSIVE
AUTHORITY UNDER SECS. 405, 503 AND 603 TO ISSUE REGULATIONS EXEMPTING
FROM THE LABELING REQUIREMENTS MANY ARTICLES THAT OTHERWISE WOULD FALL
WITHIN THIS PORTION OF THE ACT.  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 405 WITH REGARD
TO FOOD APPARENTLY ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO PERMIT THE RELAXATION OF SOME OF
THE LABELING REQUIREMENTS WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE IMPOSE A BURDEN ON
RETAILERS OUT OF PROPORTION TO THEIR VALUE TO THE CONSUMER. 

THIRD.  WHEN WE SEEK THE MEANING OF SEC. 301(K) FROM ITS LANGUAGE WE
FIND THAT THE OFFENSE IT CREATES AND WHICH IS HERE CHARGED REQUIRES THE
DOING OF SOME ACT WITH RESPECT TO A DRUG (1) WHICH RESULTS IN ITS BEING
MISBRANDED, (2) WHILE THE ARTICLE IS HELD FOR SALE "AFTER SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  RESPONDENT HAS NOT SERIOUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE
"MISBRANDED" PORTION OF SEC. 301(K) IS AMBIGUOUS.  SECTION 502(F), AS
HAS BEEN SEEN, PROVIDES THAT A DRUG IS MISBRANDED UNLESS THE LABELING
CONTAINS ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS AND ADEQUATE WARNINGS.  THE LABELING HERE
DID NOT CONTAIN THE INFORMATION WHICH SEC. 502(F) REQUIRES.  THERE IS A
SUGGESTION HERE THAT, ALTHOUGH ALTERATION, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OR
OBLITERATION OF THE BOTTLE LABEL WOULD HAVE BEEN A "MISBRANDING,"
TRANSFERRING THE PILLS TO NON-BRANDED BOXES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, SO
LONG AS THE LABELING ON THE EMPTY BOTTLE WAS NOT DISTURBED.  SUCH AN
ARGUMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  FOR THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF FORBIDDING THE
DESTRUCTION OF THE LABEL IS TO KEEP IT INTACT FOR THE INFORMATION AND
PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER.  THAT PURPOSE WOULD BE FRUSTRATED WHEN THE
PILLS THE CONSUMER BUYS ARE NOT LABELED AS REQUIRED, WHETHER THE LABEL
HAS BEEN TORN FROM THE ORIGINAL CONTAINER OR THE PILLS HAVE BEEN
TRANSFERRED FROM IT TO A NON-LABELED ONE.  WE FIND NO AMBIGUITY IN THE
MISBRANDING LANGUAGE OF THE ACT. 

FURTHERMORE, IT WOULD REQUIRE GREAT INGENUITY TO DISCOVER AMBIGUITY
IN THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 301(K) THAT THE MISBRANDING OCCUR
"WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  THE WORDS ACCURATELY DESCRIBE RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT HERE. 
HE HELD THE DRUGS FOR SALE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FROM CHICAGO TO ATLANTA.  IT IS TRUE THAT RESPONDENT BOUGHT
THEM OVER SIX MONTHS AFTER THE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED
BY THEIR DELIVERY TO ANOTHER CONSIGNEE.  BUT THE LANGUAGE USED BY
CONGRESS BROADLY AND UNQUALIFIEDLY PROHIBITS MISBRANDING ARTICLES HELD
FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW
LONG AFTER THE SHIPMENT THE MISBRANDING OCCURRED, HOW MANY INTRASTATE
SALES HAD INTERVENED, OR WHO HAD RECEIVED THE ARTICLES AT THE END OF
THE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT.  ACCORDINGLY WE FIND THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE
RESPONDENT FALLS WITHIN THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 301(K). 

FOURTH.  GIVEN THE MEANING THAT WE HAVE FOUND THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 301(K) TO HAVE, IT IS THOROUGHLY CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL AIMS
AND PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  FOR THE ACT AS A WHOLE WAS DESIGNED PRIMARILY
TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM DANGEROUS PRODUCTS.  THIS COURT SO RECOGNIZED
IN UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277, 282, AFTER REVIEWING THE
HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE BILL THAT BECAME LAW.  ITS
PURPOSE WAS TO SAFEGUARD THE CONSUMER BY APPLYING THE ACT TO ARTICLES
FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALL THE
WAY TO THE MOMENT OF THEIR DELIVERY TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER.  SECTION
301(A) FORBIDS THE "INTRODUCTION OR DELIVERY FOR INTRODUCTION INTO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" OF MISBRANDED OR ADULTERATED DRUGS; SEC. 301(B)
FORBIDS THE MISBRANDING OR ADULTERATION OF DRUGS WHILE "IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE"; AND SEC. 301(C) PROHIBITS THE "RECEIPT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE" OF ANY MISBRANDED OR ADULTERATED DRUG, AND "THE DELIVERY OR
PROFFERED DELIVERY THEREOF FOR PAY OR OTHERWISE."  BUT THESE THREE
PARAGRAPHS ALONE WOULD NOT SUPPLY PROTECTION ALL THE WAY TO THE
CONSUMER.  THE WORDS OF PARAGRAPH (K) "WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS HELD FOR
SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" APPARENTLY WERE DESIGNED TO
FILL THIS GAP AND TO EXTEND THE ACT'S COVERAGE TO EVERY ARTICLE THAT
HAD GONE THROUGH INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNTIL IT FINALLY REACHED THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMER.  DOUBTLESS IT WAS THIS PURPOSE TO INSURE FEDERAL
PROTECTION UNTIL THE VERY MOMENT THE ARTICLES PASSED INTO THE HANDS OF
THE CONSUMER BY WAY OF AN INTRASTATE TRANSACTION THAT MOVED THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE TO REPORT ON THIS SECTION
OF THE ACT AS FOLLOWS:  "IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS
CONTEMPLATED BY THE LAW TO THE FULL EXTENT CONSTITUTIONALLY POSSIBLE,
PARAGRAPH (K) HAS BEEN INSERTED PROHIBITING THE CHANGING OF LABELS SO
AS TO MISBRAND ARTICLES HELD FOR SALE AFTER INTERSTATE SHIPMENT."  N3
WE HOLD THAT SEC. 301(K) PROHIBITS THE MISBRANDING CHARGED IN THE
INFORMATION. 

FIFTH.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ACT AS WE HAVE CONSTRUED IT IS
BEYOND ANY AUTHORITY GRANTED CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT IT
INVADES THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.  A SIMILAR CHALLENGE WAS
MADE AGAINST THE PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 768, AND
REJECTED, IN MCDERMOTT V. WISCONSIN, 228 U.S. 115.  THAT ACT DID NOT
CONTAIN SEC. 301(K), BUT IT DID PROHIBIT MISBRANDING AND AUTHORIZED
SEIZURE OF MISBRANDED ARTICLES AFTER THEY WERE SHIPPED FROM ONE STATE
TO ANOTHER, SO LONG AS THEY REMAINED "UNSOLD."  THE AUTHORITY OF
CONGRESS TO MAKE THIS REQUIREMENT WAS UPHELD AS A PROPER EXERCISE OF
ITS POWERS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THERE ARE TWO VARIANTS BETWEEN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE AND THIS ONE.  IN THE MCDERMOTT CASE THE
LABELS INVOLVED WERE ON THE ORIGINAL CONTAINERS; HERE THE LABELS ARE
REQUIRED TO BE PUT ON OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL CONTAINERS - THE BOXES TO
WHICH THE TABLETS WERE TRANSFERRED.  ALSO, IN THE MCDERMOTT CASE THE
POSSESSOR OF THE LABELED CANS HELD FOR SALE HAD HIMSELF RECEIVED THEM
BY WAY OF AN INTERSTATE SALE AND SHIPMENT; HERE, WHILE THE PETITIONER
HAD RECEIVED THE SULFATHIAZOLE BY WAY OF AN INTRASTATE SALE AND
SHIPMENT, HE BOUGHT IT FROM A WHOLESALER WHO HAD RECEIVED IT AS THE
DIRECT CONSIGNEE OF AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT.  THESE VARIANTS ARE NOT
SUFFICIENT WE THINK TO DETRACT FROM THE APPLICABILITY OF THE MCDERMOTT
HOLDING TO THE PRESENT DECISION.  IN BOTH CASES ALIKE THE QUESTION
RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE TO REGULATE THE BRANDING OF ARTICLES THAT HAVE COMPLETED AN
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT AND ARE BEING HELD FOR FUTURE SALES IN PURELY LOCAL
OR INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THE MCDERMOTT HOLDING
THEREFORE ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE AND PERSUASIVE HERE.  AND MANY CASES
DECIDED SINCE THE MCDERMOTT DECISION LEND SUPPORT TO THE VALIDITY OF
SEC. 301(K).  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. WALSH, 331 U.S. 432; WICKARD
V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111; UNITED STATES V. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315
U.S. 110; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; SEE UNITED STATES V.
OLSEN, 161 F.2D 669.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  301.  THE FOLLOWING ACTS AND THE CAUSING THEREOF ARE
HEREBY PROHIBITED: 

     .         .    .         .         . 

"(K)  THE ALTERATION, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OBLITERATION, OR
REMOVAL OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE LABELING OF, OR THE DOING OF
ANY OTHER ACT WITH RESPECT TO, A FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC, IF
SUCH ACT IS DONE WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RESULTS IN SUCH ARTICLE BEING MISBRANDED."  52
STAT. 1042, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 331(K). 

FN2  THE FOLLOWING INSCRIPTION APPEARED ON THE BOTTLE LABELS AS A
COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 502(F)(1) WHICH REQUIRES DIRECTIONS AS TO USE:
"CAUTION.  - TO BE USED ONLY BY OR ON THE PRESCRIPTION OF A
PHYSICIAN."  THIS WOULD APPEAR TO CONSTITUTE ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS SINCE
IT IS REQUIRED BY REGULATION ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR PURSUANT TO
AUTHORITY OF THE ACT.  21 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 2.106(B)(3).  THE
FOLLOWING APPEARED ON THE LABEL OF THE BOTTLES AS A COMPLIANCE WITH
SEC. 502(F)(2) WHICH REQUIRES WARNINGS OF DANGER:  "WARNING.  - IN SOME
INDIVIDUALS SULFATHIAZOLE MAY CAUSE SEVERE TOXIC REACTIONS.  DAILY
BLOOD COUNTS FOR EVIDENCE OF ANEMIA OR LEUKOPENIA AND URINE
EXAMINATIONS FOR HEMATURIA ARE RECOMMENDED. 

"PHYSICIANS SHOULD FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH THE USE OF THIS
PRODUCT BEFORE IT IS ADMINISTERED.  A CIRCULAR GIVING FULL DIRECTIONS
AND CONTRAINDICATIONS WILL BE FURNISHED UPON REQUEST." 

FN3  H.R. REP. 2139, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., 3. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

THIS CASE HAS BEEN PRESENTED AS IF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND
COSMETIC ACT OF 1938 HAD POSED AN INESCAPABLE DILEMMA.  IT IS SAID THAT
WE MUST EITHER (1) IGNORE CONGRESS' OBVIOUS INTENTION TO PROTECT
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS OF DRUGS THROUGH LABELING REQUIREMENTS LITERALLY AND
PLAINLY MADE APPLICABLE TO THE SALES IN THIS CASE OR (2) MAKE CRIMINAL
EVERY CORNER GROCER WHO TAKES A STICK OF CANDY FROM A PROPERLY LABELED
CONTAINER AND SELLS IT TO A CHILD WITHOUT WRAPPING IT IN A SIMILAR
LABEL. 

THE TROUBLE-MAKING FACTOR IS NOT FOUND IN THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS
RELATING SPECIFICALLY TO DRUGS.  THOSE PROVISIONS TAKEN BY THEMSELVES
ARE CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL IN THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE TO PROTECT THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMER BY THE LABELING REQUIREMENTS.  SO IS THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.  STANDING ALONE, THEREFORE, THE DRUG PROVISIONS WOULD COVER
THIS CASE WITHOUT ROOM FOR SERIOUS QUESTION. 

HOWEVER, THOSE PROVISIONS DO NOT STAND ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT IN THE ACT'S STRUCTURE.  IN SOME RESPECTS, PARTICULARLY IN
SEC. 301(K), THEY ARE INTERLACED WITH PROVISIONS AFFECTING FOOD AND
COSMETICS.  AND FROM THIS FACT IS DRAWN THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS
DECISION NECESSARILY WILL CONTROL FUTURE DECISIONS CONCERNING THOSE
VERY DIFFERENT COMMODITIES. 

IF THE STATUTE AS WRITTEN REQUIRED THIS, FURNISHING NO SUBSTANTIAL
BASIS FOR DIFFERENTIATING SUCH CASES, THE DECISION HERE WOULD BE MORE
DIFFICULT THAN I CONCEIVE IT TO BE.  BUT I DO NOT THINK THE STATUTE HAS
LAID THE TRAP WITH WHICH WE ARE SAID TO BE FACED.  ONLY AN
OVERSIMPLIFIED VIEW OF ITS TERMS AND EFFECTS COULD PRODUCE THAT
RESULT. 

THE ACT IS LONG AND COMPLICATED.  ITS NUMEROUS PROVISIONS TREAT THE
VERY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS OF DRUGS, FOOD AND COSMETICS ALIKE IN SOME
RESPECTS, DIFFERENTLY IN OTHERS.  THE DIFFERENCES ARE AS IMPORTANT AS
THE SIMILARITIES, AND CANNOT BE IGNORED.  MORE IS NECESSARY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE THAN LOOKING MERELY TO THE TERMS OF SECS.
301(K) AND 502(F). 

IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 301(K) DEALS INDISCRIMINATELY WITH FOOD, DRUGS,
DEVICES AND COSMETICS, ON THE SURFACE OF ITS TERMS ALONE.  HENCE IT IS
SAID THAT THE TRANSFER OF SULFATHIAZOLE, A HIGHLY DANGEROUS DRUG, FROM
A BULK CONTAINER TO A SMALL BOX FOR RETAIL SALE, COULD NOT BE "ANY
OTHER ACT" UNLESS A SIMILAR TRANSFER OF CANDIES, USUALLY HARMLESS, ALSO
WOULD BE "ANY OTHER ACT."  FROM THIS HYPOTHESIS IT IS THEN CONCLUDED
THAT THE PHRASE MUST BE INTERPRETED WITH REFERENCE TO THE
PARTICULARITIES WHICH PRECEDE IT, NAMELY, "ALTERATION, MUTILATION,
DESTRUCTION, OBLITERATION OR REMOVAL" OF ANY PART OF THE LABEL, AND
MUST BE LIMITED BY THOSE PARTICULARITIES. 

THAT CONSTRUCTION ALMOST, IF NOT QUITE, REMOVES "ANY OTHER ACT" FROM
THE SECTION.  AND BY DOING SO IT GOES FAR TO EMASCULATE THE SECTION'S
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO DRUGS.  ANY DEALER
HOLDING DRUGS FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE COULD
AVOID THE STATUTE'S EFFECT SIMPLY BY LEAVING THE LABEL INTACT, REMOVING
THE CONTENTS FROM THE BULK CONTAINER, AND SELLING THEM, HOWEVER DEADLY,
IN BROKEN PARCELS WITHOUT LABEL OR WARNING. 

I DO NOT THINK CONGRESS MEANT THE PHRASE TO BE SO DISASTROUSLY
LIMITED.  FOR THE "DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT WITH RESPECT TO, A FOOD,
DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC" IS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 301(K) ONLY "IF SUCH
ACT  ...  RESULTS IN SUCH ARTICLE BEING MISBRANDED."  AND THE STATUTE
PROVIDES, NOT A SINGLE COMMON DEFINITION OF MISBRANDING FOR FOODS,
DRUGS AND COSMETICS, BUT SEPARATE AND DIFFERING SECTIONS ON MISBRANDED
FOODS, MISBRANDED DRUGS AND DEVICES, AND MISBRANDED COSMETICS.  SECS.
403, 502, 602. 

THE TERM "MISBRANDED" AS USED IN SEC. 301(K) THEREFORE IS NOT ONE OF
UNIFORM CONNOTATION.  ON THE CONTRARY, ITS MEANING IS VARIABLE IN
RELATION TO THE DIFFERENT COMMODITIES AND THE SECTIONS DEFINING THEIR
MISBRANDING.  SO ALSO NECESSARILY IS THE MEANING OF "ANY OTHER ACT,"
WHICH PRODUCES THOSE MISBRANDING CONSEQUENCES.  EACH OF THE THREE
MEANING AND INTENDED SCOPE OF APPLICATION FOR SEC. 301(K) IN RELATION
TO THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF COMMODITY INVOLVED IN THE PARTICULAR SALE, IF
CONGRESS' WILL IS NOT TO BE OVERRIDDEN BY BROADSIDE GENERALIZATION
GLOSSED UPON THE STATUTE.  AS MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXPECTED, CONGRESS DID
NOT LUMP FOOD, DRUGS AND COSMETICS IN ONE INDISCRIMINATE HOPPER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF APPLYING SEC. 301(K), EITHER IN RESPECT TO MISBRANDING OR AS
TO "ANY OTHER ACT" WHICH PRODUCES THAT CONSEQUENCE.  BRIEF REFERENCE TO
THE SEVERAL MISBRANDING SECTIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN SEC.
301(K) SUBSTANTIATES THIS CONCLUSION. 

THE THREE SECTIONS CONTAIN SOME COMMON PROVISIONS.  FN1 BUT THE FACT
THAT EACH SECTION IS ALSO DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER TWO IN IMPORTANT
RESPECTS INDICATES THAT EACH BROAD SUBDIVISION OF THE ACT PRESENTS
DIFFERENT PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION.  NEITHER THE MISBRANDED FOODS
DIRECTLY COMPARABLE TO SEC. 502(F), WHICH THE RESPONDENT HERE HAS
VIOLATED.  THAT SECTION, HOWEVER, IS TO BE CONTRASTED WITH SEC. 403(K),
ONE OF THE SUBSECTIONS DEALING WITH MISBRANDED FOODS.  COMPARISON OF
THE TWO PROVISIONS INDICATES THAT THE DOING OF A PARTICULAR ACT WITH
RESPECT TO A DRUG MAY RESULT IN MISBRANDING, WHEREAS THE SAME METHOD OF
SELLING FOOD WOULD BE PROPER. 

MISBRANDED: 

"UNLESS ITS LABELING BEARS (1) ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS FOR USE; AND (2)
SUCH ADEQUATE WARNINGS AGAINST USE IN THOSE PATHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OR
BY CHILDREN WHERE ITS USE MAY BE DANGEROUS TO HEALTH, OR AGAINST UNSAFE
DOSAGE OR METHODS OR DURATION OF ADMINISTRATION OR APPLICATION, IN SUCH
MANNER AND FORM, AS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF USERS:
PROVIDED, THAT WHERE ANY REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE (1) OF THIS PARAGRAPH,
AS APPLIED TO ANY DRUG OR DEVICE, IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION
OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL PROMULGATE REGULATIONS
EXEMPTING SUCH DRUG OR DEVICE FROM SUCH REQUIREMENT." 

THIS PROVISION, DEALING WITH DIRECTIONS FOR USE AND WARNINGS AGAINST
IMPROPER USE, IN TERMS IS DESIGNED "FOR THE PROTECTION OF USERS."  TO
BE EFFECTIVE, THIS PROTECTION REQUIRES REGULATION OF THE LABEL WHICH
THE CONTAINER BEARS WHEN THE DRUG REACHES THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER.  FN2
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE DRAFTSMEN AND SPONSORS
REALIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING DANGEROUS DRUGS PROPERLY LABELED AT
THE TIME OF USE, NOT JUST AT THE TIME OF SALE.  FN3 THE INTENT TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH IS FURTHER EMPHASIZED BY THE LIMITED SCOPE OF
THE PROVISO, WHICH DIRECTS THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE EXEMPTIONS ONLY
WHEN COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE (1) "IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE PUBLIC HEALTH." 

RETAIL GROCER A CRIMINAL," IS VERY DIFFERENT.  BY ITS TERMS FOOD IS
DEEMED TO BE MISBRANDED: 

"IF IT BEARS OR CONTAINS ANY ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING, ARTIFICIAL
COLORING, OR CHEMICAL PRESERVATIVE, UNLESS IT BEARS LABELING STATING
THAT FACT:  PROVIDED, THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PARAGRAPH IS IMPRACTICABLE, EXEMPTIONS SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED BY REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH AND PARAGRAPHS (G) AND (I) WITH RESPECT TO
ARTIFICIAL COLORING SHALL NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF BUTTER, CHEESE, OR
ICE CREAM." 

THE SECTION, IN CONTRAST TO SEC. 502(F)'S COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE OF
DRUGS, APPLIES NOT TO ALL FOODS SHIPPED INTERSTATE, BUT ONLY TO THE
RESTRICTED CLASSES CONTAINING ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING, OR COLORING, OR
CHEMICAL PRESERVATIVES.  THE LABELING REQUIREMENT IS MUCH SIMPLER.  AND
THE PROVISO CONFERS A MUCH BROADER POWER OF EXEMPTION UPON THE
ADMINISTRATOR THAN DOES THE PROVISO OF SEC. 502(F).  UNDER THE LATTER
HE IS GIVEN NO POWER TO EXEMPT ON THE GROUND THAT COMPLIANCE IS
IMPRACTICABLE.  HE CANNOT WEIGH BUSINESS CONVENIENCE AGAINST PROTECTION
OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH.  ONLY WHERE HE FINDS THAT LABELING IS NOT
NECESSARY TO THAT PROTECTION IS HE AUTHORIZED TO CREATE AN EXEMPTION
FOR DRUGS AND DEVICES.  HEALTH SECURITY IS NOT ONLY THE FIRST, IT IS
THE EXCLUSIVE CRITERION. 

UNDER SEC. 403(K), HOWEVER, IN DEALING WITH FOODS THE ADMINISTRATOR
CAN DISPENSE WITH LABELS MUCH MORE BROADLY.  IN TERMS THE CRITERION FOR
HIS ACTION BECOMES "THE EXTENT THAT COMPLIANCE ...  IS IMPRACTICABLE"
RATHER THAN, AS UNDER SEC. 502(F), "WHERE ANY REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE
(1)(ADEQUATE DIRECTIONS FOR USE)  ...  IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH."  PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING
THE BURDEN OF COMPLIANCE BY MANUFACTURERS AND RETAILERS, IRRELEVANT
UNDER SEC. 502(F), BECOME CONTROLLING UNDER SEC. 403(K).  THUS UNDER
THE STATUTE'S INTENT A MUCH MORE RIGID AND INVARIABLE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRUGS IS CONTEMPLATED THAN FOR THOSE WITH
FOODS, APART FROM ITS GREATLY NARROWER COVERAGE OF THE LATTER.  AND THE
DIFFICULTY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH ARTICLES AS
CANDIES EXPLAINS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO PROVISOS.  FN4 

THESE DIFFERENCES, AND PARTICULARLY THE DIFFERENCES IN THE PROVISOS,
HAVE A DIRECT AND AN INTENDED RELATION TO THE PROBLEM OF ENFORCEMENT. 
THE LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR FOODS ARE GIVEN MUCH NARROWER AND MORE
SELECTIVE SCOPE FOR APPLICATION THAN THOSE FOR DRUGS, A DIFFERENCE
MAGNIFIED BY THE CONVERSELY DIFFERING ROOM ALLOWED FOR EXEMPTIONS. 
WHAT IS PERHAPS EQUALLY IMPORTANT, THE PROVISOS ARE RELEVANT TO
ENFORCEMENT BEYOND SPECIFIC ACTION TAKEN BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CREATE
EXEMPTIONS. 

HIS DUTY UNDER BOTH SECTIONS IS CAST IN MANDATORY TERMS.  WHETHER OR
NOT HE CAN BE FORCED BY MANDAMUS TO ACT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS, HIS
FAILURE TO ACT IN SOME WOULD SEEM TO BE CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF HIS
DUTY.  OBVIOUSLY THERE MUST BE MANY MORE INSTANCES WHERE COMPLIANCE
WITH THE LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR FOODS WILL BE "IMPRACTICABLE" THAN
WHERE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VERY DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DRUGS WILL
NOT BE "NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH."  THAT
DIFFERENCE IS OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT FOR ENFORCEMENT, PARTICULARLY BY
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  I THINK IT IS ONE WHICH COURTS ARE ENTITLED TO
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN CALLED UPON TO PUNISH VIOLATIONS.  THE AUTHORS
OF THE LEGISLATION RECOGNIZED EXPRESSLY THAT "TECHNICAL, INNOCENT
VIOLATIONS  ...  WILL FREQUENTLY ARISE."  S. REP. NO. 152, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 4.  IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WILL BE CONDUCT WHICH MAY BE
PROHIBITED BY THE ACT'S LITERAL WORDING, BUT WHICH NEVERTHELESS SHOULD
BE IMMUNE TO PROSECUTION.    WHEN THAT SITUATION ARISES, AS IT OFTEN
MAY WITH REFERENCE TO FOODS, BY VIRTUE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FAILURE
TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTY TO CREATE EXEMPTIONS BEFORE THE DEALER'S
QUESTIONED ACTION TAKES PLACE, THAT FAILURE IN MY JUDGMENT IS A MATTER
FOR THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER PROSECUTION SHOULD
PROCEED.  WHENEVER IT IS MADE TO APPEAR THAT THE VIOLATION IS A
"TECHNICAL, INNOCENT" ONE, AN ACT FOR WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD
HAVE MADE EXEMPTION AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 403(K), THE PROSECUTION SHOULD
BE STOPPED.  THIS COURT HAS NOT HESITATED TO DIRECT RETROACTIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF PRIVATE RIGHTS WHEN THAT UNUSUAL COURSE
SEEMED TO IT THE APPROPRIATE SOLUTION FOR THEIR DETERMINATION.  ADDISON
V. HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUCTS, 322 U.S. 607.  IF THAT IS PERMISSIBLE IN
CIVIL LITIGATION, THERE IS MUCH GREATER REASON FOR THE ANALOGOUS STEP
OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AN ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER'S FAILURE TO ACT WHEN THE COMMANDED ACTION, IF TAKEN, WOULD
HAVE MADE PROSECUTION IMPOSSIBLE. 

IT IS CLEAR THEREFORE THAT THE CORNER GROCER OCCUPIES NO SUCH
POSITION OF JEOPARDY UNDER THIS LEGISLATION AS THE DRUGGIST, AND THAT
THE MEANING OF SEC. 301(K) IS NOT IDENTICAL FOR THE TWO, EITHER AS TO
WHAT AMOUNTS TO MISBRANDING OR AS TO WHAT IS "THE DOING OF ANY  ...
ACT" CREATING THAT RESULT.  THE SUPPOSED DILEMMA IS FALSE.  CONGRESS
HAD POWER TO IMPOSE THE DRUG RESTRICTIONS, THEY ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE
TO THIS CASE, THE DECISION DOES NOT RULE THE CORNER GROCER SELLING
CANDY, AND THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED.  I THEREFORE JOIN IN THE
COURT'S JUDGMENT AND OPINION TO THAT EFFECT. 

FN1  E.G., SECS. 403(A), 502(A) AND 602(A) ARE IN IDENTICAL
LANGUAGE. 

FN2  SEE S. REP. NO. 361, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 19. 

FN3  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2139, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 8. 

FN4  "THE PROVISO OF THIS PARAGRAPH LIKEWISE REQUIRES THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF REGULATIONS EXEMPTING PACKAGES OF ASSORTED FOODS FROM
THE NAMING OF INGREDIENTS OR FROM THEIR APPEARANCE IN THE ORDER OF
PREDOMINANCE BY WEIGHT WHERE, UNDER GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE, LABEL
DECLARATION OF SUCH INFORMATION IS IMPRACTICABLE.  THIS PROVISION WILL
BE PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE, FOR EXAMPLE, TO ASSORTED CONFECTIONS, WHICH
UNDER NORMAL MANUFACTURING PRACTICES MAY VARY FROM PACKAGE TO PACKAGE
NOT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO IDENTITY OF INGREDIENTS BUT ALSO IN REGARD TO
THE RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SUCH INGREDIENTS AS ARE COMMON TO ALL
PACKAGES."  S. REP. NO. 493, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 12.  THE PROVISO
DISCUSSED IS IN SEC. 403(I), NOT IN SEC. 403(K); BUT THE DISCUSSION
BRINGS OUT THE SORT OF CONSIDERATIONS WHICH REQUIRE EXEMPTION WHEN
COMPLIANCE IS IMPRACTICABLE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

IF IT TAKES NINE PAGES TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF A STATUTE, ITS
MEANING CAN HARDLY BE SO CLEAR THAT HE WHO RUNS MAY READ, OR THAT EVEN
HE WHO READS MAY READ.  GENERALITIES REGARDING THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN
TO THE "CLEAR MEANING" OF A STATUTE DO NOT MAKE THE MEANING OF A
PARTICULAR STATUTE "CLEAR."  THE COURT'S OPINION BARELY FACES WHAT, ON
THE BALANCE OF CONSIDERATIONS, SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE CONTROLLING
DIFFICULTY IN ITS RENDERING OF SEC. 301(K) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,
AND COSMETIC ACT, 52 STAT. 1040, 1042; 21 U.S.C. SEC. 331(K).  THAT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RESULTS IN SUCH ARTICLE BEING MISBRANDED."  BUT
AN ARTICLE IS "MISBRANDED" ONLY IF THERE IS "ALTERATION, MUTILATION,
DESTRUCTION, OBLITERATION, OR REMOVAL OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE
LABELING OF, OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT WITH RESPECT TO, A FOOD,
DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC."  HERE THERE WAS NO "ALTERATION, MUTILATION,
DESTRUCTION, OBLITERATION, OR REMOVAL" OF ANY PART OF THE LABEL.  THE
DECISIVE QUESTION IS WHETHER TAKING A UNIT FROM A CONTAINER AND PUTTING
IT IN A BAG, WHETHER IT BE FOOD, DRUG OR COSMETIC, IS DOING "ANY OTHER
ACT" IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THAT PHRASE IS USED IN THE SETTING OF THE
FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT AND PARTICULARLY OF SEC. 301(K). 
FN1 

AS BEARING UPON THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, IT CANNOT BE
THAT A TRANSFER FROM A JAR, THE BULK CONTAINER, TO A SMALL PAPER BAG,
WITHOUT TRANSFERRING THE LABEL OF THE JAR TO THE PAPER BAG, IS "ANY
OTHER ACT" WHEN APPLIED TO A DRUG, BUT NOT "ANY OTHER ACT" WHEN APPLIED
TO CANDIES OR COSMETICS.  BEFORE WE REACH THE POSSIBLE DISCRETION THAT
MAY BE EXERCISED IN PROSECUTING A CERTAIN CONDUCT, IT MUST BE
DETERMINED WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING TO PROSECUTE.  THEREFORE, IT
CANNOT BE PUT OFF TO SOME OTHER DAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER "ANY OTHER
ACT" IN SEC. 301(K) APPLIES TO THE ORDINARY RETAIL SALE OF CANDIES OR
COSMETICS IN EVERY DRUG STORE OR GROCERY THROUGHOUT THE LAND, AND SO
PLACES EVERY CORNER GROCERY AND DRUG STORE UNDER THE HAZARD THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR MAY REPORT SUCH CONDUCT FOR PROSECUTION.  THAT QUESTION
IS NOW HERE.  IT IS PART OF THIS VERY CASE, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT
THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT OF SEC. 301(K) APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE, THROUGH
THE SAME PHRASE, TO FOOD, DRUGS AND COSMETICS INSOFAR AS THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO BE LABELED.  SEE SECS. 403, 502, AND 602 OF THE ACT. 

IT IS THIS INESCAPABLE CONJUNCTION OF FOOD, DRUGS AND COSMETICS IN
THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 301(K) THAT CALLS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF THE
PHRASE "OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT," IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REST OF
THE SENTENCE AND WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE STATES
ARE ALSO DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH AND WELFARE
OF THEIR CITIZENS ON TRANSACTIONS PECULIARLY WITHIN LOCAL ENFORCING
POWERS.  SO CONSIDERED, "THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT" SHOULD BE READ
WITH THE MEANING WHICH RADIATES TO THAT LOOSE PHRASE FROM THE
PARTICULARITIES THAT PRECEDE IT, NAMELY "ALTERATION, MUTILATION,
DESTRUCTION, OBLITERATION, OR REMOVAL" OF ANY PART OF THE LABEL.  TO
DISREGARD ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS AND THEN FIND A "CLEAR MEANING" IS
TO REACH A SUM BY OMITTING FIGURES TO BE ADDED.  THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT, INCLUDING THE EXCERPT FROM THE
COMMITTEE REPORT ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED, TO GIVE THE SLIGHTEST
BASIS FOR INFERRING THAT CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED WHAT THE COURT NOW FINDS
IN THE STATUTE.  THE STATUTE IN ITS ENTIRETY WAS OF COURSE INTENDED TO
PROTECT THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER.  THIS IS NO MORE TRUE IN REGARD TO THE
REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO DRUGS THAN OF THOSE PERTAINING TO FOOD.  AS
TO THE REACH OF THE STATUTE - THE MEANS BY WHICH ITS ULTIMATE PURPOSE
IS TO BE ACHIEVED - THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHEDS PRECISELY THE SAME
LIGHT ON THE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO FOOD AS ON THE PROVISIONS
PERTAINING TO DRUGS.  IF DIFFERENTIATIONS ARE TO BE MADE IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT AND IN THE MEANING WHICH THE ORDINARY PERSON IS
TO DERIVE FROM THE ACT, SUCH DIFFERENTIATIONS ARE INTERPOLATIONS OF
CONSTRUCTION.  THEY ARE NOT EXPRESSIONS BY CONGRESS. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRUCTION
PRESENTED BY THIS ACT, I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 

FN1  "THE ALTERATION, MUTILATION, DESTRUCTION, OBLITERATION, OR
REMOVAL OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE LABELING OF, OR THE DOING OF
ANY OTHER ACT WITH RESPECT TO, A FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC, IF
SUCH ACT IS DONE WHILE SUCH ARTICLE IS HELD FOR SALE AFTER SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RESULTS IN SUCH ARTICLE BEING MISBRANDED." 
..END :






















VON MOLTKE V. GILLIES, 332 U.S. 708 


NO. 73.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 20, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1948.  - 161
F.2D 113, REVERSED. 


UPON AN INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF
1917, THE PENALTY FOR WHICH MAY BE DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT FOR AS LONG AS
30 YEARS, PETITIONER SIGNED A PAPER PURPORTING TO WAIVE HER RIGHT TO
COUNSEL AND PLEADED GUILTY.  SHE WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR FOUR
YEARS.  IN A SUBSEQUENT HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING CHALLENGING THE
VALIDITY OF THE SENTENCE, SHE ALLEGED (1) THAT THE PLEA WAS ENTERED
BECAUSE OF COERCION, INTIMIDATION, AND DECEPTION BY FEDERAL OFFICERS IN
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND (2)
THAT SHE NEITHER UNDERSTANDINGLY WAIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE ADVICE OF
COUNSEL NOR WAS PROVIDED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS REQUIRED BY
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE
OFFERED BY PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT, FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD
FAILED TO PROVE EITHER CONTENTION, AND DISMISSED THE WRIT.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  HELD: 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS SET ASIDE.  THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT SO THAT IT MAY HOLD FURTHER HEARINGS AND GIVE CONSIDERATION TO,
AND MAKE EXPLICIT FINDINGS UPON, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PETITIONER
PLEADED GUILTY IN RELIANCE UPON THE ERRONEOUS LEGAL ADVICE OF A
GOVERNMENT AGENT.  IF UPON SUCH FURTHER HEARINGS AND CONSIDERATION THE
DISTRICT COURT FINDS THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT COMPETENTLY,
INTELLIGENTLY, AND WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPLICATIONS WAIVE
HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AN ORDER SHOULD BE ENTERED
DIRECTING THAT SHE BE RELEASED FROM FURTHER CUSTODY UNDER THE JUDGMENT
BASED ON HER PLEA.  PP. 709-710, 727. 

VON MOLTKE V. GILLIES, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DETROIT HOUSE OF
CORRECTION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE PETITIONER SOUGHT RELEASE
FROM IMPRISONMENT UNDER A SENTENCE UPON HER PLEA OF GUILTY TO AN
INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917, THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  161 F.2D 113.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S.
800.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 727. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN OPINION
IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR. 

THE PETITIONER WAS INDICTED FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE ESPIONAGE
ACT OF 1917.  FN1  THE SPECIFIC CHARGE WAS THAT, IN ORDER TO INJURE THE
UNITED STATES AND TO AID THE GERMAN REICH, SHE AND TWENTY-THREE OTHERS
HAD CONSPIRED DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR TO COLLECT AND DELIVER VITAL
MILITARY INFORMATION TO GERMAN AGENTS. 

WITH NO MONEY TO HIRE A LAWYER AND WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL THE
PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TOLD HIM THAT THE
INDICTMENT HAD BEEN EXPLAINED TO HER, SIGNED A PAPER STATING THAT SHE
WAIVED THE "RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT THE TRIAL OF THIS
CAUSE," AND THEN PLEADED GUILTY.  UNDER HER PLEA SHE COULD HAVE BEEN
SENTENCED TO DEATH OR TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS. 
AFTER THIRTEEN MONTHS IN JAIL FOLLOWING HER PLEA, THE COURT SENTENCED
HER TO FOUR YEARS IN PRISON. 

IN THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING SHE CHARGED THAT THE SENTENCE,
RESTING AS IT DID SOLELY ON HER PLEA OF GUILTY, WAS INVALID FOR TWO
REASONS:  FIRST, SHE ALLEGED THAT THE PLEA WAS ENTERED BY REASON OF THE
COERCION, INTIMIDATION, AND DECEPTION OF FEDERAL OFFICERS IN VIOLATION
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  SECOND, SHE ALLEGED
THAT SHE NEITHER UNDERSTANDINGLY WAIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE ADVICE OF
COUNSEL NOR WAS PROVIDED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS REQUIRED BY
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  AS THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES, THESE CHARGES ENTITLE
THE PETITIONER TO HAVE THE ISSUES HEARD AND DETERMINED IN A HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDING, AND, IF TRUE, INVALIDATE THE PLEA AND SENTENCE.  FN2
THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD EVIDENCE OFFERED BY BOTH THE PETITIONER AND
THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEN FOUND THAT SHE HAD FAILED TO PROVE EITHER
CONTENTION.  72 F.SUPP.  994.  THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  161 F.2D 113. 

ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HE DESIGNATED AS "THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE," THE
DISSENTING JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER HAD PLEADED GUILTY BECAUSE
OF HER RELIANCE UPON THE LEGAL ADVICE OF A FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (FBI) LAWYER-AGENT, WHICH ADVICE "WAS, THOUGH HONESTLY
GIVEN, FALSE."  NEITHER THE DISTRICT COURT NOR THE MAJORITY OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONTROVERTED THIS CONCLUSION OF THE DISSENTING
JUDGE.  A CHALLENGE TO A PLEA OF GUILTY MADE BY AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT,
FOR WHOM NO LAWYER HAS BEEN PROVIDED, ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLEA WAS
ENTERED IN RELIANCE UPON ADVICE GIVEN BY A GOVERNMENT LAWYER-AGENT,
RAISES SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE.  331 U.S. 800. 

IT THUS BECOMES APPARENT THAT DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED DEPENDS UPON WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED.  THERE WAS CONFLICTING
TESTIMONY ON MANY POINTS IN THIS CASE.  WE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE
THESE CONFLICTS.  OUR CONCLUSION IS REACHED FROM THE FOLLOWING FACTS
SHOWN BY THE TESTIMONY OF GOVERNMENT AGENTS OR BY UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE
OFFERED BY PETITIONER. 

THE PETITIONER WAS BORN IN GERMANY.  IN THAT COUNTRY SHE BORE THE
TITLE OF COUNTESS.  SHE AND HER HUSBAND CAME TO THE UNITED STATES IN
DECEMBER, 1926.  SINCE 1930 THEY HAVE LIVED IN DETROIT WHERE THE
PETITIONER HAS BEEN A HOUSEWIFE AND HER HUSBAND AN INSTRUCTOR IN GERMAN
AT WAYNE UNIVERSITY.  HER HUSBAND IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES; HER OWN NATURALIZATION PAPERS HAVE BEEN PENDING FOR SOME
TIME.  THEY HAVE FOUR CHILDREN, THREE OF WHOM WERE BORN IN THIS COUNTRY
AS AMERICAN CITIZENS. 

AUGUST 24, 1943, BETWEEN 6 AND 7 A.M., SIX FBI AGENTS CAME TO THEIR
HOME.  THE PETITIONER WAS IN BED.  SHE WAS INFORMED THAT SHE MUST GET
UP AND GO WITH THEM.  THE HOME WAS SEARCHED WITH HER HUSBAND'S
PERMISSION.  SHE WAS TAKEN TO THE LOCAL OFFICE OF THE FBI,
FINGERPRINTED, PHOTOGRAPHED, AND EXAMINED BY A PHYSICIAN.  FROM THERE
SHE WAS TAKEN TO THE IMMIGRATION DETENTION HOME, PLACED IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT, AND, WITH ONE EXCEPTION NOTED BELOW, NOT PERMITTED TO SEE
OR COMMUNICATE WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE FOR THE NEXT FOUR DAYS.  TWO FBI
AGENTS PERSISTENTLY BUT COURTEOUSLY EXAMINED HER EVERY DAY FROM ABOUT
10 A.M. UNTIL ABOUT 9 P.M.  SHE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT HER ARREST AND
DETENTION EXCEPT THAT SHE WAS BEING HELD INDEFINITELY ON A PRESIDENTIAL
WARRANT "AS A DANGEROUS ENEMY ALIEN."  SHE WAS INFORMED "THAT THE FBI
IS AN INVESTIGATING AGENCY, AND NOT A PROSECUTING, AND AS AN ENEMY
ALIEN I (SHE) WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SEE AN ATTORNEY."  DURING THIS FIRST
PERIOD OF QUESTIONING, THE ONLY RELAXATION OF PETITIONER'S
INCOMMUNICADO STATUS WAS A SINGLE PERMISSION TO RELAY INSTRUCTIONS
THROUGH AN FBI AGENT TO HER HUSBAND WHO WAS TOLD HOW TO LOOK AFTER
THEIR NINE-YEAR-OLD DIABETIC CHILD.  THIS CHILD, FOR WHOM THE MOTHER
HAD SPECIALLY CARED SINCE HIS INFANCY, REQUIRED A STRICT DIET AND
INJECTIONS TWICE DAILY. 

SEPTEMBER 1, EIGHT DAYS AFTER HER EARLY MORNING ARREST, PETITIONER
WAS TAKEN BEFORE AN ENEMY ALIEN HEARING BOARD.  SHE WAS NOT THEN
INFORMED OF ANY SPECIFIC CHARGES AGAINST HER, BUT SHE WAS TOLD THAT SHE
COULD NOT BE "REPRESENTED BY A LEGAL ATTORNEY" AT THE HEARING.  THE
RESULTS OF THIS HEARING WERE NOT MADE KNOWN TO HER.  AT ITS CONCLUSION
SHE WAS RETURNED TO THE DETENTION HOME. 

SEPTEMBER 18 THE PETITIONER WAS HANDED THE INDICTMENT AGAINST HER. 
IN OUR PRINTED RECORD THIS DOCUMENT COVERS A LITTLE MORE THAN FOURTEEN
PAGES.  IT CHARGES GENERALLY, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, THAT THE
TWENTY-FOUR DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE.  IT ALSO
ENUMERATES 47 OVERT ACTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN PURSUANCE OF
THE OBJECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY, FIVE OF WHICH ACTS SPECIFICALLY REFER TO
THE PETITIONER.  FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE MERELY ALLEGE THAT THE PETITIONER
"MET AND CONFERRED WITH" ONE OR MORE OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS; THE FIFTH
ALLEGES THAT SHE "INTRODUCED" SOMEONE TO ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS. 

SEPTEMBER 21, ALMOST A MONTH AFTER HER ARREST, THE PETITIONER AND A
CO-DEFENDANT, MRS. LEONHARDT, WERE TAKEN TO THE COURTHOUSE FOR
ARRAIGNMENT.  UPON BEING TOLD THAT THE TWO DEFENDANTS HAD NO ATTORNEY
AND NO MEANS TO OBTAIN ONE, THE JUDGE SAID HE WOULD APPOINT COUNSEL
RIGHT AWAY AND WOULD NOT ARRAIGN THEM UNTIL THEY HAD SEEN AN ATTORNEY. 
THEY WERE THEN LED "TO THE BULL PEN TO WAIT FOR THE ATTORNEY."  BEFORE
ANY ATTORNEY ARRIVED THEY WERE TAKEN BACK INTO THE COURTROOM.  COURT
WAS IN SESSION.  AS EXPLAINED BY PETITIONER AND CORROBORATED BY OTHERS,
"JUDGE MOINET WAS ON THE BENCH, AND THERE SEEMED TO BE A TRIAL GOING
ON, BECAUSE JUDGE MOINET APPOINTED A LAWYER IN THE COURTROOM.  HE SAID,
'COME HERE, "SO-AND-SO", AND HELP THESE TWO WOMEN OUT,' AND THE YOUNG
LAWYER OBJECTED TO THAT; HE SAID HE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THAT.  BUT THEN HE CONSENTED JUST FOR THE ARRAIGNMENT, TO HELP
OUT, AND HE CAME OVER TO US - WE WERE SITTING ON THE SIDE BENCH - AND
HE ASKED ME, 'HOW DO YOU WANT TO PLEAD?'  I SAID, 'NOT GUILTY.'  AND HE
ASKED MRS. LEONHARDT, AND SHE SAID THE SAME THING.  SO HE TOLD US THAT,
HE WHISPERED TO US, IN FACT, HE WENT OVER IT, WHISPERED THAT IT WOULD
NOT BE ADVISABLE, BUT I DO NOT KNOW EVEN NOW WHY, BUT HE SUGGESTED IT
WOULD BE PROPER TO STAND MUTE."  IN THIS TWO TO FIVE MINUTE WHISPERED
CONVERSATION (THE LAWYER SAID "A COUPLE OF MINUTES") THE LAWYER ASKED
BOTH DEFENDANTS IF THEY "UNDERSTOOD WHAT THIS WAS ALL ABOUT."  THEY
INDICATED THAT THEY DID.  HE DID NOT EVEN SEE THE INDICTMENT, DID NOT
INFORM THE PETITIONER AS TO THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HER OR AS
TO HER POSSIBLE DEFENSES, AND DID NOT INQUIRE IF SHE KNEW THE
PUNISHMENT THAT COULD BE IMPOSED FOR HER ALLEGED OFFENSE.  THE CASE ON
TRIAL WAS THEN INTERRUPTED, THE CHARGE WAS MADE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS,
WHO STOOD MUTE, AND A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY WAS ENTERED.  WITH REFERENCE
TO THEIR FUTURE REPRESENTATION BY AN ATTORNEY, THE PETITIONER'S
UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY WAS THAT THE JUDGE "SAID HE WOULD APPOINT AN
ATTORNEY RIGHT AWAY, AND I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE GENTLEMAN WAS TO BE
EXPECTED TO COME RIGHT AWAY." 

THE TWO WOMEN, UNABLE TO GET OUT ON BOND, WERE THEN IMMEDIATELY TAKEN
FROM THE COURTHOUSE TO THE WAYNE COUNTY JAIL.  THE MATRON THERE
INFORMED THE PETITIONER THAT SHE HAD STRICT ORDERS TO HOLD THE
PETITIONER AND MRS. LEONHARDT "INCOMMUNICADO."  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS
ORDER, HOWEVER, THE FBI AGENTS CONTINUED TO VISIT AND TALK WITH BOTH OF
THEM AND A THIRD DEFENDANT, MRS. BEHRENS, EVERY DAY EXCEPT SUNDAY. 
DURING THIS PERIOD ALL THREE OF THEM WERE ALLOWED TO READ AND DISCUSS
AMONG THEMSELVES THE UNFAVORABLE NEWSPAPER REPORTS WHICH THEIR ARREST
AND INDICTMENT HAD OCCASIONED.  THEY TALKED ALSO WITH THE FBI AGENTS
ABOUT THIS ADVERSE PUBLICITY AND ABOUT HOW THEY SHOULD PLEAD TO THE
CHARGES. 

SEPTEMBER 25, ONE MONTH AND ONE DAY AFTER MRS. VON MOLTKE'S ARREST,
TWO LAWYERS CAME TO THE JAIL TO SEE HER.  THEY HAD BEEN SENT BY HER
HUSBAND.  ONE OF THEM APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN THE HUSBAND'S LANGUAGE
COURSE AT WAYNE UNIVERSITY.  THESE LAWYERS' MESSAGE WAS THE FIRST
COMMUNICATION SHE HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO RECEIVE FROM HER HUSBAND SINCE
HER REMOVAL TO THE COUNTY JAIL.  SHE HAD BEEN SO WELL SHUT OFF FROM THE
OUTSIDE WORLD THAT SHE THOUGHT HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHERE SHE WAS THEN
CONFINED.  THESE LAWYERS INFORMED HER THAT, ALTHOUGH THEY HAD COME AT
HER HUSBAND'S REQUEST, THEY WOULD NOT REPRESENT HER AS COUNSEL. 
FURTHERMORE, THEY WARNED HER THAT THEY WOULD NOT EVEN HOLD WHAT SHE
SAID IN CONFIDENCE, AND THAT THEY WOULD FEEL FREE TO DISCLOSE ANYTHING
SHE TOLD THEM TO THE GOVERNMENT.  ONLY ONE OF THE LAWYERS APPEARED AT
THE TRIAL.  HE TESTIFIED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS CONCERNED DURING THEIR
VISIT FOR HER CHILDREN AND HER HUSBAND, WHOM THE UNIVERSITY HAD REMOVED
FROM HIS $4,000 POSITION THE DAY AFTER HER ARREST.  SHE PARTICULARLY
INQUIRED WHETHER IT WOULD HELP HER HUSBAND TO GET HIS UNIVERSITY
POSITION BACK IF SHE PLEADED GUILTY, BUT RECEIVED NO COUNSEL ON THE
SUBJECT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.  IN FACT, THE LAWYERS EMPHASIZED A NUMBER
OF TIMES THAT THEY COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT ADVISE HER WHAT SHE SHOULD
DO.  ALTHOUGH THEY GAVE HER A FORM OF CROSS-EXAMINATION REGARDING THE
CHARGES AGAINST HER IN THE INDICTMENT, THEY DID NOT ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN
TO HER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE CHARGES, OR TO ADVISE HER AS TO ANY
POSSIBLE DEFENSES TO THEM, OR TO INFORM HER OF THE PERMISSIBLE
PUNISHMENTS UNDER THE INDICTMENT. 

SEPTEMBER 28, THREE DAYS AFTER THE LAWYERS' VISIT, THE PETITIONER AND
MRS. LEONHARDT WERE TAKEN BY FBI AGENTS TO THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE WHERE
THEY TALKED WITH THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABOUT WHAT PLEA THEY
SHOULD ENTER.  MRS. LEONHARDT ANNOUNCED THERE THAT SHE WOULD PLEAD
GUILTY, WHICH PLEA SHE LATER ENTERED, BUT THE PETITIONER FIRST ASKED
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF DISCUSSING THE MATTER WITH HER HUSBAND.  HE CAME
TO THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, WAS ALLOWED TO TALK WITH HIS WIFE IN THE "BULL
PEN," AND ADVISED HER NOT TO DO ANYTHING BEFORE SHE SAW A LAWYER.  SHE
THEN DECLINED TO PLEAD GUILTY AND WAS TAKEN BACK TO JAIL. 

OCTOBER 7, NINE DAYS LATER, SHE DID PLEAD GUILTY WITHOUT HAVING
TALKED TO ANY LAWYER IN THE MEANTIME EXCEPT THE FBI AGENT-ATTORNEYS,
ALTHOUGH SHE HAD SEEN HER HUSBAND SEVERAL MORE TIMES.  A FEW DAYS
BEFORE THE 7TH, MRS. BEHRENS HAD ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY, AND RUMORS
REACHED THE PETITIONER THAT OTHER DEFENDANTS NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT
WOULD ALSO PLEAD GUILTY.  DURING THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE 28TH OF
SEPTEMBER AND PETITIONER'S PLEA OF GUILTY ON THE 7TH OF OCTOBER, THE
FBI MEN HAD TALKED TO HER DAILY.  SHE HAD PARTICULARLY ASKED THEM
WHETHER UNDER UNITED STATES LAW SHE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL IF
ALL HER CO-DEFENDANTS PLEADED GUILTY.  THE AGENT'S REPLY, AS HE
REMEMBERED IT, WAS "THAT THE QUESTION OF THE TRIAL WOULD BE UP TO THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE."  SHE ALSO REPEATEDLY PLIED THE AGENTS
WITH QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT PLEA SHE SHOULD ENTER IN ORDER TO REDUCE AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE INJURIOUS PUBLICITY OF THE AFFAIR, AND WHAT WOULD
BE THE LEAST HARMFUL COURSE TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR HER HUSBAND TO
RECOVER HIS OLD POSITION.  SHE WAS ALSO VITALLY INTERESTED IN WHETHER
SHE WOULD BE DEPORTED, AND WHETHER, IF SHE DID PLEAD GUILTY, HER
SENTENCE COULD BE SERVED CLOSE TO HER FAMILY.  ALL OF THESE SUBJECTS
THE AGENTS TALKED OVER WITH HER IN THEIR DAILY CONVERSATIONS AND ONE OF
THEM OFFERED TO, AND DID, DISCUSS THEM WITH THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY ON HER BEHALF.  FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION, THE AGENT BROUGHT
BACK WORD TO THE PETITIONER THAT THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY COULD
NOT CONTROL DEPORTATION, PUBLICITY, OR THE PLACE OF HER IMPRISONMENT,
BUT THAT IF SHE PLEADED GUILTY HE WOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES AND RECOMMEND THAT SHE BE IMPRISONED CLOSE TO
HER FAMILY.    ABOUT THIS TIME ONE OF THE LAWYER-AGENTS OF THE FBI
DISCUSSED THE PETITIONER'S LEGAL PROBLEMS WITH HER AT GREAT LENGTH. 
ACCORDING TO HIS TESTIMONY HE DID HIS BEST TO EXPLAIN THE IMPLICATIONS
OF THE INDICTMENT.  SHE TOLD THIS AGENT-ATTORNEY ABOUT A STATEMENT SHE
HAD HEARD WHILE IN JAIL THAT UNLESS SHE PLEADED GUILTY HER HUSBAND
WOULD BE INVOLVED, AND SHE ASKED THE AGENT IF THIS WERE TRUE.  HE
REPLIED THAT HE COULD NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION.  SHE ALSO ASKED ONE OF
THE LAWYER-AGENTS WHETHER MERE ASSOCIATION WITH PEOPLE GUILTY OF A
CRIME - SUCH ASSOCIATION AS THAT WITH WHICH SHE WAS CHARGED IN THE FIVE
OVERT ACTS - WAS SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO BRING ABOUT HER CONVICTION
UNDER THE INDICTMENT.  THIS AGENT, ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER, THEN
EXPLAINED THE INDICTMENT TO HER BY THE USE OF A "RUM RUNNERS" PLOT AS
AN EXAMPLE.  SHE TESTIFIED THAT HE SAID:  "THAT IF THERE IS A GROUP OF
PEOPLE IN A 'RUM' PLAN WHO VIOLATE THE LAW, AND ANOTHER PERSON IS THERE
AND THE PERSON DOESN'T KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PLANNING THE VIOLATION
AND DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON, BUT STILL IT SEEMED AFTER TWO YEARS
THIS PLAN IS CARRIED OUT, IN THE LAW THE MAN WHO WAS PRESENT BECOMES
...  THE PERSON NEVERTHELESS IS GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY.  ...  "  THE FBI
AGENT DID NOT DENY THAT HE HAD GIVEN HER THE RUM RUNNER ILLUSTRATION. 
IN FACT, THE AGENT SAID THAT IT WAS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE
CONVERSATION HAD OCCURRED.  FN3 

DURING THE TEN DAYS PRIOR TO HER PLEA OF GUILTY, PETITIONER HAD MANY
CONVERSATIONS WITH FBI AGENTS ABOUT HOW SHE SHOULD PLEAD TO THE
INDICTMENT.  IN RESOLVING HER DOUBTS SHE HAD NO LEGAL COUNSEL UPON WHOM
TO RELY EXCEPT THE GOVERNMENT LAWYER-AGENTS, SINCE NEITHER SHE NOR HER
HUSBAND COULD AFFORD A LAWYER, AND THE COUNSEL PROMISED BY JUDGE MOINET
NEVER APPEARED.  HER CHIEF CONCERN IN TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PLEAD
GUILTY WAS NOT THE INDICTMENT, OR POSSIBLE IMPRISONMENT; AS WAS
TESTIFIED BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS, "SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HER HUSBAND
AND HIS JOB," AND "SHE WAS HOPING TO DO WHATEVER WOULD BE BEST FOR HER
HUSBAND AND HER CHILD."  THAT HER TROUBLED STATE OF MIND WAS RECOGNIZED
BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY IS SHOWN BY THESE LEADING QUESTIONS HE
ASKED HER ON CROSS-EXAMINATION: 

"Q.  NOW, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT UP UNTIL THE TIME YOU PLEAD GUILTY YOU
REPEATEDLY ASKED THE AGENTS FOR ADVICE AS TO WHETHER YOU SHOULD PLEAD
GUILTY OR NOT?  ISN'T THAT TRUE? 

"A.  THERE WAS NOBODY ELSE I COULD ASK. 

"Q.  WELL, JUST SAY YES OR NO. 

"A.  YES." 

OCTOBER 7, HAVING REACHED A TEMPORARY DECISION, SHE WENT WITH TWO OF
THE AGENTS TO THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND TOLD HIM THAT SHE
WANTED TO PLEAD GUILTY.  SINCE JUDGE MOINET WAS NOT AVAILABLE, SHE WAS
TAKEN BEFORE ANOTHER JUDGE WHO WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE CASE.  AT FIRST
HE WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF GUILTY BECAUSE SHE THEN HAD NO LAWYER,
AND THE RECORD BEFORE HIM INDICATED THAT SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY PLEADED NOT
GUILTY UNDER THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.  BUT IN RESPONSE TO THE JUDGE'S
QUESTIONS, SHE SAID THAT SHE UNDERSTOOD THE INDICTMENT AND WAS
VOLUNTARILY ENTERING A PLEA OF GUILTY.  THE JUDGE THEN PERMITTED
PETITIONER TO SIGN A WRITTEN WAIVER OF COUNSEL.  THE WHOLE MATTER
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF BY ROUTINE QUESTIONING WITHIN FIVE
MINUTES DURING AN INTERLUDE IN ANOTHER TRIAL.  IF ANY EXPLANATION OF
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT OR OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HER PLEA
WAS THEN MENTIONED BY THE JUDGE, OR BY ANYONE IN HIS PRESENCE, THE
RECORD DOES NOT SHOW IT.  NOR IS THERE ANYTHING TO INDICATE SHE WAS
INFORMED THAT A SENTENCE OF DEATH COULD BE IMPOSED UNDER THE CHARGES. 
THE JUDGE APPEARS NOT TO HAVE ASKED PETITIONER WHETHER SHE WAS ABLE TO
HIRE A LAWYER, WHY SHE DID NOT WANT ONE, OR WHO HAD GIVEN HER ADVICE IN
CONNECTION WITH HER PLEA.  APPARENTLY HE WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE
PETITIONER'S ONLY LEGAL COUNSEL HAD COME FROM FBI AGENTS. 

PETITIONER CONTINUED THEREAFTER TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER SHE HAD ACTED
WISELY IN CHANGING HER PLEA TO GUILTY.  ON LEARNING IN JANUARY, 1944,
FROM AN FBI AGENT THAT SHE COULD REQUEST PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE
PLEA, SHE SENT MESSAGES TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SEEKING SUCH
PERMISSION.  SOME MONTHS LATER JUDGE MOINET APPOINTED COUNSEL SOLELY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA. 
COUNSEL DID FILE SUCH A MOTION, BUT ITS DISMISSAL AS TARDY  FN4  WAS
REQUIRED BY THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES, EVEN IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN
MADE WHEN PETITIONER FIRST LEARNED OF HER RIGHTS.  HAD THE MOTION TO
WITHDRAW THE PLEA OF GUILTY NOT BEEN TARDY, THE COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED TO CONSIDER IT IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT THIS COURT DECLARED IN
KERCHEVAL V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 220, 223:  "A PLEA OF GUILTY
DIFFERS IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT FROM A MERE ADMISSION OR AN EXTRA
JUDICIAL CONFESSION; IT IS ITSELF A CONVICTION.  ...  OUT OF JUST
CONSIDERATION FOR PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIME, COURTS ARE CAREFUL THAT A
PLEA OF GUILTY SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS MADE VOLUNTARILY AFTER
PROPER ADVICE AND WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSEQUENCES."  FN5 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SOME ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN AGAINST
THE PETITIONER BECAUSE SHE FAILED TO TRY TO APPEAL FROM HER CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE FOLLOWING THE DENIAL OF HER MOTION.  IN VIEW OF HER
COUNSEL'S APPOINTMENT SOLELY FOR "THE PURPOSE OF MOVING THAT SHE BE
ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA" OF GUILTY, IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER HE
HAD AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL FROM HER CONVICTION AND SENTENCE. 
AT LEAST THE APPOINTED COUNSEL DID NOT TAKE AN APPEAL AND HE WAS THE
ONLY LAWYER PETITIONER HAD.  FURTHERMORE, THE FUTILITY OF AN APPEAL
BASED UPON THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO PERMIT THE WITHDRAWAL OF HER
PLEA WAS OBVIOUS, IN VIEW OF HER FAILURE TO MEET THE STRICT
REQUIREMENTS OF RULE II (4).  IT SEEMS PRETTY PLAIN THAT THE PETITIONER
HAS RAISED THE QUESTION HERE IN THE ONLY PROPER WAY - BY HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS. 

WE ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE PETITIONER IS AN
INTELLIGENT, MENTALLY ACUTE WOMAN.  IT IS NOT NOW NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER, AS THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, THE DISTRICT COURT MIGHT
REASONABLY HAVE REJECTED MUCH OF PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY.  NOR NEED WE
PASS UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE EVIDENCE MIGHT HAVE
SUPPORTED A FINDING THAT THE FBI LAWYER-AGENT DID NOT ACTUALLY GIVE HER
THE ERRONEOUS ADVICE THAT MERE ASSOCIATION WITH CRIMINAL CONSPIRATORS
WAS SUFFICIENT IN AND OF ITSELF TO MAKE A PERSON GUILTY OF CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY.  FOR, ASSUMING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TWO LATTER
CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY
PREVIOUSLY SUMMARIZED SHOWS THAT WHEN PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY, SHE
DID NOT HAVE THAT FULL UNDERSTANDING AND COMPREHENSION OF HER LEGAL
RIGHTS INDISPENSABLE TO A VALID WAIVER OF THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

FIRST.  THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THAT AN ACCUSED, UNABLE TO
HIRE A LAWYER, SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS
DEFENSE IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  WALKER V.
JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275, 286; SEE FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134, 136
137.  THIS COURT HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY SOLICITOUS TO SEE THAT THIS
RIGHT WAS CAREFULLY PRESERVED WHERE THE ACCUSED WAS IGNORANT AND
UNEDUCATED, WAS KEPT UNDER CLOSE SURVEILLANCE, AND WAS THE OBJECT OF
WIDESPREAD PUBLIC HOSTILITY.  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45.  THE
PETITIONER'S CASE BRISTLED WITH FACTORS THAT MADE IT ALL THE MORE
ESSENTIAL THAT, BEFORE ACCEPTING A WAIVER OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO COUNSEL, THE COURT BE SATISFIED THAT SHE FULLY COMPREHENDED HER
PERILOUS POSITION.  WE WERE WAGING TOTAL WAR WITH GERMANY.  SHE HAD A
GERMAN NAME.  SHE WAS A GERMAN.  SHE HAD BEEN A GERMAN COUNTESS.  THE
WAR ATMOSPHERE WAS SATURATED AT THAT TIME WITH A SUSPICION AND FEAR OF
GERMANS.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT WHILE THIS COUNTRY WAS AT WAR
WITH GERMANY AND JAPAN THE PETITIONER HAD CONSPIRED WITH OTHERS TO
BETRAY OUR MILITARY SECRETS TO GERMANY.  SHE HAD BEEN KEPT IN CLOSE
CONFINEMENT SINCE HER ARREST.  MANY OF HER ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS HAD
ALREADY PLEADED GUILTY.  IF FOUND GUILTY, SHE COULD HAVE BEEN, AND MANY
PEOPLE MIGHT THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN, LEGALLY PUT TO DEATH AS PUNISHMENT
FOR VIOLATION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT.  IF NOT EXECUTED, SHE COULD HAVE
BEEN IMPRISONED FOR THIRTY YEARS OR FOR SUCH SHORTER PERIOD AS THE
JUDGE IN HIS DISCRETION MIGHT FIX.  EVEN WHEN THE TRIAL COURT WAS ABOUT
TO IMPOSE SENTENCE ON THIS PETITIONER FOLLOWING HER PLEA OF GUILTY, A
LAWYER MIGHT HAVE RENDERED HER INVALUABLE AID IN CALLING TO THE COURT'S
ATTENTION ANY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT HAVE INCLINED HIM TO
FIX A LIGHTER PENALTY FOR HER.  ANYONE CHARGED WITH ESPIONAGE IN
WARTIME UNDER THE STATUTE IN QUESTION WOULD HAVE SORELY NEEDED A
LAWYER; MRS. VON MOLTKE, IN PARTICULAR, DESPERATELY NEEDED THE BEST SHE
COULD GET. 

SECOND.  A WAIVER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IS OF NO LESS MOMENT TO AN ACCUSED WHO MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO
PLEAD GUILTY THAN TO AN ACCUSED WHO STANDS TRIAL.  SEE WILLIAMS V.
KAISER, 323 U.S. 471, 475.  PRIOR TO TRIAL AN ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO
RELY UPON HIS COUNSEL TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS,
CIRCUMSTANCES, PLEADINGS AND LAWS INVOLVED AND THEN TO OFFER HIS
INFORMED OPINION AS TO WHAT PLEA SHOULD BE ENTERED.  DETERMINING
WHETHER AN ACCUSED IS GUILTY OR INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES IN A COMPLEX
LEGAL INDICTMENT IS SELDOM A SIMPLE AND EASY TASK FOR A LAYMAN, EVEN
THOUGH ACUTELY INTELLIGENT.  CONSPIRACY CHARGES FREQUENTLY ARE OF BROAD
AND CONFUSING SCOPE, AND THAT IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF CONSPIRACIES
UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT.  SEE, E.G., GORIN V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S.
19; UNITED STATES V. HEINE, 151 F.2D 813.  AND ESPECIALLY MISLEADING TO
A LAYMAN ARE THE OVERT ACT ALLEGATIONS OF A CONSPIRACY.  SUCH CHARGES
ARE OFTEN, AS IN THIS INDICTMENT, MERE STATEMENTS OF PAST ASSOCIATIONS
OR CONFERENCES WITH OTHER PERSONS, WHICH ACTIVITIES APPARENTLY ARE
ENTIRELY HARMLESS STANDING ALONE.  A LAYMAN READING THE OVERT ACT
CHARGES OF THIS INDICTMENT MIGHT REASONABLY THINK THAT ONE COULD BE
CONVICTED UNDER THE INDICTMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE HAD, IN PERFECT
INNOCENCE, ASSOCIATED WITH SOME CRIMINAL AT THE TIME AND PLACE
ALLEGED.  THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT PETITIONER WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT MANY OF THESE LEGAL QUESTIONS - SUCH AS THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OVERT ACT CHARGES, AND HER POSSIBILITIES OF DEFENSE
SHOULD ALL HER CO-DEFENDANTS PLEAD GUILTY - EMPHASIZES HER NEED FOR THE
AID OF COUNSEL AT THIS STAGE. 

THIRD.  IT IS THE SOLEMN DUTY OF A FEDERAL JUDGE BEFORE WHOM A
DEFENDANT APPEARS WITHOUT COUNSEL TO MAKE A THOROUGH INQUIRY AND TO
TAKE ALL STEPS NECESSARY TO INSURE THE FULLEST PROTECTION OF THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  JOHNSON V.
ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 463; HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271, 278.  THIS DUTY
CANNOT BE DISCHARGED AS THOUGH IT WERE A MERE PROCEDURAL FORMALITY.  IN
POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, THE TRIAL COURT, INSTEAD OF APPOINTING
COUNSEL PARTICULARLY CHARGED WITH THE SPECIFIC DUTY OF REPRESENTING THE
DEFENDANTS, APPOINTED THE ENTIRE LOCAL BAR.  THIS COURT TREATED SUCH A
CAVALIER DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL AS A MERE GESTURE, AND DECLINED TO
RECOGNIZE IT AS A COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE RELIED ON
IN THAT CASE.  IT IS IN THIS LIGHT THAT WE VIEW THE APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER WHEN SHE WAS ARRAIGNED.  THIS LAWYER, APPARENTLY
RELUCTANT TO ACCEPT THE CASE AT ALL, AGREED TO REPRESENT HER ONLY WHEN
PROMISED BY THE JUDGE THAT IT WOULD TAKE ONLY TWO OR THREE MINUTES TO
PERFORM HIS DUTY.  AND IT SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN NO LONGER.  EVEN THOUGH
WE ASSUME THAT THIS ATTORNEY DID THE VERY BEST HE COULD UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL BY THE
TRIAL COURT AS ANYTHING MORE THAN TOKEN OBEDIENCE TO HIS
CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED DUTY TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER. 
ARRAIGNMENT IS TOO IMPORTANT A STEP IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING TO GIVE
SUCH WHOLLY INADEQUATE REPRESENTATION TO ONE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.  THE
HOLLOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION AT A STAGE SO
IMPORTANT AS ARRAIGNMENT MIGHT BE ENOUGH IN ITSELF TO CONVINCE ONE LIKE
PETITIONER, WHO PREVIOUSLY HAD NEVER SET FOOT IN AN AMERICAN COURTROOM,
THAT A WAIVER OF THIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NO GREAT LOSS - JUST ANOTHER
LEGALISTIC FORMALITY.  WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S
ARGUMENT THAT THE MOMENTARY APPOINTMENT OF THE LAWYER FOR ARRAIGNMENT
PURPOSES SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION THAT THE PETITIONER INTELLIGENTLY
WAIVED HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  IN FACT, THAT COURT EPISODE POINTS IN THE
OTHER DIRECTION, FOR THE JUDGE THEN TOLD THE PETITIONER THAT HE WOULD
APPOINT ANOTHER LAWYER "RIGHT AWAY" FOR HER - WHICH HE NEVER DID UNTIL
LONG AFTER SHE HAD PLEADED GUILTY, TOO LATE TO DO HER ANY GOOD. 

FOURTH.  WE HAVE SAID:  "THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO BE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL INVOKES, OF ITSELF, THE PROTECTION OF A TRIAL
COURT, IN WHICH THE ACCUSED - WHOSE LIFE OR LIBERTY IS AT STAKE - IS
WITHOUT COUNSEL.  THIS PROTECTING DUTY IMPOSES THE SERIOUS AND WEIGHTY
RESPONSIBILITY UPON THE TRIAL JUDGE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS AN
INTELLIGENT AND COMPETENT WAIVER BY THE ACCUSED."  FN6  TO DISCHARGE
THIS DUTY PROPERLY IN LIGHT OF THE STRONG PRESUMPTION AGAINST WAIVER OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL,  FN7  A JUDGE MUST INVESTIGATE AS
LONG AND AS THOROUGHLY AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE HIM
DEMAND.  THE FACT THAT AN ACCUSED MAY TELL HIM THAT HE IS INFORMED OF
HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND DESIRES TO WAIVE THIS RIGHT DOES NOT
AUTOMATICALLY END THE JUDGE'S RESPONSIBILITY.  TO BE VALID SUCH WAIVER
MUST BE MADE WITH AN APPREHENSION OF THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES, THE
STATUTORY OFFENSES INCLUDED WITHIN THEM, THE RANGE OF ALLOWABLE
PUNISHMENTS THEREUNDER, POSSIBLE DEFENSES TO THE CHARGES AND
CIRCUMSTANCES IN MITIGATION THEREOF, AND ALL OTHER FACTS ESSENTIAL TO A
BROAD UNDERSTANDING OF THE WHOLE MATTER.  A JUDGE CAN MAKE CERTAIN THAT
AN ACCUSED'S PROFESSED WAIVER OF COUNSEL IS UNDERSTANDINGLY AND WISELY
MADE ONLY FROM A PENETRATING AND COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH A PLEA IS TENDERED.   THIS CASE
GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATES THAT A MERE ROUTINE INQUIRY - THE ASKING OF
SEVERAL STANDARD QUESTIONS FOLLOWED BY THE SIGNING OF A STANDARD
WRITTEN WAIVER OF COUNSEL - MAY LEAVE A JUDGE ENTIRELY UNAWARE OF THE
FACTS ESSENTIAL TO AN INFORMED DECISION THAT AN ACCUSED HAS EXECUTED A
VALID WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  AND THIS CASE SHOWS THAT SUCH
ROUTINE INQUIRIES MAY BE INADEQUATE ALTHOUGH THE CONSTITUTION "DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES COUNSEL BE FORCED UPON A
DEFENDANT."  CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173, 174-175.  FOR THE RECORD
DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PETITIONER WELCOMED LEGAL AID FROM ALL POSSIBLE
SOURCES; THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NECESSITY FOR FORCING COUNSEL ON
HER. 

TWICE THE COURT DID DESIGNATE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER.  THE FIRST
OCCASION WAS UPON HER ARRAIGNMENT.  PETITIONER APPEARS WILLINGLY TO
HAVE COOPERATED WITH THIS APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR THE TWO OR THREE
MINUTES HE WAS CALLED UPON TO ACT.  THE SECOND OCCASION WAS WHEN
COUNSEL WAS NAMED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MOVING TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA
OF GUILTY.  NOTWITHSTANDING HER UNFORTUNATE FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH COURT
APPOINTED COUNSEL AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT COUNSEL WAS NOT DESIGNATED
THE SECOND TIME UNTIL IT WAS OBVIOUSLY MONTHS TOO LATE TO SUBMIT THIS
MOTION UNDER THE PROCEDURAL RULES, THERE IS NO COMPLAINT THAT THE
PETITIONER FAILED TO COOPERATE WITH HIM.  AND THE RECORD IS FILLED WITH
EVIDENCE FROM MANY WITNESSES THAT THE PETITIONER PERSISTENTLY SOUGHT
LEGAL ADVICE FROM ALL OF THE VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHE WAS
PERMITTED TO SEE DURING THE PERIOD OF HER CLOSE INCARCERATION BEFORE
HER PLEA OF GUILTY WAS ENTERED.  IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT
WHEN SHE DID PLEAD GUILTY THE SLIGHTEST DEVIATION FROM THE COURT'S
ROUTINE PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE REVEALED THE PETITIONER'S PERPLEXITY AND
DOUBT.  FOR THE TESTIMONY OF ALL THE WITNESSES POINTS UNERRINGLY TO THE
EXISTENCE OF THE UNCERTAINTY WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY JUST BELOW THE SURFACE
OF THE PETITIONER'S STATEMENTS TO THE JUDGE. 

FIFTH.  THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION
CONTEMPLATES THE SERVICES OF AN ATTORNEY DEVOTED SOLELY TO THE
INTERESTS OF HIS CLIENT.  GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 70. 
BEFORE PLEADING GUILTY THIS PETITIONER UNDOUBTEDLY RECEIVED ADVICE AND
COUNSEL ABOUT THE INDICTMENT AGAINST HER, THE LEGAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED
IN A UNDER IT, AND MANY OTHER MATTERS CONCERNING HER CASE.  THIS
COUNSEL CAME SOLELY FROM GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES, SOME OF WHOM WERE
LAWYERS.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THESE REPRESENTATIVES WERE UNIFORMLY
COURTEOUS TO HER, ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THEY EVER
DEVIATED IN THE SLIGHTEST FROM THE COURSE DICTATED BY THEIR LOYALTY TO
THE GOVERNMENT AS ITS AGENTS.  IN THE COURSE OF HER ASSOCIATION WITH
THESE AGENTS, SHE APPEARS TO HAVE DEVELOPED A GREAT CONFIDENCE IN
THEM.  SOME OF THEIR EVIDENCE INDICATES A LIKE CONFIDENCE IN HER.  FN8 

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT PRISONERS SHALL BE
DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT AGENTS FOR LEGAL COUNSEL AND AID, HOWEVER
CONSCIENTIOUS AND ABLE THOSE AGENTS MAY BE.  UNDIVIDED ALLEGIANCE AND
FAITHFUL, DEVOTED SERVICE TO A CLIENT ARE PRIZED TRADITIONS OF THE
AMERICAN LAWYER.  FN9  IT IS THIS KIND OF SERVICE FOR WHICH THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT MAKES PROVISION.  AND NOWHERE IS THIS SERVICE DEEMED MORE
HONORABLE THAN IN CASE OF APPOINTMENT TO REPRESENT AN ACCUSED TOO POOR
TO HIRE A LAWYER, EVEN THOUGH THE ACCUSED MAY BE A MEMBER OF AN
UNPOPULAR OR HATED GROUP, OR MAY BE CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE WHICH IS
PECULIARLY ABHORRENT. 

THE ADMITTED CIRCUMSTANCES HERE CANNOT SUPPORT A HOLDING THAT
PETITIONER INTELLIGENTLY AND UNDERSTANDINGLY WAIVED HER RIGHT TO
COUNSEL.  SHE WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL OTHER THAN THAT GIVEN HER BY
GOVERNMENT AGENTS.  SHE IS STILL ENTITLED TO THAT COUNSEL BEFORE HER
LIFE OR HER LIBERTY CAN BE TAKEN FROM HER. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID REPRESENTS THE VIEWS OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE.  THEY
WOULD THEREFORE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
SET ASIDE THE PRIOR JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND DIRECT THAT
COURT TO GRANT THE PETITIONER'S PRAYER FOR RELEASE FROM FURTHER
IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE JUDGMENT BASED ON HER PLEA OF GUILTY.  MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN
A SEPARATE OPINION, AGREE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED, AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S PRIOR
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE, BUT THEY ARE OF THE OPINION THAT, AFTER
SETTING ASIDE ITS JUDGMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD FURTHER CONSIDER,
AND MAKE EXPLICIT FINDINGS ON, THE QUESTIONS OF FACT DISCUSSED IN THE
SEPARATE OPINION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS SET ASIDE.  THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT SO THAT IT MAY HOLD FURTHER HEARINGS AND GIVE CONSIDERATION TO,
AND MAKE EXPLICIT FINDINGS ON, THE QUESTIONS OF FACT DISCUSSED IN THE
SEPARATE OPINION.  IF UPON SUCH FURTHER HEARINGS AND CONSIDERATION THE
DISTRICT COURT FINDS THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT COMPETENTLY,
INTELLIGENTLY, AND WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPLICATIONS, WAIVE
HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AN ORDER SHOULD BE ENTERED
DIRECTING THAT SHE BE RELEASED FROM FURTHER CUSTODY UNDER THE JUDGMENT
BASED ON HER PLEA.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SECTION 32 DEFINES THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME OF ESPIONAGE.  SECTION
34 DECLARES CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE SEC. 32 TO BE UNLAWFUL.  40 STAT.
217, 50 U.S.C. SECS. 32, 34. 

FN2  WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101; WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S.
275, 286; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 467; CF. SUNAL V. LARGE, 332
U.S. 174, 177. 

FN3  "Q.  AND DID YOU DURING THAT DISCUSSION USE A ILLUSTRATION ABOUT
A RUM RUNNER? 

"A.  WELL, I HEARD MRS. VON MOLTKE SAY THAT, AND SINCE SHE DID I HAVE
BEEN TRYING TO RECALL, AND I CANNOT REMEMBER SUCH AN ILLUSTRATION. 

"Q.  I SEE. 

"A.  BUT IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT MRS. VON MOLTKE'S MEMORY IS BETTER
THAN MINE, AND I MAY HAVE USED SUCH AN ILLUSTRATION." 

FN4  RULE II (4) OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER
1, 1934, THEN REQUIRED SUCH MOTIONS TO BE FILED WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER
ENTRY OF THE PLEA AND BEFORE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE.  SWIFT V. UNITED
STATES, 79 U.S. APP. D.C. 387, 148 F.2D 361; SEE HOOD V. UNITED STATES,
152 F.2D 431, 435; UNITED STATES V. ACHTNER, 144 F.2D 49, 52.  IT HAS
SINCE BEEN LIBERALIZED BY RULE 32(D) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 1946. 

PETITIONER'S BRIEF STATES THAT THE COURT DENIED HER MOTION TO WITHDRAW
THE PLEA OF GUILTY "WITHOUT TAKING ANY TESTIMONY OR PERMITTING
PETITIONER TO TAKE THE STAND  ...  "  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT CHALLENGED
THAT STATEMENT.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD WHICH INDICATES THAT
THE JUDGE ALLOWED ANY WITNESSES TO TESTIFY ON THE MOTION.  NEVERTHELESS
THE JUDGE, "AFTER CONSIDERATION OF SAID MOTION AND OF THE ARGUMENTS
PRESENTED," MADE PURPORTED FINDINGS OF FACT TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE HAD
PLEADED GUILTY "AFTER DUE AND CAREFUL DELIBERATION" AND THAT AT THE
TIME SHE ENTERED THE PLEA SHE "THOROUGHLY UNDERSTOOD THE NATURE OF THE
CHARGE CONTAINED IN THE INDICTMENT."  NEITHER THE MAJORITY NOR THE
MINORITY OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFERRED TO THESE SO
CALLED "FINDINGS" AS A SUPPORT FOR DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE
PLEA OF GUILTY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SIMPLY JUSTIFIED THE
DENIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE MOTION WAS FILED "FAR TOO LATE." 

FN5  ON THIS SAME SUBJECT SEE ORFIELD, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FROM ARREST
TO APPEAL (1947) AT 300: "SINCE A PLEA OF GUILTY IS A CONFESSION IN
OPEN COURT AND A WAIVER OF TRIAL, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN RECEIVED WITH
GREAT CAUTION.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO SEE THAT THE DEFENDANT
THOROUGHLY UNDERSTANDS THE SITUATION AND ACTS VOLUNTARILY BEFORE
RECEIVING IT."  SEE ALSO 4 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES AT* 329:  "UPON A
SIMPLE AND PLAIN CONFESSION, THE COURT HATH NOTHING TO DO BUT TO AWARD
JUDGMENT; BUT IT IS USUALLY VERY BACKWARD IN RECEIVING AND RECORDING
SUCH CONFESSION, OUT OF TENDERNESS TO THE LIFE OF THE SUBJECT; AND WILL
GENERALLY ADVISE THE PRISONER TO RETRACT IT AND PLEAD TO THE
INDICTMENT," AND BOWYER, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF
ENGLAND (1846) AT 355:  "THE CIVIL LAW WILL NOT ALLOW A MAN TO BE
CONVICTED ON HIS BARE CONFESSION, NOT CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE OF HIS
GUILT, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY INDUCE AN INNOCENT
MAN TO ACCUSE HIMSELF." 

FN6  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 465; SEE ALSO ADAMS V. UNITED
STATES EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 270. 

FN7  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 464; GLASSER V. UNITED STATES,
315 U.S. 60, 70. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN9  AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL
ETHICS, CANON 15:  "THE LAWYER OWES 'ENTIRE DEVOTION TO THE INTEREST OF
THE CLIENT, WARM ZEAL IN THE MAINTENANCE AND DEFENSE OF HIS RIGHTS AND
THE EXERTION OF HIS UTMOST LEARNING AND ABILITY,' TO THE END THAT
NOTHING BE TAKEN OR BE WITHHELD FROM HIM, SAVE BY THE RULES OF LAW,
LEGALLY APPLIED.  NO FEAR OF JUDICIAL DISFAVOR OR PUBLIC UNPOPULARITY
SHOULD RESTRAIN HIM FROM THE FULL DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTY.  IN THE
JUDICIAL FORUM THE CLIENT IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY AND EVERY
REMEDY AND DEFENSE THAT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW OF THE LAND, AND HE
MAY EXPECT HIS LAWYER TO ASSERT EVERY SUCH REMEDY OR DEFENSE." 

CANON 4:  "A LAWYER ASSIGNED AS COUNSEL FOR AN INDIGENT PRISONER
OUGHT NOT TO ASK TO BE EXCUSED FOR ANY TRIVIAL REASON, AND SHOULD
ALWAYS EXERT HIS BEST EFFORTS IN HIS BEHALF." 

SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON JOINS. 

THE APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE TURNS FOR ME ON THE TRUTH OF
PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION THAT SHE WAS ADVISED BY AN F.B.I. AGENT, ACTIVE
IN THE CASE, THAT ONE WHO MERELY ASSOCIATED, HOWEVER INNOCENTLY, WITH
PERSONS WHO WERE PARTIES TO A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WAS EQUALLY GUILTY. 

WE ARE DEALING, NO DOUBT, WITH A PERSON OF INTELLECTUAL ACUTENESS. 
BUT IT WOULD BE VERY RARE, INDEED, EVEN FOR AN EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT
LAYMAN TO HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING NECESSARY TO DECIDE WHAT COURSE WAS
BEST CALCULATED TO SERVE HER INTERESTS WHEN CHARGED WITH PARTICIPATION
IN A CONSPIRACY.  THE TOO EASY ABUSES TO WHICH A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY
MAY BE PUT HAVE OCCASIONED WEIGHTY ANIMADVERSION BY THE CONFERENCE OF
SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES.  REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1925, PP. 5-6;
AND SEE ALSO THE OBSERVATIONS OF JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN UNITED STATES V.
FALCONE, 109 F.2D 579, 581; AFFIRMED IN 311 U.S. 205.  THE SUBTLETIES
OF REFINED DISTINCTIONS TO WHICH A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY MAY GIVE RISE
ARE REFLECTED IN THIS COURT'S DECISIONS.  SEE, E.G., KOTTEAKOS V.
UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 750.  BECAUSE OF ITS COMPLEXITY, THE LAW OF
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, AS IT HAS UNFOLDED, IS MORE DIFFICULT OF
COMPREHENSION BY THE LAITY THAN THAT WHICH DEFINES OTHER TYPES OF
CRIMES.  THUS, AS MAY HAVE BEEN TRUE OF PETITIONER, AN ACCUSED MIGHT BE
FOUND IN THE NET OF A CONSPIRACY BY REASON OF THE RELATION OF HER ACTS
TO ACTS OF OTHERS, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHICH SHE MAY NOT HAVE
APPRECIATED, AND WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THE APPLICATION OF CRITERIA MORE
DELICATE THAN THOSE WHICH DETERMINE GUILT AS TO THE USUAL SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSES.  ACCORDINGLY, IF AN F.B.I. AGENT, ACTING AS A MEMBER OF THE
PROSECUTION, GAVE HER, HOWEVER HONESTLY, CLEARLY ERRONEOUS LEGAL ADVICE
FN1  WHICH MIGHT WELL HAVE INDUCED HER TO BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS GUILTY
UNDER THE LAW AS EXPOUNDED TO HER BY ONE WHO FOR HER REPRESENTED THE
GOVERNMENT, A PERSON IN THE PETITIONER'S SITUATION MIGHT WELL HAVE
THOUGHT A DEFENSE FUTILE AND THE MERCY OF THE COURT HER BEST HOPE. 
SUCH MIGHT HAVE BEEN HER CONCLUSION, HOWEVER INNOCENT SHE MAY HAVE
DEEMED HERSELF TO BE.  I COULD NOT REGARD A PLEA OF GUILTY MADE UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MADE WITHOUT EITHER THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL
EXCLUSIVELY REPRESENTING HER OR AFTER A SEARCHING INQUIRY BY THE COURT
INTO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT LAY BEHIND IT, AS HAVING BEEN MADE ON THE
NECESSARY BASIS OF INFORMED, SELF-DETERMINED CHOICE. 

OF COURSE AN ACCUSED "IN THE EXERCISE OF A FREE AND INTELLIGENT
CHOICE, AND WITH THE CONSIDERED APPROVAL OF THE COURT  ...  MAY  ...
COMPETENTLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE" HIS RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX
REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 275; AND SEE PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281
U.S. 276, AND JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458.  THERE MUST BE BOTH THE
CAPACITY TO MAKE AN UNDERSTANDING CHOICE AND AN ABSENCE OF SUBVERTING
FACTORS SO THAT THE CHOICE IS CLEARLY FREE AND RESPONSIBLE.  IF THE
CHOICE IS BECLOUDED, WHETHER BY DURESS OR BY MISLEADING ADVICE, HOWEVER
HONESTLY OFFERED BY A MEMBER OF THE PROSECUTION, A PLEA OF GUILTY
ACCEPTED WITHOUT MORE THAN WHAT THIS RECORD DISCLOSES CAN HARDLY BE
CALLED A REFUSAL TO PUT THE INNER FEELING OF INNOCENCE TO THE FAIR TEST
OF THE LAW WITH INTELLIGENT AWARENESS OF CONSEQUENCES.  THEREFORE, IF
THE F.B.I. AGENT HAD ADMITTED THAT THE PETITIONER ACCURATELY STATED HIS
ADVICE TO HER, OR IF THE DISTRICT COURT UPON A CONFLICT OF TESTIMONY
HAD FOUND THAT MEMORY OR TRUTH LAY WITH THE PETITIONER, I COULD NOT
ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE
PETITIONER'S PLEA OF GUILTY WAS ACCEPTED DID NOT MEASURE UP TO THE
SAFEGUARDS HERETOFORE ENUNCIATED BY THIS COURT FOR ACCEPTING A PLEA OF
GUILTY, ESPECIALLY WHERE A SENTENCE OF DEATH WAS AT HAZARD. 

ON THE RECORD AS WE HAVE IT, HOWEVER, I CANNOT TELL WHETHER THE
ADVICE WHICH, IF GIVEN, WOULD HAVE COLORED THE PLEA OF GUILTY WAS
ACTUALLY GIVEN.  IF THE UNREVEALING WORDS OF THE COLD RECORD SPOKE TO
ME WITH THE CLARITY WHICH THEY CONVEY TO FOUR OF MY BRETHREN, I SHOULD
AGREE THAT THE PETITIONER MUST BE DISCHARGED.  CONVERSELY, IF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION CONVEYED TO ME THE FINDINGS WHICH IT RADIATES
TO MY OTHER BRETHREN, I TOO WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED.    UNFORTUNATELY, THE RECORD DOES NOT GIVE ME A FIRM BASIS
FOR JUDGMENT REGARDING THE CRUCIAL ISSUE OF THE F.B.I. AGENT'S ADVICE
TO THE PETITIONER.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE AGENT, WHO WAS ALSO A
LAWYER, DID TALK WITH HER AND DID DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES WITH HER.  BUT
HE NEITHER ADMITTED NOR DENIED WHETHER, IN THE COURSE OF HIS
DISCUSSIONS WITH HER, HE EXPOUNDED THE LAW SO AS HARDLY TO LEAVE HER
ESCAPE, HOWEVER INNOCENT UNDER A CORRECT VIEW OF THE LAW SHE MAY HAVE
BEEN.  HE DID NOT EVEN SUGGEST THAT EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT REMEMBER, HE
WAS CONFIDENT THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN HER THE KIND OF MISLEADING
LEGAL INFORMATION SHE ATTRIBUTED TO HIM.  ON THE CONTRARY, HE ADDED
THAT "IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT MRS. VON MOLTKE'S MEMORY IS BETTER THAN
MINE."  FN2  FROM THE DEAD PAGE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE REST OF THE
AGENT'S TESTIMONY, THIS SUGGESTS A SCRUPULOUS WITNESS.  BUT I CANNOT
NOW RECREATE HIS TONE OF VOICE OR THE GLOSS THAT PERSONALITY PUTS UPON
SPEECH.  THEREFORE I AM UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PETITIONER
PLEADED GUILTY IN RELIANCE ON THE PALPABLY ERRONEOUS ADVICE OF AN
F.B.I. LAWYER-AGENT WHO, AS THE SYMBOL OF THE PROSECUTION, OWED IT TO
AN ACCUSED IN PETITIONER'S POSITION TO GIVE HER ACCURATE GUIDANCE, IF
HE GAVE ANY. 

NOR DOES THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S OPINION RESOLVE THESE DIFFICULTIES FOR
ME.  FROM WHAT HE WROTE IT WOULD BE THE MOST TENUOUS GUESSING WHETHER
HE REJECTED THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT OF THE F.B.I. AGENT'S COUNSELLING
OR WHETHER HE DID NOT ATTACH TO THAT ISSUE THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE WHICH
I DEEM CONTROLLING.  FN3  SINCE THE RECORD AFFORDS NEITHER RESOLVING
EVIDENCE NOR THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING ON WHAT I DEEM TO BE THE
CIRCUMSTANCE OF CONTROLLING IMPORTANCE, I WOULD SEND THE CAUSE BACK TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO A SPECIFIC
FINDING OF FACT REGARDING THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE
F.B.I. AGENT, WITH AS CLOSE A RECREATION OF THE INCIDENT AS IS NOW
POSSIBLE. 

FN1  THIS IS THE PRECISE TESTIMONY:  "THAT IF THERE IS A GROUP OF
PEOPLE IN A 'RUM' PLAN WHO VIOLATE THE LAW, AND ANOTHER PERSON IS THERE
AND THE PERSON DOESN'T KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PLANNING THE VIOLATION
AND DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON, BUT STILL IT SEEMED AFTER TWO YEARS
THIS PLAN IS CARRIED OUT, IN THE LAW THE MAN WHO WAS PRESENT BECOMES
...  THE PERSON NEVERTHELESS IS GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY."  THE LAW, OF
COURSE, IS PRECISELY TO THE CONTRARY.  UNITED STATES V. FALCONE, 311
U.S. 205, 210. 

FN2  "Q.  AND DID YOU (THE F.B.I. AGENT) DURING THAT DISCUSSION USE A
ILLUSTRATION ABOUT A RUM RUNNER? 

"A.  WELL, I HEARD MRS. VON MOLTKE SAY THAT, AND SINCE SHE DID I HAVE
BEEN TRYING TO RECALL, AND I CANNOT REMEMBER SUCH AN ILLUSTRATION. 

"Q.  I SEE. 

"A.  BUT IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT MRS. VON MOLTKE'S MEMORY IS BETTER
THAN MINE, AND I MAY HAVE USED SUCH AN ILLUSTRATION." 

FN3  THE DISTRICT JUDGE INDICATED ABANDONMENT OF THE CHARGES THAT THE
"AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION MISLEAD HER OR MADE
PROMISES TO HER THAT, WHICH AT LEAST (IN) SOME DEGREE, INFLUENCED HER
ACTION IN PLEADING GUILTY TO THE CHARGE," BUT "FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
RECORD" HE STATED "MOST VIGOROUSLY THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN
THE TESTIMONY SUSTAINING SUCH CHARGES OR IMPLICATIONS."  WHILE IT DOES
APPEAR, FROM THE RECORD, THAT PETITIONER ABANDONED HER CHARGE OF
COERCION, THERE IS NOTHING TO BUTTRESS THE SUGGESTION THAT SHE
ABANDONED THE CHARGE THAT SHE HAD BEEN MISLED BY THE AGENT, AND I
THEREFORE READ THE STATEMENT AS REFERRING TO THREATS OR PROMISES TO
INDUCE CONFESSION BY THE PETITIONER.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE GAVE NO
INTIMATION WHATEVER THAT IN HIS VIEW THE PLEA OF GUILTY IN CONNECTION
WITH ALL THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN
INTELLIGENTLY TENDERED, IF IN FACT IT WAS INFLUENCED BY THE F.B.I.
AGENT'S EXPOSITION OF THE LAW, AS ASSERTED BY THE PETITIONER.  NOWHERE
IS THERE A SUGGESTION THAT ALTHOUGH THE AGENT WAS NOT PREPARED TO SAY
HER MEMORY OF THE INTERVIEW WAS FALSE OR INCORRECT, THE DISTRICT JUDGE
REJECTED HER ACCOUNT. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED
CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

AS THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE ARE FACTUAL AND DEAL LARGELY WITH THE
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, THE BINDING FORCE OF THIS DECISION AS A
PRECEDENT IS NARROW.  HOWEVER, TO GUARD AGAINST UNDUE EXTENSION OF ITS
INFLUENCE, A RECORDED DISSENT SEEMS JUSTIFIED. 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEST THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER IF SHE
ESTABLISHES, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT EITHER HER LONG CONSIDERED AND
UNEQUIVOCAL PLEA OF GUILTY IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER FOR
VIOLATION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT OR HER WRITTEN AND OTHERWISE CLEARLY
STATED WAIVER OF COUNSEL IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT FREELY,
INTELLIGENTLY AND KNOWINGLY MADE.  THE GOVERNMENT VIGOROUSLY CONTENDS
THAT SHE HAS FAILED IN THIS PROCEEDING TO ESTABLISH EITHER OF THOSE
FACTS.  WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  SHE HAS FAILED TO DO SO AND,
HAVING SO FAILED, SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELEASE.  THE PRINTED RECORD
DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT.  THE UNIFORM FINDINGS OF
FACT AGAINST HER BY THE THREE TRIAL JUDGES WHO SEPARATELY SAW AND HEARD
HER ARE AMPLY SUSTAINABLE. 

THE PETITIONER MADE HER PLEA OF GUILTY AND FILED HER WAIVER OF
COUNSEL IN OPEN COURT BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR F. LEDERLE ON
OCTOBER 7, 1943.  IN NOVEMBER, 1944, AFTER CONSIDERATION AND DENIAL OF
HER MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA OF GUILTY, SHE WAS SENTENCED
BY DISTRICT JUDGE EDWARD J. MOINET.  SHE HAS MADE NO DIRECT ATTACK ON
THE JUDGMENT AGAINST HER.  ACCORDINGLY, BEFORE CONSIDERING THE
EXCEPTIONAL BURDEN OF PROOF WHICH SHE MUST BEAR IN MAKING A COLLATERAL
ATTACK UPON THAT JUDGMENT MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER IT WAS ENTERED, IT IS
WELL TO EXAMINE THE PROCESS OF LAW WHICH LED UP TO THIS JUDGMENT. 

AT HER ARRAIGNMENT, SEPTEMBER 21, 1943, BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE EDWARD
J. MOINET, SHE WAS ASSIGNED COUNSEL TO ASSIST HER DURING THE
ARRAIGNMENT.  SUCH COUNSEL ADVISED HER TO STAND MUTE.  SHE DID SO.
THIS CONDUCT PRESERVED HER FULL RIGHTS AND IT HAS NOT PREJUDICED HER
POSITION.  A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY WAS ENTERED FOR HER.  THIS LEFT HER
FREE TO STAND BY IT OR TO CHANGE IT TO A PLEA OF GUILTY AS SHE LATER
DID.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT OTHER COUNSEL COULD HAVE DONE MORE
FOR HER THAN WAS DONE.  SHE THUS WAS MADE AWARE THAT THE COURT WOULD
ASSIGN COUNSEL TO ASSIST HER.  IN FACT SHE TESTIFIED THAT, AFTER THE
ARRAIGNMENT, "JUDGE MOINET SAID HE WOULD APPOINT AN ATTORNEY RIGHT
AWAY, AND I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE GENTLEMAN WAS TO BE EXPECTED TO COME
RIGHT AWAY."  THIS REFERRED TO THE PERIOD AFTER HER ARRAIGNMENT. 

IN ADDITION TO THIS CONTACT WITH THE ATTITUDE OF THE COURT ON THE
SUBJECT OF COUNSEL, SHE FREQUENTLY DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT OF COUNSEL
WITH HER HUSBAND.  HE HIMSELF HAD SOME LEGAL EDUCATION.  SHE ALSO
TALKED WITH TWO LAWYER FRIENDS OF HER HUSBAND WHO CAME TO SEE HER AS
FRIENDS, ALTHOUGH NOT PROFESSIONALLY.  SHE LIKEWISE DISCUSSED HER
SITUATION ON MANY OCCASIONS WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND OCCASIONALLY WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.  SHE REPEATEDLY WAS URGED BY HER HUSBAND NOT TO
DO ANYTHING UNTIL SHE HAD CONSULTED WITH AN ATTORNEY.  ON THE BASIS OF
THIS ADVICE, SHE DECIDED NOT TO PLEAD GUILTY ON SEPTEMBER 28, ALTHOUGH
SEVERAL OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THE SAME PROCEEDING HAD DONE SO.  SHE
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS ABOUT HER HUSBAND'S ADVICE AND ABOUT HER DECISION
OF SEPTEMBER 28: 

"Q.  HE TOLD YOU TO GET A LAWYER? 

"A.  YES; HE SAID I SHOULD NOT (PLEAD GUILTY) BEFORE I HAVE SEEN AN
ATTORNEY; ON SUCH A QUESTION I SHOULD TALK TO AN ATTORNEY FIRST ABOUT
THE WHOLE THING. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"A.  MY HUSBAND SAID TO WAIT UNTIL A LAWYER COMES OUT. 

"Q.  AND YOU DECIDED NOT TO PLEAD GUILTY BECAUSE OF THAT? 

"A.  BECAUSE OF THAT, YES." 

SEVERAL DAYS LATER SHE FINALLY DETERMINED TO PLEAD GUILTY.  ON
OCTOBER 7, 1943, SHE EXPRESSLY WAIVED COUNSEL, BOTH IN OPEN COURT AND
IN WRITING.  AS TO THIS SHE LATER WAS ASKED ON THE STAND: 

"Q.  SO, DURING THE WEEK YOU DECIDED TO DISREGARD THE ADVICE THAT
YOUR HUSBAND HAD GIVEN YOU? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"Q.  YOU MADE THAT DECISION; YES OR NO? 

"A.  YES." 

IN OTHER WORDS, SHE HAD DISCUSSED HER SITUATION TO HER OWN
SATISFACTION TO THE POINT WHERE SHE HAD REACHED A CONCLUSION BOTH AS TO
HER PLEA OF GUILTY AND AS TO HER WISH TO WAIVE COUNSEL.  THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT REQUIRED OR PERMITTED COUNSEL TO BE
THRUST UPON HER AGAINST HER WISHES.  SHE HAD A RIGHT TO DECIDE THAT SHE
DID NOT WANT TO DISCUSS HER CASE FURTHER WITH ANYONE.  THE ISSUE WAS
NOT THEN AND IS NOT NOW WHETHER SHE MIGHT HAVE BEEN BENEFITED BY HAVING
COUNSEL.  SHE WAS AN "INTELLIGENT, MENTALLY ACUTE WOMAN" AND, FOR
REASONS OF HER OWN, SHE MADE UP HER MIND THAT SHE WISHED TO PLEAD
GUILTY AND TO WAIVE COUNSEL.  IF SHE DID THIS FREELY, INTELLIGENTLY AND
KNOWINGLY, THAT WAS HER RIGHT AND THAT ACTION SHOULD BE FINAL, SUBJECT
ONLY TO A MOTION TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA IN REGULAR COURSE BY DUE PROCESS
OF LAW OR TO APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT RENDERED ON HER PLEA.  UNDER THE
RULES OF THE COURT, ANY WITHDRAWAL OF HER PLEA HAD TO BE MADE WITHIN
TEN DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF SUCH PLEA AND BEFORE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED. 
RULES FOR CRIMINAL APPEALS, RULE II (4), 292 U.S. 662.  THIS WAS NOT
DONE.  JUDGE LEDERLE, TO GUARD AGAINST ANY MISUNDERSTANDING, ON OCTOBER
7, 1943, SPECIALLY INQUIRED IF SHE DESIRED THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 
SHE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.  HE THEN INQUIRED AS TO WHAT HER PLEA
WAS.  SHE ANSWERED GUILTY.  IN ADDITION, SHE SUBMITTED A WRITTEN WAIVER
OF COUNSEL.  THE COURT THEN DEFERRED SENTENCE AND REFERRED THE CASE TO
THE UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICER FOR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT. 
AMPLE TIME WAS TAKEN FOR THIS. 

IN JUNE, 1944, SHE WAS TAKEN BEFORE JUDGE MOINET BEFORE WHOM SHE
ORIGINALLY HAD BEEN ARRAIGNED.  SHE THEN ADVISED HIM THAT SHE WISHED TO
CHANGE HER PLEA.  THE JUDGE INFORMED HER THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO
REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL AND THAT AN ATTORNEY OUGHT TO MAKE A MOTION
FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA AND THAT, IF SHE HAD A PREFERENCE
AS TO COUNSEL, HE WOULD APPOINT SUCH COUNSEL AS SHE DESIRED HIM TO
APPOINT.  THE MATTER WAS LEFT IN ABEYANCE WHILE SHE TRIED TO SELECT
COUNSEL.  ON JULY 3, 1944, SHE WROTE TO JUDGE MOINET, ADVISING HIM THAT
SHE HAD NO PREFERENCE AND THE COURT SOON THEREAFTER APPOINTED COUNSEL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING HER MOTION.  THE ASSISTANCE RENDERED BY SUCH
COUNSEL IS NOT CRITICIZED.  HE SECURED FROM JUDGE MOINET NOT MERELY A
RULING UPON THE PROCEDURAL POINT AS TO THE UNTIMELINESS OF HER MOTION,
BUT ALSO SPECIFIC FINDINGS BEARING UPON ITS MERITS.  THIS ORDER MADE BY
JUDGE MOINET, ABOUT A YEAR AFTER HER ARRAIGNMENT BEFORE HIM, IS
SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF ITS DIRECT RELATION TO THE ISSUE NOW BEFORE THE
COURT.  HIS ORDER READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"THIS CAUSE HAVING COME ON FOR HEARING UPON THE MOTION OF THE
DEFENDANT GRAFIN MARIANNA VON MOLTKE FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW HER PLEA OF
GUILTY, HERETOFORE ENTERED, AND FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY
TO THE INDICTMENT FILED HEREIN, THE MATTER AFTER HEARING, HAVING BEEN
SUBMITTED, THE COURT, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF SAID MOTION AND OF THE
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES HERETO,
SPECIFICALLY FINDS: 

"1.  THAT THE DEFENDANT GRAFIN MARIANNA VON MOLTKE WAS PROPERLY
ADVISED OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE COURT, BOTH PRIOR TO AND AT
THE TIME SHE ENTERED HER PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE INDICTMENT; 

"2.  THAT THE PLEA OF GUILTY, ENTERED SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE FILING
OF THE INDICTMENT AND HER ARRAIGNMENT THEREON, WAS SUBMITTED AFTER DUE
AND CAREFUL DELIBERATION; 

"3. THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS ADVISED OF AND THOROUGHLY UNDERSTOOD THE
NATURE OF THE CHARGE CONTAINED IN THE INDICTMENT FILED IN THIS CAUSE; 

"4.  THAT NO PROMISES OR INDUCEMENTS OR THREATS WERE MADE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE PLEA OF GUILTY, AND THAT THE ENTRY OF THE PLEA
OF GUILTY WAS NOT DUE TO ANY MISREPRESENTATIONS; 

"5.  THAT THE MOTION PRAYING FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA OF GUILTY
WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD FIXED BY RULE II (4) ADOPTED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

"WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE SAID MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA
OF GUILTY ENTERED BY THE DEFENDANT GRAFFIN (GRAFIN) MARIANNA VON MOLTKE
IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE, BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DENIED." 

THIS WAS IN NOVEMBER, 1944.  JUDGE MOINET ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHETHER
SHE HAD ANYTHING TO SAY WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST
HER, AND, NO SUFFICIENT REASON TO THE CONTRARY BEING SHOWN OR APPEARING
TO THE JUDGE, HE SENTENCED HER TO IMPRISONMENT FOR FOUR YEARS.  SHE
BEGAN SERVING HER SENTENCE.  HOWEVER, AFTER A DETERMINATION HAD BEEN
MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN 1945, LOOKING TOWARD HER REMOVAL AND
REPATRIATION TO GERMANY, SHE, IN 1946, FILED A PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS MAKING THE PRESENT COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS.  WE, THEREFORE, ARE ASKED TO REVIEW HERE THE FACTUAL
FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT MADE IN APRIL, 1946, THROUGH DISTRICT
JUDGE ERNEST A. O'BRIEN IN THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING AND, BY WAY OF
COLLATERAL ATTACK, TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE SAME DISTRICT COURT,
TAKEN IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING THROUGH JUDGE LEDERLE IN OCTOBER,
1943, AND THROUGH JUDGE MOINET IN NOVEMBER, 1944.  WHILE SUCH
PROCEEDINGS BY HABEAS CORPUS, BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, ARE
VITAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THE PROTECTION OF OUR
JUDICIAL PROCESS AGAINST THE MAKING, IN THIS WAY, OF UNJUSTIFIED
ATTACKS UPON SUCH PROCESS IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO THE PRESERVATION OF
THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE.  EACH ATTEMPTED ATTACK CALLS FOR
THE CAREFUL WEIGHING NOT ONLY OF THE CLAIMS MADE, BUT ALSO OF THE PROOF
SUBMITTED TO SUSTAIN EACH CLAIM.    IN NOW ATTACKING COLLATERALLY THE
UNAPPEALED AND DELIBERATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF 1944, A HEAVY BURDEN
OF PROOF RESTS UPON THE PETITIONER TO ESTABLISH THE INVALIDITY OF HER
ORIGINAL PLEA AND WAIVER.  THE ESSENTIAL PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
WHICH ATTACHES TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE REBUTTED. 
JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 468-469; HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271,
279.  JUDGE O'BRIEN RECOGNIZED THE STRENGTH OF THIS PRESUMPTION AND THE
HEAVY BURDEN OF PROOF TO BE BORNE BY THE PETITIONER.  HE THEREFORE HELD
EXTENDED HEARINGS AT WHICH THE PETITIONER AND MANY OTHERS APPEARED AS
WITNESSES.  THE EVIDENCE INCLUDED A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING THAT THE TRIAL
JUDGE IN ACCEPTING THE PETITIONER'S PLEA OF GUILTY IN THE ORIGINAL
PROCEEDING HAD DONE SO ONLY AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF, BY CAREFUL
QUESTIONING, THAT THE PLEA WAS NOT THE RESULT OF THREATS OR PROMISES
AND THAT, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THE PETITIONER HAD
VOLUNTARILY WAIVED THAT RIGHT.  FN1  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THESE
HEARINGS JUDGE O'BRIEN FOUND NOT ONLY THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO
SUSTAIN THE BURDEN RESTING UPON HER, BUT THAT THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS WAS AGAINST HER. 

HIS STATEMENT AS THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IS
IMPRESSIVE AND ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT HERE: 

"IN THE PETITION FILED IN THIS CAUSE THE PETITIONER DIRECTLY OR BY
IMPLICATION CHARGES THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAVING THE CASE IN
CHARGE AND AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION MISLEAD
(MISLED) HER OR MADE PROMISES TO HER THAT WHICH AT LEAST (IN) SOME
DEGREE, INFLUENCED HER ACTION IN PLEADING GUILTY TO THE CHARGE.  I AM
OF THE OPINION THAT THESE CHARGES HAVE NOW BEEN ABANDONED BY THE
PETITIONER BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD I WISH TO STATE MOST
VIGOROUSLY THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE TESTIMONY
SUSTAINING SUCH CHARGES OR IMPLICATIONS.  THE CONDUCT OF BOTH THE
OFFICIALS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE AGENTS OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WERE METICULOUS IN SAFEGUARDING THE
RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER AND THAT THE RECORD IS UTTERLY BARE OF ANY
SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS. 

"THE PETITIONER IS A WOMAN OBVIOUSLY OF GOOD EDUCATION AND ABOVE THE
AVERAGE IN INTELLIGENCE.  HER KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH WAS FLUENT AND
AMPLE.  SHE HAD DISCUSSED THE CASE WITH VARIOUS PEOPLE BEFORE THE PLEA
OF GUILTY WAS ENTERED.  IN FACT, AT HER OWN REQUEST, SHE HAD A
CONFERENCE WITH THE CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHEREIN SHE
ENDEAVORED TO SECURE FROM HIM SOME PROMISES OF LENIENCY AND CONVENIENCE
AS AN INDUCEMENT TO A PLEA OF GUILTY.  THESE ADVANCEMENTS BY THE
PETITIONER WERE, OF COURSE, REPUDIATED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND SHE
WAS INFORMED OF THE OFFICIALS WHO HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER IN
ADVENT (THE EVENT) OF HER PLEA OF GUILTY. 

"THE CHIEF CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER WAS THAT HER WAIVER OF HER
RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT COMPETENTLY AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE.  THE PLEA
WAS TAKEN BEFORE JUDGE ARTHUR LEDERLE OF THIS DISTRICT.  THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED THAT THE JUDGE INQUIRED OF HER IF SHE UNDERSTOOD THE CHARGES
MADE IN THE INDICTMENT.  SHE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  THE JUDGE
INQUIRED IF SHE DESIRED THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  SHE ANSWERED IN THE
NEGATIVE.  THE JUDGE THEN INQUIRED WHAT WAS HER PLEA.  SHE ANSWERED
GUILTY.  IN ADDITION TO THIS SHE SUBMITTED A SIGNED WAIVER STATING THAT
SHE DID NOT DESIRE COUNSEL. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE PETITIONER
INTELLIGENTLY AND KNOWINGLY WAIVED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  IT WAS
HER OBLIGATION TO SUSTAIN THE ALLEGATIONS OF HER PETITION BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.  NOT ONLY HAS SHE FAILED IN THIS, BUT I
BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING AGAINST HER CONTENTIONS.  THE
PETITIONER IS AN INTELLIGENT, MENTALLY ACUTE WOMAN.  SHE UNDERSTOOD THE
CHARGE AND THE PROCEEDINGS.  SHE FREELY, INTELLIGENTLY AND KNOWINGLY
WAIVED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  I CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THERE IS
NO MERIT IN HER PETITION AND THAT IT SHALL BE DISMISSED TOGETHER WITH
THE WRIT."  (72 F.SUPP.  994, 995, 997.) 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE
PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  THAT JUDGMENT IS NOW BROUGHT
HERE AND WE ARE CALLED UPON TO MAKE A FURTHER REVIEW OF THE FACTUAL
CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS. 

DUE PROCESS OF LAW CALLS FOR AN EQUAL REGARD BY US FOR THE INTERESTS
OF THE GOVERNMENT AND OF THE PETITIONER IN SEEKING THE NEAREST POSSIBLE
APPROXIMATION TO THE TRUTH.  NECESSARILY WE HAVE ONLY THE PRINTED
RECORD HERE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TRIAL JUDGE, FACED BY THE SAME
ISSUES, HEARD SPOKEN THE WORDS WE NOW READ.  HE SAW THE ORIGINAL
INSTRUMENTS THAT WE NOW SEE REPRODUCED.  HE OBSERVED THE CONDUCT AND
EXPRESSIONS OF THE PETITIONER AND OF THE OTHER WITNESSES WHEREAS WE
CANNOT MAKE AN INFORMED INDEPENDENT CONJECTURE AS TO SUCH CONDUCT OR
EXPRESSIONS.  FROM THE LIVING RECORD HE FOUND THE FACTUAL ISSUES
OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST THE PETITIONER. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PRINTED RECORD SUFFICIENT TO CONVINCE US
THAT, IF WE HAD SEEN THE WITNESSES AND HEARD THE TESTIMONY, WE WOULD
NOT HAVE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION.  MUCH LESS IS THERE ANYTHING IN
IT THAT CONVINCES US THAT, NOT HAVING SEEN OR HEARD IT MADE, WE ARE
JUSTIFIED IN REVERSING HIS FINDINGS WHICH WERE BASED UPON MORE THAN CAN
BE BEFORE US.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE BELIEVE THAT THE TRUTH IS
MORE NEARLY APPROXIMATED AND JUSTICE IS MORE SURELY SERVED BY READING
THE PRINTED RECORD IN THE STRONG LIGHT OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S FACTUAL
CONCLUSIONS THAN BY ATTEMPTING TO INTERPRET THAT RECORD WITHOUT GIVING
LARGE EFFECT TO HIS CONCLUSIONS AS TO ITS CREDIBILITY AND TO THE
INFERENCES HE HAS DRAWN FROM IT.  THE AID TO THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE
TRUTH TO BE DERIVED FROM THE TRIAL COURT'S IMPARTIAL OBSERVATION OF THE
WITNESSES SHOULD NOT BE DISSIPATED IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEW.  HIS
APPRAISAL OF THE LIVING RECORD IS ENTITLED TO PROPORTIONATELY MORE
RATHER THAN LESS, RELIANCE THE FURTHER THE REVIEWING COURT IS REMOVED
FROM THE SCENE OF THE TRIAL.  SEE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. PACE, 320
U.S. 698, 701; UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 319 U.S. 503, 518; WILLIAMS
MFG. CO. V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP., 316 U.S. 364, 367; DELANEY V.
UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 586, 589-590. 

HER STATUS AS AN ENEMY ALIEN DOES NOT, IN ITSELF, AFFECT HER RIGHT TO
COUNSEL OR THE INFORMED CHARACTER OF HER PLEA OF GUILTY AND HER WAIVER
OF COUNSEL.  THE FACT THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST HER WAS UNDER THE
ESPIONAGE ACT AND THEREFORE CARRIED A TECHNICAL POSSIBILITY OF THE
DEATH PENALTY DID NOT AT ANY TIME INTRODUCE A PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION
THAT SHE WAS IN ACTUAL DANGER OF SUFFERING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  SHE
ACCURATELY FORECAST THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF HER SENTENCE AND WAS
CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH THE WISH THAT HER SENTENCE BE SERVED NEAR HER
FAMILY.  AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY STATED THAT HE WOULD WRITE A
LETTER RECOMMENDING THAT SHE BE IMPRISONED CLOSE TO HER FAMILY. 

WHILE A CONSPIRACY IS EXCEPTIONALLY DIFFICULT TO DEFINE IN ALL ITS
LEGAL AND FACTUAL COMPLEXITIES, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION
THAT PREVENTS AN ACCUSED FROM FREELY, INTELLIGENTLY AND KNOWINGLY
CHOOSING TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THAT, AS WELL AS TO OTHER COMPLEX CHARGES,
FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE ACCUSED, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO STANDING
TRIAL ON THAT CHARGE.  THIS WAS HER RIGHT.  HAVING THUS POSITIVELY
DECIDED NOT TO STAND TRIAL SHE DID NOT REQUIRE COUNSEL IN ORDER FREELY,
INTELLIGENTLY AND KNOWINGLY TO WAIVE COUNSEL. 

OUR CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
GOVERNMENT CALL FOR CAREFUL AND SYMPATHETIC OBSERVANCE OF THE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW THAT IS GUARANTEED TO ALL ACCUSED PERSONS, INCLUDING
ENEMY ALIENS LIKE THE PETITIONER.  THE CONSTITUTION, HOWEVER, WAS
ADOPTED ALSO IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC
TRANQUILITY, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF
LIBERTY TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AS A WHOLE.  TO THAT END, IT
IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO REVIEW WITH SYMPATHETIC UNDERSTANDING THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS AS CONSTITUTIONALLY ADMINISTERED BY OUR COURTS.  WHILE
THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT ARE NOT READY TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW
ON THE RECORD AS IT STANDS, THEIR DECISION TO REMAND THE CASE FOR
FURTHER FINDINGS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ESTABLISHED AND SALUTARY GENERAL
PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND IN
FAVOR OF A TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
ARE TO BE RELAXED. 

FN1  SEE ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 276
277. 
..END :





LEE V. MISSISSIPPI, 332 U.S. 742 


NO. 91.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 21, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1948.  - 201
MISS.  423, 30 SO.2D 74, REVERSED. 


1.  A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A STATE COURT, WHO
TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NOT IN FACT CONFESSED, IS NOT THEREBY PRECLUDED
FROM RAISING THE ISSUE THAT AN ALLEGED CONFESSION OFFERED AS EVIDENCE
WAS COERCED AND THAT A CONVICTION OBTAINED BY THE USE THEREOF DENIED
HIM DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 742-746. 

2.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INVALIDATES A
STATE COURT CONVICTION GROUNDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON A CONFESSION
WHICH IS THE PRODUCT OF OTHER THAN REASONED AND VOLUNTARY CHOICE.  P.
745. 

3.  FORECLOSING THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN OF THE USE OF AN ALLEGEDLY
COERCED CONFESSION BECAUSE OF INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY AS TO THE
CONFESSION WOULD ITSELF BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP. 745
746. 

LEE V. MISSISSIPPI. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

PETITIONER'S CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A STATE COURT,
CLAIMED TO HAVE DENIED HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  201 MISS.  423, 30 SO.2D 74. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 795.  REVERSED, P. 746. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
DOES A DEFENDANT IN A STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING LOSE THE RIGHT TO
CONTEND THAT A CONFESSION WAS COERCED BECAUSE OF HIS TESTIMONY THAT THE
CONFESSION WAS IN FACT NEVER MADE? 

PETITIONER, A 17-YEAR-OLD NEGRO, WAS INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY IN
MISSISSIPPI ON A CHARGE OF ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO RAVISH A FEMALE OF
PREVIOUS CHASTE CHARACTER.  DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, THE STATE
OFFERED THE TESTIMONY OF TWO CITY DETECTIVES AS TO AN ALLEGED ORAL
CONFESSION OBTAINED BY THEM FROM PETITIONER.  OBJECTION WAS MADE THAT
THIS CONFESSION HAD BEEN SECURED AS THE RESULT OF DURESS, THREATS AND
VIOLENCE INFLICTED UPON PETITIONER BY TWO UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICERS
SEVERAL HOURS PRIOR TO THE CONFESSION.  THE JURY RETIRED AND A
PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE AS TO THE
VOLUNTARINESS OF THIS CONFESSION.  AFTER VARIOUS WITNESSES APPEARED,
INCLUDING THE PETITIONER HIMSELF, THE JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT THE
CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY AND THAT THE TESTIMONY IN RELATION THERETO WAS
ADMISSIBLE.  THIS TESTIMONY PROVED TO BE THE CRUCIAL ELEMENT LEADING TO
THE JURY'S CONVICTION OF PETITIONER.  HIS SENTENCE WAS FIXED AT 18
YEARS IN PRISON. 

THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION ON APPEAL,
REJECTING PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
TESTIMONY IN QUESTION CONTRAVENED HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  IT STATED THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE TWO UNIDENTIFIED OFFICERS
ALLEGED TO HAVE STRUCK AND THREATENED PETITIONER WAS, IF TRUE,
INDEFENSIBLE AND WARRANTED CONDEMNATION.  BUT IT FELT THAT "THE ISSUE
OF FACT AS WELL AS CREDIBILITY WAS FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE UPON SUCH
PRELIMINARY QUALIFICATION, AND WE ARE NOT WILLING TO DISTURB HIS
CONCLUSION."  201 MISS.  423, 432, 29 SO.2D 211, 212. 

THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION WAS TREATED QUITE DIFFERENTLY BY THE
COURT ON THE FILING OF A SUGGESTION OF ERROR.  IT FOUND THAT
PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT HE HAD BEEN
THREATENED PRIOR TO MAKING THE CONFESSION WAS ENTIRELY UNDISPUTED IN
THE RECORD.  BUT IT ALSO FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD STEADFASTLY
TESTIFIED, BOTH AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND AT THE TRIAL ON THE
MERITS BEFORE THE JURY, THAT HE DID NOT IN FACT ADMIT TO THE CITY
DETECTIVES THAT HE HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME.  THE COURT THEN STATED:
"IF THE ACCUSED HAD NOT DENIED HAVING MADE ANY CONFESSION AT ALL, WE
WOULD FEEL CONSTRAINED TO REVERSE THE CONVICTION HEREIN BECAUSE OF THE
FACT THAT HIS TESTIMONY AS TO THE THREAT MADE TO HIM DURING THE
FORENOON BY THE PLAIN CLOTHES MEN IS WHOLLY UNDISPUTED, THE JAILER NOT
HAVING BEEN ASKED ABOUT THIS THREAT, AND HAVING TESTIFIED ONLY THAT HE
WAS NOT STRUCK BY ANYONE IN HIS PRESENCE AFTER HIS ARREST FOR THIS
CRIME.  BUT, WE THINK THAT ONE ACCUSED OF CRIME CANNOT BE HEARD TO SAY
THAT HE DID NOT MAKE A CONFESSION AT ALL, AND AT THE SAME TIME CONTEND
THAT AN ALLEGED CONFESSION WAS MADE UNDER THE INDUCEMENT OF FEAR."  201
MISS.  423, 435, 30 SO.2D 74, 75.  THE SUGGESTION OF ERROR WAS
ACCORDINGLY OVERRULED. 

THE INCOMPLETE RECORD BEFORE US PRECLUDES OUR DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER PETITIONER DID DENY IN THE TRIAL COURT THAT HE HAD CONFESSED
THE CRIME.  FN1  BUT ASSUMING THAT HE DID SO TESTIFY, WE CANNOT AGREE
WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT HE WAS THEREBY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT
THE ORAL CONFESSION WAS INTRODUCED, ADMITTED AND USED AS EVIDENCE OF
PETITIONER'S GUILT.  NOT ONLY MAY THIS CONFESSION HAVE BEEN INFLUENTIAL
IN INDUCING THE JURY'S VERDICT, BUT IT FORMED AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE
EVIDENTIARY BASIS OF THE CONVICTION NOW UNDER REVIEW.  HIS ALLEGED
DENIAL OF THE CONFESSION WENT ONLY TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE OF WHETHER HE
ACTUALLY MADE THE CONFESSION, AN ISSUE THAT IS NO LONGER OPEN.  THAT
QUESTION WAS AT MOST A DISPUTED ONE; BUT THE JURY RESOLVED THE MATTER
AGAINST PETITIONER AND, LIKE THE COURT BELOW, WE ACCEPT THAT
DETERMINATION.  THE SOLE CONCERN NOW IS WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONVICTION BASED UPON THE USE OF THE ORAL CONFESSION. 

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INVALIDATES A
STATE COURT CONVICTION GROUNDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON A CONFESSION
WHICH IS THE PRODUCT OF OTHER THAN REASONED AND VOLUNTARY CHOICE.  FN2
A CONVICTION RESULTING FROM SUCH USE OF A COERCED CONFESSION, HOWEVER,
IS NO LESS VOID BECAUSE THE ACCUSED TESTIFIED AT SOME POINT IN THE
PROCEEDING THAT HE HAD NEVER IN FACT CONFESSED, VOLUNTARILY OR
INVOLUNTARILY.  TESTIMONY OF THAT NATURE CAN HARDLY LEGALIZE A
PROCEDURE WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THE ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS. 
AND SINCE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM PERMITS A CONVICTION TO BE
SANCTIONED ONLY IF IN CONFORMITY WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES, INCONSISTENT
TESTIMONY AS TO THE CONFESSION SHOULD NOT AND CANNOT PRECLUDE THE
ACCUSED FROM RAISING THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER. 
WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530, 531-532.  INDEED, SUCH A FORECLOSURE OF
THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN "OF A WRONG SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT IT MADE THE WHOLE
PROCEEDING A MERE PRETENSE OF A TRIAL AND RENDERED THE CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE WHOLLY VOID," BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278, 286, WOULD
ITSELF BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED.  SINCE THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME
COURT UPHELD THE CONVICTION SOLELY BECAUSE IT THOUGHT PETITIONER WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, WE REMAND THE CASE TO
THAT COURT SO THAT IT MAY DEFINITIVELY EXPRESS ITS VIEWS ON THAT
ISSUE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL ON THE MERITS IS NOT BEFORE US.  AT
THE PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE CONFESSION, THE
TRANSCRIPT OF WHICH IS BEFORE US, PETITIONER STATED IN REGARD TO THE
ALLEGED CONFESSION:  "I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL HE ASKED AND ALL I SAID,
BUT I DIDN'T ADMIT I DID IT."  HE ALSO DENIED HAVING CONFESSED VARIOUS
DETAILS OF THE CRIME.  SUCH TESTIMONY, HOWEVER, MIGHT BE CONSTRUED AS
NOTHING MORE THAN A LAYMAN'S INEXACT WAY OF STATING THAT HIS ANSWERS
DID NOT AMOUNT TO A VOLUNTARY CONFESSION.  BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
COMPLETE RECORD, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THE MATTER. 

FN2  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309
U.S. 227; CANTY V. ALABAMA, 309 U.S. 629; WHITE V. TEXAS, 309 U.S. 631,
310 U.S. 530; LOMAX V. TEXAS, 313 U.S. 544; VERNON V. ALABAMA, 313 U.S.
547; LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219; WARD V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 547;
ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 327 U.S. 274; LYONS V. OKLAHOMA,
322 U.S. 596; MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401; HALEY V. OHIO, 332
U.S. 596. 

SEE, IN GENERAL, BOSKEY AND PICKERING, "FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS ON STATE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE," 13 U. OF CHI.  L. REV. 266, 282-295. 
..END :
















HALEY V. OHIO, 332 U.S. 596 


NO. 51.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1948.  - 147
OHIO ST. 340, 70 N.E.2D 905, REVERSED. 


1.  A 15-YEAR-OLD BOY WAS ARRESTED ABOUT MIDNIGHT ON A CHARGE OF
MURDER AND QUESTIONED BY RELAYS OF POLICE FROM SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT
UNTIL ABOUT 5 A.M., WITHOUT BENEFIT OF COUNSEL OR ANY FRIEND TO ADVISE
HIM.  WHEN CONFRONTED WITH ALLEGED CONFESSIONS OF HIS ALLEGED
ACCOMPLICES AROUND 5 A.M., HE SIGNED A CONFESSION TYPED BY THE POLICE. 
THIS CONFESSION WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER HIS PROTEST AND HE WAS
CONVICTED.  HELD:  THE METHODS USED IN OBTAINING THIS CONFESSION
VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE
CONVICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  PP. 597-601. 

2.  THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT ADMITTING THE CONFESSION IN
EVIDENCE AND THE FINDING OF THE JURY THAT THE CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY
DID NOT FORECLOSE THE INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION WHICH IT IS THE DUTY OF
THIS COURT TO MAKE IN SUCH A CASE.  P. 599. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THIS 15-YEAR-OLD BOY WAS FORMALLY ADVISED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS JUST BEFORE HE SIGNED THE CONFESSION DOES NOT
ALTER THE RESULT.  FORMULAS OF RESPECT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
MAY NOT BECOME A CLOAK FOR INQUISITORIAL PRACTICES AND MAKE AN EMPTY
FORM OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 601. 

HALEY V. OHIO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR MURDER WAS SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF OHIO.  79 OHIO APP. 237, 34 O.O. 568, 72 N.E.2D 785.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DISMISSED AN APPEAL.  147 OHIO ST. 340, 70 N.E.2D
905.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 803.  REVERSED, P. 601. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE JOIN. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN AN OHIO COURT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
OHIO SUSTAINED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OVER THE OBJECTION THAT THE
ADMISSION OF PETITIONER'S CONFESSION AT THE TRIAL VIOLATED THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  79 OHIO APP. 237.  THE OHIO
SUPREME COURT, BEING OF THE VIEW THAT NO DEBATABLE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION WAS PRESENTED, DISMISSED THE APPEAL.  147 OHIO ST. 340.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE WE HAD DOUBTS WHETHER THE RULING OF THE COURT BELOW COULD BE
SQUARED WITH CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, MALINSKI V. NEW YORK,
324 U.S. 401, AND LIKE CASES IN THIS COURT. 

A CONFECTIONERY STORE WAS ROBBED NEAR MIDNIGHT ON OCTOBER 14, 1945,
AND WILLIAM KARAM, ITS OWNER, WAS SHOT.  IT WAS THE PROSECUTOR'S
THEORY, SUPPORTED BY SOME EVIDENCE WHICH IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO
RELATE, THAT PETITIONER, A NEGRO BOY AGED 15, AND TWO OTHERS, WILLIE
LOWDER, AGED 16, AND AL PARKS, AGED 17, COMMITTED THE CRIME, PETITIONER
ACTING AS A LOOKOUT.  FIVE DAYS LATER - AROUND MIDNIGHT OCTOBER 19,
1945 - PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED AT HIS HOME AND TAKEN TO POLICE
HEADQUARTERS. 

THERE IS SOME CONTRARIETY IN THE TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT THEN
TRANSPIRED.  THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS BEATEN.  HE TOOK THE STAND
AND SO TESTIFIED.  HIS MOTHER TESTIFIED THAT THE CLOTHES HE WORE WHEN
ARRESTED, WHICH WERE EXCHANGED TWO DAYS LATER FOR CLEAN ONES SHE
BROUGHT TO THE JAIL, WERE TORN AND BLOOD-STAINED.  SHE ALSO TESTIFIED
THAT WHEN SHE FIRST SAW HIM FIVE DAYS AFTER HIS ARREST HE WAS BRUISED
AND SKINNED.  THE POLICE TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY ON THIS ENTIRE LINE
OF TESTIMONY.  SO WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE CONTROVERTED EVIDENCE.  TAKING
ONLY THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY (MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, P. 404 AND
CASES CITED), WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.  BEGINNING
SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT THIS 15-YEAR-OLD LAD WAS QUESTIONED BY THE
POLICE FOR ABOUT FIVE HOURS.  FIVE OR SIX OF THE POLICE QUESTIONED HIM
IN RELAYS OF ONE OR TWO EACH.  DURING THIS TIME NO FRIEND OR COUNSEL OF
THE BOY WAS PRESENT.  AROUND 5 A.M. - AFTER BEING SHOWN ALLEGED
CONFESSIONS OF LOWDER AND PARKS - THE BOY CONFESSED.  A CONFESSION WAS
TYPED IN QUESTION AND ANSWER FORM BY THE POLICE.  AT NO TIME WAS THIS
BOY ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; BUT THE WRITTEN CONFESSION STARTED
OFF WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: 

"WE WANT TO INFORM YOU OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THE LAW GIVES
YOU THE RIGHT TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT OR NOT AS YOU SEE FIT.  IT IS MADE
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MAY BE USED AT A TRIAL IN COURT EITHER
FOR OR AGAINST YOU OR ANYONE ELSE INVOLVED IN THIS CRIME WITH YOU, OF
YOUR OWN FREE WILL AND ACCORD, YOU ARE UNDER NO FORCE OR DURESS OR
COMPULSION AND NO PROMISES ARE BEING MADE TO YOU AT THIS TIME
WHATSOEVER. 

"DO YOU STILL DESIRE TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT AND TELL THE TRUTH AFTER
HAVING HAD THE ABOVE CLAUSE READ TO YOU? 

"A. YES." 

HE WAS PUT IN JAIL ABOUT 6 OR 6:30 A.M. ON SATURDAY, THE 20TH,
SHORTLY AFTER THE CONFESSION WAS SIGNED.  BETWEEN THEN AND TUESDAY, THE
23D, HE WAS HELD INCOMMUNICADO.  A LAWYER RETAINED BY HIS MOTHER TRIED
TO SEE HIM TWICE BUT WAS REFUSED ADMISSION BY THE POLICE.  HIS MOTHER
WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SEE HIM UNTIL THURSDAY, THE 25TH.  BUT A NEWSPAPER
PHOTOGRAPHER WAS ALLOWED TO SEE HIM AND TAKE HIS PICTURE IN THE EARLY
MORNING HOURS OF THE 20TH, RIGHT AFTER HE HAD CONFESSED.  HE WAS NOT
TAKEN BEFORE A MAGISTRATE AND FORMALLY CHARGED WITH A CRIME UNTIL THE
23D - THREE DAYS AFTER THE CONFESSION WAS SIGNED. 

THE TRIAL COURT, AFTER A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE VOLUNTARY
CHARACTER OF THE CONFESSION, ALLOWED IT TO BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER
PETITIONER'S OBJECTION THAT IT VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE CONFESSION
IF IT FOUND THAT HE DID NOT MAKE THE CONFESSION VOLUNTARILY AND OF HIS
FREE WILL. 

BUT THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE FINDING OF THE JURY ON THE
VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE CONFESSION DO NOT FORECLOSE THE INDEPENDENT
EXAMINATION WHICH IT IS OUR DUTY TO MAKE HERE.  ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE,
322 U.S. 143, 147-148.  IF THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT FORCE
OR COERCION WAS USED TO EXACT THE CONFESSION, WE WILL NOT PERMIT THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO STAND, EVEN THOUGH WITHOUT THE CONFESSION
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE JURY. 
MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, P. 404, AND CASES CITED. 

WE DO NOT THINK THE METHODS USED IN OBTAINING THIS CONFESSION CAN BE
SQUARED WITH THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
COMMANDS. 

WHAT TRANSPIRED WOULD MAKE US PAUSE FOR CAREFUL INQUIRY IF A MATURE
MAN WERE INVOLVED.  AND WHEN, AS HERE, A MERE CHILD - AN EASY VICTIM OF
THE LAW - IS BEFORE US, SPECIAL CARE IN SCRUTINIZING THE RECORD MUST BE
USED.  AGE 15 IS A TENDER AND DIFFICULT AGE FOR A BOY OF ANY RACE.  HE
CANNOT BE JUDGED BY THE MORE EXACTING STANDARDS OF MATURITY.  THAT
WHICH WOULD LEAVE A MAN COLD AND UNIMPRESSED CAN OVERAWE AND OVERWHELM
A LAD IN HIS EARLY TEENS.  THIS IS THE PERIOD OF GREAT INSTABILITY
WHICH THE CRISIS OF ADOLESCENCE PRODUCES.  A 15-YEAR-OLD LAD,
QUESTIONED THROUGH THE DEAD OF NIGHT BY RELAYS OF POLICE, IS A READY
VICTIM OF THE INQUISITION.  MATURE MEN POSSIBLY MIGHT STAND THE ORDEAL
FROM MIDNIGHT TO 5 A.M. BUT WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT A LAD OF TENDER
YEARS IS A MATCH FOR THE POLICE IN SUCH A CONTEST.  HE NEEDS COUNSEL
AND SUPPORT IF HE IS NOT TO BECOME THE VICTIM FIRST OF FEAR, THEN OF
PANIC.  HE NEEDS SOMEONE ON WHOM TO LEAN LEST THE OVERPOWERING PRESENCE
OF THE LAW, AS HE KNOWS IT, CRUSH HIM.  NO FRIEND STOOD AT THE SIDE OF
THIS 15-YEAR-OLD BOY AS THE POLICE, WORKING IN RELAYS, QUESTIONED HIM
HOUR AFTER HOUR, FROM MIDNIGHT UNTIL DAWN.  NO LAWYER STOOD GUARD TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE POLICE WENT SO FAR AND NO FARTHER, TO SEE TO IT THAT
THEY STOPPED SHORT OF THE POINT WHERE HE BECAME THE VICTIM OF
COERCION.  NO COUNSEL OR FRIEND WAS CALLED DURING THE CRITICAL HOURS OF
QUESTIONING.  A PHOTOGRAPHER WAS ADMITTED ONCE THIS LAD BROKE AND
CONFESSED.  BUT NOT EVEN A GESTURE TOWARDS GETTING A LAWYER FOR HIM WAS
EVER MADE. 

THIS DISREGARD OF THE STANDARDS OF DECENCY IS UNDERLINED BY THE FACT
THAT HE WAS KEPT INCOMMUNICADO FOR OVER THREE DAYS DURING WHICH THE
LAWYER RETAINED TO REPRESENT HIM TWICE TRIED TO SEE HIM AND TWICE WAS
REFUSED ADMISSION.  A PHOTOGRAPHER WAS ADMITTED AT ONCE; BUT HIS
CLOSEST FRIEND - HIS MOTHER - WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SEE HIM FOR OVER FIVE
DAYS AFTER HIS ARREST.  IT IS SAID THAT THESE EVENTS ARE NOT GERMANE TO
THE PRESENT PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED AFTER THE CONFESSION WAS
MADE.  BUT THEY SHOW SUCH A CALLOUS ATTITUDE OF THE POLICE TOWARDS THE
SAFEGUARDS WHICH RESPECT FOR ORDINARY STANDARDS OF HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS
COMPELS THAT WE TAKE WITH A GRAIN OF SALT THEIR PRESENT APOLOGIA THAT
THE FIVE-HOUR GRILLING OF THIS BOY WAS CONDUCTED IN A FAIR AND
DISPASSIONATE MANNER.  WHEN THE POLICE ARE SO UNMINDFUL OF THESE BASIC
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN THEIR PUBLIC DEALINGS, THEIR SECRET TREATMENT
OF A 15-YEAR-OLD BOY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT BECOMES
DARKLY SUSPICIOUS. 

THE AGE OF PETITIONER, THE HOURS WHEN HE WAS GRILLED, THE DURATION OF
HIS QUIZZING, THE FACT THAT HE HAD NO FRIEND OR COUNSEL TO ADVISE HIM,
THE CALLOUS ATTITUDE OF THE POLICE TOWARDS HIS RIGHTS COMBINE TO
CONVINCE US THAT THIS WAS A CONFESSION WRUNG FROM A CHILD BY MEANS
WHICH THE LAW SHOULD NOT SANCTION.  NEITHER MAN NOR CHILD CAN BE
ALLOWED TO STAND CONDEMNED BY METHODS WHICH FLOUT CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

BUT WE ARE TOLD THAT THIS BOY WAS ADVISED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS BEFORE HE SIGNED THE CONFESSION AND THAT, KNOWING THEM, HE
NEVERTHELESS CONFESSED.  THAT ASSUMES, HOWEVER, THAT A BOY OF FIFTEEN,
WITHOUT AID OF COUNSEL, WOULD HAVE A FULL APPRECIATION OF THAT ADVICE
AND THAT ON THE FACTS OF THIS RECORD HE HAD A FREEDOM OF CHOICE.  WE
CANNOT INDULGE THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.  MOREOVER, WE CANNOT GIVE ANY WEIGHT
TO RECITALS WHICH MERELY FORMALIZE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 
FORMULAS OF RESPECT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS CANNOT PREVAIL OVER
THE FACTS OF LIFE WHICH CONTRADICT THEM.  THEY MAY NOT BECOME A CLOAK
FOR INQUISITORIAL PRACTICES AND MAKE AN EMPTY FORM OF THE DUE PROCESS
OF LAW FOR WHICH FREE MEN FOUGHT AND DIED TO OBTAIN. 

THE COURSE WE FOLLOWED IN CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, WHITE V. TEXAS,
310 U.S. 530, ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, SUPRA, AND MALINSKI V. NEW YORK,
SUPRA, MUST BE FOLLOWED HERE.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE
POLICE FROM USING THE PRIVATE, SECRET CUSTODY OF EITHER MAN OR CHILD AS
A DEVICE FOR WRINGING CONFESSIONS FROM THEM.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, JOINING IN REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT. 

IN A RECENT SERIES OF CASES, BEGINNING WITH BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297
U.S. 278, THE COURT HAS SET ASIDE CONVICTIONS COMING HERE FROM STATE
COURTS BECAUSE THEY WERE BASED ON CONFESSIONS ADMITTED UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OFFENDED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE "DUE PROCESS"
EXACTED FROM THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IF THE RATIONALE
OF THOSE CASES RULED THIS, WE WOULD DISPOSE OF IT PER CURIAM WITH THE
MERE CITATION OF THE CASES.  THEY DO NOT RULE IT.  SINCE AT BEST THIS
COURT'S REVERSAL OF A STATE COURT'S CONVICTION FOR WANT OF DUE PROCESS
ALWAYS INVOLVES A DELICATE EXERCISE OF POWER AND SINCE THERE IS A SHARP
DIVISION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF ITS EXERCISE IN THIS CASE, I DEEM IT
APPROPRIATE TO STATE AS EXPLICITLY AS POSSIBLE WHY, ALTHOUGH I HAVE
DOUBTS AND DIFFICULTIES, I CANNOT SUPPORT AFFIRMANCE OF THE
CONVICTION. 

THE DOUBTS AND DIFFICULTIES DERIVE FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE
PROBLEM BEFORE US.  THEY ARISE FREQUENTLY WHEN THIS COURT IS OBLIGED TO
GIVE DEFINITENESS TO "THE VAGUE CONTOURS" OF DUE PROCESS OR, TO CHANGE
THE FIGURE, TO SPIN JUDGMENT UPON STATE ACTION OUT OF THAT GOSSAMER
CONCEPT.  SUBTLE AND EVEN ELUSIVE AS ITS CRITERIA ARE, WE CANNOT ESCAPE
THAT DUTY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THE NATURE OF THE DUTY, HOWEVER, MAKES
IT ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO BE HUMBLE IN EXERCISING IT.  HUMILITY IN
THIS CONTEXT MEANS AN ALERT SELF-SCRUTINY SO AS TO AVOID INFUSING INTO
THE VAGUENESS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND ONE'S MERELY PRIVATE
NOTIONS.  LIKE OTHER MORTALS, JUDGES, THOUGH UNAWARE, MAY BE IN THE
GRIP OF PREPOSSESSIONS.  THE ONLY WAY TO RELAX SUCH A GRIP, THE ONLY
WAY TO AVOID FINDING IN THE CONSTITUTION THE PERSONAL BIAS ONE HAS
PLACED IN IT, IS TO EXPLORE THE INFLUENCES THAT HAVE SHAPED ONE'S
UNANALYZED VIEWS IN ORDER TO LAY BARE PREPOSSESSIONS. 

A LIFETIME'S PREOCCUPATION WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AS PROSECUTOR,
DEFENDER OF CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND SCIENTIFIC STUDENT, NATURALLY LEAVES
ONE WITH VIEWS.  THUS, I DISBELIEVE IN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  BUT AS A
JUDGE I COULD NOT IMPOSE THE VIEWS OF THE VERY FEW STATES WHO THROUGH
BITTER EXPERIENCE HAVE ABOLISHED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT UPON ALL THE OTHER
STATES, BY FINDING THAT "DUE PROCESS" PROSCRIBES IT.  AGAIN, I DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT EVEN CAPITAL OFFENSES BY BOYS OF FIFTEEN SHOULD BE DEALT
WITH ACCORDING TO THE CONVENTIONAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  IT WOULD,
HOWEVER, BE BALD JUDICIAL USURPATION TO HOLD THAT STATES VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION IN SUBJECTING MINORS LIKE HALEY TO SUCH A PROCEDURE.  IF A
STATE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, MAY TRY A BOY OF
FIFTEEN CHARGED WITH MURDER BY THE ORDINARY CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, I
CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH A YOUTH IS NEVER CAPABLE OF THAT FREE CHOICE OF
ACTION WHICH, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, MAKES A CONFESSION "VOLUNTARY." 
AGAIN, IT WOULD HARDLY BE A JUSTIFIABLE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER TO
DISPOSE OF THIS CASE BY FINDING IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
CONSTITUTIONAL OUTLAWRY OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ALL PRIVATE STATEMENTS
MADE BY AN ACCUSED TO A POLICE OFFICER, HOWEVER MUCH LEGISLATION TO
THAT EFFECT MIGHT SEEM TO ME WISE.  SEE THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT OF
1872, SEC. 25; CF. SEC. 26. 

BUT WHETHER A CONFESSION OF A LAD OF FIFTEEN IS "VOLUNTARY" AND AS
SUCH ADMISSIBLE, OR "COERCED" AND THUS WANTING IN DUE PROCESS, IS NOT A
MATTER OF MATHEMATICAL DETERMINATION.  ESSENTIALLY IT INVITES
PSYCHOLOGICAL JUDGMENT - A PSYCHOLOGICAL JUDGMENT THAT REFLECTS DEEP,
EVEN IF INARTICULATE, FEELINGS OF OUR SOCIETY.  JUDGES MUST DIVINE THAT
FEELING AS BEST THEY CAN FROM ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND LIGHT WHICH
THEY CAN BRING TO BEAR FOR A CONFIDENT JUDGMENT OF SUCH AN ISSUE, AND
WITH EVERY ENDEAVOR TO DETACH THEMSELVES FROM THEIR MERELY PRIVATE
VIEWS.  (IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT WHILE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN
UPON IN THE FRAMING OF CONSTITUTIONS FOR OTHER DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES,
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN COPIED.  SEE, ALSO, THE
ILLUMINATING DEBATE ON THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE IRISH HOME RULE BILL
BY INCORPORATING OUR DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  42 H.C. DEB.  2082-2091, 2215
2267(5TH SER., OCT. 22, 23, 1912).)    WHILE THE ISSUE THUS FORMULATED
APPEARS VAGUE AND IMPALPABLE, IT CANNOT BE TOO OFTEN REPEATED THAT THE
LIMITATIONS WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
PLACED UPON THE METHODS BY WHICH THE STATES MAY PROSECUTE FOR CRIME
CANNOT BE MORE NARROWLY CONCEIVED.  THIS COURT MUST GIVE THE FREEST
POSSIBLE SCOPE TO STATES IN THE CHOICE OF THEIR METHODS OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.  BUT THESE PROCEDURES CANNOT INCLUDE METHODS THAT MAY FAIRLY
BE DEEMED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH DEEPLY ROOTED FEELINGS OF THE
COMMUNITY.  SEE CONCURRING OPINIONS IN MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S.
401, 412, AND LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER, 329 U.S. 459,
466.  OF COURSE THIS IS A MOST DIFFICULT TEST TO APPLY, BUT APPLY IT WE
MUST, WARILY, AND FROM CASE TO CASE. 

THIS BRINGS ME TO THE PRECISE ISSUE ON THE RECORD BEFORE US.
SUSPECTING A FIFTEEN-YEAR-OLD BOY OF COMPLICITY IN MURDER RESULTING
FROM ATTEMPTED ROBBERY, AT ABOUT MIDNIGHT THE POLICE TOOK HIM FROM HIS
HOME TO POLICE HEADQUARTERS.  THERE HE WAS QUESTIONED FOR ABOUT FIVE
HOURS BY AT LEAST FIVE POLICE OFFICERS WHO INTERROGATED IN RELAYS OF
TWO OR MORE.  ABOUT FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING THIS PROCEDURE
CULMINATED IN WHAT THE POLICE REGARDED AS A CONFESSION, WHEREUPON IT
WAS FORMALLY REDUCED TO WRITING.  DURING THE COURSE OF THE
INTERROGATION THE BOY WAS NOT ADVISED THAT HE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO TALK,
THAT IT WAS HIS RIGHT IF HE CHOSE TO SAY NOT A WORD, NOR THAT HE WAS
ENTITLED TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL OR THE HELP OF HIS FAMILY. 
BEARING UPON THE SAFEGUARDS OF THESE RIGHTS, THE CHIEF OF POLICE
ADMITTED THAT WHILE HE KNEW THAT THE BOY "HAD A RIGHT TO REMAIN MUTE
AND NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS" HE DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF
THE POLICE TO APPRISE HIM OF THAT FACT.  UNQUESTIONABLY, DURING THIS
WHOLE PERIOD HE WAS HELD INCOMMUNICADO.  ONLY AFTER THE NIGHTLONG
QUESTIONING HAD RESULTED IN DISCLOSURES SATISFACTORY TO THE POLICE AND
AS SUCH TO BE DOCUMENTED, WAS THERE READ TO THE BOY A CLAUSE GIVING THE
CONVENTIONAL FORMULA ABOUT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE OR WITHHOLD
A STATEMENT AND STATING THAT IF HE MAKES IT, HE MAKES IT OF HIS "OWN
FREE WILL."  DO THESE UNCONTESTED FACTS JUSTIFY A STATE COURT IN
FINDING THAT THE BOY'S CONFESSION WAS "VOLUNTARY," OR DO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES BY THEIR VERY NATURE PRECLUDE A FINDING THAT A DELIBERATE
AND RESPONSIBLE CHOICE WAS EXERCISED BY THE BOY IN THE CONFESSION THAT
CAME AT THE END OF FIVE HOURS QUESTIONING? 

THE ANSWER, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN INTIMATED, DEPENDS ON AN EVALUATION
OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS, OR, MORE ACCURATELY STATED, UPON THE
PERVASIVE FEELING OF SOCIETY REGARDING SUCH PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS. 
UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT DRAW UPON ANY FORMULATED EXPRESSION OF THE
EXISTENCE OF SUCH FEELING.  NOR ARE THERE AVAILABLE EXPERTS ON SUCH
MATTERS TO GUIDE THE JUDICIAL JUDGMENT.  OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM
MAKES IT THE COURT'S DUTY TO INTERPRET THOSE FEELINGS OF SOCIETY TO
WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE GIVES LEGAL PROTECTION.  BECAUSE OF THEIR
INHERENT VAGUENESS THE TESTS BY WHICH WE ARE TO BE GUIDED ARE MOST
UNSATISFACTORY, BUT SUCH AS THEY ARE WE MUST APPLY THEM. 

THE OHIO COURTS HAVE IN EFFECT DENIED THAT THE VERY NATURE OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BOY'S CONFESSION PRECLUDES A FINDING THAT IT WAS
VOLUNTARY.  THEIR DENIAL CARRIES GREAT WEIGHT, OF COURSE.  IT REQUIRES
MUCH TO BE OVERBORNE.  BUT IT DOES NOT END THE MATTER.  AGAINST IT WE
HAVE THE JUDGMENT THAT COMES FROM JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE CONDUCT
OF CRIMINAL TRIALS AS THEY PASS IN REVIEW BEFORE THIS COURT.  AN
IMPRESSIVE SERIES OF CASES IN THIS AND OTHER COURTS ADMONISHES OF THE
TEMPTATIONS TO ABUSE OF POLICE ENDEAVORS TO SECURE CONFESSIONS FROM
SUSPECTS, THROUGH PROTRACTED QUESTIONING, CARRIED ON IN SECRECY, WITH
THE INEVITABLE DISQUIETUDE AND FEARS POLICE INTERROGATIONS NATURALLY
ENGENDER IN INDIVIDUALS QUESTIONED WHILE HELD INCOMMUNICADO, WITHOUT
THE AID OF COUNSEL AND UNPROTECTED BY THE SAFEGUARDS OF A JUDICIAL
INQUIRY.  DISINTERESTED ZEAL FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD DOES NOT ASSURE EITHER
WISDOM OR RIGHT IN THE METHODS IT PURSUES.  A REPORT OF PRESIDENT
HOOVER'S NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT GAVE
PROOF OF THE FACT, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT THESE POTENTIALITIES OF ABUSE
WERE NOT THE IMAGININGS OF MAWKISH SENTIMENTALITY, NOR THEIR TOLERANCE
DESIRABLE OR NECESSARY FOR A STERN POLICY AGAINST CRIME.  LEGISLATION
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY REFLECTS A SIMILAR BELIEF THAT DETENTION FOR
PURPOSES OF ELICITING CONFESSIONS THROUGH SECRET, PERSISTENT, LONG
CONTINUED INTERROGATION VIOLATES SENTIMENTS DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN THE
FEELINGS OF OUR PEOPLE.  SEE MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 342
43. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT HALEY'S GUILT COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED
WITHOUT THE CONFESSION ELICITED BY THE SWEATING PROCESS OF THE NIGHT'S
SECRET INTERROGATION.  BUT THIS ONLY AFFORDS ONE MORE PROOF THAT IN
GUARDING AGAINST MISUSE OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCESS THE EFFECTIVE
DETECTION OF CRIME AND THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMINALS ARE FURTHERED AND
NOT HAMPERED.  SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS OF DECENCY DERIVE FROM
RELIANCE UPON THE RESOURCES OF INTELLIGENCE IN DEALING WITH CRIME AND
DISCOURAGE THE TOO EASY TEMPTATIONS OF UNIMAGINATIVE CRUDE FORCE, EVEN
WHEN SUCH FORCE IS NOT BRUTALLY EMPLOYED. 

IT WOULD DISREGARD STANDARDS THAT WE CHERISH AS PART OF OUR FAITH IN
THE STRENGTH AND WELL-BEING OF A RATIONAL, CIVILIZED SOCIETY TO HOLD
THAT A CONFESSION IS "VOLUNTARY" SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CONFESSION IS THE
PRODUCT OF A SENTIENT CHOICE.  "CONDUCT UNDER DURESS INVOLVES A
CHOICE," UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 248 U.S.
67, 70, AND CONDUCT DEVOID OF PHYSICAL PRESSURE BUT NOT LEAVING A FREE
EXERCISE OF CHOICE IS THE PRODUCT OF DURESS AS MUCH SO AS CHOICE
REFLECTING PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT. 

UNHAPPILY WE HAVE NEITHER PHYSICAL NOR INTELLECTUAL WEIGHTS AND
MEASURES BY WHICH JUDICIAL JUDGMENT CAN DETERMINE WHEN PRESSURES IN
SECURING A CONFESSION REACH THE COERCIVE INTENSITY THAT CALLS FOR THE
EXCLUSION OF A STATEMENT SO SECURED.  OF COURSE, THE POLICE MEANT TO
EXERCISE PRESSURES UPON HALEY TO MAKE HIM TALK.  THAT WAS THE VERY
PURPOSE OF THEIR PROCEDURE.  IN CONCLUDING THAT A STATEMENT IS NOT
VOLUNTARY WHICH RESULTS FROM PRESSURES SUCH AS WERE EXERTED IN THIS
CASE TO MAKE A LAD OF FIFTEEN TALK WHEN THE CONSTITUTION GAVE HIM THE
RIGHT TO KEEP SILENT AND WHEN THE SITUATION WAS SO CONTRIVED THAT
APPRECIATION OF HIS RIGHTS AND THEREBY THE MEANS OF ASSERTING THEM WERE
EFFECTIVELY WITHHELD FROM HIM BY THE POLICE, I DO NOT BELIEVE I EXPRESS
A MERELY PERSONAL BIAS AGAINST SUCH A PROCEDURE.  SUCH A FINDING, I
BELIEVE, REFLECTS THOSE FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE IN
THE DETERMINATION OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE WHICH LIE EMBEDDED IN THE
FEELINGS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ARE ENSHRINED IN THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  TO REMOVE THE INDUCEMENT TO RESORT
TO SUCH METHODS THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY DENIED USE OF THE FRUITS OF
ILLICIT METHODS. 

ACCORDINGLY, I THINK HALEY'S CONFESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED AND
THE CONVICTION BASED UPON IT SHOULD NOT STAND. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE ISSUE HERE IS A NARROW ONE OF FACT TURNING LARGELY UPON THE
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONY ON MATERIAL POINTS IS IN
DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THAT OF OTHER WITNESSES.  THE JUDGMENT RENDERED
TODAY BY THIS COURT DOES NOT HOLD THAT THE PROCEDURE AUTHORIZED BY THE
STATE OF OHIO TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONFESSION OF A
PERSON ACCUSED OF A CAPITAL OFFENSE VIOLATES PER SE THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT HOLDS MERELY THAT THE
APPLICATION MADE OF THAT PROCEDURE IN THIS CASE AMOUNTED TO A VIOLATION
OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN THAT, ON THIS RECORD,
IT AMOUNTED TO A REFUSAL BY THE TRIAL COURT TO EXCLUDE FROM THE JURY
THIS PARTICULAR CONFESSION WHICH THIS COURT IS CONVINCED WAS AN
INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION. 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED: 

ABOUT MIDNIGHT, ON OCTOBER 14, 1945, A STOREKEEPER IN CANTON, OHIO,
WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN HIS STORE BY ONE OF TWO BOYS, ALFRED PARKS, AGED
16, OR WILLIE LOWDER, AGED 17.  THE ACCUSED, JOHN HARVEY HALEY, THEN
ABOUT 15 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS OLD AND A SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL, WAS WITH
THESE BOYS BEFORE THEY WENT INTO THE STORE AND WAS WAITING FOR THEM
OUTSIDE OF IT AT THE TIME WHEN THE SHOOTING OCCURRED.  HALEY TESTIFIED
"ALL OF A SUDDEN I HEARD A SHOT AND A MAN HOLLERED, AND I WAS SCARED
AND I RAN."  THE TWO OTHER BOYS ALSO RAN AWAY IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
SHOT WAS FIRED.  THE THREE SOON MET AND HALEY THEN WENT HOME.  THESE
BOYS HAD BEEN TOGETHER ALL THAT EVENING.  EARLY IN THE EVENING, WHILE
PARKS AND LOWDER WAITED OUTSIDE OF HALEY'S HOME, HALEY WENT IN TO GET A
PISTOL FOR THEIR JOINT USE.  WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF WILLIAM MACK, THE
OWNER OF THE PISTOL, HALEY TOOK FROM A TRUNK A .32 CALIBER AUTOMATIC
PISTOL WHICH HALEY HAD SHOT ONCE ON NEW YEAR'S DAY AND, FROM ANOTHER
PLACE IN HIS HOME, A HANDFUL OF AMMUNITION FOR THE PISTOL.  THE THREE
BOYS TOOK PART IN LOADING IT.  HALEY THEN TURNED IT OVER TO PARKS AND
LOWDER, ONE OR THE OTHER OF WHOM THEREAFTER RETAINED POSSESSION OF IT
THROUGHOUT THE EVENING.  A DAY OR TWO AFTER THE SHOOTING, HALEY ASKED
THE TWO BOYS WHAT THEY HAD DONE WITH THE GUN.  HE TESTIFIED THAT IN
ANSWER "THEY SAID THEY GOT RID OF IT."  THIS MUCH OF THE STORY HALEY
TESTIFIED TO AT THE TRIAL AND HAS ADMITTED SUBSTANTIALLY EVER SINCE HIS
ARREST AND SINCE ABANDONING HIS FIRST, AND ADMITTEDLY FALSE, STATEMENT
THAT HE AND HIS TWO FRIENDS HAD GONE TO A SHOW THAT EVENING.  A .32
CALIBER AUTOMATIC COLT PISTOL, THE ADMISSION OF WHICH IN EVIDENCE IS
NOT HERE IN ISSUE, WAS SENT BY THE CANTON POLICE TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION FOR IDENTIFICATION, TOGETHER WITH THE BULLET WHICH
KILLED THE STOREKEEPER AND A CARTRIDGE SHELL FOUND BY THE POLICE AT THE
SCENE OF THE CRIME.  AN UNCONTRADICTED EXPERT WITNESS FROM THE F.B.I.
FIRED THREE BULLETS FROM THE PISTOL, COMPARED THE MICROSCOPIC MARKINGS
ON THEM WITH THOSE ON THE BULLET WHICH HAD KILLED THE STOREKEEPER AND,
ON THIS BASIS, POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THE PISTOL AS THE WEAPON WHICH HAD
FIRED THE FATAL SHOT.  THIS FATAL SHOT ADMITTEDLY WAS FIRED WHILE PARKS
AND LOWDER WERE IN THE STORE OF THE DECEASED AND WERE IN POSSESSION OF
THE PISTOL WITH WHICH HALEY HAD SUPPLIED THEM.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
RECORD TO SUGGEST THE PRESENCE IN THE STORE OF ANY OTHER PISTOL.  HALEY
TESTIFIED THAT THIS PISTOL "LOOKED LIKE" THE ONE HE HAD GIVEN TO HIS
COMPANIONS. 

AFTER HEARING THE FOREGOING AND OTHER MATERIAL EVIDENCE, INCLUDING
THE DISPUTED CONFESSION OF HALEY, THE JURY FOUND HIM GUILTY OF MURDER
IN THE FIRST DEGREE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PERPETRATE ROBBERY.  THE
VERDICT CARRIED A RECOMMENDATION OF MERCY WHICH AUTOMATICALLY REDUCED
THE STATUTORY PENALTY FROM DEATH TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  IN CONSIDERING
THE RECORD AS A WHOLE, AND PARTICULARLY IN REACHING A CONCLUSION OF
FACT THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO EXAMINED HALEY COERCED HIM INTO
MAKING HIS CONFESSION, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THAT THE FOREGOING
UNDISPUTED FACTS LEFT COMPARATIVELY LITTLE NEED FOR SUCH A CONFESSION
AS WAS SIGNED BY HALEY.  THAT CONFESSION, IN SUBSTANCE, ADDED ONLY THE
EXPRESS STATEMENT BY HALEY THAT HE KNEW THAT PARKS AND LOWDER WENT INTO
THE STORE TO ROB THE STOREKEEPER AND THAT HALEY REMAINED OUTSIDE TO
SERVE AS A LOOKOUT AND TO WARN PARKS AND LOWDER BY TAPPING ON THE
WINDOW IN CASE ANYONE APPROACHED. 

THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE POLICE AS SOON AS THEY HAD THE
INFORMATION UPON WHICH THEY ARRESTED HALEY WAS SUBSTANTIALLY AS
FOLLOWS: 

ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1945, AGAIN AT ABOUT MIDNIGHT, AND WHILE HALEY
WAS STILL UP AND ABOUT HIS HOME, AFTER HAVING RETURNED FROM AN EVENING
FOOTBALL GAME, HE WAS ARRESTED BY FOUR POLICEMEN WHO CAME TO HIS HOME
IN TWO CARS.  THEY WERE ADMITTED TO HALEY'S HOME BY HIS MOTHER AND THEY
TOOK HIM WITH THEM TO POLICE HEADQUARTERS, NOT USING HANDCUFFS.  HE WAS
"BOOKED" THERE AT ABOUT 12:30 A.M. FROM THEN UNTIL BETWEEN 3 AND 4 A.M.
HE WAS IN THE RECORD ROOM OF THE DETECTIVE BUREAU, USUALLY WITH TWO
OFFICERS.  WHAT TOOK PLACE THERE LEADING UP TO HIS ORAL, AND LATER
SIGNED, CONFESSION IS THE SUBJECT OF DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY
GIVEN BY THE ACCUSED AND THE POLICE.  HALEY TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS
ROUGHLY HANDLED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IF THIS TESTIMONY IS BELIEVED THE
CONFESSION WAS NOT VOLUNTARY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POLICE AND
EVERYONE ELSE WHO WAS PRESENT OR SAW HALEY DURING OR AFTER THIS
EXAMINATION TESTIFIED IN DETAIL, AND WITH POSITIVENESS, THAT HALEY WAS
NOT ABUSED OR ROUGHLY HANDLED IN ANY DEGREE AND THAT HIS PERSON AND
CLOTHES PRESENTED A NORMAL APPEARANCE AFTER THE EXAMINATION. 
IMMEDIATELY AFTER HALEY HAD BEEN SHOWN ALLEGED CONFESSIONS BY PARKS AND
LOWDER AND HAD READ AT LEAST THAT BY PARKS, HALEY MADE AN ORAL
STATEMENT EVIDENTLY SIMILAR TO THAT MADE BY PARKS.  THEREUPON, HALEY
WAS TAKEN TO A FRONT ROOM WHERE A SERGEANT OF DETECTIVES TYPED HALEY'S
CONFESSION IN QUESTION AND ANSWER FORM DURING A PERIOD WHICH CONSUMED
FROM ONE HOUR TO AN HOUR AND A HALF.  BEFORE TAKING THIS CONFESSION THE
SERGEANT TESTIFIED THAT HE TYPED AND READ TO HALEY, CLEARLY AND
DISTINCTLY, THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, A PART OF WHICH IS QUOTED IN
THIS COURT'S OPINION AS BEING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WRITTEN
CONFESSION.  THE SERGEANT TESTIFIED THAT HALEY, AFTER HEARING THIS
INTRODUCTION, SAID THAT HE STILL DESIRED TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND TELL
THE TRUTH.  WHEN COMPLETED, THE STATEMENT, SO PREPARED, WAS SIGNED BY
HALEY IN THE PRESENCE NOT ONLY OF SOME OF THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAD
QUESTIONED HIM BUT ALSO OF TWO CIVILIAN WITNESSES CALLED IN FOR THAT
PURPOSE FROM OUTSIDE OF POLICE HEADQUARTERS.  THE ACTING CHIEF OF
POLICE, WHO HIMSELF WAS A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF OHIO, REQUESTED HALEY TO
READ THE ENTIRE CONFESSION.  WHEN THIS HAD BEEN DONE, THE ACTING CHIEF
OF POLICE, IN THE CAPACITY OF A NOTARY PUBLIC, ADMINISTERED THE OATH
SIGNED BY HALEY AT THE END OF THE CONFESSION, STATING THAT THE FACTS
CONTAINED THEREIN WERE TRUE AND CORRECT AS HALEY VERILY BEVIEVED.  A
NEWSPAPER PHOTOGRAPHER THEN TOOK A PICTURE OF HALEY IN COMPANY WITH
PARKS AND LOWDER.  EITHER THEN OR ON THE FOLLOWING MONDAY, THE DATE
BEING DISPUTED, HALEY WAS TAKEN BACK TO HIS HOME WHERE THE POLICE FOUND
THE TRUNK DESCRIBED BY HIM AS THAT FROM WHICH HE HAD TAKEN THE PISTOL. 
AFTER HIS CONFESSION HE WAS PLACED IN THE CITY JAIL AND, ON THE
FOLLOWING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, HE WAS REMOVED TO THE COUNTY JAIL.  ON
THAT DAY, A COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF STARK
COUNTY, OHIO, DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS, JUVENILE DEPARTMENT, BY A
SERGEANT OF POLICE, CHARGING HALEY WITH BEING A DELINQUENT CHILD. 

ON OCTOBER 29, 1945, PURSUANT TO A MOTION OF THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY, THE JUDGE ASSIGNED TO THE ABOVE-MENTIONED DOMESTIC RELATIONS
DIVISION OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS APPOINTED A DOCTOR TO MAKE A
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED. 

ON NOVEMBER 1, 1945, THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WAS FILED
AND, AFTER HEARING, THE COURT FOUND - 

"THAT THE SAID CHILD HAS COMMITTED AN ACT WHICH, IF (IT) HAD BEEN
COMMITTED BY AN ADULT, WOULD BE A FELONY; AN EXAMINATION HAVING BEEN
MADE OF THE SAID JOHN HALEY BY A COMPETENT PHYSICIAN, QUALIFIED TO MAKE
SUCH EXAMINATION, IT IS ORDERED THAT THE SAID JOHN HALEY SHALL
PERSONALLY BE AND APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ON THE FIRST
DAY OF THE NEXT TERM THEREOF TO ANSWER FOR SUCH ACT." 

ON NOVEMBER 14, 1945, A TRANSCRIPT FROM THE DOCKET OF THE ABOVE
MENTIONED JUVENILE COURT WAS FILED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 
THEREAFTER, BEGINNING WITH AN INDICTMENT FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER WHICH
WAS RETURNED ON JANUARY 8, 1946, THE CASE PROCEEDED TO ARRAIGNMENT ON
JANUARY 11, AND TO TRIAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARCH 25-APRIL 3,
WHEN A VERDICT OF GUILTY AS CHARGED WAS RETURNED, WITH A RECOMMENDATION
OF MERCY.  A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WAS OVERRULED AND THE CASE WAS
APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO, AND THERE WAS
UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED OCTOBER 25, 1946.  APPEAL WAS MADE, BOTH ON A
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF OHIO.  THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS OVERRULED AND THE
APPEAL, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, WAS DISMISSED BY UNANIMOUS ACTION OF THE
FIVE JUDGES SITTING IN THE CASE.  THE REASON GIVEN FOR DISMISSAL WAS
THAT THE COURT FOUND THAT NO DEBATABLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WAS
INVOLVED IN THE CASE.  FN1 

BEGINNING WITH THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE ACCUSED, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
HALEY HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  THE CASE HAS PROCEEDED IN THIS
COURT IN FORMA PAUPERIS, THE ACCUSED BEING REPRESENTED BY THE SAME
COMPETENT COUNSEL WHO REPRESENTED HIM IN THE STATE COURTS.  IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT THE ACCUSED EVER ASKED TO HAVE COUNSEL APPOINTED FOR HIM. 
IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT, AT ANY TIME BEFORE HIS ARRAIGNMENT, HE
EMPLOYED COUNSEL OR ASKED FOR COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM.  THE NEAREST
APPROACH TO SUCH ACTION IS THAT DISCLOSED BY THE TESTIMONY OF HALEY'S
MOTHER AND BY A STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT LEROY CONTIE, AN
ATTORNEY, ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, WAS EMPLOYED BY MRS. HALEY TO
REPRESENT HER SON.  MR. CONTIE WENT TO THE CITY JAIL ON TWO OCCASIONS
AFTER HALEY'S CONFESSION WAS SIGNED, WAS UNABLE TO SEE HIM AND WAS
REFUSED ADMISSION BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES.  MR. CONTIE DID NOT SEE
HALEY UNTIL AFTER THE LATTER HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE COUNTY JAIL,
SOME DAYS AFTER THAT.  HE APPARENTLY DID NOT BECOME AN ATTORNEY OF
RECORD IN THE CASE. 

IT IS NOT DISPUTED ON HALEY'S BEHALF THAT HIS ARREST AND UNCOERCIVE
QUESTIONING AFTER HIS ARREST WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES.  WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE
ACCUSED, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MUST BE SAFEGUARDED CAREFULLY, IT IS
EQUALLY CLEAR THAT SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS
REST UPON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO DISCOVER PROMPTLY THOSE GUILTY OF
SUCH AN UNPROVOKED MURDER AS HAD BEEN COMMITTED.  LIKEWISE, THE
COMPARATIVE YOUTH OF THESE THREE BOYS WHO NOW HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF
THIS MURDER IS ENTITLED TO FULL RECOGNITION IN CONSIDERING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROCESS OF LAW THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THEM. 
THIS HAS BEEN DONE.  HALEY'S YOUTH WAS RECOGNIZED EXPRESSLY BY THE
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF THE DIVISION
OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF THE LOCAL COURT.  THOSE PROCEEDINGS MARKEDLY
DIFFERENTIATED THE PROCEDURE FROM THAT ORDINARILY FOLLOWED IN THE CASE
OF AN ADULT.  UNDOUBTEDLY THE THOUGHT OF HALEY'S YOUTH WAS REFLECTED IN
THE JURY'S RECOMMENDATION OF MERCY, AND IN THE CARE WHICH THE SERGEANT
AND THE ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE TESTIFIED THAT THEY TOOK IN PREPARING
HIS CONFESSION FOR SIGNATURE AND IN SEEING TO IT THAT HALEY UNDERSTOOD
IT AND HIS RIGHTS IN CONNECTION WITH IT.  IT IS NECESSARY TO RECOGNIZE,
ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE OFFENSE HERE CHARGED WAS NOT AN ORDINARY
JUVENILE OFFENSE.  IT WAS A CAPITAL OFFENSE OF THE MOST SERIOUS KIND. 
IT INVOLVED THE SAME FATAL CONSEQUENCE TO A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN OF
CANTON AS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE IF IT HAD BEEN COMMITTED BY ADULT
OFFENDERS.  AN OBLIGATION RESTS UPON THE POLICE NOT ONLY TO DISCOVER
THE PERPETRATORS OF SUCH A CRIME BUT ALSO TO DETERMINE, AS PROMPTLY AS
POSSIBLE, THEIR GUILT OR INNOCENCE TO A DEGREE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY
THEIR PROSECUTION OR RELEASE.  IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MANY
FELONIES ARE BEING COMMITTED CURRENTLY BY MINORS AND AN OBLIGATION
ATTACHES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO PUNISH, PREVENT AND DISCOURAGE
SUCH CONDUCT BY MINORS AS WELL AS BY ADULTS.  IF HALEY'S PART IN THIS
CRIME HAD BEEN REASONABLY SUSPECTED BY THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY AFTER ITS
COMMISSION AT MIDNIGHT, OCTOBER 14, THE POLICE WOULD HAVE DESERVED
SEVERE CRITICISM IF THEY HAD NOT ARRESTED AND QUESTIONED HIM THAT
NIGHT.  THE SAME OBLIGATION RESTED ON THEM, FIVE DAYS LATER, AT
MIDNIGHT, OCTOBER 19. 

AS ADMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THIS COURT, THE ENTIRE ISSUE HERE
RESOLVES ITSELF INTO A CONSIDERATION OF THE METHODS USED IN OBTAINING
THE CONFESSION.  THIS IN TURN RESOLVES ITSELF PRIMARILY INTO A QUESTION
OF THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES AS A MEANS OF DETERMINING THE CONTESTED
QUESTION AS TO WHAT METHODS IN FACT WERE USED.  A VOLUNTARY CONFESSION
NOT ONLY IS VALID BUT IT IS THE USUAL, BEST AND GENERALLY FAIREST KIND
OF EVIDENCE.  OFTEN IT IS THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE OBTAINABLE AS TO THE
STATE OF MIND OF THE ACCUSED.  THE GIVING OF SUCH A CONFESSION PROMPTLY
IS TO BE ENCOURAGED IN THE INTEREST OF ALL CONCERNED.  THE POLICE ARE
JUSTIFIED AND UNDER OBLIGATION TO SEEK SUCH CONFESSIONS.  AT THE SAME
TIME, IT IS A PRIMARY PART OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO SEE TO IT THAT
COERCION, INCLUDING INTIMIDATION, IS NOT USED TO SECURE A CONFESSION. 
IT SHOULD BE EVIDENT TO THEM NOT ONLY THAT INVOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS ARE
WORTHLESS AS EVIDENCE, BUT THAT COERCION APPLIED IN SECURING THEM
ITSELF CONSTITUTES A SERIOUS VIOLATION OF DUTY. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS THE SIMPLE ONE - WAS THE CONFESSION IN
FACT VOLUNTARY?  AS IN MANY OTHER CASES IT IS DIFFICULT, BECAUSE OF
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY, TO DETERMINE THIS CONTROLLING FACT.  IT MAY NOT
BE POSSIBLE TO BECOME ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN OF IT.  SELF-SERVING PERJURY,
HOWEVER, MUST NOT BE THE PASS-KEY TO A MANDATORY EXCLUSION OF THE
CONFESSION FROM USE AS EVIDENCE.  IT IS FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE
JURY, UNDER THE SAFEGUARDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS OF CRIMINAL
LAW, TO APPLY EVENHANDED JUSTICE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTUAL
ISSUES.  TO DO THIS, THEY NEED EVERY AVAILABLE LAWFUL AID TO HELP THEM
TEST THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY. 

DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT THE
STATES USE SOME FAIR MEANS TO DETERMINE THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF A
CONFESSION LIKE THAT IN THIS CASE.  THE PROCEDURE MAY DIFFER IN EACH
STATE.  THE FORM ADOPTED BY OHIO IS NOT CRITICIZED BY THIS COURT.  THE
SOLE QUESTION HERE IS THE VALIDITY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE OHIO
PROCEDURE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  THAT APPLICATION CAN BE TESTED IN
THIS COURT ONLY UNDER THE GREAT HANDICAP OF ATTEMPTING TO APPRAISE, BY
USE OF THE PRINTED RECORD, THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT AND JURY TAKEN
IN THE LIGHT OF THE LIVING RECORD.  IN CONNECTION WITH EVERY CONFESSION
THAT IS UNACCOMPANIED BY TESTIMONY AS TO HOW IT WAS SECURED, ALL SORTS
OF CONDITIONS MAY BE CONJECTURED AS TO THE METHODS USED TO SECURE IT.
TO RELY UPON CONJECTURE, EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THE ACCUSED, IS
NOT JUSTICE.  IT IS NOT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY ANY DEFINITION. 
SIMILARLY, ALL SORTS OF CONDITIONS AS TO THE METHODS WHICH MIGHT HAVE
BEEN USED IN OBTAINING SUCH A CONFESSION MAY BE CONJECTURED BY A
WITNESS AND FALSELY TESTIFIED TO BY HIM.  SUCH ACTION PUTS THE TRUE
TESTIMONY INTO DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE FALSE.  IN THE PRESENT CASE,
THE CONFLICT OF TESTIMONY IS SO CLEAR THAT IT IS EVIDENT THAT ONE OR
MORE OF THE WITNESSES MUST HAVE COMMITTED PERJURY.  THE ISSUE RESOLVES
ITSELF, THEREFORE, NOT INTO ONE OF CIVIL RIGHTS BUT INTO ONE OF THE
TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE METHODS USED IN OBTAINING
HALEY'S CONFESSION.  THIS ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY CANNOT BE RESOLVED HERE
WITH NEARLY AS GOOD A CHANCE OF DETERMINING THE TRUTH AS THAT WHICH WAS
ENJOYED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND JURY.  THEY SAW AND HEARD THE WITNESSES
AND THEY EXAMINED THE EXHIBITS.  FURTHERMORE, THEY AND THE STATE
APPELLATE AND SUPREME COURTS ALSO WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE GENERAL
CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN EFFECT IN THE LONG
ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIAL CIVIC CENTER OF OVER 100,000 PEOPLE OF CANTON,
OHIO, WHERE THIS CONFESSION WAS MADE AND USED.  THE TESTIMONY OF THE
WITNESSES AS TO THE METHODS USED SHOULD BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
COMMUNITY WHERE SUCH TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE FAIRLY
APPRAISED.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION OR
PREJUDICE EXISTED IN THE ATTITUDE OF ANY OF THE WITNESSES, OR OF THE
COURTS OR OF THE COMMUNITY OF CANTON.  THE ISSUE IS THE CREDIBILITY OF
THESE PARTICULAR POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER LOCAL WITNESSES.  IT CANNOT
BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF PUBLISHED REPORTS, HOWEVER AUTHENTIC, OF
POLICE METHODS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES IN OTHER YEARS.  "THE MERE FACT
THAT A CONFESSION WAS MADE WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE POLICE DOES NOT
RENDER IT INADMISSIBLE."  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 346. 

THE PRESENT CASE, TURNING AS IT DOES UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
TESTIMONY AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE COERCION, IF ANY, THAT WAS USED TO
SECURE THE CONFESSION, IS READILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM CASES RELIED
UPON BY THE ACCUSED.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS COURT DOES
NOT RELY ON ANY CLAIM THAT THE CONFESSION WAS ELICITED BY UNREASONABLY
DELAYING THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE ACCUSED OR EVEN BY ANY ALLEGED DELAY IN
CHARGING HIM WITH DELINQUENCY IN THE JUVENILE COURT.  THE CONFESSION OF
THE ACCUSED WAS GIVEN, TRANSCRIBED AND SIGNED BY 5:30 A.M. ON OCTOBER
20, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HIS ARREST AT ABOUT MIDNIGHT.  THERE IS,
ACCORDINGLY, NO BASIS FOR CONTENDING THAT THERE WAS UNNECESSARY DELAY
IN TAKING THE ACCUSED BEFORE A COURT OR MAGISTRATE HAVING JURISDICTION
OF THE OFFENSE INSOFAR AS SUCH UNNECESSARY DELAY, IF ANY, HAD RELATION
TO THE CONFESSION.  WHATEVER DELAY THERE WAS OCCURRED AFTER THE
CONFESSION WAS MADE AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS NOT UNREASONABLE TO
DELAY THE TAKING OF THE ACCUSED BEFORE A COURT OR MAGISTRATE AT LEAST
UNTIL AFTER 5:30 A.M.  UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65.  CF.
ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 350; MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318
U.S. 332. 

IF THE UNEQUIVOCAL AND CONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF THE SEVERAL POLICE
OFFICERS IS BELIEVED, INCLUDING THAT OF THE ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE, THE
CONFESSION WAS CLEARLY VOLUNTARY.  THE POLICE OFFICERS WERE MEN OF
EXPERIENCE IN THE LOCAL DETECTIVE SERVICE AND, IF INFERENCES ARE TO BE
INDULGED IN, IT MAY BE INFERRED THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE NECESSITY THAT
THE CONFESSION BE UNCOERCED AND VOLUNTARY IF IT WAS TO BE ADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE.  THE PRINCIPAL EXAMINING OFFICERS WERE TWO DETECTIVES, ONE OF
NINE AND THE OTHER OF ELEVEN YEARS' POLICE SERVICE.  THE SERGEANT OF
DETECTIVES WHO TYPED THE CONFESSION WAS A MAN OF NINE YEARS' POLICE
SERVICE.  EVERY POLICEMAN WHO TOOK ANY PART IN THE EXAMINATION WAS
CALLED AS A WITNESS.  EACH TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS NO USE OF FORCE AND
NO INTIMIDATION DURING THE EXAMINATION.  EACH TESTIFIED THAT IN FACT
THE CONFESSION WAS UNCOERCED.  THE QUESTIONING OF THE ACCUSED WAS
DESCRIBED AS HAVING BEEN CARRIED ON WHILE THE PARTIES TO IT WERE SEATED
NEAR A DESK AND NOT WITHIN ARM'S LENGTH OF EACH OTHER.  IT WAS
CONDUCTED IN THE RECORD ROOM OF THE DETECTIVE BUREAU, RATHER THAN IN
JAIL.  THE ACCUSED WAS NOT HANDCUFFED NOR SUBJECTED TO INDIGNITIES. 
THE POLICE, THE NEWSPAPER REPORTER, AND THE ICEMAN WHO WAS BROUGHT IN
TO WITNESS THE ACCUSED'S SIGNATURE TO THE CONFESSION TESTIFIED TO THE
NORMAL APPEARANCE OF THE CLOTHING AND PERSON OF THE ACCUSED DURING OR
FOLLOWING THE EXAMINATION, INCLUDING THE TIME HE WAS PHOTOGRAPHED.  THE
WITNESSES TESTIFIED ONLY AS TO WHAT THEY SEVERALLY HAD OBSERVED DURING
THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS THAT THEY WERE PRESENT BUT, TOGETHER, THEY
COVERED THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE EXAMINATION.  IF THE CONFESSION WAS IN
FACT VOLUNTARY, THESE WITNESSES COULD NOT HAVE SAID MORE TO PROVE IT.
IF THEIR TESTIMONY IS TRUE, IT MAKES FALSE MUCH OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE
ACCUSED.  THE TESTING OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS TESTIMONY IS THEREFORE
IMPORTANT.  THIS TESTIMONY, FURTHERMORE, SHOULD NOT BE LAID ASIDE HERE
MERELY BECAUSE IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH OPPOSING TESTIMONY.  IF THE TRIAL
COURT AND JURY BELIEVED THE POLICE AND DISBELIEVED THE ACCUSED ON THIS
TESTIMONY, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL GROUND LEFT FOR ANY INFERENCE OF
COERCION.  IF, ON THE CONTRARY, THEY BELIEVED THE ACCUSED AND THEREFORE
CONCLUDED THAT THE POLICE AND OTHER WITNESSES AGREEING WITH THEM WERE
PERJURERS, THE TRIAL COURT COULD NOT FAIRLY HAVE ADMITTED THE
CONFESSION IN EVIDENCE.    THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD INCLUDES AMPLE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE TRIAL JUDGE AND JURY
AGAINST THE ACCUSED IF THIS COURT CHOOSES TO BELIEVE THAT EVIDENCE AND
TO DISBELIEVE THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.  FURTHERMORE, THAT EVIDENCE, IF
SO BELIEVED, IS STRONG AND SPECIFIC ENOUGH GREATLY TO OFFSET
CONFLICTING INFERENCES WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT BE SUGGESTED TO THIS COURT
BY THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE.    AS A REVIEWING COURT, WE HAVE A MAJOR
OBLIGATION TO GUARD AGAINST READING INTO THE PRINTED RECORD PURELY
CONJECTURAL CONCEPTS.  TO CONJECTURE FROM THE PRINTED RECORD OF THIS
CASE THAT THE ACCUSED, BECAUSE OF HIS KNOWN PROXIMITY TO THE SCENE OF
THE CRIME AND HIS KNOWN ASSOCIATION THAT NIGHT WITH THE BOYS, ONE OF
WHOM DID THE ACTUAL SHOOTING, MUST HAVE BEEN A HARDENED, SMART BOY,
WHOSE CONDUCT AND FALSEHOODS NECESSARILY MADE ALL OF HIS TESTIMONY
WORTHLESS PER SE, IS AS UNJUSTIFIABLE AS IT WOULD BE TO ASSUME, WITHOUT
SEEING HIM OR HIS MOTHER AS WITNESSES, THAT HE WAS AN IMPRESSIONABLE,
INNOCENT LAD, LIKELY TO BE PANIC-STRICKEN BY POLICE SURROUNDINGS AND
THAT ALL HIS TESTIMONY MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE EXCEPT WHERE EXPRESSLY
ADMITTED BY HIM TO HAVE BEEN FALSE.  TO ASSUME FROM THE PRINTED RECORD
THAT THE POLICEMEN, INCLUDING THE ACTING CHIEF, AND THE CIVILIANS WHO
GAVE UNEQUIVOCAL TESTIMONY AS TO THE ABSENCE OF FORCE AND INTIMIDATION
IN SECURING THE CONFESSION OR AS TO THE NORMAL APPEARANCE OF THE
ACCUSED AND OF HIS CLOTHING AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE CONFESSION, WERE
CALLOUS AS TO THE FEELINGS OF A BOY 15 YEARS OF AGE OR WERE GUILTY OF
DELIBERATE PERJURY WOULD BE AS UNJUSTIFIABLE AS IT WOULD BE TO ASSUME,
WITHOUT HEARING AND SEEING THE RESPECTIVE POLICE OFFICERS, AS
WITNESSES, THAT EACH OF THEM WAS AS WELL-INFORMED, TOLERANT AND
THOUGHTFUL AS AN IDEAL JUVENILE JUDGE.  IN THIS CASE, THIS COURT SEEMS
TO HAVE LAID ASIDE ALL THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY AND THEN, WITHOUT
SEEING OR HEARING THE WITNESSES, HAS ATTEMPTED TO DRAW, FROM THE MEAGER
BALANCE OF THE RECORD, IMPORTANT INFERENCES OF CALLOUSNESS AND COERCION
ON THE PART OF THE EXAMINING OFFICERS.  BY DISREGARDING THE CONFLICTING
MATERIAL TESTIMONY INSTEAD OF CHOOSING BETWEEN THE TRUE AND THE FALSE
MATERIAL TESTIMONY, THE MATERIAL RECORD IS REDUCED LARGELY TO ISOLATED
ITEMS OF SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT ON THE PART OF CERTAIN POLICE OFFICERS WHO
ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE HAMPERED THE BOY'S MOTHER OR AN ATTORNEY IN TRYING
TO SEE HIM SEVERAL DAYS AFTER HIS CONFESSION.  THERE IS NO LIKELIHOOD
THAT THESE OFFICERS WERE THE SAME ONES WHO CONDUCTED THE EXAMINATION. 
FN2  IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THIS COURT TO SAY IN ITS OPINION TODAY THAT
IF "THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT FORCE OR COERCION WAS USED TO
EXACT THE CONFESSION, WE WILL NOT PERMIT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO
STAND  ...  "  RECOGNITION MUST BE GIVEN ALSO TO THE RIGHT OF THE TRIAL
COURT TO WEIGHT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MATERIAL DISPUTED EVIDENCE. 

WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION, ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION, TO HOLD THE
TRIAL COURT IN ERROR AND TO CONCLUDE "THAT THIS WAS A CONFESSION WRUNG
FROM A CHILD BY MEANS WHICH THE LAW SHOULD NOT SANCTION."  WHILE
COERCION AND INTIMIDATION IN SECURING A CONFESSION SHOULD BE
UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNED AND PUNISHED AND THEIR PRODUCT INVALIDATED,
NEVERTHELESS SUCH COERCION SHOULD NOT BE PRESUMED TO EXIST BECAUSE OF A
MERE SUGGESTION OR SUSPICION, IN THE FACE OF CONTRARY FINDINGS BY THE
TRIERS OF FACT.  ON THE BASIS OF THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY RELIED UPON
BY THIS COURT, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING SUCH A DETERMINATION OF
"THE CALLOUS ATTITUDE OF THE POLICE" OF CANTON AS THEREBY TO OVERRIDE
NOT ONLY THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF THE STATE'S PUBLIC OFFICIALS BUT ALSO
THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIERS OF FACT.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, WITH HIS FIRST
HAND KNOWLEDGE, BOTH OF THE CREDIBILITY INDICATED BY THE TESTIMONY IN
OPEN COURT AND OF THE HABITUAL "ATTITUDE OF THE POLICE" OF CANTON, IF
THERE BE ANY SUCH ATTITUDE, FOUND TO THE CONTRARY.  THAT JUDGE AND THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF CANTON HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED BY THE STATE OF
OHIO WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE
PUBLIC TO EACH INDIVIDUAL AND ALSO OF EACH INDIVIDUAL TO THE PUBLIC. 
IN THE ABSENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL PROOF TO UPSET THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL
COURT, THESE PUBLIC OFFICERS SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED WITH CALLOUSNESS
TOWARD, OR WITH VIOLATION OF, THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS. 

THE LEGAL PROCESS GOVERNING THE ADMISSION OF CONFESSIONS IN EVIDENCE
IN JURY TRIALS IN OHIO IN A CASE LIKE THIS TAKES THESE CONDITIONS INTO
CONSIDERATION.  THE OHIO PROCEDURE PROVIDES FOR A PRELIMINARY
EXAMINATION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONFESSION SHOULD BE EXCLUDED AS INVOLUNTARY. 
SUCH AN EXAMINATION WAS MADE AT LENGTH IN THIS CASE AND THE JUDGE, IN
THE ABSENCE OF THE JURY, OVERRULED THE OBJECTION MADE TO THE CONFESSION
UPON SUCH GROUND.  THE MOTION WAS RENEWED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY
AND AGAIN DENIED.  THE JUDGE LIKEWISE REFUSED TO DIRECT A VERDICT FOR
HALEY AT THE CLOSE OF THE STATE'S CASE AND AGAIN AT THE CLOSE OF THE
ENTIRE CASE.  THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONFESSION WAS FULLY ARGUED IN
THE TRIAL COURT AND, BEFORE ITS ADMISSION, THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK THE
SUBJECT UNDER ADVISEMENT WHILE HE ADJOURNED THE HEARING OVER A WEEK
END.  HAVING DECIDED THAT THE CONFESSION WAS NOT TO BE EXCLUDED, IT WAS
HIS DUTY TO SUBMIT IT TO THE JURY.  HE DID THIS WITH AMPLE INSTRUCTIONS
ADVISING THE JURY OF ITS RESPONSIBILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONFESSION.  TESTIMONY THEN WAS GIVEN AT LENGTH, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
JURY, BEARING UPON THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE CONFESSION AS WELL AS UPON
THE PROBABLE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF ITS CONTENTS.  THE FINAL INSTRUCTIONS
OF THE COURT EMPHASIZED NOT ONLY THE OBLIGATION AND OPPORTUNITY OF THE
JURY TO PASS UPON THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE CONFESSION BUT ALSO ITS
OBLIGATION TO GIVE APPROPRIATE WEIGHT TO THE CONFESSION IN THE LIGHT OF
ALL THE TESTIMONY IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONFESSION WAS FOUND BY THE
JURY TO HAVE BEEN A VOLUNTARY ONE.  FN3 

THE RULE OF LAW GOVERNING THIS CASE IS STATED IN LISENBA V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 238: 

"THERE ARE CASES, SUCH AS THIS ONE, WHERE THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE
METHODS EMPLOYED TO OBTAIN A CONFESSION IS CONFLICTING, AND IN WHICH,
ALTHOUGH DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS WAS NOT AN ISSUE IN THE TRIAL, AN ISSUE
HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY COURT AND JURY, WHICH INVOLVES AN ANSWER TO THE
DUE PROCESS QUESTION.  IN SUCH A CASE, WE ACCEPT THE DETERMINATION OF
THE TRIERS OF FACT, UNLESS IT IS SO LACKING IN SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE
THAT TO GIVE IT EFFECT WOULD WORK THAT FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS WHICH IS
AT WAR WITH DUE PROCESS." 

THIS COURT PROPERLY RESERVES TO ITSELF AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE
RECORD IN A CASE LIKE THIS INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN
TO THAT RECORD BY THE LOWER COURTS.  HOWEVER, WHEN CREDIBILITY PLAYS AS
LARGE A PART IN THE RECORD AS IT DOES IN THIS CASE, THIS COURT RARELY
CAN JUSTIFY A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND THE
VERDICT OF THE JURY.  THIS IS INCREASINGLY TRUE WHERE THE JUDGMENT OF
THE TRIAL COURT HAS BEEN AFFIRMED, AS HERE, BY TWO STATE COURTS OF
REVIEW.  IN THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
CONFESSION IN THIS CASE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY HAVE BELIEVED THE POLICE
AND DISBELIEVED THE ACCUSED.  ON THAT BASIS, THERE IS MORE THAN AMPLE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION IN REFUSING TO EXCLUDE
THE CONFESSION.  A SIMILAR STATEMENT MAY BE MADE AS TO THE PRESENTATION
OF EVIDENCE TO THE JURY.  IT IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE FOR THIS COURT, IN
TESTING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIERS OF FACT, TO RELY ON INFERENCES
DRAWN SOLELY FROM THOSE PORTIONS OF THE RECORD WHICH, WHEN READ
SEPARATELY, APPARENTLY WERE NOT DISPUTED.  THE ACCEPTANCE OF ONE
VERSION OR THE OTHER OF THE SHARPLY CONFLICTING TESTIMONY WHICH WAS
BEFORE THE TRIERS OF FACT COULD REASONABLY JUSTIFY A CONCLUSION OF THE
TRIAL COURT AND JURY TO EXCLUDE OR ADMIT THE CONFESSION WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO, OR EVEN IN SPITE OF, IMPLICATIONS WHICH MIGHT BE DRAWN
FROM THE COMPARATIVELY COLORLESS UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY IF THAT
UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY STOOD ALONE.  THIS COURT SHOULD INCLUDE IN ITS
APPRAISAL OF THE RECORD NOT ONLY THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY, BUT IT ALSO
SHOULD ALLOW FOR A REASONABLE CONCLUSION BY THE TRIAL COURT AND JURY,
BASED UPON ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF THE DISPUTED TESTIMONY.  ON THIS
BASIS, THIS COURT IS NOT JUSTIFIED, IN THIS CASE, IN HOLDING THAT THE
DETERMINATION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT THE CONFESSION WAS ADMISSIBLE, OR
THAT THE HOLDING BY THE TRIAL JURY THAT THE CONFESSOR WAS GUILTY, "IS
SO LACKING IN SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE THAT TO GIVE IT EFFECT WOULD WORK
THAT FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS WHICH IS AT WAR WITH DUE PROCESS."  FN4 

IN TESTING DUE PROCESS THIS COURT MUST FIRST MAKE SURE OF ITS FACTS. 
UNTIL A BETTER WAY IS FOUND FOR TESTING CREDIBILITY THAN BY THE
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES IN OPEN COURT, WE MUST GIVE TRIAL COURTS AND
JURIES THAT WIDE DISCRETION IN THIS FIELD TO WHICH A LIVING RECORD, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM A PRINTED RECORD, LOGICALLY ENTITLES THEM.  IN THIS
LIVING RECORD THERE ARE MANY GUIDEPOSTS TO THE TRUTH WHICH ARE NOT IN
THE PRINTED RECORD.  WITHOUT SEEING THEM OURSELVES, WE WILL DO WELL TO
GIVE HEED TO THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THEM. 

FN1  IT APPEARS FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK
COUNTY IN THIS CASE THAT THE THREE BOYS WERE SEPARATELY INDICTED AND
TRIED.  LOWDER AND HALEY WERE TRIED BY JURIES.  PARKS WAIVED THAT RIGHT
AND WAS TRIED BEFORE THREE JUDGES.  EACH WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER IN THE
FIRST DEGREE, WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF MERCY.  APPEALS FROM THE THREE
CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THE JUDGMENTS WERE AFFIRMED IN EACH WITH
A SINGLE OPINION EMPHASIZING THE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION THAT HAD BEEN
GIVEN TO EACH.  OHIO V. LOWDER, OHIO V. HALEY, OHIO V. PARKS, 79 OHIO
APP. 237, 34 O.O. 568, 72 N.E.2D 785.  SEE ALSO, OHIO V. HALEY, 147
OHIO ST. 340, 70 N.E.2D 905; OHIO V. LOWDER, 147 OHIO ST. 530, 72
N.E.2D 102; OHIO V. PARKS, 147 OHIO ST. 531, 72 N.E.2D 81; WHERE EACH
APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF A DEBATABLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 

FN2  IN A CASE WHICH AROSE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THIS COURT
SAID: 

"BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF LEGALITY ATTENDING THE MAKING OF THESE ORAL
STATEMENTS ARE NULLIFIED, IT IS SUGGESTED, BY WHAT FOLLOWED.  FOR NOT
UNTIL EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WAS MITCHELL ARRAIGNED
BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE.  UNDOUBTEDLY HIS DETENTION DURING THIS
PERIOD WAS ILLEGAL.  ...  ILLEGALITY IS ILLEGALITY, AND OFFICERS OF THE
LAW SHOULD DEEM THEMSELVES SPECIAL GUARDIANS OF THE LAW.  BUT IN ANY
EVENT, THE ILLEGALITY OF MITCHELL'S DETENTION DOES NOT RETROACTIVELY
CHANGE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE MADE THE DISCLOSURES.  THESE,
WE HAVE SEEN, WERE NOT ELICITED THROUGH ILLEGALITY.  THEIR ADMISSION,
THEREFORE, WOULD NOT BE USE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FRUITS OF
WRONGDOING BY ITS OFFICERS.  BEING RELEVANT, THEY COULD BE EXCLUDED
ONLY AS A PUNITIVE MEASURE AGAINST UNRELATED WRONGDOING BY THE POLICE. 
OUR DUTY IN SHAPING RULES OF EVIDENCE RELATES TO THE PROPRIETY OF
ADMITTING EVIDENCE.  THIS POWER IS NOT TO BE USED AS AN INDIRECT MODE
OF DISCIPLINING MISCONDUCT."  UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65,
70-71. 

FN3  THE TRIAL COURT INCLUDED IN ITS FINAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY
THE FOLLOWING: 

"YOU WILL RECALL THAT I HAVE HERETOFORE SAID TO YOU THAT, IN GENERAL,
THE JUDGE DETERMINES THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE.  BUT, YOU WILL
RECALL I THINK THAT ON MONDAY JUST BEFORE CERTAIN ALLEGED STATEMENTS OR
DECLARATIONS CLAIMED BY THE STATE TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DEFENDANT,
IN PART ORAL AND IN PART CONSISTING OF AN ALLEGED WRITTEN OR TYPED
STATEMENT OR DECLARATION, IDENTIFIED AS STATE'S EXHIBIT D, WERE BY THE
JUDGE PERMITTED TO BE INTRODUCED WITH THE INSTRUCTION THAT YOU THE JURY
WOULD IN THE END AND FINALLY, DETERMINE FIRST, WHETHER THE DEFENDANT
MADE SAID STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS, AND IF HE DID MAKE IT, WHETHER
THEY WERE MADE BY THE DEFENDANT VOLUNTARILY AND OF HIS OWN FREE WILL;
AND FURTHER IN THE EVENT YOU SHOULD FIND HE DID MAKE THEM AND MADE THEM
VOLUNTARILY AND OF HIS FREE WILL, JUST WHAT WEIGHT, IF ANY, SHOULD BE
ACCORDED THEM. 

"I NOW AGAIN DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT EVIDENCE.  THE STATE
CLAIMS THE DEFENDANT MADE SAID STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS AND THAT HE
MADE THEM VOLUNTARILY AND OF HIS OWN FREE WILL.  THE DEFENDANT DENIES
THE STATE'S SAID CLAIMS AND ASSERTS THEY WERE NOT MADE VOLUNTARILY AND
OF FREE WILL.  YOU WILL DECIDE THESE QUESTIONS FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE IN
THE CASE.  SHOULD YOU FIND FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT DID
NOT MAKE THEM, OR IF HE MADE THEM THAT HE DID NOT MAKE THEM VOLUNTARILY
AND OF HIS FREE WILL, YOU WILL IN THAT EVENT DISREGARD THEM ENTIRELY
AND NOT CONSIDER THEM FURTHER.  ON THE OTHER HAND, SHOULD YOU FIND
DEFENDANT DID MAKE THEM AND THAT HE MADE THEM VOLUNTARILY AND OF HIS
OWN FREE WILL, YOU WILL CONSIDER THEM AS EVIDENCE AND GIVE THEM JUST
SUCH WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FIND FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY ARE ENTITLED. 
SHOULD YOU FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT SOME OF THEM WERE MADE BY THE
DEFENDANT AND BY HIM MADE VOLUNTARILY AND OF HIS FREE WILL, AND FIND
OTHERS WERE NOT MADE BY HIM, OR IF MADE BY HIM, NOT MADE BY HIM
VOLUNTARILY AND OF HIS FREE WILL, YOU WILL CONSIDER ONLY THOSE YOU FIND
WERE MADE BY HIM VOLUNTARILY AND OF HIS FREE WILL AND REJECT THE
OTHERS.  YOU WILL CONSIDER THE ALLEGED ORAL STATEMENTS OR DECLARATIONS,
SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE SAID WRITTEN OR TYPED STATEMENTS, AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES INCIDENT TO EACH.    "YOU ARE INSTRUCTED FURTHER THAT
STATEMENTS OF GUILT OR DECLARATIONS OF GUILT AS THEY ARE SOMETIMES
CALLED, MADE THROUGH THE INFLUENCE OF HOPES OR FEARS, STATEMENTS OR
DECLARATIONS INDUCED BY PROMISES OF TEMPORAL BENEFIT OR THREATS OF
DISADVANTAGE, ARE TO BE WEIGHED AND NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OF ANY VALUE. 
STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS WHICH ARE NOT VOLUNTARY AND OF FREE WILL
MADE, ARE EXCLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE PROBABLY NOT TRUE. 
ANOTHER GROUND FOR THE EXCLUSION IS THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT NO MAN SHALL BE REQUIRED TO GIVE EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIMSELF, FOR IF HE IS COMPELLED BY THREATS OR INDUCED BY HOPES
TO MAKE CONFESSION AGAINST HIMSELF, IT IS AN INDIRECT METHOD OF
COMPELLING HIM TO GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIMSELF, WHEN STATEMENTS OR
DECLARATIONS MADE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ARE AFTERWARDS PROVEN
AGAINST HIM IN COURT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, A FREE WILL AND VOLUNTARY
STATEMENT OR ADMISSION, MADE BY A DEFENDANT AGAINST HIS INTEREST,
AGAINST HIS INTEREST, IS ONE OF THE MOST SATISFACTORY PROOFS OF GUILT,
FOR AN INNOCENT PERSON WILL NOT VOLUNTARILY SUBJECT HIMSELF TO INFAMY
AND LIABILITY TO PUNISHMENT BY FALSE STATEMENTS AGAINST HIMSELF. 

"THE STATE HAVING OFFERED THESE STATEMENTS OR ADMISSIONS, MUST PROVE
THAT THEY WERE MADE; BUT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT A PARTICULAR
STATEMENT OR ADMISSION WAS OBTAINED BY IMPROPER INDUCEMENTS, IN
GENERAL, IS UPON THE DEFENDANT." 

FN4  SEE LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, P. 238. 
..END :
























CALLEN V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 332 U.S. 625 


NO. 331.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1948.  - 162
F.2D 832, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT CONTENDED THAT A RELEASE RELIED UPON BY DEFENDANT WAS INVALID
BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY KNEW AT THE TIME IT WAS GIVEN THAT PLAINTIFF'S
INJURY WAS PERMANENT, AND THE PERMANENCE OF THE INJURY WAS DISPUTED BY
DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE ISSUE AS TO THE
PERMANENCE OF THE INJURY PASSED UPON BY THE JURY; AND IT WAS ERROR FOR
THE TRIAL COURT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE JURY THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY
OF THE RELEASE.  PP. 626-629. 

2.  WHERE, IN A CASE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, A
RAILROAD PLEADS A RELEASE OBTAINED FROM AN INJURED EMPLOYEE AND THE
EMPLOYEE ADMITS GIVING THE RELEASE BUT CHALLENGES ITS VALIDITY ON THE
GROUND OF FRAUD OR MUTUAL MISTAKE, THE BURDEN IS ON THE EMPLOYEE TO
SHOW THAT THE CONTRACT WAS INVALID.  PP. 629-630. 

3.  SECTION 5 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, PROVIDING THAT
ANY CONTRACT TO ENABLE ANY COMMON CARRIER TO "EXEMPT ITSELF FROM ANY
LIABILITY CREATED BY THIS CHAPTER SHALL TO THAT EXTENT BE VOID," DOES
NOT PREVENT A RAILROAD FROM COMPROMISING OR SETTLING CLAIMS AND
OBTAINING RELEASES BASED UPON SUCH SETTLEMENTS.  PP. 630-631. 

CALLEN V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE PLAINTIFF
OBTAINED A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING A RELEASE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL.  162 F.2D
832.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 807.  AFFIRMED, P. 631. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PLAINTIFF, A RAILROAD BRAKEMAN, BROUGHT THIS ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65; 53 STAT. 1404; 45 U.S.C. SEC.
51.  HE RECOVERED A JURY VERDICT OF $24,990, BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED BECAUSE OF ERRORS IN THE CHARGE BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE
AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL.  THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM AS SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF AN ENGINEER IN EFFECTING A COUPLING
OPERATION AT A SPEED WHICH PLAINTIFF THOUGHT WOULD JOLT HIM OFF THE
STIRRUP OF THE CAR HE WAS RIDING.  IN JUMPING FOR SAFETY, HE CLAIMED TO
HAVE RECEIVED A SEVERE AND PERMANENT BACK INJURY.  THE DEFENDANT DENIED
THE OCCURRENCE, OFFERED TESTIMONY THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT WORK AT THE
TIME IN QUESTION AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF HIS ADMISSION THAT HE DID NOT
WORK ON THAT DAY BUT INSTEAD SHOVELED SNOW TO GET HIS CAR OUT OF THE
GARAGE.  IT ALSO WAS TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD TOLD HIS CONDUCTOR HE HURT
HIS BACK ON A DIFFERENT OCCASION.  BUT IF THE INJURY WAS SUSTAINED AT
THE TIME AND PLACE ALLEGED, THE DEFENDANT DENIED NEGLIGENCE, CLAIMED
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND PLEADED A GENERAL RELEASE.  THE CONTROVERSY
HERE CONCERNS THE RELEASE. 

IT WAS PROVED AND NOT DENIED THAT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF $250 THE
PLAINTIFF EXECUTED A GENERAL RELEASE OF "ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS WHICH I
HAVE OR CAN OR MAY HAVE AGAINST THE SAID PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY
FOR OR BY REASON OF PERSONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY ME" AT THE TIME AND
PLACE INVOLVED IN THE SUIT.  IT ALSO RELEASED CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF TIME
AND EXPENSE, AND RECITED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS IN COMPROMISE AND NOT AN
ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THAT PLAINTIFF READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE
AGREEMENT AND THAT THE SUM OF MONEY STATED THEREIN IS ALL THAT HE WAS
TO RECEIVE. 

ON THE TRIAL, THE PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED THAT HE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE
RELEASE, KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING AND INTENDED TO WAIVE ANY FURTHER
CLAIM, AND THAT WHEN HE BEGAN TALKING SETTLEMENT HE SAID HE SHOULD HAVE
BETWEEN $300 AND $350.  NO FRAUD WAS ALLEGED, BUT THE PLAINTIFF
TESTIFIED THAT HE EXECUTED THE RELEASE IN RELIANCE ON THE CLAIM AGENT'S
ASSURANCE THAT "THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG" AND THAT HE "WAS ALL RIGHT TO
GO BACK TO THE JOB." 

AT THE TRIAL, PLAINTIFF OFFERED EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY MIGHT
WELL FIND THAT HE HAD A PERMANENT AND SERIOUS INJURY.  THE CLAIM AGENT
ADMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT HE DID NOT KNOW THE PLAINTIFF
WAS SUFFERING THE INJURY WHICH THE DOCTORS AT THE TRIAL DESCRIBED.  THE
PLAINTIFF HAD GONE TO A FAMILY PHYSICIAN WHO TAPED HIS BACK AND TO A
CHIROPRACTOR WHOSE REPORT PLAINTIFF TOOK WITH HIM TO THE CLAIM AGENT. 
IT DID NOT DIAGNOSE PERMANENT INJURY BUT DID SUGGEST A WEAKNESS MAKING
HIM MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO RECURRENCE.  THE RAILROAD PROCURED NO MEDICAL
EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF.  THE CLAIM AGENT'S TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE
DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF THE SETTLEMENT ON THE BASIS OF HIS BELIEF THAT
THERE WAS NO LIABILITY. 

INSTRUCTING THE JURY, THE TRIAL COURT STATED: 

"ANYHOW, THEY SETTLED TO THE EXTENT OF $250.00, AND THE RELEASE HAS
BEEN OFFERED IN EVIDENCE AND ADMITTED, AND BOTH SIDES AGREE THAT THAT
RELEASE WAS NOT IN CONTEMPLATION OF ANY SORT OF PERMANENT INJURY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"NOW, I AM GOING TO CONSIDER THAT RELEASE AS BINDING TO THE AMOUNT OF
$250.00, AND IF YOU FIND A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF YOU WILL DEDUCT
THAT FROM ANY AMOUNT YOU WOULD OTHERWISE GIVE HIM.  THE $250.00 HE GOT
FOR EXPENSES AND MEDICAL BILLS AND SERVICES THAT HE OBTAINED UP TO THAT
TIME; AND IF YOU FIND THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO A VERDICT AT YOUR HANDS I
WILL ASK YOU TO DEDUCT THAT $250.00 FROM ANY AMOUNT YOU OTHERWISE WOULD
AWARD HIM, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE AGREED TO TAKE TOWARD THAT
PARTICULAR PHASE OF HIS CLAIM, AND OF COURSE HE WOULD NOT AND DOES NOT
ASK, AS I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE EXCUSED FROM THAT,  - HE ADMITS THAT HE
GOT IT, AND THERE IT IS. 

"THE RELEASE, AS I HAVE TOLD THE ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH SIDES, I DO NOT
CONSIDER BINDING INSOFAR AS IT APPLIES TO HIS PERMANENT INJURIES,
BECAUSE THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CERTAINLY DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS
PERMANENTLY INJURED  ...  " 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, QUITE RIGHTLY WE THINK, CONSTRUED THE
CHARGE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AS WITHDRAWING THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF
THE RELEASE FROM THE JURY AND SAID:  "THIS WAS PALPABLE ERROR UNDER THE
FACTS RELATING TO THE RELEASE AND ENTIRELY ASIDE FROM THE COURT'S
INCORRECT ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE PERMANENCY OF
THE INJURIES." 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD AT THE TRIAL MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE
ISSUE WAS RAISED AND SHARPLY LITIGATED AS TO WHETHER THE INJURY, IF
RECEIVED BY PLAINTIFF IN THE MANNER ALLEGED, WAS PERMANENT IN
CHARACTER.  ONLY WHEN AND IF THIS ISSUE WAS RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF ONE
PARTY OR THE OTHER COULD IT BE KNOWN WHETHER THERE WAS A BASIS FOR
FINDING A MUTUAL MISTAKE OR ANY MISTAKE OF FACT IN EXECUTING THE
RELEASE.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF PERMANENCE OF
INJURY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, AT LEAST SO FAR AS THE RELEASE WAS
CONCERNED, AND ON THAT BASIS WITHDREW CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE FROM
THE JURY.  EVEN IF THE ISSUE OF PERMANENCE WERE RESOLVED AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT, AN ISSUE STILL EXISTED AS TO VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE SINCE
THE DEFENDANT INSISTS THAT IT DID NOT ACT FROM MISTAKE AS TO THE NATURE
AND EXTENT OF THE INJURIES BUT ENTERED INTO THE RELEASE FOR THE SMALL
CONSIDERATION INVOLVED BECAUSE, UPON THE EVIDENCE IN ITS HANDS AT THE
TIME, NO LIABILITY WAS INDICATED.  WE THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED
TO ARGUE THESE CONTENTIONS TO THE JURY AND TO HAVE THEM SUBMITTED UNDER
PROPER INSTRUCTIONS. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE JURY ACCEPTED THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE RELEASE.  RETURNING, THEY RENDERED A VERDICT "FOR
THE PLAINTIFF, AND ASSESS THE DAMAGES AT $25,240, OF WHICH THE RAILROAD
IS TO BE REIMBURSED WITH $250.00."  THE COURT, SAYING HE WANTED TO MAKE
THE RECORD RIGHT, ASKED THE JURY IF THEY MADE A NET FINDING OF $24,990,
WHICH THE FOREMAN SAID THEY DID.  UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS THEY HAD
RECEIVED, THERE WAS LITTLE ELSE THAT THE JURY COULD DO, FOR THE COURT
HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THEM THE ISSUE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE AND
CONSEQUENTLY HAD GIVEN THEM NO INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE LAW THAT SHOULD
GOVERN THE DETERMINATION OF ANY SUCH QUESTION. 

WHILE THE TRIAL COURT ASSUMED A FINDING OF PERMANENCY AS A BASIS FOR
HIS SETTING ASIDE OF THE RELEASE, AFTER CHALLENGE TO HIS ASSUMPTION AS
TO THE NATURE OF THE INJURIES HE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO CORRECT THE
IMPRESSION, INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTED THE ISSUE OF DAMAGES.  BUT THE TRIAL
COURT DID NOT CORRECT OR IN ANY WAY ALTER HIS DETERMINATION THAT THE
RELEASE WAS NOT BINDING INSOFAR AS IT RESTED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF
PERMANENT INJURY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT
FAILURE TO SUBMIT THIS LATTER QUESTION TO THE JURY WAS REVERSIBLE
ERROR. 

WE ARE URGED, HOWEVER, TO DECIDE IN THIS CASE THAT THE RELEASE WAS
PROPERLY DISREGARDED BY THE TRIAL COURT UPON THE GROUND THAT THE BURDEN
SHOULD NOT BE ON ONE WHO ATTACKS A RELEASE, TO SHOW GROUNDS OF MUTUAL
MISTAKE OR FRAUD, BUT SHOULD REST UPON THE ONE WHO PLEADS SUCH A
CONTRACT, TO PROVE THE ABSENCE OF THOSE GROUNDS.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED
THAT THIS IS OR EVER HAS BEEN THE LAW; RATHER, IT IS CONTENDED THAT IT
SHOULD BE THE LAW, AT LEAST AS TO RAILROAD CASES.  THE AMICUS BRIEF*
PUTS IT THAT "WE ASK THAT THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE VALIDITY OF A
RELEASE TAKEN FROM A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT BE PLACED ON THE RAILROAD, AND THAT, WHERE BUT A NOMINAL
SUM HAS BEEN PAID, WHICH IS LESS THAN OR EVEN EQUAL TO ONLY THE WAGES
LOST, THAT FACT OF ITSELF BE HELD TO BE EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST A MISTAKE
OF FACT, IF NOT PRESUMED FRAUD, SINCE THE RAILROAD POSSESSES SUPERIOR
FACILITIES FOR DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF THE INJURIES.  ... "
CONSIDERABLE RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON A CONCURRING OPINION IN THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN RICKETTS V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.,
153 F.2D 757, 760.  HOWEVER PERSUASIVE THE ARGUMENTS THERE STATED MAY
BE THAT INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER MIGHT WELL JUSTIFY A CHANGE IN
THE LAW, THEY ARE ALSO A FRANK RECOGNITION THAT THE CONGRESS HAS MADE
NO SUCH CHANGE.  AN AMENDMENT OF THIS CHARACTER IS FOR THE CONGRESS TO
CONSIDER RATHER THAN FOR THE COURTS TO INTRODUCE.  IF THE CONGRESS WERE
TO ADOPT A POLICY DEPRIVING SETTLEMENTS OF LITIGATION OF THEIR PRIMA
FACIE VALIDITY, IT MIGHT ALSO MAKE COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES MORE
CERTAIN AND THE AMOUNTS THEREOF LESS SPECULATIVE.  BUT UNTIL THE
CONGRESS CHANGES THE STATUTORY PLAN, THE RELEASES OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES
STAND ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE RELEASES OF OTHERS.  ONE WHO ATTACKS A
SETTLEMENT MUST BEAR THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE CONTRACT HE HAS
MADE IS TAINTED WITH INVALIDITY, EITHER BY FRAUD PRACTICED UPON HIM OR
BY A MUTUAL MISTAKE UNDER WHICH BOTH PARTIES ACTED. 

*(IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, SEE POST, P. 807.) 

THE PLAINTIFF HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THIS RELEASE VIOLATES SEC. 5 OF
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT ANY CONTRACT
TO ENABLE ANY COMMON CARRIER TO "EXEMPT ITSELF FROM ANY LIABILITY
CREATED BY THIS CHAPTER, SHALL TO THAT EXTENT BE VOID."  35 STAT. 66,
45 U.S.C. SEC. 55.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A RELEASE IS NOT A DEVICE TO
EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY BUT IS A MEANS OF COMPROMISING A CLAIMED
LIABILITY AND TO THAT EXTENT RECOGNIZING ITS POSSIBILITY.  WHERE
CONTROVERSIES EXIST AS TO WHETHER THERE IS LIABILITY, AND IF SO FOR HOW
MUCH, CONGRESS HAS NOT SAID THAT PARTIES MAY NOT SETTLE THEIR CLAIMS
WITHOUT LITIGATION. 

SINCE WE BELIEVE THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING A NEW
TRIAL AT WHICH THE JURY SHALL BE PERMITTED TO PASS ON ALL ISSUES OF
FACT, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR.
JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, BEING OF THE VIEW THAT RELEASES UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULE WHICH
APPLIES TO RELEASES BY SEAMEN IN ADMIRALTY (SEE THE SEPARATE OPINION OF
JUDGE JEROME FRANK, RICKETTS V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 153 F.2D 757, 767
770), DISSENT FROM AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :



















SIPUEL V. BOARD OF REGENTS, 332 U.S. 631 


NO. 369.  ARGUED JANUARY 7-8, 1948.  - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1948.  - 199
OKLA. 36, 180 P.2D 135, REVERSED. 


A NEGRO, CONCEDEDLY QUALIFIED TO RECEIVE PROFESSIONAL LEGAL EDUCATION
OFFERED BY A STATE, CANNOT BE DENIED SUCH EDUCATION BECAUSE OF HER
COLOR.  THE STATE MUST PROVIDE SUCH EDUCATION FOR HER IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND
PROVIDE IT AS SOON AS IT DOES FOR APPLICANTS OF ANY OTHER GROUP.  PP.
632-633. 

SIPUEL V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA AFFIRMED A DENIAL BY AN INFERIOR STATE
COURT OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE ADMISSION OF A QUALIFIED NEGRO
APPLICANT TO A STATE LAW SCHOOL.  199 OKLA. 36, 180 P.2D 135.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 814.  REVERSED, P. 633. 

PER CURIAM. 

ON JANUARY 14, 1946, THE PETITIONER, A NEGRO, CONCEDEDLY QUALIFIED TO
RECEIVE THE PROFESSIONAL LEGAL EDUCATION OFFERED BY THE STATE, APPLIED
FOR ADMISSION TO THE SCHOOL OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, THE
ONLY INSTITUTION FOR LEGAL EDUCATION SUPPORTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE
TAXPAYERS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.  PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR
ADMISSION WAS DENIED, SOLELY BECAUSE OF HER COLOR. 

PETITIONER THEN MADE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.  THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS
REFUSED, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  199 OKLA. 36, 180 P.2D 135.  WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE FOR REVIEW. 

THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO SECURE LEGAL EDUCATION AFFORDED BY A
STATE INSTITUTION.  TO THIS TIME, IT HAS BEEN DENIED HER ALTHOUGH
DURING THE SAME PERIOD MANY WHITE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN AFFORDED LEGAL
EDUCATION BY THE STATE.  THE STATE MUST PROVIDE IT FOR HER IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND PROVIDE IT AS SOON AS IT DOES FOR APPLICANTS OF ANY OTHER GROUP. 
MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337(1938). 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION. 

THE MANDATE SHALL ISSUE FORTHWITH.  REVERSED. 
..END :
























GLOBE LIQUOR CO. V. SAN ROMAN, 332 U.S. 571 


NO. 205.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1948.  - 160
F.2D 800, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


IN A SUIT ON A CONTRACT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, EACH PARTY MOVED
FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  ONE PARTY'S MOTION WAS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT
WAS ENTERED FOR HIM.  THE OTHER PARTY FAILED TO MOVE AS AUTHORIZED BY
RULE 50(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO HAVE THE JUDGMENT
SET ASIDE AND JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS OWN MOTION FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED
WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE LOSER BELOW.  HELD: 

1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DIRECTING ENTRY OF SUCH A
JUDGMENT.  CONE V. WEST VIRGINIA PAPER CO., 330 U.S. 212.  PP. 572
574. 

2.  SINCE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE
DIRECTED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER DEPENDED UPON A NUMBER OF FACTORS,
INCLUDING AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE CONTRACT
WAS MADE, A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE PLEADINGS, A DETERMINATION
WHETHER A DISPUTED DEPOSITION WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, AND THE EFFECT OF THAT EVIDENCE IF ADMITTED, THE CASE SHOULD BE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL.  P. 574. 

GLOBE LIQUOR CO., INC. V. SAN ROMAN ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTED A VERDICT AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR
PETITIONER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  160 F.2D 800. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 756.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND
REVERSED IN PART, P. 574. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, GLOBE LIQUOR COMPANY, INC., BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AGAINST RESPONDENTS, FRANK AND DOROTHEA SAN
ROMAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES.  THE
COMPLAINT CLAIMED DAMAGES FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH OF WARRANTY IN THE SALE
OF CERTAIN LIQUORS.  AN ANSWER WAS FILED; ISSUES WERE APPROPRIATELY
JOINED.  AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN INTRODUCED, EACH PARTY
REQUESTED A DIRECTED VERDICT.  THE PETITIONERS MOTION WAS GRANTED,
VERDICT WAS RETURNED IN ITS FAVOR, AND JUDGMENT WAS ACCORDINGLY
ENTERED.  THE RESPONDENTS THEN MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND
AMONG OTHERS THAT THERE WERE MANY CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT WHICH SHOULD
HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  THEY DID NOT MOVE FOR JUDGMENT UNDER
RULE 50(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH PROVIDES IN
PART:  "WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE RECEPTION OF A VERDICT, A PARTY WHO
HAS MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT MAY MOVE TO HAVE THE VERDICT AND ANY
JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON SET ASIDE AND TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT; ...  A MOTION FOR A
NEW TRIAL MAY BE JOINED WITH THIS MOTION, OR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE PRAYED
FOR IN THE ALTERNATIVE.  IF A VERDICT WAS RETURNED THE COURT MAY ALLOW
THE JUDGMENT TO STAND OR MAY REOPEN THE JUDGMENT AND EITHER ORDER A NEW
TRIAL OR DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE REQUESTED VERDICT HAD
BEEN DIRECTED."  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS NOT ONLY SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER BUT ALSO REMANDED THE
CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.  160 F.2D 800.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER THE
APPARENT INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THIS LATTER ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AND OUR HOLDING IN CONE V. WEST VIRGINIA PAPER CO., 330 U.S.
212. 

IN THE CONE CASE WE HELD THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO ORDER THE ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE LOSER OF A
JURY VERDICT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE HE HAD FAILED TO FOLLOW HIS
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT WITH A TIMELY MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS
REQUIRED BY RULE 50(B).  WE POINTED OUT IN THE CONE CASE THAT RULE
50(B) VESTED DISTRICT JUDGES WITH A DISCRETION, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OUTLINED IN THE RULE, TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO ALTERNATIVES:  (1)
REOPENING THE JUDGMENT AND GRANTING A NEW TRIAL, AND (2) ORDERING THE
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE LOSING PARTY'S REQUEST FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE REASONS WHICH SUPPORTED THE CONE DECISION ARE
NOT RELEVANT HERE BECAUSE, UNLIKE THE CONE CASE, THE JURY IN THIS CASE
RETURNED ITS VERDICT UNDER SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE. 
HOWEVER SIGNIFICANT THIS VARIANCE BETWEEN THE TWO CASES MIGHT BE FOR
SOME PURPOSES, IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE HERE.  BY ITS TERMS THE RULE
APPLIES EQUALLY TO CASES WHERE THE VERDICT RETURNED BY THE JURY WAS NOT
DIRECTED, AS IN THE CONE CASE, OR WAS DIRECTED, AS IN THIS CASE. 

FURTHERMORE, THE VERY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AROSE IN THIS CASE
EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THE DISTRICT COURT FIRST PASS UPON
WHETHER ITS ERROR SHOULD RESULT IN A NEW TRIAL OR IN A JUDGMENT FINALLY
ENDING THE CONTROVERSY.  FOR THERE IS HERE A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES WHETHER ALL OR CERTAIN PARTS OF A DEPOSITION CONTAINING
IMPORTANT EVIDENCE WERE PROPERLY INTRODUCED IN THE TRIAL COURT.  BOTH
PARTIES TOOK THE POSITION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT SOME,
THOUGH DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE DEPOSITION, WERE PROPERLY PRESENTED IN
EVIDENCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT NO PART OF THE DEPOSITION WAS EVER ADMITTED AS
EVIDENCE.  IN THIS COURT RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT NO PART OF THE
DEPOSITION WAS EVER READ TO THE JURY AND THEREFORE NO PART OF IT CAN BE
CONSIDERED AS INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE.  WHETHER THIS DEPOSITION OR ANY
PART OF IT WAS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT, AND EVEN IF IT WERE NOT
BEFORE THE COURT, WHETHER THE ENDS OF JUSTICE REQUIRED THAT A NEW TRIAL
BE GRANTED IN ORDER THAT THE EVIDENCE IT CONTAINED MIGHT PROPERLY BE
OFFERED, WERE QUESTIONS WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED UNDER RULE
50(B) TO HAVE PASSED UPON IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE TRIAL COURT. 
WHAT WE SAID IN THE CONE CASE IS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE HERE:
"DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED OR A JUDGMENT
ENTERED UNDER RULE 50(B) CALLS FOR THE JUDGMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE JUDGE WHO SAW AND HEARD THE WITNESSES AND HAS THE FEEL OF THE
CASE WHICH NO APPELLATE PRINTED TRANSCRIPT CAN IMPART."  IT WAS ERROR
THEREFORE FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO DIRECT THE DISTRICT COURT
TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS. 

PETITIONER ALSO STRONGLY URGES THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS SUCH THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING A
VERDICT IN ITS FAVOR AND THAT THE JUDGMENT RESTING ON THAT VERDICT
SHOULD BE REINSTATED.  WHETHER A VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED,
HOWEVER, DEPENDS UPON A NUMBER OF FACTORS, INCLUDING AN INTERPRETATION
OF THE LAW OF ILLINOIS WHERE THE CONTRACT WAS MADE, A PROPER
INTERPRETATION OF THE PLEADINGS, A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE DISPUTED
DEPOSITION WAS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AND THE EFFECT
OF THAT EVIDENCE IF ADMITTED.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN REVERSING AND REMANDING THE CAUSE TO
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  BUT SINCE THE RESPONDENTS MADE NO
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 50(B), IT WAS ERROR TO DIRECT THE
DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER A JUDGMENT IN THEIR FAVOR.  THE CASE SHOULD GO
BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 
..END :















SEALFON V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 575 


NO. 174.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1948.  - 161
F.2D 481, REVERSED. 


1.  PETITIONER WAS TRIED AND ACQUITTED ON A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES BY PRESENTING FALSE INVOICES AND MAKING FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS TO A RATION BOARD TO THE EFFECT THAT CERTAIN SALES OF
SUGAR PRODUCTS WERE MADE TO EXEMPT AGENCIES.  THEREAFTER, HE WAS TRIED
AND CONVICTED FOR AIDING AND ABETTING THE UTTERING AND PUBLISHING OF
THE FALSE INVOICES INTRODUCED IN THE CONSPIRACY TRIAL.  THE CRUX OF THE
PROSECUTOR'S CASE AT THE SECOND TRIAL WAS AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT
NECESSARILY FOUND IN THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE NONEXISTENT.  HELD:  IN THE
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE JURY'S VERDICT IN THE CONSPIRACY
TRIAL WAS A DETERMINATION FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER OF THE FACTS
ESSENTIAL TO CONVICTION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE; AND RES JUDICATA
WAS A VALID DEFENSE TO THE SECOND PROSECUTION.  PP. 576-580. 

2.  THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IS APPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL AS WELL AS
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, AND OPERATES TO CONCLUDE THOSE MATTERS IN ISSUE
WHICH HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY A PREVIOUS VERDICT, EVEN THOUGH THE
OFFENSES BE DIFFERENT.  P. 578. 

SEALFON V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

AFTER BEING ACQUITTED ON A CONSPIRACY CHARGE, PETITIONER WAS TRIED
AND CONVICTED ON SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME EVIDENCE FOR VIOLATING SEC. 332
OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  161 F.2D
481.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  332 U.S. 754.  REVERSED, P. 580. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER AN ACQUITTAL OF CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES PRECLUDES A SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION FOR
COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE, ON THE PARTICULAR FACTS HERE
INVOLVED. 

TWO INDICTMENTS WERE RETURNED AGAINST PETITIONER AND OTHERS.  ONE
CHARGED A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION OF CONSERVING AND RATIONING SUGAR BY PRESENTING FALSE INVOICES
AND MAKING FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO A RATION BOARD TO THE EFFECT THAT
CERTAIN SALES OF SUGAR PRODUCTS WERE MADE TO EXEMPT AGENCIES.  FN1  THE
OTHER INDICTMENT CHARGED PETITIONER AND GREENBERG WITH THE COMMISSION
OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE N2, VIZ., UTTERING AND PUBLISHING AS TRUE
THE FALSE INVOICES.  THE CONSPIRACY INDICTMENT WAS TRIED FIRST AND THE
FOLLOWING FACTS WERE SHOWN: 

DEFENDANT GREENBERG MANUFACTURED SYRUP AND APPROACHED SANFORD
DOCTORS, A SALESMAN FOR A BROKERAGE CONCERN, TO SELL VANILLA SYRUP. 
DOCTORS NEGOTIATED SOME SALES TO PETITIONER WHO DID A WHOLESALE
BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF SERO SYRUP CO. THEREAFTER GREENBERG ASKED
DOCTORS TO GET A LIST FROM PETITIONER SHOWING THE PLACES WHERE
PETITIONER MADE SALES AND TOLD HIM THAT IF ANY SALES WERE MADE TO
EXEMPT AGENCIES, GREENBERG COULD SELL TO PETITIONER IN LARGER
QUANTITIES.  DOCTORS SO INFORMED PETITIONER AND SOME TIME THEREAFTER
PETITIONER WROTE TO GREENBERG SAYING, "AT THE PRESENT TIME SOME OF OUR
SYRUPS ARE BEING SOLD AT THE BROOKLYN NAVY YARD" AND VARIOUS DEFENSE
PLANTS.  PETITIONER DID SELL SOME OF HIS SYRUP TO A VENDING COMPANY
WHICH HAD MACHINES AT THE NAVY YARD BUT IT WAS NOT VANILLA SYRUP AND NO
SALES WERE MADE TO THE NAVY YARD AS SUCH.  GREENBERG THEREAFTER
PRESENTED A SERIES OF FALSE INVOICES TO THE RATION BOARD PURPORTING TO
SHOW SALES TO PETITIONER FOR DELIVERY TO THE NAVY YARD.  PETITIONER'S
LETTER WAS NEVER SHOWN TO THE BOARD.  ON THE BASIS OF THESE INVOICES
GREENBERG RECEIVED REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATES FOR 21 MILLION POUNDS OF
SUGAR, 10 MILLION OF WHICH HE SOLD TO PETITIONER IN THE FORM OF VANILLA
SYRUP, AND WHICH WAS BY PETITIONER SOLD TO NON-EXEMPT CONSUMERS, MOSTLY
THE NATIONAL BISCUIT COMPANY.  PETITIONER AT FIRST MADE PAYMENTS TO
GREENBERG BY CHECK BUT THEREAFTER GAVE CHECKS TO HIS TRUCKER WHICH THE
LATTER CASHED, DEDUCTED HIS TRUCKING FEE, AND PAID GREENBERG. 

THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY AS TO PETITIONER N3. 
THEREAFTER A TRIAL WAS HAD ON THE OTHER INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED
PETITIONER AND GREENBERG WITH UTTERING AND PUBLISHING AS TRUE THE FALSE
INVOICES INTRODUCED IN THE CONSPIRACY TRIAL.  GREENBERG PLEADED GUILTY
AND THE TRIAL PROCEEDED AGAINST PETITIONER ON THE THEORY THAT HE AIDED
AND ABETTED GREENBERG IN THE COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE. 
THE FALSE INVOICES, THE LETTER FROM PETITIONER TO GREENBERG, AND
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TESTIMONY WERE AGAIN INTRODUCED AGAINST
PETITIONER.  IN ADDITION, IT WAS BROUGHT OUT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT
PETITIONER HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATES FROM HIS
RATION BOARD FOR SUGAR CONTAINED IN SYRUPS SOLD AT THE NAVY YARD AND
DEFENSE PLANTS.  GREENBERG GAVE TESTIMONY FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD
CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER WAS A MOVING FACTOR IN THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED AROUND PETITIONER'S LETTER AND THAT HE WAS
FAMILIAR WITH GREENBERG'S INTENTION TO SUBMIT FALSE INVOICES. 
GREENBERG FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT PETITIONER RECEIVED $500,000 IN CASH
UNDER THE AGREEMENT AS A REBATE OF TWO CENTS A POUND ON ALL REPLACEMENT
SUGAR WHICH GREENBERG RECEIVED ON NAVY YARD INVOICES WHETHER OR NOT IT
WAS USED IN SYRUP SOLD TO PETITIONER.  THIS TIME THE JURY RETURNED A
VERDICT OF GUILTY AND PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS'
IMPRISONMENT AND FINED $12,000. 

PETITIONER MOVED TO QUASH THE SECOND INDICTMENT ON GROUNDS OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY (ABANDONED IN THIS COURT) AND RES JUDICATA, AND ALSO OBJECTED
TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE FIRST TRIAL.  THE
DISTRICT JUDGE RULED AGAINST PETITIONER, AND THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED. 
161 F.2D 481.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL
LAW. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE AND A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT IT ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
OFFENSES.  PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, 643.  THUS, WITH
SOME EXCEPTIONS, ONE MAY BE PROSECUTED FOR BOTH CRIMES.  IBID.  BUT RES
JUDICATA MAY BE A DEFENSE IN A SECOND PROSECUTION.  THAT DOCTRINE
APPLIES TO CRIMINAL AS WELL AS CIVIL PROCEEDINGS (UNITED STATES V.
OPPENHEIMER, 242 U.S. 85, 87; UNITED STATES V. DE ANGELO, 138 F.2D 466,
468: 147 A.L.R. 991; SEE FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 334) AND
OPERATES TO CONCLUDE THOSE MATTERS IN ISSUE WHICH THE VERDICT
DETERMINED THOUGH THE OFFENSES BE DIFFERENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
ADAMS, 281 U.S. 202, 205. 

THUS THE ONLY QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE JURY'S VERDICT IN
THE CONSPIRACY TRIAL WAS A DETERMINATION FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER OF THE
FACTS ESSENTIAL TO CONVICTION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE.  THIS DEPENDS
UPON THE FACTS ADDUCED AT EACH TRIAL AND THE INSTRUCTIONS UNDER WHICH
THE JURY ARRIVED AT ITS VERDICT AT THE FIRST TRIAL. 

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE BASIS OF THE JURY'S VERDICT CANNOT BE
KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY, THAT THE CONSPIRACY TRIAL WAS PREDICATED ON THE
THEORY THAT PETITIONER WAS A PARTY TO AN OVER-ALL CONSPIRACY ULTIMATELY
INVOLVING PETITIONER, GREENBERG, AND THE BARON CORPORATION.  FN4  THUS
IT IS SAID THAT THE VERDICT ESTABLISHED WITH CERTAINTY ONLY THAT
PETITIONER WAS NOT A MEMBER OF SUCH CONSPIRACY, AND THAT THEREFORE THE
PROSECUTION WAS NOT FORECLOSED FROM SHOWING IN THE SECOND TRIAL THAT
PETITIONER WROTE THE LETTER PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH GREENBERG TO
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES.  THE THEORY IS THAT UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS
GIVEN THE JURY MIGHT HAVE FOUND THAT PETITIONER CONSPIRED WITH
GREENBERG AND YET REFUSED TO INFER THAT HE WAS A PARTY TO THE OVER-ALL
CONSPIRACY. 

THE INSTRUCTIONS UNDER WHICH THE VERDICT WAS RENDERED, HOWEVER, MUST
BE SET IN A PRACTICAL FRAME AND VIEWED WITH AN EYE TO ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  WE LOOK TO THEM ONLY FOR SUCH LIGHT
AS THEY SHED ON THE ISSUES DETERMINED BY THE VERDICT.  CF. DE SOLLAR V.
HANSCOME, 158 U.S. 216, 222.  PETITIONER WAS THE ONLY ONE ON TRIAL
UNDER THE CONSPIRACY INDICTMENT.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CONNECT HIM
DIRECTLY WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN GREENBERG.  ONLY IF AN AGREEMENT WITH
AT LEAST GREENBERG WAS INFERRED BY THE JURY COULD PETITIONER BE
CONVICTED.  AND IN THE ONLY INSTRUCTION KEYED TO THE PARTICULAR FACTS
OF THE CASE THE JURY WAS TOLD THAT PETITIONER MUST BE ACQUITTED IF
THERE WAS REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE CONSPIRED WITH GREENBERG.  NOWHERE
WAS THE JURY TOLD THAT TO RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY IT MUST BE FOUND
THAT PETITIONER WAS A PARTY TO A CONSPIRACY INVOLVING NOT ONLY
GREENBERG BUT THE BARON CORPORATION AS WELL.  FN5  VIEWED IN THIS
SETTING, THE VERDICT IS A DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER, WHO CONCEDEDLY
WROTE AND SENT THE LETTER, DID NOT DO SO PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH
GREENBERG TO DEFRAUD. 

SO INTERPRETED, THE EARLIER VERDICT PRECLUDES A LATER CONVICTION OF
THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE.  THE BASIC FACTS IN EACH TRIAL WERE
IDENTICAL.  AS WE READ THE RECORDS OF THE TWO TRIALS, PETITIONER COULD
BE CONVICTED OF EITHER OFFENSE ONLY ON PROOF THAT HE WROTE THE LETTER
PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH GREENBERG.  UNDER THE EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED, PETITIONER COULD HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED GREENBERG IN NO
OTHER WAY.  INDEED, RESPONDENT DOES NOT URGE THAT HE COULD.  THUS THE
CORE OF THE PROSECUTOR'S CASE WAS IN EACH CASE THE SAME:  THE LETTER,
AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING IT AND TO BE INFERRED FROM IT, AND
THE FALSE INVOICES.  THERE WAS, OF COURSE, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE
SECOND TRIAL ADDING DETAIL TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO THE
ALLEGED AGREEMENT, PETITIONER'S PARTICIPATION THEREIN, AND WHAT HE MAY
HAVE GOT OUT OF IT.  BUT AT MOST THIS EVIDENCE ONLY MADE IT MORE LIKELY
THAT PETITIONER HAD ENTERED INTO THE CORRUPT AGREEMENT.  IT WAS A
SECOND ATTEMPT TO PROVE THE AGREEMENT WHICH AT EACH TRIAL WAS CRUCIAL
TO THE PROSECUTION'S CASE AND WHICH WAS NECESSARILY ADJUDICATED IN THE
FORMER TRIAL TO BE NON-EXISTENT.  THAT THE PROSECUTION MAY NOT DO.
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE SEC. 28 CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 72. 

FN2  SEE SEC. 332 CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 550. 

FN3  THE CONSPIRACY INDICTMENT ALSO NAMED LEO AND MURRAY GREENBERG,
FRESH GROWN PRESERVES CORPORATION IN WHICH THE GREENBERGS WERE OFFICERS
(ALL OF WHOM WE REFER TO SIMPLY AS GREENBERG), THE S.J. BARON
CORPORATION, THE ROYAL CROWN BOTTLING CO. OF BALTIMORE, INC., ROYAL
CROWN BOTTLING CO. OF WASHINGTON, INC., AND WILLIAM C. FRANKLIN,
PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL CROWN COMPANIES.  GREENBERG PLEADED GUILTY,
BARON CORPORATION PLEADED NOLO CONTENDERE, AND VERDICTS WERE DIRECTED
FOR ROYAL CROWN AND FRANKLIN.  IT WAS CHARGED THAT THE BARON
CORPORATION PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY BY WRITING A LETTER SIMILAR
TO THAT WRITTEN BY PETITIONER, DISCUSSED HEREAFTER. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN5  THAT WAS THE VIEW OF THE JUDGE WHO TRIED BOTH CASES.  AT THE
SECOND TRIAL HE CHARACTERIZED AS FOLLOWS THE CHARGE AND THE VERDICT AT
THE FIRST:  "  ...  WHAT WAS TRIED ON THE 11TH OF DECEMBER WAS A CHARGE
OF CONSPIRACY AND WHAT THE JURY BY ITS VERDICT DETERMINED WAS THAT
SEALFON HAD NOT ENTERED INTO COMMON AGREEMENT WITH THE GREENBERGS AND
THE FRESH GROWN COMPANY TO VIOLATE THE LAW." 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. DI RE, 332 U.S. 581 


NO. 61.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1948.  - 159
F.2D 818, AFFIRMED. 


1.  RESPONDENT AND AN INFORMER WERE IN AN AUTOMOBILE, THE DRIVER OF
WHICH WAS SUSPECTED OF SELLING COUNTERFEIT GASOLINE RATION COUPONS. 
WHEN APPROACHED BY FEDERAL AND NEW YORK STATE OFFICERS, THE INFORMER
HAD COUNTERFEIT GASOLINE RATION COUPONS IN HIS HAND AND STATED THAT HE
HAD OBTAINED THEM FROM THE DRIVER.  WITHOUT PREVIOUS INFORMATION
IMPLICATING RESPONDENT, AND WITHOUT A WARRANT, THE STATE OFFICER
ARRESTED RESPONDENT AND THE DRIVER, BUT DID NOT SEARCH THE CAR OR STATE
THE CHARGE ON WHICH RESPONDENT WAS ARRESTED.  AT THE POLICE STATION,
RESPONDENT WAS SEARCHED AND COUNTERFEIT GASOLINE RATION COUPONS WERE
FOUND ON HIS PERSON.  ON THE EVIDENCE THUS OBTAINED, RESPONDENT WAS
CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF COUNTERFEIT GASOLINE RATION COUPONS IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 301 OF THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT.  HELD:  THE SEARCH
WAS UNLAWFUL AND THE CONVICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  PP. 583-595. 

(A)  ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH
OF THE AUTOMOBILE AS A VEHICLE BELIEVED TO BE CARRYING CONTRABAND, THIS
DID NOT JUSTIFY A SEARCH OF THE PERSON OF RESPONDENT.  CARROLL V.
UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 583-587. 

(B)  IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST, SINCE THE
ARREST WAS NOT LAWFUL UNDER NEW YORK LAW, WHICH IS CONTROLLING IN THIS
CASE.  PP. 587-595. 

2.  BY MERE PRESENCE IN A SUSPECTED AUTOMOBILE, A PERSON DOES NOT
LOSE IMMUNITIES FROM SEARCH OF HIS PERSON TO WHICH HE OTHERWISE WOULD
BE ENTITLED.  P. 587. 

3.  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE, THE LAW OF THE
STATE WHERE AN ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT TAKES PLACE DETERMINES ITS
VALIDITY.  P. 589. 

4.  NO FEDERAL STATUTE CONTROLS THE VALIDITY OF AN ARREST WITHOUT
WARRANT IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS.  PP. 590-591. 

5. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE MERE PRESENCE OF RESPONDENT
IN THE CAR DID NOT AUTHORIZE AN INFERENCE OF PARTICIPATION IN A
CONSPIRACY VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  PP. 593-594. 

6.  PROBABLE CAUSE FOR ARREST MAY NOT BE INFERRED FROM THE FACT THAT
THE PERSON ARRESTED DOES NOT PROTEST OR RESIST ARREST OR ASSERT HIS
INNOCENCE TO THE ARRESTING OFFICER.  IT IS THE RIGHT OF ONE PLACED
UNDER ARREST TO SUBMIT TO CUSTODY AND RESERVE HIS DEFENSES FOR THE
NEUTRAL TRIBUNALS ERECTED BY THE LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUDGING HIS
CASE.  PP. 594-595. 

7.  A SEARCH IS NOT MADE LEGAL BY WHAT IT TURNS UP; IN LAW IT IS GOOD
OR BAD WHEN IT STARTS AND DOES NOT CHANGE CHARACTER FROM ITS SUCCESS. 
P. 595. 

8.  THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT MAY BE MADE MORE DIFFICULT IS NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR DISREGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.  P. 595. 

UNITED STATES V. DI RE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF POSSESSING
COUNTERFEIT GASOLINE RATION COUPONS CONTRARY TO SEC. 301 OF THE SECOND
WAR POWERS ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  159 F.2D 818. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 800.  AFFIRMED, P. 595. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MICHAEL DI RE WAS CONVICTED ON A CHARGE OF KNOWINGLY POSSESSING
COUNTERFEIT GASOLINE RATION COUPONS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 301 OF THE
SECOND WAR POWERS ACT, 1942.  FN1  THE DECISIVE EVIDENCE WAS THAT
OBTAINED BY SEARCH OF HIS PERSON, AFTER HE WAS ARRESTED WITHOUT A
WARRANT OF ANY KIND.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT,
CONSIDERED THAT ANY QUESTION AS TO THE TIMELINESS OF HIS OBJECTION TO
THIS EVIDENCE WAS ELIMINATED BY ITS DISPOSITION ON ITS MERITS BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, AND, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, IT HELD BOTH HIS SEARCH AND
ARREST TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS GRANTED CERTIORARI,
FN2  RAISING NO QUESTION OTHER THAN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE HOLDING BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS THE FRUIT OF AN ILLEGAL
ARREST AND SEARCH. 

AN INVESTIGATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION WAS INFORMED
BY ONE REED THAT HE WAS TO BUY COUNTERFEIT GASOLINE RATION COUPONS FROM
A CERTAIN BUTTITTA AT A NAMED PLACE IN THE CITY OF BUFFALO, NEW YORK. 
THE INVESTIGATOR AND A DETECTIVE FROM THE BUFFALO POLICE DEPARTMENT
TRAILED BUTTITTA'S CAR AND FINALLY CAME UPON IT PARKED AT THE APPOINTED
PLACE.  THEY WENT TO THE CAR AND FOUND THE INFORMER REED, THE ONLY
OCCUPANT OF THE REAR SEAT, HOLDING IN HIS HAND TWO GASOLINE RATION
COUPONS WHICH LATER PROVED TO BE COUNTERFEIT.  REED, ON BEING ASKED,
SAID HE OBTAINED THEM FROM BUTTITTA, WHO WAS SITTING IN THE DRIVER'S
SEAT.  BESIDE BUTTITTA SAT DI RE.  ALL THREE WERE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY,
"FRISKED" TO MAKE SURE THEY HAD NO WEAPONS AND WERE THEN TAKEN TO THE
POLICE STATION.  HERE DI RE COMPLIED WITH A DIRECTION TO PUT THE
CONTENTS OF HIS POCKETS ON A TABLE.  TWO GASOLINE AND SEVERAL FUEL OIL
RATION COUPONS WERE LAID OUT.  HE SAID HE HAD FOUND THEM IN THE
STREET.  ABOUT TWO HOURS LATER, AFTER QUESTIONING, HE WAS "BOOKED" AND
THOROUGHLY SEARCHED.  ONE HUNDRED INVENTORY GASOLINE RATION COUPONS
WERE FOUND IN AN ENVELOPE CONCEALED BETWEEN HIS SHIRT AND UNDERWEAR. 
THESE, AS WELL AS THE GASOLINE COUPONS EARLIER DISCLOSED, PROVED TO BE
COUNTERFEIT.  THEIR INTRODUCTION AS EVIDENCE, OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE
DEFENDANT, WAS HELD BY THE COURT BELOW TO REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE
CONVICTION.  FN3

I. 

THE GOVERNMENT NOW DEFENDS THE SEARCH UPON ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS:  1,
THAT SEARCH OF DI RE WAS JUSTIFIED AS INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST; 2,
THAT SEARCH OF HIS PERSON WAS JUSTIFIED AS INCIDENT TO SEARCH OF A
VEHICLE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE CARRYING CONTRABAND.  WE CONSIDER THE
SECOND GROUND FIRST. 

THE CLAIM IS THAT OFFICERS HAVE THE RIGHT, WITHOUT A WARRANT, TO
SEARCH ANY CAR WHICH THEY HAVE REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE CARRIES
CONTRABAND, AND INCIDENTALLY MAY SEARCH ANY OCCUPANT OF SUCH CAR WHEN
THE CONTRABAND SOUGHT IS OF A CHARACTER THAT MIGHT BE CONCEALED ON THE
PERSON.  THIS CONTENTION CALLS, FIRST, FOR A DETERMINATION AS TO
WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES GAVE A RIGHT TO SEARCH THIS CAR. 

THE BELIEF THAT AN AUTOMOBILE IS MORE VULNERABLE TO SEARCH WITHOUT
WARRANT THAN IS OTHER PROPERTY HAS ITS SOURCE IN THE DECISION OF
CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132.  THAT SEARCH WAS MADE AND ITS
VALIDITY WAS UPHELD UNDER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISIONS ENACTED FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT AND OF THAT ACT ALONE. 
TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR IN VIOLATION OF THAT ACT SUBJECTED FIRST THE
LIQUOR, AND THEN THE VEHICLE IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND, TO SEIZURE AND
CONFISCATION, AND THE PERSON "IN CHARGE THEREOF" TO ARREST.  FN4  THE
COURT REVIEWED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF ENFORCEMENT LEGISLATION AND
CONCLUDED (AT P. 147), "THE INTENT OF CONGRESS TO MAKE A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE NECESSITY FOR A SEARCH WARRANT IN THE SEARCHING OF PRIVATE
DWELLINGS AND IN THAT OF AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER ROAD VEHICLES IN  FN5
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROHIBITION ACT IS THUS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STANLEY AMENDMENT.  IS SUCH A
DISTINCTION CONSISTENT WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?  WE THINK THAT IT IS.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT DENOUNCE ALL SEARCHES OR SEIZURES, BUT
ONLY SUCH AS ARE UNREASONABLE."  THE PROGENY OF THE CARROLL CASE
LIKEWISE DEALT WITH SEARCHES AND SEIZURES UNDER THIS ACT.  HUSTY V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 694. 

OBVIOUSLY THE COURT SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO DECIDE THAT A SEARCH THUS
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS WAS UNREASONABLE AND THAT THE ACT WAS THEREFORE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IN VIEW OF THE STRONG PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY DUE TO AN ACT OF CONGRESS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT TURNS
ON WHAT IS "REASONABLE," THE CARROLL DECISION FALLS SHORT OF
ESTABLISHING A DOCTRINE THAT, WITHOUT SUCH LEGISLATION, AUTOMOBILES
NONETHELESS ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT IN ENFORCEMENT OF ALL
FEDERAL STATUTES.  THIS COURT HAS NEVER YET SAID SO.  THE MOST THAT CAN
BE SAID IS THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE BY WHICH THE COURT JUSTIFIED THE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE LEGISLATION IN THE CARROLL CASE MIGHT BE USED TO
MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS A REASONABLE SEARCH AS APPLIED TO AN
AUTOMOBILE AND AS APPLIED TO A RESIDENCE OR FIXED PREMISES, EVEN IN
ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION. 

WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER, WITHOUT SUCH CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION
AS WAS FOUND CONTROLLING IN THE CARROLL CASE, ANY AUTOMOBILE IS SUBJECT
TO SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT ON REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE IT CONTAINS
CONTRABAND.  IN THE CASE BEFORE US THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO SEARCH
OF THE CAR ITSELF.  NO ONE ON THE SPOT SEEMS TO HAVE THOUGHT THERE WAS
CAUSE FOR SEARCHING IT, OR THAT IT WAS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE.  THE
NATURE OF RATION TICKETS, THE CONTRABAND INVOLVED, WAS NOT SUCH THAT A
CAR WOULD BE NECESSARY OR ADVANTAGEOUS IN CARRYING THEM EXCEPT AS AN
INCIDENT OF CARRYING THE PERSON.  WHEN THE QUESTION OF ADMISSIBILITY OF
THIS EVIDENCE AROSE IN THE TRIAL COURT, COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT MADE
NO CLAIM THAT THERE HAD BEEN SEARCH OR CAUSE FOR SEARCH OF THE CAR.  NO
QUESTION OF FACT CONCERNING SUCH A CLAIM HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY THE TRIAL
COURT OR THE JURY. 

ASSUMING, HOWEVER, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE
FOR SEARCHING THE CAR, DID IT CONFER AN INCIDENTAL RIGHT TO SEARCH DI
RE?  IT IS ADMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO
THAT EFFECT, EITHER IN THE STATUTE OR IN PRECEDENT DECISION OF THIS
COURT, BUT WE ARE ASKED TO EXTEND THE ASSUMED RIGHT OF CAR SEARCH TO
INCLUDE THE PERSON OF OCCUPANTS BECAUSE "COMMON SENSE DEMANDS THAT SUCH
RIGHT EXIST IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS WHERE THE CONTRABAND SOUGHT IS A
SMALL ARTICLE WHICH COULD EASILY BE CONCEALED ON THE PERSON." 

THIS ARGUMENT POINTS UP THE DIFFERENT RELATION OF THE AUTOMOBILE TO
THE CRIME IN THE CARROLL CASE THAN IN THE ONE BEFORE US.  AN
AUTOMOBILE, AS WAS THERE POINTED OUT, WAS AN ALMOST INDISPENSABLE
INSTRUMENTALITY IN LARGE-SCALE VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION
ACT, AND THE CAR ITSELF THEREFORE WAS TREATED SOMEWHAT AS AN OFFENDER
AND BECAME CONTRABAND.  BUT EVEN THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT DID NOT
DIRECT THE ARREST OF ALL OCCUPANTS BUT ONLY OF THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF
THE OFFENDING VEHICLE, THOUGH THERE IS BETTER REASON TO ASSUME THAT NO
PASSENGER IN A CAR LOADED WITH LIQUOR WOULD REMAIN INNOCENT OF
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CAR'S CARGO THAN TO ASSUME THAT A PASSENGER MUST KNOW
WHAT PIECES OF PAPER ARE CARRIED IN THE POCKETS OF THE DRIVER. 

THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT WOULD NOT CONTEND THAT, ARMED WITH A SEARCH
WARRANT FOR A RESIDENCE ONLY, IT COULD SEARCH ALL PERSONS FOUND IN IT.
BUT AN OCCUPANT OF A HOUSE COULD BE USED TO CONCEAL THIS CONTRABAND ON
HIS PERSON QUITE AS READILY AS CAN AN OCCUPANT OF A CAR.  NECESSITY, AN
ARGUMENT ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THIS SEARCH, WOULD SEEM AS STRONG A
REASON FOR SEARCHING GUESTS OF A HOUSE FOR WHICH A SEARCH WARRANT HAD
ISSUED AS FOR SEARCH OF GUESTS IN A CAR FOR WHICH NONE HAD BEEN
ISSUED.  BY A PARITY OF REASONING WITH THAT ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
DISCLAIMS THE RIGHT TO SEARCH OCCUPANTS OF A HOUSE, WE SUPPOSE THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT CONTEND THAT IF IT HAD A VALID SEARCH WARRANT FOR
THE CAR ONLY IT COULD SEARCH THE OCCUPANTS AS AN INCIDENT TO ITS
EXECUTION.  HOW THEN COULD WE SAY THAT THE RIGHT TO SEARCH A CAR
WITHOUT A WARRANT CONFERS GREATER LATITUDE TO SEARCH OCCUPANTS THAN A
SEARCH BY WARRANT WOULD PERMIT? 

WE SEE NO GROUND FOR EXPANDING THE RULING IN THE CARROLL CASE TO
JUSTIFY THIS ARREST AND SEARCH AS INCIDENT TO THE SEARCH OF A CAR.  WE
ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT A PERSON, BY MERE PRESENCE IN A SUSPECTED CAR,
LOSES IMMUNITIES FROM SEARCH OF HIS PERSON TO WHICH HE WOULD OTHERWISE
BE ENTITLED. 

         II. 

THE OTHER GROUND ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDED THE SEARCH OF DI
RE, AND THE ONLY ONE ON WHICH IT RELIED AT THE TRIAL, IS THAT THE
OFFICERS JUSTIFIABLY ARRESTED HIM AND THAT THIS CONFERRED A RIGHT TO
SEARCH HIS PERSON.  IF HE WAS LAWFULLY ARRESTED, IT IS NOT QUESTIONED
THAT THE ENSUING SEARCH WAS PERMISSIBLE.  HENCE WE MUST EXAMINE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LAW OF ARREST. 

SOME MEMBERS OF THIS COURT REST THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE ARREST WAS
INVALID ON SEC. 180 OF THE NEW YORK CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHICH
REQUIRES AN OFFICER MAKING AN ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT TO INFORM THE
SUSPECT OF THE CAUSE OF ARREST, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS MADE DURING
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OR WHEN IN PURSUIT AFTER AN ESCAPE.  FN6  THIS
QUESTION WAS FIRST RAISED FROM THE BENCH DURING ARGUMENT IN THIS
COURT.  DI RE DID NOT ASSERT THIS GROUND OF INVALIDITY AT THE TRIAL. 
HAD HE DONE SO THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT HAVE MET IT WITH PROOF OF
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH IN THEMSELVES WOULD SHOW THAT DI RE HAD BEEN
EFFECTIVELY INFORMED, EVEN IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES FELL SHORT OF
ESTABLISHING THE STATUTORY EXCEPTION.  THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW DID NOT
DEVELOP THE FACTS CONCERNING DI RE'S ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
REQUIREMENT.  INASMUCH AS THE ISSUE WOULD LEAD TO EXPLORATION OF THE
LAW AS TO WAIVER WHEN THE DEFENSE WAS NOT RAISED IN EITHER COURT BELOW,
OR INDEED BY THE PETITION HERE, AND AS TO APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE
IF, AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, LACK OF EXPRESS DECLARATION WAS
UNNECESSARY BECAUSE CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPLIED THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, WE
DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE ON THIS RECORD WHETHER DI RE'S ARREST
SATISFIED THIS PROVISION OF THE NEW YORK LAW. 

THE ARREST WAS CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS BELOW ON THE GROUND THAT IT
VIOLATED ANOTHER PROVISION OF NEW YORK LAW WHICH WAS CONSIDERED TO BE
CONTROLLING ON THE SUBJECT.  THE COURT BELOW ASSUMED THAT THE ARRESTING
OFFICER, A STATE OFFICER, DERIVED HIS AUTHORITY TO ARREST BUTTITTA AND
REED, ALTHOUGH IT WAS FOR A FEDERAL CRIME, FROM SEC. 177 OF THE NEW
YORK CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE LEGALITY OF
THE ARREST OF DI RE UNDER PARAGRAPH 3 THEREOF.  FN7  IN THIS COURT THE
GOVERNMENT ORIGINALLY ARGUED THAT THE ARREST WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER BOTH
PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 OF THE STATE LAW, BUT IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF THE
GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWS THE SUGGESTION "THAT THE ARREST OF RESPONDENT CAN
BE JUSTIFIED UNDER SUBSECTION 2 OF SECTION 177 OF THE NEW YORK CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE."  INSTEAD, IT NOW URGES THAT "THE VALIDITY OF AN
ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT FOR A FEDERAL CRIME IS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW
TO BE DETERMINED BY A UNIFORM RULE APPLICABLE IN ALL FEDERAL COURTS." 

WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT IN ABSENCE OF AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE
THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE AN ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT TAKES PLACE
DETERMINES ITS VALIDITY.  BY ONE OF THE EARLIEST ACTS OF CONGRESS, THE
PRINCIPLE OF WHICH IS STILL RETAINED, THE ARREST BY JUDICIAL PROCESS
FOR A FEDERAL OFFENSE MUST BE "AGREEABLY TO THE USUAL MODE OF PROCESS
AGAINST OFFENDERS IN SUCH STATE."  FN8 THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT STATE LAW IS NOT AN EQUALLY APPROPRIATE STANDARD BY WHICH TO TEST
ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT, EXCEPT IN THOSE CASES WHERE CONGRESS HAS
ENACTED A FEDERAL RULE.  INDEED THE ENACTMENT OF A FEDERAL RULE IN SOME
SPECIFIC CASES SEEMS TO IMPLY THE ABSENCE OF ANY GENERAL FEDERAL LAW OF
ARREST. 

TURNING TO THE ACTS OF CONGRESS TO FIND A RULE FOR ARREST WITHOUT
WARRANT, WE FIND NONE WHICH CONTROLS SUCH A CASE AS WE HAVE HERE AND
NONE THAT PURPORTS TO CREATE A GENERAL RULE ON THE SUBJECT.  IF WE WERE
TO TRY TO FIND OR FASHION A FEDERAL RULE FOR ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT, IT
APPEARS THAT THE FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS ARE MEAGER, INCONSISTENT
AND INCONCLUSIVE.  FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION OFFICERS ARE
AUTHORIZED ONLY "TO MAKE ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT FOR FELONIES WHICH
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED AND WHICH ARE COGNIZABLE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN CASES WHERE THE PERSON MAKING THE ARREST HAS
REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON SO ARRESTED IS GUILTY OF
SUCH FELONY AND WHERE THERE IS A LIKELIHOOD OF THE PERSON ESCAPING
BEFORE A WARRANT CAN BE OBTAINED FOR HIS ARREST, BUT THE PERSON
ARRESTED SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN BEFORE A COMMITTING OFFICER."  FN9
HOWEVER, MARSHALS AND THEIR DEPUTIES "SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE
ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT FOR ANY OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES COMMITTED IN THEIR PRESENCE OR FOR ANY FELONY COGNIZABLE UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IN CASES WHERE SUCH FELONY HAS IN FACT
BEEN OR IS BEING COMMITTED AND THEY HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE
THAT THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED OR IS COMMITTING IT,"
FN10  AND THEY ARE ALSO GIVEN THE SAME POWERS AS SHERIFFS IN THE SAME
STATE MAY HAVE, BY LAW, IN EXECUTING THE LAWS THEREOF.  FN11    IN
DENOUNCING UNLAWFUL SEARCH BY FEDERAL OFFICERS AS A MISDEMEANOR,
CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT IT SHOULD NOT APPLY TO ONE "ARRESTING OR
ATTEMPTING TO ARREST ANY PERSON COMMITTING OR ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT AN
OFFENSE IN THE PRESENCE OF SUCH OFFICER, AGENT, OR EMPLOYEE, OR WHO HAS
COMMITTED, OR WHO IS SUSPECTED ON REASONABLE GROUNDS OF HAVING
COMMITTED, A FELONY."  FN12  THUS THE LEGISLATIVE SOURCES, WHILE
YIELDING SOME COMMON PROVISIONS, ALSO CONTAIN MANY INCONSISTENCIES.  NO
ACT OF CONGRESS LAYS DOWN A GENERAL FEDERAL RULE FOR ARREST WITHOUT
WARRANT FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES.  NONE PURPORTS TO SUPERSEDE STATE LAW. 
AND NONE APPLIES TO THIS ARREST WHICH, WHILE FOR A FEDERAL OFFENSE, WAS
MADE BY A STATE OFFICER ACCOMPANIED BY FEDERAL OFFICERS WHO HAD NO
POWER OF ARREST.  THEREFORE THE NEW YORK STATUTE PROVIDES THE STANDARD
BY WHICH THIS ARREST MUST STAND OR FALL. 

SINCE, UNDER THAT LAW, ANY VALID ARREST OF DI RE, IF FOR A
MISDEMEANOR MUST BE FOR ONE COMMITTED IN THE ARRESTING OFFICER'S
PRESENCE, AND IF FOR A FELONY MUST BE FOR ONE WHICH THE OFFICER HAD
REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THE SUSPECT HAD COMMITTED, WE SEEK TO
LEARN FOR WHAT OFFENSE THIS MAN WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY.  THE ARRESTING
OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT TELL DI RE WHAT HE WAS BEING ARRESTED
FOR.  AFTER HE WAS TAKEN TO THE STATION HE WAS "BOOKED," BUT THE RECORD
DOES NOT SHOW UPON WHAT CHARGE.  HE WAS LATER INDICTED FOR THE
MISDEMEANOR OF KNOWINGLY POSSESSING COUNTERFEIT GASOLINE RATION COUPONS
IN VIOLATION OF RATION ORDER NO. 5(C) OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR.  BUT ON APPEAL THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTED THE ARREST MAY
BE DEFENDED AS ONE FOR A FELONY BECAUSE PROBABLE GROUNDS EXISTED FOR
BELIEVING HIM GUILTY OF THE FELONY OF CONSPIRACY UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE,  FN13  AND IN THIS COURT FOR THE FIRST TIME IT SUGGESTS
THAT THERE WERE GROUNDS FOR ARREST ON A CHARGE OF POSSESSING A KNOWN
COUNTERFEIT WRITING WITH INTENT TO UTTER IT AS TRUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES, A FELONY UNDER SEC. 28 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE.  FN14 

ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT AN ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT ON A
CHARGE NOT COMMUNICATED AT THE TIME MAY LATER BE JUSTIFIED IF THE
ARRESTING OFFICER'S KNOWLEDGE GAVE PROBABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE ANY
FELONY FOUND IN THE STATUTE BOOKS HAD BEEN COMMITTED, WE ARE BROUGHT TO
THE INQUIRY WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THAT TIME AFFORDED SUCH
GROUNDS. 

THE GOVERNMENT NOW CONCEDES THAT THE ONLY PERSON WHO COMMITTED A
POSSIBLE MISDEMEANOR IN THE OPEN PRESENCE OF THE OFFICER WAS REED, THE
GOVERNMENT INFORMER WHO WAS FOUND VISIBLY POSSESSING THE COUPONS.  OF
COURSE, AS TO BUTTITTA THEY HAD PREVIOUS INFORMATION THAT HE WAS TO
SELL SUCH COUPONS TO REED, AND REED GAVE INFORMATION THAT HE HAD DONE
SO.  BUT THE OFFICER HAD NO SUCH INFORMATION AS TO DI RE.  ALL THEY HAD
WAS HIS PRESENCE, AND IF HIS PRESENCE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE A CASE FOR
ARREST FOR A MISDEMEANOR, IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW IT WAS ENOUGH FOR THE
FELONY OF VIOLATING SEC. 28 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. 

THE RELEVANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RATION ORDER 5(C) AND SEC. 28 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE IS THAT THE FORMER DECLARES MERE POSSESSION OF A
COUNTERFEIT COUPON AN OFFENSE, WHILE THE LATTER DEFINES A FELONY WHICH
CONSISTS NOT MERELY OF POSSESSION BUT ALSO OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE
INSTRUMENT'S COUNTERFEIT CHARACTER, AND ALSO OF INTENT TO UTTER IT AS
TRUE.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ARREST THE OFFICERS HAD
NO INFORMATION IMPLICATING DI RE AND NO INFORMATION POINTING TO
POSSESSION OF ANY COUPONS, UNLESS HIS PRESENCE IN THE CAR WARRANTED
THAT INFERENCE.  OF COURSE THEY HAD NO INFORMATION HINTING FURTHER AT
THE KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT REQUIRED AS ELEMENTS OF THE FELONY UNDER THE
STATUTE. 

            III. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S DEFENSE OF THE ARREST RELIES MOST HEAVILY ON THE
CONSPIRACY GROUND.  IN VIEW OF REED'S CHARACTER AS AN INFORMER, IT IS
QUESTIONABLE WHETHER A CONSPIRACY IS SHOWN.  BUT IF THE PRESENCE OF DI
RE IN THE CAR DID NOT AUTHORIZE AN INFERENCE OF PARTICIPATION IN THE
BUTTITTA-REED SALE, IT FAILS TO SUPPORT THE INFERENCE OF ANY FELONY AT
ALL. 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS A FACT OR THAT THE OFFICERS HAD ANY
INFORMATION INDICATING THAT DI RE WAS IN THE CAR WHEN REED OBTAINED
RATION COUPONS FROM BUTTITTA, AND NONE THAT HE HEARD OR TOOK PART IN
ANY CONVERSATION ON THE SUBJECT.  REED, THE INFORMER, CERTAINLY KNEW IT
IF ANY PART OF HIS TRANSACTION WAS IN DI RE'S PRESENCE.  BUT HE WAS NOT
CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE GOVERNMENT, NOR SHOWN TO BE UNAVAILABLE, AND
WE MUST ASSUME THAT HIS TESTIMONY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IN
BRINGING GUILTY KNOWLEDGE HOME TO DI RE. 

AN INFERENCE OF PARTICIPATION IN CONSPIRACY DOES NOT SEEM TO BE
SUSTAINED BY THE FACTS PECULIAR TO THIS CASE.  THE ARGUMENT THAT ONE
WHO "ACCOMPANIES A CRIMINAL TO A CRIME RENDEZVOUS" CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO
BE A BYSTANDER, FORCEFUL ENOUGH IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, IS FARFETCHED
WHEN THE MEETING IS NOT SECRETIVE OR IN A SUSPICIOUS HIDE-OUT BUT IN
BROAD DAYLIGHT, IN PLAIN SIGHT OF PASSERS-BY, IN A PUBLIC STREET OF A
LARGE CITY, AND WHERE THE ALLEGED SUBSTANTIVE CRIME IS ONE WHICH DOES
NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVE ANY ACT VISIBLY CRIMINAL.  IF DI RE HAD
WITNESSED THE PASSING OF PAPERS FROM HAND TO HAND, IT WOULD NOT FOLLOW
THAT HE KNEW THEY WERE RATION COUPONS, AND IF HE SAW THAT THEY WERE
RATION COUPONS, IT WOULD NOT FOLLOW THAT HE WOULD KNOW THEM TO BE
COUNTERFEIT.  INDEED IT APPEARED AT THE TRIAL TO REQUIRE AN EXPERT TO
ESTABLISH THAT FACT.  PRESUMPTIONS OF GUILT ARE NOT LIGHTLY TO BE
INDULGED FROM MERE MEETINGS. 

MOREOVER, WHATEVER SUSPICION MIGHT RESULT FROM DI RE'S MERE PRESENCE
SEEMS DIMINISHED, IF NOT DESTROYED, WHEN REED, PRESENT AS THE INFORMER,
POINTED OUT BUTTITTA, AND BUTTITTA ONLY, AS A GUILTY PARTY.  NO REASON
APPEARS TO DOUBT THAT REED WILLINGLY WOULD INVOLVE DI RE IF THE NATURE
OF THE TRANSACTION PERMITTED.  YET HE DID NOT INCRIMINATE DI RE.  ANY
INFERENCE THAT EVERYONE ON THE SCENE OF A CRIME IS A PARTY TO IT MUST
DISAPPEAR IF THE GOVERNMENT INFORMER SINGLES OUT THE GUILTY PERSON. 

                            IV. 

THE GOVERNMENT ALSO MAKES, AND SEVERAL TIMES REPEATS, AN ARGUMENT TO
THE EFFECT THAT THE OFFICERS COULD INFER PROBABLE CAUSE FROM THE FACT
THAT DI RE DID NOT PROTEST HIS ARREST, DID NOT AT ONCE ASSERT HIS
INNOCENCE, AND SILENTLY ACCEPTED THE COMMAND TO GO ALONG TO THE POLICE
STATION.  ONE HAS AN UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO RESIST AN UNLAWFUL ARREST, AND
COURTS WILL UPHOLD THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE IN PROPER CASES.  BUT COURTS
WILL HARDLY PENALIZE FAILURE TO DISPLAY A SPIRIT OF RESISTANCE OR TO
HOLD FUTILE DEBATES ON LEGAL ISSUES IN THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY WITH AN
OFFICER OF THE LAW.  A LAYMAN MAY NOT FIND IT EXPEDIENT TO HAZARD
RESISTANCE ON HIS OWN JUDGMENT OF THE LAW AT A TIME WHEN HE CANNOT KNOW
WHAT INFORMATION, CORRECT OR INCORRECT, THE OFFICERS MAY BE ACTING
UPON.  IT IS LIKELY TO END IN FRUITLESS AND UNSEEMLY CONTROVERSY IN A
PUBLIC STREET, IF NOT IN AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF RESISTING AN OFFICER. 
IF THE OFFICERS BELIEVED THEY HAD PROBABLE CAUSE FOR HIS ARREST ON A
FELONY CHARGE, IT IS NOT TO BE SUPPOSED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
DISSUADED BY HIS PROFESSION OF INNOCENCE. 

IT IS THE RIGHT OF ONE PLACED UNDER ARREST TO SUBMIT TO CUSTODY AND
TO RESERVE HIS DEFENSES FOR THE NEUTRAL TRIBUNALS ERECTED BY THE LAW
FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUDGING HIS CASE.  AN INFERENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE
FROM A FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF THE CHARGE WITH
ARRESTING OFFICERS IS UNWARRANTED.  PROBABLE CAUSE CANNOT BE FOUND FROM
SUBMISSIVENESS, AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS NOT LOST OR
IMPAIRED BY NEGLECT TO ARGUE WITH A POLICEMAN.  IT IS THE OFFICER'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW WHAT HE IS ARRESTING FOR, AND WHY, AND ONE IN
THE UNHAPPY PLIGHT OF BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY IS NOT REQUIRED TO TEST
THE LEGALITY OF THE ARREST BEFORE THE OFFICER WHO IS MAKING IT. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S LAST RESORT IN SUPPORT OF THE ARREST IS TO REASON
FROM THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE OFFICER'S
KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME GAVE THEM GROUNDS FOR IT.  WE HAVE HAD FREQUENT
OCCASION TO POINT OUT THAT A SEARCH IS NOT TO BE MADE LEGAL BY WHAT IT
TURNS UP.  FN15 IN LAW IT IS GOOD OR BAD WHEN IT STARTS AND DOES NOT
CHANGE CHARACTER FROM ITS SUCCESS. 

                      V. 

WE MEET IN THIS CASE, AS IN MANY, THE APPEAL TO NECESSITY.  IT IS
SAID THAT IF SUCH ARRESTS AND SEARCHES CANNOT BE MADE, LAW ENFORCEMENT
WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT AND UNCERTAIN.  BUT THE FOREFATHERS, AFTER
CONSULTING THE LESSONS OF HISTORY, DESIGNED OUR CONSTITUTION TO PLACE
OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF A TOO PERMEATING POLICE SURVEILLANCE, WHICH
THEY SEEMED TO THINK WAS A GREATER DANGER TO A FREE PEOPLE THAN THE
ESCAPE OF SOME CRIMINALS FROM PUNISHMENT.  TAKING THE LAW AS IT HAS
BEEN GIVEN TO US, THIS ARREST AND SEARCH WERE BEYOND THE LAWFUL
AUTHORITY OF THOSE WHO EXECUTED THEM.  THE CONVICTION BASED ON EVIDENCE
SO OBTAINED CANNOT STAND.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946), SEC. 633. 

FN2  331 U.S. 800. 

FN3  159 F.2D 818. 

FN4  SECTION 26, TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT PROVIDED IN
PART AS FOLLOWS:  "WHEN ... ANY OFFICER OF THE LAW SHALL DISCOVER ANY
PERSON IN THE ACT OF TRANSPORTING IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, INTOXICATING
LIQUORS IN ANY WAGON, BUGGY, AUTOMOBILE, WATER OR AIR CRAFT, OR OTHER
VEHICLE, IT SHALL BE HIS DUTY TO SEIZE ANY AND ALL INTOXICATING LIQUORS
FOUND THEREIN BEING TRANSPORTED CONTRARY TO LAW.  WHENEVER INTOXICATING
LIQUORS TRANSPORTED OR POSSESSED ILLEGALLY SHALL BE SEIZED BY AN
OFFICER HE SHALL TAKE POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE AND TEAM OR AUTOMOBILE,
BOAT, AIR OR WATER CRAFT, OR ANY OTHER CONVEYANCE, AND SHALL ARREST ANY
PERSON IN CHARGE THEREOF.  ...  "  IN THE CARROLL CASE IT WAS SAID (267
U.S. AT 155) THAT THIS SECTION WAS INTENDED "TO REACH AND DESTROY THE
FORBIDDEN LIQUOR IN TRANSPORTATION AND THE PROVISIONS FOR FORFEITURE OF
THE VEHICLE AND THE ARREST OF THE TRANSPORTER WERE INCIDENTAL"; AND
(267 U.S. AT 158) "THE RIGHT TO SEARCH AND THE VALIDITY OF THE SEIZURE
ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE RIGHT TO ARREST.  THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON THE
REASONABLE CAUSE THE SEIZING OFFICER HAS FOR BELIEF THAT THE CONTENTS
OF THE AUTOMOBILE OFFEND AGAINST THE LAW.  THE SEIZURE IN SUCH A
PROCEEDING COMES BEFORE THE ARREST AS SECTION 26 INDICATES  ...  " 

FN5  THIS WORD "IN" IS ERRONEOUSLY PRINTED "IS" IN THE CASE AS
REPORTED. 

FN6  SECTION 180 PROVIDES: 

"WHEN ARRESTING A PERSON WITHOUT A WARRANT THE OFFICER MUST INFORM
HIM OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER AND THE CAUSE OF THE ARREST, EXCEPT
WHEN THE PERSON ARRESTED IS IN THE ACTUAL COMMISSION OF A CRIME, OR IS
PURSUED IMMEDIATELY AFTER AN ESCAPE." 

SEE ALSO PEOPLE V. MARENDI, 213 N.Y. 600, 610, 107 N.E. 1058, 1061. 
CF. JOHN BAD ELK V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 529; CHRISTIE V.
LEACHINSKY, (1947) 1 ALL ENG. 567. 

FN7  SECTION 177 OF THE NEW YORK CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PROVIDES: 

"A PEACE OFFICER MAY, WITHOUT A WARRANT, ARREST A PERSON, 

"1.  FOR A CRIME, COMMITTED OR ATTEMPTED IN HIS PRESENCE; 

"2.  WHEN THE PERSON ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED A FELONY, ALTHOUGH NOT IN
HIS PRESENCE; 

"3.  WHEN A FELONY HAS IN FACT BEEN COMMITTED, AND HE HAS REASONABLE
CAUSE FOR BELIEVING THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED TO HAVE COMMITTED IT." 

FN8  THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789(CH. 20, SEC. 33, 1 STAT. 91),
CONCERNING ARREST WITH WARRANT, PROVIDED:  "THAT FOR ANY CRIME OR
OFFENCE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THE OFFENDER MAY, BY ANY JUSTICE OR
JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES, OR BY ANY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, OR OTHER
MAGISTRATE OF ANY OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE HE MAY BE FOUND AGREEABLY
TO THE USUAL MODE OF PROCESS AGAINST OFFENDERS IN SUCH STATE, AND AT
THE EXPENSE OF THE UNITED STATES, BE ARRESTED, AND IMPRISONED OR
BAILED, AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR TRIAL BEFORE SUCH COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES AS BY THIS ACT HAS COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE."  THIS PROVISION
HAS REMAINED SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THIS DAY.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 591. 
SEE ALSO 1 OPS.  ATTY.  GEN. 85, 86. 

FN9  48 STAT. 1008, 49 STAT. 77, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 300(A). 

FN10  49 STAT. 378, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 504(A). 

FN11 1 STAT. 425, 12 STAT. 282, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 504. 

FN12  49 STAT. 877, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 53(A). 

FN13  18 U.S.C. SEC. 88. 

FN14  18 U.S.C. SEC. 72. 

FN15  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, BYARS V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28, 29. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENT. 
..END :

















JONES V. LIBERTY GLASS CO., 332 U.S. 524 


NO. 71.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17-18, 1947.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1947.  -
159 F.2D 316, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 322(B)(1) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, A CLAIM FOR
REFUND OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF AN INCOME TAX
"ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED" OR NOT, MUST BE FILED
WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE TIME THE RETURN WAS FILED OR WITHIN TWO
YEARS FROM THE TIME THE TAX WAS PAID.  THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD PRESCRIBED
BY SEC. 3313 IS INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH A CLAIM.  PP. 525-526, 534-535. 

2.  THE WORD "OVERPAYMENT" IN SEC. 322 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
IS TO BE READ IN ITS USUAL SENSE, AS MEANING ANY PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF
THAT WHICH IS PROPERLY DUE, WHETHER TRACEABLE TO AN ERROR IN
MATHEMATICS OR IN JUDGMENT OR IN INTERPRETATION OF FACTS OR LAW, AND
WHETHER THE ERROR BE COMMITTED BY THE TAXPAYER OR THE REVENUE AGENTS. 
P. 531. 

3.  WHERE THE LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS ARE CLEAR,
LEGISLATIVE ACQUIESCENCE IN A RATHER RECENT CONTRARY INTERPRETATION BY
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED.  PP. 533-534. 

JONES, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. LIBERTY GLASS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT IN A SUIT FOR A
REFUND OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.  66 F.SUPP.  254.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  159 F.2D 316.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331
U.S. 800.  REVERSED, P. 535. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OUR CONCERN HERE IS WITH THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE
FILING OF CLAIMS FOR REFUND OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.  MUST SUCH CLAIMS
BE FILED WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER PAYMENT OF THE TAX, AS PROVIDED BY SEC.
322(B)(1) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, OR WITHIN FOUR YEARS AFTER
PAYMENT OF THE TAX, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 3313 OF THE CODE? 

THE CORPORATE TAXPAYER, RESPONDENT HEREIN, FILED ITS INCOME AND
EXCESS-PROFITS TAX RETURN FOR 1938, A RETURN WHICH INDICATED A TAX
LIABILITY OF $1,193.25.  THIS SUM, PLUS A SMALL ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT,
WAS PAID IN 1939.  A REVENUE AGENT LATER INVESTIGATED THE TAXPAYER'S
LIABILITY AGAIN, RESULTING IN AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT OF $6,640.81. 
PAYMENT OF THIS AMOUNT WAS MADE ON MARCH 8, 1941.  OVER THREE YEARS
LATER, ON MARCH 30, 1944, THE TAXPAYER FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF
$1,053.49.  IT WAS STATED THAT THE REVENUE AGENT ERRONEOUSLY HAD FAILED
TO ALLOW CERTAIN CREDITS FOR SUMS USED BY THE TAXPAYER IN 1938 TO
REDUCE ITS INDEBTEDNESS.  RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE TAXPAYER ON THE
FOUR-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SEC. 3313.  THE COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE REJECTED THIS CLAIM, POINTING OUT THAT SEC. 3313
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS FROM ITS APPLICATION INCOME, WAR-PROFITS, EXCESS
PROFITS, ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES. 

THIS SUIT WAS THEN BROUGHT BY THE TAXPAYER IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
RECOVER THE AMOUNT ALLEGED BY THE REFUND CLAIM TO BE DUE.  THAT COURT
HELD THAT SEC. 3313 WAS APPLICABLE AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE TAXPAYER. 
66 F.SUPP.  254.  THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  159 F.2D 316.  THE PROBLEM BEING
ONE OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

REVENUE CODE, A SUBTITLE DEALING WITH THOSE TAXES OVER WHICH THE TAX
COURT HAS JURISDICTION.  SUCH JURISDICTION INCLUDES INCOME, EXCESS
PROFITS, ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.  MORE SPECIFICALLY, SEC. 322(B)(1)
APPEARS UNDER CHAPTER 1 OF THE CODE, PERTAINING TO INCOME TAXES.  IT IS
CONCERNED WITH OVERPAYMENTS OF INCOME TAXES AND PROVIDES QUITE SIMPLY
THAT NO REFUND SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS A CLAIM FOR REFUND "IS FILED BY
THE TAXPAYER WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE TIME THE RETURN WAS FILED BY
THE TAXPAYER OR WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE TIME THE TAX WAS PAID  ...." 
FN1 

CODE, A SUBTITLE DEVOTED TO MISCELLANEOUS TAXES.  IT IS IN CHAPTER 28,
WHICH CONTAINS VARIOUS PROVISIONS COMMON TO SUCH TAXES.  AND IT IS
AMONG THOSE PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE ASSESSMENT, COLLECTION AND
REFUND OF THE TAXES.  IT READS AS FOLLOWS:  "ALL CLAIMS FOR THE
REFUNDING OR CREDITING OF ANY INTERNAL REVENUE TAX ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED, OR OF ANY PENALTY
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY, OR OF ANY SUM ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN EXCESSIVE OR IN ANY MANNER WRONGFULLY COLLECTED MUST,
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW IN THE CASE OF INCOME, WAR-PROFITS,
EXCESS-PROFITS, ESTATE, AND GIFT TAXES, BE PRESENTED TO THE
COMMISSIONER WITHIN FOUR YEARS NEXT AFTER THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX,
PENALTY, OR SUM.  THE AMOUNT OF THE REFUND (IN THE CASE OF TAXES OTHER
THAN INCOME, WAR-PROFITS, EXCESS-PROFITS, ESTATE, AND GIFT TAXES) SHALL
NOT EXCEED THE PORTION OF THE TAX, PENALTY, OR SUM PAID DURING THE FOUR
YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF THE CLAIM, OR IF NO CLAIM WAS
FILED, THEN DURING THE FOUR YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ALLOWANCE
OF THE REFUND." 

THE SUBSTANCE OF SEC. 3313 OF THE CODE HAS LONG BEEN A PART OF
FEDERAL STATUTORY LAW.  ITS ANCESTRY CAN BE TRACED BACK TO 1872, WHEN
SEC. 3228 OF THE REVISED STATUTES WAS ENACTED.  FN2 SECTION 3228
ESTABLISHED A PROCEDURE FOR FILING CLAIMS FOR REFUND OF ANY INTERNAL
REVENUE TAX ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN "ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR
COLLECTED" AND CREATED A LIMITATION PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE TIME
THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED, LATER EXTENDED IN 1921 TO FOUR YEARS FROM
THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE TAX.  FN3  BUT SOON AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE
INCOME TAX INTO THE FEDERAL SCENE IN 1913, SEPARATE PROVISION WAS MADE
FOR THE FILING OF CLAIMS FOR REFUND OF INCOME TAXES "PAID IN EXCESS OF
THOSE PROPERLY DUE."  SECTION 14(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916 FN4  WAS
THE FIRST SUCH PROVISION AND IT MADE CLEAR THAT SEC. 3228 WAS
INAPPLICABLE TO CLAIMS OF THIS NATURE.  SECTION 252 OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1918,  FN5  FOLLOWED BY SEC. 252 OF THE 1921 ACT, FN6  CONTINUED
THIS SCHEME OF SEPARATE TREATMENT.  THESE LATER PROVISIONS WERE WRITTEN
SO AS TO INCLUDE REFUND CLAIMS RELATING TO WAR-PROFITS AND EXCESS
PROFITS TAXES AS WELL AS THOSE INVOLVING INCOME TAXES; AND A LIMITATION
OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE THE RETURN WAS DUE WAS PLACED ON THE FILING
OF SUCH CLAIMS.  IT WAS FURTHER SPECIFIED THAT THE PROCEDURE THEREIN
DETAILED WAS TO BE FOLLOWED "NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS" OF SEC.
3228. 

FN7  SO AS TO PERMIT CLAIMS FOR REFUND OF INCOME AND PROFITS TAXES
"PAID IN EXCESS OF THAT PROPERLY DUE" TO BE FILED WITHIN TWO YEARS
AFTER THE TAX WAS PAID, IN ADDITION TO THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD AFTER THE
DUE DATE OF THE RETURN.  THIS CHANGE WAS MADE "SO THAT THE TAXPAYER WHO
HAS, BY AGREEMENT WITH THE TREASURY, PERMITTED THE TIME FOR THE FINAL
ASSESSMENT OF THE TAXES DUE FROM HIM TO BE MADE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, WILL NOT BE BARRED FROM MAKING A CLAIM FOR A
REFUND WHEN SUCH ASSESSMENT IS MADE AND THE TAXPAYER ALLEGES THAT THE
ASSESSMENT IS ILLEGAL."  FN8  AMENDING SEC. 252 RATHER THAN SEC. 3228
OF THE REVISED STATUTES TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE WAS SIGNIFICANT.  IT
WAS AN UNEQUIVOCAL INDICATION THAT SEC. 252, IN SPEAKING OF CLAIMS FOR
REFUND OF "EXCESS" PAYMENTS OF INCOME AND PROFITS TAXES, WAS DESIGNED
BY ITS FRAMERS TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY THOSE PAYMENTS GROWING OUT OF ERRORS
IN THE PREPARATION OF RETURNS BUT ALSO THOSE PAYMENTS RESULTING FROM
ILLEGAL OR ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENTS.  SEE GRAHAM V. DUPONT, 262 U.S. 234,
258. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924  FN9  TRANSFERRED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FORMER
SEC. 252 TO A NEW SEC. 281.  A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS FROM THE
DATE OF THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX WAS ESTABLISHED, A PERIOD COINCIDING IN
LENGTH WITH THAT PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 3228.  THE REFERENCE TO THE TYPE OF
PAYMENTS INVOLVED WAS RECAST; IN PLACE OF SPEAKING OF PAYMENTS "IN
EXCESS OF THAT PROPERLY DUE," SEC. 281 USED THE SIMPLE TERM
"OVERPAYMENT."  FN10  AND INSTEAD OF STATING IN SEC. 281 THAT ITS
PROVISIONS SHOULD APPLY "NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS" OF SEC. 3228
OF THE REVISED STATUTES, SEC. 3228 ITSELF WAS AMENDED  FN11  TO MAKE IT
APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS FOR THE REFUNDING OR CREDITING OF ANY INTERNAL
REVENUE TAX "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 281 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1924."  THIS PLACING OF AN EXCEPTIVE CLAUSE IN SEC. 3228 WAS DONE "TO
REMOVE THE DOUBT WHICH NOW EXISTS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 3228, REVISED STATUTES, APPLY IN ANY EVENT TO INCOME
TAXES."  FN12  IN OTHER WORDS, THE STATUTORY DRAFTERS INTENDED TO MAKE
CERTAIN THAT SEC. 3228 WAS IN NO EVENT TO APPLY TO INCOME TAX REFUND
CLAIMS.  SUCH CLAIMS WERE TO BE GOVERNED EXCLUSIVELY BY SEC. 281. 

THE ESSENCE OF SEC. 281 OF THE 1924 ACT HAS BEEN CARRIED THROUGH TO
THE PRESENT SEC. 322 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  FN13  THE ONLY
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE INTERVAL, FOR OUR PURPOSES, WAS A REDUCTION
IN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS, AS MEASURED FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX,
FROM FOUR YEARS TO THREE YEARS AND FINALLY TO TWO YEARS.  AND SEC. 3228
OF THE REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED TO STATE THAT IT APPLIES "EXCEPT AS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW IN THE CASE OF INCOME, WAR-PROFITS, EXCESS
PROFITS, ESTATE, AND GIFT TAXES," HAS BECOME THE CURRENT SEC. 3313 OF
THE CODE. 

WITH THIS BACKGROUND IN MIND, WE FIND THE PATTERN OF LIMITATION
PERIODS FOR TAX REFUND CLAIMS TO BE CLEAR.  SECTION 3313 OF THE CODE
ESTABLISHES A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD FOR ALL INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES, EXCEPT
AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW IN THE CASE OF SPECIFIED TAXES.  AMONG THE
LATTER IS THE INCOME TAX, AS TO WHICH SEC. 322(B)(1) MAKES PROVISION
"OTHERWISE" BY REQUIRING THAT REFUND CLAIMS BE PRESENTED WITHIN TWO
YEARS OF PAYMENT OR WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE FILING OF THE RETURN. 
PROVISIONS ARE ALSO MADE "OTHERWISE" IN THE CASE OF THE ESTATE TAX
(SEC. 910 OF THE CODE) AND THE GIFT TAX (SEC. 1027 OF THE CODE). 

THE ARGUMENT IS MADE, HOWEVER, THAT SEC. 322(B)(1) DEALS ONLY WITH
INCOME TAX "OVERPAYMENTS" AND NOT WITH INCOME TAXES "ERRONEOUSLY OR
ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED."  OVERPAYMENTS ARE SAID TO REFER
SOLELY TO EXCESS PAYMENTS RESULTING FROM ERRORS BY TAXPAYERS IN THE
PREPARATION OF THEIR RETURNS OR IN RELATED ACTIVITIES, WHILE ERRONEOUS
OR ILLEGAL ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIONS ARE CLAIMED TO RELATE TO VARIOUS
KINDS OF ERRORS ON THE PART OF REVENUE AGENTS.  SINCE THERE IS NO
PROVISION "OTHERWISE" FOR INCOME TAX REFUND CLAIMS INVOLVING THE LATTER
TYPE OF ERRORS, THE CONCLUSION IS REACHED THAT THE FOUR-YEAR LIMITATION
PERIOD OF SEC. 3313 REMAINS APPLICABLE.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME CONTRARY INDICATION, WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE
FRAMERS OF THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS INTENDED TO CONVEY THE ORDINARY
MEANING WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE LANGUAGE THEY USED.  SEE ROSENMAN V.
UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 658, 661.  HENCE WE READ THE WORD "OVERPAYMENT"
IN ITS USUAL SENSE, AS MEANING ANY PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH IS
PROPERLY DUE.  SUCH AN EXCESS PAYMENT MAY BE TRACED TO AN ERROR IN
MATHEMATICS OR IN JUDGMENT OR IN INTERPRETATION OF FACTS OR LAW.  AND
THE ERROR MAY BE COMMITTED BY THE TAXPAYER OR BY THE REVENUE AGENTS. 
WHATEVER THE REASON, THE PAYMENT OF MORE THAN IS RIGHTFULLY DUE IS WHAT
CHARACTERIZES AN OVERPAYMENT. 

THAT THIS ORDINARY MEANING IS THE ONE INTENDED BY THE AUTHORS OF SEC.
322(B)(1) IS QUITE EVIDENT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH WE HAVE
DETAILED.  THE WORD "OVERPAYMENT" FIRST APPEARED IN SEC. 281 OF THE
1924 REVENUE ACT, ONE OF THE DIRECT ANCESTORS OF SEC. 322(B)(1).  THE
WORD WAS THERE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PREVIOUS REFERENCE TO
PAYMENTS "IN EXCESS OF THAT PROPERLY DUE," A PHRASE THAT IS A PERFECT
DEFINITION OF AN OVERPAYMENT AND THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY CONFINED TO
OVERPAYMENTS OCCASIONED BY ERRORS MADE BY TAXPAYERS.  THE IMMEDIATE
PREDECESSOR OF SEC. 281 HAD EMPLOYED THAT PHRASE AND HAD BEEN ENACTED
IN 1923 WITH THE EXPRESSED INTENTION OF INCLUDING CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF
ILLEGAL ASSESSMENTS.  THERE WAS NOT THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION THAT THE
SUBSTITUTION OF THE WORD "OVERPAYMENT" WAS DESIGNED TO NARROW THE SCOPE
OF SEC. 281.  IT APPARENTLY WAS A MERE SIMPLIFICATION IN PHRASEOLOGY. 
BUT IT DOES MAKE CLEAR THE SENSE IN WHICH THE WORD WAS FIRST USED IN
THIS CONTEXT.  THE GENERIC CHARACTER OF THE WORD WAS EMPHASIZED FROM
THE START.  FN14  AND WE SEE NO BASIS FOR MAKING IT OVER INTO A WORD OF
ART AT THIS LATE DATE. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FURTHER REVEALS A CONSISTENT INTENTION TO
MAKE A SEPARATE AND COMPLETE LIMITATION PROVISION FOR INCOME TAX REFUND
CLAIMS, WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE UNDERLYING BASIS OF THE CLAIMS.  SECTION
322 AND ITS PREDECESSORS WERE DEVISED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SUCH AN
EXCLUSIVE SCHEME.  CLAIMS RELATING TO THE INCOME TAX HAVE AT ALL TIMES
BEEN EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED FROM SEC. 3313.  FN15  THIS ARRANGEMENT IS BUT
PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN EVIDENT IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF
PROVIDING SEPARATE TREATMENT FOR THE INCOME, PROFITS, ESTATE AND GIFT
TAXES, AS DISTINCT FROM THE MISCELLANEOUS TAXES AND THE EXCISE, IMPORT
AND TEMPORARY TAXES.  WE WOULD BE DOING UNWARRANTED VIOLENCE TO THIS
CLEAR DEMARCATION WERE WE TO READ THE WORD "OVERPAYMENT" SO AS TO PLACE
CERTAIN TYPES OF INCOME TAX REFUND CLAIMS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC.
3313, A SECTION THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DIVORCED FROM THE INCOME TAX
PORTION OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 

IT IS POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THAT VARIOUS LOWER FEDERAL COURTS,
BEGINNING IN 1939, HAVE REACHED A CONTRARY RESULT.  FN16  THEY HAVE
HELD THAT SEC. 3313 RATHER THAN SEC. 322(B)(1) GOVERNS REFUND CLAIMS
FOR INCOME TAXES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN "ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY
ASSESSED OR COLLECTED."  SINCE CONGRESS HAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONVENED FROM
TIME TO TIME AND HAS AMENDED SEC. 322 IN OTHER RESPECTS WITHOUT
EXPRESSLY DISAPPROVING THIS INTERPRETATION, THE CONTENTION IS ADVANCED
THAT LEGISLATIVE ACQUIESCENCE IN THE INTERPRETATION MUST BE ASSUMED. 
BUT THE DOCTRINE OF LEGISLATIVE ACQUIESCENCE IS AT BEST ONLY AN
AUXILIARY TOOL FOR USE IN INTERPRETING AMBIGUOUS STATUTORY PROVISIONS. 
SEE HELVERING V. REYNOLDS, 313 U.S. 428, 432.  HERE THE LANGUAGE AND
THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS SEEM CLEAR TO US.  THE ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY ALL
INCOME TAX REFUND CLAIMS ARE TO BE GOVERNED BY WHAT IS NOW SEC.
322(B)(1) WAS ESTABLISHED IN AN UNMISTAKABLE MANNER NEARLY A QUARTER OF
A CENTURY AGO, AN ARRANGEMENT THAT HAS BEEN CONTINUED THROUGH VARIOUS
REENACTMENTS AND CHANGES IN THE REVENUE LAWS.  AND THAT ARRANGEMENT HAS
BEEN CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED AND FOLLOWED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 
FN17  UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD TAKE MORE THAN LEGISLATIVE
SILENCE IN THE FACE OF RATHER RECENT CONTRARY DECISIONS BY LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS TO OVERCOME THE FACTORS UPON WHICH WE HAVE PLACED
RELIANCE.  CF. ELECTRIC BATTERY CO. V. SHIMADZU, 307 U.S. 5, 14;
MISSOURI V. ROSS, 299 U.S. 72, 75; UNITED STATES V. ELGIN, J. & E.R.
CO., 298 U.S. 492, 500.  WE DO NOT EXPECT CONGRESS TO MAKE AN
AFFIRMATIVE MOVE EVERY TIME A LOWER COURT INDULGES IN AN ERRONEOUS
INTERPRETATION.  IN SHORT, THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE SPEAKS
LOUDER THAN SUCH JUDICIAL ACTION. 

WE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT ALL INCOME TAX REFUND CLAIMS, WHATEVER
THE REASONS GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIMS, MUST BE FILED WITHIN THREE YEARS
FROM THE TIME THE RETURN WAS FILED OR WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE TIME
THE TAX WAS PAID, AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 322(B)(1).  THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 3313 IS INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH CLAIMS.  SINCE
RESPONDENT FILED ITS INCOME TAX REFUND CLAIM MORE THAN THREE YEARS
AFTER FILING THE RETURN AND MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER PAYMENT OF THE
TAX, ITS CLAIM WAS OUT OF TIME.  THAT IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM
AROSE OUT OF AN INCOME TAX ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN "ERRONEOUSLY OR
ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED."  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE RETURN IN THIS CASE WAS FILED IN JUNE, 1939.  SINCE THE
CLAIM WAS FILED ON MARCH 30, 1944, NO CONTENTION COULD BE MADE THAT IT
WAS WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD FROM THE DATE THE RETURN WAS FILED. 

FN2  SECTION 3228 WAS IN THE NATURE OF A REVISION OF SEC. 44 OF THE
ACT OF JUNE 6, 1872, 17 STAT. 230, 257. 

FN3  REVENUE ACT OF 1921, SEC. 1316, 42 STAT. 227, 314. 

FN4  39 STAT. 756, 772.  THIS PROVIDED THAT THE CLAIM FOR REFUND
MIGHT BE PRESENTED "NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION THIRTY
TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-EIGHT OF THE REVISED STATUTES." 

FN5  40 STAT. 1057, 1085. 

FN6  42 STAT. 227, 268. 

FN7  ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, 42 STAT. 1504, 1505.  IN AMENDING SEC.
252, THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, MADE MENTION OF REFUNDS OF INCOME TAXES
TO WITHHOLDING AGENTS WHICH MIGHT BE MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
"SECTION 3228 OF THE REVISED STATUTES."  THIS WAS AN OBVIOUS REFERENCE
TO THE PRACTICE OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, ADMITTED TO BE OF "VERY
DOUBTFUL LEGALITY," H.R. REP. NO. 1424, 67TH CONG., 4TH SESS., P. 2, OF
ALLOWING A TAXPAYER WHO HAD PERMITTED AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT AFTER
THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD FROM THE DUE DATE OF THE RETURN (SPECIFIED BY SEC.
252 OF THE 1921 ACT) TO FILE A CLAIM FOR REFUND WITHIN FOUR YEARS AFTER
PAYMENT OF THE TAX (PURSUANT TO SEC. 3228), EVEN THOUGH THE FIVE-YEAR
PERIOD HAD ELAPSED.  THE TREASURY HAD INSTITUTED THIS PRACTICE TO
PREVENT INEQUITIES WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE ENSUE TO SUCH TAXPAYERS, BUT
IT WAS WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE SANCTION.  IT WAS TO TAKE CARE OF THE
TAXPAYERS WHO HAD TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE TREASURY PRACTICE THAT THE
REFERENCE IN QUESTION IN THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, WAS MADE.  AS TO
CLAIMS PENDING ON MARCH 4, 1923, WHICH WERE TIMELY FILED UNDER SEC.
3228, BUT NOT TIMELY UNDER SEC. 252, REFUNDS TO WITHHOLDING AGENTS WERE
NECESSARILY TO BE MADE UNDER SEC. 3228.  THIS PROVISION WAS NOT
REPEATED IN SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION AND IT WAS NOT INDICATIVE OF A
LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO PERMIT INCOME TAX REFUND CLAIMS TO BE GOVERNED BY
SEC. 3228 IN THE FUTURE. 

FN8  H.R. REP. NO. 1424, 67TH CONG., 4TH SESS., P. 2; S. REP. NO.
1137, 67TH CONG., 4TH SESS., P. 2. 

FN9  43 STAT. 253, 301. 

FN10  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 253, 296, ALSO CREATED A NEW
SEC. 272, DEALING WITH "OVERPAYMENTS" OF INCOME TAX INSTALLMENTS.  THIS
SPOKE OF OVERPAYMENTS IN THE SENSE OF PAYMENTS OF "MORE THAN THE AMOUNT
DETERMINED TO BE THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF SUCH INSTALLMENT."  THIS
PROVISION NOW EXISTS AS SEC. 321 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

FN11  43 STAT. 253, 342. 

FN12  H.R. REP. NO. 179, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 71; S. REP. NO.
398, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 44.  THIS QUOTATION WAS TAKEN VERBATIM
BY THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES FROM THE STATEMENT OF A.W. GREGG OF THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, STATEMENT OF THE CHANGES MADE IN THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1921 BY H.R. 6715 AND THE REASONS THEREFOR, SENATE COMMITTEE PRINT,
68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., MARCH 6, 1924, P. 37. 

FN13  SEE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC. 284, 44 STAT. 9, 66; REVENUE ACT
OF 1928, SEC. 322, 45 STAT. 791, 861; REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC. 322, 47
STAT. 169, 242; REVENUE ACT OF 1934, SEC. 322, 48 STAT. 680, 750. 

FN14  SECTION 272 OF THE 1924 ACT (NOW SEC. 321 OF THE CODE) REFERRED
TO "OVERPAYMENTS" OF INCOME TAX INSTALLMENTS AS PAYMENTS OF "MORE THAN
THE AMOUNT DETERMINED TO BE THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF SUCH INSTALLMENT." 
SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA.  SUCH A DEFINITION ADMITS OF NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN
ERRORS BY THE TAXPAYER AND ERRORS BY THE REVENUE AGENTS. 

FN15  REFERENCE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE TO THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SEC.
3313, PROVIDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF REFUND MAY NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF
TAX PAID DURING THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD.  THERE IS A PARENTHETICAL PHRASE
IN THIS SENTENCE WHICH SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES INCOME, WAR-PROFITS,
EXCESS-PROFITS, ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.  IF THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SEC.
3313, ESTABLISHING THE FOUR-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD, APPLIED TO INCOME
TAX REFUND CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF ILLEGAL ASSESSMENTS, THERE WOULD BE NO
LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF REFUND BY REASON OF THIS SECOND SENTENCE.  SUCH
A RESULT IS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE PURPOSE OR HISTORY OF THE PROVISIONS
DEALING WITH THESE REFUND CLAIMS. 

FN16  HUNTLEY V. SOUTHERN OREGON SALES, 102 F.2D 538, WAS THE FIRST
CASE SO HOLDING.  SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THE SAME TENOR HAVE RELIED IN
LARGE PART UPON THE HUNTLEY CASE.  OLSEN V. UNITED STATES, 32 F.SUPP. 
276; UNITED STATES V. LEADERER TERMINAL W. CO., 139 F.2D 679; IN RE
TINDLE'S ESTATE, 59 F.SUPP.  667, AFFIRMED PER CURIAM SUB NOM.
PENNSYLVANIA CO. FOR INSURANCES ON LIVES V. UNITED STATES, 152 F.2D
757; GODFREY V. UNITED STATES, 61 F.SUPP.  240; NOBLE V. KAVANAGH, 66
F.SUPP.  258, AFFIRMED PER CURIAM, 160 F.2D 104; SBARBARO V. UNITED
STATES, 73 F.SUPP.  213.  SEE ALSO FAWCETT V. UNITED STATES, 70
F.SUPP.  742.  COMPARE CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 67 F.SUPP.  920.  IN MANY CASES, HOWEVER, THE APPLICABILITY OF
SEC. 322(B)(1) TO CLAIMS OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED WAS ASSUMED WITHOUT
QUESTION AND WITHOUT AN EXPLICIT HOLDING ON THE POINT.  SEE, FOR
EXAMPLE, UNITED STATES V. GARBUTT OIL CO., 302 U.S. 528. 

FN17  SEE I.T. 1447, I-2 CUM. BULL.  220(1922); T.D. 3457, II-1 CUM.
BULL.  177(1923) AND T.D. 3462, AMENDING REGULATIONS 62, II-1 CUM.
BULL.  180(1923); S.M. 1712, III-1 CUM. BULL.  345(1924); S.M. 2293,
III-2 CUM. BULL.  310(1924); G.C.M. 3152, VII-1 CUM. BULL.  153(1928);
G.C.M. 13759, XIII-2 CUM. BULL.  102(1934); MIM.  4814, 1938-2 CUM.
BULL.  96; I.T. 3483, 1941-1 CUM. BULL.  397. 

THE PRESENT TREASURY VIEWPOINT IS CODIFIED IN TREASURY REGULATIONS
111, PROMULGATED UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SEC. 29.322-3 AND
SEC. 29.322-7.  SEE ALSO TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, PROMULGATED UNDER
THE CODE, SEC. 19.322-3 AND SEC. 19.322-7, AS AMENDED BY T.D. 5256,
1943 CUM. BULL.  550; AND TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, PROMULGATED UNDER
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, ARTICLES 322-3 AND 322-7. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :







KAVANAGH V. NOBLE, 332 U.S. 535 


NO. 70.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1947.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1947.  - 160
F.2D 104, REVERSED. 


1.  ASSUMING THAT THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX IN THIS CASE WERE WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY, THE
TAXPAYER'S PAYMENT OF THAT ILLEGAL ASSESSMENT WAS AN "OVERPAYMENT"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 322(B)(1) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AND
(THE RETURN HAVING BEEN FILED MORE THAN THREE YEARS PREVIOUSLY) A CLAIM
FOR REFUND WAS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS WHERE NOT FILED WITHIN TWO YEARS
OF THE DATE OF THAT PAYMENT.  JONES V. LIBERTY GLASS CO., ANTE, P.
524.  PP. 536-538. 

2.  IT IS FOR CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS, TO PROVIDE REMEDIES FOR
INEQUITIES RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF LIMITATIONS ON REFUNDS OF
FEDERAL TAXES.  P. 539. 

KAVANAGH, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. NOBLE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT IN A SUIT UPON A
CLAIM FOR REFUND OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  66 F.SUPP.  258.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  160 F.2D 104.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 800.  REVERSED, P. 539. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS A COMPANION TO JONES V. LIBERTY GLASS CO., ANTE, P.
524. 

THE STIPULATED FACTS SHOW THAT ON MARCH 16, 1936, THE RESPONDENT
TAXPAYER FILED WITH THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE A JOINT
INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RETURN FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE FOR THE CALENDAR
YEAR 1935.  THIS DISCLOSED A TAX LIABILITY OF $8,017.01, WHICH WAS DULY
PAID.  IN THE RETURN THE LOSSES AND GAINS FROM SALES OF CAPITAL ASSETS
BY THE TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE WERE REPORTED TOGETHER, THE LOSSES OF THE
WIFE BEING DEDUCTED FROM THE GAINS OF THE HUSBAND, RESULTING IN A NET
LOSS IN EXCESS OF $2,000.  THIS AMOUNT (THE ALLOWABLE LIMIT OF LOSS)
WAS DEDUCTED ON THE RETURN. 

ON JUNE 7, 1937, THE TAXPAYER WAS ADVISED AT A CONFERENCE WITH
REVENUE AGENTS THAT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX DUE FOR THE YEAR
1935, AGGREGATING $421.80.  THE TAXPAYER'S CHECK, WHICH WAS TENDERED
FOR THAT AMOUNT, WAS LATER RETURNED TO HIM.  THEN BY A LETTER DATED
JUNE 11, 1937, A REVENUE AGENT NOTIFIED THE TAXPAYER THAT INSTEAD OF A
DEFICIENCY OF $421.80 ON THE 1935 INCOME TAX RETURN THERE WAS A
DEFICIENCY OF $19,973.93 AND THE TAXPAYER WAS FURNISHED A COMPUTATION
SHOWING THE BASIS FOR SUCH DETERMINATION.  THE AGENT RELIED UPON
ARTICLE 117-5, TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, LATER DECLARED VOID BY THIS
COURT IN HELVERING V. JANNEY, 311 U.S. 189.  AFTER PROTEST AND FURTHER
CONFERENCE, THE TAXPAYER GAVE THE AGENT A CHECK FOR $21,527.70,
COVERING THE THEN PROPOSED DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF $19,973.93, PLUS
INTEREST OF $1,553.77.  THIS CHECK WAS REMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES
TREASURY, AFTER HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COLLECTOR ON JULY 21,
1937. 

ON JULY 14, 1937, THE TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT
WAIVING CERTAIN STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS IN THEIR FAVOR AND CONSENTING TO
THE IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION AGAINST THEM OF 1935 INCOME TAX
IN THE PRINCIPAL SUM OF $19,973.93, PLUS DEFICIENCY INTEREST OF
$1,553.77, WHICH THE COMMISSIONER THEREAFTER ASSESSED.  THE AGREEMENT
SPECIFIED IN A FOOTNOTE THAT IT WAS NOT A FINAL CLOSING AGREEMENT UNDER
SEC. 606 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 AND THAT IT DID NOT THEREFORE
PRECLUDE THE ASSERTION OF A FURTHER DEFICIENCY IF ONE SHOULD BE
DETERMINED, NOR DID IT EXTEND THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR
REFUND, ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF THE TAX. 

ON JANUARY 28, 1941, THE TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE FILED A CLAIM FOR
REFUND OF $21,105.90, PLUS INTEREST, ON THE GROUND THAT THERE HAD BEEN
AN ILLEGAL ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION SINCE THE REVENUE AGENTS HAD
"REFUSED TO ALLOW THE LOSSES OF ONE SPOUSE AGAINST THE GAINS OF THE
OTHER SPOUSE IN THE JOINT RETURN OF HUSBAND AND WIFE."  REFERENCE WAS
MADE TO SEC. 3313 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SPECIFYING A FOUR-YEAR
PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE REJECTED
THIS CLAIM IN RELIANCE UPON SEC. 322(B)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1934(THE SAME AS SEC. 322(B)(1) OF THE CODE), ESTABLISHING A TWO-YEAR
PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS; IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SEC. 3313 SPECIFICALLY
EXCLUDES INCOME TAXES FROM THOSE FOR WHICH A CLAIM MAY BE FILED WITHIN
FOUR YEARS AFTER PAYMENT. 

ON JULY 12, 1941, THE TAXPAYER FILED HIS INDIVIDUAL CLAIM FOR REFUND
OF $21,527.70 PAID WITH RESPECT TO THE YEAR 1935.  THE CLAIM WAS ON THE
SAME GROUNDS AS THE CLAIM PREVIOUSLY FILED BY THE TAXPAYER AND HIS
WIFE.  THIS CLAIM WAS RETURNED WITH THE REQUEST THAT THE WIFE JOIN IN
THE EXECUTION OF THE CLAIM; THIS REQUEST WAS REFUSED AND THE CLAIM WAS
RETURNED TO THE COLLECTOR; ONCE AGAIN THE CLAIM WAS RETURNED TO THE
TAXPAYER. 

THE TAXPAYER THEN BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR TO RECOVER
THE AMOUNT ALLEGED TO BE DUE IN THE REFUND CLAIM.  THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN UNITED
STATES V. LEDERER TERMINAL W. CO., 139 F.2D 679, CONTROLLED THE CASE
AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD OF SEC. 3313 WAS
APPLICABLE.  SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS THEREFORE ENTERED FOR THE TAXPAYER. 
66 F.SUPP.  258.  THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED PER
CURIAM, 160 F.2D 104, CITING ITS PREVIOUS DECISION IN THE LEDERER
TERMINAL CASE. 

FOR REASONS WHICH WE HAVE SET FORTH IN JONES V. LIBERTY GLASS CO.,
ANTE, P. 524, THE DECISION BELOW CANNOT STAND.  THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD
PROVIDED BY SEC. 322(B)(1), RATHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD OF SEC.
3313, GOVERNS INCOME TAX REFUND CLAIMS.  THE OVERPAYMENT WHICH BRINGS
SEC. 322(B)(1) INTO OPERATION OCCURS WHENEVER THE TAXPAYER HAS PAID AN
AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE HIS TRUE LIABILITY.  HENCE, IF WE ASSUME THAT THE
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION IN THIS CASE WERE WITHOUT LEGAL
AUTHORITY, THE TAXPAYER'S PAYMENT OF THAT ILLEGAL ASSESSMENT WAS AN
OVERPAYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 322(B)(1).  AND HE HAD TWO YEARS
FROM THE DATE OF THAT PAYMENT WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A CLAIM FOR REFUND. 
SINCE HE DID NOT FILE HIS CLAIM UNTIL THREE AND A HALF YEARS AFTER
PAYMENT, THE CLAIM WAS OUT OF TIME. 

IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE TAXPAYER'S REFUND CLAIM WAS PROMPTED BY THIS
COURT'S DECISION IN HELVERING V. JANNEY, SUPRA, WHICH SET ASIDE THE
TREASURY REGULATION UPON WHICH THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT WAS BASED. 
THAT DECISION WAS RENDERED ON DECEMBER 9, 1940, AND THE TAXPAYER FILED
HIS FIRST REFUND CLAIM ON JANUARY 28, 1941.  BUT ASSUMING THAT THE
JANNEY DECISION MAKES CLEAR THAT THE TAXPAYER HERE MADE AN OVERPAYMENT,
THE LOSS WHICH HE NOW SUFFERS FROM AN APPLICATION OF SEC. 322(B)(1) IS
A LOSS WHICH IS INHERENT IN THE APPLICATION OF ANY PERIOD OF
LIMITATIONS.  SUCH PERIODS ARE ESTABLISHED TO CUT OFF RIGHTS,
JUSTIFIABLE OR NOT, THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE ASSERTED AND THEY MUST BE
STRICTLY ADHERED TO BY THE JUDICIARY.  ROSENMAN V. UNITED STATES, 323
U.S. 658, 661.  REMEDIES FOR RESULTING INEQUITIES ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY
CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS. 

MOREOVER, IT IS NOT OUR PROVINCE TO SPECULATE AS TO WHY CONGRESS
ESTABLISHED A SHORTER PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS RELATIVE TO THE INCOME TAX
THAN IS THE CASE OF THOSE TAXES GOVERNED BY SEC. 3313.  IT IS ENOUGH
THAT SEC. 322(B)(1) CREATES A TWO-YEAR PERIOD APPLICABLE TO ALL INCOME
TAX REFUND CLAIMS AND THAT THE CLAIM IN THIS CASE IS OF THAT TYPE. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :




BLUMENTHAL V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 539 


ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1947.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1947.  - 158 F.2D 883,
AFFIRMED. 


THE FOUR PETITIONERS AND ANOTHER DEFENDANT WERE TRIED JOINTLY AND
CONVICTED FOR VIOLATING SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE BY CONSPIRING TO
SELL WHISKEY AT PRICES ABOVE THE CEILING SET BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION.  TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE OWNER AND SALES
MANAGER, RESPECTIVELY, OF A BUSINESS HOLDING A WHOLESALE LIQUOR LICENSE
WHICH WAS THE OSTENSIBLE OWNER OF THE WHISKEY; BUT THEY WERE PROVEN,
SOLELY BY THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS, WHICH WERE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE AS TO
THEM ALONE, TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THE CONCERN WAS ACTING AS INTERMEDIARY
FOR AN UNDISCLOSED OWNER.  THE OTHER THREE DEFENDANTS WERE SALESMEN WHO
MADE THE SALES AND COLLECTED THE PROCEEDS; AND THEY WERE NOT PROVEN TO
HAVE KNOWN THAT THE BUSINESS WAS NOT THE ACTUAL OWNER.  HELD: 

1.  UNDER THE TRIAL COURT'S RULINGS ON ADMISSIBILITY AND INSTRUCTIONS
THAT THE JURY MUST DETERMINE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF EACH DEFENDANT
SEPARATELY AND MUST NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADMISSIONS OF THE
OWNER AND SALES MANAGER IN DETERMINING THE GUILT OF THE SALESMEN, THE
ADMISSIONS WERE ADEQUATELY EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION ON THE QUESTION
OF THE SALESMEN'S GUILT.  PP. 550-553, 559-560. 

2.  WITH THE ADMISSIONS OF THE OWNER AND SALES MANAGER THUS EXCLUDED,
THE EVIDENCE SUMMARIZED IN THE OPINION WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE
FIVE DEFENDANTS JOINED IN A SINGLE CONSPIRACY TO SELL THE WHISKEY AT
OVER-CEILING PRICES IN THE GUISE OF LEGAL SALES.  PP. 542-545, 553
556. 

3.  ALTHOUGH IN A HYPERTECHNICAL ASPECT THE CASE MIGHT BE REGARDED AS
SHOWING TWO AGREEMENTS, ONE AMONG THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS, THE SALES
MANAGER, AND THE UNDISCLOSED OWNER OF THE WHISKEY, AND THE OTHER AMONG
THE FIVE DEFENDANTS, THE UNIQUE FACTS OF THIS CASE REVEALED A SINGLE
OVER-ALL CONSPIRACY OF WHICH BOTH AGREEMENTS WERE ESSENTIAL AND
INTEGRAL STEPS.  PP. 553-559. 

4.  KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 750, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 558
559. 

5.  THE RECEPTION IN EVIDENCE OF THE ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE OWNER AND
THE SALES MANAGER UNDER THE TRIAL COURT'S CAREFUL INSTRUCTIONS THAT THE
JURY MUST DETERMINE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF EACH DEFENDANT SEPARATELY
AND MUST NOT TAKE THOSE ADMISSIONS INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING
THE GUILT OF THE SALESMEN, WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL ERROR AS TO THE LATTER. 
PP. 550-553, 559-560. 

6.  A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, COUPLED
WITH AN OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE THEREOF, IS PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 37
OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  P. 560, N. 18. 

BLUMENTHAL V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 54.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 55, GOLDSMITH V. UNITED STATES; NO. 56, WEISS V.
UNITED STATES; AND NO. 57, FEIGENBAUM V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE FOR
CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 158 F.2D 883, AND DENIED REHEARING, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING.  158 F.2D 762.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331
U.S. 799.  AFFIRMED, P. 560. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FOUR PETITIONERS AND ABEL, ANOTHER DEFENDANT, WERE CONVICTED OF
CONSPIRING TO SELL WHISKEY AT PRICES ABOVE THE CEILING SET BY
REGULATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  50 U.S.C. SECS. 902(A), 904(A) AND
925(B).  THE CHARGE WAS MADE PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY
STATUTE, SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THE CONVICTIONS WERE AFFIRMED
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  158 F.2D 883,
DISSENTING OPINION AT 158 F.2D 762.  ABEL HAS NOT SOUGHT REVIEW IN THIS
COURT.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED AS TO THE OTHER FOUR DEFENDANTS BECAUSE
WE THOUGHT IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WERE PRESENTED CONCERNING THE
APPLICABILITY OF OUR RECENT DECISION IN KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, 328
U.S. 750. 

WE DID NOT LIMIT OUR GRANT OF CERTIORARI TO THAT QUESTION, HOWEVER,
AND ON THE RECORD IT IS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED WITH THE OTHER ISSUES,
WHICH RELATE TO THE ADMISSIBILITY AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. 
ACCORDINGLY WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL OF PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS.  THE
COMPETENT PROOF WAS CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT EACH PETITIONER HAD
AIDED IN THE WHISKEY'S ILLEGAL SALE AND HAD CONSPIRED WITH OTHERS TO DO
SO.  THE ONLY PHASE OF THE CASE MERITING FURTHER ATTENTION IS WHETHER,
BECAUSE OF A DIFFERENCE IN THE STATE OF THE PROOF AFFECTING TWO GROUPS
OF DEFENDANTS, THE PROOF, IN VARIANCE FROM THE INDICTMENT, SHOWS THAT
THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE CONSPIRACY. 

                               I. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY IN A SINGLE COUNT.  TEN
OVERT ACTS ARE SPECIFIED.  THE GOVERNMENT ALLEGED AND SOUGHT TO
ESTABLISH THAT ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS AND OTHER UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS
CONSPIRED TOGETHER TO DISPOSE OF TWO CARLOADS, EACH CONSISTING OF ABOUT
2,000 CASES, OF OLD MR. BOSTON ROCKING CHAIR WHISKEY AT OVER THE
CEILING WHOLESALE PRICES. 

THIS WHISKEY WAS SHIPPED BY RAIL FROM THE DISTILLER OR HIS AGENT TO
THE FRANCISCO DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, IN SAN FRANCISCO, IN DECEMBER,
1943.  GOLDSMITH WAS THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOLE OWNER OF THAT BUSINESS AND
HELD A WHOLESALE LIQUOR DEALER'S BASIC PERMIT AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL
LAW.  WEISS, HIS FORMER PARTNER, WAS SALES MANAGER FOR THE BUSINESS. 
FEIGENBAUM OPERATED THE SUNSET DRUGSTORE IN SAN FRANCISCO.  BLUMENTHAL
OWNED AND OPERATED THE SPORTORIUM, A SPORTING GOODS AND PAWN SHOP IN
THE SAME CITY.  ABEL EITHER OWNED OR WORKED IN A JEWELRY STORE IN
VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA.  THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW THAT ANY OF THESE LAST
THREE WAS CONNECTED WITH FRANCISCO IN ANY WAY EXCEPT THAT EACH HAD PART
IN ARRANGING SALES AND DELIVERIES OF PORTIONS OF THESE TWO SHIPMENTS TO
PURCHASERS.  THESE WERE TAVERN OWNERS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND NEAR-BY
TOWNS SUCH AS VALLEJO, SANTA ROSA, LIVERMORE, COTTONWOOD AND EL
CERRITO.  PROOF OF THE ACTIVITIES OF FEIGENBAUM, BLUMENTHAL AND ABEL
WAS MADE LARGELY BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE VARIOUS TAVERNKEEPERS WITH
WHOM THEY RESPECTIVELY DEALT. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT ON ARRIVAL OF THE WHISKEY IN SAN FRANCISCO
LEGAL TITLE WAS TAKEN IN FRANCISCO'S NAME, IN WHICH THE SHIPPING
DOCUMENTS WERE MADE OUT; THAT IT HONORED SIGHT DRAFTS FOR BOTH
SHIPMENTS, UPON GOLDSMITH'S DIRECTIONS TO FRANCISCO'S BANK TO PAY THEM
OUT OF FRANCISCO'S ACCOUNT; THAT SOME OF THE WHISKEY WAS DELIVERED EX
CAR DIRECTLY TO TAVERNKEEPERS WHO PREVIOUSLY HAD ARRANGED FOR PURCHASES
IN LOTS VARYING FROM 25 TO 200 CASES; THAT THE REMAINDER WAS PLACED IN
STORAGE WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO WAREHOUSE COMPANY, PURSUANT TO
ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY WEISS, AND THEREAFTER WAS DELIVERED BY THE
WAREHOUSE TO VARIOUS PURCHASERS HOLDING INVOICES ISSUED BY FRANCISCO
FN1  ON ORDERS GIVEN BY WEISS.  THE EX CAR DELIVERIES ALSO WERE MADE
PURSUANT TO SIMILAR INVOICES AND ORDERS. 

IT FURTHER APPEARED THAT THE COST OF THE WHISKEY TO FRANCISCO WAS
$21.97 A CASE,  FN2  THE WHOLESALE CEILING PRICE WAS $25.27, AND
FRANCISCO RECEIVED, BY CHECK OF THE PURCHASING TAVERNKEEPERS, $24.50
FOR EACH CASE SOLD.  THERE WAS THUS LEFT TO IT A MARGIN ABOVE COST OF
$2.53 ON EACH CASE, OUT OF WHICH WERE TO COME STORAGE CHARGES, IF ANY,
AND LEGITIMATE NET PROFIT. 

THUS FAR NO ILLEGAL ACT, TRANSACTION, INTENT OR AGREEMENT APPEARS. 
BUT BY THE TESTIMONY OF PURCHASING TAVERNKEEPERS THE GOVERNMENT PROVED
THAT IN CONNECTION WITH EACH SALE THE PURCHASER HAD PAID TO THE SELLING
INTERMEDIARY, IN ADDITION TO THE $24.50 PER CASE REMITTED BY CHECK TO
FRANCISCO, AN ADDITIONAL SUM IN CASH AMOUNTING ROUGHLY TO FROM $30 TO
$40 PER CASE.  THUS THE ACTUAL COST TO THE RETAILER WAS FROM $55 TO $65
PER CASE. 

IN SOME INSTANCES THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON ARRANGING THE
TRANSACTION FOR THE SELLER AND RECEIVING THE CASH PAYMENT WAS NOT
ESTABLISHED OR KNOWN TO THE WITNESS TESTIFYING TO THE SALE AND ITS
DETAILS.  IN OTHERS, HOWEVER, BLUMENTHAL, FEIGENBAUM OR ABEL WAS
IDENTIFIED AS THE SALESMAN OR INTERMEDIARY.  IT WAS NOT BROUGHT OUT
WITH WHAT PERSON OR PERSONS ABEL, FEIGENBAUM, BLUMENTHAL OR THE OTHER
SALESMEN DEALT IN SECURING THE WHISKEY FROM FRANCISCO.  FN3  IN TWO
SALES, FIGONE, A TAVERNKEEPER OF EL CERRITO, TESTIFIED HE ARRANGED FOR
THE PURCHASES IN FRANCISCO'S OFFICES, BUT COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PERSON
WITH WHOM HE DEALT. 

IN ALL INSTANCES, HOWEVER, WHETHER INVOLVING SALES TO SAN FRANCISCO
OR TO OUT-OF-TOWN DEALERS AND WHETHER THROUGH IDENTIFIED OR
UNIDENTIFIED SELLING INTERMEDIARIES, THE SALES FOLLOWED THE GENERAL
PATTERN DESCRIBED ABOVE.  THAT IS, ONCE THE UNDERSTANDING HAD BEEN
REACHED, THE PURCHASER MADE OUT HIS CHECK AT THE PRICE OF $24.50 PER
CASE, TO THE ORDER OF "FRANCISCO DISTRIBUTING CO.," AT THE DIRECTION OF
THE SELLING INTERMEDIARY, TO WHOM THE CHECK WAS DELIVERED; AT THE SAME
TIME OR LATER THE PURCHASER ALSO PAID IN CASH TO THE INTERMEDIARY THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK AND THE AGREED OVERCEILING
PURCHASE PRICE; THEN OR LATER THE PURCHASER RECEIVED INVOICES IN THE
NAME OF FRANCISCO FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES OF OLD MR. BOSTON ROCKING
CHAIR WHISKEY BOUGHT, SHOWING ONLY THE LEGAL PRICE OF $24.50 PER CASE;
AND THEREAFTER THE PURCHASER RECEIVED DELIVERY OF THE WHISKEY FROM THE
WAREHOUSE COMPANY, BY FREIGHT IN THE CASE OF OUT-OF-TOWN BUYERS.  WEISS
GAVE THE WAREHOUSE COMPANY INSTRUCTIONS FOR SHIPMENTS OR LOCAL
DELIVERIES.  FRANCISCO COLLECTED THE CHECKS BY ENDORSING AND SENDING
THEM THROUGH ITS BANK FOR COLLECTION.  SLIGHT VARIATIONS IN DETAIL OF
THE PATTERN APPEAR IN SOME INSTANCES BUT THEY ARE INSIGNIFICANT FOR OUR
PURPOSES. 

THE FOREGOING IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE EVIDENCE USED, NOT ONLY IN PART TO
SHOW THE CONSPIRACY, BUT ALSO TO CONNECT BLUMENTHAL, FEIGENBAUM AND
ABEL WITH IT.  IN ADDITION TO THE EVIDENCE ALREADY RELATED AS IT
AFFECTS GOLDSMITH AND WEISS, THE COURT RECEIVED AS TO THEM ALONE THE
TESTIMONY OF HARKINS, A SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT
OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT.  HE RELATED CONVERSATIONS HAD WITH
GOLDSMITH AND WEISS, DURING WHICH IMPORTANT ADMISSIONS WERE MADE BY ONE
OR THE OTHER OR BOTH.  THOSE ADMISSIONS GIVE RISE TO THE CRUCIAL
PROBLEMS IN THE CASE. 

AT THE INITIAL CONFERENCE "EARLY IN JANUARY," 1944, ATTENDED BY BOTH
GOLDSMITH AND WEISS, THE LATTER "DID MOST OF THE TALKING."  QUESTIONED
CONCERNING WHO PURCHASED THE TWO CARLOADS AND HOW THEY WERE HANDLED,
WEISS SAID "THAT HIS FIRM RECEIVED $2.00 A CASE FOR CLEARING IT THROUGH
THEIR BOOKS."  GOLDSMITH CONCURRED IN THIS AND BOTH STATED THAT THEY
DIVIDED THE $2.00, EACH TAKING A DOLLAR.  "THEY BOTH STATED, AGREED,
THAT THEY DID NOT SELL ANY OF THE WHISKEY.  IT WAS SOLD BY OTHERS, AND
THEY RECEIVED THE CHECK GENERALLY FOR THE PAYMENT OF (FOR) THE WHISKEY
IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE THAT THEY HAD TO TAKE UP THE SIGHT DRAFT BILLS
OF LADING.  AT THAT TIME THEY DID NOT TELL US WHO ACTUALLY SOLD THE
WHISKEY." 

LATER CONFERENCES HELD SEPARATELY WITH GOLDSMITH AND WEISS SIMPLY
CONFIRMED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FIRST TO THE EFFECT THAT FRANCISCO WAS
NOT THE ACTUAL OWNER, BUT THAT GOLDSMITH AND WEISS WERE ACTING FOR AN
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON IN HANDLING THE SHIPMENTS IN FRANCISCO'S NAME.  FN4
THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER WAS NOT ESTABLISHED.  BUT GOLDSMITH ADDED
THE ADMISSION THAT HE WROTE MOST OF THE INVOICES. 

SHORTLY AFTER THE TRIAL BEGAN THE COURT ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD SAVE
TIME AND BE FAIRER TO ALL FOR THE EVIDENCE TO BE RECEIVED INITIALLY
ONLY AS AGAINST THE PARTICULAR DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS TO WHOM IT
APPEARED EXPRESSLY RELATED, RESERVING TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, THE
RIGHT TO MOVE FOR ITS ADMISSION AS AGAINST ANY OR ALL OF THE OTHER
DEFENDANTS WHENEVER IN THE GOVERNMENT'S OPINION SUFFICIENT FACTS HAD
BEEN INTRODUCED TO SHOW SUCH DEFENDANTS TO HAVE BEEN CONNECTED WITH THE
CONSPIRACY CHARGED. 

THIS COURSE WAS FOLLOWED.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE, THE
COURT GRANTED ITS MOTION TO ADMIT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AS AGAINST ALL OF
THE DEFENDANTS, EXCEPT THAT IT DECLINED TO ALLOW HARKINS' TESTIMONY
CONCERNING HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH GOLDSMITH AND WEISS TO BE ADMITTED AS
AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS BLUMENTHAL, FEIGENBAUM AND ABEL.  THAT TESTIMONY
HOWEVER WAS ALLOWED TO STAND AGAINST BOTH GOLDSMITH AND WEISS INSOFAR
AS IT RELATED THE CONVERSATION HAD IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH, AND AS TO
EACH OF THEM RESPECTIVELY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE OTHER INTERVIEWS TOOK
PLACE IN HIS PRESENCE. 

THE COURT OVERRULED NUMEROUS OBJECTIONS TO THESE RULINGS BY EACH
DEFENDANT.  NONE OFFERED EVIDENCE IN HIS OWN BEHALF. 

FOLLOWING ITS RULINGS ON ADMISSIBILITY, THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED AS
AGAINST VARIOUS OBJECTIONS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO GO TO
THE JURY ON THE ISSUES WHETHER THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED HAD BEEN MADE OUT
AND CONCERNING EACH DEFENDANT'S CONNECTION WITH IT.  ACCORDINGLY, IT
OVERRULED THE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR DIRECTED VERDICTS AND SUBMITTED
THE CASE TO THE JURY.  IN THE INSTRUCTIONS THE COURT EXPRESSLY STATED,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS RULINGS ON ADMISSIBILITY, THAT HARKINS'
TESTIMONY WAS TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS AGAINST GOLDSMITH AND WEISS, NOT
AS AGAINST THE OTHER THREE DEFENDANTS. 

                                 II. 

IN THE KOTTEAKOS CASE, SUPRA, THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED THAT, UNDER THE
CHARGE OF A SINGLE, ALL-INCLUSIVE CONSPIRACY, THE PROOF SHOWED DISTINCT
AND SEPARATE ONES CONNECTED ONLY BY THE FACT THAT ONE MAN, BROWN, WAS A
PARTICIPANT AND KEY FIGURE IN ALL.  BUT IT URGED THAT UNDER THE RULING
IN BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 78, THE VARIANCE WAS AT THE MOST
HARMLESS ERROR, A CONTENTION WE REJECTED.  HERE THE SITUATION IS THE
REVERSE.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONCEDED, IN EFFECT, THAT PREJUDICE HAS
RESULTED IF MORE THAN ONE CONSPIRACY HAS BEEN PROVED.  FN5  BUT IT
INSISTS THAT THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY AND NO MORE,
AN ISSUE NOT PRESENTED OR DETERMINED IN THE KOTTEAKOS CASE. 

THE PROOF, IN RELATION TO WHETHER ONE OR MORE CONSPIRACIES WERE SHOWN
AS WELL AS RELATIVE TO WHETHER ANY WAS MADE OUT, REQUIRES SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT TREATMENT CONCERNING THE TWO GROUPS OF DEFENDANTS, WEISS AND
GOLDSMITH, ON THE ONE HAND, AND BLUMENTHAL, FEIGENBAUM AND ABEL, ON THE
OTHER.  THIS IS BY REASON OF THE COURT'S EXCLUSION OF THE ADMISSIONS OF
GOLDSMITH AND WEISS FROM CONSIDERATION AS TO THE OTHER THREE
DEFENDANTS. 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MAINTAIN THAT FRANCISCO, OR GOLDSMITH (OR
THEREFORE WEISS), WAS THE OWNER OF THE WHISKEY.  IT ACCEPTS THE VIEW
THAT ANOTHER OR OTHERS, UNIDENTIFIED, WERE THE REAL OWNER OR OWNERS AND
THAT FRANCISCO (AND THUS GOLDSMITH AND WEISS) WAS MERELY A CHANNEL FOR
DISTRIBUTING THE LIQUOR AND GIVING THAT UNLAWFUL PROCESS A LEGAL
FACADE.  INDEED THE "INNOCENT APPEARING ACTIONS" OF WEISS AND GOLDSMITH
IN THEIR USE OF FRANCISCO, THE BRIEF ASSERTS, "WERE THE CRUX OF THE
CONSPIRACY  ...  SINCE THE COLOR OF LEGITIMACY WAS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF
THE PLAN TO DISPOSE OF THE LIQUOR TO TAVERN OWNERS AT OVER-CEILING
PRICES."  FN6 

THE EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE ADMISSIONS WAS CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO
ESTABLISH THAT THE OWNER DEVISED A PLAN WHICH CONTEMPLATED THE ENTIRE
CHAIN OF EVENTS FROM THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE IN FRANCISCO'S NAME TO THE
ULTIMATE BLACK MARKET SALES AND DELIVERIES.  THIS INCLUDES THE OBVIOUS
INFERENCE THAT HE MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR CLEARANCE THROUGH
FRANCISCO'S BOOKS.  SINCE GOLDSMITH AND WEISS WERE THE OWNER AND SALES
MANAGER RESPECTIVELY OF FRANCISCO AND HAD ACTIVE PARTS PERSONALLY IN
CARRYING OUT THOSE ARRANGEMENTS, THERE HARDLY CAN BE ANY QUESTION THAT
THEY KNEW THE OWNER, HAD PART IN MAKING THE ARRANGEMENTS WITH HIM AND,
BY VIRTUE OF THOSE FACTS AND THEIR PARTS IN FACILITATING THE SALES AND
DELIVERIES TO THE TAVERNKEEPERS, KNEW ALSO OF HIS INTENTION TO RESELL
THE WHISKEY AND OF HIS PLAN FOR DOING SO IN EVERY MATERIAL RESPECT
EXCEPT THAT HE INTENDED TO SELL AT OVER-CEILING PRICES.    THE SHOWING
ON THAT CRUCIAL QUESTION WAS ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL.  IT WAS
NONETHELESS SUBSTANTIAL.  GOLDSMITH AND WEISS KNEW THAT THERE WAS A
MARGIN OF ONLY ABOUT 77[ BETWEEN THE LEGAL PRICE CEILING AND THE $24.50
PER CASE THEY RECEIVED BY CHECK IN PAYMENT FOR THE WHISKEY.  FN7 THEY
KNEW THAT THE INVOICES SENT BY FRANCISCO TO EACH PURCHASER GAVE NO ROOM
FOR EVEN THAT SLENDER MARGIN BUT REPRESENTED ONLY THE OWNER'S COST
FIGURE.  THEY KNEW FURTHER THAT BY USING FRANCISCO'S NAME, SERVICES AND
FACILITIES THE OWNER WAS CONCEALING HIS IDENTITY FROM THE PURCHASERS IN
THE SALES, MAKING FRANCISCO APPEAR AS THE OWNER ON THE PAPER RECORDS;
THAT SALES WERE BEING MADE TO NUMEROUS AND WIDELY SCATTERED
TAVERNKEEPERS; AND THAT IN EVERY SALE REMITTANCE WAS MADE TO THEM
UNIFORMLY NOT ONLY BY CHECK, USUALLY OF THE PURCHASER, BUT ALSO IN THE
EXACT AMOUNT OF $24.50 PER CASE. 

THE INFERENCE THAT THE UNKNOWN OWNER WAS GIVING AWAY THE LIQUOR IS
SCARCELY CONCEIVABLE.  THE MOST LIKELY INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN WERE TWO,
NAMELY, THAT THE OWNER WAS SELLING FOR A LEGAL MARGIN OF NOT MORE THAN
77[ OR THAT HE WAS SELLING AT OVER-CEILING PRICES.  THE FIRST INFERENCE
IS HARDLY TENABLE, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING AND WIDESPREAD
SHORTAGE AND DEMAND, WITH ACCOMPANYING BLACK MARKET ACTIVITY, OF WHICH
THE MOST METICULOUS WHOLESALE LIQUOR DEALER HARDLY COULD HAVE BEEN
IGNORANT.  THE INFERENCE WAS NOT ONLY JUSTIFIED, IT WAS ALMOST
INESCAPABLE, THAT GOLDSMITH AND WEISS KNEW OF THE OWNER'S INTENT AND
PURPOSE TO SELL ABOVE THE LAWFUL PRICE, AS WELL AS MOST OF THE DETAIL
OF HIS PLAN FOR DOING SO.  WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE THEIR ACTIVE AID TOWARD
EXECUTING HIS DESIGN MADE THEM CO-CONSPIRATORS WITH HIM, AND HE WITH
THEM, TOWARD ACCOMPLISHING IT.

        III. 

IT REMAINS HOWEVER TO CONSIDER WHETHER, WITHOUT THE ADMISSIONS,
BLUMENTHAL, FEIGENBAUM AND ABEL HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE CONSPIRED
TOGETHER AND WITH GOLDSMITH AND WEISS IN THE SCHEME PROVED AGAINST THE
LATTER TWO. 

THE ADMISSIONS ALONE DISCLOSED THE UNKNOWN OWNER'S EXISTENCE; THAT
GOLDSMITH AND WEISS WERE ACTING FOR HIM, NOT FOR THEMSELVES; RECEIVED
FROM THE TRANSACTIONS, AND DIVIDED EQUALLY, THE $2 PER CASE; AND GAVE
THE USE OF FRANCISCO'S NAME TO COVER UP THE UNKNOWN OWNER'S EXISTENCE,
IDENTITY AND PART IN THE SCHEME. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE STRIPPED OF THOSE FACTS WAS SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THE CHARGE, A PRELIMINARY QUESTION ARISES UPON THE TRIAL
COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE ADMISSIONS.  THEY SUPPLIED STRONG
CONFIRMATORY OR SUPPLEMENTING PROOF TO SHOW, NOT ONLY THE CONNECTIONS
OF GOLDSMITH AND WEISS WITH THE SCHEME, BUT ALSO ITS EXISTENCE AND
ILLEGAL CHARACTER.  IF THEREFORE IT WERE SHOWN, OR EVEN WERE DOUBTFUL,
THAT THE ADMISSIONS HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY RECEIVED AS AGAINST BLUMENTHAL,
FEIGENBAUM AND ABEL, REVERSAL WOULD BE REQUIRED AS TO THEM.  FN8 

BUT THE TRIAL COURT'S RULINGS, BOTH UPON ADMISSIBILITY  FN9  AND IN
THE INSTRUCTIONS,  FN10 LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THE ADMISSIONS
WERE ADEQUATELY EXCLUDED, INSOFAR AS THIS COULD BE DONE IN A JOINT
TRIAL, FROM CONSIDERATION ON THE QUESTION OF THEIR GUILT.  THE RULINGS
TOLD THE JURY PLAINLY TO DISREGARD THE ADMISSIONS ENTIRELY, IN EVERY
PHASE OF THE CASE, IN DETERMINING THAT QUESTION.  FN11  THE DIRECTION
WAS A TOTAL EXCLUSION, NOT SIMPLY A PARTIAL ONE AS THE GOVERNMENT'S
ARGUMENT SEEMS TO IMPLY.  FN12  THE COURT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE
EMPHATIC.  BUT WE CANNOT SAY ITS UNAMBIGUOUS DIRECTION WAS INADEQUATE. 
NOR CAN WE ASSUME THAT THE JURY MISUNDERSTOOD OR DISOBEYED IT. 

WITH THE ADMISSIONS THUS ENTIRELY EXCLUDED, WE THINK NEVERTHELESS
THAT THE REMAINING EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE CHARGE, THAT THE FIVE DEFENDANTS JOINED IN A SINGLE CONSPIRACY TO
SELL THE WHISKEY AT OVER-CEILING PRICES IN THE GUISE OF LEGAL SALES. 
WE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN THE REMAINING EVIDENCE, IN PART, WHICH
JUSTIFIES THIS CONCLUSION BOTH AS TO GOLDSMITH AND WEISS  FN13  AND AS
TO THE OTHER THREE DEFENDANTS.  FN14 

THE MAIN DIFFERENCE COMES WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE UNKNOWN OWNER
FROM VIEW, AND FRANCISCO'S CONSEQUENT APPEARANCE AS BOTH ACTUAL AND
LEGAL OWNER.  THIS CHANGES THE DETAIL OF THE FACADE, BUT DOES NOT
REMOVE EITHER THE FACADE ITSELF OR THE ESSENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL SCHEME. 
THAT STILL WAS TO SELL THE WHISKEY ILLEGALLY IN THE GUISE OF LEGAL
SALES,  FN15  TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF EACH DEFENDANT.  FN16  THE GIST OF
THE CONSPIRACY LAY NOT IN WHO ACTUALLY OWNED THE WHISKEY, BUT IN THE
AGREEMENT TO SELL IT IN THIS UNLAWFUL FASHION, REGARDLESS OF WHO MIGHT
OWN IT. 

WITH THE CASE THUS POSITED, IT IS TRUE THE SALESMEN DID NOT KNOW OF
THE UNKNOWN OWNER'S EXISTENCE OR PART IN THE PLAN.  AND IN A
HYPERTECHNICAL ASPECT THE CASE AS A WHOLE MIGHT BE REGARDED AS SHOWING
IN ONE PHASE AN AGREEMENT AMONG GOLDSMITH, WEISS AND THE UNKNOWN OWNER,
X, AND IN THE OTHER AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE FIVE DEFENDANTS TO WHICH X
WAS NOT A PARTY.  THUS IN THE MOST METICULOUS SENSE IT MIGHT BE
REGARDED AS DISCLOSING TWO AGREEMENTS, WITH GOLDSMITH AND WEISS AS
FIGURES COMMON TO BOTH. 

INDEED THAT MAY BE WHAT TOOK PLACE CHRONOLOGICALLY, FOR CONSPIRACIES
INVOLVING SUCH ELABORATE ARRANGEMENTS GENERALLY ARE NOT BORN FULL
GROWN.  RATHER THEY MATURE BY SUCCESSIVE STAGES WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO
BRING IN THE ESSENTIAL PARTIES.  AND NOT ALL OF THOSE JOINING IN THE
EARLIER ONES MAKE KNOWN THEIR PARTICIPATION TO OTHERS LATER COMING IN. 

THE LAW DOES NOT DEMAND PROOF OF SO MUCH.  FOR IT IS MOST OFTEN TRUE,
ESPECIALLY IN BROAD SCHEMES CALLING FOR THE AID OF MANY PERSONS, THAT
AFTER DISCOVERY OF ENOUGH TO SHOW CLEARLY THE ESSENCE OF THE SCHEME AND
THE IDENTITY OF A NUMBER PARTICIPATING, THE IDENTITY AND THE FACT OF
PARTICIPATION OF OTHERS REMAIN UNDISCOVERED AND UNDISCOVERABLE. 
SECRECY AND CONCEALMENT ARE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF SUCCESSFUL
CONSPIRACY.  THE MORE COMPLETELY THEY ARE ACHIEVED, THE MORE SUCCESSFUL
THE CRIME.  HENCE THE LAW RIGHTLY GIVES ROOM FOR ALLOWING THE
CONVICTION OF THOSE DISCOVERED UPON SHOWING SUFFICIENTLY THE ESSENTIAL
NATURE OF THE PLAN AND THEIR CONNECTIONS WITH IT, WITHOUT REQUIRING
EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE OF ALL ITS DETAILS OR OF THE PARTICIPATION OF
OTHERS.  FN17  OTHERWISE THE DIFFICULTIES, NOT ONLY OF DISCOVERY, BUT
OF CERTAINTY IN PROOF AND OF CORRELATING PROOF WITH PLEADING WOULD
BECOME INSUPERABLE, AND CONSPIRATORS WOULD GO FREE BY THEIR VERY
INGENUITY. 

HERE, APART FROM THE WEIGHT WHICH THE PROOF OF THE UNKNOWN OWNER'S
EXISTENCE AND PARTICIPATION ADDED TO THE CONVICTIONS OF WEISS AND
GOLDSMITH, IT ADDED NO ESSENTIAL FEATURE TO THE CHARGE AGAINST THE FIVE
DEFENDANTS.  THE WHISKEY WAS THE SAME.  THE AGREEMENTS RELATED ALIKE TO
ITS DISPOSITION.  THEY COMPREHENDED ILLEGAL SALES IN THE GUISE OF LEGAL
ONES.  WHO OWNED THE WHISKEY WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE BASIC PLAN AND ITS
ESSENTIAL ILLEGALITY.  IT WAS A MATTER OF INDIFFERENT DETAIL TO THE
SALESMEN, AS BY THE SAME TOKEN WAS THE FACT THAT GOLDSMITH AND WEISS
WERE RECEIVING AND SPLITTING ONLY THE $2 PER CASE.  IT MATTERED NOTHING
TO THE OTHERS WHETHER THOSE TWO RECEIVED ONLY THAT AMOUNT OR THE LARGER
ILLEGAL SUMS. 

WE THINK THAT IN THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE TWO
AGREEMENTS WERE MERELY STEPS IN THE FORMATION OF THE LARGER AND
ULTIMATE MORE GENERAL CONSPIRACY.  IN THAT VIEW IT WOULD BE A
PERVERSION OF JUSTICE TO REGARD THE SALESMEN'S IGNORANCE OF THE UNKNOWN
OWNER'S PARTICIPATION AS FURNISHING ADEQUATE GROUND FOR REVERSAL OF
THEIR CONVICTIONS.  NOR DOES ANYTHING IN THE KOTTEAKOS DECISION REQUIRE
THIS.  THE SCHEME WAS IN FACT THE SAME SCHEME; THE SALESMEN KNEW OR
MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT OTHERS UNKNOWN TO THEM WERE SHARING IN SO LARGE A
PROJECT; AND IT HARDLY CAN BE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THEM THAT THEY DID
NOT KNOW, WHEN THEY JOINED THE SCHEME, WHO THOSE PEOPLE WERE OR EXACTLY
THE PARTS THEY WERE PLAYING IN CARRYING OUT THE COMMON DESIGN AND
OBJECT OF ALL.  BY THEIR SEPARATE AGREEMENTS, IF SUCH THEY WERE, THEY
BECAME PARTIES TO THE LARGER COMMON PLAN, JOINED TOGETHER BY THEIR
KNOWLEDGE OF ITS ESSENTIAL FEATURES AND BROAD SCOPE, THOUGH NOT OF ITS
EXACT LIMITS, AND BY THEIR COMMON SINGLE GOAL. 

THE CASE THEREFORE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS ADMITTED TO EXIST
IN THE KOTTEAKOS CASE.  APART FROM THE MUCH LARGER NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS
THERE INVOLVED, NO TWO OF THOSE AGREEMENTS WERE TIED TOGETHER AS STAGES
IN THE FORMATION OF A LARGER ALL-INCLUSIVE COMBINATION, ALL DIRECTED TO
ACHIEVING A SINGLE UNLAWFUL END OR RESULT.  ON THE CONTRARY EACH
SEPARATE AGREEMENT HAD ITS OWN DISTINCT, ILLEGAL END.  EACH LOAN WAS AN
END IN ITSELF, SEPARATE FROM ALL OTHERS, ALTHOUGH ALL WERE ALIKE IN
HAVING SIMILAR ILLEGAL OBJECTS.  EXCEPT FOR BROWN, THE COMMON FIGURE,
NO CONSPIRATOR WAS INTERESTED IN WHETHER ANY LOAN EXCEPT HIS OWN WENT
THROUGH.  AND NONE AIDED IN ANY WAY, BY AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE, IN
PROCURING ANOTHER'S LOAN.  THE CONSPIRACIES THEREFORE WERE DISTINCT AND
DISCONNECTED, NOT PARTS OF A LARGER GENERAL SCHEME, BOTH IN THE PHASE
OF AGREEMENT WITH BROWN AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AID GIVEN TO
OTHERS AS WELL AS IN SPECIFIC OBJECT AND RESULT.  THERE WAS NO DRAWING
OF ALL TOGETHER IN A SINGLE, OVER-ALL, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 

HERE THE CONTRARY IS TRUE.  ALL KNEW OF AND JOINED IN THE OVERRIDING
SCHEME.  ALL INTENDED TO AID THE OWNER, WHETHER FRANCISCO OR ANOTHER,
TO SELL THE WHISKEY UNLAWFULLY, THOUGH THE TWO GROUPS OF DEFENDANTS
DIFFERED ON THE PROOF IN KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF CONCERNING THE OWNER'S
IDENTITY.  ALL BY REASON OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLAN'S GENERAL
SCOPE, IF NOT ITS EXACT LIMITS, SOUGHT A COMMON END, TO AID IN
DISPOSING OF THE WHISKEY.  TRUE, EACH SALESMAN AIDED IN SELLING ONLY
HIS PART.  BUT HE KNEW THE LOT TO BE SOLD WAS LARGER AND THUS THAT HE
WAS AIDING IN A LARGER PLAN.  HE THUS BECAME A PARTY TO IT AND NOT
MERELY TO THE INTEGRATING AGREEMENT WITH WEISS AND GOLDSMITH. 

WE THINK THEREFORE THAT IN EVERY PRACTICAL SENSE THE UNIQUE FACTS OF
THIS CASE REVEAL A SINGLE CONSPIRACY OF WHICH THE SEVERAL AGREEMENTS
WERE ESSENTIAL AND INTEGRAL STEPS, AND ACCORDINGLY THAT THE JUDGMENTS
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

THE GRAVE DANGER IN THIS CASE, IF ANY, AROSE NOT FROM THE TRIAL
COURT'S RULINGS UPON ADMISSIBILITY OR FROM ITS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
JURY.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THESE WERE AS ADEQUATE AS MIGHT REASONABLY BE
REQUIRED IN A JOINT TRIAL.  THE DANGER RESTED RATHER IN THE RISK THAT
THE JURY, IN DISREGARD OF THE COURT'S DIRECTION, WOULD TRANSFER,
CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY, THE EFFECT OF THE EXCLUDED ADMISSIONS
FROM THE CASE AS MADE AGAINST GOLDSMITH AND WEISS ACROSS THE BARRIER OF
THE EXCLUSION TO THE OTHER THREE DEFENDANTS. 

THAT DANGER WAS REAL.  IT IS ONE LIKELY TO ARISE IN ANY CONSPIRACY
TRIAL AND MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR AS THE NUMBER OF PERSONS CHARGED
TOGETHER INCREASES.  PERHAPS EVEN AT BEST THE SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED BY
CLEAR RULINGS ON ADMISSIBILITY, LIMITATIONS OF THE BEARING OF EVIDENCE
AS AGAINST PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS, AND ADEQUATE INSTRUCTIONS, ARE
INSUFFICIENT TO WARD OFF THE DANGER ENTIRELY.  IT IS THEREFORE
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT THOSE SAFEGUARDS BE MADE AS IMPREGNABLE AS
POSSIBLE.  HERE, HOWEVER, THE CASE AS PRESENTED INVOLVED NONE OF THE
RISKS COMMON TO MASS TRIALS.  AND, IN VIEW OF THE TRIAL COURT'S
CAUTION, THE RISK OF TRANSFERENCE OF GUILT OVER THE BORDER OF
ADMISSIBILITY WAS REDUCED TO THE MINIMUM.  SO GREAT WAS THE COURT'S
CONCERN THAT IT EXPRESSLY TOLD THE JURY, IN ADDITION TO THE
INSTRUCTIONS SET FORTH ABOVE, "  ...  THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF EACH
DEFENDANT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE JURY SEPARATELY.  EACH DEFENDANT
HAS THE SAME RIGHT TO THAT KIND OF CONSIDERATION ON YOUR PART AS IF HE
WERE BEING TRIED ALONE." 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED PETITIONERS' REMAINING CONTENTIONS AND FIND THEM
WITHOUT MERIT.  FN18 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  OF THE MORE THAN 4,000 CASES RECEIVED BY FRANCISCO, PROOF
CONCERNING DISPOSITION AT OVER-CEILING PRICES RELATED TO LESS THAN
HALF, OR SOME 1,500-PLUS CASES. 

FN2  CONSISTING OF $19.24 PER CASE TO THE DISTILLER, 81[ FOR FREIGHT,
AND $1.92 FOR STATE TAXES. 

FN3  THE WITNESSES IDENTIFYING FEIGENBAUM TESTIFIED THEY SOUGHT HIM
OUT AT THE SUNSET DRUGSTORE IN SAN FRANCISCO AND MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS
WITH HIM FOR THEIR PURCHASES THERE.  SIMILAR TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY
THOSE IDENTIFYING BLUMENTHAL WITH THE ARRANGEMENTS TAKING PLACE IN THE
SPORTORIUM. 

IN SOME INSTANCES THE OUT-OF-TOWN PURCHASING WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT
THEY WENT TO SAN FRANCISCO IN SEARCH OF WHISKEY TO BUY AND BY ONE MEANS
OR ANOTHER, USUALLY THROUGH INQUIRY OF PERSONS FREQUENTING BARS WHERE
THE WITNESSES STOPPED, WERE DIRECTED TO THE SELLING AGENT.  IN OTHER
INSTANCES THE INTERMEDIARY SOUGHT OUT THE TAVERNKEEPER AS A PROSPECTIVE
PURCHASER AT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS. 

FN4  AT AN INTERVIEW WITH GOLDSMITH "EARLY IN SEPTEMBER," GOLDSMITH
WAS ASKED "WHO ACTUALLY BOUGHT HIM THE WHISKEY, WHO OWNED IT."  IN
REPLY "HE SAID THAT BLUMENTHAL BROUGHT IT IN, AND WHEN ASKED IF HE KNEW
OF HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE, HE SAID, 'NO.'"  HE AGAIN STATED THAT FRANCISCO
RECEIVED $2 PER CASE, OF WHICH HE GAVE WEISS HALF. 

A STILL FURTHER QUESTIONING OF GOLDSMITH TOOK PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 13. 
HARKINS SHOWED GOLDSMITH SEVERAL INVOICES GIVEN TO PURCHASERS IN THE
NAME OF FRANCISCO.  GOLDSMITH ADMITTED THAT HE WROTE MOST OF THE
INVOICES AND IDENTIFIED HIS OWN HANDWRITING, STATING HOWEVER THAT A FEW
WERE WRITTEN BY HIS BOOKKEEPER. 

HARKINS TESTIFIED ALSO REGARDING A CONVERSATION WITH WEISS ON MAY 14,
1944.  IN THIS WEISS STATED "IT WAS TRUE THAT HE RECEIVED HALF OF THE
$2 COMMISSION PAID TO THE FRANCISCO DISTRIBUTING COMPANY FOR CLEARING
THIS WHISKEY THROUGH THEIR BOOKS, AND HE FINALLY REFUSED TO ANSWER WHO
ACTUALLY OWNED THE WHISKEY.  HE SAID 'I DON'T WANT TO INVOLVE
MYSELF.'"  WEISS ALSO ADMITTED KNOWING BLUMENTHAL, BUT "REFUSED TO
STATE, TO THE BEST OF MY (THE WITNESS') RECOLLECTION, POSITIVELY,
WHETHER MR. BLUMENTHAL WAS THE OWNER OF THE WHISKEY OR NOT."    FN5
THE BRIEF STATES:  "THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT IF THE PROOF
SHOWED SEVERAL CONSPIRACIES, AS THE DISSENTING JUDGE THOUGHT, THE
VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICIAL." 

FN6  THE BRIEF ALSO DECLARES THAT "THE GIST OF THE CONSPIRACY  ...
WAS THE SCHEME TO SELL LIQUOR TO TAVERN OWNERS AT OVER-CEILING PRICES
IN AN APPARENTLY LEGITIMATE FASHION THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF FRANCISCO." 

THE PLAN, IT IS SAID, "WAS NOT MERELY TO SELL LIQUOR AT OVER-CEILING
PRICES; IT WAS A PLAN TO SELL LIQUOR AT OVER-CEILING PRICES IN AN
APPARENTLY LEGITIMATE FASHION" AND "THE CORE OF THE SCHEME WAS THE
ARRANGEMENT BY WHICH THE WHISKEY WOULD CLEAR TO TAVERN OWNERS THROUGH
FRANCISCO, A LEGITIMATE WHOLESALER." 

FN7  THE $24.50 PRICE WAS AT THE MOST 53[ ABOVE THE ACTUAL COST OF
THE WHISKEY, SEE NOTE 2, PLUS THE $2.00 FEE PAID FRANCISCO FOR THE USE
OF ITS BOOKS.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE UNKNOWN OWNER RECEIVED ANY
PORTION OF THIS 53[ MARGIN.  SINCE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT FRANCISCO WAS
BILLED BY THE WAREHOUSE COMPANY FOR THE STORAGE OF THE LIQUOR, THE
INFERENCE WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED THAT THE 53[ MARGIN WAS LARGELY
DISSIPATED BY THE STORAGE CHARGES AND OTHER OVERHEAD COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE SALE OF THE WHISKEY AND THAT THE REMAINING SUM, IF ANY, WAS
RETAINED BY FRANCISCO. 

FN8  EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE WERE SUFFICIENT WITH THE ADMISSIONS
EXCLUDED, THEY WERE OF SUCH IMPORTANCE THAT IF ADMITTED IMPROPERLY THE
JURY MIGHT HAVE DRAWN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT INFERENCES FROM THE WHOLE
EVIDENCE INCLUDING THEM THAN FROM IT WITHOUT THEM. 

FN9  BEFORE SENDING THE CASE TO THE JURY THE COURT STATED IN ITS
PRESENCE AND FOR ITS BENEFIT THAT IT HAD GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S
MOTION TO ADMIT ALL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS EXCEPT:
"THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE LAST WITNESS, MR. HARKINS, IS ADMITTED IN
EVIDENCE AS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT GOLDSMITH AS TO THE CONVERSATION HAD
BY THE WITNESS WITH THE DEFENDANT GOLDSMITH; THAT HIS TESTIMONY IS
ADMITTED AS TO THE DEFENDANT WEISS WITH RESPECT TO CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE DEFENDANT WEISS; AND AS TO BOTH DEFENDANTS, GOLDSMITH AND WEISS, AS
TO ALL CONVERSATIONS AT WHICH BOTH DEFENDANTS, GOLDSMITH AND WEISS,
WERE PRESENT, AND EXCEPTIONS ARE NOTED AS TO THIS RULING ON BEHALF OF
ALL THE DEFENDANTS SEPARATELY."  THE COURT THEN ADDED, ON INQUIRY, THAT
COUNSEL WAS RIGHT IN TAKING THIS TO MEAN THAT THE HARKINS TESTIMONY
"DOES NOT AFFECT THE DEFENDANTS BLUMENTHAL AND THE OTHER TWO OR
THREE." 

FN10  AT THREE DISTINCT PLACES THE COURT MADE REFERENCES EITHER
GENERALLY AND ABSTRACTLY OR EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE TO THE ADMISSIONS. 

IN THE FIRST, AFTER STATING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE OR CO
CONSPIRATOR AND ORAL ADMISSIONS OF A DEFENDANT MUST BE RECEIVED WITH
CAUTION, THE COURT SAID:  "IN THIS CASE  ... PROOF OF THE CONSPIRACY
CHARGED  ...  MUST BE MADE INDEPENDENT OF ADMISSIONS OF ANY DEFENDANT
MADE AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY."  AT A LATER
POINT THE JURY WAS TOLD:  "  ... YOU MUST DISREGARD ENTIRELY ANY
TESTIMONY STRICKEN OUT BY THE COURT, OR ANY TESTIMONY TO WHICH AN
OBJECTION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED.  ...  TESTIMONY WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED
ONLY TO APPLY AS TO A SPECIFIED DEFENDANT MAY ONLY BE CONSIDERED BY YOU
AS TO THAT DEFENDANT AND NONE OTHER."  AND FINALLY NEAR THE END OF THE
INSTRUCTIONS, EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO THE ADMISSIONS OF GOLDSMITH AND
WEISS, THE COURT SAID:  "WHERE THE EXISTENCE OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
HAS BEEN SHOWN, EVERY ACT OR DECLARATION OF EACH MEMBER OF SUCH
CONSPIRACY, DONE OR MADE THEREAFTER PURSUANT TO THE CONCERTED PLAN AND
IN FURTHERANCE OF THE COMMON OBJECT, IS CONSIDERED THE ACT AND
DECLARATION OF ALL THE CONSPIRATORS, AND IS EVIDENCE AGAINST EACH OF
THEM.  ON THE OTHER HAND, AFTER A CONSPIRACY HAS COME TO AN END, EITHER
BY THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE COMMON DESIGN, OR BY THE PARTIES
ABANDONING THE SAME, EVIDENCE OF ACTS OR DECLARATIONS THEREAFTER MADE
BY ANY OF THE CONSPIRATORS CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS AGAINST THE PERSON
DOING SUCH ACTS OR MAKING SUCH STATEMENTS. 

"IN THAT CONNECTION, YOU WILL RECALL THAT I ADVISED YOU DURING THE
TRIAL OF THE CASE THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANTS GOLDSMITH
AND WEISS TO THE WITNESS HARKINS COULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED BY YOU AS
AGAINST THOSE TWO NAMED DEFENDANTS." 

FN11  IT IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR WHETHER THE WORDS "IN THAT
CONNECTION," ITALICIZED IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF NOTE 10, REFER ONLY TO
THE LAST OR TO BOTH OF THE PRECEDING SENTENCES, IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT
OF THE TWO PARAGRAPHS LAST QUOTED.  BUT WHEN THOSE STATEMENTS ARE TAKEN
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EARLIER ONES AND WITH THE COURT'S RULINGS ON
ADMISSIBILITY MADE IN THE JURY'S PRESENCE, WE THINK THE TOTAL EFFECT OF
THE INSTRUCTIONS WAS TO TELL THE JURY PLAINLY TO DISREGARD THE
ADMISSIONS ENTIRELY IN CONSIDERING THE GUILT OF BLUMENTHAL, FEIGENBAUM
AND ABEL. 

THIS VIEW, THOUGH APPARENTLY DIFFERING FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S, SEE
NOTE 12, IS REINFORCED BY THE FURTHER INSTRUCTION, IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING THE ONE LAST QUOTED IN NOTE 10, TO THE EFFECT THAT ADMISSIONS
OF A CONSPIRATOR NOT MADE IN EXECUTION OF THE COMMON DESIGN ARE NOT
EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY OF THE PARTIES OTHER THAN THE ONE MAKING THEM. 
THE ADMISSIONS HERE FELL CLEARLY IN THAT CATEGORY, SOME OF THEM BECAUSE
MADE AFTER TERMINATION OF THE CONSPIRACY, OTHERS BECAUSE THEY HAD NO
EFFECT TO FORWARD ITS OBJECT.  NONE WERE MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
CONSPIRACY'S OBJECT.  CF. FISWICK V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 211. 

FN12  ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT SURE THE ARGUMENT GOES SO FAR, IT SEEMS TO
URGE, SEE NOTE 6 AND TEXT, THAT THE ADMISSIONS, AS WELL AS THE OTHER
EVIDENCE EXPRESSLY AFFECTING ONLY ONE OR SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS, WERE
ADMISSIBLE AND WERE RECEIVED, NOT MERELY AS AGAINST WEISS AND GOLDSMITH
ON THE WHOLE CASE BUT ALSO IN PART AS AGAINST THE OTHER THREE, THAT IS,
TO SHOW EVEN AS TO THEM THE EXISTENCE AND ILLEGAL CHARACTER OF THE
SCHEME, THOUGH NOT TO ESTABLISH THEIR CONNECTIONS WITH IT. WE DO NOT
READ THE RECORD AS SHOWING THIS WAS THE EFFECT OF THE TRIAL COURT'S
RULING. 

FN13  THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE UNKNOWN OWNER NO LONGER BEING IN THE
PICTURE, THE INFERENCE IS ALMOST IRRESISTIBLE THAT FRANCISCO WAS THE
OWNER.  ON ARRIVAL OF THE WHISKEY, TITLE WAS TAKEN IN FRANCISCO'S NAME,
IN WHICH THE SHIPPING DOCUMENTS WERE MADE OUT; SIGHT DRAFTS FOR THE TWO
CARLOADS WERE PAID, AT GOLDSMITH'S DIRECTION, FROM FRANCISCO'S BANK
ACCOUNT; AND THE WHISKEY WAS STORED AND DELIVERED BY THE WAREHOUSE
COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH WEISS' DIRECTIONS. 

AT A TIME WHEN WHOLESALE LIQUOR DISTRIBUTORS WERE HARD PUT TO SUPPLY
EVEN LONG-ESTABLISHED CUSTOMERS, FRANCISCO SOLD ITS LIQUOR, THROUGH THE
MEDIUM OF SALESMEN WHO HAD NO PREVIOUS CONNECTION WITH THE FIRM AND
WERE NOT REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING LIQUOR, TO
VARIOUS TAVERN OWNERS WHO HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY HAD DEALINGS WITH
FRANCISCO.  MOREOVER, THE SALES WERE BILLED AT A PRICE 77[ PER CASE
BELOW THE OPA CEILING, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TAVERN OWNERS AND OTHER
RETAIL DISTRIBUTORS CONSIDERED THEMSELVES FORTUNATE TO SECURE WHISKEY
AT THE FULL CEILING PRICE.  ALSO OF INTEREST ARE TAVERN OWNER FIGONE'S
OVER-CEILING PURCHASES, WHICH FOLLOWED THE PATTERN OF THE OTHER SALES,
EXCEPT IN THE IMPORTANT RESPECT THAT THEY WERE MADE AT THE FRANCISCO
OFFICE, BUT WITH A PERSON FIGONE COULD NOT IDENTIFY.  SEE TEXT SUPRA
FOLLOWING NOTE 3. 

WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE JURY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN
INFERRING FROM THIS EVIDENCE THAT GOLDSMITH AND WEISS, THE GUIDING
HANDS OF FRANCISCO, WERE WILLING TO MAKE THE SALES ONLY BECAUSE OF AN
ILLEGAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SALESMEN TO RECEIVE OVER-CEILING PRICES. 

THE CASE WOULD STAND LITTLE BETTER FOR GOLDSMITH AND WEISS UPON AN
INFERENCE THAT THEY SOLD TO SOME OTHER PERSON, WHO IN TURN RESOLD TO
THE TAVERNKEEPERS THROUGH THE SALESMEN.  FOR THEN THE 77[ LEGAL MARGIN
WOULD REMAIN, NOW FOR THE INTERVENING PURCHASER, TOGETHER WITH THE USE
OF FRANCISCO'S BOOKS AND RECORDS TO CONCEAL HIS EXISTENCE AND PART IN
THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE ALLOWABLE INFERENCES FROM THOSE FACTS. 

FN14  ACTING ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY IN EARLY DECEMBER BEFORE THE FIRST
CARLOAD ARRIVED IN SAN FRANCISCO, BLUMENTHAL AND FEIGENBAUM, AS WELL AS
ABEL AND OTHER UNIDENTIFIED SALESMEN, MADE IT KNOWN THAT THEY COULD
OBTAIN WHISKEY FOR TAVERNKEEPERS.  THERE ARE COMPELLING INDICATIONS
THAT THESE SALESMEN WERE KEPT INFORMED OF THE STATUS OF THE WHISKEY. 
THUS, ON THE 8TH OR 9TH OF DECEMBER, FEIGENBAUM TOLD ONE PURCHASER THAT
THE WHISKEY WOULD ARRIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO IN "ABOUT A WEEK OR TEN
DAYS," THAT IT WOULD COME IN BY RAILROAD, AND THAT THERE WOULD BE "A
CARLOAD OF IT."  THE FIRST OF THE TWO CARLOADS OF LIQUOR ACTUALLY
ARRIVED ON DECEMBER 17.  SIMILARLY, ON THE 3D OR 4TH OF DECEMBER,
BLUMENTHAL TOLD TAVERNKEEPER FINGERHUT THAT THE WHISKEY WOULD ARRIVE IN
THE LATTER PART OF THE MONTH.  THE WHISKEY DID SO ARRIVE AND THE
PURCHASER RECEIVED DELIVERY.  THEN, LATE IN DECEMBER, FINGERHUT
RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL, WHICH HE SAID WAS FROM BLUMENTHAL, ASKING
WHETHER HE NEEDED MORE WHISKEY.  AS A RESULT, FINGERHUT MADE AN
ADDITIONAL PURCHASE ON JANUARY 3 OR 4, 1944.  THE SECOND CARLOAD WAS
RECEIVED BY THE WAREHOUSE COMPANY ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 3D. 

IN ADDITION TO BEING WELL INFORMED AS TO THE PROGRESS OF THE WHISKEY
IN ITS JOURNEY WESTWARD, THE SALESMEN FOLLOWED A SINGULARLY SET PATTERN
IN MAKING THEIR RESPECTIVE SALES.  ALL KNEW AND SO TOLD THE PROSPECTIVE
CUSTOMER THAT HE WOULD RECEIVE FRANCISCO'S INVOICE FOR THE WHISKEY AT
THE SAME BELOW-CEILING PRICE, WHICH INVOICE WAS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE
BECAUSE IT ENABLED THE TAVERNKEEPERS TO COMPLY WITH THE RECORD-KEEPING
REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THE CALIFORNIA LAW.  SEE NOTE 15.  ALL MADE
ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE IDENTICAL PRICE OF $24.50 PER CASE
TO FRANCISCO BY CHECK.  ALL RECEIVED THE CHECKS, WHICH WERE DELIVERED
TO FRANCISCO AND COLLECTED BY IT. 

OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER EVIDENCE, IS THE
TESTIMONY OF TAVERNKEEPER REINBURG THAT ON TWO OCCASIONS, AT ABEL'S
DIRECTION, HE DROVE ABEL TO SAN FRANCISCO, DROPPED HIM AT THE
SPORTORIUM, BLUMENTHAL'S PLACE OF BUSINESS, AND PICKED HIM UP THERE
ABOUT A HALF HOUR LATER. 

THE INFERENCE WAS JUSTIFIED THAT BLUMENTHAL, FEIGENBAUM AND THE OTHER
SALESMEN WERE AWARE THAT THEIR INDIVIDUAL SALES WERE PART OF A LARGER
COMMON ENTERPRISE, DEPENDENT ON THE CAREFULLY EVOLVED ARRANGEMENTS TO
GIVE THE SALES THE GUISE OF LEGITIMACY, TO DISPOSE OF A LARGER STORE OF
LIQUOR.  WHERE A SALESMAN KNEW, AS DID FEIGENBAUM, THAT AT LEAST A
CARLOAD OF WHISKEY WAS INVOLVED, IT WAS AN ENTIRELY REASONABLE
INFERENCE THAT HE KNEW THAT OTHER SALESMEN, PARALLELING HIS EFFORTS,
WERE MAKING SALES SIMILAR TO HIS.  ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE, THE
JURY WAS WELL WARRANTED IN DECIDING THAT THE FACTS DOVETAILED TOO
NEATLY TO BE THE RESULT OF MERE CHANCE. 

FN15  THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT SOME OF THE PURCHASERS WERE UNWILLING
TO BUY LIQUOR WITHOUT RECEIVING A DOCUMENT TO SHOW PURCHASE FROM A
LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED SOURCE AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.  WITH FRANCISCO
APPEARING AS ACTUAL OWNER THE SCHEME TOOK ON THE ASPECT OF ONE TO SELL
ITS OWN WHISKEY ILLEGALLY IN THE GUISE OF LAWFUL SALES. 

FN16  EACH SALESMAN KNEW THAT HE WAS RECEIVING $30 TO $40 ABOVE THE
CEILING; THAT FRANCISCO WAS SUPPLYING THE WHISKEY; THAT THE ELABORATE
ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE NOT MERELY FOR HIS SALES, BUT ALSO FOR OTHERS,
SEE NOTE 14; AND THAT HE HAD TO HAVE THE CASH, AS WELL AS THE CHECK,
BEFORE DELIVERY FROM FRANCISCO WAS COMPLETED. 

THE BASIS FOR IMPUTING SUCH KNOWLEDGE TO GOLDSMITH AND WEISS BECOMES
NOT SO COMPELLING AS WITH THE ADMISSIONS INCLUDED, BUT NEVERTHELESS
REMAINS ADEQUATE.  HOWEVER THE CASE IS VIEWED, APART FROM THE
ADMISSIONS, THEY KNEW THE MARGIN OF LEGAL PROFIT LEFT, WHETHER FOR
THEMSELVES OR FOR OTHERS, AFTER DEDUCTING THE $24.50 PER CASE, WAS ONLY
77[.  IF THEY ACTUALLY OWNED AND SOLD THE WHISKEY, WHY SELL BELOW THE
CEILING IN THE FACE OF THE SHORTAGE AND DEMAND, WHEN SELLING COSTS
INCLUDING THE SALESMEN'S COMPENSATION STILL WERE TO BE PAID?  IF THEY
DID NOT OWN OR SELL AT THE $24.50 FIGURE, THEN WHY THE CHECKS AND FALSE
INVOICES IN THAT AMOUNT?  THE INFERENCE IS JUSTIFIED THAT EITHER THEY
OR SOMEONE ELSE TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE WAS RECEIVING MORE THAN THE LAWFUL
PRICE. 

FN17  MARINO V. UNITED STATES, 91 F.2D 691; LEFCO V. UNITED STATES,
74 F.2D 66; JEZEWSKI V. UNITED STATES, 13 F.2D 599; ALLEN V. UNITED
STATES, 4 F.2D 688. 

FN18  THESE INCLUDE THE ARGUMENT THAT PETITIONERS WERE PROSECUTED
UNDER THE WRONG STATUTE.  SECTION 4(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT MAKES IT UNLAWFUL, AS A MISDEMEANOR, SEC. 205(B), FOR ANY PERSON TO
SELL OR DELIVER ANY COMMODITY IN VIOLATION OF PRICE REGULATIONS, "OR TO
OFFER, SOLICIT, ATTEMPT, OR AGREE TO DO ANY OF THE FOREGOING." 
PETITIONERS REGARD THE PROHIBITORY WORDS "OR AGREE," ETC., AS REPEAL BY
IMPLICATION OF THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE, SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, INSOFAR AS OTHERWISE IT MIGHT APPLY TO THE ACTS FORBIDDEN BY SEC.
4(A).  THERE WAS NO "IMPLIED REPEAL."  CONVICTION UNDER THE GENERAL
CONSPIRACY STATUTE REQUIRES MORE THAN MERE AGREEMENT, NAMELY, THE
COMMISSION OF AN OVERT ACT.  SEE ALSO TAUB V. BOWLES, 149 F.2D 817;
H.R. REP. NO. 827, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 7-8. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :




MARINO V. RAGEN, 332 U.S. 561 


NO. 93.  DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1947.  - CERTIORARI GRANTED - JUDGMENT
VACATED AND REMANDED. 


1.  WHERE AN INFERIOR STATE COURT QUASHES A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SOUGHT TO REVIEW AN ALLEGED DENIAL OF RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND ITS ORDER CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY HIGHER STATE
COURT, A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO OBTAIN REVIEW OF THAT
ORDER IS PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO THIS COURT.  P. 561. 

2.  WHETHER, UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HABEAS CORPUS IS AN
APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN THE STATE COURT TO CORRECT A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW UPON WHICH THIS COURT ACCEPTS THE
CONCESSION OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL.  P. 562. 

3.  ON THE FACTS RECITED IN THE OPINION AND CONFESSION OF ERROR BY
THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL, THIS COURT CONCLUDES THAT IN HIS TRIAL
FOR MURDER PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW CONTRARY TO THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 562. 

MARINO V. RAGEN, WARDEN. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WINNEBAGO
COUNTY, ILLINOIS. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER SOUGHT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
WINNEBAGO COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLEGING THAT HIS CONVICTION IN 1925 ON A
CHARGE OF MURDER WAS THE RESULT OF A DENIAL OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THAT COURT, AFTER A HEARING, QUASHED THE WRIT;
AND AS ITS ORDER CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY ANY HIGHER ILLINOIS COURT UNDER
ILLINOIS PRACTICE, THIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS PROPERLY
ADDRESSED TO THIS COURT.  SEE WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211; 15
U. OF CHIC.  L. REV. 118, 122. 

THE FACTS CONCEDED BY RESPONDENT ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

THE COMMON-LAW RECORD RECITES THAT PETITIONER WAS ARRAIGNED IN OPEN
COURT AND ADVISED THROUGH INTERPRETERS OF THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF A
PLEA OF GUILTY AND THAT PETITIONER SIGNED A STATEMENT WAIVING JURY
TRIAL AND PLEADING GUILTY.  HE WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  IT
DOES NOT APPEAR, HOWEVER, THAT AN ATTORNEY WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT
HIM.  THE WAIVER WAS NOT IN FACT SIGNED BY HIM, AND NO PLEA OF GUILTY
WAS ENTERED AT THE TRIAL.  HE WAS 18 YEARS OLD AT THAT TIME AND HAD
BEEN IN THIS COUNTRY ONLY TWO YEARS.  HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE AND IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT HE UNDERSTOOD AMERICAN TRIAL COURT
PROCEDURE.  THE ARRESTING OFFICER SERVED AS AN INTERPRETER FOR
PETITIONER AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL. 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS SPEAKING THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ADMITS
THE FOREGOING FACTS, CONFESSES ERROR, AND CONSENTS TO A REVERSAL OF THE
JUDGMENT BELOW.  HE STATES THAT THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS A PROPER
REMEDY IN ILLINOIS IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS, WHICH HE CONCEDES TO
BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,
WERE KNOWN TO THE COURT AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL TRIAL, THOUGH THEY
WERE NOT A MATTER OF RECORD AT THE TRIAL.  WHETHER OR NOT ON THIS
SHOWING HABEAS CORPUS IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN THE COURT TO CORRECT
A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW AS TO WHICH WE
ACCEPT THE CONCESSION OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

IN LIGHT OF THE CONFESSION OF ERROR (SEE YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, 315
U.S. 257; BOZZA V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 160; CF. BALTZER V. UNITED
STATES, 248 U.S. 593) AND THE UNDISPUTED FACTS, WE CONCLUDE THAT
PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHICH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT REQUIRES. 

PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED.  THE PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS VACATED AND
REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY JOIN, CONCURRING. 

THIS CASE SHARPLY POINTS UP A MUCH LARGER PROBLEM, OF GROWING CONCERN
TO THIS COURT, THAN MERELY THE DISPOSITION TO BE MADE OF MARINO'S
PETITION IN VIEW OF THE STATE'S CONFESSION OF ERROR.  I AGREE THAT
RELIEF IS DUE HIM, AND I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  BUT I DO NOT
FIND HIS CASE DIFFERENT, EXCEPT IN ONE RESPECT, FROM MANY OTHERS WHICH
HAVE COME REGULARLY TO THIS COURT FROM ILLINOIS IN RECENT YEARS, IN
WHICH RELIEF HAS BEEN AS REGULARLY DENIED.  THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE, IN MY JUDGMENT, IS THAT HERE THE STATE HAS CONFESSED
ERROR.  THAT CONFESSION RAISES, IN MY OPINION, THE QUESTION OF THE
COURSE THIS COURT SHOULD FOLLOW IN THE FUTURE CONCERNING THE
DISPOSITION OF SIMILAR PETITIONS FROM ILLINOIS. 

DURING THE LAST THREE TERMS WE HAVE BEEN FLOODED WITH PETITIONS FROM
ILLINOIS ALLEGING DEPRIVATIONS OF DUE PROCESS AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  THUS IN THE 1944 TERM, OUT OF A TOTAL OF 339 PETITIONS FILED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS, ALMOST ALL BY PRISONERS, 141 CAME FROM ILLINOIS; IN
THE 1945 TERM, 175 OUT OF 393 WERE FROM ILLINOIS; AND IN THE 1946 TERM,
322 OUT OF 528 CAME FROM THAT STATE.  FN1  WITH MECHANICAL REGULARITY
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW ILLINOIS' REFUSALS TO GRANT RELIEF,
OFTEN EVEN TO GRANT A HEARING, HAVE BEEN DENIED.  FN2  WE HAVE ADHERED
CONSISTENTLY TO THE PRACTICE OF NOT ENTERTAINING SUCH A PETITION WHEN
IT SEEMED TO APPEAR THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NOT SOUGHT THE APPROPRIATE
STATE REMEDY.  WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211.  AND, AS A
COROLLARY OF THIS PRACTICE, WE HAVE INSISTED THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS
DENY A HEARING TO AN APPLICANT FOR HABEAS CORPUS WHO HAS NOT EXHAUSTED
HIS STATE REMEDIES.  EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114; EX PARTE ABERNATHY,
320 U.S. 219 AND CASES CITED. 

THIS RULE, REQUIRING EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES AS A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO FEDERAL RELIEF, HAS BEEN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED BY REPEATED
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  EVEN IN EXTREME SITUATIONS ITS APPLICATION
HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED BY SOUND ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS.  SEE MOONEY V.
HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, 115.  BUT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR THAT THE RULE
MAY BE APPLIED ONLY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT AN ADEQUATE STATE REMEDY IS
ACTUALLY AVAILABLE.  CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173, 176; WOODS V.
NIERSTHEIMER, SUPRA AT 217; EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA AT 118.  AND IT WOULD
BE NOTHING LESS THAN ABDICATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY AND FUNCTION
TO REBUFF PETITIONERS WITH THIS MECHANICAL FORMULA WHENEVER IT MAY
BECOME CLEAR THAT THE ALLEGED STATE REMEDY IS NOTHING BUT A PROCEDURAL
MORASS OFFERING NO SUBSTANTIAL HOPE OF RELIEF.  EXPERIENCE HAS
CONVINCED ME THAT THIS IS TRUE OF ILLINOIS. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS A FLAGRANT EXAMPLE OF DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS. 
IN 1925 PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE
IMPRISONMENT.  HE WAS THEN EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD AND UNABLE TO SPEAK
ENGLISH, HAVING ARRIVED IN THE UNITED STATES FROM ITALY LESS THAN TWO
YEARS BEFORE.  THE POLICE OFFICER WHO ARRESTED HIM SERVED AS ONE OF THE
TWO INTERPRETERS AT HIS TRIAL.  HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL NOR,
AS FAR AS CAN BE DETERMINED, WAS HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL EXPLAINED TO
HIM.  SEE FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134, DISSENTING OPINION 141. 
ALTHOUGH THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PETITIONER SIGNED A WRITTEN WAIVER OF
JURY TRIAL, WHICH STATED THAT HE HAD ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY, IN FACT
HE DID NOT SIGN ANY SUCH WAIVER, AND NO GUILTY PLEA APPEARS TO HAVE
BEEN ENTERED.  HIS SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED ONE WEEK AFTER THE INDICTMENT. 

TWENTY-TWO YEARS LATER THESE FACTS WERE ESTABLISHED AT A HEARING IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WINNEBAGO COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ON PETITIONER'S
APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  NEVERTHELESS, THE WRIT WAS DENIED
WITHOUT ASSIGNMENT OF ANY GROUND.  FN3  PETITIONER SOUGHT CERTIORARI IN
THIS COURT, AND WHEN CALLED UPON FOR A RESPONSE, ILLINOIS CONFESSED
ERROR.  WHILE I CONCUR IN THE COURTHS JUDGMENT, THE LIGHT WHICH THE
CONFESSION OF ERROR SHEDS ON THE ILLINOIS PROCEDURAL LABYRINTH CONFIRMS
THE GROWING CONVICTION THAT ILLINOIS OFFERS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY TO
PRISONERS SITUATED AS IS THE PRESENT PETITIONER. 

THE TROUBLE WITH ILLINOIS IS NOT THAT IT OFFERS NO PROCEDURE.  IT IS
THAT IT OFFERS TOO MANY, AND MAKES THEM SO INTRICATE AND INEFFECTIVE
THAT IN PRACTICAL EFFECT THEY AMOUNT TO NONE.  THE POSSIBILITY OF
SECURING EFFECTIVE DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS IS SUBSTANTIALLY
FORECLOSED BY THE PROBABILITY, INDEED THE ALL BUT MATHEMATICAL
CERTAINTY, THAT THE CASE WILL GO OFF ON THE PROCEDURAL RULING THAT THE
WRONG ONE OF SEVERAL POSSIBLE REMEDIES HAS BEEN FOLLOWED.  FN4 

THUS, OUR UNDERSTANDING OF ILLINOIS LAW AT THE TIME OF WOODS V.
NIERSTHEIMER, SUPRA, WAS THAT HABEAS CORPUS WOULD NOT LIE IN SUCH A
CASE AS THIS BECAUSE PETITIONER NEITHER CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT WHICH CONVICTED HIM, NOR ALLEGED ANY SUBSEQUENT EVENTS HAVING
THE EFFECT OF VOIDING THAT CONVICTION.  328 U.S. 211, 215.  HENCE WE
ASSUMED THAT CORAM NOBIS WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY.  BUT ILLINOIS
NOW SUGGESTS THAT WE HAVE OVERSIMPLIFIED THE SITUATION.  THAT HABEAS
CORPUS IS APPROPRIATE HERE IS EXPLAINED BY THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL
AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN ORDER TO KEEP ILLINOIS' POSITION CONSTANT AND CONSISTENT BEFORE
THIS COURT, WE VENTURE TO POINT OUT THAT ALTHOUGH THE PRESENT ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS PREVAILED UPON THIS COURT TO RECOGNIZE THAT CORAM NOBIS IS
A REMEDY IN ILLINOIS EXCLUSIVE OF HABEAS CORPUS, WHERE THE FACTS
CONSTITUTING DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS BUT DEHORS THE RECORD WERE NOT KNOWN
TO THE TRIAL COURT AT THE TIME OF THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE, WE HAVE
ALWAYS CONCEDED THAT WHERE, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THOSE FACTS
ALTHOUGH NOT A MATTER OF RECORD AT THE TRIAL WERE NEVERTHELESS KNOWN TO
THE TRIAL COURT, HABEAS CORPUS MAY BE AVAILABLE IN PROPER CASES.  WE
DEEM HABEAS CORPUS TO BE CLEARLY APPROPRIATE UNDER THE ILLINOIS LAW IN
THIS CASE.  WE DO NOT CONCEDE, HOWEVER, THAT THERE ARE NO CASES IN
WHICH WRIT OF ERROR, AS DISTINCT FROM EITHER CORAM NOBIS OR HABEAS
CORPUS, WOULD BE THE PROPER REMEDY." 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXPLANATION, THE EXTENT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF
THIS EXPANDED SCOPE OF HABEAS CORPUS "IN PROPER CASES" IS BY NO MEANS
CLEAR.  PERHAPS IT IS LIMITED TO A CASE WHERE OVER TWENTY YEARS HAVE
ELAPSED SINCE THE CONVICTION, AND HENCE NEITHER WRIT OF ERROR NOR CORAM
NOBIS IS AVAILABLE; PERHAPS IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE ANY TIME AFTER THE
FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON CORAM NOBIS HAD RUN.  FN5  POSSIBLY
THE RULE IS GENERAL FOR CASES OF DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHENEVER THE JUDGE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEPRIVATION HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE
FACTS.  I CAN ONLY INDULGE IN SPECULATION, BECAUSE I AM AWARE OF
NOTHING IN THE ILLINOIS STATUTES OR DECISIONS WHICH DEFINES THESE NOVEL
LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF HABEAS CORPUS OR SUPPORTS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S POSITION.  NOR DO I KNOW WHETHER THE LOWER ILLINOIS COURTS
ACCEPT THIS POSITION IN VIEW OF THE LIMITED AREA TO WHICH THE WRIT HAS
BEEN CONFINED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.  SEE E.G., THOMPSON
V. NIERSTHEIMER, 395 ILL. 572; BARRETT V. BRADLEY, 391 ILL. 169. 

IN SHORT, THE EFFECT OF THE STATE'S CONFESSION OF ERROR IN THIS CASE
IS NOT TO CLARIFY, IT IS RATHER TO CONFUSE FURTHER, A SITUATION ALREADY
SO MUDDLED THAT ONLY ONE RATIONAL CONCLUSION MAY BE DRAWN.  IT IS THAT
THE ILLINOIS PROCEDURAL LABYRINTH IS MADE UP ENTIRELY OF BLIND ALLEYS,
EACH OF WHICH IS USEFUL ONLY AS A MEANS OF CONVINCING THE FEDERAL
COURTS THAT THE STATE ROAD WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS TAKEN WAS THE WRONG
ONE.  IF THE ONLY STATE REMEDY IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL WILL CONFESS ERROR WHEN HE DETERMINES THAT A FLAGRANT CASE WILL
NOT SURVIVE SCRUTINY BY THIS COURT,  FN6  IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO
POINT OUT THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD BE OPEN TO A PETITIONER EVEN
THOUGH HE HAS NOT MADE HIS WAY THROUGH SEVERAL COURTS APPLYING FOR
HABEAS CORPUS, THEN WRIT OF ERROR, AND FINALLY CORAM NOBIS.  FN7 

MOREOVER, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE AN AVENUE OF ESCAPE THROUGH THE
STATE COURTS IN A RARE CASE, THE SITUATION IS NO DIFFERENT AS LONG AS
THE TECHNICAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS REMEDIES ARE SO FINE
THAT ONLY AN ORACLE COULD POINT OUT THE PROPER PROCEDURAL ROAD.  THE
EXHAUSTION-OF-STATE-REMEDIES RULE SHOULD NOT BE STRETCHED TO THE
ABSURDITY OF REQUIRING THE EXHAUSTION OF THREE SEPARATE REMEDIES WHEN
AT THE OUTSET A PETITIONER CANNOT INTELLIGENTLY SELECT THE PROPER WAY,
AND IN CONCLUSION HE MAY FIND ONLY THAT NONE OF THE THREE IS
APPROPRIATE OR EFFECTIVE.  THAT EACH IS SEVERELY RESTRICTED IS CLEAR. 
FN8  THAT ANY ONE IS AVAILABLE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT IS BY NO MEANS
CLEAR.  FN9 AND EVEN IF EACH HAS A LIMITED FUNCTION EXCLUSIVE OF THE
OTHER TWO, IT MAY WELL BE THAT NO ONE IS ADEQUATE IN A CASE WHERE THE
PETITIONER MUST SHOW A COMBINATION OF FACTS TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  FN10 

THE ILLINOIS SCHEME AFFORDS A THEORETICAL SYSTEM OF REMEDIES.  IN MY
JUDGMENT IT IS HARDLY MORE THAN THEORETICAL.  EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN
BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT, IN ANY PRACTICAL SENSE, THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE
THERE ARE INADEQUATE N11.  WHETHER THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE IN FACT NO
REMEDY EXISTS, OR BECAUSE EVERY REMEDY IS SO LIMITED AS TO BE
INADEQUATE, OR BECAUSE THE PROCEDURAL PROBLEM OF SELECTING THE PROPER
ONE IS SO DIFFICULT, IS BESIDE THE POINT.  IF THE FEDERAL GUARANTEE OF
DUE PROCESS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS TO HAVE REAL SIGNIFICANCE IN
ILLINOIS, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT MEN CONVICTED IN VIOLATION OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN
COURT.  THIS OPPORTUNITY IS NOT ADEQUATE SO LONG AS THEY ARE REQUIRED
TO RIDE THE ILLINOIS MERRY-GO-ROUND OF HABEAS CORPUS, CORAM NOBIS, AND
WRIT OF ERROR BEFORE GETTING A HEARING IN A FEDERAL COURT. 

CONSEQUENTLY, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THE ILLINOIS REMEDIES ARE
EXHAUSTED HERE, APART FROM THE STATE'S CONFESSION OF ERROR.  I ALSO
THINK THAT, UNTIL THAT STATE AFFORDS A REASONABLY CLEAR AND ADEQUATE
MEANS FOR PRESENTING AND DISPOSING OF SUCH QUESTIONS AS MARINO'S CASE
INVOLVES, THIS COURT SHOULD NO LONGER REQUIRE EXHAUSTION OF ITS PRESENT
SCHEME OF INEFFECTIVE AND INADEQUATE REMEDIES BEFORE PERMITTING RESORT
TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS SITTING IN ILLINOIS N12.  WE SHOULD
NEITHER DELAY NOR DENY JUSTICE, NOR CLOG ITS ADMINISTRATION, WITH SO
USELESS AND HARMFUL A PROCEDURAL STRANGLING OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS. 

FN1  THIS INCREASING VOLUME NO DOUBT IS DUE IN PART TO THE ASSIDUITY
WITH WHICH PRISONERS SEEK RELIEF EITHER FROM PRISON OR FROM THE TEDIUM
OF PRISON LIFE.  BUT THAT NOT ALL OF IT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THAT
FACTOR SEEMS CLEAR FROM THE FACT THAT NO OTHER STATE PRESENTS ANYTHING
APPROACHING SUCH A VOLUME OF PETITIONS OR SO COMPLICATED A PROCEDURE
FOR FINALLY DISPOSING OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED.    FN2  OF THE 322
PETITIONS FILED IN THE 1946 TERM, ONLY TWO WERE GRANTED.  IN FOSTER V.
ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134, THE NARROW SCOPE OF REVIEW BY WRIT OF ERROR IN
ILLINOIS PRECLUDED RELIEF HERE; IN MCLAREN V. NIERSTHEIMER, 329 U.S.
685, THE JUDGMENT WAS VACATED AND THE CASE REMANDED AFTER THE STATE
CONFESSED ERROR. 

FN3  BUT FOR THE STATE'S CONFESSION OF ERROR, OUR USUAL PRACTICE IN
THESE CASES WOULD LEAD US TO ASSUME THAT THE DENIAL HAD BEEN ON THE
GROUND THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE STATE REMEDY.  SEE
NOTE 4. 

FN4  SINCE THE PETITIONS MORE OFTEN THAN OTHERWISE ARE DISPOSED OF BY
MERE DENIAL WITHOUT ASSIGNMENT OF GROUNDS, IT IS SELDOM POSSIBLE FOR
THIS COURT TO KNOW WHETHER THE ILLINOIS COURT HAS ACTED ON THE MERITS
OR ON THE STATE GROUND THAT THE WRONG REMEDY HAS BEEN FOLLOWED.  IT IS
THEREFORE ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO ASSUME HERE THAT THE RULING WAS OF THE
LATTER TYPE AND THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE TRUE, IF NOT OF EVERY SUCH
DETERMINATION, AT LEAST OF ALL UNTIL THE LAST CONCEIVABLY POSSIBLE
ROUTE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. 

FN5  ILL. REV. STAT. (1947) C. 110, SEC. 196.  THIS FIVE-YEAR
LIMITATION PERIOD APPLIES TO "ALL CORAM NOBIS PROCEEDINGS."  PEOPLE V.
TOUHY, 397 ILL. 19, 26; PEOPLE V. RAVE, 392 ILL. 435.  WRIT OF ERROR IS
GOVERNED BY A COMMON-LAW LIMITATION PERIOD OF TWENTY YEARS.  PEOPLE V.
CHAPMAN, 392 ILL. 168; PEOPLE V. MURPHY, 296 ILL. 532. 

FN6  SEE MCLAREN V. NIERSTHEIMER, 329 U.S. 685. 

FN7  "UNDER PRESENT PROCEDURES, IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SECURE
ADJUDICATION OF THE MERITS OF ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS IN
JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION IN ILLINOIS COURTS; YET PETITIONERS MUST
PRESENT THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION SEVEN TO TWELVE TIMES IN
ORDER TO ESCAPE THE PROCEDURAL MAZE OF THE STATE COURTS AND TO SECURE
THEIR INITIAL HEARINGS ON THE TRUTH OF THEIR ALLEGATIONS IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS."  NOTE, A STUDY OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT, 15 U. OF CHI. 
L. REV. 107, 120. 

FN8  REVIEW BY WRIT OF ERROR IN ILLINOIS IS LIMITED TO MATTERS IN THE
COMMON-LAW RECORD WHERE NO BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IS FILED.  CARTER V.
ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173; FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134; PEOPLE V.
OWENS, 397 ILL. 166.  THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS MUST BE PRESERVED WITHIN
FIFTY DAYS AFTER JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED UNLESS AN EXTENSION IS GRANTED
DURING THAT TIME.  ILL. REV. STAT., C. 110, SEC. 259.70A.  HABEAS
CORPUS HAS BEEN THOUGHT TO BE AVAILABLE ONLY TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION
IN THE NARROW SENSE OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OR THE SUBJECT
MATTER, OR TO SHOW EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE TRIAL WHICH RENDER THE
ORIGINAL CONVICTION VOID.  WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211;
THOMPSON V. NIERSTHEIMER, 395 ILL. 572; BARRETT V. BRADLEY, 391 ILL.
169.  CORAM NOBIS IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO PRESENT FACTUAL QUESTIONS OF A
CERTAIN KIND, PEOPLE V. DRYSCH, 311 ILL. 342, 349, WHICH WERE NOT KNOWN
TO THE TRIAL COURT, PEOPLE V. SCHUEDTER, 336 ILL. 244, WHICH DO NOT
CONFLICT WITH JURY FINDINGS, AND WHICH PETITIONER FAILED TO RAISE
BECAUSE OF EXCUSABLE MISTAKE RATHER THAN NEGLIGENCE ON HIS, OR HIS
ATTORNEY'S PART, SEE PEOPLE V. RAVE, 392 ILL. 435, 440.  SEE COMMENT,
COLLATERAL RELIEF FROM CONVICTIONS IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS IN
ILLINOIS, 42 ILL. L. REV. 329. 

FN9  IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER ILLINOIS AFFORDS A REMEDY FOR A MAN
DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  SEE FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S.
134, DISSENTING OPINION 141; PEOPLE V. EVANS, 397 ILL. 430.  THE TRIAL
JUDGE WOULD SURELY KNOW THAT HE HAD REFUSED TO APPOINT COUNSEL AND
WOULD BE PRESUMED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE RECORD, SEE PEOPLE V. RAVE,
392 ILL. 435, 440; HENCE CORAM NOBIS WOULD NOT LIE.  ASSUMING THAT THE
CLERK MAKES THE ROUTINE ENTRY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ACCUSED WAS
APPRISED OF HIS RIGHTS, WHICH HE PROMPTLY WAIVED, SEE PEOPLE V. GREEN,
355 ILL. 468, WRIT OF ERROR WOULD AFFORD INADEQUATE REVIEW.  SEE CARTER
V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173.  ONLY IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S VIEW OF
HABEAS CORPUS WOULD EXTEND TO SUCH A CASE WOULD A REMEDY BE AVAILABLE. 
THERE MAY EVEN BE DOUBT WHETHER AN ALLEGATION THAT A CONFESSION WAS
OBTAINED BY COERCION WOULD WARRANT REVIEW, SEE PEOPLE V. DRYSCH, 311
ILL. 342; PEOPLE V. SCHUEDTER, 336 ILL. 244. 

FN10  FOR EXAMPLE, PETITIONER MIGHT ALLEGE THAT HE HAD INADEQUATE
TIME TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE, THAT THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIM COUNSEL,
AND THAT A FORCED CONFESSION WAS USED AS EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL.  THE
FIRST ALLEGATION COULD BE MADE ONLY BY WRIT OF ERROR BECAUSE THE
CRUCIAL DATES WOULD BE A MATTER OF RECORD; THE SECOND ONLY BY HABEAS
CORPUS, IF AT ALL, BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT IS PRESUMED TO KNOW WHAT IS
IN THE RECORD AND HE WOULD CERTAINLY KNOW THAT HE HAD REFUSED TO
APPOINT COUNSEL; AND THE THIRD ALLEGATION ONLY BY CORAM NOBIS BECAUSE
THE FACTS WOULD BE UNKNOWN TO THE TRIAL COURT.  PERHAPS NONE OF THE
ALLEGATIONS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY WOULD ESTABLISH A DEPRIVATION OF DUE
PROCESS, YET WITH THE WHOLE PICTURE BEFORE THE COURT A VIOLATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WOULD BE APPARENT. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 1 AND TEXT; ALSO NOTE 2.  "(THE) INEVITABLE CONCLUSION
MUST BE REACHED THAT THE STATE OF ILLINOIS PROVIDES NO SATISFACTORY OR
ADEQUATE METHOD FOR POST-CONVICTION HEARINGS  ...  " NOTE, A STUDY OF
THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT, 15 U. OF CHI.  L. REV. 107, 128. 

FN12  THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE POLICY UNDERLYING
THE EXHAUSTION-OF-REMEDIES DOCTRINE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EXHAUSTION OF
INADEQUATE REMEDIES.  HILLSBOROUGH TWP.  V. CROMWELL, 326 U.S. 620;
WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760; DRISCOLL V. EDISON CO., 307 U.S. 104;
MOUNTAIN STATES CO. V. COMM'N, 299 U.S. 167; CORPORATION COMM'N V.
CARY, 296 U.S. 452; PACIFIC TEL. CO. V. KUYKENDALL, 265 U.S. 196; OKLA.
GAS CO. V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S. 290; MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86;
WALLACE V. HINES, 253 U.S. 66. 
..END :














PANHANDLE PIPE LINE CO. V. COMM'N, 332 U.S. 507 


NO. 69.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 17, 1947.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 15, 1947.  -
224 IND. 662, 71 N.E.2D 117, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SALES OF IMPORTED NATURAL GAS BY AN INTERSTATE PIPELINE CARRIER
DIRECT TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS ARE SALES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EVEN
THOUGH THE GAS LEAVES THE MAIN TRANSMISSION LINE WITHIN THE STATE AND
IS PIPED TO THE CONSUMERS THROUGH BRANCH LINES OR LATERALS AT REDUCED
PRESSURE.  PP. 512-513. 

2.  IN VIEW OF THE POSITION OF THE STATE COMMISSION AS CONSTRUED BY
THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION, DIRECTING
IMMEDIATELY ONLY THE FILING OF INFORMATION, CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF
POWER TO REGULATE APPELLANT'S RATES AND SERVICE UNDER THE STATE'S
COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF REGULATION; AND APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO
AWAIT A FURTHER REGULATORY ORDER BEFORE CONTESTING THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION.  P. 511. 

3.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, PROVISIONS, AND POLICY
OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, AND OF THE JUDICIAL HISTORY LEADING TO ITS
ENACTMENT, SALES OF NATURAL GAS BY AN INTERSTATE PIPELINE CARRIER
DIRECT TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS, ALTHOUGH IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ARE
SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES.  PP. 513-524. 

4.  BY THE NATURAL GAS ACT, CONGRESS DID NOT OCCUPY THE ENTIRE FIELD
OPEN TO FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF NATURAL
GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT EXTENDED FEDERAL REGULATION ONLY TO
THAT AREA WHICH THIS COURT PREVIOUSLY HAD HELD THE STATES COULD NOT
REACH.  PP. 516-519. 

5.  IT IS UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION INDEPENDENTLY OF THE EFFECT
OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT AS HERE CONSTRUED.  P. 524. 

PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
INDIANA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. 

ORDERS OF A STATE COMMISSION REQUIRING A PIPELINE COMPANY TO FILE
TARIFFS, REGULATIONS, REPORTS, ETC., WERE VACATED AND ENJOINED BY A
STATE COURT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE REVERSED.  224 IND. 662,
71 N.E.2D 117.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 524. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BROADLY THE QUESTION IS WHETHER INDIANA HAS POWER TO REGULATE SALES
OF NATURAL GAS MADE BY AN INTERSTATE PIPE-LINE CARRIER DIRECT TO
INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN INDIANA.  MORE NARROWLY WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE
WHETHER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, CONST. ART. I, SEC. 8, BY ITS OWN FORCE
FORBIDS THE APPELLEE, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, TO REQUIRE APPELLANT
TO FILE TARIFFS, RULES AND REGULATIONS, ANNUAL REPORTS, ETC., AS STEPS
IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF REGULATION PRELIMINARY TO POSSIBLE EXERCISE
OF JURISDICTION OVER RATES AND SERVICE IN SUCH SALES.  FN1 

PANHANDLE EASTERN TRANSPORTS NATURAL GAS FROM TEXAS AND KANSAS FIELDS
INTO AND ACROSS INTERVENING STATES, INCLUDING INDIANA, TO OHIO AND
MICHIGAN.  IN INDIANA IT FURNISHES GAS TO LOCAL PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES AND MUNICIPALITIES.  THESE IN TURN SUPPLY THE
NEEDS OF OVER 112,000 RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMERS. 

SINCE 1942 APPELLANT ALSO HAS SOLD GAS IN LARGE AMOUNTS DIRECT TO
ANCHOR-HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION.  FN2
SHORTLY BEFORE BEGINNING THIS SERVICE APPELLANT HAD INFORMED A NUMBER
OF ITS CUSTOMERS, LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES IN INDIANA, THAT IT
INTENDED TO RENDER SERVICE DIRECTLY TO LARGE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS
WHEREVER POSSIBLE.  FN3  PURSUANT TO THAT POLICY, SINCE THESE
PROCEEDINGS BEGAN DIRECT SERVICE HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO ANOTHER BIG
INDUSTRIAL USER.  FN4 

IN 1944 THE COMMISSION INITIATED HEARINGS RELATIVE TO DIRECT SERVICE
BY PANHANDLE EASTERN TO INDIANA CONSUMERS.  IT CONCLUDED THAT "THE
DISTRIBUTION IN INDIANA BY PANHANDLE OF NATURAL GAS DIRECT TO CONSUMERS
IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THIS COMMISSION UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS
STATE," NOTWITHSTANDING ANY ALLEGED CONTRARY EFFECT OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE UPON APPELLANT'S DIRECT SALES TO INDUSTRIAL USERS.  ACCORDINGLY
IT ISSUED ITS ORDER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1945, FOR THE FILING OF TARIFFS,
ETC., AS HAS BEEN STATED. 

EARLY IN 1946 PANHANDLE EASTERN BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN A STATE COURT TO
SET ASIDE AND ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  WHILE THE CAUSE WAS
PENDING THE COMMISSION ISSUED A SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER DECLINING
APPELLANT'S OFFER TO SUBMIT THE SPECIFIED TARIFFS, REPORTS, ETC., "AS
INFORMATION ONLY," AND REASSERTING ITS FULL REGULATORY POWER AS
CONFERRED BY THE INDIANA STATUTES.  FN5  63 P.U.R. (N.S.)  309. 

THE TRIAL COURT VACATED THE ORDERS AND ENJOINED THE COMMISSION FROM
ENFORCING THEM.  IT ACCEPTED APPELLANT'S VIEW OF THE EFFECT OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE ON ITS OPERATIONS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT AND DENIED THE RELIEF APPELLANT SOUGHT.  224
IND. 662.  IT HELD FIRST THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS AMOUNTED TO AN
UNEQUIVOCAL ASSERTION OF POWER TO REGULATE RATES AND SERVICE ON
APPELLANT'S DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES AND THUS PRESENTED SQUARELY THE
QUESTION OF THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER SUCH SALES AS AFFECTED
BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE COURT DID NOT FLATLY HOLD THAT THE SALES
ARE IN INTERSTATE RATHER THAN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  BUT, TAKING THEM TO
BE OF THE FORMER KIND, IT HELD THEM NEVERTHELESS SUBJECT TO THE STATE'S
POWER OF REGULATION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS,
12 HOW.  299.  THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT APPELLANT, IN MAKING THESE
SALES, IS A PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE
STATE'S REGULATORY STATUTES, BURNS IND. STATE.  ANN.  SECS. 54-105 AND
IND. ACTS 1945, C. 53, P. 110.  IT IS THIS DECISION WE HAVE TO REVIEW
PURSUANT TO SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. 344(A).  FN6 

THE EFFECT OF THE STATE STATUTES, WHETHER PERMITTING THE FILING OF
THE TARIFFS, ETC., AS INFORMATION UNRELATED TO FURTHER REGULATION OR
REQUIRING THE FILING AS INITIAL AND INTEGRAL STEPS IN THE REGULATORY
SCHEME, AND THUS AS PRESENTING AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE SCHEME'S
APPLICATION THE QUESTION OF THE STATE'S POWER TO GO FURTHER WITH IT, IS
PRIMARILY A QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE STATE COURTS TO
DETERMINE.  IN VIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S POSITION, AS CONSTRUED BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ONLY THING PRESENTLY
INVOLVED IS THE STATE'S POWER TO REQUIRE THE FILING OF INFORMATION
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS FURTHER USE FOR CONTROLLING THESE SALES.  CF.
ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 304 U.S.
61.  HERE THE ORDERS CONSTITUTED "AN UNEQUIVOCAL ASSERTION OF POWER" TO
REGULATE RATES AND SERVICE.  INDEED THEY INVOLVE SOMETHING MORE THAN A
MERE THREAT TO APPLY THE REGULATORY PLAN IN ITS LATER PHASES.  THEY
REPRESENT THE ACTUAL APPLICATION OF THAT PLAN IN ITS INITIAL STAGE.  IN
SUCH A SITUATION APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO AWAIT A FURTHER
REGULATORY ORDER BEFORE CONTESTING THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  CF.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. GAS CO., 317 U.S. 456. 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE NOW EXPRESS OPINION CONCERNING THE
VALIDITY OF ANY FURTHER ORDER WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY ENTER.  NO SUCH
ORDER IS BEFORE US.  IT DOES MEAN THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DECIDE
WHETHER THE SALES IN QUESTION LIE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STATE'S POWER
TO REGULATE RATES AND SERVICE, SO THAT SOME FURTHER ORDER IN THOSE
RESPECTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ENTERED. 

NOR DO WE QUESTION THAT THESE SALES ARE INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS.  THE
CONTRARY SUGGESTION LEFT OPEN IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S TREATMENT
RESTS UPON THE VIEW THAT GAS TRANSPORTED INTERSTATE TAKES ON THE
CHARACTER OF A COMMODITY WHICH HAS COME TO REST OR BROKEN BULK WHEN IT
LEAVES THE MAIN TRANSMISSION LINE AND, UNDER REDUCED PRESSURE, ENTERS
BRANCH LINES OR LATERALS IRREVOCABLY ON ITS WAY TO FINAL DISTRIBUTION
OR CONSUMPTION.  THOSE MERELY MECHANICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE NO LONGER
EFFECTIVE, IF EVER THEY WERE EXCLUSIVELY, TO DETERMINE FOR REGULATORY
PURPOSES THE INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE CHARACTER OF THE CONTINUOUS
MOVEMENT AND RESULTING SALES WE HAVE HERE.  FN7 

THUS GAS FURNISHED TO LOCAL UTILITIES FOR RESALE IS SUPPLIED
UNQUESTIONABLY, BOTH AS TO TRANSPORTATION AND AS TO SALE, IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  YET IT IS SUBJECTED TO PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL CHANGES IN
PRESSURE WITH THE GAS SOLD BY APPELLANT DIRECTLY FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. 
FN8 NEITHER PRACTICAL COMMON SENSE NOR CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE WOULD
TOLERATE HOLDING THAT REDUCTION IN PRESSURE MAKES THE INDUSTRIAL SALES
TO ANCHOR-HOCKING WHOLLY INTRASTATE FOR PURPOSES OF LOCAL REGULATION
WHILE DELIVERIES AT SIMILAR PRESSURES TO UTILITY COMPANIES REMAIN
EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE.  VARIATIONS IN MAIN PRESSURE ARE NOT THE
CRITERION OF THE STATES' REGULATORY POWERS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
CF. INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 331 U.S. 682, 689.  THE SALES
HERE WERE CLEARLY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE CONTROLLING ISSUES THEREFORE ARE TWO:  (1) HAS CONGRESS, BY
ENACTING THE NATURAL GAS ACT, 52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717, IN
EFFECT FORBIDDEN THE STATES TO REGULATE SUCH SALES AS THOSE APPELLANT
MAKES DIRECTLY TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS; (2) IF NOT, ARE THOSE SALES OF
SUCH A NATURE, AS RELATED TO THE COOLEY FORMULA, THAT THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF ITS OWN FORCE FORBIDS THE STATES TO ACT. 

WE THINK THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF THE ANSWER TO BE GIVEN TO EACH OF
THESE QUESTIONS, NAMELY, THAT THE STATES ARE COMPETENT TO REGULATE THE
SALES.  THE TWO QUESTIONS MAY BEST BE CONSIDERED IN THE BACKGROUND OF
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT AND OF THE JUDICIAL
HISTORY LEADING TO ITS ENACTMENT IN 1938. 

PRIOR TO THAT TIME THIS COURT IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS HAD DEALT WITH
VARIOUS SITUATIONS ARISING FROM STATE EFFORTS TO REGULATE THE SALE OF
IMPORTED NATURAL GAS.  THE STORY HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY TOLD  FN9  AND WE
DO NOT STOP TO REVIEW IT AGAIN OR ATTEMPT RECONCILIATION OF ALL THE
DECISIONS OR THEIR GROUNDINGS.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT BY 1938 THE
COURT HAD DELINEATED BROADLY BETWEEN THE AREA OF PERMISSIBLE STATE
CONTROL AND THAT IN WHICH THE STATES COULD NOT INTRUDE.  THE FORMER
INCLUDED INTERSTATE DIRECT SALES TO LOCAL CONSUMERS, AS EXEMPLIFIED IN
PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 252 U.S. 23; THE LATTER,
SERVICE INTERSTATE TO LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES FOR RESALE, AS HELD
IN MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, REINFORCED BY PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N V. ATTLEBORO CO., 273 U.S. 83. 

SHORTLY THEN, AS THE DECISIONS STOOD IN 1938, THE STATES COULD
REGULATE SALES DIRECT TO CONSUMERS, EVEN THOUGH MADE BY AN INTERSTATE
PIPE-LINE CARRIER.  THIS WAS TRUE OF SALES NOT ONLY FOR DOMESTIC AND
COMMERCIAL USES BUT ALSO FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION, AT ANY RATE
WHENEVER THE INTERSTATE CARRIER ENGAGED IN DISTRIBUTION FOR ALL OF
THESE USES.  FN10  ON THE OTHER HAND, SALES FOR RESALE, USUALLY TO
LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES, WERE BEYOND THE REACH OF STATE POWER,
REGARDLESS OF THE CHARACTER OF ULTIMATE USE.  THIS FACT NOT ONLY
PREVENTED THE STATES FROM REGULATING THOSE SALES BUT ALSO SERIOUSLY
HANDICAPPED THEM IN MAKING EFFECTIVE REGULATION OF SALES WITHIN THEIR
AUTHORITY.  FN11 

THIS IMPOTENCE OF THE STATES TO ACT IN RELATION TO SALES FOR RESALE
BY INTERSTATE CARRIERS BROUGHT ABOUT THE DEMAND FOR FEDERAL REGULATION
AND CONGRESS' RESPONSE IN THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  TO REACH THOSE SALES
AND PREVENT THE HIATUS IN REGULATION THEIR IMMUNITY CAUSED, THE ACT
DECLARED IN SEC. 1(B): 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY
OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH
DISTRIBUTION OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL-GAS." 

THIS SECTION DETERMINES THE ACT'S COVERAGE AND DOES SO IN THE LIGHT
OF THE SITUATION EXISTING AT THE TIME.  THREE THINGS AND THREE ONLY
CONGRESS DREW WITHIN ITS OWN REGULATORY POWER, DELEGATED BY THE ACT TO
ITS AGENT, THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  THESE WERE:  (1) THE
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; (2) ITS SALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE; AND (3) NATURAL GAS COMPANIES ENGAGED
IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE. 

THE OMISSION OF ANY REFERENCE TO OTHER SALES, THAT IS, TO DIRECT
SALES FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE DECLARATION OF COVERAGE
WAS NOT INADVERTENT.  IT WAS DELIBERATE.  FOR CONGRESS MADE SURE ITS
INTENT COULD NOT BE MISTAKEN BY ADDING THE EXPLICIT PROHIBITION THAT
THE ACT "SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER  ...  SALE  ...."  THOSE WORDS
PLAINLY MEAN THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SALES OTHER THAN SALES
"FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE."  DIRECT SALES FOR CONSUMPTIVE USE OF
WHATEVER SORT WERE EXCLUDED. 

THE LINE OF THE STATUTE WAS THUS CLEAR AND COMPLETE.  IT CUT SHARPLY
AND CLEANLY BETWEEN SALES FOR RESALE AND DIRECT SALES FOR CONSUMPTIVE
USES.  NO EXCEPTIONS WERE MADE IN EITHER CATEGORY FOR PARTICULAR USES,
QUANTITIES OR OTHERWISE.  AND THE LINE DRAWN WAS THAT ONE AT WHICH THE
DECISIONS HAD ARRIVED IN DISTRIBUTING REGULATORY POWER BEFORE THE ACT
WAS PASSED.  FN12 

MOREOVER, THIS UNUSUAL LEGISLATIVE PRECISION WAS NOT EMPLOYED WITH
ANY VIEW TO RELIEVING OR EXEMPTING ANY SEGMENT OF THE INDUSTRY FROM
REGULATION.  THE ACT, THOUGH EXTENDING FEDERAL REGULATION, HAD NO
PURPOSE OR EFFECT TO CUT DOWN STATE POWER.  ON THE CONTRARY, PERHAPS
ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS TO AID IN MAKING STATE REGULATION EFFECTIVE, BY
ADDING THE WEIGHT OF FEDERAL REGULATION TO SUPPLEMENT AND REINFORCE IT
IN THE GAP CREATED BY THE PRIOR DECISIONS.  FN13  THE ACT WAS DRAWN
WITH METICULOUS REGARD FOR THE CONTINUED EXERCISE OF STATE POWER, NOT
TO HANDICAP OR DILUTE IT IN ANY WAY.  THIS APPEARS NOT MERELY FROM THE
SITUATION WHICH LED TO ITS ADOPTION AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
INCLUDING THE COMMITTEE REPORTS IN CONGRESS CITED ABOVE, BUT MOST
PLAINLY FROM THE HISTORY OF SEC. 1(B) IN RESPECT TO THE CHANGES WHICH
TOOK PLACE IN REACHING ITS FINAL FORM.  FN14 

IT WOULD BE AN EXCEEDINGLY INCONGRUOUS RESULT IF A STATUTE SO
MOTIVATED, DESIGNED AND SHAPED TO BRING ABOUT MORE EFFECTIVE
REGULATION, AND PARTICULARLY MORE EFFECTIVE STATE REGULATION, WERE
CONSTRUED IN THE TEETH OF THOSE OBJECTS, AND THE IMPORT OF ITS WORDING
AS WELL, TO CUT DOWN REGULATORY POWER AND TO DO SO IN A MANNER MAKING
THE STATES LESS CAPABLE OF REGULATION THAN BEFORE THE STATUTE'S
ADOPTION.  YET THIS, IN EFFECT, IS WHAT APPELLANT ASKS US TO DO.  FOR
THE ESSENCE OF ITS POSITION, APART FROM STANDING DIRECTLY ON THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, IS THAT CONGRESS BY ENACTING THE NATURAL GAS ACT HAS
"OCCUPIED THE FIELD," I.E., THE ENTIRE FIELD OPEN TO FEDERAL
REGULATION, AND THUS HAS RELIEVED ITS DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES OF ANY
SUBORDINATION TO STATE CONTROL.    THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS THE FACT. 
CONGRESS, IT IS TRUE, OCCUPIED A FIELD.  BUT IT WAS METICULOUS TO TAKE
IN ONLY TERRITORY WHICH THIS COURT HAD HELD THE STATES COULD NOT
REACH.  FN15  THAT AREA DID NOT INCLUDE DIRECT CONSUMER SALES, WHETHER
FOR INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER USES.  THOSE SALES HAD BEEN REGULATED BY THE
STATES AND THE REGULATION HAD BEEN REPEATEDLY SUSTAINED.  IN NO
INSTANCE REACHING THIS COURT HAD IT BEEN STRICKEN DOWN.  FN16 

IT IS TRUE THAT NO CASE CAME HERE INVOLVING STATE REGULATION OF DIRECT
INDUSTRIAL SALES WHOLLY APART FROM SALES FOR OTHER USES.  IN THE CASES
SUSTAINING STATE POWER, WHETHER TO REGULATE OR TO TAX, THE COMPANY
MAKING THE INDUSTRIAL SALES WAS SELLING ALSO TO DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL
USERS.  FN17  BUT THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION, CERTAINLY NO DECISION, THAT
A DIFFERENT RESULT WOULD FOLLOW IF ONLY DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES WERE
BEING MADE.  NEITHER THE PRIOR JUDICIAL LINE NOR THE STATUTORY LINE WAS
DRAWN BETWEEN KINDS OF USE OR ON THE RELATION BETWEEN SALES FOR
DIFFERENT USES.  BOTH LINES WERE DRAWN BETWEEN SALES FOR USE, OF
WHATEVER KIND, AND SALES FOR RESALE.  CF. COLORADO INTERSTATE CO. V.
COMM'N, 324 U.S. 581, 595-596. 

THE NATURAL GAS ACT CREATED AN ARTICULATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM BASED
ON A CLEAR RECOGNITION OF THE RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES.  IT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE
INEFFECTIVE REGULATION AT EITHER LEVEL.  WE HAVE EMPHASIZED REPEATEDLY
THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO CREATE A COMPREHENSIVE AND EFFECTIVE REGULATORY
SCHEME, COMPLEMENTARY IN ITS OPERATION TO THOSE OF THE STATES AND IN NO
MANNER USURPING THEIR AUTHORITY.  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. GAS CO.,
317 U.S. 456, 467; POWER COMM'N V. HOPE GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 609-610;
INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 331 U.S. 682, 690.  AND, AS WAS
POINTED OUT IN POWER COMM'N V. HOPE GAS CO., SUPRA AT 610, "THE PRIMARY
AIM OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AGAINST EXPLOITATION
AT THE HANDS OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES."  THE SCHEME WAS ONE OF
COOPERATIVE ACTION  FN18  BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES.  IT COULD
ACCOMPLISH NEITHER THAT PROTECTIVE AIM NOR THE COMPREHENSIVE AND
EFFECTIVE DUAL REGULATION CONGRESS HAD IN MIND, IF THOSE COMPANIES
COULD DIVERT AT WILL ALL OR THE CREAM OF THEIR BUSINESS TO UNREGULATED
INDUSTRIAL USES.  FN19 

THE NATURAL GAS ACT THEREFORE WAS NOT MERELY INEFFECTIVE TO EXCLUDE
THE SALES NOW IN QUESTION FROM STATE CONTROL.  RATHER BOTH ITS POLICY
AND ITS TERMS CONFIRM THAT CONTROL.  MORE THAN "SILENCE" OF CONGRESS IS
INVOLVED.  THE DECLARATION, THOUGH NOT IDENTICAL IN TERMS WITH THE ONE
MADE BY THE MCCARRAN ACT, 59 STAT. 33, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1011, CONCERNING
CONTINUED STATE REGULATION OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, IS IN EFFECT
EQUALLY CLEAR, IN VIEW OF THE ACT'S HISTORICAL SETTING, LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY AND OBJECTS, TO SHOW INTENTION FOR THE STATES TO CONTINUE WITH
REGULATION WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSLY TAKEN OVER.  CF. PRUDENTIAL
INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408.  CONGRESS HAS UNDOUBTED POWER TO
DEFINE THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 769, AND AUTHORITIES CITED; CF.
PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, SUPRA.  HERE THE POWER HAS BEEN
EXERCISED IN A MANNER WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH EXCLUSION OF STATE
AUTHORITY OVER THE SALES IN QUESTION. 

CONGRESS' ACTION MOREOVER WAS AN UNEQUIVOCAL RECOGNITION OF THE VITAL
INTERESTS OF THE STATES AND THEIR PEOPLE, CONSUMERS AND INDUSTRY ALIKE,
IN THE REGULATION OF RATES AND SERVICE.  INDIANA'S INTEREST IN
APPELLANT'S DIRECT SALES IS OBVIOUS.  THAT INTEREST IS CERTAINLY NOT
LESS THAN THE INTEREST OF CALIFORNIA AND HER PEOPLE IN THEIR PROTECTION
AGAINST THE EVIL EFFECTS OF WHOLLY UNREGULATED SALE OF INSURANCE
INTERSTATE.  ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, 328 U.S. 440.  NOT ONLY WOULD
INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN MOST INSTANCES GO WITHOUT PROTECTION AS TO
RATES AND SERVICE OTHER THAN THAT SUPPLIED BY COMPETITION FROM OTHER
FUELS,  FN20  BUT THE STATE'S REGULATORY SYSTEM WOULD BE CRIPPLED AND
THE EFFORTS OF THE INDIANA COMMISSION SERIOUSLY HAMPERED IN PROTECTING
THE INTERESTS OF OTHER CLASSES OF USERS EQUALLY IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT. 
FN21 

AS AGAINST THESE VITAL LOCAL INTERESTS, BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT WITH
EVERY PASSING YEAR IN THE STEADY TRANSITION FROM USE OF MORE PRIMITIVE
FUELS TO NATURAL GAS AND FUEL OILS, APPELLANT SEEKS TO SET UP ITS OWN
INTEREST IN COMPLETE FREEDOM FROM REGULATION AND, IF ANY IS TO BE
IMPOSED, A SUPPOSED NATIONAL INTEREST IN UNIFORM REGULATION.  THE
NATIONAL INTEREST, CONSIDERED APART FROM ITS OWN, IS LARGELY ILLUSORY
ON THIS RECORD.  FOR ITSELF, THE COMPANY ASSERTS THAT STATE REGULATION
OF PRICES AND SERVICE WILL AMOUNT TO A POWER OF BLOCKING THE COMMERCE
OR IMPEDING ITS FREE FLOW. 

THERE ARE TWO ANSWERS.  ONE IS EXPERIENCE.  INSOFAR AS THIS PHASE OF
THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO STATE REGULATION TO
DATE, THOSE EFFECTS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO OCCUR.  THE OTHER ANSWER, IN
CASE THAT EXPERIENCE SHOULD VARY, IS THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CORRECT
ABUSES IN REGULATION IF AND WHEN THEY APPEAR.  STATE POWER TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHEREVER IT EXISTS, IS NOT THE POWER TO DESTROY
IT, UNLESS CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY SO PROVIDED.  FN22  IT IS THE POWER
TO REQUIRE THAT IT BE DONE ON TERMS REASONABLY RELATED TO THE NECESSITY
FOR PROTECTING THE LOCAL INTERESTS ON WHICH THE POWER RESTS. 

APPELLANT ALSO ENVISAGES CONFLICTING REGULATIONS BY THE COMMISSIONS
OF THE VARIOUS STATES ITS MAIN PIPE LINE SERVES, PARTICULARLY IN
RELATION TO CURTAILMENT OF SERVICE WHEN WEATHER CONDITIONS OR OTHERS
REQUIRE IT, AND FEARS CONFLICT ALSO BETWEEN THE STATE COMMISSIONS AND
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  IT ASSIGNS THESE POSSIBILITIES IN
SUPPORT OF ITS VIEW THAT NATIONAL UNIFORM REGULATION ALONE IS
APPROPRIATE TO ITS OPERATIONS.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THUS FAR OF
SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT IN EITHER RESPECT  FN23  AND WE DO NOT SEE THAT
THE PROBABILITY OF SERIOUS CONFLICT IS SO STRONG AS TO OUTWEIGH THE
VITAL LOCAL INTERESTS TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED REQUIRING REGULATION BY
THE STATES.  MOREOVER, IF SUCH CONFLICT SHOULD DEVELOP, THE MATTER OF
INTERRUPTING SERVICE IS ONE LARGELY RELATED, AS APPELLEES SAY, TO
TRANSPORTATION AND THUS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION TO CONTROL, IN ACCOMMODATION OF ANY CONFLICTING INTERESTS
AMONG VARIOUS STATES.  FN24 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS ALL WOULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE STATES
ARE NOT MADE POWERLESS TO REGULATE THE SALES IN QUESTION BY ANY
SUPPOSED NECESSITY FOR UNIFORM NATIONAL REGULATION BUT THAT ON THE
CONTRARY THE MATTER IS OF SUCH HIGH LOCAL IMPORT AS TO JUSTIFY THEIR
CONTROL, EVEN IF CONGRESS HAD REMAINED WHOLLY SILENT AND GIVEN NO
INDICATION OF ITS INTENT THAT STATE REGULATION SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE. 
BUT IN THIS CASE, IN ADDITION TO THOSE CONSIDERATIONS TAKEN
INDEPENDENTLY, THE POLICY WHICH WE THINK CONGRESS HAS CLEARLY
DELINEATED FOR PERMITTING AND SUPPORTING STATE REGULATION REMOVES ANY
NECESSITY FOR DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
INDEPENDENTLY OF ACTION BY CONGRESS AND TAKEN AS OPERATIVE IN ITS
SILENCE. 

THE ATTRACTIVE GAP WHICH APPELLANT HAS ENVISIONED IN THE COORDINATE
SCHEMES OF REGULATION IS A MIRAGE.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIANA IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE THESE STEPS BY INDIANA
STATUTES CREATING THE STATE'S REGULATORY SCHEME FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES. 
BURNS IND. STAT. ANN. SECS. 54-101 ET SEQ. 

FN2  APPELLANT'S SALES TO ANCHOR-HOCKING ARE FAR LARGER THAN SALES
MADE TO SEVERAL OF THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES.  THUS, IN 1943
APPELLANT SOLD 1,150,279 CUBIC FEET TO ANCHOR-HOCKING AND ONLY 151,065
CUBIC FEET TO THE LOCAL UTILITY SERVED FROM THE SAME BRANCH LINE.  SEE
NOTE 8 INFRA. 

FN3  THIS WAS IN 1941.  IN 1943 THE CHAIRMAN OF APPELLANT'S BOARD
STATED THAT "PANHANDLE WAS ANXIOUS TO TAKE OVER SUCH BUSINESS BECAUSE
IT WAS UNREGULATED TRANSACTION BOTH AS TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA AND THAT HE INTENDED TO
ESTABLISH HIGHER INDUSTRIAL RATES BASED ON A COMPETITIVE FUEL BASIS." 

FN4  PRIOR TO THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION APPELLANT HAD
ENTERED INTO ARRANGEMENTS TO PROVIDE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SERVICE TO AN
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY PLANT NEAR FORTVILLE, INDIANA.  THAT
SERVICE WAS COMMENCED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARINGS. 

FN5  IN THE TRIAL COURT THE COMMISSION HAD URGED, AS IT STILL DOES,
THAT ITS FIRST ORDER MERELY REQUIRED THE FILING OF INFORMATION AND THAT
NO ACTION WOULD LIE TO CONTEST ITS POWER TO FIX RATES OR OTHERWISE
REGULATE THE SALES UNTIL THAT POWER WAS EXERCISED.  THIS RESULTED IN
BRINGING FORTH APPELLANT'S TENDER OF COMPLIANCE AS "INFORMATION ONLY,"
CONDITIONED UPON THE COMMISSION'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE FILING AS SUCH AND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF ANY
SUBSEQUENT ORDER.  THE SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER EXPRESSLY STATED THAT THE
FILING, IF ANY, WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AND AVAILABLE
FOR USE BY THE COMMISSION IN CARRYING OUT ITS FURTHER DUTIES UNDER THE
STATUTE. 

FN6  SEVERAL OF THE LOCAL UTILITY COMPANIES, WHICH HAD BEEN
INTERVENORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WERE PERMITTED TO
INTERVENE IN THE COURT TEST OF THE ORDERS AND ARE APPELLEES HERE.  THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS HAS FILED
A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION'S POSITION. 

FN7  IN ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 504,
THE COURT REFERRED TO EARLIER DECISIONS TURNED BY "APPLYING THIS
MECHANICAL TEST FOR DETERMINING WHEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ENDS AND
INTRASTATE COMMERCE BEGINS," NAMELY, "UPON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GAS
INTO THE SERVICE PIPES OF THE DISTRIBUTOR," AND THEN STATED:  "IN OTHER
CASES, THE COURT, IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF STATE REGULATIONS, HAS
BEEN LESS CONCERNED TO FIND A POINT IN TIME AND SPACE WHERE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN GAS ENDS AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE BEGINS, AND HAS
LOOKED TO THE NATURE OF THE STATE REGULATION INVOLVED, THE OBJECTIVE OF
THE STATE, AND THE EFFECT OF THE REGULATION UPON THE NATIONAL INTEREST
IN THE COMMERCE.  CF. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS.,
303 U.S. 177, 185, 187, ET SEQ.; CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109,
113, 114; DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS (314 U.S.), P. 390."  314 U.S. AT 505. 

FN8  APPELLANT'S GAS ENTERS INDIANA IN A 22-INCH MAIN AT A PRESSURE
OF 250 POUNDS OR MORE PER SQUARE INCH.  IN THE STATE THE GAS ENTERS A
16-INCH BRANCH LINE AT A PRESSURE OF 200 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH, AND
THEN A 6-INCH LATERAL LINE AT A PRESSURE OF 100 POUNDS PER SQUARE
INCH.  IN THE LATERAL LINE THE GAS IS TRANSPORTED TO TWO ADJACENT METER
HOUSES.  FROM ONE HOUSE GAS IS DELIVERED TO ANCHOR-HOCKING AT PRESSURES
AS LOW AS 10 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH, WHILE FROM THE OTHER DELIVERIES
ARE MADE TO A LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY AT PRESSURES RANGING FROM 9 TO
25 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH. 

SIMILARLY, GAS FROM OTHER LATERALS STEMMING FROM APPELLANT'S MAIN
LINE IS REDUCED TO A PRESSURE OF 16 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH BEFORE BEING
FURNISHED TO THE DUPONT PLANT AND TO PRESSURES OF APPROXIMATELY 20
POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH FOR TWO UTILITY COMPANIES SERVED FROM THE SAME
LATERAL AS THE DUPONT PLANT. 

FN9  FOR A SUMMARY OF THE LEADING DECISIONS CONCERNING THE SALE AND
TRANSPORTATION OF GAS PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, SEE
ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 504-505.  SEE
ALSO POWELL, NOTE, PHYSICS AND LAW - COMMERCE IN GAS AND ELECTRICITY,
58 HARV. L. REV. 1072; HOWARD, GAS AND ELECTRICITY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, 18 MINN. L. REV. 611. 

FN10  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT "WHOLESALE," I.E., LARGE QUANTITY,
SERVICE DIRECT TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY ITS SALES TO
ANCHOR-HOCKING, IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SALES IN PENNSYLVANIA
GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 252 U.S. 23, WHICH WERE MADE IN A
MANNER COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH A LOCAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SUPPLYING
GAS TO CONSUMERS IN A CITY.  NOTHING IN THE DECISION, HOWEVER, REQUIRES
IT TO BE SO LIMITED.  ON THE CONTRARY, EMPHASIS MAY RATHER BE PLACED ON
THE FACT THAT BOTH SITUATIONS INVOLVE SALES TO ULTIMATE CONSUMERS,
ANCHOR-HOCKING BEING JUST AS CLEARLY IN THAT CATEGORY AS THE "FACTORIES
AND RESIDENCES" SERVED BY THE COMPANY IN THE PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO.
CASE.  SEE ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 505,
WHERE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, IN SUMMARIZING THE PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO.
CASE, STATED THAT IT INVOLVED GAS "SOLD DIRECTLY TO ULTIMATE LOCAL
CONSUMERS"; JERSEY CENTRAL CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 319 U.S. 61, 78,
80(DISSENTING OPINION); POWELL, NOTE, 58 HARV. L. REV. 1072, 1082,
QUOTED INFRA NOTE 12. 

FN11  THE ATTLEBORO DECISION, 273 U.S. 83, HAD BEEN MADE IN THE FACE
OF THE RHODE ISLAND COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE NARRAGANSETT COMPANY
IN SELLING ELECTRIC CURRENT INTERSTATE TO THE ATTLEBORO COMPANY WAS
SUFFERING AN OPERATING LOSS WHILE THE RATES TO ITS OTHER CUSTOMERS
YIELDED A FAIR RETURN; AND OVER THE COMMISSION'S CONTENTIONS GROUNDED
ON THAT FINDING THAT IT COULD NOT EFFECTIVELY REGULATE RATES OF THE
NARRAGANSETT COMPANY TO ITS LOCAL CONSUMERS WITHOUT ALSO REGULATING ITS
RATES TO THE ATTLEBORO COMPANY. 

COMPARE THE MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS BY ITS GENERAL
SOLICITOR, MR. JOHN E. BENTON, HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 4008, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 141, 143:
"SALES FOR INDUSTRIAL USE OUGHT NOT TO BE EXEMPT FROM ALL REGULATION,
FOR THE RESULT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT UNJUSTIFIABLE DISCRIMINATION WILL
RESULT, AND THERE WILL BE NO COMMISSION TO WHICH COMPLAINT MAY BE
MADE.  SALES FOR INDUSTRIAL USES PLAINLY OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO
REGULATION BY THE SAME COMMISSION WHICH REGULATES SALES TO OTHER
CLASSES OF CONSUMERS, SO THAT JUST AND REASONABLE RATES, FOR THE
SEVERAL CLASSES OF SERVICE, PROPERLY RELATED TO EACH OTHER, MAY BE
ESTABLISHED."    FN12  "  ...  (THE) SUPREME COURT HAS FROM THE
BEGINNING ALLOWED THE STATE BOTH TO TAX AND TO FIX THE PRICE ON THE
FIRST SALE OR DELIVERY OF GAS OR ELECTRICITY BROUGHT IN FROM A SISTER
STATE WHEN AND IF THIS FIRST SALE IS ALSO NECESSARILY THE LAST SALE
BECAUSE CONSUMMATED BY CONSUMPTION."  POWELL, NOTE, 58 HARV. L. REV.
1072, 1082. 

FN13  IN H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., THE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE SAID OF THE PROPOSED BILL WHICH BECAME
THE NATURAL GAS ACT:  "IT CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION OVER THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE
FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,
OR ANY OTHER USE.  THE STATES HAVE, OF COURSE, FOR MANY YEARS REGULATED
SALES OF NATURAL GAS TO CONSUMERS IN INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS.  THE
STATES HAVE ALSO BEEN ABLE TO REGULATE SALES TO CONSUMERS EVEN THOUGH
SUCH SALES ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SUCH SALES BEING CONSIDERED
LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION
SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION.  (SEE PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION (1920), 252 U.S. 23.)  THERE IS NO INTENTION IN
ENACTING THE PRESENT LEGISLATION TO DISTURB THE STATES IN THEIR
EXERCISE OF SUCH JURISDICTION.  HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF SALES FOR
RESALE, OR SO-CALLED WHOLESALE SALES, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FOR
EXAMPLE, SALES BY PRODUCING COMPANIES TO DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES) THE
LEGAL SITUATION IS DIFFERENT.  SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED
TO BE NOT LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION, NOT SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION.  (SEE MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS
CO. (1924), 265 U.S. 298, AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO
STEAM & ELECTRIC CO. (1927) 273 U.S. 83.)  THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE
PRESENT LEGISLATION IS TO OCCUPY THIS FIELD IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT
HAS HELD THAT THE STATES MAY NOT ACT." 

SEE ALSO H.R. REP. NO. 2651, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 1-3; SEN. REP. NO.
1162, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN14  IN THE HEARINGS ON H.R. 4008, THE BILL IN THE 75TH CONGRESS,
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF SEVERAL LARGE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES CONSTRUED SEC.
1(B) AS IT THEN STOOD TO EXEMPT SALES TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS FROM ALL
REGULATION, STATE AS WELL AS FEDERAL, AND PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT
EXEMPTING SALES FOR RESALE, WHEN FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY, FROM
REGULATION UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.  HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 4008, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
124.  IN AN ANSWERING MEMORANDUM, MR. BENTON POINTED OUT THE PIPE-LINE
REPRESENTATIVE'S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 1(B), STATING
THAT "SERVICE TO AN INDUSTRIAL USER IS JUST AS MUCH A LOCAL SERVICE
...  AS IS A SALE TO A HOUSEHOLDER FOR DOMESTIC USE" AND UNTIL
"CONGRESS OCCUPIES THE FIELD, A SALE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE IS ACCORDINGLY
SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION  ...  "  ID. AT 143.  HE PROPOSED AN
ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENT TO RENDER IT CLEAR BEYOND DOUBT THAT FEDERAL
REGULATION OF SALES FOR RESALE EXTENDED TO TRANSACTIONS WHERE THE GAS
WAS TO BE USED FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ONLY.  ID. AT 142.  MR. BENTON'S
AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE AND APPEARS IN
SUBSTANTIALLY UNALTERED FORM IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT AS
FINALLY ENACTED.  IN H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., THE
COMMITTEE EMPHASIZED THAT MR. BENTON AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF STATE
COMMISSIONS AND MUNICIPALITIES APPEARED IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION APPELLANT RELIES IN PART ON H.R. REP. NO.
800, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., FAVORABLY REPORTING H.R. 4051 AMENDING THE
NATURAL GAS ACT.  THIS BILL DID NOT BECOME LAW.  THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN
THE COMMITTEE REPORT MADE IN 1947, SOME NINE YEARS AFTER THE NATURAL
GAS ACT'S PASSAGE, ARE HARDLY DETERMINATIVE OR, IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH
THE CONTEMPORANEOUS HISTORY, PERSUASIVE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IN
PASSING THAT ACT. 

FN15  SEE NOTES 12 AND 13 SUPRA. 

FN16  IBID. 

FN17  PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 252 U.S. 23,
APPEARS TO BE THE ONLY CASE FLATLY RULING THE POINT FOR REGULATORY
PURPOSES.  BUT ITS AUTHORITY WAS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED IN ILLINOIS GAS CO.
V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 505, CF. NOTE 10 SUPRA; MISSOURI
V. KANSAS GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, 308; PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V.
ATTLEBORO CO., 273 U.S. 83, 87, AND OTHER CASES, AS WELL AS IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL REPORT QUOTED IN NOTE 13. 

FN18  THE JURISDICTION GRANTED THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION BY THE
NATURAL GAS ACT NECESSITATES CLOSE CORRELATION WITH STATE REGULATORY
BODIES.  SECTION 17 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES.  SEE NOTE 23 AND TEXT. 

FN19  OVER 38 PER CENT OF THE GROSS REVENUES OF THE LOCAL INDIANA
UTILITIES FROM THE SALE OF GAS IS DERIVED FROM SERVICE TO THE
APPROXIMATELY 250 INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS SERVED BY THEM.  IF SERVICE TO
ANY SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE INDUSTRIAL USERS WERE TO BE TAKEN OVER BY
APPELLANT, THE LOCAL UTILITIES NOT ONLY WOULD SUFFER GREAT LOSSES IN
REVENUE, BUT WOULD BE UNABLE TO DISPENSE WITH MORE THAN A TRIVIAL
PERCENTAGE OF THEIR PLANT PROPERTIES.  THE RESULTANT INCREASE IN UNIT
COST OF GAS WOULD LEAD NECESSARILY TO INCREASED RATES FOR THE CONSUMERS
SERVED BY THE LOCAL COMPANIES. 

FN20  PIPE-LINE SERVICE, BY THE VERY PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
CHARACTERIZING THE INDUSTRY AND MAGNITUDE OF INVESTMENT REQUIRED,
ACQUIRES LARGE MONOPOLISTIC EFFECTS, MORE PARTICULARLY IN MARKETING
AREAS DISTANT FROM PRODUCING ONES.  CF. POWER COMM'N V. HOPE GAS CO.,
320 U.S. 591, 610, N. 17 AND TEXT.  MOST OFTEN ITS COMPETITION IS WITH
OTHER FUELS RATHER THAN COMPETING PIPE LINES. 

FN21 SEE NOTE 19.  CF. MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS,
306 U.S. 346; ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, 328 U.S. 440, 448; INDUSTRIAL
GAS CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N OF OHIO, 135 OHIO ST. 408, 412; RE
SERVICE GAS CO., 15 P.U.R. (N.S.)  202. 

FN22  KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO., 299 U.S.
334; CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S. 311;
UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100. 

FN23  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CONFLICT IN THE ASSERTED EXERCISE
OF JURISDICTION BY THE APPELLEE COMMISSION WITH ANY FUNCTIONS OF THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  IN GRANTING APPELLANT PERMISSION UNDER SEC.
7(C) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT TO EXTEND ITS FACILITIES TO SERVE THE
DUPONT PLANT, SEE NOTE 4 SUPRA, THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT THE ORDER WAS "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
AUTHORITY OF THE INDIANA COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY JURISDICTION
WHICH IT MAY HAVE OVER THE SALE OR SERVICE PROPOSED TO BE RENDERED BY
PANHANDLE EASTERN TO DU PONT."  CF. NOTE 18. 

FN24  SEE NOTE 23. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






PATTON V. MISSISSIPPI, 332 U.S. 463 


NO. 122.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 21, 24, 1947.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1947.  -
201 MISS.  410, 29 SO.2D 96, REVERSED. 


1.  PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS INDICTED FOR MURDER BY AN ALL-WHITE GRAND
JURY AND CONVICTED BY AN ALL-WHITE PETIT JURY, NOTWITHSTANDING A TIMELY
MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT.  ALTHOUGH THERE WERE 12,511 ADULT
NEGROES IN THE COUNTY OUT OF A TOTAL ADULT POPULATION OF 34,821 AND
THERE WERE AT LEAST 25 NEGRO QUALIFIED MALE ELECTORS ELIGIBLE FOR JURY
SERVICE, THE VENIRES FOR THE TERM FROM WHICH THE GRAND AND PETIT JURIES
WERE SELECTED DID NOT CONTAIN THE NAME OF A SINGLE NEGRO AND NO NEGRO
HAD SERVED ON A GRAND OR PETIT CRIMINAL COURT JURY IN THE COUNTY FOR 30
YEARS.  HELD:  THE RECORD SUSTAINS PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF A SYSTEMATIC,
PURPOSEFUL, ADMINISTRATIVE EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM JURY DUTY CONTRARY
TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; THE
CONVICTION IS REVERSED; AND THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 465-469. 

2.  WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN SYSTEMATIC RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS IS A QUESTION TO BE
DETERMINED FROM THE FACTS IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE.  P. 466. 

3.  THE FACT THAT NO NEGRO HAD SERVED ON A CRIMINAL COURT GRAND OR
PETIT JURY FOR A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS CREATED A STRONG PRESUMPTION THAT
NEGROES WERE SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM JURY SERVICE BECAUSE OF RACE;
AND IT BECAME THE STATE'S DUTY TO JUSTIFY SUCH AN EXCLUSION AS HAVING
BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT FOR SOME REASON OTHER THAN RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. 
P. 466. 

4.  SUCH A PRESUMPTION WAS NOT OVERCOME BY AN ATTEMPT TO DISPROVE
SYSTEMATIC RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS BY
PERCENTAGE CALCULATIONS APPLIED TO THE COMPOSITION OF A SINGLE VENIRE. 
P. 468. 

5.  WHEN A JURY SELECTION PLAN OPERATES IN SUCH A WAY AS ALWAYS TO
RESULT IN THE COMPLETE AND LONG-CONTINUED EXCLUSION OF ANY
REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL FROM A LARGE GROUP OF NEGROES, OR ANY OTHER
RACIAL GROUP, INDICTMENTS AND VERDICTS RETURNED AGAINST THEM BY JURIES
THUS SELECTED CANNOT STAND.  P. 469. 

PATTON V. MISSISSIPPI. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI AFFIRMED A STATE TRIAL COURT'S
DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH AN INDICTMENT FOR MURDER BECAUSE OF
SYSTEMATIC RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS CONTRARY TO
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  201 MISS.  410, 29 SO.2D 96.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 804.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 469. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS INDICTED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, BY AN ALL-WHITE GRAND JURY, CHARGED
WITH THE MURDER OF A WHITE MAN.  HE WAS CONVICTED BY AN ALL-WHITE PETIT
JURY AND SENTENCED TO DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION.  HE HAD FILED A TIMELY
MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT ALLEGING THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE
NEGROES IN THE COUNTY QUALIFIED FOR JURY SERVICE, THE VENIRES FOR THE
TERM FROM WHICH THE GRAND AND PETIT JURIES WERE SELECTED DID NOT
CONTAIN THE NAME OF A SINGLE NEGRO.  FAILURE TO HAVE ANY NEGROES ON THE
VENIRES, HE ALLEGED, WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT FOR A GREAT NUMBER OF
YEARS PREVIOUSLY AND DURING THE THEN TERM OF COURT THERE HAD BEEN IN
THE COUNTY A "SYSTEMATIC, INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE AND INVARIABLE
PRACTICE ON THE PART OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS TO EXCLUDE NEGROES FROM
THE JURY LISTS, JURY BOXES AND JURY SERVICE, AND THAT SUCH PRACTICE HAS
RESULTED AND DOES NOW RESULT IN THE DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS TO THIS DEFENDANT AS GUARANTEED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION."  IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION PETITIONER INTRODUCED
EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWED WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT NO NEGRO HAD SERVED ON
THE GRAND OR PETIT CRIMINAL COURT JURIES FOR THIRTY YEARS OR MORE. 
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT A SINGLE NEGRO HAD ONCE BEEN SUMMONED DURING
THAT PERIOD BUT FOR SOME UNDISCLOSED REASON HE HAD NOT SERVED, NOR HAD
HE EVEN APPEARED.  AND THERE WAS ALSO EVIDENCE FROM ONE JURY SUPERVISOR
THAT HE HAD, AT SOME INDEFINITE TIME, PLACED ON THE JURY LISTS THE
NAMES OF "TWO OR THREE" UNIDENTIFIED NEGROES.  IN 1940 THE ADULT
COLORED POPULATION OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY, ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES
CENSUS, WAS 12,511 OUT OF A TOTAL ADULT POPULATION OF 34,821. 

IN THE FACE OF THE FOREGOING THE TRIAL COURT OVERRULED THE MOTION TO
QUASH.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI AFFIRMED OVER PETITIONER'S
RENEWED INSISTENCE THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS BY THE DELIBERATE EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM THE GRAND JURY THAT
INDICTED AND THE PETIT JURY THAT CONVICTED HIM.  201 MISS.  410, 29
SO.2D 96.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THIS SERIOUS CONTENTION. 
FN1  331 U.S. 804. 

SIXTY-SEVEN YEARS AGO THIS COURT HELD THAT STATE EXCLUSION OF NEGROES
FROM GRAND AND PETIT JURIES SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE DENIED NEGRO
DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS REQUIRED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA, 100 U.S.
303(1880).  A LONG AND UNBROKEN LINE OF OUR DECISIONS SINCE THEN HAS
REITERATED THAT PRINCIPLE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DISCRIMINATION WAS
EMBODIED IN STATUTE  FN2  OR WAS APPARENT FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICES OF STATE JURY SELECTION OFFICIALS,  FN3  AND REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE SYSTEM FOR DEPRIVING DEFENDANTS OF THEIR RIGHTS WAS
"INGENIOUS OR INGENUOUS."  FN4 

WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN SYSTEMATIC RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS IS A QUESTION TO BE
DETERMINED FROM THE FACTS IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE.  IN THIS CASE THE
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO PROVE
SYSTEMATIC RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS, BUT IN SO
CONCLUDING IT ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED ONLY THE FACT THAT NO NEGROES WERE
ON THE PARTICULAR VENIRE LISTS FROM WHICH THE JURIES WERE DRAWN THAT
INDICTED AND CONVICTED PETITIONER.  FN5  IT REGARDED AS IRRELEVANT THE
KEY FACT THAT FOR THIRTY YEARS OR MORE NO NEGRO HAD SERVED ON THE GRAND
OR PETIT JURIES.  THIS OMISSION SERIOUSLY DETRACTS FROM THE WEIGHT AND
RESPECT THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE GIVE TO ITS CONCLUSION IN REVIEWING THE
FACTS, AS WE MUST IN A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION LIKE THIS.  FN6 

IT IS TO BE NOTED AT ONCE THAT THE INDISPUTABLE FACT THAT NO NEGRO
HAD SERVED ON A CRIMINAL COURT GRAND OR PETIT JURY FOR A PERIOD OF
THIRTY YEARS CREATED A VERY STRONG SHOWING THAT DURING THAT PERIOD
NEGROES WERE SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM JURY SERVICE BECAUSE OF
RACE.  FN7  WHEN SUCH A SHOWING WAS MADE, IT BECAME A DUTY OF THE STATE
TO TRY TO JUSTIFY SUCH AN EXCLUSION AS HAVING BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT FOR
SOME REASON OTHER THAN RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.  THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME
COURT DID NOT CONCLUDE, THE STATE DID NOT OFFER ANY EVIDENCE, AND IN
FACT DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM, THAT ITS OFFICIALS HAD ABANDONED THEIR OLD
JURY SELECTION PRACTICES.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S CONCLUSION OF
JUSTIFICATION RESTED UPON THE FOLLOWING REASONING.  SECTION 1762 OF THE
MISSISSIPPI CODE ENUMERATES THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR JURY SERVICE, THE
MOST IMPORTANT OF WHICH APPARENTLY ARE THAT ONE MUST BE A MALE CITIZEN
AND "A QUALIFIED ELECTOR."  SECTIONS 241, 242, 243 AND 244 OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION SET FORTH THE PREREQUISITES FOR QUALIFIED ELECTORS.  AMONG
OTHER THINGS, THESE PROVISIONS REQUIRE THAT EACH ELECTOR SHALL PAY AN
ANNUAL POLL TAX, PRODUCE SATISFACTORY PROOF OF SUCH PAYMENT, AND BE
ABLE TO READ ANY SECTION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, OR TO UNDERSTAND
THE SAME WHEN READ TO HIM, OR TO GIVE A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
THEREOF.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF NEGRO MALE
CITIZENS (THE COURT ESTIMATED ABOUT 25), AS COMPARED WITH WHITE MALE
CITIZENS, HAD MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED ELECTORS, AND THEREBY
BECOME ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER ADDITIONAL TESTS FOR JURY
SERVICE.  ON THIS SUBJECT THE STATE SUPREME COURT SAID: 

"OF THE 25 QUALIFIED NEGRO MALE ELECTORS THERE WOULD BE LEFT,
THEREFORE, AS THOSE NOT EXEMPT, 12 OR 13 AVAILABLE MALE NEGRO ELECTORS
AS COMPARED WITH 5,500 TO 6,000 MALE WHITE ELECTORS AS TO WHOM, AFTER
DEDUCTING 500 TO 1,000 EXEMPT, WOULD LEAVE A PROPORTION OF 5,000
NONEXEMPT WHITE JURORS TO 12 OR 13 NONEXEMPT NEGRO JURORS, OR ABOUT ONE
FOURTH OF ONE PER CENT NEGRO JURORS,  - 400 TO 1.  ...  FOR THE REASONS
ALREADY HERETOFORE STATED THERE WAS ONLY A CHANCE OF 1 IN 400 THAT A
NEGRO WOULD APPEAR ON SUCH A VENIRE AND AS THIS VENIRE WAS OF ONE
HUNDRED JURORS, THE SHERIFF, HAD HE BROUGHT IN A NEGRO, WOULD HAVE HAD
TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WHITE JURORS, NOT AGAINST NEGROES,  - HE COULD
NOT BE EXPECTED TO BRING IN ONE-FOURTH OF ONE NEGRO."  FN8  THE ABOVE
STATEMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT ILLUSTRATES THE UNWISDOM OF
ATTEMPTING TO DISPROVE SYSTEMATIC RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE
SELECTION OF JURORS BY PERCENTAGE CALCULATIONS APPLIED TO THE
COMPOSITION OF A SINGLE VENIRE.  FN9 

THE PETITIONER HERE POINTS OUT CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE RECORD EVIDENCE
FN10  OF WHICH IT IS CLAIMED WE CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND WHICH IT
IS ASSERTED ESTABLISHES THAT THE REASON WHY THERE ARE SO FEW QUALIFIED
NEGRO ELECTORS IN MISSISSIPPI IS BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM
IN MAKING UP THE REGISTRATION LISTS.  BUT WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THAT
QUESTION IN THIS CASE.  FOR IT IS CLEAR FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
THAT THERE WERE SOME NEGROES IN LAUDERDALE COUNTY ON THE REGISTRATION
LIST.  IN FACT, IN 1945, THE CIRCUIT CLERK OF THE COUNTY, WHO IS
HIMSELF CHARGED WITH DUTIES IN ADMINISTERING THE JURY SYSTEM, SENT THE
NAMES OF EIGHT NEGROES TO THE JURY COMMISSIONER OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT AS CITIZENS OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY QUALIFIED FOR FEDERAL JURY
SERVICE.  MOREOVER, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE NAMES OF FROM THIRTY TO
SEVERAL HUNDRED QUALIFIED NEGRO ELECTORS WERE ON THE REGISTRATION
LISTS.  BUT WHATEVER THE PRECISE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED COLORED ELECTORS
IN THE COUNTY, THERE WERE SOME; AND IF IT CAN POSSIBLY BE CONCEIVED
THAT ALL OF THEM WERE DISQUALIFIED FOR JURY SERVICE BY REASON OF THE
COMMISSION OF CRIME, HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS, GAMBLING, INABILITY TO READ
AND WRITE, OR TO MEET ANY OTHER OR ALL OF THE STATUTORY TESTS, WE DO
NOT DOUBT THAT THE STATE COULD HAVE PROVED IT.  FN11 

WE HOLD THAT THE STATE WHOLLY FAILED TO MEET THE VERY STRONG EVIDENCE
OF PURPOSEFUL RACIAL DISCRIMINATION MADE OUT BY THE PETITIONER UPON THE
UNCONTRADICTED SHOWING THAT FOR THIRTY YEARS OR MORE NO NEGRO HAD
SERVED AS A JUROR IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY.  WHEN A
JURY SELECTION PLAN, WHATEVER IT IS, OPERATES IN SUCH WAY AS ALWAYS TO
RESULT IN THE COMPLETE AND LONG-CONTINUED EXCLUSION OF ANY
REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL FROM A LARGE GROUP OF NEGROES, OR ANY OTHER
RACIAL GROUP, INDICTMENTS AND VERDICTS RETURNED AGAINST THEM BY JURIES
THUS SELECTED CANNOT STAND.  AS WE POINTED OUT IN HILL V. TEXAS, 316
U.S. 400, 406, OUR HOLDING DOES NOT MEAN THAT A GUILTY DEFENDANT MUST
GO FREE.  FOR INDICTMENTS CAN BE RETURNED AND CONVICTIONS CAN BE
OBTAINED BY JURIES SELECTED AS THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT IS REVERSED AND THE
CASE IS REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  PETITIONER ALSO ARGUED THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS BASED SOLELY ON
AN EXTORTED CONFESSION; THAT USE OF THIS EXTORTED CONFESSION DENIED HIM
DUE PROCESS OF LAW; AND THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR THAT
REASON.  THE VIEW WE TAKE AS TO THE SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION OF NEGRO
JURORS MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS ON THE ALLEGED EXTORTED
CONFESSION. 

FN2  BUSH V. KENTUCKY, 107 U.S. 110, 122. 

FN3  EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339; NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370;
CARTER V. TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442; ROGERS V. ALABAMA, 192 U.S. 226; NORRIS
V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587; HOLLINS V. OKLAHOMA, 295 U.S. 394; HALE V.
KENTUCKY, 303 U.S. 613; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354; SMITH V.
TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128; HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400. 

FN4  SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128, 132. 

FN5  AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398, 403. 

FN6  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 590; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306
U.S. 354, 358; AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398, 402; FAY V. NEW YORK, 332
U.S. 261, 272. 

FN7 NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370, 397; NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S.
587, 591; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354, 361. 

FN8  ALTHOUGH THIS LATTER STATEMENT WAS MADE WITH PARTICULAR
REFERENCE TO THE SPECIAL VENIRE FROM WHICH THE PETIT JURY WAS DRAWN,
THE REASONING OF THE COURT APPLIED ALSO TO ITS GROUNDS FOR HOLDING THAT
THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATION IN EXCLUDING NEGROES FROM THE GRAND JURY. 

FN9  AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398, 403. 

FN10  HEARINGS BEFORE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE SENATORIAL
CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES, 1946, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1947). 

FN11  HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, 404-405. 
..END :























SILESIAN-AMERICAN CORP. V. CLARK, 332 U.S. 469 


NO. 6.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1947.  - REARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1947.  - DECIDED
DECEMBER 8, 1947.  - 156 F.2D 793, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE
FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 9095, AS AMENDED, THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN ISSUED AN ORDER VESTING IN HIMSELF TITLE TO
CERTAIN SHARES OF STOCK IN PETITIONER, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND
DIRECTING PETITIONER TO CANCEL THE CERTIFICATES FOR SUCH STOCK
OUTSTANDING ON ITS BOOKS AND TO ISSUE NEW CERTIFICATES TO THE
CUSTODIAN.  THE ORDER CONTAINED A FINDING THAT, ALTHOUGH PRIOR TO
AUGUST 31, 1939, THE SHARES STOOD ON THE BOOKS OF PETITIONER IN THE
NAME OF A SWISS CORPORATION, THEY WERE HELD FOR THE BENEFIT OF A GERMAN
CORPORATION, AND CONSTITUTED PROPERTY BELONGING TO A NATIONAL OF
GERMANY.  IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SHARES WERE PLEDGED TO CERTAIN
SWISS BANKS AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN.  HELD:  THE CUSTODIAN'S ORDER IS
VALID AND MUST BE COMPLIED WITH.  PP. 474-479. 

2.  PETITIONER HAS NO LEGAL INTEREST IN THE ISSUE AS TO OWNERSHIP OF
ITS STOCK AND NO STANDING TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF ITS
SHAREHOLDERS OR PLEDGEES OF ITS STOCK.  P. 474. 

3.  UNDER THE WAR POWER, WHICH INCLUDES REASONABLE PREPARATION FOR
WAR, THE UNITED STATES, ACTING UNDER A STATUTE, MAY SUMMARILY REDUCE TO
POSSESSION IN FURTHERANCE OF THE WAR EFFORT ANY PROPERTY IN THIS
COUNTRY OF ANY ALIEN; AND THE PROBLEMS OF COMPENSATION MAY AWAIT THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS.  PP. 474-477. 

4.  THE VESTING ORDER OF THE CUSTODIAN WAS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 5(B)(1)
OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER
9095, AS AMENDED.  P. 477. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT THE STOCK CERTIFICATES DID NOT COME INTO THE HANDS
OF THE CUSTODIAN IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 477. 

(B)  THE POWER TO REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF NEW CERTIFICATES WAS
INCIDENTAL TO THE CUSTODIAN'S POWER TO VEST IN HIMSELF THE PROPERTY OF
A FOREIGN NATIONAL, INCLUDING STOCK OWNERSHIP IN AN AMERICAN
CORPORATION.  P. 477. 

5.  SECTIONS 5(B)(2) AND 7(E) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS
AMENDED, PROTECT PETITIONER FROM ANY LIABILITY TO BONA FIDE HOLDERS OF
ITS SHARES BY REASON OF ANY INFIRMITY IN THE CUSTODIAN'S VESTING ORDER
OR HIS DIRECTION THAT NEW CERTIFICATES BE ISSUED TO HIM.  PP. 477-478. 

6.  THE CUSTODIAN'S VESTING ORDER WAS NOT CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(A) OF
THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, WHICH FORMERLY EXEMPTED PROPERTY
PLEDGED TO "ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY"; BECAUSE THE
LATER ENACTMENT OF SEC. 5(B)(1) RENDERED SEC. 8(A) INAPPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY OF FRIENDLY ALIENS.  PP. 478-479. 

7.  THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES TO FRIENDLY ALIENS THE RIGHT TO JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE REQUISITIONING OF THEIR PROPERTY BY THE UNITED
STATES; AND IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL MEET ITS
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 479-480. 

SILESIAN-AMERICAN CORP. ET AL. V. CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS
SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

A BANKRUPTCY COURT INSTRUCTED A CORPORATION IN REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER X TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER OF THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN VESTING IN HIMSELF SHARES OF THE CORPORATION'S STOCK
OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF A FRIENDLY ALIEN AND DIRECTING THE
CORPORATION TO CANCEL THE SHARES ON ITS BOOKS AND TO ISSUE NEW
CERTIFICATES THEREFOR TO THE CUSTODIAN.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  156 F.2D 793.  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 329 U.S. 730;
BUT, ON REHEARING, GRANTED CERTIORARI AND SUBSTITUTED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, AS THE PARTY
RESPONDENT.  330 U.S. 852.  AFFIRMED, P. 480. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN ON NOVEMBER 17, 1942, EXECUTED VESTING
ORDER NO. 370.  THIS ORDER WAS ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 40 STAT. 411, AS AMENDED, AND EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9095, AS AMENDED, AND IN TERMS VESTED THE PROPERTY THEREIN
DESCRIBED IN THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN IN THE INTEREST AND FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE ORDER FOUND THE PROPERTY TO BELONG
TO A NATIONAL OF GERMANY.  THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE ORDER WAS TWO
BLOCKS OF STOCK - ONE COMMON, ONE PREFERRED - IN THE SILESIAN AMERICAN
CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, HEREINAFTER CALLED SILESIAN.  THE
STOCK, PRIOR TO AUGUST 31, 1939, STOOD IN THE STOCK BOOK OF SILESIAN IN
THE NAME OF NON FERRUM GESELLSCHAFT ZUR FINANZIERUNG VON UNTERNEHMUNGEN
DES BERGBAUES UND DER INDUSTRIE DER NICHTEISENMETALLE, ZURICH,
SWITZERLAND, A SWISS CORPORATION, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE NON
FERRUM COMPANY.  NON FERRUM, IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE CUSTODIAN'S
ORDER, HELD THE STOCK FOR THE BENEFIT OF BERGWERKSGESELLSCHAFT GEORG
VON GIESCHE'S ERBEN, A GERMAN CORPORATION.  THE CERTIFICATES, IT IS
ASSERTED, HAD BEEN DEPOSITED AS SECURITY FOR LOANS WITH A GROUP OF
BANKS, ALL OF WHICH APPARENTLY WERE CHARTERED BY SWITZERLAND AND ARE
HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SWISS BANKS.  FN1 

TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF HIS VESTING ORDER, THE CUSTODIAN DIRECTED
SILESIAN TO CANCEL ON ITS BOOKS THE OUTSTANDING NON FERRUM
CERTIFICATES, ABOVE REFERRED TO, AND TO ISSUE IN LIEU THEREOF NEW
CERTIFICATES TO THE CUSTODIAN.  THIS CONTROVERSY REVOLVES AROUND THE
OBJECTION OF SILESIAN SO TO ACT BECAUSE THE CUSTODIAN DID NOT HAVE
PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PLEDGED NON FERRUM CERTIFICATES SO AS TO BE
ABLE TO SURRENDER THEM FOR CANCELLATION, AS THE CORPORATION'S BY-LAWS
REQUIRED.  SILESIAN FEARED LIABILITY TO THE HOLDERS OF THE NON FERRUM
CERTIFICATES FOR ISSUING OTHER CERTIFICATES IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. 

SILESIAN HAD BEEN A DEBTOR UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
SINCE JULY 30, 1941.  IT THEREFORE ASKED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
INSTRUCTIONS AS TO ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CUSTODIAN'S DIRECTION.  THE
OTHER PETITIONER HERE, SILESIAN HOLDING COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION
ALSO, APPEARED AND THROUGHOUT HAS REMAINED AS A PARTY TO THIS
LITIGATION.  IT IS THE MAJORITY STOCKHOLDER OF SILESIAN BUT CLAIMS NO
DIFFERENT OR OTHER INTEREST IN THE ISSUE THAN SILESIAN.  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THIS CASE, IT MAY AND WILL BE TREATED AS HAVING NO MORE
INTEREST IN THE ISSUE THAN SILESIAN HAS.  THE SWISS BANKS ASKED THE
REORGANIZATION COURT TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DEBTOR THAT NO NEW
SHARES BE ISSUED UNTIL THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE SWISS BANKS AND THE
CUSTODIAN COULD BE "FULLY, FIRMLY AND FINALLY ADJUDICATED."  THIS
PRAYER WAS BASED ON A VERIFIED ANSWER TO SILESIAN'S REQUEST FOR
INSTRUCTION, WHICH ANSWER ALLEGED THAT THE "SWISS BANKS WERE THE OWNERS
OF THE 'NON FERRUM' STOCK."  THE SWISS BANKS NOTIFIED SILESIAN THAT ANY
ISSUE OF NEW CERTIFICATES REPRESENTING THE NON FERRUM STOCK, WITH OR
WITHOUT COURT DIRECTION, WOULD BE AT SILESIAN'S RISK.  AFFIDAVITS
SUPPORTING THE OBJECTION OF THE SWISS BANKS TO INSTRUCTIONS TO SILESIAN
TO ISSUE THE NEW CERTIFICATES TO THE CUSTODIAN WERE FILED WITH THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THESE AFFIDAVITS DECLARED THE NON FERRUM STOCK WAS
PLEDGED, PRIOR TO 1938, TO GROUPS OF SWISS BANKS.  IT IS NOT CLEAR
WHETHER THEY ARE THE SAME INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE NAMED IN THE ANSWER OF
THE SWISS BANKS TO THE DEBTOR'S REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS.  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THIS CASE, WE ASSUME THAT THE GROUPS ARE IDENTICAL. 

THE DISTRICT COURT INSTRUCTED THE DEBTOR TO ISSUE NEW CERTIFICATES TO
THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  THE COURT SAID: 

"THE VESTING ORDER OF THE CUSTODIAN FOUND THAT THE STOCK WAS HELD FOR
THE BENEFIT OF AN ENEMY.  THE STATUTORY DISCHARGE FROM LIABILITY, SEC.
5B OR SEC. 7E, (TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT) PROTECTS THE DEBTOR
CORPORATION AND RELIEVES IT OF DOUBT IN THE PREMISES." 

THE COURT ADDED: 

"WHATEVER MAY BE THE INTERESTS OR RIGHTS OF THE SWISS BANKS, THEY
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED HERE.  HEARSAY STATEMENTS, UNSUPPORTED BY
DOCUMENTS, ALLEGE THAT THESE BANKS ARE PLEDGEES OF THE STOCK.  THESE
STATEMENTS CREATE NO ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.  THE BANKS ARE
PARTIES HEREIN ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THE
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING AS POSSIBLE OWNERS OF A CLAIMED INTEREST
WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN CALLED UPON TO PROVE.  THEY ARE NOT HERE
BECAUSE OF ANY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THEM OR ANY RECOGNITION GIVEN THEM
BY THE CUSTODIAN OR EVEN BY REASON OF ANY ESTABLISHED INTEREST IN THE
STOCK." 

NO APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS TAKEN BY THE SWISS
BANKS.  THEY DO NOT APPEAR HERE AS PARTIES TO THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI
OR OTHERWISE.  WE THEREFORE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE
ORDER AND DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE CLAIMS OF THE SWISS
BANKS AS PLEDGEES OF THE NON FERRUM STOCK.  SEE SILESIAN-AMERICAN
CORPORATION V. MARKHAM, 156 F.2D 793, 795. 

AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BY SILESIAN. 
THAT COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  WE FIRST DENIED
A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND THEN GRANTED IT SO THAT THIS CASE MIGHT
BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO OTHER ISSUES, THEREAFTER PRESENTED HERE,
IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT.  329 U.S. 730 AND 330 U.S. 852; CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ
KORPORATION, 330 U.S. 813. 

IT WAS HELD BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT SILESIAN HAD NO
"STANDING VICARIOUSLY" TO ASSERT THE INTERESTS OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS.  WE
AGREE.  SILESIAN HAS NO LEGAL INTEREST IN THE ISSUE AS TO THE OWNERSHIP
OF ITS STOCK.  IT FOLLOWS THAT SILESIAN HAS NO STANDING TO REPRESENT
THE INTERESTS OF THE PLEDGEES OF THE NON FERRUM SHARES, IF THAT IS THE
PRESENT POSITION OF THOSE SHARES.  SEE ANDERSON NAT. BANK V. LUCKETT,
321 U.S. 233, 242.  THIS REDUCES PETITIONERS' OBJECTION TO THE ORDER
DIRECTING THE ISSUE OF NEW CERTIFICATES IN FAVOR OF THE CUSTODIAN FOR
THE NON FERRUM STOCK TO THE CLAIM THAT THE SECTIONS OF THE TRADING WITH
THE ENEMY ACT UNDER WHICH THE CUSTODIAN ACTED ARE INVALID AS APPLIED TO
SILESIAN IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  IF THE PROVISIONS DO NOT AUTHORIZE
THE ORDER AND DIRECTION, SILESIAN, OVER ITS OWN OBJECTIONS, CANNOT BE
COMPELLED TO OBEY. 

THE CUSTODIAN VESTED THE STOCK IN HIMSELF BY VIRTUE OF THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941,
INCLUDING, OF COURSE, SEC. 5(B)(1),  FN2  AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9095,
C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 1121, AS AMENDED 1174.  THIS PROPERTY WAS VESTED
DURING WAR.  THERE IS NO DOUBT BUT THAT UNDER THE WAR POWER,  FN3  AS
HERETOFORE INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT, THE UNITED STATES, ACTING UNDER A
STATUTE, MAY VEST IN ITSELF THE PROPERTY OF A NATIONAL OF AN ENEMY
NATION.  UNQUESTIONABLY TO WAGE WAR SUCCESSFULLY, THE UNITED STATES MAY
CONFISCATE ENEMY PROPERTY.  UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272
U.S. 1, 11.  NOR CAN THERE, WE THINK, BE ANY DOUBT THAT ANY PROPERTY IN
THIS COUNTRY OF ANY ALIEN MAY BE SUMMARILY REDUCED TO POSSESSION BY THE
UNITED STATES IN FURTHERANCE OF THE WAR EFFORT.  EVERY RESOURCE WITHIN
THE AMBIT OF SOVEREIGN POWER IS SUBJECT TO USE FOR THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE.  THIS SECTION WAS AMENDED DURING WAR TO COVER THE TAKING OF
ALIEN PROPERTY.  IT IS LIMITED TO A WAR OR A DECLARED EMERGENCY
PERIOD.  WHILE A NATURAL HESITANCY EXISTS AGAINST SO INTERPRETING THE
WAR POWER CLAUSE AS TO EXPAND ITS SCOPE TO COVER INCIDENTS NOT
INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH WAR, WE THINK REASONABLE PREPARATION FOR THE
STORM OF WAR IS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER.  THIS SEIZURE OF
ALIEN PROPERTY, IN A TIME OF EMERGENCY, IS OF THAT CHARACTER.  WE NEED
NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE COULD BE A SOURCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER ALIEN PROPERTY.  FN4  THIS TAKING MAY BE DONE
AS A MEANS OF AVOIDING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO DRAW EARNINGS OR
WEALTH OUT OF THIS COUNTRY TO TERRITORY WHERE IT MAY MORE LIKELY BE
USED TO ASSIST THE ENEMY THAN IF IT REMAINS IN THE HANDS OF THIS
GOVERNMENT.  OR THE COMMANDEERED PROPERTY OF A FRIENDLY ALIEN MAY BE
USED TO PROSECUTE THE WAR.  THE PROBLEMS OF COMPENSATION MAY AWAIT THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS.  CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U.S. 554, 567
68.  WAR BROOKS NO DELAY.  THE CONSTITUTION IMPOSES NONE. 

THE SECTION, 5(B)(1), AND EXECUTIVE ORDER UNDER WHICH THE CUSTODIAN
ACTED AUTHORIZED THE VESTING IN HIM BY HIS ORDER OF THE PROPERTY OF A
FOREIGN NATIONAL.  THIS DESCRIPTION COVERED STOCK OWNERSHIP OF A
FOREIGN NATIONAL IN SILESIAN.  THE FACT THAT THE CERTIFICATES DID NOT
COME INTO THE HANDS OF THE CUSTODIAN IS IMMATERIAL.  THEY ARE EVIDENCES
OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT OF THE FOREIGN NATIONAL IN SILESIAN THAT IS
SUBJECT TO BE VESTED IN THE CUSTODIAN BY THE ACT.  SEE GREAT NORTHERN
R. CO. V. SUTHERLAND, 273 U.S. 182.  SECTION 5(B)(1) SPECIFICALLY
STATES, "AND SUCH DESIGNATED AGENCY OR PERSON MAY PERFORM ANY AND ALL
ACTS INCIDENT TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OR FURTHERANCE OF THESE PURPOSES." 
SEE NOTE 2 ABOVE.  SINCE THE CUSTODIAN WAS AUTHORIZED TO VEST AND TO
SELL THE PROPERTY BY SEC. 5, WE THINK THAT THE POWER TO REQUIRE THE
ISSUE OF NEW CERTIFICATES WAS INCIDENTAL TO THAT AUTHORITY.  AS ONE
PURPOSE OF SEC. 5(B)(1) WAS TO AUTHORIZE THE SEIZURE OF THE INTERESTS
OF FOREIGN NATIONALS IN DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS SO THAT SUCH INTEREST
COULD BE USED OR SOLD, SUCH AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE IN MANAGEMENT OR
TO TRANSFER THE STOCK INTERESTS WOULD BE FRUSTRATED IF CUSTOMARY
EVIDENCES OF THE OWNERSHIP COULD NOT BE REQUIRED FROM THE CORPORATION. 
THE POWER OF THE CUSTODIAN TO DEMAND THE CERTIFICATES IS PLAIN.  THE
CORRELATIVE DUTY TO OBEY THE ORDER EQUALLY SO, IF THE EFFECT OF
OBEDIENCE DOES NOT DO VIOLENCE TO OTHER VALID REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE OR MAKE SILESIAN LIABLE TO BONA FIDE HOLDERS OF THE OLD STOCK. 

SILESIAN IN SPECIFIC TERMS IS PROTECTED FROM ANY LIABILITY TO BONA
FIDE HOLDERS SUCH AS NON FERRUM OR THE SWISS BANKS BY REASON OF ANY
INFIRMITY IN THE CUSTODIAN'S VESTING ORDER OR HIS DIRECTION TO SILESIAN
TO ISSUE NEW CERTIFICATES FOR THE NON FERRUM STOCK.  THE APPLICABLE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 7(E) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 40 STAT. 418,
AND SEC. 5(B)(2), AS AMENDED, 55 STAT. 839-40, ARE SET OUT IN THE
MARGIN.  FN5  BUT SILESIAN ARGUES THAT PROTECTION CANNOT FOLLOW FROM AN
ORDER CONTRARY TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  THE ORDER TO ISSUE
THE NEW CERTIFICATES IS SAID TO BE UNAUTHORIZED BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE
PROPERTY OF FRIENDLY ALIEN PLEDGEES, THE SWISS BANKS, TO BE TAKEN
CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(A).  FN6  SECTION 8(A) IS SAID TO BE A LIMITATION ON
THE CUSTODIAN'S POWER TO SEIZE PROPERTY PLEDGED TO "ANY PERSON NOT AN
ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY."  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IF SEC. 7(E) OR SEC.
5(B)(2) IS INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE SILESIAN TO CARRY OUT THE CUSTODIAN'S
DIRECTION, EVEN THOUGH THIS SEIZURE IS CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(A), A WAY HAS
BEEN FOUND TO "COERCE AN INTERESTED PARTY (SILESIAN) INTO COMPLIANCE
WITH HIS (THE CUSTODIAN'S) UNLAWFUL ACTIONS."  THE ANSWER TO THIS
CONTENTION IS MADE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT MAKES
UNNECESSARY ANY DISCUSSION OF THE PROTECTION AFFORDED SILESIAN BY SEC.
7(E) AND SEC. 5(B)(2) FROM THE CLAIMS OF A PLEDGE OF STOCK EXEMPTED BY
STATUTE FROM SEIZURE.  156 F.2D AT 797.  WHEN SEC. 5(B)(1) WAS ENACTED
AS AN AMENDMENT IN THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, IT AUTHORIZED THE
TAKING OF ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN OF ANY FOREIGN NATIONAL. 
THIS BROADENING OF THE SCOPE OF THE CUSTODIAN'S POWER TO VEST SO AS TO
INCLUDE INTERESTS OF FRIENDLY ALIENS IN PROPERTY INCLUDES THE POWER TO
VEST THE INTEREST WHICH FRIENDLY ALIENS HAVE FROM PLEDGES.  AS THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID, P. 797: 

"ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE SECTION WOULD MAKE THE PLEDGES OF
FRIENDLY ALIENS A WHOLLY IRRATIONAL EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE TO
SUBJECT ALL ALIEN INTERESTS TO SEIZURE." 

THEREFORE, AS WE HOLD THAT SEC. 5(B)(1) RENDERED SEC. 8(A)
INAPPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY OF FRIENDLY ALIENS, THE ORDER OF THE
CUSTODIAN WAS VALID AND SILESIAN'S OBJECTION DISAPPEARS. 

FINALLY THERE IS THE ARGUMENT THAT SILESIAN CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO
ISSUE THE NEW CERTIFICATES BECAUSE THE FRIENDLY ALIENS WHO CLAIM
INTERESTS IN THE NON FERRUM STOCK MAY NOT SUCCEED IN RECOVERING THE
JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING.  SEE RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 481, 489.  FN7  THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES TO
FRIENDLY ALIENS THE RIGHT TO JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE REQUISITIONING
OF THEIR PROPERTY BY THE UNITED STATES.  RUSSIAN FLEET V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL MEET ITS
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  CONSEQUENTLY, FRIENDLY ALIENS WILL
BE COMPENSATED FOR ANY PROPERTY TAKEN AND SILESIAN IS PROTECTED BY THE
EXCULPATORY CLAUSES OF THE ACT FROM ANY CLAIM FROM ITS ALIEN
STOCKHOLDERS.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.    FN1  THEY ARE UNION BANK OF
SWITZERLAND, LA ROCHE & COMPANY, BANQUE CANTONALE DE BERNE, AND
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT LEU & COMPANY.    FN2  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT,
40 STAT. 411, AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, 55 STAT.
839, SEC. 5(B)(1): 

"DURING THE TIME OF WAR OR DURING ANY OTHER PERIOD OF NATIONAL
EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT MAY, THROUGH ANY
AGENCY THAT HE MAY DESIGNATE, OR OTHERWISE, AND UNDER SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS HE MAY PRESCRIBE, BY MEANS OF INSTRUCTIONS, LICENSES, OR
OTHERWISE - 

     .         .       .         .         . 

"(B)  INVESTIGATE, REGULATE, DIRECT AND COMPEL, NULLIFY, VOID,
PREVENT OR PROHIBIT, ANY ACQUISITION HOLDING, WITHHOLDING, USE,
TRANSFER, WITHDRAWAL, TRANSPORTATION, IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF, OR
DEALING IN, OR EXERCISING ANY RIGHT, POWER, OR PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT
TO, OR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING, ANY PROPERTY IN WHICH ANY FOREIGN
COUNTRY OR A NATIONAL THEREOF HAS ANY INTEREST, 

BY ANY PERSON, OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES; AND ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST OF ANY
FOREIGN COUNTRY OR NATIONAL THEREOF SHALL VEST, WHEN, AS, AND UPON THE
TERMS, DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT, IN SUCH AGENCY OR PERSON AS MAY BE
DESIGNATED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE PRESIDENT, AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE SUCH INTEREST OR PROPERTY
SHALL BE HELD, USED, ADMINISTERED, LIQUIDATED, SOLD, OR OTHERWISE DEALT
WITH IN THE INTEREST OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
SUCH DESIGNATED AGENCY OR PERSON MAY PERFORM ANY AND ALL ACTS INCIDENT
TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OR FURTHERANCE OF THESE PURPOSES; ...  " 

FN3  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 11. 

FN4  COMPARE WITH THE STATEMENT BELOW:  "THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
SEIZE AND CONFISCATE ENEMY PROPERTY RESTS UPON ART. 1, SEC. 8, CLAUSE
11 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  STOEHR V. WALLACE, SUPRA, 255 U.S. AT PAGE 242
...  ; UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, INC., 272 U.S. 1, 11  ...
WHETHER IT EXISTS AT INTERNATIONAL LAW MAY BE DOUBTED; BUT NOBODY
CONTENDS THAT THE WAR POWER OF CONGRESS INCLUDES THE SEIZURE OF THE
PROPERTY OF FRIENDLY ALIENS.  THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 5(B) MUST THEREFORE
REST UPON SOME OTHER POWER OF CONGRESS, NOT ONLY FOR THAT REASON, BUT
BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT ITSELF WAS EXPRESSLY NOT LIMITED TO TIME OF WAR
(ALTHOUGH IT WAS IN FACT PASSED FLAGRANTE BELLO) BUT WAS TO GO INTO
EFFECT UPON ANY 'NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED.'  IT CAN REST UPON ART.
1, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 1:  I.E. UPON THE POWER 'TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON
DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE'; INDEED, SO FAR AS WE CAN SEE, THE DEBTOR
DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE POWER ITSELF, BUT ITS EXERCISE.  IT COMPLAINS
THAT THE AMENDMENT DELEGATES AN UNRESTRICTED DISCRETION TO THE
PRESIDENT, AND DOES NOT PROVIDE 'JUST COMPENSATION' FOR SEIZURES."  156
F.2D 793, 796. 

FN5  40 STAT. 418, SEC. 7(E): 

"NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD LIABLE IN ANY COURT FOR OR IN RESPECT TO
ANYTHING DONE OR OMITTED IN PURSUANCE OF ANY ORDER, RULE, OR REGULATION
MADE BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT." 

55 STAT. 840, SEC. 5(B)(2): 

"ANY PAYMENT, CONVEYANCE, TRANSFER, ASSIGNMENT, OR DELIVERY OF
PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN, MADE TO OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR AS OTHERWISE DIRECTED, PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION OR ANY
RULE, REGULATION, INSTRUCTION, OR DIRECTION ISSUED HEREUNDER SHALL TO
THE EXTENT THEREOF BE A FULL ACQUITTANCE AND DISCHARGE FOR ALL PURPOSES
OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE PERSON MAKING THE SAME; AND NO PERSON SHALL BE
HELD LIABLE IN ANY COURT FOR OR IN RESPECT TO ANYTHING DONE OR OMITTED
IN GOOD FAITH IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF, OR IN PURSUANCE
OF AND IN RELIANCE ON, THIS SUBDIVISION, OR ANY RULE, REGULATION,
INSTRUCTION, OR DIRECTION ISSUED HEREUNDER." 

FN6  40 STAT. 418-19, SEC. 8(A): 

"THAT ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY HOLDING A LAWFUL
MORTGATE, PLEDGE, OR LIEN, OR OTHER RIGHT IN THE NATURE OF SECURITY IN
PROPERTY OF AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY WHICH, BY LAW OR BY THE TERMS OF
THE INSTRUMENT CREATING SUCH MORTGAGE, PLEDGE, OR LIEN, OR RIGHT, MAY
BE DISPOSED OF ON NOTICE OR PRESENTATION OR DEMAND  ...  MAY CONTINUE
TO HOLD SAID PROPERTY, AND, AFTER DEFAULT, MAY DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY
...  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT IF, ON ANY SUCH DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, A
SURPLUS SHALL REMAIN AFTER THE SATISFACTION OF THE MORTGAGE, PLEDGE,
LIEN, OR OTHER RIGHT IN THE NATURE OF SECURITY, NOTICE OF THAT FACT
SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS
AS HE MAY PRESCRIBE, AND SUCH SURPLUS SHALL BE HELD SUBJECT TO HIS
FURTHER ORDER." 

FN7  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID:  "THUS IT CAN BE ARGUED WITH
MUCH FORCE THAT, UNLESS SOME PROVISION CAN BE FOUND BY WHICH HE MAY
SECURE COMPENSATION, SEC. 5(B) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND, IF SO, IT
WOULD AT BEST BE DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE PROTECTION GIVEN BY SUBSECTION
(2) WOULD BE VALID."  156 F.2D 793, 797. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







CLARK V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORP., 332 U.S. 480 


NO. 35.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1947.  - REARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1947.  - DECIDED
DECEMBER 8, 1947.  - 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 284, 158 F.2D 313, AFFIRMED. 


1.  RESPONDENT, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF SWITZERLAND
AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THAT COUNTRY, SUED UNDER
SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT TO RECLAIM PROPERTY WHICH
THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN HAD VESTED IN HIMSELF UNDER SEC. 5(B), AS
AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941.  THE PROPERTY SEIZED
CONSISTED OF SHARES OF STOCK IN CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS
OF VARIOUS STATES OF THIS NATION AND OF AN INTEREST IN A CONTRACT
BETWEEN TWO SUCH CORPORATIONS AND, ACCORDING TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT WHICH ARE ASSUMED TO BE TRUE, WAS FREE OF ALL ENEMY TAINT -
I.E., THE CORPORATIONS WHOSE SHARES HAD BEEN SEIZED, THE CORPORATIONS
WHICH HAD A CONTRACT IN WHICH RESPONDENT HAD AN INTEREST, AND
RESPONDENT ITSELF, WERE CORPORATIONS IN WHICH NO ENEMY, ALLY OF AN
ENEMY, OR ANY NATIONAL OF EITHER, HAD ANY INTEREST OF ANY KIND
WHATSOEVER, AND RESPONDENT HAD NOT DONE BUSINESS IN THE TERRITORY OF
THE ENEMY OR ANY ALLY OF AN ENEMY.  HELD:  RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO
MAINTAIN THE SUIT.  PP. 482-490. 

2.  BY THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
CONTAINED IN THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, THE PROPERTY OF ALL
FOREIGN INTERESTS WAS PLACED WITHIN REACH OF THE VESTING POWER, NOT TO
APPROPRIATE FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL ASSETS BUT TO REACH ENEMY INTERESTS
WHICH MASQUERADE UNDER THOSE INNOCENT FRONTS.  PP. 484-486. 

3.  ALTHOUGH SECS. 2 AND 9(A) WERE NOT AMENDED IN 1941, THEY MUST BE
READ HARMONIOUSLY WITH SEC. 5(B) AS AMENDED IN 1941, SO AS NOT TO
DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE 1941 AMENDMENT.  PP. 486-489. 

4.  SECTION 2, DEFINING THE TERMS "ENEMY" AND "ALLY OF ENEMY," MUST
BE READ DIFFERENTLY THAN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY, SO AS TO GIVE THE CONCEPT
OF ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY A SCOPE WHICH HELPS THE 1941 AMENDMENT
FULFILL ITS MISSION WITHOUT NULLIFYING SEC. 9(A).  P. 489. 

5.  WHEN SECS. 2, 5(B) AND 9(A) ARE THUS READ TOGETHER HARMONIOUSLY,
SEC. 9(A) CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS AFFORDING NO REMEDY FOR THE RECOVERY
OF PROPERTY BY FOREIGN INTERESTS WHICH HAVE NO POSSIBLE CONNECTION WITH
THE ENEMY, MERELY BECAUSE SUCH PROPERTY WAS MADE SUBJECT TO SEIZURE
UNDER SEC. 5(A), AS AMENDED.  PP. 486-489. 

CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN,
V. UEBERSEE FINANZ-KORPORATION, A.G. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.
9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT TO RECOVER PROPERTY VESTED BY
THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN IN HIMSELF UNDER SEC. 5(B), AS AMENDED BY
THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 284, 158 F.2D
313.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 813.  AFFIRMED, P. 490. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RECLAIM PROPERTY WHICH THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN,  FN1 ACTING UNDER SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT, 40 STAT. 411, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1, AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST
WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, 55 STAT. 839, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946),
SEC. 5(B), HAD VESTED IN HIMSELF.  RESPONDENT IS A CORPORATION
ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF SWITZERLAND AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE
OF BUSINESS IN THAT COUNTRY.  THE PROPERTY SEIZED CONSISTED OF SHARES
OF STOCK IN CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF VARIOUS STATES OF
THIS NATION AND OF AN INTEREST IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO SUCH
CORPORATIONS. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF AN
ENEMY AND THAT AT NO TIME AT OR SINCE THE VESTING HAS THE PROPERTY IN
QUESTION BEEN OWNED OR CONTROLLED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN WHOLE OR
IN PART, BY AN ENEMY, ALLY OF AN ENEMY, OR A NATIONAL OF A DESIGNATED
ENEMY COUNTRY.  IT ALSO ALLEGES THAT NONE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN
OWING OR BELONGING TO OR HELD ON ACCOUNT OF OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY
SUCH PERSON OR INTEREST.  WE CONSTRUE THESE ALLEGATIONS TO MEAN THAT
THE PROPERTY IS FREE OF ALL ENEMY TAINT AND PARTICULARLY THAT THE
CORPORATIONS WHOSE SHARES HAVE BEEN SEIZED, THE CORPORATIONS WHICH HAVE
A CONTRACT IN WHICH RESPONDENT HAS AN INTEREST, AND RESPONDENT ITSELF,
ARE COMPANIES IN WHICH NO ENEMY, ALLY OF AN ENEMY, NOR ANY NATIONAL OF
EITHER HAS ANY INTEREST OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, AND THAT RESPONDENT HAS
NOT DONE BUSINESS IN THE TERRITORY OF THE ENEMY OR ANY ALLY OF AN
ENEMY.  THOSE ALLEGATIONS, AS SO CONSTRUED, ARE INDEED TAKEN AS TRUE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRESENT RULING, SINCE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO
DISMISS IS BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT IS A NATIONAL OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUSTICE DISSENTING.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 284,
158 F.2D 313.  THE CASE IS HERE ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  330 U.S. 813. 

UNDER THE ACT AS IT READ PRIOR TO THE 1941 AMENDMENT RESPONDENT WOULD
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT ON A SHOWING, WITHOUT MORE, THAT
IT WAS A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF A FRIENDLY NATION AND
NOT DOING BUSINESS IN THE TERRITORY OF AN ENEMY NATION OR ANY OF ITS
ALLIES.  THAT RESULT WOULD BE REACHED AS FOLLOWS:  SEC. 7(C) PERMITTED
SEIZURE BY THE CUSTODIAN ONLY OF PROPERTY IN WHICH AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF
AN ENEMY HAD AN INTEREST.  SEC. 9(A) PERMITTED "ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY
OR ALLY OF ENEMY" CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN ANY SEIZED PROPERTY TO SUE TO
RECLAIM IT. AND THE COURT HELD IN BEHN, MEYER & CO. V. MILLER, 266 U.S.
457, THAT A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF A FRIENDLY NATION
AND NOT DOING BUSINESS IN THE TERRITORY OF AN ENEMY NATION OR ANY OF
ITS ALLIES  FN2  COULD MAINTAIN SUCH A SUIT EVEN THOUGH THE CORPORATION
WAS ENEMY OWNED OR CONTROLLED.  THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AS IT WAS THEN
DRAWN WAS "TO SEIZE THE SHARES OF STOCK WHEN ENEMY OWNED RATHER THAN TO
TAKE OVER THE CORPORATE PROPERTY."  HAMBURG-AMERICAN CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 277 U.S. 138, 140. 

THAT WAS AT LEAST ONE RESPECT IN WHICH THE ACT HAD A "RIGIDITY AND
INFLEXIBILITY" THAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE CURED BY THE AMENDMENT TO SEC.
5(B) IN 1941.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1507, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3.  IT
WAS NOTORIOUS THAT GERMANY AND HER ALLIES HAD DEVELOPED NUMEROUS
TECHNIQUES FOR CONCEALING ENEMY OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF PROPERTY WHICH
WAS OSTENSIBLY FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL.  THEY HAD THROUGH NUMEROUS DEVICES,
INCLUDING THE CORPORATION, ACQUIRED INDIRECT CONTROL OR OWNERSHIP IN
INDUSTRIES IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ECONOMIC WARFARE.  FN3
SEC. 5(B) WAS AMENDED ON THE HEELS OF THE DECLARATION OF WAR TO COPE
WITH THAT PROBLEM.  CONGRESS BY THAT AMENDMENT GRANTED THE PRESIDENT
THE POWER TO VEST IN AN AGENCY DESIGNATED BY HIM "ANY PROPERTY OR
INTEREST OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR NATIONAL THEREOF."  FN4  THE
PROPERTY OF ALL FOREIGN INTERESTS WAS PLACED WITHIN REACH OF THE
VESTING POWER, NOT TO APPROPRIATE FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL ASSETS BUT TO
REACH ENEMY INTERESTS WHICH MASQUERADED UNDER THOSE INNOCENT FRONTS. 

THUS THE PRESIDENT ACQUIRED NEW "FLEXIBLE POWERS" (H.R. REP. NO.
1507, SUPRA, P. 3) TO DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH PROPERTY INTERESTS WHICH
HAD EITHER AN OPEN OR CONCEALED ENEMY TAINT. 

WHILE THE SCOPE OF THE PRESIDENT'S POWER WAS BROADENED, THERE WAS NO
AMENDMENT RESTRICTING THE SCOPE OF SEC. 9(A).  AS WE HAVE NOTED, SEC.
9(A) GRANTED "ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY," CLAIMING AN
INTEREST IN PROPERTY SEIZED, THE RIGHT TO RECLAIM IT.  SO THE PROVISION
READS TODAY.  YET, AS PETITIONER SUGGESTS, IF BEHN, MEYER & CO. V.
MILLER, SUPRA, IS APPLIED DESPITE THE 1941 AMENDMENT, SEC. 9(A) WILL
UNDO MUCH OF THE GOOD WHICH THE 1941 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5(B) WAS
DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH.  ALL A CORPORATE CLAIMANT WOULD NEED DO TO
RECOVER THE PROPERTY SEIZED WOULD BE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS ORGANIZED IN
THIS COUNTRY OR IN SOME FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL COUNTRY AND WAS NOT DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF AN ENEMY OR ANY OF ITS ALLIES.  FN5
THE FACT THAT IT WAS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY ENEMY INTERESTS AND MIGHT
SAP THE STRENGTH OF THIS NATION THROUGH ECONOMIC WARFARE WOULD BE
IMMATERIAL.  WE AGREE THAT A CONSTRUCTION SO DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE 1941 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5(B) MUST BE REJECTED. 

PETITIONER THEREFORE SUGGESTS THAT ONCE THE SEIZURE IS SHOWN TO BE
PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC. 5(B), THERE IS NO REMEDY FOR THE RETURN OF THE
PROPERTY UNDER SEC. 9(A).  IT IS SAID THAT SEC. 9(A) WAS DESIGNED TO
PROVIDE AN ULTIMATE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
PROPERTY SEIZED WAS WITHIN THE VESTING POWER DEFINED IN SEC. 5(B). 
CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U.S. 554, 567-568.  THE ARGUMENT
ACCORDINGLY IS THAT SINCE SEC. 5(B) ALLOWS SEIZURE AND VESTING OF "ANY
PROPERTY OR INTEREST OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR NATIONAL THEREOF," A
SUIT TO RECLAIM IT IS DEFEATED BY A MERE SHOWING THAT THE CLAIMANT IS A
CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF ANOTHER NATION. 

THAT IS TO MAKE THE RIGHT TO SUE RUN NOT TO "ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY
OR ALLY OF ENEMY" AS SEC. 9(A) IN TERMS PROVIDES BUT TO "ANY PERSON NOT
AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY OR NATIONAL OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY."  THAT
WOULD WIPE OUT ALL SUITS TO RECLAIM PROPERTY BROUGHT BY ANY FOREIGN
INTEREST, NO MATTER HOW FRIENDLY.  WE STATED IN MARKHAM V. CABELL, 326
U.S. 404, 410-411, "THE RIGHT TO SUE, EXPLICITLY GRANTED BY SEC. 9(A),
SHOULD NOT BE READ OUT OF THE LAW UNLESS IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS BY
WHAT IT LATER DID WITHDREW ITS EARLIER PERMISSION."  SUCH A DRASTIC
CONTRACTION, IF NOT COMPLETE STERILIZATION, OF SEC. 9(A) AS PETITIONER
SUGGESTS SHOULD THEREFORE BE MADE ONLY IF NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS
OPEN. 

THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHICH MAKE US HESITATE TO TAKE THAT
COURSE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS WE HAVE SUGGESTED, THE PHASE OF THE
PROBLEM WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED AND WITH WHICH CONGRESS
WAS WRESTLING WHEN IT AMENDED THE ACT IN 1941 STARTED AND ENDED WITH
PROPERTY HAVING AN ENEMY TAINT.  WE FIND NOT THE SLIGHTEST SUGGESTION
THAT CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED UNDER THIS ACT WITH PROPERTY OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL POWERS AND IN NO WAY UTILIZED BY THE
AXIS.  THOSE INTERESTS WERE NOT WAGING ECONOMIC WARFARE AGAINST US.
SECONDLY, WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH THE POWER "TO AFFIRMATIVELY COMPEL
THE USE AND APPLICATION OF FOREIGN PROPERTY IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN6  SEN. REP. NO. 911, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.  IT IS HARD FOR US TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS
ADOPTED THAT DRASTIC COURSE IN THE CASE OF FRIENDLY OR NEUTRAL FOREIGN
INTERESTS WHOSE INVESTMENTS IN OUR ECONOMY WERE IN NO WAY INFECTED WITH
ENEMY OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL.  OUR HESITATION IS, MOREOVER, INCREASED
WHEN WE NOTE THAT SEC. 7(C) MAKES THE REMEDY UNDER THE ACT THE ONLY ONE
CONGRESS HAS GRANTED A CLAIMANT.  IT IS NOT EASY FOR US TO ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS TREATED ALL NON-ENEMY NATIONS, INCLUDING OUR RECENT ALLIES, IN
SUCH A HARSH MANNER, LEAVING THEM ONLY WITH SUCH REMEDY AS THEY MIGHT
HAVE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITHOUT ITS DIFFICULTIES WHICHEVER WAY WE TURN. 
BUT WE THINK THAT WE ADHERE MORE CLOSELY TO THE POLICY OF BOTH SEC.
5(B) AS AMENDED AND SEC. 9(A), IF WE DO NOT CARRY OVER INTO THE AMENDED
ACT THE CONSEQUENCES OF BEHN, MEYER & CO. V. MILLER, SUPRA. 

AS WE HAVE OBSERVED, THE SCHEME OF THE ACT WHEN BEHN, MEYER & CO. V.
MILLER WAS DECIDED WAS TO RESPECT THE CORPORATE FORM, EVEN THOUGH THE
ENEMY HELD ALL THE STOCK OF THE CORPORATE CLAIMANT.  HAMBURG-AMERICAN
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE 1941 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5(B) REFLECTED
A COMPLETE REVERSAL IN THAT POLICY.  THE POWER OF SEIZURE AND VESTING
WAS EXTENDED TO ALL PROPERTY OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR NATIONAL SO THAT
NO INNOCENT APPEARING DEVICE COULD BECOME A TROJAN HORSE.  CONGRESS DID
NOT, HOWEVER, ALTER THE DEFINITIONS OF ENEMY OR OF ALLY OF ENEMY
CONTAINED IN SEC. 2.  THEY REMAIN THE SAME AS THEY WERE AT THE TIME
BEHN, MEYER & CO. V. MILLER WAS DECIDED.  FN7 

YET IF THE QUESTION WERE PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME UNDER THE
AMENDED ACT, WE COULD NOT CONFINE THE STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF ENEMY OR
ALLY OF ENEMY TO THE NARROW CATEGORIES INDICATED BY BEHN, MEYER & CO.
V. MILLER.  TO DO SO WOULD BE TO RUN COUNTER TO THE POLICY OF THE ACT
AND BE DISRUPTIVE OF ITS PURPOSE.  WE ARE DEALING WITH HASTY
LEGISLATION WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT STOP TO PERFECT AS AN INTEGRATED
WHOLE.  OUR TASK IS TO GIVE ALL OF IT - 1917 TO 1941 - THE MOST
HARMONIOUS, COMPREHENSIVE MEANING POSSIBLE.  MARKHAM V. CABELL, SUPRA.
SO IF THE DEFINITIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 2  FN8  ARE TO BE HARMONIZED
WITH THE POLICY UNDERLYING SEC. 5(B) AND SEC. 9(A) OF THE AMENDED ACT,
WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THEY ARE MERELY ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT
EXCLUSIONARY.  TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS A PURPOSE
TO PARALYZE WITH ONE HAND WHAT IT SOUGHT TO PROMOTE WITH THE OTHER. 

THERE IS PERHAPS IN LOGIC SOME BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THAT SHOULD BE
THE CONSEQUENCE SINCE CONGRESS DID NOT AMEND SEC. 2 WHEN IT REVISED THE
ACT BY ITS AMENDMENT OF SEC. 5(B).  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ONLY
CHANGE EFFECTED WAS IN SEC. 5(B) AND THAT SEC. 2 WHICH STANDS UNAMENDED
SHOULD BE TAKEN TO MEAN WHAT IT MEANT BEFORE 1941.  BUT THE ANSWER TO
OUR PROBLEM CANNOT BE HAD BY THE USE OF LOGIC ALONE.  WE ARE DEALING
HERE WITH CONFLICT AND CONFUSION IN THE STATUTE.  THOUGH NEITHER SEC. 2
NOR SEC. 9(A) WAS AMENDED WITH SEC. 5(B) IN 1941, ONE OF THEM MUST BE
READ DIFFERENTLY AFTER THAN BEFORE THAT EVENT.  WE BELIEVE IT IS MORE
CONSONANT WITH THE FUNCTIONS SOUGHT TO BE SERVED BY THE ACT TO APPLY
SEC. 2 DIFFERENTLY THAN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPLIED THAN TO READ SEC.
9(A) MORE RESTRICTIVELY.  WE BELIEVE A MORE HARMONIOUS READING OF SEC.
2, SEC. 5(B) AND SEC. 9(A) IS HAD IF THE CONCEPT OF ENEMY OR ALLY OF
ENEMY IS GIVEN A SCOPE WHICH HELPS THE AMENDMENT OF 1941 FULFILL ITS
MISSION AND WHICH DOES NOT MAKE SEC. 9(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS
HISTORY AND CONTRARY TO THE NORMAL CONNOTATION OF ITS TERMS STAND AS A
BARRIER TO THE RECOVERY OF PROPERTY BY FOREIGN INTERESTS WHICH HAVE NO
POSSIBLE CONNECTION WITH THE ENEMY. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS APPROACH MAY PRODUCE RESULTS
WHICH ARE BOTH ABSURD AND UNCERTAIN.  IT IS SAID THAT THE ENTIRE
PROPERTY OF A CORPORATION WOULD BE JEOPARDIZED MERELY BECAUSE A
NEGLIGIBLE STOCK INTEREST, PERHAPS A SINGLE SHARE, WAS DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF AN ENEMY.  IT IS
ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SECURITIES OR INTERESTS OTHER THAN STOCK MIGHT BE
HELD BY AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF AN ENEMY AND USED EFFECTIVELY IN ECONOMIC
WARFARE AGAINST THIS COUNTRY.  BUT WHAT THESE INTERESTS ARE, THE EXTENT
OF HOLDINGS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE AN ENEMY TAINT, WHAT PART OF A
FRIENDLY ALIEN CORPORATION'S PROPERTY MAY BE RETAINED WHERE ONLY A
FRACTIONAL ENEMY OWNERSHIP APPEARS, ARE LEFT UNDECIDED.  SINCE WE
ASSUME FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT THAT RESPONDENT IS FREE OF
ENEMY TAINT AND THEREFORE IS NOT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ENEMY OR ALLY
OF AN ENEMY, THOSE PROBLEMS ARE NOT NOW BEFORE US.  WE RECOGNIZE THEIR
IMPORTANCE; BUT THEY MUST AWAIT LEGISLATIVE  FN9  OR JUDICIAL
CLARIFICATION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CUSTODIAN WERE SUBSEQUENTLY
TRANSFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9788, 11 FED.
REG. 11981(OCT.  14, 1946).    FN2  SEC. 2 PROVIDES: 

"THAT THE WORD 'ENEMY,' AS USED HEREIN, SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN, FOR
THE PURPOSES OF SUCH TRADING AND OF THIS ACT - 

"(A)  ANY INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, OR OTHER BODY OF INDIVIDUALS, OF
ANY NATIONALITY, RESIDENT WITHIN THE TERRITORY (INCLUDING THAT OCCUPIED
BY THE MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES) OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS AT WAR, OR RESIDENT OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY, AND ANY CORPORATION INCORPORATED WITHIN
SUCH TERRITORY OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR OR
INCORPORATED WITHIN ANY COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES AND DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY. 

"(B)  THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT
WAR, OR ANY POLITICAL OR MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR ANY OFFICER,
OFFICIAL, AGENT, OR AGENCY THEREOF. 

"(C)  SUCH OTHER INDIVIDUALS, OR BODY OR CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS, AS MAY
BE NATIVES, CITIZENS, OR SUBJECTS OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS AT WAR, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHEREVER
RESIDENT OR WHEREVER DOING BUSINESS, AS THE PRESIDENT, IF HE SHALL FIND
THE SAFETY OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE
WAR SHALL SO REQUIRE, MAY, BY PROCLAMATION, INCLUDE WITHIN THE TERM
'ENEMY.' 

"THE WORDS 'ALLY OF ENEMY,' AS USED HEREIN, SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN
 

"(A)  ANY INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, OR OTHER BODY OF INDIVIDUALS, OF
ANY NATIONALITY, RESIDENT WITHIN THE TERRITORY (INCLUDING THAT OCCUPIED
BY THE MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES) OF ANY NATION WHICH IS AN ALLY OF A
NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR, OR RESIDENT OUTSIDE THE
UNITED STATES AND DOING BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY, AND ANY
CORPORATION INCORPORATED WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY OF SUCH ALLY NATION, OR
INCORPORATED WITHIN ANY COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES AND DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY. 

"(B) THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY NATION WHICH IS AN ALLY OF A NATION WITH
WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR, OR ANY POLITICAL OR MUNICIPAL
SUBDIVISION OF SUCH ALLY NATION, OR ANY OFFICER, OFFICIAL, AGENT, OR
AGENCY THEREOF. 

"(C)  SUCH OTHER INDIVIDUALS, OR BODY OR CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS, AS MAY
BE NATIVES, CITIZENS, OR SUBJECTS OF ANY NATION WHICH IS AN ALLY OF A
NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR, OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES, WHEREVER RESIDENT OR WHEREVER DOING BUSINESS, AS THE
PRESIDENT, IF HE SHALL FIND THE SAFETY OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE WAR SHALL SO REQUIRE, MAY, BY
PROCLAMATION, INCLUDE WITHIN THE TERM 'ALLY OF ENEMY.'" 

FN3  SOME OF THE USES OF THE CORPORATION IN PROMOTION OF THESE
SUBVERSIVE PROJECTS ARE SUMMARIZED IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE WARTIME
FINANCIAL AND PROPERTY CONTROLS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,
TREASURY DEPT. (1942), PP. 29-30.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT TECHNICAL
LEGAL TITLE "TO SOME OF THE MOST DANGEROUS OF THE AXIS-INFLUENCED
ENTERPRISES MAY BE SWISS, DUTCH, SWEDISH OR AMERICAN."  IT IS ALSO SAID
THAT "ACTUAL OWNERSHIP OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISES FREQUENTLY RUNS THROUGH
TANGLED MAZES OF HOLDING COMPANIES.  THESE HOLDING COMPANIES WERE
NORMALLY INCORPORATED IN NEUTRAL COUNTRIES AND THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
HOLDING COMPANIES THEMSELVES WAS NORMALLY REPRESENTED BY BEARER SHARES,
MAKING IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO NEGATE A CLAIM THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF
THE CORPORATION WAS COINCIDENT WITH THE STATE OF INCORPORATION." 

FN4  SEC. 5(B)(1), AS AMENDED, ALSO GRANTED THE PRESIDENT THE POWER
TO "INVESTIGATE, REGULATE, DIRECT AND COMPEL, NULLIFY, VOID, PREVENT OR
PROHIBIT, ANY ACQUISITION HOLDING, WITHHOLDING, USE, TRANSFER,
WITHDRAWAL, TRANSPORTATION, IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF, OR DEALING
IN, OR EXERCISING ANY RIGHT, POWER, OR PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO, OR
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING, ANY PROPERTY IN WHICH ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR A
NATIONAL THEREOF HAS ANY INTEREST, BY ANY PERSON, OR WITH RESPECT TO
ANY PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  " 

SEC. 5(B)(1), AS AMENDED, FURTHER PROVIDED AS RESPECTS PROPERTY WHICH
HAD BEEN VESTED THAT "UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE PRESIDENT
MAY PRESCRIBE SUCH INTEREST OR PROPERTY SHALL BE HELD, USED,
ADMINISTERED, LIQUIDATED, SOLD, OR OTHERWISE DEALT WITH IN THE INTEREST
OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  " 

FN5  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  AS TO THE POWERS OF THE CUSTODIAN OR OTHER AGENCY DESIGNATED BY
THE PRESIDENT OVER THE PROPERTY, SEE SEC. 5(B)(1), SUPRA NOTE 4, AND
SEC. 12. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN9  SEE 60 STAT. 50, ADDING SEC. 32(A)(2)(E) TO THE ACT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :








WILLIAMS V. FANNING, 332 U.S. 490 


NO. 47.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1947.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1947.  - 158
F.2D 95, REVERSED. 


1.  THOSE AGAINST WHOM THE POSTMASTER GENERAL HAS ISSUED A POSTAL
FRAUD ORDER MAY SUE THE LOCAL POSTMASTER TO ENJOIN HIM FROM CARRYING
OUT THE ORDER; AND THE POSTMASTER GENERAL IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE
PARTY.  PP. 492-494. 

2.  THE SUPERIOR OFFICER IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IF A DECREE
GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT WILL REQUIRE HIM TO TAKE ACTION, EITHER BY
EXERCISING DIRECTLY A POWER LODGED IN HIM OR BY HAVING A SUBORDINATE
EXERCISE IT FOR HIM.  PP. 492-493. 

3.  THE SUPERIOR OFFICER IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IF THE DECREE
WHICH IS ENTERED WOULD EFFECTIVELY GRANT THE RELIEF DESIRED BY
EXPENDING ITSELF ON THE SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL WHO IS BEFORE THE COURT. 
PP. 493-494. 

WILLIAMS ET AL. V. FANNING, POSTMASTER OF LOS ANGELES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT TO ENJOIN A POSTMASTER FROM
CARRYING OUT A FRAUD ORDER ISSUED BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  158 F.2D 95.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 797.  REVERSED, P. 494. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, HERE ON CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
CIRCUITS,  FN1  PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THOSE AGAINST WHOM THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL HAS ISSUED A POSTAL FRAUD ORDER MAY SUE THE LOCAL
POSTMASTER TO ENJOIN HIM FROM CARRYING OUT THE ORDER OR WHETHER THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY. 

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, AFTER A HEARING IN WASHINGTON, D.C., FOUND
THAT PETITIONERS' WEIGHT-REDUCING ENTERPRISE WAS FRAUDULENT.  HE
ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A FRAUD ORDER (R.S. SECS. 3929, 4041, 39 U.S.C.
SECS. 259, 732) DIRECTING RESPONDENT, POSTMASTER AT LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA (WHERE PETITIONERS DO BUSINESS) TO REFUSE PAYMENT OF ANY
MONEY ORDER DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF PETITIONERS, TO ADVISE THE REMITTER
OF SUCH MONEY ORDER THAT PAYMENT HAD BEEN FORBIDDEN, AND TO STAMP
"FRAUDULENT" ON ALL MAIL MATTER DIRECTED TO PETITIONERS AND TO RETURN
IT TO THE SENDERS. 

PETITIONERS THEREUPON BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TO ENJOIN RESPONDENT FROM CARRYING OUT
THE ORDER,  FN2  CLAIMING THAT THEY HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE HEARING TO
WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED AND THAT THE FRAUD ORDER WAS WITHOUT THE
SUPPORT OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  ON MOTION OF RESPONDENT THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, HOLDING IN ACCORD WITH THE VIEW OF THE
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  FN3  THAT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL WAS AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  158 F.2D
95. 

IT WAS LONG ASSUMED THAT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL WAS NOT AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY IN THESE FRAUD ORDER CASES.  BEGINNING AT LEAST
WITH AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94,
DECIDED IN 1902, THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT AGAINST THE LOCAL
POSTMASTER ALONE WAS NOT CHALLENGED.  FN4 

MEANWHILE, ANOTHER LINE OF CASES WAS EMERGING.  WARNER VALLEY STOCK
CO. V. SMITH, 165 U.S. 28, HELD THAT A SUIT AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO COMPEL HIM TO ISSUE PATENTS TO PUBLIC LANDS ABATED ON
HIS RESIGNATION.  AS THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS "TO CONTROL THE ACTION
OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR" (165 U.S. P. 34), HE WAS HELD TO BE
AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  NEXT CAME GNERICH V. RUTTER, 265 U.S. 388,
WHICH WAS A SUIT TO ENJOIN A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE FROM ENFORCING A RESTRICTION EMBODIED IN A PERMIT
ISSUED UNDER THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT.  THE SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL,
ACTING FOR THE COMMISSIONER, HAD REFUSED TO GIVE PLAINTIFFS THE MORE
LIBERAL PERMIT WHICH THEY DESIRED; AND HE HAD NO POWER TO GRANT THE
DESIRED PERMIT WITHOUT REVISION OF HIS DELEGATED AUTHORITY.  THE
COMMISSIONER WAS HELD TO BE AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  WEBSTER V. FALL,
266 U.S. 507, FOLLOWED.  THAT WAS A SUIT BROUGHT BY AN OSAGE INDIAN TO
REQUIRE PAYMENT TO HIM OF FUNDS UNDER AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  THE POWER
AND RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING THE PAYMENTS BEING IN THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, HE WAS HELD TO BE AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY. 

THESE CASES EVOLVED THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE SUPERIOR OFFICER IS AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY IF THE DECREE GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT WILL
REQUIRE HIM TO TAKE ACTION, EITHER BY EXERCISING DIRECTLY A POWER
LODGED IN HIM OR BY HAVING A SUBORDINATE EXERCISE IT FOR HIM. 

THAT PRINCIPLE WAS BROUGHT INTO CLEARER RELIEF BY COLORADO V. TOLL,
268 U.S. 228.  THERE THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PARKS HAD ISSUED
REGULATIONS FORBIDDING OPERATION IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK OF
AUTOMOBILES FOR HIRE.  TOLL WAS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PARK WHO WAS
ENFORCING THE REGULATION.  A SUIT TO ENJOIN HIM WAS ALLOWED TO BE
MAINTAINED WITHOUT JOINING HIS SUPERIOR, THE DIRECTOR, WHO HAD
PROMULGATED THE REGULATION.  THAT RESULT FOLLOWED, 268 U.S. P. 230, BY
ANALOGY TO THOSE CASES WHICH PERMIT SUIT AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICIAL WHO
INVADES A PRIVATE RIGHT EITHER BY EXCEEDING HIS AUTHORITY OR BY
CARRYING OUT A MANDATE OF HIS SUPERIOR.  UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S.
196; PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 619, 620.  IN THOSE
SITUATIONS RELIEF AGAINST THE OFFENDING OFFICER COULD BE GRANTED
WITHOUT RISK THAT THE JUDGMENT AWARDED WOULD "EXPEND ITSELF ON THE
PUBLIC TREASURY OR DOMAIN, OR INTERFERE WITH THE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION."  LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731, 738. 

BUT THE DISTINCTION WE HAVE NOTED BETWEEN THESE TWO LINES OF CASES
APPARENTLY WAS NOT AS CLEAR TO OTHERS AS IT SEEMS TO US.  FOR A
CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUITS DEVELOPED IN THESE POSTAL FRAUD CASES.  FN5
NATIONAL CONFERENCE V. GOLDMAN, 85 F.2D 66, WHICH HELD THAT THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL MUST BE MADE A PARTY, SUGGESTED THAT IF HE WERE NOT,
THE LOCAL POSTMASTER WOULD BE LEFT UNDER A COMMAND OF HIS SUPERIOR TO
DO WHAT THE COURT HAS FORBIDDEN.  BUT THAT SEEMS TO US IMMATERIAL IF
THE DECREE WHICH IS ENTERED WILL EFFECTIVELY GRANT THE RELIEF DESIRED
BY EXPENDING ITSELF ON THE SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL WHO IS BEFORE THE
COURT.  IT SEEMS PLAIN IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THAT WILL BE THE RESULT
EVEN THOUGH THE LOCAL POSTMASTER ALONE IS SUED.  IT IS HE WHO REFUSES
TO PAY MONEY ORDERS, WHO PLACES THE STAMP "FRAUDULENT" ON THE MAIL, WHO
RETURNS THE MAIL TO THE SENDERS.  IF HE DESISTS IN THOSE ACTS, THE
MATTER IS AT AN END.  THAT IS ALL THE RELIEF WHICH PETITIONERS SEEK. 
THE DECREE IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE NEED NOT REQUIRE THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL TO DO A SINGLE THING - HE NEED NOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE NEW
ACTION EITHER DIRECTLY AS IN THE SMITH AND FALL CASES OR INDIRECTLY
THROUGH HIS SUBORDINATE AS IN THE RUTTER CASE.  NO CONCURRENCE ON HIS
PART IS NECESSARY TO MAKE LAWFUL THE PAYMENT OF THE MONEY ORDERS AND
THE RELEASE OF THE MAIL UNSTAMPED.  YET THAT IS ALL THE COURT IS ASKED
TO COMMAND.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE INSTANT CASE FOLLOWED ITS
EARLIER DECISIONS HOLDING THAT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL WAS AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  NEHER V. HARWOOD, 128 F.2D 846; DOLPHIN V. STARR,
130 F.2D 868.  ACCORD:  NATIONAL CONFERENCE V. GOLDMAN, 85 F.2D
66(SECOND CIRCUIT).  CONTRA:  JARVIS V. SHACKELTON INHALER CO., 136
F.2D 116(SIXTH CIRCUIT).  FOR COLLECTION AND REVIEW OF THE CASES SEE
158 A.L.R. 1126. 

FN2  JURISDICTION WAS INVOKED UNDER SEC. 24(6) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(6). 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN4  AND SEE PUBLIC CLEARING HOUSE V. COYNE, 194 U.S. 497; LEACH V.
CARLILE, 258 U.S. 138. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT. 
..END :


















AERO TRANSIT CO. V. COMM'RS, 332 U.S. 495 


NO. 39.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1947.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1947.  - 119
MONT. 118, 172 P.2D 452, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANT, A FOREIGN CORPORATION ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BY MOTOR TRUCKS AND DOING A CONTINUOUS AND
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SUCH BUSINESS IN MONTANA, CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF TWO MONTANA TAXES ON ALL INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE MOTOR CARRIERS OPERATING THERE:  (1) A FLAT TAX OF $10 FOR
EACH VEHICLE OPERATED OVER THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS; AND (2) A "GROSS
REVENUE" TAX WHICH, AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT, AMOUNTED TO AN
ADDITIONAL FLAT FEE OF $15 PER VEHICLE.  THE TAXES ARE IMPOSED
EXPRESSLY "IN CONSIDERATION OF THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE"
AND "IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER LICENSES, FEES AND TAXES IMPOSED UPON
MOTOR VEHICLES IN THIS STATE."  HELD: 

1.  AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, THE TAXES DO NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 501-507. 

2.  THIS COURT IS BOUND BY THE STATE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE TAX
STATUTE AS APPLYING ALIKE TO INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE, AND OF
"GROSS OPERATING REVENUE" AS COMPREHENDING ONLY SUCH REVENUE AS IS
DERIVED FROM APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS WITHIN MONTANA.  PP. 499-500. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAXES GO INTO THE STATE'S
GENERAL FUND, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION FOR GENERAL STATE PURPOSES, DOES
NOT RENDER THEM INVALID.  PP. 502-505. 

4.  THE TAXES ARE LEVIED AS COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS,
AND NOT ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  P. 505. 

5.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE STATE IMPOSES TWO TAXES RATHER THAN
ONE, OR THAT APPELLANT PAYS OTHER TAXES WHICH IN FACT ARE DEVOTED TO
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE.  PP. 506-507. 

AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS OF
MONTANA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA. 

A STATE COURT OF MONTANA SUSTAINED ONE OF TWO STATE TAXES AS APPLIED
TO APPELLANT, AND ENJOINED APPELLANT FROM OPERATING WITHIN THE STATE
UNTIL THE TAX WAS PAID.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA UPHELD BOTH TAXES
AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT.  119 MONT. 118, 172 P.2D 452.  AFFIRMED, P.
507. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AGAIN WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER STATE TAXES AS APPLIED TO AN
INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER RUN AFOUL OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, ART. I, SEC.
8, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

TWO DISTINCT MONTANA LEVIES ARE QUESTIONED.  BOTH ARE IMPOSED BY THAT
STATE'S MOTOR CARRIERS ACT, REV. CODES MONT. (1935) SECS. 3847.1
3847.28.  ONE IS A FLAT TAX OF $10 FOR EACH VEHICLE OPERATED BY A MOTOR
CARRIER OVER THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS, PAYABLE ON ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE
OR PERMIT, WHICH MUST BE SECURED BEFORE OPERATIONS BEGIN, AND ANNUALLY
THEREAFTER.  SEC. 3847.16(A).  FN1  THE OTHER IS A QUARTERLY FEE OF ONE
HALF OF ONE PER CENT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER'S "GROSS OPERATING REVENUE,"
BUT WITH A MINIMUM ANNUAL FEE OF $15 PER VEHICLE FOR CLASS C CARRIERS,
IN WHICH GROUP APPELLANT FALLS.  SEC. 3847.27.  FN2  EACH TAX IS
DECLARED EXPRESSLY TO BE LAID "IN CONSIDERATION OF THE USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE" AND TO BE "IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER LICENSES,
FEES AND TAXES IMPOSED UPON MOTOR VEHICLES IN THIS STATE  ...  " 

APPELLANT IS A KENTUCKY CORPORATION, WITH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICES IN
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.  ITS BUSINESS IS EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE.  IT
CONSISTS IN TRANSPORTING HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND OFFICE FURNITURE FROM
POINTS IN ONE STATE TO DESTINATIONS IN ANOTHER.  APPELLANT DOES NO
INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN MONTANA.  THE VOLUME OF ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS
THERE IS CONTINUOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL, NOT MERELY CASUAL OR OCCASIONAL. 
FN4  IT HOLDS A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO WHICH ITS BUSINESS IN
MONTANA AND ELSEWHERE IS CONDUCTED. 

IN 1935 APPELLANT RECEIVED A CLASS C PERMIT TO OPERATE OVER MONTANA
HIGHWAYS, AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.  FN5  UNTIL 1937, APPARENTLY, IT
COMPLIED WITH MONTANA REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE PAYMENT OF
REGISTRATION AND LICENSE PLATE FEES FOR ITS VEHICLES OPERATING IN
MONTANA AND OF THE 5[ PER GALLON TAX ON GASOLINE PURCHASED THERE.  FN6
HOWEVER, IN 1937 AND THEREAFTER APPELLANT REFUSED TO PAY THE FLAT $10
FEE IMPOSED BY SEC. 3847.16(A) AND THE $15 MINIMUM "GROSS REVENUE" TAX
LAID BY SEC. 3847.27.  IN CONSEQUENCE, AFTER HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE, THE APPELLEE BOARD FN7  IN 1939 REVOKED THE 1935 PERMIT AND
BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN A STATE COURT TO ENJOIN APPELLANT FROM FURTHER
OPERATIONS IN MONTANA. 

UPON APPELLANT'S CROSS-COMPLAINT, THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ORDER
RESTRAINING THE BOARD FROM ENFORCING THE "GROSS REVENUE" TAX LAID BY
SEC. 3847.27.  BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT ENJOINED APPELLANT FROM
OPERATING IN MONTANA UNTIL IT PAID THE FEES IMPOSED BY SEC.
3847.16(A).  ON APPEAL THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD BOTH TAXES
APPLICABLE TO INTERSTATE AS WELL AS INTRASTATE MOTOR CARRIERS AND
CONSTRUED THE TERM "GROSS OPERATING REVENUE" IN SEC. 3847.27 TO MEAN
"GROSS REVENUE DERIVED FROM OPERATIONS IN MONTANA."  N8  IT THEN
SUSTAINED BOTH TAXES AS AGAINST APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS,
STATE AND FEDERAL.  ACCORDINGLY, IT REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT
INSOFAR AS THE "GROSS REVENUE" TAX HAD BEEN HELD INVALID, BUT AFFIRMED
THE DECISION RELATING TO THE FLAT $10 TAX.  119 MONT. 118, 172 P.2D
452. 

WE PUT ASIDE AT THE START APPELLANT'S SUGGESTION THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF MONTANA HAS MISCONSTRUED THE STATE STATUTES AND THEREFORE THAT
WE SHOULD CONSIDER THEM, FOR PURPOSES OF OUR LIMITED FUNCTION,
ACCORDING TO APPELLANT'S VIEW OF THEIR LITERAL IMPORT.  THE RULE IS TOO
WELL SETTLED TO PERMIT OF QUESTION THAT THIS COURT NOT ONLY ACCEPTS BUT
IS BOUND BY THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO STATE STATUTES BY THE STATE
COURTS.  FN9  ACCORDINGLY, WE ACCEPT THE STATE COURT'S RULINGS, INSOFAR
AS THEY ARE MATERIAL, THAT THE TWO SECTIONS APPLY ALIKE TO INTERSTATE
AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE AND THAT "GROSS OPERATING REVENUE" AS EMPLOYED
IN SEC. 3847.27 COMPREHENDS ONLY SUCH REVENUE DERIVED FROM APPELLANT'S
OPERATIONS WITHIN MONTANA, NOT OUTSIDE THAT STATE.  FN10 

MOREOVER, SINCE MONTANA HAS NOT DEMANDED OR SOUGHT TO ENFORCE PAYMENT
BY APPELLANT OF MORE THAN THE FLAT $15 MINIMUM FEE FOR CLASS C CARRIERS
UNDER SEC. 3847.27,  FN11  WE LIMIT OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE SO-CALLED
"GROSS REVENUE" TAX TO THAT FEE.  THIS TOO IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STATE SUPREME COURT'S DECLARATION:  "EVEN IF IT BE ADMITTED THAT THE
MANNER OF ARRIVING AT A SOUND BASIS UPON WHICH THE TAX ON GROSS REVENUE
(SHOULD BE CALCULATED) IS NOT PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE, A CONTENTION TO
WHICH WE DO NOT AGREE, NO DIFFICULTY WOULD ARISE IN PUTTING INTO EFFECT
THE MINIMUM FEE OF $15.00 REQUIRED FOR EACH COMPANY VEHICLE OPERATED
WITHIN THE STATE."  FN12 ALTHOUGH THE STATE COURT DID NOT CONCEDE THAT
THE STATUTE COMPREHENDED NO WORKABLE OR SOUND BASIS FOR CALCULATING THE
TAX ABOVE THE MINIMUM, WE TAKE THIS STATEMENT AS A CLEAR DECLARATION
THAT IT WOULD SUSTAIN THE MINIMUM CHARGE EVEN IF FOR SOME REASON THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX ABOVE THE MINIMUM WOULD HAVE TO FALL. 

WITH THE ISSUES THUS NARROWED, WE HAVE, IN EFFECT, TWO FLAT TAXES,
ONE FOR $10, THE OTHER FOR $15, PAYABLE ANNUALLY UPON EACH VEHICLE
OPERATED ON MONTANA HIGHWAYS IN THE COURSE OF APPELLANT'S BUSINESS,
WITH EACH TAX EXPRESSLY DECLARED TO BE IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHERS AND TO
BE IMPOSED "IN CONSIDERATION OF THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS
STATE." 

NEITHER EXACTION DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  EACH
APPLIES ALIKE TO LOCAL AND INTERSTATE OPERATIONS.  NEITHER UNDERTAKES
TO TAX TRAFFIC OR MOVEMENTS TAKING PLACE OUTSIDE MONTANA OR THE GROSS
RETURNS FROM SUCH MOVEMENTS OR TO USE SUCH RETURNS AS A MEASURE OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX.  BOTH LEVIES APPLY EXCLUSIVELY TO OPERATIONS WHOLLY
WITHIN THE STATE OR THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH OPERATIONS, ALTHOUGH THOSE
OPERATIONS ARE INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER. 

MOREOVER, IT IS NOT MATERIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF EITHER TAX THAT THE
STATE ALSO IMPOSES AND COLLECTS THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSE
FEE AND THE GALLONAGE TAX ON GASOLINE PURCHASED IN MONTANA.  THE
VALIDITY OF THOSE TAXES NEITHER IS QUESTIONED NOR WELL COULD BE.
HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610; AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N,
295 U.S. 285; SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S. 506; EDELMAN V.
BOEING AIR TRANSP., 289 U.S. 249.  NOR DOES THEIR EXACTION HAVE ANY
SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAXES NOW IN
QUESTION.  DIXIE OHIO CO. V. COMM'N, 306 U.S. 72, 78; INTERSTATE BUSSES
CORP. V. BLODGETT, 276 U.S. 245, 251.  THEY ARE IMPOSED FOR DISTINCT
PURPOSES AND THE PROCEEDS, AS APPELLANT CONCEDES, ARE DEVOTED TO
DIFFERENT USES, NAMELY, THE POLICING OF MOTOR TRAFFIC AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS.  FN13 

CONCEDEDLY THE PROCEEDS OF THE TWO TAXES PRESENTLY INVOLVED ARE NOT
ALLOCATED TO THOSE OBJECTS.  FN14  RATHER THEY NOW GO INTO THE STATE'S
GENERAL FUND, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION FOR GENERAL STATE PURPOSES. 
FN15  INDEED THIS FACT, IN APPELLANT'S VIEW, IS THE VICE OF THE
STATUTE.  BUT IN THAT VIEW APPELLANT MISCONCEIVES THE NATURE AND LEGAL
EFFECT OF THE EXACTIONS.  IT IS FAR TOO LATE TO QUESTION THAT A STATE,
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, MAY LAY UPON MOTOR VEHICLES
ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR UPON THOSE WHO OWN AND
SO OPERATE THEM, A FAIR AND REASONABLE NONDISCRIMINATORY TAX AS
COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS.  HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, SUPRA;
CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554; AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, SUPRA;
MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407; DIXIE OHIO CO. V. COMM'N, SUPRA; CLARK
V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583; CF. S.C. HWY.  DEPT.  V. BARNWELL
BROS., 303 U.S. 177.  MOREOVER "COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE, WHO MAKE THE
HIGHWAYS THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS, MAY PROPERLY BE CHARGED AN EXTRA TAX
FOR SUCH USE."  CLARK V. POOR, SUPRA AT 557. 

THE PRESENT TAXES ON THEIR FACE ARE EXACTED "IN CONSIDERATION OF THE
USE OF THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE," THAT IS, THEY ARE LAID FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING THOSE HIGHWAYS.  AND THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE TWO
TAXES TAKEN TOGETHER IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF SIMILAR TAXES THIS
COURT HAS HERETOFORE SUSTAINED.  CF. DIXIE OHIO CO. V. COMM'N, SUPRA;
AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, SUPRA.  THE STATE BUILDS THE
HIGHWAYS AND OWNS THEM.  FN16  MOTOR CARRIERS FOR HIRE, AND
PARTICULARLY TRUCKERS OF HEAVY GOODS, LIKE APPELLANT, MAKE ESPECIALLY
ARDUOUS USE OF ROADWAYS, ENTAILING WEAR AND TEAR MUCH BEYOND THAT
RESULTING FROM GENERAL INDISCRIMINATE PUBLIC USE.  MORF V. BINGAMAN,
SUPRA AT 411.  ALTHOUGH THE STATE MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OR
EXCLUDE SUCH INTERSTATE TRAFFIC GENERALLY IN THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS,
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THOSE
FACILITIES TO IT FREE OF CHARGE OR INDEED ON EQUAL TERMS WITH OTHER
TRAFFIC NOT INFLICTING SIMILAR DESTRUCTIVE EFFECTS.  CF. CLARK V. POOR,
SUPRA; MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA AT 411.  INTERSTATE TRAFFIC EQUALLY WITH
INTRASTATE MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY A FAIR SHARE OF THE COST AND
MAINTENANCE REASONABLY RELATED TO THE USE MADE OF THE HIGHWAYS. 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN, AS APPELLANT SEEMS TO ASSUME, THAT THE PROCEEDS
OF ALL TAXES LEVIED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE HIGHWAYS MUST BE
ALLOCATED DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO MAINTAINING THEM.  CLARK V. POOR,
SUPRA AT 557; MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA AT 412.  THAT IS TRUE, ALTHOUGH
THIS COURT HAS HELD INVALID, AS FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE,
CERTAIN STATE TAXES ON INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS BECAUSE LAID "NOT AS
COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS BUT FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING
THE INTERSTATE BUS BUSINESS."  INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY, 283
U.S. 183, 186; CF. MCCARROLL V. DIXIE LINES, 309 U.S. 176, 179.  THOSE
CASES DID NOT HOLD THAT ALL STATE EXACTIONS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING
THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS ARE VALID ONLY IF THEIR PROCEEDS ARE REQUIRED TO
GO DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE, POLICING AND
ADMINISTRATION.  BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE INTERSTATE TRANSIT DECISION
THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED STATE TAXES EXPRESSLY LAID ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
USING THE HIGHWAYS, AS APPLIED TO INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS, DECLARING
IN EACH INSTANCE THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE PROCEEDS ARE
ALLOCATED TO HIGHWAY USES OR OTHERS.  CLARK V. POOR, SUPRA AT 557; MORF
V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA AT 412.  FN17 

APPELLANT THEREFORE CONFUSES A TAX "ASSESSED FOR A PROPER PURPOSE AND
...  NOT OBJECTIONABLE IN AMOUNT," CLARK V. POOR, SUPRA AT 557, THAT
IS, A TAX AFFIRMATIVELY LAID FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE STATE'S
HIGHWAYS, WITH A TAX NOT IMPOSED ON THAT PRIVILEGE BUT UPON SOME OTHER
SUCH AS THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THOUGH
NECESSARILY RELATED, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF INTERSTATE MOTOR TRAFFIC,
THE TWO PRIVILEGES ARE NOT IDENTICAL, AND IT IS USELESS TO CONFUSE THEM
OR TO CONFOUND A TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE HIGHWAYS WITH ONE
THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH ARE NECESSARILY DEVOTED TO MAINTAINING THEM. 
WHETHER THE PROCEEDS OF A TAX ARE USED OR REQUIRED TO BE USED FOR
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE "MAY BE OF SIGNIFICANCE," AS THE COURT HAS SAID,
"WHEN THE POINT IS OTHERWISE IN DOUBT, TO SHOW THAT THE FEE IS IN FACT
LAID FOR THAT PURPOSE AND IS THUS A CHARGE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING
THE HIGHWAYS.  INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY, SUPRA.  BUT WHERE
THE MANNER OF THE LEVY, LIKE THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESENT STATUTE,
DEFINITELY IDENTIFIES IT AS A FEE CHARGED FOR THE GRANT OF THE
PRIVILEGE, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE STATE PLACES THE FEES COLLECTED
IN THE POCKET OUT OF WHICH IT PAYS HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE CHARGES OR IN
SOME OTHER."  MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA AT 412.  FN18 

THE EXACTIONS IN THE PRESENT CASE FALL CLEARLY WITHIN THE RULE OF
MORF V. BINGAMAN AND ITS PREDECESSORS IN AUTHORITY, AND THEREFORE, LIKE
THAT CASE, OUTSIDE THE DECISIONS IN THE INTERSTATE TRANSIT AND LIKE
CASES.  BOTH TAXES ARE LEVIED "IN CONSIDERATION OF THE USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE," THAT IS, AS COMPENSATION FOR THEIR USE, AND
BEAR ONLY ON THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THEM, NOT ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING
THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  MOREOVER, THE FLAT $10 FEE LAID BY SEC.
3847.16(A) IS FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ONE ON THE PRIVILEGE OF USE BY THE
FACT THAT "UNLIKE THE GENERAL TAX IN INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V.
LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183, THE LEVY OF WHICH WAS UNRELATED TO THE USE OF
THE HIGHWAYS, GRANT OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THEIR USE IS BY THE PRESENT
STATUTE MADE CONDITIONAL UPON PAYMENT OF THE FEE."  MORF V. BINGAMAN,
SUPRA AT 410. 

THE MINIMUM SO-CALLED "GROSS REVENUE" FEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS
TECHNICALLY CONDITIONED ON THE RECEIPT OF SUCH REVENUE FROM THE
OPERATIONS WITHIN MONTANA.  BUT THE FLAT MINIMUM OF $15 ANNUALLY, WHICH
IS ALL WE HAVE BEFORE US IN THE SHAPE THE CASE HAS TAKEN FOR THE
PURPOSES OF DECISION HERE, HAS NONE OF THE ALLEGED VICES CHARACTERISTIC
OF GROSS INCOME TAXES HERETOFORE HELD TO VITIATE SUCH TAXES LAID BY THE
STATES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AND APPELLANT HAS ADVANCED NO TENABLE
BASIS IN REBUTTAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION THAT THIS TAX TOO IS
EXACTED IN CONSIDERATION OF THE USE OF THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS, I.E., FOR
THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THEM, NOT FOR THAT OF DOING THE INTERSTATE
BUSINESS.  HERE, AS IN MORF V. BINGAMAN, "THERE IS AMPLE SUPPORT FOR A
LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THIS TRAFFIC
INVOLVES A SPECIAL TYPE OF USE OF THE HIGHWAYS," WITH ENHANCED WEAR,
TEAR AND HAZARDS LAYING HEAVIER BURDENS ON THE STATE FOR MAINTENANCE
AND POLICING THAN OTHER TYPES OF TRAFFIC CREATE.  298 U.S. 407, 411. 
IT IS TO COMPENSATE FOR THESE BURDENS THAT THE TAXES ARE IMPOSED, AND
APPELLANT HAS NOT SUSTAINED ITS BURDEN, CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., SUPRA
AT 599, AND AUTHORITIES CITED, OF SHOWING THAT THE LEVIES HAVE NO
REASONABLE RELATION TO THAT END.  FN19 

IT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE THAT THE STATE HAS SEEN FIT TO LAY TWO
EXACTIONS, SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL, RATHER THAN COMBINE THEM INTO ONE,
OR THAT APPELLANT PAYS OTHER TAXES WHICH IN FACT ARE DEVOTED TO HIGHWAY
MAINTENANCE.  FOR THE STATE DOES NOT EXCEED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS
BY IMPOSING MORE THAN ONE FORM OF TAX.  INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V.
BLODGETT, SUPRA; DIXIE OHIO CO. V. COMM'N, SUPRA.  AND, AS WE HAVE
SAID, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF BOTH TAXES COMBINED IS LESS THAN THAT OF
TAXES HERETOFORE SUSTAINED.  IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THERE IS NOT EVEN
SEMBLANCE OF SUBSTANCE TO APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE TAXES ARE
EXCESSIVE. 

NEITHER IS THERE MERIT IN ITS OTHER ARGUMENTS, WHICH WE HAVE
CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THOSE URGING DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
GROUNDS FOR INVALIDATING THE LEVIES. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE SECTION WAS ENACTED ORIGINALLY AS MONT. LAWS, 1931, C. 184,
SEC. 16.  TEXTUALLY IT IS AS FOLLOWS:  "(A) IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THE
LICENSES, FEES OR TAXES IMPOSED UPON MOTOR VEHICLES IN THIS STATE, AND
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE USE OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE, EVERY
MOTOR CARRIER, AS DEFINED IN THIS ACT, SHALL, AT THE TIME OF THE
ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, ON OR BETWEEN THE
FIRST DAY OF JULY AND THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY, OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR,
PAY TO THE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS OF THE STATE OF MONTANA THE
SUM OF TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), FOR EVERY MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATED BY THE
CARRIER OVER OR UPON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE.  ...  " 

IN FURTHER RELATION TO ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT, SEE NOTE 5. 

FN2  THIS SECTION ORIGINALLY WAS MONT. LAWS, 1935, C. 100, SEC. 2. 
IT READS AS FOLLOWS:  "IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER LICENSES, FEES AND
TAXES IMPOSED UPON MOTOR VEHICLES IN THIS STATE AND IN CONSIDERATION OF
THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE, EVERY MOTOR CARRIER HOLDING A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, SHALL BETWEEN THE FIRST AND FIFTEENTH DAYS OF
JANUARY, APRIL, JULY AND OCTOBER OF EACH YEAR, FILE WITH THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION A STATEMENT SHOWING THE GROSS OPERATING REVENUE OF
SUCH CARRIER FOR THE PRECEDING THREE MONTHS OF OPERATION, OR PORTION
THEREOF, AND SHALL PAY TO THE BOARD A FEE OF ONE-HALF OF ONE PER CENT
OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH GROSS OPERATING REVENUE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
THE MINIMUM ANNUAL FEE WHICH SHALL BE PAID BY EACH CLASS A AND CLASS B
CARRIER FOR EACH VEHICLE REGISTERED AND/OR OPERATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT SHALL BE THIRTY DOLLARS ($30.00)
AND THE MINIMUM ANNUAL FEE WHICH SHALL BE PAID BY EACH CLASS C CARRIER
FOR EACH VEHICLE REGISTERED AND/OR OPERATED UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT
SHALL BE FIFTEEN DOLLARS ($15.00)." 

THE THREE CLASSES OF CARRIERS. 

PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1941, THE FEES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO SECS.
3847.16(A) AND 3847.27 WERE PAID INTO THE STATE TREASURY AND CREDITED
TO "THE MOTOR CARRIER FUND."  FN3  AFTER THAT DATE, BY VIRTUE OF MONT.
LAWS, 1941, C. 14, SEC. 2, THEY WERE ALLOCATED TO THE STATE'S GENERAL
FUND. 

FN3  THE MONEYS IN THE MOTOR CARRIER FUND WERE SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION FOR USE IN SUPERVISION AND REGULATION OF MANY ACTIVITIES
OTHER THAN THOSE CONNECTED WITH THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.  SEE REV. CODES
MONT. (1935), SECS. 3847.17, 3847.28; AND CF. NOTE 13. 

FN4  APPELLANT'S ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT SET FORTH STATISTICS
CONCERNING ITS USE OF MONTANA HIGHWAYS DURING THE YEARS 1937, 1938 AND
1939.  THE FIGURES SHOW APPELLANT'S EQUIPMENT OPERATING ON MONTANA
HIGHWAYS DURING 227 DAYS IN 1937; 385 TRUCKING DAYS IN 1938; AND 405
TRUCKING DAYS IN 1939.  SEE ALSO NOTE 6. 

FN5  THE STATUTE WAS MONT. LAWS, 1931, C. 184, SEC. 23, NOW REV.
CODES MONT. (1935), SEC. 3847.23.  THE SECTION APPLIED THE ACT OF WHICH
IT WAS A PART TO INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE "INSOFAR AS SUCH
APPLICATION MAY BE PERMITTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF" THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, TREATIES AND ACTS OF CONGRESS, BUT EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED
INTERSTATE CARRIERS FROM MAKING "ANY SHOWING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY" IN ORDER TO SECURE THE CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT. 

FN6  THESE TAXES WERE IMPOSED SEPARATELY FROM THE TWO INVOLVED IN
THIS CASE.  APPELLANT'S BRIEF STATES THE REGISTRATION AND LICENSE PLATE
FEES INCREASED FROM $660.50 IN 1937 TO $1,212.50 IN 1938 AND TO
$1,630.50 IN 1939.  THE GASOLINE TAX INCREASED FROM $745.30 IN 1937 TO
$1,257.90 IN 1938 AND $1,649.98 IN 1939.  THE GALLONAGE TAX, THOUGH
ULTIMATELY BORNE BY THE CONSUMER, WAS LAID ON THE SALE AND COLLECTED
FROM THE DEALER. 

FN7  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT "THE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS,"
AS USED IN SEC. 3847.16(A), AND "THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION," AS
USED IN SEC. 3847.27, DESIGNATE A SINGLE BODY, INVESTED WITH REGULATORY
POWER OVER VARIOUS PUBLIC UTILITIES IN ADDITION TO MOTOR CARRIERS,
E.G., RAILROADS, COMMON CARRIERS OF OIL, ETC.  BY REV. CODES MONT.
(1935), SEC. 3880, "THE BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS  ...  SHALL BE
EX-OFFICIO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HEREBY CREATED ...  "  THE TWO
TERMS WERE SAID BY THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE TO BE "USED
INTERCHANGEABLY."  119 MONT. 118, 136, 172 P.2D 452, 461. 

FN8  THIS JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION WAS EMBODIED IN AN AMENDMENT TO THE

FN9  LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER, 329 U.S. 459; HUDDLESTON
V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232; MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT, 309 U.S. 270;
MOREHEAD V. N.Y. EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587; CF. ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

FN10  ACTING NOT ONLY IN THE VIEW THAT STATUTES ARE PRESUMPTIVELY
CONSTITUTIONAL AND, IF NECESSARY, ARE TO BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO MAKE
THEM SO, THE COURT NOTED THAT SEC. 3847.16(B) EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT,
WHEN SERVICE "IS RENDERED PARTLY IN THIS STATE AND PARTLY IN AN
ADJOINING STATE OR FOREIGN COUNTRY," CARRIERS "SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT" CONCERNING "PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION" AND MAKING
REPORTS BY SHOWING "THE TOTAL BUSINESS PERFORMED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
THIS STATE."  ACCORDINGLY IT HELD THAT SECS. 3847.27 AND 3847.16 SHOULD
BE READ TOGETHER AND THE LIMITATION OF SEC. 3847.16(B) "WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF THIS STATE" THUS BECAME A PART OF SEC. 3847.27 AS WELL AS
SEC. 3847.16(A).  119 MONT. 118, 134, 172 P.2D 452, 460. 

FN11  APPELLANT'S VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, WHEATING,
TESTIFIED THAT FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING SEC. 3847.27 HE HAD CALCULATED,
FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1939 THROUGH 1942, "THE (GROSS) INCOME FOR THAT
OPERATION OF THE LOAD MILES OPERATED IN MONTANA BY USING AN AVERAGE
INCOME PER MILE FIGURE BASED UPON THE PROBABLE LOAD FACTOR WE WOULD
HAVE HAD IN MONTANA."  ON THIS BASIS THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX AS
CALCULATED AT ONE-HALF OF ONE PER CENT QUARTERLY WAS SUBSTANTIALLY
BELOW THE STATUTORY MINIMUM FOR EACH OF THE FOUR YEARS.  SEE NOTE 19. 
THESE FIGURES APPARENTLY WERE REPORTED TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD AS
THE BASIS FOR ITS DEMANDS UPON THE TAXPAYER FOR THE FLAT $15 MINIMUM
ANNUAL TAX. 

FN12  119 MONT. 118, 134, 172 P.2D 452, 460.  APPELLANT HAD ARGUED,
AS IT DOES HERE, THAT EVEN IF THE "GROSS REVENUE" TAX IS LIMITED TO
REVENUE DERIVED FROM OPERATIONS IN MONTANA, IT IS NEVERTHELESS INVALID
FOR WANT OF ANY PRESCRIBED METHOD ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE FOR
ASCERTAINING OR CALCULATING THE TAX.  THE STATE COURT HELD THAT THE
STATUTE BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION AUTHORIZED THE BOARD TO "ADOPT ANY
FAIR AND REASONABLE MODE OF ENFORCEMENT DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT."  119 MONT. 118, 135, 172 P.2D 452, 461.  IN VIEW
OF OUR LIMITATION OF THE QUESTION BEFORE US, AS STATED IN THE TEXT, WE
NEED NOT EXPRESS OPINION CONCERNING THIS RULING OR ANY TAX ABOVE THE
MINIMUM CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IT.  CF. NOTE 11. 

IN ANOTHER CONNECTION THE STATE SUPREME COURT ADVERTED TO THE
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE CONTAINED IN SEC. 3847.24 OF THE STATUTE, THOUGH
NOT REFERRING TO IT EXPRESSLY IN RELATION TO THE STATEMENT QUOTED IN
THE TEXT. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 6 AND TEXT.  IT IS ADMITTED BY THE PLEADINGS THAT THE
PROCEEDS OF THE VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSE TAX AND THE GALLONAGE
TAX ARE ALLOCATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF STATE
HIGHWAYS. 

FN14  THE BOARD CONCEDES IN THE BRIEF FILED HERE THAT THE STATE
SUPREME COURT WAS IN ERROR IN THE STATEMENT THAT THE REVENUE FROM THE
TWO TAXES PRESENTLY IN ISSUE "IS DEVOTED TO THE BUILDING, REPAIRING AND
POLICING OF SUCH HIGHWAYS  ...  "  119 MONT. 118, 138, 172 P.2D 452,
462. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 3 AND TEXT. 

FN16  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE STATE RECEIVES FEDERAL AID FOR STATE
ROAD CONSTRUCTION, A FACT ON WHICH APPELLANT PLACES SOME EMPHASIS. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 18 INFRA AND TEXT. 

FN18  IN CLARK V. POOR, THE COURT STATED:  "SINCE THE TAX IS ASSESSED
FOR A PROPER PURPOSE AND IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE IN AMOUNT, THE USE TO
WHICH THE PROCEEDS ARE PUT IS NOT A MATTER WHICH CONCERNS THE
PLAINTIFFS."  274 U.S. 554, 557. 

FN19  APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THE $15 MINIMUM FEE IS UNREASONABLE SINCE
IT IS ROUGHLY TEN TIMES GREATER THAN THE TAX THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IF
THE PERCENTAGE STANDARD PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE WERE APPLIED.  TO
ACCEPT APPELLANT'S POSITION WOULD MEAN THAT A STATE COULD NEVER IMPOSE
A MINIMUM FEE, BUT WOULD HAVE TO ADJUST ITS TAXES TO THE INEVITABLE
VARIATIONS IN THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS MADE BY VARIOUS CARRIERS.  THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE STATE TO ELABORATE A SYSTEM
OF MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION WHICH WILL REFLECT WITH EXACT PRECISION EVERY
GRADATION IN USE.  IN RETURN FOR THE $15 FEE APPELLANT CAN DO BUSINESS
GROSSING $3,000 PER VEHICLE ANNUALLY FOR OPERATIONS ON MONTANA ROADS. 
APPELLANT WAS NOT WRONGED BY ITS FAILURE TO MAKE THE FULL USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS PERMITTED.  AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285;
MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407; CF. KANE V. NEW JERSEY, 242 U.S. 160. 
..END :























COX V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 442 


ARGUED OCTOBER 14-15, 1947.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 24, 1947.  - 157 F.2D
787, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONERS, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WERE CONVICTED IN PROSECUTIONS FOR
ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE FROM A CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE CAMP, IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  THE
DEFENSE IN EACH CASE WAS THAT THE LOCAL BOARD'S CLASSIFICATION OF THE
PETITIONER AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR RATHER THAN AS AN EXEMPT
MINISTER OF RELIGION WAS INVALID.  HELD: 

1.  JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE
CONVICTIONS ARE HERE AFFIRMED.  PP. 443-444, 455. 

2.  HAVING EXHAUSTED THEIR REMEDIES IN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCESS
AND COMPLIED WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS TO REPORT TO CAMP,
PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THEIR
CLASSIFICATIONS IN THEIR CRIMINAL TRIALS FOR ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE.  P.
448. 

3.  THE LOCAL BOARDS' DENIAL TO THE DEFENDANTS OF THE CLASSIFICATION
OF MINISTER OF RELIGION IS FINAL UNLESS IT IS WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT. 
PP. 448-452. 

4.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LOCAL BOARDS' DENIAL TO THE DEFENDANTS
OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF MINISTER OF RELIGION WAS WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT
IS A QUESTION OF LAW FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COURT.  PP. 452-453. 

5.  IN THE CRIMINAL TRIALS, REVIEW OF THE LOCAL BOARDS'
CLASSIFICATIONS WAS PROPERLY LIMITED TO THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS BEFORE
THE BOARDS AND UPON WHICH THEY ACTED.  PP. 453-455. 

COX V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 66.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 67, THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, AND NO. 68, ROISUM
V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VIOLATING THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  THE CONVICTIONS WERE
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  157 F.2D 787.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 801.  AFFIRMED, P. 455. 

MR. JUSTICE REED ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND DELIVERED AN
OPINION IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, AND MR.
JUSTICE BURTON JOIN. 

THESE CASES PRESENT THE QUESTION OF THE SCOPE OF REVIEW OF A
SELECTIVE SERVICE CLASSIFICATION IN A TRIAL FOR ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
FROM A CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE CAMP.  PETITIONERS ARE JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES WHO WERE CLASSIFIED AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS DESPITE THEIR
CLAIM TO CLASSIFICATION AS MINISTERS OF RELIGION.  MINISTERS ARE EXEMPT
FROM MILITARY AND OTHER SERVICE UNDER THE ACT.  ALL THREE PETITIONERS
EXHAUSTED THEIR REMEDIES IN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCESS AND COMPLIED
WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOCAL BOARD DIRECTING THEM TO REPORT TO CAMP. 
COX AND THOMPSON WERE INDICTED FOR LEAVING THE CAMP WITHOUT PERMISSION,
AND ROISUM WAS INDICTED FOR FAILING TO RETURN AFTER PROPER LEAVE, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940.  54 STAT. 885, 57 STAT. 597, 50 U.S.C. APPENDIX SECS. 301-318. 

ON THEIR TRIALS PETITIONERS REQUESTED DIRECTED VERDICTS, AT
APPROPRIATE TIMES, BECAUSE THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ORDERS WERE INVALID
AND REQUESTED THE COURT TO CHARGE THE JURY THAT THEY ACQUIT PETITIONERS
IF THEY FOUND THAT THEY WERE MINISTERS OF RELIGION AND THEREFORE EXEMPT
FROM ALL SERVICE.  THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT GRANT PETITIONERS' REQUESTS,
HOWEVER, AND INSTRUCTED THE JURIES THAT THEY WERE NOT TO CONCERN
THEMSELVES WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE CLASSIFICATION ORDERS.  PETITIONERS
WERE CONVICTED, AND ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THEIR
CONVICTIONS WERE AFFIRMED.  157 F.2D 787.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN
ORDER TO RESOLVE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SUBMISSION TO THE JURY OF
EVIDENCE, TO WIT, THE FILES OF THE LOCAL BOARD OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE
SYSTEM, AS RELEVANT TO THE CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF SELECTIVE SERVICE
ORDERS.  331 U.S. 801. 

PETITIONER COX REGISTERED UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT ON OCTOBER 16, 1940, AND IN HIS QUESTION-NAIRE STATED THAT HE WAS
22 YEARS OLD AND HAD BEEN EMPLOYED AS A TRUCK DRIVER SINCE 1936.  THE
LOCAL BOARD CLASSIFIED HIM IV-F, AS NOT PHYSICALLY FIT FOR SERVICE, ON
JANUARY 31, 1941, AND ON MARCH 10, 1942, CHANGED THE CLASSIFICATION TO
I-A.  TEN DAYS LATER COX FILED A REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION AS IV-E
(CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR), STATING THAT HE HAD BECOME A JEHOVAH'S
WITNESS IN JANUARY 1942.  THE BOARD AT FIRST REJECTED THE CLAIM, BUT ON
JUNE 12 OF THE SAME YEAR GRANTED HIM THE REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION.  TEN
DAYS LATER PETITIONER FIRST MADE HIS CLAIM FOR TOTAL EXEMPTION FROM
SERVICE, CLAIMING TO BE A MINISTER OF RELIGION; THE LOCAL BOARD REFUSED
THE EXEMPTION AND ITS ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE BOARD OF APPEAL.  ON
MAY 18, 1944, THE BOARD ORDERED COX TO REPORT TO CAMP, AND ON MAY 26 HE
COMPLIED AND THEN IMMEDIATELY LEFT CAMP AND DID NOT RETURN. 

UPON TRIAL COX'S SELECTIVE SERVICE FILE WAS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.  IT
CONTAINED AN ORDINATION CERTIFICATE FROM THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND
TRACT SOCIETY STATING THAT COX WAS "A DULY ORDAINED MINISTER OF THE
GOSPEL" AND THAT HIS "ENTIRE TIME" WAS DEVOTED TO MISSIONARY WORK.  THE
FILE ALSO CONTAINED AN AFFIDAVIT OF A COMPANY SERVANT, COX'S CHURCH
SUPERIOR, DATED OCTOBER 29, 1942, STATING THAT COX "REGULARLY AND
CUSTOMARILY SERVES AS A MINISTER BY GOING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE AND
CONDUCTING BIBLE STUDIES AND BIBLE TALKS."  THERE WAS ALSO AN AFFIDAVIT
BY COX, DATED OCTOBER 28, 1942, STATING THAT HE WAS ENROLLED IN THE
"PIONEER SERVICE" ON OCTOBER 16 AND THAT HE WAS "ABLE TO AVERAGE 150
HOURS PER MONTH TO MY MINISTERIAL DUTIES WITHOUT SECULAR WORK."  HE
ADDED THAT "MY ENTIRE TIME WILL BE DEVOTED TO PREACHING THE GOSPEL AS A
PIONEER."  COX TESTIFIED AT THE TRIAL IN OCTOBER 1944 AS TO HIS DUTIES
AS A MINISTER THAT HE PREACHED FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE, CONDUCTED FUNERALS,
AND "INSTRUCTED THE BIBLE" IN HOMES.  NO EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED
SHOWING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TIME COX HAD SPENT IN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES
SINCE OCTOBER 16, 1942.  NOR WAS THERE EVIDENCE OF THE SECULAR
ACTIVITIES OF COX NOR THE TIME EMPLOYED IN THEM.  ALTHOUGH THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE FILE WAS INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE, AND THE TRIAL COURT
DENIED THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
TRIAL JUDGE EXAMINED THE FILE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE
LOCAL BOARD WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS OR WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT.  AT
THAT TIME THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS INTERPRETED FALBO V. UNITED STATES,
320 U.S. 549, AS MEANING THAT NO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ANY SORT COULD BE
HAD OF A SELECTIVE SERVICE ORDER.  IN ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S.
114, WE HELD THAT A LIMITED REVIEW COULD BE OBTAINED IF THE REGISTRANT
HAD EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT DECISION REVIEWED THE FILE OF COX AND
FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS "SUBSTANTIALLY IN SUPPORT" OF THE
CLASSIFICATION FOUND BY THE BOARD. 

PETITIONER THOMPSON ALSO REGISTERED ON OCTOBER 16, 1940, CLAIMING
EXEMPTION AS A MINISTER.  HE STATED IN HIS QUESTIONNAIRE THAT HE WAS 30
YEARS OLD AND THAT FOR THE PAST 13 YEARS HE HAD OPERATED A GROCERY
STORE AND HAD BEEN A MINISTER SINCE AUGUST 1, 1940.  AT FIRST THE LOCAL
BOARD GAVE HIM A DEFERRED CLASSIFICATION BECAUSE OF DEPENDENCY, BUT
THEN CHANGED HIS CLASSIFICATION TO IV-E.  THOMPSON APPEALED TO THE
BOARD OF APPEAL ON NOVEMBER 5, 1943, EXPLAINING HIS DUTIES AS A
MINISTER AND PRESENTING A FULL STATEMENT OF HIS ARGUMENT THAT AS A
COLPORTEUR HE WAS WITHIN THE EXEMPTION FOR MINISTERS AS INTERPRETED BY
SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS.  HE ATTACHED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE
COMPANY SERVANT, WHICH STATED THAT THOMPSON DURING THE PRECEDING TWELVE
MONTHS HAD DEVOTED 519 1/2 HOURS TO "FIELD SERVICE," REPRESENTING TIME
SPENT IN GOING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE, AND MAKING "BACK-CALLS ON THE
PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL," BUT NOT INCLUDING TIME SPENT IN CONDUCTING
STUDIES AT THE "LOCAL KINGDOM HALL."  ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT FROM THE
COMPANY SERVANT STATED THAT THOMPSON WAS AN ORDAINED MINISTER OF THE
GOSPEL, THAT HE WAS SERVING AS ASSISTANT COMPANY SERVANT, AND THAT HE
WAS A "SCHOOL INSTRUCTOR IN A COURSE IN THEOCRATIC MINISTRY."  THOMPSON
ALSO ATTACHED THREE CERTIFICATES FROM THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS OF THE
WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY WHICH STATED THAT THOMPSON HAD BEEN
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOCIETY SINCE 1941, THAT HE SERVED AS ASSISTANT
COMPANY SERVANT AND THEOCRATIC MINISTRY INSTRUCTOR, AND ALSO AS
ADVERTISING SERVANT AND BOOK STUDY CONDUCTOR.  UNLIKE THE OTHER TWO
PETITIONERS, THOMPSON DID NOT INTRODUCE AN ORDINATION CERTIFICATION
FROM NATIONAL HEAD-QUARTERS STATING THAT HE DEVOTED HIS ENTIRE TIME AS
A MINISTER.  THOMPSON ALSO FILED A STATEMENT SIGNED BY TWELVE WITNESSES
WHICH STATED THAT THEY REGARDED THOMPSON AS AN ORDAINED MINISTER OF THE
GOSPEL.  NO EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED INDICATING ANY CHANGE IN THOMPSON'S
ACTIVITIES IN OPERATING HIS GROCERY STORE.  THE BOARD OF APPEAL
SUSTAINED THE LOCAL BOARD IN ITS CLASSIFICATION, THE BOARD ORDERED
THOMPSON TO REPORT TO CAMP, AND ON APRIL 18, 1944, HE REPORTED AND
IMMEDIATELY LEFT.  THOMPSON'S TRIAL FOLLOWED THE SAME PATTERN AS COX'S,
EXCEPT THAT THOMPSON WAS NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY CONCERNING HIS DUTIES
AS A MINISTER. 

PETITIONER ROISUM ALSO REGISTERED ON THE INITIAL REGISTRATION DAY,
AND FILED A QUESTIONNAIRE STATING THAT HE WAS 22 YEARS OLD, THAT HE HAD
WORKED FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS AS A FARMER, AND THAT HE WAS ORDAINED AS A
MINISTER IN JUNE 1940.  ROISUM MADE CLAIM TO A MINISTER'S EXEMPTION BUT
AT THE SAME TIME SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY HIS FATHER SAYING
THAT PETITIONER WAS NECESSARY TO THE OPERATION OF HIS FATHER'S FARM. 
IN JUNE 1942 ROISUM FILED A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR'S FORM CLAIMING
EXEMPTION FROM BOTH COMBATANT AND NON-COMBATANT MILITARY SERVICE; THIS
FORM WAS APPARENTLY FILED UNDER MISAPPREHENSION, SINCE ROISUM DID NOT
ABANDON HIS CONTENTION THAT HE SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A MINISTER.  IN
THE FORM HE STATED THAT HE PREACHED THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM AT EVERY
OPPORTUNITY.  ROISUM ALSO ENCLOSED A LETTER FROM NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
OF THE SOCIETY STATING THAT ROISUM HAD BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE SOCIETY
SINCE 1936, THAT HE HAD BEEN BAPTIZED IN 1940 AND "WAS APPOINTED DIRECT
REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS ORGANIZATION TO PERFORM MISSIONARY AND
EVANGELISTIC SERVICE IN ORGANIZING AND ESTABLISHING CHURCHES AND
GENERALLY PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN DEFINITELY
ASSIGNED TERRITORY IN 1941" AND THAT ROISUM DEVOTED HIS "ENTIRE TIME"
TO MISSIONARY WORK AND WAS A DULY ORDAINED MINISTER.  THE LOCAL BOARD
CLASSIFIED ROISUM AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR TO COMBAT SERVICE (I-A
O), AND ROISUM APPEALED ON JUNE 30, 1943.  ROISUM ATTACHED AN AFFIDAVIT
FROM HIS COMPANY SERVANT STATING THAT ROISUM WAS AN ASSISTANT COMPANY
SERVANT, A BACK CALL SERVANT, AND BOOK STUDY CONDUCTOR, AND THAT BY
PERFORMANCE OF THESE DUTIES ROISUM HAD ACQUITTED HIMSELF AS A "REGULAR
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL."  THE COMPANY SERVANT SUBMITTED A SCHEDULE
SHOWING THE NUMBER OF HOURS WHICH ROISUM HAD SPENT IN RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITIES FOR SIX MONTHS FROM OCTOBER 1942 TO MARCH 1943, RANGING FROM
AS LITTLE AS 11 HOURS PER MONTH TO AS MANY AS 69, AVERAGING ABOUT 40. 
THE BOARD OF APPEAL CHANGED THE CLASSIFICATION TO IV-E AND REJECTED
ROISUM'S REQUEST THAT AN APPEAL BE TAKEN TO THE PRESIDENT.  ROISUM WAS
ORDERED TO REPORT TO CAMP, DISOBEYED THE ORDER, AND WAS ARRESTED AND
INDICTED.  THE TRIAL COURT DECLARED A MISTRIAL ON ROISUM'S UNDERTAKING
TO OBEY THE BOARD'S ORDER AND SEEK RELEASE ON HABEAS CORPUS.  ROISUM
SUBSEQUENTLY FAILED TO COMPLY, APPARENTLY BECAUSE OF TRANSPORTATION
DIFFICULTIES, BUT FINALLY REPORTED TO CAMP ON MAY 23, 1944, AS
DIRECTED.  HE REMAINED IN CAMP FOR FIVE DAYS, LEFT ON A WEEK-END PASS,
AND NEVER RETURNED. 

UPON TRIAL ROISUM MADE NO EFFORT TO INTRODUCE NEW EVIDENCE SHOWING
THE NATURE OF HIS DUTIES AS A MINISTER.  HE DID REQUEST THE COURT TO
CHARGE THAT IF THE DECISION OF THE LOCAL BOARD ERRONEOUSLY CLASSIFIED
HIM IN IV-E THE ORDER WAS VOID AND AFTER CONVICTION HE MOVED FOR A
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE IN
HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE FILE SHOWED THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE BOARD
WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.  THE TRIAL JUDGE EXAMINED THE FILE AND
CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO GROUND TO SUPPORT ROISUM'S MOTION. 

PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF
THEIR SELECTIVE SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONS IN THIS PROCEEDING.  THEY HAVE
EXHAUSTED THEIR REMEDIES IN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCESS, AND WHATEVER
THEIR POSITION MIGHT BE IN ATTEMPTING TO RAISE THE QUESTION BY WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS AGAINST THE CAMP CUSTODIAN, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RAISE
THE ISSUE AS A DEFENSE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ABSENCE WITHOUT
LEAVE.  GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 338, 351-360.  THE SCOPE OF
REVIEW TO WHICH PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED, HOWEVER, IS LIMITED; AS WE
SAID IN ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114, 122-23:  "THE PROVISION
MAKING THE DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS 'FINAL' MEANS TO US THAT
CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO GIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNDER THIS ACT THE
CUSTOMARY SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH OBTAINS UNDER OTHER STATUTES. 
IT MEANS THAT THE COURTS ARE NOT TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE LOCAL BOARDS WAS JUSTIFIED.  THE
DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS MADE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REGULATIONS
ARE FINAL EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE ERRONEOUS.  THE QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL BOARD IS REACHED ONLY IF THERE IS NO BASIS IN
FACT FOR THE CLASSIFICATION WHICH IT GAVE THE REGISTRANT."  COMPARE
EAGLES V. UNITED STATES EX REL. SAMUELS, 329 U.S. 304, AND EAGLES V.
UNITED STATES EX REL. HOROWITZ, 329 U.S. 317, IN WHICH A SIMILAR SCOPE
OF REVIEW IS ENUNCIATED IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS BY REGISTRANTS
CLAIMING TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY INDUCTED. 

"REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF RELIGION" SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THE ACT, AND SEC. 622.44 OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE REGULATIONS DEFINES THE TERMS "REGULAR MINISTER OF RELIGION"
AND "DULY ORDAINED MINISTER OF RELIGION."  FN1  IN ORDER TO AID THE
LOCAL BOARDS IN APPLYING THE REGULATION, THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE ISSUED OPINION NO. 14(AMENDED) ON NOVEMBER 2, 1942,  FN2  WHICH
DESCRIBED THE TESTS TO BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING WHETHER JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AS MINISTERS, REGULAR OR
ORDAINED.  THE OPINION STATED THAT WITNESSES WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE
BETHEL FAMILY (PRODUCERS OF RELIGIOUS SUPPLIES) OR PIONEERS, DEVOTING
ALL OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THEIR TIME TO THE WORK OF TEACHING THE
TENETS OF THEIR RELIGION, GENERALLY WERE EXEMPT, AND APPENDED A LIST OF
CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE BETHEL FAMILY AND PIONEERS WHO WERE ENTITLED TO
THIS EXEMPTION.  NONE OF THESE WITNESSES WERE ON THE LIST.  THE OPINION
STATED THAT MEMBERS OF THE BETHEL FAMILY AND PIONEERS WHOSE NAMES DID
NOT APPEAR ON THE LIST, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER WITNESSES HOLDING OFFICIAL
TITLES IN THE ORGANIZATION, MUST BE CLASSIFIED BY THE BOARDS ACCORDING
TO THE FACTS IN EACH CASE.  THE DETERMINING CRITERIA WERE STATED TO BE
"WHETHER OR NOT THEY DEVOTE THEIR LIVES IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THE
BELIEFS OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WHETHER OR NOT THEY PERFORM FUNCTIONS
WHICH ARE NORMALLY PERFORMED BY REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF
OTHER RELIGIONS, AND, FINALLY, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE REGARDED BY
OTHER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE SAME MANNER IN WHICH REGULAR OR DULY
ORDAINED MINISTERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS ARE ORDINARILY REGARDED."  THE
OPINION FURTHER STATED THAT THE LOCAL BOARD SHOULD PLACE IN THE
REGISTRANT'S FILE "A RECORD OF ALL FACTS ENTERING INTO ITS
DETERMINATION FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS LEGALLY NECESSARY THAT THE
RECORD SHOW THE BASIS OF THE LOCAL BOARD'S DECISION." 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT SEC. 622.44 OF THE REGULATION MAKES
"ORDINATION" THE ONLY PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "REGULAR" AND A
"DULY ORDAINED MINISTER."  THIS SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH SEC. 5 OF THE
ACT.  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REGULATION CONFORMS TO THE ACT AND
THAT IT IS VALID UNDER THE RULE-MAKING POWER CONFERRED BY SEC. 10(A). 
WE AGREE, ALSO, THAT OPINION 14 FURNISHES A PROPER GUIDE TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT AND REGULATIONS. 

OUR EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, AS STATED HEREIN IN EACH CASE,
CONVINCES US THAT THE BOARD HAD ADEQUATE BASIS TO DENY TO COX, THOMPSON
AND ROISUM CLASSIFICATION AS MINISTERS, REGULAR OR ORDAINED.  WE
CONFINE OURSELVES TO THE FACTS APPEARING IN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE FILES
OF THE THREE PETITIONERS, ALTHOUGH THE ONLY DOCUMENTS DEALING WITH THE
PETITIONERS' STATUS AS MINISTERS WERE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS
THEMSELVES.  THE DOCUMENTS SHOW THAT THOMPSON AND ROISUM SPENT ONLY A
SMALL PORTION OF THEIR TIME IN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES, AND THIS FACT
ALONE, WITHOUT A FAR STRONGER SHOWING THAN IS CONTAINED IN EITHER OF
THE FILES OF THE REGISTRANTS' LEADERSHIP IN CHURCH ACTIVITIES AND THE
DEDICATION OF THEIR LIVES TO THE FURTHERANCE OF RELIGIOUS WORK, IS
SUFFICIENT FOR THE BOARD TO DENY THEM A MINISTER'S CLASSIFICATION.  AS
FOR COX, THE DOCUMENTS SUGGEST BUT DO NOT PROVE THAT COX SPENT FULL
TIME AS A "PIONEER" BETWEEN OCTOBER 1942 AND MAY 1944 WHEN HE WAS
ORDERED TO CAMP.  AS HE MADE CLAIM OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
CLASSIFICATION ONLY AFTER HE WAS RECLASSIFIED I-A FROM IV-F AND STILL
LATER CLAIMED MINISTERIAL EXEMPTION, THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN
DECIDING FROM THE AVAILABLE FACTS THAT COX HAD NOT ESTABLISHED HIS
MINISTERIAL STATUS.  THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE REASONABLY HELD THAT NOTHING
LESS THAN DEFINITE EVIDENCE OF HIS FULL DEVOTION OF HIS AVAILABLE TIME
TO RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP WOULD SUFFICE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN3
NOR MAY COX AND THOMPSON COMPLAIN THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO
PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE CLASSIFICATION ORDERS.  IF THERE WAS ERROR
OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN FAILING TO EXAMINE THE FILES OF THE BOARD TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS BASIS FOR THEIR CLASSIFICATION, IT
WAS CURED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BY THAT COURT'S EXAMINATION. 

PETITIONERS DO NOT LIMIT THEMSELVES TO THE CLAIM THAT DIRECTED
VERDICTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN THEIR FAVOR BECAUSE OF THE
INVALIDITY OF THEIR CLASSIFICATIONS AS A MATTER OF LAW; THEY CLAIM THAT
THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WITH APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS TO
THE JURY.  FN4  THE CHARGE REQUESTED BY ROISUM THAT HE BE ACQUITTED IF
THE JURY FOUND THAT HE WAS "ERRONEOUSLY" CLASSIFIED WAS IMPROPER.  IN
ESTEP V. UNITED STATES IT WAS DISTINCTLY STATED THAT MERE ERROR IN A
CLASSIFICATION WAS INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR ATTACK.  COX AND THOMPSON
REQUESTED CHARGES UNDER WHICH THE JURY WOULD DETERMINE "WHETHER OR NOT
THE DEFENDANT IS A MINISTER OF RELIGION" WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACTION
OF THE LOCAL BOARD.  WE HOLD THAT SUCH A CHARGE WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN
IMPROPER.  WHETHER THERE WAS "NO BASIS IN FACT" FOR THE CLASSIFICATION
IS NOT A QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED BY THE JURY ON AN INDEPENDENT
CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE.  THE CONCEPT OF A JURY PASSING
INDEPENDENTLY ON AN ISSUE PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE
BODY OR REVIEWING THE ACTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IS CONTRARY TO
SETTLED FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE; THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
JURY TRIAL DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A JURY PASS ON THE
VALIDITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.  YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S.
414.  ALTHOUGH WE HELD IN ESTEP THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO CUT OFF
ALL JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A SELECTIVE SERVICE ORDER, PETITIONERS HAVE FULL
PROTECTION BY HAVING THE ISSUE SUBMITTED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE
REVIEWING COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY SUBSTANTIAL BASIS
FOR THE CLASSIFICATION ORDER.  WHEN THE JUDGE DETERMINES THAT THERE WAS
A BASIS IN FACT TO SUPPORT CLASSIFICATION, THE ISSUE NEED NOT AND
SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  PERHAPS A COURT OR JURY WOULD
REACH A DIFFERENT RESULT FROM THE EVIDENCE BUT AS THE DETERMINATION OF
CLASSIFICATION IS FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE, ITS ORDER IS REVIEWABLE "ONLY
IF THERE IS NO BASIS IN FACT FOR THE CLASSIFICATION."  ESTEP V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 122.  CONSEQUENTLY WHEN A COURT FINDS A BASIS IN THE
FILE FOR THE BOARD'S ACTION THAT ACTION IS CONCLUSIVE.  THE QUESTION OF
THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT FOR TRIAL ANEW.  IT IS NOT
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF
ORDERS.  UPON THE JUDGE'S DETERMINATION THAT THE FILE SUPPORTS THE
BOARD, NOTHING IN THE FILE IS PERTINENT TO ANY ISSUE PROPER FOR JURY
CONSIDERATION.  FN5 

PETITIONERS ALSO CLAIM THAT THEY WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE
NEW EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL TO SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE ORDERS
WERE INVALID.  ROISUM MADE NO ATTEMPT TO INTRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE, COX
WAS IN FACT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS TO HIS DUTIES AS A MINISTER, AND ONLY
THOMPSON WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY SO TO TESTIFY.  THOMPSON DID NOT
SPECIFY THIS POINT AS ERROR IN HIS APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  PASSING THE POSSIBLE WAIVER ON THE PART OF THOMPSON BY
FAILING TO ARGUE THIS POINT BELOW, WE HOLD THAT HIS CONTENTION IS
WITHOUT MERIT.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT HIS STATUS AS A MINISTER IS A
"JURISDICTIONAL FACT" WHICH MAY BE DETERMINED DE NOVO (REEXAMINATION OF
THE RECORD OF THE FORMER HEARING WITH RIGHT TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE) IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL, AND RELIES ON NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259
U.S. 276, WHERE WE HELD THAT AN ALLEGED ALIEN WAS ENTITLED TO A
JUDICIAL TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF ALIENAGE IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS. 
BUT THAT CASE IS DIFFERENT FROM THIS.  THE ALIEN, THERE, CLAIMED
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  AS SUCH, THIS COURT SAID, HE HAD A RIGHT TO A
JUDICIAL HEARING OF HIS CLAIM AS A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS.  THIS HE
COULD NOT GET BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION.  THEREFORE, SINCE
THE DEPORTATION OF A CITIZEN MAY INVOLVE LOSS "OF ALL THAT MAKES LIFE
WORTH LIVING," THIS COURT DECIDED THAT THE "JURISDICTION" OF THE
COMMISSIONER TO TRY THE ALLEGED ALIEN COULD BE TESTED BY HABEAS
CORPUS.  P. 284.  THAT GAVE THE ALLEGED ALIEN A JUDICIAL HEARING.  IN
THESE CASES JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS ALLOWED IN THE
CRIMINAL TRIAL.  THIS ASSURES JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION OF A REGISTRANT'S
RIGHTS.  PETITIONERS' OBJECTION ON THIS POINT IS IN ESSENCE THAT THE
REVIEW IS LIMITED TO EVIDENCE THAT APPEARED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING.  IT SEEMS TO US THAT IT IS QUITE IN ACCORD WITH JUSTICE TO
LIMIT THE EVIDENCE AS TO STATUS IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ON REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO THAT UPON WHICH THE BOARD ACTED.  FN6  AS WE
HAVE SAID ELSEWHERE THE BOARD RECORDS WERE MADE BY PETITIONERS.  IT WAS
OPEN TO THEM THERE TO FURNISH FULL INFORMATION AS TO THEIR ACTIVITIES. 
IT IS THAT RECORD UPON WHICH THE BOARD ACTED AND UPON WHICH THE
REGISTRANTS' VIOLATION OF ORDERS MUST BE PREDICATED. 

WE PERCEIVE NO ERROR TO PETITIONERS' PREJUDICE IN THE RECORDS. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  54 STAT. 885, 888: 

"SEC. 5.  ... 

"(D)  REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF RELIGION, AND STUDENTS
WHO ARE PREPARING FOR THE MINISTRY IN THEOLOGICAL OR DIVINITY SCHOOLS
RECOGNIZED AS SUCH FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TRAINING AND SERVICE (BUT
NOT FROM REGISTRATION) UNDER THIS ACT." 

SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS, 32 C.F.R., 1941 SUPP.: 

STUDENT.  (A)  IN CLASS IV-D SHALL BE PLACED ANY REGISTRANT WHO IS A
REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTER OF RELIGION OR WHO IS A STUDENT
PREPARING FOR THE MINISTRY IN A THEOLOGICAL OR DIVINITY SCHOOL WHICH
HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS SUCH FOR MORE THAN 1 YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
ENACTMENT OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT (SEPTEMBER 16,
1940). 

"(B)  A 'REGULAR MINISTER OF RELIGION' IS A MAN WHO CUSTOMARILY
PREACHES AND TEACHES THE PRINCIPLES OF RELIGION OF A RECOGNIZED CHURCH,
RELIGIOUS SECT, OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OF WHICH HE IS A MEMBER,
WITHOUT HAVING BEEN FORMALLY ORDAINED AS A MINISTER OF RELIGION; AND
WHO IS RECOGNIZED BY SUCH CHURCH, SECT, OR ORGANIZATION AS A MINISTER. 

"(C)  A 'DULY ORDAINED MINISTER OF RELIGION' IS A MAN WHO HAS BEEN
ORDAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CEREMONIAL RITUAL OR DISCIPLINE OF A
RECOGNIZED CHURCH, RELIGIOUS SECT, OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, TO TEACH
AND PREACH ITS DOCTRINES AND TO ADMINISTER ITS RITES AND CEREMONIES IN
PUBLIC WORSHIP; AND WHO CUSTOMARILY PERFORMS THOSE DUTIES." 

FN2  OPINION 14(AMENDED) IS ON FILE AT THE OFFICE OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE RECORDS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FN3  FOR A SIMILAR CONCLUSION UNDER THE SAME SUBDIVISION OF THE
STATUTE, GIVING EXEMPTION TO REGULAR AND DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF
RELIGION AND STUDENTS, SEE EAGLES V. SAMUELS, 329 U.S. 304, 316-17: 

"NOR CAN WE SAY THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINAL
CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE BOARD OF APPEAL.  SAMUELS' STATEMENT THAT HE
WAS BEST FITTED TO BE A HEBREW SCHOOL TEACHER AND SPIRITUAL LEADER, THE
TWO-YEAR INTERRUPTION IN HIS EDUCATION, HIS RETURN TO THE DAY SESSION
OF THE SEMINARY IN THE MONTH WHEN HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE
WAS RETURNED, AND THE FACT THAT THE SEMINARY IN QUESTION WAS APPARENTLY
NOT PREPARING MEN EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE RABBINATE MAKE QUESTIONABLE HIS
CLAIM THAT HE WAS PREPARING IN GOOD FAITH FOR THE RABBINATE.  A
REGISTRANT MIGHT SEEK A THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL AS A REFUGE FOR THE DURATION
OF THE WAR.  CONGRESS DID NOT CREATE THE EXEMPTION IN SEC. 5(D) FOR
HIM.  THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS SAMUELS' PLAN; AND THAT
EVIDENCE, COUPLED WITH HIS DEMEANOR AND ATTITUDE, MIGHT HAVE SEEMED
MORE PERSUASIVE TO THE BOARDS THAN IT DOES IN THE COLD RECORD.  OUR
INQUIRY IS ENDED WHEN WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE BOARD FLOUTED THE
COMMAND OF CONGRESS IN DENYING SAMUELS THE EXEMPTION." 

FN4  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON APRIL 5, 1946, ORDERED THE
JUDGMENTS IN THESE CASES REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE JURY SHOULD
HAVE PASSED ON PETITIONERS' CLAIMS.  UPON REHEARING THE OPINION WAS
WITHDRAWN, AND ON OCTOBER 4 THE COURT HANDED DOWN AN OPINION AFFIRMING
THE JUDGMENTS.  157 F.2D 787.  IN SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 157 F.2D 176,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ISSUE OF
CLASSIFICATION TO THE JURY CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR.  BUT CF.
UNITED STATES EX REL. KULICK V. KENNEDY, 157 F.2D 811. 

FN5  FOR AN ANALOGOUS POWER OF A JUDGE AS TO ADMISSIBILITY, SEE
WIGMORE (3D ED.)  SEC.  2550; STEELE V. UNITED STATES NO. 2, 267 U.S.
505, 510-11; FORD V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 593, 605; DOE DEM. 
JENKINS V. DAVIES, 10 AD. & E.N.S. 314, 323-24; PHIPSON, EVIDENCE (8TH
ED.), P. 9. 

FN6  SEE GOFF V. UNITED STATES, 135 F.2D 610, AND UNITED STATES V.
MESSERSMITH, 138 F.2D 599. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT THAT WE CAN REVERSE THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW ONLY IF THERE WAS NO BASIS IN FACT FOR THE
CLASSIFICATION.  I ALSO AGREE THAT THAT QUESTION IS PROPERLY ONE OF LAW
FOR THE COURT.  TO THAT EXTENT I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  BUT
I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE LOCAL BOARDS HAD ADEQUATE BASIS TO DENY TO
PETITIONERS THE CLASSIFICATION OF MINISTERS.  MY DISAGREEMENT IS
REQUIRED BY WHAT I CONCEIVE TO BE THE MANDATE OF CONGRESS, THAT ALL WHO
PREACH AND TEACH THEIR FAITH AND ARE RECOGNIZED AS MINISTERS WITHIN
THEIR RELIGIOUS GROUP ARE ENTITLED TO THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION. 

THE EXEMPTION RUNS TO "REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF
RELIGION."  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT ONLY MINISTERS OF THE MORE
ORTHODOX OR CONVENTIONAL FAITHS ARE INCLUDED.  NOR DID CONGRESS MAKE
THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EXEMPTION TURN ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME DEVOTED TO
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.  IT EXEMPTED ALL REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED
MINISTERS.  HENCE, I THINK THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS PROPERLY
REQUIRED THAT A "REGULAR" MINISTER, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A "DULY
ORDAINED" MINISTER,  FN1  ONLY BE ONE WHO "CUSTOMARILY PREACHES AND
TEACHES THE PRINCIPLES OF RELIGION OF A RECOGNIZED CHURCH, RELIGIOUS
BEEN FORMALLY ORDAINED AS A MINISTER OF RELIGION; AND WHO IS RECOGNIZED
BY SUCH CHURCH, SECT, OR ORGANIZATION AS A MINISTER."  32 C.F.R. CUM.
SUPP. SEC. 622.44(B). 

IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CONSTITUTE A RELIGIOUS
DOOR EVANGELISM IS AS MUCH RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY AS "WORSHIP IN THE
CHURCHES AND PREACHING FROM THE PULPITS."  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319
U.S. 105, 109.  THE SELECTIVE SERVICE FILES OF THESE PETITIONERS
ESTABLISH, I THINK, THEIR STATUS AS MINISTERS OF THAT SECT.  THEIR
CLAIMS TO THAT STATUS ARE SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS OF THEIR IMMEDIATE
SUPERIORS IN THE LOCAL GROUP AND BY THEIR NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.  AND
EACH OF THEM WAS SPENDING SUBSTANTIAL TIME IN THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY OF
PREACHING THEIR FAITH.  IF A PERSON IS IN FACT ENGAGING IN THE
MINISTRY, HIS MOTIVES FOR DOING SO ARE QUITE IMMATERIAL.  FN2    TO
DENY THESE CLAIMANTS THEIR STATUTORY EXEMPTION IS TO DISREGARD THESE
FACTS OR TO ADOPT A DEFINITION OF MINISTER WHICH CONTRACTS THE
CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY CONGRESS. 

THE CLASSIFICATION AS A MINISTER MAY NOT BE DENIED BECAUSE THE
REGISTRANT DEVOTES BUT A PART OF HIS TIME TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.  IT IS
NOT UNCOMMON FOR ORDAINED MINISTERS OF MORE ORTHODOX RELIGIONS TO WORK
A FULL DAY IN SECULAR OCCUPATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN RURAL COMMUNITIES. 
THEY ARE NONETHELESS MINISTERS.  THEIR STATUS IS DETERMINED NOT BY THE
HOURS DEVOTED TO THEIR PARISH BUT BY THEIR POSITION AS TEACHERS OF
THEIR FAITH.  IT SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT WHEN A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
SUCH AS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES HAS PART-TIME MINISTERS.  FINANCIAL NEEDS
MAY REQUIRE THAT THEY DEVOTE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR TIME TO LAY
OCCUPATIONS.  AND THE USE OF PART-TIME MINISTERS MAY BE DICTATED BY A
DESIRE TO DISSEMINATE MORE WIDELY THE RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF THE SECT. 
WHATEVER THE REASON, THESE PART-TIME MINISTERS ARE VEHICLES FOR
PROPAGATION OF THE FAITH; BY PRACTICAL AS WELL AS HISTORICAL STANDARDS
THEY ARE THE APOSTLES WHO PERFORM THE MINISTER'S FUNCTION FOR THIS
GROUP. 

FN1  A "DULY ORDAINED" MINISTER IS DEFINED AS ONE "WHO HAS BEEN
ORDAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CEREMONIAL RITUAL OR DISCIPLINE OF A
RECOGNIZED CHURCH, RELIGIOUS SECT, OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, TO TEACH
AND PREACH ITS DOCTRINES AND TO ADMINISTER ITS RITES AND CEREMONIES IN
PUBLIC WORSHIP; AND WHO CUSTOMARILY PERFORMS THOSE DUTIES."  32 C.F.R.
CUM. SUPP. SEC. 622.44(C). 

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "REGULAR" AND "DULY ORDAINED" MINISTERS IS, I
THINK, MORE THAN THE ORDINATION OF THE LATTER.  THE "DULY ORDAINED"
MINISTER PERFORMS ALL THE CUSTOMARY FUNCTIONS OF A MINISTER OF A
CHURCH.  THE CONCEPT OF "REGULAR" MINISTER MORE NEARLY FITS THOSE WHO,
LIKE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, FOLLOW LESS ORTHODOX OR CONVENTIONAL
PRACTICES. 

FN2  EAGLES V. SAMUELS, 329 U.S. 304, IS NOT CONTROLLING HERE.  IT
INVOLVED THE EXEMPTION GIVEN STUDENTS PREPARING FOR THE MINISTRY.  MERE
PRESENCE IN A SCHOOL NOT EXCLUSIVELY CONFINED TO PREPARING MEN FOR THE
RABBINATE DID NOT ENTITLE THE STUDENT TO EXEMPTION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

WITH CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT A PERSON ON
TRIAL FOR AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT HAS THE RIGHT TO PROVE THAT THE PROSECUTION IS BASED UPON AN
INVALID DRAFT BOARD CLASSIFICATION.  BUT CARE MUST BE TAKEN TO PRECLUDE
THE REVIEW OF THE CLASSIFICATION BY STANDARDS WHICH ALLOW THE JUDGE TO
DO LITTLE MORE THAN GIVE AUTOMATIC APPROVAL TO THE DRAFT BOARD'S
ACTION.  OTHERWISE THE RIGHT TO PROVE THE INVALIDITY OF THE
CLASSIFICATION IS DRAINED OF MUCH OF ITS SUBSTANCE AND THE TRIAL
BECOMES A MERE FORMALITY.  SUCH EMPTY PROCEDURE HAS SERIOUS
CONNOTATIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DEAL WITH THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY HAVE
BEEN ILLEGALLY DENIED EXEMPTIONS RELATING TO CONSCIENTIOUS BELIEFS OR
MINISTERIAL STATUS. 

SPECIFICALLY, I OBJECT TO THE STANDARD OF REVIEW WHEREBY THE DRAFT
BOARD CLASSIFICATION IS TO BE SUSTAINED UNLESS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT IT.  LESS THAN A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE IS THUS
PERMITTED TO LEGALIZE THE CLASSIFICATION.  WHATEVER MERIT THIS STANDARD
MAY HAVE IN OTHER SITUATIONS, I QUESTION THE PROPRIETY OF ITS USE IN
THIS PARTICULAR SETTING.  THIS DIFFERS FROM AN ORDINARY CIVIL
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW A NON-PUNITIVE ORDER OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY,
AN ORDER WHICH IS UNRELATED TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE OR RELIGION.  THIS
IS A CRIMINAL TRIAL.  IT INVOLVES ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DENYING THAT
THE DEFENDANT HAS CONSCIENTIOUS OR RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES AGAINST WAR, OR
THAT HE IS A MINISTER.  HIS LIBERTY AND HIS REPUTATION DEPEND UPON THE
VALIDITY OF THAT ACTION.  IF THE DRAFT BOARD CLASSIFICATION IS HELD
VALID, HE WILL BE IMPRISONED OR FINED AND WILL BE BRANDED AS A VIOLATOR
OF THE NATION'S LAW; IF THAT CLASSIFICATION IS UNLAWFUL, HE IS A FREE
MAN.  MOREOVER, HE HAS HAD NO PREVIOUS OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE A JUDICIAL
TEST OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, NO CHANCE TO PROVE THAT HE WAS
DENIED HIS STATUTORY RIGHTS.  EVERYTHING IS CONCENTRATED IN THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. 

THESE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH, IN MY OPINION, TO PERMIT AN INAPPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SANCTION A DRAFT BOARD
CLASSIFICATION.  SINCE GUILT OR INNOCENCE CENTERS ON THAT
CLASSIFICATION, ITS VALIDITY SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY SOMETHING MORE
FORCEFUL THAN A WISP OF EVIDENCE OR A SPECULATIVE INFERENCE.  OTHERWISE
THE DEFENDANT FACES AN ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TASK IN ATTEMPTING TO PROVE
THE ILLEGALITY OF THE CLASSIFICATION, THE PRESENCE OF A MERE FRAGMENT
OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE DOOMING HIS EFFORTS.  AND SUCH A SCANT FOUNDATION
SHOULD NOT JUSTIFY BRUSHING ASIDE BONA FIDE CLAIMS OF CONSCIENTIOUS
BELIEF OR MINISTERIAL STATUS.  IF RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY MEANS
ANYTHING, ONLY EVIDENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL NATURE WARRANTS APPROVAL OF
THE DRAFT BOARD CLASSIFICATION IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. 

IT IS NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE PROOF IN THESE
CASES FALLS FAR SHORT OF JUSTIFYING THE CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONERS. 
THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE RECORD THAT THEY WERE OTHER THAN BONA
FIDE MINISTERS.  AND THE MERE FACT THAT THEY SPENT LESS THAN FULL TIME
IN MINISTERIAL ACTIVITIES AFFORDS NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR IMPLYING A
NON-MINISTERIAL STATUS.  CONGRESS MUST HAVE INTENDED TO EXEMPT FROM
STATUTORY DUTIES THOSE MINISTERS WHO ARE FORCED TO LABOR AT SECULAR
JOBS TO EARN A LIVING AS WELL AS THOSE WHO PREACH TO MORE OPULENT
CONGREGATIONS.  ANY OTHER VIEW WOULD ASCRIBE TO CONGRESS AN INTENTION
TO DISCRIMINATE AMONG RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS AND MINISTERS ON THE
BASIS OF WEALTH AND NECESSITY FOR SECULAR WORK, AN INTENTION THAT I AM
UNWILLING TO IMPUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF MORE CONVINCING
EVIDENCE, I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE DRAFT BOARD CLASSIFICATIONS
UNDERLYING PETITIONERS' CONVICTIONS ARE VALID. 
..END :




















LILLIE V. THOMPSON, 332 U.S. 459 


NO. 206.  DECIDED NOVEMBER 24, 1947.  - 162 F.2D 716, REVERSED. 


A COMPLAINT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ALLEGED THAT
THE HOURS, LOCATION AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPLAINANT'S WORK CREATED
A LIKELIHOOD THAT SHE WOULD SUFFER INJURIES THROUGH THE CRIMINAL ACTS
OF A PERSON NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THAT THE RAILROAD FAILED TO EXERCISE ITS
DUTY OF TAKING REASONABLE MEASURES TO PROTECT HER AGAINST THE
FORESEEABLE DANGER, AND THAT SHE SUFFERED INJURIES AS A RESULT OF THE
RAILROAD'S FAILURE TO TAKE SUCH MEASURES.  HELD: 

1.  THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ACT.  PP. 460
461. 

2.  THAT THE DANGER WAS FROM CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT BY AN OUTSIDER IS
IRRELEVANT.  IF THAT DANGER WAS FORESEEABLE, THE RAILROAD HAD A DUTY TO
MAKE REASONABLE PROVISION AGAINST IT.  PP. 461-462. 

LILLIE V. THOMPSON, TRUSTEE. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER'S SUIT AGAINST A RAILROAD FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  162 F.2D 716.  THIS COURT GRANTS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
REVERSES THE JUDGMENT, AND REMANDS THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT, P.
462. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER SUED FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT.  FN1  THE ESSENCE OF HER CLAIM WAS THAT SHE WAS INJURED AS A
RESULT OF THE RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE IN SENDING HER TO WORK IN A PLACE
HE KNEW TO BE UNSAFE WITHOUT TAKING REASONABLE MEASURES TO PROTECT
HER. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION AND ENTERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION.  162 F.2D 716. 

THERE IS THUS A SINGLE ISSUE IN THE CASE:  COULD IT BE FOUND FROM THE
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY ANY UNCONTROVERTED
ALLEGATIONS BY THE RESPONDENT, THAT PETITIONER'S INJURIES RESULTED AT
LEAST IN PART FROM RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE?  FN2 

PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:  RESPONDENT
REQUIRED HER, A 22-YEAR-OLD TELEGRAPH OPERATOR, TO WORK ALONE BETWEEN
11:30 P.M. AND 7:30 A.M. IN A ONE-ROOM FRAME BUILDING SITUATED IN AN
ISOLATED PART OF RESPONDENT'S RAILROAD YARDS IN MEMPHIS.  THOUGH
RESPONDENT HAD REASON TO KNOW THE YARDS WERE FREQUENTED BY DANGEROUS
CHARACTERS, HE FAILED TO EXERCISE REASONABLE CARE TO LIGHT THE BUILDING
AND ITS SURROUNDINGS OR TO GUARD OR PATROL IT IN ANY WAY.  PETITIONER'S
DUTIES WERE TO RECEIVE AND DELIVER MESSAGES TO MEN OPERATING TRAINS IN
THE YARD.  IN ORDER FOR THE TRAINMEN TO GET THE MESSAGES IT WAS
NECESSARY FOR THEM TO COME TO THE BUILDING AT IRREGULAR INTERVALS
THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT, AND IT WAS PETITIONER'S DUTY TO ADMIT THEM WHEN
THEY KNOCKED.  BECAUSE THERE WERE NO WINDOWS IN THE BUILDING'S SINGLE
DOOR OR ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING IN WHICH THE DOOR WAS LOCATED,
PETITIONER COULD IDENTIFY PERSONS SEEKING ENTRANCE ONLY BY UNLOCKING
AND OPENING THE DOOR.  ABOUT 1:30 A.M. ON THE NIGHT OF HER INJURY
PETITIONER RESPONDED TO A KNOCK, THINKING THAT SOME OF RESPONDENT'S
TRAINMEN WERE SEEKING ADMISSION.  SHE OPENED THE DOOR, AND BEFORE SHE
COULD CLOSE IT A MAN ENTERED AND BEAT HER WITH A LARGE PIECE OF IRON,
SERIOUSLY AND PERMANENTLY INJURING HER. 

IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESPONDENT ALLEGED, AND
PETITIONER DID NOT DENY, THAT THE ASSAILANT WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
RESPONDENT AND THAT THE ATTACK WAS CRIMINAL. 

THE DISTRICT COURT STATED, IN EXPLANATION OF ITS ACTION, THAT THERE
WOULD BE NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURY AND RESPONDENT'S
FAILURE TO LIGHT OR GUARD THE PREMISES, AND THAT THE LAW DOES NOT
PERMIT RECOVERY "FOR THE INTENTIONAL OR CRIMINAL ACTS" OF EITHER A
FELLOW-EMPLOYEE OR AN OUTSIDER.  FN3 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, IF
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, WILL WARRANT SUBMISSION TO A JURY.  PETITIONER
ALLEGED IN EFFECT THAT RESPONDENT WAS AWARE OF CONDITIONS WHICH CREATED
A LIKELIHOOD THAT A YOUNG WOMAN PERFORMING THE DUTIES REQUIRED OF
PETITIONER WOULD SUFFER JUST SUCH AN INJURY AS WAS IN FACT INFLICTED
UPON HER.  THAT THE FORESEEABLE DANGER WAS FROM INTENTIONAL OR CRIMINAL
MISCONDUCT IS IRRELEVANT; RESPONDENT NONETHELESS HAD A DUTY TO MAKE
REASONABLE PROVISION AGAINST IT.  FN4  BREACH OF THAT DUTY WOULD BE
NEGLIGENCE, AND WE CANNOT SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT PETITIONER'S
INJURY DID NOT RESULT AT LEAST IN PART FROM SUCH NEGLIGENCE.  THE CASES
CITED BY THE DISTRICT COURT,  FN5  WE BELIEVE, DO NOT SUPPORT THE BROAD
PROPOSITION ENUNCIATED BY IT, AND DO NOT COVER THE FACT SITUATION SET
FORTH BY THE PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE. 

CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, AND THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  45 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

FN2  "EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD  ...  SHALL BE LIABLE IN
DAMAGES TO ANY PERSON SUFFERING INJURY WHILE HE IS EMPLOYED BY SUCH
CARRIER  ...  FOR SUCH INJURY  ...  RESULTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM
THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES OF SUCH
CARRIER  ...  " IBID. 

IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THAT PETITIONER WAS INJURED WHILE EMPLOYED IN SUCH
COMMERCE. 

FN3  THE COURT CITED DAVIS V. GREEN, 260 U.S. 349(1922); ST. LOUIS
SAN FRANCISCO R. CO. V. MILLS, 271 U.S. 344(1926); ATLANTIC COAST LINE
R. CO. V. SOUTHWELL, 275 U.S. 64(1927); AND ATLANTA & CHARLOTTE AIR
LINE R. CO. V. GREEN, 279 U.S. 821(1929), REVERSING PER CURIAM 151 S.C.
1, 148 S.E. 633. 

FN4  SEE RESTATEMENT OF TORTS, SEC. 302, COMMENT N: 

"N.  THE ACTOR'S CONDUCT MAY CREATE A SITUATION WHICH AFFORDS AN
OPPORTUNITY OR TEMPTATION TO THIRD PERSONS TO COMMIT MORE SERIOUS FORMS
OF MISCONDUCTS WHICH MAY BE OF ANY OF SEVERAL KINDS.  (1) THE THIRD
PERSON MAY INTEND TO BRING ABOUT THE VERY HARM WHICH THE OTHER
SUSTAINS.  ...  THE ACTOR IS REQUIRED TO ANTICIPATE AND PROVIDE AGAINST
ALL OF THESE MISCONDUCTS UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IN ALL OF WHICH
IT IS IMMATERIAL TO THE ACTOR'S CIVIL LIABILITY THAT THE THIRD PERSON'S
MISCONDUCT IS OR IS NOT CRIMINAL  ...  : 

.         .         .         .         . 

"8.  WHERE HE KNOWS OF PECULIAR CONDITIONS WHICH CREATE A STRONG
LIKELIHOOD OF INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS MISCONDUCT (SEE ILLUSTRATIONS 21
AND 22). 

"ILLUSTRATIONS: 

     .         .         .   .         . 

"21.  THE EMPLOYEES OF THE X AND Y RAILROAD COMPANY ARE ON A STRIKE. 
THEY OR THEIR SYMPATHIZERS HAVE TORN UP TRACKS, MISPLACED SWITCHES AND
OTHERWISE ATTEMPTED TO WRECK TRAINS.  A TRAIN OF THE X AND Y COMPANY IS
WRECKED BY AN UNGUARDED SWITCH SO MISPLACED.  A, A PASSENGER, AND B, A
TRAVELER UPON A HIGHWAY ADJACENT TO THE TRACK SUSTAIN HARM.  THE X AND
Y COMPANY IS LIABLE TO A AND B BECAUSE IT DID NOT GUARD THE SWITCH." 

FN5  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA.
..END :



















PRIEBE & SONS V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 407 


NO. 16.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1947.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 17, 1947.  - 106
CT. CL. 789, 65 F.SUPP.  457, REVERSED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO A PROGRAM FOR AIDING ENGLAND AND RUSSIA UNDER THE LEND
LEASE ACT OF MARCH 11, 1941, PETITIONER CONTRACTED TO SUPPLY TO THE
FEDERAL SURPLUS COMMODITIES CORPORATION A QUANTITY OF DRIED EGGS.  THE
CONTRACT SPECIFIED "MAY 18(1942) DELIVERY," WHICH DATE "SHALL BE THE
FIRST DAY OF A 10-DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE FSCC WILL ACCEPT
DELIVERY, THE PARTICULAR DAY WITHIN THE PERIOD BEING AT THE FSCC'S
OPTION"; REQUIRED PETITIONER TO HAVE THE EGGS INSPECTED AND THAT
DELIVERY BE ACCOMPANIED BY INSPECTION AND WEIGHT CERTIFICATES; AND
PROVIDED THAT "FAILURE TO HAVE SPECIFIED QUANTITIES OF DRIED EGG
PRODUCTS INSPECTED AND READY FOR DELIVERY BY THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE
OFFER" WOULD MAKE OPERATIVE A PROVISION FOR "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES."  IT
DID NOT PROVIDE FOR NOTICE TO THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THE SHIPMENTS WERE
READY.  INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION, THOUGH NOT COMPLETED BY MAY 18,
WERE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE DATES DESIGNATED BY THE FSCC FOR
DELIVERIES; AND PETITIONER MADE TIMELY DELIVERIES PURSUANT TO
INSTRUCTIONS.  HELD:  THE PROVISION FOR "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES"
CONSTITUTED A PENALTY AND WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE.  PP. 408-414. 

2.  THE CONTRACT IS CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT THE TIME FOR DELIVERY BY
PETITIONER WAS NOT MAY 18, 1942, BUT THE TIME OR TIMES CHOSEN BY THE
FSCC WITHIN THE 10-DAY PERIOD WHICH BEGAN ON MAY 18; I.E., PERFORMANCE
WAS NOT DUE UNTIL REQUEST WAS MADE AND INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN FOR
DELIVERY.  P. 410. 

3.  SINCE THE PROVISION IN QUESTION DID NOT COVER DELAYS IN
DELIVERIES, IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A REASONABLE FORECAST OF JUST
COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY BREACH OF CONTRACT.  P. 412. 

4.  CONGRESS DID NOT EXPRESSLY GRANT THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTIES AS
SANCTIONS TO THE PROGRAM ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE LEND-LEASE ACT; AND
THAT POWER MAY NOT BE IMPLIED.  PP. 413-414. 

PRIEBE & SONS, INC. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS DISMISSED PETITIONER'S SUIT TO RECOVER SUMS
ALLEGED TO BE DUE UPON A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  106 CT. CL.
789, 65 F.SUPP.  457.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 815. 
REVERSED, P. 414. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS, PRESENTS THE
QUESTION WHETHER A PROVISION IN A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT FOR "LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES," AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, SHOULD BE DENIED ENFORCEMENT ON THE
GROUND THAT IT CONSTITUTES A "PENALTY." 

SHORTLY AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE LEND-LEASE ACT OF MARCH 11, 1941,
55 STAT. 31, 22 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946), SEC. 411 ET SEQ., THE UNITED
STATES ACTING THROUGH AGENCIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
EMBARKED ON A PROGRAM OF PURCHASING DRIED EGGS FOR SHIPMENT TO ENGLAND
AND RUSSIA.  PETITIONER AGREED TO FURNISH A QUANTITY OF DRIED EGGS
UNDER THAT PROGRAM TO THE FEDERAL SURPLUS COMMODITIES CORPORATION
(FSCC).  THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR "MAY 18(1942) DELIVERY" WHICH DATE,
ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT, "SHALL BE THE FIRST DAY OF A 10-DAY PERIOD
WITHIN WHICH THE FSCC WILL ACCEPT DELIVERY, THE PARTICULAR DAY WITHIN
THE PERIOD BEING AT THE FSCC'S OPTION."  PETITIONER WAS ALSO REQUIRED
TO HAVE THE EGGS INSPECTED, DELIVERY TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY INSPECTION
AND WEIGHT CERTIFICATES. 

THE CONTRACT CONTAINED TWO PROVISIONS RESPECTING "LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES."  ONE, CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 9, WAS APPLICABLE TO DELAYS IN
DELIVERY.  FN1  IT HAS NO APPLICATION HERE, FOR AS WE SHALL SEE,
DELIVERIES WERE TIMELY.  THE PROVISION FOR "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" WITH
WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED IS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 7 AND IS APPLICABLE TO
A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION.  IT PROVIDES, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT
MATERIAL HERE, THAT "FAILURE TO HAVE SPECIFIED QUANTITIES OF DRIED EGG
PRODUCTS INSPECTED AND READY FOR DELIVERY BY THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE
OFFER" WILL BE CAUSE FOR PAYMENT OF "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES."  FN2 

ON MAY 18, 1942, PETITIONER HAD NOT MADE DELIVERY NOR HAD THE EGGS
BEEN INSPECTED.  INSPECTION WAS, HOWEVER, COMPLETED AND CERTIFICATES
ISSUED BY MAY 22, WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN FSCC ASKED FOR
DELIVERY.  FOR IT WAS NOT UNTIL MAY 26 THAT FSCC GAVE THE FIRST OF
SEVERAL WRITTEN NOTICES FOR THE SHIPMENT OF EGGS INVOLVED IN THIS
LITIGATION.  PETITIONER MADE TIMELY SHIPMENTS PURSUANT TO THOSE
INSTRUCTIONS.  SUBSEQUENTLY FSCC ASCERTAINED THAT PETITIONER'S
INSPECTION CERTIFICATES HAD BEEN ISSUED AFTER MAY 18 AND ACCORDINGLY
DEDUCTED FROM THE PRICE 10 CENTS PER POUND ON THE THEORY THAT THE
FAILURE TO HAVE THE EGGS INSPECTED AND READY FOR DELIVERY BY MAY 18 WAS
A DEFAULT WHICH PUT INTO OPERATION THE "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" PROVISION
OF THE CONTRACT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER THE
AMOUNTS WITHHELD PLUS INTEREST.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS, BEING OF THE VIEW
THAT THERE HAD BEEN A BREACH OF CONTRACT FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES
WAS ENTITLED TO "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES," DISMISSED THE PETITION.  106 CT.
CL. 789, 65 F.SUPP.  457. 

WE CONSTRUE THE CONTRACT TO MEAN THAT THE TIME FOR DELIVERY BY
PETITIONER WAS NOT MAY 18, 1942 BUT THE TIME OR TIMES CHOSEN BY THE
FSCC WITHIN THE TEN-DAY PERIOD WHICH BEGAN ON MAY 18.  THAT IS TO SAY,
PERFORMANCE BY PETITIONER WAS NOT DUE UNTIL REQUEST WAS MADE AND
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN FOR DELIVERY.  THAT INTERPRETATION IS IN ACCORD WITH
THE UNCONTESTED FINDING OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT PETITIONER PROMISED
DELIVERY "WITHIN A TEN-DAY PERIOD COMMENCING MAY 18, THE PRECISE DATE
TO BE SELECTED" BY THE FSCC. 

THE CONTRACT WAS DRAWN, HOWEVER, TO MAKE THE "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES"
PROVISIONS INCLUDE SO-CALLED DEFAULTS OF PETITIONER WHICH ANTEDATED THE
TIME WHEN DELIVERY WAS DUE BUT WHICH IN NO WAY INTERFERED WITH OR
CAUSED DELAY IN THAT PERFORMANCE.  AS NOTED, "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES"
BECAME PAYABLE ON "FAILURE TO HAVE SPECIFIED QUANTITIES OF DRIED EGG
PRODUCTS INSPECTED AND READY FOR DELIVERY BY THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE
OFFER," VIZ. BY MAY 18, 1942.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THIS PROVISION
ENFORCEABLE EVEN THOUGH PETITIONER HAD MADE PROMPT DELIVERY OF THE
EGGS, BECAUSE IT FELT THAT THE PROVISION ENABLED RESPONDENT TO CARRY ON
ITS DRIED-EGG PROGRAM "WITH ASSURANCE THAT IT COULD COUNT ON THE DRIED
EGG PRODUCTS BEING READY ON THE SPECIFIED DATE."  THAT POSITION IS
AMPLIFIED BY RESPONDENT.  THE ARGUMENT IN SHORT IS THAT LIABILITY TO
PAY "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" FOR FAILURE TO HAVE GOODS READY FOR DELIVERY
EVEN PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN DELIVERY IS DUE GIVES ASSURANCE AGAINST
TARDY DELIVERIES; THAT A PROMPT TIME-TABLE OF SHIPMENTS WAS IMPORTANT
HERE BECAUSE OF WAR CONDITIONS AND THE NECESSITY OF HAVING GOODS READY
FOR LOADING WHENEVER SHIPPING SPACE WAS AVAILABLE; THAT DELAY IN
DELIVERIES WOULD CAUSE UNMEASURABLE DAMAGE; AND THAT EVEN THOUGH NO
DAMAGE WERE APPARENT IN A PARTICULAR CASE, THE "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES"
PROVISION SHOULD BE ENFORCED AS A DETERRENT OF TARDY DELIVERIES IN THE
WHOLE CLASS OF CONTRACTS RELATING TO THIS PROCUREMENT PROGRAM. 

IT IS CUSTOMARY, WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT ADOPTED A DIFFERENT STANDARD,
TO APPLY TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS THE PRINCIPLES OF
GENERAL CONTRACT LAW.  UNITED STATES V. STANDARD RICE CO., 323 U.S.
106, 111, AND CASES CITED.  THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN OTHER CASES WHERE THE
COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE ENFORCEABILITY OF "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES"
PROVISIONS IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.  UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL
CO., 205 U.S. 105, 120-121; WISE V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 361, 365
366.  WE ADHERE TO THOSE DECISIONS AND FOLLOW THE SAME COURSE HERE. 

TODAY THE LAW DOES NOT LOOK WITH DISFAVOR UPON "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES"
PROVISIONS IN CONTRACTS.  WHEN THEY ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE ATTEMPTS TO
FIX JUST COMPENSATION FOR ANTICIPATED LOSS CAUSED BY BREACH OF
CONTRACT, THEY ARE ENFORCED.  WISE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 365; SUN
PRINTING & PUB. ASSN. V. MOORE, 183 U.S. 642, 672-674; RESTATEMENT,
CONTRACTS SEC. 339; DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO. V. NEW GARAGE & M. CO.,
(1915) A.C. 79.  AND SEE KOTHE V. TAYLOR TRUST, 280 U.S. 224, 226. 
THEY SERVE A PARTICULARLY USEFUL FUNCTION WHEN DAMAGES ARE UNCERTAIN IN
NATURE OR AMOUNT OR ARE UNMEASURABLE, AS IS THE CASE IN MANY GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS.  UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., SUPRA, P. 121;
CLYDEBANK ENGINEERING & SHIPBUILDING CO. V. CASTANEDA, (1905) A.C. 6,
11-13, 20; UNITED STATES V. WALKOF, 144 F.2D 75, 77.  AND THE FACT THAT
THE DAMAGES SUFFERED ARE SHOWN TO BE LESS THAN THE DAMAGES CONTRACTED
FOR IS NOT FATAL.  THESE PROVISIONS ARE TO BE JUDGED AS OF THE TIME OF
MAKING THE CONTRACT.  UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., SUPRA, P.
121. 

JUDGED BY THESE STANDARDS, THE PROVISION IN QUESTION MAY NOT BE
SUSTAINED AS AN AGREEMENT FOR "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES."  IT DOES NOT COVER
DELAYS IN DELIVERIES.  FN3  IT CAN APPLY ONLY WHERE THERE WAS PROMPT
PERFORMANCE WHEN DELIVERY WAS REQUESTED BUT WHERE PROMPT DELIVERY COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN MADE, DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF THE CERTIFICATES, HAD THE
REQUEST COME ON THE FIRST DAY WHEN DELIVERY COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED.  A
DIFFERENT SITUATION MIGHT BE PRESENTED HAD THE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR
NOTICE TO THE GOVERNMENT WHEN THE CERTIFICATES WERE READY.  THEN WE
MIGHT POSSIBLY INFER THAT PROMPTNESS IN OBTAINING THEM SERVED AN
IMPORTANT FUNCTION IN THE PREPARATION OF TIMETABLES FOR OVERSEAS
SHIPMENTS.  BUT THE CONTRACT CONTAINS NO SUCH PROVISION; AND IT IS
SHOWN THAT FSCC HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CERTIFICATES WERE NOT READY
ON MAY 18 UNTIL LONG AFTER DELIVERIES HAD BEEN MADE.  SO, IT IS
APPARENT THAT THE CERTIFICATES WERE ONLY AN ESSENTIAL OF PROPER
DELIVERY UNDER THIS CONTRACT. 

IT LIKEWISE IS APPARENT THAT THE ONLY THING WHICH COULD POSSIBLY
INJURE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE FAILURE TO GET PROMPT PERFORMANCE WHEN
DELIVERY WAS DUE.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT OF THE VALIDITY OF THE PROVISION
FOR "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" WHEN APPLIED UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. 
UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., SUPRA; WISE V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.  AND SEE MARYLAND DREDGING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 241 U.S. 184;
ROBINSON V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 486.  BUT UNDER THIS PROCUREMENT
PROGRAM DELAYS OF THE CONTRACTORS WHICH DID NOT INTERFERE WITH PROMPT
DELIVERIES PLAINLY WOULD NOT OCCASION DAMAGE.  THAT WAS AS CERTAIN WHEN
THE CONTRACT WAS MADE AS IT LATER PROVED TO BE.  YET THAT WAS THE ONLY
SITUATION TO WHICH THE PROVISION IN QUESTION COULD EVER APPLY.  UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS PROVISION FOR "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" COULD NOT
POSSIBLY BE A REASONABLE FORECAST OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE
CAUSED BY A BREACH OF CONTRACT.  IT MIGHT, AS RESPONDENT SUGGESTS, HAVE
AN IN TERROREM EFFECT OF ENCOURAGING PROMPT PREPARATION FOR DELIVERY. 
BUT THE ARGUMENT IS A TACIT ADMISSION THAT THE PROVISION WAS INCLUDED
NOT TO MAKE A FAIR ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES TO BE SUFFERED BUT TO SERVE ONLY
AS AN ADDED SPUR TO PERFORMANCE.  IT IS WELL-SETTLED CONTRACT LAW THAT
COURTS DO NOT GIVE THEIR IMPRIMATUR TO SUCH ARRANGEMENTS.  SEE KOTHE V.
TAYLOR TRUST, SUPRA; RESTATEMENT, CONTRACTS SEC. 339.  ALL PROVISIONS
FOR DAMAGES ARE, OF COURSE, DETERRENTS OF DEFAULT.  BUT AN EXACTION OF
PUNISHMENT FOR A BREACH WHICH COULD PRODUCE NO POSSIBLE DAMAGE HAS LONG
BEEN DEEMED OPPRESSIVE AND UNJUST.  SEE SALMOND & WILLIAMS ON CONTRACTS
(2D ED. 1945) SEC. 202. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT A DIFFERENT RULE SHOULD OBTAIN HERE BECAUSE
OF THE BROAD PROCUREMENT POWERS INVOLVED UNDER THE LEND-LEASE ACT.  WE
ARE POINTED, HOWEVER, TO NO PROVISION BY WHICH THE CONGRESS AUTHORIZED
THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES AS SANCTIONS TO THAT PROGRAM; NOR DO WE
FIND ANY.  WE CANNOT INFER SUCH A POWER.  THE POWER TO PURCHASE ON
APPROPRIATE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IS, OF COURSE, INFERRED FROM EVERY
POWER TO PURCHASE.  BUT IF THAT IS THE SOURCE OF CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PENALTIES, THEN ANY PROCUREMENT OFFICER, IN WAR OR
IN PEACE, COULD IMPOSE THEM.  THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE PREMISE
UNDERLYING ALL OUR DECISIONS ON THIS QUESTION WHICH INVOLVE GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS.  THE RULE WHICH THEY ANNOUNCE HAS BEEN APPLIED BOTH TO THE
EXIGENCIES OF WAR (UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., SUPRA) AND OF
PEACE (WISE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA).  THE OTHER VIEW IS SUCH A RADICAL
BREAK WITH THE PAST AND SO COUNTER TO THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW
AS TO INDICATE THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE SHOULD BE PLAIN BEFORE WE
TAKE THE STEP.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THAT PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT PROVIDED:  "INASMUCH AS THE
FAILURE OF THE VENDOR TO DELIVER THE QUANTITY OF THE COMMODITY OR
COMMODITIES SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF
THIS ANNOUNCEMENT WILL, BECAUSE OF THE URGENT NEED FOR THE COMMODITY BY
THE PURCHASER ARISING FROM THE PRESENT EMERGENT CONDITIONS, CAUSE
SERIOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES TO THE PURCHASER, AND IT WILL BE
DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO PROVE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DAMAGES, THE
VENDOR AGREES TO PAY TO THE FSCC LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AS STATED IN THIS
PARAGRAPH.  THE SUM IS AGREED UPON AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND NOT AS A
PENALTY AND SHALL BE IN THE AMOUNT SET FORTH BELOW FOR EACH POUND OF
DRIED EGG PRODUCT UNDELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS
ANNOUNCEMENT.  ...  THE PARTIES HAVE COMPUTED, ESTIMATED, AND AGREED
UPON THIS SUM AS AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A REASONABLE FORECAST OF PROBABLE
ACTUAL LOSS BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY OF ESTIMATING WITH EXACTNESS THE
DAMAGES WHICH RESULT." 

THE "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" RANGED FROM 10 TO 30 CENTS PER POUND
DEPENDENT UPON THE ELAPSED TIME BETWEEN THE ACCEPTANCE DATE AND MAY 18,
1942. 

FN2  THE MEASURE OF "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" IN THIS SITUATION WAS THE
SAME AS THAT FOR DELAYS IN DELIVERY SET FORTH IN NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  THEY ARE COVERED, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, BY THE PROVISION SET
FORTH IN NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AGREES, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT TODAY INVOKES ELUSIVE AND UNCERTAIN PRINCIPLES OF "GENERAL
CONTRACT LAW" TO STRIKE DOWN A CLAUSE IN A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT EXECUTED
UNDER THE RECOGNIZED CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE LEND-LEASE ACT. 
WITHOUT RELIANCE UPON ANY INDICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY, THE COURT
ASSUMES THAT IT CAN DISCOVER SOMEWHERE A "GENERAL CONTRACT LAW," AND
THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO APPLY THIS LAW TO WARTIME CONTRACTS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  I REGARD THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT SINCE ERIE R.
CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AS HAVING ESTABLISHED THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDITY OF ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS ARE GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL LAW, WHETHER EXECUTED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE LEND-LEASE ACT OR
ANY OTHER.  METROPOLITAN BANK V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 454, 456; SEE
UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174, 183; CLEARFIELD TRUST
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363.  AND CONGRESS HAS ENACTED MANY
LAWS, BOTH GENERAL AND SPECIFIC IN NATURE, TO GUIDE ALL CONTRACTING
AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, 41 U.S.C. SECS. 1 ET SEQ., AS WELL AS
MANY DETAILED RULES APPLICABLE SOLELY TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF
CONTRACTS.  SEE, E.G., MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1985,
TITLES V, VII, VIII.  BUT I CAN FIND NO ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH EXPRESSLY
OR IMPLIEDLY PROHIBITS SUCH GENERALLY AUTHORIZED AGENTS FROM MAKING A
CONTRACT CONTAINING A LIQUIDATED DAMAGE PROVISION SUCH AS HERE
INVOLVED.  NOR HAS CONGRESS EVER INTIMATED THAT CONTRACTS WITHIN THE
GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AGENTS SHOULD BE INVALIDATED BY THIS
COURT'S INVOCATION OF A NEBULOUS "GENERAL CONTRACT LAW," OR BECAUSE
SUCH CONTRACTS FAILED TO HARMONIZE WITH THIS COURT'S VIEWS OF WHAT IS
"FAIR AND REASONABLE."  I HAD NOT SUPPOSED THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE
VESTED WITH SUCH SUPERVISORY AND REVISORY POWERS OVER THE TERMS OF
CONTRACTS VOLUNTARILY AND ADVISEDLY ENTERED INTO BY BUSINESS GROUPS
WITH CONGRESSIONALLY AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT AGENTS.    THE AVAILABLE
INDICATIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY POINT TO THE VERY OPPOSITE
CONCLUSION.  FAR FROM INDICATING A HOSTILITY TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGE
CLAUSES, CONGRESS HAS MADE IT MANDATORY THAT SUCH CLAUSES TO PROTECT
AGAINST DELAY IN PERFORMANCE BE INSERTED IN ALL GOVERNMENT BUILDING
CONTRACTS; AND IT HAS PROVIDED THAT SUCH CLAUSES "SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE
AND BINDING UPON ALL PARTIES" WITHOUT THE NECESSITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT
TO PROVE "ACTUAL OR SPECIFIC DAMAGES SUSTAINED  ...  BY REASON OF
DELAYS  ...  "  32 STAT. 326; 40 U.S.C. SEC. 269.  SURELY THIS
PROVISION WOULD NOT PERMIT FEDERAL JUDGES TO IGNORE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE
CLAUSES IN BUILDING CONTRACTS BECAUSE ACTUAL DAMAGES WERE NOT PROVED
AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REASONABLY FORECAST.  AND IN NO OTHER ACT OF
CONGRESS IS THERE A SUGGESTION THAT LIQUIDATED DAMAGE PROVISIONS IN
OTHER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE THE COURTS BELIEVE
NO ACTUAL DAMAGES COULD BE SUSTAINED FROM A BREACH.  YET THE MAJORITY
ADOPTS SUCH A PRINCIPLE TODAY TO INVALIDATE A CLAUSE IN THIS CONTRACT,
AND THEREBY, AS I SEE IT, EMBARKS UPON THE VERY UNDESIRABLE PRACTICE OF
SUPERVISING AND REVISING THE CONGRESSIONALLY AUTHORIZED CONDUCT OF
FEDERAL CONTRACTING AGENTS.  THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY REFUSED TO
INITIATE SUCH A PRACTICE IN A CASE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT ON MOST
APPEALING GROUNDS URGED US TO REVISE ITS AGENT'S CONTRACT.  UNITED
STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S. 289, 308-309. 

IN THIS CASE PROCUREMENT OFFICERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
ADMITTEDLY ACTING WITHIN THEIR AUTHORITY, ADVERTISED FOR BIDS FOR THE
SALE OF DRIED EGGS WHICH THE ADVERTISEMENT PROVIDED WERE TO BE READY
FOR DELIVERY TO THE GOVERNMENT ON A DATE TO BE CHOSEN BY THE BIDDER. 
ACTUAL DELIVERY OF THE EGGS WAS TO BE MADE ON THE GOVERNMENT'S DEMAND
ANY TIME WITHIN A TEN-DAY PERIOD FOLLOWING THE READY DATE NAMED BY THE
BIDDER.  THE ADVERTISEMENT ALSO CONTAINED A PROVISION FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN DELIVERING THE EGGS OR IN
HAVING THEM INSPECTED, CERTIFIED, AND READY FOR DELIVERY BY THE
BIDDER'S CHOSEN DATE. 

THE EFFICIENT INTEGRATION OF A LARGE-SCALE PROCUREMENT PROGRAM, SUCH
AS WAS HERE INVOLVED, MADE IT HIGHLY ADVISABLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO
EXACT ASSURANCES THAT GOODS WOULD BE READY FOR DELIVERY IN ADVANCE OF
SELECTION OF THE DATE FOR ACTUAL DELIVERY.  ESSENTIAL TO THE PROGRAM
WAS THE COORDINATED MOVEMENT OF BOXCARS AND SHIPS, BOTH OF WHICH WERE
THEN SCARCE AND IN GREAT DEMAND.  EACH DAY'S IDLENESS OF CARS AND SHIPS
MIGHT MEAN INJURIES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF LARGE BUT UNCERTAIN AMOUNTS. 
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS OMISSION FOR
GOVERNMENT AGENTS TO FAIL TO CHECK AND DOUBLE CHECK, CONTRACT AND
DOUBLE CONTRACT, IN ORDER TO HAVE GOODS READY FOR DELIVERY TO CARS AHD
SHIPS WITH THE LEAST POSSIBLE LOST TIME IN THE USE OF TRANSPORT
FACILITIES.  AND THE GOVERNMENT HAD A RIGHT TO DEPEND ON ITS
CONTRACTORS LIVING UP TO THEIR PROMISE TO HAVE GOODS READY ON THE DATE
THEY SAID THEY WOULD SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT THEREAFTER SELECT A
DELIVERY DATE WITH CERTAINTY THAT NO TRANSPORTATION DELAYS WOULD
OCCUR.  FAILURE TO DO SO MIGHT WELL DISRUPT THE GOVERNMENT'S
PREARRANGED TRAIN AND SHIP SCHEDULES, CAUSING IT CUMULATIVE
DIFFICULTIES NOT EASILY TRANSLATED INTO MONEY DAMAGES.  AND ALL OF
THESE DAMAGES MIGHT RESULT FROM FAILURE TO HAVE THE GOODS READY AS
PROMISED, EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACTOR MIGHT LATER BE ABLE TO DELIVER
WHEN CALLED FOR AND THUS ESCAPE THE DELIVERY LIQUIDATED DAMAGE
PROVISION. 

THIS CONTRACT WAS MADE AT ARM'S LENGTH.  THE PETITIONER KNEW OF THE
NECESSITY FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS.  IT UNDOUBTEDLY
GAVE CONSIDERATION TO THIS FACT AND FIXED ITS PRICE HIGH ENOUGH TO
SATISFY ITSELF OF ITS PROFITS.  I CAN THINK OF NO PERSUASIVE REASON WHY
IT SHOULD NOW BE RELIEVED OF THE OBLIGATION IT ADVISEDLY ASSUMED WHICH
WAS, IN EFFECT, TO CHARGE LESS FOR ITS GOODS IF THEY WERE NOT READY FOR
DELIVERY ON THE DATE IT PROMISED.  I DO NOT DENY THAT THIS COURT CAN
FILL GAPS IN STATUTES SO AS TO EXECUTE BROAD CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSES AND
THAT COURTS GENERALLY HAVE MADE LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO LAWS GOVERNING
CONTRACTS.  BUT I THINK THAT THE COURT HERE MAKES A LAW WHICH
FRUSTRATES CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSES AND TENDS MOST UNWISELY TO HANDICAP
GOVERNMENT PURCHASING AGENTS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR AUTHORIZED
DUTIES.  I ADHERE TO THE BELIEF THAT IT IS UNWISE FOR THE COURTS TO
INTERFERE WITH THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS IN HARMONY
WITH VALID CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.  PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., 310
U.S. 113, 127-128, 131-132.  I WOULD AFFIRM THIS JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, DISSENTING. 

UPON FAILURE TO PERFORM THE UNDERTAKING OF A CONTRACT THE LAW SECURES
THE MONEY EQUIVALENT FOR THE LOSS THEREBY INCURRED.  IN ORDER TO AVOID
THE WASTE OF CONTROVERSY AS TO THE EXTENT OF A LOSS, SHOULD IT OCCUR,
AND TO SAVE JUDGES AND JURIES FROM HAVING TO GUESS ABOUT IT, PARTIES,
NATURALLY ENOUGH, OFTEN STIPULATE IN ADVANCE THE COMPENSATION FOR SUCH
LOSS, AND COURTS IN APPROPRIATE SITUATIONS WILL ENFORCE SUCH A
PROVISION FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  BUT EXACTIONS FOR A BREACH OF
CONTRACT NOT GIVING RISE TO DAMAGES AND MERELY SERVING AS ADDED
PRESSURE TO CARRY OUT PUNCTILIOUSLY THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT, ARE NOT
ENFORCED BY COURTS.  IN FAMILIAR LANGUAGE, PENAL PROVISIONS IN A
CONTRACT - THOSE THAT CONCERN DEFAULTS THAT BRING NO LOSS IN THEIR
TRAIN - ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE.  I ASSUME THAT THE BASIC REASON FOR THIS
DOCTRINE IS THAT THE INFLICTION OF PUNISHMENT THROUGH COURTS IS A
FUNCTION OF SOCIETY AND SHOULD NOT INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF
INDIVIDUALS.  SO-CALLED QUI TAM ACTIONS, SUITS FOR TREBLE DAMAGES AND
THE LIKE, STAND ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING.  IN SUCH SITUATIONS SOCIETY
MAKES INDIVIDUALS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ENFORCING A POLICY EXPLICITLY FORMULATED BY LEGISLATION.  THE ESSENCE
OF THE LAW'S REMEDY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT IS THAT HE WHO HAS SUFFERED
FROM A BREACH SHOULD BE DULY COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS INCURRED BY NON
PERFORMANCE.  BUT ONE MAN'S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT LEAD TO ANOTHER MAN'S
UNJUST ENRICHMENT. 

IF THE CONTRACT IN CONTROVERSY IS TO BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION, TO BE GOVERNED BY THE ORDINARY RULES APPLICABLE
ALSO TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN ORDINARY TIMES, I COULD NOT ESCAPE THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE PROVISION FOR "DAMAGES" MERELY FOR FAILURE TO
SECURE INSPECTION CERTIFICATES WITHOUT FAILURE OF DELIVERY OPERATES AS
A PENALTY TO DETER NON-OBSERVANCE OF THIS REQUIREMENT.  IT IS NOT A
DETERMINATION IN ADVANCE OF THE MONEY LOST TO THE GOVERNMENT DUE TO
DEFAULT.  THE GOVERNMENT WANTED DELIVERY OF EGGS.  BUT FAILURE OF
DELIVERY OR INABILITY TO DELIVER FOR WANT OF CERTIFICATES BRINGS INTO
OPERATION THE PROVISIONS FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF PARAGRAPH 9.  THERE
IS NO MONEY LOSS TO THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH FAILURE OF ANY OF THE
INTERVENING PREPARATORY STEPS IN THE PROCESS LEADING TO DELIVERY.  OF
COURSE A CONTRACTOR IS INTERESTED IN HAVING THE STEPS LEADING TO
PERFORMANCE DULY CARRIED OUT.  EXACTIONS FOR ANY OF THE INTERVENING
STEPS WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE A COERCIVE INFLUENCE IN SECURING
PERFORMANCE OF THAT WHICH IS THE REAL OBJECT OF A CONTRACT.  BUT IF A
CONTRACT IS PERFORMED, THE PROMISEE HAS SUFFERED NO LOSS EVEN THOUGH
SOME INTERVENING STEP BY THE PROMISOR HAS BEEN DELAYED.  AND SO, SUCH A
PROVISION FOR DEFAULT OF AN INTERVENING STEP, WHEN DUE DELIVERY HAS
BEEN MADE, IS PLAINLY EXACTION OF AN AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE PROMISEE HAS
NOT BEEN OUT OF POCKET.  ACCORDINGLY, IF THIS CONTRACT WERE AN ORDINARY
COMMERCIAL CONTRACT SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY RULES OF THE LAW OF
CONTRACT, I SHOULD HAVE TO FIND AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. 

BUT THIS IS NOT AN ORDINARY PEACE-TIME GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.  THE
GOVERNMENT MAY CERTAINLY ASSURE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS UPON WHICH THE
EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF THE WAR DEPENDED BY TIGHTENING THE CONSEQUENCE OF
NONPERFORMANCE OF EACH STAGE IN THE ULTIMATE PROCESS OF DELIVERY OF
ESSENTIAL GOODS TO THE EXTENT OF HAVING A TARIFF OF DEDUCTIONS FOR NON
PERFORMANCE OF EACH STEP IN THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE CONTRACT. 
CONGRESS CERTAINLY COULD SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE SUCH PRESSURES ON EACH
STEP IN THE SEQUENCE OF A CONTRACT-PERFORMANCE BY PROVISIONS LIKE THAT
OF PARAGRAPH 7.  CONGRESS DID NOT DO THIS.  INSTEAD OF PARTICULARIZING
TO THAT EXTENT, SUCH A PROVISION WOULD, AS A MATTER OF FAIR
CONSTRUCTION, ALSO BE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS IF IT EMPOWERED AN AGENCY
TO PROCURE "UNDER APPROPRIATE TERMS AND CONDITIONS" ESSENTIAL WAR
GOODS.  I COULD NOT HOLD THAT AN AUTHORITY BY CONGRESS TO A PROCUREMENT
AGENCY TO MAKE CONTRACTS FOR CARRYING OUT THE FOOD PROGRAM FOR THE
SUCCESSFUL CONDUCT OF THE WAR COULD NOT APPROPRIATELY REQUIRE OF THOSE
WHO VOLUNTARILY ENTER INTO SUCH CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO INCUR
A REASONABLE PENALTY FOR DEFAULT FOR NECESSARY CERTIFICATES UPON WHICH
DELIVERY DEPENDED.  AND THIS WOULD BE SO EVEN THOUGH FOR REASONS
THEMSELVES RELATING TO THE WAR EFFORT, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVED A
NECESSARY MARGIN OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO CALL FOR DELIVERY AND BY A
DELAYED CALL OBTAINED DELIVERY WHEN REQUIRED, THOUGH IF THE CALL HAD
BEEN PREVIOUSLY MADE THE FAILURE OF CERTIFICATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN
SERIOUS.  CONGRESS DID NOT ADD TO ITS AUTHORIZATION FOR ENTERING INTO
THE MAKING OF THESE WAR CONTRACTS THE ASSUMED PROVISION "WITH
APPROPRIATE TERMS AND CONDITIONS."  BUT I FIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
WHAT CONGRESS DID AND THE INDICATED ADDITION TOO THIN FOR DENYING TO
THE CONTRACTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT THE IMPLIED RIGHT, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TIMES.  CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT, THROUGH
APPROPRIATE DELEGATION, TO "PROCURE  ...  ANY DEFENSE ARTICLE" DEEMED
"VITAL TO THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES."  SECTION 3(A) OF THE LEND
LEASE ACT OF 1941, 55 STAT. 31.  AND SO I CONCLUDE THAT THE PROVISIONS
OF PARAGRAPH 7 WERE, ON A FAIR READING OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION,
WITHIN THE CONTRACTING POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT AS MUCH SO AS IF
CONGRESS HAD IN TERMS AUTHORIZED SUCH A PROVISION. 

IT HARDLY NEEDS TO BE ADDED THAT NEITHER FORMAL LOGIC NOR PRACTICAL
JUDGMENT REQUIRES THAT AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE SAFEGUARDS FOR PREVENTING
BREACHES SHORT OF ULTIMATE DEFAULT, SIMILAR TO THOSE CONTAINED IN
PARAGRAPH 7 OF THIS CONTRACT FOR VITAL WAR PRODUCTS, BE INFERRED FROM
THE ORDINARY IMPLIED POWERS OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING OFFICERS IN
MAKING ORDINARY CONTRACTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 

IF ONE STARTS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY, A FIXED RULE OF LAW PRECLUDES CONTRACTING
OFFICERS FROM PROVIDING IN A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT TERMS REASONABLY
CALCULATED TO ASSURE ITS PERFORMANCE EVEN THOUGH THERE BE NO MONEY LOSS
THROUGH A PARTICULAR DEFAULT, THERE IS NO PROBLEM.  BUT ANSWERS ARE NOT
OBTAINED BY PUTTING THE WRONG QUESTION AND THEREBY BEGGING THE REAL
ONE.  IT IS MISLEADING TO ASK:  "WHAT REMEDIES HAS CONGRESS PROVIDED
FOR BREACHES OF CONTRACT?"  THE ANSWER TO THAT DEPENDS ON THE ANSWER TO
THE TRUE QUESTION:  "WITH WHAT SCOPE HAS CONGRESS PRESUMABLY INVESTED
THE EXECUTIVE IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE DUTY, NOT DEFINED WITH
PARTICULARITY, OF ASSURING THE NECESSARY WAR SUPPLIES?" 

THE ENFORCEABILITY OF A CLAUSE LIKE THAT NOW IN CONTROVERSY,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS FAIRLY TO BE REGARDED AS ONE FOR
"LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" OR FOR A "PENALTY," IS A MATTER OF APPROPRIATE
IMPLICATIONS DRAWN FROM A TOTAL ABSENCE OF EXPRESSED CONGRESSIONAL
DESIRE.  SUCH IMPLICATIONS DO NOT REST ON DOGMA.  THEY DERIVE FROM THE
CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY UNDERLYING THEM.  IT IS ONE THING TO ATTRIBUTE
TO CONGRESS THE DESIRE TO CONFINE THE GOVERNMENT'S REMEDIES FOR
BREACHES OF ITS ORDINARY PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS TO THE RULES OF LAW
GOVERNING ORDINARY COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO
INFER THAT WHEN IN MARCH, 1941, CONGRESS GAVE THE PRESIDENT, THROUGH
THE LEND-LEASE ACT, UNRESTRICTED POWER TO "PROCURE" ESSENTIAL WAR
MATERIALS, IT MEANT TO FETTER THE PROCUREMENT AGENCIES SELECTED BY THE
PRESIDENT, BY FORBIDDING THEM TO INCLUDE, AMONG THE TERMS OF BIDS TO BE
VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED, CONDITIONS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO SECURE
PERFORMANCE. 

WHILE CONGRESS PRESUMABLY WISHES THE ORDINARY RULES OF CONTRACT LAW
TO APPLY IN ORDINARY TIMES, THE LEND-LEASE ACT WAS THE MOST POTENT
PROOF THAT THE TIMES WERE FAR FROM ORDINARY.  THE INCLUSION OF
PARAGRAPH 7 IN CONTRACTS SUCH AS THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE REGARD BY THE
EXECUTIVE FOR THE VERY EMERGENCY WHICH IMPELLED CONGRESS TO ACT AND TO
GIVE ITS AGENCIES POWER TO ACT. 
..END :





MORRIS V. MCCOMB, 332 U.S. 422 


NO. 7.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1947.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 17, 1947.  - 155
F.2D 832, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO DRIVERS AND MECHANICS EMPLOYED FULL
TIME, AS SUCH, BY A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE, WHEN THE SERVICES
RENDERED THROUGH SUCH EMPLOYEES BY SUCH CARRIER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ARE DISTRIBUTED GENERALLY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, CONSTITUTE 3% TO 4% OF
THE CARRIER'S TOTAL CARRIER SERVICES, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH
SERVICES IS SHARED INDISCRIMINATELY AMONG SUCH EMPLOYEES AND MINGLED
WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE OF OTHER LIKE SERVICES FOR SUCH CARRIER NOT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PP. 423-424, 431-437. 

2.  IT IS THE CHARACTER OF THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES RATHER THAN THE
PROPORTION OF EITHER HIS TIME OR OF HIS ACTIVITIES THAT DETERMINES THE
ACTUAL NEED FOR THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE.  LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, 330 U.S.
649.  PP. 431-432. 

3.  SECTION 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT MAKES THE
OVERTIME REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7 INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH EMPLOYEES. 
LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, SUPRA.  PP. 423-424, 437-438. 

MORRIS V. MCCOMB, WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT BY THE WAGE AND HOUR
ADMINISTRATOR TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 15(A)(1) AND (2) OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
155 F.2D 832.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 817.  JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AS HERE MODIFIED, P. 438. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE REQUIRES FURTHER APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES STATED IN
LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, 330 U.S. 649, AND PYRAMID MOTOR
FREIGHT CORP. V. ISPASS, 330 U.S. 695.  THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER, UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935,  FN1  TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO DRIVERS AND MECHANICS EMPLOYED FULL
TIME, AS SUCH, BY A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE, WHEN THE SERVICES
RENDERED, THROUGH SUCH EMPLOYEES, BY SUCH CARRIER, IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, ARE DISTRIBUTED GENERALLY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, CONSTITUTE 3%
TO 4% OF THE CARRIER'S TOTAL CARRIER SERVICES, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF
SUCH SERVICES IS SHARED INDISCRIMINATELY AMONG SUCH EMPLOYEES AND
MINGLED WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE OF OTHER LIKE SERVICES FOR SUCH CARRIER
NOT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHETHER, IF THE
COMMISSION HAS THAT POWER, THE OVERTIME REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7 OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938  FN2  APPLY TO SUCH EMPLOYEES IN VIEW
OF THE EXEMPTION STATED IN SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THAT ACT.  FN3  WE HOLD
THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER IN QUESTION AND THAT THE OVERTIME
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT THEREFORE DO NOT
APPLY TO SUCH EMPLOYEES. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT MARCH 26, 1942, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNDER SEC.
17 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,  FN4  TO ENJOIN THE PETITIONER,
JAMES F. MORRIS, FROM VIOLATING SEC. 15(A)(1) AND (2) OF THAT ACT  FN5
THROUGH FAILURE TO PAY HIS EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 7 OF THAT ACT.  FN6  AFTER A TRIAL BASED ON THE
PLEADINGS AND STIPULATED FACTS, THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED SEPTEMBER
26, 1945.  IN ITS UNREPORTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THE COURT STATED THAT
NEITHER THE PETITIONER NOR HIS EMPLOYEES WERE ENGAGED "IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT AND THAT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY MIGHT BE CONSIDERED TO
BE ENGAGED "IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT ACT, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ITS SEC. 7, AS TO COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME, DID NOT
APPLY TO THEM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
REVERSED THIS JUDGMENT MAY 29, 1946, AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  WALLING V. MORRIS, 155 F.2D 832.  BECAUSE OF ITS
IMPORTANCE IN INTERPRETING THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT AND BECAUSE THE QUESTION FIRST STATED ABOVE HAD NOT BEEN
PASSED UPON IN OUR DECISIONS IN THE LEVINSON AND PYRAMID CASES, SUPRA,
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 330 U.S. 817, LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION: 

"2.  WHERE SUCH EMPLOYEES (I.E., THOSE OF A COMMON CARRIER FOR HIRE
WHO CONDUCTS A GENERAL CARTAGE BUSINESS) DURING A MINORITY OF THEIR
TIME ARE ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF INTERSTATE TRAFFIC ARE THEY
EXEMPT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(B)(1) OF THE ACT FROM THE
MAXIMUM HOURS PROVISION OF SECTION 7 OF THE ACT AS EMPLOYEES WITH
RESPECT TO WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO
ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935(49 U.S.C. SEC.
301, ET SEQ.)?" 

IN RESPONSE TO OUR INVITATION, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
FILED A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE. 

THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE TREATED BY THE PARTIES AS BEING THOSE SHOWN BY
THE RECORD TO HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN
1942.  THEY MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

THE PETITIONER THEN WAS, AND FOR THE PAST 12 YEARS HAD BEEN, THE SOLE
OWNER AND PROPRIETOR OF THE J. F. MORRIS CARTAGE COMPANY WHICH OPERATED
A GENERAL CARTAGE BUSINESS AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN AND
ABOUT THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, AND ALL WITHIN THREE
CONTIGUOUS COUNTIES OF THAT STATE.  HIS OPERATIONS WERE CENTRALIZED AT
ECORSE, MICHIGAN, AT HIS GARAGE AND YARD, USED FOR A DISPATCHING
OFFICE, GENERAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR GARAGE AND STORAGE SPACE FOR
EQUIPMENT. 

HIS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS WAS THE TRANSPORTATION OF STEEL.  IN THE
REGULAR COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS, IN 1941, HE GENERALLY EMPLOYED ABOUT 60
PERSONS, 40 AS TRUCK DRIVERS, 14 AS MECHANICS, PAINTERS, WASHERS AND
REPAIRMEN IN THE GARAGE, THREE AS DISPATCHERS AND THREE AS GENERAL
OFFICE WORKERS.  HIS EQUIPMENT CONSISTED OF ABOUT 50 TRUCKS OR TRACTORS
AND 60 TRAILERS. 

HE WAS PREPARED TO AND DID RENDER GENERAL CARTAGE SERVICE TO THE
GENERAL SHIPPING PUBLIC.  IN 1941, HE RENDERED SUCH SERVICE TO 47
CONSIGNING FIRMS, BUT ABOUT 97% OF HIS REVENUE CAME FROM THE GREAT
LAKES STEEL CORPORATION AND THE MICHIGAN STEEL CORPORATION, BOTH IN
ECORSE.  HIS GENERAL CARTAGE SERVICES, IN 1941, WERE MADE UP OF THREE
INTERMINGLED TYPES OF SERVICE, GENERALLY CLASSIFIABLE AS FOLLOWS ON THE
BASIS OF THE REVENUE DERIVED FROM THEM:  (1) 35%: TRANSPORTATION OF
STEEL LARGELY WITHIN STEEL PLANTS.  THIS WAS TRANSPORTED FOR FURTHER
PROCESSING IN THOSE PLANTS AND AN UNSEGREGATED PORTION OF IT WAS
SHIPPED ULTIMATELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  (2) 61%: TRANSPORTATION
BETWEEN STEEL MILLS AND INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.  THESE SHIPMENTS
CONSISTED PRINCIPALLY OF BUMPER STOCK, FENDER STOCK AND OTHER TYPES OF
STEEL USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANUFACTURE OF AUTOMOBILES, A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF WHICH ENTERED INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  (3) 4%:
TRANSPORTATION OF MISCELLANEOUS FREIGHT DIRECTLY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, EITHER AS PART OF CONTINUOUS INTERSTATE MOVEMENTS OR OF
INTERSTATE MOVEMENTS BEGUN OR TERMINATED IN METROPOLITAN DETROIT.  FN7 

EVER SINCE SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TOOK EFFECT,
OCTOBER 24, 1938, PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HIS
OFFICE WORKERS, CONSISTENTLY WORKED ENOUGH HOURS TO ENTITLE THEM TO
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THEIR
REGULAR WAGES IF SUCH SECTION WERE APPLICABLE TO THEM.  THEY WERE,
HOWEVER, PAID ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SECTION DID NOT APPLY TO THEM
AND, THEREFORE, FOR THE MOST PART, RECEIVED ONLY THEIR REGULAR RATE OF
PAY FOR SUCH OVERTIME.  ACCORDINGLY, IF IT IS FOUND THAT SEC. 7 IS
APPLICABLE TO THEM, THERE IS GROUND FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ITS
FURTHER VIOLATION.  NO ISSUE IS PRESENTED HERE AS TO THE OFFICE WORKERS
BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF OF OVERTIME SERVICES HAVING BEEN RENDERED BY
THEM OR BEING NOW IN PROSPECT.  NO ISSUE IS PRESENTED HERE AS TO THE
DISPATCHERS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT SEC. 7 APPLIES TO
THEM AS EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THAT THEY ARE NOT EXEMPT AS ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES. 
THOSE ISSUES, HOWEVER, ARE NOT WITHIN THE LIMITED GRANT OF CERTIORARI. 
AS TO THE GARAGEMEN AND LABORERS, INCLUDING MECHANICS, PAINTERS,
WASHERS AND REPAIRMEN, TOGETHER WITH THEIR SUPERINTENDENT OF
MAINTENANCE, THERE IS NO ISSUE PRESENTED HERE, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT
THAT SUCH CLASSIFICATIONS INCLUDE MECHANICS DOING THE CLASS OF WORK
DEFINED AS THAT OF "MECHANICS" IN EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125,
132, 133,  FN8 INCLUDING THE MAKING OF MECHANICAL REPAIRS DIRECTLY
AFFECTING THE SAFE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES.  ALL OF THE GARAGEMEN
AND LABORERS, EXCEPT THEIR SUPERINTENDENT OF MAINTENANCE, WERE PAID FOR
THEIR OVERTIME WORK AT "STRAIGHT" OR REGULAR HOURLY RATES.  HE WAS PAID
A WEEKLY WAGE, AND RECEIVED NO OVERTIME PAY, ALTHOUGH HE DEVOTED
APPROXIMATELY 25% OF HIS TIME TO THE PERFORMANCE OF ROUTINE PHYSICAL
TASKS OF THE SAME GENERAL CHARACTER AS THOSE OF THE EMPLOYEES WORKING
UNDER HIS DIRECTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF MAINTENANCE WAS NOT EXEMPT AS AN EXECUTIVE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE AND SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED IN THE SAME MANNER AS
THE OTHERS IN THIS GROUP.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD SHOWING THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE RESPECTIVE GARAGEMEN AND LABORERS DEVOTED
THEMSELVES TO THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF WORK ABOVE MENTIONED AND, IF THIS
WERE AN ACTION TO RECOVER OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THAT FACT.  HOWEVER, AS
THIS IS AN ACTION ONLY FOR AN INJUNCTION RELATING TO FUTURE PRACTICES,
THE SITUATION CAN BE MET BY LIMITING THE INJUNCTION TO THE APPROPRIATE
CLASSIFICATIONS OF WORKERS.  ON THIS BASIS, THE INJUNCTION AGAINST
VIOLATION OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT MAY BE ISSUED AS TO
THOSE GARAGEMEN AND LABORERS WHO ARE NOT "MECHANICS" AS DEFINED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS LIMITED TO
THE PROPER APPLICATION OF SUCH AN INJUNCTION TO SUCH "MECHANICS." 

THE DRIVERS ARE FULL-TIME DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES WELL WITHIN THE
DEFINITION OF THAT CLASS OF WORK BY THE COMMISSION IF THE WORK IS DONE
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN9  FROM OCTOBER 24, 1938, TO AUGUST 1, 1940,
THE DRIVERS RECEIVED THEIR "STRAIGHT" OR REGULAR HOURLY RATE OF PAY FOR
ALL OVERTIME WORK.  SINCE AUGUST 1, 1940, THEIR OVERTIME WORK HAS BEEN
PAID FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IN FORCE
AS TO UNION DRIVERS, THROUGHOUT METROPOLITAN DETROIT, EMPLOYED EITHER
IN INTRASTATE OR INTERSTATE GENERAL CARTAGE.  FROM AUGUST 1, 1940, TO
AUGUST 1, 1941, THESE AGREEMENTS REQUIRED PAYMENT OF OVERTIME IN EXCESS
OF 52 HOURS A WEEK AT ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE.  AFTER
AUGUST 1, 1941, AS A CONCESSION TO WARTIME CONDITIONS, THIS ADDITIONAL
RATE WAS APPLIED ONLY TO OVERTIME IN EXCESS OF 54 HOURS A WEEK.  THE
STATUTORY WORKWEEK WHICH WOULD BE APPLICABLE UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT AT ALL TIMES HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY SHORTER THAN
THOSE JUST MENTIONED.  FN10 

AS TO THESE DRIVERS AND THESE "MECHANICS" WHOSE WORK AFFECTS SAFETY
OF TRANSPORTATION, THE FIRST QUESTION HERE, AS IN THE LEVINSON CASE, IS
WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER, UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  THE SPECIAL SITUATION PRESENTED IS THAT, ON THE
AVERAGE, ONLY ABOUT 4% OF THEIR TIME AND EFFORT HAS BEEN, OR IS LIKELY
TO BE, DEVOTED TO SERVICES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE ISSUE WOULD
APPEAR IN ITS SIMPLEST FORM IF EACH DRIVER WERE REQUIRED, EACH DAY, TO
DEVOTE 24 MINUTES (I.E., 4% OF HIS ALLOWABLE DAILY AGGREGATE OF TEN
HOURS OF DRIVING TIME) TO DRIVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE QUESTION
THEN WOULD BE WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO ESTABLISH HIS
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE IN VIEW OF THE RELATION OF
THIS DRIVING TO SAFETY OF OPERATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UNDER THE
TESTS OF THE COMMISSION'S POWER, AS APPROVED IN BOTH THE MAJORITY AND
MINORITY OPINIONS IN THE LEVINSON CASE, AND, UNDER THE ANALYSIS OF THAT
POWER DEVELOPED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND CITED IN THAT
CASE, IT IS "THE CHARACTER OF THE ACTIVITIES RATHER THAN THE PROPORTION
OF EITHER THE EMPLOYEE'S TIME OR OF HIS ACTIVITIES THAT DETERMINES THE
ACTUAL NEED FOR THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFICATIONS, MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE,
SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT."  FN11  IT IS BEYOND QUESTION THAT,
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, SEC. 204(A)(1) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT  FN12
HAS AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF SUCH
DRIVERS.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, WHICH WAS PASSED THREE YEARS
LATER, HAS RECOGNIZED AND DOES NOT RESTRICT THE COMMISSION'S POWER OVER
THE SAFETY OF OPERATION UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  WHAT IS THUS TRUE
FOR THE DRIVER IS TRUE ALSO FOR THE MECHANIC WHO REPAIRS HIS TRUCK. 

IN THE RECORD BEFORE US, INSTEAD OF 4% OF THE DRIVING TIME OF EACH
DRIVER BEING DEVOTED EACH DAY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHOUT RELATION
TO WHAT THE DRIVER DOES AT OTHER TIMES, THE PARTIES PRESENT THE ACTUAL
EXPERIENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS DRIVERS THROUGHOUT 1941.  THE
PRINTED RECORD, TOGETHER WITH AN UNPRINTED EXHIBIT FILED WITH THE
CLERK, CLASSIFIES ALL OF THE 19,786 TRIPS TAKEN IN 1941 BY THE 43
DRIVERS WHO RESPECTIVELY DROVE MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE PETITIONER DURING
NOT LESS THAN EIGHT WEEKS IN THAT YEAR.  ONLY THE "PICKUP TRIPS" AND
"BOAT DOCK TRIPS" ARE COUNTED AS BEING IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THESE
INVOLVED MOVEMENTS OF GOODS TO OR FROM RAILROAD FREIGHT HOUSES, LINE
HAUL MOTOR CARRIER DEPOTS OR THE BOAT DOCKS OF THE SEVERAL STEAMSHIP
COMPANIES IN DETROIT.  IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS
"ENGAGED AS A COMMON CARRIER FOR HIRE IN THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION OF
PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE," WAS "ENGAGED IN A GENERAL CARTAGE BUSINESS
AND  ...  (WAS) PREPARED TO RENDER SUCH SERVICE TO THE GENERAL SHIPPING
PUBLIC  ...  " EACH DRIVER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A FULL-TIME DRIVER
DURING EACH WEEK THAT HE WORKED.  THE TABLES SHOW 464 "PICKUP TRIPS"
AND 260 "BOAT DOCK TRIPS," OR A TOTAL OF 724 MADE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, WHEN AND AS REQUIRED BY PETITIONER'S CONSIGNORS.  THESE
CONSTITUTED 3.65% OF THE PETITIONER'S TOTAL TRIPS.  THEY WERE NOT
DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY TO EACH DRIVER NOR ON THE BASIS OF 4% OF HIS TIME
EACH DAY.  HOWEVER, APPARENTLY IN THE NORMAL OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS,
THESE STRICTLY INTERSTATE COMMERCE TRIPS WERE DISTRIBUTED GENERALLY
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND THEIR PERFORMANCE WAS SHARED INDISCRIMINATELY
BY THE DRIVERS AND WAS MINGLED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER LIKE
DRIVING SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM OTHERWISE THAN IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THESE TRIPS WERE THUS A NATURAL, INTEGRAL AND APPARENTLY
INSEPARABLE PART OF THE COMMON CARRIER SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AND OF
HIS DRIVERS. 

ONE OR MORE SUCH TRIPS WERE TAKEN BY ONE OR MORE DRIVERS EACH WEEK. 
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF DRIVERS MAKING ONE OR MORE SUCH TRIPS IN EACH
WEEK WAS NINE DRIVERS OUT OF 37, OR 24.4%.  THERE WERE SIX WEEKS IN
WHICH MORE THAN HALF OF THE DRIVERS THUS ENGAGED DIRECTLY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF DRIVERS MAKING SUCH TRIPS IN ONE
WEEK WAS 78.1%, WHEN 25 DRIVERS, OUT OF THE 32 THEN ON DUTY, DID SO.
AS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH TRIPS, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, AMONG THE
TOTAL OF 43 DRIVERS, EVERY DRIVER, EXCEPT TWO, MADE AT LEAST ONE SUCH
TRIP WITH INTERSTATE FREIGHT.  EACH OF THE TWO WHO FAILED TO MAKE ANY
SUCH TRIP WAS EMPLOYED FOR ONLY ABOUT ONE-HALF THE YEAR AND THAT WAS
DURING THE MONTHS WHEN THE TRIPS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE THE LESS
FREQUENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE DRIVER MADE 97 SUCH TRIPS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ANOTHER MADE 52 AND THE AVERAGE PER DRIVER WAS
OVER 16.  THE GREATEST NUMBER OF SUCH TRIPS MADE BY A SINGLE DRIVER IN
A SINGLE WEEK WAS SEVEN OUT OF NINE.  IN SEVERAL OTHER WEEKS HE MADE
SIX SUCH TRIPS OUT OF A TOTAL OF SEVEN IN THE WEEK.  THE NET RESULT IS
A PRACTICAL SITUATION SUCH AS MAY CONFRONT ANY COMMON CARRIER ENGAGED
IN A GENERAL CARTAGE BUSINESS, AND WHO IS PREPARED AND OFFERING TO
SERVE THE NORMAL TRANSPORTATION DEMANDS OF THE SHIPPING PUBLIC IN AN
INDUSTRIAL METROPOLITAN CENTER.  FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF SAFETY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE HAZARDS ARE NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE
WHICH WOULD BE PRESENTED IF EACH DRIVER DROVE 4% OF HIS DRIVING TIME
EACH DAY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN BOTH CASES THERE IS THE SAME
ESSENTIAL NEED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES. 
IF THE COMMON CARRIER IS REQUIRED, BY VIRTUE OF THAT STATUS, TO TAKE
THIS INTERSTATE BUSINESS HE MUST PERFORM THE REQUIRED SERVICE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE
COMMISSION HAS MADE NO EXCEPTION IN THESE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE THAT WOULD EXEMPT THE DRIVERS OF THE PETITIONER FROM
THEM AS A CLASS.  THE APPLICABILITY OF THE COMMISSION'S PRESENT
REQUIREMENTS AS TO SPECIFIC DRIVERS DURING SPECIFIC WEEKS IS NOT THE
ISSUE BEFORE US.  WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO
ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE, PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, FOR THE ENTIRE
CLASSIFICATION OF PETITIONER'S DRIVERS AND "MECHANICS" AND IT IS THE
EXISTENCE OF THAT POWER (RATHER THAN THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE
REQUIREMENTS ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF
THAT POWER) THAT CONGRESS HAS MADE THE TEST AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SEC. 7
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THESE EMPLOYEES.  FN13
CONGRESS HAS GONE OUT OF ITS WAY TO MAKE THIS PURPOSE CLEAR IN CASES
COMPARABLE TO THE ONE BEFORE US.  IT HAS DONE THIS BY MAKING THE POWER
OF THE COMMISSION, UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, EXPRESSLY
APPLICABLE TO MOTOR VEHICLE PICKUP AND DELIVERY SERVICE WITHIN TERMINAL
AREAS  FN14  TO TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHOLLY WITHIN A
METROPOLITAN AREA,  FN15  AND TO CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR RECIPROCAL
TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY ANY PERSON NOT
ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR
BUSINESS.  FN16  IT HAS MADE THE COMMISSION'S POWER OVER SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE TO THESE OPERATIONS, EVEN THOUGH, AT
THE SAME TIME, CONGRESS HAS EXEMPTED THEM FROM GENERAL REGULATORY
CONTROL. 

CONGRESS FURTHERMORE HAS PROVIDED A SPECIAL PROCEDURE BY WHICH, IN AN
APPROPRIATE CASE, AN INTRASTATE MOTOR CARRIER OR ANY OTHER PARTY IN
INTEREST, MAY SECURE THE GENERAL EXEMPTION OF SUCH A CARRIER FROM
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT EVEN THOUGH SUCH CARRIER DOES
PERFORM SOME INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, EXPRESSLY
HAS AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION, AND NOT THE COURTS, TO DECIDE WHEN THE
CASE IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR SUCH A GENERAL EXEMPTION.  FN17  IT DOES
NOT APPEAR THAT ANY SUCH CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION HAS BEEN OBTAINED OR
SOUGHT AS TO THIS PETITIONER. 

HAVING DETERMINED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THESE DRIVERS AND
"MECHANICS" UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, THE QUESTION
RECURS AS TO WHETHER, IN THE FACE OF THE EXEMPTION STATED IN SEC.
13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7 OF
THAT ACT NEVERTHELESS APPLY TO THESE EMPLOYEES.  THIS ISSUE AS TO THE
POSSIBLE RECONCILIATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF THESE ACTS SO AS TO PROVIDE
FOR CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WAS CONSIDERED AT LENGTH IN THE LEVINSON
CASE AND THE CONCLUSION WAS THERE REACHED THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WAS
NOT PERMISSIBLE. 

THIS DISCUSSION HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS WHICH WERE
STIPULATED TO EXIST IN 1942.  THIS TREATMENT, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT BE
INTERPRETED AS NECESSARILY RESTRICTING THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE
PRESENT RECORD IF, FOR GOOD CAUSE, THAT COURT FINDS IT ADVISABLE TO
CONSIDER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR TO RETRY THE CASE DE NOVO. 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, AS HERE MODIFIED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "SEC.  204(A) IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION - 

"(1)  TO REGULATE COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN
THIS PART, AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CONTINUOUS AND A DEQUATE SERVICE,
TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS, UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS,
RECORDS, AND REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND
EQUIPMENT.   ...  "  49 STAT. 546, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 304(A)(1). 

FN2  "SEC.  7.  (A)  NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
IN THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

(1)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, 

(2)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-TWO HOURS DURING THE SECOND
YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, OR 

(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, 

UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN
EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE
HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED.  ...  "  52 STAT.
1063, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 207(A). 

FN3  "SEC.  13.  ... 

"(B)  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 SHALL NOT APPLY WITH RESPECT TO (1)
ANY EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT,
1935; ...  "  52 STAT. 1068, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 213(B)(1). 

FN4  "SEC.  17.  THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL
HAVE JURISDICTION, FOR CAUSE SHOWN, AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
'AN ACT TO SUPPLEMENT EXISTING LAWS AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND
MONOPOLIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES', APPROVED OCTOBER 15, 1914, AS
AMENDED (U.S.C., 1934 EDITION, TITLE 28, SEC. 381), TO RESTRAIN
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 15."  52 STAT. 1069, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 217. 

FN5  "SEC.  15.  (A)  ...  , IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON - 

(1)  TO TRANSPORT, OFFER FOR TRANSPORTATION, SHIP, DELIVER, OR SELL
IN COMMERCE, OR TO SHIP, DELIVER, OR SELL WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT SHIPMENT
OR DELIVERY OR SALE THEREOF IN COMMERCE IS INTENDED, ANY GOODS IN THE
PRODUCTION OF WHICH ANY EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 6
OR SECTION 7, OR IN VIOLATION OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED UNDER SECTION 14; EXCEPT THAT NO PROVISION OF THIS
ACT SHALL IMPOSE ANY LIABILITY UPON ANY COMMON CARRIER FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION IN COMMERCE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS OF ANY
GOODS NOT PRODUCED BY SUCH COMMON CARRIER, AND NO PROVISION OF THIS ACT
SHALL EXCUSE ANY COMMON CARRIER FROM ITS OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT ANY GOODS
FOR TRANSPORTATION; 

(2)  TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR SECTION 7, OR
ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
ISSUED UNDER SECTION 14; ...  "  52 STAT. 1068, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 215. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN7  THIS ACTIVITY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 

"C.  APPROXIMATELY THREE (3) PER CENT OF THE DEFENDANT'S OPERATIONS
CONSISTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BETWEEN THE PLANTS OF THE
GREAT LAKES STEEL CORPORATION AND THE PLANTS OF THE MICHIGAN STEEL
CORPORATION ON THE ONE HAND, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, INTERCHANGE
POINTS, SUCH AS BOAT DOCKS, RAILROAD DEPOTS, FREIGHT TERMINALS AND
TRUCK TERMINALS LYING IN THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA, WHOLLY WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, INVOLVING THE PICKING UP OF
FREIGHT FROM OR THE DELIVERY OF FREIGHT TO WATER CARRIERS, RAILROAD
CARRIERS AND LINE HAUL MOTOR CARRIERS, WHICH FREIGHT EITHER HAS MOVED
ACROSS THE MICHIGAN STATE LINES OR IS ABOUT TO MOVE ACROSS THE MICHIGAN
STATE LINES IN CONTINUOUS TRANSPORTATION THROUGH CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
DEFENDANT AND SUCH OTHER INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  THE DEFENDANT'S
COMPENSATION FOR HIS PORTION OF THE THROUGH TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IS
IN SOME INSTANCES PAID TO HIM BY THE INTERSTATE CARRIER, THE
COMPENSATION REPRESENTING A DIVISION OF THE THROUGH RATES ON THE
TRANSPORTATION MOVEMENT, AND OTHER INSTANCES BEING COMPENSATED BY THE
SHIPPER. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"E.  APPROXIMATELY ONE (1) PER CENT OF THE DEFENDANT'S OPERATIONS
CONSISTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF MISCELLANEOUS FREIGHT IN GENERAL
CARTAGE SERVICE FOR HIRE AND FOR SHIPPERS OTHER THAN GREAT LAKES STEEL
CORPORATION OR MICHIGAN STEEL CORPORATION.  CARTAGE IN THIS CATEGORY IS
OF THE SAME PHYSICAL CHARACTER AS THAT DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPHS A, C,
AND D ABOVE, EXCEPT THAT IT IS DONE ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE ACCOUNT OF
SHIPPERS OTHER THAN GREAT LAKES STEEL CORPORATION AND MICHIGAN STEEL
CORPORATION." 

FN8  "(1)  MECHANICS AND OTHER GARAGE WORKERS.  - THE EVIDENCE IS
CLEAR THAT CARRIERS THAT DO NOT OPERATE APPROXIMATELY 10 MOTOR VEHICLES
OR MORE CANNOT ECONOMICALLY EMPLOY MECHANICS TO DO REPAIR WORK, AND
THEY DO NOT DO SO.  ... 

"THE LARGER CARRIERS, HOWEVER, DO EMPLOY MECHANICS WHOSE PRIMARY
DUTIES ARE TO KEEP THE MOTOR VEHICLES IN A GOOD AND SAFE WORKING
CONDITION.  THEY ARE REQUIRED, FOR EXAMPLE, TO KEEP THE LIGHTS AND
BRAKES IN SUCH CONDITION.  THEY PERFORM MANY OTHER DUTIES, OF COURSE,
BUT THESE ARE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW CLEARLY THAT THE DUTIES OF THESE
EMPLOYEES DO AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION DIRECTLY, AS IT IS OBVIOUS THAT
A LARGE MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT THE REQUIRED LIGHTS OR ADEQUATE BRAKES IS
A GREAT POTENTIAL HAZARD TO HIGHWAY SAFETY.  ALL WITNESSES TESTIFYING
AT THE HEARING AGREED THAT THE WORK OF MECHANICS HAS SUCH A DIRECT AND
INTIMATE RELATION TO SAFETY OF OPERATION, AND NO CONFLICTING EVIDENCE
WAS SUBMITTED. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT MECHANICS DEVOTE A LARGE PORTION OF THEIR
TIME TO ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF
MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND HENCE
THAT WE HAVE POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE FOR SUCH EMPLOYEES UNDER SAID SECTION 204(A). 

"THERE ARE OTHER GARAGE EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT PERFORM WORK WHICH
AFFECTS SAFETY OF OPERATION DIRECTLY.  SOME CARRIERS EMPLOY MEN WHO DO
NOTHING BUT PAINT VEHICLES.  OTHERS EMPLOY CARPENTERS, AND SOME FEW
EMPLOY TARPAULIN TAILORS.  WE FIND THAT THE WORK DONE BY NONE OF THESE
EMPLOYEES AFFECTS SAFETY OF OPERATION. 

"IT IS POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DOES NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE
FACT, THAT SOME OF THE LARGER CARRIERS EMPLOY MEN WHOSE SOLE DUTY IS TO
SEE THAT THE MOTOR VEHICLES ARE PROPERLY SUPPLIED WITH OIL, GAS, AND
GREASE, OR TO WASH THE VEHICLES.  IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES,
UNDOUBTEDLY, THE MECHANICS PERFORM THIS WORK.  HOWEVER, IF THERE BE
EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOTHING BUT OIL, GAS, GREASE, OR WASH THE MOTOR
VEHICLES, WE FIND THAT THEY DO NOT PERFORM DUTIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT
THE SAFETY OF OPERATION AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO OUR JURISDICTION.  TO
MAKE OUR FINDING IN THIS REGARD ENTIRELY CLEAR, IT IS THAT MECHANICS
ARE THE ONLY GARAGE WORKERS WE FIND SUBJECT TO OUR JURISDICTION."  EX
PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125, 132, 133. 

FN9  SAFETY REGULATIONS (CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE), 49 CFR CUM.
SUPP., PARTS 190-193. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN11  LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, 330 U.S. 649, 674-675. 

"FOR, FACTUALLY SPEAKING, NOT THE AMOUNT OF TIME AN EMPLOYEE SPENDS
IN WORK AFFECTING SAFETY, BUT WHAT HE MAY DO IN THE TIME THUS SPENT
WHETHER IT BE LARGE OR SMALL DETERMINES THE EFFECT ON SAFETY.  TEN
MINUTES OF DRIVING BY AN UNQUALIFIED DRIVER MAY DO MORE HARM ON THE
HIGHWAY THAN A MONTH OR A YEAR OF CONSTANT DRIVING BY A QUALIFIED
ONE."  ID., DISSENTING OPINION, AT P. 687.    FN12  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN13  "WE RECOGNIZE, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THAT PRIVATE CARRIERS
TRANSPORT PROPERTY BOTH IN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  THE
SAME MOTOR VEHICLE, OPERATED BY THE SAME DRIVER, ON 1 OR 2 DAYS IN A
WEEK MAY BE ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTING PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THE REST OF THE WEEK MAY BE ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  IN OUR
OPINION IF A DRIVER OPERATES A MOTOR VEHICLE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE ON ANY DAY OF A GIVEN WEEK, SUCH DRIVER
IS SUBJECT TO THE WEEKLY MAXIMUM HEREIN PRESCRIBED.  LIKEWISE IF A
DRIVER EMPLOYED BY A PRIVATE CARRIER OF PROPERTY IS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE DURING ANY ONE PERIOD OF 24 CONSECUTIVE HOURS, HE
IS SUBJECT TO THE DAILY MAXIMUM HEREIN PRESCRIBED.  IF SUCH A DRIVER
DOES NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE A TRUCK IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR AN ENTIRE WEEK, HE IS NOT SUBJECT TO
THE REGULATIONS HEREIN PRESCRIBED DURING THAT WEEK.  WE EXPRESS NO
OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT DURING THAT WEEK THE DRIVER IS SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT."  EX PARTE
NO. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1, 39. 

THE ABOVE STATEMENT DEMONSTRATES THE COMMISSION'S OPINION AS TO ITS
POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE IN THE
FIELD OF MIXED INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THE RULES
THAT IT HAS PRESCRIBED HAVE NOT EXTENDED TO ITS FULL POWER TO MAKE
RULES IN THIS FIELD.  THE FACT THAT THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE IN 1940,
THREE YEARS BEFORE THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN SOUTHLAND CO. V.
BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44, EXPLAINS THE EXPRESS RESERVATION MADE AS TO THE
COMMISSION'S OPINION RELATING TO THE EFFECT OF THE SCOPE OF ITS
UNEXERCISED POWERS UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT IN RELATION
TO SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FOR THE COMMISSION'S
REGULATIONS OF HOURS OF SERVICE (CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE) SEE 49 CFR
CUM. SUPP., PART 191. 

FN14  "SEC.  202.  ... 

"(C)  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION OR OF SECTION
203, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204
RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES
AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT, SHALL NOT APPLY - 

"(1)  TO TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE BY A CARRIER BY RAILROAD
SUBJECT TO PART I, OR BY A WATER CARRIER SUBJECT TO PART III, OR BY A
FREIGHT FORWARDER SUBJECT TO PART IV, INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION OR
SERVICE SUBJECT TO SUCH PARTS, IN THE PERFORMANCE WITHIN TERMINAL AREAS
OF TRANSFER, COLLECTION, OR DELIVERY SERVICES; ...  "  SEC. 202(C)(1),
49 STAT. 543, AS AMENDED BY 56 STAT. 300, 49 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946),
SEC. 302(C)(1). 

FN15  "SEC.  203.  ... 

"(B)  NOTHING IN THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204
RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES
AND SAFETY OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
INCLUDE  ...  (8) THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE WHOLLY WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY OR BETWEEN
CONTIGUOUS MUNICIPALITIES OR WITHIN A ZONE ADJACENT TO AND COMMERCIALLY
A PART OF ANY SUCH MUNICIPALITY OR MUNICIPALITIES, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH
TRANSPORTATION IS UNDER A COMMON CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT
FOR A CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OR SHIPMENT TO OR FROM A POINT WITHOUT SUCH
MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPALITIES, OR ZONE, AND PROVIDED THAT THE MOTOR
CARRIER ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER REGULAR OR
IRREGULAR ROUTE OR ROUTES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ALSO LAWFULLY
ENGAGED IN THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER THE ENTIRE
LENGTH OF SUCH INTERSTATE ROUTE OR ROUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS
OF EACH STATE HAVING JURISDICTION; OR (9) THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR
RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION BY ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS." 
49 STAT. 545-546, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(B)(8) AND (9). 

FN16  SEE NOTE 15, SUPRA. 

FN17  "SEC.  204(A) IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION - 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(4A)  TO DETERMINE, UPON ITS OWN MOTION, OR UPON APPLICATION BY A
MOTOR CARRIER, A STATE BOARD, OR ANY OTHER PARTY IN INTEREST, WHETHER
THE TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE PERFORMED BY ANY
MOTOR CARRIER OR CLASS OF MOTOR CARRIERS LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN OPERATION
SOLELY WITHIN A SINGLE STATE IS IN FACT OF SUCH NATURE, CHARACTER, OR
QUANTITY AS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY TO AFFECT OR IMPAIR UNIFORM REGULATION BY
THE COMMISSION OF TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN EFFECTUATING THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY DECLARED IN THIS ACT.  UPON SO FINDING, THE
COMMISSION SHALL ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION TO SUCH MOTOR CARRIER
OR CLASS OF MOTOR CARRIERS WHICH, DURING THE PERIOD SUCH CERTIFICATE
SHALL REMAIN EFFECTIVE AND UNREVOKED, SHALL EXEMPT SUCH CARRIER OR
CLASS OF MOTOR CARRIERS FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
PART, AND SHALL ATTACH TO SUCH CERTIFICATE SUCH REASONABLE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS THE PUBLIC INTEREST MAY REQUIRE.  AT ANY TIME AFTER THE
ISSUANCE OF ANY SUCH CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION, THE COMMISSION MAY BY
ORDER REVOKE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, IF IT SHALL FIND THAT THE
TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE PERFORMED BY THE
CARRIER OR CLASS OF CARRIERS DESIGNATED IN SUCH CERTIFICATE SHALL BE,
OR SHALL HAVE BECOME, OR IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO BECOME, OF SUCH
NATURE, CHARACTER, OR QUANTITY AS IN FACT SUBSTANTIALLY TO AFFECT OR
IMPAIR UNIFORM REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR CARRIERS IN EFFECTUATING THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY DECLARED IN THIS ACT.  ...  "  49 STAT. 546, AS
AMENDED BY 54 STAT. 921, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 304(A)(4A). 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

APART FROM SEC. 13(B)(1), IT IS CLEAR THAT PETITIONER'S TRUCK DRIVERS
AND MECHANICS ARE SUBJECT TO THE WAGE AND HOUR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THEY SPEND VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEIR TIME IN
TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PRODUCTION
OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WALLING V. COMET CARRIERS, 151 F.2D
107.  THE ISSUE THUS BECOMES ONE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THESE EMPLOYEES
ARE PLAINLY AND UNMISTAKABLY WITHIN THE TERMS AND SPIRIT OF THE SEC.
13(B)(1) EXEMPTION, GIVING DUE REGARD TO THE RULE THAT EXEMPTIONS FROM
THE OPERATION OF HUMANITARIAN LEGISLATION ARE TO BE NARROWLY
CONSTRUED.  PHILLIPS CO. V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 490, 493. 

BY A PEDANTICALLY LITERAL READING OF SEC. 13(B)(1), IT IS POSSIBLE TO
SAY THAT THESE EMPLOYEES ARE AMONG THOSE AS TO WHOM THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS "POWER" TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE.  A SPORADIC AND MINUTE PORTION OF THEIR ACTIVITIES,
APPROXIMATING 3% TO 4% OF THE TOTAL, AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF
TRUCKS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COMMISSION'S POWER UNDER SEC.
204(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT IS CONFINED TO REGULATION OF
TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE; AND ITS JURISDICTION
OVER EMPLOYEES' ACTIVITIES IS LIMITED TO THOSE WHICH AFFECT THE SAFETY
OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION.  UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534.  HENCE THE POTENTIAL
SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S "POWER" OVER PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES IS
EXTREMELY NARROW.  APPROXIMATELY 97% OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE BEYOND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  YET IT IS BY THE SLENDER THREAD OF
THIS "POWER" THAT THEY FALL WITHIN SEC. 13(B)(1) AND HENCE ARE DEPRIVED
OF THE BENEFITS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

DUE RESPECT FOR THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE MILITATES AGAINST SUCH A
RESULT.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A STATUTE THAT IS DEDICATED TO THE
PROPOSITION THAT LABORING MEN ARE TO BE TREATED AS SOMETHING MORE THAN
CHATTELS.  AND THEIR STATUTORY RIGHTS ARE NOT TO BE DISCARDED BY
ADHERENCE TO FORMALISTIC DOGMAS OF INTERPRETATION.  SECTION 13(B)(1) IS
NOT JUST AN EXERCISE IN GRAMMAR.  IT IS PART OF THE LIVING FIBER
EMBODYING THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO LABOR FOR OTHERS.  IT MUST BE READ
AND INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF REASON AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE AIMS
WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE. 

WHEN THAT IS DONE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT WHEN SEC. 13(B)(1) SPEAKS OF
THOSE OVER WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS "POWER" IT MEANS
THOSE WHO PERFORM AT LEAST A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ACTIVITIES WITHIN
THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  CONGRESS WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH
INSIGNIFICANT CONFLICTS BETWEEN FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT REGULATIONS
AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REGULATIONS.  NOR WAS IT DESIROUS OF
LEAVING UNREGULATED NEARLY ALL OF THE WORKING TIME OF THOSE WHO ARE
ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE BUT WHO SPEND
INFINITESIMAL AMOUNTS OF TIME DIRECTLY IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION. 
IN OTHER WORDS, ENGAGING IN AN OCCASIONAL AND MICROSCOPIC AMOUNT OF
ACTIVITIES AFFECTING SAFETY OF OPERATION SHOULD NO MORE EXCLUDE
EMPLOYEES FROM THE ACT THAN SPORADICALLY SHIPPING INSUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS
OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHOULD BRING THOSE ENGAGED IN SUCH
SHIPMENTS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT.  SEE MABEE V. WHITE PLAINS
PUB. CO., 327 U.S. 178, 181.  THAT WAS IMPLICITLY RECOGNIZED BY THE
COURT IN PYRAMID MOTOR CORP. V. ISPASS, 330 U.S. 695, 708, AND I HAD
NOT SUPPOSED UNTIL NOW THAT THAT CASE OR LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR CO.,
330 U.S. 649, JUSTIFIED ANY OTHER RESULT. 

INTERPRETING SEC. 13(B)(1) IN DISREGARD OF REALITY ONLY ACTS AS AN
OPEN INVITATION TO EVADE THE ACT AND TO DESTROY THE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF
THOSE TRUCKING CONCERN EMPLOYEES WHO NOW PERFORM NO ACTIVITIES WHICH
AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATIONS.  ALL THAT THE EMPLOYER NEED DO TO
WITHDRAW THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT FROM THESE EMPLOYEES IS TO SEND THEM
OCCASIONALLY TO A TERMINAL TO PICK UP OR DELIVER A PIECE OF INTERSTATE
FREIGHT.  THEY THEN FALL INTO THE "POWER" OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AND AUTOMATICALLY LOSE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  I ACCORDINGLY DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

BUT FOR THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN THE LEVINSON AND ISPASS CASES, MY
VIEWS IN THIS CASE WOULD BE IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD WITH THOSE EXPRESSED
BY MR. JUSTICE MURPHY.  SEE LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, 330 U.S.
649, DISSENTING OPINION AT 685; PYRAMID MOTOR FREIGHT CORP. V. ISPASS,
330 U.S. 695.  I THOUGHT THE DECISIONS IN THOSE CASES FORESHADOWED THE
EXTREME RESULT HERE, WHICH GOES SO FAR AS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT'S PROTECTION AT LEAST TWO EMPLOYEES WHO MADE NO
TRIPS IN WHAT PETITIONER REGARDS AS THE INTERSTATE PHASE OF HIS
BUSINESS.  WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND ONE DRIVER MADE 97 SUCH TRIPS, THERE
WERE OTHERS WHO MADE ONLY VERY OCCASIONAL ONES. 

ALTHOUGH I REGARDED THE LEVINSON AND ISPASS DECISIONS AS
FORESHADOWING AND PERHAPS CONCLUDING ANY SITUATION WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S
WORK WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT SAFETY IN INTERSTATE OPERATIONS, AND
THUS AS GOING TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPTING FROM FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
COVERAGE ANY EMPLOYEE WHOSE WORK SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS SUCH SAFETY, I
DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ALL EMPLOYEES DRIVING FOR A COMPANY ENGAGED
PRINCIPALLY IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE BUT DOING A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD BE LUMPED TOGETHER, FOR PURPOSES OF THE
EXCLUSION, ON THE BASIS OF THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNTS OF WORK DONE BY
THE COMPANY IN THOSE PHASES OF ITS BUSINESS.  THAT I THINK IS THE
EFFECT OF THE PRESENT DECISION.  TO THAT EXTENT, I ALSO THINK THE
RULING CONSTITUTES AN EXTENSION OF THE EXEMPTION BEYOND THAT SUSTAINED
IN THE LEVINSON AND ISPASS CASES. 

ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION LAST TERM IN UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB
COMPANY, 332 U.S. 218, I ALSO HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH THE VIEW THAT ANY OF
THE CARRIER'S SERVICES HERE WERE RENDERED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THAT
DECISION HELD THAT THE TRANSPORTATION IN CHICAGO OF PASSENGERS AND
THEIR LUGGAGE FROM THEIR HOMES, OFFICES, HOTELS, ETC. TO RAILROAD
STATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BOARDING TRAINS ON INTERSTATE JOURNEYS, AND
CONVERSELY THE LIKE USE OF TAXICABS IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION AFTER
LEAVING TRAINS ON ARRIVAL IN CHICAGO FOLLOWING SUCH JOURNEYS, WERE "TOO
UNRELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO CONSTITUTE A PART THEREOF WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT."  332 U.S. AT 230.  WHILE I WAS NOT IN
AGREEMENT WITH THE YELLOW CAB DECISION, THE SAME RULING, IF APPLIED TO
THE FACTS HERE, WOULD MAKE THE SO-CALLED "INTERSTATE COMMERCE," I.E.,
THE TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT FROM PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS' PLACES OF
BUSINESS TO SHIPPING TERMINALS, INTRASTATE RATHER THAN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN1 

I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COURT'S OPINION. 

FN1  I DO NOT READ THE STIPULATION OF FACTS IN THIS CASE AS SHOWING
THAT PETITIONER ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION FROM TERMINAL TO TERMINAL. 
..END :




RODGERS V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 371 


NO. 58.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1947.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1947.  - 158
F.2D 835, REVERSED. 


PENALTIES INCURRED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, AS
AMENDED, FOR MARKETING COTTON IN EXCESS OF FARM MARKETING QUOTAS FIXED
PURSUANT THERETO, DO NOT BEAR INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DATE
THE PENALTIES BECAME DUE AND THE DATE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED THEREFOR. 
PP. 373-376. 

RODGERS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR PENALTIES INCURRED UNDER THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED, PLUS INTEREST FROM THE
DATES THE PENALTIES BECAME DUE TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  158 F.2D 835.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 799.  REVERSED, P. 376. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THE YEARS 1940, 1941 AND 1942 THE PETITIONER PRODUCED ON HIS FARMS
AND SOLD MORE COTTON THAN THE QUOTA ALLOTTED HIM UNDER AUTHORITY OF
PART IV OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938 AS AMENDED.  52
STAT. 31, 55-60; 55 STAT. 203; 7 U.S.C. SECS. 1281 ET SEQ. THE UNITED
STATES FILED THIS SUIT AGAINST PETITIONER TO RECOVER MONEY "PENALTIES"
TO WHICH SEC. 348  FN1  OF THE ACT MAKES NON-COOPERATING FARMERS
"SUBJECT" WHO MARKET COTTON FROM THEIR FARMS IN EXCESS OF THEIR QUOTA. 
THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR $7,039.52 IN PENALTIES PLUS
INTEREST AT 6% FROM THE VARIOUS DATES THE PENALTIES BECAME DUE TO THE
DATE OF JUDGMENT.  THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  158
F.2D 835.  THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAD PREVIOUSLY DECIDED THAT NO INTEREST IS
ALLOWABLE ON SUCH PENALTIES PRIOR TO JUDGMENT.  UNITED STATES V. WEST
TEXAS COTTONOIL CO., 155 F.2D 463.  WE THEREFORE GRANTED CERTIORARI
LIMITED TO THIS SINGLE QUESTION.  331 U.S. 799. 

SINCE PENALTIES UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT ARE IMPOSED
UNDER AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THEY BEAR INTEREST ONLY IF AND TO THE EXTENT
SUCH INTEREST IS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW.  BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V.
O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697, 714-716; ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED STATES,
313 U.S. 289, 295-297.  THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT OR IN ANY OTHER ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH SPECIFICALLY
ALLOWS OR FORBIDS INTEREST ON PENALTIES SUCH AS THESE PRIOR TO
JUDGMENT.  FN2 BUT THE FAILURE TO MENTION INTEREST IN STATUTES WHICH
CREATE OBLIGATIONS HAS NOT BEEN INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT AS
MANIFESTING AN UNEQUIVOCAL CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE THAT THE OBLIGATION
SHALL NOT BEAR INTEREST.  BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261, 284
288.  FOR IN THE ABSENCE OF AN UNEQUIVOCAL PROHIBITION OF INTEREST ON
SUCH OBLIGATIONS, THIS COURT HAS FASHIONED RULES WHICH GRANTED OR
DENIED INTEREST ON PARTICULAR STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS BY AN APPRAISAL OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IN IMPOSING THEM AND IN THE LIGHT OF GENERAL
PRINCIPLES DEEMED RELEVANT BY THE COURT.  SEE, E.G., ROYAL INDEMNITY
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; BOARD OF COMM'RS V. UNITED STATES, 308
U.S. 343. 

AS OUR PRIOR CASES SHOW, A PERSUASIVE CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING
WHETHER SUCH OBLIGATIONS SHALL BEAR INTEREST IS THE RELATIVE EQUITIES
BETWEEN THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE OBLIGATION AND THOSE UPON WHOM IT HAS
BEEN IMPOSED.  AND THIS COURT HAS GENERALLY WEIGHED THESE RELATIVE
EQUITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HISTORIC JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE THAT ONE
FOR WHOSE FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE AN OBLIGATION WAS ASSUMED OR IMPOSED, AND
WHO HAS SUFFERED ACTUAL MONEY DAMAGES BY ANOTHER'S BREACH OF THAT
OBLIGATION, SHOULD BE FAIRLY COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS THEREBY
SUSTAINED.  SEE, E.G., BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V. O'NEIL, SUPRA; UNITED
STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211, 216; FUNKHOUSER V. J.B. PRESTON
CO., 290 U.S. 163, 168. 

THE CONTENTION IS HARDLY SUPPORTABLE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SUFFERS MONEY DAMAGES OR LOSS, IN THE COMMON LAW SENSE, TO BE
COMPENSATED FOR BY INTEREST, WHEN ONE CONVICTED OF A CRIME FAILS
PROMPTLY TO PAY A MONEY FINE ASSESSED AGAINST HIM.  THE UNDERLYING
THEORY OF THAT PENALTY IS THAT IT IS A PUNISHMENT OR DETERRENT AND NOT
A REVENUE-RAISING DEVICE; UNLIKE A TAX, IT DOES NOT REST ON THE BASIC
NECESSITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO COLLECT A CAREFULLY ESTIMATED SUM OF
MONEY BY A PARTICULAR DATE IN ORDER TO MEET ITS ANTICIPATED
EXPENDITURES.  FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS THIS COURT'S HOLDING THAT A
CRIMINAL PENALTY DOES NOT BEAR INTEREST, PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 255
U.S. 398, 405-406, IS CONSISTENT WITH ITS HOLDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT
DOES SUFFER RECOVERABLE DAMAGES IF A TAXPAYER FAILS TO PAY TAXES WHEN
DUE AND IS THEREFORE EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO INTEREST.  BILLINGS V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  FURTHERMORE, DENIAL OF INTEREST ON CRIMINAL
PENALTIES MIGHT WELL BE RESTED ON JUDICIAL UNWILLINGNESS TO EXPAND
PUNISHMENT FIXED FOR A CRIMINAL ACT BEYOND THAT WHICH THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES. 

VIEWED IN LIGHT OF THESE PRINCIPLES, WE THINK THAT THE QUESTION OF
INTEREST ON THE PENALTIES PROVIDED IN THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT
ON NON-COOPERATORS SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE RULE PREVIOUSLY APPLIED BY
THIS COURT TO CRIMINAL FINES.  ALTHOUGH CONGRESS NEITHER WHOLLY
PROHIBITED NOR MADE IT A CRIME FOR A FARMER TO MARKET COTTON IN EXCESS
OF HIS QUOTA, STILL IT IMPOSED SANCTIONS UPON NON-COOPERATORS ANALOGOUS
TO THOSE OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.  THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN REQUIRING
PAYMENT OF PENALTIES INTO THE FEDERAL TREASURY FOR MARKETING ABOVE THE
ALLOTTED AMOUNT WAS NOT TO RAISE REVENUE FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL
ADVANTAGE BUT TO DETER FARMERS FROM PLANTING AND MARKETING MORE THAN
THEIR QUOTAS.  IN FACT, THE WHOLE PHILOSOPHY OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT IS BASED ON THE THEORY THAT THE PUBLIC WILL BE
BENEFITED, NOT DAMAGED, IF FARMERS PRODUCE AND MARKET WITHIN THESE
QUOTAS, THEREBY AVOIDING THE PAYMENT OF PENALTIES.  THE FRAMEWORK OF
THE ACT ITSELF, BOTH AS ORIGINALLY PASSED AND AS AMENDED, AND THE
REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES THAT DRAFTED IT, SHOW A PRIME
PURPOSE TO LIMIT NATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL FARM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING
TO THE QUOTAS ALLOTTED, AND SHOW THAT THE PENALTIES WERE SOLELY
INTENDED TO DETER FARMERS FROM EXCEEDING THOSE QUOTAS.  FN3  AFTER
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION THE ORIGINAL 1938 ACT WAS AMENDED IN 1941 FOR THE
EXPRESS PURPOSE OF MAKING THE FARMERS' PENALTIES HIGHER, BECAUSE THE
PRIOR PENALTIES HAD NOT IN PRACTICE PROVED A SEVERE ENOUGH SANCTION TO
REDUCE PRODUCTION THE DESIRED AMOUNT.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE SAID IN ITS
REPORT ON THE 1941 AMENDMENT: 

"AS IN THE CASE OF CORN AND WHEAT, IT APPEARS THAT THE PRESENT RATE
OF PENALTY (FOR COTTON) IS TOO LOW TO RESULT IN THE DESIRED ADJUSTMENT
OF THE AMOUNT TO BE MARKETED DURING THE MARKETING YEAR."  FN4 

AND WITH REFERENCE TO WHEAT AND CORN, THE COMMITTEE HAD REPORTED: 

"WITH THE HIGHER PENALTIES, IT IS EXPECTED THAT GROWERS GENERALLY
WILL STORE THE FARM MARKETING EXCESSES RATHER THAN PAY THE PENALTY AND
PLACE THE COMMODITY ON THE MARKET AT THE TIME WHEN IT IS NOT NEEDED." 
FN5 

IN ADDITION TO THESE HIGH PENALTIES, THE ACT, AS ORIGINALLY PASSED
AND AS AMENDED, WHOLLY DEPRIVED NON-COOPERATORS LIKE PETITIONER OF
SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS AUTHORIZED BY THE SOIL CONSERVATION ACT AND OF A
LARGE PART OF THE LOAN VALUE PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR COTTON
FARMERS WHO DID NOT EXCEED THEIR QUOTA.  FN6  WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT
IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE FOR THE COURTS TO
ADD INTEREST TO THESE VERY SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES ALREADY IMPOSED UPON
NON-COOPERATING FARMERS.  FN7  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 348 OF THE 1938 ACT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY FARMER WHO, WHILE FARM MARKETING QUOTAS ARE IN EFFECT, MARKETS
COTTON IN EXCESS OF THE FARM MARKETING QUOTA FOR THE MARKETING YEAR FOR
THE FARM ON WHICH SUCH COTTON WAS PRODUCED, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PENALTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE EXCESS SO MARKETED:  2 CENTS
PER POUND IF MARKETED DURING THE FIRST MARKETING YEAR WHEN FARM
MARKETING QUOTAS ARE IN EFFECT; AND 3 CENTS PER POUND IF MARKETED
DURING ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR, EXCEPT THAT THE PENALTY SHALL BE 2 CENTS
PER POUND IF COTTON OF THE CROP SUBJECT TO PENALTY IN THE FIRST YEAR IS
MARKETED SUBJECT TO PENALTY IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR."  52 STAT. 59; 7
U.S.C. SEC. 1348. 

THE 1941 AMENDMENT REQUIRED COMPUTATION OF THE PENALTY ON THE
FOLLOWING BASIS: 

"THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) - 

     .         .  .         .         . 

"(9)  THE MARKETING PENALTY FOR COTTON AND RICE PRODUCED IN THE
CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH ANY MARKETING YEAR BEGINS (IF BEGINNING WITH OR
AFTER THE 1941-1942 MARKETING YEAR) SHALL BE AT A RATE EQUAL TO 50 PER
CENTUM OF THE BASIC RATE OF THE LOAN FOR COOPERATORS FOR SUCH MARKETING
YEAR UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE ACT AND THIS RESOLUTION."  55 STAT. 203,
205; 7 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946), SEC. 1330(9). 

FN2  28 U.S.C. 811 DOES ALLOW INTEREST ON DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENTS IN
ALL CIVIL CASES WHERE INTEREST WOULD BE ALLOWED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE
IN WHICH THE COURT IS HELD. 

FN3  SEN. REP. NO. 1295, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS., 6(1937); H.R. REP. NO.
1645, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS., 1, 36(1937); H.R. REP. NO. 1767, 75TH
CONG., 3D SESS., 90(1938); H.R. REP. NO. 364, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
3(1941). 

FN4  H.R. REP. NO. 364, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 3(1941). 

FN5 ID. AT 2. 

FN6  SECS. 302(C), 349 OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938; 52
STAT. 43, 59; 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1302(C), 1349. 

FN7  SEE AS TO PENALTIES IN GENERAL, HELWIG V. UNITED STATES, 188
U.S. 605; UNITED STATES V. CHOUTEAU, 102 U.S. 603; SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE
COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 401; HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S.
391; UNITED STATES V. CHILDS, 266 U.S. 304; RODGERS V. UNITED STATES,
138 F.2D 992.  FOR DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS WHICH GRANT INTEREST ON
STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS BUT DISALLOW INTEREST ON STATUTORY PENALTIES, SEE
CASES COLLECTED IN NOTE, 27 ANN. CAS. 1913 B, 853, 855-856; NOTE, 28
L.R.A. (N.S.)  1, 74-75(1910); 1 SUTHERLAND, DAMAGES, SEC. 330(1916). 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

THE SUMS DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT ARE FIXED OBLIGATIONS WITH FIXED TIMES
OF PAYMENT.  THEY ARE DEBTS INCIDENTAL TO THE LAWFUL CONDUCT OF
BUSINESS AND NOT PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR VIOLATIONS OF LAW.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE DEBTOR SHOULD PAY AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD COLLECT INTEREST ON
THEM, AS ON OTHER DEBTS TO THE GOVERNMENT, TO COMPENSATE FOR DELAYS IN
THEIR PAYMENT.  THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT EXPRESSLY FIXED THE
AMOUNT AND TIME FOR PAYMENT OF THE SUMS IN QUESTION ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT
EXPRESSLY MENTION THE ACCRUAL OR DENIAL OF INTEREST ON DELAYED
PAYMENTS.  HOWEVER, THE FEDERAL RULE IS WELL-ESTABLISHED THAT, WITHOUT
EXPRESS STATUTORY REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT OF INTEREST, INTEREST IS DUE
TO THE GOVERNMENT ON UNPAID STATUTORY DEBTS AFTER THEY HAVE BECOME DUE
IN FIXED AMOUNTS AT FIXED TIMES, SUCH AS THOSE FOR CUSTOMS DUTIES AND
TAXES. 

"THUS, AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR A STATUTE IT WAS LONG AGO HERE DECIDED
IN VIEW OF THE TRUE CONCEPTION OF INTEREST, THAT A STATUTE WAS NOT
NECESSARY TO COMPEL ITS PAYMENT WHERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES
OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN OBLIGATION, INTEREST
SHOULD BE ALLOWED."  BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261, 286. 
FN1 

THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE BY CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE, SPEAKING FOR THE
COURT, IN A CASE UPHOLDING THE COLLECTION OF INTEREST ON A TAX PAYABLE
TO THE UNITED STATES, UNDER A STATUTE THAT CONTAINED NO REFERENCE TO
THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT INTEREST BE PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT UPON THE
DEBTS DUE TO IT UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT NOT ONLY IS "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE" CALLED FOR BY THE
GENERAL RULE JUST STATED BUT THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST IN FAVOR OF THE
GOVERNMENT UNDER THAT ACT ALSO IS THOROUGHLY CONSISTENT WITH, AND
HELPFUL TO, THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS PURPOSE OF PRICE AND CROP
CONTROL.  THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH INTEREST IS EQUALLY INCONSISTENT
WITH, AND A LIMITATION UPON, THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THAT PURPOSE. 

THE DEFAULTED PAYMENTS ON WHICH INTEREST IS CLAIMED HERE BECAME DUE
BECAUSE OF THE PETITIONER'S SALES OF COTTON IN EXCESS OF HIS STATUTORY
QUOTA AND SUCH PAYMENTS ARE REFERRED TO IN THE ACT AS "PENALTIES." 
HOWEVER, THE CONTEXT SHOWS THAT, INSTEAD OF BEING CRIMINAL PENALTIES
IMPOSED FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, THEY ARE "MARKETING PENALTIES"
CONSISTING OF GOVERNMENTAL CHARGES ADDED TO THE PRESALE EXPENSES OF THE
SELLER, ESPECIALLY TO HELP KEEP PRICES AND SALES IN LINE WITH THE
ECONOMIC PROGRAM OF THE GOVERNMENT.  SATISFACTION OF THESE CHARGES IS
MADE A CONDITION OF THE SELLER'S LEGAL RIGHT TO SELL HIS EXCESS COTTON
AT A PARTICULAR TIME.  THEY ARE THE VERY OPPOSITE OF PENALTIES IMPOSED
FOR MAKING ILLEGAL SALES.  THEY ARE LAWFUL, "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY"
BUSINESS EXPENSES INCIDENTAL TO HIS SALES.  THEY ARE DEDUCTIBLE FROM
HIS TAXABLE INCOME, WHEREAS CRIMINAL PENALTIES ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM
TAXABLE INCOME.  FN2  THESE "MARKETING PENALTIES" ARE ALSO UNLIKE
CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THAT THEY MAY BE PAID IN ADVANCE, DEPOSITED IN
ESCROW OR SECURITY GIVEN FOR THEIR PAYMENT.  WHEN THAT IS DONE, THE
SELLER MAY, IN HIS USUAL MANNER, DISPOSE OF THE EXCESS-QUOTA COTTON TO
WHICH THE PAYMENTS RELATE.  COTTON MARKETING QUOTA REGULATIONS, 1942
43, SEC. 722.440(C), 7 FED. REG. 4369; ID. SEC. 722.453, 7 FED. REG.
4374.  THESE DEBTS ARE MORE COMPARABLE TO CUSTOMS DUTIES THAN TO
CRIMINAL PENALTIES.  FN3  APPARENTLY THESE CHARGES ARE COLLECTIBLE BY
THE GOVERNMENT ONLY BY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AND LIABILITY FOR THEM NEED
NOT BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  USHER V. UNITED STATES,
146 F.2D 369, 371.    THE PAYMENTS ARE IMPOSED IN PART FOR REVENUE
PURPOSES ALTHOUGH ESPECIALLY AS A MEANS OF INDUCING COTTON OWNERS TO
CONTROL THEIR SALES OF COTTON IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ECONOMIC POLICIES OF THE GOVERNMENT.  DURING ITS
CONSIDERATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, CONGRESS DECLINED TO
ADOPT A PROPOSAL TO TREAT SUCH SALES AS IN VIOLATION OF LAW FN4  AND
ADOPTED INSTEAD THE POLICY RECOGNIZING SUCH SALES AS LAWFUL SALES
CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHARGES HERE BEING
CONSIDERED.  FINANCIAL BURDENS WHICH MAY BE POSTPONED WITHOUT THE
PAYMENT OF INTEREST ARE MUCH LESS BURDENSOME THAN THOSE THAT ARE NOT
POSTPONABLE OR THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST DURING THEIR
POSTPONEMENT.  THE OMISSION OF THE USUAL INTEREST CHARGE ON POSTPONED
MARKETING PENALTIES THEREFORE DECREASES THE FORCE OF THE ACT AS A
DETERRING FACTOR AND RUNS COUNTER TO THE SPECIAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT. 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
AFFIRMING THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWING INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF
DEFAULT, SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SYSTEMS IS PRONOUNCED AND
FUNDAMENTAL.  IN THE ONE, THE STATE RULE, EXCEPT AS TO CONTRACT, NO
INTEREST WITHOUT STATUTE; IN THE UNITED STATES RULE, INTEREST IN ALL
CASES WHERE EQUITABLY DUE UNLESS FORBIDDEN BY STATUTE.  IN ONE NO SUIT
FOR TAXES AS A DEBT WITHOUT EXPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORITY, IN THE OTHER
THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR TAXES AS FOR A DEBT IN EVERY CASE WHERE NOT
PROHIBITED BY STATUTE. 

"FROM THIS REVIEW IT RESULTS THAT THE DOCTRINE AS TO NON-LIABILITY TO
PAY INTEREST FOR TAXES WHICH HAVE BECOME DUE WHICH PREVAILS IN THE
STATE COURTS IS ABSOLUTELY IN CONFLICT WITH THE DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE
SAME SUBJECT IN THIS COURT AND CANNOT NOW BE MADE THE RULE WITHOUT
REPUDIATING SETTLED PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE BEEN HERE APPLIED FOR MANY
YEARS IN VARIOUS ASPECTS AND WITHOUT IN EFFECT DISREGARDING THE
SANCTION EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY GIVEN BY CONGRESS TO SUCH
RULES.  ...  UNDER THIS CONDITION WE CAN SEE NO GROUND FOR DEPARTING
FROM THE RULE WHICH THE CASES ENFORCED,  ...  "  BILLINGS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AT PP. 287-288. 

FN2  "ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE PRODUCER ARE DESIGNATED AS
PENALTIES IN THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, IT APPEARS
THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS TO PLACE A CHARGE AGAINST THE
PRODUCER ON THE SALE OF THE COMMODITY WHICH WAS PRODUCED IN EXCESS OF
THE QUOTA.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PROHIBIT PRODUCERS FROM PRODUCING THE
COMMODITY, BUT MERELY PLACES A CHARGE ON THE EXCESS OF THE QUOTA
PRODUCED AND MARKETED.  THE SO-CALLED PENALTIES ARE NOT PAID FOR THE
VIOLATION OF, OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH, A STATUTE OR REGULATION OR FOR ANY
ILLEGAL ACT, BUT ARE PAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEGALIZING THE MARKETING
OF THE EXCESS PRODUCTION, WHICH WITH THIS CONDITION THE STATUTE
SANCTIONS, AND ARE, THEREFORE, MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE.  IT
IS ACCORDINGLY THE VIEW OF THIS OFFICE THAT THE SO-CALLED PENALTIES ARE
DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME UNDER SECTION 23(A) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE IN COMPUTING NET INCOME AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES
INCURRED IN CARRYING ON A TRADE OR BUSINESS."  I.T. 3530, 1942-1 CUM.
BULL., 43, 45-46. 

PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE OF PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF FEDERAL OR
STATE STATUTES IN THE ORDINARY USE OF THAT TERM ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE. 
COMMISSIONER V. LONGHORN PORTLAND CEMENT CO., 148 F.2D 276; BURROUGHS
BLDG. MATERIAL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 47 F.2D 178; GREAT NORTHERN R. CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 40 F.2D 372. 

FN3  CUSTOMS DUTIES ARE PERSONAL DEBTS TO THE UNITED STATES. 
MEREDITH V. UNITED STATES, 13 PET. 486, 493.  INTEREST IS COLLECTIBLE
ON THE DEBT TO THE GOVERNMENT ARISING OUT OF THE IMPOSITION OF CUSTOMS
DUTIES.  UNITED STATES V. MEXICAN INTERNATIONAL R. CO., 154 F. 519.  IT
IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT, WHILE SOME CUSTOMS DUTIES OR TARIFFS MAY HAVE
BEEN LEVIED "FOR REVENUE ONLY," MANY HAVE BEEN ENACTED AS "PROTECTIVE
TARIFFS" IN WHICH A PRIMARY INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT WAS, AS UNDER
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, TO RESTRICT THE FLOODING OF THE MARKET
WITH CERTAIN GOODS AT A CERTAIN TIME.  THE COLLECTION OF INTEREST ON
DELAYED PAYMENTS OF CUSTOMS DUTIES WOULD BEAR A SIMILAR RELATION OF
HELPFULNESS TO THE GOVERNMENT'S ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL POLICIES AS
WOULD THE COLLECTION OF INTEREST ON DEFAULTED MARKET PENALTIES.  THE
GOVERNMENT, UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, NOT ONLY SEEKS TO
RESTRICT EXCESS-QUOTA SALES, BUT IT ALSO SEEKS TO ADD TO ITS CURRENT
CASH RESOURCES FROM WHICH IT PROPOSES TO MAKE THE LOANS TO COOPERATING
PRODUCERS WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT. 

FN4  SEC. 33, H.R. 8505, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1937), AS PASSED BY
THE SENATE BUT LATER REJECTED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :










FEDERAL CROP INS. CORP. V. MERRILL, 332 U.S. 380 


NO. 45.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1947.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1947.  - 67
IDAHO 196, 174 P.2D 834, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION, A WHOLLY GOVERNMENT-OWNED
CORPORATION CREATED BY THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT TO INSURE
PRODUCERS OF WHEAT AGAINST CROP LOSSES DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CAUSES,
INCLUDING DROUGHT, PROMULGATED AND PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
REGULATIONS SPECIFYING THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH IT WOULD INSURE WHEAT
CROPS, INCLUDING A PROVISION MAKING "SPRING WHEAT WHICH HAS BEEN
RESEEDED ON WINTER WHEAT ACREAGE" INELIGIBLE FOR INSURANCE.  WITHOUT
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS PROVISION, A WHEAT GROWER APPLIED TO THE
CORPORATION'S LOCAL AGENT FOR INSURANCE ON HIS WHEAT CROP, INFORMING
THE LOCAL AGENT THAT MOST OF IT WAS BEING RESEEDED ON WINTER WHEAT
ACREAGE; BUT THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE WRITTEN
APPLICATION.  THE CORPORATION ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE
TERMS OF ITS REGULATIONS.  MOST OF THE CROP ON THE RESEEDED ACREAGE WAS
DESTROYED BY DROUGHT.  HELD:  THE CORPORATION IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE
LOSS ON THE RESEEDED ACREAGE.  PP. 381-386. 

2.  HAVING BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, THE WHEAT CROP
INSURANCE REGULATIONS ARE BINDING ON ALL WHO SEEK TO COME WITHIN THE
FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT, REGARDLESS OF LACK OF ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF
THE REGULATIONS.  P. 385. 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORP. V. MERRILL ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS
MERRILL BROS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE FEDERAL
CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FOR LOSS OF A WHEAT CROP WHICH HAD BEEN
RESEEDED ON WINTER WHEAT ACREAGE.  67 IDAHO 196, 174 P.2D 834.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 798.  REVERSED, P. 386. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES A QUESTION OF
IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT. 
331 U.S. 798. 

THE RELEVANT FACTS MAY BE BRIEFLY STATED.  PETITIONER (HEREINAFTER
CALLED THE CORPORATION) IS A WHOLLY GOVERNMENT-OWNED ENTERPRISE,
CREATED BY THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT, AS AN "AGENCY OF AND WITHIN
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE."  SEC. 503 OF CHAPTER 30, ACT OF
FEBRUARY 16, 1938, 52 STAT. 72, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1503, AS AMENDED.  TO
CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, THE CORPORATION, "COMMENCING WITH
THE WHEAT  ...  CROPS PLANTED FOR HARVEST IN 1945" IS EMPOWERED "TO
INSURE, UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE AS IT MAY DETERMINE, PRODUCERS OF WHEAT  ...
AGAINST LOSS IN YIELDS DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CAUSES, INCLUDING DROUGHT
... "  52 STAT. 74, SEC. 508(A) AS AMENDED, 55 STAT. 255, IN TURN
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF DECEMBER 23, 1944, CHAPTER 713, 58 STAT. 918, 7
U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946), SEC. 1508(A).  IN PURSUANCE OF ITS AUTHORITY,
THE CORPORATION ON FEBRUARY 5, 1945, PROMULGATED ITS WHEAT CROP
INSURANCE REGULATIONS, WHICH WERE DULY PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER ON FEBRUARY 7, 1945.  10 FED. REG. 1586. 

ON MARCH 26, 1945, RESPONDENTS APPLIED LOCALLY FOR INSURANCE UNDER
THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT TO COVER WHEAT FARMING OPERATIONS IN
BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO.  RESPONDENTS INFORMED THE BONNEVILLE COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE, ACTING AS AGENT FOR THE
CORPORATION, THAT THEY WERE PLANTING 460 ACRES OF SPRING WHEAT AND THAT
ON 400 OF THESE ACRES THEY WERE RESEEDING ON WINTER WHEAT ACREAGE.  THE
COMMITTEE ADVISED RESPONDENTS THAT THE ENTIRE CROP WAS INSURABLE, AND
RECOMMENDED TO THE CORPORATION'S DENVER BRANCH OFFICE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
APPLICATION.  (THE FORMAL APPLICATION ITSELF DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT ANY
PART OF THE INSURED CROP WAS RESEEDED.)  ON MAY 28, 1945, THE
CORPORATION ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION. 

IN JULY, 1945, MOST OF THE RESPONDENTS' CROP WAS DESTROYED BY
DROUGHT.  UPON BEING NOTIFIED, THE CORPORATION, AFTER DISCOVERING THAT
THE DESTROYED ACREAGE HAD BEEN RESEEDED, REFUSED TO PAY THE LOSS, AND
THIS LITIGATION WAS APPROPRIATELY BEGUN IN ONE OF THE LOWER COURTS OF
IDAHO.  THE TRIAL COURT REJECTED THE CORPORATION'S CONTENTION,
PRESENTED BY A DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT, THAT THE WHEAT CROP INSURANCE
REGULATIONS BARRED RECOVERY AS A MATTER OF LAW.  EVIDENCE WAS THEREUPON
PERMITTED TO GO TO THE JURY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD NO
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE REGULATIONS, INSOFAR AS THEY PRECLUDED
INSURANCE FOR RESEEDED WHEAT, AND THAT THEY HAD IN FACT BEEN MISLED BY
PETITIONER'S AGENT INTO BELIEVING THAT SPRING WHEAT RESEEDED ON WINTER
WHEAT ACREAGE WAS INSURABLE BY THE CORPORATION.  THE JURY RETURNED A
VERDICT FOR THE LOSS ON ALL THE 460 ACRES AND THE SUPREME COURT OF
IDAHO AFFIRMED THE RESULTING JUDGMENT.  67 IDAHO 196, 174 P.2D 834. 
THAT COURT IN EFFECT ADOPTED THE THEORY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, THAT SINCE
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AGENT OF A PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO, AND THEREBY BIND, A
PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE CORPORATION IS EQUALLY BOUND. 

THE CASE NO DOUBT PRESENTS PHASES OF HARDSHIP.  WE TAKE FOR GRANTED
THAT, ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THEY WERE TOLD BY THE CORPORATION'S LOCAL
AGENT, THE RESPONDENTS REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT THEIR ENTIRE CROP WAS
COVERED BY PETITIONER'S INSURANCE.  AND SO WE ASSUME THAT RECOVERY
COULD BE HAD AGAINST A PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY.  BUT THE CORPORATION
IS NOT A PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY.  IT IS TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO URGE
THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS JUST ANOTHER PRIVATE LITIGANT, FOR PURPOSES OF
CHARGING IT WITH LIABILITY, WHENEVER IT TAKES OVER A BUSINESS
THERETOFORE CONDUCTED BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE OR ENGAGES IN COMPETITION
WITH PRIVATE VENTURES.  FN1  GOVERNMENT IS NOT PARTLY PUBLIC OR PARTLY
PRIVATE, DEPENDING UPON THE GOVERNMENTAL PEDIGREE OF THE TYPE OF A
PARTICULAR ACTIVITY OR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONDUCTS IT.
THE GOVERNMENT MAY CARRY ON ITS OPERATIONS THROUGH CONVENTIONAL
EXECUTIVE AGENCIES OR THROUGH CORPORATE FORMS ESPECIALLY CREATED FOR
DEFINED ENDS.  SEE KEIFER & KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306
U.S. 381, 390.  WHATEVER THE FORM IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS,
ANYONE ENTERING INTO AN ARRANGEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT TAKES THE RISK
OF HAVING ACCURATELY ASCERTAINED THAT HE WHO PURPORTS TO ACT FOR THE
GOVERNMENT STAYS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF HIS AUTHORITY.  THE SCOPE OF THIS
AUTHORITY MAY BE EXPLICITLY DEFINED BY CONGRESS OR BE LIMITED BY
DELEGATED LEGISLATION, PROPERLY EXERCISED THROUGH THE RULE-MAKING
POWER.  AND THIS IS SO EVEN THOUGH, AS HERE, THE AGENT HIMSELF MAY HAVE
BEEN UNAWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS UPON HIS AUTHORITY.  SEE, E.G., UTAH
POWER & LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 389, 409; UNITED STATES V.
STEWART, 311 U.S. 60, 70, AND SEE, GENERALLY, THE FLOYD ACCEPTANCES, 7
WALL.  666. 

IF THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT HAD BY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE PROHIBITED
THE INSURANCE OF SPRING WHEAT WHICH IS RESEEDED ON WINTER WHEAT
ACREAGE, THE IGNORANCE OF SUCH A RESTRICTION, EITHER BY THE RESPONDENTS
OR THE CORPORATION'S AGENT, WOULD BE IMMATERIAL AND RECOVERY COULD NOT
BE HAD AGAINST THE CORPORATION FOR LOSS OF SUCH RESEEDED WHEAT. 
CONGRESS COULD HARDLY DEFINE THE MULTITUDINOUS DETAILS APPROPRIATE FOR
THE BUSINESS OF CROP INSURANCE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ENTERED IT.
INEVITABLY "THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS" UPON WHICH VALID GOVERNMENTAL
INSURANCE CAN BE HAD MUST BE DEFINED BY THE AGENCY ACTING FOR THE
GOVERNMENT.  AND SO CONGRESS HAS LEGISLATED IN THIS INSTANCE, AS IN
MODERN REGULATORY ENACTMENTS IT SO OFTEN DOES, BY CONFERRING THE RULE
MAKING POWER UPON THE AGENCY CREATED FOR CARRYING OUT ITS POLICY.  SEE
SEC. 516(B), 52 STAT. 72, 77, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1516(B).  JUST AS EVERYONE
IS CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNITED STATES STATUTES AT LARGE,
CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT THE APPEARANCE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER GIVES LEGAL NOTICE OF THEIR CONTENTS.  49 STAT.
502, 44 U.S.C. SEC. 307. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE WHEAT CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS WERE BINDING ON ALL
WHO SOUGHT TO COME WITHIN THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT, REGARDLESS OF
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS IN THE REGULATIONS OR OF THE HARDSHIP
RESULTING FROM INNOCENT IGNORANCE.  THE OFT-QUOTED OBSERVATION IN ROCK
ISLAND, ARKANSAS & LOUISIANA RAILROAD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S.
141, 143, THAT "MEN MUST TURN SQUARE CORNERS WHEN THEY DEAL WITH THE
GOVERNMENT," DOES NOT REFLECT A CALLOUS OUTLOOK.  IT MERELY EXPRESSES
THE DUTY OF ALL COURTS TO OBSERVE THE CONDITIONS DEFINED BY CONGRESS
FOR CHARGING THE PUBLIC TREASURY.  THE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" DEFINED
BY THE CORPORATION, UNDER AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS, FOR CREATING LIABILITY
ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT PRECLUDE RECOVERY FOR THE LOSS OF THE
RESEEDED WHEAT NO MATTER WITH WHAT GOOD REASON THE RESPONDENTS THOUGHT
THEY HAD OBTAINED INSURANCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  INDEED, NOT ONLY DO
THE WHEAT REGULATIONS LIMIT THE LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT AS IF THEY
HAD BEEN ENACTED BY CONGRESS DIRECTLY, BUT THEY WERE IN FACT
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN THE APPLICATION,  FN2  AS SPECIFICALLY
REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS.  FN3 

WE HAVE THUS FAR ASSUMED, AS DID THE PARTIES HERE AND THE COURTS
BELOW, THAT THE CONTROLLING REGULATION IN FACT PRECLUDED INSURANCE
COVERAGE FOR SPRING WHEAT RESEEDED ON WINTER WHEAT ACREAGE.  IT
EXPLICITLY STATES THAT THE TERM "WHEAT CROP SHALL NOT INCLUDE  ...
WINTER WHEAT IN THE 1945 CROP YEAR, AND SPRING WHEAT WHICH HAS BEEN
RESEEDED ON WINTER WHEAT ACREAGE IN THE 1945 CROP YEAR."  (SEC.
414.37(V) OF WHEAT CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS, 10 FED. REG. 1591.)  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE TEMPT ONE TO READ THE REGULATION, SINCE IT
IS FOR US TO READ IT, WITH CHARITABLE LAXITY.  BUT NOT EVEN THE
TEMPTATIONS OF A HARD CASE CAN ELUDE THE CLEAR MEANING OF THE
REGULATION.  IT PRECLUDES RECOVERY FOR "SPRING WHEAT WHICH HAS BEEN
RESEEDED ON WINTER WHEAT ACREAGE IN THE 1945 CROP YEAR."  CONCERNING
THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION, AS "NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PROVISIONS" OF THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE ACT, NO QUESTION HAS BEEN
RAISED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  JUDGING FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT, THE GOVERNMENT
ENGAGED IN CROP INSURANCE AS A PIONEER.  PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES
APPARENTLY DEEMED ALL-RISK CROP INSURANCE TOO GREAT A COMMERCIAL
HAZARD.  SEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON
CROP INSURANCE, H. DOC. NO. 150, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 2-4, 11-12;
H.R. REP. NO. 1479, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2; 81 CONG. REC. 2866,
2867, 2887, 2891, 2893, 2895; HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY ON S. 1397, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., 125, 185.  BUT THIS DOES NOT AFFECT THE LEGAL ISSUES.  IT
MERELY UNDERSCORES THE FACT THAT THE UNDERTAKING BY THE GOVERNMENT IS
NOT AN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKING, AND THEREBY REENFORCES THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE RULES OF LAW WHEREBY PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES
ARE RENDERED LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF THEIR AGENTS ARE NOT BODILY
APPLICABLE TO A GOVERNMENT AGENCY LIKE THE CORPORATION, UNLESS CONGRESS
HAS SO PROVIDED. 

FN2  "H. ACCEPTANCE BY THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION.  - IT
IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPLICATION BY A
DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CORPORATION AS EVIDENCED BY HIS
APPROVAL BELOW, THE INSURANCE CONTRACT SHALL BE IN EFFECT, PROVIDED THE
APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
APPLICATION AND THE APPLICABLE WHEAT CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS.  IT IS
FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THE ACCEPTED APPLICATION AND THE
APPLICABLE WHEAT CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS, INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS
THERETO, CONSTITUTE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CORPORATION AND THE
INSURED." 

FN3  "SEC.  414.3 ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS BY THE CORPORATION.  (A)
UPON ACCEPTANCE OF AN APPLICATION BY A DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE CORPORATION, THE INSURANCE CONTRACT SHALL BE IN EFFECT, PROVIDED
SUCH APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
APPLICATION AND OF THESE REGULATIONS, INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS
THERETO."  10 FED. REG. 1586.  THE REGULATION DEFINED "INSURANCE
CONTRACT" AS "THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
APPLICANT AND THE CORPORATION BY VIRTUE OF THE APPLICATION FOR
INSURANCE AND THESE REGULATIONS AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO."  10 FED.
REG. 1591. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW.  IF CROP INSURANCE
CONTRACTS MADE BY AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ARE TO BE
JUDGED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THEY ARE WRITTEN, I FIND NO
ERROR IN THE COURT BELOW.  IF, HOWEVER, WE ARE TO HOLD THEM SUBJECT
ONLY TO FEDERAL LAW AND TO DECLARE WHAT THAT LAW IS, I CAN SEE NO
REASON WHY WE SHOULD NOT ADOPT A RULE WHICH RECOGNIZES THE
PRACTICALITIES OF THE BUSINESS. 

IT WAS EARLY DISCOVERED THAT FAIR DEALING IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS
REQUIRED THAT THE ENTIRE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE POLICYHOLDER AND THE
INSURANCE COMPANY BE EMBODIED IN THE WRITINGS WHICH PASSED BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, NAMELY, THE WRITTEN APPLICATION, IF ANY, AND THE POLICY
ISSUED.  IT MAY BE WELL ENOUGH TO MAKE SOME TYPES OF CONTRACTS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT SUBJECT TO LONG AND INVOLVED REGULATIONS PUBLISHED IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER.  TO MY MIND, IT IS AN ABSURDITY TO HOLD THAT EVERY
FARMER WHO INSURES HIS CROPS KNOWS WHAT THE FEDERAL REGISTER CONTAINS
OR EVEN KNOWS THAT THERE IS SUCH A PUBLICATION.  IF HE WERE TO PERUSE
THIS VOLUMINOUS AND DULL PUBLICATION AS IT IS ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME
IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE WHETHER ANYTHING HAS BEEN PROMULGATED THAT
AFFECTS HIS RIGHTS, HE WOULD NEVER NEED CROP INSURANCE, FOR HE WOULD
NEVER GET TIME TO PLANT ANY CROPS.  NOR AM I CONVINCED THAT A READING
OF TECHNICALLY-WORDED REGULATIONS WOULD ENLIGHTEN HIM MUCH IN ANY
EVENT. 

IN THIS CASE, THE GOVERNMENT ENTERED A FIELD WHICH REQUIRED THE
ISSUANCE OF LARGE NUMBERS OF INSURANCE POLICIES TO PEOPLE ENGAGED IN
AGRICULTURE.  IT COULD NOT EXPECT THEM TO BE LAWYERS, EXCEPT IN RARE
INSTANCES, AND ONE SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE TO EMPLOY A LAWYER TO
SEE WHETHER HIS OWN GOVERNMENT IS ISSUING HIM A POLICY WHICH IN CASE OF
LOSS WOULD TURN OUT TO BE NO POLICY AT ALL.  THERE WAS NO FRAUD OR
CONCEALMENT, AND THOSE WHO REPRESENTED THE GOVERNMENT IN TAKING ON THE
RISK APPARENTLY NO MORE SUSPECTED THE EXISTENCE OF A HIDDEN REGULATION
THAT WOULD RENDER THE CONTRACT VOID THAN DID THE POLICYHOLDER.  IT IS
VERY WELL TO SAY THAT THOSE WHO DEAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TURN
SQUARE CORNERS.  BUT THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE SQUARE CORNERS SHOULD
CONSTITUTE A ONE-WAY STREET.    THE GOVERNMENT ASKS US TO LIFT ITS
POLICIES OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE STATES AND TO FIND OR FASHION A
FEDERAL RULE TO GOVERN THEM.  I SHOULD RESPOND TO THAT REQUEST BY
LAYING DOWN A FEDERAL RULE THAT WOULD HOLD THESE AGENCIES TO THE SAME
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIR DEALING THAT HAVE BEEN FOUND ESSENTIAL
IN PROGRESSIVE STATES TO PREVENT INSURANCE FROM BEING AN INVESTMENT IN
DISAPPOINTMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :













DELGADILLO V. CARMICHAEL, 332 U.S. 388 


NO. 63.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1947.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1947.  - 159
F.2D 130, REVERSED. 


MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER HE HAD ENTERED THE UNITED STATES LEGALLY,
AN ALIEN SHIPPED AS A SEAMAN ON AN AMERICAN SHIP BOUND FROM LOS ANGELES
TO NEW YORK.  THE SHIP WAS TORPEDOED AND HE WAS RESCUED AND TAKEN TO
HAVANA, WHENCE HE WAS RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES.  HE WAS CONVICTED
OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE COMMITTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS
THEREAFTER AND WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR TO
LIFE.  PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED FOR HIS DEPORTATION.  HELD:  HE IS
NOT SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION, SINCE HIS RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES WAS
NOT "THE ENTRY OF THE ALIEN TO THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, AS AMENDED.  PP.
389-391. 

DELGADILLO V. CARMICHAEL, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE DISTRICT COURT
DISCHARGED A RESIDENT ALIEN WHO WAS BEING HELD FOR DEPORTATION UNDER
SEC. 19(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, AS AMENDED, 8
U.S.C. SEC. 155(A).  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  159 F.2D
130.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  331 U.S. 801.  WILLIAM A.
CARMICHAEL WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR ALBERT DEL GUERCIO AS RESPONDENT.  332
U.S. 806.  REVERSED, P. 391. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER IS DETAINED BY RESPONDENT UNDER A DEPORTATION ORDER, THE
VALIDITY OF WHICH IS CHALLENGED BY A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE PETITION AND DISCHARGED
PETITIONER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  159 F.2D 130.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE OF THE SEEMING CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND DI
PASQUALE V. KARNUTH, 158 F.2D 878, FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS. 

PETITIONER IS A MEXICAN CITIZEN WHO MADE LEGAL ENTRY INTO THIS
COUNTRY IN 1923 AND RESIDED HERE CONTINUOUSLY UNTIL 1942.  IN JUNE OF
THAT YEAR, WHEN THIS NATION WAS ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES WITH GERMANY AND
JAPAN, HE SHIPPED OUT OF LOS ANGELES ON AN INTERCOASTAL VOYAGE TO NEW
YORK CITY AS A MEMBER OF THE CREW OF AN AMERICAN MERCHANT SHIP.  THE
SHIP WAS TORPEDOED AFTER PASSING THROUGH THE PANAMA CANAL ON ITS WAY TO
NEW YORK CITY.  PETITIONER WAS RESCUED AND TAKEN TO HAVANA, CUBA, WHERE
HE WAS TAKEN CARE OF BY THE AMERICAN CONSUL FOR ABOUT ONE WEEK.  ON
JULY 19, 1942, HE WAS RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES THROUGH MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AND THEREAFTER CONTINUED TO SERVE AS A SEAMAN IN THE MERCHANT
FLEET OF THIS NATION.  IN MARCH 1944 HE WAS CONVICTED IN CALIFORNIA OF
SECOND-DEGREE ROBBERY AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF ONE
YEAR TO LIFE.  WHILE HE WAS CONFINED IN THE CALIFORNIA PRISON,
PROCEEDINGS FOR DEPORTATION WERE COMMENCED AGAINST HIM UNDER SEC. 19(A)
OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, 39 STAT. 874, AS AMENDED 54
STAT. 671, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155(A). 

THAT SECTION PROVIDES IN PART: 

"  ...  ANY ALIEN WHO IS HEREAFTER SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A
TERM OF ONE YEAR OR MORE BECAUSE OF CONVICTION IN THIS COUNTRY OF A
CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, COMMITTED WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE
ENTRY OF THE ALIEN TO THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL, UPON THE WARRANT
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED.  ...  " 

THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPORTATION ARE SATISFIED IF PETITIONER'S
PASSAGE FROM HAVANA, CUBA, TO MIAMI, FLORIDA, ON JULY 19, 1942, WAS
"THE ENTRY OF THE ALIEN TO THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ACT. 

IN UNITED STATES EX REL. CLAUSSEN V. DAY, 279 U.S. 398, UNITED STATES
EX REL. STAPF V. CORSI, 287 U.S. 129, AND UNITED STATES EX REL. VOLPE
V. SMITH, 289 U.S. 422, THERE IS LANGUAGE WHICH TAKEN FROM ITS CONTEXT
SUGGESTS THAT EVERY RETURN OF AN ALIEN FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTES AN "ENTRY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 
THUS IN THE SMITH CASE IT WAS STATED, 289 U.S. P. 425, THAT "ANY COMING
OF AN ALIEN FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES WHETHER SUCH
COMING BE THE FIRST OR ANY SUBSEQUENT ONE" IS SUCH AN "ENTRY."  BUT
THOSE WERE CASES WHERE THE ALIEN PLAINLY EXPECTED OR PLANNED TO ENTER A
FOREIGN PORT OR PLACE.  HERE HE WAS CATAPULTED INTO THE OCEAN, RESCUED,
AND TAKEN TO CUBA.  HE HAD NO PART IN SELECTING THE FOREIGN PORT AS HIS
DESTINATION.  HIS ITINERARY WAS FORCED ON HIM BY WHOLLY FORTUITOUS
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IF, NONETHELESS, HIS RETURN TO THIS COUNTRY WAS AN
"ENTRY" INTO THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, THE LAW
HAS BEEN GIVEN A CAPRICIOUS APPLICATION AS DI PASQUALE V. KARNUTH,
SUPRA, SUGGESTS. 

IN THAT CASE AN ALIEN TRAVELED BETWEEN BUFFALO AND DETROIT ON A
RAILROAD WHICH, UNKNOWN TO HIM, PASSED THROUGH CANADA.  HE WAS ASLEEP
DURING THE TIME HE WAS IN TRANSIT THROUGH CANADA AND WAS QUITE UNAWARE
THAT HE HAD LEFT OR RETURNED TO THIS COUNTRY.  THE COURT REFUSED TO
HOLD THAT THE ALIEN HAD MADE AN "ENTRY," FOR TO DO SO WOULD IMPUTE TO
CONGRESS A PURPOSE TO SUBJECT ALIENS "TO THE SPORT OF CHANCE."  158
F.2D 879.  IN THIS CASE PETITIONER, OF COURSE, CHOSE TO RETURN TO THIS
COUNTRY, KNOWING HE WAS IN A FOREIGN PLACE.  BUT THE EXIGENCIES OF WAR,
NOT HIS VOLUNTARY ACT, PUT HIM ON FOREIGN SOIL.  FN1  IT WOULD INDEED
BE HARSH TO READ THE STATUTE SO AS TO ADD THE PERIL OF DEPORTATION TO
SUCH PERILS OF THE SEA.  WE MIGHT AS WELL HOLD THAT IF HE HAD BEEN
KIDNAPPED AND TAKEN TO CUBA, HE MADE A STATUTORY "ENTRY" ON HIS
VOLUNTARY RETURN.  RESPECT FOR LAW DOES NOT THRIVE ON CAPTIOUS
INTERPRETATIONS. 

DEPORTATION CAN BE THE EQUIVALENT OF BANISHMENT OR EXILE.  SEE
BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135, 147.  THE STAKES ARE INDEED HIGH AND
MOMENTOUS FOR THE ALIEN WHO HAS ACQUIRED HIS RESIDENCE HERE.  WE WILL
NOT ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS A PURPOSE TO MAKE HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN HERE
DEPENDENT ON CIRCUMSTANCES SO FORTUITOUS AND CAPRICIOUS AS THOSE UPON
WHICH THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE HAS HERE SEIZED.  THE HAZARDS TO WHICH WE
ARE NOW ASKED TO SUBJECT THE ALIEN ARE TOO IRRATIONAL TO SQUARE WITH
THE STATUTORY SCHEME. 

OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOW SOUGHT TO BE ADVANCED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
SUPPORT OF THE DEPORTATION ORDER.  THEY ARE NOT OPEN ON THE RECORD
BEFORE US.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IF HIS INTERCOASTAL VOYAGE HAD CONTINUED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION,
IT IS CLEAR THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE AN "ENTRY" WHEN HE LANDED AT
ITS TERMINATION.  UNITED STATES EX REL. CLAUSSEN V. DAY, SUPRA, P.
401. 
..END :



















INTERNATIONAL SALT CO. V. U.S., 332 U.S. 392 


NO. 46.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1947.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1947.  - 6
F.R.D. 302, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IT IS VIOLATIVE PER SE OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND SEC. 3 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT FOR A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
SALT, OF WHICH IT IS THE COUNTRY'S LARGEST PRODUCER FOR INDUSTRIAL
USES, AND WHICH ALSO OWNS PATENTS ON MACHINES FOR UTILIZATION OF SALT
PRODUCTS, TO REQUIRE LESSEES OF SUCH MACHINES TO USE ONLY THE
CORPORATION'S UNPATENTED PRODUCTS IN THEM.  PP. 394-396. 

2.  THE DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL ACTION TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 1 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT AND SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT HAVING ADMITTED PRACTICES
WHICH WERE UNLAWFUL AND UNREASONABLE PER SE, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 56 OF THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE.  P. 396. 

3.  AGREEMENTS WHICH "TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY" BEING FORBIDDEN, IT
IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE TENDENCY IS A CREEPING ONE RATHER THAN ONE THAT
PROCEEDS AT FULL GALLOP; NOR DOES THE LAW AWAIT ARRIVAL AT THE GOAL
BEFORE CONDEMNING THE DIRECTION OF THE MOVEMENT.  P. 396. 

4.  A REQUIREMENT IN A LEASE OF PATENTED MACHINES THAT THE LESSEE USE
ONLY THE LESSOR'S UNPATENTED PRODUCTS IN THEM IS NOT SAVED FROM
UNREASONABLENESS AND FROM THE TENDENCY TO MONOPOLY BY PROVISIONS
ENTITLING THE LESSEE TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY GENERAL PRICE REDUCTION IN
THE LESSOR'S PRODUCTS AND PERMITTING THE LESSEE TO PURCHASE THE
PRODUCTS IN THE OPEN MARKET IF THE LESSOR FAILS TO FURNISH THEM AT A
PRICE EQUAL TO THE LOWEST PRICE OFFERED BY ANY COMPETITOR.  PP. 396
397. 

5.  RULES FOR USE OF LEASED MACHINERY MUST NOT BE DISGUISED
RESTRAINTS OF FREE COMPETITION, THOUGH THEY MAY SET REASONABLE
STANDARDS WHICH ALL SUPPLIERS MUST MEET.  PP. 397-398. 

6.  THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN ALL LEASES AND HAVE
NOT ALWAYS BEEN ENFORCED WHEN INCLUDED DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE GENERAL USE
OF CLAUSES REQUIRING LESSEES OF PATENTED MACHINES TO USE THE LESSOR'S
UNPATENTED PRODUCTS THEREIN.  P. 398. 

7.  IN ENJOINING THE PRACTICE OF LEASING PATENTED MACHINES ON
CONDITION THAT THE LESSEES WOULD USE ONLY THE LESSOR'S UNPATENTED
PRODUCTS IN THEM, IT WAS NOT IMPROPER FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO INCLUDE
A REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH MACHINES BE LEASED, SOLD OR LICENSED TO ALL
APPLICANTS ON NON-DISCRIMINATORY TERMS AND CONDITIONS - ESPECIALLY
WHERE THE COURT RETAINED JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER APPLICATIONS FOR THE
AMENDMENT, MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE DECREE. 
PP. 398-402. 

INTERNATIONAL SALT CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 56 OF THE
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED VIOLATIONS OF
SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  6 F.R.D.
302.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 402. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THIS CIVIL ACTION TO ENJOIN THE INTERNATIONAL
SALT COMPANY, APPELLANT HERE, FROM CARRYING OUT PROVISIONS OF THE
LEASES OF ITS PATENTED MACHINES TO THE EFFECT THAT LESSEES WOULD USE
THEREIN ONLY INTERNATIONAL'S SALT PRODUCTS.  THE RESTRICTION IS ALLEGED
TO VIOLATE LATE SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,  FN1  AND SEC. 3 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT.  FN2  UPON APPELLANT'S ANSWER AND ADMISSIONS OF FACT, THE
GOVERNMENT MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 56 OF THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, UPON THE GROUND THAT NO ISSUE AS TO A MATERIAL FACT
WAS PRESENTED AND THAT, ON THE ADMISSIONS, JUDGMENT FOLLOWED AS MATTER
OF LAW.  NEITHER PARTY SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS.  JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED  FN3
AND APPEAL WAS TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT.  FN4 

IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY PLEADINGS OR ADMISSIONS THAT THE INTERNATIONAL
SALT COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN SALT, OF WHICH IT IS
THE COUNTRY'S LARGEST PRODUCER FOR INDUSTRIAL USES.  IT ALSO OWNS
PATENTS ON TWO MACHINES FOR UTILIZATION OF SALT PRODUCTS.  ONE, THE
"LIXATOR," DISSOLVES ROCK SALT INTO A BRINE USED IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL
PROCESSES.  THE OTHER, THE "SALTOMAT," INJECTS SALT, IN TABLET FORM,
INTO CANNED PRODUCTS DURING THE CANNING PROCESS.  THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRIBUTION OF EACH OF THESE MACHINES IS UNDER LEASES WHICH, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, REQUIRE THE LESSEES TO PURCHASE FROM APPELLANT ALL
UNPATENTED SALT AND SALT TABLETS CONSUMED IN THE LEASED MACHINES. 

APPELLANT HAD OUTSTANDING 790 LEASES OF AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
"LIXATORS," ALL OF WHICH LEASES WERE ON APPELLANT'S STANDARD FORM
CONTAINING THE TYING CLAUSE  FN5  AND OTHER STANDARD PROVISIONS; OF 50
OTHER LEASES WHICH SOMEWHAT VARIED THE TERMS, ALL BUT 4 CONTAINED THE
TYING CLAUSE.  IT ALSO HAD IN EFFECT 73 LEASES OF 96 "SALTOMATS," ALL
CONTAINING THE RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE.  FN6  IN 1944, APPELLANT SOLD
APPROXIMATELY 119,000 TONS OF SALT, FOR ABOUT $500,000, FOR USE IN
THESE MACHINES. 

THE APPELLANT'S PATENTS CONFER A LIMITED MONOPOLY OF THE INVENTION
THEY REWARD.  FROM THEM APPELLANT DERIVES A RIGHT TO RESTRAIN OTHERS
FROM MAKING, VENDING OR USING THE PATENTED MACHINES.  BUT THE PATENTS
CONFER NO RIGHT TO RESTRAIN USE OF, OR TRADE IN, UNPATENTED SALT.  BY
CONTRACTING TO CLOSE THIS MARKET FOR SALT AGAINST COMPETITION,
INTERNATIONAL HAS ENGAGED IN A RESTRAINT OF TRADE FOR WHICH ITS PATENTS
AFFORD NO IMMUNITY FROM THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S.
SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488; MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT
CO., 320 U.S. 661; MERCOID CORP. V. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL CO., 320 U.S.
680. 

APPELLANT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNAUTHORIZED
BECAUSE IT PRECLUDED TRIAL OF ALLEGED ISSUES OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE
RESTRAINT WAS UNREASONABLE WITHIN THE SHERMAN ACT OR SUBSTANTIALLY
LESSENED COMPETITION OR TENDED TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN SALT WITHIN THE
CLAYTON ACT.  WE THINK THE ADMITTED FACTS LEFT NO GENUINE ISSUE.  NOT
ONLY IS PRICE-FIXING UNREASONABLE, PER SE, UNITED STATES V. SOCONY
VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150; UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO.,
273 U.S. 392, BUT ALSO IT IS UNREASONABLE, PER SE, TO FORECLOSE
COMPETITORS FROM ANY SUBSTANTIAL MARKET.  FASHION ORIGINATORS GUILD V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 114 F.2D 80, AFFIRMED, 312 U.S. 457.  THE
VOLUME OF BUSINESS AFFECTED BY THESE CONTRACTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE
INSIGNIFICANT OR INSUBSTANTIAL AND THE TENDENCY OF THE ARRANGEMENT TO
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF MONOPOLY SEEMS OBVIOUS.  UNDER THE LAW, AGREEMENTS
ARE FORBIDDEN WHICH "TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY," AND IT IS IMMATERIAL
THAT THE TENDENCY IS A CREEPING ONE RATHER THAN ONE THAT PROCEEDS AT
FULL GALLOP; NOR DOES THE LAW AWAIT ARRIVAL AT THE GOAL BEFORE
CONDEMNING THE DIRECTION OF THE MOVEMENT. 

APPELLANT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE "LIXATOR" CONTRACTS ARE SAVED
FROM UNREASONABLENESS AND FROM THE TENDENCY TO MONOPOLY BECAUSE THEY
PROVIDED THAT IF ANY COMPETITOR OFFERED SALT OF EQUAL GRADE AT A LOWER
PRICE, THE LESSEE SHOULD BE FREE TO BUY IN THE OPEN MARKET, UNLESS
APPELLANT WOULD FURNISH THE SALT AT AN EQUAL PRICE; AND THE "SALTOMAT"
AGREEMENTS PROVIDED THAT THE LESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY
GENERAL PRICE REDUCTION IN LESSOR'S SALT TABLETS.  THE "LIXATOR"
PROVISION DOES, OF COURSE, AFFORD A MEASURE OF PROTECTION TO THE
LESSEE, BUT IT DOES NOT AVOID THE STIFLING EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT ON
COMPETITION.  THE APPELLANT HAD AT ALL TIMES A PRIORITY ON THE BUSINESS
AT EQUAL PRICES.  A COMPETITOR WOULD HAVE TO UNDERCUT APPELLANT'S PRICE
TO HAVE ANY HOPE OF CAPTURING THE MARKET, WHILE APPELLANT COULD HOLD
THAT MARKET BY MERELY MEETING COMPETITION.  WE DO NOT THINK THIS
CONCESSION RELIEVES THE CONTRACT OF BEING A RESTRAINT OF TRADE, ALBEIT
A LESS HARSH ONE THAN WOULD RESULT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PROVISION. 
THE "SALTOMAT" PROVISION OBVIOUSLY HAS NO EFFECT OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
SINCE IT GIVES THE LESSEE NOTHING MORE THAN A RIGHT TO BUY APPELLANT'S
SALT TABLETS AT APPELLANT'S GOING PRICE.  ALL PURCHASES MUST IN ANY
EVENT BE OF APPELLANT'S PRODUCT. 

APPELLANT ALSO URGES THAT SINCE UNDER THE LEASES IT REMAINED UNDER AN
OBLIGATION TO REPAIR AND MAINTAIN THE MACHINES, IT WAS REASONABLE TO
CONFINE THEIR USE TO ITS OWN SALT BECAUSE ITS HIGH QUALITY ASSURED
SATISFACTORY FUNCTIONING AND LOW MAINTENANCE COST.  THE APPELLANT'S
ROCK SALT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE AN AVERAGE SODIUM CHLORIDE CONTENT OF
98.2%.  ROCK SALT OF OTHER PRODUCERS, IT IS SAID, "DOES NOT RUN
CONSISTENT IN SODIUM CHLORIDE CONTENT AND IN MANY INSTANCES RUNS AS LOW
AS 95% OF SODIUM CHLORIDE."  THIS GREATER PERCENTAGE OF INSOLUBLE
IMPURITIES ALLEGEDLY DISTURBS THE FUNCTIONING OF THE "LIXATOR"
MACHINE.  A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CLAIM IS PLEADED AS TO THE "SALTOMAT." 

OF COURSE, A LESSOR MAY IMPOSE ON A LESSEE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS
DESIGNED IN GOOD FAITH TO MINIMIZE MAINTENANCE BURDENS AND TO ASSURE
SATISFACTORY OPERATION.  WE MAY ASSUME, AS MATTER OF ARGUMENT, THAT IF
THE "LIXATOR" FUNCTIONS BEST ON ROCK SALT OF AVERAGE SODIUM CHLORIDE
CONTENT OF 98.2%, THE LESSEE MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO USE ONLY SALT MEETING
SUCH A SPECIFICATION OF QUALITY.  BUT IT IS NOT PLEADED, NOR IS IT
ARGUED, THAT THE MACHINE IS ALLERGIC TO SALT OF EQUAL QUALITY PRODUCED
BY ANYONE EXCEPT INTERNATIONAL.  IF OTHERS CANNOT PRODUCE SALT EQUAL TO
REASONABLE SPECIFICATIONS FOR MACHINE USE, IT IS ONE THING; BUT IT IS
ADMITTED THAT, AT TIMES, AT LEAST, COMPETITORS DO OFFER SUCH A
PRODUCT.  THEY ARE, HOWEVER, SHUT OUT OF THE MARKET BY A PROVISION THAT
LIMITS IT, NOT IN TERMS OF QUALITY, BUT IN TERMS OF A PARTICULAR
VENDOR.  RULES FOR USE OF LEASED MACHINERY MUST NOT BE DISGUISED
RESTRAINTS OF FREE COMPETITION, THOUGH THEY MAY SET REASONABLE
STANDARDS WHICH ALL SUPPLIERS MUST MEET.  CF. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 131. 

APPELLANT URGES OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  THE TYING
CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN INSISTED UPON IN ALL LEASES, NOR HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN
ENFORCED WHEN IT WAS INCLUDED.  BUT THESE FACTS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE
GENERAL USE OF THE RESTRICTION WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED HERE. 

THE APPELLANT ALSO STRONGLY OBJECTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SIXTH
PARAGRAPH OF THE DECREE.  FN7 APPELLANT DENIES THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH
PROVISION AND IT IS TRUE THAT THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO THREAT TO
DISCRIMINATE AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IS PRONOUNCED.  IT ALSO
SUGGESTS THAT WE MODIFY THE JUDGMENT TO ACCEPT A PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
PROVISION  FN8  SIMILAR TO ONE IT SAYS IT URGED UPON THE DISTRICT
COURT, WHICH REJECTED IT.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHAT PROCEEDINGS
WERE HAD BETWEEN RENDERING OF THE COURT'S OPINION AND SIGNING OF THE
DECREE. 

THE SPECIFIC GROUND OF OBJECTION RAISED BY APPELLANT TO PARAGRAPH
SIXTH IS THAT INTERNATIONAL MAY FIND IT NECESSARY IN SOME SECTIONS OF
THE COUNTRY TO REDUCE THE RENTAL RATES OF THE MACHINES IN ORDER THAT
ITS MACHINES MAY COMPETE WITH THOSE OF OTHERS.  OF COURSE, THE CLAYTON
ACT ITSELF FN9  PERMITS ONE CHARGED WITH PRICE DISCRIMINATION TO SHOW
THAT HE LOWERED HIS PRICE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION. 
OBVIOUSLY, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT INTENDING TO PREVENT COMPETITION
OR TO DISABLE THE APPELLANT FROM MEETING OR OFFERING IT. THE
GOVERNMENT, TOO, SAYS IT WOULD NOT OPPOSE PERMITTING A LOWER PRICE TO
MEET, IN GOOD FAITH, THE EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR IF THE NEED
AROSE. 

THE SHORT OF THE CONTENTION IS THAT SINCE THE COMPANY NEVER HAS
THREATENED TO VIOLATE ANY DECREE ENTERED IN THIS CASE TO RESTRAIN
FUTURE USE OF THE ILLEGAL LEASES, IT FEELS THAT THE PROVISION
INVALIDATING THE OBJECTIONABLE LEASES SHOULD END THE MATTER AND THAT,
AS TO ANY ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS, APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO STAND BEFORE
THE COURT IN THE SAME POSITION AS ONE WHO HAS NEVER VIOLATED THE LAW AT
ALL - THAT THE INJUNCTION SHOULD GO NO FARTHER THAN THE VIOLATION OR
THREAT OF VIOLATION.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROVED
VIOLATIONS ARE SO LIMITED.  THE FACT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT
ALREADY HAS WEDGED ITSELF INTO THIS SALT MARKET BY METHODS FORBIDDEN BY
LAW.  THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT OBLIGED TO ASSUME, CONTRARY TO COMMON
EXPERIENCE, THAT A VIOLATOR OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS WILL RELINQUISH THE
FRUITS OF HIS VIOLATION MORE COMPLETELY THAN THE COURT REQUIRES HIM TO
DO.  AND ADVANTAGES ALREADY IN HAND MAY BE HELD BY METHODS MORE SUBTLE
AND INFORMED, AND MORE DIFFICULT TO PROVE, THAN THOSE WHICH, IN THE
FIRST PLACE, WIN A MARKET.  WHEN THE PURPOSE TO RESTRAIN TRADE APPEARS
FROM A CLEAR VIOLATION OF LAW, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ALL OF THE
UNTRAVELED ROADS TO THAT END BE LEFT OPEN AND THAT ONLY THE WORN ONE BE
CLOSED.  THE USUAL WAYS TO THE PROHIBITED GOAL MAY BE BLOCKED AGAINST
THE PROVEN TRANSGRESSOR AND THE BURDEN PUT UPON HIM TO BRING ANY PROPER
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION.  AND IT IS DESIRABLE, IN
THE INTERESTS OF THE COURT AND OF BOTH LITIGANTS, THAT THE DECREE BE AS
SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE, NOT ONLY IN THE CORE OF ITS RELIEF, BUT IN ITS
OUTWARD LIMITS, SO THAT PARTIES MAY KNOW THEIR DUTIES AND UNINTENDED
CONTEMPTS MAY NOT OCCUR. 

THE FRAMING OF DECREES SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE DISTRICT RATHER THAN
IN APPELLATE COURTS.  FN10 THEY ARE INVESTED WITH LARGE DISCRETION TO
MODEL THEIR JUDGMENTS TO FIT THE EXIGENCIES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. 
UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 185; UNITED
STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319.  IN AN EQUITY SUIT, THE END
TO BE SERVED IS NOT PUNISHMENT OF PAST TRANSGRESSION, NOR IS IT MERELY
TO END SPECIFIC ILLEGAL PRACTICES.  A PUBLIC INTEREST SERVED BY SUCH
CIVIL SUITS IS THAT THEY EFFECTIVELY PRY OPEN TO COMPETITION A MARKET
THAT HAS BEEN CLOSED BY DEFENDANTS' ILLEGAL RESTRAINTS.  IF THIS DECREE
ACCOMPLISHES LESS THAN THAT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS WON A LAWSUIT AND LOST
A CAUSE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HAS RETAINED JURISDICTION, BY THE TERMS OF ITS
JUDGMENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF "ENABLING ANY OF THE PARTIES  ...  TO
APPLY TO THE COURT AT ANY TIME FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR CARRYING OUT
OF THIS JUDGMENT" AND "FOR THE AMENDMENT, MODIFICATIONS OR TERMINATION
OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS  ...  " WE THINK IT WOULD NOT BE GOOD JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION TO STRIKE PARAGRAPH VI FROM THE JUDGMENT TO MEET A
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT HAS PURPOSELY LEFT THE
WAY OPEN TO REMEDY ANY SUCH SITUATIONS IF AND WHEN THE NEED ARISES. 
THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE CLAIM FOR MODIFICATION SHOULD APPEAR IN
EVIDENTIARY FORM BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT RATHER THAN IN THE
ARGUMENTATIVE FORM IN WHICH IT IS BEFORE US.  NOR ARE WE IMPRESSED THAT
THIS WILL REQUIRE A MULTITUDE OF SEPARATE APPLICATIONS.  ONCE THE
CONCRETE PROBLEM IS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT IT WILL NO DOUBT BE ABLE
TO FASHION A PROVISION THAT WILL AVOID REPETITIOUS APPLICATIONS WHICH
WOULD BE AS VEXATIOUS TO THE COURT AS TO THE LITIGANTS.  WE LEAVE THE
APPELLANT TO PROPER APPLICATION TO THE COURT BELOW AND DENY THE RELIEF
HERE, UPON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  26 STAT. 209, SEC. 1, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN2  38 STAT. 730, SEC. 3, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 14. 

FN3  6 F.R.D. 302. 

FN4  PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED APRIL 28, 1947. 

FN5  "IT IS FURTHER MUTUALLY AGREED THAT THE SAID LIXATE PROCESS
DISSOLVER SHALL BE INSTALLED BY AND AT THE EXPENSE OF SAID LESSEE AND
SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN REPAIR DURING THE TERM OF THIS LEASE BY
AND AT THE EXPENSE OF SAID LESSEE; THAT THE SAID LIXATE PROCESS
DISSOLVER SHALL BE USED FOR DISSOLVING AND CONVERTING INTO BRINE ONLY
THOSE GRADES OF ROCK SALT PURCHASED BY THE LESSEE FROM THE LESSOR AT
PRICES AND UPON TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREAFTER AGREED UPON, PROVIDED: 

"IF AT ANY TIME DURING THE TERM OF THIS LEASE A GENERAL REDUCTION IN
PRICE OF GRADES OF SALT SUITABLE FOR USE IN THE SAID LIXATE PROCESS
DISSOLVER SHALL BE MADE, SAID LESSEE SHALL GIVE SAID LESSOR AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A COMPETITIVE GRADE OF SALT AT ANY SUCH
COMPETITIVE PRICE QUOTED, AND IN CASE SAID LESSOR SHALL FAIL OR BE
UNABLE TO DO SO, SAID LESSEE, UPON CONTINUED PAYMENT OF THE RENTAL
HEREIN AGREED UPON, SHALL HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF CONTINUED USE OF THE
SAID EQUIPMENT WITH SALT PURCHASED IN THE OPEN MARKET, UNTIL SUCH TIME
AS SAID LESSOR SHALL FURNISH A SUITABLE GRADE OF SALT AT THE SAID
COMPETITIVE PRICE."    IT FURTHER PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  SHOULD SAID LESSEE FAIL TO PAY PROMPTLY THE AFORESAID RENTAL,
OR SHALL AT ANY TIME DISCONTINUE PURCHASING ITS REQUIREMENTS OF SALT
FROM SAID LESSOR, OR OTHERWISE BREACH ANY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF THIS LEASE, SAID LESSOR SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT, UPON 30 DAYS' WRITTEN
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DO SO, TO REMOVE THE SAID LIXATE PROCESS
DISSOLVER FROM THE POSSESSION OF SAID LESSEE." 

FN6  "IT IS FURTHER MUTUALLY AGREED THAT THE SAID SALT TABLET
DEPOSITORS) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION DURING
THE TERM OF THIS LEASE:  THAT THE SAID SALT TABLET DEPOSITORS) SHALL BE
USED ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH SALT TABLETS SOLD OR MANUFACTURED BY THE
LESSOR, AND THAT THE LESSEE SHALL PURCHASE FROM THE LESSOR, OR ITS
AGENT, SALT TABLETS FOR USE IN THE SALT TABLET DEPOSITORS) AT PRICES
AND UPON TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER AGREED UPON, PROVIDED:  IF,
AT ANY TIME DURING THE TERM OF THIS LEASE, A GENERAL REDUCTION IN
LESSOR'S PRICE OF SALT TABLETS SUITABLE FOR USE IN THE DEPOSITORS)
SHALL BE MADE, SAID LESSOR SHALL PROVIDE SAID LESSEE WITH SALT TABLETS
AT A LIKE PRICE." 

THE LEASE FURTHER PROVIDES: 

"  ...  SHOULD LESSEE FAIL TO PAY PROMPTLY THE AFORESAID RENTAL, OR
AT ANY TIME DISCONTINUE PURCHASING ITS REQUIREMENTS OF SALT TABLETS FOR
SAID SALT TABLET DEPOSITORS) FROM SAID LESSOR, OR ITS AGENT, OR
OTHERWISE BREACH ANY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LEASE, SAID
LESSOR SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT, UPON TEN DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE OF INTENTION
TO DO SO, TO REMOVE THE SAID SALT TABLET DEPOSITORS) FROM THE PREMISES
AND/OR POSSESSION OF SAID LESSEE." 

FN7  "DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL SALT IS DIRECTED TO OFFER TO LEASE OR
SELL OR LICENSE THE USE OF THE LIXATOR OR SALTOMAT MACHINES, OR ANY
OTHER MACHINE WHICH IS THEN BEING OR ABOUT TO BE OFFERED OR SHALL HAVE
BEEN OFFERED BY SUCH DEFENDANT IN THE UNITED STATES EMBODYING
INVENTIONS COVERED BY ANY OF THE PATENTS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH II
HEREOF, TO ANY APPLICANT ON NON-DISCRIMINATORY TERMS AND CONDITIONS;
PROVIDED THAT 

"(A)  A MACHINE OR MACHINES IS OR ARE AVAILABLE FOR SUCH PURPOSES
AND 

"(B)  DEFENDANT SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH OFFER UNLESS IT IS
OFFERING, ABOUT TO OFFER, OR HAS OFFERED SUCH MACHINES FOR LEASE OR
SALE OR LICENSE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND AT ANY TIME THE DEFENDANT
MAY DISCONTINUE THE BUSINESS OF RENTING OR SELLING OR LICENSING THE USE
OF SUCH MACHINES; AND 

"(C)  SUCH SALE OR LEASE OR LICENSE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MADE
WITHOUT CASH PAYMENT OR SECURITY TO ANY PERSON NOT HAVING PROPER CREDIT
RATING, AND 

"(D) THE RENTAL OR SALE PRICE OR LICENSE ROYALTY MAY DIFFER AS TO
DIFFERENT TYPES AND SIZES OF MACHINES AND FROM TIME TO TIME SO LONG AS
THE RENTAL OR SALE PRICE OR ROYALTY AT ANY ONE TIME IS UNIFORM AS TO
EACH SIZE OR TYPE OF MACHINE.  THE TERMS OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL APPLY
TO ALL FUTURE CONTRACTS AND MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING CONTRACTS.  ANY
PERSON WITH WHOM DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL SALT NOW HAS A LEASE AGREEMENT
RELATING TO THE LIXATOR OR SALTOMAT MACHINES MAY ELECT TO RETAIN HIS
RIGHTS UNDER THE EXISTING LEASE OR TO ENTER INTO A LEASE OR SALE OR
LICENSE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL SALT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH." 

FN8  DEFENDANT WOULD BE ENJOINED "FROM REFUSING TO SELL, LEASE OR
LICENSE THE USE OF ANY SUCH MACHINE TO ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION,
OR FROM DISCRIMINATING IN THE TERMS OF ANY CONTRACT OF SALE, LEASE OR
LICENSE OF ANY SUCH MACHINE WITH ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION,
AGAINST THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER, LESSEE OR LICENSEE ON THE GROUND THAT HE
HAS USED OR DEALT IN, OR INTENDS OR PROPOSES TO USE OR DEAL IN, SALT
NOT MANUFACTURED OR SOLD BY THE DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL SALT." 

FN9  38 STAT. 730, 49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13B. 

FN10  THAT COURT IS AUTHORIZED, BUT NOT REQUIRED, TO CALL UPON THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO ASSIST IN FRAMING DECREES IN ANTITRUST
CASES.  SEC. 7, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, 38 STAT. 722.  THIS WOULD
SEEM UNNECESSARY IF CONGRESS INTENDED A SIMPLE PROHIBITION OF THE
PARTICULAR PRACTICE PROVED BEFORE THE COURT.  IT INDICATES THE CONGRESS
HAS INTENDED DECREES TO DEAL WITH THE FUTURE ECONOMIC CONDITION OF THE
ENTERPRISE AS WELL AS PAST VIOLATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON
JOIN, DISSENTING IN PART. 

AGREEING WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH THE COURT'S OPINION ON THE MAIN ISSUE, I
AM LEFT UNPERSUADED BY ITS JUSTIFICATION FOR RETAINING PARAGRAPH VI
FN1  IN THE JUDGMENT. 

INASMUCH AS THE HOLDER OF PATENTS ON MACHINES IS NOT OBLIGED TO
DISPOSE OF THEM TO ALL COMERS OR TO DO SO AT A UNIFORM PRICE, PARAGRAPH
VI IN AND OF ITSELF UNDOUBTEDLY DEPRIVES APPELLANT OF A LEGAL RIGHT. 
IT IS NOT MERELY A THEORETICAL RIGHT.  PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS MAY
MAKE IT IMPORTANT FOR APPELLANT TO ACT UPON ITS LEGAL RIGHT NOT TO HAVE
A UNIFORM PRICE FOR ALL ITS CUSTOMERS.  IT WAS CONCEDED AT THE BAR THAT
COMPETITION MAY REQUIRE THIS.  NO DOUBT, WHEN A COURT CONDEMNS
PRACTICES AS VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN LAW AND THE CLAYTON ACT, IT HAS
THE DUTY SO TO FASHION ITS DECREE AS TO PUT AN EFFECTIVE STOP TO THAT
WHICH IS CONDEMNED.  BUT THE LAW ALSO RESPECTS THE WISDOM OF NOT
BURNING EVEN PART OF A HOUSE IN ORDER TO ROAST A PIG.  ORDINARILY,
THEREFORE, WHEN ACTS ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DONE IN VIOLATION OF
ANTITRUST LEGISLATION, RESTRAINT OF SUCH ACTS IN THE FUTURE IS THE
ADEQUATE RELIEF.  SEE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD R. CO. V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 200 U.S. 361, 404; STANDARD OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 77; LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING
COMPANY, 312 U.S. 426, 435-37.  REFLECTING THE DICTATES OF FAIRNESS,
EQUITY DOES NOT PUT UNDER BAN THAT WHICH IS INTRINSICALLY LEGITIMATE
UNLESS FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES IT IS TIED WITH THE ILLEGITIMATE, OR
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAKE IT REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT PURSUIT
OF WHAT IS LEGITIMATE WOULD BE A COVER FOR DOING WHAT IS FORBIDDEN. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, IN EFFECT, THAT TO COMPEL APPELLANT TO OBSERVE
UNIFORMITY OF PRICE FOR ITS MACHINES REMOVES ANY TEMPTATION FOR MORE
FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF A CUSTOMER WHO BUYS ITS SALT.  BUT THAT IS
PRECISELY THE AIM OF THE MAIN DECREE - IT PROHIBITS EXTENSION OF THE
PATENT FOR THE MACHINES BY REQUIRING AS A CONDITION OF ITS ACQUISITION
THE PURCHASE OF NON-PATENTED SALT.  THE PRESUPPOSITION OF PARAGRAPH VI
IS THAT THE APPELLANT WILL DISOBEY THAT WHICH THE COURT EXPLICITLY
FORBIDS, SO THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF AN OTHERWISE LEGAL RIGHT TO FIX THE
PURCHASE PRICE OF PATENTED MACHINES IS EMPLOYED AS A PRECAUTIONARY
SCREW TO HOLD THE APPELLANT DOWN FROM DISOBEYING THE COURT'S DECREE. 
SURELY A COURT OF EQUITY OUGHT NOT TO ADD TO ITS PROHIBITION OF THE
ILLICIT A PROHIBITION OF THE LICIT UNLESS THE TWO ARE PRACTICALLY
INTERTWINED OR THERE IS SOME GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT THE LICIT WILL
SURREPTITIOUSLY BE MISUSED IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE ILLICIT.  THERE
SHOULD BE NO SUCH PROHIBITION MERELY AS A RE-ENFORCEMENT OF THE
APPROPRIATE PRESUPPOSITION THAT A LITIGANT, NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN
RECALCITRANT OR UNDERHANDED, WILL OBEY THE COURT'S DECREE.  IF HE DOES,
THE POWER OF CONTEMPT IS THERE TO ENFORCE OBEDIENCE.  IT IS SUGGESTED
THAT IF THE PRESUPPOSITION OF OBEDIENCE IS TO BE ENTERTAINED IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO ENJOIN EVEN ILLEGAL CONDUCT.  BUT, SURELY, IT IS ONE
THING TO DECREE PROHIBITION OF CONDUCT FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL AND A WHOLLY
DIFFERENT THING TO ADD THERETO THE PROHIBITION OF THAT WHICH IS
OTHERWISE LEGAL ON THE THEORY THAT THEREBY ANY TEMPTATION TO PERSIST IN
THE FORBIDDEN ILLEGALITY IS REMOVED. 

UPON THE RECORD BEFORE US THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE
APPELLANT IS LIKELY TO DISOBEY THE DECREE NOT ONLY OF THE DISTRICT
COURT AGAINST A CONTINUANCE OF ILLEGAL LEASES, BUT WHAT IN EFFECT, UPON
AFFIRMANCE, BECOMES A DECREE OF THIS COURT.  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT
THE GOVERNMENT SAW FIT TO MOVE FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.  IT
THEREBY RAISED A PURE LEGAL QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE LEASES
ON THEIR FACE.  THE GOVERNMENT CHOSE NOT TO TRY TO LAY BARE, AS IS
OFTEN DONE IN SHERMAN LAW CASES, FAIR AND UNFAIR PRACTICES INEXTRICABLY
BLENDED.  IN SUCH A SITUATION THE LAWFUL HAS TO FALL WITH THE
UNLAWFUL.  HAVING INVITED JUDGMENT ON THE BARE BONES OF THE PLEADINGS
WHICH MERELY RAISE THE VALIDITY OF THE TYING CLAUSES, THE GOVERNMENT IS
NOT ENTITLED TO REMEDIES WHICH GO BEYOND THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE
PLEADINGS.  THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.  THE
GOVERNMENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PROVISION IN THE DECREE WHICH CAN BE
JUSTIFIED ONLY ON SOME INDICATION IN THE RECORD, OF WHICH HERE THERE IS
NONE, THAT APPELLANT'S PAST SHOWS A DEVIOUS TEMPER WHICH NEEDS TO BE
HOBBLED BY WITHDRAWING A CONCEDED LEGAL RIGHT. 

IN COMPARABLE SITUATIONS, WHERE ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION COME HERE FOR REVIEW, THIS COURT HAS SOUGHT TO PROTECT
OTHERWISE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS EVEN WHERE A BUSINESS HAS INDULGED IN
UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION.  THE COMMISSION IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO
MAKE ITS ORDER NEEDLESSLY DESTRUCTIVE.  THE BABY IS NOT TO BE THROWN
OUT WITH THE BATH.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. ROYAL MILLING CO.,
288 U.S. 212, AND JACOB SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 327
U.S. 608.  ACCORDINGLY, IF THIS WERE A REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, I SHOULD REMIT THE ORDER FOR APPROPRIATE
RECONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION.  SINCE THIS IS A REVIEW OF A LOWER
FEDERAL COURT AND THE RECORD PRESUMABLY PRESENTS TO US ALL THAT WAS
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT IN SUPPORT OF PARAGRAPH VI, WE COULD DISPOSE
OF THE MATTER HERE. 

BUT THE MOLDING OF DECREES IN SHERMAN LAW CASES IS NORMALLY THE
BUSINESS OF DISTRICT COURTS.  THEY HAVE A SCOPE OF DISCRETION WHICH
SHOULD NOT UNDULY BE CUT OFF BY A RECASTING OF THE DECREE ON APPEAL
HERE.  (IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION IN THE ROLE OF A MASTER IN CHANCERY TO HELP MOLD DECREES IN
SUITS UNDER THE ANTITRUST STATUTES APPARENTLY DOES NOT APPLY TO A SUIT
LIKE THE PRESENT, WHERE JUDGMENT WAS ASKED ON THE PLEADINGS AND NO
TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN.  SEE SEC. 7 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT,
38 STAT. 717, 722, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 47.)  AND SO I WOULD REMAND THE CASE
TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT PARAGRAPH VI IS
MERELY A ROUNDABOUT WAY OF SAYING THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT
DISCRIMINATE IN THE PRICE OF ITS PATENTED MACHINES IN FAVOR OF A
PURCHASER OF ITS SALT.  IF SUCH WAS THE INTENTION OF PARAGRAPH VI, THE
DISTRICT COURT WILL WANT TO CONVEY SUCH MEANING LESS AMBIGUOUSLY.  FN2 

AS THE PARAGRAPH STANDS, I DO NOT SEE HOW ANY LAWYER WOULD ADVISE
THAT THE APPELLANT COULD VARY ITS PRICES AMONG CUSTOMERS IN DIFFERENT
LOCALITIES FOR A LEGITIMATE REASON WITHOUT EACH TIME GOING TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE.  THAT IS NOT A BURDEN
WHICH, ON THIS RECORD, OUGHT TO BE PLACED ON THE APPELLANT.  THE UNDUE
STING OF PARAGRAPH VI IS NOT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT IT IS "SPECIFIC." 
OF COURSE IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF COURTS AND OF LITIGANTS THAT THE
TERMS OF A DECREE BE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE.  BUT THE DESIDERATUM OF
EXPLICITNESS DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT REMEDIES BE
APPROPRIATE TO THE CONDEMNED ILLEGALITY.  IT DOES NOT DRAW THE STING OF
UNDUE PROHIBITION OF LAWFUL CONDUCT TO MAKE THE PROHIBITION SPECIFIC. 

FN1                                     "VI 

"DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL SALT IS DIRECTED TO OFFER TO LEASE OR SELL
OR LICENSE THE USE OF THE LIXATOR OR SALTOMAT MACHINES, OR ANY OTHER
MACHINE WHICH IS THEN BEING OR ABOUT TO BE OFFERED OR SHALL HAVE BEEN
OFFERED BY SUCH DEFENDANT IN THE UNITED STATES EMBODYING INVENTIONS
COVERED BY ANY OF THE PATENTS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH II HEREOF, TO
ANY APPLICANT ON NON-DISCRIMINATORY TERMS AND CONDITIONS; PROVIDED
THAT 

"(A)  A MACHINE OR MACHINES IS OR ARE AVAILABLE FOR SUCH PURPOSES
AND 

"(B)  DEFENDANT SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH OFFER UNLESS IT IS
OFFERING, ABOUT TO OFFER, OR HAS OFFERED SUCH MACHINES FOR LEASE OR
SALE OR LICENSE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND AT ANY TIME THE DEFENDANT
MAY DISCONTINUE THE BUSINESS OF RENTING OR SELLING OR LICENSING THE USE
OF SUCH MACHINES; AND 

"(C)  SUCH SALE OR LEASE OR LICENSE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MADE
WITHOUT CASH PAYMENT OR SECURITY TO ANY PERSON NOT HAVING PROPER CREDIT
RATING, AND 

"(D) THE RENTAL OR SALE PRICE OR LICENSE ROYALTY MAY DIFFER AS TO
DIFFERENT TYPES AND SIZES OF MACHINES AND FROM TIME TO TIME SO LONG AS
THE RENTAL OR SALE PRICE OR ROYALTY AT ANY ONE TIME IS UNIFORM AS TO
EACH SIZE OR TYPE OF MACHINE.  THE TERMS OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL APPLY
TO ALL FUTURE CONTRACTS AND MODIFICATIONS OF EXISTING CONTRACTS.  ANY
PERSON WITH WHOM DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL SALT NOW HAS A LEASE AGREEMENT
RELATING TO THE LIXATOR OR SALTOMAT MACHINES MAY ELECT TO RETAIN HIS
RIGHTS UNDER THE EXISTING LEASE OR TO ENTER INTO A LEASE OR SALE OR
LICENSE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL SALT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH." 

FN2  SEE THE CLAUSE WHICH THE APPELLANT PROPOSED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT, ENJOINING IT "FROM REFUSING TO SELL, LEASE OR LICENSE THE USE OF
ANY SUCH MACHINE TO ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION, OR FROM
DISCRIMINATING IN THE TERMS OF ANY CONTRACT OF SALE, LEASE OR LICENSE
OF ANY SUCH MACHINE WITH ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION, AGAINST THE
PROSPECTIVE BUYER, LESSEE OR LICENSEE ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAS USED OR
DEALT IN, OR INTENDS OR PROPOSES TO USE OR DEAL IN, SALT NOT
MANUFACTURED OR SOLD BY THE DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL SALT." 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO, 332 U.S. 1 


NO. 954.  ARGUED MAY 5-6, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 68 F.SUPP. 
845, REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


1.  SECTION 506(A)(1) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, MAKING IT A CRIME, BY
THE USE OR THREAT OF USE OF FORCE, VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, OR DURESS,
TO COERCE, COMPEL OR CONSTRAIN OR ATTEMPT TO COERCE, COMPEL OR
CONSTRAIN A RADIO-BROADCASTING LICENSEE TO EMPLOY OR AGREE TO EMPLOY,
IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE LICENSEE'S BROADCASTING BUSINESS,
ANY PERSON OR PERSONS "IN EXCESS OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED BY
SUCH LICENSEE TO PERFORM ACTUAL SERVICES," IS NOT SO VAGUE, INDEFINITE
OR UNCERTAIN AS TO VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 5-8. 

(A)  THIS QUESTION WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THIS COURT FOR A
DECISION ON AN APPEAL BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT
FROM A DECISION OF A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING, ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT
THE SECTION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AN INFORMATION CHARGING A VIOLATION
IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  PP. 5-6. 

(B)  THE CONTENTION THAT PERSONS OF ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE WOULD BE
UNABLE TO KNOW WHEN THEIR COMPULSIVE ACTIONS WOULD FORCE A PERSON
AGAINST HIS WILL TO HIRE EMPLOYEES HE DID NOT NEED, CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED.  PP. 6-7. 

(C)  WHEN MEASURED BY COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND PRACTICES, THE
LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE WARNING AS TO WHAT CONDUCT
FALLS UNDER ITS BAN, AND MARKS BOUNDARIES SUFFICIENTLY DISTINCT FOR
JUDGES AND JURIES FAIRLY TO ADMINISTER THE LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
WILL OF CONGRESS; AND THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES NO MORE.  PP. 7-8. 

2.  IT DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT BY DENYING EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO RADIO-BROADCASTING
EMPLOYEES AS A CLASS - EVEN THOUGH IT PROVIDES NO PUNISHMENT FOR
EMPLOYERS FOR VIOLATING THE POLICY AND LEAVES OTHER CLASSES OF
EMPLOYEES FREE TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICES FORBIDDEN TO RADIO WORKERS. 
PP. 8-9. 

(A)  THIS QUESTION WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THIS COURT FOR A
DECISION ON AN APPEAL BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT
FROM A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING AN INFORMATION ON THE
SOLE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS WRITTEN.  P. 8. 

(B)  IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THIS COURT TO SAY THAT, BECAUSE
CONGRESS HAS PROHIBITED SOME PRACTICES WITHIN ITS POWER TO PROHIBIT, IT
MUST PROHIBIT ALL WITHIN ITS POWER.  PP. 8-9. 

3.  ON ITS FACE, THE STATUTE DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
BY ABRIDGING FREEDOM OF SPEECH; BUT, SINCE THE STATUTE DOES NOT MENTION
PICKETING AND IT IS UNCERTAIN ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE WHETHER IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED SO AS TO PROHIBIT PEACEFUL PICKETING, THE
QUESTION WHETHER SUCH AN APPLICATION WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
IS NOT BEFORE THIS COURT IN A FORM APPROPRIATE FOR DECISION.  PP. 9
12. 

4.  ON ITS FACE, THE STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITING SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE; BUT
NO DECISION IS MADE ON THE QUESTION WHETHER SOME POSSIBLE APPLICATION
OF IT TO PARTICULAR PERSONS IN PARTICULAR SETS OF CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD
VIOLATE THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT, SINCE QUESTIONS OF THAT KIND ARE NOT
PRESENTED BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE IN A FORM APPROPRIATE FOR DECISION
BY THIS COURT.  PP. 12-13. 

5.  THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THIS COURT TO PASS ON
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PREMATURELY DECIDED BY A DISTRICT COURT'S
DISMISSAL OF AN INFORMATION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN TESTED BY A MOTION TO
STRIKE OR FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS.  P. 10. 

UNITED STATES V. PETRILLO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A CRIMINAL INFORMATION CHARGING
RESPONDENT WITH VIOLATION OF SEC. 506(A)(1) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT,
ON THE GROUND THAT THE SECTION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  68 F.SUPP.  845. 
ON DIRECT APPEAL BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18
U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 682, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 13. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  L. STERN
ARGUED THE CAUSE FOR THE UNITED STATES.  WITH THEM ON THE BRIEF WAS
ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL WASHINGTON. 

JOSEPH A. PADWAY AND HENRY KAISER ARGUED THE CAUSE FOR APPELLEE. 
WITH THEM ON THE BRIEF WAS HERBERT S. THATCHER. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A CRIMINAL INFORMATION FILED AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT, JAMES C. PETRILLO, ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE ON WHICH
THE INFORMATION WAS FOUNDED WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  68 F.SUPP.  845. 
THE CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL BY THE GOVERNMENT AS AUTHORIZED BY
THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 682.  THE
INFORMATION CHARGED A VIOLATION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48
STAT. 1064, 1102, AS AMENDED BY AN ACT OF APRIL 16, 1946.  60 STAT.
89.  THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT CHARGED TO HAVE BEEN
VIOLATED READ: 

"SEC. 506.  (A)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL, BY THE USE OR EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED THREAT OF THE USE OF FORCE, VIOLENCE, INTIMIDATION, OR DURESS,
OR BY THE USE OR EXPRESS OR IMPLIED THREAT OF THE USE OF OTHER MEANS,
TO COERCE, COMPEL OR CONSTRAIN OR ATTEMPT TO COERCE, COMPEL, OR
CONSTRAIN A LICENSEE - 

"(1)  TO EMPLOY OR AGREE TO EMPLOY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF
THE BROADCASTING BUSINESS OF SUCH LICENSEE, ANY PERSON OR PERSONS IN
EXCESS OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED BY SUCH LICENSEE TO PERFORM
ACTUAL SERVICES; OR 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"(D)  WHOEVER WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF SUBSECTION (A) OR
(B) OF THIS SECTION SHALL, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE PUNISHED BY
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$1,000, OR BOTH."  60 STAT. 89. 

THE INFORMATION ALLEGED THAT A RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANY, HOLDING A
FEDERAL LICENSE, HAD, FOR SEVERAL YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING, EMPLOYED
"CERTAIN PERSONS WHO WERE SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE IN NUMBER TO PERFORM
ALL OF THE ACTUAL SERVICES NEEDED  ...  IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT
OF ITS BROADCASTING BUSINESS."  THE INFORMATION FURTHER CHARGED THAT
THE RESPONDENT, PETRILLO, "WILFULLY, BY THE USE OF FORCE, INTIMIDATION,
DURESS AND BY THE USE OF OTHER MEANS, DID ATTEMPT TO COERCE, COMPEL AND
CONSTRAIN SAID LICENSEE TO EMPLOY AND AGREE TO EMPLOY, IN CONNECTION
WITH THE CONDUCT OF ITS RADIO BROADCASTING BUSINESS, THREE ADDITIONAL
PERSONS NOT NEEDED BY SAID LICENSEE TO PERFORM ACTUAL SERVICES  ...  " 

THE COERCION WAS ALLEGEDLY ACCOMPLISHED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 

"(1)  BY DIRECTING AND CAUSING THREE MUSICIANS, MEMBERS OF THE
CHICAGO FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, THERETOFORE EMPLOYED BY THE SAID
LICENSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF ITS BROADCASTING BUSINESS,
TO DISCONTINUE THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITH SAID LICENSEE; 

"(2)  BY DIRECTING AND CAUSING SAID THREE EMPLOYEES AND OTHER
PERSONS, MEMBERS OF THE CHICAGO FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, NOT TO ACCEPT
EMPLOYMENT BY SAID LICENSEE; AND, 

"(3)  BY PLACING AND CAUSING TO BE PLACED A PERSON AS A PICKET IN
FRONT OF THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF SAID LICENSEE." 

THE ONLY CHALLENGE TO THE INFORMATION WAS A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ACT ON WHICH THE INFORMATION WAS BASED (A) ABRIDGES
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT; (B) IS
REPUGNANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT DEFINES A CRIME IN TERMS
THAT ARE EXCESSIVELY VAGUE, AND DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND
LIBERTY OF CONTRACT; (C) IMPOSES INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN VIOLATION OF
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
INFORMATION, HOLDING THAT THE 1946 AMENDMENT ON WHICH IT WAS BASED
VIOLATES THE FIRST, FIFTH, AND THIRTEENTH AMENDMENTS. 

TWO GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH CONCERN OUR DISPOSITION OF APPEALS
INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS HAVE SPECIAL APPLICATION TO THIS
CASE:  WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY REFRAINED FROM PASSING ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE UNTIL A CASE INVOLVING IT HAS REACHED A
STAGE WHERE THE DECISION OF A PRECISE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS A
NECESSITY.  THE REASONS UNDERLYING THIS PRINCIPLE AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF
THE STRICTNESS WITH WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPLIED APPEAR IN THE OPINION OF
THE COURT IN RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549, 568, AND
CASES THERE COLLECTED.  AND IN REVIEWING A DIRECT APPEAL FROM A
DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, SUPRA, OUR REVIEW IS
LIMITED TO THE VALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTESTED STATUTE.  FOR
"THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL DOES NOT OPEN THE WHOLE CASE."  UNITED STATES
V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 193. 

FIRST.  ONE HOLDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS THAT, AS CONTENDED
HERE, THE STATUTE IS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE ITS WORDS, "NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED BY SUCH
LICENSEE," ARE SO VAGUE, INDEFINITE AND UNCERTAIN THAT "PERSONS OF
ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE CANNOT IN ADVANCE TELL WHETHER A CERTAIN ACTION
OR COURSE OF CONDUCT WOULD BE WITHIN ITS PROHIBITION  ...  "  THE
INFORMATION HERE, UP TO THE PLACE WHERE IT SPECIFICALLY CHARGES THE
PARTICULAR MEANS USED TO COERCE THE LICENSEE, SUBSTANTIALLY EMPLOYS
THIS STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF
VAGUENESS AND INDEFINITENESS SQUARELY RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
THE SECTION INVOKED IN THE INDICTMENT IS VOID IN TOTO, BARRING ALL
FURTHER ACTIONS UNDER IT, IN THIS, AND EVERY OTHER CASE.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. THOMPSON, 251 U.S. 407, 412.  MANY QUESTIONS OF A STATUTE'S
CONSTITUTIONALITY AS APPLIED CAN BEST AWAIT THE REFINEMENT OF THE
ISSUES BY PLEADING, CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTE AND
PLEADINGS, AND, SOMETIMES, PROOF.  RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT,
SUPRA; WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387, 402.  BORDEN'S COMPANY V. BALDWIN,
293 U.S. 194, 204, 210, AND CONCURRING OPINION AT P. 213.  BUT NO
REFINEMENT OR CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES WHICH WE CAN REASONABLY
ANTICIPATE WOULD BRING INTO BETTER FOCUS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
CONTESTED SECTION IS WRITTEN SO VAGUELY AND INDEFINITELY THAT ONE WHOSE
CONDUCT IT AFFECTED COULD ONLY GUESS WHAT IT MEANT.  CONSEQUENTLY,
SINCE THIS PHASE OF THE APPEAL RAISES A QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF A
STATUTE WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, SUPRA,
AND IS RIPE FOR OUR DECISION, WE TURN TO THE MERITS OF THE CONTENTION. 

WE COULD NOT SUSTAIN THIS PROVISION OF THE ACT IF WE AGREED WITH THE
CONTENTION THAT PERSONS OF ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE WOULD BE UNABLE TO
KNOW WHEN THEIR COMPULSIVE ACTIONS WOULD FORCE A PERSON AGAINST HIS
WILL TO HIRE EMPLOYEES HE DID NOT NEED.  CONNALLY V. GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391; LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S.
451.  BUT WE DO NOT AGREE.  OF COURSE, AS RESPONDENT POINTS OUT, THERE
ARE MANY FACTORS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING HOW MANY
EMPLOYEES ARE NEEDED ON A JOB.  BUT THE SAME THING MAY BE SAID ABOUT
MOST QUESTIONS WHICH MUST BE SUBMITTED TO A FACT-FINDING TRIBUNAL IN
ORDER TO ENFORCE STATUTES.  CERTAINLY, AN EMPLOYER'S STATEMENTS AS TO
THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES "NEEDED" IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO THAT
QUESTION.  IT, LIKE THE ALLEGED WILFULLNESS OF A DEFENDANT, MUST BE
DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE. 

CLEARER AND MORE PRECISE LANGUAGE MIGHT HAVE BEEN FRAMED BY CONGRESS
TO EXPRESS WHAT IT MEANT BY "NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED."  BUT NONE
OCCURS TO US, NOR HAS ANY BETTER LANGUAGE BEEN SUGGESTED, EFFECTIVELY
TO CARRY OUT WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  THE
ARGUMENT REALLY SEEMS TO BE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A JURY OR COURT
EVER TO DETERMINE HOW MANY EMPLOYEES A BUSINESS NEEDS, AND THAT,
THEREFORE, NO STATUTORY LANGUAGE COULD MEET THE PROBLEM CONGRESS HAD IN
MIND.  IF THIS ARGUMENT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED, THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT NO
LEGISLATURE COULD MAKE IT AN OFFENSE FOR A PERSON TO COMPEL ANOTHER TO
HIRE EMPLOYEES, NO MATTER HOW UNNECESSARY THEY WERE, AND HOWEVER
DESIRABLE A LEGISLATURE MIGHT CONSIDER SUPPRESSION OF THE PRACTICE TO
BE. 

THE CONSTITUTION PRESENTS NO SUCH INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO
LEGISLATION.  WE THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS USED PROVIDES AN
ADEQUATE WARNING AS TO WHAT CONDUCT FALLS UNDER ITS BAN, AND MARKS
BOUNDARIES SUFFICIENTLY DISTINCT FOR JUDGES AND JURIES FAIRLY TO
ADMINISTER THE LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WILL OF CONGRESS.  THAT THERE
MAY BE MARGINAL CASES IN WHICH IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE THE SIDE OF
THE LINE ON WHICH A PARTICULAR FACT SITUATION FALLS IS NO SUFFICIENT
REASON TO HOLD THE LANGUAGE TOO AMBIGUOUS TO DEFINE A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE.  ROBINSON V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 282, 285-286.  IT WOULD
STRAIN THE REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAINTY IN CRIMINAL LAW STANDARDS TOO NEAR
THE BREAKING POINT TO SAY THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE JUDICIALLY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER A PERSON KNEW WHEN HE WAS WILFULLY ATTEMPTING TO
COMPEL ANOTHER TO HIRE UNNEEDED EMPLOYEES.  SEE SCREWS V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 91; UNITED STATES V. RAGEN, 314 U.S. 513, 522, 524,
525.  THE CONSTITUTION HAS ERECTED PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT
AGAINST CONVICTION FOR CRIME EXCEPT FOR VIOLATION OF LAWS WHICH HAVE
CLEARLY DEFINED CONDUCT THEREAFTER TO BE PUNISHED; BUT THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT REQUIRE IMPOSSIBLE STANDARDS.  THE LANGUAGE HERE CHALLENGED
CONVEYS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE WARNING AS TO THE PROSCRIBED CONDUCT WHEN
MEASURED BY COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND PRACTICES.  THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES NO MORE. 

SECOND.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE STATUTE DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS TO RADIO-BROADCASTING EMPLOYEES AS A CLASS, AND, FOR THIS
REASON, VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THIS
CONTENTION, RAISED BY THE MOTION TO DISMISS, AND SUSTAINED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT AS A GROUND FOR HOLDING THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
WRITTEN, IS PROPERLY BEFORE US, AND WE REACH THIS EQUAL PROTECTION
GROUND, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT WE DECIDED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE

IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION IT IS FIRST ARGUED THAT IF CONGRESS
CONCLUDED THAT EMPLOYMENT BY BROADCASTING COMPANIES OF UNNEEDED WORKERS
WAS DETRIMENTAL TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT, IT
SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF EMPLOYERS, AS WELL AS
EMPLOYEES, WHO VIOLATE THAT POLICY.  FN2  SECONDLY, IT IS ARGUED, THE
ACT VIOLATES DUE PROCESS BECAUSE IT SINGLES OUT BROADCASTING EMPLOYEES
FOR REGULATION WHILE LEAVING OTHER CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES FREE TO ENGAGE
IN THE VERY PRACTICES FORBIDDEN TO RADIO WORKERS.  BUT IT IS NOT WITHIN
OUR PROVINCE TO SAY THAT, BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS PROHIBITED SOME
PRACTICES WITHIN ITS POWER TO PROHIBIT, IT MUST PROHIBIT ALL WITHIN ITS
POWER.  CONSEQUENTLY, IF CONGRESS BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE EMPLOYEE
PRACTICES IN THE RADIO INDUSTRY WHICH INJURIOUSLY AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND DIRECTS ITS PROHIBITIONS AGAINST THOSE PRACTICES, WE
COULD NOT SET ASIDE ITS LEGISLATION EVEN IF WE WERE PERSUADED THAT
EMPLOYER PRACTICES ALSO REQUIRED REGULATION.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. JONES
& LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 46.  NOR COULD WE STRIKE DOWN SUCH
LEGISLATION, EVEN IF WE BELIEVED THAT AS A MATTER OF POLICY IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN WISER NOT TO ENACT THE LEGISLATION OR TO EXTEND THE
PROHIBITIONS OVER A WIDER OR NARROWER AREA.  HERE CONGRESS AIMED ITS
LAW DIRECTLY AGAINST ONE PRACTICE - COMPELLING A BROADCASTING COMPANY
TO HIRE UNNEEDED WORKERS.  THERE IS NOTHING NOVEL ABOUT LAWS TO
PROHIBIT SOME PERSONS FROM COMPELLING OTHER PERSONS TO ACT CONTRARY TO
THEIR DESIRES.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE LIMITS OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS
THAT DO NOT APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL CLASSES, GROUPS, AND PERSONS, SEE
STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 584, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT
CONGRESS HAS NOT TRANSGRESSED THOSE LIMITS IN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
STATUTE WHICH ARE HERE ATTACKED. 

THIRD.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS HERE, AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAS HELD,
THAT THE STATUTE ABRIDGES FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY MAKING PEACEFUL
PICKETING A CRIME.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT
MENTION PICKETING, PEACEFUL OR VIOLENT.  THE PROPOSED APPLICATION OF
THE STATUTE TO PICKETING, THEREFORE, DOES NOT DERIVE FROM ANY SPECIFIC
PROHIBITION WRITTEN INTO THE STATUTE AGAINST PEACEFUL PICKETING. 
RATHER IT COMES FROM THE INFORMATION'S CHARGE THAT RESPONDENT ATTEMPTED
TO COMPEL THE LICENSEE TO HIRE UNNEEDED EMPLOYEES BY PLACING "A PICKET
IN FRONT OF THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF (THE)  ...  LICENSEE."  YET THE
RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WAS MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE
STATUTE, AS WRITTEN, CONTRAVENES THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  IN RULING ON
THIS MOTION, THE DISTRICT COURT ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE "THERE (WAS) IN
THIS CASE NO CHARGE OF VIOLENCE ...  THE PLACING OF A PICKET MUST BE
REGARDED  ...  AS PEACEFUL PICKETING."  FROM THIS ASSUMPTION, IT
CONCLUDED THAT "THE APPLICATION (OF THE STATUTE) HERE SOUGHT TO BE MADE
VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY ITS RESTRICTION UPON FREEDOM OF SPEECH
BY PEACEFUL PICKETING."  THUS, RATHER THAN HOLDING THE STATUTE AS
WRITTEN TO BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE
DISTRICT COURT RULED ON THE STATUTE AS IT WAS PROPOSED TO BE APPLIED BY
THE INFORMATION AS IT THEN READ.    WE CONSIDER IT INAPPROPRIATE TO
REACH THE MERITS OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION NOW.  AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID THAT WE WOULD REFRAIN FROM
PASSING ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES IN ADVANCE OF THE
NECESSITY TO DO SO.  AND THE PROVISIONS FOR DIRECT APPEAL FROM DISTRICT
COURTS OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL CASES DO NOT REQUIRE US TO PASS ON
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PREMATURELY DECIDED BY A DISTRICT COURT'S
DISMISSAL OF AN INFORMATION. 

THE INFORMATION HERE, UP TO THE PLACE WHERE IT ALLEGES THE USE OF
PARTICULAR COERCIVE MEANS, CHARGES IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE THAT RESPONDENT COERCED THE LICENSEE.  THE INFORMATION'S
CHARGES UP TO THIS POINT CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR A CHALLENGE
TO THE STATUTE ON THE GROUND THAT IT CONTRAVENES THE CONSTITUTION. 
WHETHER THIS PART OF THE INFORMATION, OR THE INFORMATION AS A WHOLE,
WAS ADEQUATE DEFINITELY TO INFORM THE RESPONDENT OF THE NATURE OF THE
CHARGE AGAINST HIM IS ANOTHER QUESTION.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
LEPOWITCH, 318 U.S. 702, 704; POTTER V. UNITED STATES, 155 U.S. 438;
CF. UNITED STATES V. HESS, 124 U.S. 483.  HAD THE DISTRICT COURT
POSTPONED RULING ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT QUESTION RAISED BY THE MOTION
TO DISMISS, OR HAD IT DENIED THE MOTION, RESPONDENT COULD HAVE SOUGHT A
BILL OF PARTICULARS, APART FROM ATTACKING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
ACT.  SEE HUSTY V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 694, 702; BARTELL V. UNITED
STATES, 227 U.S. 427, 433-434; DUNBAR V. UNITED STATES, 156 U.S. 185,
192.  SO ALSO, IF THE ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS DESCRIBING THE MEANS USED
TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROSCRIBED PURPOSE WERE NOT DEFINITE ENOUGH FOR THE
COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE SUFFICIENT IN LAW TO CHARGE AN
OFFENSE, AND IF SUCH ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT MERE SURPLUSAGE, SEE UNITED
STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, 310 U.S. 150, 222, A CHALLENGE
COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INFORMATION, SEE UNITED STATES V. HESS,
SUPRA, AT 487-488, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A CHALLENGE TO THE STATUTE ON
WHICH IT RESTED.  IN THAT EVENT, AND UPON A HOLDING OF INSUFFICIENCY OF
THE INFORMATION, APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE PROPERLY GONE,
UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, SUPRA, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
AND IF INAPPROPRIATELY BROUGHT HERE, THAT ACT, AS AMENDED, 56 STAT.
271, WOULD HAVE REQUIRED US TO TRANSFER THE CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  BUT NO SUCH CHALLENGE WAS MADE TO THE INFORMATION. 

WE THEREFORE HAVE A SITUATION IN WHICH WE ARE URGED TO STRIKE DOWN A
STATUTE AS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF FREE SPEECH
WHEN THE STATUTE HAS NOT BEEN, AND MIGHT NEVER BE, APPLIED IN SUCH
MANNER AS TO RAISE THE QUESTION RESPONDENT ASKS US TO DECIDE.  FOR THE
GIST OF THE OFFENSE HERE CHARGED IN THE STATUTE AND IN THE INFORMATION
IS THAT RESPONDENT "WILFULLY, BY THE USE OF FORCE, INTIMIDATION, DURESS
AND BY THE USE OF OTHER MEANS, DID ATTEMPT TO COERCE, COMPEL AND
CONSTRAIN" THE LICENSEE TO HIRE UNNEEDED EMPLOYEES.  IF THE ALLEGATIONS
THAT THIS PROHIBITED RESULT WAS ATTEMPTED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
PICKETING ARE SO BROAD AS TO INCLUDE ACTION WHICH EITHER IS NOT
COERCIVE, COMPELLING OR CONSTRAINING, WITHIN THE STATUTE'S MEANING, OR
COULD NOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY HELD TO BE, THE TRIAL COURT WOULD BE
FREE, ON MOTION OF THE RESPONDENT, TO STRIKE THE PARTICULAR ALLEGATIONS
IF THEY ARE SURPLUSAGE.  RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEC. 7(D).  OR
THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT AMEND THE INFORMATION "AT ANY TIME BEFORE VERDICT
OR FINDING IF NO ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT OFFENSE IS CHARGED AND IF
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT ARE NOT PREJUDICED."  IBID. SEC.
7(E). 

THE FOREGOING ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT WE ARE ASKED TO RULE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT YET PRECISELY IN ISSUE.  THE
QUESTION AS IT WAS DECIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT THE QUESTION
RAISED BY THE MOTION TO DISMISS - WHETHER THE STATUTE IS INVALID ON ITS
FACE - BUT WHETHER IT IS INVALID AS IT IS PROPOSED TO BE APPLIED.  AND
EVEN IF OUR DECISION COULD BE EVOKED UPON A SHOWING THAT THE STATUTE
CERTAINLY, BUT FOR OUR INTERVENTION, WOULD HAVE PUNISHED RESPONDENT FOR
PEACEFUL PICKETING, THERE IS NO SUCH CERTAINTY HERE.  NO FINAL ISSUE
HAD BEEN DRAWN.  THE INFORMATION WAS STILL SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT TO FIT,
WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE AREA OF AMENDMENTS, THE TYPE OF COERCIVE MEANS
DEVELOPED BY FURTHER PLEADING OR PROOF.  SEE BORDEN'S CO. V. BALDWIN,
SUPRA, AT 213.  FURTHER PLEADINGS AND PROOF MIGHT WELL DRAW THE ISSUES
INTO SHARPER FOCUS MAKING IT UNNECESSARY FOR US TO DECIDE QUESTIONS NOT
RELEVANT TO DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE AS
ACTUALLY APPLIED.  THUS THIS CASE HAD NOT REACHED A STAGE WHERE THE
DECISION OF A PRECISE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WAS A NECESSITY. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WE REFRAIN FROM CONSIDERING ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
EXCEPT THOSE CONCERNING THE ACT AS WRITTEN.  WE DO NOT DECIDE WHETHER
THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE INFORMATION, WHATEVER SHAPE THEY MIGHT
EVENTUALLY TAKE, WOULD CONSTITUTE AN APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IN SUCH
MANNER AS TO CONTRAVENE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  WE ONLY PASS ON THE
STATUTE ON ITS FACE; IT IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

FOURTH.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD, AND IT IS ARGUED HERE, THAT THE
STATUTE, AS SOUGHT TO BE APPLIED IN THE INFORMATION, VIOLATES THE
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH PROHIBITS SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE.  THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO ROOTED IN THAT PART OF THE
INFORMATION WHICH PARTICULARIZES THE MEANS BY WHICH RESPONDENT
ATTEMPTED TO COMPEL ACTION BY THE LICENSEE, I.E., BY CAUSING THREE
MUSICIANS TO DISCONTINUE, AND THREE MUSICIANS NOT TO ACCEPT,
EMPLOYMENT.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT EMPLOYEES HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO LEAVE EMPLOYMENT SINGLY, SEE POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS, 322 U.S. 4, 17,
18, OR IN CONCERT, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT RESPONDENT CANNOT BE GUILTY OF
A CRIME FOR DIRECTING OR CAUSING THEM TO DO SO.  FOR THE REASONS GIVEN
WITH REFERENCE TO THE PICKETING SPECIFICATION, THEREFORE, WE CONSIDER
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT QUESTION ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATUTE ON
ITS FACE.  THUS CONSIDERED, IT PLAINLY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE THIRTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  WHETHER SOME POSSIBLE ATTEMPTED APPLICATION OF IT TO
PARTICULAR PERSONS IN PARTICULAR SETS OF CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD VIOLATE
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT IS A QUESTION WE SHALL NOT PASS UPON UNTIL IT
IS APPROPRIATELY PRESENTED.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  ANOTHER GROUND, NOT ARGUED HERE, WAS THAT THE ACT REPRESENTS AN
EXERCISE OF POWER BY CONGRESS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES. 

FN2  THE ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT RADIO BROADCASTERS FROM VOLUNTARILY
HIRING MORE EMPLOYEES THAN THEY NEED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S JUDGMENT AND OPINION BECAUSE IT HOLDS THAT
THE LEA ACT IS NOT BEYOND THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE. 
I DESIRE, HOWEVER, TO ADD A FEW WORDS. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE LEGISLATION IS THE SAME AS THAT UPON
WHICH THE VALIDITY OF THE SHERMAN LAW RESTS.  IT IS TOO LATE IN THE DAY
TO REQUIRE ARGUMENT OR CITATION OF CASES IN SUPPORT OF THE RIGHT OF
CONGRESS TO FREE INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM OBSTRUCTION THAT THE EXERTION
OF MONOPOLISTIC POWER MAY ENTAIL OR FROM INTERFERENCE THAT MAY
REASONABLY BE DEEMED TO PROMOTE MONOPOLY.  EQUALLY CLEAR IS IT THAT
CONGRESS MAY DIRECT ITS LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS A DISCLOSED
EVIL, WITHOUT GENERALIZING ITS PROHIBITION, WHEN IN ITS JUDGMENT LIKE
EVILS HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THEMSELVES ELSEWHERE.  IT WOULD BE A
USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR US TO FIND THAT THERE WAS
NO BASIS IN REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS THAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST CALLED FOR LEGISLATION TO DEAL WITH WHAT IS COLLOQUIALLY
CALLED "FEATHERBEDDING" IN CONNECTION WITH THE BROADCASTING BUSINESS. 
BEYOND THAT, IT IS NOT OUR PROVINCE TO GO. 

THE DISTRICT COURT TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW, AND ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION
DISMISSED THIS INFORMATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  68 F.SUPP.  845.  SINCE THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THE
STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL, THE CASE GOES BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE COURT CONJURES UP DIFFICULTIES WHICH I DO NOT SHARE.  THE CASE IS
HERE UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT OF 1907, 34 STAT. 1246, AS AMENDED
BY THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1942, 56 STAT. 271, 18 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC.
682, WHEREBY A DIRECT REVIEW CAN BE HAD OF A DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT
SETTING ASIDE AN INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION, IF THE DECISION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS BASED "UPON THE INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION IS FOUNDED."  OUR
DECISIONS HAVE CONSTRUED THIS TO MEAN THAT REVIEW CAN BE HAD HERE ONLY
IF A DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION WAS BASED EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE
INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE.  A CRIMINAL CASE CANNOT BE
REVIEWED HERE IF QUESTIONS OF CRIMINAL PLEADING - DEFECTS NOT ARISING
FROM THE STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION - ENTER INTO A DECISION SOUGHT TO
BE REVIEWED.  SEE UNITED STATES V. HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188, 192, 194;
UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 193; UNITED STATES V. SWIFT
& CO., 318 U.S. 442.  IF BOTH THE SUFFICIENCY OF CRIMINAL PLEADING AND
THE VALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE WERE IN ISSUE
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, AND VIEWS AS TO BOTH WERE INTERWOVEN IN THE
COURT'S DECISION, THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE
APPEAL.  UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1942, IT MUST REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE
APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE
QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION WAS THE ISOLATED GROUND OF
DECISION BY A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING A FEDERAL PROSECUTION, THAT IS
THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED HERE AND IT MUST BE CONSIDERED
WITHIN THE SCOPE GIVEN IT BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  OTHER QUESTIONS MAY
BE IMBEDDED IN THE CASE WHICH MAY EVENTUALLY COME TO THE SURFACE.  BUT
THEY ARE NOT BROUGHT TO THE SURFACE HERE UNDER THE LIMITED, SPECIFIC
REVIEW GIVEN BY THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  IT IS TO SUCH IMPLICIT
QUESTIONS OF PLEADING, AND TO STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS NOT
PASSED UPON BY A DISTRICT COURT, THAT MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES HAD
REFERENCE WHEN HE SAID, "THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL DOES NOT OPEN THE
WHOLE CASE."  UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., SUPRA, AT 193. 

THERE IS NO COMPLICATION IN THE RECORD BEFORE US TO AN EXERCISE OF
OUR JURISDICTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S
DECISION IS WHOLLY FREE FROM ANY RULING INVOLVING CRIMINAL PLEADING. 
HE STATED PRECISELY WHAT HE DEEMED TO BE THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE HIM AND
WHICH ALONE HE DECIDED:  "THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECT OF THIS STATUTE AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS. 
ON THIS QUESTION THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS STATUTE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE REASONS ABOVE STATED."  68 F.SUPP.  AT 850. 

WE, THEREFORE, HAVE NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR INTIMATION BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE THAT HE HAD ANY DIFFICULTY WITH THE INFORMATION AS A MATTER OF
PLEADING, OR THAT IT CARRIED ANY AMBIGUITIES WHICH HE RESOLVED ONE WAY
RATHER THAN ANOTHER.  IF THAT WERE SO, WE WOULD HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW HIS DECISION.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS
IN THE STATUTE "AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS."  WE FIND THE CONTRARY. 
THEREFORE, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
DISPOSITION.  JUST AS WE CANNOT GO BEHIND A DISTRICT COURT'S
DETERMINATION REGARDING THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT AS A MATTER
OF PLEADING AS A PRELIMINARY TO PASSING ON STATUTORY VALIDITY, SO, WHEN
A NAKED QUESTION OF VALIDITY IS PRESENTED TO US, IT IS NOT FOR US TO
SCRUTINIZE THE CHARGE AND HYPOTHESIZE POSSIBILITIES WHEREBY NEW
QUESTIONS MAY ARISE OF A STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL NATURE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

I DISSENT FROM THE OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.  MY REASON FOR
DISAGREEMENT IS THAT SEC. 506(A)(1) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT IS TOO
INDEFINITE IN ITS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROHIBITED ACTS TO SUPPORT AN
INFORMATION OR INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF ITS PROVISIONS.  MY
OBJECTION IS NOT TO THE WORDS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 506 THAT
MAKE UNLAWFUL IN LABOR MATTERS THE USE OF THREATS, FORCE, VIOLENCE,
INTIMIDATION OR DURESS AGAINST AN EMPLOYER.  THERE IS A BACKGROUND OF
EXPERIENCE AND COMMON UNDERSTANDING THAT ORDINARILY GIVES SUCH WORDS,
WHEN USED IN CRIMINAL STATUTES, SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS TO ACQUAINT THE
PUBLIC WITH THE LIMITS OF THE PROSCRIBED ACTS.  WHEN SUCH WORDS ARE
USED, THEY PLACE UPON THOSE AFFECTED THE RISK OF ESTIMATING INCORRECTLY
THE SORT OF ACTION THAT MAY ULTIMATELY BE HELD TO VIOLATE THE
STATUTES.  NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373. 

MY OBJECTION IS TO THE INDEFINITENESS OF THE STATUTORY DESCRIPTION OF
THE THING FOR WHICH FORCE MUST NOT BE USED - THAT IS, "TO COMPEL" A
LICENSEE UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT "TO EMPLOY  ... ANY PERSON OR
PERSONS IN EXCESS OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES NEEDED BY SUCH LICENSEE TO
PERFORM ACTUAL SERVICES." 

THIS CRIMINAL STATUTE IS THE PRODUCT OF LEGISLATION DIRECTED AT THE
CONTROL OF ACTS DEEMED EVIL BY CONGRESS.  IT IS ONE OF THE MANY
REGULATORY ACTS THAT LEGISLATIVE BODIES HAVE PASSED IN RECENT YEARS TO
MAKE UNLAWFUL CERTAIN PRACTICES IN THE FIELD OF ECONOMICS THAT SEEMED
CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  FN1  THESE STATUTES MADE NEW CRIMES. 
DEEDS THERETOFORE NOT SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL
SCOPE OF THEIR PROHIBITION.  COMMON EXPERIENCE HAS NOT CREATED A
GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR CRIMINALITY.  CONSEQUENTLY, IN ORDER TO
ADEQUATELY INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THE LIMITATIONS ON CONDUCT, A MORE
PRECISE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME IS NECESSARY TO MEET CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS.  FN2    ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW DOES NOT PUNISH CITIZENS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN STATUTES.  THERE IS NO PLACE IN OUR
CRIMINAL LAW FOR ACTS DEFINED AS DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE
STATE.  A STATUTE IS INVALID WHEN "SO VAGUE THAT MEN OF COMMON
INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AT ITS MEANING."  269 U.S. AT 391. 
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS VICE EXISTS IN THIS SECTION OF THE CHALLENGED
ACT.  HOW CAN A MAN OR A JURY POSSIBLY KNOW HOW MANY MEN ARE "NEEDED"
"TO PERFORM ACTUAL SERVICES" IN BROADCASTING?  WHAT MUST THE QUALITY OF
THE PROGRAM BE?  HOW SKILLFUL ARE THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
THEIR TASK?  DOES ONE WEIGH THE CAPACITY OF THE EMPLOYEE OR THE
MANAGERIAL ABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER?  IS THE DESIRABILITY OF SHORT HOURS
TO SPREAD THE WORK TO BE EVALUATED?  OR IS THE STANDARD THE ADVANTAGE
IN TAKE-HOME PAY FOR OVERTIME WORK? 

THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO AVOID THE DIFFICULTY BY INTERPRETING THE
"THE BILL WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO MERE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AS
TO WHETHER MEN WERE OVERWORKED; IT ONLY FITS DELIBERATE DEMANDS FOR
PAYMENT TO ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES MADE IN COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE
EMPLOYER'S NEED AND WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF
ACTUALLY GETTING THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS DONE.  ...  IF PARAGRAPH (1)
IS READ IN ITS CONTEXT, ALONG WITH THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS, IT IS
CLEAR WHAT CONGRESS WAS DRIVING AT WHEN IT CHARACTERIZED THE ACT AS ONE
TO PREVENT EXTORTION, AS DISTINCT FROM BONA FIDE DEMANDS RELATING TO
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT."  THIS INTERPRETATION SEEMS TO ME TO FLY IN
THE FACE OF SEC. 506(1).  THERE IS ANOTHER SUBSECTION TO WHICH THE
LANGUAGE MIGHT APPLY.  FN3  THIS CLEARLY DEFINES THE PROHIBITED ACTS. 
IF THE CONGRESS WISHES TO FIX THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT A
LICENSEE MAY EMPLOY IN STATIONS OF VARIOUS SIZES, IT MAY, OF COURSE, BE
DONE.  OR, IF IT IS IMPRACTICAL FOR CONGRESS TO ACT BECAUSE OF THE
VARYING SITUATIONS, THE NUMBER MAY BE LEFT TO REGULATIONS OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OR OTHER REGULATORY BODY. 

THIS IS A CRIMINAL STATUTE.  THE PRINCIPLE THAT SUCH STATUTES MUST BE
SO WRITTEN THAT INTELLIGENT MEN MAY KNOW WHAT ACTS OF THEIRS WILL
JEOPARDIZE THEIR LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY IS OF IMPORTANCE TO ALL. 
THAT PRINCIPLE REQUIRES, I THINK, A DETERMINATION THAT THIS SECTION OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT IS INVALID. 

FN1  EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, 56 STAT. 33, SEC. 205(B), 50 U.S.C.
APP. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 925(B); FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT.
1069, SEC. 16(A), 29 U.S.C. SEC. 216(A); NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
49 STAT. 456, SEC. 12, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 162; FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT, AS AMENDED, 57 STAT. 167, SEC. 9, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946)
SEC. 1509. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81; CLINE V. FRINK
DAIRY CO., 274 U.S. 445; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234
U.S. 216; CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385.  SEE
GORIN V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 19, 26. 

FN3  60 STAT. 89, SEC. 506(A)(4): 

"TO PAY OR GIVE OR AGREE TO PAY OR GIVE ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF
VALUE FOR SERVICES, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE BROADCASTING
BUSINESS OF SUCH LICENSEE, WHICH ARE NOT TO BE PERFORMED; ...  " 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 19 


ARGUED MARCH 13-14, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.* *FOR ORDER AND
DECREE ENTERED OCTOBER 27, 1947, SEE POST, P. 804. 


1.  THE COMPLAINT FILED IN THIS COURT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO DETERMINE WHICH GOVERNMENT OWNS, OR HAS
PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN AND POWER OVER, THE SUBMERGED LAND OFF THE COAST OF
CALIFORNIA BETWEEN THE LOW-WATER MARK AND THE THREE-MILE LIMIT AND HAS
A SUPERIOR RIGHT TO TAKE OR AUTHORIZE THE TAKING OF THE VAST QUANTITIES
OF OIL AND GAS UNDERNEATH THAT LAND (MUCH OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN,
AND MORE OF WHICH IS ABOUT TO BE, TAKEN BY OR UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE) PRESENTS A CASE OR CONTROVERSY UNDER ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 24-25. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE COASTAL LINE IS INDEFINITE AND THAT ITS EXACT
LOCATION WILL INVOLVE MANY COMPLEXITIES AND DIFFICULTIES PRESENTS NO
INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO THE EXERCISE OF THE HIGHLY IMPORTANT
JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THIS COURT BY ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 25-26. 

3.  CONGRESS HAS NEITHER EXPLICITLY NOR BY IMPLICATION STRIPPED THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE POWER TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
IN THIS FEDERAL-STATE CONTROVERSY, PURSUANT TO HIS BROAD AUTHORITY
UNDER 5 U.S.C. SECS. 291, 309, TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERESTS
THROUGH THE COURTS.  PP. 26-29. 

4.  CALIFORNIA IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE THREE-MILE MARGINAL BELT ALONG
ITS COAST; AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN THE STATE HAS
PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN AND POWER OVER THAT BELT, AN INCIDENT TO WHICH IS
FULL DOMINION OVER THE RESOURCES OF THE SOIL UNDER THAT WATER AREA,
INCLUDING OIL.  PP. 29-39. 

(A)  THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN HISTORY FOR THE VIEW THAT THE
THIRTEEN ORIGINAL COLONIES SEPARATELY ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP OF THE THREE
MILE BELT BEYOND THE LOW-WATER MARK OR THE SOIL UNDER IT, EVEN IF THEY
DID ACQUIRE ELEMENTS OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE ENGLISH CROWN BY THEIR
REVOLUTION AGAINST IT.  POLLARD'S LESSEE V. HAGAN, 3 HOW.  212,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 29-33. 

(B)  ACQUISITION OF THE THREE-MILE BELT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND PROTECTION AND CONTROL OF IT HAS BEEN AND IS A
FUNCTION OF NATIONAL EXTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY.  PP. 33-35. 

(C)  THE ASSERTION BY THE POLITICAL AGENCIES OF THIS NATION OF BROAD
DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE THREE-MILE MARGINAL BELT IS BINDING UPON
THIS COURT.  PP. 33-34. 

(D)  THE FACT THAT THE STATE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE LOCAL
POLICE POWER FUNCTIONS IN THE PART OF THE MARGINAL BELT WITHIN ITS
DECLARED BOUNDARIES DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN AND POWER OVER THIS AREA.  P. 36. 

(E)  MANCHESTER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 139 U.S. 240; LOUISIANA V.
MISSISSIPPI, 202 U.S. 1; THE ABBY DODGE, 223 U.S. 166, DISTINGUISHED. 
PP. 36-38. 

5.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN THE THREE-MILE BELT
HAVE NOT BEEN LOST BY REASON OF THE CONDUCT OF ITS AGENTS, NOR BY THIS
CONDUCT IS THE GOVERNMENT BARRED FROM ENFORCING ITS RIGHTS BY REASON OF
PRINCIPLES SIMILAR TO LACHES, ESTOPPEL OR ADVERSE POSSESSION.  PP. 39
40. 

(A)  THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH HOLDS ITS INTERESTS HERE AS ELSEWHERE IN
TRUST FOR ALL THE PEOPLE, IS NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF THOSE INTERESTS BY
THE ORDINARY COURT RULES DESIGNED PARTICULARLY FOR PRIVATE DISPUTES
OVER INDIVIDUALLY OWNED PIECES OF PROPERTY.  P. 40. 

(B)  OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO HAVE NO AUTHORITY AT ALL TO
DISPOSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY CANNOT BY THEIR CONDUCT CAUSE THE
GOVERNMENT TO LOSE ITS VALUABLE RIGHTS BY THEIR ACQUIESCENCE, LACHES,
OR FAILURE TO ACT.  P. 40. 

6.  THE GREAT NATIONAL QUESTION WHETHER THE STATE OR THE NATION HAS
PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN AND POWER OVER THE THREE-MILE BELT IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON WHAT EXPENSES MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES
UPON MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS.  P. 40. 

7.  IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS, WHICH HAS CONSTITUTIONAL
CONTROL OVER GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, WILL SO EXECUTE ITS POWERS AS TO
BRING ABOUT INJUSTICES TO STATES, THEIR SUBDIVISIONS, OR PERSONS ACTING
PURSUANT TO THEIR PERMISSION.  P. 40. 

8.  THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE DECLARING ITS RIGHTS IN
THE AREA IN QUESTION AS AGAINST CALIFORNIA AND ENJOINING CALIFORNIA AND
ALL PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER IT FROM CONTINUING TO TRESPASS UPON THE AREA
IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 22-23, 41. 

UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA. 

NO. 12, ORIGINAL. 

THE CASE IS STATED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE OPINION, AND THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR
IS REPORTED AT PAGE 41. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA INVOKING OUR ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH
PROVIDES THAT "IN ALL CASES  ...  IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY, THE
SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION."  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES
THAT THE UNITED STATES "IS THE OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE OF, OR POSSESSED OF
PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN AND POWERS OVER, THE LANDS, MINERALS AND OTHER
THINGS OF VALUE UNDERLYING THE PACIFIC OCEAN, LYING SEAWARD OF THE
ORDINARY LOW WATER MARK ON THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA AND OUTSIDE OF THE
INLAND WATERS OF THE STATE, EXTENDING SEAWARD THREE NAUTICAL MILES AND
BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH, RESPECTIVELY, BY THE NORTHERN AND
SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA."  IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED
THAT CALIFORNIA, ACTING PURSUANT TO STATE STATUTES, BUT WITHOUT
AUTHORITY FROM THE UNITED STATES, HAS NEGOTIATED AND EXECUTED NUMEROUS
LEASES WITH PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS PURPORTING TO AUTHORIZE THEM TO
ENTER UPON THE DESCRIBED OCEAN AREA TO TAKE PETROLEUM, GAS, AND OTHER
MINERAL DEPOSITS, AND THAT THE LESSEES HAVE DONE SO, PAYING TO
CALIFORNIA LARGE SUMS OF MONEY IN RENTS AND ROYALTIES FOR THE PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS TAKEN.  THE PRAYER IS FOR A DECREE DECLARING THE RIGHTS OF THE
UNITED STATES IN THE AREA AS AGAINST CALIFORNIA AND ENJOINING
CALIFORNIA AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER IT FROM CONTINUING TO
TRESPASS UPON THE AREA IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

CALIFORNIA HAS FILED AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT.  IT ADMITS THAT
PERSONS HOLDING LEASES FROM CALIFORNIA, OR THOSE CLAIMING UNDER IT,
HAVE BEEN EXTRACTING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FROM THE LAND UNDER THE THREE
MILE OCEAN BELT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO CALIFORNIA.  THE BASIS OF
CALIFORNIA'S ASSERTED OWNERSHIP IS THAT A BELT EXTENDING THREE ENGLISH
MILES FROM LOW WATER MARK LIES WITHIN THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES OF THE
STATE, CAL. CONST. ART. XII (1849); FN1  THAT THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN
STATES ACQUIRED FROM THE CROWN OF ENGLAND TITLE TO ALL LANDS WITHIN
THEIR BOUNDARIES UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS, INCLUDING A THREE-MILE BELT IN
ADJACENT SEAS; AND THAT SINCE CALIFORNIA WAS ADMITTED AS A STATE ON AN
"EQUAL FOOTING" WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES, CALIFORNIA AT THAT TIME
BECAME VESTED WITH TITLE TO ALL SUCH LANDS.  THE ANSWER FURTHER SETS UP
SEVERAL "AFFIRMATIVE" DEFENSES.  AMONG THESE ARE THAT CALIFORNIA SHOULD
BE ADJUDGED TO HAVE TITLE UNDER A DOCTRINE OF PRESCRIPTION; BECAUSE OF
AN ALLEGED LONG-EXISTING CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF ACQUIESCENCE IN
CALIFORNIA'S ASSERTED OWNERSHIP; BECAUSE OF ESTOPPEL OR LACHES; AND,
FINALLY, BY APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA.  FN2 

AFTER CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER WAS FILED, THE UNITED STATES MOVED FOR
JUDGMENT AS PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PURPORTED DEFENSES WERE NOT SUFFICIENT IN LAW.  THE LEGAL ISSUES THUS
RAISED HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTIVELY PRESENTED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES,
BOTH BY BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT.  NEITHER HAS SUGGESTED ANY NECESSITY
FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE, AND WE PERCEIVE NO SUCH NECESSITY AT
THIS STAGE OF THE CASE.  IT IS NOW RIPE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE BASIC
LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE MOTION.  BUT BEFORE REACHING THE MERITS
OF THESE ISSUES, WE MUST FIRST CONSIDER QUESTIONS RAISED IN
CALIFORNIA'S BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT
TO AN ADJUDICATION OF ITS CLAIM IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

FIRST.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PLEADINGS PRESENT NO CASE OR
CONTROVERSY UNDER ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
CONTENTION RESTS IN THE FIRST PLACE ON AN ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NO
CASE OR CONTROVERSY IN A LEGAL SENSE, BUT ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION
BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICIALS.  IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICERS.  BUT THERE IS
FAR MORE THAN THAT.  THE POINT OF DIFFERENCE IS AS TO WHO OWNS, OR HAS
PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN AND POWER OVER SEVERAL THOUSAND SQUARE MILES OF
LAND UNDER THE OCEAN OFF THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA.  THE DIFFERENCE
INVOLVES THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICIALS AS TO
WHICH GOVERNMENT, STATE OR FEDERAL, HAS A SUPERIOR RIGHT TO TAKE OR
AUTHORIZE THE TAKING OF THE VAST QUANTITIES OF OIL AND GAS UNDERNEATH
THAT LAND, MUCH OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN, AND MORE OF WHICH IS ABOUT
TO BE, TAKEN BY OR UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE.  SUCH CONCRETE
CONFLICTS AS THESE CONSTITUTE A CONTROVERSY IN THE CLASSIC LEGAL SENSE,
AND ARE THE VERY KIND OF DIFFERENCES WHICH CAN ONLY BE SETTLED BY
AGREEMENT, ARBITRATION, FORCE, OR JUDICIAL ACTION.  THE CASE
PRINCIPALLY RELIED UPON BY CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA,
295 U.S. 463, DOES NOT SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION.  FOR HERE THERE IS A
CLAIM BY THE UNITED STATES, ADMITTED BY CALIFORNIA, THAT CALIFORNIA HAS
INVADED THE TITLE OR PARAMOUNT RIGHT ASSERTED BY THE UNITED STATES TO A
LARGE AREA OF LAND AND THAT CALIFORNIA HAS CONVERTED TO ITS OWN USE OIL
WHICH WAS EXTRACTED FROM THAT LAND.  CF. UNITED STATES V. WEST
VIRGINIA, SUPRA, 471.  THIS ALONE WOULD SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH THE KIND
OF CONCRETE, ACTUAL CONFLICT OF WHICH WE HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER
ARTICLE III.  THE JUSTICIABILITY OF THIS CONTROVERSY RESTS THEREFORE ON
CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF ALLEGED INVASIONS OF INTERESTS IN PROPERTY AND ON
CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS TO AUTHORIZE ITS USE.  UNITED
STATES V. TEXAS, 143 U.S. 621, 646, 648; UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA,
270 U.S. 181, 194; NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 325 U.S. 589, 608. 

NOR CAN WE SUSTAIN THAT PHASE OF THE STATE'S CONTENTION AS TO THE
ABSENCE OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY RESTING ON THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT SO AS TO RENDER A
PROPER DECREE.  THE LAND CLAIMED BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS SAID, HAS NOT
BEEN SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT SINCE THE ONLY SHOREWARD
BOUNDARY OF SOME SEGMENTS OF THE MARGINAL BELT IS THE LINE BETWEEN THAT
BELT AND THE STATE'S INLAND WATERS.  AND THE GOVERNMENT INCLUDES IN THE
TERM "INLAND WATERS" PORTS, HARBORS, BAYS, RIVERS, AND LAKES.  POINTING
OUT THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES IN FIXING THE POINT WHERE THESE INLAND
WATERS END AND THE MARGINAL SEA BEGINS, THE STATE ARGUES THAT THE
PLEADINGS ARE THEREFORE WHOLLY DEVOID OF A BASIS FOR A DEFINITE DECREE,
THE KIND OF DECREE ESSENTIAL TO DISPOSITION OF A CASE LIKE THIS. 
THEREFORE, CALIFORNIA CONCLUDES, ALL THAT IS PRAYED FOR IS AN ABSTRACT
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS CONCERNING AN UNIDENTIFIED THREE-MILE BELT, WHICH
COULD ONLY BE USED AS A BASIS FOR SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS IN WHICH SPECIFIC
RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED AS TO PARTICULAR LOCALITIES. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT LOCATION OF THE EXACT COASTAL LINE WILL INVOLVE
MANY COMPLEXITIES AND DIFFICULTIES.  BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THIS ANY
THE LESS A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  CERTAINLY DEMARCATION OF THE
BOUNDARY IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBILITY.  DESPITE DIFFICULTIES THIS COURT HAS
PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING SUBMERGED LAND
BOUNDARIES.  SEE NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE, 291 U.S. 361, 295 U.S. 694;
BORAX, LTD. V. LOS ANGELES, 296 U.S. 10, 21-27; OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 256
U.S. 70, 602.  AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY, AFTER DETERMINING IN GENERAL
WHO OWNS THE THREE-MILE BELT HERE INVOLVED, THE COURT MIGHT NOT LATER,
IF NECESSARY, HAVE MORE DETAILED HEARINGS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WITH
GREATER DEFINITENESS PARTICULAR SEGMENTS OF THE BOUNDARY.  OKLAHOMA V.
TEXAS, 258 U.S. 574, 582.  SUCH PRACTICE IS COMMONPLACE IN ACTIONS
SIMILAR TO THIS WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS.  SEE
E.G. OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 256 U.S. 602, 608-609; 260 U.S. 606, 625, 261
U.S. 340.  CALIFORNIA'S CONTENTION CONCERNING THE INDEFINITENESS OF THE
CLAIM PRESENTS NO INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO THE EXERCISE OF THE HIGHLY
IMPORTANT JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON US BY ARTICLE III OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

SECOND.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT WE SHOULD DISMISS THIS ACTION ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED POWER EITHER TO
FILE OR TO MAINTAIN IT.  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT CONGRESS HAS GIVEN A
VERY BROAD AUTHORITY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INSTITUTE AND CONDUCT
LITIGATION IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AND SAFEGUARD GOVERNMENT RIGHTS AND
PROPERTIES.  FN3  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT CONGRESS HAS FOR A LONG PERIOD
OF YEARS ACTED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MANIFEST A CLEAR POLICY TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE STATES, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, HAVE LEGAL TITLE TO
THE LAND UNDER THE THREE-MILE BELT.  ALTHOUGH CONGRESS HAS NOT
EXPRESSLY DECLARED SUCH A POLICY, WE ARE ASKED TO IMPLY IT FROM CERTAIN
CONDUCT OF CONGRESS AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES CHARGED WITH
RESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING THE NATIONAL DOMAIN.  AND, IN EFFECT, WE
ARE URGED TO INFER THAT CONGRESS HAS BY IMPLICATION AMENDED ITS LONG
EXISTING STATUTES WHICH GRANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BROAD POWERS TO
INSTITUTE AND MAINTAIN COURT PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD NATIONAL
INTERESTS. 

AN ACT PASSED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT COULD, OF
COURSE, LIMIT THE POWER PREVIOUSLY GRANTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
PROSECUTE CLAIMS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  FOR ARTICLE IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2 OF
THE CONSTITUTION VESTS IN CONGRESS "POWER TO DISPOSE OF AND MAKE ALL
NEEDFUL RULES AND REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE TERRITORY OR OTHER
PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES ...  "  WE HAVE SAID THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS IN THIS RESPECT IS WITHOUT
LIMITATION.  UNITED STATES V. SAN FRANCISCO, 310 U.S. 16, 29-30.  THUS
NEITHER THE COURTS NOR THE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES COULD PROCEED CONTRARY TO
AN ACT OF CONGRESS IN THIS CONGRESSIONAL AREA OF NATIONAL POWER. 

BUT NO ACT OF CONGRESS HAS AMENDED THE STATUTES WHICH IMPOSE ON THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY AND THE DUTY TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT'S
INTERESTS THROUGH THE COURTS.  SEE IN RE COOPER, 143 U.S. 472, 502
503.  THAT CONGRESS TWICE FAILED TO GRANT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SPECIFIC
AUTHORITY TO FILE SUIT AGAINST CALIFORNIA,  FN4  IS NOT A SUFFICIENT
BASIS UPON WHICH TO REST A RESTRICTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  AND NO MORE CAN WE REACH SUCH A CONCLUSION
BECAUSE BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS PASSED A JOINT RESOLUTION QUITCLAIMING
TO THE ADJACENT STATES A THREE-MILE BELT OF ALL LAND SITUATED UNDER THE
OCEAN BEYOND THE LOW WATER MARK, EXCEPT THOSE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAD
PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE, CONDEMNATION, OR DONATION.  FN5 THIS
JOINT RESOLUTION WAS VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT.  FN6  HIS VETO WAS
SUSTAINED.  FN7  PLAINLY, THE RESOLUTION DOES NOT REPRESENT AN EXERCISE
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO DISPOSE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
UNDER ARTICLE IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2. 

NEITHER THE MATTERS TO WHICH WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED, NOR ANY
OTHERS RELIED ON BY CALIFORNIA, AFFORD SUPPORT FOR A HOLDING THAT
CONGRESS HAS EITHER EXPLICITLY OR BY IMPLICATION STRIPPED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF HIS STATUTORILY GRANTED POWER TO INVOKE OUR JURISDICTION IN
THIS FEDERAL-STATE CONTROVERSY.  THIS BRINGS US TO THE MERITS OF THE
CASE. 

THIRD.  THE CRUCIAL QUESTION ON THE MERITS IS NOT MERELY WHO OWNS THE
BARE LEGAL TITLE TO THE LANDS UNDER THE MARGINAL SEA.  THE UNITED
STATES HERE ASSERTS RIGHTS IN TWO CAPACITIES TRANSCENDING THOSE OF A
MERE PROPERTY OWNER.  IN ONE CAPACITY IT ASSERTS THE RIGHT AND
RESPONSIBILITY TO EXERCISE WHATEVER POWER AND DOMINION ARE NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THIS COUNTRY AGAINST DANGERS TO THE SECURITY AND TRANQUILITY OF
ITS PEOPLE INCIDENT TO THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES IS LOCATED
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE OCEAN.  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO APPEARS IN ITS
CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OF NATIONS.  IN THAT CAPACITY IT IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING UNITED STATES RELATIONS WITH OTHER NATIONS. 
IT ASSERTS THAT PROPER EXERCISE OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES REQUIRES THAT IT HAVE POWER, UNENCUMBERED BY STATE
COMMITMENTS, ALWAYS TO DETERMINE WHAT AGREEMENTS WILL BE MADE
CONCERNING THE CONTROL AND USE OF THE MARGINAL SEA AND THE LAND UNDER
IT.  SEE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 403-408; UNITED STATES
V. MINNESOTA, 270 U.S. 181, 194.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, OUR
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE
PARAMOUNT RIGHT AND POWER TO DETERMINE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WHEN, HOW,
AND BY WHAT AGENCIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, THE OIL AND OTHER RESOURCES
OF THE SOIL OF THE MARGINAL SEA, KNOWN OR HEREAFTER DISCOVERED, MAY BE
EXPLOITED. 

CALIFORNIA CLAIMS THAT IT OWNS THE RESOURCES OF THE SOIL UNDER THE
THREE-MILE MARGINAL BELT AS AN INCIDENT TO THOSE ELEMENTS OF
SOVEREIGNTY WHICH IT EXERCISES IN THAT WATER AREA.  THE STATE POINTS
OUT THAT ITS ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, ADOPTED IN 1849 BEFORE THAT STATE
WAS ADMITTED TO THE UNION, INCLUDED WITHIN THE STATE'S BOUNDARY THE
WATER AREA EXTENDING THREE ENGLISH MILES FROM THE SHORE, CAL. CONST.
(1849) ART. XII; THAT THE ENABLING ACT WHICH ADMITTED CALIFORNIA TO THE
UNION RATIFIED THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY THUS DEFINED; AND THAT
CALIFORNIA WAS ADMITTED "ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES
IN ALL RESPECTS WHATEVER," 9 STAT. 452.  WITH THESE PREMISES ADMITTED,
CALIFORNIA CONTENDS THAT ITS OWNERSHIP FOLLOWS FROM THE RULE ORIGINALLY
ANNOUNCED IN POLLARD'S LESSEE V. HAGAN, 3 HOW.  212; SEE ALSO MARTIN V.
WADDELL, 16 PET. 367, 410.  IN THE POLLARD CASE IT WAS HELD, IN EFFECT,
THAT THE ORIGINAL STATES OWNED IN TRUST FOR THEIR PEOPLE THE NAVIGABLE
TIDEWATERS BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER MARK WITHIN EACH STATE'S
BOUNDARIES, AND THE SOIL UNDER THEM, AS AN INSEPARABLE ATTRIBUTE OF
STATE SOVEREIGNTY.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS DECIDED THAT ALABAMA, BECAUSE
ADMITTED INTO THE UNION ON "AN EQUAL FOOTING" WITH THE OTHER STATES,
HAD THEREBY BECOME THE OWNER OF THE TIDELANDS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES. 
THUS THE TITLE OF ALABAMA'S TIDELANDS GRANTEE WAS SUSTAINED AS VALID
AGAINST THAT OF A CLAIMANT HOLDING UNDER A UNITED STATES GRANT MADE
SUBSEQUENT TO ALABAMA'S ADMISSION AS A STATE. 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DENY THAT UNDER THE POLLARD RULE, AS
EXPLAINED IN LATER CASES,  FN8 CALIFORNIA HAS A QUALIFIED OWNERSHIP
FN9  OF LANDS UNDER INLAND NAVIGABLE WATERS SUCH AS RIVERS, HARBORS,
AND EVEN TIDELANDS DOWN TO THE LOW WATER MARK.  IT DOES QUESTION THE
VALIDITY OF THE RATIONALE IN THE POLLARD CASE THAT OWNERSHIP OF SUCH
WATER AREAS, ANY MORE THAN OWNERSHIP OF UPLANDS, IS A NECESSARY
INCIDENT OF THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY CONTEMPLATED BY THE "EQUAL FOOTING"
CLAUSE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. OREGON, 295 U.S. 1, 14.  FOR THIS REASON,
AMONG OTHERS, IT ARGUES THAT THE POLLARD RULE SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED SO
AS TO APPLY TO LANDS UNDER THE OCEAN.  IT STRESSES THAT THE THIRTEEN
ORIGINAL COLONIES DID NOT OWN THE MARGINAL BELT; THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DID NOT SERIOUSLY ASSERT ITS INCREASINGLY GREATER RIGHTS IN
THIS AREA UNTIL AFTER THE FORMATION OF THE UNION; THAT IT HAS NOT
BESTOWED ANY OF THESE RIGHTS UPON THE STATES, BUT HAS RETAINED THEM AS
APPURTENANCES OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.  AND THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT
NO PREVIOUS CASE IN THIS COURT HAS INVOLVED OR DECIDED CONFLICTING
CLAIMS OF A STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE THREE-MILE BELT IN
A WAY WHICH REQUIRES OUR EXTENSION OF THE POLLARD INLAND WATER RULE TO
THE OCEAN AREA. 

IT WOULD UNDULY PROLONG OUR OPINION TO DISCUSS IN DETAIL THE
MULTITUDE OF REFERENCES TO WHICH THE ABLE BRIEFS OF THE PARTIES HAVE
CITED US WITH REFERENCE TO THE EVOLUTION OF POWERS OVER MARGINAL SEAS
EXERCISED BY ADJACENT COUNTRIES.  FROM ALL THE WEALTH OF MATERIAL
SUPPLIED, HOWEVER, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL COLONIES
SEPARATELY ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP TO THE THREE-MILE BELT OR THE SOIL UNDER
IT,  FN10  EVEN IF THEY DID ACQUIRE ELEMENTS OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
ENGLISH CROWN BY THEIR REVOLUTION AGAINST IT.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 316. 

AT THE TIME THIS COUNTRY WON ITS INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND THERE WAS
NO SETTLED INTERNATIONAL CUSTOM OR UNDERSTANDING AMONG NATIONS THAT
EACH NATION OWNED A THREE-MILE WATER BELT ALONG ITS BORDERS.  SOME
COUNTRIES, NOTABLY ENGLAND, SPAIN, AND PORTUGAL, HAD, FROM TIME TO
TIME, MADE SWEEPING CLAIMS TO A RIGHT OF DOMINION OVER WIDE EXPANSES OF
OCEAN.  AND CONTROVERSIES HAD ARISEN AMONG NATIONS ABOUT RIGHTS TO FISH
IN PRESCRIBED AREAS.  FN11  BUT WHEN THIS NATION WAS FORMED, THE IDEA
OF A THREE-MILE BELT OVER WHICH A LITTORAL NATION COULD EXERCISE RIGHTS
OF OWNERSHIP WAS BUT A NEBULOUS SUGGESTION.  FN12  NEITHER THE ENGLISH
CHARTERS GRANTED TO THIS NATION'S SETTLERS, FN13  NOR THE TREATY OF
PEACE WITH ENGLAND,  FN14  NOR ANY OTHER DOCUMENT TO WHICH WE HAVE BEEN
REFERRED, SHOWED A PURPOSE TO SET APART A THREE-MILE OCEAN BELT FOR
COLONIAL OR STATE OWNERSHIP N15.  THOSE WHO SETTLED THIS COUNTRY WERE
INTERESTED IN LANDS UPON WHICH TO LIVE, AND WATERS UPON WHICH TO FISH
AND SAIL.  THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN HISTORY FOR THE IDEA THAT
THEY WANTED OR CLAIMED A RIGHT TO BLOCK OFF THE OCEAN'S BOTTOM FOR
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND USE IN THE EXTRACTION OF ITS WEALTH. 

IT DID HAPPEN THAT SHORTLY AFTER WE BECAME A NATION OUR STATESMEN
BECAME INTERESTED IN ESTABLISHING NATIONAL DOMINION OVER A DEFINITE
MARGINAL ZONE TO PROTECT OUR NEUTRALITY.  FN16 LARGELY AS A RESULT OF
THEIR EFFORTS, THE IDEA OF A DEFINITE THREE-MILE BELT IN WHICH AN
ADJACENT NATION CAN, IF IT CHOOSES, EXERCISE BROAD, IF NOT COMPLETE
DOMINION, HAS APPARENTLY AT LAST BEEN GENERALLY ACCEPTED THROUGHOUT THE
WORLD,  FN17  ALTHOUGH AS LATE AS 1876 THERE WAS STILL CONSIDERABLE
DOUBT IN ENGLAND ABOUT ITS SCOPE AND EVEN ITS EXISTENCE.  SEE THE QUEEN
V. KEYN, 2 EX. D. 63.  THAT THE POLITICAL AGENCIES OF THIS NATION BOTH
CLAIM AND EXERCISE BROAD DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER OUR THREE-MILE
MARGINAL BELT IS NOW A SETTLED FACT.  CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO. V. MELLON,
262 U.S. 100, 122-124.  FN18  AND THIS ASSERTION OF NATIONAL DOMINION
OVER THE THREEMILE BELT IS BINDING UPON THIS COURT.  SEE JONES V.
UNITED STATES, 137 U.S. 202, 212-214; IN RE COOPER, 143 U.S. 472, 502
503. 

NOT ONLY HAS ACQUISITION, AS IT WERE, OF THE THREE-MILE BELT BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, BUT PROTECTION AND CONTROL OF
IT HAS BEEN AND IS A FUNCTION OF NATIONAL EXTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY.  SEE
JONES V. UNITED STATES, 137 U.S. 202; IN RE COOPER, 143 U.S. 472, 502. 
THE BELIEF THAT LOCAL INTERESTS ARE SO PREDOMINANT AS CONSTITUTIONALLY
TO REQUIRE STATE DOMINION OVER LANDS UNDER ITS LAND-LOCKED NAVIGABLE
WATERS FINDS SOME ARGUMENT FOR ITS SUPPORT.  BUT SUCH CAN HARDLY BE
SAID IN FAVOR OF STATE CONTROL OVER ANY PART OF THE OCEAN OR THE
OCEAN'S BOTTOM.  THIS COUNTRY, THROUGHOUT ITS EXISTENCE HAS STOOD FOR
FREEDOM OF THE SEAS, A PRINCIPLE WHOSE BREACH HAS PRECIPITATED WARS
AMONG NATIONS.  THE COUNTRY'S ADOPTION OF THE THREE-MILE BELT IS BY NO
MEANS INCOMPATIBLE WITH ITS TRADITIONAL INSISTENCE UPON FREEDOM OF THE
SEA, AT LEAST SO LONG AS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO EXERCISE
CONTROL CONSISTENTLY WITH WHATEVER INTERNATIONAL UNDERTAKINGS OR
COMMITMENTS IT MAY SEE FIT TO ASSUME IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST IS
UNENCUMBERED.  SEE HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52, 62-64; MCCULLOCH
V. MARYLAND, SUPRA.  THE THREE-MILE RULE IS BUT A RECOGNITION OF THE
NECESSITY THAT A GOVERNMENT NEXT TO THE SEA MUST BE ABLE TO PROTECT
ITSELF FROM DANGERS INCIDENT TO ITS LOCATION.  IT MUST HAVE POWERS OF
DOMINION AND REGULATION IN THE INTEREST OF ITS REVENUES, ITS HEALTH,
AND THE SECURITY OF ITS PEOPLE FROM WARS WAGED ON OR TOO NEAR ITS
COASTS.  AND INSOFAR AS THE NATION ASSERTS ITS RIGHTS UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW, WHATEVER OF VALUE MAY BE DISCOVERED IN THE SEAS NEXT
TO ITS SHORES AND WITHIN ITS PROTECTIVE BELT, WILL MOST NATURALLY BE
APPROPRIATED FOR ITS USE.  BUT WHATEVER ANY NATION DOES IN THE OPEN
SEA, WHICH DETRACTS FROM ITS COMMON USEFULNESS TO NATIONS, OR WHICH
ANOTHER NATION MAY CHARGE DETRACTS FROM IT,  FN19  IS A QUESTION FOR
CONSIDERATION AMONG NATIONS AS SUCH, AND NOT THEIR SEPARATE
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS.  WHAT THIS GOVERNMENT DOES, OR EVEN WHAT THE STATES
DO, ANYWHERE IN THE OCEAN, IS A SUBJECT UPON WHICH THE NATION MAY ENTER
INTO AND ASSUME TREATY OR SIMILAR INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. BELMONT, 301 U.S. 324, 331-332.  THE VERY OIL ABOUT
WHICH THE STATE AND NATION HERE CONTEND MIGHT WELL BECOME THE SUBJECT
OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE AND SETTLEMENT. 

THE OCEAN, EVEN ITS THREE-MILE BELT, IS THUS OF VITAL CONSEQUENCE TO
THE NATION IN ITS DESIRE TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE AND TO LIVE IN PEACE
WITH THE WORLD; IT ALSO BECOMES OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE SHOULD IT EVER
AGAIN BECOME IMPOSSIBLE TO PRESERVE THAT PEACE.  AND AS PEACE AND WORLD
COMMERCE ARE THE PARAMOUNT RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE NATION, RATHER THAN
AN INDIVIDUAL STATE, SO, IF WARS COME, THEY MUST BE FOUGHT BY THE
NATION.  SEE CHY LUNG V. FREEMAN, 92 U.S. 275, 279.  THE STATE IS NOT
EQUIPPED IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM WITH THE POWERS OR THE FACILITIES
FOR EXERCISING THE RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH WOULD BE CONCOMITANT WITH THE
DOMINION WHICH IT SEEKS.  CONCEDING THAT THE STATE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED
TO EXERCISE LOCAL POLICE POWER FUNCTIONS IN THE PART OF THE MARGINAL
BELT WITHIN ITS DECLARED BOUNDARIES,  FN20  THESE DO NOT DETRACT FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN AND POWER OVER THIS AREA. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE NOT PERSUADED TO TRANSPLANT THE POLLARD RULE OF
OWNERSHIP AS AN INCIDENT OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY IN RELATION TO INLAND
WATERS OUT INTO THE SOIL BENEATH THE OCEAN, SO MUCH MORE A MATTER OF
NATIONAL CONCERN.  IF THIS RATIONALE OF THE POLLARD CASE IS A VALID
BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION THAT PARAMOUNT RIGHTS RUN TO THE STATES IN
INLAND WATERS TO THE SHOREWARD OF THE LOW WATER MARK, THE SAME
RATIONALE LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NATIONAL INTERESTS,
RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THEREFORE NATIONAL RIGHTS ARE PARAMOUNT IN WATERS
LYING TO THE SEAWARD IN THE THREE-MILE BELT.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 316; UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328
U.S. 256. 

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THIS COURT HAS FOLLOWED AND REASSERTED THE
BASIC DOCTRINE OF THE POLLARD CASE MANY TIMES.  AND IN DOING SO IT HAS
USED LANGUAGE STRONG ENOUGH TO INDICATE THAT THE COURT THEN BELIEVED
THAT STATES NOT ONLY OWNED TIDELANDS AND SOIL UNDER NAVIGABLE INLAND
WATERS, BUT ALSO OWNED SOILS UNDER ALL NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN THEIR
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, WHETHER INLAND OR NOT.  ALL OF THESE
STATEMENTS WERE, HOWEVER, MERELY PARAPHRASES OR OFFSHOOTS OF THE
POLLARD INLAND-WATER RULE, AND WERE USED, NOT AS ENUNCIATION OF A NEW
OCEAN RULE, BUT IN EXPLANATION OF THE OLD INLAND-WATER PRINCIPLE. 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT NONE OF THESE CASES EITHER INVOLVED OR
DECIDED THE STATE-FEDERAL CONFLICT PRESENTED HERE, WE ARE URGED TO SAY
THAT THE LANGUAGE USED AND REPEATED IN THOSE CASES FORECLOSES THE
GOVERNMENT FROM THE RIGHT TO HAVE THIS COURT DECIDE THAT QUESTION NOW
THAT IT IS SQUARELY PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME. 

THERE ARE THREE SUCH CASES WHOSE LANGUAGE PROBABLY LENDS MORE WEIGHT
TO CALIFORNIA'S ARGUMENT THAN ANY OTHERS.  THE FIRST IS MANCHESTER V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 139 U.S. 240.  THAT CASE INVOLVED ONLY THE POWER OF
MASSACHUSETTS TO REGULATE FISHING.  MOREOVER, THE ILLEGAL FISHING
CHARGED WAS IN BUZZARDS BAY, FOUND TO BE WITHIN MASSACHUSETTS
TERRITORY, AND NO QUESTION WHATEVER WAS RAISED OR DECIDED AS TO TITLE
OR PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN THE OPEN SEA.  AND THE COURT SPECIFICALLY LAID
TO ONE SIDE ANY QUESTION AS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
REGULATE FISHING THERE.  THE SECOND CASE, LOUISIANA V. MISSISSIPPI, 202
U.S. 1, 52, USES LANGUAGE ABOUT "THE SWAY OF THE RIPARIAN STATES" OVER
"MARITIME BELTS."  THAT WAS A CASE INVOLVING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN
LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI.  IT DID NOT INVOLVE ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS.  AND THE COURT THERE SPECIFICALLY LAID
ASIDE QUESTIONS CONCERNING "THE BREADTH OF THE MARITIME BELT OR THE
EXTENT OF THE SWAY OF THE RIPARIAN STATES  ...  "  ID. AT 52.  THE
THIRD CASE IS THE ABBY DODGE, 223 U.S. 166.  THAT WAS AN ACTION AGAINST
A SHIP LANDING SPONGES AT A FLORIDA PORT IN VIOLATION OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS, 34 STAT. 313, WHICH MADE IT UNLAWFUL TO "LAND" SPONGES TAKEN
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS FROM THE WATERS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO.  THIS
COURT CONSTRUED THE STATUTE'S PROHIBITION AS APPLYING ONLY TO SPONGES
OUTSIDE THE STATE'S "TERRITORIAL LIMITS" IN THE GULF.  IT THUS NARROWED
THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE OF A BELIEF THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO REGULATE THE FLORIDA TRAFFIC IN SPONGES OBTAINED FROM
WITHIN FLORIDA'S TERRITORIAL LIMITS, PRESUMABLY THE THREE-MILE BELT. 
BUT THE OPINION IN THAT CASE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE STATE'S POWER TO
REGULATE AND CONSERVE WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL WATERS, NOT WITH ITS
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO USE AND DEPLETE RESOURCES WHICH MIGHT BE OF
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE.  AND THERE WAS NO ARGUMENT
THERE, NOR DID THIS COURT DECIDE, WHETHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OWNED
OR HAD PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN THE SOIL UNDER THE GULF WATERS.  THAT THIS
QUESTION REMAINED UNDECIDED IS EVIDENCED BY SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313
U.S. 69, 75, WHERE WE HAD OCCASION TO SPEAK OF FLORIDA'S POWER OVER
SPONGE-FISHING IN ITS TERRITORIAL WATERS.  THROUGH MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
HUGHES WE SAID:  "IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT FLORIDA HAS AN INTEREST IN THE
PROPER MAINTENANCE OF THE SPONGE FISHERY AND THAT THE (STATE) STATUTE
SO FAR AS APPLIED TO CONDUCT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF FLORIDA,
IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION, IS WITHIN THE POLICE
POWER OF THE STATE." 

NONE OF THE FOREGOING CASES, NOR OTHERS WHICH WE HAVE DECIDED, ARE
SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE US TO EXTEND THE POLLARD INLAND-WATER RULE SO AS
TO DECLARE THAT CALIFORNIA OWNS OR HAS PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN OR POWER
OVER THE THREE-MILE BELT UNDER THE OCEAN.  THE QUESTION OF WHO OWNED
THE BED OF THE SEA ONLY BECAME OF GREAT POTENTIAL IMPORTANCE AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS CENTURY WHEN OIL WAS DISCOVERED THERE.  FN21  AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THIS DISCOVERY, CALIFORNIA PASSED AN ACT IN 1921
AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF PERMITS TO CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS TO PROSPECT
FOR OIL AND GAS ON BLOCKS OF LAND OFF ITS COAST UNDER THE OCEAN.  CAL.
STATS. 1921, C. 303.  THIS STATE STATUTE, AND OTHERS WHICH FOLLOWED IT,
TOGETHER WITH THE LEASING PRACTICES UNDER THEM, HAVE PRECIPITATED THIS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT CONTROVERSY, AND POINTEDLY RAISED THIS STATE
FEDERAL CONFLICT FOR THE FIRST TIME.  NOW THAT THE QUESTION IS HERE, WE
DECIDE FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE STATED THAT CALIFORNIA IS NOT THE OWNER
OF THE THREE-MILE MARGINAL BELT ALONG ITS COAST, AND THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN THE STATE HAS PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN AND POWER OVER
THAT BELT, AN INCIDENT TO WHICH IS FULL DOMINION OVER THE RESOURCES OF
THE SOIL UNDER THAT WATER AREA, INCLUDING OIL. 

FOURTH.  NOR CAN WE AGREE WITH CALIFORNIA THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S PARAMOUNT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN LOST BY REASON OF THE CONDUCT
OF ITS AGENTS.  THE STATE SETS UP SUCH A DEFENSE, ARGUING THAT BY THIS
CONDUCT THE GOVERNMENT IS BARRED FROM ENFORCING ITS RIGHTS BY REASON OF
PRINCIPLES SIMILAR TO LACHES, ESTOPPEL OR ADVERSE POSSESSION.  IT WOULD
SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE TO RECITE THE INCIDENTS IN DETAIL UPON WHICH
THE STATE RELIES FOR THESE DEFENSES.  SOME OF THEM ARE UNDOUBTEDLY
CONSISTENT WITH A BELIEF ON THE PART OF SOME GOVERNMENT AGENTS AT THE
TIME THAT CALIFORNIA OWNED ALL, OR AT LEAST A PART OF THE THREE-MILE
BELT.  THIS BELIEF WAS INDICATED IN THE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF INSTANCES
IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ACQUIRED TITLE FROM THE STATES TO LANDS LOCATED
IN THE BELT; SOME DECISIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR HAVE DENIED
APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASES IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
BELT ON THE GROUND THAT CALIFORNIA OWNED THE LANDS.  OUTSIDE OF COURT
DECISIONS FOLLOWING THE POLLARD RULE, THE FOREGOING ARE THE TYPES OF
CONDUCT MOST NEARLY INDICATIVE OF WAIVER UPON WHICH THE STATE RELIES TO
SHOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS LOST ITS PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN THE BELT. 
ASSUMING THAT GOVERNMENT AGENTS COULD BY CONDUCT, SHORT OF A
CONGRESSIONAL SURRENDER OF TITLE OR INTEREST, PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT
FROM ASSERTING ITS LEGAL RIGHTS, WE CANNOT SAY IT HAS DONE SO HERE.  AS
A MATTER OF FACT, THE RECORD PLAINLY DEMONSTRATES THAT UNTIL THE
CALIFORNIA OIL ISSUE BEGAN TO BE PRESSED IN THE THIRTIES, NEITHER THE
STATES NOR THE GOVERNMENT HAD REASON TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON THE QUESTION
OF WHICH OF THEM OWNED OR HAD PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN OR POWER OVER THE
THREE-MILE BELT.  AND EVEN ASSUMING THAT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAVE BEEN
NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE OR ASSERT THE CLAIMS OF THE
GOVERNMENT AT AN EARLIER DATE, THE GREAT INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN
THIS OCEAN AREA ARE NOT TO BE FORFEITED AS A RESULT.  THE GOVERNMENT,
WHICH HOLDS ITS INTERESTS HERE AS ELSEWHERE IN TRUST FOR ALL THE
PEOPLE, IS NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF THOSE INTERESTS BY THE ORDINARY COURT
RULES DESIGNED PARTICULARLY FOR PRIVATE DISPUTES OVER INDIVIDUALLY
OWNED PIECES OF PROPERTY; AND OFFICERS WHO HAVE NO AUTHORITY AT ALL TO
DISPOSE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY CANNOT BY THEIR CONDUCT CAUSE THE
GOVERNMENT TO LOSE ITS VALUABLE RIGHTS BY THEIR ACQUIESCENCE, LACHES,
OR FAILURE TO ACT.  FN22 

WE HAVE NOT OVERLOOKED CALIFORNIA'S ARGUMENT, BUTTRESSED BY EARNEST
BRIEFS ON BEHALF OF OTHER STATES, THAT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE
ALONG AND NEAR THE SHORES AT GREAT EXPENSE TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
AGENCIES.  AND WE NOTE THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTION THAT THE AGGREGATE
VALUE OF ALL THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE SMALL IN COMPARISON WITH THE
TREMENDOUS VALUE OF THE ENTIRE THREE-MILE BELT HERE IN CONTROVERSY. 
BUT HOWEVER THIS MAY BE, WE ARE FACED WITH THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER
STATE OR NATION HAS PARAMOUNT RIGHTS IN AND POWER OVER THIS OCEAN BELT,
AND THAT GREAT NATIONAL QUESTION IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON WHAT EXPENSES
MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED UPON MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS.  FURTHERMORE, WE
CANNOT KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE WITHIN AND HOW MANY
WITHOUT THE BOUNDARY OF THE MARGINAL SEA WHICH CAN LATER BE ACCURATELY
DEFINED.  BUT BEYOND ALL THIS WE CANNOT AND DO NOT ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS, WHICH HAS CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OVER GOVERNMENT PROPERTY,
WILL EXECUTE ITS POWERS IN SUCH WAY AS TO BRING ABOUT INJUSTICES TO
STATES, THEIR SUBDIVISIONS, OR PERSONS ACTING PURSUANT TO THEIR
PERMISSION.  SEE UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 162 U.S. 1, 89, 90; LEE WILSON
& CO. V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 24, 32. 

WE HOLD THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR. 
THE PARTIES, OR EITHER OF THEM, MAY, BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15, 1947, SUBMIT
THE FORM OF DECREE TO CARRY THIS OPINION INTO EFFECT, FAILING WHICH THE
COURT WILL PREPARE AND ENTER AN APPROPRIATE DECREE AT THE NEXT TERM OF
COURT.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE GOVERNMENT COMPLAINT CLAIMS AN AREA EXTENDING THREE NAUTICAL
MILES FROM SHORE; THE CALIFORNIA BOUNDARY PURPORTS TO EXTEND THREE
ENGLISH MILES.  ONE NAUTICAL MILE EQUALS 1.15 ENGLISH MILES, SO THAT
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF .45 OF AN ENGLISH MILE BETWEEN THE BOUNDARY OF
THE AREA CLAIMED BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE BOUNDARY OF CALIFORNIA. 
SEE CAL. CONST. ART. XXI, SEC. 1(1879). 

FN2  THE CLAIM OF RES JUDICATA RESTS ON THE FOLLOWING CONTENTION. 
THE UNITED STATES SUED IN EJECTMENT FOR CERTAIN LANDS SITUATED IN SAN
FRANCISCO BAY.  THE DEFENDANT HELD THE LANDS UNDER A GRANT FROM
CALIFORNIA.  THIS COURT DECIDED THAT THE STATE GRANT WAS VALID BECAUSE
THE LAND UNDER THE BAY HAD PASSED TO THE STATE UPON ITS ADMISSION TO
THE UNION.  UNITED STATES V. MISSION ROCK CO., 189 U.S. 391.  THERE MAY
BE OTHER REASONS WHY THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE DOES NOT BAR THIS
LITIGATION; BUT IT IS A SUFFICIENT REASON THAT THIS CASE INVOLVES LAND
UNDER THE OPEN SEA, AND NOT LAND UNDER THE INLAND WATERS OF SAN
FRANCISCO BAY. 

FN3  5 U.S.C. SECS. 291, 309; UNITED STATES V. SAN JACINTO TIN CO.,
125 U.S. 273, 279, 284; KERN RIVER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 147,
154-55; SANITARY DISTRICT V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 405, 425-426; SEE
ALSO IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564, 584; UNITED STATES V. OREGON, 295 U.S.
1, 24; UNITED STATES V. WYOMING, 323 U.S. 669, 329 U.S. 670. 

FN4  S.J. RES. 208, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1937); S.J. RES. 83 AND
92, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1939).  S.J. RES. 208 PASSED THE SENATE, 81
CONG. REC. 9326(1937), WAS FAVORABLY REPORTED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, H.R. REP. 2378, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS (1938), BUT WAS NEVER
ACTED ON IN THE HOUSE.  HEARINGS WERE HELD ON S.J. RES. 83 AND 92
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND SURVEYS, BUT NO FURTHER
ACTION WAS TAKEN.  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS
AND SURVEYS ON S.J. RES. 83 AND 92, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1939).  IN
BOTH HEARINGS OBJECTIONS TO THE RESOLUTIONS WERE REPEATEDLY MADE ON THE
GROUND THAT PASSAGE OF THE RESOLUTIONS WAS UNNECESSARY SINCE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ALREADY HAD STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE THE
PROCEEDINGS.  SEE HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ON S.J. RES. 208, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., 42-45, 59-61(1938); HEARINGS ON
S.J. RES. 83 AND 92, SUPRA, 27-30. 

FN5  H.J. RES. 225, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1946); 92 CONG. REC. 9642,
10316(1946). 

FN6  92 CONG. REC. 10660(1946). 

FN7  92 CONG. REC. 10745(1946). 

FN8  SEE E.G., MANCHESTER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 139 U.S. 240; LOUISIANA
V. MISSISSIPPI, 202 U.S. 1; THE ABBY DODGE, 223 U.S. 166.  SEE ALSO
UNITED STATES V. MISSION ROCK CO., 189 U.S. 391; BORAX, LTD. V. LOS
ANGELES, 296 U.S. 10. 

ALTHOUGH THE POLLARD CASE HAS THUS BEEN GENERALLY APPROVED MANY
TIMES, THE CASE OF SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152 U.S. 1, 47-48, 58, HELD,
CONTRARY TO IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLLARD OPINION, THAT THE UNITED STATES
COULD LAWFULLY DISPOSE OF TIDELANDS WHILE HOLDING A FUTURE STATE'S LAND
"IN TRUST" AS A TERRITORY. 

FN9  SEE UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK, 324 U.S. 386, 390, 391;
SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141, 159, 160, 163; STOCKTON V. BALTIMORE
& N.Y.R. CO., 32 F. 9, 20; SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR
CO., 229 U.S. 53. 

FN10  A REPRESENTATIVE COLLECTION OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND
SCHOLARSHIP ON THE SUBJECT IS CROCKER, THE EXTENT OF THE MARGINAL SEA
(1919).  SEE ALSO I AZUNI, MARITIME LAW OF EUROPE (PUBLISHED 1806) C.
II; FULTON, SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEA (1911); MASTERSON, JURISDICTION IN
MARGINAL SEAS (1929); JESSUP, THE LAW OF TERRITORIAL WATERS AND
MARITIME JURISDICTION (1927); FRASER, THE EXTENT AND DELIMITATION OF
TERRITORIAL WATERS, 11 CORN.  L.Q. 455(1926); IRELAND, MARGINAL SEAS
AROUND THE STATES, 2 LA. L. REV. 252, 436(1940); COMMENT, CONFLICTING
STATE AND FEDERAL CLAIMS OF TITLE IN SUBMERGED LANDS OF THE CONTINENTAL
SHELF, 56 YALE L.J. 356(1947). 

FN11  SEE, E.G., FULTON, OP. CIT. SUPRA, 3-19, 144-145; JESSUP, OP.
CIT. SUPRA, 4. 

FN12  FULTON, OP. CIT. SUPRA, 21, SAYS IN FACT THAT "MAINLY THROUGH
THE ACTION AND PRACTICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND GREAT
BRITAIN SINCE THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY, THE DISTANCE OF THREE
MILES FROM SHORE WAS MORE OR LESS FORMALLY ADOPTED BY MOST MARITIME
STATES AS ...  MORE DEFINITELY FIXING THE LIMITS OF THEIR JURISDICTION
AND RIGHTS FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES, AND, IN PARTICULAR, FOR EXCLUSIVE
FISHERY." 

FN13  COLLECTED IN THORPE, FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS (1909). 

FN14  TREATY OF 1783, 8 STAT. 80. 

FN15  THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS DID FOR EXAMPLE AUTHORIZE CAPTURE OF
NEUTRAL AND EVEN AMERICAN SHIPS CARRYING BRITISH GOODS, "IF FOUND
WITHIN THREE LEAGUES (ABOUT NINE MILES) OF THE COASTS."  JOURN.  OF
CONG. 185, 186, 187(1781).  CF. DECLARATION OF PANAMA OF 1939, 1 DEPT.
OF STATE BULL.  321(1939), CLAIMING THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLICS
TO BE FREE FROM A HOSTILE ACT IN A ZONE 300 MILES FROM THE AMERICAN
COASTS. 

FN16  SECRETARY OF STATE JEFFERSON IN A NOTE TO THE BRITISH MINISTER
IN 1793 POINTED TO THE NEBULOUS CHARACTER OF A NATION'S ASSERTIONS OF
TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN THE MARGINAL BELT, AND PUT FORWARD THE FIRST
OFFICIAL AMERICAN CLAIM FOR A THREE-MILE ZONE WHICH HAS SINCE WON
GENERAL INTERNATIONAL ACCEPTANCE.  REPRINTED IN H. EX. DOC. NO. 324,
42D CONG., 2D SESS. (1872) 553-554.  SEE ALSO SECRETARY JEFFERSON'S
NOTE TO THE FRENCH MINISTER, GENET, REPRINTED AMERICAN STATE PAPERS, I
FOREIGN RELATIONS (1833), 183, 184; ACT OF JUNE 5, 1794, 1 STAT. 381; 1
KENT, COMMENTARIES, 14TH ED., 33-40. 

FN17  SEE JESSUP, OP. CIT. SUPRA, 66; RESEARCH IN INTERNATIONAL LAW,
23 A.J.I.L. 249, 250(SPEC.  SUPP.  1929). 

FN18  SEE ALSO CHURCH V. HUBBART, 2 CRANCH 187, 234.  CONGRESSIONAL
ASSERTION OF A TERRITORIAL ZONE IN THE SEA APPEARS IN STATUTES
REGULATING SEALS, FISHING, POLLUTION OF WATERS, ETC.  36 STAT. 326,
328; 43 STAT. 604, 605; 37 STAT. 499, 501.  UNDER THE NATIONAL
PROHIBITION ACT, TERRITORY INCLUDING "A MARGINAL BELT OF THE SEA
EXTENDING FROM LOW-WATER MARK OUTWARD A MARINE LEAGUE, OR 3
GEOGRAPHICAL MILES" CONSTITUTING THE "TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES" WAS REGULATED.  SEE U.S. TREAS. REG. 2, SEC. 2201(1927),
REPRINTED IN RESEARCH IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, SUPRA, 250; 41 STAT. 305. 
ANTI-SMUGGLING TREATIES IN WHICH FOREIGN NATIONS AGREED TO PERMIT THE
UNITED STATES TO PURSUE SMUGGLERS BEYOND THE THREE-MILE LIMIT CONTAINED
EXPRESS STIPULATIONS THAT GENERALLY THE THREE-MILE LIMIT CONSTITUTES
"THE PROPER LIMITS OF TERRITORIAL WATERS."  SEE E.G., 43 STAT. 1761(PT.
2). 

THERE ARE INNUMERABLE EXECUTIVE DECLARATIONS TO THE WORLD OF OUR
NATIONAL CLAIMS TO THE THREE-MILE BELT, AND MORE RECENTLY TO THE WHOLE
CONTINENTAL SHELF.  FOR REFERENCES TO DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE MAKING
THESE ASSERTIONS, SEE 1 MOORE, INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST (1906) 705,
706, 707; 1 WHARTON, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1886) 100.  SEE ALSO
HUGHES, RECENT QUESTIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS, 18 A.J.I.L. 229(1924). 

THE LATEST AND BROADEST CLAIM IS PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S RECENT
PROCLAMATION THAT THE UNITED STATES "REGARDS THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF
THE SUBSOIL AND SEA BED OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF BENEATH THE HIGH SEAS
BUT CONTIGUOUS TO THE COASTS OF THE UNITED STATES AS APPERTAINING TO
THE UNITED STATES, SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION AND CONTROL.  ...  "
EXEC. PROC. 2667, SEPT. 28, 1945, 10 F.R. 12303. 

FN19  SEE LORD V. STEAMSHIP CO., 102 U.S. 541, 544. 

FN20  SEE UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 389, 404;
CF. THE ABBY DODGE, 223 U.S. 166, WITH SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S.
69, 74-75. 

FN21  BULL.  NO. 321, DEPT. OF INTERIOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 

FN22  UNITED STATES V. SAN FRANCISCO, 310 U.S. 16, 31-32; UTAH V.
UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 534, 545, 546; LEE WILSON & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 245 U.S. 24, 32; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243
U.S. 389, 409.  SEE ALSO SEC'Y OF STATE FOR INDIA V. CHELIKANI RAMA
RAO, L.R. 43 INDIAN APP. 192, 204(1916). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

IN MY VIEW THE CONTROVERSY BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT BY THE COMPLAINT
OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST CALIFORNIA SEEKS A JUDGMENT BETWEEN STATE
AND NATION AS TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND UNDERLYING THE PACIFIC
OCEAN, SEAWARD OF THE ORDINARY LOW WATER MARK, ON THE COAST OF
CALIFORNIA AND WITHIN THE THREE-MILE LIMIT.  THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT LAND
CARRIES WITH IT, IT SEEMS TO ME, THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY MINERALS OR OTHER
VALUABLES IN THE SOIL, AS WELL AS THE RIGHT TO EXTRACT THEM. 

THE DETERMINATION AS TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY
TURNS FOR ME ON THE FACT AS TO OWNERSHIP IN THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN
STATES OF SIMILAR LANDS PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE UNION.  IF THE
ORIGINAL STATES OWNED THE BED OF THE SEA, ADJACENT TO THEIR COASTS, TO
THE THREE-MILE LIMIT, THEN I THINK CALIFORNIA HAS THE SAME TITLE OR
OWNERSHIP TO THE LANDS ADJACENT TO HER COAST.  THE ORIGINAL STATES WERE
SOVEREIGNTIES IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, POSSESSED OF SO MUCH OF THE LAND
UNDERNEATH THE ADJACENT SEAS AS WAS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED TO BE UNDER
THEIR JURISDICTION.  THE SCOPE OF THEIR JURISDICTION AND THE BOUNDARIES
OF THEIR LANDS WERE COTERMINOUS.  ANY PART OF THAT TERRITORY WHICH HAD
NOT PASSED FROM THEIR OWNERSHIP BY EXISTING VALID GRANTS WERE AND
REMAINED PUBLIC LANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES.  CALIFORNIA, AS IS
CUSTOMARY, WAS ADMITTED INTO THE UNION "ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE
ORIGINAL STATES IN ALL RESPECTS WHATEVER."  9 STAT. 452.  BY SEC. 3 OF
THE ACT OF ADMISSION, THE PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN ITS BORDERS WERE RESERVED
FOR DISPOSITION BY THE UNITED STATES.  "PUBLIC LANDS" WAS THERE USED IN
ITS USUAL SENSE OF LANDS SUBJECT TO SALE UNDER GENERAL LAWS.  AS WAS
THE RULE, TITLE TO LANDS UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS VESTED IN CALIFORNIA AS
IT HAD DONE IN ALL OTHER STATES.  POLLARD V. HAGAN, 3 HOW.  212; BARNEY
V. KEOKUK, 94 U.S. 324, 338; SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152 U.S. 1, 49; MANN V.
TACOMA LAND CO., 153 U.S. 273, 284; BORAX CONSOLIDATED, LTD. V. LOS
ANGELES, 296 U.S. 10, 17. 

THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN THE COURT'S OPINION LEAD ME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE ORIGINAL STATES OWNED THE LANDS UNDER THE SEAS TO
THE THREE-MILE LIMIT.  THERE WERE, OF COURSE, AS IS SHOWN BY THE
CITATIONS, VARIATIONS IN THE CLAIMS OF SOVEREIGNTY, JURISDICTION OR
OWNERSHIP AMONG THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD.  AS EARLY AS 1793, JEFFERSON
AS SECRETARY OF STATE, IN A COMMUNICATION TO THE BRITISH MINISTER, SAID
THAT THE TERRITORIAL PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE EXTENDED
"THREE GEOGRAPHICAL MILES" AND ADDED:    "THIS DISTANCE CAN ADMIT OF NO
OPPOSITION, AS IT IS RECOGNIZED BY TREATIES BETWEEN SOME OF THE POWERS
WITH WHOM WE ARE CONNECTED IN COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION, AND IS AS
LITTLE, OR LESS, THAN IS CLAIMED BY ANY OF THEM ON THEIR OWN COASTS." 
H. EX. DOC. NO. 324, 42D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 553-54. 

IF THE ORIGINAL STATES DID CLAIM, AS I THINK THEY DID, SOVEREIGNTY
AND OWNERSHIP TO THE THREE-MILE LIMIT, CALIFORNIA HAS THE SAME RIGHTS
IN THE LANDS BORDERING ITS LITTORAL.    THIS OWNERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA
WOULD NOT INTERFERE IN ANY WAY WITH THE NEEDS OR RIGHTS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN WAR OR PEACE.  THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES IS PLENARY OVER
THESE UNDERSEA LANDS PRECISELY AS IT IS OVER EVERY RIVER, FARM, MINE,
AND FACTORY OF THE NATION.  WHILE NO SQUARE RULING OF THIS COURT HAS
DETERMINED THE OWNERSHIP OF THOSE MARGINAL LANDS, TO ME THE TONE OF THE
DECISIONS DEALING WITH SIMILAR PROBLEMS INDICATES THAT, WITHOUT
DISCUSSION, STATE OWNERSHIP HAS BEEN ASSUMED.  POLLARD V. HAGAN, SUPRA;
LOUISIANA V. MISSISSIPPI, 202 U.S. 1, 52; THE ABBY DODGE, 223 U.S. 166;
NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE, 291 U.S. 361; 295 U.S. 694. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

BY THIS ORIGINAL BILL THE UNITED STATES PRAYED FOR A DECREE ENJOINING
ALL PERSONS, INCLUDING THOSE ASSERTING A CLAIM DERIVED FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, FROM TRESPASSING UPON THE DISPUTED AREA.  AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST TRESPASSERS NORMALLY PRESUPPOSES PROPERTY RIGHTS.  THE COURT,
HOWEVER, GRANTS THE PRAYER BUT DOES NOT DO SO BY FINDING THAT THE
UNITED STATES HAS PROPRIETARY INTERESTS IN THE AREA.  TO BE SURE, IT
DENIES SUCH PROPRIETARY RIGHTS IN CALIFORNIA.  BUT EVEN IF WE ASSUME AN
ABSENCE OF OWNERSHIP OR POSSESSORY INTEREST ON THE PART OF CALIFORNIA,
THAT DOES NOT ESTABLISH A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE UNITED STATES. 
IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COURT DOES NOT ADOPT THE GOVERNMENT'S
ELABORATE ARGUMENT, BASED ON DUBIOUS AND TENUOUS WRITINGS OF
PUBLICISTS, SEE SCHWARZENBERGER, INDUCTIVE APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL
LAW, 60 HARV. L. REV. 539, 559, THAT THIS PART OF THE OPEN SEA BELONGS,
IN A PROPRIETARY SENSE, TO THE UNITED STATES.  SEE AMERICAN BANANA CO.
V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S. 347, 351.  INSTEAD, THE COURT FINDS
TRESPASS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IT CALLS THE
"NATIONAL DOMINION" BY THE UNITED STATES OVER THIS AREA. 

TO SPEAK OF "DOMINION" CARRIES PRECISELY THOSE OVERTONES IN THE LAW
WHICH RELATE TO PROPERTY AND NOT TO POLITICAL AUTHORITY.  DOMINION,
FROM THE ROMAN CONCEPT DOMINIUM, WAS CONCERNED WITH PROPERTY AND
OWNERSHIP, AS AGAINST IMPERIUM, WHICH RELATED TO POLITICAL
SOVEREIGNTY.  ONE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE UNITED
STATES HAS "NATIONAL DOMINION" OVER NAVIGABLE STREAMS.  BUT THE POWER
TO REGULATE COMMERCE OVER THESE STREAMS, AND ITS CONTINUED EXERCISE, DO
NOT CHANGE THE IMPERIUM OF THE UNITED STATES INTO DOMINIUM OVER THE
LAND BELOW THE WATERS.  OF COURSE THE UNITED STATES HAS "PARAMOUNT
RIGHTS" IN THE SEA BELT OF CALIFORNIA - THE RIGHTS THAT ARE IMPLIED BY
THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, THE POWER OF
CONDEMNATION, THE TREATY-MAKING POWER, THE WAR POWER.  WE HAVE NOT NOW
BEFORE US THE VALIDITY OF THE EXERCISE OF ANY OF THESE PARAMOUNT
RIGHTS.  RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP ARE HERE ASSERTED - AND RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP ARE SOMETHING ELSE.  OWNERSHIP IMPLIES ACQUISITION IN THE
VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH LAND IS ACQUIRED - BY CONQUEST, BY DISCOVERY AND
CLAIM, BY CESSION, BY PRESCRIPTION, BY PURCHASE, BY CONDEMNATION.  WHEN
AND HOW DID THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRE THIS LAND? 

THE FACT THAT THESE OIL DEPOSITS IN THE OPEN SEA MAY BE VITAL TO THE
NATIONAL SECURITY, AND IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS, IS NO MORE RELEVANT THAN IS THE EXISTENCE OF URANIUM DEPOSITS,
WHEREVER THEY MAY BE, IN DETERMINING QUESTIONS OF TRESPASS TO THE LAND
OF WHICH THEY FORM A PART.  THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE AN EXERCISE
OF NATIONAL POWER IS ACTIVELY AND PRESENTLY INTERFERED WITH.  IN SUCH A
CASE, THE INHERENT POWER OF A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY MAY BE INVOKED TO
PREVENT OR REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTION.  IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564; SANITARY
DISTRICT V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 405.  NEITHER THE BILL, NOR THE
OPINION SUSTAINING IT, SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS INTERFERENCE BY
CALIFORNIA OR THE ALLEGED TRESPASSERS WITH ANY AUTHORITY WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT PRESENTLY SEEKS TO EXERCISE.  IT IS BESIDE THE POINT TO SAY
THAT "IF WARS COME, THEY MUST BE FOUGHT BY THE NATION."  NOR IS IT
RELEVANT THAT "THE VERY OIL ABOUT WHICH THE STATE AND NATION HERE
CONTEND MIGHT WELL BECOME THE SUBJECT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE AND
SETTLEMENT."  IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT URANIUM HAS BECOME "THE
SUBJECT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE" WITH A VIEW TO SETTLEMENT.  COMPARE
MISSOURI V. HOLLAND, 252 U.S. 416. 

TO DECLARE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS "NATIONAL DOMINION" IS MERELY A
WAY OF SAYING THAT VIS-A-VIS ALL OTHER NATIONS THE GOVERNMENT IS THE
SOVEREIGN.  IF THAT IS WHAT THE COURT'S DECREE MEANS, IT NEEDS NO
PRONOUNCEMENT BY THIS COURT TO CONFER OR DECLARE SUCH SOVEREIGNTY.  IF
IT MEANS MORE THAN THAT, IT IMPLIES THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS SOME
PROPRIETARY INTEREST.  THAT HAS NOT BEEN REMOTELY ESTABLISHED EXCEPT BY
SLIDING FROM ABSENCE OF OWNERSHIP BY CALIFORNIA TO OWNERSHIP BY THE
UNITED STATES. 

LET US ASSUME, FOR THE PRESENT, THAT OWNERSHIP BY CALIFORNIA CANNOT
BE PROVEN.  ON A FAIR ANALYSIS OF ALL THE EVIDENCE BEARING ON
OWNERSHIP, THEN, THIS AREA IS, I BELIEVE, TO BE DEEMED UNCLAIMED LAND,
AND THE DETERMINATION TO CLAIM IT ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES IS A
POLITICAL DECISION NOT FOR THIS COURT.  THE CONSTITUTION PLACES VAST
AUTHORITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS IN THE INDEPENDENT HANDS
OF THE PRESIDENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S.
304.  IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE COURT DOES NOT TREAT THE PRESIDENT'S
PROCLAMATION IN REGARD TO THE DISPUTED AREA AS AN ASSERTION OF
OWNERSHIP.  SEE EXEC. PROC. 2667(SEPT.  28, 1945) 10 F.R. 12303.  IF
CALIFORNIA IS FOUND TO HAVE NO TITLE, AND THIS AREA IS REGARDED AS
UNCLAIMED LAND, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS
BETWEEN THEM COULD MAKE IT PART OF THE NATIONAL DOMAIN AND THEREBY
BRING IT UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
DISPOSITION OF THE AREA, THE RIGHTS TO BE CREATED IN IT, THE RIGHTS
HERETOFORE CLAIMED IN IT THROUGH USAGE THAT MIGHT BE RESPECTED THOUGH
IT FALL SHORT OF PRESCRIPTION, ALL RAISE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS OF
POLICY, QUESTIONS OF ACCOMMODATION, FOR THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH
CONGRESS AND NOT THIS COURT IS THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY. 

TODAY THIS COURT HAS DECIDED THAT A NEW APPLICATION EVEN IN THE OLD
FIELD OF TORTS SHOULD NOT BE MADE BY ADJUDICATION, WHERE CONGRESS HAS
REFRAINED FROM ACTING.  UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL CO., 332 U.S.
301.  CONSIDERATIONS OF JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT WOULD SEEM TO ME FAR
MORE COMPELLING WHERE THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY AT STAKE CLAIMS THAT INVOLVE
SO MANY FAR-REACHING, COMPLICATED, HISTORIC INTERESTS, THE PROPER
ADJUSTMENTS OF WHICH ARE NOT READILY RESOLVED BY THE MATERIALS AND
METHODS TO WHICH THIS COURT IS CONFINED. 

THIS IS A SUMMARY STATEMENT OF VIEWS WHICH IT WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE
TO ELABORATE.  I THINK THAT THE BILL SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. 
..END :























ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46 


NO. 102.  ARGUED JANUARY 15-16, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 27
CAL.2D 478, 165 P.2D 3, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE GUARANTY OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAT NO PERSON "SHALL BE
COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF" IS NOT
MADE EFFECTIVE AGAINST STATE ACTION BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, AND PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S.
319, REAFFIRMED.  PP. 50-53. 

2.  THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS NOT INHERENT IN THE
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, AND IS THEREFORE NOT ON THAT BASIS PROTECTED BY
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 53-54. 

3.  THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA PROVIDE THAT, IN ANY
CRIMINAL CASE, WHETHER THE DEFENDANT TESTIFIES OR NOT, HIS "FAILURE TO
EXPLAIN OR TO DENY BY HIS TESTIMONY ANY EVIDENCE OR FACTS IN THE CASE
AGAINST HIM MAY BE COMMENTED UPON" BY THE COURT AND BY COUNSEL, AND MAY
BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OR THE JURY.  IF THE DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT
GUILTY, BUT ADMITS A CHARGE THAT HE HAS SUFFERED A PREVIOUS CONVICTION,
THE CHARGE OF THE PREVIOUS CONVICTION MUST NOT BE READ TO THE JURY. 
HOWEVER, IF THE DEFENDANT TESTIFIES, THE PREVIOUS CONVICTION MAY ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION BE REVEALED TO THE JURY TO IMPEACH HIS TESTIMONY.  IN
A PROSECUTION FOR MURDER, IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT ADMITTED PREVIOUS
CONVICTIONS BUT DID NOT TESTIFY, THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY,
AND THE STATE'S ATTORNEY ARGUED THE CASE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE
LAW.  HELD:  THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW, AS APPLIED IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, DO NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 53-58. 

4.  THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE CALIFORNIA LAW FOR THE DEFENDANT'S
OBJECTION ON DUE PROCESS OR OTHER GROUNDS THAT THE STATUTORY
AUTHORIZATION TO COMMENT ON THE FAILURE TO EXPLAIN OR DENY ADVERSE
TESTIMONY SHIFTS THE BURDEN OF PROOF OR THE DUTY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE
EVIDENCE.  P. 58. 

5.  THIS COURT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH A CONCLUSION OF THE STATE
SUPREME COURT THAT IT WAS IMPROBABLE THAT THE JURY WAS MISLED BY THE
PROSECUTOR'S ARGUMENT TO BELIEVE THAT THE JURY COULD INFER GUILT SOLELY
FROM THE DEFENDANT'S SILENCE.  P. 58. 

6.  THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE WAS NOT DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY
THE ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF TOPS OF WOMEN'S STOCKINGS THAT WERE FOUND
IN HIS ROOM, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT MATCH A STOCKING PART WHICH WAS
FOUND UNDER THE VICTIM'S BODY.  PP. 58-59. 

ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE.  THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, 27
CAL.2D 478, 165 P.2D 3, WHICH SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS OF
THE STATE LAW CHALLENGED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
AFFIRMED, P. 59. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT, ADAMSON, A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS
CONVICTED, WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION FOR MERCY, BY A JURY IN A SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  FN1
AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME OBJECTIONS TO THE CONVICTION THAT ARE
PRESSED HERE, THE SENTENCE OF DEATH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE.  27 CAL.2D 478, 165 P.2D 3.  REVIEW OF THAT JUDGMENT BY
THIS COURT WAS SOUGHT AND ALLOWED UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237; 28
U.S.C. SEC. 344.  FN2  THE PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA LAW WHICH WERE
CHALLENGED IN THE STATE PROCEEDINGS AS INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ARE THOSE OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION AND PENAL CODE IN THE MARGIN.  THEY PERMIT THE FAILURE OF
A DEFENDANT TO EXPLAIN OR TO DENY EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM TO BE COMMENTED
UPON BY COURT AND BY COUNSEL AND TO BE CONSIDERED BY COURT AND JURY. 
FN3  THE DEFENDANT DID NOT TESTIFY.  AS THE TRIAL COURT GAVE ITS
INSTRUCTIONS AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ARGUED THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS JUST REFERRED TO, WE
HAVE FOR DECISION THE QUESTION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  FN4 

THE APPELLANT WAS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION WITH FORMER CONVICTIONS
FOR BURGLARY, LARCENY AND ROBBERY AND PURSUANT TO SEC. 1025, CALIFORNIA
PENAL CODE, ANSWERED THAT HE HAD SUFFERED THE PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS. 
THIS ANSWER BARRED ALLUSION TO THESE CHARGES OF CONVICTIONS ON THE
TRIAL.  FN5  UNDER CALIFORNIA'S INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 1025 OF THE
PENAL CODE AND SEC. 2051 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, HOWEVER, IF
THE DEFENDANT, AFTER ANSWERING AFFIRMATIVELY CHARGES ALLEGING PRIOR
CONVICTIONS, TAKES THE WITNESS STAND TO DENY OR EXPLAIN AWAY OTHER
EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED "THE COMMISSION OF THESE CRIMES COULD
HAVE BEEN REVEALED TO THE JURY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION TO IMPEACH HIS
TESTIMONY."  PEOPLE V. ADAMSON, 27 CAL.2D 478, 494, 165 P.2D 3, 11;
PEOPLE V. BRAUN, 14 CAL.2D 1, 6, 92 P.2D 402, 405.  THIS FORCES AN
ACCUSED WHO IS A REPEATED OFFENDER TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE RISK OF HAVING
HIS PRIOR OFFENSES DISCLOSED TO THE JURY OR OF HAVING IT DRAW HARMFUL
INFERENCES FROM UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THAT CAN ONLY BE DENIED OR
EXPLAINED BY THE DEFENDANT. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, APPELLANT URGES THAT THE PROVISION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT THAT NO PERSON "SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE
A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF" IS A FUNDAMENTAL NATIONAL PRIVILEGE OR
IMMUNITY PROTECTED AGAINST STATE ABRIDGMENT BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
OR A PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY SECURED, THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
AGAINST DEPRIVATION BY STATE ACTION BECAUSE IT IS A PERSONAL RIGHT,
ENUMERATED IN THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS. 

SECONDLY, APPELLANT RELIES UPON THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO INVALIDATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
LAW, SET OUT IN NOTE 3 SUPRA, AND AS APPLIED (A) BECAUSE COMMENT ON
FAILURE TO TESTIFY IS PERMITTED, (B) BECAUSE APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO
FOREGO TESTIMONY IN PERSON BECAUSE OF DANGER OF DISCLOSURE OF HIS PAST
CONVICTIONS THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND (C) BECAUSE THE PRESUMPTION
OF INNOCENCE WAS INFRINGED BY THE SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO
APPELLANT IN PERMITTING COMMENT ON HIS FAILURE TO TESTIFY. 

WE SHALL ASSUME, BUT WITHOUT ANY INTENTION THEREBY OF RULING UPON THE
ISSUE,  FN6  THAT PERMISSION BY LAW TO THE COURT, COUNSEL AND JURY TO
COMMENT UPON AND CONSIDER THE FAILURE OF DEFENDANT "TO EXPLAIN OR TO
DENY BY HIS TESTIMONY ANY EVIDENCE OR FACTS IN THE CASE AGAINST HIM"
WOULD INFRINGE DEFENDANT'S PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IF THIS WERE A TRIAL IN A COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES UNDER A SIMILAR LAW.  SUCH AN ASSUMPTION DOES NOT DETERMINE
APPELLANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT IS SETTLED LAW
THAT THE CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, PROTECTING A PERSON AGAINST
BEING COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, IS NOT MADE EFFECTIVE
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A PROTECTION AGAINST STATE ACTION ON THE
GROUND THAT FREEDOM FROM TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION IS A RIGHT OF NATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP, OR BECAUSE IT IS A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY SECURED
BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS ONE OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN THAT ARE LISTED
IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 

THE REASONING THAT LEADS TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS STARTS WITH THE
UNQUESTIONED PREMISE THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS, WHEN ADOPTED, WAS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS
PROVISIONS WERE INAPPLICABLE TO SIMILAR ACTIONS DONE BY THE STATES. 
BARRON V. BALTIMORE, 7 PET. 243; FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S.
487, 490.  WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT WAS
SUGGESTED THAT THE DUAL CITIZENSHIP RECOGNIZED BY ITS FIRST SENTENCE
FN7 SECURED FOR CITIZENS FEDERAL PROTECTION FOR THEIR ELEMENTAL
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF STATE CITIZENSHIP.  THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE
CASES  FN8 DECIDED, CONTRARY TO THE SUGGESTION, THAT THESE RIGHTS, AS
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF STATE CITIZENSHIP, REMAINED UNDER THE SOLE
PROTECTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS.  THIS COURT, WITHOUT THE
EXPRESSION OF A CONTRARY VIEW UPON THAT PHASE OF THE ISSUES BEFORE THE
COURT, HAS APPROVED THIS DETERMINATION.  MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250 U.S.
525, 537; HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245, 261.  THE POWER TO FREE
DEFENDANTS IN STATE TRIALS FROM SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS SPECIFICALLY
DETERMINED TO BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S.
78, 91-98.  "THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION MAY BE WITHDRAWN
AND THE ACCUSED PUT UPON THE STAND AS A WITNESS FOR THE STATE."  FN9
THE TWINING CASE LIKEWISE DISPOSED OF THE CONTENTION THAT FREEDOM FROM
TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION, BEING SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY THE BILL OF
RIGHTS, IS A FEDERAL PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY THAT IS PROTECTED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST STATE INVASION.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE
INCLUSION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THIS PROTECTION AGAINST THE POWER OF
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT DID NOT MAKE THE PRIVILEGE A FEDERAL PRIVILEGE
OR IMMUNITY SECURED TO CITIZENS BY THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST STATE
ACTION.  TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, AT 98-99; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT,
SUPRA, AT 328.  AFTER DECLARING THAT STATE AND NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP
COEXIST IN THE SAME PERSON, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS A STATE
FROM ABRIDGING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  AS A MATTER OF WORDS, THIS LEAVES A STATE FREE TO ABRIDGE,
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES FLOWING FROM STATE CITIZENSHIP.  THIS READING OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION HAS HERETOFORE FOUND FAVOR WITH THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT
AS A NATURAL AND LOGICAL INTERPRETATION.  IT ACCORDS WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE OF FEDERALISM BY LEAVING TO THE STATES THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF DEALING WITH THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THEIR
CITIZENS EXCEPT THOSE INHERENT IN NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP.  FN10  IT IS
THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE AMENDMENT BY JUSTICES WHOSE OWN
EXPERIENCE HAD GIVEN THEM CONTEMPORANEOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PURPOSES
THAT LED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THIS
CONSTRUCTION HAS BECOME EMBEDDED IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM AS A FUNCTIONING
ELEMENT IN PRESERVING THE BALANCE BETWEEN NATIONAL AND STATE POWER.  WE
REAFFIRM THE CONCLUSION OF THE TWINING AND PALKO CASES THAT PROTECTION
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS NOT A PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY OF NATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP. 

APPELLANT SECONDLY CONTENDS THAT IF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION IS NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST STATE ACTION, THIS
PRIVILEGE, TO ITS FULL SCOPE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, INHERES IN THE
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.  A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IS A RIGHT ADMITTEDLY
PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN11
THEREFORE, APPELLANT ARGUES, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT PROTECTS HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DRAW ALL
THE RIGHTS OF THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS UNDER ITS PROTECTION.  THAT
CONTENTION WAS MADE AND REJECTED IN PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319,
323.  IT WAS REJECTED WITH CITATION OF THE CASES EXCLUDING SEVERAL OF
THE RIGHTS, PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AGAINST INFRINGEMENT BY
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  NOTHING HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION THAT
EITHER THE FRAMERS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR THE STATES THAT
ADOPTED INTENDED ITS DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO DRAW WITHIN ITS SCOPE THE
EARLIER AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.  PALKO HELD THAT SUCH
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS WERE "IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF
ORDERED LIBERTY," P. 325, BECAME SECURE FROM STATE INTERFERENCE BY THE
CLAUSE.  BUT IT HELD NOTHING MORE. 

SPECIFICALLY, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT PROTECT, BY VIRTUE OF
ITS MERE EXISTENCE, THE ACCUSED'S FREEDOM FROM GIVING TESTIMONY BY
COMPULSION IN STATE TRIALS THAT IS SECURED TO HIM AGAINST FEDERAL
INTERFERENCE BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S.
78, 99-114; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, P. 323.  FOR A STATE TO
REQUIRE TESTIMONY FROM AN ACCUSED IS NOT NECESSARILY A BREACH OF A
STATE'S OBLIGATION TO GIVE A FAIR TRIAL.  THEREFORE, WE MUST EXAMINE
THE EFFECT OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW APPLIED IN THIS TRIAL TO SEE WHETHER
THE COMMENT ON FAILURE TO TESTIFY VIOLATES THE PROTECTION AGAINST STATE
ACTION THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES GRANT TO AN ACCUSED.  THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE FORBIDS COMPULSION TO TESTIFY BY FEAR OF HURT, TORTURE
OR EXHAUSTION.  FN12  IT FORBIDS ANY OTHER TYPE OF COERCION THAT FALLS
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DUE PROCESS.  FN13  CALIFORNIA FOLLOWS ANGLO
AMERICAN LEGAL TRADITION IN EXCUSING DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS FROM COMPULSORY TESTIMONY.  CF. VIII WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE
(3D ED.)  SEC. 2252.  THAT IS A MATTER OF LEGAL POLICY AND NOT BECAUSE
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
FN14  SO OUR INQUIRY IS DIRECTED, NOT AT THE BROAD QUESTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF COMPULSORY TESTIMONY FROM THE ACCUSED UNDER THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, BUT TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISION OF
THE CALIFORNIA LAW THAT PERMITS COMMENT UPON HIS FAILURE TO TESTIFY. 
IT IS, OF COURSE, LOGICALLY POSSIBLE THAT WHILE AN ACCUSED MIGHT BE
REQUIRED, UNDER APPROPRIATE PENALTIES, TO SUBMIT HIMSELF AS A WITNESS
WITHOUT A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, COMMENT BY JUDGE OR JURY ON
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM HIS FAILURE TO TESTIFY, IN JURISDICTIONS
WHERE AN ACCUSED'S PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS PROTECTED,
MIGHT DENY DUE PROCESS.  FOR EXAMPLE, A STATUTE MIGHT DECLARE THAT A
PERMITTED REFUSAL TO TESTIFY WOULD COMPEL AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRUTH OF
THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE. 

GENERALLY, COMMENT ON THE FAILURE OF AN ACCUSED TO TESTIFY IS
FORBIDDEN IN AMERICAN JURISDICTIONS.  FN15  THIS ARISES FROM STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO THE
FEDERAL PROVISIONS.  FIFTH AMENDMENT AND 28 U.S.C. SEC. 632. 
CALIFORNIA, HOWEVER, IS ONE OF A FEW STATES THAT PERMIT LIMITED COMMENT
UPON A DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO TESTIFY.  FN16  THAT PERMISSION IS
NARROW.  THE CALIFORNIA LAW IS SET OUT IN NOTE 3 AND AUTHORIZES COMMENT
BY COURT AND COUNSEL UPON THE "FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO EXPLAIN OR
TO DENY BY HIS TESTIMONY ANY EVIDENCE OR FACTS IN THE CASE AGAINST
HIM."  THIS DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY PRESUMPTION, REBUTTABLE OR
IRREBUTTABLE, EITHER OF GUILT OR OF THE TRUTH OF ANY FACT, THAT IS
OFFERED IN EVIDENCE.  COMPARE TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463, 470. 
IT ALLOWS INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM PROVEN FACTS.  BECAUSE OF THIS
CLAUSE, THE COURT CAN DIRECT THE JURY'S ATTENTION TO WHATEVER EVIDENCE
THERE MAY BE THAT A DEFENDANT COULD DENY AND THE PROSECUTION CAN ARGUE
AS TO INFERENCES THAT MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO
TESTIFY.  COMPARE CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470, 492-95;
RAFFEL V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 494, 497.  THERE IS HERE NO LACK OF
POWER IN THE TRIAL COURT TO ADJUDGE AND NO DENIAL OF A HEARING. 
CALIFORNIA HAS PRESCRIBED A METHOD FOR ADVISING THE JURY IN THE SEARCH
FOR TRUTH.  HOWEVER SOUND MAY BE THE LEGISLATIVE CONCLUSION THAT AN
ACCUSED SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS
AGAINST HIMSELF, WE SEE NO REASON WHY COMMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE UPON
HIS SILENCE.  IT SEEMS QUITE NATURAL THAT WHEN A DEFENDANT HAS
OPPORTUNITY TO DENY OR EXPLAIN FACTS AND DETERMINES NOT TO DO SO, THE
PROSECUTION SHOULD BRING OUT THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE BY COMMENTING
UPON DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN OR DENY IT.  THE PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE MAY BE OF FACTS THAT MAY BE BEYOND THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
ACCUSED.  IF SO, HIS FAILURE TO TESTIFY WOULD HAVE LITTLE IF ANY
WEIGHT.  BUT THE FACTS MAY BE SUCH AS ARE NECESSARILY IN THE KNOWLEDGE
OF THE ACCUSED.  IN THAT CASE A FAILURE TO EXPLAIN WOULD POINT TO AN
INABILITY TO EXPLAIN.    APPELLANT SETS OUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, HOWEVER, TO SHOW COERCION AND UNFAIRNESS IN PERMITTING COMMENT. 
THE GUILTY PERSON WAS NOT SEEN AT THE PLACE AND TIME OF THE CRIME. 
THERE WAS EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THAT ENTRANCE TO THE PLACE OR ROOM WHERE
THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED MIGHT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED THROUGH A SMALL DOOR. 
IT WAS FRESHLY BROKEN.  EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT SIX FINGERPRINTS ON THE
DOOR WERE PETITIONER'S.  CERTAIN DIAMOND RINGS WERE MISSING FROM THE
DECEASED'S POSSESSION.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT, SOMETIME
AFTER THE CRIME, ASKED AN UNIDENTIFIED PERSON WHETHER THE LATTER WOULD
BE INTERESTED IN PURCHASING A DIAMOND RING.  AS HAS BEEN STATED, THE
INFORMATION CHARGED OTHER CRIMES TO APPELLANT AND HE ADMITTED THEM. 
HIS ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT HE COULD NOT TAKE THE STAND TO DENY THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE HE WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO A CROSS
EXAMINATION AS TO FORMER CRIMES TO IMPEACH HIS VERACITY AND THE
EVIDENCE SO PRODUCED MIGHT WELL BRING ABOUT HIS CONVICTION.  SUCH CROSS
EXAMINATION IS ALLOWABLE IN CALIFORNIA.  PEOPLE V. ADAMSON, 27 CAL.2D
478, 494, 165 P.2D 3, 11.  THEREFORE, APPELLANT CONTENDS THE CALIFORNIA
STATUTE PERMITTING COMMENT DENIES HIM DUE PROCESS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IF COMMENT WERE FORBIDDEN, AN ACCUSED IN THIS
SITUATION COULD REMAIN SILENT AND AVOID EVIDENCE OF FORMER CRIMES AND
COMMENT UPON HIS FAILURE TO TESTIFY.  WE ARE OF THE VIEW, HOWEVER, THAT
A STATE MAY CONTROL SUCH A SITUATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OWN IDEAS
OF THE MOST EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  THE PURPOSE
OF DUE PROCESS IS NOT TO PROTECT AN ACCUSED AGAINST A PROPER CONVICTION
BUT AGAINST AN UNFAIR CONVICTION.  WHEN EVIDENCE IS BEFORE A JURY THAT
THREATENS CONVICTION, IT DOES NOT SEEM UNFAIR TO REQUIRE HIM TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN LEAVING THE ADVERSE EVIDENCE UNEXPLAINED AND SUBJECTING HIMSELF
TO IMPEACHMENT THROUGH DISCLOSURE OF FORMER CRIMES.  INDEED, THIS IS A
DILEMMA WITH WHICH ANY DEFENDANT MAY BE FACED.  IF FACTS, ADVERSE TO
THE DEFENDANT, ARE PROVEN BY THE PROSECUTION, THERE MAY BE NO WAY TO
EXPLAIN THEM FAVORABLY TO THE ACCUSED EXCEPT BY A WITNESS WHO MAY BE
VULNERABLE TO IMPEACHMENT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.  THE DEFENDANT MUST
THEN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO USE SUCH A WITNESS.  THE FACT THAT THE
WITNESS MAY ALSO BE THE DEFENDANT MAKES THE CHOICE MORE DIFFICULT BUT A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS DOES NOT EMERGE FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN17 

THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE CALIFORNIA LAW FOR APPELLANT'S OBJECTION ON
DUE PROCESS OR OTHER GROUNDS THAT THE STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION TO
COMMENT ON THE FAILURE TO EXPLAIN OR DENY ADVERSE TESTIMONY SHIFTS THE
BURDEN OF PROOF OR THE DUTY TO GO FORWARD WITH THE EVIDENCE.  FAILURE
OF THE ACCUSED TO TESTIFY IS NOT AN ADMISSION OF THE TRUTH OF THE
ADVERSE EVIDENCE.  INSTRUCTIONS TOLD THE JURY THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF
REMAINED UPON THE STATE AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WITH THE
ACCUSED.  COMMENT ON FAILURE TO DENY PROVEN FACTS DOES NOT IN
CALIFORNIA TEND TO SUPPLY ANY MISSING ELEMENT OF PROOF OF GUILT. 
PEOPLE V. ADAMSON, 27 CAL.2D 478, 489-95, 165 P.2D 3, 9-12.  IT ONLY
DIRECTS ATTENTION TO THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
OR TO THE WEAKNESS OF THAT FOR THE DEFENSE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA CALLED ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTOR'S ARGUMENT
APPROACHED THE BORDERLINE IN A STATEMENT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED
AS ASSERTING "THAT THE JURY SHOULD INFER GUILT SOLELY FROM DEFENDANT'S
SILENCE."  THAT COURT FELT THAT IT WAS IMPROBABLE THE JURY WAS MISLED
INTO SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR POWER.  WE SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH
SUCH A CONCLUSION.  PEOPLE V. ADAMSON, 27 CAL.2D 478, 494-95, 165 P.2D
3, 12. 

FINALLY, APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW WAS DENIED HIM BY
THE INTRODUCTION AS EVIDENCE OF TOPS OF WOMEN'S STOCKINGS THAT WERE
FOUND IN HIS ROOM.  THE CLAIM IS MADE THAT SUCH EVIDENCE INFLAMED THE
JURY.  THE LOWER PART OF A WOMAN'S STOCKING WAS FOUND UNDER THE
VICTIM'S BODY.  THE TOP WAS NOT FOUND.  THE CORPSE WAS BARELEGGED.  THE
TOPS FROM DEFENDANT'S ROOM DID NOT MATCH THE LOWER PART FOUND UNDER THE
DEAD BODY.  THE CALIFORNIA COURT HELD THAT THE TOPS WERE ADMISSIBLE AS
EVIDENCE BECAUSE THIS "INTEREST IN WOMEN'S STOCKING TOPS IS A
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT TENDS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT" AS THE PERPETRATOR OF
THE CRIME.  WE DO NOT THINK THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS EVIDENCE VIOLATED
ANY FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. 

WE FIND NO OTHER ERROR THAT GIVES GROUND FOR OUR INTERVENTION IN
CALIFORNIA'S ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THERE WAS ALSO A CONVICTION FOR FIRST DEGREE BURGLARY.  THIS
REQUIRES NO DISCUSSION. 

FN2  THIS SECTION AUTHORIZES APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM THE FINAL
JUDGMENT OF A STATE WHEN THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE IS QUESTIONED
ON THE GROUND OF ITS BEING REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE SECTION HAS BEEN APPLIED SO AS TO COVER A STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC. V. VIRGINIA,
282 U.S. 440; KING MFG. CO. V. AUGUSTA, 277 U.S. 100. 

FN3  CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA, ART. I, SEC. 13: 

"  ...  NO PERSON SHALL BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME
OFFENSE; NOR BE COMPELLED, IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE, TO BE A WITNESS
AGAINST HIMSELF; NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW; BUT IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE, WHETHER THE DEFENDANT
TESTIFIES OR NOT, HIS FAILURE TO EXPLAIN OR TO DENY BY HIS TESTIMONY
ANY EVIDENCE OR FACTS IN THE CASE AGAINST HIM MAY BE COMMENTED UPON BY
THE COURT AND BY COUNSEL, AND MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OR THE
JURY.  ...  " 

PENAL CODE OF CALIFORNIA, SEC. 1323:  "A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL
ACTION OR PROCEEDING CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF; BUT IF HE OFFERS HIMSELF AS A WITNESS, HE MAY BE CROSS
EXAMINED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PEOPLE AS TO ALL MATTERS ABOUT WHICH HE
WAS EXAMINED IN CHIEF.  THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO EXPLAIN OR TO
DENY BY HIS TESTIMONY ANY EVIDENCE OR FACTS IN THE CASE AGAINST HIM MAY
BE COMMENTED UPON BY COUNSEL." 

FN4  "ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND OF THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE.  NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE
ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE,
LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY
PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

FN5  PENAL CODE OF CALIFORNIA, SEC. 1025:  "  ...  IN CASE THE
DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT GUILTY, AND ANSWERS THAT HE HAS SUFFERED THE
PREVIOUS CONVICTION, THE CHARGE OF THE PREVIOUS CONVICTION MUST NOT BE
READ TO THE JURY, NOR ALLUDED TO ON THE TRIAL." 

FN6  THE CALIFORNIA LAW PROTECTS A DEFENDANT AGAINST COMPULSION TO
TESTIFY, THOUGH ALLOWING COMMENT UPON HIS FAILURE TO MEET EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIM.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS COMPULSION ON A DEFENDANT TO
TESTIFY.  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, 631, 632; CF. DAVIS V.
UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, 587, 593.  A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT GREW OUT
OF THE EXTENSION OF PERMISSIBLE WITNESSES TO INCLUDE THOSE CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES NEGATIVES A PRESUMPTION AGAINST AN ACCUSED FOR FAILURE TO
AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE RIGHT TO TESTIFY IN HIS OWN DEFENSE.  28 U.S.C.
SEC. 632; BRUNO V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 287.  IT WAS THIS STATUTE
WHICH IS INTERPRETED TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT AGAINST COMMENT FOR HIS
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE.  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 60, 66; JOHNSON
V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189, 199. 

FN7  "ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND OF THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE." 

FN8  16 WALL.  36.  THE BRIEF OF MR. FELLOWS FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN
ERROR SET OUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN AN EFFORT TO SHOW THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS TO PUT THE
"RIGHTS OF CITIZENS" UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT WAS
POINTED OUT, P. 12, THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS NEEDED TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT RESULT.  AFTER QUOTING FROM THE DEBATES, THE BRIEF
SUMMARIZED THE ARGUMENT, AS FOLLOWS, P. 21: 

"AS THE RESULT OF THIS EXAMINATION, THE ONLY CONCLUSION TO BE ARRIVED
AT, AS TO THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS IN PROPOSING THE AMENDMENTS, AND
ESPECIALLY THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE
INTERPRETATION UNIVERSALLY PUT UPON IT BY EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS,
WHETHER FRIEND OR FOE, THE INTERPRETATION IN WHICH ALL WERE AGREED,
WAS, IN THE WORDS OF MR. HALE, 'THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO EVERY
STATE WHICH HAS FAILED TO APPLY EQUAL PROTECTION TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY;' OR IN THE WORDS OF MR. BINGHAM, 'THAT THE PROTECTION GIVEN
BY THE LAWS OF THE STATES SHALL BE EQUAL IN RESPECT TO LIFE, LIBERTY
AND PROPERTY TO ALL PERSONS;' OR IN THE LANGUAGE OF MR. SUMNER, THAT IT
ABOLISHED 'OLIGARCHY, ARISTOCRACY, CASTE, OR MONOPOLY WITH PECULIAR
PRIVILEGES AND POWERS.'" 

FN9  SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 105; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT,
302 U.S. 319, 324; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, 114. 

FN10  SEE MADDEN V. KENTUCKY, 309 U.S. 83, 90, AND CASES CITED; AND
SEE THE CONCURRING OPINIONS IN EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160, AND
THE OPINION OF STONE, J., IN HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 519. 

FN11  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86, 91; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309
U.S. 227, 238; BUCHALTER V. NEW YORK, 319 U.S. 427. 

FN12  WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S.
278; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 154; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE,
327 U.S. 274. 

FN13  SEE MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, CONCURRING OP. AT 414,
DISSENT AT 438; BUCHALTER V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, AT 429; PALKO V.
CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 325; CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173. 

STATE ACTION MUST "BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR CIVIL AND
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND NOT INFREQUENTLY ARE DESIGNATED AS 'LAW OF
THE LAND.'"  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316. 

FN14  TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, PP. 110-12. 

FN15  VIII WIGMORE, SUPRA, P. 412. 

FN16  THE CASES AND STATUTORY REFERENCES ARE COLLECTED IN VIII
WIGMORE, SUPRA, AT PP. 413 ET SEQ.  NEW JERSEY, OHIO AND VERMONT PERMIT
COMMENT.  THE QUESTION OF PERMITTING COMMENT UPON THE FAILURE OF AN
ACCUSED TO TESTIFY HAS BEEN A MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION IN RECENT
YEARS.  SEE REPORTS OF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1931) 137;
PROCEEDINGS, AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, 1930-31, 202; REEDER, COMMENT UPON
FAILURE OF ACCUSED TO TESTIFY, 31 MICH. L. REV. 40; BRUCE, THE RIGHT TO
COMMENT ON THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY, ID., 226. 

FN17  COMMENT HERE DID NOT FOLLOW A GRANT OF PRIVILEGE THAT CARRIED
IMMUNITY FROM COMMENT.  THE CHOICE BETWEEN GIVING EVIDENCE AND
REMAINING SILENT WAS AN OPEN CHOICE.  THERE WAS NO SUCH POSSIBLE
MISLEADING OF THE DEFENDANT AS WE CONDEMNED IN JOHNSON V. UNITED
STATES, 318 U.S. 189, 195-99. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

LESS THAN TEN YEARS AGO, MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO ANNOUNCED AS SETTLED
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT WHILE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, "WHICH IS NOT
DIRECTED TO THE STATES, BUT SOLELY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT," PROVIDES
THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS
AGAINST HIMSELF, THE PROCESS OF LAW ASSURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH IMMUNITY FROM SELF-CRIMINATION:  "IN PROSECUTIONS
BY A STATE, THE EXEMPTION WILL FAIL IF THE STATE ELECTS TO END IT." 
PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 322, 324.  MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO
SPOKE FOR THE COURT, CONSISTING OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, AND
MCREYNOLDS, BRANDEIS, SUTHERLAND, STONE, ROBERTS, BLACK, JJ.  (MR.
JUSTICE BUTLER DISSENTED.)  THE MATTER NO LONGER CALLED FOR DISCUSSION;
A REFERENCE TO TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, DECIDED THIRTY YEARS
BEFORE THE PALKO CASE, SUFFICED. 

DECISIONS OF THIS COURT DO NOT HAVE EQUAL INTRINSIC AUTHORITY.  THE
TWINING CASE SHOWS THE JUDICIAL PROCESS AT ITS BEST - COMPREHENSIVE
BRIEFS AND POWERFUL ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES, FOLLOWED BY LONG
DELIBERATION, RESULTING IN AN OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MOODY WHICH AT
ONCE GAINED AND HAS EVER SINCE RETAINED RECOGNITION AS ONE OF THE
OUTSTANDING OPINIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE COURT.  AFTER ENJOYING
UNQUESTIONED PRESTIGE FOR FORTY YEARS, THE TWINING CASE SHOULD NOT NOW
BE DILUTED, EVEN UNWITTINGLY, EITHER IN ITS JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY OR IN
ITS PARTICULARS.  AS THE SUREST WAY OF KEEPING THE TWINING CASE INTACT,
I WOULD AFFIRM THIS CASE ON ITS AUTHORITY. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE PRESENT A MINOR VARIANT FROM WHAT WAS
BEFORE THE COURT IN TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA.  THE ATTEMPT TO
INFLATE THE DIFFERENCE INTO CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE WAS ADEQUATELY
DEALT WITH BY MR. JUSTICE TRAYNOR IN THE COURT BELOW.  PEOPLE V.
ADAMSON, 27 CAL.2D 478, 165 P.2D 3.  THE MATTER LIES WITHIN A VERY
NARROW COMPASS.  THE POINT IS MADE THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAS A
VULNERABLE RECORD WOULD, BY TAKING THE STAND, SUBJECT HIMSELF TO HAVING
HIS CREDIBILITY IMPEACHED THEREBY.  SEE RAFFEL V. UNITED STATES, 271
U.S. 494, 496-97.  ACCORDINGLY, UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, HE IS CONFRONTED
WITH THE DILEMMA, WHETHER TO TESTIFY AND PERCHANCE HAVE HIS BAD RECORD
PREJUDICE HIM IN THE MINDS OF THE JURY, OR TO SUBJECT HIMSELF TO THE
UNFAVORABLE INFERENCE WHICH THE JURY MIGHT DRAW FROM HIS SILENCE.  AND
SO, IT IS ARGUED, IF HE CHOOSES THE LATTER ALTERNATIVE, THE JURY OUGHT
NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO ATTRIBUTE HIS SILENCE TO A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT
WHEN IT MIGHT BE DUE MERELY TO A DESIRE TO ESCAPE DAMAGING CROSS
EXAMINATION. 

THIS DOES NOT CREATE AN ISSUE DIFFERENT FROM THAT SETTLED IN THE
TWINING CASE.  ONLY A TECHNICAL RULE OF LAW WOULD EXCLUDE FROM
CONSIDERATION THAT WHICH IS RELEVANT, AS A MATTER OF FAIR REASONING, TO
THE SOLUTION OF A PROBLEM.  SENSIBLE AND JUST-MINDED MEN, IN IMPORTANT
AFFAIRS OF LIFE, DEEM IT SIGNIFICANT THAT A MAN REMAINS SILENT WHEN
CONFRONTED WITH SERIOUS AND RESPONSIBLE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIMSELF WHICH
IT IS WITHIN HIS POWER TO CONTRADICT.  THE NOTION THAT TO ALLOW JURORS
TO DO THAT WHICH SENSIBLE AND RIGHT-MINDED MEN DO EVERY DAY VIOLATES
THE "IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE" AS CONCEIVED BY A CIVILIZED
SOCIETY IS TO TRIVIALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF "DUE PROCESS."  NOR DOES IT
MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN DRAWING SIGNIFICANCE FROM SILENCE UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AN ACCUSED MAY DEEM IT MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO REMAIN
SILENT THAN TO SPEAK, ON THE NICE CALCULATION THAT BY TAKING THE
WITNESS STAND HE MAY EXPOSE HIMSELF TO HAVING HIS CREDIBILITY IMPUGNED
BY REASON OF HIS CRIMINAL RECORD.  SILENCE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS
STILL SIGNIFICANT.  A PERSON IN THAT SITUATION MAY EXPRESS TO THE JURY,
THROUGH APPROPRIATE REQUESTS TO CHARGE, WHY HE PREFERS TO KEEP SILENT. 
A MAN WHO HAS DONE ONE WRONG MAY PROVE HIS INNOCENCE ON A TOTALLY
DIFFERENT CHARGE.  TO DENY THAT THE JURY CAN BE TRUSTED TO MAKE SUCH
DISCRIMINATION IS TO SHOW LITTLE CONFIDENCE IN THE JURY SYSTEM.  THE
PROSECUTION IS FREQUENTLY COMPELLED TO RELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF SHADY
CHARACTERS WHOSE CREDIBILITY IS BOUND TO BE THE CHIEF TARGET OF THE
DEFENSE.  IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS TO DRAW OUT OF A
VULNERABLE WITNESS' MOUTH HIS VULNERABILITY, AND THEN CONVINCE THE JURY
THAT NEVERTHELESS HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. 
THIS IS ALSO A COMMON EXPERIENCE FOR DEFENDANTS. 

FOR HISTORICAL REASONS A LIMITED IMMUNITY FROM THE COMMON DUTY TO
TESTIFY WAS WRITTEN INTO THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS, AND I AM PREPARED
TO AGREE THAT, AS PART OF THAT IMMUNITY, COMMENT ON THE FAILURE OF AN
ACCUSED TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND IS FORBIDDEN IN FEDERAL
PROSECUTIONS.  IT IS SO, OF COURSE, BY EXPLICIT ACT OF CONGRESS.  20
STAT. 30; SEE BRUNO V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 287.  BUT TO SUGGEST
THAT SUCH A LIMITATION CAN BE DRAWN OUT OF "DUE PROCESS" IN ITS
PROTECTION OF ULTIMATE DECENCY IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY IS TO SUGGEST
THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FASTENED FETTERS OF UNREASON UPON THE
STATES.  (THIS OPINION IS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  I PUT TO ONE SIDE THE
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THAT AMENDMENT.  FOR THE MISCHIEVOUS
USES TO WHICH THAT CLAUSE WOULD LEND ITSELF IF ITS SCOPE WERE NOT
CONFINED TO THAT GIVEN IT BY ALL BUT ONE OF THE DECISIONS BEGINNING
WITH THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, SEE THE DEVIATION IN
COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, OVERRULED BY MADDEN V. KENTUCKY, 309
U.S. 83.) 

BETWEEN THE INCORPORATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INTO THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENT MEMBERSHIP OF THE COURT -
A PERIOD OF SEVENTY YEARS - THE SCOPE OF THAT AMENDMENT WAS PASSED UPON
BY FORTY-THREE JUDGES.  OF ALL THESE JUDGES, ONLY ONE, WHO MAY
RESPECTFULLY BE CALLED AN ECCENTRIC EXCEPTION, EVER INDICATED THE
BELIEF THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS A SHORTHAND SUMMARY OF THE
FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS THERETOFORE LIMITING ONLY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, AND THAT DUE PROCESS INCORPORATED THOSE EIGHT AMENDMENTS AS
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE POWERS OF THE STATES.  AMONG THESE JUDGES WERE
NOT ONLY THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE TO BE INCLUDED AMONG THE GREATEST IN THE
HISTORY OF THE COURT, BUT - IT IS ESPECIALLY RELEVANT TO NOTE - THEY
INCLUDED THOSE WHOSE SERVICES IN THE CAUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE
SPIRIT OF FREEDOM ARE THE MOST CONSPICUOUS IN OUR HISTORY.  IT IS NOT
INVIDIOUS TO SINGLE OUT MILLER, DAVIS, BRADLEY, WAITE, MATTHEWS, GRAY,
FULLER, HOLMES, BRANDEIS, STONE AND CARDOZO (TO SPEAK ONLY OF THE DEAD)
AS JUDGES WHO WERE ALERT IN SAFEGUARDING AND PROMOTING THE INTERESTS OF
LIBERTY AND HUMAN DIGNITY THROUGH LAW.  BUT THEY WERE ALSO JUDGES
MINDFUL OF THE RELATION OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM TO A PROGRESSIVELY
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND THEREFORE DULY REGARDFUL OF THE SCOPE OF
AUTHORITY THAT WAS LEFT TO THE STATES EVEN AFTER THE CIVIL WAR.  AND SO
THEY DID NOT FIND THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, CONCERNED AS IT WAS
WITH MATTERS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE, FASTENED UPON THE
STATES PROCEDURAL ARRANGEMENTS WHICH, IN THE LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE
CARDOZO, ONLY THOSE WHO ARE "NARROW OR PROVINCIAL" WOULD DEEM ESSENTIAL
TO "A FAIR AND ENLIGHTENED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT,
302 U.S. 319, 325.  TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH A TRULY
FREE SOCIETY TO BEGIN PROSECUTIONS WITHOUT AN INDICTMENT, TO TRY PETTY
CIVIL CASES WITHOUT THE PARAPHERNALIA OF A COMMON LAW JURY, TO TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION THAT ONE WHO HAS FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DEFENSE
REMAINS SILENT IS, IN DE TOCQUEVILLE'S PHRASE, TO CONFOUND THE FAMILIAR
WITH THE NECESSARY. 

THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE PROVISION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHICH ORDAINS "NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY
PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW," WAS
A WAY OF SAYING THAT EVERY STATE MUST THEREAFTER INITIATE PROSECUTIONS
THROUGH INDICTMENT BY A GRAND JURY, MUST HAVE A TRIAL BY A JURY OF
TWELVE IN CRIMINAL CASES, AND MUST HAVE TRIAL BY SUCH A JURY IN COMMON
LAW SUITS WHERE THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS TWENTY DOLLARS, IS
THAT IT IS A STRANGE WAY OF SAYING IT.  IT WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARILY
STRANGE FOR A CONSTITUTION TO CONVEY SUCH SPECIFIC COMMANDS IN SUCH A
ROUNDABOUT AND INEXPLICIT WAY.  AFTER ALL, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE READ IN A "'SENSE MOST OBVIOUS TO THE COMMON
UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME OF ITS ADOPTION.'   ...  FOR IT WAS FOR
PUBLIC ADOPTION THAT IT WAS PROPOSED."  SEE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN
EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 220.  THOSE READING THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE WITH THE MEANING WHICH IT ORDINARILY CONVEYS, THOSE CONVERSANT
WITH THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS,
THOSE SENSITIVE TO THE RELATIONS OF THE STATES TO THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THE RELATION OF SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE, WOULD HARDLY RECOGNIZE THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A COVER FOR THE VARIOUS EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF
THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS.  SOME OF THESE ARE ENDURING REFLECTIONS OF
EXPERIENCE WITH HUMAN NATURE, WHILE SOME EXPRESS THE RESTRICTED VIEWS
OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND REGARDING THE BEST METHODS FOR THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF FACTS.  THE NOTION THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS A
COVERT WAY OF IMPOSING UPON THE STATES ALL THE RULES WHICH IT SEEMED
IMPORTANT TO EIGHTEENTH CENTURY STATESMEN TO WRITE INTO THE FEDERAL
AMENDMENTS, WAS REJECTED BY JUDGES WHO WERE THEMSELVES WITNESSES OF THE
PROCESS BY WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAME PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  ARGUMENTS THAT MAY NOW BE ADDUCED TO PROVE THAT THE
FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS WERE CONCEALED WITHIN THE HISTORIC PHRASING* OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE NOT UNKNOWN AT THE TIME OF ITS ADOPTION. 
A SURER ESTIMATE OF THEIR BEARING WAS POSSIBLE FOR JUDGES AT THE TIME
THAN DISTORTING DISTANCE IS LIKELY TO VOUCHSAFE.  ANY EVIDENCE OF
DESIGN OR PURPOSE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY KNOWN COULD HARDLY HAVE
INFLUENCED THOSE WHO RATIFIED THE AMENDMENT.  REMARKS OF A PARTICULAR
PROPONENT OF THE AMENDMENT, NO MATTER HOW INFLUENTIAL, ARE NOT TO BE
DEEMED PART OF THE AMENDMENT.  WHAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR RATIFICATION WAS
HIS PROPOSAL, NOT HIS SPEECH.  THUS, AT THE TIME OF THE RATIFICATION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THE CONSTITUTIONS OF NEARLY HALF OF THE
RATIFYING STATES DID NOT HAVE THE RIGOROUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT FOR INSTITUTING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS THROUGH A GRAND JURY. 
IT COULD HARDLY HAVE OCCURRED TO THESE STATES THAT BY RATIFYING THE
AMENDMENT THEY UPROOTED THEIR ESTABLISHED METHODS FOR PROSECUTING CRIME
AND FASTENED UPON THEMSELVES A NEW PROSECUTORIAL SYSTEM. 

*"THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DEPRIVING THE CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF HIS
LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IS NOT NEW IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH RACE.  IT IS NOT NEW IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, AND IT WAS NOT NEW IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN IT BECAME A PART OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IN THE YEAR 1866."  DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, 96
U.S. 97, 101. 

INDEED, THE SUGGESTION THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INCORPORATES THE
FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS AS SUCH IS NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY URGED.  EVEN THE
BOLDEST INNOVATOR WOULD SHRINK FROM SUGGESTING TO MORE THAN HALF THE
STATES THAT THEY MAY NO LONGER INITIATE PROSECUTIONS WITHOUT INDICTMENT
BY GRAND JURY, OR THAT THEREAFTER ALL THE STATES OF THE UNION MUST
FURNISH A JURY OF TWELVE FOR EVERY CASE INVOLVING A CLAIM ABOVE TWENTY
DOLLARS.  THERE IS SUGGESTED MERELY A SELECTIVE INCORPORATION OF THE
FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS INTO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SOME ARE IN AND
SOME ARE OUT, BUT WE ARE LEFT IN THE DARK AS TO WHICH ARE IN AND WHICH
ARE OUT.  NOR ARE WE GIVEN THE CALCULUS FOR DETERMINING WHICH GO IN AND
WHICH STAY OUT.  IF THE BASIS OF SELECTION IS MERELY THAT THOSE
PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS ARE INCORPORATED WHICH COMMEND
THEMSELVES TO INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES AS INDISPENSABLE TO THE DIGNITY AND
HAPPINESS OF A FREE MAN, WE ARE THROWN BACK TO A MERELY SUBJECTIVE
TEST.  THE PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE MIGHT
HAVE PRIMACY FOR ONE JUDGE, WHILE TRIAL BY A JURY OF TWELVE FOR EVERY
CLAIM ABOVE TWENTY DOLLARS MIGHT APPEAR TO ANOTHER AS AN ULTIMATE NEED
IN A FREE SOCIETY.  IN THE HISTORY OF THOUGHT "NATURAL LAW" HAS A MUCH
LONGER AND MUCH BETTER FOUNDED MEANING AND JUSTIFICATION THAN SUCH
SUBJECTIVE SELECTION OF THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS FOR INCORPORATION
INTO THE FOURTEENTH.  IF ALL THAT IS MEANT IS THAT DUE PROCESS CONTAINS
WITHIN ITSELF CERTAIN MINIMAL STANDARDS WHICH ARE "OF THE VERY ESSENCE
OF A SCHEME OF ORDERED LIBERTY," PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319,
325, PUTTING UPON THIS COURT THE DUTY OF APPLYING THESE STANDARDS FROM
TIME TO TIME, THEN WE HAVE MERELY ARRIVED AT THE INSIGHT WHICH OUR
PREDECESSORS LONG AGO EXPRESSED.  WE ARE CALLED UPON TO APPLY TO THE
DIFFICULT ISSUES OF OUR OWN DAY THE WISDOM AFFORDED BY THE GREAT
OPINIONS IN THIS FIELD, SUCH AS THOSE IN DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, 96
U.S. 97; MISSOURI V. LEWIS, 101 U.S. 22; HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110
U.S. 516; HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211
U.S. 78, AND PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319.  THIS GUIDANCE BIDS US
TO BE DULY MINDFUL OF THE HERITAGE OF THE PAST, WITH ITS GREAT LESSONS
OF HOW LIBERTIES ARE WON AND HOW THEY ARE LOST.  AS JUDGES CHARGED WITH
THE DELICATE TASK OF SUBJECTING THE GOVERNMENT OF A CONTINENT TO THE
RULE OF LAW WE MUST BE PARTICULARLY MINDFUL THAT IT IS "A CONSTITUTION
WE ARE EXPOUNDING," SO THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE IMPRISONED IN WHAT ARE
MERELY LEGAL FORMS EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE THE SANCTION OF THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY. 

IT MAY NOT BE AMISS TO RESTATE THE PERVASIVE FUNCTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN EXACTING FROM THE STATES OBSERVANCE OF BASIC
LIBERTIES.  SEE MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 412 ET SEQ.;
LOUISIANA V. RESWEBER, 329 U.S. 459, 466 ET SEQ. THE AMENDMENT NEITHER
COMPREHENDS THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS BY WHICH THE FOUNDERS DEEMED IT
APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOR IS IT CONFINED TO
THEM.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAS AN
INDEPENDENT POTENCY, PRECISELY AS DOES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT IN RELATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IT OUGHT NOT TO
REQUIRE ARGUMENT TO REJECT THE NOTION THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW MEANT ONE
THING IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND ANOTHER IN THE FOURTEENTH.  THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS PROSECUTION OF AN "INFAMOUS CRIME"
EXCEPT UPON INDICTMENT; IT FORBIDS DOUBLE JEOPARDY; IT BARS COMPELLING
A PERSON TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE; IT
PRECLUDES DEPRIVATION OF "LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW  ...  "  ARE MADISON AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES IN THE
FRAMING OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO BE CHARGED WITH WRITING INTO IT A
MEANINGLESS CLAUSE?  TO CONSIDER "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" AS MERELY A
SHORTHAND STATEMENT OF OTHER SPECIFIC CLAUSES IN THE SAME AMENDMENT IS
TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE AUTHORS AND PROPONENTS OF THIS AMENDMENT IGNORANCE
OF, OR INDIFFERENCE TO, A HISTORIC CONCEPTION WHICH WAS ONE OF THE
GREAT INSTRUMENTS IN THE ARSENAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM WHICH THE
BILL OF RIGHTS WAS TO PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN. 

A CONSTRUCTION WHICH GIVES TO DUE PROCESS NO INDEPENDENT FUNCTION BUT
TURNS IT INTO A SUMMARY OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS WOULD, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, TEAR UP BY THE ROOTS MUCH OF THE
FABRIC OF LAW IN THE SEVERAL STATES, AND WOULD DEPRIVE THE STATES OF
OPPORTUNITY FOR REFORMS IN LEGAL PROCESS DESIGNED FOR EXTENDING THE
AREA OF FREEDOM.  IT WOULD ASSUME THAT NO OTHER ABUSES WOULD REVEAL
THEMSELVES IN THE COURSE OF TIME THAN THOSE WHICH HAD BECOME MANIFEST
IN 1791.  SUCH A VIEW NOT ONLY DISREGARDS THE HISTORIC MEANING OF "DUE
PROCESS."  IT LEADS INEVITABLY TO A WARPED CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO BRING WITHIN THEIR SCOPE CONDUCT
CLEARLY CONDEMNED BY DUE PROCESS BUT NOT EASILY FITTING INTO THE PIGEON
HOLES OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.  IT SEEMS PRETTY LATE IN THE DAY TO
SUGGEST THAT A PHRASE SO LADEN WITH HISTORIC MEANING SHOULD BE GIVEN AN
IMPROVISED CONTENT CONSISTING OF SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS, SELECTED ON AN UNDEFINED BASIS, WITH
IMPROVISATION OF CONTENT FOR THE PROVISIONS SO SELECTED. 

AND SO, WHEN, AS IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT, A CONVICTION IN A STATE
COURT IS HERE FOR REVIEW UNDER A CLAIM THAT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN DENIED, THE
ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER AN INFRACTION OF ONE OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF
THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS IS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  THE RELEVANT
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH RESULTED IN
CONVICTION DEPRIVED THE ACCUSED OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW TO WHICH THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ENTITLED HIM.  JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THAT
GUARANTY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INESCAPABLY IMPOSES UPON THIS
COURT AN EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT UPON THE WHOLE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THEY OFFEND THOSE CANONS OF DECENCY AND
FAIRNESS WHICH EXPRESS THE NOTIONS OF JUSTICE OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING
PEOPLES EVEN TOWARD THOSE CHARGED WITH THE MOST HEINOUS OFFENSES. 
THESE STANDARDS OF JUSTICE ARE NOT AUTHORITATIVELY FORMULATED ANYWHERE
AS THOUGH THEY WERE PRESCRIPTIONS IN A PHARMACOPOEIA.  BUT NEITHER DOES
THE APPLICATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IMPLY THAT JUDGES ARE WHOLLY
AT LARGE.  THE JUDICIAL JUDGMENT IN APPLYING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
MUST MOVE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ACCEPTED NOTIONS OF JUSTICE AND IS NOT
TO BE BASED UPON THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF A MERELY PERSONAL JUDGMENT.  THE
FACT THAT JUDGES AMONG THEMSELVES MAY DIFFER WHETHER IN A PARTICULAR
CASE A TRIAL OFFENDS ACCEPTED NOTIONS OF JUSTICE IS NOT DISPROOF THAT
GENERAL RATHER THAN IDIOSYNCRATIC STANDARDS ARE APPLIED.  AN IMPORTANT
SAFEGUARD AGAINST SUCH MERELY INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT IS AN ALERT DEFERENCE
TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT UNDER REVIEW. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE APPELLANT WAS TRIED FOR MURDER IN A CALIFORNIA STATE COURT.  HE
DID NOT TAKE THE STAND AS A WITNESS IN HIS OWN BEHALF.  THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY, UNDER PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF A CALIFORNIA STATUTE, CAL. PENAL
CODE, SEC. 1323(HILLYER-LAKE, 1945), ARGUED TO THE JURY THAT AN
INFERENCE OF GUILT COULD BE DRAWN BECAUSE OF APPELLANT'S FAILURE TO
DENY EVIDENCE OFFERED AGAINST HIM.  THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IN THE
STATE COURT AND HERE HAS BEEN THAT THE STATUTE DENIES HIM A RIGHT
GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT (1)
PERMITTING COMMENT UPON HIS FAILURE TO TESTIFY HAS THE EFFECT OF
COMPELLING HIM TO TESTIFY SO AS TO VIOLATE THAT PROVISION OF THE BILL
OF RIGHTS CONTAINED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAT "NO PERSON  ...  SHALL
BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF"; AND
(2) ALTHOUGH THIS PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ORIGINALLY APPLIED
ONLY AS A RESTRAINT UPON FEDERAL COURTS, BARRON V. BALTIMORE, 7 PET.
243, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO, AND DID, MAKE THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST COMPELLED TESTIMONY APPLICABLE TO TRIALS IN STATE
COURTS. 

THE COURT REFUSES TO MEET AND DECIDE THE APPELLANT'S FIRST
CONTENTION.  BUT WHILE THE COURT'S OPINION, AS I READ IT, STRONGLY
IMPLIES THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT, OF ITSELF, BAR COMMENT UPON
FAILURE TO TESTIFY IN FEDERAL COURTS, THE COURT NEVERTHELESS ASSUMES
THAT IT DOES IN ORDER TO REACH THE SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
INVOLVED IN APPELLANT'S CASE.  I MUST CONSIDER THE CASE ON THE SAME
ASSUMPTION THAT THE COURT DOES.  FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE SECOND
CONTENTION TURNS OUT TO BE A DECISION WHICH REACHES FAR BEYOND THE
RELATIVELY NARROW ISSUES ON WHICH THIS CASE MIGHT HAVE TURNED. 

THIS DECISION REASSERTS A CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY SPELLED OUT IN
TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, THAT THIS COURT IS ENDOWED BY THE
CONSTITUTION WITH BOUNDLESS POWER UNDER "NATURAL LAW" PERIODICALLY TO
EXPAND AND CONTRACT CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS TO CONFORM TO THE COURT'S
CONCEPTION OF WHAT AT A PARTICULAR TIME CONSTITUTES "CIVILIZED DECENCY"
AND "FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY AND JUSTICE."  FN1  INVOKING THIS TWINING
RULE, THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT ALTHOUGH COMMENT UPON TESTIMONY IN A
FEDERAL COURT WOULD VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IDENTICAL COMMENT IN A
STATE COURT DOES NOT VIOLATE TODAY'S FASHION IN CIVILIZED DECENCY AND
FUNDAMENTALS AND IS THEREFORE NOT PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED. 

THE TWINING CASE WAS THE FIRST, AS IT IS THE ONLY, DECISION OF THIS
COURT WHICH HAS SQUARELY HELD THAT STATES WERE FREE, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, TO EXTORT EVIDENCE FROM ONE
ACCUSED OF CRIME.  FN2  I AGREE THAT IF TWINING BE REAFFIRMED, THE
RESULT REACHED MIGHT APPROPRIATELY FOLLOW.  BUT I WOULD NOT REAFFIRM
THE TWINING DECISION.  I THINK THAT DECISION AND THE "NATURAL LAW"
THEORY OF THE CONSTITUTION UPON WHICH IT RELIES DEGRADE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY
APPROPRIATE FOR THIS COURT A BROAD POWER WHICH WE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY
THE CONSTITUTION TO EXERCISE.  FURTHERMORE, THE TWINING DECISION RESTED
ON PREVIOUS CASES AND BROAD HYPOTHESES WHICH HAVE BEEN UNDERCUT BY
INTERVENING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  SEE CORWIN, THE SUPREME COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE, 29 MICH. L. REV. 1, 191,
202.  MY REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE TWINING DECISION SHOULD NOT BE
REVITALIZED CAN BEST BE UNDERSTOOD BY REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL,
JUDICIAL, AND GENERAL HISTORY THAT PRECEDED AND FOLLOWED THE CASE. 
THAT REFERENCE MUST BE ABBREVIATED FAR MORE THAN IS JUSTIFIED BUT FOR
THE NECESSARY LIMITATIONS OF OPINION-WRITING. 

THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS WERE PROPOSED AND ADOPTED LARGELY BECAUSE OF
FEAR THAT GOVERNMENT MIGHT UNDULY INTERFERE WITH PRIZED INDIVIDUAL
LIBERTIES.  THE PEOPLE WANTED AND DEMANDED A BILL OF RIGHTS WRITTEN
INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION.  THE AMENDMENTS EMBODYING THE BILL OF RIGHTS
WERE INTENDED TO CURB ALL BRANCHES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE
FIELDS TOUCHED BY THE AMENDMENTS - LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND
JUDICIAL.  THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS WERE POINTEDLY AIMED
AT CONFINING EXERCISE OF POWER BY COURTS AND JUDGES WITHIN PRECISE
BOUNDARIES, PARTICULARLY IN THE PROCEDURE USED FOR THE TRIAL OF
CRIMINAL CASES.  FN3  PAST HISTORY PROVIDED STRONG REASONS FOR THE
APPREHENSIONS WHICH BROUGHT THESE PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS INTO BEING AND
ATTEST THE WISDOM OF THEIR ADOPTION.  FOR THE FEARS OF ARBITRARY COURT
ACTION SPRANG LARGELY FROM THE PAST USE OF COURTS IN THE IMPOSITION OF
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENTS TO SUPPRESS SPEECH, PRESS, AND RELIGION.  HENCE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS OF COURTS' POWERS WERE, IN THE VIEW OF
THE FOUNDERS, ESSENTIAL SUPPLEMENTS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS
ITSELF DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE WIDEST SCOPE FOR ALL PEOPLE TO BELIEVE
AND TO EXPRESS THE MOST DIVERGENT POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, AND OTHER
VIEWS. 

BUT THESE LIMITATIONS WERE NOT EXPRESSLY IMPOSED UPON STATE COURT
ACTION.  IN 1833, BARRON V. BALTIMORE, SUPRA, WAS DECIDED BY THIS
COURT.  IT SPECIFICALLY HELD INAPPLICABLE TO THE STATES THAT PROVISION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WHICH DECLARES:  "NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."  IN DECIDING THE
PARTICULAR POINT RAISED, THE COURT THERE SAID THAT IT COULD NOT HOLD
THAT THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS APPLIED TO THE STATES.  THIS WAS THE
CONTROLLING CONSTITUTIONAL RULE WHEN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS
PROPOSED IN 1866.  FN4 

MY STUDY OF THE HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT CULMINATED IN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AND THE EXPRESSIONS OF THOSE WHO SPONSORED AND FAVORED, AS
WELL AS THOSE WHO OPPOSED ITS SUBMISSION AND PASSAGE, PERSUADES ME THAT
ONE OF THE CHIEF OBJECTS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT'S FIRST
MAKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS, APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.  FN5  WITH FULL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPORT OF THE BARRON DECISION, THE FRAMERS AND BACKERS
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROCLAIMED ITS PURPOSE TO BE TO OVERTURN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RULE THAT CASE HAD ANNOUNCED.  THIS HISTORICAL
PURPOSE HAS NEVER RECEIVED FULL CONSIDERATION OR EXPOSITION IN ANY
OPINION OF THIS COURT INTERPRETING THE AMENDMENT. 

IN CONSTRUING OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, THIS COURT HAS ALMOST
UNIFORMLY FOLLOWED THE PRECEPT OF EX PARTE BAIN, 121 U.S. 1, 12, THAT
"IT IS NEVER TO BE FORGOTTEN THAT, IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANGUAGE
OF THE CONSTITUTION  ...  , AS INDEED IN ALL OTHER INSTANCES WHERE
CONSTRUCTION BECOMES NECESSARY, WE ARE TO PLACE OURSELVES AS NEARLY AS
POSSIBLE IN THE CONDITION OF THE MEN WHO FRAMED THAT INSTRUMENT."  SEE
ALSO EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1, 8, 28, 33; THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 95, 102; KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 89, 106;
REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 162; BARRON V. BALTIMORE, SUPRA
AT 250-251; COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264, 416-420. 

INVESTIGATION OF THE CASES RELIED UPON IN TWINING V. NEW JERSEY TO
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THERE REACHED THAT NEITHER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S
PROHIBITION OF COMPELLED TESTIMONY, NOR ANY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
APPLIES TO THE STATES, REVEALS AN UNEXPLAINED DEPARTURE FROM THIS
SALUTARY PRACTICE.  NEITHER THE BRIEFS NOR OPINIONS IN ANY OF THESE
CASES, EXCEPT MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581, MAKE REFERENCE TO THE
LEGISLATIVE AND CONTEMPORARY HISTORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATING
THAT THOSE WHO CONCEIVED, SHAPED, AND BROUGHT ABOUT THE ADOPTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INTENDED IT TO NULLIFY THIS COURT'S DECISION IN
BARRON V. BALTIMORE, SUPRA, AND THEREBY TO MAKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.  IN MAXWELL V. DOW, SUPRA, THE ISSUE TURNED
ON WHETHER THE BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEE OF A JURY TRIAL WAS, BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, EXTENDED TO TRIALS IN STATE COURTS.  IN THAT CASE
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT DID CITE FROM THE SPEECH OF SENATOR HOWARD,
APPENDIX, INFRA, P. 104, WHICH SO EMPHATICALLY STATED THE UNDERSTANDING
OF THE FRAMERS OF THE AMENDMENT - THE COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION FOR
WHICH HE SPOKE - THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS TO BE MADE APPLICABLE TO
THE STATES BY THE AMENDMENT'S FIRST SECTION.  THE COURT'S OPINION IN
MAXWELL V. DOW, SUPRA, 601, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT COUNSEL HAD "CITED FROM
THE SPEECH OF ONE OF THE SENATORS," BUT INDICATED THAT IT WAS NOT
ADVISED WHAT OTHER SPEECHES WERE MADE IN THE SENATE OR IN THE HOUSE. 
THE COURT CONSIDERED, MOREOVER, THAT "WHAT INDIVIDUAL SENATORS OR
REPRESENTATIVES MAY HAVE URGED IN DEBATE, IN REGARD TO THE MEANING TO
BE GIVEN TO A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, OR BILL OR RESOLUTION,
DOES NOT FURNISH A FIRM GROUND FOR ITS PROPER CONSTRUCTION, NOR IS IT
IMPORTANT AS EXPLANATORY OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE MEMBERS VOTED IN
ADOPTING IT."  ID. AT 601-602. 

IN THE TWINING CASE ITSELF, THE COURT WAS CITED TO A THEN RECENT
BOOK, GUTHRIE, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION (1898).  A FEW
PAGES OF THAT WORK RECITED SOME OF THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND OF THE
AMENDMENT, EMPHASIZING THE SPEECH OF SENATOR HOWARD.  BUT GUTHRIE DID
NOT EMPHASIZE THE SPEECHES OF CONGRESSMAN BINGHAM, NOR THE PART HE
PLAYED IN THE FRAMING AND ADOPTION OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  YET CONGRESSMAN BINGHAM MAY, WITHOUT
EXTRAVAGANCE, BE CALLED THE MADISON OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN THE TWINING OPINION, THE COURT EXPLICITLY
DECLINED TO GIVE WEIGHT TO THE HISTORICAL DEMONSTRATION THAT THE FIRST
SEVERAL PROTECTIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  IT HELD THAT THAT QUESTION
WAS "NO LONGER OPEN" BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH,
HOWEVER, HAD NOT APPRAISED THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON THAT SUBJECT. 
ID. AT 98.  THE COURT ADMITTED THAT ITS ACTION HAD RESULTED IN GIVING
"MUCH LESS EFFECT TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THAN SOME OF THE PUBLIC
MEN ACTIVE IN FRAMING IT" HAD INTENDED IT TO HAVE.  ID. AT 96.  WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE GUARANTEE AGAINST COMPELLED TESTIMONY, THE
COURT STATED THAT "MUCH MIGHT BE SAID IN FAVOR OF THE VIEW THAT THE
PRIVILEGE WAS GUARANTEED AGAINST STATE IMPAIRMENT AS A PRIVILEGE AND
IMMUNITY OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP, BUT, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, THE DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT HAVE FORECLOSED THAT VIEW."  ID. AT 113.  THUS THE COURT
DECLINED, AND AGAIN TODAY DECLINES, TO APPRAISE THE RELEVANT HISTORICAL
EVIDENCE OF THE INTENDED SCOPE OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE AMENDMENT. 
INSTEAD IT RELIED UPON PREVIOUS CASES, NONE OF WHICH HAD ANALYZED THE
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT ONE PURPOSE OF THOSE WHO FRAMED, ADVOCATED, AND
ADOPTED THE AMENDMENT HAD BEEN TO MAKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO
THE STATES.  NONE OF THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE COURT TODAY MADE SUCH
AN ANALYSIS. 

FOR THIS REASON, I AM ATTACHING TO THIS DISSENT AN APPENDIX WHICH
CONTAINS A RESUME, BY NO MEANS COMPLETE, OF THE AMENDMENT'S HISTORY. 
IN MY JUDGMENT THAT HISTORY CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LANGUAGE
OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, WAS
THOUGHT BY THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE, AND BY
THOSE WHO OPPOSED ITS SUBMISSION, SUFFICIENTLY EXPLICIT TO GUARANTEE
THAT THEREAFTER NO STATE COULD DEPRIVE ITS CITIZENS OF THE PRIVILEGES
AND PROTECTIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  WHETHER THIS COURT EVER WILL,
OR WHETHER IT NOW SHOULD, IN THE LIGHT OF PAST DECISIONS, GIVE FULL
EFFECT TO WHAT THE AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH IS NOT
NECESSARILY ESSENTIAL TO A DECISION HERE.  HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, OUR
PRIOR DECISIONS, INCLUDING TWINING, DO NOT PREVENT OUR CARRYING OUT
THAT PURPOSE, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES, NOT A MERE PART, AS THE COURT HAS, BUT THE FULL PROTECTION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROVISION AGAINST COMPELLING EVIDENCE FROM AN
ACCUSED TO CONVICT HIM OF CRIME.  AND I FURTHER CONTEND THAT THE
"NATURAL LAW" FORMULA WHICH THE COURT USES TO REACH ITS CONCLUSION IN
THIS CASE SHOULD BE ABANDONED AS AN INCONGRUOUS EXCRESCENCE ON OUR
CONSTITUTION.  I BELIEVE THAT FORMULA TO BE ITSELF A VIOLATION OF OUR
CONSTITUTION, IN THAT IT SUBTLY CONVEYS TO COURTS, AT THE EXPENSE OF
LEGISLATURES, ULTIMATE POWER OVER PUBLIC POLICIES IN FIELDS WHERE NO
SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS LEGISLATIVE POWER.  AND
MY BELIEF SEEMS TO BE IN ACCORD WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THIS COURT,
AT LEAST FOR THE FIRST TWO DECADES AFTER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS
ADOPTED. 

IN 1872, FOUR YEARS AFTER THE AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED, THE SLAUGHTER
HOUSE CASES CAME TO THIS COURT.  16 WALL 36.  THE COURT WAS NOT
PRESENTED IN THAT CASE WITH THE EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWED THAT THE SPECIAL
SPONSORS OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE HAD EXPRESSLY
EXPLAINED ONE OF ITS PRINCIPAL PURPOSES TO BE TO CHANGE THE
CONSTITUTION AS CONSTRUED IN BARRON V. BALTIMORE, SUPRA, AND MAKE THE
BILL OF RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.  FN6  NOR WAS THERE REASON TO
DO SO.  FOR THE STATE LAW UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE
CASES WAS ONLY CHALLENGED AS ONE WHICH AUTHORIZED A MONOPOLY, AND THE
BRIEF FOR THE CHALLENGER PROPERLY CONCEDED THAT THERE WAS "NO DIRECT
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AGAINST A MONOPOLY."  FN7  THE ARGUMENT DID
NOT INVOKE ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, BUT URGED THAT
THE STATE MONOPOLY STATUTE VIOLATED "THE NATURAL RIGHT OF A PERSON" TO
DO BUSINESS AND ENGAGE IN HIS TRADE OR VOCATION.  ON THIS BASIS, IT WAS
CONTENDED THAT "BULWARKS THAT HAVE BEEN ERECTED AROUND THE INVESTMENTS
OF CAPITAL ARE IMPREGNABLE AGAINST STATE LEGISLATION."  THESE NATURAL
LAW ARGUMENTS, SO SUGGESTIVE OF THE PREMISES ON WHICH THE PRESENT DUE
PROCESS FORMULA RESTS, WERE FLATLY REJECTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT
IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES.  WHAT THE COURT DID HOLD WAS THAT THE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ONLY
PROTECTED FROM STATE INVASION SUCH RIGHTS AS A PERSON HAS BECAUSE HE IS
A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE COURT ENUMERATED SOME, BUT REFUSED
TO ENUMERATE ALL OF THESE NATIONAL RIGHTS.  THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT
EMPHATICALLY DECLINED THE INVITATION OF COUNSEL TO HOLD THAT THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUBJECTED ALL STATE REGULATORY LEGISLATION TO
CONTINUOUS CENSORSHIP BY THIS COURT IN ORDER FOR IT TO DETERMINE
WHETHER IT COLLIDED WITH THIS COURT'S OPINION OF "NATURAL" RIGHT AND
JUSTICE.  IN EFFECT, THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES REJECTED THE VERY
NATURAL JUSTICE FORMULA THE COURT TODAY EMBRACES.  THE COURT DID NOT
MEET THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SAFEGUARDS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS WERE
PROTECTED AGAINST STATE INVASION BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AND IT
SPECIFICALLY DID NOT SAY AS THE COURT NOW DOES, THAT PARTICULAR
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS COULD BE BREACHED BY STATES IN PART,
BUT NOT BREACHED IN OTHER RESPECTS, ACCORDING TO THIS COURT'S NOTIONS
OF "CIVILIZED STANDARDS," "CANONS OF DECENCY," AND "FUNDAMENTAL
JUSTICE." 

LATER, BUT PRIOR TO THE TWINING CASE, THIS COURT DECIDED THAT THE
FOLLOWING WERE NOT "PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES" OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP,
SO AS TO MAKE THEM IMMUNE AGAINST STATE INVASION:  THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, IN RE
KEMMLER, 136 U.S. 436; THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF A JURY
TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES, WALKER V. SAUVINET, 92 U.S. 90; THE SECOND
AMENDMENT'S "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS  ...  ," PRESSER
V. ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252; THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS' REQUIREMENTS
FOR INDICTMENT IN CAPITAL OR OTHER INFAMOUS CRIMES, AND FOR TRIAL BY
JURY IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581.  WHILE IT
CAN BE ARGUED THAT THESE CASES IMPLIED THAT NO ONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES AS ATTRIBUTES OF
NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP, NO ONE OF THEM EXPRESSLY SO DECIDED.  IN FACT,
THE COURT IN MAXWELL V. DOW, SUPRA AT 597-598, CONCLUDED NO MORE THAN
THAT "THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES DO
NOT NECESSARILY INCLUDE ALL THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST EIGHT
AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AGAINST THE POWERS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."  CF. PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 329. 

AFTER THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE DECISION, THE COURT ALSO SAID THAT STATES
COULD, DESPITE THE "DUE PROCESS" CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, DAVIDSON V. NEW
ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97, 105; PUMPELLY V. GREEN BAY CO., 13 WALL., 166, 176
177; ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542; SEE ALSO PRUDENTIAL INS. CO.
V. CHEEK, 259 U.S. 530, 543; PATTERSON V. COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454; CF.
GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666(FREEDOM OF SPEECH); PROSECUTE FOR
CRIME BY INFORMATION RATHER THAN INDICTMENT, HURTADO V. PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516; REGULATE THE PRICE FOR STORAGE OF GRAIN IN
WAREHOUSES AND ELEVATORS, MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113.  BUT THIS
COURT ALSO HELD IN A NUMBER OF CASES THAT COLORED PEOPLE MUST, BECAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BE ACCORDED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 
SEE, E.G., STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 303; CF. VIRGINIA V.
RIVES, 100 U.S. 313; SEE ALSO YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356. 

THUS, UP TO AND FOR SOME YEARS AFTER 1873, WHEN MUNN V. ILLINOIS,
SUPRA, WAS DECIDED, THIS COURT STEADFASTLY DECLINED TO INVALIDATE
STATES' LEGISLATIVE REGULATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS OR BUSINESS PRACTICES
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UNLESS THERE WERE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
INVOLVED IN THE STATE LAW CHALLENGED.  THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT BREACH IN
THIS POLICY CAME IN 1889, IN CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V. MINNESOTA,
134 U.S. 418.  FN8  A STATE'S RAILROAD RATE REGULATORY STATUTE WAS
THERE STRICKEN AS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY REFERENCE TO A DUE PROCESS FORMULA
WHICH DID NOT NECESSARILY OPERATE SO AS TO PROTECT THE BILL OF RIGHTS'
PERSONAL LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS, BUT WHICH GAVE A NEW AND HITHERTO
UNDISCOVERED SCOPE FOR THE COURT'S USE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO
PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER NATURAL LAW CONCEPTS.  AND IN 1896, IN
CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226, THIS COURT, IN EFFECT,
OVERRULED DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, SUPRA, BY HOLDING, UNDER THE NEW DUE
PROCESS-NATURAL LAW FORMULA, THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBADE A
STATE FROM TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF
JUST COMPENSATION.  FN9 

FOLLOWING THE PATTERN OF THE NEW DOCTRINE FORMALIZED IN THE FOREGOING
DECISIONS, THE COURT IN 1896 APPLIED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO STRIKE
DOWN A STATE STATUTE WHICH HAD FORBIDDEN CERTAIN TYPES OF CONTRACTS. 
ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578.  CF. HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V.
CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313, 316, 318-319.  IN DOING SO, IT SUBSTANTIALLY
ADOPTED THE REJECTED ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES,
THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE LIBERTY OF ALL PERSONS
UNDER "NATURAL LAW" TO ENGAGE IN THEIR CHOSEN BUSINESS OR VOCATION.  IN
THE ALLGEYER OPINION, ID. AT 589, THE COURT QUOTED WITH APPROVAL THE
CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY IN A SECOND SLAUGHTER-HOUSE
CASE, BUTCHERS' UNION CO. V. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746, 762, 764,
765, WHICH CLOSELY FOLLOWED ONE PHASE OF THE ARGUMENT OF HIS DISSENT IN
THE ORIGINAL SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES - NOT THAT PHASE WHICH ARGUED THAT
THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.  AND IN 1905, THREE
YEARS BEFORE THE TWINING CASE, LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45,
FOLLOWED THE ARGUMENT USED IN ALLGEYER TO HOLD THAT THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE WAS VIOLATED BY A STATE STATUTE WHICH LIMITED THE EMPLOYMENT OF
BAKERY WORKERS TO SIXTY HOURS PER WEEK AND TEN HOURS PER DAY. 

THE FOREGOING CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, JUDICIALLY CREATED AND ADOPTED
BY EXPANDING THE PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED MEANING OF "DUE PROCESS," MARKED A
COMPLETE DEPARTURE FROM THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE PHILOSOPHY OF JUDICIAL
TOLERANCE OF STATE REGULATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.  CONVERSELY, THE
NEW FORMULA CONTRACTED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS
A PROTECTION FROM STATE INFRINGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES ENUMERATED
IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THUS THE COURT'S SECOND-THOUGHT INTERPRETATION
OF THE AMENDMENT WAS AN ABOUT-FACE FROM THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE
INTERPRETATION AND REPRESENTED A FAILURE TO CARRY OUT THE AVOWED
PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT'S SPONSORS.  FN10  THIS REVERSAL IS DRAMATIZED
BY THE FACT THAT THE HURTADO CASE, WHICH HAD REJECTED THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR PRESERVING BILL OF RIGHTS LIBERTIES AND
PRIVILEGES, WAS CITED AS AUTHORITY FOR EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THAT
CLAUSE SO AS TO PERMIT THIS COURT TO INVALIDATE ALL STATE REGULATORY
LEGISLATION IT BELIEVED TO BE CONTRARY TO "FUNDAMENTAL" PRINCIPLES. 

THE TWINING DECISION, REJECTING THE COMPELLED TESTIMONY CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND INDEED REJECTING ALL THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IS THE
END PRODUCT OF ONE PHASE OF THIS PHILOSOPHY.  AT THE SAME TIME, THAT
DECISION CONSOLIDATED THE POWER OF THE COURT ASSUMED IN PAST CASES BY
LAYING BROADER FOUNDATIONS FOR THE COURT TO INVALIDATE STATE AND EVEN
FEDERAL REGULATORY LEGISLATION.  FOR THE TWINING DECISION, GIVING
SEPARATE CONSIDERATION TO "DUE PROCESS" AND "PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES,"
WENT ALL THE WAY TO SAY THAT THE "PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES" CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT "DID NOT FORBID THE STATES TO ABRIDGE THE
PERSONAL RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS  ...  "
TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, 99.  AND IN ORDER TO BE CERTAIN, SO FAR
AS POSSIBLE, TO LEAVE THIS COURT WHOLLY FREE TO REJECT ALL THE BILL OF
RIGHTS AS SPECIFIC RESTRAINTS UPON STATE ACTION, THE DECISION DECLARED
THAT EVEN IF THIS COURT SHOULD DECIDE THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
FORBIDS THE STATES TO INFRINGE PERSONAL LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE
BILL OF RIGHTS, IT WOULD DO SO, NOT "BECAUSE THOSE RIGHTS ARE
ENUMERATED IN THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE OF SUCH
A NATURE THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE CONCEPTION OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW."  IBID. 

AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE TWINING DECISION HELD THAT THE STATES NEED
NOT CONFORM TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IT
CONSOLIDATED THE POWER THAT THE COURT HAD ASSUMED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE BY LAYING EVEN BROADER FOUNDATIONS FOR THE COURT TO INVALIDATE
STATE AND EVEN FEDERAL REGULATORY LEGISLATION.  FOR UNDER THE TWINING
FORMULA, WHICH INCLUDES NON-REGARD FOR THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS, WHAT
ARE "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS" AND IN ACCORD WITH "CANONS OF DECENCY," AS THE
COURT SAID IN TWINING, AND TODAY REAFFIRMS, IS TO BE INDEPENDENTLY
"ASCERTAINED FROM TIME TO TIME BY JUDICIAL ACTION  ...  "  ID. AT 101;
"WHAT IS DUE PROCESS OF LAW DEPENDS ON CIRCUMSTANCES."  MOYER V.
PEABODY, 212 U.S. 78, 84.  THUS THE POWER OF LEGISLATURES BECAME WHAT
THIS COURT WOULD DECLARE IT TO BE AT A PARTICULAR TIME INDEPENDENTLY OF
THE SPECIFIC GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGION AND ASSEMBLY, THE RIGHT TO JUST
COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY TAKEN FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE, THE RIGHT TO JURY
TRIAL OR THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES.  NEITHER THE CONTRACTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS SAFEGUARDS
FN11  NOR THE INVALIDATION OF REGULATORY LAWS  FN12  BY THIS COURT'S
APPRAISAL OF "CIRCUMSTANCES" WOULD READILY BE CLASSIFIED AS THE MOST
SATISFACTORY CONTRIBUTION OF THIS COURT TO THE NATION.  IN 1912, FOUR
YEARS AFTER THE TWINING CASE WAS DECIDED, A BOOK WRITTEN BY MR. CHARLES
WALLACE COLLINS GAVE THE HISTORY OF THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UP TO THAT TIME.  IT IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR ONE FULLY TO AGREE WITH ALL HE SAID IN ORDER TO
APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENT OF THE FOLLOWING COMMENT CONCERNING THE
DISAPPOINTMENTS CAUSED BY THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE
AMENDMENT. 

"  ...  IT WAS AIMED AT RESTRAINING AND CHECKING THE POWERS OF WEALTH
AND PRIVILEGE.  IT WAS TO BE A CHARTER OF LIBERTY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
AGAINST PROPERTY RIGHTS.  THE TRANSFORMATION HAS BEEN RAPID AND
COMPLETE.  IT OPERATES TO-DAY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY TO THE
DETRIMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN.  IT HAS BECOME THE MAGNA CHARTA OF
ACCUMULATED AND ORGANIZED CAPITAL."  COLLINS, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND THE STATES, (1912) 137-8. 

THAT THIS FEELING WAS SHARED, AT LEAST IN PART, BY MEMBERS OF THIS
COURT IS REVEALED BY THE VIGOROUS DISSENTS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN
ALMOST EVERY CASE WHERE THE TWINING AND HURTADO DOCTRINES HAVE BEEN
APPLIED TO INVALIDATE STATE REGULATORY LAWS.  FN13 

LATER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE COMPLETELY UNDERMINED THAT PHASE
OF THE TWINING DOCTRINE WHICH BROADLY PRECLUDED RELIANCE ON THE BILL OF
RIGHTS TO DETERMINE WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A "FUNDAMENTAL" RIGHT. 
LATER CASES HAVE ALSO MADE THE HURTADO CASE AN INADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR
THIS PHASE OF THE TWINING FORMULA.  FOR DESPITE HURTADO AND TWINING,
THIS COURT HAS NOW HELD THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS FROM
STATE INVASION THE FOLLOWING "FUNDAMENTAL" RIGHTS SAFEGUARDED BY THE
BILL OF RIGHTS:  RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL CASES, POWELL V. ALABAMA,
287 U.S. 45, 67, LIMITING THE HURTADO CASE; SEE ALSO BETTS V. BRADY,
316 U.S. 455, AND DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN, 329 U.S. 663; FREEDOM OF
ASSEMBLY, DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 364; AT THE VERY LEAST,
CERTAIN TYPES OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND FORMER JEOPARDY,
STATE OF LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER, 329 U.S. 459; THE RIGHT
OF AN ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO BE INFORMED OF THE CHARGE AGAINST
HIM, SEE SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 105; THE RIGHT TO
RECEIVE JUST COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR
PUBLIC USE, CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226.  AND THE
COURT HAS NOW THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LITERALLY AND
EMPHATICALLY APPLIED THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE STATES IN ITS VERY
TERMS.  EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1; BOARD OF EDUCATION
V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 639; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252,
268. 

IN PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, A CASE WHICH INVOLVED FORMER JEOPARDY
ONLY, THIS COURT RE-EXAMINED THE PATH IT HAD TRAVELED IN INTERPRETING
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SINCE THE TWINING OPINION WAS WRITTEN.  IN
TWINING THE COURT HAD DECLARED THAT NONE OF THE RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN
THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS WERE PROTECTED AGAINST STATE INVASION
BECAUSE THEY WERE INCORPORATED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  BUT THE COURT IN
PALKO, SUPRA, AT 323, ANSWERED A CONTENTION THAT ALL EIGHT APPLIED WITH
THE MORE GUARDED STATEMENT, SIMILAR TO THAT THE COURT HAD USED IN
MAXWELL V. DOW, SUPRA AT 597, THAT "THERE IS NO SUCH GENERAL RULE." 
IMPLICIT IN THIS STATEMENT, AND IN THE CASES DECIDED IN THE INTERIM
BETWEEN TWINING AND PALKO AND SINCE, IS THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF
THE EIGHT AMENDMENTS DO APPLY BY THEIR VERY TERMS.  THUS THE COURT SAID
IN THE PALKO CASE THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MAY MAKE IT UNLAWFUL
FOR A STATE TO ABRIDGE BY ITS STATUTES THE "FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHICH THE
FIRST AMENDMENT SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ENCROACHMENT BY THE CONGRESS  ...
OR THE LIKE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS  ...  OR THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
...  , OR THE RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY  ...  OR THE RIGHT OF ONE
ACCUSED OF CRIME TO THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL  ...  IN THESE AND OTHER
SITUATIONS IMMUNITIES THAT ARE VALID AS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
BY FORCE OF THE SPECIFIC PLEDGES OF PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN
FOUND TO BE IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY, AND THUS,
THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECOME VALID AS AGAINST THE STATES." 
ID. AT 324-325.  THE COURT WENT ON TO DESCRIBE THE AMENDMENTS MADE
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES AS "THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THAT HAVE
BEEN TAKEN OVER FROM THE EARLIER ARTICLES OF THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS
AND BROUGHT WITHIN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY A PROCESS OF
ABSORPTION."  ID. AT 326.  IN THE TWINING CASE FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES
WERE THINGS APART FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  NOW IT APPEARS THAT AT
LEAST SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THEIR VERY TERMS
SATISFY THE COURT AS SOUND AND MEANINGFUL EXPRESSIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL
LIBERTY.  IF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROTECTION AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION BE SUCH AN EXPRESSION OF FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY, I ASK, AND
HAVE NOT FOUND A SATISFACTORY ANSWER, WHY THE COURT TODAY SHOULD
CONSIDER THAT IT SHOULD BE "ABSORBED" IN PART BUT NOT IN FULL?  CF.
WARREN, THE NEW "LIBERTY" UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 39 HARV. L.
REV. 431, 458-461(1926).  NOTHING IN THE PALKO OPINION REQUIRES THAT
WHEN THE COURT DECIDES THAT A BILL OF RIGHTS' PROVISION IS TO BE
APPLIED TO THE STATES, IT IS TO BE APPLIED PIECEMEAL.  NOTHING IN THE
PALKO OPINION RECOMMENDS THAT THE COURT APPLY PART OF AN AMENDMENT'S
ESTABLISHED MEANING AND DISCARD THAT PART WHICH DOES NOT SUIT THE
CURRENT STYLE OF FUNDAMENTALS. 

THE COURT'S OPINION IN TWINING, AND THE DISSENT IN THAT CASE, MADE IT
CLEAR THAT THE COURT INTENDED TO LEAVE THE STATES WHOLLY FREE TO COMPEL
CONFESSIONS, SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED.  TWINING
V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, SEE PARTICULARLY PP. 111-114, 125-126.  YET IN A
SERIES OF CASES SINCE TWINING THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES BAR ALL AMERICAN COURTS, STATE OR FEDERAL, FROM
CONVICTING PEOPLE OF CRIME ON COERCED CONFESSIONS.  CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 154-155,
AND CASES CITED.  FEDERAL COURTS CANNOT DO SO BECAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 542, 562-563.  AND
STATE COURTS CANNOT DO SO BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
ARE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH BY ONE FORMULA
OR ANOTHER.  AND TAKING NOTE OF THESE CASES, THE COURT IS CAREFUL TO
POINT OUT IN ITS DECISION TODAY THAT COERCED CONFESSIONS VIOLATE THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IF SECURED "BY FEAR OF HURT, TORTURE OR
EXHAUSTION."  NOR CAN A STATE, ACCORDING TO TODAY'S DECISION,
CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPEL AN ACCUSED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF BY "ANY
OTHER TYPE OF COERCION THAT FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DUE PROCESS." 
THUS THE COURT ITSELF DESTROYS OR AT LEAST DRASTICALLY CURTAILS THE
VERY TWINING DECISION IT PURPORTS TO REAFFIRM.  IT REPUDIATES THE
FOUNDATION OF THAT OPINION, WHICH PRESENTED MUCH ARGUMENT TO SHOW THAT
COMPELLING A MAN TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF DOES NOT "VIOLATE" A
"FUNDAMENTAL" RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE. 

IT SEEMS RATHER PLAIN TO ME WHY THE COURT TODAY DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO
JUSTIFY ALL OF THE BROAD TWINING DISCUSSION.  THAT OPINION CARRIES ITS
OWN REFUTATION ON WHAT MAY BE CALLED THE FACTUAL ISSUE THE COURT
RESOLVED.  THE OPINION ITSELF SHOWS, WITHOUT RESORT TO THE POWERFUL
ARGUMENT IN THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, THAT OUTSIDE OF STAR
CHAMBER PRACTICES AND INFLUENCES, THE "ENGLISH-SPEAKING" PEOPLES HAVE
FOR CENTURIES ABHORRED AND FEARED THE PRACTICE OF COMPELLING PEOPLE TO
CONVICT THEMSELVES OF CRIME.  I SHALL NOT ATTEMPT TO NARRATE THE
REASONS.  THEY ARE WELL KNOWN AND THOSE INTERESTED CAN READ THEM IN
BOTH THE MAJORITY AND DISSENTING OPINIONS IN THE TWINING CASE, IN BOYD
V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, AND IN THE CASES CITED IN NOTES 8, 9,
10, AND 11 OF ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, SUPRA.  NOR DOES THE HISTORY OF
THE PRACTICE OF COMPELLING TESTIMONY IN THIS COUNTRY, RELIED ON IN THE
TWINING OPINION, SUPPORT THE DEGRADED RANK WHICH THAT OPINION GAVE THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PRIVILEGE AGAINST COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION.  I
THINK THE HISTORY THERE RECITED BY THE COURT BELIES ITS CONCLUSION. 

THE COURT IN TWINING EVIDENTLY WAS FORCED TO RESORT FOR ITS
DEGRADATION OF THE PRIVILEGE TO THE FACT THAT GOVERNOR WINTHROP IN
TRYING MRS. ANNE HUTCHINSON IN 1627 WAS EVIDENTLY "NOT AWARE OF ANY
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION OR CONSCIOUS OF ANY DUTY TO
RESPECT IT."  ID. AT 103-104.  OF COURSE NOT.  FN14  MRS. HUTCHINSON
WAS TRIED, IF TRIAL IT CAN BE CALLED, FOR HOLDING UNORTHODOX RELIGIOUS
VIEWS.  FN15  PEOPLE WITH A CONSUMING BELIEF THAT THEIR RELIGIOUS
CONVICTIONS MUST BE FORCED ON OTHERS RARELY EVER BELIEVE THAT THE
UNORTHODOX HAVE ANY RIGHTS WHICH SHOULD OR CAN BE RIGHTFULLY
RESPECTED.  AS A RESULT OF HER TRIAL AND COMPELLED ADMISSIONS, MRS.
HUTCHINSON WAS FOUND GUILTY OF UNORTHODOXY AND BANISHED FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.  THE LAMENTABLE EXPERIENCE OF MRS. HUTCHINSON AND
OTHERS, CONTRIBUTED TO THE OVERWHELMING SENTIMENT THAT DEMANDED
ADOPTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS.  THE FOUNDERS OF THIS
GOVERNMENT WANTED NO MORE SUCH "TRIALS" AND PUNISHMENTS AS MRS.
HUTCHINSON HAD TO UNDERGO.  THEY WANTED TO ERECT BARRIERS THAT WOULD
BAR LEGISLATORS FROM PASSING LAWS THAT ENCROACHED ON THE DOMAIN OF
BELIEF, AND THAT WOULD, AMONG OTHER THINGS, STRIP COURTS AND ALL PUBLIC
OFFICERS OF A POWER TO COMPEL PEOPLE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEMSELVES. 
SEE PITTMAN, SUPRA AT 789. 

I CANNOT CONSIDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO BE AN OUTWORN 18TH CENTURY
"STRAIT JACKET" AS THE TWINING OPINION DID.  ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE
THOUGHT OUTDATED ABSTRACTIONS BY SOME.  AND IT IS TRUE THAT THEY WERE
DESIGNED TO MEET ANCIENT EVILS.  BUT THEY ARE THE SAME KIND OF HUMAN
EVILS THAT HAVE EMERGED FROM CENTURY TO CENTURY WHEREVER EXCESSIVE
POWER IS SOUGHT BY THE FEW AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MANY.  IN MY JUDGMENT
THE PEOPLE OF NO NATION CAN LOSE THEIR LIBERTY SO LONG AS A BILL OF
RIGHTS LIKE OURS SURVIVES AND ITS BASIC PURPOSES ARE CONSCIENTIOUSLY
INTERPRETED, ENFORCED AND RESPECTED SO AS TO AFFORD CONTINUOUS
PROTECTION AGAINST OLD, AS WELL AS NEW, DEVICES AND PRACTICES WHICH
MIGHT THWART THOSE PURPOSES.  I FEAR TO SEE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
COURT'S PRACTICE OF SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN CONCEPTS OF DECENCY AND
FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE FOR THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS ITS POINT
OF DEPARTURE IN INTERPRETING AND ENFORCING THAT BILL OF RIGHTS.  IF THE
CHOICE MUST BE BETWEEN THE SELECTIVE PROCESS OF THE PALKO DECISION
APPLYING SOME OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES, OR THE TWINING RULE
APPLYING NONE OF THEM, I WOULD CHOOSE THE PALKO SELECTIVE PROCESS.  BUT
RATHER THAN ACCEPT EITHER OF THESE CHOICES, I WOULD FOLLOW WHAT I
BELIEVE WAS THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - TO
EXTEND TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE NATION THE COMPLETE PROTECTION OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS.  TO HOLD THAT THIS COURT CAN DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY,
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS WILL BE ENFORCED, AND IF SO TO WHAT
DEGREE, IS TO FRUSTRATE THE GREAT DESIGN OF A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. 

CONCEDING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS COURT IS NOW WISE ENOUGH TO
IMPROVE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS BY SUBSTITUTING NATURAL LAW CONCEPTS FOR
THE BILL OF RIGHTS, I THINK THE POSSIBILITY IS ENTIRELY TOO SPECULATIVE
TO AGREE TO TAKE THAT COURSE.  I WOULD THEREFORE HOLD IN THIS CASE THAT
THE FULL PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROSCRIPTION AGAINST
COMPELLED TESTIMONY MUST BE AFFORDED BY CALIFORNIA.  THIS I WOULD DO
BECAUSE OF RELIANCE UPON THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

IT IS AN ILLUSORY APPREHENSION THAT LITERAL APPLICATION OF SOME OR
ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES WOULD
UNWISELY INCREASE THE SUM TOTAL OF THE POWERS OF THIS COURT TO
INVALIDATE STATE LEGISLATION.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOT BEEN
HARMFULLY BURDENED BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS
AFFECTING CIVIL LIBERTY CONFORM LITERALLY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  WHO
WOULD ADVOCATE ITS REPEAL?  IT MUST BE CONCEDED, OF COURSE, THAT THE
NATURAL-LAW-DUE-PROCESS FORMULA, WHICH THE COURT TODAY REAFFIRMS, HAS
BEEN INTERPRETED TO LIMIT SUBSTANTIALLY THIS COURT'S POWER TO PREVENT
STATE VIOLATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CIVIL LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE
BILL OF RIGHTS.  FN16  BUT THIS FORMULA ALSO HAS BEEN USED IN THE PAST,
AND CAN BE USED IN THE FUTURE, TO LICENSE THIS COURT, IN CONSIDERING
REGULATORY LEGISLATION, TO ROAM AT LARGE IN THE BROAD EXPANSES OF
POLICY AND MORALS AND TO TRESPASS, ALL TOO FREELY, ON THE LEGISLATIVE
DOMAIN OF THE STATES AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

SINCE MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137, WAS DECIDED, THE PRACTICE HAS
BEEN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, FOR BETTER OR WORSE, THAT COURTS CAN STRIKE
DOWN LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS WHICH VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.  THIS
PROCESS, OF COURSE, INVOLVES INTERPRETATION, AND SINCE WORDS CAN HAVE
MANY MEANINGS, INTERPRETATION OBVIOUSLY MAY RESULT IN CONTRACTION OR
EXTENSION OF THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION,
THEREBY AFFECTING POLICY.  BUT TO PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
STATUTES BY LOOKING TO THE PARTICULAR STANDARDS ENUMERATED IN THE BILL
OF RIGHTS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION IS ONE THING; FN17  TO
INVALIDATE STATUTES BECAUSE OF APPLICATION OF "NATURAL LAW" DEEMED TO
BE ABOVE AND UNDEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION IS ANOTHER.  FN18  "IN THE
ONE INSTANCE, COURTS PROCEEDING WITHIN CLEARLY MARKED CONSTITUTIONAL
BOUNDARIES SEEK TO EXECUTE POLICIES WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION; IN
THE OTHER, THEY ROAM AT WILL IN THE LIMITLESS AREA OF THEIR OWN BELIEFS
AS TO REASONABLENESS AND ACTUALLY SELECT POLICIES, A RESPONSIBILITY
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION ENTRUSTS TO THE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE PEOPLE."  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575,
599, 601, N. 4. 

FN1  THE CASES ON WHICH THE COURT RELIES SEEM TO ADOPT THESE
STANDARDS.  MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, CONCURRING OPINION, 412
417; BUCHALTER V. NEW YORK, 319 U.S. 427, 429; HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272
U.S. 312, 316. 

FN2  "THE QUESTION IN THE CASE AT BAR HAS BEEN TWICE BEFORE US, AND
BEEN LEFT UNDECIDED, AS THE CASES WERE DISPOSED OF ON OTHER GROUNDS." 
TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, 92.  IN PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S.
319, RELIED ON BY THE COURT, THE ISSUE WAS DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND NOT
ENFORCED SELF-INCRIMINATION. 

FN3  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES INDICTMENT BY A GRAND JURY IN MANY
CRIMINAL TRIALS, PROHIBITS DOUBLE JEOPARDY, SELF INCRIMINATION,
DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW OR
THE TAKING OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. 

THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES TO ONE ACCUSED OF CRIME A SPEEDY,
PUBLIC TRIAL BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE DISTRICT WHERE THE CRIME
WAS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED; IT REQUIRES THAT THE ACCUSED BE INFORMED OF
THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM, CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES
AGAINST HIM, HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS TO OBTAIN WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR,
AND ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS EXCESSIVE BAIL, FINES AND CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS. 

FN4  SEE APPENDIX, INFRA, PP. 97-98. 

FN5  ANOTHER PRIME PURPOSE WAS TO MAKE COLORED PEOPLE CITIZENS
ENTITLED TO FULL EQUAL RIGHTS AS CITIZENS DESPITE WHAT THIS COURT
DECIDED IN THE DRED SCOTT CASE.  SCOTT V. SANDFORD, 19 HOW.  393. 

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, FLACK, THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (1908) 94,
CONCLUDES THAT "CONGRESS, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, HAD THE FOLLOWING
OBJECTS AND MOTIVES IN VIEW FOR SUBMITTING THE FIRST SECTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION: 

"1.  TO MAKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS (THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS) BINDING
UPON, OR APPLICABLE TO, THE STATES. 

"2.  TO GIVE VALIDITY TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL. 

"3.  TO DECLARE WHO WERE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN6  IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT BEFORE THE TWINING DECISION JUSTICES
BRADLEY, FIELD, SWAYNE, HARLAN, AND APPARENTLY BREWER, ALTHOUGH THEY
HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED WITH AND DID NOT RELY UPON A DOCUMENTED HISTORY
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUCH AS IS SET OUT IN THE APPENDIX, INFRA,
NEVERTHELESS DISSENTED FROM THE VIEW THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID
NOT MAKE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.  IN
THE ATTACHED APPENDIX (AT PP. 120-123) I HAVE REFERRED TO SOME CASES
EVIDENCING THEIR VIEWS, AND SET OUT SOME EXPRESSIONS OF ITS. 

A CONTEMPORARY COMMENT ILLUSTRATES THAT THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE
INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS MADE WITHOUT FULL REGARD
FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE OR POPULAR UNDERSTANDING. 

"IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION PUT UPON THE LANGUAGE OF
THE FIRST SECTION OF THIS AMENDMENT BY THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT IS NOT
ITS PRIMARY AND MOST OBVIOUS SIGNIFICATION.  NINETY-NINE OUT OF EVERY
HUNDRED EDUCATED MEN, UPON READING THIS SECTION OVER, WOULD AT FIRST
SAY THAT IT FORBADE A STATE TO MAKE OR ENFORCE A LAW WHICH ABRIDGED ANY
PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY WHATEVER OF ONE WHO WAS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES; AND IT IS ONLY BY AN EFFORT OF INGENUITY THAT ANY OTHER SENSE
CAN BE DISCOVERED THAT IT CAN BE FORCED TO BEAR.  IT IS A LITTLE
REMARKABLE THAT, SO FAR AS THE REPORTS DISCLOSE, NO ONE OF THE
DISTINGUISHED COUNSEL WHO ARGUED THIS GREAT CASE (THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE
CASES), NOR ANY ONE OF THE JUDGES WHO SAT IN IT, APPEARS TO HAVE
THOUGHT IT WORTH WHILE TO CONSULT THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONGRESS WHICH
PROPOSED THIS AMENDMENT, TO ASCERTAIN WHAT IT WAS THAT THEY WERE
SEEKING TO ACCOMPLISH.  NOTHING IS MORE COMMON THAN THIS.  THERE IS
HARDLY A QUESTION RAISED AS TO THE TRUE MEANING OF A PROVISION OF THE
OLD, ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION THAT RESORT IS NOT HAD TO ELLIOTT'S DEBATES,
TO ASCERTAIN WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE INSTRUMENT DECLARED AT THE TIME
THAT THEY INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH...."  ROYALL, THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT:  THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 4 SO. L. REV. (N.S.)  558,
563(1879).    FOR A COLLECTION OF OTHER COMMENTS ON THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE
CASES, SEE 2 WARREN, THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY (1937)
C. 32. 

FN7  THE CASE WAS NOT DECIDED UNTIL OVER TWO YEARS AFTER IT WAS
SUBMITTED.  IN A SHORT BRIEF FILED SOME TWO YEARS AFTER THE FIRST
BRIEFS, ONE OF THE COUNSEL ATTACKING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE
STATUTE REFERRED TO AND CITED PART OF THE HISTORY OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE HISTORICAL REFERENCES MADE WERE DIRECTED ONLY TO AN
EFFORT TO SHOW THAT A PURPOSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS TO
PROTECT FREEDOM OF CONTRACT AGAINST MONOPOLY SINCE MONOPOLIES
INTERFERED WITH THE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT AND THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN
BUSINESS.  NONETHELESS SOME OF THESE REFERENCES WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED
THE THEORY, HAD IT BEEN IN QUESTION THERE, THAT A PURPOSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS TO MAKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES.  FOR COUNSEL QUOTED A STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN BINGHAM THAT
"...  IT IS  ...  CLEAR BY EVERY CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, ITS
CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION, LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL, THAT THESE
GREAT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THIS IMMORTAL BILL OF RIGHTS
EMBODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION, RESTED FOR ITS EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT
HITHERTO UPON THE FIDELITY OF THE STATES.  THE HOUSE KNOWS, THE COUNTRY
KNOWS  ..., THAT THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF
ELEVEN STATES WITHIN THIS UNION, WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, HAVE
UTTERLY DISREGARDED THE BEHEST."  BUT SINCE THERE WAS NO CONTENTION
THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT PROHIBITED MONOPOLY, THIS STATEMENT,
IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS QUOTED, IS HARDLY AN INDICATION THAT THE
COURT WAS PRESENTED WITH DOCUMENTED ARGUMENT ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MADE THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES. 

FN8  SEE SAN MATEO COUNTY V. SOUTHERN P.R. CO., 116 U.S. 138; SANTA
CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN P.R. CO., 118 U.S. 394, 396; GRAHAM, THE
"CONSPIRACY THEORY" OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 47 YALE L.J. 371, 48
YALE L.J. 171. 

FN9  THIS CASE WAS DECIDED AFTER HURTADO BUT BEFORE TWINING.  IT
APPARENTLY WAS THE FIRST DECISION OF THIS COURT WHICH BROUGHT IN A BILL
OF RIGHTS PROVISION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  IN DAVIDSON V. NEW
ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97, 105 THE COURT HAD REFUSED TO MAKE SUCH A HOLDING,
SAYING THAT "IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT, WHEN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
WAS ADOPTED, THE PROVISION ON THAT SUBJECT (JUST COMPENSATION), IN
IMMEDIATE JUXTAPOSITION IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WITH THE ONE WE ARE NOW
CONSTRUING (DUE PROCESS), WAS LEFT OUT, AND THIS (DUE PROCESS) WAS
TAKEN."  NOT ONLY WAS THE JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSE LEFT OUT, BUT IT WAS
DELIBERATELY LEFT OUT.  A COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION FRAMED THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND ITS JOURNAL SHOWS THAT ON APRIL 21, 1866, THE
COMMITTEE BY A 7 TO 5 VOTE REJECTED A PROPOSAL TO INCORPORATE THE JUST
COMPENSATION CLAUSE IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  JOURNAL OF THE JOINT
COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1866), REPRINTED AS
SEN. DOC. NO. 711, 63D CONG., 3D SESS. (1915) 29.  AS SHOWN BY THE
HISTORY OF THE AMENDMENT'S PASSAGE, HOWEVER, THE FRAMERS THOUGHT THAT
IN THE LANGUAGE THEY HAD INCLUDED THIS PROTECTION ALONG WITH ALL THE
OTHER PROTECTIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  SEE APPENDIX, INFRA. 

FN10 ONE WRITER OBSERVED, "THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS, ON THE ONE
HAND, REFUSED TO GIVE THIS AMENDMENT ITS EVIDENT MEANING AND PURPOSE -
THUS COMPLETELY DEFEATING THE INTENTION OF THE CONGRESS THAT FRAMED IT
AND OF THE PEOPLE THAT ADOPTED IT.  BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COURT
HAS PUT INTO IT A MEANING WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN INTENDED EITHER BY ITS
FRAMERS OR ADOPTERS - THUS IN EFFECT ADOPTING A NEW AMENDMENT AND
AUGMENTING ITS OWN POWER BY CONSTITUTING ITSELF THAT 'PERPETUAL CENSOR
UPON ALL LEGISLATION OF THE STATE,' WHICH MR. JUSTICE MILLER WAS AFRAID
THE COURT WOULD BECOME IF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE INTERPRETED
ACCORDING TO ITS TRUE MEANING AND GIVEN THE FULL EFFECT INTENDED BY THE
PEOPLE WHEN THEY ADOPTED IT."  2 BOUDIN, GOVERNMENT BY JUDICIARY (1932)
117.  SEE ALSO HAINES, THE REVIVAL OF NATURAL LAW CONCEPTS (1930) 143
165; FAIRMAN, MR. JUSTICE MILLER AND THE SUPREME COURT (1939) C. VIII. 

FN11  SEE CASES COLLECTED PP. 78-79 SUPRA.  OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS LEFT UNPROTECTED FROM STATE VIOLATION ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT TO
COUNSEL, BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455; PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION, FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 487, 490. 

FN12  EXAMPLES OF REGULATORY LEGISLATION INVALIDATED ARE:  STATE TEN
HOUR LAW FOR BAKERY EMPLOYEES, LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45; CF.
MULLER V. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINIMUM WAGE FOR
WOMEN, ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525; MOREHEAD V. NEW
YORK, 298 U.S. 587; BUT CF. WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S.
379; STATE LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEE FOR MEMBERSHIP
IN A UNION, COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1; CF. ADAIR V. UNITED STATES,
208 U.S. 161; STATE LAW FIXING PRICE OF GASOLINE, WILLIAMS V. STANDARD
OIL CO., 278 U.S. 235; STATE TAXATION OF BONDS, BALDWIN V. MISSOURI,
281 U.S. 586; STATE LAW LIMITING AMUSEMENT TICKET BROKERAGE, RIBNIK V.
MCBRIDE, 277 U.S. 350; LAW FIXING SIZE OF LOAVES OF BREAD TO PREVENT
FRAUD ON PUBLIC, JAY BURNS BAKING CO. V. BRYAN, 264 U.S. 504; CF.
SCHMIDINGER V. CHICAGO, 226 U.S. 578. 

FN13  SEE PARTICULARLY DISSENTS IN CASES CITED NOTES 11 AND 12,
SUPRA. 

FN14  ACTUALLY IT APPEARS THAT THE PRACTICE OF THE COURT OF STAR
CHAMBER OF COMPELLING AN ACCUSED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH IN LILBURN'S
TRIAL, 3 HOWELL'S STATE TRIALS 1315; 4 ID., 1269, 1280, 1292, 1342, HAD
HELPED BRING TO A HEAD THE POPULAR OPPOSITION WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE
DEMISE OF THAT ENGINE OF TYRANNY.  16 CAR.  I, CC. 10, 11.  SEE 8
WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (1940) PP. 292, 298; PITTMAN, THE COLONIAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, 21
VA. L. REV. 763, 774(1935).  MOREOVER, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT
SEVEN AMERICAN STATE CONSTITUTIONS GUARANTEED A PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION PRIOR TO 1789.  PITTMAN, SUPRA, 765; MD. CONST. (1776), 1
POORE CONSTITUTIONS (1878) 818; MASS. CONST. (1780), ID. AT 958; N.C.
CONST. (1776), 2 ID. AT 1409; N.H. CONST. (1784), ID. AT 1282; PA.
CONST. (1776), ID. AT 1542; VT. CONST. (1777), ID. AT 1860; VA. BILL OF
RIGHTS (1776), ID. AT 1909. 

BY CONTRAST IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH WAS NOT
PROTECTED BY COLONIAL OR STATE CONSTITUTIONS PRIOR TO 1789 EXCEPT FOR
THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY IN SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURES.  SEE WARREN,
THE NEW "LIBERTY" UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 39 HARV. L. REV. 431,
461(1926). 

FN15  FOR ACCOUNTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MRS. HUTCHINSON, SEE 1
HART, AMERICAN HISTORY TOLD BY CONTEMPORARIES, 382 FF. (1897); BEARD,
THE RISE OF AMERICAN CIVILIZATION (1930) 57; 1 ANDREWS, THE COLONIAL
PERIOD OF AMERICAN HISTORY, 485(1934). 

FN16  SEE, E.G., BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455; FELDMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 322 U.S. 487. 

FN17  SEE CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; POLK CO. V. GLOVER, 305
U.S. 5, 12-19; MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 302 U.S. 419, 423,
428; MILK WAGON DRIVERS V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, 312 U.S. 287, 299, 301;
BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 474; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, 322, 324-326; FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 322
U.S. 487, 494, 495; FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320
U.S. 591, 619, 620; UNITED GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123, 146, 153;
GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66, 79. 

FN18  AN EARLY AND PRESCIENT EXPOSE OF THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE
NATURAL LAW FORMULA WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT APPEARS
IN THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE IREDELL IN CALDER V. BULL, 3
DALL.  386, 398, 399:  "IF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, OR OF THE LEGISLATURE
OF A STATE, VIOLATES  ...  CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, IT IS
UNQUESTIONABLY VOID; THOUGH, I ADMIT, THAT AS THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE
IT VOID IS OF A DELICATE AND AWFUL NATURE, THE COURT WILL NEVER RESORT
TO THAT AUTHORITY, BUT IN A CLEAR AND URGENT CASE.  IF, ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE LEGISLATURE OF THE UNION, OR THE LEGISLATURE OF ANY MEMBER OF
THE UNION, SHALL PASS A LAW, WITHIN THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, THE COURT CANNOT PRONOUNCE IT TO BE VOID, MERELY
BECAUSE IT IS, IN THEIR JUDGMENT, CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE.  THE IDEAS OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE REGULATED BY NO FIXED
STANDARD: THE ABLEST AND THE PUREST MEN HAVE DIFFERED UPON THE SUBJECT;
AND ALL THAT THE COURT COULD PROPERLY SAY, IN SUCH AN EVENT, WOULD BE,
THAT THE LEGISLATURE (POSSESSED OF AN EQUAL RIGHT OF OPINION) HAD
PASSED AN ACT WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE JUDGES, WAS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE ABSTRACT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE." 

SEE ALSO HAINES, THE LAW OF NATURE IN STATE AND FEDERAL DECISIONS, 25
YALE L.J. 617(1916); JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED
STATES AND THE DOCTRINES OF VESTED RIGHTS AND OF IMPLIED LIMITATIONS ON
LEGISLATURES, 2 TEX. L. REV. 257(1924), 3 TEX. L. REV. 1(1924); THE
REVIVAL OF NATURAL LAW CONCEPTS (1930); THE AMERICAN DOCTRINE OF
JUDICIAL SUPREMACY (1932); THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS (1944). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

                        APPENDIX. 

           I. 

THE LEGISLATIVE ORIGIN OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN IN THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION. 
THAT COMMITTEE HAD BEEN APPOINTED BY A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE
HOUSE AND SENATE WITH AUTHORITY TO REPORT "BY BILL OR OTHERWISE"
WHETHER THE FORMER CONFEDERATE STATES "ARE ENTITLED TO BE REPRESENTED
IN EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS."  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1865) 6, 30.  THE BROAD MISSION OF THAT COMMITTEE WAS REVEALED BY ITS
VERY FIRST ACTION OF SENDING A DELEGATION TO PRESIDENT JOHNSON
REQUESTING HIM TO "DEFER ALL FURTHER EXECUTIVE ACTION IN REGARD TO
RECONSTRUCTION UNTIL THIS COMMITTEE SHALL HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON THAT
SUBJECT."  JOURNAL OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION, 39TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1866), REPRINTED AS SEN. DOC. NO. 711, 63D CONG., 3D
SESS. (1915) 6.  IT IMMEDIATELY SET ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF DRAFTING
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS WHICH WOULD OUTLINE THE PLAN OF
RECONSTRUCTION WHICH IT WOULD RECOMMEND TO CONGRESS.  SOME OF THOSE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SUFFRAGE AND REPRESENTATION IN THE
SOUTH.  JOURNAL, 7.  ON JANUARY 12, 1866, A SUBCOMMITTEE, CONSISTING OF
SENATORS FESSENDEN (CHAIRMAN OF THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE) AND
HOWARD, AND CONGRESSMEN STEVENS, BINGHAM AND CONKLING, WAS APPOINTED TO
CONSIDER THOSE SUFFRAGE PROPOSALS.  JOURNAL, 9.  THERE WAS AT THE SAME
TIME REFERRED TO THIS COMMITTEE A "PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION" SUBMITTED BY MR. BINGHAM THAT: 

"THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER
TO SECURE TO ALL PERSONS IN EVERY STATE WITHIN THIS UNION EQUAL
PROTECTION IN THEIR RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY."  JOURNAL,
9.  ANOTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT "ALL LAWS, STATE OR NATIONAL, SHALL
OPERATE IMPARTIALLY AND EQUALLY ON ALL PERSONS WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE
OR COLOR,"  FN1  WAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE.  JOURNAL, 9.  ON
JANUARY 24, 1866, THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTED BACK A COMBINATION OF THESE
TWO PROPOSALS WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE FULL COMMITTEE.  JOURNAL,
13, 14.  THEREUPON THE PROPOSALS WERE REFERRED TO A "SELECT COMMITTEE
OF THREE," BINGHAM, BOUTWELL AND ROGERS.  JOURNAL, 14.  ON JANUARY 27,
1866, MR. BINGHAM ON BEHALF OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE, PRESENTED THIS
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO THE FULL COMMITTEE: 

"CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY
AND PROPER TO SECURE ALL PERSONS IN EVERY STATE FULL PROTECTION IN THE
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY; AND TO ALL CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN ANY STATE, THE SAME IMMUNITIES AND ALSO EQUAL
POLITICAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES."  JOURNAL, 14.  THIS WAS NOT
ACCEPTED.  BUT ON FEBRUARY 3, 1866, MR. BINGHAM SUBMITTED AN AMENDED
VERSION: "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE
NECESSARY AND PROPER TO SECURE TO THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE ALL
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES (ART. 4,
SEC. 2); AND TO ALL PERSONS IN THE SEVERAL STATES EQUAL PROTECTION IN
THE RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY (5TH AMENDMENT)."  THIS WON
COMMITTEE APPROVAL, JOURNAL, 17, AND WAS PRESENTED BY MR. BINGHAM TO
THE HOUSE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 13, 1866.  CONG.
GLOBE, SUPRA, 813. 

                       II. 

WHEN, ON FEBRUARY 26, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CAME UP FOR DEBATE, MR.
BINGHAM STATED THAT "BY ORDER  ...  OF THE COMMITTEE  ...  I PROPOSE
THE ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT."  IN SUPPORT OF IT HE SAID: 

"  ...  THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED STANDS IN THE VERY WORDS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS IT CAME TO US FROM THE HANDS OF
ITS ILLUSTRIOUS FRAMERS.  EVERY WORD OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO
DAY IN THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR COUNTRY, SAVE THE WORDS CONFERRING THE
EXPRESS GRANT OF POWER UPON THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
RESIDUE OF THE RESOLUTION, AS THE HOUSE WILL SEE BY A REFERENCE TO THE
CONSTITUTION, IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND SECTION OF THE FOURTH
ARTICLE, AND OF A PORTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ADOPTED BY THE FIRST
CONGRESS IN 1789, AND MADE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COUNTRY. 
... 

"SIR, IT HAS BEEN THE WANT OF THE REPUBLIC THAT THERE WAS NOT AN
EXPRESS GRANT OF POWER IN THE CONSTITUTION TO ENABLE THE WHOLE PEOPLE
OF EVERY STATE, BY CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, TO ENFORCE OBEDIENCE TO
THESE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  NOTHING CAN BE PLAINER TO
THOUGHTFUL MEN THAN THAT IF THE GRANT OF POWER HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY
CONFERRED UPON THE CONGRESS OF THE NATION, AND LEGISLATION HAD BEEN
UPON YOUR STATUTE-BOOKS TO ENFORCE THESE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN EVERY STATE, THAT REBELLION, WHICH HAS SCARRED AND
BLASTED THE LAND, WOULD HAVE BEEN AN IMPOSSIBILITY.  ...          .
.         .         .         . 

"AND, SIR, IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR BY EVERY CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, ITS CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION, ITS CONTINUED
CONSTRUCTION, LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL, THAT THESE GREAT
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THIS IMMORTAL BILL OF RIGHTS EMBODIED
IN THE CONSTITUTION, RESTED FOR ITS EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT HITHERTO
UPON THE FIDELITY OF THE STATES.  ...  "  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 1033
1034. 

OPPOSITION SPEAKERS EMPHASIZED THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD DESTROY
STATE'S RIGHTS AND EMPOWER CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE ON MATTERS OF PURELY
LOCAL CONCERN.  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 1054, 1057, 1063-1065, 1083, 1085
1087.  SEE ALSO ID. AT 1082.  SOME TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE AMENDMENT
WAS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE BILL OF RIGHTS WERE ALREADY SECURED AGAINST
STATE VIOLATION.  ID. AT 1059, 1066, 1088.  MR. BINGHAM JOINED ISSUE ON
THIS CONTENTION: 

"THE GENTLEMAN SEEMED TO THINK THAT ALL PERSONS COULD HAVE REMEDIES
FOR ALL VIOLATIONS OF THEIR RIGHTS OF 'LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY' IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

"I VENTURED TO ASK HIM YESTERDAY WHEN ANY ACTION OF THAT SORT WAS
EVER MAINTAINED IN ANY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
REDRESS THE GREAT WRONG WHICH HAS BEEN PRACTICED, AND WHICH IS BEING
PRACTICED NOW IN MORE STATES THAN ONE OF THE UNION UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF STATE LAWS, DENYING TO CITIZENS THEREIN EQUAL PROTECTION OR ANY
PROTECTION IN THE RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY. 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"  ...  A GENTLEMAN ON THE OTHER SIDE INTERRUPTED ME AND WANTED TO
KNOW IF I COULD CITE A DECISION SHOWING THAT THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS THE BILL OF RIGHTS
UNDER THE ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION HAD BEEN DENIED.  I
ANSWERED THAT I WAS PREPARED TO INTRODUCE SUCH DECISIONS; AND THAT IS
EXACTLY WHAT MAKES PLAIN THE NECESSITY OF ADOPTING THIS AMENDMENT. 

"MR. SPEAKER, ON THIS SUBJECT I REFER THE HOUSE AND THE COUNTRY TO A
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, TO BE FOUND IN 7 PETERS, 247, IN THE
CASE OF BARRON VS. THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, INVOLVING
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION ARE BINDING UPON THE STATE OF MARYLAND
AND TO BE ENFORCED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAYS: 

"'THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES FRAMED SUCH A GOVERNMENT FOR THE
UNITED STATES AS THEY SUPPOSED BEST ADAPTED TO THEIR SITUATION AND BEST
CALCULATED TO PROMOTE THEIR INTERESTS.  THE POWERS THEY CONFERRED ON
THIS GOVERNMENT WERE TO BE EXERCISED BY ITSELF; AND THE LIMITATIONS OF
POWER, IF EXPRESSED IN GENERAL TERMS, ARE NATURALLY, AND WE THINK
NECESSARILY, APPLICABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT CREATED BY THE INSTRUMENT. 
THEY ARE LIMITATIONS OF POWER GRANTED IN THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF, NOT OF
DISTINCT GOVERNMENTS, FRAMED BY DIFFERENT PERSONS AND FOR DIFFERENT
PURPOSES. 

"'IF THESE PROPOSITIONS BE CORRECT, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT MUST BE
UNDERSTOOD AS RESTRAINING THE POWER OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT AS
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.' 

"I READ ONE FURTHER DECISION ON THIS SUBJECT - THE CASE OF THE LESSEE
OF LIVINGSTON VS. MOORE AND OTHERS, 7 PETERS, PAGE 551.  THE COURT, IN
DELIVERING ITS OPINION, SAYS: 

"'AS TO THE AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THEY
MUST BE PUT OUT OF THE CASE, SINCE IT IS NOW SETTLED THAT THOSE
AMENDMENTS DO NOT EXTEND TO THE STATES; AND THIS OBSERVATION DISPOSES
OF THE NEXT EXCEPTION, WHICH RELIES ON THE SEVENTH ARTICLE OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS.' 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE QUESTION IS, SIMPLY, WHETHER YOU WILL GIVE BY THIS AMENDMENT TO
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES THE POWER, BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT, TO
PUNISH OFFICIALS OF STATES FOR VIOLATION OF THE OATHS ENJOINED UPON
THEM BY THEIR CONSTITUTION?  ...  IS THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO STAND IN OUR
CONSTITUTION HEREAFTER, AS IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS WITHIN ELEVEN STATES,
A MERE DEAD LETTER?  IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE SAFETY OF THE
PEOPLE THAT IT SHOULD BE ENFORCED. 

"MR. SPEAKER, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THIS VERY PROVISION OF THE BILL
OF RIGHTS BROUGHT IN QUESTION THIS DAY, UPON THIS TRIAL BEFORE THE
HOUSE, MORE THAN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION, MAKES THAT
UNITY OF GOVERNMENT WHICH CONSTITUTES US ONE PEOPLE, BY WHICH AND
THROUGH WHICH AMERICAN NATIONALITY CAME TO BE, AND ONLY BY THE
ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH CAN AMERICAN NATIONALITY CONTINUE TO BE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"WHAT MORE COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THAT INSTRUMENT TO SECURE THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THESE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN EVERY STATE,
OTHER THAN THE ADDITIONAL GRANT OF POWER WHICH WE ASK THIS DAY?  ... 

"AS SLAVES WERE NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THERE MIGHT BE
SOME COLOR OF EXCUSE FOR THE SLAVE STATES IN THEIR DISREGARD FOR THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS TO SLAVES AND REFUSING THEM
PROTECTION IN LIFE OR PROPERTY  ... 

"BUT, SIR, THERE NEVER WAS EVEN COLORABLE EXCUSE, MUCH LESS APOLOGY,
FOR ANY MAN NORTH OR SOUTH CLAIMING THAT ANY STATE LEGISLATURE OR STATE
COURT, OR STATE EXECUTIVE, HAS ANY RIGHT TO DENY PROTECTION TO ANY FREE
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THEIR LIMITS IN THE RIGHTS OF LIFE,
LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY.  GENTLEMEN WHO OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT OPPOSE THE
GRANT OF POWER TO ENFORCE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  GENTLEMEN WHO OPPOSE
THIS AMENDMENT SIMPLY DECLARE TO THESE REBEL STATES, GO ON WITH YOUR
CONFISCATION STATUTES, YOUR STATUTES OF BANISHMENT, YOUR STATUTES OF
UNJUST IMPRISONMENT, YOUR STATUTES OF MURDER AND DEATH AGAINST MEN
BECAUSE OF THEIR LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES."  ID. AT 1089-1091. 

"  ...  WHERE IS THE POWER IN CONGRESS, UNLESS THIS OR SOME SIMILAR
AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED, TO PREVENT THE REENACTMENT OF THOSE INFERNAL
STATUTES  ...  ?  LET SOME MAN ANSWER.  WHY, SIR, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW YORK (MR. HALE)  ...  YESTERDAY GAVE UP THE ARGUMENT ON THIS
POINT.  HE SAID THAT THE CITIZENS MUST RELY UPON THE STATE FOR THEIR
PROTECTION.  I ADMIT THAT SUCH IS THE RULE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS IT
NOW STANDS."  ID. AT 1093. 

AS ONE IMPORTANT WRITER ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
HAS OBSERVED, "BINGHAM'S SPEECH IN DEFENSE AND ADVOCACY OF HIS
AMENDMENT COMPREHENDS PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID IN THE PRESS
OR ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION  ...  "
KENDRICK, JOURNAL OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION (1914) 217. 
A READING OF THE DEBATES INDICATES THAT NO MEMBER EXCEPT MR. HALE HAD
CONTRADICTED MR. BINGHAM'S ARGUMENT THAT WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT THE
STATES HAD POWER TO DEPRIVE PERSONS OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE
FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS.  MR. HALE HAD CONCEDED THAT HE DID NOT "KNOW OF
A CASE WHERE IT HAS EVER BEEN DECIDED THAT THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LIBERTIES OF THE
CITIZEN."  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, AT 1064.  BUT HE WAS APPARENTLY UNAWARE
OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN BARRON V. BALTIMORE, SUPRA.  FOR HE
THOUGHT THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS HAD ALREADY BEEN
"THROWN OVER US IN SOME WAY, WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT THE SANCTION OF A
JUDICIAL DECISION ...  "  AND IN ANY EVENT, HE INSISTED, "  ...  THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NOT YET FOUND THAT THEIR STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE
INSUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZEN."  HE
FURTHER OBJECTED, AS HAD MOST OF THE OTHER OPPONENTS TO THE PROPOSAL,
THAT THE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZED THE CONGRESS TO "ARROGATE" TO ITSELF VAST
POWERS OVER ALL KINDS OF AFFAIRS WHICH SHOULD PROPERLY BE LEFT TO THE
STATES.  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 1064-1065. 

WHEN MR. HOTCHKISS SUGGESTED THAT THE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE COUCHED IN
TERMS OF A PROHIBITION AGAINST THE STATES IN ADDITION TO AUTHORIZING
CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE AGAINST STATE DEPRIVATIONS OF PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES, DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT WAS POSTPONED UNTIL THE SECOND
TUESDAY OF APRIL, 1866.  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 1095. 

III. 

IMPORTANT EVENTS WHICH APPARENTLY AFFECTED THE EVOLUTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TRANSPIRED DURING THE PERIOD DURING WHICH
DISCUSSION OF IT WAS POSTPONED.  THE FREEDMAN'S BUREAU BILL WHICH MADE
DEPRIVATION OF CERTAIN CIVIL RIGHTS OF NEGROES AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS HAD BEEN PASSED.  IT APPLIED, NOT TO THE ENTIRE
COUNTRY, BUT ONLY TO THE SOUTH.  ON FEBRUARY 19, 1866, PRESIDENT
JOHNSON HAD VETOED THE BILL PRINCIPALLY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 915.  FORTHWITH, A COMPANION
PROPOSAL KNOWN AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL EMPOWERING FEDERAL COURTS TO
PUNISH THOSE WHO DEPRIVED ANY PERSON ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY OF CERTAIN
DEFINED CIVIL RIGHTS WAS PRESSED TO PASSAGE.  SENATOR TRUMBULL,
CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WHO OFFERED THE BILL IN THE
SENATE ON BEHALF OF THAT COMMITTEE, HAD STATED THAT "THE LATE
SLAVEHOLDING STATES" HAD ENACTED LAWS "  ...  DEPRIVING PERSONS OF
AFRICAN DESCENT OF PRIVILEGES WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO FREEMEN  ...
STATUTES OF MISSISSIPPI  ... PROVIDE THAT  ...  IF ANY PERSON OF
AFRICAN DESCENT RESIDING IN THAT STATE TRAVELS FROM ONE COUNTY TO
ANOTHER WITHOUT HAVING A PASS OR A CERTIFICATE OF HIS FREEDOM, HE IS
LIABLE TO BE COMMITTED TO JAIL AND TO BE DEALT WITH AS A PERSON WHO IS
IN THE STATE WITHOUT AUTHORITY.  OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE
PROHIBIT ANY NEGRO OR MULATTO FROM HAVING FIRE-ARMS; AND ONE PROVISION
OF THE STATUTE DECLARES THAT FOR 'EXERCISING THE FUNCTIONS OF A
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL FREE NEGROES  ...  ON CONVICTION, MAY BE
PUNISHED BY  ...  LASHES  ...  '  OTHER PROVISIONS  ...  PROHIBIT A
FREE NEGRO ...  FROM KEEPING A HOUSE OF ENTERTAINMENT, AND SUBJECT HIM
TO TRIAL BEFORE TWO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND FIVE SLAVEHOLDERS FOR
VIOLATING  ...  THIS LAW.  THE STATUTES OF SOUTH CAROLINA MAKE IT A
HIGHLY PENAL OFFENSE FOR ANY PERSON, WHITE OR COLORED, TO TEACH SLAVES;
AND SIMILAR PROVISIONS ARE TO BE FOUND RUNNING THROUGH ALL THE STATUTES
OF THE LATE SLAVEHOLDING STATES.  ...  THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL  ...  IS
TO DESTROY ALL THESE DISCRIMINATIONS  ...  "  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 474. 

IN THE HOUSE, AFTER MR. BINGHAM'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FOR A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HAD BEEN REJECTED, THE SUGGESTION WAS ALSO
ADVANCED THAT THE BILL SECURED FOR ALL "THE RIGHT OF SPEECH, ...
TRANSIT,  ...  DOMICIL,  ...  THE RIGHT TO SUE, THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, AND THE RIGHT OF PETITION."  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 1263.  AND AN
OPPONENT OF THE MEASURE, MR. RAYMOND, CONCEDED THAT IT WOULD GUARANTEE
TO THE NEGRO "THE RIGHT OF FREE PASSAGE  ...  HE HAS A DEFINED STATUS
...  A RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF  ...  TO BEAR ARMS  ...  TO TESTIFY IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS  ...  " CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 1266-1267.  BUT
OPPONENTS TOOK THE POSITION THAT WITHOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
SUCH AS THAT PROPOSED BY MR. BINGHAM, THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 1154-1155, 1263. 

MR. BINGHAM HIMSELF VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED AND VOTED AGAINST THE BILL. 
HIS OBJECTION WAS TWOFOLD: FIRST, INSOFAR AS IT EXTENDED THE
PROTECTIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS AGAINST STATE INVASION, HE
BELIEVED THE MEASURE TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF THE SUPREME
COURT'S HOLDING IN BARRON V. BALTIMORE, SUPRA.  WHILE FAVORING THE
EXTENSION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEES AS AGAINST STATE INVASION,
HE THOUGHT THIS COULD BE DONE ONLY BY PASSAGE OF HIS AMENDMENT.  HIS
SECOND OBJECTION TO THE BILL WAS THAT, IN HIS VIEW, IT WOULD GO BEYOND
HIS OBJECTIVE OF MAKING THE STATES OBSERVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND WOULD
ACTUALLY STRIP THE STATES OF POWER TO GOVERN, CENTRALIZING ALL POWER IN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  TO THIS HE WAS OPPOSED.  HIS VIEWS ARE IN PART
REFLECTED BY HIS OWN REMARKS AND THE ANSWERS TO HIM BY MR. WILSON.  MR.
BINGHAM SAID, IN PART: 

"  ...  I DO NOT OPPOSE ANY LEGISLATION WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF MY COUNTRY TO ENFORCE IN ITS LETTER AND ITS SPIRIT THE
BILL OF RIGHTS AS EMBODIED IN THAT CONSTITUTION.  I KNOW THAT THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE WANT OF THE REPUBLIC.  I KNOW
IF IT HAD BEEN ENFORCED IN GOOD FAITH IN EVERY STATE OF THE UNION THE
CALAMITIES AND CONFLICTS AND CRIMES AND SACRIFICES OF THE PAST FIVE
YEARS WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE. 

"BUT I FEEL THAT I AM JUSTIFIED IN SAYING, IN VIEW OF THE TEXT OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF MY COUNTRY, IN VIEW OF ALL ITS PAST INTERPRETATIONS, IN
VIEW OF THE MANIFEST AND DECLARED INTENT OF THE MEN WHO FRAMED IT, THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, TOUCHING THE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND
PROPERTY OF EVERY CITIZEN OF THE REPUBLIC WITHIN EVERY ORGANIZED STATE
OF THE UNION, IS OF THE RESERVE POWERS OF THE STATES, TO BE ENFORCED BY
STATE TRIBUNALS  ... 

"  ...  I AM WITH HIM IN AN EARNEST DESIRE TO HAVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS
IN YOUR CONSTITUTION ENFORCED EVERYWHERE.  BUT I ASK THAT IT BE
ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF MY COUNTRY. 

     .         .        .         .         . 

"  ...  I SUBMIT THAT THE TERM CIVIL RIGHTS INCLUDES EVERY RIGHT THAT
PERTAINS TO THE CITIZEN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS, AND GOVERNMENT OF
THIS COUNTRY.  ... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"  ...  THE LAW IN EVERY STATE SHOULD BE JUST; IT SHOULD BE NO
RESPECTER OF PERSONS.  IT IS OTHERWISE NOW, AND IT HAS BEEN OTHERWISE
FOR MANY YEARS IN MANY OF THE STATES OF THE UNION.  I SHOULD REMEDY
THAT NOT BY AN ARBITRARY ASSUMPTION OF POWER, BUT BY AMENDING THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, EXPRESSLY PROHIBITING THE STATES
FROM ANY SUCH ABUSE OF POWER IN THE FUTURE.  ...  "           .
.         .         .         . 

"IF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AS HAS BEEN SOLEMNLY RULED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, DOES NOT LIMIT THE POWERS OF STATES AND
PROHIBIT SUCH GROSS INJUSTICE BY STATES, IT DOES LIMIT THE POWER OF
CONGRESS AND PROHIBIT ANY SUCH LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"...  THE CARE OF THE PROPERTY, THE LIBERTY, AND THE LIFE OF THE
CITIZEN, UNDER THE SOLEMN SANCTION OF AN OATH IMPOSED BY YOUR FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, IS IN THE STATES, AND NOT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  I
HAVE SOUGHT TO EFFECT NO CHANGE IN THAT RESPECT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE COUNTRY.  I HAVE ADVOCATED HERE AN AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD ARM
CONGRESS WITH THE POWER TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE TO THE OATH, AND PUNISH ALL
VIOLATIONS BY STATE OFFICERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, BUT LEAVING THOSE
OFFICERS TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES ENJOINED UPON THEM AS CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES BY THAT OATH AND BY THAT CONSTITUTION.  ...  "  CONG.
GLOBE, SUPRA, 1291-1292. 

MR. WILSON, HOUSE SPONSOR OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, ANSWERED MR.
BINGHAM'S OBJECTIONS TO IT WITH THESE REMARKS: 

"THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO TELLS THE HOUSE THAT CIVIL RIGHTS INVOLVE
ALL THE RIGHTS THAT CITIZENS HAVE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT; THAT IN THE
TERM ARE EMBRACED THOSE RIGHTS WHICH BELONG TO THE CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES AS SUCH, AND THOSE WHICH BELONG TO A CITIZEN OF A STATE
AS SUCH; AND THAT THIS BILL IS NOT INTENDED MERELY TO ENFORCE EQUALITY
OF RIGHTS, SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT
INVADES THE STATES TO ENFORCE EQUALITY OF RIGHTS IN RESPECT TO THOSE
THINGS WHICH PROPERLY AND RIGHTFULLY DEPEND ON STATE REGULATIONS AND
LAWS.  ... 

"  ...  I FIND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH THE GENTLEMAN DESIRES TO
HAVE ENFORCED BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION THAT 'NO PERSON SHALL
BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.' 
I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE CONSTITUTE THE CIVIL RIGHTS BELONGING TO THE
CITIZENS IN CONNECTION WITH THOSE WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE
PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE AND PERFECT ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS THUS
SPECIFICALLY NAMED, AND THESE ARE THE RIGHTS TO WHICH THIS BILL
RELATES, HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH SUBJECTS SUBMITTED TO THE CONTROL OF
THE SEVERAL STATES."  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA AT 1294. 

IN VETOING THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, PRESIDENT JOHNSON SAID AMONG OTHER
THINGS THAT THE BILL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR MANY OF THE SAME REASONS
ADVANCED BY MR. BINGHAM: 

"HITHERTO EVERY SUBJECT EMBRACED IN THE ENUMERATION OF RIGHTS
CONTAINED IN THIS BILL HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS EXCLUSIVELY BELONGING TO
THE STATES.  ...  AS RESPECTS THE TERRITORIES, THEY COME WITHIN THE
POWER OF CONGRESS, FOR AS TO THEM, THE LAW-MAKING POWER IS THE FEDERAL
POWER; BUT AS TO THE STATES NO SIMILAR PROVISIONS EXIST, VESTING IN
CONGRESS THE POWER 'TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS' FOR THEM."  CONG.
GLOBE, SUPRA, 1679, 1680. 

THE BILL, HOWEVER, WAS PASSED OVER PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S VETO AND IN
SPITE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS OF BINGHAM AND OTHERS.  CONG.
GLOBE, SUPRA, 1809, 1861. 

                       IV. 

THEREAFTER THE SCENE CHANGED BACK TO THE COMMITTEE ON
RECONSTRUCTION.  THERE MR. STEVENS HAD PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT, SEC. 1 OF
WHICH PROVIDED "NO DISCRIMINATION SHALL BE MADE BY ANY STATE, NOR BY
THE UNITED STATES, AS TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF PERSONS BECAUSE OF RACE,
COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE."  JOURNAL, 28.  MR. BINGHAM
PROPOSED AN ADDITIONAL SECTION PROVIDING THAT "NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR
ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON
OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR DENY TO
ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 
JOURNAL, 30.  AFTER THE COMMITTEE HAD TWICE DECLINED TO RECOMMEND MR.
BINGHAM'S PROPOSAL, ON APRIL 28 IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMITTEE,
SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM HE HAD PROPOSED IT, AS SEC. 1 OF THE
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT.  JOURNAL, 44. 

                                  V. 

IN INTRODUCING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSE ON MAY 8, 1866,
MR. STEVENS SPEAKING FOR THE COMMITTEE SAID: 

"THE FIRST SECTION (OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT) PROHIBITS THE STATES
FROM ABRIDGING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR UNLAWFULLY DEPRIVING THEM OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, OR
OF DENYING TO ANY PERSON WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION THE 'EQUAL'
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

"I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE THAT ANY PERSON CAN BE FOUND WHO WILL NOT ADMIT
THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE PROVISIONS IS JUST.  THEY ARE ALL ASSERTED, IN
SOME FORM OR OTHER, IN OUR DECLARATION OR ORGANIC LAW.  BUT THE
CONSTITUTION LIMITS ONLY THE ACTION OF CONGRESS, AND IS NOT A
LIMITATION ON THE STATES.  THIS AMENDMENT SUPPLIES THAT DEFECT, AND
ALLOWS CONGRESS TO CORRECT THE UNJUST LEGISLATION OF THE STATES, SO FAR
THAT THE LAW WHICH OPERATES UPON ONE MAN SHALL OPERATE EQUALLY UPON
ALL."  CONG. GLOBE, 2459.  FN2 

ON MAY 23, 1866, SENATOR HOWARD INTRODUCED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE SENATE IN THE ABSENCE OF SENATOR FESSENDEN WHO WAS SICK.  SENATOR
HOWARD PREFACED HIS REMARKS BY STATING: 

"I  ...  PRESENT TO THE SENATE  ...  THE VIEWS AND THE MOTIVES (OF
THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE) ...  ONE RESULT OF THEIR INVESTIGATIONS
HAS BEEN THE JOINT RESOLUTION FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.  ... 

"THE FIRST SECTION OF THE AMENDMENT  ...  SUBMITTED FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE TWO HOUSES RELATES TO THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, AND TO THE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES OF ALL PERSONS, WHETHER CITIZENS OR OTHERS, UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  ... 

"IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THIS IS A GENERAL PROHIBITION UPON ALL THE
STATES, AS SUCH, FROM ABRIDGING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THAT IS ITS FIRST CLAUSE, AND I REGARD
IT AS VERY IMPORTANT.  IT ALSO PROHIBITS EACH ONE OF THE STATES FROM
DEPRIVING ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW, OR DENYING TO ANY PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS. 

     .         .         .       .         . 

"IT WOULD BE A CURIOUS QUESTION TO SOLVE WHAT ARE THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF EACH OF THE STATES IN THE SEVERAL STATES. 
...  I AM NOT AWARE THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAVE EVER UNDERTAKEN TO
DEFINE EITHER THE NATURE OR EXTENT OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
THUS GUARANTIED.  ...  BUT WE MAY GATHER SOME INTIMATION OF WHAT
PROBABLY WILL BE THE OPINION OF THE JUDICIARY BY REFERRING TO  ...
CORFIELD VS. CORYELL  ...  4 WASHINGTON'S CIRCUIT COURT REPORTS, PAGE
380.  (HERE SENATOR HOWARD QUOTED AT LENGTH FROM THAT OPINION.) 

"SUCH IS THE CHARACTER OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SPOKEN OF IN
THE SECOND SECTION OF THE FOURTH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  TO THESE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE - FOR THEY ARE NOT AND
CANNOT BE FULLY DEFINED IN THEIR ENTIRE EXTENT AND PRECISE NATURE - TO
THESE SHOULD BE ADDED THE PERSONAL RIGHTS GUARANTIED AND SECURED BY THE
FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION; SUCH AS THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS; THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE
AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, A RIGHT
APPERTAINING TO EACH AND ALL THE PEOPLE; THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND TO BEAR
ARMS; THE RIGHT TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THE QUARTERING OF SOLDIERS IN A
HOUSE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER; THE RIGHT TO BE EXEMPT FROM
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, AND FROM ANY SEARCH OR SEIZURE
EXCEPT BY VIRTUE OF A WARRANT ISSUED UPON A FORMAL OATH OR AFFIDAVIT;
THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE OF THE
ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM, AND HIS RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY
OF THE VICINAGE; AND ALSO THE RIGHT TO BE SECURE AGAINST EXCESSIVE BAIL
AND AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS. 

"NOW, SIR, HERE IS A MASS OF PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES, AND RIGHTS, SOME
OF THEM SECURED BY THE SECOND SECTION OF THE FOURTH ARTICLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH I HAVE RECITED, SOME BY THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS
OF THE CONSTITUTION; AND IT IS A FACT WELL WORTHY OF ATTENTION THAT THE
COURSE OF DECISION OF OUR COURTS AND THE PRESENT SETTLED DOCTRINE IS,
THAT ALL THESE IMMUNITIES, PRIVILEGES, RIGHTS, THUS GUARANTIED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR RECOGNIZED BY IT, ARE SECURED TO THE CITIZENS SOLELY AS
A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND AS A PARTY IN THEIR COURTS.  THEY DO
NOT OPERATE IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE AS A RESTRAINT OR PROHIBITION UPON
STATE LEGISLATION.  STATES ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THEM, AND IT HAS BEEN
REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE RESTRICTION CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION
AGAINST THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION IS NOT A RESTRICTION UPON STATE LEGISLATION, BUT APPLIES
ONLY TO THE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS. 

"NOW, SIR, THERE IS NO POWER GIVEN IN THE CONSTITUTION TO ENFORCE AND
TO CARRY OUT ANY OF THESE GUARANTEES.  THEY ARE NOT POWERS GRANTED BY
THE CONSTITUTION TO CONGRESS, AND OF COURSE DO NOT COME WITHIN THE
SWEEPING CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO PASS ALL
LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING OUT THE FOREGOING OR GRANTED
POWERS, BUT THEY STAND SIMPLY AS A BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION,
WITHOUT POWER ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO GIVE THEM FULL EFFECT; WHILE
AT THE SAME TIME THE STATES ARE NOT RESTRAINED FROM VIOLATING THE
PRINCIPLES EMBRACED IN THEM EXCEPT BY THEIR OWN LOCAL CONSTITUTIONS,
WHICH MAY BE ALTERED FROM YEAR TO YEAR.  THE GREAT OBJECT OF THE FIRST
STATES AND COMPEL THEM AT ALL TIMES TO RESPECT THESE GREAT FUNDAMENTAL
GUARANTEES."  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 2765. 

MR. BINGHAM HAD CLOSED THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE ON THE PROPOSAL PRIOR
TO ITS CONSIDERATION BY THE SENATE.  HE SAID IN PART: 

"  ...  (MANY) INSTANCES OF STATE INJUSTICE AND OPPRESSION HAVE
ALREADY OCCURRED IN THE STATE LEGISLATION OF THIS UNION, OF FLAGRANT
VIOLATIONS OF THE GUARANTIED PRIVILEGES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES, FOR WHICH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FURNISHED AND COULD FURNISH
BY LAW NO REMEDY WHATEVER.  CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS LETTER OF YOUR
CONSTITUTION, 'CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS' HAVE BEEN INFLICTED UNDER
STATE LAWS WITHIN THIS UNION UPON CITIZENS, NOT ONLY FOR CRIMES
COMMITTED, BUT FOR SACRED DUTY DONE, FOR WHICH AND AGAINST WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAD PROVIDED NO REMEDY AND COULD
PROVIDE NONE. 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"IT WAS AN APPROBRIUM TO THE REPUBLIC THAT FOR FIDELITY TO THE UNITED
STATES THEY COULD NOT BY NATIONAL LAW BE PROTECTED AGAINST THE
DEGRADING PUNISHMENT INFLICTED ON SLAVES AND FELONS BY STATE LAW.  THAT
GREAT WANT OF THE CITIZEN AND STRANGER, PROTECTION BY NATIONAL LAW FROM
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE ENACTMENTS, IS SUPPLIED BY THE FIRST SECTION OF
THIS AMENDMENT."  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 2542-2543. 

BOTH PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF SEC. 1 OF THE AMENDMENT SPOKE OF ITS
RELATION TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PASSED OVER
THE PRESIDENT'S VETO.  SOME CONSIDERED THAT THE AMENDMENT SETTLED ANY
DOUBTS THERE MIGHT BE AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
BILL.  CONG. GLOBE, 2511, 2896.  OTHERS MAINTAINED THAT THE CIVIL
RIGHTS BILL WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS AND UNTIL THE AMENDMENT
WAS ADOPTED.  CONG. GLOBE, 2461, 2502, 2506, 2513, 2961.  SOME THOUGHT
THAT AMENDMENT WAS NOTHING BUT THE CIVIL RIGHTS "IN ANOTHER SHAPE." 
CONG. GLOBE, 2459, 2462, 2465, 2467, 2498, 2502.  ONE ATTITUDE OF THE
OPPONENTS WAS EPITOMIZED BY A STATEMENT BY MR. SHANKLIN THAT THE
AMENDMENT STRIKES "DOWN THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE STATES,  ...
DECLARED BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION TO BELONG TO THE STATES
EXCLUSIVELY AND NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY AND
LIBERTY OF THE PEOPLE.  THE FIRST SECTION OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT
...  IS TO STRIKE DOWN THOSE STATE RIGHTS AND INVEST ALL POWER IN THE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT."  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 2500.  SEE ALSO CONG. GLOBE,
SUPRA, 2530, 2538. 

EXCEPT FOR THE ADDITION OF THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SEC. 1 WHICH DEFINED
CITIZENSHIP, CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 2869, THE AMENDMENT WEATHERED THE
SENATE DEBATE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT
SEVERAL REFERENCES WERE MADE IN THE SENATE DEBATE TO MR. BINGHAM'S
GREAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEC. 1 OF THE AMENDMENT AS PASSED BY THE
HOUSE.  SEE E.G. CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 2896. 

                                 VI. 

ALSO JUST PRIOR TO THE FINAL VOTES IN BOTH HOUSES PASSING THE
RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION, THE REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON
RECONSTRUCTION, H.R. REP. NO. 30, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1866); SEN.
REP. NO. 112, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1866), WAS SUBMITTED.  CONG.
GLOBE, SUPRA, 3038, 3051.  THIS REPORT WAS APPARENTLY NOT DISTRIBUTED
IN TIME TO INFLUENCE THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS.  BUT A STUDENT OF THE
PERIOD REPORTS THAT 150,000 COPIES OF THE REPORT AND THE TESTIMONY
WHICH IT CONTAINED WERE PRINTED IN ORDER THAT SENATORS AND
REPRESENTATIVES MIGHT DISTRIBUTE THEM AMONG THEIR CONSTITUENTS. 
APPARENTLY THE REPORT WAS WIDELY REPRINTED IN THE PRESS AND USED AS A
CAMPAIGN DOCUMENT IN THE ELECTION OF 1866.  KENDRICK, JOURNAL OF THE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION (1914) 265.  ACCORDING TO KENDRICK
THE REPORT WAS "EAGERLY  ...  PERUSED" FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING
"CONDITIONS IN THE SOUTH."  KENDRICK, SUPRA, 265. 

THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE HAD SAID WITH REFERENCE TO THE NECESSITY
OF AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION:    "  ...  (THE) SO-CALLED CONFEDERATE
STATES ARE NOT, AT PRESENT, ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION IN THE CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES; THAT, BEFORE ALLOWING SUCH REPRESENTATION,
ADEQUATE SECURITY FOR FUTURE PEACE AND SAFETY SHOULD BE REQUIRED; THAT
THIS CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN SUCH CHANGES OF THE ORGANIC LAW AS SHALL
DETERMINE THE CIVIL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF ALL CITIZENS IN ALL PARTS
OF THE REPUBLIC  ...  "  REPORT, SUPRA, XXI. 

AMONG THE EXAMPLES RECITED BY THE TESTIMONY WERE DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST NEGRO CHURCHES AND PREACHERS BY LOCAL OFFICIALS AND CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WHO ATTENDED OBJECTIONABLE CHURCH SERVICES. 
REPORT, PART II, 52.  TESTIMONY ALSO CITED RECENTLY ENACTED LOUISIANA
LAWS WHICH MADE IT "A HIGHLY PENAL OFFENCE FOR ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING
THAT MIGHT BE CONSTRUED INTO ENCOURAGING THE BLACKS TO LEAVE THE
PERSONS WITH WHOM THEY HAD MADE CONTRACTS FOR LABOR  ...  "  REPORT,
PART III, P. 25.  FN3 

FLACK, SUPRA AT 142, WHO CANVASSED NEWSPAPER COVERAGE AND SPEECHES
CONCERNING THE POPULAR DISCUSSION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, INDICATES THAT SENATOR HOWARD'S SPEECH STATING THAT ONE OF
THE PURPOSES OF THE FIRST SECTION WAS TO GIVE CONGRESS POWER TO ENFORCE
THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AS WELL AS EXTRACTS AND DIGESTS OF OTHER SPEECHES
WERE PUBLISHED WIDELY IN THE PRESS.  FLACK SUMMARIZES HIS OBSERVATION
THAT 

"THE DECLARATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF NEWSPAPERS, WRITERS AND SPEAKERS,
...  SHOW VERY CLEARLY, ...  THE GENERAL OPINION HELD IN THE NORTH. 
THAT OPINION, BRIEFLY STATED, WAS THAT THE AMENDMENT EMBODIED THE CIVIL
RIGHTS BILL AND GAVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO DEFINE AND SECURE THE
PRIVILEGES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO
HAVE BEEN ANY STATEMENT AT ALL AS TO WHETHER THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS
WERE TO BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES OR NOT, WHETHER THE PRIVILEGES
GUARANTEED BY THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AS PRIVILEGES
SECURED BY THE AMENDMENT, BUT IT MAY BE INFERRED THAT THIS WAS
RECOGNIZED TO BE THE LOGICAL RESULT BY THOSE WHO THOUGHT THAT THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS AS WELL AS DUE PROCESS OF LAW,
INCLUDING A JURY TRIAL, WERE SECURED BY IT."  FLACK, SUPRA, 153-154. 

       VII. 

FORMAL STATEMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT BY THE
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE DRAFTING AND ENACTMENT OF
IT ARE SIGNIFICANT.  IN 1871, A BILL WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE WHICH
CONTEMPLATED ENFORCEMENT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  MR. GARFIELD,
WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE DEBATES ON THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN
1866, SAID: 

"I NOW COME TO CONSIDER  ...  FOR IT IS THE BASIS OF THE PENDING
BILL, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  I ASK THE ATTENTION OF THE HOUSE TO
THE FIRST SECTION OF THAT AMENDMENT, AS TO ITS SCOPE AND MEANING.  I
HOPE GENTLEMEN WILL BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS DEBATE, IN WHICH SO MANY
HAVE TAKEN PART, WILL BECOME HISTORICAL, AS THE EARLIEST LEGISLATIVE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THIS CLAUSE OF THE AMENDMENT.  NOT ONLY THE WORDS
WHICH WE PUT INTO THE LAW, BUT WHAT SHALL BE SAID HERE IN THE WAY OF
DEFINING AND INTERPRETING THE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE, MAY GO FAR TO
SETTLE ITS INTERPRETATION AND ITS VALUE TO THE COUNTRY HEREAFTER." 
CONG. GLOBE, 42D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1871) APP. 150. 

"THE NEXT CLAUSE OF THE SECTION UNDER DEBATE DECLARES:  'NOR SHALL
ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.' 

"THIS IS COPIED FROM THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF AMENDMENTS, WITH THIS
DIFFERENCE:  AS IT STOOD IN THE FIFTH ARTICLE IT OPERATED ONLY AS A
RESTRAINT UPON CONGRESS, WHILE HERE IT IS A DIRECT RESTRAINT UPON THE
GOVERNMENTS OF THE STATES.  THE ADDITION IS VERY VALUABLE.  IT REALIZES
THE FULL FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE CLAUSE IN MAGNA CHARTA, FROM WHICH IT
WAS BORROWED; AND THERE IS NOW NO POWER IN EITHER THE STATE OR THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF THOSE GREAT FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS ON WHICH ALL TRUE FREEDOM RESTS, THE RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY,
AND PROPERTY, EXCEPT BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THAT IS, BY AN IMPARTIAL
TRIAL ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND.  ...  " CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, AT
152-3. 

A FEW DAYS EARLIER, IN A DEBATE ON THIS SAME BILL TO ENFORCE THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, MR. BINGHAM, STILL A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, HAD
STATED AT LENGTH HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AS HE HAD ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED IT: 

"MR. SPEAKER, THE HONORABLE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS (MR. FARNSWORTH)
DID ME UNWITTINGLY, GREAT SERVICE, WHEN HE VENTURED TO ASK ME WHY I
CHANGED THE FORM OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH ARTICLE OF
AMENDMENT FROM THE FORM IN WHICH I REPORTED IT TO THE HOUSE IN
FEBRUARY, 1866, FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION.  I WILL ANSWER
THE GENTLEMAN, SIR, AND ANSWER HIM TRUTHFULLY.  I HAD THE HONOR TO
FRAME THE AMENDMENT AS REPORTED IN FEBRUARY, 1866, AND THE FIRST
IN THE FOURTEENTH ARTICLE OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, SAVE THE INTRODUCTORY CLAUSE DEFINING CITIZENS.  THE
CLAUSE DEFINING CITIZENS NEVER CAME FROM THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON
RECONSTRUCTION, BUT THE RESIDUE OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DID COME FROM THE COMMITTEE PRECISELY AS I WROTE IT AND
OFFERED IT IN THE COMMITTEE ON RECONSTRUCTION, AND PRECISELY AS IT NOW
STANDS IN THE CONSTITUTION  ... 

"THAT IS THE GRANT OF POWER.  IT IS FULL AND COMPLETE.  THE GENTLEMAN
SAYS THAT AMENDMENT DIFFERS FROM THE AMENDMENT REPORTED BY ME IN
FEBRUARY; DIFFERS FROM THE PROVISION INTRODUCED AND WRITTEN BY ME, NOW
IN THE FOURTEENTH ARTICLE OF AMENDMENTS.  IT DIFFERS IN THIS:  THAT IT
IS, AS IT NOW STANDS IN THE CONSTITUTION, MORE COMPREHENSIVE THAN AS IT
WAS FIRST PROPOSED AND REPORTED IN FEBRUARY, 1866.  IT EMBRACES ALL AND
MORE THAN DID THE FEBRUARY PROPOSITION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE GENTLEMAN VENTURED UPON SAYING THAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT
EMBRACE ALL OF THE AMENDMENT PREPARED AND REPORTED BY ME WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE COMMITTEE IN FEBRUARY, 1866.  THE AMENDMENT REPORTED IN
FEBRUARY, AND TO WHICH THE GENTLEMAN REFERS, IS AS FOLLOWS:  'THE
CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND
PROPER TO SECURE TO THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE ALL THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, AND TO ALL PERSONS IN THE
SEVERAL STATES EQUAL PROTECTION IN THE RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND
PROPERTY.' 

"THAT IS THE AMENDMENT, AND THE WHOLE OF IT, AS REPORTED IN FEBRUARY,
1866.  THAT AMENDMENT NEVER WAS REJECTED BY THE HOUSE OR SENATE.  A
MOTION WAS MADE TO LAY IT ON THE TABLE, WHICH WAS A TEST VOTE ON THE
MERITS OF IT, AND THE MOTION FAILED  ... I CONSENTED TO AND VOTED FOR
THE MOTION TO POSTPONE IT  ...  AFTERWARD, IN THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON
RECONSTRUCTION, I INTRODUCED THIS AMENDMENT, IN THE PRECISE FORM, AS I
HAVE STATED, IN WHICH IT WAS REPORTED, AND AS IT NOW STANDS IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF MY COUNTRY.  ... 

     .         .         .         .      . 

"I ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN, HOW I CAME TO CHANGE THE FORM OF FEBRUARY TO
THE WORDS NOW IN THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH ARTICLE OF
AMENDMENT, AS THEY STAND, AND I TRUST WILL FOREVER STAND, IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF MY COUNTRY.  I HAD READ - AND THAT IS WHAT INDUCED ME
TO ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS NEW LIMITATIONS UPON
THE POWER OF THE STATES - THE GREAT DECISION OF MARSHALL IN BARRON VS.
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, WHEREIN THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SAID, IN OBEDIENCE TO HIS OFFICIAL OATH AND THE CONSTITUTION AS IT THEN
WAS: 'THE AMENDMENTS (TO THE CONSTITUTION) CONTAIN NO EXPRESSION
INDICATING AN INTENTION TO APPLY THEM TO THE STATE GOVERNMENTS.  THIS
COURT CANNOT SO APPLY THEM.'  - 7 PETERS P. 250. 

"IN THIS CASE THE CITY HAD TAKEN PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE,
WITHOUT COMPENSATION AS ALLEGED, AND THERE WAS NO REDRESS FOR THE WRONG
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND ONLY FOR THIS REASON,
THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS WERE NOT LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE
STATES. 

"AND SO AFTERWARD, IN THE CASE OF THE LESSEE OF LIVINGSTONE VS. MOORE
...  THE COURT RULED, 'IT IS NOW SETTLED THAT THE AMENDMENTS (TO THE
CONSTITUTION) DO NOT EXTEND TO THE STATES.'  THEY WERE BUT LIMITATIONS
UPON CONGRESS.  JEFFERSON WELL SAID OF THE FIRST EIGHT ARTICLES OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THEY CONSTITUTE
THE AMERICAN BILL OF RIGHTS.  THOSE AMENDMENTS SECURED THE CITIZENS
AGAINST ANY DEPRIVATION OF ANY ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF PERSON BY ANY ACT OF
CONGRESS, AND AMONG OTHER THINGS THEREBY THEY WERE SECURED IN THEIR
PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES, IN THE INVIOLABILITY OF THEIR HOMES IN TIMES OF PEACE, BY
DECLARING THAT NO SOLDIER SHALL IN TIME OF PEACE BE QUARTERED IN ANY
HOUSE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER.  THEY SECURED TRIAL BY JURY;
THEY SECURED THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF
ACCUSATIONS WHICH MIGHT IN ANY CASE BE MADE AGAINST THEM; THEY SECURED
COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR WITNESSES, AND TO BE HEARD IN DEFENSE BY
COUNSEL.  THEY SECURED, IN SHORT, ALL THE RIGHTS DEAR TO THE AMERICAN
CITIZEN.  AND YET IT WAS DECIDED, AND RIGHTFULLY, THAT THESE
AMENDMENTS, DEFINING AND PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF MEN AND CITIZENS,
WERE ONLY LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS, NOT ON THE POWER OF THE
STATES. 

"IN REEXAMINING THAT CASE OF BARRON, MR. SPEAKER, AFTER MY STRUGGLE
IN THE HOUSE IN FEBRUARY, 1866, TO WHICH THE GENTLEMAN HAS ALLUDED, I
NOTED AND APPREHENDED AS I NEVER DID BEFORE, CERTAIN WORDS IN THAT
OPINION OF MARSHALL.  REFERRING TO THE FIRST EIGHT ARTICLES OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SAID:  'HAD THE FRAMERS OF THESE AMENDMENTS INTENDED THEM TO BE
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS THEY WOULD HAVE
IMITATED THE FRAMERS OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, AND HAVE EXPRESSED
THAT INTENTION.'  BARRON VS. THE MAYOR, &C., 7 PETERS, 250. 

"ACTING UPON THIS SUGGESTION I DID IMITATE THE FRAMERS OF THE
ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION.  AS THEY HAD SAID 'NO STATE SHALL EMIT BILLS OF
CREDIT, PASS ANY BILL OF ATTAINDER, EX POST FACTO LAW, OR LAW IMPAIRING
THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS;' IMITATING THEIR EXAMPLE AND IMITATING IT
TO THE LETTER, I PREPARED THE PROVISION OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS IT STANDS IN THE CONSTITUTION, AS FOLLOWS:  'NO
STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES
OR IMMUNITIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, NOR SHALL ANY STATE
DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW, NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.' 

"I HOPE THE GENTLEMAN NOW KNOWS WHY I CHANGED THE FORM OF THE
AMENDMENT OF FEBRUARY, 1866. 

"MR. SPEAKER, THAT THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED
BY THE FIRST SECTION, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION MAY BE
MORE FULLY UNDERSTOOD, PERMIT ME TO SAY THAT THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS CONTRADISTINGUISHED
FROM CITIZENS OF A STATE, ARE CHIEFLY DEFINED IN THE FIRST EIGHT
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THOSE EIGHT
AMENDMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:  (HERE MR. BINGHAM RECITED VERBATIM THE
FIRST EIGHT ARTICLES.) 

"THESE EIGHT ARTICLES I HAVE SHOWN NEVER WERE LIMITATIONS UPON THE
POWER OF THE STATES, UNTIL MADE SO BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE
WORDS OF THAT AMENDMENT, 'NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH
SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES,' ARE AN EXPRESS PROHIBITION UPON EVERY STATE OF THE UNION,
WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED UNDER EXISTING LAWS OF CONGRESS, AND SUCH OTHER
LAWS FOR THEIR BETTER ENFORCEMENT AS CONGRESS MAY MAKE. 

"MR. SPEAKER, THAT DECISION IN THE FOURTH OF WASHINGTON'S CIRCUIT
COURT REPORTS, TO WHICH MY LEARNED COLLEAGUE  ...  HAS REFERRED IS ONLY
A CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND SECTION, FOURTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL
CONSTITUTION, TO WIT, 'THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES.'  IN
THAT CASE THE COURT ONLY HELD THAT IN CIVIL RIGHTS THE STATE COULD NOT
REFUSE TO EXTEND TO CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES THE SAME GENERAL RIGHTS
SECURED TO ITS OWN. 

"IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES VS. PRIMROSE, MR. WEBSTER SAID THAT
- 'FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRADE, IT IS EVIDENTLY NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY
STATE TO IMPOSE ANY HINDERANCE OR EMBARRASSMENT, &C., UPON CITIZENS OF
OTHER STATES, OR TO PLACE THEM, ON COMING THERE, UPON A DIFFERENT
FOOTING FROM HER OWN CITIZENS.'  - 6 WEBSTER'S WORKS, 112. 

"THE LEARNED JUSTICE STORY DECLARED THAT - 'THE INTENTION OF THE
CLAUSE ("THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES,") WAS TO CONFER ON
THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE A GENERAL CITIZENSHIP, AND COMMUNICATED ALL
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES WHICH A CITIZEN OF THE SAME STATE WOULD
BE ENTITLED TO UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.'  - STORY ON THE
CONSTITUTION, VOL. 2, PAGE 605. 

"IS IT NOT CLEAR THAT OTHER AND DIFFERENT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
THAN THOSE TO WHICH A CITIZEN OF A STATE WAS ENTITLED ARE SECURED BY
THE PROVISION OF THE FOURTEENTH ARTICLE, THAT NO STATE SHALL ABRIDGE
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH
ARE DEFINED IN THE EIGHT ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT, AND WHICH WERE NOT
LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE STATES BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
MADE THEM LIMITATIONS? 

"SIR, BEFORE THE RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE STATE
COULD DENY TO ANY CITIZEN THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, AND IT WAS DONE. 
BEFORE THAT THE STATE COULD ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND IT
WAS SO DONE IN HALF OF THE STATES OF THE UNION.  BEFORE THAT A STATE,
AS IN THE CASE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, COULD MAKE IT A CRIME
PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR ANY CITIZEN WITHIN HER LIMITS,
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE INJUNCTION OF OUR DIVINE MASTER, TO HELP A SLAVE
WHO WAS READY TO PERISH; TO GIVE HIM SHELTER, OR BREAK WITH HIM HIS
CRUST OF BREAD.  THE VALIDITY OF THAT STATE RESTRICTION UPON THE RIGHTS
OF CONSCIENCE AND THE DUTY OF LIFE WAS AFFIRMED, TO THE SHAME AND
DISGRACE OF AMERICA, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; BUT
NEVERTHELESS AFFIRMED IN OBEDIENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  ...    "UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS IT IS, NOT AS IT WAS,
AND BY FORCE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, NO STATE HEREAFTER CAN
IMITATE THE BAD EXAMPLE OF ILLINOIS, TO WHICH I HAVE REFERRED, NOR CAN
ANY STATE EVER REPEAT THE EXAMPLE OF GEORGIA AND SEND MEN TO THE
PENITENTIARY, AS DID THAT STATE, FOR TEACHING THE INDIAN TO READ THE
LESSONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, TO KNOW THAT NEW EVANGEL, 'THE PURE IN
HEART SHALL SEE GOD.' 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"  ...  YOU SAY IT IS CENTRALIZED POWER TO RESTRAIN BY LAW UNLAWFUL
COMBINATIONS IN STATES AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHTS OF UNITED
STATES CITIZEN BY NATIONAL LAW, AND TO DISPERSE BY FORCE, IF NEED BE,
COMBINATIONS TOO POWERFUL TO BE OVERCOME BY JUDICIAL PROCESS, ENGAGED
IN TRAMPLING UNDERFOOT THE LIFE AND LIBERTY, OR DESTROYING THE PROPERTY
OF THE CITIZEN. 

     .         .         .         .        . 

"THE STATES NEVER HAD THE RIGHT, THOUGH THEY HAD THE POWER, TO
INFLICT WRONGS UPON FREE CITIZENS BY A DENIAL OF THE FULL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS; BECAUSE ALL STATE OFFICIALS ARE BY THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED
TO BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION.  AS I
HAVE ALREADY SAID, THE STATES DID DENY TO CITIZENS THE EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS, THEY DID DENY THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, AND EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF THE EXPRESS LIMITATIONS UPON
THE STATES, AS I HAVE SHOWN, THE CITIZEN HAD NO REMEDY.  THEY DENIED
TRIAL BY JURY, AND HE HAD NO REMEDY.  THEY TOOK PROPERTY WITHOUT
COMPENSATION, AND HE HAD NO REMEDY.  THEY RESTRICTED THE FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS, AND HE HAD NO REMEDY.  THEY RESTRICTED THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
AND HE HAD NO REMEDY.  THEY RESTRICTED THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE, AND HE
HAD NO REMEDY.  THEY BOUGHT AND SOLD MEN WHO HAD NO REMEDY.  WHO DARE
SAY, NOW THAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN AMENDED, THAT THE NATION CANNOT
BY LAW PROVIDE AGAINST ALL SUCH ABUSES AND DENIALS OF RIGHT AS THESE IN
STATES AND BY STATES, OR COMBINATIONS OF PERSONS? 

     .         . .         .         . 

"MR. SPEAKER, I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE HOUSE AND COUNTRY THAT, BY
VIRTUE OF THESE AMENDMENTS, IT IS COMPETENT FOR CONGRESS TO-DAY TO
PROVIDE BY LAW THAT NO MAN SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER IN THE TRIBUNALS OF
ANY STATE IN THIS UNION FOR ANY ACT MADE CRIMINAL BY THE LAWS OF THAT
STATE WITHOUT A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL BY JURY.  CONGRESS NEVER
BEFORE HAS HAD THE POWER TO DO IT.  IT IS ALSO COMPETENT FOR CONGRESS
TO PROVIDE THAT NO CITIZEN IN ANY STATE SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF HIS
PROPERTY BY STATE LAW OR THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION THEREFOR.  CONGRESS NEVER BEFORE HAD THE POWER SO TO
DECLARE.  IT IS COMPETENT FOR THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO-DAY
TO DECLARE THAT NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL
ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, OR THE RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE TOGETHER AND PETITION FOR REDRESS
OF GRIEVANCES FOR THESE ARE OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND GUARANTIED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AND TO ENFORCE WHICH CONGRESS IS THEREBY EXPRESSLY
EMPOWERED.  ...  "  CONG. GLOBE, 42D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1871) APP. 81,
83-85. 

AND THE DAY AFTER MR. GARFIELD'S ADDRESS, MR. DAWES, ALSO A MEMBER OF
THE 39TH CONGRESS, STATED HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: 

"SIR, IN THE PROGRESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY, WHEN, IN ADDITION TO
THOSE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES (SECURED BY THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION)
...  , THERE WERE ADDED FROM TIME TO TIME, BY AMENDMENTS, OTHERS, AND
THESE WERE AUGMENTED, AMPLIFIED, AND SECURED AND FORTIFIED IN THE
BUTTRESSES OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, HE HARDLY COMPREHENDED THE FULL
SCOPE AND MEASURE OF THE PHRASE WHICH APPEARS IN THIS BILL.  LET ME
READ, ONE BY ONE, THESE AMENDMENTS, AND ASK THE HOUSE TO TELL ME WHEN
AND WHERE AND BY WHAT CHOSEN PHRASE HAS MAN BEEN ABLE TO BRING BEFORE
THE CONGRESS OF THE COUNTRY A BROADER SWEEP OF LEGISLATION THAN MY
FRIEND HAS IN THE BILL HERE.  IN ADDITION TO THE ORIGINAL RIGHTS
SECURED TO HIM IN THE FIRST ARTICLE OF AMENDMENTS HE HAD SECURED THE
FREE EXERCISE OF HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF, AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE
PRESS.  THEN AGAIN HE HAD SECURED TO HIM THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR
ARMS IN HIS DEFENSE.  THEN, AFTER THAT, HIS HOME WAS SECURED IN TIME OF
PEACE FROM THE PRESENCE OF A SOLDIER; AND, STILL FURTHER, SIR, HIS
HOUSE, HIS PAPERS, AND HIS EFFECTS WERE PROTECTED AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEIZURE.  ... 

"THEN, AGAIN, AS IF THAT WERE NOT ENOUGH, BY ANOTHER AMENDMENT HE WAS
SECURED AGAINST TRIAL FOR ANY ALLEGED OFFENSE EXCEPT IT BE ON THE
PRESENTATION OF A GRAND JURY, AND HE WAS PROTECTED AGAINST EVER GIVING
TESTIMONY AGAINST HIMSELF.  THEN, SIR, HE WAS GUARANTIED A SPEEDY
TRIAL, AND THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT EVERY WITNESS AGAINST HIM.  THEN IN
EVERY CONTROVERSY WHICH SHOULD ARISE HE HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE IT
DECIDED BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS.  THEN, SIR, BY ANOTHER AMENDMENT, HE
WAS NEVER TO BE REQUIRED TO GIVE EXCESSIVE BAIL, OR BE PUNISHED BY
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.  AND STILL LATER, SIR, AFTER THE BLOODY
SACRIFICE OF OUR FOUR YEARS' WAR, WE GAVE THE MOST GRAND OF ALL THESE
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES, BY ONE SINGLE AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, TO FOUR MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO SPRANG INTO
BEING, AS IT WERE, BY THE WAVE OF A MAGIC WAND.  STILL FURTHER, EVERY
PERSON BORN ON THE SOIL WAS MADE A CITIZEN AND CLOTHED WITH THEM ALL. 

"IT IS ALL THESE, MR. SPEAKER, WHICH ARE COMPREHENDED IN THE WORDS
'AMERICAN CITIZEN,' AND IT IS TO PROTECT AND TO SECURE HIM IN THESE
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES THIS BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE.  AND
THE QUESTION TO BE SETTLED IS, WHETHER BY THE CONSTITUTION, IN WHICH
THESE PROVISIONS ARE INSERTED, THERE IS ALSO POWER TO GUARD, PROTECT,
AND ENFORCE THESE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS; WHETHER THEY ARE MORE,
INDEED, THAN A MERE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, CARRYING WITH IT NO POWER OF
ENFORCEMENT  ...  "  CONG. GLOBE, 42D CONG., 1ST SESS. PART I (1871)
475, 476. 

          VIII. 

HEREAFTER APPEAR STATEMENTS IN OPINIONS OF THIS COURT RENDERED AFTER
ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND PRIOR TO THE TWINING CASE
WHICH INDICATE A BELIEF THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND PARTICULARLY
ITS PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, WAS A PLAIN APPLICATION OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES.  SEE P. 75, NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 83, THE DISSENTING
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FIELD EMPHASIZED THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
MADE A "CITIZEN OF A STATE  ...  A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
RESIDING IN THAT STATE."  ID. AT 95.  BUT HE ENUNCIATED A RELATIVELY
LIMITED NUMBER OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES WHICH HE CONSIDERED
PROTECTED BY NATIONAL POWER FROM STATE INTERFERENCE BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  APPARENTLY DISSATISFIED WITH THE LIMITED INTERPRETATION OF
MR. JUSTICE FIELD, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, ALTHOUGH AGREEING WITH ALL THAT
MR. JUSTICE FIELD HAD SAID, WROTE AN ADDITIONAL DISSENT.  ID. AT 111. 
IN IT HE SAID: 

"BUT WE ARE NOT BOUND TO RESORT TO IMPLICATION, OR TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND, TO FIND AN AUTHORITATIVE DECLARATION
OF SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.  THE
CONSTITUTION, IT IS TRUE, AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE RECENT AMENDMENTS,
SPECIFIES, IN TERMS, ONLY A FEW OF THE PERSONAL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS, BUT THEY ARE VERY COMPREHENSIVE IN THEIR
CHARACTER.  THE STATES WERE MERELY PROHIBITED FROM PASSING BILLS OF
ATTAINDER, EX POST FACTO LAWS, LAWS IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF
CONTRACTS, AND PERHAPS ONE OR TWO MORE.  BUT OTHERS OF THE GREATEST
CONSEQUENCE WERE ENUMERATED, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE ONLY SECURED, IN
EXPRESS TERMS, FROM INVASION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; SUCH AS THE
RIGHT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, OF FREE EXERCISE OF
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND A FREE PRESS, THE RIGHT
PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE FOR THE DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC MEASURES, THE RIGHT
TO BE SECURE AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, AND ABOVE ALL,
AND INCLUDING ALMOST ALL THE REST, THE RIGHT OF NOT BEING DEPRIVED OF
LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THESE, AND
STILL OTHERS ARE SPECIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, OR IN THE
EARLY AMENDMENTS OF IT, AS AMONG THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR, WHAT IS STILL STRONGER FOR THE FORCE
OF THE ARGUMENT, THE RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS, WHETHER CITIZENS OR NOT." 
ID. AT 118-119; SEE ALSO ID. AT 120-122. 

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE JOINED IN THIS OPINION BUT ADDED HIS OWN NOT
INCONSISTENT VIEWS.  ID. AT 124. 

BUT IN WALKER V. SAUVINET, 92 U.S. 90, 92, WHEN A MAJORITY OF THE
COURT HELD THAT "A TRIAL BY JURY IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW PENDING IN THE
STATE COURTS IS NOT  ...  A PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY OF NATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP, WHICH THE STATES ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO ABRIDGE," MR. JUSTICE FIELD AND MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD DISSENTED FROM
"THE OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT."  ID. AT 93. 

IN SPIES V. ILLINOIS, 123 U.S. 131, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS, MR.
J. RANDOLPH TUCKER, AFTER ENUMERATING THE PROTECTIONS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS, TOOK THIS POSITION: 

"  ...  THOUGH ORIGINALLY THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS WERE ADOPTED AS
LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL POWER, YET IN SO FAR AS THEY SECURE AND
RECOGNIZE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - COMMON LAW RIGHTS - OF THE MAN, THEY
MAKE THEM PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE MAN AS CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND CANNOT NOW BE ABRIDGED BY A STATE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  IN OTHER WORDS, WHILE THE TEN AMENDMENTS, AS LIMITATIONS ON
POWER, ONLY APPLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND NOT TO THE STATES, YET
IN SO FAR AS THEY DECLARE OR RECOGNIZE RIGHTS OF PERSONS, THESE RIGHTS
ARE THEIRS, AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AS TO SUCH RIGHTS LIMITS STATE POWER, AS THE TEN AMENDMENTS
HAD LIMITED FEDERAL POWER. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"  ...  THE RIGHTS DECLARED IN THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS ARE TO BE
REGARDED AS PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
WHICH, AS I INSIST, ARE PROTECTED AS SUCH BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT."  ID. AT 151, 152. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY THIS ARGUMENT WERE NOT REACHED BY
THE COURT WHICH DISPOSED OF THE CASE ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS. 

HOWEVER, MR. JUSTICE FIELD, IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN O'NEIL V.
VERMONT, 144 U.S. 323, 337, 361, STATED THAT "AFTER MUCH REFLECTION" HE
HAD BECOME PERSUADED THAT THE DEFINITION OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
GIVEN BY MR. TUCKER IN SPIES V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA, "IS CORRECT."  AND MR.
JUSTICE FIELD WENT ON TO SAY THAT 

"WHILE, THEREFORE, THE TEN AMENDMENTS, AS LIMITATIONS ON POWER, AND,
SO FAR AS THEY ACCOMPLISH THEIR PURPOSE AND FIND THEIR FRUITION IN SUCH
LIMITATIONS, ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT TO
THE STATES, YET, SO FAR AS THEY DECLARE OR RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTS OF
PERSONS, THEY ARE RIGHTS BELONGING TO THEM AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION; AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS TO ALL
SUCH RIGHTS, PLACES A LIMIT UPON STATE POWER BY ORDAINING THAT NO STATE
SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THEM.  IF I AM RIGHT
IN THIS VIEW, THEN EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES IS PROTECTED FROM
PUNISHMENTS WHICH ARE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL.  IT IS AN IMMUNITY WHICH
BELONGS TO HIM, AGAINST BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL ACTION.  THE STATE
CANNOT APPLY TO HIM, ANY MORE THAN THE UNITED STATES, THE TORTURE, THE
RACK OR THUMBSCREW, OR ANY CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, OR ANY MORE
THAN IT CAN DENY TO HIM SECURITY IN HIS HOUSE, PAPERS AND EFFECTS
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, OR COMPEL HIM TO BE A
WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  THESE RIGHTS, AS
THOSE OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, FIND THEIR RECOGNITION AND
GUARANTY AGAINST FEDERAL ACTION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND AGAINST STATE ACTION IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE
INHIBITION BY THAT AMENDMENT IS NOT THE LESS VALUABLE AND EFFECTIVE
BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR AND EXISTING INHIBITION AGAINST SUCH ACTION IN THE
CONSTITUTIONS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  ...  "  O'NEIL V. VERMONT, SUPRA,
AT 363. 

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, AND APPARENTLY MR. JUSTICE BREWER, CONCURRED IN
THIS PHASE OF MR. JUSTICE FIELD'S DISSENT.  ID. AT 366, 370, 371. 

FOR FURTHER EXPOSITION OF THESE VIEWS SEE ALSO THE VIGOROUS
DISSENTING OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE HARLAN IN HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110
U.S. 516, 538, AND MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581, 605, AS WELL AS HIS
DISSENTING OPINION IN TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 114. 

FN1  MR. BINGHAM AND MR. STEVENS HAD INTRODUCED THESE SAME PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS IN THE HOUSE PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.  CONG.  GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1865)
10, 14. 

FN2  IT HAS BEEN SAID OF STEVENS' STATEMENT:  "HE EVIDENTLY HAD
REFERENCE TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS, FOR IT IS IN IT THAT MOST OF THE
PRIVILEGES ARE ENUMERATED, AND BESIDES IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES."  FLACK, THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (1908) 75. 

FN3  IN A WIDELY PUBLICIZED REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT WHICH WAS ALSO
SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS, CARL SCHURZ HAD REVIEWED SIMILAR INCIDENTS
AND EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT NEGROES HAD BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO BEAR
ARMS, OWN PROPERTY, ENGAGE IN BUSINESS, TO TESTIFY IN COURT, AND THAT
LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAD ARRESTED THEM WITHOUT CAUSE AND TRIED THEM
WITHOUT JURIES.  SEN. EXEC. DOC. NO. 2, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1865)
23, 24, 26, 36.  SEE ALSO REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FREEDMAN'S BUREAU,
H. EXEC. DOC. NO. 70, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1866) 41, 47, 48, 233,
236, 265, 376.    MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

WHILE IN SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, I
HAVE ONE RESERVATION AND ONE ADDITION TO MAKE. 

I AGREE THAT THE SPECIFIC GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS SHOULD BE
CARRIED OVER INTACT INTO THE FIRST SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  BUT I AM NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE LATTER IS ENTIRELY
AND NECESSARILY LIMITED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  OCCASIONS MAY ARISE
WHERE A PROCEEDING FALLS SO FAR SHORT OF CONFORMING TO FUNDAMENTAL
STANDARDS OF PROCEDURE AS TO WARRANT CONSTITUTIONAL CONDEMNATION IN
TERMS OF A LACK OF DUE PROCESS DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC
PROVISION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 

THAT POINT, HOWEVER, NEED NOT BE PURSUED HERE INASMUCH AS THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT IS EXPLICIT IN ITS PROVISION THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE
COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.  THAT
PROVISION, AS MR. JUSTICE BLACK DEMONSTRATES, IS A CONSTITUENT PART OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

MOREOVER, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THIS GUARANTEE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION HAS BEEN VIOLATED IN THIS CASE.  UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW,
THE JUDGE OR PROSECUTOR MAY COMMENT ON THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT IN
A CRIMINAL TRIAL TO EXPLAIN OR DENY ANY EVIDENCE OR FACTS INTRODUCED
AGAINST HIM.  AS INTERPRETED AND APPLIED IN THIS CASE, SUCH A PROVISION
COMPELS A DEFENDANT TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF IN ONE OF TWO
WAYS: 

1.  IF HE DOES NOT TAKE THE STAND, HIS SILENCE IS USED AS THE BASIS
FOR DRAWING UNFAVORABLE INFERENCES AGAINST HIM AS TO MATTERS WHICH HE
MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO EXPLAIN.  THUS HE IS COMPELLED, THROUGH
HIS SILENCE, TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF.  AND SILENCE CAN BE AS
EFFECTIVE IN THIS SITUATION AS ORAL STATEMENTS. 

2.  IF HE DOES TAKE THE STAND, THEREBY OPENING HIMSELF TO CROSS
EXAMINATION, SO AS TO OVERCOME THE EFFECTS OF THE PROVISION IN
QUESTION, HE IS NECESSARILY COMPELLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF.  IN
THAT CASE, HIS TESTIMONY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION IS THE RESULT OF THE
COERCIVE PRESSURE OF THE PROVISION RATHER THAN HIS OWN VOLITION. 

MUCH CAN BE SAID PRO AND CON AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF ALLOWING
COMMENT ON THE FAILURE OF THE ACCUSED TO TESTIFY.  BUT POLICY ARGUMENTS
ARE TO NO AVAIL IN THE FACE OF A CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND.  THIS
GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM FROM SELF-INCRIMINATION IS GROUNDED ON A DEEP
RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT PREFER TO REMAIN SILENT BEFORE THEIR
ACCUSERS.  TO BORROW LANGUAGE FROM WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S.
60, 66:  "IT IS NOT EVERY ONE WHO CAN SAFELY VENTURE ON THE WITNESS
STAND THOUGH ENTIRELY INNOCENT OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM.  EXCESSIVE
TIMIDITY, NERVOUSNESS WHEN FACING OTHERS AND ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN
TRANSACTIONS OF A SUSPICIOUS CHARACTER, AND OFFENCES CHARGED AGAINST
HIM, WILL OFTEN CONFUSE AND EMBARRASS HIM TO SUCH A DEGREE AS TO
INCREASE RATHER THAN REMOVE PREJUDICES AGAINST HIM.  IT IS NOT EVERY
ONE, HOWEVER HONEST, WHO WOULD, THEREFORE, WILLINGLY BE PLACED ON THE
WITNESS STAND." 

WE ARE OBLIGED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM FROM SELF
INCRIMINATION.  THAT PRINCIPLE IS AS APPLICABLE WHERE THE COMPELLED
TESTIMONY IS IN THE FORM OF SILENCE AS WHERE IT IS COMPOSED OF ORAL
STATEMENTS.  ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 
..END :








BARTELS V. BIRMINGHAM, 332 U.S. 126 


ARGUED APRIL 3, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 157 F.2D 295,
REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED IN THE OPINION, THE MEMBERS OF
"NAME BANDS" WHICH PLAY SHORT-TERM ENGAGEMENTS AT PUBLIC DANCE HALLS
ARE, FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAXES IMPOSED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT,
EMPLOYEES OF THE BAND LEADERS AND NOT OF THE DANCE HALL OPERATORS -
NOTWITHSTANDING CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS DESIGNATING THE DANCE HALL
OPERATORS AS THEIR EMPLOYERS.  PP. 127-132. 

2.  AN INTERPRETIVE RULING ON TREASURY REGULATIONS BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHEREBY THE BURDEN OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY TAX COULD BE SHIFTED BY CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS FROM THE BAND
LEADERS TO THE DANCE HALL OPERATORS, WAS IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY
POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER AND INVALID.  PP. 130-132. 

BARTELS ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS CRYSTAL BALLROOM, V. BIRMINGHAM,
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. 

NO. 731.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 732, GEER ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS LARRY GEER
BALLROOMS, V. BIRMINGHAM, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT SUITS AGAINST THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
FOR REFUNDS OF SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.  IN ONE OF THE SUITS SEVERAL BAND
LEADERS WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS.  JUDGMENTS FOR THE
PETITIONERS IN THE DISTRICT COURT WERE REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  157 F.2D 295.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 711. 
REVERSED, P. 132. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS, OPERATORS OF PUBLIC DANCE HALLS, BROUGHT THESE ACTIONS,
WHICH WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL, AGAINST THE RESPONDENT COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE TO RECOVER TAXES PAID UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT,
TITLES VIII AND IX, AND I.R.C., C. 9, SUBCHAP.  A AND C. RECOVERY
DEPENDS ON WHETHER PETITIONERS' ARRANGEMENTS FOR BANDS TO PLAY AT THE
DANCE HALLS MADE THE BAND LEADERS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BANDS
EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONERS OR WHETHER, DESPITE THE ARRANGEMENTS, THE
LEADERS WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND THEREFORE THEMSELVES THE
EMPLOYERS OF THE OTHER MEMBERS.  SEVERAL BAND LEADERS WERE ALLOWED TO
INTERVENE IN THE BARTELS CASE AS DEFENDANTS TO PROTECT THEIR OWN
INTERESTS.  AFTER A RECOVERY IN THE DISTRICT COURT, 59 F.SUPP.  84, WAS
REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BIRMINGHAM V. BARTELS, 157
F.2D 295, PETITIONERS SOUGHT CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  329 U.S.
711.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SILK AND HARRISON V. GREYVAN LINES, 331 U.S.
704. 

THESE CASES ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH MUSICIANS HIRED BY PETITIONERS TO
PLAY REGULARLY FOR THEIR DANCE HALLS BUT WITH "NAME BANDS" HIRED TO
PLAY FOR LIMITED ENGAGEMENTS AT THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS.  THESE BANDS ARE
BUILT AROUND A LEADER WHOSE NAME, AND DISTINCTIVE STYLE IN THE
PRESENTATION AND RENDITION OF DANCE MUSIC, IS INTENDED TO GIVE EACH
BAND A MARKED INDIVIDUALITY.  THE LEADER CONTRACTS WITH DIFFERENT
BALLROOM OPERATORS TO PLAY AT THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS FOR A CONTRACT
PRICE.  ALMOST ALL OF THE ENGAGEMENTS HERE INVOLVED WERE ONE-NIGHT
STANDS, SOME FEW BEING FOR SEVERAL SUCCESSIVE NIGHTS.  THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND, AND THERE IS NO REAL DISPUTE, THAT THE LEADER EXERCISES COMPLETE
CONTROL OVER THE ORCHESTRA.  HE FIXES THE SALARIES OF THE MUSICIANS,
PAYS THEM, AND TELLS THEM WHAT AND HOW TO PLAY.  HE PROVIDES THE SHEET
MUSIC AND ARRANGEMENTS, THE PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM, AND THE UNIFORMS. 
HE EMPLOYES AND DISCHARGES THE MUSICIANS, AND HE PAYS AGENTS'
COMMISSIONS, TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER EXPENSES OUT OF THE SUM RECEIVED
FROM THE DANCE HALL OPERATORS.  ANY EXCESS IS HIS PROFIT AND ANY
DEFICIT HIS PERSONAL LOSS.  THE OPERATORS OF THE DANCE HALLS FURNISH
THE PIANO BUT NOT THE OTHER INSTRUMENTS. 

THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, OF WHICH THE LEADERS AND THE
MUSICIANS ARE MEMBERS, ADOPTED A STANDARD CONTRACT KNOWN AS "FORM B." 
THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT CREATE THE DIFFICULTIES IN THE DETERMINATION
OF THIS CASE.  AS COMPENSATION TO THE BANDS, SOME CONTRACTS CALL FOR A
GUARANTEED SUM, WITH THE PRIVILEGE TO THE BANDS TO TAKE A PERCENTAGE OF
THE GROSS.  OTHER CONTRACTS ARE FOR A FIXED SUM, ONLY, AND OTHERS FOR A
PERCENTAGE OF GROSS, NOT TO EXCEED A FIXED SUM.  THE CONTRACT STATES
THAT THE BALLROOM OPERATOR IS THE EMPLOYER OF THE MUSICIANS AND THEIR
LEADER, AND "SHALL AT ALL TIMES HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE SERVICES
WHICH THE EMPLOYEES WILL RENDER UNDER THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THIS
CONTRACT."  THE FORM PARAGRAPH, SO FAR AS PERTINENT, IS SET OUT IN THE
MARGIN.  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE CONTRACT WAS ADOPTED BY
THE UNION IN ORDER TO SHIFT THE INCIDENCE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES
FROM THE LEADER TO THE BALLROOM OPERATOR, AND THAT IT HAD NO PRACTICAL
EFFECT ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE MUSICIANS, LEADER, AND OPERATOR. 
THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE QUESTION OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE ACT
WAS ONE OF FACT, AND THAT THE CONTRACT WAS ONLY ONE FACTOR TO BE
CONSIDERED.  SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT BELIEVED THAT THE CONTRACT WAS
NOT ENTERED INTO "BY FAIR NEGOTIATION" AND THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO
PROTECT THE LEADERS FROM TAXES AS EMPLOYERS, IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
CONTRACT WAS OF NO EFFECT AND THAT THE LEADER WAS AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR EMPLOYING THE MUSICIANS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT OTHERWISE.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
TEST OF EMPLOYMENT WAS THE COMMON LAW TEST OF CONTROL, I.E., THAT ONE
WAS AN EMPLOYER IF HE HAD THE "RIGHT" TO DIRECT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AND
HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES GAVE THE BALLROOM OPERATORS THE "RIGHT" TO CONTROL THE
MUSICIANS AND THE LEADER, WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTROL WAS ACTUALLY
EXERCISED.  WHILE THE MAJORITY THOUGHT THAT SUCH A CONTRACT WAS NOT
BINDING ON THE GOVERNMENT, THEY THOUGHT IT WAS BINDING ON THE PARTIES
AND WOULD CONTROL LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYMENT TAXES IF THE BUREAU OF
INTERNAL REVENUE CHOSE TO ACCEPT THE ARRANGEMENT AS VALID.  BIRMINGHAM
V. BARTELS, SUPRA, AT 300. 

THE GOVERNMENT HERE RELIES ENTIRELY ON THE CONTRACT, CONCEDING THAT
OTHERWISE THE BANDLEADERS ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS EMPLOYING THE
MUSICIANS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BANDLEADERS INVOLVED CONTEND ALSO
THAT THOUGH THE CONTRACT BE THOUGHT INCONCLUSIVE, THE LEADERS AND
MUSICIANS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE OPERATORS.  THEY RELY UPON THE
DEPENDENCE OF THE ORCHESTRA MEMBERS UPON THE BALLROOM OPERATORS JUDGED
IN THE LIGHT OF THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 

IN UNITED STATES V. SILK, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT THE RELATIONSHIP OF
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE, WHICH DETERMINES THE LIABILITY FOR EMPLOYMENT TAXES
UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, WAS NOT TO BE DETERMINED SOLELY BY THE
IDEA OF CONTROL WHICH AN ALLEGED EMPLOYER MAY OR COULD EXERCISE OVER
THE DETAILS OF THE SERVICE RENDERED TO HIS BUSINESS BY THE WORKER OR
WORKERS.  OBVIOUSLY CONTROL IS CHARACTERISTICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, BUT IN THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL
LEGISLATION EMPLOYEES ARE THOSE WHO AS A MATTER OF ECONOMIC REALITY ARE
DEPENDENT UPON THE BUSINESS TO WHICH THEY RENDER SERVICE.  IN SILK, WE
POINTED OUT THAT PERMANENCY OF THE RELATION, THE SKILL REQUIRED, THE
INVESTMENT IN THE FACILITIES FOR WORK, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFIT OR
LOSS FROM THE ACTIVITIES WERE ALSO FACTORS THAT SHOULD ENTER INTO
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION AS TO THE COVERAGE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 
IT IS THE TOTAL SITUATION THAT CONTROLS.  THESE STANDARDS ARE AS
IMPORTANT IN THE ENTERTAINMENT FIELD AS WE HAVE JUST SAID, IN SILK,
THAT THEY WERE IN THAT OF DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE TREASURY AND THE FEDERAL
SECURITY AGENCY, QUOTED IN SILK, 331 U.S. 704, AT NOTE 8, IS NECESSARY
HERE.  I.R.C., CHAP. 9, SECS. 1429, 1609.  UNDER THOSE REGULATIONS, THE
GOVERNMENT SUCCESSFULLY RESISTED THE EFFORT OF A LEADER OF A "NAME"
BAND, LIKE THOSE HERE INVOLVED, TO RECOVER SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES PAID
ON THE WAGES OF THE MEMBERS OF HIS ORGANIZATION.  WILLIAMS V. UNITED
STATES, 126 F.2D 129.  THE CONTRACT IN THAT CASE WAS NOT "FORM B" AND
DID NOT CONTAIN ANY CORRESPONDING CONTROL CLAUSE.  TWO YEARS LATER, THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ISSUED MIMEOGRAPHS 5638, 1944-5-11651,
AND 5767, 1944-22-11889, 1944 CUM. BULL.  547-48.  THEY WERE DIRECTED
AT THE STATUS OF MUSICIANS AND VARIETY ENTERTAINERS APPEARING IN
THEATRES, NIGHT CLUBS, RESTAURANTS AND SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS. 
COLLECTORS AND OTHERS WERE THEREIN ADVISED THAT A "FORM B" OR SIMILAR
CONTRACT WITH THE ENTERTAINERS MADE OPERATORS OF AMUSEMENT PLACES
LIABLE AS EMPLOYERS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH A CONTRACT, THAT IS, IN REALITY, THE ABSENCE OF THE CONTROL CLAUSE
OF "FORM B," THE ENTERTAINERS, WITH "SHORT-TERM ENGAGEMENTS FOR A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPERATORS" OF AMUSEMENT PLACES, WOULD BE CONSIDERED
"INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS."  THE ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENTS TO SUPPORT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATIONS IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT
MAY ACCEPT THE VOLUNTARY CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE AMUSEMENT
OPERATORS AND ENTERTAINERS TO SHIFT THE TAX BURDEN FROM THE BAND
LEADERS TO THE OPERATORS.  FN2  CASES ARE CITED TO SUPPORT THIS
POSITION.  FN3  ALL OF THESE CASES, HOWEVER, INVOLVE THE PROBLEM OF
CORPORATE OR ASSOCIATION ENTITY.  THEY ARE NOT PERTINENT UPON THE
QUESTION OF CONTRACTS TO SHIFT TAX LIABILITY FROM ONE TAXPAYER TO
ANOTHER WHOLLY DISTINCT AND DISCONNECTED CORPORATION OR INDIVIDUAL.  WE
DO NOT THINK THAT SUCH A CONTRACTUAL SHIFT AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSIONER
TO COLLECT TAXES FROM ONE NOT COVERED BY THE TAXING STATUTE.  THE
INTERPRETIVE RULINGS ON THE REGULATIONS, REFERRED TO IN THIS PARAGRAPH,
DO NOT HAVE THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF TREASURY DECISIONS.  FN4  WE ARE OF
THE OPINION THAT SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION GOES BEYOND ROUTINE AND
EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER.  SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD
V. NIEROTKO, 327 U.S. 358, 369-70. 

THIS BRINGS US THEN TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE MEMBERS OF A
"NAME BAND" UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERETOFORE DETAILED ARE EMPLOYEES
OF THE OPERATOR OF THE DANCE HALL OR OF THE LEADER.  IF THE OPERATOR IS
THE EMPLOYER, THE LEADER IS ALSO HIS EMPLOYEE. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ELEMENTS OF EMPLOYMENT MARK THE BAND
LEADER AS THE EMPLOYER IN THESE CASES.  THE LEADER ORGANIZES AND TRAINS
THE BAND.  HE SELECTS THE MEMBERS.  IT IS HIS MUSICAL SKILL AND
SHOWMANSHIP THAT DETERMINES THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THE
ORGANIZATION.  THE RELATIONS BETWEEN HIM AND THE OTHER MEMBERS ARE
PERMANENT; THOSE BETWEEN THE BAND AND THE OPERATOR ARE TRANSIENT. 
MAINTENANCE COSTS ARE A CHARGE AGAINST THE PRICE RECEIVED FOR THE
PERFORMANCE.  HE BEARS THE LOSS OR GAINS THE PROFIT AFTER PAYMENT OF
THE MEMBERS' WAGES AND THE OTHER BAND EXPENSES. 

THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ARE REVERSED AND THOSE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT ARE AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "WITNESSETH, THAT THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYS THE PERSONAL SERVICES OF
THE EMPLOYEES, AS MUSICIANS SEVERALLY, AND THE EMPLOYEES SEVERALLY,
THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, AGREE TO RENDER COLLECTIVELY TO THE
EMPLOYER SERVICES AS MUSICIANS IN THE ORCHESTRA UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF
GRIFF WILLIAMS, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 

     .         .         .         .        . 

"THE EMPLOYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE
SERVICES WHICH THE EMPLOYEES WILL RENDER UNDER THE SPECIFICATIONS OF
THIS CONTRACT.  ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYER THE LEADER WILL DISTRIBUTE
THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE EMPLOYER TO THE EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING
HIMSELF, AS INDICATED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THIS CONTRACT, OR IN
PLACE THEREOF ON SEPARATE MEMORANDUM SUPPLIED TO THE EMPLOYER AT OR
BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT HEREUNDER AND TAKE AND TURN
OVER TO THE EMPLOYER RECEIPTS THEREFOR FROM EACH EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING
HIMSELF.  THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE LEADER INCLUDES THE COST OF
TRANSPORTATION, WHICH WILL BE REPORTED BY THE LEADER TO THE EMPLOYER. 
THE EMPLOYER HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE LEADER ON HIS BEHALF TO REPLACE ANY
EMPLOYEE WHO BY ILLNESS, ABSENCE, OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON DOES NOT
PERFORM ANY OR ALL OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS
CONTRACT...." 

FN2  THERE IS A CONTENTION THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE COERCED BECAUSE
THE OPERATORS COULD NOT SECURE THESE MUSICIANS UNDER OTHER
ARRANGEMENTS.  WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO RELY OR PASS UPON THAT
CONTENTION. 

FN3  EDWARDS V. CHILE COPPER CO., 270 U.S. 452, 456; BURNET V.
COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., 287 U.S. 415; NEW COLONIAL ICE CO. V.
HELVERING, 292 U.S. 435; HELVERING V. COLEMAN-GILBERT ASSOCIATES, 296
U.S. 369, 374; HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473, 477; GRAY V. POWELL, 314
U.S. 402; MOLINE PROPERTIES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 436, 439;
INTERSTATE TRANSIT LINES V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 590; SCHENLEY CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 432, 437. 

FN4  SEE 1944 CUM. BULL., NOTICE, P. I. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT POINTS OUT, THE FORM B CONTRACT INVOLVED
IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS ADOPTED, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AFTER IT HAD BEEN HELD UNDER AN EARLIER FORM OF
CONTRACT THAT MEMBERS OF THE ORCHESTRA WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE BAND
LEADER.  ON THE FACE OF THE PRESENT CONTRACT THE DANCE HALL PROPRIETOR
IS THE EMPLOYER EVEN UNDER TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF MASTER AND SERVANT. 
FOR HE HAS ALL OF THE CONVENTIONAL EARMARKS OF THE ENTREPRENEUR -
OWNERSHIP, PROFIT, LOSS, AND CONTROL - IF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONTRACT ALONE ARE CONSIDERED.  THEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT ARE SATISFIED.  AND TO HOLD THE DANCE HALL PROPRIETOR
LIABLE FOR THE TAX IS NOT TO CONTRACT THE COVERAGE CONTEMPLATED BY THE
STATUTORY SCHEME. 

I THINK THE TAX COLLECTOR SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO TAKE SUCH PRIVATE
ARRANGEMENTS AT THEIR FACE.  IN OTHER SITUATIONS A TAXPAYER MAY NOT
ESCAPE THE TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS WHICH HE MAKES
ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE FICTIONAL.  THE GOVERNMENT MAY "SUSTAIN OR
DISREGARD THE EFFECT OF THE FICTION AS BEST SERVES THE PURPOSES OF THE
TAX STATUTE."  HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473, 477.  THAT RULE IS NOT
RESTRICTED IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE USE BY TAXPAYERS OF CORPORATE OR
RELATED DEVICES TO OBTAIN TAX ADVANTAGES.  IT WAS APPLIED IN GRAY V.
POWELL, 314 U.S. 402, WHERE A RAILROAD SOUGHT EXEMPTION FROM THE
BITUMINOUS COAL ACT BY CONTENDING THAT THE OPERATIONS OF ONE WHO
APPEARED TO BE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WERE IN FACT ITS OPERATIONS. 
THE COURT IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION SAID THAT "THE CHOICE OF
DISREGARDING A DELIBERATELY CHOSEN ARRANGEMENT FOR CONDUCTING BUSINESS
AFFAIRS DOES NOT LIE WITH THE CREATOR OF THE PLAN."  ID., 414.  I SEE
NO REASON FOR CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE HERE.  IF THE
GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO ACCEPT THE CONTRACT ON ITS FACE, THE PARTIES
SHOULD BE BARRED FROM SHOWING THAT IT CONCEALS THE REAL ARRANGEMENT. 
TAX ADMINISTRATION SHOULD NOT BE SO EASILY EMBARRASSED. 
..END :













FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, 332 U.S. 134 


NO. 540.  ARGUED MAY 8, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 394 ILL. 194,
68 N.E.2D 252, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN REVIEWING ON WRIT OF ERROR A CONVICTION FOR BURGLARY AND
LARCENY IN WHICH IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL HAD BEEN
DENIED CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, A STATE SUPREME COURT WAS
CONFINED BY LOCAL PRACTICE TO THE COMMON LAW RECORD.  THAT RECORD
CONTAINED NO SPECIFIC RECITAL OF AN OFFER OF COUNSEL; BUT IT SHOWED
THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A MATURE MAN AND THAT, BEFORE ACCEPTING HIS PLEA
OF GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ADVISED HIM OF HIS "RIGHTS OF TRIAL" AND OF
THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PLEA OF GUILTY; AND IT CONTAINED NOTHING TO
CONTRADICT THIS ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  IN THE STATE SUPREME
COURT, THERE WAS NEITHER PROOF NOR UNCONTRADICTED ALLEGATION OF ANY
ACTUAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF GUILTY; AND THAT
COURT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  HELD:  ON THIS RECORD, TO WHICH REVIEW
IN THIS COURT IS CONFINED, THERE IS NO SHOWING OF A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 138-139. 

2.  THE PROVISION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES TO AN
ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A FEDERAL COURT THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT
"TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE," IS NOT MADE
APPLICABLE BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO PROSECUTIONS IN STATE
COURTS.  PP. 136-137. 

FOSTER ET AL. V. ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

IN AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS,
PETITIONERS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY, UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, OF
SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED ON THEM UPON PLEAS OF GUILTY IN
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN A STATE COURT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENTS.  394 ILL. 194, 68 N.E.2D 252.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 712.  AFFIRMED, P. 139. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS BY
WAY OF WRIT OF ERROR TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT
FOLLOWING PLEAS OF GUILTY.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HAVING
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT, 394 ILL. 194, 68 N.E.2D 252, WE BROUGHT THE CASE
HERE, 329 U.S. 712, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF REVIEWING CONVICTIONS
WHERE SOLID DOUBT IS RAISED WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS
HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. 

ON FEBRUARY 22, 1935, THE PETITIONERS WERE SENTENCED TO CONFINEMENT
IN THE ILLINOIS STATE PENITENTIARY, UNDER THE ILLINOIS STATE
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, AFTER PLEADING GUILTY TO AN INDICTMENT
CHARGING THEM WITH BURGLARY AND LARCENY.  CAHILL'S ILL. REV. STATS.
(1933) C. 38, SECS. 65, 796.  SINCE THE CONTROVERSY TURNS ON THE LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE PLEAS OF GUILTY WERE
ACCEPTED, IT IS IMPORTANT TO STATE THEM ACCORDING TO THE RECORD WHICH,
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROCEEDING, IS BINDING UPON THE ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT AND THEREFORE UPON THIS COURT.  ACCORDING TO THE "MINUTES FROM
THE JUDGES DOCKET," THE DEFENDANTS FOSTER AND PAYNE (PETITIONERS HERE) 

"HAVING BEEN FURNISHED WITH A COPY OF THE INDICTMENT AND A LIST OF
THE JURORS AND PEOPLES WITNESSES AND ARE ADVISED OF THEIR RIGHTS OF
TRIAL AND OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ENTRY OF A PLEA OF GUILTY AND BEING
ARRAIGNED IN OPEN COURT FOR PLEA TO THE INDICTMENT SAYS, EACH FOR
HIMSELF THAT HE IS GUILTY OF BURGLARY AND LARCENY AS CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT AND THEREUPON THE COURT ADVISES AND ADMONISHES EACH OF SAID
DEFENDANTS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ENTERING SUCH PLEAS OF GUILTY, AND
THEREAFTER EACH OF SAID DEFENDANTS STILL PERSIST IN SUCH PLEAS OF
GUILTY  ...  WHEREUPON SAID PLEAS OF GUILTY ARE RECEIVED AND ENTERED OF
RECORD." 

"THE COURT FINDS THE AGES OF SAID DEFENDANTS TO BE AS FOLLOWS,
RESPECTIVELY, NELSON FOSTER 34 YEARS OLD, GEORGE PAYNE, ALIAS ELIJAH
JEFFERSON 48 YEARS  ...  " 

ELEVEN YEARS LATER, ON FEBRUARY 7, 1946, THE PETITIONERS ASKED THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS FOR THEIR DISCHARGE.  VARIOUS STATE GROUNDS
WERE URGED AND REJECTED.  OUR SOLE CONCERN IS WITH THE CLAIM "THAT THE
RECORD IN THIS CASE FAILS TO SHOW" A COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT INSOFAR AS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THAT AMENDMENT REQUIRES
AN ACCUSED TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT GUIDE THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE HAVE BEEN
CANVASSED HERE IN A SERIES OF RECENT OPINIONS.  THE "DUE PROCESS OF
LAW" WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EXACTS FROM THE STATES IS A
CONCEPTION OF FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE.  SEE HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S.
312, 316; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 325.  IT IS NOT SATISFIED
BY MERELY FORMAL PROCEDURAL CORRECTNESS, NOR IS IT CONFINED BY ANY
ABSOLUTE RULE SUCH AS THAT WHICH THE SIXTH AMENDMENT CONTAINS IN
SECURING TO AN ACCUSED "THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE."  BY
VIRTUE OF THAT PROVISION, COUNSEL MUST BE FURNISHED TO AN INDIGENT
DEFENDANT PROSECUTED IN A FEDERAL COURT IN EVERY CASE, WHATEVER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 327; JOHNSON V.
ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458; BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 464-65. 
PROSECUTIONS IN STATE COURTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS FIXED
REQUIREMENT.  SO WE HAVE HELD UPON FULLEST CONSIDERATION.  BETTS V.
BRADY, SUPRA.  BUT PROCESS OF LAW IN ORDER TO BE "DUE" DOES REQUIRE
THAT A STATE GIVE A DEFENDANT AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AN ACCUSATION. 
AND SO, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A "PARTICULAR SITUATION," ASSIGNMENT OF
COUNSEL MAY BE "ESSENTIAL TO THE SUBSTANCE OF A HEARING" AS PART OF THE
DUE PROCESS WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EXACTS FROM A STATE WHICH
IMPOSES SENTENCE.  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 327.  SUCH NEED MAY
EXIST WHETHER AN ACCUSED CONTESTS A CHARGE AGAINST HIM OR PLEADS
GUILTY. 

THE RATIONALE OF THIS APPLICATION OF DUE PROCESS WAS FIRST EXPOUNDED
IN POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45.  IN FOLLOWING THAT CASE OUR RECENT
DECISIONS HAVE SPOKEN OF "THE RULE OF POWELL V. ALABAMA," OR "THE
REQUIREMENTS OF POWELL V. ALABAMA," THEREBY INDICATING THE ESSENTIAL
SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE.  SEE WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471, 476-77;
TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485, 488.  AND SO, IN EVERY CASE IN WHICH
THIS DOCTRINE WAS INVOKED AND DUE PROCESS WAS FOUND WANTING, THE
PRISONER SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF PROVING, OR WAS PREPARED TO PROVE BUT
WAS DENIED OPPORTUNITY, THAT FOR WANT OF BENEFIT OF COUNSEL AN
INGREDIENT OF UNFAIRNESS ACTIVELY OPERATED IN THE PROCESS THAT RESULTED
IN HIS CONFINEMENT.  SEE POWELL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, AT 51, 53, 56, 57
58; SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329, 334; WILLIAMS V. KAISER, SUPRA, AT
472, 473-74, AND 476-77; TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, AT 486-487; HOUSE
V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42, 45-46; WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760, 762-63; RICE
V. OLSON, 324 U.S. 786, 788-89.  ONLY THE OTHER DAY, IN A CASE
CONCERNING A CHARGE OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AGAINST A SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD
DEFENDANT, IN WHICH WE FOUND A DEPRIVATION "OF RIGHTS ESSENTIAL TO A
FAIR HEARING," WE TOOK PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT "THE COURT DID NOT
EXPLAIN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA OF GUILTY, AND THE RECORD
INDICATES CONSIDERABLE CONFUSION IN PETITIONER'S MIND AT THE TIME OF
THE ARRAIGNMENT AS TO THE EFFECT OF SUCH A PLEA."  DE MEERLEER V.
MICHIGAN, 329 U.S. 663, 664. 

IN THIS CASE THERE IS NEITHER PROOF NOR UNCONTRADICTED ALLEGATION OF
ANY SUCH MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN ACCEPTING PLEAS OF GUILTY.  THE
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PLAINLY IMPORTS AN OBSERVANCE OF DUE PROCESS. 
IN THE CONTEMPORANEOUS LANGUAGE OF THE TRIAL COURT, THE DEFENDANTS "ARE
ADVISED OF THEIR RIGHTS OF TRIAL AND OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ENTRY OF
A PLEA OF GUILTY," THE COURT "ADVISES AND ADMONISHES EACH OF SAID
DEFENDANTS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ENTERING SUCH PLEAS OF GUILTY," AND
THE DEFENDANTS THEREAFTER STILL PERSISTING, THEIR PLEAS "ARE RECEIVED
AND ENTERED OF RECORD."  THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE COMMON-LAW RECORD, ON
THE BASIS OF WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS RENDERED ITS DECISION,
TO CONTRADICT THIS ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN 1935.  WE THUS HAVE IN
EFFECT THE BALD CLAIM THAT, MERELY BECAUSE THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE
AN OFFER OF COUNSEL TO A DEFENDANT UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY, ALTHOUGH THE
COURT BEFORE ACCEPTING THE PLEA DULY ADVISED HIM OF HIS "RIGHTS OF
TRIAL" AND OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A PLEA, HE IS "DEPRIVED OF
RIGHTS ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR HEARING UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION."  DE
MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN, SUPRA, AT 665. 

WE REJECT SUCH A CLAIM.  MOST INCARCERATIONS ARE UPON PLEAS OF
GUILTY, AND PROBABLY MOST SUCH PLEAS HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT THE FELT
NEED OF COUNSEL.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO SUGGEST THAT IT MIGHT BE
DESIRABLE TO OFFER TO EVERY ACCUSED WHO DESIRES TO PLEAD GUILTY THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR COUNSEL AND TO ENTER WITH FORMALITY UPON THE RECORD
THE DELIBERATE DISCLAIMER OF HIS NEED FOR COUNSEL BECAUSE OF A FULL
APPRECIATION OF THE MEANING OF A PLEA OF GUILTY AS EXPOUNDED BY
RESPONSIBLE JUDGES.  OUR DUTY DOES NOT GO BEYOND SAFEGUARDING "RIGHTS
ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR HEARING" BY THE STATES.  AFTER ALL, DUE PROCESS,
"ITSELF A HISTORICAL PRODUCT," JACKMAN V. ROSENBAUM CO., 260 U.S. 22,
31, IS NOT TO BE TURNED INTO A DESTRUCTIVE DOGMA IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNDER WHICH THE STATES HAVE LIVED NOT
ONLY BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BUT FOR THE EIGHTY YEARS SINCE ITS
ADOPTION.  IT DOES NOT MILITATE AGAINST RESPECT FOR THE DEEPLY ROOTED
SYSTEMS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE STATES THAT SUCH AN ABRUPT
INNOVATION AS RECOGNITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM HERE MADE
IMPLIES, WOULD FURNISH OPPORTUNITIES HITHERTO UNCONTEMPLATED FOR
OPENING WIDE THE PRISON DOORS OF THE LAND. 

INSOFAR AS THE SENTENCES IN THIS CASE ARE ATTACKED ON CLAIMS WHICH
WERE NOT OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE COMMON-LAW RECORD WHICH ALONE
WAS BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COURT, SEE 394 ILL. 194, 68 N.E.2D 252, THEY
ARE NOT OPEN HERE.  CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173.  THEY MUST BE
RAISED BY WHATEVER PROCEDURE ILLINOIS MAY PROVIDE, OR, IN DEFAULT OF
RELIEF BY APPROPRIATE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS, BY A NEW CLAIM OF DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS FOR WANT OF SUCH RELIEF.  SEE MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S.
103.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN, DISSENTING. 

IN ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, THIS DAY DECIDED, ANTE P. 46, THE COURT
WATERS DOWN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S APPLICATION TO THE STATES OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION SO AS TO MAKE IT
COMPATIBLE WITH THE COURT'S STANDARDS OF DECENCY AND A FAIR TRIAL.  IN
THIS CASE THE COURT SIMILARLY WATERS DOWN THE BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEE
OF COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL CASES.  IN BOTH CASES, THE COURT REFUSES TO
STRIKE DOWN CONVICTIONS OBTAINED IN DISREGARD OF BILL OF RIGHTS
GUARANTEES, ASSUMING ALL THE WHILE THAT IDENTICAL CONVICTIONS OBTAINED
IN FEDERAL COURTS WOULD VIOLATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  FOR THE COURT, IN
THE INSTANT CASE, CONCEDES THAT, BY VIRTUE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT,
"COUNSEL MUST BE FURNISHED AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT PROSECUTED IN A
FEDERAL COURT IN EVERY CASE, WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  THIS, OF
COURSE, RELATES TO CONVICTIONS FOLLOWING BOTH PLEAS OF NOT GUILTY AND
PLEAS OF GUILTY.  WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471; TOMKINS V.
MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485. 

IN THE ADAMSON CASE, I HAVE VOICED MY OBJECTIONS TO DILUTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN STATE COURTS. 
THIS DECISION IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH CAN BE
PRODUCED BY SUBSTITUTION OF THIS COURT'S DAY-TO-DAY OPINION OF WHAT
KIND OF TRIAL IS FAIR AND DECENT FOR THE KIND OF TRIAL WHICH THE BILL
OF RIGHTS GUARANTEES.  THIS TIME IT IS THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL.  WE CANNOT
KNOW WHAT BILL OF RIGHTS PROVISION WILL NEXT BE ATTENUATED BY THE
COURT.  WE CAN AT LEAST BE SURE THAT THERE WILL BE MORE, SO LONG AS THE
COURT ADHERES TO THE DOCTRINE OF THIS AND THE ADAMSON CASE. 

THE COURT'S DECISION RELIES HEAVILY ON BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455. 
IN THAT CASE, A MAN ON RELIEF, TOO POOR TO HIRE A LAWYER, AND WHOSE
REQUEST FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A LAWYER WAS DENIED, WAS COMPELLED TO
ACT AS HIS OWN LAWYER ON A CHARGE OF ROBBERY.  CONVICTION FOLLOWED. 
THAT CASE IS PRECEDENT FOR THIS ONE.  BUT IT IS THE KIND OF PRECEDENT
THAT I HAD HOPED THIS COURT WOULD NOT PERPETUATE. 

ONE THING MORE.  THE COURT SEEMS TO FEAR THAT PROTECTING THESE
DEFENDANTS' RIGHT TO COUNSEL TO THE FULL EXTENT DEFINED IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS WOULD FURNISH "OPPORTUNITIES HITHERTO UNCONTEMPLATED FOR OPENING
WIDE THE PRISON DOORS OF THE LAND," BECAUSE, PRESUMABLY, THERE ARE MANY
PEOPLE LIKE BETTS, FOSTER AND PAYNE BEHIND THOSE DOORS AFTER TRIALS
WITHOUT HAVING HAD THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH
A REASON IS EVEN RELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION THAT WE SHOULD DECLINE TO
ENFORCE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE SIXTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN
CRIMINAL CAUSES IS APPLICABLE TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS AS THIS IN STATE
COURTS. 

APART FROM THAT VIEW AND UPON THE COURT'S BASIS THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT BY ITS OWN FORCE INDEPENDENTLY PRESCRIBES A PARTIAL SIMILAR
GUARANTY, CF. PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 327; BETTS V. BRADY,
316 U.S. 455; POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT ITS
CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE.  OF COURSE IF THE SO-CALLED PRESUMPTION OF
REGULARITY IS TO BE EFFECTIVE TO SUSTAIN THE DENIAL OF COUNSEL IN
CIRCUMSTANCES AS BALD AS THOSE PRESENTED IN GAYES V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S.
145, DECIDED TODAY, THAT PRESUMPTION MUST WORK THE SAME DENIAL IN THE
SOMEWHAT LESS STARTLING FACTS OF THIS CASE. 

BUT WHEN A RECORD DISCLOSES AS MUCH AS THE RECORD HERE SHOWS, I DO
NOT THINK ANY PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO OVERCOME
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE VIOLATED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  SUCH A PRESUMPTION
INDEED, IF VALID BY MERE FORCE OF THE FACT THAT A JUDGMENT HAS BEEN
RENDERED, MAY ALWAYS BE INDULGED.  CF. WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S.
471; TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485; DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN, 329
U.S. 663.  AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION HERE, FOR
THE OBSERVANCE AND PRESERVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, MORE
ESPECIALLY OF THE INDIGENT AND IGNORANT WHO ARE UNABLE TO EMPLOY
COUNSEL FROM THEIR OWN RESOURCES AND DO NOT KNOW THEIR RIGHTS, MUST BE,
NOT MERELY A DENIAL OF THE BASIC RIGHT OF COUNSEL, BUT ALSO A DENIAL OF
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN SWEEPING APPLICATION.  POVERTY OR
WEALTH WILL MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN SECURING THE SUBSTANCE OR ONLY
THE SHADOW OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. 

HERE PETITIONERS WERE CHARGED WITH THE SERIOUS CRIMES OF BURGLARY AND
LARCENY, HANDED A COPY OF THE INDICTMENT, AND ARRAIGNED.  EVERY LAWYER
KNOWS THE DIFFICULTIES OF PLEADING TO SUCH CHARGES, INCLUDING THE
TECHNICALITIES OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTES AND ESPECIALLY OF THE
PRACTICE RELATING TO INCLUDED OR LESSER OFFENSES.  THE CRIMES CHARGED
INVOLVED PENALTIES OF IMPRISONMENT FOR FROM ONE YEAR TO LIFE, THE
PENALTY ACTUALLY IMPOSED UPON THESE PETITIONERS.    ON THE VERY DAY THE
INDICTMENT WAS HANDED DOWN, PETITIONERS WERE ARRAIGNED, THEIR PLEAS OF
GUILTY WERE ACCEPTED, AND THEY WERE SENTENCED.  AT NO TIME WERE THEY
OFFERED COUNSEL OR ADVISED OF THEIR RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NOR DID THEY
RECEIVE ANY ASSISTANCE FROM COUNSEL.  THE RECORD, IT IS TRUE, RECITES
THAT THEY WERE "ADVISED OF THEIR RIGHTS OF TRIAL AND OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF AN ENTRY OF A PLEA OF GUILTY," NOTWITHSTANDING WHICH
EACH SAID THAT HE WAS GUILTY, WHEREUPON THE COURT "ADVISES AND
ADMONISHES EACH OF SAID DEFENDANTS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ENTERING SUCH
PLEAS OF GUILTY," DESPITE WHICH EACH PERSISTED IN HIS PLEA. 

HOWEVER THIS VAGUE AND FORMAL RECITAL MIGHT BE TAKEN IN OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE REGARDED IN THIS CASE AS MEANING THAT
PETITIONERS WERE EITHER OFFERED COUNSEL OR INFORMED OF ANY RIGHT TO
COUNSEL.  INDEED THE RECITAL MUST BE TAKEN AS HAVING DELIBERATELY
AVOIDED INCLUDING STATEMENTS IN EITHER RESPECT.  AND, UPON THE RECORD
AS A WHOLE, WE ARE REQUIRED NOT ONLY TO READ IT IN THIS LIGHT BUT TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE RECITAL AND THE INTENTIONAL OMISSION OF STATEMENTS
CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL WERE EFFECTIVE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
PETITIONERS WERE IN FACT DENIED THAT RIGHT. 

THE COURT DOES NOT POINT OUT, BUT IT IS THE VERY HEART OF THIS CASE,
THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW THESE PETITIONERS WERE, IN EFFECT, DENIED THE
RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL TENDERED OR APPOINTED BY THE COURT.  IT WAS UNDER
NO DUTY IMPOSED BY STATE LAW TO TENDER COUNSEL, TO INQUIRE INTO THE
NEED FOR COUNSEL, OR TO INFORM THE DEFENDANTS OF ANY RIGHT TO COUNSEL. 
INDEED, UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE, IT SEEMS, THE COURT WOULD HAVE
EXCEEDED ITS POWERS BY TAKING ACTION IN ANY OF THESE RESPECTS. 

WE ARE NOT ONLY ENTITLED, WE ARE REQUIRED, TO READ THE RECORD OF THE
STATE'S PROCEEDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATE'S LAW APPLICABLE TO
THEM.  IN ILLINOIS BY STATUTE IT IS ONLY IN CAPITAL CASES THAT THE
COURT IS UNDER AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY, WHEN IT APPEARS THAT A DEFENDANT IS
INDIGENT, TO TENDER APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.  FN1  IN NONCAPITAL CASES
THE FOLLOWING STATUTE APPLIES: 

"  ...  EVERY PERSON CHARGED WITH CRIME SHALL BE ALLOWED COUNSEL, AND
WHEN HE SHALL STATE UPON OATH THAT HE IS UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL, THE
COURT SHALL ASSIGN HIM COMPETENT COUNSEL, WHO SHALL CONDUCT HIS
DEFENSE."  ILL. REV. STAT. (1945) C. 38, SEC. 730. 

THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT CONSISTENTLY HAS CONSTRUED THIS STATUTE AS
REQUIRING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ONLY WHEN A DEFENDANT REQUESTS COUNSEL
AND STATES ON OATH THAT HE CANNOT PROCURE COUNSEL.  IT IS EXPRESSLY
HELD THAT THE PROVISION "DOES NOT PLACE UPON THE COURT THE DUTY TO
PROFFER THE SERVICES OF COUNSEL  ...  ," PEOPLE V. LAVENDOWSKI, 326
ILL. 173, 176, NOR DOES IT REQUIRE ADVISING DEFENDANTS OF THEIR RIGHT
TO COUNSEL.  PEOPLE V. CORRIE, 387 ILL. 587, 589-590.  SEE ALSO PEOPLE
V. CORBETT, 387 ILL. 41; PEOPLE V. CHILDERS, 386 ILL. 312; PEOPLE V.
FUHS, 390 ILL. 67.  AND THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO STATE HIS NEED
AND INABILITY TO PROCURE COUNSEL UNDER OATH IS TAKEN APPARENTLY AS A
WAIVER OF THE RIGHT.  CF. PEOPLE V. STUBBLEFIELD, 391 ILL. 609, 610. 
FN2 

FINALLY, THE OPINION OF THE ILLINOIS COURT IN THIS CASE SHOWS THAT
PETITIONERS WERE DENIED RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF THESE RULES.  FN3 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ILLINOIS STATUTES AND DECISIONS, THEREFORE, THE
PRESENT RECORD CAN BE TAKEN TO SUSTAIN NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE TRIAL
COURT OFFERED COUNSEL TO PETITIONERS, INQUIRED CONCERNING THEIR NEED
FOR COUNSEL OR ABILITY TO SECURE SUCH AID, OR ADVISED THEM IN ANY WAY
OF THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE THAT ASSISTANCE.  THE ONLY TENABLE PRESUMPTION
IS THAT THE COURT REFRAINED DELIBERATELY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE
LAW, FROM TAKING ACTION IN ANY OF THESE RESPECTS. 

MOREOVER, WHEN MEN APPEAR IN COURT FOR TRIAL OR PLEA, OBVIOUSLY
WITHOUT COUNSEL OR SO FAR AS APPEARS THE MEANS OF SECURING SUCH AID,
UNDER SERIOUS CHARGES SUCH AS WERE MADE HERE INVOLVING PENALTIES OF THE
CHARACTER IMPOSED, IT IS ALTOGETHER INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR THE COURT TO SHUT ITS EYES TO THEIR APPARENTLY
HELPLESS CONDITION WITHOUT SO MUCH AS AN INQUIRY CONCERNING ITS CAUSE. 
A SYSTEM SO CALLOUS OF THE RIGHTS OF MEN, NOT ONLY IN THEIR PERSONAL
FREEDOM BUT IN THEIR RIGHTS TO TRIAL COMPORTING WITH ANY CONCEPTION OF
FAIRNESS, AS TO TOLERATE SUCH ACTION, IS IN MY OPINION WHOLLY CONTRARY
TO THE SCHEME OF THINGS THE NATION'S CHARTER ESTABLISHES.  COURTS AND
JUDGES, UNDER THAT PLAN, OWE SOMETHING MORE THAN THE NEGATIVE DUTY TO
SIT SILENT AND BLIND WHILE MEN GO ON THEIR WAY TO PRISON, FOR ALL THAT
APPEARS, FOR WANT OF ANY HINT OF THEIR RIGHTS. 

ADDING TO THIS BLINDNESS A "PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY" TO SUSTAIN
WHAT HAS THUS BEEN DONE MAKES A MOCKERY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ANY
SENSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND A SNARE AND A DELUSION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR ALL UNABLE TO PAY THE COST OF SECURING THEIR
OBSERVANCE. 

FN1  "WHENEVER IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COURT THAT A DEFENDANT OR
DEFENDANTS INDICTED IN A CAPITAL CASE, IS OR ARE INDIGENT AND UNABLE TO
PAY COUNSEL FOR HIS OR HER DEFENSE, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COURT
TO APPOINT ONE OR MORE COMPETENT COUNSEL FOR SAID DEFENDANT OR
DEFENDANTS, WHO SHALL RECEIVE A REASONABLE SUM FOR SERVICES  ...  "
ILL. REV. STAT. (1945) C. 38, SEC. 730. 

FN2  AND SEE NOTE 3. 

FN3  "IT IS FIRST CONTENDED BY PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR THAT THEY DID NOT
HAVE COUNSEL APPOINTED TO REPRESENT AND PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS.  IT IS
NOT SHOWN BY THE RECORD THAT THE DEFENDANTS INFORMED THE COURT OR IN
ANY WAY INDICATED THAT THEY DESIRED COUNSEL.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD
THAT THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IS A PERSONAL RIGHT WHICH A
DEFENDANT MAY WAIVE OR CLAIM AS HE HIMSELF MAY DETERMINE.  (PEOPLE V.
FUHS, 390 ILL. 67.)  THIS CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT."  394 ILL. 194,
195. 
..END :
























GAYES V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 145 


NO. 405.  ARGUED MAY 2, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - AFFIRMED. 


UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A STATE COURT,
PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED AS A SECOND OFFENDER, THE LENGTH OF THE
SENTENCE BEING BASED PARTLY ON A PREVIOUS CONVICTION.  UPON SENTENCE AS
A SECOND OFFENDER, PETITIONER HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY, SO FAR AS APPEARS,
TO CONTEST ANY INFIRMITY IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE.  WHILE SERVING THE
SECOND SENTENCE, PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE COURT WHICH HAD IMPOSED THE
EARLIER SENTENCE TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT THERE RENDERED AGAINST HIM, ON
THE GROUND OF DENIAL OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  THE STATE COURT DENIED THE MOTION, AND ITS JUDGMENT IS
HERE AFFIRMED.  PP. 147-149. 

GAYES V. NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK. 

PETITIONER'S APPLICATION TO A STATE COURT TO VACATE A JUDGMENT THERE
RENDERED AGAINST HIM WAS DENIED WITHOUT OPINION.  UNDER THE STATE LAW,
NO REVIEW COULD BE HAD OF THIS DETERMINATION.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 710.  AFFIRMED, P. 149. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN AN
OPINION IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON JOIN. 

THIS IS ANOTHER CASE IN WHICH RELEASE IS SOUGHT FROM CONFINEMENT
UNDER A SENTENCE BY A STATE COURT FOLLOWING A PLEA OF GUILTY, ON A
CLAIM OF A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW THROUGH WANT OF BENEFIT OF
COUNSEL. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THESE.  ON JULY 15, 1938, GAYES, THEN A LAD OF
SIXTEEN, WAS ARRAIGNED IN THE COUNTY COURT OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK,
UPON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING BURGLARY IN THE THIRD DEGREE AND PETTY
LARCENY.  ACCORDING TO THE RECORD OF CONVICTION, HE WAS ASKED, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 308 OF THE NEW YORK CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, WHETHER "HE DESIRED THE AID OF COUNSEL," AND HE
ANSWERED "NO."  FN1  IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE WAS POSTPONED TO JULY 28. 
WHEN ON THAT DAY GAYES APPEARED FOR JUDGMENT, HE WAS ASKED, AGAIN
ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEW YORK LAW, WHETHER "HE HAD ANY
LEGAL CAUSE TO SHOW WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST
HIM."  NEW YORK CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEC. 480.  AND "NO
SUFFICIENT CAUSE APPEARING," THE RECORD CONTINUES, GAYES WAS COMMITTED
TO A NEW YORK STATE VOCATIONAL SCHOOL TO BE DEALT WITH THERE ACCORDING
TO LAW.  IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS BEFORE US THAT GAYES DID NOT STAY AT
THIS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AS LONG AS NEW YORK LAW WOULD HAVE
AUTHORIZED HIS DETENTION.  SEE NEW YORK PENAL LAW SECS. 2184-A AND
2189, IN CONNECTION WITH SEC. 407.  FOR, ON OCTOBER 14, 1941, HE
PLEADED GUILTY, IN THE COUNTY COURT OF SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK, TO A NEW
CHARGE OF BURGLARY IN THE THIRD DEGREE.  THE RECORD OF THIS LATTER
PROCEEDING DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER THIS TIME HE WAS OR WAS NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  BUT NO CLAIM IS MADE THAT THIS PLEA OF GUILTY,
OR THE SENTENCE UNDER IT, HAS ANY INFIRMITY FOR LACK OF LEGAL
ASSISTANCE.  GAYES' CLAIM IS THAT HE WAS SENTENCED AS A SECOND OFFENDER
BY THE INCLUSION OF THE IMPROPER SENTENCE TO THE VOCATIONAL SCHOOL IN
1938. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK PROCEDURE, GAYES, PRO SE, FILED IN THE
COUNTY COURT OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK, AN APPLICATION TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT RENDERED AGAINST HIM IN THAT COURT ON JULY 28, 1938.  HE
CLAIMED THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED TO THAT JUDGMENT HE HAD NOT
BEEN INFORMED OF HIS "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL,"
THAT HE "COULD NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD HIS RIGHTS TO COUNSEL" AND THAT
"YOUTHS OF THE AGE OF 16 YEARS CANNOT INTELLIGENTLY AND COMPETENTLY
WAIVE THEIR RIGHTS."  SINCE, ACCORDING TO THIS CLAIM, THE FIRST
SENTENCE WAS VOID, HE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE SENTENCE IN 1941
BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF THE SECOND SENTENCE WAS PARTLY BASED UPON THE
1938 CONVICTION. 

UPON THIS RECORD, THE COUNTY COURT DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT
OPINION.  AS NEW YORK LAW THEN STOOD, NO REVIEW COULD THERE BE HAD OF
THIS DETERMINATION.  SEE PEOPLE V. GERSEWITZ, 294 N.Y. 163, 61 N.E.2D
427.  THIS MADE THE COUNTY COURT THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK FOR PURPOSES OF OUR REVIEW.  CANIZIO V. NEW YORK, 327 U.S. 82,
85.  BUT SEE CHAPTER 706 OF THE NEW YORK LAWS OF 1947.  WE BROUGHT THE
CASE HERE, 329 U.S. 710, AS ONE OF A SERIES, FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS IMPLY
A DUTY TO SUPPLY COUNSEL TO DEFENDANTS IN STATE PROSECUTIONS. 

THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES BEARING ON THE GENERAL PROBLEM HAVE BEEN SET
FORTH IN THE OPINION IN FOSTER V. ILLINOIS, JUST DECIDED, ANTE, P.
134.  INSOFAR AS THE FACTS OF THIS CASE PRESENT A PARTICULAR VARIANT,
THEY ARE CONTROLLED BY OUR DECISION IN CANIZIO V. NEW YORK, SUPRA.  WE
THERE HELD THAT WHATEVER DOUBTS MAY ARISE FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A
PLEA OF GUILTY, IF, BEFORE SENTENCE IS IMPOSED, THE OPPORTUNITIES
REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR MEETING THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE
PLEA ARE SATISFIED, THE SENTENCE MUST STAND.  AND SO, THE QUESTIONS
THAT MAY BE RAISED REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE IMPOSITION
OF GAYES' COMMITMENT TO THE VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN 1938 ARE NOT NOW
OPEN.  GAYES IS COMPLAINING OF HIS SENTENCE FOLLOWING HIS PLEA OF
GUILTY IN 1941.  FN2  WHAT HE WANTS IS TO BE RELIEVED OF HIS
IMPRISONMENT UNDER THAT SENTENCE.  THAT SENTENCE, TO BE SURE, PARTLY
TOOK INTO ACCOUNT HIS EARLIER SENTENCE IN 1938.  BUT UPON HIS
SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE, AS A SECOND OFFENDER, IN 1941, HE HAD FULL
OPPORTUNITY, SO FAR AS APPEARS, TO CONTEST WHATEVER INFIRMITY HE MAY
HAVE CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER SENTENCE WHEN THE FACT OF THAT SENTENCE WAS
INCLUDED IN THE SENTENCE WHICH HE IS NOW SERVING.  FN3  SINCE THE
PROCESS LEADING UP TO THE SECOND SENTENCE IS NOT CHALLENGED HE CANNOT
NOW, SO FAR AS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED, BY A FLANK
ATTACK, CHALLENGE THE SENTENCE OF 1938.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COUNTY COURT OF MONROE
NOW UNDER REVIEW, THE MINUTES OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GAYES
CAME TO LIGHT.  BY STIPULATION OF COUNSEL THESE MINUTES ARE HERE. 
ACCORDING TO THEM, THE PRECISE QUESTION PUT TO GAYES BY THE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JUDGE WAS, "DO YOU NEED A
LAWYER BEFORE YOU ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY TO THIS
INDICTMENT?"  TO WHICH GAYES REPLIED, "NO, SIR."  IT MAY BE
INCONCLUSIVELY DEBATED WHETHER IF GAYES WAS ASKED "IF HE DESIRED THE
AID OF COUNSEL," AS STATED IN THE ENTRY IN THE RECORD OF CONVICTION, HE
WAS BETTER INFORMED OF HIS RIGHTS, THAN IF HE WAS ASKED, "DO YOU NEED A
LAWYER?"  IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSITION, THE DIFFERENCE IN SIGNIFICANCE
BECOMES IMMATERIAL, AND IT IS ALSO IMMATERIAL WHETHER, IF THERE WERE A
DIFFERENCE, WE COULD CONSIDER, EVEN IN A CASE INVOLVING BELATED RELEASE
FROM STATE DETENTION, A MATTER NOT BEFORE THE COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT IS
HERE FOR REVIEW.  BUT THE DIFFERENCES THAT MAY EXIST BETWEEN FORMAL
ENTRY IN THE MINUTES OF AN ACCEPTANCE OF A PLEA AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY
SAID CONTEMPORANEOUSLY LENDS FORCE TO THE CAUTION FREQUENTLY EXPRESSED
THAT EVERY INTENDMENT MUST BE MADE IN SUPPORT OF THE DUE OBSERVANCE OF
LAW IN THE RENDERING OF JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED,
OFTEN AFTER A CONSIDERABLE PASSAGE OF TIME. 

FN2  GAYES IS DETAINED UNDER THE 1941 SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE COUNTY
COURT OF SCHENECTADY.  A MOTION ATTACKING THAT SENTENCE WOULD, UNDER
NEW YORK LAW, HAVE TO BE MADE IN THAT COURT.  WHAT HE IS ASKING IS THE
INVALIDATION OF THE PRIOR SENTENCE, UNDERLYING AS IT WERE THE
SCHENECTADY SENTENCE, PRESUMABLY AS A FIRST STEP IN GETTING RELIEF FROM
DETENTION UNDER THE LATTER SENTENCE.  WE ARE TREATING THIS PROCEEDING,
FOR OUR PURPOSES, AS ONE SEEKING, IN EFFECT, RELIEF FROM THE 1941
SENTENCE WITHOUT REGARD TO FORMAL DISTINCTIONS WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE
RELEVANT. 

FN3  ACCORDING TO THE STATE, GAYES COULD HAVE RAISED THE CLAIM HE NOW
MAKES AGAINST THE 1938 CONVICTION AT THE TIME HE WAS SENTENCED IN 1941,
AND FROM A DENIAL OF RELIEF COULD HAVE APPEALED TO THE HIGHER COURTS. 
THIS WAS NOT CONTRADICTED BY THE PETITIONER AND IS NOT BROUGHT INTO
QUESTION IN ANY OPINION OF THE HIGHER COURTS OF NEW YORK.  IT HAS BEEN
RULED IN COURTS OF VERY LIMITED AUTHORITY THAT A SECOND OFFENDER CANNOT
APPLY FOR RESENTENCE ON A CLAIM THAT THERE WAS A DEFECT IN THE FIRST
SENTENCE IMPOSED BY ANOTHER COURT.  SEE PEOPLE V. KELLER, 37 N.Y.S.2D
61(GEN.  SESS.  N.Y. COUNTY), AND PEOPLE V. PATERNO, 182 MISC. 491, 50
N.Y.S.2D 713(CHATAUQUA COUNTY COURT).  NEITHER CASE, HOWEVER, PRESENTED
THE CLAIM THAT A VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VITIATED
THE FIRST SENTENCE, AND NEITHER CASE RAISED THE POWER OF THE COURT AT
THE TIME OF SENTENCING TO CONSIDER SUCH A CLAIM.  IT IS CERTAINLY
WITHIN THE POWER OF A DULY ADVISED DEFENDANT, BEFORE PLEADING GUILTY AS
A SECOND OFFENDER, TO RAISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY OF THE FIRST
SENTENCE SO AS TO SECURE OPPORTUNITY APPROPRIATELY TO CHALLENGE SUCH
INVALIDITY.  NOTHING THAT IS HEREIN DECIDED PRECLUDES PETITIONER FROM
RAISING A DENIAL OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UPON A RECORD THAT
DISCLOSES CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN THOSE BEFORE US.  AN ORDER ON SUCH A
MOTION IS NOW REVIEWABLE BY THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT AND IN CERTAIN
INSTANCES BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

A SIXTEEN-YEAR-OLD BOY, INDIGENT AND ALONE, WITHOUT RELATIVES,
FRIENDS, MONEY OR COUNSEL TO AID HIM AND, ACCORDING TO THE UNDENIED
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION, WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS,  FN1  PLEADED GUILTY IN 1938, UNDER AN INDICTMENT SPECIFYING
TWO HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND DISTINCT CHARGES,  FN2  TO THE CRIME OF
BURGLARY IN THE THIRD DEGREE.  FN3  THE PROPERTY HE WAS CHARGED WITH
INTENDING TO STEAL  FN4  CONSISTED OF CIGARETTES OF THE VALUE OF
SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS, TWO FLASHLIGHTS WORTH ONE DOLLAR, AND THREE DOLLARS
IN CURRENCY.  THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON THAT PLEA HAS BEEN SERVED.  FN5
HE IS NOW CONFINED AS A SECOND OFFENDER UNDER SENTENCE FOR ANOTHER
OFFENSE OF SIMILAR CHARACTER IMPOSED IN 1941,  FN6  WHEN HE WAS
NINETEEN AND ALSO WITHOUT RELATIVES, FRIENDS OR COUNSEL SO FAR AS
APPEARS.  FN7 

ONE PART OF THE OPINION ANNOUNCED IN THIS CASE, AS I UNDERSTAND,
TAKES THE VIEW THAT BECAUSE GAYES DID NOT ATTACK THE 1938 SENTENCE IN
1941, WHEN HE WAS SENTENCED AS A SECOND OFFENDER, HE IS FOREVER
FORECLOSED FROM DOING SO ON THE FACTS AND ISSUES PRESENTED ON THIS
RECORD, ALTHOUGH AS A SECOND OFFENDER HE IS NOW SUFFERING THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE 1938 SENTENCE.  FN8  FOR THIS CONCLUSION RELIANCE
IS PLACED UPON NO NEW YORK AUTHORITIES; INDEED, AS I READ THE STATE
CASES, THE COURT'S DECISION IS MADE IN THE FACE OF THEIR RULINGS THAT
THE PROCEDURE PETITIONER HAS FOLLOWED IS THE APPROPRIATE ONE FOR
RAISING THE ISSUES HE PRESENTS.  FN9 

I AM UNWILLING TO SUBSCRIBE TO SUCH A DOCTRINE OF FORFEITURES
CONCERNING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WHICH IN THE EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE SEEMS TO ME SHOCKING. 

UNDER ALL OF THE NEW YORK DECISIONS WHICH HAVE PASSED UPON THE
QUESTION,  FN10  THE PROPER AND APPARENTLY THE NECESSARY PROCEDURE, SEE
PEOPLE V. KELLER, 37 N.Y.S.2D 61, 62, FOR ATTACKING A SENTENCE AS
SECOND OFFENDER, UPON THE GROUND THAT THE FORMER CONVICTION WAS
INVALID, IS FIRST BY MOTION IN THE COURT IMPOSING THE INITIAL SENTENCE
TO VACATE IT, AFTER WHICH IF THE MOTION IS SUCCESSFUL THE SENTENCE FOR
THE SECOND OFFENSE MAY BE ATTACKED AND VACATED.  FN11  IN OTHER WORDS,
THE SECOND OFFENDER, SITUATED AS IS PETITIONER, MUST FIRST OVERTURN HIS
FIRST CONVICTION IN THE COURT WHERE IT WAS OBTAINED, BEFORE HE CAN
ATTACK THE SECOND SENTENCE FOUNDED IN PART UPON THAT CONVICTION. 

THIS PROCEDURE IN MY OPINION IS A REASONABLE ONE WITHIN THE POWER OF
A STATE TO REQUIRE, AT LEAST WHERE BOTH OFFENSES HAVE TAKEN PLACE
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.  AND I KNOW OF NO REASON WHY THIS COURT SHOULD
DISREGARD OR OVERRIDE IT.  MUCH LESS IS IT WITHIN OUR PROVINCE TO
INVERT THE STATE PROCEDURE, IF THAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE DUBIOUS
SUGGESTION THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHTS PERHAPS MAY BE SAVED UPON SOME
OTHER RECORD "THAT DISCLOSES CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN THOSE BEFORE US,"
PRESUMABLY IF AT ALL BY MOTION BEFORE THE COURT WHICH IMPOSED THE 1941
SENTENCE TO VACATE IT. FN12 

NO STATE DECISIONS ARE CITED OR, IT WOULD SEEM IN VIEW OF THE
CONTRARY AUTHORITIES CITED ABOVE, FN13  CAN BE CITED TO SUPPORT SUCH A
VIEW.  NOR IS IT REQUIRED BY ANYTHING SAID OR DONE IN CANIZIO V. NEW
YORK, 327 U.S. 82, IF INDEED SUCH A MATTER COULD EVER BE WITHIN OUR
FUNCTION.  THE CANIZIO DECISION HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THIS CASE, EITHER
FOR PRESCRIBING THE STATE PROCEDURE OR FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. 
IT HELD ONLY THAT WHERE A DEFENDANT HAD COUNSEL AT THE TIME OF HIS
SENTENCE AND COULD THEN HAVE MOVED TO WITHDRAW HIS PRIOR PLEA OF
GUILTY, HE WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE CONVICTING COURT'S PREVIOUS
FAILURE TO INFORM HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL. 

THAT CASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE PROCEDURE OPEN TO ONE
CONVICTED AS A SECOND OFFENDER FOR CHALLENGING HIS SENTENCE ON THE
GROUND THAT THE FIRST CONVICTION WAS INVALID FOR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
REASONS.  AND THE FACTS, ON THE MERITS, WERE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
PRESENTED HERE.  WHEREAS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IN THAT CASE THE
PETITIONER DID HAVE COUNSEL BEFORE HIS SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED, HERE NOT
ONLY WAS GAYES DENIED COUNSEL ALTOGETHER IN THE FIRST TRIAL, BUT SO FAR
AS THE RECORD DISCLOSES HE HAD NONE IN THE TRIAL FOR THE SECOND
OFFENSE.  I DO NOT THINK THE CANIZIO DECISION CAN BE HELD TO COVER SUCH
A WHOLLY DIFFERENT SITUATION AS THIS.  IT DID NOT RULE THAT, IF A
CONVICTED PERSON HAS NEVER HAD COUNSEL, THE FACT THAT IN A LATER
PROCEEDING HE CONCEIVABLY MIGHT HAVE HAD SUCH AID IF HE HAD APPLIED FOR
IT CURES THE DENIAL, MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN SO FAR AS APPEARS HE WAS
TREATED NO BETTER DURING HIS TRIAL FOR THE SECOND OFFENSE THAN DURING
THE FIRST, AND WHEN MOREOVER HIS PRESENT ATTACK IS MADE AS A
PRELIMINARY ONE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW FOR SHOWING THE SECOND SENTENCE
INVALID.    IN MY JUDGMENT IT IS FOR THE STATE, NOT THIS COURT, TO SAY
WHETHER THE ATTACK UPON THE FIRST SENTENCE AS INCREASING THE SECOND
SHALL BE MADE ON THE FLANK OR FRONTALLY, OR PERCHANCE IN EITHER WAY. 
INDEED, UNDER THE LAW OF NEW YORK, WHICH IS CONTROLLING ON US, THE SO
CALLED "FLANK" ATTACK IS APPARENTLY THE ONLY ONE NOW OPEN TO
PETITIONER.  IN THE FACE OF SO CLEAR A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT AS THIS CASE PRESENTS, WE SHOULD NEITHER FORECLOSE THAT AVENUE
NOR SUBSTITUTE FOR IT ANOTHER DUBIOUSLY AVAILABLE ONE OF OUR OWN
MANUFACTURE.    THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  NO ANSWER WAS FILED TO THE PETITION AND THE TRIAL COURT
DETERMINED THE ISSUES ON THE PLEADINGS WITHOUT HEARING OR APPEARANCE OF
PETITIONER IN COURT, IN PERSON OR BY COUNSEL.  THE ALLEGATION OF
PETITIONER THAT WHEN ASKED WHETHER HE "DESIRED COUNSEL," HE ANSWERED
"NO" IN THE BELIEF THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE LAWYER'S FEE, AND WAS
NOT INFORMED TO THE CONTRARY IS, OF COURSE, TO BE TAKEN AS TRUE IN THE
ABSENCE OF DENIAL AND OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN
TENDERED ON A HEARING. 

FN2  THE FIRST COUNT CHARGED THAT PETITIONER "BROKE AND ENTERED THE
BUILDING AND GARAGE OF FRANCIS MARLOW  ... WITH INTENT TO COMMIT
THEREIN THE CRIME OF LARCENY"; THE SECOND COUNT CHARGED PETIT LARCENY
OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT ABOVE. 

FN3  THE SENTENCE WAS TO CONFINEMENT IN THE NEW YORK STATE VOCATIONAL
INSTITUTE, WHICH WHEN IMPOSED FOR AN UNSPECIFIED TERM UNDER NEW YORK
PENAL LAW SEC. 2184-A CARRIED A MAXIMUM OF TEN YEARS, WHICH IS THE
MAXIMUM FOR BURGLARY IN THE THIRD DEGREE AS A FIRST OFFENSE.  N.Y.
PENAL LAW SEC. 407(3). 

FN4  UNDER THE SECOND COUNT, FOR PETIT LARCENY OR THEFT, BEING ALSO
PRESUMABLY THE PROPERTY WITH RESPECT TO WHICH IT WAS CHARGED IN THE
FIRST COUNT THAT PETITIONER BROKE AND ENTERED WITH INTENT TO COMMIT
LARCENY. 

FN5  PETITIONER WAS HELD UNDER THE FIRST SENTENCE, SEE NOTE 3, UNTIL
DECEMBER 14, 1943, WHEN THE NEW YORK BOARD OF PAROLE DIRECTED THAT
SERVICE OF THE SENTENCE AS SECOND OFFENDER BEGIN.  THE DATE OF
TERMINATION OF THE LATTER SENTENCE, SEE NOTE 6, WAS CORRESPONDINGLY
POSTPONED. 

FN6 THE SENTENCE OF TEN TO TWENTY YEARS AS SECOND OFFENDER IS
MANDATORY.  N.Y. PENAL LAW SEC. 1941.  HAD PETITIONER BEEN SENTENCED IN
1941 AS A FIRST RATHER THAN A SECOND OFFENDER, THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE
ALLOWED WOULD HAVE BEEN FIVE TO TEN YEARS, N.Y. PENAL LAW SECS. 2189,
407, AND HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SENT TO A REFORMATORY RATHER THAN PRISON. 
N.Y. PENAL LAW SEC. 2185. 

FN7  THE "RECORD OF CONVICTION" IN THE TRIAL FOR THE SECOND OFFENSE,
CONTAINED IN THE RECORD HERE, DISCLOSES THAT PETITIONER, HAVING BEEN
CHARGED AND ARRAIGNED, FIRST PLEADED NOT GUILTY, THEN WITHDREW THAT
PLEA AND ENTERED ONE OF GUILTY.  IT IS THEN RECITED THAT PETITIONER
APPEARED FOR JUDGMENT AND, "HAVING BEEN ASKED BY THE CLERK WHETHER HE
HAD ANY LEGAL CAUSE TO SHOW WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE PRONOUNCED
AGAINST HIM, AND NO LEGAL CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN" OR APPEARING TO THE
COURT, JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE WERE THEREUPON PRONOUNCED.  THERE IS NO
RECITAL THAT PETITIONER WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, WAS INFORMED OF HIS
RIGHTS IN ANY MANNER, OR WAS ADMONISHED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS
PLEA. 

FN8  SEE NOTES 3, 5, 6 SUPRA.  SEE ALSO NOTE 12 INFRA AND TEXT. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 11 INFRA. 

FN10  IN THE ABSENCE OF DETERMINATION BY A STATE'S HIGHEST TRIBUNAL
THE RULE ANNOUNCED AND APPLIED BY OTHER STATE COURTS IS TO BE TAKEN BY
US AS DETERMINING QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW.  CF. WEST V. A.T. & T. CO.,
311 U.S. 223. 

FN11  IF THE 1938 CONVICTION IS HELD VOID, UNDER STATE LAW PETITIONER
THEN MAY MOVE TO VACATE THE 1941 SENTENCE IN THE COURT WHICH IMPOSED
IT, AND FOR RESENTENCING ACCORDING TO STATE LAW.  SEE PEOPLE EX REL.
SLOANE V. LAWES, 255 N.Y. 112; PEOPLE EX REL. CAROLLO V. BROPHY, 294
N.Y. 540; PEOPLE V. KELLER, 37 N.Y.S.2D 61.  AND THE PROPER FORUM FOR
ATTACKING THE 1938 CONVICTION, AS A PRELIMINARY TO ATTACK ON THAT OF
1941, IS THE ONE WHERE THE FORMER WAS OBTAINED, BY THE MOTION TO VACATE
WHICH PETITIONER HAS EMPLOYED.  PEOPLE V. BERNOFF, 61 N.Y.S.2D 46;
PEOPLE V. FOSTER, 182 MISC. 73; PEOPLE V. PATERNO, 187 MISC. 56, WITH
WHICH COMPARE PEOPLE V. PATERNO, 182 MISC. 491; CF. PEOPLE V.
GERSEWITZ, 294 N.Y. 163, 167; PEOPLE V. KELLER, SUPRA, AT 63. 

FN12  THE OPINION ANNOUNCED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COURT'S JUDGMENT
SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT THE DECISIONS ESTABLISHING THE STATE PROCEDURE
FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE ARE NOT CONTROLLING FOR OUR DISPOSITION, ON WHAT
BASIS I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND, SEE NOTE 10 SUPRA, UNLESS UPON THE
UNTENABLE ONE THAT STATE RULINGS UPON CRIMINAL PROCEDURES AND THE
PROPER FORUM FOR UTILIZING THEM ARE NOT BINDING FOR FEDERAL
DETERMINATIONS TO THE SAME EXTENT AS ARE SUCH RULINGS IN CIVIL
MATTERS. 

ONLY UPON SOME SUCH BASIS IS THE DUBIOUS SUGGESTION JUSTIFIED THAT
PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE RAISED THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF HIS FIRST
SENTENCE AT THE TIME OF HIS SENTENCING AS A SECOND OFFENDER AND IN THAT
FORUM.  NOT ONLY IS THIS CONTRARY TO THE ESTABLISHED STATE PROCEDURE,
SEE NOTE 11, BUT IT IS EXPRESSLY QUALIFIED BY THE FURTHER SUGGESTION
THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHTS MAY POSSIBLY BE SAVED "UPON A RECORD THAT
DISCLOSES CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN THOSE BEFORE US," AND IT SEEMS TO BE
CONTRADICTED BY THE FURTHER STATEMENT THAT "THE QUESTIONS THAT MAY BE
RAISED REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE IMPOSITION OF GAYES'
COMMITMENT  ...  IN 1938 ARE NOT NOW OPEN."  IT IS PERTINENT TO
INQUIRED WHETHER GAYES IS TO HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE, THROUGH A LOCAL
PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THIS COURT ALONE, OR WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS NOW PRESENTED ARE FORECLOSED BY HIS FAILURE TO FOLLOW A
PROCEDURE NOT PRESCRIBED OR, SO FAR AS APPEARS, PERMITTED BY THE
STATE. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 11. 
..END :














CALDAROLA V. ECKERT, 332 U.S. 155 


NO. 625.  ARGUED MARCH 31, APRIL 1, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  -
295 N.Y. 463, 68 N.E.2D 444, AFFIRMED. 


A STEVEDORE, WHILE ABOARD AND ENGAGED IN UNLOADING A VESSEL OWNED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND MANAGED BY GENERAL AGENTS UNDER A GENERAL AGENCY
CONTRACT, WAS INJURED BY A DEFECTIVE BOOM.  HE SUED THE AGENTS FOR
DAMAGES IN A STATE COURT.  HELD: 

1.  THE INJURY WAS A MARITIME TORT AND THE STATE COURT HAD
JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, WHICH
SAVES "TO SUITORS, IN ALL CASES, THE RIGHT OF A COMMON LAW REMEDY,
WHERE THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE IT."  P. 157. 

2.  THE DETERMINATION OF THE STATE COURT THAT A BUSINESS INVITEE,
SUCH AS THE STEVEDORE, IS WITHOUT A REMEDY IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE
AGAINST ONE WHO HAS NO CONTROL AND POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES IS
DECISIVE.  P. 158. 

3.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DETERMINATION OF TORT LIABILITY IN THE
STATE COURT INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
AGENTS AND THE UNITED STATES, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT
PRESENTS A FEDERAL QUESTION UPON WHICH THE DETERMINATION OF THE STATE
COURT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  P. 158. 

4.  IF, ON A FAIR READING OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTROL WHICH THE
AGENTS HAD OVER THE VESSEL IS THE KIND OF CONTROL WHICH THE STATE
REQUIRES AS A BASIS OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS, THE STATE COURTS CAN
NOT SO READ THE CONTRACT AS TO DENY THE RIGHT WHICH THE STATE
RECOGNIZES.  P. 158. 

5.  UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE AGENTS ARE NOT TO
BE DEEMED OWNERS PRO HAC VICE IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE VESSEL. 
PP. 158-159. 

6.  HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707, AND BRADY V.
ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S. 575, DIFFERENTIATED.  PP. 159-160. 

CALDAROLA V. ECKERT ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS THOR ECKERT & CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

PETITIONER SUED RESPONDENTS IN A STATE COURT OF NEW YORK TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED ABOARD A VESSEL WHICH RESPONDENTS WERE
MANAGING AS GENERAL AGENTS UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES.  A
VERDICT FOR THE PETITIONER WAS SET ASIDE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION. 
270 APP. DIV. 563, 61 N.Y.S.2D 164.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
295 N.Y. 463, 68 N.E.2D 444.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S.
704.  AFFIRMED, P. 160. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE S.S. EVERAGRA IS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AND MANAGED IN ITS
BEHALF BY THE RESPONDENTS AS GENERAL AGENTS.  (FOR THE RELEVANT
PORTIONS OF THE CONTRACT AND FOR FULL CONSIDERATION OF IT IN RELATION
TO ISSUES OTHER THAN THOSE HERE INVOLVED, REFERENCE IS MADE TO HUST V.
MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707.)  ON JANUARY 27, 1944, THE
EVERAGRA, DOCKED IN THE NORTH RIVER, NEW YORK CITY, WAS BEING UNLOADED
BY A STEVEDORING CONCERN, THE JARKA COMPANY.  JARKA DID THE UNLOADING
UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, NEGOTIATED THROUGH THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  ONE OF ITS PROVISIONS WAS THAT "THE
ADMINISTRATOR SHALL FURNISH AND MAINTAIN IN GOOD WORKING ORDER ALL"
NECESSARY EQUIPMENT.  CALDAROLA, THE PETITIONER, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF
JARKA.  IN THE COURSE OF HIS WORK ON THE VESSEL HE WAS INJURED.  HE
BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE NEW YORK COURTS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS,
CLAIMING THAT HIS INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE BOOM AND THAT THEY
WERE LIABLE FOR FAILING IN THEIR DUTY AS AGENTS TO MAINTAIN IT IN SOUND
CONDITION. 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, AFFIRMING THE APPELLATE DIVISION IN
SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT FOR THE PETITIONER, 270 APP. DIV. 563, 61
N.Y.S.2D 164, HELD THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW THE RELATION WHICH THE
AGENTS BORE TO THE VESSEL DID NOT MAKE THEM RESPONSIBLE TO A THIRD
PERSON FOR ITS CONDITION.  295 N.Y. 463, 68 N.E.2D 444.  BECAUSE OF
CLAIMED CONFLICT IN THE DECISIONS, PARTICULARLY BETWEEN THIS RULING AND
HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
329 U.S. 704. 

NO DOUBT PETITIONER COULD HAVE SUED THE UNITED STATES IN ADMIRALTY. 
742.  HE CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.  PRESUMABLY TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF TRIAL
BY JURY, HE ASKED FOR RELIEF FROM NEW YORK.  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT
THE INJURY OF WHICH CALDAROLA COMPLAINS IS A MARITIME TORT.  AS SUCH IT
IS SUABLE IN THE STATE COURTS BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT
OF 1789 WHICH SAVES "TO SUITORS, IN ALL CASES, THE RIGHT OF A COMMON
LAW REMEDY, WHERE THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE IT  ...  "  1
STAT. 76-77.  WHETHER CONGRESS THEREBY RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WERE
COMMON LAW RIGHTS IN THE STATES AS TO MATTERS ALSO COGNIZABLE IN
ADMIRALTY, OR WHETHER IT WAS CONCERNED ONLY WITH "SAVING" TO THE STATES
THE POWER TO USE THEIR COURTS TO VINDICATE RIGHTS DERIVING FROM THE
MARITIME LAW TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR COMMON LAW REMEDIES MAY BE
AVAILABLE, IS A QUESTION ON WHICH THE AUTHORITIES DO NOT SPEAK WITH
CLARITY.  COMPARE WARING V. CLARKE, 5 HOW.  441, 460-61; TAYLOR V.
CARRYL, 20 HOW.  583, 598-99; 3 STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION (1ST ED.) 
533, N. 3, WITH SCHOONMAKER V. GILMORE, 102 U.S. 118; THE HAMILTON, 207
U.S. 398; CHELENTIS V. LUCKENBACH S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372; C.J. HENDRY
CO. V. MOORE, 318 U.S. 133; SEAS SHIPPING CO. V. SIERACKI, 328 U.S. 85,
88-89.  IN ANY EVENT, WHETHER NEW YORK IS THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHT OR
MERELY AFFORDS THE MEANS FOR ENFORCING IT, HER DETERMINATION IS
DECISIVE THAT THERE IS NO REMEDY IN ITS COURTS FOR SUCH A BUSINESS
INVITEE AGAINST ONE WHO HAS NO CONTROL AND POSSESSION OF PREMISES. 
COMPARE DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD R. CO., 279 U.S. 377,
AND TESTA V. KATT, 330 U.S. 386. 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AUTHORITATIVELY DETERMINES WHO IS
LIABLE, IN NEW YORK, FOR SUCH AN OCCURRENCE AS THAT OF WHICH CALDAROLA
COMPLAINS.  INSOFAR AS THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE EXCLUSIVELY CONCERN NEW
YORK LAW, THAT COURT HAD THE FINAL SAY IN HOLDING THAT ONE IN THE
RELATION OF THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE
TORT OF WHICH THE LATTER COMPLAINS.  BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
DETERMINATION OF TORT LIABILITY IN NEW YORK IS ENTANGLED WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE AGENTS AND THE UNITED STATES,
THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT CONTRACT IS A MATTER OF FEDERAL CONCERN AND
IS NOT CONCLUDED BY THE MEANING WHICH THE STATE COURT MAY FIND IN IT. 

WE AGREE THAT IF, ON A FAIR READING OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTROL
WHICH THE AGENTS HAD OVER THE VESSEL IS THE KIND OF CONTROL WHICH NEW
YORK REQUIRES AS A BASIS OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS, THE NEW YORK
COURTS CANNOT SO READ THE CONTRACT AS TO DENY THE RIGHT WHICH NEW YORK
RECOGNIZES.  IT IS NOT CLAIMED THAT AN INJURED PARTY HAS RIGHTS UNDER
THE AGENCY CONTRACT OR THAT IT CREATED DUTIES TO THIRD PERSONS.  ROBINS
DRYDOCK & REPAIR CO. V. FLINT, 275 U.S. 303.  AND SO THE NARROW
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE AGENTS WERE IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE
EVERAGRA.  THIS IS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE, BECAUSE LIABILITY IN TORT BY THE
AGENTS FOR CALDAROLA'S INJURY WOULD ONLY ARISE IN NEW YORK WHEN THERE
IS SUCH POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF PREMISES ON WHICH INJURY OCCURS, DUE
TO NEGLIGENCE IN THEIR MAINTENANCE.  CULLINGS V. GOETZ, 256 N.Y. 287,
176 N.E. 397.  THE UNITED STATES, AS AMICUS CURIAE, SUBMITTED WHAT WE
DEEM TO BE CONCLUSIVE CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST READING THE CONTRACT SO AS
TO FIND THE AGENTS TO BE OWNERS PRO HAC VICE IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL
OF THE VESSEL.  THE CONSEQUENCES, TO BOTH THE NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, OF SUCH A CONSTRUCTION
WOULD BE TOO FAR-REACHING TO WARRANT SUCH A FORCED READING MERELY IN
ORDER TO HAVE A BASIS ON WHICH TO BUILD LIABILITY UNDER THE LAW OF NEW
YORK.  SERIOUS ISSUES AFFECTING THE IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS IN
FOREIGN PORTS AS WELL AS IMMUNITY FROM REGULATION AND TAXATION BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WOULD NEEDLESSLY BE RAISED.  AFTER ALL, THE QUESTION IS NOT
WHETHER PETITIONER MAY BE COMPENSATED FOR HIS INJURY.  CONGRESS HAS
MADE PROVISION FOR THAT.  PETITIONER INSISTS, IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO
SUE IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK, THAT THE AGENTS ARE TO BE DEEMED, AS A
MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, OWNERS OF THE VESSEL PRO HAC VICE AND,
THEREFORE, AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW, SUBJECT TO THE DUTIES OF SUCH
OWNERSHIP UNDER NEW YORK LAW TOWARD BUSINESS INVITEES.  WE REJECT THIS
CONSTRUCTION. 

OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS DO NOT REQUIRE IT.  HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK
LINES, SUPRA, AROSE UNDER THE JONES ACT.  (ACT OF MARCH 4, 1915, 38
STAT. 1185, AS AMENDED, JUNE 5, 1920, 41 STAT. 1007).  WE THERE HELD
THAT UNDER THE AGENCY CONTRACT THE AGENT WAS THE "EMPLOYER" OF AN
INJURED SEAMAN AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE JONES ACT, AND A SEAMAN
COULD THEREFORE BRING THE STATUTORY ACTION AGAINST SUCH AN "EMPLOYER." 
THE COURT DID NOT HOLD THAT THE AGENCY CONTRACT MADE THE AGENT FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL.  IT DID NOT HOLD THAT IT
IMPOSED UPON HIM, AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, DUTIES OF CARE TO THIRD
PERSONS, MORE PARTICULARLY TO A STEVEDORE UNDER EMPLOYMENT OF A CONCERN
UNLOADING THE VESSEL PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES. 
BRADY V. ROOSEVELT STEAMSHIP CO., 317 U.S. 575, IS LIKEWISE REMOTE FROM
THE ISSUES DECISIVE OF THIS CASE.  IT MERELY HELD THAT THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT, BY FURNISHING AN IN PERSONAM REMEDY AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, DID NOT FREE THE AGENT FROM LIABILITY FOR HIS OWN TORTS.  THE
BRADY CASE DID NOT REACH THE "DIFFERENT QUESTION" WHETHER "A CAUSE OF
ACTION" AGAINST THE AGENT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.  317 U.S. AT 585.  THAT
IS THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE, AND MORE PARTICULARLY, WHETHER THE
CONTRACT CREATED A RELATIONSHIP FROM WHICH, UNDER NEW YORK LAW,
LIABILITY AS TO BUSINESS INVITEES FOLLOWED.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN MY SEPARATE OPINION IN HUST V. MOORE
MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707, 734, I THINK THAT RESPONDENTS WERE
OWNERS PRO HAC VICE OF THE VESSEL, SINCE THE BUSINESS OF MANAGING AND
OPERATING IT WAS THEIR BUSINESS.  THEY WERE, THEREFORE, PRINCIPALS AND
LIABLE TO PETITIONER, A LONGSHOREMAN WHO WAS INJURED WHILE WORKING ON
THE DECK OF THE VESSEL BY REASON OF THE BREAKING OF A CARGO BOOM, PART
OF THE SHIP'S GEAR. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS REACHED THE
SAME RESULT IN A CASE DECIDED SINCE HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES.  IN
MILITANO V. UNITED STATES, 156 F.2D 599, THAT COURT HELD THAT THE AGENT
UNDER THE SAME FORM OF OPERATING AGREEMENT AS WE HAVE HERE WAS OWNER
PRO HAC VICE.  SWAN, J., SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, SAID IN REFERENCE TO
THE HUST CASE, P. 602, "IF THE AGENT REMAINS THE EMPLOYER SUFFICIENTLY
TO BE LIABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE CREW UNDER THE JONES ACT, WE THINK IT
CANNOT ESCAPE THE DUTIES OF AN OWNER PRO HAC VICE IN OTHER RESPECTS. 
THUS IT HAS THE DUTY TO FURNISH STEVEDORES WITH A SAFE PLACE TO WORK, A
DUTY WHICH IS ANALOGOUS TO THAT OWED BY A LANDOWNER TO A BUSINESS
VISITOR." 

THE COURT DOES NOT ESSAY TO ANSWER THAT ARGUMENT; NOR DOES IT ADDRESS
ITSELF TO THE FACTS WHICH I REVIEWED IN THE HUST CASE AND WHICH
ESTABLISH THAT THE BUSINESS OF MANAGING AND OPERATING THE VESSEL WAS
THE BUSINESS OF THE AGENT.  IT AVOIDS ANALYSIS OF THE ACTUAL
ARRANGEMENT BY VIEWING WITH ALARM THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
SUCH A HOLDING AS APPLIED IN OTHER SITUATIONS.  BUT WE ARE HERE
CONCERNED WITH PRIVATE RIGHTS WHICH PRESS FOR RECOGNITION.  IT IS NO
ANSWER TO THE LEGAL ARGUMENT ON WHICH THOSE PRIVATE RIGHTS REST THAT
THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE INCONVENIENCED IF THEY WERE RECOGNIZED.  IT IS
PLAIN UNDER THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT THAT THE UNITED STATES IS MERELY
THE UNDERWRITER OF THE FINANCIAL RISKS OF THE VENTURE WHILE THE PRIVATE
OPERATOR PERFORMS THE MANAGERIAL FUNCTIONS IN THE USUAL WAY.  TO CALL
THAT GOVERNMENT OPERATION IS TO IGNORE THE REALITIES OF THE
RELATIONSHIP.  WHATEVER THE CONSEQUENCES IN OTHER SITUATIONS, IT IS
SHOCKING TO FIND PRIVATE OPERATORS GETTING IMMUNITY IN THIS MANNER FROM
THEIR TRADITIONAL LIABILITY FOR TORT CLAIMS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH RESPONDENTS' COUNSEL AND THE COURT THAT HUST V. MOORE
MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707, DOES NOT RULE THIS CASE.  NEVERTHELESS I
CANNOT AGREE WITH THE COURT'S VIEW THAT EITHER NEW YORK LAW OR THE SO
CALLED "AGENCY CONTRACT," IDENTICAL WITH THAT INVOLVED IN THE HUST
CASE, IMMUNIZES RESPONDENTS FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE
CAUSING PETITIONER'S INJURY. 

THE HUST CASE INVOLVED THE RIGHTS OF SEAMEN, NOT OF LONGSHOREMEN. 
FN1  ALSO IT AROSE UNDER THE JONES ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688, WHEREAS
HERE LIABILITY IS GROUNDED UPON MARITIME TORT.  AND THE HUST DECISION
RESTED IN PART UPON THE EFFECTS OF THE SO-CALLED CLARIFICATION ACT OF
1943, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 1291, WHICH HAS NO BEARING IN
THIS CASE, SINCE SEAMEN ARE NOT INVOLVED. 

THE HUST DECISION FLATLY REJECTED THE VIEW THAT THE EVENTS THERE IN
QUESTION  FN2  HAD BEEN EFFECTIVE TO STRIP THE SEAMAN OF HIS VARIOUS
PREEXISTING REMEDIES, REPLACING THEM WITH THE SINGLE REMEDY OF SUIT
PROVIDED BY THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  FN3  46 U.S.C. SEC. 742.  THE
NECESSARY RESULT WAS TO PRESERVE NOT MERELY THE SEAMAN'S RIGHTS UNDER
THE JONES ACT BUT ALSO HIS OTHER PREEXISTING ONES.  FN4  FOR IF THE
CONJUNCTION OF EVENTS PUT FORWARD IN THE HUST CASE AS HAVING MADE THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT REMEDY THE ONLY ONE AVAILABLE TO THE SEAMAN WAS
THUS EFFECTIVE, THE JONES ACT REMEDY AS WELL AS OTHERS WAS THEREBY
EXCLUDED.  AND IF IT WAS NOT EXCLUDED, NEITHER WERE THOSE OTHERS LONG
POSSESSED BY SEAMEN.  FN5  THE HUST DECISION WAS THEREFORE NOT MERELY A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE JONES ACT.  THAT ACT WAS SIMPLY A SPECIFIC FULCRUM
FOR TURNING THE BROADER ISSUE PRESENTED. 

BUT SEAMEN'S RIGHTS ARE NOT LONGSHOREMEN'S RIGHTS AND THE EVENTS
COMBINING TO PRESENT THE QUESTION CONCERNING SEAMEN'S RIGHTS IN THE
HUST CASE WERE NOT CONCLUSIVE UPON LONGSHOREMEN'S RIGHTS.  THIS IS TRUE
ALTHOUGH IN SOME INSTANCES LONGSHOREMEN, THROUGH LEGISLATION OR BY
VIRTUE OF THEIR SUCCESSION TO SEAMEN OCCASIONED BY THE INDUSTRY'S
EVOLUTION IN SOME PHASES OF SHIP AND SHORE DUTY, HAVE BEEN HELD
ENTITLED TO SIMILAR PROTECTIONS.  SEAS SHIPPING CO. V. SIERACKI, 328
U.S. 85; ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO. V. IMBROVEK, 234 U.S. 52.  THE QUESTION
IN THIS CASE THEREFORE IS NOT ONE NECESSARILY GOVERNED BY THE SAME
CONSIDERATIONS AS APPLIED IN THE CASES OF SEAMEN COVERED BY THE HUST
DECISION. 

BUT, AS THE COURT RECOGNIZES, IT IS ONE OF MARITIME TORT, ALTHOUGH
LONGSHOREMEN RATHER THAN SEAMEN ARE INVOLVED; AND IS MOREOVER "SUABLE
IN THE STATE COURTS BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789
WHICH SAVES 'TO SUITORS, IN ALL CASES, THE RIGHT OF A COMMON LAW
REMEDY, WHERE THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE IT.'" 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE CHARACTERIZATION AS MARITIME TORT, THE COURT SKIRTS
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHT IS NEW YORK LAW OR, ON THE
CONTRARY, IS FEDERAL LAW FOR WHICH NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO SEC. 9, MERELY
SUPPLIES A MEANS FOR ENFORCEMENT.  FOR IN EITHER EVENT, IT SAYS, NEW
YORK'S "DETERMINATION IS DECISIVE THAT THERE IS NO REMEDY IN ITS COURTS
FOR SUCH A BUSINESS INVITEE AGAINST ONE WHO HAS NO CONTROL AND
POSSESSION OF PREMISES."    FROM THIS CONCLUSION I DISAGREE.  FOR, IF
THE LIABILITY HERE IS FOUNDED IN FEDERAL LAW, AS CREATING THE MARITIME
TORT, THEN NEW YORK LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING OR NULLIFYING
THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT.  ITS SOLE FUNCTION IS TO SUPPLY THE REMEDY
COMMANDED BY SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT.  TESTA V. KATT, 330 U.S.
386.  AND IN MY JUDGMENT THE LIABILITY HERE, SINCE IT ARISES FROM A
MARITIME TORT, IS A CREATURE OF FEDERAL LAW IN ITS ENTIRETY, NOT OF
STATE LAW.  FN6  I THEREFORE DO NOT AGREE THAT ANY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
IN THE CASE "EXCLUSIVELY CONCERN NEW YORK LAW" OR THAT IN ANY RESPECT
THAT STATE'S COURT OF APPEALS "HAD THE FINAL SAY IN HOLDING THAT ONE IN
THE RELATION OF THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE
TORT OF WHICH THE LATTER COMPLAINS."  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE COURT
CAN LEAVE OPEN THE QUESTION WHETHER NEW YORK LAW HAS A HAND IN CREATING
THE RIGHT SUED ON OR ONE ONLY IN SUPPLYING A FORUM AND REMEDY, AND AT
THE SAME TIME CAN RELY ON NEW YORK LAW AS HAVING ANY PART IN CREATING
THE RIGHT OR NULLIFYING IT, AS IT SEEMS TO DO.  THE RESULT DOES NOT
SIMPLY ENTANGLE STATE LAW WITH FEDERAL LAW IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PHASE OF
THE CASE.  IT ENTANGLES HYPOTHETICALLY APPLICABLE STATE LAW IN ONE
PHASE WITH FEDERAL LAW IN ANOTHER. 

REGARDING THE CASE, AS I DO, AS BEING CONTROLLED IN ITS SUBSTANTIVE
ASPECT ALTOGETHER BY FEDERAL LAW, I DO NOT THINK THAT LAW REQUIRES OR
SHOULD PERMIT THE RESULT THE COURT REACHES.  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
SO-CALLED "AGENCY" CONTRACT MAKES THE OPERATING COMPANY AN "AGENT," AN
"OWNER PRO HAC VICE," OR TECHNICALLY SOMETHING ELSE IN RELATION TO THE
UNITED STATES, THE FEDERAL MARITIME LAW IN MY OPINION WELL MIGHT HOLD
RESPONSIBLE TO AN INJURED LONGSHOREMAN ONE WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE THAT SUCH
PERSONS WILL COME ABOARD AND WHO UNDERTAKES TO KEEP THE VESSEL AND ITS
EQUIPMENT IN SAFE CONDITION FOR THEIR USE.  FN7  MORE ESPECIALLY SHOULD
SUCH A RULE APPLY WHEN THE PERSON SO UNDERTAKING IS THE ONLY ONE
CONSTANTLY ON BOARD TO OBSERVE THE CREATION OF HAZARDOUS RISKS IN THE
VESSLE'S DAILY ROUTINES AND, IN ADDITION, HAS SUCH A DEGREE OF CONTROL
OVER THEIR CREATION AS THE "AGENT" DID HERE. 

BUT, IN ANY EVENT, THE SAME RESULT SHOULD BE REACHED ON THE BASIS OF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT.  WHETHER THIS IS PUT UPON THE GROUND
STATED IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, THAT THE "AGENT" BECAME
OWNER PRO HAC VICE, OR IN THE VIEW OF THE CONTRACT TAKEN IN THE HUST
CASE, WITH REFERENCE TO APPLICATION OF THE JONES ACT, IS LARGELY
IMMATERIAL, PERHAPS ONLY A MATTER OF WORDS.  FN8 

THAT VIEW, INCORPORATING THE RULE OF THE HEARST CASE,  FN9  WE HAVE
ONLY RECENTLY EXTENDED TO APPLY IN CASES OF COVERAGE OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  UNITED STATES V. SILK,
331 U.S. 704; HARRISON V. GREYVAN LINES, ID.; RUTHERFORD FOOD CORP. V.
MCCOMB, 331 U.S. 722.  WHILE THE LIABILITY HERE IS NOT LEGISLATIVE IN
ORIGIN, NEVERTHELESS AS IN THE HUST CASE, APPLICATION OF THE COMMON-LAW
"CONTROL" TEST TO DEFEAT THE LONGSHOREMAN'S REMEDY UNDER THE STATE
PROCEDURE, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, CANNOT
"BE JUSTIFIED IN THIS TEMPORARY SITUATION UNLESS BY INVERSION OF THAT
WISDOM WHICH TEACHES THAT 'THE LETTER KILLETH, BUT THE SPIRIT GIVETH
LIFE.'"  328 U.S. AT 725. 

FINALLY, IN MY OPINION, THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT IN ITS PROVISIONS
FOR INDEMNITY CONFIRM THE CONCLUSION THAT LIABILITY OF THE "AGENT" IN
SUCH A CASE AS THIS WAS CONTEMPLATED.  NOT ONLY IS THERE BROAD
INDEMNITY "FOR ALL EXPENDITURES OF EVERY KIND MADE BY IT IN PERFORMING,
PROCURING OR SUPPLYING THE SERVICES, FACILITIES, STORES, SUPPLIES OR
EQUIPMENT AS REQUIRED HEREUNDER," WITH SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS NOT
COVERING SUCH LIABILITIES AS ARE NOW IN QUESTION.  THE INDEMNITY ALSO
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED: 

"TO THE EXTENT NOT RECOVERED FROM INSURANCE, THE UNITED STATES SHALL
ALSO REIMBURSE THE GENERAL AGENT FOR ALL CREW EXPENDITURES (ACCRUING
DURING THE TERM HEREOF) IN CONNECTION WITH THE VESSELS HEREUNDER,
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DISBURSEMENTS FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF
WAGES, EXTRA COMPENSATION, OVERTIME, BONUSES, PENALTIES, SUBSISTENCE,
REPATRIATION, TRAVEL EXPENSE, LOSS OR PERSONAL EFFECTS, MAINTENANCE,
CURE, VACATION ALLOWANCES, DAMAGES OR COMPENSATION FOR DEATH OR
PERSONAL INJURY OR ILLNESS, AND INSURANCE PREMIUMS, REQUIRED TO BE PAID
BY LAW, CUSTOM, OR BY THE TERMS OF THE SHIP'S ARTICLES OR LABOR
AGREEMENTS  ..." 

AS WELL AS FOR PAYMENTS MADE TO PENSION FUNDS AND FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
TAXES.  THIS CLAUSE SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED THAT THE "AGENT" SHOULD
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING CLAIMS NOT ONLY FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE BUT
ALSO FOR "DAMAGES OR COMPENSATION FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY OR
ILLNESS," AND SHOULD BE INDEMNIFIED FOR SUCH PAYMENT.  A NARROW
CONSTRUCTION, OF COURSE, WOULD LIMIT THE PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENT AND
INDEMNITY TO PAYMENTS MADE WITHOUT RESORT TO SUIT.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
EVEN A LITERAL INTERPRETATION WOULD COVER PAYMENTS MADE BY THE "AGENT"
UPON JUDGMENTS RECOVERED AGAINST IT ON CLAIMS OF THE CHARACTER
SPECIFIED.  I KNOW OF NO GOOD REASON WHY THE NARROW VIEW SHOULD BE
ACCEPTED OR WHY THE GOVERNMENT BY ITS CONTRACT SHOULD DESIRE TO UPROOT
SEAMEN AND OTHERS, INCLUDING LONGSHOREMEN INSOFAR AS THEY HAVE ACQUIRED
SEAMEN'S RIGHTS ABOARD SHIP, FROM THEIR NORMALLY APPLICABLE REMEDIES,
IN THE ABSENCE OF EITHER EXPLICIT STATUTORY COMMAND OR EXPRESS
CONTRACTUAL PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT.  MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE
OF THE INDEMNITY PROVIDED, I SEE NO POSSIBLE HARM THAT COULD BE
INFLICTED ON THE "AGENT" FROM INTERPRETING THE CONTRACT SO AS TO ALLOW
THE NORMALLY APPLICABLE REMEDIES TO APPLY. 

ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

FN1  CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT, IN THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE
ACTION TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE MERCHANT MARINE AND PERTINENT IN
THE HUST CASE, WERE CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHTS OF SEAMEN, NOT PRIMARILY
OR PERHAPS EVEN INCIDENTALLY WITH THOSE OF LONGSHOREMEN. 

FN2  IN THE HUST CASE, AFTER NOTING THE DISRUPTIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR
SEAMEN'S LONG-SETTLED RIGHTS FLOWING FROM THE VIEW THAT THEY HAD BEEN
REDUCED FOR ASSERTION TO THE SINGLE REMEDY PROVIDED BY THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT, WE SAID:  "WE MAY ASSUME THAT CONGRESS COULD AUTHORIZE
SO VAST A DISTURBANCE TO SETTLED RIGHTS BY CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL
COMMAND.  IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO FIND ONE BY IMPLICATION.  BRADY V.
ROOSEVELT CO., SUPRA (317 U.S. 575), AT 580.  HERE THE DISRUPTION, IF
IT HAS OCCURRED, HAS DONE SO ONLY AS AN IMPLIED RESULT OF THE
CONJUNCTION OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT'S PROVISIONS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S EMERGENCY ACTION IN TAKING OVER THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY FOR
WAR PURPOSES."  328 U.S. AT 722.  NO SUCH INTENT, WE SAID, COULD BE
FOUND IN ANY ACTION OF CONGRESS, OR OF THAT BODY AND THE PRESIDENT, IN
EXERCISING THEIR POWERS TO BRING THE INDUSTRY UNDER GOVERNMENTAL
CONTROL; OR IN THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT OR THE JONES ACT AS APPLIED
TO THE RELATION CREATED BY THE "AGENCY" CONTRACT. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN4  CONFIRMATION OF THE CONCLUSIONS SUMMARIZED IN NOTE 2, SUPRA, WAS
FOUND IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT OF 1943, 50
U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 1291, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE
PROVISION FOR ELECTION OF REMEDIES GIVEN BY SEC. 1, AS TO INJURIES
ACCRUING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1941, AND BEFORE MARCH 24, 1943, THE
ACT'S EFFECTIVE DATE.  OPINION WAS EXPRESSLY RESERVED AS TO THE EFFECT
OF THAT ACT CONCERNING INJURIES OCCURRING AFTER ITS EFFECTIVE DATE. 
328 U.S. AT 727. 

FN5  IN THE HUST CASE WE SAID OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT REMEDY HAD BECOME EXCLUSIVELY AVAILABLE FOR ASSERTING
SEAMEN'S RIGHTS THAT, WITH SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS, "THE VARIOUS RIGHTS OF
SEAMEN, ENFORCEABLE BY VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN ADMIRALTY AND AT LAW, IN
STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, ARE SWEPT INTO ONE HOPPER, THE SUIT AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT  ...  "  328 U.S. AT 720. 

FN6  28 U.S.C. SEC. 371, DERIVED FROM SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF
1789, IS A RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS THAT THE STATES MAY EXERCISE
WHATEVER JURISDICTION THE COMMON LAW HAD CONCURRENTLY WITH ADMIRALTY. 
SEE WARING V. CLARKE, 5 HOW.  441, 460-461.  HOWEVER, SINCE "IT IS NOT
A REMEDY IN THE COMMON-LAW COURTS WHICH IS SAVED, BUT A COMMON-LAW
REMEDY," THE MOSES TAYLOR, 4 WALL.  411, 431, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT
WHERE SUIT IS BROUGHT UNDER THE SAVING CLAUSE THE RIGHT TO BE ENFORCED
IS THAT "RECOGNIZED BY THE LAW OF THE SEA."  CHELENTIS V. LUCKENBACH
S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372, 384.  "THE GENERAL RULES OF THE MARITIME LAW
APPLY WHETHER THE PROCEEDING BE INSTITUTED IN AN ADMIRALTY OR COMMON
LAW COURT."  CARLISLE PACKING CO. V. SANDANGER, 259 U.S. 255, 259.  THE
COMMENTATORS RECOGNIZE THIS TO BE THE RULE NOW, 1 BENEDICT ON ADMIRALTY
(6TH ED.)  53-55; STUMBERG, MARITIME CASES IN COMMON-LAW COURTS (1925)
3 TEX. L. REV. 246; MOLE AND WILSON, A STUDY OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
(1932) 17 CORN.  L.Q. 333, 353-355, THOUGH THE MATTER SEEMS NOT TO HAVE
BEEN DECIDED PRIOR TO THE CHELENTIS CASE.  CF. THE HAMILTON, 207 U.S.
398, 404. 

FN7 "ONE WHO DOES AN ACT OR CARRIES ON AN ACTIVITY UPON LAND ON
BEHALF OF THE POSSESSOR THEREOF, IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIABILITY, AND
ENJOYS THE SAME IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY, FOR BODILY HARM CAUSED THEREBY
TO OTHERS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE LAND AS THOUGH HE WERE THE POSSESSOR
OF THE LAND."  RESTATEMENT, TORTS, SEC. 383. 

"AN AGENT WHO HAS THE CUSTODY OF LAND OR CHATTELS AND WHO SHOULD
REALIZE THAT THERE IS AN UNDUE RISK THAT THEIR CONDITION WILL CAUSE
HARM TO THE PERSON, LAND, OR CHATTELS OF OTHERS IS SUBJECT TO LIABILITY
FOR SUCH HARM CAUSED, DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF HIS CUSTODY, BY HIS
FAILURE TO USE CARE TO TAKE SUCH REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS AS HE IS
AUTHORIZED TO TAKE."  RESTATEMENT, AGENCY, SEC. 355. 

FN8  IN THAT CASE, ASSUMING THAT THE AGREEMENT MADE HUST, THE INJURED
SEAMAN, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF ULTIMATE
CONTROL, IN SPITE OF THE METICULOUS CHARACTER OF THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN IT AND THE MARITIME COMMISSION'S STANDARD CONTRACT, WE SAID:
"BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE FACT THAT HUST WAS TECHNICALLY THE
GOVERNMENT'S EMPLOYEE THAT HE LOST ALL REMEDIES AGAINST THE OPERATING
'AGENT' FOR SUCH INJURIES AS HE INCURRED.  THIS CASE, LIKE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, INVOLVES
SOMETHING MORE THAN MERE APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE COMMON-LAW
TEST FOR ASCERTAINING THE VICARIOUS RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PRIVATE
EMPLOYER FOR TORTIOUS CONDUCT OF AN EMPLOYEE."  328 U.S. AT 724. 

FN9  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S.
111. 
..END :









ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. PHILLIPS, 332 U.S. 168 


NO. 385.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 200 GA.
856, 38 S.E.2D 774, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CHARTER GRANTED BY THE STATE OF GEORGIA TO A RAILROAD COMPANY IN
1833 PROVIDED THAT "THE STOCK OF THE SAID COMPANY AND ITS BRANCHES
SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION FOR AND DURING THE TERM OF SEVEN YEARS
FROM AND AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SAID RAIL ROADS OR ANY ONE OF
THEM:  AND AFTER THAT, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A TAX NOT EXCEEDING ONE HALF
PER CENT. PER ANNUM ON THE NET PROCEEDS OF THEIR INVESTMENTS."  IN 1937
THE STATE IMPOSED A TAX OF 5 1/2 PER CENT ON THE NET INCOME OF ALL
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND IN 1941 ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES FOR
SUCH TAXES AGAINST A LESSEE OF THE RAILROAD.  HELD, FOLLOWING A
DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, THAT THE 1833 EXEMPTION DID
NOT APPLY TO TAXES ON "INCOME," IMPOSED BY A STATUTE IN 1937, AND,
THEREFORE, THE TAX DID NOT IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THE RAILROAD'S
CHARTER CONTRARY TO ART. I, SEC. 10, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP.
169-174. 

2.  EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CONSTRUING THE SAME TAX EXEMPTION
PROVISION, IN CASES INVOLVING PROPERTY TAXES AND NOT A CONVENTIONAL
INCOME TAX, ARE NOT CONTROLLING HERE.  PP. 173-174. 

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. V. PHILLIPS, STATE REVENUE
COMMISSIONER. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

THE RAILROAD COMPANY APPEALED TO THE STATE COURTS FROM A TAX
ASSESSMENT UNDER A STATE STATUTE CHALLENGED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE TRIAL COURT GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE RAILROAD.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED.  200 GA.
856, 38 S.E.2D 774.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 174. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WAS A PROCEEDING IN THE COURTS OF GEORGIA TO DECLARE INVALID AN
ASSESSMENT BY THE STATE REVENUE COMMISSIONER AGAINST THE ATLANTIC COAST
LINE RAILROAD COMPANY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX AS APPLIED TO THE
APPELLANT IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.  UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 10. 

TO ENCOURAGE RAILROAD DEVELOPMENT, THE STATE OF GEORGIA IN 1833
CHARTERED THE GEORGIA RAILROAD COMPANY (WHICH LATER BECAME THE GEORGIA
RAILROAD AND BANKING COMPANY), AND GAVE THE RAILROAD CERTAIN IMMUNITY
FROM TAXATION.  GEORGIA'S INCREASING NEED OF TAPPING NEW SOURCES OF
REVENUE HAS NOT UNNATURALLY BROUGHT TO THE COURTS THE SCOPE OF THIS
IMMUNITY.  ITS CONSTRUCTION IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF GEORGIA, THAT
DESPITE THE CHARTER OF 1833 THE APPELLANT IS SUBJECT TO ITS CORPORATE
INCOME TAX, IS THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE US. 

THE CASE IS THIS.  GEORGIA, IN 1937, IMPOSED A TAX OF 5 1/2 PER CENT.
ON THE NET INCOME OF ALL DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  ACTS 1931,
EXTRA.  SESS.  PP. 24, 26, AMENDED, ACTS 1937, PP. 109, 117; GA. ANN.
CODE SEC. 92-3102.  NO CLAIM UNDER THIS CORPORATE INCOME TAX WAS MADE
AGAINST THE ATLANTIC COAST LINE, ONE OF THE LESSEES OF THE GEORGIA
RAILROAD, UNTIL 1941.  FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 1941, 1942, 1943, THE
STATE REVENUE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT DEFICIENCY
TAXES ON THE BASIS OF ITS NET INCOME FROM THE ROAD, COMPUTED AT THE 5
1/2 PER CENT. RATE PAID BY ALL CORPORATIONS.  IT IS THIS ASSESSMENT
THAT IS CONTESTED.  THE APPELLANT RESISTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
ATTEMPT OF GEORGIA TO IMPOSE THIS TAX IS IN DISREGARD OF THE OBLIGATION
ASSUMED BY GEORGIA THROUGH SEC. 15 OF THE CHARTER OF 1833.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF GEORGIA SUSTAINED THE ASSESSMENT, HOLDING THAT THE TAX
EXEMPTION OF THE CHARTER RELATED MERELY TO THE LIMITS TO WHICH A TAX ON
THE RAILROAD PROPERTY COULD BE LEVIED, SUCH A PROPERTY TAX TO BE
MEASURED SO AS NOT TO EXCEED ONE-HALF PER CENT. OF THE NET EARNING
POWER OF THE PROPERTIES.  200 GA. 856, 38 S.E.2D 774.  THE EXEMPTION,
SO THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOUND, WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH WHAT WE NOW
KNOW AS A CORPORATE NET INCOME TAX AND THEREFORE DID NOT BARGAIN AWAY
THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO IMPOSE SUCH A TAX. 

A CLAIM THAT A STATE STATUTE IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT IS AN
APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT BE FORECLOSED BY A
STATE COURT'S DETERMINATION WHETHER THERE WAS A CONTRACT OR WHAT WERE
ITS OBLIGATIONS.  BUT WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL STATUTES BY THE LOCAL COURTS IN DECIDING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, "YET WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH A MATTER OF
LOCAL POLICY, LIKE A SYSTEM OF TAXATION, WE SHOULD BE SLOW TO DEPART
FROM THEIR JUDGMENT, IF THERE WAS NO REAL OPPRESSION OR MANIFEST WRONG
IN THE RESULT."  CLYDE V. GILCHRIST, 262 U.S. 94, 97. 

THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT HAD TO CONSTRUE THE FOLLOWING GEORGIA
LANGUAGE: 

"THE STOCK OF THE SAID COMPANY AND ITS BRANCHES SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
TAXATION FOR AND DURING THE TERM OF SEVEN YEARS FROM AND AFTER THE
COMPLETION OF THE SAID RAIL ROADS OR ANY ONE OF THEM:  AND AFTER THAT,
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A TAX NOT EXCEEDING ONE HALF PER CENT. PER ANNUM ON
THE NET PROCEEDS OF THEIR INVESTMENTS."  SEC. 15, ACT OF DECEMBER 21,
1833, ACTS 1833, PP. 256, 263-64. 

IT IS NOT FOR US TO READ SUCH A LOCAL LAW WITH INDEPENDENT BUT
INNOCENT EYES, HEEDLESS OF A CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON IT BY THE LOCAL
COURT.  SUCH A TAX PROVISION IS NOT A COLLOCATION OF ABSTRACT WORDS. 
IN SEEKING THE MEANING CONVEYED BY A LOCAL ENACTMENT IT MUST BE VIEWED
AS PART OF THE WHOLE TEXTURE OF LOCAL LAWS AND OF THE ECONOMY TO WHICH
THEY APPLY.  THE LANGUAGE DRAWS TO ITSELF PRESUPPOSITIONS NOT ALWAYS
ARTICULATED, AND EVEN WHAT IS EXPRESSED IN WORDS MAY CARRY MEANING TO
INSIDERS WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THE SURE DISCERNMENT OF THOSE VIEWING THE
LAW FROM A DISTANCE.  AND SO WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA WAS "MANIFESTLY WRONG," HALE V. STATE BOARD,
302 U.S. 95, 101, IN CONSTRUING THE EXEMPTION AS LIMITING MERELY THE
RIGHT TO IMPOSE PROPERTY TAXES.  OUR SEARCH IS FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN
THE MEANING WHICH THE TAX SPECIALISTS MAY TODAY FIND IN THE WORDS.  "IT
IS FOR THE MEANING THAT AT A PARTICULAR TIME AND PLACE AND IN THE
SETTING OF A PARTICULAR STATUTE MIGHT REASONABLY HAVE ACCEPTANCE BY MEN
OF COMMON UNDERSTANDING."  HALE V. STATE BOARD, SUPRA.  WE SHOULD
REJECT THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT HAS PLACED UPON
WHAT THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE OF 1833 WROTE ONLY IF WE CAN BE CONFIDENT
THAT THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE OF 1833, BY THE WORDS IT USED, COULD NOT
HAVE EXPRESSED THE MEANING THUS ATTRIBUTED TO IT. A FAIR REGARD FOR THE
PLACE OF INCOME TAXES, AS NOW COMMONLY CONCEIVED, IN THE THOUGHT AND
PRACTICE CONCERNING FISCAL MATTERS PREVALENT IN 1833 PRECLUDES THE
REJECTION OF THE INTERPRETATION BY THE GEORGIA COURT OF THE EXEMPTION
OF 1833. 

THERE WERE, TO BE SURE, SO-CALLED "FACULTY TAXES" IN COLONIAL TIMES
WHICH HAD SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR PRESENT INCOME TAXES IN
THAT ABILITY TO PAY WAS AN INGREDIENT.  BUT EVEN THESE TAXES, HARDLY
INCOME TAXES AS WE NOW KNOW THEM, HAD BY 1833 GENERALLY CEASED TO BE,
AND PERHAPS EVEN TO BE REMEMBERED.  SEE, E.G., SELIGMAN, THE INCOME TAX
(2D ED.)  PART II, C. I, PP. 367 ET SEQ.; COMPARE HYLTON V. UNITED
STATES, 3 DALL.  171.  IN GEORGIA, THE ONLY IMPOSITION EVEN REMOTELY
CLASSIFIABLE AS AN INCOME TAX BECAUSE PRESUMABLY BASED ON ABILITY TO
PAY IS THAT ILLUSTRATED BY A LEVY OF "THE SUM OF FOUR DOLLARS ON ALL
PROFESSORS OF LAW AND PHYSIC, AND THE SUM OF FIFTY DOLLARS ON ALL
BILLIARD TABLES  ...  "  LAW NO. 590, 1797, WATKINS DIGEST OF THE LAWS
OF GEORGIA, 1755-1799, PP. 646, 648.  NOT UNTIL THE CIVIL WAR DID
GEORGIA, LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, RESORT TO WHAT WAS INDISPUTABLY
AN INCOME TAX.  ON THE OTHER HAND, TO READ AS THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
READ THE EXEMPTION PROVISION OF THE CHARTER OF 1833, AS DEALING WITH A
TAX ON PROPERTY, FAIRLY REFLECTS A PRACTICE, NOT UNKNOWN IN THE EARLIER
DAYS, OF ASSESSING PROPERTY FOR TAX PURPOSES NOT BY ITS EXCHANGE VALUE
BUT BY ITS EARNING POWER.  SEE, E.G., SELIGMAN, THE INCOME TAX (2D
ED.)  PP. 382-83; REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMISSION ON TAXATION, CONNECTICUT
1887, P. 9, WITH COMMENTS THEREON IN KENNAN, INCOME TAXATION, P. 207. 

IN THIS SETTING, IT WOULD SAVOR OF DOGMATISM TO INFUSE INTO THE 1833
EXEMPTION THE INCOME TAX ATMOSPHERE OF OUR OWN DAY.  IT DOES NOT SEEM
INADMISSIBLE FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA TO HAVE FOUND THAT WHAT
THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE OF 1833 SOUGHT WAS TO MEASURE THE COMMONPLACE
PROPERTY TAX OF THE TIME NOT BY A FLAT SUM, OR ON THE BASIS OF A VALUE
ABSTRACTLY ASCERTAINED, BUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FRUITS OF THE
PROPERTY, MODESTLY LIMITED. 

TO SANCTION SUCH A RESTRICTED READING OF THE EXEMPTION IS TO RESPECT
A RULE DEEPLY ROOTED IN HISTORY AND POLICY, ACCORDING TO WHICH
CONTRACTS OF TAX EXEMPTION ARE TO BE READ "NARROWLY AND STRICTLY." 
HALE V. STATE BOARD, SUPRA, AT 109.  TO RECOGNIZE THAT MORE THAN A
HUNDRED YEARS AGO THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE DID NOT FOREVER BARGAIN AWAY
THE WHOLLY UNTAPPED DOMAIN OF INCOME TAXATION IS TO RECOGNIZE THE
GOVERNING CONSIDERATION THAT "THE POWER OF TAXATION IS NEVER TO BE
REGARDED AS SURRENDERED OR BARGAINED AWAY IF THERE IS ROOM FOR RATIONAL
DOUBT AS TO THE PURPOSE."  THIS WAS SAID WHEN AN EARLIER CONTROVERSY
AFFECTING THIS CHARTER WAS HERE.  WRIGHT V. GEORGIA RAILROAD AND
BANKING CO., 216 U.S. 420, 438.  AS TO THE ASTUTENESS OF TAXPAYERS IN
ORDERING THEIR AFFAIRS SO AS TO MINIMIZE TAXES, WE HAVE SAID THAT "THE
VERY MEANING OF A LINE IN THE LAW IS THAT YOU INTENTIONALLY MAY GO AS
CLOSE TO IT AS YOU CAN IF YOU DO NOT PASS IT."  SUPERIOR OIL CO. V.
MISSISSIPPI, 280 U.S. 390, 395-96.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE "NOBODY OWES ANY
PUBLIC DUTY TO PAY MORE THAN THE LAW DEMANDS:  TAXES ARE ENFORCED
EXACTIONS, NOT VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS."  LEARNED HAND, C.J.,
DISSENTING IN COMMISSIONER V. NEWMAN, 159 F.2D 848, 851.  CONVERSELY,
THE STATE, INSOFAR AS IT MAY LIMIT ITS BASIC POWER TO TAX TO ENABLE
GOVERNMENT TO GO ON, CAN SAIL AS CLOSELY AS ASTUTENESS PERMITS TO THE
LINE OF AN IMMUNITY FROM SUCH EXACTION.  THIS IS AN OLD CANON OF
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.  THE POLICY ON WHICH IT RESTS ANTEDATES THE
CHARTER BEFORE US, AND IT FORMS THE SETTING IN WHICH THE EXEMPTION IS
TO BE READ.  SEE, E.G., CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 7 PICK. 
(MASS.  1829) 344, AFFIRMED, 11 PET. 420(1837).  THIS REQUIREMENT IN
THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE GRANTS, ESPECIALLY TAX EXEMPTIONS, IS
MERELY AN ASPECT OF RESPECTING LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  A LEGISLATURE IS
NOT TO BE PRESUMED TO HAVE RELINQUISHED ITS POWER OF TAXATION BEYOND
THE NARROWEST RATIONAL READING OF AN EXEMPTION.  THE POTENTIAL NEED OF
ALL GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, AND FAIRNESS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF BURDENS OR
IN THE ENJOYMENT OF PRIVILEGES, PRECLUDE SUCH AN ASSUMPTION. 

WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE EARLIER CASES IN WHICH THE SCOPE OF
THIS EXEMPTION CAME BEFORE THIS COURT.  CENTRAL RAILROAD AND BANKING
CO. V. GEORGIA, 92 U.S. 665; WRIGHT V. GEORGIA RAILROAD AND BANKING
CO., SUPRA; WRIGHT V. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA R. CO., 236 U.S. 674; WRIGHT
V. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE R. CO., 236 U.S. 687; CENTRAL OF GEORGIA R.
CO. V. WRIGHT, 248 U.S. 525; CENTRAL OF GEORGIA R. CO. V. WRIGHT, 250
U.S. 519.  IT IS NEEDLESS TO REHEARSE THE ISSUES THEY INVOLVED. 
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE PRIOR TAXES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN BARRED BY THE
EXEMPTION WERE ALL TAXES ON THE RAILROAD PROPERTY.  NOW FOR THE FIRST
TIME WE ARE CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE A CANDID, CONVENTIONAL INCOME TAX. 
PASSING REFERENCE TO "INCOME" WHEN THE COURT'S MIND WAS NOT FOCUSED
UPON THE VALIDITY OF AN INCOME TAX AS SUCH MUST NOT BE TORN FROM THE
CONTEXT OF DISCUSSION OF PROPERTY TAXES.  IN ANY EVENT, THESE PHRASES
LEAVE UNTOUCHED OUR DUTY TO RESPECT THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT AS TO
THE FAIR INTENDMENT OF AN EXEMPTION.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, AGREEING WITH THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS
CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THE GEORGIA STATUTE, CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :








SUNAL V. LARGE, 332 U.S. 174 


ARGUED APRIL 1, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 157 F.2D 165,
AFFIRMED.  - 157 F.2D 811, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT OF 1940 FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION INTO THE ARMY, A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED TO A DEFENDANT WHO HAD FULLY EXHAUSTED
HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ON THE GROUND OF THE
INVALIDITY OF HIS CLASSIFICATION BY THE LOCAL BOARD AS AVAILABLE FOR
MILITARY SERVICE RATHER THAN AS AN EXEMPT MINISTER OF RELIGION.  HE WAS
CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT BUT TOOK NO APPEAL.  HELD:  HE
COULD NOT LATER OBTAIN A REVIEW OF HIS CONVICTION BY A HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING.  PP. 175-184. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT
TO TAKE AN APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED
ON THE GROUND THAT AN APPEAL WAS DEEMED FUTILE BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF
THE LAW AT THAT TIME - I.E., AFTER THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN FALBO
V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, AND BEFORE THE DECISION IN ESTEP V.
UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114.  P. 181. 

3.  THE TRIAL COURT'S ERROR IN THE RULING ON THE QUESTION OF LAW DID
NOT DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
P. 182. 

SUNAL V. LARGE, SUPERINTENDENT, FEDERAL PRISON CAMP. 

NO. 535.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 840, ALEXANDER, WARDEN, V. UNITED STATES EX REL.
KULICK, ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

NO. 535.  IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, THE DISTRICT COURT
DISCHARGED THE WRIT AND REMANDED PETITIONER TO THE CUSTODY OF THE
RESPONDENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  157 F.2D 165. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 712.  AFFIRMED, P. 184. 

NO. 840.  IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, THE DISTRICT COURT
DISCHARGED THE WRIT AND REMANDED THE RELATOR HERE TO CUSTODY.  66
F.SUPP.  183.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, AND ORDERED THE
DISCHARGE OF THE RELATOR FROM CUSTODY.  157 F.2D 811.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 712.  REVERSED, P. 184. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SUNAL AND KULICK REGISTERED UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, 57 STAT. 597, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 301, ET
SEQ. EACH IS A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS AND EACH CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION GRANTED
BY CONGRESS TO REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF RELIGION.  FN1
SEC. 5(D).  THE LOCAL BOARDS, AFTER PROCEEDINGS UNNECESSARY TO RELATE
HERE, DENIED THE CLAIMED EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFIED THESE REGISTRANTS AS
I-A.  THEY EXHAUSTED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BUT WERE UNABLE TO
EFFECT A CHANGE IN THEIR CLASSIFICATIONS.  THEREAFTER THEY WERE ORDERED
TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION - SUNAL ON OCTOBER 25, 1944, KULICK ON NOVEMBER
9, 1944.  EACH REPORTED BUT REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION.  EACH WAS
THEREUPON INDICTED, TRIED AND CONVICTED UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE ACT FOR
REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION.  SUNAL WAS SENTENCED ON MARCH 22,
1945, KULICK ON MAY 7, 1945, EACH TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF YEARS. 
NEITHER APPEALED. 

AT THE TRIAL EACH OFFERED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE
CLASSIFICATION WAS INVALID.  THE TRIAL COURTS HELD, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
EVIDENCE WAS INADMISSIBLE, THAT THE CLASSIFICATION WAS FINAL AND NOT
OPEN TO ATTACK IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL.  ON FEBRUARY 4, 1946, WE DECIDED
ESTEP V. UNITED STATES AND SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114.  THESE
CASES  FN2  HELD ON COMPARABLE FACTS THAT A REGISTRANT, WHO HAD
EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND THUS OBVIATED THE RULE OF
FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, WAS ENTITLED, WHEN TRIED UNDER
SEC. 11, TO DEFEND ON THE GROUND THAT HIS LOCAL BOARD EXCEEDED ITS
JURISDICTION IN MAKING THE CLASSIFICATION - FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IT HAD NO
BASIS IN FACT.  327 U.S. PP. 122-123. 

IT IS PLAIN, THEREFORE, THAT THE TRIAL COURTS ERRED IN DENYING SUNAL
AND KULICK THE DEFENSE WHICH THEY TENDERED.  SHORTLY AFTER THE ESTEP
AND SMITH CASES WERE DECIDED, PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS WERE
FILED ON BEHALF OF SUNAL AND KULICK.  IN EACH CASE IT WAS HELD THAT
HABEAS CORPUS WAS AN AVAILABLE REMEDY.  IN SUNAL'S CASE THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT THERE WAS A BASIS IN
FACT FOR THE CLASSIFICATION AND AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT DISCHARGING THE
WRIT.  157 F.2D 165.  IN KULICK'S CASE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED A DISTRICT COURT HOLDING THAT THERE WAS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLASSIFICATION, 66 F.SUPP.  183, AND RULED,
WITHOUT EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE, THAT SINCE KULICK HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF
THE DEFENSE HE SHOULD BE DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
FURTHER PROSECUTION.  157 F.2D 811.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON PETITIONS
FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI, WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 

THE NORMAL AND CUSTOMARY METHOD OF CORRECTING ERRORS OF THE TRIAL IS
BY APPEAL.  APPEALS COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THESE CASES,  FN3  BUT
THEY WERE NOT.  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ABSENCE OF COUNSEL MADE THE
APPEALS UNAVAILABLE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER.  SEE JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304
U.S. 458, 467.  DEFENDANTS HAD COUNSEL.  NOR WAS THERE ANY OTHER
BARRIER TO THE PERFECTION OF THEIR APPEALS.  CF. COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316
U.S. 255.  MOREOVER, THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE THE FACTS RELIED ON
WERE DEHORS THE RECORD AND THEREFORE NOT OPEN TO CONSIDERATION AND
REVIEW ON APPEAL.  SEE WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101, 104; UNITED
STATES EX REL. MCCANN V. ADAMS, 320 U.S. 220, 221.  AND SEE ADAMS V.
UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 274-275.  THE ERROR WAS OF
RECORD IN EACH CASE.  IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE FAILURE TO APPEAL
WAS EXCUSABLE, SINCE UNDER THE DECISIONS AS THEY THEN STOOD - MARCH 22,
1945, AND MAY 7, 1945 - THE LOWER COURTS HAD CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT
THE SELECTIVE SERVICE CLASSIFICATION COULD NOT BE ATTACKED IN A
PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 11.  SEE ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 123,
N. 15.  IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ON APRIL 30, 1945, WE HAD DENIED
CERTIORARI IN A CASE WHICH SOUGHT TO RAISE THE SAME POINT,  FN4  AND
THAT ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND SMITH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
WERE BROUGHT HERE  FN5  AND DECIDED AFTER SUNAL'S AND KULICK'S TIME FOR
APPEAL HAD PASSED.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT SINCE THE STATE OF THE LAW
MADE THE APPEALS SEEM FUTILE, IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO THOSE REGISTRANTS
TO CONCLUDE THEM BY THEIR FAILURE TO APPEAL. 

WE PUT TO ONE SIDE COMPARABLE PROBLEMS RESPECTING THE USE OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CHALLENGE CONVICTIONS OBTAINED IN THE
STATE COURTS.  SEE NEW YORK V. ENO, 155 U.S. 89; TINSLEY V. ANDERSON,
171 U.S. 101, 104-105; UNITED STATES EX REL. KENNEDY V. TYLER, 269 U.S.
13; EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 116-117.  SO FAR AS CONVICTIONS
OBTAINED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE CONCERNED, THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO SERVICE FOR AN
APPEAL.  ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, SUPRA, P. 274.  THERE
HAVE BEEN, HOWEVER, SOME EXCEPTIONS.  THAT IS TO SAY, THE WRIT HAS AT
TIMES BEEN ENTERTAINED EITHER WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF
RELIEF BY THE APPELLATE ROUTE OR WHERE AN APPEAL WOULD HAVE AFFORDED AN
ADEQUATE REMEDY.  ILLUSTRATIVE ARE THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THE CONVICTION
WAS UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE ALLEGED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,  FN6  WHERE
THERE WAS A CONVICTION BY A FEDERAL COURT WHOSE JURISDICTION OVER THE
PERSON OR THE OFFENSE WAS CHALLENGED N7, WHERE THE TRIAL OR SENTENCE BY
A FEDERAL COURT VIOLATED SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES.  FN8  IT
IS PLAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THE WRIT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR COLLATERAL REVIEW
OF ERRORS OF LAW COMMITTED BY THE TRIAL COURT - THE EXISTENCE OF ANY
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION,  FN9  IRREGULARITIES IN THE GRAND
JURY PROCEDURE,  FN10  DEPARTURE FROM A STATUTORY GRANT OF TIME IN
WHICH TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL,  FN11 AND OTHER ERRORS IN TRIAL PROCEDURE
WHICH DO NOT CROSS THE JURISDICTIONAL LINE.  CF. CRAIG V. HECHT, 263
U.S. 255. 

YET THE LATTER RULE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ONE; AND THE SITUATIONS IN
WHICH HABEAS CORPUS HAS DONE SERVICE FOR AN APPEAL ARE THE EXCEPTIONS. 
THUS WHERE THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT WHICH TRIED THE CASE
IS CHALLENGED OR WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE
UNDER WHICH CONVICTION WAS HAD IS ATTACKED, HABEAS CORPUS IS
INCREASINGLY DENIED IN CASE AN APPELLATE PROCEDURE WAS AVAILABLE FOR
CORRECTION OF THE ERROR.  FN12  YET, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE THE ERROR
WAS FLAGRANT AND THERE WAS NO OTHER REMEDY AVAILABLE FOR ITS
CORRECTION, RELIEF BY HABEAS CORPUS HAS SOMETIMES BEEN GRANTED.  FN13
AS STATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19,
27, THE RULE WHICH REQUIRES RESORT TO APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR THE
CORRECTION OF ERRORS "IS NOT ONE DEFINING POWER BUT ONE WHICH RELATES
TO THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF POWER."  THAT RULE IS, THEREFORE, "NOT
SO INFLEXIBLE THAT IT MAY NOT YIELD TO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
THE NEED FOR THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS
APPARENT."  ID. P. 27.  THAT CASE WAS DEEMED TO INVOLVE "EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES" BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT IT INDICATED "A CONFLICT
BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ON A QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVING
CONCERNS OF LARGE IMPORTANCE AFFECTING THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS."  ID. P. 27.  THE COURT ACCORDINGLY ENTERTAINED THE WRIT
TO EXAMINE INTO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO RENDER THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION. 

THE SAME COURSE WAS FOLLOWED IN EX PARTE HUDGINGS, 249 U.S. 378,
WHERE PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR COMMITTING
PERJURY.  THE COURT DID NOT REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE ANY
APPELLATE ROUTE BUT ISSUED AN ORIGINAL WRIT AND DISCHARGED HIM, HOLDING
THAT PERJURY WITHOUT MORE WAS NOT PUNISHABLE AS A CONTEMPT.  THAT
SITUATION WAS DEEMED EXCEPTIONAL IN VIEW OF "THE NATURE OF THE CASE, OF
THE RELATION WHICH THE QUESTION WHICH IT INVOLVES BEARS GENERALLY TO
THE POWER AND DUTY OF COURTS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS, OF
THE DANGEROUS EFFECT ON THE LIBERTY OF THE CITIZEN WHEN CALLED UPON AS
A WITNESS IN A COURT WHICH MIGHT RESULT IF THE ERRONEOUS DOCTRINE UPON
WHICH THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW WAS BASED WERE NOT PROMPTLY CORRECTED  ...
"  ID. P. 384.  CF. CRAIG V. HECHT, SUPRA. 

THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT
CASES LIKEWISE PRESENTED EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH JUSTIFIED
RESORT TO HABEAS CORPUS THOUGH NO APPEALS WERE TAKEN.  IN THEIR VIEW
THE FAILURE TO APPEAL WAS EXCUSABLE, SINCE RELIEF BY THAT ROUTE SEEMED
QUITE FUTILE. 

BUT DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT IN THE EARLIER CASE IMPORTED
NO EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON THE MERITS.  HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42,
48, AND CASES CITED.  THE SAME CHIEF COUNSEL REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANTS
IN THE PRESENT CASES AND THOSE IN THE ESTEP AND SMITH CASES.  AT THE
TIME THESE DEFENDANTS WERE CONVICTED THE ESTEP AND SMITH CASES WERE
PENDING BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURTS.  THE PETITION IN THE SMITH CASE
WAS, INDEED, FILED HERE ABOUT TWO WEEKS BEFORE KULICK'S CONVICTION AND
ABOUT A MONTH AFTER SUNAL'S CONVICTION.  THE SAME ROAD WAS OPEN TO
SUNAL AND KULICK AS THE ONE SMITH AND ESTEP TOOK.  WHY THE LEGAL
STRATEGY COUNSELED TAKING APPEALS IN THE SMITH AND ESTEP CASES AND NOT
IN THESE WE DO NOT KNOW.  PERHAPS IT WAS BASED ON THE FACTS OF THESE
TWO CASES.  FOR THE QUESTION OF LAW HAD NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE COURT;
AND COUNSEL WAS PRESSING FOR A DECISION HERE.  THE CASE, THEREFORE, IS
NOT ONE WHERE THE LAW WAS CHANGED AFTER THE TIME FOR APPEAL HAD
EXPIRED.  CF. WARRING V. COLPOYS, 122 F.2D 642.  IT IS RATHER A
SITUATION WHERE AT THE TIME OF THE CONVICTIONS THE DEFINITIVE RULING ON
THE QUESTION OF LAW HAD NOT CRYSTALLIZED.  OF COURSE, IF SUNAL AND
KULICK HAD PURSUED THE APPELLATE COURSE AND FAILED, THEIR CASES WOULD
BE QUITE DIFFERENT.  BUT SINCE THEY CHOSE NOT TO PURSUE THE REMEDY
WHICH THEY HAD, WE DO NOT THINK THEY SHOULD NOW BE ALLOWED TO JUSTIFY
THEIR FAILURE BY SAYING THEY DEEMED ANY APPEAL FUTILE. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A PROBLEM WHICH HAS RADIATIONS FAR BEYOND
THE PRESENT CASES.  THE COURTS WHICH TRIED THE DEFENDANTS HAD
JURISDICTION OVER THEIR PERSONS AND OVER THE OFFENSE.  THEY COMMITTED
AN ERROR OF LAW IN EXCLUDING THE DEFENSE WHICH WAS TENDERED.  THAT
ERROR DID NOT GO TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT.  CONGRESS,
MOREOVER, HAS PROVIDED A REGULAR, ORDERLY METHOD FOR CORRECTION OF ALL
SUCH ERRORS BY GRANTING AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND
BY VESTING US WITH CERTIORARI JURISDICTION.  IT IS NOT UNCOMMON AFTER A
TRIAL IS ENDED AND THE TIME FOR APPEAL HAS PASSED TO DISCOVER THAT A
SHIFT IN THE LAW OR THE IMPACT OF A NEW DECISION HAS GIVEN INCREASED
RELEVANCE TO A POINT MADE AT THE TRIAL BUT NOT PURSUED ON APPEAL.  CF.
WARRING V. COLPOYS, SUPRA.  IF IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, HABEAS CORPUS
COULD BE USED TO CORRECT THE ERROR, THE WRIT WOULD BECOME A DELAYED
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, RENEWED FROM TIME TO TIME AS THE LEGAL CLIMATE
CHANGED.  ERROR WHICH WAS NOT DEEMED SUFFICIENTLY ADEQUATE TO WARRANT
AN APPEAL WOULD ACQUIRE NEW IMPLICATIONS.  EVERY ERROR IS POTENTIALLY
REVERSIBLE ERROR; AND MANY RULINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT SPELL THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONVICTION AND ACQUITTAL.  IF DEFENDANTS WHO ACCEPT
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND DO NOT APPEAL CAN LATER RENEW THEIR
ATTACK ON THE JUDGMENT BY HABEAS CORPUS, LITIGATION IN THESE CRIMINAL
CASES WILL BE INTERMINABLE.  WISE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS COUNSELS AGAINST SUCH COURSE, AT LEAST WHERE THE ERROR
DOES NOT TRENCH ON ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS NOR INVOLVE
THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT. 

AN ENDEAVOR IS MADE TO MAGNIFY THE ERROR IN THESE TRIALS TO
CONSTITUTIONAL PROPORTIONS BY ASSERTING THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE
PROFFERED EVIDENCE ROBBED THE TRIAL OF VITALITY BY DEPRIVING DEFENDANTS
OF THEIR ONLY REAL DEFENSE.  BUT AS MUCH MIGHT BE SAID OF MANY RULINGS
DURING A CRIMINAL TRIAL.  DEFENDANTS RECEIVED THROUGHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY
TO BE HEARD AND ENJOYED ALL PROCEDURAL GUARANTIES GRANTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  ERROR IN RULING ON THE QUESTION OF LAW DID NOT INFECT
THE TRIAL WITH LACK OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  AS STATED BY MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO IN ESCOE V. ZERBST, 295 U.S. 490, 494, "WHEN A HEARING
IS ALLOWED BUT THERE IS ERROR IN CONDUCTING IT OR IN LIMITING ITS
SCOPE, THE REMEDY IS BY APPEAL.  WHEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS
DENIED ALTOGETHER, THE ENSUING MANDATE OF THE COURT IS VOID, AND THE
PRISONER CONFINED THEREUNDER MAY HAVE RECOURSE TO HABEAS CORPUS TO PUT
AN END TO THE RESTRAINT."    IT IS SAID THAT THE CONTRARY POSITION WAS
INDICATED BY THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IN ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
PP. 124-125, 

"BUT IF WE NOW HOLD THAT A REGISTRANT COULD NOT DEFEND AT HIS TRIAL
ON THE GROUND THAT THE LOCAL BOARD HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THE PREMISES,
IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE WAY WOULD THEN BE OPEN TO HIM TO CHALLENGE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL BOARD AFTER CONVICTION BY HABEAS CORPUS.  THE
COURT WOULD THEN BE SENDING MEN TO JAIL TODAY WHEN IT WAS APPARENT THAT
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE RELEASED TOMORROW."    WE WERE THERE EXAMINING
THE ALTERNATIVE PRESSED ON US - THAT THE CLASSIFICATION COULD NOT BE
ATTACKED AT THE TRIAL.  IF WE DENIED THE DEFENSE, WE CONCLUDED THAT
HABEAS CORPUS WOULD LIE THE MOMENT AFTER CONVICTION.  FOR ONE CONVICTED
OF VIOLATING AN ILLEGAL ORDER OF A SELECTIVE SERVICE BOARD, LIKE ONE
CONVICTED OF VIOLATING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE, SHOULD BE AFFORDED
AN OPPORTUNITY AT SOME STAGE TO ESTABLISH THE FACT.  AND WHERE NO OTHER
OPPORTUNITY EXISTED, HABEAS CORPUS WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY. 
FN14  BUT THAT WAS AN ADDITIONAL REASON FOR ALLOWING THE DEFENSE IN THE
CRIMINAL TRIAL, NOT A STATEMENT THAT DEFENDANTS PROSECUTED UNDER SEC.
11 HAD AN ALTERNATIVE OF DEFENDING AT THE TRIAL ON THE BASIS OF AN
ILLEGAL CLASSIFICATION OR RESORTING TO HABEAS CORPUS AFTER CONVICTION. 
THESE REGISTRANTS HAD AVAILABLE A METHOD OF OBTAINING THE RIGHT TO
DEFEND THEIR PROSECUTIONS UNDER SEC. 11 ON THAT GROUND.  THEY DID NOT
USE IT.  AND SINCE WE FIND NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXCUSE
THEIR FAILURE, HABEAS CORPUS MAY NOT NOW BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE. 

ACCORDINGLY SUNAL V. LARGE WILL BE AFFIRMED AND ALEXANDER V. KULICK
WILL BE REVERSED.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SUNAL IN 1942 WAS CLASSIFIED AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR AND
ORDERED TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.  ON HIS FAILURE TO
DO SO HE WAS CONVICTED UNDER THE ACT AND A FINE AND TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT WERE IMPOSED.  THE EVENTS WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED
RELATE TO HIS CLASSIFICATION AFTER HIS DISCHARGE FROM PRISON. 

FN2  THE SMITH CASE WAS DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON
APRIL 4, 1945, 148 F.2D 288; THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED
APRIL 25, 1945, AND GRANTED MAY 28, 1945.  325 U.S. 846.  THE ESTEP
CASE WAS DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON JULY 6, 1945, 150
F.2D 768; THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED AUGUST 3, 1945, AND
GRANTED OCTOBER 8, 1945.  326 U.S. 703. 

FN3  WE THEREFORE LAY TO ONE SIDE CASES SUCH AS BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326
U.S. 135, DUNCAN V. KAHANAMOKU, 327 U.S. 304, AND EAGLES V. UNITED
STATES EX REL. SAMUELS, 329 U.S. 304, WHERE THE ORDER OF THE AGENCY
UNDER WHICH PETITIONER WAS DETAINED WAS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW. 

FN4  RINKO V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 851.  WE ALSO DENIED CERTIORARI
IN FLAKOWICZ V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 851; BUT IT, LIKE FALBO V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WAS ONE WHERE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES HAD NOT
BEEN EXHAUSTED, THERE BEING AN ADDITIONAL EXAMINATION WHICH THE
REGISTRANT HAD NOT TAKEN.  SEE GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 338. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S. 371; EX PARTE CURTIS, 106 U.S. 371;
EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651; IN RE COY, 127 U.S. 731; MATTER OF
HEFF, 197 U.S. 488; MATTER OF GREGORY, 219 U.S. 210; BAENDER V.
BARNETT, 255 U.S. 224. 

FN7  EX PARTE WATKINS, 3 PET. 193; EX PARTE PARKS, 93 U.S. 18; BOWEN
V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19. 

FN8  EX PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163(DOUBLE JEOPARDY); IN RE SNOW, 120
U.S. 274(SAME); IN RE NIELSEN, 131 U.S. 176(SAME); COUNSELMAN V.
HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547(SELF-INCRIMINATION); EX PARTE WILSON, 114 U.S.
417(REQUIREMENT OF INDICTMENT); EX PARTE BAIN, 121 U.S. 1(SAME); CALLAN
V. WILSON, 127 U.S. 540(JURY TRIAL); JOHNSON V. ZERBST, SUPRA (RIGHT TO
COUNSEL); WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275(SAME); WALEY V. JOHNSTON,
SUPRA (COERCED PLEA OF GUILTY). 

FN9  HARLAN V. MCGOURIN, 218 U.S. 442. 

FN10  EX PARTE HARDING, 120 U.S. 782; KAIZO V. HENRY, 211 U.S. 146. 

FN11  MCMICKING V. SCHIELDS, 238 U.S. 99.  THE RULE IS EVEN MORE
STRICT WHERE HABEAS CORPUS IS SOUGHT BEFORE TRIAL.  SEE JOHNSON V. HOY,
227 U.S. 245. 

FN12  IN RE LINCOLN, 202 U.S. 178; TOY TOY V. HOPKINS, 212 U.S. 542;
GLASGOW V. MOYER, 225 U.S. 420. 

FN13  TINSLEY V. TREAT, 205 U.S. 20(REMOVAL CASE).  IN REMOVAL CASES
HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE NOT TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
ACCUSATION BUT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS AN ENTIRE LACK OF EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT IT.  HYDE V. SHINE, 199 U.S. 62, 84.  IT IS ALSO AVAILABLE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER REMOVAL TO THE DISTRICT IN QUESTION VIOLATES A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED, HAAS V. HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462, OR
WHETHER THE COURT BEFORE WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO TAKE AND TRY THE
ACCUSED HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE.  SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265
U.S. 224.  BUT HABEAS CORPUS WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED TO PASS ON THE
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION WHERE IT INVOLVES CONSIDERATION OF MANY FACTS
AND SERIOUSLY CONTROVERTED QUESTIONS OF LAW.  RODMAN V. POTHIER, 264
U.S. 399; HENRY V. HENKEL, 235 U.S. 219. 

FN14  THE REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS EXTENDS TO A CASE WHERE A PERSON
"IS IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR OF A LAW ...  OF THE
UNITED STATES  ...  "  R.S. SEC. 753, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 453. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THAT HABEAS CORPUS CANNOT BE MADE TO DO SERVICE FOR AN APPEAL IS A
WELL-WORN FORMULA.  BUT THIS GENERALIZATION SHOULD NOT DISPOSE OF THESE
TWO CASES, IF THEIR ACTUALITIES ARE VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF OUR
DECISIONS. 

THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT EMPOWERED THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
ISSUE WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS.  SECTION 14 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24,
1789, 1 STAT. 73, 81.  SINCE THE SCOPE OF THE WRIT WAS NOT DEFINED BY
CONGRESS, IT CARRIED ITS COMMON LAW IMPLICATIONS.  THE WRIT WAS GREATLY
ENLARGED AFTER THE CIVIL WAR BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1867.  14 STAT.
385.  (FOR LEGISLATION DEALING WITH HABEAS CORPUS SEE NOTE IN 18 F.
68.)  IT WAS NO LONGER LIMITED TO SEARCHING THE FACE OF A JUDGMENT OF A
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.  IT WAS AVAILABLE TO CUT THROUGH FORMS
AND GO "TO THE VERY TISSUE OF THE STRUCTURE," MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN
FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 345, 346, THOUGH IT WAS CERTAINLY NOT TO
BE INVOKED MERELY AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN AVAILABLE APPEAL.  BUT WHAT IS
"FORM" AND WHAT IS THE "TISSUE OF THE STRUCTURE," AND WHEN IS A WRIT
SOUGHT IN FACT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPEAL IN A PRACTICAL VIEW OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, ARE QUESTIONS TO WHICH OUR DECISIONS GIVE
DUBIOUS AND CONFUSED ANSWERS.  I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE SCOPE
OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IS AN UNTIDY AREA OF OUR LAW
THAT CALLS FOR MUCH MORE SYSTEMATIC CONSIDERATION THAN IT HAS THUS FAR
RECEIVED. 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS COURT HAS LEFT ITSELF UNHAMPERED, BY NOT
DRAWING SHARP JURISDICTIONAL LINES, IS INDICATED BY THE FOLLOWING VERY
TENTATIVE CLASSIFICATION OF CATEGORIES IN WHICH HABEAS CORPUS HAS NOT
BEEN DEEMED BEYOND THE POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS TO ENTERTAIN: 

(1)  CONVICTION BY A FEDERAL COURT WHICH HAD NO JURISDICTION EITHER
OVER THE PERSON OR OF THE OFFENSE.  SEE EX PARTE WATKINS, 3 PET. 193,
203; EX PARTE PARKS, 93 U.S. 18, 23.  BUT THE WRIT IS DISCRETIONARY AND
MAY NOT ISSUE EVEN THOUGH IF AN OPPORTUNITY WERE ALLOWED SUCH WANT OF
JURISDICTION MIGHT BE ESTABLISHED.  SEE TOY TOY V. HOPKINS, 212 U.S.
542, AND RODMAN V. POTHIER, 264 U.S. 399.  AND COMPARE IN RE MAYFIELD,
141 U.S. 107, WITH IN RE BLACKBIRD, 66 F. 541. 

(2)  CONVICTION UNDER UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE.  EX PARTE VIRGINIA,
100 U.S. 339, 343; EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S. 371; EX PARTE CURTIS, 106
U.S. 371; EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651.  THE WRIT WAS DENIED IN
EACH CASE, BUT THE COURT PASSED ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE.  HERE TOO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE WRIT WILL DEPEND ON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PARTICULARLY THE STAGE IN THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AT WHICH THE WRIT IS SOUGHT.  JOHNSON V. HOY, 227 U.S. 245;
HENRY V. HENKEL, 235 U.S. 219.  COMPARE GLASGOW V. MOYER, 225 U.S. 420,
WITH MATTER OF GREGORY, 219 U.S. 210.  SEE ALSO IN RE LINCOLN, 202 U.S.
178. 

(3)  VIOLATION BY FEDERAL COURTS OF SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:
(A) DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  COMPARE EX PARTE BIGELOW, 113 U.S. 328, WITH IN
RE SNOW, 120 U.S. 274, AND NIELSEN, PETITIONER, 131 U.S. 176; (B) SELF
CRIMINATION.  WRIT GRANTED AS TO A WITNESS HELD IN CONTEMPT, THOUGH
APPARENTLY NOT AS TO A DEFENDANT RESTRAINED ON CHARGE OF CRIME. 
COMPARE COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, AND EX PARTE IRVINE, 74
F. 954(TAFT, CIRCUIT JUDGE), WITH MATTER OF MORAN, 203 U.S. 96; (C) NO
INDICTMENT BY GRAND JURY.  EX PARTE WILSON, 114 U.S. 417.  ALSO EX
PARTE BAIN, 121 U.S. 1.  AS TO DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN STATE
COURTS, MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86. 

(4)  DUE REGARD FOR HARMONIOUS NATION-STATE RELATIONS, NEED TO AVOID
FRICTION AND MAINTAIN BALANCE.  SEE EX PARTE ROWLAND, 104 U.S. 604; IN
RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443; IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200; BOWEN V. JOHNSTON,
306 U.S. 19.  COMPARE IN RE TYLER, 149 U.S. 164; IN RE SWAN, 150 U.S.
637; EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123.  AVAILABILITY OF OTHER REMEDIES IS
HERE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR.  SIMILARLY AS TO STATE INTERFERENCE WITH
FEDERAL OFFICERS, PROMPT RELIEF MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY.  OHIO V.
THOMAS, 173 U.S. 276.  SEE ALSO IN RE NEAGLE, 135 U.S. 1; HUNTER V.
WOOD, 209 U.S. 205. 

(5)  INSUFFICIENCY OF INDICTMENTS IS NOT OPEN ON HABEAS CORPUS; IT
MAY BE IN REMOVAL CASES, IN VIEW OF THE HARDSHIP TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND
THE INADEQUACY OF OTHER REMEDIES.  COMPARE TINSLEY V. TREAT, 205 U.S.
20; ALSO HYDE V. SHINE, 199 U.S. 62.  COMPARE ALSO THE EXTRADITION
CASES.  BENSON V. MCMAHON, 127 U.S. 457; ORNELAS V. RUIZ, 161 U.S. 502;
BRYANT V. UNITED STATES, 167 U.S. 104. 

(6)  DEFECTS IN JURY PANEL, IN TRIAL PROCEDURE, EXCLUSION OR
INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE, ARE RARELY HELD GROUND FOR RELIEF ON HABEAS
CORPUS.  BUT WHEN NO OTHER REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE AND THE ERROR APPEARED
FLAGRANT, THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES OF RELIEF.  SEE TINSLEY V. TREAT,
205 U.S. 20.  COMPARE EX PARTE BAIN, 121 U.S. 1. 

(7)  LEGALITY OF SENTENCE OR CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT.  EX PARTE
LANGE, 18 WALL.  163; IN RE BONNER, 151 U.S. 242. 

(8)  CONTEMPT CASES.  EX PARTE HUDGINGS, 249 U.S. 378, 384.  COMPARE,
SAVIN, PETITIONER, 131 U.S. 267, AND CUDDY, PETITIONER, 131 U.S. 280. 
BUT WHEN APPEAL IS SUFFICIENT REMEDY, SEE CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255,
AND JUDGE LEARNED HAND'S DISSENTING OPINION IN THE CRAIG CASE, 282 F.
138, 155. 

PERHAPS IT IS WELL THAT A WRIT THE HISTORIC PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO
FURNISH "A SWIFT AND IMPERATIVE REMEDY IN ALL CASES OF ILLEGAL
RESTRAINT," SEE LORD BIRKENHEAD, L.C., SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME
AFFAIRS V. O'BRIEN, (1923) A.C. 603, 609, SHOULD BE LEFT FLUID AND FREE
FROM THE DEFINITENESS APPROPRIATE TO ORDINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DOCTRINES.  BUT IF WE ARE TO LEAVE THE LAW PERTAINING TO HABEAS CORPUS
IN THE UNSYSTEMATIZED CONDITION IN WHICH WE FIND IT, THEN I BELIEVE IT
IS TRUE OF BOTH CASES WHAT JUDGE LEARNED HAND SAID OF THE KULICK CASE,
THAT THE WRIT IS NECESSARY "TO PREVENT A COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE OF
JUSTICE."  157 F.2D 811, 813.  IF THE JUSTIFICATION NEED BE NO MORE
DEFINITE THAN THE EXISTENCE OF "EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES," BOWEN V.
JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 27, THE REASONS FOR ALLOWING THE WRITS IN THESE
CASES ARE MORE COMPELLING THAN WERE THOSE IN BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, WHERE
THERE MERELY APPEARED "TO BE UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION  ...  WHETHER
OFFENSES WITHIN THE  ...  NATIONAL PARK ARE TRIABLE IN THE STATE OR
FEDERAL COURTS."  FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN JUDGE HAND'S OPINION, IT
"WOULD PASS ALL FAIR DEMANDS UPON KULICK'S DILIGENCE TO CONCLUDE HIM
BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO APPEAL."  157 F.2D AT 813. 

I AGREE WITH BOTH CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS
AVAILABLE AS A REMEDY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES, BUT SINCE
THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER THE MERITS, I SHALL ABSTAIN FROM DOING SO. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IN THE RESULT AND
SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE VIEWS HE EXPRESSES.  I WOULD MODIFY THEM BY MAKING
DEFINITE AND CERTAIN HIS TENTATIVELY EXPRESSED CONCLUSION THAT THE
GREAT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE CONFINED BY RIGIDITIES
CHARACTERIZING ORDINARY JURISDICTIONAL DOCTRINES.  AND I AGREE WITH
JUDGE LEARNED HAND, IN THE VIEW STATED FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IN KULICK'S CASE, THAT UPON THE SUM OF OUR DECISIONS, FN1  REGARDLESS
OF THE VARIETY OF STATEMENT IN THE OPINIONS, NO MORE DEFINITE RULE IS
TO BE DRAWN OUT THAN THAT "THE WRIT IS AVAILABLE, NOT ONLY TO DETERMINE
POINTS OF JURISDICTION, STRICTI JURIS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS;
BUT WHENEVER ELSE RESORT TO IT IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT A COMPLETE
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE."  157 F.2D 811, 813. 

IN MY OPINION NOT ONLY IS THIS THE LAW, MEASURED BY THE SUM OF THE
DECISIONS AND THE APPLICABLE STATUTE,  FN2  BUT THE AGGREGATE OF THE
RESULTS DEMONSTRATES IT SHOULD BE THE LAW. 

CONFUSION IN THE OPINIONS THERE IS, IN QUANTITY.  BUT IT ARISES IN
PART FROM THE EFFORT TO PIN DOWN WHAT BY ITS NATURE CANNOT BE CONFINED
IN SPECIAL, ALL-INCLUSIVE CATEGORIES, UNLESS THE OFFICE OF THE WRIT IS
TO BE DILUTED OR DESTROYED WHERE THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.  AND SO
LIMITATION IN ASSERTION GIVES WAY TO THE NECESSITY FOR ACHIEVING THE
WRIT'S HISTORIC PURPOSE WHEN THE TWO COLLIDE.  ADMIRABLE AS MAY BE THE
EFFORT TOWARD SYSTEM, THIS LAST RESORT FOR HUMAN LIBERTY CANNOT YIELD
WHEN THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN TOLERATING ITS WRONGFUL DEPRIVATION AND
MAINTAINING THE SYSTEMATIST'S ART.    THE WRIT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE
WHENEVER THERE CLEARLY HAS BEEN A FUNDAMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
FOR WHICH NO OTHER ADEQUATE REMEDY IS PRESENTLY AVAILABLE.  BESIDE
EXECUTING ITS GREAT OBJECT, WHICH IS THE PRESERVATION OF PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND ASSURANCE AGAINST ITS WRONGFUL DEPRIVATION, CONSIDERATIONS
OF ECONOMY OF JUDICIAL TIME AND PROCEDURES, IMPORTANT AS THEY
UNDOUBTEDLY ARE, BECOME COMPARATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT.  FN3  THIS APPLIES
TO SITUATIONS INVOLVING THE PAST EXISTENCE OF A REMEDY PRESENTLY
FORECLOSED, AS WELL AS TO OTHERS WHERE NO SUCH REMEDY HAS EVER BEEN
AFFORDED. 

IN THE PREVAILING STATE OF OUR CRIMINAL LAW, FEDERAL AND STATE, THERE
ARE FEW ERRORS, EITHER FUNDAMENTAL OR OF LESSER GRAVITY, WHICH CANNOT
BE CORRECTED BY APPEAL TIMELY TAKEN, UNLESS THE FACTS DISCLOSING OR
CONSTITUTING THEM ARISE AFTER THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.  IF THE EXISTENCE
OF A REMEDY BY APPEAL AT SOME STAGE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IS TO
BE TAKEN FOR THE CRITERION, THEN IN VERY FEW INSTANCES, FAR LESS THAN
THE NUMBER COMPREHENDED BY OUR DECISIONS, WILL THE WRIT BE AVAILABLE. 
TAKEN LITERALLY, THE FORMULA SO OFTEN REPEATED, THAT THE WRIT IS NOT A
SUBSTITUTE FOR APPEAL, IS THUS IN CONFLICT WITH EVERY CASE WHERE THE
GROUND UPON WHICH THE WRIT HAS BEEN ALLOWED EITHER WAS OR MIGHT HAVE
BEEN ASSERTED ON APPEAL.  FN4  THE FORMULA HAS OBVIOUS VALIDITY IN THE
SENSE THAT THE WRIT IS NOT READILY TO BE USED FOR OVERTURNING
DETERMINATIONS MADE ON APPEAL OR FOR SECURING REVIEW WHERE NO
SPECIFICATION HAS BEEN MADE OR NO APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN OF MATTERS NOT
GOING TO MAKE THE CONVICTION A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. 

BUT ANY EFFORT TO SHUT OFF THE WRIT'S FUNCTIONING MERELY BECAUSE
APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN IN A SITUATION WHERE, BUT FOR THAT FACT
ALONE, THE WRIT WOULD ISSUE, SEEMS TO ME TO PRESCRIBE A SYSTEM OF
FORFEITURES IN THE LAST AREA WHERE SUCH A SYSTEM SHOULD PREVAIL. 
CERTAINLY A BASIC MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IS NO LESS GREAT OR HARMFUL,
EITHER TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR TO THE GENERAL CAUSE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY,
MERELY BECAUSE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN, THAN WHERE APPEAL IS TAKEN
BUT RELIEF IS WRONGFULLY DENIED. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS APPLY WITH SPECIAL FORCE, THOUGH NOT
EXCLUSIVELY, WHERE GOOD REASON EXISTED, AS I THINK DID HERE, FOR
FAILURE TO NOTE THE APPEAL IN THE BRIEF TIME ALLOWED.  FN5 WHETHER OR
NOT THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS WERE JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE FALBO
DECISION  FN6  FOR MORE THAN ITS SPECIFIC RULING, THE FACT REMAINS THAT
THEIR BROADLY PREVAILING VIEW WAS THAT THAT CASE HAD CUT OFF ALL RIGHT
TO MAKE SUCH DEFENSES AS SUNAL AND KULICK TENDERED.  FN7 

IN THAT PREVAILING CLIMATE OF OPINION IN THOSE COURTS, THERE WAS
HARDLY ANY CHANCE THAT APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
WOULD BRING RELIEF BY THEIR ACTION.  FN8  THE CHANCES FOR REVERSAL
THEREFORE HUNG ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE DOUBTFUL, NOT TO SAY
SLENDER,  FN9  CHANCE THAT THIS COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
DISCRETIONARY POWER WOULD GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE DEPRIVATION HERE WAS OF THE RIGHT TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIAL
DEFENSE.  FN10  I DO NOT THINK A TRIAL WHICH FORECLOSES THE BASIC RIGHT
TO DEFEND, UPON THE ONLY VALID GROUND AVAILABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE, IS
ANY LESS UNFAIR OR CONCLUSIVE AS AGAINST THE OFFICE OF HABEAS CORPUS
THAN ONE WHICH TAKES PLACE WHEN THE COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
TRY THE OFFENSE, AS WHEN THE CHARGE IS MADE UNDER AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
STATUTE OR FOR OTHER REASON SETS FORTH NO LAWFULLY PRESCRIBED OFFENSE,
OR WHEN THE COURT LOSES JURISDICTION BY DEPRIVING THE ACCUSED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  THAT RIGHT IS NO MORE AND NO LESS
THAN AN IMPORTANT SEGMENT OF THE RIGHT TO HAVE ANY VALID DEFENSE
ADVANCED AND CONSIDERED.  IT BECOMES ALMOST MEANINGLESS IF THE LARGER
RIGHT TO DEFEND IS ITSELF CUT OFF.  FN11 

WITH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, SINCE THE COURT REACHES ONLY THE
QUESTION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF HABEAS CORPUS, I DO NOT CONSIDER
OTHERS. 

FN1  INCLUDING THOSE CITED IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND THAT OF MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.  SEE ALSO DISSENTING OPINION, EX PARTE CRAIG, 282
F. 138, 155-159, AFFIRMED IN CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255; THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS (1935) 35 COL. L. REV. 404. 

FN2  REV. STAT. SEC. 761, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 461, WHICH COMMANDS THE
COURT, AFTER HEARING TO "DISPOSE OF THE PARTY AS LAW AND JUSTICE
REQUIRE."  CF. FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 330, 331, AND DISSENTING
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, AT 345 FF., CONCURRED IN BY MR. JUSTICE
HUGHES, WHO AFTERWARD AS CHIEF JUSTICE WROTE THE COURT'S OPINION IN
BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19.  SEE NOTE 4.  PERTINENTLY THE STATUTE
APPLIES TO PRISONERS "IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR OF
A LAW OR TREATY OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  REV. STAT. SEC. 753, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 453. 

FN3  IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT
APPLY TO HABEAS CORPUS DETERMINATIONS, WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101,
105, ALTHOUGH A PRIOR REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE THE PRISONER ON A LIKE
APPLICATION MAY BE GIVEN WEIGHT, SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224, 231,
FOR OBVIOUS REASONS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION. 

FN4  IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE COURT EITHER PASSED UPON THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE CONTENTIONS PRESENTED IN THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS OR HELD THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING,
ALTHOUGH, SO FAR AS APPEARS, AT THE TIME THE PETITION WAS FILED THE
TIME TO APPEAL HAD EXPIRED, E.G., BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19;
WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, SEE
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS (1935) 35 COL. L. REV.
404, 414, N. 66; AN APPEAL HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN, MOORE V. DEMPSEY,
261 U.S. 86; OR THE TIME TO APPEAL HAD NOT EXPIRED, HUNTER V. WOOD, 209
U.S. 205; IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200; WO LEE V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356,
DISCUSSED IN THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, SUPRA, AT
414, N. 60.  SEE ALSO APPLEYARD V. MASSACHUSETTS, 203 U.S. 222, 225
226; EX PARTE BRIDGES, 2 WOODS 428, 430, APPROVED IN EX PARTE ROYALL,
117 U.S. 241. 

IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN EX PARTE CRAIG, SUPRA NOTE 1, JUDGE
LEARNED HAND, REVIEWING THE AUTHORITIES, SAID:  "THE APPELLANT'S
ATTEMPT RIGIDLY TO CLASSIFY THESE EXCEPTIONS APPEARS TO ME MORE
DEFINITE THAN THE BOOKS WARRANT.  A SAFER RULE IS TO SAY SOMEWHAT
VAGUELY THAT THEY MUST BE OCCASIONS OF PRESSING NECESSITY."  282 F. AT
156. 

FN5  THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE KULICK CASE,
AFTER STATING THE SUMMARIZED EFFECT OF OUR DECISIONS AS QUOTED IN THE
TEXT ABOVE, SAID CONCERNING THIS CASE:  "THE OCCASION AT BAR IS SUCH;
CERTAINLY THE REASONS FOR ALLOWING IT ARE MORE COMPELLING THAN WERE
THOSE IN BOWEN V. JOHNSTON (SEE NOTES 3, 4, SUPRA), WHERE THERE MERELY
APPEARED 'TO BE UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION  ...  WHETHER OFFENSES
WITHIN' A NATIONAL PARK 'ARE TRIABLE IN THE STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS.' 
IT WOULD PASS ALL FAIR DEMANDS UPON KULICK'S DILIGENCE TO CONCLUDE HIM
BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO APPEAL.  NOT ONLY HAD THERE NOT BEEN ANY
GLIMMER OF A POSITIVE CHANCE OF SUCCESS, BUT THERE HAD BEEN AN UNUSUAL
CONSENSUS OF JUDICIAL OPINION AGAINST IT IN THE LOWER COURTS. 
MOREOVER, ALTHOUGH A NUMBER OF THE DECISIONS COULD BE EXPLAINED UPON
THE GROUND THAT THOSE INDUCTED HAD NOT WHOLLY EXHAUSTED THEIR
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; IN A NUMBER OF OTHERS THEY HAD DONE SO; AND NO
DISTINCTION HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE TWO.  INDEED, IN UNITED
STATES V. FLAKOWICZ, SUPRA (146 F.2D 874), WHICH HAD BEEN ONE OF THESE,
THE SUPREME COURT DENIED CERTIORARI ONLY A FORTNIGHT BEFORE MAY 12TH,"
THE DATE OF KULICK'S CONVICTION.  157 F.2D AT 813-814.  SEE NOTE 9
INFRA. 

FN6  FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549.  THE OPINION, THOUGH
CONTAINING LANGUAGE EMPHASIZING THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE
EXPRESSLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SELECTIVE SERVICE BOARDS'
CLASSIFICATIONS, EXPLICITLY POINTED OUT THAT "A BOARD ORDER TO REPORT
IS NO MORE THAN A NECESSARY INTERMEDIATE STEP IN A UNITED AND
CONTINUOUS PROCESS DESIGNED TO RAISE AN ARMY SPEEDILY AND EFFICIENTLY"
AND THAT, IF THERE WERE A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW, "CONGRESS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION
BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF AN INDIVIDUAL FOR NATIONAL SERVICE."  PP.
553, 554.  THE OPINION ALSO STATED:  "SURELY IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED
TO AUTHORIZE INTERFERENCE WITH THAT PROCESS BY INTERMEDIATE CHALLENGES
OF ORDERS TO REPORT, IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO."  P. 554. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 5 SUPRA, AND THE CASES CITED IN MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER'S OPINION IN ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114, 139. 

FN8  IN REFERENCE TO KULICK'S CASE THE CHANCE WAS PRACTICALLY NIL,
SINCE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PREVIOUSLY
HAD RULED THE QUESTION ADVERSELY TO THE VALIDITY OF THE DEFENSES IN
UNITED STATES V. FLAKOWICZ, 146 F.2D 874, AND CERTIORARI HAD BEEN
DENIED HERE.  325 U.S. 851.  SEE NOTE 5. 

SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 148 F.2D 288, AFTERWARDS REVERSED HERE, 327
U.S. 114, APPARENTLY WAS THE FIRST IN WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DECIDED THE QUESTION.  THE DECISION WAS
RENDERED APRIL 4, 1945.  SUNAL WAS CONVICTED ON MARCH 22, 1945. 

FN9  ALTHOUGH DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS EXPRESSION
OF OPINION IN ANY CASE, IT WOULD BE IDLE TO CLAIM THAT IT HAS NO ACTUAL
OR REASONABLE INFLUENCE UPON THE PRACTICAL JUDGMENT OF LAWYERS WHETHER
APPEAL SHOULD BE NOTED AND TAKEN UPON THE CHANCE THAT IN A CASE
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL THIS COURT'S DISCRETION WOULD BE EXERCISED, IN
THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT, IN A CONTRARY MANNER AT THE STAGE OF
APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI. 

FN10  UNDER THE RULE APPLIED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS AND THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS THE ONLY DEFENSES OPEN WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT THE
DEFENDANTS HAD NOT REFUSED TO TAKE THE OATHS.  NO DEFENSE RELATING TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE, THE REGULATIONS, OR THEIR APPLICATION IN
THE PARTICULAR CASES WAS AVAILABLE. 

FN11  CF. YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, DISSENTING OPINION,
AT 460 FF. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS DISSENT.  HE BELIEVES THAT TODAY'S
DECISION UNDULY NARROWS THE POINT AT WHICH DUE PROCESS MAY BE ACCORDED
THOSE ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  CF. HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN FALBO V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 549, 555, AND HIS CONCURRING OPINION IN ESTEP V.
UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114, 125. 
..END :






















SECURITIES COMM'N V. CHENERY CORP., 332 U.S. 194 


ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 16, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 154 F.2D 6,
REVERSED. 


1.  IN APPROVING A PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF A HOLDING COMPANY
UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION REQUIRED THAT PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASED BY THE
MANAGEMENT WITHOUT FRAUD OR CONCEALMENT WHILE PLANS OF REORGANIZATION
WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE CONVERTED INTO STOCK OF THE
REORGANIZED COMPANY, LIKE OTHER PREFERRED STOCK, BUT SHOULD BE
SURRENDERED AT COST PLUS INTEREST.  IN S.E.C. V. CHENERY CORP., 318
U.S. 80, THIS COURT HELD THAT THIS REQUIREMENT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED
ON THE SOLE GROUND UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED BY THE COMMISSION - I.E.,
PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED.  ON REMAND, THE COMMISSION
RE-EXAMINED THE PROBLEM AND REACHED THE SAME RESULT, BUT BASED THIS
REQUIREMENT ON THE GROUND THAT TO PERMIT THE MANAGEMENT TO PROFIT FROM
PURCHASES OF STOCK MADE WHILE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING
WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS OF SECS. 7 AND 11 OF THE ACT. 
HELD:  THE NEW ORDER IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 196-199, 209. 

2.  THIS COURT'S EARLIER DECISION HELD ONLY THAT THE REQUIREMENT
COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED ON THE SOLE GROUND STATED BY THE COMMISSION IN
ITS FIRST ORDER; AND, ON THE REMAND FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS
MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, THE COMMISSION WAS NOT PRECLUDED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION FROM REACHING THE SAME
RESULT ON PROPER AND RELEVANT GROUNDS.  PP. 200-201. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE FACT THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD NOT ANTICIPATED THIS PROBLEM AND ADOPTED A GENERAL RULE
OR REGULATION GOVERNING MANAGEMENT TRADING DURING REORGANIZATION.  PP.
201-202. 

4.  THE CHOICE BETWEEN PROCEEDING BY GENERAL RULE OR BY AD HOC
DECISIONS IS ONE THAT LIES PRIMARILY IN THE INFORMED DISCRETION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  PP. 202-203. 

5.  THAT AN AD HOC DECISION OF THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE A
RETROACTIVE EFFECT DOES NOT NECESSARILY RENDER IT INVALID.  P. 203. 

6.  THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN
WHICH A NEW PRINCIPLE WAS ANNOUNCED IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN THE
CASE OF ORDINARY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  P. 207. 

7.  THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION ON REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS
AT AN END WHEN IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IS BASED
UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY GRANTED
BY CONGRESS.  P. 207. 

8.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO APPROVE A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER
THE ACT, THE COMMISSION MAY PROPERLY CONSIDER THAT SOME ABUSES IN THE
FIELD OF CORPORATE REORGANIZATION MAY BE DEALT WITH EFFECTIVELY ONLY BY
PROHIBITIONS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE FAIRNESS OF A PARTICULAR
TRANSACTION.  PP. 207-208. 

9.  IN ITS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE"
RULE OF SEC. 11(E), AND OF THE STANDARD OF WHAT IS "DETRIMENTAL TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS" UNDER SECS.
7(D)(6) AND 7(E), THE COMMISSION DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN THIS
CASE.  P. 208. 

10.  THERE WAS REASONABLE BASIS IN THIS CASE FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE BENEFITS AND PROFITS ACCRUING TO THE MANAGEMENT FROM THE STOCK
PURCHASES SHOULD BE PROHIBITED, REGARDLESS OF THE GOOD FAITH INVOLVED. 
P. 208. 

11.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE IS THE PRODUCT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE, APPRECIATION OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE
PROBLEM, REALIZATION OF THE STATUTORY POLICIES, AND RESPONSIBLE
TREATMENT OF THE UNCONTESTED FACTS; AND CONSTITUTES AN ALLOWABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT WHICH CAN NOT BE DISTURBED ON JUDICIAL REVIEW. 
P. 209. 

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. CHENERY CORPORATION ET AL. 

NO. 81.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 82, SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. FEDERAL
WATER & GAS CORP., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

UPON REMAND TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF THE CASE
DECIDED BY THIS COURT IN S.E.C. V. CHENERY CORP., 318 U.S. 80, THE
COMMISSION DENIED AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF THE
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 5584.  THE
COURT BELOW REVERSED.  154 F.2D 6.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328
U.S. 829.  REVERSED, P. 209. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE FOR THE SECOND TIME.  IN S.E.C. V. CHENERY CORP.,
318 U.S. 80, WE HELD THAT AN ORDER OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED ON THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THAT AGENCY
ACTED.  WE THEREFORE DIRECTED THAT THE CASE BE REMANDED TO THE
COMMISSION FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.  ON
REMAND, THE COMMISSION REEXAMINED THE PROBLEM, RECAST ITS RATIONALE AND
REACHED THE SAME RESULT.  THE ISSUE NOW IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION IS PROPER IN LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED IN OUR PRIOR
DECISION. 

WHEN THE CASE WAS FIRST HERE, WE EMPHASIZED A SIMPLE BUT FUNDAMENTAL
RULE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.  THAT RULE IS TO THE EFFECT THAT A
REVIEWING COURT, IN DEALING WITH A DETERMINATION OR JUDGMENT WHICH AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ALONE IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE, MUST JUDGE THE
PROPRIETY OF SUCH ACTION SOLELY BY THE GROUNDS INVOKED BY THE AGENCY. 
IF THOSE GROUNDS ARE INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER, THE COURT IS POWERLESS TO
AFFIRM THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BY SUBSTITUTING WHAT IT CONSIDERS TO
BE A MORE ADEQUATE OR PROPER BASIS.  TO DO SO WOULD PROPEL THE COURT
INTO THE DOMAIN WHICH CONGRESS HAS SET ASIDE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. 

WE ALSO EMPHASIZED IN OUR PRIOR DECISION AN IMPORTANT COROLLARY OF
THE FOREGOING RULE.  IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS TO BE TESTED BY
THE BASIS UPON WHICH IT PURPORTS TO REST, THAT BASIS MUST BE SET FORTH
WITH SUCH CLARITY AS TO BE UNDERSTANDABLE.  IT WILL NOT DO FOR A COURT
TO BE COMPELLED TO GUESS AT THE THEORY UNDERLYING THE AGENCY'S ACTION;
NOR CAN A COURT BE EXPECTED TO CHISEL THAT WHICH MUST BE PRECISE FROM
WHAT THE AGENCY HAS LEFT VAGUE AND INDECISIVE.  IN OTHER WORDS, "WE
MUST KNOW WHAT A DECISION MEANS BEFORE THE DUTY BECOMES OURS TO SAY
WHETHER IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG."  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. &
P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 511. 

APPLYING THIS RULE AND ITS COROLLARY, THE COURT WAS UNABLE TO SUSTAIN
THE COMMISSION'S ORIGINAL ACTION.  THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN DEALING WITH
THE REORGANIZATION OF THE FEDERAL WATER SERVICE CORPORATION (FEDERAL),
A HOLDING COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY
ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 803.  DURING THE PERIOD WHEN SUCCESSIVE
REORGANIZATION PLANS PROPOSED BY THE MANAGEMENT WERE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, THE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS AND CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDERS OF
FEDERAL PURCHASED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FEDERAL'S PREFERRED STOCK ON
THE OVER-THE-COUNTER MARKET.  UNDER THE FOURTH REORGANIZATION PLAN,
THIS PREFERRED STOCK WAS TO BE CONVERTED INTO COMMON STOCK OF A NEW
CORPORATION; ON THE BASIS OF THE PURCHASES OF PREFERRED STOCK, THE
MANAGEMENT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED MORE THAN 10% OF THIS NEW COMMON STOCK. 
IT WAS FRANKLY ADMITTED THAT THE MANAGEMENT'S PURPOSE IN BUYING THE
PREFERRED STOCK WAS TO PROTECT ITS INTEREST IN THE NEW COMPANY.  IT WAS
ALSO PLAIN THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD OR LACK OF DISCLOSURE IN MAKING
THESE PURCHASES. 

BUT THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT APPROVE THE FOURTH PLAN SO LONG AS THE
PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASED BY THE MANAGEMENT WAS TO BE TREATED ON A
PARITY WITH THE OTHER PREFERRED STOCK.  IT FELT THAT THE OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS OF A HOLDING COMPANY IN PROCESS OF REORGANIZATION UNDER THE
ACT WERE FIDUCIARIES AND WERE UNDER A DUTY NOT TO TRADE IN THE
SECURITIES OF THAT COMPANY DURING THE REORGANIZATION PERIOD.  8 S.E.C.
893, 915-921.  AND SO THE PLAN WAS AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THE
PREFERRED STOCK ACQUIRED BY THE MANAGEMENT, UNLIKE THAT HELD BY OTHERS,
WAS NOT TO BE CONVERTED INTO THE NEW COMMON STOCK; INSTEAD, IT WAS TO
BE SURRENDERED AT COST PLUS DIVIDENDS ACCUMULATED SINCE THE PURCHASE
DATES.  AS AMENDED, THE PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION OVER THE
MANAGEMENT'S OBJECTIONS.  10 S.E.C. 200. 

THE COURT INTERPRETED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER APPROVING THIS AMENDED
PLAN AS GROUNDED SOLELY UPON JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.  THE COMMISSION
APPEARED TO HAVE TREATED THE PREFERRED STOCK ACQUIRED BY THE MANAGEMENT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT IT THOUGHT WERE STANDARDS THERETOFORE
RECOGNIZED BY COURTS.  IF IT INTENDED TO CREATE NEW STANDARDS GROWING
OUT OF ITS EXPERIENCE IN EFFECTUATING THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY, IT FAILED
TO EXPRESS ITSELF WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY AND PRECISION TO BE SO
UNDERSTOOD.  HENCE THE ORDER WAS JUDGED BY THE ONLY STANDARDS CLEARLY
INVOKED BY THE COMMISSION.  ON THAT BASIS, THE ORDER COULD NOT STAND. 
THE OPINION POINTED OUT THAT COURTS DO NOT IMPOSE UPON OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION ANY FIDUCIARY DUTY TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS WHICH
PRECLUDES THEM, MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, FROM
BUYING AND SELLING THE CORPORATION'S STOCK.  NOR WAS IT FELT THAT THE
CASES UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION RELIED ESTABLISHED ANY PRINCIPLES OF
LAW OR EQUITY WHICH IN THEMSELVES WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THIS
ORDER. 

THE OPINION FURTHER NOTED THAT NEITHER CONGRESS NOR THE COMMISSION
HAD PROMULGATED ANY GENERAL RULE PROSCRIBING SUCH ACTION AS THE
PURCHASE OF PREFERRED STOCK BY FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT.  AND THE ONLY
JUDGE-MADE RULE OF EQUITY WHICH MIGHT HAVE JUSTIFIED THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER RELATED TO FRAUD OR MISMANAGEMENT OF THE REORGANIZATION BY THE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, MATTERS WHICH WERE ADMITTEDLY ABSENT IN THIS
SITUATION. 

AFTER THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION, FEDERAL WATER AND GAS
CORP. (FEDERAL WATER), THE SURVIVING CORPORATION UNDER THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN, MADE AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT
TO THE PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NEW COMMON STOCK OF THE
REORGANIZED COMPANY.  THIS STOCK WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE MEMBERS
OF FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE SHARES OF THE OLD PREFERRED
STOCK WHICH THEY HAD ACQUIRED DURING THE PERIOD OF REORGANIZATION,
THEREBY PLACING THEM IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE PUBLIC HOLDERS OF THE
OLD PREFERRED STOCK.  THE INTERVENING MEMBERS OF FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT
JOINED IN THIS REQUEST.  THE COMMISSION DENIED THE APPLICATION IN AN
ORDER ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 8, 1945.  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO.
5584.  THAT ORDER WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, 80 U.S. APP.
D.C. 365, 154 F.2D 6, WHICH FELT THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION PRECLUDED SUCH
ACTION BY THE COMMISSION. 

THE LATEST ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DEFINITELY AVOIDS THE FATAL ERROR
OF RELYING ON JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHICH DO NOT SUSTAIN IT.  THIS TIME,
AFTER A THOROUGH REEXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM IN LIGHT OF THE PURPOSES
AND STANDARDS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT, THE COMMISSION HAS CONCLUDED
THAT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS OF
SECS. 7 AND 11 OF THE ACT.  IT HAS DRAWN HEAVILY UPON ITS ACCUMULATED
EXPERIENCE IN DEALING WITH UTILITY REORGANIZATIONS.  AND IT HAS
EXPRESSED ITS REASONS WITH A CLARITY AND THOROUGHNESS THAT ADMIT OF NO
DOUBT AS TO THE UNDERLYING BASIS OF ITS ORDER. 

THE ARGUMENT IS PRESSED UPON US, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION WAS
FORECLOSED FROM TAKING SUCH A STEP FOLLOWING OUR PRIOR DECISION.  IT IS
SAID THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS OF CONSCIOUS WRONGDOING ON THE
PART OF FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT, THE COMMISSION COULD NOT DETERMINE BY AN
ORDER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
STATUTORY STANDARDS TO PERMIT FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT TO REALIZE A PROFIT
THROUGH THE REORGANIZATION PURCHASES.  ALL THAT IT COULD DO WAS TO
ENTER AN ORDER ALLOWING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN SO THAT THE PROPOSED
TRANSACTION COULD BE CONSUMMATED.  UNDER THIS VIEW, THE COMMISSION
WOULD BE FREE ONLY TO PROMULGATE A GENERAL RULE OUTLAWING SUCH PROFITS
IN FUTURE UTILITY REORGANIZATIONS; BUT SUCH A RULE WOULD HAVE TO BE
PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND HAVE NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT UPON THE INSTANT
SITUATION. 

WE REJECT THIS CONTENTION, FOR IT GROWS OUT OF A MISAPPREHENSION OF
OUR PRIOR DECISION AND OF THE COMMISSION'S STATUTORY DUTIES.  WE HELD
NO MORE AND NO LESS THAN THAT THE COMMISSION'S FIRST ORDER WAS
UNSUPPORTABLE FOR THE REASONS SUPPLIED BY THAT AGENCY.  BUT WHEN THE
CASE LEFT THIS COURT, THE PROBLEM WHETHER FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT SHOULD
BE TREATED EQUALLY WITH OTHER PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS STILL LACKED A
FINAL AND COMPLETE ANSWER.  IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION COULD NOT
GIVE A NEGATIVE ANSWER BY RESORT TO PRIOR JUDICIAL DECLARATIONS.  AND
IT WAS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT BOUND BY SETTLED JUDICIAL
PRECEDENTS IN A SITUATION OF THIS NATURE.  318 U.S. AT 89.  STILL
UNSETTLED, HOWEVER, WAS THE ANSWER THE COMMISSION MIGHT GIVE WERE IT TO
BRING TO BEAR ON THE FACTS THE PROPER ADMINISTRATIVE AND STATUTORY
CONSIDERATIONS, A FUNCTION WHICH BELONGS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE COMMISSION
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS HAD TAKEN AN
ERRONEOUS RATHER THAN A FINAL TURN.  HENCE WE CAREFULLY REFRAINED FROM
EXPRESSING ANY VIEWS AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF AN ORDER ROOTED IN THE
PROPER AND RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.  SEE SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 327 U.S. 608, 613-614. 

WHEN THE CASE WAS DIRECTED TO BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION FOR SUCH
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE, IT WAS WITH THE THOUGHT
THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD GIVE FULL EFFECT TO ITS DUTIES IN HARMONY
WITH THE VIEWS WE HAD EXPRESSED.  FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305
U.S. 364, 374; FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION V. NELSON BROS. CO., 289 U.S.
266, 278.  THIS OBVIOUSLY MEANT SOMETHING MORE THAN THE ENTRY OF A
PERFUNCTORY ORDER GIVING PARITY TREATMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS OF
PREFERRED STOCK.  THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD COMMITTED A LEGAL
ERROR IN ITS FIRST DISPOSITION OF THE CASE CERTAINLY GAVE FEDERAL'S
MANAGEMENT NO VESTED RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF SUCH AN ORDER. 
SEE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO.,
309 U.S. 134, 145.  AFTER THE REMAND WAS MADE, THEREFORE, THE
COMMISSION WAS BOUND TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM AFRESH, PERFORMING THE
FUNCTION DELEGATED TO IT BY CONGRESS.  IT WAS AGAIN CHARGED WITH THE
DUTY OF MEASURING THE PROPOSED TREATMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT'S PREFERRED
STOCK HOLDINGS BY RELEVANT AND PROPER STANDARDS.  ONLY IN THAT WAY
COULD THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES EMBODIED IN THE ACT BE EFFECTUATED.  CF.
LABOR BOARD V. DONNELLY CO., 330 U.S. 219, 227-228. 

THE ABSENCE OF A GENERAL RULE OR REGULATION GOVERNING MANAGEMENT
TRADING DURING REORGANIZATION DID NOT AFFECT THE COMMISSION'S DUTIES IN
RELATION TO THE PARTICULAR PROPOSAL BEFORE IT.  THE COMMISSION WAS
ASKED TO GRANT OR DENY EFFECTIVENESS TO A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
FEDERAL'S REORGANIZATION PLAN WHEREBY THE MANAGEMENT WOULD BE ACCORDED
PARITY TREATMENT ON ITS HOLDINGS.  IT COULD DO THAT ONLY IN THE FORM OF
AN ORDER, ENTERED AFTER A DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS IN
LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT AND PROPER STANDARDS.  THAT WAS TRUE REGARDLESS
OF WHETHER THOSE STANDARDS PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN SPELLED OUT IN A GENERAL
RULE OR REGULATION.  INDEED, IF THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY FELT THAT THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE STANDARDS, AN ORDER
GIVING EFFECT TO THE AMENDMENT MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GENERAL RULE
OR REGULATION COVERING THE MATTER WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED. 

IT IS TRUE THAT OUR PRIOR DECISION EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE PROMULGATED A GENERAL RULE
DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM UNDER ITS STATUTORY RULE-MAKING POWERS, IN
WHICH CASE THE ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH DID CONFRONT US.  318 U.S. 92-93.  BUT WE DID
NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THEREBY THAT THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO
ANTICIPATE THIS PROBLEM AND TO PROMULGATE A GENERAL RULE WITHDREW ALL
POWER FROM THAT AGENCY TO PERFORM ITS STATUTORY DUTY IN THIS CASE.  TO
HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO ALTERNATIVE IN THIS PROCEEDING BUT TO
APPROVE THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION, WHILE FORMULATING ANY GENERAL RULES
IT MIGHT DESIRE FOR USE IN FUTURE CASES OF THIS NATURE, WOULD BE TO
STULTIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  THAT WE REFUSE TO DO. 

SINCE THE COMMISSION, UNLIKE A COURT, DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE
NEW LAW PROSPECTIVELY THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF ITS RULE-MAKING POWERS,
IT HAS LESS REASON TO RELY UPON AD HOC ADJUDICATION TO FORMULATE NEW
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT. 
THE FUNCTION OF FILLING IN THE INTERSTICES OF THE ACT SHOULD BE
PERFORMED, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, THROUGH THIS QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
PROMULGATION OF RULES TO BE APPLIED IN THE FUTURE.  BUT ANY RIGID
REQUIREMENT TO THAT EFFECT WOULD MAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
INFLEXIBLE AND INCAPABLE OF DEALING WITH MANY OF THE SPECIALIZED
PROBLEMS WHICH ARISE.  SEE REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE
ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, S. DOC. NO. 8, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 29.  NOT EVERY PRINCIPLE ESSENTIAL TO THE
EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF A STATUTE CAN OR SHOULD BE CAST IMMEDIATELY
INTO THE MOLD OF A GENERAL RULE.  SOME PRINCIPLES MUST AWAIT THEIR OWN
DEVELOPMENT, WHILE OTHERS MUST BE ADJUSTED TO MEET PARTICULAR,
UNFORESEEABLE SITUATIONS.  IN PERFORMING ITS IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS IN
THESE RESPECTS, THEREFORE, AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY MUST BE EQUIPPED TO
ACT EITHER BY GENERAL RULE OR BY INDIVIDUAL ORDER.  TO INSIST UPON ONE
FORM OF ACTION TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER IS TO EXALT FORM OVER
NECESSITY.    IN OTHER WORDS, PROBLEMS MAY ARISE IN A CASE WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY COULD NOT REASONABLY FORESEE, PROBLEMS WHICH MUST
BE SOLVED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A RELEVANT GENERAL RULE.  OR THE
AGENCY MAY NOT HAVE HAD SUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE WITH A PARTICULAR PROBLEM
TO WARRANT RIGIDIFYING ITS TENTATIVE JUDGMENT INTO A HARD AND FAST
RULE.  OR THE PROBLEM MAY BE SO SPECIALIZED AND VARYING IN NATURE AS TO
BE IMPOSSIBLE OF CAPTURE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A GENERAL RULE.  IN
THOSE SITUATIONS, THE AGENCY MUST RETAIN POWER TO DEAL WITH THE
PROBLEMS ON A CASE-TO-CASE BASIS IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IS TO BE
EFFECTIVE.  THERE IS THUS A VERY DEFINITE PLACE FOR THE CASE-BY-CASE
EVOLUTION OF STATUTORY STANDARDS.  AND THE CHOICE MADE BETWEEN
PROCEEDING BY GENERAL RULE OR BY INDIVIDUAL, AD HOC LITIGATION IS ONE
THAT LIES PRIMARILY IN THE INFORMED DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY.  SEE COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S.
407, 421. 

HENCE WE REFUSE TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION, WHICH HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY
BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF MANAGEMENT TRADING DURING
REORGANIZATION, WAS FORBIDDEN FROM UTILIZING THIS PARTICULAR PROCEEDING
FOR ANNOUNCING AND APPLYING A NEW STANDARD OF CONDUCT.  CF. FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304.  THAT SUCH ACTION
MIGHT HAVE A RETROACTIVE EFFECT WAS NOT NECESSARILY FATAL TO ITS
VALIDITY.  EVERY CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION HAS A RETROACTIVE EFFECT,
WHETHER THE NEW PRINCIPLE IS ANNOUNCED BY A COURT OR BY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  BUT SUCH RETROACTIVITY MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST
THE MISCHIEF OF PRODUCING A RESULT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO A STATUTORY
DESIGN OR TO LEGAL AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  IF THAT MISCHIEF IS
GREATER THAN THE ILL EFFECT OF THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF A NEW
STANDARD, IT IS NOT THE TYPE OF RETROACTIVITY WHICH IS CONDEMNED BY
LAW.  SEE ADDISON V. HOLLY HILL CO., 322 U.S. 607, 620. 

AND SO IN THIS CASE, THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER MIGHT
RETROACTIVELY PREVENT FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT FROM SECURING THE PROFITS
AND CONTROL WHICH WERE THE OBJECTS OF THE PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASES MAY
WELL BE OUTWEIGHED BY THE DANGERS INHERENT IN SUCH PURCHASES FROM THE
STATUTORY STANDPOINT.  IF THAT IS TRUE, THE ARGUMENT OF RETROACTIVITY
BECOMES NOTHING MORE THAN A CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS POWER TO
ENFORCE THE STANDARDS OF THE ACT IN THIS PROCEEDING.  SUCH A CLAIM
DESERVES REJECTION. 

THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE THUS RESOLVES ITSELF INTO A DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN DENYING EFFECTIVENESS TO THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL REORGANIZATION PLAN CAN BE JUSTIFIED
ON THE BASIS UPON WHICH IT CLEARLY RESTS.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE
COMMISSION AVOIDED PLACING ITS SOLE RELIANCE ON INAPPLICABLE JUDICIAL
PRECEDENTS.  RATHER IT HAS DERIVED ITS CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PARTICULAR
FACTS IN THE CASE, ITS GENERAL EXPERIENCE IN REORGANIZATION MATTERS AND
ITS INFORMED VIEW OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.  IT IS THOSE MATTERS WHICH
ARE THE GUIDE FOR OUR REVIEW. 

THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT IT COULD NOT FIND THAT THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN, IF AMENDED AS PROPOSED, WOULD BE "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED THEREBY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
11(E) OF THE ACT, UNDER WHICH THE REORGANIZATION WAS TAKING PLACE.  ITS
VIEW WAS THAT THE AMENDED PLAN WOULD INVOLVE THE ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES
ON TERMS "DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF
INVESTORS" CONTRARY TO SECS. 7(D)(6) AND 7(E), AND WOULD RESULT IN AN
"UNFAIR OR INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING POWER" AMONG THE FEDERAL
SECURITY HOLDERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7(E).  IT WAS LED TO THIS
RESULT "NOT BY PROOF THAT THE INTERVENERS (FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT)
COMMITTED ACTS OF CONSCIOUS WRONGDOING BUT BY THE CHARACTER OF THE
CONFLICTING INTERESTS CREATED BY THE INTERVENERS' PROGRAM OF STOCK
PURCHASES CARRIED OUT WHILE PLANS FOR REORGANIZATION WERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION." 

THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT CONTROLLED A LARGE
MULTI-STATE UTILITY SYSTEM AND THAT ITS INFLUENCE PERMEATED DOWN TO THE
LOWEST TIER OF OPERATING COMPANIES.  THE FINANCIAL, OPERATIONAL AND
ACCOUNTING POLICIES OF THE PARENT AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES WERE THEREFORE
UNDER THE MANAGEMENT'S STRICT CONTROL.  THE BROAD RANGE OF BUSINESS
JUDGMENTS VESTED IN FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT MULTIPLIED OPPORTUNITIES FOR
AFFECTING THE MARKET PRICE OF FEDERAL'S OUTSTANDING SECURITIES AND MADE
THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT ON ANY MATTER A SUBJECT OF GREATEST
SIGNIFICANCE TO INVESTORS.  ADDED TO THESE NORMAL MANAGERIAL POWERS,
THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT THAT A HOLDING COMPANY MANAGEMENT OBTAINS
SPECIAL POWERS IN THE COURSE OF A VOLUNTARY REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
11(E) OF THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT.  THE MANAGEMENT REPRESENTS THE
STOCKHOLDERS IN SUCH A REORGANIZATION, INITIATES THE PROCEEDING, DRAWS
UP AND FILES THE PLAN, AND CAN FILE AMENDMENTS THERETO AT ANY TIME. 
THESE ADDITIONAL POWERS MAY INTRODUCE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE
MANAGEMENT'S NORMAL INTERESTS AND ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE VARIOUS
CLASSES OF STOCKHOLDERS WHICH IT REPRESENTS IN THE REORGANIZATION. 
MOREOVER, BECAUSE OF ITS REPRESENTATIVE STATUS, THE MANAGEMENT HAS
SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES TO OBTAIN ADVANCE INFORMATION OF THE ATTITUDE OF
THE COMMISSION. 

DRAWING UPON ITS EXPERIENCE, THE COMMISSION INDICATED THAT ALL THESE
NORMAL AND SPECIAL POWERS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY MANAGEMENT DURING THE
COURSE OF A SEC. 11(E) REORGANIZATION PLACED IN THE MANAGEMENT'S
COMMAND "A FORMIDABLE BATTERY OF DEVICES THAT WOULD ENABLE IT, IF IT
SHOULD CHOOSE TO USE THEM SELFISHLY, TO AFFECT IN MATERIAL DEGREE THE
ULTIMATE ALLOCATION OF NEW SECURITIES AMONG THE VARIOUS EXISTING
CLASSES, TO INFLUENCE THE MARKET FOR ITS OWN GAIN, AND TO MANIPULATE OR
OBSTRUCT THE REORGANIZATION REQUIRED BY THE MANDATE OF THE STATUTE." 
IN THAT SETTING, THE COMMISSION FELT THAT A MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OF STOCK
PURCHASE WOULD GIVE RISE TO THE TEMPTATION AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHAPE
THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING SO AS TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC SELLING ON THE
MARKET AT LOW PRICES.  NO MANAGEMENT COULD ENGAGE IN SUCH A PROGRAM
WITHOUT RAISING SERIOUS QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER ITS PERSONAL INTERESTS
HAD NOT OPPOSED ITS DUTIES "TO EXERCISE DISINTERESTED JUDGMENT IN
MATTERS PERTAINING TO SUBSIDIARIES' ACCOUNTING, BUDGETARY AND DIVIDEND
POLICIES, TO PRESENT PUBLICLY AN UNPREJUDICED FINANCIAL PICTURE OF THE
ENTERPRISE, AND TO EFFECTUATE A FAIR AND FEASIBLE PLAN EXPEDITIOUSLY." 

THE COMMISSION FURTHER FELT THAT ITS ANSWER SHOULD BE THE SAME EVEN
WHERE PROOF OF INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING ON THE MANAGEMENT'S PART IS
LACKING.  ASSUMING A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS, THE COMMISSION THOUGHT THAT
THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL MISCONDUCT IS IMMATERIAL; INJURY TO THE PUBLIC
INVESTORS AND TO THE CORPORATION MAY RESULT JUST AS READILY. 
"QUESTIONABLE TRANSACTIONS MAY BE EXPLAINED AWAY, AND AN ABUSE OF
INVESTORS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS MAY BE PERPETRATED WITHOUT
EVIL INTENT, YET THE INJURY WILL REMAIN."  MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION WAS
OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAYS AND THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN PROBING
THE MENTAL PROCESSES AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF CORPORATE OFFICIALS DO
NOT WARRANT ANY DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF EVIL INTENT, THE PLAIN FACT
BEING "THAT AN ABSENCE OF UNFAIRNESS OR DETRIMENT IN CASES OF THIS SORT
WOULD BE PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH BY PROOF." 

TURNING TO THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSION NOTED THE SALIENT
FACT THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT IN BUYING THE
PREFERRED STOCK WAS ADMITTEDLY TO OBTAIN THE VOTING POWER THAT WAS
ACCRUING TO THAT STOCK THROUGH THE REORGANIZATION AND TO PROFIT FROM
THE INVESTMENT THEREIN.  THAT STOCK HAD BEEN PURCHASED IN THE MARKET AT
PRICES THAT WERE DEPRESSED IN RELATION TO WHAT THE MANAGEMENT
ANTICIPATED WOULD BE, AND WHAT IN FACT WAS, THE EARNING AND ASSET VALUE
OF ITS REORGANIZATION EQUIVALENT.  THE COMMISSION ADMITTED THAT THE
GOOD FAITH AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THIS MANAGEMENT WERE NOT IN
QUESTION; BUT AS TO THE MANAGEMENT'S JUSTIFICATION OF ITS MOTIVES, THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS MERELY TRYING TO "DENY THAT THEY MADE
SELFISH USE OF THEIR POWERS DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THEIR CONFLICT OF
INTEREST, VIS-A-VIS PUBLIC INVESTORS, WAS IN EXISTENCE OWING TO THEIR
PURCHASE PROGRAM."  FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT HAD THUS PLACED ITSELF IN A
POSITION WHERE IT WAS "PECULIARLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO TEMPTATION TO CONDUCT
THE REORGANIZATION FOR PERSONAL GAIN RATHER THAN THE PUBLIC GOOD" AND
WHERE ITS DESIRE TO MAKE ADVANTAGEOUS PURCHASES OF STOCK COULD HAVE AN
IMPORTANT INFLUENCE, EVEN THOUGH SUBCONSCIOUSLY, UPON MANY OF THE
DECISIONS TO BE MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE REORGANIZATION.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE COMMISSION FELT THAT ALL OF ITS GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE
PROBLEM WERE APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. 

THE SCOPE OF OUR REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WHEREIN A NEW
PRINCIPLE IS ANNOUNCED AND APPLIED IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH
PERTAINS TO ORDINARY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  THE WISDOM OF THE
PRINCIPLE ADOPTED IS NONE OF OUR CONCERN.  SEE BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED
STATES, 314 U.S. 534, 548.  OUR DUTY IS AT AN END WHEN IT BECOMES
EVIDENT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IS BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CONGRESS.  SEE NATIONAL
BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190, 224. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY IN THIS CASE THAT THE COMMISSION ERRED IN
REACHING THE RESULT IT DID.  THE FACTS BEING UNDISPUTED, WE ARE FREE TO
DISTURB THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION ONLY IF IT LACKS ANY RATIONAL AND
STATUTORY FOUNDATION.  IN THAT CONNECTION, THE COMMISSION HAS MADE A
THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM, UTILIZING STATUTORY STANDARDS AND
ITS OWN ACCUMULATED EXPERIENCE WITH REORGANIZATION MATTERS.  IN
ESSENCE, IT HAS MADE WHAT WE INDICATED IN OUR PRIOR OPINION WOULD BE AN
INFORMED, EXPERT JUDGMENT ON THE PROBLEM.  IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
"THOSE MORE SUBTLE FACTORS IN THE MARKETING OF UTILITY COMPANY
SECURITIES THAT GAVE RISE TO THE VERY GRAVE EVILS WHICH THE PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING (COMPANY) ACT OF 1935 WAS DESIGNED TO CORRECT" AND HAS
RELIED UPON THE FACT THAT "ABUSE OF CORPORATE POSITION, INFLUENCE, AND
ACCESS TO INFORMATION MAY RAISE QUESTIONS SO SUBTLE THAT THE LAW CAN
DEAL WITH THEM EFFECTIVELY ONLY BY PROHIBITIONS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE
FAIRNESS OF A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION."  318 U.S. AT 92. 

SUCH FACTORS MAY PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN
DETERMINING WHETHER TO APPROVE A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF A UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY, OR AN AMENDMENT TO SUCH A PLAN.  THE "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" RULE OF SEC. 11(E) AND THE STANDARD OF WHAT IS "DETRIMENTAL
TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS" UNDER
SEC. 7(D)(6) AND SEC. 7(E) WERE INSERTED BY THE FRAMERS OF THE ACT IN
ORDER THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE BROAD POWERS TO PROTECT THE
VARIOUS INTERESTS AT STAKE.  318 U.S. AT 90-91.  THE APPLICATION OF
THOSE CRITERIA, WHETHER IN THE FORM OF A PARTICULAR ORDER OR A GENERAL
REGULATION, NECESSARILY REQUIRES THE USE OF INFORMED DISCRETION BY THE
COMMISSION.  THE VERY BREADTH OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE PRECLUDES A
REVERSAL OF THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT SAVE WHERE IT HAS PLAINLY ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION IN THESE MATTERS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S.
225; I.C.C. V. RAILWAY LABOR ASSN., 315 U.S. 373.  SUCH AN ABUSE IS NOT
PRESENT IN THIS CASE. 

THE PURCHASE BY A HOLDING COMPANY MANAGEMENT OF THAT COMPANY'S
SECURITIES DURING THE COURSE OF A REORGANIZATION MAY WELL BE THOUGHT TO
BE SO FRAUGHT WITH DANGER AS TO WARRANT A DENIAL OF THE BENEFITS AND
PROFITS ACCRUING TO THE MANAGEMENT.  THE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH A STOCK
PURCHASE PROGRAM WILL RESULT IN DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC INVESTORS IS
NOT A FANCIFUL ONE.  THE INFLUENCE THAT PROGRAM MAY HAVE UPON THE
IMPORTANT DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY THE MANAGEMENT DURING REORGANIZATION
IS NOT INCONSEQUENTIAL.  SINCE THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OCCUPY
FIDUCIARY POSITIONS DURING THIS PERIOD, THEIR ACTIONS ARE TO BE HELD TO
A HIGHER STANDARD THAN THAT IMPOSED UPON THE GENERAL INVESTING PUBLIC. 
THERE IS THUS A REASONABLE BASIS FOR A JUDGMENT THAT THE BENEFITS AND
PROFITS ACCRUING TO THE MANAGEMENT FROM THE STOCK PURCHASES SHOULD BE
PROHIBITED, REGARDLESS OF THE GOOD FAITH INVOLVED.  AND IT IS A
JUDGMENT THAT CAN JUSTIFIABLY BE REACHED IN TERMS OF FAIRNESS AND
EQUITABLENESS, TO THE END THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC, THE
INVESTORS AND THE CONSUMERS MIGHT BE PROTECTED.  BUT IT IS A JUDGMENT
BASED UPON PUBLIC POLICY, A JUDGMENT WHICH CONGRESS HAS INDICATED IS OF
THE TYPE FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION HERE RESTS SQUARELY IN THAT AREA WHERE
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF WEIGHT
BY APPELLATE COURTS.  IT IS THE PRODUCT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE,
APPRECIATION OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE PROBLEM, REALIZATION OF THE
STATUTORY POLICIES, AND RESPONSIBLE TREATMENT OF THE UNCONTESTED
FACTS.  IT IS THE TYPE OF JUDGMENT WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE
BEST EQUIPPED TO MAKE AND WHICH JUSTIFIES THE USE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS.  SEE REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 324 U.S. 793,
800.  WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE RESULT REACHED, IT IS AN
ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT WHICH WE CANNOT DISTURB.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES.    MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER
AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENT, BUT THERE IS NOT NOW OPPORTUNITY FOR A
RESPONSE ADEQUATE TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE COURT'S OPINION.  THESE
CONCERN THE RULE OF LAW IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS AND THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT IN REVIEWING ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION.  ACCORDINGLY, THE DETAILED GROUNDS FOR DISSENT WILL BE FILED IN
DUE COURSE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING* . 

*FILED OCTOBER 6, 1947. 

THE COURT BY THIS PRESENT DECISION SUSTAINS THE IDENTICAL
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WHICH ONLY RECENTLY IT HELD INVALID.  S.E.C. V.
CHENERY CORP., 318 U.S. 80.  AS THE COURT CORRECTLY NOTES, THE
COMMISSION HAS ONLY "RECAST ITS RATIONALE AND REACHED THE SAME
RESULT."  (PAR. 1.)  FN1  THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE ORDER, NO
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND NO AMENDMENT OF RELEVANT
LEGISLATION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SHIFT IN ATTITUDE
BETWEEN THAT OF THE CONTROLLING MEMBERSHIP OF THE COURT WHEN THE CASE
WAS FIRST HERE AND THAT OF THOSE WHO HAVE THE POWER OF DECISION ON THIS
SECOND REVIEW. 

I FEEL CONSTRAINED TO DISAGREE WITH THE REASONING OFFERED TO
RATIONALIZE THIS SHIFT.  IT MAKES JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS A HOPELESS FORMALITY FOR THE LITIGANT, EVEN WHERE GRANTED TO HIM
BY CONGRESS.  IT REDUCES THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN SUCH CASES TO A MERE
FEINT.  WHILE THE OPINION DOES NOT HAVE THE ADHERENCE OF A MAJORITY OF
THE FULL COURT, IF ITS PRONOUNCEMENTS SHOULD BECOME GOVERNING
PRINCIPLES THEY WOULD, IN PRACTICE, PUT MOST ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS OVER
AND ABOVE THE LAW. 

                   I. 

THE ESSENTIAL FACTS ARE FEW AND ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  FN2  THIS
CORPORATION FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION A
VOLUNTARY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  WHILE THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
WERE PENDING SIXTEEN OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS BOUGHT ON THE OPEN MARKET
ABOUT 7 1/2% OF THE CORPORATION'S PREFERRED STOCK.  BOTH THE COMMISSION
AND THE COURT ADMIT THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE NOT FORBIDDEN BY ANY LAW,
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, REGULATION OR RULE OF THE COMMISSION. 
NEVERTHELESS, THE COMMISSION HAS ORDERED THESE INDIVIDUALS TO SURRENDER
THEIR SHARES TO THE CORPORATION AT COST, PLUS 4% INTEREST, AND THE
COURT NOW APPROVES THAT ORDER. 

IT IS HELPFUL, BEFORE CONSIDERING WHETHER THIS ORDER IS AUTHORIZED BY
LAW, TO REFLECT ON WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT.  IT IS NOT
CONCEIVABLY A DISCHARGE OF THE COMMISSION'S DUTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
PROPOSED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WOULD BE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  IT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE, OR THE CLASSES AND AMOUNTS
OF STOCK, OR VOTING RIGHTS OR DIVIDEND PREFERENCES.  IT DOES NOT
REMOTELY AFFECT THE IMPERSONAL FINANCIAL OR LEGAL FACTORS OF THE PLAN. 
IT IS A PERSONAL DEPRIVATION DENYING PARTICULAR PERSONS THE RIGHT TO
CONTINUE TO OWN THEIR STOCK AND TO EXERCISE ITS PRIVILEGES.  OTHER
PERSONS WHO BOUGHT AT THE SAME TIME AND PRICE IN THE OPEN MARKET WOULD
BE ALLOWED TO KEEP AND CONVERT THEIR STOCK.  THUS, THE ORDER IS IN NO
SENSE AN EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTION OF CONTROL OVER THE TERMS AND
RELATIONS OF THE CORPORATE SECURITIES. 

NEITHER IS THE ORDER ONE MERELY TO REGULATE THE FUTURE USE OF
PROPERTY.  IT LITERALLY TAKES VALUABLE PROPERTY AWAY FROM ITS LAWFUL
OWNERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHER PRIVATE PARTIES WITHOUT FULL
COMPENSATION AND THE COURT EXPRESSLY APPROVES THE TAKING.  IT SAYS THAT
THE STOCK OWNED BY THESE PERSONS IS DENIED CONVERSION ALONG WITH
SIMILAR STOCK OWNED BY OTHERS; "INSTEAD, IT WAS TO BE SURRENDERED AT
COST PLUS DIVIDENDS ACCUMULATED SINCE THE PURCHASE DATES."  (PAR. 5.) 
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS FORMULA WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ALTERED TO READ
"COST PLUS 4% INTEREST."  THAT THIS BASIS WAS LESS THAN ITS VALUE IS
RECOGNIZED, FOR THE COURT SAYS "THAT STOCK HAD BEEN PURCHASED IN THE
MARKET AT PRICES THAT WERE DEPRESSED IN RELATION TO WHAT THE MANAGEMENT
ANTICIPATED WOULD BE, AND WHAT IN FACT WAS, THE EARNING AND ASSET VALUE
OF ITS REORGANIZATION EQUIVALENT."  (PAR. 24.)  ADMITTEDLY, THE VALUE
ABOVE COST, AND INTEREST ON IT, SIMPLY IS TAKEN FROM THE OWNERS,
WITHOUT COMPENSATION.  NO SUCH POWER HAS EVER BEEN CONFIRMED IN ANY
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. 

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT NEITHER THE COURT NOR THE COMMISSION
PURPORTS TO ADJUDGE A FORFEITURE OF THIS PROPERTY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
SHARP DEALING OR BREACH OF TRUST.  THE COURT SAYS, "THE COMMISSION
ADMITTED THAT THE GOOD FAITH AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THIS MANAGEMENT
WERE NOT IN QUESTION; ...  "  (PAR. 24.)  AND AGAIN, "IT WAS FRANKLY
ADMITTED THAT THE MANAGEMENT'S PURPOSE IN BUYING THE PREFERRED STOCK
WAS TO PROTECT ITS INTEREST IN THE NEW COMPANY.  IT WAS ALSO PLAIN THAT
THERE WAS NO FRAUD OR LACK OF DISCLOSURE IN MAKING THESE PURCHASES." 
(PAR. 4.) 

                                 II. 

THE REVERSAL OF THE POSITION OF THIS COURT IS DUE TO A FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGE IN PREVAILING PHILOSOPHY.  THE BASIC ASSUMPTION OF THE EARLIER
OPINION AS THEREIN STATED WAS, "BUT BEFORE TRANSACTIONS OTHERWISE LEGAL
CAN BE OUTLAWED OR DENIED THEIR USUAL BUSINESS CONSEQUENCES, THEY MUST
FALL UNDER THE BAN OF SOME STANDARDS OF CONDUCT PRESCRIBED BY AN AGENCY
OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE SUCH STANDARDS  ...  "  S.E.C. V.
CHENERY CORP., 318 U.S. 80, 92-93.  THE BASIC ASSUMPTION OF THE PRESENT
OPINION IS STATED THUS:  "THE ABSENCE OF A GENERAL RULE OR REGULATION
GOVERNING MANAGEMENT TRADING DURING REORGANIZATION DID NOT AFFECT THE
COMMISSION'S DUTIES IN RELATION TO THE PARTICULAR PROPOSAL BEFORE IT." 
(PAR. 13.)  THIS PUTS IN JUXTAPOSITION THE TWO CONFLICTING PHILOSOPHIES
WHICH PRODUCE OPPOSITE RESULTS IN THE SAME CASE AND ON THE SAME FACTS. 
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE LATEST DECISION OF THE COURT
IS THUS SIMPLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOLDING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS MUST HAVE A BASIS IN LAW AND A HOLDING THAT ABSENCE OF A LEGAL
BASIS IS NO GROUND ON WHICH COURTS MAY ANNUL THEM. 

AS THERE ADMITTEDLY IS NO LAW OR REGULATION TO SUPPORT THIS ORDER, WE
PERUSE THE COURT'S OPINION DILIGENTLY TO FIND ON WHAT GROUNDS IT IS NOW
HELD THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS, ON PAIN OF BEING REVERSED FOR ERROR,
WAS REQUIRED TO STAMP THIS ORDER WITH ITS APPROVAL.  WE FIND BUT ONE. 
THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPERIENCE.  THAT ARGUMENT IS FIVE TIMES STRESSED IN AS MANY DIFFERENT
CONTEXTS, AND I QUOTE JUST ENOUGH TO IDENTIFY THE INSTANCES:  "THE
COMMISSION," IT SAYS, "HAS DRAWN HEAVILY UPON ITS ACCUMULATED
EXPERIENCE IN DEALING WITH UTILITY REORGANIZATIONS."  (PAR. 9.) 
"RATHER IT HAS DERIVED ITS CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PARTICULAR FACTS IN THE
CASE, ITS GENERAL EXPERIENCE IN REORGANIZATION MATTERS AND ITS INFORMED
VIEW OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS."  (PAR. 19.)  "DRAWING UPON ITS
EXPERIENCE, THE COMMISSION INDICATED  ...  ," ETC. (PAR. 22.)  "  ...
THE COMMISSION HAS MADE A THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM,
UTILIZING STATUTORY STANDARDS AND ITS OWN ACCUMULATED EXPERIENCE WITH
REORGANIZATION MATTERS."  (PAR. 26.)  AND FINALLY, OF THE ORDER THE
COURT SAYS, "IT IS THE PRODUCT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE," ETC.
(PAR. 29.) 

WHAT ARE WE TO MAKE OF THIS REITERATED DEFERENCE TO "ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPERIENCE" WHEN IN ANOTHER CONTEXT THE COURT SAYS, "HENCE, WE REFUSE
TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION, WHICH HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONFRONTED
WITH THE PROBLEM OF MANAGEMENT TRADING DURING REORGANIZATION, WAS
FORBIDDEN FROM UTILIZING THIS PARTICULAR PROCEEDING FOR ANNOUNCING AND
APPLYING A NEW STANDARD OF CONDUCT."? (PAR. 17.) 

THE COURT'S REASONING ADDS UP TO THIS: THE COMMISSION MUST BE
SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF ITS ACCUMULATED EXPERIENCE IN SOLVING A PROBLEM
WITH WHICH IT HAD NEVER BEFORE BEEN CONFRONTED. 

OF COURSE, THUS TO UPHOLD THE COMMISSION BY PROFESSING TO FIND THAT
IT HAS ENUNCIATED A "NEW STANDARD OF CONDUCT" BRINGS THE COURT SQUARELY
AGAINST THE INVALIDITY OF RETROACTIVE LAW-MAKING.  BUT THE COURT DOES
NOT FALTER.  "THAT SUCH ACTION MIGHT HAVE A RETROACTIVE EFFECT WAS NOT
NECESSARILY FATAL TO ITS VALIDITY."  (PAR. 17.)  "BUT SUCH
RETROACTIVITY MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THE MISCHIEF OF PRODUCING A
RESULT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO A STATUTORY DESIGN OR TO LEGAL AND
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES."  (PAR. 17.)  OF COURSE, IF WHAT THESE PARTIES
DID REALLY WAS CONDEMNED BY "STATUTORY DESIGN" OR "LEGAL AND EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES," IT COULD BE STOPPED WITHOUT RESORT TO A NEW RULE AND THERE
WOULD BE NO RETROACTIVITY TO CONDONE.  BUT IF IT HAD BEEN THE COURT'S
VIEW THAT SOME LAW ALREADY PROHIBITED THE PURCHASES, IT WOULD HARDLY
HAVE BEEN NECESSARY THREE SENTENCES EARLIER TO HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION
WAS NOT PROHIBITED "FROM UTILIZING THIS PARTICULAR PROCEEDING FOR
ANNOUNCING AND APPLYING A NEW STANDARD OF CONDUCT."  (PAR. 17.) 

I GIVE UP.  NOW I REALIZE FULLY WHAT MARK TWAIN MEANT WHEN HE SAID,
"THE MORE YOU EXPLAIN IT, THE MORE I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT." 

           III. 

BUT ONE DOES NOT NEED TO COMPREHEND THE PROCESSES BY WHICH OTHER
MINDS REACH A GIVEN RESULT IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE THE PRACTICAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR PRONOUNCEMENT UPON JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS. 

IF IT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE THAT NO RULE OF LAW BE EXISTENT TO SUPPORT
AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS IS OBLIGED TO DEFER
TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUSTAIN A COMMISSION'S POWER MERELY
BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ASSERTED AND EXERCISED, OF WHAT USE IS IT TO PRINT
A RECORD OR BRIEFS IN THE CASE, OR TO HEAR ARGUMENT?  ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPERIENCE ALWAYS IS PRESENT, AT LEAST TO THE DEGREE THAT IT IS HERE,
AND WOULD ALWAYS DICTATE A LIKE DEFERENCE BY THIS COURT TO AN ASSERTION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE POWER.  MUST THE REVIEWING COURT, AS THIS COURT DOES
IN THIS OPINION, SUPPORT THE ORDER ON A PRESUMPTIVE OR IMPUTED
EXPERIENCE EVEN THOUGH THE COURT IS OBLIGED TO DISCREDIT SUCH
EXPERIENCE IN THE VERY SAME OPINION?  IS FICTITIOUS EXPERIENCE TO BE
CONCLUSIVE IN MATTERS OF LAW AND PARTICULARLY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTES, AS THE COURT'S OPINION NOW INTIMATES, OR JUST IN FACT FINDING
WHICH HAS BEEN THE FUNCTION WHICH THE COURT HAS HERETOFORE SUSTAINED
UPON THE ARGUMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE? 

I SUGGEST THAT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE IS OF WEIGHT IN JUDICIAL
REVIEW ONLY TO THIS POINT - IT IS A PERSUASIVE REASON FOR DEFERENCE TO
THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETIONARY POWERS UNDER AND
WITHIN THE LAW.  IT CANNOT BE INVOKED TO SUPPORT ACTION OUTSIDE OF THE
LAW.  AND WHAT ACTION IS, AND WHAT IS NOT, WITHIN THE LAW MUST BE
DETERMINED BY COURTS, WHEN AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW, NO MATTER HOW MUCH
DEFERENCE IS DUE TO THE AGENCY'S FACT FINDING.  SURELY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY IS NOT A LAW UNTO ITSELF, BUT THE COURT DOES NOT
REALLY FACE UP TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE JUSTIFICATION IT IS
OFFERING FOR SUSTAINING THE COMMISSION ACTION. 

EVEN IF THE COMMISSION HAD, AS THE COURT SAYS, UTILIZED THIS CASE TO
ANNOUNCE A NEW LEGAL STANDARD OF CONDUCT, THERE WOULD BE HURDLES TO BE
CLEARED, BUT WE NEED NOT DWELL ON THEM NOW.  BECAUSE TO PROMULGATE A
GENERAL RULE OF LAW, EITHER BY REGULATION OR BY CASE LAW, IS SOMETHING
THE COMMISSION EXPRESSLY DECLINED TO DO.  IT DID NOT PREVIOUSLY
PROMULGATE, AND IT DOES NOT BY THIS ORDER PROFESS TO PROMULGATE, ANY
RULE OR REGULATION TO PROHIBIT SUCH PURCHASES ABSOLUTELY OR UNDER
STATED CONDITIONS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, ITS POSITION IS THAT NO SUCH
RULE OR STANDARD WOULD BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE IN ALL CASES.  FN3

                                 IV. 

WHETHER, AS MATTER OF POLICY, CORPORATE MANAGERS DURING
REORGANIZATION SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM BUYING OR SELLING ITS STOCK,
IS NOT A QUESTION FOR US TO DECIDE.  BUT IT IS FOR US TO DECIDE
WHETHER, SO LONG AS NO LAW OR REGULATION PROHIBITS THEM FROM BUYING,
THEIR PURCHASES MAY BE FORFEITED, OR NOT, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
COMMISSION.  IF SUCH A POWER EXISTS IN WORDS OF THE STATUTE OR IN THEIR
IMPLICATION, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO POINT IT OUT AND THUS END THE
CASE.  INSTEAD, THE COURT ADMITS THAT THERE WAS NO LAW PROHIBITING
THESE PURCHASES WHEN THEY WERE MADE, OR AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER.  AND,
EXCEPT FOR THIS DECISION, THERE IS NONE NOW. 

THE TRUTH IS THAT IN THIS DECISION THE COURT APPROVES THE
COMMISSION'S ASSERTION OF POWER TO GOVERN THE MATTER WITHOUT LAW, POWER
TO FORCE SURRENDER OF STOCK SO PURCHASED WHENEVER IT WILL, AND POWER
ALSO TO OVERLOOK SUCH ACQUISITIONS IF IT SO CHOOSES.  THE REASONS WHICH
WILL LEAD IT TO TAKE ONE COURSE AS AGAINST THE OTHER REMAIN LOCKED IN
ITS OWN BREAST, AND IT HAS NOT AND APPARENTLY DOES NOT INTEND TO COMMIT
THEM TO ANY RULE OR REGULATION.  THIS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITARIANISM,
THIS POWER TO DECIDE WITHOUT LAW, IS WHAT THE COURT SEEMS TO APPROVE IN
SO MANY WORDS:  "THE ABSENCE OF A GENERAL RULE OR REGULATION GOVERNING
MANAGEMENT TRADING DURING REORGANIZATION DID NOT AFFECT THE
COMMISSION'S DUTIES  ...  " (PAR. 13).  THIS SEEMS TO ME TO UNDERVALUE
AND TO BELITTLE THE PLACE OF LAW, EVEN IN THE SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATIVE
JUSTICE.  IT CALLS TO MIND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO'S STATEMENT THAT "LAW AS
A GUIDE TO CONDUCT IS REDUCED TO THE LEVEL OF MERE FUTILITY IF IT IS
UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE."  FN4

                                  V. 

THE COURT'S AVERMENT CONCERNING THIS ORDER, THAT "IT IS THE TYPE OF
JUDGMENT WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE BEST EQUIPPED TO MAKE AND
WHICH JUSTIFIES THE USE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS," (PAR. 29) IS
THE FIRST INSTANCE IN WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IS SUSTAINED BY
RELIANCE ON THAT DISREGARD OF LAW WHICH ENEMIES OF THE PROCESS HAVE
ALWAYS ALLEGED TO BE ITS PRINCIPAL EVIL.  IT IS THE FIRST ENCOURAGEMENT
THIS COURT HAS GIVEN TO CONSCIOUS LAWLESSNESS AS A PERMISSIBLE RULE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  THIS DECISION IS AN OMINOUS ONE TO THOSE WHO
BELIEVE THAT MEN SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY LAWS THAT THEY MAY ASCERTAIN AND
ABIDE BY, AND WHICH WILL GUIDE THE ACTION OF THOSE IN AUTHORITY AS WELL
AS OF THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECT TO AUTHORITY.  FN5    I HAVE LONG URGED,
AND STILL BELIEVE, THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS DESERVES FOSTERING
IN OUR SYSTEM AS AN EXPEDITIOUS AND NONTECHNICAL METHOD OF APPLYING LAW
IN SPECIALIZED FIELDS.  FN6  I CAN NOT AGREE THAT IT BE USED, AND I
THINK ITS CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS IS ENDANGERED WHEN IT IS USED, AS A
METHOD OF DISPENSING WITH LAW IN THOSE FIELDS. 

FN1  FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE, I HAVE NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY THE
PARAGRAPHS OF THE COURT'S OPINION, AND CITE QUOTATIONS ACCORDINGLY. 
FN2  THE FACTS AND THE LAW OF THE CASE GENERALLY ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN
THE FIRST OPINION OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GRONER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
WHICH REVERSED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER (75 U.S. APP. D.C. 374, 128 F.2D
303) AND IN HIS SECOND OPINION (80 U.S. APP. D.C. 365, 154 F.2D 6)
AGAIN REVERSING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AFTER IT HAD "RECAST ITS
RATIONALE." 

FN3  THE COMMISSION, SPEAKING OF SUCH A RULE, APPENDS THE FOLLOWING
NOTE TO ITS OPINION: 

"WITHOUT FLEXIBILITY THE RULE MIGHT ITSELF OPERATE UNFAIRLY. 
LIMITATION TO COST APPEARS APPROPRIATE HERE, BUT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE
IN A CASE WHERE THE COST OF THE SECURITY PURCHASED WAS IN EXCESS OF ITS
REORGANIZATION VALUE, AND IN SOME INSTANCES CASH PAYMENT BY THE COMPANY
WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE.  IN ADDITION, SPECIAL TREATMENT OF ANY SORT
MIGHT BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR INCIDENTAL PURCHASES NOT MADE AS PART OF A
PROGRAM IN CONTEMPLATION OF REORGANIZATION BENEFITS.  IN THIS
CONNECTION, WE WISH TO EMPHASIZE THAT OUR CONCERN HERE IS NOT PRIMARILY
WITH THE NORMAL CORPORATE POWERS WHICH MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR OFFICERS
AND DIRECTORS TO INFLUENCE THE MARKET FOR THEIR OWN GAIN, IN THE
ABSENCE OF REORGANIZATION, BY A CHOICE OF DIVIDEND POLICIES, ACCOUNTING
PRACTICES, PUBLISHED REPORTS, AND THE LIKE.  THE QUESTIONS OF FAIRNESS
AND DETRIMENT HERE PRESENTED ARISE BEFORE US IN THE CONTEXT OF A
CAPITAL READJUSTMENT.  AT THAT POINT OUR SCRUTINY IS CALLED FOR, AND
THAT OUR SCRUTINY IS TO BE VIGILANT CANNOT BE DOUBTED.  SEE APPENDIX TO
SEN. REP. NO. 621(74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) ON S. 2796, AT P. 58, QUOTED
SUPRA." 

FN4  THE GROWTH OF THE LAW, P. 3. 

FN5  ON THE SAME DAY, THE COURT DENIED ITS OWN AUTHORITY TO RECOGNIZE
AND ENFORCE, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, AN UNLEGISLATED LIABILITY
MUCH LESS NOVEL THAN THE ONE IMPOSED HERE, AND THAT IN THE FIELD OF
TORT LAW WHICH TRADITIONALLY HAS DEVELOPED BY DECISIONAL RATHER THAN BY
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  THE RESULT IS TO CONFIRM IN AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY A
DISCRETION TO ACT OUTSIDE OF ESTABLISHED LAW THAT GOES BEYOND ANY
JUDICIAL DISCRETION AS WELL AS BEYOND ANY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION. 
COMPARE UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL CO., 332 U.S. 301. 

FN6  SEE STATEMENT BEFORE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION, 1939.  (1939 PROCEEDINGS, HOUSE OF DELEGATES, XXV A.B.A.
JOURNAL 95.)  ALSO SEE REPORT AS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PRESIDENT
ROOSEVELT RECOMMENDING VETO OF WALTER-LOGAN BILL - MADE PART OF VETO
MESSAGE, VOL. 86, PART 12, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 76TH CONGRESS, 3D
SESSION, P. 13943. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218 


NO. 1035.  ARGUED MAY 7, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 69 F.SUPP. 
170, REVERSED. 


1.  ALLEGATIONS OF A COMPLAINT FILED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
PURSUANT TO SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN
THE DEFENDANTS FROM VIOLATING SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT, CHARGING A
COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND TO MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE
TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR USE AS TAXICABS TO
THE PRINCIPAL CAB OPERATING COMPANIES IN CHICAGO, PITTSBURGH, NEW YORK
CITY AND MINNEAPOLIS, HELD SUFFICIENT TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH
RELIEF MIGHT BE GRANTED.  PP. 220-228. 

(A)  A CONSPIRACY TO CONTROL THE PURCHASE OF TAXICABS BY THE
PRINCIPAL OPERATING COMPANIES IN CHICAGO, PITTSBURGH, NEW YORK CITY AND
MINNEAPOLIS, WHEREBY THEY PURCHASE THEIR CABS EXCLUSIVELY FROM A
MICHIGAN MANUFACTURER AND ARE PREVENTED FROM PURCHASING FROM OTHER
MANUFACTURERS, IS IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PP. 224-225,
226. 

(B)  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE COMPLAINT CHARGES A VIOLATION OF SEC.
1 OR SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IT IS ENOUGH IF SOME APPRECIABLE PART
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS AFFECTED BY THE RESTRAINT OR MONOPOLY.  P.
225. 

(C)  INTERSTATE PURCHASES OF REPLACEMENTS OF SOME 5,000 LICENSED
TAXICABS IN FOUR CITIES IS AN APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF COMMERCE.  P. 225. 

(D)  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AFFECTED IN RELATION
TO THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THAT TYPE OF COMMERCE IN THE UNITED STATES IS
IRRELEVANT.  P. 226. 

(E)  THE COMPLAINT IS NOT DEFECTIVE BY REASON OF ITS FAILURE TO
ALLEGE THAT THE MANUFACTURER INVOLVED HAS A MONOPOLY WITH REFERENCE TO
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXICABS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN THE UNITED
STATES.  P. 226. 

(F)  THE FACT THAT THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS, BY VIRTUE OF AFFILIATION
AND COMMON OWNERSHIP, CONSTITUTE A "VERTICALLY INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE"
DOES NOT NECESSARILY RENDER INAPPLICABLE THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  P. 227. 

2.  ALLEGATIONS OF A CONSPIRACY WHEREBY TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS WILL
NOT COMPETE WITH A THIRD DEFENDANT FOR CONTRACTS WITH RAILROADS OR
RAILROAD TERMINAL ASSOCIATIONS TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS AND THEIR
LUGGAGE BETWEEN RAILROAD STATIONS IN CHICAGO, HELD SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE
A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 228-229. 

(A)  THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS AND THEIR LUGGAGE BETWEEN
RAILROAD STATIONS IN CHICAGO IS A PART OF THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  P. 228. 

(B)  WHEN PERSONS OR GOODS MOVE FROM A POINT OF ORIGIN IN ONE STATE
TO A POINT OF DESTINATION IN ANOTHER, THE FACT THAT A PART OF THAT
JOURNEY CONSISTS OF TRANSPORTATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY SOLELY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF ONE STATE DOES NOT MAKE THAT PORTION OF THE
TRIP ANY LESS INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER.  P. 228. 

(C)  ALTHOUGH EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN
QUESTION ARE NOT ILLEGAL, IT IS NEVERTHELESS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT TO CONSPIRE TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION IN OBTAINING SUCH CONTRACTS. 
P. 229. 

(D)  THE FACT THAT THE COMPETITION RESTRAINED IS THAT BETWEEN
AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS DOES NOT NEGATIVE THE STATUTORY VIOLATION WHERE
THE AFFILIATION ITSELF IS ONE OF THE MEANS OF EFFECTUATING THE ILLEGAL
CONSPIRACY NOT TO COMPETE.  P. 229. 

3.  THE SERVICE RENDERED BY LOCAL TAXICABS IN CONVEYING INTERSTATE
PASSENGERS BETWEEN THEIR HOMES AND RAILROAD STATIONS, IN THE NORMAL
COURSE OF THEIR INDEPENDENT LOCAL SERVICE, IS NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION; AND A RESTRAINT ON OR MONOPOLY OF THAT
GENERAL LOCAL SERVICE, WITHOUT MORE, IS NOT PROSCRIBED BY THE SHERMAN
ACT.  PP. 230-234. 

UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

A COMPLAINT FILED BY THE UNITED STATES TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT WAS
DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH
RELIEF MIGHT BE GRANTED.  69 F.SUPP.  170.  THE UNITED STATES APPEALED
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 234. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
BELOW PURSUANT TO SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, 26 STAT. 209,
AS AMENDED, TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN THE APPELLEES FROM VIOLATING SECS.
1 AND 2 OF THE ACT.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE APPELLEES HAVE BEEN
AND ARE ENGAGED IN A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND TO
MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE (1) IN THE SALE OF MOTOR
VEHICLES FOR USE AS TAXICABS TO THE PRINCIPAL CAB OPERATING COMPANIES
IN CHICAGO, PITTSBURGH, NEW YORK CITY AND MINNEAPOLIS, AND (2) IN THE
BUSINESS OF FURNISHING CAB SERVICES FOR HIRE IN CHICAGO AND VICINITY. 
THE APPELLEES MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MIGHT BE GRANTED.  THAT MOTION WAS SUSTAINED. 
69 F.SUPP.  170.  THE CASE IS NOW HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL BY THE UNITED
STATES. 

THE ALLEGED FACTS, AS SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT, MAY BE SUMMARIZED
BRIEFLY.  IN JANUARY, 1929, ONE MORRIS MARKIN AND OTHERS COMMENCED
NEGOTIATIONS TO MERGE THE MORE IMPORTANT CAB OPERATING COMPANIES IN
CHICAGO, NEW YORK AND OTHER CITIES.  MARKIN WAS THEN PRESIDENT AND
GENERAL MANAGER, AS WELL AS THE CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER, OF THE CHECKER
CAB MANUFACTURING CORPORATION (CCM).  THAT COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING TAXICABS AT ITS FACTORY IN KALAMAZOO,
MICHIGAN, AND SHIPPING THEM TO PURCHASERS IN VARIOUS STATES. 

PARMELEE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (PARMELEE) WAS ORGANIZED IN APRIL,
1929, WITH 62% OF ITS STOCK BEING OWNED BY CCM.  IT PROMPTLY TOOK OVER
THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING SPECIAL UNLICENSED CABS TO TRANSPORT
PASSENGERS AND THEIR LUGGAGE BETWEEN RAILROAD STATIONS IN CHICAGO,
PURSUANT TO CONTRACTS WITH RAILROADS AND RAILROAD TERMINAL
ASSOCIATIONS.  IT THEN ACQUIRED A CONTROLLING INTEREST IN THE CHICAGO
YELLOW CAB COMPANY, INC. (CHICAGO YELLOW).  THIS LATTER COMPANY HOLDS
ALL THE CAPITAL STOCK OF YELLOW CAB COMPANY (YELLOW), THE OWNER AND
OPERATOR OF "YELLOW" CABS IN CHICAGO AND VICINITY.  YELLOW PRESENTLY
HOLDS 53% OF THE TAXICAB LICENSES OUTSTANDING IN CHICAGO.  IN ADDITION,
PARMELEE ACQUIRED OR ORGANIZED SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES WHICH NOW HOLD 100%
OF THE TAXICAB LICENSES OUTSTANDING IN PITTSBURGH, 58% OF THOSE IN
MINNEAPOLIS, AND 15% OF THOSE IN NEW YORK CITY.  FN1 

IN JANUARY, 1930, CAB SALES AND PARTS CORPORATION (CAB SALES) WAS
INCORPORATED.  AT ALL TIMES, MARKIN HAS BEEN THE ACTIVE MANAGER OF THIS
COMPANY; SINCE 1934, HE HAS BEEN THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER.  IT NOW OWNS AND
OPERATES THE "CHECKER" CABS IN CHICAGO AND VICINITY, USING LICENSES
HELD IN THE NAME OF CHECKER TAXI COMPANY (CHECKER).  FN2  CHECKER
PRESENTLY HAS NO EMPLOYEES AND NO PROPERTY OTHER THAN 1,000 CHICAGO
TAXICAB LICENSES, OR ONE-THIRD OF THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING, WHICH IT
LEASES TO CAB SALES; NEARLY ALL OF ITS STOCK IS OWNED BY ASSOCIATES OF
MARKIN.  FN3 

MARKIN ALSO OBTAINED A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE DELUXE MOTOR CAB
COMPANY, WHICH WAS THE THIRD LARGEST CAB OPERATING COMPANY IN CHICAGO
IN 1929 WITH ITS 400 LICENSES.  HE CAUSED ALL OF ITS STOCK TO BE SOLD
TO PARMELEE.  IT WAS THEN CONSOLIDATED INTO A NEW COMPANY; IN 1932, CAB
SALES BOUGHT A CONTROLLING INTEREST IN THIS CONSOLIDATED CONCERN AND
CAUSED IT TO SUSPEND OPERATIONS.  THUS, BY THE END OF 1932, MARKIN HAD
GAINED CONTROL OF THE THREE LARGEST TAXICAB COMPANIES OPERATING IN
CHICAGO AND, THROUGH PARMELEE, HAD SUBSTANTIAL FOOTHOLDS IN THE TAXICAB
BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY, PITTSBURGH AND MINNEAPOLIS. 

YELLOW AND CHECKER HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD A VAST MAJORITY OF THE
CHICAGO TAXICAB LICENSES.  THERE WERE 5,289 LICENSES OUTSTANDING IN
JANUARY, 1929, OF WHICH YELLOW HELD 2,335(44%) AND CHECKER 1,750(33%). 
IN SEPTEMBER, 1929, THE CITY OF CHICAGO ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE TO THE
EFFECT THAT NO MORE LICENSES SHOULD BE ISSUED, EXCEPT FOR RENEWALS,
UNLESS IT SHOULD BE FOUND THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRED OTHERWISE.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS PROVISION WAS REPEATED IN AN
ORDINANCE ADOPTED IN MAY, 1934.  YELLOW AND CHECKER SUBSEQUENTLY MADE
AGREEMENTS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CABS IN OPERATION AND TO INDUCE THE
CITY TO LOWER THE NUMBER OF LICENSES OUTSTANDING TO 3,000, OF WHICH
YELLOW WOULD HOLD 1,500 AND CHECKER 1,000. 

ON DECEMBER 22, 1937, THE CITY OF CHICAGO PASSED AN ORDINANCE
PROVIDING FOR A METHOD OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER BY LICENSEES OF A
SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF THEIR LICENSES TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OUTSTANDING TO
3,000.  IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT IF THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED LICENSES
SHOULD LATER BE INCREASED ABOVE THE 3,000 FIGURE, SUCH ADDITIONAL
LICENSES SHOULD FIRST BE ISSUED TO THE ORIGINAL LICENSEES IN PROPORTION
TO, AND UP TO, THE NUMBER WHICH THEY HAD SURRENDERED.  YELLOW AND
CHECKER THEN MADE AN AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT THIS ORDINANCE; YELLOW
AGREED TO SURRENDER 571 LICENSES (LEAVING IT WITH 1,595) AND CHECKER
AGREED TO SURRENDER 500(LEAVING IT WITH 1,000); BOTH PARTIES PROMISED
TO ATTEMPT TO SECURE FOR YELLOW 60% AND FOR CHECKER 40% OF ANY LICENSES
IN EXCESS OF 3,000 WHICH THE CITY MIGHT LATER ISSUE.  AS A RESULT,
3,000 LICENSES WERE LEFT OUTSTANDING. 

ON JANUARY 16, 1946, THE CITY AUTHORIZED THE ISSUANCE OF 250 LICENSES
TO WAR VETERANS.  YELLOW WAS NOTIFIED THAT 234 OF ITS LICENSES,
REPRESENTING THAT NUMBER OF CABS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN IN OPERATION, WOULD
BE CANCELED.  CHECKER WAS GIVEN A SIMILAR NOTICE AS TO 87 LICENSES. 
YELLOW AND CHECKER THEN BROUGHT SUIT IN AN ILLINOIS COURT TO ENJOIN THE
CITY FROM ISSUING THE NEW LICENSES AND FROM CANCELING ANY OF THE ONES
ISSUED TO THEM; THEY CLAIMED THAT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS PREVENTED THEM
FROM PROCURING TAXICABS TO REPLACE THOSE WHICH HAD BECOME INOPERABLE. 
THE ILLINOIS COURTS HELD THAT THE 1937 ORDINANCE CREATED A CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE LICENSEES AND THAT THE CITY COULD NOT ISSUE
LICENSES TO THE WAR VETERANS WITHOUT FIRST REPLACING THE LICENSES WHICH
YELLOW AND CHECKER HAD SURRENDERED; IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT NO
MONOPOLY EXISTED, SINCE THE NUMBER OF LICENSES AND THE RIGHTS OF THE
LICENSEES WERE SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE CITY.  YELLOW CAB CO. V.
CITY OF CHICAGO, 396 ILL. 388, 71 N.E.2D 652. 

SUCH IS THE NATURE OF THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT.  THOSE
FACTS ALLEGEDLY GIVE RISE TO A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY ON THE PART
OF THE APPELLEES (YELLOW, CHICAGO YELLOW, PARMELEE, CAB SALES, CHECKER,
CCM AND MARKIN) IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE PROBLEMS THEREBY
RAISED CAN BEST BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THE PURPORTED TERMS OF
THIS COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, OF COURSE, WE
MUST ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING OR IMPLYING, THAT THE VARIOUS FACTS AND
ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT ARE TRUE. 

                                  I. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE APPELLEES HAVE AGREED TO CONTROL THE OPERATION
AND PURCHASE OF TAXICABS BY THE PRINCIPAL OPERATING COMPANIES IN
CHICAGO, NEW YORK CITY, PITTSBURGH AND MINNEAPOLIS, INSISTING THAT THEY
PURCHASE THEIR CABS EXCLUSIVELY FROM CCM.  THIS EXCLUDES ALL OTHER
MANUFACTURERS OF TAXICABS FROM 86% OF THE CHICAGO MARKET, 15% OF THE
NEW YORK CITY MARKET, 100% OF THE PITTSBURGH MARKET AND 58% OF THE
MINNEAPOLIS MARKET.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE TRADE OF THE CONTROLLED CAB
COMPANIES IS RESTRAINED SINCE THEY ARE PREVENTED FROM PURCHASING CABS
FROM MANUFACTURERS OTHER THAN CCM.  THE RESULT ALLEGEDLY IS THAT THESE
COMPANIES MUST PAY MORE FOR CABS THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE PAY, THEIR
OTHER EXPENDITURES ARE INCREASED UNNECESSARILY, AND THE PUBLIC IS
CHARGED HIGH RATES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES RENDERED. 

THE COMMERCE WHICH IS ASSERTED TO BE RESTRAINED IN THIS MANNER HAS A
CHARACTER THAT IS UNDENIABLY INTERSTATE.  THE VARIOUS CAB OPERATING
COMPANIES DO BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA AND
MINNESOTA.  BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSPIRACY, THEY MUST PURCHASE ALL OF
THEIR CABS FROM CCM.  SINCE CCM'S FACTORY IS LOCATED IN MICHIGAN,
INTERSTATE SALES AND SHIPMENTS ARE INEVITABLE IF THE CONSPIRACY IS TO
BE EFFECTUATED.  THE CONSPIRACY ALSO PREVENTS THOSE OPERATING COMPANIES
FROM PURCHASING CABS FROM OTHER MANUFACTURERS, THUS PRECLUDING ALL
INTERSTATE SALES AND SHIPMENTS BETWEEN EACH INDIVIDUAL CAB OPERATING
COMPANY AND MANUFACTURERS (OTHER THAN CCM) LOCATED IN OTHER STATES. 
INTERSTATE TRADE, IN SHORT, IS OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF THIS ASPECT OF
THE CONSPIRACY. 

BUT THE AMOUNT OF INTERSTATE TRADE THUS AFFECTED BY THE CONSPIRACY IS
IMMATERIAL IN DETERMINING WHETHER A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT HAS
BEEN CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT.  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OUTLAWS
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, REGARDLESS OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE COMMERCE AFFECTED.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL
CO., 310 U.S. 150, NOTE 59, P. 225; APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310
U.S. 469, 485.  AND SEC. 2 OF THE ACT MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO CONSPIRE TO
MONOPOLIZE "ANY PART" OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WITHOUT SPECIFYING HOW
LARGE A PART MUST BE AFFECTED.  HENCE IT IS ENOUGH IF SOME APPRECIABLE
PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS THE SUBJECT OF A MONOPOLY, A RESTRAINT
OR A CONSPIRACY.  THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE DEALS WITH INTERSTATE
PURCHASES OF REPLACEMENTS OF SOME 5,000 LICENSED TAXICABS IN FOUR
CITIES.  FN4  THAT IS AN APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF COMMERCE UNDER ANY
STANDARD.  SEE MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38. 

LIKEWISE IRRELEVANT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AFFECTED IN RELATION TO THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THAT TYPE OF COMMERCE IN
THE UNITED STATES.  THE SHERMAN ACT IS CONCERNED WITH MORE THAN THE
LARGE, NATION-WIDE OBSTACLES IN THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE TRADE.  IT
IS DESIGNED TO SWEEP AWAY ALL APPRECIABLE OBSTRUCTIONS SO THAT THE
STATUTORY POLICY OF FREE TRADE MIGHT BE EFFECTIVELY ACHIEVED.  AS THIS
COURT STATED IN INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER CO., 293
U.S. 268, 279, "THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 HAVE BOTH A
GEOGRAPHICAL AND DISTRIBUTIVE SIGNIFICANCE AND APPLY TO ANY PART OF THE
UNITED STATES AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE WHOLE AND TO ANY PART OF THE
CLASSES OF THINGS FORMING A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  IT FOLLOWS
THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE IS NOT DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE
THAT CCM HAS A MONOPOLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXICABS
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES.  ITS RELATIVE POSITION IN
THE FIELD OF CAB PRODUCTION HAS NO NECESSARY RELATION TO THE ABILITY OF
THE APPELLEES TO CONSPIRE TO MONOPOLIZE OR RESTRAIN, IN VIOLATION OF
THE ACT, AN APPRECIABLE SEGMENT OF INTERSTATE CAB SALES.  AN ALLEGATION
THAT SUCH A SEGMENT HAS BEEN OR MAY BE MONOPOLIZED OR RESTRAINED IS
SUFFICIENT. 

NOR CAN IT BE DOUBTED THAT COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES OF THE TYPE
ALLEGED IN THIS CASE FALL WITHIN THE BAN OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  BY
EXCLUDING ALL CAB MANUFACTURERS OTHER THAN CCM FROM THAT PART OF THE
MARKET REPRESENTED BY THE CAB OPERATING COMPANIES UNDER THEIR CONTROL,
THE APPELLEES EFFECTIVELY LIMIT THE OUTLETS THROUGH WHICH CABS MAY BE
SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  LIMITATIONS OF THAT NATURE HAVE BEEN
CONDEMNED TIME AND AGAIN AS VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V.
UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1, 18-19, AND CASES CITED.  IN ADDITION, BY
PREVENTING THE CAB OPERATING COMPANIES UNDER THEIR CONTROL FROM
PURCHASING CABS FROM MANUFACTURERS OTHER THAN CCM, THE APPELLEES DENY
THOSE COMPANIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE CABS IN A FREE, COMPETITIVE
MARKET.  FN5  THE SHERMAN ACT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO SANCTION SUCH A
CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN THE FREE PURCHASE OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, SUPRA; BINDERUP V. PATHE
EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291. 

THE FACT THAT THESE RESTRAINTS OCCUR IN A SETTING DESCRIBED BY THE
APPELLEES AS A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE DOES NOT NECESSARILY
REMOVE THE BAN OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE TEST OF ILLEGALITY UNDER THE
ACT IS THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SUCH A RESTRAINT MAY RESULT AS READILY FROM A
CONSPIRACY AMONG THOSE WHO ARE AFFILIATED OR INTEGRATED UNDER COMMON
OWNERSHIP AS FROM A CONSPIRACY AMONG THOSE WHO ARE OTHERWISE
INDEPENDENT.  SIMILARLY, ANY AFFILIATION OR INTEGRATION FLOWING FROM AN
ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY CANNOT INSULATE THE CONSPIRATORS FROM THE SANCTIONS
WHICH CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED.  THE CORPORATE INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF THE
CONSPIRATORS, IN OTHER WORDS, ARE NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THAT STATUTE IS AIMED AT SUBSTANCE
RATHER THAN FORM.  SEE APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 288
U.S. 344, 360-361, 376-377. 

AND SO IN THIS CASE, THE COMMON OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE VARIOUS
CORPORATE APPELLEES ARE IMPOTENT TO LIBERATE THE ALLEGED COMBINATION
AND CONSPIRACY FROM THE IMPACT OF THE ACT.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT
THE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE WAS NOT ONLY EFFECTED BY THE
COMBINATION OF THE APPELLEES BUT WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE
COMBINATION.  THE THEORY OF THE COMPLAINT, TO BORROW LANGUAGE FROM
UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26, 57, IS THAT "DOMINATING
POWER" OVER THE CAB OPERATING COMPANIES "WAS NOT OBTAINED BY NORMAL
EXPANSION TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF A BUSINESS GROWING AS A RESULT OF
SUPERIOR AND ENTERPRISING MANAGEMENT, BUT BY DELIBERATE, CALCULATED
PURCHASE FOR CONTROL."  IF THAT THEORY IS BORNE OUT IN THIS CASE BY THE
EVIDENCE, COUPLED WITH PROOF OF AN UNDUE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE,
A PLAIN VIOLATION OF THE ACT HAS OCCURRED.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 189. 
    II.    IT IS SAID THAT THE APPELLEES HAVE AGREED THAT YELLOW
AND CAB SALES WILL NOT COMPETE WITH PARMELEE FOR CONTRACTS WITH
RAILROADS OR RAILROAD TERMINAL ASSOCIATIONS TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS AND
THEIR LUGGAGE BETWEEN RAILROAD STATIONS IN CHICAGO.  THE COMPLAINT
POINTS OUT THE WELLKNOWN FACT THAT CHICAGO IS THE TERMINUS OF A LARGE
NUMBER OF RAILROADS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE PASSENGER TRAFFIC AND THAT A
GREAT MAJORITY OF THE PERSONS MAKING INTERSTATE RAILROAD TRIPS WHICH
CARRY THEM THROUGH CHICAGO MUST DISEMBARK FROM A TRAIN AT ONE RAILROAD
STATION, TRAVEL FROM THAT STATION TO ANOTHER SOME TWO BLOCKS TO TWO
MILES DISTANT, AND BOARD ANOTHER TRAIN AT THE LATTER STATION.  THE
RAILROADS OFTEN CONTRACT WITH THE PASSENGERS TO SUPPLY BETWEEN-STATION
TRANSPORTATION IN CHICAGO.  PARMELEE THEN CONTRACTS WITH THE RAILROADS
AND THE RAILROAD TERMINAL ASSOCIATIONS TO PROVIDE THIS TRANSPORTATION
BY SPECIAL CABS CARRYING SEVEN TO TEN PASSENGERS.  PARMELEE'S CONTRACTS
ARE EXCLUSIVE IN NATURE. 

THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH PASSENGERS AND THEIR LUGGAGE BETWEEN
STATIONS IN CHICAGO IS CLEARLY A PART OF THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WHEN PERSONS OR GOODS MOVE FROM A POINT OF ORIGIN IN ONE
STATE TO A POINT OF DESTINATION IN ANOTHER, THE FACT THAT A PART OF
THAT JOURNEY CONSISTS OF TRANSPORTATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY SOLELY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF ONE STATE DOES NOT MAKE THAT PORTION OF THE
TRIP ANY LESS INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER.  THE DANIEL BALL, 10 WALL.  557,
565.  THAT PORTION MUST BE VIEWED IN ITS RELATION TO THE ENTIRE JOURNEY
RATHER THAN IN ISOLATION.  SO VIEWED, IT IS AN INTEGRAL STEP IN THE
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT.  SEE STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495. 

ANY ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE OR TO IMPOSE AN UNDUE RESTRAINT ON SUCH A
CONSTITUENT PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BRINGS THE SHERMAN ACT INTO
OPERATION.  HERE THERE IS AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO BRING NEARLY ALL THE
CHICAGO TAXICAB COMPANIES UNDER COMMON CONTROL AND TO ELIMINATE
COMPETITION AMONG THEM RELATIVE TO CONTRACTS FOR SUPPLYING
TRANSPORTATION FOR THIS TRANSFER IN THE MIDST OF INTERSTATE JOURNEYS. 
ONLY PARMELEE IS FREE TO ATTEMPT TO PROCURE SUCH CONTRACTS; YELLOW AND
CAB SALES ARE FORBIDDEN TO COMPETE FOR SUCH CONTRACTS, DESPITE THE FACT
THAT THEY CONCEIVABLY MIGHT PROVIDE THE SAME TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT
LOWER COST TO THE RAILROADS.  FN6  THE COMPLAINT ACCORDINGLY STATES A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN THIS RESPECT.  SEE ADDYSTON PIPE &
STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211. 

IT IS TRUE, OF COURSE, THAT EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN QUESTION ARE NOT ILLEGAL.  DONOVAN V.
PENNSYLVANIA CO., 199 U.S. 279.  BUT A CONSPIRACY TO ELIMINATE
COMPETITION IN OBTAINING THOSE EXCLUSIVE CONTRACTS IS WHAT IS ALLEGED
IN THIS CASE AND IT IS A CONSPIRACY OF THAT TYPE THAT RUNS AFOUL OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THE COMPETITION RESTRAINED IS
THAT BETWEEN AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS CANNOT SERVE TO NEGATIVE THE
STATUTORY VIOLATION WHERE, AS HERE, THE AFFILIATION IS ASSERTEDLY ONE
OF THE MEANS OF EFFECTUATING THE ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY NOT TO COMPETE. 

                                 III. 

FINALLY, IT IS SAID THAT THE APPELLEES HAVE CONSPIRED TO CONTROL THE
PRINCIPAL TAXICAB OPERATING COMPANIES IN CHICAGO AND TO EXCLUDE OTHERS
FROM ENGAGING IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF INTERSTATE TRAVELERS TO AND FROM
CHICAGO RAILROAD STATIONS.  TO THAT END, THEY HAVE CONSPIRED TO INDUCE
THE CITY OF CHICAGO TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF LICENSED TAXICABS TO 3,000,
TO HOLD 2,595(OR 86%) OF THESE LICENSES THEMSELVES, TO OBTAIN FOR
YELLOW AND CHECKER ANY LICENSES ABOVE 3,000 WHICH THE CITY MIGHT LATER
ISSUE, AND TO PREVENT NEW OPERATORS FROM ENTERING THE CAB BUSINESS IN
CHICAGO BY HAVING YELLOW AND CHECKER ANNUALLY RENEW LICENSES FOR CABS
WHICH THEY DO NOT OPERATE AND HAVE NO INTENTION OF OPERATING. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE TOWARD WHICH THIS ASPECT OF THE CONSPIRACY IS
DIRECTED IS CLAIMED TO ARISE OUT OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS.  MANY PERSONS
ARE SAID TO EMBARK UPON INTERSTATE JOURNEYS FROM THEIR HOMES, OFFICES
AND HOTELS IN CHICAGO BY USING TAXICABS TO TRANSPORT THEMSELVES AND
THEIR LUGGAGE TO RAILROAD STATIONS IN CHICAGO.  CONVERSELY, IN MAKING
JOURNEYS FROM OTHER STATES TO HOMES, OFFICES AND HOTELS IN CHICAGO,
MANY PERSONS ARE SAID TO COMPLETE SUCH TRIPS BY USING TAXICABS TO
TRANSPORT THEMSELVES AND THEIR LUGGAGE FROM RAILROAD STATIONS IN
CHICAGO TO SAID HOMES, OFFICES AND HOTELS.  SUCH TRANSPORTATION OF
PERSONS AND THEIR LUGGAGE IS INTERMINGLED WITH THE ADMITTEDLY LOCAL
OPERATIONS OF THE CHICAGO TAXICABS.  BUT IT IS THAT ALLEGEDLY
INTERSTATE PART OF THE BUSINESS UPON WHICH RESTS THE VALIDITY OF THE
COMPLAINT IN THIS PARTICULAR. 

WE HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS TOO UNRELATED TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO CONSTITUTE A PART THEREOF WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE SHERMAN ACT.  THESE TAXICABS, IN TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS AND THEIR
LUGGAGE TO AND FROM CHICAGO RAILROAD STATIONS, ADMITTEDLY CROSS NO
STATE LINES; BY ORDINANCE, THEIR SERVICE IS CONFINED TO TRANSPORTATION
"BETWEEN ANY TWO POINTS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY."  NONE
OF THEM SERVES ONLY RAILROAD PASSENGERS, ALL OF THEM BEING REQUIRED TO
SERVE "EVERY PERSON" WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CHICAGO.  THEY HAVE NO
CONTRACTUAL OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT WITH THE INTERSTATE RAILROADS.  NOR
ARE THEIR FARES PAID OR COLLECTED AS PART OF THE RAILROAD FARES.  IN
SHORT, THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO INTERSTATE TRANSIT IS ONLY CASUAL AND
INCIDENTAL. 

IN A SENSE, OF COURSE, A TRAVELER STARTS AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY WHEN
HE BOARDS A CONVEYANCE NEAR HIS HOME, OFFICE OR HOTEL TO TRAVEL TO THE
RAILROAD STATION, FROM WHICH THE JOURNEY IS CONTINUED BY TRAIN; AND
SUCH A JOURNEY ENDS WHEN HE ALIGHTS FROM A CONVEYANCE NEAR THE HOME,
OFFICE OR HOTEL WHICH CONSTITUTES HIS ULTIMATE DESTINATION.  INDEED,
THE TERMINAL POINTS OF AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY MAY BE TRACED EVEN FURTHER
TO THE MOMENT WHEN THE TRAVELER LEAVES OR ENTERS HIS ROOM OR OFFICE AND
DESCENDS OR ASCENDS THE BUILDING BY ELEVATOR. 

BUT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS AN INTENSELY PRACTICAL CONCEPT DRAWN FROM
THE NORMAL AND ACCEPTED COURSE OF BUSINESS.  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 398; NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686,
705.  AND INTERSTATE JOURNEYS ARE TO BE MEASURED BY "THE COMMONLY
ACCEPTED SENSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONCEPT."  UNITED STATES V.
CAPITAL TRANSIT CO., 325 U.S. 357, 363.  MOREOVER, WHAT MAY FAIRLY BE
SAID TO BE THE LIMITS OF AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF GOODS AND CHATTELS
MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED LIMITS OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S
INTERSTATE JOURNEY.  WE MUST ACCORDINGLY MARK THE BEGINNING AND END OF
A PARTICULAR KIND OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY ITS OWN PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS. 

HERE WE BELIEVE THAT THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING IS THAT A TRAVELER
INTENDING TO MAKE AN INTERSTATE RAIL JOURNEY BEGINS HIS INTERSTATE
MOVEMENT WHEN HE BOARDS THE TRAIN AT THE STATION AND THAT HIS JOURNEY
ENDS WHEN HE DISEMBARKS AT THE STATION IN THE CITY OF DESTINATION. 
WHAT HAPPENS PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO THAT RAIL JOURNEY, AT LEAST IN THE
ABSENCE OF SOME SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT, IS NOT A CONSTITUENT PART OF THE
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT.  THE TRAVELER HAS COMPLETE FREEDOM TO ARRIVE AT OR
LEAVE THE STATION BY TAXICAB, TROLLEY, BUS, SUBWAY, ELEVATED TRAIN,
PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE, HIS OWN TWO LEGS, OR VARIOUS OTHER MEANS OF
CONVEYANCE.  TAXICAB SERVICE IS THUS BUT ONE OF MANY THAT MAY BE USED. 
IT IS CONTRACTED FOR INDEPENDENTLY OF THE RAILROAD JOURNEY AND MAY BE
UTILIZED WHENEVER THE TRAVELER SO DESIRES.  FROM THE STANDPOINTS OF
TIME AND CONTINUITY, THE TAXICAB TRIP MAY BE QUITE DISTINCT AND
SEPARATE FROM THE INTERSTATE JOURNEY.  TO THE TAXICAB DRIVER, IT IS
JUST ANOTHER LOCAL FARE. 

PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. KNIGHT, 192 U.S. 21, DEMONSTRATES THIS COMMON
UNDERSTANDING.  THE COURT THERE HELD THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD
COMPANY WAS SUBJECT TO A STATE FRANCHISE TAX BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT
IT MAINTAINED A CAB SERVICE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF NEW YORK CITY FOR
THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS RAIL PASSENGERS.  ITS CABS TRANSPORTED THE
PASSENGERS BETWEEN ITS FERRY STATION AND THEIR RESIDENCES AND HOTELS. 
THE COURT STATED THAT THIS CAB SERVICE WAS AN INDEPENDENT LOCAL
SERVICE, PRELIMINARY OR SUBSEQUENT TO ANY INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND
NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT OF RAILROAD CARRIAGE.  HENCE IT WAS
SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION.  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS RULING AS TO THE
EXTENT OF A STATE'S TAXING POWER IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE BOUNDARIES
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES.  BACON V. ILLINOIS, 227
U.S. 504, 516; BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, SUPRA, 311.  BUT IT DOES
ILLUSTRATE THE NORMAL AND ACCEPTED CONCEPT OF THE OUTER LIMITS OF THIS
TYPE OF INTERSTATE JOURNEY.  AND IT IS THAT CONCEPT THAT IS
DETERMINATIVE HERE. 

WE DO NOT MEAN TO ESTABLISH ANY ABSOLUTE RULE THAT LOCAL TAXICAB
SERVICE TO AND FROM RAILROAD STATIONS IS COMPLETELY BEYOND THE REACH OF
FEDERAL POWER OR EVEN BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN STAFFORD
V. WALLACE, SUPRA, 528, THE COURT MADE PLAIN THAT NOTHING IN THE KNIGHT
CASE WAS AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT "IF SUCH AN AGENCY (LOCAL
CAB SERVICE) COULD BE AND WERE USED IN A CONSPIRACY UNDULY AND
CONSTANTLY TO MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE PASSENGER TRAFFIC, IT MIGHT NOT BE
BROUGHT WITHIN FEDERAL RESTRAINT."  LIKEWISE, WE ARE NOT TO BE
UNDERSTOOD IN THIS CASE AS DECIDING THAT ALL CONSPIRACIES AMONG LOCAL
CAB DRIVERS ARE SO UNRELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO FALL OUTSIDE
THE FEDERAL KEN.  A CONSPIRACY TO BURDEN OR ELIMINATE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS TO AND FROM A RAILROAD STATION WHERE INTERSTATE JOURNEYS
BEGIN AND END MIGHT HAVE SUFFICIENT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO
JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF THE SHERMAN ACT OR OTHER FEDERAL LAWS RESTING
ON THE COMMERCE POWER OF CONGRESS. 

ALL THAT WE HOLD HERE IS THAT WHEN LOCAL TAXICABS MERELY CONVEY
INTERSTATE TRAIN PASSENGERS BETWEEN THEIR HOMES AND THE RAILROAD
STATION IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF THEIR INDEPENDENT LOCAL SERVICE, THAT
SERVICE IS NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  AND A
RESTRAINT ON OR MONOPOLY OF THAT GENERAL LOCAL SERVICE, WITHOUT MORE,
IS NOT PROSCRIBED BY THE SHERMAN ACT. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COMPLAINT, INSOFAR AS IT IS BASED ON SUCH LOCAL
TAXICAB SERVICE, FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT.  IT THUS BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE POINTS RAISED AS TO
THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT PART OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY RELATING TO THIS
LOCAL SERVICE.  OUR CONCLUSION IN THIS RESPECT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT LEAD
TO AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT. 
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN PARTS I AND II OF THIS OPINION, THE
COMPLAINT DOES STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ACT, ENTITLING THE
UNITED STATES TO A TRIAL ON THE MERITS.  SINCE THE PORTION OF THE
COMPLAINT DEALT WITH IN PART III OF THIS OPINION IS DEFECTIVE,
APPROPRIATE STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO DELETE THE CHARGES IN RELATION
THERETO.  WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AND REMAND THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  BETWEEN OCTOBER, 1929, AND JUNE, 1930, PARMELEE ACQUIRED ALL THE
TAXICAB COMPANIES OPERATING IN PITTSBURGH; IT NOW OPERATES THE CABS
THROUGH TWO WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES.  EARLY IN 1931, PARMELEE FORMED
A COMPANY TO OPERATE CABS IN MINNEAPOLIS; A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY NOW
OPERATES 125 OF THE 214 CABS LICENSED IN THAT CITY.  BEGINNING EARLY IN
1929, PARMELEE ACQUIRED CERTAIN COMPANIES OPERATING CABS IN NEW YORK
CITY; IT LATER CONSOLIDATED THEM IN A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY NOW
HOLDING 2,000 OF THE 13,000 LICENSES OUTSTANDING IN THAT CITY. 

FN2  CHECKER ORIGINALLY WAS A COOPERATIVE COMPANY, THE STOCKHOLDERS
OF WHICH WERE THE VARIOUS OWNERS OF "CHECKER" CABS.  IN FEBRUARY, 1930,
AS PART OF A SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION BETWEEN IT AND CCM, CHECKER
AGREED THAT ITS DRIVERS WOULD PURCHASE ALL OF THEIR TAXICABS FROM CAB
SALES FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AT $2,350 PER CAB.  AT THE SAME TIME,
CCM APPOINTED CAB SALES AS EXCLUSIVE AGENT FOR THESE SALES AND AGREED
TO SELL ITS CABS TO CAB SALES AT $1,906 PER CAB.  DURING THE FIVE-YEAR
LIFE OF THIS AGREEMENT, CHECKER DRIVERS BOUGHT A LARGE NUMBER OF CABS
FROM CAB SALES AT PRICES ABOUT $400 ABOVE THOSE AT WHICH CAB SALES
BOUGHT THEM FROM CCM.  AS THESE DRIVERS DEFAULTED IN THEIR PAYMENTS
FROM TIME TO TIME, CAB SALES WOULD FORECLOSE AND TAKE OVER THE
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF THE CABS.  SINCE 1941, IT HAS OWNED AND
OPERATED ALL OF THESE CABS. 

FN3  BY 1932, CAB SALES HAD ACQUIRED OVER 97% OF THE STOCK OF
CHECKER.  MARKIN CAUSED THIS STOCK TO BE SOLD TO CERTAIN OF HIS
ASSOCIATES IN 1942. 

FN4  2,595 LICENSES IN CHICAGO, 2,000 IN NEW YORK CITY, 125 IN
MINNEAPOLIS, AND AN ESTIMATED 280 IN PITTSBURGH. 

FN5  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CONTROLLED OPERATING COMPANIES ARE
CHARGED HIGHER THAN THE OPEN MARKET PRICES, THEY ARE INJURED. 

FN6  THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THAT PARMELEE'S EQUIPMENT AND
SERVICES ARE SO TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE TAXICAB BUSINESS OF YELLOW
AND CAB SALES AS TO MAKE COMPETITION FOR THE CONTRACTS IMPRACTICAL AND
UNLIKELY.  BUT THAT IS A MATTER FOR DETERMINATION AT THE TRIAL ON THE
MERITS AND DOES NOT NEGATIVE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT.    MR.
JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE AGREE WITH PARTS I AND II OF
THIS OPINION BUT DISSENT FROM THE HOLDING IN PART III. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN PART III OF THIS OPINION.  HOWEVER, HE
BELIEVES THAT THE COMPLAINT AS A WHOLE FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING IT
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. MUNSEY TRUST CO., 332 U.S. 234 


NO. 847.  ARGUED MAY 6, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 107 CT. CL.
131, 67 F.SUPP.  976, REVERSED. 


1.  NOTWITHSTANDING CLAIMS OF A SURETY ON A STATUTORY PAYMENT BOND
(GIVEN UNDER 40 U.S.C. SEC. 270A) FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUMS PAID TO
LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN, THE GOVERNMENT MAY SET OFF, AGAINST
UNAPPROPRIATED PERCENTAGES OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS WITHHELD BY IT AND DUE
TO THE CONTRACTOR ON THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, A DEBT OWED TO IT BY
THE CONTRACTOR AS A RESULT OF A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION. 
PP. 236-244. 

2.  WHEN A RECEIVER IS APPOINTED FOR A CONTRACTOR WITH INSTRUCTIONS
TO COLLECT MONEY OWING TO THE CONTRACTOR BY THE GOVERNMENT AND TO HOLD
IT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF A SURETY ON A PAYMENT BOND FOR PAYMENTS MADE TO
LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN, A SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY THE RECEIVER
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR MONEY DUE THE CONTRACTOR IS IN THE RIGHT OF
THE CONTRACTOR; BUT THE RECEIVER MAY ASSERT THE SURETY'S RIGHTS ALSO. 
P. 239. 

3.  UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 145, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 250, WHEN A RECEIVER
ASSERTS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS A CONTRACTOR'S TITLE TO A SUM OWING TO
HIM BY THE GOVERNMENT, THAT COURT IS UNDER STATUTORY DUTY TO RECOGNIZE
AN UNDISPUTED CLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR.  PP. 239
240. 

4.  WITH REFERENCE TO WITHHELD AND UNAPPROPRIATED PERCENTAGES OF
PROGRESS PAYMENTS ON A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, PERFORMANCE OF WHICH HAS
BEEN COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A MERE GENERAL
CREDITOR BUT A SECURED CREDITOR ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD WHAT IT OWES THE
CONTRACTOR UNTIL IT IS PAID WHATEVER THE CONTRACTOR OWES THE
GOVERNMENT.  P. 240. 

5.  A SURETY ON A PAYMENT BOND WHO HAS PAID LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN
FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL FURNISHED UNDER A GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT IS NOT ENTITLED, BY SUBROGATION TO THEIR RIGHTS, TO A LIEN ON
UNAPPROPRIATED PERCENTAGES OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS RETAINED BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR ITS OWN PROTECTION.  PP. 241-242. 

6.  THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO RETAINED PERCENTAGES OF PROGRESS
PAYMENTS ON A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOES NOT DEVOLVE ON A SURETY WHO
HAS PAID LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN, SO AS TO PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM
APPLYING THE UNAPPROPRIATED SUM TO THE SATISFACTION OF ITS OWN CLAIM
GROWING OUT OF A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION.  PP. 242-243. 

7.  THE PROVISIONS OF 40 U.S.C. SEC. 270A REQUIRING A SEPARATE BOND
FOR PAYMENT OF LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WERE ENACTED FOR THEIR BENEFIT
AND DO NOT GIVE SURETIES WHO HAVE PAID THEM RIGHTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF
THE GOVERNMENT.  PP. 243-244. 

8.  WHEN THE WORK TO BE DONE UNDER A GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
HAS BEEN COMPLETED AT THE CONTRACT PRICE AND ACCEPTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, THE LAW OF DAMAGES IS NOT PERTINENT TO THE RIGHTS OF A
SURETY ON A PAYMENT BOND GIVEN UNDER 40 U.S.C. SEC. 270A WHO HAS PAID
LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN.  P. 244. 

UNITED STATES V. MUNSEY TRUST CO., RECEIVER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF A CLAIM BY THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST
THE CONTRACTOR GROWING OUT OF ANOTHER TRANSACTION, THE COURT OF CLAIMS
GAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT TO A RECEIVER FOR A CONTRACTOR FOR
WITHHELD AND UNAPPROPRIATED PERCENTAGES OF PROGRESS PAYMENTS ON A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, TO BE USED BY THE RECEIVER IN REIMBURSING A
SURETY ON A PAYMENT BOND FOR PAYMENTS MADE TO LABORERS AND
MATERIALMEN.  107 CT. CL. 131, 67 F.SUPP.  976.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 814.  REVERSED, P. 244. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS A PROBLEM ARISING OUT OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR.  THE RIGHTS INTER SESE OF CONTRACTOR,
SURETY, ASSIGNEES AND GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN PRODUCTIVE OF MUCH
LITIGATION, BUT WE HAVE NOT HERETOFORE HAD TO DECIDE WHETHER
PERCENTAGES RETAINED PURSUANT TO CONTRACT BY THE UNITED STATES MAY BE
SUBJECTED TO ITS SET-OFF CLAIMS DESPITE THE CLAIMS OF A SURETY WHO HAS
PAID LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN. 

IN MAY AND JULY, 1940, SIX CONTRACTS WERE MADE BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND THE FEDERAL CONTRACTING CORPORATION, IN WHICH THE CORPORATE
CONTRACTOR AGREED TO PAINT AND REPAIR CERTAIN FEDERAL BUILDINGS.  EACH
CONTRACT CONFORMED TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATUTE, 49 STAT. 793, 40
U.S.C. SEC. 270A, ET SEQ., BY PROVIDING FOR TWO SURETY BONDS, ONE
CONDITIONED ON THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK WITHIN THE CONTRACT PERIOD,
AND THE OTHER ON THE PAYMENT OF THOSE FURNISHING LABOR AND MATERIAL TO
THE CONTRACTOR.  THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY SIGNED THOSE
BONDS, EACH OF WHICH ASSIGNED TO IT THE CONTRACTOR'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT FOR SUMS DUE ON THE CONTRACTS WHENEVER THE SURETY SHOULD BE
COMPELLED BY DEFAULT OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS.  FN1
THE WORK WAS COMPLETED BY THE CONTRACTOR APPARENTLY IN 1940, AND
ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE SURETY THEREFORE WAS NOT CALLED UPON
TO MAKE GOOD THE PROMISE OF THE PERFORMANCE BONDS.  BUT THE CONTRACTOR
DID NOT PAY $13,065.93 OWED TO PERSONS WHO HAD SUPPLIED LABOR AND
MATERIAL FOR PERFORMANCE OF FIVE OF THE SIX CONTRACTS.  THIS
INDEBTEDNESS THE SURETY PAID BETWEEN APRIL AND SEPTEMBER, 1941 AS THE
PAYMENT BONDS OBLIGED IT TO DO. 

UNDER THE CUSTOMARY TERMS OF ITS CONTRACTS, THE GOVERNMENT HAD
RETAINED PERCENTAGES OF THE PROGRESS PAYMENTS DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR. 
THIS RETAINED MONEY, ON ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK, AMOUNTED TO $12,445.03,
BUT IT WAS NOT DISBURSED.  ON OCTOBER 18, 1940, THE FEDERAL CONTRACTING
CORPORATION SUBMITTED A BID TO THE UNITED STATES FOR ANOTHER PAINTING
JOB, IN ST. LOUIS.  THAT BID WAS ACCEPTED, BUT THE CONTRACTOR THEN
FAILED TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT FOR THE WORK.  ANOTHER CONTRACTOR PAINTED
THE BUILDING FOR A PRICE WHICH LEFT THE GOVERNMENT CONSIDERABLY MORE
OUT-OF-POCKET THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD FEDERAL UNDERTAKEN
PERFORMANCE AT ITS BID PRICE.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT $6,731.50 IS THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT AFTER IT HAD APPLIED THE
CONTRACTOR'S DEPOSIT OF $415.00 IN REDUCTION. 

ALMOST INEVITABLY, COURT PROCESS WAS BEGUN TO UNTANGLE CLAIMS TO THE
MONEY THE UNITED STATES STILL OWED ON THE SIX CONTRACTS.  A STOCKHOLDER
OF FEDERAL ASKED THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA TO APPOINT A RECEIVER  FN2  TO COLLECT THE MONEY.  THE AETNA
CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY WAS MADE A PARTY TO THAT ACTION. 
RESPONDENT HERE, THE MUNSEY TRUST COMPANY, WAS APPOINTED RECEIVER WITH
DIRECTIONS TO DEMAND AND AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE FROM THE UNITED STATES
THE PROCEEDS OF THE SIX CONTRACTS.  THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT ALSO
RECITED THAT "THE PROCEEDS OF ALL COLLECTIONS MADE BY THE RECEIVER
PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER SHALL BE HELD FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE
DEFENDANT THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY FOR EXPENDITURES MADE
BY IT IN THE PAYMENT OF FURNISHERS OF LABOR AND MATERIAL UNDER THE
SEVERAL CONTRACTS OF THE FEDERAL CONTRACTING CORPORATION." 

ON DEMAND BY THE RECEIVER FOR THE AMOUNTS DUE, THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE DEDUCTED THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM OF $6,731.50 AND PAID OVER
$5,713.53.  AETNA, BY LETTER TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, PROTESTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S SETTLEMENT BY SET-OFF AND ASSERTED ITS RIGHT TO AN
ADDITIONAL $3,568.23.  FN3  THE RECEIVER ALSO PROTESTED THE SET-OFF AND
DEMANDED $3,143.23 FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SURETY.  IT RELIED UPON
MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 100 CT. CL. 513, 53 F.SUPP. 
436.  THE ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECLINED TO FOLLOW THE OPINION OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, IN THE ABSENCE OF RULING BY THIS COURT, AND
REJECTED THE PROTESTS.  WHEN THE RECEIVER REPORTED ITS EFFORTS TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, IT WAS ORDERED TO TURN OVER TO THE SURETY THE MONEY
COLLECTED, LESS $500.  THAT SUM WAS FOR PROSECUTION OF SUIT IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS FOR THE RECOVERY OF WHATEVER OTHER MONEYS "MAY BE DUE
UNDER THE CONTRACTS OF THE FEDERAL CONTRACTING CORPORATION."  THIS
ACTION WAS BEGUN, AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS GAVE JUDGMENT FOR $3,568.23
TO RESPONDENT.  107 CT. CL. 131, 67 F.SUPP.  976.  WE GRANTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE AND
NOVELTY OF THE QUESTION AND THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF MARYLAND CASUALTY
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND THE DECISION BELOW.  330 U.S. 814. 

IN THESE CASES, IT IS USUAL FOR THE RIGHTS RELIED UPON TO BE LARGELY
DERIVATIVE OR SUBROGATED ONES.  DECISION WILL BE ATTENDED WITH
UNNECESSARY CONFUSION AND DIFFICULTY IF IT IS NOT CLEAR WHOSE RIGHTS
ARE BEING ASSERTED AND WHO CLAIMS THEM.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS TREATED
THIS CASE AS THOUGH THE SURETY WERE PLAINTIFF.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT
DIRECTED THE RECEIVER TO BRING THE SUIT.  ITS ORDER OF APPOINTMENT MADE
IT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF FEDERAL CONTRACTING CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH THE
SUMS IT WAS TO COLLECT WERE TO BE HELD FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF AETNA. 
THE SECOND ORDER AUTHORIZED THIS ACTION TO COLLECT WHATEVER OTHER MONEY
MIGHT BE HELD TO BE DUE UNDER THE SIX CONTRACTS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
WOULD NOT VOLUNTARILY PAY.  CERTAINLY, THE RECEIVER SUED AT LEAST IN
THE RIGHT OF FEDERAL, BUT SINCE ITS EFFORTS WERE DIRECTED TO BE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF AETNA, IT MIGHT ASSERT THE SURETY'S RIGHTS ALSO.  SAMUEL
OLSON & CO. V. VOORHEES, 292 F. 113, 115. 

IF THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE THE SET-OFF WERE OPPOSED
ONLY BY THE CLAIMS OF THE CONTRACTOR, THIS CASE WOULD PRESENT NO
DIFFICULTY.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE SAME RIGHT "WHICH BELONGS TO EVERY
CREDITOR, TO APPLY THE UNAPPROPRIATED MONEYS OF HIS DEBTOR, IN HIS
HANDS, IN EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE DEBTS DUE TO HIM."  GRATIOT V. UNITED
STATES, 15 PET. 336, 370; MCKNIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 179, 186. 
MORE THAN THAT, FEDERAL STATUTE GIVES JURISDICTION TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO HEAR AND DETERMINE "ALL SET-OFFS, COUNTERCLAIMS, CLAIMS FOR
DAMAGES, WHETHER LIQUIDATED OR UNLIQUIDATED, OR OTHER DEMANDS
WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST
ANY CLAIMANT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN SAID COURT  ...  "  JUDICIAL
CODE SEC. 145, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 250(2).  THIS POWER GIVEN TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN THE DEBTS AND CREDITS OF THE
GOVERNMENT, BY LOGICAL IMPLICATION GIVES POWER TO THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL TO DO THE SAME, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THAT COURT.  INSOFAR AS
THE SUITOR IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ASSERTED THE CONTRACTOR'S TITLE TO
THE SUM IN DISPUTE, THAT COURT WAS UNDER STATUTORY DUTY TO RECOGNIZE
THE UNDISPUTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES OF THE UNITED STATES.  CHERRY COTTON
MILLS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 536. 

BUT THE SURETY URGES THAT IT IS SUBROGATED ALSO TO THE RIGHTS OF
LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WHOM IT PAID AND OF THE UNITED STATES.  FROM
PRAIRIE STATE BANK V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 227, TO AMERICAN SURETY
CO. V. SAMPSELL, 327 U.S. 269, WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THE PECULIARLY
EQUITABLE CLAIM OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PHYSICAL COMPLETION OF
BUILDING CONTRACTS TO BE PAID FROM AVAILABLE MONEYS AHEAD OF OTHERS
WHOSE CLAIMS COME FROM THE ADVANCE OF MONEY.  BUT IN ALL THOSE CASES,
THE OWNER WAS A MERE STAKEHOLDER AND HAD NO RIGHTS OF ITS OWN TO
ASSERT.  RESPONDENT TELLS US THAT HERE THE UNITED STATES IS IN THE SAME
POSITION AND THAT AS A GENERAL CREDITOR IT HAS NO MORE RIGHT TO THE
MONEY WHICH IT HOLDS THAN DOES ANY OTHER GENERAL CREDITOR OF THE
CONTRACTOR. 

AT THE TIME DEMAND FOR PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE RECEIVER, THE CLAIM OF
THE UNITED STATES ON THE ST. LOUIS CONTRACT WAS EXTANT FOR SOME TIME. 
THE DISBURSING OFFICERS, THEREFORE, DID NOT CONCEDE THAT THEY HELD THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE RETAINED PERCENTAGES FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THE
CONTRACTOR OR OTHERS.  AND ONE WHOSE OWN APPROPRIATION AND PAYMENT OF
MONEY IS NECESSARY TO CREATE A FUND FOR GENERAL CREDITORS IS NOT A
GENERAL CREDITOR.  HE IS NOT COMPELLED TO LESSEN HIS OWN CHANCE OF
RECOVERING WHAT IS DUE HIM BY SETTING UP A FUND UNDIMINISHED BY HIS
CLAIM, SO THAT OTHERS MAY SHARE IT WITH HIM.  IN FACT, HE IS THE BEST
SECURED OF CREDITORS; HIS SECURITY IS HIS OWN JUSTIFIED REFUSAL TO PAY
WHAT HE OWES UNTIL HE IS PAID WHAT IS DUE HIM. 

BUT THE INFIRMITY IN RESPONDENT'S CASE GOES DEEPER.  IF THE UNITED
STATES WERE OBLIGATED TO PAY LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN UNPAID BY A
CONTRACTOR, THE SURETY WHO DISCHARGED THAT OBLIGATION COULD CLAIM
SUBROGATION.  BUT NOTHING IS MORE CLEAR THAN THAT LABORERS AND
MATERIALMEN DO NOT HAVE ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
FOR THEIR COMPENSATION.  CF. H. HERFURTH, JR., INC. V. UNITED STATES,
89 CT. CL. 122; SEE SCHMOLL V. UNITED STATES, 105 CT. CL. 415, 455, 63
F.SUPP.  753, 757; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 100 CT. CL.
513, 521-522, 53 F.SUPP.  436, 440.  THEY CANNOT ACQUIRE A LIEN ON
PUBLIC BUILDINGS, HILL V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 200 U.S. 197, 203;
EQUITABLE SURETY CO. V. MCMILLAN, 234 U.S. 448, 455, AND AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR THAT MORE CUSTOMARY PROTECTION, THE VARIOUS STATUTES
WERE PASSED WHICH REQUIRE THAT A SURETY GUARANTEE THEIR PAYMENT.  OF
THESE, THE LAST AND THE ONE NOW IN FORCE IS THE MILLER ACT UNDER WHICH
THE BONDS HERE WERE DRAWN. 

THE SURETY SAYS, NEVERTHELESS, THAT THE LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN MAY
HAVE A LIEN, OR SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF A LIEN, ON THE RETAINED
PERCENTAGES.  ITS ARGUMENT RUNS INTO LOGICAL DIFFICULTIES.  FOR IT
ASSERTS THAT THE MONEYS ARE RETAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS MUCH FOR
ASSURANCE THAT THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM HIS CONTRACT BY PAYING THE
LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN AS BY COMPLETING THE WORK ON TIME.  IT IS SAID
TO FOLLOW THAT SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN UNPAID, THE CONTRACTOR MAY NOT
DEMAND PAYMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO
DISBURSE THE RETAINED PERCENTAGES.  FN4  IN THAT CASE, HOW MAY THE
LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN HAVE A LIEN UPON MONEY WHICH THE UNITED STATES
MAY LEGALLY KEEP?  SURELY IT IS NOT INTENDED THAT THE LABORERS AND
MATERIALMEN MAY CLAIM PAYMENT OF THAT WHICH IS NOT DUE TO THE
CONTRACTOR.  WE ARE AWARE THAT THE LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN HAVE BEEN
PAID, SO THAT BY NO INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT
AND CONTRACTOR CAN THERE BE RESTRICTIONS ON PAYING OUT THE MONEY
RETAINED.  IT IS SAID THAT IT WAS THE SURETY'S PAYMENT OF THOSE CLAIMS
WHICH RELEASED THE ASSERTED CONTRACT RESTRICTIONS.  IN RELYING ON THE
RIGHTS OF THE LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN, HOWEVER, THE SURETY MUST
ESTABLISH THAT THOSE RIGHTS EXISTED BEFORE THEIR CLAIMS WERE PAID.  FOR
IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT ONE CANNOT ACQUIRE BY SUBROGATION WHAT ANOTHER
WHOSE RIGHTS HE CLAIMS DID NOT HAVE.  ONCE THE LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN
HAVE BEEN PAID, EITHER BY CONTRACTOR OR SURETY, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS IN
ANY FUND.  IF BEFORE THEY ARE PAID, THE FUND TO WHICH THEY ARE SAID TO
BE ENTITLED TO LOOK IS UNAVAILABLE FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THEY ARE
UNPAID, THE SURETY RELIES ON NOTHING WHEN IT RELIES ON THOSE
NONEXISTENT "RIGHTS."  ONE WHO RESTS ON SUBROGATION STANDS IN THE PLACE
OF ONE WHOSE CLAIM HE HAS PAID, AS IF THE PAYMENT GIVING RISE TO THE
SUBROGATION HAD NOT BEEN MADE.  SEE AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V.
MIDDLEPORT, 124 U.S. 534, 548.  HE CANNOT JUMP BACK AND FORTH IN TIME
AND PRESENT HIMSELF AT ONCE AS THE UNPAID CLAIMANT AND AGAIN, UNDER THE
CONDITIONS AS THEY HAVE CHANGED, BECAUSE PAYMENT WAS MADE. 

WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WOULD HAVE ANY
CLAIM TO THE RETAINED PERCENTAGES IF BOTH CONTRACTOR AND SURETY FAILED
TO PAY THEM.  EVEN IF THEY DO, CERTAINLY THOSE WOULD BE RIGHTS TO WHICH
THE SURETY COULD NOT BE SUBROGATED, FOR BY HYPOTHESIS IT WOULD HAVE
DONE NOTHING TO EARN SUBROGATION. 

THE SURETY HAS YET ANOTHER PARTY WHOSE RIGHTS IT WOULD CLAIM, IF IT
CANNOT PREVAIL BY SUBSTITUTION FOR CONTRACTOR OR LABORERS AND
MATERIALMEN.  THIS CONTENTION TOO WAS SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS
WHEN IT SAID THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES DEVOLVED UPON THE
SURETY, BECAUSE OF ITS PAYMENTS.  WE ARE TOLD THAT THE UNITED STATES
RETAINED THE MONEY TO ASSURE PERFORMANCE OF ALL THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
CONTRACTOR, AND THAT THE SURETY IS ENTITLED TO APPLY THAT SECURITY TO
INDEMNIFY ITSELF FOR PERFORMING ONE OF THOSE OBLIGATIONS.  THIS IS BY
ANALOGY TO THE RULE THAT AN OBLIGEE, AS AGAINST A SURETY, MAY NOT APPLY
SECURITY IN SATISFACTION OF DEBTS OTHER THAN THE ONE IT SECURES.  SEE 4
POMEROY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE (5TH ED.)  1075.  BUT ALTHOUGH WE HAVE
ASSUMED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANOTHER ARGUMENT, THAT ASSURANCE THAT
LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WILL BE PAID IS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR
RETAINING THE MONEY, IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY THAT COMPLETION OF THE WORK
ON TIME IS THE ONLY MOTIVE.  CALIFORNIA BANK V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY
& GUARANTY CO., 129 F.2D 751; SEE SCHMOLL V. UNITED STATES, 105 CT. CL.
415, 455, 63 F.SUPP.  753, 757; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, AT 439.  IT IS HARDLY REASONABLE TO WITHHOLD MONEY IN ORDER TO
ASSURE PAYMENTS WHICH PERHAPS CAN BE MADE ONLY FROM THE MONEY EARNED. 
IN ANY EVENT, WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO APPLY LAW RELATING TO SECURITY TO
UNAPPROPRIATED SUMS WHICH EXIST ONLY AS A CLAIM. 

FINALLY, THE SURETY BY REFERENCE TO THE MARYLAND CASUALTY CASE, SUPRA,
SUGGESTS THAT IT HAS RIGHTS OF ITS OWN IN THE MONEY WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT RETAINED.  IT ARGUES THAT THE IMPLICATION OF THE SEVERAL
CONTRACTS AMONG GOVERNMENT, CONTRACTOR AND SURETY WAS THAT THE MONEYS
EARNED UNDER THE REPAIR CONTRACTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO PAY CLAIMS
ARISING UNDER EACH JOB.  HOWEVER, IF STATUTE DID NOT REQUIRE A SURETY,
THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT OF
SET-OFF.  RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THEN COMES TO THIS:  THAT BY
REQUIRING THE CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH ASSURANCES THAT HE WILL PERFORM HIS
OBLIGATIONS TO LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN, THE GOVERNMENT HAS
DELIBERATELY DECREASED THE ORDINARY SAFEGUARDS IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO
ENFORCE THE CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS TO IT.  WE SEE NOTHING IN THE
WORDS OF THE CONTRACT OR THE STATUTE TO LEAD US TO THIS CONCLUSION.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS REQUIRING A SEPARATE BOND FOR
PAYMENT OF LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WERE ENACTED FOR THEIR BENEFIT, NOT
TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS THE SURETY WHO IS REQUIRED
TO TAKE RISK.  WE HAVE NO WARRANT TO INCREASE RISKS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT IF THE WORK HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED, AND THE
SURETY CHOSE NOT TO COMPLETE IT, THE SURETY WOULD BE LIABLE ONLY FOR
THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE, LESS THE RETAINED MONEY.  MOREOVER,
IF THE SURETY DID COMPLETE THE JOB, IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE
RETAINED MONEYS IN ADDITION TO PROGRESS PAYMENTS.  THE SITUATION HERE
IS SAID TO BE SIMILAR.  BUT WHEN A JOB IS INCOMPLETE, THE GOVERNMENT
MUST EXPEND FUNDS TO GET THE WORK DONE, AND IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM
DAMAGES ONLY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE EXCESS WHICH IT PAYS FOR THE JOB OVER
WHAT IT WOULD HAVE PAID HAD THE CONTRACTOR NOT DEFAULTED.  THEREFORE, A
SURETY WOULD RARELY UNDERTAKE TO COMPLETE A JOB IF IT INCURRED THE RISK
THAT BY COMPLETING IT MIGHT LOSE MORE THAN IF IT HAD ALLOWED THE
GOVERNMENT TO PROCEED.  WHEN LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN, HOWEVER, ARE
UNPAID AND THE WORK IS COMPLETE, THE GOVERNMENT SUFFERS NO DAMAGE.  THE
WORK HAS BEEN DONE AT THE CONTRACT PRICE.  THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT SUFFER
DAMAGE BECAUSE IT IS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE LABORERS AND
MATERIALMEN.  IN THE CASE OF THE LABORERS' BOND, THE SURETY HAS
PROMISED THAT THEY WILL BE PAID, NOT, AS IN THE CASE OF PERFORMANCE
BOND, THAT WORK WILL BE DONE AT A CERTAIN PRICE.  THE LAW OF DAMAGES IS
THEREFORE NOT PERTINENT TO THE PAYMENT BOND. 

WE HOLD THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROPERLY USED ITS RIGHT TO SET OFF ITS
INDEPENDENT CLAIM AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  THESE ASSIGNMENTS WERE OF COURSE INVALID AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, R.S. SEC. 3477, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 203; MARTIN V. NATIONAL SURETY
CO., 300 U.S. 588, BUT THEY ENABLE THE SURETY TO PREVAIL OVER THE
CONTRACTOR IF THERE IS CONTEST BETWEEN THEM. 

FN2  SUCH PROCEEDINGS TO APPOINT A RECEIVER IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING POSSESSION OF A FUND OR PROPERTY
AND TO PREVENT ITS LOSS OR DISSIPATION.  INSOLVENCY IS NOT A NECESSARY
ALLEGATION, HOUSTON V. ORMES, 252 U.S. 469, AND THERE IS NO CLAIM IN
THIS CASE THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS INSOLVENT. 

FN3  THE SURETY DID NOT AND COULD NOT CLAIM THE WHOLE AMOUNT RETAINED
BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE PAYMENTS FOR WHICH IT WAS LIABLE, AND WHICH IT
PAID, ON TWO OF THE CONTRACTS EXCEEDED, AND ON THE OTHER FOUR WERE LESS
THAN, THE AMOUNTS RETAINED ON EACH PARTICULAR CONTRACT. 

FN4  IF THE MONEY IS RETAINED ONLY TO ASSURE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK,
THEN THE CONTRACTOR MIGHT COMPEL PAYMENT WHEN THE WORK IS ACCEPTED.  IN
THAT CASE, THE SURETY'S ARGUMENT FALLS, SINCE OBVIOUSLY, BEFORE PAYING,
THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT SET OFF CLAIMS AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











FAHEY V. MALLONEE, 332 U.S. 245 


NO. 687.  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 68
F.SUPP.  418, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 5(D) OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933, WHICH
AUTHORIZES THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD TO PRESCRIBE BY REGULATION
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A CONSERVATOR MAY BE APPOINTED FOR
A FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS.  PP. 248-254. 

(A)  PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388; SCHECHTER CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 249-250. 

(B)  BANKING BEING ONE OF THE LONGEST REGULATED AND MOST CLOSELY
SUPERVISED OF PUBLIC CALLINGS, A DISCRETION TO MAKE REGULATIONS TO
GUIDE SUPERVISORY ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE APPOINTMENT OF
CONSERVATORS, RECEIVERS AND LIQUIDATORS FOR BANKING INSTITUTIONS MAY BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE WHILE IT MIGHT NOT BE ALLOWABLE TO
AUTHORIZE CREATION OF NEW CRIMES IN UNCHARTED FIELDS.  P. 250. 

(C)  THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE HOME LOAN BANK BOARD GOVERNING
THE APPOINTMENT OF CONSERVATORS ARE SUFFICIENTLY EXPLICIT, AGAINST THE
BACKGROUND OF CUSTOM, TO BE ADEQUATE FOR PROPER ADMINISTRATION AND FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  PP. 250-253. 

(D)  IN VIEW OF THE DELICATE NATURE OF BANKING INSTITUTIONS AND THE
IMPOSSIBILITY OF PRESERVING CREDIT DURING AN INVESTIGATION, IT IS NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO PROVIDE FOR A HEARING AFTER, INSTEAD OF BEFORE, A
CONSERVATOR TAKES POSSESSION.  PP. 253-254. 

2.  WHEN, AFTER THE APPOINTMENT OF A CONSERVATOR FOR A FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING IS GRANTED AND
SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CHARGES ARE FURNISHED, BUT THE MAKING OF A RECORD
IS PREVENTED BY AN INJUNCTION OBTAINED BY ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN A
DERIVATIVE SUIT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION WITHOUT THE TAKING OF
TESTIMONY BY THE TRIAL COURT, THIS COURT, IN REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE CASE WITHOUT TRIAL, MUST ASSUME THAT THE
SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES WOULD BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN THE STATEMENTS OF FACT
AND TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSIONS IN THEIR CHARGES.  P. 254. 

3.  IN A DERIVATIVE SUIT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION, SHAREHOLDERS
OF A FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933 ARE ESTOPPED FROM CHALLENGING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5(D), WHICH AUTHORIZE THE
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD TO PRESCRIBE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON
WHICH A CONSERVATOR MAY BE APPOINTED FOR THE ASSOCIATION.  PP. 255
256. 

FAHEY, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK COMMISSIONER, ET AL. V. MALLONEE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

IN A SHAREHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE SUIT ON BEHALF OF A FEDERAL SAVINGS AND
LOAN ASSOCIATION, A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT HELD SEC. 5(D) OF THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933 UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ORDERED REMOVAL OF A
CONSERVATOR WHO HAD BEEN APPOINTED FOR THE ASSOCIATION, PERMANENTLY
ENJOINED THE AUTHORITIES FROM HOLDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON THE
MATTER, PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AN APPREHENDED MERGER, RESTORED THE
ASSOCIATION TO ITS FORMER MANAGEMENT, ORDERED THE CONSERVATOR TO
ACCOUNT, AND ENJOINED THESE AUTHORITIES "FROM EVER ASSERTING ANY
CLAIMS, RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST" IN OR TO THE ASSOCIATION'S PROPERTY. 
68 F.SUPP.  418.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 258. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT HAS SUMMARILY,
WITHOUT TRIAL, ENTERED FINAL JUDGMENT OUSTING A CONSERVATOR WHO, ON
ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK COMMISSIONER, HAD TAKEN POSSESSION
OF THE LONG BEACH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.  IT GRANTED
THIS AND OTHER RELIEF ON THE PRINCIPAL GROUND THAT SEC. 5(D) OF THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, VIOLATES ARTICLE I, SECS. 1
AND 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION ON MAY 20, 1946, WITHOUT
NOTICE OR HEARING, APPOINTED AMMANN CONSERVATOR FOR THE ASSOCIATION AND
HE AT ONCE ENTERED INTO POSSESSION.  THE GROUNDS ASSIGNED WERE THAT THE
ASSOCIATION WAS CONDUCTING ITS AFFAIRS IN AN UNLAWFUL, UNAUTHORIZED AND
UNSAFE MANNER, THAT ITS MANAGEMENT WAS UNFIT AND UNSAFE, THAT IT WAS
PURSUING A COURSE INJURIOUS TO, AND JEOPARDIZING THE INTERESTS OF, ITS
MEMBERS, CREDITORS AND THE PUBLIC.  PLAINTIFFS AT ONCE COMMENCED THIS
CLASS ACTION IN THE RIGHT OF THE ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE CONSERVATOR
AND FAHEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD, THE
ASSOCIATION AS A NOMINAL DEFENDANT, AND SEVERAL OTHERS NOT IMPORTANT TO
THE ISSUE HERE.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE CONSERVATOR AND THE
CHAIRMAN HAD SEIZED THE PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, MOTIVATED
BY MALICE AND ILL WILL, AND THAT THE SEIZURE FOR VARIOUS REASONS WAS IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT ASKED RETURN OF THE ASSOCIATION TO
ITS FORMER MANAGEMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER
INTERFERENCE, AND OTHER RELIEF.  OTHER PARTIES IN INTEREST INTERVENED. 
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS ISSUED AND A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS DULY
CONVENED. 

PERSONAL SERVICE WAS SECURED UPON AMMANN, THE CONSERVATOR, BUT FAHEY,
THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK COMMISSIONER, OFFICIALLY AN INHABITANT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COULD NOT BE SERVED IN CALIFORNIA.  A MOTION
FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, THEREFORE, WAS GRANTED AND PROCESS WAS SERVED
UPON HIM IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS
AUTHORIZED BY JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 57, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 118.  AMMANN MOVED
TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE
OF ACTION.  FAHEY APPEARED SPECIALLY TO MOVE DISMISSAL OR QUASHING
RETURN OF SERVICE ON HIM UPON THE GROUND THAT HE COULD NOT, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY, BE SUED IN CALIFORNIA AND HAD NOT BEEN SERVED
PROPERLY WITH PROCESS.  NEITHER HAD ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, NOR HAD
THEIR TIME TO DO SO EXPIRED, WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED AGAINST
THEM. 

THE THREE-JUDGE COURT SET A VARIETY OF PENDING MOTIONS FOR ARGUMENT
AND, AFTER ARGUMENT MAINLY ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 5(D), WITH
ONLY PLEADINGS AND MOTION PAPERS BEFORE IT, HELD THE SECTION
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ORDERED REMOVAL OF THE CONSERVATOR, PERMANENTLY
ENJOINED THE AUTHORITIES FROM HOLDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ON THE
MATTER, PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AN APPREHENDED MERGER, RESTORED THE
INSTITUTION TO ITS FORMER MANAGEMENT, ORDERED THE CONSERVATOR TO
ACCOUNT AND ENJOINED THESE AUTHORITIES "FROM EVER ASSERTING ANY CLAIMS,
RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST" IN OR TO THE ASSOCIATION'S PROPERTY.  68
F.SUPP.  418.  THE CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL.  50 STAT. 752-53, 28
U.S.C. SECS. 349A, 380A. 

IT IS MANIFEST THAT WHATEVER MERIT THERE MAY BE IN VARIOUS SUBSIDIARY
AND COLLATERAL QUESTIONS, THIS DRASTIC DECREE CAN STAND ONLY IF THE

ITS DEFECT IS SAID TO CONSIST OF DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS
TO THE SUPERVISING AUTHORITY WITHOUT ADEQUATE STANDARDS OF ACTION OR
GUIDES TO POLICY.  SECTION 5(D) OF THE ACT GIVES TO THE BOARD "FULL
POWER TO PROVIDE IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS HEREIN AUTHORIZED FOR THE
REORGANIZATION, CONSOLIDATION, MERGER, OR LIQUIDATION OF SUCH
ASSOCIATIONS, INCLUDING THE POWER TO APPOINT A CONSERVATOR OR A
RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE AFFAIRS OF ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION, AND TO
REQUIRE AN EQUITABLE READJUSTMENT OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF THE SAME;
AND TO RELEASE ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION FROM SUCH CONTROL AND PERMIT ITS
FURTHER OPERATION."  48 STAT. 133, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 1464(D).  THIS, THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD, WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL FUNCTION.  IT RELIED ON PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293
U.S. 388, AND SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495. 

BOTH CITED CASES DEALT WITH DELEGATION OF A POWER TO MAKE FEDERAL
CRIMES OF ACTS THAT NEVER HAD BEEN SUCH BEFORE AND TO DEVISE NOVEL
RULES OF LAW IN A FIELD IN WHICH THERE HAD BEEN NO SETTLED LAW OR
CUSTOM.  THE LATTER CASE ALSO INVOLVED DELEGATION TO PRIVATE GROUPS AS
WELL AS TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES EMPHASIZED THESE
FEATURES, SAYING THAT THE ACT UNDER EXAMINATION WAS NOT MERELY TO DEAL
WITH PRACTICES "WHICH OFFEND AGAINST EXISTING LAW, AND COULD BE THE
SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL CONDEMNATION WITHOUT FURTHER LEGISLATION, OR TO
CREATE ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY FOR THE APPLICATION OF ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLES OF LAW TO PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF VIOLATION.  RATHER, THE
PURPOSE IS CLEARLY DISCLOSED TO AUTHORIZE NEW AND CONTROLLING
PROHIBITIONS THROUGH CODES OF LAWS WHICH WOULD EMBRACE WHAT THE
FORMULATORS WOULD PROPOSE, AND WHAT THE PRESIDENT WOULD APPROVE, OR
PRESCRIBE, AS WISE AND BENEFICENT MEASURES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF TRADES
AND INDUSTRIES IN ORDER TO BRING ABOUT THEIR REHABILITATION, CORRECTION
AND DEVELOPMENT, ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL DECLARATION OF POLICY IN

THE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS WITH WHICH SEC. 5(D) DEALS, ON THE
OTHER HAND, ARE CREATED, INSURED AND AIDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
IT MAY BE THAT EXPLICIT STANDARDS IN THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT WOULD
HAVE BEEN A DESIRABLE ASSURANCE OF RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATION.  BUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE UNDER ATTACK ARE NOT PENAL PROVISIONS AS IN
THE CASE OF LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451, OR UNITED STATES V.
COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81.  THE PROVISIONS ARE REGULATORY.  THEY
DO NOT DEAL WITH UNPRECEDENTED ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF VARIED INDUSTRIES. 
THEY DEAL WITH A SINGLE TYPE OF ENTERPRISE AND WITH THE PROBLEMS OF
INSECURITY AND MISMANAGEMENT WHICH ARE AS OLD AS BANKING ENTERPRISE. 
THE REMEDIES WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED ARE NOT NEW ONES UNKNOWN TO EXISTING
LAW TO BE INVENTED BY THE BOARD IN EXERCISE OF A LAWLESS RANGE OF
POWER.  BANKING IS ONE OF THE LONGEST REGULATED AND MOST CLOSELY
SUPERVISED OF PUBLIC CALLINGS.  IT IS ONE IN WHICH ACCUMULATED
EXPERIENCE OF SUPERVISORS, ACTING FOR MANY STATES UNDER VARIOUS
STATUTES, HAS ESTABLISHED WELL-DEFINED PRACTICES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
CONSERVATORS, RECEIVERS AND LIQUIDATORS.  CORPORATE MANAGEMENT IS A
FIELD, TOO, IN WHICH COURTS HAVE EXPERIENCE AND MANY PRECEDENTS HAVE
CRYSTALLIZED INTO WELL-KNOWN AND GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS.  A
DISCRETION TO MAKE REGULATIONS TO GUIDE SUPERVISORY ACTION IN SUCH
MATTERS MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE WHILE IT MIGHT NOT BE
ALLOWABLE TO AUTHORIZE CREATION OF NEW CRIMES IN UNCHARTED FIELDS. 

THE BOARD ADOPTED RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING APPOINTMENT OF
CONSERVATORS.  THEY PROVIDED THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH A CONSERVATOR MIGHT
BE NAMED,  FN1  AND THEY ARE THE USUAL AND CONVENTIONAL GROUNDS FOUND
IN MOST STATE AND FEDERAL BANKING STATUTES.  FN2  THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY
EXPLICIT, AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF CUSTOM, TO BE ADEQUATE FOR PROPER
ADMINISTRATION AND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THERE SHOULD BE A PROPER
OCCASION FOR IT. 

IT IS COMPLAINED THAT THESE REGULATIONS PROVIDE FOR HEARING AFTER THE
CONSERVATOR TAKES POSSESSION INSTEAD OF BEFORE.  THIS IS A DRASTIC
PROCEDURE.  BUT THE DELICATE NATURE OF THE INSTITUTION AND THE
IMPOSSIBILITY OF PRESERVING CREDIT DURING AN INVESTIGATION HAS MADE IT
AN ALMOST INVARIABLE CUSTOM TO APPLY SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY IN THIS
SUMMARY MANNER.  IT IS A HEAVY RESPONSIBILITY TO BE EXERCISED WITH
DISINTERESTEDNESS AND RESTRAINT, BUT IN THE LIGHT OF THE HISTORY AND
CUSTOMS OF BANKING WE CANNOT SAY IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FN3 

IN THIS CASE AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING WAS DEMANDED AND
SPECIFICATIONS WERE ASKED AS TO THE CHARGES AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT OF
THE ASSOCIATION.  THE HEARING WAS GRANTED AND A STATEMENT OF COMPLAINTS
AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT WAS FURNISHED. 

THE CAUSES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A CONSERVATOR AS THEREIN SET FORTH
BY THE BOARD INCLUDED WITHDRAWALS BY THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT PROPER
VOUCHER THEREFOR; PAYMENT OF SALARIES AND FEES NOT COMMENSURATE WITH
SERVICES RENDERED; A DIRECTOR'S UNLAWFUL REMOVAL OF A CASHIER'S CHECK
IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 DURING AN EXAMINATION BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANK EXAMINERS; LEASING PROPERTIES OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR A TWENTY-YEAR
PERIOD ON TERMS WHICH WOULD NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION TO THE
ASSOCIATION; USE OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR PERSONAL GAIN OF ONE OR MORE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS; FAILURE TO MAINTAIN PROPER ACCOUNTS AND TO MAKE
PROPER REPORTS; AND FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS.  IT ALSO CHARGED CERTAIN
MANIPULATIONS OF THE AFFAIRS OF ANOTHER INSTITUTION BY THE PRESIDENT OF
THIS INSTITUTION. 

THE PLAINTIFFS NEVERTHELESS DEMANDED AND OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION TO
PREVENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND THEY HAVE THEREFORE CUT OFF THE
MAKING OF A RECORD AS TO WHETHER THESE CHARGES ARE WELL-FOUNDED.  NOR
DID THE TRIAL COURT TAKE EVIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT.  WE MUST ASSUME THAT
THE SUPERVISING AUTHORITIES WOULD BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN THE STATEMENTS OF
FACT AND TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSIONS IN THEIR CHARGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING THE CASE WITHOUT TRIAL.  WE ARE THEREFORE UNABLE TO AGREE
WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE SECTION IS INVALID AND HENCE THAT
REGARDLESS OF THE CHARGES THE MANAGEMENT WAS FREE TO GO ON
UNDISCIPLINED AND UNCHECKED. 

BUT EVEN IF THE SECTION WERE DEFECTIVE, WHICH WE THINK IT IS NOT IN A
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, ANOTHER OBSTACLE STANDS IN THE WAY OF OUSTING
THIS CONSERVATOR. 

THE LONG BEACH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION WAS ORGANIZED IN
1934 UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933, SUBSECTION (D)
OF WHICH IS NOW SOUGHT TO BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE PRESENT
MANAGEMENT OBTAINED A CHARTER WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE ASSOCIATION
"SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE HOME OWNERS'
LOAN ACT OF 1933, PROVIDING FOR FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS,
AND TO ANY AMENDMENTS THEREOF, AND TO ANY VALID RULES AND REGULATIONS
MADE THEREUNDER AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME," AND THAT
IT MIGHT BE "LIQUIDATED, MERGED, CONSOLIDATED, OR REORGANIZED, AS IS
PROVIDED IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS  ...  "  IN 1937, UPON THE ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST, AN
AMENDED CHARTER WAS ISSUED WHICH LIKEWISE PROVIDED THAT THE ASSOCIATION
WAS TO EXERCISE ITS POWERS SUBJECT TO THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT AND
REGULATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER. 

THIS IS A STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE ACTION IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS SUE
ONLY IN THE RIGHT OF THE ASSOCIATION.  IT IS AN ELEMENTARY RULE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT ONE MAY NOT "RETAIN THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT
WHILE ATTACKING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ONE OF ITS IMPORTANT
CONDITIONS."  UNITED STATES V. SAN FRANCISCO, 310 U.S. 16, 29.  AS
FORMULATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, CONCURRING IN ASHWANDER V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 348, "THE COURT WILL NOT PASS
UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE AT THE INSTANCE OF ONE WHO HAS
AVAILED HIMSELF OF ITS BENEFITS." 

IN THE NAME AND RIGHT OF THE ASSOCIATION IT IS NOW BEING ASKED THAT
THE ACT UNDER WHICH IT HAS ITS EXISTENCE BE STRUCK DOWN IN IMPORTANT
PARTICULARS, HARDLY SEVERABLE FROM THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH GRANT ITS
RIGHT TO EXIST.  PLAINTIFFS CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
THE ONLY PROVISION UNDER WHICH PROCEEDINGS MAY BE TAKEN TO LIQUIDATE OR
CONSERVE THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ITS MEMBERS AND THE
PUBLIC.  IF IT CAN HOLD THE CHARTER THAT IT OBTAINED UNDER THIS ACT AND
STRIKE DOWN THE PROVISION FOR TERMINATING ITS POWERS OR CONSERVING ITS
ASSETS, IT MAY PERPETUALLY GO ON, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY ABUSES WHICH ITS
MANAGEMENT MAY PERPETRATE.  IT WOULD BE INTOLERABLE THAT THE CONGRESS
SHOULD ENDOW AN ASSOCIATION WITH THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC BANKING
BUSINESS ON CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND THAT THE COURT AT THE BEHEST OF
THOSE WHO TOOK ADVANTAGE FROM THE PRIVILEGE SHOULD REMOVE THE
LIMITATIONS INTENDED FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION.  IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO
IMAGINE A MORE APPROPRIATE SITUATION IN WHICH TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE
THAT ONE WHO UTILIZES AN ACT TO GAIN ADVANTAGES OF CORPORATE EXISTENCE
IS ESTOPPED FROM QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF ITS VITAL CONDITIONS.  WE
HOLD THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE ESTOPPED, AS THE ASSOCIATION WOULD BE, FROM
CHALLENGING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO
PRESCRIBE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A CONSERVATOR MAY BE
NAMED.    THERE ARE OTHER IMPORTANT AND DIFFICULT QUESTIONS RAISED IN
THE CASE WHICH IT BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE. 

OBJECTION IS MADE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING UPON THE GROUND THAT
IT IS BEFORE THE SAME AUTHORITY WHICH HAS PREFERRED THE CHARGES AND
THAT IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED, THEREFORE, TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AND
THAT THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S
DETERMINATION ON THE HEARING.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT COURTS SHOULD
ASSUME IN ADVANCE THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MAY NOT BE FAIRLY
CONDUCTED.  WE DO NOT NOW DECIDE WHETHER THE DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD
IN SUCH PROCEEDING IS SUBJECT TO ANY MANNER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THE
ABSENCE FROM THE STATUTE OF A PROVISION FOR COURT REVIEW HAS SOMETIMES
BEEN HELD NOT TO FORECLOSE REVIEW.  STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288;
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD V. AGNEW, 329 U.S. 441; ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
ACT, 5 U.S.C.A. SEC. 1009.  NOR DO WE MEAN TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT IF
SUPERVISING AUTHORITIES MALICIOUSLY, WANTONLY AND WITHOUT CAUSE DESTROY
THE CREDIT OF A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, THERE ARE NOT REMEDIES. 

ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT IS THAT IT WAS INTENDED THAT
THIS INSTITUTION WOULD BE MERGED WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS TO THE INJURY
OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS.  THE ALLEGATION SEEMS TO BE BASED ON THE FACT THAT
A DIFFERENT INSTITUTION WITH WHICH THE MANAGEMENT OF THE LONG BEACH
INSTITUTION WAS CONNECTED WAS MERGED BY THE AUTHORITIES IN A WAY THAT
WAS HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE TO SOME OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND AROUSED
CONCERN OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.  WE FIND NO EXPLICIT THREAT TO MERGE
THE LONG BEACH INSTITUTION AND THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING BY THE COURT
BELOW.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS ASSURED US AT THE BAR THAT THERE IS NO PLAN
FOR SUCH A MERGER IN CONTEMPLATION.  NEVERTHELESS, SUCH A MERGER WAS
ENJOINED.  IN VIEW OF THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING OF THE THREAT OR OF
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN ONE, WE ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSURANCE THAT
MERGER WILL NOT FOLLOW AND, HENCE, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO
DISCUSS THE LEGALITY OF HYPOTHETICAL MERGERS. 

SINCE THE JUDGMENT THAT HAS BEEN RENDERED AGAINST THE CONSERVATOR,
WHO WAS DULY SERVED WITH PROCESS, MUST BE REVERSED, WE FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER FAHEY WAS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY OR WAS
PROPERLY BROUGHT INTO THE CASE BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS MORE TO THIS LITIGATION THAN MEETS THE
EYE ON THE PLEADINGS.  THE PLAINTIFFS' CHARGES THAT ILL WILL AND MALICE
ACTUATED THE SUPERVISING AUTHORITIES, AS WELL AS THE CHARGES OF THE
DEFENDANTS THAT THE INSTITUTION HAS BEEN MISMANAGED AND THAT THE
MANAGEMENT IS UNFIT, ARE ALIKE UNDETERMINED BY THE COURTS BELOW, AND WE
MAKE NO DETERMINATION OR INTIMATION CONCERNING THE MERITS OF THESE
ISSUES OR AS TO OTHER REMEDIES OR RELIEF THAN THAT IN THE JUDGMENT
BEFORE US. 

OUR DECISION IS THAT IT WAS ERROR IN THE COURT BELOW TO HOLD THE
HIS PROCEEDINGS OR TO ENJOIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, AND THIS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
WHICH MAY BE WARRANTED BY LAW.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
SYSTEM PROVIDE IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

         PART 206.  APPOINTMENT OF CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER. 

SEC. 206.1.  RECEIVER OR CONSERVATOR; APPOINTMENT.  (A) WHENEVER, IN
THE OPINION OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION, ANY FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION: 

(1)  IS CONDUCTING ITS BUSINESS IN AN UNLAWFUL, UNAUTHORIZED, OR
UNSAFE MANNER; 

(2)  IS IN AN UNSOUND OR UNSAFE CONDITION, OR HAS A MANAGEMENT WHICH
IS UNSAFE OR UNFIT TO MANAGE A FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION; 

(3)  CANNOT WITH SAFETY CONTINUE IN BUSINESS; 

(4)  IS IMPAIRED IN THAT ITS ASSETS DO NOT HAVE AN AGGREGATE VALUE
(IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION) AT LEAST
EQUAL TO THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ITS LIABILITIES TO ITS CREDITORS,
MEMBERS, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS; 

(5)  IS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF BECOMING IMPAIRED; 

(6)  IS PURSUING A COURSE THAT IS JEOPARDIZING OR INJURIOUS TO THE
INTERESTS OF ITS MEMBERS, CREDITORS, OR THE PUBLIC; 

(7)  HAS SUSPENDED PAYMENT OF ITS OBLIGATIONS; 

(8)  HAS REFUSED TO SUBMIT ITS BOOKS, PAPERS, RECORDS, OR AFFAIRS FOR
INSPECTION TO ANY EXAMINER OR LAWFUL AGENT APPOINTED BY THE FEDERAL
HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION; 

(9)  HAS REFUSED BY THE REFUSAL OF ANY OF ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, OR
EMPLOYEES TO BE EXAMINED UPON OATH BY THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
ADMINISTRATION OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE CONCERNING ITS AFFAIRS; OR 

(10)  HAS REFUSED OR FAILED TO OBSERVE A LAWFUL ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION, THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
ADMINISTRATION MAY APPOINT THE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE
CORPORATION RECEIVER FOR SUCH FEDERAL ASSOCIATION, WHICH APPOINTMENT
SHALL BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATION, OR THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
ADMINISTRATION MAY APPOINT A CONSERVATOR FOR SUCH FEDERAL ASSOCIATION
TO CONSERVE THE ASSETS OF THE ASSOCIATION PENDING FURTHER DISPOSITION
OF ITS AFFAIRS.  THE APPOINTMENT SHALL BE BY ORDER, WHICH ORDER SHALL
STATE ON WHICH OF THE ABOVE CAUSES THE APPOINTMENT IS BASED.  ANY
CONSERVATOR SO APPOINTED SHALL FURNISH BOND FOR HIMSELF AND HIS
EMPLOYEES, IN FORM AND AMOUNT AND WITH SURETY ACCEPTABLE TO THE
GOVERNOR OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK SYSTEM, OR ANY DEPUTY OR
ASSISTANT GOVERNOR, BUT NO BOND SHALL BE REQUIRED OF THE FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER.  THE CONSERVATOR OR
RECEIVER SHALL FORTHWITH UPON APPOINTMENT TAKE POSSESSION OF THE
ASSOCIATION AND, AT THE TIME SUCH CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER SHALL DEMAND
POSSESSION, SUCH CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER SHALL NOTIFY THE OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSOCIATION, IF ANY, WHO SHALL BE IN THE HOME OFFICE OF
THE ASSOCIATION AND APPEAR TO BE IN CHARGE OF SUCH OFFICE, OF THE
ACTION OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION.  THE SECRETARY OF
THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION SHALL, FORTHWITH UPON
ADOPTION THEREOF, MAIL A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT TO
THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSOCIATION AS IT SHALL APPEAR ON THE RECORDS OF THE
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION AND TO EACH DIRECTOR OF THE
ASSOCIATION, KNOWN BY THE SECRETARY TO BE SUCH, AT THE LAST ADDRESS OF
EACH AS THE SAME SHALL APPEAR ON THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANK ADMINISTRATION.  IF SUCH CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING
THE CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER IS RECEIVED AT THE OFFICES OF THE
ASSOCIATION AFTER THE TAKING OF POSSESSION BY THE CONSERVATOR OR
RECEIVER, SUCH CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER SHALL HAND THE SAME TO ANY
OFFICER OR DIRECTOR OF THE ASSOCIATION WHO MAY MAKE DEMAND THEREFOR. 

SEC. 206.2.  HEARING ON APPOINTMENT.  WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS (SUNDAYS
AND HOLIDAYS INCLUDED) AFTER THE APPOINTMENT OF A CONSERVATOR OR
RECEIVER FOR A FEDERAL ASSOCIATION NOT AT THE TIME OF SUCH APPOINTMENT
IN THE HANDS OF A CONSERVATOR, SUCH FEDERAL ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAS NOT,
BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSENTED TO OR REQUESTED THE APPOINTMENT OF
A CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER, MAY FILE AN ANSWER AND SERVE A WRITTEN
DEMAND FOR A HEARING, AUTHORIZED BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WHICH
DEMAND SHALL STATE THE ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE
SENT.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH ANSWER AND WRITTEN DEMAND FOR A HEARING THE
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION SHALL ISSUE AND SERVE A NOTICE OF
HEARING UPON THE INSTITUTION BY MAILING A COPY OF THE ORDER OF HEARING
TO THE ADDRESS STATED IN THE DEMAND THEREFOR AND SHALL CONDUCT A
HEARING, AT WHICH TIME AND PLACE THE FEDERAL ASSOCIATION MAY APPEAR AND
SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
APPOINTED AND WHY AN ORDER SHOULD BE ENTERED BY THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANK ADMINISTRATION DISCHARGING THE CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER.  SUCH
HEARING SHALL BE HELD EITHER IN THE DISTRICT OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANK OF WHICH SUCH FEDERAL ASSOCIATION IS A MEMBER OR IN WASHINGTON,
D.C., AS THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION SHALL DETERMINE,
UNLESS THE ASSOCIATION OTHERWISE CONSENTS IN WRITING.  SUCH HEARING MAY
BE HELD BEFORE THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK COMMISSIONER OR BEFORE A
TRIAL EXAMINER OR HEARING OFFICER, AS THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
ADMINISTRATION SHALL DETERMINE.  SUCH FEDERAL ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAS
NOT, BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CONSENTED TO OR REQUESTED THE
APPOINTMENT OF A CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER, MAY, WITHIN SEVEN DAYS
(SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS INCLUDED) OF SUCH APPOINTMENT, SERVE A WRITTEN OR
TELEGRAPHIC DEMAND, AUTHORIZED BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UPON THE
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OF
THE CAUSE OR CAUSES FOR THE ACTION.  THE TIME OF SERVICE UPON THE
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION
SHALL BE THE TIME OF RECEIPT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANK ADMINISTRATION. 

SEC. 206.4.  DISCHARGE OF CONSERVATOR OR RECEIVER.  AN ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK ADMINISTRATION DISCHARGING A CONSERVATOR AND
RETURNING THE ASSOCIATION TO ITS MANAGEMENT SHALL RESTORE TO SUCH
FEDERAL ASSOCIATION ALL ITS RIGHTS, POWERS AND PRIVILEGES AND SHALL
RESTORE THE RIGHTS, POWERS AND PRIVILEGES OF ITS OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS, ALL AS OF THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SUCH ORDER, EXCEPT AS SUCH
ORDER MAY OTHERWISE PROVIDE.  AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
ADMINISTRATION DISCHARGING A RECEIVER AND RETURNING THE ASSOCIATION TO
ITS MANAGEMENT SHALL BY OPERATION OF LAW AND WITHOUT ANY CONVEYANCE OR
OTHER INSTRUMENT, ACT OR DEED, RESTORE TO SUCH FEDERAL ASSOCIATION ALL
ITS RIGHTS, POWERS AND PRIVILEGES, REVEST IN SUCH FEDERAL ASSOCIATION
THE TITLE TO ALL ITS PROPERTY, AND RESTORE THE RIGHTS, POWERS AND
PRIVILEGES OF ITS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, ALL AS OF THE TIME SPECIFIED
IN SUCH ORDER, EXCEPT AS SUCH ORDER MAY OTHERWISE PROVIDE.  24 C.F.R.
CUM. SUPP. SEC. 206.1 ET SEQ., AS AMENDED, 24 C.F.R. 1943 SUPP. SEC.
206.1. 

FN2  BANK CONSERVATION ACT OF MARCH 9, 1933, SEC. 203, 48 STAT. 2-3,
12 U.S.C. SEC. 203; BANKING ACT OF 1933, SEC. 31, 48 STAT. 194, 12
U.S.C. SEC. 71A; NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, SEC. 406, 48 STAT. 1259-60, 12
U.S.C. SEC. 1729.  E.G., NEW YORK BANKING LAW, SEC. 606, 4 MCKINNEY'S
CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW YORK, PP. 708-709, (POCKET PART, 1946) 125-26;
PAGE'S OHIO GENERAL CODE ANN., SEC. 687; 1 DEERING'S CALIFORNIA GENERAL
LAWS, ACT 986, SEC. 13.11; MASSACHUSETTS LAWS ANN. C. 167, SEC. 22; C.
170B, SEC. 4; JONES ILLINOIS STAT. ANN., SEC. 14.40. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 2. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT AND IN THE COURT'S OPINION
INSOFAR AS IT RESTS UPON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTROLLING STATUTE, SEC.
5(D) OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933, IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
..END :







EX PARTE FAHEY, 332 U.S. 258 


NO. 133, MISC.  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947. 


MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND INJUNCTION AGAINST JUDGES ARE EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDIES WHICH SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR REALLY EXTRAORDINARY CASES; AND
THIS COURT WILL NOT COUNTENANCE THEIR USE AS SUBSTITUTES FOR AN
APPEAL.  PP. 259-260. 

EX PARTE FAHEY, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK COMMISSIONER, ET AL. 

PETITION INVOKING THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT AND ASKING
LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION OR INJUNCTION
AGAINST A DISTRICT JUDGE TO VACATE HIS ORDER ALLOWING FEES TO COUNSEL
IN FAHEY V. MALLONEE, ANTE, P. 245, TO PROHIBIT ANY FURTHER ALLOWANCE
THEREIN AND TO ENJOIN ANY PAYMENTS HERETOFORE ALLOWED, DENIED, P. 260. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PETITION BY JOHN H. FAHEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANK COMMISSIONER, AND A.V. AMMANN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CONSERVATOR FOR
THE LONG BEACH FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INVOKES THE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  THEY ASK LEAVE TO FILE PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF "MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION AND/OR INJUNCTION" AGAINST
JUDGE PEIRSON M. HALL OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TO VACATE HIS ORDER ALLOWING FEES TO
COUNSEL IN FAHEY V. MALLONEE, DECIDED TODAY, ANTE, P. 245, TO PROHIBIT
ANY FURTHER ALLOWANCE THEREIN, AND TO ENJOIN ANY PAYMENTS HERETOFORE
ALLOWED. 

WHILE AN APPEAL IN THE PRINCIPAL CASE WAS PENDING IN THIS COURT,
APPLICATION WAS MADE BY VARIOUS COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS AND
ASSOCIATED INTERESTS THEREIN FOR ALLOWANCE OF FEES AGGREGATING SOME
$125,000.  THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS $50,000 AS
A PARTIAL PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICES, BUT WITHHELD ACTION ON OTHER
APPLICATIONS.  CERTAIN COSTS AND EXPENSES OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $17,295.13 WERE ALSO ORDERED REIMBURSED. 

THE PETITION INVOLVES SERIOUS QUESTIONS OF LAW AND OF FACT.  WHETHER,
BECAUSE OF THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL AND THE STAY ORDER GRANTED
THEREIN, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE APPLICATION,
WHETHER BEFORE THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE CASE COULD BE KNOWN AN
ALLOWANCE WAS PREMATURE, WHETHER THE SOURCE OF THE FUND ON DEPOSIT WITH
THE COURT WAS SO RELATED TO THE SERVICES AS TO BE SUBJECT TO
DISBURSEMENT FOR THEIR COMPENSATION, AND WHETHER ONE JUDGE CAN MAKE
ALLOWANCES IN A CASE BEFORE A THREE-JUDGE COURT, ARE, WITH OTHER
QUESTIONS, MUCH CONTESTED.  WE DO NOT DECIDE ANY QUESTION AS TO THE
MERITS. 

MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND INJUNCTION AGAINST JUDGES ARE DRASTIC AND
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES.  WE DO NOT DOUBT POWER IN A PROPER CASE TO
ISSUE SUCH WRITS.  BUT THEY HAVE THE UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCE OF MAKING
THE JUDGE A LITIGANT, OBLIGED TO OBTAIN PERSONAL COUNSEL OR TO LEAVE
HIS DEFENSE TO ONE OF THE LITIGANTS BEFORE HIM.  THESE REMEDIES SHOULD
BE RESORTED TO ONLY WHERE APPEAL IS A CLEARLY INADEQUATE REMEDY.  WE
ARE UNWILLING TO UTILIZE THEM AS SUBSTITUTES FOR APPEALS.  AS
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES, THEY ARE RESERVED FOR REALLY EXTRAORDINARY
CAUSES. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THIS CASE TO WARRANT THEIR USE.  AN ALLOWANCE OF
$50,000 WILL HARDLY DESTROY A TWENTY-SIX-MILLION-DOLLAR ASSOCIATION
DURING THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL.  THE STATUS OF
ONE OF THE APPLICANTS IN THE PRINCIPAL CASE IS NOW SETTLED SO THAT HE
HAS STANDING TO TAKE ALL AUTHORIZED APPEALS.  WE HOLD THAT THE
APPLICANTS' GRIEVANCE IS ONE TO BE PURSUED BY APPEAL AT THE PROPER TIME
AND TO THE APPROPRIATE COURT, RATHER THAN BY RESORT TO OUR ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS. 

THE PETITION IS DENIED. 
..END :




FAY V. NEW YORK, 332 U.S. 261 


ARGUED APRIL 3, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 296 N.Y. 510, 68
N.E.2D 453, AFFIRMED. 


1.  NEW YORK JUDICIARY LAW SEC. 749-AA, 29 MCKINNEY'S L.N.Y., PP. 511
515, PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE SELECTION OF A SPECIAL OR "BLUE
RIBBON" JURY PANEL FROM THE GENERAL JURY PANEL IN COUNTIES OF ONE
MILLION OR MORE INHABITANTS AND THE USE IN CERTAIN CLASSES OF CASES OF
JURIES DRAWN FROM THIS SPECIAL PANEL, DOES NOT ON ITS FACE DENY
DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES DUE PROCESS OF LAW OR EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 270-272. 

(A)  THIS COURT CANNOT FIND IT CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN TO SET UP
IN A METROPOLIS WITH CONGESTED COURT CALENDARS ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL TO ELIMINATE FROM THE JURY PANEL THOSE
WHO, IN A LARGE PROPORTION OF CASES, WOULD BE REJECTED BY THE COURT
AFTER ITS TIME HAD BEEN TAKEN IN EXAMINATION TO ASCERTAIN THE
DISQUALIFICATIONS.  P. 271. 

(B)  THESE ARE LOCAL MATTERS WITH WHICH LOCAL AUTHORITY MUST AND DOES
HAVE CONSIDERABLE LATITUDE TO COPE, FOR THEY AFFECT THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE WHICH IS A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY.  P. 271. 

(C)  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED FOR THE SELECTION
OF THE SPECIAL PANEL WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS PROHIBITED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 267-268, 270-272. 

2.  PETITIONERS HAVE NOT SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THEIR
TRIAL BY A JURY DRAWN FROM SUCH A SPECIAL PANEL DENIED THEM EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  PP. 272-286. 

(A)  IT IS NOT PROVEN THAT LABORERS, OPERATIVES, CRAFTSMEN, FOREMEN
AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES WERE SYSTEMATICALLY, INTENTIONALLY AND
DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED FROM THE SPECIAL PANEL.  PP. 273-277. 

(B)  NOR IS IT PROVEN THAT WOMEN WERE SO EXCLUDED - ESPECIALLY IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THREE WOMEN TALESMEN WERE EXAMINED AND ONE SERVED
ON THE JURY IN THIS CASE.  PP. 277-278. 

(C)  THE ELIMINATION FROM THE SPECIAL PANEL OF PERSONS WHO, IN
REPLYING TO A QUESTIONNAIRE, EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE TO SERVE DURING
CERTAIN MONTHS IS OF NO CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND OF NO PREJUDICE
TO PETITIONERS.  P. 278. 

(D)  PETITIONERS HAVE NOT SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT IN
1945, WHEN THEY WERE TRIED, THE SPECIAL PANEL WAS SO COMPOSED AS TO BE
MORE PRONE TO CONVICT THAN THE GENERAL PANEL.  PP. 278-286. 

3.  THE STATUTE PROVIDING FOR THE SPECIAL JURY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  GLASSER V. UNITED
STATES, 315 U.S. 60; THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 328 U.S. 217;
BALLARD V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 187, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 286-296. 

(A)  THERE BEING NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT JURIES SHALL
INCLUDE WOMEN, THEIR PARTIAL EXCLUSION FROM THE GENERAL AND SPECIAL
JURY PANELS (BY MAKING THEIR SERVICE VOLUNTARY INSTEAD OF COMPULSORY)
WAS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  PP. 289-290. 

(B)  A LACK OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF AN ECONOMIC CLASS
COMPRISING LABORERS, CRAFTSMEN AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES, WHICH DOES NOT
RESULT FROM AN INTENTIONAL AND PURPOSEFUL EXCLUSION OF ANY CLASS BUT
FROM TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE, CITIZENSHIP AND UNDERSTANDING OF ENGLISH
APPLIED ALIKE TO ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  PP. 290-294. 

4.  IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE STATUTE IS ADMINISTERED SO AS TO
PRODUCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULTS, THIS COURT MUST EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE
AND REACH ITS OWN CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE FACTS.  P. 272. 

5.  SINCE CONGRESS HAS CONSIDERED THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE STATE JURY SYSTEMS AND HAS FOUND ONLY
DISCRIMINATIONS ON ACCOUNT OF "RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF
SERVITUDE" TO DESERVE GENERAL LEGISLATIVE CONDEMNATION (8 U.S.C. SEC.
44), ONE WHO WOULD HAVE THE JUDICIARY INTERVENE ON OTHER GROUNDS MUST
COMPLY WITH THE EXACTING REQUIREMENTS OF PROVING CLEARLY THAT IN HIS
OWN CASE THE PROCEDURE HAS GONE SO FAR AFIELD THAT ITS RESULTS ARE A
DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS.  PP. 282-284. 

6.  IT IS FUNDAMENTAL IN QUESTIONING THE COMPOSITION OF A JURY THAT A
MERE SHOWING THAT A CLASS WAS NOT REPRESENTED IN A PARTICULAR JURY IS
NOT ENOUGH; THERE MUST BE A CLEAR SHOWING THAT ITS ABSENCE WAS CAUSED
BY DISCRIMINATION.  P. 284. 

7.  WHEN DISCRIMINATION OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL KIND IN THE SELECTION
OF A JURY IS ALLEGED, THE BURDEN OF PROVING IT PURPOSEFUL AND
INTENTIONAL IS ON THE DEFENDANT.  P. 285. 

8.  IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE METHOD OF SELECTING A JURY VIOLATES
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE INQUIRY IS
WHETHER DEFENDANTS RECEIVED LESS FAVORABLE TREATMENT THAN OTHERS.  P.
285. 

9.  THIS COURT MAY EXERT A SUPERVISORY POWER OVER FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS
WITH GREATER FREEDOM TO REFLECT ITS NOTIONS OF GOOD POLICY THAN IT MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY EXERT OVER PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS, AND THESE
EXPRESSIONS OF POLICY ARE NOT NECESSARILY EMBODIED IN THE CONCEPT OF
DUE PROCESS.  P. 287. 

10.  THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH AMENDMENTS, WHICH
REQUIRE JURY TRIAL IN CRIMINAL AND CERTAIN CIVIL CASES, ARE NOT MADE
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 288. 

11.  DUE PROCESS REQUIRES A REAL HEARING BY A TRIBUNAL UNBIASED BY
INTEREST IN THE EVENT; BUT AN ACCUSED IS NOT ENTITLED TO A SET-UP THAT
WILL GIVE A CHANCE OF ESCAPE AFTER HE IS PROPERLY PROVEN GUILTY.  HE
HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FRIENDS ON THE JURY.  PP. 288-289. 

12.  THE STATE'S RIGHT TO APPLY TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE, CITIZENSHIP
AND UNDERSTANDING OF ENGLISH IN SELECTING JURORS IS NOT OPEN TO DOUBT,
EVEN THOUGH THEY DISQUALIFY A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF MANUAL
WORKERS.  P. 291. 

13.  THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO SAY THAT MERE EXCLUSION OF JURORS OF
ONE'S OCCUPATION RENDERS A JURY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN THOUGH THE
OCCUPATION TENDS TO GIVE THOSE WHO PRACTICE IT A PARTICULAR AND
DISTINCTIVE VIEWPOINT.  P. 292, N. 35. 

14.  THERE IS SOME DISCRETION LEFT IN THE STATES TO SAY THAT PERSONS
IN SOME OCCUPATIONS ARE MORE NEEDED AT THEIR WORK THAN ON JURY DUTY
AND, PERHAPS, THAT SOME HAVE OCCUPATIONAL ATTITUDES THAT MAKE IT
APPROPRIATE TO LEAVE THEM OFF THE LIST SO LONG AS AN UNEXCEPTIONABLE
LIST REMAINS ON CALL.  P. 292, N. 35. 

15.  THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WITH
REFERENCE TO STATE JURIES IS NOT TO PRESCRIBE PROCEDURES BUT IS
ESSENTIALLY TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRIAL PROCESS BY WHATEVER
METHOD THE STATE SEES FIT TO EMPLOY.  P. 294. 

16.  BEYOND REQUIRING CONFORMITY TO STANDARDS OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
THAT HAVE WON LEGAL RECOGNITION, THIS COURT ADHERES TO A POLICY OF SELF
RESTRAINT IN INTERPRETING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND WILL NOT USE
THAT AMENDMENT TO IMPOSE UNIFORM PROCEDURES UPON THE SEVERAL STATES,
WHOSE LEGAL SYSTEMS STEM FROM DIVERSE SOURCES OF LAW AND REFLECT
DIFFERENT HISTORICAL INFLUENCES.  PP. 294-295. 

17.  NO VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE BEING ALLEGED, A SUCCESSFUL
CHALLENGE TO THIS JUDGMENT UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DEPENDS ON A
SHOWING THAT THESE DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD A TRIAL SO UNFAIR AS TO AMOUNT
TO A TAKING OF THEIR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; AND SUCH A
SHOWING HAS NOT BEEN MADE.  P. 296. 

FAY V. NEW YORK. 

NO. 377.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 452, BOVE V. NEW YORK, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SAME COURT. 

IN A STATE COURT IN NEW YORK COUNTY, A SPECIAL OR SO-CALLED "BLUE
RIBBON" JURY IMPANELED PURSUANT TO N.Y. JUDICIARY LAW SEC. 749-AA, 29
MCKINNEY L.N.Y., PP. 511-15, 15, CONVICTED PETITIONERS OF EXTORTION AND
CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW YORK AFFIRMED.  270 APP. DIV. 261, 59 N.Y.S.2D 127.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED.  296 N.Y. 510, 68 N.E.2D 453.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 697.  AFFIRMED, P. 296. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT THE SAME ISSUE, A CHALLENGE TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SPECIAL OR SO-CALLED "BLUE RIBBON" JURY AS
USED BY STATE COURTS IN THE STATE AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK. 

SUCH A JURY FOUND FAY AND BOVE GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT AND OF
EXTORTION.  BOVE WAS VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS,
BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA.  FAY WAS VICE-PRESIDENT
OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS.  THE CITY OF NEW
YORK AWARDED CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSIVE PROJECT KNOWN
AS THE DELAWARE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM TO SEVERAL LARGE CONSTRUCTION
CONCERNS.  IT WAS NOT DENIED THAT FAY AND BOVE COLLECTED FROM THESE
CONTRACTORS UPWARDS OF $300,000.  BUT IT WAS DENIED THAT PAYMENT WAS
INDUCED BY THREATS TO DO UNLAWFUL INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY.  THE
DEFENSE CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE VOLUNTARY - BRIBES, PERHAPS, BUT
NOT EXTORTION - THAT THESE MEN WERE PAID MERELY FOR UNDERTAKING TO
ASSIST THE CONTRACTORS TO AVOID LABOR TROUBLE, TO PREVENT
JURISDICTIONAL OR UNAUTHORIZED STRIKES, AND TO "HANDLE THE LABOR
SITUATION," AND THAT FAY AND BOVE RENDERED SERVICE AS AGREED. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THE CRIMES IN SEVEN COUNTS.  ONE WAS DISMISSED
BY THE COURT; THE REMAINING SIX WERE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  THE JURY
ACQUITTED THE DEFENDANTS ON THREE OF THE COUNTS, DISAGREED ON ANOTHER,
AND CONVICTED ON TWO COUNTS.  THE CONVICTIONS WERE AFFIRMED ON APPEAL
BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT,  FN1  WHICH REVIEWS
BOTH LAW AND FACT,  FN2 AND BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  FN3  NO FEDERAL
QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE MERITS OF THE FINDING OF GUILT AND WE ARE
TO ASSUME THAT THE CONVICTIONS WERE WARRANTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND,
EXCEPT FOR QUESTIONS AS TO THE SPECIAL JURY, WERE REGULAR.  WHILE THERE
WAS CHALLENGE TO THE PANEL FROM WHICH THIS JURY WAS DRAWN, ON GROUND OF
DENIAL OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, EACH INDIVIDUAL
JUROR WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENDANTS WITHOUT CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE.  THE
CHALLENGE TO THE SPECIAL JURY PANEL WAS NOT DISCUSSED BY EITHER OF THE
APPELLATE COURTS OF THE STATE BUT THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS WERE
SUFFICIENTLY AND TIMELY RAISED THROUGHOUT AND WERE OVERRULED BY ALL
STATE COURTS.  A DUAL SYSTEM OF JURIES PRESENTS EASY POSSIBILITIES OF
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND WE TOOK THESE CASES BY
CERTIORARI TO EXAMINE THE CHARGES OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  329 U.S.
697. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A WARRANTED CONVICTION BY A JURY INDIVIDUALLY
ACCEPTED AS FAIR AND UNBIASED SHOULD BE SET ASIDE ON THE GROUND THAT
THE MAKE-UP OF THE PANEL FROM WHICH THEY WERE DRAWN UNFAIRLY NARROWS
THE CHOICE OF JURORS AND DENIES DEFENDANTS DUE PROCESS OF LAW OR EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  IF ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IT MEANS THAT NO
CONVICTION BY THESE SPECIAL JURIES IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID, AND ALL
WOULD BE SET ASIDE IF THE QUESTION HAD BEEN PROPERLY RAISED AT OR
BEFORE TRIAL. 

THE DEFENDANTS RAISE NO QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
GENERAL STATUTES OF NEW YORK WHICH PRESCRIBE THE QUALIFICATIONS,
DISQUALIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS FOR ORDINARY JURY SERVICE.  NEITHER IS
ANY QUESTION RAISED AS TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THESE GENERAL STATUTES
BY WHICH THE POPULATION OF NEW YORK COUNTY, NUMBERING SOME 1,800,000,
IS SIFTED TO PRODUCE A GENERAL JURY PANEL OF ABOUT 60,000, UNLESS IT BE
THAT THERE IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN.  FN4  IT IS FROM THIS PANEL
THAT DEFENDANTS INSIST, APART FROM ANY OBJECTION THEY MAY HAVE AS TO
IMPROPER EXCLUSION OF WOMEN EVEN FROM THE GENERAL PANEL, THEY HAD A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR TRIAL JURY DRAWN.  THE STATUTES
ADVANCED AS A STANDARD MAY BE ROUGHLY SUMMARIZED: 

TO QUALIFY AS A JUROR, A PERSON MUST BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND A
RESIDENT OF THE COUNTY; NOT LESS THAN 21 NOR MORE THAN 70 YEARS OLD;
THE OWNER OR SPOUSE OF AN OWNER OF PROPERTY OF THE VALUE OF $250; IN
POSSESSION OF HIS OR HER NATURAL FACULTIES AND NOT INFIRM OR DECREPIT;
NOT CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR A MISDEMEANOR INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE;
INTELLIGENT; OF SOUND MIND AND GOOD CHARACTER; WELL-INFORMED; ABLE TO
READ AND WRITE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDINGLY.  FN5  FROM THOSE
QUALIFIED THE FOLLOWING CLASSES ARE EXEMPT FROM SERVICE:  CLERGYMEN,
PHYSICIANS, DENTISTS, PHARMACISTS, EMBALMERS, OPTOMETRISTS, ATTORNEYS,
MEMBERS OF THE ARMY, NAVY OR MARINE CORPS, OR OF THE NATIONAL GUARD OR
NAVAL MILITIA, FIREMEN, POLICEMEN, SHIP'S OFFICERS, PILOTS, EDITORS,
EDITORIAL WRITERS, SUBEDITORS, REPORTERS AND COPY READERS.  FN6 

WOMEN ARE EQUALLY QUALIFIED WITH MEN, FN7  BUT AS THEY ALSO ARE
GRANTED EXEMPTION,  FN8  A WOMAN DRAWN MAY SERVE OR NOT, AS SHE
CHOOSES. 

THE ATTACK IS FOCUSED UPON THE STATUTES AND SIFTING PROCEDURES WHICH
SHRINK THE GENERAL PANEL TO THE SPECIAL OR "BLUE RIBBON" PANEL OF ABOUT
3,000. 

SPECIAL JURORS ARE SELECTED FROM THOSE ACCEPTED FOR THE GENERAL PANEL
BY THE COUNTY CLERK, BUT ONLY AFTER EACH HAS BEEN SUBPOENAED FOR
PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND HAS TESTIFIED UNDER OATH AS TO HIS
QUALIFICATION AND FITNESS N9.  THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES STANDARDS FOR
THEIR SELECTION BY DECLARING INELIGIBLE AND DIRECTING ELIMINATION OF
THESE CLASSES:  (1) ALL WHO HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED OR WHO CLAIM AND ARE
ALLOWED EXEMPTION FROM GENERAL SERVICE.  (2) ALL WHO HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, OR FOUND GUILTY OF FRAUD OR MISCONDUCT
BY JUDGMENT OF ANY CIVIL COURT.  (3) ALL WHO POSSESS SUCH CONSCIENTIOUS
OPINIONS WITH REGARD TO THE DEATH PENALTY AS WOULD PRECLUDE THEIR
FINDING A DEFENDANT GUILTY IF THE CRIME CHARGED BE PUNISHABLE WITH
DEATH.  (4) ALL WHO DOUBT THEIR ABILITY TO LAY ASIDE AN OPINION OR
IMPRESSION FORMED FROM NEWSPAPER READING OR OTHERWISE, OR TO RENDER AN
IMPARTIAL VERDICT UPON THE EVIDENCE UNINFLUENCED BY ANY SUCH OPINION OR
IMPRESSION, OR WHOSE OPINION OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUCH AS
WOULD PREVENT THEIR FINDING A VERDICT OF GUILTY UPON SUCH EVIDENCE, OR
WHO AVOW SUCH A PREJUDICE AGAINST ANY LAW OF THE STATE AS WOULD
PRECLUDE FINDING A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF SUCH LAW, OR WHO
AVOW SUCH A PREJUDICE AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL
CHARGE AS WOULD PREVENT GIVING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL UPON THE
MERITS OF SUCH DEFENSE, OR WHO AVOW THAT THEY CANNOT IN ALL CASES GIVE
TO A DEFENDANT WHO FAILS TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS IN HIS OWN BEHALF THE
FULL BENEFIT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION THAT SUCH DEFENDANT'S NEGLECT
OR REFUSAL TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS IN HIS OWN BEHALF SHALL NOT CREATE
ANY PRESUMPTION AGAINST HIM.  FN10 

THE SPECIAL JURY PANEL IS NOT ONE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE FOR THIS
PARTICULAR CASE NOR FOR ANY SPECIAL CLASS OF OFFENSES OR TYPE OF
ACCUSED.  IT IS PART OF THE REGULAR MACHINERY OF TRIAL IN COUNTIES OF
ONE MILLION OR MORE INHABITANTS.  IN ITS SOUND DISCRETION THE COURT MAY
ORDER TRIAL BY SPECIAL JURY ON APPLICATION OF EITHER PARTY IN A CIVIL
ACTION AND BY EITHER THE PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL CASES.  THE
MOTION MAY BE GRANTED ONLY ON A SHOWING THAT "BY REASON OF THE
IMPORTANCE OR INTRICACY OF THE CASE, A SPECIAL JURY IS REQUIRED" OR
"THE ISSUE TO BE TRIED HAS BEEN SO WIDELY COMMENTED UPON  ...  THAT AN
ORDINARY JURY CANNOT WITHOUT DELAY AND DIFFICULTY BE OBTAINED" OR THAT
FOR ANY OTHER REASON "THE DUE, EFFICIENT AND IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE IN THE PARTICULAR CASE WOULD BE ADVANCED BY THE TRIAL OF
SUCH AN ISSUE BY A SPECIAL JURY  ...  " FN11 

THIS SPECIAL JURY STATUTE IS NOT RECENT NOR IS THE PRACTICE UNDER IT
NOVEL.  THE PROGENITOR OF THIS STATUTE, LIKE IT IN ALL PERTINENT
RESPECTS, WAS ENACTED IN 1896 BUT WAS REPEALED AND SIMULTANEOUSLY
REENACTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY ITS PRESENT FORM IN 1901.  FN12  IT WAS SOON
ATTACKED AS ON ITS FACE VIOLATING THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  THE CLAIM OF
ONE CONVICTED BY A SPECIAL JURY THAT IT WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BODY
BECAUSE ITS RESTRICTIVE COMPOSITION DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WAS
REJECTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN A WELLCONSIDERED OPINION.  PEOPLE
V. DUNN, 157 N.Y. 528, 52 N.E. 572(1899).  THE ATTACK THEN WAS MADE
FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.  ONE CONVICTED BY AN ORDINARY JURY CLAIMED
THAT IT WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BODY.  THIS CLAIM THAT THE SPECIAL
PANEL HAD WITHDRAWN TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED "MEN OF PRESUMABLY SUPERIOR
INTELLIGENCE," 162 N.Y. AT 362, 56 N.E. AT 759, TOO, WAS REJECTED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS.  PEOPLE V. MEYER, 162 N.Y. 357, 56 N.E.
758(1900). 

THEN, IN 1901, AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE WAS
REJECTED BY THIS COURT.  ONE HALL HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER BY A
SPECIAL JURY AND SENTENCED TO DEATH.  HE SUED OUT A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS WHICH WAS DENIED BELOW.  HE CHALLENGED THE SPECIAL PANEL AND
CLAIMED THAT HIS CONVICTION BY ITS VERDICT WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
OF LAW AND OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE JURY WAS "TAKEN FROM A PARTICULAR BODY
OF CITIZENS AND NOT FROM THE GENERAL BODY OF THE COUNTY AS WAS PROVIDED
IN ALL CASES WHEREIN SUCH SPECIAL JURY WAS NOT DRAWN."  THIS COURT
AFFIRMED, HALL V. JOHNSON, 186 U.S. 480, CITING AMONG OTHER AUTHORITIES
BROWN V. NEW JERSEY, 175 U.S. 172, WHICH UPHELD A STATE STATUTE FOR A
"STRUCK JURY."  FN13 

SINCE THESE DECISIONS, THE SPECIAL JURY HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS USE IN
NEW YORK COUNTY IN IMPORTANT CASES.  THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CITES OVER
ONE HUNDRED MURDER CONVICTIONS, ON VERDICT OF THE SPECIAL JURY,
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WHICH AFFIRMED JUDGMENTS OF DEATH. 
WE ARE ASKED, HOWEVER, TO RECONSIDER THE QUESTION AND, IN THE LIGHT OF
MORE RECENT TRENDS OF DECISION AND OF PARTICULAR FACTS ABOUT THE
PRESENT OPERATION OF THE JURY SYSTEM NOT ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE
ARGUMENT IN THE EARLIER CASE, TO DISAPPROVE THE SPECIAL JURY SYSTEM. 

WE FAIL TO PERCEIVE ON ITS FACE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFENSE IN THE
STATUTORY STANDARDS PRESCRIBED FOR THE SPECIAL PANEL.  THE ACT DOES NOT
EXCLUDE, OR AUTHORIZE THE CLERK TO EXCLUDE, ANY PERSON OR CLASS BECAUSE
OF RACE, CREED, COLOR OR OCCUPATION.  IT IMPOSES NO QUALIFICATION OF AN
ECONOMIC NATURE BEYOND THAT IMPOSED BY THE CONCEDEDLY VALID GENERAL
PANEL STATUTE.  EACH OF THE GROUNDS OF ELIMINATION IS REASONABLY AND
CLOSELY RELATED TO THE JUROR'S SUITABILITY FOR THE KIND OF SERVICE THE
SPECIAL PANEL REQUIRES OR TO HIS FITNESS TO JUDGE THE KIND OF CASES FOR
WHICH IT IS MOST FREQUENTLY UTILIZED.  NOT ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF
ELIMINATION WOULD APPEAR RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 
BUT WE KNOW OF NO RIGHT OF DEFENDANTS TO HAVE A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED
PANEL WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ALL PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE FITTED TO HEAR THEIR
PARTICULAR AND UNIQUE CASE.  THIS PANEL IS FOR SERVICE IN A WIDE
VARIETY OF CASES AND ITS ELIMINATIONS MUST BE JUDGED IN THAT LIGHT.  WE
CANNOT OVERLOOK THAT ONE OF THE FEATURES WHICH HAS TENDED TO DISCREDIT
JURY TRIALS IS INTERMINABLE EXAMINATION AND REJECTION OF PROSPECTIVE
JURORS.  IN A METROPOLIS WITH NOTORIOUSLY CONGESTED COURT CALENDARS WE
CANNOT FIND IT CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN TO SET UP ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL TO ELIMINATE FROM THE PANEL THOSE WHO,
IN A LARGE PROPORTION OF CASES, WOULD BE REJECTED BY THE COURT AFTER
ITS TIME HAD BEEN TAKEN IN EXAMINATION TO ASCERTAIN THE
DISQUALIFICATIONS.  MANY OF THE STANDARDS OF ELIMINATION WHICH THE
CLERK IS DIRECTED TO APPLY IN CHOICE OF THE PANEL ARE THOSE THE COURT
WOULD HAVE TO APPLY TO EXCUSE A JUROR ON CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE. 

THESE ARE MATTERS WITH WHICH LOCAL AUTHORITY MUST AND DOES HAVE
CONSIDERABLE LATITUDE TO COPE, FOR THEY AFFECT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE WHICH IS A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS CASE THE
TIME OF THE TRIAL COURT AND ITS ENTIRE RETINUE OF ATTENDANTS WAS TAKEN
WHILE EIGHTY-NINE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE EXAMINED.  HOW MANY MORE
WOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IF THE CLERK HAD NOT ALREADY ELIMINATED THOSE
WHO ADMIT THAT THEY WOULD NOT GIVE DEFENDANTS BENEFIT OF THE RULE THAT
THEIR NEGLECT OR REFUSAL TO TESTIFY IN THEIR OWN BEHALF WOULD NOT
CREATE A PRESUMPTION AGAINST THEM?  NEITHER OF THESE DEFENDANTS SAW FIT
TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND.  THE DEFENDANTS THEMSELVES HAVE COMPLAINED
OF THE EXCEPTIONAL PUBLICITY GIVEN TO THE CHARGES IN THIS CASE.  HOW
MANY MORE JURORS WOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IF THE CLERK HAD NOT ALREADY
ELIMINATED THOSE WHO FELT THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO INFLUENCE BY
PUBLICITY?  THESE ARE PRACTICAL MATTERS IN ADMINISTERING JUSTICE IN
WHICH WE WILL TAKE CARE NOT TO HAMSTRING LOCAL AUTHORITY BY ARTIFICIAL
OR DOCTRINAIRE REQUIREMENTS.    IT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN HELD THAT A
JURY IS NOT RENDERED CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID BY FAILURE OF THE STATUTE
TO SET FORTH ANY STANDARDS FOR SELECTION.  MURRAY V. LOUISIANA, 163
U.S. 101, 108; FRANKLIN V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 218 U.S. 161, 167-68; AKINS
V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398, 403; SEE ALSO EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339,
348.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE STANDARDS NEW YORK HAS PRESCRIBED WHICH,
ON ITS FACE, IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THERE REMAIN, HOWEVER,
MORE SERIOUS QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE SPECIAL JURY ACT HAS BEEN SO
ADMINISTERED AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS TO THE DEFENDANTS AND WHETHER THE
DUAL SYSTEM OF JURY PANELS AS ADMINISTERED DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS. 

AS TO THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE, THE LITIGANTS
ARE IN CONTROVERSY.  THE NEW YORK COURTS, DOUBTLESS INFLUENCED BY THE
FACT THAT LONG AGO THEY HAD UPHELD SIMILAR STATUTES, MADE NO FINDINGS
OF FACT AND WROTE NO OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.  IT IS TO BE REGRETTED
THAT WE MUST DEAL WITH QUESTIONS OF FACT WITHOUT AID OF FINDINGS BY THE
COURTS WHOSE EXPERIENCE WITH THE SYSTEM AND PROXIMITY TO THE LOCAL
CONDITIONS WITH WHICH THE SPECIAL JURY CUSTOMS ARE SO INTERWOVEN WOULD
ENTITLE THEIR FINDINGS TO VERY GREAT WEIGHT.  WE WOULD, IN ANY CASE, BE
OBLIGED ON A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION TO REACH OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS,
AFTER FULL ALLOWANCE OF WEIGHT TO FINDINGS OF THE STATE COURTS, AND IN
THIS CASE MUST EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE.  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587,
590; LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 237-38; ASHCRAFT V.
TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 148. 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF FACT UPON WHICH DEFENDANTS ASK US TO HOLD THESE
SPECIAL PANELS UNCONSTITUTIONAL COME TO THREE:  (1) THAT LABORERS,
OPERATIVES, CRAFTSMEN, FOREMEN AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES WERE
SYSTEMATICALLY, INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED FROM THE
PANEL.  (2) THAT WOMEN WERE IN THE SAME WAY EXCLUDED.  (3) THAT THE
SPECIAL PANEL IS SO COMPOSED AS TO BE MORE PRONE TO CONVICT THAN THE
GENERAL PANEL. 

(1)  THE PROOF THAT LABORERS AND SUCH WERE EXCLUDED CONSISTS OF A
TABULATION OF OCCUPATIONS AS LISTED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRES FILED WITH
THE CLERK.  THE TABLE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE IS SET OUT IN THE MARGIN. 
FN14  IT IS SAID IN CRITICISM OF THIS LIST THAT IT SHOWS THE INDUSTRY
IN WHICH THESE PERSONS WORK RATHER THAN WHETHER THEY ARE LABORERS OR
CRAFTSMEN; THAT IS, "MECHANICS" MAY BE AND PROBABLY ARE ALSO LABORERS;
"BANKERS" MAY BE CLERKS.  CERTAINLY THE TABULATION DOES NOT SHOW THE
RELATION OF THESE JURORS TO THE INDUSTRY IN WHICH THEY WERE CLASSIFIED,
AS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER THEY WERE OWNERS OR FINANCIALLY INTERESTED, OR
MERELY EMPLOYEES.  IT DOES NOT SHOW ABSENCE OR EXCLUSION OF WAGE
EARNERS OR OF UNION MEMBERS, ALTHOUGH NONE LISTED THEMSELVES AS
"LABORERS," FOR SEVERAL OF THESE CLASSES ARE OBVIOUSLY OF THE EMPLOYEE
RATHER THAN THE ENTREPRENEUR CHARACTER.  ONE OF PETITIONERS' TABLES
SHOWED THAT 38% OF THE SPECIAL PANEL WERE "CLERICAL, SALES, AND KINDRED
WORKERS."  THREE OF THOSE EXAMINED AS JURORS IN THIS CASE WERE MEMBERS
OF LABOR UNIONS.  TWO WERE PEREMPTORILY CHALLENGED BY THE PEOPLE AND
THE ONE ACCEPTED BY THE PROSECUTION WAS CHALLENGED BY THE DEFENSE. 

IT IS SOUGHT TO GIVE SIGNIFICANCE TO THIS EXHIBIT SHOWING THE
BREAKDOWN INTO OCCUPATIONS OF SOME 2,700 SPECIAL JURORS, HOWEVER, BY
REFERENCE TO A TABULATION OF OCCUPATIONS OF SOME 920,000 EMPLOYEES AND
PERSONS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT IN MANHATTAN.  THE COMPARISON IS SAID TO
SHOW A GREAT DISPARITY BETWEEN THE PERCENTAGE OF JURORS OF EACH
OCCUPATION REPRESENTED ON THE JURY LIST OF 1945 AND THE OCCUPATIONAL
DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYED PERSONS OR EXPERIENCED PERSONS
SEEKING EMPLOYMENT IN MANHATTAN IN 1940.  THIS TABLE WAS NOT PUT IN
EVIDENCE BUT IS REPRODUCED IN THE MARGIN.  FN15  APART FROM THE
DISCREPANCY OF FIVE YEARS IN THE DATES OF THE DATA AND THE DIFFERENCES
IN CLASSIFICATION OF OCCUPATIONS, THE TWO TABLES DO NOT AFFORD
STATISTICAL PROOF THAT THE JURY PERCENTAGES ARE THE RESULT OF
DISCRIMINATION.  SUCH A CONCLUSION WOULD BE JUSTIFIED ONLY IF WE KNEW
WHETHER THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPER JURY STANDARDS WOULD AFFECT ALL
OCCUPATIONS ALIKE, OF WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AND WHICH WE REGARD AS
IMPROBABLE.  THE PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS EMPLOYED OR SEEKING EMPLOYMENT
IN EACH OCCUPATION DOES NOT ESTABLISH EVEN AN APPROXIMATE RATIO FOR
THOSE OF EACH OCCUPATION THAT SHOULD APPEAR IN A FAIRLY SELECTED JURY
PANEL.  THE FORMER IS NOT LIMITED, AS THE LATTER MUST BE, TO THOSE OVER
21 OR UNDER 70 YEARS OF AGE.  IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MANY EMPLOYED
AND SEEKERS OF EMPLOYMENT IN NEW YORK ARE NOT, AS JURORS MUST BE,
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  HOW MANY COULD NOT MEET THE PROPERTY
QUALIFICATIONS?  HOW MANY COULD NOT READ AND WRITE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
UNDERSTANDINGLY?  IT IS ONLY AFTER EFFECT IS GIVEN TO THESE ADMITTEDLY
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE ANY FIGURES WHICH
DETERMINED OR EVEN SUGGESTED THE EFFECT OF THE ADDITIONAL
DISQUALIFICATIONS IMPOSED ON SPECIAL JURORS. 

AN OCCUPATIONAL COMPARISON OF THE SPECIAL PANEL WITH THE GENERAL
PANEL MIGHT AFFORD SOME GROUND FOR AN OPINION ON THE EFFECT OF THE
PARTICULAR PRACTICES COMPLAINED OF IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE SPECIAL
PANEL.  BUT NO SUCH COMPARISON IS OFFERED.  PETITIONERS' ONLY STATEMENT
AS TO THE COMPARATIVE MAKE-UP OF THE GENERAL AND SPECIAL PANELS IS AS
FOLLOWS:  "WHILE THE DEFECT OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN,
PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF SO-CALLED 'CIVIC CONSCIOUS'
ORGANIZATIONS, PERMEATES BOTH THE GENERAL AND SPECIAL JURIES, THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER THAT LABORERS, OPERATIVES, SERVICE EMPLOYEES,
CRAFTSMEN, AND FOREMEN, ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE GENERAL JURY PANEL." 
WHAT IS MORE TO THE POINT IS THAT PETITIONERS ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE
WHATEVER THAT THE OCCUPATIONAL COMPOSITION OF THE GENERAL PANEL IS
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE SPECIAL.  IF THEY ARE THE
SAME, THEN PETITIONERS' ASSERTION THAT QUESTION 23, REFERRED TO BELOW,
SOMEHOW SEPARATES THE RICH FROM THE POOR IS OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT MERIT. 
IT IS NOT UNLIKELY THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITIZENSHIP, PROPERTY AND
LITERACY DISQUALIFY A GREATER PROPORTION OF LABORERS, CRAFTSMEN AND
SERVICE EMPLOYEES THAN OF SOME OTHER CLASSES.  THOSE WHO ARE ILLITERATE
OR, IF LITERATE IN THEIR OWN, ARE UNABLE TO SPEAK OR WRITE THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE, NATURALLY FIND EMPLOYMENT CHIEFLY IN MANUAL WORK.  IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE FROM THE DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO FIND THAT THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE JURY PANEL AMONG OCCUPATIONS IS NOT THE RESULT OF
THE APPLICATION OF LEGITIMATE STANDARDS OF DISQUALIFICATION. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCRIMINATION
AS TO OCCUPATION IN SELECTION OF THE PANEL, WHILE FROM INTERESTED
WITNESSES, WHOSE DUTY IT WAS TO ADMINISTER THE LAW, IS CLEAR AND
POSITIVE AND IS NEITHER CONTRADICTED NOR IMPROBABLE.  THE TESTIMONY OF
THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE SELECTION, OFFERED BY THE DEFENDANTS THEMSELVES,
IS THAT WITHOUT OCCUPATIONAL DISCRIMINATION THEY APPLIED THE STANDARDS
OF THE STATUTE TO ALL WHOM THEY EXAMINED.  WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT
THIS EVIDENCE IS UNTRUE. 

(2)  AS TO THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN, IT WILL BE REMEMBERED THAT THE LAW
OF NEW YORK GIVES TO WOMEN THE PRIVILEGE TO SERVE BUT DOES NOT IMPOSE
SERVICE AS A DUTY.  IT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN FOUND IMPRACTICAL TO COMPEL
LARGE NUMBERS OF WOMEN, WHO HAVE AN ABSOLUTE EXEMPTION, TO COME TO THE
CLERK'S OFFICE FOR EXAMINATION SINCE THEY SO GENERALLY ASSERT THEIR
EXEMPTION.  HENCE, ONLY THOSE WHO VOLUNTEER OR ARE SUGGESTED AS WILLING
TO SERVE BY OTHER WOMEN OR BY ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS, ARE SUBPOENAED FOR EXAMINATION.  SOME EFFORT IS MADE BY
THE OFFICIALS ALSO TO INDUCE WOMEN TO VOLUNTEER.  BUT THE EVIDENCE DOES
NOT SHOW THAT WOMEN ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE SPECIAL JURY.  IN THIS CASE
THREE WOMEN TALESMEN WERE EXAMINED.  ONE WAS PRONOUNCED "SATISFACTORY"
BY BOTH SIDES AND SERVED ON THE JURY. 

AS TO BOTH WOMEN AND MEN, IT IS COMPLAINED THAT ELIMINATIONS RESULTED
UNFAIRLY FROM USE OF A QUESTIONNAIRE, WHICH ASKED, "WHAT MONTHS OF THE
YEAR BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND JUNE 30 WOULD YOU PREFER TO SERVE (NAME TWO
OR MORE MONTHS)."  THOSE WHO STATED A PREFERENCE, AND THEY WERE MANY,
WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE SPECIAL PANEL ALTHOUGH THEY CONTINUED ELIGIBLE
FOR THE GENERAL PANEL.  THE REASON GIVEN FOR THIS IS THAT SERVICE ON
THE GENERAL PANEL CAN BE ADJUSTED TO SUCH PREFERENCES WHILE THE SPECIAL
PANEL, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CASES TRIED BEFORE IT, MAY REQUIRE
SERVICE AT ANY TIME AND FOR LONG PERIODS.  WE THINK THE PHRASING OF
THIS QUESTION IS LESS THAN CANDID IN VIEW OF THIS PURPOSE.  BUT WE FIND
NO EVIDENCE THAT IT OPERATES MORE MISLEADINGLY ON WOMEN THAN ON MEN, OR
ON ONE OCCUPATION OR CLASS THAN ON OTHERS.  WHILE IT DOES NOT COMMEND
ITSELF, IT APPEARS TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE INEPTITUDE OF NO
CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND OF NO PREJUDICE TO THESE DEFENDANTS. 

(3)  A MORE SERIOUS ALLEGATION AGAINST THE SPECIAL JURY PANEL IS THAT
IT IS MORE INCLINED THAN THE GENERAL PANEL TO CONVICT.  EXTENSIVE
STUDIES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE NEW YORK STATE JUDICIAL COUNCIL WHICH IS
UNDER THE DUTY OF CONTINUOUS STUDY OF THE PROCEDURES OF THE COURTS AND
OF MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THE LEGISLATURE N16.  IT
IS ON STUDIES AND CRITICISMS BY THIS OFFICIAL BODY THAT PETITIONERS
BASE THEIR CHARGE HERE THAT THE SPECIAL JURY IS A CONVICTING JURY IN AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SENSE. 

IN 1937 THE COUNCIL RECOMMENDED ABOLITION OF STRUCK JURIES,  FN17
FOREIGN JURIES  FN18  AND SPECIAL JURIES.  FN19  IT SAID THAT, "A WELL
ADMINISTERED ORDINARY JURY SYSTEM SHOULD PRODUCE JURORS OF AS HIGH
CALIBRE FOR EVERY ACTION AS THE SPECIAL JURY SYSTEM ATTEMPTS TO PROVIDE
IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES."  FN20  THE RECOMMENDATION WAS FOLLOWED BY THE
LEGISLATURE EXCEPT AS TO SPECIAL JURIES.  IN 1938 THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
RENEWED ITS RECOMMENDATION AS TO THESE.  IT SUMMARIZED THAT ITS DATA
"INDICATE THAT SPECIAL JURIES ARE PRONE TO CONVICT."  FN21  IN A STUDY
OF CERTAIN TYPES OF HOMICIDE CASES, IT FOUND THAT, IN 1933 AND 1934,
SPECIAL JURIES CONVICTED IN EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT AND EIGHTY-TWO PERCENT
OF THE CASES WHILE ORDINARY JURIES THOSE YEARS CONVICTED IN FORTY-THREE
PERCENT AND THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT RESPECTIVELY.  IT REPORTED THAT, "THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL BELIEVES THAT EVERY PETIT JURY SHOULD BE OF UNIFORMLY
HIGH CALIBRE AND CAPABLE OF GIVING A FAIR TRIAL IN ALL CASES.  TO
ATTAIN THIS GOAL, THE ORDINARY JURY, AS NOW PROVIDED, MAY BE IN NEED OF
IMPROVEMENT.  IT IS, HOWEVER, UNJUST AND SHOULD BE UNNECESSARY TO
SELECT SUPPOSEDLY SPECIAL JURIES IN SPECIFIC CASES."  FN22  THE COUNCIL
NEXT YEAR REPORTED THAT THE GENERAL PANEL HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED
ADEQUATE, LARGELY BECAUSE IN ITS SELECTION THE STANDARDS OF THE STATUTE
HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, AND THAT A COMPLETE REEXAMINATION OF THE GENERAL
PANEL WAS UNDERTAKEN N23.  FROM TIME TO TIME THE COUNCIL RENEWED ITS
RECOMMENDATION.  IN 1945 IT PROPOSED THAT THE SPECIAL JURY "BE
ABOLISHED AS UNNECESSARY AND UNDESIRABLE."  IT SAID, "IT IS UNDISPUTED
THAT THE REVISED JURY SYSTEM FOR NEW YORK CITY RECOMMENDED BY THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND IN OPERATION SINCE 1940 HAS SUCCEEDED IN IMPROVING
THE QUALITY OF JURORS GENERALLY BY APPLYING TO ALL JURORS THE HIGH
STANDARDS WHICH FORMERLY WERE REQUIRED ONLY OF SPECIAL JURORS.  THUS,
THE NECESSITY FOR SPECIAL JURORS NO LONGER EXISTS."  FN24 

WHILE THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL HAS POINTED OUT AND INVESTIGATED THE
DIFFERENT CONVICTION RATIOS, IT HAS AT NO TIME SUGGESTED THAT THE
SPECIAL JURY HAS BEEN INCLINED TO CONVICT EXCEPT WHERE CONVICTION WAS
WARRANTED.  NEW YORK EXTENDS AN APPEAL ON LAW AND FACT AS MATTER OF
RIGHT.  FN25 IF THERE WERE A TENDENCY TO CONVICT IMPROPERLY, THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL, WHICH INCLUDES THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION, WHICH
COURTS REVIEW THESE CASES, WOULD KNOW IT.  DESPITE THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE
TO ABOLISH THIS JURY, NO SUCH REASONS WERE EVER ASSIGNED.  NO
STATISTICS ARE PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT SPECIAL JURIES HAVE BEEN MORE
OFTEN REVERSED ON THE FACTS THAN ORDINARY ONES.  OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO SAY, EVEN WERE WE TO EXAMINE THE CASES IN DETAIL,
WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGE OF CONVICTIONS INDICATED A TOO
GREAT READINESS TO CONVICT ON THE PART OF SPECIAL JURIES OR A TOO GREAT
READINESS TO ACQUIT ON THE PART OF ORDINARY JURIES, OR WHETHER THE
DISPARITY REFLECTED A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORDINARY CASE AND THOSE
SELECTED FOR SPECIAL JURY TRIAL, RATHER THAN A REFLECTION OF AN
ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF EITHER PANEL.  IT MAY RESULT FROM THE GREATER
ATTENTION AND BETTER COUNSEL WHICH THE PROSECUTION GIVES TO THESE
IMPORTANT CASES. 

THESE DEFENDANTS WERE CONVICTED MARCH 15, 1945, WHEN THE STATISTICS
OFFERED HERE AS TO RELATIVE PROPENSITY OF THE TWO JURIES TO CONVICT
WERE MORE THAN TEN YEARS OLD, AND WHEN THE CONDITIONS WHICH MAY HAVE
PRODUCED THE DISCREPANCY IN RATIO OF CONVICTIONS HAD LONG SINCE BEEN
CORRECTED. 

THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THESE OBJECTIONS MAY WELL, AS THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL THOUGHT, WARRANT A POLITICAL OR SOCIAL JUDGMENT THAT THIS
SPECIAL PANEL IN 1945 WAS "UNNECESSARY AND UNDESIRABLE" AND THAT THE
LEGISLATURE SHOULD ABOLISH IT.  BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER TO SAY
THAT THIS FEDERAL COURT HAS A MANDATE FROM THE CONSTITUTION TO DISABLE
THE SPECIAL JURY BY SETTING ASIDE ITS CONVICTIONS.  THE GREAT DISPARITY
BETWEEN A LEGISLATIVE POLICY OR A POLITICAL JUDGMENT ON THE ONE HAND
AND A CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL JUDGMENT ON THE OTHER, FINDS STRIKING
ILLUSTRATION IN THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL PERSONAGES
IN NEW YORK STATE WHO JOINED IN THE RECOMMENDATION TO ABOLISH THE
SPECIAL JURY. 

TWO MEMBERS  FN26  OF THE COUNCIL WHO JOINED IN PROPOSING LEGISLATION
TO ABOLISH THE DUAL SYSTEM SAT IN THIS CASE AND ABSTAINED FROM PUTTING
THEIR LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATION INTO A COURT DECISION - THEY SUSTAINED
AS CONSTITUTIONAL THE SYSTEM THEY WOULD ABOLISH AS MATTER OF POLICY. 
OUR FUNCTION CONCERNS ONLY CONSTITUTIONALITY AND WE TURN TO THE BEARING
OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON THE LEGAL ISSUES.    IT IS NOT
EASY, AND IT SHOULD NOT BE EASY, FOR DEFENDANTS TO HAVE PROCEEDINGS SET
ASIDE AND HELD FOR NAUGHT ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS WHEN THEY HAVE
ACCEPTED AS SATISFACTORY ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL JURORS WHO SAT IN THEIR
CASE, THE JURY EXERCISED SUCH DISCRIMINATING AND DISPASSIONATE JUDGMENT
AS TO ACQUIT THEM ON THREE OF THE FIVE COUNTS SUBMITTED, AND THEIR
CONVICTION ON A FULL JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FACTS AND LAW HAS BEEN
FOUND JUSTIFIED.  THIS COURT HAS LONG DEALT AND MUST CONTINUE TO DEAL
WITH THESE CONTROVERSIES FROM STATE COURTS WITH SELF-IMPOSED RESTRAINTS
INTENDED TO PROTECT ITSELF AND THE STATE AGAINST IRRESPONSIBLE EXERCISE
OF ITS UNAPPEALABLE POWER. 

WHILE THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY QUESTION AS TO EXCLUSION OF
NEGROES OR ANY OTHER RACE, THE DEFENDANTS RELY LARGELY UPON A SERIES OF
DECISIONS IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS SET ASIDE STATE COURT CONVICTIONS OF
NEGROES BECAUSE NEGROES WERE PURPOSEFULLY AND COMPLETELY EXCLUDED FROM
THE JURY.  HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE LONG HISTORY OF UNHAPPY RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE TWO RACES, CONGRESS HAS PUT THESE CASES IN A CLASS BY
THEMSELVES.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IN ADDITION TO DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, DECLARES THAT "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER
TO ENFORCE, BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ARTICLE."  SO EMPOWERED, THE CONGRESS ON MARCH 1, 1875, ENACTED THAT
"NO CITIZEN POSSESSING ALL OTHER QUALIFICATIONS WHICH ARE OR MAY BE
PRESCRIBED BY LAW SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED FOR SERVICE AS GRAND OR PETIT
JUROR IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY STATE, ON ACCOUNT OF
RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE;" AND MADE IT A CRIME
FOR ANY OFFICER TO EXCLUDE ANY CITIZEN ON THOSE GROUNDS.  18 STAT. 336
37, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 44.  FOR US THE MAJESTIC GENERALITIES OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE THUS REDUCED TO A CONCRETE STATUTORY COMMAND
WHEN CASES INVOLVE RACE OR COLOR WHICH IS WANTING IN EVERY OTHER CASE
OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION.  THIS STATUTE WAS A FACTOR SO DECISIVE IN
ESTABLISHING THE NEGRO CASE PRECEDENTS THAT THE COURT EVEN HINTED THAT
THERE MIGHT BE NO JUDICIAL POWER TO INTERVENE EXCEPT IN MATTERS
AUTHORIZED BY ACTS OF CONGRESS.  REFERRING TO THE PROVISION EMPOWERING
CONGRESS TO ENFORCE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT SAID THAT "ALL OF THE
AMENDMENTS DERIVE MUCH OF THEIR FORCE FROM THIS LATTER PROVISION.  IT
IS NOT SAID THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT SHALL EXTEND
TO ENFORCING THE PROHIBITIONS AND TO PROTECTING THE RIGHTS AND
IMMUNITIES GUARANTEED.  IT IS NOT SAID THAT BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT
SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE VOID ANY ACTION OF A STATE IN VIOLATION
OF THE PROHIBITIONS.  IT IS THE POWER OF CONGRESS WHICH HAS BEEN
ENLARGED.  CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO ENFORCE THE PROHIBITIONS BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION."  EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, 345. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS COURT NEVER HAS INTERFERED WITH THE
COMPOSITION OF STATE COURT JURIES EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE THIS GUIDANCE
OF CONGRESS WAS APPLICABLE.  IN AN OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IT
UNANIMOUSLY MADE SHORT WORK OF REJECTING A CLAIM THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM EXCLUDING FROM THE JURY CERTAIN
OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS SUCH AS LAWYERS, PREACHERS, MINISTERS, DOCTORS,
DENTISTS, AND ENGINEERS AND FIREMEN OF RAILROAD TRAINS.  RAWLINS V.
GEORGIA, 201 U.S. 638.  CF. BROWN V. NEW JERSEY, 175 U.S. 172. 

WE DO NOT MEAN THAT NO CASE OF DISCRIMINATION IN JURY DRAWING EXCEPT
THOSE INVOLVING RACE OR COLOR CAN CARRY SUCH UNJUST CONSEQUENCES AS TO
AMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  BUT WE
DO SAY THAT SINCE CONGRESS HAS CONSIDERED THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE STATE JURY SYSTEMS AND HAS FOUND ONLY THESE
DISCRIMINATIONS TO DESERVE GENERAL LEGISLATIVE CONDEMNATION, ONE WHO
WOULD HAVE THE JUDICIARY INTERVENE ON GROUNDS NOT COVERED BY STATUTE
MUST COMPLY WITH THE EXACTING REQUIREMENTS OF PROVING CLEARLY THAT IN
HIS OWN CASE THE PROCEDURE HAS GONE SO FAR AFIELD THAT ITS RESULTS ARE
A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS.  FN27 

THESE RULES TO CONFINE OUR USE OF POWER TO RESPONSIBLE LIMITS HAVE
BEEN FORMULATED AND APPLIED EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE FEDERAL RACE AND
COLOR STATUTE APPLIED.  CERTAINLY THEY SHOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL, IF NOT
GREATER, RIGOR IN CASES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE STATUTE. 

IT IS FUNDAMENTAL IN QUESTIONING THE COMPOSITION OF A JURY THAT A
MERE SHOWING THAT A CLASS WAS NOT REPRESENTED IN A PARTICULAR JURY IS
NOT ENOUGH; THERE MUST BE A CLEAR SHOWING THAT ITS ABSENCE WAS CAUSED
BY DISCRIMINATION, AND IN NEARLY ALL CASES IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE
PERSISTED OVER MANY YEARS.  FN28  VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313, 322
23; MARTIN V. TEXAS, 200 U.S. 316, 320-21; THOMAS V. TEXAS, 212 U.S.
278, 282; SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128; HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400;
AKINS V. TEXAS, SUPRA.  ALSO, WHEN DISCRIMINATION OF AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL KIND IS ALLEGED, THE BURDEN OF PROVING IT PURPOSEFUL
AND INTENTIONAL IS ON THE DEFENDANT.  TARRANCE V. FLORIDA, 188 U.S.
519; MARTIN V. TEXAS, 200 U.S. 316; NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587;
SNOWDEN V. HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1, 8-9; AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398, 400. 

OUR ONLY SOURCE OF POWER OR GUIDANCE FOR INTERFERING IN THIS CASE
WITH THE STATE COURT JURY SYSTEM IS FOUND IN THE CRYPTIC WORDS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, UNAIDED BY ANY WORD FROM CONGRESS OR ANY
GOVERNING PRECEDENT IN THIS COURT.  WE CONSIDER FIRST THE CLAUSE WHICH
FORBIDS A STATE TO "DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."  THIS PROHIBITS PREJUDICIAL DISPARTIES
BEFORE THE LAW.  UNDER IT A SYSTEM WHICH MIGHT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
UNOBJECTIONABLE, IF APPLIED TO ALL, MAY BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION IF SOME HAVE MORE FAVORABLE TREATMENT.  THE INQUIRY UNDER
THIS CLAUSE INVOLVES DEFENDANTS' STANDING BEFORE THE LAW RELATIVE TO
THAT OF OTHERS ACCUSED. 

IF IT WERE PROVED THAT IN 1945 AN INEQUALITY BETWEEN THE SPECIAL
JURY'S RECORD OF CONVICTIONS AND THAT OF THE ORDINARY JURY CONTINUED AS
IT WAS FOUND BY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL TO HAVE PREVAILED IN 1933-34, SOME
FOUNDATION WOULD BE LAID FOR A CLAIM OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT.  NO
DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO ESCAPE AN EXISTING MECHANISM OF TRIAL MERELY
ON THE GROUND THAT SOME OTHER COULD BE DEVISED WHICH WOULD GIVE HIM A
BETTER CHANCE OF ACQUITTAL.  BUT IN THIS CASE AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM
ACTUALLY WAS PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO OTHER DEFENDANTS.  A STATE IS NOT
REQUIRED TO TRY ALL CLASSES OF OFFENSES IN THE SAME FORUM.  BUT A
DISCRETION, EVEN IF VESTED IN THE COURT, TO SHUNT A DEFENDANT BEFORE A
JURY SO CHOSEN AS GREATLY TO LESSEN HIS CHANCES WHILE OTHERS ACCUSED OF
A LIKE OFFENSE ARE TRIED BY A JURY SO DRAWN AS TO BE MORE FAVORABLE TO
THEM, WOULD HARDLY BE "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."  PERHAPS IT COULD
BE SHOWN THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGES OF CONVICTIONS WAS NOT DUE
TO A DIFFERENCE IN ATTITUDE OF THE JURORS BUT TO A DIFFERENCE IN THE
CASES THAT WERE SELECTED FOR SPECIAL JURY TRIAL, OR TO A MORE INTENSIVE
PREPARATION AND EFFORT BY THE PROSECUTION IN CASES SINGLED OUT FOR SUCH
TRIAL.  BUT A RATIO OF CONVICTION SO DISPARATE, IF IT CONTINUED UNTIL
1945, MIGHT, IN ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION, BE TAKEN TO INDICATE THAT THE
SPECIAL JURY WAS, IN CONTRAST TO ITS ALTERNATE, ORGANIZED TO CONVICT. 
A DEFENDANT COULD COMPLAIN OF THIS INEQUALITY EVEN IF IT WERE SHOWN
THAT A SPECIAL JURY COURT NEVER HAD CONVICTED ANY DEFENDANT WHO DID NOT
DESERVE CONVICTION. 

BUT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO SHOW BY ANY EVIDENCE WHATEVER THAT
THIS DISPARITY IN RATIO OF CONVICTION EXISTED IN 1945 WHEN THEY WERE
TRIED.  THEY SHOW THAT IT EVER EXISTED ONLY BY THE STUDIES AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL.  THE SAME SOURCE SHOWS THAT IT WAS
CORRECTED BEFORE THESE DEFENDANTS WERE TRIED.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT,
THIS OFFICIAL BODY CHALLENGED THE FAIRNESS OF THIS DUAL SYSTEM AS
FORMERLY CONSTITUTED AND AS EARLY AS 1937 DECLARED THAT "A WELL
CONSIDERED JURY SYSTEM WILL INSURE AN IMPARTIAL CROSS-SECTION OF THE
COMMUNITY ON EVERY PETIT JURY,"  FN29  AND SET OUT MEANS TO ACHIEVE IT.
WE KNOW OF NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD IGNORE OR DISCREDIT THEIR ASSURANCE
THAT BY ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SELECTION OF THE ORDINARY
JURIES THEY BECAME THE SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT OF THE SPECIAL JURY
BEFORE THESE TRIALS TOOK PLACE. 

WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT CARRIED THE BURDEN OF
SHOWING THAT THE METHOD OF THEIR TRIAL DENIED THEM EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAW. 

THE DEFENDANTS' OTHER OBJECTION IS GROUNDED ON THAT CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH PROVIDES, "NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY
PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW  ...
"  IT COMPRISES OBJECTIONS WHICH MIGHT BE URGED AGAINST ANY JURY MADE
UP AS THE SPECIAL JURY WAS, EVEN IF IT WERE THE ONLY JURY IN USE IN THE
STATE.  IT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON COMPARISON WITH THE JURY FACILITIES
AFFORDED OTHER DEFENDANTS. 

THIS COURT, HOWEVER, HAS NEVER ENTERTAINED A DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS
TO EXCLUSIONS FROM THE JURY EXCEPT WHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE EXCLUDED
CLASS.  RAWLINS V. GEORGIA, 201 U.S. 638, 640.  CF. STRAUDER V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 303.  RELIEF HAS BEEN HELD UNAVAILABLE TO A NEGRO
WHO OBJECTED THAT ALL WHITE PERSONS WERE PURPOSELY EXCLUDED FROM THE
GRAND JURY THAT INDICTED HIM.  HARAWAY V. STATE, 203 ARK. 912, 159
S.W.2D 733.  NEVERTHELESS, WE NEED NOT HERE DECIDE WHETHER LACK OF
IDENTITY WITH AN EXCLUDED GROUP WOULD ALONE DEFEAT AN OTHERWISE WELL
ESTABLISHED CASE UNDER THE AMENDMENT. 

THESE DEFENDANTS RELY HEAVILY ON ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM OUR DECISIONS
IN GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60; THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO., 328 U.S. 217; AND BALLARD V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 187.  THE
FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE IN VITAL AND OBVIOUS
PARTICULARS FROM THOSE IN ANY OF THESE CASES.  BUT THOSE DECISIONS WERE
NOT CONSTRAINED BY ANY DUTY OF DEFERENCE TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
OVER LOCAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  THEY DEALT ONLY WITH JURIES IN
FEDERAL COURTS.  OVER FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS WE MAY EXERT A SUPERVISORY
POWER WITH GREATER FREEDOM TO REFLECT OUR NOTIONS OF GOOD POLICY THAN
WE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY EXERT OVER PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS, AND
THESE EXPRESSIONS OF POLICY ARE NOT NECESSARILY EMBODIED IN THE CONCEPT
OF DUE PROCESS. 

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS ONE OF COMPREHENSIVE GENERALITY, AND IN
REDUCING IT TO APPLY IN CONCRETE CASES THERE ARE DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF
THOUGHT.  ONE IS THAT ITS CONTENT ON ANY SUBJECT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY
THE CONTENT OF CERTAIN RELEVANT OTHER AMENDMENTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS
WHICH ORIGINALLY IMPOSED RESTRAINTS ON ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUT
WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DEFLECTED AGAINST THE STATES.  THE OTHER
THEORY IS THAT THE CLAUSE HAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTENT APART FROM, AND IN
ADDITION TO, ANY AND ALL OTHER AMENDMENTS.  THIS MEANING IS DERIVED
FROM THE HISTORY, EVOLUTION AND PRESENT NATURE OF OUR INSTITUTIONS AND
IS TO BE SPELLED OUT FROM TIME TO TIME IN SPECIFIC CASES BY THE
JUDICIARY. 

TO TREAT FIRST OF THE FORMER DOCTRINE, IT STEADILY HAS BEEN RULED
THAT THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH AMENDMENTS, WHICH
REQUIRE JURY TRIAL IN CRIMINAL AND CERTAIN CIVIL CASES, ARE NOT PICKED
UP BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH SO AS TO BECOME
LIMITATIONS ON THE STATES.  "THIS COURT HAS RULED THAT CONSISTENTLY
WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS TRIAL BY JURY MAY BE MODIFIED BY A STATE OR
ABOLISHED ALTOGETHER."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 324, AND
CASES THERE CITED.  UNLESS WE ARE NOW SO TO CHANGE OUR INTERPRETATION
AS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE STATES THE POWER SO LATELY CONCEDED TO BE
THEIRS, THIS WOULD END THE MATTER UNDER THE VIEW THAT THE FORCE OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS EXHAUSTED WHEN IT HAS APPLIED THE PRINCIPLES OF
OTHER RELEVANT AMENDMENTS. 

BUT THIS COURT HAS CONSTRUED IT TO BE INHERENT IN THE INDEPENDENT
CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS THAT CONDEMNATION SHALL BE RENDERED ONLY AFTER A
TRIAL, IN WHICH THE HEARING IS A REAL ONE, NOT A SHAM OR PRETENSE. 
PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 327; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S.
103; MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86.  TRIAL MUST BE HELD BEFORE A
TRIBUNAL NOT BIASED BY INTEREST IN THE EVENT.  TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S.
510.  UNDOUBTEDLY A SYSTEM OF EXCLUSIONS COULD BE SO MANIPULATED AS TO
CALL A JURY BEFORE WHICH DEFENDANTS WOULD HAVE SO LITTLE CHANCE OF A
DECISION ON THE EVIDENCE THAT IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  A VERDICT ON THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS ALL AN ACCUSED CAN
CLAIM; HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A SET-UP THAT WILL GIVE A CHANCE OF ESCAPE
AFTER HE IS PROPERLY PROVEN GUILTY.  SOCIETY ALSO HAS A RIGHT TO A FAIR
TRIAL.  THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT IS A NEUTRAL JURY.  HE HAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FRIENDS ON THE JURY. 

TO ESTABLISH THE UNFAIRNESS OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE LACK OF DUE
PROCESS AFFORDED TO ONE WHO IS BEING TRIED BEFORE IT, THE DEFENDANTS
ASSERT TWO DEFECTS IN ITS COMPOSITION:  FIRST, THAT IT
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXCLUDED WOMEN, AND, SECOND, THAT IT
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXCLUDED LABORERS, CRAFTSMEN, SERVICE EMPLOYEES, AND
OTHERS OF LIKE OCCUPATION, AMOUNTING IN SUM TO THE EXCLUSION OF AN
ECONOMIC CLASS. 

ASSUMING THAT DEFENDANTS, NOT BEING WOMEN, HAVE STANDING TO COMPLAIN
OF EXCLUSION OF WOMEN FROM THE GENERAL AND SPECIAL JURY PANELS, WE ARE
UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THEIR OBJECTION.  APPROXIMATELY 7,000 WOMEN WERE ON
THE GENERAL PANEL OF 60,000 AND 30 WERE ON THE SPECIAL PANEL.  ONE
SERVED ON THE JURY WHICH CONVICTED THE PETITIONERS.  THE PROPORTION OF
WOMEN ON THE JURY PANELS DID NOT EQUAL THEIR PROPORTION OF THE
POPULATION.  THERE MAY BE NO LOGICAL REASON FOR THIS, BUT THERE IS AN
HISTORICAL ONE.  UNTIL RECENTLY, AND FOR NEARLY A HALF-CENTURY AFTER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED, IT WAS UNIVERSAL PRACTICE IN THE
UNITED STATES TO ALLOW ONLY MEN TO SIT ON JURIES.  THE FIRST STATE TO
PERMIT WOMEN JURORS WAS WASHINGTON, AND IT DID NOT DO SO UNTIL 1911. 
FN30  IN 1942 ONLY 28 STATES PERMITTED WOMEN TO SERVE ON JURIES AND
THEY WERE STILL DISQUALIFIED IN THE OTHER 20.  MOREOVER, IN 15 OF THE
28 STATES WHICH PERMITTED WOMEN TO SERVE, THEY MIGHT CLAIM EXEMPTION
BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX.  FN31  IT WOULD, IN THE LIGHT OF THIS HISTORY,
TAKE SOMETHING MORE THAN A JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION TO SPELL OUT OF THE
CONSTITUTION A COMMAND TO SET ASIDE VERDICTS RENDERED BY JURIES
UNLEAVENED BY FEMININE INFLUENCE.  THE CONTENTION THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE
ON THE JURY IS NOT BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS BASED ON A CHANGING
VIEW OF THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF WOMEN IN OUR PUBLIC LIFE,
WHICH HAS PROGRESSED IN ALL PHASES OF LIFE, INCLUDING JURY DUTY, BUT
HAS ACHIEVED CONSTITUTIONAL COMPULSION ON THE STATES ONLY IN THE GRANT
OF THE FRANCHISE BY THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT.  WE MAY INSIST ON THEIR
INCLUSION ON FEDERAL JURIES WHERE BY STATE LAW THEY ARE ELIGIBLE  FN32
BUT WOMAN JURY SERVICE HAS NOT SO BECOME A PART OF THE TEXTUAL OR
CUSTOMARY LAW OF THE LAND THAT ONE CONVICTED OF CRIME MUST BE SET FREE
BY THIS COURT IF HIS STATE HAS LAGGED BEHIND WHAT WE PERSONALLY MAY
REGARD AS THE MOST DESIRABLE PRACTICE IN RECOGNIZING THE RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS OF WOMANHOOD. 

THE OTHER OBJECTION WHICH PETITIONERS URGE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE IS THAT THE SPECIAL JURY PANEL WAS INVALIDATED BY EXCLUSION OF
AN ECONOMIC GROUP COMPRISING SUCH SPECIFIED CLASSIFICATIONS AS
LABORERS, CRAFTSMEN AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES.  THEY ARGUE THAT THE JURY
PANEL WAS CHOSEN "WITH A PURPOSE TO OBTAIN PERSONS OF CONSERVATIVE
VIEWS, PERSONS OF THE UPPER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STRATUM IN NEW YORK
COUNTY, PERSONS HAVING A TENDENCY TO CONVICT DEFENDANTS ACCUSED OF
CRIME, AND TO EXCLUDE THOSE WHO MIGHT UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF VIEW OF
THE LABORING MAN."  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THERE IS NO PROOF OF
EXCLUSION OF THESE.  FN33  AT MOST, THE PROOF SHOWS LACK OF
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND THERE IS AN UTTER DEFICIENCY OF PROOF
THAT THIS WAS THE RESULT OF A PURPOSE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THIS
GROUP AS SUCH.  THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE IS THAT NO PERSON WAS
EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF HIS OCCUPATION OR ECONOMIC STATUS.  ALL WERE
SUBJECTED TO THE SAME TESTS OF INTELLIGENCE, CITIZENSHIP AND
UNDERSTANDING OF ENGLISH.  THE STATE'S RIGHT TO APPLY THESE TESTS IS
NOT OPEN TO DOUBT EVEN THOUGH THEY DISQUALIFY, ESPECIALLY IN THE
CONDITIONS THAT PREVAIL IN NEW YORK, A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF
MANUAL WORKERS.  A FAIR APPLICATION OF LITERACY, INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER
TESTS WOULD HARDLY ACT WITH PROPORTIONAL EQUALITY ON ALL LEVELS OF
LIFE.  THE MOST THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES IS TO RAISE, RATHER THAN ANSWER,
THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS AN UNLAWFUL DISPROPORTIONATE
REPRESENTATION OF LOWER INCOME GROUPS ON THE SPECIAL JURY. 

EVEN IN THE NEGRO CASES, THIS COURT HAS NEVER UNDERTAKEN TO SAY THAT
A WANT OF PROPORTIONATE REPRESENTATION OF GROUPS, WHICH IS NOT PROVED
TO BE DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL, IS SUFFICIENT TO VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION.  AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398.  IF THE COURT HAS
HESITATED TO REQUIRE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION WHERE BUT TWO GROUPS
NEED BE CONSIDERED AND IDENTIFICATION OF EACH GROUP IS FAIRLY CLEAR,
HOW MUCH MORE IMPRUDENT WOULD IT BE TO REQUIRE PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION OF ECONOMIC CLASSES.  THE OCCUPATIONS WHICH ARE SAID TO
COMPRISE THE ECONOMIC CLASS ALLEGEDLY EXCLUDED FROM THE SPECIAL PANEL
ARE SEPARATED BY SUCH UNCERTAIN LINES THAT THE DEFENDANTS' TWO EXHIBITS
ARE BASED ON DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS WHICH ARE NUMEROUS AND
OVERLAPPING. 

NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN VIEWPOINT BETWEEN THOSE ALLEGEDLY
EXCLUDED AND THOSE PERMITTED TO SERVE HAS BEEN PROVED AND NOTHING IN
OUR EXPERIENCE PERMITS US TO ASSUME IT.  FN34  IT WOULD REQUIRE LARGE
ASSUMPTIONS TO SAY THAT ONE'S PRESENT ECONOMIC STATUS, IN A SOCIETY AS
FLUID AS OURS, DETERMINES HIS OUTLOOK IN THE TRIAL OF CASES IN GENERAL
OR OF THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR.  THERE IS OF COURSE LEGITIMATE CONFLICT
OF INTEREST AMONG ECONOMIC GROUPS, BUT THEY ARE SO MANY AND SO OVERLIE
EACH OTHER THAT NOT ALL CAN BE SIGNIFICANT.  THERE IS ENTREPRENEUR AND
WAGE-EARNER, CONSUMER AND PRODUCER, TAXPAYER AND CIVIL SERVANT, FOREMAN
AND LABORER, WHITE-COLLAR WORKER AND MANUAL LABORER.  BUT WE ARE NOT
READY TO ASSUME THAT THESE DIFFERENCES OF FUNCTION DEGENERATE INTO A
HOSTILITY SUCH THAT ONE CANNOT EXPECT JUSTICE AT THE HANDS OF
OCCUPATIONS AND GROUPS OTHER THAN HIS OWN.  WERE THIS TRUE, AN
EXTREMELY RICH MAN COULD RARELY HAVE A FAIR TRIAL, FOR HIS CLASS IS NOT
OFTEN FOUND SITTING ON JURIES.  FN35 

NOR IS THERE ANY SUCH PERSUASIVE REASON FOR DEALING WITH PURPOSEFUL
OCCUPATIONAL OR ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATIONS IF THEY DO EXIST AS
PRESUMPTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS, AS WOULD BE THE CASE WITH REGARD
TO PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATIONS BECAUSE OF RACE OR COLOR.  WE DO NOT NEED
TO FIND PREJUDICE IN THESE LATTER EXCLUSIONS, BUT CF. STRAUDER V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 303, 306-309, FOR CONGRESS HAS FORBIDDEN THEM, AND A
TRIBUNAL SET UP IN DEFIANCE OF ITS COMMAND IS AN UNLAWFUL ONE WHETHER
WE THINK IT UNFAIR OR NOT.  BUT AS TO OTHER EXCLUSIONS, WE MUST FIND
THEM SUCH AS TO DENY A FAIR TRIAL BEFORE THEY CAN BE LABELED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

THERE MAY BE SPECIAL CASES WHERE EXCLUSION OF LABORERS WOULD INDICATE
THAT THOSE SITTING WERE PREJUDICED AGAINST LABOR DEFENDANTS, AS WHERE A
LABOR LEADER IS ON TRIAL ON CHARGES GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE. 
THE SITUATION WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THAT OF A NEGRO WHO CONFRONTS A JURY
ON WHICH NO NEGRO IS ALLOWED TO SIT.  HE MIGHT VERY WELL SAY THAT A
COMMUNITY WHICH PURPOSELY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST ALL NEGROES
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST HIM.  BUT IT IS QUITE DIFFERENT IF WE ASSUME THAT
"PERSONS OF CONSERVATIVE VIEWS" DO PREDOMINATE ON THE SPECIAL JURY. 
DOES IT FOLLOW THAT "LIBERALS" WOULD BE MORE FAVORABLY DISPOSED TOWARD
A DEFENSE THAT NOMINAL LABOR LEADERS WERE HIRING OUT TO EMPLOYERS TO
"HANDLE" THEIR LABOR PROBLEMS?  DOES IT FOLLOW THAT A JURY FROM THE
"UPPER ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STRATUM" WOULD BE MORE DISPOSED TO CONVICT
THOSE WHO SO UNDERTAKE TO SERVE TWO MASTERS THAN "THOSE WHO MIGHT
UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE LABORING MAN"?  WE SHOULD THINK IT
MIGHT BE THE OTHER WAY ABOUT AND DEFENDANTS OFFER NOTHING BUT ASSERTION
TO CONVINCE US.  OUR ATTENTION, MOREOVER, IS CALLED TO FEDERAL COURT
RECORDS WHICH SHOW THAT FAY REPORTED A NET TAXABLE INCOME OF OVER
$65,000 FOR THE YEARS 1940 TO 1942, WHILE BOVE REPORTED OVER $39,000
FOR A SIMILAR PERIOD, BOTH OF THEM EXCLUSIVE OF THE SUMS RECEIVED FROM
THE CONTRACTORS AND INVOLVED IN THESE CHARGES.  THESE EARNINGS DO NOT
IDENTIFY THEM VERY CLOSELY WITH THE VIEWPOINT OF THE DEPRESSED
CLASSES.  THE GROUP WITH WHICH THEY MIGHT BE MOST CLOSELY IDENTIFIED IS
ORGANIZED LABOR.  BUT IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED THAT UNION MEMBERS WERE
EXCLUDED FROM THIS SPECIAL PANEL SINCE THREE UNION MEMBERS WERE CALLED
FOR EXAMINATION ON THIS PARTICULAR JURY, TWO BEING REJECTED BY THE
PEOPLE AND ONE BY THE DEFENDANTS THEMSELVES.  THE DEFENDANTS HAVE SHOWN
NO INTENTIONAL AND PURPOSEFUL EXCLUSION OF ANY CLASS, AND THEY HAVE
SHOWN NONE THAT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THEM.  THEY HAVE HAD A FAIR TRIAL,
AND NO REASON APPEARS WHY THEY SHOULD ESCAPE ITS RESULTS. 

THE FUNCTION OF THIS FEDERAL COURT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN
REFERENCE TO STATE JURIES IS NOT TO PRESCRIBE PROCEDURES BUT IS
ESSENTIALLY TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRIAL PROCESS BY WHATEVER
METHOD THE STATE SEES FIT TO EMPLOY.  NO DEVICE, WHETHER CONVENTIONAL
OR NEWLY DEVISED, CAN BE SET UP BY WHICH THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IS
REDUCED TO A SHAM AND COURTS ARE ORGANIZED TO CONVICT.  THEY MUST BE
ORGANIZED TO HEAR, TRY AND DETERMINE ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW.  BUT
BEYOND REQUIRING CONFORMITY TO STANDARDS OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS THAT
HAVE WON LEGAL RECOGNITION, THIS COURT ALWAYS HAS BEEN CAREFUL NOT SO
TO INTERPRET THIS AMENDMENT AS TO IMPOSE UNIFORM PROCEDURES UPON THE
SEVERAL STATES WHOSE LEGAL SYSTEMS STEM FROM DIVERSE SOURCES OF LAW AND
REFLECT DIFFERENT HISTORICAL INFLUENCES.  FN36 

WE ADHERE TO THIS POLICY OF SELF-RESTRAINT AND WILL NOT USE THIS
GREAT CENTRALIZING AMENDMENT TO STANDARDIZE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
AND STAGNATE LOCAL VARIATIONS IN PRACTICE.  THE JURY SYSTEM IS ONE
WHICH HAS UNDERGONE GREAT MODIFICATIONS IN ITS LONG HISTORY, SEE PEOPLE
V. DUNN, 157 N.Y. 528, 52 N.E. 572, AND IT IS STILL UNDERGOING REVISION
AND ADAPTATION TO ADJUST IT TO THE TENSIONS OF TIME AND LOCALITY.  IN
NO PLACE ARE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS PUT TO GREATER STRAIN THAN IN THE
CITY OF NEW YORK WITH ITS SOME SEVEN AND A HALF MILLION INHABITANTS
GATHERED FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH AND A DAILY TRANSIENT FLOW
OF TWO MILLION, WITH ALL THAT THIS IMPLIES OF DIFFICULTY IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT.  THE CITIZEN THERE, AS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, HAS BEEN
CALLED FOR JURY SERVICE TO PERFORM A VARIETY OF FUNCTIONS - THE GRAND
JURY, THE PETIT JURY, THE SHERIFF'S JURY, THE CORONER'S JURY, THE
FOREIGN JURY, THE STRUCK JURY, AND THE SPECIAL JURY.  THE STATES HAVE
HAD DIFFERENT AND CONSTANTLY CHANGING TESTS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR
SERVICE.  EVOLUTION OF THE JURY CONTINUES EVEN NOW, AND MANY
EXPERIMENTS ARE UNDER WAY THAT WERE STRANGE TO THE COMMON LAW.  SOME
STATES HAVE TAKEN MEASURES TO RESTRICT ITS USE; OTHERS, WHERE JURY
SERVICE IS A HARDSHIP, DIMINISH THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF JURORS.  SOME
STATES NO LONGER REQUIRE THE UNANIMOUS VERDICT; OTHERS ADD ALTERNATE OR
SUBSTITUTE JURORS TO AVOID MISTRIAL IN CASE OF SICKNESS OR DEATH.  SOME
STATES HAVE ABOLISHED THE GENERAL VERDICT AND REQUIRE ANSWERS TO
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.  FN37  WELL HAS IT BEEN SAID OF OUR POWER TO LIMIT
STATE ACTION THAT "TO STAY EXPERIMENTATION IN THINGS SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC IS A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY.  DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO EXPERIMENT
MAY BE FRAUGHT WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES TO THE NATION.  IT IS ONE OF
THE HAPPY INCIDENTS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM THAT A SINGLE COURAGEOUS
STATE MAY, IF ITS CITIZENS CHOOSE, SERVE AS A LABORATORY; AND TRY NOVEL
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EXPERIMENTS WITHOUT RISK TO THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, DISSENTING IN NEW STATE ICE CO. V.
LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262, 311. 

AS THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE ALLEGED, THE CHALLENGE
TO THIS JUDGMENT UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE MUST STAND OR FALL ON A
SHOWING THAT THESE DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD A TRIAL SO UNFAIR AS TO AMOUNT
TO A TAKING OF THEIR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  ON THIS
RECORD WE THINK THAT SHOWING HAS NOT BEEN MADE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  270 APP. DIV. 261, 59 N.Y.S.2D 127. 

FN2  CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SECS. 520, 543-A, 66 MCKINNEY'S
CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW YORK, PART 2, PP. 328-29, 429. 

FN3  296 N.Y. 510, 68 N.E.2D 453. 

FN4 BUT 7,000 OF THE 60,000 ON THE GENERAL JURY PANEL, OR 11%, ARE
WOMEN.  IT IS ALMOST FRIVOLOUS TO ASSERT THAT THERE IS A BIAS AGAINST
THEIR INCLUSION ON JURIES.  CF. AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398, 403. 

FN5  JUDICIARY LAW, SEC. 596, 29 MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW
YORK (POCKET PART, 1946), PP. 131-32. 

FN6  JUDICIARY LAW, SEC. 599, 29 MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW
YORK (POCKET PART, 1946), PP. 133-34. 

FN7  JUDICIARY LAW, SEC. 596, SUPRA. 

FN8  JUDICIARY LAW, SEC. 599, SUPRA. 

FN9  JUDICIARY LAW, SEC. 749-AA3, 29 MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF
NEW YORK, PP. 512-13. 

FN10  JUDICIARY LAW, SEC. 749-AA2, 29 MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF
NEW YORK, P. 512. 

FN11  JUDICIARY LAW, SEC. 749-AA4, 29 MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF
NEW YORK, PP. 513-14. 

FN12  N.Y. LAWS 1896, C. 378; N.Y. LAWS 1901, C. 602. 

FN13  THE OTHER CASES CITED IN THE PER CURIAM AFFIRMANCE WERE STORTI
V. MASSACHUSETTS, 183 U.S. 138, 141, AND ANDREWS V. SWARTZ, 156 U.S.
272, BOTH OF WHICH DISAPPROVE THE USE OF HABEAS CORPUS AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR WRIT OF ERROR.  IT IS NOT CLEAR, THEREFORE, HOW MUCH THE AFFIRMANCE
OF THE HALL CASE DEPENDED ON THAT PROCEDURAL GROUND RATHER THAN ON A
DISPOSITION OF THE MERITS.  MOREOVER, THE GROUNDS URGED AGAINST THE
SPECIAL JURY IN THAT CASE RELATED TO ITS SELECTION FROM A PANEL WHICH
WAS ONLY A SEGMENT OF THE GENERAL PANEL AND DID NOT ASSERT THE
EXCLUSION OF PARTICULAR GROUPS. 

FN14  THE TABLE WAS PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF PETITIONERS' COUNSEL
BY AN ATTORNEY WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE "FOUND VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS LISTED"
AND "TRIED TO CLASSIFY THEM TO GROUPS, MAKING THEM NOT TOO NUMEROUS." 

TOTAL NUMBER OF SPECIAL JURORS ON FILE IN NEW YORK COUNTY 

CLERK'S OFFICE................................................
2,911 

TOTAL NUMBER WITH CLASSIFIABLE OCCUPATIONS.....................
2,743 

AUDITORS AND ACCOUNTANTS.......................................
166 

BANKERS........................................................
170 

MANUFACTURERS.................................................. 106 

REAL ESTATE BROKERS............................................
117 

RETIRED........................................................
62 

ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS.......................................
229 

EDUCATORS, TEACHERS, LIBRARIANS................................
27 

EXECUTIVES, MANAGERS OF INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES.................
470 

STOCK BROKERS..................................................
185 

SALESMEN, PROMOTERS OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISES AND ADVERTISING 

MEN...........................................................
438 

NEWSPAPER MEN, EDITORIAL WRITERS AND OTHERS ENGAGED IN THE 

DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION..................................
148 

MECHANICS......................................................
5 

INSURANCE MEN..................................................
166 

TRAVEL AGENCY MEN..............................................
10 

CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES........................................
21    OFFICE CLERKS..................................................
94 

RETAIL MERCHANTS...............................................
144 

ENTERTAINERS...................................................
26 

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENTS......................
70 

CHEMISTS AND PHYSICISTS........................................
66 

ATTORNEYS......................................................
5 

LABORERS.......................................................
NONE 

LABOR UNION REPRESENTATIVES....................................
1    HOUSEWIVES.....................................................
20

   - THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT 30 WOMEN ON THE ENTIRE SPECIAL JURY LIST
 

PETITIONERS' ATTORNEYS REQUESTED THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS OF
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO CONFORM THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF
THE ABOVE TABLE TO THE CENSUS CLASSIFICATIONS.  IN THE TABLE THUS
PREPARED, TWENTY-ONE PERSONS ARE CLASSED AS CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND
A NOTE CAUTIONS THAT "SOME MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP UNDOUBTEDLY BELONG
ELSEWHERE, AS UNDER SERVICE TRADES, OR LABORERS."  ONE HUNDRED AND
SIXTY-FIVE PERSONS ARE LISTED AS UNCLASSIFIABLE IN THE BUREAU'S TABLE. 

FN15 

OCCUPATIONS OF EMPLOYED PERSONS (EXCEPT ON PUBLIC EMERGENCY WORK) AND
OF EXPERIENCED WORKERS SEEKING WORK, RESIDING IN MANHATTAN IN THE WEEK
OF MARCH 24 TO 30, 1940, COMPARED WITH OCCUPATIONS OF SPECIAL JURORS ON
FILE IN NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, JANUARY 31, 1945. 

(CHART OMITTED) 

FN16  JUDICIARY LAW, SECS. 40-48, 29 MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF
NEW YORK, PP. 58-62, (POCKET PART, 1946), P. 17. 

FN17  TO OBTAIN A STRUCK JURY, THE COMMISSIONER OF JURORS OR THE
COUNTY CLERK, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES, SELECTED FROM THE GENERAL
JURY LIST THE NAMES OF FORTY-EIGHT PERSONS WHOM HE DEEMED MOST
INDIFFERENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND BEST QUALIFIED TO TRY THE CASE. 
THE PARTIES THEN ALTERNATELY WOULD EACH STRIKE OFF TWELVE NAMES FROM
THE LIST.  THE JURY WAS CHOSEN FROM THE REMAINING TWENTY-FOUR NAMES. 

FN18  THE FOREIGN JURY WAS CHOSEN FROM A COUNTY ADJOINING THAT WHERE
THE TRIAL WAS TO BE HELD, IN CASES IN WHICH IT WAS THOUGHT A MORE
IMPARTIAL JURY WOULD THUS BE HAD.  IT LOST ITS USEFULNESS BECAUSE OF
THE EASE WITH WHICH A CHANGE OF VENUE MIGHT BE OBTAINED.  CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEC. 344.2, 66 MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW
YORK, PART 1, P. 622. 

FN19  THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK (1937) 123-28. 

FN20  ID. AT 127. 

FN21  FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK (1938) 46. 

FN22  ID. AT 47. 

FN23  FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK (1939) 42-43. 

FN24  ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK (1945) 49-50. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN26  LOUGHRAN, CH. J., NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, AND MARTIN, P.J.,
APP. DIV. (1ST DEPT.). 

FN27  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MIGHT OF ITS OWN FORCE PROHIBIT
DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS, SO THAT
SUCH DISCRIMINATION WOULD VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE SAME
AMENDMENT.  NOR NEED WE DECIDE WHETHER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ALONE
OUTLAWS SUCH DISCRIMINATION.  CF. HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, 406:
"BUT NO STATE IS AT LIBERTY TO IMPOSE UPON ONE CHARGED WITH CRIME A
DISCRIMINATION IN ITS TRIAL PROCEDURE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION, AND AN
ACT OF CONGRESS PASSED PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, ALIKE FORBID.  ...
IT IS OUR DUTY AS WELL AS THE STATE'S TO SEE TO IT THAT THROUGHOUT THE
PROCEDURE FOR BRINGING HIM TO JUSTICE HE SHALL ENJOY THE PROTECTION
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES.  WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, TIMELY
OBJECTION HAS LAID BARE A DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF GRAND
JURORS, THE CONVICTION CANNOT STAND, BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS
THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH IT WAS OBTAINED.  EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
IS SOMETHING MORE THAN AN ABSTRACT RIGHT.  IT IS A COMMAND WHICH THE
STATE MUST RESPECT, THE BENEFITS OF WHICH EVERY PERSON MAY DEMAND." 

FN28  OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK SHOW THAT IN THE
FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, 1940-44, 2,407 NEW JURORS WERE PUT ON THE SPECIAL
PANEL WHICH IS MAINTAINED AT ABOUT 3,000, AND 2,692 PERSONS WERE
REMOVED FROM THE LIST. 

FN29  THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK (1937) 123. 

FN30  1911 LAWS OF WASHINGTON, C. 57.  SEE CARSON, WOMEN JURORS
(1928). 

FN31  REPORT TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON SELECTION
OF JURORS (1942) 23.  A LATER BULLETIN OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SHOWED THAT IN 1945, 31 STATES
PERMITTED JURY SERVICE BY WOMEN, EXEMPTION BEING ALLOWED IN 15 OF
THEM.  BUT 17 STATES STILL WITHHELD THEIR APPROVAL OF WOMEN ON JURIES. 
A PAMPHLET OF THE WOMEN'S BUREAU, AS YET UNPUBLISHED, SHOWS THAT AT
THIS TIME FOUR MORE STATES FIND WOMEN ACCEPTABLE AS JURORS. 

FN32  SEE JUDICIAL CODE, SECS. 275, 276, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 411, 412;
BALLARD V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 187. 

FN33  IT IS WORTH COMMENT THAT THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL, ON WHICH PETITIONERS HEAVILY RELY, ALTHOUGH THEY URGE STRONGLY
AND PERSISTENTLY THAT THE SPECIAL JURY BE ABOLISHED, DO NOT GIVE AS ONE
OF THE REASONS THE SOCIAL MAKE-UP OF THE PANEL.  THIS IS ODD, IF THAT
REASON WERE VALID, SINCE THE COUNCIL OBVIOUSLY WAS INTERESTED IN URGING
ALL GOOD REASONS WHICH WOULD SUPPORT ITS STRONG DISAPPROVAL AND ITS
REITERATED RECOMMENDATION. 

FN34  CF. RAWLINS V. GEORGIA, 201 U.S. 638, 640:  "THE NATURE OF THE
CLASSES EXCLUDED WAS NOT SUCH AS WAS LIKELY TO AFFECT THE CONDUCT OF
THE MEMBERS AS JURYMEN, OR TO MAKE THEM ACT OTHERWISE THAN THOSE WHO
WERE DRAWN WOULD ACT." 

FN35  WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT MERE EXCLUSION OF JURORS OF ONE'S
OCCUPATION RENDERS A JURY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN THOUGH THE OCCUPATION
TENDS TO GIVE THOSE WHO PRACTICE IT A PARTICULAR AND DISTINCTIVE
VIEWPOINT.  NEW YORK HAS SOME 20,000 POLICEMEN PRESUMABLY OTHERWISE
QUALIFIED FOR JURY SERVICE.  IT IS NOT UNKNOWN THAT A DEFENDANT IS A
POLICEMAN.  CAN HE NOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY TRIED IF POLICEMEN ARE
EXEMPT FROM SERVICE OR EVEN EXCLUDED FROM THE PANEL?  THERE IS SOME
DISCRETION LEFT IN THE STATES TO SAY THAT PERSONS IN SOME OCCUPATIONS
ARE MORE NEEDED AT THEIR WORK THAN ON JURY DUTY AND, PERHAPS, THAT SOME
HAVE OCCUPATIONAL ATTITUDES THAT MAKE IT APPROPRIATE TO LEAVE THEM OFF
THE LIST SO LONG AS AN UNEXCEPTIONABLE LIST REMAINS ON CALL.  CF.
RAWLINS V. GEORGIA, 201 U.S. 638.  SEE KNOX, SELECTION OF FEDERAL
JURORS, 31 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY 9, 11. 

FN36  WHILE ENGLISH COMMON LAW IS THE SOURCE FROM WHICH IT OFTEN IS
ASSUMED A UNIFORM SYSTEM WAS DERIVED BY THE STATES OF THE UNITED
STATES, IT MUST NOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN DEEPLY
INFLUENCED BY ROMAN AND CIVIL LAW TO WHICH THEIR HISTORY EXPOSED THEM. 
NONE OF THE TERRITORY WEST OF THE ALLEGHENIES WAS MORE THAN BRIEFLY OR
CASUALLY SUBJECT TO COMMON LAW BEFORE THE REVOLUTION.  FRENCH CIVIL LAW
PREVAILED IN MOST OF THE OHIO AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEYS FROM THEIR
SETTLEMENT UNTIL WOLFE'S DECISIVE VICTORY BEFORE QUEBEC IN 1763.  ITS
ASCENDANCY IN THE NORTH THEN WAS BROKEN, AND IN 1803 THE LOUISIANA
PURCHASE ENDED FRENCH SOVEREIGNTY IN THE REST OF THE MISSISSIPPI AREA. 
LOUISIANA CONTINUES, HOWEVER, A SYSTEM OF LAW BASED ON THE CODE
NAPOLEON.  THE SOUTHWEST AND FLORIDA ONCE WERE SPANISH.  SEE COLVIN,
PARTICIPATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WITH THE REPUBLICS OF
LATIN AMERICA IN THE COMMON HERITAGE OF ROMAN AND CIVIL LAW, 10
PROCEEDINGS OF THE EIGHTH AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS 467. 

EVEN AMONG THE EARLY SEABOARD STATES, THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW HAD
RIVALS.  THE SWEDES ON THE BANKS OF THE DELAWARE HELD ONE OF THE
EARLIEST JURY TRIALS ON THIS CONTINENT.  THE GOVERNOR FOLLOWED SWEDISH
LAW AND CUSTOM IN CALLING TO HIS AID IN JUDGING "ASSISTANTS" WHO WERE
SELECTED FROM AMONG "THE PRINCIPAL AND WISEST INHABITANTS" AND WERE
BOTH JUDGES AND JURORS AND SOMETIMES WITNESSES.  SEE 1 JOHNSON, THE
SWEDISH SETTLEMENTS ON THE DELAWARE (1911) 450 ET SEQ. IN NEW YORK,
THERE WAS A DEEP AND PERSISTENT INFLUENCE FROM ROMAN DUTCH LAW.  UPON
CAPITULATION OF NEW AMSTERDAM, IT WAS STIPULATED THAT CERTAIN DUTCH
LAW, AND JUDGMENTS AND CUSTOMS SHOULD BE RESPECTED.  BUT EVEN BEYOND
THIS, IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COURTS THE DUTCH RULE PERSISTED
ALTHOUGH CONTRARY TO THE "DUKE'S LAWS" ENACTED BY THE CONQUEROR.  THE
HISTORY OF THE EARLY DUTCH INFLUENCE IN NEW YORK COURT PROCEDURE WAS
PRESERVED BY THE DILIGENCE AND FORESIGHT OF JUDGE DALY.  1 E. D.
SMITH'S REPORTS (NEW YORK COMMON PLEAS) XVII, XXXIV, XXXVII.  THE ROMAN
DUTCH ELEMENT IN NEW YORK LAW IS RECOGNIZED BY ITS COURTS, E.G., DUNHAM
V. WILLIAMS, 37 N.Y. 251, 253; VAN GIESSEN V. BRIDGFORD, 83 N.Y. 348,
356; SMITH V. RENTZ, 131 N.Y. 169, 175, 30 N.E. 54, 56. 

FN37  SEE 8 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 492. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS A
STATE FROM CONVICTING ANY PERSON BY USE OF A JURY WHICH IS NOT
IMPARTIALLY DRAWN FROM A CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY.  THAT MEANS
THAT JURIES MUST BE CHOSEN WITHOUT SYSTEMATIC AND INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION
OF ANY OTHERWISE QUALIFIED GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS.  SMITH V. TEXAS, 311
U.S. 128.  ONLY IN THAT WAY CAN THE DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS OF THE JURY
SYSTEM BE PRESERVED.  THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 328 U.S. 217, 220;
GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 85.  IT IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE
THAT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF JURY SELECTION HAS BEEN IGNORED IN
THE CREATION OF THE SO-CALLED "BLUE RIBBON" JURY PANEL IN THIS CASE
THAT I AM FORCED TO DISSENT. 

PRELIMINARILY, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS
PROHIBITING THE PARTICULAR KIND OF INEQUALITY HERE INVOLVED IS
UNNECESSARY TO ENABLE US TO STRIKE IT DOWN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
WHILE CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ENFORCE BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND HAS DONE SO RELATIVE TO
DISCRIMINATION IN JURY SELECTION ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR COLOR, ITS
FAILURE TO LEGISLATE AS TO ECONOMIC OR OTHER DISCRIMINATION IN JURY
SELECTION DOES NOT PERMIT US TO STAND IDLY BY.  WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY
INTERFERED WITH STATE PROCEDURE AND STATE LEGISLATION WHEN WE FELT THAT
THEY WERE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR WITH THE
FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER DESPITE CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE ON THE MATTER
INVOLVED.  SEE, E.G., WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V.
BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624; NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416; MORGAN V.
VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373.  AND SO IN THIS CASE WE ARE ENTITLED TO JUDGE
THE ACTION OF NEW YORK BY CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS WITHOUT REGARD TO
THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL VICE INHERENT IN THE TYPE OF "BLUE RIBBON" JURY
PANEL HERE INVOLVED IS THAT IT RESTS UPON INTENTIONAL AND SYSTEMATIC
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ADMITTEDLY QUALIFIED TO
SERVE ON THE GENERAL JURY PANEL.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE STANDARDS ERECTED
BY JURY OFFICIALS FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH A
"BLUE RIBBON" PANEL AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT, THE DISTINCTION ITSELF IS AN
INVALID ONE.  IT DENIES THE DEFENDANT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE
TRIED BY A JURY FAIRLY DRAWN FROM A CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY.  IT
FORCES UPON HIM A JURY DRAWN FROM A PANEL CHOSEN IN A MANNER WHICH
TENDS TO OBLITERATE THE REPRESENTATIVE BASIS OF THE JURY. 

THE SELECTION OF THE "BLUE RIBBON" PANEL IN THIS CASE RESTS UPON THE
"DEGREE OF INTELLIGENCE AS REVEALED BY THE QUESTIONNAIRE" SENT TO
PROSPECTIVE JURORS, AUGMENTED BY PERSONAL INTERVIEWS.  THE
QUESTIONNAIRE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE A TEST OF NATIVE
INTELLIGENCE, NOR DOES IT APPEAR TO OFFER ANY SOUND BASIS FOR
DISTINGUISHING THE INTELLIGENCE OF ONE PERSON FROM ANOTHER.  THE
UNDENIABLE RESULT HAS BEEN TO PERMIT THE JURY OFFICIALS TO FORMULATE
WHATEVER STANDARDS THEY DESIRE, WHETHER IN TERMS OF "INTELLIGENCE" OR
SOME OTHER FACTOR, TO ELIMINATE PERSONS FROM THE "BLUE RIBBON" PANEL,
EVEN THOUGH THEY ADMITTEDLY ARE QUALIFIED FOR GENERAL JURY SERVICE. 
THAT FACT IS STRIKINGLY BORNE OUT BY THE STATISTICS COMPILED IN THIS
CASE AS TO THE PERSONNEL OF THE "BLUE RIBBON" PANEL.  CERTAIN CLASSES
OF INDIVIDUALS ARE TOTALLY UNREPRESENTED ON THE PANEL DESPITE THEIR
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIGH INTELLIGENCE IS
TO BE FOUND IN SUCH CLASSES. 

                                     PERCENTAGE OF
PERCENTAGE OF

     TOTAL EXPERIENCED    REPRESENTATION ON

                      LABOR FORCES IN       "BLUE RIBBON"

                                      MANHATTAN.   PANEL. 

PROFESSIONAL AND SEMI-PROFESSIONAL...      12.1              18.8 

PROPRIETORS, MANAGERS AND OFFICIALS...    9.3                 43 

CLERICAL, SALES AND KINDRED WORKERS...     21.3                 38 

CRAFTSMEN, FOREMEN AND KINDRED 

WORKERS...........................         7.7             0.2 

OPERATIVES AND KINDRED WORKERS..... 17                    0 

SERVICE WORKERS....................        27.6                  0 

LABORERS ..........................         4.9                  0 

FARMERS ...........................         0.1                  0
SUCH STATISTICS CAN ONLY MEAN THAT THE JURY OFFICIALS HAVE EVOLVED SOME
STANDARD OTHER THAN THAT OF "INTELLIGENCE" TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN PERSONS
FROM THE "BLUE RIBBON" PANEL.  AND THAT STANDARD IS APPARENTLY OF AN
ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL NATURE, UNJUSTIFIED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES OF
THE JURY SYSTEM.    THE COURT POINTS OUT SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES
INVOLVED IN COMPARING THE PERSONNEL OF THE PANEL WITH 1940 CENSUS
FIGURES.  BUT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A VERY SUBTLE AND SOPHISTICATED
FORM OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO EASY OR PRECISE
PROOF.  THE PROOF HERE IS ADEQUATE ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS
PANEL, LIKE EVERY DISCRIMINATORILY SELECTED "BLUE RIBBON" PANEL,
SUFFERS FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY.  THAT INFIRMITY IS THE DENIAL
OF EQUAL PROTECTION TO THOSE WHO ARE TRIED BY A JURY DRAWN FROM A "BLUE
RIBBON" PANEL.  SUCH A PANEL IS NARROWER AND DIFFERENT FROM THAT USED
IN FORMING JURIES TO TRY THE VAST MAJORITY OF OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS. 
TO THE EXTENT OF THAT DIFFERENCE, THEREFORE, THE PERSONS TRIED BY "BLUE
RIBBON" JURIES RECEIVE UNEQUAL PROTECTION. 

IN ADDITION, AS ILLUSTRATED IN THIS CASE, THE DISTINCTION THAT IS
DRAWN IN FACT BETWEEN "BLUE RIBBON" JURORS AND GENERAL JURORS IS OFTEN
OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS TO DESTROY THE REPRESENTATIVE NATURE OF THE
"BLUE RIBBON" PANEL.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY DRAWN
FROM A GROUP OF UNEDUCATED AND UNINTELLIGENT PERSONS.  NOR IS THERE ANY
RIGHT TO A JURY CHOSEN SOLELY FROM THOSE AT THE LOWER END OF THE
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SCALE.  BUT THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A
JURY DRAWN FROM A GROUP WHICH REPRESENTS A CROSS-SECTION OF THE
COMMUNITY.  AND A CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY INCLUDES PERSONS WITH
VARYING DEGREES OF TRAINING AND INTELLIGENCE AND WITH VARYING ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL POSITIONS.  UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE JURY IS NOT TO BE
MADE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MOST INTELLIGENT, THE MOST WEALTHY OR
THE MOST SUCCESSFUL, NOR OF THE LEAST INTELLIGENT, THE LEAST WEALTHY OR
THE LEAST SUCCESSFUL.  IT IS A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION, REPRESENTATIVE
OF ALL QUALIFIED CLASSES OF PEOPLE.  SMITH V. TEXAS, SUPRA.  TO THE
EXTENT THAT A "BLUE RIBBON" PANEL FAILS TO REFLECT THIS DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLE, IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE. 

THE COURT DEMONSTRATES RATHER CONVINCINGLY THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO
PROVE THAT THE PARTICULAR PETITIONERS WERE PREJUDICED BY THE
DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED IN THIS CASE.  YET THAT SHOULD NOT EXCUSE THE
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF JURY SELECTION. 
WE CAN NEVER MEASURE ACCURATELY THE PREJUDICE THAT RESULTS FROM THE
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF QUALIFIED PEOPLE FROM A JURY PANEL.  SUCH
PREJUDICE IS SO SUBTLE, SO INTANGIBLE, THAT IT ESCAPES THE ORDINARY
METHODS OF PROOF.  IT MAY BE ABSENT IN ONE CASE AND PRESENT IN ANOTHER;
IT MAY GRADUALLY AND SILENTLY ERODE THE JURY SYSTEM BEFORE IT BECOMES
EVIDENT.  BUT IT IS NO LESS REAL OR MEANINGFUL FOR OUR PURPOSES.  IF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY IMPARTIALLY DRAWN FROM A CROSS
RIGHT EVEN THOUGH THE EFFECT OF THE VIOLATION HAS NOT YET PUT IN A
TANGIBLE APPEARANCE.  OTHERWISE THAT RIGHT MAY BE IRRETRIEVABLY LOST IN
A WELTER OF EVIDENTIARY RULES. 

SINCE THIS "BLUE RIBBON" PANEL FALLS SHORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARD OF JURY SELECTION, THE JUDGMENTS BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL CO., 332 U.S. 301 


NO. 235.  ARGUED APRIL 8-9, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 153 F.2D
958, AFFIRMED. 


A SOLDIER IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS INJURED BY A MOTOR
TRUCK, THROUGH NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRIVER.  THE EXPENSES OF HIS
HOSPITALIZATION WERE BORNE BY THE UNITED STATES; AND HE CONTINUED TO
RECEIVE HIS ARMY PAY DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS DISABILITY.  THE UNITED
STATES BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE OWNER AND
DRIVER OF THE TRUCK AS TORT-FEASORS TO RECOVER THE AMOUNTS EXPENDED FOR
HOSPITALIZATION AND SOLDIER'S PAY DURING THE PERIOD OF DISABILITY, AS
FOR LOSS OF THE SOLDIER'S SERVICES.  HELD: 

1.  THE DECISION IS GOVERNED NOT BY THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE
INJURY OCCURRED BUT BY FEDERAL LAW, EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED
AFFIRMATIVELY CONCERNING THE SPECIFIC QUESTION.  ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 305-311. 

2.  IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS ON THE SUBJECT, THE
UNITED STATES WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ON THE CLAIM.  PP. 311-317. 

3.  IT IS FOR CONGRESS, NOT THE JUDICIARY, TO MAKE NEW LAWS
CONCERNING THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO RECOVER FOR THE LOSS OF A
SOLDIER'S SERVICES.  PP. 314-317. 

UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER ON A
CLAIM ARISING OUT OF INJURIES SUSTAINED BY A SOLDIER AS A RESULT OF
NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
UNITED STATES.  60 F.SUPP.  807.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  153 F.2D 958.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S.
696.  AFFIRMED, P. 317. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NOT OFTEN, SINCE THE DECISION IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S.
64, IS THIS COURT ASKED TO CREATE A NEW SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL LIABILITY
WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE AID AND AS AT THE COMMON LAW.  THIS CASE OF FIRST
IMPRESSION HERE SEEKS SUCH A RESULT.  IT ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

EARLY ONE MORNING IN FEBRUARY, 1944, JOHN ETZEL, A SOLDIER, WAS HIT
AND INJURED BY A TRUCK OF THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA AT A
STREET INTERSECTION IN LOS ANGELES.  THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN BY BOONE,
AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY.  AT THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPENSE OF $123.45
ETZEL WAS HOSPITALIZED, AND HIS SOLDIER'S PAY OF $69.31 WAS CONTINUED
DURING HIS DISABILITY.  UPON THE PAYMENT OF $300 ETZEL RELEASED THE
COMPANY AND BOONE "FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS WHICH I NOW HAVE
OR MAY HEREAFTER HAVE, ON ACCOUNT OF OR ARISING OUT OF" THE ACCIDENT. 
FN1 

FROM THESE FACTS THE NOVEL QUESTION SPRINGS WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS
ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM THE RESPONDENTS AS TORT-FEASORS THE AMOUNTS
EXPENDED FOR HOSPITALIZATION AND SOLDIER'S PAY, AS FOR LOSS OF ETZEL'S
SERVICES.  A JURY BEING WAIVED, THE DISTRICT COURT MADE FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN THE GOVERNMENT'S FAVOR UPON ALL THE
ISSUES, INCLUDING THOSE OF NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED ACCORDINGLY.  60 F.SUPP.  807.  THIS THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 153 F.2D 958, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE NOVELTY AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION.  FN2
329 U.S. 696. 

AS THE CASE REACHES US, A NUMBER OF ISSUES CONTESTED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED.  FN3
REMAINING IS THE BASIC QUESTION OF RESPONDENTS' LIABILITY FOR
INTERFERENCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT-SOLDIER RELATION AND CONSEQUENT LOSS
TO THE UNITED STATES, TOGETHER WITH QUESTIONS WHETHER THIS ISSUE IS TO
BE DETERMINED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW  FN4  AND CONCERNING THE EFFECT
OF THE RELEASE.  FN5  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE RELEASE,  FN6  FOR
WE HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR THE
INJURIES INFLICTED UPON THE GOVERNMENT. 

WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW THAT THE CREATION OR NEGATION OF
SUCH A LIABILITY IS NOT A MATTER TO BE DETERMINED BY STATE LAW.  THE
CASE IN THIS ASPECT IS GOVERNED BY THE RULE OF CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363, AND NATIONAL METROPOLITAN BANK V. UNITED
STATES, 323 U.S. 454, RATHER THAN THAT OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
SUPRA.  IN THE CLEARFIELD CASE, INVOLVING LIABILITIES ARISING OUT OF A
FORGED INDORSEMENT OF A CHECK ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES, THE COURT
SAID:  "THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE CHECK HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WAS IN NO WAY
DEPENDENT ON THE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA OR OF ANY OTHER STATE.  CF. BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343; ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 289.  THE DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THE UNITED STATES
AND THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY IT AS A RESULT OF THE ISSUANCE FIND THEIR
ROOTS IN THE SAME FEDERAL SOURCES.  CF. DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S.
190; D'OENCH, DUHME & CO. V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORP., 315 U.S. 447. 
IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPLICABLE ACT OF CONGRESS IT IS FOR THE FEDERAL
COURTS TO FASHION THE GOVERNING RULE OF LAW ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN
STANDARDS."  318 U.S. AT 366-367. 

ALTHOUGH THE CLEARFIELD CASE APPLIED THESE PRINCIPLES TO A SITUATION
INVOLVING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, THEY ARE EQUALLY
APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WHERE THE RELATIONS AFFECTED ARE
NONCONTRACTUAL OR TORTIOUS IN CHARACTER. 

PERHAPS NO RELATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND A CITIZEN IS MORE
DISTINCTIVELY FEDERAL IN CHARACTER THAN THAT BETWEEN IT AND MEMBERS OF
ITS ARMED FORCES.  TO WHATEVER EXTENT STATE LAW MAY APPLY TO GOVERN THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN SOLDIERS OR OTHERS IN THE ARMED FORCES AND PERSONS
OUTSIDE THEM OR NONFEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, THE SCOPE, NATURE,
LEGAL INCIDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE RELATION BETWEEN PERSONS IN
SERVICE AND THE GOVERNMENT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM FEDERAL
SOURCES AND GOVERNED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  SEE TARBLE'S CASE, 13
WALL.  397; KURTZ V. MOFFITT, 115 U.S. 487.  SO ALSO WE THINK ARE
INTERFERENCES WITH THAT RELATIONSHIP SUCH AS THE FACTS OF THIS CASE
INVOLVE.  FOR, AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE EXCLUSIVE POWER TO
ESTABLISH AND DEFINE THE RELATIONSHIP BY VIRTUE OF ITS MILITARY AND
OTHER POWERS,  FN7  EQUALLY CLEARLY IT HAS POWER IN EXECUTION OF THE
SAME FUNCTIONS TO PROTECT THE RELATION ONCE FORMED FROM HARMS INFLICTED
BY OTHERS.  FN8 

SINCE ALSO THE GOVERNMENT'S PURSE IS AFFECTED, AS WELL AS ITS POWER
TO PROTECT THE RELATIONSHIP, ITS FISCAL POWERS, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY
ARE AVAILABLE TO PROTECT IT AGAINST FINANCIAL INJURY, ADD THEIR WEIGHT
TO THE MILITARY BASIS FOR EXCLUDING STATE INTRUSION.  INDEED, IN THIS
ASPECT THE CASE IS NOT GREATLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CLEARFIELD CASE OR
FROM ONE INVOLVING THE GOVERNMENT'S PARAMOUNT POWER OF CONTROL OVER ITS
OWN PROPERTY, BOTH TO PREVENT ITS UNAUTHORIZED USE OR DESTRUCTION AND
TO SECURE INDEMNITY FOR THOSE INJURIES.  FN9 

AS IN THE CLEARFIELD CASE, MOREOVER, QUITE APART FROM ANY POSITIVE
ACTION BY CONGRESS, THE MATTER IN ISSUE IS NEITHER PRIMARILY ONE OF
STATE INTEREST NOR EXCLUSIVELY FOR DETERMINATION BY STATE LAW WITHIN
THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE ERIE DECISION.  THE GREAT OBJECT OF THE
ERIE CASE WAS TO SECURE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, IN DIVERSITY CASES, THE
APPLICATION OF THE SAME SUBSTANTIVE LAW AS WOULD CONTROL IF THE SUIT
WERE BROUGHT IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT SITS. 
IT WAS THE SO-CALLED "FEDERAL COMMON LAW" UTILIZED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
STATE POWER, TO CREATE AND ENFORCE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE AREA SET
APART IN OUR SCHEME FOR STATE RATHER THAN FOR FEDERAL CONTROL, THAT THE
ERIE DECISION THREW OUT.  ITS OBJECT AND EFFECT WERE THUS TO BRING
FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER UNDER SUBJECTION TO STATE AUTHORITY IN MATTERS
ESSENTIALLY OF LOCAL INTEREST AND STATE CONTROL. 

CONVERSELY THERE WAS NO PURPOSE OR EFFECT FOR BROADENING STATE POWER
OVER MATTERS ESSENTIALLY OF FEDERAL CHARACTER OR FOR DETERMINING
WHETHER ISSUES ARE OF THAT NATURE.  THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION HAD NOT
CREATED SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF THAT SORT.  ACCORDINGLY THE ERIE DECISION,
WHICH RELATED ONLY TO THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IN EXERCISE OF THAT
JURISDICTION, HAD NO EFFECT, AND WAS INTENDED TO HAVE NONE, TO BRING
WITHIN THE GOVERNANCE OF STATE LAW MATTERS EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL, BECAUSE
MADE SO BY CONSTITUTIONAL OR VALID CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND, OR OTHERS SO
VITALLY AFFECTING INTERESTS, POWERS AND RELATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AS TO REQUIRE UNIFORM NATIONAL DISPOSITION RATHER THAN
DIVERSIFIED STATE RULINGS.  CF. CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES,
318 U.S. AT 366-368.  HENCE, ALTHOUGH FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER TO DEAL
WITH COMMON-LAW PROBLEMS WAS CUT DOWN IN THE REALM OF LIABILITY OR ITS
ABSENCE GOVERNABLE BY STATE LAW, THAT POWER REMAINED UNIMPAIRED FOR
DEALING INDEPENDENTLY, WHEREVER NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE, WITH
ESSENTIALLY FEDERAL MATTERS, EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED
AFFIRMATIVELY ABOUT THE SPECIFIC QUESTION. 

IN THIS SENSE THEREFORE THERE REMAINS WHAT MAY BE TERMED, FOR WANT OF
A BETTER LABEL, AN AREA OF "FEDERAL COMMON LAW" OR PERHAPS MORE
ACCURATELY "LAW OF INDEPENDENT FEDERAL JUDICIAL DECISION," OUTSIDE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REALM, UNTOUCHED BY THE ERIE DECISION.  AS THE
GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT, THIS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED BROADLY NOT ONLY BY
THE CLEARFIELD AND NATIONAL METROPOLITAN BANK CASES, BUT ALSO BY OTHER
DECISIONS RENDERED HERE SINCE THE ERIE CASE WENT DOWN,  FN10  WHETHER
OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT IS ALSO CORRECT IN SAYING THE FACT WAS
FORESHADOWED THE SAME DAY BY HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA CO., 304 U.S. 92,
110, IN A UNANIMOUS OPINION DELIVERED LIKEWISE BY MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS.  FN11 

IT IS TRUE, OF COURSE, THAT IN MANY SITUATIONS, AND APART FROM ANY
SUPPOSED INFLUENCE OF THE ERIE DECISION, RIGHTS, INTERESTS AND LEGAL
RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE DETERMINED BY APPLICATION OF STATE
LAW, WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED SPECIFICALLY.  "IN OUR CHOICE OF THE
APPLICABLE FEDERAL RULE WE HAVE OCCASIONALLY SELECTED STATE LAW." 
CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. AT 367.  THE
GOVERNMENT, FOR INSTANCE, MAY PLACE ITSELF IN A POSITION WHERE ITS
RIGHTS NECESSARILY ARE DETERMINABLE BY STATE LAW, AS WHEN IT PURCHASES
REAL ESTATE FROM ONE WHOSE TITLE IS INVALID BY THAT LAW IN RELATION TO
ANOTHER'S CLAIM.  CF. UNITED STATES V. FOX, 94 U.S. 315.  FN12  IN
OTHER SITUATIONS IT MAY FAIRLY BE TAKEN THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSENTED TO
APPLICATION OF STATE LAW, WHEN ACTING PARTIALLY IN RELATION TO FEDERAL
INTERESTS AND FUNCTIONS, THROUGH FAILURE TO MAKE OTHER PROVISION
CONCERNING MATTERS ORDINARILY SO GOVERNED.  FN13  AND IN STILL OTHERS
STATE LAW MAY FURNISH CONVENIENT SOLUTIONS IN NO WAY INCONSISTENT WITH
ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF THE FEDERAL INTEREST. 

BUT WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO DELIMIT OR CATEGORIZE THE INSTANCES WHERE
IT IS PROPERLY TO BE APPLIED OUTSIDE THE ERIE AEGIS.  IT IS ENOUGH FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES TO POINT OUT THAT THEY EXIST, COVER A VARIETY OF
SITUATIONS, AND GENERALLY INVOLVE MATTERS IN WHICH APPLICATION OF LOCAL
LAW NOT ONLY AFFORDS A CONVENIENT AND FAIR MODE OF DISPOSITION, BUT
ALSO IS EITHER INESCAPABLE, AS IN THE ILLUSTRATION GIVEN ABOVE, OR DOES
NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIALLY DIVERSIFIED TREATMENT WHERE UNIFORMITY IS
INDICATED AS MORE APPROPRIATE, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER AND THE SPECIFIC ISSUES AFFECTING THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST. 

WHETHER OR NOT, THEREFORE, STATE LAW IS TO CONTROL IN SUCH A CASE AS
THIS IS NOT AT ALL A MATTER TO BE DECIDED BY APPLICATION OF THE ERIE
RULE.  FOR, EXCEPT WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS SIMPLY SUBSTITUTED ITSELF
FOR OTHERS AS SUCCESSOR TO RIGHTS GOVERNED BY STATE LAW, THE QUESTION
IS ONE OF FEDERAL POLICY, AFFECTING NOT MERELY THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL
ESTABLISHMENT AND THE GROUNDINGS OF ITS ACTION, BUT ALSO THE
GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL INTERESTS AND RELATIONS, A FACTOR NOT CONTROLLING IN
THE TYPES OF CASES PRODUCING AND GOVERNED BY THE ERIE RULING.  AND THE
ANSWER TO BE GIVEN NECESSARILY IS DEPENDENT UPON A VARIETY OF
CONSIDERATIONS ALWAYS RELEVANT TO THE NATURE OF THE SPECIFIC
GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS AND TO THE EFFECTS UPON THEM OF APPLYING STATE
LAW.  THESE INCLUDE NOT ONLY CONSIDERATIONS OF FEDERAL SUPREMACY IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF FEDERAL FUNCTIONS, BUT OF THE NEED FOR UNIFORMITY AND,
IN SOME INSTANCES, INFERENCES PROPERLY TO BE DRAWN FROM THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS, THOUGH COGNIZANT OF THE PARTICULAR PROBLEM, HAS TAKEN NO
ACTION TO CHANGE LONG-SETTLED WAYS OF HANDLING IT. 

LEAVING OUT OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, ANY SUPPOSED EFFECT OF THE ERIE
DECISION, WE NEVERTHELESS ARE OF OPINION THAT STATE LAW SHOULD NOT BE
SELECTED AS THE FEDERAL RULE FOR GOVERNING THE MATTER IN ISSUE.  NOT
ONLY IS THE GOVERNMENT-SOLDIER RELATION DISTINCTIVELY AND EXCLUSIVELY A
CREATION OF FEDERAL LAW, BUT WE KNOW OF NO GOOD REASON WHY THE
GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO BE INDEMNIFIED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR THE
LACK OF SUCH A RIGHT, SHOULD VARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIFFERENT
RULINGS OF SEVERAL STATES, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE SOLDIER MARCHES OR TODAY
PERHAPS AS OFTEN FLIES ACROSS STATE LINES. 

FURTHERMORE, THE LIABILITY SOUGHT IS NOT ESSENTIAL OR EVEN RELEVANT
TO PROTECTION OF THE STATE'S CITIZENS AGAINST TORTIOUS HARMS, NOR
INDEED FOR THE SOLDIER'S PERSONAL INDEMNITY OR SECURITY, EXCEPT IN THE
REMOTEST SENSE,  FN14  SINCE HIS PERSONAL RIGHTS AGAINST THE WRONGDOER
MAY BE FULLY PROTECTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY INDEMNITY FOR THE
GOVERNMENT'S LOSS.  FN15  IT IS RATHER A LIABILITY THE PRINCIPAL, IF
NOT THE ONLY, EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD BE TO MAKE WHOLE THE FEDERAL
TREASURY FOR FINANCIAL LOSSES SUSTAINED, FLOWING FROM THE INJURIES
INFLICTED AND THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATIONS TO THE SOLDIER.  THE
QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS CHIEFLY ONE OF FEDERAL FISCAL POLICY, NOT OF
SPECIAL OR PECULIAR CONCERN TO THE STATES OR THEIR CITIZENS.  AND
BECAUSE THOSE MATTERS ORDINARILY ARE APPROPRIATE FOR UNIFORM NATIONAL
TREATMENT RATHER THAN DIVERSIFIED LOCAL DISPOSITION, AS WELL WHERE
CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED AFFIRMATIVELY AS WHERE IT HAS, THEY ARE MORE
FITTINGLY DETERMINABLE BY INDEPENDENT FEDERAL JUDICIAL DECISION THAN BY
REFERENCE TO VARYING STATE POLICIES. 

WE TURN, FINALLY, TO CONSIDERATION OF THE POLICY PROPERLY TO BE
APPLIED CONCERNING THE WRONGDOER, WHETHER OF LIABILITY OR OF CONTINUED
IMMUNITY AS IN THE PAST.  HERE THE GOVERNMENT PUTS FORWARD INTERESTING
VIEWS TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM OF RESPONSIBILITY.  IT APPEALS FIRST TO THE
GREAT PRINCIPLE THAT THE LAW CAN NEVER BE WHOLLY STATIC.  GROWTH, IT
URGES, IS THE LIFE OF THE LAW AS IT IS OF ALL LIVING THINGS.  AND IN
THIS EXPANSIVE AND CREATIVE LIVING PROCESS, WE ARE FURTHER REMINDED,
THE JUDICIAL INSTITUTION HAS HAD AND MUST CONTINUE TO HAVE A LARGE AND
PLIANT, IF ALSO A RESTRAINED AND STEADY, HAND.  MOREOVER, THE SPECIAL
PROBLEM HERE HAS ROOTS IN THE ANCIENT SOIL OF TORT LAW, WHEREIN THE
CHIEF PLOWMAN HAS BEEN THE JUDGE, NOTWITHSTANDING HIS FURROW MAY BE
COVERED UP OR WIDENED BY LEGISLATION.    BRINGING THE ARGUMENT DOWN TO
SPECIAL POINT, COUNSEL HAS FAVORED US WITH SCHOLARLY DISCUSSION OF THE
ORIGINS AND FOUNDATIONS OF LIABILITIES CONSIDERED ANALOGOUS AND OF
THEIR LATER EXPANSION TO INCLUDE RELATIONS NOT ORIGINALLY
COMPREHENDED.  THESE EMBRACE PARTICULARLY THE LIABILITIES CREATED BY
THE COMMON LAW, ARISING FROM TORTIOUS INJURIES INFLICTED UPON PERSONS
STANDING IN VARIOUS SPECIAL LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS, AND CAUSING HARM NOT
ONLY TO THE INJURED PERSON BUT ALSO, AS FOR LOSS OF SERVICES AND
ASSIMILATED INJURIES, TO THE PERSON TO WHOM HE IS BOUND BY THE
RELATION'S TIE.  SUCH, FOR OBVIOUS EXAMPLES, ARE THE MASTER'S RIGHTS OF
RECOVERY FOR LOSS OF THE SERVICES OF HIS SERVANT OR APPRENTICE; FN16
THE HUSBAND'S SIMILAR ACTION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH THE MARITAL
RELATION, INCLUDING LOSS OF CONSORTIUM AS WELL AS THE WIFE'S SERVICES;
AND THE PARENT'S RIGHT TO INDEMNITY FOR LOSS OF A CHILD'S SERVICES,
INCLUDING HIS ACTION FOR A DAUGHTER'S SEDUCTION.  FN17 

STARTING WITH THESE LONG-ESTABLISHED INSTANCES, ILLUSTRATING THE
CREATIVE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF COURTS, THE ARGUMENT LEADS ON IN AN
EFFORT TO SHOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT-SOLDIER RELATION IS, IF NOT
IDENTICAL, STILL STRONGLY ANALOGOUS; FN18  THAT THE ANALOGIES ARE NOT
DESTROYED BY ANY OF THE VARIATIONS, SOME HIGHLY ANOMALOUS,  FN19
CHARACTERIZING ONE OR MORE OF THE SETTLED TYPES OF LIABILITY; AND THAT
AN EXERTION OF CREATIVE JUDICIAL POWER TO BRING THE GOVERNMENT-SOLDIER
RELATION UNDER THE SAME LEGAL PROTECTION AGAINST TORTIOUS INTERFERENCES
BY STRANGERS WOULD BE ONLY A FURTHER AND A PROPER EXEMPLIFICATION OF
THE LAW'S CAPACITY TO CATCH UP WITH THE TIMES.  FURTHER ELABORATION OF
THE ARGUMENT'S DETAILS WOULD BE INTERESTING, FOR THE LAW HAS NO MORE
ATTRACTIVE SCENE OF ACTION THAN IN THE BROAD FIELD COMPENDIOUSLY
LABELED THE LAW OF TORTS, AND WITHIN IT PERHAPS NONE MORE ENGROSSING
THAN THOSE AREAS DEALING WITH THESE ESSENTIALLY HUMAN AND HIGHLY
PERSONAL RELATIONS. 

BUT WE FOREGO THE TENDERED OPPORTUNITY.  FOR WE THINK THE ARGUMENT
IGNORES FACTORS OF CONTROLLING IMPORTANCE DISTINGUISHING THE PRESENT
PROBLEM FROM THOSE WITH WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO BRING IT INTO
COMPANIONATE DISPOSITION.  THESE ARE CENTERED IN THE VERY FACT THAT IT
IS THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERESTS AND RELATIONS THAT ARE INVOLVED, RATHER
THAN THE HIGHLY PERSONAL RELATIONS OUT OF WHICH THE ASSERTEDLY
COMPARABLE LIABILITIES AROSE; AND IN THE NARROWER SCOPE, AS COMPARED
WITH THAT ALLOWED COURTS OF GENERAL COMMON-LAW JURISDICTION, FOR THE
ACTION OF FEDERAL COURTS IN SUCH MATTERS. 

WE WOULD NOT DENY THE GOVERNMENT'S BASIC PREMISE OF THE LAW'S
CAPACITY FOR GROWTH, OR THAT IT MUST INCLUDE THE CREATIVE WORK OF
JUDGES.  SOON ALL LAW WOULD BECOME ANTIQUATED STRAIT JACKET AND THEN
DEAD LETTER, IF THAT POWER WERE LACKING.  AND THE JUDICIAL HAND WOULD
STIFFEN IN MORTMAIN IF IT HAD NO PART IN THE WORK OF CREATION.  BUT IN
THE FEDERAL SCHEME OUR PART IN THAT WORK, AND THE PART OF THE OTHER
FEDERAL COURTS, OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AREA IS MORE MODEST THAN
THAT OF STATE COURTS, PARTICULARLY IN THE FREEDOM TO CREATE NEW COMMON
LAW LIABILITIES, AS ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS ITSELF WITNESSES.  SEE ALSO
UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 7 CRANCH 32. 

MOREOVER, AS THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES FOR ONE PHASE OF THE ARGUMENT
BUT IGNORES FOR THE OTHER, FN20  WE HAVE NOT HERE SIMPLY A QUESTION OF
CREATING A NEW LIABILITY IN THE NATURE OF A TORT.  FN21  FOR GROUNDED
THOUGH THE ARGUMENT IS IN ANALOGIES DRAWN FROM THAT FIELD, THE ISSUE
COMES DOWN IN FINAL CONSEQUENCE TO A QUESTION OF FEDERAL FISCAL POLICY,
COUPLED WITH CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE NEED FOR AND THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF MEANS TO BE USED IN EXECUTING THE POLICY SOUGHT TO
BE ESTABLISHED.  THE TORT LAW ANALOGY IS BROUGHT FORTH, INDEED, NOT TO
SECURE A NEW STEP FORWARD IN EXPANDING THE RECOGNIZED AREA FOR APPLYING
SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF THAT LAW AS SUCH, OR FOR CREATING NEW ONES.  IT
IS ADVANCED RATHER AS THE INSTRUMENT FOR DETERMINING AND ESTABLISHING
THE FEDERAL FISCAL AND REGULATORY POLICIES WHICH THE GOVERNMENT'S
EXECUTIVE ARM THINKS SHOULD PREVAIL IN A SITUATION NOT COVERED BY
TRADITIONALLY ESTABLISHED LIABILITIES. 

WHATEVER THE MERITS OF THE POLICY, ITS CONVERSION INTO LAW IS A
PROPER SUBJECT FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, NOT FOR ANY CREATIVE POWER OF
OURS.  CONGRESS, NOT THIS COURT OR THE OTHER FEDERAL COURTS, IS THE
CUSTODIAN OF THE NATIONAL PURSE.  BY THE SAME TOKEN IT IS THE PRIMARY
AND MOST OFTEN THE EXCLUSIVE ARBITER OF FEDERAL FISCAL AFFAIRS.  AND
THESE COMPREHEND, AS WE HAVE SAID, SECURING THE TREASURY OR THE
GOVERNMENT AGAINST FINANCIAL LOSSES HOWEVER INFLICTED, INCLUDING
REQUIRING REIMBURSEMENT FOR INJURIES CREATING THEM, AS WELL AS FILLING
THE TREASURY ITSELF. 

MOREOVER CONGRESS WITHOUT DOUBT HAS BEEN CONSCIOUS THROUGHOUT MOST OF
ITS HISTORY THAT THE GOVERNMENT CONSTANTLY SUSTAINS LOSSES THROUGH THE
TORTIOUS OR EVEN CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF PERSONS INTERFERING WITH FEDERAL
FUNDS, PROPERTY AND RELATIONSHIPS.  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT IT HAS BEEN
IGNORANT THAT LOSSES LONG HAVE ARISEN FROM INJURIES INFLICTED ON
SOLDIERS SUCH AS OCCURRED HERE.  THE CASE THEREFORE IS NOT ONE IN
WHICH, AS THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, ALL THAT IS INVOLVED IS APPLICATION OF
"A WELL-SETTLED CONCEPT OF LEGAL LIABILITY TO A NEW SITUATION, WHERE
THAT NEW SITUATION IS IN EVERY RESPECT SIMILAR TO THE OLD SITUATION
THAT ORIGINALLY GAVE RISE TO THE CONCEPT  ...  "  AMONG OTHERS, ONE
TROUBLE WITH THIS IS THAT THE SITUATION IS NOT NEW, AT ANY RATE NOT SO
NEW THAT CONGRESS CAN BE PRESUMED NOT TO HAVE KNOWN OF IT OR TO HAVE
ACTED IN THE LIGHT OF THAT KNOWLEDGE. 

WHEN CONGRESS HAS THOUGHT IT NECESSARY TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT
INTERFERENCE WITH FEDERAL FUNDS, PROPERTY OR RELATIONS, IT HAS TAKEN
POSITIVE ACTION TO THAT END.  FN22  WE THINK IT WOULD HAVE DONE SO
HERE, IF THAT HAD BEEN ITS DESIRE.  THIS IT STILL MAY DO, IF OR WHEN IT
SO WISHES. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER TO
ESTABLISH THE NEW LIABILITY NOT ONLY WOULD BE INTRUDING WITHIN A FIELD
PROPERLY WITHIN CONGRESS' CONTROL AND AS TO A MATTER CONCERNING WHICH
IT HAS SEEN FIT TO TAKE NO ACTION.  TO ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE, MAKING THE
LIABILITY EFFECTIVE IN THIS CASE, ALSO WOULD INVOLVE A POSSIBLE ELEMENT
OF SURPRISE, IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED CONTRARY PRACTICE, WHICH ACTION BY
CONGRESS WOULD AVOID,  FN23  NOT ONLY HERE BUT IN THE MANY OTHER CASES
WE ARE TOLD MAY BE GOVERNED BY THE DECISION. 

FINALLY, IF THE COMMON-LAW PRECEDENTS RELIED ON WERE MORE PERTINENT
THAN THEY ARE TO THE TOTAL PROBLEM, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF ITS FEDERAL
AND ESPECIALLY ITS FISCAL ASPECTS, IN NONE OF THE SITUATIONS TO WHICH
THEY APPLY WAS THE QUESTION OF LIABILITY OR NO LIABILITY WITHIN THE
POWER OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION TO DETERMINE.  IN THEM
THE COURTS STOOD AS ARBITERS BETWEEN CITIZENS, NEITHER OF WHOM COULD
DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OR THE POLICY PROPERLY TO BE FOLLOWED.  HERE THE
UNITED STATES IS THE PARTY PLAINTIFF TO THE SUIT.  AND THE UNITED
STATES HAS POWER AT ANY TIME TO CREATE THE LIABILITY.  THE ONLY
QUESTION IS WHICH ORGAN OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION
THAT LIABILITY EXISTS.  THAT DECISION, FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE STATED,
IS IN THIS INSTANCE FOR THE CONGRESS, NOT FOR THE COURTS.  UNTIL IT
ACTS TO ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY, THIS COURT AND OTHERS SHOULD WITHHOLD
CREATIVE TOUCH. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE RECITED THAT THE PAYMENT "IS NOT, AND
IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS" AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY. 

FN2  THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ASSERTED THAT "UPWARDS
OF 450 INSTANCES OF NEGLIGENTLY INFLICTED INJURIES UPON SOLDIERS OF THE
UNITED STATES, REQUIRING HOSPITALIZATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, AND THE
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION DURING INCAPACITATION, HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY
THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE PAST THREE
YEARS," AND THAT ADDITIONAL INSTANCES WERE BEING REPORTED TO THE WAR
DEPARTMENT AT THE RATE OF APPROXIMATELY 40 A MONTH. 

THE SUIT ALSO WAS SAID TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF A NUMBER ALREADY
COMMENCED, E.G., UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 64
F.SUPP.  289(E.D.N.C.), DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT NO MASTER-SERVANT
RELATIONSHIP EXISTED, AND UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 153 F.2D 55(C.C.A.
8), AN ACTION TO RECOVER HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL EXPENSES INCURRED AS A
RESULT OF AN INJURY TO A CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS EMPLOYEE,
DISMISSED FOR THE REASON THAT THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
ACT, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 751 ET SEQ., WAS HELD TO AFFORD THE GOVERNMENT A
METHOD OF RECOUPMENT, CONCEDEDLY NOT AVAILABLE HERE. 

FN3  INCLUDING THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE,
AS TO WHICH A STIPULATION OF RECORD ON THE APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS STATES THAT EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THAT SET FORTH IN THE
STIPULATION IS OMITTED "FOR THE REASON THAT APPELLANTS ARE NOT MAKING
ANY POINT ON APPEAL AS TO THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE EITHER TO
PROVE NEGLIGENCE OR THE ABSENCE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE." 

ALTHOUGH THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO FIND THAT ETZEL AS A SOLDIER
WAS "AS SUCH, A SERVANT OF THE PLAINTIFF," RESPONDENTS DESIGNATED AS
THE POINTS ON APPEAL ON WHICH THEY INTENDED TO RELY: THAT THE UNITED
STATES HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION OR RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR THE COMPENSATION
PAID ETZEL OR FOR THE MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL EXPENDITURES; THAT HE "WAS
NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PLAINTIFF NOR WAS PLAINTIFF HIS MASTER NOR DID
THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYEE EXIST BETWEEN THEM"; AND THAT HIS
RELEASE WAS EFFECTIVE TO END "ALL RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR LOST WAGES OR
MEDICAL OR HOSPITAL EXPENSES." 

FN4  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, CONSIDERING THAT AT THE OUTSET IT
WAS "CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF WHAT LAW SHOULD APPLY," SAID:
"ASIDE FROM ANY FEDERAL LEGISLATION CONFERRING A RIGHT OF SUBROGATION
OR INDEMNIFICATION UPON THE UNITED STATES, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE STATE
RULES OF SUBSTANTIVE COMMON LAW WOULD GOVERN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE
UNITED STATES IN THE ROLE OF A PRIVATE LITIGANT.  ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 71, 78; UNITED STATES V. MOSCOW-IDAHO SEED CO.,
SUPRA (92 F.2D 170), AT PAGES 173, 174."  153 F.2D AT 960.  THE COURT
THEN INDICATED AGREEMENT WITH APPELLANT THAT CALIFORNIA'S STATUTORY
LAW, NAMELY, SEC. 49 OF THE CIVIL CODE, WAS CONTROLLING AND CONCLUDED
THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE "MUST FAIL FOR TWO REASONS:  FIRST, BECAUSE
THE GOVERNMENT-SOLDIER RELATION IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 49 OF
THE CODE, AND, SECOND, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A 'MASTER' AND THE
SOLDIER IS NOT A 'SERVANT' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CODE SECTION." 
153 F.2D AT 961. 

THE COURT FURTHER CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT ETZEL'S RELEASE "COVERED
HIS LOST WAGES AND MEDICAL EXPENSES AS ELEMENTS OF DAMAGE," AND
THEREFORE WAS EFFECTIVE TO DISCHARGE ALL LIABILITY, INCLUDING ANY RIGHT
OF SUBROGATION IN THE UNITED STATES "WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY." 
FINALLY THE OPINION STATED:  "  ...  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS DID
NOT INTEND THAT FOR TORTIOUS INJURIES TO A SOLDIER IN TIME OF WAR, THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE SUBROGATED TO THE SOLDIER'S CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES." 
ID. AT 963. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 3.  THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM, OF COURSE, IS NOT ONE FOR
SUBROGATION.  IT IS RATHER FOR AN INDEPENDENT LIABILITY OWING DIRECTLY
TO ITSELF AS FOR DEPRIVATION OF THE SOLDIER'S SERVICES AND "INDEMNITY"
FOR LOSSES CAUSED IN DISCHARGING ITS DUTY TO CARE FOR HIM CONSEQUENT
UPON THE INJURIES INFLICTED BY APPELLANTS.  SEE ROBERT MARYS'S CASE,
VOL. 5, PART 9 CO. REP. AT 113A.  IT IS, IN EFFECT, FOR TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE BY A THIRD PERSON WITH THE RELATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE SOLDIER AND CONSEQUENT HARM TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST,
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS IN THAT RELATION, NOT SIMPLY TO SUBROGATION TO
THE SOLDIER'S RIGHTS AGAINST THE TORT-FEASORS. 

FN6  WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE RELEASE WAS NOT EFFECTIVE TO DISCHARGE
ANY LIABILITY OWING INDEPENDENTLY TO THE GOVERNMENT, CF. NOTE 5,
ALTHOUGH FULLY EFFECTIVE AS AGAINST ANY CLAIM BY THE SOLDIER.  ONLY IF
SUCH AN INDEPENDENT LIABILITY WERE FOUND TO EXIST WOULD ANY ISSUE
CONCERNING THE RELEASE BE REACHED. 

FN7  INCLUDING THE POWERS OF CONGRESS TO "PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON
DEFENCE," "RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES," AND "MAKE RULES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT AND REGULATION OF THE LAND AND NAVAL FORCES," U.S. CONST.,
ART. I, SEC. 8, AS WELL AS "TO DECLARE WAR" AND "TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH
SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING
POWERS  ...  "  IBID. 

FN8  THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN
PREDICATED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS COULD OVERRIDE ANY
CONTRARY RULE OF STATE LAW AND THAT THE CALIFORNIA LAW GOVERNS ONLY IN
THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESS' AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  SEE NOTE 4 SUPRA. 

FN9  SEE U.S. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2:  "THE CONGRESS SHALL
HAVE POWER TO DISPOSE OF AND MAKE ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND REGULATIONS
RESPECTING THE TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED
STATES  ...  "; CAMFIELD V. UNITED STATES, 167 U.S. 518, 524:  "  ...
THE GOVERNMENT HAS, WITH RESPECT TO ITS OWN LANDS, THE RIGHTS OF AN
ORDINARY PROPRIETOR, TO MAINTAIN ITS POSSESSION AND TO PROSECUTE
TRESPASSERS"; UNITED STATES V. WALTER, 263 U.S. 15, 17:  "THE UNITED
STATES CAN PROTECT ITS PROPERTY BY CRIMINAL LAWS  ...  " 

FN10  BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343; DEITRICK
V. GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190; ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313
U.S. 289; D'OENCH, DUHME & CO. V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORP., 315 U.S.
447; UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174; HOLMBERG V.
ARMBRECHT, 327 U.S. 392.  SEE ALSO DISCUSSION IN NOTES, FEDERAL COMMON
LAW IN GOVERNMENT ACTION FOR TORT (1946) 41 ILL. L. REV. 551;
EXCEPTIONS TO ERIE V. TOMPKINS:  THE SURVIVAL OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW
(1946) 59 HARV. L. REV. 966.    FN11  IF THE RULING FOLLOWED, THAT THE
WATERS OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM MUST BE EQUITABLY APPORTIONED AMONG THE
STATES THROUGH WHICH IT FLOWS IN THE ARID REGIONS OF THE WEST, IS NOT
PROPERLY TO BE CHARACTERIZED AS MERELY ONE OF "FEDERAL COMMON LAW," IT
MARKS OFF AT ANY RATE ANOTHER AREA FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL DECISION NOT
DEPENDENT ON APPLICATION OF STATE LAW OR, INDEED, UPON THE EXISTENCE OF
FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 

FN12  THE PROBLEM OF THE GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY TO SUIT IS DIFFERENT,
OF COURSE, FROM THAT OF THE NATURE OF THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS IT MAY
ACQUIRE, FOR EXAMPLE, BY THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AS AGAINST CLAIMS OF
OTHERS FOR WHICH THERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE A LEGAL REMEDY
AGAINST IT. 

FN13  SEE BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5; RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORP. V. BEAVER COUNTY, 328 U.S. 204. 

FN14  THAT IS, IF POTENTIAL ADDED LIABILITY EVER CAN BE CONSIDERED AS
HAVING EFFECT TO DETER THE COMMISSION OF NEGLIGENT TORTS, THE
IMPOSITION OF LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY THE GOVERNMENT IN ADDITION TO
INDEMNIFYING THE SOLDIER CONCEIVABLY COULD BE THOUGHT TO FURNISH SOME
ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE FOR AVOIDING SUCH HARMS. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 5 SUPRA. 

FN16  AS TO THE ANCIENT ACTION FOR LOSS OF SERVICES, EXISTENT IN
BRACTON'S DAY, SEE WIGMORE, INTERFERENCE WITH SOCIAL RELATIONS (1887)
21 AMER.  L. REV. 764; VIII HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW (2D
ED., 1937) 427-430; II ID., 459-464; IV ID., 379-387; POLLOCK, THE LAW
OF TORTS (13TH ED.)  234-239; CLERK & LINDSELL ON TORTS (8TH ED.)  201
212. 

FN17  EXTENSION OF THE ACTION PER QUOD SERVITIUM AMISIT TO DOMESTIC
RELATIONS, UPON A FICTIONAL BASIS, TOOK PLACE AS EARLY AS 1653.  NORTON
V. JASON, STYLE 398; SEE WINFIELD, TEXTBOOK OF THE LAW OF TORT (2D
ED.)  257. 

FN18  ANALOGIES ARE DRAWN CONCERNING THE NATURE OF THE RELATION BOTH
ON THE BASIS OF STATUS, UNDERLYING THE EARLIER FORMS OF LIABILITY, AND
ON THAT OF ITS ASSERTED CONTRACTUAL CHARACTER, IN THE LATTER INSTANCE
TO THE RATHER FAR-FETCHED EXTENT OF REGARDING THE DRAFTED SOLDIER AS
HAVING ENTERED INTO A "CONTRACT IMPLIED IN LAW." 

FN19  E.G., IN THE FICTION OF LOSS OF SERVICES INVOLVED IN THE
FATHER'S ACTION FOR A DAUGHTER'S SEDUCTION AND IN THE HUSBAND'S ACTION
FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM.  COMPARE SERJEANT MANNING'S OFT-QUOTED
STATEMENT THAT "THE QUASI FICTION OF SERVITIUM AMISIT AFFORDS
PROTECTION TO THE RICH MAN, WHOSE DAUGHTER OCCASIONALLY MAKES HIS TEA,
BUT LEAVES WITHOUT REDRESS THE POOR MAN, WHOSE CHILD, AS HERE, IS SENT,
UNPROTECTED, TO EARN HER BREAD AMONGST STRANGERS."  NOTE TO GRINNELL V.
WELLS, 7 MAN.  & GR. AT P. 1044. 

FN20  THAT IS, IN THE PHASE STRESSING THAT THE QUESTION IS NOT TO BE
DETERMINED BY APPLYING STATE LAW, THE EMPHASIS IS PUT UPON THE FEDERAL
ASPECT OF THE CASE, BUT IN THAT ADVANCING THE THESIS OF LIABILITY FOR
ACCEPTANCE AS THE FEDERAL RULE, STRESS GOES TO THE TORT GROUNDING OF
THE ARGUMENT. 

FN21  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT THE LIABILITY SOUGHT HAS
EXISTED HERETOFORE.  IT FRANKLY URGES THE CREATION OF A NEW ONE.  THE
ONLY DECISION DETERMINING THE MATTER, WHICH HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION,
IN ADDITION TO THE CASES CITED ABOVE IN NOTE 2, IS THAT OF THE HIGH
COURT OF AUSTRALIA IN COMMONWEALTH V. QUINCE, 68 C.L.R. 227, AFF'G,
(1943) Q.S.R. 199, DENYING LIABILITY.  SEE ALSO ATTORNEY-GENERAL V.
VALLE-JONES, (1935) 2 K.B. 209, REACHING A CONTRARY RESULT, IN WHICH
HOWEVER THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE APPARENTLY WENT BY CONCESSION. 

FN22  SEE, E.G., 35 STAT. 1097, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 94(ENTICING DESERTION
FROM THE MILITARY OR NAVAL SERVICE); 35 STAT. 1097, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
95(ENTICING WORKMEN FROM ARSENALS OR ARMORIES); 35 STAT. 1097, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 99(ROBBERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED
STATES); 35 STAT. 1097, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 100(EMBEZZLEMENT OF PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES). 

OF COURSE IT HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARY FOR CONGRESS TO PASS STATUTES
IMPOSING CIVIL LIABILITY IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE IT HAS BEEN
UNDERSTOOD SINCE THE DAYS OF THE COMMON LAW THAT THE SOVEREIGN IS
PROTECTED FROM TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE.  THUS, TRESPASS ON LAND BELONGING
TO THE UNITED STATES IS A CIVIL WRONG TO BE REMEDIED IN THE COURTS. 
COTTON V. UNITED STATES, 11 HOW.  229. 

FN23  NECESSARILY SUCH AN ELEMENT OR EFFECT OFTEN, IF NOT ALWAYS,
EXISTS WHENEVER A NEW LIABILITY IS CREATED, AS AT COMMON LAW, IN THE
NATURE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR TORT.  THIS, HOWEVER, COULD NOT BE MADE AN
INVARIABLY CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION IN CASES PRESENTING COMMON-LAW
ISSUES CONCERNING SUCH LIABILITIES TO TRIBUNALS WHOSE BUSINESS IT IS
PRIMARILY TO DECIDE THEM, FOR TO DO THIS WOULD FORESTALL ALL GROWTH IN
THE LAW EXCEPT BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION.  THE FACTOR, HOWEVER, IS ONE
GENERALLY TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND WEIGHED AGAINST THE SOCIAL NEED
DICTATING THE NEW RESPONSIBILITY, IN CASES SQUARELY PRESENTING THOSE
ISSUES AND NOT COMPLICATED, AS THIS CASE IS, BY CONSIDERATIONS ARISING
FROM DISTRIBUTIONS OF POWER IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

IF THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN HELD LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENTLY
INFLICTING PERSONAL INJURIES ON A CIVILIAN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGED
TO PAY, AMONG OTHER ITEMS OF DAMAGE, THE REASONABLE COST OF RESULTING
CARE BY HIS DOCTOR, HOSPITAL AND NURSE, AND THE EARNINGS LOST DURING
THE PERIOD OF DISABILITY.  IF THE CIVILIAN BORE THIS COST HIMSELF, IT
WOULD BE PART OF HIS OWN DAMAGE; IF THE CIVILIAN WERE A WIFE AND THE
EXPENSE FELL UPON HER HUSBAND, HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER IT; IF
THE CIVILIAN WERE A CHILD, IT WOULD BE RECOVERABLE BY THE PARENT.  THE
LONG-ESTABLISHED LAW IS THAT A WRONGDOER WHO COMMITS A TORT AGAINST A
CIVILIAN MUST MAKE GOOD TO SOMEBODY THESE ELEMENTS OF THE COSTS
RESULTING FROM HIS WRONGDOING. 

WHAT THE COURT NOW HOLDS IS THAT IF THE VICTIM OF NEGLIGENCE IS A
SOLDIER, THE WRONGDOER DOES NOT HAVE TO MAKE GOOD THESE ITEMS OF
EXPENSE TO THE ONE WHO BEARS THEM.  THE UNITED STATES IS UNDER THE DUTY
TO FURNISH MEDICAL SERVICES, HOSPITALIZATION AND NURSING TO A SOLDIER
AND LOSES HIS SERVICES WHILE HIS PAY GOES ON.  THESE COSTS, WHICH
ESSENTIALLY FALL UPON THE UNITED STATES BY REASON OF THE SOVEREIGN
SOLDIER RELATIONSHIP, THE COURT HOLDS CANNOT BE RECOVERED BY THE UNITED
STATES FROM THE WRONGDOER AS THE PARENT CAN IN THE CASE OF A CHILD OR
THE HUSBAND CAN IN THE CASE OF A WIFE.  AS A MATTER OF JUSTICE, I SEE
NO REASON WHY TAXPAYERS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD RELIEVE A WRONGDOER
OF PART OF HIS NORMAL LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY WHEN THE VICTIM OF
NEGLIGENCE HAPPENS TO BE A SOLDIER.  AND I CANNOT SEE WHY THE
PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW THAT ALLOW A HUSBAND OR PARENT TO RECOVER DO NOT
LOGICALLY SUSTAIN THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER IN THIS
CASE. 

BUT THE COURT HAS QUALMS ABOUT APPLYING THESE WELLKNOWN PRINCIPLES OF
TORT LAW TO THIS NOVEL STATE OF FACTS, UNLESS DIRECTED TO DO SO BY
CONGRESS.  THE LAW OF TORTS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BY
THE JUDICIARY IN ENGLAND AND THIS COUNTRY BY COMMON LAW METHODS.  WITH
FEW EXCEPTIONS, TORT LIABILITY DOES NOT DEPEND UPON LEGISLATION.  IF
THERE IS ONE FUNCTION WHICH I SHOULD THINK WE WOULD FEEL FREE TO
EXERCISE UNDER A CONSTITUTION WHICH VESTS IN US JUDICIAL POWER, IT
WOULD BE TO APPLY WELL-ESTABLISHED COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES TO A CASE
WHOSE ONLY NOVELTY IS IN FACTS.  THE COURTS OF ENGLAND, WHOSE SCRUPLES
AGAINST LEGISLATING ARE AT LEAST AS SENSITIVE AS OURS NORMALLY ARE,
HAVE NOT HESITATED TO SAY THAT HIS MAJESTY'S TREASURY MAY RECOVER
OUTLAY TO CURE A BRITISH SOLDIER FROM INJURY BY A NEGLIGENT WRONGDOER
AND THE WAGES HE WAS MEANWHILE PAID.  ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. VALLE-JONES,
(1935) 2 K.B. 209.  I THINK WE COULD HOLD AS MUCH WITHOUT BEING
SUSPECTED OF TRYING TO USURP LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. 
..END :





















UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 332 U.S. 319 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 3-5, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947.  - 63 F.SUPP.  513,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN
ANTI-TRUST ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT DEFENDANTS HAD
PARTICIPATED IN AN "INTERNATIONAL CARTEL" CONSTITUTING A COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE IN TITANIUM PRODUCTS
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WITH FOREIGN NATIONS
THROUGH THE POOLING OF PATENTS AND THE ALLOCATION OF MARKETS AND THAT
THEY HAD BEEN AND STILL WERE PARTIES TO AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF SUCH
TRADE AND COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  HELD: 

(A)  COUNSEL FOR TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS HAVING ACCEPTED CANCELLATION
OF THE AGREEMENTS AND AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THEIR CONTINUATION OR
RENEWAL, THIS COURT ACCEPTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION THE DISTRICT COURT'S
FINDING THAT THESE TWO DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED SINCE 1920 IN THE CARTEL
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 325-326. 

(B)  THIS COURT SUSTAINS THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE
THIRD DEFENDANT PARTICIPATED IN SUCH ILLEGAL COMBINATION AFTER 1933. 
PP. 326-327. 

(C)  THIS COURT SUSTAINS THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS, UNDER WHICH THEY UTILIZED THEIR
PATENTS TO CONTROL AND REGULATE THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF TITANIUM
PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES, WAS OFFENSIVE TO THE ANTITRUST LAWS
APART FROM THE RELATION OF THAT CONTRACT, AND OF THE PARTIES THERETO,
TO FOREIGN PRODUCERS.  PP. 327-328. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT ADJUDGED UNLAWFUL AND CANCELED CERTAIN
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN DEFENDANTS AND BETWEEN THEM AND VARIOUS CO
CONSPIRATORS; ENJOINED FURTHER PERFORMANCE, CONTINUATION OR RENEWAL OF
SUCH AGREEMENTS; ENJOINED DEFENDANTS FROM ENTERING INTO SIMILAR
AGREEMENTS IN THE FUTURE; ORDERED DEFENDANTS TO GRANT TO ANY APPLICANT
THEREFOR A NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE UNDER CERTAIN PATENTS AT A UNIFORM
REASONABLE ROYALTY; AUTHORIZED RECIPROCAL LICENSES ON CERTAIN TERMS;
ORDERED CERTAIN DEFENDANTS TO PRESENT TO THE COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL A
PLAN FOR DIVESTING THEMSELVES OF THEIR STOCKHOLDINGS AND OTHER
FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN CERTAIN OTHER COMPANIES OR FOR THE PURCHASE OF
THE ENTIRE STOCKHOLDINGS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN SUCH
COMPANIES; RETAINED JURISDICTION; AND PROVIDED FOR SUPERVISION.  HELD:
THIS DECREE DID NOT EXCEED THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISCRETION.  PP. 328
335. 

(A)  TO A LARGE EXTENT, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS DECREE ARE MATTERS
LYING IN THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 334. 

(B)  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CONFRONTED WITH AN OBLIGATION TO GIVE
EFFECT, ON THE ONE HAND, TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PATENT LAWS GRANTING
CERTAIN VALUABLE RIGHTS IN THE NATURE OF MONOPOLIES AND, ON THE OTHER
HAND, TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT PROHIBITING ANY COMBINATION
OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  PP. 334-335. 

(C)  THE ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE REMEDY SHALL BE AS
EFFECTIVE AND FAIR AS POSSIBLE IN PREVENTING CONTINUED OR FUTURE
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE
PARTICULAR CASE.  P. 335. 

3.  THE DECREE SHOULD NOT BE MODIFIED SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR COMPULSORY
ROYALTY-FREE LICENSES OR SO AS TO ENJOIN THE PATENTEES OR LICENSEES
FROM ENFORCING THE TERMS OF THE PATENTS INVOLVED.  PP. 335-351. 

(A)  WITHOUT REACHING THE QUESTION WHETHER ROYALTY-FREE LICENSING OR
A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF A PATENT IS
PERMISSIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW IN ANY CASE, THE PRESENT DECREE
REPRESENTS AN EXERCISE OF SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  P. 338. 

(B) THIS BEING A CIVIL, NOT A CRIMINAL, PROCEEDING, THE PURPOSE OF
THE DECREE IS NOT PUNISHMENT BUT EFFECTIVE AND FAIR ENFORCEMENT.  PP.
338, 348. 

(C)  ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, SUCH A MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE HAS
NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENFORCE EFFECTIVELY THE
ANTITRUST ACT.  PP. 338-349. 

(D)  TO REDUCE ALL ROYALTIES AUTOMATICALLY TO ZERO, REGARDLESS OF
THEIR NATURE AND REGARDLESS OF THEIR NUMBER, APPEARS, ON ITS FACE, TO
BE INEQUITABLE WITHOUT SPECIAL PROOF TO SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION.  P.
349. 

(E)  WHAT WILL BE "REASONABLE ROYALTIES" WILL DEPEND UPON THE FACTS
OF EACH CASE.  P. 349. 

(F)  UNDER ITS DECREE, THE DISTRICT COURT RETAINS SUFFICIENT
JURISDICTION TO ENABLE IT TO VACATE OR MODIFY ITS ORDERS FIXING
REASONABLE ROYALTY RATES IF IT FINDS SUCH ACTION TO BE NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE.  P. 351. 

4.  ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THERE WAS NEITHER PRECEDENT NOR GOOD
REASON FOR A REQUIREMENT (REQUESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND DENIED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT) THAT NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT EACH SUBMIT A PLAN FOR
THE DIVESTITURE OF ONE OF ITS TWO PRINCIPAL TITANIUM PIGMENT PLANTS,
TOGETHER WITH THE RELATED PHYSICAL PROPERTIES.  PP. 351-353. 

(A)  THE EXISTING VIGOROUS COMPETITION BETWEEN THESE TWO DEFENDANTS
SUGGESTED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD DO WELL TO REMOVE UNLAWFUL
HANDICAPS FROM IT BUT DEMONSTRATES NO SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR WEAKENING
ITS FORCE BY DIVESTING EACH OF THE TWO LARGEST COMPETITORS OF ONE OF
ITS PRINCIPAL PLANTS.  PP. 352-353. 

(B)  IT IS NOT FOR THE COURTS TO REALIGN AND REDIRECT EFFECTIVE AND
LAWFUL COMPETITION WHERE IT ALREADY EXISTS AND NEEDS ONLY TO BE
RELEASED FROM RESTRAINTS THAT VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  P. 353. 

(C)  TO SEPARATE THE OPERATING UNITS OF GOING CONCERNS WITHOUT MORE
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE THAN HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE TO ESTABLISH EITHER
THE NEED OR THE FEASIBILITY OF IT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.  P. 353. 

5.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT EXCEED ITS DISCRETION IN REQUIRING
THAT, DURING A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, DEFENDANTS MAKE AVAILABLE TO
LICENSEES UNDER THEIR PATENTS, AT A REASONABLE CHARGE, CERTAIN
INFORMATION IN WRITING AS TO THE METHODS AND PROCESSES USED BY THE
LICENSOR AT THE DATE OF LICENSING.  HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 413, 418, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 353-358. 

(A)  THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMPULSORY IMPARTING OF METHODS AND
PROCESSES RESTS UPON ITS APPROPRIATENESS AND UPON THE NECESSITY FOR IT
IN PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DECREE - NOT UPON A PUNITIVE PURPOSE.  P.
357. 

(B)  SINCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES THAT THE COURT BE PERMITTED
TO PRODUCE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND GENERALLY FAIR DECREE THAT IT CAN
DEVISE TO GIVE EFFECT SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE
PATENT LAWS, THE DECREE REPRESENTS A PERMISSIBLE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL
DISCRETION - EVEN THOUGH IT INCLUDES, WITHIN NARROW LIMITS, DISCLOSURE
OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION BY ONE DEFENDANT TO ANOTHER DEFENDANT WHICH IS
ITS LEADING COMPETITOR.  PP. 358-359. 

6.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT EXCEED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST THAT THERE BE SUBSTITUTED A REQUIREMENT THAT
DEFENDANTS FURNISH TO ANY APPLICANT, AT A REASONABLE CHARGE, DURING THE
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, TECHNICAL INFORMATION DESIRED BY THE APPLICANT
RELATING TO THE METHODS AND PROCESSES FOR MANUFACTURING TITANIUM
PIGMENTS.  PP. 353, 359. 

(A)  THE DECREE IS WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE BREADTH OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DISCRETION OVER THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE SHARED WITH THE WORLD.  P. 359. 

(B)  THE PROPOSAL TO THROW THE FIELD OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE IN THIS
FIELD WIDE-OPEN WOULD DISCOURAGE, RATHER THAN ENCOURAGE, COMPETITIVE
RESEARCH AND THUS WOULD BE CONTRARY TO, RATHER THAN IN CONFIRMITY WITH,
THE PRESENT POLICY OF THE PATENT LAWS.  P. 359. 

7.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT EXCEED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST THAT THERE BE OMITTED FROM THE DECREE A PROVISION
THAT DEFENDANTS MAY MAKE THE GRANT OF ANY LICENSE BY EITHER OF THEM TO
AN APPLICANT UNDER THE DECREE CONDITIONED UPON THE RECIPROCAL GRANT OF
A LICENSE BY THE APPLICANT, AT A REASONABLE ROYALTY, UNDER CERTAIN
DESCRIBED PATENTS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY SUCH APPLICANT.  PP. 359-360. 

8.  THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO OMIT THE SIX-MONTHS' TIME LIMIT
IMPOSED BY THE DECREE UPON THE OPTIONS OF CERTAIN CORPORATIONS TO
SECURE CERTAIN LICENSES UNDER THE DECREE NEED NOT BE GRANTED, SINCE THE
NEW EFFECTIVE DATE TO BE GIVEN THE DECREE PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THIS
COURT WILL ALLOW AMPLE TIME FOR THE EXERCISE OF THIS OPTION UNDER ITS
TERMS.  PP. 360-361. 

9.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT EXCEED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE
REQUEST OF A DEFENDANT TO MODIFY THE DECREE SO AS TO ELIMINATE LANGUAGE
WHICH, THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED, FORBIDS NORMAL AND USUAL BUSINESS
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND OTHER PRODUCERS OF TITANIUM
PRODUCTS.  PP. 361-363. 

(A)  THIS PROVISION DEALS SOLELY WITH THE FUTURE ENFORCEABILITY OF
EXISTING CONTRACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT AND
IT IMPOSES NO UNJUSTIFIED RESTRICTION ON DEFENDANT'S POWER TO
CONTRACT.  P. 362. 

(B)  IF DEFENDANT LATER CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ITS RIGHT OF CONTRACT
HAS BEEN UNDULY RESTRICTED, IT MAY, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE DECREE,
APPLY TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A MODIFICATION.  P. 363. 

10.  THE ACQUISITION BY DEFENDANTS OF STOCK AND OTHER FINANCIAL
INTERESTS IN CERTAIN FOREIGN COMPANIES HAVING BEEN PART AND PARCEL OF
UNLAWFUL TERRITORIAL ALLOCATION AGREEMENTS, THE FUTURE PERFORMANCE OF
WHICH HAS BEEN ENJOINED, THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT EXCEED ITS
DISCRETION IN DECREEING THAT, WITHIN ONE YEAR, DEFENDANTS SHALL PRESENT
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL A PLAN FOR DIVESTING THEMSELVES
OF THEIR STOCKHOLDINGS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN SUCH FOREIGN
COMPANIES OR FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE ENTIRE STOCKHOLDINGS AND
INTERESTS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, THEREIN.  P. 363. 

11.  IN VIEW OF THE STAY GRANTED BY A JUSTICE OF THIS COURT
SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE PENDING DETERMINATION OF
THESE APPEALS, THE DECREE SHALL BE DEEMED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THOSE
PARAGRAPHS AND FOR THE RUNNING OF TIME THEREON, TO TAKE EFFECT ON THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MANDATE TO BE ISSUED BY THIS COURT.  PP. 363
364. 

UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO. ET AL. 

NO. 89.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 90, NATIONAL LEAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, AND
NO. 91, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON APPEAL
FROM THE SAME COURT. 

IN A PROCEEDING IN EQUITY INSTITUTED UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN
ANTITRUST ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT DEFENDANTS HAD VIOLATED
SEC. 1 OF THE ACT AND ISSUED A DECREE TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN FURTHER
VIOLATIONS.  63 F.SUPP.  513.  BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE DEFENDANTS
APPEALED.  AFFIRMED, P. 364. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JUNE 24,
1944, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, AGAINST NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY (A NEW JERSEY
CORPORATION, HERE CALLED NATIONAL LEAD OR NL), ITS WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARY, TITAN COMPANY, INC. (A DELAWARE CORPORATION, HERE CALLED
TITAN INC. OR TINC) AND E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY (A DELAWARE
CORPORATION, HERE CALLED DU PONT OR DP).  IT IS A PROCEEDING IN EQUITY
INSTITUTED UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, 26 STAT. 209, 36
STAT. 1167, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 4, TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THAT ACT, 26 STAT. 209, 50 STAT. 693, 15
U.S.C. SECS. 1 AND 2.  THE TRIAL WAS CONDUCTED BY JUDGE SIMON H.
RIFKIND OF THAT COURT.  IT BEGAN DECEMBER 4, 1944, AND ENDED MARCH 14,
1945.  HIS OPINION WAS FILED JULY 5, 1945.  HIS 96 FINDINGS OF FACT AND
TWO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE ENTERED OCTOBER 2, 1945.  AFTER EXTENDED
CONSIDERATION OF ITS TERMS, BY THE COURT AND BY COUNSEL FOR ALL
PARTIES, THE DECREE WAS ENTERED OCTOBER 11, 1945.  THE OPINION AND
DECREE ARE REPORTED IN 63 F.SUPP.  513-535.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MUCH OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE DECREE
ARE IN THE RECORD.  SEPARATE APPEALS WERE FILED IN THIS COURT, IN CASE
NO. 89 BY THE UNITED STATES, IN CASE NO. 90 BY NATIONAL LEAD AND TITAN
INC. AND IN CASE NO. 91 BY DU PONT.  THE THREE COMPANIES ARE SOMETIMES
REFERRED TO AS "THE APPELLANT COMPANIES."  WE NOTED PROBABLE
JURISDICTION IN EACH APPEAL, MAY 20, 1946, AND THE THREE APPEALS WERE
ARGUED TOGETHER FEBRUARY 3-5, 1947.  A PARTIAL STAY OF THE DECREE HAD
BEEN GRANTED BY MR. JUSTICE REED, ON JANUARY 2, 1946, PENDING
DETERMINATION OF THE APPEALS.  REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE OPINION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR A RECITAL OF THE COMPLEX FACTS WHICH IT HAD TO
CONSIDER IN ORDER TO REACH ITS CONCLUSION THAT NATIONAL LEAD, TITAN
INC. AND DU PONT EACH VIOLATED SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,  FN1
ALTHOUGH IT FOUND A MARKED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONDUCT OF NATIONAL
LEAD AND OF ITS SUBSIDIARY, TITAN INC., ON THE ONE HAND, AND THAT OF DU
PONT ON THE OTHER.  THIS COURT AFFIRMS THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, EXCEPT AS TO THE ORIGINAL EFFECTIVE DATES OF CERTAIN OF ITS
PROVISIONS, AND OUR DISCUSSION WILL RELATE LARGELY TO THE ASSIGNMENTS
OF ERROR AS TO THE TERMS OF THE DECREE. 

I. THE FIRST ISSUE PRESENTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WAS THAT OF THE
PARTICIPATION OF NATIONAL LEAD AND TITAN INC. IN A SO-CALLED
"INTERNATIONAL CARTEL" DATING BACK TO 1920, AND CONSTITUTING A
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE IN
TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS, AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, WHICH COMBINATION, AFTER 1933, WAS
ALLEGED TO INCLUDE DU PONT.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND SUCH
PARTICIPATION.  FN2  IN THEIR BRIEF ON APPEAL IN NO. 90, NATIONAL LEAD
AND TITAN INC. SAID: 

"THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE WAS BASED ON A SERIES OF CLOSELY RELATED
AGREEMENTS MADE BETWEEN 1920 AND 1944.  THE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN
CANCELLED AND CONTINUATION OR RENEWAL HAS BEEN ENJOINED.  THE APPEALS
ARE GREATLY SIMPLIFIED BY THE FACT THAT WE ACCEPT THE CANCELLATION AND
THE INJUNCTION AGAINST CONTINUATION OR RENEWAL.  WE SUBMIT, HOWEVER,
THAT THE COURT WENT TOO FAR IN FORBIDDING NORMAL AND USUAL CONTRACTUAL
ARRANGEMENTS." 

ACCORDINGLY, THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AS TO THE
PARTICIPATION OF NATIONAL LEAD AND TITAN INC. IN THE VIOLATION OF SEC.
1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IS ACCEPTED HERE WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION. 

II.  THE SECOND ISSUE WAS THAT OF THE PARTICIPATION OF DU PONT IN
SUCH COMBINATION AFTER 1933.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT DU PONT
"JOINED THE CONSPIRACY FOUND HEREIN TO EXIST BETWEEN, NL AND ITS
FOREIGN ASSOCIATES.  DP'S STATUS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WERE DIFFERENT
FROM THOSE OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION.  DP DID NOT
THEREAFTER WITHDRAW."  FINDING OF FACT 73.  THE DISTRICT COURT, IN ITS
OPINION, ALSO STATED THAT - 

"AT LEAST THEN AS TO TERRITORIAL DELIMITATIONS OF THE TITANIUM
PIGMENT BUSINESS, DP JOINED THE COMBINATION.   ... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"MY GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE ON THIS ISSUE IS THAT DP WAS A
MEMBER OF THE COMBINATION - TRUE, A SPECIAL MEMBER, WITH A STATUS,
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE OTHER MEMBERS, BUT A
MEMBER NONETHELESS."  63 F.SUPP.  AT 530, 531, AND SEE THE PREAMBLE TO
THE DECREE AT 532.  FN3 

THIS FINDING IS CONTESTED VIGOROUSLY BY DU PONT AND IS THE PRINCIPAL
SUBJECT MATTER OF ITS APPEAL IN NO. 91.  AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION,
WE AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT: 

"IN SHARP CONTRAST WITH NL, DP EXHIBITED, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF
ITS INTEREST IN TITANIUM, AN ALERT CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS
AND MOVED CAUTIOUSLY AND UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF TRAINED ANTI-TRUST
LAWYERS.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT SUCCEEDED IN AVOIDING NOT ONLY THE
FORM BUT ALSO THE SUBSTANCE OF TRANSGRESSION.  I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT
HAS NOT; ...  "  ID. AT 527. 

IT WOULD SERVE NO BENEFICIAL PURPOSE TO REVIEW HERE THE EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THAT COURT BASED ITS CONCLUSION.  ITS OPINION ANALYZES THE FACTS
(ID. AT 527-531) AND, IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORD AS A WHOLE, WE FIND IN
THOSE FACTS THE SUPPORT NECESSARY FOR THE CONCLUSION REACHED. 

III.  RELATED TO THESE ISSUES WAS A THIRD.  THIS WAS WHETHER THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT WAS OFFENSIVE TO THE
ANTITRUST LAWS APART FROM THE RELATION OF THAT CONTRACT, AND OF THE
PARTIES THERETO, TO THE FOREIGN PRODUCERS.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT IT WAS AND ALSO RELATED IT TO THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION.  IT
FOUND THAT - 

"THE DEFENDANTS NL, DP AND TINC HAVE UTILIZED THEIR PATENTS WHICH
RELATE TO THE MANUFACTURE AND USE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS TO CONTROL AND
REGULATE THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS IN
THE UNITED STATES; AND NL AND TINC WITH THE CO-OPERATION OF DP HAVE
DONE SO THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD."  FINDING OF FACT 95,
SUBPARAGRAPH 9. 

IN ITS OPINION THE DISTRICT COURT EMPHASIZED ALSO "THE GREAT POWER
THEY ACQUIRED" (ID. AT 531) AND INDICATED CRITICISM OF LIMITATIONS
ORIGINALLY INSERTED IN CERTAIN IMPORTANT LICENSES, ALTHOUGH LATER
REMOVED FROM THEM.  ID. AT 532.  ADDED TOGETHER, THE CONTROL OF THE
PATENTS COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT GAVE TO NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT
"DOMINATION AND CONTROL OVER THE TITANIUM PIGMENT BUSINESS IN THE
U.S."  FINDING OF FACT 79.  THE DISTRICT COURT REFERRED TO THE
"PROLIFERATION OF PATENTS" AS ANOTHER "INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE" OF THE
AGREEMENT.  ID. AT 532.  THIS WAS EXPLAINED TO MEAN THE GREAT
MULTIPLICATION OF RELATED PATENTS, RESULTING IN INCREASING THE
DIFFICULTY OF AN ATTACK UPON THEM.  THE VALIDITY OF NONE OF THE
HUNDREDS OF PATENTS INVOLVED HAS BEEN LITIGATED. 

"THESE PATENTS, THROUGH THE AGREEMENTS IN WHICH THEY ARE ENMESHED AND
THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN USED, HAVE, IN FACT, BEEN FORGED
INTO INSTRUMENTS OF DOMINATION OF AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY.  THE NET EFFECT
IS THAT A BUSINESS, ORIGINALLY FOUNDED UPON PATENTS WHICH HAVE LONG
SINCE EXPIRED, IS TODAY LESS ACCESSIBLE TO FREE ENTERPRISE THAN WHEN IT
WAS FIRST LAUNCHED."  ID. AT 532. 

REFERRING TO THE EXCHANGE OF PATENTS BETWEEN NATIONAL LEAD AND DU
PONT, THE DISTRICT COURT ADDED: 

"  ...  IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT CASE,  ...  THIS EXCHANGE
BETWEEN TWO CORPORATIONS, WHO BETWEEN THEM CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE
MARKET, BECOMES AN INSTRUMENT OF RESTRAINT, AVAILABLE FOR USE AND USED,
TO CONTINUE THE MASTERY OF THE MARKET WHICH NL AND DP ACHIEVED BY MEANS
OF THE ILLEGAL INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS."  ID. AT 532. 

THESE FACTS ARE IMPORTANT NOT ONLY IN AFFIRMING, AS WE DO, THE
FINDING THAT NATIONAL LEAD, TITAN INC. AND DU PONT EACH HAS VIOLATED
SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, BUT ALSO IN PASSING UPON THE TERMS
OF THE DECREE ENTERED IN ORDER TO PREVENT FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF THAT ACT
BY THEM. 

IV.  THE REMAINING ISSUES RELATE TO THE TERMS OF THE DECREE.  THE
ENTIRE DECREE, EXCLUSIVE OF ITS APPENDIX, IS REPORTED AT 63 F.SUPP. 
532-535, AND, FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES, IS HERE REPRINTED IN THE MARGIN,
AS THERE REPORTED.  FN4 

THIS DECREE REPRESENTS A CAREFUL ATTEMPT TO FIT THE REMEDY TO THE
NEEDS OF THIS CASE.  THE RECORD UPON WHICH IT IS BASED CONSISTS OF TWO
LARGE VOLUMES OF TESTIMONY AND FOUR LARGER VOLUMES OF EXHIBITS,
REPRESENTING A TOTAL OF OVER 5,500 PAGES, REFLECTING MORE THAN THREE
MONTHS OF TRIAL.  IT DEMONSTRATES A COMMENDABLE PROCEDURE.  PROPOSED
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND A FORM OF DECREE WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO THE DISTRICT COURT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE TRIAL.  THE
OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WHEN FILED, FORMED THE BASIS OF FURTHER
CONSULTATION AND ARGUMENT.  AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE ENTERED, FURTHER CONFERENCES WERE HELD WITH
COUNSEL AND FULL OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THEM TO PROPOSE CHANGES IN
THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE DECREE.  MUCH OF THIS DISCUSSION WAS
REPORTED IN THE RECORD AND HAS BEEN OF BENEFIT TO THIS COURT IN
REVIEWING THE DECREE. 

IN OUR OPINION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS DECREE, TO A LARGE EXTENT, ARE
MATTERS LYING WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS A COURT OF
EQUITY WHOSE DUTY IT WAS TO MAKE THE REMEDY AS EFFECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. 
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CONFRONTED WITH AN OBLIGATION TO GIVE EFFECT TO
THE PROVISIONS, ON THE ONE HAND, OF THE PATENT LAWS GRANTING CERTAIN
VALUABLE RIGHTS IN THE NATURE OF MONOPOLIES TO THE PATENTEES AND THEIR
LICENSEES, AND ALSO TO GIVE EFFECT, ON THE OTHER HAND, TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT PROHIBITING ANY COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR WITH
FOREIGN NATIONS.  WE BELIEVE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS NOT EXCEEDED
ITS DISCRETION IN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS DECREE BUT HAS EMPLOYED ITS
DISCRETION WITH COMMENDABLE FAIRNESS HAVING ESPECIAL REGARD TO THE
NEEDS OF THIS CASE.  IT HAS SUCCEEDED IN KEEPING WITHIN THE LINES OF
PRECEDENT THUS FAR ESTABLISHED, ALTHOUGH, IN THIS FIELD, SUCH LINES
CANNOT BE MUCH MORE THAN GUIDES.  THE ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATION IS THAT
THE REMEDY SHALL BE AS EFFECTIVE AND FAIR AS POSSIBLE IN PREVENTING
CONTINUED OR FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. 

THE ISSUES ARE PRESENTED BY THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IN THE THREE
APPEALS.  THEY WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR
SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS.  IN EACH INSTANCE WE SUSTAIN THE PRESENT DECREE. 

A. REQUEST TO OMIT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE GRANTING OF COMPULSORY,
NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSES AT UNIFORM, REASONABLE ROYALTIES AND TO
SUBSTITUTE FOR THAT REQUIREMENT, EITHER A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AGAINST
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE TITANIUM PATENTS PRESENTLY OWNED OR CONTROLLED
BY THE RESPECTIVE APPELLANT COMPANIES, OR A PROVISION FOR COMPULSORY
LICENSES TO BE ISSUED UNDER THOSE PATENTS, FREE OF ROYALTIES. 

THIS IS THE MAJOR LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE. 

THE MATERIAL PROVISIONS IN THE PRESENT DECREE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"4.  THE TERM 'PATENTS AS HEREIN DEFINED' SHALL MEAN UNITED STATES
LETTERS PATENT AND APPLICATIONS AS FOLLOWS:  (A) THE LETTERS PATENT AND
PATENT APPLICATIONS LISTED IN APPENDIX A HEREOF; (B) ALL DIVISIONS,
CONTINUATIONS OR REISSUES OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING PATENTS AND
APPLICATIONS; (C) ALL PATENTS ISSUED UPON SUCH APPLICATIONS; (D) ALL
PATENTS WHICH COVER ANY TITANIUM PIGMENTS OR ANY PROCESS FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS ISSUED TO ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS WITHIN
FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE; AND ALL SUCH PATENTS WHICH ANY
OF THE DEFENDANTS ACQUIRES WITHIN SUCH FIVE YEARS; AND ALL SUCH PATENTS
OF WHICH ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS BECOMES THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE WITHIN
SUCH FIVE YEARS WITH POWER TO SUBLICENSE. 

     .         .         .    .         . 

"7.  EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS IS ORDERED TO GRANT TO ANY APPLICANT
THEREFOR, INCLUDING ANY DEFENDANT OR CO-CONSPIRATOR, A NONEXCLUSIVE
LICENSE UNDER ANY OR ALL OF THE PATENTS AS HEREIN DEFINED AT A UNIFORM,
REASONABLE ROYALTY.  SUCH GRANT MAY, AT THE OPTION OF THE LICENSOR, BE
CONDITIONED UPON THE RECIPROCAL GRANT OF A LICENSE BY THE APPLICANT, AT
A REASONABLE ROYALTY, UNDER ANY AND ALL PATENTS COVERING TITANIUM
PIGMENTS OR THEIR MANUFACTURE, NOW ISSUED OR PENDING, OR ISSUED WITHIN
FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE, IF ANY, OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY
SUCH APPLICANT.  SUCH LICENSE OR RECIPROCAL LICENSE MAY, AT THE OPTION
OF EITHER PARTY, CONTAIN A PROVISION FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE BOOKS
AND RECORDS OF THE LICENSEE BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR WHO SHALL REPORT
TO THE LICENSOR ONLY THE AMOUNT OF ROYALTY DUE AND PAYABLE AND NO OTHER
INFORMATION.  DURING A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
DECREE SUCH LICENSE OR RECIPROCAL LICENSE MAY AT THE OPTION OF EITHER
PARTY CONTAIN A PROVISION FOR THE IMPARTING IN WRITING, AT A REASONABLE
CHARGE, BY THE LICENSOR TO THE LICENSEE, OF THE METHODS AND PROCESSES
USED BY THE FORMER AT THE DATE OF THE LICENSE IN ITS COMMERCIAL
PRACTICE UNDER THE LICENSED PATENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRODUCTION
OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS.  THE COURT RESERVES JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE
REASONABLENESS OF ANY ROYALTY OR CHARGE HEREIN DIRECTED TO BE
REASONABLE.  DEFENDANTS ARE RESTRAINED FROM ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE ANY
RIGHTS UNDER ANY FOREIGN PATENTS OWNED BY THEM OR UNDER WHICH THEY ARE
THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES TO PREVENT THE EXPORTATION OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS
FROM THE UNITED STATES TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY." 

THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ORIGINALLY MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT, IN NO. 89,
AS TO THIS POINT WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO REQUIRE EACH DEFENDANT TO LICENSE
ITS EXISTING TITANIUM PIGMENT PATENTS FREE OF ROYALTY UNTIL THE COURT
SHALL HAVE DETERMINED, ON APPLICATION BY ANY DEFENDANT, THAT THE
EFFECTS OF THE DEFENDANTS' ILLEGAL COMBINATION, AS SET FORTH IN THE
COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, HAVE BEEN FULLY
DISSIPATED." 

LATER THE GOVERNMENT MOVED TO AMEND THIS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR SO THAT
IT WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ENTER AN INJUNCTION PERPETUALLY
ENJOINING THE DEFENDANTS FROM ENFORCING THE TITANIUM PATENTS PRESENTLY
OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THEM." 

THIS COURT POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE MOTION TO THE HEARING
OF THE CASE ON ITS MERITS.  ON ORAL ARGUMENT, THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED
ITS SECOND PROPOSAL BUT INDICATED THAT, IF THAT PROPOSAL WERE NOT
SATISFACTORY, IT WOULD PREFER ITS ORIGINAL REQUEST TO THE PROVISION FOR
UNIFORM, REASONABLE ROYALTIES NOW IN THE DECREE.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
MOTION TO AMEND ITS ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS ACCORDINGLY IS GRANTED. 
NATIONAL LEAD, IN ITS ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IN NO. 90, HOWEVER, ASSIGNS
THE ORDERS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE DECREE ON THIS SUBJECT AS
ERROR AND, IN ITS BRIEFS, ARGUES THAT "THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO
ORDER ROYALTY-FREE LICENSING OF ALL PATENTS AS DEFINED IN THE
JUDGMENT."  ACCORDINGLY, BOTH PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. 

WHILE IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT, BECAUSE OF THE DECISION OF THIS
COURT IN HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386, THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT FREE IN THE PRESENT CASE TO REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE
OF ROYALTY-FREE LICENSES, WE FEEL THAT, WITHOUT REACHING THE QUESTION
WHETHER ROYALTY-FREE LICENSING OR A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A PATENT IS PERMISSIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW IN ANY CASE,
THE PRESENT DECREE REPRESENTS AN EXERCISE OF SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. 

THIS IS A CIVIL, NOT A CRIMINAL, PROCEEDING.  THE PURPOSE OF THE
DECREE, THEREFORE, IS EFFECTIVE AND FAIR ENFORCEMENT, NOT PUNISHMENT. 
AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT IS ESSENTIAL TO AN
APPRECIATION OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECREE. 

PURE TITANIUM PIGMENT AND ITS COMPOUNDS REPRESENT A PRODUCT OF
COMPARATIVELY RECENT DEVELOPMENT BUT OF MAJOR COMMERCIAL VALUE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT - 

"TITANIUM PIGMENTS ARE POSSESSED OF GREAT OPACITY, HIDING POWER AND
CHEMICAL INERTNESS, AND ARE LARGELY DISPLACING OTHER PIGMENTS SUCH AS
LITHOPONE AND WHITE LEAD.  TITANIUM PIGMENTS ARE USED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF PAINTS AND ARE ALSO USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF RUBBER,
GLASS, PAPER, VITREOUS ENAMELS, AND MANY OTHER PRODUCTS.  ... 

"IN AND BEFORE 1920 THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL TRADE OR COMMERCE IN,
AND NO COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURE OF, TITANIUM PIGMENTS FOR USE IN PAINT,
PAPER, RUBBER, OR OTHER PRODUCTS; ...  "  FINDING OF FACT 33. 

"THE PRODUCTION OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES HAD RISEN
FROM 100 TONS (ON THE BASIS OF PURE TIO2 CONTENT) IN 1920 TO
APPROXIMATELY 110,000 TONS IN 1943 WITH A PEAK PRODUCTION OF
APPROXIMATELY 128,000 TONS IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1941.  THE TOTAL
PRODUCTION OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED
STATES HAS SHOWN LESS GROWTH, THE ESTIMATED FOREIGN PRODUCTION OF
TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS BEING APPROXIMATELY 1,000 TONS IN 1920
AND APPROXIMATELY 23,000 TONS IN 1938."  FINDING OF FACT 35. 

THERE ARE FOUR PRODUCERS OF TITANIUM PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES -
NATIONAL LEAD, DU PONT, AMERICAN ZIRCONIUM (HERE CALLED ZIRCONIUM),
WHICH IS A SUBSIDIARY OF GLIDDEN COMPANY, AND VIRGINIA CHEMICAL COMPANY
(HERE CALLED VIRGINIA CHEMICAL), WHICH IS A SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN
CYANAMID COMPANY.  NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT HAVE CROSS-LICENSED EACH
OTHER UNDER THEIR RESPECTIVE PATENTS.  ZIRCONIUM ENTERED THE FIELD IN
1935 WITH LICENSES FROM NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT, BUT THE NATIONAL
LEAD LICENSE HAS BEEN CANCELED.  VIRGINIA CHEMICAL ENTERED THE FIELD IN
1937 WITH A LICENSE FROM DU PONT.  FINDING OF FACT 42. 

NATIONAL LEAD HAS ASSETS OF OVER $100,000,000 AND IS THE LARGEST
MANUFACTURER OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS NOT ONLY IN THE UNITED
STATES BUT IN THE WORLD.  IN 1943 IT MANUFACTURED AND SOLD 76.5% OF THE
COMPOSITE PIGMENTS AND 46.4% OF PURE TIO2 MADE IN THE UNITED STATES. 
FINDING OF FACT 3.  DU PONT IS ONE OF THE LARGEST CHEMICAL COMPANIES IN
THE UNITED STATES WITH ASSETS OF OVER $1,000,000,000.  IT IS ONE OF THE
LARGEST MANUFACTURERS OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES.  IN
1943 IT MANUFACTURED AND SOLD APPROXIMATELY 23.5% OF THE COMPOSITE
PIGMENTS AND 45.1% OF PURE TIO2 MADE IN THE UNITED STATES.  FINDING OF
FACT 9. 

NATIONAL LEAD TOOK AN EARLY LEAD IN PROMOTING THE COMMERCIAL
MANUFACTURE AND USE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS.  IN 1920 IT ACQUIRED AN
INTEREST IN THE TITANIUM PIGMENT COMPANY, INC., WHICH HAD BEEN
ORGANIZED BY THE TITANIUM ALLOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY AT NIAGARA FALLS,
NEW YORK.  IT MADE USE OF A PATENTED PROCESS DEVELOPED BY BARTON AND
ROSSI.  AT ABOUT THAT TIME, A NORWEGIAN CHEMIST, GUSTAV JEBSEN, MADE
SIMILAR INVESTIGATIONS BUT ALONG DIFFERENT LINES IN NORWAY.  HE AND HIS
ASSOCIATES PERFECTED A PATENTED MEANS FOR PRODUCING RELATIVELY PURE
TITANIUM DIOXIDE BY A PROCESS MUCH LESS COSTLY THAN THAT IN USE AT
NIAGARA FALLS.  THESE ASSOCIATES HAD NOT, HOWEVER, PERFECTED PROCESSES
FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF COMPOSITE PIGMENTS.  FINDING OF FACT 33.  IN
ABOUT 1922, JOSEPH BLUMENFELD, A CHEMIST AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF A
FRENCH COMPANY, OBTAINED PATENTS RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE OF
TITANIUM COMPOUNDS.  FINDING OF FACT 34. 

ON JULY 30, 1920, THE TITANIUM PIGMENT COMPANY, INC., (AFFILIATED
WITH NATIONAL LEAD) AND TITAN CO. A/S (REPRESENTING THE JEBSEN
INTERESTS) ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS STILL UNCANCELED.  ITS
PRINCIPLES BECAME THE BASIS FOR MORE THAN 60 SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS AND
FOR AN INTERNATIONAL CARTEL  FN5  IN TITANIUM PIGMENTS.  THE ESSENTIAL
FEATURES OF THIS AGREEMENT ARE STATED IN FINDING OF FACT 44 AND IN THE
OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 63 F.SUPP.  AT 517-518. 

BRIEFLY STATED, IT APPLIED TO A LICENSED FIELD, DEFINED AS INCLUDING
ALL SUBSTANCES CONTAINING ABOVE 2% OF TITANIUM UNLESS CONTAINING BY
WEIGHT MORE THAN 5% OF A METAL OTHER THAN TITANIUM IN ITS PURELY
METALLIC FORM.  IT APPLIED TO ALL APPARATUS, METHODS AND PROCESSES
USEFUL IN OBTAINING OR MANUFACTURING SUCH SUBSTANCES BOTH IN THE
TITANIUM AND IN THE TITANIUM COMPOUND FIELD. 

BOTH PARTIES AGREED TO GRANT AND ACCEPT A LICENSE, EXCLUSIVE OF ALL
OTHERS INCLUDING THE LICENSOR, UNDER ALL "EXISTING OR FUTURE" PATENTS
OF THE LICENSING PARTY.  THEY DIVIDED THE GLOBE TERRITORIALLY.  THE
AMERICAN COMPANY WAS TO HAVE THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT.  THE
NORWEGIAN COMPANY WAS TO HAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD, EXCEPT THAT
RECIPROCAL, NONEXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF SALE WERE RESERVED FOR BOTH
COMPANIES IN SOUTH AMERICA. 

DETAILED PROVISION WAS MADE FOR EXCHANGE OF COPIES OF APPLICATIONS
FOR PATENTS FILED BY THE PARTIES OR THEIR OTHER LICENSEES.  NEITHER
PARTY WAS EVER TO QUESTION OR CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF ANY PATENT OF THE
OTHER UNDER WHICH IT WAS LICENSED WITHIN THE FIELD DESCRIBED. 

THE AMERICAN COMPANY BECAME THE EXCLUSIVE AGENT FOR THE NORWEGIAN
COMPANY IN NORTH AMERICA AND VICE VERSA OUTSIDE OF NORTH AND SOUTH
AMERICA.  SALES WERE TO BE AT PRICES AND ON TERMS DETERMINED BY THE
AGENT.  NOTWITHSTANDING THESE AGENCIES, HOWEVER, IMPORTATIONS OF
"FINISHED ARTICLES" - THAT IS, PAINT, PAPER, RUBBER, GLASS, ETC. -
CONTAINING TITANIUM PRODUCTS OF THE PRINCIPAL, ITS LICENSEES OR
SUBLICENSEES, WOULD BE PERMITTED PROVIDED SUCH PRODUCTS DID NOT
CONSTITUTE SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF SUCH FINISHED ARTICLES THAT SALES
WITHIN THE AGENT'S TERRITORY WOULD INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE
AGENT'S SALES OF ITS OWN TITANIUM PRODUCTS. 

EACH PARTY WOULD IMPART SEMIANNUALLY TO THE OTHER INFORMATION IN
DETAIL AS TO KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED IN AND APPLICABLE TO THE "LICENSED
FIELD," AND WOULD PERMIT THE OTHER TO INSPECT AND STUDY OPERATIONS IN
ITS PLANTS (EXCLUSIVE OF RESEARCH LABORATORIES).  THE RECIPROCAL GRANTS
OF EXCLUSIVE LICENSES WOULD EXTEND TO DECEMBER 31, 1936, AND THEREAFTER
FOR PERIODS OF TEN YEARS EACH, WITH PROVISION FOR TERMINATION BY NOTICE
TO BE GIVEN AT LEAST FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE END OF ANY SUCH PERIOD.  IN
PARTICULAR, SO LONG AS EACH COMPANY HELD AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE FROM THE
OTHER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, IT WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GRANT LICENSES
UNDER ITS OWN PATENTS, AND SUBLICENSES UNDER THE OTHER'S PATENTS, ON
THE CONDITION, NEVERTHELESS, THAT EVERY SUCH LICENSEE OR SUBLICENSEE
WOULD GRANT TO THE PARTY TO THE 1920 AGREEMENT (OTHER THAN ITS
LICENSOR), ITS PATENT RIGHTS IN THE "LICENSED FIELD" IDENTICAL IN
CHARACTER, TERRITORIAL SCOPE, AND DURATION TO THOSE GIVEN BY ITS
LICENSOR TO SUCH OTHER PARTY UNDER THE 1920 AGREEMENT, AND WOULD IMPART
TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO SUCH OTHER PARTY IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE
SAME EXTENT AS ITS LICENSOR. 

IN 1929, THE OBLIGATIONS OF TITAN CO. A/S UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WERE
ASSUMED BY TITAN INC. AND, IN 1936, THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE TITANIUM
PIGMENT COMPANY, INC., WERE ASSUMED BY NATIONAL LEAD. 

OTHER COMPANIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD JOINED IN CARRYING OUT THIS
PROGRAM TO RESTRAIN INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE AND TO ESTABLISH AN
INTERNATIONAL COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  THE
COMPLAINT IN THE PRESENT CASE LISTS MANY OF THESE FOREIGN COMPANIES AS
COCONSPIRATORS WITH NATIONAL LEAD, TITAN INC. AND DU PONT, BUT IT DOES
NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE SUCH CO-CONSPIRATORS PARTIES DEFENDANT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT RECOGNIZED THAT IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER SUCH
CO-CONSPIRATORS AND FOUND IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE ONE OF ITS DIFFICULTIES
IN EFFECTIVELY RESTRAINING NATIONAL LEAD, TITAN INC. AND DU PONT FROM
FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, PURSUANT TO THIS
INTERNATIONAL AS WELL AS DOMESTIC PROGRAM.  TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE,
THE DISTRICT COURT HAS ADJUDGED THESE AGREEMENTS TO BE UNLAWFUL AND IT
HAS CANCELED THEM.  IN ADDITION, IT HAS ENJOINED ALL THREE DEFENDANTS,
NATIONAL LEAD, TITAN INC. AND DU PONT, FROM FURTHER PERFORMANCE OF ANY
OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH AGREEMENTS AND OF ANY AGREEMENTS AMENDATORY
THEREOF OR SUPPLEMENTAL THERETO.  PARS. 5 AND 6 OF THE DECREE, 63
F.SUPP.  AT 533-534. 

NATIONAL LEAD ACQUIRED AN 87% INTEREST IN TITAN CO. A/S, JEBSEN
RETAINING 13%.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT "THE INTENDED PURPOSE OF
THE ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OF TAS BY NL WAS TO UTILIZE TAS AND THE
CONTRACT OF 1920 TO FURTHER CONTROL COMPETITION IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS IN ALL MARKETS OF THE WORLD INCLUDING
THE UNITED STATES."  FINDING OF FACT 47.  FN6  WHILE THIS COMBINATION
AND CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE THUS WAS
DEVELOPING FROM 1920 TO 1931, WITH NATIONAL LEAD AND TITAN INC. AT ITS
CENTER, DU PONT WAS UNCONNECTED WITH IT.  DU PONT HAD INITIATED
INDEPENDENT, BUT UNSUCCESSFUL, EFFORTS TO DEVELOP, THROUGH RESEARCH, A
NEW AND PATENTABLE COMMERCIALLY FEASIBLE PROCESS IN THIS FIELD.  IT
BECAME CONVINCED THAT IF IT WERE TO UNDERTAKE THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE
OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS AS A DEVELOPMENT OF ITS WHITE PIGMENT BUSINESS, IT
WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ENTER THE FIELD AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE THROUGH
THE ACQUISITION OF THE PATENTS AND OF THE GOING BUSINESS OF COMMERCIAL
PIGMENTS COMPANY.  THAT COMPANY HAD BEEN FORMED BY COMMERCIAL SOLVENTS
CORPORATION IN 1928 AND HAD ACQUIRED THE BLUMENFELD AND OTHER PATENTS
IN THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF TITANIUM
PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS.  IT WAS OPERATING A PLANT IN BALTIMORE,
MARYLAND, WHERE IT MANUFACTURED PURE TIO2 PIGMENT ONLY AND SOLD IT IN
COMPETITION WITH THE THE TITANIUM PIGMENT COMPANY, INC. (THE AFFILIATE
OF NATIONAL LEAD).  IN JULY, 1931, DU PONT, THROUGH ITS SUBSIDIARY,
KREBS PIGMENT & COLOR CORPORATION, ACQUIRED ALL OF THE ASSETS AND
ASSUMED SOME OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF COMMERCIAL PIGMENTS COMPANY.  IT
THUS CONTINUED AND, IN FACT, INCREASED ITS COMPETITION IN THE TITANIUM
PIGMENT FIELD AGAINST NATIONAL LEAD.  FINDINGS OF FACT 70, 12, 10 AND
71. 

"BOTH NL AND DP IN GOOD FAITH CLAIMED THAT EACH INFRINGED CERTAIN OF
THE OTHER'S TITANIUM PIGMENT PATENTS AND BOTH IN GOOD FAITH DENIED SUCH
INFRINGEMENT CLAIMING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE PATENTS ALLEGED TO
BE INFRINGED WERE OF DOUBTFUL VALIDITY.  NL AND DP AGREED IN OCTOBER,
1932, THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS CLAIMED TO BE INFRINGED SHOULD
NOT BE QUESTIONED EXCEPT AS A LAST RESORT AND THAT THEY SHOULD TRY TO
ARRIVE AT A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING."  FINDING OF FACT 72. 

FINALLY, IN 1933, THE TITANIUM PIGMENT COMPANY, INC. (BY THAT TIME A
100% SUBSIDIARY OF NATIONAL LEAD), AND KREBS PIGMENT & COLOR
CORPORATION (SUBSIDIARY OF DU PONT) WERE THE ONLY PRODUCERS OF TITANIUM
PIGMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE 1920 AGREEMENT, HOWEVER, PREVENTED
THE TITANIUM PIGMENT COMPANY, INC. (NATIONAL LEAD), FROM ENTERING INTO
A CONTRACT WITH KREBS PIGMENT & COLOR CORPORATION (DU PONT) UNLESS THE
LATTER SUBSCRIBED TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1920 AGREEMENT.  SUCH A
SUBSCRIPTION WOULD HAVE REQUIRED AN AGREEMENT BY KREBS (DU PONT) NOT TO
EXPORT INTO THE TERRITORIES OF NATIONAL LEAD'S FOREIGN ASSOCIATES, AND
AN AGREEMENT TO GRANT TO NATIONAL LEAD'S FOREIGN ASSOCIATES EXCLUSIVE
LICENSES UNDER ALL OF KREBS' (DU PONT'S) PRESENT AND FUTURE PATENTS FOR
TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS IN THE TERRITORIES OF THE FOREIGN
ASSOCIATES.  FINDING OF FACT 73.  AFTER EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS,
NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT FORMULATED AN AGREEMENT IN WRITING, DATED AS
OF JANUARY 1, 1933, WHICH WAS EXECUTED AUGUST 28, 1933.  IT IS
SUMMARIZED IN FINDING OF FACT 73 AND IN THE OPINION OF THE LOWER COURT,
63 F.SUPP.  AT 520-521.  BY ITS TERMS, IT PROVIDED FOR CROSS-LICENSING
BUT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSING AND RESTRICTIVE
TERRITORIAL AND AGENCY AGREEMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE 1920 PROGRAM. 
CERTAIN FOREIGN ASSOCIATES OF NATIONAL LEAD, PARTICULARLY
INTERESSENGEMEINSCHAFT FARBEN-INDUSTRIE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (USUALLY
REFERRED TO AS I.G. FARBENINDUSTRIE), INSISTED UPON SOME SUCH
COMMITMENT FROM DU PONT OR ITS SUBSIDIARY.  THIS INSISTENCE NEVER WAS
ABANDONED.  AFTER FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS AND AN EXCHANGE OF LETTERS, ALL
AS SET FORTH IN FULL IN FINDING OF FACT 73 AND IN THE OPINION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 63 F.SUPP.  AT 528-529, SOME UNDERSTANDING WAS REACHED
AS TO THE FUTURE CONDUCT OF DU PONT, OR OF ITS SUBSIDIARY.  ON THE
STRENGTH OF THIS, I.G. FARBENINDUSTRIE AGREED TO THE SITUATION.  ON THE
BASIS OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT - 

"DP, THROUGH RUPPRECHT (PRESIDENT OF KREBS PIGMENT & COLOR
CORPORATION) AND KREBS (THE CORPORATION), BY THESE ASSURANCES AND
EXHIBIT E (THE AGREEMENT DATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 1933), JOINED THE
CONSPIRACY FOUND HEREIN TO EXIST BETWEEN, NL AND ITS FOREIGN
ASSOCIATES.  DP'S STATUS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WERE DIFFERENT FROM
THOSE OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION.  DP DID NOT THEREAFTER
WITHDRAW."  FINDING OF FACT 73. 

THAT FINDING, WHICH WE ACCEPT, THROWS IMPORTANT LIGHT UPON THE
CONDITIONS TO WHICH THE DECREE IS TO BE APPLIED.  FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH
NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT EXCHANGED TECHNICAL INFORMATION RELATING TO
THE MANUFACTURING OR USE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS OR COMPOUNDS FROM ABOUT
APRIL, 1932, UNTIL APRIL, 1940, THIS EXCHANGE WAS DISCONTINUED MAY 1,
1940.  THE AGREEMENT OF 1933 BETWEEN THE TITANIUM PIGMENT COMPANY,
INC., AND KREBS PIGMENT & COLOR CORPORATION WHICH THEN HAD BEEN ASSUMED
BY NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT, RESPECTIVELY, WAS AMENDED ON JANUARY 1,
1941, TO ELIMINATE PROVISIONS FOR THE EXCHANGE OF TECHNICAL
INFORMATION.  FINDING OF FACT 75.  IT WAS FURTHER AMENDED TO INCLUDE
EXTENDER PIGMENTS, WHICH THERETOFORE HAD BEEN INCLUDED BY IMPLICATION
AND PRACTICE.  FINDING OF FACT 76.  AFTER JANUARY 1, 1941, PATENT
APPLICATIONS WERE TO BE AVAILABLE BETWEEN NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT
ONLY AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THEIR FILING, INSTEAD OF
IMMEDIATELY.  FINDING OF FACT 77. 

"FROM 1933 ON THERE WAS ACTIVE COMPETITION BETWEEN NL AND DP FOR
CUSTOMERS.  THERE HAS BEEN A VAST INCREASE IN SALES; AND REPEATED
REDUCTIONS IN THE PRICE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND A
VERY FEW INCREASES.  DP ENTERED THE TITANIUM PIGMENT BUSINESS IN 1931
AND SINCE THAT DATE IT HAS MADE FREQUENT PLANT EXPANSIONS FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF PURE AND COMPOSITE TIO2 AND ITS PRODUCTION INCREASED
FROM 20,027 TONS IN 1935 TO 50,674 TONS IN 1941 AND THEN DECREASED TO
42,843 TONS IN 1943. 

"NL AND DP HAVE ENDEAVORED TO MATCH EACH OTHER'S TITANIUM PRODUCTS;
BUT EACH ALSO MANUFACTURES CERTAIN TITANIUM PIGMENTS HAVING SPECIAL
APPLICATIONS NOT MANUFACTURED BY THE OTHER. 

"THERE IS NO ALLOCATION OF TERRITORY OR CUSTOMERS BETWEEN NL AND DP;
AND EACH MAINTAINS A LARGE, HIGHLY TRAINED TECHNICAL SALES FORCE
ENGAGED IN ENDEAVORING TO SELL TITANIUM PIGMENTS.  TO A VERY LARGE
EXTENT THE SALESMEN OF THE TWO COMPANIES ARE CHEMISTS WHOSE CONTACT
WITH CONSUMERS (THAT IS, MANUFACTURERS OF PAINT, RUBBER, GLASS, ETC.)
CONSISTS IN ENDEAVORING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR PRODUCTS MERIT
ACCEPTANCE ON THE BASIS OF TECHNICAL SUPERIORITY.  THE BUYERS OF
TITANIUM PIGMENTS ARE MAINLY WELL-INFORMED, EXPERIENCED PURCHASING
AGENTS.  NL AND DP SELL FOR IDENTICAL PRICES; THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
SUCH PRICE IDENTITY IS THE PRODUCT OF AGREEMENT OR COLLUSION."  FINDING
OF FACT 78. 

THESE FINDINGS DISCLOSE THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH CONFRONTED THE
DISTRICT COURT IN FRAMING ITS DECREE.  THEY DISCLOSE A VIGOROUS,
COMPARATIVELY YOUNG, BUT COMPARATIVELY LARGE, WORLD-WIDE INDUSTRY IN
WHICH TWO GREAT COMPANIES, NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT, NOW CONTROL
APPROXIMATELY 90% OF THE DOMESTIC PRODUCTION IN SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL
SHARES.  THE BALANCE OF THAT PRODUCTION IS IN THE HANDS OF TWO SMALLER
COMPANIES.  EACH OF THESE IS AFFILIATED WITH LARGER ORGANIZATIONS, NOT
PARTIES TO THIS CASE.  THE FINDINGS SHOW VIGOROUS AND APPARENTLY
PROFITABLE COMPETITION ON THE PART OF EACH OF THE FOUR PRODUCERS,
INCLUDING AN INTIMATION THAT THE SMALLER COMPANIES ARE GAINING GROUND
RATHER THAN LOSING IT.  KEEN COMPETITION HAS EXISTED BOTH BEFORE AND
AFTER THE ELIMINATION, BY THE 1933 AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING, OF
CERTAIN PATENT ADVANTAGES FROM AMONG THE WEAPONS OF COMPETITION.  THE
COMPETITION BETWEEN NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT HAS BEEN CARRIED INTO
THIS COURT WHERE TODAY NATIONAL LEAD SUPPORTS THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSAL
FOR ROYALTY-FREE LICENSES, WHILE DU PONT ARGUES STRONGLY FOR A COMPLETE
DISMISSAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND CONTENDS THAT, IN ANY EVENT, IF THERE
ARE TO BE COMPULSORY LICENSES THEY AT LEAST SHOULD REQUIRE PAYMENT OF
UNIFORM, REASONABLE ROYALTIES AS PROVIDED IN THE PRESENT DECREE. 

ASSUMING, AS IS JUSTIFIED, THAT VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN THIS
CASE HAS CONSISTED PRIMARILY OF THE MISUSE OF PATENT RIGHTS PLACING
RESTRAINT UPON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, THAT CONDUCT IS NOT
BEFORE THIS COURT FOR PUNISHMENT.  IT IS BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IN
ORDER TO SECURE AN ORDER FOR ITS IMMEDIATE DISCONTINUANCE AND FOR ITS
FUTURE PREVENTION.  THAT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED LARGELY THROUGH THE
STRICT PROHIBITION OF FURTHER PERFORMANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
UNLAWFUL AGREEMENTS.  FURTHER ASSURANCE AGAINST CONTINUED ILLEGAL
RESTRAINTS UPON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE THROUGH MISUSE OF THESE
PATENT RIGHTS IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE COMPULSORY GRANTING TO ANY
APPLICANT THEREFOR OF LICENSES AT UNIFORM, REASONABLE ROYALTIES UNDER
ANY OR ALL PATENTS DEFINED IN THE DECREE.  SUCH PATENTS INCLUDE NOT
ONLY THE PATENTS AND PATENT APPLICATIONS LISTED IN THE APPENDIX TO THE
DECREE, BUT ALSO, AMONG OTHERS, ALL PATENTS WHICH COVER ANY TITANIUM
PIGMENTS OR ANY PROCESS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF SUCH PIGMENTS ISSUED TO,
OR ACQUIRED BY, ANY OF THE APPELLANT COMPANIES WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM
THE DATE OF THE DECREE.  IT APPLIES ALSO TO ALL SUCH PATENTS OF WHICH
ANY OF THE APPELLANT COMPANIES SHALL BECOME THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE
WITHIN SUCH FIVE YEARS WITH POWER TO SUBLICENSE. 

ON THE FACTS BEFORE US, NEITHER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH LICENSES ON A
ROYALTY-FREE BASIS NOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
PROHIBITING THE PATENTEES AND LICENSEES FROM ENFORCING THOSE PATENTS
HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENFORCE EFFECTIVELY THE
ANTITRUST ACT.  WE DO NOT, IN THIS CASE, FACE THE ISSUE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH AN ORDER.  THAT ISSUE WOULD ARISE ONLY IN A
CASE WHERE THE ORDER WOULD BE MORE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST ACT THAN HERE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A
SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SOME PATENTS SHOULD ENTITLE
THEIR OWNERS TO RECEIVE HIGHER ROYALTIES THAN OTHERS.  ALSO, IT IS
CLEAR THAT SEVERAL PATENTS, EACH OF EQUAL VALUE, ORDINARILY SHOULD
ENTITLE THEIR OWNERS TO A LARGER TOTAL RETURN IN ROYALTIES THAN WOULD
ONE OF THEM ALONE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT TO REDUCE ALL ROYALTIES
AUTOMATICALLY TO A TOTAL OF ZERO, REGARDLESS OF THEIR NATURE AND
REGARDLESS OF THEIR NUMBER, APPEARS, ON ITS FACE, TO BE INEQUITABLE
WITHOUT SPECIAL PROOF TO SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
IT MAY WELL BE THAT UNIFORM, REASONABLE ROYALTIES COMPUTED ON SOME
PATENTS WILL BE FOUND TO BE BUT NOMINAL IN VALUE.  SUCH ROYALTIES MIGHT
BE SET AT ZERO OR AT A NOMINAL RATE.  THE CONCLUSION, HOWEVER, WOULD
DEPEND ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. 

RECOGNIZING THE DIFFICULTY OF COMPUTING A REASONABLE ROYALTY,  FN7
NEVERTHELESS, THAT CONCEPTION IS ONE THAT ALREADY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED
BOTH BY CONGRESS AND BY THIS COURT.  FN8  THE TERM FREQUENTLY HAS BEEN
EMPLOYED IN SHERMAN ANTITRUST CASE CONSENT DECREES.  FN9  IN THE
PRESENT CASE, THE ROYALTIES CHARGED TO AND PAID BY ZIRCONIUM AND
VIRGINIA CHEMICAL PROVIDE ENOUGH GUIDANCE TO INDICATE THAT THE
REASONABLENESS OF FUTURE ROYALTIES MAY BE DETERMINED IN THIS CASE WITH
LESS DIFFICULTY THAN OFTEN MIGHT CONFRONT A COURT FACED WITH SUCH A
TASK.  CF. SINCLAIR REFINING CO. V. JENKINS PETROLEUM PROCESS CO., 289
U.S. 689, 697-698.  THE GROWING STRENGTH OF THOSE TWO ROYALTY-PAYING
LICENSEES HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT ROYALTY-FREE LICENSES HAVE NOT BEEN
ESSENTIAL TO SUCH PROGRESS EVEN UNDER PAST CONDITIONS.  FINALLY, THE
DISTRICT COURT, UNDER PARAGRAPHS 7 AND 13 OF THE DECREE, WILL RETAIN
SUFFICIENT JURISDICTION TO ENABLE IT TO VACATE OR MODIFY ITS ORDERS
FIXING REASONABLE ROYALTY RATES IF IT FINDS SUCH ACTION TO BE NECESSARY
OR APPROPRIATE.  WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT PARAGRAPHS 4 AND 7 OF THE
DECREE SHOULD NOT BE MODIFIED EITHER SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR COMPULSORY
ROYALTY-FREE LICENSES OR SO AS TO ENJOIN THE PATENTEES OR LICENSEES
FROM ENFORCING THE TERMS OF THE PATENTS INVOLVED. 

B. REQUEST TO ADD A PROVISION REQUIRING NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT
EACH TO SUBMIT, WITHIN A YEAR, A PLAN FOR THE DIVESTITURE BY IT OF ONE
OF ITS TWO PRINCIPAL TITANIUM PIGMENT PLANTS, TOGETHER WITH THE RELATED
PHYSICAL PROPERTY.  THIS REQUEST IS URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN NO. 89. 
IT IS STRONGLY OPPOSED BOTH BY NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT.  THE ISSUE
WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH BY THE PARTIES AND THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE
REPORTED CONFERENCES AS TO THE FORM OF THE DECREE. 

WE BELIEVE THERE IS NEITHER PRECEDENT NOR GOOD REASON FOR SUCH A
REQUIREMENT.  THE VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS FOUND IN THESE CASES
IN THE PATENT POOLING AND IN THE RELATED AGREEMENTS RESTRAINING
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THERE IS NEITHER ALLEGATION IN THE
COMPLAINT NOR FINDING OF FACT BY THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES OF EITHER NATIONAL LEAD OR DU PONT HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED OR
USED IN A MANNER VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN ACT, EXCEPT AS SUCH
ACQUISITION OR USE MAY HAVE BEEN INCIDENTAL OR RELATED TO THE
AGREEMENTS ABOVE MENTIONED.  THE CANCELLATION OF SUCH AGREEMENTS AND
THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE PERFORMANCE OF THEM BY THE APPELLANT
COMPANIES ELIMINATE THEM.  PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE DECREE GOES FURTHER.  IT
REQUIRES NATIONAL LEAD AND ITS SUBSIDIARY, TITAN INC., TO PRESENT,
WITHIN ONE YEAR, A PLAN FOR DIVESTING THEMSELVES OF THEIR STOCKHOLDINGS
AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN CERTAIN FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, OR FOR
THE PURCHASE OF THE ENTIRE STOCKHOLDINGS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERESTS,
DIRECT OR INDIRECT, IN SUCH CORPORATIONS OR ANY OF THEM.  SUCH A PLAN,
WHICH WAS REQUIRED ALSO TO PROVIDE FOR ITS COMPLETION WITHIN TWO YEARS
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECREE, WILL GO AS FAR TOWARD DIVESTITURE AS THE
FINDINGS OF FACT INDICATE SHOULD BE NECESSARY TO MAKE THE DECREE
EFFECTIVE. 

THERE IS NO FINDING OF FACT, AND APPARENTLY NO EVIDENCE, SHOWING THAT
THE RESPECTIVE PRINCIPAL TITANIUM PLANTS OF NATIONAL LEAD OR DU PONT
WERE ACQUIRED IN VIOLATION OF LAW, THAT THEY EVER WERE SEPARATELY OWNED
OR OPERATED, OR THAT THEY ARE ADAPTED TO SUCH OPERATION.  PRESUMABLY,
THE REQUESTED DIVESTITURE WOULD BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOUR
INSTEAD OF TWO INDEPENDENT MAJOR COMPETING PLANTS IN THE TITANIUM
PIGMENT INDUSTRY.  HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SHOWING WHETHER OR NOT THE TWO
LICENSEES, ZIRCONIUM (SUBSIDIARY OF GLIDDEN COMPANY) AND VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL (SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY), MAY NOT BE ABLE TO
DEVELOP, UNDER THE DECREE, EVEN MORE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION AGAINST
NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT THAN WOULD NEW CONCERNS OPERATING THE
DIVESTED PLANTS.  NO COMPARABLE PRECEDENTS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. 

THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT FOUR MAJOR COMPETING UNITS WOULD BE
PREFERABLE TO TWO, OR, INCLUDING ZIRCONIUM AND VIRGINIA CHEMICAL, THAT
SIX WOULD BE BETTER THAN FOUR.  LIKEWISE, THERE IS NO SHOWING OF THE
NECESSITY FOR THIS DIVESTITURE OF PLANTS OR OF ITS PRACTICALITY AND
FAIRNESS.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE SHOWN VIGOROUS AND EFFECTIVE
COMPETITION BETWEEN NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT IN THIS FIELD.  THE
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE PIGMENTS DEPARTMENT OF DU PONT CHARACTERIZED THE
COMPETITION WITH ZIRCONIUM AND VIRGINIA CHEMICAL AS "TOUGH" AND THAT
WITH NATIONAL LEAD AS "PLENTY TOUGH."  SUCH COMPETITION SUGGESTS THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD DO WELL TO REMOVE UNLAWFUL HANDICAPS FROM IT
BUT DEMONSTRATES NO SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR WEAKENING ITS FORCE BY
DIVESTING EACH OF THE TWO LARGEST COMPETITORS OF ONE OF ITS PRINCIPAL
PLANTS.  IT IS NOT FOR THE COURTS TO REALIGN AND REDIRECT EFFECTIVE AND
LAWFUL COMPETITION WHERE IT ALREADY EXISTS AND NEEDS ONLY TO BE
RELEASED FROM RESTRAINTS THAT VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  TO SEPARATE
THE OPERATING UNITS OF GOING CONCERNS WITHOUT MORE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
THAN HAS BEEN PRESENTED HERE TO ESTABLISH EITHER THE NEED FOR, OR THE
FEASIBILITY OF, SUCH SEPARATION WOULD AMOUNT TO AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION. 

C. REQUEST TO ADD A PROVISION REQUIRING NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT TO
FURNISH TO ANY APPLICANT, AT A REASONABLE CHARGE, DURING A PERIOD OF
THREE YEARS, TECHNICAL INFORMATION DESIRED BY THE APPLICANT RELATING TO
THE METHODS AND PROCESSES FOR MANUFACTURING TITANIUM PIGMENTS.  THIS
WOULD SUPERSEDE THE PROVISION NOW IN THE DECREE WHICH, DURING A PERIOD
OF THREE YEARS, MAKES AVAILABLE TO A LICENSEE CERTAIN INFORMATION IN
WRITING, AT A REASONABLE CHARGE, AS TO THE METHODS AND PROCESSES USED
BY HIS LICENSOR AT THE DATE OF THE LICENSE.  THIS IS URGED BY THE
GOVERNMENT IN NO. 89 AND OPPOSED BY NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT.  DU
PONT, IN NO. 91, GOES FURTHER AND URGES THE OMISSION OF ALL
REQUIREMENTS COMPELLING IT TO FURNISH TECHNICAL INFORMATION.    THE
REQUEST BY DU PONT TO ELIMINATE THIS REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER IS BASED,
IN PART, UPON THE EXPERIENCE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANIES.  DU PONT
EMPHASIZES THE FACT THAT THE TITANIUM PIGMENT INDUSTRY HAS MATURED AND
THAT, SINCE ABOUT MAY 1, 1940, THE EXCHANGE OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION
BETWEEN NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT HAS CEASED.  ALSO, THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THEM WHICH CALLED FOR THE EXCHANGE OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION WAS
AMENDED JANUARY 1, 1941, TO ELIMINATE THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING SUCH
EXCHANGE.  FINDING OF FACT 75.  DU PONT ARGUES THAT NEITHER ZIRCONIUM,
WHICH ENTERED THE INDUSTRY IN 1934, NOR VIRGINIA CHEMICAL, WHICH
ENTERED THE INDUSTRY IN 1935, EVER EXCHANGED TECHNICAL INFORMATION WITH
DU PONT OR RECEIVED ANY FROM DU PONT.  HOWEVER, FINDING OF FACT 84
SHOWS THAT, AS TO NATIONAL LEAD IN 1935 - 

"  ...  NL AND ZIRCONIUM CROSS LICENSED EACH OTHER UNDER ALL PATENTS
IN THE TITANIUM PIGMENT FIELD, THEN OWNED OR THEREAFTER ACQUIRED, AND
BOTH PARTIES AGREED TO EXCHANGE TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCE. 
... 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"NL DID RENDER SOME ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE TO ZIRCONIUM IN CONNECTION
WITH THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF ITS PROCESSES AND IMPARTED SOME
TECHNICAL INFORMATION BUT FREQUENTLY IT REFUSED TO CONVEY SUCH
TECHNOLOGY TO ZIRCONIUM ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY OTHER
AGREEMENTS FROM SO DOING. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"ON OCCASIONS BEFORE 1940 THERE WAS EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN
DP AND NL RELATIVE TO ZIRCONIUM'S PRODUCTION." 

VIRGINIA CHEMICAL WAS NOT LICENSED UNDER NATIONAL LEAD'S PATENTS AND
APPARENTLY DID NOT RECEIVE TECHNICAL INFORMATION FROM NATIONAL LEAD. 

FINDING OF FACT 95, SUBPARAGRAPH 8, CONTAINS A FURTHER MATERIAL
FINDING, ALTHOUGH THIS IS DISPUTED BY DU PONT: 

"THE DEFENDANTS NL AND DP SECURED A MONOPOLY ON TECHNICAL INFORMATION
RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE AND USE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND CERTAIN
APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO THE MANUFACTURE OF CERTAIN
TITANIUM PIGMENTS TO THE EXCLUSION AND DETRIMENT OF OTHER PRODUCERS NOW
ENGAGED IN THE TITANIUM PIGMENT BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES; WHEN NL
AND DP CEASED EXCHANGING TECHNICAL INFORMATION, THE TITANIUM PIGMENT
BUSINESS WAS A MATURE INDUSTRY." 

THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXCHANGE OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE UNDER THE
PRESENT DECREE IS MERELY THAT INCLUDED IN PARAGRAPH 7, WHICH IS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"DURING A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE SUCH
LICENSE OR RECIPROCAL LICENSE MAY AT THE OPTION OF EITHER PARTY CONTAIN
A PROVISION FOR THE IMPARTING IN WRITING AT A REASONABLE CHARGE, BY THE
LICENSOR TO THE LICENSEE, OF THE METHODS AND PROCESSES USED BY THE
FORMER AT THE DATE OF THE LICENSE IN ITS COMMERCIAL PRACTICE UNDER THE
LICENSED PATENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRODUCTION OF TITANIUM
PIGMENTS." 

THE LIMITED SCOPE OF THIS ACCESS TO TECHNICAL INFORMATION IS
APPARENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE
KNOWLEDGE WHICH THUS CAN BE SECURED MAY BE VITAL IN GIVING VALUE TO THE
COMPULSORY LICENSES WHICH ARE A CENTRAL FEATURE OF THE DECREE.  THE
INFORMATION IS PUT UPON A BASIS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF A LICENSE.  JUST
AS A LICENSEE IS REQUIRED TO PAY A UNIFORM, REASONABLE ROYALTY FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING UNDER THE PATENT, SO, ALSO, HE IS REQUIRED TO
PAY A REASONABLE CHARGE FOR THE INFORMATION AS TO METHODS AND PROCESSES
WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT TO HIM IN HIS COMMERCIAL PRACTICE UNDER THE
LICENSED PATENTS. 

THE NEED FOR TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO ACCOMPANY PATENT LICENSES IN
THIS FIELD, AT LEAST WHERE DESIRED BY A NEWCOMER, IS TESTIFIED TO
REPEATEDLY.  IF THERE BE SUCH A NEED, THE REASONABLENESS OF THIS
LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF IT AS STATED IN THE DECREE IS HARD TO DENY. 
FINDINGS OF FACT EVIDENCING THE IMPORTANCE OF SUCH INFORMATION INCLUDE
THE FOLLOWING: 

"NL WISHED TO POOL WITH DP ALL THEIR PATENTS AND TECHNICAL
INFORMATION RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE OR USE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS IN
THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO SETTLE ITS PATENT CONTROVERSIES WITH DP
AND TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO DP'S PATENTS AND TECHNICAL FACILITIES AND
JOINTLY TO CONTROL AND DOMINATE THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF TITANIUM
PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS; ...  BOTH TP AND KREBS BEGAN TO EXCHANGE
EXTENSIVELY TECHNICAL INFORMATION RELATING TO THE MANUFACTURE AND USE
OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS IN 1932 AND THE INFORMATION SO EXCHANGED RELATED
TO MUCH MORE THAN ANY ALLEGED CLAIMS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY EITHER
COMPANY.  BLUMENFELD AND HIS FOREIGN ASSOCIATES FURNISHED TECHNICAL AID
AND ASSISTANCE TO KREBS AT ITS INSTANCE FROM AUGUST 1931 UNTIL THE
APPROXIMATE DATE AT WHICH TP AND KREBS COMMENCED THE EXCHANGE OF
TECHNICAL INFORMATION IN 1932."  FINDING OF FACT 72. 

"DP AND NL EXCHANGED TECHNICAL INFORMATION RELATING IN ANY MANNER TO
THE MANUFACTURING OR USE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS OR COMPOUNDS FROM ABOUT
APRIL, 1932, UNTIL APRIL, 1940."  FINDING OF FACT 75. 

"IN ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT, EX. E (THE AGREEMENT OF JULY 1,
1933), NL HAD SEVERAL PURPOSES: 

1)  FOR ABOUT A YEAR PRIOR TO THE MAKING OF EX. E OFFICIALS OF NL HAD
BEEN CONCERNED BY THE EARLY EXPIRATION DATES OF MANY OF THE PATENTS
UPON WHICH NL RELIED.  BY EXCHANGING PATENTS AND TECHNOLOGY WITH DP, A
LARGE AND POWERFUL CORPORATION, POSSESSED OF GREAT RESEARCH FACILITIES,
NL EXPECTED TO STRENGTHEN THE PATENT MONOPOLY OF NL AND DP JOINTLY, AS
AGAINST NEWCOMERS IN THE TITANIUM PIGMENT BUSINESS. 

     .    .         .         .         . 

"DP'S PURPOSES IN ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT EX. E WERE: 

     .         .   .         .         . 

3)  TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO NL'S TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE AND PATENTS IN THE
TITANIUM PIGMENT FIELD AS WELL AS THE PATENTS AND THE EXPERIENCE OF
NL'S FOREIGN ASSOCIATES. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE NECESSARY EFFECTS OF THE AGREEMENT EX. E. AND OF DP ASSURANCES
HAVE BEEN 

1)  THE ACHIEVEMENT OF NL PURPOSES. 

2)  THE ACHIEVEMENT OF DP'S PURPOSES. 

3)  TO GIVE NL AND DP TOGETHER DOMINATION AND CONTROL OVER THE
TITANIUM PIGMENT BUSINESS IN THE U.S."  FINDING OF FACT 79. 

NATIONAL LEAD ON THIS POINT NOW TAKES A MIDDLE GROUND.  APPARENTLY IT
SUPPORTS THE PRESENT PROVISION IN THE DECREE AND OPPOSES ITS EXPANSION
AS PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT EXPRESSLY ENDORSES THE PRESENT
PROVISIONS IF THE DECREE IS AMENDED SO AS TO PUT THE COMPULSORY
LICENSES ON A ROYALTY-FREE BASIS.  IF IT APPROVES THIS GRANT OF ACCESS
TO TECHNICAL INFORMATION ON THAT BASIS, IT HARDLY CAN OBJECT TO IT IN
CONNECTION WITH LICENSES ON A UNIFORM, REASONABLE ROYALTY BASIS. 

THE FACT THAT THIS COURT ELIMINATED, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, PARAGRAPH
24(C) FROM THE HARTFORD-EMPIRE DECREE IS NOT CONTROLLING HERE. 
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 413, 418.  THE FACT THAT
THE VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST ACT MAY HAVE BEEN MORE REPREHENSIBLE IN
THAT CASE THAN HERE IS NOT PERSUASIVE BECAUSE THIS PROVISION IS NOT AND
SHOULD NOT BE PUNITIVE.  THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMPULSORY IMPARTING
OF METHODS AND PROCESSES RESTS UPON ITS APPROPRIATENESS AND UPON THE
NECESSITY FOR IT IN PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DECREE.  IN THE HARTFORD
EMPIRE DECREE, PARAGRAPH 24(C) PROPOSED TO MAKE AVAILABLE, TO ANY
LICENSEE UNDER PARAGRAPH 24(A)(WITHOUT ROYALTIES), OR UNDER PARAGRAPH
24(B)(WITH REASONABLE ROYALTIES), AT COST, PLUS A REASONABLE PROFIT,
"ALL DRAWINGS AND PATTERNS 'RELATING TO THE MACHINERY OR METHODS USED
IN THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASSWARE' EMBODIED IN THE LICENSED INVENTIONS
..."  ID. AT 413-414.  THIS COURT, IN THAT CASE, MODIFIED PARAGRAPHS
24(A) AND 24(B) AND DELETED PARAGRAPH 24(C).  IN THE ABSENCE OF A
STATEMENT OF THIS COURT'S REASONS FOR THE DELETION OF PARAGRAPH 24(C),
IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT, BY SUCH DELETION, IT ANNOUNCED ITS
DISAPPROVAL, IN ALL FUTURE DECREES, OF PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE
SUPPLYING OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO LICENSEES AT A REASONABLE
CHARGE. 

IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, TOOK
INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARGUMENT MADE BY NATIONAL LEAD THAT, IN THIS
FIELD, "THE PRODUCT CLAIMS COVER PRACTICALLY ALL SUCH IMPROVED TITANIUM
PIGMENTS; THUS, OF 23 DIFFERENT GRADES OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS (I.E.
DIFFERENT PRODUCTS) SOLD BY NL, 21 ARE COVERED BY UNEXPIRED PATENTS." 
FINDING OF FACT 37.  THEREFORE, THE IMPARTING TO THE NEWCOMER OF
METHODS AND PROCESSES COVERED BY THE DECREE MIGHT BE PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT TO HIM IN ENTERING THIS INDUSTRY WHERE SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS ARE COVERED EITHER BY PROCESS OR PRODUCT PATENTS. 

DU PONT HAS PRESENTED A STRONG CASE AGAINST COMPELLING IT TO MAKE
FURTHER DISCLOSURE OF ITS TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO ITS LEADING
COMPETITOR, NATIONAL LEAD, IN THIS COMPARATIVELY MATURE TECHNICAL
INDUSTRY, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE AGREEMENT OF 1941 BETWEEN THESE
COMPANIES EXPRESSLY TERMINATED THEIR PRE-EXISTING AGREEMENT TO SUPPLY
SUCH INFORMATION.  THIS ARGUMENT DOES NOT APPLY, HOWEVER, WITH
COMPARABLE FORCE, TO THE MANY OTHER SITUATIONS TOWARD WHICH THIS
PROVISION IS DIRECTED.  UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN VIEW OF THE
NARROW LIMITS WRITTEN INTO THE PROVISION BY THE DISTRICT COURT, WE
BELIEVE THAT IT REPRESENTS A PERMISSIBLE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL
DISCRETION.  IT IS TO BE JUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AS WELL AS THAT OF THE PRIVATE INTERESTS CONCERNED.  THAT
PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES THAT THE COURT BE PERMITTED TO PRODUCE THE
MOST EFFECTIVE AND GENERALLY FAIR DECREE THAT IT CAN DEVISE TO GIVE
EFFECT SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND THE PATENT LAWS. 

THIS DECISION RELIES ALSO ON THE PERMISSIBLE BREADTH OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DISCRETION OVER THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE SHARED WITH THE WORLD.  THE ATTEMPT
OF THE GOVERNMENT TO THROW THE FIELD OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE IN THE
TITANIUM PIGMENT INDUSTRY WIDE-OPEN WOULD REDUCE THE COMPETITIVE VALUE
OF THE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH OF THE PARTIES.  IT WOULD DISCOURAGE RATHER
THAN ENCOURAGE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH.  IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO, RATHER
THAN IN CONFORMITY WITH, THE POLICY OF THE PATENT LAWS NOW IN FORCE. 
CHANGES IN THE UNDERLYING POLICIES OF THE PATENT LAWS FREQUENTLY HAVE
BEEN PRESENTED TO CONGRESS,  FN10  BUT CONGRESS, BY ITS FAILURE TO
ACCEPT THOSE CHANGES, HAS ADDED TO, RATHER THAN DETRACTED FROM, THE
STRENGTH OF THE PRESENT AND TRADITIONAL PATENT POLICIES. 

D. REQUEST TO OMIT THE PROVISION THAT NATIONAL LEAD AND DU PONT,
RESPECTIVELY, MAY MAKE THE GRANT OF ANY LICENSE BY EITHER OF THEM TO AN
APPLICANT UNDER THE DECREE CONDITIONED UPON THE RECIPROCAL GRANT OF A
LICENSE BY THE APPLICANT, AT A REASONABLE ROYALTY, UNDER CERTAIN
DESCRIBED PATENTS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY SUCH APPLICANT.  THIS IS URGED
BY THE GOVERNMENT IN NO. 89 AND OPPOSED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANIES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, DURING THE CONFERENCES ON THE TERMS OF THE
DECREE, SUMMARIZED THE NEED FOR THIS PROVISION BY A CONCRETE
ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT IT SUGGESTED MIGHT HAPPEN WITHOUT IT.  IT SAID: 

"OTHERWISE YOU WILL ARRIVE AT A SITUATION CONCEIVABLY WHERE VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL WOULD SIMPLY CHANGE PLACES WITH DU PONT IN BECOMING THE
DOMINATING FACTOR IN THE INDUSTRY UNDER THIS EXTRAORDINARY ADVANTAGE OF
BEING ABLE TO TAKE EVERYTHING FOR ITSELF AND KEEPING EVERYTHING THAT IT
HAS." 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISTINGUISHED THE PRESENT CASE FROM THE HARTFORD
EMPIRE CASE BY SHOWING THAT, IN THE LATTER, THERE HAD NOT BEEN A
SIMILAR REASON FOR INSERTING THE RECIPROCAL REQUIREMENT.  IN THAT CASE,
THE COURT WAS DEALING WITH A LICENSOR ORGANIZATION WHICH HAD NO USE FOR
PATENTS EXCEPT FOR THE RESULTING CONTROL OVER LICENSING AND,
CONSEQUENTLY, IT WOULD HAVE DERIVED NO BENEFIT FROM CROSS-LICENSES. 
THE RECIPROCAL CLAUSE INCLUDES AN APPROPRIATE REFERENCE TO FUTURE
PATENTS.  AS A FIVE-YEAR LIMIT IS PUT ON THE PATENTS WHICH WILL BE
SUBJECT TO THE COMPULSORY LICENSE CLAUSE, UNDER PARAGRAPHS 4 AND 7 OF
THE DECREE, SO ALSO THE RECIPROCAL LICENSES ARE LIMITED BY PARAGRAPH 7
TO "PATENTS COVERING TITANIUM PIGMENTS OR THEIR MANUFACTURE, NOW ISSUED
OR PENDING, OR ISSUED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE
...  " 

HERE AGAIN, THE PROVISION IS WELL WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN SEEKING MEANS TO FIT THE RELIEF IT GRANTS TO THE
NEEDS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, ALWAYS WITH DUE REGARD TO THE UNDERLYING
PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IS INHERENT IN THE ANTITRUST AND PATENT LAWS. 
FN11 

E. REQUEST TO OMIT THE SIX-MONTHS' TIME LIMIT IMPOSED BY THE DECREE
UPON THE OPTIONS OF AMERICAN ZIRCONIUM CORPORATION AND VIRGINIA
CHEMICAL CORPORATION, RESPECTIVELY, TO SECURE CERTAIN LICENSES UNDER
THE DECREE.  THIS IS URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN NO. 89.  IT IS NOT
DISCUSSED HERE IN THE BRIEFS OF THE OTHER PARTIES.  THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE DECREE OF OCTOBER 11, 1945, WAS STAYED AND SUSPENDED, BY THE
ORDER OF MR. JUSTICE REED ENTERED JANUARY 2, 1946, PENDING
DETERMINATION OF THE PRESENT APPEALS TO THIS COURT, SO THAT MORE THAN
SIX MONTHS ALREADY HAVE PASSED SINCE THE ORIGINAL DATE OF THE DECREE
WITHOUT PREJUDICING THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AFFECTED.  IN VIEW OF
SUCH SUSPENSION AND OF THE NEW EFFECTIVE DATE TO BE GIVEN TO THE
DECREE, PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, THERE WILL BE AMPLE TIME
FOR THE EXERCISE OF THIS OPTION UNDER ITS TERMS. 

F. REQUEST TO MODIFY THE LANGUAGE OF THE DECREE SO AS TO ELIMINATE
LANGUAGE WHICH, IT IS CLAIMED, ENJOINS NORMAL AND USUAL BUSINESS
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT COMPANIES AND OTHER PRODUCERS OF
TITANIUM PRODUCTS.  THIS IS URGED BY NATIONAL LEAD IN NO. 90 AND IS
OPPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE PRECISE REQUEST IS TO STRIKE FROM
PARAGRAPHS 5 AND 6 OF THE DECREE CERTAIN LANGUAGE SHOWN IN THE MARGIN
OF THIS TEXT IN ITALICS AND TO INSERT IN PARAGRAPH 6 THE WORD
"PRODUCER" AT THE POINT THERE SHOWN IN CAPITAL LETTERS.  FN12  NATIONAL
LEAD CONTENDS THAT THE CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENTS, AS ORDERED IN
PARAGRAPH 5, AND THE INJUNCTION, AS ORDERED IN PARAGRAPHS 5 AND 6,
AGAINST THE FURTHER PERFORMANCE OR THE CONTINUATION OR RENEWAL OF THE
UNLAWFUL PROVISIONS THEREOF (NAMELY, DIVISION OF SALES OR MANUFACTURING
TERRITORY, ALLOCATION OF MARKETS, LIMITATION OF IMPORTS OR EXPORTS,
RESTRICTIONS ON USE, ETC.) WILL INSURE COMPLETE AND EFFECTIVE RELIEF
WITHOUT SUBJECTING NATIONAL LEAD OR DU PONT TO UNDUE HARDSHIP AND
LOSSES.  ACCORDINGLY, NATIONAL LEAD STATES THAT IT ASKS FOR THE CHANGES
HERE INDICATED IN THE INTEREST OF PROMOTING TRADE AND COMPETITION IN
TITANIUM PIGMENTS. 

WE AGREE, HOWEVER, WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION THAT
PARAGRAPH 5 DEALS SOLELY WITH THE FUTURE ENFORCEABILITY OF EXISTING
CONTRACTS AND THAT THE DELETION OF THE WORDS REQUESTED BY NATIONAL LEAD
IS NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO FUTURE CONTRACTS. 
PARAGRAPH 6 DEALS WITH FUTURE CONTRACTS.  CLAUSE (A) ENJOINS THE
PARTIES FROM ENTERING INTO OR ADHERING TO ANY AGREEMENT, PLAN OR
PROGRAM "WHICH HAS AS ITS PURPOSE OR EFFECT THE CONTINUING OR RENEWING
OF ANY OF THE AGREEMENTS LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 5  ...  "  SINCE SUCH
AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT, THIS PROVISION
IMPOSES NO UNJUSTIFIED RESTRICTION ON NATIONAL LEAD'S POWER TO
CONTRACT.  WE FIND ALSO NO SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR INSERTING THE WORD
"PRODUCER" AS REQUESTED IN PARAGRAPH 6.  IF NATIONAL LEAD LATER CAN
DEMONSTRATE THAT ITS RIGHT OF CONTRACT HAS BEEN UNDULY RESTRICTED, IT
MAY, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE DECREE, APPLY TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A
MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT. 

G. REQUEST TO OMIT THE REQUIREMENT THAT NATIONAL LEAD AND TITAN INC.,
WITHIN ONE YEAR, SHALL PRESENT TO THE DISTRICT COURT, FOR ITS APPROVAL,
A PLAN FOR DIVESTING THEMSELVES OF THEIR STOCKHOLDINGS AND OTHER
FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN CERTAIN FOREIGN COMPANIES OR FOR THE PURCHASE OF
THE ENTIRE STOCKHOLDINGS AND INTERESTS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, IN SUCH
COMPANIES OR ANY OF THEM.  TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, NATIONAL LEAD AND TITAN
INC., IN NO. 90, URGE THE DELETION OF PARAGRAPH 8 FROM THE DECREE. 
FN13  THE GOVERNMENT OPPOSES SUCH DELETION.  THE REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY
PARAGRAPH 8 IS MERELY THAT CERTAIN PARTIES SHALL PRESENT TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, WITHIN ONE YEAR, A PLAN SUBJECT TO ITS APPROVAL.  THAT
COURT, DURING THE CONFERENCES ON THE TERMS OF THE DECREE, SAID: "IN
OTHER WORDS, THE STOCK ACQUISITIONS WERE PART AND PARCEL OF THE
TERRITORIAL ALLOCATION AGREEMENTS, AND PROBABLY WERE A NECESSARY
ELEMENT IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TERRITORIAL ARRANGEMENT."  WE FIND
AMPLE REASONS IN THE RECORD FOR THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
INSERTING PARAGRAPH 8 IN THE DECREE.  IT IS RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE
INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER PERFORMANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
AGREEMENTS LISTED IN THE DECREE AS BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT. 

IN THUS DISPOSING OF THE POINTS RELIED UPON IN THE RESPECTIVE
APPEALS, THE DECREE WILL REMAIN AS ORIGINALLY ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, EXCEPTING ONLY THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE STAY
AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE CONTAINED IN
PARAGRAPHS 5, 8, 9, 10 AND 11 THEREOF, WHICH WERE GRANTED PENDING
DETERMINATION OF THESE APPEALS TO THIS COURT, THE DECREE SHALL BE
DEEMED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS AND FOR THE RUNNING OF
TIME THEREUNDER, TO TAKE EFFECT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MANDATE TO
BE ISSUED BY THIS COURT. 

FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH, THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO AMEND
ITS ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IS GRANTED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SECTION 1.  EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL:  ...  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MAKE ANY CONTRACT OR ENGAGE IN
ANY COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL SHALL BE
DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING $5,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING
ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT."  50 STAT. 693-694, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN2  THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF THE DISTRICT COURT WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  BEGINNING ON OR ABOUT JULY 30, 1920, NL AND CO-CONSPIRATOR TAS
(TITAN CO. A/S TO WHICH TITAN INC. BECAME A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST) AND
ON VARIOUS DATES THEREAFTER TINC, DP AND THE OTHERS FOUND HEREIN TO BE
CO-CONSPIRATORS CONTINUING AT ALL TIMES THEREAFTER TO THE DATE OF THESE
FINDINGS HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY ENGAGED IN A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE IN TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WITH FOREIGN NATIONS
AND HAVE BEEN AND ARE NOW PARTIES TO CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS AND
UNDERSTANDINGS IN RESTRAINT OF SUCH TRADE AND COMMERCE. 

"2.  PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE."  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V.
NATIONAL LEAD CO., 63 F.SUPP.  513, 527, 531, 532. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 4, INFRA. 

FN4  "THIS CAUSE CAME ON TO BE HEARD UPON THE COMPLAINT AND THE
ANSWERS THERETO UPON THE EVIDENCE AND UPON ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.  THE
COURT HAVING THEREAFTER RENDERED AND FILED ITS OPINION AND HAVING MADE
AND ENTERED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHEREIN THE
DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A COMBINATION IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE IN TITANIUM PIGMENTS AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF FOREIGN NATIONS, AND THAT THE
DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN AND NOW ARE PARTIES TO CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, AND
UNDERSTANDINGS IN RESTRAINT OF SUCH TRADE AND COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF

"NOW, THEREFORE, UPON MOTION OF PLAINTIFF BY WENDELL BERGE, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, HERBERT BERMAN AND WILLIAM C. DIXON, SPECIAL
ASSISTANTS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JULIAN CAPLAN AND EPHRAIM JACOBS,
SPECIAL ATTORNEYS, AND JOHN F. X. MCGOHEY, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, FOR
RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRAYER OF THE COMPLAINT, AND THE
DEFENDANTS HAVING SEVERALLY APPEARED BY COUNSEL, IT IS ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  THE TERM 'TITANIUM PIGMENTS' AS USED HEREIN SHALL MEAN ANY
PRODUCT CONTAINING TWO PERCENT (2%) OR MORE OF THE ELEMENT TITANIUM IN
A CHEMICALLY, MECHANICALLY OR PHYSICALLY COMBINED STATE AND MIXTURES
THEREOF WHICH CAN BE USED AS PIGMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT ADAPTED FOR OTHER
USES, AND ALSO EXTENDERS TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY SUCH
PRODUCT. 

"2.  THE TERM 'DEFENDANTS' SHALL MEAN THE CORPORATIONS HEREINAFTER
LISTED WHO MAY BE IDENTIFIED BY THE DESIGNATED ABBREVIATIONS: 

NL               NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY 

TINC             TITAN COMPANY, INC. 

DP       E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 

"3.  THE TERM 'CO-CONSPIRATORS' SHALL MEAN THE CORPORATIONS
HEREINAFTER LISTED, WHO MAY BE IDENTIFIED BY THE DESIGNATED
ABBREVIATIONS: 

TP              THE TITANIUM PIGMENT COMPANY, INC. 

KREBS       KREBS PIGMENT & COLOR CORPORATION 

TAS              TITAN CO. A/S 

IG               INTERESSENGEMEINSCHAFT FARBENINDUSTRIE
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT 

TG               TITANGESELLSCHAFT M.B.H. 

SIT              SOCIETE INDUSTRIELLE DU TITANE 

ICI              IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD. 

GW               GOODLASS WALL AND LEAD INDUSTRIES, LTD. 

ISC             IMPERIAL SMELTING CORPORATION, LTD. 

BTP       BRITISH TITAN PRODUCTS COMPANY, LTD. 

NTP OR LAPORTE  NATIONAL TITANIUM PIGMENTS, LTD. 

CIL              CANADIAN INDUSTRIES, LTD. 

CTP              CANADIAN TITANIUM PIGMENTS, LTD. 

KOKUSAN OR KK    KOKUSAN KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA 

TK               TITAN KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA 

TERRES RARES     SOCIETE DES PRODUITS CHIMIQUES DES TERRES RARES 

THANN            FABRIQUES DES PRODUITS CHIMIQUES DE THANN ET DE
MULHOUSE 

MONTECATINI      SOCIETA ANONIMA TITANIUM 

AUSSIG           VEREIN FUR CHEMISCHE UND METALLURGISCHE PRODUKTION 

"4.  THE TERM 'PATENTS AS HEREIN DEFINED' SHALL MEAN UNITED STATES
LETTERS PATENT AND APPLICATIONS AS FOLLOWS:  (A) THE LETTERS PATENT AND
PATENT APPLICATIONS LISTED IN APPENDIX A HEREOF; (B) ALL DIVISIONS,
CONTINUATIONS OR REISSUES OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING PATENTS AND
APPLICATIONS; (C) ALL PATENTS ISSUED UPON SUCH APPLICATIONS; (D) ALL
PATENTS WHICH COVER ANY TITANIUM PIGMENTS OR ANY PROCESS FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS ISSUED TO ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS WITHIN
FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE; AND ALL SUCH PATENTS WHICH ANY
OF THE DEFENDANTS ACQUIRES WITHIN SUCH FIVE YEARS; AND ALL SUCH PATENTS
OF WHICH ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS BECOMES THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE WITHIN
SUCH FIVE YEARS WITH POWER TO SUBLICENSE. 

"5.  THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENTS ARE HEREBY ADJUDGED TO BE UNLAWFUL
UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND EACH OF THEM IS HEREBY CANCELLED
AND THE DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM AND ALL PERSONS ACTING OR CLAIMING
TO ACT THROUGH, FOR OR UNDER THEM AND ALL SUCCESSORS AND SUBSIDIARIES
OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS ARE HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED FROM THE
FURTHER PERFORMANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENTS AND OF
ANY AGREEMENTS AMENDATORY THEREOF OR SUPPLEMENTAL THERETO: 

AGREEMENT DATED JULY 30, 1920, BETWEEN TP AND TAS (EXHIBIT A); 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN TP AND KREBS DATED JANUARY 1, 1933, AS AMENDED
JANUARY 1, 1941(EXHIBITS E AND E-3); 

AGREEMENTS DATED JULY 30, 1920, BETWEEN NL, TP, THE TITANIUM ALLOY
MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND TAS (EXHIBITS A-1 AND A-2); 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAS AND SIT DATED MARCH 3, 1927(EXHIBIT B); 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAS AND IG DATED OCTOBER 3 AND 20, 1927(EXHIBIT
C); 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAS AND IG SIGNED JUNE 24 AND OCTOBER 20,
1927(EXHIBIT C-1); 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAS AND TG SIGNED OCTOBER 3 AND 20, 1927(EXHIBIT C
3); 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN TG AND TAS DATED OCTOBER 3 AND 20, 1927(EXHIBIT C
7); 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN TG AND TAS DATED OCTOBER 3 AND 20, 1927(EXHIBIT C
8); 

AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1933 BETWEEN ICI, ISC, GW AND TINC
(EXHIBIT F); 

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TINC, SIT, TERRES RARES, AND THANN DATED JUNE 5
AND 17, 1935(EXHIBITS G-1 AND G-2); 

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TINC, TERRES RARES, AND IG, AND BETWEEN TINC,
TERRES RARES, IG, TG, THANN, AND DOITSU (DOITSU SENRYO GOMEI KAISHA,
KOBE/JAPAN) BOTH DATED JANUARY 18, 1936(EXHIBITS J AND J-2); 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN NL AND CIL DATED JANUARY 1, 1937(EXHIBIT K); 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN NL AND CTP DATED JANUARY 1, 1937, AS AMENDED
FEBRUARY 27, 1939(EXHIBITS K-1 AND K-5); 

AGREEMENTS BETWEEN DP AND TINC DATED JULY 27, 1937, JUNE 20, 1938,
APRIL 21, 1939, MAY 10, 1940, AND JUNE 23, 1941(EXHIBITS M, N, Q, R AND
S), AND THE 

'LICENSE FIELD EXTENDER' AGREEMENTS TO WHICH NL OR TINC WERE PARTIES,
INCLUDING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NL AND TINC DATED MARCH 28,
1939(EXHIBIT O); 

PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH WITH RESPECT
TO THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TP AND KREBS DATED JANUARY 1, 1933, AS
AMENDED JANUARY 1, 1941(EXHIBITS E AND E-3) SHALL NOT GO INTO EFFECT
UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF NINE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE. 

"6.  EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEIR DIRECTORS, OFFICERS,
AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, SUCCESSORS AND SUBSIDIARIES AND ALL PERSONS ACTING,
OR CLAIMING TO ACT UNDER, THROUGH OR FOR THEM OR ANY OF THEM ARE HEREBY
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED (A) FROM ENTERING INTO, ADHERING TO,
MAINTAINING OR FURTHERING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OR CLAIMING ANY
RIGHTS UNDER ANY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDING, PLAN OR PROGRAM
AMONG THEMSELVES, THE CO-CONSPIRATORS, OR WITH ANY OTHER PERSON,
PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION, WHICH HAS AS ITS PURPOSE OR EFFECT THE
CONTINUING OR RENEWING OF ANY OF THE AGREEMENTS LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 5
HEREOF; (B) FROM ENTERING INTO, ADHERING TO, MAINTAINING OR FURTHERING,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, UNDERTAKING, PLAN OR
PROGRAM WITH ANY OTHER PRODUCER OR DEALER RELATING TO TITANIUM PIGMENTS
WHICH HAS AS ITS PURPOSE OR EFFECT (1) TO DIVIDE SALES OR MANUFACTURING
TERRITORIES, (2) TO ALLOCATE MARKETS, (3) TO LIMIT OR PREVENT UNITED
STATES IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, (4) TO GRANT TO ANY THIRD PARTY ANY MARKET
AS ITS EXCLUSIVE TERRITORY, (5) TO KEEP ANY THIRD PARTY OUT OF ANY
MARKET; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUBDIVISION
(B) OF THIS PARAGRAPH 6 SHALL PROHIBIT ANY NORMAL AND USUAL
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN ANY DEFENDANT AND ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS,
EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, OR ANY DEALER OR DISTRIBUTOR, WHETHER
OR NOT A CO-CONSPIRATOR; (C) FROM RESTRICTING ANY PURCHASER OF TITANIUM
PIGMENTS IN THE USE THEREOF. 

"7.  EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS IS ORDERED TO GRANT TO ANY APPLICANT
THEREFOR, INCLUDING ANY DEFENDANT OR CO-CONSPIRATOR, A NONEXCLUSIVE
LICENSE UNDER ANY OR ALL OF THE PATENTS AS HEREIN DEFINED AT A UNIFORM,
REASONABLE ROYALTY.  SUCH GRANT MAY, AT THE OPTION OF THE LICENSOR, BE
CONDITIONED UPON THE RECIPROCAL GRANT OF A LICENSE BY THE APPLICANT, AT
A REASONABLE ROYALTY, UNDER ANY AND ALL PATENTS COVERING TITANIUM
PIGMENTS OR THEIR MANUFACTURE, NOW ISSUED OR PENDING, OR ISSUED WITHIN
FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE, IF ANY, OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY
SUCH APPLICANT.  SUCH LICENSE OR RECIPROCAL LICENSE MAY, AT THE OPTION
OF EITHER PARTY, CONTAIN A PROVISION FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE BOOKS
AND RECORDS OF THE LICENSEE BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR WHO SHALL REPORT
TO THE LICENSOR ONLY THE AMOUNT OF ROYALTY DUE AND PAYABLE AND NO OTHER
INFORMATION.  DURING A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS
DECREE SUCH LICENSE OR RECIPROCAL LICENSE MAY AT THE OPTION OF EITHER
PARTY CONTAIN A PROVISION FOR THE IMPARTING IN WRITING, AT A REASONABLE
CHARGE, BY THE LICENSOR TO THE LICENSEE, OF THE METHODS AND PROCESSES
USED BY THE FORMER AT THE DATE OF THE LICENSE IN ITS COMMERCIAL
PRACTICE UNDER THE LICENSED PATENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRODUCTION
OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS.  THE COURT RESERVES JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE
REASONABLENESS OF ANY ROYALTY OR CHARGE HEREIN DIRECTED TO BE
REASONABLE.  DEFENDANTS ARE RESTRAINED FROM ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE ANY
RIGHTS UNDER ANY FOREIGN PATENTS OWNED BY THEM OR UNDER WHICH THEY ARE
THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES TO PREVENT THE EXPORTATION OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS
FROM THE UNITED STATES TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY.    "8.  WITHIN ONE YEAR
FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE, DEFENDANTS NL AND TINC SHALL PRESENT TO
THE COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL A PLAN FOR DIVESTING THEMSELVES OF THEIR
STOCK HOLDINGS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTEREST, DIRECT AND INDIRECT, IN
BTP, CTP, TG AND TK, OR FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE ENTIRE STOCK HOLDINGS
AND OTHER FINANCIAL INTERESTS, DIRECT AND INDIRECT, IN SAID COMPANIES
OR ANY OF THEM.  SUCH PLAN OF SALE SHALL NOT PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER
OF SUCH STOCK OR INTEREST TO ANY OTHER DEFENDANT OR TO ANY CORPORATION
IN WHICH ANY DEFENDANT WILL, UPON CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN, HAVE ANY
INTEREST, PROVIDED THAT THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF
SAID DEFENDANTS' STOCK HOLDINGS IN BTP TO ISC, GW, AND ICI, OR ANY OF
THEM, OR PRECLUDE TRANSFER OF SAID DEFENDANTS' STOCK HOLDINGS IN CTP TO
CIL.  THE PLAN SHALL PROVIDE FOR ITS COMPLETION WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM
THE DATE OF THIS DECREE. 

"9.  EITHER AMERICAN ZIRCONIUM CORPORATION OR VIRGINIA CHEMICAL
CORPORATION, THEIR SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, MAY AT THEIR OPTION, IF
EXERCISED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE, APPLY FOR
LICENSES FROM DP UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 7.  IN THE EVENT
AMERICAN ZIRCONIUM CORPORATION, VIRGINIA CHEMICAL CORPORATION OR THEIR
RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS EXERCISE THE FOREGOING OPTION, DP IS
ENJOINED FROM COLLECTING ROYALTIES UNDER ANY EXISTING LICENSE AGREEMENT
RELATING TO TITANIUM PIGMENTS BETWEEN IT AND THE PERSON EXERCISING THE
OPTION IN RESPECT OF ANY PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO SUCH EXERCISE. 
DEFENDANTS NL, TINC AND DP ARE HEREBY ENJOINED FROM BRINGING, OR
THREATENING TO BRING, ANY ACTION AGAINST ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION FOR
THE ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS DECREE OF ANY PATENT
AS HEREIN DEFINED. 

"10.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OR HIS PROPER
REPRESENTATIVE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS
DECREE, BE PERMITTED (1) ACCESS, DURING THE OFFICE HOURS OF THE
DEFENDANTS, TO ALL BOOKS, LEDGERS, ACCOUNTS, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDA,
AND OTHER RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OR UNDER THE CONTROL
OF THE DEFENDANTS, RELATING TO ANY MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS DECREE,
(2) SUBJECT TO ANY LEGALLY RECOGNIZED PRIVILEGE, WITHOUT RESTRAINT OR
INTERFERENCE FROM THE DEFENDANTS, TO INTERVIEW OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF
THE DEFENDANTS, WHO MAY HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT, REGARDING ANY SUCH
MATTERS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE MEANS
PERMITTED IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT BE DIVULGED BY ANY REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN A DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXCEPT IN THE COURSE OF
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS
DECREE IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY OR AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED
BY LAW. 

"11.  JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS FOR ALL COSTS TO BE
TAXED IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

"12.  THE CANCELLATIONS, INJUNCTIONS AND ALL EXECUTORY ACTION
PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS DECREE SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE OR OPERATIVE
UNTIL NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECREE. 

"13.  JURISDICTION OF THIS CAUSE, AND OF THE PARTIES HERETO, IS
RETAINED BY THE COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING ANY OF THE PARTIES TO
THIS DECREE, OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION THAT MAY HEREAFTER
BECOME BOUND, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THEREBY TO APPLY TO THE COURT AT ANY
TIME FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDERS, MODIFICATIONS, VACATIONS OR DIRECTIONS AS
MAY BE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE 

(1)  FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR CARRYING OUT OF THIS DECREE, AND 

(2)  FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THEREWITH AND THE PUNISHMENT
OF VIOLATIONS THEREOF." 

"APPENDIX A" CONSISTS ONLY OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF NATIONAL LEAD'S
82 PATENTS AND 20 APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS; TITAN INC.'S 19 PATENTS AND
1 APPLICATION; TITAN CO. A/S'S 2 PATENTS; I.G. FARBENINDUSTRIE'S 22
PATENTS; TITANGESELLSCHAFT'S 2 PATENTS; AND DU PONT'S 175 PATENTS AND
30 APPLICATIONS.  THE REFERENCES IN THE DECREE TO EXHIBITS REFER TO
SUCH EXHIBITS AS THEY ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE RECORD OF THIS CASE IN THE
DISTRICT COURT. 

FN5  "CARTELS HAVE BEEN DEFINED BY TWO OF THE FOREMOST MEMBERS AND
ADVOCATES OF SUCH BODIES.  IN THE WORDS OF SIR ALFRED MOND, ORGANIZER
OF IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES: 

"'I USE THE WORD CARTEL TO INCLUDE FUSION, POOLING ARRANGEMENT, QUOTA
ARRANGEMENT AND PRICE CONVENTION, BECAUSE A CARTEL IS PROTEAN IN ITS
FORM.  ...  IN AN ULTRATECHNICAL WAY, A CARTEL MIGHT BE DEFINED AS A
COMBINATION OF PRODUCERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING, AS A RULE,
PRODUCTION, AND, FREQUENTLY, PRICES.  ... ' 

"IN THE WORDS OF SIR FELIX J. C. POLE, CHAIRMAN OF ASSOCIATED
ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.: 

"'A CARTEL OR ASSOCIATION USUALLY MEANS AN ASSOCIATION BY AGREEMENT
OF COMPANIES OR SECTIONS OF COMPANIES HAVING COMMON INTERESTS.  IT IS
DESIGNED TO PREVENT EXTREME OR UNFAIR COMPETITION AND ALLOCATE MARKETS,
AND IT MAY ALSO EXTEND TO INTERCHANGE OF KNOWLEDGE RESULTING FROM
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH, EXCHANGE OF PATENT RIGHTS,
STANDARDIZATION OF PRODUCTS, ETC.  COMPETITION IS NOT ELIMINATED, BUT
IT IS REGULATED.  COMPETITION IN QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, AND SERVICE TAKES
THE PLACE OF THE CRUDE METHOD OF PRICE CUTTING.'"  MONOGRAPH NO. 1,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WAR MOBILIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS,
U.S. SENATE, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., PART I, P. 1.  QUOTED ALSO IN UNITED
STATES V. NATIONAL LEAD CO., 63 F.SUPP.  513, 523, NOTE 5. 

FN6  "THIS PURPOSE WAS ACCOMPLISHED.  THE DEFENDANT NL AND TAS AGREED
TO HAVE TAS AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEFENDANT TINC FORM IN EACH OF THE
IMPORTANT INDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD, IN ASSOCIATION WITH A
LOCAL CORPORATION OR FIRM WHICH CONTEMPLATED THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE
OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS OR WHICH COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE
TECHNICAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR WHICH THREATENED TO BE A SERIOUS
COMPETITOR OF NL AND TAS, A NEW COMPANY IN WHICH NL OR TAS WERE TO HAVE
A PART INTEREST.  ANY NEW COMPANY SO FORMED WAS TO BE GIVEN CERTAIN
TERRITORY IN WHICH IT WOULD HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE AND
SELL TITANIUM PIGMENTS AND COMPOUNDS FREE FROM ANY EXPORTS INTO SAID
TERRITORY BY NL.  THE NEW COMPANY SO ORGANIZED WAS TO REFRAIN FROM
COMPETING WITH NL IN ITS TERRITORY (THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER
COUNTRIES OF NORTH AMERICA) OR IN THE TERRITORY OF ANY OTHER COMPANY
ASSOCIATED WITH NL.  TAS AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEFENDANT TINC WERE TO MAKE
SAID CONTRACTS PROVIDING FOR THE FORMATION OF THE NEW COMPANIES AND NL
WAS TO BE BOUND TO ADHERE TO ALL OF THE TERRITORIAL RESTRICTIONS PLACED
ON TAS AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEFENDANT TINC IN SUCH CONTRACTS BY VIRTUE OF
CONTRACT EXHIBIT A. (THE AGREEMENT OF JULY 30, 1920.)  ALL THE PRESENT
AND FUTURE PATENTS BELONGING TO NL OR TAS OR ANY OF THE COMPANIES
ASSOCIATED WITH EITHER IN THE FORMATION OF SUCH NEW COMPANIES, AS WELL
AS THOSE OF THE NEW COMPANIES TO BE ORGANIZED, WERE TO BE LICENSED
EXCLUSIVELY TO NL FOR NORTH AMERICA AND TO THE NEW COMPANIES TO BE
ORGANIZED FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE EXCLUSIVE TERRITORIES AND TO TAS AND
SUBSEQUENTLY DEFENDANT TINC FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD."  FINDING OF
FACT 48. 

FN7  HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS ON H.R. 23,417, 62D CONG.,
2D SESS. (1912), PART XII, PP. 10-11; H.R. REP. 1161, 62D CONG., 2D
SESS. (1912), PART 2, P. 8; REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION APPOINTED TO CONSIDER THE KING BILL, S. 383, 74TH CONG.
(1935), P. 38. 

FN8  A RECENT RECOGNITION OF A REASONABLE ROYALTY TEST IS CONTAINED
IN CHAPTER 726 OF THE 79TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION: 

"  ...  UPON A JUDGMENT BEING RENDERED IN ANY CASE FOR AN
INFRINGEMENT THE COMPLAINANT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER GENERAL
DAMAGES WHICH SHALL BE DUE COMPENSATION FOR MAKING, USING, OR SELLING
THE INVENTION, NOT LESS THAN A REASONABLE ROYALTY THEREFOR, TOGETHER
WITH SUCH COSTS, AND INTEREST, AS MAY BE FIXED BY THE COURT...."  R.S.
SEC. 4921, AS AMENDED AUGUST 1, 1946, 60 STAT. 778, 35 U.S.C.A. SEC.
70(SUPP.  1946), RELATING TO THE POWER OF COURTS TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS
AND ESTIMATE DAMAGES. 

THE MOST RECENT AND OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE OF ITS RECOGNITION IS IN
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 413-417. 

IN PATENT ACCOUNTING SUITS, WHERE THE PROFITS OR DAMAGES CANNOT BE
ASCERTAINED AND NO STANDARD OF COMPARISON IS AVAILABLE, THE COURT MAY
ALLOW A REASONABLE ROYALTY. 

"BUT, AS THE PATENT HAD BEEN KEPT A CLOSE MONOPOLY, THERE WAS NO
ESTABLISHED ROYALTY.  IN THAT SITUATION IT WAS PERMISSIBLE TO SHOW THE
VALUE BY PROVING WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A REASONABLE ROYALTY, CONSIDERING
THE NATURE OF THE INVENTION, ITS UTILITY AND ADVANTAGES, AND THE EXTENT
OF THE USE INVOLVED.  NOT IMPROBABLY SUCH PROOF WAS MORE DIFFICULT TO
PRODUCE, BUT IT WAS QUITE AS ADMISSIBLE AS THAT OF AN ESTABLISHED
ROYALTY."  DOWAGIAC MFG. CO. V. MINNESOTA PLOW CO., 235 U.S. 641, 648. 

SEE ALSO, SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN CORP., 309 U.S. 390, 404; SUFFOLK
CO. V. HAYDEN, 3 WALL.  315, 320; 3 WALKER ON PATENTS SEC. 833(DELLER'S
ED. 1937)(ID. 1945 POCKET SUPP.); 56 YALE L.J. 77. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., CCH TRADE REG. SERV.
P57,498(D.C.N.D. CALIF., 1946); UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN AIR FILTER
CO., CCH TRADE REG. SERV. P57,492(D.C.W.D. KY. 1946); UNITED STATES V.
LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD GLASS CO., CCH TRADE REG. SERV. P57,489(D.C.N.D. OHIO
1946); UNITED STATES V. DIAMOND MATCH CO., CCH TRADE REG. SERV.
P57,456(D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1946); UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELEC.  CO., CCH
TRADE REG. SERV. P57,448(D.C.N.J. 1946); UNITED STATES V. BENDIX
AVIATION CORP., CCH TRADE REG. SERV. P57,444(D.C.N.J. 1946); CROSBY
STEAM GAGE & VALUE CO. V. MANNING, MAXWELL & MOORE, CCH TRADE REG.
SERV. P57,336(D.C. MASS. 1945). 

FN10  H.R. 20,388, 60TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1908); H.R. 11,796, 61ST
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1909); H.R. 2930, 62D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1911); H.R.
16,828, 62D CONG., 2D SESS. (1912); H.R. 23,417, AS AMENDED, 62D CONG.,
2D SESS. (1912); H.R. 1700, 63D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1913); H.R. 14,865,
63D CONG., 2D SESS. (1914); S. 2783, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1928); S.
2491, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942). 

FN11  PROVISIONS FOR RECIPROCAL LICENSING HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN
CONSENT DECREES.  SEE $2UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELEC.  CO., CCH TRADE
REG. SERV. P52,777(D.C.N.J. 1942); UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN BOSCH
CORP., CCH TRADE REG. SERV. P52,888(D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1942).  1942). 

FN12  "'5.  THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENTS ARE HEREBY ADJUDGED TO BE
UNLAWFUL UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND EACH OF THEM IS HEREBY
CANCELLED AND THE DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM AND ALL PERSONS ACTING OR
CLAIMING TO ACT THROUGH, FOR OR UNDER THEM AND ALL SUCCESSORS AND
SUBSIDIARIES OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS ARE HEREBY ENJOINED AND
RESTRAINED FROM THE FURTHER PERFORMANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF
SAID AGREEMENTS AND OF ANY AGREEMENTS AMENDATORY THEREOF OR
SUPPLEMENTAL THERETO:  (FOLLOWED BY A LIST OF THE CANCELED
AGREEMENTS)' 

"'6.  EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEIR DIRECTORS, OFFICERS,
AGENTS, EMPLOYEES, SUCCESSORS AND SUBSIDIARIES AND ALL PERSONS ACTING,
OR CLAIMING TO ACT UNDER, THROUGH OR FOR THEM OR ANY OF THEM ARE HEREBY
ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED (A) FROM ENTERING INTO, ADHERING TO,
MAINTAINING OR FURTHERING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OR CLAIMING ANY
RIGHTS UNDER ANY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDING, PLAN OR PROGRAM
AMONG THEMSELVES, THE CO-CONSPIRATORS, OR WITH ANY OTHER PERSON,
PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION, WHICH HAS AS ITS PURPOSE OR EFFECT THE
CONTINUING OR RENEWING OF ANY OF THE AGREEMENTS LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 5
HEREOF; (B) FROM ENTERING INTO, ADHERING TO, MAINTAINING OR FURTHERING,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, UNDERTAKING, PLAN OR
PROGRAM WITH ANY OTHER PRODUCER OR DEALER RELATING TO TITANIUM PIGMENTS
WHICH HAS AS ITS PURPOSE OR EFFECT (1) TO DIVIDE SALES OR MANUFACTURING
TERRITORIES, (2) TO ALLOCATE MARKETS, (3) TO LIMIT OR PREVENT UNITED
STATES IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, (4) TO GRANT TO ANY THIRD PARTY ANY MARKET
AS ITS EXCLUSIVE TERRITORY, (5) TO KEEP ANY THIRD PARTY OUT OF ANY
MARKET; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUBDIVISION
(B) OF THIS PARAGRAPH 6 SHALL PROHIBIT ANY NORMAL AND USUAL
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN ANY DEFENDANT AND ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS,
EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, OR ANY PRODUCER, DEALER OR
DISTRIBUTOR, WHETHER OR NOT A CO-CONSPIRATOR; (C) FROM RESTRICTING ANY
PURCHASER OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS IN THE USE THEREOF.'" 

FN13  FOR PARAGRAPH 8, SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT ROYALTIES SHOULD BE CHARGED ON PATENTS WHOSE
MISUSE HAS BEEN SO FLAGRANT AS TO PERSUADE US TO APPROVE COMPULSORY
LICENSING OF ALL WHO DESIRE TO USE THE INVENTIONS.  NOR DO I THINK THAT
THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR ROYALTY-FREE LICENSING MAY BE SUSTAINED AS
AN EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT
WOULD BE THE CASE IF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD BEEN FREE TO FRAME ITS
DECREE UNEMBARRASSED BY THE RULING IN HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 323 U.S. 386, 324 U.S. 570.  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT MODIFIED
AN ANTITRUST DECREE SO AS TO PERMIT "REASONABLE" ROYALTIES ON PATENTS
WHICH HAD BEEN ORDERED LICENSED WITHOUT CHARGE TO ALL APPLICANTS.  THE
LANGUAGE THERE USED WELL MIGHT LEAD A COURT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
ROYALTY-FREE LICENSING IS A REMEDY UNACCEPTABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW. 
FN1  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME THAT THE ACTION OF THE
DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS IN DEFERENCE TO THE HARTFORD
EMPIRE RULE RATHER THAN A REFLECTION OF HIS OWN JUDGMENT.  FN2    THE
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CASE PRESENTED THE FIRST INSTANCE, SO FAR AS I AM
AWARE, OF THE INCORPORATION OF A ROYALTY-FREE LICENSING PROVISION IN AN
ANTITRUST DECREE.  SINCE THE QUESTION IS ONE OF THE GREATEST IMPORTANCE
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, AND WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY
THE FULL COURT,  FN3  I THINK IT REMAINS AN OPEN ONE, EXCEPT AS APPLIED
TO THE HARTFORD-EMPIRE CASE, AND WE ARE FREE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THAT
CASE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HERE
PRESENTED. 

IN THE HARTFORD-EMPIRE CASE THE COURT STRESSED THE FACT THAT CONGRESS
HAD NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED FORFEITURE OF PATENTS IN ANTITRUST
ACTIONS.  IT THOUGHT THAT "IF, AS WE MUST ASSUME ON THIS RECORD, A
DEFENDANT OWNS VALID PATENTS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT, HOWEVER MUCH
IN THE PAST SUCH DEFENDANT HAS ABUSED THE RIGHTS THEREBY CONFERRED, IT
MUST NOW DEDICATE THEM TO THE PUBLIC."  323 U.S. P. 415.  THE
DIFFICULTY WITH THAT ARGUMENT IS THAT IT PROVES TOO MUCH.  FOR THE
COURT WAS AT THE SAME TIME SANCTIONING COMPULSORY LICENSING, A MOST
SERIOUS INROAD ON PATENT RIGHTS.  THE PATENT LAW GIVES TO THE PATENTEE
OR HIS ASSIGNEE THE "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE, AND VEND THE
INVENTION OR DISCOVERY  ...  "  R.S. SEC. 4884, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 40.  IF
THE ANTITRUST COURT COULD NOT INTERFERE WITH PATENT RIGHTS, THEN IT
COULD NOT ORDER LICENSING ON ANY TERMS, FOR MANDATORY LICENSING IS
HARDLY CONSISTENT WITH EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS.  AGAIN, IF THE FAILURE OF
CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY SO TO PROVIDE PREVENTS A COURT FROM DIRECTING
ROYALTY-FREE LICENSING, THEN BY THE SAME TOKEN THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE
FOR COMPULSORY LICENSING IS A BAR TO THAT RELIEF ALSO. 

IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE CRITERION FOR CHOOSING THE APPROPRIATE
ANTITRUST REMEDIES CANNOT BE FOUND IN CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.  THE TASK
OF PUTTING AN END TO MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES AND RESTORING COMPETITION
IS ONE OF MAGNITUDE AND COMPLEXITY; CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED USE OF THE
BROADEST POWERS OF EQUITY TO COPE WITH IT.  UNDER A STATUTE PROVIDING
MORE DETAILED REMEDIES THAN DO THE ANTITRUST LAWS, WE HAVE HELD THAT AN
EQUITY COURT MAY MOULD ADDITIONAL ONES.  SEE PORTER V. WARNER HOLDING
CO., 328 U.S. 395.  AND ITS POWERS UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS, THOUGH NOT
SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED, ARE AMPLE TO THWART THE PLANS OF THOSE WHO
WOULD BUILD ILLEGAL EMPIRES, NO MATTER HOW IMAGINATIVE THEIR
UNDERTAKINGS OR SUBTLE THEIR TECHNIQUES.  THE POWER OF THE COURT IS NOT
LIMITED TO THE RESTRAINT OF FUTURE TRANSGRESSIONS.  THE IMPAIRMENT OF
PROPERTY RIGHTS IS NO BARRIER TO THE FASHIONING OF A DECREE WHICH WILL
GRANT EFFECTIVE RELIEF.  UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 226
U.S. 470, 476-477.  DIVESTITURE OR DISSOLUTION MAY BE ORDERED IN SPITE
OF HARDSHIP, INCONVENIENCE, OR LOSS.  UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT
AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 189.  DEVICES OR INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH
MAY BE USED FOR LEGITIMATE ENDS MAY NEVERTHELESS BE OUTLAWED ENTIRELY
WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED TO BUILD THE MONOPOLY OR TO CREATE THE
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA,
PP. 187-188.  FOR THE AIM OF THE DECREE IS NOT ONLY TO PREVENT A
REPETITION OF THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICE BUT TO UNDO WHAT WAS DONE, TO
NEUTRALIZE POWER UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED, TO PREVENT THE DEFENDANTS FROM
ACQUIRING ANY OF THE FRUITS OF THE CONDEMNED PROJECT.  STANDARD OIL CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 78. 

IF THAT IS TO BE DONE HERE, I THINK WE MUST DO MORE THAN FORBID
FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING MONOPOLISTIC SITUATION.  THE
DEFENDANTS HAVE UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED CONTROL AND DOMINATION OVER THIS
INDUSTRY TO THE EXCLUSION OF COMPETITORS.  THIS CONTROL WAS OBTAINED IN
PART THROUGH THE UNLAWFUL ACQUISITION AND USE OF PATENTS.  AS STATED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, "THESE PATENTS, THROUGH THE AGREEMENTS IN WHICH
THEY ARE ENMESHED AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN USED, HAVE, IN
FACT, BEEN FORGED INTO INSTRUMENTS OF DOMINATION OF AN ENTIRE
INDUSTRY.  THE NET EFFECT IS THAT A BUSINESS, ORIGINALLY FOUNDED UPON
PATENTS WHICH HAVE LONG SINCE EXPIRED, IS TODAY LESS ACCESSIBLE TO FREE
ENTERPRISE THAN WHEN IT WAS FIRST LAUNCHED."  63 F.SUPP.  513, 532.  IF
DEFENDANTS ARE ALLOWED ROYALTIES ON THOSE PATENTS, THEY DO, INDEED,
REAP DIVIDENDS FROM THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES.  AS STATED IN A DISSENT
IN THE HARTFORD-EMPIRE CASE, "EVERY DOLLAR HEREAFTER, AS WELL AS
HERETOFORE, SECURED FROM LICENSES ON THE PATENTS ILLEGALLY AGGREGATED
IN THE COMBINATION'S HANDS IS MONEY TO WHICH THE PARTICIPANTS ARE NOT
ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THE PATENT LAWS OR OTHERS.  IT IS THE IMMEDIATE
PRODUCT OF THE CONSPIRACY."  323 U.S. P. 443. 

BUT BEYOND THAT IS THE EFFECT ON THE INDUSTRY.  HERE DEFENDANTS HAVE
BEEN IN A COMMANDING AND IMPREGNABLE POSITION.  THEY HAVE DOMINATED THE
FIELD AND SUPPRESSED COMPETITION.  IF COMPETITION IS TO BE RESTORED
STRONG MEASURES MUST BE ADOPTED TO PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM OPPORTUNITY FOR
NEW VENTURES TO COMPETE WITH THE ESTABLISHED GIANTS OF THE INDUSTRY. 
IT IS HERE THAT THE MAJOR VICE OF PERMITTING ROYALTIES ON THE LICENSED
PATENTS BECOMES APPARENT.  EACH DOLLAR OF ROYALTY ADDS A DOLLAR TO THE
COSTS OF THE NEW COMPETITOR AND GIVES THE ESTABLISHED LICENSOR ANOTHER
DOLLAR WITH WHICH TO FIGHT THAT COMPETITION.  AS STATED BY NATIONAL
LEAD IN ITS BRIEF BEFORE THIS COURT: 

"NATIONAL AND DU PONT NOT ONLY COMPETE WITH THEIR LICENSEES BUT
DOMINATE THE TITANIUM INDUSTRY.  A REQUIREMENT OF UNIFORM, REASONABLE
ROYALTIES IN NO WAY FREES COMPETITION BECAUSE, NO MATTER WHAT THE
ROYALTY MAY BE, IN THIS INDUSTRY A LICENSEE REQUIRED TO PAY MORE THAN
ITS LICENSOR WILL BE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE." 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"COMPULSORY LICENSING ALONE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO RESTORE THE
INDUSTRY TO A HEALTHY, COMPETITIVE CONDITION.  IF NATIONAL AND DU PONT
ARE PERMITTED TO RECEIVE ROYALTIES ON THEIR EXISTING PATENTS, THEY WILL
STILL BE IN POSITION TO DOMINATE THE INDUSTRY." 

IF NATIONAL LEAD, THE WORLD'S LARGEST PRODUCER OF TITANIUM PIGMENTS,
EXPECTS TO FIND ITSELF AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE AS A RESULT OF
REASONABLE ROYALTY LICENSES, WHAT CAN BE THE PROBABLE FATE OF NEWCOMERS
OR EXISTING INDEPENDENTS OF SMALL STATURE?  FN4 

THE DECREE APPROVED BY THE COURT STOPS SHORT OF GRANTING EFFECTIVE
RELIEF.  DIVESTITURE IS REFUSED.  COMPULSORY LICENSING IS ORDERED, BUT
ONLY TO THOSE WHO ARE WILLING RECIPROCALLY TO LICENSE USE BY THE
DEFENDANTS OF THEIR PATENTS.  IN THIS ADDITIONAL RESPECT THE DECREE
WILL ENABLE THE LARGE ESTABLISHED COMPANIES TO STRENGTHEN THEIR
DOMINANT POSITION.  TO GET THE BENEFITS OF THE DECREE AN INDEPENDENT
MUST GIVE UP ONE OF HIS FEW COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES - THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO USE SUCH PATENTS AS HE MAY POSSESS.  THESE PROVISIONS, PLUS
THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF ROYALTIES ON THE MISUSED PATENTS, EVEN
THOUGH THOSE ROYALTIES BE "REASONABLE," GREATLY INCREASE THE ODDS
AGAINST RESTORATION OF COMPETITION IN THIS INDUSTRY. 

EXCEPT AS TO THE MATTERS MENTIONED, I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT. 

FN1  "THAT A PATENT IS PROPERTY, PROTECTED AGAINST APPROPRIATION BOTH
BY INDIVIDUALS AND BY GOVERNMENT, HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED.  IN
RECOGNITION OF THIS QUALITY OF A PATENT THE COURTS, IN ENJOINING
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT ARISING FROM THE USE OF PATENT LICENSES,
AGREEMENTS, AND LEASES, HAVE ABSTAINED FROM ACTION WHICH AMOUNTED TO A
FORFEITURE OF THE PATENTS. 

"THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT SUCH FORFEITURE IS JUSTIFIED BY OUR RECENT
DECISIONS.  ...  BUT THOSE CASES MERELY APPLY THE DOCTRINE THAT, SO
LONG AS THE PATENT OWNER IS USING HIS PATENT IN VIOLATION OF THE
ANTITRUST LAWS, HE CANNOT RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENT OF IT BY OTHERS.  WE
WERE NOT THERE CONCERNED WITH THE PROBLEM WHETHER, WHEN A VIOLATION OF
THE ANTITRUST LAWS WAS TO BE RESTRAINED AND DISCONTINUED, THE COURT
COULD, AS PART OF THE RELIEF, FORFEIT THE PATENTS OF THOSE WHO HAD BEEN
GUILTY OF THE VIOLATION.  LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE RIGHTLY REFUSED TO
EXTEND THE DOCTRINE OF THOSE CASES TO ANTITRUST DECREES BY INSERTING
FORFEITURE PROVISIONS."  323 U.S. PP. 415-416. 

FN2  HE, INDEED, STATED ON ARGUMENT OF A MOTION TO DETERMINE
REASONABLE ROYALTIES:  "I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO GO ALONG ON THE QUESTION
OF ROYALTY-FREE PATENTS, BUT I FELT THAT I HADN'T BEEN GIVEN THE GREEN
LIGHT ON THAT." 

FN3  THE HARTFORD-EMPIRE DECISION WAS FOUR TO TWO ON THIS POINT. 

FN4  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
UNHEALTHY MONOPOLISTIC CONDITION IN THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN A DEARTH OF
THE ORDINARY PATENT LITIGATION.  THE BURDEN OF TESTING POTENTIALLY
INVALID PATENTS WILL THUS BE PLACED ON THE FIRST ENTERPRISE UNWILLING
TO PAY THE ROYALTIES. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA 382 U.S. 448 


NO. 5, ORIGINAL.  DECIDED JUNE 23, 1947, AND MAY 17, 1965 - ORDER AND
DECREE ENTERED OCTOBER 27, 1947 - SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE ENTERED JANUARY
31, 1966. 


THE MOTION BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE ENTRY OF A SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
IS GRANTED AND A SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE IS ENTERED. 

OPINIONS REPORTED:  332 U.S. 19, 381 U.S. 139; ORDER AND DECREE
REPORTED:  332 U.S. 804. 

UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S OPINION IN UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA, 381 U.S. 139, PROPOSED DECREES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE
PARTIES.  THE COURT HAS EXAMINED SUCH PROPOSED DECREES AND THE BRIEFS
AND PAPERS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND ENTERS THE FOLLOWING
DECREE:

                                 SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE. 

THE UNITED STATES HAVING MOVED FOR ENTRY OF A SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
HEREIN, AND THE MATTER HAVING BEEN REFERRED TO THE LATE WILLIAM H.
DAVIS AS SPECIAL MASTER TO HOLD HEARINGS AND RECOMMEND ANSWERS TO
CERTAIN QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND THE SPECIAL MASTER HAVING
HELD SUCH HEARINGS AND HAVING SUBMITTED HIS REPORT, AND THE ISSUES
HAVING BEEN MODIFIED BY THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE ANSWER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THERETO, AND THE PARTIES
HAVING FILED AMENDED EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER,
AND THE COURT HAVING RECEIVED BRIEFS AND HEARD ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT
THERETO AND HAVING BY ITS OPINION OF MAY 17, 1965, APPROVED THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL MASTER, WITH MODIFICATIONS, IT IS
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT THE DECREE HERETOFORE ENTERED IN
THIS CAUSE ON OCTOBER 27, 1947, 332 U.S. 804, BE, AND THE SAME IS
HEREBY, MODIFIED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

1.  AS AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER
IT, THE SUBSOIL AND SEABED OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF, MORE THAN THREE
GEOGRAPHICAL MILES SEAWARD FROM THE NEAREST POINT OR POINTS ON THE
COAST LINE, AT ALL TIMES PERTINENT HERETO HAVE APPERTAINED AND NOW
APPERTAIN TO THE UNITED STATES AND HAVE BEEN AND NOW ARE SUBJECT TO ITS
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, CONTROL AND POWER OF DISPOSITION.  THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA HAS NO TITLE THERETO OR PROPERTY INTEREST THEREIN. 

2.  AS USED HEREIN, "COAST LINE" MEANS: 

(A)  THE LINE OF MEAN LOWER LOW WATER ON THE MAINLAND, ON ISLANDS,
AND ON LOW-TIDE ELEVATIONS LYING WHOLLY OR PARTLY WITHIN THREE
GEOGRAPHICAL MILES FROM THE LINE OF MEAN LOWER LOW WATER ON THE
MAINLAND OR ON AN ISLAND; AND: 

(B)  THE LINE MARKING THE SEAWARD LIMIT OF INLAND WATERS. 

THE COAST LINE IS TO BE TAKEN AS HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY
NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL MEANS, AND INCLUDES THE OUTERMOST PERMANENT
HARBOR WORKS THAT FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE HARBOR SYSTEM WITHIN THE
MEANING OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION ON THE TERRITORIAL SEA AND THE
CONTIGUOUS ZONE, T.I.A.S. NO. 5639. 

3.  AS USED HEREIN: 

(A)  "ISLAND" MEANS A NATURALLY-FORMED AREA OF LAND SURROUNDED BY
WATER, WHICH IS ABOVE THE LEVEL OF MEAN HIGH WATER: 

(B)  "LOW-TIDE ELEVATION" MEANS A NATURALLY-FORMED AREA OF LAND
SURROUNDED BY WATER AT MEAN LOWER LOW WATER, WHICH IS ABOVE THE LEVEL
OF MEAN LOWER LOW WATER BUT NOT ABOVE THE LEVEL OF MEAN HIGH WATER: 

(C)  "MEAN LOWER LOW WATER" MEANS THE AVERAGE ELEVATION OF ALL THE
DAILY LOWER LOW TIDES OCCURRING OVER A PERIOD OF 18.6 YEARS: 

(D)  "MEAN HIGH WATER" MEANS THE AVERAGE ELEVATION OF ALL THE HIGH
TIDES OCCURRING OVER A PERIOD OF 18.6 YEARS: 

(E)  "GEOGRAPHICAL MILE" MEANS A DISTANCE OF 1852 METERS (6076.10333
...  U.S. SURVEY FEET OR APPROXIMATELY 6076.11549 INTERNATIONAL FEET). 

4.  AS USED HEREIN, "INLAND WATERS" MEANS WATERS LANDWARD OF THE
BASELINE OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA, WHICH ARE NOW RECOGNIZED AS INTERNAL
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE TERRITORIAL SEA
AND THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE.  THE INLAND WATERS REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH
2(B) HEREOF INCLUDE: 

(A)  ANY RIVER OR STREAM FLOWING DIRECTLY INTO THE SEA, LANDWARD OF A
STRAIGHT LINE ACROSS ITS MOUTH: 

(B)  ANY PORT, LANDWARD OF ITS OUTERMOST PERMANENT HARBOR WORKS AND A
STRAIGHT LINE ACROSS ITS ENTRANCE: 

(C)  ANY "HISTORIC BAY,"  AS THAT TERM IS USED IN PARAGRAPH 6 OF
ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION, DEFINED ESSENTIALLY AS A BAY OVER WHICH
THE UNITED STATES HAS TRADITIONALLY ASSERTED AND MAINTAINED DOMINION
WITH THE ACQUIESCENCE OF FOREIGN NATIONS: 

(D)  ANY OTHER BAY (DEFINED AS A WELL-MARKED COASTAL INDENTATION
HAVING SUCH PENETRATION, IN PROPORTION TO THE WIDTH OF ITS ENTRANCE, AS
TO CONTAIN LANDLOCKED WATERS, AND HAVING AN AREA, INCLUDING ISLANDS
WITHIN THE BAY, AT LEAST AS GREAT AS THE AREA OF A SEMICIRCLE WHOSE
DIAMETER EQUALS THE LENGTH OF THE CLOSING LINE ACROSS THE ENTRANCE OF
THE BAY, OR THE SUM OF SUCH CLOSING LINES IF THE BAY HAS MORE THAN ONE
ENTRANCE), LANDWARD OF A STRAIGHT LINE ACROSS ITS ENTRANCE OR, IF THE
ENTRANCE IS MORE THAN 24 GEOGRAPHICAL MILES WIDE, LANDWARD OF A
STRAIGHT LINE NOT OVER 24 GEOGRAPHICAL MILES LONG, DRAWN WITHIN THE BAY
SO AS TO ENCLOSE THE GREATEST POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF WATER.  AN ESTUARY OF
A RIVER IS TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS A BAY. 

5.  IN DRAWING A CLOSING LINE ACROSS THE ENTRANCE OF ANY BODY OF
INLAND WATER HAVING PRONOUNCED HEADLANDS, THE LINE SHALL BE DRAWN
BETWEEN THE POINTS WHERE THE PLANE OF MEAN LOWER LOW WATER MEETS THE
OUTERMOST EXTENSION OF THE HEADLANDS.  WHERE THERE IS NO PRONOUNCED
HEADLAND, THE LINE SHALL BE DRAWN TO THE POINT WHERE THE LINE OF MEAN
LOWER LOW WATER ON THE SHORE IS INTERSECTED BY THE BISECTOR OF THE
ANGLE FORMED WHERE A LINE PROJECTING THE GENERAL TREND OF THE LINE OF
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER ALONG THE OPEN COAST MEETS A LINE PROJECTING THE
GENERAL TREND OF THE LINE OF MEAN LOWER LOW WATER ALONG THE TRIBUTARY
WATERWAY. 

6.  ROADSTEADS, WATERS BETWEEN ISLANDS, AND WATERS BETWEEN ISLANDS
AND THE MAINLAND ARE NOT PER SE INLAND WATERS. 

7.  THE INLAND WATERS OF THE PORT OF SAN PEDRO ARE THOSE ENCLOSED BY
THE BREAKWATER AND BY STRAIGHT LINES ACROSS OPENINGS IN THE BREAKWATER;
BUT THE LIMITS OF THE PORT, EAST OF THE EASTERN END OF THE BREAKWATER,
ARE NOT DETERMINED BY THIS DECREE. 

8.  THE INLAND WATERS OF CRESCENT CITY HARBOR ARE THOSE ENCLOSED
WITHIN THE BREAKWATERS AND A STRAIGHT LINE FROM THE OUTER END OF THE
WEST BREAKWATER TO THE SOUTHERN EXTREMITY OF WHALER ISLAND. 

9.  THE INLAND WATERS OF MONTEREY BAY ARE THOSE ENCLOSED BY A
STRAIGHT LINE BETWEEN POINT PINOS AND POINT SANTA CRUZ. 

10.  THE DESCRIPTION OF THE INLAND WATERS OF THE PORT OF SAN PEDRO,
CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, AND MONTEREY BAY, AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS 7,
8, AND 9 HEREOF, DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE THREE-MILE LIMIT IS TO BE
MEASURED FROM THE SEAWARD LIMITS OF THOSE INLAND WATERS IN PLACES WHERE
THE THREE-MILE LIMIT IS PLACED FARTHER SEAWARD BY THE APPLICATION OF
ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS DECREE. 

11.  THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT HISTORIC INLAND WATERS, AND DO NOT
COMPRISE INLAND WATERS EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY MAY BE ENCLOSED
BY LINES AS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED FOR THE ENCLOSURE OF INLAND WATERS
OTHER THAN HISTORIC BAYS: 

(A)  WATERS BETWEEN THE SANTA BARBARA OR CHANNEL ISLANDS, OR BETWEEN
THOSE ISLANDS AND THE MAINLAND: 

(B)  WATERS ADJACENT TO THE COAST BETWEEN POINT CONCEPTION AND POINT
HUENEME: 

(C)  WATERS ADJACENT TO THE COAST BETWEEN POINT FERMIN AND POINT
LASUEN (IDENTIFIED AS THE BLUFFS AT THE END OF THE LAS BOLSAS RIDGE AT
HUNTINGTON BEACH): 

(D)  WATERS ADJACENT TO THE COAST BETWEEN POINT LASUEN AND THE
WESTERN HEADLAND OF NEWPORT BAY: 

(E)  SANTA MONICA BAY: 

(F)  CRESCENT CITY BAY: 

(G)  SAN LUIS OBISPO BAY. 

12.  WITH THE DXCDPTIONS PROVIDED BY SEC. 5 OF THE SUBMERGED LANDS
ACT, 67 STAT. 32, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 1313 (1964 ED.), AND SUBJECT TO THE
POWERS RESERVED TO THE UNITED STATES BY SEC. 3(D) AND SEC. 6 OF SAID
ACT, 67 STAT. 31, 32, 43 U.S.C. SECS. 1311(D) AND 1314 (1964 ED.), THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS ENTITLED, AS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, TO THE
TITLE TO AND OWNERSHIP OF THE TIDELANDS ALONG ITS COAST (DEFINED AS THE
SHORE OF THE MAINLAND AND OF ISLANDS, BETWEEN THE LINE OF MEAN HIGH
WATER AND THE LINE OF MEAN LOWER LOW WATER) AND THE SUBMERGED LANDS,
MINERALS, OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES AND IMPROVEMENTS UNDERLYING THE
INLAND WATERS AND THE WATERS OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN WITHIN THREE
GEOGRAPHICAL MILES SEAWARD FROM THE COAST LINE AND BOUNDED ON THE NORTH
AND SOUTH BY THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING THE RIGHT AND POWER TO MANAGE, ADMINISTER, LEASE,
DEVELOP AND USE THE SAID LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES ALL IN ACCORDANCE
WITH APPLICABLE STATE LAW.  THE UNITED STATES IS NOT ENTITLED, AS
AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR
TO SAID LANDS, IMPROVEMENTS AND NATURAL RESOURCES EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY
SEC. 5 OF THE SUBMERGED LANDS ACT. 

13.  THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT FOR ITS APPROVAL ANY
STIPULATION OR STIPULATIONS THAT THEY MAY ENTER INTO, IDENTIFYING WITH
GREATER PARTICULARITY ALL OR ANY PART OF THE BOUNDARY LINE, AS DEFINED
BY THIS DECREE, BETWEEN THE SUBMERGED LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE SUBMERGED LANDS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR IDENTIFYING ANY OF
THE AREAS RESERVED TO THE UNITED STATES BY SEC. 5 OF THE SUBMERGED
LANDS ACT.  AS TO ANY PORTION OF SUCH BOUNDARY LINE OR OF ANY AREAS
CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RESERVED UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE SUBMERGED LANDS ACT
AS TO WHICH THE PARTIES MAY BE UNABLE TO AGREE, EITHER PARTY MAY APPLY
TO THE COURT AT ANY TIME FOR ENTRY OF A FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE. 

14.  THE COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUCH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, ENTER SUCH ORDERS, AND ISSUE SUCH WRITS AS MAY FROM TIME
TO TIME BE DEEMED NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE TO GIVE PROPER FORCE AND
EFFECT TO THIS DECREE OR TO EFFECTUATE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN THE
PREMISES. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE CLARK, AND MR. JUSTICE FORTAS TOOK NO
PART IN THE FORMULATION OF THIS DECREE. 
..END :























WILLIAMS V. AUSTRIAN, 331 U.S. 642 


NO. 850.  ARGUED APRIL 10, 11, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 16, 1947.  - 159
F.2D 67, AFFIRMED. 


TRUSTEES IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE CHANDLER ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 840,
WHO HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE REORGANIZATION COURT TO SUE OFFICERS
AND DIRECTORS OF THE DEBTOR CORPORATION AND AFFILIATED INTERESTS
ALLEGING MISAPPROPRIATION OF CORPORATE ASSETS (DISCOVERED IN AN
INVESTIGATION UNDER SEC. 167) AND SEEKING AN ACCOUNTING AND OTHER
RELIEF, MAY BRING SUCH SUIT IN ANOTHER FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, EVEN IN
THE ABSENCE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OR OTHER USUAL GROUNDS OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  PP. 646-662. 

(A)  THE PHRASE "PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT," AS USED IN SEC. 2, DOES
NOT RELATE SOLELY TO SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, BUT INCLUDES PLENARY SUITS AS
WELL.  LATHROP V. DRAKE, 91 U.S. 516, FOLLOWED.  BARDES V. HAWARDEN
BANK, 178 U.S. 524, AND SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, 293 U.S. 367,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 646-662. 

(B)  SECTION 23 WAS ADOPTED AS A LIMITATION ON THE PLENARY
JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON ALL DISTRICT COURTS BY SEC. 2.  PP. 648
654. 

(C)  SECTION 102 OF CHAPTER X, MAKING SEC. 23 INAPPLICABLE IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THAT CHAPTER, REMOVES THIS LIMITATION AND GIVES ALL
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 2 OVER PLENARY SUITS
BROUGHT BY A CHAPTER X TRUSTEE, EVEN THOUGH DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OR
OTHER USUAL GROUND FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS LACKING.  PP. 654-659,
661-662. 

(D)  SUCH JURISDICTION IS NOT CONFINED TO THE REORGANIZATION COURT
BUT APPLIES TO ALL OTHER DISTRICT COURTS AS WELL.  PP. 659-661. 

WILLIAMS ET AL. V. AUSTRIAN ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT COURT IN NEW YORK DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION A
SUIT BROUGHT BY TRUSTEES APPOINTED BY A DISTRICT COURT IN VIRGINIA IN A
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  67
F.SUPP.  223.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  159 F.2D 67. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 813.  AFFIRMED, P. 662. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

COURTS "SUCH JURISDICTION AT LAW AND IN EQUITY AS WILL ENABLE THEM TO
EXERCISE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT  ...  TO
...  (7) CAUSE THE ESTATES OF BANKRUPTS TO BE COLLECTED, REDUCED TO
MONEY AND DISTRIBUTED, AND DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES IN RELATION THERETO,
EXCEPT AS HEREIN OTHERWISE PROVIDED ...  "  THE EXCEPTION HAS REFERENCE
TO SEC. 23(B), WHICH REQUIRES THAT "SUITS BY THE RECEIVER AND THE
TRUSTEE SHALL BE BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED ONLY IN THE COURTS WHERE THE
BANKRUPT MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED THEM IF PROCEEDINGS UNDER
THIS ACT HAD NOT BEEN INSTITUTED, UNLESS BY CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT,
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 60, 67, AND 70 OF THIS ACT."  FN2
CONGRESS, HOWEVER, IN THE CHANDLER ACT OF 1938 DECLARED THE
INAPPLICABILITY OF SEC. 23 IN REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER
X; AND IT IS UPON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ACTION TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS THAT THIS CASE TURNS.  FN3 

RESPONDENTS WERE APPOINTED TRUSTEES FOR THE CENTRAL STATES ELECTRIC
CORPORATION, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION IN REORGANIZATION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. 
FOLLOWING AN INVESTIGATION UNDER SEC. 167  FN4  OF THE ACT, RESPONDENTS
WERE AUTHORIZED TO INSTITUTE SUIT AGAINST PETITIONERS, WHO ARE PAST AND
PRESENT OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE DEBTOR AND OTHERS HAVING
CONNECTION THEREWITH.  THIS SUIT WAS THEN FILED AGAINST PETITIONERS IN
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK, ALLEGING A CONSPIRACY TO MISAPPROPRIATE CORPORATE ASSETS AND
ASKING AN ACCOUNTING AND OTHER RELIEF.  THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION OF
DIVERSITY AND JURISDICTION WAS RESTED UPON "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 4, AND ARTICLE III, SECTION
2), THE ACT OF CONGRESS RELATING TO BANKRUPTCIES (U.S.C. TITLE 11), AND
...  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(1), (19) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE  ...
" 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; FN5  BUT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT SINCE THE GOVERNING
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 23, TO WHICH THE "EXCEPT" CLAUSE OF SEC. 2(A)(7)
REFERS, WERE SUSPENDED IN CHAPTER X PROCEEDINGS, JURISDICTION TO HEAR
THIS PLENARY SUIT COULD BE RESTED UPON THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2. 
OTHER ALLEGED GROUNDS FOR JURISDICTION WERE NOT CONSIDERED.  159 F.2D
67(1946). 

1.  PETITIONERS CONSTRUE "PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT," WITHIN WHICH
THE JURISDICTIONAL GRANT CONTAINED IN SEC. 2 IS CONFINED, AS EXTENDING
ONLY TO MATTERS PROPER FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION,  FN6 AND INTERPRET THE
SUSPENSION OF SEC. 23 IN CHAPTER X CASES, WITHOUT PROVIDING A
SUBSTITUTE THEREFOR, AS REMOVING FROM THE ACT AN AFFIRMATIVE GRANT TO
FEDERAL COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS, RATHER THAN AS AN
ACTION AIMED AT EXPANDING THAT JURISDICTION.  FN7  BUT THESE VIEWS
REST, IN THE MAIN, UPON WHAT WE THINK IS AN ERRONEOUS APPRAISAL OF THE
HISTORY OF SECS. 2 AND 23. 

ACT OF 1867,  FN8  BABBITT V. DUTCHER, 216 U.S. 102, 107(1910); AND
CASES DEALING WITH THAT ACT, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT CERTAIN SUITS
BROUGHT BY BANKRUPTCY ASSIGNEES SHOULD PROCEED IN PLENARY, RATHER THAN
SUMMARY, FASHION, HELD THAT SEC. 1 GAVE JURISDICTION TO THE BANKRUPTCY
COURTS TO PROCEED IN BOTH WAYS.  FN9 AND ALTHOUGH CERTAIN ASPECTS OF A
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING COULD BE HANDLED ONLY BY THE COURT IN WHICH THE
ADJUDICATION WAS HAD, SEC. 1 CONFERRED UPON ALL BANKUPTCY COURTS
JURISDICTION TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS BROUGHT BY BANKRUPTCY ASSIGNEES
AGAINST ADVERSE CLAIMANTS OR AGAINST DEBTORS OF THE BANKRUPT.  FN10 

LATHROP V. DRAKE, 91 U.S. 516(1875), VIEWED THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURTS IN THIS MANNER AND, WE THINK, CONTRARY TO THE
STATEMENTS LATER MADE IN BARDES V. HAWARDEN BANK, 178 U.S. 524(1900),
AND SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, 293 U.S. 367(1934), UPON WHICH PETITIONERS
RELY, CONSIDERED THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OVER PLENARY
SUITS TO REST UPON SEC. 1 OF THE 1867 ACT.  FN11 

BROAD GRANT OF JURISDICTION CONTAINED IN SEC. 1 OF THE 1867 ACT.  THE
BANKRUPTCY COURTS WERE GIVEN "SUCH JURISDICTION AT LAW AND IN EQUITY AS
WILL ENABLE THEM TO EXERCISE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS ...  "  FN12  BUT SEC. 2(7), WHILE GRANTING TO ALL
BANKRUPTCY COURTS JURISDICTION TO COLLECT AND TO HEAR CONTROVERSIES
RELATING TO THE ESTATE OF THE BANKRUPT, APPENDED THE WORDS "EXCEPT AS
HEREIN OTHERWISE PROVIDED."  THE EXCEPTION HAD REFERENCE TO SEC. 23,
FN13  WHICH, IN THE CLAUSE APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRICT COURTS, PROVIDED
THAT, UNLESS BY THE CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, SUITS BY THE BANKRUPTCY
TRUSTEE SHOULD BE BROUGHT ONLY IN THE COURTS WHERE THE BANKRUPT MIGHT
HAVE BROUGHT THEM IF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS HAD NOT BEEN INSTITUTED. 
IN SHARP CONTRAST TO THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2(7) AND TO THE
PRACTICE UNDER THE 1867 ACT,  FN14  SEC. 23, IN THE INTEREST OF
LITIGANTS AND WITNESSES, DELIBERATELY DIRECTED TO THE STATE COURTS MOST
OF A BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE'S PLENARY SUITS.  FN15 

SOME LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, HOWEVER, IMMEDIATELY HELD THAT SEC. 23 DID
NOT APPLY TO SUITS BROUGHT TO RECOVER CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF THE
BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY AND, RELYING UPON SEC. 2, UPHELD THE JURISDICTION
OF FEDERAL COURTS.  FN16  BARDES V. HAWARDEN BANK, SUPRA, CHECKED THIS
TREND AND GAVE FULL SCOPE TO THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 23.  SUITS TO RECOVER
FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS, LIKE OTHER PLENARY SUITS, WERE TO BE TRIED IN THE
STATE COURTS.  IT WAS IN THE BARDES CASE UNNECESSARY TO EXPLORE THE
SCOPE OF SEC. 2; FOR WHATEVER THE GRANT OF JURISDICTION THERE MADE, THE
INTERPRETATION GIVEN SEC. 23 WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE RESULT REACHED. 
IN ANY EVENT, THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 2, STANDING ALONE AND WITHOUT
REGARD FOR THE INFLUENCE OF SEC. 23, AS BEING CONFINED TO SUMMARY
MATTERS RESTED TO A GREAT EXTENT UPON A READING OF LATHROP V. DRAKE,
SUPRA, WITH WHICH, AS HAS BEEN INDICATED, WE CANNOT AGREE. 

CONGRESSIONAL REACTION TO THE BARDES CASE WAS ALMOST IMMEDIATE. 
WISHING TO ALLOW THE TRUSTEE TO RESORT TO FEDERAL COURTS IN RECOVERING
FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS AND PREFERENCES, CONGRESS IN 1903 CREATED
EXCEPTIONS TO SEC. 23 IN FAVOR OF SUITS BROUGHT UNDER SECS. 60(B) AND
67(E); FN17  AND, BEING DOUBLY CAUTIOUS, CONGRESS ALSO INSERTED IN
SECS. 60(B) AND 67(E) CLAUSES GIVING ANY BANKRUPTCY COURT JURISDICTION
TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THOSE SECTIONS.  FN18  IT WAS
EXPLAINED AT THE TIME BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT SEC. 2(7)
WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN AMPLE BASIS FOR THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURTS, AND THAT IT WAS ONLY TO REMOVE ALL DOUBT THAT SECS.
60(B) AND 67(E) HAD ALSO BEEN AMENDED.  FN19 

WHERE SECS. 60(B), 67(E), AND 70(E) WERE NOT INVOLVED, THE BARDES
RULE CONTINUED TO BE APPLIED WHERE PLENARY PROCEEDINGS WERE REQUIRED,
AS IN CASES RELATING TO PROPERTY ADVERSELY HELD  FN20 AND SUITS UPON
CHOSES IN ACTION BELONGING TO THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE.  FN21  LEFT FOR
SUMMARY DISPOSITION UNDER SEC. 2 WERE THOSE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE
CONTROVERSY RELATED TO PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OR CONSTRUCTIVE
POSSESSION OF THE COURT OR TO PROPERTY HELD BY THOSE ASSERTING NO TRULY
ADVERSE CLAIM.  FN22 

FROM ITS INCEPTION, SEC. 23 CONTAINED A CLAUSE SEEMINGLY MITIGATING
THE RIGORS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED.  A TRUSTEE,
"UNLESS BY CONSENT OF THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT," COULD BRING SUIT ONLY IN
COURTS WHERE THE BANKRUPT COULD HAVE SUED.  SUBSEQUENT TO THE BARDES
CASE SOME LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HELD THAT, EVEN WITH THE CONSENT OF A
DEFENDANT, SOME INDEPENDENT GROUND FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION MUST BE
PRESENT.  FN23  THE CONFLICT WAS RESOLVED IN SCHUMACHER V. BEELER,
SUPRA.  IT WAS HELD THAT IN SEC. 23 CONGRESS HAD EXERCISED ITS
BANKRUPTCY POWERS TO CONFER UPON FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION
CONDITIONED UPON A DEFENDANT'S CONSENT  FN24  AND THAT, GIVEN CONSENT,
NO INDEPENDENT GROUND FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION WAS REQUIRED.  THE CASE
TURNED UPON THE MEANING OF THE CONSENT CLAUSE IN SEC. 23.  THE REMARKS
OFFERED CONCERNING SEC. 2 WERE UNNECESSARY AND, IN ANY EVENT, WERE
BASED UPON THE SIMILAR STATEMENTS MADE IN BARDES V. HAWARDEN BANK,
SUPRA. 

THE BEELER DECISION, LIKE THAT IN THE BARDES CASE, DOES NOT DIRECT A
CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 2, IN THE ABSENCE OF SEC. 23, CONFERS ONLY A
SUMMARY JURISDICTION; FOR IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 23
THAT PLENARY SUITS HAD BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE OTHERWISE BROAD SCOPE OF
SEC. 2.  FN25 CASES CONSTRUING THE LATTER IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
OVERRIDING PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 23 ARE NOT PERSUASIVE IN A SITUATION
WHERE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEC. 23 HAS BEEN DECLARED INOPERATIVE. 

2.  TO ACCEPT PETITIONER'S READING OF SEC. 2 WOULD PRODUCE
CONSEQUENCES AFFORDING PECULIAR EXPLANATIONS FOR THE EXPRESS
ELIMINATION OF SEC. 23 IN CHAPTER X CASES.  FOR ONE THING, THERE WOULD
BE DESTROYED THE CONSENT BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION OF PLENARY
SUITS BROUGHT BY A TRUSTEE; FN26  AND, FOR ANOTHER, DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION WOULD DEPEND UPON THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE TRUSTEE RATHER
THAN UPON THAT OF THE DEBTOR.  THE LATTER IS A FORMAL CHANGE OF NO
OBVIOUS VALUE, AND THE FORMER PUTS A GREATER LIMITATION UPON THE
JURISDICTION OF A CHAPTER X COURT THAN HAS BEEN PLACED UPON AN EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIP, 77B, OR ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY COURT, A RESULT IN OBVIOUS
CONTRAST TO DISCERNIBLE TRENDS IN REORGANIZATION LAW. 

THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES DO NOT ELABORATE UPON
THE DECISION TO ELIMINATE SEC. 23,  FN27  AND THE HEARINGS REVEAL ONLY
THAT SEC. 23 WAS ONE OF SEVERAL SECTIONS WHICH THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY
CONFERENCE DESIRED TO ELIMINATE, AND WHICH MIGHT BE HELD APPLICABLE IF
NOT EXPRESSLY DELETED.  FN28  HOWEVER, THE ACTION OCCURRED IN THE
PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A WORKABLE REORGANIZATION TECHNIQUE AND SHOULD BE
VIEWED IN THAT CONTEXT.  WHILE AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP COURT HAD
DEPENDENT JURISDICTION, REGARDLESS OF DIVERSITY OR OTHER INDEPENDENT
GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION, TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS RELATED TO THE
ESTATE OF THE DEBTOR,  FN29  UNDER SEC. 77B, WHICH MADE REORGANIZATION
OF NON-RAILROAD CORPORATIONS A PART OF THE BANKRUPTCY SCHEME, IT WAS
BELIEVED IN SOME QUARTERS THAT SEC. 23 WOULD HAVE ITS TRADITIONAL
EFFECT UPON THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS,
EVEN THOUGH THE REORGANIZATION COURT WAS GIVEN THE "POWERS" OF AN
EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP COURT.  FN30  OTHER COMMENTATORS, THINKING THAT
SEC. 77B SHOULD NOT PROVIDE A LESS EFFICIENT PROCEDURE THAN THE EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIP, CONSIDERED SEC. 23 INAPPLICABLE TO ((B CASES AND REGARDED
THE REORGANIZATION COURTS AS HAVING JURISDICTION TO HEAR PLENARY
SUITS.  FN31  THE CONTROVERSY HAD NOT BEEN SETTLED WHEN CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES WERE CONSIDERING THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE CHANDLER ACT OF
1938, AND SUCH A BACKGROUND FOR THE SUSPENSION OF SEC. 23 IN CHAPTER X
CASES OBVIOUSLY RAISES NO INFERENCE OF A DESIRE TO RESTRICT, RATHER
THAN TO EXPAND, THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

TO INTERPRET THE ELIMINATION OF SEC. 23 IN CHAPTER X CASES AS
RESTRICTING THE ACCESS OF THE TRUSTEE TO THE FEDERAL COURTS WOULD NOT
BE IN HARMONY WITH OTHER PROVISIONS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WRITTEN INTO
CHAPTER X AND DEFINING ANEW THE POSITION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE
REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE.  THE APPOINTMENT OF A DISINTERESTED TRUSTEE WAS
MADE MANDATORY IN APPROPRIATE CASES, FN32  HIS QUALIFICATIONS WERE
PRESCRIBED N33, AND UPON HIM WERE DEVOLVED FUNCTIONS AIMED AT
ELIMINATING THE ABUSES OF PREVIOUS REORGANIZATION SCHEMES.  FN34  IT
WAS HIS DUTY TO PREPARE THE REORGANIZATION PLAN,  FN35  AND THERE WERE
CONFERRED UPON HIM INVESTIGATIVE POWERS AND DUTIES FN36  WHICH NOT ONLY
CONTEMPLATED THE DISCOVERY OF WRONGS DONE THE DEBTOR BY ITS FORMER
MANAGEMENT, BUT ALSO INSURED THE "PROSECUTION OF ALL CAUSES OF ACTION"
WHICH MIGHT "ADD TO THE ASSETS OF CORPORATIONS IN REORGANIZATION." 
FN37  THESE PROVISIONS WERE "OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE IN THE REVISION OF
DESIRE TO RESTRICT THE TRUSTEE'S CHOICE OF A FORUM IN WHICH TO LITIGATE
PLENARY SUITS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE CONCLUSION MORE IN ACCORD WITH THE
PURPOSES OF CHAPTER X AND WITH THE PIVOTAL POSITION IN WHICH THE
TRUSTEE WAS PLACED  FN39  IS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE ELIMINATION
OF SEC. 23 TO ESTABLISH THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS TO HEAR
PLENARY SUITS BROUGHT BY A REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE, EVEN THOUGH
DIVERSITY OR OTHER USUAL GROUND FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS LACKING. 

THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS IN ENTIRE HARMONY
WITH THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS.  THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2, IN ITS
ORDINARY SENSE AND NO LONGER LIMITED BY SEC. 23, EASILY COMPREHENDS THE
PRESENT TYPE OF SUIT; AND SO TO HOLD DIRECTLY AND EFFECTIVELY SUBSERVES
CONGRESSIONAL DESIRES AS REVEALED IN THE PLAIN POLICY OF CHAPTER X AND
IN THE EXPRESS ELIMINATION OF SEC. 23, WHICH HAS, SINCE ITS ENACTMENT
IN 1898, BEEN VIEWED AS A SHARP RESTRICTION UPON THE JURISDICTION
THERETOFORE EXERCISED BY BANKRUPTCY COURTS AND AS A STRONG PREFERENCE
FOR STATE COURTS.  FN40  SINCE ALL REORGANIZATION COURTS ARE THE
OBJECTS OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY SEC. 2, FN41  THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR
THE PRESENT SUIT, WHICH IS BROUGHT BY REORGANIZATION TRUSTEES AND WHICH
CHARGES MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE ASSETS OF A CHAPTER X DEBTOR.  FN42
"THIS SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO BE DERIVED FROM THE
FACT THAT SEC. 23 HAS NO APPLICATION UNDER CHAPTER X."  FN43 

3.  RESPONDENTS IN THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUE THAT THE EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP
POWERS CONFERRED BY SEC. 115  FN44  INCLUDE JURISDICTION TO HEAR
PLENARY SUITS AND THAT ALL REORGANIZATION COURTS MAY EXERCISE THE
JURISDICTION SO CONFERRED.  PETITIONERS WOULD, IN ANY EVENT, CONFINE
THE EFFECTS OF SEC. 115 TO THE REORGANIZATION COURT IN WHICH THE
REORGANIZATION PETITION HAS BEEN APPROVED.  WE NEED NOT PASS ON THESE
CONTENTIONS; FOR, ASSUMING THAT SEC. 115 IS JURISDICTIONAL  FN45  AND
THAT IT EXTENDS ONLY TO THE PRIMARY COURT, JURISDICTION IN THE PRESENT
CASE MAY STILL BE RESTED UPON SEC. 2.  THAT SECTION, IN THE ABSENCE OF
SEC. 23, SUPPORTS THE JURISDICTION OF ALL DISTRICT COURTS TO HEAR
PLENARY SUITS BROUGHT BY A REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE, A RESULT CONSISTENT
WITH THE AIMS OF CHAPTER X AND WITH THE ELIMINATION OF A SECTION WHICH
IS ITSELF APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICT COURTS.  CONGRESS COULD HAVE
CARVED OUT OF SEC. 23 ONLY A NARROW EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF THE COURT IN
WHICH THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING AND THEREBY LEFT
UNCHANGED THE JURISDICTION OF OTHER COURTS OVER A TRUSTEE'S PLENARY
SUITS.  LIMITED EXCEPTIONS ARE FAMILIAR IN THE HISTORY OF SEC. 23.  BUT
CONGRESS WENT FURTHER AND ELIMINATED SEC. 23 ENTIRELY IN CHAPTER X
PROCEEDINGS.  BECAUSE OF THE COUNTRYWIDE RAMIFICATIONS OF CORPORATE
DEBTORS PLACED IN CHAPTER X REORGANIZATION, IT IS AS USUAL AS NOT FOR
THE TRUSTEE TO RESORT TO FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS FOR THE DISPOSITION OF
PLENARY SUITS.  ALLOWING THE PRIMARY COURT TO HEAR THESE SUITS WILL NOT
CHANGE THIS SITUATION, IF IT IS TRUE THAT THE PROCESS OF A
REORGANIZATION COURT DOES NOT RUN NATIONWIDE IN PLENARY CASES.  FN46
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY WOULD RECEIVE ONLY LIMITED RECOGNITION IF THE
SUSPENSION OF SEC. 23 IS INTERPRETED AS ALLOWING THE TRUSTEE ACCESS TO
ONLY THE APPOINTING COURT AND AS RESTRICTING HIS ACCESS TO ALL OTHER
DISTRICT COURTS.  FN47 

4.  OUR HOLDING IS, OF COURSE, THAT CONGRESS IN 1938 EXTENDED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE REORGANIZATION COURTS BEYOND THAT EXERCISED BY
ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY COURTS.  SECTION 2 OF THE 1898 ACT CONTAINED THE
BROAD LANGUAGE BORROWED FROM SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF 1867.  BUT THE
EXCEPTION TO SEC. 2(A)(7) ACKNOWLEDGED THE OVERRIDING LIMITATIONS OF
SEC. 23, WHICH WAS THE EMBODIMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO EXCLUDE
FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS MANY OF THE TRUSTEE'S PLENARY SUITS.  THAT
SAME MEANINGFUL SECTION WAS EXPRESSLY ELIMINATED IN 1938 IN THE PROCESS
OF PERFECTING A CHAPTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT DEALING WITH THE
DISTINCTIVE AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS IN CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS.  CF.
CONTINENTAL BANK V. ROCK ISLAND R. CO., 294 U.S. 648, 676(1935).  THIS
NEGATION OF LONG-STANDING POLICY SHOULD BE GIVEN EFFECT CONSISTENT WITH
THE AIMS OF CHAPTER X AND SHOULD NOT BE HEDGED BY JUDGE-MADE PRINCIPLES
NOT IN ACCORD WITH THOSE AIMS.  CONGRESS NEED NOT DOCUMENT ITS SPECIFIC
ACTIONS IN ELABORATE FASHION IN ORDER TO DIRECT THIS COURT'S ATTENTION
TO STATUTORY POLICY AND PURPOSE.  THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
FANFARE FOR THE SUSPENSION OF SEC. 23 IN CHAPTER X CASES, AND FOR THE
CONSEQUENT EXPANSION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION, HARDLY INVITES OUR
OPINION AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF THE ACTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS TAKEN. 
JUDICIAL DRIVES TO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD NOT
LEAD TO DECISION FALLING SHORT OF COMPLETE EFFECTUATION OF STATUTORY
SCHEME.  WITH THE LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 23 SUSPENDED, SEC. 2 CONFERS
JURISDICTION UPON ALL REORGANIZATION COURTS TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS
BROUGHT BY A CHAPTER X TRUSTEE. 

5.  PETITIONERS INSIST THAT CERTAIN CONSEQUENCES, WHICH THEY TERM
UNDESIRABLE, WILL FLOW FROM THIS DECISION.  IT IS SAID, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT THE STATE COURTS WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION TO
HEAR A TRUSTEE'S PLENARY SUITS.  BUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS AND OTHER
SUGGESTED CONSEQUENCES WILL FOLLOW WE LEAVE FOR CONSIDERATION IN CASES
PRESENTING SUCH ISSUES FOR DECISION. 

THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CHANDLER ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 840, GENERALLY REVISED THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, 30 STAT. 544, AS AMENDED.  SECTION 2 IN ITS
ORIGINAL FORM WAS SUBSTANTIALLY AS SET OUT IN THE TEXT EXCEPT THAT
JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED "IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS," INSTEAD OF "IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT."  THE CHANGE IN LANGUAGE WAS MADE IN 1938. 

FN2  SECTION 23 IN FULL PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:  "JURISDICTION OF UNITED
STATES AND STATE COURTS.  - A.  THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS SHALL
HAVE JURISDICTION OF ALL CONTROVERSIES AT LAW AND IN EQUITY, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, BETWEEN RECEIVERS AND
TRUSTEES AS SUCH AND ADVERSE CLAIMANTS, CONCERNING THE PROPERTY
ACQUIRED OR CLAIMED BY THE RECEIVERS OR TRUSTEES, IN THE SAME MANNER
AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH SUCH PROCEEDINGS HAD NOT BEEN
INSTITUTED AND SUCH CONTROVERSIES HAD BEEN BETWEEN THE BANKRUPTS AND
SUCH ADVERSE CLAIMANTS. 

"B.  SUITS BY THE RECEIVER AND THE TRUSTEE SHALL BE BROUGHT OR
PROSECUTED ONLY IN THE COURTS WHERE THE BANKRUPT MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT OR
PROSECUTED THEM IF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT HAD NOT BEEN INSTITUTED,
UNLESS BY CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 60,
67, AND 70 OF THIS ACT." 

WHICH WERE ABOLISHED IN 1911 BY SEC. 289 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  36
STAT. 1167.  FORMAL AMENDMENT TO SEC. 23(A) WAS MADE IN 1926.  44 STAT.
664. 

FN3  CHAPTER X, CONTAINING THE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS, SUPERSEDED
SEC. 77B.  SECTION 102 OF CHAPTER X PROVIDES:  "THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTERS I TO VII, INCLUSIVE, OF THIS ACT SHALL, INSOFAR AS THEY ARE
NOT INCONSISTENT OR IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER,
APPLY IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
SUBDIVISION F OF SECTION 70, SHALL NOT APPLY IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS UNLESS
AN ORDER SHALL BE ENTERED DIRECTING THAT BANKRUPTCY BE PROCEEDED WITH
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTERS I TO VII, INCLUSIVE.  FOR THE
PURPOSES OF SUCH APPLICATION, PROVISIONS RELATING TO 'BANKRUPTS' SHALL
BE DEEMED TO RELATE ALSO TO 'DEBTORS', AND 'BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS' OR
'PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY' SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE PROCEEDINGS
UNDER THIS CHAPTER." 

FN4  THE INVESTIGATION WAS MADE PURSUANT TO THE DECISION IN COMMITTEE
FOR HOLDERS V. KENT, 143 F.2D 684(1944). 

FN5  PETITIONERS ALSO BASED THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE APPLICABLE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; BUT THE DISTRICT COURT INDICATED THAT IF THERE
HAD BEEN JURISDICTION TO PROCEED, THE MOTION TO DISMISS WOULD OTHERWISE
HAVE BEEN DENIED, BECAUSE OF FACTUAL ISSUES WHICH FIRST REQUIRED
DETERMINATION. 

FN6  "PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER," REFERRED TO IN SECS. 101 AND
102 OF CHAPTER X, IS SIMILARLY CONSTRUED. 

FN7  ACCORDING TO THIS VIEW THERE WOULD, IN CHAPTER X CASES, BE NO
PROVISIONS IN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON FEDERAL
COURTS TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS OTHER THAN IN SECS. 60, 67, AND 70.  A
REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE WOULD BE LEFT, WHERE HE COULD, TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THE ORDINARY GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 

FN8  14 STAT. 517.  SECTION 1 GAVE THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION "IN ALL MATTERS AND PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY" WHICH
EXTENDED "TO ALL CASES AND CONTROVERSIES ARISING BETWEEN THE BANKRUPT
AND ANY CREDITOR OR CREDITORS WHO SHALL CLAIM ANY DEBT OR DEMAND UNDER
THE BANKRUPTCY; TO THE COLLECTION OF ALL THE ASSETS OF THE BANKRUPT
...  " 

FN9  SHERMAN V. BINGHAM, 21 FED. CAS. 1270, NO. 12,762(1872); GOODALL
V. TUTTLE, 10 FED. CAS. 579, NO. 5,533(1872).  THE REQUIREMENT OF
PLENARY PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH NOT EXPRESSLY APPEARING IN THE ACT, WAS
WELL RECOGNIZED.  MARSHALL V. KNOX, 16 WALL.  551(1872); SMITH V.
MASON, 14 WALL.  419(1871). 

FN10  SHERMAN V. BINGHAM, 21 FED. CAS. 1270, NO. 12,762(1872);
GOODALL V. TUTTLE, 10 FED. CAS. 579, NO. 5,533(1872). 

FN11  THE REFERENCES TO THE ACT CONTAINED IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OBVIOUSLY REFERRED TO SEC. 1; AND
SHERMAN V. BINGHAM, 21 FED. CAS. 1270, NO. 12,762(1872), WHICH
EXPRESSLY BASED UPON SEC. 1 THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS TO
HEAR PLENARY SUITS, WAS CITED WITH UNRESERVED APPROVAL.  THE PERTINENT
PASSAGE IN THE LATHROP CASE IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE LANGUAGE CONFERRING THIS JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IS
VERY BROAD AND GENERAL.  IT IS, THAT THEY SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS IN ALL MATTERS AND
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THIS JURISDICTION
ARE AFTERWARDS SPECIFIED; RESULTING, HOWEVER, IN THE TWO GENERAL
CLASSES BEFORE MENTIONED.   ...  EACH COURT WITHIN ITS OWN DISTRICT MAY
EXERCISE THE POWERS CONFERRED; BUT THOSE POWERS EXTEND TO ALL MATTERS
OF BANKRUPTCY, WITHOUT LIMITATION.  ...  BUT THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER
DISTRICT COURTS FROM JURISDICTION OVER THESE PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT
PREVENT THEM FROM EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MATTERS GROWING OUT OF OR
CONNECTED WITH THAT IDENTICAL BANKRUPTCY, SO FAR AS IT DOES NOT TRENCH
UPON OR CONFLICT WITH THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN WHICH THE CASE
IS PENDING.  PROCEEDINGS ANCILLARY TO AND IN AID OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN
BANKRUPTCY MAY BE NECESSARY IN OTHER DISTRICTS WHERE THE PRINCIPAL
COURT CANNOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION; AND IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE
ASSIGNEE TO INSTITUTE SUITS IN OTHER DISTRICTS FOR THE RECOVERY OF
ASSETS OF THE BANKRUPT.  THAT THE COURTS OF SUCH OTHER DISTRICTS MAY
EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN SUCH CASES WOULD SEEM TO BE THE NECESSARY
RESULT OF THE GENERAL JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THEM, AND IS IN
HARMONY WITH THE SCOPE AND DESIGN OF THE ACT.  THE STATE COURTS MAY
UNDOUBTEDLY BE RESORTED TO IN CASES OF ORDINARY SUITS FOR THE
POSSESSION OF PROPERTY OR THE COLLECTION OF DEBTS; AND IT IS NOT TO BE
PRESUMED THAT EMBARRASSMENTS WOULD BE ENCOUNTERED IN THOSE COURTS IN
THE WAY OF A PROMPT AND FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  BUT A UNIFORM
SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY, NATIONAL IN ITS CHARACTER, OUGHT TO BE CAPABLE OF
EXECUTION IN THE NATIONAL TRIBUNALS, WITHOUT DEPENDENCE UPON THOSE OF
THE STATES IN WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EMBARRASSMENTS MIGHT ARISE. 
THE QUESTION HAS BEEN QUITE FULLY AND SATISFACTORILY DISCUSSED BY A
MEMBER OF THIS COURT IN THE FIRST CIRCUIT, IN THE CASE OF SHEARMAN V.
BINGHAM, 7 BANK.  REG. 490; AND WE CONCUR IN THE OPINION THERE
EXPRESSED, THAT THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OF SUITS
BROUGHT BY ASSIGNEES APPOINTED BY OTHER DISTRICT COURTS IN CASES OF
BANKRUPTCY."  91 U.S. 516, 517-18. 

FN12  SECTION 2 CREATED THE COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY AND INVESTED THEM
"WITH SUCH JURISDICTION AT LAW AND IN EQUITY AS WILL ENABLE THEM TO
EXERCISE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS ...  TO  ...
(7) CAUSE THE ESTATES OF BANKRUPTS TO BE COLLECTED, REDUCED TO MONEY
AND DISTRIBUTED, AND DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES IN RELATION THERETO,
EXCEPT AS HEREIN OTHERWISE PROVIDED ...  " 

FN13  FIRST NAT. BANK V. TITLE AND TRUST CO., 198 U.S. 280,
289(1905); BRYAN V. BERNHEIMER, 181 U.S. 188, 194(1901); BARDES V.
HAWARDEN BANK, 178 U.S. 524, 535(1900).  SECTION 23(B), AS ORIGINALLY
ENACTED, PROVIDED:  "SUITS BY THE TRUSTEE SHALL ONLY BE BROUGHT OR
PROSECUTED IN THE COURTS WHERE THE BANKRUPT, WHOSE ESTATE IS BEING
ADMINISTERED BY SUCH TRUSTEE, MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED THEM IF
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY HAD NOT BEEN INSTITUTED, UNLESS BY CONSENT OF
THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT." 

FN14  "A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE OF 1898 WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE
FEDERAL COURTS OF JURISDICTION OF THE SUITS IN QUESTION (TRUSTEE'S SUIT
TO RECOVER PROPERTY) WOULD MAKE THE ACT OF 1898 UNPRECEDENTED AMONG
BANKRUPT ACTS."  IN RE HAMMOND, 98 F. 845, 853(1899). 

FN15  WHEN S. 1035, WHICH EVENTUALLY BECAME THE ACT OF 1898, REACHED
THE HOUSE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED STRIKING OUT ALL AFTER
THE ENACTING CLAUSE AND SUBSTITUTING THE COMMITTEE'S OWN BILL.  SECTION
23 OF THE HOUSE VERSION, 31 CONG. REC. 1781(1898), SURVIVED BOTH DEBATE
AND CONFERENCE ACTION AND BECAME SEC. 23 OF THE ACT OF 1898.  IN
REVIEWING THE BILL PRELIMINARY TO DEBATE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE EXPLAINED: 

"THE JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS TO TRY CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE
TRUSTEES OF BANKRUPT ESTATES AND PARTIES CLAIMING ADVERSE INTEREST IS
NOT IN ANY WAY INTERFERED WITH. 

"SUITS BY THE TRUSTEE SHALL ONLY BE BROUGHT IN THE COURTS WHERE THE
BANKRUPT MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT THEM EXCEPT FOR THE MISFORTUNE OF HIS
BANKRUPTCY, UNLESS BY THE CONSENT OF THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT. 

"UNDER THE LAST BANKRUPTCY LAW THE LITIGATION INCIDENT TO THE
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES WAS CONDUCTED ALMOST WHOLLY IN UNITED STATES
COURTS.  THE RESULT WAS GREAT INCONVENIENCE AND MUCH EXPENSE TO A
MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN SUCH LITIGATION AS PRINCIPALS,
WITNESSES, AND ATTORNEYS.  SUCH WILL NOT BE THE EFFECT UNDER THIS
BILL.  IT IS PROPER THAT SUCH SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE, SPEAKING
GENERALLY, IN BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE."  31 CONG. REC.
1785(1898).    FN16  IN RE WOODBURY, 98 F. 833(1900); IN RE HAMMOND, 98
F. 845(1899); LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V. MARX, 98 F. 456(1899). 

FN17  32 STAT. 798-9. 

FN18  ID. AT 799-800.  CONGRESS LIKEWISE AMENDED SEC. 70(E), BUT BY
AN OVERSIGHT THE EXCEPTIONS MADE TO SEC. 23 WERE NOT CORRESPONDINGLY
EXTENDED.  THE OMISSION WAS CORRECTED IN 1910.  36 STAT. 840.  SEE H.
REP. NO. 511, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS. 6(1910). 

FN19  "SECTION 9:  UNDER THE LAW OF 1867, THE FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS HAD CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF SUITS TO RECOVER PROPERTY
FRAUDULENTLY OR PREFERENTIALLY TRANSFERRED.  BARDES V. BANK OF HAWARDEN
(IA.), 178 U.S., 524, HAS SO CONSTRUED SECTION 23 B, OF THE LAW AS TO
DENY SUCH JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURTS, SAVE WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT.  IN COMMERCIAL CENTERS THIS AMOUNTS TO A DENIAL
OF JUSTICE, THE CALENDARS OF THE STATE COURTS BEING YEARS BEHINDHAND;
WHILE, GROWING OUT OF BARDES V. BANK, HAVE COME DECISIONS WHICH HAVE
CRIPPLED THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW TO A MARKED DEGREE.  (SEE IN RE
WARD (MASS.), 5 AM. B.R., 215; MUELLER V. NUGENT (KY.), 105 FED., 581;
THIS LATTER, HOWEVER, RECENTLY REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT.)  THERE
IS A VERY GENERAL DEMAND FOR A RETURN TO THE POLICY OF THE LAW OF
1867.  WERE IT NOT FOR SECTION 23 B, SECTION 2(7), WOULD PROBABLY
CONFER AMPLE JURISDICTION ON THE DISTRICT COURTS.  THE CHANGE IN
OF IT ALL SUITS WHICH CAN, UNDER THE SPECIFIC WORDS OF THE LAW, BE
BROUGHT TO RECOVER PROPERTY, AND THIS MERELY BY REFERRING TO THE THREE
DOUBT, ALSO, SECTIONS 13 AND 16 OF THE BILL CONFER CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION OF ALL SUCH SUITS ON THE STATE COURTS AND THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS, BY ADDING APPROPRIATE WORDS TO EACH OF THE THREE
1698, 57TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 7(1902). 

SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN ON THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE BY REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE W. RAY, CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.  35 CONG. REC. 6941, 6942(1902). 

REPRESENTATIVE RAY, WE NOTE, WAS SECOND RANKING MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE 1898 ACT.  IT WAS
THAT COMMITTEE WHICH DRAFTED SECS. 2 AND 23 IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM
APPEARING IN THE 1898 ACT.  SEE NOTE 15, SUPRA.  REPRESENTATIVE RAY WAS
ALSO A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, AND IT WAS IN
CONFERENCE THAT THE ACT OF 1898 WAS FINALLY DRAFTED AND THE SERIOUS
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE WERE RESOLVED. 

FN20  HARRIS V. FIRST NAT. BANK, 216 U.S. 382(1910). 

FN21  KELLEY V. GILL, 245 U.S. 116(1917); IN RE ROMAN, 23 F.2D
556(1928); LYNCH V. BRONSON, 177 F. 605(1910). 

FN22  WHITNEY V. WENMAN, 198 U.S. 539(1905); MUELLER V. NUGENT, 184
U.S. 1(1902); BRYAN V. BERNHEIMER, 181 U.S. 188(1901); WHITE V.
SCHLOERB, 178 U.S. 542(1900).  "BUT IN NO CASE WHERE IT LACKED
POSSESSION, COULD THE BANKRUPTCY COURT  ...  ADJUDICATE IN A SUMMARY
PROCEEDING THE VALIDITY OF A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CLAIM.  IN THE ABSENCE
OF POSSESSION, THERE WAS UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, AS
ORIGINALLY PASSED, NO JURISDICTION, WITHOUT CONSENT, TO ADJUDICATE THE
CONTROVERSY EVEN BY A PLENARY SUIT."  TAUBEL-SCOTT-KITZMILLER CO. V.
FOX, 264 U.S. 426, 433-34(1924). 

FN23  MATTHEW V. COPPIN, 32 F.2D 100, 101(1929); SEE STIEFEL V. 14TH
STREET REALTY CORP., 48 F.2D 1041, 1043(1931); COYLE V. DUNCAN SPANGLER
COAL CO., 288 F. 897, 901(1923); PIANO CO. V. FIRST WISCONSIN TRUST
CO., 283 F. 904, 906(1922); DE FRIECE V. BRYANT, 232 F. 233, 236(1916);
MCELDOWNEY V. CARD, 193 F. 475, 479(1911).  CONTRA:  BEELER V.
SCHUMACHER, 71 F.2D 831(1934); TOLEDO FENCE & POST CO. V. LYONS, 290 F.
637, 645(1923). 

FN24  "THE CONGRESS, BY VIRTUE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER
BANKRUPTCIES, COULD CONFER OR WITHHOLD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUCH
SUITS AND COULD PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS
SHOULD HAVE JURISDICTION.  ...  EXERCISING THAT POWER, THE CONGRESS
PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 23B THE CONDITION OF CONSENT ON THE PART OF THE
DEFENDANT SUED BY THE TRUSTEE."  SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, 293 U.S. 367,
374(1934). 

FN25  THE CASES DECIDED UNDER THE 1867 ACT AND REFERRED TO IN NOTES
10-11, SUPRA, RECOGNIZED THE BROAD SCOPE OF LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THAT OF
SEC. 2; AND CASES ARISING UNDER THE 1898 ACT AND DECIDED BEFORE BARDES
V. HAWARDEN BANK, 178 U.S. 524(1900), BASED UPON SEC. 2 THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ENTERTAIN PLENARY SUITS TO
RECOVER PROPERTY ADVERSELY HELD.  SEE NOTE 16, SUPRA. 

LATER CASES HAVE RECOGNIZED THE OVERRIDING CONSEQUENCE OF SEC. 23. 
"SECTION 2, CLAUSE 7, CONFERS UPON THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION
TO 'CAUSE THE ESTATES OF BANKRUPTS TO BE COLLECTED, REDUCED TO MONEY
AND DISTRIBUTED, AND DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES IN RELATION THERETO,
EXCEPT AS HEREIN OTHERWISE PROVIDED.'  BUT SEC. 23-B PROHIBITS THE
TRUSTEE (WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE APPLICABLE) FROM PROSECUTING, WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT, A SUIT IN A COURT OTHER THAN
THAT IN WHICH THE BANKRUPT MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT IT, HAD BANKRUPTCY NOT
INTERVENED."  KELLEY V. GILL, 245 U.S. 116, 119(1917).  "THERE IS
PLAINLY A CONTROVERSY IN RELATION TO THE ESTATE OF A BANKRUPT, AND
SUBDIVISION 7 OF SECTION 2 WOULD CONFER JURISDICTION IF IT WERE NOT FOR
THE LIMITING WORDS, 'EXCEPT AS HEREIN OTHERWISE PROVIDED.'"  LYNCH V.
BRONSON, 160 F. 139, 140(1908).  SEE ALSO LOWENSTEIN V. REIKES, 54 F.2D
481, 485(1931)(DISSENTING OPINION), AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE INTERPLAY
OF SECS. 2 AND 23 IN ROSS, FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN SUITS BY TRUSTEES IN
BANKRUPTCY, 20 IOWA L. REV. 565(1935), WHICH WAS WRITTEN AFTER THE
BEELER DECISION. 

FN26  SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, 293 U.S. 367(1934).  SEE P. 652 AND NOTE
24, SUPRA.  IN TILTON V. MODEL TAXI CORP., 112 F.2D 86(1940), A 77B
CASE, THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN A PLENARY
SUIT WAS BASED UPON CONSENT. 

FN27  THE SENATE REPORT SAID IN REGARD TO THE COMMITTEE'S SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 102: "THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AMPLIFIES THE PROVISION
WITH REFERENCE TO APPLICABILITY SO AS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTERS I TO VII ARE ALONE TO BE DEEMED APPLICABLE,
EXCEPT WHERE INCONSISTENT OR IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CHAPTER."  S. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 6(1938). 

THE AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 102 WERE AGREED TO WITHOUT COMMENT ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE, AND WERE SIMILARLY ACCEPTED BY THE HOUSE.  83
CONG. REC. 8697, 9103, 9107, 9110(1938). 

FN28  THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE BY MR. JOHN GERDES.  SEE HEARINGS
BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. SENATE, ON
H.R. 8046, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS. 77(1938).  MR. GERDES DID NOT AT THIS
TIME EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE SUGGESTED SUSPENSION OF SEC. 23.  HE
STATED AS FOLLOWS: 

"CHAPTER X IS NOT INTENDED TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT.  ALL PROVISIONS OF
THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER
X, EXCEPT SUCH PROVISIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EXPRESS PROVISIONS IN
CHAPTER X. SOME PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL ACT ARE CLEARLY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE CORPORATE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS AND ARE THEREFORE
INAPPLICABLE.  OTHER PROVISIONS ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE.  HOWEVER, THERE
ARE CERTAIN SECTIONS WHICH BY THEIR NATURE PERMIT OF DOUBT AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE APPLICABLE.  SECTION 64 OF THE GENERAL
BANKRUPTCY ACT, FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDES FOR A FIXED PRIORITY IN THE
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.  THIS SECTION DEALS SOLELY WITH UNSECURED CLAIMS,
ONLY UNSECURED CLAIMS BEING AFFECTED BY BANKRUPTCY.  TO APPLY IT IN
CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS - WHERE SECURED AS WELL AS UNSECURED CLAIMS
ARE DEALT WITH - WOULD CAUSE GREAT CONFUSION.  TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
PROVIDES THAT 64 SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO CHAPTER X. THE PRIORITIES
UNDER CHAPTER X WOULD THEREFORE BE THOSE USED IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS. 
THAT IS THE PRESENT PRACTICE UNDER 77B, WHICH EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT
HERE WE MERELY ADOPT THE PRACTICE WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE UNDER

"IN THIS ENUMERATION OF SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS WHICH ARE NOT
APPLICABLE, WE INCLUDE ONLY THOSE AS TO WHICH THERE MAY BE REASONABLE
DOUBT.  THE SECTIONS WHICH WE ENUMERATE ARE 23, 57(H), 57(N), 64, AND
70(F).  WE PROPOSE THAT SECTION 102 BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THESE
CHAPTER X." 

A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK ALSO LISTED SEC. 23 AMONG THOSE SECTIONS WHICH "HAVE NO
APPLICABILITY TO A REORGANIZATION PROCEDURE."  ID. AT 37.  AND THE
SPOKESMAN FOR THE PHILADELPHIA COURT PLAN COMMITTEE SUGGESTED AMENDING
SEC. 23 TO GIVE ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY COURTS MORE EFFECTIVE POWERS TO
DEAL WITH FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRED OR CONCEALED ASSETS.  ID. AT 26. 

FN29  WHITE V. EWING, 159 U.S. 36(1895); SEE RIEHLE V. MARGOLIES, 279
U.S. 218, 223(1929). 

FN30  FINLETTER, PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE REORGANIZATION 185
87(1937). 

FN31  2 GERDES, CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS 1465(1936).  THE COURTS HAD
NOT BEEN SQUARELY FACED WITH THE PROBLEM AT THE TIME CONGRESS WAS
CONSIDERING THE 1938 REVISION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  MATTER OF UNITED
SPORTWEAR CO., 28 AM. B.R. (N.S.)  456(1935), HAD SUGGESTED THAT SEC.
23 WAS APPLICABLE, WHILE THE CONTRARY INTIMATION IS EVIDENT IN THOMAS
V. WINSLOW, 11 F.SUPP.  839(1935).  SEE ALSO NOTE, 49 HARV. L. REV.
797(1936). 

FN32  SEC. 156.  THE REQUIREMENT OF A DISINTERESTED TRUSTEE WAS ONE
OF THE MAJOR SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS WHICH CHAPTER X MADE TO SEC. 77B. 
S. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 19(1938). 

FN33  SECS. 156 AND 158. 

FN34  THE IMPORTANT DEFECTS OF 77B REORGANIZATIONS AND THE REMEDY
PROVIDED IN CHAPTER X ARE ANALYZED IN S. REP. NO. 2084, 75TH CONG., 3D
SESS. 1-3(1938). 

FN35  SECS. 167(6) AND 169. 

FN36  SECTION 167 IN PART PROVIDES:  "THE TRUSTEE UPON HIS
APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATION - 

"(1)  SHALL, IF THE JUDGE SHALL SO DIRECT, FORTHWITH INVESTIGATE THE
ACTS, CONDUCT, PROPERTY, LIABILITIES, AND FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE
DEBTOR, THE OPERATION OF ITS BUSINESS AND THE DESIRABILITY OF THE
CONTINUANCE THEREOF, AND ANY OTHER MATTER RELEVANT TO THE PROCEEDING OR
TO THE FORMULATION OF A PLAN, AND REPORT THEREON TO THE JUDGE; 

"(2)  MAY, IF THE JUDGE SHALL SO DIRECT, EXAMINE THE DIRECTORS AND
OFFICERS OF THE DEBTOR AND ANY OTHER WITNESSES CONCERNING THE FOREGOING
MATTERS OR ANY OF THEM; 

"(3)  SHALL REPORT TO THE JUDGE ANY FACTS ASCERTAINED BY HIM
PERTAINING TO FRAUD, MISCONDUCT, MISMANAGEMENT AND IRREGULARITIES, AND
TO ANY CAUSES OF ACTION AVAILABLE TO THE ESTATE  ...  " 

FN37  S. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 29(1938). 

FN38  IBID. 

FN39  "THESE FUNCTIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT TRUSTEE APPOINTED IN THE
LARGER CASES ARE DIFFICULT TO OVEREMPHASIZE.  ...  INVESTORS MUST BE
AFFORDED A 'FOCAL POINT' FOR ORGANIZATION."  H.REP.  NO. 1409, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 43(1937). 

FN40  "THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, IN RESPECT TO THE MATTERS NOW
UNDER CONSIDERATION, WAS A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THE ACT OF 1867, IN
THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
STATES COURTS IN RESPECT TO CONTROVERSIES WHICH DID NOT COME SIMPLY
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS AS BANKRUPTCY COURTS, AND
TO PRESERVE, TO A GREATER EXTENT THAN THE FORMER ACT, THE JURISDICTION
OF THE STATE COURTS OVER ACTIONS WHICH WERE NOT DISTINCTLY MATTERS AND
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY."  BUSH V. ELLIOTT, 202 U.S. 477, 479
80(1906).  AND SEE PP. 649 AND 650, NOTES 14-15, SUPRA. 

FN41  SECTION 1(10) DEFINES THE COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY AS FOLLOWS:
"'COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY' SHALL INCLUDE THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND OF THE TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS TO WHICH THIS ACT IS OR
MAY HEREAFTER BE APPLICABLE, AND THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA"; BABBITT V. DUTCHER, 216 U.S.
102(1910).  AND SEE SEC. 2(A)(20) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

FN42  OUR CONCLUSION IS NOT CHANGED BY THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 23(A),
WHICH AS DRAWN IN 1898, 30 STAT. 544, 552, WAS DESIGNED TO GRANT A
LIMITED JURISDICTION TO CIRCUIT COURTS OVER "CONTROVERSIES AT LAW AND
IN EQUITY," AS DISTINGUISHED FROM "PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY," AND
WHICH SEEMS ONLY TO HAVE RECOGNIZED THE RULE EXISTING UNDER THE 1867
ACT THAT CERTAIN BANKRUPTCY MATTERS WERE THE EXCLUSIVE CONCERN OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT.  IF "PROCEEDINGS" AS USED IN SEC. 23(A) DENOTED THOSE
INSTANCES IN WHICH SUMMARY JURISDICTION WAS PROPER, TO FIND THAT
"PROCEEDINGS" IN SEC. 2 HAS NO SUCH PRECISE MEANING SIMPLY EXEMPLIFIES
THE VARIETY OF WAYS IN WHICH "PROCEEDINGS" HAS BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE
BANKRUPTCY STATUTE.  SECTION 11(E) AUTHORIZES TRUSTEES TO INSTITUTE
"PROCEEDINGS IN BEHALF OF THE ESTATE UPON ANY CLAIM" AND REFERS TO "ANY
PROCEEDING, JUDICIAL OR OTHERWISE."  AND SECS. 60(B), 67(E) AND 70(E)
SPEAK OF "PROCEEDINGS" IN CONNECTION WITH PLENARY.  IN CHAPTER X
ITSELF, SECS. 101 AND 102 REFER TO "PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER." 
THIS TERM MUST EXTEND TO PLENARY SUITS, FOR OTHERWISE SEC. 23, WHICH
DEALS ONLY WITH PLENARY SUITS, WOULD NOT BE SUSPENDED AT ALL. 
SIGNIFICANT TOO IS THAT "BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS" IN SEC. 2 WAS IN 1938
CHANGED TO "PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT" IN ORDER THAT THE JURISDICTION
GRANTED BY SEC. 2 WOULD EXTEND TO "PROCEEDINGS" UNDER THE NEW DEBTOR
RELIEF CHAPTERS, INCLUDING CHAPTER X. 

FN43  6 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY 673(14TH ED. 1947.) 

FN44  SECTION 115 PROVIDES:  "UPON THE APPROVAL OF A PETITION, THE
COURT SHALL HAVE AND MAY, IN ADDITION TO THE JURISDICTION, POWERS, AND
DUTIES HEREINABOVE AND ELSEWHERE IN THIS CHAPTER CONFERRED AND IMPOSED
UPON IT, EXERCISE ALL THE POWERS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CHAPTER, WHICH A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE IF IT
HAD APPOINTED A RECEIVER IN EQUITY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR ON THE
GROUND OF INSOLVENCY OR INABILITY TO MEET ITS DEBTS AS THEY MATURE." 
FN45  THE SIMILAR "POWERS" PROVISION IN SEC. 77B HAS BEEN VIEWED AS NON
JURISDICTIONAL.  IN RE STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 119 F.2D 658,
662(1941); SEE IN RE PRIMA CO., 98 F.2D 952, 958(1938).  THESE CASES
WERE DECIDED AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE CHANDLER ACT AND CONSIDERED SEC.
23 FULLY APPLICABLE IN PENDING 77B PROCEEDINGS.  IN TILTON V. MODEL
TAXI CORP., 112 F.2D 86(1940), SEC. 23 WAS CONSIDERED APPLICABLE IN
SEC. 77B PROCEEDINGS SO AS TO PERMIT JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
TO BE BASED UPON A DEFENDANT'S CONSENT.  AND SEE THOMPSON V. TERMINAL
SHARES, 104 F.2D 1(1939), FOR A TREATMENT OF A SIMILAR PROVISION
CONTAINED IN SEC. 77.  ON THE OTHER HAND, SEC. 115 HAS BEEN INTERPRETED
AS JURISDICTIONAL.  IN RE CUYAHOGA FINANCE CO., 136 F.2D 18(1943); SEE
WARDER V. BRADY, 115 F.2D 89, 93-94(1940).  OTHER COURTS HAVE THOUGHT
THE SUSPENSION OF SEC. 23 IN CHAPTER X CASES WOULD GIVE THE
REORGANIZATION COURT JURISDICTION TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS.  SEE CLARKE V.
FITCH, CCH BANKR.  LAW SER.  P53,805(1942); TILTON V. MODEL TAXI CORP.,
SUPRA AT 88. 

FN46  IT HAS BEEN SO HELD.  IN RE STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 119
F.2D 658(1941); BOVAY V. H.M. BYLLESBY & CO., 88 F.2D 990(1937); UNITED
STATES V. TACOMA ORIENTAL S.S. CO., 86 F.2D 363(1936); CLARKE V. FITCH,
CCH BANKR.  LAW SER.  P53,805(1942). 

FN47  THE CHAPTER X CASES CITED IN NOTE 45, SUPRA, DID NOT REACH THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER COURTS OTHER THAN THE PRIMARY COURT WOULD HAVE
JURISDICTION TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS WHERE THE LATTER HAD JURISDICTION OF
SUCH A SUIT BUT COULD NOT EXERCISE IT BECAUSE OF PERSONAL SERVICE OR
VENUE DIFFICULTIES.  NOR DID MR. GERDES, WHO CONSTRUED THE SUSPENSION
OF SEC. 23 AS ESTABLISHING, BY WAY OF SEC. 115, THE JURISDICTION OF THE
REORGANIZATION COURT TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS.  GERDES, CORPORATE
REORGANIZATIONS:  CHANGES EFFECTED BY CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
52 HARV. L. REV. 1, 21(1938).  BUT IT WAS HIS OPINION EVEN UNDER SEC.
77B, WHERE THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 23 WAS LEFT IN DOUBT, THAT ALL
REORGANIZATION COURTS, NOT JUST THE DOMICILIARY COURT, HAD JURISDICTION
TO HEAR PLENARY SUITS BROUGHT BY THE TRUSTEE, EVEN THOUGH THE USUAL
GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION WERE LACKING.  2 GERDES, CORPORATE
REORGANIZATIONS 1480, 1513-14, 1525-26(1936). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

ON THE SURFACE THIS APPEARS TO BE MERELY A BANKRUPTCY CASE RAISING
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  BUT THE ANSWERS TO THESE
QUESTIONS HAVE FAR-REACHING IMPORT.  THEY INVOLVE THE DISTRIBUTION OF
JUDICIAL POWER AS BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND STATE COURTS, AND THUS
CONCERN FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS GENERALLY.  MORE IMMEDIATELY, INASMUCH
AS THE ALLOWABLE SCOPE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IS IN
CONTROVERSY, A PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE CASE BEARS UPON THE QUALITY OF
THE WORK OF THOSE COURTS AND OF THIS COURT IN PARTICULAR. 

THE COURT MAKES A SHIFT IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER BETWEEN
STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS WHICH HAS PREVAILED FOR HALF A CENTURY.  SUCH
A BREAK WITH THE PAST IS NOT REQUIRED BY WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN NOR
BY ANY INFERENCE DRAWN FROM DISCLOSED CONGRESSIONAL POLICIES.  ON THE
CONTRARY, I BELIEVE THAT THE RESULT REACHED IS REPELLED BY EVERY
CONSIDERATION RELEVANT TO THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTORY
MATERIALS BY WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IS TO BE
DETERMINED. 

IN 1867 CONGRESS GRANTED JURISDICTION TO THE THEN LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS OVER SUITS ON CLAIMS OWING TO ONE WHOSE ESTATE WAS ADMINISTERED
IN BANKRUPTCY, THOUGH THE CLAIMS WERE BASED WHOLLY ON LOCAL LAW AND
WERE DEVOID OF ANY FEDERAL ASPECT WHICH WOULD GIVE A FEDERAL COURT
JURISDICTION WERE THE CREDITOR NOT IN BANKRUPTCY.  THIS WAS ANOTHER ONE
OF THOSE ENACTMENTS OF THE RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD WHEN THE INFLUENCES
TOWARD EXPANSION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION WERE AT FLOOD-TIDE.  AS PART
OF THE RECESSION FROM THIS RECONSTRUCTION TENDENCY CONGRESS, IN THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, WITHDREW FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS SUITS THAT
RESTED SOLELY ON LOCAL LAW EVEN THOUGH THEY INVOLVED CLAIMS ASSERTED ON
BEHALF OF ONE WHOSE ESTATE WAS BEING ADMINISTERED IN THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT.  BY A TENUOUS PROCESS OF IMPLICATION THE COURT NOW CONCLUDES
THAT CONGRESS, THROUGH THE CHANDLER ACT OF 1938, ENLARGED FEDERAL
JURISDICTION IN ONE ASPECT OF THE BANKRUPTCY LAW, THOUGH NEITHER THE
TERMS OF THE LEGISLATION, NOR ITS CONTEXT, NOR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
NOR CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY HERETOFORE SUGGESTED, CALL FOR SUCH
CONSTRUCTION, WHILE THE HISTORY AND STRUCTURE OF THE LEGISLATION, ITS
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, REGARD FOR CONGRUITY IN FINDING MEANING, AND
THE LARGER CLAIMS OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, SUPPORT A DIFFERENT
READING OF THE STATUTE.  THE LARGE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DECISION ARE THAT
BY INDIRECTION AND WITHOUT MANIFESTED DESIGN CONGRESS REVERSED ITS
PREVAILING POLICY OF LIMITING FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PRESERVING A
PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS; THAT CONGRESS DEVIATED
FROM A PRINCIPLE OF OUR FEDERALISM ESPECIALLY RESPECTED IN RECENT
TIMES, ACCORDING TO WHICH CLAIMS ARISING UNDER STATE LAW SHALL BE TRIED
UNDER LOCAL TRIAL PROCEDURE IN THE LOCAL COURTS; THAT CONGRESS HAS
DEPARTED FROM A SETTLED POLICY OF FIFTY YEARS UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE IN
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS AND WHICH NOW CONTINUES AS TO ALL OTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY, ALTHOUGH THIS ESTABLISHED POLICY OF LEAVING
LOCAL CLAIMS TO THE STATE COURTS DOES NOT AT ALL INTERFERE WITH THOSE
AIMS FOR EFFECTIVE REORGANIZATION THROUGH USE OF THE BANKRUPTCY POWER
WHICH GAVE RISE TO CHAPTER X. 

1.  THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE CENTRAL STATES
ELECTRIC CORPORATION FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA A VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER
CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
REORGANIZATION COURT, RESPONDENTS, AS TRUSTEES, BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ON BEHALF OF
THE CORPORATION FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND DAMAGES AGAINST ITS OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS FOR ALLEGED FRAUD AND MISMANAGEMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND WANT OF JURISDICTION, BUT WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  159 F.2D 67.  THIS COURT NOW AFFIRMS
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND HOLDS THAT A CHAPTER X TRUSTEE MAY
BRING THIS PLENARY SUIT IN PERSONAM IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT NOT THE
REORGANIZATION COURT, ALTHOUGH NEITHER DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP NOR
OTHER GROUND OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION EXISTS. 

NO DOUBT CONGRESS COULD AUTHORIZE SUCH A SUIT.  SEE SCHUMACHER V.
BEELER, 293 U.S. 367, 374.  NOR IS THERE ANY DOUBT THAT CONGRESS HAS
NOT CONFERRED UPON THE DISTRICT COURTS THE POWER TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A
SUIT BY AN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE.  SECTION 23 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT SPECIFICALLY LIMITS PLENARY JURISDICTION TO A FEW ENUMERATED CASES
(OF WHICH THIS IS NOT ONE), OR WHERE DEFENDANT CONSENTS.  THE COURT
FINDS, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS, BY MAKING SEC. 23 INAPPLICABLE TO
CHAPTER X PROCEEDINGS, OPENED ALL THE FEDERAL COURTS TO PLENARY SUITS
BY A CHAPTER X TRUSTEE.  TO DETERMINE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
INAPPLICABILITY OF SEC. 23 TO CHAPTER X PROCEEDINGS IT IS NECESSARY TO
CONSIDER THE AFFILIATIONS BETWEEN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898 AND THE
CHANDLER ACT.  THAT IN TURN MAKES IT NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE ACT OF
1898 IN RELATION TO ITS PREDECESSOR, THE ACT OF 1867.  THESE THREE
ENACTMENTS - THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1867, THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898,
AND THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1938 - ARE AN INTERRELATED PROCESS OF
LEGISLATION.  THE ROLE OF SEC. 23 CANNOT BE PROPERLY ASSESSED MERELY BY
A TEXTUAL READING, OR BY ASCERTAINING ITS PRESENCE OR ABSENCE IN THESE
THREE ACTS.  IT MUST BE PLACED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HISTORY OF THE ACT
OF 1867 AND OF THE ACT OF 1898, AND THE RELATION OF THAT HISTORY TO THE
AIMS OF THE CHANDLER ACT. 

2.  TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL IMPORT OF THE ACT OF 1867, SO FAR AS NOW
RELEVANT, IT WILL BEAR REPETITION THAT IT REFLECTED THE EXPANSIONIST
TREND IN FEDERAL JURISDICTION AFTER THE CIVIL WAR.  STATUTE AFTER
STATUTE GAVE TO THE FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION OVER CASES WHICH HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN LEFT ENTIRELY TO STATE TRIBUNALS, AND THIS COURT GAVE A
BROAD CONSTRUCTION TO SUCH STATUTES.  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1867 GAVE
TO ALL DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER SUITS
"BY THE ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY AGAINST ANY PERSON CLAIMING AN ADVERSE
INTEREST" IN THE ESTATE.  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867, 14
STAT. 517, 518.  THIS PROVISION WAS CONSTRUED IN LATHROP V. DRAKE, 91
U.S. 516.  MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, WITH CHARACTERISTIC CLARITY,
DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN "JURISDICTION AS A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY OVER THE
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY  ...  (AND) JURISDICTION, AS AN ORDINARY
COURT, OF SUITS AT LAW OR IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST THE ASSIGNEE
IN REFERENCE TO ALLEGED PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT, OR TO CLAIMS ALLEGED
TO BE DUE FROM OR TO HIM."  91 U.S. AT 517.  BUT THE TERMS OF THE ACT
WERE READ TO CONFER THE LATTER JURISDICTION ON THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS.  IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY WAS A WELL-KNOWN
EXPONENT OF EXPANSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  SEE, E.G., HIS DISSENTING
OPINION IN MURDOCK V. MEMPHIS, 20 WALL.  590, 639. 

3.  THE BUSINESS WHICH THIS BROAD CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT OF 1867
BROUGHT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS, TOGETHER WITH THAT FROM OTHER SOURCES,
LED TO THE OVERBURDENING OF THEIR DOCKETS, AND INEVITABLY OF THE
DOCKETS OF THIS COURT, AND GAVE RISE TO THE VARIOUS MOVEMENTS FOR THEIR
RELIEF.  THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IS TO A CONSIDERABLE MEASURE
A HISTORY OF THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SCOPE OF THE JURISDICTION GIVEN
TO THEM BY CONGRESS.  NOT TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THESE UNDERLYING FACTORS
IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF JUDICIARY ACTS IS TO LEAVE OUT THE MEANING IN
THE INTERSTICES OF THE WORDS OF ENACTMENTS.  THE ACT OF 1898 EXPLICITLY
REVEALS THE IMPORTANT SHIFT IN EMPHASIS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE WITHIN
THIRTY YEARS IN THE DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS OF
THE JUDICIAL POWER AT THE DISPOSAL OF CONGRESS.  BY 1898 THE
EXPANSIONIST TREND IN FEDERAL JURISDICTION HAD RECEDED.  THE MOVEMENT
WAS TOWARD A CURTAILMENT FOR AN OVERBURDENED JUDICIARY.  THE NEW
BANKRUPTCY ACT ALSO SHOWED THE RECESSION. 

THE ACT OF 1898 WAS NOT AN AMENDMENT OF THE ACT OF 1867.  THE LATTER
HAD BEEN REPEALED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1878, 20 STAT. 99, AND FOR
TWENTY YEARS THERE WAS NO FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
1898 ACT IS NOT TO BE READ AS A MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SYSTEM.  IT
ESTABLISHED A SCHEME OF BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION WHERE THERE WAS
NONE.  ITS FRAMERS, OF COURSE, DREW ON HISTORY.  THEY BORROWED HEAVILY
FROM THE ACT OF 1867.  BUT A COMPARISON OF THE JURISDICTIONAL SECTIONS
OF THE 1898 ACT WITH THOSE OF ITS PREDECESSOR REVEALS THE GREAT CHANGE
IN THE ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE WITHDRAWAL OF ESSENTIALLY
LOCAL LITIGATION FROM THE STATE COURTS. 

4.  THE SHIFT IN JURISDICTIONAL DIRECTION WAS DULY RESPECTED WHEN THE
ACT OF 1898 FIRST CAME HERE FOR CONSTRUCTION.  SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS
COURT, MR. JUSTICE GRAY POINTED OUT THE MARKED STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE ACT OF 1898 AND THAT OF 1867.  THE LATTER GRANTED SUMMARY
JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN SEC. 1; PLENARY JURISDICTION WAS
CONFERRED BY SEC. 2 ON DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS CONCURRENTLY OF
"SUITS, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, BETWEEN THE ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY AND AN
ADVERSE CLAIMANT  ...  ."  THE ACT OF 1898 TOOK OVER SEC. 1 OF THE ACT
OF 1867, AND DISCARDED SEC. 2.  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF 1898, DERIVED
FROM SEC. 1 OF THE 1867 ACT, CONFERS ONLY SUMMARY JURISDICTION. 
PLENARY JURISDICTION WAS NOT CONFERRED BY THE ACT OF 1898 ON EITHER THE
DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT COURTS EXCEPT TO THE VERY LIMITED EXTENT GRANTED BY
SEC. 23. 

SUCH WAS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT OF 1898 MADE ALMOST
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH ITS ENACTMENT.  BARDES V. HAWARDEN BANK, 178
U.S. 524.  THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS REAFFIRMED THIRTY-FOUR YEARS LATER BY
A UNANIMOUS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES. 
SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, SUPRA. 

5.  THIS RECOGNITION OF THE DRASTIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ACTS
WAS NOT DRAWN MERELY FROM THE INERT WORDS OF THE STATUTES.  THE WORDS
EXPRESSED THE GREAT DIFFERENCES OF OUTLOOK, TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN
MADE, IN REGARD TO THE TRANSFER TO THE FEDERAL COURTS OF WHAT IS
ESSENTIALLY STATE LITIGATION.  THIS COURT FOUND THE ACCENT OF THE ACT
OF 1867 TO BE ON ENFORCEMENT THROUGH "NATIONAL TRIBUNALS."  THE MATTER
WAS PUT QUITE PLAINLY BY MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY.  "THE STATE COURTS MAY
UNDOUBTEDLY BE RESORTED TO IN CASES OF ORDINARY SUITS FOR THE
POSSESSION OF PROPERTY OR THE COLLECTION OF DEBTS; AND IT IS NOT TO BE
PRESUMED THAT EMBARRASSMENTS WOULD BE ENCOUNTERED IN THOSE COURTS IN
THE WAY OF A PROMPT AND FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  BUT A UNIFORM
SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY, NATIONAL IN ITS CHARACTER, OUGHT TO BE CAPABLE OF
EXECUTION IN THE NATIONAL TRIBUNALS, WITHOUT DEPENDENCE UPON THOSE OF
THE STATES IN WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EMBARRASSMENTS MIGHT ARISE." 
LATHROP V. DRAKE, SUPRA, AT 518. 

THE OUTLOOK OF THE ACT OF 1898 AS TO PROCEEDINGS NOT IN BANKRUPTCY
"PROPERLY SO CALLED," BARDES V. HAWARDEN BANK, 178 U.S. 524, 533, WAS
PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE.  THE EMPHASIS WAS NOT ON UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH "NATIONAL TRIBUNALS."  CONCERN WAS WITH "THE GREATER ECONOMY
AND CONVENIENCE OF LITIGANTS AND WITNESSES" BY LEAVING THE
DETERMINATION OF WHAT INTRINSICALLY ARE MERELY LOCAL QUESTIONS TO THE
"LOCAL COURTS OF THE STATE."  BARDES V. HAWARDEN BANK, SUPRA, AT 538. 
THE COURT AGAIN REFERRED TO THIS PURPOSE OF THE 1898 ACT WHEN IT GAVE
FULL RECONSIDERATION TO THE LEGISLATION IN SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, SUPRA,
AT 374.  EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON THE IMPORTANCE OF READY ACCESSIBILITY
TO LITIGANTS AFFORDED BY LOCAL COURTS AS AGAINST THE INCONVENIENCE
OFTEN ENTAILED IN BRINGING SUITORS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS, PARTICULARLY
IN WESTERN STATES.  BY REFERENCE TO AN EARLIER DECISION IN WHICH THAT
CONSIDERATION WAS TREATED AS A CONTROLLING FACTOR, THE COURT INDICATED
A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN DECIDING QUESTIONS OF DOUBTFUL JURISDICTION. 
SEE SHOSHONE MINING COMPANY V. RUTTER, 177 U.S. 505, 511, 513, CITED IN
BARDES V. HAWARDEN BANK, AT 538.    6.  BUT WE ARE NOW TOLD THAT THE
BARDES AND SCHUMACHER CASES MISCONSTRUED THE ACT OF 1898 AND ITS
RELATION TO THAT OF 1867.  THE OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE GRAY AND MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES WERE, ACCORDING TO THIS VIEW, THE PRODUCTS OF
MISREADING OF JUDICIAL HISTORY AND OF A FAULTY ANALYSIS OF THE ACT OF
1898.  INDEED, THE FOUNDATION OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW AND OF
THE ARGUMENT AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT IS THE CLAIM THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF 1898 BY THE BARDES
AND SCHUMACHER CASES WAS ERRONEOUS AND TO BE REJECTED WITHOUT
COMPUNCTION BECAUSE, AFTER ALL, MERELY THE EXPRESSION OF ERRONEOUS
DICTA.  WHETHER THE DISCUSSION OF THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF AN ACT IN
ORDER TO FIND MEANING FOR A PARTICULAR PART MORE IMMEDIATELY IN
LITIGATION CONSTITUTES DICTA, IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE, IS A NICE
EXERCISE IN LEGAL DIALECTICS.  THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IT WAS
RATIONALLY RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM CALLING FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE
BARDES CASES TO CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVELY THE RELATION OF THE ACT OF
1898 TO THAT OF 1867.  THE VIEW THAT WAS TAKEN HAD THE STRENGTH THAT
COMES NOT ONLY FROM A UNANIMOUS COURT BUT ONE CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE
LEGISLATION UNDER SCRUTINY.  AND WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION SO PLACED UPON
AN ACT IS REAFFIRMED THIRTY-FOUR YEARS LATER BY A COURT PARTICULARLY
STRONG IN JUSTICES WHO HAD HAD EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN COMMERCIAL LAW,
IT SEEMS PRETTY LATE IN THE DAY TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH WEIGHTY
CONSTRUCTIONS BY THIS COURT ARE NOW TO BE FOUND WRONG.  FN1  THE COURT
BELOW WAS DRIVEN TO THIS DRASTIC UNDERTAKING.  FOR IF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT
OF 1898 IS THE SOURCE SOLELY OF SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY, AND
JURISDICTION FOR PLENARY SUITS, TO A LIMITED EXTENT, WAS GRANTED SOLELY
BY SEC. 23, THE ELIMINATION OF SEC. 23 FOR PURPOSES OF CHAPTER X CANNOT
SERVE TO PUT INTO SEC. 2 A PLENARY JURISDICTION WHICH WAS NEVER THERE. 

7.  TO REEXAMINE THE GROUND COVERED IN THE BARDES AND SCHUMACHER
CASES WOULD, AS IT SEEMS TO ME, BE A WORK OF SUPEREROGATION.  AND SO I
WILL CONTENT MYSELF WITH SOME OBSERVATIONS PERTINENT TO A PROPER VIEW
OF THE ACT OF 1898 AS AN ENTIRETY.  THE DIFFERENT FEATURES OF AN
ORGANIC STATUTE ARE NOT DISCRETE PARTS.  THEY CAST LIGHT UPON EACH
OTHER AND ILLUMINE THE WHOLE.  THE ACT OF 1898 WAS READ AS IT WAS BY
THIS COURT BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHED A COMPREHENSIVE BANKRUPTCY SCHEME. 
BETWEEN "PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY" AND PLENARY "SUITS AT LAW OR IN
EQUITY."  FOR FIFTY YEARS IT HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF CONGRESS THAT A
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE BRINGING AN ACTION LIKE THAT BEFORE US SHOULD SUE IN
A STATE COURT.  (THIS, OF COURSE, INCLUDES A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN
THE STATE WHERE THERE IS DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64; GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99.) 
HOWSOEVER ANY SECTION OF THE ACT OF 1898 MIGHT HAVE BEEN READ HAD IT
EXISTED BY ITSELF, ON A VIEW OF THE ACT AS AN ENTIRETY IT WAS SETTLED
THAT SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE BROUGHT IN ANY FEDERAL COURT, WHEREAS
PLENARY SUITS AT LAW AND IN EQUITY, DISTINGUISHED AS SUCH FROM
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY, CAN BE BROUGHT ONLY WHERE THEY COULD HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT BETWEEN THE BANKRUPT AND THE OPPOSING PARTY HAD THERE BEEN
NO BANKRUPTCY.  SECTION 2 HAD AN INTRINSICALLY LIMITED SCOPE IN ITS
SETTING WITH SEC. 23.  THE SCOPE CONTINUES SO LIMITED AND DOES NOT
AUTOMATICALLY EXPAND BECAUSE SEC. 23 IS PRO TANTO ELIMINATED. 

THIS JURISDICTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION WAS NOT A MATTER OF CONGRESSIONAL
WHIM OR JUDICIAL TECHNICALITY.  IT WAS EASY FOR THIS COURT TO DISCERN
THAT THE OBJECT OF CONGRESS "MAY WELL HAVE BEEN TO LEAVE SUCH
CONTROVERSIES TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED, FOR THE MOST PART, IN THE
LOCAL COURTS OF THE STATE, TO THE GREATER ECONOMY AND CONVENIENCE OF
LITIGANTS AND WITNESSES."  BARDES V. HAWARDEN BANK, SUPRA, AT 538;
SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, SUPRA, AT 374.  CONGRESS SAW GOOD REASON FOR NOT
INFRINGING ON THE ORDINARY JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS WHERE A SUIT IS
NOT REALLY PART OF THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  IT CHOSE TO LEAVE SUCH
LITIGATION TO THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL PRACTICE AND LOCAL RULES CONCERNING
JURY TRIAL IN THE LOCAL COURT, AND AT THE SAME TIME TO RELIEVE THEREBY
AN OVERWORKED FEDERAL JUDICIARY. 

8.  THESE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS TOUCHING THE INTERPLAY OF STATE
AND FEDERAL COURTS AS WELL AS THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOT LOST FORCE WITH TIME.  CONGRESS HAS
CONTINUED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR VALIDITY.  AS TO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES
GENERALLY, THE ACT OF 1938 CONTINUES TO REQUIRE THAT LOCAL SUITS LIKE
THE PRESENT BE BROUGHT IN LOCAL COURTS.  AND IN PREPARING FOR THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AN ANALYSIS OF A
PREDECESSOR BILL INTRODUCED BY MR. CHANDLER, THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY
CONFERENCE INDICATED THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO A PROPER
DISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS AS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS WHICH
UNDERLAY THE RESTRICTIVE POLICY OF THE ACT OF 1898 WERE MORE THAN EVER
APPLICABLE: 

"IN TAUBEL-SCOTT-KITZMILLER CO. V. FOX, 264 U.S. 426, MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS DECLARED OBITER THAT CONGRESS HAD POWER TO CONFER ON A
BANKRUPTCY COURT JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS OF TRUSTEES TO
PROPERTY NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, EITHER ACTUALLY OR
CONSTRUCTIVELY, BUT ADVERSELY HELD BY A THIRD PERSON; BUT THAT CONGRESS
HAD NOT AS YET EXERCISED THAT POWER, OR CONFERRED SUCH JURISDICTION
UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

"THE PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY
LAW OF 1898 SHOW THAT THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER WAS DELIBERATELY
WITHHELD, BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF FLOODING THE FEDERAL COURTS WITH A
LARGE VOLUME OF NEW LITIGATION.  THAT MOTIVE IS EVEN STRONGER TODAY
(1936) THAN IT WAS IN 1898, AND FOR THAT REASON WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT
WISE TO ENLARGE THE JURISDICTION AT THIS TIME; EXCEPT AS INDICATED TO
INCLUDE RECEIVERS AND SO-CALLED 'DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS.'"  (ANALYSIS OF
H.R. 12889, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., COMMITTEE PRINT P. 134.) 

THE INDICATED EXCEPTIONS DO NOT TOUCH THE JURISDICTION HERE
ASSERTED.  YET THE COURT NOW CONCLUDES THAT AS TO CHAPTER X TRUSTEES
CONGRESS IMPLIED AN EXCEPTION SO AS TO ALLOW THE TRUSTEE TO SUE IN ANY
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN THE COUNTRY.  IF THIS BE SO, I SEE NO ESCAPE
FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT NOT ONLY HAVE THE FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION
BUT THE STATE COURTS NO LONGER HAVE IT.  CONSIDERATION OF SO
DESTRUCTIVE A CONSEQUENCE OUGHT NOT TO BE POSTPONED AS THOUGH IT WERE
NOT IMMEDIATELY RELEVANT TO THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEGISLATION
BEFORE US.  IF SUCH SUITS ARE "BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS"  FN2  WITHIN THE
JURISDICTIONAL GRANT OF SEC. 2 - FOR IT IS NECESSARY TO FIND IN SOME
LANGUAGE AN EXPLICIT GRANT OF JURISDICTION, AND ONLY SEC. 2 IS INVOKED
HOW CAN THE BANKRUPTCY ASPECT OF THE PROCEEDING EVAPORATE WHEN IT
COMES TO "MATTERS AND PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY" AS TO WHICH "THE
JURISDICTION VESTED IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL BE
EXCLUSIVE OF THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES"?  REV. STAT. SEC. 711,
JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 256, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 371.  NO SUPPORT CAN BE FOUND
FOR THIS SHIFTING ATTRIBUTION OF MEANING TO THE SAME CONCEPT IN THE
HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT OF 1867.  TO BE SURE, IT WAS HELD
UNDER THAT ACT THAT THE STATE COURTS WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF JURISDICTION
OF SUCH PLENARY SUITS.  BUT THAT WAS SO FOR THE CONCLUSIVE REASON THAT
THE PROVISION MAKING FEDERAL JURISDICTION EXCLUSIVE IN BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS CAME INTO THE LAW MUCH LATER THAN THE ACT OF 1867.  FEDERAL
EXCLUSIVENESS AS TO BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS FORMALLY SO-CALLED WAS
BROUGHT IN BY SEC. 711 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF 1874.  DURING THE FEW
YEARS WITHIN WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1867 COEXISTED WITH THE
REQUIREMENT OF EXCLUSIVENESS OF JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, THE
OCCASION DID NOT ARISE FOR APPLYING THE PROVISION EXCLUDING THE STATE
COURTS.  BUT THIS COURT WAS WELL AWARE OF THE PROBLEM AND CAREFULLY PUT
IT TO ONE SIDE.  SEE CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 133, AND WILSON
V. GOODRICH, 154 U.S. 640.  INTRINSICALLY, THAT QUESTION NOW PRESSES
FOR DECISION.  IF PLENARY SUITS ARE "BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS" WITHIN
SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1898, AS THE COURT HOLDS, HOW DO THEY CEASE TO BE
"PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY" AS TO WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE
JURISDICTION "EXCLUSIVE" OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE SEVERAL STATES? 
FN3  ONLY A FORCED DISHARMONY CAN AVOID THE GRIEVOUS CONSEQUENCES OF A
CONSTRUCTION EQUALLY FORCED AS TO THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SECS. 2 AND 23
OF THE ACT OF 1898. 

9.  THE COURT FINDS A REVERSAL IN THE POLICY OF CONTRACTION OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION WHICH BEGAN WITH THE END OF THE RECONSTRUCTION
ERA, FOUND EXPRESSION IN CASES CULMINATING IN GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL
BANK, 299 U.S. 109, AND UNDOUBTEDLY FURNISHED THE MOMENTUM FOR THE
RADICAL REVERSAL OF HISTORIC POLICY INITIATED BY ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  THE COURT EXTENDS THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS AND, I CANNOT ESCAPE CONCLUDING, WITHDRAWS IT FROM THE
STATE COURTS.  IT RESOLVES WHATEVER AMBIGUITY MAY BE FOUND IN SEC. 102
OF CHAPTER X BY INTERPOLATING AN EXCEPTION WHICH EFFECTS A BREAK WITH
THE PAST AND CREATES DIFFICULTIES FOR THE FUTURE.  ONE WOULD NATURALLY
EXPECT THAT SUCH AN INNOVATION IN A MATTER OF VITAL CONCERN TO THE
SCOPE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION, WITH ITS RESULTING EFFECT UPON THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, WOULD BE EXPLICITLY
STATED AND NOT DEPEND FOR DISCOVERY UPON INTRICATE EXEGESIS.  ONE WOULD
SUPPOSE THAT SOME INDICATION AT LEAST OF CONGRESSIONAL AWARENESS OF THE
PROBLEM COULD BE FOUND.  DILIGENCE OF COUNSEL HAS NOT UNEARTHED THE
REMOTEST HINT THAT SUCH SHIFT IN JURISDICTION WAS CONTEMPLATED OR THAT
THE NEED FOR IT WAS ASSERTED.  OUR OWN INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN EQUALLY
FRUITLESS.  THERE IS NOTHING IN CHAPTER X, IN ITS TERMS, ITS
ANTECEDENTS, ITS HISTORY, ITS ADVOCACY, THAT GIVES THE REMOTEST HINT OF
A PURPOSE CALLING FOR A DIFFERENT POLICY FOR REORGANIZATION TRUSTEES IN
THIS RESPECT FROM OTHER TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY, OR ANY INTIMATION THAT
THE DISTRICT COURTS, OTHER THAN THE PARTICULAR REORGANIZATION COURT,
WOULD PLAY A SPECIAL ROLE AS TO PLENARY SUITS IN REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS.  NOR DO THE PURPOSES OF THE CHANDLER ACT BEAR UPON THIS
ASPECT OF JURISDICTION.  CHAPTER X PROVIDED NEW FACILITIES FOR
REORGANIZATION OF BANKRUPT ESTATES AND EXTENDED THE SCOPE OF
REORGANIZATIONS.  BUT IT IS HARDLY RELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE OF EASIER
AND MORE COMPREHENSIVE METHODS OF REORGANIZATION TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM
THROUGH THE FEDERAL COURTS RATHER THAN THE STATE COURTS WHEN THE BASIS
OF RECOVERY IS STATE LAW, CALLING FOR APPLICATION OF STATE LAW AND
PROCEDURE.  THE COURT DRAWS SUPPORT FOR ITS CONCLUSION FROM THE FACT
THAT OTHER POWERS ARE CONFERRED UPON THE CHAPTER X TRUSTEE WHICH WERE
NOT POSSESSED BY OTHER BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES.  BUT THE POWERS TO WHICH
ATTENTION IS CALLED ARE ALL EXPLICITLY CONFERRED AND ARE NOT DERIVED BY
ROUNDABOUT INFERENCE.  AND UNLIKE THE EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION HERE
CLAIMED, THE ADDITIONAL POWERS CONFERRED ON THE TRUSTEE ALL BEAR
DIRECTLY UPON THE VERY PROCESS OF REORGANIZATION AND THE PURPOSES FOR
WHICH CHAPTER X WAS DESIGNED. 

THE RESULT HAS BEEN SPUN LARGELY OUT OF WORDS IN THE ACT OF 1898 BY
DISREGARDING THE CONTROLLING FACTS OF ITS HISTORY AND ITS LONG JUDICIAL
AND PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION.  THE OTHER SOURCE FROM WHICH THE ARGUMENT
IS SPUN IS THE PROVISION MAKING SEC. 23 INAPPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS
UNDER CHAPTER X. AS WE HAVE SEEN, OUR DECISIONS RULED THAT SEC. 23 WAS
NOT AN EXCEPTION TO SEC. 2 BUT AN EMPHASIS OF THE LIMITED SCOPE OF SEC.
2, TOGETHER WITH A GRANT, OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE, OF CONSENT
JURISDICTION.  FN4  IF SEC. 2 DID NOT GRANT JURISDICTION TO THE
DISTRICT COURTS OVER A PLENARY SUIT LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US, MERELY
ELIMINATING SEC. 23 COULD ADD NO NEW HEAD OF JURISDICTION TO SEC. 2. 
AND YET THE COURT FINDS THAT THE PURPOSE OF MAKING SEC. 23 INAPPLICABLE
TO CHAPTER X WAS TO THROW ALL THE FEDERAL COURTS OPEN TO PLENARY SUITS
IN CHAPTER X PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH, AS WE HAVE SEEN, NOT A CLEAR
EXPRESSION EITHER OF SUCH PURPOSE, OR AN ASSESSMENT OF ITS
CONSEQUENCES, IS TO BE FOUND IN ALL THE LITERATURE ON THIS SUBJECT
PRIOR TO THIS LITIGATION.  IF A PERFECTLY REASONABLE EXPLANATION CAN BE
GIVEN TO THE ELIMINATION OF SEC. 23 FROM CHAPTER X PROCEEDINGS, WE
OUGHT NOT LIGHTLY TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS A RADICAL CHANGE AFFECTING
THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, WITHOUT EVEN AN INDIRECT
MENTION OF THE NEED OR DESIRABILITY FOR SUCH A CHANGE IN THE THOUSANDS
OF PAGES OF LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS, DEBATES, AND REPORTS ON THE VARIOUS
BILLS LEADING UP TO THE CHANDLER ACT. 

10.  THERE IS AN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR THE PROVISION MAKING SEC.
23 INAPPLICABLE THAT AMPLY ACCOUNTS FOR IT, WITHOUT USING IT AS A
SPRINGBOARD FOR A WHOLLY UNFORESEEN RESULT OUT OF HARMONY WITH
ESTABLISHED JURISDICTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

THE PROVISION TO MAKE SEC. 23 INAPPLICABLE DID NOT APPEAR IN THE
EARLIER DRAFTS OF CHAPTER X AND WAS NOT IN THE BILL AS IT CAME FROM THE
HOUSE.  IT CAME INTO THE ACT THROUGH AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BEFORE THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE BY THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
THROUGH ITS SPOKESMAN, MR. JOHN GERDES.  HIS STATEMENT IS ALL WE HAVE
BY WAY OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FOR THE AMENDMENT.  FN5  IT WILL BE NOTED
THAT MR. GERDES INTIMATED NOTHING REGARDING THE NEED FOR EXTENDING
FEDERAL JURISDICTION, NOTHING OF THE DESIRABILITY OF GRANTING PLENARY
JURISDICTION TO ALL FEDERAL COURTS, NOTHING TO THE EFFECT THAT A
CHAPTER X TRUSTEE NEEDED SUCH GREATER FREEDOM, NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT
THE PLAN OF THAT CHAPTER REQUIRED A DIFFERENT RULE AS TO ORDINARY
PLENARY SUITS FROM THAT WHICH WAS REAFFIRMED AS TO SUITS BY OTHER
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES.  YET THE COURT BELOW SEEMED TO FIND IN HIS
STATEMENT WARRANT FOR ITS RESULT.  AND IT SOUGHT TO REENFORCE ITS
CONCLUSION BY APPEAL TO AN ARTICLE BY MR. GERDES ELUCIDATING THE
CHANDLER ACT AFTER ITS PASSAGE.  GERDES, CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS:
CHANGES EFFECTED BY CHAPTER X OF THE REORGANIZATION ACT, 52 HARV. L.
REV. 1, 21. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IT SEEMS TO ME, FINDS IN MR. GERDES'
OBSERVATIONS WHAT HE DID NOT PUT INTO THEM.  NOWHERE IS THERE THE
REMOTEST SUGGESTION THAT IN THIS ROUNDABOUT AND UNDISCLOSED WAY HE
SOUGHT TO THROW ALL LITIGATION BY OR AGAINST A REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE
INTO FEDERAL COURTS, OTHER THAN THE REORGANIZATION COURT, BECAUSE THE
FEDERAL COURTS MIGHT BE A MORE CONVENIENT FORUM.  HE WAS CONCERNED WITH
VARIOUS PROVISIONS, OF WHICH SEC. 23 WAS ONE, WHICH EITHER WERE
INTRINSICALLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE NEW PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER X OR MIGHT
BE DEEMED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THEM.  HE USED THE TERMS
"INCONSISTENT" AND "NOT APPLICABLE" INTERCHANGEABLY.  HE WAS CONCERNED
WITH REMOVING ALL LIMITATIONS IN THE EXISTING BANKRUPTCY ACT THAT WERE
INCONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER X, LIMITATIONS WHICH MIGHT
IMPAIR THE NEW SCHEME FOR BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION.  WHILE MR. GERDES
WAS NOT EXPLICIT AS TO POSSIBLE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN SEC. 23 AND
CHAPTER X, A CONTROVERSY WHICH HAD ARISEN IN REGARD TO SEC. 23 PRIOR TO
THE CHANDLER ACT, AND WITH WHICH HE WAS THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR, FULLY
EXPLAINS WHY MR. GERDES DEEMED IT DESIRABLE THAT SEC. 23 BE MADE
INAPPLICABLE TO CHAPTER X. 

THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY WAS THIS.  SECTION 77B (A) GRANTED THE
REORGANIZATION COURT THE POWER POSSESSED BY AN EQUITY COURT WITH REGARD
TO EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS.  THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER A 77B TRUSTEE
COULD BRING A PLENARY SUIT IN THE REORGANIZATION COURT WITHOUT REGARD
TO DIVERSITY CITIZENSHIP, AS COULD AN EQUITY RECEIVER IN HIS HOME
COURT.  WHITE V. EWING, 159 U.S. 36.  THAT THE REORGANIZATION COURT HAD
SUCH JURISDICTION AND THAT SEC. 23 WAS NO BAR, WAS MR. GERDES' VIEW. 
BUT OTHER BANKRUPTCY SPECIALISTS AND SOME LOWER FEDERAL COURTS WERE OF
OPINION THAT SEC. 23 PRECLUDED SUCH SUITS.  COMPARE 2 GERDES, CORPORATE
REORGANIZATIONS, 1478, WITH FINLETTER, PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE
REORGANIZATION, 186-87; AND SEE IN RE STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 119
F.2D 658; TILTON V. MODEL TAXI CORP., 112 F.2D 86; IN RE PRIMA CO., 98
F.2D 952. 

TO REMOVE DOUBT AS TO THIS EFFECT OF SEC. 23, NAMELY ITS POSSIBLE
LIMITATION UPON THE POWER OF THE REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE TO SUE IN HIS
HOME COURT, IS THE FULL PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ITS ELIMINATION FROM
CHAPTER X. IT WAS NOT TO GIVE THE REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE ROVING
AUTHORITY FOR PLENARY SUITS IN ALL FEDERAL COURTS THAT SEC. 23 WAS MADE
INAPPLICABLE.  IT WAS A DESIRE TO REMOVE THE DANGER THAT SEC. 23 MIGHT
BE DEEMED TO DEPRIVE A REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE OF THE POWER WHICH HE
OUGHT TO HAVE IN HIS REORGANIZATION COURT, THAT WAS IMPLICIT IN THE
SHORT STATEMENT OF MR. GERDES ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY
CONFERENCE.  IT IS THIS PURPOSE THAT PREVAILED AND IT IS THIS PURPOSE
THAT SHOULD BE ENFORCED, AND NOT A RADICAL DEPARTURE UPSETTING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, FOR
WHICH THERE IS NOT A VESTIGE OF A CLAIM BY ANYBODY IN THE HISTORY THAT
LED UP TO THE LEGISLATION.  THE ARTICLE OF MR. GERDES TO WHICH THE
COURT BELOW REFERS SEEMS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT AS TO THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
MAKING SEC. 23 INAPPLICABLE.  "THE BANKRUPTCY PROVISION RESTRICTING
PLENARY JURISDICTION," HE WROTE, "HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM
APPLICATION SO THAT THE EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP JURISDICTION OVER PLENARY
ACTIONS WHICH ARE ANCILLARY TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS IS STILL AVAILABLE,
EVEN THOUGH THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVES LESS THAN $3,000 AND EVEN THOUGH
THERE IS NO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP."  52 HARV. L. REV. 1, 21.  FN6
THE ACT OF 1938 CONGRESS GAVE TO THE REORGANIZATION COURT EQUITY POWERS
LIKE THOSE WHICH HAD BEEN CONFERRED IN SEC. 77B (A), IT AUTHORIZED THE
TRUSTEE-RECEIVER TO BRING PLENARY SUITS IN HIS HOME COURT.  SUCH ALSO
IS THE VIEW OF ANOTHER IMPORTANT WITNESS IN THE HEARINGS ON THE
CHANDLER BILL, SEE WEINSTEIN, THE BANKRUPTCY LAW OF 1938, PP. 63-64,
193-94.  COMPARE THE ANALYSIS OF THE CHANDLER ACT IN 11 U.S.C.A. XXX. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION GIVES SCOPE TO THE PROVISION MAKING SEC. 23
INAPPLICABLE IN CHAPTER X PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
POLICY OF THE WHOLE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND GIVES EFFECT TO THE GRANT OF
EQUITY POWERS TO THE REORGANIZATION COURT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, NOTHING
IN THE POLICY OF THE CHANDLER ACT, IN ITS LANGUAGE, IN ITS HISTORY, OR
IN ANY OTHER FACTOR RELEVANT TO ITS CONSTRUCTION, JUSTIFIES A FINDING
THAT CONGRESS, BY IMPLICATION AND INDIRECTION, WITHOUT COMMENT OR
DISCUSSION, CHANGED THE MEANING WHICH THIS COURT HAD GIVEN TO ITS
LEGISLATION FOR FIFTY YEARS, AND EXPANDED A FEDERAL JURISDICTION WHICH
IS ALREADY OVER-BURDENED AND WHICH CONGRESS HAS TENDED TO CONTRACT;
THAT IT UPSET THE RELATION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS WHICH
DEMANDS THAT, EVEN IN BANKRUPTCY, CLAIMS CREATED BY STATE LAW BE
LITIGATED IN LOCAL COURTS, APPLYING LOCAL LAW UNDER LOCAL RULES OF
PROCEDURE AND TRIAL PRACTICE, "TO THE GREATER ECONOMY AND CONVENIENCE
OF LITIGANTS AND WITNESSES." 

11.  THIS DECISION OVERTURNS THE ANALYSIS WHICH HAS GUIDED THE COURT
IN CONSTRUING THE DISTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND
STATE COURTS WHICH CONGRESS DEVISED BY THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, AND
ATTRIBUTES TO THE ACT OF 1938 A BIG CHANGE IN THIS DISTRIBUTION,
ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOT A GLIMMER OF A HINT IN ITS ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY THAT CONGRESS WAS AWARE THAT IT WAS DOING SO.  IMPORTANT SHIFTS
IN JURISDICTION OUGHT TO BE THE PRODUCT OF SOMETHING MORE PERSUASIVE
THAN WHAT IS MADE TO APPEAR AS A FIT OF CONGRESSIONAL ABSENT
MINDEDNESS.  IT OUGHT NOT TO BE DEEMED NATURAL THAT CONGRESS TOOK FROM
THE STATE COURTS LONG-ESTABLISHED JURISDICTION AND TRANSFERRED IT TO
THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS
WANTED TO DO SO OR KNEW THAT IT WAS DOING IT. 

WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT, BY PLAIN LANGUAGE, EXTENDED THE JURISDICTION
OF THE DISTRICT COURTS WHICH ARE THE FEEDERS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS AND OF THIS COURT, AN UNEXPRESSED PURPOSE TO SWELL THE DOCKETS
OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY OUGHT NOT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO CONGRESS BY
CONSIDERING IN ISOLATION THE DESIRABILITY OF ALLOWING A PARTICULAR
CLASS OF LITIGATION TO BE BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT.  ANY ADVANTAGE OF
GIVING JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THE
DISADVANTAGES OF TAKING AWAY FROM THE STATE COURTS CAUSES OF ACTION
ROOTED IN STATE LAW.  AND IN CONSIDERING THE ADVANTAGES OF ABSORPTION
BY THE FEDERAL COURTS OF JURISDICTION THERETOFORE VESTED IN THE STATE
COURTS, IT SHOULD BE OUR SPECIAL CONCERN TO BE MINDFUL THAT THE
DISTRICT COURTS ARE PART OF A SINGLE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  INCREASE IN THE
SCOPE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS INEVITABLY REFLECTS ITSELF
IN THE BUSINESS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND OF THIS COURT.  IT
IS A TRUISM, BUT VITAL TO KEEP IN MIND, THAT INCREASE IN THE QUANTITY
OF THE COURT'S BUSINESS AFFECTS THE QUALITY OF ITS WORK.  FN7 

WHERE CONGRESS HAS CLEARLY ENLARGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURTS, IT CANNOT BE WITHHELD NO MATTER WHAT THE EFFECT UPON THE
DOCKETS.  BUT WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT MANIFESTED ITS PURPOSE WITH
CLARITY - MORE PARTICULARLY, WHERE SUCH PURPOSE IS DERIVED BY WAY OF
ELABORATE ARGUMENTATION - RESOLUTION OF JURISDICTIONAL DOUBTS PROPERLY
TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE STRONG POLICY OF CONGRESS, EXPRESSED THROUGH A
SERIES OF JUDICIARY ACTS, NOT TO CAST BURDENS UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS
WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE EFFECTIVE DISCHARGE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS.  SEE,
FOR INSTANCE, AMERICAN SECURITY & TRUST CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
224 U.S. 491, AND PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 250-51. 
THESE ARE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WILL SEEM FAR AFIELD TO THE ISSUES OF
THIS CASE ONLY IF ITS DECISION IS NOT RELATED TO THE WORKINGS OF THE
FEDERAL JUDICIARY IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY. 

FN1  IN VIEW OF HIS EXTENSIVE COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCE ON MATTERS OF
BANKRUPTCY, ANY OBSERVATION BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS CARRIES GREAT
WEIGHT.  BUT NEITHER IN KELLEY V. GILL, 245 U.S. 116, NOR ELSEWHERE,
DID HE STATE THAT SEC. 2 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS A GRANT OF PLENARY
JURISDICTION TO ALL THE COURTS AND THAT SEC. 23 MERELY OPERATED AS A
CURTAILMENT OF SUCH GRANT.  WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT IS THAT WHEN, IN
SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, SUPRA, UPON A FULL DRESS CONSIDERATION OF THE
PROBLEM, A CONTRARY ANALYSIS WAS MADE, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS JOINED IN
IT. 

IN ANOTHER BANKRUPTCY CASE, THIS COURT SAID:  "ONLY COMPELLING
LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE ITSELF WOULD WARRANT THE REJECTION OF A
CONSTRUCTION SO LONG AND SO GENERALLY ACCEPTED, ESPECIALLY WHERE
OVERTURNING THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE WOULD HAVE SUCH FAR REACHING
CONSEQUENCES AS IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE."  MAYNARD V. ELLIOTT, 283 U.S.
273, 277. 

FN2  THE ACT OF 1938 SUBSTITUTED "PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT." 

FN3  NOTE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE EXCEPTIONS TO SEC. 23 CONGRESS
DEEMED IT NECESSARY TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE STATE COURTS
EXPLICITLY.  SEE SECS. 60(B), 67(E), AND 70(E)(3). 

FN4  IF THE PROVISIONS RENDERING SEC. 23 INAPPLICABLE TO CHAPTER X
PROCEEDINGS ALSO WITHDREW JURISDICTION BY CONSENT, IT IS NOT AN
IMPORTANT MATTER.  IN RESOLVING WHAT IS AT BEST A JURISDICTIONAL
AMBIGUITY A RESULT WHICH CLOSES THE DOORS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO
CONSENTING PARTIES IS OF MINOR CONSEQUENCE COMPARED WITH OPENING WIDE
THE DOOR TO A JURISDICTION THERETOFORE BARRED TO THE FEDERAL COURTS,
WHEN CONGRESS MANIFESTED NO CONSCIOUSNESS OF SUCH A NEW GRANT OF
JURISDICTION. 

FN5  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY, ON H.R. 8046, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 77: 

"CHAPTER X IS NOT INTENDED TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT.  ALL PROVISIONS OF
THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER
X, EXCEPT SUCH PROVISIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EXPRESS PROVISIONS IN
CHAPTER X. SOME PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL ACT ARE CLEARLY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE CORPORATE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS AND ARE THEREFORE
INAPPLICABLE.  OTHER PROVISIONS ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE.  HOWEVER, THERE
ARE CERTAIN SECTIONS WHICH BY THEIR NATURE PERMIT OF DOUBT AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE APPLICABLE.  SECTION 64 OF THE GENERAL
BANKRUPTCY ACT, FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDES FOR A FIXED PRIORITY IN THE
PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.  THIS SECTION DEALS SOLELY WITH UNSECURED CLAIMS,
ONLY UNSECURED CLAIMS BEING AFFECTED BY BANKRUPTCY.  TO APPLY IT IN
CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS - WHERE SECURED AS WELL AS UNSECURED CLAIMS
ARE DEALT WITH - WOULD CAUSE GREAT CONFUSION.  TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
PROVIDES THAT 64 SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO CHAPTER X. THE PRIORITIES
UNDER CHAPTER X WOULD THEREFORE BE THOSE USED IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS. 
THAT IS THE PRESENT PRACTICE UNDER 77B, WHICH EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT
HERE WE MERELY ADOPT THE PRACTICE WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE UNDER

"IN THIS ENUMERATION OF SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS WHICH ARE NOT
APPLICABLE, WE INCLUDE ONLY THOSE AS TO WHICH THERE MAY BE REASONABLE
DOUBT.  THE SECTIONS WHICH WE ENUMERATE ARE 23, 57(H), 57(N), 64, AND
70(F).  WE PROPOSE THAT SECTION 102 BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THESE
CHAPTER X." 

ANOTHER AMENDMENT, PROPOSED TO THE COMMITTEE BY MR. HEUSTON,
REPRESENTING THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON BANKRUPTCY OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WOULD HAVE MADE INAPPLICABLE TO
CHAPTER X SOME THIRTY SECTIONS OF THE ACT, AMONG THEM SEC. 23.  "THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT EXCLUDES FROM A REORGANIZATION PROCEDURE ALL
WELL AS MANY ADDITIONAL SECTIONS WHICH HAVE NO APPLICABILITY TO A
REORGANIZATION PROCEDURE."  THE STATEMENT MAKES NO REFERENCE TO PLENARY
SUITS.  "THE SECTIONS EXCLUDED BY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, INCLUDE THOSE
WHICH WOULD PERMIT ANCILLARY RECEIVERSHIPS, THE APPOINTMENT OF
RECEIVERS BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF THE PETITION  ...  THE BANKRUPTCY
PROVISIONS RELATING TO PRIORITIES, ETC."  HEARINGS ON H.R. 8046, BEFORE
A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
P. 37. 

FN6  THE DISCUSSION IN BANKRUPTCY LITERATURE OF THE EFFECT OF THE
PROVISION ELIMINATING SEC. 23 IS NOT ONLY MEAGER BUT AMBIGUOUS. 
CONFLICTING ARGUMENTS CAN BE DRAWN BY GIVING VARIANT MEANINGS TO
LANGUAGE SUSCEPTIBLE OF THEM, BUT THIS ONLY SERVES TO INDICATE THAT ON
SUCH TENUOUS MATERIALS OUGHT NOT TO BE BASED A REVERSAL OF
JURISDICTIONAL POLICY OF FAR-REACHING IMPORT. 

IT IS WORTHY OF NOTE THAT MR. GERDES IN HIS ARTICLE CITES AS THE
EFFECT OF THE ELIMINATION OF SEC. 23 ONLY THE CLARIFICATION OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT ITSELF OVER PLENARY SUITS.  HE
DOES NOT NOTE ANY EXPANSION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE OTHER DISTRICT
COURTS ALTHOUGH, UNDER SEC. 77B.  WHEN SEC. 23 WAS NOT MADE EXPRESSLY
INAPPLICABLE, IT HAD BEEN HIS VIEW THAT OTHER DISTRICT COURTS WOULD
HAVE PLENARY JURISDICTION AS ANCILLARY TO THE RECEIVERSHIP JURISDICTION
OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT.  SEE 2 GERDES, CORPORATE REORGANIZATION,
1480, 1513-14. 

FN7  IF THE COURT WORKS UNDER TOO MUCH PRESSURE, BECAUSE OF THE
EXCESSIVE VOLUME OF ITS BUSINESS, THE PROCESS OF STUDY AND REFLECTION
INDISPENSABLE FOR WISE JUDGMENT IS BOUND TO SUFFER.  BEFORE HE BECAME
ITS HEAD, BUT SPEAKING FROM CLOSE ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE WORK OF THE
COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT GAVE WARNING THAT IF THIS COURT'S BUSINESS
"IS TO INCREASE WITH THE GROWTH OF THE COUNTRY, IT WILL BE SWAMPED WITH
ITS BURDEN, THE WORK WHICH IT DOES WILL, BECAUSE OF HASTE, NOT BE OF
THE HIGH QUALITY THAT IT OUGHT TO HAVE  ...  ."  TAFT, ATTACKS ON THE
COURTS AND LEGAL PROCEDURE (1916) 5 KY. L.J. NO. 2, P. 18.  AS IS WELL
KNOWN, IT WAS LARGELY THROUGH THE LEADERSHIP OF CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT THAT
THE JUDICIARY ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, WAS PASSED TO
ENABLE THE COURT TO KEEP ITS BUSINESS WITHIN MANAGEABLE LIMITS BY
CUTTING OFF THE FLOW OF LITIGATION AT ITS VARIOUS SOURCES.  THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INDEX OF THE
COURT'S BUSINESS.  IN THE 1927 TERM, THE FIRST TERM DURING WHICH THE
INFLUENCE OF THE ACT OF 1925 WAS FULLY OPERATIVE, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
SUCH PETITIONS WAS 587.  IN THE 1946 TERM, THROUGH JUNE 9, 1947, 1,144
SUCH PETITIONS WERE CONSIDERED.  SINCE MOST OF THE PETITIONS COME FROM
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, ANY ENLARGEMENT OF THEIR JURISDICTION IS
INEVITABLY REFLECTED IN ATTEMPTS TO REVIEW THOSE COURTS HERE.  IF IT BE
SUGGESTED THAT THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS THAT WILL FLOW FROM THE NEW HEAD
OF JURISDICTION ESTABLISHED BY THIS DECISION IS IN ITSELF NOT LIKELY TO
BE VERY HEAVY, IT IS PERTINENT TO SAY THAT IT IS TRUE OF THE COURT'S
BUSINESS ALSO THAT MANY A MICKLE MAKES A MUCKLE. 
..END :






















INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 331 U.S. 682 


NO. 733.  ARGUED MAY 2, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 16, 1947.  - 156 F.2D 949,
AFFIRMED. 


A NATURAL GAS COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT.
821, PRODUCES SOME GAS AND PURCHASES SOME GAS, WHICH IT MINGLES AND
CONDUCTS THROUGH A SYSTEM OF FIELD, BRANCH AND MAIN LINES (ALL WITHIN A
SINGLE STATE) INTO ITS MAIN TRUNK LINE, WHENCE IT IS SOLD TO INTERSTATE
PIPELINE COMPANIES FOR TRANSPORTATION, RESALE AND ULTIMATE CONSUMPTION
IN OTHER STATES.  THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT FROM THE WELLS TO THE PURCHASING
COMPANIES, THROUGH THEIR COMPRESSION PUMPS AND ACROSS THE STATE LINES
IS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS WITHOUT INTERRUPTION FOR STORAGE, PROCESSING OR
ANY OTHER PURPOSE.  HELD:  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS
JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 1(B) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT TO REGULATE SUCH
SALES.  PP. 686-693. 

(A)  SUCH SALES ARE "IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 1(B) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  PP. 687-689. 

(B)  THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THE CLAUSE OF SEC. 1(B) WHICH EXCEPTS "THE
PRODUCTION OR GATHERING" OF NATURAL GAS FROM THE COMMISSION'S
REGULATORY JURISDICTION.  PP. 689-693. 

INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., INC. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER UNDER SEC. 5(A) OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 821, REQUIRING PETITIONER TO EFFECT
SUBSTANTIAL RATE REDUCTIONS IN CERTAIN OF ITS SALES OF NATURAL GAS AND
TO FILE NEW SCHEDULES OF RATES AND CHARGES.  3 F.P.C. 416.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS DENIED A REVIEW.  156 F.2D 949.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. 
330 U.S. 852.  AFFIRMED, P. 693. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ORIGINATED IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION INITIATED PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(A) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF
1938.  FN1  AFTER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO ITS JURISDICTION, THE
COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO EFFECT
SUBSTANTIAL RATE REDUCTIONS IN CERTAIN OF ITS SALES OF NATURAL GAS AND
TO FILE NEW SCHEDULES OF RATES AND CHARGES.  FN2 PETITIONER, IN SEEKING
REVIEW OF THE ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, DENIED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION TO SET RATES FOR THE SALES IN ISSUE IN
THIS CASE AND ASSERTED THAT THE RATES SO ESTABLISHED WERE
CONFISCATORY.  THAT COURT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, DENIED THE PETITION
FOR REVIEW.  FN3  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. 

PETITIONER OWNS AND OPERATES 110 NATURAL GAS WELLS AND OWNS OR
CONTROLS OVER 56,000 ACRES IN THE MONROE FIELD OF NORTHERN LOUISIANA. 
PETITIONER'S MAIN PIPE LINE TRANSPORTS GAS SOUTHWARD FROM THE MONROE
FIELD THROUGH A PART OF MISSISSIPPI AND BACK INTO LOUISIANA, WHERE AT
BATON ROUGE SALES ARE MADE TO VARIOUS DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES AND
INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS.  PETITIONER CONCEDES THAT WITH RESPECT TO THESE
OPERATIONS IT IS A NATURAL GAS COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(6)
FN4  OF THE ACT AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION TO REGULATE
THE RATES OF SALES CONNECTED THEREWITH. 

THE ISSUE OF THIS CASE INVOLVES THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION TO REGULATE SALES MADE IN THE FIELD BY PETITIONER TO THREE
PIPE-LINE COMPANIES, EACH OF WHICH TRANSPORTS THE GAS SO PURCHASED TO
MARKETS IN STATES OTHER THAN LOUISIANA.  FN5  GAS PRODUCED FROM
PETITIONER'S WELLS FLOWS INTO PETITIONER'S SYSTEM OF FIELD PIPE LINES,
MOVING FIRST INTO BRANCH LINES, THEN INTO TRUNK LINES, AND FINALLY INTO
THE MAIN TRUNK LINES FROM WHICH DELIVERY IS MADE TO THE THREE
PURCHASING COMPANIES.  DURING THE COURSE OF THIS MOVEMENT PETITIONER
PURCHASES GAS FROM OTHER PRODUCERS IN THE FIELD WHICH GAS IS INTRODUCED
INTO PETITIONER'S SYSTEM AT DESIGNATED POINTS AND IS THERE COMMINGLED
WITH THE GAS MOVING FROM PETITIONER'S OWN WELLS.  BY FAR THE LARGER
PART OF THE GAS SO PURCHASED BY PETITIONER HAS BEEN GATHERED FROM
VARIOUS WELLS OF THE SELLING COMPANIES BEFORE DELIVERY TO PETITIONER IS
MADE.  FN6  THE GAS MOVES THROUGH PETITIONER'S SYSTEM AT WELL
PRESSURE.  SHORTLY AFTER THE SALES IN QUESTION ARE COMPLETED, THE GAS
IS DIRECTED THROUGH THE COMPRESSOR STATIONS OF THE PURCHASING COMPANIES
AND IS THERE SUBJECTED TO INCREASED PRESSURE IN ORDER THAT IT MAY BE
MOVED TO MARKETS AS FAR DISTANT AS ILLINOIS.  THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT OF
THE GAS FROM THE WELLS TO THE PURCHASING COMPANIES THROUGH THE
COMPRESSOR PUMPS AND ACROSS THE STATE LINES IS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS
WITHOUT INTERRUPTION FOR STORAGE, PROCESSING OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. 
FN7  ALL THE GAS SOLD IN THESE TRANSACTIONS IS DESTINED FOR ULTIMATE
PUBLIC CONSUMPTION IN STATES OTHER THAN LOUISIANA. 

IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER SUPPLIES ONLY A PART OF THE GAS PURCHASED
BY THE THREE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES IN THE MONROE FIELD.  FN8 COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER CONCEDED BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT THE PRICES CHARGED THE
THREE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES WERE, BY AGREEMENT, IDENTICAL WITH THOSE
BEING CHARGED BY OTHER PRODUCERS IN THE FIELD.  THE COMMISSION FOUND
THAT PETITIONER WAS AN AFFILIATE OF ONE OF THE THREE PURCHASING
COMPANIES.  IT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE RATES
CHARGED BY PETITIONER IN THESE SALES WERE "UNJUST, UNREASONABLE AND
UNLAWFUL" AND ORDERED RATE REDUCTIONS AMOUNTING TO $596,320 PER YEAR AS
APPLIED TO THE VOLUME OF GAS SOLD IN THE TEST YEAR OF 1941. 

PETITIONER HAS AT NO TIME CONTENDED THAT REGULATION OF ITS SALES TO
THE THREE PURCHASING COMPANIES IS BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF
CONGRESS.  PETITIONER HAS VIGOROUSLY ASSERTED, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS
DID NOT EXERCISE ITS FULL POWERS IN THE NATURAL GAS ACT AND THAT IN
SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
IS SO LIMITED AS TO PRECLUDE VALID REGULATION OF THE SALES BY THAT
AGENCY.  SECTION 1(B) PROVIDES: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY
OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH
DISTRIBUTION OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS." 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WERE SALES OF
NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. 

PETITIONER HAS RAISED TWO ISSUES:  FIRST, IT IS CONTENDED, THE SALES
ARE NOT "IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  SECOND, THE SALES ARE A PART OF
"PRODUCTION OR GATHERING" AND HENCE NOT WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S POWER
OF REGULATION. 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE SALES ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  INDEED,
PETITIONER DID NOT CONTEST THAT POSITION BEFORE THE COMMISSION, BUT, SO
FAR AS THE RECORD REVEALS, RAISED THE ISSUE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS
PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN9  THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE GAS SOLD TO THE THREE PIPE-LINE
COMPANIES MOVES "  ...  IN A CONSTANT FLOW FROM THE MOUTHS OF THE WELLS
FROM WHICH IT IS PRODUCED THROUGH PIPE LINES BELONGING TO INTERSTATE TO
THE COMPRESSOR STATION OF THE RESPECTIVE PURCHASER, AND THENCE THROUGH
SAID COMPRESSOR STATIONS INTO THE PIPE LINE OF SAID RESPECTIVE
PURCHASER AND THUS INTO AND THROUGH STATES OTHER THAN LOUISIANA  ...  ,
ALL WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, AND SAID GAS IS SO DESTINED FROM THE MOMENT
OF ITS PRODUCTION."  THE COMMISSION FURTHER FOUND THAT "THE GAS
TRANSPORTED AND SOLD BY INTERSTATE TO THESE THREE PIPE LINE COMPANIES
CONTINUES ITS FLOW IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND, AS AN ESTABLISHED COURSE
OF BUSINESS WELL KNOWN TO INTERSTATE, IS DESTINED FOR RESALE FOR
ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION IN ...  MARKETS OUTSIDE LOUISIANA." 

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE SALES IN QUESTION WERE QUITE AS MUCH IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS THEY
WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE PIPES OF THE PETITIONER CROSSED THE STATE LINE
BEFORE REACHING THE POINTS OF SALE.  FN10  THUS IN PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELECTRIC CO., 273 U.S. 83(1927), A SALE
OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY AT THE STATE LINE WAS HELD TO BE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  COMMENTING ON THAT CASE, THIS COURT IN JERSEY CENTRAL POWER
& LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 319 U.S. 61, 69(1943) STATED:
"WE SEE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A SALE AT OR BEFORE REACHING THE STATE
LINE."  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE TERMS OF THE ACT OR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT A MORE RESTRICTED
MEANING BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PHRASE "IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" THAN THAT
WHICH THERETOFORE HAD BEEN GIVEN TO IT IN THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT. 
FN11  SECTION 2(7) OF THE ACT DEFINES "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AS "  ...
COMMERCE BETWEEN ANY POINT IN A STATE AND ANY POINT OUTSIDE THEREOF, OR
BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE SAME STATE BUT THROUGH ANY PLACE OUTSIDE
THEREOF, ...  "  CLEARLY THE SALES IN QUESTION WERE A PART OF COMMERCE
BEING CARRIED ON BETWEEN POINTS IN LOUISIANA AND POINTS IN OTHER
STATES.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT LANGUAGE TO SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT SALES CONSUMMATED BEFORE THE GAS CROSSES A STATE LINE
SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS BEING "IN" SUCH COMMERCE. 

NOR ARE WE IMPRESSED WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT
OF THE GAS SHOULD BE REGARDED AS BEGINNING WHEN THE GAS, THERETOFORE
MOVING THROUGH PETITIONER'S PIPE LINE SYSTEM AT WELL PRESSURE, IS
SUBJECTED TO INCREASED PRESSURE IN THE COMPRESSOR STATIONS OF THE
PURCHASING COMPANIES IN ORDER THAT THE GAS MAY BE MOVED TO THE DISTANT
MARKETS.  LONG BEFORE THE GAS REACHES THE COMPRESSOR PUMPS IT HAS BEEN
COMMITTED TO ITS INTERSTATE JOURNEY WHICH FOLLOWS WITHOUT INTERRUPTION
OR DEVIATION.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INCREASE OF PRESSURE IN
THE COMPRESSOR STATIONS MUST BE REGARDED AS MERELY AN INCIDENT IN THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE RATHER THAN AS ITS ORIGIN.  FN12 

THE COMPANY CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SALES
IN QUESTION ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THOSE TRANSACTIONS FALL WITHIN
THE CLAUSE OF SEC. 1(B) SPECIFICALLY EXCEPTING FROM THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION REGULATION OF "  ...  THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF
NATURAL GAS."  IN EVALUATING THAT CONTENTION WE SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT
OF THE OBJECTIVES SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY CONGRESS IN PASSING THE
NATURAL GAS ACT. 

IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS ANNOUNCED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT,
THIS COURT HAD HELD THAT, ALTHOUGH CONGRESS HAD NOT ACTED, THE
REGULATION OF WHOLESALE RATES OF GAS AND ELECTRICAL ENERGY MOVING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE STATES. 
FN13 PETITIONER, RELYING IN PART UPON THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY
THOSE CASES, HAS SUCCESSFULLY AVOIDED REGULATION BY THE LOUISIANA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.  FN14  AS WAS STATED IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
REPORT, THE "BASIC PURPOSE" OF CONGRESS IN PASSING THE NATURAL GAS ACT
WAS "TO OCCUPY THIS FIELD IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE
STATES MAY NOT ACT."  FN15  IN DENYING THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
JURISDICTION TO REGULATE THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS, IT
WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO FREE COMPANIES SUCH AS PETITIONER
FROM EFFECTIVE PUBLIC CONTROL.  THE PURPOSE OF THAT RESTRICTION WAS,
RATHER, TO PRESERVE IN THE STATES POWERS OF REGULATION IN AREAS IN
WHICH THE STATES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPETENT TO ACT.  THUS THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE REPORT STATES:  "THE BILL TAKES NO AUTHORITY FROM STATE
COMMISSIONS, AND IS SO DRAWN AS TO COMPLEMENT AND IN NO MANNER USURP
STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY  ...  "  FN16  CLEARLY, AMONG THE POWERS
THUS RESERVED TO THE STATES IS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE PHYSICAL
PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS IN THE INTERESTS OF
CONSERVATION OR OF ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION OF LEGITIMATE LOCAL
CONCERN.  FN17  IT WAS THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO GIVE THE STATES
FULL FREEDOM IN THESE MATTERS.  THUS, WHERE SALES, THOUGH TECHNICALLY
CONSUMMATED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ARE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF
PRODUCTION AND GATHERING AND ARE SO CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE LOCAL
INCIDENTS OF THAT PROCESS AS TO RENDER RATE REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION INCONSISTENT OR A SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF ITS REGULATORY FUNCTIONS, THE JURISDICTION OF
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION DOES NOT ATTACH.  FN18  BUT SUCH CONFLICT
MUST BE CLEARLY SHOWN.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRIMARY GRANT OF JURISDICTION
IN THE SECTION ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
DEFEAT THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER SALES FOR RESALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO ASSERT THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF RATE
REGULATION IN SUCH CASES, LOCAL INTERESTS MAY IN SOME DEGREE BE
AFFECTED.  FN19 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE REGULATION IN
QUESTION IS IN ANY WAY INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXERCISE BY LOUISIANA OF
THE POWERS OVER PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS RESERVED TO IT
BY CONGRESS IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT.  THE STATE IN A SERIES OF
ENACTMENTS HAS MADE ELABORATE PROVISION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ITS
NATURAL GAS RESOURCES AND HAS ESTABLISHED VARIOUS RULES AND REGULATIONS
RELATING TO THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING PROCESS.  FN20  MOST OF THOSE
PROVISIONS, PRESUMABLY, ARE APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER'S FIELD
OPERATIONS.  FN21  THE RECORD IS DEVOID OF ANY SUGGESTION THAT
LOUISIANA HAS EVER OPPOSED THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION IN THIS CASE OR HAS EVER URGED THAT FEDERAL REGULATION OF
THE SALES IN QUESTION WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF
ITS REGULATORY FUNCTIONS.  FN22  WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION IN ANY CASE IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
RESISTANCE OR LACK OF RESISTANCE ON THE PART OF THE STATE TO FEDERAL
REGULATION.  BUT IN EVALUATING THE COMPANY'S CONTENTION THAT THE
STATE'S POWERS HAVE BEEN INVADED, WE REGARD IT A MATTER OF SOME
SIGNIFICANCE THAT ALTHOUGH THE STATE HAS FREELY EXERCISED ITS
REGULATORY POWERS OVER THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CONFLICT, PRESENT OR THREATENED, IN THE
PERFORMING OF THOSE FUNCTIONS BY THE STATE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IN THIS CASE.    IT IS NOT
CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION IS PRECLUDED FROM REGULATING THE SALES IN
QUESTION BY REASON OF THE EXCEPTION FROM THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION
RELATING TO THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS.  PETITIONER ASSERTS,
HOWEVER, THAT THE SALES TO THE THREE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES ARE A PART OF
THE GATHERING PROCESS AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S
POWER OF REGULATION.  THIS BASIC CONTENTION HAS GIVEN RISE TO A GREAT
MANY SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS SUCH AS WHETHER THE SALES WERE MADE FROM
PETITIONER'S "GATHERING" LINES OR FROM PETITIONER'S "TRANSMISSION"
LINES AND WHETHER THE GATHERING PROCESS CONTINUED TO THE POINTS OF SALE
OR WAS, AS THE COMMISSION FOUND, COMPLETED AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO
SURRENDER OF CUSTODY AND PASSAGE OF TITLE.  WE HAVE FOUND IT
UNNECESSARY TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES.  THE GAS MOVED BY PETITIONER TO
THE POINTS OF SALE CONSISTED OF GAS PRODUCED FROM PETITIONER'S WELLS
COMMINGLED WITH THAT PRODUCED AND GATHERED BY OTHER COMPANIES AND
INTRODUCED INTO PETITIONER'S PIPE-LINE SYSTEM DURING THE COURSE OF THE
MOVEMENT.  BY THE TIME THE SALES ARE CONSUMMATED, NOTHING FURTHER IN
THE GATHERING PROCESS REMAINS TO BE DONE.  WE HAVE HELD THAT THESE
SALES ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THEIR
REGULATION IS PREDOMINATELY A MATTER OF NATIONAL, AS CONTRASTED TO
LOCAL CONCERN.  ALL THE GAS SOLD IN THESE TRANSACTIONS IS DESTINED FOR
CONSUMPTION IN STATES OTHER THAN LOUISIANA.  UNREASONABLE CHARGES
EXACTED AT THIS STAGE OF THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT BECOME PERPETUATED IN
LARGE PART IN FIXED ITEMS OF COSTS WHICH MUST BE COVERED BY RATES
CHARGED SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS OF THE GAS, INCLUDING THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMER.  FN23  IT WAS TO AVOID SUCH SITUATIONS THAT THE NATURAL GAS
ACT WAS PASSED. 

FOR REASONS STATED ABOVE, WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION IN THIS CASE HAS NOT EXCEEDED THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED
UPON IT BY CONGRESS IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717 ET SEQ.; 56 STAT. 83. 

FN2  3 F.P.C. 416. 

FN3  156 F.2D 949(1946). 

FN4  SECTION 2(6) PROVIDES:  "'NATURAL-GAS COMPANY' MEANS A PERSON
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR
THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF SUCH GAS FOR RESALE." 

FN5  THE THREE COMPANIES INCLUDE THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FUEL
CORPORATION, SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, AND THE UNITED GAS PIPE LINE
COMPANY TO WHICH GAS IS SOLD FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS
COMPANY. 

FN6  PETITIONER PRODUCED AND PURCHASED A TOTAL OF 51,659,799 MCF OF
GAS IN THE MONROE FIELD DURING 1941.  OF THIS TOTAL, PETITIONER
PRODUCED FROM ITS OWN WELLS 28,819,814 MCF.  OF THE 22,839,985 MCF
PURCHASED, 95% WAS GATHERED BY THE PRODUCERS BEFORE DELIVERY TO
PETITIONER; THE REMAINING 5% WAS PURCHASED BY PETITIONER DIRECTLY AT
THE WELL HEADS.  PETITIONER SOLD 21,863,278 MCF TO THE THREE PURCHASING
COMPANIES IN THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. 

FN7  GAS IN THE MONROE FIELD IS "DRY" GAS AND CONSEQUENTLY IS NOT
SUBJECTED TO ANY EXTRACTION PROCESSING.  BEFORE MOVING INTO THE
COMPRESSOR PUMPS THE GAS IS RUN THROUGH A SERIES OF "SCRUBBERS" WHICH
REMOVE DIRT AND FOREIGN PARTICLES.  THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED, HOWEVER,
WITHOUT INTERRUPTION IN THE MOVEMENT. 

FN8  THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION SUPPLY THE MISSISSIPPI FUEL CORP.
WITH 22% OF ITS REQUIREMENTS, 24% OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MEMPHIS
NATURAL GAS CO., AND 16.61% OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS
CO. 

FN9  IN ITS COMPLAINT FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA INVOKING THE EQUITY POWERS OF THE COURT TO
RESTRAIN THE LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FROM CONDUCTING AN
INVESTIGATION INTO PETITIONER'S RATES AND CHARGES, PETITIONER
SPECIFICALLY ASSERTED THAT THE SALES IN QUESTION ARE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THUS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COMMISSION.  THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE REQUESTED RELIEF.  INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 33 F.SUPP.  50; 34 F.SUPP. 
980(1940). 

FN10  SHAFER V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 268 U.S. 189(1925); LEMKE V.
FARMERS GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50(1922); DAHNKE-WALKER MILLING CO. V.
BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282(1921).  AND SEE ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V.
CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 503-504(1942);
CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 10(1939); PEOPLES NATURAL GAS CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 270 U.S. 550, 554(1926); ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO.
V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 236 U.S. 157, 163(1915).  CF. MILK CONTROL BOARD V.
EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346(1939). 

FN11  ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE
CO., 314 U.S. 498, 508(1942); PEOPLES NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMM'N, 75 U.S. APP. D.C. 235, 127 F.2D 153(1942).  CF. JERSEY CENTRAL
POWER & LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 319 U.S. 61, 70-71(1943). 

FN12  CF. ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE
CO., SUPRA AT 504-505; STATE TAX COMM'N V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO.,
284 U.S. 41, 44(1931). 

FN13  MISSOURI V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298(1924); PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELECTRIC CO., 273 U.S. 83(1927);
STATE CORP. COMM'N V. WICHITA GAS CO., 290 U.S. 561(1934). 

FN14  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN15  H.R. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 2. 

FN16  IBID. 

FN17  COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S.
581, 602-603(1945). 

FN18  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS NOT ASSERTED JURISDICTION OVER
ALL SALES TAKING PLACE IN THE NATURAL GAS FIELDS EVEN THOUGH IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.  IN THE
MATTER OF COLUMBIAN FUEL CORP., 2 F.P.C. 200; IN THE MATTER OF BILLINGS
CO., 2 F.P.C. 288.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL TESTS EMPLOYED BY THE COMMISSION IN THESE CASES. 

FN19  CF. COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, SUPRA
AT 603; FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 607
612(1944). 

FN20  LA. GEN. STAT. SECS. 4766-4826.2. 

FN21  THE RECORD CONTAINS TESTIMONY BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO THE
EFFECT THAT THESE PROVISIONS APPLY TO PETITIONER AND THAT PETITIONER'S
OPERATIONS HAVE CONFORMED WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS. 

FN22  COUNSEL FOR THE LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND FOR TWO
LOUISIANA MUNICIPALITIES PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 

FN23  A NUMBER OF CASES IN THIS COURT HAVE HELD THAT THE
REASONABLENESS OF COST ITEMS SUCH AS THAT INCURRED BY A PURCHASING PIPE
LINE COMPANY IN ACQUIRING GAS FOR TRANSPORTATION MAY BE INQUIRED INTO
DURING THE COURSE OF SUBSEQUENT REGULATION WHEN BUYER AND SELLER ARE
AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE SALES WERE NOT
MADE AT ARM'S LENGTH.  THE COMMISSION FOUND AFFILIATION TO EXIST
BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ONLY ONE OF THE THREE PURCHASING COMPANIES, THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER FUEL CORPORATION.  THERE WAS A FINDING OF "CLOSE
CONTRACTUAL AND OPERATING ARRANGEMENTS" BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ANOTHER
OF THE PURCHASING COMPANIES.  NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. V. SLATTERY, 302
U.S. 300(1937); COLUMBUS GAS & FUEL CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 292
U.S. 398(1934); DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N,
292 U.S. 290(1934); WESTERN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
285 U.S. 119(1932); SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., 282 U.S.
133(1930); UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 278 U.S. 300(1929). 

..END :























MCWILLIAMS V. COMMISSIONER, 331 U.S. 694 


ARGUED MAY 8, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 16, 1947.  - 158 F.2D 637,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH TAX LOSSES, A HUSBAND WHO MANAGED THE
SEPARATE ESTATE OF HIS WIFE, AS WELL AS HIS OWN, ORDERED HIS BROKER TO
SELL CERTAIN STOCK FOR THE ACCOUNT OF ONE OF THE TWO AND TO BUY THE
SAME NUMBER OF SHARES OF THE SAME STOCK FOR THE OTHER, AT AS NEARLY THE
SAME PRICE AS POSSIBLE.  THE SALES WERE MADE TO, AND THE PURCHASES
FROM, UNKNOWN STRANGERS THROUGH A STOCK EXCHANGE, AND THE BUYING SPOUSE
RECEIVED STOCK CERTIFICATES DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH THE OTHER HAD
SOLD.  HELD:  DEDUCTIONS IN THEIR SEPARATE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR
LOSSES ON SUCH SALES ARE FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 24(B) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, AS LOSSES FROM "SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY, DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY  ...  BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A FAMILY."  PP. 695-703. 

2.  THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 24(B) WAS TO PUT AN END TO THE RIGHT OF
TAXPAYERS TO CHOOSE, BY INTRA-FAMILY TRANSFERS AND OTHER DESIGNATED
DEVICES, THEIR OWN TIME FOR REALIZING TAX LOSSES ON INVESTMENTS WHICH,
FOR MOST PRACTICAL PURPOSES, ARE CONTINUED UNINTERRUPTED - REGARDLESS
OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TRANSFERS ARE ACCOMPLISHED.  PP. 700-701. 

3.  THE WORDS "DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY" IN SEC. 24(B) PRECLUDE A
CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE PROHIBITION TO DIRECT INTRA-FAMILY
TRANSFERS OR TO THOSE IN WHICH THE UNITS OF FUNGIBLE PROPERTY SOLD BY
ONE SPOUSE AND THOSE BOUGHT BY THE OTHER ARE IDENTICAL.  PP. 702-703. 

MCWILLIAMS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

NO. 945.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 946, ESTATE OF MCWILLIAMS ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND NO. 947, MCWILLIAMS V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE TAX COURT EXPUNGED DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS FOR LOSSES REALIZED
FROM INDIRECT INTRA-FAMILY TRANSFERS OF STOCKS.  5 T.C. 623.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  158 F.2D 637.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  330 U.S. 814.  AFFIRMED, P. 703. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  JOHN P. MCWILLIAMS,
PETITIONER IN NO. 945, HAD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS MANAGED THE LARGE
INDEPENDENT ESTATE OF HIS WIFE, PETITIONER IN NO. 947, AS WELL AS HIS
OWN.  ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS IN 1940 AND 1941 HE ORDERED HIS BROKER TO
SELL CERTAIN STOCK FOR THE ACCOUNT OF ONE OF THE TWO AND TO BUY THE
SAME NUMBER OF SHARES OF THE SAME STOCK FOR THE OTHER, AT AS NEARLY THE
SAME PRICE AS POSSIBLE.  HE TOLD THE BROKER THAT HIS PURPOSE WAS TO
ESTABLISH TAX LOSSES.  ON EACH OCCASION THE SALE AND PURCHASE WERE
PROMPTLY NEGOTIATED THROUGH THE STOCK EXCHANGE, AND THE IDENTITY OF THE
PERSONS BUYING FROM THE SELLING SPOUSE AND OF THE PERSONS SELLING TO
THE BUYING SPOUSE WAS NEVER KNOWN.  INVARIABLY, HOWEVER, THE BUYING
SPOUSE RECEIVED STOCK CERTIFICATES DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH THE OTHER
HAD SOLD.  PETITIONERS FILED SEPARATE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THESE
YEARS, AND CLAIMED THE LOSSES WHICH HE OR SHE SUSTAINED ON THE SALES AS
DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THESE DEDUCTIONS ON THE AUTHORITY OF SEC.
24(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,  FN1  WHICH PROHIBITS DEDUCTIONS
FOR LOSSES FROM "SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
...  BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A FAMILY," AND BETWEEN CERTAIN OTHER CLOSELY
RELATED INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS. 

ON THE TAXPAYERS' APPLICATIONS TO THE TAX COURT, IT HELD SEC. 24(B)
INAPPLICABLE, FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN ICKELHEIMER V.
COMMISSIONER,  FN2  AND EXPUNGED THE COMMISSIONER'S DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENTS.  FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE TAX COURT
FN4  AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI  FN5  BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN
CIRCUITS  FN6  AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION INVOLVED. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO DISALLOW
LOSSES ON TRANSACTIONS LIKE THOSE DESCRIBED ABOVE, WHICH, HAVING BEEN
MADE THROUGH A PUBLIC MARKET, WERE UNDOUBTEDLY BONA FIDE SALES, BOTH IN
THE SENSE THAT TITLE TO PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED, AND ALSO IN
THE SENSE THAT A FAIR CONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN EXCHANGE.  THEY CONTEND
THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH LOSSES WOULD AMOUNT, PRO TANTO, TO
TREATING HUSBAND AND WIFE AS A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL FOR TAX PURPOSES. 

IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THEY CALL OUR ATTENTION TO THE PRE
1934 RULE, WHICH APPLIED TO ALL SALES REGARDLESS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF
SELLER AND BUYER, AND MADE THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE RESULTANT LOSS TURN
ON THE "GOOD FAITH" OF THE SALE, I.E., WHETHER THE SELLER ACTUALLY
PARTED WITH TITLE AND CONTROL.  FN7  THEY POINT OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF
THE USUAL INTRA-FAMILY SALE, THE EVIDENCE MATERIAL TO THIS ISSUE WAS
PECULIARLY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE AND EVEN THE CONTROL OF THE TAXPAYER
AND THOSE AMENABLE TO HIS WISHES, AND INACCESSIBLE TO THE GOVERNMENT. 
FN8  THEY MAINTAIN THAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1934
AND 1937 REVENUE ACTS - THE FORERUNNERS OF SEC. 24(B)  FN9  - WAS TO
OVERCOME THESE EVIDENTIARY DIFFICULTIES BY DISALLOWING LOSSES ON SUCH
SALES IRRESPECTIVE OF GOOD FAITH.  IT SEEMS TO BE PETITIONERS' BELIEF
THAT THE EVIDENTIARY DIFFICULTIES SO CONTEMPLATED WERE ONLY THOSE
RELATING TO PROOF OF THE PARTIES' OBSERVANCE OF THE FORMALITIES OF A
SALE AND OF THE FAIRNESS OF THE PRICE, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE REMEDY APPLIED ONLY TO SALES MADE IMMEDIATELY FROM ONE
MEMBER OF A FAMILY TO ANOTHER, OR MEDIATELY THROUGH A CONTROLLED
INTERMEDIARY. 

WE ARE NOT PERSUADED THAT CONGRESS HAD SO LIMITED AN APPRECIATION OF
THIS TYPE OF TAX AVOIDANCE PROBLEM.  EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE PROBLEM WAS
THOUGHT TO ARISE SOLELY OUT OF THE TAXPAYER'S INHERENT ADVANTAGE IN A
CONTEST CONCERNING THE GOOD OR BAD FAITH OF AN INTRA-FAMILY SALE,
DECEPTION COULD OBVIOUSLY BE PRACTICED BY A BUYING SPOUSE'S AGREEMENT
OR TACIT READINESS TO HOLD THE PROPERTY SOLD AT THE DISPOSAL OF A
SELLING SPOUSE, RATHER MORE EASILY THAN BY A PRETENSE OF A SALE WHERE
NONE ACTUALLY OCCURRED, OR BY AN UNFAIR PRICE.  THE DIFFICULTY OF
DETERMINING THE FINALITY OF AN INTRA-FAMILY TRANSFER WAS ONE WITH WHICH
THE COURTS WRESTLED UNDER THE PRE-1934 LAW,  FN10  AND WHICH CONGRESS
UNDOUBTEDLY MEANT TO OVERCOME BY ENACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
24(B).  FN11 

IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THIS DIFFICULTY IS ONE WHICH ARISES OUT OF
THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES, AND WOULD BE MET WHENEVER, BY
PREARRANGEMENT, ONE SPOUSE SELLS AND ANOTHER BUYS THE SAME PROPERTY AT
A COMMON PRICE, REGARDLESS OF THE MECHANICS OF THE TRANSACTION. 
INDEED, IF THE PROPERTY IS FUNGIBLE, THE POSSIBILITY THAT A SALE AND
PURCHASE MAY BE RENDERED NUGATORY BY THE BUYING SPOUSE'S AGREEMENT TO
HOLD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SELLING SPOUSE, AND THE DIFFICULTY OF
PROVING THAT FACT AGAINST THE TAXPAYER, ARE EQUALLY GREAT WHEN THE
UNITS OF THE PROPERTY WHICH THE ONE BUYS ARE NOT THE IDENTICAL UNITS
WHICH THE OTHER SELLS. 

SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN THE MOST COMMON VEHICLE FOR THE
CREATION OF INTRA-FAMILY LOSSES.  EVEN IF WE SHOULD ACCEPT PETITIONERS'
PREMISE THAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF SEC. 24(B) WAS TO MEET AN EVIDENTIARY
PROBLEM, WE COULD AGREE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN TO REACH THE
TRANSACTIONS IN THIS CASE ONLY IF WE THOUGHT IT COMPLETELY INDIFFERENT
TO THE EFFECTUALITY OF ITS SOLUTION. 

MOREOVER, WE THINK THE EVIDENTIARY PROBLEM WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHICH
CONGRESS INTENDED TO MEET.  SECTION 24(B) STATES AN ABSOLUTE
PROHIBITION - NOT A PRESUMPTION - AGAINST THE ALLOWANCE OF LOSSES ON
ANY SALES BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED GROUPS.  THE ONE
COMMON CHARACTERISTIC OF THESE GROUPS IS THAT THEIR MEMBERS, ALTHOUGH
DISTINCT LEGAL ENTITIES, GENERALLY HAVE A NEARIDENTITY OF ECONOMIC
INTERESTS.  FN12  IT IS A FAIR INFERENCE THAT EVEN LEGALLY GENUINE
INTRA-GROUP TRANSFERS WERE NOT THOUGHT TO RESULT, USUALLY, IN
ECONOMICALLY GENUINE REALIZATIONS OF LOSS, AND ACCORDINGLY THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT DEEM THEM TO BE APPROPRIATE OCCASIONS FOR THE
ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS. 

THE PERTINENT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY LENDS SUPPORT TO THIS INFERENCE. 
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, IN REPORTING THE PROVISIONS ENACTED IN
1934, MERELY STATED THAT "THE PRACTICE OF CREATING LOSSES THROUGH
TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A FAMILY AND CLOSE CORPORATIONS HAS
BEEN FREQUENTLY UTILIZED FOR AVOIDING THE INCOME TAX," AND THAT THESE
PROVISIONS WERE PROPOSED TO "DENY LOSSES TO BE TAKEN IN THE CASE OF
(SUCH) SALES" AND "TO CLOSE THIS LOOPHOLE OF TAX AVOIDANCE."  FN13
SIMILAR LANGUAGE WAS USED IN REPORTING THE 1937 PROVISIONS.  FN14
CHAIRMAN DOUGHTON OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, IN EXPLAINING THE
1937 PROVISIONS TO THE HOUSE, SPOKE OF "THE ARTIFICIAL TAKING AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF LOSSES WHERE PROPERTY WAS SHUFFLED BACK AND FORTH
BETWEEN VARIOUS LEGAL ENTITIES OWNED BY THE SAME PERSONS OR PERSON,"
AND STATED THAT "THESE TRANSACTIONS SEEM TO OCCUR AT MOMENTS REMARKABLY
OPPORTUNE TO THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IN REDUCING HIS TAX LIABILITY
BUT, AT THE SAME TIME ALLOWING HIM TO KEEP SUBSTANTIAL CONTROL OF THE
ASSETS BEING TRADED OR EXCHANGED."  FN15 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 24(B) WAS TO PUT AN END TO THE
RIGHT OF TAXPAYERS TO CHOOSE, BY INTRA-FAMILY TRANSFERS AND OTHER
DESIGNATED DEVICES, THEIR OWN TIME FOR REALIZING TAX LOSSES ON
INVESTMENTS WHICH, FOR MOST PRACTICAL PURPOSES, ARE CONTINUED
UNINTERRUPTED. 

WE ARE CLEAR AS TO THIS PURPOSE, TOO, THAT ITS EFFECTUATION OBVIOUSLY
HAD TO BE MADE INDEPENDENT OF THE MANNER IN WHICH AN INTRA-GROUP
TRANSFER WAS ACCOMPLISHED.  CONGRESS, WITH SUCH PURPOSE IN MIND, COULD
NOT HAVE INTENDED TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 24(B) ONLY SIMPLE
TRANSFERS MADE DIRECTLY OR THROUGH A DUMMY, OR TO EXCLUDE TRANSFERS OF
SECURITIES EFFECTED THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE, UNLESS IT
WANTED TO LEAVE A LOOP-HOLE ALMOST AS LARGE AS THE ONE IT HAD SET OUT
TO CLOSE. 

PETITIONERS SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS, IF IT TRULY INTENDED TO DISALLOW
LOSSES ON INTRA-FAMILY TRANSACTIONS THROUGH THE MARKET, WOULD PROBABLY
HAVE DONE SO BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE WASH SALES PROVISIONS,  FN16
MAKING THEM APPLICABLE WHERE THE SELLER AND BUYER WERE MEMBERS OF THE
SAME FAMILY, AS WELL AS WHERE THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. 
THIS EXTENSION OF THE WASH SALES PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, WOULD BAR ONLY
ONE PARTICULAR MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING THE EVIL AT WHICH SEC. 24(B) WAS
AIMED, AND THE NECESSITY FOR A COMPREHENSIVE REMEDY WOULD HAVE
REMAINED. 

NOR CAN WE AGREE THAT CONGRESS' OMISSION FROM SEC. 24(B) OF ANY
PRESCRIBED TIME INTERVAL, COMPARABLE IN FUNCTION TO THAT IN THE WASH
SALES PROVISIONS, INDICATES THAT SEC. 24(B) WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY
TO INTRA-FAMILY TRANSFERS THROUGH THE EXCHANGE.  PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT
IS PREDICATED ON THE DIFFICULTY WHICH COURTS MAY HAVE IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE ELAPSE OF CERTAIN PERIODS OF TIME BETWEEN ONE SPOUSE'S SALE
AND THE OTHER'S PURCHASE OF LIKE SECURITIES ON THE EXCHANGE IS OF GREAT
ENOUGH IMPORTANCE IN ITSELF TO BREAK THE CONTINUITY OF THE INVESTMENT
AND MAKE SEC. 24(B) INAPPLICABLE. 

PRECISELY THE SAME DIFFICULTY MAY ARISE, HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF AN
INTRA-FAMILY TRANSFER THROUGH AN INDIVIDUAL INTERMEDIARY, WHO, BY PRE
ARRANGEMENT, BUYS FROM ONE SPOUSE AT THE MARKET PRICE AND A SHORT TIME
ALTER SELLS THE IDENTICAL CERTIFICATES TO THE OTHER AT THE PRICE
PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF SALE.  THE OMISSION OF A PRESCRIBED TIME
INTERVAL NEGATES THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 24(B) TO THE FORMER TYPE OF
TRANSFER NO MORE THAN IT DOES TO THE LATTER.  BUT IF WE SHOULD HOLD
THAT IT NEGATED BOTH, WE WOULD HAVE CONVERTED THE SECTION INTO A MERE
TRAP FOR THE UNWARY.  FN17 

PETITIONERS ALSO URGE THAT, WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN CONGRESS' INTENT,
ITS DESIGNATION IN SEC. 24(B) OF SALES "BETWEEN" MEMBERS OF A FAMILY IS
NOT ADEQUATE TO COMPREHEND THE TRANSACTIONS IN THIS CASE, WHICH
CONSISTED ONLY OF A SALE OF STOCK BY ONE OF THE PETITIONERS TO AN
UNKNOWN STRANGER, AND THE PURCHASE OF DIFFERENT CERTIFICATES OF STOCK
BY THE OTHER PETITIONER, PRESUMABLY FROM ANOTHER STRANGER. 

WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PHRASEOLOGY, IF CONSTRUED LITERALLY AND
OUT OF CONTEXT, MIGHT BE THOUGHT TO MEAN ONLY DIRECT INTRA-FAMILY
TRANSFERS.  BUT PETITIONERS CONCEDE THAT THE EXPRESS STATUTORY
REFERENCE TO SALES MADE "DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY" PRECLUDES THAT
CONSTRUCTION.  MOREOVER, WE CAN DISCOVER IN THIS LANGUAGE NO
IMPLICATION WHATSOEVER THAT AN INDIRECT INTRA-FAMILY SALE OF FUNGIBLES
IS OUTSIDE THE STATUTE UNLESS THE UNITS SOLD BY ONE SPOUSE AND THOSE
BOUGHT BY THE OTHER ARE IDENTICAL.  INDEED, IF WE ACCEPTED PETITIONERS'
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE, WE THINK WE WOULD BE READING INTO IT A
CRIPPLING EXCEPTION WHICH IS NOT THERE. 

FINALLY, WE MUST REJECT PETITIONERS' ASSERTION THAT THE DOBSON RULE
FN18  CONTROLS THIS CASE.  THE TAX COURT FOUND THE FACTS AS WE STATED
THEM, AND THEN OVERRULED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION BECAUSE IT
THOUGHT THAT SEC. 24(B) HAD NO APPLICATION TO A TAXPAYER'S SALE OF
SECURITIES ON THE EXCHANGE TO AN UNKNOWN PURCHASER, REGARDLESS OF WHAT
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ACCOMPANIED THE SALE.  WE HAVE DECIDED OTHERWISE,
AND ON OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE, AND THE CONCEDED FACTS, THE TAX
COURT COULD NOT HAVE REACHED A RESULT CONTRARY TO OUR OWN.  FN19
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE MATERIAL PARTS OF SEC. 24(B) ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"(B)  LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY.  - 

"(1)  LOSSES DISALLOWED.  - IN COMPUTING NET INCOME NO DEDUCTION
SHALL IN ANY CASE BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF LOSSES FROM SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY - 

"(A)  BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A FAMILY, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (2)(D); 

"(B)  EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN LIQUIDATION, BETWEEN AN
INDIVIDUAL AND A CORPORATION MORE THAN 50 PER CENTUM IN VALUE OF THE
OUTSTANDING STOCK OF WHICH IS OWNED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY OR FOR
SUCH INDIVIDUAL; 

"(C)  EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN LIQUIDATION, BETWEEN TWO
CORPORATIONS MORE THAN 50 PER CENTUM IN VALUE OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK
OF EACH OF WHICH IS OWNED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY OR FOR THE SAME
INDIVIDUAL, IF EITHER ONE OF SUCH CORPORATIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE
TAXABLE YEAR OF THE CORPORATION PRECEDING THE DATE OF THE SALE OR
EXCHANGE WAS, UNDER THE LAW APPLICABLE TO SUCH TAXABLE YEAR, A PERSONAL
HOLDING COMPANY OR A FOREIGN PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY; 

"(D)  BETWEEN A GRANTOR AND A FIDUCIARY OF ANY TRUST; 

"(E)  BETWEEN THE FIDUCIARY OF A TRUST AND THE FIDUCIARY OF ANOTHER
TRUST, IF THE SAME PERSON IS A GRANTOR WITH RESPECT TO EACH TRUST; OR 

"(F)  BETWEEN A FIDUCIARY OF A TRUST AND A BENEFICIARY OF SUCH
TRUST."    SECTION 24(B)(2)(D) DEFINES THE FAMILY OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO
INCLUDE "ONLY HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS (WHETHER BY THE WHOLE OR HALF
BLOOD), SPOUSE, ANCESTORS, AND LINEAL DESCENDANTS; ...." 

FN2  45 B.T.A. 478, AFFIRMED, 132 F.2D 660(C.C.A.2). 

FN3  5 T.C. 623. 

FN4  158 F.2D 637(C.C.A.6). 

FN5  330 U.S. 814.  IN NO. 946, THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OF THE
ESTATE OF SUSAN P. MCWILLIAMS, THE DECEASED MOTHER OF JOHN P.
MCWILLIAMS, WAS GRANTED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE PETITIONS IN NOS. 945
AND 947, AND THE THREE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED IN THIS COURT.  AS ALL
THREE PRESENT THE SAME MATERIAL FACTS AND RAISE PRECISELY THE SAME
ISSUES, NO FURTHER REFERENCE WILL BE MADE TO THE SEVERAL CASES
SEPARATELY. 

FN6  THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V. ICKELHEIMER, SUPRA, NOTE 2, IS IN CONFLICT
ON THIS POINT WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AND ALSO WITH THAT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V. KOHN, 158
F.2D 32. 

FN7  COMMISSIONER V. HALE, 67 F.2D 561(C.C.A.1); ZIMMERMANN V.
COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 279, REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 100 F.2D
1023(C.C.A.3); UIHLEIN V. COMMISSIONER, 30 B.T.A. 399, AFFIRMED, 82
F.2D 944(C.C.A.7). 

FN8  SEE H. REP. NO. 1546, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 26(1939-1 CUM.
BULL.  (PART 2) 704, 722-723).  SEE ALSO CASES CITED IN NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN9  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 24(B)(1)(A) AND (B) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE ORIGINATED IN SEC. 24(A)(6) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48
STAT. 680, 691.  THESE PROVISIONS WERE REENACTED WITHOUT CHANGE AS SEC.
24(A)(6) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1648, 1662, AND THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 24(B)(1)(C), (D), (E), AND (F) OF THE CODE WERE
ADDED BY SEC. 301 OF THE 1937 ACT, 50 STAT. 813, 827. 

FN10  CF. SHOENBERG V. COMMISSIONER, 77 F.2D 446(C.C.A.8); COLE V.
HELBURN, 4 F.SUPP.  230; ZIMMERMANN V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, NOTE 7. 

FN11  SEE H. REP. NO. 1546, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 26, SUPRA, NOTE
8. 

FN12  SEE THE TEXT OF SEC. 24(B)(1), QUOTED IN NOTE 1. 

FN13  H. REP. NO. 704, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 23(1939-1 CUM. BULL. 
(PART 2) 554, 571); S. REP. NO. 558, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 27(1939-1
CUM. BULL.  (PART 2) 586, 607). 

FN14  THE TYPE OF SITUATIONS TO WHICH THESE PROVISIONS APPLIED WAS
DESCRIBED AS BEING THAT "IN WHICH, DUE TO FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS OR
FRIENDLY CONTROL, ARTIFICIAL LOSSES MIGHT BE CREATED FOR TAX
PURPOSES."  H. REP. NO. 1546, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 28(1939-1 CUM.
BULL.  (PART 2) 704, 724). 

FN15  81 CONG. REC. 9019.  REPRESENTATIVE HILL, CHAIRMAN OF A HOUSE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INCOME-TAX LAWS, EXPLAINED TO THE HOUSE WITH
REFERENCE TO THE 1934 PROVISIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD "PROVIDED IN
THIS BILL THAT TRANSFERS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF CREATING A LOSS TO BE OFFSET AGAINST ORDINARY INCOME SHALL NOT BE
RECOGNIZED FOR SUCH DEDUCTION PURPOSES."  78 CONG. REC. 2662. 

FN16  SEC. 118 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHICH FIRST APPEARED IN
ITS PRESENT FORM AS SEC. 118 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169,
208, PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 118.  LOSS FROM WASH SALES OF STOCK OR SECURITIES. 

"(A)  IN THE CASE OF ANY LOSS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED FROM ANY
SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF SHARES OF STOCK OR SECURITIES WHERE IT
APPEARS THAT, WITHIN A PERIOD BEGINNING 30 DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF SUCH
SALE OR DISPOSITION AND ENDING 30 DAYS AFTER SUCH DATE, THE TAXPAYER
HAS ACQUIRED (BY PURCHASE OR BY AN EXCHANGE UPON WHICH THE ENTIRE
AMOUNT OF GAIN OR LOSS WAS RECOGNIZED BY LAW), OR HAS ENTERED INTO A
CONTRACT OR OPTION SO TO ACQUIRE, SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL STOCK OR
SECURITIES, THEN NO DEDUCTION FOR THE LOSS SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER
23(F) UNLESS THE CLAIM IS MADE BY A CORPORATION, A DEALER IN STOCKS OR
SECURITIES, AND WITH RESPECT TO A TRANSACTION MADE IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS." 

FN17  WE HAVE NOTED PETITIONERS' SUGGESTION THAT A TAXPAYER IS
ASSURED, UNDER THE WASH SALES PROVISIONS, OF THE RIGHT TO DEDUCT THE
LOSS INCURRED ON A SALE OF SECURITIES, EVEN THOUGH HE HIMSELF BUYS
SIMILAR SECURITIES THIRTY-ONE DAYS LATER; AND THAT HE SHOULD CERTAINLY
NOT BE PRECLUDED BY SEC. 24(B) FROM CLAIMING A SIMILAR LOSS IF THE
TAXPAYER'S SPOUSE, INSTEAD OF THE TAXPAYER, MAKES THE PURCHASE UNDER
THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.  WE DO NOT FEEL IMPELLED TO COMMENT ON THESE
PROPOSITIONS, HOWEVER, IN A CASE IN WHICH THE SALE AND PURCHASE WERE
PRACTICALLY SIMULTANEOUS AND THE NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY ONE
SPOUSE AND THAT PAID BY THE OTHER DIFFERED ONLY IN THE AMOUNT OF
BROKERS' COMMISSIONS AND EXCISE TAXES. 

FN18  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489. 

FN19  CF. TRUST OF BINGHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 325 U.S. 365. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :

















UNITED STATES V. SILK, 331 U.S. 704 


ARGUED MARCH 10, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 16, 1947.  - 155 F.2D 356,
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.  - 156 F.2D 412, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER PARTICULAR WORKERS ARE INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS OR "EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT, THE SAME RULES ARE APPLICABLE AS WERE APPLIED BY THIS COURT TO THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322
U.S. 111.  PP. 713-714. 

2.  UNLOADERS OF COAL WHO PROVIDE THEIR OWN TOOLS, WORK ONLY WHEN
THEY WISH TO WORK AND ARE PAID AN AGREED PRICE PER TON TO UNLOAD COAL
FROM RAILROAD CARS, HELD, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, TO BE
"EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  PP. 706,
716-718. 

3.  TRUCK DRIVERS WHO OWN THEIR OWN TRUCKS, PAY THE EXPENSES OF THEIR
OPERATION, EMPLOY AND PAY THEIR OWN HELPERS AND RECEIVE COMPENSATION ON
A PIECE-WORK OR PERCENTAGE BASIS, HELD, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE
CASES, TO BE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND NOT "EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  PP. 706-710, 718-719. 

UNITED STATES V. SILK, DOING BUSINESS AS ALBERT SILK COAL CO. 

NO. 312.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 673, HARRISON, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V.
GREYVAN LINES, INC., ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, ARGUED MARCH 10, 11, 1947. 

NO. 312.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED RESPONDENTS A JUDGMENT FOR A
REFUND OF SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  155 F.2D 356.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S.
702.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, P. 719. 

FN3  155 F.2D 356. 

NO. 673.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED RESPONDENT A JUDGMENT FOR A
REFUND OF SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  156 F.2D 412.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S.
709.  AFFIRMED, P. 719. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE CONSIDER TOGETHER THE ABOVE TWO CASES.  BOTH INVOLVE SUITS TO
RECOVER SUMS EXACTED FROM BUSINESSES BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE AS EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON EMPLOYERS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT.  FN1  IN BOTH INSTANCES THE TAXES WERE COLLECTED ON ASSESSMENTS
MADE ADMINISTRATIVELY BY THE COMMISSIONER BECAUSE HE CONCLUDED THE
PERSONS HERE INVOLVED WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE TAXPAYERS.  BOTH CASES TURN
ON A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE WORKERS INVOLVED WERE EMPLOYEES
UNDER THAT ACT OR WHETHER THEY WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  WRITS OF
CERTIORARI WERE GRANTED, 329 U.S. 702 AND 329 U.S. 709, BECAUSE OF THE
GENERAL IMPORTANCE IN THE COLLECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES OF
DECIDING WHAT ARE THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
EMPLOYEES UNDER THE ACT.  VARYING STANDARDS HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  FN2 

RESPONDENT IN NO. 312, ALBERT SILK, DOING BUSINESS AS THE ALBERT SILK
COAL CO., SUED THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, TO RECOVER TAXES ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY ASSESSED AND COLLECTED FROM RESPONDENT FOR THE
YEARS 1936 THROUGH 1939 UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  THE TAXES WERE
LEVIED ON RESPONDENT AS AN EMPLOYER OF CERTAIN WORKMEN SOME OF WHOM
WERE ENGAGED IN UNLOADING RAILWAY COAL CARS AND THE OTHERS IN MAKING
RETAIL DELIVERIES OF COAL BY TRUCK. 

RESPONDENT SELLS COAL AT RETAIL IN THE CITY OF TOPEKA, KANSAS.  HIS
COALYARD CONSISTS OF TWO BUILDINGS, ONE FOR AN OFFICE AND THE OTHER A
GATHERING PLACE FOR WORKERS, RAILROAD TRACKS UPON WHICH CARLOADS OF
COAL ARE DELIVERED BY THE RAILROAD, AND BINS FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF
COAL.  RESPONDENT PAYS THOSE WHO WORK AS UNLOADERS AN AGREED PRICE PER
TON TO UNLOAD COAL FROM THE RAILROAD CARS.  THESE MEN COME TO THE YARD
WHEN AND AS THEY PLEASE AND ARE ASSIGNED A CAR TO UNLOAD AND A PLACE TO
PUT THE COAL.  THEY FURNISH THEIR OWN TOOLS, WORK WHEN THEY WISH AND
WORK FOR OTHERS AT WILL.  ONE OF THESE UNLOADERS TESTIFIED THAT HE
WORKED AS REGULARLY "AS A MAN HAS TO WHEN HE HAS TO EAT" BUT THERE WAS
ALSO TESTIMONY THAT SOME OF THE UNLOADERS WERE FLOATERS WHO CAME TO THE
YARD ONLY INTERMITTENTLY. 

RESPONDENT OWNS NO TRUCKS HIMSELF BUT CONTRACTS WITH WORKERS WHO OWN
THEIR OWN TRUCKS TO DELIVER COAL AT A UNIFORM PRICE PER TON.  THIS IS
PAID TO THE TRUCKER BY THE RESPONDENT OUT OF THE PRICE HE RECEIVES FOR
THE COAL FROM THE CUSTOMER.  WHEN AN ORDER FOR COAL IS TAKEN IN THE
COMPANY OFFICE, A BELL IS RUNG WHICH RINGS IN THE BUILDING USED BY THE
TRUCKERS.  THE TRUCKERS HAVE VOLUNTARILY ADOPTED A CALL LIST UPON WHICH
THEIR NAMES COME UP IN TURN, AND THE TOP MAN ON THE LIST HAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DELIVER THE COAL ORDERED.  THE TRUCKERS ARE NOT
INSTRUCTED HOW TO DO THEIR JOBS, BUT ARE MERELY GIVEN A TICKET TELLING
THEM WHERE THE COAL IS TO BE DELIVERED AND WHETHER THE CHARGE IS TO BE
COLLECTED OR NOT.  ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THEM IS PAID FOR BY THE
COMPANY.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE TRUCKERS COULD AND OFTEN
DID REFUSE TO MAKE A DELIVERY WITHOUT PENALTY.  FURTHER, THE COURT
FOUND THAT THE TRUCKERS MAY COME AND GO AS THEY PLEASE AND FREQUENTLY
DID LEAVE THE PREMISES WITHOUT PERMISSION.  THEY MAY AND DID HAUL FOR
OTHERS WHEN THEY PLEASED.  THEY PAY ALL THE EXPENSES OF OPERATING THEIR
TRUCKS, AND FURNISH EXTRA HELP NECESSARY TO THE DELIVERY OF THE COAL
AND ALL EQUIPMENT EXCEPT THE YARD STORAGE BINS.  NO RECORD IS KEPT OF
THEIR TIME.  THEY ARE PAID AFTER EACH TRIP, AT THE END OF THE DAY OR AT
THE END OF THE WEEK, AS THEY REQUEST. 

THE COLLECTOR RULED THAT THE UNLOADERS AND TRUCKERS WERE EMPLOYEES OF
THE RESPONDENT DURING THE YEARS 1936 THROUGH 1939 WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND HE ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED ADDITIONAL TAXES
UNDER TITLES VIII AND IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND SUBCHAPTERS A
AND C OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  RESPONDENT FILED A
CLAIM FOR A REFUND WHICH WAS DENIED.  HE THEN BROUGHT THIS ACTION. 
BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  FN3 THOUGHT
THAT THE TRUCKERS AND UNLOADERS WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND
ALLOWED THE RECOVERY. 

RESPONDENT IN NO. 673, GREYVAN LINES, INC., A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR
TRUCK, SUED THE PETITIONER, A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, TO RECOVER
EMPLOYMENT TAXES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY ASSESSED AND COLLECTED
FROM IT UNDER SIMILAR PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT INVOLVED IN
SILK'S CASE FOR THE YEARS OR PARTS OF YEARS 1937 THROUGH THE FIRST
QUARTER OF 1942.  FROM A HOLDING FOR THE RESPONDENT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT PETITIONER APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  THE
CHIEF QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER TRUCKMEN WHO PERFORM THE ACTUAL
SERVICE OF CARRYING THE GOODS SHIPPED BY THE PUBLIC ARE EMPLOYEES OF
THE RESPONDENT.  BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS  FN4  THOUGHT THAT THE TRUCKMEN WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 

THE RESPONDENT OPERATES ITS TRUCKING BUSINESS UNDER A PERMIT ISSUED
BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  32 M.C.C. 719, 723.  IT OPERATES THROUGHOUT
THIRTY-EIGHT STATES AND PARTS OF CANADA, CARRYING LARGELY HOUSEHOLD
FURNITURE.  WHILE ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS IN CHICAGO, IT MAINTAINS
AGENCIES TO SOLICIT BUSINESS IN MANY OF THE LARGER CITIES OF THE AREAS
IT SERVES, FROM WHICH IT CONTRACTS TO MOVE GOODS.  AS EARLY AS 1930,
BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, THE RESPONDENT ADOPTED
THE SYSTEM OF RELATIONS WITH THE TRUCKMEN HERE CONCERNED, WHICH GIVES
RISE TO THE PRESENT ISSUE.  THE SYSTEM WAS BASED ON CONTRACTS WITH THE
TRUCKMEN UNDER WHICH THE TRUCKMEN WERE REQUIRED TO HAUL EXCLUSIVELY FOR
THE RESPONDENT AND TO FURNISH THEIR OWN TRUCKS AND ALL EQUIPMENT AND
LABOR NECESSARY TO PICK UP, HANDLE AND DELIVER SHIPMENTS, TO PAY ALL
EXPENSES OF OPERATION, TO FURNISH ALL FIRE, THEFT, AND COLLISION
INSURANCE WHICH THE RESPONDENT MIGHT SPECIFY, TO PAY FOR ALL LOSS OR
DAMAGE TO SHIPMENTS AND TO INDEMNIFY THE COMPANY FOR ANY LOSS CAUSED IT
BY THE ACTS OF THE TRUCKMEN, THEIR SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES, TO PAINT THE
DESIGNATION "GREYVAN LINES" ON THEIR TRUCKS, TO COLLECT ALL MONEY DUE
THE COMPANY FROM SHIPPERS OR CONSIGNEES, AND TO TURN IN SUCH MONEYS AT
THE OFFICE TO WHICH THEY REPORT AFTER DELIVERING A SHIPMENT, TO POST
BONDS WITH THE COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000 AND CASH DEPOSITS OF
$250 PENDING FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, TO PERSONALLY DRIVE THEIR
TRUCKS AT ALL TIMES OR BE PRESENT ON THE TRUCK WHEN A COMPETENT RELIEF
DRIVER WAS DRIVING (EXCEPT IN EMERGENCIES, WHEN A SUBSTITUTE MIGHT BE
EMPLOYED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY), AND TO FOLLOW ALL RULES,
REGULATIONS, AND INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COMPANY.  ALL CONTRACTS OR BILLS
OF LADING FOR THE SHIPMENT OF GOODS WERE TO BE BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT
AND THE SHIPPER.  THE COMPANY'S INSTRUCTIONS COVERED DIRECTIONS TO THE
TRUCKMEN AS TO WHERE AND WHEN TO LOAD FREIGHT.  IF FREIGHT WAS TENDERED
THE TRUCKMEN, THEY WERE UNDER OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY THE COMPANY SO THAT
IT COULD COMPLETE THE CONTRACT FOR SHIPMENT IN ITS OWN NAME.  AS
REMUNERATION, THE TRUCKMEN WERE TO RECEIVE FROM THE COMPANY A
PERCENTAGE OF THE TARIFF CHARGED BY THE COMPANY VARYING BETWEEN 50 AND
52% AND A BONUS UP TO 3% FOR SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE. 
THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINABLE AT ANY TIME BY EITHER PARTY.  THESE
TRUCKMEN WERE REQUIRED TO TAKE A SHORT COURSE OF INSTRUCTION IN THE
COMPANY'S METHODS OF DOING BUSINESS BEFORE CARRYING OUT THEIR
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS TO HAUL.  THE COMPANY MAINTAINED A STAFF OF
DISPATCHERS WHO ISSUED ORDERS FOR THE TRUCKMEN'S MOVEMENTS, ALTHOUGH
NOT THE ROUTES TO BE USED, AND TO WHICH THE TRUCKMEN, AT INTERVALS,
REPORTED THEIR POSITIONS.  CARGO INSURANCE WAS CARRIED BY THE COMPANY. 
ALL PERMITS, CERTIFICATES AND FRANCHISES "NECESSARY TO THE OPERATION OF
THE VEHICLE IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMPANY AS A MOTOR CARRIER UNDER ANY
FEDERAL OR STATE LAW" WERE TO BE OBTAINED AT THE COMPANY'S EXPENSE. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED FACTS, NOT
CONTAINED IN THE FINDINGS.  A MANUAL OF INSTRUCTIONS, GIVEN BY THE
RESPONDENT TO THE TRUCKMEN, AND A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND
LOCAL NO. 711 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, STABLEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA WERE INTRODUCED IN
EVIDENCE.  IT SUFFICES TO SAY THAT THE MANUAL PURPORTED TO REGULATE IN
DETAIL THE CONDUCT OF THE TRUCKMEN IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES,
AND THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION PROVIDED THAT ANY TRUCKMAN MUST
FIRST BE A MEMBER OF THE UNION, AND THAT GRIEVANCES WOULD BE REFERRED
TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANY AND THE UNION.  A COMPANY OFFICIAL
TESTIFIED THAT THE MANUAL WAS IMPRACTICAL AND THAT NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE
TO ENFORCE IT.  WE UNDERSTAND THE UNION CONTRACT WAS IN EFFECT.  THE
COMPANY HAD SOME TRUCKS DRIVEN BY TRUCKMEN WHO WERE ADMITTEDLY COMPANY
EMPLOYEES.  OPERATIONS BY THE COMPANY UNDER THE TWO SYSTEMS WERE
CARRIED OUT IN THE SAME MANNER.  THE INSURANCE REQUIRED BY THE COMPANY
WAS CARRIED UNDER A BLANKET COMPANY POLICY FOR WHICH THE TRUCKMEN WERE
CHARGED PROPORTIONATELY. 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 WAS THE RESULT OF LONG CONSIDERATION
BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS OF THE EVIL OF THE BURDENS THAT REST UPON
LARGE NUMBERS OF OUR PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE INSECURITIES OF MODERN LIFE,
PARTICULARLY OLD AGE AND UNEMPLOYMENT.  IT WAS ENACTED IN AN EFFORT TO
COORDINATE THE FORCES OF GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY FOR SOLVING THE
PROBLEMS.  FN5  THE PRINCIPAL METHOD ADOPTED BY CONGRESS TO ADVANCE ITS
PURPOSES WAS TO PROVIDE FOR PERIODIC PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE OF
ANNUITIES TO THE ELDERLY AND COMPENSATION TO WORKERS DURING PERIODS OF
UNEMPLOYMENT.  EMPLOYMENT TAXES, SUCH AS WE ARE HERE CONSIDERING, ARE
NECESSARY TO PRODUCE THE REVENUE FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN THE
PROGRAM OF ALLEVIATION.  EMPLOYERS DO NOT PAY TAXES ON CERTAIN GROUPS
OF EMPLOYEES, SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL OR DOMESTIC WORKERS BUT NONE OF
THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THESE CASES.  SECS. 811 AND 907. 
TAXES ARE LAID AS EXCISES ON A PERCENTAGE OF WAGES PAID THE NONEXEMPT
EMPLOYEES.  SECS. 804 AND 901; I.R.C. SECS. 1410, 1600.  "WAGES" MEANS
ALL REMUNERATION FOR THE EMPLOYMENT THAT IS COVERED BY THE ACT, CASH OR
OTHERWISE.  SECS. 811, 907; I.R.C. SECS. 1426, 1607(B).  "EMPLOYMENT"
MEANS "ANY SERVICE, OF WHATEVER NATURE, PERFORMED  ... BY AN EMPLOYEE
FOR HIS EMPLOYER, EXCEPT  ...  AGRICULTURAL LABOR" ET CETERA.  SECS.
811(B), 907(C); I.R.C. SECS. 1426(B), 1607(C).  AS A COROLLARY TO THE
COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES WHOSE WAGES ARE THE BASIS FOR THE EMPLOYMENT
TAXES UNDER THE TAX SECTIONS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION, RIGHTS
TO BENEFIT PAYMENTS UNDER FEDERAL OLD AGE INSURANCE DEPEND UPON THE
RECEIPT OF WAGES AS EMPLOYEES UNDER THE SAME SECTIONS.  53 STAT. 1360,
SECS. 202, 209(A), (B), (G), 205(C)(1).  SEE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD V.
NIEROTKO, 327 U.S. 358.  THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TAX SECTIONS AND
THE BENEFIT SECTIONS EMPHASIZES THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION - THE PROTECTION OF ITS BENEFICIARIES FROM SOME OF THE
HARDSHIPS OF EXISTENCE.  HELVERING V. DAVIS, SUPRA, 640.  NO DEFINITION
OF EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYEE APPLICABLE TO THESE CASES OCCURS IN THE ACT. 
SEE SEC. 907(A) AND I.R.C. SEC. 1607(A).  COMPARE, AS TO CARRIER
EMPLOYMENT, I.R.C. SEC. 1532(D), AS AMENDED BY 60 STAT. 722, SEC. 1. 
NOTHING THAT IS HELPFUL IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE COVERAGE OF THE
TAX SECTIONS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION IN
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT OR AMENDMENTS
THERETO. 

SINCE CONGRESS HAS MADE CLEAR BY ITS MANY EXEMPTIONS, SUCH AS, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE BROAD CATEGORIES OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR AND DOMESTIC
SERVICE, 53 STAT. 1384, 1393, THAT IT WAS NOT ITS PURPOSE TO MAKE THE
ACT COVER THE WHOLE FIELD OF SERVICE TO EVERY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, THE
VERY SPECIFICITY OF THE EXEMPTIONS, HOWEVER, AND THE GENERALITY OF THE
EMPLOYMENT DEFINITIONS  FN6  INDICATES THAT THE TERMS "EMPLOYMENT" AND
"EMPLOYEE," ARE TO BE CONSTRUED TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF THE
LEGISLATION.  AS THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION IS AN ATTACK
ON RECOGNIZED EVILS IN OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY, A CONSTRICTED
INTERPRETATION OF THE PHRASING BY THE COURTS WOULD NOT COMPORT WITH ITS
PURPOSE.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD ONLY MAKE FOR A CONTINUANCE, TO
A CONSIDERABLE DEGREE, OF THE DIFFICULTIES FOR WHICH THE REMEDY WAS
DEVISED AND WOULD INVITE ADROIT SCHEMES BY SOME EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
TO AVOID THE IMMEDIATE BURDENS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY
THE LEGISLATION.  FN7  THESE CONSIDERATIONS HAVE HERETOFORE GUIDED OUR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT.  BUCKSTAFF BATH HOUSE CO. V. MCKINLEY, 308
U.S. 358; SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD V. NIEROTKO, 327 U.S. 358.    OF
COURSE, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL WHO RENDER SERVICE TO AN INDUSTRY
ARE EMPLOYEES.  COMPARE METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 520. 
OBVIOUSLY THE PRIVATE CONTRACTOR WHO UNDERTAKES TO BUILD AT A FIXED
PRICE OR ON COST-PLUS A NEW PLANT ON SPECIFICATIONS IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE
OF THE INDUSTRY THUS SERVED NOR ARE HIS EMPLOYEES.  THE DISTRIBUTOR WHO
UNDERTAKES TO MARKET AT HIS OWN RISK THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER, OR THE
PRODUCER WHO AGREES SO TO MANUFACTURE FOR ANOTHER, ORDINARILY CANNOT BE
SAID TO HAVE THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  PRODUCTION AND
DISTRIBUTION ARE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF BUSINESS.  THE PURPOSES OF THE
LEGISLATION ARE NOT FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT COLLECTS
EMPLOYMENT TAXES FROM THE DISTRIBUTOR INSTEAD OF THE PRODUCER OR THE
OTHER WAY AROUND. 

THE PROBLEM OF DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN EMPLOYEE AND AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR, OR BETWEEN AN AGENT AND AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, HAS
GIVEN DIFFICULTY THROUGH THE YEARS BEFORE SOCIAL LEGISLATION MULTIPLIED
ITS IMPORTANCE.  WHEN THE MATTER AROSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WE POINTED OUT THAT THE LEGAL STANDARDS
TO FIX RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS HAD NOT
BEEN REDUCED TO SUCH CERTAINTY THAT IT COULD BE SAID THERE WAS "SOME
SIMPLE, UNIFORM AND EASILY APPLICABLE TEST."  THE WORD "EMPLOYEE," WE
SAID, WAS NOT THERE USED AS A WORD OF ART, AND ITS CONTENT IN ITS
CONTEXT WAS A FEDERAL PROBLEM TO BE CONSTRUED "IN THE LIGHT OF THE
MISCHIEF TO BE CORRECTED AND THE END TO BE ATTAINED."  WE CONCLUDED
THAT, SINCE THAT END WAS THE ELIMINATION OF LABOR DISPUTES AND
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE, "EMPLOYEES" INCLUDED WORKERS WHO WERE SUCH AS A
MATTER OF ECONOMIC REALITY.  THE AIM OF THE ACT WAS TO REMEDY THE
INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER IN CONTROVERSIES OVER WAGES, HOURS AND
WORKING CONDITIONS.  WE REJECTED THE TEST OF THE "TECHNICAL CONCEPTS
PERTINENT TO AN EMPLOYER'S LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THIRD PERSONS FOR
ACTS OF HIS SERVANTS."  THIS IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS POWER OF CONTROL,
WHETHER EXERCISED OR NOT, OVER THE MANNER OF PERFORMING SERVICE TO THE
INDUSTRY.  RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW, AGENCY, SEC. 220.  WE APPROVED THE
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT "THE PRIMARY
CONSIDERATION IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
STATUTORY DEFINITION IS WHETHER EFFECTUATION OF THE DECLARED POLICY AND
PURPOSES OF THE ACT COMPREHEND SECURING TO THE INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHTS
GUARANTEED AND PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE ACT."  LABOR BOARD V. HEARST
PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 120, 123, 124, 128, 129, 131. 

APPLICATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION SHOULD FOLLOW THE SAME
RULE THAT WE APPLIED TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN THE HEARST
CASE.  THIS, OF COURSE, DOES NOT LEAVE COURTS FREE TO DETERMINE THE
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT.  THE TAXPAYER MUST BE AN "EMPLOYER" AND THE MAN WHO RECEIVES WAGES
AN "EMPLOYEE."  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO CHANGE
NORMAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH WHICH ONE BUSINESS ORGANIZATION
OBTAINED THE SERVICES OF ANOTHER TO PERFORM A PORTION OF PRODUCTION OR
DISTRIBUTION.  FEW BUSINESSES ARE SO COMPLETELY INTEGRATED THAT THEY
CAN THEMSELVES PRODUCE THE RAW MATERIAL, MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTE THE
FINISHED PRODUCT TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT WAS DRAWN WITH THIS
INDUSTRIAL SITUATION AS A PART OF THE SURROUNDINGS IN WHICH IT WAS TO
BE ENFORCED.  WHERE A PART OF AN INDUSTRIAL PROCESS IS IN THE HANDS OF
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO SHOULD PAY THE SOCIAL
SECURITY TAXES. 

THE LONG-STANDING REGULATIONS OF THE TREASURY AND THE FEDERAL
SECURITY AGENCY (H. DOC. 595, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS.) RECOGNIZE THAT
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS EXIST UNDER THE ACT.  THE PERTINENT PORTIONS
ARE SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN8  CERTAINLY THE INDUSTRY'S RIGHT TO
CONTROL HOW "WORK SHALL BE DONE" IS A FACTOR IN THE DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER THE WORKER IS AN EMPLOYEE OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.  THE
GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT THE REGULATIONS WERE CONSTRUED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO COVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE
PRESENTED.  THIS IS SHOWN BY HIS ADDITIONAL TAX ASSESSMENTS.  OTHER
INSTANCES OF SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS ARE CALLED TO OUR
ATTENTION.  FN9 

SO FAR AS THE REGULATIONS REFER TO THE EFFECT OF CONTRACTS, WE THINK
THEIR STATEMENT OF THE LAW CANNOT BE CHALLENGED SUCCESSFULLY. 
CONTRACTS, HOWEVER "SKILFULLY DEVISED," LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111,
115, SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO SHIFT TAX LIABILITY AS DEFINITELY FIXED
BY THE STATUTES.  FN10 

PROBABLY IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO EXTRACT FROM THE STATUTE A RULE OF
THUMB TO DEFINE THE LIMITS OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  THE
SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY AND THE COURTS WILL FIND THAT DEGREES OF
CONTROL, OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFIT OR LOSS, INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES,
PERMANENCY OF RELATION AND SKILL REQUIRED IN THE CLAIMED INDEPENDENT
OPERATION ARE IMPORTANT FOR DECISION.  NO ONE IS CONTROLLING NOR IS THE
LIST COMPLETE.  THESE UNLOADERS AND TRUCKERS AND THEIR ASSISTANTS ARE
FROM ONE STANDPOINT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESSES OF RETAILING
COAL OR TRANSPORTING FREIGHT.  THEIR ENERGY, CARE AND JUDGMENT MAY
CONSERVE THEIR EQUIPMENT OR INCREASE THEIR EARNINGS BUT GREYVAN AND
SILK ARE THE DIRECTORS OF THEIR BUSINESSES.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
TRUCKMEN HIRE THEIR OWN ASSISTANTS, OWN THEIR TRUCKS, PAY THEIR OWN
EXPENSES, WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS, AND DEPEND UPON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE,
JUDGMENT AND ENERGY FOR A LARGE PART OF THEIR SUCCESS. 

BOTH LOWER COURTS IN BOTH CASES HAVE DETERMINED THAT THESE WORKERS
ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  THESE INFERENCES WERE DRAWN BY THE COURTS
FROM FACTS CONCERNING WHICH THERE IS NO REAL DISPUTE.  THE EXCERPTS
FROM THE OPINIONS BELOW SHOW THE REASONS FOR THEIR CONCLUSIONS.  FN11 

GIVING FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONCURRENCE OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS
IN A CONTRARY RESULT, WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE UNLOADERS IN THE SILK
CASE WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  FN12  THEY PROVIDED ONLY PICKS AND
SHOVELS.  THEY HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN OR LOSE EXCEPT FROM THE WORK
OF THEIR HANDS AND THESE SIMPLE TOOLS.  THAT THE UNLOADERS DID NOT WORK
REGULARLY IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  THEY DID WORK IN THE COURSE OF THE
EMPLOYER'S TRADE OR BUSINESS.  THIS BRINGS THEM UNDER THE COVERAGE OF
THE ACT.  FN13  THEY ARE OF THE GROUP THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT WAS
INTENDED TO AID.  SILK WAS IN A POSITION TO EXERCISE ALL NECESSARY
SUPERVISION OVER THEIR SIMPLE TASKS.  UNLOADERS HAVE OFTEN BEEN HELD TO
BE EMPLOYEES IN TORT CASES.  FN14 

THERE ARE CASES, TOO, WHERE DRIVER-OWNERS OF TRUCKS OR WAGONS HAVE
BEEN HELD EMPLOYEES  FN15  IN ACCIDENT SUITS AT TORT OR UNDER WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAWS.  BUT WE AGREE WITH THE DECISIONS BELOW IN SILK AND
GREYVAN THAT WHERE THE ARRANGEMENTS LEAVE THE DRIVER-OWNERS SO MUCH
RESPONSIBILITY FOR INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT AS HERE, THEY MUST BE HELD
TO BE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  FN16  THESE DRIVER-OWNERS ARE SMALL
BUSINESSMEN.  THEY OWN THEIR OWN TRUCKS.  THEY HIRE THEIR OWN HELPERS. 
IN ONE INSTANCE THEY HAUL FOR A SINGLE BUSINESS, IN THE OTHER FOR ANY
CUSTOMER.  THE DISTINCTION, THOUGH IMPORTANT, IS NOT CONTROLLING.  IT
IS THE TOTAL SITUATION, INCLUDING THE RISK UNDERTAKEN, THE CONTROL
EXERCISED, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROFIT FROM SOUND MANAGEMENT, THAT MARKS
THESE DRIVER-OWNERS AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 

NO. 312, UNITED STATES V. SILK, IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN
PART. 

NO. 673, HARRISON V. GREYVAN LINES, INC., IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TITLES VIII AND IX, SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT. 636 AND 639,
AS REPEALED IN PART 53 STAT. 1. 

SEE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, CHAP. 9, SUBCHAP.  A AND C. 

FN2  TEXAS CO. V. HIGGINS, 118 F.2D 636; JONES V. GOODSON, 121 F.2D
176; DEECY PRODUCTS CO. V. WELCH, 214 F.2D 592; AMERICAN OIL CO. V.
FLY, 135 F.2D 491; GLENN V. BEARD, 141 F.2D 376; MAGRUDER V. YELLOW CAB
CO., 141 F.2D 324; UNITED STATES V. MUTUAL TRUCKING CO., 141 F.2D 655;
GLENN V. STANDARD OIL CO., 148 F.2D 51, 53; MCGOWAN V. LAZEROFF, 148
F.2D 512; UNITED STATES V. WHOLESALE OIL CO., 154 F.2D 745; UNITED
STATES V. VOGUE, INC., 145 F.2D 609, 612; UNITED STATES V. ABERDEEN
AERIE NO. 24, 148 F.2D 655, 658; GRACE V. MAGRUDER, 148 F.2D 679, 680
81; NEVINS, INC. V. ROTHENSIES, 151 F.2D 189. 

FN3  155 F.2D 356. 

FN4  156 F.2D 412. 

FN5  MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT, JANUARY 17, 1935, AND REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY, H. DOC. NO. 81, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.;
S. REP. NO. 628, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 734, 76TH CONG.,
1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 615, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 728,
76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548;
HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619. 

FN6  SEE 53 STAT. 1384, 1393, "THE TERM 'EMPLOYMENT' MEANS ANY
SERVICE PERFORMED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1940, WHICH WAS EMPLOYMENT AS
DEFINED IN THIS SECTION PRIOR TO SUCH DATE, AND ANY SERVICE, OF
WHATEVER NATURE, PERFORMED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1939, WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE PERSON EMPLOYING HIM, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
CITIZENSHIP OR RESIDENCE OF EITHER, EXCEPT -  ...."  COMPARE 49 STAT.
639 AND 643. 

FN7  NOTHING TO SUGGEST TAX AVOIDANCE APPEARS IN THESE RECORDS. 

FN8  TREASURY REGULATIONS 90, PROMULGATED UNDER TITLE IX OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, ART. 205: 

"GENERALLY THE RELATIONSHIP EXISTS WHEN THE PERSON FOR WHOM SERVICES
ARE PERFORMED HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL AND DIRECT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO
PERFORMS THE SERVICES, NOT ONLY AS TO THE RESULT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
THE WORK BUT ALSO AS TO THE DETAILS AND MEANS BY WHICH THAT RESULT IS
ACCOMPLISHED.  THAT IS, AN EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO THE WILL AND CONTROL
OF THE EMPLOYER NOT ONLY AS TO WHAT SHALL BE DONE BUT HOW IT SHALL BE
DONE....  THE RIGHT TO DISCHARGE IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT FACTOR INDICATING
THAT THE PERSON POSSESSING THAT RIGHT IS AN EMPLOYER.  OTHER FACTORS
CHARACTERISTIC OF AN EMPLOYER ARE THE FURNISHING OF TOOLS AND THE
FURNISHING OF A PLACE TO WORK, TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PERFORMS THE
SERVICES.  IN GENERAL, IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OR
DIRECTION OF ANOTHER MERELY AS TO THE RESULT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE
WORK AND NOT AS TO THE MEANS AND METHODS FOR ACCOMPLISHING THE RESULT,
HE IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE. 

"IF THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE EXISTS, THE DESIGNATION
OR DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BY THE PARTIES AS ANYTHING OTHER
THAN THAT OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IS IMMATERIAL.  THUS, IF TWO
INDIVIDUALS IN FACT STAND IN THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE TO
EACH OTHER, IT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS DESIGNATED AS
A PARTNER, COADVENTURER, AGENT, OR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. 

"THE MEASUREMENT, METHOD, OR DESIGNATION OF COMPENSATION IS ALSO
IMMATERIAL, IF THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IN FACT
EXISTS. 

"INDIVIDUALS PERFORMING SERVICES AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS ARE NOT
EMPLOYEES.  GENERALLY, PHYSICIANS, LAWYERS, DENTISTS, VETERINARIANS,
CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, PUBLIC STENOGRAPHERS, AUCTIONEERS, AND
OTHERS WHO FOLLOW AN INDEPENDENT TRADE, BUSINESS, OR PROFESSION, IN
WHICH THEY OFFER THEIR SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC, ARE INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS AND NOT EMPLOYEES."  26 C.F.R. SEC. 400.205.  SEE ALSO
TREASURY REGULATIONS 91, 26 C.F.R. SEC. 401.3. 

FN9  THE CITATION OF THESE CASES DOES NOT IMPLY APPROVAL OR
DISAPPROVAL OF THE RESULTS.  THE CASES DO SHOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
REGULATION BY THE AGENCY.  UNITED STATES V. MUTUAL TRUCKING CO., 141
F.2D 655; JONES V. GOODSON, 121 F.2D 176; MAGRUDER V. YELLOW CAB CO.,
141 F.2D 324; TEXAS CO. V. HIGGINS, 118 F.2D 636; AMERICAN OIL CO. V.
FLY, 135 F.2D 491; GLENN V. STANDARD OIL CO., 148 F.2D 51. 

SEE ALSO NOTE 2. 

FN10  GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465; GRIFFITHS V. COMMISSIONER,
308 U.S. 355; HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473; HELVERING V. CLIFFORD,
309 U.S. 331. 

FN11  UNITED STATES V. SILK, 155 F.2D 356, 358-9:  "BUT EVEN WHILE
THEY WORK FOR APPELLEE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO HIS CONTROL AS TO THE
METHOD OR MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE TO DO THEIR WORK.  THE UNDISPUTED
EVIDENCE IS THAT THE ONLY SUPERVISION OR CONTROL EVER EXERCISED OR THAT
COULD BE EXERCISED OVER THE HAULERS WAS TO GIVE THEM THE SALES TICKET
IF THEY WERE WILLING TO TAKE IT, AND LET THEM DELIVER THE COAL.  THEY
WERE FREE TO CHOOSE ANY ROUTE IN GOING TO OR RETURNING.  THEY WERE NOT
REQUIRED EVEN TO TAKE THE COAL FOR DELIVERY. 

"WE THINK THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPELLEE AND THE UNLOADERS IS
NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT BETWEEN HIM AND THE HAULERS.  IN
RESPONSE TO A QUESTION ON CROSS EXAMINATION, APPELLEE DID TESTIFY THAT
THE UNLOADERS DID WHAT HIS SUPERINTENDENT AT THE COAL YARD TOLD THEM TO
DO, BUT WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF ALL HIS TESTIMONY, ALL THAT
THIS ANSWER MEANT WAS THAT THEY UNLOADED THE CAR ASSIGNED TO THEM INTO
THE DESIGNATED BIN.... 

"THE UNDISPUTED FACTS FAIL TO ESTABLISH SUCH REASONABLE MEASURE OF
DIRECTION AND CONTROL OVER THE METHOD AND MEANS OF PERFORMING THE
SERVICES PERFORMED BY THESE WORKERS AS IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE BETWEEN APPELLEE AND THE
WORKERS IN QUESTION." 

GREYVAN LINES V. HARRISON, 156 F.2D 412, 414-16.  AFTER STATING THE
TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE TRUCKMEN WERE NOT EMPLOYEES, THE
APPELLATE COURT NOTED: 

"APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT IN DETERMINING THESE FACTS THE COURT FAILED
TO GIVE EFFECT TO IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACTS WHICH IT
ASSERTS CLEARLY SHOW THE RESERVATION OF THE RIGHT OF CONTROL OVER THE
TRUCKMEN AND THEIR HELPERS AS TO THE METHODS AND MEANS OF THEIR
OPERATIONS WHICH, IT IS AGREED, FURNISH THE TEST FOR DETERMINING THE
RELATIONSHIP HERE IN QUESTION...."    IT THEN DISCUSSED THE MANUAL AND
CONCLUDED: 

"WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT MANY PROVISIONS OF THE MANUAL, IF STRICTLY
ENFORCED, WOULD GO FAR TO ESTABLISH AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND ITS TRUCKMEN, WE AGREE WITH APPELLEE THAT THERE
WAS EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE COURT'S DISREGARDING OF IT. IT WAS NOT
PREPARED UNTIL APRIL, 1940, ALTHOUGH THE TAX PERIOD INVOLVED WAS FROM
NOVEMBER, 1937, THROUGH MARCH, 1942, AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW
ANY CHANGE OR TIGHTENING OF CONTROLS AFTER ITS ADOPTION AND
DISTRIBUTION; ONE DRIVER TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS NEVER INSTRUCTED TO
FOLLOW THE RULES THEREIN PROVIDED; AN OFFICER OF THE COMPANY TESTIFIED
THAT IT HAD BEEN PREPARED BY A GROUP OF THREE MEN NO LONGER IN THEIR
EMPLOY, AND THAT IT HAD BEEN IMPRACTICAL AND WAS NOT ADHERED TO." 

AFTER A DISCUSSION OF THE HELPER PROBLEM, THIS STATEMENT APPEARS:
"...  THE COMPANY CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT TAXES ON THE
WAGES OF PERSONS OVER WHOM IT EXERTS NO CONTROL, AND OF WHOSE
EMPLOYMENT IT HAS NO KNOWLEDGE.  AND THIS ELEMENT OF CONTROL OF THE
TRUCKMEN OVER THEIR OWN HELPERS GOES FAR TO PREVENT THE EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FROM ARISING BETWEEN THEM AND THE COMPANY.  WHILE
MANY FACTORS IN THIS CASE INDICATE SUCH CONTROL AS TO GIVE RISE TO THAT
RELATIONSHIP, WE THINK THE MOST VITAL ONE IS MISSING BECAUSE OF THE
COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE TRUCKMEN AS TO HOW MANY, IF ANY, AND WHAT
HELPERS THEY MAKE USE OF IN THEIR OPERATIONS...." 

FN12  CF. GRACE V. MAGRUDER, 148 F.2D 679. 

FN13  I.R.C., CHAP. 9, SUBCHAP.  A, SEC. 1426(B), AS AMENDED, 53
STAT. 1384: 

"THE TERM 'EMPLOYMENT' MEANS ANY SERVICE PERFORMED  ...  BY AN
EMPLOYEE FOR THE PERSON EMPLOYING HIM  ... EXCEPT - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(3)  CASUAL LABOR NOT IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYER'S TRADE OR
BUSINESS; ..." 

FN14  SWIFT & CO. V. ALSTON, 48 GA. APP. 649, 173 S.E. 741; HOLMES V.
TENNESSEE COAL, I. & R. CO., 49 LA. ANN. 1465, 22 SO. 403; MUNCIE
FOUNDRY CO. V. THOMPSON, 70 IND. APP. 157, 123 N.E. 196; CHICAGO, R.I.
& P.R. CO. V. BENNETT, 36 OKLA. 358, 128 P. 705; MURRAY'S CASE, 130 ME.
181, 154 A. 352; DECATUR R. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL BOARD, 276 ILL. 472, 114
N.E. 915; BENJAMIN V. FERTILIZER CO., 169 MISS.  162, 152 SO. 839. 

FN15  WESTERN EXPRESS CO. V. SMELTZER, 88 F.2D 94; INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSION V. BONFILS, 78 COLO. 306, 241 P. 735; COPPES BROS. & ZOOK V.
PONTIUS, 76 IND. APP. 298, 131 N.E. 845; BURRUSS V. B.M.C. LOGGING CO.,
38 N.M. 254, 31 P.2D 263; BRADLEY V. REPUBLIC CREOSOTING CO., 281 MICH.
177, 274 N.W. 754; ROUSE V. TOWN OF BIRD ISLAND, 169 MINN. 367, 211
N.W. 327; INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION V. HAMMOND, 77 COLO. 414, 236 P. 1006;
KIRK V. LIME CO. & INSURANCE CO., 137 ME. 73, 15 A.2D 184; SHOWERS V.
LUND, 123 NEB. 56, 242 N.W. 258; BURT V. DAVIS-WOOD LUMBER CO., 157 LA.
111, 102 SO. 87; DUNN V. REEVES COAL YARDS CO., INC., 150 MINN. 282,
184 N.W. 1027; WATERS V. PIONEER FUEL CO., 52 MINN. 474, 55 N.W. 52;
WARNER V. HARDWOOD LUMBER CO., 231 MICH. 328, 204 N.W. 107; FROST V.
BLUE RIDGE TIMBER CORP., 158 TENN. 18, 11 S.W.2D 860; LEE V. MARK H.
BROWN LUMBER CO., 15 LA. APP. 294, 131 SO. 697. 

SEE PARTICULARLY SINGER MANUFACTURING CO. V. RAHN, 132 U.S. 518. 

FN16  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. MUTUAL TRUCKING CO., 141 F.2D 655;
GLENN V. STANDARD OIL CO., 148 F.2D 51. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY ARE OF
THE VIEW THAT THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF LAW, STATED BY THE COURT AND
WITH WHICH THEY AGREE, REQUIRE REVERSAL OF BOTH JUDGMENTS IN THEIR
ENTIRETY. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. 

I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND IN THE RESULT INSOFAR AS THE
PRINCIPLES STATED ARE APPLIED TO THE UNLOADERS IN THE SILK CASE.  BUT I
THINK A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION SHOULD BE MADE IN APPLICATION OF THOSE
PRINCIPLES TO THE TRUCKERS IN THAT CASE AND IN THE GREYVAN CASE. 

SO FAR AS THE TRUCKERS ARE CONCERNED, BOTH ARE BORDERLINE CASES.  FN1
THAT WOULD BE TRUE, I THINK, EVEN IF THE SO-CALLED "COMMON LAW
CONTROL" TEST WERE CONCLUSIVE,  FN2  AS THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN EACH CASE SEEM TO HAVE REGARDED IT.  FN3
IT IS EVEN MORE TRUE UNDER THE BROADER AND MORE FACTUAL APPROACH THE
COURT HOLDS SHOULD BE APPLIED. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S VIEWS IN ADOPTING THIS APPROACH AND THAT THE
BALANCE IN CLOSE CASES SHOULD BE CAST IN FAVOR OF RATHER THAN AGAINST
COVERAGE, IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE STATUTE'S BROAD AND BENEFICENT
OBJECTS.  A NARROW, CONSTRICTED CONSTRUCTION IN DOUBTFUL CASES ONLY
GOES, AS INDEED THE OPINION RECOGNIZES, TO DEFEAT THE ACT'S POLICY AND
PURPOSES PRO TANTO. 

BUT I DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY OR PERHAPS IN HARMONY WITH SOUND
PRACTICE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THIS COURT'S FUNCTIONS AND THOSE OF
THE DISTRICT COURTS, FOR US TO UNDERTAKE DRAWING THE FINAL CONCLUSION
GENERALLY IN THESE BORDERLINE CASES.  HAVING DECLARED THE APPLICABLE
PRINCIPLES OF LAW TO BE APPLIED, OUR FUNCTION IS SUFFICIENTLY
DISCHARGED BY SEEING TO IT THAT THEY ARE OBSERVED.  AND WHEN THIS HAS
BEEN DONE, DRAWING THE FINAL CONCLUSION, IN MATTERS SO LARGELY FACTUAL
AS THE END RESULT MUST BE IN CLOSE CASES, IS MORE PROPERLY THE BUSINESS
OF THE DISTRICT COURTS THAN OURS. 

HERE THE DISTRICT COURTS AND THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS DETERMINED
THE CASES LARGELY IF NOT INDEED EXCLUSIVELY BY APPLYING THE SO-CALLED
"COMMON LAW CONTROL" TEST AS THE CRITERION.  THIS WAS CLEARLY WRONG, IN
VIEW OF THE COURT'S PRESENT RULING.  BUT FOR ITS ACTION IN DRAWING THE
ULTIMATE AND LARGELY FACTUAL CONCLUSION ON THAT BASIS, THE ERROR WOULD
REQUIRE REMANDING THE CAUSES TO THE DISTRICT  COURTS IN ORDER FOR THEM
TO EXERCISE THAT FUNCTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESENT DECISION. 

I WOULD FOLLOW THAT COURSE, SO FAR AS THE TRUCKERS ARE CONCERNED. 

FN1  THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE GREYVAN CASE
STATED, AFTER REFERRING TO UNITED STATES V. MUTUAL TRUCKING CO., 141
F.2D 655:  "IT IS TRUE THAT THE FACTS THERE DO NOT PRESENT AS CLOSE A
QUESTIONS AS IN THE CASE AT BAR."  AND SEE NOTE 3. 

FN2  IT IS NOT AT ALL CERTAIN THAT EITHER SILK OR GREYVAN LINES WOULD
NOT BE HELD LIABLE IN TORT, UNDER APPLICATION OF THE COMMON LAW TEST,
FOR INJURIES NEGLIGENTLY INFLICTED UPON PERSONS OR PROPERTY OF OTHERS
BY THEIR TRUCKERS, RESPECTIVELY, IN THE COURSE OF OPERATING THE TRUCKS
IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR BUSINESSES.  INDEED THIS RESULT WOULD SEEM TO
BE CLEARLY INDICATED, IN THE CASE OF GREYVAN PARTICULARLY, IN VIEW OF
THE FACT THAT THE TRUCKS BORE ITS NAME, IN ADDITION TO OTHER FACTORS
INCLUDING A LARGE DEGREE OF CONTROL EXERCISED OVER THE TRUCKING
OPERATIONS.  FOR FEDERAL CASES IN POINT SEE SILENT AUTOMATIC SALES
CORP. V. STAYTON, 45 F.2D 471(APPLYING MISSOURI LAW); FALSTAFF BREWING
CORP. V. THOMPSON, 101 F.2D 301(APPLYING NEBRASKA LAW); YOUNG V. WILKY
CARRIER CORP., 54 F.SUPP.  912, AFF'D, 150 F.2D 764(APPLYING
PENNSYLVANIA LAW).  AND SEE FOR A GENERAL COLLECTION OF STATE CASES, 9
BLASHFIELD, CYCLOPEDIA OF AUTOMOBILE LAW AND PRACTICE (1941) SEC.
6056. 

CERTAINLY THE QUESTION OF COVERAGE UNDER THE STATUTE, AS AN EMPLOYEE,
SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED MORE NARROWLY THAN THAT OF EMPLOYEE STATUS FOR
PURPOSES OF IMPOSING VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN TORT UPON AN EMPLOYER,
WHETHER BY APPLICATION OF THE CONTROL TEST EXCLUSIVELY OR OF THE
COURT'S BROADER RULING. 

FN3  IN THE SILK CASE FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
BY THE DISTRICT COURT DO NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD.  BUT A "STATEMENT BY
THE COURT" RECITES DETAILS OF THE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE TRUCKERS AND
UNLOADERS IN THE FOCUS OF WHETHER SILK EXERCISED CONTROL OVER THEM AND
CONCLUDES HE DID NOT; HENCE, THERE WAS NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATION. 
THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THOUGH RECOGNIZING THE
NECESSITY FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT, TREATS THE FACTS FOUND
IN THE SAME FOCUS OF CONTROL.  THE COURT WAS INFLUENCED BY THE
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER THE ACT (REG. 90, ART. 205) AND ALSO BY
THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE (REG. 91, ART. 3).  THE OPINION
CONCLUDES:  "THE UNDISPUTED FACTS FAIL TO ESTABLISH SUCH REASONABLE
MEASURE OF DIRECTION AND CONTROL OVER THE METHOD AND MEANS OF
PERFORMING THE SERVICES  ...  AS IS NECESSARY" TO CREATE THE EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATION.  155 F.2D 356, 359. 

IN THE GREYVAN CASE FORMAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WERE FILED.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUDED THEY DID
NOT SHOW "CHANGE OR TIGHTENING OF CONTROLS" AFTER THE COMPANY'S
ADOPTION OF A MANUAL IN 1940, ALTHOUGH ITS PROVISIONS "IF STRICTLY
ENFORCED, WOULD GO FAR TO ESTABLISH AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
...."  156 F. D 412, 415.  HOWEVER, IT FOUND ANOTHER FACTOR CONCLUSIVE:
"WHILE MANY FACTORS IN THIS CASE INDICATE SUCH CONTROL AS TO GIVE RISE
TO THAT RELATIONSHIP, WE THINK THE MOST VITAL ONE IS MISSING BECAUSE OF
THE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE TRUCKMEN AS TO HOW MANY, IF ANY, AND WHAT
HELPERS THEY MAKE USE OF IN THEIR OPERATIONS."  156 F.2D AT 416. 
APPARENTLY NOT CONTROL OF THE METHOD OF PERFORMING THE WORK IN GENERAL
BUT ABSENCE OF EXPRESSLY RESERVED RIGHT OF CONTROL IN A SINGLE FEATURE
BECAME THE CRITERION USED. 
..END :
















RUTHERFORD FOOD CORP. V. MCCOMB, 331 U.S. 722 


NO. 562.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 10, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 16, 1947.  - 156
F.2D 513, CONCLUSION AFFIRMED AND DIRECTION OF JUDGMENT MODIFIED. 


1.  BONERS OF MEAT WORKED IN A SLAUGHTERHOUSE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE
OPERATOR THEREOF AND THEIR WORK WAS BUT ONE STEP IN A CONTINUOUS
PROCESS THE OTHER STEPS OF WHICH WERE PERFORMED BY PERSONS WHO WERE
ADMITTEDLY EMPLOYEES OF THE OPERATOR.  HELD:  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE, THE BONERS WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE OPERATOR OF THE
SLAUGHTERHOUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, EVEN
THOUGH THEY WORKED UNDER A CONTRACT, OWNED THEIR OWN TOOLS, AND WERE
PAID COLLECTIVELY A CERTAIN AMOUNT PER HUNDRED-WEIGHT OF BONED BEEF,
WHICH PAY THEY DIVIDED AMONG THEMSELVES.  PP. 724-726, 729-730. 

2.  DECISIONS DEFINING THE COVERAGE OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT ARE PERSUASIVE IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A SIMILAR COVERAGE
UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. HEARST
PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111; UNITED STATES V. SILK, ANTE, P. 704.  P.
723. 

3.  WHERE THE WORK DONE, IN ITS ESSENCE, FOLLOWS THE USUAL PATH OF AN
EMPLOYEE, PUTTING AN "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR" LABEL ON THE WORKER DOES
NOT DEPRIVE HIM OF THE PROTECTION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P.
729. 

4.  DETERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP WITHIN THE
CONTEMPLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DOES NOT DEPEND ON
ISOLATED FACTORS BUT RATHER UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WHOLE
ACTIVITY.  P. 730. 

RUTHERFORD FOOD CORP. ET AL. V. MCCOMB, WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  156 F.2D
513.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 704.  CONCLUSION
AFFIRMED AND DIRECTION OF JUDGMENT MODIFIED, P. 731. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR BROUGHT THIS ACTION TO ENJOIN THE RUTHERFORD FOOD CORPORATION AND
THE KAISER PACKING COMPANY FROM FURTHER VIOLATING THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  FN1  THE ADMINISTRATOR ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD
REPEATEDLY FAILED TO KEEP PROPER RECORDS AND TO PAY CERTAIN OF ITS
EMPLOYEES OVERTIME AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT.  FN2  THE DISTRICT
COURT REFUSED TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED ON APPEAL, AND DIRECTED THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT
SUBSTANTIALLY AS PRAYED FOR.  WALLING V. RUTHERFORD FOOD CORPORATION,
156 F.2D 513.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, ENACTED JUNE 25, 1938, IS A
PART OF THE SOCIAL LEGISLATION OF THE 1930'S OF THE SAME GENERAL
CHARACTER AS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF JULY 5, 1935, 49 STAT.
449, AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF AUGUST 14, 1935, 49 STAT. 620. 
DECISIONS THAT DEFINE THE COVERAGE OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE LABOR AND SOCIAL SECURITY ACTS ARE PERSUASIVE IN
THE CONSIDERATION OF A SIMILAR COVERAGE UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111; UNITED
STATES V. SILK, ANTE, P. 704, DECIDED TODAY. 

THE PETITIONERS ARE CORPORATIONS OF MISSOURI AUTHORIZED TO DO
BUSINESS IN KANSAS.  THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OF THE KAISER PACKING COMPANY,
THE PLACE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED, AND
THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THAT COMPANY, IS IN KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS, FROM WHICH IT SHIPS MEAT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SINCE 1942
MOST OF ITS PRODUCT HAS BEEN BONED BEEF.  THE PETITIONER, RUTHERFORD
FOOD CORPORATION, HAS ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AND ITS PLANT FOR
PROCESSING MEAT PRODUCTS IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.  IN 1943, RUTHERFORD
BOUGHT 51% OF THE STOCK OF KAISER IN ORDER TO ASSURE ITSELF OF A
CONSTANT SUPPLY OF BONED BEEF FOR CONTRACTS IT HAD WITH THE U.S. ARMY. 
KAISER HAD BEEN OPERATING AND CONTINUED TO OPERATE AT A LOSS, AND
RUTHERFORD ADVANCED MORE THAN $50,000 TO KAISER BETWEEN MARCH, WHEN
RUTHERFORD BOUGHT THE KAISER STOCK, AND JULY, 1943.  TO ASSURE ITSELF
OF A CONTINUED SUPPLY OF MEAT, RUTHERFORD LEASED KAISER'S FACILITIES
AND TOOK OVER OPERATION OF THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE IN JULY.  IN MAY, 1944,
THE LEASE WAS TERMINATED AND RUTHERFORD'S STOCK INTEREST IN KAISER
SOLD, SO THAT KAISER MIGHT QUALIFY FOR SUBSIDIES GRANTED BY THE DEFENSE
SUPPLIES CORPORATION TO UNAFFILIATED NONPROCESSING SLAUGHTERERS UNDER
ITS REGULATION NO. 3.  FN3 

PRIOR TO 1942 KAISER HAD ONE HOURLY PAID EMPLOYEE WHO ACTED AS A
COMBINED BUTCHER, BEEF BONER AND ORDER FILLER.  DURING 1942, IN ORDER
TO BE ABLE TO FURNISH BEEF BONED TO ARMY SPECIFICATIONS TO THE ARMY
UNDER CONTRACT, KAISER ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ONE REED,
AN EXPERIENCED BONER, WHICH PROVIDED THAT REED SHOULD ASSEMBLE A GROUP
OF SKILLED BONERS TO DO THE BONING AT THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE.  THE TERMS OF
THE CONTRACT WERE THAT REED SHOULD BE PAID FOR THE WORK OF BONING AN
AMOUNT PER HUNDRED-WEIGHT OF BONED BEEF, THAT HE WOULD HAVE COMPLETE
CONTROL OVER THE OTHER BONERS, WHO WOULD BE HIS EMPLOYEES, THAT KAISER
WOULD FURNISH A ROOM IN ITS PLANT FOR THE WORK, KNOWN AS THE BONING
VESTIBULE, INTO WHICH THE CARCASSES OF CATTLE SLAUGHTERED BY KAISER
WOULD BE MOVED ON OVERHEAD RAILS BY KAISER EMPLOYEES, THAT KAISER WOULD
ALSO FURNISH BARRELS FOR THE BONED MEAT WHICH WOULD BE WASHED AND MOVED
OUT OF THE VESTIBULE BY KAISER'S EMPLOYEES.  REED ABANDONED THE WORK IN
FEBRUARY, 1943, AND THE WORK WAS TAKEN OVER UNDER AN ORAL CONTRACT BY
ONE OF THE BONERS WHO HAD WORKED WITH HIM.  THIS BONER, SCHINDEL, ALSO
ABANDONED THE WORK IN MAY, 1944, AND AN ORAL CONTRACT WAS THEN MADE BY
THE COMPANY WITH HOOPER AND DEERE, WHO HAD WORKED WITH SCHINDEL.  AFTER
A FEW MONTHS DEERE LEFT, AT WHICH TIME HOOPER ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN
CONTRACT SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE THE ONE BETWEEN KAISER AND REED, SAVE THAT
IT PROVIDED FOR RENT TO BE PAID BY HOOPER FOR THE BONING ROOM, ALTHOUGH
AS A MATTER OF FACT NO RENT WAS EVER PAID.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT SINCE THE BONING WORK HAD STARTED IN 1942, THE MONEY PAID BY
KAISER HAD BEEN SHARED EQUALLY AMONG ALL THE BONERS, EXCEPT FOR A SHORT
TIME AFTER HOOPER TOOK OVER THE WORK WHEN HE PAID SOME OF THE BONERS BY
THE HOUR.  IT WAS STIPULATED FURTHER THAT THE BONERS OWNED THEIR OWN
TOOLS, ALTHOUGH THESE CONSISTED MERELY OF A HOOK TO HOLD THE MEAT, A
KNIFE TO CUT IT, A SHARPENER FOR THE KNIFE, AND A LEATHER BELT
(APRON).  ALTHOUGH THE C.I.O. UNION WHICH WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
WORKERS OF THE COMPANY INSISTED THAT THE BONERS BE MEMBERS, AND
ALTHOUGH THE WRITTEN CONTRACTS PROVIDED THAT THEY SHOULD JOIN, IT WAS
STIPULATED THAT THE UNION DUES OF THE BONERS WERE NOT CHECKED OFF AND
THAT THE BONERS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNION STEWARD
AT THE PLANT. 

THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE OPERATIONS, OF WHICH THE BONING IS A PART, ARE
CARRIED ON IN A SERIES OF INTERDEPENDENT STEPS.  THE CATTLE ARE
SLAUGHTERED, SKINNED AND DRESSED IN THE KILLING ROOM, AND THE CARCASSES
ARE MOVED THENCE ON OVERHEAD RAILS INTO AN OVERNIGHT COOLER BY
EMPLOYEES OF KAISER.  THE NEXT DAY THEY ARE MOVED INTO ANOTHER COOLER
AND THEN INTO THE BONING VESTIBULE, ON THE SAME OVERHEAD RAIL.  THEY
MOVE AROUND THE BONING ROOM ON THE RAIL, EACH BONER CUTTING OFF A
TO A TRIMMER, AN EMPLOYEE OF KAISER, WHO TRIMS WASTE MATTER FROM THE
BONED MEAT.  WASTE IS PUT INTO OTHER BARRELS.  THE BARRELS ARE MOVED
FROM THE BONING ROOM BY EMPLOYEES OF KAISER INTO ANOTHER ROOM, CALLED
THE DOCK, WHERE THE MEAT IS WEIGHED AND PUT ON TRUCKS.  KAISER HAS
NEVER ATTEMPTED TO CONTROL THE HOURS OF THE BONERS, BUT THEY MUST "KEEP
THE WORK CURRENT AND THE HOURS THEY WORK DEPEND IN LARGE MEASURE UPON
THE NUMBER OF CATTLE SLAUGHTERED."  156 F.2D 513, 515.  IT IS
UNDISPUTED THAT THE PRESIDENT AND MANAGER OF KAISER GOES THROUGH THE
BONING VESTIBULE MANY TIMES A DAY AND "IS AFTER THE BONERS FREQUENTLY
ABOUT THEIR FAILURE TO CUT ALL OF THE MEAT OFF THE BONES." 

THE ADMINISTRATOR THOUGHT THESE FACTS BROUGHT THE BONERS WITHIN THE
CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES, AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE ACT.  BUT THE
DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, AND
DENIED THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, SAID:  "THE OPERATIONS AT THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE
CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRATED ECONOMIC UNIT DEVOTED PRIMARILY TO THE
PRODUCTION OF BONELESS BEEF.  PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE WORK ENTERING INTO
THE UNIT IS DONE AT ONE PLACE AND UNDER ONE ROOF.  ...  THE BONERS WORK
ALONGSIDE ADMITTED EMPLOYEES OF THE PLANT OPERATOR AT THEIR TASKS.  THE
TASK OF EACH IS PERFORMED IN ITS NATURAL ORDER AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A COMMON OBJECTIVE."  IN ITS VIEW THE TEST FOR
DETERMINING WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE ACT WAS NOT THE COMMON LAW
TEST OF CONTROL, "AS THE ACT CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THE CORRECTION OF
ECONOMIC EVILS THROUGH REMEDIES WHICH WERE UNKNOWN AT COMMON LAW  ...
"  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE "UNDERLYING ECONOMIC REALITIES  ...  LEAD TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BONERS WERE AND ARE EMPLOYEES OF KAISER  ...  "
156 F.2D 513, 516-17. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS TO LESSEN, SO FAR
AS SEEMED THEN PRACTICABLE, THE DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE OF GOODS
PRODUCED UNDER SUBNORMAL LABOR CONDITIONS.  AN EFFORT TO ELIMINATE LOW
WAGES AND LONG HOURS WAS THE METHOD CHOSEN TO FREE COMMERCE FROM THE
INTERFERENCES ARISING FROM PRODUCTION OF GOODS UNDER CONDITIONS THAT
WERE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF WORKERS.  IT WAS
SOUGHT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE BY THE MINIMUM PAY AND MAXIMUM HOUR
PROVISIONS AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT RECORDS OF EMPLOYEES' SERVICES BE
KEPT BY THE EMPLOYER.  FN4  TO MAKE THE METHOD EFFECTIVE, THE ACT
CONTAINS A SECTION GRANTING TO THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT HERE INVOLVED,
RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF RECORDS OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE PAYING OF
OVERTIME.  FN5  WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTS CHARGED IN THIS COMPLAINT
VIOLATE THE ACT DEPENDS, SO FAR AS THE MEAT BONERS ARE CONCERNED, UPON
A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER EITHER OR BOTH RESPONDENTS ARE EMPLOYERS
OF THE BONERS.  AS OUR CONCLUSION REQUIRES FURTHER ACTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO FRAME THE INJUNCTION, WE SHALL TREAT ONLY THE QUESTION OF THE
RELATIONSHIP OF THE BONERS TO THE ALLEGED EMPLOYERS.  WE SHALL NOT IN
OUR CONSIDERATION UNDERTAKE TO REACH ANY CONCLUSION AS TO THE
APPROPRIATE FORM OF AN INJUNCTION.  WE PASS ONLY UPON THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE BONERS WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE OPERATOR OF THE KANSAS PLANT
UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

AS IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT,
THERE IS IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT NO DEFINITION THAT SOLVES
PROBLEMS AS TO THE LIMITS OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP UNDER
THE ACT.  PROVISIONS WHICH HAVE SOME BEARING APPEAR IN THE MARGIN.  FN6
THE DEFINITION OF "EMPLOY" IS BROAD.  IT EVIDENTLY DERIVES FROM THE
CHILD LABOR STATUTES AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS DEFINITION
APPLIES TO THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SEC. 12.  FN7  WE
HAVE DECIDED THAT IT IS NOT SO BROAD AS TO INCLUDE THOSE "WHO, WITHOUT
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT, MIGHT WORK FOR THEIR OWN
ADVANTAGE ON THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER."  WALLING V. PORTLAND TERMINAL
CO., 330 U.S. 148, 152, DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1947.  IN THE SAME
OPINION, HOWEVER, WE POINTED OUT THAT "THIS ACT CONTAINS ITS OWN
DEFINITIONS, COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH TO REQUIRE ITS APPLICATION TO MANY
PERSONS AND WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WHICH, PRIOR TO THIS ACT, WERE NOT
DEEMED TO FALL WITHIN AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE CATEGORY."  330 U.S. 148,
150.  WE HAVE SAID THAT THE ACT INCLUDED THOSE WHO ARE COMPENSATED ON A
PIECE RATE BASIS.  UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360.  WE HAVE
ACCEPTED A STIPULATION THAT STATION "REDCAPS" WERE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES. 
WILLIAMS V. JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL CO., 315 U.S. 386, 391.  THERE MAY BE
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS WHO TAKE PART IN PRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION WHO
WOULD ALONE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAGES AND HOURS OF THEIR OWN
EMPLOYEES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SILK, SUPRA; COMPARE ROLAND ELECTRICAL
CO. V. WALLING, 326 U.S. 657; MARTINO V. MICHIGAN WINDOW CLEANING CO.,
327 U.S. 173.  WE CONCLUDE, HOWEVER, THAT THESE MEAT BONERS ARE NOT
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
QUOTED ABOVE, IN ITS CHARACTERIZATION OF THEIR WORK AS A PART OF THE
INTEGRATED UNIT OF PRODUCTION UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE WORKERS
PERFORMING THE TASK WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.  WHERE THE
WORK DONE, IN ITS ESSENCE, FOLLOWS THE USUAL PATH OF AN EMPLOYEE,
PUTTING ON AN "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR" LABEL DOES NOT TAKE THE WORKER
FROM THE PROTECTION OF THE ACT.  FN8 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT: 

"THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT IS NOT ONLY AN INHERENT RIGHT BUT A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTS, AS A METHOD OF
QUANTITY PRODUCTION OF BONED BEEF, HAVE NOT BEEN UNCOMMON IN THE
PACKING BUSINESS, GENERALLY.  ...  THE PLAN UNDER WHICH BONERS SHARE
EQUALLY IN THE BONING MONEY IS COMMONLY EMPLOYED IN KANSAS CITY AND
ELSEWHERE, AND MOST OF THE BONERS WHO HAVE WORKED IN THE KAISER PLANT
HAVE WORKED AT VARIOUS TIMES AND IN VARIOUS PLANTS UNDER INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS.  THERE IS NOTHING INEQUITABLE IN THE SHARING METHOD UNDER
WHICH COMPENSATION IS DIVIDED EQUALLY AMONG THE GROUP.  IT GIVES EACH
MAN AN INTEREST IN THE AMOUNT OF WORK BEING DONE BY THE OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE GROUP.  IT ALSO GIVES NO ADVANTAGE TO THE MAN WHO IS BONING THE
FLESHIER PARTS OF THE CARCASS.  UNDER THIS PLAN BEGINNERS AND CASUAL
BONERS CAN BE EQUITABLY TAKEN CARE OF BY PAYMENT ON AN HOURLY BASIS OUT
OF THE BONING MONEY." 

WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP DOES
NOT DEPEND ON SUCH ISOLATED FACTORS BUT RATHER UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE WHOLE ACTIVITY.  VIEWED IN THIS WAY, THE WORKERS DID A SPECIALTY
JOB ON THE PRODUCTION LINE.  THE RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE BONING
CONTRACTS WITHOUT MATERIAL CHANGES PASSED FROM ONE BONER TO ANOTHER. 
THE PREMISES AND EQUIPMENT OF KAISER WERE USED FOR THE WORK.  THE GROUP
HAD NO BUSINESS ORGANIZATION THAT COULD OR DID SHIFT AS A UNIT FROM ONE
SLAUGHTERHOUSE TO ANOTHER.  THE MANAGING OFFICIAL OF THE PLANT KEPT
CLOSE TOUCH ON THE OPERATION.  WHILE PROFITS TO THE BONERS DEPENDED
UPON THE EFFICIENCY OF THEIR WORK, IT WAS MORE LIKE PIECEWORK THAN AN
ENTERPRISE THAT ACTUALLY DEPENDED FOR SUCCESS UPON THE INITIATIVE,
JUDGMENT OR FORESIGHT OF THE TYPICAL INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.  UPON THE
WHOLE, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THESE MEAT BONERS WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE
SLAUGHTERING PLANT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.    WE THEREFORE
AFFIRM THE CONCLUSION TO THAT EFFECT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AND MODIFY THE DIRECTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT "FOR THE ENTRY
OF A JUDGMENT SUBSTANTIALLY AS PRAYED," SO AS TO LEAVE THE DISTRICT
COURT FREE TO FRAME ITS DECREE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DECISION.  IT IS
SO ORDERED. 

FN1 52 STAT. 1060. 

FN2  29 U.S.C. SEC. 207.    FN3  8 F.R. 10826; 8 F.R. 14641; 9 F.R.
1820. 

FN4  52 STAT. 1060, SECS. 2, 6, 7, 11(C).  UNITED STATES V. DARBY,
312 U.S. 100, 125; OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 577
78. 

FN5  52 STAT. 1060, SECS. 17, 15, 7(A), 11(C). 

FN6  52 STAT. 1060, SEC. 3: 

"AS USED IN THIS ACT - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(D)  'EMPLOYER' INCLUDES ANY PERSON ACTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN
THE INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYER IN RELATION TO AN EMPLOYEE  ... 

"(E)  'EMPLOYEE' INCLUDES ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY AN EMPLOYER. 

     .         .     .         .         . 

"(G)  'EMPLOY' INCLUDES TO SUFFER OR PERMIT TO WORK." 

FN7  NOTE 11 IN THE BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES SUMMARIZES THE
RELEVANT DATA: 

"AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE
PHRASE 'EMPLOYED, PERMITTED OR SUFFERED TO WORK' WAS CONTAINED IN THE
CHILD LABOR STATUTES OF THIRTY-TWO STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THE SAME PHRASEOLOGY APPEARED IN THE UNIFORM CHILD LABOR
LAWS RECOMMENDED IN 1911 AND IN 1930 BY THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF
COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS (CHILD LABOR BULLETIN, VOL. I, NO.
2, AUGUST 1912; PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE, 1930), IN THE
STANDARD CHILD LABOR LAW RECOMMENDED IN THE CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION
HANDBOOK COMPILED BY JOSEPHINE C. GOLDMARK (SEE E.G., ISSUE OF 1904, P.
11), AND IN THE STANDARDS RECOMMENDED FOR CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION BY
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTAL LABOR OFFICIALS.  THE
PHRASE 'EMPLOYED OR PERMITTED TO WORK' WAS FOUND IN SEVENTEEN STATE
STATUTES AS WELL AS IN THE FEDERAL STATUTES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN
HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, AND CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S.
20.  THE STATUTES ARE CITED IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS BRIEF, INFRA, PP.
58-60." 

FN8  SEE WALLING V. AMERICAN NEEDLECRAFTS, 139 F.2D 60; UNITED STATES
V. VOGUE, INC., 145 F.2D 609; WALLING V. TWYEFFORT, INC., 158 F.2D
944. 
..END :
















MEXICAN LIGHT CO. V. TEX. MEX. R. CO., 331 U.S. 731 


NO. 404.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 16, 1947.  - 145 TEX.
50, 193 S.W.2D 964, AFFIRMED. 


GOODS DESTINED FOR EXPORT BY RAIL TO MEXICO WERE SHIPPED FROM THE
POINT OF ORIGIN OVER A SERIES OF CONNECTING CARRIERS UNDER A BILL OF
LADING ISSUED BY THE INITIAL CARRIER AND COVERING THE SHIPMENT TO THE
POINT OF EXPORT ON THE MEXICAN BORDER, THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES BEING
PREPAID TO THAT POINT.  THE LAST CONNECTING CARRIER IN THE UNITED
STATES ISSUED A NEW BILL OF LADING WHICH PURPORTED TO COVER THE
SHIPMENT TO ITS ULTIMATE DESTINATION IN MEXICO, BUT RECEIVED NO PAYMENT
FOR TRANSPORTING THE GOODS OTHER THAN ITS SHARE OF THAT PAID TO THE
INITIAL CARRIER UNDER THE ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING.  HELD:  UNDER THE
CARMACK AMENDMENT, THE SECOND BILL OF LADING WAS VOID AND THE LAST
CONNECTING CARRIER IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO
THE GOODS INCURRED ON A MEXICAN RAILROAD BETWEEN THE BORDER AND THEIR
ULTIMATE DESTINATION IN MEXICO.  PP. 733-735. 

MEXICAN LIGHT & POWER CO., LTD. V. TEXAS MEXICAN RAILWAY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. 

A TEXAS STATE COURT DENIED A JUDGMENT AGAINST AN AMERICAN CONNECTING
RAILROAD FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED ON A MEXICAN RAILROAD TO GOODS EXPORTED
FROM THE UNITED STATES.  THE TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REVERSED. 
190 S.W.2D 838.  IT WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.  145
TEX. 50, 193 S.W.2D 964.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S.
697.  AFFIRMED, P. 735. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO GOODS IN THE
COURSE OF AN EXPORT SHIPMENT BY RAIL.  THE WESTING-HOUSE ELECTRIC AND
MANUFACTURING COMPANY DELIVERED TO THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY IN
SHARON, PENNSYLVANIA, GOODS ULTIMATELY DESTINED FOR THE MEXICAN LIGHT
AND POWER COMPANY.  ACCORDING TO THE BILL OF LADING ISSUED BY THE
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD THE GOODS WERE CONSIGNED

     THE MEXICAN LIGHT & POWER CO. LTD.,        C/O FAUSTO

           TREVINO, CUSTOMS AGENT,                  (NATIONAL

           RAILWAYS OF MEXICO). 

THE DESTINATION WAS LAREDO, TEXAS, WITH THE FURTHER NOTATION 

"FOR EXPORT TO: EL ORO, ESTADO DE MEXICO VIA ACAMBARO VIA LAREDO." 

THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE PREPAID AT THE EXPORT RATE, LESS THAN
THE DOMESTIC, AND THEY COVERED SHIPMENT NOT MERELY INTO LAREDO BUT UP
TO THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY. 

THE TEXAS-MEXICAN RAILWAY WAS THE LAST OF THE SERIES OF CONNECTING
CARRIERS OVER WHICH THE MACHINERY WAS ROUTED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA.  THE
FORMER, HAVING RECEIVED THE SHIPMENT AT ALICE, TEXAS, CONTINUED THE
CARRIAGE TO ITS YARDS AT LAREDO.  AT LAREDO, THERE WAS ISSUED TO FAUSTO
TREVINO, THE AGENT, WHAT FORMALLY APPEARS TO BE A BILL OF LADING
CONSIGNING THE SHIPMENT TO PETITIONER AT EL ORO.  THE RECORD IS SILENT
AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT BROUGHT THIS DOCUMENT INTO EXISTENCE, BUT
IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED NO PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORTING
THE GOODS OTHER THAN ITS SHARE IN THE EXPORT RATE PREPAID TO THE
PENNSYLVANIA UNDER THE SHARON BILL OF LADING.  TREVINO DID USE THE
SECOND BILL OF LADING FOR CLEARING THE SHIPMENT WITH THE MEXICAN
CUSTOMS, BUT THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE FIRST BILL OF LADING WOULD
NOT HAVE SERVED AS DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS PURPOSE.  THE RESPONDENT
RAILROAD THEN MOVED THE GOODS, STILL IN THE ORIGINAL CARS, FROM ITS
YARDS TO THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY.  THERE, THE SHIPMENT PASSED TO THE
NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF MEXICO AND IT WAS ON ITS LINES, IN MEXICO, THAT
THE MACHINERY WAS INJURED. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN ONE OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF TEXAS. 
JUDGMENT WENT FOR THE RAILROAD.  THE TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REVERSED, 190 S.W.2D 838, BUT WAS IN TURN REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF TEXAS.  145 TEX. 50, 193 S.W.2D 964.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 329
U.S. 697, BECAUSE IMPORTANT ISSUES AFFECTING THE CARRIER'S LIABILITY
UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WERE PRESSED UPON US. 

ON FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE IT FALLS WITHIN A VERY NARROW
COMPASS.  THE GOODS CONSIGNED TO LAREDO MOVED ON THE BILL OF LADING
ISSUED AT SHARON WITH THE INDICATED CONNECTIONS, INCLUDING THE TEXAS
MEXICAN.  BY VIRTUE OF THE CARMACK AMENDMENT, 34 STAT. 584, AMENDED, 38
STAT. 1196, THAT BILL OF LADING DETERMINES THE RIGHTS OF THE
CONSIGNEE.  WHILE EACH CONNECTING CARRIER IS, OF COURSE, LIABLE FOR
DAMAGE OCCURRING ON ITS LINE, ONLY THE INITIAL CARRIER IS LIABLE FOR
DAMAGE ON ANY OF THE CONNECTIONS.  UNLESS, THEREFORE, THE TEXAS-MEXICAN
RAILWAY WAS AN INITIAL CARRIER WITH REFERENCE TO THE MEXICAN RAILROAD
IT CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURIES ON THAT ROAD.  AND IT DID NOT
BECOME AN INITIAL CARRIER MERELY BY FORCE OF WHAT PURPORTED TO BE A
BILL OF LADING ISSUED AT LAREDO UNLESS THE SO-CALLED SECOND BILL OF
LADING REPRESENTS THE INITIATION OF A NEW SHIPMENT ON THE TEXAS
MEXICAN. 

WE AGREE WITH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT THAT NOTHING HAPPENED AT LAREDO
TO DISPLACE THE DUTY WHICH WAS CREATED AT SHARON FOR THE CARRIAGE OF
THE GOODS BY THE TEXAS-MEXICAN TO THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY, OR TO
MODIFY THE TERMS OF ITS UNDERTAKING WHEN, AT ALICE, IT RECEIVED THE
GOODS UNDER THE SHARON BILL OF LADING. 

WHAT WAS SAID OF THE SHIPMENT OF CATTLE IN MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS
R. CO. V. WARD, 244 U.S. 383, 387, IS PRECISELY APPLICABLE TO THE
SHIPMENT OF MACHINERY IN THIS CASE: 

"THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING WERE NOT ALTERED BY THE
SECOND ISSUED BY THE CONNECTING CARRIER.  AS APPELLANTS WERE ALREADY
BOUND TO TRANSPORT THE CATTLE AT THE RATE AND UPON THE TERMS NAMED IN
THE ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING, THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE SHIPPER OF THE
SECOND BILL WAS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AND WAS VOID." 

NO MATTER WHAT THE CONVENIENCE WHICH A CONSIGNEE MAY DERIVE FROM A
BILL OF LADING ISSUED BY A CONNECTING CARRIER ON A THROUGH SHIPMENT,
UNLESS THE CONNECTING CARRIER HAS RECEIVED A CONSIDERATION FOR THE BILL
OF LADING IN ADDITION TO THAT WHICH FLOWED UNDER THE BILL OF LADING
ISSUED BY THE INITIATING CARRIER, THE CARMACK AMENDMENT MAKES SUCH
SECOND BILL OF LADING VOID.  IT CAN NEITHER ENLARGE THE LIABILITY OF
THE CONNECTING CARRIER NOR CONTRACT THAT OF THE INITIATING CARRIER. 
THAT IS WHAT WAS MEANT WHEN THE WARD CASE SAID THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
CARMACK AMENDMENT WAS "TO CREATE IN THE INITIAL CARRIER UNITY OF
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION TO DESTINATION."  MISSOURI,
KANSAS & TEXAS R. CO. V. WARD, SUPRA, AT 386.  THIS IS AN EVEN STRONGER
CASE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE.  FOR IN THE WARD CASE THE
COURT FOUND THE SECOND BILL OF LADING VOID FOR LACK OF CONSIDERATION
ALTHOUGH IT WAS "ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN CONSIDERATION OF A
SPECIAL REDUCED RATE THERETOFORE DULY FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION" BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THAT
SPECIAL RATE "AFFECTED THE THROUGH RATE ALREADY AGREED UPON IN THE
ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING."  244 U.S. AT 385-86. 

PROPERLY FINDING THAT THE SO-CALLED BILL OF LADING DID NOT EVIDENCE
ANY NEW AND INDEPENDENT UNDERTAKING, WHEN JUDGED BY THE RIGID
REQUIREMENTS BY WHICH BILLS OF LADING ARE VALID UNDER THE CARMACK
AMENDMENT, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE
SHIPMENT OVER THE TEXAS-MEXICAN LEGALLY MOVED ONLY UNDER THE ORIGINAL
BILL OF LADING, THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA WAS NEVER DISPLACED AS THE
INITIAL CARRIER, AND THAT THEREFORE THE TEXAS-MEXICAN WAS NOT LIABLE
FOR DAMAGE THAT OCCURRED ON THE MEXICAN RAILROAD.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE RESPONDENT, THE TEXAS MEXICAN RAILWAY
COMPANY, IS THE INITIAL CARRIER UNDER THE BILL OF LADING ISSUED BY IT
AT LAREDO FOR CARRIAGE OF THE ARTICLES TO EL ORO, MEXICO.  THE BILL OF
LADING ISSUED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD WAS FOR CARRIAGE FROM
SHARON, PENNSYLVANIA, TO LAREDO, TEXAS.  ACCEPTING THE INTERPRETATION
OF THE COURT, THAT THIS PENNSYLVANIA BILL REQUIRED THE DELIVERY OF THE
SHIPMENT BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY IN LAREDO,
THERE REMAINS THE NECESSITY OF CAUSING THE SHIPMENT TO CROSS THE
BOUNDARY LINE AND PROCEED UPON ITS JOURNEY INTO MEXICO.  AS THE COURT
CONCEDES, THE BILL OF LADING, SUED UPON HERE, WAS USED TO CLEAR "THE
SHIPMENT WITH THE MEXICAN CUSTOMS."  IT IS ALSO PLAIN THAT IT WAS THIS
LATTER BILL THAT CAUSED THE SHIPMENT TO CROSS THE LINE.  WITHOUT IT,
THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT HAVE MADE DELIVERY TO THE MEXICAN RAILWAY
SYSTEM.  THE PENNSYLVANIA BILL OF LADING CALLED FOR DELIVERY TO THE
CONSIGNEE'S AGENT IN LAREDO, FAUSTO TREVINO.  THE CONSIDERATION TO
RESPONDENT FOR ITS ISSUE WOULD BE A SIMILAR SERVICE FOR NORTHBOUND
SHIPMENTS FROM THE MEXICAN RAILWAYS OR PROMOTION OF RESPONDENT'S EXPORT
BUSINESS. 

THE WARD CASE, 244 U.S. 383, IS NOT AN AUTHORITY FOR THE COURT'S
HOLDING.  THERE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT ON A THROUGH BILL FROM A TEXAS
POINT TO AN OKLAHOMA POINT.  THE DEFENSE WAS THAT A NEW CONTRACT HAD
BEEN MADE WITH A CONNECTING CARRIER.  IT WAS SAID, P. 387: 

"THE BILL OF LADING REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE INITIAL CARRIER UPON
AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT GOVERNS THE ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION.  THE TERMS OF
THE ORIGINAL BILL OF LADING WERE NOT ALTERED BY THE SECOND ISSUED BY
THE CONNECTING CARRIER.  AS APPELLANTS WERE ALREADY BOUND TO TRANSPORT
THE CATTLE AT THE RATE AND UPON THE TERMS NAMED IN THE ORIGINAL BILL OF
LADING, THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE SHIPPER OF THE SECOND BILL WAS WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION AND WAS VOID." 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE SEEM TO US ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND TO REQUIRE
THAT THE RESPONDENT RAILWAY ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY AS THE INITIAL
CARRIER. 
..END :








BAZLEY V. COMMISSIONER, 331 U.S. 737 


ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 16, 1947.  - 155 F.2D 237 AND
155 F.2D 246, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO A PURPORTED PLAN OF "REORGANIZATION" AND
"RECAPITALIZATION" OF A FAMILY CORPORATION, ALL BUT ONE SHARE OF WHICH
WAS OWNED BY A TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE AND WHICH HAD AN EARNED SURPLUS OF
$855,783, EACH OLD SHARE OF STOCK HAVING A PAR VALUE OF $100 WAS
EXCHANGED FOR FIVE NEW SHARES OF NO PAR VALUE, BUT A STATED VALUE OF
$60, AND NEW DEBENTURE BONDS HAVING A TOTAL FACE VALUE OF $400,000
PAYABLE IN TEN YEARS BUT CALLABLE AT ANY TIME.  HELD:  THE TRANSACTION
WAS NOT A TAX-FREE "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS.
112(B)(3) AND 112(G)(1)(E) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AND THE
TAXPAYER IS LIABLE FOR INCOME TAXES ON THE FULL VALUE OF THE
DEBENTURES.  PP. 742-743. 

2.  THE SAME CONCLUSION REACHED AS TO ANOTHER SIMILAR TRANSACTION
VARYING IN SOME DETAILS, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS LEFT
UNDISTURBED ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION AN EARNED SURPLUS ACCOUNT
EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF THE DEBENTURES DISTRIBUTED IN PARTIAL EXCHANGE
FOR THE OLD STOCK.  PP. 743-744. 

3.  IT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS OF SEC.
112(B) AND (G) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE TO EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF A
TAX WHAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IS A REALIZED GAIN.  P. 740. 

4.  SINCE A "RECAPITALIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
112(G)(1)(E) IS ONE FORM OF "REORGANIZATION," NOTHING CAN BE A
RECAPITALIZATION FOR THIS PURPOSE UNLESS IT PARTAKES OF THOSE
CHARACTERISTICS OF A REORGANIZATION WHICH UNDERLIE THE PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS IN POSTPONING THE TAX LIABILITY.  P. 741. 

5. IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION WHICH HAS UNDISTRIBUTED EARNINGS, THE
CREATION OF NEW CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARE TRANSFERRED TO
STOCKHOLDERS IN RELATION TO THEIR FORMER HOLDINGS, SO AS TO PRODUCE,
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE SAME RESULT AS A DISTRIBUTION OF CASH
EARNINGS OF EQUIVALENT VALUE, CANNOT OBTAIN TAX IMMUNITY BECAUSE CAST
IN THE FORM OF A RECAPITALIZATION-REORGANIZATION.  P. 742. 

BAZLEY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

NO. 287.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 209, ADAMS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT, ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1947. 

NO. 287.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED A DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE THAT A TAXPAYER WAS LIABLE FOR INCOME TAX ON THE
FULL VALUE OF DEBENTURES RECEIVED UNDER A PURPORTED "REORGANIZATION" OF
A FAMILY CORPORATION.  4 T.C. 897.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  155 F.2D 237.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S.
701.  AFFIRMED, P. 744. 

NO. 209.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED A DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE THAT A TAXPAYER WAS LIABLE FOR INCOME TAX ON
CERTAIN DEBENTURE BONDS RECEIVED UNDER A PURPORTED "REORGANIZATION" OF
A CORPORATION OF WHICH HE OWNED ALL BUT A FEW SHARES.  5 T.C. 351.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  155 F.2D 246.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 695.  AFFIRMED, P. 744. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
RELATING TO CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS IS INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE CASES. 
THEIR IMPORTANCE TO THE TREASURY AS WELL AS TO CORPORATE ENTERPRISE LED
US TO GRANT CERTIORARI, 329 U.S. 695, 329 U.S. 701.  WHILE THERE ARE
DIFFERENCES IN DETAIL TO WHICH WE SHALL REFER, THE TWO CASES MAY BE
DISPOSED OF IN ONE OPINION. 

IN THE BAZLEY CASE, NO. 287, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
ASSESSED AN INCOME TAX DEFICIENCY AGAINST THE TAXPAYER FOR THE YEAR
1939.  ITS VALIDITY DEPENDS ON THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
RECAPITALIZATION IN THAT YEAR OF A FAMILY CORPORATION IN WHICH THE
TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE OWNED ALL BUT ONE OF THE COMPANY'S ONE THOUSAND
SHARES.  THESE HAD A PAR VALUE OF $100.  UNDER THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION THE TAXPAYER, HIS WIFE, AND THE HOLDER OF THE ADDITIONAL
SHARE WERE TO TURN IN THEIR OLD SHARES AND RECEIVE IN EXCHANGE FOR EACH
OLD SHARE FIVE NEW SHARES OF NO PAR VALUE, BUT OF A STATED VALUE OF
$60, AND NEW DEBENTURE BONDS, HAVING A TOTAL FACE VALUE OF $400,000,
PAYABLE IN TEN YEARS BUT CALLABLE AT ANY TIME.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
TAXPAYER RECEIVED 3,990 SHARES OF THE NEW STOCK FOR THE 798 SHARES OF
HIS OLD HOLDING AND DEBENTURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $319,200.  AT THE TIME
OF THESE TRANSACTIONS THE EARNED SURPLUS OF THE CORPORATION WAS
$855,783.82. 

THE COMMISSIONER CHARGED TO THE TAXPAYER AS INCOME THE FULL VALUE OF
THE DEBENTURES.  THE TAX COURT AFFIRMED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION, AGAINST THE TAXPAYER'S CONTENTION THAT AS A
"RECAPITALIZATION" THE TRANSACTION WAS A TAX-FREE "REORGANIZATION" AND
THAT THE DEBENTURES WERE "SECURITIES IN A CORPORATION A PARTY TO A
REORGANIZATION," "EXCHANGED SOLELY FOR STOCK OR SECURITIES IN SUCH
CORPORATION" "IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION," AND AS SUCH
NO GAIN IS RECOGNIZED FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES.  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,
SECS. 112(B)(1)(E) AND 112(B)(3).  THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT THE
RECAPITALIZATION HAD "NO LEGITIMATE CORPORATE BUSINESS PURPOSE" AND WAS
THEREFORE NOT A "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE STATUTE.  THE DISTRIBUTION
OF DEBENTURES, IT CONCLUDED, WAS A DISGUISED DIVIDEND, TAXABLE AS
EARNED INCOME UNDER SECS. 22(A) AND 115(A) AND (G).  4 T.C. 897.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, SITTING EN BANC,
AFFIRMED, TWO JUDGES DISSENTING.  155 F.2D 237. 

UNLESS A TRANSACTION IS A REORGANIZATION CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 112(G),
ANY EXCHANGE OF "STOCK OF SECURITIES" IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH
TRANSACTION, CANNOT BE "IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION"
UNDER SEC. 112(B)(3).  WHILE SEC. 112(G) INFORMS US THAT
"REORGANIZATION" MEANS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, "A RECAPITALIZATION," IT
DOES NOT INFORM US WHAT "RECAPITALIZATION" MEANS.  "RECAPITALIZATION"
IN CONNECTION WITH THE INCOME TAX HAS BEEN PART OF THE REVENUE LAWS
SINCE 1921.  42 STAT. 227, 230, SEC. 202(C)(2).  CONGRESS HAS NEVER
DEFINED IT AND THE TREASURY REGULATIONS SHED ONLY LIMITED LIGHT. 
TREAS. REG. 103, SEC. 19.112(G).  ONE THING IS CERTAIN.  CONGRESS DID
NOT INCORPORATE SOME TECHNICAL CONCEPT, WHETHER THAT OF ACCOUNTANTS OR
OF OTHER SPECIALISTS, INTO SEC. 112(G), ASSUMING THAT THERE IS
AGREEMENT AMONG SPECIALISTS AS TO THE MEANING OF RECAPITALIZATION.  AND
SO, RECAPITALIZATION AS USED IN SEC. 112(G) MUST DRAW ITS MEANING FROM
ITS FUNCTION IN THAT SECTION.  IT IS ONE OF THE FORMS OF REORGANIZATION
WHICH OBTAINS THE PRIVILEGES AFFORDED BY SEC. 112(G).  THEREFORE,
"RECAPITALIZATION" MUST BE CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE TO THE
PRESUPPOSITIONS AND PURPOSE OF SEC. 112(G).  IT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF
THE REORGANIZATION PROVISION TO EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF A TAX WHAT AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER IS REALIZED GAIN.  NORMALLY, A DISTRIBUTION BY A
CORPORATION, WHATEVER FORM IT TAKES, IS A DEFINITE AND RATHER
UNAMBIGUOUS EVENT.  IT FURNISHES THE PROPER OCCASION FOR THE
DETERMINATION AND TAXATION OF GAIN.  BUT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
A FORMAL DISTRIBUTION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH EXCHANGE OF SECURITIES,
REPRESENTS MERELY A NEW FORM OF THE PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION IN AN
ENTERPRISE, INVOLVING NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANCE IN THE RIGHTS AND
RELATIONS OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES ONE TO ANOTHER OR TO THE CORPORATE
ASSETS.  AS TO THESE, CONGRESS HAS SAID THAT THEY ARE NOT TO BE DEEMED
SIGNIFICANT OCCASIONS FOR DETERMINING TAXABLE GAIN. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLIE SEC. 112(G) AND THEY SHOULD COMINATE
THE SCOPE TO BE GIVEN TO THE VARIOUS SECTIONS, ALL OF WHICH CONVERGE
TOWARD A COMMON PURPOSE.  APPLICATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF SUCH A REVENUE
PROVISION IS NOT AN EXERCISE IN FRAMING ABSTRACT DEFINITIONS.  IN A
SERIES OF CASES THIS COURT HAS WITHHELD THE BENEFITS OF THE
REORGANIZATION PROVISION IN SITUATIONS WHICH MIGHT HAVE SATISFIED
PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION TREATED AS INERT LANGUAGE, BECAUSE THEY WERE
NOT REORGANIZATIONS OF THE KIND WITH WHICH SEC. 112, IN ITS PURPOSE AND
PARTICULARS, CONCERNS ITSELF.  SEE PINELLAS ICE & COLD STORAGE CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 287 U.S. 462; GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465; LETULLE
V. SCOFIELD, 308 U.S. 415. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT ATTEMPTED A DEFINITION OF WHAT IS RECAPITALIZATION
AND WE SHALL FOLLOW ITS EXAMPLE.  THE SEARCH FOR RELEVANT MEANING IS
OFTEN SATISFIED NOT BY A FUTILE ATTEMPT AT ABSTRACT DEFINITION BUT BY
PRICKING A LINE THROUGH CONCRETE APPLICATIONS.  MEANING FREQUENTLY IS
BUILT UP BY ASSURED RECOGNITION OF WHAT DOES NOT COME WITHIN A CONCEPT
THE CONTENT OF WHICH IS IN CONTROVERSY.  SINCE A RECAPITALIZATION
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 112 IS AN ASPECT OF REORGANIZATION, NOTHING
CAN BE A RECAPITALIZATION FOR THIS PURPOSE UNLESS IT PARTAKES OF THOSE
CHARACTERISTICS OF A REORGANIZATION WHICH UNDERLIE THE PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS IN POSTPONING THE TAX LIABILITY. 

NO DOUBT THERE WAS A RECAPITALIZATION OF THE BAZLEY CORPORATION IN
THE SENSE THAT THE SYMBOLS THAT REPRESENTED ITS CAPITAL WERE CHANGED,
SO THAT THE FISCAL BASIS OF ITS OPERATIONS WOULD APPEAR VERY
DIFFERENTLY ON ITS BOOKS.  BUT THE FORM OF A TRANSACTION AS REFLECTED
BY CORRECT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING OPENS QUESTIONS AS TO THE PROPER
APPLICATION OF A TAXING STATUTE; IT DOES NOT CLOSE THEM.  CORPORATE
ACCOUNTING MAY REPRESENT THAT CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CHANGE IN THE FORM
OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND ESSENTIAL IDENTITY IN FACT WHICH IS OF THE
ESSENCE OF A TRANSACTION RELIEVED FROM TAXATION AS A REORGANIZATION. 
WHAT IS CONTROLLING IS THAT A NEW ARRANGEMENT INTRINSICALLY PARTAKE OF
THE ELEMENTS OF REORGANIZATION WHICH UNDERLIE THE CONGRESSIONAL
EXEMPTION AND NOT MERELY GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF IT TO ACCOMPLISH A
DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS.  IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION WHICH HAS
UNDISTRIBUTED EARNINGS, THE CREATION OF NEW CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS WHICH
ARE TRANSFERRED TO STOCKHOLDERS IN RELATION TO THEIR FORMER HOLDINGS,
SO AS TO PRODUCE, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE SAME RESULT AS A
DISTRIBUTION OF CASH EARNINGS OF EQUIVALENT VALUE, CANNOT OBTAIN TAX
IMMUNITY BECAUSE CAST IN THE FORM OF A RECAPITALIZATION
REORGANIZATION.  THE GOVERNING LEGAL RULE CAN HARDLY BE STATED MORE
NARROWLY.  TO ATTEMPT TO DO SO WOULD ONLY CHALLENGE ASTUTENESS IN
EVADING IT.  AND SO IT IS HARD TO ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IN
A PARTICULAR CASE A PAPER RECAPITALIZATION IS NO MORE THAN AN
ADMISSIBLE ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN OUTRIGHT
DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS TURNS ON DETAILS OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS,
JUDGMENT ON WHICH MUST BE LEFT TO THE TAX COURT.  SEE DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489. 

WHAT HAVE WE HERE?  NO DOUBT, IF THE BAZLEY CORPORATION HAD ISSUED
THE DEBENTURES TO BAZLEY AND HIS WIFE WITHOUT ANY RECAPITALIZATION, IT
WOULD HAVE MADE A TAXABLE DISTRIBUTION.  INSTEAD, THESE DEBENTURES WERE
ISSUED AS PART OF A FAMILY ARRANGEMENT, THE ONLY ADDITIONAL INGREDIENT
BEING AN UNRELATED MODIFICATION OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT.  THE DEBENTURES
WERE FOUND TO BE WORTH AT LEAST THEIR PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, AND THEY WERE
VIRTUALLY CASH BECAUSE THEY WERE CALLABLE AT THE WILL OF THE
CORPORATION WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS THE WILL OF THE TAXPAYER.  ONE DOES
NOT HAVE TO PURSUE THE MOTIVES BEHIND ACTIONS, EVEN IN THE MORE
ASCERTAINABLE FORMS OF PURPOSE, TO FIND, AS DID THE TAX COURT, THAT THE
WHOLE ARRANGEMENT TOOK THIS FORM INSTEAD OF AN OUTRIGHT DISTRIBUTION OF
CASH OR DEBENTURES, BECAUSE THE LATTER WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE BEEN
TAXABLE INCOME WHEREAS WHAT WAS DONE COULD, WITH A SHOW OF REASON,
CLAIM THE SHELTER OF THE IMMUNITY OF A RECAPITALIZATION
REORGANIZATION. 

THE COMMISSIONER, THE TAX COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AGREE THAT NOTHING WAS ACCOMPLISHED THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED BY AN OUTRIGHT DEBENTURE DIVIDEND.  AND SINCE WE FIND NO
MISCONCEPTION OF LAW ON THE PART OF THE TAX COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THEIR CHOICE OF PHRASING, THEIR
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE MUST STAND.  A
"REORGANIZATION" WHICH IS MERELY A VEHICLE, HOWEVER ELABORATE OR
ELEGANT, FOR CONVEYING EARNINGS FROM ACCUMULATIONS TO THE STOCKHOLDERS
IS NOT A REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 112.  THIS DISPOSES OF THE CASE AS A
MATTER OF LAW, SINCE THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE TAX COURT BRING THEM
WITHIN IT.  AND EVEN IF THIS TRANSACTION WERE DEEMED A REORGANIZATION,
THE FACTS WOULD EQUALLY SUSTAIN THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX ON THE
DEBENTURES UNDER SEC. 112(C)(1) AND (2).  COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF
BEDFORD, 325 U.S. 283. 

IN THE ADAMS CASE, NO. 209, THE TAXPAYER OWNED ALL BUT A FEW OF THE
5914 SHARES OF STOCK OUTSTANDING OUT OF AN AUTHORIZED 6000, PAR VALUE
$100.  BY A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL WAS REDUCED
BY HALF, TO $295,700, DIVIDED INTO 5914 SHARES OF NO PAR VALUE BUT
HAVING A STATED VALUE OF $50 PER SHARE.  THE 5914 OLD SHARES WERE
CANCELLED AND THE CORPORATION ISSUED IN EXCHANGE THEREFOR 5914 SHARES
OF THE NEW NO-PAR COMMON STOCK AND 6 PER CENT 20 YEAR DEBENTURE BONDS
IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $295,700.  THE EXCHANGE WAS MADE ON THE
BASIS OF ONE NEW SHARE OF STOCK AND ONE $50 BOND FOR EACH OLD SHARE. 
THE OLD CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS DEBITED IN THE SUM OF $591,400, A NEW NO
PAR CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED WITH $295,700, AND THE BALANCE OF
$295,700 WAS CREDITED TO A "DEBENTURE PAYABLE" ACCOUNT.  THE
CORPORATION AT THIS TIME HAD ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR
DISTRIBUTION IN A SUM NOT LESS THAN $164,514.82, AND THIS ACCOUNT WAS
LEFT UNCHANGED.  AT THE TIME OF THE EXCHANGE, THE DEBENTURES HAD A
VALUE NOT LESS THAN $164,208.82. 

THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED AN INCOME TAX DEFICIENCY BY TREATING THE
DEBENTURE BONDS AS A DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPORATION'S ACCUMULATED
EARNINGS.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION, 5
T.C. 351, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  155 F.2D 246. 
THE CASE IS GOVERNED BY OUR TREATMENT OF THE BAZLEY CASE.  THE FINDING
BY THE TAX COURT THAT THE REORGANIZATION HAD NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO
ACHIEVE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE EARNINGS, IS UNAFFECTED BY THE
BOOKKEEPING DETAIL OF LEAVING THE SURPLUS ACCOUNT UNAFFECTED.  SEE SEC.
115(B), AND COMMISSIONER V. WHEELER, 324 U.S. 542,546. 

OTHER CLAIMS RAISED HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BUT THEIR REJECTION DOES NOT
CALL FOR DISCUSSION.  JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT IN BOTH CASES FOR
THE REASONS STATED IN THE JOINT DISSENT OF JUDGES MARIS AND GOODRICH IN
THE COURT BELOW.  BAZLEY V. COMMISSIONER, 155 F.2D 237, 244. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. DICKINSON, 331 U.S. 745 


ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 16, 1947.  - 152 F.2D 865,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  WITHOUT CONDEMNING THE LAND, THE GOVERNMENT DAMMED A RIVER AND
RAISED THE WATER LEVEL BY SUCCESSIVE STAGES UNTIL IT FLOODED PART OF
RESPONDENTS' LAND.  MORE THAN 6 YEARS AFTER THE DAM BEGAN TO IMPOUND
WATER, BUT LESS THAN 6 YEARS AFTER THE WATER REACHED ITS ULTIMATE
LEVEL, RESPONDENTS SUED FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, JUDICIAL
CODE SEC. 24(20), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20).  HELD:  THEIR CLAIMS ARE NOT
BARRED BY THE SIX-YEAR LIMITATION.  PP. 747-750. 

2.  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES NOT TO CONDEMN LAND BUT TO BRING
ABOUT A TAKING BY A CONTINUING PROCESS OF PHYSICAL EVENTS, THE OWNER IS
NOT REQUIRED TO RESORT EITHER TO PIECEMEAL OR TO PREMATURE LITIGATION
TO ASCERTAIN THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR WHAT REALLY IS "TAKEN."  P.
749. 

3.  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TAKES PART OF A TRACT OF LAND BY FLOODING, IT
MUST PAY FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY RESULTING EROSION TO THE REMAINDER OF
THE TRACT.  PP. 750-751. 

4.  IF THE RESULTING EROSION IS IN FACT PREVENTABLE BY PRUDENT
MEASURES, THE COST OF THAT PREVENTION IS A PROPER BASIS FOR DETERMINING
THE DAMAGE.  P. 751. 

5.  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TAKES LAND BY FLOODING, IT MUST PAY THE FULL
VALUE THEREOF, EVEN THOUGH THE OWNER SUBSEQUENTLY, WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE WAR DEPARTMENT, RECLAIMS MOST OF IT BY FILLING.  P. 751. 

6.  NOTHING IN THE RECORD OF THIS CASE JUSTIFIES THIS COURT IN
SETTING ASIDE CONCURRENT FINDINGS BY THE TWO COURTS BELOW THAT THE
LANDOWNER WAS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR AN EASEMENT FOR THE
INTERMITTENT FLOODING OF HIS LAND ABOVE THE NEW PERMANENT WATER LEVEL
CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S DAM.  P. 751. 

UNITED STATES V. DICKINSON. 

NO. 77.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 78, UNITED STATES V. WITHROW, ALSO ON CERTIORARI
TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN SUITS UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 24(20), 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 41(20), RESPONDENTS RECOVERED JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR
THE VALUE OF EASEMENTS TAKEN BY IT TO FLOOD PERMANENTLY PART OF THEIR
LAND, FOR DAMAGES BY EROSION TO PARTS OF THEIR LAND AND FOR AN EASEMENT
FOR INTERMITTENT FLOODING OF PARTS OF THEIR LAND.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  152 F.2D 865.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328
U.S. 828.  AFFIRMED, P. 751. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE TWO SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THE TUCKER ACT (JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
24(20), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20)) TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF PROPERTY CLAIMED
TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE SUITS WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR
PURPOSES OF THE TRIAL AND THOUGH THEY PRESENT MINOR DIFFERENTIATING
FACTORS THEY MAY HERE, AS BELOW, BE DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE OPINION. 

IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE KANAWHA RIVER, WEST
VIRGINIA, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION OF THE WINFIELD DAM, SOUTH
CHARLESTON.  ACT OF AUGUST 30, 1935, 49 STAT. 1028, 1035, IN CONNECTION
WITH H. DOC. NO. 31, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 2-4.  THE WATER ABOVE
THE DAM WAS TO BE IMPOUNDED TO CREATE A DEEPER CHANNEL AND TO RAISE THE
RIVER POOL LEVEL IN THAT AREA.  NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED POOL ELEVATION
WAS GIVEN TO ABUTTING LANDOWNERS ON JULY 1, 1936, AND THE DAM WAS
COMPLETED AND OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED BY THE UNITED STATES ON AUGUST 20,
1937.  THE RIVER WAS TO BE RAISED BY SUCCESSIVE STAGES FROM 554.65 FEET
TO 566 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.  THAT LEVEL WAS NOT REACHED UNTIL
SEPTEMBER 22, 1938.  AS A RESULT OF THE RAISING OF THE RIVER THE LAND
BELONGING TO THE RESPONDENTS WAS PERMANENTLY FLOODED.  IN ADDITION,
EROSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE IMPROVEMENT DAMAGED THE LAND WHICH FORMED
THE NEW BANK OF THE POOL. 

RESPONDENTS RECOVERED JUDGMENTS FOR THE VALUE OF EASEMENTS TAKEN BY
THE UNITED STATES TO FLOOD PERMANENTLY LANDS BELONGING TO THEM. 
DAMAGES WERE ALSO AWARDED FOR THE EROSION, BASED ON THE COST OF
PROTECTIVE MEASURES WHICH THE LANDOWNERS MIGHT HAVE TAKEN TO PREVENT
THE LOSS.  IN ADDITION, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD ALSO
ACQUIRED AN EASEMENT FOR INTERMITTENT FLOODING OF PART OF THE LAND
BELONGING TO THE DEFENDANTS, AND ALLOWED JUDGMENT FOR THE VALUE OF SUCH
AN EASEMENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENT.  152 F.2D 865.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 328 U.S. 828,
BECAUSE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WERE RAISED RELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION
OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY BY THE
GOVERNMENT. 

FIRST.  THE PRINCIPAL ATTACK BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE
JUDGMENTS IS THAT BOTH ACTIONS WERE OUTLAWED.  THE APPLICABLE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS IS SIX YEARS.  THE COMPLAINTS WERE FILED ON APRIL 1,
1943.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE STATUTE BEGAN TO RUN ON OCTOBER
21, 1936, WHEN THE DAM BEGAN TO IMPOUND WATER.  IN ANY EVENT, IT
MAINTAINS THAT THE SIX YEARS BEGAN TO RUN NOT LATER THAN ON MAY 30,
1937, WHEN THE DAM WAS FULLY CAPABLE OF OPERATION, THE WATER WAS RAISED
ABOVE ITS FORMER LEVEL, AND THE PROPERTY OF THE RESPONDENTS WAS
PARTIALLY SUBMERGED FOR THE FIRST TIME.  WHILE ON THE LATTER VIEW THE
TIME FOR TAKING HAD NOT RUN UNDER THE STATUTE, DICKINSON'S CLAIM WOULD
BE BARRED BECAUSE HE ACQUIRED THE LAND AFTER THAT DATE. 

THE GOVERNMENT COULD, OF COURSE, HAVE TAKEN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS
TO CONDEMN AS EARLY AS IT CHOSE BOTH LAND AND FLOWAGE EASEMENTS.  BY
SUCH PROCEEDINGS IT COULD HAVE FIXED THE TIME WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS
"TAKEN."  THE GOVERNMENT CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.  IT LEFT THE TAKING TO
PHYSICAL EVENTS, THEREBY PUTTING ON THE OWNER THE ONUS OF DETERMINING
THE DECISIVE MOMENT IN THE PROCESS OF ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES
WHEN THE FACT OF TAKING COULD NO LONGER BE IN CONTROVERSY.  THESE SUITS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE TUCKER ACT EITHER AS
CLAIMS "FOUNDED UPON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES" OR AS
ARISING UPON IMPLIED CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  (SEE THE
DISCUSSION OF JURISDICTION BOTH IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT AND IN THE
CONCURRING OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, 188 U.S. 445, AND IN
TEMPEL V. UNITED STATES, 248 U.S. 121.)  BUT WHETHER THE THEORY OF
THESE SUITS BE THAT THERE WAS A TAKING UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND
THAT THEREFORE THE TUCKER ACT MAY BE INVOKED BECAUSE IT IS A CLAIM
FOUNDED UPON THE CONSTITUTION, OR THAT THERE WAS AN IMPLIED PROMISE BY
THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR IT, IS IMMATERIAL.  IN EITHER EVENT, THE
CLAIM TRACES BACK TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, "NOR SHALL
PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION." 
THE CONSTITUTION IS "INTENDED TO PRESERVE PRACTICAL AND SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHTS, NOT TO MAINTAIN THEORIES."  DAVIS V. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451, 457. 
ONE OF THE MOST THEORY-RIDDEN OF LEGAL CONCEPTS IS A "CAUSE OF
ACTION."  THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED ITS "SHIFTING MEANINGS" AND THE
DANGER OF DETERMINING RIGHTS BASED UPON DEFINITIONS OF "A CAUSE OF
ACTION" UNRELATED TO THE FUNCTION WHICH THE CONCEPT SERVES IN A
PARTICULAR SITUATION.  UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288
U.S. 62, 67 ET SEQ. 

PROPERTY IS TAKEN IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE WHEN INROADS ARE MADE
UPON AN OWNER'S USE OF IT TO AN EXTENT THAT, AS BETWEEN PRIVATE
PARTIES, A SERVITUDE HAS BEEN ACQUIRED EITHER BY AGREEMENT OR IN COURSE
OF TIME.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT EXPRESSES A PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS AND NOT
A TECHNICAL RULE OF PROCEDURE ENSHRINING OLD OR NEW NICETIES REGARDING
"CAUSES OF ACTION" - WHEN THEY ARE BORN, WHETHER THEY PROLIFERATE, AND
WHEN THEY DIE.  WE ARE NOT NOW CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER IN A
SITUATION LIKE THIS A LANDOWNER MIGHT BE ALLOWED TO BRING SUIT AS SOON
AS INUNDATION THREATENS.  ASSUMING THAT SUCH AN ACTION WOULD BE
SUSTAINED, IT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON WHY HE MUST SUE THEN OR HAVE,
FROM THAT MOMENT, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUN AGAINST HIM.  IF SUIT
MUST BE BROUGHT, LEST HE JEOPARDIZE HIS RIGHTS, AS SOON AS HIS LAND IS
INVADED, OTHER CONTINGENCIES WOULD BE RUNNING AGAINST HIM - FOR
INSTANCE, THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE DAMAGE AND THE RISK OF RES JUDICATA
AGAINST RECOVERING LATER FOR DAMAGE AS YET UNCERTAIN.  THE SOURCE OF
THE ENTIRE CLAIM - THE OVERFLOW DUE TO RISES IN THE LEVEL OF THE RIVER
IS NOT A SINGLE EVENT; IT IS CONTINUOUS.  AND AS THERE IS NOTHING IN
REASON, SO THERE IS NOTHING IN LEGAL DOCTRINE, TO PRECLUDE THE LAW FROM
MEETING SUCH A PROCESS BY POSTPONING SUIT UNTIL THE SITUATION BECOMES
STABILIZED.  AN OWNER OF LAND FLOODED BY THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT
UNNATURALLY POSTPONE BRINGING A SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE
FLOODING UNTIL THE CONSEQUENCES OF INUNDATION HAVE SO MANIFESTED
THEMSELVES THAT A FINAL ACCOUNT MAY BE STRUCK. 

WHEN DEALING WITH A PROBLEM WHICH ARISES UNDER SUCH DIVERSE
CIRCUMSTANCES PROCEDURAL RIGIDITIES SHOULD BE AVOIDED.  ALL THAT WE ARE
HERE HOLDING IS THAT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES NOT TO CONDEMN LAND
BUT TO BRING ABOUT A TAKING BY A CONTINUING PROCESS OF PHYSICAL EVENTS,
THE OWNER IS NOT REQUIRED TO RESORT EITHER TO PIECEMEAL OR TO PREMATURE
LITIGATION TO ASCERTAIN THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR WHAT IS REALLY
"TAKEN."  ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT THE TAKING WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF
THESE SUITS WAS NOT COMPLETE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO APRIL 1, 1943, NOR AT A
TIME PRECEDING DICKINSON'S OWNERSHIP.  IN THIS CONCLUSION WE ARE
FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE TWO LOWER COURTS REACHED THE SAME
CONCLUSION ON WHAT IS AFTER ALL A PRACTICAL MATTER AND NOT A TECHNICAL
RULE OF LAW. 

NOTHING HERETOFORE RULED BY THE COURT RUNS COUNTER TO WHAT WE HAVE
SAID.  THE GOVERNMENT FINDS COMFORT IN PORTSMOUTH CO. V. UNITED STATES,
260 U.S. 327.  BUT IN THAT CASE THE PROBLEM WAS WHETHER BY PUTTING A
GUN BATTERY INTO PERMANENT POSITION WITH A VIEW TO CONVERTING AN AREA,
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, INTO AN ARTILLERY RANGE, THE GOVERNMENT
INEVITABLY TOOK AN EASEMENT IN THE LAND OVER WHICH THE GUNS WERE TO BE
FIRED.  THE ISSUE WAS NOT WHEN A SUIT MUST BE BROUGHT ON A CLAIM IN
RESPECT TO LAND TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES, WHICH IS THE ISSUE BEFORE
US, BUT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A TAKING AT ALL. 

SECOND.  THE GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES THE COMPENSATION AWARDED FOR
DAMAGE TO THE LAND DUE TO EROSION.  IT REGARDS THIS DAMAGE AS
CONSEQUENTIAL, TO BE BORNE WITHOUT ANY RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.  PEABODY
V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 530.  OF COURSE, PAYMENT NEED ONLY BE MADE
FOR WHAT IS TAKEN, BUT FOR ALL THAT THE GOVERNMENT TAKES IT MUST PAY. 
WHEN IT TAKES PROPERTY BY FLOODING, IT TAKES THE LAND WHICH IT
PERMANENTLY FLOODS AS WELL AS THAT WHICH INEVITABLY WASHES AWAY AS A
RESULT OF THAT FLOODING.  THE MERE FACT THAT ALL THE UNITED STATES
NEEDS AND PHYSICALLY APPROPRIATES IS THE LAND UP TO THE NEW LEVEL OF
THE RIVER, DOES NOT DETERMINE WHAT IN NATURE IT HAS TAKEN.  IF THE
GOVERNMENT CANNOT TAKE THE ACREAGE IT WANTS WITHOUT ALSO WASHING AWAY
MORE, THAT MORE BECOMES PART OF THE TAKING.  THIS FALLS UNDER A
PRINCIPLE THAT IN OTHER ASPECTS HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THIS
COURT.  IT WAS THUS PUT IN BAUMAN V. ROSS, 167 U.S. 548, 574:  "WHEN
PART ONLY OF A PARCEL OF LAND IS TAKEN FOR A HIGHWAY, THE VALUE OF THAT
PART IS NOT THE SOLE MEASURE OF THE COMPENSATION OR DAMAGES TO BE PAID
TO THE OWNER; BUT THE INCIDENTAL INJURY OR BENEFIT TO THE PART NOT
TAKEN IS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED.  WHEN THE PART NOT TAKEN IS LEFT IN
SUCH SHAPE OR CONDITION AS TO BE IN ITSELF OF LESS VALUE THAN BEFORE,
THE OWNER IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DAMAGES ON THAT ACCOUNT."  SO,
ALSO, UNITED STATES V. WELCH, 217 U.S. 333; UNITED STATES V. GRIZZARD,
219 U.S. 180.  COMPARE SHARP V. UNITED STATES, 191 U.S. 341, 355;
CAMPBELL V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 368.  CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THAT
DAMAGE TO THE OWNER IS ASSESSED NOT ONLY FOR THE VALUE OF THE PART
TAKEN BUT ALSO "FOR ANY INJURY TO THE PART NOT TAKEN."  SEE SEC. 6 OF
THE ACT OF JULY 18, 1918, 40 STAT. 911, 33 U.S.C. 595.  IF THE
RESULTING EROSION WHICH, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, CONSTITUTED PART OF THE
TAKING WAS IN FACT PREVENTABLE BY PRUDENT MEASURES, THE COST OF THAT
PREVENTION IS A PROPER BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE DAMAGE, AS THE COURTS
BELOW HELD. 

THIRD.  AT CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE, AND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE WAR
DEPARTMENT, DICKINSON RECLAIMED MOST OF HIS LAND WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
ORIGINALLY TOOK BY FLOODING.  THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT THIS
DISENTITLED HIM TO BE PAID FOR THE ORIGINAL TAKING.  THE COURTS BELOW
PROPERLY REJECTED THIS DEFENSE.  WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS FLOODED THE
UNITED STATES ACQUIRED THE LAND AND IT BECAME PART OF THE RIVER.  BY
HIS RECLAMATION, DICKINSON APPROPRIATED PART OF WHAT BELONGED TO THE
UNITED STATES.  WHETHER THE WAR DEPARTMENT COULD LEGALLY AUTHORIZE
DICKINSON'S RECLAMATION OR WHETHER IT WAS IN FACT A TRESPASS HOWEVER
INNOCENT, IS NOT BEFORE US.  BUT NO USE TO WHICH DICKINSON COULD
SUBSEQUENTLY PUT THE PROPERTY BY HIS RECLAMATION EFFORTS CHANGED THE
FACT THAT THE LAND WAS TAKEN WHEN IT WAS TAKEN AND AN OBLIGATION TO PAY
FOR IT THEN AROSE. 

FOURTH.  JUDGMENT WAS ALSO ALLOWED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR
TAKING AN EASEMENT FOR INTERMITTENT FLOODING OF LAND ABOVE THE NEW
PERMANENT LEVEL, AND A VALUE FOR SUCH EASEMENTS WAS ASSESSED.  WE FIND
NOTHING IN THIS RECORD TO JUSTIFY OUR SETTING ASIDE THESE CONCURRENT
FINDINGS BY TWO COURTS.  UNITED STATES V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 501, 508;
ALLEN V. TRUST CO., 326 U.S. 630, 636.  JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED. 
..END :






















AIRCRAFT & DIESEL CORP. V. HIRSCH, 331 U.S. 752 


NO. 95.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 16, 1947.  - 62
F.SUPP.  520, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO THE FIRST AND SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACTS, THE SECRETARY
OF WAR AND THE WAR CONTRACTS ADJUSTMENT BOARD, RESPECTIVELY, DETERMINED
THAT APPELLANT HAD REALIZED EXCESSIVE PROFITS DURING TWO YEARS ON
SUBCONTRACTS UNDER WHICH IT HAD SUPPLIED PARTS TO CONTRACTORS
MANUFACTURING WAR EQUIPMENT FOR THE ARMY; AND THE UNDER SECRETARY OF
WAR DIRECTED CERTAIN OF APPELLANT'S CUSTOMERS TO WITHHOLD AND PAY INTO
THE TREASURY SUMS DUE APPELLANT EQUAL TO SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS (LESS
TAX CREDITS) FOR THE SECOND OF THE YEARS IN QUESTION.  AFTER
PETITIONING THE TAX COURT FOR REDETERMINATION AND WHILE SUCH
PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING, APPELLANT SUED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE RENEGOTIATION ACTS ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
THEREUNDER.  HELD: 

(A)  THE SUIT IS PREMATURE, SINCE APPELLANT HAD NOT EXHAUSTED ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY BEFORE THE TAX COURT.  PP. 764-774. 

(B)  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION IN EQUITY, SINCE
APPELLANT HAD A COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW BY ACTIONS AGAINST THE
CONTRACTORS TO WHICH IT HAD SUPPLIED THE PARTS.  PP. 774-781. 

2.  MERE SUGGESTIONS OF CLAIM FOR RELIEF RAISING SERIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED UPON DUBIOUS
PRESENTATIONS OR, MOST CERTAINLY, WHEN THE PRESENTATION REASONABLY MAY
BE TAKEN AS NOT INTENDED TO PUT THEM FORWARD SQUARELY AND INESCAPABLY. 
P. 763. 

3.  THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES REQUIRES
NOT MERELY THE INITIATION OF PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES; IT
REQUIRES PURSUING THEM TO THEIR APPROPRIATE CONCLUSION AND AWAITING
THEIR FINAL OUTCOME BEFORE SEEKING JUDICIAL INTERVENTION.  P. 767. 

4.  WHERE CONGRESS HAS CLEARLY COMMANDED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT
BE TAKEN INITIALLY OR EXCLUSIVELY, THE COURTS HAVE NO LAWFUL FUNCTION
TO ANTICIPATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION WITH THEIR OWN, WHETHER OR
NOT WHEN IT HAS BEEN RENDERED THEY MAY INTERVENE EITHER IN PRESUMED
ACCORDANCE WITH CONGRESS' WILL OR BECAUSE, FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS,
ITS WILL TO EXCLUDE THEM HAS BEEN EXERTED IN AN INVALID MANNER.  P.
767. 

5.  BY PROVIDING IN THE RENEGOTIATION ACTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATIONS OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS BY THE WAR CONTRACTS PRICE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD AND FOR REDETERMINATIONS DE NOVO BY THE TAX COURT,
CONGRESS INTENDED TO SECURE UNIFORMITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND
DISPOSITION, EXPERTNESS OF JUDGMENT, AND FINALITY OF DETERMINATION, AT
LEAST OF THOSE THINGS WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO AND COULD COMMIT TO
SUCH AGENCIES FOR FINAL DECISION.  PP. 767-768. 

6.  CONGRESS INTENDED THE TAX COURT'S FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
REDETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS UNDER WAR CONTRACTS NOT ONLY TO BE
PUT IN MOTION BUT TO BE FULLY PERFORMED, BEFORE JUDICIAL INTERVENTION
AT THE INSTANCE OF ONE IN APPELLANT'S POSITION, EVEN THOUGH
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE RAISED.  P. 771. 

7.  WHERE CONGRESS CLEARLY INTENDED TO REQUIRE ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION, EITHER TO THE EXCLUSION OF JUDICIAL ACTION OR IN ADVANCE
OF IT, A STRONG SHOWING IS REQUIRED, BOTH OF INADEQUACY OF THE
PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE AND OF IMPENDING HARM, TO PERMIT SHORT-CIRCUITING
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS - ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF WARTIME
LEGISLATION RESTING, AT LEAST IN PART, ON WAR POWERS.  PP. 773-774. 

8.  APPELLANT SUBCONTRACTOR HAS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW BY SUITS
UPON ITS CONTRACTS AGAINST ITS CUSTOMERS; SINCE SUCH SUITS ARE NOT
FORBIDDEN EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY BY THE RENEGOTIATION ACTS, THEY ARE
NOT MADE DEPENDENT UPON COMPLETION OF THE TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS, AND
THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON WHY EVERY QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
RAISED IN THIS SUIT COULD NOT BE PRESENTED AND DETERMINED IN SUCH A
SUIT.  PP. 775-777. 

9.  APPELLANT'S ALLEGATIONS THAT IT WOULD SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY
AS A RESULT OF THE WITHHOLDING OF THE FUNDS DUE FROM ITS CUSTOMERS ARE
INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE INTERVENTION OF A COURT OF EQUITY,
PARTICULARLY TO AVOID OR ANTICIPATE THE CONGRESSIONALLY AUTHORIZED
PROCEEDING.  PP. 777-778. 

10.  NOR, ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IS THE SHOWING MADE CONCERNING
MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INTERVENTION OF A COURT OF
EQUITY OR THE SUBSTITUTION OF ITS EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF FOR WHAT APPEARS
TO BE A FULL, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETELY AVAILABLE REMEDY AT LAW.  PP. 778
781. 

AIRCRAFT & DIESEL EQUIPMENT CORP. V. HIRSCH ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

WHILE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN THE TAX COURT FOR REDETERMINATION
OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE WAR
CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD TO HAVE BEEN REALIZED BY A
SUBCONTRACTOR ON PRODUCTION OF WAR EQUIPMENT, THE SUBCONTRACTOR SUED IN
A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE
RENEGOTIATION ACTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREUNDER.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
SUIT.  62 F.SUPP.  520.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 781. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS THE FOURTH IN A SERIES SEEKING HERE A DETERMINATION OF
THE INVALIDITY, ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, OF THE FIRST AND SECOND
RENEGOTIATION ACTS  FN1  AND ALLIED LEGISLATION. 

IN COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, 323 U.S. 316, AND IN ALMA MOTOR
CO. V. TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO., 329 U.S. 129, THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT
ACT  FN2  WAS ATTACKED.  THE ALMA MOTOR CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE ACT'S
APPLICABILITY.  THE SUIT IN THE COFFMAN CASE WAS BY A PATENT OWNER TO
RESTRAIN HIS LICENSEES FROM PAYING ACCRUED ROYALTIES TO THE GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO THE ACT'S PROVISIONS.  WE HELD THAT THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN
RIGHTLY DISMISSED FOR WANT OF EQUITY JURISDICTION, SINCE THE PLAINTIFF
HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW BY SUIT AGAINST ITS LICENSEES, AND ALSO
FOR WANT OF A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY. 

IN MINE SAFETY CO. V. FORRESTAL, 326 U.S. 371, A GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTOR CHALLENGED THE RENEGOTIATION ACTS.  FN3  THE COMPLAINT
SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FROM TAKING ACTION "WHICH
WOULD STOP PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MONEY LAWFULLY IN THE UNITED
STATES TREASURY TO SATISFY THE GOVERNMENT'S AND NOT THE SECRETARY'S
DEBT TO THE APPELLANT."  326 U.S. AT 374.  ACCORDINGLY WE HELD THAT THE
GOVERNMENT WAS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  SINCE IT NEITHER HAD BEEN
JOINED IN THE SUIT NOR HAD CONSENTED TO BE SUED IN SUCH A PROCEEDING,
IT FOLLOWED THAT THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN PROPERLY DISMISSED. 

IN ONE OTHER CASE, MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 327 U.S. 540,
CONSTITUTIONALITY WAS NOT INVOLVED, BUT COVERAGE OF THE RENEGOTIATION
ACTS WAS PUT IN ISSUE.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND TO RESTRAIN FURTHER RENEGOTIATION PROCEEDINGS
AFFECTING THE SPECIFIED CONTRACTS.  THE CONTRACTOR HAD NOT SOUGHT A
DECISION ON COVERAGE FROM THE TAX COURT.  WE HELD THAT THE TAX COURT
HAS POWER TO DECIDE SUCH QUESTIONS IN THE PROCEEDINGS AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 403(E)(1) OF THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT.  HENCE, UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, THE
COMPLAINT IN THE WATERMAN CASE ALSO WAS HELD RIGHTLY TO HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED, IN THIS INSTANCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO EXHAUST ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY. 

NOW THE AIRCRAFT & DIESEL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION SEEKS A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT THAT THE FIRST AND SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACTS ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON VARIOUS GROUNDS.  INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ALSO IS ASKED. 
AND, IN ADDITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, DETERMINATION IS
SOUGHT OF ISSUES OF COVERAGE AND OTHER MATTERS. 

THE DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES HERE, CONSIST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE WAR
CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, THE SECRETARY OF WAR, AND THE UNDER
SECRETARY OF WAR.  FN4  PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, 50 STAT.
751, 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380(A), A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS
ESPECIALLY CONVENED.  AFTER HEARING, THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED.  FN5
ONE GROUND FOR THIS ACTION WAS THAT THE SUIT IS PREMATURE, SINCE
PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING AND UNDETERMINED IN THE TAX COURT, PURSUANT TO
APPELLANT'S APPLICATIONS, FOR REDETERMINATION OF ITS ALLEGEDLY
EXCESSIVE PROFITS FOR 1942 AND 1943.  FN6  THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT IT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN EQUITY, SINCE IN ITS VIEW ADEQUATE REMEDY
AT LAW WAS AVAILABLE TO AIRCRAFT.  PROBABLE JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL
WAS DULY NOTED HERE.  FN7 

WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, AND
FOR THE REASONS STATED AS GROUNDING ITS ACTION.  THE ISSUES EXPANSIVELY
INCLUDE ALMOST ALL COMPREHENDED IN THE CAUSES PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED
HERE.  BUT THE CASE REACHES THIS COURT IN A POSTURE DIFFERING IN SOME
SUBSTANTIAL RESPECTS FROM THAT CHARACTERIZING ANY OF THOSE
PROCEEDINGS.  HENCE IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO SET FORTH WITH SOME
PARTICULARITY THE FACTS AND CONTROLLING ISSUES. 

                                  I. 

APPELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING DIESEL FUEL INJECTION
EQUIPMENT AND PRECISION PARTS, AND AIRCRAFT PRECISION PARTS.  ITS
MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES, INSOFAR AS MATERIAL,  FN8 WERE CARRIED ON
UNDER SUBCONTRACTS WITH GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.  THE CONTRACTOR IN TURN
FURNISHED THE COMPLETED AIRCRAFT OR ENGINES TO THE UNITED STATES. 

PURSUANT TO THE FIRST RENEGOTIATION ACT, THE SECRETARY OF WAR, ACTING
THROUGH HIS DELEGATE THE UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR, DETERMINED ON OCTOBER
27, 1943, THAT DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1942,
APPELLANT HAD REALIZED EXCESSIVE PROFITS (LESS TAX CREDITS) AMOUNTING
TO $204,000.  ON APRIL 29, 1944, THE UNDER SECRETARY DIRECTED
APPELLANT'S CUSTOMERS TO WITHHOLD THIS SUM FROM APPELLANT.  THEREAFTER
IT FILED A PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT  FN9  FOR A REDETERMINATION OF
THE ALLEGED EXCESSIVE PROFITS.  NEVERTHELESS, ON JULY 19, 1944, THE
UNDER SECRETARY FURTHER DIRECTED APPELLANT'S CUSTOMERS TO PAY THE
$204,000 INTO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THIS DIRECTION WAS
OBEYED.  FN10 

FOLLOWING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1943, RENEGOTIATION
PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED UNDER THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT.  ON
JANUARY 11, 1945, THE UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR, AS DELEGATE OF THE WAR
CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, ENTERED AN ORDER DETERMINING THAT
APPELLANT HAD REALIZED EXCESSIVE PROFITS OF $1,265,000.  DEDUCTION OF
TAX CREDITS REDUCED THIS AMOUNT TO APPROXIMATELY $270,000.  APPELLANT
AGAIN FILED A PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION WITH THE TAX COURT.  FN11
THEN FOLLOWED THIS SUIT. 

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS TOO LENGTHY FOR DETAILED SUMMARIZATION IN
THIS OPINION.  APART FROM ALLEGATIONS GOING TO CONSTITUTIONALITY AND
COVERAGE, INCLUDING ASSERTED DEFECTS IN THE RENEGOTIATION PROCEDURES
FOLLOWED,  FN12  THE COMPLAINT SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH JURISDICTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, EQUITABLE IN CHARACTER, BY SHOWING THE INADEQUACY OF
ALL AVAILABLE LEGAL OR OTHER REMEDIES.  THESE INCLUDED THE PENDING TAX
COURT PROCEEDINGS, POSSIBLE SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOLLOWING
COMPLETION OF THE TAX COURT'S DETERMINATION, AND ACTIONS AT LAW AGAINST
APPELLANT'S CUSTOMERS, CONTRACTORS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, TO RECOVER THE
AMOUNTS SAID TO BE DUE UNDER THEIR VARIOUS CONTRACTS. 

IN PARTICULAR IT WAS ALLEGED THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDENCY OF
THE TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS, THE BOARD AND THE SECRETARY, OR HIS
DELEGATES, WERE TAKING STEPS TO PREVENT AIRCRAFT'S CUSTOMERS FROM
PAYING OVER TO IT MONEYS OWING ON CONTRACTS, AGGREGATING $270,000, AND
CLAIMED TO BE DUE THE GOVERNMENT AS EXCESSIVE PROFITS.  THE COMPLAINT
ALLEGED FURTHER THAT THE BOARD AND THE SECRETARY WERE THREATENING TO
DIRECT AIRCRAFT'S CUSTOMERS TO PAY THESE SUMS INTO THE TREASURY  FN13
AND THAT, UNLESS THEY WERE RESTRAINED, SUCH PAYMENT WOULD BE MADE, TO
APPELLANT'S IRREPARABLE INJURY.  FN14  NO DIRECT RELIEF WAS ASKED, BY
WAY OF JUDGMENT OR DECREE, FOR REFUND OF THE $204,000 COLLECTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT FROM APPELLANT'S CUSTOMERS, PURSUANT TO THE FIRST
RENEGOTIATION ACT, AS EXCESSIVE PROFITS REALIZED IN 1942.  IT WAS
SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT IF THAT ACT SHOULD BE FOUND INVALID AND THE
SECOND ACT SUSTAINED,  FN15  THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO
COLLECT ONLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $270,000, THE AMOUNT DETERMINED TO
BE EXCESSIVE PROFITS FOR 1943, AND THE $204,000 COLLECTED FOR 1942. 
THE SUGGESTION, OF COURSE, IF FORMALLY MADE, WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY A
CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BY WAY OF SETOFF OF THE LATTER AMOUNT. 
CF. MINE SAFETY CO. V. FORRESTAL, SUPRA. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONTESTED EACH OF APPELLANT'S CLAIMS.  BUT ITS
PRIMARY CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN AIMED AT AIRCRAFT'S JURISDICTIONAL
SHOWING.  IT ARGUES THAT THE SUIT IN SUBSTANCE AND LEGAL EFFECT IS ONE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, TO WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO GOVERNMENTAL
CONSENT, CF. MINE SAFETY CO. V. FORRESTAL, SUPRA; THAT THE SUIT IS
PREMATURE, BECAUSE THE TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED
AND UNTIL THIS HAS BEEN DONE AIRCRAFT WILL NOT HAVE EXHAUSTED ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY, CF. MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., SUPRA; THAT
THE TAX COURT HAS BEEN GIVEN EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN RENEGOTIATION
MATTERS; AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NO JURISDICTION OF AN
EQUITABLE CHARACTER IN THE DISTRICT COURT, TO AFFORD THE RELIEF
APPELLANT SEEKS, SINCE IT HAS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW BY SUIT UPON
ITS CONTRACTS TO RECOVER ANY AMOUNTS DUE FROM ITS CUSTOMERS, IN WHICH
ALL QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY MAY BE DETERMINED.  CF. COFFMAN V.
BREEZE CORPORATIONS, SUPRA. 

IN THE LATTER CONNECTION APPELLEE HIRSCH, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,
HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ADMITTING THAT HE AND THE OTHER APPELLEES,
UNLESS RESTRAINED, WILL TAKE STEPS, AS APPELLANT ALLEGES, TO PREVENT
PAYMENT OF THE $270,000 BY ITS CUSTOMERS TO IT, AND ALSO TO SECURE
PAYMENT OF THAT SUM INTO THE TREASURY.  THE AFFIDAVIT SETS FORTH,
HOWEVER, THAT DIRECTION FOR PAYMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED OR MADE AS TO
MORE THAN TWO OR THREE OF APPELLANT'S CUSTOMERS AND, IN THE EVENT THIS
DOES NOT RESULT IN PAYMENT OF THE FULL AMOUNT, THE GOVERNMENT WILL
PROCEED TO COLLECT WHATEVER MAY REMAIN BY SUIT AGAINST APPELLANT. 

AIRCRAFT, ON THE OTHER HAND, BOTH IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND BY THE
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT OF ITS PRESIDENT, ALLEGED THAT NO SUCH SUM AS
$270,000 WAS OWING TO IT FROM, OR COULD BE COLLECTED BY DIRECTION TO,
ANY TWO OR THREE OF ITS CUSTOMERS.  RATHER IT WAS SET FORTH THAT
COLLECTION OF ANY SUCH AMOUNT COULD BE MADE ONLY BY DIRECTION TO SOME
SIXTEEN OR MORE CUSTOMERS.  AND ON THE SAME BASIS IT IS ASSERTED THAT
AIRCRAFT'S REMEDY BY SUIT AGAINST ITS CUSTOMERS WOULD REQUIRE
INSTITUTION OF NUMEROUS ACTIONS IN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, RESULTING
IN EXPENSE AND DELAY, AS WELL AS LOSS OF GOOD WILL AND INCURRING THE
CONTINUED RISK OF THE CUSTOMERS' SOLVENCY.  FN16 ACCORDINGLY AIRCRAFT
CLAIMS THAT JURISDICTION IN EQUITY IS CONFERRED UPON THE DISTRICT COURT
BOTH BY REASON OF THE MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS INVOLVED IN ASSERTING THE
LEGAL REMEDY BY ACTIONS AGAINST ITS CUSTOMERS AND BECAUSE OF THE
INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES WHICH WOULD FOLLOW FROM PURSUING THAT COURSE. 

                                 II. 

WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO UNDERTAKE DETERMINING THE THRESHOLD
QUESTION WHETHER THE SUIT IS ONE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  WERE THE
ISSUE SQUARELY PRESENTED AS A FORMAL CLAIM FOR REFUND OR SETOFF
CONCERNING THE $204,000 COLLECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR 1942, THE CASE
IN THAT ASPECT WOULD BE VERY CLOSE TO MINE SAFETY CO. V. FORRESTAL,
SUPRA.  FN17 

WE DO NOT TARRY, HOWEVER, TO CONSIDER FURTHER THIS FEATURE OF THE
CASE, SINCE THE ABSENCE OF FORMAL AND SPECIFIC CLAIM IN THE NATURE OF
SETOFF OR OTHERWISE INDICATES, WE THINK, A STRATEGIC DECISION TO AVOID
THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH WOULD FOLLOW UPON ITS DEFINITE AND UNEQUIVOCAL
ASSERTION, ON THE SCORE OF THE NATURE OF THE SUIT AS BEING ONE IN FACT
AND FUNCTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  SOMETHING MORE THAN A MERE
SUGGESTION OF CLAIM FOR RELIEF IS REQUIRED TO BRING INTO PLAY JUDICIAL
POWER OF AFFORDING REMEDY, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT APPEARS THERE MAY BE GOOD
REASON DELIBERATELY ACCEPTED FOR GOING NO FARTHER.  THIS IS REINFORCED
WHEN THE SUGGESTION, IF ACTED ON, WOULD INVOLVE THE COURT IN DECISION
OF SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  THEY ARE NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED
UPON DUBIOUS PRESENTATIONS OR, MOST CERTAINLY, WHEN THE PRESENTATION
REASONABLY MAY BE TAKEN AS NOT INTENDED TO PUT THEM FORWARD SQUARELY
AND INESCAPABLY.  CF. RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549;
ALMA MOTOR CO. V. TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO., 329 U.S. 129.  ACCORDINGLY
WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE LENGTHY ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE 1942
DETERMINATION, AND CONFINE OUR CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUES RELATING TO
THE REDETERMINATION MADE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 1943. 

THESE ALSO, THE GOVERNMENT URGES, SUBSTANTIALLY ARE EFFECTIVE TO MAKE
THE SUIT ONE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, TO WHICH IT HAS NOT CONSENTED. 
AND FOR THIS VIEW, LIKEWISE, IT RELIES UPON THE MINE SAFETY DECISION,
AS WELL AS OTHERS.  FN18  APPELLANT UNDERTAKES TO DISTINGUISH THE CASES
UPON THE BASIS THAT IN THE MINE SAFETY CASE THE OFFICIAL ACTION SOUGHT
TO BE ENJOINED WAS CONDUCT EFFECTIVE TO STOP THE PAYMENT OF FUNDS OUT
OF THE TREASURY, WHEREAS HERE THE ANALOGOUS CONDUCT AFFECTS NO FUNDS IN
THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTUAL POSSESSION BUT SEEKS ONLY TO TOUCH MONEYS HELD
BY THIRD PERSONS FOR APPELLANT'S OR THE GOVERNMENT'S ACCOUNT.  THE
DIFFERENCE, IT IS URGED, IS BETWEEN ACTION AFFECTING ONLY THE
WITHHOLDING OF GOVERNMENT MONEYS AND ACTION EFFECTIVE TO BRING ABOUT
COLLECTION FROM THIRD PERSONS OF MONEYS CLAIMED TO BE DUE TO THE
GOVERNMENT.    THAT DIFFERENCE INDEED MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL.  BUT WE DO
NOT DECIDE WHETHER IT IS SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE APPELLANT TO AVOID
THE DIFFICULTY PRESENTED OF FORECLOSING THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM BY A
SUIT BROUGHT ONLY AGAINST ITS OFFICIALS, ESSENTIALLY AS TRESPASSERS,
FN19  WITHOUT JOINING THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  IN OTHER WORDS, WE DO NOT
DETERMINE WHETHER THE SUIT IS, IN LEGAL EFFECT, ONE AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, SINCE IN OUR OPINION THE OTHER GROUNDS GOING TO THE
DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION ARE ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN ITS DISMISSAL OF
THE CAUSE. 

IN MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., SUPRA, WE WERE CALLED UPON TO
CONSIDER THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS, AS PROVIDED BY
SEC. 403(E)(1), AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT OR
OTHER COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN REGARD TO RENEGOTIATION MATTERS. 
BY AN ORDER OF THE BOARD DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS
RECEIVED OR ACCRUED BY" HIM, TO FILE A PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION
WITH THE TAX COURT WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF THE ORDER IS
MAILED.  FN21 THE SECTION THEN PROVIDES: 

"UPON SUCH FILING SUCH COURT SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, BY
ORDER, TO FINALLY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, OF SUCH EXCESSIVE
PROFITS RECEIVED OR ACCRUED BY THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR, AND
SUCH DETERMINATION SHALL NOT BE REVIEWED OR REDETERMINED BY ANY COURT
OR AGENCY." 

THE SECTION EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THE PROCEEDING "SHALL NOT BE
TREATED AS A PROCEEDING TO REVIEW THE DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD,  FN22
BUT SHALL BE TREATED AS A PROCEEDING DE NOVO."  AND THE TAX COURT IS
GIVEN THE SAME POWERS AND DUTIES, "INSOFAR AS APPLICABLE," RESPECTING
"THE CONTRACTOR, THE SUBCONTRACTOR, THE BOARD AND THE SECRETARY, AND IN
RESPECT OF THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF PAPERS,"
TOGETHER WITH OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS, AS THE COURT HAS UNDER
SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IN REDETERMINING A
DEFICIENCY IN TAXES.  MOREOVER, SEC. 403(E)(1) COMMANDS:  "THE FILING
OF A PETITION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION SHALL NOT OPERATE TO STAY THE
EXECUTION OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD UNDER SUBSECTION (C)(2)." 

IN THE WATERMAN CASE, TAKING ACCOUNT OF THESE PROVISIONS, WE SAID:
"THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT, MOREOVER, SHOWS THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THE TAX COURT TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO
DECIDE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW,  FN23  WHICH LATTER INCLUDE THE ISSUE
RAISED HERE OF WHETHER THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ACT."  327 U.S. AT 544.  "TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT," THE OPINION
CONTINUED, "THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE.  WHETHER IT EVER CAN DO SO OR NOT, IT CANNOT NOW DECIDE
QUESTIONS OF COVERAGE WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES  FN24
AUTHORIZED TO DO SO HAVE NOT YET MADE THEIR DETERMINATION.  HERE JUST
AS IN THE MYERS CASE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, FAR FROM BEING
EXHAUSTED, HAD HARDLY BEGUN.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONSEQUENTLY WAS
CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT IT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ACT."  IBID., 544
545. 

THE WATERMAN CASE DIFFERED FROM THIS ONE IN THREE RESPECTS.  THERE
THE APPELLANT HAD "HARDLY BEGUN" THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, WHILE HERE
AIRCRAFT HAS DONE ALL THAT IT CAN DO.  THE WATERMAN CORPORATION HAD
CONTRACTED DIRECTLY WITH A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THE MARITIME COMMISSION. 
HERE THE APPELLANT IS A SUBCONTRACTOR, A DIFFERENCE OF SOME IMPORTANCE
IN THE MATTER OF JURISDICTION IN EQUITY LATER TO BE NOTED.  THE
WATERMAN CASE, AS WE HAVE SAID, RAISED ONLY QUESTIONS OF COVERAGE, NOT
ISSUES OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.  HERE BOTH TYPES OF QUESTION ARE
PRESENTED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IN
THE NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  EACH COMPLAINT ASKED FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT UPON THE LEGAL ISSUES AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
RESTRAINING FURTHER ACTION LOOKING TOWARD APPLICATION OF THE ACT'S
PROVISIONS. 

WE DO NOT THINK THE DIFFERENCES MENTIONED ARE SUFFICIENT TO
DISTINGUISH THE CASES FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE EXHAUSTION RULE. 
CERTAINLY NO SUCH EFFECT CAN BE DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT IN THE
WATERMAN CASE THE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT BEGUN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS,
WHILE HERE AIRCRAFT HAS GONE AS FAR AS IT CAN.  THE DOCTRINE, WHEREVER
APPLICABLE, DOES NOT REQUIRE MERELY THE INITIATION OF PRESCRIBED
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.  IT IS ONE OF EXHAUSTING THEM, THAT IS, OF
PURSUING THEM TO THEIR APPROPRIATE CONCLUSION AND, CORRELATIVELY, OF
AWAITING THEIR FINAL OUTCOME BEFORE SEEKING JUDICIAL INTERVENTION. 

THE VERY PURPOSE OF PROVIDING EITHER AN EXCLUSIVE OR AN INITIAL AND
PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IS TO SECURE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT EITHER, IN THE ONE CASE, IN SUBSTITUTION FOR
JUDICIAL DECISION OR, IN THE OTHER, AS FOUNDATION FOR OR PERCHANCE TO
MAKE UNNECESSARY LATER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  WHERE CONGRESS HAS
CLEARLY COMMANDED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT BE TAKEN INITIALLY OR
EXCLUSIVELY, THE COURTS HAVE NO LAWFUL FUNCTION TO ANTICIPATE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION WITH THEIR OWN, WHETHER OR NOT WHEN IT HAS BEEN
RENDERED THEY MAY INTERVENE EITHER IN PRESUMED ACCORDANCE WITH
CONGRESS' WILL OR BECAUSE, FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS, ITS WILL TO
EXCLUDE THEM HAS BEEN EXERTED IN AN INVALID MANNER.  TO DO THIS NOT
ONLY WOULD CONTRAVENE THE WILL OF CONGRESS AS A MATTER OF RESTRICTING
OR DEFERRING JUDICIAL ACTION.  IT WOULD NULLIFY THE CONGRESSIONAL
OBJECTS IN PROVIDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION.  IN THIS CASE
THESE INCLUDE SECURING UNIFORMITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY AND
DISPOSITION,  FN25  EXPERTNESS OF JUDGMENT, AND FINALITY IN
DETERMINATION, AT LEAST OF THOSE THINGS WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO AND
COULD COMMIT TO SUCH AGENCIES FOR FINAL DECISION. 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT WHATEVER, IN VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
THAT CONGRESS HAD EACH OF THESE ENDS IN VIEW WHEN IT PROVIDED FOR THE
TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS FOR ACTION BY THE BOARD PRIOR TO THAT
STAGE.  INDEED THE BOARD WAS CREATED IN LARGE PART TO BRING UNDER A
SINGLE AEGIS THE LAST STAGE OF INFORMAL RENEGOTIATION BEFORE THE TAX
COURT ACTION, IN ORDER THUS TO SECURE AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE UNIFORM
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION OF RENEGOTIATION PROBLEMS.  FN26 THIS POLICY
WAS FOLLOWED AND REINFORCED IN THE PROVISION FOR TAX COURT
REDETERMINATION.  AND THAT PROCEDURE WAS CHOSEN DELIBERATELY IN
PREFERENCE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR ELSEWHERE,
PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE TAX COURT'S  FN27  EXPERTNESS IN FISCAL
MATTERS ANALOGOUS TO THOSE ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH RENEGOTIATION
PROBLEMS,  FN28  AS WELL AS ITS ESSENTIALLY JUDICIAL PROCEDURES AND
EXPERIENCE.  FN29 

IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO ENDOW THE TAX COURT'S
DECISIONS WITH A VERY LARGE DEGREE OF FINALITY, AS APPEARS FROM THE
VERY TERMS OF SEC. 403(E)(1), FROM THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE ACT, AND
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY N30.  THE EXPRESS COMMAND OF SEC.
403(E)(1) IS NOT SIMPLY THAT THE TAX COURT SHALL HAVE "EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION, BY ORDER, TO FINALLY DETERMINE" THE AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE
PROFITS, IF ANY.  IT IS ALSO THAT THE DETERMINATION "SHALL NOT BE
REVIEWED OR REDETERMINED BY ANY COURT OR AGENCY."  THIS IS BUTTRESSED
BY THE PROHIBITION THAT FILING THE PETITION SHALL NOT OPERATE TO STAY
EXECUTION OF THE BOARD'S ORDER UNDER SEC. 403(C)(2).  FN31  AND NOT
IRRELEVANT TO THE STATUTE'S GENERAL POLICY OF FINALITY ARE THE
PROVISIONS MAKING THE BOARD'S DETERMINATIONS FINAL, IF THE PETITION FOR
TAX COURT REDETERMINATION IS NOT FILED IN THE SPECIFIED TIME, AND THOSE
OF THE SECRETARY OR HIS DELEGATES FINAL IF SIMILAR ACTION IS NOT TAKEN
TO SECURE REDETERMINATION BY THE BOARD.  SEC. 403(C)(1). 

TRUE, THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY CONFERS RIGHTS TO FOLLOW THROUGH THE
VARIOUS STAGES OF THE PROCEDURE TO THE END OF THE TAX COURT PHASE. 
NEVERTHELESS ITS ENTIRE STRUCTURE INDICATES THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE
TO HAVE MATTERS OF RENEGOTIATION PROMPTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY SETTLED;
AND TO ACCOMPLISH THIS AS FAR AS POSSIBLE BOTH BY INFORMAL NEGOTIATIONS
AND BY INTRODUCING THE COMPULSION OF FINALITY AT EVERY STAGE UNLESS
EACH SUCCEEDING ONE IS TAKEN AS COMMANDED. 

AT THE HEIGHT OF THE WAR CONGRESS RECOGNIZED, AS DID THE PROCURING
AGENCIES,  FN32  THAT SPEED IN PROCUREMENT, AND CONSEQUENTLY IN
PRODUCTION OF WAR MATERIALS, OUTWEIGHED ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
NORMALLY APPLICABLE.  AND WHILE RENEGOTIATION WAS A PRODUCT OF THAT
NECESSITY RATHER THAN A CAUSE, THE PROBLEMS IT RAISED WERE TIME
CONSUMING AND CLOSELY RELATED TO PRICING DIFFICULTIES.  FN33  OFTEN
THEY WORKED TO HINDER AND DELAY THE PROCESS OF PROCUREMENT.  CONGRESS
THEREFORE SOUGHT, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO RELIEVE THE INTERRELATED
PROCESSES FROM THE TEDIOUS BURDEN OF LITIGATION.  IT DID THIS BY
WRITING THE POLICY OF FINALITY INTO THE ACT'S PROVISIONS AT EACH
SUCCESSIVE PROCEDURAL STAGE, ALTHOUGH SAVING THE RIGHT OF RESORT
EVENTUALLY TO THE TAX COURT TO THOSE ACTING PROMPTLY IN THE PRESCRIBED
WAY. 

WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION, INDEED WE EXPLICITLY RESERVE DECISION,
UPON THE QUESTION OF THE FINALITY OF TAX COURT DECISIONS IN THESE
MATTERS.  BUT WE CANNOT INFER FROM A STATUTE SO CONDITIONED IN
BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, TERMS AND COMPULSION DERIVED FROM THE INEVITABLE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS APPLICATION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO ALLOW
SKIRTING THE PROCEDURES DEVISED ALTOGETHER OR PARTIALLY, MORE
PARTICULARLY IN ANY CASE WHERE FOLLOWING THEM COULD RESULT IN NO
GREATER LOSS THAN THE DELAY AND INCONVENIENCE WHICH WOULD FLOW FROM
INABILITY TO SEEK SOME OTHER REMEDY NOT DEPENDENT UPON THEIR
COMPLETION. 

WE ARE NOT FORCED IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, TO DECIDE WHETHER CONGRESS
INTENDED TO GIVE THE TAX COURT THE LAST WORD UPON ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT
AND LAW, OR WHETHER IT COULD DO SO IF THAT WERE SURELY ITS PURPOSE. 
NOR NEED WE BECOME INVOLVED IN AN ATTEMPT TO DECIDE WHAT PARTICULAR
QUESTIONS IT MIGHT HAVE LEFT, OR DID LEAVE, FOR THAT BODY'S FINAL AND
CONCLUSIVE DISPOSITION.  FOR IT SEEMS OBVIOUS, IN VIEW OF THE ACT'S
TERMS, HISTORY, OBJECTS AND THE POLICIES INCORPORATED, THAT CONGRESS
CLEARLY AND AT THE VERY LEAST INTENDED THE TAX COURT'S FUNCTIONS NOT
ONLY TO BE PUT IN MOTION BUT TO BE FULLY PERFORMED, BEFORE JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION SHOULD TAKE PLACE AT THE INSTANCE OF ONE IN APPELLANT'S
POSITION. 

THIS INDEED WAS THE RULING OF THE WATERMAN CASE.  AND WE DO NOT THINK
THE EFFECT OF THAT RULING IS EXHAUSTED SIMPLY BECAUSE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS WERE NOT RAISED THERE, BUT HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD IN THIS
CAUSE.  NOR IS IT OVERCOME, IN OUR JUDGMENT, BY THE SHOWING WHICH HAS
BEEN MADE ON THIS RECORD OF IRREPARABLE INJURY AND OF THE NEED AS WELL
AS THE POWER OF EQUITY TO FORESTALL THE COMPLETE OPERATION OF THE
CONGRESSIONALLY PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE. 

ON THE CONTRARY, WHATEVER MAY BE TRUE OF OTHER SITUATIONS N34, IN
THIS CASE THE VERY FACT THAT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE PUT FORWARD
CONSTITUTES A STRONG REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING THIS SUIT EITHER TO
ANTICIPATE OR TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE TAX COURT'S FINAL PERFORMANCE OF
ITS FUNCTION.  WHEN THAT HAS BEEN DONE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NOTHING
WILL BE LEFT OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM, ASSERTED BOTH IN THAT PROCEEDING AND
IN THIS CAUSE, CONCERNING WHICH IT WILL HAVE BASIS FOR COMPLAINT. 

THE TAX COURT MAY DECIDE ENTIRELY IN APPELLANT'S FAVOR.  INDEED, IF
IT CAN SUSTAIN THERE THE CLAIMS AND ISSUES IT OFFERS TO SUPPORT HERE,
THAT POSSIBILITY IS NOT AN UNLIKELY ONE.  FOR, APART FROM THE QUESTIONS
OF CONSTITUTIONALITY AND OF THE TAX COURT'S POWER TO DECIDE THEM
FINALLY OR OTHERWISE N35, APPELLANT HAS PUT FORWARD, IN BOTH
PROCEEDINGS,  FN36  CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION AND NONCOVERAGE RELATING TO
CONTRACTS INVOLVING MUCH LARGER AMOUNTS THAN THE AGGREGATE SUMS
AFFECTED BY RENEGOTIATION, AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX CREDITS.  FN37  AND
IF THOSE CLAIMS ARE WELL FOUNDED, AS TO WHICH OF COURSE WE EXPRESS NO
OPINION, THE TAX COURT'S DETERMINATION OF THESE MATTERS OF COVERAGE,
WHICH WE HELD IN THE WATERMAN CASE ARE INITIALLY AT LEAST FOR ITS
DISPOSITION, WELL MIGHT RENDER CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS BY IT UNNECESSARY AND THIS CAUSE MOOT. 

CERTAINLY THAT POSSIBLE OUTCOME SHOULD NOT BE ANTICIPATED, EITHER
HERE OR BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THROUGH A DECISION IN THIS CASE ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.  RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549. 
NO MORE SHOULD IT BE FORESTALLED BY DECISION UPON THE MATTERS OF
COVERAGE.  MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., SUPRA. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRESENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, COUPLED
WITH A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF INADEQUACY OF PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF AND OF THREATENED OR IMPENDING IRREPARABLE INJURY FLOWING FROM
DELAY INCIDENT TO FOLLOWING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE, HAS BEEN HELD
SUFFICIENT TO DISPENSE WITH EXHAUSTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
BEFORE INSTITUTING JUDICIAL INTERVENTION.  FN38  BUT, WITHOUT GOING
INTO A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE DECISIONS, THIS RULE IS NOT ONE OF MERE
CONVENIENCE OR READY APPLICATION.  WHERE THE INTENT OF CONGRESS IS
CLEAR TO REQUIRE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, EITHER TO THE EXCLUSION
OF JUDICIAL ACTION OR IN ADVANCE OF IT, A STRONG SHOWING IS REQUIRED,
BOTH OF INADEQUACY OF THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE AND OF IMPENDING HARM,
TO PERMIT SHORT-CIRCUITING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  CONGRESS'
COMMANDS FOR JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IN THIS RESPECT ARE NOT LIGHTLY TO BE
DISREGARDED. 

MORE ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE WITH LEGISLATION, OF THIS TYPE, ADOPTED
DURING AND TO MEET THE EMERGENCY OF WAR AND RESTING, AT LEAST IN PART,
UPON WAR POWERS.  FOR, IN SUCH CASES, "ONLY IF WE COULD SAY IN ADVANCE
OF RESORT TO THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE THAT IT IS INCAPABLE OF AFFORDING
DUE PROCESS TO PETITIONERS COULD WE CONCLUDE THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN ANY
LEGAL EXCUSE FOR THEIR FAILURE TO RESORT TO IT OR THAT THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE INFRINGED," YAKUS V. UNITED
STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 435, A STATEMENT IMPLICITLY REQUIRING EXHAUSTION,
NOT MERELY INITIATION, OF THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE.    WE NEED NOT
DECIDE IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, WHETHER MERE DOUBT CONCERNING THE
ADEQUACY OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR OTHER RELIEF WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR
ALLOWING ANTICIPATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION.  FOR THAT
COURSE IS NOT TO BE FOLLOWED IF THERE IS ANOTHER REMEDY, NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND, AND OF CERTAIN CHARACTER,
EVEN THOUGH IT BE NEITHER SO EXPEDITIOUS OR CONVENIENT AS SOME OTHER
SOUGHT TO BE SUBSTITUTED WHICH CIRCUMVENTS THAT COMMAND.  TO THIS OF
COURSE SHOULD BE ADDED THE FURTHER QUALIFICATION THAT FOLLOWING THE
PRESCRIBED REMEDY, UPON THE SHOWING MADE, WILL NOT CERTAINLY OR
PROBABLY RESULT IN THE LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS. 
THIS BRINGS US TO CONSIDERATION OF THE SHOWING MADE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
EQUITY'S INTERVENTION.  THAT SHOWING, WE THINK WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES AND OF THE STATUTE'S CLEAR PURPOSE
AND INTENT, IS NOT SUFFICIENT. 

WHATEVER MAY BE THE SCOPE ALLOWED GENERALLY FOR EQUITY TO INTERVENE
UPON THE GROUND OF INADEQUACY OF LEGAL REMEDIES, WHERE NO EXPLICIT
CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND EXISTS FOR FOLLOWING A PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE, THE
PROBLEM WHEN SUCH A MANDATE IS PRESENT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM ONE
TENDERED IN ITS ABSENCE.  THE VERY FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS MADE THE
DIRECTION MUST BE CAST INTO THE SCALES AS AGAINST THE FACTORS WHICH,
WITHOUT THAT FACT, WOULD OR MIGHT BE OF SUFFICIENT WEIGHT TO TURN THE
BALANCE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING UTILIZATION OF EQUITY'S RESOURCES.  THAT
FACT ITSELF MAY BE OF SUCH WEIGHT AS TO TURN THE SCALES THE OTHER WAY,
EVEN IN SITUATIONS MUCH MORE DOUBTFUL THAN THE PRESENT ONE.  IN SHORT,
THE SO-CALLED GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
IN EQUITY ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN, IN SUCH A CASE, AS ISOLATED FROM ALL
EFFECT OF THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE OR NECESSARILY OR EVEN READILY AS
OVERRIDING IT. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF THE AVAILABILITY OR
INDEED OF THE CERTAINTY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF APPELLANT'S REMEDY AT LAW
BY SUIT UPON ITS CONTRACTS AGAINST ITS CUSTOMERS CLAIMED TO OWE IT
MONEY UNDER THOSE AGREEMENTS.  SUITS OF THAT CHARACTER ARE NOT
FORBIDDEN, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY BY THE RENEGOTIATION ACTS. 
NOR ARE THEY MADE DEPENDENT UPON COMPLETION OF THE TAX COURT
PROCEEDINGS.  FN39  MOREOVER WE KNOW OF NO REASON WHY EVERY QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED IN THIS SUIT COULD NOT BE
PRESENTED AND DETERMINED IN SUCH A SUIT. 

IN ADDITION, THERE IS SPECIAL REASON IN THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHY
THAT COURSE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED RATHER THAN ALLOWING THE PRESENT SUIT. 
APPELLANT IS, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, A SUBCONTRACTOR, NOT A CONTRACTOR
WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  WHILE ITS SUIT COULD BE INSTITUTED DIRECTLY ONLY
AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR WITH WHOM IT HAD DEALT, NEVERTHELESS IT IS
HARDLY CONCEIVABLE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PERMIT THE SUIT TO GO TO
FINAL JUDGMENT WITHOUT INTERVENTION BY IT OR, AT THE LEAST, UNDERTAKING
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING THE DEFENSE.  FOR BY SEC. 403(C)(2)  FN40
IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED:  "EACH CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR IS
HEREBY INDEMNIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL CLAIMS BY ANY
SUBCONTRACTOR ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNTS WITHHELD FROM SUCH SUBCONTRACTOR
PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH." 

IN THE FACE OF THIS INDEMNITY, THE CONTRACTOR BECOMES SUBSTANTIALLY A
STAKEHOLDER AS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SUBCONTRACTOR, AND THE
LATTER'S SUIT AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR, IF TERMINATED FAVORABLY TO THE
COMPLAINANT, WOULD OBLIGATE THE GOVERNMENT TO INDEMNIFY OR REIMBURSE
THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE LIABILITY THUS INCURRED.  IN EFFECT, THE
GOVERNMENT HAS CONSENTED TO SUIT BY THE CONTRACTOR IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS ON ACCOUNT OF ANY LIABILITY THE CONTRACTOR INCURS BY VIRTUE OF
LAWFUL PAYMENT OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR'S CLAIMS. 

ACCORDINGLY, THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO SUBSTANTIAL REASON FOR
REGARDING THE SUIT AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR AS INHERENTLY INADEQUATE OR
INEFFECTIVE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANY RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT,
INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL ONES.  IN THIS RESPECT THE CASE STANDA
IDENTICALLY WITH COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, SUPRA.  FN41  IF ANY
SUCH INADEQUACY EXISTS, IT MUST BE BY VIRTUE OF FACTORS EXTRANEOUS TO
THE NATURE OF THE SUIT ITSELF AND NOT PRESENT IN THE COFFMAN CASE. 

THESE APPELLANT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH IN ITS SHOWING RELATING TO
MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS AND IRREPARABLE INJURY.  APART FROM MULTIPLICITY,
THE SHOWING CONCERNING INJURY CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY ELIMINATING THE TAX COURT PROCEEDING.  FN42  BOILED DOWN, THE
ALLEGATIONS COME TO APPELLANT'S ASSUMING, FOR THE PERIOD NECESSARY TO
SECURE EITHER THE TAX COURT'S DECISION OR FINAL JUDGMENT IN SUITS
AGAINST ITS CUSTOMERS DIRECTED TO WITHHOLD, THE CONTINUED RISK OF THEIR
SOLVENCY, WITHOUT SPECIFIC ALLEGATION THAT ANY OF THEM IS SERIOUSLY SO
THREATENED OR FACTS TO SUPPORT SUCH A CLAIM; AND TO DEPRIVATION, FOR
THE SAME PERIOD, OF THE USE OF $270,000 DIRECTED TO BE WITHHELD.  FN43
WE DO NOT THINK THIS SHOWING ALONE, WITHOUT REGARD TO MULTIPLICITY,
APPROACHES WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUSTAIN THE INTERVENTION OF A
COURT OF EQUITY, PARTICULARLY IN ORDER TO AVOID OR ANTICIPATE THE
CONGRESSIONALLY AUTHORIZED PROCEEDING. 

NOR, IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IS THE SHOWING MADE CONCERNING
MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS SUFFICIENT FOR THAT PURPOSE.  APPELLANT'S CASE AS
MADE IN THIS FEATURE IS THAT IT WOULD BE FORCED TO SUE SOME SIXTEEN "OR
MORE" CUSTOMERS, IN VARIOUS AND SCATTERED JURISDICTIONS, WITH
CONSEQUENT EXPENSE OF LITIGATION AND "RESULTANT ILL-FEELING AND
IRREPARABLE INJURY" TO GOOD WILL AND APPELLANT'S BUSINESS.  ON THE
OTHER HAND STANDS THE AFFIDAVIT OF APPELLEE HIRSCH THAT DIRECTION FOR
WITHHOLDING AND PAYMENT INTO THE TREASURY WILL NOT BE NEEDED OR GIVEN
IN MORE THAN TWO OR THREE INSTANCES, AND IN CASE ANY BALANCE SHOULD
REMAIN IT WILL BE COLLECTED THROUGH SUIT INSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ACCEPTED ONE VERSION OF THE FACTS OR THE
OTHER, IT FOUND THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT BASIS IN THE CLAIM OF
MULTIPLICITY TO SUSTAIN EQUITY'S ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION.  WE WOULD
NOT BE DISPOSED TO OVERRIDE THAT JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT, TURNING
AS MUCH AS IT MAY UPON QUESTIONS OF FACT.  FN44 

MOREOVER, IT IS NOT APPARENT, AT ANY RATE FROM THE ALLEGATIONS, WHY
IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR APPELLANT TO SUE ALL OF THE SIXTEEN CUSTOMERS
OR INDEED PERHAPS MORE THAN ONE OF THEM IN ORDER TO SECURE A
DETERMINATION OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR PRESERVE ITS RIGHTS.  A
SINGLE TEST SUIT WOULD SERVE THE FORMER PURPOSE FULLY, AND THERE ARE NO
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT APPELLANT'S RIGHTS OF
RECOURSE AGAINST OTHERS PROBABLY WOULD BE LOST BY AWAITING THE OUTCOME
OF SUCH A SUIT, EITHER LEGALLY THROUGH THE OPERATION OF STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS OR PRACTICALLY, AS WE HAVE SAID, THROUGH ANY PROBABLE
INCIDENCE OF INSOLVENCY. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF EITHER KIND OF SHOWING, THE INJURY APPELLANT SEEKS
TO AVOID BY THE ARGUMENT OF MULTIPLICITY ACTUALLY COMES DOWN, AS WE
HAVE SAID, TO DEPRIVATION OF THE USE OF THE AMOUNT WITHHELD FOR THE
PERIOD REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS OR A TEST
SUIT AGAINST A CUSTOMER.  WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE ANY INJURY IN
THIS LIMITED RESPECT DEPENDS OF COURSE, FIRST, ON THE OUTCOME OF THE
TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS, PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO THE MATTERS OF
COVERAGE; SECOND, ON WHETHER, UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THOSE
PROCEEDINGS SUSTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM AS TO ALL OR PART OF THE
$270,000, THE AMOUNT THUS FOUND DUE IS FINALLY HELD, IN AUTHORIZED
LITIGATION, TO BE DUE AND OWING TO THE APPELLANT OR TO THE GOVERNMENT. 
AND, AS WE HAVE ALSO SAID, IF THAT RESULT SHOULD FAVOR THE APPELLANT,
THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE, IN
EFFECT, INDIRECTLY AVAILABLE TO APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY IT FOR ANY LOSS
OF THE USE OF THE MONEYS WITHHELD.  FN45 

WHATEVER MIGHT BE TRUE IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS SHOWING AS TO THE
NECESSITY FOR SUING MANY CUSTOMERS IS HARDLY SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
SUBSTITUTION OF EQUITY'S EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF FOR WHAT IN ALL THE
CONDITIONS OF THIS CASE APPEARS TO BE A FULL, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETELY
AVAILABLE REMEDY AT LAW.  COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, SUPRA;
MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., SUPRA. 

INDEED THE ARGUMENT OF MULTIPLICITY, WITH OTHERS, WAS EXPRESSLY
ADVANCED AND REJECTED IN THE WATERMAN CASE, AS GROUND FOR NOT APPLYING
THE MYERS RULE AND FOR SUSTAINING DECLARATORY AND EQUITABLE
INTERVENTION TO CIRCUMVENT IT.  AFTER NOTING THE COMPANY'S CLAIM, WITH
OTHERS, THAT "IT WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS IN ORDER
TO RECOVER THE MONEY DUE ON THE CONTRACTS," WE THERE SAID:  "EVEN IF
ONE OR ALL OF THESE THINGS MIGHT POSSIBLY OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, THAT
POSSIBILITY DOES NOT AFFECT THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE REQUIRING
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO POWER
TO DETERMINE IN THIS PROCEEDING AND AT THIS TIME ISSUES THAT MIGHT
ARISE BECAUSE OF THESE FUTURE CONTINGENCIES."  327 U.S. AT 545. 

THIS CASE IS PERHAPS EVEN STRONGER THAN THE WATERMAN CASE FOR
APPLICATION OF THE MYERS RULE.  FOR HERE THE APPELLANT IS A
SUBCONTRACTOR RETAINING WHAT THE CONTRACTOR COMPLAINANT DID NOT HAVE IN
THE WATERMAN CASE, NAMELY, A COMPLETELY ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW AGAINST
ITS CUSTOMERS, BUTTRESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S GUARANTY OF INDEMNITY TO
THE CONTRACTOR FOR ALL LIABILITY INCURRED BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF
WITHHOLDING FUNDS ALLEGEDLY DUE THE APPELLANT. 

IN VIEW OF THAT FACT THE FURTHER ONE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE
INCLUDED AMONG THOSE TENDERED IN THIS CASE BUT WERE NOT PRESENTED IN
THE WATERMAN CASE, BECOMES WHOLLY IMMATERIAL.  TO COUNTENANCE SHORT
CIRCUITING OF THE TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS HERE WOULD BE, UNDER ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES BUT MORE ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF CONGRESS' POLICY AND
COMMAND WITH RESPECT TO THOSE PROCEEDINGS, A LONG OVERREACHING OF
EQUITY'S STRONG ARM. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE FIRST RENEGOTIATION ACT WAS CONTAINED IN SEC. 403 OF THE
SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 56 STAT. 226, AS
AMENDED 56 STAT. 798, 982, 57 STAT. 347, 57 STAT. 564.  THE SECOND
RENEGOTIATION ACT APPEARS IN THE 1943 REVENUE ACT.  58 STAT. 21, 78, AS
AMENDED 59 STAT. 294. 

FN2  OF OCTOBER 31, 1942, 56 STAT. 1013, 35 U.S.C. (SUPP. V, 1946)
SECS. 89-96. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN4 THE WAR CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD IS CREATED BY SEC.
403(D)(1) OF THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V,
1946) SEC. 1191(D)(1).  THE PRESENT APPELLEES WERE SUBSTITUTED BY AN
ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE OF THE ORIGINAL
DEFENDANTS. 

FN5  62 F.SUPP.  520. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 9.  THE TAX COURT PROCEEDINGS REMAIN PENDING AND
UNDETERMINED AT THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. 

FN7  ON APPELLANT'S APPLICATION THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED THE
DEFENDANTS, PENDING DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL, FROM TAKING FURTHER
ACTION TO ENFORCE THE STATUTES, PARTICULARLY BY NOTIFYING OR REQUIRING
APPELLANT'S CUSTOMERS TO PAY INTO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES
MONEYS ALLEGED TO BE DUE AIRCRAFT UNDER CONTRACT PROVISIONS, BUT
CLAIMED BY APPELLEES TO BE PAYABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT AS EXCESSIVE
PROFITS PURSUANT TO THE ACTS' TERMS.  CF. NOTES 10, 13 INFRA. 

FN8  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT APPELLANT SUPPLIED MATERIALS
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY UNDER ONE CONTRACT MADE DIRECTLY BETWEEN
IT AND THE GOVERNMENT.  BUT IT IS ALSO ALLEGED THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN
PAID IN FULL FOR THESE SUPPLIES.  APPARENTLY, THEREFORE, THE CONTRACT
AND THE RELATION WHICH IT CREATED BETWEEN APPELLANT AND THE GOVERNMENT
HAVE NO BEARING UPON THE ISSUES IN THIS CAUSE. 

FN9  THE FIRST RENEGOTIATION ACT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR REDETERMINATION
BY THE TAX COURT AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED; NOR DID IT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE
FOR REVIEW, BY ANY BODY, OF THE DETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS. 
SEE STEADMAN, A FURTHER LEGAL INQUIRY INTO RENEGOTIATION:  I (1944) 43
MICH. L. REV. 1, 12.  BUT TAX COURT REDETERMINATION WAS AFFORDED BY THE
SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT AND WAS MADE RETROACTIVE.  50 U.S.C. APP.
(SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 1191(E)(2) PROVIDES THAT IT IS AVAILABLE TO "ANY
CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR  ...  AGGRIEVED BY A DETERMINATION OF THE
SECRETARY MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1943, WITH RESPECT TO A FISCAL YEAR ENDING BEFORE JULY 1, 1943, AS TO
THE EXISTENCE OF EXCESS PROFITS  ...  " 

FN10  THE ORIGINAL ACT, AS AMENDED, PROVIDED:  "UPON RENEGOTIATION,
THE SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO ELIMINATE ANY EXCESSIVE
PROFITS UNDER SUCH CONTRACT OR SUBCONTRACT  ...  (III) BY DIRECTING A
CONTRACTOR TO WITHHOLD FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM
AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR, ANY AMOUNT OF SUCH
EXCESSIVE PROFITS UNDER THE SUBCONTRACT  ...  " 56 STAT. AT 983.  SEE
ALSO NOTE 13. 

FN11  AN EARLIER PETITION WAS DISMISSED ON MOTION OF THE UNITED
STATES BECAUSE IT WAS FILED DURING THE TIME WHEN THE WAR CONTRACTS
PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MIGHT HAVE INITIATED A REVIEW.  CF. MACAULEY V.
WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 327 U.S. 540.  AFTER DISMISSAL OF THE EARLIER
PETITION AND BEFORE FILING OF THE LATER ONE, APPELLANT HAD SOUGHT
REDETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO SEC. 403(E)(1) OF THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION
ACT, BY THE WAR CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  THE BOARD DENIED
REVIEW AND ADOPTED THE UNDER SECRETARY'S REDETERMINATION AS ITS OWN. 

FN12  FOR EXAMPLE, IN ADDITION TO CONTENTIONS THAT THE RENEGOTIATION
ACTS AS A MATTER OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW VIOLATE ARTICLE I, SEC. 1, OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN THAT THEY CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL DELEGATIONS OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER AS WELL AS CONTRAVENE THE DUE PROCESS AND JUST
COMPENSATION PROVISIONS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE JURY TRIAL
PROVISION OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT, IT IS SAID
THAT THE ORDER UNDER THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT WAS BASED IN PART AT
LEAST ON INFORMATION SAID TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM "GOVERNMENTAL AND
OTHER RELIABLE SOURCES" WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO
EXAMINE OR REBUT.    FN13  SECTION 403(C)(2) OF THE SECOND
RENEGOTIATION ACT, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 1191(C)(2),
PROVIDES:  "UPON THE MAKING OF AN AGREEMENT, OR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER,
UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) BY THE BOARD, OR THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER UNDER
SUBSECTION (E) BY THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, DETERMINING
EXCESSIVE PROFITS, THE BOARD SHALL FORTHWITH AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE
SECRETARIES OR ANY OF THEM TO ELIMINATE SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS (A) BY
REDUCTIONS IN THE AMOUNTS OTHERWISE PAYABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR UNDER
CONTRACTS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS, OR BY OTHER REVISION OF THEIR TERMS; OR
(B) BY WITHHOLDING FROM AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR ANY
AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS; OR (C) BY DIRECTING A CONTRACTOR TO
WITHHOLD FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM AMOUNTS OTHERWISE
DUE TO A SUBCONTRACTOR, ANY AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS OF SUCH
SUBCONTRACTOR; OR (D) BY RECOVERY FROM THE CONTRACTOR, THROUGH
REPAYMENT, CREDIT, OR SUIT ANY AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS
ACTUALLY PAID TO HIM; OR (E) BY ANY COMBINATION OF THESE METHODS, AS IS
DEEMED DESIRABLE.  ...  " 

FN14  THE ALLEGATIONS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING:  "NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS FILED ITS PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION IN
THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WHEREBY IT SEEKS AN ORDERLY
DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, IT MAY OWE TO THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, AS EXCESSIVE PROFITS FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR ENDING NOVEMBER 30,
1943, THE WAR CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 403(C)(2) OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT, PURPOSES
TO DIRECT THE DEFENDANT HENRY L. STIMSON, SECRETARY OF WAR, OR HIS
DELEGATES, TO DIRECT CONTRACTORS, CUSTOMERS OF THE PLAINTIFF, TO
WITHHOLD MONEYS DUE TO THE PLAINTIFF BY SUCH CONTRACTORS FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY IT, THE WAR
CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, TO BE DUE AS EXCESSIVE PROFITS, AND
HENRY L. STIMSON, SECRETARY OF WAR, OR HIS DELEGATES PURPOSES TO FOLLOW
SUCH DIRECTIONS OF THE WAR CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD AND FURTHER
TO DIRECT SUCH CONTRACTORS TO PAY SUCH SUMS OF MONEY INTO THE TREASURY
OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY HENRY
L. STIMSON, SECRETARY OF WAR, ACTING THROUGH HIS DELEGATE, ROBERT P.
PATTERSON, IN RESPECT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS FOUND BY HIM TO BE DUE FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR OF THE PLAINTIFF ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1942, AS
HERETOFORE, RECITED IN THIS COMPLAINT, BEFORE THE TAX COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHALL HAVE MADE OR SHALL HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION OF THIS PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR A
REDETERMINATION OF ITS EXCESSIVE PROFITS, IF ANY, FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR
ENDING 1943."  SEE ALSO NOTE 42. 

FN15  THE OMISSION FROM THE FIRST ACT OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED
IN THE SECOND, SEE, E.G., NOTE 9 SUPRA, IS ALLEGED TO AFFORD BASIS FOR
INVALIDATING THE FORMER EVEN THOUGH THE LATTER MAY BE HELD
CONSTITUTIONAL. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 42 INFRA. 

FN17  ALTHOUGH ASSERTED BY WAY OF EQUITABLE SETOFF, THE EFFECT OF
ALLOWING SUCH A CLAIM WOULD BE, AS WE SAID IN THE MINE SAFETY CASE, TO
PREVENT THE SECRETARY FROM TAKING CERTAIN ACTION WHICH, THOUGH IT WOULD
NOT "STOP PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MONEY LAWFULLY IN THE UNITED
STATES TREASURY TO SATISFY THE GOVERNMENT'S AND NOT THE SECRETARY'S
DEBT TO THE APPELLANT," NEVERTHELESS WOULD AMOUNT TO "AN INDIRECT
EFFORT TO COLLECT A DEBT ALLEGEDLY OWED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN A
PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT CONSENTED," 326 U.S. 374,
375, AND TO WHICH, AS IN THAT CASE, IT HAS NOT BEEN MADE FORMALLY A
PARTY. 

FN18  ESPECIALLY LOUISIANA V. MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627; BELKNAP V.
SCHILD, 161 U.S. 10; IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443. 

FN19  APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS THAT ORDERING ITS CUSTOMERS NOT ONLY TO
WITHHOLD FUNDS DUE TO IT UNDER THE CONTRACTS BUT ALSO TO PAY THEM INTO
THE TREASURY WOULD BE, IN EFFECT, A "TRESPASS UPON ITS PROPERTY" WITHIN
THE RULE OF UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196; CF. LAND V. DOLLAR, 330
U.S. 731, AND THAT EXECUTION OF SUCH ORDERS WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF VESTED
PROPERTY RIGHTS, CONTRARY TO VARIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  SINCE
A DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WOULD DETERMINE THE
GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO THE FUNDS, IN ANY EVENT, THE CASE, LIKE LAND V.
DOLLAR, SUPRA, WOULD SEEM TO BE ONE "WHERE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
(AS INVOLVING THE GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY TO SUIT) IS DEPENDENT ON
DECISION OF THE MERITS."  330 U.S. AT 735. 

ORDINARILY OF COURSE ISSUES RELATING TO EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES, AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SECURING JUDICIAL RELIEF, AND TO
THE EXISTENCE OF JURISDICTION IN EQUITY ARE EITHER SEPARATE OR
SEPARABLE MATTERS, TO BE TREATED AS ENTIRELY OR SUBSTANTIALLY
DISTINCT.  THE ONE GENERALLY SPEAKING IS SIMPLY A CONDITION TO BE
PERFORMED PRIOR TO INVOKING AN EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COURTS. 
THE OTHER GOES TO THE EXISTENCE OF JUDICIAL POWER IN THE BASIC
JURISDICTIONAL SENSE.  IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE EXHAUSTION PROBLEM
AND THAT OF EQUITY JURISDICTION ARE CLOSELY, INDEED INSEPARABLY,
RELATED.  AND BOTH ARE COLORED BY THE RELEVANT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF
THE RENEGOTIATION ACTS, MORE PARTICULARLY THE SECOND, SINCE IT ALONE
PROVIDES FOR TAX COURT REDETERMINATION.  FN20 

FN20  THE PROVISION, HOWEVER, APPLIES TO DETERMINATIONS MADE PRIOR TO
THE ACT'S EFFECTIVE DATE.  SEE NOTE 9 SUPRA. 

FN21  OTHERWISE THE BOARD'S ORDER BECOMES FINAL.  SEC. 403(C)(1). 
THE PROVISION READS:  "IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FILING OF A PETITION WITH
THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AND WITHIN
THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (E)(1), SUCH ORDER SHALL BE
FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW OR
REDETERMINATION BY ANY COURT OR OTHER AGENCY." 

SIMILARLY, A LIMITATION OF ONE YEAR IS PLACED UPON "ALL LIABILITIES
OF THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR FOR EXCESSIVE PROFITS RECEIVED OR
ACCRUED" DURING EACH FISCAL YEAR.  SEE SEC. 403(C)(3). 

FN22  SEE NOTE 11 SUPRA. 

FN23  CITING, AT 90 CONG. REC. 1355, THE STATEMENT OF A SPONSOR IN
THE HOUSE THAT THE TAX COURT COULD DECIDE "ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT AND
LAW  ...  "  SEE ALSO NOTES 30, 35 INFRA. 

FN24  THE WATERMAN S.S. CORPORATION NOT ONLY HAD FAILED TO FILE A
PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT BUT ALSO HAD REFUSED TO ATTEND
RENEGOTIATION CONFERENCES WITH THE BOARD OR TO SUPPLY INFORMATION
SOUGHT BY IT. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 26 INFRA. 

FN26  SEE 89 CONG. REC. 9928-9929.  PREVIOUSLY THE GOVERNMENTAL
DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED WITH RENEGOTIATION HAD SET UP A CENTRAL BOARD TO
EFFECT A "MORE UNIFORM POLICY IN THE DETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE
PROFITS," H. REP. 871, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 75, BUT THERE WAS
DISSATISFACTION WITH THE BOARD THUS VOLUNTARILY ESTABLISHED, SEE 89
CONG. REC. 9934, AND "INSISTENCE IN CONGRESS THAT COORDINATION BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENTS HAVING RENEGOTIATING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PRIOR ACT BE
NOT A MATTER OF VOLUNTARY COOPERATION BUT ONE OF STATUTORY NECESSITY." 
STEADMAN, A FURTHER LEGAL INQUIRY INTO RENEGOTIATION:  I (1944) 43
MICH. L. REV. 1, 6. 

FN27  SEE 53 STAT. 158, AS AMENDED BY 56 STAT. 957, 26 U.S.C. (SUPP.
V, 1946) SEC. 1100:  "THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO
AS THE 'BOARD') SHALL BE CONTINUED AS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY IN THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE BOARD SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE
TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE MEMBERS THEREOF SHALL BE KNOWN
AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE AND THE JUDGES OF THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

FN28  SEE H. REP. 871, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 77; STEADMAN, A FURTHER
LEGAL INQUIRY INTO RENEGOTIATION:  II (1944) 43 MICH. L. REV. 235, 270;
CF. S. REP. 627, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 109; H. REP. 1079, 78TH CONG.,
2D SESS., 83. 

FN29  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, 498; CF. NOTE 27. 

FN30  "THAT COURT WILL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, BY AN ORDER, TO
MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER EXCESSIVE PROFITS HAVE BEEN
RECEIVED OR ACCRUED, OR WHETHER A FAIR PRICE HAS BEEN DETERMINED, AND
THE TAX COURT'S DETERMINATION MAY NOT BE REVIEWED OR REDETERMINED BY
ANY OTHER COURT OR AGENCY."  H. REP. 871, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 77. 
SEE ALSO 89 CONG. REC. 9930:  "THE COMMITTEE HAS PROVIDED THAT ANY
CONTRACTOR AGGRIEVED BY A DETERMINATION OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS UNDER THE
OLD LAW, WHETHER HE WAS COOPERATIVE AND SIGNED A CLOSING AGREEMENT OR
NOT, MAY HAVE A REVIEW OF THAT DETERMINATION IN THE TAX COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND IN THE REVIEW HAVE ALL ISSUES, CONSTITUTIONAL AND
OTHERWISE, DECIDED BY THE COURT." 

FN31  SEE NOTE 13 SUPRA. 

FN32  THE RECORD CONTAINS AN AFFIDAVIT MADE BY ROBERT P. PATTERSON
WHEN UNDER SECRETARY OF WAR WHICH READS IN PART:  "WARTIME PROCUREMENT
FOR THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT DIFFERS RADICALLY FROM PROCUREMENT IN
TIMES OF PEACE.  SPEED IN PRODUCTION AT ONCE BECOMES ALL-IMPORTANT. 
...  " 

"  ...  THE WAR PROCURING AGENCIES CANNOT USE NORMAL METHODS OF
PROCUREMENT.  THE PRESSING NEED FOR SPEED REQUIRES THE ABANDONMENT OF
DRAWN-OUT NEGOTIATION AND THE CAREFUL SURVEYS OF ALL RELEVANT FACTORS
WHICH SOUND PURCHASING WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE.  COMPETITION
NECESSARILY WANES AND NO LONGER OFFERS AN ADEQUATE GUIDE TO THE PRICES
WHICH SHOULD BE PAID.  ABOVE ALL, THE FORECASTING OF COSTS OF
PRODUCTION BECOMES, IN LARGE MEASURE, A MATTER OF INFORMED GUESSING
RATHER THAN OF REAL COST ANALYSIS." 

FN33  THE SECOND RENEGOTIATION ACT SEPARATED THE REPRICING AUTHORITY
FROM RENEGOTIATION.  SEE 58 STAT. 92, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. V, 1946)
SEC. 1192.  SEE ALSO S. REP. 627, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 37-38. 

FN34  SEE NOTE 38 INFRA. 

FN35  SEE NOTES 23, 30 SUPRA; CF. HELVERING V. INDEPENDENT LIFE INS.
CO., 292 U.S. 371, REVERSING 67 F.2D 470, AFFIRMING 17 B.T.A. 757;
STEIN BROS. MFG. CO. V. SECRETARY OF WAR, 7 T.C. 863. 

FN36  A COPY OF THE PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION FILED IN THE TAX
COURT BY APPELLANT HAS BEEN ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE COMPLAINT. 

FN37  APPELLANT IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ALTHOUGH
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1943, ITS TOTAL SALES AMOUNTING
TO $3,548,845.50 WERE RENEGOTIATED, "ONLY $2,207,574.95, IN ANY EVENT,
WERE SUBJECT TO RENEGOTIATION; THAT $1,312,250.07 OF ITS TOTAL SALES
WERE OF 'STANDARD COMMERCIAL ARTICLES' AS DEFINED IN THE RENEGOTIATION
ACT; WERE ARTICLES SOLD UNDER COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE SALE
THEREOF IN A MANNER WHICH REASONABLY PROTECTED THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST
EXCESSIVE PRICES, AND, AS SUCH, WERE NOT SUBJECT TO RENEGOTIATION; THAT
$29,020.48 OF ITS TOTAL SALES WERE NOT SOLD FOR THE ULTIMATE USE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ANY DEPARTMENT, AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY
THEREOF, BUT WERE MADE AND SOLD FOR CIVILIAN USE, AND, AS SUCH, WERE
NOT SUBJECT TO RENEGOTIATION." 

FN38  THUS, THE COURT HAS PERMITTED RESORT TO A FEDERAL COURT OF
EQUITY WHERE A STATE WAS ENFORCING CONFISCATORY RATES AND BY ITS LAW
PRECLUDED A STAY OR SUPERSEDEAS UNTIL THE STATE COURTS "ACTING IN A
LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY" HAD TAKEN FINAL ACTION.  OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO.
V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S. 290; PACIFIC TEL. & TEL. CO. V. KUYKENDALL, 265
U.S. 196; PORTER V. INVESTORS SYNDICATE, 286 U.S. 461.  FOR OTHER
DECISIONS HOLDING THAT A FEDERAL COURT MAY EXERCISE ITS EQUITABLE
JURISDICTION WHERE THERE IS AN INADEQUATE STATE REMEDY TO CORRECT A
CONSTITUTIONAL WRONG, SEE HILLSBOROUGH V. CROMWELL, 326 U.S. 620;
WALLACE V. HINES, 253 U.S. 66. 

THE RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED MOST FREQUENTLY IN RESPECT TO STATE RATHER
THAN FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, THOUGH OF COURSE IT IS NOT
INAPPLICABLE TO THE LATTER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
REGULATE THE JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS MAY
PRESENT OBSTACLES TO ITS APPLICATION NOT PRESENT IN STATE CASES. 

FN39  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER IN SUCH A SUIT A DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD FIND IT PROPER TO DEFER ITS FINAL DECISION UNTIL AFTER THE
TAX COURT HAD MADE ITS FINAL REDETERMINATION, IN ORDER POSSIBLY TO
AVOID THE NECESSITY OF DECIDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  CF.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582, 599, AND CASES
CITED.  FOR, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF SUCH ACTION, THE COURT WOULD HAVE
POWER TO PRESERVE, PENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, THE STATUS QUO
AND ALL RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT.  THE PROVISION IN SEC. 403(E)(1) THAT
THE FILING OF A PETITION WITH THE TAX COURT "SHALL NOT OPERATE TO STAY
THE EXECUTION OF THE ORDER OF THE (WAR CONTRACTS PRICE ADJUSTMENT)
BOARD" UNDER SEC. 403(C)(2) DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COURTS ARE DEPRIVED
OF THEIR POWER TO GRANT STAYS WHERE NECESSARY.  "WHERE CONGRESS WISHED
TO DEPRIVE THE COURTS OF THIS HISTORIC POWER, IT KNEW HOW TO USE APT
WORDS  ...  "  SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, 316 U.S. 4, 17.  IT DID SO IN THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 23; SEE YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414,
429, 437, USING VERY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE.  HERE THE PROVISION LITERALLY
AT ANY RATE APPEARS TO MEAN ONLY THAT THERE SHALL BE NO AUTOMATIC STAY
BY VIRTUE OF FILING THE PETITION IN THE TAX COURT. 

FN40  THE PARAGRAPH COVERS WITHHOLDING PAYMENT PURSUANT TO DIRECTION
BY THE BOARD TO THE CONTRACTOR, FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
SEE NOTE 13 SUPRA. 

FN41  THE SITUATION OF THE LICENSOR IN THE COFFMAN CASE, WITH
REFERENCE TO THE REMEDY BY SUIT AGAINST ITS LICENSEES WAS EXACTLY THE
SAME AS APPELLANT'S SITUATION HERE IN RESPECT TO SUIT AGAINST ITS
CUSTOMERS, THE CONTRACTORS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  WE SAID, AS TO THE
ADEQUACY OF THAT REMEDY:  "BUT WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BE
VALID OR INVALID APPELLANT SHOWS NO GROUND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF.  IF
VALID THEY WOULD BE A DEFENSE, AND APPELLANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO NO
RELIEF OTHER THAN THAT AFFORDED BY THE SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT.  IF INVALID, APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO
RECOVER REMAINS UNIMPAIRED.  THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DEFENSE MAY BE AS
READILY TESTED IN A SUIT AT LAW TO RECOVER THE ROYALTIES AS BY THE
PRESENT SUIT IN EQUITY TO ENJOIN PAYMENT OF THE ROYALTIES INTO THE
TREASURY.  IN EITHER CASE APPELLANT WOULD RECEIVE ALL THE RELIEF TO
WHICH IT SHOWS ITSELF ENTITLED."  323 U.S. AT 323.    THE COFFMAN
DECISION STOOD SQUARELY UPON THE GROUNDING OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE
REMEDY BY SUIT AGAINST THE LICENSEES, ALTHOUGH IT RESTED ALSO UPON THE
ALTERNATIVE RULING THAT THERE WAS NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY.  THIS WAS FOR
THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANT ASSERTED NO RIGHT TO RECOVER THE
ROYALTIES, BUT ASKED ONLY A DETERMINATION THAT THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT
ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL "AND, IF SO FOUND, THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ACT BE ENJOINED, AN ISSUE WHICH APPELLEE  ... DECLINES TO CONTEST." 
THIS, WE SAID, MADE THE PRAYER OF THE BILL "BUT A REQUEST FOR AN
ADVISORY OPINION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A DEFENSE TO A SUIT FOR RECOVERY
OF THE ROYALTIES."  323 U.S. AT 323, 324. 

FN42  IT IS ALLEGED THAT APPELLANT, UNLESS ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN THIS
SUIT, WILL BE CAUSED UNNECESSARILY TO RUN THE RISK OF IMPAIRED CREDIT
OR INSOLVENCY OF CUSTOMERS DIRECTED TO WITHHOLD FUNDS; THAT ITS WORKING
CAPITAL ESSENTIAL TO CARRYING OUT ITS OBLIGATIONS WITH CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS WOULD BE REDUCED; THAT ITS OPERATIONS "WILL BE HAMPERED
AND ITS BUSINESS IRREPARABLY DAMAGED BY THE REDUCTION OF ITS WORKING
CAPITAL"; AND THAT IT WILL BE FORCED EITHER TO CONTINUE SUPPLYING
CUSTOMERS DIRECTED TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT, IMPAIRING ITS ASSETS AND THE
INTERESTS OF STOCKHOLDERS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REFUSE MAKING SUCH
SHIPMENTS WITH THE ASSERTED CONSEQUENCE OF BEING UNABLE TO CONTINUE IN
BUSINESS, "INASMUCH AS A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF ITS MARKET FOR ITS
PRODUCTS PRESENTLY IS PRIME CONTRACTORS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND
SUBCONTRACTORS THEREOF." 

FN43  APPELLANT ALSO ALLEGES THAT IT "COULD NOT RECOVER INTEREST FOR
THE USE OF ITS MONEY" IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE COURT
OF CLAIMS, WHICH ON OTHER COUNTS IT ASSERTS IS BOTH UNAVAILABLE AND
INADEQUATE.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION, HOWEVER, CONCERNING INTEREST AS
NOT BEING RECOVERABLE IN SUITS AGAINST ITS CUSTOMERS.  AND, AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE STATUTORY INDEMNITY PROVIDED FOR SUCH
CONTRACTORS IS IN SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TERMS TO COVER INTEREST AS WELL AS
ANY OTHER LIABILITY INCURRED BY THEM THROUGH AUTHORIZED WITHHOLDING, A
GUARANTY WHICH CERTAINLY WOULD NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY OF INTEREST BY THE
SUIT AGAINST THE CONTRACTORS IF TERMINATED ON THE MERITS IN APPELLANT'S
FAVOR. 

FN44  IT IS PERHAPS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS RESPECT THAT THE
COMPLAINT CONTAINS ALLEGATIONS, THOUGH NOT MADE IN THIS CONNECTION,
RELATING TO BOTH THE FISCAL YEARS 1942 AND 1943 TO THE EFFECT THAT OVER
80 PER CENT OF THE DOLLAR VALUE OF APPELLANT'S TOTAL SHIPMENTS WERE
MADE TO THREE PRIVATE CONCERNS, FAIRCHILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE
CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY, AND
THE UNITED STATES NAVY.  CONCERNING THE SHIPMENTS TO THE NAVY, SEE NOTE
8. 

FN45  SEE NOTE 43 SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :























GREENOUGH V. TAX ASSESSORS, 331 U.S. 486 


NO. 461.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1947.  - 71 R.I. 477,
47 A.2D 625, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A RHODE ISLAND MUNICIPALITY ASSESSED A TAX AGAINST A RESIDENT OF
RHODE ISLAND FOR HALF THE VALUE OF INTANGIBLES HELD JOINTLY BY HIM AND
A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEES UNDER THE WILL OF A RESIDENT OF NEW
YORK.  THE EVIDENCES OF THE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY WERE AT ALL TIMES IN
NEW YORK AND THE LIFE BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST RESIDED THERE, THE
FUTURE BENEFICIARIES BEING UNDETERMINED.  THE RHODE ISLAND RESIDENT DID
NOT ACTUALLY EXERCISE HIS POWERS AS TRUSTEE IN RHODE ISLAND.  HELD: THE
TAX DID NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 491-498. 

2.  SO LONG AS A STATE CHOOSES TO TAX THE VALUE OF INTANGIBLES AS A
PART OF A TAXPAYER'S WEALTH, THE LOCATION OF EVIDENCES OF OWNERSHIP IS
IMMATERIAL.  P. 492. 

3.  SINCE INTANGIBLES HAVE NO REAL SITUS, THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER
IS THE NEAREST APPROXIMATION, ALTHOUGH OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS MAY
ALSO HAVE POWER TO TAX THE SAME INTANGIBLES.  P. 493. 

4.  SINCE NORMALLY INTANGIBLES ARE SUBJECT TO THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL
OF THE OWNER, THIS CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTANGIBLES AND THE OWNER
FURNISHES AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE TAX ON THE OWNER BY THE STATE OF
HIS RESIDENCE AS AGAINST ANY ATTACK FOR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 493. 

5.  THE SAME RULES APPLY TO THE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES HELD BY A
TRUSTEE AS ASSETS OF A TRUST, SINCE THE TRUSTEE CAN SUE AND BE SUED AS
SUCH AND IN THIS WAY THE STATE OF HIS RESIDENCE AFFORDS HIM PROTECTION
AS THE OWNER OF INTANGIBLES.  PP. 493-496. 

6.  BROOKE V. NORFOLK, 277 U.S. 27; SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V.
VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83; GRAVES V. SCHMIDLAPP, 315 U.S. 657,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 496-497. 

7.  IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT THE RHODE ISLAND
TRUSTEE IS NOT THE SOLE TRUSTEE OF THE NEW YORK TRUST, SINCE THE TAX
WAS ONLY UPON HIS PROPORTIONATE INTEREST, AS A TRUSTEE, IN THE RES AND
HE POSSESSED AN INTEREST IN THE INTANGIBLES SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A
PROPORTIONAL TAX FOR THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THAT
INTEREST IN RHODE ISLAND.  P. 498. 

8.  STATE COURTS ARE THE FINAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITY UPON THE MEANING OF
STATUTES OF THEIR STATES; BUT WHERE THEIR JUDGMENTS COLLIDE WITH RIGHTS
SECURED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THIS COURT HAS POWER TO PROTECT OR
ENFORCE SUCH RIGHTS.  PP. 489, 497. 

GREENOUGH ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. TAX ASSESSORS OF NEWPORT ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEWPORT COUNTY, RHODE ISLAND. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND SUSTAINED A TAX AGAINST A RESIDENT
OF RHODE ISLAND FOR ONE-HALF OF THE VALUE OF INTANGIBLES HELD JOINTLY
BY HIM AND A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEES OF A NEW YORK TRUST, AND
REMANDED THE CASE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEWPORT COUNTY, RHODE
ISLAND.  71 R.I. 477, 47 A.2D 625.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED,
P. 498. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS ARE TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES OF GEORGE H. WARREN, WHO DIED A
RESIDENT OF NEW YORK.  HIS WILL WAS DULY PROBATED IN THAT STATE AND
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY ISSUED TO APPELLANTS AS EXECUTORS.  A DULY
AUTHENTICATED COPY OF SAID WILL WAS FILED AND RECORDED IN RHODE ISLAND
AND THERE LETTERS TESTAMENTARY WERE ALSO ISSUED.  LETTERS OF
TRUSTEESHIP WERE GRANTED TO APPELLANTS BY A SURROGATE'S COURT IN NEW
YORK.  NONE WERE NEEDED OR ASKED FOR OR GRANTED BY RHODE ISLAND.  AT
ALL TIMES PERTINENT TO THIS APPEAL, APPELLANTS, AS TRUSTEES UNDER THE
WILL, HELD INTANGIBLE PERSONALTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CONSTANCE W. WARREN
FOR HER LIFE AND THEN TO CERTAIN AS YET UNDETERMINED FUTURE
BENEFICIARIES. 

THE EVIDENCES OF THE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY IN THE ESTATE OF GEORGE H.
WARREN AND IN THE TRUST IN QUESTION WERE AT ALL TIMES IN NEW YORK.  THE
LIFE BENEFICIARY AND ONE OF THE TRUSTEES ARE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK. 
THE OTHER TRUSTEE RESIDES IN RHODE ISLAND.  DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION, HE DID NOT, HOWEVER, EXERCISE HIS POWERS, AS TRUSTEE, IN
RHODE ISLAND. 

A PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX OF $50 WAS ASSESSED BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT,
RHODE ISLAND, AGAINST THE RESIDENT TRUSTEE UPON ONE-HALF OF THE VALUE
OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST.  THE APPLICABLE ASSESSMENT STATUTE FOR AD
VALOREM TAXES APPEARS IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  AT THE TIME OF THIS
ASSESSMENT, THE PROPERTY CONSISTED OF 500 SHARES OF THE CAPITAL STOCK
OF STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY.  THE TAX WAS PAID BY THE
TRUSTEES AND THIS SUIT INSTITUTED, UNDER APPROPRIATE STATE PROCEDURE,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NEWPORT TO RECOVER THE TAX FROM
THE CITY.  THE SUPERIOR COURT BY DECISION DENIED THE PETITION.  A BILL
OF EXCEPTIONS WAS PROSECUTED BY THESE PETITIONERS TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF RHODE ISLAND WHICH OVERRULED THE EXCEPTIONS AND REMITTED THE CASE TO
THE SUPERIOR COURT.  FN2  THEREUPON JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR THE
APPELLEES AND AN APPEAL ALLOWED TO THIS COURT.  ALL QUESTIONS OF STATE
PROCEDURE AND OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STATE STATUTE TO THE RESIDENT
TRUSTEE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WERE FORECLOSED FOR US BY THE
RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.  FN3 

THE APPELLANTS' CONTENTION THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN THAT THE RHODE ISLAND
STATUTE, UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE, IF APPLICABLE TO THE
RESIDENT TRUSTEE, WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THEIR OBJECTION IN THE STATE COURTS AND HERE IS THAT RHODE ISLAND
CANNOT TAX THE RESIDENT TRUSTEE'S PROPORTIONATE PART OF THESE TRUST
INTANGIBLES MERELY BECAUSE THAT TRUSTEE RESIDES IN RHODE ISLAND.  SUCH
A TAX, THEY URGE, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
BECAUSE IT EXACTS PAYMENT MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF PROPERTY WHOLLY
BEYOND THE REACH OF RHODE ISLAND'S POWER AND TO WHICH THAT STATE DOES
NOT GIVE PROTECTION OR BENEFIT.  APPELLANTS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM
RELIANCE UPON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE RHODE ISLAND TAX EXPOSES THEM TO
THE DANGER OF OTHER AD VALOREM TAXES IN ANOTHER STATE.  FN4  THE SAME
CONCESSION WAS MADE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.  FN5 WE
THEREFORE RESTRICT OUR DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION TO THE ISSUE
PRESENTED BY APPELLANTS' INSISTENCE THAT RHODE ISLAND CANNOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY COLLECT THIS TAX BECAUSE THE STATE RENDERED NO
EQUIVALENT FOR ITS EXACTION IN PROTECTION OF OR BENEFIT TO THE TRUST
FUND. 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAXATION OF THOSE RESIDENT WITHIN HER BORDERS,
RHODE ISLAND HAS SOVEREIGN POWER UNEMBARRASSED BY ANY RESTRICTION
EXCEPT THOSE THAT EMERGE FROM THE CONSTITUTION.  WHETHER THAT POWER IS
EXERCISED WISELY OR UNWISELY IS THE PROBLEM OF EACH STATE.  IT MAY WELL
BE THAT SOUND FISCAL POLICY WOULD BE PROMOTED BY A TAX UPON TRUST
INTANGIBLES LEVIED ONLY BY THE STATE THAT IS THE SEAT OF A TESTAMENTARY
TRUST.  FN6  OR, IT MAY BE THAT THE ACTUAL DOMICILE OF THE TRUSTEE
SHOULD BE PREFERRED FOR A SINGLE TAX.  UTILIZATION BY THE STATES OF
MODERN RECIPROCAL STATUTORY TAX PROVISIONS MAY MORE FAIRLY DISTRIBUTE
TAX BENEFITS AND BURDENS, ALTHOUGH THE DANGER OF COMPETITIVE
INDUCEMENTS FOR OBTAINING A SETTLOR'S FAVOR ARE OBVIOUS.  FN7  BUT OUR
QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT A PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS
THIS TAX.  NEITHER THE EXPEDIENCY OF THE LEVY NOR ITS ECONOMIC EFFECT
ON THE ECONOMY OF THE TAXING STATE IS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.  FN8  WE
ARE DEALING WITH THE TOTALITY OF A STATE'S AUTHORITY IN THE EXERCISE OF
ITS REVENUE RAISING POWERS. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO PLACE A LIMIT ON A STATE'S
POWER TO LAY AN AD VALOREM TAX ON ITS RESIDENTS.  FN9  PREVIOUS
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE HELD THAT MERE POWER OVER A RESIDENT DOES
NOT PERMIT A STATE TO EXACT FROM HIM A PROPERTY TAX ON HIS TANGIBLE
PROPERTY PERMANENTLY LOCATED OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE TAXING
STATE.  FN10  SUCH AN EXACTION, THE CASES TEACH, WOULD VIOLATE THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE NO BENEFIT OR
PROTECTION, ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A TAX EXACTION, IS FURNISHED BY THE
STATE OF RESIDENCE.  FN11 THE DOMICILIARY STATE OF THE OWNER OF
TANGIBLES PERMANENTLY LOCATED IN ANOTHER STATE, HOWEVER, MAY REQUIRE
ITS RESIDENT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER WHICH HE LIVES BY AN
INCOME TAX IN WHICH THE INCOME FROM THE OUT-OF-STATE PROPERTY IS AN
ITEM OF THE TAXPAYER'S GROSS INCOME.  IT IS IMMATERIAL, IN SUCH A CASE,
THAT THE PROPERTY PRODUCING THE INCOME IS LOCATED IN ANOTHER STATE. 
NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308.  AND, WHERE THE TANGIBLE
PROPERTY OF A CORPORATION HAS NO TAXABLE SITUS OUTSIDE THE DOMICILIARY
STATE, THAT STATE MAY TAX THE TANGIBLES BECAUSE THE CORPORATION EXISTS
UNDER THE LAW OF ITS DOMICILE.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, 222
U.S. 63.  FN12 

THE PRECEDENTS, HOLDING IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A STATE TO TAX
TANGIBLES OF A RESIDENT THAT ARE PERMANENTLY BEYOND ITS BOUNDARIES,
HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED TO INTANGIBLES WHERE THE DOCUMENTS OF OWNER
INTEREST ARE BEYOND THE CONFINES OF THE TAXING JURISDICTION OR WHERE
THE CHOSES IN ACTION ARE MERE PROMISES OF A NONRESIDENT WITHOUT
DOCUMENTS.  FN13  ONE REASON THAT STATE TAXATION OF A RESIDENT ON HIS
INTANGIBLES IS JUSTIFIED IS THAT WHEN THE TAXPAYER'S WEALTH IS
REPRESENTED BY INTANGIBLES, THE TAX GATHERER HAS DIFFICULTY IN LOCATING
THEM AND THERE IS UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHICH TAXING DISTRICT AFFORDS
BENEFITS OR PROTECTION TO THE ACTUAL PROPERTY THAT THE INTANGIBLES
REPRESENT.  THERE MAY BE NO "PAPERS."  IF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT MADE AT
THE RESIDENCE OF THE OWNER, INTANGIBLES MAY BE OVERLOOKED EASILY BY
OTHER ASSESSORS OF TAXES.  A STATE IS DEPENDENT UPON ITS CITIZENS FOR
REVENUE.  WEALTH HAS LONG BEEN ACCEPTED AS A FAIR MEASURE OF A TAX
ASSESSMENT.  AS A PRACTICAL MODE OF COLLECTING REVENUE, THE STATES
UNRESTRICTED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HAVE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO ASSESS
PROPERTY TAXES UPON INTANGIBLES "WHEREVER ACTUALLY HELD OR DEPOSITED,"
BELONGING TO THEIR CITIZENS AND REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION OF THE
DEBTOR.  FN14  SO LONG AS A STATE CHOOSES TO TAX THE VALUE OF
INTANGIBLES AS A PART OF A TAXPAYER'S WEALTH, THE LOCATION OF THE
EVIDENCES OF OWNERSHIP IS IMMATERIAL.  IF THE LOCATION OF THE DOCUMENTS
WAS CONTROLLING, THEIR TRANSFER TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION WOULD DEFEAT
THE TAX OF THE DOMICILIARY STATE.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE IS MORE
REASON FOR THE DOMICILIARY STATE OF THE OWNER OF THE INTANGIBLES THAN
FOR ANY OTHER TAXING JURISDICTION TO COLLECT A PROPERTY TAX ON THE
INTANGIBLES.  SINCE THE INTANGIBLES THEMSELVES HAVE NO REAL SITUS, THE
DOMICILE OF THE OWNER IS THE NEAREST APPROXIMATION, ALTHOUGH OTHER
TAXING JURISDICTIONS MAY ALSO HAVE POWER TO TAX THE SAME INTANGIBLES
N15.  NORMALLY THE INTANGIBLES ARE SUBJECT TO THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL OF
THE OWNER.  THIS CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INTANGIBLES AND THE
OWNER FURNISHES AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE TAX ON THE OWNER BY THE STATE
OF HIS RESIDENCE AS AGAINST ANY ATTACK FOR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE STATE OF THE OWNER'S RESIDENCE SUPPLIES THE OWNER WITH
THE BENEFITS AND PROTECTION INHERENT IN THE EXISTENCE OF AN ORGANIZED
GOVERNMENT.  HE MAY CHOOSE TO EXPAND HIS ACTIVITIES BEYOND ITS BORDERS
BUT THE STATE OF HIS RESIDENCE IS HIS BASE OF OPERATIONS.  IT IS THE
PLACE WHERE HE EXERCISES CERTAIN PRIVILEGES OF CITIZENSHIP AND ENJOYS
THE PROTECTION OF HIS DOMICILIARY GOVERNMENT.  DOES A SIMILAR
RELATIONSHIP EXIST BETWEEN A TRUSTEE AND THE INTANGIBLES OF A TRUST? 

THE TRUSTEE OF TODAY MOVES FREELY FROM STATE TO STATE.  THE SETTLOR'S
RESIDENCE MAY BE ONE STATE, THE SEAT OF A TRUST ANOTHER STATE AND THE
TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES MAY LIVE IN STILL ANOTHER JURISDICTION OR MAY
CONSTANTLY CHANGE THEIR RESIDENCE N16.  THE OFFICIAL LIFE OF A TRUSTEE
IS, OF COURSE, DIFFERENT FROM HIS PERSONAL.  A TRUST, THIS COURT HAS
SAID, IS "AN ABSTRACTION."  FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES IT IS
SOMETIMES DEALT WITH AS THOUGH IT HAD A SEPARATE EXISTENCE.  ANDERSON
V. WILSON, 289 U.S. 20, 27.  THIS IS BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT SO
TO DEAL WITH THE TRUST.  THIS ENTITY, THE TRUST, FROM ANOTHER POINT OF
VIEW CONSISTS OF SEPARATE INTERESTS, THE EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE RES
OF THE BENEFICIARY N17 AND THE LEGAL INTEREST OF THE TRUSTEE.  THE
LEGAL INTEREST OF THE TRUSTEE IN THE RES IS A DISTINCT RIGHT.  IT
ENABLES A SETTLOR TO PROTECT HIS BENEFICIARIES FROM THE BURDENS OF
OWNERSHIP, WHILE THE BENEFICIARY RETAINS THE RIGHT, THROUGH EQUITY, TO
COMPEL THE LEGAL OWNER TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS TRUST
OBLIGATIONS.  THE TRUSTEE AS THE OWNER OF THIS LEGAL INTEREST IN THE
RES MAY INCUR OBLIGATIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST
ENFORCEABLE AGAINST HIM, PERSONALLY.  FN18  NOTHING ELSE APPEARING, THE
TRUSTEE IS PERSONALLY LIABLE AT LAW FOR CONTRACTS FOR THE TRUST.  FN19
THIS IS THE RULE IN RHODE ISLAND.  FN20  SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE MAY BE
DECREED AGAINST HIM.  FN21  OF COURSE, THE TRUSTEE WHEN ACTING WITHIN
HIS POWERS FOR THE TRUST IS ENTITLED TO EXONERATION OR REIMBURSEMENT
FN22  AND THE TRUST RES MAY BE PURSUED IN EQUITY BY THE CREDITOR FOR
PAYMENT.  FN23 

THE SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
LAWS OF THE STATE AFFORDED NO BENEFIT OR PROTECTION TO THE RESIDENT
TRUSTEE.  ALTHOUGH NOTHING APPEARED AS TO ANY SPECIFIC BENEFIT OR
PROTECTION WHICH THE TRUSTEE HAD ACTUALLY RECEIVED, IT CONCLUDED THAT
THE STATE WAS "READY, WILLING AND CAPABLE" OF FURNISHING EITHER "IF
REQUESTED."  A RESIDENT TRUSTEE OF A FOREIGN TRUST WOULD BE ENTITLED TO
THE SAME ADVANTAGES FROM RHODE ISLAND LAWS AS WOULD ANY NATURAL PERSON
THERE RESIDENT.  GREENOUGH V. TAX ASSESSORS, SUPRA, 488, 47 A.2D AT
631.  THERE MAY BE MATTERS OF TRUST ADMINISTRATION WHICH CAN BE
LITIGATED ONLY IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE THAT IS THE SEAT OF THE
TRUST.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF A TESTAMENTARY TRUST, THE
APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES, SETTLEMENT, TERMINATION AND DISTRIBUTION UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRUST ARE TO BE CARRIED OUT, NORMALLY, IN THE
COURTS OF DECEDENT'S DOMICILE.  SEE HARRISON V. COMMISSIONER OF
CORPORATIONS, 272 MASS. 422, 427, 172 N.E. 605, 608.  BUT WHEN
TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES RESIDE OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS
OF THE STATE OF THE SEAT OF THE TRUST, THIRD PARTIES DEALING WITH THE
TRUSTEE ON TRUST MATTERS OR BENEFICIARIES MAY NEED TO PROCEED DIRECTLY
AGAINST THE TRUSTEE AS AN INDIVIDUAL FOR MATTERS ARISING OUT OF HIS
RELATION TO THE TRUST.  OR THE RESIDENT TRUSTEE MAY NEED THE BENEFIT OF
THE RHODE ISLAND LAW TO ENFORCE TRUST CLAIMS AGAINST A RHODE ISLAND
RESIDENT.  AS THE TRUSTEE IS A CITIZEN OF RHODE ISLAND, THE FEDERAL
COURTS WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE TRUSTEE FOR SUCH CAUSES OF ACTION WHERE
THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION DEPENDED UPON DIVERSITY.  THE CITIZENSHIP OF
THE TRUSTEE AND NOT THE SEAT OF THE TRUST OR THE RESIDENCE OF THE
BENEFICIARY IS THE CONTROLLING FACTOR.  FN24  THE TRUSTEE IS SUABLE
LIKE ANY OTHER OBLIGOR.  THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION WHICH FORBIDS SUITS IN STATE COURTS AGAINST A RESIDENT
TRUSTEE OF A TRUST CREATED UNDER THE LAWS OF A SISTER STATE. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT RHODE ISLAND DOES OFFER BENEFIT AND
PROTECTION THROUGH ITS LAW TO THE RESIDENT TRUSTEE AS THE OWNER OF
INTANGIBLES.  AND, WHILE IT MAY LOGICALLY BE URGED THAT THESE BENEFITS
AND PROTECTION ARE NO MORE THAN IS OFFERED A RESIDENT OWNER OF LAND OR
CHATTELS, PERMANENTLY OUT OF THE STATE, THE SAME REASONS, HEREINBEFORE
STATED ON PAGES 492 AND 493, APPLY THAT PERMIT STATE PROPERTY TAXATION
OF A RESIDENT OWNER OF INTANGIBLES WHILE DENYING A STATE POWER TO TAX
SIMILARLY THE RESIDENT'S OUT-OF-STATE REALTY. 

NO PRECEDENT FROM THIS COURT CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION INDICATES THAT
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION CONTAINS PROVISIONS THAT FORBID TAXATION BY A
STATE OF INTANGIBLES IN THE HANDS OF A RESIDENT TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEE. 
IN BROOKE V. NORFOLK, 277 U.S. 27, THE STATE PROPERTY TAX THERE
INVALIDATED, EVIDENTLY AS VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WAS
ASSESSED TO A LIFE BENEFICIARY, ON A RES, COMPOSED OF INTANGIBLES, WHEN
BOTH THE TESTATOR AND THE TRUSTEE WERE RESIDENTS OF ANOTHER STATE WHERE
THE TRUST WAS ADMINISTERED.  SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANY V.
VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83, HELD INVALID A STATE'S TAX ON A TRUST'S
INTANGIBLES, ACTUALLY IN THE HANDS OF THE NONRESIDENT TRUSTEE AND NOT
SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE EQUITABLE OWNER, BECAUSE IT WAS AN
ATTEMPT TO TAX THE TRUST RES, INTANGIBLES ACTUALLY IN THE HANDS OF A
NONRESIDENT TRUSTEE.  THIS WAS SAID TO CONFLICT WITH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AS A TAX ON A THING BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE TAXING
STATE.  FN25  SEE ALSO GRAVES V. SCHMIDLAPP, 315 U.S. 657, 663, WHERE
THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF TAXATION WAS HELD TO EXTEND TO A STATE RESIDENT
WHO BY WILL DISPOSED OF INTANGIBLES HELD BY HIM AS TRUSTEE WITH POWER
OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION UNDER A NONRESIDENT TRUST.  NOTHING IN
THESE CASES LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A STATE MAY NOT TAX
INTANGIBLES IN THE HANDS OF A RESIDENT TRUSTEE OF AN OUT-OF-STATE
TRUST.  FN26 

STATE COURTS CONSTRUE THEIR STATUTES ACCORDING TO THEIR UNDERSTANDING
OF STATE POLICY AND APPLY THEM TO SUCH SITUATIONS AS THEIR
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE REQUIRES.  IN SO ADJUDGING,
THEY ARE THE FINAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITY UPON THE MEANING OF THEIR STATE
LAW.  IT IS ONLY IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEIR JUDGMENTS COLLIDE WITH
RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THAT WE HAVE POWER TO
PROTECT OR ENFORCE THE FEDERAL RIGHTS.  IN ADJUDGING THE TAXABILITY
UNDER STATE LAW OF A RESIDENT TRUSTEE'S OWNERSHIP OF INTANGIBLES,
WITHOUT RELIANCE UPON THE RESIDENCE OF SETTLOR OR BENEFICIARY OR THE
LOCATION OF THE INTANGIBLES, VARIOUS CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN REACHED
UNDER STATE LAW AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THEY ARE PERTINENT TO OUR PROBLEM ONLY AS ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE
DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS OF STATE LAW.  FN27 

NOR DO WE THINK IT CONSTITUTIONALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT THE RHODE ISLAND
TRUSTEE IS NOT THE SOLE TRUSTEE OF THE NEW YORK TRUST.  THE ASSESSMENT,
AS THE STATUTE IN QUESTION REQUIRED, WAS ONLY UPON HIS PROPORTIONATE
INTEREST, AS A TRUSTEE, IN THE RES.  WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE
CHARACTER OF HIS TITLE TO THE INTANGIBLES  FN28  OR THE LIMITATIONS ON
HIS SOLE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER OVER THE TRUST,  FN29  THE RESIDENT
TRUSTEE WAS THE POSSESSOR OF AN INTEREST IN THE INTANGIBLES,
SUFFICIENT, AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED, TO SUPPORT A PROPORTIONAL TAX FOR THE
BENEFIT AND PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THAT INTEREST BY RHODE ISLAND.  FN30
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  GENERAL LAWS OF RHODE ISLAND (1938), C. 30, SEC. 9: 

"FIFTH.  INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST BY ANY EXECUTOR,
ADMINISTRATOR, OR TRUSTEE, WHETHER UNDER AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED TRUST,
THE INCOME OF WHICH IS TO BE PAID TO ANY OTHER PERSON, SHALL BE TAXED
TO SUCH EXECUTOR, ADMINISTRATOR, OR TRUSTEE IN THE TOWN WHERE SUCH
OTHER PERSON RESIDES; BUT IF SUCH OTHER PERSON RESIDES OUT OF THE
STATE, THEN IN THE TOWN WHERE THE EXECUTOR, ADMINISTRATOR, OR TRUSTEE
RESIDES; AND IF THERE BE MORE THAN ONE SUCH EXECUTOR, ADMINISTRATOR, OR
TRUSTEE, THEN IN EQUAL PROPORTIONS TO EACH OF SUCH EXECUTORS,
ADMINISTRATORS, AND TRUSTEES IN THE TOWNS WHERE THEY RESPECTIVELY
RESIDE." 

FN2  GENERAL LAWS OF RHODE ISLAND (1938), C. 31, SEC. 14; C. 545,
SEC. 6, AS AMENDED BY C. 941, PUBLIC LAWS OF RHODE ISLAND (1939-40);
GREENOUGH V. TAX ASSESSORS, 71 R.I. 477, 47 A.2D 625. 

FN3  CHASE SECURITIES CORPORATION V. DONALDSON, 325 U.S. 304, 311;
SEE HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232, 237; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582, 595. 

FN4  SEE MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW YORK, TAX LAW, SECS. 3,
350(7), 365, 369, 377.  FIDELITY & COLUMBIA TRUST CO. V. LOUISVILLE,
245 U.S. 54.  COMPARE BLACKSTONE V. MILLER, 188 U.S. 189; CURRY V.
MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, 363; GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383; GRAVES
V. SCHMIDLAPP, 315 U.S. 657; STATE TAX COMM'N V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174,
177, WITH FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204; FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312. 

FN5  GREENOUGH V. TAX ASSESSORS, 71 R.I. 477, 488, 47 A.2D 625, 631. 

FN6  COMPARE HARRISON V. COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS AND TAXATION,
272 MASS. 422, 172 N.E. 605. 

FN7  COMPARE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES' DISSENT, BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281
U.S. 586, 595. 

FN8  STATE TAX COMM'N V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, 181. 

FN9  SEE LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276, 279.  ART. I,
SEC. 10, CL. 2 AND 3, CONTAIN LIMITATIONS ON A STATE'S POWER TO LEVY
IMPORT OR EXPORT OR TONNAGE DUTIES. 

FN10  UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, 202; FRICK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473, 488; CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS, 253
U.S. 325, 328-29; CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, 363-65, AND NOTE 3;
SEE WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444; STATE TAX COMM'N
V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, 178. 

FN11  EVEN WHERE OUR CASES HAVE SPOKEN OF POWER OVER THE PERSON AS
THOUGH IT ALONE MIGHT BE A SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR AD VALOREM
TAXATION OF A RESIDENT ON TANGIBLES OUTSIDE THE TAXING JURISDICTION,
THE LANGUAGE WAS USED IN INSTANCES WHERE THERE WERE OTHER BASES FOR THE
TAX.  STATE TAX ON FOREIGN-HELD BONDS, 15 WALL.  300, 319; SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, 222 U.S. 63, 76; PEARSON V. MCGRAW, 308 U.S.
313, 318. 

FN12  SEE DISCUSSION IN NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S.
292. 

FN13 KIRTLAND V. HOTCHKISS, 100 U.S. 491; FIDELITY & COLUMBIA TRUST
CO. V. LOUISVILLE, 245 U.S. 54; COMPARE BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S.
1, 8-12; MAGUIRE V. TREFRY, 253 U.S. 12; CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S.
357, 365-68; WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444; STATE TAX
COMM'N V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, 180. 

FN14  KIRTLAND V. HOTCHKISS, 100 U.S. 491.  COMPARE NEW YORK EX REL.
COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308. 

FN15  SEE CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, 365-68; WHEELING STEEL
CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S. 193.  CERTAIN EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS HAVE
BEEN HELD SUFFICIENT IN THEMSELVES TO JUSTIFY A STATE'S IMPOSITION OF A
SUCCESSION TAX UPON THEIR NONRESIDENT OWNER.  WHEELER V. NEW YORK, 233
U.S. 434. 

FN16  SEE HUTCHISON V. ROSS, 262 N.Y. 381, 393, 187 N.E. 65, 70. 

FN17  BROWN V. FLETCHER, 235 U.S. 589, 598-600; BLAIR V.
COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 13. 

FN18  SCOTT, TRUSTS (1939), PP. 487, 1469 ET SEQ.; WILLISTON,
CONTRACTS (1936) SEC. 312; BOGERT, TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES (1935) SEC.
146. 

FN19  DUVALL V. CRAIG, 2 WHEAT.  45, 56; TAYLOR V. DAVIS, 110 U.S.
330, 335:  "A TRUSTEE MAY BE DEFINED GENERALLY AS A PERSON IN WHOM SOME
ESTATE, INTEREST, OR POWER IN OR AFFECTING PROPERTY IS VESTED FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ANOTHER.  WHEN AN AGENT CONTRACTS IN THE NAME OF HIS
PRINCIPAL, THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTS AND IS BOUND, BUT THE AGENT IS NOT. 
WHEN A TRUSTEE CONTRACTS AS SUCH, UNLESS HE IS BOUND NO ONE IS BOUND,
FOR HE HAS NO PRINCIPAL.  THE TRUST ESTATE CANNOT PROMISE; THE CONTRACT
IS THEREFORE THE PERSONAL UNDERTAKING OF THE TRUSTEE.  AS A TRUSTEE
HOLDS THE ESTATE, ALTHOUGH ONLY WITH THE POWER AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MANAGING IT, HE IS PERSONALLY BOUND BY THE CONTRACTS HE MAKES AS
TRUSTEE, EVEN WHEN DESIGNATING HIMSELF AS SUCH." 

LAZENBY V. CODMAN, 28 F.SUPP.  949; PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. LAND
ESTATES, 31 F.SUPP.  845; PEYSER V. AMERICAN SECURITY & TRUST CO., 107
F.2D 625. 

FN20  ROGER WILLIAMS N. BK. V. GROTON MANUFACTURING CO., 16 R.I. 504,
17 A. 170. 

FN21  WARREN V. GOODLOE'S EXECUTOR, 230 KY. 514, 520, 20 S.W.2D 278,
281. 

FN22  SCOTT, TRUSTS, SEC. 244 ET SEQ. AND SEC. 268. 

FN23  SCOTT, TRUSTS, SEC. 267 ET SEQ. SEE BALLENTINE V. EATON, 297
MASS. 389, 8 N.E.2D 808; O'BRIEN V. JACKSON, 167 N.Y. 31, 60 N.E. 238. 

FN24  BULLARD V. CISCO, 290 U.S. 179, 190.  SEE MEMPHIS STREET R. CO.
V. MOORE, 243 U.S. 299. 

FN25  THE POWER OF A STATE TO TAX THE EQUITABLE INTEREST OF A
BENEFICIARY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WAS NOT PRESENTED.  ID., PP. 92 AND
95. 

FN26  GOODSITE V. LANE, 139 F. 593(C.C.A.6TH), HOLDS THAT A STATE
PROPERTY TAX ON A TRUSTEE'S INTANGIBLES FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT HE
RESIDES IN THE TAXING STATE IS INVALID.  IT WOULD SEEM THIS WAS SO
DECIDED BECAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WE DO NOT THINK THIS CASE
GIVES PROPER RECOGNITION TO THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX THE OWNER OF THE
LEGAL TITLE TO THE RES. 

FN27  THE STATE STATUTE TAXING PROPERTY TO THE TRUSTEE VALIDLY
APPLIES TO THE RESIDENT TRUSTEE: WELCH V. CITY OF BOSTON, 221 MASS.
155, 109 N.E. 174; HARVARD TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION, 284
MASS. 225, 230, 187 N.E. 596, 598; MACKAY V. SAN FRANCISCO, 128 CAL.
678, 61 P. 382; MILLSAPS V. JACKSON, 78 MISS.  537, 30 SO. 756;
MCLELLAN V. CONCORD, 78 N.H. 89, 97 A. 552; FLORIDA V. BEARDSLEY, 77
FLA. 803, 82 SO. 794. 

THE STATE TAX STATUTE IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE RESIDENT TRUSTEE:
DORRANCE'S ESTATE, 333 PA. 162, 3 A.2D 682; COMMONWEALTH V. PEEBLES,
134 KY. 121, 135, 119 S.W. 774, 778; DARROW V. COLEMAN, 119 N.Y. 137,
23 N.E. 488; RAND V. PITTSFIELD, 70 N.H. 530, 49 A. 88.  NEWCOMB V.
PAIGE, 224 MASS. 516, 113 N.E. 458, AND HARRISON V. COMMISSIONER, 272
MASS. 422, 172 N.E. 605, DECLINED TAXATION ON THE GROUND OF COMITY AND
THUS DISTINGUISHED WELCH V. CITY OF BOSTON, SUPRA, 272 MASS. 428-29,
172 N.E. 609. 

FN28  SCOTT, TRUSTS, SECS. 88.1, 103; BOGERT, TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES,
SEC. 145. 

FN29  SCOTT, TRUSTS, SEC. 194; BRENNAN V. WILLSON, 71 N.Y. 502; FRITZ
V. CITY TRUST CO., 72 APP. DIV. 532, 76 N.Y.S. 625, AFF. 173 N.Y. 622,
66 N.E. 1109; IN RE CAMPBELL'S ESTATE, 171 MISC. 750, 13 N.Y.S.2D 773. 

FN30  THE STATE COURTS HAVE REACHED VARYING CONCLUSIONS UNDER THEIR
STATUTES:  SEE PEOPLE EX REL. BEAMAN V. FEITNER, 168 N.Y. 360, 61 N.E.
280; MACKAY V. SAN FRANCISCO, 128 CAL. 678, 61 P. 382; MCLELLAN V.
CONCORD, 78 N.H. 89, 97 A. 552; DORRANCE'S ESTATE, 333 PA. 162, 3 A.2D
682; NEWCOMB V. PAIGE, 224 MASS. 516, 113 N.E. 458; HARRISON V.
COMMISSIONER, 272 MASS. 422, 430-31, 172 N.E. 605, 609-10. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IN VIEW OF THE DISSENTS ELICITED BY THE COURT'S OPINION, I SHOULD
LIKE TO STATE WHY I JOIN IT. 

RHODE ISLAND TAXES ITS PERMANENT RESIDENTS IN PROPORTION TO THE VALUE
OF THEIR PROPERTY.  THE STATE IMPOSES THE TAX WHETHER ITS RESIDENTS OWN
PROPERTY OUTRIGHT OR OWN IT, LEGALLY SPEAKING, IN A FIDUCIARY
CAPACITY.  IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS IN
CONTROVERSY COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE MEASURE OF THE TAX AGAINST THE
PERSON OF THIS TRUSTEE IF HE OWNED THEM OUTRIGHT.  THE DOCTRINE THAT
THE POWER OF TAXATION DOES NOT EXTEND TO CHATTELS PERMANENTLY SITUATED
OUTSIDE A STATE THOUGH THE OWNER WAS WITHIN IT, UNION REFRIGERATOR
TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194; FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S.
473, IS INAPPLICABLE.  THE TAX IS CHALLENGED, AS WANTING IN "DUE
PROCESS," BECAUSE THE RHODE ISLAND RESIDENT IS MERELY TRUSTEE OF THESE
INTANGIBLES AND THE PIECES OF PAPER THAT EVIDENCE THEM ARE KEPT OUTSIDE
THE STATE. 

RHODE ISLAND'S SYSTEM OF TAXING ITS RESIDENTS - SUBJECTING THEM TO
THE SAME MEASURE FOR ASCERTAINING THEIR ABILITY TO PAY WHETHER THEY
HOLD PROPERTY FOR THEMSELVES OR FOR OTHERS - LONG ANTEDATED THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  RHODE ISLAND HAS IMPOSED THIS TAX, "IT MAY BE
PRESUMED, FOR THE GENERAL ADVANTAGES OF LIVING WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION."  FIDELITY & COLUMBIA TRUST CO. V. LOUISVILLE, 245 U.S.
54, 58.  IT CAN HARDLY BE DEEMED IRRATIONAL TO SAY, AS RHODE ISLAND
APPARENTLY HAS SAID FOR A HUNDRED YEARS, THAT THOSE ADVANTAGES MAY BE
ROUGHLY MEASURED, FOR FISCAL PURPOSES, BY THE WEALTH WHICH A PERSON
CONTROLS, WHATEVER HIS ULTIMATE BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. 
"THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ITSELF A HISTORICAL PRODUCT, DID NOT DESTROY
HISTORY FOR THE STATES AND SUBSTITUTE MECHANICAL COMPARTMENTS OF LAW
ALL EXACTLY ALIKE."  JACKMAN V. ROSENBAUM CO., 260 U.S. 22, 31. 

IN ANY EVENT, RHODE ISLAND COULD IN TERMS TAX ITS RESIDENTS FOR
ACTING AS TRUSTEES, AND DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX AS THOUGH A
TRUSTEE OWNED HIS TRUST ESTATE OUTRIGHT.  RHODE ISLAND HAS, IN EFFECT,
DONE SO BY TREATING ALL RHODE ISLAND RESIDENTS ALIKE IN RELATION TO
THEIR PROPERTY HOLDINGS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BENEFICIAL INTERESTS. 
THAT IS THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE STATUTE.  IT IS THAT WHICH
CONTROLS CONSTITUTIONALITY, AND NOT THE FORM IN WHICH A STATE HAS CAST
A TAX.  LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, 280; WISCONSIN
V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 443 ET SEQ. WHETHER A RHODE ISLAND
TRUSTEE CAN GO AGAINST HIS TRUST ESTATE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX WHICH
RHODE ISLAND EXACTS FROM HIM IS OF NO CONCERN TO RHODE ISLAND.  RHODE
ISLAND'S POWER TO TAX ITS RESIDENTS IS NOT CONTINGENT UPON IT.  A
TRUSTEESHIP IS A FREE UNDERTAKING. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

IF RHODE ISLAND HAD LAID A TAX ON ONE OF ITS CITIZENS INDIVIDUALLY, I
SHOULD THINK IT UNASSAILABLE EVEN IF THE BASIS FOR TAXING HIM WAS THAT
HE HELD THIS TRUSTEESHIP, AND PERHAPS THE TAX ON HIM COULD BE MEASURED
BY THE VALUE OF THE TRUST ESTATE.  IN THAT CASE THE STATE WOULD TAX
ONLY ITS OWN CITIZEN.  ONE IS PRETTY MUCH AT THE MERCY OF HIS OWN STATE
AS TO THE EVENTS OR RELATIONSHIP FOR WHICH IT WILL TAX HIM.  IF IT
WANTS TO MAKE THE HOLDING OF A TRUSTEESHIP TAXABLE, I KNOW OF NO
FEDERAL GROUNDS OF OBJECTION.  BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING DONE, NOR
WHAT THIS DECISION AUTHORIZES. 

IF RHODE ISLAND HAD TAXED THE INDIVIDUAL, HE MIGHT HAVE SOUGHT
REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE ESTATE.  WHETHER THE ESTATE WAS CHARGEABLE WOULD
BE LEFT TO DETERMINATION BY THE COURTS OF THE STATE SUPERVISING THE
TRUST.  THEY MIGHT CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THE TAX TO BE A PERSONAL
CHARGE, AS AN INCOME TAX WOULD DOUBTLESS BE.  OR THEY MIGHT FIND IT TO
BE AN EXPENSE OF ADMINISTRATION, SUCH AS A TRANSFER TAX, AND PROPERLY
TO BE BORNE BY THE FUND.  BUT HERE NO SUCH DECISION IS LEFT TO THE
COURTS WHICH CONTROL THE FUND - THE TAX IS LAID ON THE TRUSTEE AS SUCH
THE ESTATE IS THE TAXPAYER.    RHODE ISLAND CLAIMS THE POWER TO TAX
THE ESTATE SOLELY BECAUSE ONE OF ITS TRUSTEES RESIDES IN THAT STATE. 
NO PROPERTY IS IN RHODE ISLAND AND ITS COURTS ARE NOT SUPERVISING
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST.  THE ESTATE IS WHOLLY LOCATED IN NEW YORK
AND THE TRUSTEES DERIVE THEIR AUTHORITY, POWERS AND TITLE FROM ITS
COURTS AND TO THEM MUST ACCOUNT. 

I HAD NOT SUPPOSED THAT A TRUST FUND BECAME TAXABLE IN EVERY STATE IN
WHICH ONE OF ITS TRUSTEES MAY RESIDE.  OF COURSE, IN THIS INSTANCE IT
IS PROPOSED TO TAX ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE ESTATE AS ONLY ONE OF THE TWO
TRUSTEES IS RESIDENT IN RHODE ISLAND.  BUT THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ACT OF
GRACE IF THERE IS A RIGHT TO TAX AT ALL.  THE TRUSTEE HAS NO POWER
OVER, OR TITLE TO, ANY FRACTION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY THAT HE DOES NOT
HAVE OVER ALL OF IT.  IF MERE RESIDENCE OF A TRUSTEE IS SUCH A
CONDUCTOR OF STATE AUTHORITY THAT THROUGH HIM IT REACHES THE ESTATE, I
SEE NO REASON WHY IT SHOULD STOP AT A PART, NOR INDEED WHY A TRUSTEE
SUBJECT TO THE TAXING POWER OF SEVERAL STATES, CF. TEXAS V. FLORIDA,
306 U.S. 398, MAY NOT ALSO SUBJECT THE TRUST FUND TO SEVERAL STATE
TAXES BY MERELY MOVING ABOUT. 

THE DECISION IS A HARD BLOW TO THE PRACTICE OF NAMING INDIVIDUAL
TRUSTEES.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS NO POWER IN THE STATE TO LAY
THE TAX ON THE TRUST FUNDS, DESPITE UNQUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY TO TAX ITS
OWN CITIZEN-TRUSTEE INDIVIDUALLY. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON,
EXCEPT THAT I INTIMATE NO OPINION CONCERNING WHETHER RHODE ISLAND COULD
LAY A TAX UPON ONE OF ITS RESIDENTS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ACTING AS ONE
OF TWO OR MORE TRUSTEES, WHEN THE STATE'S ONLY CONNECTION WITH THE
TRUST ARISES FROM THE FACT OF HIS RESIDENCE.  THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE. 

WHETHER OR NOT DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS
STATE TAXATION OF ACTS, TRANSACTIONS, EVENTS OR PROPERTY IS ESSENTIALLY
A PRACTICAL MATTER AND ONE OF DEGREE, DEPENDING UPON THE EXISTENCE OF
SUFFICIENT FACTUAL CONNECTIONS, HAVING ECONOMIC AND LEGAL EFFECTS,
BETWEEN THE TAXING STATE AND THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX.  I DO NOT THINK
THE MERE FACT THAT ONE OF A NUMBER OF TRUSTEES RESIDES IN A STATE,
WITHOUT MORE, IS A SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION TO JUSTIFY A
LEVY BY THAT STATE UPON THE TRUST CORPUS, BY AN AD VALOREM TAX EITHER
FRACTIONAL OR ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE RES. 

IT MAY BECOME NECESSARY FOR CLAIMANTS, BENEFICIARIES OR OTHERS TO SUE
THE TRUSTEE IN RHODE ISLAND OR PERHAPS FOR HIM TO JOIN WITH OTHER
TRUSTEES IN SUING THIRD PERSONS THERE ABOUT TRUST MATTERS.  TO THAT
EXTENT BENEFIT AND PROTECTION MAY BE CONFERRED UPON THE TRUST.  BUT
THOSE NEEDS MAY ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY SORT OF BUSINESS OR
ACTIVITY, TRUST OR OTHER, LOCATED AND CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE STATE AS
LARGELY AS THIS TRUST'S AFFAIRS.  I HAD NOT SUPPOSED THAT MERELY
KEEPING OPEN THE STATE'S COURTS TO SUCH CLAIMS WOULD FURNISH A
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR BRINGING WITHIN ITS TAXING GRASP ALL PROPERTY
AFFECTED BY THE CLAIMS' ASSERTION.  THAT THE TRUST RES HERE CONSISTS OF
INTANGIBLES DOES NOT SEEM TO ME A SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR, IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED, TO JUSTIFY SO WIDE A REACH OF THE STATE'S
TAXING ARM. 

MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM HAS ITS APPROPRIATE USES FOR SUSTAINING
THE STATES' TAXING POWERS AFFECTING RESIDENTS AND THEIR EXTRASTATE
INTERESTS.  BUT WHEN IT IS APPLIED TO THE SPLIT OWNERSHIP OF A TRUST,
NOT ONLY AS BETWEEN TRUSTEE AND BENEFICIARY BUT ALSO AS AMONG SEVERAL
TRUSTEES, TO BRING THE TRUST RES WITHIN THE SEVERAL STATES' POWERS OF
TAXATION, MERELY BY VIRTUE OF THE RESIDENCE IN EACH OF ONE TRUSTEE AND
NOTHING MORE, THE FICTION I THINK IS CARRIED TOO FAR.  SOMETHING MORE
THAN AFFORDING A DOMICILIARY BASIS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, COUPLED WITH
THE SPLIT AND QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVE OWNERSHIP OF SUCH A TRUSTEE,
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUSTAIN THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX THE TRUST RES,
WHETHER FOR ALL OR ONLY A FRACTION OF ITS VALUE. 

FINALLY, WHATEVER MIGHT BE TRUE OF A SINGLE TRUSTEE OR OF SEVERAL
RESIDING IN A SINGLE STATE, I SHOULD DOUBT THE THESIS THAT THE INTEREST
OF ONE OF TWO OR MORE TRUSTEES IN A TRUST IS MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN THAT
OF A BENEFICIARY OR RECEIVES GREATER PROTECTION OR BENEFIT FROM THE
STATE OF HIS RESIDENCE.  AND IF THE BENEFICIARY'S RESIDENCE ALONE IS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A STATE'S POWER TO TAX THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST,
CF. BROOKE V. NORFOLK, 277 U.S. 27,  FN1  IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE MERE
RESIDENCE OF ONE OF A NUMBER OF TRUSTEES HARDLY WOULD SUPPLY A FIRMER
FOUNDATION. 

FN1  BUT CF. HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V.
VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83, 96. 
..END :










CLARK V. ALLEN, 331 U.S. 503 


NO. 626.  ARGUED APRIL 11, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1947.  - 156 F.2D
653, REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE IV OF THE TREATY OF 1923 WITH GERMANY,
WHICH ASSURES TO GERMAN HEIRS OF "ANY PERSON" HOLDING REALTY IN THE
UNITED STATES THE RIGHT TO INHERIT THE SAME, TO SELL IT WITHIN THREE
YEARS, TO WITHDRAW THE PROCEEDS, AND TO BE EXEMPT FROM DISCRIMINATORY
TAXATION, PREVAIL OVER ANY CONFLICTING PROVISION OF CALIFORNIA LAW -
UNLESS THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED OR ABROGATED. 
PP. 507-508. 

2.  SO FAR AS THE RIGHT TO INHERIT REALTY IS CONCERNED, THE TREATY
HAS NOT BEEN ABROGATED OR SUPERSEDED - ALTHOUGH THE RIGHT TO SELL IT
AND WITHDRAW THE PROCEEDS MAY HAVE BEEN ABROGATED AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS DISCRETIONARY POWER TO VEST THE PROPERTY IN ITSELF,
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RIGHTS OF THE OWNERS.  PP. 508-514. 

(A)  THE OUTBREAK OF WAR DOES NOT NECESSARILY SUSPEND OR ABROGATE
TREATY PROVISIONS.  P. 508. 

(B)  THE NATIONAL POLICY EXPRESSED IN THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT,
AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
RIGHT OF INHERITANCE OF REALTY GRANTED GERMAN ALIENS UNDER ARTICLE IV
OF THE TREATY.  PP. 510-512. 

(C)  THE TREATY OF BERLIN, WHICH ACCORDED THE UNITED STATES ALL
RIGHTS AND ADVANTAGES SPECIFIED IN THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JULY 2,
1921, VESTING IN THE UNITED STATES ABSOLUTE TITLE TO PROPERTY OF GERMAN
NATIONALS THEN HELD BY THE UNITED STATES, DID NOT ABROGATE THE RIGHT OF
GERMAN HEIRS UNDER THE 1923 TREATY WITH GERMANY TO INHERIT REALTY IN
THIS COUNTRY.  PP. 512-514. 

(D)  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE COLLAPSE AND SURRENDER OF GERMANY
PUT AN END TO SUCH PROVISIONS OF THE 1923 TREATY AS SURVIVED THE
OUTBREAK OF WAR OR THE OBLIGATIONS OF EITHER PARTY IN RESPECT TO THEM. 
P. 514. 

3.  THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE IV OF THE TREATY OF 1923 WITH GERMANY,
WHICH ASSURES TO GERMAN NATIONALS THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF THEIR
PERSONAL PROPERTY IN THIS COUNTRY, DOES NOT COVER PERSONALTY LOCATED IN
THIS COUNTRY WHICH AN AMERICAN CITIZEN UNDERTAKES TO LEAVE TO GERMAN
NATIONALS, BUT IT DOES COVER PERSONALTY IN THIS COUNTRY WHICH A GERMAN
NATIONAL UNDERTAKES TO DISPOSE OF BY WILL.  PP. 514-516, 517. 

4.  SECTION 259 OF THE CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE AS IT EXISTED IN 1942,
WHICH MADE THE RIGHT OF NON-RESIDENT ALIENS TO ACQUIRE PERSONAL
PROPERTY DEPENDENT UPON THE RECIPROCAL RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS TO
DO SO IN THE COUNTRIES OF WHICH SUCH ALIENS ARE INHABITANTS OR
CITIZENS, IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN INVASION BY THE STATE OF THE
FIELD OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS RESERVED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  PP. 516
517. 

CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN,
V. ALLEN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA HAVING BEQUEATHED HER ENTIRE ESTATE TO
CERTAIN GERMAN NATIONALS AFTER THE DECLARATION OF WAR ON GERMANY AND
THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN HAVING VESTED IN HIMSELF ALL THEIR RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE ESTATE, PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 9788, 11
FED. REG. 11981, ISSUED UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, A DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE
CUSTODIAN WAS ENTITLED TO THE ENTIRE NET ESTATE AND THAT THE EXECUTOR
AND THE CALIFORNIA HEIRS-AT-LAW HAD NO INTEREST IN THE ESTATE.  52
F.SUPP.  850.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.  147
F.2D 136.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 846, AND REVERSED. 
326 U.S. 490.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THEN HELD FOR THE EXECUTOR
AND CALIFORNIA HEIRS-AT-LAW.  156 F.2D 653.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 329 U.S. 706, AND SUBSTITUTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS
SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  329 U.S. 691.  AFFIRMED IN
PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, P. 518. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ALVINA WAGNER, A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA, DIED IN 1942, LEAVING REAL
AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SITUATE THERE.  BY A WILL DATED DECEMBER 23,
1941, AND ADMITTED TO PROBATE IN A CALIFORNIA COURT IN 1942, SHE
BEQUEATHED HER ENTIRE ESTATE TO FOUR RELATIVES WHO ARE NATIONALS AND
RESIDENTS OF GERMANY.  SIX HEIRS-AT-LAW, RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA, FILED
A PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF HEIRSHIP IN THE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS
CLAIMING THAT THE GERMAN NATIONALS WERE INELIGIBLE AS LEGATEES UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW.  FN1 

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A HEARING ON THAT PETITION.  FOR IN 1943 THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, TO WHOSE FUNCTIONS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS
RECENTLY SUCCEEDED,  FN2  VESTED IN HIMSELF ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND
INTEREST OF THE GERMAN NATIONALS IN THE ESTATE OF THIS DECEDENT.  FN3
HE THEREUPON INSTITUTED THIS ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE
EXECUTOR UNDER THE WILL AND THE CALIFORNIA HEIRS-AT-LAW FOR A
DETERMINATION THAT THEY HAD NO INTEREST IN THE ESTATE AND THAT HE WAS
ENTITLED TO THE ENTIRE NET ESTATE, AFTER PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND
OTHER EXPENSES.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED JUDGMENT FOR THE CUSTODIAN
ON THE PLEADINGS.  52 F.SUPP.  850.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER.  147 F.2D 136.  THE CASE CAME HERE ON CERTIORARI. 
WE HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE MERITS.  326 U.S. 490.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THEREUPON HELD
FOR RESPONDENTS.  156 F.2D 653.  THE CASE IS HERE AGAIN ON A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE THE ISSUES RAISED ARE
OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 

FIRST.  OUR PROBLEM STARTS WITH THE TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP, COMMERCE
AND CONSULAR RIGHTS WITH GERMANY, SIGNED DECEMBER 8, 1923, AND
PROCLAIMED OCTOBER 14, 1925.  44 STAT. 2132.  IT HAS DIFFERENT
PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF REALTY AND
PERSONALTY, WHICH WE WILL TREAT SEPARATELY.  THE ONE PERTAINING TO
REALTY, CONTAINED IN ARTICLE IV, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHERE, ON THE DEATH OF ANY PERSON HOLDING REAL OR OTHER IMMOVABLE
PROPERTY OR INTERESTS THEREIN WITHIN THE TERRITORIES OF ONE HIGH
CONTRACTING PARTY, SUCH PROPERTY OR INTERESTS THEREIN WOULD, BY THE
LAWS OF THE COUNTRY OR BY A TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION, DESCEND OR PASS
TO A NATIONAL OF THE OTHER HIGH CONTRACTING PARTY, WHETHER RESIDENT OR
NON-RESIDENT, WERE HE NOT DISQUALIFIED BY THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY WHERE
SUCH PROPERTY OR INTERESTS THEREIN IS OR ARE SITUATED, SUCH NATIONAL
SHALL BE ALLOWED A TERM OF THREE YEARS IN WHICH TO SELL THE SAME, THIS
TERM TO BE REASONABLY PROLONGED IF CIRCUMSTANCES RENDER IT NECESSARY,
AND WITHDRAW THE PROCEEDS THEREOF, WITHOUT RESTRAINT OR INTERFERENCE,
AND EXEMPT FROM ANY SUCCESSION, PROBATE OR ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES OR
CHARGES OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED IN LIKE CASES UPON THE
NATIONALS OF THE COUNTRY FROM WHICH SUCH PROCEEDS MAY BE DRAWN." 

THE RIGHTS SECURED ARE IN TERMS A RIGHT TO SELL WITHIN A SPECIFIED
TIME PLUS A RIGHT TO WITHDRAW THE PROCEEDS AND AN EXEMPTION FROM
DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION.  IT IS PLAIN THAT THOSE RIGHTS EXTEND TO THE
GERMAN HEIRS OF "ANY PERSON" HOLDING REALTY IN THE UNITED STATES.  AND
THOUGH THEY ARE NOT EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF OWNERSHIP OR THE RIGHT TO
INHERIT, THAT IS THEIR IMPORT AND MEANING.  TECHT V. HUGHES, 229 N.Y.
222, 240, 128 N.E. 185, 191; AHRENS V. AHRENS, 144 IOWA 486, 489, 123
N.W. 164, 166.  AND SEE PEOPLE V. GERKE, 5 CAL. 381; SCHARPF V.
SCHMIDT, 172 ILL. 255, 50 N.E. 182; COLSON V. CARLSON, 116 KAN. 593,
227 P. 360; GOOS V. BROCKS, 117 NEB. 750, 223 N.W. 13. 

IF, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY HAVE NOT BEEN SUPERSEDED
OR ABROGATED, THEY PREVAIL OVER ANY REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA LAW
WHICH CONFLICT WITH THEM.  HAUENSTEIN V. LYNHAM, 100 U.S. 483, 488
490. 

SECOND.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THESE PROVISIONS
OF THE TREATY HAD BEEN ABROGATED.  IT RELIED FOR THAT CONCLUSION ON THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 40 STAT. 411, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1 ET
SEQ., AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 55 STAT. 839, 50 U.S.C.
APP. (SUPP. I, 1941) SEC. 5, AND THE TREATY OF BERLIN, 42 STAT. 1939. 

WE START FROM THE PREMISE THAT THE OUTBREAK OF WAR DOES NOT
NECESSARILY SUSPEND OR ABROGATE TREATY PROVISIONS.  SOCIETY FOR THE
PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL V. NEW HAVEN, 8 WHEAT.  464, 494-495.  THERE
MAY OF COURSE BE SUCH AN INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN A PARTICULAR TREATY
PROVISION AND THE MAINTENANCE OF A STATE OF WAR AS TO MAKE CLEAR THAT
IT SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED.  KARNUTH V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 231.  OR
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR THE CONGRESS MAY HAVE FORMULATED A NATIONAL
POLICY QUITE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF A TREATY IN WHOLE OR
IN PART.  THIS WAS THE VIEW STATED IN TECHT V. HUGHES, SUPRA, AND WE
BELIEVE IT TO BE THE CORRECT ONE.  THAT CASE CONCERNED THE RIGHT OF A
RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMY TO INHERIT REAL PROPERTY IN NEW YORK.  UNDER NEW
YORK LAW, AS IT THEN STOOD, AN ALIEN ENEMY HAD NO SUCH RIGHT.  THE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE RIGHT WAS GRANTED BY A RECIPROCAL INHERITANCE
PROVISION IN A TREATY WITH AUSTRIA WHICH WAS COUCHED IN TERMS
PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THOSE WE HAVE HERE.  THE COURT FOUND NOTHING
INCOMPATIBLE WITH NATIONAL POLICY IN PERMITTING THE RESIDENT ALIEN
ENEMY TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF INHERITANCE GRANTED BY THE TREATY.  CARDOZO,
J., SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, STATED THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES AS
FOLLOWS: 

"THE QUESTION IS NOT WHAT STATES MAY DO AFTER WAR HAS SUPERVENED, AND
THIS WITHOUT BREACH OF THEIR DUTY AS MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY OF
NATIONS.  THE QUESTION IS WHAT COURTS ARE TO PRESUME THAT THEY HAVE
DONE.  ...  PRESIDENT AND SENATE MAY DENOUNCE THE TREATY, AND THUS
TERMINATE ITS LIFE.  CONGRESS MAY ENACT AN INCONSISTENT RULE, WHICH
WILL CONTROL THE ACTION OF THE COURTS (FONG YUE TING V. U.S., 149 U.S.
698).  THE TREATY OF PEACE ITSELF MAY SET UP NEW RELATIONS, AND
TERMINATE EARLIER COMPACTS EITHER TACITLY OR EXPRESSLY.  ...  BUT UNTIL
SOME ONE OF THESE THINGS IS DONE, UNTIL SOME ONE OF THESE EVENTS
OCCURS, WHILE WAR IS STILL FLAGRANT, AND THE WILL OF THE POLITICAL
DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT UNREVEALED, THE COURTS, AS I VIEW THEIR
FUNCTION, PLAY A HUMBLER AND MORE CAUTIOUS PART.  IT IS NOT FOR THEM TO
DENOUNCE TREATIES GENERALLY, EN BLOC.  THEIR PART IT IS, AS ONE
PROVISION OR ANOTHER IS INVOLVED IN SOME ACTUAL CONTROVERSY BEFORE
THEM, TO DETERMINE WHETHER, ALONE, OR BY FORCE OF CONNECTION WITH AN
INSEPARABLE SCHEME, THE PROVISION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY OR
SAFETY OF THE NATION IN THE EMERGENCY OF WAR, AND HENCE PRESUMABLY
INTENDED TO BE LIMITED TO TIMES OF PEACE.  THE MERE FACT THAT OTHER
PORTIONS OF THE TREATY ARE SUSPENDED OR EVEN ABROGATED IS NOT
CONCLUSIVE.  THE TREATY DOES NOT FALL IN ITS ENTIRETY UNLESS IT HAS THE
CHARACTER OF AN INDIVISIBLE ACT."  229 N.Y. PP. 242-243, 128 N.E. P.
192. 

TO THE SAME EFFECT SEE GOOS V. BROCKS, SUPRA; STATE V. REARDON, 120
KAN. 614, 245 P. 158.  FN4 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE NATIONAL POLICY EXPRESSED IN THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED, IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RIGHT OF
INHERITANCE GRANTED GERMAN ALIENS UNDER ARTICLE IV OF THE TREATY.  IT
IS TRUE THAT SINCE THE DECLARATION OF WAR ON DECEMBER 11, 1941(55 STAT.
796), THE ACT AND THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED THEREUNDER HAVE
PROHIBITED THE ENTRY OF GERMAN NATIONALS INTO THIS COUNTRY,  FN5  HAVE
OUTLAWED COMMUNICATIONS OR TRANSACTIONS OF A COMMERCIAL CHARACTER WITH
THEM,  FN6  AND HAVE PRECLUDED THE REMOVAL OF MONEY OR PROPERTY FROM
THIS COUNTRY FOR THEIR USE OR ACCOUNT.  FN7  WE ASSUME THAT THESE
PROVISIONS ABROGATE THE PARTS OF ARTICLE IV OF THE TREATY DEALING WITH
THE LIQUIDATION OF THE INHERITANCE AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PROCEEDS,
EVEN THOUGH THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND
TRANSACTIONS MAY BE LICENSED.  FN8  BUT THE ACT AND THE EXECUTIVE
ORDERS DO NOT EVINCE SUCH HOSTILITY TO OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY BY ALIEN
ENEMIES AS TO IMPLY THAT ITS ACQUISITION CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL
POLICY.  THERE IS, INDEED, TACIT RECOGNITION THAT ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTY BY INHERITANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT.  FOR
THE CUSTODIAN IS EXPRESSLY EMPOWERED TO REPRESENT THE ALIEN ENEMY HEIR
IN ALL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THOSE INCIDENT TO SUCCESSION.  FN9
MUCH RELIANCE FOR THE CONTRARY VIEW IS PLACED ON THE POWER TO VEST
ALIEN PROPERTY IN AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN10  BUT THE POWER
TO VEST, I.E., TO TAKE AWAY, WHAT MAY BE OWNED OR ACQUIRED DOES NOT
REVEAL A POLICY AT ODDS WITH THE RECIPROCAL RIGHT TO INHERIT GRANTED BY
ARTICLE IV OF THE TREATY.  FOR THE POWER TO VEST IS DISCRETIONARY NOT
MANDATORY.  THE LOSS OF THE INHERITANCE BY VESTING IS, THEREFORE, NOT
INEVITABLE.  BUT MORE IMPORTANT, VESTING DOES NOT NECESSARILY DEPRIVE
THE ALIEN ENEMY OF ALL THE BENEFITS OF HIS INHERITANCE.  IF HE OWES
MONEY TO AMERICAN CREDITORS, THE PROPERTY WILL BE APPLIED TO THE
PAYMENT OF HIS DEBTS.  FN11 

TO GIVE THE POWER TO VEST THE EFFECT WHICH RESPONDENTS URGE WOULD,
INDEED, PROVE TOO MUCH.  THAT POWER IS NOT RESTRICTED TO PROPERTY OF
ALIEN ENEMIES.  IT EXTENDS TO THE PROPERTY OF NATIONALS OF ANY FOREIGN
COUNTRY, FRIEND OR ENEMY.  FN12 PROVISIONS COMPARABLE TO THAT CONTAINED
IN ARTICLE IV OF THE PRESENT TREATY ARE FOUND IN EXISTING TREATIES WITH
FRIENDLY NATIONS.  FN13  WE WILL NOT READILY ASSUME THAT WHEN CONGRESS
ENACTED SEC. 5(B) AND AUTHORIZED THE VESTING OF PROPERTY, IT HAD A
PURPOSE TO ABROGATE ALL SUCH TREATY CLAUSES.  CF. COOK V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 102, 120.  YET IF THE POWER TO VEST IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE RIGHT OF INHERITANCE OF AN ALIEN ENEMY, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE
WHY IT IS ANY LESS SO WHEN OTHER ALIENS ARE INVOLVED.  FINALLY, THERE
IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND THE USE
THEREOF WHICH SEC. 5(B) ITSELF RECOGNIZES.  THAT SECTION NOT ONLY
GRANTS THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO VEST; IT LIKEWISE GRANTS HIM
AUTHORITY UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES TO "PREVENT OR PROHIBIT, ANY
ACQUISITION  ...  OF  ...  ANY PROPERTY IN WHICH ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR
A NATIONAL THEREOF HAS ANY INTEREST  ...  " SEC. 5(B)(1)(B).  NO ACTION
HAS BEEN TAKEN TO PREVENT OR PROHIBIT THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY
INHERITANCE ON THE PART OF ENEMY ALIENS.  THE GRANT OF EXPRESS POWER TO
CUT OFF, INTER ALIA, THE RIGHT OF INHERITANCE AND THE NON-EXERCISE OF
THE POWER LEND SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT,
AS AMENDED, DID NOT WITHOUT MORE SUSPEND OR ABROGATE ARTICLE IV OF THE
PRESENT TREATY.  THIS CONCLUSION SQUARES WITH THE GENERAL RULE STATED
IN KARNUTH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 237, THAT TREATY PROVISIONS
"GIVING THE RIGHT TO CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS OF ONE OF THE HIGH
CONTRACTING POWERS TO CONTINUE TO HOLD AND TRANSMIT LAND IN THE
TERRITORY OF THE OTHER" SURVIVE THE OUTBREAK OF WAR. 

THE ARGUMENT BASED ON THE TREATY OF BERLIN IS INCONCLUSIVE.  THE
JOINT RESOLUTION OF JULY 2, 1921, 42 STAT. 105, 106, DECLARED THAT
PROPERTY OF GERMAN NATIONALS HELD BY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE
RETAINED AND NO DISPOSITION MADE OF IT, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
BY LAW, UNTIL THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT MADE SUITABLE PROVISION FOR THE
SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS OF AMERICAN NATIONALS AGAINST IT.  THUS ABSOLUTE
TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAME VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES. 
CUMMINGS V. DEUTSCHE BANK, 300 U.S. 115.  THE TREATY OF BERLIN ACCORDED
THE UNITED STATES ALL RIGHTS AND ADVANTAGES SPECIFIED IN THE
RESOLUTION.  BUT THE TREATY OF 1828 WITH PRUSSIA CONTAINED A PROVISION
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO ARTICLE IV OF THE PRESENT TREATY.  8 STAT.
378, 384, ART. XIV.  HENCE IT IS ARGUED THAT IF THE TREATY OF 1828
SURVIVED THE OUT-BREAK OF WAR AND THUS GUARANTEED PROPERTY RIGHTS IN
GERMAN NATIONALS BY WAY OF INHERITANCE DURING THAT WAR, IT WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO HAVE NEGOTIATED A NEW CONVENTION COVERING THE
SAME GROUND IN 1923.  AND IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT IF THE PROVISION IN
THE EARLIER TREATY DID NOT SURVIVE THE WAR, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE
SAME PARTIES WOULD INTEND LIKE PROVISIONS IN THE LATER TREATY TO HAVE A
DIFFERENT EFFECT.    THE ATTITUDE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS VARIED. 
IN 1918 SECRETARY LANSING EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT SUCH TREATY
PROVISIONS WERE NOT IN FORCE DURING THE WAR WITH GERMANY AND AUSTRIA. 
FN14 TODAY THE DEPARTMENT APPARENTLY TAKES THE OTHER VIEW.  FN15  WE
HAVE NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENTION OF THE HIGH CONTRACTING
PARTIES OUTSIDE THE WORDS OF THE PRESENT TREATY.  THE ATTITUDE AND
CONDUCT UNDER EARLIER TREATIES, REFLECTING AS THEY DID NUMEROUS
CONTINGENCIES AND CONDITIONS, LEAVE NO SURE GUIDE TO THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE PRESENT TREATY.  WHERE THE RELEVANT HISTORICAL SOURCES AND THE
INSTRUMENT ITSELF GIVE NO PLAIN INDICATION THAT IT IS TO BECOME
INOPERATIVE IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON THE OUTBREAK OF WAR, WE ARE LEFT TO
DETERMINE, AS TECHT V. HUGHES, SUPRA, INDICATES, WHETHER THE PROVISION
UNDER WHICH RIGHTS ARE ASSERTED IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH NATIONAL POLICY IN
TIME OF WAR.  SO FAR AS THE RIGHT OF INHERITANCE OF REALTY UNDER
ARTICLE IV OF THE PRESENT TREATY IS CONCERNED, WE FIND NO
INCOMPATIBILITY WITH NATIONAL POLICY, FOR REASONS ALREADY GIVEN. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE TREATY OF 1923 WITH GERMANY MUST BE
HELD TO HAVE FAILED TO SURVIVE THE WAR, SINCE GERMANY, AS A RESULT OF
ITS DEFEAT AND THE OCCUPATION BY THE ALLIES, HAS CEASED TO EXIST AS AN
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.  BUT THE QUESTION
WHETHER A STATE IS IN A POSITION TO PERFORM ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS IS
ESSENTIALLY A POLITICAL QUESTION.  TERLINDEN V. AMES, 184 U.S. 270,
288.  WE FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS HAVE
CONSIDERED THE COLLAPSE AND SURRENDER OF GERMANY AS PUTTING AN END TO
SUCH PROVISIONS OF THE AS SURVIVED THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR OR THE
OBLIGATION OF EITHER PARTY IN RESPECT TO THEM.  THE ALLIED CONTROL
COUNCIL HAS, INDEED, ASSUMED CONTROL OF GERMANY'S FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND
TREATY OBLIGATIONS FN16  - A POLICY AND COURSE OF CONDUCT BY THE
POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENFORCEMENT, RATHER THAN THE REPUDIATION, OF PRE-EXISTING TREATIES. 

THIRD.  THE PROBLEM OF THE PERSONALTY RAISES DISTINCT QUESTIONS. 
ARTICLE IV OF THE TREATY CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING PROVISION PERTAINING TO
IT: 

"NATIONALS OF EITHER HIGH CONTRACTING PARTY MAY HAVE FULL POWER TO
DISPOSE OF THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY OF EVERY KIND WITHIN THE TERRITORIES
OF THE OTHER, BY TESTAMENT, DONATION, OR OTHERWISE, AND THEIR HEIRS,
LEGATEES AND DONEES, OF WHATSOEVER NATIONALITY, WHETHER RESIDENT OR NON
RESIDENT, SHALL SUCCEED TO SUCH PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND MAY TAKE
POSSESSION THEREOF, EITHER BY THEMSELVES OR BY OTHERS ACTING FOR THEM,
AND RETAIN OR DISPOSE OF THE SAME AT THEIR PLEASURE SUBJECT TO THE
PAYMENT OF SUCH DUTIES OR CHARGES ONLY AS THE NATIONALS OF THE HIGH
CONTRACTING PARTY WITHIN WHOSE TERRITORIES SUCH PROPERTY MAY BE OR
BELONG SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY IN LIKE CASES." 

A PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL PROVISION OF THE TREATY OF 1844 WITH
WURTTEMBURG, ART. III, 8 STAT. 588, WAS BEFORE THE COURT IN
FREDERICKSON V. LOUISIANA, 23 HOW.  445.  IN THAT CASE THE TESTATOR WAS
A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, HIS LEGATEES BEING CITIZENS AND
RESIDENTS OF WURTTEMBERG.  LOUISIANA, WHERE THE TESTATOR WAS DOMICILED,
LEVIED A SUCCESSION TAX OF 10 PER CENT ON LEGATEES NOT DOMICILED IN THE
UNITED STATES.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE TREATY DID NOT COVER THE "CASE
OF A CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES RESIDING AT HOME,
AND DISPOSING OF PROPERTY THERE IN FAVOR OF A CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF THE
OTHER  ...  "  PP. 447-448.  THAT DECISION WAS MADE IN 1860.  IN 1917
THE COURT FOLLOWED IT IN CASES INVOLVING THREE OTHER TREATIES. 
PETERSEN V. IOWA, 245 U.S. 170; DUUS V. BROWN, 245 U.S. 176; SKARDERUD
V. TAX COMMISSION, 245 U.S. 633. 

THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THOSE CASES IS, TO SAY THE LEAST,
PERMISSIBLE WHEN THE SYNTAX OF THE SENTENCES DEALING WITH REALTY AND
PERSONALTY IS CONSIDERED.  SO FAR AS REALTY IS CONCERNED, THE TESTATOR
INCLUDES "ANY PERSON"; AND THE PROPERTY COVERED IS THAT WITHIN THE
TERRITORY OF EITHER OF THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES.  IN CASE OF
PERSONALITY, THE PROVISION GOVERNS THE RIGHT OF "NATIONALS" OF EITHER
CONTRACTING PARTY TO DISPOSE OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF
THE "OTHER" CONTRACTING PARTY; AND IT IS "SUCH PERSONAL PROPERTY" THAT
THE "HEIRS, LEGATEES AND DONEES" ARE ENTITLED TO TAKE. 

PETITIONER, HOWEVER, PRESENTS A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE HISTORY OF
THE CLAUSE WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT IN FREDERICKSON V. LOUISIANA,
SUPRA, AND WHICH BEARS OUT THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IT GRANTS THE FOREIGN
HEIR THE RIGHT TO SUCCEED TO HIS INHERITANCE OR THE PROCEEDS THEREOF. 
BUT WE DO NOT STOP TO REVIEW THAT HISTORY.  FOR THE CONSISTENT JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANGUAGE SINCE 1860 HAS GIVEN IT A CHARACTER WHICH
THE TREATY-MAKING AGENCIES HAVE NOT SEEN FIT TO ALTER.  AND THAT
CONSTRUCTION IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE
TREATY.  WE THEREFORE DO NOT DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO CHANGE THAT
CONSTRUCTION AT THIS LATE DATE, EVEN THOUGH AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER THE
OTHER VIEW MIGHT HAVE MUCH TO COMMEND IT. 

WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT ARTICLE IV OF THE TREATY DOES NOT COVER
PERSONALTY LOCATED IN THIS COUNTRY AND WHICH AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
UNDERTAKES TO LEAVE TO GERMAN NATIONALS.  WE DO NOT KNOW FROM THE
PRESENT RECORD THE NATIONALITY OF ALVINA WAGNER.  BUT SINCE THE ISSUE
ARISES ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, WE
PROCEED ON THE ASSUMPTION LESS FAVORABLE TO IT, VIZ., THAT SHE WAS AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN. 

FOURTH.  IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PROVISION OF THE
TREATY IS INAPPLICABLE, THE PERSONALTY MAY NOT BE DISPOSED OF PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE BECAUSE THAT STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
ISSUES UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE NOT RAISED AS IN TERRACE V.
THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197.  THE CHALLENGE TO THE STATUTE IS THAT IT IS AN
EXTENSION OF STATE POWER INTO THE FIELD OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, WHICH IS
EXCLUSIVELY RESERVED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
THAT ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT UNDER THE STATUTE THE RIGHT OF
NONRESIDENT ALIENS TO TAKE BY SUCCESSION OR TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION IS
DEPENDENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF A RECIPROCAL RIGHT ON THE PART OF
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO TAKE PERSONALTY ON THE SAME TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF THE OTHER NATION.  FN17  THE
ARGUMENT IS THAT BY THIS METHOD CALIFORNIA SEEKS TO PROMOTE THE RIGHT
OF AMERICAN CITIZENS TO INHERIT ABROAD BY OFFERING TO ALIENS RECIPROCAL
RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE IN CALIFORNIA.  SUCH AN OFFER OF RECIPROCAL
ARRANGEMENTS IS SAID TO BE A MATTER FOR SETTLEMENT BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ON A NATION-WIDE BASIS. 

IN BLYTHE V. HINCKLEY, 180 U.S. 333, CALIFORNIA HAD GRANTED ALIENS AN
UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO INHERIT PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  THE ALIEN
CLAIMANT WAS A CITIZEN OF GREAT BRITAIN WITH WHOM THE UNITED STATES HAD
NO TREATY PROVIDING FOR INHERITANCE BY ALIENS IN THIS COUNTRY.  THE
ARGUMENT WAS THAT A GRANT OF RIGHTS TO ALIENS BY A STATE WAS, IN
ABSENCE OF A TREATY, A FORBIDDEN ENTRY INTO FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  THE COURT
REJECTED THE ARGUMENT AS BEING AN EXTRAORDINARY ONE.  THE OBJECTION TO
THE PRESENT STATUTE IS EQUALLY FARFETCHED. 

RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION TO PROPERTY ARE DETERMINED BY LOCAL LAW.  SEE
LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 193; IRVING TRUST CO. V. DAY, 314 U.S.
556, 562.  THOSE RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY AN OVERRIDING FEDERAL
POLICY, AS WHERE A TREATY MAKES DIFFERENT OR CONFLICTING ARRANGEMENTS. 
HAUENSTEIN V. LYNHAM, SUPRA.  THEN THE STATE POLICY MUST GIVE WAY.  CF.
HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52.  BUT HERE THERE IS NO TREATY
GOVERNING THE RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION TO THE PERSONAL PROPERTY.  NOR HAS
CALIFORNIA ENTERED THE FORBIDDEN DOMAIN OF NEGOTIATING WITH A FOREIGN
COUNTRY, UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 316-17,
OR MAKING A COMPACT WITH IT CONTRARY TO THE PROHIBITION OF ARTICLE I,
SOME INCIDENTAL OR INDIRECT EFFECT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  BUT THAT IS
TRUE OF MANY STATE LAWS WHICH NONE WOULD CLAIM CROSS THE FORBIDDEN
LINE. 

IN SUMMARY, WE HOLD THAT DISPOSITION OF THE REALTY IS GOVERNED BY
ARTICLE IV OF THE TREATY.  DISPOSITION OF THE PERSONALTY, HOWEVER, IS
NOT GOVERNED BY THE TREATY UNLESS IT IS DETERMINED THAT ALVINA WAGNER
WAS A GERMAN NATIONAL.  IF SHE WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, DISPOSITION OF
THE PERSONALTY IS GOVERNED BY CALIFORNIA LAW.  WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE WHICH WOULD BAR THE CALIFORNIA
HEIRS-AT-LAW IS A QUESTION ON WHICH WE INTIMATE NO OPINION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART, AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH
THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SECTION 259, CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE, IN 1942 PROVIDED: 

"THE RIGHTS OF ALIENS NOT RESIDING WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS
TERRITORIES TO TAKE EITHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR THE PROCEEDS
THEREOF IN THIS STATE BY SUCCESSION OR TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION, UPON
THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES IS DEPENDENT IN EACH CASE UPON THE EXISTENCE OF A RECIPROCAL
RIGHT UPON THE PART OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO TAKE REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THE PROCEEDS THEREOF UPON THE SAME TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES OF
WHICH SUCH ALIENS ARE INHABITANTS AND CITIZENS AND UPON THE RIGHTS OF
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECEIVE BY PAYMENT TO THEM WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES OR ITS TERRITORIES MONEY ORIGINATING FROM THE ESTATES OF
PERSONS DYING WITHIN SUCH FOREIGN COUNTRIES." 


"IF SUCH RECIPROCAL RIGHTS ARE NOT FOUND TO EXIST AND IF NO HEIRS
OTHER THAN SUCH ALIENS ARE FOUND ELIGIBLE TO TAKE SUCH PROPERTY, THE
PROPERTY SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AS ESCHEATED PROPERTY." 

THE CONDITION WITH RESPECT TO RECEIPT OF MONEYS IN THE UNITED STATES
WAS REPEALED IN 1945, WHILE THIS CASE WAS PENDING.  CAL. STATS. 1945,
C. 1160, SEC. 1, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 1945.  UNDER THE ORIGINAL ACT,
THE NON-RESIDENT ALIENS HAD THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE FACT OF
EXISTENCE OF THE RECIPROCAL RIGHTS.  SEC. 259.1.  BY THE 1945 AMENDMENT
THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE NON-EXISTENCE OF SUCH RECIPROCAL RIGHT
WAS PLACED ON HIM WHO CHALLENGED THE RIGHT OF THE NON-RESIDENT ALIENS
TO TAKE.  SECTION 259.2 WAS REPEALED. 

FN2  EXEC. ORDER NO. 9788, OCT. 15, 1946, 11 FED. REG. 11981. 

FN3  VESTING ORDER NO. 762, 8 FED. REG. 1252. 

FN4  FOR A RECENT REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITIES SEE LENOIR, THE EFFECT OF
WAR ON BILATERAL TREATIES, 34 GEO. L.J. 129. 

FN5  SEC. 3(B). 

FN6  SEC. 3(A). 

FN7  SEC. 7(C); SEC. 5(B), AS AMENDED; EXEC. ORDER NO. 8785, 3 C.F.R.
CUM. SUPP. 948. 

FN8  SEC. 5(A). 

FN9  EXEC. ORDER NO. 9193, P5, 3 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 1174, 1176. 

FN10  SECTION 5(B)(1), AS AMENDED, PROVIDES IN PART: 

"DURING THE TIME OF WAR OR DURING ANY OTHER PERIOD OF NATIONAL
EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT  ...  ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST OF
ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR NATIONAL THEREOF SHALL VEST, WHEN, AS, AND UPON
THE TERMS, DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT, IN SUCH AGENCY OR PERSON AS MAY
BE DESIGNATED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE PRESIDENT, AND UPON SUCH TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE SUCH INTEREST OR PROPERTY
SHALL BE HELD, USED, ADMINISTERED, LIQUIDATED, SOLD, OR OTHERWISE DEALT
WITH IN THE INTEREST OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
SUCH DESIGNATED AGENCY OR PERSON MAY PERFORM ANY AND ALL ACTS INCIDENT
TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OR FURTHERANCE OF THESE PURPOSES  ...  " 

FN11  60 STAT. 925, ADDING SEC. 34 TO THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN13  TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN, ARTS. I, II, MARCH 2, 1899, 31 STAT.
1939.  TREATY WITH NORWAY, ART. IV, JUNE 5, 1928, 47 STAT. 2135, 2138. 

FN14  U.S. FOREIGN REL., 1918 SUPP. 2, P. 309(DEPT.  STATE 1933); VI
HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1943) P. 327. 

FN15  LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE,
JOSEPH C. GREW, DATED MAY 21, 1945, COMMENTING ON THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION. 

FN16  THE AXIS IN DEFEAT, STATE DEPT. PUB. NO. 2423, PP. 71, 72, 77. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING IN PART. 

I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE REAL
ESTATE.  BUT, AS TO THE PERSONAL PROPERTY, I THINK THE CAUSE SHOULD BE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF ALVINA WAGNER'S
NATIONALITY, WITHOUT EXPRESSION OF OPINION HERE UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE. 

THE DECISION NOW MADE ON THAT ISSUE, BY VIRTUE OF THE COURT'S
HYPOTHESIZING THAT SHE WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, WILL BE RENDERED BOTH
MOOT AND ADVISORY IN CHARACTER IF IT IS FOUND, AS IT MAY WELL BE IN THE
DISTRICT COURT'S FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, THAT SHE WAS A GERMAN NATIONAL. 
THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY DECLINED TO DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
ON HYPOTHETICAL PRESENTATIONS.  RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331
U.S. 549.  THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH
CONCEIVABLY ANOTHER APPEAL MIGHT BE SAVED BY INDULGING THE PRESUMPTION
WHICH THE COURT MAKES.  IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT CONSTITUTIONAL
DECISIONS BE RESERVED UNTIL THE ISSUES CALLING FOR THEM ARE SQUARELY
AND INESCAPABLY PRESENTED, FACTUALLY AS WELL AS LEGALLY, THAN IT IS TO
EXPEDITE THE TERMINATION OF LITIGATION OR THE PROCEDURAL CONVENIENCE OF
THE PARTIES. 
..END :

















RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. B. & O.R. CO., 331 U.S. 519 


NO. 970.  ARGUED MAY 6, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1947.  - REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 17(11) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED BY
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, A UNION DULY DESIGNATED AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES OF A RAILROAD IS GIVEN AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 24(A)(1) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, TO INTERVENE IN A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 16(12) TO ENJOIN
THE RAILROAD AND ITS EMPLOYEES FROM VIOLATING AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WHERE THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT WOULD
PREVENT THE RAILROAD FROM CARRYING OUT A CONTRACT WITH THE UNION AND
WAS DIRECTED IN PART AGAINST THE EMPLOYEES.  PP. 525-526. 

(A)  THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION GRANTED TO REPRESENTATIVES OF
EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS BY SEC. 17(11) APPLIES TO A COURT PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 16(12) AND NOT MERELY TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 
PP. 526-530. 

(B)  THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE GRANTED BY SEC. 17(11) IS ABSOLUTE AND
NOT MERELY PERMISSIVE.  PP. 530-532. 

(C)  A SUIT IS ONE "AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES," WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 17(11), IF THE EMPLOYEES WOULD BE PREJUDICED OR BOUND BY ANY
JUDGMENT THAT MIGHT BE ENTERED IN THE CASE.  PP. 530, 531. 

2.  AN ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT DENYING A UNION THE RIGHT UNDER SEC.
17(11) TO INTERVENE IN SUCH A CASE IS APPEALABLE TO THIS COURT, WHICH
HAS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON ITS MERITS.  PP. 524-525,
531-532. 

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION. 

A DISTRICT COURT DENIED A PETITION OF A UNION OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES
TO INTERVENE UNDER SEC. 17(11) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND RULE
24(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER
SEC. 16(12) TO ENJOIN THE RAILROAD AND ITS EMPLOYEES FROM VIOLATING AN
ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
REVERSED, P. 532. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OUR CONCERN HERE IS WITH THE INTERVENTION RIGHTS OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES IN A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THE RAILROAD UNDER SEC.
16(12) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(12). 

THE ORIGIN OF THIS SUIT IS TO BE FOUND IN AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ON MAY 16, 1922.  CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE,
71 I.C.C. 631.  SEE ALSO CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258.  THE
COMMISSION THERE APPROVED THE PURCHASE BY THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD
CO. (CENTRAL) OF ALL THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE CHICAGO RIVER & INDIANA
RAILROAD CO. (RIVER ROAD); IT ALSO AUTHORIZED THE LEASING TO RIVER ROAD
OF ALL THE PROPERTIES OF THE CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY CO. (JUNCTION)
FOR 99 YEARS AND THEREAFTER, AT THE LESSEE'S OPTION, IN PERPETUITY. 
AMONG THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WERE TRACKAGE AND SWITCHING FACILITIES
AT THE UNION STOCK YARDS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, CONNECTING WITH VARIOUS
TRUNK LINES.  PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION ORDER, THE PRACTICE HAD BEEN FOR
THE TRUNK LINE RAILROADS TO USE THEIR OWN POWER AND CREWS TO MOVE THEIR
EMPTY AND LOADED LIVESTOCK CARS OVER THESE TRACKS TO AND FROM THE
LOADING PLACES IN THE UNION STOCK YARDS.  FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF SO
MOVING THEIR CARS, THE RAILROADS WERE CHARGED $1.00 PER CAR, LOADED OR
EMPTY. 

THE COMMISSION MADE VARIOUS CONDITIONS TO ITS APPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSED TRANSACTIONS.  THE THIRD CONDITION PROVIDED:  "THE PRESENT
TRAFFIC AND OPERATING RELATIONSHIPS EXISTING BETWEEN THE JUNCTION AND
RIVER ROAD AND ALL CARRIERS OPERATING IN CHICAGO SHALL BE CONTINUED, IN
SO FAR AS SUCH MATTERS ARE WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE CENTRAL."  71
I.C.C. AT 639.  THIS CONDITION IS STILL IN EFFECT, THE COMMISSION'S
DECISION AND ORDER HAVING BEEN FOUND TO BE VALID AND BINDING ON ALL
PARTIES IN A PROCEEDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN 1929.  FN1 

THE TRUNK LINE RAILROADS HAVE CONTINUED TO USE THEIR OWN POWER AND
CREWS IN MOVING THEIR LIVESTOCK CARS OVER THE TRACKAGE OPERATED BY
RIVER ROAD AND HAVE PAID RIVER ROAD THE AMOUNT OF $1.00 PER CAR.  BUT
ON JANUARY 25, 1946, CENTRAL AND RIVER ROAD NOTIFIED THE RAILROADS THAT
ON AND AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 1946, THE CARS WOULD BE MOVED OVER THIS
TRACKAGE BY MEANS OF THE POWER AND CREWS OF RIVER ROAD AND THAT THE
HANDLING CHARGE WOULD BE $12.96 PER OUTBOUND LOADED CAR.  SOON AFTER
THIS NEW PRACTICE WENT INTO EFFECT, THE TRUNK LINE RAILROADS (APPELLEES
HEREIN) BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS
UNDER SEC. 16(12) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AGAINST CENTRAL, RIVER
ROAD AND JUNCTION.  THEY CLAIMED THAT THE NEW PRACTICE WAS IN VIOLATION
OF THE THIRD CONDITION OF THE 1922 COMMISSION ORDER.  THEY ACCORDINGLY
SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS AND "THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICERS, AGENTS,
REPRESENTATIVES, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES AND SUCCESSORS," FROM DISOBEYING
THE ORDER, ESPECIALLY THE THIRD CONDITION THEREOF, AND TO FORCE THE
DEFENDANTS TO PERMIT THEM TO MOVE THEIR CARS WITH THEIR OWN POWER AND
CREWS.  THE COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED TO INTERVENT AS A PARTY PLAINTIFF;
ITS INTERVENING COMPLAINT ALSO PRAYED FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE THIRD CONDITION BY THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES.  FN2 

A STIPULATION OF FACTS WAS THEN FILED.  AFTER DESCRIBING THE CHANGE
IN HANDLING THE CARS, IT POINTED OUT THAT THIS CHANGE RESULTED FROM A
SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE RIVER ROAD AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
TRAINMEN OF A LABOR DISPUTE OVER THE WORK INVOLVED IN THESE LIVESTOCK
CAR MOVEMENTS.  THE BROTHERHOOD WAS THE BARGAINING AGENT UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT FOR THE RIVER ROAD TRAINMEN.  IT MADE A DEMAND, BASED
UPON ITS CONTRACT WITH RIVER ROAD, THAT THESE TRAINMEN BE GIVEN THE
WORK OF MOVING AND SWITCHING THE LIVESTOCK CARS OVER THE RIVER ROAD
TRACKAGE.  THE BROTHERHOOD THREATENED TO CALL A STRIKE UNLESS THIS
DEMAND WAS MET BEFORE 10:30 P.M., JANUARY 23, 1946, A THREAT THAT WAS
BACKED BY AN ALMOST UNANIMOUS STRIKE VOTE OF THE TRAINMEN.  UNDER THIS
THREAT, RIVER ROAD MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BROTHERHOOD SHORTLY
BEFORE THE SCHEDULED STRIKE HOUR, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE RIVER ROAD
TRAINMEN WERE TO BE PERMITTED TO MOVE AND SWITCH THE CARS.  THE NOTICE
TO THE TRUNK LINE RAILROADS OF THIS CHANGE IN PRACTICE SUBSEQUENTLY
FOLLOWED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT THEREUPON ISSUED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AS
REQUESTED.  CENTRAL, RIVER ROAD AND JUNCTION, AND "THEIR RESPECTIVE
OFFICERS, AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES, EMPLOYEES AND SUCCESSORS," WERE
RESTRAINED FROM DISOBEYING THE 1922 COMMISSION ORDER AND FROM VIOLATING
THE THIRD CONDITION OF THAT ORDER AND WERE COMMANDED TO PERMIT THE
TRUNK LINE RAILROADS TO MOVE THEIR CARS OVER THE RIVER ROAD LINE WITH
THEIR OWN POWER AND CREWS.  THE COURT CONCLUDED, AS A MATTER OF LAW,
THAT THE FACTS RELATIVE TO THE LABOR DISPUTE BETWEEN THE BROTHERHOOD
AND RIVER ROAD WERE "IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL."  FN3 

THREE DAYS AFTER THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BECAME EFFECTIVE, THE
BROTHERHOOD ASKED LEAVE TO FILE ITS SPECIAL APPEARANCE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF MOVING TO VACATE THE INJUNCTION AND TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS FOR
FAILURE TO JOIN THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS MEMBERS AS INDISPENSABLE
PARTIES.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED.  RIVER ROAD THEN FILED ITS ANSWER TO
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, POINTING OUT THAT THE CHANGED ARRANGEMENT
RESULTED FROM THE LABOR DISPUTE WITH THE BROTHERHOOD AND CONTENDING
THAT THIS NEW PRACTICE DID NOT VIOLATE THE 1922 COMMISSION ORDER.  THE
BROTHERHOOD THEREAFTER FILED ITS MOTION TO INTERVENE GENERALLY AS A
PARTY DEFENDANT, ALLEGING THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE SUIT WAS TO
NULLIFY ITS AGREEMENT WITH RIVER ROAD AND TO DEPRIVE THE BROTHERHOOD
MEMBERS OF THE WORK THEY WERE PERFORMING UNDER THAT AGREEMENT AND THAT
THE BROTHERHOOD MEMBERS WERE THEREFORE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES.  THE
CONTENTION WAS MADE THAT THE BROTHERHOOD HAD AN UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT TO
INTERVENE BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 17(11) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT  FN4
AND RULE 24(A)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; AND 28
U.S.C. SEC. 45A WAS LATER ADDED IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION.  BUT THE
MOTION TO INTERVENE WAS DENIED BY ORDER, WITHOUT OPINION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT THEN ALLOWED AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM ITS
ORDER DENYING INTERVENTION.  THE APPELLEE RAILROADS MOVED TO DISMISS
THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH AN ORDER WAS NOT FINAL AND HENCE WAS
NOT APPEALABLE, THE BROTHERHOOD NOT BEING ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT.  WE POSTPONED FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF
OUR JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER TO THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL UPON
THE MERITS. 

ORDINARILY, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NO APPEAL LIES
FROM AN ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO INTERVENE WHERE INTERVENTION IS A
PERMISSIVE MATTER WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA CANNERIES, 279 U.S. 553, 556.  FN5  THE PERMISSIVE NATURE OF
SUCH INTERVENTION NECESSARILY IMPLIES THAT, IF INTERVENTION IS DENIED,
THE APPLICANT IS NOT LEGALLY BOUND OR PREJUDICED BY ANY JUDGMENT THAT
MIGHT BE ENTERED IN THE CASE.  HE IS AT LIBERTY TO ASSERT AND PROTECT
HIS INTERESTS IN SOME MORE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING.  HAVING NO ADVERSE
EFFECT UPON THE APPLICANT, THE ORDER DENYING INTERVENTION ACCORDINGLY
FALLS BELOW THE LEVEL OF APPEALABILITY.  BUT WHERE A STATUTE OR THE
PRACTICAL NECESSITIES GRANT THE APPLICANT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO
INTERVENE, THE ORDER DENYING INTERVENTION BECOMES APPEALABLE.  THEN IT
MAY FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE APPLICANT IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
DENIAL, THERE BEING NO OTHER WAY IN WHICH HE CAN BETTER ASSERT THE
PARTICULAR INTEREST WHICH WARRANTS INTERVENTION IN THIS INSTANCE.  AND
SINCE HE CANNOT APPEAL FROM ANY SUBSEQUENT ORDER OR JUDGMENT IN THE
PROCEEDING UNLESS HE DOES INTERVENE, THE ORDER DENYING INTERVENTION HAS
THE DEGREE OF DEFINITIVENESS WHICH SUPPORTS AN APPEAL THEREFROM.  SEE
PIPE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 502, 508. 

OUR JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER DENYING
INTERVENTION THUS DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO
INTERVENE.  IF THE RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE, THE ORDER IS APPEALABLE AND WE
MAY JUDGE IT ON ITS MERITS.  BUT IF THE MATTER IS ONE WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT AND IF THERE IS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
THE ORDER IS NOT APPEALABLE AND WE LACK POWER TO REVIEW IT.  IN OTHER
WORDS, OUR JURISDICTION IS IDENTIFIED BY THE NECESSARY INCIDENTS OF THE
RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN EACH PARTICULAR INSTANCE.  WE MUST THEREFORE
DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF OUR JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE BY EXAMINING
THE CHARACTER OF THE BROTHERHOOD'S RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDING
BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 16(12) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

WE START WITH RULE 24(A) AND (B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, APPLICABLE TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING OF THIS TYPE.  RULE 24(A)
DEALS WITH INTERVENTION OF RIGHT AND PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART:  "UPON
TIMELY APPLICATION ANYONE SHALL BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN AN ACTION:
(1) WHEN A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERS AN UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT
TO INTERVENE; OR (2) WHEN THE REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT'S
INTEREST BY EXISTING PARTIES IS OR MAY BE INADEQUATE AND THE APPLICANT
IS OR MAY BE BOUND BY A JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION; ...  "  IN CONTRAST,
RULE 24(B) IS CONCERNED WITH PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION AND READS AS
FOLLOWS:  "UPON TIMELY APPLICATION ANYONE MAY BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE
IN AN ACTION:  (1) WHEN A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERS A
CONDITIONAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE; OR (2) WHEN AN APPLICANT'S CLAIM OR
DEFENSE AND THE MAIN ACTION HAVE A QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT IN COMMON. 
IN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER WHETHER THE
INTERVENTION WILL UNDULY DELAY OR PREJUDICE THE ADJUDICATION OF THE
RIGHTS OF THE ORIGINAL PARTIES." 

THE BROTHERHOOD CLAIMS THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF EITHER OF TWO FEDERAL
STATUTES - SEC. 17(11) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OR 28 U.S.C. SEC.
45A - IT HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO INTERVENE WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE
24(A)(1).  IT ALSO ALLEGES THAT IT POSSESSES AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT WITHIN
THE CONTEMPLATION OF RULE 24(A)(2), THE REPRESENTATION OF ITS INTEREST
BY EXISTING PARTIES BEING INADEQUATE AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MAY BE
BOUND BY A JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION BEING A REAL ONE.  NO CLAIM TO
PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 24(B) IS MADE; NOR IS THERE A
CONTENTION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ANY DISCRETION IT MIGHT HAVE
HAD. 

IN OUR VIEW, SEC. 17(11) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT DOES GIVE THE
BROTHERHOOD AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDING
WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 24(A)(1).  AS SET FORTH IN 54 STAT. 916,
FN6  THIS PORTION OF THE ACT READS:  "REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES OF A
CARRIER, DULY DESIGNATED AS SUCH, MAY INTERVENE AND BE HEARD IN ANY
PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER THIS ACT AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES."  THE
FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS MAKE OBVIOUS THE FACT THAT THE BROTHERHOOD
MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PROVISION: 

FIRST.  IT IS UNQUESTIONED THAT THE BROTHERHOOD IS THE DULY
DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RIVER ROAD TRAINMEN. 

SECOND.  THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION GRANTED TO SUCH A REPRESENTATIVE
BY SEC. 17(11) APPLIES TO A COURT PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 16(12) OF THE
ACT, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SEC. 17(11) EXTENDING ITS REACH TO "ANY
PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER THIS ACT." 

ON THIS POINT, HOWEVER, THE APPELLEE RAILROADS CONTEND THAT SEC.
17(11) MUST BE CONFINED TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, TO THE EXCLUSION OF COURT PROCEEDINGS.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS
CONTENTION, THEY POINT TO THE FACT THAT SEC. 17 AS A WHOLE IS PRIMARILY
CONCERNED WITH COMMISSION PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION.  THAT FACT IS
EMPHASIZED BY THE HEADING OF SEC. 17 AS IT APPEARS IN THE STATUTES AT
LARGE, 54 STAT. 913, AND THE U.S.C.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 17, A HEADING THAT
READS:  "COMMISSION PROCEDURE; DELEGATION OF DUTIES; REHEARINGS."  THE
INFERENCE IS THEN MADE THAT PARAGRAPH (11), WITH WHICH WE ARE
CONCERNED, MUST BE LIMITED BY THAT HEADING AND BY THE GENERAL CONTEXT
OF SEC. 17 AS A WHOLE.  THE RESULT OF THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE PHRASE
"ANY PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER THIS ACT," AS FOUND IN PARAGRAPH (11), IS
REWRITTEN BY CONSTRUCTION TO REFER ONLY TO "ANY PROCEEDING BEFORE THE
COMMISSION ARISING UNDER THIS SECTION." 

WE CANNOT SANCTION SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THESE WORDS.  IT IS TRUE,
OF COURSE, THAT SEC. 17 IS CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF
THE COMMISSION AND ITS SUBDIVISIONS AND WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE
DISPOSITION OF MATTERS COMING WITHIN THAT AGENCY'S JURISDICTION.  AT
LEAST TEN OF THE TWELVE PARAGRAPHS OF SEC. 17 DEAL WITH THOSE MATTERS. 
AND BEFORE SEC. 17 WAS CAST INTO ITS PRESENT FORM IN 1940, ALL FIVE OF
ITS PARAGRAPHS RELATED EXCLUSIVELY TO THOSE MATTERS.  CONGRESS REWROTE
THE SECTION WHEN IT ENACTED THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT.
898, CONTINUING AND MODIFYING PREVIOUS PROVISIONS AND CONSOLIDATING AND
INCLUDING MATTERS WHICH HAD FORMERLY BEEN SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE
ACT.  FN7  AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, IT WAS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THAT
CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS WERE BEING ADDED WHICH WERE ENTIRELY NEW, PARAGRAPHS
WHICH WENT BEYOND PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.  THUS THE PERTINENT
COMMITTEE REPORTS STATED  FN8  THAT "A NEW PARAGRAPH (9) IS INCLUDED
PROVIDING THAT ORDERS OF A DIVISION, AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER, OR A
BOARD SHALL BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AS IN THE CASE OF FULL
COMMISSION ORDERS, AFTER AN APPLICATION FOR REHEARING HAS BEEN MADE AND
ACTED UPON."  AND AS TO PARAGRAPH (11), IT WAS SAID  FN9  THAT "A NEW
PARAGRAPH IS ADDED AT THE END OF SECTION 17 PROVIDING THAT
REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES OF A CARRIER MAY INTERVENE AND BE HEARD IN
ANY PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER PART I AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES."  BY
SUCH LANGUAGE IN THEIR REPORTS, THE FRAMERS OF SEC. 17 RECOGNIZED THE
OBVIOUS FACT THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION DEAL WITH
SOMETHING MORE THAN MIGHT BE INDICATED BY THE HEADING. 

THAT THE HEADING OF SEC. 17 FAILS TO REFER TO ALL THE MATTERS WHICH
THE FRAMERS OF THAT SECTION WROTE INTO THE TEXT IS NOT AN UNUSUAL
FACT.  THAT HEADING IS BUT A SHORT-HAND REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL
SUBJECT MATTER INVOLVED.  WHILE ACCURATELY REFERRING TO THE SUBJECTS OF
COMMISSION PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION, IT NEGLECTS TO REVEAL THAT SEC.
17 ALSO DEALS WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND WITH
INTERVENTION BY EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES.  BUT HEADINGS AND TITLES ARE
NOT MEANT TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE DETAILED PROVISIONS OF THE TEXT. 
NOR ARE THEY NECESSARILY DESIGNED TO BE A REFERENCE GUIDE OR A
SYNOPSIS.  WHERE THE TEXT IS COMPLICATED AND PROLIFIC, HEADINGS AND
TITLES CAN DO NO MORE THAN INDICATE THE PROVISIONS IN A MOST GENERAL
MANNER; TO ATTEMPT TO REFER TO EACH SPECIFIC PROVISION WOULD OFTEN BE
UNGAINLY AS WELL AS USELESS.  AS A RESULT, MATTERS IN THE TEXT WHICH
DEVIATE FROM THOSE FALLING WITHIN THE GENERAL PATTERN ARE FREQUENTLY
UNREFLECTED IN THE HEADINGS AND TITLES.  FACTORS OF THIS TYPE HAVE LED
TO THE WISE RULE THAT THE TITLE OF A STATUTE AND THE HEADING OF A
FISHER, 2 CRANCH 358, 386; CORNELL V. COYNE, 192 U.S. 418, 430;
STRATHEARN S.S. CO. V. DILLON, 252 U.S. 348, 354.  FOR INTERPRETATIVE
PURPOSES, THEY ARE OF USE ONLY WHEN THEY SHED LIGHT ON SOME AMBIGUOUS
WORD OR PHRASE.  THEY ARE BUT TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR THE RESOLUTION OF A
DOUBT.  BUT THEY CANNOT UNDO OR LIMIT THAT WHICH THE TEXT MAKES PLAIN. 

HERE THE MEANING OF SEC. 17(11) IS UNMISTAKABLE ON ITS FACE.  THERE
IS A SIMPLE, UNAMBIGUOUS REFERENCE TO "ANY PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER
THIS ACT" OR, AS THE HOUSE COMMITTEE PARAPHRASED IT, FN10  TO "ANY
PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER PART I."  THERE IS NOT A WORD WHICH WOULD
WARRANT LIMITING THIS REFERENCE SO AS TO ALLOW INTERVENTION ONLY IN
PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER SEC. 17 OR IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  THE PROCEEDINGS MENTIONED ARE THOSE WHICH ARISE UNDER THIS
ACT, AN ACT UNDER WHICH BOTH JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
MAY ARISE.  FN11  THE INSTANT CASE IS A READY ILLUSTRATION OF A
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER THIS ACT; A SUIT OF THIS NATURE IS
AUTHORIZED SOLELY BY SEC. 16(12) OF THE ACT.  FN12  HENCE IT IS A
PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION MAY ATTACH BY VIRTUE OF
SEC. 17(11). 

NOR DO WE PERCEIVE ANY REASON OF STATUTORY POLICY WHY THE FRAMERS OF
SEC. 17(11) SHOULD HAVE WISHED TO CONFINE THE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION BY
EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 
OCCASIONS MAY ARISE, AS IN THIS CASE, WHERE THE EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATIVES HAVE NO INTEREST IN INTERVENING IN THE ORIGINAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, BUT WHERE THEY HAVE A VERY DEFINITE INTEREST
IN INTERVENING IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER THE
ACT.  WHEN THE FRAMERS HAVE USED LANGUAGE WHICH COVERS BOTH TYPES OF
PROCEEDINGS, WE WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED IN FORMULATING SOME POLICY WHICH
THEY DID NOT SEE FIT TO EXPRESS TO LIMIT THAT LANGUAGE IN ANY WAY. 

THIRD.  THIS IS A PROCEEDING ARISING UNDER THE ACT WHICH AFFECTS THE
EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE BROTHERHOOD.  NOTHING COULD MAKE THIS
PLAINER THAN THE FACT THAT DIRECT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WAS SOUGHT AND
OBTAINED AGAINST THESE EMPLOYEES.  THE APPELLEE RAILROADS SUED TO
ENJOIN RIVER ROAD AND ITS EMPLOYEES FROM DISOBEYING THE THIRD CONDITION
OF THE 1922 COMMISSION ORDER.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THIS CONDITION
REQUIRED RIVER ROAD AND ITS EMPLOYEES TO PERMIT THE RAILROADS TO USE
THEIR OWN POWER AND CREWS IN MOVING CARS OVER THE RIVER ROAD LINE.  YET
THAT WAS PRECISELY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RIVER
ROAD AND THE BROTHERHOOD, RESULTING IN THE INSERTION OF IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM.  IF THE COMMISSION ORDER DID
REQUIRE THE RIVER ROAD EMPLOYEES TO FOREGO OPERATING THE LIVESTOCK
CARS, THEIR CONTRACT RIGHTS WITH RIVER ROAD WERE AFFECTED IN A VERY
REAL SENSE.  ACTS DONE BY THE EMPLOYEES IN PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT
OBVIOUSLY PROMPTED THIS SUIT; AND ANY SUCH ACTS PERFORMED AFTER THE
ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION MIGHT GIVE RISE TO CONTEMPT ACTION.  IT IS
THUS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THIS PROCEEDING IS NOT ONE "AFFECTING SUCH
EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 17(11). 

SINCE ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SEC. 17(11) HAVE BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS
CASE, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT REMAINS IS WHETHER THE BROTHERHOOD IS
THEREBY ACCORDED A PERMISSIVE OR AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO INTERVENE.  THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 17(11) IS IN TERMS OF "MAY INTERVENE AND BE HEARD,"
WHICH MIGHT BE CONSTRUED AS GIVING ONLY A DISCRETIONARY RIGHT.  BUT OUR
VIEW, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, IS THAT ONCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
17(11) HAVE BEEN MET, THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE ACQUIRES AN
ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF INTERVENTION. 

SOME STATUTES SPEAK OF INTERVENTION "AS OF RIGHT."  THUS WHERE SUIT
IS BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE OR SET ASIDE A
COMMISSION ORDER, THE COMMISSION OR THE PARTIES IN INTEREST TO THE
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION "MAY APPEAR AS PARTIES THERETO  ...
AS OF RIGHT."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 45A.  IN SUCH A CASE, THE RIGHT TO
INTERVENE IS ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL.  SPRUNT & SON V. UNITED
STATES, 281 U.S. 249, 255. 

NO LESS ABSOLUTE OR UNCONDITIONAL IS THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE UNDER
SEC. 17(11), WHICH PERMITS INTERVENTION WHERE THE EMPLOYEES ARE
AFFECTED BY THE PROCEEDING.  TO BE SUFFICIENTLY AFFECTED WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THIS PROVISION REQUIRES THAT THE EMPLOYEES BE PREJUDICED OR
BOUND BY ANY JUDGMENT THAT MIGHT BE ENTERED IN THE CASE, AS IS THE
SITUATION RELATIVE TO THE RIVER ROAD EMPLOYEES.  ONCE IT IS CLEAR THAT
AN EFFECT OF THAT DEGREE IS PRESENT, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THE
OPERATION OF A COURT'S DISCRETION.  WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES' INTERESTS
SHOULD BE ASSERTED OR DEFENDED IN A PROCEEDING WHERE THOSE INTERESTS
ARE AT STAKE IS A QUESTION TO BE DECIDED BY THE EMPLOYEES'
REPRESENTATIVE, NOT BY THE COURT.  THE STATUTORY TERM "MAY INTERVENE"
THUS MEANS "MAY INTERVENE IF THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE SO CHOOSES"
RATHER THAN "MAY INTERVENE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT."  AND IF THE
REPRESENTATIVE DOES CHOOSE TO INTERVENE, IT MAY DO SO AS A MATTER OF
RIGHT WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 24(A)(1) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  SUCH IS THIS CASE. 

WE THUS CONCLUDE THAT SEC. 17(11) GIVES THE BROTHERHOOD AN ABSOLUTE
RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THIS PROCEEDING, MAKING IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS
WHETHER, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, THE BROTHERHOOD WOULD HAVE HAD SUCH A
RIGHT APART FROM SEC. 17(11).  IT FOLLOWS THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO
CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON ITS MERITS.  AND IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT
JURISDICTION, WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING
LEAVE TO THE BROTHERHOOD TO INTERVENE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES (UNREPORTED), UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN
DIVISION, EQUITY NO. 3427, JANUARY 15, 1929.  THE COURT APPROVED THE
COMMISSION ORDER AS AMENDED IN 150 I.C.C. 32.  THAT AMENDMENT IS NOT
GERMANE TO THIS CASE. 

FN2  THE COMMISSION BASED ITS COMPLAINT UPON SEC. 5(8) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(8), WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
COMMISSION TO SEEK, AND GRANTS JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS TO ISSUE, INJUNCTIVE OR MANDATORY RELIEF TO RESTRAIN VIOLATION
OF OR COMPEL OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER SEC. 5. 

FN3  ON APPEAL BY JUNCTION, THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THE DECREE AS TO JUNCTION, HOLDING THAT JUNCTION HAD NO
CONTROL OVER AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF BY THE
APPELLEES.  BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. CHICAGO JUNCTION R. CO., 156 F.2D
357. 

FN4  54 STAT. 916, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 17(11). 

FN5  SEE ALSO EX PARTE CUTTING, 94 U.S. 14; CREDITS COMMUTATION CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 311; EX PARTE LEAF TOBACCO BOARD OF TRADE,
222 U.S. 578; IN RE ENGELHARD, 231 U.S. 646; CITY OF NEW YORK V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 253 U.S. 219; NEW YORK CITY V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE
CO., 261 U.S. 312. 

FN6  AS IT APPEARS IN THE U.S.C.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 17(11), THIS
PARAGRAPH READS: "REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES OF A CARRIER, DULY
DESIGNATED AS SUCH, MAY INTERVENE AND BE HEARD IN ANY PROCEEDING
ARISING UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND CHAPTERS 8 AND 12 OF THIS TITLE
AFFECTING SUCH EMPLOYEES." 

THE WORDS "THIS CHAPTER" REFER TO PART I OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, WHICH EMBODIES THE ORIGINAL STATUTE KNOWN BY THAT NAME PRIOR TO
ITS DIVISION INTO PARTS.  CHAPTER 8 RELATES TO PART II OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF
1935.  SECTION 305(H) OF PART II IS A CROSS-REFERENCE TO SEC. 17 OF
PART I:  "ALL THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17 OF THIS TITLE SHALL APPLY TO
ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER."  CHAPTER 12 IS THE EQUIVALENT OF
PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHICH DEALS WITH WATER
CARRIERS.  SECTION 916(A) IS ALSO A CROSS-REFERENCE TO SEC. 17 OF PART
I:  "THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12 AND SECTION 17 OF CHAPTER 1 OF THIS
TITLE AND SECTIONS 46-48 OF THIS TITLE SHALL APPLY WITH FULL FORCE AND
EFFECT IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER." 

FN7  H. REP. NO. 1217, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 13; H. REP. NO.
2832, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 72. 

FN8  H.R. NO. 2016, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 67; H. REP. NO. 2832,
76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 72. 

FN9  H. REP. NO. 1217, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 15. 

FN10  H. REP. NO. 1217, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 15. 

FN11  SECTION 17(11), BY REFERRING TO PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER "THIS
ACT," ALSO AFFECTS JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ARISING
UNDER PARTS II AND III OF THE ACT.  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN12  SECTION 16(12) IS LABELED "PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE ORDERS OTHER
THAN FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(12).  IT PROVIDES THAT
IF ANY CARRIER FAILS TO OBEY A COMMISSION ORDER OTHER THAN FOR THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY, THE COMMISSION, ANY INJURED PARTY OR THE UNITED
STATES MAY APPLY TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER. 
..END :





UNITED STATES V. BAYER, 331 U.S. 532 


NO. 606.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1947.  - 156 F.2D
964, REVERSED. 


1.  WHEN A JUDGE'S CHARGE TO A JURY IS ACCURATE AND CORRECT, THE
EXTENT OF ITS AMPLIFICATION RESTS IN HIS DISCRETION; AND THE FACT THAT
THE CHARGE IS UNUSUALLY BRIEF DOES NOT MAKE IT A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHERE
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE JURY MISUNDERSTOOD IT.  PP. 536-537. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT WAS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR TO
REFUSE TO ADMIT IN EVIDENCE AN UNSWORN UNVERIFIED LONG DISTANCE CALL
SLIP FROM THE TELEPHONE COMPANY RECORDS FOUR HOURS AFTER THE CASE HAD
BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, EVEN IF ITS EXCLUSION WOULD HAVE BEEN
PREJUDICIAL ERROR HAD THE OFFER BEEN TIMELY AND PROPERLY VERIFIED.  537
539. 

3.  THE FACT THAT AN ARMY OFFICER HAD MADE A CONFESSION UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES PRECLUDING ITS USE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM DID NOT
PRECLUDE THE USE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM OF A SECOND CONFESSION MADE
VOLUNTARILY SIX MONTHS LATER AFTER FAIR WARNING THAT IT MIGHT BE USED
AGAINST HIM AND WHEN HE WAS UNDER NO RESTRAINT EXCEPT THAT HE COULD NOT
LEAVE HIS BASE LIMITS WITHOUT PERMISSION - EVEN THOUGH THE SECOND
CONFESSION WAS BUT AN ELABORATION OF THE FIRST.  PP. 539-541. 

4.  CONVICTION BY COURT-MARTIAL FOR VIOLATING THE 95TH AND 96TH
ARTICLES OF WAR, BY CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND GENTLEMAN AND
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE, DOES NOT
BAR, ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY, ANOTHER TRIAL IN A CIVIL COURT
FOR A CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT BY DEPRIVING IT OF THE
FAITHFUL SERVICES OF AN ARMY OFFICER IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88;
SINCE THE TWO OFFENSES ARE NOT THE SAME EVEN THOUGH THEY ARISE OUT OF
THE SAME FACTS.  PP. 541-543. 

UNITED STATES V. BAYER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENTS WERE CONVICTED IN A DISTRICT COURT OF CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT BY DEPRIVING IT OF THE FAITHFUL SERVICES OF AN
ARMY OFFICER IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  156 F.2D 964.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329
U.S. 706.  REVERSED, P. 543. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SORDID THREE-SIDED CASE.  THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED ALL OF THE
DEFENDANTS WITH CONSPIRING TO DEFRAUD BY DEPRIVING IT OF THE FAITHFUL
SERVICES OF AN ARMY OFFICER.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 88, 35 STAT. 1096.  THE
DEFENDANT RADOVICH, THE OFFICER IN QUESTION, ADMITS RECEIPT OF MONEY
FROM THE OTHER DEFENDANTS AND ADMITS THE QUESTIONED ACTIONS BUT DENIES
THE CONSPIRACY, CLAIMING THE OTHERS INDUCED HIM TO ACCEPT A BRIBE.  THE
DEFENDANTS BAYER ADMIT PAYMENT OF THE MONEY BUT CLAIM THEY WERE VICTIMS
OF EXTORTION BY RADOVICH.  THE JURY FOUND ALL GUILTY BUT RECOMMENDED
"THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CLEMENCY FOR ALL THREE DEFENDANTS."  THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED.  FN1  WE GRANTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  FN2 

THE PRINCIPAL FACTS ARE ADMITTED AND IT IS CONTESTED INFERENCES WHICH
ARE DECISIVE OF THE ISSUE OF GUILT.  NONE OF THE DEFENDANTS TESTIFIED. 
IT WOULD SERVE NO PURPOSE TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE IN DETAIL.  IT
JUSTIFIES FINDING AS FOLLOWS: 

THE BAYER BROTHERS WERE MANUFACTURERS OF YARN AND THREAD AND BORE
GOOD NAMES IN THEIR CIRCLE.  SAMUEL HAD THREE SONS IN THE SERVICE.  ONE
OF THEM, MARTIN, WITH MELVIN USDAN, A NEPHEW OF BOTH BAYERS, WAS
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  MARTIN'S HEALTH HAD NOT BEEN ROBUST.  THESE TWO
BOYS ENLISTED IN THE AIR CORPS ON THE DAY WHICH SAMUEL HAD LEARNED WAS
THE LAST ON WHICH A VOLUNTEER COULD SELECT THE BRANCH IN WHICH TO
SERVE.  THEY WERE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY ASSIGNED AS FILE CLERKS AT MITCHEL
FIELD, LONG ISLAND.  IN JANUARY 1943, AT A NIGHT CLUB, ELIAS BAYER
PICKED UP THE ACQUAINTANCE OF TWO OFFICERS STATIONED THERE.  THEY WERE
INTERESTED IN OBTAINING UNIFORMS AT WHOLESALE.  THE BAYERS EVENTUALLY
AIDED THEM AND OTHERS TO OBTAIN UNIFORMS AND PAID FOR THEM, THOUGH THEY
CLAIM TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE OFFICERS WERE TO PAY FOR THEM.  THE
ACQUAINTANCE EXTENDED TO OTHER OFFICERS, AND THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE
ENTERTAINMENT.  IN APRIL 1943 REPLACEMENT OF MEN IN CLERICAL POSITIONS
BY WOMEN'S ARMY CORPS PERSONNEL WAS IMPENDING AND ONE COL. JACOBSON
REQUESTED A TRANSFER OF THESE TWO BOYS WITH THE EFFECT, AS SAMUEL
UNDERSTOOD IT, OF ASSURING THEM A YEAR'S ASSIGNMENT AT MITCHEL FIELD. 
JACOBSON WAS GIVEN A DINNER AT THE WALDORF AND PRESENTED WITH FOUR NEW
AUTOMOBILE TIRES. 

THIS TRANSFER PLACED THE TWO BOYS UNDER COMMAND OF RADOVICH.  BY JULY
THERE WERE RUMORS THAT THE OFFICERS WERE RECEIVING GIFTS FROM THE
BAYERS AND RADOVICH TOLD SAMUEL THAT THE BOYS WOULD HAVE TO BE
TRANSFERRED.  SAMUEL WANTED THEM KEPT AT MITCHEL FIELD.  RADOVICH MADE
A TRANSFER FROM HIS UNIT TO THE MEDICAL DETACHMENT AT THE SAME FIELD,
WHICH AT FIRST WAS DISAPPROVED, AND THEN HE ACCOMPLISHED IT BY AN
EXCHANGE OF PERSONNEL.  AFTER THE TRANSFER WAS MADE, SAMUEL PAID
RADOVICH SOME $1,900 OR $2,000. 

IN AUGUST 1943 THE BOYS WERE AGAIN TRANSFERRED, TO A UNIT OF AIRBORNE
ENGINEERS FOR OVERSEAS DUTY.  BOTH BAYERS WERE GREATLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS AND BESOUGHT THEIR FRIENDS AMONG THE OFFICERS TO PREVENT IT.
RADOVICH HAD GONE.  HE HAD JOINED AN AIR COMMANDO GROUP WITH HIGH
PRIORITY ON PERSONNEL.  BUT HE SEVERAL TIMES TALKED WITH CAPTAIN
PEPPER, IN CHARGE OF PERSONNEL, ABOUT TRANSFERRING THESE BOYS FROM THE
OVERSEAS SERVICE TO AIR TRANSPORT COMMAND FOR SERVICE ONLY IN
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.  THIS COULD NOT BE DONE.  THEN RADOVICH
PROPOSED TO USE HIS UNIT'S HIGHER PRIORITY TO REQUISITION THE BOYS FOR
IT, TO DROP THEM AS SURPLUS, AND THEREUPON TO HAVE THEM TRANSFERRED TO
THE AIR TRANSPORT COMMAND FOR DOMESTIC SERVICE.  PEPPER AGREED THIS
MIGHT BE DONE.  RADOVICH TOLD PEPPER IT WAS "WORTH HIS WHILE" TO GET IT
DONE AND HE WOULD SEE THAT DOING IT WAS WORTH PEPPER'S WHILE. 

ON NOVEMBER 22, 1943 RADOVICH REQUISITIONED THE TRANSFER OF THE BOYS
TO HIS UNIT, TO REPORT NOVEMBER 25.  ALMOST AT ONCE HE ALSO REQUESTED
THAT THEY BE TRANSFERRED OUT OF HIS UNIT AND TO AIR TRANSPORT COMMAND. 
THIS WAS EFFECTED SHORTLY.  ELIAS BAYER AND ONE OF NAME UNKNOWN TO THE
RECORD THEN DELIVERED $5,000 TO RADOVICH, WHO SENT PEPPER $500.  PEPPER
TESTIFIED THAT HE DESTROYED THE CHECK. 

THE GOVERNMENT FROM THESE FACTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE DRAWS, AS DID THE
JURY, THE INFERENCE OF CONSPIRACY.  THE BAYERS SAY THEY WERE VICTIMS OF
EXTORTION AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT RADOVICH USED THE TRANSFER TO HIS
OWN UNIT, ONE OF EXTREMELY DANGEROUS MISSION FOR WHICH THESE BOYS HAD
NEITHER TRAINING NOR APTITUDE, TO FORCE MONEY OUT OF THE BAYERS. 
RADOVICH DENIES THE CONSPIRACY AND PLEADS CERTAIN COURT-MARTIAL
PROCEEDINGS AS A BAR. 

THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE BAYERS TEMPTED RADOVICH WITH A BRIBE OR
RADOVICH COERCED THEM WITH THREATS IS ONE WITH EVIDENCE AND INFERENCES
BOTH WAYS.  RADOVICH WAS A GALLANT AND SKILLFUL FLIER AND EXPLAINED HIS
CONDUCT THUS:  "I WAS GOING OVERSEAS ON A VERY HOT JOB AND DIDN'T
EXPECT TO COME BACK, HAD THE WIFE AND THE BABY, FIGURED I MIGHT JUST AS
WELL TAKE CARE OF THEM."  THE BAYERS WERE PERSONS OF SOME MEANS,
THOROUGHLY FRIGHTENED AT THE PROSPECT OF SERVICE FOR THESE BOYS IN
COMBAT AREAS, AND READY TO USE THEIR MEANS TO FOSTER THE BOYS' SAFETY. 
WHETHER THEY WERE VICTIMS OF EXTORTION OR VOLUNTARY CONSPIRATORS WAS
FOR THE JURY TO SAY, AND THE REVERSAL DOES NOT REST ON ANY INADEQUACY
OF PROOF.  THE GROUNDS OF REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS RAISE FOR
OUR CONSIDERATION FOUR QUESTIONS OF LAW. 

1.  THE BAYERS ASSIGNED AS ERROR THE TRIAL JUDGE'S CHARGE AS TO
CONSPIRACY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS UNANIMOUSLY SAID, "THERE IS NO
QUESTION BUT THAT THIS CHARGE WAS AN ACCURATE, ALBEIT BRIEF, STATEMENT
OF THE LAW."  BUT A MAJORITY THOUGHT THAT "THE STATEMENT WAS SO CRYPTIC
AS TO BE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, IF NOT TO BE ACTUALLY MISLEADING TO A
JURY OF LAYMEN," WHILE ONE JUDGE THOUGHT IT "A WELCOME RELIEF FROM MUCH
JUDICIAL VERBOSITY."  FN3  WE ARE NOT CERTAIN WHETHER A REVERSAL AS TO
THE BAYERS WOULD HAVE BEEN RESTED ON THIS CRITICISM OF THE CHARGE
ALONE.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER OBJECTION TO THE CHARGE TO AMOUNT TO
REVERSIBLE ERROR.  ONCE THE JUDGE HAS MADE AN ACCURATE AND CORRECT
CHARGE, THE EXTENT OF ITS AMPLIFICATION MUST REST LARGELY IN HIS
DISCRETION.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE WHOLE TRIAL AND WITH
THE JURY BEFORE HIM, MAY FEEL THAT TO REPEAT THE SAME WORDS WOULD MAKE
THEM NO MORE CLEAR, AND TO INDULGE IN VARIATIONS OF STATEMENT MIGHT
WELL CONFUSE.  HOW FAR ANY CHARGE ON TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IS
REALLY UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE OF LAY BACKGROUND WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO
ASCERTAIN, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY MORE EVIDENT IN THE LIVING SCENE THAN IN
A COLD RECORD.  IN THIS CASE THE JURY ASKED A REREADING OF THE CHARGE
ON CONSPIRACY.  AFTER REPEATING HIS INSTRUCTION, THE COURT INQUIRED OF
THE JURY WHETHER ANYTHING ABOUT IT WAS NOT CLEAR, OR WHETHER THERE WAS
ANYTHING WHICH THEY DESIRED TO HAVE AMPLIFIED.  NOTHING WAS SUGGESTED,
ALTHOUGH INQUIRY WAS MADE AS TO OTHER MATTERS.  WHILE MANY JUDGES WOULD
HAVE MADE A MORE EXTENDED CHARGE, WE THINK THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHIN
ITS AREA OF DISCRETION IN HIS BREVITY. 

2.  THE BAYERS WON REVERSAL ON ANOTHER GROUND.  AFTER THE JURY HAD
BEEN OUT ABOUT FOUR HOURS, IT RETURNED FOR INSTRUCTIONS AND ASKED TO
HAVE PARTS OF THE SUMMATIONS OF COUNSEL READ.  THE COURT DECLINED TO
READ PARTS.  IT WAS AT THIS POINT THAT COUNSEL FOR THE BAYERS ASKED TO
REOPEN THE CASE AND TO PUT IN EVIDENCE A LONG DISTANCE CALL SLIP FROM
TELEPHONE COMPANY RECORDS.  IT WAS THE MEMORANDUM OF A CALL ON NOVEMBER
24, 1943, FROM ONE WE ASSUME TO BE RADOVICH, SPELLED ON THE TICKET
"RAVISH," FROM ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, TO BAYER'S NUMBER IN NEW YORK.  THE
TICKET TENDED TO CORROBORATE SAMUEL BAYER'S SECRETARY WHO TESTIFIED TO
RECEIVING SUCH A CALL AND WHO WAS THE BAYERS' CHIEF WITNESS ON THE
SUBJECT OF EXTORTION.  IT ALSO TENDED TO CONTRADICT A GOVERNMENT
WITNESS.  THE MATTER HAD BECOME OF IMPORTANCE BECAUSE OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S ARGUMENT THAT THE BAYERS' WITNESS FALSIFIED HER STORY.  THE
COURT HAD ALREADY, AT RESPONDENTS' REQUEST, AFTER THE JURY HAD BEEN
INSTRUCTED, TOLD THEM THAT A CHECK OF THE BAYERS' RECORDS SHOWED A
COLLECT-CALL FROM WASHINGTON THAT DAY, BUT ON REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR
RADOVICH THE COURT HAD ALSO STATED THAT THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW WHO
MADE THE CALL.  WE WILL ASSUME THAT THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE WAS
RELEVANT, CORROBORATIVE OF THE BAYERS' CONTENTIONS, AND HAD THE OFFER
BEEN TIMELY AND PROPERLY VERIFIED, ITS EXCLUSION WOULD HAVE BEEN
PREJUDICIAL ERROR. 

BUT THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE WAS DISPUTED.  THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAD NOT
SEEN THE SLIP AND DID NOT ADMIT THE INTERPRETATION BAYER'S COUNSEL PUT
UPON IT.  COUNSEL FOR RADOVICH OBJECTED.  TO HAVE ADMITTED IT OVER HIS
OBJECTION MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN PREJUDICIAL TO HIM.  THE TRIAL COURT HAD
ALREADY, AS HE ADMITTED, AND AS RADOVICH'S COUNSEL CHARGED, GIVEN THE
BAYERS THE BENEFIT OF AN IRREGULAR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION TO THE
JURY ABOUT THE CALL WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REGULARLY PROVED.  MOREOVER,
DEFENDANTS OFFERED NO WITNESS TO AUTHENTICATE THE SLIP.  AS THE TRIAL
COURT POINTED OUT TO COUNSEL, HIS PROPOSAL WAS MERELY TO HAND TO THE
JURY "AN UNVERIFIED MEMORANDUM FROM THE TELEPHONE COMPANY."  EVEN
DURING THE TRIAL SUCH AN OFFER, WITH NO FOUNDATION IN TESTIMONY AND
AGAINST OBJECTION, WOULD HAVE BEEN INADEQUATE.  TO HAVE ADMITTED IT
WITH NO WITNESS TO IDENTIFY OR SUPPORT IT WOULD HAVE CUT OFF ALL CROSS
EXAMINATION BY BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND RADOVICH, AND CROSS-EXAMINATION
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNREASONABLE CONCERNING A SLIP IN WHICH THE BAYERS
WISHED ARLINGTON TO BE TAKEN AS EQUIVALENT TO WASHINGTON AND "RAVISH"
TO IDENTIFY RADOVICH.  THE EVIDENCE, IF PUT IN AFTER FOUR HOURS OF
DELIBERATION BY THE JURY, WOULD LIKELY BE OF DISTORTED IMPORTANCE.  IT
SURELY WOULD HAVE BEEN PREJUDICIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOR THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WOULD THEN HAVE HAD NO CHANCE TO COMMENT ON IT, SUMMATION
HAVING BEEN CLOSED.  IT ALSO WOULD HAVE BEEN PREJUDICIAL TO THE OTHER
DEFENDANT, RADOVICH, WHO, WITH NO CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE OR TO
COMMENT, WOULD BE CONFRONTED WITH A NEW ITEM OF EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. 
THE COURT SEEMS TO HAVE FACED A DILEMMA, EITHER TO GRANT A MISTRIAL AND
START THE WHOLE CASE OVER AGAIN OR TO DENY THE BAYERS' REQUEST. 
CERTAINLY A DEFENDANT WHO SEEKS THUS TO DESTROY A TRIAL MUST BRING HIS
DEMAND WITHIN THE RULES OF PROOF AND DO SOMETHING TO EXCUSE ITS
UNTIMELINESS. 

NOT ONLY WAS THE PROFFER OF THE EVIDENCE TECHNICALLY DEFICIENT, BUT
NO EXCUSE FOR THE UNTIMELINESS OF THE OFFER APPEARED.  IT IS TRUE, NO
DOUBT, THAT COUNSEL WAS SURPRISED AT THE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS EFFECTIVE HAD THIS EVIDENCE BEEN
IN.  BUT MISS SOLOMON, AN EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANTS AND, HENCE, AN
INTERESTED WITNESS, WAS LEFT TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROVING EXTORTION
WITHOUT THE CORROBORATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF HER EMPLOYER-DEFENDANTS. 
THIS WAS DEFENDANTS' RIGHT, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPARENT THAT EVERY
BOLSTER TO HER CREDIBILITY WOULD BE IMPORTANT.  IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT
THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES KEEP SUCH RECORDS AND THEY SEEM TO HAVE BEEN
EASILY OBTAINED WHEN ASKED FOR.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT REVERSIBLE ERROR
TO REFUSE TO LET THIS UNSWORN, UNVERIFIED SLIP BE PUT INTO EVIDENCE
FOUR HOURS AFTER THE CASE HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  THE JUDGMENT
OF REVERSAL AS TO THE BAYERS WAS, IN OUR OPINION, ERRONEOUS. 

3.  RADOVICH'S CASE RAISES ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.  THE FIRST CONCERNS
THE RECEIPT IN EVIDENCE OF HIS CONFESSION OF MARCH 15 AND 17, 1945.  IN
ABSENCE OF THE JURY, THE COURT HEARD TESTIMONY BEFORE ADMITTING IT AND
THEREAFTER MOST OF IT WAS REPEATED BEFORE THE JURY.  THE PROOF AGAINST
RADOVICH LARGELY RESTED ON THE CONFESSION. 

AFTER SERVICE OF DISTINCTION IN BURMA, RADOVICH, THEN 24 YEARS OF
AGE, WAS ORDERED TO REPORT TO MITCHEL FIELD.  UPON ARRIVAL ON AUGUST 9,
1944, HE WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST AND CONFINED IN THE PSYCHOPATHIC WARD
IN THE STATION HOSPITAL.  HERE, FOR SOME TIME, HE WAS DENIED CALLERS,
COMMUNICATION, COMFORTS AND FACILITIES WHICH IT IS NEEDLESS TO DETAIL. 
CHARGES FOR COURT-MARTIAL WERE NOT PROMPTLY SERVED ON HIM AS SAID TO BE
REQUIRED BY THE 70TH ARTICLE OF WAR, NOR WAS HE TAKEN BEFORE A
MAGISTRATE FOR ARRAIGNMENT ON ANY CHARGES PREFERRED BY CIVIL
AUTHORITIES.  MILITARY CHARGES WERE FINALLY SERVED ON MAY 30, 1945. 
MEANWHILE, UNDER SUCH RESTRAINT, HE MADE A FIRST CONFESSION ON
SEPTEMBER 5 OR 6, 1944.  WITHOUT MORE, WE WILL ASSUME THIS CONFESSION
TO BE INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE RULE LAID DOWN IN MCNABB V. UNITED STATES,
318 U.S. 332, AND ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 350.  BUT THIS
CONFESSION WAS NEITHER OFFERED NOR RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE. 

A SECOND CONFESSION MADE TO AGENT FLYNN OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION ON MARCH 15 AND 17, 1945 WAS RECEIVED, HOWEVER, AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD IT TO BE "PATENTLY THE FRUIT OF THE EARLIER
ONE"  FN4  AND EQUALLY INADMISSIBLE, CITING SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385; NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338. 
AT THE TIME OF THIS CONFESSION RADOVICH WAS STILL AT MITCHEL FIELD, BUT
ONLY UNDER "ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS," WHICH MEANT THAT HE COULD NOT
DEPART THE LIMITS OF THE BASE WITHOUT LEAVE.  FLYNN TESTIFIED THAT
RADOVICH HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH F.B.I. AGENTS.  HE HAD
VOLUNTEERED SOME FACTS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT AND THE MEETING OF
MARCH WAS TO INCORPORATE THE WHOLE STORY IN ONE STATEMENT.  FLYNN
WARNED HIM HIS STATEMENT MIGHT BE USED AGAINST HIM.  RADOVICH REQUESTED
THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT AND READ IT BEFORE MAKING THE SECOND.  THE MARCH
STATEMENT IS LABELED A "SUPPLEMENTARY" STATEMENT AND IS "BASICALLY" THE
SAME AS THE EARLIER ONE BUT WENT INTO MORE DETAIL.  THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY REFUSED TO PRODUCE THE FIRST STATEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED
IN EVIDENCE, AND THE COURT SUSTAINED HIM, HAVING EXAMINED THE STATEMENT
AND FOUND NO MATERIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THEM. 

OF COURSE, AFTER AN ACCUSED HAS ONCE LET THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG BY
CONFESSING, NO MATTER WHAT THE INDUCEMENT, HE IS NEVER THEREAFTER FREE
OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PRACTICAL DISADVANTAGES OF HAVING CONFESSED. 
HE CAN NEVER GET THE CAT BACK IN THE BAG.  THE SECRET IS OUT FOR GOOD. 
IN SUCH A SENSE, A LATER CONFESSION ALWAYS MAY BE LOOKED UPON AS FRUIT
OF THE FIRST.  BUT THIS COURT HAS NEVER GONE SO FAR AS TO HOLD THAT
MAKING A CONFESSION UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECLUDE ITS USE,
PERPETUALLY DISABLES THE CONFESSOR FROM MAKING A USABLE ONE AFTER THOSE
CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.  THE SILVERTHORNE AND NARDONE CASES,
RELIED ON BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DID NOT DEAL WITH CONFESSIONS BUT
WITH EVIDENCE OF A QUITE DIFFERENT CATEGORY AND DO NOT CONTROL THIS
QUESTION.  THE SECOND CONFESSION IN THIS CASE WAS MADE SIX MONTHS AFTER
THE FIRST.  THE ONLY RESTRAINT UNDER WHICH RADOVICH LABORED WAS THAT HE
COULD NOT LEAVE THE BASE LIMITS WITHOUT PERMISSION.  CERTAINLY SUCH A
LIMITATION ON THE FREEDOM OF ONE IN THE ARMY AND SUBJECT TO MILITARY
DISCIPLINE IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE A CONFESSION VOLUNTARILY GIVEN AFTER
FAIR WARNING INVALID AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.  WE HOLD THE ADMISSION OF
THE CONFESSION WAS NOT ERROR.  CF. LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596. 

4.  LASTLY, WE MUST CONSIDER WHETHER THE COURT-MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS
INSTITUTED AGAINST RADOVICH BAR THIS PROSECUTION ON THE GROUND OF
DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  RADOVICH WAS TRIED AND, ON JUNE 29, 1945, CONVICTED
BY COURT-MARTIAL OF VIOLATING THE 95TH AND 96TH ARTICLES OF WAR, 10
U.S.C. SECS. 1567, 1568, 41 STAT. 806-807.  THE OFFENSE CHARGED AND
FOUND WAS THAT OF CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND GENTLEMAN, AND OF
CONDUCT TO THE PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND MILITARY DISCIPLINE AND OF A
NATURE TO BRING DISCREDIT UPON THE MILITARY SERVICE.  AS TO EACH
OFFENSE, THE SPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH RECEIPT OF THE SAME PAYMENTS OF
MONEY FROM THE BAYERS FOR EFFECTING THE SAME TRANSFERS THAT ARE
INVOLVED IN THIS INDICTMENT.  RADOVICH'S PLEA IN BAR WAS OVERRULED BY
THE TRIAL COURT UPON THE GROUND THAT THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT WAS NOT THE SAME OFFENSE AS THAT UNDER THE ARTICLES OF WAR. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS DISAPPROVED THIS GROUND BUT LEFT THE ISSUE OF
DOUBLE JEOPARDY TO BE DECIDED AFTER RETRIAL BECAUSE OF DOUBT MEANWHILE
RAISED ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE MILITARY JUDGMENT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THE IDENTITY OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN
THE COURT-MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT, AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE MILITARY COURT DID NOT
DISTINGUISH CAREFULLY BETWEEN THE PASSING OF THE MONEY AND THE
ARRANGEMENT TO THAT END, REQUIRED THE PLEA IN BAR TO BE SUSTAINED UNDER
GRAFTON V. UNITED STATES, 206 U.S. 333.  IN THAT CASE A SOLDIER ON
GUARD DUTY IN THE PHILIPPINES SHOT AND KILLED TWO FILIPINOS.  HE WAS
TRIED BY COURT-MARTIAL ON CHARGE OF HOMICIDE AND ACQUITTED.  A
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE ISLANDS THEN FILED IN PROVINCIAL COURT A
CHARGE OF "ASSASSINATION" ON IDENTICAL FACTS.  THIS COURT FOUND NOT
MERELY THE EVIDENCE BUT THE OFFENSE CHARGED TO BE IDENTICAL IN
EVERYTHING BUT NAME, AND HELD RETRIAL OF THE SAME OFFENSE IN PHILIPPINE
COURTS TO CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY. 

BUT HERE WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE TWO
CHARGES DID NOT ACCUSE OF IDENTICAL OFFENSES.  THE INDICTMENT IS FOR
CONSPIRING AND WE HAVE BUT RECENTLY REVIEWED THE NATURE OF THAT
OFFENSE.  PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640.  ITS ESSENCE IS IN
THE AGREEMENT OR CONFEDERATION TO COMMIT A CRIME, AND THAT IS WHAT IS
PUNISHABLE AS A CONSPIRACY, IF ANY OVERT ACT IS TAKEN IN PURSUIT OF IT.
THE AGREEMENT IS PUNISHABLE WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTEMPLATED CRIME IS
CONSUMMATED.  BUT THE SAME OVERT ACTS CHARGED IN A CONSPIRACY COUNT MAY
ALSO BE CHARGED AND PROVED AS SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, FOR THE AGREEMENT
TO DO THE ACT IS DISTINCT FROM THE ACT ITSELF.  PINKERTON V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 640, 644.  IN THE COURT-MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS, RADOVICH
ALONE WAS ACCUSED.  NO CONSPIRACY WAS ALLEGED AND THE SPECIFICATION WAS
CONFINED TO RADOVICH'S RECEIPT OF MONEY FOR EFFECTING TRANSFERS.  THIS
WAS A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE ON HIS PART UNDER THE ARTICLES OF WAR.  THE
AGREEMENT WITH OTHERS TO COMMIT IT CONSTITUTED A SEPARATE OFFENSE,
ALTHOUGH AMONG THE OVERT ACTS PROVED TO ESTABLISH THE CONSPIRACY WERE
THE SAME PAYMENTS AND TRANSFERS.  BOTH OFFENSES COULD BE CHARGED AND
CONVICTION HAD ON EACH.  THE PLEA IN BAR WAS PROPERLY OVERRULED. 

THIS CONCLUSION MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER THE
DISAPPROVAL OF THE COURT-MARTIAL JUDGMENT FOR ERRORS IN TRIAL AND
WITHOUT ORDERING RETRIAL CREATES A STATUS FOR THE MILITARY JUDGMENT
SUCH THAT IN NO EVENT WOULD IT BE AVAILABLE TO BAR THIS PROSECUTION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. BAYER, 156 F.2D 964. 

FN2  329 U.S. 706. 

FN3  156 F.2D AT 967. 

FN4  156 F.2D AT 970. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER WOULD AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BELOW BY JUDGE
CLARK IN REVERSING THE CONVICTION OF THE BAYERS, WHICH, UNDER A CHARGE
OF CONSPIRACY, CARRIES WITH IT A REVERSAL AS TO RADOVICH.  156 F.2D
964, 967-68. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
RESPONDENT RADOVICH, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THAT COURT'S OPINION. 
156 F.2D 964, 968-70. 
..END :





















GOSPEL ARMY V. LOS ANGELES, 331 U.S. 543 


NO. 103.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 7, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1947.  - 27
CAL.2D 232, 163 P.2D 704, APPEAL DISMISSED. 


1.  A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA REVERSING A JUDGMENT
OF A TRIAL COURT WITHOUT DIRECTION, WHICH UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW HAS ONLY
THE EFFECT OF REMANDING THE CASE FOR A NEW TRIAL AND, SO FAR AS
APPEARS, PLACES THE PARTIES IN THE SAME POSITION AS IF THE CASE HAD
NEVER BEEN TRIED, IS NOT A "FINAL JUDGMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OF
AN APPEAL THEREFROM.  PP. 546-548. 

2.  RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329 U.S. 69, DISTINGUISHED
UPON THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES APPEARING IN THAT CASE AS RENDERING THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT "FINAL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  PP. 547-548. 

3.  ALTHOUGH THE MODERN RULE IS THAT, IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STATE
COURT'S REMAND IS FOR A NEW TRIAL, THIS COURT WILL EXAMINE BOTH THE
JUDGMENT AND THE OPINION AS WELL AS OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY BE
PERTINENT, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN THE ORDINARY CASE THIS COURT WILL
DISREGARD THE EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT UNDER LOCAL LAW.  P. 548. 

GOSPEL ARMY V. LOS ANGELES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 27
CAL.2D 232, 163 P.2D 704, REVERSING A JUDGMENT OF A TRIAL COURT WITHOUT
DIRECTION DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 548. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 331 U.S. 549, DECIDED TODAY.  BECAUSE WE DISMISS
THE APPEAL IN THIS CAUSE FOR JURISDICTIONAL REASONS, THE FACTS MAY BE
SHORTLY STATED. 

THE GOSPEL ARMY IS AN INCORPORATED RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.  THE TRIAL
COURT FOUND THAT IT IS "ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE PROMULGATION, BY
LITERATURE AND WORD OF MOUTH, OF ITS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, BY AND THROUGH
ITS AUXILIARIES, AND IN THE PROCURING OF DONATIONS IN THE FORM OF MONEY
AND ARTICLES OF VALUE IN THE PROSECUTION AND FURTHERANCE OF ITS
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES."  MORE PARTICULARLY, ITS ACTIVITIES CONSIST OF
CONDUCTING A MISSION, DISTRIBUTING RELIGIOUS BOOKS WITHOUT CHARGE,
GIVING AID TO THE POOR.  IT COLLECTS SALVAGE WHICH IT EITHER SELLS IN A
SECOND-HAND GOODS STORE,  FN1  DISTRIBUTES DIRECTLY TO THE POOR, OR
SENDS TO A SALVAGE MILL.  FN2 

THE GOSPEL ARMY INSTITUTED THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
CERTAIN ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY
VIOLATE ITS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONS OF CALIFORNIA AND
THE UNITED STATES.  FN3 

AFTER TRIAL THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY BROADLY
CONCLUDED: 

"THAT A PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD ISSUE HEREIN RESTRAINING AND
ENJOINING THE DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM AND ANY AND ALL PERSONS,
ASSOCIATIONS, DEPARTMENTS UNDER WHOM SAID DEFENDANTS OR ANY OF THEM MAY
BE EMPLOYED OR ACTING AND ANY AND ALL PERSONS, ASSOCIATIONS OR
DEPARTMENTS WHO MAY BE ACTING OR CLAIMING BY, THROUGH OR UNDER SAID
DEFENDANTS, OR ANY OF THEM FROM THE FURTHER INTERFERENCE AND THREATENED
ACTS, WHICH WOULD IN ANY WAY PREVENT THE FREE EXERCISE OF A RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY OF SAID PLAINTIFF." 

FROM THIS DECISION AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE SECOND APPELLATE DIVISION, DIVISION TWO, AND THE CAUSE
WAS THEN TRANSFERRED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  THAT COURT
HELD, THREE JUDGES DISSENTING, THAT THE SUPERIOR COURT'S ACTION IN
GRANTING THE INJUNCTION WAS ERRONEOUS.  27 CAL.2D 232.  SOME, IF NOT
ALL, OF THE ORDINANCES IN SUIT WERE SUSTAINED AS CONSTITUTIONAL.  ON
APPEAL TO THIS COURT DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION WAS POSTPONED TO THE
MERITS. 

THE JURISDICTIONAL DIFFICULTIES ARISE FROM THE FORM OF THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT.  THAT COURT ENDED ITS OPINION WITH THE
STATEMENT, "THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED."  ITS JUDGMENT WAS IN THE SAME
FORM:  "IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED BY THE COURT THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IN
THE ABOVE ENTITLED CAUSE, BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY REVERSED."  IN
CALIFORNIA AN UNQUALIFIED REVERSAL, "THAT IS TO SAY, WITHOUT DIRECTION
TO THE TRIAL COURT," IS EFFECTIVE TO REMAND THE CASE "FOR A NEW TRIAL
AND PLACES THE PARTIES IN THE SAME POSITION AS IF THE CASE HAD NEVER
BEEN TRIED."  ERLIN V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., 7 CAL.2D 547, 549;
STEARNS V. AGUIRRE, 7 CAL. 443, 448; CENTRAL SAV. BANK V. LAKE, 201
CAL. 438, 443; RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 329
U.S. 69, 72; 2 CAL. JUR.  SEC.  590. 

UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C., SEC. 344, ONLY "FINAL
JUDGMENTS" OF STATE COURTS MAY BE APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  AND IT
FREQUENTLY HAS BEEN SAID THAT FOR A JUDGMENT OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO
BE FINAL AND REVIEWABLE FOR THIS PURPOSE IT MUST END THE LITIGATION BY
FULLY DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, SO THAT NOTHING REMAINS TO
BE DONE BY THE TRIAL COURT "EXCEPT THE MINISTERIAL ACT OF ENTERING THE
JUDGMENT WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT  ...  DIRECTED."  DEPARTMENT OF
BANKING V. PINK, 317 U.S. 264, 267.  THUS, WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE
STATE COURT'S DIRECTION IS TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL, THE JUDGMENT WILL NOT
BE FINAL. 

INCREASINGLY THIS COURT HAS BECOME LESS FORMAL IN THE MATTER OF FINAL
JUDGMENTS.  IT IS NO LONGER THE RULE THAT THE FACE OF THE JUDGMENT IS
DETERMINATIVE OF WHETHER IT IS FINAL.  FN4  TODAY "THE TEST IS NOT
WHETHER UNDER LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE THE JUDGMENT IS DENOMINATED FINAL
...  BUT RATHER WHETHER THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ORDER OF THE
APPELLATE COURT HAS IN FACT FULLY ADJUDICATED RIGHTS AND THAT THAT
ADJUDICATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW BY A STATE COURT ...  "
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK, 317 U.S. AT 268. 

THUS, THIS TERM IN RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION, SUPRA, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA HAD REVERSED A JUDGMENT WITHOUT DIRECTIONS, WE DETERMINED ON
THE ENTIRE RECORD AND UPON AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF CALIFORNIA
LAW THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS FINAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 237.  IN THE
FIRST PLACE, THE FACTS HAD BEEN STIPULATED AND, SO FAR AS APPEARED, THE
STIPULATION WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE AND CONTROLLING UPON A SECOND
TRIAL.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE SUIT WAS ONE FOR A REFUND OF A TAX AND
UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW ONLY THOSE GROUNDS PRESENTED IN THE PRIOR CLAIM
FOR REFUND COULD BE URGED IN THE SUIT.  THE OPINION STATED: "SINCE THE
FACTS HAVE BEEN STIPULATED AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAS
PASSED ON THE ISSUES WHICH CONTROL THE LITIGATION, WE TAKE IT THAT
THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO BE DECIDED."  329 U.S. AT 73-74. 

IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN STIPULATED, NOR ARE
THERE ANY SPECIAL PROCEDURAL RESTRICTIONS.  THUS, UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW,
THE GOSPEL ARMY ON THE SECOND TRIAL TO WHICH IT IS ENTITLED MAY AMEND
ITS COMPLAINT AND PRESENT NEW FACTS.  "SUCH A REVERSAL REMANDS THE CASE
FOR A NEW TRIAL AND PLACES THE PARTIES IN THE SAME POSITION AS IF THE
CASE HAD NEVER BEEN TRIED.  ... OF COURSE, UPON A RETRIAL THE DECISION
OF THE APPELLATE COURT BECOMES THE LAW OF THE CASE UPON THE FACTS AS
THEN PRESENTED.  BUT THAT LAW MUST BE APPLIED BY THE TRIAL COURT TO THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED UPON THE SECOND TRIAL.  'IT IS SETTLED BEYOND
CONTROVERSY THAT A DECISION OF THIS COURT UPON APPEAL, AS TO A (MATTER)
OF FACT, DOES NOT BECOME THE LAW OF THE CASE.'"  ERLIN V. NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INS. CO., 7 CAL.2D AT 549. 

WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA WOULD HOLD THE
ORDINANCES IN QUESTION CONSTITUTIONAL NO MATTER WHAT FACTS MIGHT BE
PRESENTED UPON A SECOND TRIAL.  INDEED, EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT
PARTICULARLY IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASES ISSUES TURN UPON FACTUAL
PRESENTATION. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE SPECIFIC HOLDING OF
THE RICHFIELD OIL CASE, FOR, ALTHOUGH THE MODERN RULE IS THAT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE STATE COURT'S REMAND IS FOR A NEW TRIAL THIS
COURT WILL EXAMINE BOTH THE JUDGMENT AND THE OPINION AS WELL AS OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY BE PERTINENT, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK,
SUPRA; RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION V. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, SUPRA,
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN THE ORDINARY CASE WE WILL DISREGARD THE
EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT UNDER THE LOCAL LAW.  IN THIS CASE, FOR EXAMPLE,
THE EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT UNDER STATE PRACTICE IS TO REMAND THE CASE
FOR A NEW TRIAL.  NOTHING IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IS TO THE
CONTRARY.  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE STATE COURT MADE AN ERROR IN ITS
JUDGMENT, CLERICAL OR OTHERWISE.  IF THE PARTIES HAD THOUGHT SO, THEY
COULD HAVE MOVED TO HAVE IT AMENDED.  INDEED, THAT COURSE MAY STILL BE
OPEN TO THEM. 

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

FN1  THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE SALES IS USED TO MEET THE COST OF
OPERATING THE STORE, INCLUDING COMPENSATION PAID TO THE MANAGER AND TO
THOSE WHO SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS.  WHATEVER REMAINS GOES INTO THE
CORPORATE TREASURY. 

FN2  NINETY PER CENT OF THE MONEY RECEIVED FOR THE GOODS SENT TO THE
SALVAGE MILL IS PAID TO THE DRIVERS OF TRUCKS USED BY THE GOSPEL ARMY
TO COLLECT THE SALVAGE.  THE OTHER TEN PER CENT GOES INTO THE
TREASURY. 

FN3  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER PRECISELY WHAT ORDINANCES WERE
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE OR WERE SUSTAINED BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT.  SEE RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549. 

FN4  FOR CASES INCORPORATING THE OLD "FACE OF THE JUDGMENT" RULE,
SEE, E.G., BRUCE V. TOBIN, 245 U.S. 18; SCHLOSSER V. HEMPHILL, 198 U.S.
173; HASELTINE V. CENTRAL BANK, 183 U.S. 130.  THERE WAS STRONG DISSENT
TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THE RULE.  SEE THE SEPARATE OPINION OF
MCREYNOLDS, J., IN CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112, 129.  AND FOR
GENERAL DISCUSSION, CF. BOSKEY, FINALITY OF STATE COURT JUDGMENTS UNDER
THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CODE (1943) 43 COL. L. REV. 1002, 1003-1008;
ROBERTSON AND KIRKHAM, JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES (1936) 54-57. 
..END :





















RESCUE ARMY V. MUNICIPAL COURT, 331 U.S. 549 


NO. 574.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 7, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 9, 1947.  - 28
CAL.2D 460, 171 P.2D 8, APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 


BEING CHARGED IN A MUNICIPAL COURT IN CALIFORNIA ON TWO COUNTS WITH
VIOLATIONS OF THREE SECTIONS OF A MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING THE
SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CHARITY, WHICH SECTIONS INCORPORATED
BY REFERENCE NUMEROUS OTHER SECTIONS OF AN INTRICATE AND AMBIGUOUS
CHAPTER, APPELLANTS SUED FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO TEST THE
JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT, CLAIMING THAT THE CODE UNDULY ABRIDGED
THE FREE EXERCISE OF THEIR RELIGION CONTRARY TO THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  IN AN OPINION WHICH AMBIGUOUSLY INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE PARTS OF ITS OPINION IN ANOTHER CASE INVOLVING A WIDER RANGE
OF ISSUES, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF
THE CODE AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT WITHOUT CLEARLY
IDENTIFYING OR CONSTRUING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OR
PASSING UPON QUESTIONS OF LOCAL PROCEDURE NECESSARILY INVOLVED.  HELD: 

1.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT IS "FINAL" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AND THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF
AN APPEAL THEREFROM.  BANDINI CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8; BRYANT
V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63; PLESSY V. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537, FOLLOWED. 
GOSPEL ARMY V. LOS ANGELES, ANTE, P. 543, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 556-568. 

2.  THIS COURT, PURSUANT TO LONG-SETTLED POLICY IN DISPOSITION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, DECLINES TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION TO PASS
UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL; SINCE THEY ARE
PRESENTED IN A HIGHLY ABSTRACT AND SPECULATIVE FORM AND THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HAS NOT CLEARLY INTERPRETED THE NUMEROUS AMBIGUOUS AND
INTERDEPENDENT PROVISIONS OF THE INTRICATE CHAPTER OUT OF WHICH THEY
ARISE.  PP. 574-585. 

3.  DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BY THIS COURT SHOULD
AWAIT THE DETERMINATION WHICH NECESSARILY WILL BE MADE IN THE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT WHETHER IN THE FIRST COUNT
APPELLANTS HAVE BEEN CHARGED INDEPENDENTLY OR ALTERNATIVELY UNDER TWO
SUBSECTIONS.  PP. 576-577. 

4.  IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO
ADJUDICATE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES SHOULD BE EXERTED ONLY WHEN THEY ARE
PRESENTED IN CLEAN-CUT AND CONCRETE FORM, UNCLOUDED BY ANY SERIOUS
PROBLEM OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING EITHER TO THE TERMS OF THE QUESTIONED
LEGISLATION OR TO ITS INTERPRETATION BY THE STATE COURTS.  P. 584. 

5.  THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DETERMINATION IN
THE FUTURE OF ANY ISSUES ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FROM
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT.  PP. 584-585. 

RESCUE ARMY ET AL. V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF LOS ANGELES. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA DENIED A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO TEST
THE JURISDICTION OF A MUNICIPAL COURT TO TRY APPELLANTS FOR ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF A MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING THE SOLICITATION OF
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CHARITY, WHICH THEY CHALLENGED AS UNDULY ABRIDGING
THE FREE EXERCISE OF THEIR RELIGION CONTRARY TO THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  28 CAL.2D 460, 171 P.2D 8.  APPEAL DISMISSED,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DETERMINATION IN THE FUTURE OF ANY ISSUES
ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE
MUNICIPAL COURT.  P. 585. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON THE MERITS THIS APPEAL PRESENTS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
GOVERNING THE SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CHARITY.  FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GROUNDS ARE URGED AS NULLIFYING THEM CHIEFLY IN
THE VIEW THAT THEY IMPOSE PRIOR RESTRAINTS UPON AND UNDULY ABRIDGE
APPELLANTS' RIGHTS IN THE FREE EXERCISE OF THEIR RELIGION.  THOSE
RIGHTS, AS CLAIMED, ARE TO ENGAGE IN SOLICITING DONATIONS FOR CHARITY
AS A PART OF THEIR RELIGION FREE FROM THE ORDINANCES' RESTRICTIONS. 

SIMILAR, BUT ALSO DISTINCT, QUESTIONS WERE INVOLVED IN GOSPEL ARMY V.
LOS ANGELES, DISMISSED TODAY FOR JURISDICTIONAL REASONS.  331 U.S.
543.  THIS CASE, HOWEVER, AROSE PROCEDURALLY IN A DIFFERENT FASHION, SO
THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT.  AND THE
PROCEDURAL DIFFERENCE IS IMPORTANT, NOT MERELY FOR OUR JURISDICTION BUT
ALSO FOR DETERMINING THE PROPRIETY OF EXERCISING IT IN THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED BY THIS APPEAL. 

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HEARD AND DETERMINED THE GOSPEL ARMY
CASE SEVERAL MONTHS IN ADVANCE OF THIS ONE.  IT SUSTAINED THE
REGULATIONS IN BOTH INSTANCES, FILING SEPARATE OPINIONS IN EACH CASE. 
27 CAL.2D 232; 28 CAL.  2D 460.  BUT THE ATTACK UPON THE CITY
ORDINANCES IN THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE COVERED A MUCH WIDER RANGE THAN
HERE, AND THE COURT'S PRINCIPAL OPINION WAS RENDERED IN THAT CAUSE. 
HENCE IN THIS CASE IT DISPOSED OF OVERLAPPING ISSUES MERELY BY
REFERENCE A FORTIORI TO ITS "APPROVAL" OF THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS IN
THE GOSPEL ARMY OPINION. 

AS WILL MORE FULLY APPEAR, THIS MODE OF TREATMENT, TOGETHER WITH
INTERLACING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PROVISIONS INVOLVED HERE AND OTHERS
IN THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE, HAS COMBINED WITH THE NECESSITATED DISMISSAL
OF THAT APPEAL TO CREATE FOR US DIFFICULT PROBLEMS IN DETERMINING
EXACTLY HOW MUCH OF THE REGULATORY SCHEME APPROVED IN THE GOSPEL ARMY
OPINION, AND HENCE ALSO HOW MUCH OF THAT DECISION, MUST BE TAKEN AS
HAVING BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CAUSE.  BY VIRTUE
OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT'S METHOD OF DECISION, WE ARE LARGELY WITHOUT
BENEFIT OF ITS JUDGMENT UPON THESE MATTERS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE
QUESTIONS OF SEVERABILITY.  CONSEQUENTLY, THIS FACT, TOGETHER WITH THE
DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONAL POSTURES IN WHICH THE CASES REACH THIS COURT,
WOULD FORCE US TO DETERMINE THOSE QUESTIONS INDEPENDENTLY BEFORE
UNDERTAKING ANY DECISION ON THE MERITS. 

THAT NECESSITY AND THE DIFFICULTIES TENDERED BY THE EXTRICATING
PROBLEM RAISE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION
APPROPRIATE, IN THE UNUSUAL SITUATION, TO BE MADE OF THIS APPEAL.  IN
ORDER TO PRESENT THE PROBLEM WITH A FAIR DEGREE OF PRECISION, IT IS
NECESSARY TO STATE IN SOME DETAIL THE NATURE OF THE TWO PROCEEDINGS,
THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO EACH OTHER, AND THEIR PROCEDURAL AS WELL AS
JURISDICTIONAL DIFFERENCES. 

                                  I. 

THIS SUIT IS ONE FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION.  THE APPEAL IS FROM THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT DENYING APPELLANTS' APPLICATION FOR
SUCH A WRIT.  28 CAL.2D 460.  THEY INSTITUTED THE SUIT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, OF
CALIFORNIA.  ITS OBJECT WAS TO TEST THE JURISDICTION OF THE RESPONDENT
MUNICIPAL COURT OF LOS ANGELES TO PROCEED WITH A PENDING CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION AGAINST MURDOCK, WHO IS AN OFFICER OF THE RESCUE ARMY.  IN
THAT COURT HE HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THREE PROVISIONS OF THE
CITY ORDINANCES, HAD BEEN TWICE CONVICTED, AND TWICE THE CONVICTIONS
HAD BEEN REVERSED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.  FN1 

WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT AFTER THE SECOND
REVERSAL, APPELLANTS FILED THEIR PETITION IN THIS CAUSE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL.  ALLEGING THAT THE MUNICIPAL COURT WAS THREATENING TO
PROCEED WITH A THIRD TRIAL ON THE SAME CHARGES, THEY SET FORTH GROUNDS
HELD SUFFICIENT UNDER THE STATE PROCEDURE TO PRESENT FOR ADJUDICATION
THE QUESTION OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT'S JURISDICTION.  28 CAL.2D AT 462
467. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DENIED THE WRIT.  THEREUPON THE STATE
SUPREME COURT TRANSFERRED THE CAUSE TO ITS OWN DOCKET AND ISSUED AN
ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF PROHIBITION PENDING DETERMINATION THERE.  AS IN THE
GOSPEL ARMY CASE, THE SUPREME COURT, WITH THREE OF THE SEVEN JUSTICES
DISSENTING, DECIDED THE ISSUES ON THE MERITS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS. 
IT THEREFORE DENIED THE WRIT, AT THE SAME TIME DISCHARGING THE
ALTERNATIVE WRIT.  IN SHORT EFFECT THE ORDINANCES, INSOFAR AS THEY WERE
INVOLVED, WERE SUSTAINED AS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER
OBJECTIONS RAISED CONCERNING THEM.  PROBABLE JURISDICTION WAS DULY
NOTED HERE, AND THE CAUSE WAS ASSIGNED FOR ARGUMENT IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE. 

APPARENTLY MURDOCK WAS CHARGED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT WITH VIOLATING
THREE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.  THESE WERE SECS. 44.09(A),
44.09(B), AND 44.12 OF ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER IV.  FN2 SECTIONS 44.09(A)
AND (B) FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE FIRST COUNT AGAINST MURDOCK.  FN3
COLLOQUIALLY SPEAKING, SEC. 44.09 IS A "TIN-CUP" ORDINANCE.  IN
SUMMARY, ITS TWO SUBDIVISIONS, (A) AND (B), PROHIBIT SOLICITATIONS IN
THE SPECIFIED PUBLIC PLACES OR ADJACENT AREAS "BY MEANS OF ANY BOX OR
RECEPTACLE" EXCEPT, UNDER (A), "BY THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
THE BOARD (OF SOCIAL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS)"; UNDER (B), "WITHOUT FIRST
FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT (OF SOCIAL SERVICE) A 'NOTICE OF INTENTION'
AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 44.05" AND, LITERALLY, OBEYING THE FURTHER COMMAND
THAT "EVERY PERSON SO SOLICITING MUST IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS COMPLY WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE."  FN4  THE FULL TEXT OF THE SECTION IS
SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN5 

THE SECOND COUNT CHARGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 44.12 BY SOLICITING
WITHOUT EXHIBITING OR READING TO THE PERSONS SOLICITED AN INFORMATION
CARD ISSUED BY THE LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS. 
SOLICITATION.  IT IS IN THE FOLLOWING WORDS: 

"NO PERSON SHALL SOLICIT ANY CONTRIBUTIONS UNLESS HE EXHIBITS AN
INFORMATION CARD PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 44.03 OF THIS ARTICLE AND READS
IT TO THE PERSON SOLICITED OR PRESENTS IT TO SAID PERSON FOR HIS
PERUSAL, ALLOWING HIM SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO READ SAME, BEFORE
ACCEPTING ANY CONTRIBUTION SO SOLICITED." 

OBVIOUSLY NEITHER SEC. 44.09(B) NOR SEC. 44.12 IS SELF-CONTAINED. 
EACH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE.  THUS, IT IS
NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, UNDER SEC. 44.09(B), THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 44.05 REQUIRING THE FILING OF THE "NOTICE OF INTENTION" AS WELL AS
THE OMNIBUS REQUIREMENT OF COMPLIANCE "IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS  ...  WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE"; UNDER SEC. 44.12, THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SEC. 44.03 CONCERNING ISSUANCE OF THE INFORMATION CARD.  ENFORCEMENT OF
SEC. 44.09(A), WHICH DOES NOT REFER SPECIFICALLY TO OTHER SECTIONS,
NECESSARILY INVOLVES CONSIDERATION OF WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS MAY RELATE
TO SECURING THE BOARD'S WRITTEN PERMISSION. 

THE ISSUE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT'S JURISDICTION THEREFORE, INSOFAR AS
IT CONCERNS US, TURNS UPON THE VALIDITY OF SECS. 44.09(A), 44.09(B) AND
44.12, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS NECESSARILY INCORPORATED IN
THEM BY REFERENCE; AND, UPON THIS APPEAL, THEIR VALIDITY NOT ONLY IS
RELATIVE SOLELY TO THE EFFECT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITIONS, BUT MUST BE DETERMINED IN LIGHT OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT'S INTERPRETATION, INCLUDING THE EXTENT TO WHICH OTHER PROVISIONS
HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED.  MOREOVER THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION ARISES
SUBSTANTIALLY AS UPON DEMURRER TO THE CHARGES, SINCE TRIAL HAS NOT BEEN
HAD AND THE ISSUE CONCERNS ONLY THE MUNICIPAL COURT'S POWER TO PROCEED
WITH THE CRIMINAL CAUSE.  HENCE ONLY THE VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS ON
THEIR FACE, NOT AS APPLIED TO PROVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, IS CALLED IN
QUESTION.  FN6 

THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS AN INJUNCTION SUIT, IN
WHICH ATTACK WAS PROJECTED ON A BROAD FRONT AGAINST THE ORDINANCES AND
THE SCHEME OF REGULATION THEY EMBODY AS A WHOLE.  FOR SOME REASON SEC.
44.09(A) WAS NOT ATTACKED IN THAT SUIT.  BUT SEC. 44.09(B) WAS INVOLVED
INDIRECTLY THROUGH ITS RELATION TO SEC. 44.05 AND SEC. 44.12 DIRECTLY,
AS WELL AS NUMEROUS OTHER PROVISIONS BOTH OF ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER IV, AND
OUTSIDE IT.  THAT ARTICLE, AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, CONSISTS OF CODE
SECS. 44.01-44.19, ENTITLED "CHARITIES AND RELIEF," AND THUS INCLUDES
ALL OF THE SECTIONS INVOLVED HERE AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS WHICH WERE IN
ISSUE IN THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE. 

IT IS THIS SETTING OF DOVETAILED LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS AND JUDICIAL
DECISIONS WHICH CREATES THE PRIMARY PROBLEM FOR OUR DISPOSITION.  THOSE
INTERRELATIONS, OF THE CASES AND OF THE ORDINANCES THEY INVOLVE, WILL
BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD IN THE SETTING OF A SUMMARY OF THE GENERAL
SCHEME. 

II. 

THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATES BOTH CHARITABLE AND OTHER SOLICITATIONS,
AS WELL AS PAWNBROKERS, SECONDHAND DEALERS, JUNK DEALERS, ETC.  THE
REGULATIONS AFFECTING THOSE DEALERS LIE OUTSIDE ARTICLE 4 AND BECAME
PERTINENT IN THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE BECAUSE OF THAT ORGANIZATION'S
ACTIVITIES IN COLLECTING, REPAIRING, SELLING AND GIVING AWAY USED
ARTICLES.  FN7  NONE OF THOSE REGULATIONS, HOWEVER, APPEARS TO BE
INVOLVED HERE.  FN8  THE MUNICIPAL COURT CHARGES, SO FAR AS WE CAN NOW
ASCERTAIN, RELATE EXCLUSIVELY TO CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS AND
CONSEQUENTLY ARE COMPREHENDED WITHIN ARTICLE 4.  FN9  WE THEREFORE ARE
RELIEVED OF THE NECESSITY FOR TAKING ACCOUNT OF ANY OF THE CODE
PROVISIONS OUTSIDE THAT ARTICLE. 

ARTICLE 4, HOWEVER, COMPREHENDS NUMEROUS INTERRELATED SECTIONS AND
SUBDIVISIONS.  THEY PROVIDE A BROAD AND GENERAL, THOUGH ALSO HIGHLY
DETAILED AND INTEGRATED, PLAN FOR REGULATING SOLICITATIONS IN LOS
ANGELES.  THE SECTIONS HERE IN QUESTION ARE INTEGRAL PARTS OF THAT
PLAN. 

IT IS DESIGNED PRIMARILY, THOUGH NOT EXCLUSIVELY, TO SECURE A MAXIMUM
OF INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY FOR THE PUBLIC.  IT SEEKS TO MAKE
AVAILABLE TO ALL PERSONS SOLICITED DETAILED INFORMATION CONCERNING THE
PERSONS SOLICITING, THE CAUSES OR ORGANIZATIONS ON BEHALF OF WHICH THEY
ACT, AND THE USES TO WHICH THE DONATIONS WILL BE PUT.  THE PLAN ALSO
UNDERTAKES, IN OTHER WAYS, TO ASSURE RESPONSIBILITY, BOTH MORAL AND
FINANCIAL, ON THE PART OF SOLICITING INDIVIDUALS AND AGENCIES; AND TO
SEE TO IT THAT THE FUNDS COLLECTED ARE APPLIED TO THEIR APPROPRIATE
PURPOSES. 

MACHINERY FOR EXECUTING THE SCHEME IS CREATED THROUGH THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE AND A BOARD OF SOCIAL
SERVICE COMMISSIONERS, EACH WITH SPECIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS.  FN10
COMPREHENSIVE AND DETAILED DEFINITIONS OF ACTIVITIES AFFECTED AND
CORRELATIVE PROHIBITIONS ARE PRESCRIBED, TOGETHER WITH VARIOUS
PROVISIONS FOR EXEMPTION.  VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITIONS, WHICH
GENERALLY REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER REGULATIONS, IS
MADE PUNISHABLE BY CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. 

MORE NARROWLY, INSOFAR AS THE PLAN IS RELEVANT HERE, ANY PERSON OR
ASSOCIATION DESIRING TO SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS FOR A CHARITABLE PURPOSE
FN11  MUST FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, AT LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE BEGINNING
TO SOLICIT, A WRITTEN "NOTICE OF INTENTION."  SEC. 44.05.  THIS IS, IN
SUBSTANCE, AN APPLICATION FOR THE "INFORMATION CARD" PROVIDED FOR IN
SEC. 44.03(D).  IT WILL BE RECALLED THAT SEC. 44.09(B), IN ISSUE HERE,
EXPRESSLY REQUIRES THE FILING OF THIS NOTICE.  AND SEC. 44.12, ALSO
DIRECTLY IN ISSUE, REQUIRES EXHIBITION OF THE CARD BEFORE SOLICITATION
MAY LAWFULLY TAKE PLACE. 

THE NOTICE MUST BE FILED ON A FORM FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND
MUST CONTAIN THE "COMPLETE INFORMATION" SPECIFIED IN THE MARGIN.  FN12
SEC. 44.05.  THE DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO
INVESTIGATE THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE AND TO ISSUE
INFORMATION CARDS "TO ALL SOLICITORS."  FN13  SEC. 44.03.  THOSE CARDS
MUST SHOW THE DETAILED MATTERS SPECIFIED BELOW.  FN14  IBID.  THE BOARD
IS EMPOWERED TO PUBLISH THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS PROVIDED FOR
IN SEC. 44.03  FN15  AND TO EXERCISE OTHER POWERS, SUCH AS ENDORSING A
SOLICITING ASSOCIATION, WAIVING SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS, AND RECALLING
THE INFORMATION CARDS FOR CORRECTION.  FN16 SECS. 44.02, 44.03.  A FEE
OF FOUR CENTS PER CARD IS CHARGED, WHEN ISSUED, UNLESS MORE THAN TWENTY
FIVE ARE ISSUED AT ONE TIME FOR THE SAME SOLICITATION.  IN THAT EVENT
THE FEE BECOMES ONE CENT PER CARD.    THE FOREGOING REGULATIONS APPLY,
ON THE FACE OF THE ORDINANCE, TO CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS AS
REQUIREMENTS IN THE NATURE OF CONDITIONS PRECEDENT, COMPLIANCE WITH
WHICH IS NECESSARY BEFORE SOLICITATION MAY BE LAWFULLY MADE.  THERE ARE
ALSO OTHER REQUIREMENTS WHICH BECOME APPLICABLE DURING AND AFTER THE
ACT OF SOLICITATION.  ONE IS THAT OF SEC. 44.15, WHICH COMMANDS PERSONS
SOLICITING FOR CHARITY TO TENDER TO EACH CONTRIBUTOR A WRITTEN RECEIPT
CONTAINING SPECIFIED DETAILED INFORMATION.  FN17  AND BY SEC. 44.14
EVERY SUCH SOLICITOR MUST FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
AFTER "THE CLOSE OF ANY SUCH SOLICITATION" OR DEMAND, A REPORT SHOWING
THE CONTRIBUTIONS SECURED AND "EXACTLY FOR WHAT USES AND IN WHAT
MANNER" THEY "WERE OR ARE TO BE DISBURSED." 

ARTICLE 4, MOREOVER, CLASSIFIES PERSONS SOLICITING INTO THREE GROUPS,
TWO OF WHICH ARE PRIMARY, NAMELY, "PROMOTERS" AND "SOLICITORS." 
"SOLICITORS," AS WILL APPEAR, ARE SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO CLASSES.  THE
REGULATIONS BEARING UPON PROMOTERS ARE MORE ONEROUS THAN THOSE TOUCHING
SOLICITORS AND ARE CONTAINED IN SEC. 44.19, WHICH ITSELF INCLUDES
NUMEROUS SUBDIVISIONS.  FN18 

THE EXACT DEFINITIVE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOLICITORS AND PROMOTERS,
WHO MAY BE EITHER INSTITUTIONS OR INDIVIDUALS, IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE
DEFINITIONS GIVEN IN THE ORDINANCE N19, OR INDEED FROM THE OPINIONS
FILED IN THE STATE COURT.  FN20  BUT, SO FAR AS WE CAN GATHER, THE
PROMOTER DIFFERS FROM THE SOLICITOR, GENERALLY AT ANY RATE, AS BEING
ONE WHO ENGAGES IN SOLICITATION AS A BUSINESS OR BY EXERCISING A
MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY CAPACITY OVER OTHER PERSONS ACTING AS PAID
SOLICITORS UNDER HIS DIRECTION OR PURSUANT TO A PROGRAM IN HIS CHARGE. 
FN21 

SOLICITORS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.  A PROMOTER IS FORBIDDEN BY SEC.
44.19(9)(A) TO CAUSE OR PERMIT ANY PERSON FOR COMPENSATION "TO SOLICIT
OR RECEIVE ON HIS BEHALF OR AT HIS INSTIGATION, UNDER HIS DIRECTION OR
CONTROL OR IN HIS EMPLOYMENT, ANY CONTRIBUTION UNLESS SUCH PERSON SHALL
BE REGISTERED AS A SOLICITOR BY THE BOARD."  AND THE NEXT SUBSECTION
REQUIRES THE REGISTERED SOLICITOR TO PROVE HIS GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND
REPUTATION FOR HONESTY, TO FILE A $500 BOND, AND TO PAY A $1.00
REGISTRATION FEE.  SEC. 44.19(9)(B), (D). 

SOLICITORS, NAMELY, REGISTERED AND UNREGISTERED, AS WELL AS THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROMOTERS AND SOLICITORS; AND ESTABLISHES SPECIAL
AND MORE BURDENSOME CONDITIONS FOR LAWFUL SOLICITATION BY REGISTERED
SOLICITORS, AS WELL AS BY PROMOTERS, THAN ARE CREATED FOR SOLICITORS
NOT REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED. 

FINALLY, WITHOUT DETAILED ELABORATION, NUMEROUS REGULATIONS IN
ADDITION TO OR INTERWOVEN WITH THOSE RELATING TO SOLICITORS OF BOTH
TYPES AND TO PROMOTERS GOVERN THE ORGANIZATIONS OR CHARITIES ON WHOSE
BEHALF THE SOLICITATIONS ARE MADE.  FN22 

THE FOREGOING SUMMARY IS PERHAPS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE
COMPREHENSIVE NATURE OF THE PLAN AND THE INTRICATELY INTERLACING
RELATIONSHIPS OF THE NUMEROUS PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4 MAKING UP THE
GENERAL SCHEME IN WHICH SECS. 44.09(A), (B) AND 44.12 FIND THEIR
CONTEXT AND SETTING.  SOME NO DOUBT COULD BE APPLIED INDEPENDENTLY,
PERHAPS FOR EXAMPLE SEC. 44.09(A).  FN23  BUT OTHERS ARE INTERWOVEN
WITH ONE OR MORE DISTINCT PROVISIONS TO SPECIFY ESSENTIAL CONSTITUENT
ELEMENTS.  AND IN MANY INSTANCES THE PROVISIONS SO IMPORTED REQUIRE OR
SUGGEST STILL FURTHER REFERENCE TO ADDITIONAL ONES.  THE ARTICLE IS IN
FACT A WEB OF INTRICATELY DOVETAILING REFERENCES AND CROSS-REFERENCES. 

THUS, WITH RESPECT TO THE SECTIONS INVOLVED HERE, SEC. 44.12 REQUIRES
EXHIBITION OF THE INFORMATION CARD PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 44.03.  THIS IN
TURN FORCES REFERENCE TO SEC. 44.05, WHICH SPECIFIES THE CONDITIONS FOR
SECURING THE CARD.  AND FULFILLMENT OF THOSE CONDITIONS MAY COMPEL
RESORT TO STILL OTHER PROVISIONS.  THE SAME PROCESS MUST BE GONE
THROUGH WITH RESPECT TO SEC. 44.09(B).  FOR WHILE THAT SECTION DIFFERS
VERBALLY FROM SEC. 44.12 IN THAT IT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES ONLY THE
FILING OF THE NOTICE OF INTENTION, NOT ISSUANCE OR EXHIBITION OF THE
INFORMATION CARD, NOT ONLY IS THE PROCEDURE FOR FILING THE NOTICE
HIGHLY DETAILED AND LARGELY SET FORTH IN OTHER SECTIONS.  IT IS ALSO
HIGHLY DOUBTFUL, IN VIEW OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S DECISION,
WHETHER PERSONS SO COMPLYING AND FILING THE NOTICE WOULD BE AUTHORIZED
BY THAT ACT ALONE TO PROCEED WITH LAWFUL SOLICITATION UNDER SEC.
44.09(B), WITHOUT WAITING THE SPECIFIED TEN-DAY PERIOD (SEC. 44.05) AND
UNDERGOING THE INVESTIGATIONS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 44.03 OR PERHAPS
ACTUALLY PROCURING THE CARD.  FN24 

IT IS NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROBLEM
PRESENTED BY THE APPEAL, TO SET FORTH SOMEWHAT MORE FULLY THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH SECS. 44.09(A), 44.09(B)
AND 44.12, AND RELATED PROVISIONS.  THIS, HOWEVER, MAY BEST BE DEFERRED
AT THIS POINT, IN ORDER TO STATE THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES WHICH WE THINK
ARE CONTROLLING OF OUR DISPOSITION. 

 III. 

THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE WE HAVE DISMISSED FOR THE TECHNICAL,
NEVERTHELESS IMPORTANT, REASON THAT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW THE STATE
SUPREME COURT'S REVERSAL, WITHOUT MORE, CONTEMPLATES FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT.  CONSEQUENTLY THAT JUDGMENT IS NOT
FINAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR JURISDICTION ON APPEAL, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 
331 U.S. 543. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS APPEAL IS NOT SUBJECT TO THAT PARTICULAR
INFIRMITY.  THE EFFECT OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT, OF
COURSE, WILL BE TO PERMIT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT. 
BUT UNDER THE RULE OF BANDINI CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8, THIS
PROHIBITION PROCEEDING WOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT SUIT, IN RELATION TO
THAT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, "AND THE JUDGMENT FINALLY DISPOSING OF IT,"
AS DID THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT, "IS A FINAL JUDGMENT WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE."  284 U.S. AT 14. 
FN25 

THE BANDINI CASE, LIKE THIS ONE, WAS A PROHIBITION PROCEEDING BROUGHT
IN A CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL.  ITS OBJECT WAS TO DETERMINE
THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE SUPERIOR COURT IN AN EQUITY CAUSE.  THAT
SUIT HAD BEEN BROUGHT BY THE STATE DIRECTOR OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO
ENJOIN ALLEGED UNREASONABLE WASTE OF NATURAL GAS, PURSUANT TO THE OIL
AND GAS CONSERVATION ACT OF CALIFORNIA.  A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
ISSUED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT.  THEREUPON THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION WAS
SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER, AND OF THE ACT, WHICH
WAS ATTACKED UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION GROUNDS.  THE WRIT WAS DENIED, AS WAS HEARING BY THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.  UPON APPEAL HERE THIS COURT SUSTAINED ITS
JURISDICTION AND DETERMINED THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES PRESENTED UPON
THE FACE OF THE STATUTE, FN26  AFFECTING THE SUPERIOR COURT'S
JURISDICTION, ADVERSELY TO THE APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS. 

THE BANDINI RULING IS WELL SETTLED.  FN27  APPARENTLY, HOWEVER, IT
HAS BEEN APPLIED TO A PROCEEDING IN PROHIBITION RELATING TO A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION IN BUT A SINGLE CASE, PLESSY V. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537,
WITHOUT DISCUSSION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, A CLOSE, INDEED IT WOULD SEEM A
COMPLETE, ANALOGY IS TO BE FOUND IN BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63. 
IN THAT CASE BRYANT HAD BEEN CHARGED CRIMINALLY IN THE COURTS OF NEW
YORK WITH VIOLATING THAT STATE'S SO-CALLED ANTI-SECRET ORGANIZATION
STATUTE, AND WAS HELD IN CUSTODY FOR TRIAL PURSUANT TO THAT CHARGE.  HE
INSTITUTED HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS, ON THE GROUND
THAT "THE WARRANT UNDER WHICH HE WAS ARRESTED AND DETAINED WAS ISSUED
WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION, IN THAT THE STATUTE WHICH HE WAS CHARGED WITH
VIOLATING WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL."  278 U.S. AT 65.  UPON APPEAL FROM THE
STATE COURT'S DENIAL OF THE WRIT, THIS COURT WITH ONE JUSTICE
DISSENTING ENTERTAINED THE APPEAL AND HELD THE STATUTE VALID. 

ALTHOUGH THE JURISDICTIONAL INQUIRY, IN THE STATE COURTS AND HERE,
WAS CONDUCTED IN THE SEPARATE PROCEEDING ON HABEAS CORPUS, UNLIKE THE
BANDINI CASE IT RELATED TO A CRIMINAL CAUSE, AS DOES THIS CASE.  AND
FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, A DISTINCTION WOULD SEEM TO BE WHOLLY VERBAL BETWEEN SUCH AN
INQUIRY AND ITS DISPOSITION MADE UNDER THE STATE PROCEDURE OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND A SIMILAR ONE MADE IN A STATE PROCEEDING FOR A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION.  FN28  THOSE PROCEDURES, OF COURSE, HAVE THEIR HISTORIC
DIFFERENCES, BOTH IN AVAILABILITY AND IN SPECIFIC FUNCTION, AT THE
COMMON LAW.  BUT WHEN THEY ARE UTILIZED, UNDER STATE AUTHORIZATION,
SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE IDENTICAL PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF
STATE STATUTES UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AS DETERMINATIVE OF THE
JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS TO PROCEED WITH CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
BASED ON THOSE ACTS, IT WOULD SEEM DIFFICULT TO FIND ANY SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM RELATIVE TO THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW
THEIR DETERMINATIONS.  THIS ASSUMES, OF COURSE, THAT THE JUDGMENT
REVIEWED UNDER ONE NAME OR THE OTHER WOULD BE SUCH AS FINALLY DISPOSES
OF THE PROCEEDING. 

WHILE THEREFORE WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO
JURISDICTION IN THIS CAUSE, NEVERTHELESS COMPELLING REASONS EXIST FOR
NOT EXERCISING IT. 

FROM HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 DALL.  409, TO ALMA MOTOR CO. V. TIMKEN
DETROIT AXLE CO. AND THE HATCH ACT CASE DECIDED THIS TERM,  FN29  THIS
COURT HAS FOLLOWED A POLICY OF STRICT NECESSITY IN DISPOSING OF
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.  THE EARLIEST EXEMPLIFICATIONS, TOO WELL KNOWN
FOR REPEATING THE HISTORY HERE, AROSE IN THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO RENDER
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND IN APPLICATIONS OF THE RELATED JURISDICTIONAL
POLICY DRAWN FROM THE CASE AND CONTROVERSY LIMITATION.  U.S. CONST.,
ART. III.  THE SAME POLICY HAS BEEN REFLECTED CONTINUOUSLY NOT ONLY IN
DECISIONS BUT ALSO IN RULES OF COURT AND IN STATUTES MADE APPLICABLE TO
JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS, INCLUDING THE NECESSITY FOR REASONABLE CLARITY
AND DEFINITENESS, AS WELL AS FOR TIMELINESS, IN RAISING AND PRESENTING
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  FN30  INDEED PERHAPS THE MOST EFFECTIVE
IMPLEMENT FOR MAKING THE POLICY EFFECTIVE HAS BEEN THE CERTIORARI
JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THIS COURT BY CONGRESS.  E.G., JUDICIAL
CODE, SECS. 237, 240. 

THE POLICY, HOWEVER, HAS NOT BEEN LIMITED TO JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATIONS.  FOR, IN ADDITION, "THE COURT (HAS) DEVELOPED, FOR ITS
OWN GOVERNANCE IN THE CASES CONFESSEDLY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, A
SERIES OF RULES UNDER WHICH IT HAS AVOIDED PASSING UPON A LARGE PART OF
ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESSED UPON IT FOR DECISION."  FN31
THUS, AS THOSE RULES WERE LISTED IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT QUOTED,
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AFFECTING LEGISLATION WILL NOT BE DETERMINED IN
FRIENDLY, NONADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS; IN ADVANCE OF THE NECESSITY OF
DECIDING THEM; IN BROADER TERMS THAN ARE REQUIRED BY THE PRECISE FACTS
TO WHICH THE RULING IS TO BE APPLIED; IF THE RECORD PRESENTS SOME OTHER
GROUND UPON WHICH THE CASE MAY BE DISPOSED OF; AT THE INSTANCE OF ONE
WHO FAILS TO SHOW THAT HE IS INJURED BY THE STATUTE'S OPERATION, OR WHO
HAS AVAILED HIMSELF OF ITS BENEFITS; OR IF A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE IS FAIRLY POSSIBLE BY WHICH THE QUESTION MAY BE AVOIDED.  FN32 

SOME, IF NOT INDEED ALL, OF THESE RULES HAVE FOUND "MOST VARIED
APPLICATIONS."  FN33  AND EVERY APPLICATION HAS BEEN AN INSTANCE OF
RELUCTANCE, INDEED OF REFUSAL, TO UNDERTAKE THE MOST IMPORTANT AND THE
MOST DELICATE OF THE COURT'S FUNCTIONS, NOTWITHSTANDING CONCEDED
JURISDICTION, UNTIL NECESSITY COMPELS IT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. 

MOREOVER THE POLICY IS NEITHER MERELY PROCEDURAL NOR IN ITS ESSENCE
DEPENDENT FOR APPLICABILITY UPON THE DIVERSITIES OF JURISDICTION AND
PROCEDURE, WHETHER OF THE STATE COURTS, THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS, OR
THIS COURT.  RATHER IT IS ONE OF SUBSTANCE,  FN34  GROUNDED IN
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH TRANSCEND ALL SUCH PARTICULAR LIMITATIONS.  LIKE
THE CASE AND CONTROVERSY LIMITATION ITSELF AND THE POLICY AGAINST
ENTERTAINING POLITICAL QUESTIONS,  FN35  IT IS ONE OF THE RULES BASIC
TO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AND THIS COURT'S APPROPRIATE PLACE WITHIN THAT
STRUCTURE.  FN36 

INDEED IN ORIGIN AND IN PRACTICAL EFFECTS, THOUGH NOT IN TECHNICAL
FUNCTION, IT IS A COROLLARY OFFSHOOT OF THE CASE AND CONTROVERSY RULE. 
AND OFTEN THE LINE BETWEEN APPLYING THE POLICY OR THE RULE IS VERY
THIN.  FN37  THEY WORK, WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE AND TECHNICALLY
DISTINCT AREAS, TO ACHIEVE THE SAME PRACTICAL PURPOSES FOR THE PROCESS
OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION, AND UPON CLOSELY RELATED
CONSIDERATIONS. 

THE POLICY'S ULTIMATE FOUNDATIONS, SOME IF NOT ALL OF WHICH ALSO
SUSTAIN THE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION, LIE IN ALL THAT GOES TO MAKE UP
THE UNIQUE PLACE AND CHARACTER, IN OUR SCHEME, OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION FOR CONSTITUTIONALITY.  THEY ARE FOUND IN THE
DELICACY OF THAT FUNCTION, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF POSSIBLE
CONSEQUENCES FOR OTHERS STEMMING ALSO FROM CONSTITUTIONAL ROOTS; THE
COMPARATIVE FINALITY OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES; THE CONSIDERATION DUE TO
THE JUDGMENT OF OTHER REPOSITORIES OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER CONCERNING
THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY; THE NECESSITY, IF GOVERNMENT IS TO
FUNCTION CONSTITUTIONALLY, FOR EACH TO KEEP WITHIN ITS POWER, INCLUDING
THE COURTS; THE INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, ARISING
ESPECIALLY FROM ITS LARGELY NEGATIVE CHARACTER AND LIMITED RESOURCES OF
ENFORCEMENT; WITHAL IN THE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION IN OUR SYSTEM. 

ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS AND PERHAPS OTHERS, TRANSCENDING SPECIFIC
PROCEDURES, HAVE UNITED TO FORM AND SUSTAIN THE POLICY.  ITS EXECUTION
HAS INVOLVED A CONTINUOUS CHOICE BETWEEN THE OBVIOUS ADVANTAGES IT
PRODUCES FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT IN ALL ITS COORDINATE PARTS
AND THE VERY REAL DISADVANTAGES, FOR THE ASSURANCE OF RIGHTS, WHICH
DEFERRING DECISION VERY OFTEN ENTAILS.  ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS NOT
ALTOGETHER SPECULATIVE THAT A CONTRARY POLICY, OF ACCELERATED DECISION,
MIGHT DO EQUAL OR GREATER HARM FOR THE SECURITY OF PRIVATE RIGHTS,
WITHOUT ATTAINING ANY OF THE BENEFITS OF TOLERANCE AND HARMONY FOR THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES IN OUR SCHEME.  FOR PREMATURE
AND RELATIVELY ABSTRACT DECISION, WHICH SUCH A POLICY WOULD BE MOST
LIKELY TO PROMOTE, HAVE THEIR PART TOO IN RENDERING RIGHTS UNCERTAIN
AND INSECURE.    AS WITH THE CASE AND CONTROVERSY LIMITATION, HOWEVER,
THE CHOICE HAS BEEN MADE LONG SINCE.  TIME AND EXPERIENCE HAVE GIVEN IT
SANCTION.  THEY ALSO HAVE VERIFIED FOR BOTH THAT THE CHOICE WAS WISELY
MADE.  ANY OTHER INDEED MIGHT HAVE PUT AN END TO OR SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED
THE DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  FN38  AND
ON THE WHOLE, IN SPITE OF INEVITABLE EXCEPTIONS, THE POLICY HAS WORKED
NOT ONLY FOR FINDING THE APPROPRIATE PLACE AND FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIAL
INSTITUTION IN OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM, BUT ALSO FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. 

MOST RECENTLY BOTH PHASES OF ITS OPERATION HAVE BEEN EXEMPLIFIED IN
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS.  FN39  DESPITE SOME SEEMINGLY
WIDESPREAD MISCONCEPTIONS,  FN40  THE GENERAL INTRODUCTION OF THAT
PROCEDURE IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL SPHERES HAS NOT REVERSED OR
MODIFIED THE POLICY'S GENERAL DIRECTION OR EFFECTS.  FN41 

ONE ASPECT OF THE POLICY'S APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN NOTED, HAS BEEN
BY VIRTUE OF THE PRESENCE OF OTHER GROUNDS FOR DECISION.  BUT WHEN SUCH
ALTERNATIVES ARE ABSENT, AS IN THIS CASE, APPLICATION MUST REST UPON
CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
ITSELF IS SHAPED AND PRESENTED. 

THESE CANNOT BE REDUCED TO ANY PRECISE FORMULA OR COMPLETE
CATALOGUE.  BUT IN GENERAL, AS WE HAVE SAID, THEY ARE OF THE SAME
NATURE AS THOSE WHICH MAKE THE CASE AND CONTROVERSY LIMITATION
APPLICABLE, DIFFERING ONLY IN DEGREE.  TO THE MORE USUAL CONSIDERATIONS
OF TIMELINESS AND MATURITY, OF CONCRETENESS, DEFINITENESS, CERTAINTY,
AND OF ADVERSITY OF INTERESTS AFFECTED, ARE TO BE ADDED IN CASES COMING
FROM STATE COURTS INVOLVING STATE LEGISLATION THOSE ARISING WHEN
QUESTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION, ESSENTIALLY MATTERS OF STATE LAW, REMAIN
UNRESOLVED OR HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS.  THEY INCLUDE, OF COURSE, QUESTIONS OF
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE AND SEVERABILITY, SUCH AS THIS CASE
INVOLVES.  NECESSARILY WHETHER DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
WILL BE MADE MUST DEPEND UPON THE DEGREE TO WHICH UNCERTAINTY EXISTS IN
THESE RESPECTS.  AND THIS INEVITABLY WILL VARY WITH PARTICULAR CAUSES
AND THEIR VARYING PRESENTATIONS. 

ACCORDINGLY THE POLICY'S APPLICABILITY CAN BE DETERMINED ONLY BY AN
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE PARTICULAR PRESENTATION, THOUGH
RELATIVE ALSO TO THE POLICY GENERALLY AND TO THE DEGREE IN WHICH THE
SPECIFIC FACTORS RENDERING IT APPLICABLE ARE EXEMPLIFIED IN THE
PARTICULAR CASE.  IT IS LARGELY A QUESTION OF ENOUGH OR NOT ENOUGH, THE
SORT OF THING PRECISIONISTS ABHOR BUT CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION
NEVERTHELESS CONSTANTLY REQUIRES.  AND IT IS THIS KIND OF QUESTION THAT
THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS PROCEDURE HAS FACILITATED IN PRESENTATION, A
CONSEQUENCE WHICH DICTATES THE GREATEST CARE IN SEEING THAT IT BE NOT
UTILIZED SO AS TO BECOME A MEANS FOR NULLIFYING THE POLICY. 

MUCH THE SAME THING MAY BE SAID FOR THE STATE PROCEDURE IN
PROHIBITION AS IT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE.  INDEED, IN ALL BUT
NAME THE TWO PROCEDURES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL, FOR THE PURPOSES
OF OUR JURISDICTION AND FUNCTION IN REVIEW.  HERE RELIEF IS NEITHER
SOUGHT NOR NEEDED BEYOND ADJUDICATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.  THE
SUIT SEEKS ONLY, IN SUBSTANCE, A JUDICIAL DECLARATION THAT JURISDICTION
DOES NOT EXIST IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT.  BUT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS
THE SHAPE IN WHICH THE UNDERLYING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES HAVE REACHED
THIS COURT PRESENTS, WE THINK, INSUPERABLE OBSTACLES TO ANY EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THEM. 

THOSE REASONS COMPRISE NOT ONLY OBSTACLES OF PREMATURITY AND
COMPARATIVE ABSTRACTNESS ARISING FROM THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING IN
PROHIBITION AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE UTILIZED IT FOR
PRESENTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  THEY ALSO INCLUDE RELATED
CONSIDERATIONS GROWING OUT OF UNCERTAINTIES RESULTING FROM THE VOLUME
OF LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS POSSIBLY INVOLVED, THEIR INTRICATE
INTERLACING NOT ONLY WITH EACH OTHER ON THEIR FACE BUT ALSO IN THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THEM, AND ESPECIALLY FROM ITS
TREATMENT OF THIS CASE BY REFERENCE IN CONSIDERABLE PART TO THE GOSPEL
ARMY CASE, DIFFICULTIES ALL ACCENTUATED FOR US OF COURSE BY THE
NECESSITY FOR DISMISSAL OF THAT CAUSE HERE.  BECAUSE THE APPLICATION OF
THE POLICY MUST BE RELATIVE TO THE FACTORS SPECIFICALLY DICTATING SUCH
ACTION, A STATEMENT OF OUR PARTICULAR REASONS FOLLOWS. 

                                 IV. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES COME TO US IN HIGHLY
ABSTRACT FORM.  ALTHOUGH RAISED TECHNICALLY IN THE SEPARATE PROCEEDING
IN PROHIBITION, THEY ARISE SUBSTANTIALLY AS UPON DEMURRER TO THE
CHARGES AGAINST MURDOCK IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  THE RECORD
PRESENTS ONLY BARE ALLEGATIONS THAT HE WAS CHARGED CRIMINALLY WITH
VIOLATING SECS. 44.09(A), 44.09(B) AND 44.12, AND THAT THOSE SECTIONS
ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ON VARIOUS ASSIGNMENTS, AS APPLIED TO HIS ALLEGED
SOLICITATIONS.  WE ARE THEREFORE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF THE PRECISION WHICH
WOULD BE AFFORDED BY PROOF OF CONDUCT MADE UPON TRIAL.  MOREOVER, WE DO
NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT ON THIS RECORD OF EVEN THE LITERAL TEXT OF THE
CHARGES.  FN42  INDEED, THE SUMMARIZED STATEMENT OF THE PLEADINGS
LEAVES US IN DOUBT WHETHER THERE WERE ONLY TWO OR, ON THE OTHER HAND,
THREE DISTINCT OFFENSES CHARGED.  FN43 

THE PLEADINGS SEEM TO ALLEGE THAT MURDOCK WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATION
OF THREE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4, NAMELY, SECS. 44.09(A),
44.09(B) AND 44.12.  YET THEY ALLEGE EQUALLY CLEARLY THAT THERE WERE
ONLY TWO COUNTS.  THE SECOND RESTED, AS WE HAVE SAID, ON SEC. 44.12. 
BUT FROM THE STATE OF THE PLEADINGS WE CANNOT BE SURE WHETHER THE FIRST
WAS GROUNDED ON SEC. 44.09(A), ON SEC. 44.09(B), OR ON BOTH AND, IF THE
LATTER, WHETHER CONJUNCTIVELY OR ALTERNATIVELY. 

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S DECISION PURPORTED TO DEAL WITH BOTH. 
BUT THE OPINION DID NOT DISCUSS THE ANOMALY OF INCLUDING TWO DISTINCT
CHARGES IN A SINGLE COUNT.  NOR DID IT DECIDE WHETHER THAT COUNT WAS
INTENDED TO CHARGE TWO SUCH OFFENSES INDEPENDENTLY, ONE UNDER EACH
SUBDIVISION, OR ONLY COMMISSION OF THOSE OFFENSES ALTERNATIVELY, THAT
IS, EITHER AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 44.09(A) OR ONE UNDER SEC. 44.09(B) IN
ORDER, POSSIBLY, TO ANTICIPATE CONTINGENCIES OF PROOF. 

WE MIGHT ASSUME EITHER ONE CONSTRUCTION OR THE OTHER, OF COURSE, AND
MAKE OUR DISPOSITION ACCORDINGLY.  PERHAPS THE MORE TENABLE ASSUMPTION
WOULD BE THAT MURDOCK WAS CHARGED CONJUNCTIVELY UNDER BOTH
SUBDIVISIONS, RATHER THAN THAT HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH AN ALTERNATIVE
ALLEGATION.  BUT THE DOUBT RAISED CONCERNING THIS, BY CONJUNCTION OF
THE CHARGES IN A SINGLE COUNT, IS SUBSTANTIAL; THE MATTER IS, FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES, ENTIRELY ONE OF STATE PROCEDURE AND STATE LAW; AND
THEREFORE IS ONE FOR THE STATE COURT OF LAST RESORT TO RESOLVE.  IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE UNWILLING TO UNDERTAKE CLARIFYING THE
AMBIGUITY.  TO DO SO WOULD BE DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF
AVOIDING CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS UNTIL THE ISSUES ARE PRESENTED WITH
CLARITY, PRECISION AND CERTAINTY. 

THE TWO SUBDIVISIONS, WHILE COMPLEMENTARY IN REGULATING SOLICITATION
BY RECEPTACLES, ARE ENTIRELY DISTINCT NOT ONLY IN THE PLACES WHERE THE
REGULATIONS APPLY, BUT ALSO IN THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED TO BE
FULFILLED BEFORE LAWFUL SOLICITATION MAY TAKE PLACE.  THOSE DIFFERENCES
ARE SUBSTANTIAL, NOT MERELY NOMINAL OR TECHNICAL.  FN44  WITH THE
POSSIBILITY PRESENTED BY THE RECORD THAT ONLY ONE OR THE OTHER
PROVISION MAY BE INVOLVED IN THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING, AS A MATTER OF PLEADING AND PROOF AND NOT SIMPLY OF THE
JURY'S ACTION, IT IS ENTIRELY TOO SPECULATIVE WHETHER ONE SORT OF
REGULATION OR THE OTHER ACTUALLY WILL BE UTILIZED TO SECURE MURDOCK'S
CONVICTION FOR US TO EXPRESS OPINION AT THIS STAGE ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EITHER.  FOR THE SAME REASON WE ARE UNWILLING TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF BOTH, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CALIFORNIA COURT
HAS HELD EACH VALID.  THAT DECISION ON OUR PART, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
POLICY, SHOULD AWAIT THE DETERMINATION WHICH NECESSARILY WILL BE MADE
IN THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT, WHETHER MURDOCK HAS
BEEN CHARGED INDEPENDENTLY OR ALTERNATIVELY UNDER THE TWO SUBSECTIONS
IN THE FIRST COUNT. 

OTHER REASONS RELATING PARTICULARLY TO SEC. 44.09(B) SUSTAIN THIS
CONCLUSION.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE CALIFORNIA COURT'S OPINIONS GIVE
US NO GUIDE CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF THAT SECTION'S CONCLUDING OMNIBUS
CLAUSE, REQUIRING COMPLIANCE "IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS  ...  WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE."  WHETHER OR NOT THAT COURT, TREATING THE
TO INCORPORATE ALL OR ONLY SOME OF THE MANY PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4,
AND IN THE LATTER EVENT HOW MANY, ARE MATTERS UPON WHICH WE ARE
ALTOGETHER WITHOUT LIGHT.  AND THOSE QUESTIONS, BEING MATTERS OF STATE
LAW, ARE ESSENTIALLY FOR THE STATE COURT'S DETERMINATION, NOT OURS. 

MOREOVER THEY ARE SUBSTANTIAL.  AS WE HAVE SHOWN, THE REQUIREMENTS OF
ARTICLE 4 CONCERNING LAWFUL SOLICITATION ARE MANY AND VARIED. 
PRESUMABLY, THOUGH BY NO MEANS CERTAINLY, THE SPECIAL ONES OF SEC.
44.19, RELATING TO PROMOTERS AND REGISTERED SOLICITORS, WOULD NOT
BECOME APPLICABLE UNDER A GENERAL CHARGE MADE PURSUANT TO SEC.
44.09(B).  BUT A LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE CONCLUDING LANGUAGE OF SEC.
44.09(B) WOULD MAKE THEM SO, UPON PROOF OF VIOLATION.  AND, IN THAT
EVENT, MURDOCK CONCEIVABLY COULD BE CONVICTED UPON PROOF OF HIS FAILURE
TO PAY THE SUBSTANTIAL LICENSE FEES, GIVE THE BONDS, OR OTHERWISE
COMPLY WITH THE MORE BURDENSOME PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44.19, EVEN THOUGH
HE HAD FULFILLED THE EXPLICIT COMMAND OF SEC. 44.09(B) FOR FILING THE
NOTICE OF INTENTION AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 44.05 AND, INDEED, ALL OTHER
REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 4 OUTSIDE SEC. 44.19. 

WHETHER THE CHARGE UNDER SEC. 44.09(B) COMPREHENDS FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 4 OR ONLY SOME OF THEM, AND IF
THE LATTER WHICH ONES, DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE OMNIBUS CLAUSE IS TO BE
LITERALLY APPLIED, DISREGARDED ENTIRELY,  FN46  OR POSSIBLY CONSTRUED
IN SOME MODIFIED WAY INVOLVING NEITHER OF THESE EXTREMES.  THIS COURT
CERTAINLY HAS NO PROPER FUNCTION TO UNDERTAKE SUCH A TASK OF
INTERPRETATION.  APART FROM INVADING THE STATE COURT'S FUNCTION, THE
PROBLEM OF EXTRICATING THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS FROM SUCH A MASS,
TOGETHER WITH MATTERS OF SEVER-ABILITY LIKELY TO ARISE, WOULD BE
FORMIDABLE.  AND WHEN DISCHARGED THE RESULT MIGHT BE MERELY THAT WE HAD
PERFORMED IT AND DETERMINED THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES SO PRESENTED,
ONLY TO FIND THAT IN THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE HAD IN THE MUNICIPAL
COURT OUR INTERPRETATION HAD BEEN PUT ASIDE IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER. 

MOREOVER THAT CAUSE HARDLY CAN PROCEED TO FINAL DECISION WITHOUT
CLARIFICATION OF THE CHARGE, OR MAKING CLARIFICATION UNNECESSARY. 
MURDOCK'S RIGHTS THUS CAN BE ASSURED OF PROTECTION, EVEN THOUGH AT THE
TROUBLE AND EXPENSE OF UNDERGOING ANOTHER TRIAL.  THOSE INCONVENIENCES,
CONCEDEDLY SUBSTANTIAL, DO NOT OUTWEIGH THE STRONG CONSIDERATIONS
RELATIVE TO THIS COURT'S FUNCTIONS DICTATING THAT IT SHOULD NOT
UNDERTAKE A TASK AT ONCE SO SPECULATIVE AND SO FOREIGN TO THEM. 

SOMEWHAT LESS OBVIOUSLY, SIMILAR DIFFICULTIES ARE PRESENTED FOR
DEALING WITH THE MORE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 44.09(B) FOR FILING
THE NOTICE OF INTENTION AND THE RELATED ONE OF SEC. 44.12 FOR PROCURING
AND EXHIBITING THE INFORMATION CARD.  FN47  SIMPLY UPON THE FACE OF THE
ORDINANCE (ARTICLE 4), WE WOULD CONSTRUE THESE PROVISIONS AS EXCLUDING
ALL REFERENCE TO THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 44.19, AS WELL AS
THE REGULATIONS RELATING TO DEALERS IN USED ARTICLES, JUNK, ETC.,  FN48
AS INDEED THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT'S OPINION SEEMS TO EXCLUDE
THEM.  IN SUCH A VIEW THE CHARGES UNDER SEC. 44.09(B)(WITHOUT REFERENCE
TO THE OMNIBUS CONCLUDING CLAUSE) AND SEC. 44.12 WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER PROVISIONS OF SECS. 44.01-44.18 MAY BE
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN THOSE TWO SECTIONS.  PRESUMABLY ALSO,
WITHIN THAT RANGE, WOULD BE EXCLUDED ALL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE ONLY
AFTER THE ACT OF SOLICITATION, SUCH AS THOSE FOR KEEPING RECORDS AND
MAKING REPORTS OF THE RECEIPT AND DISPOSITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS
RECEIVED, SECS. 44.09, 44.14, CF. ALSO SEC. 44.08, AND PERHAPS THOUGH
NOT AT ALL CERTAINLY (AS TO THE CHARGE UNDER SEC. 44.12)  FN49  THE
TENDERING AT THE TIME OF SOLICITATION OF THE RECEIPT REQUIRED BY SEC.
44.15.  POSSIBLY THEREFORE A FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHARGES UNDER
SECS. 44.09(B) AND 44.12 WOULD BE THAT THEY ARE LIMITED, SO FAR AS
CONCERNS INCORPORATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS, TO INCLUDING THE LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECS. 44.05 AND 44.03, THEMSELVES EXTENSIVE AND HIGHLY
DETAILED, WHICH SO FAR AS WE CAN GATHER FROM THE CALIFORNIA COURT'S
TREATMENT OF THEM, WAS THE EFFECT OF ITS DECISION. 

APART, HOWEVER, FROM THE DIFFICULTIES CREATED BY THE NECESSITY OF
ADDING CONSTRUCTION OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT'S OPINIONS TO CONSTRUCTION
OF SO MANY POSSIBLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, OTHER
PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN FROM ITS DISPOSITION.  IN PARTICULAR, ITS OPINIONS
DO NOT ENLIGHTEN US CONCERNING THE CHARACTER AND EFFECTS OF THE
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN SECS. 44.05 AND 44.03.  WITH
REFERENCE TO THEM IT SAID IN ITS GOSPEL ARMY OPINION: 

"THE INFORMATION CARDS, WHICH ARE IN EFFECT PERMITS TO SOLICIT, ARE
ISSUED AUTOMATICALLY UPON THE FILING OF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND
THE PAYMENT OF THE FOUR CENTS FOR EACH CARD.  THE DEPARTMENT IS GIVEN
NO AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD SUCH CARDS WHEN THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET,
AND WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT IT WILL ABUSE ITS AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO
WITHHOLD THEM.  ...  'IF THIS PETITIONER HAD APPLIED FOR A PERMIT UNDER
THE REQUIREMENT (OF SEC. 44.05),  ...  AND BEEN EITHER WHIMSICALLY OR
ARBITRARILY REFUSED SUCH PERMIT, HE MIGHT THEN  ...  HAVE HAD RECOURSE
TO THE COURTS FOR RELIEF FROM SUCH UNJUST AND ARBITRARY ACTION.'"  27
CAL.2D AT 238-239.    SO CONSTRUING THE LICENSING PROVISIONS AND
ASSERTING THAT THEY ARE "DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO SECURE INFORMATION THAT
WILL ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN JUDGING THE NATURE AND WORTHINESS OF THE
CAUSE  ... AND TO INSURE THE PRESENTATION OF SUCH INFORMATION TO
PROSPECTIVE DONORS," THE CALIFORNIA COURT CONCLUDED:  "WE FIND NOTHING
UNDULY BURDENSOME OR UNREASONABLE IN ANY OF THESE PROVISIONS."  27
CAL.2D AT 237. 

NEVERTHELESS, THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN IS, TO SAY THE LEAST,
AMBIGUOUS.  FOR, DESPITE THE LANGUAGE INDICATING THAT THE CARDS ARE TO
BE ISSUED "AUTOMATICALLY UPON THE FILING OF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION
AND THE PAYMENT OF THE FOUR CENTS FOR EACH CARD," THE OPINION EXPRESSLY
ASSERTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT "MAY INVESTIGATE THE STATEMENTS IN THE
NOTICE OF INTENTION."  27 CAL.2D AT 239.  AND AT ANOTHER POINT IT SAID:
"THE BOARD MAY NOT DISALLOW A PROPOSED SOLICITATION BUT IT MAY
INVESTIGATE THE STATEMENTS IN THE NOTICE OF INTENTION AND THE METHODS
OF MAKING OR CONDUCTING THE SOLICITATION; IT MAY INSPECT THE RECORDS OF
THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE SOLICITATION AND THE ASSOCIATION FOR WHOM
IT IS MADE, AND IT MAY GIVE SUCH PUBLICITY TO ITS FINDINGS AS IT DEEMS
BEST TO REACH THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND PERSONS INTERESTED."  FN50  IBID. 

THESE QUALIFICATIONS MAKE IT HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE THAT THE COURT, BY
USING "AUTOMATICALLY" IN THE QUOTED CONTEXT, MEANT TO RULE THAT ON THE
MERE FILING OF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION, WITHOUT MORE, SOLICITATION
WOULD BECOME LAWFUL UNDER SEC. 44.09(B) OR THAT THE INFORMATION CARDS
WOULD ISSUE SO AS TO MAKE SOLICITATION LEGAL UNDER SEC. 44.12.  RATHER,
THE INTENDED HOLDING WOULD SEEM TO HAVE BEEN THAT, UPON FULL COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NUMEROUS CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR ISSUANCE OF THE CARD, THE
BOARD WOULD BE WITHOUT AUTHORITY "EITHER WHIMSICALLY OR ARBITRARILY" TO
WITHHOLD IT FROM THE APPLICANT; BUT HIS FAILURE IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL
RESPECT TO MEET THOSE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING PERHAPS WAITING FOR THE TEN
DAY PERIOD AND THE OUT-COME OF THE AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATIONS, WOULD BE
GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE BOARD TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO
REFUSE THE CARD AND FOR PROSECUTION IF HE SHOULD UNDERTAKE TO SOLICIT
WITHOUT IT. 

THAT THIS PROBABLY WAS THE COURT'S INTENDED CONSTRUCTION APPEARS NOT
ONLY FROM ITS APPARENT UNWILLINGNESS TO DISPENSE WITH THE NECESSITY FOR
MEETING ANY OF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT ALSO FROM
THE MANNER IN WHICH IT DISPOSED OF THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROMOTERS
AND TO SOLICITORS REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED UNDER SEC. 44.19.  IN THIS
CONNECTION IT SAID, ALSO IN THE GOSPEL ARMY OPINION: 

"THE BOARD HAS NO DISCRETION TO WITHHOLD A LICENSE IF THE APPLICANT'S
GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION AND HIS FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ARE
ESTABLISHED AND THE REQUIRED BOND IS FILED.  THE BOARD IS NOT FREE TO
DENY LICENSES, BUT MUST ACT REASONABLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED."  27 CAL.2D AT 249.  FN51 

THERE IS, OF COURSE, A VERY SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
POSSIBLE VIEWS OF THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORDINANCES, FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL AS WELL AS OTHER PURPOSES.  FOR IN THE ONE CONCEPTION
THE PROVISIONS WOULD BE MORE NEARLY AKIN TO A "MERE IDENTIFICATION"
REQUIREMENT SUCH AS THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS BEEN SAID NOT TO FORBID; IN
THE OTHER, THEY WOULD COMPREHEND A MUCH BROADER EXERCISE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION THAN SIMPLY RECEIVING AND FILING IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION.  FN52  OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE ONE THING TO SUSTAIN THE
LICENSING PROVISIONS IF THEY ARE TO BE TAKEN AS OF THE "AUTOMATIC MERE
IDENTIFICATION" TYPE, AND QUITE ANOTHER IF THEY INVOLVE THE VERY
CONSIDERABLE DEGREE OF DISCRETION UPON THE PART OF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICIALS WHICH THE CLEARLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE SEEM
TO REQUIRE BY THEIR TERMS AND INDEED BY THE STATE COURT'S RULING. 

BUT WE EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING THEIR VALIDITY IN EITHER
CONCEPTION.  FOR WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO RESOLVE THE DOUBT WHICH
NECESSARILY EXISTS CONCERNING THE COURT'S MEANING, WHETHER WITH
REFERENCE TO SEC. 44.09(B) OR SEC. 44.12.  ON THE CONTRARY THAT DOUBT
ONLY ADDS TO THE REASONS WE HAVE STATED, THE SUM OF WHICH IN THIS CASE
GOES TO PRECLUDE THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.  THAT DOUBT ALSO SHOULD
BE RESOLVED, WITH THE OTHER UNCERTAINTIES IN THIS CAUSE, BEFORE THIS
COURT UNDERTAKES TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS.  THEY MAY BE REMOVED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT PROCEEDINGS YET
TO TAKE PLACE. 

WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL THAT OUR RULING WILL SUBJECT THE PETITIONER
MURDOCK TO THE BURDEN OF UNDERGOING A THIRD TRIAL OR THAT THIS BURDEN
IS SUBSTANTIAL.  FN53  WERE THE UNCERTAINTIES CONFRONTING US IN
RELATION TO THIS COURT'S HISTORIC POLICY LESS IN NUMBER, AND RESOLVING
THEM NOT SO FAR FROM OUR APPROPRIATE FUNCTION IN CASES COMING FROM
STATE COURTS, THE INCONVENIENCE OF UNDERGOING TRIAL ANOTHER TIME MIGHT
JUSTIFY EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN THIS CAUSE.  BUT, CONSISTENTLY WITH
THE POLICY, JURISDICTION HERE SHOULD BE EXERTED ONLY WHEN THE
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PROCEEDING IN PROHIBITION
TENDERS THE UNDERLYING CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN CLEAN-CUT AND CONCRETE
FORM, UNCLOUDED BY ANY SERIOUS PROBLEM OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING EITHER
TO THE TERMS OF THE QUESTIONED LEGISLATION OR TO ITS INTERPRETATION BY
THE STATE COURTS. 

OUR DECISION OF COURSE SHOULD BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY RIGHTS
WHICH MAY ARISE UPON FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT
PROCEEDING, RELATIVE TO REVIEW IN THIS COURT OF THAT DETERMINATION. 
WITH THAT RESERVATION WE THINK THE ONLY COURSE CONSISTENT, UPON THIS
RECORD, AT ONCE WITH PRESERVATION OF APPELLANTS' RIGHTS AND WITH
ADHERENCE TO OUR LONG-OBSERVED POLICY, IS TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE
JURISDICTION IN THIS CAUSE. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
DETERMINATION IN THE FUTURE OF ANY ISSUES ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT. 

FN1  THE GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL IN EACH INSTANCE WERE SUCH AS DID NOT
DETERMINE THE CAUSE FINALLY, BUT RESULTED IN REMANDING IT FOR FURTHER
TRIAL.  THE FIRST REVERSAL WAS FOR RECEPTION OF INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE;
THE SECOND, FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE VIOLATIONS OF
THE ORDINANCES IN QUESTION. 

FN2  APPELLANTS REFER TO THE CODE AS ORDINANCE NO. 77,000.  ACCORDING
TO APPELLEE'S BRIEF, ORDINANCE NO. 77,000 CONSISTS OF A "REVISION AND
CODIFICATION OF THE REGULATORY AND PENAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, TO BE KNOWN AS THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE," AND CONTAINS
NINE CHAPTERS, I-IX, SUBDIVIDED INTO ARTICLES, DIVISIONS AND SECTIONS,
THE LATTER NUMBERING IN EXCESS OF 2000. 

THE BRIEF FURTHER STATES:  "THE PORTION OF THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL
CODE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING IS ARTICLE 4(CHARITIES AND RELIEF) IN
CHAPTER IV (PUBLIC WELFARE) AND CONSISTS OF NINETEEN SECTIONS NUMBERED
44.01 TO 44.19, INCLUSIVE.  HOWEVER, NOT ALL OR ANY CONSIDERABLE NUMBER
OF SUCH SECTIONS ARE ACTUALLY INVOLVED HEREIN, ALTHOUGH A COMPLETE
TREATMENT OF THE SECTIONS PRIMARILY INVOLVED MAY REQUIRE SOME MENTION
...  OF MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE OTHER SECTIONS."  APPELLANTS' VIEW,
HOWEVER, IS THAT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 44.01 TO
44.19 ARE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO SECS. 44.09 AND 44.12 FOR
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY. 

FN3  IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE CHARGES UNDER SECS. 44.09(A) AND (B)
WERE MADE IN THE ALTERNATIVE OR CONJUNCTIVELY.  SEE TEXT INFRA, PART
IV, FOLLOWING NOTE 43; SEE ALSO NOTE 42. 

FN4  THE ARTICLE IS ARTICLE 4 OF CHAPTER IV.  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN5  SECTION 44.09.  "(A)  NO PERSON SHALL SOLICIT ANY CONTRIBUTION
FOR ANY PURPOSE BY MEANS OF ANY BOX OR RECEPTACLE, UPON ANY PUBLIC
STREET, SIDEWALK OR WAY, OR IN ANY PUBLIC PARK OR IN ANY PUBLICLY OWNED
OR CONTROLLED PLACE, EXCEPT BY THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE
BOARD. 

"(B)  NO PERSON SHALL SOLICIT ANY CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION, OR ANY
CONTRIBUTION FOR ANY REAL OR PURPORTED CHARITABLE PURPOSE, BY MEANS OF
ANY BOX OR RECEPTACLE IN ANY PLACE IMMEDIATELY ABUTTING UPON ANY PUBLIC
SIDEWALK OR WAY, OR IN ANY PLACE OF BUSINESS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, OR IN
ANY ROOM, HALLWAY, CORRIDOR, LOBBY OR ENTRANCEWAY, OR OTHER PLACE OPEN
TO OR ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, OR IN ANY PLACE OF PUBLIC RESORT,
WITHOUT FIRST FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT A 'NOTICE OF INTENTION' AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 44.05, AND EVERY PERSON SO SOLICITING MUST IN ALL
OTHER RESPECTS COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE." 

FN6  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT SAID AT THE END OF ITS OPINION, IN
RELATION TO APPELLANTS' CONTENTION THAT THE ORDINANCES ARE BEING
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO THEM:  "THE ALLEGATIONS RELIED UPON IN
SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HOWEVER, ARE DENIED BY THE ANSWER AND THE
ISSUES OF FACT THUS PRESENTED WILL NOT BE DETERMINED BY US IN THIS
PROCEEDING."  28 CAL.2D 460, 473.  SEE BANDINI CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT,
284 U.S. 8, 14; CF. NOTE 26 INFRA. 

FN7  THESE OPERATIONS WERE PERFORMED THROUGH THE GOSPEL ARMY'S SO
CALLED INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT.  FOR DETAILS SEE THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT'S OPINION, 27 CAL.2D 232. 

FN8  NO CHARGES IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT PURPORTED EXPRESSLY TO BE
GROUNDED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE DEALING WITH PAWN
BROKERS, SECONDHAND DEALERS AND JUNK DEALERS; AND SECS. 44.09(A), (B)
AND 44.12 DO NOT RELATE EXPLICITLY OR, IT WOULD SEEM, BY NECESSARY
IMPLICATION, UPON THEIR FACE, TO SUCH ACTIVITIES. 

FN9  NOT ONLY ARE SECS. 44.09(A), (B) AND 44.12 LOCATED WITHIN THAT
ARTICLE BUT OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WHICH THEY EXPRESSLY
PURPORT TO INCORPORATE ARE SO PLACED. 

FN10  SEE NOTES 13, 16, AND TEXT INFRA. 

FN11  SECTION 44.01 DEFINES "CHARITABLE" TO "INCLUDE THE WORDS
PHILANTHROPIC, SOCIAL SERVICE, BENEVOLENT, PATRIOTIC, EITHER ACTUAL OR
PURPORTED."  "CONTRIBUTION" IS DEFINED TO "INCLUDE THE WORDS ALMS,
FOOD, CLOTHING, MONEY, PROPERTY OR DONATIONS UNDER THE GUISE OF A LOAN
OF MONEY OR PROPERTY."  "SOLICITATION" IS BROADLY DEFINED TO INCLUDE
ORAL OR WRITTEN REQUESTS, AND REQUESTS MADE BY DISTRIBUTING, MAILING OR
PUBLISHING "ANY HANDBILL," BY PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT, RADIO, TELEPHONE
CONCERNING SPECIFIED TYPES OF EVENTS, THE OFFERING TO SELL OR SELLING
ANY ADVERTISING, BOOK, CARD, CHANCE, ETC., IN CONNECTION WITH
CHARITABLE APPEALS. 

FN12  "(A)  THE PURPOSE OF THE SOLICITATION AND USE OF THE
CONTRIBUTION TO BE SOLICITED; 

"(B)  A SPECIFIC STATEMENT, SUPPORTED BY REASONS AND, IF AVAILABLE,
FIGURES, SHOWING THE NEED FOR THE CONTRIBUTION PROPOSED TO BE
SOLICITED; 

"(C)  THE CHARACTER OF SUCH SOLICITATION AND HOW IT WILL BE MADE OR
CONDUCTED; 

"(D)  THE EXPENSES OF THE SOLICITATION, INCLUDING SALARIES AND OTHER
ITEMS, IF ANY, REGARDLESS OF FROM WHAT FUNDS SUCH EXPENSES ARE
PAYABLE; 

"(E)  WHAT PORTION OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS COLLECTED AS A RESULT OF THE
SOLICITATION WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO THE SPECIFIC
PURPOSES DECLARED IN THE NOTICE OF INTENTION AS THE OBJECT OF THE
SOLICITATION; 

"(F) A SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF ALL CONTRIBUTIOUS  COLLECTED OR RECEIVED
BY SUCH PERSON OR ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE CALENDAR YEAR IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE FILING OF SUCH NOTICE OF INTENTION.  THE EXPENDITURES OR
USE MADE OF SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS, TOGETHER WITH THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES
OF ALL PERSONS OR ASSOCIATIONS RECEIVING SALARIES, WAGES, COMPENSATION,
COMMISSIONS OR EMOLUMENTS FROM SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS, AND THE RESPECTIVE
AMOUNTS THEREOF; 

"(G)  THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF ANY
SUCH ASSOCIATION FOR WHICH THE SOLICITATION IS PROPOSED TO BE MADE; 

"(H)  A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION, IF ANY, OF ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION
AUTHORIZING SUCH SOLICITATION, CERTIFIED TO AS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY
OF THE ORIGINAL OF SUCH RESOLUTION BY THE OFFICER OF SUCH ASSOCIATION
HAVING CHARGE OF THE RECORDS THEREOF; 

"(I)  A STATEMENT THAT THE SIGNERS OF SUCH NOTICE HAVE READ AND ARE
FAMILIAR WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE AND WILL REQUIRE ALL
SOLICITORS ENGAGED IN SUCH SOLICITATION TO READ AND BE FAMILIAR WITH
ALL SECTIONS OF THIS ARTICLE PRIOR TO MAKING ANY SUCH SOLICITATION." 
SEC. 44.05. 

FN13  THE DEPARTMENT'S POWERS ARE SPECIFIED IN SEC. 44.03 AS
FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  TO INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS OF NOTICE OF INTENTION, OR ANY
STATEMENT OR REPORTS; 

"(B)  TO HAVE ACCESS TO AND INSPECT AND MAKE COPIES OF ALL BOOKS,
RECORDS AND PAPERS OF SUCH PERSON, BY OR ON WHOSE BEHALF ANY
SOLICITATION IS MADE; 

"(C)  TO INVESTIGATE AT ANY TIME THE METHODS OF MAKING OR CONDUCTING
DUCTING ANY SUCH SOLICITATION; 

"(D)  TO ISSUE TO ALL SOLICITORS INFORMATION CARDS WHICH CARDS SHALL
SHOW" THE MATTERS SET FORTH BELOW IN NOTE 14. 

FN14  "(1)  THAT SAME IS ISSUED AS INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC AND IS
NOT AN ENDORSEMENT; 

"(2)  THE BOARD MAY, PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 34982, OMIT ABOVE
PROVISION AND STATE THAT THEY ENDORSE SUCH CHARITABLE ASSOCIATION; 

"(3) THE PERTINENT FACTS SET FORTH IN NOTICE OF INTENTION REQUIRED
UNDER SECTION 44.05 OF THIS ARTICLE; (SEE NOTE 12 SUPRA.) 

"(4)  ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OBTAINED AS SHALL IN THE OPINION OF
THE BOARD BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE PUBLIC TO DETERMINE THE NATURE AND
WORTHINESS OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SOLICITATION IS MADE." 

FN15  SEE NOTE 13. 

FN16  THE BOARD'S POWER TO ENDORSE CHARITABLE ASSOCIATIONS IS
CONFERRED BY SEC. 44.02.  THE POWERS GIVEN BY SEC. 44.02 ARE AS
FOLLOWS, EXCEPT FOR SUBSECTION (E) WHICH FOR BREVITY IS SUMMARIZED: 
"(A)  TO PUBLISH RESULTS OF ANY INVESTIGATION PROVIDED FOR OR
AUTHORIZED IN SECTION 44.03 SUBDIVISIONS (A), (B) AND (C) OF THIS
ARTICLE; 

"(B)  TO GIVE SUCH PUBLICITY TO ANY SUCH RESULTS BY SUCH MEANS AS MAY
BE DEEMED BEST TO REACH THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND PERSONS INTERESTED; 

"(C)  TO WAIVE THE WHOLE OR PART OF ANY PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 44.03,
44.05, 44.06, 44.10, 44.11, 44.12, 44.13, 44.15, AND 44.02 EXCEPTING
THIS SUBSECTION, OF THIS ARTICLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING ANY
EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY OR CALAMITY;    "(D)  TO REQUEST RETURN OF
INFORMATION CARDS TO THE DEPARTMENT UPON COMPLETION OF SOLICITATION FOR
WHICH THEY ARE ISSUED OR AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THEY
ARE VALID;" 

(SUBSECTION (E) AUTHORIZES THE BOARD TO RECALL AND AMEND OR CORRECT
THE INFORMATION CARDS ON RECEIVING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH, IN ITS
OPINION, RENDERS INACCURATE ANY STATEMENT CONTAINED IN IT.) 

"(F)  TO WAIVE ALL CONDITIONS OF THIS ARTICLE UPON APPLICATION OF
PERSON FILING NOTICE OF INTENTION, IN RESPECT TO INFORMATION CARDS AND
FILING COPIES OF WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION WHEN A CAMPAIGN OR DRIVE FOR
RAISING FUNDS FOR ANY CHARITABLE PURPOSE IS GIVEN GENERAL PUBLICITY
THROUGH THE PRESS OR OTHERWISE, AND WHEN MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE (25)
PERSONS SERVE AS SOLICITORS WITHOUT COMPENSATION, IF IT SHALL BE PROVED
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BOARD THAT THE PUBLICITY CONCERNING THE
SOLICITATION FULLY INFORMS THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE PERSONS TO BE
SOLICITED AS TO THE FACTS REQUIRED TO BE SET FORTH ON THE INFORMATION
CARD." 

FN17  IN ADDITION TO "THE AMOUNT AND KIND OF THE CONTRIBUTION," THE
RECEIPT MUST SHOW "SUBSTANTIALLY" THE NAME OF THE ASSOCIATION AIDED; A
STATEMENT WHETHER THE CONTRIBUTION IS TO BE APPLIED TO ITS "GENERAL
PURPOSES" OR TO SPECIAL ONES AND, IF THE LATTER, "THE NATURE THEREOF
... CLEARLY STATED"; THAT THE INFORMATION CARD WAS PRESENTED FOR
PERUSAL PRIOR TO THE MAKING OF THE CONTRIBUTION.  BUT TENDER OF THE
RECEIPT IS NOT REQUIRED IF THE DONATION IS MADE, IN MONEY, BY PLACING
IT IN A LOCKED RECEPTACLE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD. 

FN18  THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING PROMOTERS REQUIRE A LICENSE FROM THE
BOARD DISTINCT FROM OR ADDITIONAL TO THE INFORMATION CARD WHICH
SOLICITORS MUST SECURE, SEC. 44.19(1); THE PAYMENT OF A $25.00 LICENSE
FEE, SEC. 44.19(4); THE FILING OF A BOND IN THE SUM OF $2000
CONDITIONED AS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 44.19(3); AND PROOF TO SATISFY THE
BOARD THAT THE APPLICANT IS "OF GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION" AND HAS
"SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO CARRY OUT THE OBLIGATIONS
INCIDENT TO ANY SOLICITATION SUCH APPLICANT MAY MAKE."  SEC. 44.19(5). 
THE ORDINARY SOLICITOR, ON THE OTHER HAND, MUST SECURE ONLY THE
INFORMATION CARD, WHICH IS IN EFFECT A PERMIT; PAY THE COST OF THE
CARD; AND GENERALLY, IT WOULD SEEM, COMPLY WITH THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS
HERETOFORE OUTLINED FOR SECURING THE CARD. 

FN19  SECTION 44.01 DEFINES "PROMOTER" TO MEAN "ANY PERSON WHO FOR
PECUNIARY COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR TO BE RECEIVED,
SOLICITS OR IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OR HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO THE
PUBLIC AS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOLICITING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR OR ON
BEHALF OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR ANY CHARITABLE ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION
OR INSTITUTION, OR CONDUCTS, MANAGES OR CARRIES ON OR AGREES TO
CONDUCT, MANAGE OR CARRY ON OR IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OR HOLDS
HIMSELF OUT AS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONDUCTING, MANAGING OR
CARRYING ON ANY DRIVE OR CAMPAIGN FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE  ...  " 

"SOLICITOR," BUT DEFINES "SOLICITATION" BROADLY, AS WE HAVE INDICATED
IN NOTE 11 SUPRA.  THE MEANING OF "SOLICITOR" APPARENTLY IS LEFT
THEREFORE TO BE GATHERED DEFINITIVELY FROM THE DEFINITION OF
"SOLICITATION" AND THE USE OF "SOLICIT" OR "SOLICITOR" IN THE SPECIAL
CONTEXT OF OTHER SECTIONS AS THEY BECOME PERTINENT. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DEFINITION OF "PROMOTER" IN SEC. 44.01,
BY INCLUDING THE WORD "SOLICITS," ITALICIZED ABOVE, WOULD SEEM
LITERALLY BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ANY PAID SOLICITOR OF CONTRIBUTIONS
"FOR OR ON BEHALF OF ANY OTHER PERSON" OR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, AND
THUS TO INCLUDE ALL SOLICITORS EXCEPT WHOLLY VOLUNTARY ONES.  THIS
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN JUSTICE CARTER'S VIEW AS EXPRESSED IN HIS DISSENT IN
THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE, 27 CAL.2D 232, 266.  HOWEVER, OTHER SECTIONS
INDICATE THAT SOLICITORS MAY BE PAID AS WELL AS VOLUNTARY WITHOUT
BECOMING PROMOTERS.  SEE SEC. 44.19(9).  AND SEE NOTE 20.  MURDOCK
APPARENTLY RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES AS AN OFFICER OF THE
RESCUE ARMY. 

FN20  IN THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ALL THE
SOLICITORS WERE PAID UPON A PERCENTAGE BASIS.  NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT
DEALT IN ITS OPINION WITH THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING SOLICITORS AS WELL
AS PROMOTERS, THUS INDICATING APPARENTLY THAT IN ITS VIEW THE
DIFFERENCE WAS OTHER THAN THAT SOLICITORS ARE VOLUNTARY WORKERS AND
PROMOTERS ARE PAID.  THE ORDINANCE AND THE STATE COURT'S OPINIONS, MORE
ESPECIALLY IN THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE, APPEAR TO TREAT THE TWO GROUPS AS
DISTINCT AND NOT MERELY OVERLAPPING IN RELATION TO PERSONS THEMSELVES
ENGAGED IN DIRECT SOLICITATION. 

FN21  SEE NOTES 19 AND 20. 

FN22  SPECIFIC AND HIGHLY DETAILED RECORDS AND REPORTS MUST BE MADE
OF CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED, OF EXPENDITURES, AND OF OTHER MATTERS. 
SECS. 44.08, 44.14.  WRITTEN AND CORPORATELY AUTHENTICATED
AUTHORIZATIONS MUST BE ISSUED.  SECS. 44.10, 44.11.  INDEED COMPLIANCE
WITH SUCH REQUIREMENTS AS THOSE RELATING TO FILING THE NOTICE OF
INTENTION UNDER SEC. 44.05 AND PROCURING THE INFORMATION CARD UNDER
SEC. 44.03 FOR USE BY PERSONS ACTING FOR THE CHARITY FORCES
ORGANIZATIONAL CONFORMITY AS MUCH AS INDIVIDUAL.  AND BY DEPARTMENTAL
REGULATION, APPARENTLY, FIFTY PER CENT OF ALL CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED
MUST BE APPLIED TO THE CHARITABLE PURPOSE RATHER THAN TO EXPENSES OF
COLLECTION OR PROMOTION. 

FN23  THE SUBSECTION IS ONE OF THE FEW NOT REFERRING TO OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLE OR THE CODE.  NONE OF THEM CONTAINS ANY
SPECIFICATION OF CONDITIONS FOR SECURING THE BOARD'S WRITTEN
PERMISSION.  CF. NOTE 5.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER,
SUPPLIED THEM IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:  "WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT
IF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 44.09 IS READ, AS IT MUST BE, IN LIGHT OF
THE PURPOSE AND CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND
THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDANT UPON COLLECTIONS BY MEANS OF
RECEPTACLES IN PUBLIC PLACES, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE DENIAL OF A
PERMIT IS WARRANTED ONLY IF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED TO THE BOARD
DISCLOSES FRAUD OR IF THE SOLICITATION AS PLANNED WOULD INTERFERE WITH
THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY."  28 CAL.2D AT 471-472. 

IT BECOMES UNNECESSARY, HOWEVER, TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF POSSIBLE
INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF SEC. 44.09(A), FOR REASONS TO BE STATED. 
SEE TEXT INFRA PART IV, FOLLOWING NOTE 43. 

FN24  SEE TEXT INFRA PART IV, CIRCA NOTE 50. 

FN25  THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES WERE CITED AND RELIED UPON:  WESTON
V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET. 449, 464; MT. VERNON COTTON CO. V. ALABAMA POWER
CO., 240 U.S. 30, 31; MISSOURI EX REL. ST. LOUIS, B. & M.R. CO. V.
TAYLOR, 266 U.S. 200, 206; MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO. V. MIX, 278 U.S.
492, 494. 

FN26  REFERRING TO THE STATE COURT'S DENIAL OF THE WRIT, THE BANDINI
OPINION STATED:  "THAT JUDGMENT, HOWEVER, MERELY DEALT WITH THE
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION, AND THE
ONLY QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL ERRED
IN DECIDING THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE
UPON WHICH THAT JURISDICTION WAS BASED.  MOREOVER, WITH ALL QUESTIONS
OF FACT, OR WITH QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH WOULD APPROPRIATELY BE RAISED
UPON THE FACTS ADDUCED IN THE TRIAL OF THE CASE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT,
AS A COURT COMPETENT TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ON
THIS APPEAL."  284 U.S. AT 14.  "  ... THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
MUST BE REGARDED, AS ITS OPINION IMPORTS, AS HAVING DETERMINED MERELY
THAT THE STATUTE WAS VALID UPON ITS FACE SO THAT THE SUPERIOR COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE INJUNCTION SUIT.  IT IS THAT
DETERMINATION ALONE THAT WE CAN NOW CONSIDER."  284 U.S. AT 15-16. 

FN27  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTES 25 AND 28. 

FN28  IN HOLMES V. JENNISON, 14 PET. 540, THE COURT HELD THAT AN
ORDER OF A STATE COURT OF LAST RESORT REFUSING TO DISCHARGE A PRISONER
UPON HABEAS CORPUS WAS A FINAL JUDGMENT SUBJECT TO REVIEW.  IN REACHING
THAT CONCLUSION TANEY, C.J., RELIED UPON WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET.
449, AS "DECISIVE."  THAT DECISION, RENDERED BY MARSHALL, C.J., HELD
FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE DENIAL OF A WRIT OF PROHIBITION WAS A FINAL
JUDGMENT.  SEE ALSO LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418, WHERE THE COURT
CITES BOTH BANDINI CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8, AND BRYANT V.
ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63. 

FN29  ALMA MOTOR CO. V. TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO., 329 U.S. 129; UNITED
PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75. 

FN30  SEE, E.G., AS TO APPEALS FROM STATE COURTS, SEC. 237(A) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), RULE 12(1) OF THE REVISED RULES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S.
14. 

FN31  BRANDEIS, J., WITH WHOM STONE, ROBERTS AND CARDOZO, JJ.,
CONCURRED, IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288,
CONCURRING OPINION AT 346. 

FN32  ID., AT 346-348, AND AUTHORITIES CITED.  SEE ALSO COFFMAN V.
BREEZE CORPORATIONS, 323 U.S. 316, 324-325. 

FN33  FOR EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCE TO THE RULE FORBIDDING DECISION OF
PROPERLY PRESENTED CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, IF THE CASE MAY BE
DISPOSED OF ON ANOTHER GROUND:  "THUS, IF A CASE CAN BE DECIDED ON
EITHER OF TWO GROUNDS, ONE INVOLVING A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, THE
OTHER A QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION OR GENERAL LAW, THE COURT
WILL DECIDE ONLY THE LATTER.  SILER V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO.,
213 U.S. 175, 191; LIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 523, 538.  APPEALS
FROM THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE CHALLENGING ITS DECISION OF A
QUESTION UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ARE FREQUENTLY DISMISSED
BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT CAN BE SUSTAINED ON AN INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND. 
BEREA COLLEGE V. KENTUCKY, 211 U.S. 45, 53."  297 U.S. AT 347. 

FN34  "IF THERE IS ONE DOCTRINE MORE DEEPLY ROOTED THAN ANY OTHER IN
THE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION, IT IS THAT WE OUGHT NOT TO
PASS ON QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY ...  UNLESS SUCH ADJUDICATION IS
UNAVOIDABLE."  SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101, 105. 
IT HAS LONG BEEN THE COURT'S "CONSIDERED PRACTICE NOT TO DECIDE
ABSTRACT, HYPOTHETICAL OR CONTINGENT QUESTIONS  ...  OR TO DECIDE ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IN ADVANCE OF THE NECESSITY FOR ITS DECISION
...  OR TO FORMULATE A RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BROADER THAN IS
REQUIRED BY THE PRECISE FACTS TO WHICH IT IS TO BE APPLIED  ...  OR TO
DECIDE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION EXCEPT WITH REFERENCE TO THE
PARTICULAR FACTS TO WHICH IT IS TO BE APPLIED  ...  "  ALABAMA STATE
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, 461.  "IT IS NOT THE
HABIT OF THE COURT TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL NATURE
UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO A DECISION OF THE CASE."  BURTON V.
UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 283, 295. 

FN35  WHICH HAS HAD APPLICATION IN APPEALS AND ON WRITS OF ERROR, AS
WELL AS IN CASES ARISING UNDER THE CERTIORARI JURISDICTION.  SEE LUTHER
V. BORDEN, 7 HOW.  1; PACIFIC STATES TEL. & TEL. CO. V. OREGON, 223
U.S. 118; OHIO EX REL. DAVIS V. HILDEBRANT, 241 U.S. 565; OPINION OF
FRANKFURTER, J., IN COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549. 

FN36  LIKE THE POLICY ABOUT POLITICAL MATTERS, ALTHOUGH NOT GOING TO
JURISDICTION AS THAT POLICY DOES, IT IS A RULE "WHICH CANNOT BE MET BY
VERBAL FENCING ABOUT 'JURISDICTION.'  IT MUST BE RESOLVED BY
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THIS COURT, FROM TIME TO TIME, HAS
REFUSED TO INTERVENE IN CONTROVERSIES."  OPINION OF FRANKFURTER, J., IN
COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549, 552. 

FN37  INDEED MORE THAN ONCE THE POLICY HAS BEEN APPLIED IN ORDER TO
AVOID THE NECESSITY OF DECIDING THE "CASE OR CONTROVERSY"
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION, WHEN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WERE AT STAKE ON
THE MERITS, E.G., RECENTLY IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS.  SEE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582; UNITED PUBLIC
WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75.  COMPARE ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF
LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATIONS V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 472, WHICH AROSE UNDER STATE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTS. 

FN38  IT IS NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE POLICY'S VALIDITY THAT
THE PERIODS WHEN THE POWER HAS BEEN EXERCISED MOST READILY AND BROADLY
HAVE BEEN THE ONES IN WHICH THIS COURT AND THE INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW HAVE HAD THEIR STORMIEST EXPERIENCES.  SEE E.G., BRANT, STORM
OVER THE CONSTITUTION (1936). 

FN39  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 37 SUPRA.  CF. COFFMAN V.
BREEZE CORPORATIONS, 323 U.S. 316, 324. 

FN40  AS THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 37 ILLUSTRATE, THE PROCEDURE HAS
BEEN UTILIZED TO BRING FOR DECISION CHALLENGES TO AN ENTIRE ARRAY OF
STATUTORY PROVISIONS ALLEGED TO VIOLATE RIGHTS SECURED BY AN ALMOST
EQUAL ARRAY OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  THE STRATEGIC CONCEPTION
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THAT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SUIT FURNISHES A READY
VEHICLE FOR PRESENTING AND SECURING DECISION OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS,
SOLELY UPON THE PLEADINGS, IN HIGHLY ABSTRACT OR PREMATURE, IF NOT
HYPOTHETICAL STATES OF FACT, AND EN MASSE.  SUCH A NOTION OF COURSE IS
ESSENTIALLY CONTRADICTORY OF THE POLICY AND, IF ACCEPTED, WOULD GO FAR
TOWARD NULLIFYING IT. 

FN41  BY DISPENSING WITH THE NECESSITY OF ASKING FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF
BEYOND THAT AFFORDED BY ADJUDICATION ITSELF, IT IS TRUE, THE OCCASIONS
FOR APPLYING THE POLICY THROUGH GROUNDING DECISION UPON FAILURE TO
SATISFY REMEDIAL LIMITATIONS HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.  BUT, AS SLOUGHING OFF
THOSE LIMITATIONS HAS NOT, AND OF COURSE COULD NOT, OVERCOME THE CASE
AND CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT, NO MORE WAS THIS INTENDED TO DISCARD THE
COROLLARY POLICY EFFECTIVE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF CONCEDED JURISDICTION. 
INDEED THE DISCRETIONARY ELEMENT CHARACTERISTIC OF DECLARATORY
JURISDICTION, AND IMPORTED PERHAPS FROM EQUITY JURISDICTION AND
PRACTICE WITHOUT THE REMEDIAL PHASE, OFFERS A CONVENIENT INSTRUMENT FOR
MAKING THE POLICY EFFECTIVE, QUITE TO THE CONTRARY EFFECT OF THE
CONCEPTION DISCUSSED IN NOTE 40 ABOVE.  BUT THAT ELEMENT, FOR
APPLICATION OF THE POLICY, IS ONLY ONE OF CONVENIENCE, NOT ONE OF
NECESSITY.  NO MORE IS APPLICATION DEPENDENT UPON IT, ESSENTIALLY, THAN
UPON THE SIMILAR ELEMENT IN OTHER TYPES OF SUIT, AS FOR EXAMPLE IN
SUITS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  CF. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE V. MCLAUGHLIN,
323 U.S. 101. 

FN42  IT IS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF PROHIBITION THAT
MURDOCK WAS CHARGED WITH HAVING VIOLATED SECS. 44.09 AND 44.12 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE "IN THAT, AS IT IS CHARGED IN SAID COMPLAINT, COURT I
THEREOF, SAID MURDOCK SOLICITED CONTRIBUTIONS, AND IN COURT II THEREOF,
THAT SAID MURDOCK HAD NO PERMIT OR INFORMATION CARD, AND FAILED TO SHOW
THE SAME TO A PERSON SOLICITED BY SAID MURDOCK.  ...  " 

FN43  SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA. 

FN44  SEE NOTE 5 SUPRA. 

FN45  THAT IS, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ENTIRE SCHEME CONSIDERED AS A
VALID PLAN OF REGULATION IN ALL ITS PARTS, AS THE CALIFORNIA COURT
SUBSTANTIALLY CONSIDERED IT IN THE GOSPEL ARMY CASE.  DISMISSAL OF THAT
APPEAL, OF COURSE, FORBIDS EXPRESSION BY US OF ANY OPINION UPON THE
MERITS OF THE ISSUES AS INVOLVED IN THAT PRESENTATION, ASIDE FROM THOSE
NECESSARILY INCORPORATED IN THE DECISION OF THIS CAUSE. 

FN46  UNDER THE FAMILIAR BUT NOT INVARIABLY APPLIED RULE OF EJUSDEM
GENERIS.  SEE, E.G., LOS ANGELES V. SUPERIOR COURT, 2 CAL.2D 138, 140;
PASADENA UNIVERSITY V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 190 CAL. 786, 790; IN RE
JOHNSON, 167 CAL. 142, 145. 

FN47  SEE NOTE 5 SUPRA AND SEC. 44.12 AS QUOTED ABOVE IN THE TEXT,
PART I. 

FN48  SEE TEXT SUPRA PART II. 

FN49  THE RECEIPT REQUIREMENT APPARENTLY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO
SOLICITATIONS BY RECEPTACLE UNDER SECS. 44.09(A) AND (B).  SEE NOTE 17
SUPRA. 

FN50  THE LAST QUOTED MATTER WAS FOLLOWED BY THE STATEMENT:  "THE
ASSOCIATION FOR WHOM THE SOLICITATION IS MADE MUST MAINTAIN AN
ACCOUNTING SYSTEM RECORDING THE ENTRY OF ALL DONATIONS AND
DISBURSEMENTS.  (SEC. 44.08.)"  THIS PROVISION RELATES APPARENTLY TO
THE FURTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING POST-SOLICITATION REPORTS. 

FN51  THE QUOTED SENTENCES WERE PRECEDED BY THE FOLLOWING:  "THE
REQUIREMENT THAT PROMOTERS AND THE SOLICITORS WORKING UNDER THEM SUBMIT
PROOF OF THEIR GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST PLAINTIFF OR OTHER RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS OR CENSOR THEIR
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, NOR DOES THE REGULATION VEST ARBITRARY POWER IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD IN AUTHORIZING IT TO WITHHOLD A LICENSE IF IT IS
NOT SATISFIED THAT THE APPLICANT IS OF GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION. 
SUCH A REQUIREMENT IS COMMON IN STATUTES REGULATING ADMISSION TO
PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS INVOLVING DUTIES OF A FIDUCIARY CHARACTER. 
...  THE FILING OF A BOND IS ALSO A COMMON REQUIREMENT IN THE
REGULATION OF OCCUPATIONS OR ACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE HANDLING OF
ENTRUSTED FUNDS.  ... THE LICENSE FEE IS A REASONABLE ONE, COVERING THE
EXPENSES OF INVESTIGATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION."  27 CAL.2D 232, 248
249. 

FN52  SEE THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 538-539:  "HOW FAR THE
STATE CAN REQUIRE PREVIOUS IDENTIFICATION BY ONE WHO UNDERTAKES TO
EXERCISE THE RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS BEEN LARGELY
UNDETERMINED.  IT HAS ARISEN HERE CHIEFLY, THOUGH ONLY TANGENTALLY, IN
CONNECTION WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS INVOLVING THE SOLICITATION OF
FUNDS, CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT (310 U.S. 296); CF. SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
308 U.S. 147; LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES UPON
THE PUBLIC STREETS OR IN PUBLIC PLACES, CF. LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S.
444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, OR HOUSE-TO-HOUSE CANVASSING, CF.
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA.  IN THESE CASES, HOWEVER, THE LICENSE
REQUIREMENTS WERE FOR MORE THAN MERE IDENTIFICATION OR PREVIOUS
REGISTRATION AND WERE HELD INVALID BECAUSE THEY VESTED DISCRETION IN
THE ISSUING AUTHORITIES TO CENSOR THE ACTIVITY INVOLVED.  NEVERTHELESS,
IT WAS INDICATED BY DICTUM IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296,
306, THAT A STATUTE GOING NO FURTHER THAN MERELY TO REQUIRE PREVIOUS
IDENTIFICATION WOULD BE SUSTAINED IN RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITIES
MENTIONED." 

THE DICTUM REFERRED TO IS THE STATEMENT:  "WITHOUT DOUBT A STATE MAY
PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM FRAUDULENT SOLICITATION BY REQUIRING A
STRANGER IN THE COMMUNITY, BEFORE PERMITTING HIM PUBLICLY TO SOLICIT
FUNDS FOR ANY PURPOSE, TO ESTABLISH HIS IDENTITY AND HIS AUTHORITY TO
ACT FOR THE CAUSE WHICH HE PURPORTS TO REPRESENT."  CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 306. 

FN53  THE RESCUE ARMY, SO FAR AS APPEARS, WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE
MUNICIPAL COURT SUIT.  NO ISSUE WAS MADE HERE CONCERNING ITS APPEARANCE
AS A PARTY IN THE PROHIBITION PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS OR ON
THIS APPEAL.  ACCORDINGLY, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION IN THIS RESPECT.  CF.
INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES V. SCHEELE, 331 U.S. 70. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA IS SO AMBIGUOUS THAT THE PRECISE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES IN THIS CASE HAVE BECOME TOO BLURRED FOR OUR POWERS OF
DISCERNMENT. 

THE COURTS BELOW AND THE PARTIES INVOLVED HAVE ALL ACTED ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT MURDOCK WAS CHARGED WITH HAVING VIOLATED
SECS. 44.09(A) AND 44.12 OF THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE.  NOW IT IS
TRUE THAT VARIOUS OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE ARE INTERCONNECTED WITH THOSE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THEREBY RAISED SEEM CLEAR TO ME.  SIMPLY STATED,
THEY ARE:  (1) DOES IT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM
OF RELIGION TO PROHIBIT SOLICITORS OF RELIGIOUS CHARITIES FROM USING
BOXES OR RECEPTACLES IN PUBLIC PLACES EXCEPT BY WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
CITY OFFICIALS?  (2) IS THAT GUARANTEE INFRINGED BY A REQUIREMENT THAT
SUCH SOLICTORS DISPLAY AN INFORMATION CARD ISSUED BY CITY OFFICIALS? 

THOSE ISSUES WERE PROPERLY RAISED BELOW AND THE COURTS NECESSARILY
PASSED UPON THEM.  THE TIME IS THUS RIPE FOR THIS COURT TO SUPPLY THE
DEFINITIVE JUDICIAL ANSWERS.  ITS FAILURE TO DO SO IN THIS CASE FORCES
ME TO REGISTER THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




















ORDER OF TRAVELERS V. WOLFE, 331 U.S. 586 


NO. 32.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1946.  - REARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1946.  -
DECIDED JUNE 9, 1947.  - 70 S.D. 452, 18 N.W.2D 755, REVERSED. 


1.  AN OHIO CITIZEN BROUGHT AN ACTION IN A STATE COURT IN SOUTH DAKOTA
AGAINST A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, INCORPORATED IN OHIO AND LICENSED
TO DO BUSINESS IN SOUTH DAKOTA, TO RECOVER BENEFITS CLAIMED TO HAVE
ARISEN UNDER THE SOCIETY'S CONSTITUTION AS A RESULT OF THE DEATH OF AN
INSURED MEMBER WHO HAD BEEN A CITIZEN OF SOUTH DAKOTA THROUGHOUT HIS
MEMBERSHIP.  THE SOCIETY'S CONSTITUTION, WHICH WAS VALID IN OHIO,
PROHIBITED THE BRINGING OF AN ACTION ON SUCH A CLAIM MORE THAN SIX
MONTHS AFTER ITS DISALLOWANCE BY THE SOCIETY.  THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT
AFTER EXPIRATION OF THIS TIME BUT BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD
PRESCRIBED BY SOUTH DAKOTA LAW FOR COMMENCING SUITS ON CONTRACTS.  A
STATUTE OF SOUTH DAKOTA DECLARED VOID EVERY STIPULATION OR CONDITION IN
A CONTRACT WHICH LIMITS THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A PARTY THERETO MAY
ENFORCE HIS RIGHTS BY USUAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE ORDINARY
TRIBUNALS.  HELD:  THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES SOUTH DAKOTA TO
GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE PUBLIC ACTS OF OHIO UNDER WHICH THE
SOCIETY WAS INCORPORATED, AND THE CLAIMANT WAS BOUND BY THE SIX-MONTH
LIMITATION UPON BRINGING SUCH AN ACTION.  PP. 588-589, 624-625. 

2.  A CLAIM BASED ON MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF AN
INCORPORATED FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, THE TERMS OF WHICH ARE SUBJECT
TO AMENDMENT THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF
GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION, DIFFERS
FROM A CLAIM FOR BENEFITS UNDER AN ORDINARY CONTRACT OF ACCIDENT
INSURANCE WHETHER ISSUED BY A STOCK OR A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.  PP.
600, 606. 

3.  IT IS OF PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE FROM THE LEGAL POINT OF VIEW IN
THIS CASE THAT THE SOCIETY IS A VOLUNTARY FRATERNAL ASSOCIATION
ORGANIZED AND CARRIED ON NOT FOR PROFIT BUT SOLELY FOR THE MUTUAL
BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES, AND HAS A
REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT WHICH SHALL MAKE PROVISION FOR THE
PAYMENT OF BENEFITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. 
P. 605. 

4.  RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES
ARE CONTRACTUAL IN THAT THEY ARE UNDERTAKEN VOLUNTARILY IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE LIKE OBLIGATIONS OF OTHERS; BUT, INTERWOVEN WITH
THEIR FINANCIAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, THEY HAVE OTHER COMMON
INTERESTS INCIDENTAL TO THEIR MEMBERSHIPS, WHICH GIVE THEM A STATUS
TOWARD ONE ANOTHER THAT INVOLVES MORE INTERDEPENDENCE THAN ARISES FROM
PURELY BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS.  PP. 605-606. 

5.  MEMBERSHIP IN A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY IS GOVERNED BY THE LAW
OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION; CONTROL OVER ITS TERMS IS VESTED IN THE
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT OF THE SOCIETY AS AUTHORIZED AND
REGULATED BY THAT LAW.  P. 606. 

6.  BY VIRTUE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, THE PEOPLE OF THE
UNITED STATES HAVE IMPOSED UPON THE GENERAL RULES GOVERNING CONFLICTS
OF LAWS RESPECTING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ON CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF
ORDINARY CONTRACTS ANOTHER LIMITATION, GIVING EFFECT TO A LIMITATION
CONTAINED, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE CONSTITUTION OF A FRATERNAL
BENEFIT SOCIETY.  P. 607. 

7.  FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES EXIST BY VIRTUE OF THE LAWS OF THE
STATES OF THEIR INCORPORATION, AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS INCIDENT
TO MEMBERSHIP IN THEM ARE AS MUCH ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AS
THE STATUTES UPON WHICH THEY DEPEND.  P. 609. 

8.  TO PERMIT RECOVERY IN THIS CASE WOULD FAIL TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT TO THE TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP AUTHORIZED BY OHIO BY PLACING AN
ADDITIONAL LIABILITY ON THE SOCIETY BEYOND THAT AUTHORIZED BY OHIO OR
ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIETY.  P. 610. 

9.  THE WEIGHT OF PUBLIC POLICY BEHIND THE GENERAL STATUTE OF SOUTH
DAKOTA, WHICH SEEKS TO AVOID CONTRACTUAL LIMITATIONS UPON RIGHTS TO SUE
ON ORDINARY CONTRACTS, DOES NOT EQUAL THAT WHICH MAKES NECESSARY THE
RECOGNITION OF THE SAME TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR MEMBERS OF FRATERNAL
BENEFIT SOCIETIES WHEREVER THEIR BENEFICIARIES MAY BE - ESPECIALLY
WHERE THE STATE, WITH FULL INFORMATION AS TO THOSE TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP,
HAS PERMITTED SUCH SOCIETIES TO DO BUSINESS AND SECURE MEMBERS WITHIN
ITS BORDERS.  P. 624. 

10.  IF A STATE GIVES SOME FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE LAWS OF ANOTHER
STATE BY PERMITTING ITS OWN CITIZENS TO BECOME MEMBERS OF, AND BENEFIT
FROM, FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES ORGANIZED BY SUCH OTHER STATE, IT
MUST GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THOSE LAWS AND MUST RECOGNIZE THE
BURDENS AND LIMITATIONS WHICH ARE INHERENT IN SUCH MEMBERSHIPS.  P.
625. 

ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS OF AMERICA V. WOLFE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA. 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT IN SOUTH DAKOTA, AN OHIO
CITIZEN OBTAINED A JUDGMENT AGAINST A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY
INCORPORATED IN OHIO FOR BENEFITS CLAIMED TO HAVE ARISEN UNDER THE
SOCIETY'S CONSTITUTION AS A RESULT OF THE DEATH OF AN INSURED MEMBER
WHO WAS A CITIZEN OF SOUTH DAKOTA.  THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
AFFIRMED.  70 S.D. 452, 18 N.W.2D 755.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
326 U.S. 712.  REVERSED, P. 625. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
BROUGHT BY AN OHIO CITIZEN AGAINST A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY
INCORPORATED IN OHIO, TO RECOVER BENEFITS CLAIMED TO HAVE ARISEN UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF THAT SOCIETY AS A RESULT OF THE DEATH OF AN INSURED
MEMBER WHO HAD BEEN A CITIZEN OF SOUTH DAKOTA THROUGHOUT HIS
MEMBERSHIP.  THE CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES  FN1  REQUIRED
THE COURT OF THE FORUM, SOUTH DAKOTA, TO GIVE EFFECT TO A PROVISION OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY PROHIBITING THE BRINGING OF AN ACTION
ON SUCH A CLAIM MORE THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE
CLAIM BY THE SUPREME EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY,  FN2  WHEN
THAT PROVISION WAS VALID UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF THE SOCIETY'S
INCORPORATION, OHIO, BUT WHEN THE TIME PRESCRIBED GENERALLY BY SOUTH
DAKOTA FOR COMMENCING ACTIONS ON CONTRACTS WAS SIX YEARS  FN3 AND WHEN
ANOTHER STATUTE OF SOUTH DAKOTA DECLARED THAT - 

"EVERY STIPULATION OR CONDITION IN A CONTRACT, BY WHICH ANY PARTY
THERETO IS RESTRICTED FROM ENFORCING HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY
THE USUAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE ORDINARY TRIBUNALS, OR WHICH LIMITS
THE TIME WITHIN WHICH HE MAY THUS ENFORCE HIS RIGHTS, IS VOID."  FN4 

WE HOLD THAT, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, SOUTH DAKOTA, AS THE STATE OF
THE FORUM, WAS REQUIRED, BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, TO
GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE PUBLIC ACTS OF OHIO UNDER WHICH THE
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY WAS INCORPORATED, AND THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS
BOUND BY THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION UPON BRINGING SUIT TO RECOVER DEATH
BENEFITS BASED UPON MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS OF A DECEDENT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY.  THIS HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THIS
COURT.  FN5 

THE RECORD IN THE PRESENT CASE WELL ILLUSTRATES BOTH THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF SUCH A LIMITATION AS THAT CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF
THIS SOCIETY AND THE NEED FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE TO MEMBERSHIP OBLIGATIONS IN FRATERNAL BENEFIT
SOCIETIES. 

THE PETITIONER, THE ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS OF AMERICA,
WAS INCORPORATED IN 1888, UNDER THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAWS OF OHIO. 
FN6 BY 1920, WHEN THE DECEDENT, FORD SHANE, OF RAPID CITY, SOUTH
DAKOTA, BECAME A MEMBER, THIS FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY WAS IN ACTIVE
OPERATION IN MANY STATES.  THEN, AND AT HIS DEATH IN 1931, IT WAS
REGULATED IN DETAIL BY THE GENERAL CODE OF OHIO.  THAT CODE INCLUDED
PUBLIC ACTS OF OHIO ON SUCH SUBJECTS AS THE FOLLOWING:  SEC. 9462,
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY DEFINED N7; SEC. 9463, LODGE SYSTEM; SEC.
9464, REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING RESTRICTIONS ON
AMENDMENTS TO ITS CONSTITUTION; SEC. 9465, EXEMPTION FROM GENERAL
INSURANCE LAWS OF THE STATE; SEC. 9466, BENEFITS; SEC. 9467, TO WHOM
BENEFITS SHALL BE PAID, STATING LIMITATIONS ON THE DEGREES OF FAMILY
RELATIONSHIP PERMITTED TO EXIST BETWEEN A MEMBER AND THOSE WHOM HE MAY
DESIGNATE TO RECEIVE BENEFITS AS A RESULT OF HIS DEATH; SEC. 9468, AGE
LIMITS FOR ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP; SEC. 9469, CERTIFICATE SHALL
CONSTITUTE AGREEMENT N8; SEC. 9469-1, EXCEPTION AS TO COMMERCIAL
TRAVELERS N9; SEC. 9470, INVESTMENT, DISBURSEMENT AND APPLICATION OF
FUNDS; SEC. 9481, LAWS OF SOCIETY SHALL BE BINDING ON MEMBERS AND
BENEFICIARIES, AND THE SOCIETY MAY PROVIDE, AS HERE, THAT NO
SUBORDINATE BODY, OFFICERS OR MEMBERS MAY WAIVE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY.  FN10  THESE PUBLIC ACTS
HAVE CREATED AND REGULATED THE SOCIETY AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
OF ITS MEMBERS.  THEY ARE REFLECTED IN ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION,
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS.  THEY MAKE POSSIBLE UNIFORMITY OF RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS AMONG ALL MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, PROVIDED FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT ARE GIVEN ALSO TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE
SOCIETY INSOFAR AS THEY ARE VALID UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
INCORPORATION.  IF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ARE NOT GIVEN TO THESE
PROVISIONS, THE MUTUAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF SUCH
SOCIETIES ARE LEFT SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF EACH STATE.  THEY BECOME
UNPREDICTABLE AND ALMOST INEVITABLY UNEQUAL. 

THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THIS SOCIETY HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY IN
COLUMBUS, OHIO.  THE SOCIETY HAS ESTABLISHED SUBORDINATE COUNCILS IN
MANY STATES AND, AT ALL TIMES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, HAS BEEN LICENSED
TO DO BUSINESS IN SOUTH DAKOTA AS A FOREIGN FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY. 
FN11  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTAINING SUCH LICENSE
IN GOOD STANDING, THE SOCIETY HAS KEPT ON FILE, WITH THE COMMISSIONER
OF INSURANCE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, A COPY OF THE SOCIETY'S CONSTITUTION,
INCLUDING SEC. 11 OF ARTICLE IV, HERE IN CONTROVERSY, LIMITING THE TIME
FOR BRINGING SUITS TO RECOVER CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS BASED UPON THAT
ARTICLE.  THE STATE OF THE FORUM THUS HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY IN A
POSITION TO REVOKE OR REFUSE TO RENEW THE SOCIETY'S LICENSE TO DO
BUSINESS IN THAT STATE IF IT HAD GOOD REASON TO DO SO.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT SOUTH DAKOTA HAS ATTEMPTED OR SUGGESTED SUCH ACTION.  THE
FAVORABLE, RATHER THAN HOSTILE, ATTITUDE OF SOUTH DAKOTA TOWARDS SUCH
SOCIETIES IS EVIDENCED BY ITS OWN AUTHORIZATION OF THEIR INCORPORATION
IN THAT STATE ON TERMS IDENTICAL, WORD FOR WORD, WITH THOSE PRESCRIBED
IN OHIO.  FN12 

THE DECEDENT, ON JULY 31, 1920, APPLIED FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE SOCIETY
THROUGH RAPID CITY COUNCIL NO. 516, IN RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA.  HE
WAS 37 YEARS OLD, A MANAGER AND SALESMAN SELLING "PACKING PRODUCTS" ON
THE ROAD, IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION AND EMPLOYED IN AN OCCUPATION OF
PRECISELY THE TYPE CONTEMPLATED FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THIS SOCIETY.  FN13
HE NAMED HIS WIFE AS HIS BENEFICIARY IN CASE OF HIS DEATH FROM
ACCIDENTAL MEANS.  ON AUGUST 19, 1920, HE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE SUPREME
COUNCIL AS AN INSURED MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY UNDER "CLASS A."  THE
CERTIFICATE, NO. 169655, EVIDENCING THIS ACCEPTANCE WAS EXECUTED AT
COLUMBUS, OHIO, BY THE SUPREME COUNSELOR AND SUPREME SECRETARY.  IN
1922, FOLLOWING A BRIEF SUSPENSION, HE APPLIED FOR REINSTATEMENT IN
WHAT WAS THEN BLACK HILLS COUNCIL NO. 516 IN RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA,
AND, ON DECEMBER 21, 1922, WAS REINSTATED AS AN INSURED MEMBER OF THE
SOCIETY UNDER "CLASS A."  IN HIS APPLICATION FOR THIS RENEWAL, HE
REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS A TRAVELING SALESMAN, SELLING MEAT TO DEALERS,
AND NAMED HIS MOTHER, ELIZABETH SHANE OF MT. VERNON, SOUTH DAKOTA, AS
HIS BENEFICIARY.  FN14  THEREAFTER, HE REMAINED IN GOOD STANDING AND IT
IS UPON HIS MEMBERSHIP, EVIDENCED BY THIS CERTIFICATE, ALSO EXECUTED IN
OHIO, THAT THIS ACTION DEPENDS.  ON MAY 8, 1931, HE VISITED A
PHYSICIAN'S OFFICE IN RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA, TO BE EXAMINED FOR
STRICTURE.  THE DOCTOR APPLIED A LOCAL ANESTHETIC PRELIMINARY TO
INTRODUCING AN INSTRUMENT KNOWN AS A "SOUND" FOR EXPLORATORY PURPOSES. 
THE LOCAL ANESTHETIC WAS A DRUG KNOWN AS "BUTYN."  THE RECORD SHOWS
THAT BUTYN COMMONLY WAS USED BY PHYSICIANS FOR SUCH A PURPOSE; THAT IT
WAS PROPERLY ADMINISTERED IN THE USUAL AND PROPER AMOUNT AND WAS OF THE
USUAL AND PROPER STRENGTH; BUT THAT THE DECEDENT, UNKNOWN TO ANYONE,
WAS SUBJECT TO A RARE IDIOSYNCRASY, AS A RESULT OF THE PRESENCE OF
WHICH HE SUFFERED CONVULSIONS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE ANESTHETIC AND DIED WITHIN TWO MINUTES. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE SOCIETY, THE DECEDENT'S BENEFICIARY PROMPTLY MAILED TO THE SOCIETY
A NOTICE OF HER SON'S DEATH.  ON JUNE 8, 1931, THE SUPREME EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE, IN COLUMBUS, OHIO, REVIEWED AND DISALLOWED HER CLAIM ON ITS
MERITS AND MAILED TO HER NOTICE OF SUCH ACTION.  ON JUNE 16, SHE FILED
A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SOCIETY IN A CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF
SOUTH DAKOTA TO RECOVER DEATH BENEFITS, AMOUNTING TO $6,300, CLAIMED
UNDER ARTICLE IV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY.  THE CASE WAS
REMOVED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTH DAKOTA BECAUSE OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  ON SEPTEMBER 2 IT WAS TRIED, WITHOUT A JURY,
AND, ON DECEMBER 15, 1931, JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED FOR THE MOTHER WITH
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DEALING WITH THE MERITS OF THE
CASE.  THIS JUDGMENT, ON FEBRUARY 27, 1933, WAS REVERSED, ON ITS
MERITS, BY THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT AND JUDGMENT FOR COSTS WAS ENTERED AGAINST ELIZABETH SHANE.  64
F.2D 55.  FN15 UPON REMAND OF THE CASE TO IT, THE DISTRICT COURT, ON
APRIL 18, 1933, ORDERED "THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS MATTER BE MADE THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, AND
THAT ALL COSTS OF THIS COURT RELATING TO SUCH MANDATE AND JUDGMENT, BE
TAXED AND ALLOWED THE DEFENDANT."  (UNREPORTED.)  THUS, WITHIN LESS
THAN TWO YEARS, THE CASE HAD BEEN COMPLETELY PRESENTED AND HEARD BY THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND DISPOSED OF, ON ITS
MERITS, IN FAVOR OF THE SOCIETY, WITH FULL RECOGNITION OF THE DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TIME LIMITS
PRESCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY. 

THE PRESENT PROCEEDING, HOWEVER, RESULTED FROM THE FACT THAT,
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, THE DISTRICT COURT, ON JANUARY
18, 1934, DISMISSED THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING OF ANOTHER
SUIT.  ON JUNE 15, 1934, THE DECEDENT'S MOTHER ASSIGNED HER CLAIM TO
EDWARD C. WOLFE, THE PRESENT RESPONDENT, A CITIZEN OF OHIO, AS TRUSTEE,
TO ENFORCE COLLECTION OF THE CLAIM.  ON THE SAME DAY, THE PRESENT
ACTION WAS FILED IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.  AN
ANSWER WAS ENTERED AND A STIPULATION WAS MADE TO USE THE TESTIMONY
WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE PREVIOUS CASE.  THERE
THE CASE RESTED FOR SIX YEARS.  ON OCTOBER 19, 1940, AN AMENDED ANSWER
WAS FILED RAISING, AMONG OTHERS, THE DEFENSE THAT THIS SECOND ACTION
WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
SOCIETY:

                     "ARTICLE IV.  INSURANCE. 

     .        .         .         .         .

         WAIVERS. 

"SEC. 11.  NO SUIT OR PROCEEDING, EITHER AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, SHALL
BE BROUGHT TO RECOVER ANY BENEFITS UNDER THIS ARTICLE AFTER SIX (6)
MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE CLAIM FOR SAID BENEFITS IS DISALLOWED BY THE
SUPREME EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 

"NO GRAND OR SUBORDINATE COUNCIL, OFFICER, MEMBER OR AGENT OF ANY
SUBORDINATE, GRAND, OR THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE ORDER IS AUTHORIZED
OR PERMITTED TO WAIVE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS
ORDER, RELATING TO INSURANCE, AS THE SAME ARE NOW IN FORCE OR MAY BE
HEREAFTER ENACTED." 

IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT SUCH PROVISION HAS BEEN IN SUCH CONSTITUTION
SINCE BEFORE THE DECEDENT'S FIRST APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE
SOCIETY, AND THAT IT WAS PRINTED IN FULL ON THE BACK OF THE CERTIFICATE
OF MEMBERSHIP ORIGINALLY ISSUED TO THE DECEDENT.  IT FURTHER WAS
ALLEGED THAT THIS PROVISION WAS VALID AND BINDING UPON THE MEMBERS OF
THE SOCIETY BY AND UNDER THE LAWS OF OHIO; THAT THE HIGHEST COURT OF
THAT STATE HAD HELD THAT A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, BY ITS
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS, COULD LIMIT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SUIT MUST
BE BROUGHT TO RECOVER FOR BENEFITS PROMISED TO MEMBERS; AND THAT TO
DENY THE BINDING EFFECT OF THAT LIMITATION ON THE PLAINTIFF IN SUCH
SUIT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (ART. IV, SEC. 1), AND A VIOLATION OF
THE SOCIETY'S RIGHTS THEREUNDER.  WE DECIDE THAT ISSUE HERE IN FAVOR OF
THE SOCIETY.  NO CLAIM IS MADE HERE THAT THE SOCIETY IS BARRED FROM
THIS DEFENSE BY ANY WAIVER PURPORTING TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON ITS BEHALF
IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISMISSAL OF THE EARLIER ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO FILING ANOTHER.  SEE RIDDLESBARGER V. HARTFORD INS. CO., 7
WALL.  386.  IN THIS VIEW OF THE CASE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER
THE OTHER DEFENSES. 

IN 1942, THE CASE WAS PRESENTED BEFORE A JUDGE OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.  UPON THE DEATH OF THAT JUDGE BEFORE A
DECISION IN THE CASE, IT WAS HEARD, IN 1943, BY ANOTHER JUDGE OF THAT
COURT, LARGELY UPON THE RECORD MADE, IN 1931, IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT.  THE STATE COURT, ON APRIL 4, 1944, ENTERED JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANT, RESPONDENT HEREIN.  IN 1945, THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, BY A DIVIDED COURT, AFFIRMED THAT
JUDGMENT.  70 S.D. 452, 18 N.W.2D 755.  BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE PRESENTED AND ITS RELATION TO PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 712.  THE CASE WAS ARGUED HERE
FEBRUARY 28, 1946.  LATER IT WAS RESTORED TO THE DOCKET, ASSIGNED FOR
REARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL BENCH AND REARGUED HERE NOVEMBER 12, 1946. 
THIS IS A CLEAR-CUT CASE OF A CLAIM BASED SOLELY UPON MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF AN INCORPORATED
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, THE TERMS OF WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT
THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED
BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORDS OF THE THREE TRIALS, NO SUGGESTION IN THE OPINIONS OF THE LOWER
COURTS, AND NO CLAIM IN THE ARGUMENTS HERE THAT THE DECEDENT WAS NOT A
BONA FIDE ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY, OR THAT THE SOCIETY WAS ACTING
OTHERWISE THAN AS A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY.  THIS CASE, THEREFORE,
IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM A CLAIM FOR DEATH BENEFITS UNDER AN
ORDINARY CONTRACT OF ACCIDENT INSURANCE, WHETHER ISSUED BY A STOCK OR A
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. 

WE RELY UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE MEMBERSHIP OBLIGATION SUED UPON. 
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONTENTION THAT THE CONTRACT
OF MEMBERSHIP, INCLUDING ALL INSURANCE RIGHTS, WAS MADE IN OHIO AND
THAT MANY ACTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTRACT WERE REQUIRED TO BE
PERFORMED IN OHIO AND WERE SO PERFORMED.  HOWEVER, WE DO NOT RELY UPON
THE PLACE OF CONCLUDING THE CONTRACT OF MEMBERSHIP OR UPON THE PLACE
PRESCRIBED FOR ITS PERFORMANCE.  WE RELY, RATHER, UPON ITS CHARACTER AS
SOMETHING CREATED, REGULATED AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE THROUGH A FRATERNAL
AND REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF INTRA-CORPORATE GOVERNMENT, DEPENDENT FOR
ITS TERMS, CONTINUITY AND UNITY UPON PUBLIC ACTS OF OHIO CREATING AND
REGULATING FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES. 

ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT, SUING AS AN OHIO CITIZEN, HAS ELIMINATED THE
SOUTH DAKOTA CITIZENSHIP OF THE ORIGINAL BENEFICIARY AS A
JURISDICTIONAL FACTOR IN THIS CASE, WE DO NOT HOLD THAT, FOR THAT
REASON, HE MAY NOT URGE THE COURTS TO CONSIDER THE CONTINUOUS SOUTH
DAKOTA RESIDENCE AND CITIZENSHIP OF THE DECEDENT AND OF THE NAMED
BENEFICIARY IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PUBLIC POLICY OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SHOULD YIELD TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES IN GIVING RECOGNITION TO THE CHARTER RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS OF THE SOCIETY AS AN OHIO CORPORATION. 

IN ORDER, HOWEVER, TO APPRECIATE THE NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION HERE
RELIED UPON, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO SEE HOW COMPLETELY ITS TERMS ARE
INTERWOVEN WITH THE ENABLING LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE CORPORATE
CHARTER AND WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY, AS WELL
AS WITH THE MEMBER'S APPLICATION FOR AND HIS CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP
IN SUCH SOCIETY. 

THE ENABLING LEGISLATION, CORPORATE CHARTER AND CERTIFICATE OF
MEMBERSHIP HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED.  THE APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP
CONTRIBUTES NOTHING FURTHER TO THE ISSUE EXCEPT TO EMPHASIZE THE
INTEGRATION WHICH IT DEMONSTRATES BETWEEN THE MEMBER AND THE ARTICLES
OF INCORPORATION, CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF HIS SOCIETY.  THERE WAS
NO APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE SEPARATE FROM THE APPLICATION FOR
MEMBERSHIP.  BENEFITS DERIVED FROM MEMBERSHIP FLOWED SOLELY FROM THE
DECEDENT'S MEMBERSHIP STATUS. 

THERE REMAIN TO BE CONSIDERED THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE
SOCIETY.  THESE SET FORTH THE MAIN BODY OF THE MEMBER'S RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE OF A FRATERNAL AND PROCEDURAL NATURE AS
WELL AS THOSE RELATING TO FINANCIAL BENEFITS AND LIABILITIES.  THE
PRINCIPAL PART OF THE RECORD CONSISTS OF PRINTED COPIES OF THE CHARTER,
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY, ONE AS GENERALLY EFFECTIVE
SEPTEMBER 1, 1922, AND THE OTHER AS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1930.  A
COMPARISON OF THESE COPIES SHOWS THAT MANY CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS DURING THE DECEDENT'S MEMBERSHIP IN
THE SOCIETY.  FN16 

THE 1930 CONSTITUTION, IN PAMPHLET FORM, FILLED 90 CLOSELY PRINTED
PAGES.  ITS SUBJECT MATTER IS OUTLINED IN THE MARGIN.  FN17  IT IS
OBVIOUS HOW VITAL THESE TERMS, BOTH IN DETAIL AND AS A WHOLE, WERE TO
EACH MEMBER.  THE BY-LAWS FILLED SIX PAGES.  THEY CONSISTED OF 29
PARAGRAPHS DEALING WITH THE CONDUCT OF MEETINGS OF THE SUBORDINATE (OR
LOCAL) COUNCILS, GRAND (OR REGIONAL) COUNCILS AND THE SUPREME (NATIONAL
OR INTERNATIONAL) COUNCIL.  UNDER SUCH A CONSTITUTION IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO SEPARATE THE MEMBER'S INSURANCE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS FROM HIS
OTHER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.  WHILE THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE
INCORPORATION OF FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES CALLS FOR "A LODGE SYSTEM
WITH RITUALISTIC FORM OF WORK" AND THIS IS A NATURAL EXPRESSION OF A
CLOSE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST AMONG MEMBERS OF A FRATERNAL BENEFIT
SOCIETY, YET IT IS NOT THE FORMALITY OF ANY RITUAL THAT IS OF PRIMARY
SIGNIFICANCE FROM THE LEGAL POINT OF VIEW IN THIS CASE.  THE MORE
CRITICAL FACTORS ARE THAT THE SOCIETY IS A VOLUNTARY FRATERNAL
ASSOCIATION "ORGANIZED AND CARRIED ON SOLELY FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF
ITS MEMBERS AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES, AND NOT FOR PROFIT, AND HAVING A
...  REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, AND WHICH SHALL MAKE PROVISION
FOR THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS.  FN18  HISTORICALLY, MANY GROUPS OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
DRAWN TOGETHER NATURALLY INTO FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS FOR SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC REASONS.  SOME OF THESE HAVE DEVELOPED INTO THOSE FORMS OF
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES NOW OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BY MANY STATES. 
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF SUCH SOCIETIES ARE CONTRACTUAL
IN THAT THEY ARE VOLUNTARILY UNDERTAKEN IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LIKE
OBLIGATIONS OF OTHERS.  HOWEVER, INTERWOVEN WITH THEIR FINANCIAL RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS, THEY HAVE OTHER COMMON INTERESTS INCIDENTAL TO THEIR
MEMBERSHIPS, WHICH GIVE THEM A STATUS TOWARD ONE ANOTHER THAT INVOLVES
MORE MUTUALITY OF INTEREST AND MORE INTERDEPENDENCE THAN ARISES FROM
PURELY BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS.  THIS CREATES - 

"THE INDIVISIBLE UNITY BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF A CORPORATION OF THIS
KIND IN RESPECT OF THE FUND FROM WHICH THEIR RIGHTS ARE TO BE ENFORCED
AND THE CONSEQUENCE THAT THEIR RIGHTS MUST BE DETERMINED BY A SINGLE
LAW,  ...  THE ACT OF BECOMING A MEMBER IS SOMETHING MORE THAN A
CONTRACT, IT IS ENTERING INTO A COMPLEX AND ABIDING RELATION, AND AS
MARRIAGE LOOKS TO DOMICIL, MEMBERSHIP LOOKS TO AND MUST BE GOVERNED BY
THE LAW OF THE STATE GRANTING THE INCORPORATION N19." 

THE RELATIONSHIP THUS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN A MEMBER AND HIS FRATERNAL
BENEFIT SOCIETY DIFFERS FROM THE ORDINARY CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN A POLICYHOLDER AND A SEPARATELY OWNED CORPORATE OR "STOCK"
INSURANCE COMPANY.  IT DIFFERS ALSO FROM THAT BETWEEN AN INSURED MEMBER
OF THE USUAL BUSINESS FORM OF A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND THAT
COMPANY.  THE FACT OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE OHIO FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY
IS THE CONTROLLING AND CENTRAL FEATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP.  AS LONG AS
HE REMAINS A MEMBER, THE TERMS OF HIS MEMBERSHIP, INCLUDING OBLIGATIONS
AND BENEFITS RELATING TO THE INSURANCE FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY, ARE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT HIS INDIVIDUAL CONSENT.  THE CONTROL OVER
THOSE TERMS IS VESTED BY HIM AND HIS FELLOW MEMBERS IN THE ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT OF THEIR SOCIETY AS AUTHORIZED AND REGULATED
BY THE LAW OF OHIO.  UPON THAT LAW THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE
SOCIETY DEPENDS.  THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY IS THE LAW OF OHIO.  IT
PROVIDES THE UNIFYING CONTROL OVER THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ITS
MEMBERS.  SOVEREIGN CAMP V. BOLIN, 305 U.S. 66, 75, DISCUSSED INFRA. 
IT IS THIS DEPENDENCE OF MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS UPON THE PUBLIC ACTS OF THE
DOMICILIARY STATE, SUPPORTED BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THOSE PUBLIC ACTS, THAT HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT IN THE UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS REVIEWED IN
THIS OPINION. 

THE DECISIONS PASSING UPON THIS COMPARATIVELY NARROW ISSUE ARE TO BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE WHICH DEAL ONLY WITH THE WELL-ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLE OF CONFLICT OF LAWS THAT "IF ACTION IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS OF THE FORUM, NO ACTION CAN BE MAINTAINED THOUGH ACTION
IS NOT BARRED IN THE STATE WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE." 
RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS SEC. 603(1934).  IT IS TO THAT GENERAL
PRINCIPLE THAT SUCH EARLY CASES AS HAWKINS V. BARNEY'S LESSEE, 5 PET.
457, AND M'ELMOYLE V. COHEN, 13 PET. 312, HAVE REFERENCE.  THE
DECISIONS HERE REVIEWED ARE TO BE DISTINGUISHED, LIKEWISE, FROM THOSE
SUPPORTING THE CONVERSE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT "IF ACTION IS NOT BARRED
BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE FORUM, AN ACTION CAN BE
MAINTAINED, THOUGH ACTION IS BARRED IN THE STATE WHERE THE CAUSE OF
ACTION AROSE."  RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS SEC. 604(1934).  NEITHER
OF THESE GENERAL STATEMENTS IS HERE QUESTIONED.  AN OBVIOUS NEED FOR
MODIFICATION OF THE LATTER STATEMENT, HOWEVER, HAS LED MANY STATES TO
PLACE A LIMITATION UPON IT THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF THE SO-CALLED
"BORROWING STATUTES" OF LIMITATIONS.  THE RESULT IS THAT TODAY
"STATUTES FREQUENTLY PROVIDE THAT AN ACTION MAY NOT BE MAINTAINED IF IT
HAS BEEN BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AT THE PLACE WHERE THE
ACTION ACCRUED OR, IN SOME CASES, AT THE DOMICIL OF THE DEFENDANT." 
ID. SEC. 604, COMMENT B. THESE NUMEROUS "BORROWING STATUTES"
DEMONSTRATE THE GENERAL RECOGNITION OF THE SOUND PUBLIC POLICY OF
LIMITING, UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE STATE OF THE FORUM.  THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE APPLIED, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IS BUT ANOTHER
LIMITATION VOLUNTARILY IMPOSED, BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES,
UPON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES IN APPLYING THE LAW OF
THE FORUM.  SEE BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, 643, AND MILWAUKEE
COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 276-277, DISCUSSED INFRA. 

EVEN WITHOUT THE COMPELLING FORCE OF STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS, THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE LAW OF
THE FORUM.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF
A CONTROLLING STATUTE TO THE CONTRARY, A PROVISION IN A CONTRACT MAY
VALIDLY LIMIT, BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE TIME FOR BRINGING AN ACTION ON
SUCH CONTRACT TO A PERIOD LESS THAN THAT PRESCRIBED IN THE GENERAL
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PROVIDED THAT THE SHORTER PERIOD ITSELF SHALL
BE A REASONABLE PERIOD.  FN20  SUCH SHORTER PERIODS, WRITTEN INTO
PRIVATE CONTRACTS, ALSO HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE ENTITLED TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UNDER APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397, AND HARTFORD
ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. DELTA & PINE LAND CO., 292 U.S. 143,
MENTIONED AGAIN INFRA. 

THE INSTANT CASE PRESENTS ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH DISTINGUISH IT FROM
THE CASES GOVERNED BY THE FOREGOING GENERAL RULES.  THE PRINCIPAL
DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF THIS CASE IS THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE DECEDENT
IN THE OHIO FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, WHICH SOUTH DAKOTA MADE
AVAILABLE TO HIM THROUGH THE LICENSE ISSUED TO IT TO DO BUSINESS IN
SOUTH DAKOTA.  EVEN CONCEDING, FOR PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT, THAT THE
DECEDENT'S MEMBERSHIP CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO IN SOUTH DAKOTA, RATHER
THAN WHERE IT WAS ACCEPTED AT THE SOCIETY'S HOME OFFICE IN OHIO, IT IS
THE CHARACTER OF THAT FRATERNAL BENEFIT MEMBERSHIP, CREATED AND DEFINED
BY THE LAWS OF OHIO AND FOSTERED BY THE FRATERNAL BENEFIT LAWS OF SOUTH
DAKOTA, THAT IS AT ISSUE.  CONCEDING FURTHER THAT, AS INTERPRETED IN
THIS CASE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THE PROVISION OF SEC.
897 OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA CODE (QUOTED NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THIS
OPINION), GENERALLY OUTLAWING CONTRACTUAL TIME LIMITS ON THE
ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, IS AN ATTEMPT
TO MAKE VOID THE TIME LIMIT INCLUDED IN SEC. 11 OF ARTICLE IV OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THIS OHIO FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, WE THEN ARE
BROUGHT FACE TO FACE WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS HERE THAT WE REACH THE LINE
OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, EXTENDING FROM ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237
U.S. 531, TO PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201, 207-208, 210
211, DISCUSSED INFRA.  THESE DECISIONS ARE DIRECTLY IN POINT.  WITHOUT
QUESTIONING THIS COURT'S RECOGNITION OF THE COMMON LAW PRINCIPLE OF
CONFLICT OF LAWS AS TO THE CONTROL BY EACH STATE OVER THE APPLICATION
OF ITS OWN STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, THIS LINE OF DECISIONS DEMONSTRATES
THIS COURT'S SIMULTANEOUS RECOGNITION OF THE NECESSARY SCOPE OF THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IN THIS FIELD.  THESE CASES UNWAVERINGLY
SAFEGUARD, IN EACH STATE, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PUBLIC ACTS OF EVERY
OTHER STATE AS EXPRESSED IN THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS OF
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES.  SUCH SOCIETIES EXIST BY VIRTUE OF SUCH
STATE LEGISLATION, AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS INCIDENT TO
MEMBERSHIP THEREIN ARE AS MUCH ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AS THE
STATUTES UPON WHICH THEY DEPEND. 

THE RESPONDENT'S CLAIM TO BENEFITS IS BASED UPON ITEM (12) OF SEC. 4
OF ARTICLE IV OF THIS CONSTITUTION WHICH SPECIFIES THE DEATH BENEFITS
DERIVED FROM THE MEMBERSHIP OF "CLASS A" MEMBERS.  THE PROHIBITION
LIMITING THE TIME FOR SUING ON THIS CLAIM, WHICH IS RELIED UPON AS THE
DEFENSE OF THE SOCIETY, APPEARS AS SEC. 11 OF THE SAME ARTICLE IV.
SOCIETY NO LESS THAN DOES SEC. 4.  THE LIMITATION, RESULTING FROM SEC.
4, ON THE AMOUNT OF THE BENEFIT TO BE PAID TO BENEFICIARIES AND THE
LIMITATION, RESULTING FROM SEC. 11, ON THE TIME WHEN LITIGATION MAY BE
BROUGHT BY BENEFICIARIES, ARE OF COMPARABLE CHARACTER.  TO PERMIT
RECOVERY HERE WOULD BE TO PERMIT RECOVERY ON A SPECIAL AND UNAUTHORIZED
TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP MORE FAVORABLE TO DECEDENT THAN WAS AVAILABLE TO
OTHER MEMBERS.  THIS WOULD FAIL TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE
TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP AUTHORIZED BY OHIO BY PLACING AN ADDITIONAL
LIABILITY ON THE SOCIETY BEYOND THAT AUTHORIZED BY OHIO OR ACCEPTED BY
THE SOCIETY. 

UNDERLYING THE DEFENSE OF THE SOCIETY IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT SEC. 11
BE VALID UNDER THE LAW OF OHIO AS THE STATE OF INCORPORATION.  SUCH
VALIDITY WAS ADMITTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN ITS
OPINION BELOW.  70 S.D. 452, 18 N.W.2D 755, 756.  "THE PARTIES TO A
CONTRACT OF INSURANCE MAY, BY A PROVISION INSERTED IN THE POLICY,
LAWFULLY LIMIT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT THEREON,
PROVIDED THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FIXED BE NOT UNREASONABLE."  APPEL V.
COOPER INS. CO., 76 OHIO ST. 52(SYLLABUS, NO. 1, BY THE COURT), 80 N.E.
955.  THE COURT THERE ENFORCED A CLAUSE IN A FIRE INSURANCE POLICY
PROVIDING THAT NO ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF ANY CLAIM SHALL BE SUSTAINABLE
IN ANY COURT UNLESS COMMENCED WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FIRE ITSELF,
EVEN THOUGH SUCH ACTIONS WERE PROHIBITED DURING MOST OF THE FIRST THREE
OF THOSE SIX MONTHS.  IN BARTLEY V. NATIONAL BUSINESS MEN'S ASSN., 109
OHIO ST. 585, 143 N.E. 386, THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO APPROVED THE
APPEL CASE AND APPLIED IT TO A TWO-YEAR CONTRACTUAL LIMITATION FOR
SUING AN OHIO MUTUAL PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION ON A CLAIM FOR ACCIDENTAL
DEATH.  SEE ALSO:  MODERN WOODMEN V. MYERS, 99 OHIO ST. 87, 124 N.E.
48, UPHOLDING A STRICT ADHERENCE TO LIMITATIONS STATED IN THE BY-LAWS
OF FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES; PORTAGE COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. V.
WEST, 6 OHIO ST. 599, EMPHASIZING THE REASONABLENESS OF SHORT PERIODS
FOR COMMENCING SUITS ON CLAIMS AGAINST MUTUAL COMPANIES; YOUNG V. ORDER
OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS, 142 NEB. 566, 7 N.W.2D 81, RECOGNIZING
THE VALIDITY IN OHIO OF THE PRECISE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE SOCIETY HERE AT ISSUE, AND SUSTAINING ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN NEBRASKA
BY FORCE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES; AND ROBERTS V. MODERN WOODMEN, 133 MO. APP. 207, 113
S.W. 726, SUSTAINING, IN MISSOURI, A ONE-YEAR LIMITATION IN THE
INSURANCE CONTRACT OF AN ILLINOIS FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, IN THE
FACE OF A CONTRARY LOCAL POLICY AS TO MISSOURI CONTRACTS LIMITING THE
TIME WITHIN WHICH SUITS MAY BE INSTITUTED.  SEE ALSO, RIDDLESBARGER V.
HARTFORD INS. CO., 7 WALL.  386. 

STARTING WITH THE RECOGNIZED VALIDITY UNDER THE LAW OF OHIO, OF
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PETITIONING SOCIETY,
THAT SOCIETY HAS A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO THE PRESENT ACTION UNLESS SUCH
SEC. 11 IS NOT ENFORCIBLE IN THE COURTS OF SOUTH DAKOTA BECAUSE OF A
CONTRARY PUBLIC POLICY OF THAT STATE.  WE EXAMINE FIRST THE CLAIM THAT
SUCH A CONTRARY POLICY EXISTS, AND THEN SHOW WHY, ON THE PRINCIPLES
ESTABLISHED BY THIS COURT, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRES THE COURTS OF SOUTH DAKOTA
TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PUBLIC ACTS OF OHIO AS EXPRESSED IN SUCH SEC.
11. 

THE GENERAL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT IN
SOUTH DAKOTA THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD INVOLVED IN THIS CASE HAVE
PRESCRIBED LIMITS VARYING FROM 20 YEARS TO ONE YEAR ACCORDING TO THE
SUBJECT OF THE ACTION.  FN21 "AN ACTION UPON A CONTRACT, OBLIGATION OR
LIABILITY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED," WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMMENCED WITHIN SIX
YEARS.  FN22  ON THE OTHER HAND THE STATE REQUIRED THE INSERTION IN
EVERY HEALTH OR ACCIDENT POLICY ISSUED IN THE STATE, A STANDARD
CONTRACTUAL PROVISION LIMITING TO TWO YEARS THE TIME FOR BRINGING AN
ACTION UPON IT.  FN23 THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD, THE SOUTH DAKOTA
STATUTES, MOREOVER, HAVE EXPRESSED NO HOSTILITY TOWARD DOMESTIC OR
FOREIGN FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES.  IN FACT, THEY HAVE PROVIDED FOR
THE INCORPORATION, LICENSING AND SUPERVISION OF SUCH SOCIETIES IN TERMS
CLOSELY COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF THE STATUTES OF OHIO.  FN24 

BOTH THE ALLEGED PROHIBITION BY SOUTH DAKOTA OF SUCH A CONTRACTUAL
LIMITATION AS IS CONTAINED IN SEC. 11 AND THE PUBLIC POLICY OF SOUTH
DAKOTA AGAINST SUCH LIMITATIONS DEPEND ENTIRELY UPON ITS STATUTE
DIRECTED GENERALLY AGAINST CONTRACTUAL LIMITATIONS UPON RIGHTS TO SUE
ON CONTRACTS WHICH IS QUOTED, SUPRA, FROM SEC. 897 OF THE REVISED CODE
OF SOUTH DAKOTA, 1919.  FN25 

THE PUBLIC POLICY SO DECLARED IS NOT DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY AGAINST
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES OR THEIR INSURANCE MEMBERSHIP
REQUIREMENTS.  IN THIS VERY CASE, HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH
DAKOTA, IN ITS DECISION BELOW, EXPRESSLY HELD THAT THIS STATUTE APPLIES
TO AND RENDERS VOID IN SOUTH DAKOTA SEC. 11 OF ARTICLE IV OF THIS
SOCIETY'S CONSTITUTION.  WE THUS ARE CONFRONTED WITH AN INESCAPABLE
ISSUE AS TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ATTEMPT, THROUGH THIS
STATUTE, TO DECLARE VOID IN SOUTH DAKOTA A PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF AN INCORPORATED FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY WHICH COMES
WITHIN THE AUTHORIZATION OF A PUBLIC ACT OF THE STATE OF OHIO AND IS
VALID UNDER THE LAWS OF THAT STATE.  THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE IN THIS
COURT.  IT FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN A LINE OF DECISIONS CONSISTENTLY
UPHOLDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IN
SUPPORT OF COMPARABLE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION OF SUCH A
SOCIETY. 

IN ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE,
WRITING ON BEHALF OF A UNANIMOUS COURT, POINTED OUT THAT THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE THERE REQUIRED THE STATE OF THE FORUM (NEW YORK) TO
GIVE EFFECT TO A LAW OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION (MASSACHUSETTS)
PURSUANT TO WHICH A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY HAD AMENDED ITS
CONSTITUTION SO AS TO INCREASE THE ASSESSMENT RATE UPON THE COMPLAINING
MEMBERS, ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL COURT HAD FOUND THAT THEIR CONTRACT OF
MEMBERSHIP WAS ENTERED INTO, MADE AND COMPLETED IN THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, AND THAT UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE, THE MEMBER WOULD NOT BE
BOUND BY SUCH INCREASE.  206 N.Y. 591, 597, 100 N.E. 411, 412.  IN
TERMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN OVERRULED OR MODIFIED BY IT IN LATER
DECISIONS, THIS COURT THERE EXPLAINED WHY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE REQUIRES CONTROLLING EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO THE LAW OF THE STATE
OF INCORPORATION IN INTERPRETING AND DETERMINING THE ENFORCIBILITY OF
THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS CONTAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND
BY-LAWS OF SUCH SOCIETIES.  IT SAID: 

"  ...  , AS THE CHARTER WAS A MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER AND THE
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS WERE A PART THEREOF, ADOPTED IN MASSACHUSETTS,
HAVING NO OTHER SANCTION THAN THE LAWS OF THAT STATE, IT FOLLOWS BY THE
SAME TOKEN THAT THOSE LAWS WERE INTEGRALLY AND NECESSARILY THE
CRITERION TO BE RESORTED TO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS.  INDEED, THE ACCURACY OF
THIS CONCLUSION IS IRRESISTIBLY MANIFESTED BY CONSIDERING THE INTRINSIC
RELATION BETWEEN EACH AND ALL THE MEMBERS CONCERNING THEIR DUTY TO PAY
ASSESSMENTS AND THE RESULTING INDIVISIBLE UNITY BETWEEN THEM IN THE
FUND FROM WHICH THEIR RIGHTS WERE TO BE ENJOYED.  THE CONTRADICTION IN
TERMS IS APPARENT WHICH WOULD RISE FROM HOLDING ON THE ONE HAND THAT
THERE WAS A COLLECTIVE AND UNIFIED STANDARD OF DUTY AND OBLIGATION ON
THE PART OF THE MEMBERS THEMSELVES AND THE CORPORATION, AND SAYING ON
THE OTHER HAND THAT THE DUTY OF MEMBERS WAS TO BE TESTED ISOLATEDLY AND
INDIVIDUALLY BY RESORTING NOT TO ONE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY APPLICABLE TO
ALL BUT BY APPLYING MANY DIVERGENT, VARIABLE AND CONFLICTING CRITERIA. 
IN FACT THEIR DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT HAS LONG SINCE BEEN RECOGNIZED. 
GAINES V. SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL ARCANUM, 140 FED. REP. 978;
ROYAL ARCANUM V. BRASHEARS, 89 MARYLAND, 624.  AND FROM THIS IT IS
CERTAIN THAT WHEN REDUCED TO THEIR LAST ANALYSIS THE CONTENTIONS RELIED
UPON IN EFFECT DESTROY THE RIGHTS WHICH THEY ARE ADVANCED TO SUPPORT,
SINCE AN ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS ONE THING IN ONE STATE AND ANOTHER IN
ANOTHER, AND A FUND WHICH WAS DISTRIBUTED BY ONE RULE IN ONE STATE AND
BY A DIFFERENT RULE SOMEWHERE ELSE, WOULD IN PRACTICAL EFFECT AMOUNT TO
NO ASSESSMENT AND NO SUBSTANTIAL SUM TO BE DISTRIBUTED.  IT WAS
DOUBTLESS NOT ONLY A RECOGNITION OF THE INHERENT UNSOUNDNESS OF THE
PROPOSITION HERE RELIED UPON, BUT THE MANIFEST IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS
ENFORCEMENT WHICH HAS LED COURTS OF LAST RESORT OF SO MANY STATES IN
PASSING ON QUESTIONS INVOLVING THE GENERAL AUTHORITY OF FRATERNAL
ASSOCIATIONS AND THEIR DUTIES AS TO SUBJECTS OF A GENERAL CHARACTER
CONCERNING ALL THEIR MEMBERS TO RECOGNIZE THE CHARTER OF THE
CORPORATION AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE UNDER WHICH IT WAS GRANTED AS THE
TEST AND MEASURE TO BE APPLIED."  ID. AT 542-543. 

IN MODERN WOODMEN V. MIXER, 267 U.S. 544, THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY
FOLLOWED THE SAME REASONING AND MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, IN LANGUAGE
PREVIOUSLY QUOTED SUPRA, EMPHASIZED THE "COMPLEX AND ABIDING RELATION"
OF A MEMBERSHIP IN A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY.  HE SAID, "AS MARRIAGE
LOOKS TO DOMICIL, MEMBERSHIP LOOKS TO AND MUST BE GOVERNED BY THE LAW
OF THE STATE GRANTING THE INCORPORATION."  ID. AT 551.  IN THAT CASE,
THE COURT HELD THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE REQUIRED THE STATE
OF THE FORUM (NEBRASKA) TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
INCORPORATION (ILLINOIS) PURSUANT TO WHICH A BY-LAW OF THE FRATERNAL
BENEFIT SOCIETY HAD BEEN ENACTED REQUIRING THAT THE CONTINUED ABSENCE
OF ANY MEMBER, ALTHOUGH UNHEARD FROM FOR TEN YEARS, SHOULD NOT GIVE HIS
BENEFICIARY THE RIGHT TO RECOVER DEATH BENEFITS UNTIL THE FULL TERM OF
THE MEMBER'S EXPECTANCY OF LIFE HAD EXPIRED.  THIS WAS SO HELD IN THE
FACE OF A RULE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM THAT SEVEN YEARS OF
UNEXPLAINED ABSENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH DEATH FOR PURPOSES OF
SUCH A RECOVERY.  THIS COURT STATED THAT NEITHER THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
THE FORUM NOR THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE THAT THE
BY-LAW WAS UNREASONABLE, NOR THE FACT THAT THE MEMBERSHIP CONTRACT HAD
BEEN MADE IN SOUTH DAKOTA, NOR THE FACT THAT THE BY-LAW ITSELF HAD BEEN
ADOPTED SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE MEMBERSHIP RELATION HAD COMMENCED,
COULD AFFECT THIS RESULT.  THIS COURT SAID: 

"WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHAT OTHER STATES MAY REFUSE TO DO, BUT WE DEEM
IT ESTABLISHED THAT THEY CANNOT ATTACH TO MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS AGAINST THE
COMPANY THAT ARE REFUSED BY THE LAW OF THE DOMICIL.  IT DOES NOT MATTER
THAT THE MEMBER JOINED IN ANOTHER STATE."  ID. AT 551. 

IN BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, THIS COURT, WITH MR. JUSTICE
CARDOZO NOTING DISSENT, APPLIED THIS PRINCIPLE TO A SUIT BROUGHT IN A
NEW JERSEY COURT AGAINST CERTAIN CITIZENS OF NEW JERSEY TO RECOVER
UNPAID ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UPON THEM AS STOCKHOLDERS IN A BANK
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW YORK.  A NEW JERSEY STATUTE SOUGHT
TO PROHIBIT, IN THE COURTS OF NEW JERSEY, PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ANY STOCKHOLDER'S STATUTORY PERSONAL LIABILITY IMPOSED
BY THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE, EXCEPT IN SUITS FOR EQUITABLE ACCOUNTING,
TO WHICH THE CORPORATION, ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, AND ALL OF ITS
CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WERE TO BE NECESSARY PARTIES.  PRACTICALLY,
THIS AMOUNTED TO AN ATTEMPT TO BAR SUCH SUITS FROM THE NEW JERSEY
COURTS.  THIS COURT, HOWEVER, SAID "IT IS SUFFICIENT TO DECIDE THAT,
SINCE THE NEW JERSEY COURTS POSSESS GENERAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER AND THE PARTIES, AND THE SUBJECT MATTER IS NOT ONE AS TO WHICH
THE ALLEGED PUBLIC POLICY OF NEW JERSEY COULD BE CONTROLLING, THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE REQUIRES THAT THIS SUIT BE ENTERTAINED (WITHOUT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIAL NEW JERSEY STATUTE)."  ID. AT 647. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, IN STATING THE REASONING OF THE COURT IN THE
BRODERICK CASE, SAID: 

"  ...  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
ENFORCEMENT OF EVERY RIGHT WHICH HAS RIPENED INTO A JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER
STATE OR HAS BEEN CONFERRED BY ITS STATUTES.  SEE BRADFORD ELECTRIC
LIGHT CO. V. CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, 160; ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, ANTE, P. 532, AT P. 546.  BUT THE ROOM LEFT
FOR THE PLAY OF CONFLICTING POLICIES IS A NARROW ONE.  ...  FOR THE
STATES OF THE UNION, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE ABOLISHED, IN LARGE MEASURE, THE GENERAL
PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY WHICH LOCAL POLICY IS PERMITTED TO
DOMINATE RULES OF COMITY. 

"HERE THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION BRINGS IT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  THE STATUTORY LIABILITY SOUGHT TO BE
ENFORCED IS CONTRACTUAL IN CHARACTER.  THE ASSESSMENT IS AN INCIDENT OF
THE INCORPORATION.  THUS THE SUBJECT MATTER IS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE
REGULATORY POWER OF NEW YORK, AS THE STATE OF INCORPORATION.  'SO MUCH
SO,' AS WAS SAID IN CONVERSE V. HAMILTON, 224 U.S. 243, 260, 'THAT NO
OTHER STATE PROPERLY CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ANY PUBLIC POLICY THEREON. 
...  '  ...  IN RESPECT TO THE DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY FOR AN
ASSESSMENT, THE NEW JERSEY STOCKHOLDERS SUBMITTED THEMSELVES TO THE
JURISDICTION OF NEW YORK.  FOR 'THE ACT OF BECOMING A MEMBER (OF A
CORPORATION) IS SOMETHING MORE THAN A CONTRACT, IT IS ENTERING INTO A
COMPLEX AND ABIDING RELATION, AND AS MARRIAGE LOOKS TO DOMICIL,
MEMBERSHIP LOOKS TO AND MUST BE GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE
GRANTING THE INCORPORATION.'  MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA V. MIXER, 267
U.S. 544, 551."  FN26  ID. AT 642-644. 

IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, MR. JUSTICE STONE,
SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, SAID: 

"THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE WAS TO ALTER
THE STATUS OF THE SEVERAL STATES AS INDEPENDENT FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTIES,
EACH FREE TO IGNORE OBLIGATIONS CREATED UNDER THE LAWS OR BY THE
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE OTHERS, AND TO MAKE THEM INTEGRAL PARTS OF
A SINGLE NATION THROUGHOUT WHICH A REMEDY UPON A JUST OBLIGATION MIGHT
BE DEMANDED AS OF RIGHT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE STATE OF ITS ORIGIN."  ID.
AT 276-277. 

IN SOVEREIGN CAMP V. BOLIN, 305 U.S. 66, THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES AND AUTHORITIES AND APPLIED THEM TO A
CASE THAT GOES EVEN BEYOND THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE INSTANT CASE.  IN
THAT CASE, BOLIN JOINED A MISSOURI LODGE OF A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY
INCORPORATED IN NEBRASKA.  HIS CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP WAS DELIVERED
TO HIM IN MISSOURI, AND HE PAID HIS DUES AND ASSESSMENTS IN MISSOURI. 
HE WAS OVER 43 WHEN HE JOINED THE SOCIETY IN JUNE, 1896.  AT THAT TIME,
ONE OF ITS BY-LAWS PROVIDED THAT A MEMBER JOINING AT AN AGE GREATER
THAN 43 WAS ENTITLED TO LIFE MEMBERSHIP WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FURTHER DUES
OR ASSESSMENTS AFTER HIS CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN OUTSTANDING 20 YEARS.  ON
HIS CERTIFICATE WERE ENDORSED THE WORDS "PAYMENTS TO CEASE AFTER 20
YEARS," AND IT STATED THAT, IF IN GOOD STANDING, HE WOULD BE ENTITLED
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BENEFICIAL FUND UP TO $1,000 PAYABLE TO HIS
BENEFICIARIES AND TO $100 FOR PLACING A MONUMENT AT HIS GRAVE.  HE PAID
HIS DUES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE REQUIRED 20 YEARS BUT CEASED DOING SO
IN JULY, 1916.  UPON HIS DEATH, HIS BENEFICIARIES SUED IN A STATE COURT
OF MISSOURI TO RECOVER ON HIS CERTIFICATE.  THEY WERE MET BY THE
DEFENSE THAT, IN TRAPP V. SOVEREIGN CAMP OF THE WOODMEN OF THE WORLD,
102 NEB. 562, 168 N.W. 191, THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, IN 1918, IN
A REPRESENTATIVE SUIT BINDING ALL MEMBERS, HAD HELD THAT THE BY-LAW OF
THE SOCIETY, WHICH HAD PURPORTED TO AUTHORIZE THE "PAYMENTS TO CEASE"
CERTIFICATES, WAS ULTRA VIRES AND VOID.  IN THE SUIT BY BOLIN'S
BENEFICIARIES, THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI THEN HELD THAT FROM 1889
TO 1897, INCLUDING THE TIME WHEN BOLIN JOINED THE SOCIETY, THERE HAD
BEEN NO MISSOURI STATUTE PROVIDING FOR THE REGISTRATION AND FILING OF
REPORTS IN MISSOURI BY FOREIGN FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES AND THAT
THERE HAD BEEN NO PROVISION EXEMPTING THEM FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
GENERAL INSURANCE LAWS OF MISSOURI.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI,
ACCORDINGLY, APPLIED WHAT IT CONSIDERED TO BE THE MISSOURI LAW AND
PUBLIC POLICY.  ON THIS BASIS, IT DISREGARDED THE SPECIAL STATUS OF THE
CLAIM AS ONE DERIVED FROM THE DECEDENT'S MEMBERSHIP IN A NEBRASKA
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY AND DISREGARDED THE NEBRASKA LAW, AS
INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, WHICH HAD HELD THE
DECEDENT'S PURPORTED EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENTS AFTER 1916 TO BE ULTRA
VIRES AND VOID.  THE MISSOURI COURT TREATED HIS MEMBERSHIP AS A
MISSOURI CONTRACT, SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL INSURANCE LAWS OF MISSOURI,
INTERPRETED HIS CERTIFICATE AS AN ORDINARY MISSOURI CONTRACT, NOT ULTRA
VIRES UNDER THE LAW OF MISSOURI, AND HELD THE SOCIETY LIABLE UPON IT.
THIS COURT, HOWEVER, REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT, UNDER
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, THE MISSOURI COURTS WERE REQUIRED TO
ACCEPT THE NEBRASKA LAW AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE CORPORATE BY-LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, WRITING FOR THE COURT SAID: 

"WE HOLD THAT THE JUDGMENT DENIED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE PUBLIC
ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. 

"  ...  THE BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATE WAS NOT A MERE CONTRACT TO BE
CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE WHERE IT WAS
DELIVERED.  ENTRY INTO MEMBERSHIP OF AN INCORPORATED BENEFICIARY
SOCIETY IS MORE THAN A CONTRACT; IT IS ENTERING INTO A COMPLEX AND
ABIDING RELATION AND THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERSHIP ARE GOVERNED BY THE LAW
OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION.  ANOTHER STATE, WHEREIN THE CERTIFICATE
OF MEMBERSHIP WAS ISSUED, CANNOT ATTACH TO MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS AGAINST
THE SOCIETY WHICH ARE REFUSED BY THE LAW OF THE DOMICILE. 

     .         .  .         .         . 

"THE COURT BELOW WAS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISREGARD THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW
OF THE PETITIONER AND TURN A MEMBERSHIP BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATE INTO AN
OLD LINE POLICY TO BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF
THE FORUM.  THE DECISION THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF ULTRA VIRES CONTRACTS
WAS TO BE APPLIED AS IF THE PETITIONER WERE A MISSOURI OLD LINE LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ERRONEOUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT WHICH HAVE UNIFORMLY HELD THAT THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF SUCH
ASSOCIATIONS ARE GOVERNED BY THE DEFINITION OF THE SOCIETY'S POWERS BY
THE COURTS OF ITS DOMICILE. 

     .   .         .         .         . 

"UNDER OUR UNIFORM HOLDINGS THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO GIVE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT TO THE PETITIONER'S CHARTER EMBODIED IN THE STATUTES OF
NEBRASKA AS INTERPRETED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT."  ID. AT 75(CITING MODERN
WOODMEN V. MIXER, SUPRA, AND ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, SUPRA), 78, 79. 

THIS PRONOUNCEMENT AS TO THE UNIFORM HOLDINGS OF THIS COURT HAS NOT
BEEN REPUDIATED OR MODIFIED.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DECISIONS RELIED
UPON BY THE COURT BELOW, IN REACHING A CONTRARY RESULT, DEAL WITH
RELATED BUT DISTINGUISHABLE SITUATIONS. 

IN PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201, THIS COURT, IN A
UNANIMOUS OPINION WRITTEN BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, HELD THAT THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ACTION BROUGHT IN THE
COURTS OF GEORGIA TO COLLECT ASSESSMENTS AGAINST AN ALLEGED MEMBER OF
AN INSOLVENT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF HIS
CONTRACT OF MEMBERSHIP, UNLESS SUCH MEMBERSHIP FIRST BE PROVED.  THE
COURT, HOWEVER, RECOGNIZED THAT CORPORATE PROCEDURE IN CONFORMITY WITH
THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT SO FAR AS THE NECESSITY AND AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT OF
STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY IS CONCERNED, AND SAID AT PP. 207-208:  "THE
LIKE PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED TO MUTUAL INSURANCE
ASSOCIATIONS, WHERE THE FACT THAT THE POLICYHOLDERS WERE MEMBERS WAS
NOT CONTESTED," CITING ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531; MODERN
WOODMEN V. MIXER, 267 U.S. 544.  AND FURTHER: 

"WHERE A RESIDENT OF ONE STATE HAS BY STIPULATION OR STOCK OWNERSHIP
BECOME A MEMBER OF A CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION OF ANOTHER, THE STATE
OF HIS RESIDENCE MAY HAVE NO SUCH DOMESTIC INTEREST IN PREVENTING HIM
FROM FULFILLING THE OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP AS WOULD ADMIT OF A
RESTRICTED APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  BUT IT
DOES HAVE A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN DETERMINING WHETHER ITS RESIDENTS
HAVE ASSENTED TO MEMBERSHIP OBLIGATIONS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED ON THEM BY
EXTRASTATE LAW TO WHICH THEY ARE NOT OTHERWISE SUBJECT."  ID. AT 210
211. 

THESE RECENT REFERENCES TO THE PRINCIPLE WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THE
INSTANT CASE CONSTITUTE A SIGNIFICANT RECOGNITION OF ITS CONSISTENCY
WITH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN RELATED BUT DISTINGUISHABLE
SITUATIONS.  THE PINK CASE APPROPRIATELY EMPHASIZED THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN, ON THE ONE HAND, A SOUND LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY WHICH CLOSELY
SCRUTINIZES THE PROOF OF THE ENTRY INTO A CERTAIN RELATIONSHIP AND, ON
THE OTHER HAND, A LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY WHICH, IN THE FACE OF THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, WOULD SEEK TO ELIMINATE IMPORTANT TERMS FROM
THAT RELATIONSHIP AFTER IT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO. 

CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICY OF THIS COURT,
APPLYING THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IN SUPPORT OF MEMBERSHIP
OBLIGATIONS IN FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES, IT HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME
CLAUSE IN SEVERAL RELATED SITUATIONS.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT HAS APPLIED IT
IN REQUIRING THE MINNESOTA COURTS TO RECOGNIZE THE OBLIGATION OF
MEMBERS OF THE SAFETY FUND DEPARTMENT OF A CONNECTICUT LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY TO MEET ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UPON THEM PURSUANT TO A MUTUAL
ASSESSMENT PLAN VALID UNDER THE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT.  HARTFORD LIFE
INS. CO. V. IBS, 237 U.S. 662.  THIS WAS A UNANIMOUS OPINION WRITTEN BY
MR. JUSTICE J. R. LAMAR.  IN ANOTHER UNANIMOUS OPINION IN HARTFORD LIFE
INS. CO. V. BARBER, 245 U.S. 146, AT P. 150, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID,
"THE POWERS GIVEN BY THE CONNECTICUT CHARTER ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME
CREDIT ELSEWHERE AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONNECTICUT COURT.  SUPREME
COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531, 542."  SEE ALSO,
JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. YATES, 299 U.S. 178, 182-183. 

WITHOUT RELIANCE UPON THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, A SOMEWHAT
SIMILAR RESULT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THE PROTECTIVE EFFECT OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
PROHIBITING THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY PERSON OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  A LIKE POLICY UNDERLIES SEC. 10 OF ARTICLE I OF THE
CONSTITUTION, PROHIBITING A STATE FROM PASSING ANY LAW IMPAIRING THE
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.  ACCORDINGLY, IN HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281
U.S. 397, IN AN OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, THIS COURT RELIED UPON
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN DEALING WITH ORDINARY INSURANCE POLICIES. 
IT UPHELD UNANIMOUSLY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A CONTRACTUAL ONE-YEAR
LIMITATION UPON THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR RECOVERY OF A LOSS UNDER A MARINE
FIRE INSURANCE POLICY, WHERE SUCH LIMITATION WAS GOOD IN MEXICO (IN
WHICH COUNTRY THE INSURANCE WAS WRITTEN AND WAS TO BE PERFORMED), AS
AGAINST A TWO-YEAR GENERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE STATE OF THE
FORUM (TEXAS).  IN HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. DELTA & PINE
LAND CO., 292 U.S. 143, IN AN OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE COURT
AGAIN RELIED UPON THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THERE IT UPHELD
UNANIMOUSLY A 15-MONTH CONTRACTUAL LIMITATION UPON THE RIGHT TO SUE
UPON A FIDELITY BOND.  THIS LIMITATION WAS VALID IN TENNESSEE, WHERE
SUCH BOND WAS ENTERED INTO, AND IT WAS HERE UPHELD AGAINST THE LOCAL
POLICY OF THE STATE OF THE FORUM (MISSISSIPPI). 

IN A RELATED BUT READILY DISTINGUISHABLE SERIES OF CASES DEALING WITH
CONFLICTING CLAIMS ARISING UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS, EMPHASIS
HAS BEEN PLACED UPON THE RULE STATED BY MR. JUSTICE STONE, FOR A
UNANIMOUS COURT, IN ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMM'N, 294 U.S. 532, 547. 
HE THERE SAID: 

"  ...  THE CONFLICT IS TO BE RESOLVED, NOT BY GIVING AUTOMATIC EFFECT
TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, COMPELLING THE COURTS OF EACH
STATE TO SUBORDINATE ITS OWN STATUTES TO THOSE OF THE OTHER, BUT BY
APPRAISING THE GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS OF EACH JURISDICTION, AND TURNING
THE SCALE OF DECISION ACCORDING TO THEIR WEIGHT." 

IN PACIFIC INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 306 U.S. 493,
AGAIN SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, HE ADDED AT P. 502: 

"AND IN THE CASE OF STATUTES, THE EXTRA-STATE EFFECT OF WHICH
CONGRESS HAS NOT PRESCRIBED, AS IT MAY UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION, WE THINK THE CONCLUSION IS UNAVOIDABLE THAT THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE ONE STATE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR ITS OWN
STATUTE, APPLICABLE TO PERSONS AND EVENTS WITHIN IT, THE CONFLICTING
STATUTE OF ANOTHER STATE, EVEN THOUGH THAT STATUTE IS OF CONTROLLING
FORCE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF ITS ENACTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
SAME PERSONS AND EVENTS."  SEE ALSO, MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT,
320 U.S. 430, IN WHICH, AS CHIEF JUSTICE, HE UPHELD THE CONTROLLING
EFFECT OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AS AGAINST THE LAW OF THE
FORUM. 

THE LANGUAGE QUOTED FROM THE PACIFIC INS. CO. CASE, SUPRA, ALSO WAS
QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, AT P.
296.  IN THE LATTER CASE, ON THE BASIS OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE, THIS COURT GAVE EFFECT TO THE LAW OF THE DOMICIL IN UPHOLDING
THE VALIDITY OF A DIVORCE, AS AGAINST THE LAW OF THE FORUM. 

WE FIND NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE POSITION TAKEN IN THE INSTANT CASE
AND THAT TAKEN IN THE FOREGOING CASES OR IN GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313
U.S. 498, HOOPESTON CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313, OR IN OTHER DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT UPON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED TO SUPPORT AN
OPPOSITE CONCLUSION. 

ACCEPTING THE VIEW, EXPRESSED IN THESE RELATED CASES, THAT THIS COURT
SHOULD NOT GIVE WHAT MR. JUSTICE STONE CALLED A MERE "AUTOMATIC EFFECT
TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE,"  FN27 THIS COURT CONSISTENTLY HAS
UPHELD, ON THE BASIS OF EVALUATED PUBLIC POLICY, THE LAW OF THE STATE
OF INCORPORATION OF A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY AS THE LAW THAT SHOULD
CONTROL THE VALIDITY OF THE TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP IN THAT CORPORATION. 
THE WEIGHT OF PUBLIC POLICY BEHIND THE GENERAL STATUTE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
WHICH SEEKS TO AVOID CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN ORDINARY CONTRACTS, DOES NOT
EQUAL THAT WHICH MAKES NECESSARY THE RECOGNITION OF THE SAME TERMS OF
MEMBERSHIP FOR MEMBERS OF FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES WHEREVER THEIR
BENEFICIARIES MAY BE.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY OBVIOUS WHERE THE STATE OF
THE FORUM, WITH FULL INFORMATION AS TO THOSE TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP, HAS
PERMITTED SUCH SOCIETIES TO DO BUSINESS AND SECURE MEMBERS WITHIN ITS
BORDERS.  THERE WOULD BE LITTLE SOUND PUBLIC POLICY IN PERMITTING THE
COURTS OF SOUTH DAKOTA TO RECOGNIZE AN ACTION TO COLLECT THE FULL
BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM A MEMBERSHIP IN THE PETITIONER SOCIETY,
WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME, NULLIFYING OTHER INTEGRAL TERMS OF THAT SAME
MEMBERSHIP WHICH LIMIT CERTAIN RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARIES TO ENFORCE
COLLECTION OF SUCH BENEFITS.  IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE THAT, IF A STATE GIVES SOME FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE
PUBLIC ACTS OF ANOTHER STATE BY PERMITTING ITS OWN CITIZENS TO BECOME
MEMBERS OF, AND BENEFIT FROM, FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES ORGANIZED BY
SUCH OTHER STATE, THEN IT MUST GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THOSE
PUBLIC ACTS AND MUST RECOGNIZE THE BURDENS AND LIMITATIONS WHICH ARE
INHERENT IN SUCH MEMBERSHIPS.  IN THIS CASE, THE STATE OF THE FORUM HAS
LICENSED THE SOCIETY TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  IT IS
CONCERNED AS MUCH WITH THE VALIDITY AND FAIRNESS OF THE OBLIGATIONS TO
BE ENFORCED BY ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ITS CITIZENS WHO BECOME MEMBERS OF
THE SOCIETY AS IT IS WITH THE BENEFITS TO BE CLAIMED BY THOSE WHO
BECOME ITS BENEFICIARIES.  IN THIS CASE, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE, THEREFORE, REQUIRES THAT EFFECT BE GIVEN TO THE SIX-MONTH
LIMIT, PRESCRIBED BY THE SOCIETY AND AUTHORIZED BY OHIO, UPON THE RIGHT
TO COMMENCE THIS ACTION.  SUCH LIMIT EXPIRED BEFORE THIS ACTION WAS
COMMENCED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN
FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT ACCORDINGLY IS REVERSED. 

FN1  "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE
PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE. 
AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH
ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE EFFECT
THEREOF."  U.S. CONST. ART. IV, SEC. 1.  SEE ALSO, ACT OF MAY 26, 1790,
1 STAT. 122; ACT OF MAR. 27, 1804, 2 STAT. 298; REV. STAT. SECS. 905,
906, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 687, 688. 

FN2  "NO SUIT OR PROCEEDING, EITHER AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, SHALL BE
BROUGHT TO RECOVER ANY BENEFITS UNDER THIS ARTICLE AFTER SIX (6) MONTHS
FROM THE DATE THE CLAIM FOR SAID BENEFITS IS DISALLOWED BY THE SUPREME
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE."  FROM SEC. 11 OF ARTICLE IV, "INSURANCE," OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS OF AMERICA, AS
PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP ISSUED TO
DECEDENT AUGUST 19, 1920, AND AS IN EFFECT AT THE FILING OF THIS ACTION
JUNE 15, 1934.    FN3  SEC. 2298, S.D. REV. CODE, 1919. 

FN4  SEC. 897, S.D. REV. CODE, 1919. 

FN5  ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531; MODERN WOODMEN V. MIXER,
267 U.S. 544; BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629; SOVEREIGN CAMP V.
BOLIN, 305 U.S. 66.  SEE ALSO, PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S.
201, 207, 210-211.    FN6  AS IN EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1, 1930, AND
PRESUMABLY AT THE MEMBER'S DEATH, MAY 8, 1931, THE ARTICLES OF
INCORPORATION CONTAINED ONLY THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS: 

"WITNESSETH:  THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ALL OF WHOM ARE CITIZENS OF
THE STATE OF OHIO, DESIRING TO FORM A CORPORATION, NOT FOR PROFIT,
UNDER THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAWS OF SAID STATE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY: 

"FIRST.  THE NAME OF SAID CORPORATION SHALL BE THE ORDER OF UNITED
COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS OF AMERICA. 

"SECOND.  SAID CORPORATION SHALL BE LOCATED, AND ITS PRINCIPAL
BUSINESS TRANSACTED AT COLUMBUS, IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO. 

"THIRD.  THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SAID CORPORATION IS FORMED IS: 

"1ST.  TO UNITE FRATERNALLY ALL COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS, WHOLESALE
SALESMEN AND SUCH OTHER PERSONS OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AS ARE NOW OR
MAY HEREAFTER BECOME ELIGIBLE TO MEMBERSHIP, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ORDER. 

"2ND.  TO GIVE ALL MORAL AND MATERIAL AID IN ITS POWER TO ITS MEMBERS
AND THOSE DEPENDENT UPON THEM.  ALSO TO ASSIST THE WIDOWS AND ORPHANS
OF DECEASED MEMBERS. 

"3RD.  TO ESTABLISH FUNDS TO INDEMNIFY ITS MEMBERS FOR DISABILITY OR
DEATH RESULTING FROM ACCIDENTAL MEANS. 

"4TH.  TO SECURE JUST AND EQUITABLE FAVORS FOR COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS
AND WHOLESALE SALESMEN AS A CLASS. 

"5TH.  TO ELEVATE THE MORAL AND SOCIAL STANDING OF ITS MEMBERS. 

"6TH.  SAID CORPORATION SHALL BE A SECRET ORDER. 

"7TH.  TO ESTABLISH A WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' RESERVE FUND." 

THIS SOCIETY IS STRIKINGLY SIMILAR IN FORM TO THE "FRATERNAL
BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION," INCORPORATED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 1877 AND
DESCRIBED IN THE LEADING CASE ON THIS SUBJECT, ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN,
237 U.S. 531.  AS TO THAT ASSOCIATION IT WAS SAID BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF MASSACHUSETTS THAT:  "THE FRATERNAL PLAN, WITH MUTUALITY AND WITHOUT
PROFIT, DISTINGUISHES THE WORK OF SUCH AN ASSOCIATION FROM A COMMERCIAL
ENTERPRISE.  IT IS A CHARITABLE AND BENEVOLENT ORGANIZATION, WITH A
LIMITATION OF MEMBERSHIP TO A SPECIAL CLASS, AND A LIMITATION UPON THE
CHOICE OF BENEFICIARIES."  REYNOLDS V. ROYAL ARCANUM, 192 MASS. 150,
155, 78 N.E. 129, 131. 

FN7  "SEC.  9462.  ...  ANY CORPORATION, SOCIETY, ORDER, OR VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATION, WITHOUT CAPITAL STOCK, ORGANIZED AND CARRIED ON SOLELY FOR
THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES, AND NOT FOR
PROFIT, AND HAVING A LODGE SYSTEM WITH RITUALISTIC FORM OF WORK AND
REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, AND WHICH SHALL MAKE PROVISION FOR
THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5(G.C. SEC. 9466)
HEREOF, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY."  OHIO
GEN. CODE, 1931. 

FN8  "SEC.  9469.  ...  EVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ANY SUCH SOCIETY
SHALL SPECIFY THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT PROVIDED THEREBY, AND SHALL PROVIDE
THAT THE CERTIFICATE, THE CHARTER OR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OF, IF
A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION, THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION, THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE SOCIETY AND THE APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP AND MEDICAL
EXAMINATION, SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT, AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO EACH
THEREOF, SHALL CONSTITUTE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND THE
MEMBER, AND COPIES OF THE SAME CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
SOCIETY, OR CORRESPONDING OFFICER, SHALL BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE OF THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF, AND ANY CHANGES, ADDITIONS OR AMENDMENTS
TO SUCH CHARTER OR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR ARTICLES OF
ASSOCIATION, IF A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION, CONSTITUTION OR LAWS DULY MADE
OR ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BENEFIT CERTIFICATE SHALL
BIND THE MEMBERS AND HIS BENEFICIARIES, AND SHALL GOVERN AND CONTROL
THE AGREEMENT IN ALL RESPECTS THE SAME AS THOUGH SUCH CHANGES,
ADDITIONS OR AMENDMENTS HAD BEEN MADE PRIOR TO AND WERE IN FORCE AT THE
TIME OF THE APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP."  OHIO GEN. CODE, 1931. 

FN9  "SEC.  9469-1.  ...  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION NINETY-FOUR
HUNDRED AND SIXTY-NINE OF THE GENERAL CODE, REQUIRING THE CERTIFICATE
TO SPECIFY THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF BENEFIT PROVIDED THEREBY AND THE
CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE PAYMENT THEREOF, SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE
CERTIFICATES OF A FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE
LAWS OF OHIO, WHOSE MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS AND
WHICH DOES NOT OBLIGATE ITSELF TO PAY STIPULATED AMOUNTS OF BENEFITS IN
CASE OF NATURAL DEATH."  OHIO GEN. CODE, 1931. 

FN10  "SEC.  9481.  ...  THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE SOCIETY MAY
PROVIDE THAT NO SUBORDINATE BODY, NOR ANY OF ITS SUBORDINATE OFFICERS
OR MEMBERS SHALL HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO WAIVE ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY, AND THE SAME
SHALL BE BINDING ON THE SOCIETY AND EACH AND EVERY MEMBER THEREOF AND
ON ALL BENEFICIARIES OF MEMBERS."  OHIO GEN. CODE, 1931. 

FN11  S.D.L., 1919, C. 232, SEC. 16, AUTHORIZED THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH
A LICENSE - 

"UPON FILING WITH THE COMMISSIONER A DULY CERTIFIED COPY OF ITS
CHARTER OR ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION; A COPY OF ITS CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS, CERTIFIED BY ITS SECRETARY OR CORRESPONDING OFFICERS; A POWER OF
ATTORNEY TO THE COMMISSIONER (TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF PROCESS)  ...  ; A
STATEMENT OF ITS BUSINESS UNDER OATH OF ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY, OR
CORRESPONDING OFFICERS, IN THE FORM REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSIONER, DULY
VERIFIED BY AN EXAMINATION MADE BY THE SUPERVISING INSURANCE OFFICIAL
OF ITS HOME STATE OR OTHER STATE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMMISSIONER OF
INSURANCE OF THIS STATE; A CERTIFICATE FROM THE PROPER OFFICIAL IN ITS
HOME STATE, PROVINCE OR COUNTRY, THAT THE SOCIETY IS LEGALLY ORGANIZED;
A COPY OF ITS CONTRACT, WHICH MUST SHOW THAT BENEFITS ARE PROVIDED FOR
BY PERIODICAL, OR OTHER PAYMENTS BY PERSONS HOLDING SIMILAR CONTRACTS;
AND UPON FURNISHING THE COMMISSIONER SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS HE MAY
DEEM NECESSARY TO A PROPER EXHIBIT OF ITS BUSINESS AND PLAN OF WORKING,
AND UPON SHOWING THAT ITS ASSETS ARE INVESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
LAWS OF THE STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT, PROVINCE OR COUNTRY WHERE IT IS
ORGANIZED, HE SHALL ISSUE A LICENSE TO SUCH SOCIETY TO DO BUSINESS IN
THIS STATE UNTIL THE FIRST DAY OF THE SUCCEEDING MARCH, AND SUCH
LICENSE SHALL, UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, BE
RENEWED ANNUALLY, BUT IN ALL CASES TO TERMINATE ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE
SUCCEEDING MARCH; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT LICENSE SHALL CONTINUE IN
FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL THE NEW LICENSE BE ISSUED OR SPECIFICALLY
REFUSED.  ANY FOREIGN SOCIETY DESIRING ADMISSION TO THIS STATE, SHALL
HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF DOMESTIC SOCIETIES ORGANIZED UNDER
THIS ACT, UPON A VALUATION BY ANY ONE OF THE STANDARDS AUTHORIZED IN
THE LAWS OF THE STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT, COUNTRY, OR PROVINCE WHERE
IT IS ORGANIZED.  FOR EACH SUCH LICENSE OR RENEWAL THE SOCIETY SHALL
PAY THE COMMISSIONER TWO ($2.00) DOLLARS.  WHEN THE COMMISSIONER
REFUSES TO LICENSE ANY SOCIETY, OR REVOKES ITS AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS
IN THIS STATE, HE SHALL REDUCE HIS RULING, ORDER OR DECISION TO WRITING
AND FILE THE SAME IN HIS OFFICE, AND SHALL FURNISH A COPY THEREOF,
TOGETHER WITH A STATEMENT OF HIS REASON, TO THE OFFICERS OF THE
SOCIETY, UPON REQUEST, AND THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER SHALL BE
REVIEWABLE BY PROPER PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION
WITHIN THE STATE,  ...  " 

SEE ALSO, SECS. 31.2124-31.2126, 31.2139, S.D. CODE OF 1939.  THE
STATE OF OHIO HAS SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN ITS CODE.  SEC. 9477, OHIO GEN.
CODE, 1931. 

FN12  "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION AND CONTROL OF ALL
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES," APPROVED MAR. 11, 1919, S.D.L., 1919, C.
232, PP. 240-253.  FOR EXAMPLE, SEC. 1 DEFINES THEM AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY CORPORATION, SOCIETY, ORDER, OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION, WITHOUT
CAPITAL STOCK, ORGANIZED AND CARRIED ON SOLELY FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT
OF ITS MEMBERS AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES, AND NOT FOR PROFIT, AND HAVING
A LODGE SYSTEM WITH RITUALISTIC FORM OF WORK AND REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF
GOVERNMENT, AND WHICH SHALL MAKE PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5 HEREOF, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE A
FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY." 

SEE ALSO, C. 31.21, "FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES," S.D. CODE OF 1939,
AND CF. WITH OHIO DEFINITION IN NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN13  "SEC.  2.  ANY WHITE MALE CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR
BRITISH POSSESSIONS IN NORTH AMERICA OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND GOOD
GENERAL HEALTH, NOT UNDER EIGHTEEN (18) AND NOT OVER SIXTY (60) YEARS
OF AGE, WHO HAS BEEN ACTIVELY AND ACTUALLY ENGAGED FOR A TERM OF NOT
LESS THAN SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF HIS APPLICATION
AS A COMMERCIAL TRAVELER, CITY SALESMAN, WHOLESALE HOUSE SALESMAN,
SALES MANAGER OR MERCHANDISE BROKER, SELLING GOODS AT WHOLESALE OR
SELLING OFFICE, STORE, FACTORY, RAILROAD, MILL OR MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT,
FOR A MANUFACTURER OR WHOLESALE DEALER, OR ONE WHO HAS HAD AT LEAST SIX
MONTHS EXPERIENCE IN EITHER OF THE OCCUPATIONS NAMED HEREIN, AND IS
THUS ENGAGED AT THE DATE OF FILING THE APPLICATION, AND WHO IS IN GOOD
MENTAL AND PHYSICAL CONDITION MAY BECOME A MEMBER OF THIS ORDER IF
FOUND ACCEPTABLE."  ART. II, CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY, 1922. 

FN14  THE CERTIFICATE, NO. 169655, THEN ISSUED TO HIM, AND WHICH IS
THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR THE RESPONDENT'S CLAIM, IS AS FOLLOWS:

              "INCORPORATED UNDER THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE

STATE OF OHIO. 

                                CLASS A

                         INSURANCE CERTIFICATE

                    THE ORDER OF

UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS

OF AMERICA

                            COLUMBUS, OHIO 

"AN ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OHIO,
HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT FORD SHANE, A MEMBER OF THE ORDER OF UNITED
COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS OF AMERICA, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE STATEMENTS
CONTAINED IN HIS APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE AND THE APPLICATION FEE PAID
BY HIM, IS HEREBY ACCEPTED AS AN INSURED MEMBER OF SAID ORDER UNDER
'CLASS A,' BEGINNING AT TWELVE (12) O'CLOCK, NOON, STANDARD TIME, ON
THE DAY THIS CERTIFICATE IS DATED, AND IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE RIGHTS
AND BENEFITS WHICH MAY BE PROVIDED FOR SUCH 'CLASS A' INSURED MEMBERS
IN AND BY THE CONSTITUTION OF SAID ORDER IN FORCE AND EFFECT AT THE
TIME ANY ACCIDENT OCCURS SUBSEQUENT TO SAID TIME AND DATE. 

"THIS CERTIFICATE, THE CONSTITUTION, BY-LAWS AND ARTICLES OF
INCORPORATION OF SAID ORDER, TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICATION FOR
INSURANCE SIGNED BY SAID INSURED MEMBER, SHALL CONSTITUTE THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN SAID ORDER AND SAID INSURED MEMBER AND SHALL GOVERN THE PAYMENT
OF BENEFITS, AND ANY CHANGES, ADDITIONS OR AMENDMENTS TO SAID
CONSTITUTION, BY-LAWS OR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, HEREAFTER DULY
MADE, SHALL BIND SAID ORDER AND SAID INSURED MEMBER AND HIS BENEFICIARY
OR BENEFICIARIES, AND SHALL GOVERN AND CONTROL THE CONTRACT IN ALL
RESPECTS. 

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE HAVE AFFIXED OUR SIGNATURES AND THE SEAL OF
THE SUPREME COUNCIL, AT COLUMBUS, OHIO, THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER A.D.
1922. 

"THIS CERTIFICATE SUPERSEDES ALL INSURANCE CERTIFICATES ISSUED OF A
PRIOR DATE BEARING THIS NUMBER. 

      S/ FRANK J. ROSSER

               SUPREME COUNSELOR. 

               S/ WALTER D. MURPHY

                         SUPREME SECRETARY." 

SEAL 

FN15  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS EVIDENTLY RELIED, IN PART, ON
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 7, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIETY WHICH STATED
"NOR SHALL BENEFITS UNDER THIS ARTICLE BE PAYABLE UNLESS EXTERNAL,
VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS, PRODUCING BODILY INJURY, IS THE
PROXIMATE, SOLE AND ONLY CAUSE OF DEATH, DISABILITY OR LOSS" AND SAID: 

"THERE WERE NO ACCIDENTAL MEANS, BUT SIMPLY AN UNEXPECTED OR
ACCIDENTAL RESULT.  THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DRUG DID NOT CAUSE THE
IDIOSYNCRASY, AND, IF THE BODILY INJURY WHICH RESULTED IN DEATH WAS
PRODUCED BY THE IDIOSYNCRASY AS A CAUSE OR MEANS, THEN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE DRUG WAS NOT THE SOLE CAUSE, AND THERE WOULD BE
NO LIABILITY UNDER THE POLICY."  64 F.2D 55, 59. 

RELATING TO A PROVISION IN THE SAME SECTION THAT "THIS ORDER SHALL
NOT BE LIABLE TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY BENEFITS FOR ANY DEATH,  ...
RESULTING FROM  ...  MEDICAL, MECHANICAL OR SURGICAL TREATMENT (EXCEPT
WHERE THE SURGICAL TREATMENT IS MADE NECESSARY BY THE ACCIDENT), THE
INTENTIONAL TAKING OF MEDICINE OR DRUGS"; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SAID: 

"WE THINK THE ADMINISTERING OF THE DRUG MUST BE PLACED IN THE
CATEGORY OF MEDICAL OR SURGICAL TREATMENT. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IF THE ADMINISTERING OF THE DRUG IN THE CASE AT BAR DID NOT
CONSTITUTE MEDICAL OR SURGICAL TREATMENT, WE SHOULD BE AT A LOSS HOW TO
CLASSIFY SUCH ACT."  ID. AT 59-60. 

FN16  TYPICAL OF THESE CHANGES WERE THOSE RELATING TO THE
DISTRIBUTION, ON A CHANGED PERCENTAGE BASIS, OF FUNDS RAISED BY CALLS
TO MEET INSURANCE AND OTHER NEEDS; CHANGES IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF
EMPLOYMENTS TO BE TREATED AS HAZARDOUS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE THE LOWERING
OF RATES OF DISABILITY BENEFITS TO BE PAID TO MEMBERS EMPLOYED IN THEM;
AND A NEW PROVISION EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZING THE RIGHTS OF UNINSURED
MEMBERS TO CONTINUE AS MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, ALTHOUGH DISQUALIFIED
PHYSICALLY FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF INSURANCE BENEFITS.  THERE ALSO WAS
A CHANGE IN THE PROCEDURE GOVERNING FUTURE AMENDMENTS.    FN17  THE
1930 CONSTITUTION DEALT WITH THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS AND IT IS IN THEM,
AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, THAT THERE CAN BE FOUND THE RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS OF THE MEMBERS: 

ARTICLE I. NAME, OBJECTS, PROVISION FOR SUBORDINATE COUNCILS, GRAND
COUNCILS AND THE SUPREME COUNCIL.    ARTICLE II.  SUBORDINATE COUNCILS,
MEMBERSHIP, WITHDRAWALS, TRANSFER CARDS, DELINQUENCY, SUSPENSIONS,
REINSTATEMENT, UNINSURED MEMBERSHIP, OFFICERS AND ELECTIONS, DUTIES OF
OFFICERS, VACANCIES IN OFFICE, HONORARY TITLES, MEETINGS AND QUORUM,
SPECIAL SESSIONS, REPORTS, PER CAPITA TAX TO COUNCIL HAVING CONTROL AND
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBORDINATE COUNCIL, AND REPRESENTATION OF
SUBORDINATE COUNCILS IN THE GRAND COUNCIL. 

ARTICLE III.  FUNDS, PROVISION FOR WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND,
ASSESSMENT FUND, DISTRIBUTION OF ASSESSMENT FUND, DEATH FUND,
DISABILITY FUND, GENERAL EXPENSE FUND AND RESERVE FUNDS.  THE
ASSESSMENT FUND IS CREATED BY ASSESSMENTS ON INSURED MEMBERS, IN GOOD
STANDING, TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR MEETING ASSESSMENT CALLS.  WHEN CALLS
ARE MADE UPON SUCH MEMBERS, THE PROCEEDS ARE APPORTIONED 30% TO THE
DEATH FUND, 40% TO THE DISABILITY FUND, 5% TO THE RESERVE FUNDS AND 25%
TO THE GENERAL EXPENSE FUND. 

ARTICLE IV.  INSURANCE.  MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING ARE SUBJECT TO
REGULAR QUARTERLY CALLS OF $3 PER INSURED MEMBER AND THE SUPREME
COUNSELOR HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE AS MANY CALLS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $3 EACH, AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY IN FULL ALL VALID CLAIMS,
TOGETHER WITH EXPENSES INCURRED IN MAINTAINING THE SOCIETY AND
CONDUCTING ITS BUSINESS.  BASED ON THEIR PHYSICAL CONDITION, MEMBERS
BECOME INSURED MEMBERS OF CLASS A OR CLASS B. THOSE PROVIDING THE
POORER RISK ARE PUT IN CLASS B AND ARE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS OF BUT ONE
HALF THE AMOUNT OF THOSE PROVIDED FOR CLASS A MEMBERS.  THE BENEFITS
ARE IN THE NATURE OF INDEMNITIES AGAINST THE RESULT OF BODILY INJURIES
"EFFECTED THROUGH EXTERNAL, VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS,  ... WHICH
SHALL BE OCCASIONED BY THE SAID ACCIDENT ALONE AND INDEPENDENT OF ALL
OTHER CAUSES."  THERE ARE MANY LIMITATIONS UPON THIS LIABILITY AND, IN
CASE OF CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE OCCUPATION OR PHYSICAL CONDITION OF A
MEMBER, HIS RIGHT TO BENEFITS MAY BE REDUCED OR CANCELED.  THERE ARE
DOUBLE INDEMNITIES FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM ACCIDENTS ON PASSENGER
TRAINS, ETC., AND THE COVERAGE GENERALLY IS RELATED TO RISKS NORMALLY
ENCOUNTERED BY COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS.  SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS ARE MADE OF
INJURIES RESULTING FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN HAZARDOUS SPORTS OR FROM
BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR, ETC.  THOSE WHO MAY BE NAMED AS
BENEFICIARIES ARE LIMITED TO SPECIFIED DEGREES OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. 
(THE FORM OF APPLICATION MAKES EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE LIMITATIONS AS
TO BENEFICIARIES CONTAINED IN THE STATUTES OF OHIO.)  PROVISION IS MADE
FOR NOTICES AND PROOFS OF CLAIMS, FOR SURGICAL EXAMINATIONS, ETC.
THERE IS A STRICT PROHIBITION IN SEC. 11(QUOTED SUPRA) AGAINST THE
WAIVER OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND, IN THE SAME SECTION,
THERE APPEARS THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION, HERE IN CONTROVERSY, UPON THE
TIME WITHIN WHICH TO BRING SUITS TO RECOVER BENEFITS AFTER A CLAIM HAS
BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE SUPREME EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 

ARTICLE V. GRAND COUNCILS, CHARTERS FOR SUBORDINATE COUNCILS, PER
CAPITA TAX PAYABLE TO GRAND COUNCILS AND DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR THE
OPERATION OF GRAND COUNCILS. 

ARTICLE VI.  SUPREME COUNCIL, CHARTERS FOR GRAND COUNCILS, OFFICERS
AND ELECTIONS AND DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS
OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUPREME
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  THIS COMMITTEE IS TO CONSIST OF SEVEN MEMBERS,
INCLUDING THE SUPREME COUNSELOR, SUPREME SECRETARY, SUPREME TREASURER
AND FOUR SPECIALLY ELECTED MEMBERS.  IT HAS LARGE POWERS OVER THE
BUSINESS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY.  AMONG THESE PROVISIONS ARE
THOSE OF EXAMINING INSURANCE CLAIMS, DECIDING UPON THEIR VALIDITY AND
ADJUSTING THEM. 

ARTICLE VII.  PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF MALT OR SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS IN
CONNECTION WITH MEETINGS OF THE SOCIETY. 

ARTICLE VIII.  MEMORIAL DAY IN HONOR OF THE SOCIETY'S FIRST SUPREME
SECRETARY. 

ARTICLE IX.  SPECIAL DUTY OF EVERY MEMBER TO REPORT THE NAME OF ANY
MEMBER WHO IS AN EXTRA HAZARDOUS, PHYSICAL OR MORAL RISK. 

ARTICLE X. PROHIBITION AGAINST DONATIONS OF FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY. 

ARTICLES XI, XII AND XIII.  TRIALS, PENALTIES AND APPEALS RELATING TO
VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, BY-LAWS AND RULES, AND THE DIVULGING OF
SECRETS OF THE SOCIETY OR CONDUCT UNBECOMING A GENTLEMAN. 

"ARTICLE XIV.  AMENDMENTS.  SECTION 1.  PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THIS
CONSTITUTION, BY-LAWS AND ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED
IN WRITING AND FILED WITH THE SUPREME SECRETARY OF THE ORDER AT LEAST
SIX (6) MONTHS BEFORE THE CONVENING OF THE ANNUAL SESSION OF THE
SUPREME COUNCIL. 

"THE SUPREME SECRETARY OF THE ORDER SHALL, AT LEAST FOUR (4) MONTHS
BEFORE THE CONVENING OF SUCH ANNUAL SESSION, FORWARD TO ALL GRAND AND
SUBORDINATE COUNCILS A COPY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. 

"SEC. 2.  NO AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, BY-LAWS OR ARTICLES OF
INCORPORATION SHALL BE ADOPTED UNLESS IT RECEIVES THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE
OF AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS (2-3)(2/3) OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL
PRESENT, ENTITLED TO VOTE, AT THE SESSION WHEN SUCH AMENDMENT IS VOTED
UPON. 

"SEC. 3.  ALL AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION, BY-LAWS AND ARTICLES
OF INCORPORATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER
FOLLOWING THE SESSION OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL AT WHICH THEY WERE
ADOPTED, UNLESS THE DATE FOR BECOMING EFFECTIVE IS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
BY THE SUPREME COUNCIL. 

"SEC. 4.  ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OR RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME
COUNCIL WHICH ADDS (ADD) TO OR CONFLICT WITH THIS CONSTITUTION OR BY
LAWS SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COUNCIL AT ITS NEXT ANNUAL
SESSION AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OR BY-LAWS AND SHALL NOT
BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL SUCH AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY A TWO
THIRDS VOTE OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT ENTITLED TO VOTE."  (SECTION 4 WAS
ADDED BETWEEN 1922 AND 1931.) 

FN18  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN19  MODERN WOODMEN V. MIXER, 267 U.S. 544, 551. 

FN20  "THE POLICY OF THESE STATUTES (OF LIMITATION) IS TO ENCOURAGE
PROMPTITUDE IN THE PROSECUTION OF REMEDIES.  THEY PRESCRIBE WHAT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE A REASONABLE PERIOD FOR THIS PURPOSE, BUT THERE IS
NOTHING IN THEIR LANGUAGE OR OBJECT WHICH INHIBITS PARTIES FROM
STIPULATING FOR A SHORTER PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO ASSERT THEIR
RESPECTIVE CLAIMS."  RIDDLESBARGER V. HARTFORD INS. CO., 7 WALL.  386,
390; APPROVED, THOMPSON V. PHENIX INS. CO., 136 U.S. 287, 298. 

SEE ALSO, APPEL V. COOPER INS. CO., 76 OHIO ST. 52, 80 N.E. 955;
BARTLEY V. NATIONAL BUSINESS MEN'S ASSN., 109 OHIO ST. 585, 143 N.E.
386; YOUNG V. ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS, 142 NEB. 566, 7
N.W.2D 81; BURLEW V. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF N.Y., 276 KY. 132, 122
S.W.2D 990; SEE NOTE, 121 A.L.R. 758; 29 AM. JUR.  1039. 

FN21  SECS. 2294-2305, S.D. REV. CODE, 1919; SEC. 33.0232, S.D. CODE
OF 1939. 

FN22  SEC. 2298, S.D. REV. CODE, 1919; SEC. 33.0232(4), S.D. CODE OF
1939. 

FN23  "NO ACTION AT LAW OR IN EQUITY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO RECOVER ON
THIS POLICY PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF SIXTY DAYS AFTER PROOF OF LOSS
HAS BEEN FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS POLICY, NOR
SHALL SUCH ACTION BE BROUGHT AT ALL UNLESS BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS
FROM THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME WITHIN WHICH PROOF OF LOSS IS REQUIRED
BY THE POLICY."  SEC. 3(14), C. 229, S.D.L., 1919, AT P. 235.  SEE
ALSO, SEC. 31.1702(14), S.D. CODE OF 1939.  THIS SECTION IS INDICATIVE
OF A STATE POLICY APPROVING THE SHORTENING OF THE GENERAL STATUTE AS
APPLIED TO ACCIDENT POLICIES, BUT IT DOES NOT APPLY DIRECTLY TO OR
AFFECT TRANSACTIONS OF FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETIES BECAUSE THEY ARE
EXCLUDED FROM THE GENERAL INSURANCE STATUTES AND ARE PLACED UNDER THE
LICENSING PROVISIONS QUOTED IN NOTE 10, SUPRA.  THE PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTION, FILED UNDER THAT REQUIREMENT, FULLY DISCLOSED ITS
PROVISION ON THIS SUBJECT.  SEC. 12(3), C. 229, S.D.L., 1919; SEC.
31.1708(3), S.D. CODE OF 1939. 

FN24  NOTES 11 AND 12, SUPRA. 

FN25  THE PRESENT COUNTERPART OF THAT STATUTE APPEARS IN SEC. 10.0705
OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA CODE OF 1939: 

"10.0705.  RESTRAINT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS; VOID.  EVERY PROVISION IN
A CONTRACT RESTRICTING A PARTY FROM ENFORCING HIS RIGHTS UNDER IT BY
USUAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN ORDINARY TRIBUNALS OR LIMITING HIS TIME TO
DO SO, IS VOID." 

FN26  CITING ALSO FOR COMPARISON, ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S.
531; HANCOCK NATIONAL BANK V. FARNUM, 176 U.S. 640; MCDERMOTT V.
WOODHOUSE, 87 N.J. EQ. 615, 618, 619, 101 A. 375, 376; AND FOR
REFERENCE, CANADA SOUTHERN R. CO. V. GEBHARD, 109 U.S. 527, 537-538;
HAWKINS V. GLENN, 131 U.S. 319, 329; NASHUA SAVINGS BANK V. ANGLO
AMERICAN CO., 189 U.S. 221, 229-230; HARRIGAN V. BERGDOLL, 270 U.S.
560, 564. 

FN27  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMM'N, SUPRA, AT P. 547. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY,
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THE ORDER OF UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS IS A CORPORATION CHARTERED
UNDER THE LAWS OF OHIO WITH POWER TO DO A FRATERNAL INSURANCE
BUSINESS.  IT SELLS CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE IN OHIO.  SOUTH DAKOTA HAS
LICENSED THE CORPORATION TO SELL FRATERNAL INSURANCE POLICIES IN THAT
STATE.  UNDER THIS PERMISSION, THE CORPORATION HAS AN OFFICE, CALLED A
LOCAL COUNCIL, IN BLACK HILLS, SOUTH DAKOTA, VESTED WITH POWER TO
ADMINISTER "THE BUSINESS AND FRATERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE ORDER." 

THE INSURED, A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF SOUTH DAKOTA, APPLIED TO THE
BLACK HILLS OFFICE FOR MEMBERSHIP AND AN INSURANCE POLICY.  AFTER THE
APPLICATION HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AND AN INSURANCE CERTIFICATE SIGNED AT
THE PETITIONER'S HOME OFFICE IN OHIO, IT WAS "FORWARDED BY THE SAID
DEFENDANT CORPORATION TO SOUTH DAKOTA FOR DELIVERY TO THE INSURED." 
FROM THEN UNTIL HIS DEATH IN SOUTH DAKOTA, THE INSURED PAID HIS
PREMIUMS TO THE CORPORATION'S BLACK HILLS OFFICE.  DURING ALL THAT
PERIOD HIS BENEFICIARY LIVED IN THAT STATE.  THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN
A COURT OF THAT STATE ON BEHALF OF THE BENEFICIARY AFTER THE
CORPORATION HAD REFUSED TO PAY THE CLAIM. 

THE ASSOCIATION DENIED LIABILITY BECAUSE THIS SUIT HAD NOT BEEN
COMMENCED WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ASSOCIATION HAD DISALLOWED THE
BENEFICIARY'S CLAIM.  THIS IS REQUIRED BY THE CORPORATION'S
CONSTITUTION WHICH IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ITS CONTRACTS OF
INSURANCE.  AND IN A SERIES OF CASES, CITED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HAS HELD THAT SUITS BROUGHT IN OHIO COURTS ON
MUTUAL, STOCK COMPANY, OR FRATERNAL INSURANCE CONTRACTS, MAY BE BARRED
BY CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH REQUIRE THAT SUIT
BE BROUGHT WITHIN A SHORTER PERIOD THAN THAT PROVIDED BY THE OHIO
LIMITATIONS STATUTES. 

BUT THE SOUTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A STATUTE OF THAT
STATE WHICH PROVIDES THAT "EVERY PROVISION IN A CONTRACT RESTRICTING A
PARTY FROM ENFORCING HIS RIGHTS UNDER IT BY USUAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN
ORDINARY TRIBUNALS OR LIMITING HIS TIME TO DO SO, IS VOID," S.D. CODE
SEC. 10.0705(1939), RENDERS THE LIMITATION PROVISION IN THIS CONTRACT
UNENFORCEABLE IN HER COURTS.  THIS COURT TODAY REVERSES THE SOUTH
DAKOTA DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT ITS REFUSAL TO ENFORCE THE PRIVATE
CONTRACT IS A DENIAL OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE "PUBLIC ACTS,
RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS" OF OHIO.  U.S. CONST., ART. IV, SEC.
1. 

FIRST.  MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO THIS COURT SAID THAT TO
REQUIRE A STATE TO APPLY THE "LIMITATION LAWS" OF ANOTHER STATE RATHER
THAN ITS OWN WOULD REDUCE IT "TO A STATE OF VASSALAGE," PRESENTING THE
ANOMALY "OF A SOVEREIGN STATE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF ANOTHER
SOVEREIGN."  HAWKINS V. BARNEY'S LESSEE, 5 PET. 457, 466-467.  A FEW
YEARS LATER THE COURT WAS ASKED TO HOLD THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE BARRED A STATE FROM APPLYING ITS OWN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A
SUIT BROUGHT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH HAD ARISEN IN ANOTHER STATE. 
ON THAT QUESTION THE COURT DID NOT "ENTERTAIN A DOUBT"; THE HOLDING WAS
THAT IT COULD NOT "BE EVEN PLAUSIBLY INFERRED" THAT THE STATE IN WHICH
THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT WAS DENIED THAT POWER BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE.  M'ELMOYLE V. COHEN, 13 PET. 312, 324, 328.  WHILE THE CASE
THEN UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVED A SUIT ON A JUDGMENT RENDERED IN
ANOTHER STATE, THE BROAD RULING WAS THAT, SO FAR AS THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE IS CONCERNED, A STATE HAS POWER TO APPLY ITS OWN STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS IN EVERY KIND OF ACTION AND WITHOUT REGARD TO WHERE THE
CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORCE OF THE M'ELMOYLE REFUSAL TO REQUIRE A FORUM
STATE TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A FOREIGN STATE'S STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS IS NOT WEAKENED IN THE SLIGHTEST BY THE FACT THAT SOME
STATES HAVE SEEN FIT TO ADOPT "BORROWING STATUTES."  SEE COPE V.
ANDERSON, ANTE, P. 461, AT NOTE 3.  FOR OTHER STATES, NOTABLY SOUTH
DAKOTA HERE, HAVE ADOPTED STATUTES WITH PURPOSES QUITE OPPOSITE TO THAT
OF BORROWING STATUTES.  AND UNDER THE M'ELMOYLE RULE, WHICHEVER
LIMITATIONS POLICY A FORUM STATE CHOOSES TO FOLLOW - TO BORROW OR TO
REFUSE TO BORROW - IT IS FREE, SO FAR AS THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE IS CONCERNED, TO DO SO. 

THE PLAIN EFFECT OF TODAY'S DECISION IS TO OVERRULE THE M'ELMOYLE
CASE.  AND IT DOES SO, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE HOLDING OF THAT CASE
HAS NEVER BEFORE BEEN CITED WITH DISAPPROVAL; IN FACT, THAT HOLDING HAS
BEEN REPEATEDLY APPROVED AND REAFFIRMED THROUGHOUT THE YEARS SINCE IT
WAS DECIDED.  FN1  THE COURT DISTINGUISHES THE M'ELMOYLE RULE, AND IN
FACT RELIES GENERALLY FOR ITS DECISION UPON THE LINE OF DECISIONS IN
WHICH MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA V. MIXER, 267 U.S. 544, IS THE LEADING
CASE.  BUT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT IN ISSUE IN THE MIXER
CASE, THE CASE ON WHICH IT RELIED, OR THE CASES WHICH HAVE SINCE RELIED
ON IT.  THE M'ELMOYLE CASE WAS NOT EVEN CITED IN THE COURT'S MIXER
OPINION; NOR DOES ANYTHING SAID IN IT DETRACT FROM THE RULE OF THE
M'ELMOYLE CASE THAT STATES CAN, DESPITE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE, APPLY THEIR OWN STATUTES OF LIMITATION.  FN2  YET THE COURT NOW
TREATS THE MIXER CASE AS CONTROLLING, AND HOLDS THAT THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE DEPRIVES SOUTH DAKOTA OF POWER TO APPLY ITS OWN STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS.  FN3 

BUT MORE THAN THAT, THE "STATE OF VASSALAGE" TO WHICH THE COURT'S
DECISION HERE REDUCES SOUTH DAKOTA IS NOT EVEN IN SUBORDINATION TO THE
LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE.  THE COURT'S OPINION MEANS THAT SOUTH DAKOTA
MUST YIELD TO A "LAW" ADOPTED BY THE MEMBERS OF AN OHIO-CREATED PRIVATE
FRATERNAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION.  THAT "LAW," APPEARING ONLY IN THE
PRIVATE ASSOCIATION'S CONSTITUTION, PROVIDES IN THE SAME KIND OF
LANGUAGE THAT LEGISLATURES ORDINARILY USE IN THEIR STATUTES OF
LIMITATION THAT "NO SUIT OR PROCEEDING, EITHER AT LAW OR IN EQUITY,
SHALL BE BROUGHT TO RECOVER ANY BENEFITS UNDER THIS ARTICLE AFTER SIX
(6) MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE CLAIM FOR SAID BENEFITS IS DISALLOWED
BY THE SUPREME EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE." 

THE NEAREST THAT THIS PRIVATE ASSOCIATION'S "LAW" COMES TO BEING A
LAW OF OHIO IS THAT OHIO PERMITS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE IT.  BECAUSE THE
PRIVATE ASSOCIATION'S CONSTITUTION WAS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN THE
POLICY CONTRACT, INCLUDING THE CONSTITUTION'S "STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,"
THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THIS CORPORATE "STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS"
PROHIBITS APPLICATION OF SOUTH DAKOTA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THUS
THE COURT'S HOLDING IS THAT AN OHIO PRIVATE CORPORATION'S LAWS HAVE A
HIGHER CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING THAN AN OHIO LAW OR JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE
UNLESS, AS SEEMS TO BE TRUE, M'ELMOYLE V. COHEN, SUPRA, AND SUBSEQUENT
CASES APPROVING IT ARE NOW BEING OVERRULED.  IT WOULD BE QUITE A
RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THIS COURT'S PREVIOUS AUTHORITIES TO HOLD THAT
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE BARS A GOVERNMENT FROM APPLYING ITS
OWN STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS TO SUITS BROUGHT IN ITS COURTS, A POWER
WHICH, THIS COURT SAID IN ITS M'ELMOYLE DECISION, GOVERNMENTS HAVE
EXERCISED SINCE REMOTE ANTIQUITY.  ID. AT 327.  IT IS A FAR GREATER
DEPARTURE TO HOLD THAT A STATE'S LIMITATION STATUTE MUST TAKE SECOND
PLACE TO THE LIMITATIONS RULES ADOPTED BY A PRIVATELY OPERATED
CORPORATION. 

IT SHOULD COME AS QUITE A SURPRISE TO OHIO THAT ITS STATE POLICY CAN
SUPPLANT SOUTH DAKOTA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SINCE OHIO'S HIGHEST
COURT FOLLOWS THE M'ELMOYLE RULE THAT "STATUTES OF LIMITATION RELATE TO
THE REMEDY, AND ARE, AND MUST BE, GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE FORUM; FOR
IT IS CONCEDED, THAT A COURT WHICH HAS POWER TO SAY WHEN ITS DOORS
SHALL BE OPENED, HAS ALSO POWER TO SAY WHEN THEY SHALL BE CLOSED." 
KERPER V. WOOD, 48 OHIO ST. 613, 622, 29 N.E. 501, 502.  AND THE
PRINCIPLE THERE ANNOUNCED WAS FOLLOWED BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT AS
LATE AS 1943.  PAYNE V. KIRCHWEHM, 141 OHIO ST. 384, 48 N.E.2D 224; CF.
COPE V. ANDERSON, ANTE, P. 461. 

SECOND.  LEAVING ASIDE THE SUI GENERIS FEATURES OF A FORUM STATE'S
POWER OVER LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS IN ITS COURTS, THE PRESENT HOLDING
VIOLATES OTHER ESTABLISHED RULES CONCERNING A STATE'S POWER TO GOVERN
ITS OWN LOCAL AFFAIRS AND TO PROTECT FROM OVERREACHING CONTRACTS
PERSONS IN WHOM THE STATE HAS A LEGITIMATE INTEREST.  SEE GRIFFIN V.
MCCOACH, 313 U.S. 498; PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201.  I
HAD CONSIDERED IT WELL SETTLED THAT IF AN INSURANCE COMPANY DOES
BUSINESS AT ALL IN A STATE, ITS CONTRACTS ARE "SUBJECT TO SUCH VALID
REGULATIONS AS THE STATE MAY CHOOSE TO ADOPT."  SEE WHITFIELD V. AETNA
LIFE INS. CO., 205 U.S. 489, 495; KNIGHTS TEMPLARS' & MASONS' LIFE
INDEMNITY CO. V. JARMAN, 187 U.S. 197, 202; HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS.
CO. V. WARREN, 181 U.S. 73, 75.  THIS CONCEPTION OF BROAD STATE POWER
HAS NOT BEEN LIMITED TO PARTICULAR KINDS OF LAWS OR PARTICULAR KINDS OF
CONTRACTS OF SPECIAL KINDS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.  THUS IN REGARD TO A
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THE COURT HAS HELD THE TERMS OF A POLICY
GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF MISSOURI WHERE THE CONTRACT WAS MADE IN THE FACE
OF A CONTRACT STIPULATION THAT THEY WERE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF
NEW YORK, THE MUTUAL COMPANY'S DOMICIL.  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V.
CRAVENS, 178 U.S. 389.  FOR THIS COURT CONCLUDED FROM INFERENCES IT
FOUND IN THE MISSOURI COURT'S OPINION THAT COMPLIANCE WITH MISSOURI LAW
"WAS A CONDITION UPON THE RIGHT OF INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DO BUSINESS
IN THE STATE."  ID. AT 395.  IT FURTHER HELD THAT MISSOURI HAD THE SAME
CONTINUING POWER TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS CONTRACTS OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION PERMITTED TO DO BUSINESS THERE AS IT HAD OVER THE CONTRACTS
OF DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.  ID. AT 400-401.  AND WHEN A FOREIGN BUILDING
AND LOAN ASSOCIATION WHICH DID BUSINESS WITH ITS MEMBERS ONLY  FN4
SOUGHT TO AVOID MISSISSIPPI USURY LAWS BY SPECIFYING THAT A LOAN
CONTRACT WITH A MISSISSIPPI MEMBER WAS MADE IN NEW YORK WHERE THE
INTEREST CHARGED WAS NOT USURIOUS, THIS COURT HELD THAT MISSISSIPPI LAW
GOVERNED AND VOIDED THE CONTRACT.  NATIONAL MUTUAL BLDG. & LOAN ASSN.
V. BRAHAN, 193 U.S. 635.  THE COURT APPROVED THE CONCLUSION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI THAT THE ASSOCIATION, BY QUALIFYING TO DO
BUSINESS IN MISSISSIPPI, "HAD BECOME 'LOCALIZED' IN THE STATE, HAD
ACCEPTED THE LAWS OF THE STATE AS A CONDITION OF DOING BUSINESS THERE,
AND COULD NOT, NOR COULD (THE MISSISSIPPI MEMBER) 'ABROGATE BY
ATTEMPTED CONTRACT STIPULATIONS' THOSE LAWS.  SEE HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE
INS. CO. V. WARREN, 181 U.S. 73."  ID. AT 650.  BECAUSE THE CONTRACT
WAS THUS CONTROLLED BY MISSISSIPPI RATHER THAN NEW YORK LAW, THE COURT
HELD THAT "THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THE CONTENTION THAT FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT WERE NOT GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC ACTS AND RECORDS OF NEW YORK." 
ID. AT 647. 

THE COURT'S OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS APPARENTLY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE FOREGOING CASES WHICH HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT STATE COURTS HAVE
A CONTINUING AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE BY
REFUSING TO ENFORCE CONTRACT PROVISIONS OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
PERMITTED BY THE STATE TO DO BUSINESS THERE - EVEN THOUGH THOSE
CORPORATIONS DO BUSINESS WITH MEMBERS ONLY.  TODAY'S OPINION DOES
IMPLY, HOWEVER, THAT SOUTH DAKOTA OFFICIALS COULD HAVE EXCLUDED THIS
CORPORATION FROM DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OR COULD HAVE REVOKED ITS
LICENSE UPON DISCOVERY OF THE FOREIGN CORPORATION'S VIOLATION OF THE
LAWS OF THE STATE.  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE STAYS THE HANDS OF THE STATE COURTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF STATE
POWER IN PRIVATE LITIGATION ANY MORE THAN IT COULD FORESTALL STATE
AUTHORITIES FROM REVOKING THE ASSOCIATION'S LICENSE FOR PERSISTING IN
MAKING UNLAWFUL CONTRACTS. 

THIRD.  ANOTHER HANDLE OF SOUTH DAKOTA'S POWER OVER THIS CORPORATION
DERIVES, NOT FROM THE CORPORATION'S ACCEPTANCE OF SOUTH DAKOTA LAW AS A
CONTINUING CONDITION OF DOING BUSINESS, BUT FROM THE NUMBER AND
IMPORTANCE OF THE INCIDENTS INVOLVED IN THE MAKING AND THE PERFORMANCE
OF THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT HERE WHICH OCCURRED IN SOUTH DAKOTA.  UNLESS
THE COURT'S DECISION OVERRULES  FN5 THE LONG LINE OF CASES CITED IN THE
MARGIN  FN6  THIS INSURANCE CONTRACT WAS "MADE" AND TO BE PERFORMED IN
SOUTH DAKOTA, AND ITS VALIDITY IS GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THAT STATE. 
THUS IN HARTFORD A. & I. CO. V. DELTA & PINE LAND CO., 292 U.S. 143,
150, MISSISSIPPI WAS REQUIRED TO ENFORCE AN INSURANCE CONTRACT,
UNLAWFUL IN THAT STATE, ALTHOUGH BOTH THE PARTIES DID BUSINESS THERE,
AND ALTHOUGH THE SUIT ON THE CONTRACT WAS BROUGHT THERE, BECAUSE THE
CONTRACT WAS VALID IN TENNESSEE, THE STATE WHERE THE CONTRACT WAS HELD
TO HAVE BEEN MADE AND WHICH HAD THE MAJOR CONNECTION WITH THE WHOLE
TRANSACTION.  FOR, SAID THE COURT, MISSISSIPPI "CANNOT EXTEND THE
EFFECT OF ITS LAWS BEYOND ITS BORDERS SO AS TO DESTROY OR IMPAIR THE
RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES TO MAKE A CONTRACT NOT OPERATIVE
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, AND LAWFUL WHERE MADE."  ID. AT 149. 

BEFORE TODAY, CONTENTIONS THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
OVERCOMES THE POWER OF A STATE OVER A CONTRACT MADE AND OPERATIVE THERE
HAVE BEEN FLATLY REJECTED BY THIS COURT.  THUS IN AMERICAN FIRE INS.
CO. V. KING LBR.  & MFG. CO., 250 U.S. 2, AN INSURANCE COMPANY WAS
AUTHORIZED BY PENNSYLVANIA, THE STATE OF ITS INCORPORATION, TO WRITE
FIRE INSURANCE ON PROPERTY OUTSIDE THAT STATE.  IT WAS NOT LICENSED TO
DO BUSINESS BY FLORIDA, BUT ACCEPTED INSURANCE APPLICATIONS THROUGH
INDEPENDENT BROKERS THERE.  UNDER THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA WHERE THE
APPLICATIONS WERE ACCEPTED AND THE POLICIES WRITTEN, BROKERS WERE
APPARENTLY NOT AUTHORIZED TO WAIVE CONTRACT PROVISIONS.  BUT UNDER
FLORIDA LAW THE BROKERS WERE DEEMED AGENTS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY
WITH POWER TO BIND IT BY WAIVERS.  IN ANSWER TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE
FLORIDA RULING DENIED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA,
THIS COURT SAID THAT THE CASE DOES NOT 

"  ...  PRESENT AN ATTEMPT OF THE FLORIDA LAW TO INTRUDE ITSELF INTO
...  PENNSYLVANIA AND CONTROL TRANSACTIONS THERE; IT PRESENTS SIMPLY A
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION HAVING THE PERMISSION OF THAT STATE TO
UNDERWRITE POLICIES ON PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE AND THE EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHT IN FLORIDA.  AND NECESSARILY IT HAD TO BE EXERCISED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF FLORIDA.  THERE WAS NO LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA
TO THE CONTRARY - NO LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA WOULD HAVE POWER TO THE
CONTRARY.  THERE IS NO FOUNDATION, THEREFORE, FOR THE CONTENTION THAT
FULL FAITH WAS NOT GIVEN TO A LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA  ...  "  ID. AT 10. 

FOURTH.  IN INTERPRETING THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE THIS COURT
HAS REPEATEDLY INSISTED THAT IT WOULD WEIGH ALL THE INTERESTS OF EACH
STATE INVOLVED BEFORE HOLDING THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
QUALIFIED ONE STATE'S POWER TO GOVERN ITS OWN AFFAIRS.  SEE PINK V.
A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, SUPRA, 210-211, AND CASES THERE CITED; MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM COMPANY V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 436-437.  I HAVE RECITED THE
MANY BASES FOR SOUTH DAKOTA'S LEGITIMATE INTEREST.  WHAT IS THE
INTEREST OF OHIO TO WHICH THE COURT HOLDS SOUTH DAKOTA MUST GIVE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT? 

IT MAY BE THAT THE COURT'S VIEW IS THAT OHIO HAS AN INTEREST IN
SECURING UNIFORMITY OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AMONG ALL THE
POLICYHOLDER-MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  FOR, SAYS THE COURT, "IF
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT ARE NOT GIVEN  ...  , THE MUTUAL RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF SUCH SOCIETIES ARE LEFT SUBJECT TO THE
CONTROL OF EACH STATE.  THEY BECOME UNPREDICTABLE AND ALMOST INEVITABLY
UNEQUAL." 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN SITUATIONS INVOLVING THE LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS
FOR ASSESSMENT OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY A CORPORATE CHARTER OR THE LAWS
OF A CHARTERING STATE, THE ASSESSMENT OBLIGATION HAS BEEN HELD TO BE
GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE CHARTERING STATE.  CONVERSE V. HAMILTON,
224 U.S. 243; BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629.  AND ASSESSMENTS
AGAINST FRATERNAL AS WELL AS MUTUAL INSURANCE POLICYHOLDERS BASED ON
OWNERSHIP RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WHICH THEIR INSURANCE POLICIES, LIKE
STOCK HOLDINGS, REPRESENT, HAVE BEEN SIMILARLY HELD TO BE CONTROLLED BY
THE LAW OF THE STATE OF THE CORPORATION'S DOMICIL.  ROYAL ARCANUM V.
GREEN, 237 U.S. 531; HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. BARBER, 245 U.S. 146;
HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. IBS, 237 U.S. 662.  FOR INSOFAR AS A MUTUAL
OR FRATERNAL INSURANCE POLICYHOLDER ASSUMES THE ASSESSMENT OBLIGATION
WHICH A STOCKHOLDER MAY BEAR IN OTHER COMPANIES, HE UNDERWRITES THE
RISK THAT THE CORPORATION OF WHICH HE IS AN OWNER MIGHT BECOME
INSOLVENT.  AND THAT INSOLVENCY, PARTICULARLY OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY,
WOULD OCCUR AND GENERALLY BECOME A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHARTERING
STATE WHERE THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED.  THE CONTINGENCY OF
INSOLVENCY HAS BEEN THOUGHT TO GIVE THE CHARTERING STATE GREATER AND
MORE DIRECT INTEREST IN THE EXTRA-TERRITORIAL COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS
AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS OF CORPORATIONS, THAN A STATE HAS IN THE DAY-TO
DAY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH A CORPORATION CHARTERED BY IT
ENGAGES IN OTHER STATES.  FN7 

THIS LINE OF DISTINCTION HAS BEEN CLEARLY MARKED BY THE CONTRARY
RESULT THIS COURT HAS REACHED IN CASES CONCERNING DAY-TO-DAY BUSINESS
CONTRACTS MADE BY FOREIGN NON-FRATERNAL MUTUAL INSURANCE AND MEMBERSHIP
LOAN COMPANIES WITH THEIR POLICYHOLDERS AND MEMBER-BORROWERS.  IN NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. CRAVENS, SUPRA, AT 400, IT WAS URGED THAT THE
FACT THAT THE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY THERE WAS "'THE ADMINISTRATOR OF
A FUND COLLECTED FROM THE POLICY HOLDERS IN DIFFERENT STATES AND
COUNTRIES FOR THEIR BENEFIT,'" DEMONSTRATED "THE NECESSITY OF A UNIFORM
LAW TO BE STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES EXEMPT FROM THE INTERFERENCE OR THE
PROHIBITION OF THE STATE WHERE THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS DOING
BUSINESS."  THIS CONTENTION WAS EMPHATICALLY REJECTED.  AND IN NATIONAL
MUTUAL BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BRAHAN, SUPRA, 636, 650, THIS COURT,
PLACING CONSIDERABLE RELIANCE UPON ITS PREVIOUS CRAVEN DECISION, HELD
THAT CONTRACTS OF A MEMBERSHIP LOAN ASSOCIATION WHOSE CONTROLLING AND
CENTRAL PURPOSE, LIKE THE DISTINGUISHING "FEATURE" RELIED UPON BY THE
COURT HERE, WAS "TO MAKE LOANS ONLY TO ITS MEMBERS, AND FOR  ...
ACCUMULATING A FUND TO BE RETURNED TO ITS MEMBERS," WERE, DESPITE THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF A STATE IN WHICH
THE ASSOCIATION WAS DOING BUSINESS AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION. 

IT SEEMS APPARENT FROM THESE AUTHORITIES THAT OHIO'S INTEREST IN
UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION OF A CORPORATION'S CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS FOR THE
FUNDS OF A COMPANY CREATED UNDER ITS LAWS IS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT MERELY BECAUSE OF THE COMMUNAL INTEREST OF POLICYHOLDER
MEMBERS IN THAT FUND.  AND THE FACT, SO HEAVILY STRESSED BY THE COURT,
THAT THE CORPORATION WAS INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF OHIO SO THAT
ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE DEPENDS UPON THAT LAW IS PLAINLY INSUFFICIENT
BASIS FOR A CONTENTION THAT, THEREFORE, OHIO'S INTEREST DEMANDS FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT FOR THIS CONTRACT PROVISION.    ACTUALLY, IT IS NOT
OHIO'S INTEREST IN THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPANY'S FUNDS TO
WHICH THE COURT GIVES FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  FOR OTHERWISE, I SHOULD
THINK, THE OPINION WOULD CITE AND DISTINGUISH THESE CASES WHICH
ESTABLISH THAT THIS INTEREST IS NOT ONE ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT.  IT IS THE LIMITATIONS "LAW" OF THE CORPORATE CONSTITUTION
ENACTED TO PROTECT ITS OWN INTEREST, NOT THE STATUTES OF OHIO, WHICH
ARE HELD TO BAR THIS SUIT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS. 
THUS IT SEEMS MANIFEST THAT THE COURT IS GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
TO THE "LAWS" AND THE INTEREST OF THE OHIO CORPORATION.  AND THE COURT
DOES THIS ON THE THEORY THAT THE FRATERNAL CORPORATION'S CONSTITUTION
WHICH GOVERNS THE TERMS OF ITS CONTRACTS IS "SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT
THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED
BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION."  APPARENTLY, IT IS FELT THAT
THE INDIVIDUAL SOUTH DAKOTA POLICYHOLDER-MEMBER CAN PROTECT HIMSELF
FROM OVERREACHING CONTRACTS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS
"REPRESENTATIVE" INTRACORPORATE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO WHATEVER
REGULATION OHIO CHOOSES TO IMPOSE.  UNTIL TODAY I HAD NEVER CONCEIVED
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS REQUIRING THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES TO GIVE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE LAWS OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ON THE THEORY
THAT A POLICYHOLDER-MEMBER'S ABILITY TO PROTECT HIMSELF THROUGH INTRA
CORPORATE POLITICS MAKES STATE PROTECTION OF HIM UNNECESSARY AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IT IS A NAIVE ASSUMPTION THAT A POLICYHOLDER-MEMBER
OF A FRATERNAL CORPORATION LIKE THIS DOES NOT NEED PROTECTION FROM HIS
STATE.  MOREOVER, IF VALID, THIS ASSUMPTION WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL
LOGIC TO IMMUNIZE THESE FRATERNAL CORPORATIONS FROM THE LAWS OF THEIR
DOMICILS. 

THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT THAT FRATERNAL INSURANCE
COMPANIES ARE ENTITLED TO UNIQUE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IS NOT
JUSTIFIED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION NOR BY THE NATURE OF
THEIR ENTERPRISE.  AND OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS CONCERNING FRATERNAL
INSURANCE COMPANIES DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION WHICH THE COURT DRAWS
FROM THE SUPERFICIAL DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS WHICH THESE
COMPANIES POSSESS. 

AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, THOSE CASES WHICH HOLD THAT ASSESSMENTS
AGAINST FRATERNAL POLICYHOLDERS IN THEIR CAPACITY AS STOCKHOLDERS ARE
GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE COMPANY'S DOMICIL, HAVE NO RELATION TO A
FRATERNAL COMPANY'S OBLIGATION TO A BENEFICIARY OF AN INSURANCE
CONTRACT.  MOREOVER, IN SOVEREIGN CAMP W.O.W. V. BOLIN, 305 U.S. 66,
HEAVILY RELIED ON BY THE COURT, THE FRATERNAL ASSOCIATION WAS FREED
FROM LIABILITY IN A STATE IN WHICH IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS
BECAUSE A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE WHICH HAD
CHARTERED THE ASSOCIATION HAD DECLARED, IN A CLASS SUIT TO WHICH THE
CLAIMANT HAD BEEN, IN EFFECT, A PARTY, THAT THE POLICY SUED ON HAD BEEN
ISSUED ULTRA VIRES.  THUS THE BOLIN CASE IS MERELY A FAMILIAR EXAMPLE
OF ENFORCEMENT OF RES JUDICATA UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE. 
A JUDGMENT OF ANY STATE, WHETHER CHARTERING STATE OR NOT, WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO THE SAME RESPECT.  HERE, OF COURSE, THERE IS NO JUDGMENT TO
WHICH THE CLAIMANT WAS A PARTY WHICH IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT.  AND THE POWER OF THE OHIO CORPORATION, SO FAR AS OHIO LAW IS
CONCERNED, TO MAKE A CONTRACT CONSISTENT WITH SOUTH DAKOTA POLICY IS
UNQUESTIONED. 

THE OTHER CASE RELIED ON HEAVILY BY THIS COURT IS MODERN WOODMEN OF
AMERICA V. MIXER, SUPRA.  IN THAT CASE MIXER, THE BENEFICIARY, LIVED IN
NEBRASKA.  WHILE THE RECORD WAS NOT WHOLLY CLEAR, THE INSURED HAD
APPARENTLY PREVIOUSLY LIVED IN SOUTH DAKOTA, AND THE CERTIFICATE SEEMS
TO HAVE BEEN "ISSUED" THERE.  A BY-LAW OF THE WOODMEN, AN ILLINOIS
ASSOCIATION, PROVIDED THAT ITS CERTIFICATE SHOULD INSURE AGAINST DEATH
BUT THAT "LONG CONTINUED ABSENCE OF ANY MEMBER UNHEARD OF SHALL NOT ...
GIVE ANY RIGHT TO RECOVER ON ANY BENEFIT CERTIFICATE."  NEBRASKA,
WHERE MIXER BROUGHT THE SUIT, BUT IN WHICH STATE THE CONTRACT HAD NOT
BEEN MADE, HAD A RULE OF EVIDENCE THAT A PRESUMPTION OF DEATH ARISES
FROM SEVEN YEARS UNEXPLAINED ABSENCE.  APPARENTLY CONSIDERING THE BY
LAW "UNREASONABLE," THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA ENFORCED ITS LONG
CONTINUED ABSENCE RULE OF EVIDENCE AND HELD THE ASSOCIATION LIABLE. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, WHERE THE ASSOCIATION WAS CHARTERED, HAD
HELD THE BY-LAW REASONABLE IN THAT IT MERELY SHOWED A PURPOSE OF THE
ASSOCIATION TO LIMIT ITS INSURANCE TO DEATH RATHER THAN TO EXTEND IT TO
LONG-CONTINUED ABSENCES.  STEEN V. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA, 296 ILL.
104, 129 N.E. 546.  IT WAS ON THIS RECORD THAT THIS COURT REVERSED THE
NEBRASKA COURT'S DECISION IN THE MIXER CASE. 

THIS REVERSAL CAN BE JUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS OF THE MIXER CASE, WHICH
ARE CLEARLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE BEFORE US.  THERE WAS
NO CONFLICT IN MIXER BETWEEN THE POLICY OF THE STATE WHERE THE CONTRACT
WAS MADE, AND ILLINOIS, THE STATE OF THE ASSOCIATION'S DOMICIL.  FOR
THE CONTRACT APPARENTLY HAD BEEN MADE IN A THIRD STATE, SOUTH DAKOTA,
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE LAWS OF THAT STATE.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR FROM THE
RECORD OF THAT CASE THAT THE ASSOCIATION HAD BEEN LICENSED TO DO
BUSINESS SO AS TO ACCEPT EITHER THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE CONTRACT
WAS MADE, OR THAT OF NEBRASKA WHERE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  FINALLY, AS
I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS INVOLVED IN THE
MIXER CASE. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT LANGUAGE OF THE MIXER CASE MEANS THAT THE
OBLIGATIONS OF A FRATERNAL INSURANCE CORPORATION ARE TO BE GOVERNED BY
THE LAW OF ITS DOMICIL.  IF THIS LANGUAGE MEANS THAT SUCH AN
ASSOCIATION IS PRIVILEGED TO LIVE ABOVE THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE IT
DOES BUSINESS, MAKES CONTRACTS, AND IS SUED, I THINK THAT LANGUAGE
SHOULD BE REPUDIATED.  THE PURPORTED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FRATERNAL
INSURANCE COMPANIES AND OTHER RECIPROCAL, CO-OPERATIVE AND MUTUAL
INSURERS, ARE TOO FRAGMENTARY AND INCONSEQUENTIAL TO JUSTIFY ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT.  CF. HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V.
CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313. 

NEITHER IN THE MIXER CASE NOR IN THE PRESENT ONE DOES THE COURT
ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE, AND I SERIOUSLY QUESTION THAT A DEMONSTRATION
IS POSSIBLE, THAT THE INSURANCE BUSINESS OF A FRATERNAL COMPANY IS
CONDUCTED DIFFERENTLY IN ANY IMPORTANT WAY FROM THAT OF A MUTUAL,
RECIPROCAL, OR JOINT STOCK COMPANY.  THE INSURANCE PHASE OF THIS
COMPANY IS SET APART FROM THE FRATERNAL PHASE AFTER ELECTION TO
MEMBERSHIP, EVEN THOUGH PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS LEVIED FOR INSURANCE
PURPOSES IS MADE COMPULSORY.  THE PROVISIONS OF ITS CONSTITUTION SHOW
THAT INSURANCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE PRECISELY LIKE THOSE OF NON
FRATERNAL COMPANIES.  INSURANCE FUNDS ARE ADMINISTERED ON A BUSINESS
BASIS, AND THEY CANNOT BE USED FOR FRATERNAL PURPOSES.  IN SHORT, THE
INSURANCE PROGRAM AND ACTIVITIES REVEAL THAT THIS IS AN INSURANCE
COMPANY, RUN LIKE OTHER INSURANCE COMPANIES.  THE ONLY NON-PAPER
DIFFERENCE IS THAT INSURANCE IS SOLD ONLY TO MEMBERS OF THE
FRATERNITY. 

NOR IS IT APPARENT TO ME THAT AN INDIVIDUAL POLICYHOLDERMEMBER IN A
REMOTE COMMUNITY EXERCISES ANY SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE ON THE TECHNICAL
INSURANCE ASPECTS OF A FRATERNAL COMPANY'S BUSINESS.  CERTAINLY, HE CAN
NO MORE CONTROL THE POLICY CONTRACT PROVISIONS THAN COULD A MUTUAL
POLICYHOLDER OR A MEMBER OF A MEMBERSHIP LOAN ASSOCIATION.  AND THE
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER WOULD SHARE AS MUCH AND NO MORE IN THE FRATERNAL
COMPANY'S GAINS FROM OVERREACHING CONTRACTS AS WOULD PARTICIPANTS IN
THESE INDISTINGUISHABLE ASSOCIATIONS. 

THAT FRATERNAL-ORDER INSURANCE BUSINESSES SUCH AS PETITIONER'S ARE OF
A MAGNITUDE TO MOVE EACH STATE TO REGULATE THEM SO AS TO PROTECT ITS
CITIZENS CAN HARDLY BE DOUBTED.  THE BEST INFORMATION OBTAINABLE SHOWS
THAT IN 1944 FRATERNAL LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESSES IN THE UNITED STATES
HAD AGGREGATE ASSETS OF ALMOST $1,500,000,000; INCOME OF $255,600,000;
$6,794,300,000 INSURANCE IN FORCE; AND 7,582,000 OUTSTANDING
CERTIFICATES.  DURING 1944 THEY SPENT $43,300,000 FOR AGENTS AND
MANAGEMENT.  FN8  THERE IS, THUS, EVERY REASON FOR GIVING THE SAME
FORCE AND EFFECT TO STATE REGULATION OF FRATERNAL INSURANCE COMPANIES
AS IS GIVEN REGULATION OF ALL OTHER INSURANCE BUSINESSES. 

FIFTH.  I FEAR THAT IT MAY BE SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COURT HAS
CONSPICUOUSLY REFRAINED FROM STATING IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS THAT ITS NEW
DOCTRINE APPLIES ONLY TO FRATERNAL INSURANCE COMPANIES.  IF, AS THE
COURT HOLDS, THE INTEREST OF OHIO OR OF ITS CORPORATE CREATURE DOES
OUTWEIGH THE INTEREST OF EVERY STATE IN WHICH THAT CREATURE DOES
BUSINESS, I SEE NO SOUND BASIS IN THE FACTS OR IN THE AUTHORITIES CITED
BY THE COURT FOR DECLINING TO APPLY THIS FORMULA TO ALMOST EVERY TYPE
OF BUSINESS CORPORATION CREATED IN ONE STATE AND DOING BUSINESS IN
ANOTHER. 

THE EFFECT OF SUCH A DOCTRINE ON THE RIGHTS OF STATES TO GOVERN
THEMSELVES IS GRAPHICALLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE INSURANCE BUSINESS.  THE
FIVE LARGEST LEGAL RESERVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE UNITED
STATES, WITH TOTAL ASSETS OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000,000,000, HAVE THEIR
HOME OFFICES IN OR NEAR NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT.  UNITED STATES V.
SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533, 541.  THE RESULT OF THE
COURT'S OPINION, IF LATER CARRIED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION, WOULD BE
THAT THE POLICY OBLIGATIONS OF ALL OF THESE COMPANIES, IN WHATEVER
STATE ASSUMED, WOULD BE GOVERNED BY NEW YORK OR CONNECTICUT LAW OR THAT
OF NEARBY STATES, AND THAT ALL OF THE OTHER STATES WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF
POWER TO PASS LEGISLATION BELIEVED BY THEM TO BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT
THEIR OWN CITIZENS AGAINST UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS.  BY PERMITTING ITS
INSURANCE CORPORATIONS, PARTICULARLY MUTUAL COMPANIES, TO MAKE
CONTRACTS BARRING AN INSURED'S ACCESS TO STATE COURTS, NEW YORK, FOR
EXAMPLE, COULD THUS RENDER ALL THE OTHER STATES HELPLESS TO PROVIDE A
JUDICIAL HAVEN FOR THEIR OWN WRONGED CITIZENS. 

SUCH A DOCTRINE IS NOT ONLY NOVEL; IT IS REVOLUTIONARY.  I THINK THE
DOCTRINE VIOLATES THE VERY CONSTITUTION THAT IT IS OUR DUTY TO
INTERPRET.  FOR THE COURT TODAY, IN PART, NULLIFIES A GREAT PURPOSE OF
THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION, AS LATER EXPRESSED IN THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
TO LEAVE THE SEVERAL STATES FREE TO GOVERN THEMSELVES IN THEIR DOMESTIC
AFFAIRS.  HEREAFTER, IF TODAY'S DOCTRINE SHOULD BE CARRIED TO ITS
LOGICAL END, THE STATE IN WHICH THE MOST POWERFUL CORPORATIONS ARE
CONCENTRATED, OR THOSE CORPORATIONS THEMSELVES, MIGHT WELL BE ABLE TO
PASS LAWS WHICH WOULD GOVERN CONTRACTS MADE BY THE PEOPLE IN ALL OF THE
OTHER STATES. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THIS JUDGMENT. 

FN1  TOWNSEND V. JEMISON, 9 HOW.  407, 410; BANK OF ALABAMA V.
DALTON, 9 HOW.  522, 528; BACON V. HOWARD, 20 HOW.  22, 25; CHRISTMAS
V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290, 300; AMY V. DUBUQUE, 98 U.S. 470, 471;
CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115 U.S. 620, 626; CAMPBELL V. HAVERHILL, 155 U.S.
610, 618.  SEE ALSO CHASE SECURITIES CORP. V. DONALDSON, 325 U.S. 304;
MICHIGAN INS. BANK V. ELDRED, 130 U.S. 693; BANK OF UNITED STATES V.
DONNALLY, 8 PET. 361; M'CLUNY V. SILLIMAN, 3 PET. 270. 

FN2  THE COURT ALSO REFERS TO HARTFORD A. & I. CO. V. DELTA & PINE
LAND CO., 292 U.S. 143, AND HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397.  THE
COURT DOES NOT REST ITS DECISION ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  BUT THE
DECISIONS IN THOSE CASES WENT ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, AND, FAR FROM
SUPPORTING THE HOLDINGS HERE, ARE ACTUALLY INCONSISTENT WITH IT.  IF
THEY ARE TO BE FOLLOWED THEY STAND FOR THE PROPOSITIONS THAT A STATE
WHICH HAS NO INTEREST AT ALL, OR ONLY A MINOR INTEREST, IN THE
TRANSACTION SUED ON CANNOT, BECAUSE OF THE MERE ACCIDENT OF SUPPLYING
THE JUDICIAL FORUM, APPLY ITS OWN STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SO AS TO
DEFEAT THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT VALID IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE
OBLIGATION WAS INITIATED, NEGOTIATED, AND COMPLETED.  THE TWO CASES
CAST CONSIDERABLE DOUBT ON OHIO'S POWER TO HAVE APPLIED ITS LIMITATION
STATUTE HAD THIS SUIT BEEN FILED THERE; CONVERSELY, THEY PROVIDE RATHER
PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT A CONTENTION THAT SOUTH DAKOTA'S STATUTE
SHOULD CONTROL LIABILITY HERE IN VIEW OF THAT STATE'S CONSIDERABLE
INTEREST, EVEN BEYOND THAT OF PROVIDING THE FORUM OF THIS ACTION. 

FN3  THE COURT TAKES THE VIEW THAT IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A
CONTRACT PROVISION LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SUIT CAN BE BROUGHT
MAY OVERRIDE A STATE'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVIDING A LONGER
PERIOD.  FOR THIS PROPOSITION IT CITES RIDDLESBARGER V. HARTFORD INS.
CO., 7 WALL.  386.  THAT CASE CAME FROM A FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT IN
MISSOURI WHERE THE SOLE PROBLEM POSED OR DECIDED WAS WHETHER UNDER
MISSOURI LAW OR GENERAL FEDERAL LAW A CONTRACT LIMITATION VIOLATED THE
POLICY OF MISSOURI EXPRESSED IN ITS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  BUT SEE
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99.  THERE WAS NO FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT QUESTION, DUE PROCESS QUESTION, OR ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION.  M'ELMOYLE V. COHEN, SUPRA, WAS NOT CITED IN THE
RIDDLESBARGER CASE.  NOR WAS IT RELEVANT BECAUSE NO FOREIGN LAW WAS PUT
FORWARD WHICH MIGHT REQUIRE MISSOURI TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO
IT. 

FN4  "THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCIATION IS TO MAKE LOANS ONLY TO ITS
MEMBERS, AND FOR THE FURTHER PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATING A FUND TO BE
RETURNED TO ITS MEMBERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE ADVANCES ON THEIR SHARES." 
NATIONAL MUTUAL BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BRAHAN, 193 U.S. 635, 636. 

FN5  THE COURT PURPORTS NOT TO OVERRULE THESE CASES FOR IT STATES:
"...  WE DO NOT RELY UPON THE PLACE OF CONCLUDING THE CONTRACT OF
MEMBERSHIP OR UPON THE PLACE PRESCRIBED FOR ITS PERFORMANCE."    FN6
HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313; OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310
U.S. 53; MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 293 U.S. 335, 339;
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. MCCUE, 223 U.S. 234, 246-248;
WHITFIELD V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA, 495; KNIGHTS TEMPLARS' &
MASONS' LIFE INDEMNITY CO. V. JARMAN, SUPRA; CHATTANOOGA NATIONAL BLDG.
& LOAN ASSN. V. DENSON, 189 U.S. 408; NATIONAL BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V.
BRAHAN, SUPRA; WALL V. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR.  SOC., 32 F. 273, AFFIRMED
SUB NOM. EQUITABLE LIFE SOCIETY V. CLEMENTS, 140 U.S. 226. 

FN7  THIS CONTRAST IS DRAMATIZED BY THE CONSEQUENCES TO OHIO'S
INTEREST IN THE INJURY WHICH WOULD FLOW FROM SOUTH DAKOTA'S DISREGARD
FOR THIS CONTRACT LIMITATION WHICH VIOLATES SOUTH DAKOTA'S PUBLIC
POLICY.  IT IS CERTAINLY A TENUOUS THREAD WHICH WOULD LINK SOUTH
DAKOTA'S REFUSAL TO ENFORCE THIS AND SIMILAR LIMITATIONS TO THE UNDUE
DEPLETION OF THE CORPORATE FUNDS.  FOR IT IS UNLIKELY THAT IN
CALCULATING RATES AND RISKS, ACTUARIES TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE CHANCE
THAT THE COMPANY MIGHT ESCAPE PAYING JUST CLAIMS BECAUSE OF COMPANY
IMPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE TIME FOR BRINGING SUIT.  ON THE OTHER HAND
RECOVERY OF INSURANCE CLAIMS OFTEN SAVES INSURANCE BENEFICIARIES FROM
BECOMING PUBLIC CHARGES OF THE STATE OF THEIR RESIDENCE. 

FN8  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES, DEPT. OF COMMERCE,
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS (1946) 442. 
..END :





















UNITED STATES V. WYOMING, 331 U.S. 440 


NO. 10, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1947. 


1.  TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN A SECTION GRANTED TO THE STATE AS SCHOOL
LANDS BY THE WYOMING ENABLING ACT OF JULY 10, 1890, BUT WHICH, PRIOR TO
COMPLETION OF AN OFFICIAL SURVEY, WERE INCLUDED IN A PETROLEUM RESERVE
BY A PRESIDENTIAL ORDER PROMULGATED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE ACT OF JUNE
25, 1910, HELD NOT TO HAVE VESTED IN THE STATE.  PP. 443-455. 

(A)  THE WYOMING ENABLING ACT, THOUGH CONTAINING WORDS OF PRESENT
GRANT, DID NOT VEST IN THE STATE, IMMEDIATELY UPON ADMISSION INTO THE
UNION, AN INDEFEASIBLE PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE UNSURVEYED SECTION,
OF SUCH NATURE AS PRECLUDED DISPOSITION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.  PP. 444-446. 

(B)  NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 14 OF THE ORGANIC ACT
OF 1868, NOR OF OTHER ACTS PASSED PRIOR TO THE WYOMING ENABLING ACT,
SUPPORTS THE STATE'S CLAIM TO TITLE IN THIS CASE.  PP. 446-448. 

(C)  THE WORDS "BUT SHALL BE RESERVED FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES ONLY" IN
SEC. 5 OF THE ENABLING ACT, TOGETHER WITH THE WORDS OF PRESENT GRANT IN
SEC. 4, ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS IMMEDIATELY VESTING IN THE STATE AN
INDEFEASIBLE INTEREST IN THE GRANTED LANDS, NOR AS A LIMITATION ON THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO DEAL WITH SUCH LANDS IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES.  PP. 448-455. 

2.  THE STATE CAN NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE ACQUIRED AN INDEFEASIBLE
EQUITABLE RIGHT TO THE SECTION ON THE BASIS OF A SURVEY WHICH WAS
INCOMPLETE.  PP. 455-456. 

3.  ON THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER FOR OIL TAKEN FROM
PUBLIC LANDS, THE PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE PUT IN ISSUE THE DEFENDANTS'
GOOD FAITH, AND THE MASTER ERRED IN EXCLUDING EVIDENCE RELATING TO THIS
ISSUE AND IN FINDING THAT EITHER OR BOTH OF THE DEFENDANTS HAD ACTED
INNOCENTLY.  PP. 457-459. 

4.  THE PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTION TO THE MASTER'S FAILURE, EVEN ON THE
PRESENT RECORD, TO MAKE FINDINGS OF THE DEFENDANTS' BAD FAITH AND TO
RECOMMEND A DECREE AWARDING DAMAGES ACCORDINGLY, CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. 
PP. 459-460. 

5.  THE GOOD FAITH ISSUE HAVING BEEN FORECLOSED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR
BY THE MASTER BEFORE ANY EVIDENCE HAD BEEN INTRODUCED AND CONSISTENTLY
THROUGHOUT THE HEARING, IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE DEFENDANTS TO
MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF OF GOOD FAITH IN ORDER TO HAVE A TRIAL OF THE
ISSUE IF THE MASTER SHOULD BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN WRONG.  P. 459. 

6.  CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE OWNER'S TITLE DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE
A TRESPASSER'S BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW.  P. 460. 

7.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO TRY THE ISSUE OF
DEFENDANTS' GOOD FAITH THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PERIOD IN DISPUTE, AS THE
BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE MEASURE OF PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY.  P. 460. 

8.  THE MASTER SHOULD MAKE SPECIAL FINDINGS - SO FAR AS THE PARTIES
REQUEST THEM AND ADDUCE COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM - AS TO THE
VALUE OF THE OIL PRODUCED AND THE AMOUNT AND NATURE OF ANY COLLATERAL
PROCEEDS FROM THE OPERATION, SEPARATELY, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT OF EACH
ITEM OF INCOME AND EXPENSE BY THE MONTH AND YEAR.  P. 460. 

UNITED STATES V. WYOMING ET AL. 

THIS WAS AN ORIGINAL SUIT IN EQUITY IN THIS COURT, BROUGHT BY THE
UNITED STATES AGAINST THE STATE OF WYOMING AND THE OHIO OIL COMPANY, TO
QUIET TITLE IN THE UNITED STATES TO CERTAIN LANDS IN WYOMING AND TO
RECOVER FOR OIL REMOVED FROM THE LANDS BY THE COMPANY UNDER A LEASE
FROM THE STATE.  THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO A SPECIAL MASTER.  UPON
EXCEPTIONS BY THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANTS TO THE MASTER'S REPORT,
THE CASE IS RECOMMITTED TO HIM FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, P. 461. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES FILED A COMPLAINT IN THIS COURT AGAINST THE STATE
OF WYOMING AND THE OHIO OIL COMPANY TO ESTABLISH PLAINTIFF'S TITLE TO
CERTAIN WYOMING LANDS CLAIMED BY THE STATE, AND TO RECOVER FOR OIL
WHICH THE COMPANY HAS TAKEN FROM THE LANDS UNDER A LEASE FROM THE
STATE.  FN1 

BY JOINT ANSWER, THE DEFENDANTS CLAIMED TITLE IN THE STATE, AND THAT
BOTH DEFENDANTS HAVE AT ALL TIMES IN GOOD FAITH BELIEVED TITLE TO BE IN
THE STATE. 

THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO A SPECIAL MASTER, WHO HEARD EVIDENCE AND
ARGUMENT, AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT A REPORT, IN WHICH HE RECOMMENDED
A DECREE QUIETING PLAINTIFF'S TITLE TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION, BUT
DENYING PLAINTIFF ANY RECOVERY FOR THE OIL HERETOFORE TAKEN.  BOTH
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS HAVE ENTERED EXCEPTIONS TO THE ADVERSE PARTS
OF THE REPORT, AND THE CASE IS NOW BEFORE US ON SUCH EXCEPTIONS.  FN2 

THE LANDS IN DISPUTE ARE THOSE LYING WITHIN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 58,
PARK COUNTY, WYOMING.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT PLAINTIFF ORIGINALLY HAD
TITLE TO THESE LANDS AS PART OF THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THE MASTER HELD THAT THE ENABLING ACT OF JULY 10, 1890,  FN3  ON WHICH
DEFENDANTS RELY AS THE SOURCE OF THEIR RIGHTS, PROPERLY CONSTRUED,
WOULD OPERATE TO VEST TITLE IN THE STATE ONLY AS OF THE DATE THAT AN
OFFICIAL SURVEY OF THE LINES OF THE SECTION WAS APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE, AND THEN ONLY IF NO
INCONSISTENT DISPOSITION OF THE LANDS HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY MADE.  THE
MASTER FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH SURVEY WAS MADE AND APPROVED UNTIL
JULY 27, 1916.  SEVERAL MONTHS EARLIER, ON DECEMBER 6, 1915, THESE
LANDS HAD BEEN PLACED IN A PETROLEUM RESERVE BY PRESIDENTIAL ORDER. 
FN4 

DEFENDANTS' EXCEPTIONS TO THE MASTER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
RELATING TO TITLE GIVE EXPRESSION TO TWO BASIC CONTENTIONS:  FIRST,
THAT THE ENABLING ACT IMMEDIATELY VESTED IN THE STATE AN INDEFEASIBLE
RIGHT TO WHATEVER LANDS WOULD BE FOUND ON LATER SURVEY TO LIE WITHIN
EQUITY, WHICH RIPENED INTO FULL LEGAL TITLE WHEN THE COMPLETE SURVEY
WAS MADE AND APPROVED IN 1916.  THESE CONTENTIONS WILL BE FURTHER
ELABORATED AND DISCUSSED IN ORDER. 

CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY FIRST GIVEN EXPRESSION IN THE ORDINANCE OF
1785, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS INCLUDED GRANTS OF DESIGNATED SECTIONS
OF THE PUBLIC LANDS FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES IN THE ENABLING ACT OF EACH OF
THE STATES ADMITTED INTO THE UNION SINCE 1802.  FN5  THIS COURT HAS
FREQUENTLY BEEN CALLED UPON TO CONSTRUE THE PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS
OF SUCH GRANTS.  IT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN HELD THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF
THE GRANTS HITHERTO CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT, TITLE TO UNSURVEYED
DOES NOT PASS TO THE STATE UPON ITS ADMISSION INTO THE UNION, BUT
REMAINS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNTIL THE LAND IS SURVEYED.  PRIOR TO
SURVEY, THOSE SECTIONS ARE A PART OF THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND MAY BE DISPOSED OF BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY MANNER AND FOR
ANY PURPOSE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES.  IF UPON
SURVEY IT IS FOUND THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS MADE A PREVIOUS
DISPOSITION OF THE SECTION, THE STATE IS THEN ENTITLED TO SELECT LIEU
LANDS AS INDEMNITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS INCORPORATED INTO EACH
OF THE SCHOOL-LAND GRANTS.  THE INTEREST OF THE STATE VESTS AT THE DATE
OF ITS ADMISSION INTO THE UNION ONLY AS TO THOSE SECTIONS WHICH ARE
SURVEYED AT THAT TIME AND WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAVE NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN6 

DEFENDANTS CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT REGARDLESS OF THE RULE GENERALLY
APPLICABLE IN SCHOOL-GRANT CASES, THE PROVISIONS OF THE WYOMING
ENABLING ACT ARE SUCH THAT UPON HER ADMISSION INTO THE UNION IN 1890,
AN INDEFEASIBLE PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN SECTIONS 16 AND 36 IN EACH
TOWNSHIP, WHETHER SURVEYED OR UNSURVEYED, VESTED IMMEDIATELY IN THE
STATE, EXCEPT AS TO SUCH SECTIONS AS HAD BEEN DISPOSED OF PREVIOUSLY BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  THIS INTEREST, IT IS
CONTENDED, IS OF SUCH A NATURE, AS TO PRECLUDE ANY APPROPRIATION OR
RESERVATION OF UNSURVEYED SECTIONS 16 AND 36 BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AFTER THE DATE OF WYOMING'S ADMISSION INTO THE UNION.  IT IS
DEFENDANTS' POSITION, THEREFORE, THAT THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES ISSUED DECEMBER 6, 1915, WHICH CAUSED THE LANDS HERE IN
ISSUE TO BE INCLUDED IN PETROLEUM RESERVE NO. 41, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
DEFEAT THE STATE'S INTEREST, EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT A SURVEY OF
THAT SECTION HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED AT THAT TIME.  WE, ACCORDINGLY,
TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE WYOMING ENABLING ACT WHICH
DEFENDANTS RELY UPON TO SUPPORT THEIR CONTENTIONS. 


"THAT SECTIONS NUMBERED SIXTEEN AND THIRTY-SIX IN EVERY TOWNSHIP OF
SAID PROPOSED STATE, AND WHERE SUCH SECTIONS, OR ANY PARTS THEREOF,
HAVE BEEN SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, OTHER LANDS EQUIVALENT THERETO  ...  ARE HEREBY
GRANTED TO SAID STATE FOR THE SUPPORT OF COMMON SCHOOLS,  ...
PROVIDED, THAT SECTION SIX OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF AUGUST NINTH,
EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-EIGHT,  FN7  ...  SHALL APPLY TO THE SCHOOL
AND UNIVERSITY INDEMNITY LANDS OF THE SAID STATE OF WYOMING SO FAR AS
APPLICABLE." 

DEFENDANTS FIRST POINT TO THE FACT THAT IN THE GRANTING CLAUSE,
CONGRESS EMPLOYED WORDS OF PRESENT GRANT.  THIS IS SAID TO EVINCE AN
INTENTION TO VEST IMMEDIATELY IN THE STATE, NOT ONLY LEGAL TITLE TO
ALSO AN INDEFEASIBLE PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE UNSURVEYED SECTIONS OF
THE SCHOOL LANDS.  WE BELIEVE THAT THIS CONTENTION IS PRECLUDED BY
EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  IN HEYDENFELDT V. DANEY GOLD & SILVER
MINING CO., 93 U.S. 634(1877), DECIDED SOME THIRTEEN YEARS BEFORE THE
PASSAGE OF THE WYOMING ACT, THIS COURT CONSTRUED THE GRANTING CLAUSE OF
THE NEVADA ENABLING ACT, WHICH CONTAINS LANGUAGE SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL TO THAT OF SEC. 4 OF THE WYOMING ACT,  FN8  AS NOT
IMMEDIATELY VESTING IN THE STATE TITLE TO SECTIONS OF THE SCHOOL LANDS
UNSURVEYED AT THE DATE OF ADMISSION.  FN9  IN UNITED STATES V.
MORRISON, 240 U.S. 192, 205(1916), THIS COURT STATED:  "WE REGARD THE
DECISION IN THE HEYDENFELDT CASE AS ESTABLISHING A DEFINITE RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION." 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT, ALSO, THAT THREE YEARS BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE
WYOMING ACT, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IN CONSTRUING THE GRANTING
CLAUSE OF THE COLORADO ENABLING ACT, WHICH ALSO CONTAINS LANGUAGE OF
PRESENT GRANT, TOOK THE POSITION THAT TITLE TO UNSURVEYED SCHOOL LANDS
PASSES TO THE STATE ONLY AT THE DATE OF SURVEY AND THEN ONLY WHERE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS MADE NO OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE LAND PRIOR TO
THAT TIME.  FN10 

DEFENDANTS URGE, HOWEVER, THAT THE PERTINENT LANGUAGE OF THE WYOMING
ENABLING ACT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF 1868,  FN11  UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH
WYOMING WAS ORGANIZED INTO A TERRITORY.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT SEC. 14
OF THE ORGANIC ACT AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED RESERVED SECTIONS 16 AND 36
IN EACH TOWNSHIP FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES AT THE TIME "WHEN THE LANDS IN
SAID TERRITORY SHALL BE SURVEYED, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, PREPARATORY TO BRINGING THE SAME INTO MARKET. 
...  "  DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEBATES ON THE BILL, SEC. 14 WAS
AMENDED TO ELIMINATE THE PHRASE QUOTED ABOVE, SO THAT AS FINALLY
ENACTED THE ORGANIC ACT MADE A PRESENT RESERVATION OF THE LANDS FOR
SCHOOL PURPOSES.  FN12  IT IS NOT DEFENDANTS' CONTENTION THAT SEC. 14
OF THE ORGANIC ACT MUST NECESSARILY PREVAIL OVER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ENABLING ACT.  IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT AS A GUIDE TO CONSTRUCTION,
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 14 OF THE ORGANIC ACT CLEARLY INDICATES
AN INTENTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO VEST IN WYOMING, AT THE DATE OF
ITS ADMISSION AS A STATE, IMMEDIATE INTERESTS IN ALL SCHOOL LANDS,
WHETHER SURVEYED OR UNSURVEYED, SUCH AS TO DEFEAT ANY SUBSEQUENT
ATTEMPTS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RESERVE THE SECTIONS FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. 

WE FIND THE ARGUMENT UNCONVINCING.  DURING THE COURSE OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES WHICH PRECEDED THE AMENDING OF SEC. 14 OF THE
ORGANIC ACT, CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT
DELAYING THE RESERVATION FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES UNTIL THE DATE OF SURVEY
WOULD LEAVE OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE MOST CHOICE SCHOOL LANDS
WOULD BE SETTLED UPON BY SQUATTERS, PREEMPTORS, OR HOMESTEADERS, PRIOR
TO SURVEY SO AS TO DEFEAT THE RESERVATION OF THOSE LANDS FOR SCHOOL
PURPOSES.  IT WAS APPARENTLY TO DEAL WITH THAT SITUATION THAT THE
AMENDMENT WAS PASSED.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO
PRESERVE THE RESERVATION OF THE SCHOOL LANDS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF
INDIVIDUAL SETTLERS, HOWEVER, AS EVINCING ANY INTENTION TO STRIP FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DEAL WITH THOSE LANDS IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AS AUTHORIZED BY THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES.  THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT SO INTEND IS INDICATED BY THE FACT THAT ONLY FOUR
YEARS AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ORGANIC ACT, CONGRESS RESERVED A LARGE
TRACT OF THE PUBLIC LANDS IN WYOMING FOR THE YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL
PARK.  FN13  IN THE ENABLING ACT, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT
WYOMING WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY FOR SECTIONS 16 AND 36 IN THE
TOWNSHIPS INCLUDED WITHIN THE YELLOWSTONE RESERVATION.  EVEN AS TO THE
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL SETTLERS ON THE SCHOOL LANDS, CONGRESS PURSUED NO
CONSISTENT COURSE.  ALTHOUGH THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 14 OF THE ORGANIC
ACT APPARENTLY WAS PASSED TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE TERRITORY TO THE
SCHOOL LANDS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS, CONGRESS, IN THE
ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1888,  FN14 GAVE RECOGNITION TO THE CLAIMS OF
HOMESTEADERS AND PREEMPTORS ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO SURVEY AND GRANTED TO
THE TERRITORY THE RIGHT TO SELECT OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS IN
LIEU THEREOF.  WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE ACTS PASSED BEFORE THE WYOMING ENABLING ACT GIVES
SUPPORT TO THE STATE'S CLAIM TO TITLE IN THIS CASE. 

DEFENDANT'S PRINCIPAL CONTENTION, HOWEVER, IS THAT, REGARDLESS OF THE
CONSTRUCTION WHICH MIGHT BE REQUIRED IF THE GRANTING CLAUSE OF THE
ENABLING ACT STOOD ALONE, THAT CLAUSE, READ IN CONNECTION WITH SEC. 5
OF THE ACT, GIVES CLEAR SUPPORT TO THEIR POSITION.  SECTION 5 PROVIDES
AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT ALL LANDS HEREIN GRANTED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES SHALL BE
DISPOSED OF ONLY AT PUBLIC SALE,  ...  ; AND SUCH LAND SHALL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO PREEMPTION, HOMESTEAD ENTRY, OR ANY OTHER ENTRY UNDER THE
LAND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER SURVEYED OR UNSURVEYED, BUT
SHALL BE RESERVED FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES ONLY." 

DEFENDANTS VIGOROUSLY ASSERT THAT THE PHRASE "BUT SHALL BE RESERVED
FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES ONLY" COMPLETELY AND IRREVOCABLY DIVESTED THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF POWER TO DISPOSE OF OR TO DEAL WITH ANY SECTIONS
16 AND 36 OF THE PUBLIC LANDS IN THE STATE NOT SOLD OR OTHERWISE
DISPOSED OF PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ENABLING ACT.  THIS PHRASE READ
IN CONNECTION WITH THE LANGUAGE OF PRESENT GRANT IN SEC. 4, IT IS
ASSERTED, REVEALS A CLEAR INTENTION TO VEST IMMEDIATELY IN THE STATE AN
INDEFEASIBLE INTEREST IN ALL SUCH LANDS.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE
LANGUAGE SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED. 

THE PHRASE "BUT SHALL BE RESERVED FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES ONLY" SHOULD
NOT BE CONSIDERED APART FROM THE LANGUAGE WHICH IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES
IT.  THE CLAUSE BEGINNING WITH THE SEMICOLON IN THE LAST SENTENCE IN
THE SECTION CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY TREATS THE CLAIMS OF INDIVIDUALS TO
SCHOOL LANDS ASSERTED UNDER THE FEDERAL LAND LAWS AND PROVIDES THAT
THOSE CLAIMS SHOULD NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE STATE.  THE PHRASE UPON
WHICH WYOMING RELIES SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN AFFIRMATION OF THE
STATE'S INTEREST AS OPPOSED TO THE CLAIMS OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS.  THE
PHRASE, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A LIMITATION ON THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S POWERS TO DEAL WITH SUCH LANDS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTES.  THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLIC LANDS, AS CONTRASTED TO THE CLAIMS OF
INDIVIDUALS ASSERTED UNDER THE LAND LAWS, ARE NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A LIMITATION ON THOSE POWERS.  FN15 

CONVINCING SUPPORT FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION IS FOUND BOTH IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SEC. 5 OF THE WYOMING
ACT AND IN SUBSEQUENT CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS.  LANGUAGE IDENTICAL TO
THE LAST CLAUSE OF SEC. 5 FIRST APPEARED AS PART OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT
OF FEBRUARY 22, 1889,  FN16  THE ENABLING ACT FOR THE STATES OF
WASHINGTON, MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA.  A BILL
AUTHORIZING THE ADMISSION OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AND CONTAINING LANGUAGE
SIMILAR TO THAT LATER INCLUDED IN SEC. 5 OF THE WYOMING ACT, WAS FIRST
PASSED BY THE SENATE.  FN17 WHEN THE CAME BEFORE THE HOUSE FOR
CONSIDERATION, AN AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED WHICH STRUCK OUT ALL THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SENATE BILL FOLLOWING THE ENACTING CLAUSE AND
SUBSTITUTED A BILL CALLING FOR THE ADMISSION OF WASHINGTON, MONTANA,
NORTH DAKOTA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA.  FN18  AS FINALLY PASSED BY THE HOUSE,
THE SUBSTITUTE BILL PROVIDED THAT RIGHTS OF SETTLERS TO THE SCHOOL
LANDS SHOULD BE PRESERVED WHERE SETTLEMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO SURVEY
OR BEFORE APPROVAL OF THE ACT OF ADMISSION.  FN19  THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, REJECTED THOSE PROVISIONS; AND THE ACT AS PASSED
INCLUDED LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE ORIGINAL SENATE BILL AND
IDENTICAL TO THAT LATER INCORPORATED INTO THE WYOMING ACT, PROVIDING
THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE STATES TO THE SCHOOL SECTIONS SHOULD PREVAIL
OVER THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SETTLERS.  FN20  IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE BILL AND THE SENATE
BILL RELATED TO THE COMPETING INTERESTS OF THE STATES AND THE
INDIVIDUAL SETTLERS.  NOTHING IN THIS HISTORY INDICATES THAT BY
ACCEPTING THE ALTERNATIVE PROVIDED IN THE SENATE BILL AND RESOLVING THE
CONFLICT IN FAVOR OF THE STATES, CONGRESS INTENDED, ALSO, TO EXTINGUISH
THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THERETOFORE EXERCISED, WITH
RESPECT TO THE UNSURVEYED SECTIONS OF THE SCHOOL LANDS.  NOR IS THERE
ANY EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SUCH A DEPARTURE FROM PREVIOUS
PRACTICE WHEN IT INCORPORATED AN IDENTICAL CLAUSE INTO SEC. 5 OF THE
WYOMING ACT.  INDEED, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT STATES THAT THE
ENABLING ACT GIVES TO WYOMING "THE USUAL LAND GRANTS,"  FN21  AND THE
MANAGER OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DURING THE COURSE
OF THE DEBATES MADE A SIMILAR STATEMENT.  FN22 

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE HAVE INDICATED AS
PROPER MAY BE FOUND IN SUBSEQUENT CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS.  THUS IN
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1891, WHICH BECAME LAW ONLY SEVEN MONTHS AFTER
THE PASSAGE OF THE WYOMING ENABLING ACT, CONGRESS CLEARLY REVEALED ITS
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD RETAINED ITS POWERS TO
RESERVE AND DISPOSE OF THE UNSURVEYED SCHOOL LANDS.  THAT ACT, THE
PERTINENT LANGUAGE OF WHICH IS SET OUT IN THE MARGIN, FN23  ATTEMPTS,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE
GRANTING OF LIEU LANDS TO THE STATES WHERE UPON SURVEY IT IS FOUND THAT
THE DESIGNATED SECTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO HOMESTEAD AND PRE-EMPTION CLAIMS
OR WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS INCLUDED SUCH SECTIONS WITHIN A
RESERVATION OR HAS DISPOSED OF THEM IN SOME OTHER WAY.  IT SHOULD BE
OBSERVED THAT WHEN DEALING WITH THE RIGHT OF THE STATES TO SELECT LIEU
LANDS WHERE HOMESTEAD AND PRE-EMPTION CLAIMS ARE INVOLVED, CONGRESS
FIRST INSERTED LANGUAGE IN THE ACT DESIGNED TO CREATE IN INDIVIDUALS
HOLDING SUCH CLAIMS RIGHTS SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF THE STATES TO THE
SCHOOL SECTIONS UPON WHICH SETTLEMENT BEFORE SURVEY HAS BEEN MADE.  BUT
IN DEALING WITH THE SELECTION OF LIEU LANDS WHERE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO SURVEY HAS INCLUDED THE DESIGNATED SCHOOL SECTIONS
IN A RESERVATION OR HAS OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF THEM, CONGRESS DID NOT
FIND IT NECESSARY FIRST TO CREATE THE POWER IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO MAKE SUCH RESERVATIONS OR DISPOSITIONS.  RATHER, ON THE APPARENT
ASSUMPTION THAT SUCH POWERS HAD BEEN RETAINED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND WERE PRESENTLY EXISTING, CONGRESS MERELY PROVIDED FOR THE SELECTION
OF LIEU LANDS BY THE STATES WHERE UPON SURVEY IT IS FOUND THAT THOSE
POWERS HAVE BEEN EXERCISED.  IT IS APPARENT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT
THE ACT OF 1891 SHOULD APPLY TO WYOMING AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER SCHOOL
LAND STATES.  FN24  INDEED, WYOMING ON AT LEAST TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS
SO CONTENDED AND SUCCEEDED IN OBTAINING BENEFITS UNDER THE ACT.  FN25
WE NEED NOT NOW CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE ACT OF 1891 INSOFAR AS IT
MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE WYOMING ENABLING ACT,
FOR IT IS OUR VIEW THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROBLEM OF THIS CASE NO
INCONSISTENCY EXISTS.  IT IS NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE, ALSO, THAT IN
1934, CONGRESS, AFTER HAVING BEEN FULLY APPRISED OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCHOOL-LAND PROVISIONS OF THE WYOMING ENABLING ACT,
FN26  WHICH IS IN ACCORD WITH THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE HAVE MADE,
AMENDED SEC. 5 OF THAT ACT BUT REENACTED ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THAT

DEFENDANTS' VIEW THAT, BY VIRTUE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE ENABLING ACT,
CONGRESS EXTINGUISHED THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUBSEQUENTLY
TO DISPOSE OF THE UNSURVEYED SCHOOL SECTIONS IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, ADMITTEDLY WOULD PLACE WYOMING IN A FAVORED
POSITION AMONG THE SCHOOL-GRANT STATES.  SUCH A RESULT DOES NOT ACCORD
WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL EXPECTATION THAT THE SCHOOL GRANT SHOULD HAVE
"EQUAL OPERATION AND EQUAL BENEFIT IN ALL THE PUBLIC LAND STATES AND
TERRITORIES."  N28  DEFENDANTS SUGGEST NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR
PECULIAR CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WHICH CONVINCINGLY INDICATE A PURPOSE
ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO PLACE WYOMING ON OTHER THAN AN EQUAL FOOTING
WITH OTHER STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE UNSURVEYED SCHOOL SECTIONS. 

FURTHERMORE, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT RECURRING PROBLEMS FACED BY
CONGRESS DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE WYOMING ENABLING ACT WAS PASSED
WAS THE NECESSITY OF RESERVING TRACTS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS TO ACCOMPLISH
SUCH IMPORTANT PURPOSES AS PRESERVING THE NATIONAL FORESTS AND MINERAL
RESOURCES, ESTABLISHING PUBLIC PARKS, AND THE LIKE.  FN29  VESTING IN
THE STATE AN IMMEDIATE AND IRREVOCABLE INTEREST IN THE SCHOOL SECTIONS
BEFORE SUCH SECTIONS HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY WOULD BE TO
COMPLICATE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION WITH RESPECT
TO THE PUBLIC LANDS.  THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SUCH COMPLICATION SEEMS
MOST UNLIKELY WHEN IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE GRANT
OF LANDS TO THE STATE FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES COULD BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT
PRODUCING THAT RESULT.  THUS SEC. 4 OF THE ENABLING ACT MAKES PROVISION
FOR INDEMNIFICATION TO THE STATE WHERE THE DESIGNATED SCHOOL SECTIONS
ARE DISPOSED OF FOR OTHER PURPOSES BY AUTHORIZING THE SELECTION OF
LANDS BY THE STATE IN LIEU THEREOF.  SECTION 6 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 9,
1888,  FN30 WHICH WAS INCORPORATED INTO SEC. 4 OF THE ENABLING ACT "SO
FAR AS APPLICABLE," SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR THE SELECTION OF LIEU
LANDS WHERE THE SCHOOL SECTIONS "HAVE BEEN OR SHALL HEREAFTER BE
RESERVED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES." 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT FOR A PERIOD EXTENDING OVER HALF A CENTURY,
THE LAND DECISIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HAVE CONSISTENTLY
TAKEN THE POSITION THAT TITLE TO UNSURVEYED SCHOOL SECTIONS PASSES TO
THE STATE ONLY UPON COMPLETION OF THE SURVEY, AND PRIOR TO THAT TIME
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT INHIBITED FROM MAKING SUCH RESERVATIONS
AND DISPOSITIONS OF THE LANDS AS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND AS
AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE STATUTES.  MANY OF THOSE DECISIONS INVOLVED
STATUTORY LANGUAGE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE WYOMING
ENABLING ACT.  FN31  WE SHOULD BE SLOW AT THIS LATE DATE TO UPSET THE
RULINGS "  ...  OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO WHICH IS
COMMITTED THE ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS."  FN32 

FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT AT THE DATE OF HER
ADMISSION TO THE UNION, WYOMING ACQUIRED NO SUCH INTEREST IN THE LANDS
IN ISSUE THAT COULD NOT BE DEFEATED BY THE INCLUSION OF THOSE LANDS IN
A PETROLEUM RESERVE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACTING PRIOR TO SURVEY. 

WE ALSO THINK THAT DEFENDANTS' RELIANCE ON THE COLEMAN SURVEY OF 1892
AS THE BASIS OF AN INDEFEASIBLE EQUITABLE RIGHT TO SECTION 36 IS
MISPLACED, AND MAY BE ANSWERED BRIEFLY. 

THAT SURVEY WAS UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FROM THE STATE TO
THE UNITED STATES SURVEYOR GENERAL THAT TOWNSHIP 58 BE SURVEYED AND
SUBDIVIDED, IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE STATE TO MAKE SELECTIONS OF SCHOOL
LANDS, AND THE CONTRACT AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SURVEY SO DIRECTED. 
THE SURVEY WHICH WAS THEN MADE, HOWEVER, ACTUALLY FIXED ONLY THE
BOUNDARIES OF TOWNSHIP 58, AND MARKED ONE-MILE INTERVALS ON THOSE
BOUNDARIES, BUT DID NOT SUBDIVIDE THE TOWNSHIP.  SECTION 36 LIES IN THE
TOWNSHIP'S SOUTHEAST CORNER, AND ITS SOUTHERN AND EASTERN BOUNDARIES
ARE CONCURRENT WITH PART OF THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN TOWNSHIP
BOUNDARIES, BUT THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN SECTION BOUNDARIES REMAINED
UNDETERMINED.  THIS WAS NOT A COMPLETED SURVEY OF SECTION 36.  FN33 

DEFENDANTS NO LONGER CONTEND THAT IT WAS.  THEY ARGUE ONLY THAT IT
"IDENTIFIED" SECTION 36, OR MADE IT "SUSCEPTIBLE OF IDENTIFICATION BY
PROTRACTION," SUFFICIENTLY THAT THE STATE SHOULD IN EQUITY BE HELD TO
HAVE ACQUIRED VESTED RIGHTS IN THE SECTION AS OF THE DATE THIS SURVEY
WAS APPROVED.  THEY CLAIM SUPPORT FOR THIS POSITION IN SEVERAL
DECISIONS RECOGNIZING THAT THE TITLE OF CERTAIN WESTERN RAILROADS
GRANTED LANDS BY THE UNITED STATES VESTED WHEN THE LINE OF ROUTE WAS
SELECTED AND A PLAN THEREOF FILED, WHETHER OR NOT THE ADJACENT LANDS
HAD THEN BEEN SURVEYED.  FN34 

WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT.  THE RAILROAD LAND GRANT CASES ARE
NOT APROPOS.  NOT ONLY DO THEY DEAL WITH STATUTES DIFFERENT FROM THE
ONE BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT CASE, BUT ALSO THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE IDENTIFICATION OF UNSURVEYED LANDS BY THE PROTRACTION OF
PARTIAL SURVEYS.  IN THE MORRISON CASE  FN35  THIS COURT HELD A
COMPLETED BUT UNAPPROVED SURVEY INADEQUATE TO VEST ANY RIGHTS TO SCHOOL
LANDS.  A FORTIORI, DEFENDANTS ARE NOT BENEFITED BY THE COLEMAN
SURVEY. 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, DEFENDANTS' EXCEPTIONS TO THE MASTER'S
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN RESPECT TO TITLE ARE OVERRULED. 

HAVING DECIDED THAT PLAINTIFF HAS TITLE TO SECTION 36, WE NOW TURN TO
THE QUESTION OF ITS RIGHT TO RECOVER A MONEY JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF THE
DEFENDANT COMPANY'S OIL OPERATIONS THEREON. 

IT WAS SHOWN THAT IN 1917, UNDER A LEASE FROM THE STATE, THE COMPANY
ENTERED SECTION 36 AND DRILLED FIVE WELLS, SOME OF WHICH ARE STILL IN
PRODUCTION.  FOR THE PERIOD FROM THE COMPANY'S ENTRY ON THE LAND UNTIL
DECEMBER 31, 1944,  FN36  THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF THE AMOUNT AND MARKET
VALUE OF OIL PRODUCED AND OF THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING EXPENSES OF THIS
PRODUCTION, EACH BY THE MONTH, AND OF THE COLLATERAL "STEAM EARNINGS,"
THE ROYALTIES AND TAXES PAID TO THE STATE, AND THE OVERHEAD EXPENSES
ALLOCABLE TO THIS PRODUCTION, EACH BY THE YEAR.  FN37  FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PROVING THE BAD FAITH OF THE TRESPASS, PLAINTIFF OFFERED EVIDENCE
TENDING TO SHOW THAT DEFENDANTS KNEW OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM TO THE LAND
AND REALIZED ITS SUPERIORITY OVER THEIR OWN CLAIM AT LEAST AS EARLY AS
1929. 

THIS LAST EVIDENCE THE MASTER REFUSED TO ADMIT.  HE THOUGHT THAT, IN
ORDER TO RECOVER FOR A "BAD FAITH" TRESPASS, PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO
PUT THE QUESTION IN ISSUE BY ALLEGING "BAD FAITH" IN THE COMPLAINT,
WHICH IT HAD NOT DONE.  HE ALSO THOUGHT THAT PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION OF
DEFENDANTS' CLAIM OF RIGHT IN SECTION 36 WAS, IN EFFECT, AN ADMISSION
OF DEFENDANTS' GOOD FAITH.  WITHOUT HAVING TRIED THE BAD FAITH ISSUE,
THE MASTER STATED THAT BOTH DEFENDANTS SINCERELY BELIEVED IN THEIR
ASSERTED RIGHTS, AND MADE A FINDING OF THE STATE'S GOOD FAITH.  FROM
THIS HE CONCLUDED THAT PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY SHOULD BE MEASURED BY THE
GROSS PROCEEDS REALIZED ON THE OPERATION, LESS THE PROPER EXPENSES
INCURRED. 

FROM THE OTHER EVIDENCE HERETOFORE MENTIONED, THE MASTER FOUND THAT
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE COMPANY'S GROSS PROCEEDS, INCLUDING BOTH THE
VALUE OF OIL PRODUCED AND STEAM EARNINGS, WAS $168,317.53, AND THAT ITS
TOTAL EXPENSES WERE $232,797.27, INCLUDING ROYALTIES PAID IN THE AMOUNT
OF $17,306.30.  FN38  HE HELD THAT ALL PROVEN ELEMENTS OF THE COMPANY'S
EXPENSES EXCEPT ROYALTIES WERE PROPERLY DEDUCTIBLE.  AS EXPENSES SO
ALLOWED HAD BEEN ABOUT $47,000.00 GREATER THAN GROSS PROCEEDS, THE
MASTER CONCLUDED THAT PLAINTIFF SHOULD RECOVER NOTHING. 

PLAINTIFF EXCEPTS TO THESE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SEVERAL
RESPECTS.  FIRST, IT MAINTAINS THAT THE PLEADINGS PROPERLY FRAMED THE
ISSUE OF BAD FAITH, AND CONTENDS THAT THE MASTER THEREFORE ERRED IN
EXCLUDING EVIDENCE RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, AND IN FINDING THAT EITHER
OR BOTH OF THE DEFENDANTS HAD ACTED INNOCENTLY. 

AN AGREED PREMISE IS FOUND IN THE RULE THAT ONE WHO "WILFULLY" OR "IN
BAD FAITH" TRESPASSES ON THE LAND OF ANOTHER, AND REMOVES MINERALS, IS
LIABLE TO THE OWNER FOR THEIR FULL VALUE COMPUTED AS OF THE TIME THE
TRESPASSER CONVERTED THEM TO HIS OWN USE, BY SALE OR OTHERWISE, BUT
THAT AN "INNOCENT" TRESPASSER, WHO HAS ACTED "IN GOOD FAITH," MAY
DEDUCT FROM SUCH VALUE THE EXPENSES OF EXTRACTION N39.  IT IS ALSO
CLEAR THAT WHEN SUIT IS BROUGHT FOR THE VALUE OF MINERALS WRONGFULLY
REMOVED FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S LAND, AND THE TRESPASS AND CONVERSION ARE
ESTABLISHED, THE BURDEN OF PLEADING AND PROVING GOOD FAITH IS ON THE
DEFENDANT N40.  THE "GOOD FAITH" CONTEMPLATED BY THESE RULES IS
SOMETHING MORE THAN THE TRESPASSER'S ASSERTION OF A COLORABLE CLAIM TO
THE CONVERTED MINERALS.  FN41 

THUS, IN THIS CASE, PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANTS CLAIMED
RIGHTS IN SECTION 36, MADE AS A BASIS FOR A PRAYER TO HAVE TITLE
QUIETED IN PLAINTIFF, CANNOT BE DEEMED EQUIVALENT TO AN ADMISSION OF
DEFENDANTS' GOOD FAITH.  PLAINTIFF ALSO ALLEGED ITS OWN TITLE, THE LACK
OF ANY RIGHT OR TITLE IN DEFENDANTS, THAT THE COMPANY WAS THERE ENGAGED
IN THE PRODUCTION OF OIL, AND THAT THE VALUE OF THE OIL THERETOFORE
EXTRACTED WAS IN EXCESS OF $165,000.  IT THEN PRAYED FOR A RECOVERY OF
"THE FULL VALUE OF ALL GAS, OIL, AND OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCTS EXTRACTED
FROM SAID LAND BY THE DEFENDANTS OR EITHER OF THEM."  IN THE ANSWER,
BESIDES CLAIMING TITLE AND OIL RIGHTS, DEFENDANTS AVERRED THEIR GOOD
FAITH BELIEF THAT THEY HAD SUCH RIGHTS, WHICH PLAINTIFF TRAVERSED IN A
REPLY.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THESE PLEADINGS PUT THE QUESTION OF
DEFENDANTS' GOOD FAITH IN ISSUE.  OBVIOUSLY, THE MASTER'S STATEMENT IN
HIS REPORT THAT THE DEFENDANTS BELIEVED IN THEIR ASSERTED RIGHTS IS
UNWARRANTED ON THE PRESENT RECORD.  WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE
MASTER ERRED IN EXCLUDING ANY COMPETENT EVIDENCE MATERIAL TO THE GOOD
FAITH ISSUE, AND IN FINDING THAT EITHER OR BOTH DEFENDANTS ACTED IN
GOOD FAITH.    SECOND, PLAINTIFF EXCEPTS TO THE MASTER'S FAILURE, EVEN
ON THE PRESENT RECORD, TO MAKE FINDINGS OF DEFENDANTS' BAD FAITH AND TO
RECOMMEND A DECREE AWARDING DAMAGES ACCORDINGLY N42.  IT URGES, AS ONE
GROUND FOR THIS EXCEPTION, THAT DEFENDANTS, HAVING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
ON THAT ISSUE, FAILED TO INTRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MAKE A PRIMA
FACIE SHOWING OF GOOD FAITH. 

FOR REASONS ALREADY SUGGESTED, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER
DEFENDANTS CARRIED THAT BURDEN.  THE VIEW THAT THE GOOD FAITH ISSUE WAS
FORECLOSED IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR WAS EXPRESSED BY THE MASTER BEFORE ANY
EVIDENCE HAD BEEN INTRODUCED, AND CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE HEARING. 
EVEN IF DEFENDANTS HAD DOUBTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS VIEW, THEY WERE
NOT BOUND TO REPUDIATE IT AND MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF OF GOOD FAITH IN
ORDER TO HAVE A TRIAL OF THE ISSUE IF THE MASTER SHOULD PROVE TO BE
WRONG. 

AS ANOTHER GROUND, PLAINTIFF URGES THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE AT ALL TIMES
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS TRESPASS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF
PLAINTIFF'S TITLE, AND THAT EITHER THEY HAVE "INTENTIONALLY OR
NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE READILY AVAILABLE PUBLIC
RECORDS WHO OWNED THE LAND," OR THEY HAVE ACTED "WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE
THAT THE SECTION BELONGED TO THE UNITED STATES." 

IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE OWNER'S
TITLE DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS' BAD FAITH AS A MATTER OF LAW. 
FN43  AS TO WHETHER AN INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO ASCERTAIN
THE TRUE INCIDENCE OF TITLE ALONE CONSTITUTES BAD FAITH, WE NEED NOT
NOW DECIDE, AS NO SUCH FACT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 

PLAINTIFF'S ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION THAT WE SHOULD NOW ENTER A FINDING
OF DEFENDANTS' BAD FAITH FOR THE POST-1929 PERIOD AT LEAST, BECAUSE AS
TO IT "THERE IS POSITIVE PROOF THAT THE COMPANY KNEW ...  THE UNITED
STATES, NOT WYOMING, OWNED THE LAND," MAY BE ANSWERED IN THE SAME WAY. 
PLAINTIFF PROFFERED EVIDENCE OF SUCH KNOWLEDGE, BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT
THIS EVIDENCE AMOUNTED TO CONCLUSIVE PROOF.  WE THINK THE NECESSITY OF
TRYING THE ISSUE OF DEFENDANTS' GOOD FAITH THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PERIOD
IN DISPUTE, PRELIMINARY TO DETERMINING THE MEASURE OF PLAINTIFF'S
RECOVERY, CANNOT BE AVOIDED. 

THIRD, PLAINTIFF URGES AND WE AGREE THAT THE MASTER SHOULD MAKE
SPECIAL FINDINGS - INSOFAR AS THE PARTIES REQUEST, AND OFFER COMPETENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM - AS TO THE VALUE OF THE OIL PRODUCED AND THE
AMOUNT AND NATURE OF ANY COLLATERAL PROCEEDS FROM THE OPERATION,
SEPARATELY, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT OF EACH ITEM OF INCOME AND EXPENSE BY
THE MONTH OR YEAR.  SUCH ACTION SHOULD ENABLE THE COURT TO DISPOSE OF
THE CASE ON THE NEXT HEARING, REGARDLESS OF ANY REVISIONS IT MIGHT MAKE
IN THE MASTER'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, OR RECOMMENDED DECREE. 

IN ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE MASTER'S REPORT AND ITS ARGUMENT HERE,
PLAINTIFF HAS RAISED SEVERAL OTHER QUESTIONS, THE MATERIALITY OF EACH
OF WHICH DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE TRESPASS WAS COMMITTED IN GOOD FAITH. 
OBVIOUSLY, SUCH QUESTIONS MUST REMAIN MOOT UNTIL THIS ISSUE IS
DECIDED. 

THE CASE IS RECOMMITTED TO THE MASTER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IS INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE III, SEC. 2,
CL. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND SEC. 233 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28
U.S.C. SEC. 341).  UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 143 U.S. 621(1892). 

FN2  THE MASTER'S REPORT WAS FILED OCTOBER 14, 1946.  PLAINTIFF'S
EXCEPTIONS THERETO WERE FILED ON NOVEMBER 29 AND DEFENDANTS' ON
DECEMBER 2, 1946.  ARGUMENT WAS HEARD BY THE COURT ON APRIL 7, 1947. 

FN3  26 STAT. 222. 

FN4  THIS ORDER WAS PROMULGATED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE ACT OF JUNE
25, 1910, 36 STAT. 847. 

FN5  THE LAND ORDINANCE OF 1785 PROVIDED:  "THERE SHALL BE RESERVED
THE LOT NO. 16, OF EVERY TOWNSHIP, FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
SCHOOLS WITHIN THE SAID TOWNSHIP; ...  "  BETWEEN 1802 AND 1846 THE
GRANTS WERE OF THE 16TH SECTION IN EACH TOWNSHIP; THEREAFTER, OF
GRANTED.  UNITED STATES V. MORRISON, 240 U.S. 192, 198(1916). 

FN6  WISCONSIN V. LANE, 245 U.S. 427(1918); UNITED STATES V. STEARNS
LUMBER CO., 245 U.S. 436(1918); UNITED STATES V. MORRISON, SUPRA;
MINNESOTA V. HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373(1902); HEYDENFELDT V. DANEY GOLD &
SILVER MINING CO., 93 U.S. 634(1877).  AND SEE WYOMING V. UNITED
STATES, 255 U.S. 489, 500-501(1921). 

FN7  SECTION 6 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1888, 25 STAT. 393, PROVIDES: 

"THAT WHERE LANDS IN THE SIXTEENTH AND THIRTY-SIXTH SECTIONS, IN THE
TERRITORY OF WYOMING, ARE FOUND UPON SURVEY TO BE IN THE OCCUPANCY, AND
COVERED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS OF AN ACTUAL PRE-EMPTION OR HOME-STEAD
SETTLER, OR WHERE EITHER OF THEM ARE FRACTIONAL IN QUANTITY, IN WHOLE
OR IN PART, OR WANTING BECAUSE THE TOWNSHIPS ARE FRACTIONAL OR HAVE
BEEN OR SHALL HEREAFTER BE RESERVED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, OR FOUND TO BE
MINERAL IN CHARACTER, OTHER LANDS MAY BE SELECTED BY AN AGENT APPOINTED
BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY IN LIEU THEREOF, FROM THE SURVEYED
PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN THE TERRITORY NOT OTHERWISE LEGALLY CLAIMED OR
APPROPRIATED AT THE TIME OF SELECTION,  ...  " 

FN8  SECTION 7 OF THE NEVADA ENABLING ACT, 13 STAT. 30, 32,
PROVIDES: 

"THAT SECTIONS NUMBERS SIXTEEN AND THIRTY-SIX IN EVERY TOWNSHIP, AND
WHERE SUCH SECTIONS HAVE BEEN SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY ANY ACT
OF CONGRESS, OTHER LANDS EQUIVALENT THERETO IN LEGAL SUBDIVISIONS OF
NOT LESS THAN ONE QUARTER-SECTION, AND AS CONTIGUOUS AS MAY BE, SHALL
BE, AND ARE HEREBY, GRANTED TO SAID STATE FOR THE SUPPORT OF COMMON
SCHOOLS." 

FN9  DEFENDANTS ASSERT THAT THE HEYDENFELDT CASE CANNOT BE REGARDED
AS AUTHORITY HERE BECAUSE IN REACHING ITS RESULT IN THE HEYDENFELDT
CASE, THIS COURT RELIED IN PART UPON CIRCUMSTANCES PECULIAR TO NEVADA. 
THE SAME ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED IN THE MORRISON CASE, SUPRA AT 205:  "IT
IS ALSO URGED THAT THE COURT EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO
SALE OR DISPOSITION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS IN NEVADA PRIOR TO THE ENABLING
ACT AND THEREFORE THAT THE CLAUSE COULD REFER ONLY TO FUTURE
DISPOSITION; WHEREAS, IN THE CASE OF OREGON, THERE HAD BEEN EARLIER
PROVISIONS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  BUT CONGRESS USED
THE SAME PHRASE SUBSTANTIALLY IN NEARLY EVERY ONE OF THE SCHOOL GRANTS,
AND IT WAS THE MANIFEST INTENTION TO PLACE THE STATES ON THE SAME
FOOTING IN THIS MATTER.  THE SAME CLAUSE, RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT,
AND ENACTED IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAME POLICY, DID NOT HAVE ONE MEANING
IN ONE GRANT AND A DIFFERENT MEANING IN ANOTHER; IT COVERED OTHER
DISPOSITIONS, WHETHER PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT, IF MADE BEFORE THE LAND HAD
BEEN APPROPRIATELY IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY AND TITLE HAD PASSED." 

FN10  STATE OF COLORADO, 6 L.D. 412. 

FN11  15 STAT. 178. 

FN12  CONG. GLOBE, 40TH CONG., 2D SESS., 2801-2802. 

FN13  ACT OF MARCH 1, 1872, 17 STAT. 32. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN15  CF. UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 330 U.S.
258(1947); GUARANTEE TITLE & TRUST CO. V. TITLE GUARANTY & SURETY CO.,
224 U.S. 152, 155(1912). 

FN16  25 STAT. 676. 

FN17  19 CONG. REC. 2802; SEN. JOURN.  50TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
696.  SECTION 6 OF THAT BILL CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:  "  ...
; AND SUCH SECTIONS SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO PRE-EMPTION OR ENTRY,
WHETHER SURVEYED OR UNSURVEYED, BUT SHALL BE RESERVED FOR SCHOOL
PURPOSES ONLY." 

FN18  20 CONG. REC. 806-812. 

FN19  ID. AT 948, 951. 

FN20  ID. AT 2104, 2116. 

FN21  H.R. REP. NO. 39, 51ST CONG., 1ST SESS., 26. 

FN22  21 CONG. REC. 2707. 

FN23  26 STAT. 796.  "WHERE SETTLEMENTS WITH A VIEW TO PRE-EMPTION OR
HOMESTEAD HAVE BEEN, OR SHALL HEREAFTER BE MADE, BEFORE THE SURVEY OF
THE LANDS IN THE FIELD, WHICH ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON SECTIONS
SIXTEEN OR THIRTY-SIX, THOSE SECTIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAIMS OF
SUCH SETTLERS; AND IF SUCH SECTIONS, OR EITHER OF THEM, HAVE BEEN OR
SHALL BE GRANTED, RESERVED, OR PLEDGED FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS OR
COLLEGES IN THE STATE OR TERRITORY IN WHICH THEY LIE, OTHER LANDS OF
EQUAL ACREAGE ARE HEREBY APPROPRIATED AND GRANTED, AND MAY BE SELECTED
BY SAID STATE OR TERRITORY, IN LIEU OF SUCH AS MAY BE THUS TAKEN BY PRE
EMPTION OR HOMESTEAD SETTLERS.  AND OTHER LANDS OF EQUAL ACREAGE ARE
ALSO HEREBY APPROPRIATED AND GRANTED, AND MAY BE SELECTED BY SAID STATE
OR TERRITORY WHERE SECTIONS SIXTEEN OR THIRTY-SIX ARE MINERAL LAND, OR
ARE INCLUDED WITHIN ANY INDIAN, MILITARY, OR OTHER RESERVATION, OR ARE
OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY THE UNITED STATES:  ...  " 

FN24  H.R. REP. NO. 2384, 51ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN25  WYOMING V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 489(1921); STATE OF WYOMING,
27 L.D. 35. 

FN26  H.R. REP. 229, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 10, 73D CONG.,
1ST SESS. 

FN27  48 STAT. 350.  SECTION 5 OF THE ENABLING ACT WAS AMENDED SO AS
TO PERMIT THE STATE TO LEASE THE SCHOOL LANDS FOR PERIODS OF TEN YEARS
AS CONTRASTED TO A FIVE YEAR LIMITATION CONTAINED IN THE SECTION AS
ORIGINALLY ENACTED. 

FN28  H.R. REP. NO. 2384, 51ST CONG., 1ST SESS., 1.  S. REP. NO. 502,
51ST CONG., 1ST SESS., 1. 

FN29  THUS THE SAME VOLUME OF THE STATUTES AT LARGE CONTAINING THE
WYOMING ENABLING ACT ALSO CONTAINS AT LEAST TWO PIECES OF SUCH
LEGISLATION.  26 STAT. 478, 650. 

FN30  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN31  SOUTH DAKOTA V. RILEY, 34 L.D. 657; STATE OF MONTANA, 38 L.D.
247; STATE OF UTAH, 53 L.D. 365.  AND SEE F.A. HYDE & CO., 37 L.D. 164;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 52 L.D. 679.  ALSO IN ACCORD ARE DECISIONS IN UTAH
V. WORK, 55 APP. D.C. 372, 6 F.2D 675(1925); THOMPSON V. SAVIDGE, 110
WASH. 486, 188 P. 397(1920). 

FN32  CALIFORNIA V. DESERET WATER, OIL & IRRIGATION CO., 243 U.S.
415, 421(1917). 

FN33  R.S. 2395, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 751.  BARNHURST V. STATE OF UTAH, 30
L.D. 314; HARRIS V. STATE OF MINNESOTA, COPP L.L. (1875-82) 631. 

FN34  CF. SANTA FE PAC. R. CO. V. LANE, 244 U.S. 492(1917); ST. PAUL
& PAC. R. CO. V. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO., 139 U.S. 1(1891); GRINNELL V.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PAC. R. CO., 103 U.S. 739(1881). 

FN35  UNITED STATES V. MORRISON, SUPRA, NOTE 5. 

FN36  ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1945, TO DATE OF HEARING
WERE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED LATER, ALONG WITH THOSE FOR ANY
SUBSEQUENT PERIODS FOR WHICH DEFENDANTS MIGHT BE LIABLE. 

FN37  THE TOTAL OF EACH OF THESE ITEMS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD WAS AS
FOLLOWS:  VALUE OF OIL PRODUCED, $167,049.54; STEAM EARNINGS,
$1,267.99; CAPITAL EXPENSES, $118,628.84; OPERATING EXPENSES,
$70,083.73; OVERHEAD EXPENSES, $22,461.00; TAXES, $4,317.40; ROYALTIES,
$17,306.30.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHAT THE NATURE OF THE SO-CALLED "STEAM
EARNINGS" WAS. 

FN38  THE TOTALS FOUND BY THE MASTER ARE THE SUMS OF THE APPROPRIATE
INDIVIDUAL ITEMS WHICH WERE IN EVIDENCE, AND WHICH WERE RECITED IN
FOOTNOTE 37.  NO QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO THE ACCURACY OF ANY OF THESE
FIGURES. 

FN39  SEE MARTEL V. HALL OIL CO., 36 WYO. 166, 178, 253 P. 862, 864,
255 P. 3(1927); UNITED STATES V. ST. ANTHONY R. CO., 192 U.S.
524(1904); PINE RIVER LOGGING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 186 U.S. 279(1902);
WOODEN-WARE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 106 U.S. 432(1882); UNITED STATES V.
HOMESTAKE MINING CO., 117 F. 481(C.C.A.8TH 1902); WINCHESTER V. CRAIG,
33 MICH. 205(1876); LIVINGSTONE V. RAWYARDS COAL CO., 5 L.R. APP. CAS.
25(H.L. 1880); SUMMERS, OIL AND GAS, SECS. 23, 24. 

FN40  LIBERTY BELL GOLD MINING CO. V. SMUGGLER-UNION M. CO., 203 F.
795, 802(C.C.A.8TH 1913); ELKHORN-HAZARD COAL CO. V. KENTUCKY RIVER
COAL CORP., 20 F.2D 67, 71(C.C.A.6TH 1927). 

FN41  GUFFEY V. SMITH, 237 U.S. 101(1915); BENSON MINING CO. V. ALTA
MINING CO., 145 U.S. 428(1892).  CF. HALL OIL CO. V. BARQUIN, 33 WYO.
92, 137, 237 P. 255, 270(1925). 

FN42  THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTIONS ON THE
THEORY ABOUT TO BE STATED ARE, AS AGAINST THE COMPANY, THE FULL
PROCEEDS OF THE OIL PLUS "STEAM EARNINGS," AND AS AGAINST THE STATE,
THE AMOUNT OF ROYALTIES RECEIVED. 

FN43  GUFFEY V. SMITH, SUPRA, 237 U.S. AT 118. 
..END :













COPE V. ANDERSON, 331 U.S. 461 


ARGUED APRIL 28, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1947.  - 156 F.2D 972,
REVERSED.  - 156 F.2D 47, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE OHIO "BORROWING STATUTE," THE "CAUSE OF
ACTION" IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN OHIO AGAINST RESIDENTS OF THAT STATE TO
ENFORCE THEIR STATUTORY DOUBLE LIABILITY ON SHARES OF AN INSOLVENT
KENTUCKY NATIONAL BANK "AROSE" IN KENTUCKY, AND THE APPLICABLE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS WAS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF KENTUCKY.  PP. 464-468. 

2.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA "BORROWING STATUTE," THE
"CAUSE OF ACTION" IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN PENNSYLVANIA AGAINST A RESIDENT
OF THAT STATE TO ENFORCE A STATUTORY DOUBLE LIABILITY ON SHARES OF AN
INSOLVENT KENTUCKY NATIONAL BANK "AROSE" IN KENTUCKY, AND THE
APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF
KENTUCKY.  P. 468. 

3.  THE NATIONAL BANK HAVING BEEN AUTHORIZED TO DO ITS BANKING
BUSINESS IN A KENTUCKY CITY AND NOT HAVING DONE BUSINESS ELSEWHERE, THE
FACT THAT ITS SHARES WERE HELD IN THE PORTFOLIO OF A DELAWARE
CORPORATION DID NOT MAKE ITS BUSINESS ANY THE LESS LOCAL.  P. 467. 

4.  NO FEDERAL STATUTE HAVING FIXED ANY PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS IN
RESPECT OF SUITS TO ENFORCE THE STATUTORY DOUBLE LIABILITY OF
SHAREHOLDERS OF INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANKS, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF
THE STATE IN WHICH THE SUIT IS BROUGHT APPLIES.  P. 463. 

5.  WHERE THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF EQUITY TO ENFORCE A LEGAL
OBLIGATION DERIVES ONLY FROM THE SCOPE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE
MULTITUDE OF THE PARTIES SUED, EQUITY WILL WITHHOLD RELIEF IF THE
APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WOULD BAR THE CONCURRENT LEGAL
REMEDY.  PP. 463-464. 

6.  ALTHOUGH THE PERIOD IN WHICH A SUIT TO ENFORCE THE STATUTORY
DOUBLE LIABILITY OF A SHAREHOLDER OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK MUST BE
BROUGHT IS GOVERNED BY STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION, THE QUESTION OF
WHEN THE PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN DEPENDS UPON WHEN, UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THE
COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, OR HIS AUTHORIZED AGENT, IS EMPOWERED BY
FEDERAL LAW TO BRING SUIT.  P. 464. 

7.  IN THE INSTANT CASES, THE SUITS COULD NOT BE BROUGHT BY THE
COMPTROLLER OR HIS AGENT UNTIL THE DATE FIXED BY THE COMPTROLLER FOR
PAYMENT, SO THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL THAT
DATE.  P. 464. 

COPE V. ANDERSON, RECEIVER. 

NO. 593.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 656, ANDERSON, RECEIVER, V. HELMERS ET AL., ON
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

NO. 593.  A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST PETITIONER TO ENFORCE A STATUTORY
DOUBLE LIABILITY ON SHARES IN AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK WAS DISMISSED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS.  62 F.SUPP.  705.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  156 F.2D 972.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 707.  REVERSED, P. 468. 

NO. 656.  IN A SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENTS TO ENFORCE A STATUTORY DOUBLE
LIABILITY ON SHARES OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK, A MOTION TO DISMISS
ON THE GROUND, INTER ALIA, THAT THE SUIT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS WAS
OVERRULED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  156 F.2D 47.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 707. 
AFFIRMED, P. 468. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN ANDERSON V. ABBOTT, 321 U.S. 349, WE HELD THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS OF
BANCOKENTUCKY COMPANY, A BANK-STOCKHOLDING COMPANY, WERE LIABLE UNDER
12 U.S.C. SECS. 63, 64, FOR AN ASSESSMENT ON SHARES OF AN INSOLVENT
NATIONAL BANK HELD IN THE PORTFOLIO OF THE HOLDING COMPANY.  THAT SUIT
WAS BROUGHT IN A KENTUCKY DISTRICT COURT AGAINST BANCO STOCKHOLDERS
RESIDING IN THAT DISTRICT.  THESE SUITS IN EQUITY WERE BROUGHT IN
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS IN OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA TO ENFORCE ASSESSMENTS
AGAINST OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO.  IN NO. 656 THE
DISTRICT COURT IN OHIO OVERRULED A MOTION TO DISMISS MADE ON THE
GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE BILL SHOWED ON ITS FACE THAT THE ACTION
WAS BARRED BY AN OHIO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS N1.  THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  156 F.2D 47.  IN NO. 593 THE THIRD CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
PENNSYLVANIA WHICH HAD HELD THE ACTION THERE BARRED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  156 F.2D 972.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
CONSIDER BOTH CASES.  329 U.S. 707. 

THERE IS NO FEDERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FIXING THE PERIOD WITHIN
WHICH SUITS MUST BE BROUGHT TO ENFORCE THE STATUTORY DOUBLE LIABILITY
OF SHAREHOLDERS OF INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANKS.  FOR THIS REASON WE LOOK
TO OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA LAW TO DETERMINE THE PERIOD IN WHICH THESE
SUITS MAY BE BROUGHT.  MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 184 U.S. 71; MCCLAINE V.
RANKIN, 197 U.S. 154, 158; RAWLINGS V. RAY, 312 U.S. 96, 97.  EVEN
THOUGH THESE SUITS ARE IN EQUITY, THE STATES' STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
APPLY.  FOR IT IS ONLY THE SCOPE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE MULTITUDE
OF PARTIES SUED WHICH GIVE EQUITY CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
THE LEGAL OBLIGATION HERE ASSERTED.  AND EQUITY WILL WITHHOLD ITS
RELIEF IN SUCH A CASE WHERE THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WOULD
BAR THE CONCURRENT LEGAL REMEDY.  RUSSELL V. TODD, 309 U.S. 280, 289
AND CASES CITED.  SEE ALSO GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99;
HOLMBERG V. ARMBRECHT, 327 U.S. 392, 395-396. 

BUT EVEN THOUGH THE PERIOD IN WHICH SUIT MUST BE BROUGHT IS GOVERNED
BY STATE LIMITATIONS STATUTES, WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY DECIDED THAT THE
QUESTION OF WHEN THE APPLICABLE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGINS TO
RUN DEPENDS UPON WHEN, UNDER FEDERAL LAW, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE
CURRENCY, OR HIS AUTHORIZED AGENT, IS EMPOWERED BY FEDERAL LAW TO BRING
SUIT.  AND THE COMPTROLLER'S AGENT, THE RECEIVER HERE, COULD NOT BRING
THESE ACTIONS UNTIL THE DATE FOR PAYMENT FIXED BY THE COMPTROLLER. 
RAWLINGS V. RAY, SUPRA, 98, 99; FISHER V. WHITON, 317 U.S. 217, 220,
221.  THE DATE FOR PAYMENT FIXED BY THE COMPTROLLER IN THIS INSTANCE
WAS APRIL 1, 1931.  THESE ACTIONS WERE INSTITUTED MORE THAN FIVE BUT
LESS THAN SIX YEARS AFTER THE PAYMENTS BECAME DUE UNDER THE
COMPTROLLER'S ASSESSMENT ORDER. 

WITH REGARD TO NO. 656, THE OHIO PROCEEDING, THE OHIO STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS PROVIDES THAT SUIT "UPON A LIABILITY CREATED BY STATUTE
OTHER THAN A FORFEITURE OR PENALTY, SHALL BE BROUGHT WITHIN SIX YEARS
AFTER THE CAUSE THEREOF ACCRUED."  OHIO GEN. CODE (PAGE, 1938) SEC.
11222.  THIS STATUTE DESCRIBES THE LIABILITY SUED ON HERE, AND IF
APPLICABLE DOES NOT BAR THIS SUIT.  BUT THE SCOPE OF THIS GENERAL
PROVISION IS NARROWED BY ANOTHER KNOWN AS THE "BORROWING STATUTE" WHICH
READS: 

"IF THE LAWS OF ANY STATE OR COUNTRY WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE
LIMITS THE TIME FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION TO A LESS NUMBER OF
YEARS THAN DO THE STATUTES OF THIS STATE IN LIKE CAUSES OF ACTION THEN
SAID CAUSE OF ACTION SHALL BE BARRED IN THIS STATE AT THE EXPIRATION OF
SAID LESSER NUMBER OF YEARS."  OHIO GEN. CODE (PAGE, 1938) SEC. 11234. 

IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE IN KENTUCKY, THE "BORROWING STATUTE"
APPLIES KENTUCKY'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND THIS SUIT IS BARRED. 
FOR KENTUCKY'S LAW REQUIRES THAT AN "ACTION UPON A LIABILITY CREATED BY
STATUTE  ...  SHALL BE COMMENCED WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF
ACTION ACCRUED."  KY. REV. STAT. (BALDWIN, 1943) SEC. 413.120. 

THE RECEIVER CONTENDS THAT THE OHIO BORROWING STATUTE'S LANGUAGE "THE
LAWS OF ANY STATE OR COUNTRY WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE" HAS
REFERENCE TO "A SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE OTHER THAN OHIO'S," AND DOES
NOT REFER "NECESSARILY TO TERRITORIAL LIMITS" WITHIN WHICH EVENTS
OCCURRED GIVING RISE TO AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION.  THE PLACE WHERE THE
EVENTS GIVING RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION OCCUR IS SAID TO BE "IMPORTANT
ONLY INSOFAR AS THE LAWS OF THAT PLACE ARE CONTROLLING."  UNDER THIS
ARGUMENT, THE CAUSE OF ACTION HERE COULD NOT HAVE "ARISEN" IN ANY STATE
SINCE THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF SHAREHOLDERS WAS NOT IMPOSED OR
CONTROLLED BY STATE LAW.  HENCE, THE ARGUMENT RUNS, THE OHIO LAW DID
NOT CONTEMPLATE BORROWING ANY STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A CASE
WHERE LIABILITY IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL LAW.  AND NO FEDERAL STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS COULD BE BORROWED IN THIS CASE FOR NONE EXISTED. 
THEREFORE, IT IS ARGUED, ONLY OHIO'S GENERAL SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS APPLIES. 

THE CONSEQUENCE OF ACCEPTING THIS CONTENTION WOULD BE THAT THE OHIO
BORROWING STATUTE WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT AT ALL AS TO SUITS BROUGHT IN
OHIO STATE COURTS TO ENFORCE ACTIONS AUTHORIZED BY FEDERAL LAW.  FOR,
OF COURSE, OHIO COURTS COULD NEVER BORROW A NON-EXISTENT FEDERAL
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  AND IF THERE WERE A FEDERAL STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS GOVERNING A FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHT, THAT STATUTE WOULD
CONTROL OF ITS OWN FORCE.  HERGET V. CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO.,
324 U.S. 4.  WE HAVE BEEN CITED TO NO DECISION BY ANY OHIO COURT WHICH
WOULD LEAD US TO BELIEVE THAT ITS BORROWING STATUTE SHOULD BE GIVEN
SUCH A STERILIZING INTERPRETATION.  CF. TOWNSEND V. EICHELBERGER, 51
OHIO ST. 213, 216, 38 N.E. 207, 208. 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO OUR DECISION TO DISCUSS THE CONTENTIONS
MADE HERE CONCERNING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A "CAUSE OF ACTION" AND A
"LIABILITY."  THE OHIO SUPREME COURT HAS ITSELF SAID THAT A "CAUSE OF
ACTION IS THE FACT OR COMBINATION OF FACTS WHICH GIVES RISE TO A RIGHT
OF ACTION, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH AFFORDS A PARTY A RIGHT TO JUDICIAL
INTERFERENCE IN HIS BEHALF."  BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. LARWILL, 83 OHIO
ST. 108, 115-116, 93 N.E. 619, 621.  WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO NOTHING
IN OHIO STATUTES OR DECISIONS WHICH INDICATES THAT IT USED "CAUSE OF
ACTION" IN ANY DIFFERENT SENSE IN ITS BORROWING STATUTE.  THE PURPOSE
OF THE STATE'S BORROWING STATUTE,  FN2  AS THOSE OF OTHER STATES,  FN3
WAS APPARENTLY TO REQUIRE ITS COURTS TO BAR SUITS AGAINST AN OHIO
RESIDENT IF THE RIGHT TO SUE HIM HAD ALREADY EXPIRED IN ANOTHER STATE
WHERE THE COMBINATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE RIGHT TO SUE
HAD TAKEN PLACE.  MOREOVER, LIMITATIONS ON FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS TO
SUE HAVE SIMILARLY BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE GOVERNED BY THE LIMITATIONS
LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE CRUCIAL COMBINATION OF EVENTS TRANSPIRED. 
SEABOARD TERMINALS CORP. V. STANDARD OIL CO., 24 F.SUPP.  1018, 104
F.2D 659; BLUEFIELDS S.S. CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 243 F. 1, 19-20. 
SEE CAMPBELL V. HAVERHILL, 155 U.S. 610; CHATTANOOGA FOUNDRY & PIPE
WORKS V. ATLANTA, 203 U.S. 390, 397. 

OUR APPRAISAL OF THE OHIO BORROWING STATUTE, THE OPINIONS OF THE
COURTS OF THAT STATE, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THIS SUIT,
PERSUADE US THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION "AROSE" IN KENTUCKY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE OHIO BORROWING STATUTE.  THE BANK WAS AUTHORIZED TO DO
ITS BANKING BUSINESS IN LOUISVILLE AND DID BUSINESS IN NO OTHER PLACE. 
SEE 12 U.S.C. SEC. 81.  NOR WAS THIS BANK'S BUSINESS ANY THE LESS LOCAL
BECAUSE ITS SHARES WERE HELD IN THE PORTFOLIO OF A DELAWARE
CORPORATION.  MANY PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW MAKE NATIONAL BANKS, IN
IMPORTANT ASPECTS, PECULIARLY LOCAL INSTITUTIONS.  SEE 12 U.S.C. SECS.
30, 33, 34(A), 36, 51, 62, 72.  FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES, A NATIONAL
BANK IS A "CITIZEN" OF THE STATE IN WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED OR LOCATED,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(16), AND IN THAT DISTRICT ALONE CAN IT BE SUED.  12
U.S.C. SEC. 94.  TRUE, WHEN INSOLVENCY OCCURS, THERE IS A SHIFT IN BANK
MANAGEMENT, BUT THE BANK'S ACTIVITIES ARE STILL NECESSARILY ROOTED IN
ITS LOCAL HABITAT.  IN THIS CASE THE RECEIVER'S OFFICE WAS LOCATED IN
LOUISVILLE, THE HOME OF THE BANK; PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, LIKE OTHER
OBLIGATIONS DUE THE BANK, COULD HAVE BEEN MADE THERE, AND, IN FACT,
SHAREHOLDERS WERE NOTIFIED BY THE RECEIVER TO PAY AT HIS OFFICE IN
LOUISVILLE.  FN4  LIQUIDATION OF A LOCAL BANK, LIKE ITS DAILY
OPERATIONS, MUST FROM NECESSITY AND IN THE INTEREST OF GOOD BUSINESS BE
CARRIED ON, IN THE MAIN, IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE THE BANK DID BUSINESS
WITH ITS DEPOSITORS AND OTHER CUSTOMERS.  PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING THAT
PRECEDED THE FINAL FIXING OF LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS DERIVED FROM
KENTUCKY TRANSACTIONS.  WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO NO OHIO DECISIONS, AND
HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY, WHICH CONTRADICT OUR CONCLUSION THAT
EVENTS WHICH CULMINATED IN THIS SUIT JUSTIFY OUR HOLDING THAT THIS
"CAUSE OF ACTION" "AROSE" IN KENTUCKY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE OHIO
STATUTE.  SEE HUNTER V. NIAGARA FIRE INS. CO., 73 OHIO ST. 110, 76 N.E.
563; ALROPA CORP. V. KIRCHWEHM, 138 OHIO ST. 30, 33 N.E.2D 655; PAYNE
V. KIRCHWEHM, 141 OHIO ST. 384, 48 N.E.2D 224; BOWERS V. HOLABIRD, 51
OHIO APP. 413, 1 N.E.2D 326; NATIONAL BONDHOLDERS CORP. V. STODDARD, 22
OHIO O. 145, 8 OHIO SUPP. 19.  SEE ALSO HILLIARD V. PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO., 73 F.2D 473, 475-476; NOTE, 15 U. OF CIN.  L. REV. 337(1941);
NOTE, 21 OHIO O. 107(1941).  THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 656 IS
AFFIRMED. 

IN NO. 593, THE PENNSYLVANIA ACTION, THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS ARE
CONTROLLING.  THE GENERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THAT STATE WHICH
WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THIS ACTION HAD IT ARISEN IN PENNSYLVANIA, LIKE
OHIO'S GENERAL STATUTE, PROVIDES A SIX-YEAR PERIOD IN WHICH THIS SUIT
COULD BE BROUGHT.  12 PA. STAT. SEC. 31(PURDON, 1931).  BUT
PENNSYLVANIA ALSO HAS A "BORROWING STATUTE" WHICH PROVIDES:  "WHEN A
CAUSE OF ACTION HAS BEEN FULLY BARRED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR
COUNTRY IN WHICH IT AROSE, SUCH BAR SHALL BE A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO AN
ACTION THEREON BROUGHT IN ANY OF THE COURTS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH."  12
PA. STAT. SEC. 39(PURDON, 1931).  OUR REVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIA DECISIONS
CONSTRUING THIS STATUTE PERSUADES US THAT THE BORROWING STATUTE IS
APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE, THAT UNDER THAT STATUTE THIS CAUSE OF ACTION
"AROSE" IN KENTUCKY, AND THAT THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF KENTUCKY BARS
THIS ACTION.  SEE MISTER V. BURKHOLDER, 56 PA. SUPER.  517; FLETCHER'S
ESTATE, 45 PA. D. & C. 673, 674; BELL V. BRADY, 346 PA. 666, 31 A.2D
547; SHAFFER'S ESTATE, 228 PA. 36, 40, 76 A. 716, 717.  CF. ROSENZWEIG
V. HELLER, 302 PA. 279, 153 A. 346.  SEE ALSO NOTES, 88 U. OF PA. L.
REV. 878(1940), 4 U. OF PITT.  L. REV. 215(1938).  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NO. 593 IS THEREFORE REVERSED.  SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  FOR CONVENIENCE, THE MOTION WAS MADE BY ONLY FOUR DEFENDANTS WHO
ARE RESPONDENTS HERE.  THE CASE WAS CONTINUED AS TO THE OTHERS PENDING
FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, THE ONLY GROUND OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS UPON WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT PASSED. 

FN2  SEE 25 OHIO JURISPRUDENCE 435-440(1932). 

FN3  SEE NOTE, 75 A.L.R. 203(1931); NOTE, 35 COL. L. REV. 762(1935). 

FN4  WHETHER NOTICE BY THE RECEIVER TO PAY AT A PARTICULAR PLACE
COULD ALTER THE CONCLUSIVE SITUATION AS TO WHERE A CAUSE OF ACTION
MIGHT BE CONSIDERED TO "ARISE" UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IS A QUESTION
WE NEED NOT DECIDE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 331 U.S. 469 


NO. 498.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1947.  - 156 F.2D
642, REVERSED. 


1.  AFTER A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS (UPON AN APPEAL IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL
OF A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WAS ONE OF THE ERRORS ASSIGNED) AND THE
DEFENDANT HAS BEGUN SERVICE OF THE SENTENCE, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
IS WITHOUT POWER UNDER RULE 33 OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TO
ORDER A NEW TRIAL SUA SPONTE.  PP. 471-477. 

2.  WHERE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, A DISTRICT COURT HAS ORDERED A NEW
TRIAL, THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRING THAT THE ORDER BE VACATED. 
PP. 470, 477. 

UNITED STATES V. SMITH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED A PETITION BY THE UNITED STATES
FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION DIRECTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
AND THE JUDGES THEREOF.  156 F.2D 642.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
329 U.S. 703.  REVERSED, P. 477. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES IN THIS CASE SOUGHT WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND
PROHIBITION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTED TO THE JUDGES OF THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO REQUIRE THAT
AN ORDER BY WHICH A NEW TRIAL WAS GRANTED TO ONE JOHN MEMOLO BE
VACATED. 

MEMOLO WAS CONVICTED OF TAX EVASION AFTER JURY TRIAL BEFORE JUDGE
WILLIAM F. SMITH.  THREE DAYS LATER MEMOLO FILED A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
AND WAS GIVEN LEAVE TO FILE REASONS IN ITS SUPPORT.  HE FILED FIFTY
FOUR REASONS, SUCH AS THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF CONTINUANCE, OF
MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT, OF MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS,
AND OF MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  HE COMPLAINED ALSO OF THE
COURT'S ACTION IN DISCHARGING SOME OF THE PETIT JURORS, IN ADMISSION
AND EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE, IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY, AND IN CONDUCT
TOWARD DEFENDANT AND HIS COUNSEL SAID TO HAVE BEEN PREJUDICIAL.  ON THE
SAME DAY, JUDGE SMITH DENIED THE MOTION AND SENTENCED MEMOLO TO THREE
YEARS IMPRISONMENT AND FINES. 

MEMOLO APPEALED, ASSIGNED AS ERRORS ALL OF THE MOTION GROUNDS AND, IN
ADDITION, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED WITH A PER CURIAM OPINION DECLARING THAT
IT COULD PERCEIVE NO SUBSTANTIAL ERROR IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  UNITED
STATES V. MEMOLO, 152 F.2D 759.  PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS DENIED BY
THIS COURT, MEMOLO V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 800.  THEREFORE, THE
COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED ITS MANDATE OF AFFIRMANCE AND, IN THE
CONVENTIONAL FORM, COMMANDED THAT "SUCH EXECUTION AND FURTHER
PROCEEDING BE HAD IN SAID CAUSE, AS ACCORDING TO RIGHT AND JUSTICE, AND
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OUGHT TO BE HAD, THE SAID APPEAL
NOTWITHSTANDING."  MEMOLO WAS THEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND, ON APRIL 8,
1946, IMPRISONED IN A FEDERAL PENITENTIARY. 

THE FOLLOWING DAY THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT RECEIVED FROM JUDGE
SMITH AN ORDER DATED APRIL 8TH "THAT JUDGMENT HERETOFORE ENTERED BE
VACATED AND THAT THE VERDICT HERETOFORE RETURNED BE SET ASIDE, AND THAT
A NEW TRIAL BE GRANTED THE DEFENDANT."  IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A
"MEMORANDUM" RECITING THE HISTORY OF THE CASE AND THAT "THIS COURT,
WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING, RECONSIDERED THE GROUNDS URGED BY THE
DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  IT IS OUR OPINION
UPON THIS RECONSIDERATION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE A NEW TRIAL
SHOULD BE GRANTED THE DEFENDANT."  IT ASSIGNED NO MORE PARTICULAR
GROUND FOR THE ORDER.  MEMOLO WAS THEREUPON RELEASED FROM THE
PENITENTIARY ON BAIL. 

ON THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR WRITS
DIRECTING THAT THE ORDER BE VACATED, MEMOLO WAS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE. 
JUDGE SMITH ALSO ANSWERED ASSERTING THAT HIS ORDER "WAS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT AND WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF 1946, EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 1946, PARTICULARLY RULE
33 THEREOF."  HE REFERRED TO HIS MEMORANDUM BUT DID NOT FURTHER
ELUCIDATE HIS REASONS FOR GRANTING A NEW TRIAL.  ON CONSIDERATION, THE
COURT BELOW SITTING EN BANC DENIED THE PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS
AND PROHIBITION.  156 F.2D 642.  TWO OF THE FIVE JUDGES DISSENTED. 

THE MANDATE WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
WAS IN THE CONVENTIONAL AND LONG-USED FORM ADAPTED TO ALL APPEALED
CAUSES AND CONTAINED NO SPECIAL DIRECTIONS PECULIAR TO THIS CASE.  IT
WAS NEUTRAL ON THE ISSUES HERE RAISED AND NOTHING IN ITS TERMS EITHER
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED OR PROHIBITED THE ORDER FOR NEW TRIAL.  THE POWER
OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO MAKE SUCH AN ORDER TURNS ENTIRELY ON THE RULES
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CITED AND RELIED UPON BY JUDGE SMITH. 

RULE 33 PROVIDES: 

"NEW TRIAL.  THE COURT MAY GRANT A NEW TRIAL TO A DEFENDANT IF
REQUIRED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.  IF TRIAL WAS BY THE COURT WITHOUT
A JURY THE COURT MAY VACATE THE JUDGMENT IF ENTERED, TAKE ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY AND DIRECT THE ENTRY OF A NEW JUDGMENT.  A MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL BASED ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE MAY BE MADE ONLY
BEFORE OR WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT, BUT IF AN APPEAL IS
PENDING THE COURT MAY GRANT THE MOTION ONLY ON REMAND OF THE CASE.  A
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BASED ON ANY OTHER GROUNDS SHALL BE MADE WITHIN
5 DAYS AFTER VERDICT OR FINDING OF GUILTY OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER TIME
AS THE COURT MAY FIX DURING THE 5-DAY PERIOD." 

THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THIS RULE IS DECLARATORY OF THE POWER TO GRANT
A NEW TRIAL "IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE" INSTEAD OF FOR REASONS
CATALOGUED AS THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN.  FN1  THE GENERALITY OF THE REASONS
ASSIGNED BY JUDGE SMITH FOR THE ORDER IN QUESTION IS ALL THAT IS
REQUIRED.  BUT THIS SENTENCE SAYS NOTHING OF THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE
COURT MUST ACT OR OF THE EFFECT OF AN INTERVENING APPEAL AND AFFIRMANCE
ON THE POWER.  SUCH TIME PROVISIONS AS THERE ARE RELATE TO FILING OF
MOTIONS BY THE DEFENDANT. 

THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE RULE, WHICH PUTS A FIVE-DAY LIMIT ON MOTIONS
FOR NEW TRIAL ON ANY GROUND OTHER THAN NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, WAS
SUGGESTED BY THE LAW AS IT STOOD BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE NEW RULES. 
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE POWER OF A COURT OVER ITS JUDGMENTS AT COMMON
LAW EXPIRED WITH THE TERM OF COURT.  UNITED STATES V. MAYER, 235 U.S.
55, 67-69.  THERE WAS, HOWEVER, A THREE-DAY LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT TO
MOVE FOR A NEW TRIAL.  RULE II, CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES OF MAY 7, 1934,
292 U.S. 662, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 688.  RULE 33, IN ITS LAST SENTENCE,
EXTENDED THAT PERIOD TO FIVE DAYS, AND OTHERWISE EXTENDED THE TIME IN
WHICH TO MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL BECAUSE OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  THE
LIMITATION BY EXPIRATION OF THE TERM WAS REPEALED BY RULE 45(C). 

IT IS NOW SAID THAT BECAUSE THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE RULE PLACES
THE FIVE-DAY LIMIT ONLY ON THE MAKING OF THE MOTION, IT DOES NOT LIMIT
THE POWER OF THE COURT LATER TO GRANT THE MOTION, AND THE POWER
SURVIVES AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT BY APPELLATE COURTS.  BRIEFLY,
JUDGE SMITH THOUGHT AND INTERVENOR ARGUES THAT THE RULE PREVENTS A
DEFENDANT FROM ASKING THE COURT TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL AFTER THE TIMES
SPECIFIED, BUT THAT IT PERMITS THE JUDGE TO ORDER RETRIAL WITHOUT
REQUEST AND AT ANY TIME.  THE RESULT, IN VIEW OF ANNULMENT OF THE TERM
LIMITATION,  FN2  WOULD BE THAT THE POWER OF THE TRIAL COURT TO GRANT
NEW TRIALS ON ITS OWN MOTION LINGERS ON INDEFINITELY.  THERE ARE
SEVERAL REASONS WHY THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 

IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF APPELLATE COURTS TO REVIEW TENTATIVE
DECISIONS OF TRIAL COURTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS
THE DENIAL WAS "FINAL."  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 128(A), 28 U.S.C. SEC.
225(A).  QUESTION OF FINALITY WOULD BE RAISED IF THE TRIAL COURT, WHILE
FORMALLY DENYING THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE RECORD, RESERVES THE
RIGHT TO CHANGE ITS MIND AFTER THE OPINION OF AN APPELLATE COURT HAS
BEEN ELICITED.  IN THIS CASE THE COURT OF APPEALS REVIEWED FIFTY-FOUR
SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR AND FOUND NONE TO WARRANT REVERSAL.  ALL OF
THIS WAS BUT VAIN IF THE TRIAL COURT WAS TO ACT AS ITS OWN REVIEWING
BODY OR IF IT HAD NOT REACHED A CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION OF THE ORDERS
BEING APPEALED.  SUCH A PRACTICE WOULD AUTHORIZE THE APPELLATE PROCESS
TO BE EXERCISED IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY WHILE THE TRIAL COURT,
REGARDLESS OF APPELLATE DECISION, COULD SET ASIDE ALL THAT WAS THE
BASIS OF APPEAL. 

MOREOVER, IT WOULD BE A STRANGE RULE WHICH DEPRIVED A JUDGE OF POWER
TO DO WHAT WAS ASKED WHEN REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE PERSON MOST
CONCERNED, AND YET ALLOWED HIM TO ACT WITHOUT PETITION.  IF A CONDITION
OF THE POWER IS THAT REQUEST FOR ITS EXERCISE BE NOT MADE, SERIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WOULD BE RAISED.  FOR IT IS SUCH REQUEST WHICH
OBVIATES ANY LATER OBJECTION THE DEFENDANT MIGHT MAKE ON THE GROUND OF
DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  MURPHY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 177 U.S. 155, 160; CF. EX
PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163.  THIS INTERVENOR, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS BEEN
TRIED, CONVICTED AND IMPRISONED AND HAS SERVED SOME, ALTHOUGH LITTLE,
TIME ON THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT.  AFTER REMAND OF HIS CASE, HE MADE
NO FURTHER MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND COULD MAKE NONE.  IT IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR US NOW TO DECIDE WHETHER HIS RETRIAL ON THE COURT'S OWN
MOTION WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  FN3  THAT A SERIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WOULD BE PRESENTED BY SUCH A PROCEDURE IS ENOUGH
TO SUGGEST THAT WE AVOID A CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL RAISE SUCH AN ISSUE. 

FOR YET ANOTHER REASON, WE WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO HOLD THAT THE COURT
HAS A CONTINUING POWER ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE TO GRANT WHAT THE
DEFENDANT HAS NOT THE RIGHT TO GO INTO OPEN COURT AND ASK.  TO APPROVE
THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY SUBJECT TRIAL
JUDGES TO PRIVATE APPEALS OR APPLICATION BY COUNSEL OR FRIENDS OF ONE
CONVICTED.  WE THINK THAT EXPIRATION OF THE TIME WITHIN WHICH RELIEF
CAN OPENLY BE ASKED OF THE JUDGE, TERMINATES THE TIME WITHIN WHICH IT
CAN PROPERLY BE GRANTED ON THE COURT'S OWN INITIATIVE.  IF THE JUDGE
NEEDS TIME FOR REFLECTION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF A NEW TRIAL, HE IS AT
LIBERTY TO TAKE IT BEFORE DENYING A TIMELY MADE MOTION THEREFOR. 

SUPPORT FOR THE INTERPRETATION URGED BY RESPONDENT RISES FROM FEAR OF
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.  NEW TRIALS, HOWEVER, MAY BE GRANTED FOR ERROR
OCCURRING AT THE TRIAL OR FOR REASONS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE
COURT'S KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME OF JUDGMENT.  FOR THE LATTER, THE RULES
MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISION.  NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE MAY BE MADE GROUND
FOR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER JUDGMENT.  RULE 33. 
FOR THE FORMER, HABEAS CORPUS PROVIDES A REMEDY FOR JURISDICTIONAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS AT THE TRIAL, WITHOUT LIMIT OF TIME.  JOHNSON V.
ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458; WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275; WALEY V.
JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101; ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S.
269.  POSSIBILITY OF UNREDRESSED INJUSTICE THEREFORE REMAINS ONLY IN
PREJUDICIAL HAPPENINGS DURING TRIAL.  FN4  THE TRIAL JUDGE IS GIVEN
POWER BY THE RULES TO ENTERTAIN MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL WITHIN FIVE DAYS
AFTER VERDICT AND MAY EXTEND THAT TIME FOR SO LONG AS HE THINKS
NECESSARY FOR PROPER CONSIDERATION OF THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL.  BUT
EXTENSION OF THAT TIME INDEFINITELY IS NO INSURANCE OF JUSTICE.  ON THE
CONTRARY, AS TIME PASSES, THE PECULIAR ABILITY WHICH THE TRIAL JUDGE
HAS TO PASS ON THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL IS DISSIPATED AS THE INCIDENTS
AND NUANCES OF THE TRIAL LEAVE HIS MIND TO GIVE WAY TO IMMEDIATE
BUSINESS.  IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT A DECISION ON THE
PROPRIETY OF A TRIAL BE REACHED AS SOON AFTER IT HAS ENDED AS IS
POSSIBLE, AND THAT DECISION BE NOT DEFERRED UNTIL THE TRIAL'S STORY HAS
TAKEN ON THE UNCERTAINTY AND DIMNESS OF THINGS LONG PAST. 

A MAJORITY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT IT A SHOCKING SUGGESTION
THAT ON MATURE REFLECTION A DISTRICT JUDGE MAY NOT CORRECT AN INJUSTICE
BECAUSE HIS FIRST REACTION WAS DIFFERENT.  WE DOUBT IF MANY CASES WILL
OCCUR IN WHICH VERY SHOCKING INJUSTICES WILL SURVIVE AFTER THE TRIAL
COURT DENIES A MOTION BASED ON DETAILED RECITAL OF GROUNDS FOR NEW
TRIAL AND A COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS.  THIS POSSIBILITY SEEMS TOO
REMOTE TO INDUCE US TO HOLD THAT A TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF A NEW TRIAL,
AFFIRMED ON APPEAL, HAS NO FINALITY AND THAT A TRIAL JUDGE MAY, EVEN
AFTER SERVICE OF A SENTENCE HAS BEGUN, SET THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS ASIDE
AND START OVER - IF INDEED A NEW START WOULD NOT ALSO BE FORBIDDEN. 
FN5 

WE HOLD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  THE
JUDGMENT IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED WITH DIRECTION THAT WRITS ISSUE TO
EFFECT VACATION OF THE ORDER FOR NEW TRIAL.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 269 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 391, PROVIDES
LESS GENERALLY THAT "ALL UNITED STATES COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO GRANT
NEW TRIALS, IN CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A TRIAL BY JURY, FOR REASONS
FOR WHICH NEW TRIALS HAVE USUALLY BEEN GRANTED IN THE COURTS OF LAW." 
THAT SECTION, LIKE RULE 33, DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PUT A LIMIT OF TIME ON
THE POWER GRANTED, YET IT WAS NEVER SUGGESTED THAT IT GAVE DISTRICT
COURTS POWER TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL AT ANY TIME.  IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE
TERM RULE APPLIED, BUT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SEC. 269 MIGHT AS READILY
HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE AS THE FIRST
SENTENCE OF THE PRESENT RULE MAY BE CONSTRUED TO BE RESTRICTED BY NO
PERIOD OF TIME. 

IT MAY BE WORTHY OF NOTE THAT RULE 33 PROVIDES THAT A COURT MAY GRANT
A NEW TRIAL TO A DEFENDANT, AND DOES NOT SAY THAT THE COURT MAY ORDER A
NEW TRIAL. 

FN2  BEFORE THE NEW RULES, THERE WAS NO QUESTION THAT THE POWER OF
THE TRIAL JUDGE TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL WAS LIMITED BY THE DURATION OF THE
TERM.  UNITED STATES V. MAYER, SUPRA.  IF THE RULES HAD EXTENDED THAT
POWER INDEFINITELY, IT WOULD SEEM THAT CONSIDERABLE COMMENT ON THIS
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FORTH.  YET HARDLY ANYONE
SUGGESTED THAT RULE 33 MEANS WHAT RESPONDENT CONTENDS IT DOES.  BUT CF.
STEWART, COMMENTS ON FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 8 JOHN
MARSHALL L.Q. 296, 303.  THE RULES, IN ABOLISHING THE TERM RULE, DID
NOT SUBSTITUTE INDEFINITENESS.  ON THE CONTRARY, PRECISE TIMES,
INDEPENDENT OF THE TERM, WERE PRESCRIBED.  THE POLICY OF THE RULES WAS
NOT TO EXTEND POWER INDEFINITELY BUT TO CONFINE IT WITHIN CONSTANT TIME
PERIODS.  SEE NOTES TO RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 45.    FN3
NOR NEED WE DECIDE WHETHER HIS INTERVENTION IN THIS CASE IN SUPPORT OF
THE TRIAL JUDGE'S POWER AMOUNTS TO A CONSENT TO A SECOND TRIAL.    FN4
ALTHOUGH THIS COURT HAS RESERVED DECISION ON WHETHER THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS ARE EMPOWERED TO ENTERTAIN PROCEEDINGS IN THE NATURE OF
CORAM NOBIS "TO BRING BEFORE THE COURT THAT PRONOUNCED THE JUDGMENT
ERRORS IN MATTERS OF FACT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PUT IN ISSUE OR PASSED
UPON AND WERE MATERIAL TO THE VALIDITY AND REGULARITY OF THE LEGAL
PROCEEDING ITSELF  ...  ," UNITED STATES V. MAYER, 235 U.S. 55, 68, IT
IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A SITUATION IN A FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASE
TODAY WHERE THAT REMEDY WOULD BE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE.  OF COURSE,
THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE POWER TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER A JUDGMENT WAS
OBTAINED BY FRAUD AND MAKE WHATEVER MODIFICATION IS NECESSARY, AT ANY
TIME.  UNIVERSAL OIL CO. V. ROOT REFINING CO., 328 U.S. 575. 

FN5  WHEN THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, ADOPTED LONG
BEFORE THE CRIMINAL RULES, WANTED TO GIVE THE TRIAL JUDGE POWER TO
GRANT A NEW TRIAL ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, THEY DID SO IN EXPRESS WORDS. 
RULE 59(D), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 
..END :







MYERS V. READING CO., 331 U.S. 477 


NO. 367.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1947.  - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1947.  - 155 F.2D
523, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, BY AN
EMPLOYEE AGAINST A CARRIER TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT'S USE, IN VIOLATION OF THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS, OF A FREIGHT CAR NOT EQUIPPED WITH EFFICIENT
HAND BRAKES, THE EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL, WITH THE INFERENCES THAT THE
JURY JUSTIFIABLY COULD DRAW FROM IT, WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE
VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF; AND IT WAS ERROR TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE
DEFENDANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  PP. 478-486. 

2.  ALTHOUGH A CARRIER IS NOT SUBJECT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT TO AN ABSOLUTE LIABILITY TO ITS EMPLOYEES FOR INJURIES,
IT IS SUBJECT TO LIABILITY FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM A VIOLATION OF
ITS ABSOLUTE DUTY TO COMPLY WITH THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.  P. 485. 

MYERS V. READING COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

NOTWITHSTANDING A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS, THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  63 F.SUPP.  817. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  155 F.2D 523.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 699.  REVERSED, P. 486. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION FOR DAMAGES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED TO THE PETITIONER
BY THE RESPONDENT'S USE, IN VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS,
FN1  OF A RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR NOT EQUIPPED WITH EFFICIENT HAND BRAKES,
PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL, WITH THE
INFERENCES THAT THE JURY JUSTIFIABLY COULD DRAW FROM IT, WAS SUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT FOR THE PETITIONER.  WE HOLD THAT IT WAS. 

THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BY THE PETITIONER, JOHN MYERS,
AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER, THE READING COMPANY.  HE CLAIMED THAT HE RECEIVED
PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY THE RESPONDENT'S USE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IN ITS RAILROAD YARDS AT PORT RICHMOND, PHILADELPHIA, OF A
FREIGHT CAR EQUIPPED WITH A DEFECTIVE HAND BRAKE IN VIOLATION OF THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS REQUIRING SUCH CARS TO BE EQUIPPED WITH
"EFFICIENT HAND BRAKES."  FN2  AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE, RESPONDENT
MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  THE MOTION WAS NOT GRANTED, AND THE JURY
RETURNED A VERDICT FOR $5,000 IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER.  THE
RESPONDENT THEN MOVED TO HAVE THE VERDICT SET ASIDE AND TO HAVE
JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ITS FAVOR.  FN3  ON DECEMBER 28, 1945, THIS MOTION
WAS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT WAS SO ENTERED.  63 F.SUPP.  817.  ON MAY 29,
1946, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT, PER CURIAM.  155 F.2D 523.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN ORDER TO
REVIEW THIS PROCEDURE, IN A CASE BASED UPON A VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACTS, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISION RENDERED ON MARCH 25,
1946, IN LAVENDER V. KURN, 327 U.S. 645, SUBSEQUENT TO THE TRIAL OF
THIS CASE. 

THE PETITIONER TESTIFIED TO THE FOLLOWING: 

ON JUNE 11, 1944, HE WAS WORKING FOR THE RESPONDENT AS A FREIGHT
CONDUCTOR IN CHARGE OF A CREW CONSISTING OF AN ENGINEER, A FIREMAN AND
TWO BRAKEMEN.  HE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR SIX OR SEVEN
YEARS, RISING FROM THE RANK OF CROSSING WATCHMAN TO THAT OF CONDUCTOR
AND, FOR FIVE OR SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING JUNE 11, HE HAD
WORKED PRACTICALLY EVERY DAY IN THE JOB IN WHICH HE WAS ENGAGED WHEN
INJURED.  AT ABOUT NINE O'CLOCK THAT EVENING HIS CREW MOVED A STRING OF
SEVEN COAL CARS ON TO A YARD TRACK WHERE THE CREW COUPLED THOSE CARS TO
THREE OTHERS.  ONE OF THE BRAKEMEN, NEW ON THE JOB THAT DAY, MADE THE
COUPLING AND THE PETITIONER DIRECTED HIM "TO TIE THE HANDBRAKES ON" -
THAT IS, TO TIGHTEN THEM SO AS TO INSURE AGAINST FURTHER MOVEMENTS OF
THE CARS ON THE SLIGHTLY GRADED TRACK.  THE BRAKEMAN DID THIS, BUT
BEFORE THE PETITIONER LEFT THE CARS HE CHECKED THEM OVER AND SAW THAT
THE BRAKES WERE NOT ALL ON, BECAUSE ONE BRAKE CHAIN, INSTEAD OF BEING
WRAPPED AROUND THE SHAFT, WAS HANGING LOOSE.  HE CLIMBED UP ON THE
BRAKE PLATFORM, EIGHT FEET ABOVE THE GROUND, ON THE CAR WHERE THE HAND
BRAKE WAS NOT SET, AND TRIED TO SET IT BY TURNING THE BRAKE WHEEL. 
WHILE DOING THIS, HE CARRIED HIS SIGNALING LANTERN ON HIS LEFT ARM WITH
HIS HAND THROUGH THE HANDLE.  AS TO THE CONDITION AND OPERATION OF THE
BRAKE HE TESTIFIED: 

"A.  I WAS TIGHTENING THE BRAKE - IT WAS KIND OF STIFF AND STICKING -
IT WAS PRETTY HARD TO SIGNAL WITH THE ONE HAND AND TO GET THE BRAKE
ON. 

"Q.  WITH THE ORDINARY BRAKE WHEEL, DO YOU HAVE THE DIFFICULTY THAT
YOU HAD WITH THIS WHEEL? 

"A.  NOT ORDINARILY. 

"Q.  WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS WHEEL AND THE ORDINARY
WHEEL? 

"A.  IT WAS KIND OF STIFF, AND LIKE A SPRING - LIKE A SHOE KICKING
BACK. 

"Q.  AND YOU STARTED TO TRY TO SET IT? 

"A.  THAT IS RIGHT. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"A.  AS I WAS TIGHTENING THE BRAKE - JUST THAT QUICK - I FELT
SOMETHING LIKE THE SLACK BEING RUN OUT, GETTING READY TO UNCOUPLE. 

"Q.  WHAT DID YOU FEEL ON YOUR CAR? 

"A.  A QUICK JAR, AND I TOOK THIS HAND TO SIGNAL 'STOP.' 
(INDICATING.) 

"Q.  WHAT DID YOU SIGNAL? 

"A.  I SIGNALED 'STOP' THE BEST I COULD AND HOLD ON, BUT I WENT DOWN;
I LOST MY HOLD AND DOWN I WENT. 

"Q.  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WHEEL ON THE HAND-BRAKE WHILE YOU WERE
HOLDING THE WHEEL? 

"A.  THAT KICKED BACK. 

"Q.  WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? 

"A.  I WAS PUTTING IT ON THIS WAY (INDICATING), AND IT KICKED RIGHT
BACK OFF. 

"Q.  COULD YOU HOLD IT? 

"A.  NO, I COULDN'T. 

"Q.  WAS IT PULLED ALL THE WAY ON? 

"A.  OH, NO. 

"Q.  WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU? 

"A.  DOWN I WENT."  FN4 

THE JURY FOUND, IN A SPECIAL VERDICT, THAT THE BRAKE WAS NOT AN
EFFICIENT BRAKE; THAT ITS INEFFICIENCY CONTRIBUTED TO OR CAUSED
INJURIES TO THE PETITIONER; THAT THE TRAIN DID NOT MOVE AFTER THE SEVEN
SHIFTED CARS WERE COUPLED TO THE THREE STANDING CARS; AND THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS NOT THROWN FROM A MOVING TRAIN.  FN5  THE JURY THUS
REACHED FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS SUPPORTING ITS GENERAL VERDICT FOR THE
PETITIONER, AND REDUCING THE LEGAL BASIS FOR RECOVERY TO THE
RESPONDENT'S USE OF A CAR NOT EQUIPPED WITH EFFICIENT HAND BRAKES. 

THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROBATIVE
EVIDENCE, WITH THE INFERENCES THAT THE JURY COULD DRAW FROM IT, TO
SUPPORT THE VERDICT FOR THE PETITIONER. 

THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTE AND UNQUALIFIED PROHIBITION AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT'S USING OR PERMITTING TO BE USED, ON ITS LINE, ANY CAR NOT
EQUIPPED WITH "EFFICIENT HAND BRAKES."  FN6  IN SPEAKING OF A LIKE
PROHIBITION, IMPOSED BY THE SAME SECTION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS,
AGAINST THE USE OF ANY CAR NOT EQUIPPED WITH "SECURE HAND HOLDS OR GRAB
IRONS," MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES SAID: 

"THIS FINAL QUESTION MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE NATURE OF
THE OBLIGATION RESTING UPON THE CARRIER IN RELATION TO THE USE OF A
DEFECTIVE CAR.  THE STATUTORY LIABILITY IS NOT BASED UPON THE CARRIER'S
NEGLIGENCE.  THE DUTY IMPOSED IS AN ABSOLUTE ONE AND THE CARRIER IS NOT
EXCUSED BY ANY SHOWING OF CARE HOWEVER ASSIDUOUS."  BRADY V. TERMINAL
R. ASSN., 303 U.S. 10, 15, AND CASES THERE CITED. 

SEE ALSO, ATLANTIC CITY R. CO. V. PARKER, 242 U.S. 56, 59(AUTOMATIC
COUPLERS REQUIRED BY 27 STAT. 531, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 2); GREAT NORTHERN R.
CO. V. OTOS, 239 U.S. 349, 351(COUPLERS); CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 559, 574-575; ST. LOUIS & IRON MOUNTAIN R. CO.
V. TAYLOR, 210 U.S. 281, 294-295(COUPLERS AND DRAWBARS); SPOTTS V.
BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 102 F.2D 160, 162(HAND BRAKES). 

THIS SIMPLIFIES THE ISSUE BEYOND THAT PRESENTED IN THE ORDINARY CASE
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WHERE THE PLAINTIFF MUST
ESTABLISH THE NEGLIGENCE OF HIS EMPLOYER.  HERE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
FIND NEGLIGENCE.  A RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS MAY
BE FOUND LIABLE IF THE JURY REASONABLY CAN INFER FROM THE EVIDENCE
MERELY THAT THE HAND BRAKE WHICH CAUSED THE INJURIES WAS ON A CAR WHICH
THE RAILROAD WAS THEN USING ON ITS LINE, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
THAT THE BRAKE WAS NOT AN "EFFICIENT" HAND BRAKE.  FURTHERMORE - 

"THERE ARE TWO RECOGNIZED METHODS OF SHOWING THE INEFFICIENCY OF HAND
BRAKE EQUIPMENT.  EVIDENCE MAY BE ADDUCED TO ESTABLISH SOME PARTICULAR
DEFECT, OR THE SAME INEFFICIENCY MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY SHOWING A
FAILURE TO FUNCTION, WHEN OPERATED WITH DUE CARE, IN THE NORMAL,
NATURAL, AND USUAL MANNER."  DIDINGER V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 39 F.2D
798, 799. 

"PROOF OF AN ACTUAL BREAK OR VISIBLE DEFECT IN A COUPLING APPLIANCE
IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO A FINDING THAT THE STATUTE HAS BEEN VIOLATED. 
WHERE A JURY FINDS THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION, IT WILL BE SUSTAINED, IF
THERE IS PROOF THAT THE MECHANISM FAILED TO WORK EFFICIENTLY AND
PROPERLY EVEN THOUGH IT WORKED EFFICIENTLY BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
OCCASION IN QUESTION.  THE TEST IN FACT IS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
APPLIANCE.  PHILADELPHIA & R.R. CO. V. AUCHENBACH, 3 CIR., 16 F.2D
550.  EFFICIENT MEANS ADEQUATE IN PERFORMANCE; PRODUCING PROPERLY A
DESIRED EFFECT.  INEFFICIENT MEANS NOT PRODUCING OR NOT CAPABLE OF
PRODUCING THE DESIRED EFFECT; INCAPABLE; INCOMPETENT; INADEQUATE.  ... 

    .         .         .         .         . 

"  ...  THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF THAT THE BRAKE WAS USED IN THE
NORMAL AND USUAL MANNER AND FAILED TO WORK EFFICIENTLY BUT DID SO
INEFFICIENTLY, THROWING HIM TO THE GROUND, IS SUCH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
OF INEFFICIENCY AS TO MAKE AN ISSUE FOR THE JURY.  DETROIT, T. & I.R.
CO. V. HAHN, 6 CIR., 47 F.2D 59.  IN OTHER WORDS, WE CANNOT SAY AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT ANY AND ALL INFERENCES WHICH THE JURY MIGHT
REASONABLY DRAW FROM THE EVIDENCE WOULD SUPPORT ONLY A VERDICT FOR
DEFENDANT AND NOT ONE FOR PLAINTIFF."  SPOTTS V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO.,
SUPRA, AT P. 162.  SEE ALSO, WILD V. PITCAIRN, 347 MO. 915, 149 S.W.2D
800; AND NEWKIRK V. LOS ANGELES JUNCTION R. CO., 21 CAL.2D 308, 131
P.2D 535. 

THE INEFFICIENCY OF THE BRAKE IN THIS CASE MAY HAVE CONSISTED OF ITS
DEFECTIVE CONDITION OR ITS DEFECTIVE FUNCTIONAL OPERATION RESULTING, IN
EITHER CASE, IN ITS KNOCKING FROM THE BRAKE PLATFORM AN EXPERIENCED
RAILROAD MAN ATTEMPTING TO TIGHTEN OR SET THE BRAKE IN THE CUSTOMARY
MANNER DESCRIBED IN HIS TESTIMONY.  THAT TESTIMONY WAS NOT DESCRIPTIVE
OF PRECISE MECHANICAL DEFECTS IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE BRAKE.  IT WAS,
HOWEVER, SIMPLE AND DIRECT TESTIMONY FROM WHICH A JURY REASONABLY MIGHT
INFER THE BRAKE'S DEFECTIVENESS AND ITS INEFFICIENCY IN THE SENSE
NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.  AFTER
A BRAKEMAN HAD ATTEMPTED TO SET ALL OF THE BRAKES, THE CHAIN ON THIS
BRAKE STILL HUNG LOOSE, INDICATING THAT IT WAS NOT SET.  WHEN THE BRAKE
WAS PARTIALLY TIGHTENED BY AN EXPERIENCED FREIGHT CONDUCTOR FAMILIAR
WITH THAT KIND OF AN OPERATION, HE FOUND THAT IT DIFFERED FROM THE
ORDINARY BRAKE.  HE FOUND THAT "IT WAS KIND OF STIFF, AND LIKE A SPRING
- LIKE A SHOE KICKING BACK."  WHILE HE WAS HOLDING THE WHEEL, BEFORE IT
WAS "PULLED ALL THE WAY ON," IT "KICKED BACK," HE COULDN'T HOLD IT, AND
"DOWN" HE WENT.  THIS RESULTED IN SERIOUS INJURIES TO HIS HAND AND
BACK.  WHILE DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS MIGHT BE POSSIBLE, THE JURY, WHICH
HEARD THE TESTIMONY AND SAW THE PETITIONER'S ILLUSTRATIONS OF HIS
HANDLING OF THE BRAKE, REASONABLY COULD INFER FROM THAT EVIDENCE THAT
THE CONDITION OF THIS BRAKE AND ITS ACTION WERE NOT THOSE OF AN
EFFICIENT HAND BRAKE. 

THE QUESTIONS AT ISSUE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT.  THE JURY WAS ENTITLED
TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM THE EVIDENCE.  FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THE
JURY REASONABLY COULD FIND, AS IT DID IN ITS SPECIAL VERDICT, (1) THAT
THE BRAKE WAS NOT AN EFFICIENT BRAKE, AND (2) THAT THE FACT THAT THE
BRAKE WAS NOT AN EFFICIENT BRAKE CONTRIBUTED TO OR CAUSED INJURY TO THE
PETITIONER.  IN THE FACE OF THIS, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ENTERING A
JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOTION FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT. 

THE RESPONDENT IS NOT SUBJECT, AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, TO AN ABSOLUTE
LIABILITY TO ITS EMPLOYEES COMPARABLE TO THAT ESTABLISHED BY A
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW.  FN7  AS AN INTERSTATE COMMON CARRIER,
HOWEVER, IT IS SUBJECT TO LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO ITS EMPLOYEES
RESULTING FROM ITS VIOLATION OF ITS ABSOLUTE DUTY TO COMPLY WITH THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.  THE EVIDENCE HERE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE
VERDICT FOR THE PETITIONER, WHETHER TESTED BY THE FORMULA USED BY THIS
COURT IN IMPROVEMENT CO. V. MUNSON, 14 WALL.  442; SLOCUM V. NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO., 228 U.S. 364; TENNANT V. PEORIA & P.U.R. CO., 321 U.S.
29; OR LAVENDER V. KURN, SUPRA.  THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR PROBATIVE FACTS
CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING, WITH REASON, THE CONCLUSION EXPRESSED IN THE
VERDICT. 

"PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO PRESENT PROBATIVE FACTS FROM WHICH THE
NEGLIGENCE AND THE CAUSAL RELATION COULD REASONABLY BE INFERRED.  'THE
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT IS THAT MERE SPECULATION BE NOT ALLOWED TO DO
DUTY FOR PROBATIVE FACTS, AFTER MAKING DUE ALLOWANCE FOR ALL REASONABLY
POSSIBLE INFERENCES FAVORING THE PARTY WHOSE CASE IS ATTACKED.' 
GALLOWAY V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 372, 395; ...  "  TENNANT V. PEORIA
& P.U.R. CO., SUPRA, AT PP. 32-33. 

SEE ALSO, BLAIR V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 323 U.S. 600; BRADY V.
SOUTHERN R. CO., 320 U.S. 476; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 288
U.S. 333, 343; WESTERN & A.R. CO. V. HUGHES, 278 U.S. 496; AND
BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. GROEGER, 266 U.S. 521, 524. 

"ONLY WHEN THERE IS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF PROBATIVE FACTS TO SUPPORT
THE CONCLUSION REACHED DOES A REVERSIBLE ERROR APPEAR.  BUT WHERE, AS
HERE, THERE IS AN EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR THE JURY'S VERDICT, THE JURY IS
FREE TO DISCARD OR DISBELIEVE WHATEVER FACTS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH ITS
CONCLUSION.  AND THE APPELLATE COURT'S FUNCTION IS EXHAUSTED WHEN THAT
EVIDENTIARY BASIS BECOMES APPARENT, IT BEING IMMATERIAL THAT THE COURT
MIGHT DRAW A CONTRARY INFERENCE OR FEEL THAT ANOTHER CONCLUSION IS MORE
REASONABLE."  LAVENDER V. KURN, SUPRA, AT P. 653.    WE BELIEVE THAT
THE EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE TRIAL, WITH THE INFERENCES THAT THE JURY
JUSTIFIABLY COULD DRAW FROM IT, WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT
ORIGINALLY RENDERED FOR THE PETITIONER.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINING THE JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR THE
RESPONDENT BY THE DISTRICT COURT IS HEREBY REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  2.  ...  , IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT (OF APRIL 14, 1910) TO HAUL, OR
PERMIT TO BE HAULED OR USED ON ITS LINE ANY CAR SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT NOT EQUIPPED WITH APPLIANCES PROVIDED FOR IN
THIS ACT, TO WIT:  ALL CARS MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH SECURE SILL STEPS AND
EFFICIENT HAND BRAKES; ALL CARS REQUIRING SECURE LADDERS AND SECURE
RUNNING BOARDS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH SUCH LADDERS AND RUNNING BOARDS,
AND ALL CARS HAVING LADDERS SHALL ALSO BE EQUIPPED WITH SECURE HAND
HOLDS OR GRAB IRONS ON THEIR ROOFS AT THE TOPS OF SUCH LADDERS:  ...  "
36 STAT. 298, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 11. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  "RULE 50.  MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT. 

     .         .         .         . . 

"(B)  RESERVATION OF DECISION ON MOTION....  WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE
RECEPTION OF A VERDICT, A PARTY WHO HAS MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT
MAY MOVE TO HAVE THE VERDICT AND ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON SET ASIDE
AND TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT; ...  IF A VERDICT WAS RETURNED THE COURT MAY ALLOW
THE JUDGMENT TO STAND OR MAY REOPEN THE JUDGMENT AND EITHER ORDER A NEW
TRIAL OR DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE REQUESTED VERDICT HAD
BEEN DIRECTED.  ...  "  FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 

FN4  FURTHER TESTIMONY STATED THAT HIS INJURIES WERE DUE TO THIS
FALL.  OTHER TESTIMONY SUPPORTED THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM, UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, 53 STAT. 1404, 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 51, THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NEGLIGENT IN MOVING THE TRAIN WHILE
THE PETITIONER WAS TRYING TO TIGHTEN THE BRAKE AND WITHOUT ANY
DIRECTION FROM HIM.  THIS CHARGE, HOWEVER, WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE
SPECIAL VERDICT OF THE JURY, STATING THAT THE TRAIN DID NOT MOVE, THUS
STRENGTHENING THE PROBATIVE FORCE OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE
PETITIONER'S FALL WAS CAUSED BY THE STIFFNESS AND KICKBACK OF THE
BRAKE. 

FN5  THE SPECIAL VERDICT WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  WAS THE BRAKE IN QUESTION AN EFFICIENT BRAKE? 

ANSWER 'YES' OR 'NO.'  (ANSWER) NO. 

"2.  IF YOU FIND THAT THE BRAKE IN QUESTION WAS NOT AN EFFICIENT
BRAKE, DID THAT FACT CONTRIBUTE TO OR CAUSE ANY INJURIES TO THE
PLAINTIFF? 

ANSWER 'YES' OR 'NO.'  (ANSWER) YES. 

"3.  DID THE TRAIN MOVE AFTER THE SEVEN SHIFTED CARS WERE COUPLED TO
THE THREE STANDING CARS? 

ANSWER 'YES' OR 'NO.'  (ANSWER) NO. 

"4.  IF YOU FIND THAT THE TRAIN MOVED AFTER THE CARS WERE COUPLED,
DID THAT FACT CONTRIBUTE TO OR CAUSE ANY INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE
PLAINTIFF? 

ANSWER 'YES' OR 'NO.'  (ANSWER) NO. 

"5.  WAS THE PLAINTIFF THROWN FROM A MOVING TRAIN? 

ANSWER 'YES' OR 'NO.'  (ANSWER) NO. 

"6.  DID THE PLAINTIFF BECOME ILL WHILE WALKING ON THE GROUND,
WITHOUT HAVING BEEN THROWN FROM THE TRAIN? 

ANSWER 'YES' OR 'NO.'  (ANSWER) NO." 

FN6  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN7  SEE GRISWOLD V. GARDNER, 155 F.2D 333, 334, 337. 
..END :



CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 U.S. 367 


NO. 241.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 19, 1947.  - 149 TEX.
CR. - , 193 S.W.2D 178, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PUBLICATION IN A NEWSPAPER OF NEWS ARTICLES, WHICH UNFAIRLY
REPORTED EVENTS IN A CASE PENDING IN A STATE COURT, AND AN EDITORIAL,
WHICH VEHEMENTLY ATTACKED THE TRIAL JUDGE (A LAYMAN ELECTED FOR A SHORT
TERM) WHILE A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WAS PENDING, DID NOT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, CONSTITUTE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; AND THE CONVICTION OF THE NEWSPAPERMEN
FOR CONTEMPT VIOLATED THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  FOLLOWING BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S.
252, AND PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331.  PP. 368-370, 375-378. 

2.  THE PRESENT CASE IS ONE OF THE TYPE IN WHICH THIS COURT IS
REQUIRED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER A STATE HAS DEPRIVED A PERSON OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT SECURED BY
THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 373-374. 

3.  THERE IS NO SPECIAL PERQUISITE OF THE JUDICIARY WHICH ENABLES IT,
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, TO
SUPPRESS, EDIT, OR CENSOR REPORTS OF OCCURRENCES IN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS.  P. 374. 

4.  ONE REPORTING THE NEWS OF A JUDICIAL TRIAL MAY NOT BE HELD FOR
CONTEMPT BECAUSE HE MISSED THE ESSENTIAL POINT IN THE TRIAL OR FAILED
TO SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES TO ACCORD WITH THE VIEWS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE. 
P. 375. 

5.  THE VEHEMENCE OF THE LANGUAGE USED IN A PUBLICATION CONCERNING A
PENDING CASE IS NOT ALONE THE MEASURE OF THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT; THE THREAT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE MUST BE
IMMINENT.  P. 376. 

6.  THE LAW OF CONTEMPT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF JUDGES
WHO MAY BE SENSITIVE TO THE WINDS OF PUBLIC OPINION.  P. 376. 

7.  ALTHOUGH THE NATURE OF A CASE MAY BE RELEVANT IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST IS SATISFIED, THE RULE OF THE
BRIDGES AND PENNEKAMP CASES IS FASHIONED TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF ALL
LITIGATION, NOT MERELY PARTICULAR TYPES OF PENDING CASES.  P. 378. 

CRAIG ET AL. V. HARNEY, SHERIFF. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. 

PETITIONERS' APPLICATION TO A STATE COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO OBTAIN THEIR RELEASE FROM IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT WAS DENIED.  193
S.W.2D 178.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 696.  REVERSED,
P. 378. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
REED. 

PETITIONERS WERE ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONSTRUCTIVE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT BY
THE COUNTY COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, AND SENTENCED TO JAIL FOR
THREE DAYS.  THEY SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THEIR CONFINEMENT
BY APPLYING TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.  FN1 THAT COURT BY A DIVIDED VOTE DENIED THE WRIT AND REMANDED
PETITIONERS TO THE CUSTODY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF.  149 TEX. CR. - , 193
S.W.2D 178.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM AND BECAUSE
THE RULING OF THE TEXAS COURT RAISED DOUBTS WHETHER IT CONFORMED TO THE
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, AND
PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331. 

PETITIONERS ARE A PUBLISHER, AN EDITORIAL WRITER, AND A NEWS REPORTER
OF NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHED IN CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.  THE COUNTY COURT HAD
BEFORE IT A FORCIBLE DETAINER CASE, JACKSON V. MAYES, WHEREBY JACKSON
SOUGHT TO REGAIN POSSESSION FROM MAYES OF A BUSINESS BUILDING IN CORPUS
CHRISTI WHICH MAYES (WHO WAS AT THE TIME IN THE ARMED SERVICES AND
WHOSE AFFAIRS WERE BEING HANDLED BY AN AGENT, ONE BURCHARD) CLAIMED
UNDER A LEASE.  THAT CASE TURNED ON WHETHER MAYES' LEASE WAS FORFEITED
BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT OF RENT.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE TESTIMONY EACH
SIDE MOVED FOR AN INSTRUCTED VERDICT.  THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO
RETURN A VERDICT FOR JACKSON.  THAT WAS ON MAY 26, 1945.  THE JURY
RETURNED WITH A VERDICT FOR MAYES.  THE JUDGE REFUSED TO ACCEPT IT AND
AGAIN INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO RETURN A VERDICT FOR JACKSON.  THE JURY
RETURNED A SECOND TIME WITH A VERDICT FOR MAYES.  ONCE MORE THE JUDGE
REFUSED TO ACCEPT IT AND REPEATED HIS PRIOR INSTRUCTION.  IT BEING THE
EVENING OF MAY 26TH AND THE JURY NOT HAVING COMPLIED, THE JUDGE
RECESSED THE COURT UNTIL THE MORNING OF MAY 27TH.  AGAIN THE JURY
BALKED AT RETURNING THE INSTRUCTED VERDICT.  BUT FINALLY IT COMPLIED,
STATING THAT IT ACTED UNDER COERCION OF THE COURT AND AGAINST ITS
CONSCIENCE. 

ON MAY 29TH MAYES MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THAT MOTION WAS DENIED ON
JUNE 6TH.  ON JUNE 4TH AN OFFICER OF THE COUNTY COURT FILED WITH THAT
COURT A COMPLAINT CHARGING PETITIONERS WITH CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION. 
THE PUBLICATIONS REFERRED TO WERE AN EDITORIAL AND NEWS STORIES
PUBLISHED ON MAY 26, 27, 28, 30, AND 31 IN THE NEWSPAPERS WITH WHICH
PETITIONERS ARE CONNECTED.  WE HAVE SET FORTH THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE
PUBLICATIONS IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION.  BROWNING, THE JUDGE, WHO
IS A LAYMAN AND WHO HOLDS AN ELECTIVE OFFICE, WAS CRITICISED FOR TAKING
THE CASE FROM THE JURY.  THAT RULING WAS CALLED "ARBITRARY ACTION" AND
A "TRAVESTY ON JUSTICE."  IT WAS DEPLORED THAT A LAYMAN, RATHER THAN A
LAWYER, SAT AS JUDGE.  GROUPS OF LOCAL CITIZENS WERE REPORTED AS
PETITIONING THE JUDGE TO GRANT MAYES A NEW TRIAL AND IT WAS SAID THAT
ONE GROUP HAD LABELED THE JUDGE'S RULING AS A "GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF
JUSTICE."  IT WAS ALSO SAID THAT THE JUDGE'S BEHAVIOR HAD PROPERLY
BROUGHT DOWN "THE WRATH OF PUBLIC OPINION UPON HIS HEAD," THAT THE
PEOPLE WERE AROUSED BECAUSE A SERVICE MAN "SEEMS TO BE GETTING A RAW
DEAL," AND THAT THERE WAS "NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER JUSTICE WAS DONE,
BECAUSE THE FIRST RULE OF JUSTICE, GIVING BOTH SIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HEARD, WAS REPUDIATED."  AND THE FACT THAT THERE COULD BE NO APPEAL
FROM THE JUDGE'S RULING TO A COURT "FAMILIAR WITH PROPER PROCEDURE AND
ABLE TO INTERPRET AND WEIGH MOTIONS AND ARGUMENTS BY OPPOSING COUNSEL"
WAS DEPLORED. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE CONCLUDED THAT THE REPORTS AND EDITORIAL WERE
DESIGNED FALSELY TO REPRESENT TO THE PUBLIC THE NATURE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND TO PREJUDICE AND INFLUENCE THE COURT IN ITS RULING ON
THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL THEN PENDING.  PETITIONERS CONTENDED AT THE
HEARING THAT ALL THAT WAS REPORTED DID NO MORE THAN TO CREATE THE SAME
IMPRESSION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CREATED UPON THE MIND OF AN AVERAGE
INTELLIGENT LAYMAN WHO SAT THROUGH THE TRIAL.  THEY DISCLAIMED ANY
PURPOSE TO IMPUTE UNWORTHY MOTIVES TO THE JUDGE OR TO ADVISE HIM HOW
THE CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED OR TO BRING THE COURT INTO DISREPUTE.  THE
PURPOSE WAS TO "QUICKEN THE CONSCIENCE OF THE JUDGE" AND TO "MAKE HIM
MORE CAREFUL IN DISCHARGING HIS DUTY." 

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, IN DENYING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
STATED THAT THE "ISSUE BEFORE US" IS "WHETHER THE PUBLICATIONS  ...
WERE REASONABLY CALCULATED TO INTERFERE WITH THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE" IN THE PENDING CASE.  193 S.W.2D P. 186.  IT HELD THAT "THERE
IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF
THE PUBLISHERS  ...  TO FORCE, COMPEL, AND COERCE JUDGE BROWNING TO
GRANT MAYES A NEW TRIAL.  THE ONLY REASON OR MOTIVE FOR SO DOING WAS
BECAUSE THE PUBLISHERS DID NOT AGREE WITH JUDGE BROWNING'S DECISION OR
CONDUCT OF THE CASE.  ACCORDING TO THEIR VIEWPOINT, JUDGE BROWNING WAS
WRONG AND THEY TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO MAKE HIM CHANGE HIS
DECISION."  ID., PP. 188-189.  THE COURT WENT ON TO SAY THAT "IT IS
HARD TO CONCEIVE HOW THE PUBLIC PRESS COULD HAVE BEEN MORE FORCIBLY OR
SUBSTANTIALLY USED OR APPLIED TO MAKE, FORCE, AND COMPEL A JUDGE TO
CHANGE A RULING OR DECISION IN A CASE PENDING BEFORE HIM THAN WAS HERE
DONE."  ID., P. 189.  THE COURT DISTINGUISHED THE BRIDGES CASE, NOTING
THAT THERE THE PUBLISHED STATEMENTS CARRIED THREATS OF FUTURE ADVERSE
CRITICISM AND ACTION ON THE PART OF THE PUBLISHER IF THE PENDING MATTER
WAS NOT DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS OF THE PUBLISHER, THAT
THE VIEWS OF THE PUBLISHER IN THE MATTER WERE ALREADY WELL-KNOWN, AND
THAT THE BRIDGES CASE WAS NOT PRIVATE LITIGATION BUT A SUIT IN THE
OUTCOME OF WHICH THE PUBLIC HAD AN INTEREST.  ID., P. 188.  IT
CONCLUDED THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE SATISFIED THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER" RULE OF THE BRIDGES CASE.  THAT TEST WAS, IN THE VIEW OF THE
COURT, SATISFIED "BECAUSE THE PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR PURPOSE WERE TO
IMPRESS UPON JUDGE BROWNING (A) THAT UNLESS HE GRANTED THE MOTION FOR A
NEW TRIAL HE WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO SUSPICION AS TO HIS INTEGRITY AND
FAIRNESS AND TO ODIUM AND HATRED IN THE PUBLIC MIND; (B) THAT THE SAFE
AND SECURE COURSE TO AVOID THE CRITICISM OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
OPINION WOULD BE TO GRANT THE MOTION AND DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM AGAIN
PRESIDING AT THE TRIAL OF THE CASE; AND (C) THAT IF HE OVERRULED THE
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, THERE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE PUBLIC MIND SUCH
A DISREGARD FOR THE COURT OVER WHICH HE PRESIDED AS TO GIVE RISE TO A
PURPOSE IN PRACTICE TO REFUSE TO RESPECT AND OBEY ANY ORDER, JUDGMENT,
OR DECREE WHICH HE MIGHT RENDER IN CONFLICT WITH THE VIEWS OF THE
PUBLIC PRESS."  ID., P. 189. 

THE COURT'S STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE BEFORE IT AND THE REASONS IT GAVE
FOR HOLDING THAT THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST WAS SATISFIED HAVE
A STRIKING RESEMBLANCE TO THE FINDINGS WHICH THE COURT IN TOLEDO
NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402, HELD ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN
AN ADJUDICATION OF CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION.  FN2  THAT CASE HELD THAT
COMMENT ON A PENDING CASE IN A FEDERAL COURT WAS PUNISHABLE BY CONTEMPT
IF IT HAD A "REASONABLE TENDENCY" TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  WE REVISITED THAT CASE IN NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33,
52, AND DISAPPROVED IT. AND IN BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, WE HELD
THAT THE COMPULSION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, MADE APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH (SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON, 308 U.S. 147; MURDOCK
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 108) FORBADE THE PUNISHMENT BY CONTEMPT
FOR COMMENT ON PENDING CASES IN ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT THE
UTTERANCES CREATED A "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TO THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE.  314 U.S. PP. 260-264.  WE REAFFIRMED AND REAPPLIED THAT
STANDARD IN PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, WHICH ALSO INVOLVED COMMENT ON
MATTERS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT.  WE STATED, P. 347: 

"COURTS MUST HAVE POWER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF PRISONERS AND
LITIGANTS BEFORE THEM FROM UNSEEMLY EFFORTS TO PERVERT JUDICIAL
ACTION.  IN THE BORDERLINE INSTANCES WHERE IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY UPON
WHICH SIDE THE ALLEGED OFFENSE FALLS, WE THINK THE SPECIFIC FREEDOM OF
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD WEIGH HEAVILY AGAINST A POSSIBLE TENDENCY TO
INFLUENCE PENDING CASES.  FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION SHOULD BE GIVEN THE
WIDEST RANGE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF THE FAIR AND
ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE." 

NEITHER THOSE CASES NOR THE PRESENT ONE RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING
THE FULL REACH OF THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PROTECT THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE BY ITS COURTS.  THE PROBLEM PRESENTED IS ONLY A NARROW,
ALBEIT IMPORTANT, PHASE OF THAT PROBLEM - THE POWER OF A COURT PROMPTLY
AND WITHOUT A JURY TRIAL TO PUNISH FOR COMMENT ON CASES PENDING BEFORE
IT AND AWAITING DISPOSITION.  THE HISTORY OF THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT (SEE NYE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA,
SUPRA) AND THE UNEQUIVOCAL COMMAND OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT SERVE AS
CONSTANT REMINDERS THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS SHOULD NOT
BE IMPAIRED THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER, UNLESS THERE IS NO
DOUBT THAT THE UTTERANCES IN QUESTION ARE A SERIOUS AND IMMINENT THREAT
TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

IN A CASE WHERE IT IS ASSERTED THAT A PERSON HAS BEEN DEPRIVED BY A
STATE COURT OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AN
INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS BY THIS COURT IS OFTEN REQUIRED TO
BE MADE.  SEE NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 590; PIERRE V.
LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354, 358; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 228
229; LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 237-238; ASHCRAFT V.
TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 147-148.  THIS IS SUCH A CASE. 

WE START WITH THE NEWS ARTICLES.  A TRIAL IS A PUBLIC EVENT.  WHAT
TRANSPIRES IN THE COURT ROOM IS PUBLIC PROPERTY.  IF A TRANSCRIPT OF
THE COURT PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN PUBLISHED, WE SUPPOSE NONE WOULD CLAIM
THAT THE JUDGE COULD PUNISH THE PUBLISHER FOR CONTEMPT.  AND WE CAN SEE
NO DIFFERENCE THOUGH THE CONDUCT OF THE ATTORNEYS, OF THE JURY, OR EVEN
OF THE JUDGE HIMSELF, MAY HAVE REFLECTED ON THE COURT.  THOSE WHO SEE
AND HEAR WHAT TRANSPIRED CAN REPORT IT WITH IMPUNITY.  THERE IS NO
SPECIAL PERQUISITE OF THE JUDICIARY WHICH ENABLES IT, AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, TO SUPPRESS, EDIT, OR
CENSOR EVENTS WHICH TRANSPIRE IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT. 

THE ARTICLES OF MAY 26, 27, AND 28 WERE PARTIAL REPORTS OF WHAT
TRANSPIRED AT THE TRIAL.  THEY DID NOT REFLECT GOOD REPORTING, FOR THEY
FAILED TO REVEAL THE PRECISE ISSUE BEFORE THE JUDGE.  THEY SAID THAT
MAYES, THE TENANT, HAD TENDERED A RENTAL CHECK.  THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE
THAT THE RENTAL CHECK WAS POST-DATED AND HENCE, IN THE OPINION OF THE
JUDGE, NOT A VALID TENDER.  IN THAT SENSE THE NEWS ARTICLES WERE BY ANY
STANDARD AN UNFAIR REPORT OF WHAT TRANSPIRED.  FN3  BUT INACCURACIES IN
REPORTING ARE COMMONPLACE.  CERTAINLY A REPORTER COULD NOT BE LAID BY
THE HEELS FOR CONTEMPT BECAUSE HE MISSED THE ESSENTIAL POINT IN A TRIAL
OR FAILED TO SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES TO ACCORD WITH THE VIEWS OF THE JUDGE
WHO SAT ON THE CASE.  CONCEIVABLY, A PLAN OF REPORTING ON A CASE COULD
BE SO DESIGNED AND EXECUTED AS TO POISON THE PUBLIC MIND, TO CAUSE A
MARCH ON THE COURT HOUSE, OR OTHERWISE SO DISTURB THE DELICATE BALANCE
IN A HIGHLY WROUGHT SITUATION AS TO IMPERIL THE FAIR AND ORDERLY
FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  BUT IT TAKES MORE IMAGINATION
THAN WE POSSESS TO FIND IN THIS RATHER SKETCHY AND ONE-SIDED REPORT OF
A CASE ANY IMMINENT OR SERIOUS THREAT TO A JUDGE OF REASONABLE
FORTITUDE.  SEE PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, SUPRA. 

THE ACCOUNTS OF MAY 30 AND 31 DEALT WITH THE NEWS OF WHAT CERTAIN
GROUPS OF CITIZENS PROPOSED TO DO ABOUT THE JUDGE'S RULING IN THE
CASE.  SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED, IT WAS A FACT THAT THEY PLANNED TO
TAKE THE PROPOSED ACTION.  THE EPISODES WERE COMMUNITY EVENTS OF
LEGITIMATE INTEREST.  WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GROUP
WHICH TOOK THE ACTION, THOSE WHO REPORTED IT STAND IN A DIFFERENT
POSITION.  EVEN IF THE FORMER WERE GUILTY OF CONTEMPT, FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS MAY NOT BE DENIED A NEWSPAPER WHICH BRINGS THEIR CONDUCT TO THE
PUBLIC EYE. 

THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION RAISED PERTAINS TO THE EDITORIAL.  IT
CALLED THE JUDGE'S REFUSAL TO HEAR BOTH SIDES "HIGH HANDED," A
"TRAVESTY ON JUSTICE," AND THE REASON THAT PUBLIC OPINION WAS
"OUTRAGED."  IT SAID THAT HIS RULING PROPERLY "BROUGHT DOWN THE WRATH
OF PUBLIC OPINION UPON HIS HEAD" SINCE A SERVICE MAN "SEEMS TO BE
GETTING A RAW DEAL."  THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO APPEAL FROM HIS
DECISION TO A "JUDGE WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH PROPER PROCEDURE AND ABLE TO
INTERPRET AND WEIGH MOTIONS AND ARGUMENTS BY OPPOSING COUNSEL AND TO
MAKE HIS DECISIONS ACCORDINGLY" WAS A "TRAGEDY."  IT DEPLORED THE FACT
THAT THE JUDGE WAS A "LAYMAN" AND NOT A "COMPETENT ATTORNEY."  IT
CONCLUDED THAT THE "FIRST RULE OF JUSTICE" WAS TO GIVE BOTH SIDES AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND WHEN THAT RULE WAS "REPUDIATED," THERE WAS
"NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER JUSTICE WAS DONE."    THIS WAS STRONG
LANGUAGE, INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE, AND, WE ASSUME, AN UNFAIR CRITICISM. 
BUT A JUDGE MAY NOT HOLD IN CONTEMPT ONE "WHO VENTURES TO PUBLISH
ANYTHING THAT TENDS TO MAKE HIM UNPOPULAR OR TO BELITTLE HIM  ...  "
SEE CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255, 281, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES DISSENTING. 
THE VEHEMENCE OF THE LANGUAGE USED IS NOT ALONE THE MEASURE OF THE
POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.  THE FIRES WHICH IT KINDLES MUST
CONSTITUTE AN IMMINENT, NOT MERELY A LIKELY, THREAT TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  THE DANGER MUST NOT BE REMOTE OR EVEN
PROBABLE; IT MUST IMMEDIATELY IMPERIL.    WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW
THAT THE EDITORIAL MUST BE APPRAISED IN THE SETTING OF THE NEWS
ARTICLES WHICH BOTH PRECEDED AND FOLLOWED IT.  IT MUST ALSO BE
APPRAISED IN LIGHT OF THE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT WHICH PREVAILED AT THAT
TIME.  THE FACT THAT THE JURY WAS RECALCITRANT AND BALKED, THE FACT
THAT IT ACTED UNDER COERCION AND CONTRARY TO ITS CONSCIENCE AND SAID SO
WERE SOME INDEX OF POPULAR OPINION.  A JUDGE WHO IS PART OF SUCH A
DRAMATIC EPISODE CAN HARDLY HELP BUT KNOW THAT HIS DECISION IS APT TO
BE UNPOPULAR.  BUT THE LAW OF CONTEMPT IS NOT MADE FOR THE PROTECTION
OF JUDGES WHO MAY BE SENSITIVE TO THE WINDS OF PUBLIC OPINION.  JUDGES
ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MEN OF FORTITUDE, ABLE TO THRIVE IN A HARDY
CLIMATE.  CONCEIVABLY A CAMPAIGN COULD BE SO MANAGED AND SO AIMED AT
THE SENSIBILITIES OF A PARTICULAR JUDGE AND THE MATTER PENDING BEFORE
HIM AS TO CROSS THE FORBIDDEN LINE.  BUT THE EPISODES WE HAVE HERE DO
NOT FALL IN THAT CATEGORY.  NOR CAN WE ASSUME THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS
NOT A MAN OF FORTITUDE. 

THE EDITORIAL'S COMPLAINT WAS TWO-FOLD.  ONE OBJECTION OR CRITICISM
WAS THAT A LAYMAN RATHER THAN A LAWYER SAT ON THE BENCH.  THAT IS
LEGITIMATE COMMENT; AND ITS RELEVANCY COULD HARDLY BE DENIED AT LEAST
WHERE JUDGES ARE ELECTED.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT
AMOUNTS AT THE VERY MOST TO AN INTIMATION THAT COME THE NEXT ELECTION
THE NEWSPAPER IN QUESTION WILL NOT SUPPORT THE INCUMBENT.  BUT IT
CONTAINED NO THREAT TO OPPOSE HIM IN THE CAMPAIGN IF THE DECISION ON
THE MERITS WAS NOT OVERRULED, NOR ANY IMPLIED REWARD IF IT WAS
CHANGED.  JUDGES WHO STAND FOR REELECTION RUN ON THEIR RECORDS.  THAT
MAY BE A RUGGED ENVIRONMENT.  CRITICISM IS EXPECTED.  DISCUSSION OF
THEIR CONDUCT IS APPROPRIATE, IF NOT NECESSARY.  THE FACT THAT THE
DISCUSSION AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT OF TIME WAS NOT IN GOOD TASTE FALLS
FAR SHORT OF MEETING THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST. 

THE OTHER COMPLAINT OF THE EDITORIAL WAS DIRECTED AT THE COURT'S
PROCEDURE - ITS FAILURE TO HEAR BOTH SIDES BEFORE THE CASE WAS
DECIDED.  THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO PASS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE.  THE
EDITORIAL, INDEED, STATED THAT THERE WAS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER
JUSTICE WAS DONE.  THAT CRITICISM OF THE COURT'S PROCEDURE - THAT IT
DECIDED THE CASE WITHOUT GIVING BOTH SIDES A CHANCE TO BE HEARD -
REDUCES THE SALIENT POINT OF THE CASE TO A NARROW ISSUE.  IF THE POINT
HAD BEEN MADE IN A PETITION FOR REHEARING, AND REDUCED TO LAWYER'S
LANGUAGE, IT WOULD BE OF TRIFLING CONSEQUENCE.  THE FACT THAT IT WAS
PUT IN LAYMAN'S LANGUAGE, COLORFULLY PHRASED FOR POPULAR CONSUMPTION,
AND PRINTED IN A NEWSPAPER DOES NOT SEEM TO US TO ELEVATE IT TO THE
CRIMINAL LEVEL.  IT MIGHT WELL HAVE A TENDENCY TO LOWER THE STANDING OF
THE JUDGE IN THE PUBLIC EYE.  BUT IT IS HARD TO SEE ON THESE FACTS HOW
IT COULD OBSTRUCT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT. 
THE ONLY DEMAND WAS FOR A HEARING.  THERE WAS NO DEMAND THAT THE JUDGE
REVERSE HIS POSITION - OR ELSE. 

"LEGAL TRIALS ARE NOT LIKE ELECTIONS, TO BE WON THROUGH THE USE OF
THE MEETING-HALL, THE RADIO, AND THE NEWSPAPER."  BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, P. 271.  BUT THERE WAS HERE NO THREAT OR MENACE TO
THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRIAL.  THE EDITORIAL CHALLENGED THE PROPRIETY OF
THE COURT'S PROCEDURE, NOT THE MERITS OF ITS RULING.  ANY SUCH
CHALLENGE, WHETHER MADE PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF
A CASE, WOULD LIKELY REFLECT ON THE COMPETENCE OF THE JUDGE IN HANDLING
CASES.  BUT AS WE HAVE SAID, THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT DEPENDS
ON A MORE SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING.  GIVING THE EDITORIAL ALL OF THE
VEHEMENCE WHICH THE COURT BELOW FOUND IN IT WE FAIL TO SEE HOW IT COULD
IN ANY REALISTIC SENSE CREATE AN IMMINENT AND SERIOUS THREAT TO THE
ABILITY OF THE COURT TO GIVE FAIR CONSIDERATION TO THE MOTION FOR
REHEARING. 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT THE CASE IS DIFFERENT FROM BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, IN THAT WE HAVE HERE ONLY PRIVATE LITIGATION, WHILE
IN THE BRIDGES CASE LABOR CONTROVERSIES WERE INVOLVED, SOME OF THEM
BEING CRIMINAL CASES.  THE THOUGHT APPARENTLY IS THAT THE RANGE OF
PERMISSIBLE COMMENT IS GREATER WHERE THE PENDING CASE GENERATES A
PUBLIC CONCERN.  THE NATURE OF THE CASE MAY, OF COURSE, BE RELEVANT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST IS SATISFIED. 
BUT, THE RULE OF THE BRIDGES AND PENNEKAMP CASES IS FASHIONED TO SERVE
THE NEEDS OF ALL LITIGATION, NOT MERELY SELECT TYPES OF PENDING CASES. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THAT APPEARS TO BE THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN TEXAS IN THIS TYPE
OF CASE.  EX PARTE MILLER, 91 TEXAS CR. REP. 607, 240 S.W. 944.  AS TO
THE TEXAS PROCEDURE WHERE THERE IS AN ADJUDICATION OF CONTEMPT FOR
VIOLATING AN ORDER IN A CIVIL CAUSE, SEE THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S.
516. 

FN2  THE FINDINGS WHICH THE COURT IN THAT CASE SUSTAINED WERE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  BECAUSE  ...  THEIR MANIFEST PURPOSE WAS TO CREATE THE
IMPRESSION ON THE MIND OF THE COURT THAT IT COULD NOT DECIDE IN THE
MATTER BEFORE IT IN ANY BUT THE ONE WAY WITHOUT GIVING RISE TO SUCH A
STATE OF SUSPICION AS TO THE INTEGRITY OR FAIRNESS OF ITS PURPOSE AND
MOTIVES AS MIGHT ENGENDER A SHRINKING FROM SO DOING.  (B)  BECAUSE THE
PUBLICATIONS DIRECTLY TENDED TO INCITE TO SUCH A CONDITION OF THE
PUBLIC MIND AS WOULD LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT IF THE COURT, ACTING
ACCORDING TO ITS CONVICTIONS, AWARDED RELIEF, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
SUCH ODIUM AND HATRED AS TO RESTRAIN IT FROM DOING SO.  (C)  BECAUSE
THE PUBLICATIONS ALSO OBVIOUSLY WERE INTENDED TO PRODUCE THE IMPRESSION
THAT ANY ORDER WHICH MIGHT BE RENDERED BY THE COURT IN THE DISCHARGE OF
ITS DUTY, IF NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE CONCEPTIONS WHICH THE PUBLICATIONS
WERE SUSTAINING, WOULD BE DISREGARDED AND CAUSE A SHRINKING FROM
PERFORMING DUTY TO AVOID THE TURMOIL AND VIOLENCE WHICH THE
PUBLICATIONS, IT MAY BE ONLY BY COVERT INSINUATION, BUT NONE TO LESS
ASSUREDLY, INVITED.  AND (D) BECAUSE THE PUBLICATIONS WERE OF A
CHARACTER, NOT MERELY BECAUSE OF THEIR INTEMPERANCE BUT BECAUSE OF
THEIR GENERAL TENDENCY, TO PRODUCE IN THE POPULAR MIND A CONDITION
WHICH WOULD GIVE RISE TO A PURPOSE IN PRACTICE TO REFUSE TO RESPECT ANY
ORDER WHICH THE COURT MIGHT RENDER IF IT CONFLICTED WITH THE SUPPOSED
RIGHTS OF THE CITY ESPOUSED BY THE PUBLICATIONS." 

247 U.S. PP. 414-415. 

FN3  THE CHARGE AGAINST PETITIONERS ALSO SET FORTH OTHER ALLEGEDLY
FALSE STATEMENTS:  (1) THAT MAYES WAS NOT AN EX-INSURANCE MAN BUT IN
THE INSURANCE BUSINESS AT THE TIME; (2) THAT TERMS OF THE CONTRACT ON
WHICH JACKSON SUED WERE NOT DISCLOSED; (3) THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS UNDER
WHICH THE PREMISES HAD BEEN OPERATED FOR SOME MONTHS BEFORE MAYES WAS
INDUCTED INTO THE ARMED SERVICES WERE NOT DISCLOSED; (4) THAT THE
ARTICLES FAILED TO STATE THE LEGAL GROUNDS ON WHICH JACKSON'S MOTION
FOR AN INSTRUCTED VERDICT WAS ARGUED AND GRANTED; (5) THAT MUCH
MATERIAL EVIDENCE WAS OMITTED WHICH WOULD HAVE ENABLED THE PUBLIC TO
FORM A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY; (6) THAT THE
PRINCIPAL PLAINTIFFS WHO WERE HIGHLY RESPECTED BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL MEN OF CORPUS CHRISTI WERE NOT NAMED. 

THESE OMISSIONS, THOUGH REFLECTING ON THE QUALITY OF THE REPORTING,
DO NOT SEEM TO US TO BE OF IMPORTANCE HERE. 

                        APPENDIX. 

ON MAY 26, 1945, A NEWS ITEM STATED: 

"BURCHARD FURTHER CLAIMED THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAD NOT KNOWN OF THE
OPTION CLAUSE, WHEN HE LEARNED OF IT HE HAD IMMEDIATELY PROFFERED A
CHECK FOR $275 RENTAL." 

ON MAY 27, 1945, THERE WAS A NEWS ITEM WHICH STATED: 

"AT 7 P.M. BROWNING, WITHOUT LISTENING TO ARGUMENT FROM COUNSEL FOR
EITHER SIDE ON A PLAINTIFF'S MOTION PRESENTED BY DUDLEY TARLTON FOR
JACKSON, AND WITHOUT GIVING THE SIX-MAN JURY OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH THE
EVIDENCE, INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO FIND AGAINST MAYES. 

"WALTER M. LEWRIGHT, MAYES' ATTORNEY, PROTESTED THAT THE COURT'S
ARBITRARY ACTION HAD RULED THAT TARLTON'S 'ONE-PAGE MOTION' DID NOT
NEED SUPPORTING ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES." 

ON MAY 28, 1945, AN ARTICLE SAID: 

"BROWNING ACCEPTED TARLTON'S ONE-PAGE MOTION, AND WITHOUT PERMITTING
ARGUMENT OR CITATION OF AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT THE MOTION, RULED THAT
IT BE GRANTED.  THE EFFECT OF THIS RULING WAS THAT BROWNING TOOK THE
MATTER FROM THE JURY." 

THAT ARTICLE ALSO INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MADE BY MAYES'
ATTORNEY TO THE JURY ON MAY 27, 1945: 

"HOWEVER, I NOW ADVISE YOU THAT UNDER THE LAW, JUDGE BROWNING HAS THE
RIGHT TO COMPEL YOU, EVEN AGAINST THE DICTATES OF YOUR CONSCIENCE, TO
SIGN THE VERDICT HE HAS ORDERED. 

"AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS PROBABLE THAT HE HAS THE POWER TO PUT YOU
IN JAIL UNTIL SUCH TIME AS YOU DO SIGN IT, AND I RATHER IMAGINE, FROM
WHAT HAS HERETOFORE TAKEN PLACE IN THIS TRIAL, THAT UNLESS YOU DO SIGN
THE VERDICT, HE WILL CAUSE YOU TO BE PUT IN JAIL. 

"AS I AND MY CLIENTS FEEL THAT YOU HAVE DONE ALL IN YOUR POWER TO
REGISTER YOUR PROTEST AND REVULSION OF FEELING AT THE EFFECT OF THIS
DECISION REACHED BY JUDGE BROWNING; AS YOU ARE HELPLESS TO DO ANYTHING
FURTHER; AND AS MAKING YOU SUFFER BY REMAINING LOCKED UP WILL NOT DO US
A BIT OF GOOD, I SUGGEST THAT YOU SIGN THE VERDICT AND RETURN TO YOUR
HOMES WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE OF HAVING DONE ALL THAT YOU COULD TO
PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF A MAN WHOM I FEEL, AND EVIDENTLY YOU FEEL, HAS
BEEN DONE A GROSS INJUSTICE. 

"WHILE WE HAVE NO APPEAL FROM THE COURT'S DECISION IN THIS CASE, WE
DO HAVE THE RIGHT AGAIN TO APPEAL TO HIS CONSCIENCE BY PRESENTING A
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THIS ACTION - AND WHICH MOTION WE WILL FILE AND
ARGUE STRENUOUSLY WITH THE HOPE THAT IN THE MEANTIME HE WILL SEE THE
ERROR COMMITTED AND WILL RECTIFY THE SAME. 

"THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT BUT THAT THE ACTION OF YOU MEN IN
REGISTERING YOUR PROTEST AGAINST THIS DECISION, AS YOU HAVE DONE, WILL
AFFECT HIM.  AT LEAST, I CAN ONLY HOPE THAT IT WILL.  I SINCERELY THANK
YOU." 

ON MAY 30, 1945, AN EDITORIAL STATED: 

"BROWNING'S BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE HAS BROUGHT DOWN THE WRATH OF
PUBLIC OPINION UPON HIS HEAD, PROPERLY SO.  EMOTIONS HAVE BEEN
AGGRAVATED.  AMERICAN PEOPLE SIMPLY DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF SUCH GOINGS
ON, ESPECIALLY WHEN A MAN IN THE SERVICE OF HIS COUNTRY SEEMS TO BE
GETTING A RAW DEAL ...  THEN THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL OFFERED A MOTION
FOR AN INSTRUCTED VERDICT FOR HIS CLIENT.  IT WAS GRANTED IMMEDIATELY,
WITHOUT HAVING HIM CITE HIS AUTHORITY OR WITHOUT GIVING THE DEFENDANT'S
ATTORNEY A CHANCE TO ARGUE AGAINST IT. 

"THAT WAS THE TRAVESTY ON JUSTICE, THE JUDGE'S REFUSAL TO HEAR BOTH
SIDES.  THAT'S WHERE A LEGAL BACKGROUND WOULD HAVE SERVED HIM IN GOOD
STEAD.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT ANY LAWYER, EVEN A HACK, WOULD
HAVE FOLLOWED SUCH HIGH HANDED PROCEDURE IN INSTRUCTING A JURY.  IT'S
NO WONDER THAT THE JURY BALKED AND PUBLIC OPINION IS OUTRAGED. 

"THE FACT THAT A SERVICEMAN IS INVOLVED LENDS DRAMA TO THE EVENT. 
BUT IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO ANYONE, IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE, WITH A
LAYMAN SITTING AS JUDGE IN A CASE WHERE FINE POINTS OF LAW ARE
INVOLVED.  TRUE, THE IDEA THAT ONLY LAWYERS ARE QUALIFIED TO OCCUPY
MOST PUBLIC OFFICES HAS BEEN RUN INTO THE GROUND, AND IN MOST INSTANCES
A COMPETENT LAYMAN WOULD BE BETTER QUALIFIED, BUT THE COUNTY JUDGE'S
OFFICE IS AN EXCEPTION.  HE SHOULD BE A COMPETENT ATTORNEY AS WELL AS A
COMPETENT BUSINESSMAN. 

"IT'S THE TRAGEDY IN A CASE OF THIS SORT THAT THE COURT WHERE THE
CONTROVERSIAL DECISION WAS HANDED DOWN IS THE COURT OF LAST RESORT. 
IT'S TOO BAD THAT APPEAL CAN'T BE MADE TO A DISTRICT COURT AND HEARD BY
A JUDGE WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH PROPER PROCEDURE AND ABLE TO INTERPRET AND
WEIGH MOTIONS AND ARGUMENTS BY OPPOSING COUNSEL AND TO MAKE HIS
DECISIONS ACCORDINGLY  ...  THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER JUSTICE
WAS DONE, BECAUSE THE FIRST RULE OF JUSTICE, GIVING BOTH SIDES AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, WAS REPUDIATED." 

ON MAY 30, 1945, THERE APPEARED A REPORT OF A RESOLUTION PASSED BY
THE SAILOR'S AND SOLDIER'S ADVISORY COUNCIL OF CORPUS CHRISTI "LABELING
COUNTY JUDGE JOE D. BROWNING'S ORDER FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AGAINST
MAYES A 'GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.'"  THAT ARTICLE FURTHER STATED: 

"THE COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION CALLED ON BROWNING TO GRANT MAYES A NEW
TRIAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT HE HAD COMMITTED AN ERROR IN INSTRUCTING THE
JURY TO FIND FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  THE PETITION ASKED THAT BROWNING, UPON
GRANTING THE NEW TRIAL, SHOULD DISQUALIFY HIMSELF TO FURTHER SIT AS
JUDGE IN THE TRIAL, AND SHOULD PERMIT THE TRIAL TO BE RETRIED BEFORE
ANOTHER JUDGE AND JURY  ...  THE TRIAL REACHED A CLIMAX SATURDAY NIGHT
WHEN BROWNING, ON MOTION OF DUDLEY TARLTON, JACKSON'S COUNSEL, AND
WITHOUT ARGUMENT OR CITATION OF AUTHORITY, INSTRUCTED THE SIX-MAN
COUNTY COURT JURY TO FIND FOR JACKSON.  THE JURY TWICE REFUSED, BOTH
TIMES BRINGING IN VERDICTS IN FAVOR OF MAYES AND AGAINST JACKSON. 

"BROWNING HAD THE JURY CONFINED TO THE COURT HOUSE JURY ROOM ALL
SATURDAY NIGHT.  SUNDAY MORNING, WHEN THE COURT CONVENED, THE JURY
REPORTED THAT IT STILL HAD NOT SIGNED THE VERDICT IN FAVOR OF JACKSON. 

"BROWNING ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD LOCK THE JURY UP AGAIN UNTIL MONDAY
MORNING.  HOWEVER, WALTER M. LEWRIGHT ADVISED THE JURYMEN THAT THEY
SHOULD NOT CONTINUE TO 'SUFFER' ANY LONGER, AND SHOULD SIGN THE
VERDICT, SINCE BROWNING HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO FORCE THEM TO DO SO.
THE JURY SIGNED THE VERDICT, BUT APPENDED A STATEMENT ASSERTING THAT
THEY DID SO UNDER PRESSURE."    ON MAY 31, 1945, A NEWS STORY SAID: 

"THREE LOCAL GROUPS WERE REPORTED LAST NIGHT TO BE PREPARING
PETITIONS REQUESTING COUNTY JUDGE JOE D. BROWNING TO GRANT PVT.  JOE L.
MAYES A NEW TRIAL IN THE PLAYBOY CAFE OUSTER SUIT. 

"ONE PETITION IS REPORTED BEING DRAWN BY A PARENTS AND TEACHERS'
GROUP, ANOTHER BY A SERVICE MOTHERS' GROUP, AND THE THIRD IS BEING
DRAWN FOR INDEPENDENT CIRCULATION AMONG PARENTS OF MEN IN SERVICE. 
"THE NEW PETITIONS ARE SAID TO FOLLOW THE GENERAL OUTLINE OF A PETITION
ADOPTED BY THE CORPUS CHRISTI SOLDIER'S AND SAILOR'S ADVISORY COUNCIL
TUESDAY NIGHT.  THIS PETITION CALLED ON BROWNING TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL
AND UPON DOING SO TO DISQUALIFY HIMSELF AND PERMIT THE TRIAL TO GO ON
UNDER ANOTHER JUDGE AND JURY.  ACTION ON THE PETITIONS IS EXPECTED
SHORTLY. 

"THE COUNCIL'S PETITION, DRAWN UP BY FIVE VETERANS' ORGANIZATIONS
WITH A MEMBERSHIP OF MORE THAN 1,000, FOLLOWED BY A FEW HOURS THE
FILING OF A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BY WALTER M. LEWRIGHT AND LEGRAND
WOODS, MAYES' COUNSELS  ...  IT CAME TO A CLIMAX SUNDAY WHEN BROWNING
SATURDAY NIGHT ACCEPTED WITHOUT ARGUMENT OR CITATION OF AUTHORITY A
MOTION BY DUDLEY TARLTON JACKSON'S LAWYER, FOR AN INSTRUCTED VERDICT
...  THE JURY WAS KEPT SATURDAY NIGHT IN THE COURT HOUSE.  SUNDAY
MORNING, FOLLOWING A THREAT BY BROWNING TO KEEP THE JURY TOGETHER UNTIL
THEY DID SIGN, THE JURYMEN SIGNED THE VERDICT, APPENDING A STATEMENT
THAT THEY DID SO AGAINST THE DICTATES OF THEIR CONSCIENCE." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. 

WHILE JOINING IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, I BELIEVE THAT THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THIS CASE CANNOT BE
OVEREMPHASIZED.  A FREE PRESS LIES AT THE HEART OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND
ITS PRESERVATION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF LIBERTY.  ANY INROAD
MADE UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF A FREE PRESS TENDS TO
UNDERMINE THE FREEDOM OF ALL MEN TO PRINT AND TO READ THE TRUTH. 

IN MY VIEW, THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS A JUDGE FROM SUMMARILY PUNISHING
A NEWSPAPER EDITOR FOR PRINTING AN UNJUST ATTACK UPON HIM OR HIS METHOD
OF DISPENSING JUSTICE.  THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXCEPTION IS IN THE RARE
INSTANCE WHERE THE ATTACK MIGHT REASONABLY CAUSE A REAL IMPEDIMENT TO
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  UNSCRUPULOUS AND VINDICTIVE CRITICISM
OF THE JUDICIARY IS REGRETTABLE.  BUT JUDGES MUST NOT RETALIATE BY A
SUMMARY SUPPRESSION OF SUCH CRITICISM FOR THEY ARE BOUND BY THE COMMAND
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  ANY SUMMARY SUPPRESSION OF UNJUST CRITICISM
CARRIES WITH IT AN OMINOUS THREAT OF SUMMARY SUPPRESSION OF ALL
CRITICISM.  IT IS TO AVOID THAT THREAT THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AS I
VIEW IT, OUTLAWS THE SUMMARY CONTEMPT METHOD OF SUPPRESSION. 

SILENCE AND A STEADY DEVOTION TO DUTY ARE THE BEST ANSWERS TO
IRRESPONSIBLE CRITICISM; AND THOSE JUDGES WHO FEEL THE NEED FOR GIVING
A MORE VISIBLE DEMONSTRATION OF THEIR FEELINGS MAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
VARIOUS LAWS PASSED FOR THAT PURPOSE WHICH DO NOT IMPINGE UPON A FREE
PRESS.  THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, HOWEVER, ARE
TOO HIGHLY PRIZED TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE HAZARDS OF SUMMARY CONTEMPT
PROCEDURE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

TODAY'S DECISION, IN EFFECT THOUGH NOT IN TERMS, HOLDS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL A POWER THE POSSESSION OF WHICH BY THE STATES THIS
COURT HAS HERETOFORE DEEMED AXIOMATIC. 

IT CANNOT BE REPEATED TOO OFTEN THAT THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SO
INDISPENSABLE TO OUR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY PRESUPPOSES AN INDEPENDENT
JUDICIARY WHICH WILL, WHEN OCCASION DEMANDS, PROTECT THAT FREEDOM.  TO
HELP ACHIEVE SUCH AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY AND TO PROTECT ITS MEMBERS
IN THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE STATES OF THE UNION, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING
AND THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, HAVE PROVIDED FOR PROMPT SUPPRESSION AND
PUNISHMENT OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE IMPARTIAL EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS IN AN ACTIVE LITIGATION.  INTERFERENCE WAS PUNISHED NOT BY THE
ORDINARY CRIMINAL PROCESS OF TRIAL BEFORE A JURY, BUT THROUGH A
DISTINCTIVE PROCEEDING, SUMMARY IN CHARACTER IN THE SENSE THAT A JUDGE
WITHOUT A JURY MIGHT IMPOSE PUNISHMENT.  SUCH PROTECTIVE MEASURES
AGAINST PUBLICATIONS SERIOUSLY CALCULATED TO AGITATE THE DISINTERESTED
OPERATION OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN A LITIGATION AWAITING DISPOSITION
HAVE BEEN DEEMED PART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO
ESTABLISH COURTS TO DO JUSTICE AS BETWEEN MAN AND MAN AND BETWEEN MAN
AND SOCIETY. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT REVIEWS THE TEXAS COURT AS THOUGH WE WERE
MERELY REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT LOWER IN THE JUDICIARY
HIERARCHY.  FORMALLY, NO DOUBT, WE HAVE BEFORE US THE CORRECTNESS OF A
DECISION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS.  BUT THAT DECISION
IS CHALLENGED AS OFFENDING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  WE ARE NOT, THEREFORE, MERELY REVIEWING A DECISION OF THE
TEXAS COURT; WE ARE PASSING UPON THE POWER OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.  "THE
QUESTION BEFORE US MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE TOTAL POWER
THE STATE POSSESSES  ...  "  SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69, 79.  TO
PARAPHRASE WHAT WAS SAID IN RIPPEY V. TEXAS, 193 U.S. 504, 509, THE
QUESTION FOR US IS THIS:  IF TEXAS HAD EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN ITS
CONSTITUTION THAT PUBLICATIONS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE FOUND BY THE
TEXAS COURT SHALL CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT, WOULD THIS COURT HOLD
THAT SUCH FINDING BY THE TEXAS COURT AND SUCH A PROVISION IN THE TEXAS
CONSTITUTION COLLIDE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES? 

TEXAS, SPEAKING THROUGH ITS AUTHORITATIVE JUDICIAL VOICE, SAYS:
"WHEN THE SEVERAL PUBLICATIONS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE CONSIDERED
TOGETHER AND IN THEIR CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF APPEARANCE, THERE IS NO
ESCAPE FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE
PUBLISHERS THEREOF TO FORCE, COMPEL, AND COERCE JUDGE BROWNING TO GRANT
MAYES A NEW TRIAL.  THE ONLY REASON OR MOTIVE FOR SO DOING WAS BECAUSE
THE PUBLISHERS DID NOT AGREE WITH JUDGE BROWNING'S DECISION OR CONDUCT
OF THE CASE.  ACCORDING TO THEIR VIEWPOINT, JUDGE BROWNING WAS WRONG
AND THEY TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO MAKE HIM CHANGE HIS DECISION."  149
TEX. CR. - , 193 S.W.2D 178, 188-89. 

AFTER A PAINSTAKING EXAMINATION OF THE SERIES OF PUBLICATIONS IN THE
SETTING OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND AN EXTENDED HEARING, ALL
OF WHICH COMPRISES A RECORD HERE OF MORE THAN FOUR HUNDRED PAGES, THE
COURT BELOW REACHED THIS CONCLUSION:  "IT IS HARD TO CONCEIVE HOW THE
PUBLIC PRESS COULD HAVE BEEN MORE FORCIBLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY USED OR
APPLIED TO MAKE, FORCE, AND COMPEL A JUDGE TO CHANGE A RULING OR
DECISION IN A CASE PENDING BEFORE HIM THAN WAS HERE DONE.  THE
PUBLICATIONS WERE NOT ONLY REASONABLY CALCULATED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT
PURPOSE BUT THERE WAS ALSO A 'CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER' THAT THEY WOULD
AND THE LIKELIHOOD THAT SUCH RESULT WOULD FOLLOW WAS 'EXTREMELY
SERIOUS' AND THE DEGREE OF 'IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH.'"  149 TEX. CR. -
, 193 S.W.2D AT 189.  IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE PUBLICATIONS IN
QUESTION WERE MADE AFTER IT WAS NOTORIOUS THAT A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE AND WOULD SHORTLY BE HEARD.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
CRUCIAL FACT - THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE WOULD SHORTLY BE CALLED UPON TO
RECONSIDER HIS INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY TO FIND FOR THE PLAINTIFF - THE
COURT BELOW FOUND THAT 

"THE PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR PURPOSE WERE TO IMPRESS UPON JUDGE
BROWNING (A) THAT UNLESS HE GRANTED THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL HE WOULD
BE SUBJECTED TO SUSPICION AS TO HIS INTEGRITY AND FAIRNESS AND TO ODIUM
AND HATRED IN THE PUBLIC MIND; (B) THAT THE SAFE AND SECURE COURSE TO
AVOID THE CRITICISM OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC OPINION WOULD BE TO GRANT
THE MOTION AND DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM AGAIN PRESIDING AT THE TRIAL OF
THE CASE; AND (C) THAT IF HE OVERRULED THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL,
THERE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE PUBLIC MIND SUCH A DISREGARD FOR THE
COURT OVER WHICH HE PRESIDED AS TO GIVE RISE TO A PURPOSE IN PRACTICE
TO REFUSE TO RESPECT AND OBEY ANY ORDER, JUDGMENT, OR DECREE WHICH HE
MIGHT RENDER IN CONFLICT WITH THE VIEWS OF THE PUBLIC PRESS."  149 TEX.
CR. - , 193 S.W.2D AT 189. 

THE COURT MINIMIZES THESE FINDINGS BY POINTING TO A LIKENESS BETWEEN
THEM AND THOSE THAT WERE MADE IN TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES,
247 U.S. 402, AND FOUND INADEQUATE BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES' DISSENT, AN
INADEQUACY SUBSEQUENTLY SUPPORTED BY OUR DECISION IN NYE V. UNITED
STATES, 313 U.S. 33.  THE COURT ALSO DRAWS ON CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S.
255, AS THOUGH WHAT WAS SAID THERE APPLIES HERE.  BUT THOSE THREE CASES
INVOLVED ONLY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  CONGRESS
DECIDED TO ALLOW THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT THERETOFORE VESTED IN
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, WHEN INVOKED AGAINST MISBEHAVIOR NOT IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE COURT, ONLY WHEN SUCH MISBEHAVIOR WAS "SO NEAR" THE
PRESENCE OF THE COURT "AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE." 
ACT OF MARCH 2, 1831, 4 STAT. 487; SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 385; NYE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  TEXAS, HOWEVER, HAS SEEN
FIT NOT TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF ITS COURTS TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT AS
DOES THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT WHICH THE
TEXAS LEGISLATURE GRANTED TO ITS COURTS MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO
IS NOT RESTRICTED AS CONGRESS RESTRICTED THE CONTEMPT POWER OF THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  SEE ACTS 1846, P. 200; VERNON'S TEXAS STATUTES,
ART. 1955.  IT IS AN INADMISSIBLE JUMP FROM FINDING THAT CONDUCT IS NOT
CONTEMPT WITHIN THE FEDERAL ACT, TO FINDING THAT AN EXERTION OF STATE
POWER OFFENDED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  YET THE COURT NOW FINDS THAT
TEXAS HAS TRANSGRESSED THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BY
PUNISHING CONDUCT WHICH THIS COURT IN THE TOLEDO CASE THOUGHT WAS
WITHIN THE SCOPE EVEN OF THE FEDERAL ACT - A CONSTRUCTION WHICH IT
OCCURRED TO NO MEMBER OF THE COURT TO QUESTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS. 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND THAT RAISED BY THE
TOLEDO AND CRAIG CASES IS BASIC.  IN THOSE CASES THE COURT HAD BEFORE
IT, AND MR. JUSTICE HOLMES WAS CONCERNED ONLY WITH, THE PROPER
APPLICATION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE SETTING A NARROWLY CONFINED SCOPE TO
THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.  THE COURT WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATES TO ENFORCE A BROADER CONTEMPT
POLICY.  SUCH A POWER, IN FACT, HAD BEEN ASSUMED TO BE BEYOND DOUBT. 
"WHEN A CASE IS FINISHED, COURTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME CRITICISM AS
OTHER PEOPLE, BUT THE PROPRIETY AND NECESSITY OF PREVENTING
INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURSE OF JUSTICE BY PREMATURE STATEMENT,
ARGUMENT OR INTIMIDATION HARDLY CAN BE DENIED."  SO WROTE MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES FOR THIS COURT.  PATTERSON V. COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454, 463.  TO
BE SURE, HE WROTE THIS FORTY YEARS AGO, AND ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS
THEREAFTER, AS PART OF THE FORMULATION OF HIS PROFOUND TOLERANCE FOR
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, HE SPOKE OUT AGAINST MISUSE OF THE POWER TO
PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.  BUT NOTHING THAT THAT GREAT JUDGE EVER WROTE
QUALIFIED IN THE SLIGHTEST HIS CONVICTION THAT THE THEORY OF OUR SYSTEM
OF JUSTICE IS "THAT THE CONCLUSIONS TO BE REACHED IN A CASE WILL BE
INDUCED ONLY BY EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT IN OPEN COURT, AND NOT BY ANY
OUTSIDE INFLUENCE, WHETHER OF PRIVATE TALK OR PUBLIC PRINT."  PATTERSON
V. COLORADO, SUPRA, AT 462.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES HAD NO TOLERANCE
WHATEVER FOR ANY SPECIAL CLAIM BY JUDGES TO IMMUNITY FROM CRITICISM. 
HE WAS AGAINST ANYTHING THAT SMACKED OF SUMMARY PROCEEDING FOR WHAT WAS
KNOWN AS "SCANDALIZING THE COURT," THAT IS, SPEAKING ILL OF A COURT AS
AN INSTITUTION AND THEREBY ARGUMENTATIVELY BRINGING IT INTO DISREPUTE. 
HE WOULD ALLOW SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF CONDUCT CALCULATED TO AFFECT A
JUDGE IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTY ONLY AS TO MATTERS "PENDING" BEFORE
HIM IN THE ACTIVE SENSE OF THAT TERM.  "IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT SOMEBODY
MAY HEREAFTER MOVE TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE."  SO HE WROTE, DISSENTING,
IN CRAIG V. HECHT, SUPRA, AT 281.  AND IN HIS MISAPPLIED DISSENT IN THE
TOLEDO CASE HE EXPRESSED HIS IMPATIENCE WITH FEDERAL JUDGES WHO TAKE
NOTICE OF NEWSPAPER COMMENTS TO WHICH A JUDGE SHOULD BE INDIFFERENT. 
BUT HIS OPINION IN THAT CASE CONVEYS NOT A DOUBT AS TO THE POWER OF
STATES TO ENFORCE A POLICY FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF CONTEMPT IN RELATION
TO A PENDING CASE, THOUGH THE STATE POLICY BE NOT LIMITED AS CONGRESS
LIMITED THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.  THERE
IS NOT A BREATH OF A SUGGESTION IN THE OPINION IN THE NYE CASE THAT THE
RESTRICTED GEOGRAPHIC MEANING WHICH THE COURT GAVE TO THE ACT OF
CONGRESS DESIGNED TO LIMIT THE POWER OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS WAS
REQUIRED BY CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.  THE OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES CONTAIN NOT THE REMOTEST HINT THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
WITHDREW FROM THE STATES THE POWER TO BASE A FINDING OF CONTEMPT ON
PUBLICATION AIMED AT A PARTICULAR OUTCOME OF A MATTER AWAITING
ADJUDICATION.  AND IT IS WORTHY OF NOTE THAT IN THE VERY OPINION IN
WHICH THE PHRASE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" WAS FIRST USED BY MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES, HE REFERRED TO HIS OPINION IN THE PATTERSON CASE, AND
NOT WITH DISAPPROVAL.  SEE SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 51
52. 

WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH CRITICISMS, WHETHER TEMPERATE OR
UNBRIDLED, OF ACTION IN A CASE AFTER A JUDGE IS THROUGH WITH IT, OR OF
HIS JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS, OR OF HIS CONDUCT IN GENERAL.  COMMENT ON
WHAT A JUDGE HAS DONE - CRITICISM OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN A
PARTICULAR CASE AFTER IT HAS EXHAUSTED ITSELF - NO MATTER HOW ILL
INFORMED OR IRRESPONSIBLE OR MISREPRESENTATIVE, IS PART OF THE PRECIOUS
RIGHT OF THE FREE PLAY OF OPINION.  WHATEVER VIOLENCE THERE MAY BE TO
TRUTH IN SUCH UTTERANCES MUST BE LEFT TO THE CORRECTION OF TRUTH. 
THE PUBLICATIONS NOW IN QUESTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE MERELY A NARRATIVE
OF A JUDGE'S CONDUCT IN A PARTICULAR CASE NOR A GENERAL COMMENTARY UPON
HIS COMPETENCE OR HIS PHILOSOPHY.  NOR WERE THEY A PLEA FOR REFORM OF
THE TEXAS LEGAL SYSTEM TO THE END THAT COUNTY COURT JUDGES SHOULD BE
LEARNED IN THE LAW AND THAT A JUDGMENT IN A SUIT OF FORCIBLE DETAINER
MAY BE APPEALABLE.  THE THRUST OF THE ARTICLES WAS DIRECTED TO WHAT THE
JUDGE SHOULD DO ON A MATTER IMMEDIATELY BEFORE HIM, NAMELY TO GRANT A
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  SO THE TEXAS COURT FOUND.  AND IT FOUND THIS
NOT IN THE ABSTRACT BUT ON THE PARTICULAR STAGE OF THE HAPPENINGS AND
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  THE TEXAS COURT MADE ITS
FINDINGS WITH REFERENCE TO THE LOCALITY WHERE THE EVENTS TOOK PLACE AND
IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY EASILY IMPART SIGNIFICANCE TO THE TEXAS
COURT BUT MAY ELUDE FULL APPRECIATION HERE. 

CORPUS CHRISTI, THE LOCALE OF THE DRAMA, HAD A POPULATION OF LESS
THAN 60,000 AT THE LAST CENSUS, AND NUECES COUNTY ABOUT 92,000.  THE
THREE PAPERS WHICH PUBLISHED THE ARTICLES COMPLAINED OF ARE UNDER
COMMON CONTROL AND ARE THE ONLY PAPERS OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE
AREA.  IT CAN HARDLY BE A COMPELLING PRESUMPTION THAT SUCH PAPERS SO
CONTROLLED HAD NO INFLUENCE, AT A TIME WHEN PATRIOTIC FERVOR WAS
RUNNING HIGH, IN STIRRING UP SENTIMENT OF POWERFUL GROUPS IN A SMALL
COMMUNITY IN FAVOR OF A VETERAN TO WHOM, IT WAS CHARGED, A GREAT WRONG
HAD BEEN DONE.  IT WOULD SEEM A NATURAL INFERENCE, AS THE COURT BELOW
IN EFFECT FOUND, THAT THESE NEWSPAPERS WHIPPED UP PUBLIC OPINION
AGAINST THE JUDGE TO SECURE REVERSAL OF HIS ACTION AND THEN PROFESSED
MERELY TO REPORT PUBLIC OPINION.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE TEXAS COURT
COULD NOT PROPERLY FIND THAT THESE NEWSPAPERS ASKED OF THE JUDGE, AND
INSTIGATED POWERFUL SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY TO ASK OF THE JUDGE, THAT
WHICH NO ONE HAS ANY BUSINESS TO ASK OF A JUDGE, EXCEPT THE PARTIES AND
THEIR COUNSEL IN OPEN COURT, NAMELY, THAT HE SHOULD DECIDE ONE WAY
RATHER THAN ANOTHER.  ONLY IF WE CAN SAY THAT THE TEXAS COURT HAD NO
BASIS IN REASON TO FIND WHAT IT DID FIND, CAN WE DENY THAT THE PURPOSE
OF THE ARTICLES IN THEIR SETTING WAS TO INDUCE THE JUDGE TO GRANT A NEW
TRIAL.  SURELY A JURY COULD REACH SUCH A CONCLUSION ON THESE FACTS.  WE
OUGHT NOT TO ALLOW LESS LEEWAY TO THE TEXAS COURT IN DRAWING INFERENCES
THAN WE WOULD TO A JURY.  BECAUSE IT IS A QUESTION OF DEGREE, THE FIELD
IN WHICH A COURT, LIKE A JURY, MAY "EXERCISE ITS JUDGMENT IS,
NECESSARILY, A WIDE ONE."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN SCHAEFER V. UNITED
STATES, 251 U.S. 466, 483.  OF COURSE, THE FINDINGS BY A STATE COURT OF
WHAT ARE USUALLY DEEMED FACTS CANNOT FORECLOSE OUR SCRUTINY OF THEM IF
A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT DEPENDS ON A FAIR APPRAISAL OF THOSE FACTS.  BUT
IT WOULD BE NOVEL DOCTRINE INDEED TO SAY THAT WE MAY CONSIDER THE
RECORD AS IT COMES BEFORE US FROM A STATE COURT AS THOUGH IT WERE OUR
DUTY OR RIGHT TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  A STATE
CANNOT BY TORTURING FACTS PRECLUDE US FROM CONSIDERING WHETHER IT HAS
THEREBY DENIED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  NEITHER CAN THIS COURT FIND A
VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BY DENYING TO A STATE ITS RIGHT TO
A FAIR APPRAISAL OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PECULIARLY ITS CONCERN. 
OTHERWISE, IN EVERY CASE COMING HERE FROM A STATE COURT THIS COURT
MIGHT MAKE INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, BECAUSE EVERY RIGHT
CLAIMED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.  THE "MOST
RESPECTFUL ATTENTION" WHICH WE HAVE BEEN TOLD IS DUE TO A STATE WOULD
THEN BE MERELY AN EMPTY PROFESSION.  SEE PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S.
331, 335. 

IF UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TEXAS COURT HERE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED
IN FINDING THAT THESE PUBLICATIONS CREATED "A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER"
OF THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL THAT TEXAS HAD A RIGHT TO PREVENT, NAMELY THE
PURPOSEFUL EXERTION OF EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCE IN HAVING THE MOTION FOR A
NEW TRIAL GRANTED, "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" BECOMES MERELY A PHRASE
FOR COVERING UP A NOVEL, IRON CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE.  HEREAFTER THE
STATES CANNOT DEAL WITH DIRECT ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE THE DISPOSITION OF
A PENDING CONTROVERSY BY A SUMMARY PROCEEDING, EXCEPT WHEN THE
MISBEHAVIOR PHYSICALLY PREVENTS PROCEEDINGS FROM GOING ON IN COURT, OR
OCCURS IN ITS IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY.  ONLY THE PUNGENT PEN OF MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES COULD ADEQUATELY COMMENT ON SUCH A PERVERSION OF THE PURPOSE OF
HIS PHRASE. 

CHANGES ARE RUNG ON THE REMARK OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN THE TOLEDO
CASE THAT "A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES IS EXPECTED TO BE A MAN OF
ORDINARY FIRMNESS OF CHARACTER  ...  "  247 U.S. AT 424.  BUT IT IS
PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT THAT WAS SAID BY AN OLYMPIAN WHO WAS SO
REMOTE FROM THE COMMON CURRENTS OF LIFE THAT HE DID NOT READ
NEWSPAPERS.  EVEN A CONSCIENTIOUS JUDGE NOT A LAYMAN, AND NOT MERELY
ONE SERVING UNDER A SHORT JUDICIAL TENURE, MAY FIND HIMSELF IN A
DILEMMA WHEN SUBJECTED TO A BARRAGE PRESSING A PARTICULAR RESULT IN A
CASE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE HIM.  HE MAY NOT UNNATURALLY BE MOVED TO DO
WHAT IS URGED, OR HE MAY BE IMPELLED TO DISPLAY HIS INDEPENDENCE AND
NOT GIVE TO THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL THAT
SERENE AND UNDISTURBED CONSIDERATION WHICH OFTEN LEADS JUDGES TO GRANT
SUCH A MOTION.  IT HAS NOT BEEN UNKNOWN THAT JUDGES PERSIST IN ERROR TO
AVOID GIVING THE APPEARANCE OF WEAKNESS AND VACILLATION.  THUS, ONE OR
ANOTHER OF THE LITIGANTS BEFORE THE COURT MAY HAVE BEEN DENIED THAT
DISINTERESTED EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT WHICH IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS.  THE DEMANDS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE UPON THE JUDGE
BY THESE PAPERS MAY AGITATE EVEN A CONSCIENTIOUS JUDGE.  HE MAY HIMSELF
BE UNAWARE OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH HIS POWERS OF REASON HAVE NOT THE
SWAY THEY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE.  OR A JUDGE, PROUD OF HIS INDEPENDENCE,
MAY UNCONSCIOUSLY HAVE HIS BACK STIFFENED, AND THEREBY HIS MIND, WHEN
HEARING THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND PASSING ON ITS VALIDITY.  JUDGES
ARE NOT MERELY THE HABITATIONS OF BLOODLESS CATEGORIES OF THE LAW WHICH
PURSUE THEIR PREDESTINED ENDS. 

THE FACT THAT IT CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED HOW THE DELICATE BALANCE OF
AN ADJUDICATION WAS TAMPERED WITH, OR WHETHER IT WAS, DOES NOT PROVE
THAT IT WAS NOT TAMPERED WITH.  TO RELY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT JUDGES
ARE MEN OF FORTITUDE AND THAT NO JUDGE "WORTHY OF THE NAME" WOULD BE
INFLUENCED IN HIS DECISION BY A PUBLICATION DIRECTED TOWARD A
PARTICULAR DISPOSITION OF A PENDING LITIGATION, IS TO SAY IN EFFECT
THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PRECLUDES A STATE FROM BELIEVING THAT THERE
MAY BE SUCH A PSYCHOLOGICAL DANGER, SHORT OF THE FANTASTIC SITUATION
WHERE A JUDGE CONFESSES THAT HE DECIDED AS HE DID BECAUSE OF NEWSPAPER
PRESSURE, OR AVOWS THAT HE CAME AWFULLY CLOSE TO BEING DERELICT IN HIS
JUDICIAL DUTY BECAUSE OF SUCH PRESSURE.  IN BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314
U.S. 252, THIS COURT DID NOT PROFESS TO MAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL DOGMA OF
SO QUESTIONABLE A PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTION.  IT DID NOT CONDEMN
OUTRIGHT THE POWER OF A STATE SUMMARILY TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT A
PUBLICATION UTTERED OUTSIDE OF COURT BUT BROUGHT TO BEAR UPON A PENDING
CASE.  THE OPINION OF THE TEXAS COURT GIVES EVERY INDICATION OF
SCRUPULOUS OBEDIENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BRIDGES CASE.  NOR DID
THE DISSENTING JUDGE FIND CONFLICT WITH THE BRIDGES CASES.  IF WE
ACCORD "MOST RESPECTFUL ATTENTION" TO WHAT THE STATE COURT HAS DECIDED,
I AM UNABLE TO FIND ANY GROUND FOR REJECTING THE APPLICATION WHICH THE
TEXAS COURT MADE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE OF THE PRINCIPLES
WHICH IT DREW FROM THE BRIDGES CASE. 

IS IT CONCEIVABLE THAT EVEN THE MOST DOCTRINAIRE LIBERTARIAN WOULD
THINK IT CONSONANT WITH THE IMPARTIALITY WHICH ADJUDICATION PRESUPPOSES
TO PUBLISH A POLL REGARDING THE OUTCOME DESIRED BY A COMMUNITY IN A
PENDING CASE?  HOW CAN THE INSERTION INTO THE SCALES OF JUSTICE OF A
NEWSPAPER'S OWN NOTION OF THE DESIRE OF A COMMUNITY FOR A PARTICULAR
RESULT IN A PENDING CASE BE MORE PERMISSIBLE THAN THE REPORT OF PUBLIC
FEELING AS ASCERTAINED BY A PUBLIC POLL?  AGAIN, SUPPOSE THE NEWSPAPER
ARTICLES HERE IN CONTROVERSY HAD BEEN ENCLOSED IN A LETTER TO THE JUDGE
URGING, ON THE BASIS OF THESE ARTICLES, A NEW TRIAL.  WOULD THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES FORBID A STATE TO DEAL WITH SUCH
CONDUCT THROUGH THE CORRECTIVE PROCESS OF CONTEMPT?  BUT A DENIAL OF
THIS POWER TO THE STATES WHERE NEWSPAPERS CARRY THE SAME ARTICLES
DIRECTED TO THE SAME END CAN ONLY BE ON THE BASIS THAT PRIVATE
CORRESPONDENCE HAS LESS CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION THAN HAVE
NEWSPAPERS. 

TO AGREE WITH A PRINCIPLE IN PRINCIPLE ONLY TO DEPART FROM IT IN
PRACTICE HAS NOT BEEN SO FRUITFUL OF GOOD IN THE WORLD OF DIPLOMACY AS
TO SUGGEST ITS IMPORTATION INTO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  IF IT BE DEEMED
THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PUT AN END TO THE HISTORIC POWER OF STATES
TO ALLOW SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT BY INTERFERENCE WITH AN
ACTUALLY PENDING CONTROVERSY, OR EVEN IF IT BE DEEMED OFFENSIVE TO DUE
PROCESS FOR THE JUDGE WHOSE CONDUCT IS CALLED IN QUESTION TO SIT IN
JUDGMENT UPON THE CONTEMNOR BECAUSE SELF-INTEREST IS TOO GREAT, SEE
TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S. 510, AND COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517,
539, SUCH A BREAK WITH THE PAST HAD BEST BE COMPLETELY CANDID.  IT MAY
WELL BE THE DEEPER WISDOM TO TREAT WITH INTELLIGENT NEGLECT PARAGRAPHS
THAT ARE CALCULATED AND INTENDED TO INFLUENCE THE DISPOSITION OF
LITIGATION.  BUT THE WISDOM OF SUCH WISDOM IS NOT THE MEASURE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE SEVERAL STATES TO DEAL WITH EXTRANEOUS
INFLUENCE DESIGNED TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF A PARTICULAR CASE. 

WE THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE REASONS WE GIVE FOR OUR
DECISION ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW THAN THE
DECISION ITSELF. 

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COURT IS ASSIGNING TWO UNTENABLE, IF NOT
HARMFUL, REASONS FOR ITS ACTION.  THE FIRST IS THAT THIS NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHER HAS DONE NO WRONG.  I TAKE IT THAT WE COULD NOT DENY THE
RIGHT OF THE STATE TO PUNISH HIM IF HE HAD DONE WRONG AND I DO NOT
SUPPOSE WE COULD SAY THAT THE TRADITIONAL REMEDY WAS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONE. 

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO HAVE A FREE PRESS IS A VITAL ONE, BUT SO
IS THE RIGHT TO HAVE A CALM AND FAIR TRIAL FREE FROM OUTSIDE PRESSURES
AND INFLUENCES.  EVERY OTHER RIGHT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF A FREE PRESS
ITSELF, MAY DEPEND ON THE ABILITY TO GET A JUDICIAL HEARING AS
DISPASSIONATE AND IMPARTIAL AS THE WEAKNESS INHERENT IN MEN WILL
PERMIT.  I THINK THIS PUBLISHER PASSED BEYOND THE LEGITIMATE USE OF
PRESS FREEDOM AND INFRINGED THE CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO A CALM AND IMPARTIAL
TRIAL.  I DO NOT THINK WE CAN SAY THAT IT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE
STATE TO EXERT SAFEGUARDS AGAINST SUCH INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURSE OF
TRIAL AS WE HAVE HERE. 

THIS WAS A PRIVATE LAWSUIT BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS.  IT INVOLVED AN ISSUE
OF NO GREATER PUBLIC IMPORTANCE THAN WHICH OF TWO CLAIMANTS SHOULD BE
THE TENANT OF THE "PLAYBOY CAFE."  THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE
LITIGATION WAS THAT DISPASSIONATE JUSTICE BE DONE BY THE COURT AND THAT
IT APPEAR TO BE DONE. 

THE PUBLISHER HAD A COMPLETE MONOPOLY OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICITY IN THAT
LOCALITY.  FOR REASONS THAT ARE NOT APPARENT, THE PAPERS TOOK AN
UNUSUAL INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDING.  THEY FIRST MADE WHAT THE COURT
AGREES WAS A "RATHER SKETCHY AND ONE-SIDED REPORT OF A CASE."  THIS IS
NOT OVERSTATEMENT.  THE FORMER TENANT HAD TENDERED A CHECK AND THE
NEWSPAPER REPORT REPRESENTED IT AS A PAYMENT OF RENT; IT MADE NO
REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE CHECK WAS POSTDATED AND WAS THEREFORE NO
PAYMENT AT ALL.  REPORTS PLAYED UP THE FACT THAT ITS FAVORITE AMONG THE
LITIGANTS WAS A VETERAN.  THE COMMUNITY BECAME AROUSED.  THEN THE
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED EDITORIALS WHICH ATTACKED THE JUDGE WHILE A MOTION
FOR RETRIAL WAS PENDING WITH WHAT THE PREVAILING OPINION CONCEDES WAS
"STRONG LANGUAGE, INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE, AND, WE ASSUME, AN UNFAIR
CRITICISM."  THE OBJECT OF THE PUBLICITY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TO GET
THE JUDGE TO REVERSE HIMSELF AND TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL. 

THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT YIELD TO IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE ATTACK
WAS NOT AN EFFECTIVE INTERFERENCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 
THE JUDGE WAS PUT IN A POSITION IN WHICH HE EITHER MUST APPEAR TO YIELD
HIS JUDGMENT TO PUBLIC CLAMOR OR TO DEFY PUBLIC SENTIMENT.  THE
CONSEQUENCE OF ATTACKS MAY DIFFER WITH THE TEMPERAMENT OF THE JUDGE. 
SOME JUDGES MAY TAKE FRIGHT AND YIELD WHILE OTHERS BECOME MORE SET IN
THEIR COURSE IF ONLY TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THEY WILL NOT BE BULLIED.  THIS
JUDGE WAS EVIDENTLY OF THE LATTER TYPE.  HE WAS DIVERTED FROM THE CALM
CONSIDERATION OF THE LITIGATION BEFORE HIM BY WHAT HE REGARDED AS A
DUTY TO INSTITUTE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING OF HIS OWN AGAINST HIS
TORMENTORS. 

FOR THIS COURT TO IMPLY THAT THIS KIND OF ATTACK DURING A PENDING
CASE IS ALL RIGHT SEEMS TO ME TO COMPOUND THE WRONG.  THE PRESS OF THE
COUNTRY MAY RIGHTFULLY TAKE THE DECISION OF THIS COURT TO MEAN
INDIFFERENCE TOWARD, IF NOT APPROVAL OF, SUCH ATTACKS UPON COURTS
DURING PENDING CASES.  I THINK THIS OPINION CONVEYS A WRONG IMPRESSION
OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A FREE PRESS FOR THE CALM AND DISPASSIONATE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO CONDEMN
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE HERE. 

BUT EVEN WORSE IS THAT THIS COURT APPEARS TO SPONSOR THE MYTH THAT
JUDGES ARE NOT AS OTHER MEN ARE, AND THAT THEREFORE NEWSPAPER ATTACKS
ON THEM ARE NEGLIGIBLE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT PENETRATE THE JUDICIAL
ARMOR.  SAYS THE OPINION:  "BUT THE LAW OF CONTEMPT IS NOT MADE FOR THE
PROTECTION OF JUDGES WHO MAY BE SENSITIVE TO THE WINDS OF PUBLIC
OPINION.  JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MEN OF FORTITUDE, ABLE TO THRIVE IN
A HARDY CLIMATE."  WITH DUE RESPECT TO THOSE WHO THINK OTHERWISE, TO ME
THIS IS AN ILL-FOUNDED OPINION, AND TO INFORM THE PRESS THAT IT MAY BE
IRRESPONSIBLE IN ATTACKING JUDGES BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO MUCH FORTITUDE
IS ILL-ADVISED, OR WORSE.  I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER IT IS THE VIEW OF THE
COURT THAT A JUDGE MUST BE THICK-SKINNED OR JUST THICKHEADED, BUT
NOTHING IN MY EXPERIENCE OR OBSERVATION CONFIRMS THE IDEA THAT HE IS
INSENSITIVE TO PUBLICITY.  WHO DOES NOT PREFER GOOD TO ILL REPORT OF
HIS WORK?  AND IF FAME - A GOOD PUBLIC NAME - IS, AS MILTON SAID, THE
"LAST INFIRMITY OF NOBLE MIND," IT IS FREQUENTLY THE FIRST INFIRMITY OF
A MEDIOCRE ONE.    FROM OUR SHELTERED POSITION, FORTIFIED BY LIFE
TENURE AND OTHER DEFENSES TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE, IT IS EASY TO SAY
THAT THIS LOCAL JUDGE OUGHT TO HAVE SHOWN MORE FORTITUDE IN THE FACE OF
CRITICISM.  BUT HE HAD NO SUCH PROTECTION.  HE WAS AN ELECTIVE JUDGE,
WHO HELD FOR A SHORT TERM.  I DO NOT TAKE IT THAT AN AMBITION OF A
JUDGE TO REMAIN A JUDGE IS EITHER UNUSUAL OR DISHONORABLE.  MOREOVER,
HE WAS NOT A LAWYER, AND I REGARD THIS AS A MATTER OF SOME
CONSEQUENCE.  A LAWYER MAY GAIN COURAGE TO RENDER A DECISION THAT
TEMPORARILY IS UNPOPULAR BECAUSE HE HAS CONFIDENCE THAT HIS PROFESSION
OVER THE YEARS WILL APPROVE IT, DESPITE ITS UNPOPULAR RECEPTION, AS HAS
BEEN THE CASE WITH MANY GREAT DECISIONS.  BUT THIS JUDGE HAD NO ANCHOR
IN PROFESSIONAL OPINION.  OF COURSE, THE BLASTS OF THESE LITTLE PAPERS
IN THIS SMALL COMMUNITY DO NOT JOLT US, BUT I AM NOT SO CONFIDENT THAT
WE WOULD BE INDIFFERENT IF A NEWS MONOPOLY IN OUR ENTIRE JURISDICTION
SHOULD PERPETRATE THIS KIND OF AN ATTACK ON US. 

IT IS DOUBTFUL IF THE PRESS ITSELF REGARDS JUDGES AS SO INSULATED
FROM PUBLIC OPINION.  IN THIS VERY CASE THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION FILED A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE ON THE MERITS AFTER
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  OF COURSE, IT DOES NOT CITE A SINGLE AUTHORITY
THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLISHER INVOLVED, AND DOES
NOT TELL US A SINGLE NEW FACT EXCEPT THIS ONE:  "THIS MEMBERSHIP
EMBRACES MORE THAN 700 NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS WHOSE PUBLICATIONS
REPRESENT IN EXCESS OF EIGHTY PER CENT OF THE TOTAL DAILY AND SUNDAY
CIRCULATION OF NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHED IN THIS COUNTRY.  THE ASSOCIATION
IS VITALLY INTERESTED IN THE ISSUE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, NAMELY, THE
RIGHT OF NEWSPAPERS TO PUBLISH NEWS STORIES AND EDITORIALS ON CASES
PENDING IN THE COURTS." 

THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD OCCASION TO DEMONSTRATE THE FORTITUDE OF THE
JUDICIARY. 
..END :






LABOR BOARD V. ATKINS & CO., 331 U.S. 398 


NO. 419.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 10, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 19, 1947.  - 155 F.2D
567, REVERSED. 


1.  THE DETERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT, IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, CERTAIN GUARDS AT A PRIVATE PLANT OF
THE RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN WAR PRODUCTION, THOUGH EMPLOYED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH A REQUIREMENT OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT AND ENROLLED AS CIVILIAN
AUXILIARIES TO THE MILITARY POLICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY SUBJECT TO
ARMY REGULATIONS, WERE "EMPLOYEES" OF RESPONDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 2(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE
EVIDENCE AND THE LAW; AND THE CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER BASED THEREON
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  PP. 414
415. 

2.  A DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD THAT RANK-AND-FILE PLANT GUARDS ARE
"EMPLOYEES" UNDER THE ACT MAY IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE BE LEGALLY
JUSTIFIED, SINCE THEY BEAR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME RELATION TO MANAGEMENT
AS MAINTENANCE AND PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES.  PP. 404-405. 

3.  A PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, BASED UPON A FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD
COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BY REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN
WITH A UNION SELECTED BY PRIVATE PLANT GUARDS WHILE THEY WERE SERVING
AS CIVILIAN AUXILIARIES OF THE MILITARY POLICE OF THE ARMY, HELD NOT TO
HAVE BEEN RENDERED MOOT BY THE SUBSEQUENT DEMILITARIZATION OF THE
GUARDS.  P. 402. 

4.  A DETERMINATION BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OF WHETHER
ONE IS AN "EMPLOYEE" WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT MUST BE ACCEPTED BY THE REVIEWING COURTS IF IT HAS A
REASONABLE BASIS IN THE EVIDENCE AND IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW. 
LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111.  P. 403. 

5.  IN DEFINING AND APPLYING THE TERMS "EMPLOYER" AND "EMPLOYEE," AS
USED IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE BOARD IS NOT CONFINED TO
THE TECHNICAL AND TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF "EMPLOYER" AND "EMPLOYEE,"
BUT IS FREE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE MORE RELEVANT ECONOMIC AND STATUTORY
CONSIDERATIONS.  P. 403. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. E.C. ATKINS & CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 56 N.L.R.B. 1056,
ISSUED UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WAS DENIED ENFORCEMENT
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  155 F.2D 567.  (A PREVIOUS JUDGMENT,
147 F.2D 730, HAD BEEN VACATED AND THE CASE REMANDED BY THIS COURT, 325
U.S. 838.)  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 710.  REVERSED, P.
415. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PROBLEM POSED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER PRIVATE PLANT GUARDS, WHO
ARE REQUIRED TO BE CIVILIAN AUXILIARIES TO THE MILITARY POLICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ARMY, ARE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(3) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 152(3). 

AT ALL MATERIAL TIMES, THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION WAS ENGAGED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF SAWS, TOOLS AND ARMOR PLATE.  IT EMPLOYED MORE THAN
1,200 PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES AT ITS TWO PLANTS AT
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.  BEFORE IT BEGAN TO PRODUCE ARMOR PLATE FOR
DEFENSE AND WAR PURPOSES, RESPONDENT EMPLOYED ABOUT SIX WATCHMEN OR
GUARDS.  WHEN IT ENTERED UPON WAR PRODUCTION, HOWEVER, THE WAR
DEPARTMENT REQUIRED THAT AN AUXILIARY MILITARY POLICE FORCE OF SIXTY
FOUR MEMBERS BE ESTABLISHED TO GUARD THE PLANTS. 

IN 1943, AFTER THE NECESSARY ADDITIONAL GUARDS HAD BEEN RECRUITED, A
UNION  FN1  PETITIONED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR
INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO SEC.
9(C) OF THE ACT.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE UNION REPRESENTED THE SIXTY
FOUR PLANT GUARDS EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT AT ITS TWO PLANTS.  THE
RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT
THE EMPLOYER OF THE GUARDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(2) AND THAT THE
GUARDS WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AS DEFINED BY SEC. 2(3).  A HEARING WAS
THEREUPON HELD AND EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE GUARDS WAS
INTRODUCED. 

ON OCTOBER 19, 1943, THE BOARD CONCLUDED FROM THE EVIDENCE THUS
SUBMITTED THAT THESE PLANT GUARDS WERE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 2(3) DESPITE THEIR STATUS AS CIVILIAN AUXILIARIES TO THE MILITARY
POLICE.  52 N.L.R.B. 1470.  IT HELD THAT ALL THE PLANT GUARDS AT
RESPONDENT'S TWO PLANTS, EXCLUDING THE CHIEF GUARDS, LIEUTENANTS AND
ALL OTHER SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WITH AUTHORITY TO HIRE, PROMOTE,
DISCHARGE, DISCIPLINE, OR OTHERWISE EFFECT CHANGES IN THE STATUS OF
EMPLOYEES, OR EFFECTIVELY RECOMMEND SUCH ACTION, CONSTITUTED A UNIT
APPROPRIATE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  AN ELECTION WAS THEREFORE
DIRECTED TO BE HELD, WHICH RESULTED IN THE UNION IN QUESTION BEING
CHOSEN AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  THE UNION WAS CERTIFIED BY THE
BOARD AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PLANT GUARDS. 

SUBSEQUENTLY, THE UNION FILED CHARGES THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD REFUSED
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY.  A COMPLAINT WAS ISSUED BY THE BOARD, FOLLOWED
BY A HEARING AT WHICH EVIDENCE REGARDING THAT REFUSAL WAS INTRODUCED. 
THE BOARD, ON MAY 30, 1944, ISSUED ITS DECISION IN WHICH IT CONCLUDED
THAT THE GUARDS WERE EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT AND THAT THE LATTER HAD
COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN REFUSING TO BARGAIN WITH THE
UNION.  56 N.L.R.B. 1056. 

THE BOARD ACCORDINGLY ISSUED AN ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM REFUSING TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION, AND
COMMANDING IT TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION, UPON REQUEST, IN RESPECT TO
RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT.  THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECLINED TO ENFORCE
THE BOARD'S ORDER, HOLDING (1) THAT THE GUARDS WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF
THE RESPONDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(3) OF THE ACT SINCE THEY
WERE MILITARIZED, AND (2) THAT EVEN IF THE MILITARIZED GUARDS WERE TO
BE CONSIDERED AS EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT, ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S
ORDER SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD BE OR WOULD LIKELY
BE INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  147 F.2D 730. 

IN FILING A PETITION IN THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, THE
BOARD NOTED THAT THE GUARD FORCES AT RESPONDENT'S PLANTS HAD BEEN
DEMILITARIZED EARLY IN 1944, BUT URGED THAT THE CASE WAS NOT THEREBY
RENDERED MOOT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, VACATED THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND
REMANDED THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS "FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION OF THE ALLEGED CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES WITH RESPECT TO THE
DEMILITARIZATION OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED, AND THE EFFECT THEREOF ON
THE BOARD'S ORDERS."  325 U.S. 838. 

THE BOARD AND THE RESPONDENT ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION RELATIVE TO
THE DATES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEMILITARIZATION OF THE GUARDS.  THE
STIPULATION NOTED THAT MOST OF THE GUARDS HAD BEEN RELEASED FROM
SERVICE AND THAT ONLY ELEVEN OF THEM HAD BEEN RETAINED AS WATCHMEN BY
RESPONDENT AS OF FEBRUARY 23, 1946; AND THOSE ELEVEN HAD BEEN "SWORN IN
AS DEPUTY POLICEMEN BY THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS."  THE BOARD THEN FILED
A MOTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR A DECREE ENFORCING ITS
ORDER.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED AND THE PRIOR HOLDING WAS REAFFIRMED,
THE COURT STATING THAT THE DEMILITARIZATION WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE
OF WHETHER THE PLANT GUARDS WERE EMPLOYEES AT THE TIME WHEN THE
RESPONDENT REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  155 F.2D 567.  THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THE CASE, TOGETHER WITH A CONFLICT
OVER THE ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM BETWEEN THE COURT BELOW AND THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.,
146 F.2D 718, PROMPTED US TO GRANT A FURTHER REVIEW OF THE CASE. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE DEMILITARIZATION
OF THE GUARDS DID NOT RENDER THE CASE MOOT AND THAT IT HAD NO EFFECT
UPON THE PRIME ISSUE IN THE CASE.  THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS BASED UPON A
HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BY
REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN WITH THE UNION SELECTED BY THE
MILITARIZED GUARDS.  AND THAT REFUSAL OCCURRED AT A TIME WHEN THE
GUARDS WERE STILL MILITARIZED.  A DETERMINATION THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
A STATUTORY DUTY TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION AT THAT TIME IS THEREFORE
ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE FACT THAT THE
GUARDS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DEMILITARIZED DID NOT AFFECT THEIR STATUS AS
EMPLOYEES AT THIS CRUCIAL JUNCTURE; NOR DID IT RELIEVE RESPONDENT OF
ANY DUTY TO BARGAIN THAT IT MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE HAD AT THAT POINT. 

THE BOARD'S ORDER, MOREOVER, WAS A CONTINUING DIRECTION TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION DESIGNATED BY THE GUARDS.  DEMILITARIZATION
HAS NOT DISPENSED WITH WHATEVER DUTY RESPONDENT MAY HAVE NOW OR IN THE
FUTURE TO COMPLY WITH THAT ORDER.  IF THE GUARDS WERE EMPLOYEES OF
RESPONDENT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT DURING THE PERIOD OF
MILITARIZATION, A FORTIORI THEY ARE EMPLOYEES NOW THAT ALL CONNECTIONS
WITH THE ARMY HAVE BEEN SEVERED; AND THEIR STATUTORY RIGHTS CONTINUE TO
BE ENTITLED TO FULL RESPECT.  RESPONDENT'S GUARD FORCE STILL REMAINS IN
EXISTENCE, ALTHOUGH CONSIDERABLY REDUCED IN SIZE, AND THE UNION
PRESUMABLY CONTINUES TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GUARDS.  UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CASE IS NOT MOOT.  LABOR BOARD V. GREYHOUND
LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 271; J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332,
334.  SEE ALSO FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. GOODYEAR CO., 304 U.S. 257,
260. 

AS TO THE MERITS, IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT THE BOARD HAS THE DUTY OF
DETERMINING IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE FOR PURPOSES OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THAT THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION
MUST BE ACCEPTED BY REVIEWING COURTS IF IT HAS A REASONABLE BASIS IN
THE EVIDENCE AND IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW.  LABOR BOARD V.
HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111.  REALIZING THAT LABOR DISPUTES AND
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE ARE NOT CONFINED TO THOSE WHO FALL WITHIN ORDINARY
LEGAL CLASSIFICATIONS, CONGRESS HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO SPELL OUT A
DETAILED OR RIGID DEFINITION OF AN EMPLOYEE OR OF AN EMPLOYER.  THE
RELEVANT PORTION OF SEC. 2(3) SIMPLY PROVIDES THAT "THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE'
SHALL INCLUDE ANY EMPLOYEE,  ...  "  IN CONTRAST, SEC. 2(2) STATES THAT
"THE TERM 'EMPLOYER' INCLUDES ANY PERSON ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF AN
EMPLOYER, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,  ...  "  AS WE RECOGNIZED IN THE
HEARST CASE, THE TERMS "EMPLOYEE" AND "EMPLOYER" IN THIS STATUTE CARRY
WITH THEM MORE THAN THE TECHNICAL AND TRADITIONAL COMMON LAW
DEFINITIONS.  THEY ALSO DRAW SUBSTANCE FROM THE POLICY AND PURPOSES OF
THE ACT, THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND BACKGROUND OF PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIPS, AND ALL THE HARD FACTS OF INDUSTRIAL LIFE. 

AND SO THE BOARD, IN PERFORMING ITS DELEGATED FUNCTION OF DEFINING
AND APPLYING THESE TERMS, MUST BRING TO ITS TASK AN APPRECIATION OF
ECONOMIC REALITIES, AS WELL AS A RECOGNITION OF THE AIMS WHICH CONGRESS
SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE BY THIS STATUTE.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT SHOULD
DISREGARD THE TECHNICAL AND TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF "EMPLOYEE" AND
"EMPLOYER."  BUT IT IS NOT CONFINED TO THOSE CONCEPTS.  IT IS FREE TO
TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE MORE RELEVANT ECONOMIC AND STATUTORY
CONSIDERATIONS.  AND A DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD BASED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART UPON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS IS ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT BY A
REVIEWING COURT, DUE TO THE BOARD'S FAMILIARITY WITH THE PROBLEMS AND
ITS EXPERIENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 

LAYING ASIDE FOR THE MOMENT THE MATTER OF MILITARIZATION, WE CANNOT
SAY IN THIS CASE THAT THE BOARD WOULD BE LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN HOLDING
THAT THE RANK-AND-FILE PLANT GUARDS ARE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT.  THEY BEAR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME RELATION TO MANAGEMENT AS
MAINTENANCE AND PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES.  IN FACT, THEY ARE
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ORDINARY WATCHMEN, GATEMEN, PATROLMEN, FIREMEN
AND GUARDS - PERSONS WHO HAVE UNIVERSALLY BEEN REGARDED AND TREATED AS
EMPLOYEES FOR PURPOSES OF UNION MEMBERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS.  THEY
PERFORM SUCH DUTIES AS INSPECTING PERSONS, PACKAGES AND VEHICLES,
CARRYING CASH TO VARIOUS PARTS OF THE PLANT, AND GENERALLY SURVEYING
THE PREMISES TO DETECT FIRES, SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES AND SABOTAGE. 
MOREOVER, THE GUARDS IN QUESTION ARE NOT SUPERVISORS; THEY POSSESS NO
POWER TO AFFECT THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF OTHER EMPLOYEES.  WITHOUT
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE UNILATERAL DETERMINATION
BY THE EMPLOYER OF THEIR WAGES, HOURS, SENIORITY, TENURE AND OTHER
CONDITIONS OF WORK.  INDIVIDUALLY, THEY SUFFER FROM INEQUALITY OF
BARGAINING POWER AND THEIR NEED FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION PARALLELS THAT OF
OTHER EMPLOYEES.  FROM ANY ECONOMIC OR STATUTORY STANDPOINT, THE BOARD
WOULD BE WARRANTED IN TREATING THEM AS EMPLOYEES.  EVEN UNDER
CONVENTIONAL STANDARDS, THEY ARE CONTROLLED BY MANAGEMENT TO AN EXTENT
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY DESIGNATING THEM AS EMPLOYEES. 

NOR CAN WE SAY, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT PERMITTING PLANT GUARDS TO
BE CONSIDERED AS EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT WOULD
MAKE THEM ANY LESS LOYAL TO THEIR EMPLOYER IN CARRYING OUT THEIR
DESIGNATED TASKS.  IN GUARDING THE PLANT AND PERSONNEL AGAINST PHYSICAL
DANGER, THEY REPRESENT THE MANAGEMENT'S LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN PLANT
PROTECTION.  BUT THAT FUNCTION IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH
ORGANIZING AND BARGAINING WITH THE EMPLOYER ON MATTERS AFFECTING THEIR
OWN WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS.  THEY DO NOT LOSE THE RIGHT TO
SERVE THEMSELVES IN THESE RESPECTS MERELY BECAUSE IN OTHER RESPECTS
THEY REPRESENT A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT INTEREST OF MANAGEMENT.  AS
IN THE CASE OF FOREMEN, WE SEE NO BASIS IN THE ACT WHATEVER FOR DENYING
PLANT GUARDS THE BENEFITS OF THE STATUTE WHEN THEY TAKE COLLECTIVE
ACTION TO PROTECT THEIR COLLECTIVE INTERESTS.  PACKARD MOTOR CAR CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 330 U.S. 485. 

WE CANNOT ASSUME, MOREOVER, THAT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WILL MAKE
DEMANDS UPON PLANT GUARD MEMBERS OR EXTRACT CONCESSIONS FROM EMPLOYERS
SO AS TO DECREASE THE LOYALTY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE GUARDS IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THE EMPLOYERS.  THERE IS ALWAYS
THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT IT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A LEGAL BASIS FOR TAKING
AWAY FROM THE GUARDS ALL THEIR STATUTORY RIGHTS.  IN OTHER WORDS,
UNIONISM AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARE CAPABLE OF ADJUSTMENTS TO
ACCOMMODATE THE SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OF PLANT GUARDS. 

THE CRUCIAL PROBLEM IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, IS WHETHER THE
MILITARIZATION OF THE PLANT GUARDS CHANGED THEIR STATUS AS EMPLOYEES AS
A MATTER OF LAW SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE BOARD FROM EXTENDING TO THEM THE
BENEFITS OF THE ACT WHICH THEY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE.  THE SHORT ANSWER
TO THAT PROBLEM IS THAT MILITARIZATION AS SUCH DOES NOT NECESSARILY
CHANGE THE STATUS OF PLANT GUARDS.  IT MAY OR MAY NOT BRING ABOUT A
CHANGE, DEPENDING UPON THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE
MILITARIZATION MAY BE A QUALIFIED ONE; THE EMPLOYER MAY RETAIN POWER TO
FIX WAGES, HOURS AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF WORK; THE NEED AND
DESIRABILITY FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE GUARDS MAY EXIST
AS TO THE MATTERS OVER WHICH THE EMPLOYER RETAINS CONTROL; AND A
RECOGNITION OF THE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE GUARDS MAY BE ENTIRELY
CONSISTENT WITH THEIR MILITARY OBLIGATIONS.  IF THAT IS THE CASE, THE
GUARDS REMAIN EMPLOYEES FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  BUT IF THE
MILITARIZATION IS SUCH AS TO TRANSFER TO THE ARMY ALL THE MATTERS OVER
WHICH THE EMPLOYER WOULD NORMALLY HAVE CONTROL, MATTERS WHICH WOULD
FORM THE BASIS FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT,
THE GUARDS MAY LOSE THEIR STATUS AS PRIVATE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE.    THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION THAT THE
MILITARIZATION OF THE GUARDS IN RESPONDENT'S PLANTS WAS OF A TYPE THAT
DID NOT ALTER THEIR STATUS AS EMPLOYEES UNDER THE ACT MUST THEREFORE BE
TESTED BY THE APPLICABLE WAR DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS AND BY THE EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD.  IF SUCH A RESULT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATIONS AND HAS A REASONABLE BASIS IN THE OTHER
EVIDENCE, THE BOARD'S ORDER MUST BE SUSTAINED. 

THE PLANT GUARDS IN THIS CASE WERE ENROLLED AS CIVILIAN AUXILIARIES
TO THE MILITARY POLICE UNDER WAR DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT
TO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8972, DATED DECEMBER 12, 1941.  THAT ORDER
AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN MILITARY
GUARDS AND PATROLS, AND TO TAKE OTHER APPROPRIATE MEASURES, TO PROTECT
CERTAIN STRATEGIC PREMISES, MATERIALS AND UTILITIES FROM INJURY AND
DESTRUCTION.  THE SECRETARY OF WAR ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE MILITARY
ORGANIZATION OF PLANT GUARD FORCES AS AUXILIARY MILITARY POLICE AT
PLANTS IMPORTANT TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR, THE DIRECTIVE TO THAT
EFFECT BEING ISSUED BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL ON JULY 2, 1942. 
SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS WERE CONTAINED IN CIRCULAR NO. 15, ISSUED ON
MARCH 17, 1943, BY HEADQUARTERS, ARMY SERVICE FORCES.  FN2 

AS STATED BY THESE REGULATIONS, THE PURPOSE OF THE MILITARY
ORGANIZATION OF THE PLANT GUARDS WAS "TO INCREASE THE AUTHORITY,
EFFICIENCY, AND RESPONSIBILITY OF GUARD FORCES AT PLANTS IMPORTANT TO
THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR, AND THROUGH MILITARY TRAINING TO PROVIDE
AUXILIARY FORCES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES TO SUPPLEMENT THE ARMY IN
WARTIME EMERGENCY SITUATIONS."  FN3  IT WAS MADE CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT
PLANT MANAGEMENTS WERE NOT RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY "FOR
PROVIDING ADEQUATE PROTECTION AT ALL TIMES AGAINST ALL HAZARDS."  FN4
IN OTHER WORDS, EMPLOYERS WHO WISHED TO OBTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF WAR MATERIALS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE "ADEQUATE
PROTECTION" FOR THEIR PLANTS WHERE THE MATERIAL WAS TO BE PRODUCED; IF
THE EXISTING PLANT PROTECTION FORCES WERE INADEQUATE, ADDITIONAL GUARDS
WERE TO BE RECRUITED BY THE EMPLOYERS.  BUT ALL THE ORIGINAL AND
ADDITIONAL GUARDS WERE TO BE ENROLLED AS CIVILIAN AUXILIARIES TO THE
MILITARY POLICE. 

THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES RESERVED THE RIGHT TO VETO THE HIRING OR
FIRING OF ANY PLANT GUARD WHERE SUCH ACTION BY THE EMPLOYER MIGHT
IMPAIR THE EFFICIENCY OF THE GUARD FORCE.  FN5  AND THE MILITARY PLANT
GUARD OFFICERS WERE AUTHORIZED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION "THROUGH THE
PLANT MANAGEMENT" TO CORRECT CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN
"DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE PERFORMANCE BY THE GUARD FORCES OF ITS
ORDINARY PROTECTIVE DUTIES."  FN6 

THE FUNCTIONS OF THESE CIVILIAN AUXILIARIES TO THE MILITARY POLICE
WERE STATED TO BE TWOFOLD: "(1) TO PROVIDE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
PROTECTION OF THE PLANT AGAINST SABOTAGE, ESPIONAGE, AND NATURAL
HAZARDS.  (2) TO SERVE WITH THE ARMY IN PROVIDING PROTECTION TO THE
PLANT AND ITS ENVIRONS IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS."  FN7  THEY WERE
SUBJECT TO CALL FOR MILITARY SERVICE EVEN WHERE EMERGENCIES AROSE AT
PLACES OTHER THAN THE PLANTS WHERE THEY NORMALLY WORKED.  TO THESE
ENDS, MILITARY PLANT GUARD OFFICERS WERE AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE DIRECT
CONTROL OVER THE GUARD FORCES "ONLY IN MATTERS RELATING TO MILITARY
INSTRUCTION AND DUTIES AS AUXILIARY MILITARY POLICE."  FN8 BUT SUCH
ORDERS "WILL BE ISSUED ONLY AFTER CONSULTATION WITH AND, IF POSSIBLE,
CONCURRENCE BY THE PLANT MANAGEMENT.  ...  CONTROL, THEREFORE, WILL BE
EXERCISED AS HERETOFORE THROUGH THE PLANT MANAGEMENT EXCEPT AT DRILL
AND EXCEPT IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.  ALTHOUGH THE PLANT GUARD OFFICERS
WILL BE IN COMMAND AT ALL TIMES, THEY WILL NOT SUPPLANT THE CIVILIAN
GUARD OFFICERS, AND UNLESS EXPEDIENCY DEMANDS OTHERWISE WILL EXERCISE
THEIR AUTHORITY THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND ESTABLISHED BY THE PLANT
MANAGEMENT."  FN9  THE REGULATIONS ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE MILITARY
DRILL OF THE GUARD FORCES SHOULD NOT EXCEED ONE HOUR PER WEEK "EXCEPT
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANT MANAGEMENT."  FN10 

AS TO THE EMPLOYER'S RELATIONS WITH THE GUARD FORCE, THE REGULATIONS
WERE EXPLICIT IN RECOGNIZING THAT THOSE RELATIONS REMAINED ESSENTIALLY
THE SAME AS IF THERE WERE NO MILITARIZATION.  ACCORDING TO CIRCULAR NO.
15:  "BASICALLY, THE MILITARIZATION OF PLANT GUARD FORCES DOES NOT
CHANGE THE EXISTING SYSTEMS OF HIRING, COMPENSATION, AND DISMISSAL; ALL
REMAIN PRIMARILY A MATTER BETWEEN THE GUARDS AND THE PLANT
MANAGEMENTS.  GUARDS IN THE EMPLOY OF A PRIVATE EMPLOYER MAY, AS
HERETOFORE, BE DISMISSED BY THAT EMPLOYER."  FN11  A VETO POWER OVER
EMPLOYMENT AND DISMISSAL, OF COURSE, WAS RETAINED BY THE MILITARY.  IT
WAS FURTHER PROVIDED:  "THE STATUS OF THE EMPLOYER IN RESPECT TO THE
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR THE GUARD FORCE IS NOT CHANGED.  FOR EXAMPLE,
SOCIAL SECURITY, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, AND EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
PROVISIONS REMAIN UNAFFECTED."  FN12  AND THE EMPLOYER WAS EXPECTED TO
TRAIN THE GUARD FORCES IN THEIR ORDINARY PROTECTIVE DUTIES AND WAS
REQUIRED TO FURNISH THEM WITH UNIFORMS AND WEAPONS.  FN13 

THE RIGHT OF THE PLANT GUARDS TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WAS RECOGNIZED
BY CIRCULAR NO. 15, PARAGRAPH 6H (2) OF WHICH PROVIDED:  "AUXILIARY
MILITARY POLICE ARE PERMITTED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, BUT NO SUCH
ACTIVITY WILL BE TOLERATED WHICH WILL INTERFERE WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS
AS MEMBERS OF THE AUXILIARY MILITARY POLICE.  IN VIEW OF RECENT
DECISIONS BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (SEE IN RE LORD MFG.
CO. & UNITED RUBBER WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, CASE NO. R-4826, FEBRUARY
1943)(LORD MANUFACTURING CO., 47 N.L.R.B. 1032), THE AUXILIARY MILITARY
POLICE SHOULD BE REPRESENTED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE
MANAGEMENT BY A BARGAINING UNIT OTHER THAN THAT COMPOSED OF THE
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS, ALTHOUGH BOTH BARGAINING UNITS MAY
BE AFFILIATED WITH THE SAME LABOR ORGANIZATION.  WHERE THE GUARDS ARE
NOT NOW INCLUDED IN THE SAME BARGAINING UNIT, THIS IS MANDATORY; WHERE
THE GUARDS ARE INCLUDED IN SUCH UNIT, SERIOUS CONSIDERATION WILL BE
GIVEN TO EFFECT A CHANGE TO CONFORM TO THE FOREGOING POLICIES." 
PROVISION WAS ALSO MADE THAT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS COVERING
PLANT GUARDS WHO WERE CIVILIAN AUXILIARIES SHOULD INCLUDE A CLAUSE
RECOGNIZING THAT NOTHING IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP
SHOULD INTERFERE WITH THE DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THE GUARDS AS AUXILIARY
MILITARY POLICE.  FN14 

THE GUARDS WERE REQUIRED TO SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES. 
FN15  EACH AGREEMENT STATED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL, WHO HAD BEEN OR WAS
ABOUT TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE PARTICULAR COMPANY AS A GUARD AT ITS PLANT,
AGREED THAT HE WOULD SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, BEAR TRUE
FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION, AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE HIS
DUTIES AS A CIVILIAN AUXILIARY TO THE MILITARY POLICE.  HE ALSO
ACKNOWLEDGED IN THIS AGREEMENT THAT APPROPRIATE ARTICLES OF WAR HAD
BEEN READ AND EXPLAINED TO HIM AND THAT HE WAS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW
DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT.  THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS THEN PROVIDED THAT
HE COULD BE COURT-MARTIALED WHERE NO OTHER EFFECTIVE FORM OF PUNISHMENT
WOULD BE EFFECTIVE.  BUT "UNLIKE THE COURT-MARTIAL PUNISHMENT OF A
PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE, A COURT MARTIAL CANNOT PUNISH A MEMBER OF
THE AUXILIARY MILITARY POLICE BY REDUCTION IN MILITARY GRADE OR BY
FORFEITURE OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES.  ANALOGOUS PUNISHMENTS MIGHT BE
IMPOSED, SUCH AS REDUCTION IN GRADE IN THE GUARD ORGANIZATION OR
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION FROM DUTY.  A FINE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
FORFEITURE, IS REGARDED AS AN APPROPRIATE FORM OF PUNISHMENT."  FN16
IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, THE GUARDS REMAINED SUBJECT TO THE CIVIL
COURTS. 

THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD CONFIRMED THE FACT
THAT THE PLANT GUARDS IN RESPONDENT'S TWO PLANTS WERE MILITARIZED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING REGULATIONS.  THE GUARDS AT EACH PLANT
WERE UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF A CHIEF GUARD AND SEVERAL
LIEUTENANTS - ALL OF WHOM WERE CIVILIANS RECRUITED BY THE RESPONDENT
LIKE THE RANK-AND-FILE GUARDS.  THE MILITARY SUPERIOR OF THE CHIEF
GUARDS WAS THE DISTRICT PLANT GUARD OFFICER STATIONED AT THE CONTINUOUS
SECURITY DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT, CINCINNATI, OHIO, AN
OFFICER WHO ALSO HAD CHARGE OF GUARD FORCES AT OTHER PLANTS IN THE
DISTRICT.  A GENERAL DIRECTIVE ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE REPEATED MANY OF
THE PROVISIONS OF CIRCULAR NO. 15.  FN17  IT ALSO PROVIDED THAT ORDERS
AND REGULATIONS FOR THE AUXILIARY MILITARY POLICE WOULD BE ISSUED IN
THE NAME OF THE CHIEF OF THE DISTRICT "AFTER PLANT MANAGEMENT HAS
INDICATED ITS CONCURRENCE BY SIGNING THE GUARD ORDER IN THE LOWER LEFT
HAND CORNER."  BUT THE ONLY GUARD ORDERS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF GUARDS
AT RESPONDENT'S PLANTS WERE THREE GENERAL ONES SIGNED BY THE DISTRICT
PLANT GUARD OFFICER, ORDERS THAT WERE APPLICABLE TO ALL MILITARIZED
GUARDS IN THE DISTRICT.  ALL THE SPECIFIC ORDERS THAT WERE EVER ISSUED
EMANATED FROM THE CHIEF GUARDS.  ABOUT THE ONLY DIRECT CONTACT BETWEEN
THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND THESE GUARDS OCCURRED DURING THE WEEKLY
DRILL PERIOD. 

RESPONDENT RECRUITED THE NECESSARY ADDITIONAL GUARDS THROUGH ITS
ORDINARY EMPLOYMENT CHANNELS AND IT HAD THE POWER TO INITIATE
DISMISSALS FROM THE FORCE.  SUCH ACTIONS, HOWEVER, WERE SUBJECT TO THE
APPROVAL OF THE MILITARY.  RESPONDENT AT ALL TIMES CARRIED THE GUARDS
ON ITS REGULAR PAY ROLLS, DETERMINED THEIR RATE OF COMPENSATION AND
PAID THEIR WAGES AFTER MAKING APPROPRIATE DEDUCTIONS.  AND SINCE IT DID
NOT OPERATE ON A COST-PLUS BASIS, RESPONDENT ACTUALLY BORE THE COST OF
THE GUARDS' WAGES.  FN18  RESPONDENT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO GIVE ORDERS TO
THE GUARDS, MERELY MAKING SUGGESTIONS TO THE CHIEF GUARDS.  THE LATTER
WORKED IN CLOSE COOPERATION WITH RESPONDENT'S PERSONNEL MANAGER AND NO
FRICTION DEVELOPED.  RESPONDENT DELEGATED TO THE CHIEF GUARDS ITS POWER
TO DETERMINE THE GUARDS' WORKING HOURS AND THE PROMOTION POLICIES IN
REGARD TO THEM.  FINALLY, RESPONDENT MAINTAINED ITS LIABILITY AS TO THE
GUARDS ON MATTERS OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND WAS
OBLIGED TO OBEY ALL MINIMUM WAGE AND MAXIMUM HOUR REQUIREMENTS. 

FROM THE FOREGOING, AN AMPLE BASIS IS EVIDENT TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S
DETERMINATION THAT MILITARIZATION DID NOT DESTROY THE EMPLOYEE STATUS
OF THE GUARDS IN RESPONDENT'S PLANTS.  THE WAR DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS
AND THE ACTUAL PRACTICE IN THESE PLANTS WERE BASED UPON THE EXPLICIT
ASSUMPTION THAT THE GUARDS WERE THE PRIVATE EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT
RATHER THAN EMPLOYEES OR SOLDIERS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
REGULATIONS MADE IT UNMISTAKABLE THAT THE NORMAL, PRIVATE EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP WAS TO REMAIN SUBSTANTIALLY INTACT.  ESPECIALLY
CLEAR WAS THE FACT THAT THE RIGHT OF THE GUARDS TO JOIN UNIONS AND TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WAS TO BE RESPECTED.  THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES
TOOK OVER FROM RESPONDENT ONLY THOSE ATTRIBUTES OF CONTROL WHICH WERE
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE RATHER LIMITED MILITARY PROGRAM, MANY
ASPECTS OF THAT TRANSFERRED POWER BEING EXERCISABLE BY THE ARMY ONLY IN
THE GRAVEST EMERGENCIES. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE BOARD WAS WITHOUT WARRANT IN LAW OR IN FACT IN
CONCLUDING THAT RESPONDENT RETAINED "A SUFFICIENT RESIDUAL MEASURE OF
CONTROL OVER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE GUARDS" SO
THAT THEY MIGHT FAIRLY BE DESCRIBED AS EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT.  FN19
THE MOST IMPORTANT INCIDENTS OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP -
WAGES, HOURS AND PROMOTION - REMAINED MATTERS TO BE DETERMINED BY
RESPONDENT RATHER THAN BY THE ARMY.  RESPONDENT COULD SETTLE THOSE
VITAL MATTERS UNILATERALLY OR BY AGREEMENT WITH THE GUARDS.  AND THE
GUARDS WERE FREE TO NEGOTIATE AND BARGAIN INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY
ON THESE ITEMS.  IT IS PRECISELY SUCH A SITUATION TO WHICH THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS APPLICABLE.  IT IS A SITUATION WHERE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING MAY BE APPROPRIATE AND WHERE STATUTORY OBJECTIVES MAY BE
ACHIEVED DESPITE THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY MILITARIZATION.  UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BOARD MAY PROPERLY FIND THAT AN EMPLOYEE STATUS
EXISTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 

IN THIS SETTING, IT MATTERS NOT THAT RESPONDENT WAS DEPRIVED OF SOME
OF THE USUAL POWERS OF AN EMPLOYER, SUCH AS THE ABSOLUTE POWER TO HIRE
AND FIRE THE GUARDS AND THE ABSOLUTE POWER TO CONTROL THEIR PHYSICAL
ACTIVITIES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR SERVICE.  THOSE ARE RELEVANT BUT
NOT EXCLUSIVE INDICIA OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP UNDER THIS
STATUTE.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, JUDGMENT AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A
RELATIONSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT MUST BE MADE WITH MORE THAN THE
COMMON LAW CONCEPTS IN MIND.  THAT RELATIONSHIP MAY SPRING AS READILY
FROM THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE WAGES AND HOURS OF ANOTHER, COUPLED
WITH THE OBLIGATION TO BEAR THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF THOSE WAGES AND THE
RECEIPT OF THE BENEFITS OF THE HOURS WORKED, AS FROM THE ABSOLUTE POWER
TO HIRE AND FIRE OR THE POWER TO CONTROL ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
WORKER.  IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE THE CONDITIONS OF THE RELATION ARE SUCH
THAT THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MAY APPROPRIATELY BE UTILIZED
AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT, THE NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FOUND TO
BE PRESENT.  LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, SUPRA, 129. 

THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION THAT THERE WAS A RELATIONSHIP IN THIS CASE
DESERVING OF STATUTORY PROTECTION DOES NOT REFLECT AN ISOLATED OR
CARELESS RECONCILIATION OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE ACT WITH THE
IMPORTANT WARTIME DUTIES OF PLANT PROTECTION EMPLOYEES.  IN THE COURSE
OF ITS ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT DURING THE WAR, THE BOARD WAS FACED
WITH THIS PROBLEM MANY TIMES.  FN20 IT WAS WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE
IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX CONSIDERATIONS INHERENT IN THE SITUATION.  THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN SUCH MATTERS AND
OF REACHING A JUDGMENT AFTER GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO ALL THE RELEVANT
FACTORS LAY PRIMARILY WITH THE BOARD.  SEE SOUTHERN STEAMSHIP CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 316 U.S. 31, 47.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME COMPELLING
EVIDENCE THAT THE BOARD HAS FAILED TO MEASURE UP TO ITS RESPONSIBILITY,
COURTS SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO OVERTURN THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THE
BOARD AND TO SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN IDEAS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WE
FIND NO SUCH EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.    HERE WE HAVE THE BOARD'S
CONSIDERED AND CONSISTENT JUDGMENT THAT MILITARIZED PLANT GUARDS MAY
SAFELY BE PERMITTED TO JOIN UNIONS AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY AND THAT
THEIR MILITARY DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS DO NOT SUFFER THEREBY.  IN
AGREEMENT WITH THAT VIEWPOINT HAS BEEN THE WAR DEPARTMENT, THE AGENCY
MOST DIRECTLY CONCERNED WITH THE MILITARY ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM.  ITS
REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES HAVE CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE FEASIBILITY OF
RECOGNIZING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS OF THESE GUARDS DURING
WARTIME, PROVIDED ONLY THAT NO ENCROACHMENT IS MADE UPON MILITARY
NECESSITIES.  THIS POLICY OF THE BOARD, MOREOVER, HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY
EXPERIENCE.  THE BOARD STATES THAT IT HAS CERTIFIED BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES FOR UNITS OF MILITARIZED GUARDS IN MORE THAN 105 CASES,
IN NONE OF WHICH HAS ANY DANGER TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR TO THE WAR
EFFORT RESULTED. 

UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BE FOLLY ON OUR PART TO DISREGARD
OR TO UPSET THE POLICY THE BOARD HAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE.  FN21  SINCE
THE BOARD'S ORDER IS IN ACCORD WITH THE LAW AND HAS SUBSTANTIAL ROOTS
IN THE EVIDENCE, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE LANGUAGE AND SCOPE OF THE
ORDER ARE EITHER WITHOUT MERIT OR HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY THE
DEMILITARIZATION OF THE GUARDS.  AND ANY ISSUES CONCERNING THE
SUBSEQUENT DEPUTIZATION OF THE GUARDS AS POLICEMEN ARE ANSWERED BY OUR
DECISION IN LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., POST, P. 416. 
THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED. 

FN1  LOCAL 1683 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
DISTRICT 90.  THIS UNION DID NOT REPRESENT ANY OF THE MAINTENANCE OR
PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES IN RESPONDENT'S PLANTS, BUT IT DID ADMIT TO
MEMBERSHIP PLANT PROTECTION EMPLOYEES OF OTHER EMPLOYERS AS WELL AS
THOSE OF RESPONDENT. 

FN2 CIRCULAR NO. 15 WAS NOT INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE IN THE
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD.  BUT IT WAS ISSUED BY MILITARY AUTHORITIES
PURSUANT TO THE POWER VESTED IN THE SECRETARY OF WAR BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
NO. 8972 AND WE MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT.  STANDARD OIL CO. V.
JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481, 483-484. 

FN3  CIRCULAR NO. 15, PAR. 1A. 

FN4  ID. PAR. 1B. 

FN5  ID. PAR. 6B (2). 

FN6  ID. PAR. 1B. 

FN7  ID. PAR. 2A. 

FN8  ID. PAR. 5A (2). 

FN9  ID. PARS. 5C (2) AND 6A (1). 

FN10  ID. PAR. 7G (1). 

FN11  ID. PAR. 6B (1). 

FN12  ID. PAR. 6F. 

FN13  THE GUARDS WERE REQUIRED TO SALUTE ARMY OFFICERS AND HAD THE
RIGHT TO ARREST ANYONE IN THE PLANTS.  THEY CARRIED IDENTIFICATION
CARDS ISSUED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT AND WORE ARM BANDS ON WHICH APPEARED
THE WORDS "AUXILIARY MILITARY POLICE."  ID. PAR. 7. 

FN14  ID. PAR. 6H (1). 

FN15  IF A GUARD REFUSED TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT, HE MIGHT BE, BUT
NEED NOT BE, TEMPORARILY RETAINED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WOULD
BE DISMISSED AS SOON AS HE COULD BE REPLACED, AND IN ANY EVENT WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME.  ID. PAR. 5B (1). 

FN16  ID. PAR. 8D. 

FN17  THIS DIRECTIVE, HOWEVER, OMITTED PAR. 6H (2) OF CIRCULAR NO.
15, DEALING WITH THE RIGHT OF GUARDS TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY. 

FN18  RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT IT WAS FORCED TO PAY THE GUARDS BECAUSE
OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT'S ACTION IN REQUIRING ADDITIONAL PLANT
PROTECTION.  BUT RESPONDENT WAS NOT FORCED TO ENTER INTO ITS WAR
PRODUCTION CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  IT DID SO VOLUNTARILY AND
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD COMPLY WITH ANY TERMS AND
CONDITIONS THE GOVERNMENT SAW FIT TO IMPOSE.  ONE OF THESE CONDITIONS
WAS THAT RESPONDENT EXPAND ITS PEACETIME GUARD FORCE OF SIX MEN TO A
WARTIME COMPLEMENT OF SIXTY-FOUR.  SO FAR AS THESE ADDITIONAL GUARDS
BEING RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES IS CONCERNED, IT IS NO DIFFERENT FROM A
REQUIREMENT THAT RESPONDENT EMPLOY MORE CHEMISTS OR OTHER PRODUCTION
EXPERTS TO FACILITATE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACTS. 

FN19  THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION IN THIS RESPECT IS CONFIRMED BY THE
RESULTS REACHED UNDER OTHER STATUTES.  MILITARIZED GUARDS HAVE BEEN
TREATED AS PRIVATE EMPLOYEES FOR PURPOSES OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  WALLING V. LUM, 4 WH CASES 465.  AND THEY HAVE CONSISTENTLY BEEN
TREATED AS SUCH BY THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD.  DETROIT STEEL
PRODUCTS CO., 6 WAR LAB.  REP.  495; BREWSTER AERONAUTICAL CORP., 11
WAR LAB.  REP.  286, 15 WAR LAB.  REP.  239, 240-243; GREAT AMERICAN
INDUSTRIES, 11 WAR LAB.  REP.  287; YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO., 15 WAR
LAB.  REP.  500, 19 WAR LAB.  REP.  813; GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 18 WAR
LAB.  REP.  541.  AND SEE LABOR BOARD V. CARROLL, 120 F.2D 457. 

FN20  SEE, E.G., CHRYSLER CORPORATION, 44 N.L.R.B. 881; BUDD WHEEL
CO., 52 N.L.R.B. 666; DRAVO CORPORATION, 52 N.L.R.B. 322.  SEE ALSO
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT (1943), P. 63;
EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT (1944), P. 57. 

FN21  IN ADOPTING THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, 57 STAT. 163, CONGRESS
PROVIDED IN SEC. 7(A)(2) THAT ALL ACTIONS OF THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR
BOARD MUST CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT - AN INDICATION THAT CONGRESS DEEMED THE PRESERVATION OF THE RIGHT
TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO BE ESSENTIAL IN WAR INDUSTRIES. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
DISSENT SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT BELOW, 155 F.2D 567. 
..END :






LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CO., 331 U.S. 416 


NO. 418.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 19, 1947.  - 154 F.2D
932, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE MILITARIZATION OF CERTAIN
GUARDS EMPLOYED BY A PRIVATE PLANT ENGAGED IN WAR PRODUCTION DID NOT
PRECLUDE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FROM GROUPING THEM IN A
SEPARATE UNIT FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND PERMITTING THEM TO CHOOSE
AS THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE A UNION WHICH ALSO REPRESENTED
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES.  PP. 422-427. 

2.  THE DETERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT, IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, CERTAIN GUARDS AT A PRIVATE PLANT OF
THE RESPONDENT ENGAGED IN WAR PRODUCTION, THOUGH EMPLOYED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH A REQUIREMENT OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT AND ENROLLED AS CIVILIAN
AUXILIARIES TO THE MILITARY POLICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY SUBJECT TO
ARMY REGULATIONS, WERE "EMPLOYEES" OF RESPONDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 2(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE
EVIDENCE AND THE LAW.  LABOR BOARD V. ATKINS & CO., ANTE, P. 398.  P.
422. 

3.  A PROCEEDING UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO ENFORCE A
BOARD ORDER REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
MILITARIZED PLANT GUARDS, HELD NOT RENDERED MOOT BY THEIR SUBSEQUENT
DEMILITARIZATION, IN AND OF ITSELF.  LABOR BOARD V. ATKINS & CO., ANTE,
P. 398.  PP. 421-422. 

4.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
THAT "NO OBJECTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN URGED BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS
MEMBER, AGENT OR AGENCY, SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT, UNLESS THE
FAILURE OR NEGLECT TO URGE SUCH OBJECTION SHALL BE EXCUSED BECAUSE OF
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES," REFERS TO OBJECTIONS WHICH MIGHT HAVE
BEEN BUT WERE NOT RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD. 
P. 427. 

5. THE REVIEWING COURT HAS POWER TO CONSIDER AN ISSUE WHICH HAS COME
INTO EXISTENCE SINCE THE PROCEEDING WAS BEFORE THE BOARD.  PP. 427
428. 

6.  WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES ARISE AFTER THE BOARD'S ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED
WHICH MAY AFFECT THE PROPRIETY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER, THE
REVIEWING COURT HAS DISCRETION TO DECIDE THE MATTER ITSELF OR TO REMAND
IT TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  P. 428. 

7.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REMAND
THE CASE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE
ISSUE AS TO THE STATUS OF PLANT GUARDS WHO WERE DEPUTIZED AS MUNICIPAL
POLICEMEN SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, THERE
BEING NOTHING IN THE INSTANT CASE WHICH WOULD MAKE INAPPLICABLE THE
BOARD'S KNOWN POLICY WITH RESPECT TO DEPUTIZED GUARDS.  P. 428. 

8.  THE FACTS AND LAW OF THIS CASE WOULD JUSTIFY A DETERMINATION BY
THE BOARD THAT THE GUARDS AT THE PRIVATE PLANT IN QUESTION WERE
"EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR DEPUTIZATION AS MUNICIPAL
POLICEMEN; AND THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO SELECT AS THEIR BARGAINING
AGENT A UNION WHICH ALSO REPRESENTED PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
WORKERS.  PP. 429-431. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 53 N.L.R.B. 1046,
ISSUED UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WAS DENIED ENFORCEMENT
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  154 F.2D 932.  (A PREVIOUS JUDGMENT,
146 F.2D 718, HAD BEEN VACATED AND THE CASE REMANDED BY THIS COURT, 325
U.S. 838.)  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 710.  REVERSED, P.
431. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

LIKE LABOR BOARD V. ATKINS & CO., ANTE, P. 398, THIS CASE INVOLVES
THE RIGHTS OF MILITARIZED PLANT GUARDS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. BUT CERTAIN PROBLEMS ARE
RAISED HERE WHICH ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE ATKINS CASE. 

RESPONDENT OWNS AND OPERATES SEVERAL LARGE STEEL MANUFACTURING WORKS
AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF WAR MATERIALS DURING THE RECENT
WAR.  AT RESPONDENT'S OTIS WORKS AT CLEVELAND, OHIO, ABOUT 4,700
INDIVIDUALS ARE EMPLOYED.  PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
CONSTITUTE THE GREAT BULK OF THESE WORKERS.  BUT THERE IS ALSO INCLUDED
IN THE TOTAL A GROUP OF GUARDS AND WATCHMEN, NUMBERING ABOUT SIXTY MEN
NORMALLY. 

A UNION AFFILIATED WITH THE UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O.,
HAS BEEN THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT FOR THE PRODUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES.  UNDER A CONTRACT MADE WITH RESPONDENT LATE IN
1942, THIS UNION DISCLAIMED ANY REPRESENTATION OF "FOREMEN OR ASSISTANT
FOREMEN IN CHARGE OF ANY CLASSES OF LABOR, WATCHMEN, SALARIED EMPLOYEES
AND NURSES."  ON MARCH 15, 1943, THIS UNION FILED A PETITION FOR
INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO SEC.
9(C) OF THE ACT, IN WHICH IT SOUGHT TO BE CERTIFIED AS THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GUARD FORCE.  A HEARING WAS THEN
HELD.  RESPONDENT CLAIMED THAT A UNIT COMPOSED OF THESE GUARDS WAS
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THEY "PERFORM CERTAIN ASSIGNED WORK THAT IS
STRICTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF MANAGEMENT."  RESPONDENT ALSO CLAIMED THAT
ANY ALLEGATION BY THE UNION THAT A UNIT INCLUDING WATCHMEN IS
APPROPRIATE WAS "A DIRECT CONTRAVENTION" OF THE 1942 CONTRACT.  AND IT
WAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT ANY UNIONIZATION OF WATCHMEN OR GUARDS WAS
PARTICULARLY INAPPROPRIATE DURING A TIME OF WAR, THAT THEIR DUTIES "DO
NOT DIFFER GREATLY FROM THE DUTIES PERFORMED BY MEMBERS OF A CITY,
COUNTY OR STATE POLICE FORCE" AND THAT THESE GUARDS HAD BEEN SWORN IN
AS AUXILIARY MILITARY POLICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 

THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING SHOWED THAT THERE WERE CURRENTLY 72
PLANT PROTECTION EMPLOYEES.  OF THESE, 58 WERE PATROLMEN WHOSE SOLE
DUTY WAS TO PROTECT AND GUARD THE OTIS WORKS; THERE WERE 2 FIREMEN TO
MAINTAIN THE FIRE EQUIPMENT; 2 DUMP LABORERS WERE ASSIGNED TO WORK AT A
REFUSE DUMP WHILE WATCHING THAT SECTION OF THE PLANT; AND THERE WERE 8
LIEUTENANTS AND 2 FIRE CAPTAINS SUPERVISING THE OTHERS.  ALL OF THEM
WERE CARRIED ON RESPONDENT'S PAYROLL AND WERE UNDER RESPONDENT'S
CONTROL AS TO PAY, BENEFITS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  AND, AS
RESPONDENT HAD ALLEGED, THEY HAD BEEN SWORN IN AS CIVILIAN AUXILIARIES
TO THE MILITARY POLICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, IN THE SAME MANNER
AND UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS DETAILED IN THE ATKINS CASE. 

ON MAY 3, 1943, THE BOARD ISSUED ITS DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION.  49 N.L.R.B. 390.  IT FOUND THAT "ALL PATROLMEN, WATCHMEN,
AND FIREMEN, INCLUDING DUMP LABORERS EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY AT ITS
OTIS WORKS, BUT EXCLUDING LIEUTENANTS, CAPTAINS, AND SUPERVISORS"
CONSTITUTED AN APPROPRIATE UNIT AND THAT AN ELECTION SHOULD BE HELD BY
THE EMPLOYEES IN THIS UNIT TO DETERMINE IF THEY DESIRED TO BE
REPRESENTED BY THE STEELWORKERS UNION.  IT REJECTED ALL OF RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTIONS, POINTING OUT AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT THE UNION, WHILE
REPRESENTING PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES, INTENDED TO BARGAIN
FOR THE PLANT GUARDS AND WATCHMEN AS A SEPARATE UNIT. 

THE ELECTION RESULTED IN THE SELECTION OF THE STEELWORKERS UNION AS
THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT IN QUESTION.  THE UNION WAS
CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIT, RESPONDENT
REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION AND THE BOARD ISSUED ITS COMPLAINT
BASED UPON THAT REFUSAL.  ON DECEMBER 2, 1943, THE BOARD REAFFIRMED THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNIT AND FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD COMMITTED
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN REFUSING TO BARGAIN.  THE USUAL ORDER WAS
ENTERED.  53 N.L.R.B. 1046. 

THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR A
DECREE ENFORCING ITS ORDER.  146 F.2D 718.  WHILE UPHOLDING THE BOARD'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE MILITARIZED GUARD FORCES WERE EMPLOYEES WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE COURT FELT THAT
THE UNIT SELECTED FOR BARGAINING PURPOSES WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND
REFLECTED A DISREGARD BY THE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL WELFARE.  IN THE
EYES OF THAT COURT, THE BOARD'S FATAL ERROR WAS ITS AUTHORIZING THE
MILITARIZED GUARDS TO JOIN THE SAME UNION WHICH REPRESENTED THE
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE "WHEN THEY WERE INDUCTED
INTO THE UNIONS AND BECAME SUBJECT TO THEIR ORDERS, RULES AND
DECISIONS, THE PLANT PROTECTION EMPLOYEES ASSUMED OBLIGATIONS TO THE
UNIONS AND THEIR FELLOW WORKERS, WHICH MIGHT WELL IN GIVEN
CIRCUMSTANCES BRING THEM IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR OBLIGATION TO THEIR
EMPLOYERS, AND WITH THEIR PARAMOUNT DUTY AS MILITARIZED POLICE OF THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT."  146 F.2D AT 722. 

THE BOARD FILED A PETITION IN THIS COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 
AS IN THE ATKINS CASE, THE BOARD POINTED OUT THAT THE PLANT PROTECTION
EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN DEMILITARIZED AT A DATE (MAY 29, 1944) SUBSEQUENT TO
THE REFUSALS TO BARGAIN, BUT URGED THAT THIS FACT DID NOT MAKE THE CASE
MOOT.  WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AT THE SAME TIME AS WE GRANTED
THE WRIT IN THE ATKINS CASE, VACATED THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMANDED
THE CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS "FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF
THE ALLEGED CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES WITH RESPECT TO THE DEMILITARIZATION
OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED, AND THE EFFECT THEREOF ON THE BOARD'S
ORDERS."  325 U.S. 838. 

THE BOARD AND THE RESPONDENT THEN ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION RELATIVE
TO THE DATES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEMILITARIZATION OF THE GUARDS. 
FROM THIS STIPULATION IT APPEARED THAT THE QUALIFICATIONS, STRENGTH,
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE GUARDS CONTINUED TO BE THE SAME AFTER
DEMILITARIZATION AS BEFORE.  ALSO INCLUDED IN THE STIPULATION WERE
FACTS SHOWING THAT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE PERIOD OF MILITARIZATION,
AUGUST 5, 1942, TO MAY 29, 1944, THE GUARDS WERE COMMISSIONED, SWORN
AND BONDED AS PRIVATE POLICEMEN OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND AND EXERCISED
"THE LEGAL POWERS OF PEACE OFFICERS IN THEIR WORK AS PLANT GUARDS."  IT
WAS FURTHER STIPULATED THAT BECAUSE OF "THE MAGNITUDE AND OTHER
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OTIS WORKS, ITS POLICE PROTECTION BY THE
ORDINARY POLICE OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND IS NOT PRACTICAL OR FEASIBLE;
AND, AS A RESULT, FOR A GREAT MANY YEARS, THE POLICE PROTECTION OF THE
WORKS AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAW, PEACE AND GOOD ORDER THEREIN HAS BEEN
DELEGATED WHOLLY TO THE PLANT GUARD FORCE.  FOR SIMILAR REASONS, THE
WORK OF PREVENTING AND EXTINGUISHING FIRES HAS BEEN IN LARGE PART THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GUARD FORCE, RATHER THAN THAT OF THE MUNICIPAL
FIRE DEPARTMENT." 

THE BOARD FILED A MOTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR A DECREE
ENFORCING ITS ORDER.  THAT COURT DENIED THE MOTION AND HELD THAT THE
FACTS CONCERNING BOTH THE DEMILITARIZATION AND THE DEPUTIZATION WERE TO
BE CONSIDERED AS THOUGH THEY HAD BEEN PRESENTED AT THE HEARING BEFORE
THE BOARD; ON THAT BASIS, THE COURT REAFFIRMED ITS BELIEF THAT THE
GUARDS WERE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, BUT CONCLUDED THAT
IN VIEW OF THE "DRASTIC POLICE POWERS" EXERCISED BY THE GUARDS, IT WAS
"IMPROPER FOR THE BOARD TO PERMIT THEIR ORGANIZATION BY THE SAME UNION
WHICH REPRESENTS THE PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES."  154 F.2D 932, 934. 

OUR DECISION IN THE ATKINS CASE MAKES CLEAR THAT THE DEMILITARIZATION
OF THE GUARDS DID NOT RENDER THIS CASE MOOT.  THE ORDER WAS A
CONTINUING COMMAND WHICH MAY BE EFFECTUATED IN THE FUTURE.  BUT UNLESS
THE ORDER WAS VALID WHEN IT WAS ISSUED, THERE IS NO BASIS WHATEVER FOR
IT AND NO COURT CAN DECREE ITS ENFORCEMENT IN THE FUTURE.  HENCE ITS
VALIDITY MUST BE JUDGED AS OF THE TIME WHEN IT WAS ISSUED, A TIME WHEN
THE GUARDS WERE STILL MILITARIZED.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY, HOWEVER, THAT
EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO DEMILITARIZATION ARE IRRELEVANT IN DECIDING
WHETHER THE ORDER SHOULD BE ENFORCED.  ALL THAT WE HOLD IS THAT
DEMILITARIZATION IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH TO RENDER THE ORDER OR
THE CASE MOOT. 

THE ATKINS DECISION LIKEWISE DISPOSES OF ANY ISSUES RELATING TO THE
EFFECT OF MILITARIZATION UPON THE STATUS OF THE GUARDS AS EMPLOYEES
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 
TO THAT EXTENT, THE BOARD'S ORDER HERE WAS PLAINLY VALID.  UNANSWERED
BY THE ATKINS DECISION, HOWEVER, IS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
MILITARIZATION OF THE PLANT GUARDS PRECLUDED THE BOARD FROM GROUPING
THE GUARDS IN A SEPARATE UNIT AND PERMITTING THEM TO CHOOSE AS THEIR
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE A UNION WHICH ALSO REPRESENTED PRODUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES.  TO THAT ISSUE, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY ONE RAISED
BY THIS CASE, WE NOW TURN. 

THE BOARD, OF COURSE, HAS WIDE DISCRETION IN PERFORMING ITS STATUTORY
FUNCTION UNDER SEC. 9(B) OF DECIDING "THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING  ...  "  PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO.
V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 146.  IT LIKEWISE HAS DISCRETION TO PLACE
APPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON THE CHOICE OF BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES
SHOULD IT FIND THAT PUBLIC OR STATUTORY POLICIES SO DICTATE.  ITS
DETERMINATIONS IN THESE RESPECTS ARE BINDING UPON REVIEWING COURTS IF
GROUNDED IN REASONABLENESS.  MAY STORES CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 326 U.S.
376, 380.  A PROPER DETERMINATION AS TO ANY OF THESE MATTERS, OF
COURSE, NECESSARILY IMPLIES THAT THE BOARD HAS GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION
TO ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND THAT IT HAS CORRELATED THE POLICIES OF
THE ACT WITH WHATEVER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INTERESTS MAY ALLEGEDLY OR
ACTUALLY BE IN CONFLICT. 

THUS, IN DETERMINING THE PROPER UNIT FOR MILITARIZED GUARDS AND IN
DECIDING WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CHOOSE THE SAME UNION THAT
REPRESENTS PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD MUST BE
GUIDED NOT ALONE BY THE WISHES OF THE GUARDS OR THE UNION OR BY WHAT IS
APPROPRIATE IN THE CASE OF NON-MILITARIZED GUARDS.  IT MUST ALSO GIVE
DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE MILITARY DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE GUARDS
AND THEIR POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIPS TO A UNION REPRESENTING OTHER
EMPLOYEES; IT MUST CONSIDER WHAT LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, ON THE NORMAL
FREEDOM TO CHOOSE WHATEVER REPRESENTATIVE THE GUARDS MAY DESIRE ARE
NECESSITATED BY THE WAR EFFORT. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BOARD HAS GIVEN THESE MATTERS DUE
CONSIDERATION.  IT HAS NOT ACTED IN THIS CASE IN DISREGARD OF THE
NATIONAL WELFARE.  SANCTIONING THE CREATION OF A SEPARATE UNIT OF
RESPONDENT'S GUARDS AND PERMITTING THEM TO SELECT A UNION OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING, A UNION WHICH HAPPENED TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES, ARE INDICATIVE OF A CONSIDERED,
MATURE JUDGMENT ON THE BOARD'S PART.  THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN RAISED IN
MANY CASES BEFORE THE BOARD AND ITS CONCLUSION IS IN ACCORD WITH THAT
REACHED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT. 

IN CHRYSLER CORP., 44 N.L.R.B. 881, DRAVO CORP., 52 N.L.R.B. 322, AND
ARMOUR AND CO., 63 N.L.R.B. 1200, THE BOARD HAS SPELLED OUT THE VARIOUS
CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE LED IT TO ADOPT THE POLICY APPLIED IN THIS
CASE.  THOSE CASES REVEAL THE BOARD'S BELIEF THAT FREEDOM TO CHOOSE A
BARGAINING AGENT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO SELECT AN AGENT WHICH REPRESENTS
OTHER EMPLOYEES IN A DIFFERENT BARGAINING UNIT.  THIS PRINCIPLE MAY
SAFELY BE APPLIED TO MILITARIZED GUARDS, IN THE BOARD'S OPINION, SINCE
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR THE
INCREASED RESPONSIBILITIES PLACED UPON THE MILITARIZED GUARDS.  AND THE
BOARD HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE REMEDY FOR INEFFICIENCY OR WILFUL
DISREGARD OR NEGLECT OF DUTY ON THE PART OF SUCH GUARDS LIES IN THE
POWER OF THE EMPLOYER TO DISCIPLINE OR DISCHARGE THEM AND IN THE POWER
OF THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES TO TAKE WHATEVER STEPS MAY BE NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  MOREOVER, THE BOARD HAS DISCOVERED NO
SERIOUS QUESTION AS TO ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN LOYALTIES TO THE ARMY AND
TO THE UNION, THE BOARD FINDING NO BASIS TO ASSUME THAT MEMBERSHIP IN A
UNION TENDS TO UNDERMINE THE PATRIOTISM OF MILITARIZED GUARDS OR THAT
LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE SECONDARY IN THEIR MINDS TO
LOYALTY TO THE UNION.  BUT ONE RESTRICTION IS PLACED UPON THE STATUTORY
FREEDOM OF THE MILITARIZED GUARDS.  THE BOARD INSISTS THAT THEY BE
PLACED IN SEPARATE BARGAINING UNITS SO THAT THEY MAY BE BETTER ABLE TO
FUNCTION WITHIN THE MILITARY SPHERE AND SO THAT THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES MAY BE ABLE TO EXERCISE GREATER CONTROL OVER THEM. 

THIS POLICY OF THE BOARD COINCIDES WITH THAT EXPRESSED IN THE
REGULATIONS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT.  AS WE POINTED OUT IN THE ATKINS
CASE, ANTE, P. 398, THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES HAVE GIVEN FULL SANCTION
TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ON THE PART OF MILITARIZED GUARDS, PROVIDED
ONLY THAT SUCH ACTION DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THEIR MILITARY
OBLIGATIONS.  PARAGRAPH 6H (2) OF CIRCULAR NO. 15, ISSUED ON MARCH 17,
1943, BY HEADQUARTERS, ARMY SERVICE FORCES, ACKNOWLEDGES WITH APPROVAL
THE BOARD'S POLICY OF PERMITTING MILITARIZED GUARDS TO BE REPRESENTED
IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE MANAGEMENT BY A BARGAINING UNIT OTHER
THAN THAT COMPOSED OF THE PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS, EVEN
THOUGH BOTH BARGAINING UNITS MAY BE AFFILIATED WITH THE SAME LABOR
ORGANIZATION.  A CLARIFYING MEMORANDUM OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT, DATED
JULY 10, 1943, REITERATES THE WAR DEPARTMENT ATTITUDE STILL FURTHER:
"IN THE EVENT THAT PLANT GUARDS ENROLLED AS AUXILIARY MILITARY POLICE
DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE MANAGEMENT,
THEY SHOULD BE REPRESENTED BY A BARGAINING UNIT OTHER THAN THAT
REPRESENTING THE PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS.  HOWEVER, IN SUCH
EVENT, BOTH BARGAINING UNITS MAY BE AFFILIATED WITH THE SAME TRADE
UNION LOCAL, PROVIDED THEY ARE, IN FACT, SEPARATE BARGAINING UNITS." 

WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE POLICY FORMULATED BY THE BOARD IS
WITHOUT REASON.  WHEN THE EMPLOYER RETAINS UNFETTERED POWER TO FIX THE
WAGES, HOURS OR OTHER WORKING CONDITIONS OF MILITARIZED GUARDS, THE
GUARDS STAND IN THE SAME RELATION TO THE EMPLOYER REGARDING THOSE
MATTERS AS DO PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES.  IN DISPUTES WITH
THE EMPLOYER OVER THOSE MATTERS, THEY SUFFER FROM THE SAME INEQUALITY
OF BARGAINING POWER AS SUFFERED BY OTHER UNORGANIZED EMPLOYEES; THE
APPROPRIATENESS AND NEED OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ON THEIR PART THROUGH
FREELY CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES ARE EQUALLY AS GREAT.  BUT TO PREVENT
THEM FROM CHOOSING A UNION WHICH ALSO REPRESENTS PRODUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES IS TO MAKE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS OF
THE GUARDS DISTINCTLY SECOND-CLASS.  SUCH A UNION MAY BE THE ONLY ONE
WILLING AND ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE EMPLOYER.  ITS EXPERIENCE AND
ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE EMPLOYER AND THE PLANT MAY MAKE IT SPECIALLY
QUALIFIED TO BARGAIN FOR THE GUARDS.  THE GUARDS MIGHT THUS BE DEPRIVED
OF EFFECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS IF THEY ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
SUCH A UNION.  FREEDOM TO CHOOSE, IN THIS STATUTORY SETTING, MUST MEAN
COMPLETE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE ANY QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVE UNLESS LIMITED
BY A VALID CONTRARY POLICY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD. 

AFTER DELIBERATION, THE BOARD HAS CONCLUDED THAT THIS FREEDOM CAN
SAFELY BE RECOGNIZED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT AS TO MILITARIZED GUARDS,
PROVIDED ONLY THAT THEY BE PLACED IN SEPARATE BARGAINING UNITS.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS ONE SO LACKING IN AN APPRECIATION OF
THE MILITARY NECESSITIES OF THE SITUATION THAT WE SHOULD VOICE OUR
DISAPPROVAL AND SUBSTITUTE OUR OWN VIEWS OF PUBLIC POLICY.  IT IS
SIGNIFICANT THAT THE BOARD, IN WEIGHING THE MILITARY REQUIREMENTS
AGAINST THE NORMAL POLICIES OF THE ACT, HAS ARRIVED AT A RESULT WHICH
COINCIDES WITH THAT REACHED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT.  THE LATTER AGENCY
HAS BEEN SATISFIED THAT MILITARIZED GUARDS CAN SAFELY JOIN AND CHOOSE
UNIONS REPRESENTING OTHER EMPLOYEES WITHOUT IMPAIRING THEIR LOYALTY TO
THE UNITED STATES OR THEIR ABILITY TO PERFORM THEIR MILITARY DUTIES
SATISFACTORILY.  WE ASSUME THAT ATTITUDE WAS ADOPTED AFTER A FULL
CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE MILITARY NECESSITIES, MATTERS WHICH ARE
PECULIARLY WITHIN THE COMPETENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT. 
IN LIGHT OF THAT FACT, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT A CIVILIAN AGENCY
ERRED IN FAILING TO INSIST UPON WHAT THE MILITARY EXPERTS FOUND TO BE
UNNECESSARY.  TO PROHIBIT MILITARIZED GUARDS FROM JOINING OR CHOOSING
UNIONS REPRESENTING PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS ON GROUNDS OF
MILITARY NECESSITY IS TO ERECT LIMITATIONS WHICH NOT EVEN THOSE MOST
FAMILIAR WITH THE MILITARY SITUATION THOUGHT ESSENTIAL OR DESIRABLE. 
AND IN THIS NATION, THE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF CITIZENS ARE NOT TO BE
READILY CUT DOWN ON PLEAS OF MILITARY NECESSITY, ESPECIALLY PLEAS THAT
ARE UNSUPPORTED BY MILITARY AUTHORITIES.  CERTAINLY IT WOULD TAKE MORE
THAN THE SPECULATION AND THEORIES ADVANCED BY THE COURT BELOW TO
UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY ADOPTED IN THIS RESPECT BY THE
BOARD. 

MOREOVER, THE EXPERIENCE OF THE BOARD HAS REVEALED NONE OF THE DIRE
CONSEQUENCES WHICH THE COURT BELOW FEARED MIGHT FLOW FROM THE
APPLICATION OF THE POLICY IN QUESTION.  146 F.2D AT 722-723.  IN ITS
BRIEF BEFORE US, THE BOARD HAS STATED THAT IT HAS CERTIFIED BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES FOR UNITS OF MILITARIZED GUARDS IN MORE THAN 105 CASES;
IN MORE THAN 80 OF THESE CASES, THE CERTIFIED UNION ALSO REPRESENTED A
SEPARATE BARGAINING UNIT OF OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME EMPLOYER. 
EMPLOYER RECOGNITION OF THE UNIONS, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS HAVE RESULTED IN MANY INSTANCES.  YET THE BOARD
STATES THAT IT HAS RECEIVED "NO INDICATION FROM ANY SOURCE THAT THE
DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND PARTICULARLY TO THE WAR EFFORT WHICH
THE COURTS BELOW THOUGHT TO INHERE IN THAT POLICY HAVE IN FACT
MATERIALIZED IN ANY CASE." 

ONE FINAL MATTER REMAINS.  AFTER THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS ISSUED AND
AFTER THE GUARDS AT RESPONDENT'S OTIS WORKS WERE DEMILITARIZED, THE
GUARDS WERE DEPUTIZED BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES OF THE CITY OF
CLEVELAND.  THE BOARD CLAIMS THAT SINCE THIS MATTER WAS NOT RAISED
BEFORE IT, THE COURT BELOW WAS PRECLUDED BY SEC. 10(E) OF THE ACT FROM
CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF THE DEPUTIZATION UPON THE PROPRIETY OF
ENFORCING THE BOARD'S ORDER.  LABOR BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS CO., 308 U.S.
241, 249-250; MARSHALL FIELD & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 318 U.S. 253; LABOR
BOARD V. CHENEY LUMBER CO., 327 U.S. 385. 

BUT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 10(E), THAT "NO OBJECTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN
URGED BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER, AGENT OR AGENCY, SHALL BE
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT, UNLESS THE FAILURE OR NEGLECT TO URGE SUCH
OBJECTION SHALL BE EXCUSED BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,"
QUITE OBVIOUSLY REFERS TO OBJECTIONS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BUT WERE NOT
RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD.  IN THIS CASE,
HOWEVER, THE DEPUTIZATION OF THE GUARDS OCCURRED AFTER THE BOARD HAD
CONCLUDED ITS HEARING AND ISSUED ITS ORDER AND AFTER THE COURT BELOW
HAD REFUSED THE FIRST TIME TO ENFORCE THE ORDER.  IT WAS THUS A MATTER
WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE BOARD.  AND THE FAILURE OF
RESPONDENT TO RAISE THE THEN NON-EXISTENT ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD COULD
NOT DEPRIVE THE COURT BELOW OF POWER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE ONCE IT DID
COME INTO EXISTENCE.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. BLANTON CO., 121 F.2D 564,
571. 

WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES DO ARISE AFTER THE BOARD'S ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED
WHICH MAY AFFECT THE PROPRIETY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER, THE
REVIEWING COURT HAS DISCRETION TO DECIDE THE MATTER ITSELF OR TO REMAND
IT TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THE
ORDER OBVIOUSLY HAS BECOME MOOT, THE COURT CAN DENY ENFORCEMENT WITHOUT
FURTHER ADO; BUT WHERE THE MATTER IS ONE INVOLVING COMPLICATED OR
DISPUTED FACTS OR QUESTIONS OF STATUTORY POLICY, A REMAND TO THE BOARD
IS ORDINARILY IN ORDER.  IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE BOARD AND THE
RESPONDENT HAVE STIPULATED THE FACTS CONCERNING THE DEPUTIZATION OF THE
GUARDS.  THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER THE DEPUTIZATION IS SO INCONSISTENT
WITH THE POLICIES OF THE ACT THAT THE STATUTORY GUARANTEES MUST BE
DENIED TO THE GUARDS AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER REFUSED. 
THAT ISSUE IS ONE NORMALLY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, IT BEING THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD RATHER THAN THE COURTS
INITIALLY TO CORRELATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT WITH CONFLICTING
INTERESTS.  BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A REMAND IS NECESSARY UNDER THE
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

THE BOARD HAS FREQUENTLY CONSIDERED THE STATUS OF PLANT GUARDS WHO
HAVE BEEN DEPUTIZED AS DEPUTY SHERIFFS OR SPECIAL POLICE.  WHERE THE
PRIVATE EMPLOYER RETAINS THE RIGHT TO FIX THE WAGES, HOURS OR OTHER
WORKING CONDITIONS OF SUCH GUARDS, THE BOARD'S UNIFORM CONCLUSION HAS
BEEN THAT THEY ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE PRIVATE EMPLOYER AND THAT THEY
RETAIN THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  SEE, E.G.,
LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP CO., 2 N.L.R.B. 181, 189; AMERICAN-HAWAIIAN
STEAMSHIP CO., 10 N.L.R.B. 1355, 1363-1364; AMERICAN BRASS CO., 41
N.L.R.B. 783, 785; BETHLEHEM-FAIRFIELD SHIPYARD, INC., 61 N.L.R.B. 901,
905-906; STANDARD STEEL SPRING CO., 62 N.L.R.B. 660, 662-663.  AS IN
THE CASE OF MILITARIZED GUARDS, THE BOARD HAS FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT
WHEN DEPUTIZED GUARDS JOIN UNIONS OR ENGAGE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
THROUGH FREELY CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES THEIR HONESTY, THEIR LOYALTY TO
POLICE AUTHORITIES, OR THEIR COMPETENCE TO EXECUTE THEIR POLICE DUTIES
SATISFACTORILY IS UNDERMINED.  IT IS SUFFICIENT, IN THE BOARD'S
JUDGMENT, TO PROTECT THE SPECIAL STATUS OF THESE GUARDS BY SEGREGATING
THEM IN SEPARATE BARGAINING UNITS. 

WE FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE BOARD IS WRONG IN ADOPTING THIS
POLICY AS TO DEPUTIZED GUARDS.  IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN THIS COUNTRY
FOR PRIVATE WATCHMEN OR GUARDS TO BE VESTED WITH THE POWERS OF
POLICEMEN, SHERIFFS OR PEACE OFFICERS TO PROTECT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY
OF THEIR PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.  AND WHEN THEY ARE PERFORMING THEIR POLICE
FUNCTIONS, THEY ARE ACTING AS PUBLIC OFFICERS AND ASSUME ALL THE POWERS
AND LIABILITIES ATTACHING THERETO.  THORNTON V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R.
CO., 42 MO. APP. 58; DEMPSEY V. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER R. CO.,
146 N.Y. 290, 40 N.E. 867; MCKAIN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 65 W. VA.
233, 64 S.E. 18; NEALLUS V. HUTCHINSON AMUSEMENT CO., 126 ME. 469, 139
A. 671.  BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN ASSUMED THAT SUCH DEPUTIZED GUARDS
THEREBY CEASE TO BE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY CONCERNED OR THAT THEY
BECOME MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES FOR ALL PURPOSES.  SEE CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO.
V. MCKENNA, 74 F.2D 155.  WAGES, HOURS, BENEFITS AND VARIOUS OTHER
CONDITIONS OF WORK NORMALLY REMAIN SUBJECT TO DETERMINATION BY THE
PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.  AT LEAST AS TO THOSE MATTERS, THE DEPUTIZED GUARDS
REMAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.  SEE WALLING V. MERCHANTS
POLICE SERVICE, 59 F.SUPP.  873.  HENCE THEY MAY BE HELD TO BE
EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111. 

DEPUTIZED GUARDS BEAR THE SAME RELATIONSHIP TO MANAGEMENT THAT NON
DEPUTIZED GUARDS BEAR, A RELATIONSHIP THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE ATKINS
CASE, ANTE, P. 398, AND THAT WE FOUND TO BE ADEQUATE FOR THE BOARD TO
FIND THE EXISTENCE OF AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE STATUS.  LIKEWISE, THEIR
RELATIONSHIP TO POLICE OR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES IS NOT ONE THAT IS
NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR STATUS AS EMPLOYEES UNDER THE ACT. 
UNION MEMBERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARE CAPABLE OF BEING MOLDED
TO FIT THE SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF DEPUTIZED PLANT GUARDS AND WE
CANNOT ASSUME, AS A PROPOSITION OF LAW, THAT THEY WILL NOT BE SO
MOLDED.  IF THERE IS ANY DANGER THAT PARTICULAR DEPUTIZED GUARDS MAY
NOT FAITHFULLY PERFORM THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THE PUBLIC, THE REMEDY IS
TO BE FOUND OTHER THAN IN THE WHOLESALE DENIAL TO ALL DEPUTIZED GUARDS
OF THEIR STATUTORY RIGHT TO JOIN UNIONS AND TO CHOOSE FREELY THEIR
BARGAINING AGENTS.  THE STATE AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, IN SHORT, HAVE
ADEQUATE MEANS OF PUNISHING INFIDELITY AND ASSURING FULL POLICE
PROTECTION. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE INSTANT CASE WHICH WOULD MAKE INAPPLICABLE THE
BOARD'S POLICY WITH RESPECT TO DEPUTIZED GUARDS, AND THE BOARD HAS SO
ARGUED BEFORE US.  THE STIPULATED FACTS REVEAL THAT THE GUARDS AT
RESPONDENT'S OTIS WORKS WERE COMMISSIONED AS PRIVATE POLICEMEN OF THE
CITY OF CLEVELAND UNDER SEC. 188 OF THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL CODE
(1924), AND AS SUCH ARE MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL POLICE FORCE AND
EXERCISE THE LEGAL POWERS OF PEACE OFFICERS IN THEIR WORK AS PLANT
GUARDS.  THEY ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF A POLICE CAPTAIN AND HIS
LIEUTENANTS, THE POLICE CAPTAIN BEING DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO
RESPONDENT'S DIRECTOR OF PLANT SECURITY AT PITTSBURGH AND TO
RESPONDENT'S EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN GENERAL CHARGE OF THE OTIS WORKS. 
THE POLICE CAPTAIN IS ALSO A DEPUTY SHERIFF OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO. 
IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE GUARDS CONTINUE TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT AND
THAT THEIR HOURS, BENEFITS AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF WORK REMAIN THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF RESPONDENT. 

THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT THAT THE OHIO LAW ON THE STATUS AND
DUTIES OF SPECIAL POLICEMEN IS IN ACCORD WITH THE GENERAL RULE WHICH WE
HAVE NOTED.  IN OTHER WORDS, SPECIAL POLICEMEN ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS WHEN
PERFORMING THEIR PUBLIC DUTIES.  NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS R. CO.
V. FIEBACK, 87 OHIO ST. 254, 100 N.E. 889; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. DEAL,
116 OHIO ST. 408, 156 N.E. 502.  BUT NONE OF THE OHIO CASES ATTEMPTS TO
SAY THAT THE PUBLIC STATUS OF SPECIAL POLICEMEN DESTROYS COMPLETELY
THEIR PRIVATE STATUS AS EMPLOYEES OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES.  NOR IS
THERE ANY BASIS FOR THE INTIMATION THAT THEIR PUBLIC DUTIES ARE SUCH AS
TO RENDER INCOMPATIBLE THE RECOGNITION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE FACTS AND THE LAW ARE SUFFICIENTLY
CLEAR TO JUSTIFY A DETERMINATION THAT THE GUARDS AT RESPONDENT'S OTIS
WORKS ARE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT DESPITE THEIR
DEPUTIZATION AS MUNICIPAL POLICEMEN.  AND THEY HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT TO
SELECT AS THEIR BARGAINING AGENT A UNION WHICH REPRESENTS PRODUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS AS HAVE MILITARIZED GUARDS, THE SAME
CONSIDERATIONS BEING APPLICABLE.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE BOARD WOULD
APPLY SUCH A POLICY TO THIS CASE, THEREBY MAKING A REMAND TO THE BOARD
A MERE FORMALITY AND A NEEDLESS ADDITION TO AN ALREADY OVER-PROLONGED
PROCEEDING.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, A REMAND TO THE BOARD IS
UNNECESSARY. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT BELOW SHOULD HAVE ENFORCED THE BOARD'S
ORDER.  REVERSED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND
MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN
THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW, 154 F.2D 932. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. WALSH, 331 U.S. 432 


NO. 718.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 19, 1947.  - REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 301(H) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT OF
1938, WHICH PROHIBITS THE GIVING OF A FALSE GUARANTY THAT ANY FOOD,
DRUG, DEVICE OR COSMETIC IS NOT ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT, IT IS AN OFFENSE TO GIVE A FALSE GUARANTY TO ONE
ENGAGED WHOLLY OR PARTLY IN AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS, IRRESPECTIVE OF
WHETHER THE GUARANTY LEADS IN ANY PARTICULAR INSTANCE TO AN ILLEGAL
SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 437. 

2.  AS THUS CONSTRUED, SEC. 301(H) IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER
OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP.
437-438. 

UNITED STATES V. WALSH, TRADING AS KELP LABORATORIES. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

IN A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND
COSMETIC ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS THE INFORMATION.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  REVERSED, P. 438. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL BRINGS BEFORE US SEC. 301(H) OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG,
AND COSMETIC ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1040, 1042, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 331(H),
WHICH PROHIBITS THE GIVING OF A FALSE GUARANTY THAT ANY FOOD, DRUG,
DEVICE OR COSMETIC IS NOT ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE ACT. 

APPELLEE DOES BUSINESS IN SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, UNDER THE NAME OF
KELP LABORATORIES.  AN INFORMATION HAS BEEN FILED, CHARGING APPELLEE
WITH HAVING GIVEN A FALSE GUARANTY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 301(H).  THE
FOLLOWING FACTS HAVE BEEN ALLEGED:  IN FEBRUARY, 1943, APPELLEE GAVE A
CONTINUING GUARANTY TO RICHARD HARRISON PRODUCTS, OF HOLLYWOOD,
CALIFORNIA, STATING THAT NO PRODUCTS THEREAFTER SHIPPED TO THE LATTER
WOULD BE ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  ON
FEBRUARY 24, 1945, WHILE THE GUARANTY WAS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT,
APPELLEE CONSIGNED TO RICHARD HARRISON PRODUCTS, AT HOLLYWOOD, A
SHIPMENT OF VITAMIN PRODUCTS WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY ADULTERATED AND
MISBRANDED - THEREBY MAKING THE GUARANTY FALSE IN RESPECT OF THAT
SHIPMENT.  PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THE SHIPMENT, RICHARD
HARRISON PRODUCTS WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INTRODUCING AND
DELIVERING FOR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE QUANTITIES OF THE
VITAMIN PRODUCT SUPPLIED BY APPELLEE. 

APPELLEE MOVED TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT DID
NOT STATE AN OFFENSE.  THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT SEC. 301(H) APPLIES ONLY
TO A GUARANTY THAT IS FALSE RELATIVE TO AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT, WHEREAS
THE ALLEGED SHIPMENT HERE WAS TO A CONSIGNEE WITHIN CALIFORNIA, THE
STATE OF ORIGIN, AND THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE CONSIGNEE
PURCHASED THE ORDER FOR SOMEONE OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA OR THAT IT INTENDED
TO SELL THE PRODUCTS IN ITS INTERSTATE RATHER THAN ITS INTRASTATE
BUSINESS.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE AN ORAL OPINION SUSTAINING
APPELLEE'S CONTENTION AND GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES. 

THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT RESTS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER RESIDENT IN CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  TO THE END THAT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY MIGHT BE
ADVANCED, IT SEEKS TO KEEP INTERSTATE CHANNELS FREE FROM DELETERIOUS,
ADULTERATED AND MISBRANDED ARTICLES OF THE SPECIFIED TYPES.  UNITED
STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277, 280.  IT IS IN THAT INTERSTATE
SETTING THAT THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ACT MUST BE VIEWED. 

BUT SEC. 301(H), WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED, DOES NOT SPEAK
SPECIFICALLY IN INTERSTATE TERMS.  IT PROHIBITS THE "GIVING OF A
GUARANTY OR UNDERTAKING REFERRED TO IN SECTION 303(C)(2), WHICH
GUARANTY OR UNDERTAKING IS FALSE," THE ONLY EXCEPTION BEING AS TO A
FALSE GUARANTY GIVEN BY A PERSON WHO, IN TURN, RELIED UPON A SIMILAR
GUARANTY GIVEN BY THE PERSON FROM WHOM HE RECEIVED IN GOOD FAITH THE
ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED ARTICLE.  FN1  NOTHING ON THE FACE OF THE
INTRODUCED OR DELIVERED FOR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
FROM ALL THAT APPEARS, ITS PROSCRIPTION PLAINLY EXTENDS TO THE GIVING
OF ANY FALSE STATUTORY GUARANTY, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INTERSTATE OR
INTRASTATE CHARACTER OF THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION, TO THOSE WHO ARE
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS. 

NOR DO WE FIND ANY INTERSTATE LIMITATION OF THE TYPE WHICH APPELLEE
PROPOSES IN THE REFERENCE MADE IN SEC. 301(H) TO SEC. 303(C)(2).  FN2
THAT REFERENCE IS MADE SIMPLY TO DEFINE THE TYPE OF GUARANTY OR
UNDERTAKING THE FALSIFICATION OF WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 301(H). 
INSTEAD OF SPELLING OUT THE MATTER, SEC. 301(H) ADOPTS THE REFERENCE IN
SEC. 303(C)(2) TO "A GUARANTY OR UNDERTAKING SIGNED BY, AND CONTAINING
THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF, THE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES FROM
WHOM HE RECEIVED IN GOOD FAITH THE ARTICLE, TO THE EFFECT  ...  THAT
SUCH ARTICLE IS NOT ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THIS ACT, DESIGNATING THIS ACT  ...  "  THE FACT THAT SEC. 303(C)(2)
RELIEVES A HOLDER OF SUCH A GUARANTY FROM THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES
PROVIDED BY SEC. 303(A) FOR VIOLATING SEC. 301(A) DOES NOT CARRY OVER
THE INTERSTATE LIMITATION OF SEC. 301(A) TO SEC. 301(H).  SECTION
301(A) PROHIBITS THE INTRODUCTION OR DELIVERY FOR INTRODUCTION INTO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ILLICIT ARTICLES,  FN3  AND SEC. 303(C)(2)
RELIEVES ONE FROM THE LIABILITIES OF SUCH INTRODUCTION IF ONE HAS A
GUARANTY OR UNDERTAKING AS THEREIN DESCRIBED.  SECTION 301(H) HAS
ADOPTED THAT DESCRIPTION FOR THE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PURPOSE OF
INFORMING PERSONS WHAT KIND OF A GUARANTY OR UNDERTAKING MAY NOT BE
GIVEN FALSELY.  IN OTHER WORDS, SEC. 301(A) IS DIRECTED TO ILLEGAL
INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS, WHILE SEC. 301(H) IS DIRECTED TO THE GIVING OF
FALSE GUARANTIES.  GUARANTIES AS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 303(C)(2) MAY BE
USED BY INTERSTATE DEALERS IN CONNECTION WITH EITHER INTERSTATE OR
INTRASTATE SHIPMENTS AND THOSE GUARANTIES THAT ARE FALSE ARE OUTLAWED
BY SEC. 301(H). 

IT IS TRUE, OF COURSE, THAT THE GUARANTY REFERRED TO IN SEC.
303(C)(2) IS ONE GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE DEALER "IN
CASE OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 301(A)," THEREBY RELIEVING HIM
OF LIABILITY IF HE RESHIPS ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED GOODS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT WHERE SUCH A GUARANTY, AS IN THIS CASE, IS
GIVEN TO A DEALER REGULARLY ENGAGED IN MAKING INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS AND
WHO MAY THEREFORE HAVE NEED OF THE GUARANTY, SEC. 301(H) IMPOSES
LIABILITY ON THE GUARANTOR IF THAT GUARANTY TURNS OUT TO BE FALSE.  AND
THAT LIABILITY ATTACHES EVEN WHERE THE PARTICULAR SHIPMENT WHICH
RENDERS THE GUARANTY FALSE IS NOT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN AN INTERSTATE
ONE. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT SEC. 301(H) HAD NO COUNTERPART IN THE
PREDECESSOR STATUTE, THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 768. 
UNDER SEC. 9 OF THAT ACT, A DEALER COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED FOR SHIPPING
ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED ARTICLES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IF HE HAD A
GUARANTY OF A TYPE SIMILAR TO THAT REFERRED TO IN THE PRESENT STATUTE. 
IF THERE WERE SUCH A GUARANTY, THE GUARANTOR WAS SUBJECT TO THE
PENALTIES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE ATTACH TO THE DEALER.  THE RESULT WAS
THAT THE GUARANTOR WAS NOT LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF A FALSE GUARANTY UNLESS
THE DEALER HAD SHIPPED THE PROHIBITED ARTICLE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
STEINHARDT BROS. & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 191 F. 798, 800; UNITED STATES
V. CHARLES L. HEINLE SPECIALTY CO., 175 F. 299, 300-301.  THERE WAS NO
LIABILITY FOR ISSUING A FALSE GUARANTY AS SUCH TO ONE ENGAGED IN AN
INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  BUT IN THE 1938 ACT, CONGRESS ADDED A NEW
LIABILITY IN THE FORM OF SEC. 301(H), MAKING THE GUARANTOR LIABLE FOR
GIVING A FALSE GUARANTY OF THE TYPE REFERRED TO IN SEC. 303(C)(2).  WE
FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE 1938 ACT ADDED SEC.
301(H) FOR THE USELESS PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING THE SAME RESULT AS HAD BEEN
REACHED UNDER THE 1906 ACT WITHOUT SUCH A PROVISION. 

WE THUS CONCLUDE THAT SEC. 301(H) DEFINITELY PROSCRIBES THE GIVING OF
A FALSE GUARANTY TO ONE ENGAGED WHOLLY OR PARTLY IN AN INTERSTATE
BUSINESS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THAT GUARANTY LEADS IN ANY PARTICULAR
INSTANCE TO AN ILLEGAL SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERSTATE SETTING OF THE
ACT.  A MANUFACTURER OR PROCESSOR ORDINARILY HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING
WHETHER A DEALER, WHOSE BUSINESS INCLUDES MAKING INTERSTATE SALES, WILL
REDISTRIBUTE A PARTICULAR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE
COMMERCE.  BUT IF HE GUARANTEES THAT HIS PRODUCT IS NOT ADULTERATED OR
MISBRANDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, HE CLEARLY INTENDS TO ASSURE
THE DEALER THAT THE LATTER MAY REDISTRIBUTE THE PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WITHOUT INCURRING ANY OF THE LIABILITIES OF THE ACT.  AND THE
DEALER IS THEREBY MORE LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION
WITHOUT MAKING AN INDEPENDENT CHECK OF THE PRODUCT.  THE POSSIBILITY
THAT A FALSE GUARANTY MAY GIVE RISE TO AN ILLEGAL INTERSTATE SHIPMENT
BY SUCH A DEALER IS STRONG ENOUGH TO MAKE REASONABLE THE PROHIBITION OF
ALL FALSE GUARANTIES TO HIM, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM MAY ACTUALLY
RESULT ONLY IN INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION.  BY THIS MEANS, SOME OF THE
EVILS WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE ARE CUT DOWN AT THEIR SOURCE
AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ACT'S ENFORCEMENT IS GREATLY ENHANCED. 

SO CONSTRUED, SEC. 301(H) RAISES NO CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFICULTIES.  THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO
DENY TO CONGRESS THE POWER TO MAKE EFFECTIVE ITS REGULATION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WHERE THAT EFFECTIVENESS DEPENDS UPON A
REGULATION OR PROHIBITION ATTACHING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
PARTICULAR TRANSACTION IN ISSUE IS INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE IN
CHARACTER, A TRANSACTION THAT CONCERNS A BUSINESS GENERALLY ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CONGRESS MAY ACT.  SUCH IS THIS CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 301(H) PROHIBITS "THE GIVING OF A GUARANTY OR
UNDERTAKING REFERRED TO IN SECTION 303(C)(2), WHICH GUARANTY OR
UNDERTAKING IS FALSE, EXCEPT BY A PERSON WHO RELIED UPON A GUARANTY OR
UNDERTAKING TO THE SAME EFFECT SIGNED BY, AND CONTAINING THE NAME AND
ADDRESS OF, THE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES FROM WHOM HE
RECEIVED IN GOOD FAITH THE FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR COSMETIC; OR THE
GIVING OF A GUARANTY OR UNDERTAKING REFERRED TO IN SECTION 303(C)(3),
WHICH GUARANTY OR UNDERTAKING IS FALSE." 

FN2  SECTION 303(C)(2) PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
THE PENALTIES OF SEC. 303(A) "FOR HAVING VIOLATED SECTION 301(A) OR
(D), IF HE ESTABLISHES A GUARANTY OR UNDERTAKING SIGNED BY, AND
CONTAINING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF, THE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED
STATES FROM WHOM HE RECEIVED IN GOOD FAITH THE ARTICLE, TO THE EFFECT,
IN CASE OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 301(A), THAT SUCH ARTICLE IS
NOT ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS ACT,
DESIGNATING THIS ACT, OR TO THE EFFECT, IN CASE OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION
OF SECTION 301(D), THAT SUCH ARTICLE IS NOT AN ARTICLE WHICH MAY NOT,
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 404 OR 505, BE INTRODUCED INTO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  " 

FN3  SECTION 301(A) PROHIBITS "THE INTRODUCTION OR DELIVERY FOR
INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ANY FOOD, DRUG, DEVICE, OR
COSMETIC THAT IS ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

STRETCH THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AS WE WILL, I CANNOT MAKE IT COVER
THIS CHARGE AS A CRIME.  THE STATUTORY SCHEME IS TO MAKE A CRIME OF
"THE INTRODUCTION OR DELIVERY FOR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE" OF ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED GOODS.  52 STAT. 1042, 21 U.S.C.
SEC. 331(A) AND (D). 

BUT SINCE MANY SHIPPERS BUY GOODS OF OTHERS AND DO NOT KNOW THEIR
PRECISE INGREDIENTS, CONGRESS ALLOWED AN ESCAPE FOR THE VIOLATOR,
PROVIDED HE ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND COULD TRACE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
ANOTHER.  THIS HE MUST DO BY PRODUCING A SIGNED GUARANTY OR
UNDERTAKING, AND THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT IT SHALL BE CONDITIONED "TO
THE EFFECT, IN CASE OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 331(A), THAT
SUCH ARTICLE IS NOT ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED  ...  OR TO THE EFFECT,
IN CASE OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 331(D), THAT SUCH ARTICLE IS
NOT AN ARTICLE" FORBIDDEN SHIPMENT BY STATED PARAGRAPHS OF THE ACT.  52
STAT. 1043, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 333(C). 

IT WILL BE NOTICED THAT CONGRESS NOT ONLY PROVIDED BUT REPEATED THAT
THE STATUTORY BOND REQUIRED IS "IN CASE OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION" BY
INTRODUCING OR DELIVERING FOR INTRODUCTION OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  NO SUCH VIOLATION HAS BEEN ALLEGED HERE; THESE GOODS WERE
NEVER INTRODUCED OR DELIVERED FOR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  BUT THE COURT SEEMS TO THINK IT IS ENOUGH THAT THERE ARE
SOME GROUNDS FOR EXPECTING THAT THIS CRIME POSSIBLY, OR PROBABLY, OR
PERHAPS PRETTY CERTAINLY, WOULD EVENTUALLY BE COMMITTED. 

OF COURSE, IF THE ASSURED HAD COMMITTED THIS OFFENSE AND HAD FALLEN
BACK ON THE GUARANTOR, THE STATUTE WHICH REACHED THE ASSURED WOULD NOT
BE SUFFICIENT.  TO PUNISH THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON, IT WAS MADE A CRIME
TO GIVE A FALSE GUARANTY "REFERRED TO IN" THE STATUTE.  52 STAT. 1042,
21 U.S.C. SEC. 331(H). 

THE GOVERNMENT NOW SEEKS TO EXACT CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ON A
GUARANTEE, EXPRESSLY CONDITIONED ONLY "IN CASE OF VIOLATION," IN A CASE
OF NO VIOLATION.  UNTIL A VIOLATION IS ALLEGED, THE GUARANTY PLAYS NO
STATUTORY ROLE AT ALL.  IT MIGHT AFFORD A CAUSE OF ACTION IF FALSE, BUT
THAT IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM MAKING IT A CRIME.  FOR IT IS NO GUARANTY
AT ALL FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PURPOSES IF VIOLATION OF NEITHER SEC.
331(A) NOR SEC. 331(D) IS ALLEGED.  THE STATUTE REQUIRES SUCH VIOLATION
TO BE ALLEGED ONLY, NOT PROVED, IN ORDER TO PUT THE GUARANTOR RATHER
THAN THE ASSURED TO THE PROOF.  THIS IS THE ONLY INSTANCE I RECALL
WHERE THE GUARANTOR IS LIABLE WHEN THERE IS NO BREACH OF THE CONDITION
OF THE BOND.  THE WHOLE PLAN WAS TO HAVE A SUBSTITUTED LIABILITY IN
CASE THE VIOLATOR OF THE ACT BECAME SUCH IN GOOD FAITH.  THIS DECISION
MAKES A NEW, INDEPENDENT AND ORIGINAL LIABILITY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO
ALLEGED VIOLATION BY MOVING THE GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.    I DO
NOT THINK WE SHOULD TAKE SUCH LIBERTIES IN EXPANDING CRIMINAL STATUTES
IN WHICH THE SOVEREIGN ONCE WAS CONSIDERED UNDER A DUTY TO BE EXPLICIT
AND THE SUBJECT ENTITLED TO THE DOUBT. 
..END :























UNITED STATES V. FULLARD-LEO, 331 U.S. 256 


NO. 429.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 12, 1947.  - 156 F.2D
756, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, INCLUDING BOTH AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF
PRIVATE CONVEYANCES AND A CLAIM OF RIGHT TO EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION SINCE
1862, WHEN POSSESSION OF PALMYRA ISLAND WAS TAKEN BY RESPONDENTS'
PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST IN THE NAME OF THE KING OF HAWAII, AND ON THE
PRESUMPTION OF A LOST GRANT, THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM OF TITLE TO PALMYRA
ISLAND AS SUCCESSOR TO THE KINGDOM AND REPUBLIC OF HAWAII IS DENIED AND
FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE ISLAND IS QUIETED IN RESPONDENTS -
NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR FAILURE TO SHOW ACTUAL OCCUPANCY OF THIS ISOLATED
ISLAND IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN EXCEPT FOR INTERMITTENT PERIODS AGGREGATING
LESS THAN TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS OUT OF 77 YEARS SINCE THE ORIGIN OF
THEIR CLAIM OF TITLE.  PP. 269-281. 

2.  A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE KING AND CABINET COUNCIL OF HAWAII IN
1862 AUTHORIZING RESPONDENTS' PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST TO TAKE
POSSESSION OF THE ISLAND IN THE NAME OF THE KING OF HAWAII AND THE
FORMALITIES OF ANNEXATION ARE CONSTRUED AS REQUIRING ONLY THAT
SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLAND BE ACQUIRED BY THE KING AND NOT AS
REQUIRING THAT TITLE TO THE ISLAND SHOULD VEST IN THE KING OR AS BEING
OTHERWISE INCONSISTENT WITH A PRESUMPTION THAT A GRANT OF TITLE TO THE
ISLAND WAS ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS' PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST.  PP. 260
265. 

3.  UNDER THE LAWS IN EFFECT IN HAWAII AT THE TIME OF THE ANNEXATION
OF PALMYRA ISLAND IN 1862, BOTH THE KING AND THE MINISTER OF THE
INTERIOR WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE KING IN THE CABINET COUNCIL HAD
POWER TO CONVEY THE LANDS TO PRIVATE CITIZENS.  HAWAIIAN CIVIL CODE,
1859, SECS. 39-48; HAWAIIAN ACT OF JANUARY 3, 1865, REV. LAWS, HAWAII,
1905, P. 1226, SEC. 3.  PP. 266-269. 

4.  THIS COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAWS OF HAWAII PRIOR TO
ITS ANNEXATION AS A PART OF OUR DOMESTIC LAWS.  P. 269. 

5.  THE RULES UNDER WHICH THE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE LIVED UNDER THE
MONARCHY OR REPUBLIC DEFINE, FOR THE SOVEREIGN OF TODAY, THE RIGHTS
ACQUIRED DURING THOSE PERIODS.  P. 269. 

6.  HAWAIIAN LAW, AS IT EXISTED BEFORE THE ANNEXATION OF THE
TERRITORY, IS CONTROLLING ON RIGHTS THEN ACQUIRED IN LAND.  P. 269. 

7.  IN MATTERS OF LOCAL LAW, THE FEDERAL COURTS DEFER TO THE
DECISIONS OF THE TERRITORIAL COURTS OF HAWAII; BUT, WHERE A CLAIMED
TITLE TO PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES IS INVOLVED, THAT IS A
FEDERAL QUESTION AND THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL CONSTRUE THE LAW FOR
THEMSELVES AND ARE NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW HAWAIIAN DECISIONS.  PP. 269
270. 

8.  THE PRESUMPTION OF A LOST GRANT TO LAND RECOGNIZES THAT LAPSE OF
TIME MAY CURE THE NEGLECT OR FAILURE TO SECURE THE PROPER MUNIMENTS OF
TITLE, EVEN THOUGH THE LOST GRANT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN FACT EXECUTED. 
P. 270. 

9.  THE RULE APPLIES TO CLAIMS TO LAND HELD ADVERSELY TO THE
SOVEREIGN.  PP. 270-272. 

10.  THE LAW OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII RECOGNIZES AND HAS APPLIED
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOST GRANT IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE TERRITORY
AND A CLAIMANT TO GOVERNMENT LAND.  PP. 272-273. 

11.  WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS POWER IN THE KING OR THE
OFFICIALS OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII TO CONVEY A TITLE TO PALMYRA ISLAND
DURING THE YEARS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ITS ANNEXATION TO THE KINGDOM OF
HAWAII AND PRIOR TO MANY OF THE PRIVATE CONVEYANCES IN RESPONDENTS'
CHAIN OF TITLE, THE DOCTRINE OF A LOST GRANT MAY BE APPLIED, IN
SUITABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ITS EXISTENCE PRESUMED IN FAVOR OF
RESPONDENTS' PREDECESSORS IN TITLE.  P. 273. 

12.  IN ORDER FOR THE DOCTRINE OF A LOST GRANT TO BE APPLICABLE, THE
POSSESSION MUST BE UNDER A CLAIM OF RIGHT, ACTUAL, OPEN AND EXCLUSIVE. 
P. 273. 

13.  A CLAIM FOR GOVERNMENT LANDS STANDS UPON NO DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE
IN THEORY, SO LONG AS AUTHORITY EXISTS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO
EXECUTE THE PATENT, GRANT OR CONVEYANCE; BUT, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IT
REQUIRES A HIGHER DEGREE OF PROOF.  PP. 273-274. 

14.  THE SUFFICIENCY OF ACTUAL AND OPEN POSSESSION OF PROPERTY TO
JUSTIFY THE PRESUMPTION OF A LOST GRANT IS TO BE JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF
THE CHARACTER AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY.  P. 279. 

15.  WHILE UNINTERRUPTED AND LONG-CONTINUING POSSESSION OF A KIND
INDICATING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FEE IS NECESSARY TO CREATE THE
PRESUMPTION OF A LOST GRANT, THE RULE DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONSTANT,
ACTUAL OCCUPANCY WHERE THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT LEND
ITSELF TO SUCH USE.  P. 281. 

UNITED STATES V. FULLARD-LEO ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

AFTER CONGRESS HAD AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL AVIATION
FACILITIES ON PALMYRA ISLAND BY THE ACT OF APRIL 25, 1939, 53 STAT.
590, THE GOVERNMENT SUED TO QUIET TITLE TO THE ISLAND.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT.  66 F.SUPP.  774.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM ACQUIRED TITLE IN
1862 AND THAT SUCH TITLE WAS CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1898.  133
F.2D 743.  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI.  319 U.S. 748.  ON REMAND, THE
DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM AND QUIETED TITLE TO THE
ISLAND IN RESPONDENTS.  66 F.SUPP.  782.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  156 F.2D 756.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S.
697.  AFFIRMED, P. 281. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS ALLOWED TO REVIEW A DECREE OF THE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMING A
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
HAWAII, 329 U.S. 697.  THE UNITED STATES BEGAN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
BY A PETITION, FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, TO QUIET TITLE IN IT TO A
GROUP OF ISLETS IN THE PACIFIC, LONG KNOWN AS PALMYRA ISLAND.  PALMYRA
WAS ANNEXED TO THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII ON FEBRUARY 26, 1862, AND THE
UNITED STATES CLAIMS THAT IT REMAINED A PART OF THE GOVERNMENTAL LANDS
OF HAWAII AND PASSED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF
CONGRESS OF JULY 7, 1898, WHICH ANNEXED HAWAII TO THE UNITED STATES AND
ACCEPTED FOR THE UNITED STATES ALL PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT OR CROWN LANDS
AND ALL OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTY THEN BELONGING TO THE REPUBLIC OF
HAWAII.  FN1  THE LANDS AND SOVEREIGNTY OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII
PREVIOUSLY HAD PASSED DIRECTLY TO THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, THROUGH THE
INTERVENING PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT. 

PALMYRA ISLAND IS AROUND ONE THOUSAND MILES SOUTH OF THE MAIN
HAWAIIAN GROUP.  IT IS THE FIRST CONSIDERABLE BODY OF LAND IN THAT
DIRECTION AND LIES BETWEEN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS AND SAMOA.  THE PALMYRA
GROUP IS A CORAL COVERED ATOLL OF ABOUT FIFTY ISLETS, SOME WITH TREES,
AND EXTENDS - REEFS, INTERVENING WATER AND LAND - 5 2/3 SEA MILES IN AN
EASTERLY AND WESTERLY DIRECTION AND 1 1/3 SEA MILES NORTHWARDLY AND
SOUGHWARDLY.  THE OBSERVATION SPOT FOR THE MAP IN THE CASE IS LATITUDE
5 DEGREE 52' 18" N., LONGITUDE 162 DEGREE 05' 55" W. THE BRITISH
ISLANDS OF WASHINGTON, FANNING AND CHRISTMAS LIE WITHIN A 500-MILE
RADIUS TO THE SOUTHEAST OF PALMYRA.  USE OF THE ISLANDS BY THE
RESPONDENTS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS IN TITLE WAS INTERMITTENT.  THE
QUESTION OF TITLE BECAME IMPORTANT IN 1939 WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE
CONSTRUCTION AT PALMYRA OF NAVAL AVIATION FACILITIES AND APPROPRIATED
$1,100,000 FOR THEIR CONSTRUCTION.  53 STAT. 590.  NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THESE RESPONDENTS, AS OWNERS, WERE UNDERTAKEN IN 1938 BY THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT FOR A LEASE OF THE PROPERTY BUT WERE NOT COMPLETED.  THIS
SUIT WAS FILED IN 1939. 

THERE HAVE BEEN TWO TRIALS OF THIS CASE.  THE RECORDS OF BOTH ARE
BEFORE US, AS THE RECORD OF THE FIRST TRIAL WAS MADE A PART OF THE
SECOND.  CERTAIN CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY
TRANSACTIONS WAS PRODUCED. 

THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE FIRST TRIAL SHOW THAT TWO HAWAIIAN
CITIZENS, JOHNSON WILKINSON AND ZENAS BENT, MADE A REPRESENTATION
CONCERNING PALMYRA ISLAND TO THE KING AND THE CABINET COUNCIL.  THE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE COUNCIL WHICH TOOK PLACE AT HONOLULU ON
FEBRUARY 26, 1862, ARE EXTANT.  THE "REPRESENTATION" HAS NOT BEEN
FOUND.  THE COUNCIL MINUTES SHOW THE FOLLOWING: 

"P. KAMEHAMEHA READ A REPRESENTATION FROM Z BENT & MR WILKINSON,
ABOUT THE ISLAND PALMYRA, REQUESTING THAT THE ISLAND SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED A HAWAIIAN POSSESSION & BE PLACED UNDER THE HAWAIIAN FLAG 

"AFTER SOME DISCUSSION IT PLEASED THE KING TO DIRECT THE MINISTER OF
THE INTERIOR, TO GRANT WHAT THE PETITIONERS APPLY FOR, FOLLOWING THE
PRECEDENT OF THE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ISLAND CORNWALLIS & WITHOUT
EXCEEDING THE SAME." 

THE ACTION OF THE COUNCIL WAS COMMUNICATED TO WILKINSON AND BENT
THROUGH A LETTER BY THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR ON MARCH 1, 1862.  IN
THE LETTER IT WAS SAID THAT THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT CONSENTED TO THE
TAKING POSSESSION OF PALMYRA "FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE TRADE
AND COMMERCE OF THIS KINGDOM AS WELL AS OFFERING PROTECTION TO THE
INTERESTS OF ITS SUBJECTS."  ACCOMPANYING THE LETTER WAS A COMMISSION
EMPOWERING BENT "TO TAKE POSSESSION IN OUR NAME OF PALMYRA ISLAND." 
EXPLICIT DIRECTIONS WERE CONTAINED IN THE COMMISSION THAT BENT WAS TO
SIGN A DECLARATION AND LEAVE IT IN A BOTTLE BURIED AT THE FOOT OF A
POLE WRAPPED WITH THE HAWAIIAN FLAG.  THE COMMISSION WAS SIGNED JOINTLY
BY THE KING AND THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR.  ON JUNE 16, 1862, BENT
REPORTED THAT HE HAD CARRIED OUT THE COMMISSION AND LEFT A PAPER AS
DIRECTED.  IN THE SAME REPORT BENT TOLD OF THE TREES ON THE ISLAND AND
THE KIND OF VEGETABLES THAT WOULD GROW.  HE SAID THAT HE HAD ERECTED A
DWELLING HOUSE ON THE ISLAND AND A CURING HOUSE FOR BICHE DE MER, A
KIND OF EDIBLE SEA SLUG THAT IS PRIZED IN THE ORIENT.  IT ALSO SAID
THAT HE HAD LEFT FIVE MEN ON THE ISLAND AND PROPOSED TO RETURN IN ABOUT
TEN DAYS.  THEREUPON THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR DULY ISSUED A
PROCLAMATION ON JUNE 18, AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHEREAS, ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 1862, PALMYRA ISLAND, IN LATITUDE
5 DEGREE 50' NORTH, AND LONGITUDE 161 DEGREE 53' WEST, WAS TAKEN
POSSESSION OF, WITH THE USUAL FORMALITIES, BY CAPTAIN ZENAS BENT, HE
BEING DULY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, IN THE NAME OF KAMEHAMEHA IV, KING OF
THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.  THEREFORE, THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, THAT THE SAID
ISLAND, SO TAKEN POSSESSION OF, IS HENCEFORTH TO BE CONSIDERED AND
RESPECTED AS PART OF THE DOMAIN OF THE KING OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS." 

A FINDING WAS MADE THAT CERTAIN COMMENTS ON THE EXPEDITION WERE
PUBLISHED IN THE HONOLULU PAPERS BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATION TO THE
COUNCIL AND THE PROCLAMATION WHICH WAS ONLY IMPORTANT IN THE PRESENT
LITIGATION AS SHOWING A CONTEMPORANEOUS UNDERSTANDING THAT POSSESSION
WAS BEING TAKEN OF AN ISLAND AS PART OF THE DOMAIN OF THE KING OF THE
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 

AS SHOWN BY THE MINUTES OF THE CABINET COUNCIL, THE MINISTER OF THE
INTERIOR WAS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE APPLICATION OF BENT AND WILKINSON
"FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT OF THE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ISLAND
CORNWALLIS & WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE SAME."  THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS
IS NOT MADE CLEAR BY THE RECORD.  THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT THE
WORDS LIMIT ANY RIGHTS OF BENT IN PALMYRA TO "A FIVE-YEAR RIGHT TO TAKE
GUANO," AND THAT HE NEVER WAS "GRANTED OR INTENDED TO BE GRANTED A FEE
SIMPLE TITLE."  THE TRIAL COURT THOUGHT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE COUNCIL
MIGHT REASONABLY HAVE BEEN TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF BENT AND WILKINSON
TO ISLANDS THAT WERE "NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT OR ANY
OTHER PEOPLE."  THE REASON FOR THIS SUPPOSITION LIES IN THE FACT THAT
THE COMMISSION OF MAY 31, 1858, TO SAMUEL CLESSON ALLEN, WHO DISCOVERED
CORNWALLIS ISLAND FOR HAWAII, TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE ISLAND
CONTAINED THE WORDS JUST QUOTED.  ON THE SAME DAY THAT THE COMMISSION
WAS ISSUED, A CONTRACT WAS MADE WITH EDWARD P. ADAMS FOR HIM TO TAKE
GUANO FOR FIVE YEARS FROM ANY ISLANDS ACQUIRED FOR HAWAII BY ALLEN IN
THE SCHOONER, "KALAMA."  ADAMS' REQUEST FOR THE GRANT OF A FEE TO A 7/8
INTEREST IN ANY ISLAND DISCOVERED, SO FAR AS SHOWN BY THE RECORD, WAS
NOT ACTED UPON BY THE HAWAIIAN LEGISLATIVE BODY. 

ALLEN TOOK POSSESSION OF CORNWALLIS ISLAND AND SUBMITTED A REPORT OF
HIS EXPEDITION ON JULY 12, 1858, TO THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR. 
THEREUPON AT A MEETING OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL ON JULY 27, 1858, THE
FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED: 

"RESOLVED THAT CORNWALLIS ISLAND IN LATITUDE 16.43 NORTH, AND
LONGITUDE 169.33 WEST FROM GREENWICH, AND KALAMA ISLAND, IN LATITUDE
16.44 NORTH AND LONGITUDE 169.21 WEST, HAVING BEEN TAKEN POSSESSION OF,
WITH THE USUAL FORMALITIES, ON THE 14TH AND 19TH OF JUNE 1858, BY
SAMUEL C. ALLEN ESQUIRE, IN THE NAME OF KAMEHAMEHA IV, THE SAID ISLANDS
ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF HIS MAJESTY'S DOMAIN." 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM OF
THE LATER PROCLAMATION IN REGARD TO PALMYRA. 

THE ANNEXATION OF CORNWALLIS ISLAND FAILED BECAUSE OF PRIOR DISCOVERY
BY THE UNITED STATES AND LATER, ON OCTOBER 16, 1858, THE MINISTER OF
THE INTERIOR CANCELLED THE CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN MADE WITH ADAMS. 

THUS IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE MEANING OF THE MINUTES CONCERNING THE
ACQUISITION OF PALMYRA, FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT OF CORNWALLIS, IS
UNCERTAIN.  THE RESOLUTION ANNEXING CORNWALLIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME AS THE PROCLAMATION CONCERNING PALMYRA.  THE COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING BENT TO TAKE POSSESSION OF PALMYRA IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME AS THE COMMISSION TO ALLEN THAT RESULTED IN THE DISCOVERY OF
CORNWALLIS.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A CONTRACT WITH BENT AND WILKINSON
SIMILAR TO THE GUANO CONTRACT MADE WITH ADAMS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE
IS NOTHING IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PALMYRA ACQUISITION SHOULD
FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT OF THE CORNWALLIS RESOLUTION TO INDICATE ANYTHING
MORE THAN THAT THE SOVEREIGNTY OVER PALMYRA WAS TO BE ACQUIRED FOR
HAWAII, AS STATED IN THE PROCLAMATION OF POSSESSION.  THERE IS NOTHING
TO LEAD US TO DISAGREE WITH THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING AS TO PALMYRA, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"THE WORDS USED IN THE FORMALITY OF ANNEXATION AND PROCLAMATION NEED
NOT AND LIKELY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT WHETHER IT WAS THE
INTENTION THAT THE ACT OF ANNEXION SHOULD CONSTITUTE THE VESTING OF A
FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE LANDS IN THE KING, OR MERELY EXTEND SOVEREIGNTY
OVER THE DOMAIN ANNEXED." 

WE FIND NO EVIDENCE OF A CONSISTENT PLAN OR CUSTOM OF THE KINGDOM OF
HAWAII RELATING TO TITLE TO LANDS ON ISLANDS WHEN POSSESSION WAS TAKEN
FOR THE KINGDOM.  THE INSTRUCTIONS TO WILKINSON AND BENT WERE: 

"I AM AUTHORIZED TO STATE ON THE PART OF HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT
THAT THEY CONSENT TO THE TAKING POSSESSION OF THE ISLAND OF PALMYRA,
SITUATED IN LONGITUDE 161 DEGREE 53' WEST AND IN LATITUDE 6 DEGREE 4
NORTH, AS DESCRIBED BY YOU IN SAID MEMORIAL; FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCREASING THE TRADE AND COMMERCE OF THIS KINGDOM AS WELL AS OFFERING
PROTECTION TO THE INTERESTS OF ITS SUBJECTS." 

THE TRIAL COURT ENDED ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON
THE FIRST TRIAL IN THESE WORDS: 

"MY CONTROLLING FINDING IS, THAT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES
WAS EXTENDED OVER PALMYRA ISLAND BY ANNEXATION, BUT THE REPUBLIC OF
HAWAII DID NOT IN FACT OR IN FORM ASSERT FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THIS LAND
AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION, OR AT ANY OTHER TIME, AND IT IS SUFFICIENT
TO SAY, ONLY, AS A

                              CONCLUSION 

I AM DECIDEDLY OF OPINION THAT PETITIONER (THE UNITED STATES ) DOES
NOT EXHIBIT A TITLE WHICH CAN BE SUSTAINED IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND THEREFORE, IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF PRAYED FOR." 

ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  UNITED STATES V. FULLARD
LEO, 133 F.2D 743.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMISSION TO BENT,
HERETOFORE REFERRED TO, 

"MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT BENT WAS MERELY ACTING AS AGENT OF
THE KING.  UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE TAKING OF
POSSESSION BY BENT PERFECTED THE TITLE OF THE KING.  1 HYDE,
INTERNATIONAL LAW, 167 SEC. 100; 1 OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 276
278, SECS. 221-224; MARTIN V. WADDELL, 16 PET. 367, 409, 41 U.S. 367,
409, 10 L. ED. 997.  NOTHING IN THE RESOLUTION OR THE LETTER REFERRED
TO IS CONTRARY TO THAT VIEW."  ID., 747. 

IT SAID THERE WAS NO PROOF OF SUBSEQUENT ALIENATION BY ANY SOVEREIGN
AND THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF A LOST GRANT. 

ON REMAND OF THIS CASE ON THE FIRST APPEAL, THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED
FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  IT HELD: 

"I BELIEVE AND SO HOLD THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS NOT ONLY
ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH BUT CAN REASONABLY AND LOGICALLY BE ACCOUNTED
FOR ONLY UPON THE PRESUMPTION THAT A GRANT ISSUED TO BENT AND WILKINSON
BY WHICH THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT PARTED WITH ITS TITLE." 

THIS CAN ONLY MEAN THAT IN THE TRIAL COURT'S OPINION, THE KINGDOM OF
HAWAII ACQUIRED SOVEREIGNTY OVER PALMYRA AND BENT AND WILKINSON
OBTAINED THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE ISLETS.  THIS HOLDING WAS
AFFIRMED ON APPEAL.  UNITED STATES V. FULLARD-LEO, 156 F.2D 756. 
ALTHOUGH ONLY ONE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON CERTIORARI, OUR
DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
CORRECT DISPOSES OF THE ENTIRE CASE. 

HAWAII HAS BEEN A TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION OF JULY 7, 1898.  30 STAT. 750.  BEFORE THAT
THE ISLANDS COMPOSING THE PRESENT TERRITORY OF HAWAII HAD EXISTED
INDEPENDENT FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD AND SOVEREIGN AS FAR BACK AS
HISTORY AND LOCAL TRADITION REACHES.  FN2  WHEN AMERICAN CHRISTIAN
MISSIONARIES ARRIVED AT THE ISLANDS IN 1820, THE HAWAIIAN CIVILIZATION
MERGED WITH THAT OF THE REST OF THE KNOWN WORLD.  AT THAT TIME THE
PRINCIPAL ISLANDS OF THE PRESENT TERRITORY HAD BEEN UNITED A FEW YEARS
BEFORE INTO A MONARCHY UNDER A STRONG LEADER, KAMEHAMEHA I.
NOTWITHSTANDING HIS DEATH, A SHORT TIME BEFORE THE COMING OF THE
MISSIONARIES, THE KINGDOM WELDED BY HIM FROM THE SEVERAL ISLAND
COMMUNITIES CONTINUED AS A RECOGNIZED MONARCHY UNDER HIS SUCCESSORS
UNTIL ITS FALL IN 1893.  A PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT SUCCEEDED THE
MONARCHY AND WAS IN TURN FOLLOWED BY THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, THE
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY MENTIONED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RESOLUTION OF ANNEXATION AS CEDING HAWAII TO THE UNITED STATES.  FROM
KAMEHAMEHA I TO ANNEXATION, HAWAII MADE STEADY ADVANCES IN CONFORMING
ITS LAWS AND ECONOMY TO THE MANNER OF LIFE OF THE OTHER CIVILIZED
NATIONS OF THE WORLD.    AT THE TIME OF THE ANNEXATION OF PALMYRA
ISLAND BY THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII, APRIL 15, 1862, THAT MONARCHY
POSSESSED A SYSTEM OF LAND OWNERSHIP AND LAND LAWS THAT WERE ADEQUATE
TO ESTABLISH TITLES AND MAINTAIN A PROPER RECORD THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CONTEMPORANEOUS PRACTICES OF ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW.  THE EARLIER
NINETEENTH CENTURY LAWS OF THE KINGDOM HAD BEEN CODIFIED INTO A CIVIL
CODE IN 1859.  IN THIS CODE THE MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR WAS GIVEN
SUPERVISION OF THE PUBLIC LANDS WITH POWER TO DISPOSE OF THEM WITH THE
AUTHORITY OF THE KING IN CABINET COUNCIL.  CIVIL CODE OF THE HAWAIIAN
ISLANDS, 1859, C. VII, ART. I. BY C. XXVI, ART. LI, A BUREAU OF
CONVEYANCES WITH BOOKS OF REGISTRY WAS REQUIRED AND BY C. XXV, ART. L,
SECS. 1241-48, PROVISION WAS MADE FOR PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION. 
UNDER TREATIES WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, HAWAII PERMITTED THE SALE OF LOCAL
LANDS OF DECEASED ALIENS AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PROCEEDS BY THEIR
HEIRS.  ID., PP. 461 AND 471. 

KAMEHAMEHA I, AS KING AND CONQUEROR, WAS RECOGNIZED BY HAWAIIAN LAW
AS THE SOLE OWNER OF ALL THE SOIL OF THE ISLANDS.  THROUGH A SYSTEM OF
FEUDAL TENURES, NOT TOO CLEARLY DEFINED, LARGE PORTIONS OF THE ROYAL
DOMAINS WERE DIVIDED AMONG THE CHIEFS BY KAMEHAMEHA I AND HIS
SUCCESSORS AND THIS PROCESS OF INFEUDATION CONTINUED TO THE LOWEST
CLASS OF TENANTS.  THIS SYSTEM OF TENURES CREATED DISSATISFACTION AMONG
THE CHIEFS AND PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE BURDENS OF SERVICE AND PRODUCE
THAT THE INFERIOR OWED TO THE SUPERIOR.  CONSEQUENTLY BY A SERIES OF
ROYAL AND LEGISLATIVE STEPS, THE KING AND THE HOUSE OF NOBLES AND
REPRESENTATIVES PROVIDED FOR A LAND SYSTEM WHICH FINALLY RESULTED IN A
SEPARATION OF THE LANDS INTO LANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE CROWN AND THE
PEOPLE.  FN3  THIS PURPOSE FINALLY WAS MANIFESTED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 7,
1848.  FN4  BY THIS ACT, MUCH OF THE LAND OF HAWAII WAS ALLOCATED
BETWEEN THE CROWN AND THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS DIVISION OF LANDS BECAME
KNOWN AS "THE GREAT MAHELE."  FN5  NOTHING HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR
ATTENTION LIMITING THE POWER OF THE KING TO GRANT CROWN LANDS  FN6
PRIOR TO THE ACT OF JANUARY 3, 1865.  COMPARE JOVER V. INSULAR
GOVERNMENT, 221 U.S. 623, 633.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE MINISTER OF
THE INTERIOR MAINTAIN A RECORD OF ALL ROYAL GRANTS REFERS ONLY TO THOSE
FOR GOVERNMENT LAND.  CIVIL CODE, 1859, SEC. 44.  BY ENACTMENT OF THE
KING AND THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN 1865, THE CROWN LANDS BECAME
INALIENABLE EXCEPT BY FUTURE LEGISLATIVE ACTION.  SEE "CROWN LANDS,"
REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, 1905, PP. 1226-30.  THE PRIVATE LANDS OF THE
KING OR CROWN LANDS, CONFIRMED TO HIM BY THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1848, WERE
TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT IN 1895 AND THUS BECAME GOVERNMENT LANDS,
ALSO. 

IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH PRIVATE TITLE TO LANDS IN THE FORMER TENANTS, A
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO QUIET LAND TITLES WAS CREATED IN 1846.  FN7
THIS COMMISSION ADOPTED "PRINCIPLES" FOR ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS.  THESE
WERE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL THE SAME YEAR AND THROW STRONG
LIGHT ON THE HAWAIIAN LAND SYSTEM SHORTLY BEFORE THE ANNEXATION OF
PALMYRA.  FN8  THIS COMMISSION DEALT NOT ONLY WITH LANDS INCLUDED IN
THE GREAT MAHELE BUT ALSO WITH LANDS THAT WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THAT
ACT AND ESTABLISHED TITLES FOR SUCH LANDS.  IT APPARENTLY CONTINUED
UNTIL MARCH 31, 1855.  FN9 AFTER THE END OF THE COMMISSION'S WORK, THE
MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR AND THE KING IN CABINET COUNCIL WERE CHARGED
MAY 17, 1859, WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR GOVERNMENT LANDS AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS FOR ALL ROYAL CONVEYANCES.  FN10  THIS SUMMARY
OF THE HAWAIIAN LAND LAWS AT THE TIME OF THE ANNEXATION OF PALMYRA
BRINGS BEFORE US THE PATTERN OF LAND OWNERSHIP AND THE SYSTEM OF
RECORDATION OF TITLES, BOTH THOSE STEMMING FROM ROYAL GRANTS OF
GOVERNMENT LANDS AND FROM PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS.  THE CLAIM OF
RESPONDENTS TO PALMYRA MUST BE ADJUDICATED WITH THIS SITUATION IN
MIND.  WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH AN EXPLORER'S CLAIM OF TITLE TO LANDS OF
A SAVAGE TRIBE OR THAT OF A DISCOVERER OF A HITHERTO UNKNOWN ISLET. 

WHETHER WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CROWN AND GOVERNMENT LANDS, HOWEVER,
SEEMS IMMATERIAL.  NO RECORD APPEARS OF ANY CONVEYANCE FROM KING OR
MINISTER TO ANY LAND ON PALMYRA.  WE ASSUME THE LAW REQUIRED A PUBLIC
RECORD FOR ANY SUCH CONVEYANCE FROM EITHER FROM THE TIME POSSESSION WAS
TAKEN FOR HAWAII.  IT IS CLEAR THAT BOTH THE KING AND THE MINISTER OF
THE INTERIOR WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE KING IN THE CABINET COUNCIL HAD
POWER TO CONVEY THE LANDS TO PRIVATE CITIZENS.  CIVIL CODE, 1859, SECS.
39-48; ACT OF JANUARY 3, 1865, REV. LAWS, HAWAII, 1905, P. 1226, SEC.
3.  WE ASSUME FURTHER THAT THE FORMAL CLAIM TO PALMYRA FOR THE HAWAIIAN
KINGDOM MADE BY BENT, PURSUANT TO HIS COMMISSION, GAVE HAWAII NOT ONLY
SOVEREIGNTY OVER PALMYRA BUT ALSO THE POWER TO GRANT THE LANDS OF THE
NEWLY ANNEXED ISLETS AS PART OF ITS PUBLIC LANDS TO PRIVATE OWNERS. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERETOFORE DESCRIBED, WERE THE DISTRICT AND
CIRCUIT COURTS JUSTIFIED IN QUIETING TITLE TO PALMYRA IN RESPONDENTS ON
THE THEORY OF A LOST GRANT?  WE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAWS OF
HAWAII PRIOR TO ITS ANNEXATION AS A PART OF OUR DOMESTIC LAWS.  FN11
THE RULES UNDER WHICH THE HAWAIIAN PEOPLE LIVED UNDER THE MONARCHY OR
REPUBLIC DEFINE, FOR THE SOVEREIGN OF TODAY, THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED DURING
THOSE PERIODS.  WHILE IN MATTERS OF LOCAL LAW THE FEDERAL COURTS DEFER
TO THE DECISIONS OF THE TERRITORIAL COURTS,  FN12  WE ARE DEALING HERE
WITH A PROBLEM OF FEDERAL LAW - THE UNITED STATES SEEKS TO QUIET ITS
TITLE TO LAND NOW CLAIMED BY VIRTUE OF HAWAIIAN CESSION.  THE FEDERAL
RIGHTS ARE PARTLY DEPENDENT UPON THE HAWAIIAN LAW PRIOR TO ANNEXATION. 
THEREFORE WHILE THE HAWAIIAN LAW, AS IT EXISTED BEFORE THE ANNEXATION
OF THE TERRITORY, IS CONTROLLING ON RIGHTS IN LAND THAT ARE CLAIMED TO
HAVE HAD THEIR BEGINNINGS THEN THE FEDERAL COURTS CONSTRUE THAT LAW FOR
THEMSELVES.  THE FEDERAL COURTS CANNOT BE FORECLOSED BY DETERMINATIONS
OF THE HAWAIIAN LAW BY THE HAWAIIAN COURTS.  THEY WILL LEAN HEAVILY
UPON THE HAWAIIAN DECISIONS AS TO THE HAWAIIAN LAW BUT THEY ARE NOT
BOUND TO FOLLOW THOSE DECISIONS WHERE A CLAIMED TITLE TO PUBLIC LANDS
OF THE UNITED STATES IS INVOLVED.  FN13  THE ROOTS OF RESPONDENTS'
CLAIM SPRING FROM HAWAIIAN LAW.  AS THEIR CLAIM TO PALMYRA CONTINUED
AFTER THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED IN 1898 WHATEVER RIGHTS HAWAII THEN
HAD, THE VALIDITY OF RESPONDENTS' CLAIM MUST BE JUDGED, ALSO, IN THE
LIGHT OF THE PUBLIC LAND LAW OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE PRESUMPTION OF A LOST GRANT TO LAND HAS RECEIVED RECOGNITION AS
AN APPROPRIATE MEANS TO QUIET LONG POSSESSION.  IT RECOGNIZES THAT
LAPSE OF TIME MAY CURE THE NEGLECT OR FAILURE TO SECURE THE PROPER
MUNIMENTS OF TITLE, EVEN THOUGH THE LOST GRANT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN
FACT EXECUTED.  FN14  THE DOCTRINE FIRST APPEARED IN THE FIELD OF
INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS BUT HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO REALTY.  FN15  THE
RULE APPLIES TO CLAIMS TO LAND HELD ADVERSELY TO THE SOVEREIGN.  FN16
THE CASE FROM THIS COURT MOST OFTEN CITED IS UNITED STATES V. CHAVES,
159 U.S. 452.  IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR EXISTENCE
OF THE LOST GRANT.  THE TITLE OF THE CLAIMANTS WAS UPHELD BUT THIS
COURT THEN STATED, AT P. 464, CONFORMABLY TO FLETCHER V. FULLER,
SUPRA: 

"WITHOUT GOING AT LENGTH INTO THE SUBJECT, IT MAY BE SAFELY SAID THAT
BY THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY, AS WELL AS THE PREPONDERANCE OF OPINION, IT
IS THE GENERAL RULE OF AMERICAN LAW THAT A GRANT WILL BE PRESUMED UPON
PROOF OF AN ADVERSE, EXCLUSIVE, AND UNINTERRUPTED POSSESSION FOR TWENTY
YEARS, AND THAT SUCH RULE WILL BE APPLIED AS A PRESUMPTIO JURIS ET DE
JURE, WHEREVER, BY POSSIBILITY, A RIGHT MAY BE ACQUIRED IN ANY MANNER
KNOWN TO THE LAW." 

SEE UNITED STATES V. PENDELL, 185 U.S. 189, 200-201. 

A FEW YEARS LATER, IN UNITED STATES V. CHAVEZ, 175 U.S. 509, THE
PROBLEM OF THE LOST GRANT AGAIN AROSE.  IN THIS CASE, AS TO ONE TRACT,
CASE NO. 38 AT 516, THE EXISTENCE OF THE GRANT TO JOAQUIN SEDILLO WAS
NOT SHOWN EXCEPT BY A STATEMENT OF JANUARY 11, 1734, THAT THE TRACT
CONVEYED "WAS ACQUIRED BY HIS (AFFIANT'S) FATHER IN PART BY GRANT IN
THE NAME OF HIS MAJESTY (THE KING OF SPAIN) ...  " P. 514.  IN
REFERRING TO THE RECOGNITION OF TITLE IN THE PRIVATE OWNERS, THIS COURT
SAID, AT 520: 

"SUCCEEDING TO THE POWER AND OBLIGATIONS OF THOSE GOVERNMENTS, MUST
THE UNITED STATES DO SO? THIS IS INSISTED BY THEIR COUNSEL, AND YET
THEY HAVE FELT AND EXPRESSED THE EQUITIES WHICH ARISE FROM THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  WHENCE ARISE THOSE EQUITIES?  THAT WHICH
ESTABLISHES THEM MAY ESTABLISH TITLE.  UPON A LONG AND UNINTERRUPTED
POSSESSION, THE LAW BASES PRESUMPTIONS AS SUFFICIENT FOR LEGAL
JUDGMENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF REBUTTING CIRCUMSTANCES, AS FORMAL
INSTRUMENTS, OR RECORDS, OR ARTICULATE TESTIMONY.  NOT THAT FORMAL
INSTRUMENTS OR RECORDS ARE UNNECESSARY, BUT IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT
THEY ONCE EXISTED AND HAVE BEEN LOST.  THE INQUIRY THEN RECURS, DO SUCH
PRESUMPTIONS ARISE IN THIS CASE AND DO THEY SOLVE ITS QUESTIONS?" 

THEREAFTER THE COURT, 524, REFERRED TO THE LONG POSSESSION AND
SUSTAINED THE CLAIMANTS IN THEIR TITLE. 

CARINO V. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, 212 U.S. 449, WAS DECIDED ON A WRIT OF
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  AN IGOROT
CHIEFTAIN SOUGHT TO REGISTER HIS LAND IN BENGUET PROVINCE, LONG HELD BY
HIS FAMILY.  UNDER CLAIM OF SUCCESSION TO THE SPANISH RIGHTS BY THE
TREATY OF PARIS AND AN EXCEPTION IN THE ACT OF JULY 1, 1902, PROVIDING
FOR TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES,
FN17  THE LAND HAD BEEN TAKEN FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES BY THE UNITED STATES
AND THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT.  OBJECTION WAS MADE BY THE TWO
GOVERNMENTS AND SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES ON
THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT SHOW A GRANT FROM ANY SOVEREIGN. 
THIS COURT THOUGHT IT UNJUST, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO REQUIRE A NATIVE
TO HAVE A PAPER TITLE. 

"IT MIGHT, PERHAPS, BE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT WHEN, AS FAR
BACK AS TESTIMONY OR MEMORY GOES, THE LAND HAS BEEN HELD BY INDIVIDUALS
UNDER A CLAIM OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, IT WILL BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN
HELD IN THE SAME WAY FROM BEFORE THE SPANISH CONQUEST, AND NEVER TO
HAVE BEEN PUBLIC LAND."  212 U.S. AT 460. 

THE PHILIPPINE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED. 

THE LAW OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII RECOGNIZES AND HAS APPLIED THE
DOCTRINE OF THE LOST GRANT IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A CLAIMANT TO
GOVERNMENT LAND AND THE TERRITORY.  IN RE TITLE OF KIOLOKU (1920), 25
HAW.  357.  THE TRACT INVOLVED IN THAT LITIGATION HAD BEEN HELD IN
"ACTUAL, OPEN, CONTINUOUS AND UNINTERRUPTED POSSESSION" SINCE 1870.  NO
RECORD OR EVIDENCE OF A GRANT BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY WAS
PRODUCED.  AFTER A DISCUSSION OF SEVERAL OF THE CASES JUST REFERRED TO
AND OTHERS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOST GRANT, IN CLAIMS
TO LAND AGAINST THE STATE, WAS THE "LAW OF THE LAND" IN HAWAII.  ON
APPEAL THE HOLDING WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT.  THAT COURT SAID: 

"UNDER THE RULE OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE CASE, AS WE FIND IT, IT WAS
NOT NECESSARY THAT THE APPELLEE SHOULD PROVE THE PROBABILITY THAT A
GRANT DID IN FACT ISSUE TO ONE OF ITS PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST.  IT WAS
ENOUGH TO SHOW, AS WE THINK IT WAS SHOWN, THAT THERE WAS A LEGAL
POSSIBILITY OF A GRANT."  TERRITORY OF HAWAII V. HUTCHINSON SUGAR
PLANTATION CO., 272 F. 856, 860. 

WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT WHERE, AS HERE, THERE WAS POWER
IN THE KING OR THE OFFICIALS OF THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII TO CONVEY A TITLE
TO PALMYRA  FN18  DURING THE YEARS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ITS ANNEXATION
TO THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII AND PRIOR TO MANY OF THE PRIVATE CONVEYANCES
HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO, THE DOCTRINE OF A LOST GRANT MAY BE APPLIED,
IN SUITABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ITS EXISTENCE PRESUMED IN FAVOR OF THE
PREDECESSORS IN TITLE OF THESE RESPONDENTS.  IN ORDER FOR THE DOCTRINE
OF A LOST GRANT TO BE APPLICABLE, THE POSSESSION MUST BE UNDER A CLAIM
OF RIGHT, ACTUAL, OPEN AND EXCLUSIVE.  FN19  A CHAIN OF CONVEYANCES IS
IMPORTANT.  SO IS THE PAYMENT OF TAXES.  FN20  A CLAIM FOR GOVERNMENT
LANDS STANDS UPON NO DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE IN THEORY SO LONG AS AUTHORITY
EXISTS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THE PATENT, GRANT OR
CONVEYANCE.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IT REQUIRES A HIGHER DEGREE OF PROOF
BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY FOR A STATE TO PROTECT ITS LANDS FROM USE BY
THOSE WITHOUT RIGHT.  WE TURN THEN TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELIED UPON BY
THE LOWER COURTS AS SUSTAINING RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS IN RESPECT TO
THEIR CLAIM TO AND OCCUPATION OF PALMYRA. 

IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS OPINION, WE HAVE SET OUT IN DETAIL THE
EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING UP TO THE
ANNEXATION OF PALMYRA BY THE KINGDOM OF HAWAII IN 1862.  NO POSITIVE
EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED AS TO ANY GRANT OF PALMYRA BY HAWAII PRIOR TO THE
LATTER'S ANNEXATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1898.  NOR DOES THE RECORD
SHOW THE EXERCISE OF ANY DIRECT GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY OVER PALMYRA. 
IN 1905, UPON A REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR FOR AN OPINION CONCERNING THE
JURISDICTION OF HAWAII OVER ISLANDS TO THE NORTHWEST OF KAUAI, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ANSWERED THAT HAWAII HAD POWER TO LEASE THEM.  IT WILL
BE NOTED FROM THE SHORT OPINION IN THE MARGIN THAT PALMYRA, THOUGH OVER
1000 MILES TO THE SOUTHEAST OF KAUAI, WAS INCLUDED.  NOTHING APPEARS AS
TO ANY FORMER OR SUBSEQUENT EXERCISE BY HAWAII OF A POWER TO LEASE
PALMYRA.  FN21  NO TAXES WERE COLLECTED FROM THOSE WHO CLAIMED TO BE
OWNERS PRIOR TO 1885 WHEN THE PACIFIC NAVIGATION COMPANY PAID TAXES TO
HAWAII ON PALMYRA FOR THREE YEARS.  ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ANNUALLY
SINCE 1911 AND TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID REGULARLY SINCE THEN BY THE
CLAIMANTS TO THE PROPERTY.  AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION BY THE UNITED
STATES, PROVISION WAS MADE FOR COMMISSIONERS TO RECOMMEND TO CONGRESS
LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.  30 STAT. 750.  A FULL
REPORT WAS MADE WHICH WAS TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS BY THE PESIDENT ON
DECEMBER 6, 1898.  U.S. SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 16, 55TH CONG., 3D SESS.
IT DEALT WITH THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND SHOWS THAT THE CROWN LANDS HAD BEEN
TAKEN OVER BY THE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT IN 1894, P. 4 ET SEQ. IN 1894,
THE CROWN LANDS WERE IN AREA 971,463 ACRES.  THERE WERE NO CROWN LANDS
SHOWN ON THE SMALLER ISLANDS.  P. 102.  AN APPENDIX SHOWS THE
GOVERNMENT LANDS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1897, AND LISTS IN ACRES AND
VALUES THOSE OF THE PRINCIPAL ISLANDS OF THE GROUP.  PP. 47-51.  THEY
AMOUNTED, IN ACRES, TO 1,744,713.  IN THE RECAPITULATION, THOUGH NOT
INCLUDED IN THE LISTS OF PUBLIC LANDS, THERE IS AN ITEM THAT MAY
INCLUDE PALMYRA.  IT READS, "LAYSAN, ETC., ISLANDS, ACRES - , VALUE
$40,000."  AT ANOTHER POINT, P. 4, UNDER "AREA AND POPULATION" APPEARS
THE ONLY REFERENCE TO PALMYRA.  THE REFERENCE IN ITS SETTING APPEARS IN
THE MARGIN.  FN22 

RESPONDENTS' CLAIM OF TITLE EXISTS IN A CONSISTENT SERIES OF
TRANSACTIONS BEGINNING IN 1862 WITH A DEED TO WILKINSON FROM BENT.  THE
DEED WAS RECORDED IN THE REGISTRY OF CONVEYANCES OF HAWAII IN 1885.  IT
CONVEYED ALL BENT'S "RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ALL THE
PROPERTY OF WHATEVER DESCRIPTION NOW LYING OR SITUATED ON PALMYRA
ISLAND IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN WHICH ISLAND BY A PROCLAMATION OF HIS
MAJESTY KAMEHAMEHA IV AT PRESENT BELONGS TO THE HAWAIIAN KINGDOM.  AND
ALSO ALL MY RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ANY PARTNERSHIP
PROPERTY THAT I MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN AS CO-PARTNER WITH THE SAID
JOHNSON WILKINSON."  THE LANGUAGE, WE THINK, IS CONSISTENT WITH AN
INTENTION TO CONVEY A CLAIMED INTEREST IN THE REALTY "LYING OR SITUATED
ON PALMYRA ISLAND" AS WELL AS ANY PARTNERSHIP PERSONAL PROPERTY. 
THEREAFTER WILKINSON DIED IN NEW ZEALAND IN 1866 AND LEFT A WILL
DEVISING TO HIS WIFE, KALAMA: 

"AND ALSO ALL MY LANDED FREEHOLD AND LEASEHOLD ESTATES IN THE
PROVINCE OF AUCKLAND AFORESAID, AT HONOLULU IN THE SANDWICH ISLANDS IN
THE ISLAND OF PALMYRA IN THE SOUTH SEA ISLANDS AND WHERESOEVER THE SAME
MAY BE SITUATED AND WHETHER IN THE SAID COLONY OF NEW ZEALAND OR
ELSEWHERE TO HOLD SUACH REAL AND PERSONAL ESTATE UNTO THE SAID KALAMA
ABSOLUTELY AND FOREVER." 

THE WILL WAS PROVEN AND REGISTERED IN NEW ZEALAND AND WAS LATER
ADMITTED TO PROBATE IN HAWAII IN 1898.  IN 1885, AFTER THE DEATH OF
KALAMA, TWO OF HER HEIRS TRANSFERRED ALL THEIR "RIGHT, TITLE AND
INTEREST AS HEIRS AT LAW OF THE SAID KALAMA OR OTHERWISE, IN AND TO THE
ISLAND OF PALMYRA" TO ONE WILCOX, WHO CONVEYED TO THE PACIFIC
NAVIGATION COMPANY.  BY A SERIES OF SOME FOUR MESNE CONVEYANCES BETWEEN
1888 AND 1911 THE INTEREST OF PACIFIC NAVIGATION COMPANY IN THE ISLAND
WAS EVENTUALLY TRANSFERRED TO ONE HENRY COOPER.  A THIRD HEIR OF
KALAMA'S TRANSFERRED HIS RIGHTS IN THE ISLAND TO ONE RINGER, WHOSE
CHILDREN TRANSFERRED THEIR RIGHTS IN THE ISLAND TO HENRY COOPER IN
1912.  RINGER'S WIDOW IN 1912 SOLD ALL HER RIGHT, TITLE, AND INTEREST
IN THE ISLAND TO MAUI AND CLARKE. 

IN 1912 COOPER PETITIONED THE LAND COURT OF HAWAII TO CONFIRM TITLE
IN HIM.  MAUI AND CLARKE CONTESTED THE PETITION, CLAIMING TO OWN A
DOWER INTEREST IN AN "UNDIVIDED ONE-THIRD OF THE ISLAND."  THROUGH ITS
ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII ANSWERED THE PETITION AND
DISCLAIMED "ANY INTEREST IN, TO OR CONCERNING" PALMYRA.  THE COURT
DECREED THAT COOPER WAS THE OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE OF THE ISLAND SUBJECT
TO THE DOWER INTEREST OF ANNIE RINGER HELD BY MAUI AND CLARKE.  FN23
IN 1920, COOPER LEASED THE ISLAND TO MENG AND WHITE WHO ASSIGNED THE
LEASE TO THE PALMYRA COPRA COMPANY.  IN 1922 COOPER SOLD FOR $15,000.00
ALL BUT TWO OF THE ISLETS TO MR. AND MRS. FULLARD-LEO, RESPONDENTS
HERE, WHO HAD TAKEN OVER THE LEASE.  FROM THE FOREGOING, IT WILL BE
APPARENT THAT FROM 1862 TO THE BREAKDOWN OF NEGOTIATIONS A PAPER TITLE
EXISTED IN RESPONDENTS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS IN TITLE, EXCEPT FOR THE
GRANT FROM THE KINGDOM, AND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A RECORD OF THE
CONVEYANCES IN HAWAII SINCE 1885.  THERE WAS, DURING THESE YEARS, A
CLAIM OF RIGHT TO EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION. 

THAT CLAIM OF RIGHT WAS MANIFESTED NOT ONLY BY TRANSFERS OF PAPER
TITLE BUT ALSO BY ACTUAL USER OF THE PROPERTY.  THE SUFFICIENCY OF
ACTUAL AND OPEN POSSESSION OF PROPERTY IS TO BE JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF
ITS CHARACTER AND LOCATION.  FN24  IT IS HARD TO CONCEIVE OF A MORE
ISOLATED PIECE OF LAND THAN PALMYRA, ONE OF WHICH POSSESSION NEED BE
LESS CONTINUOUS TO FORM THE BASIS OF A CLAIM.  THIS TINY ATOLL IN THE
PACIFIC, HOWEVER, FAR REMOVED FROM ANY OTHER LANDS AND CLAIMED BY NO
SOVEREIGNTY UNTIL 1862 WAS NOT WHOLLY VALUELESS, COMMERCIALLY, PRIOR TO
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AIRWAYS OVER THE OCEAN. 

FROM TIME TO TIME, MEN THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING GAINED FROM
ITS EXPLOITATION.  BENT'S "REPRESENTATION" IN 1862 FOR ANNEXATION WAS
PRECEDED BY AN ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE LOCALITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. 
WHEN HE WENT TO TAKE POSSESSION HE PLANTED VEGETABLES AND MELONS, BUILT
A HOUSE AND SOUGHT SEA PRODUCTS.  THE PACIFIC NAVIGATION COMPANY HAD
MEN ON THE ISLAND DURING 1885 AND 1886.  COOPER VISITED THE ISLAND IN
1913 AND 1914.  HE WAS THEN THE OWNER OF RECORD.  IN 1912, AT COOPER'S
SUGGESTION, THE THEN GOVERNOR OF HAWAII REQUESTED THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR OF THE UNITED STATES TO SEND AN AMERICAN VESSEL TO PALMYRA TO
CONFIRM AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY.  THE GOVERNOR STATED THAT MR. COOPER WAS
THEN THE OWNER AND THAT THE PRIVATE TITLE TO PALMYRA HAD BEEN IN
CITIZENS OF HAWAII SINCE 1862.  IN 1920 AND 1921 THE PALMYRA COPRA
COMPANY WAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED ON THE ISLAND UNDER A LEASE FROM COOPER. 
THE FULLARD-LEOS, WHO ACQUIRED TITLE TO ALL BUT TWO OF THE ISLANDS FROM
COOPER, VISITED THE ISLAND IN 1924 AND AGAIN IN 1935.  ON MANY
OCCASIONS DURING THE INTERIM, THEY GAVE PERMISSION TO VARIOUS PERSONS
TO VISIT THE ISLAND. 

FROM THESE EVIDENCES OF CLAIM OF TITLE AND POSSESSION WERE THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JUSTIFIED IN ENTERING A
DECREE THAT THE FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO PALMYRA IS VESTED IN RESPONDENTS? 
THE DISSENT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS POINTS OUT THAT OUR CASES
APPLYING THE LOST GRANT DOCTRINE REQUIRED "UNINTERRUPTED AND LONG
CONTINUING POSSESSION OF A KIND INDICATING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FEE." 
THIS IS THE RULE.  BUT, AS WE HAVE INDICATED ABOVE, UNINTERRUPTED AND
LONG-CONTINUED POSSESSION DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONSTANT, ACTUAL OCCUPANCY
WHERE THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO SUCH USE. 
FN25  NO OTHER PRIVATE OWNER CLAIMS ANY RIGHTS IN PALMYRA.  FROM THE
EVIDENCE OF TITLE AND POSSESSION SHOWN IN THIS RECORD, WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE DECREES BELOW ARE INCORRECT.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  HAWAII V. MANKICHI, 190 U.S. 197. 

FN2  HAWAII V. MANKICHI, 190 U.S. 197, 216. 

FN3  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, 1839. 

ACT TO ORGANIZE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND JOINT RESOLUTION, APRIL 27,
1846, HAWAII, STATUTE LAWS, 1845-46, VOL. I, PP. 99, 277. 

FN4  REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII, 1905, P. 1197 ET SEQ. 

FN5  THURSTON V. BISHOP, 7 HAW.  421, DISSENT, N. AT 454. 

FN6  THE DOMAIN COVERED BY THE TERM SEEMS TO BE NOT ONLY THE LANDS
DECLARED TO BE THE PRIVATE LANDS OF THE KING BY THE ACT OF JUNE 7,
1848, BUT ALSO OTHER UNASSIGNED LANDS LATER DECLARED BY LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY TO BE CROWN LANDS.  REV. LAWS, HAWAII, 1905, P. 1227; ACT OF
NOVEMBER 14, 1890, LAWS, HAWAII, 1890, C. 75; REV. LAWS, HAWAII, 1905,
P. 1229. 

FN7  HAWAII, STATUTE LAWS, 1845-46, VOL. I, P. 107. 

FN8  HAWAII, STATUTE LAWS, 1847, VOL. II, PP. 81-94; REVISED LAWS,
HAWAII, 1905, P. 1164 ET SEQ. 

FN9  THURSTON V. BISHOP, 7 HAW.  421, 429, 437. 

"THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONSIDER POSSESSION OF LAND
ACQUIRED BY ORAL GIFT OF KAMEHAMEHA I., OR ONE OF HIS HIGH CHIEFS, AS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF TITLE TO AUTHORIZE AN AWARD THEREFOR TO THE
CLAIMANT.  THIS WE MUST CONSIDER AS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL TITLES TO
LAND IN THIS KINGDOM, EXCEPT SUCH AS COME FROM THE KING, TO ANY PART OF
HIS RESERVED LANDS, AND EXCEPTING ALSO THE LISTS OF GOVERNMENT AND FORT
LANDS RESERVED.  THE LAND IN DISPUTE IN THIS CASE IS NOT ONE OF THOSE
SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE KING, KAMEHAMEHA III., TO HIMSELF AND HIS
SUCCESSORS, AND NOT BEING IN THE LISTS OF LANDS SPECIALLY SET APART AS
GOVERNMENT OR FORT LANDS, MUST BE ONE OF THOSE OVER WHICH THE LAND
COMMISSION HAD JURISDICTION TO AWARD TO THE CLAIMANT."  P. 429. 

FN10  HAW.  CIVIL CODE, 1859, P. 14 ET SEQ. 

FN11  UNITED STATES V. PEROT, 98 U.S. 428, 430; UNITED STATES V.
CHAVES, 159 U.S. 452, 459. 

FN12  DE CASTRO V. BOARD OF COMM'RS, 322 U.S. 451, 459; CHRISTY V.
PRIDGEON, 4 WALL.  196. 

FN13  APPLEBY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 271 U.S. 364, 380; COMPARE CLEAR
FIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363, 366; UNITED STATES V.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174, 183; S.R.A., INC. V. MINNESOTA, 327
U.S. 558, 564. 

FN14  FLETCHER V. FULLER, 120 U.S. 534, 545, 547; UNITED STATES V.
CHAVEZ, 175 U.S. 509, 520. 

FN15  RICARD V. WILLIAMS, 7 WHEAT.  59, 109.  SEE HOLDSWORTH, A
HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, VOL. VII, P. 343, ET SEQ.; 1 GREENLEAF,
EVIDENCE (12TH ED.), SEC. 17. 

FN16  1 GREENLEAF, EVIDENCE (16TH ED.), SEC. 45A: 

"THUS, ALSO, THOUGH LAPSE OF TIME DOES NOT, OF ITSELF, FURNISH A
CONCLUSIVE LEGAL BAR TO THE TITLE OF THE SOVEREIGN, AGREEABLY TO THE
MAXIM, 'NULLUM TEMPUS OCCURRIT REGI;' YET, IF THE ADVERSE CLAIM COULD
HAVE HAD A LEGAL COMMENCEMENT, JURIES ARE INSTRUCTED OR ADVISED TO
PRESUME SUCH COMMENCEMENT, AFTER MANY YEARS OF UNINTERRUPTED ADVERSE
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT.  ACCORDINGLY, ROYAL GRANTS HAVE BEEN THUS
FOUND BY THE JURY, AFTER AN INDEFINITELY LONG-CONTINUED PEACEABLE
ENJOYMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY THE USUAL ACTS OF OWNERSHIP.  SO, AFTER LESS
THAN FORTY YEARS' POSSESSION OF A TRACT OF LAND, AND PROOF OF A PRIOR
ORDER OF COUNCIL FOR THE SURVEY OF THE LOT, AND OF AN ACTUAL SURVEY
THEREOF ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE JURY WERE PROPERLY INSTRUCTED
TO PRESUME THAT A PATENT HAD BEEN DULY ISSUED.  IN REGARD, HOWEVER, TO
CROWN OR PUBLIC GRANTS, A LONGER LAPSE OF TIME HAS GENERALLY BEEN
DEEMED NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THIS PRESUMPTION, THAN IS
CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE THE LIKE PRESUMPTION IN THE CASE OF
GRANTS FROM PRIVATE PERSONS." 

FN17  32 STAT. 691, SEC. 12. 

FN18  1 GREENLEAF, EVIDENCE (16TH ED.), SEC. 45A. 

FN19  FLETCHER V. FULLER, SUPRA, 551; UNITED STATES V. CHAVES, SUPRA,
464; UNITED STATES V. CHAVEZ, SUPRA, 520. 

FN20  FLETCHER V. FULLER, SUPRA, 552; WHITNEY V. UNITED STATES, 167
U.S. 529, 546; JOVER V. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, SUPRA, 633. 

FN21                                    "OPINION BOOK

         ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT

                                   PAGES 598-600

                   OPINION NO. 18

              HONOLULU, T.H., FEB. 11, 1905 

TO HIS EXCELLENCY GEO. R. CARTER,

   GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII,

        HONOLULU, T.H. 

SIR: 

IN ANSWER TO YOUR REQUEST OF DECEMBER 15TH, 1904, FOR AN OPINION AS
TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII OVER THE VARIOUS SMALL
GUANO ISLANDS TO THE NORTH-WEST OF KAUAI, I WOULD REPLY AS FOLLOWS: 

AFTER A CAREFUL INVESTIGATION OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE TERRITORY, FORMERLY THE FOREIGN OFFICE, AND FROM OTHER
SOURCES OF INFORMATION, I FIND THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII OVER THESE ISLANDS IS AS FOLLOWS: 

IT APPEARS IN THE REPORT OF J.A. KING, MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR,
DATED THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 1894, TO SANFORD B. DOLE, PRESIDENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, THAT FORMAL POSSESSION WAS TAKEN OF NECKER ISLAND
BY THE SAID J.A. KING, REPRESENTING THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, ON MAY 22,
1894; IT ALSO APPEARS BY THAT REPORT THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS HAD SENT CAPTAIN JOHN PATY TO TAKE POSSESSION OF SAID
ISLAND ABOUT 1857; IT ALSO APPEARS THAT HE DID TAKE SUCH POSSESSION AT
THAT TIME. 

PALMYRA ISLAND, SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED DURING THE REIGN OF
KAMEHAMEHA IV, BY A PROCLAMATION SIGNED BY HIM, DATED THE 15TH DAY OF
JUNE, 1862. 

LISIANSKY ISLAND WAS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
THROUGH CAPT. JOHN PATY ON THE 10TH DAY OF MAY, 1857. 

MORELL ISLAND AND PATROCINIO OR BYER ISLAND WERE BOTH TAKEN FOR THE
REPUBLIC OF HAWAII IN 1898, BY G.N. WILCOX, A COMMISSIONER FOR THAT
PURPOSE APPOINTED. 

WHILE I WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE ACQUISITION OF
THE OTHER ISLANDS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS, FOR MANY YEARS, ASSUMED
JURISDICTION OVER THEM.  THE FOLLOWING LEASES HAVE BEEN MADE, FROM TIME
TO TIME, AND HAVE BEEN UNDISPUTED: 

LEASE OF NECKER ISLAND, DATED THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 1904, TO A.H.C.
LOVEKIN, AT $25.00 PER ANNUM, TERM TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. 

LEASE OF J.A. KING, MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, TO THE NORTH PACIFIC
PHOSPHATE & FERTILIZER CO. OF MORELL, OCEAN, PEARL AND HERMES REEF,
MIDWAY AND FRENCH FRIGATE SHOALS, TWENTY-FIVE YEARS FROM THE 15TH DAY
OF FEBRUARY, 1894. 

LAYSAN AND LISIANSKY ISLANDS TO G.D. FREETH, APRIL 17TH, 1893. 

WHILE IT IS TO BE REGRETTED THAT THE RECORDS OF OUR FOREIGN OFFICE
ARE NOT MORE COMPLETE, POSSIBLY A MORE EXHAUSTIVE SEARCH MIGHT FIND
OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH, IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE OLD FOREIGN OFFICE,
IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO FIND.  I BELIEVE THAT FROM THESE RECORDS
THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO LEASE THE ISLANDS, OR ANY PRIVILEGES THEREON,
IS CLEAR; ALSO TO LEASE THE SAME, AS SUGGESTED IN YOUR LETTER.  THE
FACT OF MAKING SUCH LEASES, AND THE LESSEES TAKING POSSESSION
THEREUNDER, RECOGNIZING THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII AS THE LANDLORD WOULD
BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW OF OUR RIGHT TO THE SAME
AND WOULD BE THE BEST EVIDENCE THE GOVERNMENT COULD MAKE OF ITS CLAIM
TO THE VARIOUS ISLANDS IN QUESTION. 
YOURS TRULY,

                            (SGD) LORRIN ANDREWS

                                            ATTORNEY GENERAL." 

FN22  S. DOC. NO. 16, 55TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 4: 

"THE HAWAIIAN GROUP NUMBERS SEVEN INHABITED ISLANDS AND ELEVEN OR
TWELVE SMALL ROCKY OR SANDY SHOALS OR REEFS, WITH A TOTAL AREA OF 6,740
SQUARE MILES.  THEY ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

                                                        POPULATION,
1896. 

HAWAII, AREA 4,210 SQUARE MILES.............................
33,285 

MAUI, 760 SQUARE MILES......................................
17,726 

OAHU, 600 SQUARE MILES......................................
40,205 

KAUAI, 590 SQUARE MILES (RICH FARMING AND GRAZING LANDS)....
15,228 

MOLOKAI, 270 SQUARE MILES (AGRICULTURAL AND GRAZING)........
2,307 

LANAI, 150 SQUARE MILES (DEVOTED TO SHEEP RAISING)..........
  105 

NIIHAU, 97 SQUARE MILES (LEASED TO SHEEP RAISERS)...........
  164 

KAHOOLAWE, 63 SQUARE MILES. 

MOLOKINI, SMALL SIZE. 

LEHUA, SMALL SIZE. 

NIHOA, 500 ACRES (ABOUT), PRECIPITOUS ROCK, 400 FEET HIGH (244 MILES
NORTHWEST FROM HONOLULU). 

LAYSAN, 2,000 ACRES (ABOUT), GUANO ISLAND, LOW AND SANDY, 30 FEET
HIGH (800 MILES NORTHWEST FROM HONOLULU). 

GARDENERS ISLAND, TWO INACCESSIBLE ROCKS, 200 FEET HIGH, ABOUT 1,000
FEET LONG (607 MILES NORTHWEST OF HONOLULU). 

LISCANSKY ISLAND, 500 ACRES (ABOUT), LOW AND SANDY, 25 TO 50 FEET
HIGH (920 MILES NORTHWEST FROM HONOLULU). 

OCEAN ISLAND, 500 ACRES (ABOUT), LOW AND SANDY (1,800 MILES NORTHWEST
FROM HONOLULU). 

NECKER ISLAND, 400 ACRES (ABOUT), A PRECIPITOUS ROCK, 300 FEET HIGH
(400 MILES NORTHWEST FROM HONOLULU). 

PALMYRA ISLAND, A CLUSTER OF LOW ISLETS, ABOUT 10 MILES IN
CIRCUMFERENCE, WITH LAGOON IN CENTER; HAS A FEW COCOANUT TREES (1,100
MILES SOUTHWEST OF HONOLULU). 

KAULA, SMALL, ROCKY ISLAND, A FEW MILES SOUTHWEST OF NIIHAU. 

FRENCH FRIGATE SHOAL, SCATTERED SHOALS OR REEFS." 

FN23  THE UNITED STATES QUESTIONS THE EFFECT ON ANY TITLE OF THE
UNITED STATES TO PALMYRA OF THE DISCLAIMER OF INTEREST IN PALMYRA BY
HAWAII.  THE UNITED STATES ASSERTS THAT ALL PUBLIC LANDS OF HAWAII
PASSED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JULY 7, 1898,
AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF HAWAII OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1897.  REV.
LAWS, HAWAII, 1905, PP. 36, 40.  THEREAFTER, IN 1900, IT IS SAID THAT
CONGRESS MADE PROVISION FOR THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH LANDS.  HAWAIIAN
ORGANIC ACT, 31 STAT. 141; SEC. 73 OF THE ORGANIC ACT, AS AMENDED IN
1910, SEC. 5, 36 STAT. 444; SEC. 2432, REV. LAWS, HAW., 1905.  THE
POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES IS THAT THERE WAS NO POWER IN HAWAII TO
DISCLAIM ANY INTEREST THAT THE UNITED STATES MIGHT HAVE IN PALMYRA IN
1912.  WE NEED NOT RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.  THE LAND COURT RECORD IS
REFERRED TO AS ANOTHER INSTANCE OF THE CLAIMS OF RESPONDENT TO PALMYRA
ADVERSE TO THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS
PREDECESSORS IN TITLE TO THE PUBLIC LANDS OF HAWAII. 

FN24  A STATEMENT OF THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. PENDELL, 185 U.S.
AT 197, IS PERTINENT: 

"THERE ARE NO ADVERSE CLAIMANTS TO THE LAND IN QUESTION, AND THE
PROOF OF POSSESSION, EXCLUSIVE IN ITS NATURE, HAS BEEN SATISFACTORY TO
THE COURT BELOW.  WHAT CONSTITUTES SUCH POSSESSION OF A LARGE TRACT OF
LAND DEPENDS TO SOME EXTENT UPON CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FACT VARYING WITH
DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, SUCH AS THE GENERAL STATE OF THE SURROUNDING
COUNTRY, WHETHER SIMILAR LAND IS CUSTOMARILY DEVOTED TO PASTURAGE OR TO
THE RAISING OF CROPS; TO THE GROWTH OF TIMBER OR TO MINING, OR OTHER
PURPOSES.  THAT WHICH MIGHT SHOW SUBSTANTIAL POSSESSION, EXCLUSIVE IN
ITS CHARACTER, WHERE THE LAND WAS DEVOTED TO THE GRAZING OF NUMEROUS
CATTLE, MIGHT BE INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE SAME KIND OF POSSESSION WHERE
THE LAND WAS SITUATED IN THE MIDST OF A LARGE POPULATION AND THE
COUNTRY DEVOTED, FOR INSTANCE, TO MANUFACTURING PURPOSES.  PERSONAL
FAMILIARITY WITH THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRY AND OF ITS LANDS,
AND ALSO KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE AND MANNER OF THE USE TO WHICH MOST OF
THE LANDS IN THE SAME VICINITY ARE PUT, HAVE GIVEN THE JUDGES OF THE
COURT BELOW UNUSUAL READINESS FOR CORRECTLY JUDGING AND APPRECIATING
THE WEIGHT AND VALUE TO BE ACCORDED EVIDENCE UPON THE SUBJECT OF
POSSESSION OF SUCH LANDS AS ARE HERE INVOLVED." 

FN25  SEE FLETCHER V. FULLER, 120 U.S. 534, 543. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK
AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH THE DISSENTING JUDGES IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
THAT THE POSSESSION SHOWN ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
ESTABLISH THE PRESUMPTION OF A LOST GRANT, EVEN IF TITLE CAN BE
ACQUIRED FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN THAT MANNER.  ACCORDING TO MY
UNDERSTANDING, THE POSSESSION, TO HAVE THAT EFFECT, MUST BE ACTUAL,
OPEN, NOTORIOUS, ADVERSE AND CONTINUOUS FROM THE TIME WHEN THE GRANT IS
PRESUMED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE.  FN1  HERE FOR LONG PERIODS THE
POSSESSION WAS CONSTRUCTIVE AT THE MOST, NOT ACTUAL.  BY THE SAME TOKEN
IT WAS NOT CONTINUOUS.  FN2  I DO NOT THINK THIS COURT SHOULD EXPAND
THE ESTABLISHED BASIS FOR ACQUIRING TITLE TO GOVERNMENT LANDS SO AS TO
INCLUDE ACQUISITION BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, AS IN EFFECT THE COURT'S
OPINION DOES.  ACCORDINGLY, I DISSENT. 

FN1  "AND HENCE, AS A GENERAL RULE, IT IS ONLY WHERE THE POSSESSION
HAS BEEN ACTUAL, OPEN AND EXCLUSIVE FOR THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO BAR AN ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF LAND, THAT
THE PRESUMPTION OF A DEED CAN BE INVOKED."  FLETCHER V. FULLER, 120
U.S. 534, 551.  "THE POSSESSION MUST BE ADVERSE, EXCLUSIVE, AND
UNINTERRUPTED, AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTENCE OF TITLE IN
ANOTHER."  PEABODY V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 546, 550.  THE STATEMENT
IN THE AUTHORITIES THAT THE POSSESSION MUST BE UNINTERRUPTED HAS BEEN
QUALIFIED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT "THIS PRESUMPTION MAY  ...  , IN SOME
INSTANCES, BE PROPERLY INVOKED WHERE A PROPRIETARY RIGHT HAS LONG BEEN
EXERCISED, ALTHOUGH THE EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF THE WHOLE PROPERTY, TO
WHICH THE RIGHT IS ASSERTED, MAY HAVE BEEN OCCASIONALLY INTERRUPTED
DURING THE PERIOD NECESSARY TO CREATE A TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, IF
IN ADDITION TO THE ACTUAL POSSESSION THERE WERE OTHER OPEN ACTS OF
OWNERSHIP."  FLETCHER V. FULLER, SUPRA, AT 552.  AND THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONTINUING POSSESSION WHICH EXISTS "IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY," LAZARUS V. PHELPS, 156 U.S. 202, 204, EVEN IF COMPETENT TO
FURNISH THE BASIS FOR THE FURTHER PRESUMPTION OF A LOST GRANT, IS HERE
REBUTTED BY THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN INTRODUCED.  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN2  THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY OF THE ISLAND'S HISTORY WAS GIVEN, WITH
SUPPORTING RECORD REFERENCES, IN NOTE 3 OF THE DISSENTING OPINION, 156
F.2D 756, 760, FILED BY DENMAN, C.J., WITH WHOM BONE, C.J., AGREED, IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS: 

"ZENAS BENT VISITED THE ISLAND IN APRIL, 1862, AND LEFT FIVE MEN
THERE.  IN JUNE ANNEXATION WAS FORMALLY PROCLAIMED.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR
HOW LONG THE FIVE MEN REMAINED ON THE ISLAND BUT IN DECEMBER OF THE
SAME YEAR BENT TRANSFERRED ALL HIS INTEREST TO WILKINSON.  WILKINSON
DIED IN 1866 AND HIS WILL WAS PROBATED IN NEW ZEALAND GIVING HIS RIGHTS
IN PALMYRA TO HIS WIFE, KALAMA.  NOTHING FURTHER OCCURRED UNTIL 1885
WHEN THE SUPPOSED TITLE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PACIFIC NAVIGATION
COMPANY, A CONVEYANCE BEING EXECUTED BY TWO OF KALAMA'S HEIRS AND
BENT'S DEED BEING ACKNOWLEDGED, 23 YEARS AFTER ITS EXECUTION.  THUS,
EXCEPT FOR THE FIVE MEN LEFT ON THE ISLAND BY BENT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE
ANNEXATION EFFECTIVE, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THERE WAS ANY
POSSESSION OR EVEN VISITS TO THE ISLAND FOR THE 23 YEARS FOLLOWING
ANNEXATION.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE FACT THAT BENT'S DEED WAS NOT
ACKNOWLEDGED UNTIL 1885, AFTER CONVEYANCE BY KALAMA'S HEIRS, CLEARLY
INDICATES THAT, IN THE MEANTIME, NO CLAIM OF TITLE OR POSSESSION WAS
ASSERTED BY ANYONE. 

"EMPLOYEES OF THE PACIFIC NAVIGATION COMPANY OCCUPIED THE ISLAND FOR
APPROXIMATELY A YEAR IN 1885 AND 1886 AND THE COMPANY PAID TAXES IN
1885, 1886 AND 1887, NOT TO THE UNITED STATES BUT TO THE TERRITORY. 
(THE CLAIMANT PLACED THE LANDS ON THE TAX ROLLS AND IN MANY CASES TAXES
WERE PAID ON PUBLIC LANDS.)  THIS COMPANY'S PROJECT APPARENTLY FAILED
AND THERE FOLLOWED ANOTHER LONG PERIOD WHEN THE ISLAND WAS VACANT. 
SOME TIME BETWEEN 1889 AND 1897 A BRITISH VESSEL VISITED THE ISLAND AND
FINDING IT UNINHABITED, CLAIMED IT FOR THAT COUNTRY.  IN 1912 AT THE
INSTIGATION OF HENRY COOPER WHO HAD JUST ACQUIRED THE SUPPOSED TITLE
AND WHOSE LAND COURT PROCEEDING TO REGISTER IT WAS PENDING, A VESSEL OF
THE UNITED STATES NAVY VISITED THE ISLAND IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THIS
COUNTRY'S CLAIM TO IT.  NO OCCUPANTS WERE FOUND ON THE ISLAND.  IN 1913
AND 1914 COOPER MADE SHORT VISITS OF TWO OR THREE WEEKS TO THE ISLAND
AND BUILT A HOUSE THEREON.  HOWEVER, THE ISLAND WAS NOT PERMANENTLY
OCCUPIED AND IN 1914 EVIDENCE WAS FOUND THAT SINCE THE 1913 VISIT
JAPANESE BIRD POACHERS HAD BEEN THERE. 

"IN 1920 ANOTHER ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO COMMERCIALLY DEVELOP THE
ISLAND.  IT WAS LEASED BY COOPER; A CORPORATION, THE ISLAND OF PALMYRA
COPRA COMPANY, WAS ORGANIZED; AND A 'SETTLEMENT GROUP' WAS SENT TO THE
ISLAND.  THIS PROJECT WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL AND ITS ACTIVITIES TERMINATED
AFTER ABOUT A YEAR.  THE FULLARD-LEOS BOUGHT COOPER'S RIGHTS IN 1922
BUT ONLY VISITED THE ISLAND TWICE, ONCE IN 1924 FOR TWELVE DAYS AND
AGAIN IN 1935 FOR ONE DAY.  BETWEEN 1922 AND THE TIME THIS SUIT WAS
COMMENCED, NO ONE LIVED ON THE ISLAND.  IT WAS MOST FREQUENTLY VISITED
BY UNITED STATES NAVY OR COAST GUARD VESSELS WHICH WERE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.  IN FACT, FULLARD-LEO WENT ON THE COAST GUARD VESSEL
'ITASCA' WHEN HE VISITED THE ISLAND IN 1935.  OCCASIONALLY,
VACATIONISTS OR SCIENTISTS MADE SHORT VISITS TO THE ISLAND.  DURING
THIS PERIOD AN UNNAMED MAN LIVED THERE FOR TWO OR THREE MONTHS.  ON
ANOTHER OCCASION (1936) A PARTY FROM TAHITI WENT THERE IN AN ATTEMPT TO
FIND A CARGO OF BUTTON SHELLS WHICH WERE RUMORED TO HAVE BEEN
JETTISONED BY AN UNSEAWORTHY BOAT.  BY 1938, THE HOUSE WHICH COOPER
BUILT IN 1913 HAD COLLAPSED AND ALL THE VARIOUS VISITORS TESTIFIED THEY
DID NOT SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF OCCUPATION IN RECENT TIMES." 

FROM THESE FACTS THE DISSENTING JUDGES CONCLUDED:  "IN THE 77 YEARS
FROM THE ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF TAKING IN 1862 TO THE FILING OF THE
INSTANT CASE IN 1939, THE OCCUPANCY OF THE ISLAND HAS BEEN LESS THAN
TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS.  OF THIS A YEAR WAS IN THE YEARS 1885-86 AND A
YEAR IN 1920.  IN THE INTERIM, FROM 1862 TO 1939, THERE WAS NO ONE
RESIDING THERE UNDER A CLAIM OF POSSESSION - THE OCCASIONAL VISITORS'
BRIEF STAYS BEING FOR OTHER PURPOSES."  156 F.2D 756, 765; AND SEE ID.
AT NOTE 3. 
..END :





NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 284 


ARGUED MARCH 3, 4, 5, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 12, 1947.  - 65 F.SUPP.  856,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  AFTER FINDING THAT THE EXISTING CLASS-FREIGHT-RATE STRUCTURE
DISCRIMINATES IN FAVOR OF THE NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AND AGAINST THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PORTIONS CONTRARY TO SEC. 3(1) OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ISSUED
AN INTERIM ORDER UNDER SEC. 15(1) INCREASING CLASS RATES WITHIN THE
NORTHEASTERN AREA BY 10 PER CENT AND REDUCING THOSE ELSEWHERE EAST OF
THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS BY 10 PER CENT, PENDING THE FORMULATION OF A
NATIONAL UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION OF FREIGHT AND EFFECTUATION OF GREATER
NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IN THE CLASS-FREIGHT-RATE STRUCTURE.  HELD:  THE
ORDER DID NOT EXCEED THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.  PP. 296-300, 340
349. 

(A)  WHATEVER DOUBT MAY HAVE EXISTED AS TO APPLICABILITY OF THE
PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 3(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO REGIONAL
DISCRIMINATIONS IN RATES WAS REMOVED BY THE 1940 AMENDMENT.  P. 300. 

(B)  THE ADDITION OF THE WORDS "REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY" TO SEC.
3(1) DID NOT REQUIRE NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IN RATES REGARDLESS OF
DIFFERING COSTS OF THE SERVICE; BUT MADE PLAIN THE DUTY OF THE
COMMISSION, IN DETERMINING WHETHER DISCRIMINATION EXISTS, TO CONSIDER
THE INTERESTS OF REGIONS, DISTRICTS AND TERRITORIES, AND TO ELIMINATE
TERRITORIAL RATE DIFFERENCES WHICH ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY DIFFERENCES IN
TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS.  PP. 300, 305, 350. 

2.  THE BASIC FINDING OF THE COMMISSION - THAT CLASS RATES WITHIN
SOUTHERN, SOUTHWESTERN, AND WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORIES, AND FROM
THOSE TERRITORIES TO OFFICIAL (NORTHEASTERN) TERRITORY, ARE GENERALLY
MUCH HIGHER, ARTICLE FOR ARTICLE, THAN THE RATES WITHIN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY - IS ABUNDANTLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  PP. 301-305. 

3.  AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN CLASS RATES AGAINST REGIONS OR
TERRITORIES IS NOT DEPENDENT ON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST SHIPPERS LOCATED IN SUCH REGIONS OR TERRITORIES OR NEGATIVED BY
THE FACT THAT ONLY A MINOR PORTION OF FREIGHT MOVES BY CLASS RATES. 
PP. 306-309. 

4.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDING - BASED UPON A BROAD INQUIRY INTO THE
EFFECT OF CLASS RATES ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHERN,
SOUTHWESTERN AND WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORIES - THAT PREJUDICE TO
THESE TERRITORIES HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED, IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  PP. 310-315. 

5.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO THE
RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE
TERRITORIAL CLASS-RATE STRUCTURE IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  PP. 315
332. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN CONSISTS
BETWEEN THE TERRITORIES DO NOT JUSTIFY THE PRESENT DIFFERENCES IN
INTERTERRITORIAL CLASS RATES IS AN EXPERT JUDGMENT ENTITLED TO GREAT
WEIGHT; AND THIS COURT COULD NOT DISTURB ITS FINDINGS ON THE FACTS OF
THIS RECORD WITHOUT INVADING THE PROVINCE RESERVED FOR THE EXPERT
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.  P. 326. 

(B)  THE EARNING POWER OF THE CARRIERS, THEIR FREIGHT OPERATING
RATIOS, THEIR RATES OF RETURN, THE ESTIMATE OF THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC IN
THE FUTURE, AND THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC PRESENTLY INVOLVED IN
THE CLASS-RATE MOVEMENTS ARE ALL RELEVANT TO THE FINDING OF UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION; AND THIS COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS DO
NOT COUNTERBALANCE OR OUTWEIGH THE HIGHER OPERATING COSTS IN THE WEST,
SINCE THE APPRAISAL OF THESE NUMEROUS FACTORS IS FOR TRANSPORTATION
EXPERTS AND THE ERROR OF JUDGMENT ON THEIR PART, IF ANY, IS NOT OF THE
EGREGIOUS TYPE WHICH IS WITHIN THE REACH OF THIS COURT ON JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  P. 331. 

(C)  AN ASSUMPTION THAT A REDUCTION IN THE WESTERN RATE STRUCTURE,
WHICH, AS COMPARED WITH THE EASTERN, IS NOT WARRANTED BY TERRITORIAL
CONDITIONS AND WHICH PREJUDICES THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST,
WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT IN INCREASING THE TRAFFIC OF THE WESTERN CARRIERS
WOULD FLY IN THE FACE OF HISTORY, IS CONTRARY TO THE COMMISSION'S
EXPERT JUDGMENT AND WOULD PROTECT A DISCRIMINATORY RATE STRUCTURE FROM
THE POWER OF REVISION GRANTED THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 3(1).  P. 332. 

6.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
TRAFFIC AS A WHOLE IS CARRIED AT A DEFICIT IN ALL TERRITORIES, EXCEPT
POSSIBLY IN THE SOUTH, THIS COURT WILL NOT SET ASIDE THE ORDER
TEMPORARILY REDUCING THE CLASS RATES ON THAT TRAFFIC - ESPECIALLY IN
VIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT SUCH TRAFFIC CONSTITUTES LESS
THAN 2 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL RAILROAD FREIGHT TONNAGE, THAT MUCH OF IT
MOVES ON EXCEPTION RATES AND COMMODITY RATES INSTEAD OF CLASS RATES,
AND THAT, IF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES WERE LEFT UNCHANGED WHILE CLASS
RATES WERE REDUCED, THE COMPETITIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN SHIPPERS OF LESS
THAN-CARLOAD QUANTITIES AND THOSE SHIPPING IN CARLOADS WOULD BE
MATERIALLY AFFECTED.  PP. 332-340. 

(A)  IN ELIMINATING UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ENTIRE REGIONS AND
ESTABLISHING THE UNIFORMITY REQUIRED BY LAW IN A COMPLETE RATE
STRUCTURE, THE COMMISSION WAS WARRANTED IN MAKING MINOR COLLATERAL
READJUSTMENTS SO AS TO AVOID CREATING NEW DISCRIMINATIONS.  P. 334. 

(B)  THIS COURT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE NEW LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES
ARE CONFISCATORY - ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE ORDER IS OF
AN INTERIM NATURE, THIS REDUCTION HAS SINCE BEEN OFFSET BY A NATIONWIDE
INCREASE IN ALL FREIGHT RATES, THE COMMISSION INVITED THE CARRIERS TO
APPLY PROMPTLY FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO INSURE THAT THE RATES ON SUCH TRAFFIC
ARE ON A COMPENSATORY LEVEL, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN THAT THE
RESULT OF THE ORDER WILL BE CONFISCATORY.  PP. 334-340. 

(C)  IF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NECESSARY TO PASS ON AN ISSUE OF
CONFISCATION RAISED IN A PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
BUT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THERE, THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE COMMISSION FOR A
FURTHER PRELIMINARY EXPERT APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS WHICH BEAR ON THAT
QUESTION, INSTEAD OF RECEIVING THE EVIDENCE ITSELF AS THOUGH IT WERE
CONDUCTING A TRIAL DE NOVO.  PP. 335-336. 

(D)  THE DISTRICT COURT AMPLY PROTECTED APPELLANTS WHEN IT OVERRULED
THEIR CLAIM THAT THE INTERIM RATES ARE CONFISCATORY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO ANOTHER SUIT TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THOSE RATES IF, AFTER A
FAIR TEST, THEY PROVE TO BE BELOW THE LOWEST REACHES OF A REASONABLE
MINIMUM OR IF THE PERMANENT RATES DO NOT MEET THAT STANDARD.  P. 340. 

7.  WHERE THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT AN EXISTING RATE RESULTS IN
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION CONTRARY TO SEC. 3(1), IT MAY, UNDER SEC.
15(1), PRESCRIBE A NEW RATE WHICH WILL BE JUST AND REASONABLE.  PP. 340
343, 345. 

(A)  IT IS NOT PREVENTED FROM DOING SO BY THE FACT THAT ALL RATES
INVOLVED IN THE RATE RELATIONSHIP ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE SAME
CARRIERS.  PP. 342-343. 

(B)  IT MAY TAKE ONE STEP AT A TIME AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE
ALL EVILS IN THE RATE STRUCTURE OR NONE.  P. 343. 

8.  IN PRESCRIBING A 10 PER CENT INCREASE IN CLASS RATES IN THE
NORTHEAST, AS PART OF A GENERAL ADJUSTMENT OF THE RATE STRUCTURE FOR
ALL OF THE UNITED STATES EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS IN ORDER TO
ELIMINATE UNJUST TERRITORIAL DISCRIMINATIONS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 3(1),
THE COMMISSION DID NOT EXCEED ITS AUTHORITY, EVEN THOUGH THE EXISTING
CLASS RATES IN THE NORTHEAST WERE WITHIN THE ZONE OF REASONABLENESS. 
PP. 343-349. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION HAVING GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION, AS REQUIRED BY
SEC. 15A (2), TO THE EFFECT OF THE RATES ON THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC,
THE NEED OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT
THE LOWEST COST CONSISTENT WITH THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICE, AND THE
NEED OF REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE CARRIERS TO PROVIDE SUCH
SERVICE, THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THOSE FACTORS, AND ESPECIALLY THE
WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THE RATE OF RETURN IN CURRENT YEARS AS OPPOSED TO
THAT IN THE PRECEDING DECADE, IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE; AND
THIS COURT WOULD USURP THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION IF
IT OVERRULED THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT AND SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN
APPRAISAL OF THESE FACTORS.  PP. 347-349. 

9.  THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED A NATIONWIDE
INCREASE IN ALL FREIGHT RATES DOES NOT RENDER THE INTERIM ORDERS
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE OBSOLETE AND UNENFORCEABLE; SINCE THE ORDER
GRANTING THE RATE INCREASE EMPHASIZES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN REVENUE
AND RATE-RELATIONSHIP CASES AND IN NO WAY IMPAIRS THE FINDING IN THE
PRESENT CASE THAT THE EXISTING CLASS-RATE STRUCTURE THAT HAS PREVAILED
IN THE SEVERAL TERRITORIES VIOLATES SEC. 3(1).  PP. 349-350. 

NEW YORK ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

NO. 343.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 344, HILDRETH, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MAINE, ET
AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL., AND NO. 345, ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE
R. CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL., ALSO ON APPEALS FROM THE SAME
COURT. 

FINDING THAT THE EXISTING CLASS-FREIGHT-RATE STRUCTURE DISCRIMINATES
IN FAVOR OF THE NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND AGAINST
THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PORTIONS, CONTRARY TO SEC. 3(1) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ISSUED
INTERIM ORDERS UNDER SEC. 15(1) INCREASING CLASS RATES IN THE NORTHEAST
BY 10 PER CENT AND REDUCING THOSE ELSEWHERE EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS
BY 10 PER CENT, PENDING FORMULATION OF A NATIONAL UNIFORM
CLASSIFICATION AND EFFECTUATION OF GREATER NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IN THE
CLASS-FREIGHT-RATE STRUCTURE.  IN SUITS BY OR ON BEHALF OF NORTHERN AND
NEW ENGLAND STATES AND WESTERN RAILROADS TO SET ASIDE THESE ORDERS, THE
DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE ORDERS.  65 F.SUPP.  856.  AFFIRMED, P.
351. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
BURTON. 

THE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WHICH APPELLANTS
SEEK TO HAVE SET ASIDE, RESULTED FROM TWO SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS
INSTITUTED BY THE COMMISSION ON ITS OWN MOTION IN 1939 TO INQUIRE INTO
THE LAWFULNESS OR UNLAWFULNESS OF MOST OF THE THEN EXISTING RATE-MAKING
STANDARDS FOR INTERSTATE RAILROAD CLASS FREIGHT RATES IN THE UNITED
STATES.  ONE INVESTIGATION RELATED TO CLASSIFICATIONS  FN1  UNDER WHICH
COMMODITIES MOVE BY RAIL FREIGHT.  THE OTHER RELATED TO CLASS RATES. 
FN2  THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONSOLIDATED AND WERE COVERED BY ONE
REPORT, AS THE PROBLEMS OF CLASSIFICATION AND OF CLASS RATES  FN3  ARE
CLOSELY INTERRELATED.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AS TO
CLASSIFICATIONS ARE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED HERE.  FOR THE ORDERS OF THE
COMMISSION UNDER ATTACK ARE INTERIM ORDERS WHICH AFFECT ONLY CLASS
RATES, INCREASING THEM IN SOME AREAS AND DECREASING THEM IN OTHERS. 
BUT A REVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS BOTH ON
CLASSIFICATIONS AND ON CLASS RATES ARE ESSENTIAL FOR AN UNDERSTANDING
OF THE PROBLEM. 

WHILE THERE ARE THREE MAJOR CLASSIFICATION TERRITORIES, THERE ARE
FIVE MAJOR RATE TERRITORIES.  FN4  OFFICIAL TERRITORY, ROUGHLY
SPEAKING, LIES EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI AND NORTH OF THE OHIO AND
POTOMAC RIVERS; IT ALSO INCLUDES MOST OF VIRGINIA.  SOUTHERN TERRITORY
LIES SOUTH OF OFFICIAL TERRITORY AND EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI.  WESTERN
TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY AND THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS.  SOUTHWESTERN TERRITORY LIES SOUTH
OF WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY AND WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI AND
INCLUDES ARKANSAS, TEXAS, OKLAHOMA, AND PART OF LOUISIANA.  MOUNTAIN
PACIFIC TERRITORY INCLUDES MONTANA AND NEW MEXICO AND ALL TERRITORY
WEST OF THE ROCKIES.  ONLY MOUNTAIN-PACIFIC TERRITORY IS NOT INVOLVED
IN THESE CASES. 

THE THREE MAJOR CLASSIFICATIONS ARE OFFICIAL, SOUTHERN AND WESTERN. 
FN5  BUT THERE IS GREAT LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN THE CLASSIFICATIONS.  THE
PROBLEM IS ONE WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS LONG WRESTLED.  FN6  BUT
PRIOR TO THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION ITS CHIEF ACCOMPLISHMENT IN THIS
FIELD HAD BEEN TO ESTABLISH CLASSIFICATION UNIFORMITY WITHIN THE
SEPARATE TERRITORIES.  NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION UNIFORMITY WAS STILL IN
THE MAIN LACKING.  MANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CLASSIFICATIONS ON A
PARTICULAR RATING ARE MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE; OTHERS ARE MATTERS OF
NOMENCLATURE.  MOREOVER, THERE HAS BEEN A TENDENCY AMONG CARRIERS TO
WORK AGAINST THE EVOLUTION OF UNIFORM CLASSIFICATIONS BY MAKING
EXCEPTIONS WHICH REMOVE COMMODITIES FROM THE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR RATE
MAKING PURPOSES. 

54 STAT. 899, 900, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(4) PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE THE
DUTY OF COMMON CARRIERS TO ESTABLISH JUST AND REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATIONS APPLICABLE TO THROUGH FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES. 
COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE JUST, FAIR, AND REASONABLE CLASSIFICATIONS,
AFTER A FINDING THAT EXISTING CLASSIFICATIONS ARE UNLAWFUL.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE EXISTING CLASSIFICATIONS ARE UNLAWFUL AND
WILL CONTINUE TO BE UNLAWFUL UNTIL THERE IS NATIONAL UNIFORMITY OF
CLASSIFICATION.  IT FOUND THAT DIFFERENCES IN THE APPLICABLE
CLASSIFICATIONS AFFECT THE LEVELS OF THE CLASS RATES AS MUCH AS OR
MORE, IN SOME INSTANCES, THAN THE DIFFERENCES IN THE LEVELS OF THE
CLASS RATE SCALES THEMSELVES.  IT FOUND THAT SHIPPERS IN ONE TERRITORY
PAY MORE THAN SHIPPERS IN ANOTHER TERRITORY ON THE SAME ARTICLE BECAUSE
OF CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES; THAT TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES SEPARATING
CLASSIFICATION TERRITORIES ARE ARTIFICIAL AND CAUSE SERIOUS
COMPLICATIONS; THAT WHERE GEOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS PRODUCE DIVERGENT
COSTS, REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, OR OTHER CONDITIONS REQUIRING RATE
ADJUSTMENTS, THE ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD BE MADE NOT IN THE BASIC
CLASSIFICATION ITSELF BUT IN THE RATE LEVELS OR BY THE CREATION OF
LEGITIMATE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CLASSIFICATION; THAT AMONGST THE
CLASSIFICATIONS THERE WAS NO REAL UNIFORMITY OF CLASSIFICATION RATINGS
ALTHOUGH THE SAME CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES ARE APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT
THE NATION.  IT CONCLUDED THAT WITHOUT SUCH UNIFORMITY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO MAINTAIN JUST AND REASONABLE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CLASS RATES FOR
COMPETING COMMODITIES; THAT IT IS FEASIBLE FOR THE CARRIERS TO
ESTABLISH A UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION.  THE COMMISSION GAVE THE RAILROADS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN PREPARING THE NEW UNIFORM
CLASSIFICATION - AN INVITATION WHICH, WE ARE ADVISED, HAS BEEN
ACCEPTED. 

PRIOR TO THIS PROCEEDING THE COMMISSION MADE FOUR MAJOR CLASS RATE
INVESTIGATIONS - ONE FOR EACH OF THE RATE TERRITORIES EXCEPT MOUNTAIN
PACIFIC.  FN7  THESE ESTABLISHED CLASS RATE STRUCTURES ON A REGIONAL
BASIS, I.E. THEY ESTABLISHED SOME DEGREE OF UNIFORMITY IN CLASS RATES
WITHIN EACH TERRITORY OR SUBDIVISION OF A TERRITORY.  BUT THEY DID NOT
DEAL WITH INTERTERRITORIAL CLASS RATES BY HARMONIZING REGIONAL RATE
ADJUSTMENTS ONE WITH THE OTHER.  AS A RESULT THERE ARE SEPARATE
INTERTERRITORIAL RATE STRUCTURES APPLICABLE TO FREIGHT TRAFFIC MOVING
FROM ONE TERRITORY INTO ANOTHER. 

THESE TERRITORIAL CLASS RATE STRUCTURES ARE EXCEEDINGLY COMPLICATED. 
THERE IS NO BASIC UNIFORMITY AMONGST THEM AND THEY ARE COMPUTED BY
VARYING FORMULAE. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT CLASS RATES WITHIN SOUTHERN, SOUTHWESTERN
AND WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORIES, AND FROM THOSE TERRITORIES TO
OFFICIAL TERRITORY, WERE GENERALLY MUCH HIGHER, ARTICLE FOR ARTICLE,
THAN THE RATES WITHIN OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  IT FOUND THAT HIGHER CLASS
RATES HAVE IMPEDED THE DEVELOPMENT AND MOVEMENT OF CLASS RATE FREIGHT
WITHIN SOUTHERN, SOUTHWESTERN AND WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORIES AND
FROM THOSE TERRITORIES TO OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  IT CONCLUDED THAT
NEITHER THE COMPARATIVE COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE NOR VARIATIONS
IN THE CONSISTS  FN8 AND VOLUME OF TRAFFIC WITHIN THE TERRITORIES
JUSTIFIED THOSE DIFFERENCES IN THE CLASS RATES.  THE COMMISSION ALSO
DETERMINED THAT EQUALIZATION OF CLASS RATES IS NOT DEPENDENT ON
EQUALIZATION OF NON-CLASS RATES AND THAT INTERTERRITORIAL RATE PROBLEMS
CAN BE SOLVED ONLY BY ESTABLISHING SUBSTANTIAL UNIFORMITY IN CLASS
RATINGS AND RATES. 

JUST AND REASONABLE.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE INTRATERRITORIAL
CLASS RATES APPLICABLE TO THE TERRITORIES IN QUESTION AND THE
INTERTERRITORIAL CLASS RATES BETWEEN THE TERRITORIES VIOLATE THOSE
PROVISIONS. 

ADVANTAGES TO ANY REGION, DISTRICT, OR TERRITORY.  THE COMMISSION FOUND
THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE INTERTERRITORIAL CLASS RATES TO OFFICIAL
TERRITORY FROM THE OTHER TERRITORIES IN QUESTION AND THE
INTRATERRITORIAL CLASS RATES WITHIN OFFICIAL TERRITORY RESULTS IN AN
UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE TO OFFICIAL TERRITORY AS A WHOLE, AND TO
SHIPPERS AND RECEIVERS OF FREIGHT LOCATED THERE, IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
3(1).  THE COMMISSION, ACTING PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.
15(1) OF THE ACT, PRESCRIBED REASONABLE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY CLASS
RATES TO CURE THE PREFERENCE FOUND TO EXIST, THE NEW RATES TO BECOME
APPLICABLE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE NEW REVISED CLASSIFICATION WHICH, AS
WE HAVE NOTED, THE COMMISSION ORDERED TO BE ESTABLISHED. 

BUT TIME WILL BE REQUIRED TO FORMULATE A UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION.  AND
THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT PENDING COMPLETION OF THAT UNDERTAKING
CERTAIN INTERIM READJUSTMENTS IN THE EXISTING BASIS OF CLASS RATES,
BASED ON EXISTING CLASSIFICATIONS, COULD BE MADE - READJUSTMENTS WHICH
WOULD BE JUST AND REASONABLE, AND WHICH WOULD REDUCE TO A MINIMUM THE
PREFERENCES AND PREJUDICES WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND TO BE UNLAWFUL IN
THE EXISTING SYSTEM.  IT DETERMINED THAT THE SEVERAL INTRATERRITORIAL
FREIGHT-RATE STRUCTURES SHOULD BE BROUGHT CLOSER TO THE SAME LEVEL AND
BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SAME PATTERN OR SCHEME.  IT CONCLUDED THAT AS
MANY DIFFERENCES AS POSSIBLE BETWEEN THE INTERTERRITORIAL RATES AND THE
INTRATERRITORIAL RATES SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.  IT ACCORDINGLY ORDERED
THAT EXISTING INTERSTATE CLASS RATES  FN9  APPLICABLE TO FREIGHT
TRAFFIC MOVING AT THE CLASSIFICATION RATINGS WITHIN SOUTHERN,
SOUTHWESTERN, AND WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORIES, INTERTERRITORIALLY
BETWEEN THOSE TERRITORIES, AND INTERTERRITORIALLY BETWEEN EACH OF THOSE
TERRITORIES AND OFFICIAL TERRITORY, BE REDUCED 10 PER CENT SUBJECT TO
QUALIFICATIONS NOT IMPORTANT HERE.  IT ALSO ORDERED THAT INTERSTATE
CLASS RATES FOR FREIGHT TRAFFIC MOVING AT CLASSIFICATION RATINGS WITHIN
OFFICIAL TERRITORY BE INCREASED 10 PER CENT, SUBJECT TO QUALIFICATIONS
NOT RELEVANT TO OUR PROBLEM.  IT FOUND THE NEW INTERIM CLASS RATES JUST
AND REASONABLE.  262 I.C.C. 447, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT, 264 I.C.C. 41. 

THE NEW INTERIM RATES WERE ORDERED TO BECOME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,
1946.  PRIOR TO THAT DATE, NEW YORK AND OTHER NORTHERN STATES,
APPELLANTS IN NO. 343, FILED THEIR PETITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION.  A STATUTORY THREE JUDGE COURT
WAS CONVENED AND A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED PREVENTING THE
ORDERS FROM GOING INTO EFFECT.  38 STAT. 208, 220, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47. 
THE GOVERNORS OF THE SIX NEW ENGLAND STATES (THREE OF WHOSE SUCCESSORS
IN OFFICE HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS APPELLANTS IN NO. 344) INTERVENED ON
THE SIDE OF THE PLAINTIFFS, AS DID MOST OF THE APPELLANTS IN NO. 345. 
THE COMMISSION AND OTHERS  FN10  INTERVENED ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED
STATES.  APPELLANTS IN NO. 345, INCLUDING MOST OF THE WESTERN
RAILROADS, ALSO FILED THEIR PETITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT SEEKING
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RELIEF AS APPELLANTS IN NO. 343.  THE CASES WERE
CONSOLIDATED AND TRIED TOGETHER, THE DISTRICT COURT RECEIVING
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE WESTERN RAILROADS.  THE COURT
SUSTAINED THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION IN ALL RESPECTS, 65 F.SUPP. 
856, BUT CONTINUED THE INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL TO THIS COURT.  FN11
JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 210, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47A. 

FIRST.  THE PRINCIPAL EVIL AT WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WAS
AIMED WAS DISCRIMINATION IN ITS VARIOUS MANIFESTATIONS.  LOUISVILLE &
N.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 740, 749-750.  UNTIL 1935, SEC.
3(1) OF THE ACT PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION ONLY AGAINST A "PERSON,
COMPANY, FIRM, CORPORATION, OR LOCALITY, OR ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION
OF TRAFFIC  ...  " 24 STAT. 379, 380.  THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER
"LOCALITY" INCLUDED A PORT INSOFAR AS THE PORT WAS NOT A POINT OF
ORIGIN OR DESTINATION BUT A GATEWAY THROUGH WHICH SHIPMENTS WERE MADE. 
THE COURT HELD BY A CLOSELY DIVIDED VOTE, AND CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF
THE COMMISSION, THAT IT DID NOT.  TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 627.  THEREAFTER CONGRESS AMENDED SEC. 3(1) SO AS TO
EXTEND THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION TO INCLUDE A "PORT, PORT
DISTRICT, GATEWAY, TRANSIT POINT."  49 STAT. 607.  AND SEE ALBANY PORT
DISTRICT COMMISSION V. AHNAPEE & W.R. CO., 219 I.C.C. 151.  THAT WAS IN
1935.  IN 1940 CONGRESS WENT FURTHER.  BY SEC. 5(B) OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 899, 902, KNOWN AS THE RAMSPECK
RESOLUTION, IT AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED THE COMMISSION TO INSTITUTE AN
INVESTIGATION INTO RATES ON COMMODITIES BETWEEN POINTS IN ONE
CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY AND POINTS IN ANOTHER TERRITORY AND INTO LIKE
RATES WITHIN TERRITORIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THOSE
RATES WERE "UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE OR UNLAWFUL IN ANY OTHER RESPECT IN
AND OF THEMSELVES OR IN THEIR RELATION TO EACH OTHER, AND TO ENTER SUCH
ORDERS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE REMOVAL OF ANY UNLAWFULNESS WHICH
MAY BE FOUND TO EXIST  ...  "  FN12 CONGRESS ALSO EXTENDED THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATIONS BY ADDING TO SEC. 3(1) THE WORDS
"REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY."  FN13 

IT IS NOW ASSERTED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS MISUNDERSTOOD ITS DUTIES
UNDER THESE 1940 AMENDMENTS.  IT IS SAID THAT THE COMMISSION HAS
CONSTRUED THIS MANDATE OF CONGRESS TO MEAN THAT IDENTICAL RATES, MILE
FOR MILE, SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, IN FACE OF A
LONG-STANDING PRACTICE OF RATE-MAKING (WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE 1940 AMENDMENTS SHOWS WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED) THAT ALLOWED
DIFFERENCES IN RATES WHICH WERE BASED ON DIFFERENCES IN THE LENGTH OF
HAUL, CHARACTER OF THE TERRAIN, DENSITY OF TRAFFIC, AND OTHER ELEMENTS
OF THE COST OF SERVICE.  THUS IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COMMISSION RUNS
AFOUL OF ANN ARBOR R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 658, WHICH
INVOLVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS DIRECTING
THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER EXISTING
RATES AND CHARGES WERE UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY
SO AS TO GIVE UNDUE ADVANTAGE "AS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS LOCALITIES AND
PARTS OF THE COUNTRY  ...  "  43 STAT. 801, 802.  THE COMMISSION,
RELYING ON THAT MANDATE, CONDEMNED CERTAIN EXISTING RATES BETWEEN
CALIFORNIA AND EASTERN POINTS.  THE COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION, HOLDING THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION DID NOT PURPORT TO CHANGE
THE EXISTING LAW BUT LEFT THE VALIDITY OF RATES TO BE DETERMINED BY
THAT LAW. 

BUT THE COMMISSION IN THE PRESENT CASES DID NOT PROCEED ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE RAMSPECK RESOLUTION CHANGED THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW. 
AS WE READ ITS REPORT, THE COMMISSION TOOK THE RESOLUTION ONLY AS A
DIRECTIVE TO INVESTIGATE AND CORRECT VIOLATIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW AS
IT DEEMED THAT LAW BROADENED BY THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 3(1).  IT SAID: 

"BY THE AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTANTIVE ANTIDISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS OF
PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE, OR UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR
DISADVANTAGE, AS BETWEEN REGIONS, DISTRICTS, OR TERRITORIES, VIEWED AS
SEPARATE ENTITIES, WERE BROUGHT DIRECTLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT
ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER INHIBITIONS PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED.  WE WERE THEN
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED BY THE OTHER PROVISIONS MENTIONED TO REMOVE ANY
SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS FOUND TO EXIST IN A PROPER PROCEEDING.  THIS MEANS
THAT SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS AS THOSE MENTIONED WHICH RESULT FROM
DIFFERENCES IN THE METHODS OF DISTRIBUTING THE GENERAL RATE BURDEN IN
THE SEVERAL RATE-MAKING TERRITORIES, OR FROM ANY OTHER CAUSE, IF NOT
JUSTIFIED UPON PROPER CONSIDERATION OF RECOGNIZED ELEMENTS OF RATE
MAKING APPLIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMENDED LAW ARE UNLAWFUL AND SHOULD
BE CORRECTED."  262 I.C.C. P. 692. 

FROM THIS STATEMENT IT IS APPARENT THAT THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT
THE 1940 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 3(1) ENLARGED THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION.  THE
COMMISSION, INDEED, STATED THAT "IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MAIN PURPOSE
WHICH CONGRESS HAD IN MIND WAS TO BRING ABOUT A GREATER DEGREE OF
EQUALIZATION, HARMONY, AND UNIFORMITY IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONAL OR
TERRITORIAL RATE STRUCTURES OF THE COUNTRY."  ID. P. 692.  AND SEE ID.
PP. 688-691.  BUT IT IS SUGGESTED THAT DISCRIMINATIONS BASED ON
GEOGRAPHIC FACTORS WERE OUT-LAWED PRIOR TO THE 1940 AMENDMENT TO SEC.
3(1), AS EVIDENCED BY ITS LONG-STANDING CONDEMNATION OF "UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE" TO ANY "LOCALITY" AND, SINCE
1935, TO ANY "PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY, TRANSIT POINT."  FN14  IT
IS, MOREOVER, SUGGESTED THAT EVEN THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATIONS
AGAINST SHIPPERS WAS BROAD ENOUGH ALL ALONG TO BAN DISCRIMINATIONS
BASED ON THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF THE SHIPPERS.  THE CONTENTION IS
THAT WITHOUT A CHANGE IN THE LAW THE PRESENT ORDERS WERE UNWARRANTED;
IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE CLASS RATES NOW CONDEMNED HAD BEEN FOUND BY
THE COMMISSION ITSELF TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE IN RECENT YEARS.  AND
IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT TAKE ITS PRESENT ACTION ON A
SHOWING OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THOSE TIMES.  THE CONCLUSION,
THEREFORE, IS THAT THE PRESENT ORDERS ARE NOT WARRANTED BY SEC. 3(1). 

WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER, PRIOR TO THE 1940 AMENDMENT, SEC.
3(1), BY ITS BAN ON UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST A "LOCALITY,"
WOULD HAVE PERMITTED THE COMMISSION TO ERADICATE REGIONAL
DISCRIMINATIONS IN CLASS RATES.  FOR WHATEVER DOUBT MAY HAVE EXISTED IN
THE LAW WAS REMOVED BY THE 1940 AMENDMENT WHICH MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR
THAT CONGRESS THOUGHT THAT THE PROBLEM OF REGIONAL DISCRIMINATIONS HAD
BEEN NEGLECTED AND THAT, IF ANY SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS WERE FOUND TO BE
PRESENT, THEY SHOULD BE ERADICATED.  FN15  BUT, AS THE COMMISSION
CONCEDES, THE ADDITION OF "REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY" TO SEC. 3(1)
DID NOT CHANGE THE LAW RESPECTING DISCRIMINATION BY AUTHORIZING UNIFORM
FREIGHT RATES, MILE FOR MILE, WITHOUT REGARD TO DIFFERING COSTS OF THE
SERVICE.  CONGRESS, BY ADDING THOSE WORDS, MADE PLAIN THE DUTY OF THE
COMMISSION, IN DETERMINING WHETHER DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES EXIST, TO
CONSIDER THE INTERESTS OF REGIONS, DISTRICTS, AND TERRITORIES, AND TO
ELIMINATE TERRITORIAL RATE DIFFERENCES WHICH ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY
DIFFERENCES IN TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS.  IN OTHER WORDS CONGRESS DID NOT
INTRODUCE A NEW STANDARD OF DISCRIMINATION BY ITS AMENDMENT TO SEC.
3(1); IT MERELY MADE CLEAR ITS PURPOSE THAT REGIONS, DISTRICTS, AND
TERRITORIES SHOULD BE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE LAW AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION. 

SECOND.  IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION
CONCERNING REGIONAL DISCRIMINATIONS IN CLASS RATES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

THE GREAT DIFFERENCES BETWEN TERRITORIAL CLASS RATE LEVELS ARE SHOWN
BY THE FOLLOWING TABLE.  IT GIVES A COMPARISON (IN CENTS PER 100
POUNDS) BETWEEN THE FIRST-CLASS RATE SCALE WITHIN OFFICIAL TERRITORY
AND THAT WITHIN EACH OF THE OTHER TERRITORIES:

                           (CHART OMITTED) 

THESE FIRST-CLASS INTRATERRITORIAL RATES ARE USED AS BASES IN
FORMULATING RATES ON OTHER CLASSES OF FREIGHT IN THE RESPECTIVE
TERRITORIES.  FN16 

THE FOLLOWING TABLES COMPILED BY GOVERNMENT COUNSEL SHOW THE FIRST
CLASS RATES FOR INTERTERRITORIAL MOVEMENTS TO OFFICIAL TERRITORY FROM
EACH OF THE OTHER TERRITORIES AS COMPARED WITH INTRATERRITORIAL
MOVEMENTS FOR APPROXIMATELY EQUAL DISTANCES WITHIN OFFICIAL TERRITORY:

DISADVANTAGE

                          OF SOUTHERN

                                                 TERRITORY SHIPPER

                   COMPARED

   SOUTHERN V. OFFICIAL                                 FIRST
WITH OFFICIAL

                                               MILES    CLASS
TERRITORY

                  RATES          SHIPPER

       FROM -                    TO -
IN CENTS IN PER CENT 

NASHVILLE, TENN----------INDIANAPOLIS, IND--------   297      135 

INDIANAPOLIS, IND--------KENT, OHIO---------------   296       96
 39           41 

KNOXVILLE, TENN----------COLUMBUS, OHIO-----------   395      155 

BALTIMORE, MD------------WARREN, OHIO-------------   392      103
52           50 

BIRMINGHAM, ALA----------MUNCIE, IND--------------   536      179 

PITTSBURGH, PA-----------ROCKFORD, ILL------------   538      128
 51    40 

CHATTANOOGA, TENN--------CHICAGO, ILL------------- 594      187 

PHILADELPHIA, PA---------TOLEDO, OHIO-------------   595      135
 52           39 

ATLANTA, GA--------------CHICAGO, ILL-------------   731      210 

DANVILLE, ILL------------WASHINGTON, D.C.---------   733      151
59           39 

MACON, GA----------------CHICAGO, ILL-------------   819      223 

TRENTON, N.J.            DANVILLE, ILL------------   819      163
 60           37

         DISADVANTAGE OF

                                      SOUTHWESTERN

   TERRITORY

                             SHIPPER

                                                    COMPARED

 SOUTHWESTERN V. OFFICIAL   FIRST       WITH OFFICIAL

                 MILES    CLASS         TERRITORY

                                                   RATES
SHIPPER

        FROM -                    TO -                         IN
CENTS  IN PER CENT 

LITTLE ROCK, ARK-----------DETROIT, MICH----------    785     222 

OFFICIAL TERRITORY POINT---DETROIT, MICH----------    785     160
62           39 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA--------CINCINNATI, OHIO-------    882     244 

OFFICIAL TERRITORY POINT---CINCINNATI, OHIO-------    882     171
 73           43 

SHREVEPORT, LA-------------CLEVELAND, OHIO--------  1,013    264 

OFFICIAL TERRITORY POINT---CLEVELAND, OHIO-------- 1,013     185
79           43 

DALLAS, TEX----------------PITTSBURGH, PA---------  1,224     304 

OFFICIAL TERRITORY POINT---PITTSBURGH, PA---------  1,224     207  97
     47

                            DISADVANTAGE

                                                        OF WESTERN

                   TRUNK-LINE

                                              TERRITORY

     SHIPPER COMPARED

   WESTERN TRUNK-LINE V. OFFICIAL                            FIRST
   WITH

                                         MILES  CLASS   OFFICIAL
TERRITORY

               RATES         SHIPPER

            FROM -                       TO -
IN CENTS  IN PER CENT 

DES MOINES, IOWA-------------------TOLEDO, OHIO--------   558   142 

OFFICIAL TERRITORY POINT-----------TOLEDO, OHIO--------   558   118
  24           20 

ST. PAUL, MINN---------------------SOUTH BEND, IND-----   491   138 

OFFICIAL TERRITORY POINT-----------SOUTH BEND, IND-----   491   111
  27           24 

LINCOLN, NEBR----------------------EVANSVILLE, IND-----   612   169 

OFFICIAL TERRITORY POINT-----------EVANSVILLE, IND-----   612   125
  44           35 

DENVER, COLO-----------------------CLEVELAND, OHIO----- 1,329   289 

OFFICIAL TERRITORY POINT-----------CLEVELAND, OHIO----- 1,329   200
  89           45 

THE DISADVANTAGE TO THE SOUTHERN OR WESTERN SHIPPER WHO ATTEMPTS TO
MARKET HIS PRODUCT IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY IS OBVIOUS.  THUS THE FIRST OF
THESE TABLES SHOWS THAT A NASHVILLE SHIPPER PAYS 39 CENTS MORE ON EACH
100 POUNDS OF FREIGHT MOVING TO INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA THAN ONE WHO
SHIPS FROM INDIANAPOLIS TO A POINT OF SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL DISTANCE AWAY
(KENT, OHIO) IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  SIMILAR DISADVANTAGES SUFFERED BY
SOUTHERN AND WESTERN SHIPPERS ARE REVEALED IN THE OTHER COMPARABLE
INTERTERRITORIAL FREIGHT MOVEMENTS SET FORTH IN THE TABLES. 

THAT DISADVANTAGE IS EMPHASIZED IF THE EFFECTS OF CLASSIFICATION
DIFFERENCES ON RATES FOR IDENTICAL COMMODITIES ARE CONSIDERED.  A
COMPARISON OF RATES IN CENTS PER 100 POUNDS FOR 200 MILES SHOWS THAT,
EVEN THOUGH SHIPPERS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST HAVE THE SAME OR LOWER
CLASSIFICATION RATINGS FOR IDENTICAL COMMODITIES, THEY NEVERTHELESS ON
THE WHOLE PAY HIGHER CHARGES THAN THE SHIPPERS IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY
FOR EQUIVALENT SERVICE.  THUS THERE ARE IN CLASS 100(FIRST CLASS) FOR
LESS-THAN-CARLOAD LOTS 2092 ITEMS COMMON TO THE THREE CLASSIFICATIONS. 
IN OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION ALL OF THESE MOVE AT A RATE OF 80 CENTS PER
100 POUNDS FOR A HAUL OF 200 MILES.  IN SOUTHERN, 2075 OF THESE ITEMS
ARE CLASSIFIED 100 AND MOVE AT A RATE OF $1.12.  OF THE REMAINING 17
ITEMS 5 ARE CLASSIFIED IN SOUTHERN IN CLASS 85 WITH A RATE OF 95, 2 IN
CLASS 70 WITH A RATE OF 78, 7 IN CLASS 55 WITH A RATE OF 62, 2 IN CLASS
45, WITH A RATE OF 50, 1 IN CLASS 40 WITH A RATE OF 45.  IN WESTERN
TRUNK-LINE ZONE I, 2076 OF THE 2092 ITEMS ARE CLASSIFIED 100 WITH A
RATE OF 97, 4 IN 85 WITH A RATE OF 82, 10 IN 70 WITH A RATE OF 68, 2 IN
55 WITH A RATE OF 53. 

IN CLASS 100 FOR CARLOAD LOTS THERE ARE 213 COMMON ITEMS.  IN
OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION ALL OF THESE MOVE AT A RATE OF 80 CENTS FOR A
HAUL OF 200 MILES.  IN SOUTHERN, 199 OF THESE ITEMS ARE CLASSIFIED 100
AND MOVE AT A RATE OF $1.12 FOR 200 MILES.  OF THE REMAINING 14, 7 ARE
CLASSIFIED IN SOUTHERN IN CLASS 85 WITH A RATE OF 95, 2 IN 75 WITH A
RATE OF 84, 5 IN 70 WITH A RATE OF 78.  IN WESTERN TRUNK-LINE ZONE I,
202 OF THE 213 ITEMS ARE CLASSIFIED 100 WITH A RATE OF 97, 7 IN 85 WITH
A RATE OF 82, 3 IN 70 WITH A RATE OF 68, 1 IN 55 WITH A RATE OF 53. 
ADDITIONAL ILLUSTRATIONS ARE TOO NUMEROUS AND DETAILED TO INCLUDE IN
THIS OPINION.  BUT THE ONES GIVEN ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REST AND
SHOW HOW DISPARITIES IN THE RATE LEVELS ARE AGGRAVATED WHEN THE EFFECTS
OF CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES ON RATES ARE CONSIDERED. 

THERE IS RATHER VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TENDERED TO SHOW
THE EFFECT IN CONCRETE COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS OF THESE CLASS RATE
INEQUALITIES.  THE INSTANCES WERE IN THE MAIN REVIEWED BY THE
COMMISSION.  THEY ARE ATTACKED HERE ON VARIOUS GROUNDS - THAT SOME OF
THEM INVOLVED RATES OTHER THAN CLASS RATES, THAT OTHERS WERE TESTIFIED
TO BY SHIPPERS WHO MADE NO COMPLAINT OF CLASS RATES, THAT OTHERS SHOWED
SHIPPERS PAYING HIGHER RATES YET MAINTAINING THEIR COMPETITIVE
POSITIONS AND PROSPERING.  WE DO NOT STOP TO ANALYZE THEM OR DISCUSS
THEM BEYOND SAYING THAT SOME OF THE SPECIFIC INSTANCES SUPPORT WHAT IS
PLAINLY TO BE INFERRED FROM THE FIGURES WE HAVE SUMMARIZED - THAT CLASS
RATES WITHIN SOUTHERN, SOUTHWESTERN AND WESTERN TERRITORIES, AND FROM
THOSE TERRITORIES TO OFFICIAL TERRITORY, ARE GENERALLY MUCH HIGHER,
ARTICLE FOR ARTICLE, THAN THE RATES WITHIN OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  THAT
WAS THE BASIC FINDING OF THE COMMISSION; AND IT IS ABUNDANTLY SUPPORTED
BY THE EVIDENCE.    THUS DISCRIMINATION IN CLASS RATES IN FAVOR OF
OFFICIAL TERRITORY AND AGAINST THE SOUTHERN, SOUTHWESTERN AND WESTERN
TRUNK LINE TERRITORIES IS ESTABLISHED.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE END OF THE
MATTER.  FOR "MERE DISCRIMINATION DOES NOT RENDER A RATE ILLEGAL UNDER
SEC. 3."  UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 263 U.S. 515, 521. 
AND "ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE" TO ANY
TERRITORY.  AND, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE 1940 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 3, BY ITS
ADDITION OF "REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY," DID NOT CHANGE THE
PREVAILING RULES RESPECTING UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION; IT MERELY ENLARGED
THE REACH OF SEC. 3.  HENCE WE MUST DETERMINE FROM THE PREEXISTING LAW
WHETHER A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A TERRITORY IS OBNOXIOUS TO SEC. 3. 
THE RULE IS STATED IN UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA,
P. 524, AS FOLLOWS: 

"TO BRING A DIFFERENCE IN RATES WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 3, IT
MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE DISCRIMINATION PRACTICED IS UNJUST WHEN MEASURED
BY THE TRANSPORTATION STANDARD.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE DIFFERENCE IN
RATES CANNOT BE HELD ILLEGAL, UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT IT IS NOT
JUSTIFIED BY THE COST OF THE RESPECTIVE SERVICES, BY THEIR VALUES, OR
BY OTHER TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS." 

IT IS ON THIS PRINCIPLE THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION UNDER
SEC. 3 ARE BOTH DEFENDED AND ATTACKED. 

THIRD.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS UNDER SEC. 3(1) ARE FIRST
CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE
CORRESPONDING CLASS RATES ARE ACTUALLY CHARGED TO OR DEMANDED OF
COMPETING SHIPPERS IN THE SEVERAL TERRITORIES.  THAT IS TO SAY, NO
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF A SHIPPER IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY AND
AGAINST A SHIPPER IN SOUTHERN TERRITORY CAN BE SAID TO EXIST UNLESS IT
IS SHOWN THAT THE SOUTHERN COMPETITOR IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO PAY THE
HIGHER INTERTERRITORIAL CLASS RATES.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE RECORD
NEGATIVES THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS WHICH COULD SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING AND
THAT NO SUCH FINDING WAS MADE.  RELIANCE IS PLACED ON TWO
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE EFFECT OF
CLASSIFICATION RATINGS ON CLASS RATES WHICH WE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED
ABOVE.  IT IS NOTED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE SOUTHERN SHIPPER IN SOME
INSTANCES ACTUALLY PAYS LESS FOR THE SHIPMENT OF THE SAME COMMODITY
THAN THE SHIPPER IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY, E.G., WHERE THE SOUTHERN
CLASSIFICATION CARRIES THE COMMODITY IN A LOWER CLASS, WHICH IN TURN
EXACTS A RATE LESS THAN THAT REQUIRED OF THE HIGHER CLASSIFICATION
GRANTED BY OFFICIAL.  IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ILLUSTRATIONS WE HAVE
GIVEN THAT SUCH IS TRUE IN SOME CASES.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE DOMINANT
PATTERN.  IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE INSTANCES THE CLASSIFICATION
RATINGS, LIKE THE CLASS RATE STRUCTURE, WORK TO THE BENEFIT OF OFFICIAL
TERRITORY AND AGAINST THE OTHERS.  BUT THE GREATER RELIANCE IS PLACED
ON THE SECOND CIRCUMSTANCE - THAT ONLY A MINOR PORTION OF FREIGHT MOVES
BY CLASS RATES AND OF THAT A GREATER PERCENTAGE MOVES IN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY THAN IN THE OTHERS.  THIS POINT REQUIRES A MORE EXTENDED
ANSWER. 

THE COMMISSION, INDEED, FOUND THAT BY REASON OF NON-USE THE CLASS
RATES HAVE BECOME OBSOLETE AND NO LONGER SERVE THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH
THEY WERE DESIGNED.  THEY MOVE A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF FREIGHT. 
THE FOLLOWING TABLE INDICATES THE PERCENTAGES OF CARLOAD TRAFFIC
CARRIED AT CLASS RATES WITHIN AND BETWEEN TERRITORIES IN 1942:

                      TO

           FROM OFFICIAL    SOUTHERN  SOUTHWESTERN       WESTERN

                                                        TRUNK-LINE 

OFFICIAL----------------------       5.8        12.6     22.5
 12.3 

SOUTHERN----------------------        .9         1.8      6.1
  1.5 

SOUTHWESTERN------------------       1.5         1.2      2.4
2.0 

WESTERN TRUNK-LINE------------       3.1 6.1     13.0
.6 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1940, FOR EXAMPLE, LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATINGS ON ABOUT
3,000 COMMODITIES WERE REMOVED FROM THE SOUTHERN CLASSIFICATION BY
CLASSIFICATION EXCEPTIONS.  THE GREAT BULK OF THE FREIGHT MOVES ON
EXCEPTION RATES AND COMMODITY RATES.  FN17  THIS TREND, ACCORDING TO
THE COMMISSION, HAS BEEN THE RESULT OF COMPETITIVE FORCES.  THE
CREATION OF THE EXCEPTIONS HAS "SHORN THE RATINGS IN THE
CLASSIFICATIONS OF MUCH OF THEIR USEFULNESS AND PROPER FUNCTION."  262
I.C.C. P. 504.  THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THIS
FINDING OF THE COMMISSION.  AND APPELLANTS SEIZE ON IT AS SUPPORTING
THEIR CLAIM THAT SINCE CLASS RATES HAVE LARGELY BECOME PAPER RATES,
THEY ARE NOT THE SOURCE OF INJURY TO SHIPPERS FROM THE SOUTH AND THE
WEST; THAT IF THE LATTER ARE PREJUDICED BY THE RATE STRUCTURE, THE
INJURY MUST FLOW FROM THE EXCEPTION RATES AND COMMODITY RATES NOT
INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING; AND THAT IN ANY EVENT THE CASE OF UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATIONS IN FAVOR OF OFFICIAL TERRITORY AND AGAINST THE OTHER
TERRITORIES HAS NOT BEEN FOUNDED ON THE ACTUAL USE OF DISADVANTAGEOUS
CLASS RATES BY SHIPPERS IN THE SOUTHERN, SOUTHWESTERN, AND WESTERN
TRUNK-LINE TERRITORIES. 

BUT THAT TAKES TOO NARROW A VIEW OF THE PROBLEM CONFRONTING THE
COMMISSION.  WE START OF COURSE WITH SOME SHOWING OF ACTUAL
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SHIPPERS BY REASON OF THEIR USE OF CLASS RATES. 
BUT THE MAIN CASE OF DISCRIMINATION MADE OUT BY THE RECORD IS ONE
AGAINST REGIONS AND TERRITORIES.  WE ASSUME THAT A CASE OF UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SHIPPERS BY REASON OF THEIR GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
WOULD BE AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE REGIONS WHERE THE
SHIPMENTS ORIGINATE.  BUT AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST REGIONS OR
TERRITORIES IS NOT DEPENDENT ON SUCH A SHOWING.  AS WE STATED IN
GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S. 439, 450, "DISCRIMINATORY
RATES ARE BUT ONE FORM OF TRADE BARRIERS."  THEIR EFFECT IS NOT ONLY TO
IMPEDE ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIES BUT TO PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
ONES, TO ARREST THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE OR REGION, TO MAKE IT
DIFFICULT FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY TO EVOLVE INTO AN INDUSTRIAL
ONE.  NON-DISCRIMINATORY CLASS RATES REMOVE THAT BARRIER BY OFFERING
THAT EQUALITY WHICH THE LAW WAS DESIGNED TO AFFORD.  THEY INSURE
PROSPECTIVE SHIPPERS NOT ONLY THAT THE RATES ARE JUST AND REASONABLE
PER SE BUT THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY RELATED TO THOSE OF THEIR
COMPETITORS.  SHIPPERS ARE THEN NOT DEPENDENT ON THEIR ABILITY TO GET
EXCEPTION RATES OR COMMODITY RATES AFTER THEIR INDUSTRIES ARE
ESTABLISHED AND THEIR SHIPMENTS ARE READY TO MOVE.  THEY HAVE A BASIS
FOR PLANNING AHEAD BY RELYING ON A COHERENT RATE STRUCTURE REFLECTING
COMPETITIVE FACTORS. 

IF A SHOWING OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A TERRITORY OR REGION WERE
DEPENDENT ON A SHOWING OF ACTUAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SHIPPERS
LOCATED IN THESE SECTIONS, THE CASE COULD NEVER BE MADE OUT WHERE
DISCRIMINATORY RATES HAD PROVED TO BE SUCH EFFECTIVE TRADE BARRIERS AS
TO PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIES IN THOSE OUTLYING REGIONS. 
IF THAT WERE THE TEST, THEN THE 1940 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 3(1) WOULD NOT
HAVE ACHIEVED ITS PURPOSE.  WE CANNOT ATTRIBUTE SUCH FUTILITY TO THE
EFFORT MADE BY CONGRESS TO MAKE REGIONS, DISTRICTS AND TERRITORIES, AS
WELL AS SHIPPERS, THE BENEFICIARIES OF ITS ANTI-DISCRIMINATION POLICY
EXPRESSED IN SEC. 3(1). 

SO FAR AS THE REMEDY IS CONCERNED, THE PRESENT CASES MIGHT, OF
COURSE, BE DIFFERENT IF THE COMMISSION HAD NO POWER TO PRESCRIBE
CLASSIFICATIONS.  BUT SEC. 15(1) OF THE ACT GRANTS IT FULL POWER, ON
FINDING THAT A CLASSIFICATION IS "UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE OR UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATORY OR UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL," TO DETERMINE AND
PRESCRIBE WHAT CLASSIFICATION WILL BE "JUST, FAIR, AND REASONABLE." 
THE COMMISSION'S OVER-ALL CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE CLASSIFICATIONS IN
FORCE AND THE CLASS RATES COMPUTED FROM THEM HARBOR INEQUITIES WHICH
RESULT IN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATIONS IN FAVOR OF OFFICIAL TERRITORY AND
AGAINST THE OTHER TERRITORIES.  THE FACT THAT RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNTS
OF FREIGHT MOVE BY CLASS RATES PROVES NOT THAT THE REGIONAL AND
TERRITORIAL DISCRIMINATION IS SLIGHT, BUT THAT THE RATE STRUCTURE AS
CONSTITUTED HOLDS NO PROMISE OF AFFORDING THE VARIOUS REGIONS OR
TERRITORIES THAT PARITY OF TREATMENT WHICH TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS
WARRANT.  THE COMMISSION IN SUBSTANCE CONCLUDED THAT THAT RESULT COULD
NOT BE ACHIEVED UNLESS TRAFFIC WAS, IN THE MAIN, MOVED ON CLASS RATES. 
WE WILL DISCUSS LATER THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE
INTERIM ORDERS HERE CHALLENGED.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE TO NOTE THAT THE
CASE OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THESE TERRITORIES WAS CHIEFLY
FOUNDED ON THE ABSENCE OF NON-DISCRIMINATORY CLASS RATES AND UNIFORM
CLASSIFICATIONS WHICH WOULD REMOVE THE FEATURES OF EXISTING RATE
STRUCTURES PREJUDICIAL TO SOUTHERN, SOUTHWESTERN, AND WESTERN TRUNK
LINE TERRITORIES. 

WE ARE THUS NOT PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE ADEQUACIES OF THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS SHOWING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ACTUAL SHIPPERS
LOCATED IN A TERRITORY (CF. FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194;
NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 507; INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. MECHLING, 330 U.S. 567), BUT WITH PREJUDICE TO A
TERRITORY AS A WHOLE. 

FOURTH.  THE INQUIRY OF THE COMMISSION INTO THE EFFECT OF CLASS RATES
ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHERN, SOUTHWESTERN, AND WESTERN
TRUNK-LINE TERRITORIES TOOK A WIDE RANGE.  IT CONCLUDED THAT PREJUDICE
TO THE TERRITORIES IN QUESTION HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.  WE THINK THAT
FINDING IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, OBVIOUS THAT THE CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN RATE
DISCRIMINATION AND TERRITORIAL INJURY IS NOT ALWAYS SUSCEPTIBLE OF
CONCLUSIVE PROOF.  THE EXTENT OF THAT CAUSAL RELATION CANNOT IN ANY
CASE BE SHOWN WITH MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS.  IT IS A MATTER OF INFERENCE
FROM RELEVANT DATA.  THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE
FACT THAT THE SOUTH HAS FEWER INDUSTRIES THAN THE EAST RESULTS FROM A
COMPLEX OF CAUSES - THAT THE "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE EAST IS DUE
TO MANY FACTORS OTHER THAN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND COSTS, SUCH AS
CLIMATE, SOIL, NATURAL RESOURCES, AVAILABLE WATER POWER, SUPPLIES OF
NATURAL GAS AND COAL, AND EARLY SETTLEMENTS OF POPULATION WHICH
ANTEDATED THE BUILDING OF RAILROADS."  262 I.C.C. P. 619.  IT NOTED
THAT IN 1939 FREIGHT REVENUES ON COMMODITIES IN THE MANUFACTURES AND
MISCELLANEOUS GROUP WERE BUT 5.3 PER CENT OF THE DESTINATION VALUE OF
MANUFACTURED GOODS AND THAT DIFFERENCES IN FREIGHT CHARGES RESULTING
FROM DIFFERENCES IN CLASS RATE LEVELS WERE ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF
THAT FIGURE.  BUT IT NEVERTHELESS CONCLUDED THAT "NEARNESS TO MARKETS
AND ABILITY TO SHIP TO MARKETS, ON A BASIS FAIRLY AND REASONABLY
RELATED TO THE RATES OF COMPETITORS, ARE NEVERTHELESS POTENT FACTORS IN
THE LOCATION OF A MANUFACTURING PLANT.  IN FACT, RATE RELATIONS ARE
MORE IMPORTANT TO THE MANUFACTURER AND SHIPPER THAN THE LEVELS OF THE
RATES."  262 I.C.C. 619-620. 

THE GREAT ADVANCE IN INDUSTRIALIZATION OF OFFICIAL TERRITORY OVER THE
OTHER TERRITORIES NEED NOT BE LABORED, FOR IT IS OBVIOUS.  SOME
MANIFESTATIONS OF THAT DEVELOPMENT MAY BE ILLUSTRATED BY THE FOLLOWING
TABLES:

           VALUE OF         VALUE ADDED

       TERRITORY            LAND AREA,    GAINFUL     MANUFACTURED
BY MANUFACTURE,

                               1940       WORKERS,     PRODUCTS,
  1939

             1930          1939 

OFFICIAL--------------------     13.5         51.1          67.8
   71.4 

SOUTHERN--------------------     13.3         16.8          10.0
   9.4 

WESTERN TRUNK LINE----------     20.9        13.5           9.9
   8.7 

SOUTHWESTERN----------------     14.2          9.3           4.5
3.3 

MOUNTAIN PACIFIC------------     38.1          9.3        7.8
 7.2

 TOTAL--------------------  100.0        100.0         100.0
100.0 

ANOTHER MEASURE OF INDUSTRIAL GROWTH IS SHOWN BY THE NUMBER OF
GAINFUL WORKERS AND THE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN THE SEVERAL
TERRITORIES:

                                             ACTUAL INCREASE
ACTUAL INCREASE

ACTUAL INCREASE     IN VALUE OF        IN VALUE ADDED

TERRITORY           IN TOTAL GAINFUL  PRODUCTS IN ALL      BY
MANUFACTURE

                             WORKERS FROM   MANUFACTURING    IN ALL
MANUFACTURING

        1910 TO 1930    INDUSTRIES FROM        INDUSTRIES

                                               1909 TO 1939
FROM 1909 TO 1939 

OFFICIAL--------------------  6,230,273   $23,561,190,000
$11,284,350,000 

SOUTHERN--------------------           652,755     4,229,396,000
1,662,336,000 

WESTERN TRUNK-LINE----------           904,986     3,117,079,000
1,284,798,000 

SOUTHWESTERN----------------         1,011,151     1,942,378,000
580,388,000 

MOUNTAIN PACIFIC------------         1,863,419     3,320,930,000
1,341,785,000 

THE VALUE ADDED BY MANUFACTURE IN ALL INDUSTRIES FROM 1849 TO 1939 IS
SHOWN FOR ALL THE TERRITORIES BY THE CHART ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE. 

FROM THIS CHART IT IS APPARENT THAT OFFICIAL TERRITORY HAS MAINTAINED
ITS COMMANDING LEAD IN SPITE OF RECENT MARKED INCREASES ELSEWHERE,
ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTH.  SIMILARLY, FOR THE PERIOD 1929 TO 1939 THE
NUMBER OF WAGE EARNERS IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN THE ENTIRE
COUNTRY DECREASED 11 PER CENT; IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY, 12 PER CENT;
WHILE IN THE SOUTH THERE WAS AN INCREASE OF 5 PER CENT.  FOR THE SAME
PERIOD, VALUES OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS INCREASED 1 PER CENT IN THE
SOUTH, WHILE THEY DECREASED 21 PER CENT FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AND 25
PER CENT IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  FROM 1930 TO 1940, THE NUMBER OF
GAINFULLY OCCUPIED WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY
DECREASED FROM 70.5 PER CENT TO 69.4 PER CENT OF THE NATION'S TOTAL,
WHILE IN THE SOUTH THERE WAS AN INCREASE FROM 10 PER CENT TO 11.9 PER
CENT.  A NUMBER OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES HAVE INCREASED MORE RAPIDLY
IN THE SOUTH THAN IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY, THOUGH THE REVERSE HAS BEEN
TRUE IN OTHER INDUSTRIES.  BUT IN SPITE OF THE GROWTH IN INDUSTRIAL
ACTIVITIES IN THE SOUTH AND WEST (WHICH APPELLANTS STRESS HEAVILY), THE
PERCENTAGE COMPARISONS ARE NOT PARTICULARLY REVEALING BECAUSE OF THE
GREAT DISPARITY BETWEEN THE BASES ON WHICH THEY ARE COMPUTED. 

                         (CHART OMITTED) 

THE FACT REMAINS THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE SOUTH AND WEST HAS
LAGGED AND STILL LAGS BEHIND OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  IN 1940 THE AVERAGE
ANNUAL DOLLAR INCOME PER PERSON EMPLOYED IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY WAS
$1,988; IN SOUTHERN, $940; IN SOUTHWESTERN, $1,177; IN WESTERN TRUNK
LINE, $1,411.  OFFICIAL HAS 69 PER CENT OF ALL WORKERS ENGAGED IN
MANUFACTURING IN THE UNITED STATES AND 29 PER CENT OF ALL WORKERS IN
EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES.  IT HAS, FOR EXAMPLE, A HIGH CONCENTRATION IN
THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL AND COPPER PRODUCTS, THOUGH LESS THAN 4 PER
CENT OF THE IRON ORE RESERVES, AND NO RESERVES OF METALLIC COPPER.  THE
SOUTH AND WEST FURNISH RAW MATERIALS TO OFFICIAL AND BUY FINISHED
PRODUCTS BACK.  THEY ARE ALSO DEPENDENT TO A GREAT EXTENT ON THE
MARKETS FOR THEIR PRODUCTS IN OFFICIAL, WHICH HAS OVER 48 PER CENT OF
THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTRY, 76 PER CENT OF THE NATIONAL MARKET FOR
INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY AND RAW MATERIALS, 64 PER CENT FOR ALL GOODS AND
SOURCES, 62 PER CENT FOR CONSUMER LUXURIES, AND 53 PER CENT FOR
CONSUMER NECESSITIES.  YET THE SOUTH AND WEST SUFFER RATE HANDICAPS
WHEN THEY SEEK TO REACH THOSE MARKETS.  FN18  ONE OF THE MANY
ILLUSTRATIONS WILL SUFFICE.  COTTONSEED OIL IS A BASIC AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITY.  CLASS RATES ON IT ARE 7 PER CENT HIGHER FROM SOUTHERN TO
OFFICIAL TERRITORY THAN THEY ARE WITHIN OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  IF THE
COTTONSEED OIL IS MANUFACTURED INTO OLEOMARGARINE, THE RATES FROM
SOUTHERN TO OFFICIAL TERRITORY ARE 35 PER CENT HIGHER THAN THE RATES
WITHIN OFFICIAL TERRITORY. 

IT IS SAID IN REPLY, HOWEVER, THAT THE DISPARITIES WHICH WE HAVE
MENTIONED REFLECT ONLY NATURAL ADVANTAGES WHICH JUSTIFY DIFFERENCES IN
RATES.  THE GREAT CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION IN THE EAST IS SAID TO
SHOW THAT ITS MORE FAVORABLE RATES ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT IT
HAS MANY MORE PEOPLE TO SUPPORT THE ROADS.  THE UNFAVORABLE INCOME
COMPARISONS WITH THE EAST ARE THOUGHT TO ESTABLISH ONE OF THE HANDICAPS
UNDER WHICH THE ROADS IN THE SOUTH AND WEST OPERATE.  IT IS POINTED OUT
THAT THE HEAVY PREPONDERANCE OF THE NATION'S TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE OF
ENERGY SUPPLY IS LOCATED IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY - 40 TO 45 PER CENT OF
THE TOTAL BITUMINOUS AND SEMI-BITUMINOUS COAL SUPPLY, PRACTICALLY ALL
OF THE ANTHRACITE RESOURCES; 60 PER CENT OF ALL ELECTRIC ENERGY
ORIGINATES THERE.  IT IS SAID THAT OFFICIAL TERRITORY IS THE LOGICAL
LOCATION FOR INDUSTRIES WHICH USE METALS FROM OTHER TERRITORIES, SINCE
IT HAS THE NATURAL SUPPLIES OF COAL.  IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE
GROSS INCOME FROM CROPS AND LIVESTOCK IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY IS THE
HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY, AMOUNTING TO 31 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL.  FROM
THESE AND COMPARABLE DATA IT IS ARGUED THAT THE LOWER RATES IN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY REFLECT ONLY INHERENT ADVANTAGES WHICH THE OTHER TERRITORIES
DO NOT ENJOY.  IT IS, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS
SOUGHT TO DO IS TO EQUALIZE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES, TO ENTER THE FIELD OF
ECONOMIC PLANNING, AND TO ARRANGE A RATE STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO RELOCATE
INDUSTRIES, CAUSE A REDISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, AND IN OTHER WAYS TO
OFFSET THE NATURAL ADVANTAGES WHICH ONE TERRITORY HAS OVER ANOTHER.  IT
IS ASSERTED THAT SUCH A PROGRAM IS UNLAWFUL UNDER INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. DIFFENBAUGH, 222 U.S. 42, 46, WHERE THE COURT HELD THAT
THE ACT, IN ITS CONDEMNATION OF DISCRIMINATION, "DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO
EQUALIZE FORTUNE, OPPORTUNITIES OR ABILITIES."  AND SEE UNITED STATES
V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA, P. 524; TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 637-638. 

WE WILL REVERT TO THIS MATTER WHEN WE COME TO CONSIDER WHETHER
TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS JUSTIFY THE DIFFERENCES IN RATES.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT AT THIS POINT TO SAY THAT THE RECORD MAKES OUT A STRONG CASE
FOR THE INFERENCE THAT NATURAL DISADVANTAGES ALONE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE RETARDED DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTH AND THE WEST, THAT THE
DISCRIMINATORY RATE STRUCTURE HAS ALSO PLAYED A PART.  HOW MUCH A PART
CANNOT BE DETERMINED, FOR EVERY EFFECT IS THE RESULT OF MANY FACTORS. 
BUT THE INFERENCE OF PREJUDICE FROM THE DISCRIMINATORY RATE STRUCTURE
IS IRRESISTIBLE.  IF THIS DISCRIMINATORY RATE STRUCTURE IS NOT
JUSTIFIED BY TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS, THEN ITS CONTINUED MAINTENANCE
PRESERVES NOT THE NATURAL ADVANTAGES OF ONE REGION BUT MAN-MADE TRADE
BARRIERS WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE COUNTRY.  SUCH A RESULT
CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE GREAT PURPOSES OF SEC. 3(1) AS AMENDED IN
1940. 

FIFTH.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO THE
RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES DID NOT JUSTIFY THE DIFFERENCES IN THE
TERRITORIAL CLASS-RATE STRUCTURES.  IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION IT
FIRST INQUIRED WHETHER THE DIFFERENCES IN THE COSTS OF FURNISHING THE
RAILROAD SERVICE IN THE SEVERAL RATE TERRITORIES JUSTIFIED THE EXISTING
DIFFERENCES IN THE LEVELS AND PATTERNS OF THE CLASS RATE SCALES.  FN19
THE BASIS OF ITS INQUIRY WAS A COST STUDY SUBMITTED BY ITS STAFF.  FOR
COST ANALYSIS PURPOSES THE UNITED STATES IS DIVIDED INTO AREAS ROUGHLY
BUT NOT EXACTLY APPROXIMATING THE CLASSIFICATION TERRITORIES.  THUS
THERE ARE THREE DISTRICTS: EASTERN, SOUTHERN AND WESTERN.  SOUTHERN
DISTRICT IS FURTHER DIVIDED INTO POCAHONTAS REGION AND SOUTHERN
REGION.  EASTERN DISTRICT PLUS POCAHONTAS REGION IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE
EQUIVALENT OF OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  FN20  IN THE COST STUDY, RAILROADS
WERE ASSIGNED TO GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS; EXPENSES FOR INDIVIDUAL ROADS WERE
DIVIDED INTO GROUPS, EACH GROUP BEING ASSOCIATED WITH APPROPRIATE
SERVICE UNITS WHICH INCLUDED REVENUE CAR-MILES, REVENUE GROSS TON
MILES, AND CARS ORIGINATED AND TERMINATED; UNIT COSTS WERE THEN
OBTAINED BY DIVIDING THE AGGREGATE OF THE TERRITORIAL EXPENSES IN EACH
GROUP BY THE APPLICABLE TERRITORIAL UNITS; THE COSTS OF PARTICULAR
SERVICES WERE THEN BUILT UP FROM THE UNIT COSTS.  COSTS WERE PUT INTO
TWO CLASSES - (1) OUT-OF-POCKET OR VARIABLE EXPENSES WHICH VARY
DIRECTLY WITH THE KIND OF TRAFFIC HANDLED; (2) CONSTANT OR FIXED COSTS
NOT CAPABLE OF ASSIGNMENT TO PARTICULAR KINDS OF TRAFFIC COSTS  FN21
WHICH NORMALLY MUST BE BORNE BY THE VARIOUS TYPES OF TRAFFIC IN
PROPORTION TO THE ABILITY OF EACH TO PAY.  THE DETAILS OF THE COST
STUDY ARE TOO INTRICATE AND VOLUMINOUS TO RELATE HERE.  THEY HAVE BEEN
SUMMARIZED BY THE COMMISSION.  262 I.C.C. PP. 571-592.  IT SHOULD BE
NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT ALLOWANCES FOR RETURN - COMPUTED AT BOTH 4 PER
CENT AND 5 3/4 PER CENT - WERE INCLUDED AMONG COSTS.  THE ALLOWANCES
FOR RETURN WERE BASED ON RECOMMENDED RATE-MAKING VALUES FURNISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF VALUATION.  THE TERRITORIAL COST COMPARISONS WERE
PRINCIPALLY BASED ON THE 4 PER CENT RETURN FIGURE, THE COMMISSION
NOTING THAT THE FIGURE WAS RELATIVELY CLOSE TO THE RETURN EARNED BY THE
CARRIERS IN THE YEAR COVERED BY THE STUDY, VIZ., 1939. 

TO SUMMARIZE VERY BRIEFLY, THE EXPENSES OF THE CARRIERS WERE FIRST
BROKEN DOWN AND TRANSLATED INTO TERRITORIAL AVERAGE UNIT COSTS OF
PERFORMING EACH OF THE KINDS OF SERVICES INVOLVED IN MOVING A SPECIFIC
SHIPMENT OR IN FURNISHING A GIVEN AMOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN
EACH TERRITORY.  THESE UNIT COSTS WERE THEN MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF
UNITS OF EACH OF THE SERVICES FOUND TO BE EMPLOYED IN MOVING THE
SPECIFIC SHIPMENT OR FURNISHING THE GIVEN AMOUNT OF SERVICE IN THE
TERRITORY.  THE PROCESS WAS REPEATED FOR A SERIES OF DIFFERENT
SHIPMENTS OR SERVICES SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE RESULT REPRESENTATIVE OF
TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS.  ONCE THE AVERAGE COSTS FOR EACH RATE TERRITORY
WERE COMPUTED, TERRITORIAL AVERAGE COSTS WERE COMPARED.  THE PRINCIPAL
COMPARISONS WERE BASED ON THE YEAR 1939, ALTHOUGH SUPPLEMENTARY STUDIES
WERE ALSO MADE FOR THE PERIODS 1930-1939, INCLUSIVE, 1937-1941,
INCLUSIVE, AND 1941.  THE TERRITORIAL COST COMPARISONS SHOWED, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE COSTS OF HAULING GIVEN WEIGHT LOADS IN A CERTAIN TYPE OF
CAR FOR GIVEN DISTANCES IN EACH TERRITORY.  THEY ALSO SHOWED THE
RELATIVE COSTS OF HANDLING THE ENTIRE TRAFFIC CONSIST OF EACH
TERRITORY.  THIS WAS DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE THE EFFECTS OF ANY
DIFFERENCES IN CONSISTS OF TRAFFIC BETWEEN TERRITORIES COMPARED, BY
DETERMINING FIRST THE COST IN THE TERRITORY IN WHICH IT ACTUALLY MOVED
AND THEN THE COST IN EACH OF THE OTHER TERRITORIES.  THE COST STUDY
GAVE CONSIDERATION TO FREIGHT MOVING FOR VARIOUS DISTANCES IN ALL KINDS
OF EQUIPMENT - BOX, HOPPER, GONDOLA, TANK, STOCK, FLAT, AND
REFRIGERATOR CARS.  COSTS WERE COMPARED FOR IDENTICAL LOADS HAULED IN
THE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF EQUIPMENT.  STANDARD LOADS WERE THEN TAKEN.  THE
AVERAGE WEIGHT LOADS EXPERIENCED IN EACH TERRITORY FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF
EQUIPMENT WERE ALSO TAKEN.  THE AIM WAS TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF EQUIPMENT USED AND THE DIFFERENT AVERAGE LOADS
BETWEEN TERRITORIES.  LIKEWISE, COMPARISONS WERE MADE OF THE COST OF
HAULING THE ENTIRE CONSIST OF THE TRAFFIC OF ONE TERRITORY, AT THE
AVERAGE LOADS AND UNIT COSTS APPLICABLE IN THAT TERRITORY, WITH THE
COST OF HAULING THE IDENTICAL TRAFFIC AT THE AVERAGE LOADS AND UNIT
COSTS APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER TERRITORIES.  COMPARISONS WERE ALSO MADE
(FOR THE DISTANCES THE TRAFFIC ACTUALLY MOVED, BY CLASSES OF EQUIPMENT,
AND AT ACTUAL AVERAGE LOADS) OF THE RELATIVE COST OF HAULING THE
CONSIST OF TRAFFIC OF THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, AND THE COSTS OF
CARRYING THE EASTERN, SOUTHERN AND WESTERN CONSISTS RESPECTIVELY IN
EACH OF THE SEVERAL TERRITORIES. 

WHEN IT CAME TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT, COMPUTATIONS WERE MADE WHICH
BOTH EXCLUDED AND INCLUDED THE POCAHONTAS REGION.  THAT REGION, FOR
PURPOSES OF THE STUDY, REPRESENTED THE OPERATION OF THREE RAILROADS -
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO, NORFOLK & WESTERN, AND THE VIRGINIAN - ABOUT 84 PER
CENT OF WHOSE FREIGHT TRAFFIC IS COAL.  FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH A
COMPARATIVE STUDY AS THIS, THE EXCLUSION OF POCAHONTAS IS CONSIDERED
DESIRABLE, SINCE ITS COSTS ARE LOW BECAUSE OF THE VERY HEAVY COAL
TONNAGE.  FN22 

THE COMMISSION ATTACHED PRINCIPAL WEIGHT TO THE HAUL OF 300 MILES PER
SHIPMENT ORIGINATED, AS THAT DISTANCE MOST CLOSELY APPROXIMATED THE
LENGTH OF HAUL IN EACH TERRITORY IN 1939.  RELATIVE TERRITORIAL  FN23
COSTS (FULLY DISTRIBUTED) FOR TRAFFIC MOVING THAT DISTANCE IN BOX CARS
AND GONDOLA CARS WERE AS FOLLOWS:

           (U.S. AVERAGE 100)

               BOX CARS           GONDOLA AND HOPPER CARS

                                    ASSUMED       ACTUAL    ASSUMED
 ACTUAL

25 TON LOAD  AVERAGE LOAD  50 TON LOAD  AVERAGE LOAD 

EASTERN (EXCL.  POCAHONTAS)---------     102          103
100          100 

SOUTHERN---------------------------      96           97
99          102 

WESTERN----------------------------     108          108
109          115 

THE COMMISSION COMPUTED THAT ON THE FOREGOING ANALYSIS FOR 100, 300
AND 500 MILES, THE FULLY DISTRIBUTED COSTS FOR THE SOUTH ARE GENERALLY
A LITTLE LOWER THAN FOR THE EAST, POCAHONTAS EXCLUDED, WHILE THE FULLY
DISTRIBUTED COSTS IN THE WEST EXCEED THOSE OF THE EAST BY FROM 6 TO 15
PER CENT.  SIMILAR COST COMPARISONS WERE MADE FOR THE SEVERAL
TERRITORIES FOR STOCK-CAR, REFRIGERATOR-CAR, TANK-CAR, AND FLAT-CAR
TRAFFIC.  BASED ON THE ACTUAL AVERAGE LOADS EXPERIENCED FOR EACH CLASS
OF EQUIPMENT, THE COMMISSION FOUND THE COSTS FOR THE SOUTH LOWER THAN
THOSE FOR THE EAST (POCAHONTAS EXCLUDED) FOR TRAFFIC MOVING IN ALL
THOSE CLASSES OF EQUIPMENT.  THE COSTS FOR THE WEST ARE ALSO LOWER THAN
THOSE FOR THE EAST AS TO STOCK-CAR, REFRIGERATORCAR, AND FLAT-CAR
TRAFFIC, BUT HIGHER FOR TANK-CAR TRAFFIC. 

A TERRITORIAL COMPARISON OF FULLY DISTRIBUTED COSTS FOR CARLOAD
TRAFFIC MOVING 300 MILES IN ALL CLASSES OF EQUIPMENT SHOWS THE
FOLLOWING:  FN24

                         (U.S. AVERAGE 100)

                                                           ACTUAL

                                              IDENTICAL
AVERAGE

     LOADS          LOADS 

EASTERN (EXCL.  POCAHONTAS)-------------------      102
102 

POCAHONTAS-----------------------------------       67
67 

EASTERN INCLUDING POCAHONTAS-----------------       95
95 

SOUTHERN-------------------------------------       98        101 

WESTERN--------------------------------------    108            110 

THE FULLY DISTRIBUTED COSTS ON IDENTICAL LOADS IN THE SOUTH ARE 4 PER
CENT BELOW THOSE FOR THE EAST, EXCLUDING POCAHONTAS.  THE SAME
COMPARISON SHOWS THE COSTS FOR THE WEST 6 PER CENT HIGHER THAN THOSE IN
THE EAST, EXCLUDING POCAHONTAS.  COSTS IN THE SOUTH, BASED ON THE
ACTUAL AVERAGE LOADS ARE 1 PER CENT BELOW THOSE FOR THE EAST, EXCLUDING
POCAHONTAS.  IN THE WEST THEY ARE 8 PER CENT HIGHER THAN THE LATTER. 
TERRITORIAL COMPARISONS BASED ON AVERAGE NET TON-MILE CARLOAD COSTS
(1930-1939) ADJUSTED FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE LENGTH OF HAUL AND THE
CONSIST OF THE TRAFFIC WERE MADE.  THEY SHOWED THAT THE COSTS FOR THE
SOUTH ARE APPROXIMATELY 1 OR 2 PER CENT BELOW THOSE FOR THE EAST,
EXCLUDING POCAHONTAS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THOSE COSTS FOR THE WEST
EXCEEDED THOSE OF THE EAST, EXCLUDING POCAHONTAS BY FROM 5 TO 7 PER
CENT. 

TERRITORIAL COMPARISONS OF THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD COSTS WERE ALSO
PREPARED.  THEY SHOWED THAT THOSE COSTS ARE LOWER IN THE SOUTH THAN IN
THE EAST WHETHER ASSUMED IDENTICAL LOADS OR ACTUAL AVERAGE LOADS ARE
TAKEN, AND EVEN IF POCAHONTAS IS INCLUDED IN THE EAST.  THEY ARE HIGHER
IN THE WEST THAN IN THE EAST.  IF POCAHONTAS IS EXCLUDED FROM THE EAST
THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE COMPARISON FOR A 300 MILE HAUL:

                          (U.S. AVERAGE 100)

                             ASSUMED IDENTICAL LOAD       ACTUAL
AVERAGE LOAD

                            OUT OF     OUT OF POCKET    OUT OF
OUT OF POCKET

         POCKET PLUS CONSTANT  FN1   POCKET PLUS CONSTANT  FN1 

EASTERN (EXCL.  POCAHONTAS)----  105           101       94
93 

SOUTHERN----------------------   89            87            88
86 

WESTERN-----------------------  104           109           120
121 

FN1  CONSTANT COSTS COMMON TO ALL TRAFFIC ARE NOT INCLUDED. 

IN ALL TERRITORIES LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC (1939) WAS CARRIED AT A
DEFICIT, SOUTHERN MAKING THE BEST SHOWING, WESTERN THE WORST.  THAT IS
REVEALED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

                         REVENUES    COSTS  FN1      DEFICIT 

EASTERN (EXCL.  POCAHONTAS)---------  $107,155,756  $133,308,907
$26,153,151 

SOUTHERN--------------------------- 46,635,725    47,451,184
815,459 

WESTERN----------------------------    88,797,938   123,146,215
34,348,277 

FN1  OUT-OF-POCKET COST PLUS TOTAL SOLELY RELATED EXPENSES PLUS
COLLECTION AND DELIVERY. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN FULLY DISTRIBUTED COSTS
FOR ALL TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE EAST AND THE WEST IS LARGELY IN THE
CONSTANT OR FIXED EXPENSES AND THE PASSENGER AND LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
DEFICITS.  OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES IN THE SOUTH AND WEST ARE FREQUENTLY
AS LOW AS, OR EVEN LOWER THAN, THE OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS IN THE EAST. 
THE COMMISSION FURTHER FOUND THAT THE INCREASE IN FREIGHT TRAFFIC
VOLUME RECEIVED BY THE CARRIERS SUBSEQUENT TO 1939 SERVED TO REDUCE THE
UNIT COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE SOUTH AND WEST IN A PROPORTIONATELY
GREATER DEGREE THAN IN THE EAST.  A SOMEWHAT LARGER PERCENTAGE OF OUT
OF-POCKET EXPENSES IN THE EAST IS VARIABLE WITH ADDED TRAFFIC THAN IS
TRUE OF THE SOUTH AND WEST, DUE APPARENTLY TO THE FACT THAT THE EAST,
WITH ITS HIGHER TRAFFIC DENSITY, IS CLOSER TO ITS MAXIMUM CAPACITY THAN
IS TRUE OF THE OTHERS.  THUS THE INFLUENCE OF ADDED TRAFFIC IN REDUCING
AVERAGE COSTS IS GREATER IN THE WEST.  ON THE OTHER HAND CONSTANT COSTS
(PROPORTIONATELY LARGER IN THE SOUTH AND WEST) DO NOT INCREASE WITH
ADDED TRAFFIC.  AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION
NOTED THE EFFECT OF INCREASES IN 1941 OF THE TON-MILES OF REVENUE
FREIGHT.  THEY INCREASED IN 1941, AS COMPARED WITH 1939, 43 PER CENT IN
THE EAST, 27 PER CENT IN POCAHONTAS, 44 PER CENT IN SOUTHERN AND 46 PER
CENT IN WESTERN TERRITORY.  THE COST PER REVENUE TON-MILE DECREASED BY
ONLY ABOUT 5 PER CENT IN THE EAST AND IN POCAHONTAS, AS COMPARED WITH
DECREASES IN EXCESS OF 10 PER CENT IN THE SOUTH AND WEST. 

THE COMMISSION SUMMARIZED THE RESULTS OF THE TERRITORIAL COST
COMPARISONS AS FOLLOWS:  THERE IS LITTLE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE
COST OF FURNISHING TRANSPORTATION IN THE SOUTH AS COMPARED WITH THE
EAST, POCAHONTAS EXCLUDED.  IT IS PRINCIPALLY THE LOW TERMINAL COSTS IN
THE SOUTH THAT ACCOUNT FOR ITS RELATIVELY LOW TOTAL COSTS.  BASED ON
THE YEAR 1939 AND THE PERIOD 1930-1939, THE COSTS IN THE SOUTH ARE
EQUAL TO OR A LITTLE LOWER THAN THOSE IN THE EAST.  BASED ON THE PERIOD
1937-1941, THE COSTS IN THE SOUTH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER THAN THOSE IN
THE EAST.  FN25  BASED ON THE YEAR 1939 AND THE PERIOD 1930-1939, THE
COST OF RENDERING TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN THE WEST IS BETWEEN 5 AND
10 PER CENT HIGHER THAN IN THE EAST, EXCLUDING POCAHONTAS.  BASED ON
1941, THAT DIFFERENCE IS REDUCED TO 5 PER CENT OR LESS.  FN26 

THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED, OF COURSE, THAT CARRIERS MUST OBTAIN THEIR
REVENUE FROM THE TRAFFIC WHICH MOVES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES. 
HENCE THE REVENUE-PRODUCING OR RATE-BEARING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
DIFFERENT COMMODITIES WHICH COMPOSE THE TRAFFIC OF THE SEVERAL
TERRITORIES, I.E., THE CONSISTS AND VOLUMES OF TRAFFIC, ARE ALSO
IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS JUSTIFY
DIFFERENCES IN TERRITORIAL RATES. 

THE PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL TONS CARRIED AND REVENUE BY
COMMODITY GROUPS FOR 1939 IS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

           (CHART OMITTED) 

THE COMMISSION ALSO CONSIDERED THE DISTRIBUTION OF CARLOAD TRAFFIC
BASED ON REVENUE TON-MILES FOR 1939 WHICH IT SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:

ITEM                    EASTERN  POCAHONTAS  SOUTHERN   WESTERN

                                      DISTRICT    REGION     REGION
DISTRICT 

PRODUCTS OF AGRICULTURE---------------      10.7         2.7
15.8      26.8 

ANIMALS AND OTHER PRODUCTS------------       3.8          .5
2.2       4.5 

PRODUCTS OF MINES---------------------      49.3 87.4      40.8
20.1 

PRODUCTS OF FORESTS-------------------       3.1         1.6
11.6      13.6 

MANUFACTURES AND MISCELLANEOUS--------      33.1         7.8
29.6  35.0

                                    -------------------------------
----------

 GRAND TOTAL, CARLOAD---------------     100.0       100.0
100.0     100.0 AND THE CONTRIBUTION WHICH THE MAJOR CLASSES OF
COMMODITIES (CARLOAD LOTS) MAKE IN EXCESS OF OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS (1939)
APPEARS AS FOLLOWS:

             ITEM                   EASTERN  POCAHONTAS  SOUTHERN
WESTERN  UNITED

DISTRICT    REGION     REGION   DISTRICT  STATES 

PRODUCTS OF AGRICULTURE------------       4.2         3.1      15.8
18.0    10.8 

ANIMALS AND PRODUCTS---------------       1.5         1.1       3.4
4.3     2.7 

PRODUCTS OF MINES------------------      38.0        73.4      21.2
13.9  29.7 

PRODUCTS OF FORESTS----------------       2.8  2.8       9.4
8.1     5.7 

MANUFACTURES AND MISCELLANEOUS-----      53.5        19.6      50.2
55.7    51.1

GRAND TOTAL, CARLOAD------------     100.0       100.0     100.0
100.0   100.0 

A LARGE VOLUME OF ALL TRAFFIC MOVES ACROSS TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES AND
THEREFORE BECOMES COMMON TO TWO OR MORE TERRITORIES.  AND AS RESPECTS
THE BALANCE, THE COMMISSION FOUND STRIKING SIMILARITY IN THE CONSISTS
OF THE TRAFFIC SO FAR AS ITS REVENUE-PRODUCING CHARACTERISTICS ARE
CONCERNED.  THE MANUFACTURES AND MISCELLANEOUS COMMODITY GROUP EMBRACES
TRAFFIC WHICH MOVES AT RELATIVELY HIGH RATES, I.E., RATES WHICH, TON
MILE FOR TON-MILE, MAKE A SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER THAN AVERAGE
CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONSTANT COSTS.  THE PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL TONS
CARRIED IN THAT GROUP AND THE CORRESPONDING PERCENTAGES FOR REVENUE
PRODUCED BY THEM ARE QUITE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER - PARTICULARLY THE EAST
AND THE WEST. 

THE COMMISSION STATED THAT THE REVENUE-PRODUCING QUALITIES, OR RATE
BEARING CHARACTERISTICS, OF THE COMMODITIES WHICH COMPOSE THE TRAFFIC
IN THOSE SEVERAL TERRITORIES CONSTITUTED "THE GOVERNING FACTOR" SO FAR
AS THE PROBLEM OF THE CONSISTS AND VOLUME OF TRAFFIC WAS CONCERNED. 
262 I.C.C. P. 694.  IT APPRAISED THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE RELATED AS
MEANING THAT "THE DIFFERENCES THAT EXIST IN THE CONSISTS OF TRAFFIC IN
THESE RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES ARE NOT SO SUBSTANTIAL OR OF SUCH
CHARACTER AS TO WARRANT THE PRESENT DIFFERENCES IN CLASS RATES."  ID.,
P. 695. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION BOTH AS TO THE CONSISTS OF THE FREIGHT
AND THE COSTS OF RENDERING THE SERVICE IN THE RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES
ARE VIGOROUSLY CHALLENGED, ESPECIALLY BY THE WESTERN ROADS. 

AS TO THE CONSISTS, IT IS SAID THAT THE EASTERN ROADS HAVE A MUCH
HEAVIER PERCENTAGE OF FREIGHT OF A KIND THAT PRODUCES EXCESS REVENUE TO
CARRY THE GENERAL EXPENSES.  FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ARE RELIED UPON
AS SHOWING THAT THE EASTERN ROADS' PREPONDERANCE OF HIGH-GRADE TRAFFIC
AFFORDS A GREATER SOURCE OF REVENUE THAN DOES THE HIGH PERCENTAGE OF
LOW-RATE PRODUCTS CARRIED BY THE WESTERN ROADS.  FN27  THESE UNDISPUTED
FACTS ARE SAID TO DISPROVE THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE CONSISTS
OF TRAFFIC IN THE RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES DO NOT WARRANT THE PRESENT
DIFFERENCES IN CLASS RATES. 

THESE FACTS, HOWEVER, RELATE TO DENSITY OF TRAFFIC, FN28  THE EFFECT
OF WHICH IS MERGED IN THE FINAL COST FIGURES.  BUT THE RELATION OF THE
CONSIST PROBLEM TO THE PROBLEM OF RATE STRUCTURES IS SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT.  IT IS RELEVANT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONSISTS
OF TRAFFIC ARE SO DIFFERENT IN THE SEVERAL TERRITORIES THAT SEPARATE
RATE STRUCTURES WITH DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION
BURDEN AMONGST COMMODITIES AND CLASSES OF FREIGHT ARE NECESSARY.  IT IS
APPARENT FROM THE STATISTICS WHICH WE HAVE REVIEWED THAT, WHILE THERE
IS A DIVERSITY IN TRAFFIC MOVED IN THE SEVERAL TERRITORIES, THE
DIVERSITY LARGELY DISAPPEARS WHEN COMMODITY GROUPS ARE CONSIDERED. 
THEN, ALSO, THE PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC IN EACH TERRITORY
WHICH FALL UNDER THE SEVERAL COMMODITY GROUPS ARE NOT ONLY VERY SIMILAR
IN THE EAST, SOUTH, AND WEST, BUT EACH GROUP YIELDS ABOUT THE SAME
PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL REVENUES IN EACH OF THE TERRITORIES.  THE
CHOICE OF GROUPINGS IS PLAINLY A SPECIALIZED PROBLEM IN TRANSPORTATION
ECONOMICS UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION IS PECULIARLY COMPETENT TO PASS. 
ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN CONSISTS BETWEEN THE TERRITORIES
DO NOT JUSTIFY THE PRESENT DIFFERENCES IN INTERTERRITORIAL CLASS RATES
IS, INDEED, AN EXPERT JUDGMENT ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.  WE COULD NOT
DISTURB ITS FINDINGS ON THE FACTS OF THIS RECORD WITHOUT INVADING THE
PROVINCE RESERVED FOR THE EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. 

AS TO THE COST STUDY LITTLE NEED BE SAID CONCERNING THE SOUTH.  ONCE
THE INTEGRITY OF THE COST STUDY IS ASSUMED,  FN29  THE FINDING OF THE
COMMISSION THAT THERE IS LITTLE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF
FURNISHING TRANSPORTATION IN THE SOUTH AS COMPARED WITH THE EAST HAS
SUPPORT IN THE FACTS.  MOREOVER, THE DATA ON RATES OF RETURN AND
FREIGHT OPERATING RATIOS, TO WHICH WE WILL SHORTLY REFER, CORROBORATE
THE CONCLUSION REACHED FROM THE COST STUDY THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN
CLASS RATES BETWEEN THE EAST AND THE SOUTH ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY
TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS.  THE FINDING THAT THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
THE SOUTH IS UNLAWFUL UNDER SEC. 3(1) IS THUS AMPLY SUPPORTED - A
CONCLUSION THAT THE SOUTHERN CARRIERS DO NOT CHALLENGE HERE. 

THE QUESTION IS A CLOSER ONE WHEN WE TURN TO THE WEST.  FOR, AS WE
HAVE SEEN, THE COSTS IN THE WEST ON THE AVERAGE RUN HIGHER THAN THOSE
IN THE EAST.  BASED ON THE YEAR 1939 AND THE PERIOD 1930-1939, THE COST
OF RENDERING TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN THE WEST IS BETWEEN 5 AND 10 PER
CENT HIGHER THAN IN THE EAST, EXCLUDING POCAHONTAS.  BASED ON 1941,
THAT DIFFERENCE IS REDUCED TO 5 PER CENT OR LESS. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE CLASS RATE STRUCTURE IS DISCRIMINATORY AS
BETWEEN THE EAST AND THE WEST.  THE LEVEL OF CLASS RATES IN THE WEST IS
FROM 30 TO 59 PER CENT HIGHER THAN THAT IN THE EAST.  THE PROBLEM OF
THE COMMISSION, THEREFORE, WAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT DISPARITY IS
JUSTIFIED BY TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT IT WAS
NOT SO JUSTIFIED.  THE PROBLEM FOR US IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD A
BASIS FOR ITS CONCLUSION. 

WHILE THE WESTERN ROADS VIGOROUSLY CHALLENGE THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING, THEIR ARGUMENT IS IN THE MAIN DIRECTED TO THE POINT THAT SOME
DISPARITY IN RATES BETWEEN EAST AND WEST IS JUSTIFIED BY DIFFERING
TERRITORIAL COSTS.  NO PARTICULAR EFFORT IS MADE TO PROVE THAT THOSE
COSTS ARE A FAIR MEASURE OF THE EXISTING RATE DIFFERENCES. 

WE START, OF COURSE, FROM THE PREMISE THAT ON A SUBJECT OF
TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS, SUCH AS THIS ONE, THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT
IS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.  THE APPRAISAL OF COST FIGURES IS ITSELF A
TASK FOR EXPERTS, SINCE THESE COSTS INVOLVE MANY ESTIMATES AND
ASSUMPTIONS AND, UNLIKE A PROBLEM IN CALCULUS, CANNOT BE PROVED RIGHT
OR WRONG.  THEY ARE, INDEED, ONLY GUIDES TO JUDGMENT.  THEIR WEIGHT AND
SIGNIFICANCE REQUIRE EXPERT APPRAISAL. 

THE COMMISSION HAS CONCLUDED THAT WHILE COST STUDIES ARE HIGHLY
RELEVANT TO THESE RATE PROBLEMS THEY ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE.  IT SAID IN
THIS CASE: 

"DISCRETION AND FLEXIBILITY OF JUDGMENT WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS HAVE
ALWAYS ATTENDED THE USE OF COSTS IN THE MAKING OF RATES.  COSTS ALONE
DO NOT DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM LIMITS OF RATES.  NEITHER DO THEY CONTROL
THE CONTOURS OF RATE SCALES OR FIX THE RELATIONS BETWEEN RATES OR
BETWEEN RATE SCALES.  OTHER FACTORS ALONG WITH COSTS MUST BE CONSIDERED
AND GIVEN DUE WEIGHT IN THESE ASPECTS OF RATE MAKING."  262 I.C.C. P.
693.    IN APPRAISING THE COST FIGURES RELEVANT HERE THE COMMISSION
PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE 1941 TRAFFIC LEVEL IS MOST LIKELY
TO PREVAIL IN THE POSTWAR PERIOD.  IT THEREFORE STARTED WITH THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE MARGIN OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COSTS IN THE WEST
AND THOSE IN THE EAST WAS SLIGHT AND NOT ACCURATELY MEASURED BY 1939
FIGURES, AND THAT IF, AS HAS BEEN THE FACT,  FN30  THE FREIGHT CARRIED
IN THE WEST INCREASED ABOVE THAT LEVEL THE UNIT COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION
IN THE WEST WOULD BE REDUCED TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN THOSE IN THE
EAST, FOR REASONS WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY STATED.    THE COMMISSION ALSO
HAD BEFORE IT CERTAIN DATA RELATIVE TO THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE
VARIOUS ROADS, DATA WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET DISCUSSED.  THUS COMPARATIVE
ANALYSES OF THE RATES OF RETURN OF THE ROADS IN THE SEVERAL TERRITORIES
SHOWED THAT WHILE THE WESTERN ROADS HAVE HAD MANY LEAN YEARS, THE
RECENT PERIOD HAS PUT THEM AHEAD OF THE ROADS IN THE EAST.  THE
FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE RATES OF RETURN IN PERCENTAGES BASED ON THE
NET RAILWAY OPERATING INCOME AND THE BOOK INVESTMENT, INCREASED FOR
CASH, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES:

                      1936  1937  1938  1939  1940  1941  1942
1943 

EASTERN DISTRICT--------- 2.67  2.27  1.26  2.34 2.66  3.62  4.9
4.32 

SOUTHERN REGION---------- 2.52  2.35  1.9   2.5   2.57  4.24  6.51
5.73 

POCAHONTAS REGION-------- 7.58  6.61  4.54  5.89  6.21  6.67  5.29
5.22 

WESTERN DISTRICT--------- 1.88  1.71  1.09  1.65  2.06  3.36  5.8
5.22 

THE COMMISSION ALSO CONSIDERED THE TERRITORIAL FREIGHT OPERATING
RATIOS - THE PER CENT OF OPERATING REVENUES FROM FREIGHT ABSORBED BY
OPERATING EXPENSES ATTRIBUTED TO THE FREIGHT.  FN31 THEY ARE SHOWN IN
THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

    1936   1937   1938   1939   1940   1941   1942   1943 

EASTERN DISTRICT-------- 64.95  67.86  68.98  64.88  63.92  63.04
61.93  66.23 

SOUTHERN REGION--------- 65.38  67.77  66.73  64.99  65.34  61.07
56.84  59.41 

POCAHONTAS REGION------- 47.04  50.63  53.59  50.71  49.77  48.12
49.62  52.86 

WESTERN DISTRICT-------- 65.07  66.93  67.13  65.01  63.63  60.98
55.79  59.47 

IN LIGHT OF SUCH DATA THE COMMISSION SAID: 

"MAKING DUE ALLOWANCE FOR A SUBSTANTIAL DECLINE IN TRAFFIC FROM THE
WAR PEAK AND FOR THE FACT THAT IN THE DECADE PRECEDING 1940 THE
EARNINGS OF THE WESTERN RAIL RESPONDENTS WERE RELATIVELY LOW,
NEVERTHELESS, INSOFAR AS THE PROSPECTS OF TRAFFIC AND REVENUES IN THE
IMMEDIATE FUTURE CAN BE FORESEEN, THERE IS NO REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE INTERIM ADJUSTMENT WILL HAVE ANY SERIOUS EFFECT UPON THOSE
RESPONDENTS."  264 I.C.C. 63-64. 

THE COMMISSION WENT ON TO NOTE THAT INTRASTATE CLASS RATES GENERALLY
IN MOST OF THE WESTERN STATES AND MANY OF THE INTERSTATE CLASS RATES IN
WESTERN TERRITORY WERE ALREADY LOWER THAN THOSE PRESCRIBED IN THE
INTERIM ORDERS.  IT ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE WESTERN ROADS
"CANNOT CONSISTENTLY MAINTAIN THESE SUB-NORMAL CLASS RATES AND CONTINUE
TO MAINTAIN THE RELATIVELY HIGH BASIS OF INTERSTATE CLASS RATES  ...  "
264 I.C.C. P. 64. 

MOREOVER, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, CLASS RATES HAVE TO A GREAT
EXTENT FALLEN INTO DISUSE.  THIS FACT IS RELEVANT HERE IN TWO
RESPECTS.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION AFFECT
CLASS RATES AND CLASS RATES ALONE, THE COMMISSION NOT DEALING WITH
EXCEPTION AND COMMODITY RATES BY THE INTERIM ACTION WHICH IT HAS
TAKEN.  SO FAR AS PRESENT FREIGHT MOVEMENT IS CONCERNED, THE ORDERS
AFFECT A MUCH SMALLER FRACTION OF THE TRAFFIC IN THE WEST THAN IN THE
EAST.  THE COMMISSION SAID: 

"THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE REVENUE NEEDS
OF THE WESTERN RAIL RESPONDENTS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR CLASS-RATE
TRAFFIC ARE GREATER THAN THOSE OF THE EASTERN RAIL RESPONDENTS.  FROM
THE CARRIERS' REPORTS TO US FOR THE YEARS 1942, 1943, AS SHOWN IN OUR
ORIGINAL REPORT, AND 1944, IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT THERE IS A GREATER
NEED FOR REVENUE BY RAIL CARRIERS IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT AS COMPARED
WITH RAIL CARRIERS IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OR IN THE SOUTHERN REGION. 
THE REPORT SHOWS ALSO THAT A MUCH LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
TRAFFIC IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT MOVES ON CLASS RATES THAN IN THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OR IN THE SOUTHERN REGION."  264 I.C.C. PP. 64-65. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE SINGLES OUT THE
CLASS RATE TRAFFIC IN THE WEST FOR THE PAYMENT OF UNUSUALLY HIGH
RATES.  THE CLASS RATE TRAFFIC IS LARGELY THAT OF SMALL SHIPPERS, WHO
DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE LOWER EXCEPTION OR
COMMODITY RATES. 

WE CANNOT, THEREFORE, TREAT THIS CASE AS IF IT WERE ONE WHERE THE
COMMISSION, IN SPITE OF A SHOWING OF SOME INCREASED COST IN THE WEST,
REDUCED ALL FREIGHT RATES TO A LEVEL OF EQUALITY WITH THE EAST.  IT IS
A CASE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ONE SMALL
CLASS OF TRAFFIC IS WARRANTED BY THE SHOWING OF SOME INCREASED COST IN
THE WEST.  THE EARNING POWER OF THE CARRIERS, THEIR FREIGHT OPERATING
RATIOS, THEIR RATES OF RETURN, THE ESTIMATE OF THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC IN
THE FUTURE, THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC PRESENTLY INVOLVED IN THE
CLASS RATE MOVEMENTS ARE ALL RELEVANT TO THE FINDING OF UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT
COUNTERBALANCE OR OUTWEIGH THE DISPARITY IN COSTS BETWEEN EAST AND
WEST.  THE APPRAISAL OF THESE NUMEROUS FACTORS IS FOR TRANSPORTATION
EXPERTS.  THEY MAY ERR.  BUT THE ERROR, IF ANY, IS NOT OF THE EGREGIOUS
TYPE WHICH IS WITHIN OUR REACH ON JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. DIFFENBAUGH,
SUPRA, P. 46, HELD THAT THE ACT, IN ITS CONDEMNATION OF DISCRIMINATION,
"DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO EQUALIZE FORTUNE, OPPORTUNITIES OR ABILITIES." 
BUT THE COMMISSION MADE NO SUCH EFFORT HERE.  IT ELIMINATED
INEQUALITIES IN THE CLASS RATES BECAUSE IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
DIFFERENCES IN THEM WERE NOT WARRANTED BY TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS.  WE
THINK THAT THE FINDINGS SUPPORTING THAT CONCLUSION ARE BASED ON
ADEQUATE EVIDENCE. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COMPARISON OF RATES OF RETURN AND FREIGHT
OPERATING RATIOS OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT BOTH REFLECT THE HIGHER
FREIGHT REVENUE LEVEL THAT PREVAILS IN THE WEST.  AND IT IS URGED THAT
WITHOUT THE RATE ADVANTAGE WHICH THE WESTERN CARRIERS NOW ENJOY, ANY
COMPARISON WHICH NOW APPEARS TO FAVOR THE WESTERN CARRIERS WOULD
DISAPPEAR.  THAT ARGUMENT ASSUMES A CONSTANCY IN FREIGHT TRAFFIC AND ON
THAT ASSUMPTION COULD BE MATHEMATICALLY DEMONSTRATED.  BUT WE ARE
DEALING HERE WITH A PROBLEM OF DISCRIMINATION - A WESTERN RATE
STRUCTURE WHICH, AS COMPARED WITH THE EASTERN, IS NOT WARRANTED BY
TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS AND WHICH PREJUDICES THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE WEST.  IT WOULD BE A LARGE ORDER TO SAY THAT THE REMOVAL OF THAT
TRADE BARRIER WILL HAVE NO EFFECT IN INCREASING TRAFFIC.  THE
ASSUMPTION ON WHICH THE FINDING OF PREJUDICE IS MADE IS, INDEED, TO THE
CONTRARY.  MOREOVER, THAT ARGUMENT WOULD PROTECT A DISCRIMINATORY RATE
STRUCTURE FROM THE POWER OF REVISION GRANTED THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC.
3(1) BY THE EASY ASSUMPTION THAT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION THE CARRIERS
WOULD NOT THRIVE.  BUT THAT FLIES IN THE FACE OF HISTORY AND IS
CONTRARY TO THE COMMISSION'S EXPERT JUDGMENT ON THESE FACTS. 

SIXTH.  AN EXTENDED ARGUMENT IS MADE BY THE WESTERN ROADS,
CHALLENGING THE CLASS RATE REDUCTION ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD LOTS.  THE
ARGUMENT IS TWOFOLD - FIRST, THAT THE CASE OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION
HAS NOT BEEN MADE OUT FOR THIS TYPE OF CLASS RATE TRAFFIC; SECOND, THAT
THE NEW LESS-THAN-CARLOAD CLASS RATES ARE CONFISCATORY. 

WE HAVE REFERRED TO SOME OF THE COST FIGURES ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
LOTS.  WE HAVE SEEN THAT THOSE COST FIGURES RUN HIGHER IN THE WEST THAN
IN THE EAST; THAT EVEN WHEN NO CONSTANT COSTS COMMON TO ALL TRAFFIC ARE
ALLOCATED TO LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC, THE DEFICIT IN THE WEST IS
SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THAT IN THE EAST.  THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT
LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC AS A WHOLE IS CARRIED AT A DEFICIT IN ALL
TERRITORIES, EXCEPT POSSIBLY IN THE SOUTH.  IT ALSO NOTED THAT IN ALL
TERRITORIES IT WAS NOT BEARING ITS PROPER SHARE OF THE COSTS OF
TRANSPORTATION; THAT, APART FROM WARTIME LOADING, IT WAS NOT YIELDING,
ON THE AVERAGE, ITS OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS PLUS CONSTANT EXPENSES SOLELY
RELATED TO LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC  FN32  PLUS THE COST OF COLLECTION
AND DELIVERY, IN ANY TERRITORY EXCEPT POSSIBLY THE SOUTHERN.  262
I.C.C. P. 697. 

LITTLE NEED BE SAID CONCERNING THE ARGUMENT THAT A CASE OF UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE OF LESS-THAN
CARLOAD TRAFFIC.  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT IF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
CLASS RATES WERE LEFT UNCHANGED WHILE CARLOAD CLASS RATES IN SOUTHERN,
SOUTHWESTERN AND WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORIES WERE REDUCED 10 PER
CENT, "THE COMPETITIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN SHIPPERS SHIPPING IN LESS-THAN
CARLOAD QUANTITIES AND THOSE SHIPPING IN CARLOADS" WOULD BE MATERIALLY
AFFECTED.  264 I.C.C. P. 66.  LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC IS LESS THAN 2
PER CENT OF TOTAL RAILROAD FREIGHT TONNAGE, AND MUCH OF THAT MOVES, NOT
ON CLASS RATES, BUT ON EXCEPTION RATES AND COMMODITY RATES.  IN WESTERN
TRUNK-LINE AND SOUTHWESTERN TERRITORIES MANY INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE
CLASS RATES ARE NOW VOLUNTARILY MAINTAINED ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC
WHICH ARE LOWER THAN THE CORRESPONDING REDUCED INTERSTATE CLASS RATES
REQUIRED BY THE INTERIM ORDERS.  THERE ARE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, TO
WHICH WE WILL SHORTLY ADVERT, WHICH REINFORCE THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION IN REDUCING CLASS RATES ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC.  BUT
THE ONES WE HAVE MENTIONED ARE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION ON
THE DISCRIMINATION PHASE OF THE PROBLEM.  THE COMMISSION WAS DEALING
NOT WITH DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A PARTICULAR COMMODITY BUT WITH
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ENTIRE REGIONS.  IT WAS A COMPLETE RATE
STRUCTURE THAT WAS SUBJECT TO INQUIRY AND REVISION.  ONCE THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION EXISTED IN THE MAIN
FEATURES OF THAT RATE STRUCTURE, IT WAS JUSTIFIED IN REMOVING IT.  IN
ELIMINATING THE DISCRIMINATION AND ESTABLISHING THE UNIFORMITY REQUIRED
BY THE LAW, IT WAS WARRANTED IN MAKING MINOR COLLATERAL READJUSTMENTS
SO THAT THE COMMISSION ITSELF WOULD NOT IN TURN CREATE NEW
DISCRIMINATIONS.  THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD CLASS RATES
WAS PERMISSIBLE ON THAT GROUND ALONE.  THE TRAFFIC AFFECTED WAS ONLY A
FRACTION OF 2 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL TRAFFIC.  WITHOUT THAT READJUSTMENT
THAT CLASS OF TRAFFIC WOULD BE PREJUDICED.  WITH THAT READJUSTMENT THE
PREJUDICE WOULD BE REMOVED AND THE ENTIRE RATE STRUCTURE - INTRASTATE
AND INTERSTATE - WOULD BE MORE NEARLY RATIONALIZED. 

THAT DOES NOT, OF COURSE, ANSWER THE ARGUMENT ON CONFISCATION.  THE
LATTER REQUIRES MORE EXTENDED TREATMENT. 

THE WESTERN ROADS IN THEIR PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE
COMMISSION RAISED THE CONFISCATION POINT.  BUT IN DOING SO THEY RESTED
ON THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND TENDERED NO ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.  IN THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, THEY PRESENTED FURTHER
EVIDENCE WHICH WAS RECEIVED OVER OBJECTION AND CONSIDERED BY THAT
COURT. 

THIS, THEREFORE, IS NOT A CASE LIKE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 298 U.S. 349, 363, 371-372, WHERE THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO
RECEIVE EVIDENCE PROFFERED ON THE POINT OF CONFISCATION.  HERE, AS WE
HAVE SAID, THE COMMISSION RECEIVED ALL EVIDENCE THAT WAS OFFERED; AND
WHEN ITS ORDER WAS ANNOUNCED AND MADE KNOWN AND THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING WAS FILED, THE OPPORTUNITY TO TENDER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO
BOLSTER THE CONFISCATION POINT WAS NOT ACCEPTED.  AS STATED IN
MANUFACTURERS R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 457, 489-490, AND IN
ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 53-54,
CORRECT PRACTICE REQUIRES THAT, WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY EXISTS, ALL
PERTINENT EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE ISSUES TENDERED THE COMMISSION SHOULD
BE SUBMITTED TO IT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AND SHOULD NOT BE RECEIVED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT AS THOUGH IT WERE CONDUCTING A TRIAL DE NOVO.  THE
REASON IS PLAIN ENOUGH.  THESE PROBLEMS OF TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS ARE
COMPLICATED AND INVOLVED.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE DETERMINATION OF
TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND THEIR ALLOCATION AMONG VARIOUS TYPES OF
TRAFFIC IS NOT A MERE MATHEMATICAL EXERCISE.  LIKE OTHER PROBLEMS IN
COST ACCOUNTING, IT INVOLVES THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT BORN OF INTIMATE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITY AND THE MAKING OF ADJUSTMENTS AND
QUALIFICATIONS TOO SUBTLE FOR THE UNINITIATED.  FN33  MOREOVER, THE
IMPACT OF A PARTICULAR ORDER ON REVENUES AND THE ABILITY OF THE
ENTERPRISE TO THRIVE UNDER IT ARE MATTERS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PART OF
THOSE WHO KNOW THE CONDITIONS WHICH CREATE THE REVENUES AND THE
FLEXIBILITY OF MANAGERIAL CONTROLS.  FOR SUCH REASONS, WE STATED IN
BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534, 546: 

"THE PROCESS OF RATE MAKING IS ESSENTIALLY EMPIRIC.  THE STUFF OF THE
PROCESS IS FLUID AND CHANGING - THE RESULTANT OF FACTORS THAT MUST BE
VALUED AS WELL AS WEIGHED.  CONGRESS HAS THEREFORE DELEGATED THE
ENFORCEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO A PERMANENT EXPERT BODY AND HAS
CHARGED IT WITH THE DUTY OF BEING RESPONSIVE TO THE DYNAMIC CHARACTER
OF TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS." 

THUS WE THINK THAT IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NECESSARY TO PASS
ON THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION, THE CAUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMANDED TO
THE COMMISSION FOR A FURTHER PRELIMINARY APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS WHICH
BEAR ON THAT QUESTION.  BUT WE DO NOT TAKE THAT COURSE HERE FOR REASONS
WHICH WILL SHORTLY APPEAR. 

THE COMMISSION EXPLAINED ITS FINDING THAT LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC
WAS BEING CARRIED AT LARGE DEFICITS AND WAS NOT BEARING ITS PROPER
SHARE OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS.  THAT FINDING WAS BASED ON THE OPERATION
OF THE ROADS IN 1939 WHEN THE AVERAGE LOAD PER CAR OF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
SHIPMENTS AMOUNTED TO ONLY 4.3 TONS IN THE WEST.  SINCE 1939 THERE HAS
BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE AVERAGE LOADING OF SUCH SHIPMENTS,
WHICH WAS BROUGHT ABOUT UNDER WARTIME CONDITIONS AND WHICH HAS
MATERIALLY DECREASED THE UNIT COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
TRAFFIC.  IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT
LOADINGS IN THE IMMEDIATE POSTWAR PERIOD WERE LIKELY TO DECLINE TO 1939
LEVELS.  MOREOVER, THE COST DATA ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC RELATED
TO SUCH TRAFFIC AS A WHOLE AND NOT SOLELY TO THAT MOVING ON CLASS
RATES.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, MUCH OF THIS TRAFFIC MOVES NOT ON CLASS RATES
BUT ON EXCEPTION RATES AND COMMODITY RATES.  THE CLASS-RATE TRAFFIC
BEARS THE HIGHEST RATES.  THE PAST FAILURE OF THIS TRAFFIC, AS A WHOLE,
TO CARRY ITS PROPER SHARE OF THE COSTS MAY WELL HAVE BEEN DUE IN LARGE
MEASURE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF EXCEPTION AND COMMODITY RATES. 

THE WESTERN ROADS PRESENT ELABORATE ANALYSIS (BASED BOTH ON THE
COMMISSION'S COST FIGURES AND ON COSTS AS ADJUSTED BY THE EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED IN THE DISTRICT COURT) WHICH SHOWS LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC
LARGELY CARRIED AT DEFICITS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CLASS RATE PAID UNDER
THE INTERIM ORDERS.  THEY CONTEND THAT THE LOADING FIGURE OF 4.3 TONS
IS THE ONLY RELIABLE ONE TO USE IN PROJECTING THE COSTS AND REVENUES
INTO THE POSTWAR PERIOD, SINCE IT WAS IN FACT THE AVERAGE LOADING PRIOR
TO THE WAR, AND WILL BE ONCE MORE, AS SOON AS THE ORDER OF THE OFFICE
OF DEFENSE TRANSPORTATION WHICH REQUIRES TEN-TON LOADING IS REVOKED. 
AND COMPUTATIONS ARE PRESENTED BASED ON THAT FIGURE WHICH SHOW DEFICITS
IN LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC, DEFICITS WHICH ARE INCREASED WHEN THE
COMMISSION'S COST FIGURES ARE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT COST INCREASES TO
JANUARY 1, 1946.  ALL OF THOSE COMPUTATIONS INCLUDE AS CONSTANT COSTS
ONLY THOSE WHICH RELATED TO THIS TRAFFIC.  AND IT IS POINTED OUT THAT
IF ALL CONSTANT COSTS WERE INCLUDED, THE COMPUTED DEFICITS WOULD
SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE. 

ON THE OTHER HAND THE COMMISSION SHOWS THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE NEW
INTERIM RATES THIS TRAFFIC IN THE WEST WOULD PRODUCE REVENUES IN EXCESS
OF OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES PLUS 4 PER CENT RETURN PLUS COLLECTION AND
DELIVERY EXPENSES PLUS LOSS AND DAMAGE PAYMENTS.  THAT COMPUTATION IS
BASED ON A TEN-TON LOADING FIGURE.  AND ON THE BASIS OF THOSE TYPES OF
COSTS, THERE IS AN EXCESS OF REVENUE EVEN THOUGH THE COSTS ARE
INCREASED TO THE JANUARY 1, 1946 LEVEL.  THE 1939 LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
COSTS  FN34  IN THE WEST WERE 30 PER CENT GREATER THAN REVENUES FROM
ALL SUCH TRAFFIC.  IF THE CLASS-RATE PORTION OF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
TRAFFIC IS TAKEN, THE COSTS ARE 81 PER CENT OF THE REVENUES, PROVIDED
CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE:  (1) INCREASED REVENUES FROM THE INCREASE
IN THE MINIMUM CHARGE PER SHIPMENT FROM 55 TO 75 CENTS WHICH THE
COMMISSION AUTHORIZED IN THIS PROCEEDING; (2) THE ELIMINATION OF LESS
THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC MOVING ON EXCEPTION, COMMODITY, AND INTRASTATE
RATES; (3) A 10-TON LOAD; AND (4) A 2.47 PER CENT RATE OF RETURN, WHICH
WAS THE ACTUAL RATE OF RETURN OF 1939. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO ANALYZE THE VARIOUS COMPUTATIONS IN ORDER TO
ASCERTAIN THE EXACT RELATION BETWEEN REVENUES AND COSTS OF LESS-THAN
CARLOAD TRAFFIC.  THAT, INDEED, WOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE ON THIS RECORD. 
FOR EVEN THE COMMISSION MADE NO ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE WHAT SHARE OF ALL
COSTS SHOULD FAIRLY BE ALLOCATED TO LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC.  HENCE,
IF THE COMMISSION HAD SPOKEN ITS FINAL WORD, AND IF IT WERE BELIEVED
NECESSARY AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, SEE NORTHERN PACIFIC R.
CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585; CF. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE
NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 602, TO FIX A LESS-THAN-CARLOAD CLASS
RATE WHICH PRODUCED A FAIR RETURN ON THAT PARTICULAR TRAFFIC, THE CASE
WOULD HAVE TO BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROPRIATE FINDINGS ON
THIS PHASE.  THE DIFFICULTY OF TREATING THE ISSUE ON THE PRESENT RECORD
IS ILLUSTRATED IN ANOTHER WAY.  LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC, MORE THAN
CARLOAD TRAFFIC, CARRIES COSTS WHICH TO A DEGREE ARE DEPENDENT ON THE
CARRIER.  HEAVY OR LIGHT LOADINGS, SPEED OF SERVICE, RATIO OF EMPTY
RETURN CARS, METHODS OF LOADING FREIGHT SO AS TO REDUCE DAMAGE CLAIMS,
SUBSTITUTION OF AUXILIARY TRUCK SERVICE AND THE LIKE TURN ON
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS.  CERTAINLY RATES NEED NOT COMPENSATE CARRIERS
FOR THE MOST EXPENSIVE WAY OF HANDLING LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SERVICE.  YET
THE PRESENT FINDINGS DO NOT ILLUMINATE THAT PROBLEM NOR PROVIDE THE
STANDARD IN TERMS OF SERVICE FOR MEASURING THE COMPENSATORY CHARACTER
OF THE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD CLASS RATES.  AND ON SUCH A PROBLEM THE
COMMISSION'S HIGHEST EXPERT JUDGMENT WOULD BE CALLED INTO PLAY. 

BUT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT FINISHED WITH THIS PROBLEM.  IN THE FIRST
PLACE, AS WE POINT OUT HEREAFTER, THE COMMISSION, SUBSEQUENT TO THE
ISSUANCE OF THESE INTERIM ORDERS, GRANTED A NATIONWIDE INCREASE IN
FREIGHT RATES, INCLUDING AN INCREASE ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES.  THE
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HAS PREVENTED THE INTERIM ORDERS REDUCING CLASS
RATES IN THE WEST BY 10 PER CENT FROM GOING INTO EFFECT.  WHEN,
THEREFORE, THE INTERIM ORDERS DO GO INTO EFFECT, THE ACTUAL RATES
CHARGEABLE PRESUMABLY WILL BE INCREASED FROM THE LEVEL FIXED BY THE
INTERIM ORDERS TO THE LEVEL PRESCRIBED BY THE RECENT ORDER INCREASING
ALL FREIGHT RATES.  THUS NO LOSS HAS BEEN SUFFERED BY THE 10 PER CENT
REDUCTION ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD CLASS RATES; AND ANY LOSS WHICH WOULD
HAVE BEEN SUFFERED BY THAT RATE REDUCTION HAS PROBABLY BEEN AT LEAST
LESSENED, IF NOT ELIMINATED, BY THE GENERAL RATE INCREASE.  THOUGH IT
IS ARGUED THAT SUCH IS NOT THE CASE, THE SHOWING IS TOO SPECULATIVE ON
THIS RECORD FOR US TO DECIDE WHAT THE PRECISE EFFECT OF THE REVISED
CLASS RATES ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC WILL BE.  IN THE SECOND PLACE,
AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE COMMISSION MADE THE PRESENT INTERIM ADJUSTMENT OF
CLASS RATES ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ITS
REDUCTION IN CARLOAD CLASS RATES SO THAT LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SHIPPERS
WOULD NOT SUFFER A DISADVANTAGE FROM THE REMOVAL OF THE MAJOR
DISCRIMINATION IN THE CLASS RATE STRUCTURE.  THE INTERIM OR TEMPORARY
NATURE OF THE ADJUSTMENT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMISSION WHEN IT
ADMONISHED THE CARRIERS "TO GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RATES
MAINTAINED BY THEM ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC WITH A VIEW TO MAKING
READJUSTMENTS IN RATINGS OR RATES, AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE, WHICH WILL
INSURE THAT THE RATES ON SUCH TRAFFIC ARE ON A COMPENSATORY LEVEL." 
264 I.C.C. 66-67.  AND IT RECOGNIZED BUT LEFT UNTOUCHED THE PROBLEM OF
DETERMINING WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPER SHARE OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS TO
BE BORNE BY LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC. 

THE JUSTIFICATION THE COMMISSION HAD FOR LEAVING THE PROBLEM IN THAT
CONDITION AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS APPARENT.  THE CARRIERS
ARE NOW PREPARING THE NEW UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION.  THEY HAVE IT WITHIN
THEIR POWER TO FOLLOW THE LEAD SUGGESTED BY THE COMMISSION AND TO
PROPOSE CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CARLOAD AND LESS-THAN
CARLOAD TRAFFIC WHICH WILL OBVIATE ANY ISSUE OF CONFISCATION RESPECTING
LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES.  AND IT HAS LIKEWISE LEFT OPEN THE QUESTION OF
READJUSTMENT OF THE CLASS RATES ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC WHEN THE
TOTAL PROGRAM, OF WHICH THESE INTERIM ORDERS ARE BUT A PART, IS PUT
INTO EFFECT. 

WHERE THE RESULT OF A RATE ORDER IS NOT CLEARLY SHOWN TO BE
CONFISCATORY BUT ITS PRECISE EFFECT MUST AWAIT OPERATIONS UNDER IT, THE
COURT HAS REFUSED TO SET IT ASIDE DESPITE GRAVE DOUBTS AS TO ITS
CONSEQUENCES.  SEE KNOXVILLE V. KNOXVILLE WATER CO., 212 U.S. 1, 17
18.  AND SEE WILLCOX V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S. 19, 54-55;
DARNELL V. EDWARDS, 244 U.S. 564, 570; BRUSH ELECTRIC CO. V. GALVESTON,
262 U.S. 443, 446; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
P. 69.  THE REASONS FOR FOLLOWING A LIKE COURSE ARE EQUALLY IMPELLING
HERE.  THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PLACED THE WESTERN ROADS IN A STRAIT
JACKET.  IT HAS MADE AN INTERIM REDUCTION ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD CLASS
RATES AS AN INCIDENT TO ITS REMOVAL OF DISCRIMINATIONS IN CARLOAD CLASS
RATES.  IT HAS INDICATED THE COURSE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE CARRIERS, AS
A PART OF THE OVERALL CLASSIFICATION AND CLASS RATE PROBLEM, TO MAKE
CERTAIN THAT THESE RATES ARE COMPENSATORY.  WE ARE THUS DEALING WITH A
PROBLEM WHICH IS IN FLUX, AN INTERIM ORDER MADE NECESSARY AS A RESULT
OF A COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF ENTIRE RATE STRUCTURES.  MOREOVER, THE
CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN FROM THE RECENT GENERAL INCREASE IN FREIGHT
RATES IS TOO UNCERTAIN AND SPECULATIVE ON THIS RECORD FOR US TO PASS ON
THE CONFISCATION ISSUE.  SEE BRUSH ELECTRIC CO. V. GALVESTON, SUPRA.
THE DISTRICT COURT AMPLY PROTECTED APPELLANTS WHEN IT OVERRULED THEIR
CLAIM THAT THE INTERIM RATES ARE CONFISCATORY WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
ANOTHER SUIT TO CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THOSE RATES IF, AFTER A FAIR
TEST, THEY PROVE TO BE BELOW THE LOWEST REACHES OF A REASONABLE MINIMUM
OR IF THE PERMANENT RATES DO NOT MEET THAT STANDARD.  SEE DARNELL V.
EDWARDS, SUPRA, P. 570. 

SEVENTH.  IT WAS HELD IN TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, P. 650, THAT WHERE THE COMMISSION MAKES AN ORDER UNDER SEC. 3 TO
REMOVE AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION, THE CARRIERS MUST BE AFFORDED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO "ABATE THE DISCRIMINATION BY RAISING ONE RATE, LOWERING
THE OTHER, OR ALTERING BOTH."  BUT THAT RULING WAS QUALIFIED BY THE
STATEMENT THAT THE COMMISSION NEED NOT FOLLOW THAT COURSE IN CASE IT
ACTS UNDER SEC. 15(1).  ID., P. 650, NOTE 39.  SECTION 1(5)(A) OF THE
ACT PROVIDES THAT ALL CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY "SHALL
BE JUST AND REASONABLE, AND EVERY UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE CHARGE FOR
SUCH SERVICE OR ANY PART THEREOF IS PROHIBITED AND DECLARED TO BE
UNLAWFUL."  AND SEE SEC. 1(4).  SECTION 15(1) PROVIDES THAT WHEN THE
COMMISSION FINDS THAT "ANY INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE"
OF A COMMON CARRIER IS "UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE OR UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATORY OR UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL," THE COMMISSION
MAY DETERMINE AND PRESCRIBE "WHAT WILL BE THE JUST AND REASONABLE"
RATE.  AND SEE SEC. 15(3).  THE WORDS "UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY OR
UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL" PLAINLY REFER TO PRACTICES
CONDEMNED BY SEC. 3(1).  A PROPER FINDING OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION
UNDER SEC. 3(1) THUS ENABLES THE COMMISSION NOT ONLY TO DIRECT THE
CARRIERS TO ELIMINATE THE PRACTICE BUT ALSO, PURSUANT TO SEC. 15, TO
PRESCRIBE THE ALTERNATIVE.  SEE YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 476.  THUS THE COMMISSION IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION,
AS IN THE CASE WHERE INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS INVOLVED, GEORGIA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 765, MAY REMOVE UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATIONS AND PRESCRIBE NEW RATES. 

IN TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 650, IT WAS
ALSO STATED THAT, "A CARRIER OR GROUP OF CARRIERS MUST BE THE COMMON
SOURCE OF THE DISCRIMINATION - MUST EFFECTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN BOTH
RATES, IF AN ORDER FOR THE CORRECTION OF THE DISPARITY IS TO RUN
AGAINST IT OR THEM."  AND IT WAS HELD IN CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 257 U.S. 247, 259, THAT MERE PARTICIPATION IN JOINT RATES DOES
NOT MAKE CONNECTING CARRIERS PARTNERS IN DISCRIMINATION; THAT THEY CAN
BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR UNJUST DISCRIMINATION ONLY IF EACH CARRIER HAS
PARTICIPATED IN SOME WAY IN THE PRACTICE WHICH CAUSES THE
DISCRIMINATION, "AS WHERE A LOWER JOINT RATE IS GIVEN TO ONE LOCALITY
THAN TO ANOTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED."  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE SAME RULE
APPLIES IN THIS CASE SINCE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE WESTERN CARRIERS HAVE NO
CONTROL OF OR PARTICIPATION IN THE LOWER OFFICIAL INTRATERRITORIAL
RATES, ALTHOUGH THEY DO PARTICIPATE IN THE JOINT OR THROUGH
INTERTERRITORIAL RATES. 

IN REPLY IT IS SAID THAT CARRIERS IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY CONTROL RATES
WITHIN THAT AREA AND ALSO CONTROL, JOINTLY WITH THE CARRIERS IN EACH OF
THE OTHER TERRITORIES, THE RATES FROM EACH OF THEM INTO OFFICIAL.  THAT
COMMON SOURCE OF DISCRIMINATION IS SAID TO BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION.  SEE ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 245 U.S. 136; CHICAGO, I. & L.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S.
287.  BUT WE DO NOT NEED TO DECIDE THE QUESTION.  FOR THE PRINCIPLE
ANNOUNCED IN CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED STATES AND TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE COMMISSION IS
DIRECTING THE CARRIERS TO REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATION.  THOSE CASES HOLD
THAT THE COMMISSION MAY NOT REQUIRE CARRIERS TO DO WHAT THEY ARE
POWERLESS TO PERFORM.  BUT THE COURT RECOGNIZED IN CENTRAL R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 257, THAT WHERE THE COMMISSION ACTS PURSUANT
TO SEC. 1 TO REQUIRE CARRIERS TO ESTABLISH, IN CONNECTION WITH THROUGH
ROUTES AND JOINT RATES, REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS, THAT PROBLEM
IS NOT INVOLVED.  FOR THEN THE COMMISSION CORRECTS THE UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE IN THE CASE OF EACH CARRIER BY PRESCRIBING THE
JUST AND REASONABLE RATE OR PRACTICE.  THE SAME IS TRUE WHERE, AS HERE,
THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE TERRITORIAL DISCRIMINATIONS
PROCEEDS UNDER SEC. 15(1) TO FIX NEW REASONABLE RATES.  IF THE HANDS OF
THE COMMISSION ARE TIED AND IT IS POWERLESS TO PROTECT REGIONS AND
TERRITORIES FROM DISCRIMINATION UNLESS ALL RATES INVOLVED IN THE RATE
RELATIONSHIP ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SAME CARRIERS, THEN THE 1940
AMENDMENT TO SEC. 3(1) FELL FAR SHORT OF ITS GOAL.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE
CONGRESS LEFT THE COMMISSION SO IMPOTENT. 

IT MAY NOT BE SAID IN THIS CASE, AS IT WAS HELD IN TEXAS & PACIFIC R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 633, THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THE
UNREASONABLENESS OF THE RATES, OR THAT THAT QUESTION WAS NOT IN ISSUE. 
THE COMMISSION HERE FOUND THAT THE RATES WERE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE
UNDER SEC. 1 AND IT PROCEEDED TO FIX NEW RATES UNDER SEC. 15(1).  THE
FACTS WHICH ESTABLISH THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN RATES AS BETWEEN THE
SEVERAL TERRITORIES ARE NOT WARRANTED BY TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS PLAINLY
SUSTAIN ITS FINDINGS UNDER SEC. 1. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THIS PROCEEDING PERTAINS ONLY TO CLASS RATES, WHICH
MOVE BUT A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE TRAFFIC.  IT IS, THEREFORE, ARGUED
THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE ADJUSTMENTS IN THOSE RATES
WITHOUT BRINGING ABOUT SOME EQUALIZATION OF EXCEPTION AND COMMODITY
RATES UNDER WHICH THE BULK OF THE TRAFFIC IS MOVED.  BUT THERE IS NO
REASON IN LAW WHY THE COMMISSION NEED TACKLE ALL EVILS IN THE RATE
STRUCTURE OR NONE.  IT MAY TAKE ONE STEP AT A TIME.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. WABASH R. CO., 321 U.S. 403.  THE 10 PER CENT INTERIM RATE ORDER DID
NOT ATTEMPT TO BRING ABOUT COMPLETE ELIMINATION OF THE DISCRIMINATORY
FEATURES OF THE CLASS RATE STRUCTURE.  IT WAS ONLY AN APPROXIMATION OF
THAT RESULT, THE COMPLETE STEP AWAITING THE NEW UNIFORM
CLASSIFICATION.  BUT THE REASONS JUSTIFYING THAT PARTIAL MEASURE
LIKEWISE SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN COMMENCING WITH CLASS
RATES WHEN IT TACKLED THE PROBLEM OF TERRITORIAL DISCRIMINATIONS. 

EIGHTH.  A DIFFERENT PROBLEM IS PRESENTED WHEN WE TURN TO THE 10 PER
CENT INCREASE IN CLASS RATES WHICH THE COMMISSION PRESCRIBED FOR
OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  APPELLANTS STRENUOUSLY URGE THAT THIS ACTION OF
THE COMMISSION WAS UNAUTHORIZED UNDER THE ACT, EVEN IF THE OTHER
PORTIONS OF ITS ORDERS WERE JUSTIFIED. 

THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE WAS THAT THE
PRESENT CLASS RATES IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY WERE BELOW A JUST AND
REASONABLE LEVEL AND SHOULD BE INCREASED 10 PER CENT AS A PART OF THE
ADJUSTMENT OF THE RATE STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE UNLAWFULNESS
BOTH AS RESPECTS THEIR UNREASONABLE LOW LEVEL AND THEIR UNDULY
PREFERENTIAL CHARACTER.  262 I.C.C. 700-701, 704-705; 264 I.C.C. 62. 
THAT FINDING IS SAID TO BE WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD AND TO LACK
THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT IT. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT RATES ARE NOT UNREASONABLY LOW IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
1 UNLESS THEY ARE EITHER NONCOMPENSATORY OR OTHERWISE THREATEN HARMFUL
EFFECTS UPON THE REVENUES AND TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY OF THE CARRIERS
IN QUESTION, OR OF THEIR COMPETITORS.  IT IS SAID, AS IS THE FACT, THAT
NO SUCH FINDINGS WERE MADE BY THE COMMISSION AND THAT ON THIS RECORD
THERE ARE NO FACTS WHICH COULD SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING. 

IF THIS WERE A CASE OF DETERMINING WHETHER EXISTING RATES PASSED
BELOW THE LOWEST OR ABOVE THE HIGHEST REACHES OF REASONABLENESS, THE
POINT MIGHT BE WELL TAKEN.  FN35  SEE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST.
P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 506.  BUT WE DO NOT HAVE HERE SUCH A
REVENUE PROBLEM.  THIS CASE PRESENTS PROBLEMS IN RATE RELATIONSHIPS,
THAT IS TO SAY, PROBLEMS OF A DISCRIMINATORY RATE STRUCTURE CONDEMNED
BY SEC. 3(1).  THE COMMISSION MAY REMOVE A DISCRIMINATION EFFECTED BY
RATES, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE WITHIN THE ZONE OF REASONABLENESS, IF THE
DISCRIMINATION IS FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 3(1).  AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS
STATED IN UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA, P. 524, THE
MERE FACT THAT ONE RATE IS "INHERENTLY REASONABLE, AND THAT THE RATE
FROM COMPETING POINTS IS NOT SHOWN TO BE UNREASONABLY LOW, DOES NOT
ESTABLISH THAT THE DISCRIMINATION IS JUST.  BOTH RATES MAY LIE WITHIN
THE ZONE OF REASONABLENESS AND YET RESULT IN UNDUE PREJUDICE."  THE
COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO ADJUST THE RATES UPWARDS AND DOWNWARDS,
WITHIN THAT ZONE, IN ORDER TO ERADICATE THE DISCRIMINATION.  THAT POWER
IS NOT UNLIMITED; THERE ARE STANDARDS WHICH CONTROL ITS EXERCISE.  BUT
AS WE SHALL SEE, THE COMMISSION ACTED WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMITS HERE. 

ONCE THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND RATES TO BE "UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE OR
UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY OR UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL," IT IS
EMPOWERED TO PRESCRIBE RATES WHICH ARE "JUST AND REASONABLE" OR "THE
MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM, OR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM, TO BE CHARGED  ...  " SEC.
15(1).  IN YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE
COMMISSION, ACTING UNDER SEC. 15(1), INCREASED RAIL RATES BY
PRESCRIBING WHAT IT FOUND TO BE REASONABLE MINIMUM RATES.  THERE WAS NO
FINDING THAT THE EXISTING, LOWER RATES WERE NOT COMPENSATORY.  THE
FINDING OF REASONABLENESS WAS PREMISED ON THE GROUNDS THAT "LOWER RATES
WOULD CREATE UNDUE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SHIPPERS IN ORIGIN DISTRICTS
WHO CANNOT USE THE WATER-RAIL ROUTE, AND WOULD TEND TO DISRUPT THE RATE
STRUCTURE, AND TO DESTROY THE PROPER DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN VARIOUS
PRODUCING DISTRICTS ON SHIPMENTS TO OHIO DESTINATIONS."  P. 479.  THE
COMMISSION RELIED NOT ONLY ON EVIDENCE BEARING UPON THE CHARACTER OF
THE SERVICE AND COST BUT ALSO ON A COMPARISON OF OTHER RATES IN THE
SAME OR ADJACENT TERRITORY.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE ORDER SAYING, "THE
EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE FURNISHED SUPPORT FOR THE FINDING OF
REASONABLENESS."  P. 480.  IN SCANDRETT V. UNITED STATES, 32 F.SUPP. 
995, 996, AFF'D 312 U.S. 661, THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND THAT PROPOSED
REDUCED RATES WERE "COMPENSATORY, CONSIDERING ALL COSTS" BUT THAT THEY
WERE BELOW A MINIMUM REASONABLE LEVEL AND THEREFORE UNLAWFUL.  IT TOOK
THAT ACTION TO PREVENT DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION BETWEEN RAIL, WATER, AND
MOTOR CARRIERS.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE ORDER.  AND SEE JEFFERSON
ISLAND SALT MIN. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 6 F.2D 315. 

THESE CASES, TO BE SURE, RECOGNIZE THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION SO TO
FIX MINIMUM RATES AS TO KEEP IN COMPETITIVE BALANCE THE VARIOUS TYPES
OF CARRIERS AND TO PREVENT RUINOUS RATE WARS BETWEEN THEM.  THAT
PLAINLY IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
THE COMMISSION WAS GRANTED THE POWER TO FIX MINIMUM RATES BY THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 456, 66TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 19.  CF. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 292
U.S. 282.  BUT THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION OCCUPIES AN EQUALLY
HIGH PLACE IN THE STATUTORY SCHEME.  AND, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE POWER
GRANTED THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 15(1) INCLUDES THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE
RATES WHICH WILL SUBSTITUTE LAWFUL FOR DISCRIMINATORY RATE STRUCTURES. 
IF THE COMMISSION WERE POWERLESS TO INCREASE RATES TO A REASONABLE
MINIMUM IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION, UNLESS
EXISTING RATES WERE SHOWN TO BE NON-COMPENSATORY OR UNLESS RUINOUS
COMPETITION WOULD RESULT, IT WOULD IN SOME CASES BE POWERLESS TO
PRESCRIBE THE REMEDY FOR UNLAWFUL PRACTICES.  THE PRESENT CASE IS A
GOOD ILLUSTRATION.  A 10 PER CENT REDUCTION OF RATES IN THE SOUTH AND
WEST WOULD REMOVE ONLY PART OF THE DISCRIMINATION.  ON THIS RECORD IT
IS MOST DOUBTFUL THAT A FULL REDUCTION OF THOSE RATES TO THE LEVEL OF
OFFICIAL TERRITORY WOULD BE WARRANTED.  YET IF THE RATES IN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY MAY NOT BE INCREASED UNLESS THE PRESENT ONES ARE SHOWN TO BE
NON-COMPENSATORY, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE SOUTH AND WEST AND IN
FAVOR OF OFFICIAL TERRITORY WOULD CONTINUE TO THRIVE.  FOR SHIPPERS IN
OFFICIAL TERRITORY WOULD STILL HAVE A PREFERRED RATE, AS COMPARED WITH
SHIPPERS FROM THE SOUTH AND WEST, IN REACHING THE GREAT MARKETS OF THE
EAST - A PREFERENCE NOT SHOWN TO BE WARRANTED BY TERRITORIAL
CONDITIONS.  THE RAISING OF RATES TO A REASONABLE MINIMUM WAS,
THEREFORE, AS RELEVANT HERE AS IT WAS IN YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, TO THE COMMISSION'S TASK OF PROVIDING A RATIONAL
RATE STRUCTURE. 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO INCREASE RATES IN ORDER TO REMOVE
DISCRIMINATION, EVEN THOUGH EXISTING RATES MAY BE COMPENSATORY, IS NOT
UNLIMITED.  SECTION 15A (2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES: 

"IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO PRESCRIBE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES
THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION, AMONG OTHER FACTORS, TO
THE EFFECT OF RATES ON THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC BY THE CARRIER OR
CARRIERS FOR WHICH THE RATES ARE PRESCRIBED; TO THE NEED, IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT
THE LOWEST COST CONSISTENT WITH THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICE; AND TO
THE NEED OF REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE CARRIERS, UNDER HONEST,
ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICE." 

THE BALANCING AND WEIGHING OF THESE INTERESTS IS A DELICATE TASK. 
"WHETHER A DISCRIMINATION IN RATES OR SERVICES OF A CARRIER IS UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN REGARDED AS PECULIARLY A QUESTION
COMMITTED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, BASED UPON AN
APPRECIATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING THE
TRAFFIC."  SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 304. 
AND SEE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344,
352-353; BARRINGER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 1, 6-7.  WE MAY
ASSUME, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE RATES OF RETURN OF THE EASTERN CARRIERS
WERE SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THAT FOR THE SOUTH AND THE WEST, AN INCREASE
OF THE RATES FOR THE FORMER WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE, EVEN IN ORDER TO
REMOVE A DISCRIMINATION.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE RATE OF RETURN IN
RECENT YEARS  FN36  HAS FAVORED THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN CARRIERS, AS
HAVE THE FREIGHT OPERATING RATIOS.  THE COMMISSION TOOK THOSE FACTORS,
AS WELL AS THE OTHERS WE HAVE REVIEWED, INTO CONSIDERATION IN
DETERMINING THAT AN INCREASE IN RATES IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY WAS
WARRANTED.  264 I.C.C. 61-62. 

REVENUE NEEDS, LIKE COSTS OF RENDERING THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE,
ARE GERMANE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER DIFFERENCES IN TERRITORIAL RATE
STRUCTURES ARE JUSTIFIED BY TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS.  THEY ARE AMONGST
THE STANDARDS WRITTEN INTO SEC. 15A; THEY REFLECT THE TOTALITY OF
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE CARRIERS IN THE RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES
OPERATE.  SHOULD THE COMMISSION FAIL TO CONSIDER THEM IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE DISCRIMINATION INHERENT IN THE RATE STRUCTURES WAS
UNWARRANTED, IT WOULD HAVE NOT COMPLETED ITS TASK.  THERE MAY BE
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION CONCERNING THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THOSE FACTORS,
ESPECIALLY THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THE RATE OF RETURN IN THE CURRENT
YEARS AS OPPOSED TO THAT IN THE PRECEDING DECADE.  BUT THEIR
SIGNIFICANCE IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE; AND, THOUGH WE HAD
DOUBTS, WE WOULD USURP THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION IF
WE OVERRULED IT AND SUBSTITUTED OUR OWN APPRAISAL OF THESE FACTORS. 

NINTH.  AFTER THE PRESENT INTERIM ORDERS WERE ISSUED, THE COMMISSION
GRANTED A NATIONWIDE INCREASE IN ALL FREIGHT RATES.  FN37  IT IS ARGUED
THAT THIS RATE INCREASE HAS RENDERED THE INTERIM ORDERS WITH WHICH WE
ARE HERE CONCERNED OBSOLETE AND UNENFORCIBLE.  IT IS SAID THAT IN
MAKING THE GENERAL RATE INCREASE, THE COMMISSION FOUND GREATLY
DIFFERENT CONDITIONS AFFECTING TRANSPORTATION RATES FROM THOSE IT FOUND
IN THESE PROCEEDINGS; THAT THE GREATER INCREASES ALLOWED IN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY  FN38  UNDO THE UNIFORMITY POLICY ON WHICH THE INTERIM ORDERS
ARE FRAMED; AND THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE INTERIM ORDERS IN LIGHT OF
THESE CHANGED CONDITIONS WOULD PRODUCE RESULTS PLAINLY NOT
CONTEMPLATED. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE BY REASON OF CHANGED CONDITIONS THE RECORD
IS STALE.  THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT AFFECT THE ISSUES HERE. 
CF. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. JERSEY CITY, 322 U.S. 503, 515;
UNITED STATES V. PIERCE AUTO LINES, 327 U.S. 515, 535.  TO REPEAT, THIS
IS A PROCEEDING TO ELIMINATE TERRITORIAL RATE DIFFERENCES NOT JUSTIFIED
BY TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS.  THE GENERAL RATE INCREASE RECENTLY GRANTED
BY THE COMMISSION WAS A REVENUE PROCEEDING.  REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS CAN BE
AND ARE SUPERIMPOSED ON SUCH RATE STRUCTURES AS EXIST.  THE FACT THAT
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS MAY PRODUCE LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN RATES IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION IN THE PRESENT CASE.  AS WE SAID
EARLIER, SEC. 3(1) DOES NOT DICTATE A POLICY OF NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IN
RATES; IT ONLY REQUIRES THAT THE LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN RATES AMONG AND
BETWEEN TERRITORIES BE JUSTIFIED BY TERRITORIAL CONDITIONS.  THE
FINDING OF THE COMMISSION, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THAT THE REVENUE
NEEDS OF CARRIERS IN ONE TERRITORY DEMAND A LOWER OR A HIGHER RATE IN
THAT TERRITORY IS A JUSTIFICATION FOR A DIFFERENCE IN RATES AS BETWEEN
THAT TERRITORY AND OTHER TERRITORIES.  THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
GRANTING THE GENERAL RATE INCREASE IS NOT BEFORE US AND WE INTIMATE NO
OPINION ON IT.  IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR OUR PRESENT PURPOSES TO SAY THAT
IT EMPHASIZES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN REVENUE AND RATE-RELATIONSHIP
CASES AND IN NO WAY IMPAIRS THE FINDING IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE
EXISTING CLASS-RATE STRUCTURE THAT HAS PREVAILED IN THE SEVERAL
TERRITORIES STANDS CONDEMNED UNDER SEC. 3(1).  NOR IS THERE ANY
INHERENT INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE INTERIM ORDERS REDUCING CLASS RATES
AND THE RECENT ORDER INCREASING ALL RATES.  THE LATTER WAS BASED ON
CONDITIONS IN A PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDINGS. 
WHETHER THE GENERAL RATE INCREASE WILL REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE NEW
PERMANENT UNIFORM SCALE WHICH AWAITS THE NEW UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION IS
A QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION WHEN THE NEW CLASSIFICATION IS READY. 
FN39 

OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY APPELLANTS NEED NOT BE DISCUSSED.  THE
INJUNCTION STAYING THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION IS VACATED AND THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE PETITIONS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  COMMODITIES ARE GROUPED INTO CLASSES, THOSE COMMODITIES IN EACH
CLASS PAYING THE SAME FREIGHT RATE PER 100 POUNDS.  FREQUENTLY A
COMMODITY IS IN SEVERAL CLASSES DEPENDING UPON WHETHER CARLOAD OR LESS
THAN-CARLOAD LOTS ARE INVOLVED, AND UPON THE METHOD OF PACKAGING.  ONE
CLASS IS CALLED FIRST-CLASS OR CLASS 100 AND EACH OTHER CLASS HAS BEEN
FIXED AS A PERCENTAGE, OR MULTIPLE, OF FIRST-CLASS.  THUS THE FREIGHT
CLASSIFICATIONS INVOLVED IN THESE CASES CONSIST OF LISTS CONTAINING
DESCRIPTIONS OF EVERY COMMODITY MOVING BY FREIGHT AND THE CLASS OR
CLASSES TO WHICH IT IS ASSIGNED, I.E., ITS CLASSIFICATION RATING OR
RATINGS.  SEE 262 I.C.C. PP. 465-472. 

FN2  THE CLASS RATES ARE IN THE FORM OF A SCHEDULE WHICH SHOWS THE
PRICE PER 100 POUNDS FOR MOVING FIRST-CLASS FREIGHT EVERY POSSIBLE
DISTANCE IT MAY BE MOVED.  THE COST OF SHIPMENT FOR A GIVEN COMMODITY
IS DETERMINED BY ASCERTAINING ITS CLASSIFICATION RATING, THE FIRST
CLASS RATE PER 100 POUNDS FOR THE HAUL INVOLVED, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF
THE FIRST-CLASS RATE TO WHICH THE CLASSIFICATION RATING IN QUESTION IS
SUBJECT.  SEE 262 I.C.C. PP. 515-519.    FN3  THERE ARE THREE OTHER
KINDS OF RATES: 

EXCEPTION RATES ARE RATES RESULTING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A COMMODITY
OUT OF ITS REGULARLY ASSIGNED CLASS IN THE CLASSIFICATION AND INTO
ANOTHER CLASS. 

COMMODITY RATES ARE SPECIAL RATES ESTABLISHED FOR PARTICULAR
COMMODITIES.  FOR PURPOSES OF THESE RATES A COMMODITY IS NOT GIVEN A
CLASSIFICATION RATING; THE RESULT IS THAT THE COMMODITY RATES HAVE NO
FIXED PERCENTAGE RELATIONSHIPS TO FIRST-CLASS RATES. 

COLUMN RATES ARE FIXED AS DEFINITE PERCENTAGES OF FIRST-CLASS RATES
BUT LIKE COMMODITY RATES THEY APPLY ONLY TO PARTICULAR COMMODITIES AND
ARE ASSIGNED NO REGULAR CLASS.    SEE 262 I.C.C. P. 562. 

FN4  SOME RATE TERRITORIES HAVE SUBDIVISIONS IN WHICH RATE
DIFFERENTIALS ARE APPLICABLE WHICH VARY THE CLASS RATES WITHIN THE
TERRITORY IN QUESTION. 

FN5 THE OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION APPLIES WITHIN OFFICIAL TERRITORY AND
FROM WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY TO OFFICIAL.  THE SOUTHERN
CLASSIFICATION APPLIES WITHIN SOUTHERN TERRITORY, BETWEEN OFFICIAL AND
SOUTHERN, AND FROM WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TO SOUTHERN.  WESTERN
CLASSIFICATION INCLUDES WESTERN TRUNK-LINE, SOUTHWESTERN AND MOUNTAIN
PACIFIC RATE TERRITORIES.  IT APPLIES WITHIN THOSE THREE TERRITORIES,
BETWEEN SOUTHWESTERN AND OFFICIAL, BETWEEN SOUTHWESTERN AND SOUTHERN,
FROM OFFICIAL TO WESTERN TRUNK-LINE, BETWEEN MOUNTAIN PACIFIC AND
OFFICIAL, FROM SOUTHERN TO WESTERN TRUNK-LINE, AND BETWEEN MOUNTAIN
PACIFIC AND SOUTHERN. 

FN6  WESTERN CLASSIFICATION, 25 I.C.C. 442; CONSOLIDATED
CLASSIFICATION, 54 I.C.C. 1; SOUTHERN CLASS RATE INVESTIGATION, 100
I.C.C. 513; CONSOLIDATED SOUTHWESTERN CASES, 123 I.C.C. 203; WESTERN
TRUNK-LINE CLASS RATES, 164 I.C.C. 1; EASTERN CLASS-RATE INVESTIGATION,
164 I.C.C. 314. 

FN7  EASTERN CLASS-RATE INVESTIGATION, 164 I.C.C. 314, 171 I.C.C.
481, 177 I.C.C. 156, 203 I.C.C. 357; SOUTHERN CLASS RATE INVESTIGATION,
100 I.C.C. 513, 109 I.C.C. 300, 113 I.C.C. 200, 128 I.C.C. 567; WESTERN
TRUNK-LINE CLASS RATES, 164 I.C.C. 1, 173 I.C.C. 637, 178 I.C.C. 619,
181 I.C.C. 301, 196 I.C.C. 494, 197 I.C.C. 57, 204 I.C.C. 595, 210
I.C.C. 312, 246 I.C.C. 119; CONSOLIDATED SOUTHWESTERN CASES, 123 I.C.C.
203, 205 I.C.C. 601.  SEE THE DISCUSSION IN 262 I.C.C. PP. 526 ET SEQ. 

FN8  THE CONSIST OF FREIGHT IN A GIVEN TERRITORY IS THE TOTALITY OF
COMMODITIES CARRIED IN THAT TERRITORY. 

FN9  NO CHANGE IN INTRASTATE CLASS RATES WAS MADE.  NOR WAS ANY
CHANGE MADE IN EXISTING EXCEPTION, COLUMN OR COMMODITY RATES.  SEE NOTE
3, SUPRA. 

FN10  ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, KANSAS, LOUISIANA,
MISSISSIPPI, MINNESOTA, NEBRASKA, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA,
OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, THE STATE
COMMISSIONS OF A NUMBER OF THESE STATES, THE SOUTHERN GOVERNORS'
CONFERENCE, AND THE SOUTHEASTERN ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES
COMMISSIONERS. 

FN11  WE DENIED THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO DISSOLVE THE
INJUNCTION.  328 U.S. 824.  SEE FED. R. CIV. P. 62(G). 

FN12  THE COMMISSION ADVISED CONGRESS THAT ITS INVESTIGATIONS
INSTITUTED IN 1939(THE BASIS OF THE ORDERS CHALLENGED IN THE PRESENT
CASES) WOULD BE CARRIED OUT PURSUANT TO THIS MANDATE.  SEE 262 I.C.C.
P. 689. 

FN13  SECTION 3(1) NOW READS: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PART TO MAKE, GIVE, OR CAUSE ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, COMPANY,
FIRM, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LOCALITY, PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY,
TRANSIT POINT, REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR
DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC, IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER; OR TO SUBJECT ANY
PARTICULAR PERSON, COMPANY, FIRM, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LOCALITY,
PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY, TRANSIT POINT, REGION, DISTRICT,
TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC TO ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY
TO DISCRIMINATION, PREJUDICE, OR DISADVANTAGE TO THE TRAFFIC OF ANY
OTHER CARRIER OF WHATEVER DESCRIPTION." 

FN14  IT IS POINTED OUT IN THIS CONNECTION THAT TEXAS & PACIFIC R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WHILE HOLDING THAT A PORT WAS NOT A
"LOCALITY" WHEN IT WAS ONLY A GATEWAY THROUGH WHICH SHIPMENTS WERE
MADE, RECOGNIZED THAT A PORT WAS A "LOCALITY" WHEN IT WAS A POINT OF
ORIGIN OR DESTINATION.  289 U.S. P. 638. 

FN15  SENATOR WHEELER WHO HAD CHARGE OF THE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE
SENATE STATED CONCERNING THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 3(1):  "THE PREVIOUS
PROVISION WITH REGARD TO 'DISCRIMINATION' SIMPLY REFERRED TO
DISCRIMINATION AS TO 'LOCALITY, PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY, TRANSIT
POINT' WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE REGION, DISTRICT, OR TERRITORY.  SO WE
FELT THAT BY BROADENING THE LANGUAGE WE WOULD AT LEAST TAKE AWAY THAT
EXCUSE, AND WE WOULD PROVIDE EXPRESSLY THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT
DISCRIMINATE IN ITS RATE STRUCTURES."  84 CONG. REC., P. 5889. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN18  THE COMMISSION STATED, 262 I.C.C. PP. 695-696: 

"ALTHOUGH MANUFACTURING HAS GROWN IN THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST AND TO A
LESSER EXTENT IN WESTERN TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY IN THE LAST DECADE, IT IS
STILL VASTLY LESS IN DIVERSIFICATION AND AMOUNT THAN IN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY.  THE INCREASES IN MANUFACTURING IN THESE TERRITORIES HAS
CREATED A DEMAND FOR RATES WHICH WILL AT ONCE PERMIT THE FREE MOVEMENT
OF THE MANUFACTURED ARTICLES, BUT BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF THE
INTRATERRITORIAL AND INTERTERRITORIAL CLASS RATES, SUCH FREE MOVEMENT
HAS BEEN IMPEDED INSOFAR AS SUCH COMMODITIES MOVE AT CLASS RATES.  IN
MOST INSTANCES IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY EITHER TO REDUCE THE CLASS-RATE
LEVELS OR TO ESTABLISH EXCEPTION OR COMMODITY RATES IN ORDER THAT THE
MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS MAY MOVE FREELY, AND THIS ACTION HAS FREQUENTLY
BEEN SUBJECT TO LONG DELAYS BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF INDIVIDUAL
CARRIERS OR GROUPS OF CARRIERS TO AGREE UPON A BASIS. 

"OFFICIAL TERRITORY IS THE GREATEST CONSUMING TERRITORY IN THE
COUNTRY, AND IS THE MARKET THAT NEARLY ALL MANUFACTURERS DESIRE TO
REACH, PARTICULARLY WHERE THEY HAVE A SURPLUS OF THEIR PRODUCTS TO
SELL.  IN SHIPPING TO OFFICIAL TERRITORY, MANUFACTURERS IN THE OTHER
TERRITORIES NOT ONLY HAVE THE DISADVANTAGE OF LOCATION, BUT ARE
SUBJECTED TO AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THEY MUST
PAY CLASS RATES ON A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL THAN THEIR COMPETITORS IN
OFFICIAL TERRITORY.  THIS SITUATION REACTS TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF
MANUFACTURERS IN THE OTHER TERRITORIES, AND TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE
IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY, TENDS TO RESTRICT THE GROWTH AND EXPANSION OF
THE MANUFACTURERS IN THE OTHER TERRITORIES, AND, TO SOME EXTENT, TO
PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THOSE
TERRITORIES." 

FN19  IN NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585, 597,
THE COURT STATED, "THE OUTLAYS THAT EXCLUSIVELY PERTAIN TO A GIVEN
CLASS OF TRAFFIC MUST BE ASSIGNED TO THAT CLASS, AND THE OTHER EXPENSES
MUST BE FAIRLY APPORTIONED.  IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO MAKE SUCH AN
APPORTIONMENT, BUT WHEN CONCLUSIONS ARE BASED ON COST THE ENTIRE COST
MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT." 

FN20  FOR DESCRIPTION OF EXACT BOUNDARIES, SEE 262 I.C.C. 605.  FOR
SOME COST PURPOSES THE UNITED STATES IS ALSO DIVIDED INTO 11 COST
TERRITORIES, VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF WHICH ARE EQUIVALENT TO THE RATE
TERRITORIES.  FOR DEFINITIONS OF THESE COST TERRITORIES, AND A
COLLECTION OF A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE COMMISSION'S COST DATA, SEE
S. DOC. NO. 63, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN21  THE SUM OF THE OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS PLUS A PRO RATA DISTRIBUTION
OF THE CONSTANT OR FIXED COSTS IS REFERRED TO AS FULLY DISTRIBUTED
COST. 

FN22  262 I.C.C. P. 578.  SIMILAR CONDITIONS CALL FOR THE EXCLUSION
OF KENTUCKY IN CONSIDERING FIGURES FOR THE SOUTHERN REGION.  AND SEE
GENERAL COMMODITY RATE INCREASES, 223 I.C.C. 657. 

FN23  NOT INCLUDING POCAHONTAS IN EASTERN TERRITORY FIGURES. 
RELATIVE COSTS WERE NOT SHOWN SEPARATELY FOR WESTERN TRUNK-LINE,
SOUTHWESTERN, AND MOUNTAIN PACIFIC TERRITORIES, THE COMMISSION NOTING
THAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COSTS FOR THE TOTAL WEST AND FOR EACH OF THOSE
THREE RATE TERRITORIES WERE RELATIVELY SMALL.  262 I.C.C. P. 578. 

FN24  WEIGHTING GIVEN TO THE COSTS FOR EACH CLASS OF EQUIPMENT WAS
BASED ON THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC HANDLED IN EACH TYPE OF EQUIPMENT IN THE
UNITED STATES.  TERMINAL COSTS FOR EACH CLASS OF EQUIPMENT WERE
WEIGHTED FOR THE TOTAL UNITED STATES TRAFFIC HANDLED IN EACH CLASS OF
EQUIPMENT AS MEASURED BY TONS ORIGINATED PLUS TONS TERMINATED.  LINE
HAUL COSTS BY CLASSES OF EQUIPMENT WERE WEIGHTED FOR THE TON-MILES OF
TRAFFIC HANDLED IN EACH CLASS OF EQUIPMENT. 

FN25  IF POCAHONTAS IS INCLUDED IN THE EAST, THE COSTS FOR THE SOUTH,
BASED ON THE YEAR 1939, ARE BETWEEN 3 AND 6 PER CENT ABOVE THOSE FOR
THE EAST; FOR THE YEARS 1930-1939, BETWEEN 6 AND 8 PER CENT HIGHER; FOR
THE YEARS 1937-1941, ABOUT THE SAME. 

FN26  IF POCAHONTAS IS INCLUDED IN THE EAST FOR 1930-1939, THE COST
IN THE WEST IS 18 PER CENT HIGHER; BASED ON 1939, APPROXIMATELY 15 PER
CENT HIGHER; BASED ON 1941, ABOUT 10 PER CENT HIGHER. 

FN27  IT IS POINTED OUT, AS THE COMMISSION FOUND, THAT LIVESTOCK IS A
COMMODITY WHICH CANNOT DO MORE THAN PAY ITS OWN WAY; THAT PRODUCTS OF
THE FOREST ARE SUBJECT TO FREIGHT RATES BELOW THE HIGHER BRACKETS; THAT
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS CARRY A LOW RATE.  THE WESTERN DISTRICT ROADS
ORIGINATED 36.91 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL TONS OF CARLOAD TRAFFIC
ORIGINATED IN THE UNITED STATES (EXCLUDING POCAHONTAS) IN 1941, WHILE
THE EASTERN ROADS ORIGINATED 47.40 PER CENT.  TO THAT DISPARITY IS
ADDED THE FACT THAT OF THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ORIGINATED IN
THE COUNTRY IN 1941 THE WESTERN DISTRICT ROADS ORIGINATED 68.82 PER
CENT AS CONTRASTED TO 20.88 PER CENT BY THE EASTERN CARRIERS EXCLUDING
POCAHONTAS.  FOR MANUFACTURES AND MISCELLANEOUS TONNAGE THE PERCENTAGES
WERE 28.06 PER CENT AND 60.66 PER CENT, RESPECTIVELY.  IT IS POINTED
OUT THAT WHILE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PERCENTAGE OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS ORIGINATED BY THE WESTERN CARRIERS (68.82 PER CENT) AND THE
PERCENTAGE OF MANUFACTURES AND MISCELLANEOUS ORIGINATED BY THE EASTERN
CARRIERS (60.66 PER CENT) IS ONLY 8 PER CENT, THE EASTERN ROADS'
TONNAGE OF THE LATTER GROUP OF COMMODITIES (WHICH ARE HIGH-GRADE
TRAFFIC) IS ALMOST THREE TIMES THE TONNAGE OF PRODUCTS OF AGRICULTURE
ORIGINATED BY THE WESTERN CARRIERS.  LIKE COMPARISONS ARE MADE BETWEEN
OTHER GROUPS OF COMMODITIES CARRIED BY THE EASTERN AND WESTERN CARRIERS
RESPECTIVELY.  OF THE TOTAL TONS OF ANIMALS AND PRODUCTS ORIGINATED IN
THE  COUNTRY IN 1941(EXCLUDING POCAHONTAS), THE WESTERN ROADS
ORIGINATED 63.03 PER CENT, THE EASTERN, 28.51 PER CENT.  OF THE TOTAL
TONS OF PRODUCTS OF FORESTS ORIGINATED IN 1941, THE RESPECTIVE
PERCENTAGES WERE 58.73 PER CENT AND 7.52 PER CENT.  AND FOR PRODUCTS OF
MINES THE PERCENTAGES WERE 33.31 PER CENT AND 49.85 PER CENT,
RESPECTIVELY. 

FN28  THE 1941 REVENUE TON MILES PER MILE OF LINE WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

EASTERN DISTRICT (EXCLUDING POCAHONTAS)..........  3,392,964 

POCAHONTAS REGION................................  7,519,840 

WESTERN DISTRICT.................................  1,358,041 

FN29  COSTS DEVELOPED IN THE COST SCALES AND THE CARRIERS' TOTAL
KNOWN EXPENSES BY COST TERRITORIES WERE RECONCILED WITHIN A VERY CLOSE
MARGIN AS APPEARS FROM THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

AGGREGATE

                      EXPENSES, INCREASED   ACTUAL EXPENSES
RATIO (PERCENT)

FOR A 4-PERCENT      AS REPORTED BY       OF COMPUTED 

TERRITORY          RETURN COMPUTED    CARRIERS INCREASED

                        BY APPLYING       FOR A 4-PERCENT  EXPENSES
TO ACTUAL

                       COSTS TO TRAFFIC      RETURN (1939)
EXPENSES

  HANDLED (1939) 

EASTERN----------------       $1,426,950,260      $1,451,484,949
     98.3 

POCAHONTAS-------------          183,076,590         185,387,990
98.8 

SOUTHERN---------------          450,448,155    449,001,663
100.3 

WESTERN----------------        1,382,549,982       1,395,188,845
     99.1

                     ----------------------------------------------
-------------- 

UNITED STATES----------        3,443,024,987       3,481,063,447
     98.9 

THE COMMISSION STATED, "JUDGING FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, WHATEVER ERRORS
MAY EXIST IN THE  ... STUDIES, THEY HAVE NOT HAD THE EFFECT OF
OVERSTATING OR UNDERSTATING THE CARRIERS' COSTS IN THE AGGREGATE TO ANY
APPRECIABLE DEGREE."  262 I.C.C. P. 587. 

FN30  IN THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1946, THE REVENUE TONS
CARRIED IN THE WEST WERE 26 PER CENT HIGHER THAN FOR THE YEAR 1941, AND
THE REVENUE TON MILES WERE 43 PER CENT HIGHER THAN IN 1941. 

FN31  SEE WHITE, ANALYSIS OF RAILROAD OPERATIONS (1946) PP. 14-15,
PP. 69, ET SEQ.; LOCKLIN, ECONOMICS OF TRANSPORTATION (1938) P. 581;
MILLER, INLAND TRANSPORTATION (1933) PP. 500-502. 

FN32  CONSTANT COSTS SOLELY RELATED TO LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC ARE
THOSE COSTS WHICH DO NOT VARY WITH THE VOLUME OF THE TRAFFIC, BUT WHICH
COULD BE ELIMINATED IF NO LESS-THAN-CARLOAD TRAFFIC WERE HANDLED. 

FN33  SEE HAMILTON, COST AS A STANDARD FOR PRICE, 4 LAW & CONTEMP. 
PROB., 321, 329: 

"NOW AND THEN A HARDY SOUL, EQUIPPED WITH SIMPLE FAITH AND A
CALCULATING MACHINE, ESSAYS THE ADVENTURE OF RATES BASED UPON THE TRUE
COSTS OF PARTICULAR SERVICES.  THE FEAT IS, OF COURSE, TECHNICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE, FOR VALUE JUDGMENTS OR EMPIRICAL RULES ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE
DISTRIBUTION OF OVERHEAD.  A CALCULATION OF THE REAL COST OF
TRANSPORTING COTTON-SEED IN LESS THAN CARLOAD LOTS FROM LAMPASSAS,
TEXAS TO KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS, IS A STUBBORN EXERCISE IN IMPUTATION." 
FN34  OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS PLUS SOLELY RELATED CONSTANT COSTS. 

FN35  THE POINT MIGHT ALSO BE WELL TAKEN IF THIS WERE A PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 13(4) TO DETERMINE WHETHER INTRASTATE TRAFFIC WAS PRODUCING
ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE EARNINGS REQUIRED TO MEET MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATING COSTS AND TO YIELD A FAIR RETURN ON THE PROPERTY DEVOTED TO
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION.  FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70; NORTH CAROLINA V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

FN36  AS WE POINT OUT HEREAFTER, AFTER THE PRESENT INTERIM ORDERS
WERE ISSUED, THE COMMISSION GRANTED A GENERAL FREIGHT RATE INCREASE. 
SEE EX PARTE NO. 162, NOTE 37, INFRA.  IN THAT CASE IT REVIEWED THE
RATES OF RETURN OF THE ROADS IN THE SEVERAL TERRITORIES BASED ON THE
RATES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME, WHICH OF COURSE DID NOT INCLUDE THE 10 PER
CENT INCREASE IN CLASS RATES FOR OFFICIAL TERRITORY AUTHORIZED IN THIS
PROCEEDING BUT STAYED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  WHAT THE COMMISSION SAID
IN EX PARTE NO. 162 CORROBORATES ITS FINDING IN THE PRESENT CASE
CONCERNING THE GREATER RELATIVE REVENUE NEEDS OF THE ROADS IN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY: 

"ON THE BASIS OF THE INTERIM RATES IN EFFECT SINCE JULY 1, 1946, THE
RATE OF RETURN FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT WILL BE CONSIDERABLY LESS FOR
1946 THAN IN THE POCAHONTAS REGION, THE SOUTHERN REGION, OR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT, EVEN THOUGH AN ADDITIONAL INCREASE OF 5 PERCENT IN CERTAIN
RATES IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY WAS AUTHORIZED AND HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE
JULY 1, 1946.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT EVEN ON THE BASIS OF THE INCREASES
SOUGHT IN EX PARTE NO. 162 AND THE RAILROADS' ESTIMATES OF REVENUE, THE
RATE OF RETURN IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT FOR 1946 WILL BE LESS THAN THE
RATE OF RETURN IN THE POCAHONTAS REGION, THE SOUTHERN REGION, OR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT."  266 I.C.C. 548. 

THE LATTER ESTIMATES OF THE RATE OF RETURN IN PER CENT ARE AS
FOLLOWS: 

EASTERN DISTRICT..................  2.06 

POCAHONTAS REGION.................  6.26 

SOUTHERN REGION...................  4.01 

WESTERN DISTRICT..................  3.31 

FN37  EX PARTE NO. 162, INTERIM REPORT 264 I.C.C. 695, FINAL REPORT
DECEMBER 5, 1946, 266 I.C.C. 537.  THIS INCREASED MOST BASIC FREIGHT
RATES BY 15 TO 25 PER CENT.  RATES ON ARTICLES UNDER THE GENERAL
COMMODITY GROUPING OF MANUFACTURES AND MISCELLANEOUS, CLASS RATES AND
RATES ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD AND ANY-QUANTITY TRAFFIC WERE INCREASED 25
PER CENT IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY, 20 PER CENT WITHIN AND BETWEEN OTHER
TERRITORIES, AND 22.5 PER CENT BETWEEN OFFICIAL TERRITORY AND POINTS IN
OTHER TERRITORIES.  EXPRESS RATES WERE INCREASED OCTOBER 28, 1946.  EX
PARTE NO. 163, 266 I.C.C. 369. 

FN38  SEE NOTE 37, SUPRA. 

FN39  THAT THE ORDER GRANTING THE GENERAL FREIGHT RATE INCREASE DID
NOT AFFECT THE ORDERS IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS MADE CLEAR BY THE
FOLLOWING PROVISION: 

"THAT OUTSTANDING UNEXPIRED ORDERS IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARE HEREBY
MODIFIED SO AS TO PERMIT THE INCREASES IN FREIGHT RATES AND CHARGES
HEREIN AUTHORIZED TO BE ESTABLISHED; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO SUSPEND OR
SUPERSEDE OR MODIFY OR AFFECT THE FINDINGS AND ORDER ENTERED IN CLASS
RATE INVESTIGATION, 1939, DOCKET NO. 28300, THE OPERATION OF WHICH IS
STAYED BY COURT ORDER  ...  " 

SEE EX PARTE NO. 162, SUPRA, NOTE 37. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

IN A CASE INVOLVING ISSUES MUCH NARROWER THAN THOSE NOW HERE, THE
COURT, ONLY THE OTHER DAY, STRUCK DOWN AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR WANT OF ADEQUATE FINDINGS.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. MECHLING, 330 U.S. 567, AT 583.  ALTHOUGH IN THAT CASE
THERE WERE EXPLICIT FINDINGS, THE COURT DEEMED THEM INADEQUATE BECAUSE
THEY WERE BASED ON "UNSIFTED AVERAGES."  IN A SERIES OF CASES THE COURT
HAS SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BECAUSE OF
THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO ASCERTAIN AND TO FORMULATE WITH
CLARITY AND DEFINITENESS THE TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH ALONE COULD JUSTIFY THE ORDER, AND THEREBY AFFORD THIS COURT
ASSURED BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE COMMISSION HAD DULY EXERCISED ITS
ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT ON THE FACTORS UNDERLYING THE ULTIMATE ISSUES.  SEE
FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194; UNITED STATES V. BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO., 293 U.S. 454; ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 193; UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP.,
315 U.S. 475; CITY OF YONKERS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 685; EASTERN
CENTRAL MOTOR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 194;
NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 507; ALABAMA V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 535.  NOT ONE OF THESE CASES INVOLVED AN ORDER HAVING
A REACH COMPARABLE TO THE REACH OF THE ORDER NOW BEFORE US.  WE ARE
ASKED TO SUSTAIN AN ORDER THAT READJUSTS THE CLASS RATES OF THE WHOLE
COUNTRY BARRING ONLY THE TERRITORY WEST OF THE ROCKIES - AN ORDER THAT
CHANGES NOT ONLY THE RATES WITHIN THE VARIOUS RATE TERRITORIES IN THIS
VAST REGION, BUT CHANGES THE RELATION OF THE RATES INTER
TERRITORIALLY.  I AM NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE COMPLICATED NATURE OF THE
PROBLEM WHICH CONFRONTED THE COMMISSION, OF THE EMPIRIC CHARACTER OF
THE PROCESS OF RATE-MAKING, OF THE LIMITED SCOPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN
THIS PROCESS, OF THE RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED TO THE COMMISSION'S
CONCLUSIONS.  BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534.  BUT WHEN
THE OUTCOME OF LEGAL ISSUES IS BOUND TO CUT DEEPLY INTO ECONOMIC
RELATIONS ON SUCH A SCALE, IT IS NOT ASKING TOO MUCH TO ASK THE
COMMISSION TO BE EXPLICIT AND DEFINITE IN ITS FINDINGS ON THE ELEMENTS
THAT ARE INDISPENSABLE TO THE VALIDITY OF ITS ORDER. 

WHEN INTER-TERRITORIAL DISCRIMINATION IS COMPLAINED OF, AT LEAST TWO
BASIC ISSUES CONFRONT THE COMMISSION:  (1) IS THERE DISCRIMINATION? 
(2) IF THERE IS, HOW IS THE DISCRIMINATION TO BE ABATED?  THE
COMMISSION CANNOT ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION - I.E., HARMONIZE THE RATE
RELATIONS BETWEEN TERRITORIES - IN DISREGARD OF THE REASONABLENESS OF
THE READJUSTED RATES WITHIN EACH TERRITORY.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT MUST BE APPLIED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS WHICH
MAKE AN ARTICULATED WHOLE CANNOT BE TREATED DISJOINTEDLY.  SUCH IS THE
TEACHING OF OUR CASES, ESPECIALLY OF TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. ABILENE
COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426, AND INTERMOUNTAIN RATE CASES, 234 U.S.
476 - THE TWO CASES WHICH BEYOND ALL OTHERS GIVE THE CONTROLLING
CONSIDERATIONS IN CONSTRUING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

AND SO THE COMMISSION IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION
BETWEEN TWO TERRITORIES WITHOUT AT THE SAME TIME CONSIDERING WHETHER
THE REMEDIES PROPOSED FOR SUCH REMOVAL FIT THE REQUIREMENT OF
REASONABLENESS OF RATES.  IT MAY NOT LOWER THE RATES IN A TERRITORY
BEYOND THE LEVEL WHICH GIVES THE CARRIERS AN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO
ENABLE THEM TO OPERATE EFFECTIVELY AS PART OF THE NATION'S
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  AND THE COMMISSION MAY NOT RAISE RATES TO A
LEVEL WHICH WOULD EXACT FREIGHT CHARGES FROM SHIPPERS BEYOND A RATE
STRUCTURE THAT IS REASONABLE.  THE SMALL PROPORTION OF FREIGHT THAT
MOVES ON CLASS RATES IS NO MEASURE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE RATES TO
THE TOTAL EARNINGS OF CARRIERS.  UNREASONABLE RATES - WHETHER
UNREASONABLY HIGH OR UNREASONABLY LOW - EVEN ON A FRACTION OF THE
FREIGHT, MAY MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EARNINGS TO WHICH CARRIERS ARE
ENTITLED UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THOSE TO WHICH THEY ARE
NOT ENTITLED FOR DISCHARGING THEIR DUTY AS PART OF THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  WE ARE WITHOUT INFORMING FINDINGS ON THESE
ISSUES.  BUT EVEN IF ONE WERE TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION
IN ISOLATION, INEQUALITY - THE ESSENCE OF DISCRIMINATION - CANNOT BE
DEALT WITH MECHANICALLY BY TAKING A PERCENTAGE OFF ONE TERRITORY AND
ADDING IT TO ANOTHER.  THE PROCRUSTEAN BED IS NOT A SYMBOL OF
EQUALITY.  IT IS NO LESS INEQUALITY TO HAVE EQUALITY AMONG UNEQUALS. 
THE FINDINGS DO NOT REVEAL HOW IT HAPPENED THAT PUTTING 10% ON AND
TAKING 10% OFF RESPECTIVELY WILL BEGET JUST THE RIGHT ADJUSTMENT.  I AM
NOT SUGGESTING THAT ONE MIGHT NOT DIG OUT OF THE RECORD INEXPLICIT,
ARGUMENTATIVE SUPPORT FOR THE VIEW THAT AN INCREASE OF 10% IN OFFICIAL
CLASSIFICATION TERRITORY RATES WILL STILL LEAVE THE LEVEL OF RATES
WITHIN THAT TERRITORY NOT UNREASONABLE, AND THAT A DECREASE OF 10% IN
WESTERN TERRITORY WILL LEAVE THE CARRIERS THE REQUIRED REASONABLENESS
OF RATES WITHIN THAT TERRITORY.  BUT IT IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO A FAIR
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, NOR IS IT CONSONANT WITH
THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF THIS COURT'S TASK, TO REQUIRE US TO DIG OUT
INDICATIONS OR EVIDENCE GIVING APPROPRIATE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES FROM
A RECORD CONSISTING OF NEARLY 13,000 PAGES SPREAD OVER 21 VOLUMES,
WHICH LED TO A REPORT BY THE COMMISSION OF 320 PAGES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THE ABSENCE OF FINDING ON SUCH
ISSUES.  SAID THE COURT:  "IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THERE CAN BE NO
INCREASE IN CLASS RATES IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY UNLESS THERE IS FIRST A
SO-CALLED PRIMARY FINDING, SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE
PRESENT RATES ARE NOT COMPENSATORY.  WHILE THAT FACT, IF PROVED, WOULD
HAVE BEEN OF MUCH SIGNIFICANCE THE FAILURE TO PROVE IT AND THE
CONSEQUENT LACK OF A FINDING THAT PRESENT RATES ARE CONFISCATORY DOES
NOT LEAVE THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE RATES ARE UNLAWFUL
UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE."  65 F.SUPP.  856, 873.  BUT THE
FACT THAT THE RATES IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY MAY, AS A MATTER OF ABSTRACT
COMPARISON, BE OUT OF LINE WITH THE RATES IN WESTERN OR SOUTHERN
TERRITORY IS HARDLY PROOF THAT THE RATES IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY SHOULD
BE INCREASED BY THE SAME FLAT PERCENTAGE AS THE RATES IN THE OTHER
TERRITORIES SHOULD BE DECREASED.  SUCH A FLAT INCREASE IN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY MAY MAKE THE PROPOSED NEW RATES UNLAWFUL BECAUSE
UNREASONABLE.  WHILE A 10% DECREASE IN RATES IN WESTERN TERRITORY MAY
ELIMINATE UNFAIRNESS TO SHIPPERS IN THAT TERRITORY, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
THAT A CORRESPONDING 10% INCREASE IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY RATES WILL NOT
RESULT IN UNFAIRNESS TO SHIPPERS THERE. 

ONE CAN HARDLY READ THE CONCURRING AND DISSENTING VIEWS TO THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT WITHOUT BEING LEFT WITH UNCERTAINTY REGARDING THE
BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

"THE REPORT DOES NOT SHOW, EXCEPT IN NEBULOUS FASHION, THAT THE COST
FIGURES REPRESENT APPORTIONMENT OF TOTALS, BASED ON ESTIMATES; THAT
THEY INVOLVE MANY ASSUMPTIONS AND ACTS OF JUDGMENT; AND ARE NOT
COMPUTATIONS FROM DIRECT, ORIGINAL COST FIGURES FOR PARTICULAR
MOVEMENTS.  THESE, HOWEVER, ARE THE FACTS.  IT OMITS EVIDENCE SHOWING
THAT 59 OUT OF 117 ITEMS OF BASIC DATA USED IN THE STUDIES WERE
ESTIMATED, AND THAT 458 OUT OF 500 SEQUENCES WERE WHOLLY OR PARTLY
ESTIMATED.  IT FAILS TO DISCLOSE CLEARLY THAT WHEN MAKING THE STUDIES
IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE CONSIST OF THE TRAFFIC IS THE SAME IN THE
DIFFERENT TERRITORIES, WHEN THE FACT IS, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, THAT
THE TRAFFIC CONSIST DIFFERS WIDELY IN THE RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES.  THE
RESULT IS THAT THEORETICAL COSTS ARE PRODUCED, BASED UPON ASSUMPTIONS
WHICH ARE NOT FACTS, AND UPON COMPARISONS OF UNLIKE THINGS." 
(COMMISSIONER PORTER, DISSENTING, 262 I.C.C. 447, 709, 717; AND SEE
DISSENTING VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER BARNARD, ID. AT 725.) 

ACCORDING TO TWO OF THE COMMISSIONERS THE RECORD IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE
TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT CLASS RATES WITHIN OFFICIAL TERRITORY ARE
UNREASONABLE UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE ACT.  SEE 264 I.C.C. 69-70.  CERTAINLY
THE COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE AN EXPLICIT FINDING THAT THEY ARE
UNREASONABLE.  IF THERE IS ANY SUCH FINDING, IT MUST BE SOUGHT FOR AS
WOULD A NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OUGHT NOT TO BE
ALLOWED TO REST ON SUCH DUBIOUS FOUNDATIONS. 

NOR CAN SUCH A MECHANICAL OR ABSTRACTLY MATHEMATICAL READJUSTMENT OF
RATES INTER-TERRITORIALLY BE JUSTIFIED AS A TENTATIVE ADJUSTMENT.  OF
COURSE, THE COMMISSION MAY GENERALIZE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF TYPICAL
INSTANCES AND MAKE A FLAT READJUSTMENT WITHIN A TERRITORY, LEAVING
INSTANCES OF UNREASONABLENESS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF SUCH AN ORDER UPON
INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION.  THIS IS WHAT THE COMMISSION DID, AND WHAT THIS
COURT SUSTAINED, IN THE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184.  THE
ORDER IN THAT CASE, DIRECTING A 15% INCREASE IN THE SHARE OF THE NEW
ENGLAND RAILROADS IN THE JOINT THROUGH-FREIGHT RATES, WAS BASED UPON
EVIDENCE "WHICH THE COMMISSION ASSUMED WAS TYPICAL IN CHARACTER, AND
AMPLE IN QUANTITY, TO JUSTIFY THE FINDING MADE IN RESPECT TO EACH
DIVISION OF EACH RATE OF EVERY CARRIER."  261 U.S. AT 196-97.  THE
COURT FOUND THAT THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE IN RATE LITIGATION, THE
NATURE OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED,
THE FINDINGS MADE, THE OPPORTUNITIES TO APPLY FOR MODIFICATIONS IN
TYPICAL SITUATIONS, AMPLY SUPPORTED THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS.  THE
PRESENT RECORD, AS REFLECTED IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT, DOES NOT
PRESENT A COMPARABLE SITUATION.  ONE GETS THE IMPRESSION THAT THE
ADJUSTMENT OF A FLAT 10% DECREASE IN THE RATES OUTSIDE THE OFFICIAL
TERRITORY AND A FLAT INCREASE OF 10% WITHIN THAT TERRITORY IS
ATTRIBUTABLE, FUNDAMENTALLY, TO A LAUDABLE DESIRE ON THE PART OF THE
COMMISSION TO SECURE UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. 
THE COMMISSION WAS NOT PREPARED TO MAKE SUCH A CLASSIFICATION, BUT IT
MADE THESE RATE CHANGES IN THE HOPE THAT THEY WOULD EXERT PRESSURE ON
THE CARRIERS TO AGREE UPON A UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION.  IT IS IN RELATION
TO THAT HOPE THAT IT IS URGED THAT THE ORDER IS MERELY A CONDITIONAL OR
TENTATIVE ORDER - CONDITIONED UPON AGREEMENT BY THE CARRIERS UPON A
UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION.  BUT TO CONDITION THE ORDER ON THE REALIZATION
OF THAT HOPE IS TO CONDITION IT, IF EXPERIENCE BE ANY GUIDE, ON THE
GREEK KALENDS. 

WHAT THIS COURT SAID IN UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL
& PACIFIC R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 510-11, INVOLVING A RATE ADJUSTMENT
WITHIN A VERY LIMITED TERRITORY, WITH NO SUCH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES
AS THE ORDER NOW UNDER REVIEW, HAS ENHANCED APPLICABILITY TO THE
PRESENT ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  "WE WOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS SAYING
THAT THERE DO NOT LURK IN THIS REPORT PHRASES OR SENTENCES SUGGESTIVE
OF A DIFFERENT MEANING.  ONE GAINS AT PLACES THE IMPRESSION THAT THE
COMMISSION LOOKED UPON THE PROPOSED REDUCTION (INITIATED BY A CARRIER)
AS SOMETHING MORE THAN A DISRUPTIVE TENDENCY  ...  THE DIFFICULTY IS
THAT IT HAS NOT SAID SO WITH THE SIMPLICITY AND CLEARNESS THROUGH WHICH
A HALTING IMPRESSION RIPENS INTO REASONABLE CERTITUDE.  IN THE END WE
ARE LEFT TO SPELL OUT, TO ARGUE, TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CONFLICTING
INFERENCES.  SOMETHING MORE PRECISE IS REQUISITE IN THE QUASI
JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  BEAUMONT, S.L. &
W. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 74, 86; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES,
282 U.S. 194, 215.  WE MUST KNOW WHAT A DECISION MEANS BEFORE THE DUTY
BECOMES OURS TO SAY WHETHER IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG." 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTS NO DOUBT HAVE ANTENNAE NOT POSSESSED BY COURTS
CHARGED WITH REVIEWING THEIR ACTION.  AND SO IT MAY WELL BE THAT TO THE
EXPERT FEEL THE JUSTIFIABLE CORRECTION OF AN IMBALANCE BETWEEN OFFICIAL
TERRITORY RATES AND THE RATES OF OTHER TERRITORIES IS A SHIFT OF 10% IN
THE RESPECTIVE RATES - OFFICIAL TERRITORY RATES INCREASED 10% AND RATES
ELSEWHERE DECREASED 10%. BUT COURTS, CHARGED AS THEY ARE WITH THE
REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION, OUGHT NOT TO BE ASKED TO
SUSTAIN SUCH A MATHEMATICAL COINCIDENCE AS A MATTER OF UNILLUMINED
FAITH IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE EXPERTS. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE DECREE AND ORDER THE PROCEEDINGS RETURNED TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO AGREE WITH THIS EXTRAORDINARY DECISION.  I
WILL DISCUSS BUT ONE OF ITS PHASES - THAT WHICH IS TREATED IN
SUBDIVISION EIGHTH OF THE COURT'S OPINION.  THIS HOLDS THAT THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS, AND RIGHTFULLY HAS EXERCISED, THE
POWER TO ADD 10% TO CERTAIN BASIC FREIGHT RATES AFFECTING THE
NORTHEASTERN PART OF THE UNITED STATES.  THIS INCREASE WAS NOT ASKED BY
THE RAILROADS, GOES TO THE PROSPEROUS AND THE INSOLVENT ONES ALIKE, AND
IS NOT EVEN CLAIMED TO BE NECESSARY TO PAY THE COST OF SERVICE AND A
FAIR RETURN ON THE PROPERTY USED IN RENDERING IT.  THIS ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENT IS IN NO SENSE COMPENSATION FOR HANDLING THE TRAFFIC WHICH
THE RAILROADS CONCEDE WAS ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED BEFORE.  IT IS REALLY
A SURTAX, SEE BRANDEIS, J., IN NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S.
184, 196, ADDED SOLELY TO INCREASE SHIPPING COSTS IN THE NORTHEASTERN
PART OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HANDICAPPING ITS ECONOMY
AND IN ORDER TO MAKE TRANSPORTATION COST AS MUCH THERE AS IT DOES IN
AREAS WHERE THERE IS LESS TRAFFIC TO DIVIDE THE COST.  THE SURCHARGE
BURDENS THE TERRITORY WHERE FIFTY PERCENT OF THE CONSUMING POPULATION
OF THE UNITED STATES RESIDES BY ADDING AN ESTIMATED $15,000,000 PER
YEAR TO ITS SHIPPING BILLS.  IT ADDS THAT MUCH TO THE REVENUES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN RAILROADS WITH NO SHOWING OR FINDING THAT IT IS NEEDED TO
MEET COSTS OF FURNISHING RAILROAD SERVICE. 

THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON ADVANCED FOR SUSTAINING THIS ORDER IS THE
CLAIM THAT THIS SURCHARGE IS TO CURE A DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF THE
NORTHEASTERN TERRITORY AGAINST THE SOUTH AND WEST.  BRIEFLY AND
GENERALLY, THE DISCRIMINATION IS SAID TO CONSIST IN THIS:  MILE FOR
MILE, A HIGHER AVERAGE CHARGE IS MADE FOR TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE
PRESENT CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MORE SPARSELY SETTLED AREAS OF THE SOUTH
AND WEST THAN IS MADE IN THE DENSER TRAFFIC REGIONS OF THE NORTHEAST. 
WHY, THEN, SHOULD NOT THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION BE REMOVED BY LOWERING
THE HIGH RATES OF THE SOUTH AND WEST?  THE ANSWER IS THAT THEY CANNOT
BE REDUCED FURTHER THAN THE TEN PERCENT ALREADY ORDERED IN THIS
PROCEEDING, BECAUSE THE RAILROADS OF THE SOUTH AND WEST, IN VIEW OF
THEIR COSTS, COULD NOT BEAR FURTHER DECREASE.  SO THE ONLY OTHER WAY OF
EQUALIZING THE RATES AND MAKING IT AS COSTLY TO MOVE GOODS THERE AS
ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES, IS TO MAKE THE SHIPPERS IN THE
NORTHEASTERN TERRITORY PAY THE RAILROADS THIS ADDITIONAL 10% WHICH THEY
HAVE NOT ASKED AND DO NOT NEED. 

THE COURT'S APPROVAL OF THIS ORDER IS BASED ON AN ENTIRELY NEW THEORY
OF "DISCRIMINATION."  IT HAS NEVER BEFORE BEEN THOUGHT TO BE AN
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION TO CHARGE MORE FOR A SERVICE WHICH IT COST MORE
TO RENDER.  DISCRIMINATION HERETOFORE HAS BEEN FOUND TO EXIST ONLY WHEN
AN UNEQUAL CHARGE WAS EXACTED FOR A LIKE SERVICE, OR VICE VERSA.  BUT
NOW IT IS HELD TO BE AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IF RAILROADS OF THE
NORTHEAST DO NOT MAKE THE SAME CHARGE AS OTHER RAILROADS IN THE SOUTH
OR WEST, FOR A DIFFERENT TRANSPORTATION UNDER DIFFERENT COST
CONDITIONS.  THE GOVERNMENT FRANKLY ADVOCATES THIS NEW CONCEPT OF
DISCRIMINATION AS NECESSARY TO SOME REDISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN
RELATION TO RESOURCES THAT WILL RESHAPE THE NATION'S SOCIAL, ECONOMIC
AND PERHAPS ITS POLITICAL LIFE MORE NEARLY TO ITS HEART'S DESIRE.  IT
SAYS IN ITS BRIEF TO US: 

"THERE IS NO DIRECT RELATION BETWEEN THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES.  IT
HAPPENS THAT SOME OF THE AREAS RICHEST IN NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE
UNITED STATES ARE SPARSELY POPULATED.  IF THE RAW MATERIALS MAKING UP
THOSE NATURAL RESOURCES ARE TO BE CONVERTED INTO FINISHED PRODUCTS IN
THAT VICINITY, ALLOWING THE AREA SOME ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM THEIR
CONVERSION, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO TRANSPORT CONSIDERABLE VOLUMES OF
FINISHED GOODS FOR LONG DISTANCES.  NECESSARILY MINERALS ARE OBTAINED
WHERE THE DEPOSITS OCCUR, AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MUST BE PRODUCED IN
AREAS OF SUITABLE SOIL AND CLIMATE.  IT IS THE TASK OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO CARRY COMMODITIES FROM POINTS OF PRODUCTION TO
CONSUMING CENTERS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE PORTS FOR
EXPORT.  THE MORE FREELY AND CHEAPLY THE PRODUCTS ARE CARRIED, THE MORE
COMPETITION THERE WILL BE, THE MORE PRODUCTION THERE WILL BE, AND THE
BETTER WILL OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SERVE OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY. 

THE MAINTENANCE OF A SOUND NATIONAL ECONOMY REQUIRES THE PROPER USE
OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO INSURE REASONABLE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OF A
STABLE NATURE FOR THE PEOPLE IN EACH OF THE REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY.  AS
INDICATED, POPULATION DISTRIBUTION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE MANY YEARS FOR
PEOPLE TO MOVE TO WHERE THESE RESOURCES ARE, ASSUMING IT POSSIBLE TO
INDUCE SUCH MILLIONS TO MIGRATE, OR THAT IT WOULD BE WISE POLICY TO DO
SO EVEN IF POSSIBLE.  THERE ARE ALSO AREAS OF ONE-CROP AGRICULTURE IN
WHICH THE PEOPLE FACE READJUSTMENTS TO RESTORE AND PROTECT THE LAND AND
TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF LIVELIHOOD. 

IN VIEW OF ALL THIS, ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES IN MAKING FREIGHT
RATES SHOULD BE THE ELIMINATION OF RATE BARRIERS AGAINST REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, NOT TO CHANGE OUR ECONOMY, BUT TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATORY
CONDITIONS WHICH UNFAIRLY AND UNLAWFULLY PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY OF
CHANGE." 

THE COURT'S ENTIRE DISCUSSION OF THE DISCRIMINATION FEATURE OF THIS
CASE IS AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION WITHOUT WHICH THE
LAST SUPPORT FOR THIS ORDER WOULD FAIL. 

NO AUTHORITY CAN BE FOUND IN ANY ACT OF CONGRESS FOR THE IMPOSITION
OF THIS SURCHARGE ON THE NORTHEAST SOLELY TO PENALIZE IT FOR BEING ABLE
TO TRANSPORT GOODS CHEAPER DUE TO ITS DENSITY OF POPULATION AND VOLUME
OF TRAFFIC.  THE POLICY OF CONGRESS REMAINS AS IT LONG HAS STOOD:
"ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT THE LOWEST
COST CONSISTENT WITH THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICE  ...  "  INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, SEC. 15A (2), 48 STAT. 220, 54 STAT. 912, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
15A (2).  CONGRESS HAS NEVER INTIMATED, MUCH LESS DECLARED, A PURPOSE
TO DEPRIVE THE TERRITORY IN WHICH FIFTY PERCENT OF THE NATION'S
CONSUMERS RESIDE OF THE BENEFIT OF THIS POLICY.  THE RAMSPECK
RESOLUTION DID NO MORE THAN TO DIRECT THE COMMISSION'S ATTENTION TO
EARNEST COMPLAINTS THAT THE SOUTH AND WEST WERE BEING MISTREATED IN THE
MATTER OF RAIL RATES, AND VERY PROPERLY TO DIRECT THAT THEY DETERMINE
SUCH COMPLAINTS ON THEIR MERITS.  TRUE, IN 1940 THE PROVISION
PROHIBITING UNDUE PREJUDICE AND PREFERENCE WAS AMENDED BY THE ADDITION
OF "REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY," TO THE LIST OF PERSONS OR THINGS NOT
TO BE UNDULY PREJUDICED OR PREFERRED.  TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1940, SEC.
5(A), 54 STAT. 902, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 3(1).  BUT THE ACT ALREADY
PROHIBITED UNDUE PREJUDICE OR PREFERENCE TO ANY "LOCALITY" AND IT IS
CONCEDED THAT THE 1940 ACT MADE NO CHANGE IN THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF
DISCRIMINATION.  SENATOR WHEELER, CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE, SHOWED CLEARLY THAT WHILE IT WOULD "MAKE
TOWARD THE EQUALIZATION OF RATES," 84 CONG. REC. 6072, IT WAS NOT
INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT IS HERE ATTEMPTED.  THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY
OCCURRED: 

"MR. FRAZIER.  IS IT THE EXPECTATION OF THE COMMITTEE THAT BY THE
AMENDMENT IN SECTION 52(NOW SECTION 5(B) OF THE ACT) THE RATES IN THE
VARIOUS CLASSIFICATION TERRITORIES WILL BE EQUALIZED OR MADE THE SAME
IN DIFFERENT TERRITORIES? 

"MR. WHEELER.  I DO NOT THINK THAT IS POSSIBLE. 

"MR. FRAZIER.  I DO NOT SEE HOW IT IS POSSIBLE.  I WAS WONDERING WHAT
THE INTENTION WAS. 

"MR. WHEELER.  IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.  FOR
EXAMPLE, IT COSTS MORE TO CARRY FREIGHT OVER THE MOUNTAINS IN TWO
TRAINS THAN TO CARRY IT ON THE PLAINS IN ONE TRAIN.  LIKEWISE, WE MUST
RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND RATES
DEPEND SOMEWHAT ON THE INTENSITY OF THE TRAFFIC.  IN LONG STRETCHES OF
TERRITORY WITH NO TRAFFIC, SHIPPERS MUST PAY MORE FOR RAILROAD SERVICE
THAN DO SHIPPERS IN A DENSELY SETTLED PART OF THE COUNTRY WHERE TRAFFIC
IS PLENTIFUL AND WHERE THERE IS MUCH COMPETITION FROM BUSSES, TRUCKS,
AND THINGS OF THAT KIND.  HOWEVER, IT SEEMS TO ME FROM MY STUDY OF THE
QUESTION THAT APPARENT INEQUALITIES OUGHT TO BE CORRECTED.  ... 

"MR. FRAZIER.  IN NORTH DAKOTA WE HAVE A LARGE VOLUME OF WHEAT TO
TRANSPORT IN THE FALL OF THE YEAR, AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT LARGE
VOLUME, AND BECAUSE OUR TERRITORY IS PRACTICALLY LEVEL, WE HAVE A
RATHER BENEFICIAL RATE ON WHEAT AS COMPARED WITH SOME OTHER
TERRITORIES.  OUR RAILROAD COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC EXPERTS ARE AFRAID
THAT THE PROVISION TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE WILL TAKE THAT
SPECIAL RATE AWAY FROM US. 

"MR. WHEELER.  I BELIEVE THIS PROVISION WILL HELP THE PEOPLE OF THE
SENATOR'S STATE RATHER THAN HARM THEM IN MANY RESPECTS. 

"MR. FRAZIER.  WE HAVE A MUCH LOWER RATE THAN PREVAILS IN MANY OTHER
RAISING OUR RATES. 

"MR. WHEELER.  THE BILL DOES NOT MEAN THAT RATES ARE TO BE
EQUALIZED.  ...  THE PEOPLE OF THE SENATOR'S STATE MIGHT JUST AS WELL
DISABUSE THEIR MINDS OF THE FEAR THAT AS A RESULT OF THE BILL THEY WILL
LOSE ANY BENEFIT WHICH THEY NOW HAVE.  ...  "  (84 CONG. REC. 5890.) 

THE COURT NEVER BEFORE HAS CONFIDED TO ANY REGULATORY BODY THE
RESHAPING OF OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY.  IN TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 627, THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF THE LAW WAS MADE:  "A
TARIFF PUBLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING A MARKET OR BUILDING UP
ONE, OF DIVERTING TRAFFIC FROM A PARTICULAR PLACE TO THE INJURY OF THAT
PLACE, OR IN AID OF SOME OTHER, IS UNLAWFUL; AND OBVIOUSLY, WHAT THE
CARRIER MAY NOT LAWFULLY DO, THE COMMISSION MAY NOT COMPEL."  289 U.S.
AT 637.  SEE ALSO SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. I.C.C., 219 U.S. 433; I.C.C.
V. DIFFENBAUGH, 222 U.S. 42, 46; UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R.
CO., 263 U.S. 515, 524. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ALSO ACCEPTED THIS AS THE LAW.  IN
STOVES, RANGES, BOILERS, ETC., 182 I.C.C. 59, THE MAJORITY SAID, "IT IS
NOT WITHIN OUR POWER TO EQUALIZE NATURAL DISADVANTAGES OF LOCATIONS,"
182 I.C.C. AT 68, AND COMMISSIONER EASTMAN WAS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT,
SAYING, 182 I.C.C. AT 74: 

"HOWEVER, IT IS UNDENIABLE, I THINK, THAT IN THE PAST BOTH SOUTHERN
MANUFACTURERS AND SOUTHERN CARRIERS HAVE SHOWN A TENDENCY TO DEMAND
THAT THE RATES TO THE NORTH BE EQUALIZED IN LEVEL WITH THOSE WITHIN THE
NORTH, ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH EQUALIZATION IS COMMERCIALLY ESSENTIAL
TO THE SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES.  IT IS A SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO SAY THAT IT
IS NOT OUR PROVINCE TO EQUALIZE COMMERCIAL CONDITIONS.  HOWEVER, THE
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE HAS SERVED A USEFUL PURPOSE IN MAKING IT QUITE
CLEAR THAT THE SOUTHERN MANUFACTURERS HAVE CERTAIN ADVANTAGES OVER
THEIR NORTHERN RIVALS, SO FAR AS OPERATING AND OVERHEAD COSTS ARE
CONCERNED, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IF IT WERE
OUR DUTY TO EQUALIZE COMMERCIAL CONDITIONS THROUGH AN ADJUSTMENT OF
FREIGHT RATES." 

THE COURT SHROUDS THIS SIMPLE LEGAL ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THERE IS
POWER TO LEVY THIS SURTAX ON THE NORTHEAST, IN ELABORATE DISCUSSIONS OF
THE EVILS OF EXISTING FREIGHT CLASSIFICATIONS AND AFFIRMATIONS OF THE
COMMISSION'S POWER TO CORRECT THEM.  NEITHER OF THESE PROPOSITIONS HAVE
EVER BEEN IN DOUBT.  BUT WHAT IMPORTANCE CAN THE COMMISSION'S POWER
OVER CLASSIFICATIONS HAVE IN TESTING VALIDITY OF THIS ORDER?  TO
CORRECT CLASSIFICATION WAS THE ASSERTED OBJECT OF THIS PROCEEDING, BUT
THAT POWER HAS NOT BEEN EXERCISED AT ALL.  NOT ONE CLASSIFICATION IS
CHANGED.  INSTEAD, A FLAT BOOST IS MADE AGAINST TRAFFIC IN THE
NORTHEAST AND A FLAT REDUCTION FOR TRAFFIC IN THE SOUTH AND WEST IS
ORDERED, LEAVING EVERY INEQUALITY, DISCRIMINATION, INJUSTICE OR
ILLEGALITY IN CLASSIFICATIONS JUST WHERE THE COMMISSION FOUND THEM.  IF
THERE IS PROOF OF SPECIFIC DISCRIMINATION, INJUSTICE AND ILLEGALITIES
IN THIS CASE, WHY ARE THEY NOT NOW ORDERED CORRECTED?  IF THERE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ANY SPECIFIC DISCRIMINATION, HOW CAN WE HOLD THAT
THERE IS A GENERAL DISCRIMINATION SO EXTENSIVE AS TO WARRANT THIS LEVY
ON THE NORTHEAST TO CORRECT THEM? 

PERHAPS THE MOST INCOMPREHENSIBLE OF THE COURT'S GROUNDS FOR
SUSTAINING THIS ORDER IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A "REVENUE PROBLEM." 
IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE NORTHEASTERN RATES BEFORE INCREASE ARE NOT
PROVED NOR FOUND BY THE COMMISSION TO BE NONCOMPENSATORY TO THE
RAILROADS, OR OTHERWISE TO THREATEN HARMFUL EFFECTS UPON THE REVENUES
AND TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY OF THE CARRIERS WHO GET THE INCREASE.  IT
ALSO IS ADMITTED THAT THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PROOF AND FINDINGS MIGHT BE
FATAL TO THIS INCREASED RATE, FOR "IF THIS WERE A CASE OF DETERMINING
WHETHER EXISTING RATES PASSED BELOW THE LOWEST OR ABOVE THE HIGHEST
REACHES OF REASONABLENESS, THE POINT MIGHT BE WELL TAKEN."  CAN THE
LABEL AFFIXED TO A PROCEEDING MAKE LEGAL WHAT UNDER ANOTHER LABEL WOULD
BE INVALID?  BECAUSE THE PROCEEDING PROFESSES TO CORRECT
CLASSIFICATIONS, A PURPOSE NOW LONG AND INDEFINITELY DEFERRED, MAY IT
BE USED INCIDENTALLY TO RAISE THE RATES OF THE WHOLE NORTHEASTERN
TERRITORY WITHOUT ANY SHOWING OF NEED THEREFOR?  WHETHER WE CALL THE
CASE A "REVENUE CASE" OR SOMETHING ELSE, AND WHETHER WE DECLINE TO
DENOMINATE THE PROBLEM A "REVENUE PROBLEM" AND STYLE IT SOMETHING ELSE,
THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW IS A REVENUE ORDER AND NOTHING ELSE.  IT ADDS
10% TO THE REVENUES OF THE NORTHEASTERN ROADS FROM TRAFFIC MOVING UNDER
THE RATES IN QUESTION; IT KNOCKS 10% OFF FROM THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN
TRAFFIC UNDER THEM.  IT EXACTS FOR THE RAILROADS ADDED REVENUES; IT
LAYS ON SHIPPERS THE BURDEN OF PROVIDING THOSE ADDED REVENUES.  THIS
ORDER ADMITTEDLY MIGHT BE INVALID IF THE INCREASED REVENUE WERE GIVEN
TO THE RAILROADS BECAUSE THEY HAD MADE A CLAIM TO NEED IT, AND HAD ONLY
THE PRESENT EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS TO SUPPORT AN ALLOWANCE OF THEIR
CLAIM.  SO THE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE ORDER IS VALID ONLY BECAUSE THE
RAILROADS HAVE NO REVENUE PROBLEM AND HAVE NOT MADE A CASE ENTITLING
THEM TO INCREASED REVENUE.  THAT IS ALL I CAN GET FROM THE ANSWER THAT
IT IS A VALID ORDER ONLY BECAUSE "WE DO NOT HAVE HERE SUCH A REVENUE
PROBLEM." 

I LONG HAVE HEARD THE COMPLAINT THAT FREIGHT RATES DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST THE SOUTH.  I HAVE BEEN INCLINED TO SUSPECT IT TO BE TRUE AND
HAVE HOPED TO SEE AN IMPARTIAL AND EXHAUSTIVE STUDY AND DECISION ON THE
SUBJECT.  BUT THIS CASE DOES NOT MEET THAT DESCRIPTION.  THE STUDENT OF
ECONOMICS WILL BE PUZZLED AT THE COURT'S CITATION OF THE FACT THAT THE
AVERAGE EMPLOYED PERSON IN THE SOUTH EARNS ONLY HALF AS MUCH AS THOSE
IN THE NORTHEAST AS BEING IN SOME WAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THESE FREIGHT
RATES.  AND THE STUDENT OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WILL FIND INSTRUCTION
IN THE CONTRAST BETWEEN TODAY'S DECISION AND THAT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. MECHLING, 330 U.S. 567, IN ITS REGARD FOR
INHERENT ADVANTAGES, IN ITS ATTITUDE TO "UNSIFTED" AVERAGES AS A BASIS
FOR RAISING RATES AND IN ITS DEFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTISE
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

I AM NOT UNAWARE OF THE DIFFICULT POSITION IN WHICH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FINDS ITSELF IN CASES OF THIS CHARACTER. 
COMMISSIONER EASTMAN GAVE VOICE TO IT IN DISSENT IN STATE OF ALABAMA V.
NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 235 I.C.C. 255, 333, AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE COMMISSION IS CALLED UPON TO DECIDE THIS CASE, ON THE RECORD,
AFTER IT HAS IN EFFECT BEEN DECIDED, IN ADVANCE AND WITHOUT REGARD TO
THE RECORD, BY MANY MEN IN PUBLIC LIFE, OF HIGH AND LOW DEGREE, WHO
HAVE FREELY PROCLAIMED THEIR VIEWS ON WHAT THEY CONCEIVE TO BE THE
BASIC ISSUES.  THEIR THESIS HAS BEEN THAT THE SECTION OF OUR COUNTRY
GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE SOUTH IS OUR 'ECONOMIC PROBLEM NO. 1', BECAUSE,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, IT IS LOW IN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT A
MAJOR REASON FOR THIS CONDITION HAS BEEN AND IS AN UNFAIR ADJUSTMENT OF
FREIGHT RATES WHICH HAS FAVORED THE PRODUCERS OF THE NORTH AND BURDENED
THOSE OF THE SOUTH.  IT HAS BECOME A POLITICAL ISSUE.  WHILE, HOWEVER,
THE SOUTH GAVE BIRTH TO THE ISSUE, PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WEST
NOW CRY OUT AGAINST LIKE SUPPOSED OPPRESSION, AND PUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NORTH OR EAST, AS IT IS VARIOUSLY CALLED, HAVE
RISEN IN DEFENSE OF THEIR SECTION. 

"UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS, IT IS NOT EASY TO DECIDE THE CASE WITHOUT
BEING INFLUENCED BY EMOTIONAL REACTIONS, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHICH
SHOULD PLAY NO PART IN THE DECISION." 

BUT BY ADMINISTRATIVE SUCCESSION AND JUDICIAL FIAT THE REGULATORY
POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER COMMERCE IS NOW USED TO FORCE A
SURTAX ON TRANSPORTATION OF ONE SECTION OF THE COUNTRY ADMITTEDLY NOT
NEEDED TO COMPENSATE THE RAILROAD FOR THE CARRIAGE BUT TO TAKE AWAY
FROM ITS INHABITANTS ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES INHERENT IN ITS DENSITY OF
POPULATION, REGARDLESS OF THE DISADVANTAGES WHICH DENSITY OF POPULATION
ALSO CAUSES. 

THE OBSERVATION OF COMMISSIONER MAHAFFIE IN THIS CASE SEEMS TO ME
APPROPRIATE AND ACCURATE: 

"  ...  IN A COUNTRY SO VAST AS THIS WITH ITS WIDELY VARIED RESOURCES
AND DIFFERING TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IT SEEMS TO ME A MISTAKE TO TRY TO
COMPEL GENERAL EQUALITY IN RATES EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT EQUALITY IS
JUSTIFIED BY TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS.  I THINK THE EFFORT TO DO SO
MUST NECESSARILY FAIL.  BUT I AM AFRAID THE PROCESS OF FINDING OUT
WHETHER IT CAN BE DONE WILL BE PAINFUL AND COSTLY.  THE PREJUDICE
FINDINGS ON WHICH THE NEW ADJUSTMENT IS LARGELY PREDICATED ARE
CALCULATED, IF CARRIED TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION, TO LEAD TO A RIGID RATE
STRUCTURE BASED ON MILEAGE.  WHILE THIS MAY SEEM ON ITS FACE TO BE
EQUITABLE ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT WOULD ENTAIL RADICAL INDUSTRIAL AND
AGRICULTURAL READJUSTMENTS.  I DOUBT IF THE COUNTRY SHOULD BE REQUIRED
TO INCUR THE EXPENSE OF MAKING THEM."  (262 I.C.C. AT 708.) 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




















HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 145 


NO. 34.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 13, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 5, 1947.  - 151
F.2D 837, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON WARRANTS CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF THE MAIL FRAUD STATUTE AND
THE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT, FIVE FEDERAL AGENTS ARRESTED AN
ACCUSED IN THE LIVING ROOM OF AN APARTMENT WHICH WAS IN HIS EXCLUSIVE
POSSESSION.  WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT, THEY SEARCHED THE APARTMENT
(LIVING ROOM, BEDROOM, KITCHEN AND BATH) INTENSIVELY FOR FIVE HOURS,
FOR TWO CANCELED CHECKS AND ANY OTHER MEANS BY WHICH THE CRIMES CHARGED
MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.  BENEATH SOME CLOTHES IN A BEDROOM BUREAU
DRAWER, THEY DISCOVERED A SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED "PERSONAL PAPERS" OF
THE ACCUSED.  THIS WAS TORN OPEN AND FOUND TO CONTAIN SEVERAL DRAFT
CARDS WHICH WERE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE POSSESSION OF
WHICH WAS A FEDERAL OFFENSE.  UPON THE EVIDENCE THUS OBTAINED, THE
ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATIONS OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING & SERVICE
ACT OF 1940 AND SEC. 48 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  HELD:  THE EVIDENCE WAS
NOT OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, NOR DID ITS USE VIOLATE THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE ACCUSED AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 150-155. 

2.  A SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO AN ARREST MAY, UNDER APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES, EXTEND BEYOND THE PERSON OF THE ONE ARRESTED TO THE
PREMISES UNDER HIS IMMEDIATE CONTROL.  P. 151. 

3.  A SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO AN ARREST, WHICH IS OTHERWISE REASONABLE,
IS NOT RENDERED INVALID BY THE FACT THAT THE PLACE SEARCHED IS A
DWELLING RATHER THAN A PLACE OF BUSINESS.  P. 151. 

4.  THE SEARCH IN THIS CASE WAS NOT RENDERED INVALID BY THE FACT THAT
IT EXTENDED BEYOND THE ROOM IN WHICH THE ACCUSED WAS ARRESTED.  P.
152. 

5.  THE SEARCH IN THIS CASE WAS NOT MORE INTENSIVE THAN WAS
REASONABLY DEMANDED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  PP. 152-153. 

6.  THE OBJECTS SOUGHT AND THOSE ACTUALLY SEIZED IN THIS CASE WERE
PROPERLY SUBJECT TO SEIZURE.  P. 154. 

7.  IT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CASE THAT THE DRAFT CARDS WHICH
WERE SEIZED WERE UNRELATED TO THE CRIMES FOR WHICH THE ACCUSED WAS
ARRESTED.  P. 154. 

8.  SINCE POSSESSION OF THE DRAFT CARDS BY THE ACCUSED WAS A SERIOUS
AND CONTINUING OFFENSE AGAINST FEDERAL LAWS, UPON DISCOVERY OF THE
CARDS A CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTED IN THE VERY PRESENCE OF THE AGENTS
CONDUCTING THE SEARCH.  PP. 154-155. 

9.  IF ENTRY UPON THE PREMISES BE AUTHORIZED AND THE SEARCH WHICH
FOLLOWS BE VALID, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WHICH
INHIBITS THE SEIZURE BY LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENTS OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS A CRIME, EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICERS ARE NOT
AWARE THAT SUCH PROPERTY IS ON THE PREMISES WHEN THE SEARCH IS
INITIATED.  P. 155. 

10.  THAT ABUSES SOMETIMES OCCUR IS NO BASIS FOR GIVING SINISTER
COLORATION TO PROCEDURES WHICH ARE BASICALLY REASONABLE.  P. 155. 

HARRIS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR VIOLATION OF THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING & SERVICE ACT AND SEC. 48 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  151 F.2D 837.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 832.  AFFIRMED, P. 155. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED ON SIXTEEN COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT N1
CHARGING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, CONCEALMENT AND ALTERATION OF CERTAIN
NOTICE OF CLASSIFICATION CARDS AND REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940,
FN2  AND OF SEC. 48 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  FN3  PRIOR TO THE TRIAL,
PETITIONER MOVED TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE, WHICH SERVED AS THE BASIS
FOR THE CONVICTION, ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY MEANS
OF AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT  FN4  AND THAT TO PERMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT
EVIDENCE WOULD BE TO VIOLATE THE SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT N5.  THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS DENIED, AND PETITIONER'S
NUMEROUS OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL WERE OVERRULED.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  151 F.2D 837. 
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED. 

TWO VALID WARRANTS OF ARREST WERE ISSUED.  ONE CHARGED THAT
PETITIONER AND ONE MOFFETT HAD VIOLATED THE MAIL FRAUD STATUTE  FN6  BY
CAUSING A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK TO
BE PLACED IN THE MAILS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CASHING A FORGED CHECK FOR
$25,000.00 DRAWN ON THE MUDGE OIL COMPANY IN PURSUANCE OF A SCHEME TO
DEFRAUD.  THE SECOND WARRANT CHARGED THAT PETITIONER AND MOFFETT, WITH
INTENT TO DEFRAUD CERTAIN BANKS AND THE MUDGE OIL COMPANY, HAD CAUSED A
$25,000.00 FORGED CHECK TO BE TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 OF THE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT.  FN7 

FIVE AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ACTING UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE TWO WARRANTS, WENT TO THE APARTMENT OF PETITIONER IN
OKLAHOMA CITY AND THERE ARRESTED HIM.  THE APARTMENT CONSISTED OF A
LIVING ROOM, BEDROOM, BATHROOM AND KITCHEN.  FOLLOWING THE ARREST,
WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE LIVING ROOM, PETITIONER WAS HANDCUFFED AND A
SEARCH OF THE ENTIRE APARTMENT WAS UNDERTAKEN.  THE AGENTS STATED THAT
THE OBJECT OF THE SEARCH WAS TO FIND TWO $10,000.00 CANCELED CHECKS OF
THE MUDGE OIL COMPANY WHICH HAD BEEN STOLEN FROM THAT COMPANY'S OFFICE
AND WHICH WERE THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN USED IN EFFECTING THE FORGERY. 
THERE WAS EVIDENCE CONNECTING PETITIONER WITH THAT THEFT.  IN ADDITION,
THE SEARCH WAS SAID TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOCATING "ANY MEANS THAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED TO COMMIT THESE TWO CRIMES, SUCH AS BURGLAR TOOLS,
PENS, OR ANYTHING THAT COULD BE USED IN A CONFIDENCE GAME OF THIS
TYPE."  FN8 

ONE AGENT WAS ASSIGNED TO EACH ROOM OF THE APARTMENT AND, OVER
PETITIONER'S PROTEST, A CAREFUL AND THOROUGH SEARCH PROCEEDED FOR
APPROXIMATELY FIVE HOURS.  AS THE SEARCH NEARED ITS END, ONE OF THE
AGENTS DISCOVERED IN A BEDROOM BUREAU DRAWER A SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED
"GEORGE HARRIS, PERSONAL PAPERS."  THE ENVELOPE WAS TORN OPEN AND ON
THE INSIDE A SMALLER ENVELOPE WAS FOUND CONTAINING EIGHT NOTICE OF
CLASSIFICATION CARDS AND ELEVEN REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES BEARING THE
STAMP OF LOCAL BOARD NO. 7 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY.  IT WAS THIS EVIDENCE
UPON WHICH THE CONVICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS BASED AND AGAINST
WHICH THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS DIRECTED.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE
EVIDENCE IS IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE CRIMES FOR WHICH PETITIONER WAS
INITIALLY ARRESTED AND THAT THE SEARCH WHICH LED TO ITS DISCOVERY WAS
NOT CONDUCTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF A SEARCH WARRANT.  FN9 

IN DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS, THE DISTRICT COURT WROTE NO
OPINION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, FINDING
THAT THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED ON IN GOOD FAITH BY THE FEDERAL AGENTS FOR
THE PURPOSES EXPRESSED, THAT IT WAS NOT A GENERAL EXPLORATORY SEARCH
FOR MERELY EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS, AND THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WERE
A REASONABLE INCIDENT TO PETITIONER'S ARREST.  FN10 

IF IT IS TRUE, AS PETITIONER CONTENDS, THAT THE DRAFT CARDS WERE
SEIZED IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
THE CONVICTION BASED UPON EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 
BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616(1886); WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 383(1914); AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20(1925); SEGUROLA
V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 106(1927).  THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY
ASSERTED THAT THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY AND PERSONAL SECURITY PROTECTED BY
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT "  ...  ARE TO BE REGARDED AS OF THE VERY ESSENCE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY; AND THAT THE GUARANTY OF THEM IS AS
IMPORTANT AND AS IMPERATIVE AS ARE THE GUARANTIES OF THE OTHER
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN  ...  "  GOULED V. UNITED
STATES, 255 U.S. 298, 304(1921). 

THIS COURT HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IT IS ONLY UNREASONABLE SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES WHICH COME WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERDICT.  THE TEST
OF REASONABLENESS CANNOT BE STATED IN RIGID AND ABSOLUTE TERMS.  "EACH
CASE IS TO BE DECIDED ON ITS OWN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES."  GO-BART
IMPORTING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344, 357(1931). 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS NEVER BEEN HELD TO REQUIRE THAT EVERY VALID
SEARCH AND SEIZURE BE EFFECTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF A SEARCH
WARRANT.  SEARCH AND SEIZURE INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST IS A PRACTICE OF
ANCIENT ORIGIN  FN11  AND HAS LONG BEEN AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES OF THE UNITED STATES  FN12  AND OF THE
INDIVIDUAL STATES.  FN13 

THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE CLEARLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE SEARCH
INCIDENT TO ARREST MAY, UNDER APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, EXTEND BEYOND
THE PERSON OF THE ONE ARRESTED TO INCLUDE THE PREMISES UNDER HIS
IMMEDIATE CONTROL.  THUS IN AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 30, IT
WAS SAID:  "THE RIGHT WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TO
SEARCH PERSONS LAWFULLY ARRESTED WHILE COMMITTING CRIME AND TO SEARCH
THE PLACE WHERE THE ARREST IS MADE IN ORDER TO FIND AND SEIZE THINGS
CONNECTED WITH THE CRIME AS ITS FRUITS OR AS THE MEANS BY WHICH IT WAS
COMMITTED, AS WELL AS WEAPONS AND OTHER THINGS TO EFFECT AN ESCAPE FROM
CUSTODY, IS NOT TO BE DOUBTED."  FN14  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT A
SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST, WHICH IS OTHERWISE REASONABLE, IS NOT
AUTOMATICALLY RENDERED INVALID BY THE FACT THAT A DWELLING PLACE, AS
CONTRASTED TO A BUSINESS PREMISES, IS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH.  FN15 

NOR CAN SUPPORT BE FOUND FOR THE SUGGESTION THAT THE SEARCH COULD NOT
VALIDLY EXTEND BEYOND THE ROOM IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED.  FN16
PETITIONER WAS IN EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF A FOUR-ROOM APARTMENT.  HIS
CONTROL EXTENDED QUITE AS MUCH TO THE BEDROOM IN WHICH THE DRAFT CARDS
WERE FOUND AS TO THE LIVING ROOM IN WHICH HE WAS ARRESTED.  THE
CANCELED CHECKS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE CRIMES CHARGED IN
THE WARRANTS COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN CONCEALED IN ANY OF THE FOUR ROOMS
OF THE APARTMENT.  OTHER SITUATIONS MAY ARISE IN WHICH THE NATURE AND
SIZE OF THE OBJECT SOUGHT OR THE LACK OF EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE
PREMISES ON THE PART OF THE PERSONS ARRESTED MAY REQUIRE THAT THE
SEARCHES BE LESS EXTENSIVE.  BUT THE AREA WHICH REASONABLY MAY BE
SUBJECTED TO SEARCH IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE FORTUITOUS
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE ARREST TOOK PLACE IN THE LIVING ROOM AS
CONTRASTED TO SOME OTHER ROOM OF THE APARTMENT. 

SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS ARE APPLICABLE IN EVALUATING PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION THAT THE SEARCH WAS, IN ANY EVENT, TOO INTENSIVE.  HERE
AGAIN WE MUST LOOK TO THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR
CASE.  AS WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS:  "IT IS NOT
LIKELY THAT THE CHECKS WOULD BE VISIBLY ACCESSIBLE.  BY THEIR VERY
NATURE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT IN SOME SECLUDED SPOT  ...  "  THE
SAME METICULOUS INVESTIGATION WHICH WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN A SEARCH
FOR TWO SMALL CANCELED CHECKS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED REASONABLE WHERE
AGENTS ARE SEEKING A STOLEN AUTOMOBILE OR AN ILLEGAL STILL.  WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THE SEARCH IN THIS CASE WENT BEYOND THAT WHICH THE
SITUATION REASONABLY DEMANDED. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS HAVE INVADED A
PRIVATE DWELLING WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND SEIZED EVIDENCE OF CRIME.  AMOS
V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 313(1921); BYARS V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S.
28(1927); NUESLEIN V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 73 APP. D.C. 85, 115 F.2D
690(1940).  HERE THE AGENTS ENTERED THE APARTMENT UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF LAWFUL WARRANTS OF ARREST.  NEITHER WAS THE ENTRY TORTIOUS NOR WAS
THE ARREST WHICH FOLLOWED IN ANY SENSE ILLEGAL. 

NOR IS THIS A CASE IN WHICH LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE ENTERED
PREMISES OSTENSIBLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ARREST BUT IN REALITY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A GENERAL EXPLORATORY SEARCH FOR MERELY
EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS TENDING TO CONNECT THE ACCUSED WITH SOME CRIME. 
GO-BART COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ,
SUPRA.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AGENTS WERE IN POSSESSION OF FACTS
INDICATING PETITIONER'S PROBABLE GUILT OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH THE
WARRANTS OF ARREST WERE ISSUED.  THE SEARCH WAS NOT A GENERAL
EXPLORATION BUT WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO THE MEANS AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES BY WHICH THE CRIMES CHARGED HAD BEEN COMMITTED,
PARTICULARLY THE TWO CANCELED CHECKS OF THE MUDGE OIL COMPANY.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND AND THE DISTRICT COURT ACTED ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE AGENTS CONDUCTED THEIR SEARCH IN GOOD FAITH FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DISCOVERING THE OBJECTS SPECIFIED.  THAT DETERMINATION IS
SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  THE TWO CANCELED CHECKS WERE STOLEN FROM THE
OFFICES OF THE MUDGE OIL COMPANY.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE CONNECTING
PETITIONER WITH THAT THEFT.  THE SEARCH WHICH FOLLOWED THE ARREST WAS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE DISCOVERY OF SUCH OBJECTS.  NOTHING IN THE AGENTS'
CONDUCT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR DECLARED PURPOSE. 

FURTHERMORE, THE OBJECTS SOUGHT FOR AND THOSE ACTUALLY DISCOVERED
WERE PROPERLY SUBJECT TO SEIZURE.  THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY RECOGNIZED
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MERELY EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS, ON THE ONE HAND,
WHICH MAY NOT BE SEIZED EITHER UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF A SEARCH WARRANT
OR DURING THE COURSE OF A SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST, AND ON THE OTHER
HAND, THOSE OBJECTS WHICH MAY VALIDLY BE SEIZED INCLUDING THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES AND MEANS BY WHICH A CRIME IS COMMITTED, THE FRUITS
OF CRIME SUCH AS STOLEN PROPERTY, WEAPONS BY WHICH ESCAPE OF THE PERSON
ARRESTED MIGHT BE EFFECTED, AND PROPERTY THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS A
CRIME.  FN17  CLEARLY THE CHECKS AND OTHER MEANS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES
OF THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE WARRANTS TOWARD WHICH THE SEARCH WAS
DIRECTED AS WELL AS THE DRAFT CARDS WHICH WERE IN FACT SEIZED FALL
WITHIN THAT CLASS OF OBJECTS PROPERLY SUBJECT TO SEIZURE.  CERTAINLY
THIS IS NOT A CASE OF SEARCH FOR OR SEIZURE OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVATE
PAPERS, NOR DOES IT INVOLVE A PROSECUTION BASED UPON THE EXPRESSION OF
POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS VIEWS IN SUCH PAPERS.  FN18 

NOR IS IT A SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION THAT THE DRAFT CARDS WHICH WERE
SEIZED WERE NOT RELATED TO THE CRIMES FOR WHICH PETITIONER WAS
ARRESTED.  HERE DURING THE COURSE OF A VALID SEARCH THE AGENTS CAME
UPON PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE ILLEGAL CUSTODY OF THE
PETITIONER.  IT WAS PROPERTY OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO
POSSESSION.  FN19  IN KEEPING THE DRAFT CARDS IN HIS CUSTODY PETITIONER
WAS GUILTY OF A SERIOUS AND CONTINUING OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  A CRIME WAS THUS BEING COMMITTED IN THE VERY PRESENCE
OF THE AGENTS CONDUCTING THE SEARCH.  NOTHING IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT GIVES SUPPORT TO THE SUGGESTION THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE
LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS MUST IMPOTENTLY STAND ASIDE AND REFRAIN FROM
SEIZING SUCH CONTRABAND MATERIAL.  IF ENTRY UPON THE PREMISES BE
AUTHORIZED AND THE SEARCH WHICH FOLLOWS BE VALID, THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WHICH INHIBITS THE SEIZURE BY LAW-ENFORCEMENT
AGENTS OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS A CRIME, EVEN
THOUGH THE OFFICERS ARE NOT AWARE THAT SUCH PROPERTY IS ON THE PREMISES
WHEN THE SEARCH IS INITIATED.  FN20 

THE DANGERS TO FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS RESULTING
FROM EXCESSES OF LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS COMMITTED DURING THE COURSE
OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS ARE NOT ILLUSORY.  THIS COURT HAS ALWAYS
BEEN ALERT TO PROTECT AGAINST SUCH ABUSE.  BUT WE SHOULD NOT PERMIT OUR
KNOWLEDGE THAT ABUSES SOMETIMES OCCUR TO GIVE SINISTER COLORATION TO
PROCEDURES WHICH ARE BASICALLY REASONABLE.  WE CONCLUDE THAT IN THIS
CASE THE EVIDENCE WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF PETITIONER'S CONVICTION WAS
OBTAINED WITHOUT VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE INDICTMENT CONTAINED NINETEEN COUNTS.  PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED ON THE SECOND, WHICH CHARGED THE FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF 8
NOTICE OF CLASSIFICATION CARDS, DSS FORM 57, AND 11 REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATES, DSS FORM 2; THE THIRD, WHICH CHARGED FRAUDULENT
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO CONVERT TO HIS OWN USE THE ABOVE-MENTIONED
PROPERTY; THE FOURTH THROUGH TENTH, CHARGING THE UNLAWFUL ALTERATION OF
A NOTICE OF CLASSIFICATION CARD; THE TWELFTH AND FOURTEENTH THROUGH
NINETEENTH, CHARGING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF AN ALTERED NOTICE OF
CLASSIFICATION CARD.  PETITIONER WAS ACQUITTED ON THE FIRST COUNT,
WHICH CHARGED THEFT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.  COUNT 11, WHICH CHARGED
ALTERATION OF A NOTICE OF CLASSIFICATION CARD, AND COUNT 13, WHICH
CHARGED POSSESSION OF AN ALTERED CARD, WERE DISMISSED.  PETITIONER WAS
SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS ON EACH OF THE
SIXTEEN COUNTS INDICATED, THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.    FN2  54
STAT. 885, 894-895, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311.  SECTION 623.61-2 OF THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS STATES THAT "IT SHALL BE A VIOLATION OF
THESE REGULATIONS FOR ANY PERSON TO HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION" A NOTICE OF
CLASSIFICATION NOT REGULARLY ISSUED TO HIM OR TO ALTER OR FORGE ANY
NOTICE OF CLASSIFICATION.  SECTION 11 OF THE ACT MAKES THE FAILURE TO
PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT
FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000.00 OR
BOTH. 

FN3  35 STAT. 1098, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 101.  INSOFAR AS PERTINENT, THE
CONCEALING, OR SHALL HAVE OR RETAIN IN HIS POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO
CONVERT TO HIS OWN USE OR GAIN, ANY  ...  PROPERTY OF THE UNITED
STATES, WHICH HAS THERETOFORE BEEN EMBEZZLED, STOLEN, OR PURLOINED BY
ANY OTHER PERSON, KNOWING THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN SO EMBEZZLED, STOLEN,
OR PURLOINED, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH; ...  " 

FN4  THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES:  "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE
SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO
WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR
AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND
THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

FN5  INSOFAR AS PERTINENT, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES:  "NO PERSON
...  SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF,  ...  " 

FN6  35 STAT. 1130-1131, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 338. 

FN7  53 STAT. 1178-1179, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 413 ET SEQ. 

FN8  THE AGENTS WHO TESTIFIED IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT
CLEARLY STATED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SEARCH WAS THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN
COMMITTING THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE WARRANTS OF ARREST.  NONE OF THE
SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS OF THE AGENTS, IF READ IN THEIR CONTEXT, ARE IN
CONFLICT WITH THAT ASSERTION. 

FN9  IT APPEARS THAT THE CHECKS WERE NEVER FOUND.  RESPONDENT
CONCEDES THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE DRAFT CARDS, SEVEN PENS AND A
QUANTITY OF TISSUE PAPER CAPABLE OF BEING EMPLOYED AS INSTRUMENTS OF
FORGERY WERE SEIZED.  ALSO TAKEN WERE TWENTY-SEVEN PIECES OF CELLULOID
WHICH AT THE TRIAL WERE DEMONSTRATED TO BE USEFUL IN PICKING A LOCK. 
IT WAS RESPONDENT'S THEORY THAT PETITIONER HAD OBTAINED THE CANCELED
CHECKS BY THEFT FROM THE OFFICES OF THE MUDGE OIL COMPANY AND THAT
ENTRY INTO THE OFFICES HAD BEEN ACHIEVED IN THAT MANNER.  PETITIONER
ALLEGED IN HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS THAT VARIOUS OTHER ITEMS WERE TAKEN,
INCLUDING SHEETS OF BLANK PAPER, EXPENSE BILLS AND RECEIPTS, PERSONAL
MAIL, LETTERS, ETC. 

FN10  151 F.2D 837. 

FN11  SEE OPINION OF CARDOZO, J., IN PEOPLE V. CHIAGLES, 237 N.Y.
193, 142 N.E. 583(1923); TRIAL OF HENRY AND JOHN SHEARES, 27 HOW.  ST.
TR. 255, 321(1798). 

FN12  EXAMPLES OF THE PRACTICE ARE TO BE FOUND IN NUMEROUS CASES IN
THIS COURT AND IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267
U.S. 132(1925); UNITED STATES V. LEE, 274 U.S. 559(1927); MARRON V.
UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192(1927); GO-BART IMPORTING COMPANY V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452(1932); PARKS V.
UNITED STATES, 76 F.2D 709(1935); UNITED STATES V. 71.41 OUNCES GOLD,
94 F.2D 17(1938); MATTHEWS V. CORREA, 135 F.2D 534(1943). 

FN13  ARGETAKIS V. STATE, 24 ARIZ. 599, 212 PAC. 372(1923);
COMMONWEALTH V. PHILLIPS, 224 KY. 117, 5 S.W.2D 887(1928); BANKS V.
FARWELL, 21 PICK.  (MASS.)  156(1839).  AND SEE CASES CITED IN 32
A.L.R. 697; 51 A.L.R. 434. 

FN14  SIMILAR EXPRESSIONS MAY BE FOUND IN THE CASES CITED IN NOTES 12
AND 13.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE GO-BART AND LEFKOWITZ CASES, SUPRA,
WHICH CASTS DOUBT ON THIS PROPOSITION. 

FN15  STRICTER REQUIREMENTS OF REASONABLENESS MAY APPLY WHERE A
DWELLING IS BEING SEARCHED.  DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S.
582(1946); MATTHEWS V. CORREA, SUPRA, AT 537. 

FN16  SEARCHES GOING BEYOND THE ROOM OF ARREST WERE UPHELD IN THE
AGNELLO AND MARRON CASES, SUPRA.  THE SEARCHES FOUND TO BE INVALID IN
THE GO-BART AND LEFKOWITZ CASES WERE SO HELD FOR REASONS OTHER THAN THE
AREAS COVERED BY THE SEARCHES.  IT HAS NOT BEEN THE UNDERSTANDING OF
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS THAT THE SEARCH IN EVERY CASE MUST BE SO
CONFINED.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE:  UNITED STATES V. LINDENFELD, 142 F.2D
829(1944); MATTHEWS V. CORREA, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. 71.41 OUNCES
GOLD, SUPRA. 

FN17  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 623-624; WEEKS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AT 392-393; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 309;
CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 149-150; AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, AT 30; MARRON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 199; UNITED STATES V.
LEFKOWITZ, SUPRA, AT 465-466.  THE SAME DISTINCTION IS DRAWN IN
NUMEROUS CASES IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS:  MATTHEWS V. CORREA, SUPRA,
AT 537; UNITED STATES V. LINDENFELD, SUPRA, AT 832; IN RE GINSBURG, 147
F.2D 749, 751(1945). 

FN18  ENTICK V. CARRINGTON, 19 HOW.  ST. TR. 1030, 1073-1074(1765). 

FN19  DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 590.  AND SEE BOYD V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 623-624; WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361,
380(1911). 

FN20  MILAM V. UNITED STATES, 296 F. 629(1924); UNITED STATES V. OLD
DOMINION WAREHOUSE, 10 F.2D 736(1926); UNITED STATES V. TWO SOAKING
UNITS, 48 F.2D 107(1931); PAPER V. UNITED STATES, 53 F.2D 184(1931);
BENTON V. UNITED STATES, 70 F.2D 24(1934); MATTHEWS V. CORREA, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

BECAUSE I DEEM THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE COURT'S DECISION TO HAVE
SERIOUS THREATS TO BASIC LIBERTIES, I CONSIDER IT IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSCORE MY CONCERN OVER THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE.  IN DAVIS V.
UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582, THE COURT NARROWED THE PROTECTION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT FN1  BY EXTENDING THE CONCEPTION OF "PUBLIC RECORDS"
FOR PURPOSES OF SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT.  FN2 THE COURT NOW GOES FAR
BEYOND PRIOR DECISIONS IN ANOTHER DIRECTION - IT PERMITS RUMMAGING
THROUGHOUT A HOUSE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT ON THE OSTENSIBLE GROUND OF
LOOKING FOR THE INSTRUMENTS OF A CRIME FOR WHICH AN ARREST, BUT ONLY AN
ARREST, HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED.  IF ONLY THE FATE OF THE DAVISES AND THE
HARRISES WERE INVOLVED, ONE MIGHT BE BRUTALLY INDIFFERENT TO THE WAYS
BY WHICH THEY GET THEIR DESERTS.  BUT IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THE
APPEAL TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS SO OFTEN MADE BY DUBIOUS CHARACTERS
THAT ITS INFRINGEMENTS CALL FOR ALERT AND STRENUOUS RESISTANCE. 
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF THE PRESS, OF RELIGION, EASILY SUMMON POWERFUL
SUPPORT AGAINST ENCROACHMENT.  THE PROHIBITION AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS NORMALLY INVOKED BY THOSE ACCUSED OF CRIME, AND
CRIMINALS HAVE FEW FRIENDS.  THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH ENCROACHMENT,
HOWEVER, REACH FAR BEYOND THE THIEF OR THE BLACK-MARKETEER.  I CANNOT
GIVE LEGAL SANCTION TO WHAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE
IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A DECISION FOR THE FUTURE, IMPLICATIONS WHICH
PORTEND SERIOUS THREATS AGAINST PRECIOUS ASPECTS OF OUR TRADITIONAL
FREEDOM. 

IF I BEGIN WITH SOME GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, IT IS NOT BECAUSE I AM
UNMINDFUL OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES' CAUTION THAT "GENERAL PROPOSITIONS DO
NOT DECIDE CONCRETE CASES."  LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45, 76. 
WHETHER THEY DO OR NOT OFTEN DEPENDS ON THE STRENGTH OF THE CONVICTION
WITH WHICH SUCH "GENERAL PROPOSITIONS" ARE HELD.  A PRINCIPLE MAY BE
ACCEPTED "IN PRINCIPLE," BUT THE IMPACT OF AN IMMEDIATE SITUATION MAY
LEAD TO DEVIATION FROM THE PRINCIPLE.  OR, WHILE ACCEPTED "IN
PRINCIPLE," A COMPETING PRINCIPLE MAY SEEM MORE IMPORTANT.  BOTH THESE
CONSIDERATIONS HAVE DOUBTLESS INFLUENCED THE APPLICATION OF THE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THUS, ONE'S VIEWS
REGARDING CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THOSE HERE PRESENTED ULTIMATELY DEPEND
UPON ONE'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY AND THE FUNCTION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  A DECISION MAY TURN ON WHETHER ONE GIVES THAT AMENDMENT A
PLACE SECOND TO NONE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, OR CONSIDERS IT ON THE
WHOLE A KIND OF NUISANCE, A SERIOUS IMPEDIMENT IN THE WAR AGAINST
CRIME. 

THE PROVENANCE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BEARS ON ITS SCOPE.  IT WILL
BE RECALLED THAT JAMES OTIS MADE HIS EPOCHAL ARGUMENT AGAINST GENERAL
WARRANTS IN 1761.  FN3  OTIS' DEFENSE OF PRIVACY WAS ENSHRINED IN THE
MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION OF 1780 IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 

"XIV.  EVERY SUBJECT HAS A RIGHT TO BE SECURE FROM ALL UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES OF HIS PERSON, HIS HOUSES, HIS PAPERS, AND ALL
HIS POSSESSIONS.  ALL WARRANTS, THEREFORE, ARE CONTRARY TO THIS RIGHT,
IF THE CAUSE OR FOUNDATION OF THEM BE NOT PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED BY OATH
OR AFFIRMATION; AND IF THE ORDER IN THE WARRANT TO A CIVIL OFFICER, TO
MAKE SEARCH IN SUSPECTED PLACES, OR TO ARREST ONE OR MORE SUSPECTED
PERSONS, OR TO SEIZE THEIR PROPERTY, BE NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH A SPECIAL
DESIGNATION OF THE PERSONS OR OBJECTS OF SEARCH, ARREST, OR SEIZURE:
AND NO WARRANT OUGHT TO BE ISSUED BUT IN CASES, AND WITH THE
FORMALITIES, PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS." 

IN THE MEANTIME, VIRGINIA, IN HER FIRST CONSTITUTION (1776),
INCORPORATED A PROVISION ON THE SUBJECT NARROWER IN SCOPE: 

"X.  THAT GENERAL WARRANTS, WHEREBY AN OFFICER OR MESSENGER MAY BE
COMMANDED TO SEARCH SUSPECTED PLACES WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF A FACT
COMMITTED, OR TO SEIZE ANY PERSON OR PERSONS NOT NAMED, OR WHOSE
OFFENCE IS NOT PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, ARE
GRIEVOUS AND OPPRESSIVE, AND OUGHT NOT TO BE GRANTED." 

WHEN MADISON CAME TO DEAL WITH SAFEGUARDS AGAINST SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, HE DID NOT DRAW ON THE
VIRGINIA MODEL BUT BASED HIS PROPOSAL ON THE MASSACHUSETTS FORM.  THIS
IS CLEAR PROOF THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO GIVE WIDE, AND NOT LIMITED, SCOPE
TO THIS PROTECTION AGAINST POLICE INTRUSION. 

HISTORICALLY WE ARE DEALING WITH A PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION
WHICH SOUGHT TO GUARD AGAINST AN ABUSE THAT MORE THAN ANY ONE SINGLE
FACTOR GAVE RISE TO AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE.  JOHN ADAMS SURELY IS A
COMPETENT WITNESS ON THE CAUSES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.  AND HE IT
WAS WHO SAID OF OTIS' ARGUMENT AGAINST SEARCH BY THE POLICE, NOT UNLIKE
THE ONE BEFORE US, "AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WAS THEN AND THERE BORN."  10
ADAMS, WORKS 247.  THAT WHICH LAY BEHIND IMMUNITY FROM POLICE INTRUSION
WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS WHEN HE
SAID THAT THE MAKERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION 

"CONFERRED, AS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE -
THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE OF RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT MOST VALUED BY CIVILIZED
MEN.  TO PROTECT THAT RIGHT, EVERY UNJUSTIFIABLE INTRUSION BY THE
GOVERNMENT UPON THE PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, WHATEVER THE MEANS
EMPLOYED, MUST BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT." 

TO BE SURE, THAT WAS SAID BY HIM IN A DISSENTING OPINION IN WHICH HE,
WITH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR. JUSTICE STONE
APPLIED THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO WIRETAPPING WITHOUT
STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 478. 
BUT WITH ONLY AN OCCASIONAL DEVIATION, A SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT HAS CONSTRUED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT "LIBERALLY TO SAFEGUARD THE
RIGHT OF PRIVACY."  UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452, 464. 
(SEE AN ANALYSIS OF THE CASES IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION.)  THUS,
THE FEDERAL RULE ESTABLISHED IN WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383,
AS AGAINST THE RULE PREVAILING IN MANY STATES, RENDERS EVIDENCE
OBTAINED THROUGH AN IMPROPER SEARCH INADMISSIBLE NO MATTER HOW
RELEVANT.  SEE PEOPLE V. DEFORE, 242 N.Y. 13, 150 N.E. 585, AND CHAFEE,
THE PROGRESS OF THE LAW 1919-1922, 35 HARV. L. REV. 673, 694 ET SEQ.
AND LONG BEFORE THE WEEKS CASE, BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616,
GAVE LEGAL EFFECT TO THE BROAD HISTORIC POLICY UNDERLYING THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  FN4 THE BOYD OPINION HAS BEEN THE GUIDE TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO WHICH THE COURT HAS MOST
FREQUENTLY RECURRED. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF EVERY STATE CONTAINS A
CLAUSE LIKE THAT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND OFTEN IN ITS PRECISE
WORDING.  NOR ARE THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS HISTORIC SURVIVALS. 
NEW YORK WAS ALONE IN NOT HAVING A SAFEGUARD AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN ITS CONSTITUTION.  IN THAT STATE, THE PRIVILEGE
OF PRIVACY WAS SAFEGUARDED BY A STATUTE.  IT TELLS VOLUMES THAT IN
1938, NEW YORK, NOT CONTENT WITH STATUTORY PROTECTION, PUT THE
SAFEGUARD INTO ITS CONSTITUTION.  FN5  IF ONE THING ON THIS SUBJECT CAN
BE SAID WITH CONFIDENCE IT IS THAT THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT AGAINST SEARCH AND SEIZURE BY THE POLICE, EXCEPT UNDER
THE CLOSEST JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS, IS NOT AN OUTWORN BIT OF EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY ROMANTIC RATIONALISM BUT AN INDISPENSABLE NEED FOR A DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY. 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WE HAVE SEEN, DERIVES FROM THE SIMILAR
PROVISION IN THE FIRST MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION.  WE MAY THEREFORE
LOOK TO THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE EARLY MASSACHUSETTS COURT PLACED
UPON THE PROGENITOR OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: 

"WITH THE FRESH RECOLLECTION OF THOSE STIRRING DISCUSSIONS
(RESPECTING WRITS OF ASSISTANCE), AND OF THE REVOLUTION WHICH FOLLOWED
THEM, THE ARTICLE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, RESPECTING SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES, WAS FRAMED AND ADOPTED.  THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT PROHIBIT ALL
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF A MAN'S PERSON, HIS PAPERS, AND POSSESSIONS;
BUT SUCH ONLY AS ARE 'UNREASONABLE,' AND THE FOUNDATION OF WHICH IS
'NOT PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION.'  THE LEGISLATURE
WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE SEARCH WARRANTS FOR
PROBABLE CAUSES, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND FOR THE
PUNISHMENT OR SUPPRESSION OF ANY VIOLATION OF LAW."  COMMONWEALTH V.
DANA, 2 MET.  (MASS.)  329, 336.    THE PLAIN IMPORT OF THIS IS THAT
SEARCHES ARE "UNREASONABLE" UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A WARRANT, AND A
WARRANT HEDGED ABOUT BY ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS.  "UNREASONABLE" IS NOT TO
BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR SEARCH AND SEIZURE
CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION.  THE "REASON" BY WHICH SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS
TO BE TESTED IS THE "REASON" THAT WAS WRITTEN OUT OF HISTORIC
EXPERIENCE INTO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THIS MEANS THAT, WITH MINOR AND
SEVERELY CONFINED EXCEPTIONS, INFERENTIALLY A PART OF THE AMENDMENT,
EVERY SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS UNREASONABLE WHEN MADE WITHOUT A
MAGISTRATE'S AUTHORITY EXPRESSED THROUGH A VALIDLY ISSUED WARRANT. 

IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSISTENTLY AND CAREFULLY
RESPECTED THE PRIVACY PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  BECAUSE THEY
REALIZED THAT THE DANGERS OF POLICE ABUSE WERE PERSISTING DANGERS, THE
FATHERS PUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT INTO THE CONSTITUTION.  BECAUSE THESE
DANGERS ARE INHERENT IN THE TEMPTATIONS AND THE TENDENCIES OF THE
POLICE, CONGRESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHARY IN ALLOWING THE USE OF SEARCH
WARRANTS.  WHEN IT HAS AUTHORIZED THEM IT HAS CIRCUMSCRIBED THEIR USE
WITH PARTICULARITY.  IN SCORES UPON SCORE OF ACTS, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED
SEARCH BY WARRANT ONLY FOR PARTICULAR SITUATIONS AND IN EXTREMELY
RESTRICTED WAYS.  DESPITE REPEATED IMPORTUNITIES BY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES, CONGRESS LONG REFUSED TO MAKE SEARCH BY WARRANT
GENERALLY AVAILABLE AS A RESOURCE IN AID OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  IT
DID NOT DO SO UNTIL THE FIRST WORLD WAR, AND EVEN THEN IT DID NOT DO SO
EXCEPT UNDER CONDITIONS CAREFULLY CIRCUMSCRIBED. 

THE WHOLE HISTORY OF LEGISLATION DEALING WITH SEARCH AND SEIZURE
SHOWS HOW WARILY CONGRESS HAS WALKED PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  A SEARCH OF THE ENTIRE PREMISES FOR INSTRUMENTS OF CRIME
MERELY AS AN INCIDENT TO A WARRANT OF ARREST HAS NEVER BEEN AUTHORIZED
BY CONGRESS.  NOR HAS CONGRESS EVER AUTHORIZED SUCH SEARCH WITHOUT A
WARRANT EVEN FOR STOLEN OR CONTRABAND GOODS.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS
PRECISELY FOR THE SEARCH OF SUCH GOODS THAT SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORIZATION WAS GIVEN BY CONGRESS.  WARRANTS EVEN FOR SUCH SEARCH
REQUIRED GREAT PARTICULARITY AND COULD BE ISSUED ONLY ON ADEQUATE
GROUNDS.  (FOR A TABLE OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, WITH INDICATION AS
TO ITS SCOPE, SEE THE APPENDIX TO THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE DAVIS
CASE, 328 U.S. AT 616.) 

THIS IS THE HISTORIC BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF
THIS CASE MUST BE PROJECTED.  FOR ME THE BACKGROUND IS RESPECT FOR THAT
PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH IS CENTRAL TO ENJOYMENT OF THE
OTHER GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  HOW CAN THERE BE FREEDOM OF
THOUGHT OR FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF RELIGION, IF THE POLICE CAN,
WITHOUT WARRANT, SEARCH YOUR HOUSE AND MINE FROM GARRET TO CELLAR
MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE EXECUTING A WARRANT OF ARREST?  HOW CAN MEN
FEEL FREE IF ALL THEIR PAPERS MAY BE SEARCHED, AS AN INCIDENT TO THE
ARREST OF SOMEONE IN THE HOUSE, ON THE CHANCE THAT SOMETHING MAY TURN
UP, OR RATHER, BE TURNED UP?  YESTERDAY THE JUSTIFYING DOCUMENT WAS AN
ILLICIT RATION BOOK, TOMORROW IT MAY BE SOME SUSPECT PIECE OF
LITERATURE. 

THE COURT'S REASONING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MAY BE BRIEFLY STATED. 
THE ENTRY INTO HARRIS' APARTMENT WAS LAWFUL BECAUSE THE AGENTS HAD A
WARRANT OF ARREST.  THE ENSUING SEARCH WAS LAWFUL BECAUSE, AS AN
INCIDENT OF A LAWFUL ARREST, THE POLICE MAY SEARCH THE PREMISES ON
WHICH THE ARREST TOOK PLACE SINCE EVERYTHING IN THE APARTMENT WAS IN
THE "POSSESSION" OF THE ACCUSED AND SUBJECT TO HIS CONTROL.  IT WAS
LAWFUL, THEREFORE, FOR THE AGENTS TO RUMMAGE THE APARTMENT IN SEARCH
FOR "INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME."  SINCE THE SEARCH WAS LAWFUL, ANYTHING
ILLICIT DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH WAS LAWFULLY SEIZED.  IN
ANY EVENT, THE SEIZURE WAS LAWFUL BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS FOUND WERE
PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR POSSESSION WAS A CONTINUING
CRIME AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 

MUCH IS MADE OF THE FACT THAT THE ENTRY INTO THE HOUSE WAS LAWFUL. 
BUT WE ARE NOT CONFINED TO ISSUES OF TRESPASS.  THE PROTECTION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT EXTENDS TO IMPROPER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, QUITE APART
FROM THE LEGALITY OF AN ENTRY.  THE AMENDMENT ASSERTS THE "RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE TO BE SECURE" NOT ONLY "IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES," BUT ALSO IN
THEIR "PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES."  IT IS ALSO ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE THE SEARCH WAS ALLEGEDLY
FOR INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH HARRIS WAS ARRESTED IT WAS IPSO
FACTO JUSTIFIED AS AN INCIDENT OF THE ARREST.  IT WOULD HARDLY BE
SUGGESTED THAT SUCH A SEARCH COULD BE MADE WITHOUT WARRANT IF HARRIS
HAD BEEN ARRESTED ON THE STREET.  HOW, THEN, IS RUMMAGING A MAN'S
CLOSETS AND DRAWERS MORE INCIDENTAL TO THE ARREST BECAUSE THE POLICE
CHOSE TO ARREST HIM AT HOME?  FOR SOME PURPOSES, TO BE SURE, A MAN'S
HOUSE AND ITS CONTENTS ARE DEEMED TO BE IN HIS "POSSESSION" OR
"CONTROL" EVEN WHEN HE IS MILES AWAY.  BECAUSE THIS IS A MODE OF LEGAL
REASONING RELEVANT TO DISPUTES OVER PROPERTY, THE USUAL PHRASE FOR SUCH
NON-PHYSICAL CONTROL IS "CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION."  BUT THIS MODE OF
THOUGHT AND THESE CONCEPTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT AND HOSTILE TO RESPECT FOR THE LIBERTIES WHICH IT
PROTECTS.  DUE REGARD FOR THE POLICY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PRECLUDES
INDULGENCE IN THE FICTION THAT THE RECESSES OF A MAN'S HOUSE ARE LIKE
THE POCKETS OF THE CLOTHES HE WEARS AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST. 

TO FIND AUTHORITY FOR RANSACKING A HOME MERELY FROM AUTHORITY FOR THE
ARREST OF A PERSON IS TO GIVE A NOVEL AND OMINOUS RENDERING TO A
MOMENTOUS CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF ANGLO-AMERICAN FREEDOM.  AN
ENGLISHMAN'S HOME, THOUGH A HOVEL, IS HIS CASTLE, PRECISELY BECAUSE THE
LAW SECURES FREEDOM FROM FEAR OF INTRUSION BY THE POLICE EXCEPT UNDER
CAREFULLY SAFEGUARDED AUTHORIZATION BY A MAGISTRATE.  TO DERIVE FROM
THE COMMON LAW RIGHT TO SEARCH THE PERSON AS AN INCIDENT OF HIS ARREST
THE RIGHT OF INDISCRIMINATE SEARCH OF ALL HIS BELONGINGS, IS TO
DISREGARD THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS BOTH UNAUTHORIZED
ARREST AND UNAUTHORIZED SEARCH.  AUTHORITY TO ARREST DOES NOT DISPENSE
WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF AUTHORITY TO SEARCH. 

BUT EVEN IF THE SEARCH WAS REASONABLE, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE
SEIZURE WAS LAWFUL.  IF THE AGENTS HAD OBTAINED A WARRANT TO LOOK FOR
THE CANCELLED CHECKS, THEY WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO SEIZE OTHER ITEMS
DISCOVERED IN THE PROCESS.  MARRON V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192,
196.  FN6 HARRIS WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RECLAIM THEM BY A MOTION TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE.  SUCH IS THE POLICY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
RECOGNIZED BY CONGRESS AND REFORMULATED IN THE NEW RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE ADOPTED ONLY LAST YEAR.  SEE RULE 41(E) SUPERSEDING THE ACT
OF JUNE 15, 1917, 40 STAT. 228, 229.  THE COURT'S DECISION ACHIEVES THE
NOVEL AND STARTLING RESULT OF MAKING THE SCOPE OF SEARCH WITHOUT
WARRANT BROADER THAN AN AUTHORIZED SEARCH. 

THESE PRINCIPLES ARE WELL ESTABLISHED.  WHILE A FEW OF THE LOWER
COURTS HAVE UNCRITICALLY AND UNWARRANTEDLY EXTENDED THE VERY LIMITED
SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT OF A PERSON UPON HIS LAWFUL ARREST, SUCH
EXTENSION IS HOSTILE TO THE POLICY OF THE AMENDMENT AND IS NOT
WARRANTED BY THE PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT. 

"IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP CLEAR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROHIBITED
SEARCHES ON THE ONE HAND AND IMPROPER SEIZURES ON THE OTHER.  SEE MR.
JUSTICE MILLER, IN BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, 638, 641. 
THUS, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO SEIZE A PERSON'S PRIVATE PAPERS, THOUGH
THE SEARCH IN WHICH THEY WERE RECOVERED WAS PERFECTLY PROPER.  E.G.,
GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298.  IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO MAKE
AN IMPROPER SEARCH EVEN FOR ARTICLES THAT ARE APPROPRIATELY SUBJECT TO
SEIZURE, E.G., AMOS V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 313; BYARS V. UNITED
STATES, 273 U.S. 28; TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1.  AND A SEARCH
MAY BE IMPROPER BECAUSE OF THE OBJECT IT SEEKS TO UNCOVER, E.G., WEEKS
V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 393-94, OR BECAUSE ITS SCOPE EXTENDS
BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS, E.G., AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269
U.S. 20. 

"THE COURSE OF DECISIONS HERE HAS OBSERVED THESE IMPORTANT
DISTINCTIONS.  THE COURT HAS NOT BEEN INDULGENT TOWARDS INROADS UPON
THE AMENDMENT.  ONLY RARELY HAVE ITS DICTA APPEARED TO GIVE UNDUE SCOPE
TO THE RIGHT OF SEARCH ON ARREST, AND MARRON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA
(275 U.S. 192), IS THE ONLY DECISION IN WHICH THE DICTA WERE REFLECTED
IN THE RESULT.  THAT CASE HAS BEEN A SOURCE OF CONFUSION TO THE LOWER
COURTS.  THUS, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT FELT
THAT THE MARRON CASE REQUIRED IT TO GIVE A MORE RESTRICTED VIEW TO THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT THAN THAT COURT HAD EXPOUNDED IN
UNITED STATES V. KIRSCHENBLATT, 16 F.2D 202, SEE GO-BART CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUB NOM., UNITED STATES V. GOWEN, 40 F.2D 593, ONLY TO FIND
ITSELF REVERSED HERE, GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA (282 U.S.
344), PARTLY ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE KIRSCHENBLATT DECISION WHICH,
AFTER THE MARRON CASE, IT THOUGHT IT MUST DISOWN.  THE UNCRITICAL
APPLICATION OF THE RIGHT OF SEARCH ON ARREST IN THE MARRON CASE HAS
SURELY BEEN DISPLACED BY GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND EVEN
MORE DRASTICALLY BY UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, SUPRA (285 U.S. 452),
UNLESS ONE IS TO INFER THAT AN EARLIER CASE QUALIFIES LATER DECISIONS
ALTHOUGH THESE LATER DECISIONS HAVE EXPLICITLY CONFINED THE EARLIER
CASE."  DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. AT 612-13(DISSENTING
OPINION). 

IT IS URGED THAT EVEN IF THE SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, ONCE IT WAS
MADE AND THE ILLICIT DOCUMENTS DISCOVERED, THEY COULD BE SEIZED BECAUSE
THEIR POSSESSION WAS A "CONTINUING OFFENSE" COMMITTED "IN THE VERY
PRESENCE OF THE AGENTS."  APPARENTLY, THEN, A SEARCH UNDERTAKEN
ILLEGALLY MAY RETROSPECTIVELY, BY A LEGAL FIGMENT, GAIN LEGALITY FROM
WHAT HAPPENED FOUR HOURS LATER.  THIS IS TO DEFEAT THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST LAWLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE BY THE APPLICATION OF AN INVERTED
NOTION OF TRESPASS AB INITIO.  HERE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TRESPASS AB
INITIO RETROSPECTIVELY ACQUIRES LEGALITY.  THUS, THE DECISION FINDS
SATISFACTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT BY CIRCULAR REASONING. 
SEARCH REQUIRES AUTHORITY; AUTHORITY TO SEARCH IS GAINED BY WHAT MAY BE
FOUND DURING SEARCH WITHOUT AUTHORITY.  BY THIS REASONING EVERY ILLEGAL
SEARCH AND SEIZURE MAY BE VALIDATED IF THE POLICE FIND EVIDENCE OF
CRIME.  THE RESULT CAN HARDLY BE TO DISCOURAGE POLICE VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. 

IF THE SEARCH IS ILLEGAL WHEN BEGUN, AS IT CLEARLY WAS IN THIS CASE
IF PAST DECISIONS MEAN ANYTHING, IT CANNOT RETROSPECTIVELY GAIN
LEGALITY.  IF THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGAL, THE RESULTING SEIZURE IN THE
COURSE OF THE SEARCH IS ILLEGAL.  IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT
POSSESSION OF A DOCUMENT MAY ITSELF BE A CRIME.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION
HERE THAT THE SEARCH WAS BASED ON EVEN A SUSPICION THAT HARRIS WAS IN
POSSESSION OF ILLICIT DOCUMENTS.  THE SEARCH WAS JUSTIFIED AND IS
JUSTIFIED ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THERE WAS A
WARRANT OF ARREST.  BUT UNLESS WE ARE GOING TO THROW TO THE WINDS THE
LATEST UNANIMOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ON THE ALLOWABLE RANGE OF
SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST, GO-BART CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344, AND UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S.
452, THIS WAS AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH WHICH RENDERED UNAVAILABLE AS EVIDENCE
EVERYTHING SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF IT.  THAT THE AGENTS MIGHT HAVE
OBTAINED A WARRANT TO MAKE THE SEARCH ONLY EMPHASIZES THE ILLEGALITY OF
THEIR CONDUCT.  IN THE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR THE
COURT, THE PRECIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS "AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND
SEIZURE ARE TO BE PROTECTED EVEN IF THE SAME RESULT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
ACHIEVED IN A LAWFUL WAY."  SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES,
251 U.S. 385, 392.  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THE GOODS SEIZED ARE
CONTRABAND MAKE VALID AN OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 
AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20.  INDEED IT WAS FOR CONTRABAND
GOODS THAT SEARCH WARRANTS, CAREFULLY HEDGED ABOUT, WERE FIRST
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS. 

THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS TO THE SAFEGUARD OF A WARRANT ISSUED BY A
MAGISTRATE ARE THOSE WHICH THE COMMON LAW RECOGNIZED AS INHERENT
LIMITATIONS OF THE POLICY WHICH FOUND EXPRESSION IN THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT - WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES PRECLUDE THE OBTAINING OF A WARRANT (AS
IN THE CASE OF MOVABLE VEHICLES), AND WHERE THE WARRANT FOR THE ARREST
OF A PERSON CARRIES WITH IT AUTHORITY TO SEIZE ALL THAT IS ON THE
PERSON, OR IS IN SUCH OPEN AND IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL RELATION TO HIM AS TO
BE, IN A FAIR SENSE, A PROJECTION OF HIS PERSON.  THAT IS THE TEACHING
OF BOTH THE GO-BART AND THE LEFKOWITZ CASES, WHICH EFFECTUALLY RETRACT
WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE LOOSE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM IN MARRON
V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192.  THUS, THE GO-BART CASE EMPHASIZED THAT
THE THINGS SEIZED IN THE MARRON CASE WERE "VISIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE AND
IN THE OFFENDER'S IMMEDIATE CUSTODY."  282 U.S. 344, 358.  BY
"IMMEDIATE CUSTODY" WAS NOT MEANT THAT FIGURATIVE POSSESSION WHICH FOR
SOME LEGAL PURPOSES PUTS ONE IN "POSSESSION" OF EVERYTHING IN A HOUSE. 
THE SENTENCE FOLLOWING THAT JUST QUOTED EXCLUDES PRECISELY THE KIND OF
THING THAT WAS DONE HERE.  "THERE WAS NO THREAT OF FORCE OR GENERAL
SEARCH OR RUMMAGING OF THE PLACE."  IBID. 

IN OUR CASE, FIVE AGENTS CAME TO ARREST HARRIS ON A CHARGE OF
VIOLATING THE POSTAL LAWS AND THE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT.  THOUGH
THE ARREST WAS CONSUMMATED IN THE LIVING ROOM, THE AGENTS WERE TOLD TO
MAKE "A THOROUGH SEARCH" OF THE ENTIRE APARTMENT.  IN THE BEDROOM THEY
LIFTED THE CARPETS, STRIPPED THE BED-LINEN, TURNED OVER THE MATTRESS. 
THEY COMBED THE CONTENTS OF THE LINEN CLOSET AND EVEN LOOKED INTO
HARRIS' SHOES.  THE SELECTIVE SERVICE CARDS, THE ITEMS WHOSE SEIZURE IS
HERE IN CONTROVERSY, WERE DISCOVERED ONLY AFTER AGENTS TORE OPEN A
SEALED ENVELOPE LABELED "PERSONAL PAPERS" WHICH THEY HAD FOUND UNDER
SOME CLOTHES IN A DRAWER OF A SMALL BUREAU IN THE BEDROOM.  IF THERE
WAS NO "RUMMAGING OF THE PLACE" IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO
IMAGINE WHAT "RUMMAGING OF THE PLACE" MEANS.    AGAIN, IN THE LEFKOWITZ
CASE, THE MARRON CASE WAS CAREFULLY DEFINED AND LIMITED: 

"THERE, PROHIBITION OFFICERS LAWFULLY ON THE PREMISES SEARCHING FOR
LIQUOR DESCRIBED IN A SEARCH WARRANT, ARRESTED THE BARTENDER FOR CRIME
OPENLY BEING COMMITTED IN THEIR PRESENCE.  HE WAS MAINTAINING A
NUISANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  THE OFFENSE INVOLVED THE ELEMENT OF
CONTINUITY, THE PURCHASE OF LIQUOR FROM TIME TO TIME, ITS SALE AS A
REGULAR THING FOR CONSUMPTION UPON THE PREMISES AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS
INCLUDING THE KEEPING OF ACCOUNTS.  THE LEDGER AND BILLS BEING IN PLAIN
VIEW WERE PICKED UP BY THE OFFICERS AS AN INCIDENT OF THE ARREST.  NO
SEARCH FOR THEM WAS MADE."  285 U.S. AT 465. 

SURELY NO COMPARABLE SITUATION IS NOW HERE.  THERE WAS NO SEARCH
WARRANT, NO CRIME WAS "OPENLY BEING COMMITTED" IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
OFFICERS, THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE NOT "IN PLAIN VIEW" OR "PICKED UP
BY THE OFFICERS AS AN INCIDENT OF THE ARREST."  HERE A "THOROUGH
SEARCH" WAS MADE, AND MADE WITHOUT WARRANT. 

TO SAY THAT THE GO-BART AND THE LEFKOWITZ CASES - BOTH OF THEM
UNANIMOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURT - ARE AUTHORITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE
ARRESTING AGENTS IN THIS CASE IS TO FIND THAT SITUATIONS DECISIVELY
DIFFERENT ARE THE SAME. 

IT GREATLY UNDERRATES THE QUALITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OF THE
CIVILIZED STANDARDS TO WHICH THEY CAN BE SUMMONED TO SUGGEST THAT WE
MUST CONDUCT OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE ON A LOWER LEVEL THAN DOES ENGLAND,
AND THAT OUR POLICE MUST BE GIVEN A HEAD WHICH BRITISH COURTS DENY
THEIRS.  A STRIKING AND CHARACTERISTIC EXAMPLE OF THE SOLICITOUS CARE
OF ENGLISH COURTS CONCERNING THE "LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT" MAY BE FOUND
IN THE RECENT JUDGMENTS IN CHRISTIE V. LEACHINSKY.  IN THAT CASE THE
HOUSE OF LORDS UNANIMOUSLY RULED THAT IF A POLICEMAN ARRESTS WITHOUT
WARRANT, ALTHOUGH ENTERTAINING A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF FELONY WHICH
WOULD JUSTIFY ARREST, BUT DOES NOT INFORM THE PERSON OF THE NATURE OF
THE CHARGE, THE POLICE ARE LIABLE FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT FOR SUCH
ARREST.  THESE JUDGMENTS BEAR MIGHTILY UPON THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF THIS
CASE, NAMELY, THE APPROPRIATE BALANCING, IN THE WORDS OF LORD SIMONDS,
OF "THE LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT AND THE CONVENIENCE OF THE POLICE." 
CHRISTIE V. LEACHINSKY, (1947) 1 ALL E.R. 567, 576.  FN7 

THE ENGLISH ATTITUDE WAS CLEARLY EVINCED ALSO IN THE FAMOUS SAVIDGE
CASE.  "BOTH THE ORIGINAL INCIDENT AND ITS SEQUEL ILLUSTRATE THE
SENSITIVENESS OF ENGLISH OPINION TO EVEN A SUGGESTION OF OPPRESSION BY
THE POLICE."  IV REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT ("LAWLESSNESS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT") P. 261.  FOR "THE
HIGH STANDARDS OF CONDUCT EXACTED BY ENGLISHMEN OF THE POLICE" (ID. AT
259) SEE THE DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 217 HANS.  DEB. 
(COMMONS) COLS.  1303 ET SEQ. (MAY 17, 1928), AND 220 ID. COLS.  35 AND
805 ET SEQ. (JULY 20, 1928) AND THE REPORT OF THE TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY
ON THE SAVIDGE CASE, CMD.  3147, 1928.  THERE ARE THOSE WHO SAY THAT WE
CANNOT HAVE SUCH HIGH STANDARDS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BECAUSE THE GENERAL
STANDARDS OF ENGLISH LIFE ENSURE GREATER OBEDIENCE TO LAW AND BETTER
LAW ENFORCEMENT.  I REJECT THIS NOTION, AND NOT THE LEAST BECAUSE I
THINK IT IS MORE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE IS MORE EFFECTIVE IN ENGLAND BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS THERE
PURSUED ON A MORE CIVILIZED LEVEL. 

OF COURSE, THIS MAY MEAN THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN
EVIDENCE OF AN OFFENSE UNEXPECTEDLY UNCOVERED IN A LAWLESS SEARCH.  IT
MAY EVEN MEAN THAT SOME OFFENSES MAY GO UNWHIPPED OF THE LAW.  IF SO,
THAT IS PART OF THE COST FOR THE GREATER GAINS OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS THAT "ITS
PROTECTION EXTENDS TO OFFENDERS AS WELL AS TO THE LAW ABIDING," BECAUSE
OF ITS IMPORTANT BEARING IN MAINTAINING A FREE SOCIETY AND AVOIDING THE
DANGERS OF A POLICE STATE.  UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, SUPRA AT 464. 
BUT THE IMPEDIMENTS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EFFECTIVE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ARE GROSSLY EXAGGERATED.  DISREGARD OF PROCEDURES IMPOSED
UPON THE POLICE BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS IS TOO OFTEN JUSTIFIED
ON THE SCORE OF NECESSITY.  THIS CASE IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION HOW LAME
AN EXCUSE IT IS THAT CONDUCT SUCH AS IS NOW BEFORE US IS REQUIRED BY
THE EXIGENCIES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.  HERE THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO
SECURE THE AUTHORITY OF LAW TO MAKE THE SEARCH AND LATER AUTHORITY FROM
A MAGISTRATE TO SEIZE THE ARTICLES UNCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF THE
SEARCH.  TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1, 6; UNITED STATES V.
KAPLAN, 89 F.2D 869, 871.  THE HINDRANCES THAT ARE CONJURED UP ARE
COUNSELS OF DESPAIR WHICH DISREGARD THE EXPERIENCE OF EFFECTIVE LAW
ENFORCEMENT IN JURISDICTIONS WHERE THE POLICE ARE HELD TO STRICT
ACCOUNTABILITY AND ARE FORBIDDEN CONDUCT LIKE THAT HERE DISCLOSED. 

STOOPING TO QUESTIONABLE METHODS NEITHER ENHANCES THAT RESPECT FOR
LAW WHICH IS THE MOST POTENT ELEMENT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, NOR, IN THE
LONG RUN, DO SUCH METHODS PROMOTE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION.  IN THIS
COUNTRY POLICE TESTIMONY IS OFTEN REJECTED BY JURIES PRECISELY BECAUSE
OF A WIDELY ENTERTAINED BELIEF THAT ILLEGAL METHODS ARE USED TO SECURE
TESTIMONY.  THUS, DUBIOUS POLICE METHODS DEFEAT THE VERY ENDS OF
JUSTICE BY WHICH SUCH METHODS ARE JUSTIFIED.  NO SUCH CLOUD RESTS ON
POLICE TESTIMONY IN ENGLAND.  RESPECT FOR LAW BY LAW OFFICERS PROMOTES
RESPECT GENERALLY, JUST AS LAWLESSNESS BY LAW OFFICERS SETS A
CONTAGIOUS AND COMPETITIVE EXAMPLE TO OTHERS.  SEE IV REPORTS OF THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OBSERVANCE ("LAWLESSNESS IN
LAW ENFORCEMENT") PASSIM, ESPECIALLY PP. 190-92.  MOREOVER, BY
COMPELLING POLICE OFFICERS TO ABSTAIN FROM IMPROPER METHODS FOR
SECURING EVIDENCE, PRESSURE IS EXERTED UPON THEM TO BRING THE RESOURCES
OF INTELLIGENCE AND IMAGINATION INTO PLAY IN THE DETECTION AND
PROSECUTION OF CRIME. 

NO DOUBT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT LIMITS THE FREEDOM OF THE POLICE IN
BRINGING CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE.  BUT TO ALLOW THEM THE FREEDOM WHICH THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO CURB WAS DEEMED TOO COSTLY BY THE
FOUNDERS.  AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID IN THE OLMSTEAD CASE, "WE MUST
CONSIDER THE TWO OBJECTS OF DESIRE, BOTH OF WHICH WE CANNOT HAVE, AND
MAKE UP OUR MINDS WHICH TO CHOOSE."  277 U.S. AT 470.  OF COURSE
ARRESTING OFFICERS GENERALLY FEEL IRKED BY WHAT TO THEM ARE TECHNICAL
LEGAL RESTRICTIONS.  BUT THEY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE UNMINDFUL OF
THE FACT THAT SUCH RESTRICTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL SAFEGUARDS OF A FREE
PEOPLE.  TO SANCTION CONDUCT SUCH AS THIS CASE REVEALS IS TO ENCOURAGE
POLICE INTRUSIONS UPON PRIVACY, WITHOUT LEGAL WARRANT, IN SITUATIONS
THAT GO EVEN BEYOND THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE.  IF IT BE SAID THAT
AN ATTEMPT TO EXTEND THE PRESENT CASE MAY BE CURBED IN SUBSEQUENT
LITIGATION, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT POLICE CONDUCT IS NOT
OFTEN SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.  DAY BY DAY MISCHIEF MAY BE DONE
AND PRECEDENTS BUILT UP IN PRACTICE LONG BEFORE THE JUDICIARY HAS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVENE.  IT IS FOR THIS REASON - THE DANGEROUS
TENDENCY OF ALLOWING ENCROACHMENTS ON THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY - THAT THIS
COURT IN THE BOYD CASE GAVE TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ITS WIDE PROTECTIVE
SCOPE. 

IT IS VITAL, NO DOUBT, THAT CRIMINALS SHOULD BE DETECTED, AND THAT
ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE SECURED AND USED.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
IT CANNOT BE SAID TOO OFTEN THAT WHAT IS INVOLVED FAR TRANSCENDS THE
FATE OF SOME SORDID OFFENDER.  NOTHING LESS IS INVOLVED THAN THAT WHICH
MAKES FOR AN ATMOSPHERE OF FREEDOM AS AGAINST A FEELING OF FEAR AND
REPRESSION FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.  THE DANGERS ARE NOT FANCIFUL.  WE
TOO READILY FORGET THEM.  RECOLLECTION MAY BE REFRESHED AS TO THE
HAPPENINGS AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR BY THE "REPORT UPON THE ILLEGAL
PRACTICES OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE," WHICH AROUSED
THE PUBLIC CONCERN OF CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES  FN8 (THEN AT THE BAR), AND
BY THE LITTLE BOOK ENTITLED "THE DEPORTATIONS DELIRIUM OF NINETEEN
TWENTY" BY LOUIS F. POST, WHO SPOKE WITH THE AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE OF
AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR. 

MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO, BEFORE DEMOCRACY WAS SUBJECTED TO ITS
RECENT STRESS AND STRAIN, JUDGE LEARNED HAND, IN A DECISION APPROVED BY
THIS COURT IN THE LEFKOWITZ CASE, EXPRESSED VIEWS THAT SEEM TO ME
DECISIVE OF THIS CASE: 

"AFTER ARRESTING A MAN IN HIS HOUSE, TO RUMMAGE AT WILL AMONG HIS
PAPERS IN SEARCH OF WHATEVER WILL CONVICT HIM, APPEARS TO US TO BE
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WHAT MIGHT BE DONE UNDER A GENERAL WARRANT;
INDEED, THE WARRANT WOULD GIVE MORE PROTECTION, FOR PRESUMABLY IT MUST
BE ISSUED BY A MAGISTRATE.  TRUE, BY HYPOTHESIS THE POWER WOULD NOT
EXIST, IF THE SUPPOSED OFFENDER WERE NOT FOUND ON THE PREMISES; BUT IT
IS SMALL CONSOLATION TO KNOW THAT ONE'S PAPERS ARE SAFE ONLY SO LONG AS
ONE IS NOT AT HOME.  SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ARISE FROM
GRIEVANCES, REAL OR FANCIED, WHICH THEIR MAKERS HAVE SUFFERED, AND
SHOULD GO PARI PASSU WITH THE SUPPOSED EVIL.  THEY WITHSTAND THE WINDS
OF LOGIC BY THE DEPTH AND TOUGHNESS OF THEIR ROOTS IN THE PAST.  NOR
SHOULD WE FORGET THAT WHAT SEEMS FAIR ENOUGH AGAINST A SQUALID HUCKSTER
OF BAD LIQUOR MAY TAKE ON A VERY DIFFERENT FACE, IF USED BY A
GOVERNMENT DETERMINED TO SUPPRESS POLITICAL OPPOSITION UNDER THE GUISE
OF SEDITION."  UNITED STATES V. KIRSCHENBLATT, 16 F.2D 202, 203. 

FN1  "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES,
PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL
NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,
SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE
TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

FN2  WHILE THIS CASE PRESENTS A SITUATION NOT INVOLVED IN THE DAVIS
CASE, OR IN ZAP V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 624, SO THAT THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION CANNOT REST ON THOSE CASES, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THAT
NEITHER OF THOSE CASES CARRIES THE AUTHORITY OF A MAJORITY OF THE
COURT.  ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION OF
RECENT VINTAGE AND BY A DIVIDED COURT MAY ALWAYS BE RECONSIDERED, I AM
LOATH TO BELIEVE THAT THESE DECISIONS BY LESS THAN A MAJORITY OF THE
COURT ARE THE LAST WORD ON ISSUES OF SUCH FAR-REACHING IMPORTANCE TO
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES. 

FN3  FOR REPORTS OF OTIS' FAMOUS ARGUMENT, SEE 2 ADAMS, WORKS PP. 523
25; TUDOR, LIFE OF JAMES OTIS, C. VI; QUINCY'S MASSACHUSETTS REPORTS
PP. 471 ET SEQ. (SEE ALSO PP. 51-55); AMERICAN HISTORY LEAFLETS, NO.
33.  AND SEE THE TRIBUTE OF JOHN ADAMS TO OTIS, SAMUEL ADAMS, AND
HANCOCK IN 8 OLD SOUTH LEAFLETS P. 57(NO. 179). 

"THE SEIZURE OF THE PAPERS OF ALGERNON SIDNEY, WHICH WERE MADE USE OF
AS THE MEANS OF CONVICTING HIM OF TREASON, AND OF THOSE OF WILKES ABOUT
THE TIME THAT THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE AMERICAN
COLONIES WAS ASSUMING THREATENING PROPORTIONS, WAS PROBABLY THE
IMMEDIATE OCCASION FOR THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  SEE LEACH V.
MONEY, BURR.  1742; S.C., 1 W. BL. 555, 19 STATE TRIALS, 1001, AND
BROOM, CONST. LAW, 525; ENTICK V. CARRINGTON, 2 WILS.  275; S.C., 19
STATE TRIALS, 1030, AND BROOM, CONST. LAW, 558; MAY, CONST. HIST., CH.
10; TRIAL OF ALGERNON SIDNEY, 9 STATE TRIALS, 817."  COOLEY, PRINCIPLES
OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1ST ED.)  212, N. 2. 

FN4  COMPARE THE ANSWERS TO CERTIFIED QUESTIONS GIVEN BY THIS COURT
IN GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, WITH THE FORECAST MADE BY A
STUDENT OF THE SUBJECT OF KNOWN PARTIALITY IN FAVOR OF CIVIL
LIBERTIES.  FRAENKEL, CONCERNING SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, 34 HARV. L.
REV. 361, 385-87.  AS POINTED OUT BY PROFESSOR ZECHARIAH CHAFEE, JR.,
IN EACH INSTANCE WHERE THE GOULED CASE DIFFERS FROM MR. FRAENKEL'S
FORECAST, "THE COURT GAVE INCREASED FORCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE."  CHAFEE, THE PROGRESS OF THE LAW 1919-1922, 35 HARV. L.
REV. 673, 699. 

FN5  IT IS NOT WITHOUT INTEREST TO NOTE THE FIRST APPEARANCE OF
PROVISIONS DEALING WITH SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS:
ALABAMA:  I, 9(1819); ARIZONA:  II, 8(1911); ARKANSAS:  II, 9(1836);
CALIFORNIA:  I, 19(1849); COLORADO: II, 7(1876); CONNECTICUT:  I,
8(1818); DELAWARE:  I, 6(1792); FLORIDA:  I, 7(1838); GEORGIA:  I,
18(1865); IDAHO:  I, 17(1889); ILLINOIS:  VIII, 7(1818); INDIANA:  I,
8(1816); IOWA:  I, 8(1846); KANSAS:  I, 14(1855); KENTUCKY:  XII
(1792); LOUISIANA: TIT. VII, ART. 108(1864); MAINE:  I, 5(1819);
MARYLAND:  DECL.  OF RIGHTS, XXIII (1776); MASSACHUSETTS:  PART THE
FIRST, ART. XIV (1780); MICHIGAN:  I, 8(1835); MINNESOTA:  I, 10(1857);
MISSISSIPPI:  I, 9(1817); MISSOURI:  XIII, 13(1820); MONTANA:  III,
7(1889); NEBRASKA: I, 7(1875); NEVADA:  I, 18(1864); NEW HAMPSHIRE:  I,
XIX (1784); NEW JERSEY:  I, 6(1844); NEW MEXICO:  II, 10(1910); NORTH
CAROLINA:  DECL.  OF RIGHTS, XI (1776); NORTH DAKOTA:  I, 18(1889);
OHIO:  VIII, 5(1802); OKLAHOMA:  II, 30(1907); OREGON:  I, 9(1857);
PENNSYLVANIA:  DECL.  OF RIGHTS, X (1776); RHODE ISLAND:  I, 6(1842);
SOUTH CAROLINA:  I, 22(1868); SOUTH DAKOTA:  VI, 11(1889); TENNESSEE:
XI, 7(1796); TEXAS:  DECL.  OF RIGHTS, 5(1836), I, 7(1845); UTAH:  I,
14(1895); VERMONT:  C. I, XI (1777); VIRGINIA:  BILL OF RIGHTS,
10(1776); WASHINGTON:  I, 7(1889); WEST VIRGINIA:  II, 3(1861-63);
WISCONSIN:  I, 11(1848); WYOMING:  I, 4(1889).    FN6  "THE REQUIREMENT
THAT WARRANTS SHALL PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED MAKES
GENERAL SEARCHES UNDER THEM IMPOSSIBLE AND PREVENTS THE SEIZURE OF ONE
THING UNDER A WARRANT DESCRIBING ANOTHER.  AS TO WHAT IS TO BE TAKEN,
NOTHING IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE OFFICER EXECUTING THE
WARRANT." 

FN7  THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH SUBORDINATION OF THE POLICE TO LAW
FINDS SUPPORT IN INFORMED ENGLISH OPINION IS REFLECTED BY THE COMMENTS
OF THE SOLICITORS' JOURNAL.  AFTER NOTING THAT, IN THE VIEW OF LORD
SIMON, "ANY OTHER GENERAL RULE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO OUR CONCEPTION OF
INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, THOUGH IT MIGHT BE TOLERATED IN THE TIME OF THE
LETTRES DE CACHET IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY IN FRANCE OR UNDER THE
GESTAPO," THE JOURNAL OBSERVES: "THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REAFFIRMATION OF
THIS PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE EXAGGERATED.  THE POWERS OF PRIVATE PERSONS TO
ARREST WHERE A FELONY HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND THERE IS REASONABLE GROUND
FOR THINKING THAT THE PERSON DETAINED HAS COMMITTED IT ARE IMPORTANT
NOW THAT CRIMES OF VIOLENCE ARE MORE NUMEROUS, AND THE STATUTORY POWERS
OF ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT UNDER, E.G., THE MALICIOUS DAMAGE ACT, 1861,
THE LARCENY ACT, 1916, THE CURTIS ACT OF 1876, AND MANY OTHER ACTS ARE
MORE USED THAN IS GENERALLY APPRECIATED.  OF NO LESS IMPORTANCE IN SUCH
TIMES AS THESE IS THE ASSERTION OF OUR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES TO
COUNTERACT ANY TENDENCY WHICH MAY APPEAR FOR POLICE POWERS TO BE
EXCEEDED."  91 SOLICITORS' JOURNAL 184-85(APRIL 12, 1947). 

FN8  ADDRESS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, JUNE 21, 1920, SOME
OBSERVATIONS ON LEGAL EDUCATION AND DEMOCRATIC PROGRESS, P. 23:  "WE
CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE THE INDICATIONS THAT, PERHAPS TO AN EXTENT
UNPARALLELED IN OUR HISTORY, THE ESSENTIALS OF LIBERTY ARE BEING
DISREGARDED.  VERY RECENTLY INFORMATION HAS BEEN LAID BY RESPONSIBLE
CITIZENS AT THE BAR OF PUBLIC OPINION OF VIOLATIONS OF PERSONAL RIGHTS
WHICH SAVOR OF THE WORST PRACTICES OF TYRANNY." 

FOR A CONTEMPORANEOUS JUDICIAL ACCOUNT OF SEARCHES AND SEIZURES IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMUNIST
RAIDS OF JANUARY 2, 1920, SEE JUDGE GEORGE W. ANDERSON'S OPINION IN
COLYER V. SKEFFINGTON, 265 F. 17. 

          APPENDIX

                           (CHART OMITTED) 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT TODAY HAS RESURRECTED AND APPROVED, IN EFFECT, THE USE OF
THE ODIOUS GENERAL WARRANT OR WRIT OF ASSISTANCE, PRESUMABLY OUTLAWED
FOREVER FROM OUR SOCIETY BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  A WARRANT OF ARREST,
WITHOUT MORE, IS NOW SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY AN UNLIMITED SEARCH OF A
MAN'S HOME FROM CELLAR TO GARRET FOR EVIDENCE OF ANY CRIME, PROVIDED
ONLY THAT HE IS ARRESTED IN HIS HOME.  PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH
NEED NOT BE SHOWN; AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION IS UNNECESSARY; NO
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED OR THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED NEED
BE GIVEN; AND THE MAGISTRATE'S JUDGMENT THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS HAVE
BEEN SATISFIED IS NOW DISPENSED WITH.  IN SHORT, ALL THE RESTRICTIONS
PUT UPON THE ISSUANCE AND EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANTS BY THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT ARE NOW DEAD LETTERS AS TO THOSE WHO ARE ARRESTED IN THEIR
HOMES. 

THAT THIS DECISION CONVERTS A WARRANT FOR ARREST INTO A GENERAL
SEARCH WARRANT LACKING ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS IS
DEMONSTRATED MOST PLAINLY BY THE FACTS.  TWO VALID WARRANTS WERE ISSUED
FOR THE ARREST OF PETITIONER AND ONE C. R. MOFFETT.  THE FIRST WARRANT
CHARGED THEM WITH A VIOLATION OF THE MAIL FRAUD STATUTE, SEC. 215 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THEY SENT A LETTER THROUGH THE
MAILS IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXECUTION OF A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY
NEGOTIATING AND CASHING A FORGED CHECK DRAWN ON THE MUDGE OIL CO. IN
THE SUM OF $25,000.  THE SECOND WARRANT CHARGED THAT THEY CAUSED THE
SAME CHECK TO BE TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 3 OF THE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT. 

TWO AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WENT TO
PETITIONER'S APARTMENT, ARMED WITH THESE WARRANTS FOR ARREST. 
PETITIONER WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST IN THE LIVING ROOM OF HIS APARTMENT
AND WAS SAFELY HANDCUFFED.  THE AGENTS, TOGETHER WITH THREE OTHERS WHO
HAD ARRIVED IN THE MEANTIME, THEN BEGAN A SYSTEMATIC RANSACKING OF THE
APARTMENT.  OPERATING WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A SEARCH WARRANT, THEY
MADE A SEARCH WHICH THEY ADMITTED WAS "AS THOROUGH AS WE COULD MAKE
IT."  FOR FIVE HOURS THEY LITERALLY TORE THE PLACE APART FROM TOP TO
BOTTOM, GOING THROUGH ALL OF PETITIONER'S CLOTHES AND PERSONAL
BELONGINGS, LOOKING UNDERNEATH THE CARPETS, TURNING THE BED UPSIDE
DOWN, SEARCHING THROUGH ALL THE BED LINEN, OPENING ALL THE CHEST AND
BUREAU DRAWERS, AND EXAMINING ALL PERSONAL PAPERS AND EFFECTS.  NOTHING
WAS LEFT UNTOUCHED OR UNOPENED. 

THE AGENTS TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE SEARCHING FOR "TWO $10,000
CANCELED CHECKS OF THE MUDGE OIL COMPANY WHICH OUR INVESTIGATION
ESTABLISHED HAD BEEN STOLEN FROM THE OFFICES OF THE MUDGE OIL COMPANY"
AND WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED IN CONNECTION WITH FORGING THE $25,000
CHECK IN ISSUE.  IT WAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE SEARCHING "FOR ANY
MEANS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED TO COMMIT THESE TWO CRIMES (CHARGED IN
THE WARRANTS FOR ARREST), SUCH AS BURGLAR TOOLS, PENS, OR ANYTHING THAT
COULD BE USED IN A CONFIDENCE GAME OF THIS TYPE"; "WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT
FIND A PHOTOSTATIC COPY (OF THE $25,000 CHECK)"; "ANYTHING WHICH WOULD
INDICATE A VIOLATION OF THE MAIL FRAUD STATUTE AND THE NATIONAL STOLEN
PROPERTY ACT"; "ANYTHING YOU COULD FIND IN CONNECTION WITH THE
VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR WHICH HE (PETITIONER) WAS THEN ARRESTED."  ONE
OF THEM ALSO ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE "SEARCHING FOR GOODS, WARES,
MERCHANDISE, ARTICLES, OR ANYTHING IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF THE
MAILS TO DEFRAUD, AND ALSO IN CONNECTION WITH THE VIOLATION OF SECTION
415 OF TITLE 18." 

SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THEY FOUND NO CHECKS.  THE AGENTS ADMITTED
SEIZING SEVEN PENS, TISSUE PAPER AND TWENTY-SEVEN PIECES OF CELLULOID,
THE LATTER BEING FOUND WRAPPED IN A TOWEL IN A DRAWER OF THE BEDROOM
DRESSER.  PETITIONER CHARGES, AND IT IS UNDENIED, THAT THE AGENTS ALSO
SEIZED BLANK STATIONERY OF VARIOUS HOTELS, BLANK RULED SHEETS OF PAPER,
SEVERAL OBSOLETE FOUNTAIN PENS, EXPENSE BILLS AND RECEIPTS, PERSONAL
LETTERS, A BILL OF SALE FOR PETITIONER'S AUTOMOBILE, NOTE BOOKS,
ADDRESS BOOKS AND SOME MINERAL DEEDS. 

MOST SIGNIFICANT OF ALL, HOWEVER, WAS THE UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY AND
SEIZURE, AT THE END OF THIS LONG SEARCH, OF A SEALED ENVELOPE MARKED
"GEORGE HARRIS, PERSONAL PAPERS."  THIS ENVELOPE, WHICH WAS FOUND IN A
DRESSER DRAWER BENEATH SOME CLOTHES, CONTAINED ELEVEN DRAFT
REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES AND EIGHT NOTICES OF DRAFT CLASSIFICATION. 
PETITIONER WAS THEN CHARGED WITH THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, CONCEALMENT
AND ALTERATION OF THESE CERTIFICATES AND NOTICES AND FOUND GUILTY. 
NOTHING HAS EVER DEVELOPED AS TO THE FORGED $25,000 CHECK, WHICH WAS
THE BASIS OF PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL ARREST.  NO EVIDENCE OF THE CRIMES
CHARGED IN THE WARRANTS FOR ARREST HAS BEEN FOUND; NO PROSECUTION OF
PETITIONER FOR THOSE CRIMES HAS DEVELOPED. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE CRIME WHICH WAS THUS UNEXPECTEDLY
DISCOVERED - NAMELY, THE ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF THE DRAFT CERTIFICATES
AND NOTICES - COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO LIGHT IN THIS CASE THROUGH
THE USE OF ORDINARY CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES.  THERE WAS NO PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT FOR PETITIONER'S ARREST
FOR THE CRIME OF POSSESSING THESE ITEMS.  NOR WAS THERE ANY PROBABLE
CAUSE OR ANY BASIS FOR AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION WHICH COULD JUSTIFY A
VALID SEARCH WARRANT FOR THESE ITEMS.  THEIR PRESENCE IN PETITIONER'S
APARTMENT COULD BE DISCOVERED ONLY BY MAKING AN UNLIMITED SEARCH FOR
ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT BE FOUND, A SEARCH OF THE TYPE THAT
CHARACTERIZES A GENERAL SEARCH WARRANT OR WRIT OF ASSISTANCE.  AND IT
WAS PRECISELY THAT TYPE OF SEARCH THAT TOOK PLACE IN THIS CASE. 

THE COURT HOLDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE SEARCH WAS JUSTIFIED AS AN
INCIDENT TO PETITIONER'S LAWFUL ARREST ON THE MAIL FRAUD AND STOLEN
PROPERTY CHARGES.  IT IS SAID THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE THE
RIGHT, WHEN MAKING A VALID ARREST, TO SEARCH THE PLACE AND TO SEIZE THE
FRUITS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH THE ARREST WAS
MADE.  AND SINCE THE SEARCH HERE WAS MADE, AT LEAST IN PART, TO FIND
THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES, THE SEARCH WAS VALID AND
PETITIONER CANNOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN OF WHAT WAS FOUND DURING THE
COURSE OF THAT SEARCH.  THIS CONCLUSION BEARS FURTHER ANALYSIS,
HOWEVER. 

IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE THAT LIMITED SEIZURES MAY BE MADE WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF SEARCH WARRANTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A PERSON
HAS BEEN ARRESTED IN HIS HOME.  DUE ACCOMMODATION MUST BE MADE FOR THE
NECESSARY PROCESSES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.  SEIZURE MAY BE MADE OF
ARTICLES AND PAPERS ON THE PERSON OF THE ONE ARRESTED.  AND THE
ARRESTING OFFICER IS FREE TO LOOK AROUND AND SEIZE THOSE FRUITS AND
EVIDENCES OF CRIME WHICH ARE IN PLAIN SIGHT AND IN HIS IMMEDIATE AND
DISCERNIBLE PRESENCE.  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 392;
AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, 30.  BUT WHERE NO PROPERLY
LIMITED SEARCH WARRANT HAS BEEN ISSUED, THIS COURT HAS BEEN
SCRUPULOUSLY INSISTENT ON CONFINING VERY NARROWLY THE SCOPE OF SEARCH
AND SEIZURE.  THE MERE FACT THAT A MAN HAS BEEN VALIDLY ARRESTED DOES
NOT GIVE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS UNTRAMMELED FREEDOM TO SEARCH EVERY
CRANNY AND NOOK FOR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME RELATION TO THE
ALLEGED CRIME OR, INDEED, TO ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER.  AUTHORITY TO
ARREST, IN OTHER WORDS, GIVES NO AUTHORITY WHATEVER TO SEARCH THE
PREMISES WHERE THE ARREST OCCURS AND NO AUTHORITY TO SEIZE EXCEPT UNDER
THE MOST RESTRICTED CIRCUMSTANCES. 

ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE STRICT LIMITATIONS WHICH THIS COURT HAS PLACED
UPON SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WITHOUT A WARRANT IN CONNECTION WITH A
LAWFUL ARREST ARE THE THREE CASES OF MARRON V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S.
192; GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344, AND UNITED STATES V.
LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452.  IN THE MARRON CASE, AN INDIVIDUAL WAS
ARRESTED WHILE ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN RUNNING AN ILLEGAL SALOON IN
PURSUANCE OF A CONSPIRACY; A PROHIBITION AGENT SECURED A WARRANT FOR A
SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AND FOR THE SEIZURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS AND
ARTICLES FOR THEIR MANUFACTURE.  LIQUOR WAS FOUND IN A CLOSET.  WHILE
SEARCHING IN THE CLOSET, THE AGENTS NOTICED A LEDGER SHOWING
INVENTORIES OF LIQUOR AND RECEIPTS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS.  ALONGSIDE
THE CASH REGISTER THEY FOUND BILLS FOR UTILITIES FURNISHED TO THE
PREMISES.  THEY TOOK THE LEDGER AND THE BILLS.  THIS COURT HELD THAT
WHILE THE SEIZURE OF THE LEDGER AND BILLS COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED UNDER
THE SEARCH WARRANT, BECAUSE NOT MENTIONED THEREIN, THEIR SEIZURE WAS
PROPER AS AN INCIDENT TO THE ARREST INASMUCH AS THEY WERE NECESSARY TO
THE CARRYING ON OF THE ILLEGAL BUSINESS. 

THE MARRON CASE AT FIRST WAS WIDELY MISUNDERSTOOD AS HAVING HELD THAT
MOST OF THE RESTRICTIONS HAD BEEN REMOVED ON SEARCHES OF PREMISES
INCIDENT TO ARRESTS.  UNITED STATES V. GOWEN, 40 F.2D 593; UNITED
STATES V. POLLER, 43 F.2D 911.  THIS MISUNDERSTANDING WAS REMOVED BY
THE GO-BART CASE, WHICH MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE ITEMS SEIZED IN THE
MARRON CASE WERE VISIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE AND IN THE OFFENDER'S IMMEDIATE
CUSTODY; IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO THREAT OF FORCE
OR GENERAL SEARCH OR RUMMAGING OF THE PLACE IN THE MARRON CASE.  THE
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF THE MARRON HOLDING WERE DEMONSTRATED BY THE
FACTS AND DECISION IN THE GO-BART CASE.  THERE THE DEFENDANT BARTELS
WAS PLACED UNDER LAWFUL ARREST IN HIS OFFICE ON A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY
TO SELL INTOXICATING LIQUORS.  GOWEN, THE OTHER DEFENDANT, ARRIVED AND
HE ALSO WAS PLACED UNDER LAWFUL ARREST.  GOWEN WAS THEN FORCED TO OPEN
A DESK AND A SAFE, WHICH WERE SEARCHED BY THE AGENTS ALONG WITH OTHER
PARTS OF THE OFFICE.  A LARGE QUANTITY OF PAPERS BELONGING TO THE
DEFENDANTS WAS SEIZED.  THIS COURT HELD THAT SUCH A SEIZURE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE SEARCH BEING GENERAL AND UNLIMITED IN SCOPE AND
BEING UNDERTAKEN IN THE HOPE THAT EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME MIGHT BE
FOUND. 

IN THE LEFKOWITZ CASE, THE DEFENDANTS WERE PLACED UNDER LAWFUL ARREST
IN THEIR OFFICE ON A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE LIQUOR LAWS. 
THE ARRESTING OFFICERS THEN PROCEEDED TO SEARCH THE DESKS, THE TOWEL
CABINET AND THE WASTE BASKETS, SEIZING VARIOUS BOOKS, PAPERS AND OTHER
ARTICLES.  ALL OF THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.  ONCE AGAIN
THE COURT HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION HAD BEEN VIOLATED.  IT WAS POINTED
OUT THAT THE SEARCHES WERE EXPLORATORY AND GENERAL AND MADE SOLELY TO
FIND EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY OR
SOME OTHER CRIME; THE PAPERS AND OTHER ARTICLES SEIZED WERE UNOFFENDING
IN THEMSELVES. 

TESTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES AND DECISIONS, THE
SEARCH IN THE INSTANT CASE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED.  EVEN MORE GLARING THAN
THE SEARCHES IN THE GO-BART AND LEFKOWITZ CASES, THE SEARCH HERE WAS A
GENERAL EXPLORATORY ONE UNDERTAKEN IN THE HOPE THAT EVIDENCE OF SOME
CRIME MIGHT BE UNCOVERED.  THE AGENTS WERE SEARCHING FOR MORE THAN THE
FRUITS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH THE ARREST WAS
MADE.  BY THEIR OWN REPEATED TESTIMONY, THEY WERE SEARCHING FOR
"ANYTHING" IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALLEGED CRIMES, FOR "ANYTHING" THAT
WOULD INDICATE A VIOLATION OF THE LAWS IN QUESTION.  AND THEIR SEIZURE
OF THE DRAFT CERTIFICATES AND NOTICES DEMONSTRATES THAT THEY WERE ALSO
ON THE LOOKOUT FOR EVIDENCE OF ANY OTHER CRIME.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A
VALID WARRANT, SUCH AN UNLIMITED, RANSACKING SEARCH FOR "ANYTHING" THAT
MIGHT TURN UP HAS BEEN CONDEMNED BY THIS COURT IN CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS
TIME AND TIME AGAIN.  NOTHING IN ANY OF THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT EVEN REMOTELY APPROVES OR JUSTIFIES THIS TYPE OF SEARCH AS AN
INCIDENT TO A VALID ARREST; IN THIS RESPECT, TODAY'S DECISION FLATLY
CONTRADICTS AND, IN EFFECT, OVERRULES THE GO-BART AND LEFKOWITZ CASES. 
MOREOVER, EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THE AGENTS WERE MERELY LOOKING FOR
THE FRUITS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH THE ARREST WAS
MADE, THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN VIOLATED.  THERE ARE OFTEN MINUTE
OBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, OBJECTS THAT CAN BE
HIDDEN IN A SMALL RECESS OF A HOME OR APARTMENT AND THAT CAN BE
DISCOVERED ONLY BY A THOROUGH, RANSACKING SEARCH.  WHERE THE DISCOVERY
OF SUCH OBJECTS REQUIRES AN INVASION OF PRIVACY TO THE EXTENT EVIDENT
IN THIS CASE, THE DANGERS INHERENT IN SUCH AN INVASION WITHOUT A
WARRANT FAR OUTWEIGH ANY POLICY UNDERLYING THIS METHOD OF CRIME
DETECTION.  A SEARCH OF THAT SCOPE INEVITABLY BECOMES, AS IT HAS IN
THIS CASE, A GENERAL EXPLORATORY SEARCH FOR "ANYTHING" IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ALLEGED CRIME OR ANY OTHER CRIME - A TYPE OF SEARCH WHICH IS
MOST ROUNDLY CONDEMNED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

THUS WHEN A SEARCH OF THIS NATURE DEGENERATES INTO A GENERAL
EXPLORATORY CRUSADE, PROBING FOR ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT
EVIDENCE THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, THE CONSTITUTION STEPS INTO THE
PICTURE TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL.  IF IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT NOTHING
CAN BE FOUND WITHOUT A METICULOUS UPROOTING OF A MAN'S HOME, IT IS TIME
FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO SECURE A WARRANT.  AND IF SUCH A
SEARCH HAS ANY REASONABLENESS AT ALL, IT IS A REASONABLENESS THAT MUST
BE DETERMINED THROUGH THE INFORMED AND DELIBERATE JUDGMENT OF A
MAGISTRATE.  "SECURITY AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCHES IS MORE LIKELY TO BE
ATTAINED BY RESORT TO SEARCH WARRANTS THAN BY RELIANCE UPON THE CAUTION
AND SAGACITY OF PETTY OFFICERS WHILE ACTING UNDER THE EXCITEMENT THAT
ATTENDS THE CAPTURE OF PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIME."  UNITED STATES V.
LEFKOWITZ, SUPRA, 464. 

TO INSIST UPON A SEARCH WARRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IS
NOT TO HOBBLE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.  HERE THERE WAS NO NECESSITY
FOR HASTE, NO LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE APARTMENT MIGHT BE
REMOVED OR DESTROYED BEFORE A VALID SEARCH WARRANT COULD BE OBTAINED. 
INDEED, THE AGENTS DID GET A WARRANT TO SEARCH PETITIONER'S OFFICE AND
AUTOMOBILE.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NO UNDUE BURDEN ON THEM TO OBTAIN A
WARRANT TO SEARCH THE APARTMENT, GUARDING IT IN THE MEANTIME. 
CERTAINLY THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE WHIM OR
CONVENIENCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  SEARCH SHOULD NOT BE MADE
WITHOUT A WARRANT, IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT EXISTS.  CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 132,
156; TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1, 6. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE CAN HAVE BUT ONE MEANING SO
FAR AS SEARCHES ARE CONCERNED.  IT EFFECTIVELY TAKES AWAY THE
PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES FROM
THOSE WHO ARE PLACED UNDER LAWFUL ARREST IN THEIR HOMES.  SMALL, MINUTE
OBJECTS ARE USED IN CONNECTION WITH MOST IF NOT ALL CRIMES; AND THERE
IS ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME FRUIT OF THE CRIME OR SOME ITEM
USED IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE MAY TAKE THE FORM OF A SMALL
PIECE OF PAPER.  USING THE SUBTERFUGE OF SEARCHING FOR SUCH FRUITS AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE CRIME, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE NOW FREE
TO ENGAGE IN AN UNLIMITED PLUNDER OF THE HOME.  SOME OF THEM MAY BE
FRANK ENOUGH, AS IN THIS CASE, TO ADMIT OPENLY THAT THE OBJECT OF THEIR
SEARCH IS "ANYTHING" THAT MIGHT CONNECT THE ACCUSED WITH THE ALLEGED
CRIME.  OTHERS MAY BE MORE GUARDED IN THEIR ADMISSIONS.  BUT ALL WILL
REALIZE THAT IT IS NOW FAR BETTER FOR THEM TO FOREGO SECURING A SEARCH
WARRANT, WHICH IS LIMITED IN SCOPE BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THOSE
ARTICLES SET FORTH WITH PARTICULARITY IN THE WARRANT.  UNDER TODAY'S
DECISION, A WARRANT OF ARREST FOR A PARTICULAR CRIME AUTHORIZES AN
UNLIMITED SEARCH OF ONE'S HOME FROM CELLAR TO ATTIC FOR EVIDENCE OF
"ANYTHING" THAT MIGHT COME TO LIGHT, WHETHER BEARING ON THE CRIME
CHARGED OR ANY OTHER CRIME.  A SEARCH WARRANT IS NOT ONLY UNNECESSARY;
IT IS A HINDRANCE. 

THE HOLDING THAT THE SEARCH IN THIS CASE WAS PROPER AND REASONABLE
THUS EXPANDS THE NARROW LIMITATIONS ON SEARCHES INCIDENT TO VALID
ARRESTS BEYOND ALL RECOGNITION.  WHAT HAS HERETOFORE BEEN A CAREFULLY
CIRCUMSCRIBED EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SEARCHES WITHOUT
WARRANTS HAS NOW BEEN INFLATED INTO A COMPREHENSIVE PRINCIPLE OF
FREEDOM FROM ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THE RESULT
IS THAT A WARRANT FOR ARREST IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A GENERAL SEARCH
WARRANT OR WRIT OF ASSISTANCE; AS AN "INCIDENT" TO THE ARREST, THE
ARRESTING OFFICERS CAN SEARCH THE SURROUNDING PREMISES WITHOUT
LIMITATION FOR THE FRUITS, INSTRUMENTALITIES AND ANYTHING ELSE
CONNECTED WITH THE CRIME CHARGED OR WITH ANY OTHER POSSIBLE CRIME. 
THEY MAY DISREGARD WITH IMPUNITY ALL THE HISTORIC PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO INDISCRIMINATE SEARCHES OF A MAN'S
HOME WHEN HE IS PLACED UNDER ARREST.  SEE BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116
U.S. 616, 624-632; WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; BYARS V. UNITED
STATES, 273 U.S. 28.  THEY MAY DISREGARD THE FACT THAT THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED IN PART, INDEED PERHAPS PRIMARILY, TO OUTLAW
SUCH GENERAL WARRANTS, THAT THERE IS NO EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF GENERAL
SEARCHES IN THE COURSE OF EXECUTING A LAWFUL WARRANT FOR ARREST.  AS TO
THOSE PLACED UNDER ARREST, THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ON
SEARCHES ARE NOW WORDS WITHOUT MEANING OR EFFECT. 

NOR IS THE FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THIS CASE
REMEDIED BY THE FACT THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICERS, DURING THE COURSE OF
THEIR RANSACKING SEARCH, UNCOVERED AND SEIZED CERTAIN ARTICLES WHICH IT
WAS UNLAWFUL FOR PETITIONER TO POSSESS.  IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED,
OF COURSE, THAT CERTAIN OBJECTS, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS IN SOME WAY
ILLEGAL, MAY BE SEIZED ON APPROPRIATE OCCASIONS WITHOUT A SEARCH
WARRANT.  SUCH OBJECTS INCLUDE STOLEN GOODS, PROPERTY FORFEITED TO THE
GOVERNMENT, PROPERTY CONCEALED TO AVOID PAYMENT OF DUTIES, COUNTERFEIT
COINS, BURGLAR TOOLS, GAMBLING PARAPHERNALIA, ILLICIT LIQUOR AND THE
LIKE.  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 623-624; UNITED STATES V.
LEFKOWITZ, SUPRA, 465-466; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, 309. 
BUT THE PERMISSIBLE SEIZURE OF SUCH GOODS IS NECESSARILY DEPENDENT UPON
THE SEIZURE OCCURRING (1) DURING THE COURSE OF A REASONABLE,
CONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH, (2) AS THE RESULT OF READY OBSERVANCE OF THE
SURROUNDING PREMISES BY THE ARRESTING OFFICERS, OR (3) AS THE RESULT OF
THE USE OF SUCH OBJECTS IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME IN THE PRESENCE OF
THE OFFICERS.  NEVER HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED BY THIS COURT THAT LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CAN USE ILLEGAL MEANS TO SEIZE THAT WHICH IT IS
UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS.  TO BREAK AND ENTER, TO ENGAGE IN UNAUTHORIZED AND
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES, TO DESTROY ALL THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY IN AN
EFFORT TO UPROOT CRIME MAY SUIT THE PURPOSES OF DESPOTIC POWER, BUT
THOSE METHODS CANNOT ABIDE THE PURE ATMOSPHERE OF A FREE SOCIETY. 

THE SEIZURE HERE, AS NOTED, DID NOT OCCUR DURING THE COURSE OF A
REASONABLE, CONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH.  NOR DID IT RESULT FROM THE READY
OBSERVANCE OF THE SURROUNDING PREMISES; THE DRAFT CERTIFICATES AND
NOTICES WERE DISCOVERED ONLY AFTER A MOST METICULOUS RANSACKING.  IT IS
SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE POSSESSION OF THESE ITEMS BY PETITIONER
CONSTITUTED A CONTINUING OFFENSE COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
ARRESTING OFFICERS.  THIS MAY BE A DIALECTICAL WAY OF PUTTING THE
MATTER, BUT IT WOULD NOT COMMEND ITSELF TO THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF
MEN.  FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, THESE CERTIFICATES AND NOTICES WERE
NOT BEING POSSESSED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OFFICERS.  THEY WERE HIDDEN
AWAY IN THE BOTTOM OF A DRESSER DRAWER BENEATH SOME CLOTHES.  NO
ARRESTING OFFICER COULD POSSIBLY BE AWARE OF THEIR EXISTENCE OR
LOCATION UNLESS HE POSSESSED SOME SUPERNATURAL FACULTY.  INDEED, IF AN
ARRESTING OFFICER IS TO BE ALLOWED TO SEARCH FOR AND SEIZE ALL HIDDEN
THINGS THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS UNLAWFUL, ON THE THEORY THAT THE
POSSESSION IS OCCURRING IN HIS PRESENCE, THERE WOULD BE NOTHING LEFT OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WOULD BE INVITED TO
IGNORE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXECUTING WARRANTS OF ARREST AND SEARCHING
WITHOUT RESTRAINT AND WITHOUT REGARD TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR THOSE
HIDDEN ITEMS WHICH WERE BEING ILLEGALLY "POSSESSED" IN THEIR
"PRESENCE." 

THE KEY FACT OF THIS CASE IS THAT THE SEARCH WAS LAWLESS.  A LAWLESS
SEARCH CANNOT GIVE RISE TO A LAWFUL SEIZURE, EVEN OF CONTRABAND GOODS. 
AND "GOOD FAITH" ON THE PART OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS CANNOT JUSTIFY A
LAWLESS SEARCH, NOR SUPPORT A LAWLESS SEIZURE.  IN FORBIDDING
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, THE CONSTITUTION MADE CERTAIN
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS INDISPENSABLE FOR LAWFUL SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES.  IT DID NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, TO SUBSTITUTE THE GOOD INTENTIONS
OF THE POLICE FOR JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION EXCEPT IN NARROWLY CONFINED
SITUATIONS.  HISTORY, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT, HAS SHOWN GOOD POLICE INTENTIONS TO BE INADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS
FOR THE PRECIOUS RIGHTS OF MAN.  BUT THE COURT NOW TURNS ITS BACK ON
THAT HISTORY AND LEAVES THE REASONABLENESS OF SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
WITHOUT WARRANTS TO THE UNRELIABLE JUDGMENT OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS. 
AS A RESULT, THE RIGHTS OF THOSE PLACED UNDER ARREST TO BE FREE FROM
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ARE PRECARIOUS TO THE EXTREME. 

NOW IT MAY BE THAT THE ILLEGALITY OF THE SEARCH AND OF THE SEIZURE IN
THIS CASE LEADS TO THE IMMUNIZING OF PETITIONER FROM PROSECUTION FOR
THE ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF THE DRAFT CERTIFICATES AND NOTICES.  BUT
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS ONE OF THE CARDINAL
RIGHTS OF FREE MEN UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION.  THAT FREEDOM BELONGS TO ALL
MEN, INCLUDING THOSE WHO MAY BE GUILTY OF SOME CRIME.  THE PUBLIC
POLICY UNDERLYING THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF THAT FREEDOM IS SO
GREAT AS TO OUTWEIGH THE DESIRABILITY OF CONVICTING THOSE WHOSE CRIME
HAS BEEN REVEALED THROUGH AN UNLAWFUL INVASION OF THEIR RIGHT TO
PRIVACY.  LAWLESS METHODS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE FREQUENTLY EFFECTIVE
IN UNCOVERING CRIME, ESPECIALLY WHERE TYRANNY REIGNS, BUT THEY ARE NOT
TO BE COUNTENANCED UNDER OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  IT IS NOT A NOVEL
PRINCIPLE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM THAT A FEW CRIMINALS SHOULD GO
FREE RATHER THAN THAT THE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF ALL CITIZENS BE
JEOPARDIZED. 

IT IS LIKELY THAT THE FULL IMPACT OF TODAY'S DECISION WILL NOT BE
APPARENT IMMEDIATELY.  PETITIONER IS NOT AN IMPORTANT OR NOTORIOUS
CRIMINAL; AND THE INVESTIGATION MAY HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN WITH THE BEST
OF MOTIVES.  BUT APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED
TO PROTECT THE UNIMPORTANT AS WELL AS THE IMPORTANT, INCLUDING THOSE OF
CRIMINAL TENDENCIES, THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS
CASE CAN AFFECT THE FREEDOM OF ALL OUR PEOPLE.  THE PRINCIPLE
ESTABLISHED BY THE COURT TODAY CAN BE USED AS EASILY BY SOME FUTURE
GOVERNMENT DETERMINED TO SUPPRESS POLITICAL OPPOSITION UNDER THE GUISE
OF SEDITION AS IT CAN BE USED BY A GOVERNMENT DETERMINED TO UNDO
FORGERS AND DEFRAUDERS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. KIRSCHENBLATT, 16 F.2D
202, 203.  HISTORY IS NOT WITHOUT EXAMPLES OF THE OUTLAWRY OF CERTAIN
POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS AND ECONOMIC BELIEFS AND THE RELENTLESS
PROSECUTION OF THOSE WHO DARE TO ENTERTAIN SUCH BELIEFS.  AND HISTORY
HAS A WAY OF REPEATING ITSELF.  IT THEREFORE TAKES NO STRETCH OF THE
IMAGINATION TO PICTURE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARRESTING THOSE ACCUSED
OF BELIEVING, WRITING OR SPEAKING THAT WHICH IS PROSCRIBED, ACCOMPANIED
BY A THOROUGH RANSACKING OF THEIR HOMES AS AN "INCIDENT" TO THE ARREST
IN AN EFFORT TO UNCOVER "ANYTHING" OF A SEDITIOUS NATURE.  UNDER THE
COURT'S DECISION, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT NO LONGER STANDS AS A BAR TO
SUCH TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION.  ON THE CONTRARY, DIRECT ENCOURAGEMENT IS
GIVEN TO THIS ABANDONMENT OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY, A RIGHT WON AT SO
GREAT A COST BY THOSE WHO FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM THROUGH THE FLIGHT OF
TIME. 

AS JUDGE LEARNED HAND RECENTLY SAID, "IF THE PROSECUTION OF CRIME IS
TO BE CONDUCTED WITH SO LITTLE REGARD FOR THAT PROTECTION WHICH
CENTURIES OF ENGLISH LAW HAVE GIVEN TO THE INDIVIDUAL, WE ARE INDEED AT
THE DAWN OF A NEW ERA; AND MUCH THAT WE HAVE DEEMED VITAL TO OUR
LIBERTIES, IS A DELUSION."  UNITED STATES V. DI RE, 159 F.2D 818, 820. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN THIS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE CALLS UPON THE COURT TO SAY WHETHER ANY RIGHT TO SEARCH A
HOME IS CONFERRED ON OFFICERS BY THE FACT THAT WITHIN THAT HOME THEY
ARREST ONE OF ITS INHABITANTS.  THE LAW IN THIS FIELD HAS NOT BEEN MADE
TOO CLEAR BY OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS.  I DO NOT CRITICIZE THE OFFICERS
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THIS COURT'S DECISIONS AFFORD THEM NO
CLEAR GUIDANCE. 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT FIRST DECLARES IN BOLD BROAD TERMS:  "THE RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND
EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE
VIOLATED  ...  "  OUR TROUBLE ARISES BECAUSE THIS SENTENCE LEAVES
DEBATABLE WHAT PARTICULAR SEARCHES ARE UNREASONABLE ONES.  THOSE WHO
THINK IT THEIR DUTY TO MAKE SEARCHES SELDOM AGREE ON THIS POINT WITH
THOSE WHO FIND IT IN THEIR INTEREST TO FRUSTRATE SEARCHES. 

THE AMENDMENT, HAVING THUS ROUGHLY INDICATED THE IMMUNITY OF THE
CITIZEN WHICH MUST NOT BE VIOLATED, GOES ON TO RECITE HOW OFFICERS MAY
BE AUTHORIZED, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE RIGHT SO DECLARED, TO MAKE
SEARCHES:  "  ...  AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE
CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING
THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

HERE ENDETH THE COMMAND OF THE FOREFATHERS, APPARENTLY BECAUSE THEY
BELIEVED THAT BY THUS CONTROLLING SEARCH WARRANTS THEY HAD CONTROLLED
SEARCHES.  THE FOREFATHERS, HOWEVER, WERE GUILTY OF A SERIOUS OVERSIGHT
IF THEY LEFT OPEN ANOTHER WAY BY WHICH SEARCHES LEGALLY MAY BE MADE
WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT AND WITH NONE OF THE SAFEGUARDS THAT WOULD
SURROUND THE ISSUANCE OF ONE.    OF COURSE, A WARRANT TO TAKE A PERSON
INTO CUSTODY IS AUTHORITY FOR TAKING INTO CUSTODY ALL THAT IS FOUND
UPON HIS PERSON OR IN HIS HANDS.  SOME OPINIONS HAVE SPOKEN IN
GENERALITIES OF THIS RIGHT TO SEARCH SUCH PROPERTY INCIDENTALLY TO
ARREST OF THE PERSON AS INCLUDING WHATEVER WAS IN THE ARRESTED PERSON'S
"POSSESSION." 

REPEATED EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO EXPAND THIS SEARCH TO INCLUDE ALL
PREMISES AND PROPERTY IN CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION BY REASON OF TENANCY
OR OWNERSHIP.  WHILE THE LANGUAGE OF THIS COURT SOMETIMES HAS BEEN
AMBIGUOUS, I DO NOT FIND THAT THE COURT HERETOFORE HAS SUSTAINED THIS
EXTENSION OF THE INCIDENTAL SEARCH.  GO-BART IMPORTING CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 282 U.S. 344; UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452.  IN
THIS RESPECT, IT SEEMS TO ME, THE DECISION OF TODAY GOES BEYOND ANY
PREVIOUS ONE AND THROWS A HOME OPEN TO SEARCH ON A WARRANT THAT DOES
NOT IN ANY RESPECT COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF A
SEARCH WARRANT AND DOES NOT EVEN PURPORT TO AUTHORIZE ANY SEARCH OF ANY
PREMISES. 

THE DECISION CERTAINLY WILL BE TAKEN, IN PRACTICE, AS AUTHORITY FOR A
SEARCH OF ANY HOME, OFFICE OR OTHER PREMISES IF A WARRANT CAN BE
OBTAINED FOR THE ARREST OF ANY OCCUPANT AND THE OFFICER CHOOSES TO MAKE
THE ARREST ON THE PREMISES.  IT WOULD SEEM ALSO TO PERMIT SUCH SEARCH
INCIDENTALLY TO AN ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE
SUCH ARREST A LAWFUL ONE.  IT WOULD ALSO APPEAR TO SANCTION A SEARCH OF
PREMISES EVEN THOUGH THE ARREST WERE FOR THE MOST PETTY OF
MISDEMEANORS.  IT LEAVES TO THE ARRESTING OFFICER CHOICE OF THE
PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED INSOFAR AS HE CAN SELECT THE PLACE AMONG THOSE
IN WHICH THE ACCUSED MIGHT BE FOUND WHERE HE WILL EXECUTE THE WARRANT
OF PERSONAL ARREST.  THUS, THE PREMISES TO BE SEARCHED ARE DETERMINED
BY AN OFFICER RATHER THAN BY A MAGISTRATE, AND THE SEARCH IS NOT
CONFINED TO PLACES OR FOR THINGS "PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED" IN A WARRANT
BUT, IN PRACTICE, WILL BE AS EXTENSIVE AS THE ZEAL OF THE ARRESTING
OFFICER IN THE EXCITEMENT OF THE CHASE SUGGESTS.  WORDS OF CAUTION WILL
HEDGE AN OPINION, BUT THEY ARE NOT VERY EFFECTIVE IN HEDGING SEARCHES. 

THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS PROBLEM FOR ME IS THAT ONCE THE SEARCH IS
ALLOWED TO GO BEYOND THE PERSON ARRESTED AND THE OBJECTS UPON HIM OR IN
HIS IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL CONTROL, I SEE NO PRACTICAL LIMIT SHORT OF THAT
SET IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT - AND THAT MEANS TO ME NO LIMIT AT
ALL. 

I AM UNABLE TO SUGGEST ANY TEST BY WHICH AN INCIDENTAL SEARCH, IF
PERMISSIBLE AT ALL, CAN IN POLICE PRACTICE BE KEPT WITHIN BOUNDS THAT
ARE REASONABLE.  I HEAR NONE.  I DO NOT AGREE WITH OTHER JUSTICES IN
DISSENT THAT THE INTENSITY OF THIS SEARCH MADE IT ILLEGAL.  IT IS
OBJECTED THAT THESE SEARCHERS WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING IN THE PREMISES. 
BUT IS A SEARCH VALID IF SUPERFICIAL AND ILLEGAL ONLY IF IT IS
THOROUGH?  IT TOOK FIVE HOURS ON THE PART OF SEVERAL OFFICERS.  BUT IF
IT WAS AUTHORIZED AT ALL, IT CAN HARDLY BECOME AT SOME MOMENT ILLEGAL
BECAUSE THERE WAS SO MUCH STUFF TO EXAMINE THAT IT TOOK OVERTIME.  IT
IS SAID THIS SEARCH WENT BEYOND WHAT WAS IN "PLAIN SIGHT."  IT WOULD
SEEM A LITTLE CAPRICIOUS TO SAY THAT A GUN ON TOP OF A NEWSPAPER COULD
BE TAKEN BUT A NEWSPAPER ON TOP OF A GUN INSULATED IT FROM SEIZURE.  IF
IT WERE WRONG TO OPEN A SEALED ENVELOPE IN THIS CASE, WOULD IT HAVE
BEEN RIGHT IF THE MUCILAGE FAILED TO STICK?  THE SHORT OF THE THING IS
THAT WE CANNOT SAY THAT A SEARCH IS ILLEGAL OR LEGAL BECAUSE OF WHAT IT
ENDS IN.  IT IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH IT
STARTS. 

I CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT A SEARCH, FOR WHICH WE CAN ASSIGN
NO PRACTICABLE LIMITS, ON PREMISES AND FOR THINGS WHICH NO ONE
DESCRIBES IN ADVANCE, IS SUCH A SEARCH AS THE CONSTITUTION CONSIDERED
"UNREASONABLE" AND INTENDED TO PROHIBIT. 

IN VIEW OF THE LONG HISTORY OF ABUSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE WHICH LED
TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, I DO NOT THINK IT WAS INTENDED TO LEAVE OPEN
AN EASY WAY TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROTECTION IT EXTENDED TO THE PRIVACY OF
INDIVIDUAL LIFE.  IN VIEW OF THE READINESS OF ZEALOTS TO RIDE ROUGHSHOD
OVER CLAIMS OF PRIVACY FOR ANY ENDS THAT IMPRESS THEM AS SOCIALLY
DESIRABLE, WE SHOULD NOT MAKE INROADS ON THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THIS
AMENDMENT.  THE FAIR IMPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS THAT NO SEARCH
OF PREMISES, AS SUCH, IS REASONABLE EXCEPT THE CAUSE FOR IT BE APPROVED
AND THE LIMITS OF IT FIXED AND THE SCOPE OF IT PARTICULARLY DEFINED BY
A DISINTERESTED MAGISTRATE.  IF THESE CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY
LIMITATIONS ON A COURT'S POWER EXPRESSLY TO AUTHORIZE A SEARCH, IT
WOULD SEEM THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ENTIRELY DISPENSED WITH BECAUSE A
MAGISTRATE HAS ISSUED A WARRANT WHICH CONTAINS NO EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION
TO SEARCH AT ALL. 

OF COURSE, THIS, LIKE EACH OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES, OFTEN
MAY AFFORD A SHELTER FOR CRIMINALS.  BUT THE FOREFATHERS THOUGHT THIS
WAS NOT TOO GREAT A PRICE TO PAY FOR THAT DECENT PRIVACY OF HOME,
PAPERS AND EFFECTS WHICH IS INDISPENSABLE TO INDIVIDUAL DIGNITY AND
SELF-RESPECT.  THEY MAY HAVE OVERVALUED PRIVACY, BUT I AM NOT DISPOSED
TO SET THEIR COMMAND AT NAUGHT. 
..END :










MADISON AVE. CORP. V. ASSELTA, 331 U.S. 199 


NO. 497.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 5, 1947.  - 156 F.2D
139, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A WAGE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY DIRECTION OF THE NATIONAL WAR
LABOR BOARD PROVIDING THAT EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE PAID FIXED WEEKLY WAGES
FOR WORKWEEKS OF SPECIFIED LENGTH, IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS, AND THAT THE
"HOURLY RATE" WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY DIVIDING WEEKLY EARNINGS BY THE
NUMBER OF HOURS EMPLOYED PLUS ONE-HALF OF THE NUMBER OF HOURS ACTUALLY
WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40, WHICH ACTUALLY WAS APPLIED SO AS TO RESULT IN A
SCHEDULED WORKWEEK IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS WITHOUT EFFECTIVE PROVISION
FOR OVERTIME PAY UNTIL EMPLOYEES HAD COMPLETED THE SCHEDULED WORKWEEK,
HELD NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OVERTIME PAY REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7(A)
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  PP. 203-210. 

2.  THE "HOURLY RATE" DERIVED FROM THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED IN THE
AGREEMENT WAS NOT THE "REGULAR RATE" OF PAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  PP. 203-210. 

3.  WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624, AND WALLING V. HALLIBURTON
CO., 331 U.S. 17, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 209. 

149 MADISON AVENUE CORP. ET AL. V. ASSELTA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENTS SUED THEIR EMPLOYER, PETITIONER HERE, TO RECOVER SUMS
ALLEGEDLY DUE THEM UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AND WERE AWARDED
JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  65 F.SUPP.  385.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  156 F.2D 139.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329
U.S. 817.  AFFIRMED, P. 210.  JUDGMENT MODIFIED, POST, PP. 210, 795. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS EMPLOYEE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER
OVERTIME COMPENSATION, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S
FEE PURSUANT TO SECS. 7(A) AND 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF
1938.  FN1  RECOVERY WAS ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, 65 F.SUPP. 
385, AND THAT JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
156 F.2D 139.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER THE IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS PRESENTED RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE OVERTIME
PROVISIONS OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED STATUTE. 

RESPONDENTS ARE SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES WHO, DURING THE
PERIOD IN QUESTION, WORKED IN A LOFT BUILDING OWNED BY PETITIONER 149
MADISON AVENUE CORPORATION AND MANAGED BY PETITIONER WILLIAMS & CO. IT
HAS BEEN STIPULATED THAT RESPONDENTS WERE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  FN2  WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH THE PERIOD OF
EMPLOYMENT EXTENDING FROM APRIL 21, 1942, TO DECEMBER 10, 1943. 

PRIOR TO APRIL 21, 1942, EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS
AND RESPONDENTS WERE GOVERNED BY A COLLECTIVE WAGE AGREEMENT, KNOWN AS
THE SLOAN AGREEMENT.  FN3  ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS, EMPLOYEES WERE PAID
FLAT WEEKLY WAGES FOR WORKWEEKS OF SPECIFIED LENGTH WHICH, IN THE CASE
OF MOST OF THE RESPONDENTS, AMOUNTED TO $25 FOR 47 HOURS OF WEEKLY
EMPLOYMENT.  NO HOURLY RATES WERE SPECIFIED, NOR WAS ANY ATTEMPT MADE
TO COMPENSATE EMPLOYEES AT THE RATE OF TIME AND ONE-HALF FOR HOURS
WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40 IN ANY WEEK. 

AS THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE SLOAN AGREEMENT DREW NEAR, NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN THE INTERESTED PARTIES WERE INITIATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REACHING AGREEMENT ON A NEW CONTRACT.  AFTER PRELIMINARY CONFERENCES
PROVED FRUITLESS, THE CASE WAS CERTIFIED TO THE WAR LABOR BOARD.  THAT
AGENCY STATED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS IN A DIRECTIVE ORDER ISSUED JULY 29,
1942; AND ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1942, THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT
IN QUESTION, KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD AGREEMENT.  IT HAD
BEEN AGREED THAT THE TERMS OF THE NEW CONTRACT WERE TO BE MADE
RETROACTIVE TO APRIL 20, 1942, THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE SLOAN
AGREEMENT. 

THE NEW CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR A WORKWEEK OF 54 HOURS APPLICABLE TO
WATCHMEN AND A WORKWEEK OF 46 HOURS FOR OTHER REGULAR EMPLOYEES. 
WEEKLY WAGES WERE ESTABLISHED TO COMPENSATE THE 54 OR 46 HOURS OF
LABOR, WHICH SUMS WERE STATED TO INCLUDE BOTH PAYMENTS FOR THE REGULAR
HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT AND TIME AND ONE-HALF FOR THE HOURS IN EXCESS OF
40.  TO DERIVE THE HOURLY RATE FROM THE WEEKLY WAGE, THE FOLLOWING
FORMULA WAS INCLUDED: 

"THE HOURLY RATES FOR THOSE REGULARLY EMPLOYED MORE THAN FORTY (40)
HOURS PER WEEK SHALL BE DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THEIR WEEKLY EARNINGS BY
THE NUMBER OF HOURS EMPLOYED PLUS ONE-HALF THE NUMBER OF HOURS ACTUALLY
EMPLOYED IN EXCESS OF FORTY (40) HOURS." 

ALTHOUGH A LITERAL READING OF THE ABOVE LANGUAGE MIGHT SEEM TO
INDICATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VARIABLE HOURLY RATE DEPENDENT UPON THE
NUMBER OF HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED IN ANY GIVEN WEEK, SUCH WAS NOT THE
PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARTIES.  INSTEAD OF MAKING USE OF THE
NUMBER OF HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED, ONLY THE HOURS THE EMPLOYEE WAS
SCHEDULED TO WORK AND THE WEEKLY WAGE FOR SUCH SCHEDULED WORKWEEK
ENTERED INTO THE CALCULATION OF THE NON-OVERTIME HOURLY RATE.  FN4  THE
HOURLY RATE AS DERIVED FROM THE FORMULA REMAINED CONSTANT, THEREFORE,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WORKED THE SCHEDULED NUMBER OF HOURS
DURING THE WEEK OR A GREATER OR LESSER NUMBER.  IN EFFECT, THE
AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF DIRECTLY STATING A FIXED HOURLY RATE IN TERMS OF A
STIPULATED AMOUNT PER HOUR PROVIDED A FORMULA WHEREBY SUCH A FIXED
HOURLY RATE COULD BE CALCULATED. 

UNDER THE AGREEMENT, WEEKLY COMPENSATION VARIED ACCORDING TO THE
NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED IN THAT WEEK.  THUS, IN CASE AN EMPLOYEE WAS
UNABLE TO WORK ALL HIS SCHEDULED HOURS DUE TO AN "EXCUSABLE CAUSE," HE
WAS PAID AT THE FORMULA RATE WITH THE PROVISION, HOWEVER, THAT SIX OF
THE HOURS WORKED SHOULD BE COMPENSATED AS OVERTIME REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE TOTAL OF HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED WAS GREATER OR LESS THAN 40
IN THAT WEEK.  IF THE EMPLOYEE'S ABSENCE WAS NOT EXCUSABLE, HE WAS
APPARENTLY PAID A SUM FOR THE WEEK OBTAINED BY MULTIPLYING THE NUMBER
OF HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED TIMES THE FORMULA RATE, BEING GIVEN CREDIT FOR
OVERTIME ONLY IN CASE THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED EXCEEDED 40.  FN5  THE
AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT ALL REGULAR EMPLOYEES EXCEPT WATCHMEN SHOULD BE
COMPENSATED AT A RATE ONE AND THREE-QUARTERS TIMES THE HOURLY RATE
DERIVED FROM THE FORMULA FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 46.  WATCHMEN
WERE TO BE PAID TWICE THE FORMULA RATE FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF
54.  PART-TIME WORKERS EMPLOYED FOR LESS THAN THE SCHEDULED WORKWEEK
WERE HIRED AT A SPECIFIED SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES OBTAINED BY DIVIDING
THE WEEKLY WAGE PAID THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS IN
THE REGULAR WORKWEEK. 

IT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT TO IMPOSE UPON THE ALMOST INFINITE VARIETY OF EMPLOYMENT
SITUATIONS A SINGLE, RIGID FORM OF WAGE AGREEMENT.  WALLING V. BELO
CORP., 316 U.S. 624(1942).  SECTION 7(A) OF THE ACT REQUIRES, HOWEVER,
THAT ANY WAGE AGREEMENT FALLING WITHIN ITS PURVIEW MUST ESTABLISH AN
HOURLY "REGULAR RATE" NOT LESS THAN THE STATUTORY MINIMUM AND PROVIDE
FOR OVERTIME PAYMENTS OF AT LEAST ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE "REGULAR
RATE."  A WAGE PLAN IS NOT RENDERED INVALID SIMPLY BECAUSE, INSTEAD OF
STATING DIRECTLY AN HOURLY RATE OF PAY IN AN AMOUNT CONSISTENT WITH THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THE PARTIES HAVE SEEN FIT TO STIPULATE A WEEKLY
WAGE INCLUSIVE OF REGULAR AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR A WORKWEEK IN
EXCESS OF 40 HOURS AND HAVE PROVIDED A FORMULA WHEREBY THE APPROPRIATE
HOURLY RATE MAY BE DERIVED THEREFROM.  THE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS IN THIS
CASE, HOWEVER, ARE WHETHER THE HOURLY RATE DERIVED FROM THE FORMULA
HERE PRESENTED WAS, IN FACT, THE "REGULAR RATE" OF PAY WITHIN THE
STATUTORY MEANING AND WHETHER THE WAGE AGREEMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION,
IN FACT, MADE ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT THE WORDS "REGULAR RATE," WHILE NOT EXPRESSLY
DEFINED IN THE STATUTE, "  ... MEAN THE HOURLY RATE ACTUALLY PAID FOR
THE NORMAL, NON-OVERTIME WORKWEEK."  WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE,
INC., 323 U.S. 37, 40(1944).  THE REGULAR RATE IS THUS AN "ACTUAL
FACT," AND IN TESTING THE VALIDITY OF A WAGE AGREEMENT UNDER THE ACT
THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK BEYOND THAT WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE
PURPORTED TO DO.  WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S.
419, 424(1945).  IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE RATE
DERIVED BY THE USE OF THE CONTRACT FORMULA WAS NOT THE REGULAR RATE OF
PAY; THAT THE REGULAR RATE ACTUALLY PAID WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THAT
OBTAINED BY DIVIDING THE WEEKLY WAGE PAYABLE FOR THE WORKING OF THE
SCHEDULED WORKWEEK BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS IN SUCH SCHEDULED WORKWEEK;
AND THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, THE PLAN MADE NO ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR
OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNTIL EMPLOYEES REGULARLY HIRED AS WATCHMEN HAD
WORKED A TOTAL OF 54 HOURS IN ONE WEEK AND UNTIL OTHER REGULAR
EMPLOYEES HAD WORKED A TOTAL OF 46 HOURS.  WE BELIEVE THAT THE RECORD
PROVIDES AMPLE SUPPORT FOR THAT VIEW. 

THUS, IN DETERMINING A SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES PAYABLE TO PART-TIME
WORKERS EMPLOYED LESS THAN 40 HOURS A WEEK, NO USE WHATSOEVER WAS MADE
OF THE HOURLY RATE DERIVED FROM THE FORMULA.  PART-TIME WORKERS WERE
PAID A RATE DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THE WEEKLY WAGE PAID TO THE REGULAR
EMPLOYEES BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS IN THE REGULAR WORKWEEK DESPITE THE
FACT THAT, ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE FORMULA, THE WEEKLY WAGE
INCLUDED BOTH REGULAR AND OVERTIME PAY.  INSOFAR AS PART-TIME WORKERS
WERE CONCERNED, THE AGREEMENT CLEARLY INDICATED AN INTENTION TO
COMPENSATE AN HOUR'S LABOR BY PAYMENT OF A PRO-RATA SHARE OF THE WEEKLY
WAGE. 

NOR WAS THERE CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE HOURLY RATE AS DETERMINED
BY THE FORMULA TO THE WORK OF REGULAR EMPLOYEES HIRED FOR A FULL 46
HOUR WEEK.  WHERE SUCH AN EMPLOYEE WAS ABSENT FOR AN "EXCUSABLE CAUSE,"
HIS WEEKLY COMPENSATION WAS NOT DETERMINED BY MULTIPLYING THE FORMULA
RATE BY THE HOURS WORKED.  RATHER, SIX OF THE HOURS THE EMPLOYEE WORKED
WERE ALWAYS TREATED AS OVERTIME AND COMPENSATED AT THE RATE OF ONE AND
ONE-HALF TIMES THE FORMULA RATE REGARDLESS OF THE TOTAL HOURS ACTUALLY
WORKED, THUS RESULTING IN AVERAGE HOURLY COMPENSATION CONSIDERABLY IN
EXCESS OF THE FORMULA RATE.  THE PAYMENT OF "OVERTIME" COMPENSATION FOR
NON-OVERTIME WORK RAISES STRONG DOUBT AS TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE HOURLY
RATE UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE "OVERTIME" COMPENSATION IS
CALCULATED.  CF. WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, INC., SUPRA.  WHILE THE
AVERAGE HOURLY RATE ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEE IN THIS SITUATION
WAS NOT PRECISELY THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED FROM DIVIDING THE
WEEKLY WAGE BY 46, IT ORDINARILY APPROACHED THAT FIGURE MUCH MORE
CLOSELY THAN IT DID THE SO-CALLED HOURLY RATE ESTABLISHED BY THE
FORMULA.  FN6  THIS METHOD OF PAYMENT REVEALS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF AN
ATTEMPT TO PAY A PRO-RATA SHARE OF THE WEEKLY WAGE FOR AN HOUR'S LABOR
REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED UP TO 46. 

THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF THE SCHEDULED
46-HOUR WEEK SHOULD BE COMPENSATED AT THE RATE OF ONE AND THREE
QUARTERS OF THE FORMULA RATE.  FN7  WHILE THE FORMULA RATE SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED IN SUCH SITUATIONS, IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO
OBSERVE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE WORKER UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES APPROXIMATES VERY CLOSELY THAT WHICH HE WOULD HAVE
RECEIVED HAD HE BEEN PAID AN HOURLY RATE DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THE
WEEKLY WAGE PAYABLE FOR THE SCHEDULED WORKWEEK BY 46 WITH PAYMENT OF
TIME AND ONE-HALF FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 46.  FN8  THIS
APPROXIMATION WAS NOT FORTUITOUS.  IN THE DIRECTIVE ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THESE PROVISIONS ARE
DISCUSSED, AND THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS MADE:  "OVERTIME OVER FORTY
SIX (46) HOURS IS PAID AT A RATE OF TIME AND THREE-QUARTERS IN AN
EFFORT APPROXIMATELY TO EQUAL THE OVERTIME TO WHICH AN EMPLOYEE WOULD
ORDINARILY BE ENTITLED, IF IT WERE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF TIME AND A
HALF AFTER A FORTY-SIX (46) HOUR WEEK."  FN9 

PETITIONERS HAVE ARGUED THAT NONE OF THESE PROVISIONS PROVIDES A
CONCLUSIVE DEMONSTRATION THAT THE FORMULA RATE WAS NOT THE ACTUAL
REGULAR RATE OF PAY.  IT IS SAID THAT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES WERE PAID A
PRO-RATA HOURLY RATE SINCE THEY HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO EARN OVERTIME
COMPENSATION; THAT THE METHOD OF PAYING REGULAR EMPLOYEES IN CASE OF
EXCUSABLE ABSENCES WAS MERELY A LAUDABLE EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE
EMPLOYER TO COMPENSATE MORE FULLY THAN THE ACT REQUIRES WHEN AN
EMPLOYEE FAILED TO WORK HIS SCHEDULED WEEK BECAUSE OF ILLNESS OR LIKE
CAUSES; AND THAT THE TIME AND THREE-QUARTERS PROVISION REPRESENTED AN
ADDITIONAL PREMIUM FOR EMPLOYEES CALLED UPON TO WORK HOURS
SUBSTANTIALLY IN EXCESS OF THE NON-OVERTIME WEEK.  WE CANNOT IGNORE THE
FACT, HOWEVER, THAT THE AGREEMENT ON ITS FACE FAILS TO PROVIDE FOR THE
CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA RATES IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE
SUCH RATES SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO CONTROL.  THESE DEVIATIONS TAKE ON
ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANCE WHEN IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN EVERY SITUATION,
WITH THE RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT EXCEPTION OF THAT INVOLVING UNEXCUSED
ABSENCES,  FN10  THE AMOUNT PAID WAS EITHER PRECISELY OR SUBSTANTIALLY
THAT WHICH EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID HAD THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR
EMPLOYMENT ON A STRAIGHT 46-HOUR WEEK WITH PAYMENT OF TIME AND ONE-HALF
ONLY FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 46. 

FURTHER LIGHT IS THROWN UPON THE NATURE OF THE WAGE AGREEMENT BY A
CONSIDERATION OF THE PLAN IN ACTUAL OPERATION.  DURING THE PERIOD
BETWEEN APRIL 21 AND SEPTEMBER 1, 1942, WHEN THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION
WAS THE SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATION, IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE OLD SLOAN
AGREEMENT SHOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT BUT THAT THE TERMS OF THE NEW
CONTRACT SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE APPLICATION TO APRIL 20.  THE
SLOAN AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR A MINIMUM WAGE OF $25 FOR A WORKWEEK OF 47
HOURS WITH NO PROVISION FOR OVERTIME FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40. 
IT IS OBVIOUS, THEREFORE, THAT BETWEEN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED DATES THE
EMPLOYEES WERE PAID ON A BASIS CLEARLY REPUGNANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  PETITIONERS URGE, HOWEVER,
THAT BY MAKING THE RETROACTIVE PAYMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE AGREEMENT,
ANY ILLEGALITY IN THE METHOD OF PAYMENT DURING THE PERIOD OF
NEGOTIATIONS WAS ELIMINATED.  BUT IN ATTEMPTING TO SATISFY THE
RETROACTIVE LIABILITY, PETITIONERS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FORMULA RATES
AND PAID EACH OF THE RESPONDENTS $2.50 FOR EACH WEEK WORKED DURING THE
PERIOD, REPRESENTING THE INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WEEKLY WAGE FOR THE
SCHEDULED WORKWEEK ESTABLISHED BY THE NEW AGREEMENT, WITHOUT ATTEMPTING
FURTHER ADJUSTMENT.  PETITIONERS ADMIT THAT "UNDOUBTEDLY SOME EMPLOYEES
WHO WORKED NO OVERTIME IN CERTAIN WEEKS WERE OVERPAID; OTHER WHO WORKED
BEYOND THE SCHEDULED WORKWEEK OF 47 HOURS THEN PREVAILING MAY NOT HAVE
BEEN PAID ENOUGH."  IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AMOUNT OF WAGES PAID THE
RESPONDENTS FOR WORK PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD OF NEGOTIATIONS WAS IN
NO SENSE DETERMINED BY APPLICATION OF HOURLY RATES DERIVED FROM THE
FORMULA.  FN11    THE PARTIES HAVE CALLED OUR ATTENTION TO MUCH OTHER
EVIDENCE WHICH, IT IS ASSERTED, REVEALS THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION
GIVEN TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION.  WE DO NOT FEEL THAT
IT IS NECESSARY TO REVIEW THESE MATTERS AT LENGTH.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO
STATE THAT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND THE
OPERATION OF THE PLAN IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, WE HAVE COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE WAS ONE CALLING FOR A
WORKWEEK IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS WITHOUT EFFECTIVE PROVISION FOR OVERTIME
PAY UNTIL THE EMPLOYEES HAD COMPLETED THE SCHEDULED WORKWEEK AND THAT
THE "HOURLY RATE" DERIVED FROM THE USE OF THE CONTRACT FORMULA WAS NOT
THE "REGULAR RATE" OF PAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  THIS IS NOT A CASE LIKE WALLING V. BELO CORP., SUPRA,
OR WALLING V. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO., 331 U.S. 17(1947). 
UNLIKE THOSE CASES, THERE WAS HERE NO PROVISION FOR A GUARANTEED WEEKLY
WAGE WITH A STIPULATION OF AN HOURLY RATE WHICH UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
PRESENTED COULD PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS THE ACTUAL REGULAR RATE OF
PAY. 

WE HOLD FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT THE WAGE AGREEMENT IN
QUESTION FAILED TO SATISFY THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.  WALLING V.
HELMERICH & PAYNE, INC., SUPRA; WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD
CO., SUPRA; WALLING V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 325 U.S. 427(1945). 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. INSOFAR AS PERTINENT,
SEC. 7(A) PROVIDES: 

"NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION,
EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED
AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED." 


"ANY EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR SECTION 7
OF THIS ACT SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES AFFECTED IN
THE AMOUNT OF THEIR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OR THEIR UNPAID OVERTIME
COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IN AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL AMOUNT AS
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ...  " 

FN2  PETITIONERS HAVE RAISED NO OBJECTION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE
RECOVERY ALLOWED THE RESPONDENTS BY THE DISTRICT COURT IF IT BE ASSUMED
THAT THE LOWER COURTS OTHERWISE CORRECTLY DETERMINED THEIR LIABILITY. 

FN3  THE SLOAN AGREEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE REALTY ADVISORY
BOARD ON LABOR RELATIONS, INCORPORATED, AS AGENT FOR VARIOUS OWNERS OF
LOFT, OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE BOROUGH OF
MANHATTAN IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND LOCAL 32-B OF THE BUILDING
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS.  THE
SAME PARTIES NEGOTIATED THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION. 

FN4  IN CASE OF AN EMPLOYEE HIRED FOR A REGULAR 46 HOUR WEEK AT A
WEEKLY WAGE OF $27.50, THE "HOURLY RATE" WAS DERIVED FROM THE FORMULA
BY MEANS OF THE FOLLOWING CALCULATION:  $27.50/(46 1/2(46 - 40))
$.561 PER HOUR.  IN EFFECT, THE FORMULA RATE IS OBTAINED, NOT BY
DIVIDING THE WEEKLY WAGE BY 46, THE NUMBER OF HOURS SCHEDULED TO BE
WORKED, BUT BY DIVIDING THAT SUM BY 49, A DIVISOR DETERMINED BY THE
FORMULA.  IN THE CASE OF A WATCHMAN HIRED FOR A 54 HOUR WEEK AT THE
SAME WEEKLY WAGE, THE FORMULA RATE WAS DETERMINED BY THIS CALCULATION:
$27.50/(54   1/2(54 - 40)) $.4508 PER HOUR. 

FN5  THE AGREEMENT MADE NO SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR SITUATIONS
INVOLVING UNEXCUSED ABSENCES.  THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED PROCEDURE SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN PRACTICE, HOWEVER. 

FN6  THUS THE EMPLOYEE ANDERSON WORKED ONLY 39 HOURS IN THE WEEK OF
FEB. 14, 1943, THE 7 HOURS OF ABSENCE APPARENTLY BEING DUE TO AN
"EXCUSABLE CAUSE."  UNDER THE AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO SIX
HOURS OF "OVERTIME" PAY, HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED WEEKLY COMPENSATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $23.56.  THE ACTUAL AVERAGE HOURLY RATE DURING THAT WEEK
ACCORDINGLY WOULD BE $.604.  IF ANDERSON HAD BEEN PAID ON AN HOURLY
BASIS DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THE WEEKLY WAGE PAID FOR A SCHEDULED
WORKWEEK BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS IN SUCH WORKWEEK, HE WOULD HAVE
RECEIVED $.598, WHEREAS, HAD HE BEEN PAID THE STRAIGHT FORMULA RATE HE
WOULD HAVE RECEIVED $.561 PER HOUR.  SO ALSO, THE PETITIONER PETERSON
IN THE WEEK OF DEC. 13, 1942, WAS ABSENT 16 HOURS FOR EXCUSABLE
CAUSES.  THE PAYROLL RECORDS REVEAL HE EARNED $18.50 OR AN ACTUAL
AVERAGE HOURLY RATE OF $.617 AS COMPARED TO $.598, THE AVERAGE RATE FOR
A SCHEDULED WORKWEEK, AND TO $.561, THE FORMULA RATE. 

FN7  IN THE CASE OF WATCHMEN, WHO WERE ASSIGNED A SCHEDULED WEEK OF
54 HOURS, TWICE THE FORMULA RATE WAS PAID FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF
54. 

FN8  THUS IF AN EMPLOYEE HIRED FOR A REGULAR WORKWEEK OF 46 HOURS AT
$27.50 WORKED 50 HOURS IN ONE WEEK, HIS TOTAL WEEKLY COMPENSATION WOULD
AMOUNT TO $31.43 IF COMPENSATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE
AGREEMENT.  IF, INSTEAD, THE EMPLOYEE WERE HIRED ON A STRAIGHT WEEKLY
BASIS AT THE SAME WEEKLY WAGE WITH PROVISION FOR TIME AND ONE-HALF THE
AVERAGE HOURLY RATE, FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 46, HE WOULD RECEIVE
$31.09 AS TOTAL WEEKLY COMPENSATION FOR 50 HOURS OF WORK.  IF A
WATCHMAN, SCHEDULED TO WORK A 54-HOUR WEEK AT $27.50 ACTUALLY WORKED 58
HOURS HE WOULD RECEIVE $31.11 WEEKLY COMPENSATION IF CALCULATED
ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT, OR $30.55 IF CALCULATED ON A STRAIGHT
WEEKLY BASIS WITH TIME AND ONE-HALF FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 54. 

FN9  THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION ALSO CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING
PROVISION:  "PER DIEM RATES OF PAY OF ANY EMPLOYEE SHALL BE ARRIVED AT
BY DIVIDING THE APPLICABLE WEEKLY WAGE BY THE NORMAL NUMBER OF DAYS PER
WEEK WORKED BY THAT EMPLOYEE IN THE BUILDING IN QUESTION."  THIS
PROVISION IS OBVIOUSLY AT ODDS WITH THE STATEMENT IN THE AGREEMENT THAT
THE WEEKLY WAGE STIPULATED FOR A SCHEDULED WORKWEEK INCLUDED BOTH
REGULAR PAY AND OVERTIME FOR HOURS WORKED OVER 40.  THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE RECORD, HOWEVER, TO INDICATE THAT THE PER DIEM PROVISIONS WERE
ACTUALLY APPLIED.  PETITIONER EXPLAINS ITS PRESENCE IN THE AGREEMENT AS
AN INADVERTENT HOLD-OVER FROM THE EARLIER SLOAN AGREEMENT. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 5 SUPRA. 

FN11  A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR SITUATION PREVAILED WITH RESPECT TO AN
INCREASE OF $1.40 IN THE WEEKLY WAGE GRANTED ON OCTOBER 10, 1943, AND
MADE RETROACTIVE TO APRIL 21, 1943.  IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONERS MADE
SOME EFFORT TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE FORMULA IN PAYMENT
TO EMPLOYEES WHO HAD WORKED HOURS IN EXCESS OF THE SCHEDULED WORKWEEK. 
IT IS CONCEDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE WITH
RESPECT TO THOSE WHO WORKED LESS THAN THEIR SCHEDULED HOURS IN WEEKS
DURING THE RETROACTIVE PERIOD, SUCH EMPLOYEES BEING PAID THE FULL
WEEKLY INCREASE FOR EACH WEEK EMPLOYED REGARDLESS OF HOURS ACTUALLY
WORKED. 

(NOTE:  BY AN ORDER OF THE COURT ANNOUNCED ON JUNE 16, 1947, POST, P.
795, THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE WAS MODIFIED SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH AUTHORITY IN THAT COURT TO CONSIDER
ANY MATTERS PRESENTED TO IT UNDER THE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL ACT OF 1947,
APPROVED MAY 14, 1947.) 
..END :























COMMISSIONER V. MUNTER, 331 U.S. 210 


ARGUED APRIL 10, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 5, 1947.  - 157 F.2D 132,
REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECS. 22(A), 115(A), (B), UPON A
REORGANIZATION OF TWO CORPORATIONS INTO A NEW CORPORATION, ACCUMULATED
EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE PREDECESSOR CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE
UNDISTRIBUTED IN THE REORGANIZATION ARE DEEMED TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE
SUCCESSOR CORPORATION AND UPON DISTRIBUTION BY IT ARE TAXABLE AS
INCOME, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PARTICIPATION OF NEW INVESTORS IN THE
SUCCESSOR CORPORATION.  PP. 215-216. 

2.  TO WHAT EXTENT THE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE
PREDECESSOR CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN RETAINED BY THE SUCCESSOR IN THIS
CASE IS FOR THE TAX COURT TO DETERMINE UPON A FACTUAL ANALYSIS.  PP.
216-217. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. MUNTER. 

NO. 674.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 675, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. MUNTER,
ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF
DEFICIENCIES IN RESPONDENTS' INCOME TAXES.  5 T.C. 108.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  157 F.2D 132.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 709.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 217. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES AGAINST RESPONDENTS FOR
FAILURE TO REPORT AS 1940 INCOME DIVIDENDS PAID TO THEM ON STOCK OF
CRANDALL-MCKENZIE & HENDERSON, INC., WHICH RESPONDENTS HAD BOUGHT
EARLIER IN THAT YEAR.  FN1  THESE DIVIDENDS ARE TAXABLE AS INCOME TO
THE RESPONDENTS IF THE CORPORATION PAID THEM OUT OF ITS EARNINGS AND
PROFITS.  INT. REV. CODE SECS. 22(A), 115(A), (B).  SINCE ITS
ORGANIZATION IN 1928, THE CORPORATION HAD NOT ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND
PROFITS SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE 1940 DIVIDEND IN FULL.  FN2  BUT THE
COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE TWO OLD CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE MERGED IN
1928 TO FORM THIS NEW CORPORATION HAD AT THAT TIME, AND TURNED OVER TO
THE NEW CORPORATION, ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS SUFFICIENT TO
COVER THESE DIVIDENDS.  ONE OF THESE OLD CORPORATIONS, L. HENDERSON &
SONS, INC., HAD ABOUT $75,000 IN EARNINGS AND PROFITS ACCUMULATED SINCE
1913; THE OTHER, CRANDALL-MCKENZIE COMPANY, HAD ABOUT $330,000. 
LIABILITY OF RESPONDENTS FOR THESE DEFICIENCIES DEPENDS UPON WHETHER
THE NEW CORPORATION ACQUIRED AND RETAINED A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF THESE
EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF ITS PREDECESSORS TO COVER THE 1940 DIVIDENDS. 

THE 1928 MERGER TOOK PLACE UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES. 
STOCKHOLDERS OF HENDERSON AND CERTAIN STOCKHOLDERS OF CRANDALL-MCKENZIE
AGREED TOGETHER WITH A FIRM OF UNDERWRITERS TO EFFECT A MERGER OF THE
TWO CORPORATIONS INTO A NEW ONE.  THE UNDERWRITERS AGREED TO BUY FOR
CASH 52% OF THE STOCK OF THE NEW CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC SALE.  IN
EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT THE NEW CORPORATION WAS FORMED AND ACQUIRED
ALL THE ASSETS OF HENDERSON AND CRANDALL-MCKENZIE.  THE SIX
STOCKHOLDERS OF HENDERSON ACCEPTED STOCK IN THE NEW CORPORATION AS FULL
PAYMENT FOR SURRENDERING THEIR OLD COMPANY STOCK.  HOLDERS OF NEARLY
ONE-HALF OF THE STOCK OF OLD CRANDALL-MCKENZIE DID NOT ACCEPT NEW
CORPORATION STOCK BUT WERE PAID SOME $355,000 IN CASH FOR THEIR OLD
STOCK.  FN3  THE OTHER OLD CRANDALL-MCKENZIE STOCKHOLDERS WERE
SATISFIED TO ACCEPT ONLY NEW CORPORATION STOCK.  WHEN THE
REORGANIZATION WAS COMPLETE THE NEW CORPORATION STOCK HAD BEEN
DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS:  14,607 SHARES TO OLD CRANDALL-MCKENZIE
STOCKHOLDERS, 9,524 SHARES TO OLD HENDERSON STOCKHOLDERS, AND 25,869
SHARES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THROUGH THE PARTICIPATING UNDERWRITERS. 

THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE OF PROOF THAT THE
EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE OLD CORPORATIONS HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED IN
1928.  RELYING UPON THE RULE OF COMMISSIONER V. SANSOME, 60 F.2D 931,
WHICH, FOR TAX PURPOSES, TREATS A REORGANIZED CORPORATION AS BUT A
CONTINUATION OF ITS PREDECESSORS, THE TAX COURT DETERMINED THAT THE NEW
CORPORATION ACQUIRED ALL THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF ITS PREDECESSORS
IN 1928.  THEN, WITHOUT ANALYZING THE EARNINGS AND DISTRIBUTION HISTORY
OF THE NEW CORPORATION AFTER ITS INCEPTION IN 1928 AND PRIOR TO THE
1940 DISTRIBUTION, THE TAX COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE NEW CORPORATION'S
ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS WERE SUFFICIENT IN 1940 TO MAKE THE
QUESTIONED DIVIDENDS TAXABLE TO RESPONDENTS AS INCOME.  5 T.C. 108. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT REVERSED, 157 F.2D
132, FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN CAMPBELL V. UNITED STATES, 144
F.2D 177, WHICH HAD NARROWLY LIMITED THE SANSOME RULE.  THE THEORY OF
THE CAMPBELL DECISION, SO FAR AS RELEVANT TO THE ONLY QUESTION DIRECTLY
PRESENTED HERE, WAS THAT CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE
PARTICIPATION OF NEW INVESTORS IN THE REORGANIZATION MADE THE NEW
CORPORATION SUCH AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ENTITY THAT IT COULD NOT
PROPERLY BE CALLED, EVEN FOR TAX PURPOSES, A CONTINUATION OF ITS
PREDECESSORS.  FN4  THUS, IT WAS CONCLUDED, EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE
PREDECESSORS WERE NOT ACQUIRED BY THE NEW CORPORATION. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH THE SANSOME
RULE.  329 U.S. 709.  IN THE STATE OF THE RECORD PRESENTED WE FIND IT
NECESSARY TO DECIDE NO MORE THAN WHETHER THE DISTINCTION OF THE SANSOME
RULE MADE BY THE CAMPBELL CASE IS CORRECT. 

A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS HAS LONG BEEN THAT CORPORATE
EARNINGS AND PROFITS SHOULD BE TAXED WHEN THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS WHO OWN THE DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION.  SEE INT. REV. CODE
SECS. 22, 115(A), (B).  THE CONTROLLING REVENUE ACTS IN QUESTION,
HOWEVER, EXEMPT FROM TAXATION DISTRIBUTIONS OF STOCK AND MONEY
DISTRIBUTIONS, AT LEAST IN PART, MADE PURSUANT TO A REORGANIZATION SUCH
AS TRANSPIRED HERE IN 1928.  SEE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SEC. 112(B), (C),
(I)(1)(A); SEC. 115(C), (H), 45 STAT. 791, 816-818, 822-823.  THUS
UNLESS THOSE EARNINGS AND PROFITS ACCUMULATED BY THE PREDECESSOR
CORPORATIONS AND UNDISTRIBUTED IN THIS REORGANIZATION ARE DEEMED TO
HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION AND TAXABLE UPON
DISTRIBUTION BY IT, THEY WOULD ESCAPE THE TAXATION WHICH CONGRESS
INTENDED.  SEE SEC. 112(H), REVENUE ACT OF 1928; MURCHISON'S ESTATE V.
COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 641; UNITED STATES V. KAUFFMANN, 62 F.2D 1045. 

IN COMMISSIONER V. SANSOME, SUPRA, IT WAS HELD THAT IMPLICIT IN THE
TAX EXEMPTION OF REORGANIZATION DISTRIBUTIONS WAS THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS SO EXEMPT WERE ACQUIRED BY THE NEW
CORPORATION AND WERE TAXABLE AS INCOME TO STOCKHOLDERS WHEN
SUBSEQUENTLY DISTRIBUTED.  CONGRESS HAS REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED ITS
APPROVAL OF THE SO-CALLED SANSOME RULE AS A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX LAWS GOVERNING REORGANIZATIONS.  FN5  AND
CONGRESS HAS APPARENTLY BEEN SATISFIED WITH TREASURY REGULATIONS WHICH
FOLLOW THE SANSOME DOCTRINE.  FN6 

OF COURSE, WHEN, AS IN THE SANSOME CASE, ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
OLD CORPORATION SWAP ALL THEIR OLD STOCK FOR IDENTICAL PROPORTIONS OF
THE NEW, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE OLD
HAVE NOT BEEN DISTRIBUTED AND ARE PASSED ON TO THE SUCCESSOR
CORPORATION.  BUT IF THE PREDECESSORS' EARNINGS AND PROFITS ARE NOT
DISTRIBUTED IN THE COURSE OF THE REORGANIZATION, THEY DO NOT DISAPPEAR
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION HAS SOME ASSETS AND OWNERS IN
ADDITION TO THOSE OF THE OLD CORPORATION OR CORPORATIONS.  SEE PUTNAM
V. UNITED STATES, 149 F.2D 721, 726.  THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO TAX
ALL STOCKHOLDERS WHO RECEIVE DISTRIBUTIONS OF CORPORATE EARNINGS AND
PROFITS CANNOT BE FRUSTRATED BY ANY REORGANIZATION WHICH LEAVES
EARNINGS AND PROFITS UNDISTRIBUTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  INSOFAR AS
ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE REORGANIZATION SO AS TO BECOME TAXABLE TO
THE DISTRIBUTEES, THEY, OF COURSE, CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED
BY THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION.  BUT INSOFAR AS PAYMENTS TO THE
PREDECESSOR CORPORATIONS OR THEIR STOCKHOLDERS DO NOT ACTUALLY
REPRESENT TAXABLE DISTRIBUTIONS OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS, THOSE EARNINGS
AND PROFITS MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE BECOME AVAILABLE FOR TAXABLE
DISTRIBUTION BY THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION. 

IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO MAKE THE FACTUAL ANALYSIS OF THIS
RECORD NECESSARY TO TRACE THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS INVOLVED IN THE 1928
REORGANIZATION IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A DETERMINATION BY THE TAX COURT
AND REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  SEE HELVERING V. RANKIN,
295 U.S. 123, 131-132; HELVERING V. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO., 316 U.S.
56, 66-67; COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT CO., 323 U.S.
119, 124.  IT MIGHT BE THAT UPON A FULL FACTUAL ANALYSIS THE TAX COURT
WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE NEW CORPORATION ACQUIRED AND HAD RETAINED
EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF HENDERSON SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE 1940
DISTRIBUTION.  OR THE TAX COURT MAY FIND IT NECESSARY TO MAKE FURTHER
ANALYSIS OF THE 1928 DISTRIBUTIONS TO CRANDALL-MCKENZIE'S OLD
STOCKHOLDERS.  IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS URGED THAT THE CASH PAID FOR
PART OF THE CRANDALL-MCKENZIE STOCK IN 1928 CONSTITUTED A TAXABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF SOME OR ALL OF THE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS. 
THE TAX COURT, HOWEVER, HAS PREVIOUSLY DECLINED TO CONSIDER THESE CASH
PAYMENTS AS SUCH A DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS IN THE ABSENCE
OF PROOF THAT THE RECIPIENTS HAD BEEN TAXED FOR THEM.  BUT EVEN IF IT
WERE PROVED THAT OLD CRANDALL-MCKENZIE STOCKHOLDERS HAD BEEN SO TAXED,
THE FACE AMOUNT OF THAT TAX WOULD NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE EARNINGS
AND PROFITS DISTRIBUTION THEY RECEIVED.  FOR EXAMPLE, PART OR ALL OF
THEIR TAX MAY HAVE REPRESENTED CAPITAL GAIN AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
EARNINGS AND PROFITS.  FN7  OR THE DISTRIBUTION MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE
CONSTITUTED A LIQUIDATION UNDER SEC. 115 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928. 
FN8  IT MAY BE NECESSARY ON REMAND, THEREFORE, FOR THE TAX COURT TO
CONSIDER, IN THE LIGHT OF SECS. 112(C) AND 115 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928, HOW MUCH, IF ANY, OF THE 1928 CASH DISTRIBUTION TO CRANDALL
MCKENZIE STOCKHOLDERS REPRESENTED EARNINGS AND PROFITS DEDUCTIBLE FROM
THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW CORPORATION AVAILABLE
FOR THE 1940 DIVIDEND PAYMENTS. 

THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED WITH
DIRECTIONS THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED TO THE TAX COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE TAX COURT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE A FACT STIPULATION OF
THE PARTIES AS ITS FINDING OF FACT.  EACH OF THE RESPONDENTS HAD BOUGHT
10,000 SHARES OF THE 38,922 SHARES OF THE CORPORATION THEN
OUTSTANDING.  THE DIVIDENDS DECLARED IN 1940 AMOUNTED TO $35,166.25, OF
WHICH EACH OF THE TAXPAYERS RECEIVED $12,500. 

FN2  AT ONE POINT IN THE STIPULATION IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE NEW
CORPORATION HAD "NO EARNINGS OR PROFITS ACCUMULATED FROM DECEMBER 4,
1928 TO DECEMBER 31, 1939," AND NO EARNINGS OR PROFITS IN THE TAXABLE
YEAR 1940.  BUT ELSEWHERE IN THE STIPULATION IT APPEARS THERE MAY HAVE
BEEN SOME $32,000 EARNINGS AND PROFITS ACCUMULATED BETWEEN 1928 AND
1940.  THE TAX COURT APPARENTLY DID NOT RESOLVE THESE CONTRADICTORY
STATEMENTS. 

FN3  SOME OF THE CRANDALL-MCKENZIE STOCKHOLDERS WERE PAID $356.00
PLUS PER SHARE; OTHERS WERE PAID $315.53 PER SHARE FOR IDENTICAL
STOCK. 

A PART OF THE OLD CRANDALL-MCKENZIE STOCK FOR WHICH CASH WAS PAID WAS
BOUGHT FOR $300,000 CASH BY ONE OLD CRANDALL-MCKENZIE STOCKHOLDER FROM
ANOTHER WHILE THE REORGANIZATION WAS BEING TRANSACTED.  THE STOCKHOLDER
WHO MADE THIS PURCHASE THEREUPON SURRENDERED HIS ORIGINAL CRANDALL
MCKENZIE HOLDINGS, TOGETHER WITH HIS RECENTLY PURCHASED SHARES, TO THE
NEW CORPORATION IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARES IN THE NEW CORPORATION AND
$300,000 CASH.  WE DO NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE SALE FROM ONE OLD
STOCKHOLDER TO ANOTHER REPRESENTS A TRANSACTION SEPARATE FROM THE
REORGANIZATION.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE ULTIMATE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS
POINT, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE RESULT WE REACH HERE. 

FN4  THERE WERE TWO INDEPENDENT GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION IN THE
CAMPBELL CASE.  ONE GROUND WAS THAT THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE
PREDECESSOR CORPORATION THERE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN DISTRIBUTED IN THE
COURSE OF THE REORGANIZATION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS STATED
EXPRESSLY THAT IT DID NOT REST ITS DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE ON THIS
THEORY. 

FN5  THE SENATE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SEC. 115(H) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936 CITED THE SANSOME CASE WITH APPROVAL.  IT DESCRIBED
THE NEW SECTION AS NOT CHANGING "EXISTING LAW."  THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED THE AMENDMENT ONLY "IN THE INTEREST OF GREATER CLARITY." 
S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1936) 19.  SEE ALSO SEC. 115(H)
REVENUE ACT 1938, 52 STAT. 447; H.R. REP. 2894, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.
(1940) 41; S. REP. 2114, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. (1940) 25. 

FN6  U.S. TREAS. REG. 94, ART. 115-11(1936); U.S. TREAS. REG. 103,
SEC. 19.115-11(1940).  SEE TAFT V. COMMISSIONER, 304 U.S. 351, 357;
HELVERING V. WINMILL, 305 U.S. 79, 83; DOUGLAS V. COMMISSIONER, 322
U.S. 275, 281-282; BOEHM V. COMMISSIONER, 326 U.S. 287, 291-292. 

FN7  SECTION 112(C)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 PROVIDES IN EFFECT
IF A CASH OR PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION IS MADE IN THE COURSE OF A
REORGANIZATION "THEN THE GAIN, IF ANY, TO THE RECIPIENT SHALL BE
RECOGNIZED, BUT IN AN AMOUNT NOT IN EXCESS OF THE SUM OF SUCH MONEY AND
THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH OTHER PROPERTY."  BUT SEC. 112(C)(2)
MAKES TAXABLE AS DIVIDEND INCOME THAT PORTION OF THE GAIN WHICH
REPRESENTS THE DISTRIBUTEE'S SHARE OF THE DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION'S
EARNINGS AND PROFITS. 

FN8  SECTION 115(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 GOVERNS THE TAXABILITY
OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN LIQUIDATION. 
..END :













RICE V. SANTA FE ELEVATOR CORP., 331 U.S. 218 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 14, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 5, 1947.  - 156 F.2D 33,
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  BY THE 1931 AMENDMENTS TO SECS. 6 AND 29 OF THE UNITED STATES
WAREHOUSE ACT, CONGRESS TERMINATED THE DUAL SYSTEM OF REGULATION
PROVIDED BY THE ORIGINAL ACT AND SUBSTITUTED AN EXCLUSIVE SYSTEM OF
FEDERAL REGULATION OF WAREHOUSES LICENSED UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT WITH
REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECTS COVERED THEREBY, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT
EXPRESS EXCEPTIONS IN THE FEDERAL ACT SUBJECT CERTAIN PHASES OF THE
BUSINESS TO STATE REGULATION.  PP. 229-236, P. 234, N. 12. 

2.  WAREHOUSES LICENSED UNDER THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT NEED
NOT OBTAIN STATE LICENSES OR COMPLY WITH STATE LAWS REGULATING THOSE
PHASES OF THE BUSINESS WHICH ARE REGULATED UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT,
EXCEPT THOSE PHASES OF THE BUSINESS WHICH THE FEDERAL ACT EXPRESSLY
SUBJECTS TO STATE LAW.  PP. 234-236, P. 234, N. 12. 

3.  AS AMENDED, THE FEDERAL ACT IS NOT MERELY PARAMOUNT OVER STATE
LAW IN THE EVENT OF CONFLICT, BUT COMPLETELY SUPERSEDES THE STATE LAW,
EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT FAILS TO COVER THE FIELD OR MAKES EXPRESS
EXCEPTIONS IN FAVOR OF STATE LAW.  PP. 234-236, P. 234, N. 12. 

4.  THE TEST OF APPLICABILITY OF STATE LAWS IS WHETHER THE MATTER ON
WHICH THE STATE ASSERTS THE RIGHT TO ACT IS IN ANY WAY REGULATED BY THE
FEDERAL ACT.  IF IT IS, THE FEDERAL SCHEME PREVAILS THOUGH IT IS A MORE
MODEST, LESS PERVASIVE REGULATORY PLAN THAN THAT OF THE STATE.  P.
236. 

5.  BY THIS TEST, EACH OF THE FOLLOWING MATTERS IS BEYOND THE REACH
OF STATE LAW, SINCE CONGRESS HAS DECLARED ITS POLICY WITH REFERENCE TO
THEM IN THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT (P. 236): 

(1)  JUST AND REASONABLE RATES.  PP. 224, 236. 

(2)  DISCRIMINATION.  PP. 225, 236. 

(3)  DUAL POSITION OF WAREHOUSEMEN.  PP. 225, 236. 

(4)  MIXING HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC GRAIN WITH INFERIOR GRAIN OWNED BY
WAREHOUSEMAN, DELAY IN LOADING GRAIN.  PP. 226, 236. 

(5)  SACRIFICING OR REBATING STORAGE CHARGES, RETAINING DESIRABLE
TRANSIT TONNAGE, UTILIZING PREFERRED STORAGE SPACE.  PP. 227, 236. 

(6)  MAINTENANCE OF UNSAFE AND INADEQUATE ELEVATORS; INADEQUATE AND
INEFFICIENT WAREHOUSE SERVICE.  PP. 227, 236. 

(7)  OPERATING WITHOUT A STATE LICENSE.  PP. 228, 236. 

(8)  ABANDONMENT OF WAREHOUSING SERVICE.  PP. 228, 236. 

(9)  FAILURE TO FILE AND PUBLISH RATE SCHEDULES; RENDERING
WAREHOUSING SERVICE WITHOUT FILING AND PUBLISHING SCHEDULES.  PP. 229,
236. 

6.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ACTUAL CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ACT, THE
STATES ARE FREE TO CONTINUE TO REGULATE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT REGULATED
BY THE FEDERAL ACT, E.G.: 

(1)  FAILURE TO SECURE PRIOR APPROVAL OF STATE OFFICIALS FOR
MANAGEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, SUPPLY, FINANCIAL AND OTHER
CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE WAREHOUSEMAN AND ITS AFFILIATES.  P. 236. 

(2)  FAILURE TO SECURE PRIOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS AND LEASES BETWEEN
THE WAREHOUSEMAN AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES.  PP. 236-237. 

(3)  FAILURE TO SECURE APPROVAL OF ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES.  PP. 236
237. 

RICE ET AL. V. SANTA FE ELEVATOR CORP. ET AL. 

NO. 470.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 472, ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. SANTA
FE ELEVATOR CORP. ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED SUITS BROUGHT BY A WAREHOUSEMAN LICENSED
UNDER THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT TO ENJOIN FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON
A COMPLAINT FILED BY ONE OF HIS CUSTOMERS WITH THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE
COMMISSION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT,
ILL. REV. STATS. 1945, CH. 111 2/3, THE ILLINOIS GRAIN WAREHOUSE ACT,
ILL. REV. STATS. 1945, CH. 114, SECS. 189 ET SEQ., AND ART. XIII OF THE
ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION, AND TO ENJOIN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS
FROM INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE WAREHOUSEMAN TO ENFORCE ANY
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT SUPERSEDED
STATE REGULATION OF WAREHOUSEMEN LICENSED THEREUNDER AS TO THE MATTERS
PRESENTED IN THE COMPLAINT.  156 F.2D 33.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 701.  THE WRITS WERE DISMISSED AS TO CERTAIN
PARTIES INCLUDING THE GREAT LAKES ELEVATOR CORPORATION.  330 U.S. 810. 
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED, P. 238. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
BLACK. 

RESPONDENTS IN THESE TWO CASES ARE WAREHOUSEMEN ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF OPERATING PUBLIC WAREHOUSES FOR THE STORAGE OF GRAIN IN
ILLINOIS.  THEIR WAREHOUSES ARE OPERATED UNDER LICENSES ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE PURSUANT TO THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT,
39 STAT. 486, AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 241 ET SEQ. THE RICE
PARTNERSHIP, ONE OF THE PETITIONERS, IS AN OWNER, SHIPPER, AND DEALER
IN GRAIN AND IS A CUSTOMER OF RESPONDENTS.  THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE
COMMISSION, ANOTHER PETITIONER, HAS CERTAIN REGULATORY JURISDICTION, TO
WHICH WE WILL LATER REFER, OVER PUBLIC GRAIN WAREHOUSES AND OTHER
PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES. 

IN 1944 RICE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE COMMISSION, CHARGING
RESPONDENTS  FN1  WITH MAINTAINING UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, AND EXCESSIVE
RATES AND CHARGES CONTRARY TO THE ILLINOIS PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT, ILL.
REV. STATS. 1945, CH. 111 2/3.  IT CHARGED THEM WITH DISCRIMINATION IN
STORAGE RATES IN FAVOR OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES AND
AGAINST OTHER CUSTOMERS, CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT AND THE
ILLINOIS GRAIN WAREHOUSE ACT, ILL. REV. STATS. 1945, CH. 114, SEC. 189
ET SEQ. IT ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENTS WERE BOTH WAREHOUSEMEN AND DEALERS
IN GRAIN AND BY REASON OF THOSE DUAL AND CONFLICTING POSITIONS HAD
RECEIVED UNDUE PREFERENCES AND ADVANTAGES TO THE DETRIMENT OF AND IN
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PETITIONERS AND OTHER CUSTOMERS OF RESPONDENTS,
FN2  ALL IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT, THE
GRAIN WAREHOUSE ACT, OR THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1870, ARTICLE
XIII.  IT CHARGED RESPONDENTS WITH HAVING FAILED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE,
SAFE, AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC GRAIN WAREHOUSE SERVICE AND FACILITIES, WITH
ISSUING SECURITIES, WITH ABANDONING SERVICE, AND WITH ENTERING INTO
VARIOUS CONTRACTS WITH THEIR AFFILIATES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE
COMMISSION; WITH RENDERING STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING SERVICES WITHOUT
HAVING FILED AND PUBLISHED THEIR RATES; WITH OPERATING WITHOUT A STATE
LICENSE; AND WITH MIXING PUBLIC GRAIN WITH GRAINS OF DIFFERENT GRADES -
ALL IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT OR THE GRAIN
WAREHOUSE ACT.  AMONG THE REMEDIES SOUGHT WERE THE FIXING OF JUST,
REASONABLE, AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY RATES, THE PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REASONABLE, SAFE AND
ADEQUATE STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING SERVICE, AND THE ASSESSMENT OF
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF ILLINOIS LAW, INCLUDING THE CANCELLATION OF
GRAIN WAREHOUSE LICENSES. 

RESPONDENTS MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNITED STATES
WAREHOUSE ACT SUPERSEDED THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE IN
THE MANNER SOUGHT BY THE COMPLAINT.  THE COMMISSION DENIED THE MOTION
AND SET THE CAUSE FOR A HEARING ON THE MERITS.  THEREUPON RESPONDENTS
BROUGHT THESE SUITS IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND TO ENJOIN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS
FROM INSTITUTING ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENTS TO ENFORCE ANY
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER.  MOTIONS OF PETITIONERS TO
DISMISS WERE GRANTED.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,
HOLDING THAT THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT SUPERSEDED STATE
REGULATION OF RESPONDENTS AS TO THE MATTERS PRESENTED IN PETITIONERS'
COMPLAINT.  FN3  156 F.2D 33.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON PETITIONS FOR
WRITS OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 

THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT, AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN 1916(39
STAT. 486), MADE FEDERAL REGULATION IN THIS FIELD SUBSERVIENT TO STATE
REGULATION.  IT PROVIDED IN SEC. 29 THAT "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO CONFLICT WITH, OR TO AUTHORIZE ANY CONFLICT WITH, OR IN
ANY WAY TO IMPAIR OR LIMIT THE EFFECT OR OPERATION OF THE LAWS OF ANY
STATE RELATING TO WAREHOUSES, WAREHOUSEMEN  ...  "  AND SEC. 6 REQUIRED
AN APPLICANT FOR A FEDERAL WAREHOUSE LICENSE TO PROVIDE A BOND "TO
SECURE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF HIS OBLIGATIONS AS A WAREHOUSEMAN"
UNDER STATE AS WELL AS UNDER FEDERAL LAW. 

IN 1931 CONGRESS AMENDED THE ACT.  46 STAT. 1463.  SECTION 29 WAS
AMENDED  FN4  TO PROVIDE THAT ALTHOUGH THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE "IS
AUTHORIZED TO COOPERATE WITH STATE OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS RELATING TO WAREHOUSES, WAREHOUSEMEN," AND
THEIR PERSONNEL, "THE POWER, JURISDICTION, AND AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE WITH
RESPECT TO ALL PERSONS SECURING A LICENSE HEREUNDER SO LONG AS SAID
LICENSE REMAINS IN EFFECT."  SECTION 6 WAS AMENDED TO OMIT THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE BOND BE CONDITIONED ON COMPLIANCE WITH
REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW. 

FIRST.  THE CHIEF MATTERS WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE
THE COMMISSION ARE TREATED AS FOLLOWS BY THE ILLINOIS LAW AND BY THE
FEDERAL ACT: 

(1)  JUST AND REASONABLE RATES.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT
RESPONDENTS' RATES ARE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE.  UNDER THE ILLINOIS
STATUTE PUBLIC UTILITY RATES MUST BE JUST AND REASONABLE; AND THE
COMMISSION AFTER A HEARING MAY FIX RATES WHICH MEET THAT STANDARD. 
SECS. 32, 36, 41, PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT.  THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL ACT TO LICENSE WAREHOUSEMEN  FN5  ON
CONDITION THAT THEY CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT AND THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED THEREUNDER.  FN6  SECS. 4, 9.  EVERY
RECEIPT OF A LICENSED WAREHOUSE MUST DISCLOSE "THE RATE OF STORAGE
CHARGES."  SEC. 18(E).  BEFORE A LICENSE IS GRANTED THE APPLICANT MUST
FILE HIS PROPOSED RATES WITH THE SECRETARY.  REG. 5, SEC. 3.  HE MUST
ALSO FILE ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN RATES BEFORE MAKING THEM EFFECTIVE. 
ID. RATES WHICH ARE "UNREASONABLE OR EXORBITANT" ARE PROHIBITED.  ID.
AND THE SECRETARY MAY, AFTER HEARING, SUSPEND OR REVOKE THE LICENSE IF
"UNREASONABLE OR EXORBITANT CHARGES HAVE BEEN MADE FOR SERVICES
RENDERED."  SEC. 25; REG. 2, SEC. 7. 

(2)  DISCRIMINATION.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENTS
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE PUBLIC AND IN FAVOR OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND ITS AGENCIES BY GRANTING THE LATTER PREFERENTIAL STORAGE RATES. 
THE POWER OF THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION TO FIX RATES, TO WHICH WE HAVE
REFERRED, INCLUDES THE POWER TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATORY RATES.  AND
SEE GRAIN WAREHOUSE ACT SEC. 15.  THE FEDERAL ACT REQUIRES THE
PUBLICATION AND DISCLOSURE OF LICENSED WAREHOUSEMEN'S RATES, AS WE HAVE
SEEN.  SECTION 13 OF THE FEDERAL ACT MAKES IT THE DUTY OF A LICENSED
WAREHOUSEMAN TO RECEIVE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS FOR STORAGE "IN THE USUAL
MANNER IN THE ORDINARY AND USUAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, WITHOUT MAKING ANY
DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PERSONS DESIRING TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF
WAREHOUSE FACILITIES."  AND BY SEC. 25 THE SECRETARY IS GRANTED
AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE ANY LICENSE OF A WAREHOUSEMAN "FOR ANY
VIOLATION OF OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT  ...
" 

(3)  DUAL POSITION OF WAREHOUSEMEN.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED VIOLATIONS
OF ILLINOIS LAW BY ACTS OF RESPONDENTS IN STORING AND DEALING IN THEIR
OWN GRAIN WHILE STORING GRAIN FOR THE PUBLIC.  SEE HANNAH V. PEOPLE,
198 ILL. 77, 64 N.E. 776.  THE FEDERAL ACT REQUIRES EVERY RECEIPT
ISSUED FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BY A LICENSED WAREHOUSEMAN TO DISCLOSE
"IF THE RECEIPT BE ISSUED FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OF WHICH THE
WAREHOUSEMAN IS OWNER, EITHER SOLELY OR JOINTLY OR IN COMMON WITH
OTHERS, THE FACT OF SUCH OWNERSHIP  ...  "  SEC. 18(I).  IN ADDITION,
THE RECEIPTS FOR GRAIN MUST CONTAIN "IN EVENT THE RELATIONSHIP EXISTING
BETWEEN THE WAREHOUSEMAN AND ANY DEPOSITOR IS NOT THAT OF STRICTLY
DISINTERESTED CUSTODIANSHIP, A STATEMENT SETTING FORTH THE ACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP ...  "  REG. 4, SEC. 1(A)(3).  MOREOVER, SEC. 5A (7) OF
THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, 49 STAT. 1491, 1498, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 7A (7)
PROVIDES THAT RECEIPTS ISSUED UNDER THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT
"SHALL BE ACCEPTED IN SATISFACTION OF ANY FUTURES CONTRACT  ...
WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AND NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE WAREHOUSEMAN
ISSUING SUCH RECEIPTS IS NOT ALSO LICENSED AS A WAREHOUSEMAN UNDER THE
LAWS OF ANY STATE OR ENJOYS OTHER OR DIFFERENT PRIVILEGES THAN UNDER
STATE LAW  ...  " 

(4)  MIXING HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC GRAIN WITH INFERIOR GRAIN OWNED BY
RESPONDENTS, DELAY IN LOADING GRAIN.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT THESE
PRACTICES  FN7  ARE PART OF THE ABUSES FLOWING FROM THE CONFLICTING
POSITIONS OF RESPONDENTS AS PUBLIC GRAIN WAREHOUSEMEN AND DEALERS IN
GRAIN.  THEY ARE ALLEGED TO VIOLATE THE RULE OF HANNAH V. PEOPLE,
SUPRA, AND PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT WHICH PROHIBIT ANY
PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY PERSON AND WHICH DISALLOW ANY ACT OF
PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE TO ANY PERSON.  SEC. 38.  AND SEE GRAIN
WAREHOUSE ACT SEC. 17.  SECTION 13 OF THE FEDERAL ACT, AS WE HAVE SEEN,
PROVIDES THAT EVERY LICENSED WAREHOUSEMAN "SHALL RECEIVE FOR STORAGE"
ANY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT "WITHOUT MAKING ANY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN
PERSONS DESIRING TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF WAREHOUSE FACILITIES."  SECTION
15 PROVIDES FOR THE INSPECTION AND GRADING OF FUNGIBLE AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS BY FEDERAL INSPECTORS.  SECTION 16 PERMITS LICENSED
WAREHOUSEMEN "IF AUTHORIZED BY AGREEMENT OR BY CUSTOM" TO MINGLE
FUNGIBLE PRODUCTS WITH OTHER PRODUCTS "OF THE SAME KIND AND GRADE." 
DIFFERENT GRADES."  FN8  SECTION 30 PROVIDES FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR
ANY PERSON WHO FRAUDULENTLY CLASSIFIES, GRADES, OR WEIGHS ANY
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT STORED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  SECTION
21 PROVIDES THAT A WAREHOUSEMAN IN ABSENCE OF SOME LAWFUL EXCUSE SHALL
DELIVER "WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DELAY" THE STORED PRODUCTS ON PROPER
DEMAND. 

(5)  SACRIFICING OR REBATING STORAGE CHARGES, RETAINING DESIRABLE
TRANSIT TONNAGE, UTILIZING PREFERRED STORAGE SPACE.  THESE PRACTICES,
CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT,  FN9  ARE ALLEGED TO BE OTHER MANIFESTATIONS
OF THE EVILS OF A PUBLIC WAREHOUSEMAN ALSO BEING A DEALER IN GRAIN. 
THEY ARE SAID TO BE VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN CENTRAL
ELEVATOR CO. V. PEOPLE, 174 ILL. 203, 208-209, 51 N.E. 254, 256.  AND
THESE PRACTICES ARE SAID TO BE ACTS OF PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE
OUTLAWED BY SEC. 38 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY
MENTIONED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FEDERAL ACT, AS WE HAVE SEEN,
REQUIRES EVERY LICENSED WAREHOUSEMAN TO "RECEIVE FOR STORAGE" ANY
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT "WITHOUT MAKING ANY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PERSONS
DESIRING TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF WAREHOUSE FACILITIES."  SEC. 13. 

(6)  MAINTENANCE OF UNSAFE AND INADEQUATE ELEVATORS; INADEQUATE AND
INEFFICIENT WAREHOUSE SERVICE.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT AS A RESULT
OF THESE PRACTICES FIRE INSURANCE PREMIUMS HAVE BECOME EXORBITANT AND
PROHIBITIVE; THAT OWNERS OF GRAIN HAVE SUFFERED DAMAGES DUE TO THE
DETERIORATION OF GRAIN.  THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION IS GRANTED BROAD
POWERS OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES WHICH ARE ADEQUATE AND
EFFICIENT (SECS. 32, 49, PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT) INCLUDING THE POWER TO
ORDER THE MAKING OF ADDITIONS, EXTENSIONS, REPAIRS, IMPROVEMENTS, OR
CHANGES.  ID., SEC. 50.  BY SEC. 3 OF THE FEDERAL ACT THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE IS AUTHORIZED "TO DETERMINE WHETHER WAREHOUSES FOR WHICH
LICENSES ARE APPLIED FOR OR HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER THIS ACT ARE
SUITABLE FOR THE PROPER STORAGE OF ANY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT  ...  "
OF WAREHOUSEMEN "WITH RESPECT TO THEIR CARE OF AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS STORED" IN LICENSED WAREHOUSES.  FN10  NO LICENSE
WILL BE GRANTED IF THE WAREHOUSE IS FOUND "NOT SUITABLE FOR THE PROPER
STORAGE OF GRAIN."  REG. 2, SEC. 5.  EVERY WAREHOUSEMAN MUST EXERCISE
"SUCH CARE IN REGARD TO GRAIN IN HIS CUSTODY AS A REASONABLY CAREFUL
OWNER WOULD EXERCISE UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS." 
REG. 5, SEC. 8.  EVERY WAREHOUSEMAN MUST KEEP "HIS WAREHOUSE REASONABLY
CLEAN AT ALL TIMES AND FREE FROM STRAW, RUBBISH, OR ACCUMULATIONS OF
MATERIALS THAT WILL INCREASE THE FIRE HAZARD OR INTERFERE WITH THE
HANDLING OF GRAIN."  REG. 5, SEC. 15.    (7)  OPERATING WITHOUT A STATE
LICENSE.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT RESPONDENTS MAY NOT LAWFULLY
OPERATE WITHOUT A LICENSE FROM ILLINOIS.  SEE GRAIN WAREHOUSE ACT SEC.
3.  THE FEDERAL ACT GIVES THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE LICENSES ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.  SECS. 3, 4, 5. 

(8)  ABANDONMENT OF WAREHOUSING SERVICE.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT
RESPONDENTS HAVE ABANDONED SERVICES WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE ILLINOIS
COMMISSION.  APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION TO ABANDON OR DISCONTINUE
SERVICE IS REQUIRED.  SEC. 49A, PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT.  LICENSES ISSUED
UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT "SHALL TERMINATE AS THEREIN (SECS. 4, 9)
PROVIDED, OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ACT AND THE
REGULATIONS THEREUNDER  ...  "  SEC. 5.  BY SEC. 25 THE SECRETARY IS
AUTHORIZED TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE A LICENSE FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THE ACT
OR THE REGULATIONS.  AMONG THE GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION SPECIFIED IN THE
REGULATIONS IS CEASING TO CONDUCT THE LICENSED WAREHOUSE.  REG. 2, SEC.
7. 

(9)  FAILURE TO FILE AND PUBLISH RATE SCHEDULES; RENDERING
WAREHOUSING SERVICE WITHOUT FILING AND PUBLISHING SCHEDULES.  THESE
MATTERS, CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT, ARE REGULATED BY SECS. 33 AND 35 OF
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT.  UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT A WAREHOUSEMAN MUST
FILE HIS RATE SCHEDULES BEFORE A LICENSE ISSUES; PROPOSED CHANGES IN
THEM MUST BE FILED BEFORE MADE; THE CURRENT SCHEDULE OF CHARGES MUST BE
POSTED IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE IN THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE WHERE RECEIPTS
ISSUED BY THE WAREHOUSEMAN ARE DELIVERED TO THE PUBLIC.  REG. 5, SEC.
3; REG. 2, SEC. 6. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, CONGRESS IN 1931 MADE THE "POWER, JURISDICTION, AND
AUTHORITY" OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE CONFERRED BY THE ACT
"EXCLUSIVE WITH RESPECT TO ALL PERSONS SECURING A LICENSE" UNDER THE
ACT, SO LONG AS THE LICENSE REMAINS IN EFFECT.  IT IS ARGUED BY
RESPONDENTS THAT SEC. 29 SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT THE SUBJECTS
WHICH THE SECRETARY'S AUTHORITY TOUCHES MAY NOT BE REGULATED IN ANY WAY
BY ANY STATE AGENCY, THOUGH THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL REGULATION IS NOT AS
BROAD AS THE REGULATORY SCHEME OF THE STATE AND EVEN THOUGH THERE IS OR
MAY BE NO NECESSARY CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT THE STATE AGENCY AND THE
FEDERAL AGENCY DO. ON THE OTHER HAND, PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT SINCE THE
AREA TAKEN OVER BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED, THE REST MAY BE
OCCUPIED BY THE STATES; THAT STATE REGULATION SHOULD NOT GIVE WAY
UNLESS THERE IS A PRECISE COINCIDENCE OF REGULATION OR AN
IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT SINCE WAREHOUSES ENGAGED IN THE STORAGE OF GRAIN FOR
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE ARE IN THE FEDERAL DOMAIN, UNITED STATES
V. HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188, CONGRESS MAY, IF IT CHOOSES, TAKE UNTO
ITSELF ALL REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER THEM (SEE NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO.
V. NEW YORK & PA. CO., 271 U.S. 124), SHARE THE TASK WITH THE STATES,
OR ADOPT AS FEDERAL POLICY THE STATE SCHEME OF REGULATION.  SEE
PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408, 430-436.  THE QUESTION
IN EACH CASE IS WHAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS. 

CONGRESS LEGISLATED HERE IN A FIELD WHICH THE STATES HAVE
TRADITIONALLY OCCUPIED.  SEE MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113; DAVIES
WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 144, 148-149.  SO WE START WITH THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE HISTORIC POLICE POWERS OF THE STATES WERE NOT TO BE
SUPERSEDED BY THE FEDERAL ACT UNLESS THAT WAS THE CLEAR AND MANIFEST
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 272 U.S.
605, 611; ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT BOARD, 315 U.S.
740, 749.  SUCH A PURPOSE MAY BE EVIDENCED IN SEVERAL WAYS.  THE SCHEME
OF FEDERAL REGULATION MAY BE SO PERVASIVE AS TO MAKE REASONABLE THE
INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS LEFT NO ROOM FOR THE STATES TO SUPPLEMENT IT.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 250 U.S. 566, 569;
CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V. PATTERSON, 315 U.S. 148.  OR THE ACT OF
CONGRESS MAY TOUCH A FIELD IN WHICH THE FEDERAL INTEREST IS SO DOMINANT
THAT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM WILL BE ASSUMED TO PRECLUDE ENFORCEMENT OF
STATE LAWS ON THE SAME SUBJECT.  HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52. 
LIKEWISE, THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE OBTAINED BY THE FEDERAL LAW AND THE
CHARACTER OF OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY IT MAY REVEAL THE SAME PURPOSE. 
SOUTHERN R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 236 U.S. 439; CHARLESTON &
W.C.R. CO. V. VARNVILLE CO., 237 U.S. 597; NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V.
WINFIELD, 244 U.S. 147; NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., SUPRA.
OR THE STATE POLICY MAY PRODUCE A RESULT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
OBJECTIVE OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538.  IT
IS OFTEN A PERPLEXING QUESTION WHETHER CONGRESS HAS PRECLUDED STATE
ACTION OR BY THE CHOICE OF SELECTIVE REGULATORY MEASURES HAS LEFT THE
POLICE POWER OF THE STATES UNDISTURBED EXCEPT AS THE STATE AND FEDERAL
REGULATIONS COLLIDE.  TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441; KELLY V.
WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS.,
303 U.S. 177; UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202. 

A FORCEFUL ARGUMENT IS MADE HERE FOR THE VIEW THAT THE ILLINOIS
REGULATORY SCHEME SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUPPLEMENT THE FEDERAL ACT AND
THAT THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE PREVENTED FROM ACTING ON ANY
OF THE MATTERS COVERED BY RICE'S COMPLAINT, UNLESS WHAT THE COMMISSION
DOES RUNS COUNTER IN FACT TO THE FEDERAL POLICY.  THAT IS TO SAY, THE
ACTUAL OPERATION OF THE STATE SYSTEM MAY BE HARMONIOUS WITH THE
"MEASURE OF CONTROL" OVER WAREHOUSEMEN WHICH THE FEDERAL ACT IMPOSES. 
FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17, 23.  THAT, IT IS SAID, CAN
ONLY BE DETERMINED AFTER THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION HAS ACTED. 

THAT ARGUMENT IS ILLUSTRATED IN SEVERAL WAYS.  THE ILLINOIS
COMMISSION MAY FIX RATES; THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE CANNOT.  HE MAY,
TO BE SURE, SUSPEND OR REVOKE LICENSES IF UNREASONABLE OR EXORBITANT
CHARGES ARE MADE.  IF THE COMMISSION FIXES UNREASONABLE OR EXORBITANT
RATES, THERE WILL BE A CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ACT AND THE STATE RATE
ORDER MUST FALL.  BUT UNTIL IT IS KNOWN WHAT THE COMMISSION WILL DO, NO
CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ACT CAN BE SHOWN.  IF INDEED IT REDUCES
RATES, AS MAY BE PRESUMED NO CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ACT WILL LIKELY
EXIST.  ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION CONCERNS THE DUAL POSITION OF THE
WAREHOUSEMEN.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE FEDERAL ACT REQUIRES IS
DISCLOSURE; THAT THE MORE BASIC STATE POLICY OF UPROOTING THE PRACTICE
OF PUBLIC WAREHOUSEMEN STORING AND DEALING IN THEIR OWN GRAIN IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL POLICY OF DISCLOSURE.  ANOTHER
ILLUSTRATION RELATES TO THE PREFERENTIAL AND DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
IN CONNECTION WITH THE REBATE OF STORAGE CHARGES, RETENTION OF
DESIRABLE TRANSIT TONNAGE, AND THE UTILIZATION OF PREFERRED STORAGE
SPACE.  ALL THE FEDERAL ACT REQUIRES IS THAT WAREHOUSEMEN RECEIVE
PRODUCTS FOR STORAGE WITHOUT MAKING DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN PERSONS. 
WHAT THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION PROMULGATES OR REQUIRES, IF THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT ARE ALLOWED TO GO AHEAD, MIGHT INDEED STRENGTHEN
AND BOLSTER THE FEDERAL REGULATORY SCHEME AND IN NO WAY DILUTE, IMPAIR
OR OPPOSE IT.  SUCH REASONING COULD BE APPLIED TO EACH OF THE NINE
CHARGES WHICH WE HAVE SUMMARIZED, EVEN INCLUDING, PERHAPS, THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE LICENSE AND THE FILING AND PUBLISHING OF RATE
SCHEDULES.  SEE UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, SUPRA. 

AT FIRST BLUSH THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL ACT HAS GREAT
PLAUSIBILITY.  IT PRESERVES INTACT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF WAREHOUSE
REGULATION, LEAVES THE STATE FREE TO PROTECT LOCAL INTERESTS, AND
STRIKES DOWN STATE POWER ONLY IN CASE WHAT THE STATE DOES IN FACT
DILUTES OR DIMINISHES THE FEDERAL PROGRAM. 

BUT THE SPECIAL AND PECULIAR HISTORY OF THE WAREHOUSE ACT INDICATES
TO US THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD THWART THE FEDERAL POLICY WHICH
CONGRESS ADOPTED WHEN IT AMENDED THE ACT IN 1931.  PRIOR TO THAT TIME,
AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THE FEDERAL ACT BY REASON OF ITS EXPRESS TERMS
HAD BEEN SUBSERVIENT TO STATE LAWS RELATING TO WAREHOUSES AND
WAREHOUSEMEN.  CONGRESS IN 1931 FOUND THAT CONDITION UNFAVORABLE AND
UNDERTOOK TO CHANGE IT.  IF CONGRESS HAD DONE NO MORE THAN TO ELIMINATE
FROM SEC. 29 THE LANGUAGE WHICH RESULTED IN THE ACT'S SUBSERVIENCE,
THERE WOULD BE A STRONG CASE FOR HOLDING THAT STATE REGULATORY SYSTEMS
WERE NOT TO BE AFFECTED UNLESS THEY COLLIDED WITH THE ACT.  THAT
CONSTRUCTION WOULD RECEIVE REINFORCEMENT FROM THE PROVISION IN SEC. 29
THAT THE SECRETARY "IS AUTHORIZED TO COOPERATE WITH STATE OFFICIALS
CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS" RELATING TO WAREHOUSES AND
WAREHOUSEMEN.  CF. UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, SUPRA, P. 209.  BUT
CONGRESS DID NOT CHOOSE THAT SIMPLE EXPEDIENT.  IT WENT FURTHER AND
ADDED TO SEC. 29 THE MANDATORY WORDS "THE POWER, JURISDICTION, AND
AUTHORITY" OF THE SECRETARY CONFERRED UNDER THE ACT "SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE
WITH RESPECT TO ALL PERSONS" LICENSED UNDER THE ACT.  AND THE ORIGINAL
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 6 REQUIRING A BOND FROM LICENSEES SECURING THE
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS AS WAREHOUSEMEN UNDER STATE
LAW WERE DELETED. 

THESE ACTIONS WERE EXPLAINED IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS. 

THE PREVIOUS SUBSERVIENCE OF THE ACT TO STATE LAW WAS SAID TO HAVE
MILITATED "AGAINST THE FULL VALUE OF FEDERAL WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS FOR
COLLATERAL PURPOSES."  FN11  S. REP. NO. 1775, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS., P.
2.  THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 6 FOLLOWED "NATURALLY" THE REVISION OF SEC.
29.  ID. THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 29 WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE "THE FEDERAL ACT
INDEPENDENT OF STATE LAWS" AND TO "PLACE THE FEDERAL ACT ON ITS OWN
BOTTOM."  ID.  WHILE A WAREHOUSEMAN NEED NOT OPERATE UNDER THE ACT, IF
HE CHOSE TO BE LICENSED UNDER IT, HE WOULD THEN "BE AUTHORIZED TO
OPERATE WITHOUT REGARD TO STATE ACTS AND BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE TO THE
FEDERAL ACT."  ID. WAREHOUSEMEN, HAVING MADE THEIR CHOICE TO OPERATE
UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, SHOULD "THEN BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE
WITHOUT INTERFERENCE ON THE PART OF ANY AGENCY."  ID., PP. 2-3.  OR, AS
STATED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 29
WAS TO MAKE THE ACT "INDEPENDENT OF ANY STATE LEGISLATION ON THE
SUBJECT."  H.R. REP. NO. 2314, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4. 

THAT IS STRONG LANGUAGE.  IT MAKES UNAMBIGUOUS WHAT WAS MEANT BY THE
DELETION FROM SEC. 6 OF ANY REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL LICENSEES COMPLY
WITH STATE LAWS REGULATING WAREHOUSEMEN.  IT MAKES CLEAR THE
SIGNIFICANCE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE SPECIAL WORDING OF SEC. 29.  THE
AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 6 AND SEC. 29, READ IN LIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS, SAY TO US IN PLAIN TERMS THAT A LICENSEE UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT
CAN DO BUSINESS "WITHOUT REGARD TO STATE ACTS"; THAT THE MATTERS
REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL ACT CANNOT BE REGULATED BY THE STATES; THAT ON
THOSE MATTERS A FEDERAL LICENSEE (SO FAR AS HIS INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE ACTIVITIES ARE CONCERNED) IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY ONE
AGENCY AND BY ONE AGENCY ALONE.  FN12  THAT IS TO SAY, CONGRESS DID
MORE THAN MAKE THE FEDERAL ACT PARAMOUNT OVER STATE LAW IN THE EVENT OF
CONFLICT.  IT REMEDIED THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH HAD BEEN ENCOUNTERED IN
THE ACT'S ADMINISTRATION BY TERMINATING THE DUAL SYSTEM OF REGULATION. 
CF. FIRST IOWA HYDRO-ELECTRIC COOP.  V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 328
U.S. 152.  AS STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA, WAREHOUSEMEN
ELECTING TO COME UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT NEED SERVE BUT ONE MASTER, AND
THAT ONE THE FEDERAL AGENCY.  IN RE FARMERS COOPERATIVE ASSN., 69 S.D.
P. 202, 8 N.W.2D P. 562.  THE COOPERATION WHICH THE SECRETARY WAS
AUTHORIZED TO UNDERTAKE WITH STATE OFFICIALS WAS COOPERATION IN
HARMONIZING THE EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL AND THE EXCLUSIVELY STATE SYSTEMS
OF REGULATION. 

IN THIS VIEW OF THE ACT, CONGRESS FORMULATED A POLICY ON NUMEROUS
PHASES OF THE WAREHOUSE BUSINESS.  FN13  THE POLICY ON RATES WAS NOT
THE FIXING OF THEM BUT CONTROL OVER THEM THROUGH ISSUANCE, SUSPENSION,
OR REVOCATION OF LICENSES.  DUAL OR CONFLICTING POSITIONS OF
WAREHOUSEMEN WERE REGULATED BY DISCLOSURE, BY GENERAL PROHIBITIONS
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CUSTOMERS, BY CONTROL OVER THE LICENSE. 
UNSAFE AND INADEQUATE WAREHOUSES WERE PROTECTED BY THE POWER OF THE
SECRETARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE WAREHOUSES OF APPLICANTS OR
LICENSEES WERE SUITABLE.  MIXING OF GRAIN WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER
SPECIFIED CONDITIONS AND PROHIBITED UNDER OTHERS.  ON EACH OF THE NINE
MATTERS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND LISTED ABOVE CONGRESS LEGISLATED. 
AND AS WE READ THE ACT, CONGRESS IN EFFECT SAID THAT THE POLICY WHICH
IT ADOPTED IN EACH OF THE NINE WAS EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHERS; AND THAT IF
A LICENSED WAREHOUSEMAN COMPLIED WITH EACH REQUIREMENT, HE DID ALL THAT
HE NEED DO.  HE COULD NOT BE REQUIRED BY A STATE TO DO MORE OR
ADDITIONAL THINGS OR CONFORM TO ADDED REGULATIONS, EVEN THOUGH THEY IN
NO WAY CONFLICTED WITH WHAT WAS DEMANDED OF HIM UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT. 
WE RECENTLY NOTED THAT CONGRESS CAN ACT SO UNEQUIVOCALLY AS TO MAKE
CLEAR THAT IT INTENDS NO REGULATION EXCEPT ITS OWN.  BETHLEHEM STEEL
CO. V. NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 330 U.S. 767.  IN THESE
FIELDS CONGRESS HAS DONE JUST THAT BY THE 1931 AMENDMENTS. 

THUS, BY ELIMINATING DUAL REGULATION AND SUBSTITUTING REGULATION BY
ONE AGENCY, CONGRESS SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE "FAIR AND UNIFORM BUSINESS
PRACTICES" WHICH, AS NOTED IN FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, SUPRA, P.
23, WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDED ACT. 

THE TEST, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE MATTER ON WHICH THE STATE ASSERTS
THE RIGHT TO ACT IS IN ANY WAY REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL ACT.  IF IT IS,
THE FEDERAL SCHEME PREVAILS THOUGH IT IS A MORE MODEST, LESS PERVASIVE
REGULATORY PLAN THAN THAT OF THE STATE.  BY THAT TEST EACH OF THE NINE
MATTERS WE HAVE LISTED IS BEYOND THE REACH OF THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION,
SINCE ON EACH ONE CONGRESS HAS DECLARED ITS POLICY IN THE WAREHOUSE
ACT.  THE PROVISIONS OF ILLINOIS LAW ON THOSE SUBJECTS MUST THEREFORE
GIVE WAY BY VIRTUE OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.  U.S. CONST., ART. VI, CL.
2.    SECOND.  THERE WERE MATTERS, OTHER THAN THOSE WE HAVE MENTIONED,
WHICH WERE CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

(1)  FAILURE TO SECURE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION FOR
MANAGEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, SUPPLY, FINANCIAL AND OTHER
CONTRACTS BETWEEN RESPONDENTS AND AFFILIATES.  SUCH APPROVAL IS SAID TO
BE REQUIRED BY SEC. 8(A)(3) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT. 

(2)  FAILURE TO SECURE PRIOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACTS AND LEASES BETWEEN
RESPONDENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES.  SUCH APPROVAL IS SAID TO BE
REQUIRED BY SEC. 27 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT.    (3)  FAILURE TO
SECURE APPROVAL OF ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES PAYABLE AT PERIODS OF MORE
THAN TWELVE MONTHS AFTER DATE.  SUCH APPROVAL IS SAID TO BE REQUIRED BY
SEC. 21 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT. 

THESE REGULATORY MEASURES, IT IS SAID, ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT
UNWARRANTED DRAINS ON UTILITY FUNDS OR THE CREATION OF UNSOUND
FINANCIAL STRUCTURES WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE ABILITY OF WAREHOUSEMEN TO
RENDER ADEQUATE SERVICE AT REASONABLE RATES. 

THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT CONTAINS NO PROVISIONS RELATING
EXPRESSLY TO THESE THREE MATTERS.  AND WE ARE TOLD THAT THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE ANY JURISDICTION OVER
THEM.  BUT POSSIBILITIES OF CONFLICT AND REPUGNANCY ARE CONJURED UP.
IT IS STATED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE SECRETARY MIGHT DETERMINE THAT A
WAREHOUSEMAN COULD NOT OFFER SUITABLE WAREHOUSE SERVICE WITHOUT AN
ADDITION TO HIS WAREHOUSE, THAT THE FINANCING OF AN ADDITION MIGHT
REQUIRE THE WAREHOUSEMAN TO ISSUE SECURITIES, THAT STATE DISAPPROVAL OF
THE ISSUE MIGHT PREVENT THE LICENSEE FROM MAKING THE REQUIRED
ADDITIONS.  BUT IT WILL BE TIME TO CONSIDER SUCH ASSERTED CONFLICTS
BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL ACTS WHEN AND IF THEY ARISE.  ANY SUCH
OBJECTIONS ARE AT THIS STAGE PREMATURE.  CONGRESS HAS NOT FORECLOSED
STATE ACTION BY ADOPTING A POLICY OF ITS OWN ON THESE MATTERS.  INTO
THESE FIELDS IT HAS NOT MOVED.  BY NOTHING THAT IT HAS DONE HAS IT
PREEMPTED THOSE AREAS.  AND SEE FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, SUPRA,
P. 23.  IN MORE AMBIGUOUS SITUATIONS THAN THIS WE HAVE REFUSED TO HOLD
THAT STATE REGULATION WAS SUPERSEDED BY A FEDERAL LAW.  PENN DAIRIES,
INC. V. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION, 318 U.S. 261. 

WE ACCORDINGLY AFFIRM IN PART AND REVERSE IN PART THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE WAS ALSO JOINED AS A DEFENDANT IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE ISSUES RAISED
CONCERNING IT ARE CONSIDERED IN THE COMPANION CASES DECIDED THIS DAY,
RICE V. BOARD OF TRADE, AND ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BOARD OF
TRADE, POST, P. 247. 

FN2  THE PREFERENCES WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE ARISEN FROM THE PRACTICE OF
RESPONDENTS IN "(A) MIXING HIGH QUALITY PUBLIC GRAIN WITH INFERIOR
GRAIN OWNED OR ACQUIRED BY THE DEFENDANT WAREHOUSEMAN TO REDUCE GRAIN
DELIVERED TO THE POINT OF MINIMUM QUALITY WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED GRAIN
TRADE.  (B) SACRIFICING PART OF STORAGE CHARGES TO OFFSET PURCHASES AND
SALES OF GRAIN AND OTHERWISE MANIPULATING AND REBATING STORAGE CHARGES
ON GRAIN STORED IN PRIVATE WAREHOUSE SPACE.  (C) FURNISHING TRANSIT
TONNAGE TO OWNERS OF PUBLIC GRAIN OF THE MOST UNDESIRABLE TYPE, WHILE
WITHHOLDING FOR THEIR OWN USE THE MOST DESIRABLE TRANSIT TONNAGE,
THEREBY PLACING THE OWNERS OF PUBLIC GRAIN AT A DISTINCT DISADVANTAGE
IN MERCHANDISING GRAIN IN STORAGE.  (D) PROVIDING FOR STORAGE OF PUBLIC
GRAIN IN OLD WOODEN WAREHOUSES CARRYING EXORBITANT INSURANCE PREMIUM
RATES, WHILE STORING THE WAREHOUSEMEN'S OWN GRAIN IN MODERN WAREHOUSES
WITH REASONABLE INSURANCE PREMIUM RATES.  (E) UNDULY AND IMPRUDENTLY
DELAYING LOADING OF GRAIN AFTER RETURN OF WAREHOUSE RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE PARTICULAR WAREHOUSEMAN, THE TENDER OF PROPER CHARGES AND THE
RECEIPT OF INSTRUCTIONS TO LOAD GRAIN FOR DELIVERY." 

FN3  ACCORD:  IN RE FARMERS CO-OP. ASSN., 69 S.D. 191, 8 N.W.2D 557. 

FN4  THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WHO RECOMMENDED THE 1931 AMENDMENT
TO SEC. 29 GAVE THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 

"THE AMENDMENT SUGGESTED RELATIVE TO SECTION 29 AIMS TO MAKE THE
FEDERAL WAREHOUSE ACT INDEPENDENT OF ANY STATE LEGISLATION ON THE
SUBJECT.  AS THE LAW NOW READS, IT CAN BE NULLIFIED BY STATE
LEGISLATION.  THERE ARE CONFLICTS AT PRESENT BETWEEN THE STATE LAWS AND
THE FEDERAL ACT.  FOR INSTANCE, UNDER CERTAIN STATE LAWS WAREHOUSEMEN
ARE PERMITTED TO SHIP THE PRODUCTS FROM THEIR WAREHOUSES TO A TERMINAL
OR OTHER WAREHOUSE WHILE THE RECEIPTS ARE OUTSTANDING.  THE PRIME
PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL WAREHOUSE ACT IS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO FINANCE,
PROPERLY, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WHILE IN STORAGE.  NO BANKER CAN SAFELY
LOAN ON A WAREHOUSE RECEIPT REPRESENTING A PRODUCT TO BE IN A CERTAIN
WAREHOUSE WHEN, AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT MAY BE MOVED UNDER AUTHORITY OF
STATE LAW TO SOME OTHER AND DISTANT WAREHOUSE.  THE FEDERAL WAREHOUSE
ACT, AS NOW WORDED, SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS REMOVAL OF THE PRODUCT PRIOR
TO THE RETURN OF THE RECEIPTS.  THIS DEPARTMENT EMPHATICALLY BELIEVES
THAT THIS REQUIREMENT OF THE FEDERAL ACT IS SOUND AND THE BANKING
FRATERNITY GENERALLY SHARES THAT SAME FEELING.  IT IS AT ONCE APPARENT
TO YOU, OF COURSE, THAT IF THE FEDERAL ACT MAY BE NULLIFIED BY STATE
LAWS WITH RESPECT TO A FEATURE AS IMPORTANT AS THIS THAT THE VALUE OF
FEDERAL WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS MIGHT BE DESTROYED.  FOR THAT REASON, THEN,
WE HAVE SUGGESTED AMENDING SECTION 29 SO AS TO MAKE THE FEDERAL
WAREHOUSE ACT INDEPENDENT OF ANY STATE LEGISLATION ON WAREHOUSING." 

HEARING BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY ON H.R.
7, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS., P. 10.  AND SEE ID., PP. 22-26. 

INDEPENDENT GIN & W. CO. V. DUNWOODY, 40 F.2D 1, AROSE UNDER THE LAW
AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED.  IT WAS A SUIT BROUGHT BY WAREHOUSEMEN, WHO WERE
LICENSED UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT, TO ENJOIN OFFICIALS OF ALABAMA FROM
ENFORCING PROVISIONS OF ALABAMA WAREHOUSE LAW.  THESE WERE PROVISIONS
REQUIRING PAYMENT OF A GRADUATED LICENSE OR PRIVILEGE TAX, FOR THE
GIVING OF A BOND, FOR THE OBTAINING OF A LICENSE AND FOR SUBMISSION TO
STATE REGULATION CONCERNING THE SUITABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF THE
WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE, THE CHARACTER OF RECORDS TO BE KEPT, THE
INSPECTION OF THE WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS AND THE AUDIT OF THE BOOKS. 
AGR.  CODE ALA. 1927, SECS. 388-407.  THE FEDERAL ACT WAS CONSTRUED NOT
TO EXCLUDE SUCH STATE REGULATION. 

FN5  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT INCLUDES IN THE DEFINITION OF "WAREHOUSE"
EVERY BUILDING "IN WHICH ANY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT IS OR MAY BE STORED
FOR INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE  ...  " 

FN6  THE REGULATIONS ARE CONTAINED IN 7 C.F.R., PART 102. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN8  THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT IMPLEMENT
THESE PROVISIONS.  REG. 5, SEC. 12 PROVIDES THAT LICENSED WAREHOUSEMEN
SHALL ACCEPT GRAIN FOR STORAGE AND DELIVER GRAIN OUT OF STORAGE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE GRADES OF SUCH GRAIN DETERMINED BY A FEDERAL
INSPECTOR.  REG. 5, SEC. 16 PROVIDES THAT SUCH WAREHOUSEMEN SHALL
DELIVER TO THE LAWFUL HOLDER OF A RECEIPT GRAIN OF THE GRADE AND
QUANTITY NAMED IN THE RECEIPT.  REG. 5, SEC. 18 PROVIDES THAT GRAIN OF
DIFFERENT GRADES MAY NOT BE MIXED EXCEPT, INTER ALIA, WHEN THE IDENTITY
OF THE GRAIN TO BE STORED IS TO BE PRESERVED. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN10  AND SEE SEC. 23 REQUIRING REPORTS TO THE SECRETARY "CONCERNING
SUCH WAREHOUSE AND THE CONDITION, CONTENTS, OPERATION, AND BUSINESS
THEREOF" AND PROVIDING THAT THE LICENSEE "SHALL CONDUCT SAID WAREHOUSE
IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ACT AND THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS MADE HEREUNDER." 

FN11  THE SENATE REPORT ALSO STATED, P. 2: 

"BANKERS HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT THAT THIS SECTION OF THE
WAREHOUSE ACT IS ITS WEAKEST FEATURE.  THIS AMENDMENT WILL CLARIFY AND
REMOVE MANY UNCERTAINTIES FROM THE CREDIT MAN'S VIEWPOINT.  AS THE LAW
NOW READS, FOR FEAR THE FEDERAL ACT MAY BE NEGATIVED BY STATE
LEGISLATION OR REGULATION, A BANKER IS OBLIGED TO FOLLOW CLOSELY THE
LAWS OF THE 48 DIFFERENT STATES, THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER, AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS THEREUNDER.  THIS IS AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK.  THE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT WILL PLACE THE FEDERAL ACT INDEPENDENT OF STATE
ACTS AND SHOULD ENHANCE THE VALUE OF RECEIPTS FOR COLLATERAL
PURPOSES." 

AND SEE H.R. REP. NO. 4, 71ST CONG., 1ST SESS.  AS STATED IN NOTE 4,
SUPRA, THE AMENDMENT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
"SO AS TO MAKE THE FEDERAL WAREHOUSE ACT INDEPENDENT OF ANY STATE
LEGISLATION ON WAREHOUSING." 

FN12  THAT IS, OF COURSE, SUBJECT TO THOSE EXPRESS EXCEPTIONS IN THE
WAREHOUSE ACT WHICH SUBJECT PHASES OF THE BUSINESS TO STATE LAW.  SEE
E.G., SECS. 18 AND 20. 

FN13  THE BASIC PROGRAM REFLECTED IN THE ACT WAS DESCRIBED IN H.R.
REP. NO. 60, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1, AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE OUTBREAK OF THE EUROPEAN WAR EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT THE FARM
MARKETING MACHINERY OF THIS COUNTRY IS SERIOUSLY WEAK, INSUFFICIENT,
AND INADEQUATE - A CONDITION WHICH ALREADY HAD BEEN MORE OR LESS
RECOGNAIZED BY STUDENTS OF FARM ECONOMICS.  FROM A VERY THOROUGH STUDY
OF OUR SYSTEM OF MARKETING THERE WILL APPEAR:  (1) A LACK OF ADEQUATE
STORAGE FACILITIES; (2) A LACK OF PROPER CONTROL AND REGULATION OF SUCH
STORAGE SYSTEMS AS EXIST; (3) AN ABSENCE OF UNIFORMITY IN THEIR METHODS
OF OPERATION AND THE FORM OF RECEIPTS ISSUED; (4) A MULTIPLICITY OF
STANDARDS FOR GRADING AND CLASSIFICATION, OR IN SOME CASES AN ENTIRE
ABSENCE OF SUCH STANDARDS FOR GRADING AND CLASSIFICATION; (5) A LACK OF
DISINTERESTED GRADERS, CLASSIFIERS, AND WEIGHERS; (6) A LACK OF PROPER
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STORAGE AND BANKING SYSTEMS OF THE COUNTRY. 

"THE INAUGURATION UNDER THIS BILL OF A PERMISSIVE SYSTEM OF
WAREHOUSES LICENSED AND BONDED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR THE STORAGE OF STAPLE AND NONPERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS UPON WHICH UNIFORM RECEIPTS MAY BE ISSUED, THE WEIGHTS AND
GRADES OF THE PRODUCTS SPECIFIED THEREIN HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY
DETERMINED BY LICENSED WEIGHERS AND GRADERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GOVERNMENT STANDARDS, WOULD GO FAR IN THE DIRECTION OF STANDARDIZING
WAREHOUSE CONSTRUCTION, STORAGE CONDITIONS, INSURANCE, ACCOUNTING,
FINANCING, AND THE HANDLING AND MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

MORE THAN SEVENTY YEARS AGO THIS COURT UPHELD THE REGULATION OF GRAIN
WAREHOUSING RATES BY ILLINOIS AND DID SO DESPITE THE RELATION OF THE
GREAT GRAIN ELEVATORS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94
U.S. 113; AND SEE BUDD V. NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517.  STATE REGULATION OF
GRAIN ELEVATORS HAD BECOME SO MUCH PART OF OUR ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL
FABRIC, AND SO IMPORTANT WAS IT DEEMED THAT THE STATE LAWS REMAIN IN
FULL FORCE, THAT WHEN CONGRESS, IN 1916, PASSED THE FIRST WAREHOUSE ACT
(PART C OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 11, 1916, 39 STAT. 446, 486), IT MADE THAT
ACT SUBORDINATE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAWS.  THE COURT NOW HOLDS
THAT BY THE 1931 AMENDMENT TO THAT ACT, 46 STAT. 1463, CONGRESS NOT
ONLY MADE THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION INDEPENDENT OF STATE LAW TO THE FULL
SCOPE OF FEDERAL REGULATION, BUT ALSO NULLIFIED THE EXTENSIVE NETWORK
OF STATE LAWS REGULATING WAREHOUSES, EVEN THOUGH SUCH LAWS, IN THEIR
ACTUAL OPERATION, IN NOWISE CONFLICT WITH THE OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL
LAW.  THE COURT THEREBY UPROOTS A VAST BODY OF STATE ENACTMENTS WHICH
IN THEMSELVES DO NOT COLLIDE WITH THE LICENSING POWERS OF THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE.  IT DOES SO ON THE GROUND THAT CONGRESS, BY THE 1931
AMENDMENT, PROVIDED THAT "THE POWER, JURISDICTION, AND AUTHORITY
CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE
EXCLUSIVE WITH RESPECT TO ALL PERSONS SECURING A LICENSE HEREUNDER SO
LONG AS SAID LICENSE REMAINS IN EFFECT." 

THE DECISION OF THE CASE TURNS ON THE "POWER, JURISDICTION, AND
AUTHORITY" THAT CONGRESS HAS DEPOSITED WITH THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE TO THE EXCLUSION OF ACTION BY A STATE.  I COULD UNDERSTAND,
THOUGH THAT IS NOT MY VIEW, A HOLDING THAT ONCE A WAREHOUSEMAN CHOOSES
TO OBTAIN A FEDERAL LICENSE, HE IS QUIT OF AMENABILITY TO STATE LAW
RELATING TO THE BUSINESS OF WAREHOUSING AS SUCH.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE AMENDMENT OF 1931 MAY BE READ, WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO ITS LANGUAGE, AS
DESIGNED NOT TO DISPLACE ALL STATE REGULATION OF WAREHOUSING, BUT
MERELY TO PREVENT CONFLICT OR EVEN CONCURRENCE AS TO THE VERY MATTERS
WITH WHICH THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE CAN DEAL.  THIS WOULD LEAVE
STATE LAW TO OPERATE WHERE IT COULD WITHOUT IMPINGING ON THE LIMITED
REGULATORY FUNCTIONS ASSUMED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  SUCH IS MY
VIEW.  THE COURT'S CONCLUSION IS A KIND OF ADMIXTURE OF THESE TWO
VIEWS.  TODAY'S DECISION, APPARENTLY, DOES NOT ALTOGETHER FREE
FEDERALLY LICENSED WAREHOUSES FROM STATE WAREHOUSE REGULATION, NOR YET
SUBJECT THEM TO STATE LAWS, EVEN THOUGH THESE STATE LAWS MAY
HARMONIOUSLY FUNCTION WITHOUT IMPINGING ON THE LICENSING POWERS OF THE
SECRETARY.  TO MY WAY OF THINKING, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CONCEDING AN
UNDEFINED AREA TO THE STATES EQUALLY JUSTIFIES LEAVING TO THE STATES
ALL THAT IS NOT IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE FULL EXERCISE OF THE LICENSING
AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 

THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  RICE, AN OWNER AND SHIPPER
OF GRAIN, FILED WITH THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION A COMPLAINT
CHARGING RESPONDENT WAREHOUSE OWNERS WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS
PUBLIC UTILITY ACT (ILL. REV. STATS. 1945, C. 111-2/3), THE ILLINOIS
GRAIN WAREHOUSE ACT (ILL. REV. STATS. 1945, C. 114 SECS. 293-326(A)),
AND ART. XIII OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION.  THE VIOLATIONS CHARGED
INCLUDE OPERATION WITHOUT A STATE LICENSE, EXACTION OF UNREASONABLE
RATES, FAILURE TO PUBLISH RATES, FAILURE TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
FACILITIES, IMPROPER MIXING OF GRADES, DISCRIMINATION IN RATES, AND
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS AS GRAIN-DEALER AND WAREHOUSEMAN.  THE
RESPONDENTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT FEDERAL
LICENSE PLACED THEM UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
STATES WAREHOUSE ACT, AND THE STATE'S AUTHORITY WAS ENTIRELY
SUPERSEDED.  UPON DENIAL OF THIS MOTION BY THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE
COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS APPLIED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER STATE PROCEEDINGS.  WHAT IS BEFORE US IS
THE RULING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE INJUNCTION.    THIS COURT NOW ORDERS THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION TO BE ENJOINED,
WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE ON OUR PART WHAT IT IS THAT ILLINOIS WOULD EXACT OF
RESPONDENTS.  IT HAS NOT YET BEEN DECIDED BY THE AUTHORITATIVE VOICE OF
ILLINOIS LAW, THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, WHICH OF HER REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS WOULD SURVIVE RESPECT BY THAT COURT FOR THE CONTROLLING
FEDERAL ACT.  THIS COURT HAS HERETOFORE ACTED ON THE WISE RULE THAT IT
WILL NOT "ASSUME IN ADVANCE THAT A STATE WILL SO CONSTRUE ITS LAW AS TO
BRING IT INTO CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR AN ACT OF
CONGRESS."  ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 746.  THE SUIT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS, IN ANY EVENT, PREMATURE.  IT SHOULD, ON
FAMILIAR PRINCIPLES, BE ORDERED HELD IN THE DISTRICT COURT UNTIL THE
CLAIM OF ILLINOIS MAY BE AUTHORITATIVELY ASCERTAINED IN THE STATE
COURTS, THEREBY PERHAPS AVOIDING A CLAIM OF CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND
FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  COMPARE THE SERIES OF CASES FROM THOMPSON V.
MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478, TO SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V.
MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101. 

ON THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY OUR PROBLEM IS TO DETERMINE WHAT
FREEDOM TO REGULATE ITS GRAIN WAREHOUSES HAS BEEN LEFT TO ILLINOIS,
AFTER CONGRESS EXERCISED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OVER SUCH WAREHOUSES
BY ADOPTING A LICENSING SYSTEM TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE UNDER CLOSELY DEFINED AUTHORITY.  UNDERLYING THE PROBLEM IS
THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH AN ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE
WHICH, WHILE IT HAS IMPORTANT RADIATIONS BEYOND STATE BOUNDS, DOES NOT
THEREBY LOSE SPECIAL RELATIONS TO THE STATE IN WHICH IT IS CONDUCTED. 
AND SO WE HAVE ONCE MORE THE DUTY OF JUDICIALLY ADJUSTING THE INTERESTS
OF BOTH THE NATION AND THE STATE, WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT CLEARLY
ASSERTED ITS POWER OF PREEMPTION SO AS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE
SEPARATE INTERESTS OF THE STATES ARE LEFT WHOLLY TO NATIONAL
PROTECTION. 

THE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN STRIKING A
BALANCE, AND NOT TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED MERELY PLATONICALLY, HAVE BEEN
INDICATED IN MY OPINION IN BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK STATE LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 330 U.S. 767.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT DUE REGARD FOR
OUR FEDERALISM, IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION, FAVORS SURVIVAL OF THE
RESERVED AUTHORITY OF A STATE OVER MATTERS THAT ARE THE INTIMATE
CONCERN OF THE STATE UNLESS CONGRESS HAS CLEARLY SWEPT THE BOARDS OF
ALL STATE AUTHORITY, OR THE STATE'S CLAIM IS IN UNMISTAKABLE CONFLICT
WITH WHAT CONGRESS HAS ORDERED. 

ASSUMING THAT THE UNDEFINED SCOPE OF ILLINOIS LAW COVERS ALL THE
RELIEF SOUGHT BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION, IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT
THERE IS ACTUAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE LIMITED FEDERAL CONTROL THROUGH
THE LICENSING DEVICE AND THE POLICY OF ILLINOIS.  INDEED, IT SEEMS TO
BE ADMITTED THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE ACT MIGHT WELL
EFFECTUATE, AT LEAST IN SOME ASPECTS, THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL
STATUTE.  MOREOVER, DESPITE A STATEMENT IN THE HOUSE REPORT THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE 1931 AMENDMENT WAS TO MAKE THE ACT "INDEPENDENT OF ANY
STATE LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT" (H. REP. NO. 2314, 70TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 4), THE COURT DOES NOT FIND THAT IN MAKING "THE POWER,
JURISDICTION, AND AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
...  EXCLUSIVE WITH RESPECT TO ALL PERSONS SECURING A LICENSE"
CONGRESS INSULATED SUCH LICENSED WAREHOUSEMEN FROM FURTHER REGULATION
BY A STATE.  WHAT THE COURT HOLDS IS THAT IF CONGRESS HAS TOUCHED A
SUBJECT MATTER IT BECOMES UNTOUCHABLE BY THE STATE, THOUGH THERE IS
NEITHER PAPER NOR OPERATING CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE SPHERES
OF AUTHORITY.  THUS, WHILE CONGRESS HAS NOT GIVEN TO THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE RATE-FIXING POWER, CONGRESS, IT IS SAID, HAS INFERENTIALLY
DEPRIVED ILLINOIS OF THE POWER SHE HAS EXERCISED FOR SEVENTY YEARS TO
FIX GRAIN WAREHOUSE RATES. 

I CANNOT AGREE.  AS TO RATES, FOR EXAMPLE, CONGRESS HAS MERELY GIVEN
THE SECRETARY POWER TO REVOKE A LICENSE IF ITS HOLDER CHARGES
"UNREASONABLE OR EXORBITANT" RATES.  THE PRACTICAL ASSUMPTION, I
SUBMIT, IS NOT THAT CONGRESS HAS PUT AN END TO THE TRIED MACHINERY FOR
RATE-FIXING BY THE STATES WITHOUT PUTTING ANOTHER IN ITS PLACE.  IT IS
RATHER THAT IT WOULD PERMIT ITS LICENSING AUTHORITY TO AVAIL ITSELF OF
THE FACILITIES OF THE ESTABLISHED RATE-FIXING AGENCIES OF THE STATES
AND COOPERATE WITH THEM IN ASCERTAINING WHETHER ILLINOIS LICENSEES ARE
CHARGING "UNREASONABLE AND EXORBITANT" RATES.  SUCH WOULD BE THE
PRACTICALITIES OF GOVERNMENT WHERE BOTH STATE AND NATION HAVE
CONVERGING YET SEPARATE INTERESTS, AND SUCH AUTHORIZED COLLABORATION
BETWEEN NATIONAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE THE ASSUMPTION IN
CONSTRUING THE ACT UNLESS CONGRESS HAS LEFT NO DOUBT THAT IT WAS SO
BENT ON AVOIDANCE OF ALL POSSIBLE CONFLICT THAT IT LEFT NO ROOM FOR
CONCERT.  INDEED, THE VERY SECTION WHICH CONFERS "EXCLUSIVE" AUTHORITY
UPON THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AUTHORIZES HIM "TO COOPERATE WITH
STATE OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS RELATING TO
WAREHOUSES  ...  " 46 STAT. 1465. 

BY THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT, CONGRESS DID NOT UNDERTAKE A
GENERAL, AFFIRMATIVE REGULATION OF WAREHOUSES, EVEN REMOTELY COMPARABLE
TO ITS REGULATION OF OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES.  THE ACT WAS INITIATED AS
WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS LEGISLATION, WRITTEN WITH THE UNIFORM WAREHOUSE
RECEIPTS ACT IN MIND.  NEITHER THE LANGUAGE NOR THE HISTORY OF THE 1931
AMENDMENT MARKS A DEPARTURE FROM THE BASIC DESIGN AND POLICY OF THE
LEGISLATION.  CONGRESS DID NOT SEE FIT TO ESTABLISH A COMPULSORY,
UNIFORM, NATION-WIDE SYSTEM FOR THE REGULATION OF GRAIN WAREHOUSES,
ESSENTIAL LINKS THOUGH THEY BE IN THE CHAIN OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
NOR DID CONGRESS AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO FORMULATE
AND ENFORCE SUCH A SYSTEM.  EVEN IN ITS LIMITED ASPECT, THE ACT DOES
NOT APPLY TO ALL WAREHOUSES AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  INDEED,
CONGRESS EXERCISED NO COMPULSION OVER ANY WAREHOUSE.  CONGRESS MERELY
OFFERED TO THOSE WHO DESIRED IT THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING A FEDERAL
LICENSEE.  ANYONE WHO WISHED MIGHT CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS A
WAREHOUSEMAN WITHOUT A FEDERAL LICENSE.  AS TO THESE THERE IS NO
QUESTION BUT THAT STATE LAW CONTROLS.  AND EVEN THOSE WHO OBTAIN A
FEDERAL LICENSE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM ANY POSITIVE DUTIES. 
EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN PENALTIES FOR FRAUD, THE ONLY SANCTION FOR
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE FEW DUTIES IMPOSED IS LOSS OF THE LICENSE. 

CONGRESS WAS CONTENT TO ALLOW TWO WAREHOUSEMEN IN SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES TO OPERATE UNDER DIFFERENT RULES IF ONE CHOSE TO SEEK A
FEDERAL LICENSE AND THE OTHER DID NOT.  IT OFFERED PERQUISITES INCIDENT
TO SUCH A LICENSE TO A WAREHOUSEMAN WHO WANTED THEM.  SUCH A SCHEME
DOES NOT PERSUASIVELY INDICATE A PURPOSE TO FREE SUCH A FEDERAL
LICENSEE FROM REGULATIONS TO WHICH OTHERS ARE SUBJECT AND WHICH ARE NOT
IN PRACTICAL CONFLICT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL LAW.  FOR
INSTANCE, HAS CONGRESS REALLY EXPRESSED WITH REASONABLE CLARITY ITS
PURPOSE TO FORBID TO THE STATES THE FIXING OF WAREHOUSE RATES AND THUS
DEPRIVE THE STATES OF A LONG-STANDING REGULATORY POWER WHICH THE UNITED
STATES CHOSE NOT TO ASSUME?  IS IT NOT MORE CONSISTENT WITH A PROPER
REGARD FOR THE INTERPLAY OF STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS TO ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS WAS IMPOSING A MINIMUM OF REGULATION FOR THOSE WHO ACCEPTED
FEDERAL LICENSES RATHER THAN TO ASSUME THAT BY INFERENTIAL
STERILIZATION OF STATE LAWS CONGRESS MEANT TO MAKE ITS OPTIONAL AND
RESTRICTED REQUIREMENTS THE MAXIMUM?  THE "POWER, JURISDICTION, AND
AUTHORITY" OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WHICH AFTER 1931 WAS TO BE
"EXCLUSIVE" ARE GIVEN FULL AND FAIR SCOPE IF MADE TO REFER ONLY TO
POWERS THAT THE SECRETARY CAN EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE.  THERE IS EXCLUSION
OF STATE POWER AS TO WHAT THE ACT, SUBSTANTIVELY SPEAKING, INCLUDES,
BUT NOT EXCLUSION OF A VAST POTENTIAL FIELD OF WAREHOUSE REGULATION,
NOT WITHIN THE ACTIVE RANGE OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION, SIMPLY BECAUSE
CONGRESS DEALT WITH A SMALL PART OF IT, AND THAT ONLY CONDITIONALLY. 

NOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL ACT WHICH
REQUIRES SUCH DESTRUCTIVE CONSEQUENCES TO A LONG-STANDING BODY OF STATE
ENACTMENTS.  WHEN THE 1916 ACT WAS PASSED, CONGRESS EMPHASIZED THE NEED
FOR STATE REGULATION BY SUBORDINATING FEDERAL ACTION TO SUCH
REGULATION.  BY 1931 FORTY STATES HAD LAWS REGULATING WAREHOUSES, LAWS
WHICH AT LEAST IN SOME ASPECT DID NOT CONFLICT WITH THE POWERS VESTED
IN THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  AN IMPRESSIVELY LARGE NUMBER OF
STATES FIXED WAREHOUSE RATES.  THE COURT NOW FINDS IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE 1931 AMENDMENT A PURPOSE TO WIPE OUT ALL THESE
REGULATIONS AS TO THE HOLDERS OF FEDERAL LICENSES. 

THAT AMENDMENT ELIMINATED THE SUBSERVIENCE OF THE FEDERAL ACT TO THE
LAWS OF THE STATES, FOR SUCH SUBSERVIENCE REALLY NULLIFIED THE
PRACTICAL PURPOSES AT WHICH CONGRESS AIMED IN 1916 BY A VOLUNTARY
FEDERAL LICENSING SYSTEM.  THE PURPOSE WAS TO MAKE "THE FEDERAL ACT
INDEPENDENT OF STATE LAWS."  AND TO "PLACE THE FEDERAL ACT ON ITS OWN
BOTTOM."  WHILE SUCH LANGUAGE IN A COMMITTEE REPORT, TREATED MERELY AS
WORDS, MIGHT BE INTERPRETED AS AN IMPLICIT, ROUGHSHOD DECIMATION OF
STATE AUTHORITY OVER ANY ASPECT OF WAREHOUSING WHICH THE FEDERAL
LICENSING SYSTEM TOUCHED, HOWSOEVER MEAGERLY AND INDIRECTLY, IT IS MORE
CONSONANT WITH A DUE REGARD FOR FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS TO FIND THAT
THE DOMINATING OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION CONTROLS WHAT WAS MEANT BY
"INDEPENDENT OF STATE LAWS."  FOR THE DOMINANT OBJECT WAS REMOVAL OF
THOSE MATTERS WHICH WERE ENTRUSTED TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FROM
SUBORDINATION TO STATE ACTION.  BY SAVING THE AUTHORITY WHICH IT HAD
GIVEN TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FROM BEING RENDERED FUTILE BY
STATE LAWS, CONGRESS OUGHT NOT TO BE HELD TO HAVE NULLIFIED STATE LAWS
WHOSE CONTINUING FORCE WOULD NOT HAMPER THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN
EXERCISING THE POWERS THAT CONGRESS GAVE HIM.  EVIDENCE IS LACKING THAT
CONGRESS FELT THAT THE CORRECTION OF THE INADEQUACY WHICH HAD REVEALED
ITSELF REGARDING THE 1916 ACT REQUIRED WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL LICENSE
HOLDERS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF NON-CONFLICTING STATE REGULATION.  SO
LONG AS FULL SCOPE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE AMENDATORY LEGISLATION WITHOUT
UNDERMINING NON-CONFLICTING STATE LAWS, NOTHING BUT THE CLEAREST
EXPRESSION SHOULD PERSUADE US THAT THE FEDERAL ACT WIPED OUT STATE
FIXATION OF RATES AND OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS DEEPLY ROOTED IN THEIR
LAWS.  WHEN NEITHER THE MISCHIEF AT WHICH THE 1931 AMENDMENT WAS
DIRECTED, NOR THE POLICY, TERMS AND STRUCTURE OF WAREHOUSING
LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS IN ITS ENTIRETY NECESSITATE IT, DISREGARD OF
THE DELICATE BALANCE OF FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS OUGHT NOT TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO CONGRESS. 

IF SO FUNDAMENTAL A CHANGE WERE DESIGNED, IT WOULD NORMALLY BE
REFLECTED IN THE FINANCIAL PROVISIONS MADE BY CONGRESS, AND IN THE
REPORTS ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR
ADMINISTERING THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT SHOW NO SUBSTANTIAL
INCREASE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE 1931 AMENDMENT.  FOR THE YEARS
PRECEDING AND THOSE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT, THE
APPROPRIATIONS WERE: 

1929(45 STAT. 539, 563)...............$240,320 

1930(45 STAT. 1189, 1214)............. 256,000 

1931(46 STAT. 392, 419)............... 241,000 

1932(46 STAT. 1242, 1270)............. 312,200 

1933(47 STAT. 609, 638)............... 313,020 

1934(47 STAT. 1432, 1460)............. 296,220 

1935(48 STAT. 467, 494)............... 271,383* 

*THE MORE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN APPROPRIATION AFTER 1935 SEEM TO
BE DUE TO AN INCREASE IN THE VOLUME OF LICENSING, NOT TO AN EXTENSION
OF THE FIELDS OF SUPERVISION. 

MOREOVER, THOSE CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT SEEM TO HAVE
BEEN UNMINDFUL OF THE FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES NOW IMPUTED TO IT.  THE
REPORTS OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, OF THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, AND OF THE CHIEF OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
SERVICE, FOR THE YEARS AFTER 1931, DISCLOSE ADMINISTRATIVE ATTITUDES
AND PRACTICES NO DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF PRECEDING YEARS.  NO MENTION
IS MADE OF THE STATE LAWS WHICH, THE COURT NOW HOLDS, WERE SUPERSEDED
THOUGH NOT CONFLICTING WITH FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.  IN CITING THE
ADVANTAGES INCIDENT TO A FEDERAL LICENSE, NO MENTION APPEARS OF SO
IMPORTANT AN ITEM AS RELIEF FROM EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS. 

THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL ACT SHOWS THAT AT NO TIME HAS CONGRESS
DEEMED IT DESIRABLE TO INTRODUCE COMPULSORY UNIFORMITY OF WAREHOUSE
REGULATION.  BY FREEING FEDERAL LICENSEES FROM OVERRIDING STATE
REGULATION CONGRESS WAS NOT BY INDIRECTION SEEKING TO CREATE SUCH A
UNIFORM SYSTEM.  BUT THE EFFECT OF THE INTERPRETATION NOW GIVEN TO THE
1931 AMENDMENT IS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIFORMITY OF NON-REGULATION, IN
THAT IT INTRODUCES LAISSEZ FAIRE OUTSIDE THE VERY NARROW SCOPE OF THE
SECRETARY'S POWERS.  IT IS EASY TO EXAGGERATE THE DANGER OF UNDESIRABLE
CONSEQUENCES FLOWING FROM A REJECTED CONSTRUCTION.  BUT SURELY ONE DOES
NOT DRAW ON IDLE FEARS IN SUGGESTING THAT AS A RESULT OF TODAY'S
DECISION THE GATES OF ESCAPE FROM DEEPLY ROOTED STATE REQUIREMENTS WILL
BE OPEN, ALTHOUGH CONGRESS ITSELF HAS NOT AUTHORIZED FEDERAL AUTHORITY
TO TAKE OVER THE REGULATION OF SUCH ACTIVITIES AND THOUGH THEIR STATE
ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT AT ALL CONFLICT WITH, BUT RATHER PROMOTES, THE
LIMITED OVERSIGHT OF WAREHOUSES THUS FAR ASSUMED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  THE COURT DISPLACES SETTLED AND FRUITFUL STATE AUTHORITY
THOUGH IT CANNOT REPLACE IT WITH FEDERAL AUTHORITY. 
..END :

















RICE V. CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE, 331 U.S. 247 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 14, 1947.  - DECIDED MAY 5, 1947.  - 156 F.2D 33,
REVERSED. 


1.  BY THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT SO
OCCUPIED AND PREEMPTED THE FIELD OF REGULATION OF BOARDS OF TRADE
DESIGNATED "CONTRACT MARKETS" AS TO DEPRIVE THE STATES OF AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE TRADING IN FUTURES, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATE
REGULATIONS MAY CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS.  PP. 250-255. 

2.  UNTIL A STATE HAS ADOPTED APPLICABLE RULES ON THE SUBJECT, IT
CANNOT BE KNOWN WHETHER THE STATE REGULATIONS WILL CONFLICT WITH THE
FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND ANY CLAIM OF SUPERSEDURE IS PREMATURE.  PP. 255
256. 

RICE ET AL. V. BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO. 

NO. 471.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 473, ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. BOARD
OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED COMPLAINTS SEEKING TO ENJOIN PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION IN WHICH THE CHICAGO BOARD OF
TRADE HAD BEEN JOINED AS A DEFENDANT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  156 F.2D 33.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 701. 
REVERSED, P. 256. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
BLACK. 

THESE ARE COMPANION CASES TO RICE V. SANTA FE ELEVATOR CORP. AND
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION V. SANTA FE ELEVATOR CORP., ANTE, P. 218,
DECIDED THIS DAY.  RESPONDENT IN THESE CASES, THE CHICAGO BOARD OF
TRADE, WAS JOINED AS A DEFENDANT IN THE PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY RICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION.  AS WE HAVE NOTED IN OUR
OPINION IN THE COMPANION CASES, THE RICE COMPLAINT CHARGED THE
DEFENDANT WAREHOUSEMEN WITH MAINTAINING EXCESSIVE, UNREASONABLE AND
DISCRIMINATORY RATES AND PRACTICES, WITH OPERATING INADEQUATE AND
UNSAFE FACILITIES AND SERVICES, AND WITH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OTHER
REQUIREMENTS OF ILLINOIS LAW.  THE BOARD OF TRADE, ORGANIZED UNDER A
SPECIAL ACT OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, OPERATES A COMMERCIAL GRAIN
EXCHANGE AND HAS ADOPTED RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRANSACTIONS
ON THE EXCHANGE.  THE COMPLAINT OF RICE CHARGES (1) THAT THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD ARE UNREASONABLE AND UNSATISFACTORY IN THAT,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THEY FAVOR WAREHOUSEMEN AND SELLERS OF GRAIN AND
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GRAIN BUYERS; AND (2) THAT THE BOARD HAS FROM TIME
TO TIME ADOPTED RULES AND REGULATIONS, RELATING TO THE WAREHOUSING OF
GRAIN IN PUBLIC WAREHOUSES AND THE CUSTODY OF GRAIN IN PRIVATE
WAREHOUSES WITHOUT SECURING THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ILLINOIS
COMMISSION.  UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, IT IS ALLEGED, SUCH RULES MAY NOT
BECOME OPERATIVE WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION; AND THE COMMISSION
IN TURN HAS AUTHORITY TO ADOPT AND PROMULGATE RULES OF ITS OWN.  ILL.
REV. STATE.  1945, CH. 114, SEC. 194B.  FN1  RELIEF ASKED ON THIS PHASE
OF THE PROCEEDING WAS A DECLARATION THAT THE BOARD'S RULES, WHICH DID
NOT HAVE THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION, WERE VOID; AND AN ORDER
THAT THE BOARD ADOPT AND SUBMIT RULES WHICH WERE FAIR, EQUITABLE,
ADEQUATE AND SPECIFIC. 

THE BOARD MOVED TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON
THE GROUND THAT THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, 49 STAT. 1491, AS AMENDED,
7 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ., AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER SUPERSEDED THE
PROVISIONS OF ILLINOIS LAW WHICH RICE SOUGHT TO INVOKE.  THAT MOTION
WAS DENIED.  THEREUPON, THESE SUITS WERE INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT TO ENJOIN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTS.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  156 F.2D 33.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON
CERTIORARI. 

THE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE IS "THE GREATEST GRAIN MARKET IN THE
WORLD."  BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, 33.  ITS ACTIVITIES HAVE
BEEN REGULATED BY CONGRESS BY THE FUTURE TRADING ACT, 42 STAT. 187, BY
THE GRAIN FUTURES ACT, 42 STAT. 998, AND BY THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE
ACT.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 421, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE BOARD OF TRADE
CLAIMS A STATUS UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT WHICH, IT IS
CONTENDED, PRECLUDES THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION FROM ENTERTAINING THE RICE
COMPLAINT. 

THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT PROVIDES COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION OF
TRADING IN FUTURES ON COMMODITY EXCHANGES WHICH ARE DESIGNATED AS
"CONTRACT MARKETS" BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  THE SECRETARY IS
AUTHORIZED TO DESIGNATE ANY BOARD OF TRADE AS A CONTRACT MARKET ON ITS
COMPLIANCE WITH PRESCRIBED TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  SEC. 5.  THE CHICAGO
BOARD OF TRADE HAS BEEN SO DESIGNATED.  THE ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT EACH
CONTRACT MARKET WILL ADOPT RULES GOVERNING TRANSACTIONS IN FUTURES
CONTRACTS.  APPROVAL OF A BOARD OF TRADE AS A CONTRACT MARKET MAY BE
MADE ONLY WHEN "THE GOVERNING BOARD THEREOF PROVIDES FOR THE PREVENTION
OF MANIPULATION OF PRICES AND THE CORNERING OF ANY COMMODITY BY THE
DEALERS OR OPERATORS UPON SUCH BOARD."  SEC. 5(D).  THE ACT CONTAINS
PROVISIONS WHICH PROHIBIT CERTAIN TYPES OF TRADING PRACTICES (SEE FOR
EXAMPLE SECS. 4B, 4C, 4H) AND OTHER PROVISIONS (AS FOR EXAMPLE THOSE
DEALING WITH EXCESSIVE SPECULATION, SEE SEC. 4A) WHICH LIMIT OR CONTROL
BUYING AND SELLING ON CONTRACT MARKETS.  BUT WE ARE NOT PARTICULARLY
CONCERNED WITH THOSE PHASES OF THE FEDERAL REGULATORY SCHEME.  SO FAR
AS THE PROBLEM OF SUPERSEDURE IS CONCERNED, THIS ACT IS UNLIKE THE ONE
CONSIDERED IN THE COMPANION CASES, AS WE SHALL SEE.  MOREOVER, THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RICE WITH THE ILLINOIS
COMMISSION AGAINST THE BOARD OF TRADE RELATES ONLY TO THE WAREHOUSING
OF GRAIN.  ON THAT MATTER THE ACT HAS ONLY TWO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS. 

IT PROVIDES IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT RECEIPTS ISSUED UNDER THE UNITED
STATES WAREHOUSE ACT, 39 STAT. 486, AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 241 ET
SEQ., SHALL BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION IN SATISFACTION OF
FUTURES CONTRACTS MADE ON OR SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF THE CONTRACT
MARKET, EVEN THOUGH THE WAREHOUSEMAN IS NOT ALSO LICENSED UNDER STATE
LAW OR ENJOYS DIFFERENT PRIVILEGES THAN THOSE ACCORDED BY STATE LAW,
PROVIDED INTER ALIA, THAT "THE WAREHOUSE IN WHICH THE COMMODITY IS
STORED MEETS SUCH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS AS MAY BE IMPOSED BY SUCH
CONTRACT MARKET ON OTHER WAREHOUSES AS TO LOCATION, ACCESSIBILITY, AND
SUITABILITY FOR WAREHOUSING AND DELIVERY PURPOSES."  SEC. 5A (7). 
MOREOVER, EACH CONTRACT MARKET HAS SOME CONTROL OVER WAREHOUSES IN
WHICH OR OUT OF WHICH ANY COMMODITY IS DELIVERABLE ON ANY CONTRACT FOR
FUTURE DELIVERY MADE ON OR SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF THE CONTRACT
MARKET.  THUS THE CONTRACT MARKET MUST REQUIRE THE WAREHOUSE OPERATORS
"TO MAKE SUCH REPORTS, KEEP SUCH RECORDS, AND PERMIT SUCH WAREHOUSE
VISITATION" AS THE SECRETARY MAY PRESCRIBE.  SEC. 5A (3).  ALL RULES
AND REGULATIONS OF A CONTRACT MARKET, AND ALL CHANGES AND PROPOSED
CHANGES, MUST BE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY.  SEC. 5A (1). 

ENOUGH OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED TO SHOW THAT IT IMPOSES ON
CONTRACT MARKETS, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY, (1) DUTIES OF
PREVENTING OR CONTROLLING CERTAIN TRADING PRACTICES AND OF SUPERVISING
TRANSACTIONS IN FUTURES CONTRACTS, AND (2) SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR
STANDARDIZING DELIVERABLE WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS AND ASSURING THEIR
INTEGRITY.  THE FAILURE OR REFUSAL OF A BOARD OF TRADE TO COMPLY WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR ANY OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
SECRETARY IS CAUSE FOR SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE
BOARD TO ACT AS A CONTRACT MARKET.  SEC. 5B.  AND SEE SEC. 6(A). 
CRIMINAL PENALTIES ARE PROVIDED FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT, OR
OF RULES OR REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY, BY A BOARD OF TRADE OR ANY OF
ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES.  SECS. 6B, 9.  THE
SECRETARY HAS THE POWER TO "MAKE SUCH INVESTIGATIONS AS HE MAY DEEM
NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS REGARDING THE OPERATIONS OF BOARDS OF
TRADE  ...  "  SEC. 8.  AND THE SECRETARY IS GIVEN BROAD RULE-MAKING
POWERS.  SEC. 8A (5). 

THE SECRETARY HAS PROMULGATED NUMEROUS RULES AND REGULATIONS COVERING
A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS PERTAINING TO CONTRACT MARKETS AND THEIR
ACTIVITIES.  FN2  THE FOLLOWING ARE RELEVANT HERE, SINCE THEY RELATE TO
THE WAREHOUSING OF GRAIN:  (1) A REQUIREMENT THAT EACH CONTRACT MARKET
FILE INFORMATION CONCERNING WAREHOUSES IN WHICH OR OUT OF WHICH
COMMODITIES ARE DELIVERABLE IN SATISFACTION OF FUTURES CONTRACTS MADE
ON THE CONTRACT MARKET, SEC. 1.43; AND (2) A PROVISION THAT EACH
CONTRACT MARKET SHALL REQUIRE OPERATORS OF WAREHOUSES WHOSE RECEIPTS
ARE DELIVERABLE IN SATISFACTION OF FUTURES CONTRACTS MADE ON OR SUBJECT
TO THE RULES OF THE CONTRACT MARKET (A) TO KEEP SPECIFIED RECORDS, (B)
TO FURNISH INFORMATION CONCERNING STOCKS OF COMMODITIES IN WAREHOUSES,
(C) TO PERMIT VISITATION OF THE PREMISES AND INSPECTION OF THE BOOKS
AND RECORDS BY DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  SEC. 1.44. 

IN PURSUANCE OF THE LATTER REGULATION OF THE SECRETARY, THE BOARD OF
TRADE ENACTED THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH RICE CHALLENGED IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION.  ONE RULE PROVIDES THAT
DELIVERIES SHALL BE MADE BY DELIVERY OF WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY
WAREHOUSES WHICH HAVE BEEN DECLARED "REGULAR" BY THE BOARD.  RULE 281. 
THE BOARD'S REGULATIONS RELATING TO WAREHOUSING OF GRAIN SET FORTH THE
PROCEDURE AND STANDARDS BY WHICH WAREHOUSES MAY BE MADE "REGULAR." 
FN3 

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE FEDERAL SCHEME OF REGULATION OF FUTURES
TRADING EXTENDS TO THE WHOLE FUTURES CONTRACT - TO ITS SATISFACTION, AS
WELL AS TO ITS EXECUTION.  IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE ACT PROVIDES
SOME CONTROL OVER (1) WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS WHICH ARE ACCEPTABLE IN
SATISFACTION OF SALES AND PURCHASES ON THE CONTRACT MARKET, AND (2) THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE WAREHOUSES WHOSE RECEIPTS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR
SUCH DELIVERIES.  BUT THERE IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE
ACT, AS THERE IS IN THE UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT, SEE RICE V. SANTA
FE ELEVATOR CORP., SUPRA, A DECLARATION BY CONGRESS THAT THE SYSTEM
WHICH IT HAS ADOPTED FOR THE REGULATION OF TRADING ON CONTRACT MARKETS
IS EXCLUSIVE OF STATE REGULATION.  HERE CONGRESS HAS GONE NO FURTHER
THAN TO WRITE INTO THE ACT PROHIBITIONS AND CONTROLS AND TO GIVE THE
FORCE OF LAW BOTH TO THEM AND TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY
MADE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  WITH EXCEPTIONS
WHICH WE WILL NOTE, STATE REGULATIONS WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT OR WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
SECRETARY WOULD BE SUPERSEDED UNDER THE FAMILIAR RULE. 

CONGRESS TREATED THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE
DIFFERENTLY FROM THOSE OF THE SECRETARY.  IT DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO PUT
BEHIND THEM CIVIL OR CRIMINAL SANCTIONS N4.  IT MERELY FURNISHED
STANDARDS (OR AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY TO DO SO) TO WHICH THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD WERE TO CONFORM.  AND WHILE THERE IS PROVISION
IN SOME INSTANCES FOR DISAPPROVAL OF THE BOARD'S RULES BY THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE (SEE SEC. 4C), THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR HIS APPROVAL OR
DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULES CHALLENGED IN THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDING. 
INSOFAR AS THOSE RULES ARE CONCERNED, ALL THAT THE ACT AND THE
REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY DO IS TO DEFINE THE AREA IN WHICH THE
BOARD MAY PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR WAREHOUSES WHOSE RECEIPTS ARE
ACCEPTABLE IN SATISFACTION OF FUTURES CONTRACTS.  BY THE TERMS OF SEC.
5A (7) THE REQUIREMENTS FIXED BY THE BOARD MUST BE "REASONABLE" AND
THEY MUST RELATE TO "LOCATION, ACCESSIBILITY, AND SUITABILITY FOR
WAREHOUSING AND DELIVERY PURPOSES."  IF THE BOARD TRANSCENDS THOSE
BOUNDS, IT VIOLATES THE ACT.  SEE SEC. 6B.  BUT WITHIN THAT AREA IT HAS
CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION.  FN5 

HENCE IT SEEMS TO US THAT NO ACTION OF THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION WITHIN
THE ZONE WHERE THE BOARD HAS FREEDOM TO ACT WOULD CONTRAVENE THE
FEDERAL SCHEME OF REGULATION.  FN6  IT WOULD BE QUITE A DIFFERENT
MATTER IF THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION ADOPTED RULES FOR THE BOARD WHICH
EITHER VIOLATED THE STANDARDS OF THE ACT OR COLLIDED WITH RULES OF THE
SECRETARY.  BUT SUCH COLLISION IS NOT NECESSARY; AND WE CANNOT ASSUME
THAT THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION WILL TAKE ANY ACTION WHICH IN ANY WAY
IMPAIRS THE FEDERAL REGULATORY SCHEME. 

THERE IS OTHER INTRINSIC EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT PRECLUDE
STATE REGULATION WHICH SUPPLEMENTS OR BOLSTERS THE FEDERAL SCHEME. 
DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ON CONTRACT MARKETS.  AND SEC. 4C PROVIDES THAT
"NOTHING IN THIS SECTION OR SECTION 4B SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO IMPAIR ANY
STATE LAW APPLICABLE TO ANY TRANSACTION ENUMERATED OR DESCRIBED IN SUCH
THE OCCASION FOR THE EXERCISE BY THE STATES OF THEIR HISTORIC POLICE
POWERS.  FEDERAL REGULATION IN THOSE FIELDS WOULD THEREFORE ALMOST
CERTAINLY CONFLICT WITH STATE LAWS.  THUS THE PROVISION IN SEC. 4C
SERVES THE FUNCTION OF PREVENTING SUPERSEDURE AND PRESERVING STATE
CONTROL IN TWO AREAS WHERE STATE AND FEDERAL LAW OVERLAP.  WHERE
CONGRESS USED SUCH CARE TO PRESERVE SPECIFIC STATE AUTHORITY, EVEN WHEN
IT DUPLICATED FEDERAL REGULATION, IT IS A FAIR INFERENCE NOT ONLY THAT
SUPERSEDURE WAS TO TAKE ITS NATURAL COURSE WHERE RIGHTS NOT SAVED TO
THE STATES WERE INVOLVED, FIRST IOWA HYDRO-ELECTRIC COOP.  V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, 328 U.S. 152, 175, BUT ALSO THAT NON-CONFLICTING
STATE AUTHORITY WAS LEFT UNDISTURBED.  MOREOVER THE PROVISION IN SEC.
12 OF THE ACT THAT THE SECRETARY "MAY COOPERATE WITH ANY DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT, ANY STATE  ...  OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
THEREOF" SUPPORTS THE INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT DESIGN A
REGULATORY SYSTEM WHICH EXCLUDED STATE REGULATION NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.  SEE TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, 454;
UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 209.    RESPONDENTS' CLAIM
OF SUPERSEDURE IS, THEREFORE, PREMATURE.  UNTIL IT IS KNOWN WHAT RULES
THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION WILL APPROVE OR ADOPT, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN
WHETHER THERE WILL BE ANY CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL LAW.  ANY CLAIM OF
SUPERSEDURE CAN BE PRESERVED IN THE STATE PROCEEDINGS.  AND THE
QUESTION OF SUPERSEDURE CAN BE DETERMINED IN LIGHT OF THE IMPACT OF A
SPECIFIC ORDER OF THE STATE AGENCY ON THE FEDERAL ACT OR THE
REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY THEREUNDER.  ONLY IF THAT PROCEDURE IS
FOLLOWED CAN THERE BE PRESERVED INTACT THE WHOLE STATE DOMAIN WHICH IN
ACTUALITY FUNCTIONS HARMONIOUSLY WITH THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.  FOR EVEN
ACTION WHICH SEEMS PREGNANT WITH POSSIBILITIES OF CONFLICT MAY, AS
CONSUMMATED, BE WHOLLY BARREN OF IT.  REVERSED.    FN1  THAT SECTION
PROVIDES:  "NO RULE OR REGULATION OF ANY BOARD OF TRADE OR GRAIN
EXCHANGE WHICH RELATES TO THE WAREHOUSING OF GRAIN IN ANY PUBLIC GRAIN
WAREHOUSE, OR WHICH RELATES TO THE CUSTODY OF GRAIN IN ANY PRIVATE
WAREHOUSE, OR THE USE OR NEGOTIATION OF CUSTODIAN'S RECEIPTS FOR SUCH
GRAIN, SHALL BE OR BECOME OPERATIVE UNTIL SUCH RULE OR REGULATION IS
APPROVED BY THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE
COMMISSION MAY ADOPT AND PROMULGATE REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING
THIS ACT EFFECTIVE." 

FN2  THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE TO BE FOUND IN 17 C.F.R., PART 1. 

FN3  THESE REGULATIONS PROVIDE, INTER ALIA, THAT THE WAREHOUSES MUST
BE "CONVENIENTLY APPROACHABLE BY VESSELS OF ORDINARY DRAFT," HAVE
"CUSTOMARY SHIPPING FACILITIES," AND CHARGE RATES NOT EXCEEDING A
SPECIFIED MAXIMUM (REG. 1620); MUST FILE A BOND SATISFACTORY TO THE
BOARD (REG. 1621); MUST HAVE PROPRIETORS OR MANAGERS IN "UNQUESTIONED
GOOD FINANCIAL STANDING AND CREDIT" (REG. 1624); MUST BE "CONNECTED BY
RAILROAD TRACKS WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE EASTERN RAILWAY LINES" (REG.
1625); AND MUST BE "PROVIDED WITH MODERN IMPROVEMENTS AND APPLIANCES
FOR THE CONVENIENT AND EXPEDITIOUS RECEIVING, HANDLING, AND SHIPPING OF
GRAIN IN BULK."  (REG. 1626.) 

ANY "REGULAR" WAREHOUSE MAY BE DECLARED "IRREGULAR" BY THE BOARD AT
ANY TIME FOR VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS OR THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD (REG. 1623), OR BECAUSE OF ANY IMPORTANT
CHANGE IN THE CONDITIONS OF ANY WAREHOUSE OR DISREGARD OR EVASION OF
THE REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING REGULAR WAREHOUSES (REG. 1629). 

FN4  WE THEREFORE HAVE NO ATTEMPT HERE TO ENDOW PRIVATE GROUPS WITH
LAW-MAKING FUNCTIONS.  CF. SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S.
495; UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 225-227;
PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 350-352. 

FN5  IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE UNDER THE
COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT IS NOT IN ISSUE, AND WE INTIMATE NO OPINION UPON
IT. 

FN6  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE OR
THOSE WHICH THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE ON IT ARE
AUTOMATICALLY INVALID INSOFAR AS THEY RELATE TO WAREHOUSES.  FOR IN
RICE V. SANTA FE ELEVATOR CORP., SUPRA, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE UNITED
STATES WAREHOUSE ACT EXCLUDES ALL STATE REGULATION, NO MATTER HOW
COMPLEMENTARY, OF THOSE SUBJECTS TOUCHED BY THE FEDERAL REGULATORY
SCHEME.  BUT THE SITUATION HERE IS QUITE DIFFERENT.  IN THE FIRST
PLACE, WE ARE DEALING WITH A MEASURE OF REGULATION OVER WAREHOUSE
RECEIPTS NOT FEDERAL WAREHOUSEMEN; AND THE REGULATIONS WHICH THE BOARD
OF TRADE IS AUTHORIZED TO FORMULATE DO NOT CARRY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, CONGRESS BY GRANTING THE BOARD OF
TRADE FREEDOM TO REGULATE WITHIN THIS NARROW FIELD HAS BY THAT VERY ACT
NEGATIVED ANY INFERENCE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS PREEMPTED IT BY
REQUIREMENTS OF ITS OWN. 
..END :




















MCCULLOUGH V. KAMMERER CORP., 331 U.S. 96 


NO. 755.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1947.  - 156 F.2D
343, REVERSED. 


IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT, AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN UNDER SEC. 129
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 227A, FROM AN "ORDER"
DENYING ON THE MERITS A MOTION TO SET ASIDE (BECAUSE OF UNLAWFUL USE OF
THE PATENT) AN EARLIER DECREE WHICH HELD THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED
AND WAS "FINAL EXCEPT FOR THE ORDERING OF AN ACCOUNTING."  PP. 98-100. 

(A)  SINCE IT LEFT NOTHING TO BE DONE EXCEPT TO CONDUCT AN
ACCOUNTING, THE ORDER FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN SEC. 129, AS AMENDED.  P.
99. 

(B)  UNDER RULE 54 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FACT
THAT THE COURT DESIGNATED ITS ACTION AS AN "ORDER" INSTEAD OF A
"DECREE" IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 99. 

(C)  NOR IS SUCH AN ORDER RENDERED NON-APPEALABLE BECAUSE ONE APPEAL
HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN.  PP. 99-100. 

MCCULLOUGH V. KAMMERER CORPORATION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT, A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED
AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 129 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 227A, FROM AN ORDER DENYING A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A DECREE HOLDING
THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED AND ORDERING AN ACCOUNTING.  156 F.2D
343.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 712.  REVERSED, P. 100. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN AN EARLIER PHASE OF THIS PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT A PATENT OWNED
BY RESPONDENT KAMMERER WAS HELD VALID AND INFRINGED BY THE PETITIONER. 
AN ACCOUNTING FOR PROFITS AND DAMAGES WAS ORDERED.  39 F.SUPP.  213. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  138 F.2D 482.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER WHETHER A LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RESPONDENTS
KAMMERER AND BAASH-ROSS CONTAINED RESTRICTIONS WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO
PUBLIC POLICY AND UNLAWFUL SO AS TO BAR RECOVERY AGAINST PETITIONER. 
ON ORAL ARGUMENT OF THE CASE HERE IT DEVELOPED THAT NO FINDINGS OF FACT
HAD BEEN MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON THIS ISSUE, NOR HAD THE QUESTION
BEEN PRESENTED TO OR PASSED ON BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  WE
THEREFORE DISMISSED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  323 U.S. 327. 

ON REMAND, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT DISTURB ITS ORIGINAL
AFFIRMANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE PATENT WAS VALID
AND INFRINGED.  BUT ON MOTION OF THE PETITIONER, THE COURT AMENDED ITS
JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE DISTRICT COURT TO
"ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR MOTIONS  ...  TO MODIFY OR SET ASIDE ITS ORDER
OR ORDERS FOR  ...  DAMAGES AND ACCOUNTINGS THEREOF, AND TAKE SUCH
ACTION THEREON AS IT MAY DETERMINE" CONCERNING PETITIONER'S CONTENTION
THAT RESPONDENTS' UNLAWFUL USE OF THE PATENT SHOULD BAR ALL RECOVERY
FOR INFRINGEMENT.  148 F.2D 525, 526.  THEREAFTER THE PETITIONER
PRESENTED A MOTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN WHICH HE ALLEGED
RESPONDENTS HAD, CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, USED THE PATENT TO
RESTRAIN TRADE, FIX PRICES, AND SUPPRESS COMPETITION.  RELYING ON THESE
ALLEGATIONS, PETITIONER ASKED THE COURT TO STAY THE ACCOUNTING AND TO
RENDER A FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT
RESPONDENTS HAD ILLEGALLY MISUSED THE PATENT.  WITHOUT INTRODUCING
FURTHER EVIDENCE BOTH PARTIES SUBMITTED THE MOTION TO THE DISTRICT
COURT ON FACTS ALREADY IN THE RECORD.  AFTER AN ARGUMENT, THE COURT
MADE EXTENSIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AGAINST PETITIONER, CONCLUDED THAT HIS
DEFENSE HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND ENTERED AN ORDER DENYING HIS
MOTION TO STAY THE ACCOUNTING AND TO ENTER A FINAL JUDGMENT DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED PETITIONER'S
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISPOSITION OF HIS MOTION ON THE
GROUND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER WAS "NOT A DECREE, FINAL OR
OTHERWISE."  156 F.2D 343, 345.  WE HOLD THAT THE APPEAL WAS
ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED. 

THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1927, 44 STAT. 1261, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 227A,
PROVIDES THAT "WHEN IN ANY SUIT IN EQUITY FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF
LETTERS PATENT FOR INVENTIONS, A DECREE IS RENDERED WHICH IS FINAL
EXCEPT FOR THE ORDERING OF AN ACCOUNTING, AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN FROM
SUCH DECREE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  ...  "  THE OBJECT OF THIS
1927 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 129 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT
PARTIES COULD TAKE APPEALS IN PATENT EQUITY INFRINGEMENT SUITS WITHOUT
BEING COMPELLED TO AWAIT A FINAL ACCOUNTING.  THE REPORTS OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES ON THE MEASURE CALLED ATTENTION TO THE LARGE
EXPENSES FREQUENTLY INVOLVED IN SUCH ACCOUNTINGS AND THE LOSSES
INCURRED WHERE RECOVERIES WERE ULTIMATELY DENIED BY REVERSAL OF DECREES
ON THE MERITS.  FN1 AND SEE BRICK V. A.I. NAMM & SONS, INC., 21 F.2D
179.  IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED DEPARTURE IN THIS
TYPE OF CASE FROM THE USUAL PRACTICE UNDER WHICH APPEALS ARE NOT
ALLOWED UNTIL RENDITION OF A FINAL JUDGMENT WHICH DISPOSES OF ALL
PHASES OF A CONTROVERSY.  SEE CATLIN V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 229,
233. 

NOR DO THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THIS ORDER WAS RENDERED
MAKE IT ANY THE LESS APPEALABLE.  WHETHER OR NOT THE DISTRICT COURT
WOULD HAVE HAD AUTHORITY ON ITS OWN MOTION TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDINGS TO
CONSIDER THE ALLEGED MISUSE OF THE PATENT, SEE MARCONI WIRELESS
TELEGRAPH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 1, 47-48, IT WAS PROPER FOR IT
TO DO SO AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AMENDED ITS JUDGMENT AS IT
DID.  AFTER REOPENING THE CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE FULL
CONSIDERATION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE MOTION AND DECIDED IT
UPON THE MERITS.  SEE BOWMAN V. LOPERENA(, 311 U.S. 262.  THERE WAS
THEN NOTHING THAT REMAINED TO BE DONE EXCEPT TO CONDUCT AN ACCOUNTING. 
THEREFORE, THE RESULTING ORDER FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN SEC. 129 AS
AMENDED.  THE FACT THAT THE COURT DESIGNATED ITS ACTION AS AN "ORDER"
RATHER THAN A "DECREE" IS NOT OF CRUCIAL SIGNIFICANCE.  SEE RULE 54,
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  FN2  FOR THOUGH CALLED AN "ORDER," ITS
BINDING EFFECT IN DISPOSING OF THE QUESTION BEFORE IT IS THE SAME AS
THOUGH IT HAD BEEN ENTITLED A "DECREE."  NOR IS THE ORDER RENDERED NON
APPEALABLE BECAUSE ONE APPEAL HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN, ANY MORE THAN IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE FIRST DECREE BEEN REVERSED IN TOTO AND THIS
ORDER ENTERED AFTER THE REVERSAL.  SINCE THE ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENTS' CLAIM IS, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 129, "FINAL EXCEPT FOR THE ORDERING OF AN ACCOUNTING,"
IT IS APPEALABLE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS EXPRESSED THE BELIEF THAT THE
LEGISLATION "IS NEEDED TO PREVENT A GREAT BURDEN OF EXPENSE TO
LITIGANTS IN ACTIONS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF PATENTS, WHERE AN
ACCOUNTING IS INVOLVED.  UNDER PRESENT PROCEDURE APPEALS MAY BE TAKEN
FROM THE INTERLOCUTORY DECREE UPHOLDING THE PATENT BUT NOT UNTIL A FULL
ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN MADE TO THE COURT.  UNDER THIS BILL SUCH APPEAL CAN
BE TAKEN FROM SUCH INTERLOCUTORY DECREE  ...  SO AS TO OBVIATE THE COST
OF AN ACCOUNTING IN THE EVENT THE CASE IS REVERSED ON APPEAL."  H.R.
REP. NO. 1890, 69TH CONG., 2D SESS. 1(1927). 

THE SENATE COMMITTEE EMPHASIZED THE SAME EXPENSE INCIDENT TO
CONDUCTING AN ACCOUNTING BEFORE THE MERITS HAD BEEN DETERMINED ON
APPEAL.  IT APPARENTLY WENT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SEC. 129 ALREADY
AUTHORIZED APPEALS PRIOR TO ACCOUNTING FROM AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
INFRINGEMENT.  IT WANTED TO PERMIT AN APPEAL PRIOR TO ACCOUNTING
WHETHER THERE WAS AN EFFECTIVE INJUNCTION OUTSTANDING OR NOT, EVEN
THOUGH A PATENT HAD EXPIRED MAKING INAPPROPRIATE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
ITS CONTINUED VIOLATION.  SEN. REP. NO. 1319, 69TH CONG., 2D SESS.
1(1927). 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE PRECISE SITUATION WHICH THE SENATE COMMITTEE
THOUGHT THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO AVOID IN THAT IT HAPPENS HERE THAT THE
PATENT HAS EXPIRED.  BUT BOTH REPORTS INDICATE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
ACT WAS TO PERMIT APPEALS WHENEVER EVERYTHING BUT AN ACCOUNTING HAD
BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. 

FN2  "'JUDGMENT' AS USED IN THESE RULES INCLUDES A DECREE AND ANY
ORDER FROM WHICH AN APPEAL LIES."  RULE 54, F.R.C.P.
..END :




















FLEMING V. RHODES, 331 U.S. 100 


NO. 682.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1947.  - REVERSED. 


1.  THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 751, CONFERS POWER UPON THIS
COURT TO REVIEW, ON DIRECT APPEAL, A RULING AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH IS MADE IN THE
APPLICATION OF A STATUTE TO A PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, EVEN THOUGH THE
STATUTE IS NOT CHALLENGED AS A WHOLE.  PP. 102-104. 

2.  UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED
BY THE PRICE CONTROL EXTENSION ACT OF JULY 25, 1946, INJUNCTIONS TO
PREVENT THE FUTURE EVICTION OF TENANTS IN DEFENSE AREAS MAY BE GRANTED
BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT, BETWEEN THE EXPIRATION OF THE PRICE
CONTROL ACT ON JUNE 30, 1946, AND THE ENACTMENT OF THE PRICE CONTROL
EXTENSION ACT ON JULY 25, 1946, JUDGMENTS FOR RESTITUTION OF THE LEASED
PROPERTY HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THE LANDLORDS IN STATE COURTS.  PP. 104
107. 

3.  FEDERAL REGULATION OF FUTURE ACTION BASED UPON RIGHTS PREVIOUSLY
ACQUIRED BY THE PERSON REGULATED IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
EVEN THOUGH SUCH RIGHTS WERE ACQUIRED BY JUDGMENTS.  P. 107. 

4.  IN A SUIT BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT TO PREVENT THE EVICTION OF TENANTS IN A
DEFENSE AREA, SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE DOES NOT BAR AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST STATE OFFICIALS TO PREVENT THE EXECUTION OF STATE JUDGMENTS OF
EVICTION.  PP. 107-108. 

FLEMING, TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR, V. RHODES, SHERIFF, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT TO PREVENT EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS OF
EVICTION RENDERED BY STATE COURTS AGAINST TENANTS IN A DEFENSE AREA, A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DENIED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, ON THE GROUND
THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 18 OF THE PRICE CONTROL EXTENSION ACT OF
JULY 25, 1946, MAKING THE ACT EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY ON JUNE 30, 1946,
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  ON DIRECT APPEAL, THIS COURT ORDERED SUBSTITUTION
OF THE TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
(329 U.S. 688) AND REVERSED THE JUDGMENT, P. 108. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL IS FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DENYING
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS.  APPELLANT'S PREDECESSOR SUED CERTAIN LANDLORD
APPELLEES AND THE SHERIFF AND A CONSTABLE OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, IN
THAT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR AN INJUNCTION TO STOP EVICTION OF
TENANTS UNDER STATE JUDGMENTS THAT WERE RECOVERED BY THE LANDLORDS IN
SUITS FOR RESTITUTION OF LEASED PROPERTY.  FN1  THE STATE SUITS WERE
FILED BY THE LANDLORDS WITHOUT THE CERTIFICATES REQUIRED BY THE RENT
REGULATION FOR HOUSING TO MAINTAIN SUCH ACTIONS.  8 F.R. 7322; 10 F.R.
11666; 11 F.R. 5824, 8106.  THE STATE JUDGMENTS WERE ENTERED AFTER JUNE
30, 1946, THE TERMINATION DATE OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, AND
BEFORE JULY 25, 1946, THE DATE OF THE APPROVAL BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
PRICE CONTROL EXTENSION ACT.  AS THERE WAS NO FEDERAL PRICE CONTROL
STATUTE DURING THIS PERIOD, THESE JUDGMENTS WILL BE TREATED AS VALID
WHEN GRANTED. 

THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, DENYING THE MOTION AS TO THE
LANDLORDS AND DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER, WAS BASED ON THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, AS APPLIED TO THESE STATE JUDGMENTS, OF THAT
PORTION OF SEC. 18 OF THE PRICE CONTROL EXTENSION ACT OF JULY 25, 1946,
THAT DECLARED, "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT AS OF JUNE
30, 1946,  ...  "  FN2  THIS PROVISION THE COURT THOUGHT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL (1) BECAUSE THE WORDS AFFECTED THE STATE JUDGMENTS
RETROACTIVELY BY BRINGING THEM UNDER THE EXTENSION ACT  FN3  AND (2)
BECAUSE THE VESTED RIGHTS, CREATED BY THE PRIOR JUDGMENTS IN THE
LANDLORDS TO OBTAIN RESTITUTION OF THEIR LEASED PROPERTIES, COULD NOT
BE DESTROYED BY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION.  APPARENTLY IT WAS FELT THAT
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FORBADE SUCH REGULATION
OF THE INCIDENTS OF JUDGMENTS.  THE QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO WHETHER
THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 751, CONFERS POWER UPON THIS COURT
TO REVIEW, ON DIRECT APPEAL, A RULING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHEN THE RULING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS MADE IN
THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO A PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, AS IN THIS
APPEAL, RATHER THAN UPON THE CHALLENGED STATUTE AS A WHOLE.  A READING
OF THE FIRST THREE SECTIONS OF THE ACT CONVINCES US THAT CONGRESS
GRANTED LITIGANTS IN COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES A DIRECT APPEAL TO
THIS COURT FROM DECISIONS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY ACT OF
CONGRESS AS APPLIED IN THE PENDING LITIGATION. 

THE FIRST SECTION ONLY AUTHORIZES THE INTERVENTION OF THE UNITED
STATES IN PRIVATE LITIGATION, "WHENEVER THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY
ACT OF CONGRESS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DRAWN IN QUESTION  ...
" FN4  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH APPEALS.  THE SECOND SECTION ALLOWS
AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A FINAL OR INTERLOCUTORY ORDER ONLY WHEN
THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY, THROUGH THE PRECEDING SEC. 1 OR
ORIGINALLY, AND THE DECISION IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
FEDERAL LAW.  IT PROVIDES FOR EXPEDITION IN OUR DETERMINATION OF THE
APPEAL.  SECTION THREE RELATES TO THE ALLOWANCE OR REFUSAL OF
INJUNCTIONS STAYING ACTS OF CONGRESS IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON THE GROUND
OF REPUGNANCY TO THE CONSTITUTION, AND REQUIRES A THREE-JUDGE COURT,
EXPEDITION IN DETERMINATION AND NOTICE TO THE UNITED STATES.  THE
SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR PROMPT REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS GRANTING OR DENYING
"IN WHOLE OR IN PART" SUCH AN INJUNCTION IS LIMITED TO APPLICATIONS FOR
STAYS OF ACTS OF CONGRESS BECAUSE OF THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  THUS
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL ACTS COMES TO US BY DIRECT APPEAL,
UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, ONLY WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS A
PARTY TO THE LITIGATION BELOW OR AN INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT.  THIS ENABLES
THE UNITED STATES TO EXERCISE LARGE DISCRETION, BY ITS DETERMINATION AS
TO WHETHER OR NOT TO INTERVENE, AS TO WHAT CASES ARE REVIEWABLE
DIRECTLY IN THIS COURT.  FN5  THE CONGRESS INTENDED PROMPT REVIEW OF
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL ACTS.  FN6  SINCE SEC. 1 ALLOWS
INTERVENTION WHEN THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT IS "DRAWN IN
QUESTION" AND SEC. 2 ALLOWS APPEAL AFTER INTERVENTION, IT FOLLOWS THAT
THERE IS AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER THAT INVALIDATES, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
A STATUTE AS APPLIED.  TO LIMIT THE GENERALITY OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.
2 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, TO CASES THAT INVOLVED ONLY THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY AS A WHOLE OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTES MIGHT SERIOUSLY
IMPAIR PROMPT DETERMINATIONS OF MATTERS OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST. 
LITIGANTS MAY CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE ONLY IN SO
FAR AS IT AFFECTS THEM.  FN7  WE HOLD THAT JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL
FROM THE CHALLENGED ORDER IS CONFERRED UPON THIS COURT BY 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 349A. 

THE COURT WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
BARRED ANY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE OFFICIALS. 

THE APPELLANT SOUGHT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST FUTURE EVICTION OF THESE
TENANTS THROUGH WRITS OF RESTITUTION OR OTHER PROCESS BY WHICH EVICTION
MIGHT BE CONSUMMATED.  SECTIONS 2(D), 4(A) AND 205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, AND RENT REGULATION SEC. 6(A),
SET OUT BELOW.  FN8  SUCH AN INJUNCTION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE RENT REGULATION.  FN9  THE
PROPERTIES INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION WERE DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE HERETOFORE REFERRED TO
FOR HOUSING DO NOT AUTHORIZE THESE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.  THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACTS, GENERALLY CONSIDERED, IS
UNQUESTIONED.  BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503.  THE SOLE INQUIRY
FOR US, AT THIS POINT, IS WHETHER IT WAS ERRONEOUS FOR THE DISTRICT
COURT TO REFUSE TO ALLOW THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, BECAUSE TO DO SO
WOULD INVADE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE LANDLORD APPELLEES TO
RETAIN THE FRUITS OF THEIR "VESTED RIGHTS" IN THE VALID JUDGMENTS. 

AS THE APPELLANT IS UNDERTAKING TO ENJOIN FUTURE EVICTION OF THE
TENANTS OR LESSEES, OUR CONSIDERATION IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE PROVISO OF
SEC. 18 OF THE EXTENSION ACT, SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN10  THE
RETROACTIVE PROVISION OF SEC. 18, QUOTED ABOVE AT NOTE 2, IS INAPPOSITE
FOR THE SAME REASON.  IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE STATE JUDGMENTS WERE
OBTAINED BEFORE OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EXTENSION ACT.  THE
EFFORT OF THE APPELLANT IS TO ENJOIN FUTURE PROCEEDINGS FOR EVICTION
AFTER THE ACQUISITION BY THE LANDLORD APPELLEES THROUGH VALID JUDGMENTS
OF WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT CHARACTERIZED AS "VESTED RIGHTS."  FEDERAL
REGULATION OF FUTURE ACTION BASED UPON RIGHTS PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED BY
THE PERSON REGULATED IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  SO LONG AS
THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES THE SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION, THE
FACT THAT ITS PROVISIONS LIMIT OR INTERFERE WITH PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED
RIGHTS DOES NOT CONDEMN IT.  IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL REGULATION IS NOT
GAINED THROUGH FOREHANDED CONTRACTS.  WERE IT OTHERWISE THE PARAMOUNT
POWERS OF CONGRESS COULD BE NULLIFIED BY "PROPHETIC DISCERNMENT."  N11
THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY JUDGMENTS HAVE NO DIFFERENT STANDING.  FN12  THE
PROTECTION OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN DEFENSE-AREAS THROUGH THE PRICE
CONTROL ACTS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THESE
PRIOR JUDGMENTS.  THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GRANTED. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID AS TO THE CONTENTION THAT SEC. 265 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE FORBIDS AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE EXECUTION OF STATE
JUDGMENTS BY STATE OFFICERS.  FN13  A CONTENTION WAS MADE BEFORE THIS
COURT IN SIMILAR CASES LAST TERM THAT SEC. 265 FORBADE A FEDERAL
INJUNCTION TO STAY SUCH PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF A STATE.  THE
ARGUMENT WAS NOT ACCEPTED.  WE THOUGHT THAT SEC. 205(A) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 CREATED AN EXCEPTION TO SEC. 265. 
FN14  NO SPECIFIC MENTION WAS MADE IN THESE OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER
STATE OFFICERS WHO WERE PARTIES IN THE CASE COULD BE ENJOINED. 
HOWEVER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY GROUND, UNDER SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
TO DIFFERENTIATE AS TO STAYS AGAINST A SHERIFF OR A CONSTABLE OR STAYS
AGAINST THE PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION.  WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
POWER TO STAY THE SHERIFF AND CONSTABLE.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  JURISDICTION OF SUITS FOR SUCH INJUNCTIONS IS CONFERRED UPON THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES BY SEC. 205 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 23, 58 STAT. 632, 59 STAT. 306, AND THE
PRICE CONTROL EXTENSION ACT OF JULY 25, 1946, 60 STAT. 664. 

FN2  PRICE CONTROL EXTENSION ACT OF JULY 25, 1946, SUPRA. 

FN3  AS THIS OPINION RELIES UPON THE VALIDITY UNDER THE PRICE CONTROL
ACTS OF THE PROHIBITION OF FUTURE EVICTION OF TENANTS IN SEC. 6 OF THE
RENT REGULATION FOR HOUSING, 8 F.R. 7322; 10 F.R. 11666; 11 F.R. 5824,
8106, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER FURTHER WHETHER THE MERE INCLUSION
OF THESE PAST JUDGMENTS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE PRICE CONTROL
LEGISLATION, BY ADVANCING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, IS
CONSTITUTIONAL.  COMPARE BLODGETT V. HOLDEN(, 275 U.S. 142, 146, AND
UNTERMYER V. ANDERSON, 276 U.S. 440, 445, WITH UNITED STATES V. HUDSON,
299 U.S. 498. 

FN4  THE LAST THREE WORDS WERE CONSTRUED IN DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V.
BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282, 288, TO ALLOW APPEALS UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
237 TO THIS COURT FROM FINAL JUDGMENTS OF STATE COURTS OF LAST RESORT
UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF STATE STATUTES AGAINST A CHALLENGE TO THEIR
APPLICATION TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE OF THEIR REPUGNANCE TO
FEDERAL LAW.  THIS WAS A SETTLED CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WORDS.  SEE
KEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 100, 124. 

FN5  GARMENT WORKERS V. DONNELLY CO., 304 U.S. 243, 249-50. 

FN6  H. REP. NO. 212, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2: 

"THE IMPORTANCE TO THE NATION OF PROMPT DETERMINATION BY THE COURT OF
LAST RESORT OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTS OF
THE CONGRESS REQUIRES NO COMMENT." 

S. REP. NO. 963, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 3-4: 

"THE UNITED STATES IS NOT EXCLUDED BY THE PRINCIPLE THUS STATED, FROM
DRAWING THE JUDICIAL POWER TO ITS PROPER ASSISTANCE EITHER AS AN
ORIGINAL PARTY, OR AS AN INTERVENOR, WHEN, IN PRIVATE LITIGATION,
DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MAY AFFECT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE,
MAY BE IN RESPECT OF MATTERS WHICH BY THE CONSTITUTION ARE ENTRUSTED TO
THE CARE OF THE NATION, AND CONCERNING WHICH THE NATION OWES A DUTY TO
ALL THE CITIZENS OF SECURING TO THEM THEIR COMMON RIGHTS." 

FN7  BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 442; VIRGINIAN R. CO.
V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 558; CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301
U.S. 495, 513. 

FN8  EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 23, 58 STAT. 632,
59 STAT. 306: 

ACTION IS NECESSARY OR PROPER IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF
THIS ACT, HE MAY,  ...  REGULATE OR PROHIBIT  ...  RENTING OR LEASING
PRACTICES (INCLUDING PRACTICES RELATING TO RECOVERY OF THE POSSESSION)
IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, WHICH IN
HIS JUDGMENT ARE EQUIVALENT TO OR ARE LIKELY TO RESULT IN  ...  RENT
INCREASES,  ...  INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." 

AGREEMENT, LEASE, OR OTHER OBLIGATION HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ENTERED
INTO, FOR ANY PERSON TO  ...  DO OR OMIT TO DO ANY ACT, IN VIOLATION OF
ANY REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER SECTION 2,  ...  OR TO OFFER, SOLICIT,
ATTEMPT, OR AGREE TO DO ANY OF THE FOREGOING." 

PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTS OR PRACTICES WHICH
CONSTITUTE OR WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF SECTION 4
OF THIS ACT, HE MAY MAKE APPLICATION TO THE APPROPRIATE COURT FOR AN
ORDER ENJOINING SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES, OR FOR AN ORDER ENFORCING
COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH PROVISION, AND UPON A SHOWING BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
THAT SUCH PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY SUCH ACTS OR
PRACTICES A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING ORDER, OR
OTHER ORDER SHALL BE GRANTED WITHOUT BOND." 

RENT REGULATION FOR HOUSING, 8 F.R. 7322, 10 F.R. 11666; 11 F.R.
5824, 8106: 

TENANT.  SO LONG AS THE TENANT CONTINUES TO PAY THE RENT TO WHICH THE
LANDLORD IS ENTITLED, NO TENANT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ANY HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS, BY ACTION TO EVICT OR TO RECOVER POSSESSION, BY
EXCLUSION FROM POSSESSION, OR OTHERWISE, NOR SHALL ANY PERSON ATTEMPT
SUCH REMOVAL OR EXCLUSION FROM POSSESSION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH
TENANT HAS NO LEASE OR THAT HIS LEASE OR OTHER RENTAL AGREEMENT HAS
EXPIRED OR OTHERWISE TERMINATED, AND REGARDLESS OF ANY CONTRACT, LEASE,
AGREEMENT OR OBLIGATION HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ENTERED INTO WHICH
PROVIDES FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UPON THE TENANT'S CONFESSION FOR BREACH
OF THE COVENANTS THEREOF OR WHICH OTHERWISE PROVIDES CONTRARY HERETO,
... "    FN9  PIKE & FISCHER, OPA SERVICE, RENT, INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
RENT REGULATION FOR HOUSING, SEC. 6-VI, ISSUED JULY 25, 1946: 

"INTERPRETATION 6-VI.  EVICTIONS PENDING ON JULY 25, 1946. 

"THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, ON JULY 25,
1946, WAS EXTENDED BY STRIKING OUT 'JUNE 30, 1946' AND SUBSTITUTING
'JUNE 30, 1947,' AS THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE ACT.  SECTION 18
PROVIDES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT AS OF JUNE
30, 1946.  IN THIS SECTION A SAVINGS CLAUSE WAS INSERTED FOR THE
PROTECTION OF PERSONS WHO HAD ACTED CONTRARY TO THE REGULATION DURING
THE INTERIM PERIOD BETWEEN JUNE 30, 1946, AND JULY 25, 1946.  THIS
SAVINGS CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT NO ACT OR TRANSACTION OCCURRING BETWEEN
SAID DATES SHALL BE DEEMED A VIOLATION.  AS A RESULT ANY EVICTION WHICH
OCCURRED DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE ACT OR
REGULATION.  BY REASON OF THIS THE TENANT WHO HAS BEEN IN FACT EVICTED
DURING THIS INTERIM PERIOD RECEIVES NO PROTECTION.  IF, HOWEVER, HE IS
IN POSSESSION ON JULY 25, 1946, HE IS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE
EVICTION PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION AND IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE
REGULATION FOR THE LANDLORD ON OR AFTER THAT DATE TO ATTEMPT TO EVICT
BY COURT PROCESS OR OTHERWISE EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 6 OF THE REGULATION." 

FN10  "PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NO ACT OR TRANSACTION, OR OMISSION OR
FAILURE TO ACT, OCCURRING SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 30, 1946, AND PRIOR TO THE
DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, OR THE STABILIZATION
ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, OR OF ANY REGULATION, ORDER, PRICE SCHEDULE,
OR REQUIREMENT UNDER EITHER OF SUCH ACTS:  ...  " 

FN11  SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 391; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
R. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 219 U.S. 467; PHILADELPHIA, B. & W.R. CO. V.
SCHUBERT, 224 U.S. 603; CALHOUN V. MASSIE, 253 U.S. 170; NORMAN V.
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, 303-11; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
HENWOOD, 307 U.S. 247, 259. 

FN12  WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., 304 U.S. 502, 509; PARAMINO
LUMBER CO. V. MARSHALL, 309 U.S. 370. 

FN13  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 265: 

"THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION SHALL NOT BE GRANTED BY ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF A STATE, EXCEPT IN
CASES WHERE SUCH INJUNCTION MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY ANY LAW RELATING TO
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY." 

FN14  PORTER V. LEE, 328 U.S. 246; PORTER V. DICKEN, 328 U.S. 252;
BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 510. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

IN CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION, GREAT WEIGHT
SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE STRONG POLICY OF THE CONGRESS, EVER SINCE THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1891, TO KEEP THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT WITHIN
MANAGEABLE PROPORTIONS FOR THE WISE DISPOSITION OF CAUSES BY THE
ULTIMATE JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL.  THAT CONSIDERATION APPLIES ALSO TO THE FEW
ACTS, PASSED SINCE THE CREATION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, WHICH
ALLOW CASES TO COME HERE DIRECTLY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE ISSUES
OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, SUCH AS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
LEGISLATION, ARE AT STAKE. 

IN DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282, THIS COURT GAVE AN
EXPANSIVE CONTENT TO REVIEW, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, OF STATE COURT
JUDGMENTS WHERE IS DRAWN IN QUESTION "THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE."  OUR
JURISDICTION WAS HELD TO COVER REVIEW OF A FINDING OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IN THE APPLICATION OF A STATUTE TO A PARTICULAR
SITUATION, THOUGH THE STATUTE IS OTHERWISE LEFT IN FULL FORCE AND
EFFECT.  WHILE, FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, I HAVE NEVER BEEN RECONCILED TO THE SOUNDNESS OF THAT
DECISION, I ACCEPT IT.  BUT I DO NOT FEEL OBLIGED TO EXTEND ITS SCOPE
BEYOND ITS REQUIREMENTS. 

THERE IS AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVIEW OF STATE COURT
DECISIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS.  THE LATTER ARE SUBJECT
TO REVIEW AS A MATTER OF COURSE BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  THEY
ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON REVIEW BY GRACE THROUGH CERTIORARI, AS WOULD BE
COMPARABLE STATE DECISIONS EXCEPT FOR THE DAHNKE-WALKER DOCTRINE.  I DO
NOT FEEL MYSELF REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, TO HOLD THAT
DIRECT APPEAL LIES TO THIS COURT WHENEVER A DISTRICT COURT FINDS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AN APPLICATION OF A STATUTE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A
PARTICULAR CASE.  IT IS ONE THING NOT TO ALLOW FINAL DETERMINATION OF
THE FATE OF A FEDERAL STATUTE TO BE DELAYED UNTIL A DECISION OF A
DISTRICT COURT CAN GO THROUGH A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THEN REACH
THIS COURT.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO BRING HERE DIRECTLY FROM A
DISTRICT COURT EVERY DECISION INDICATING UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IN
APPLICATION, NO MATTER HOW RESTRICTED ITS INCIDENCE.  OF COURSE THIS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT DIRECT REVIEW OF DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS BY THIS
COURT WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY FOR CASES THAT INVOLVE "THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY AS A WHOLE" OF A CHALLENGED STATUTE.  THE ACT OF 1937
REFERS EXPLICITLY TO INVALIDATION "IN WHOLE OR IN PART."  ALTHOUGH THIS
IS MADE EXPLICIT IN SEC. 3 OF THE ACT, THE SCOPE OF DIRECT REVIEW HERE,
ON THE SCORE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, OUGHT NOT TO BE DIFFERENT UNDER
DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THIS ACT.  A DIRECT APPEAL IS CALLED FOR ONLY
WHEN A DISTRICT COURT STRIKES DOWN, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THAT WHICH
CONGRESS HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY WRITTEN.  IT IS UNWARRANTED WHEN ALL THAT IS
IN ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ALLOWABLE SCOPE OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN
EXCLUDES A PARTICULAR SITUATION. 

THE IMMEDIATE CASE GIVES POINT TO THESE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS.  THE
INCIDENTS OF A JUDGMENT ARE NOT THE SAME IN ALL THE STATES.  THE EFFECT
OF THIS ACT UPON JUDGMENTS IN THE DIFFERENT STATES MAY THUS INVOLVE
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROCEDURE OF A PARTICULAR STATE.  THESE ARE HARDLY
QUESTIONS OF THE KIND WHICH LED TO THE AUTHORIZATION, BY THE ACT OF
AUGUST 24, 1937, OF DIRECT REVIEW WHERE A DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION "IS
AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS."  50 STAT. 751,
752. 

NOR SHOULD IT BE DECISIVE OF THIS COURT'S EXCEPTIONAL JURISDICTION ON
DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS THE
LITIGANT.  LIKE OTHER LITIGANTS THE GOVERNMENT AT TIMES ATTACHES
IMPORTANCE TO A PARTICULAR CASE OUT OF ALL PROPORTION TO THE MORE
COMPREHENSIVE FACTORS THAT SHOULD CONTROL THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION. 
WE CANNOT BE BLIND TO THE FACT THAT REVIEW HERE IS SOMETIMES PRESSED IN
RESPONSE TO COMMENDABLE ADMINISTRATIVE EARNESTNESS WHICH FAILS,
HOWEVER, TO TAKE FULLY INTO ACCOUNT THE DEMANDS OF THIS COURT'S
BUSINESS.  MOREOVER, IT WAS NOT THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT AS SUCH
WHICH MOVED CONGRESS TO GRANT DIRECT APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS. 
BY THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925 CONGRESS NARROWLY CONFINED DIRECT REVIEW
HERE OF DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS REGARDLESS OF THE CHARACTER OF THE
LITIGANT, AND THE EXTENSION OF SUCH REVIEW BY THE ACT OF 1937 SHOULD BE
STRICTLY CONFINED. 

I WOULD DISMISS THIS APPEAL AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  SEE OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO.,
292 U.S. 386, 392, AND PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 254. 
..END :














FLEMING V. MOHAWK CO., 331 U.S. 111 


ARGUED APRIL 1, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1947.  - 156 F.2D 891,
REVERSED - 81 U.S. APP. D.C. 156, 156 F.2D 561, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9809, ISSUED UNDER SEC. 1 OF
THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941 AFTER THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES BUT
BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF A TECHNICAL STATE OF WAR, VALIDLY
CONSOLIDATED THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION AND THREE OTHER
AGENCIES INTO THE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY CONTROLS.  PP. 113-119. 

(A)  THE WAR POWERS ARE ADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHICH ARISE DURING THE PERIOD OF HOSTILITIES BUT DO NOT
CEASE WITH THEM.  P. 116. 

(B)  SECTION 1 OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT
TO REDISTRIBUTE FUNCTIONS AMONG EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, AUTHORIZES THE
CREATION OF A NEW AGENCY AND THE CONSOLIDATION WITHIN IT OF FUNCTIONS
AND POWERS PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED BY ONE OR MORE OTHER AGENCIES.  P.
116. 

(C)  THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE PRESIDENT BY SEC. 1 OF THE
FIRST WAR POWERS ACT WAS NOT LIMITED TO THE TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS FROM
AGENCIES EXISTING WHEN THE ACT BECAME LAW.  P. 117. 

(D)  AN INCUMBENT OF AN OFFICE "EXISTING BY LAW," WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 2, AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT WHO
HAS ONCE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE NEED NOT BE CONFIRMED AGAIN IN
ORDER TO EXERCISE POWERS TRANSFERRED TO HIM BY THE PRESIDENT FROM
ANOTHER OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE
SENATE.  P. 118. 

2.  UNDER RULE 25 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE TEMPORARY
CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR WAS PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR IN PENDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE LIFTING OF
MOST PRICE CONTROLS - THERE BEING "SUBSTANTIAL NEED" FOR CONTINUING AND
MAINTAINING ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT BY THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR, SINCE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT PRESERVED ACCRUED
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES THEREUNDER.  P. 119. 

3.  UNDER SEC. 201 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR COULD DELEGATE TO DISTRICT DIRECTORS AUTHORITY TO SIGN
AND ISSUE SUBPOENAS.  CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HOLLAND, 315 U.S. 357,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 119-123. 

FLEMING, TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR, V. MOHAWK WRECKING & LUMBER
CO. ET AL. 

NO. 583.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 512, RALEY ET AL., TRADING AS RALEY'S FOOD STORE,
V. FLEMING, TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR, ON CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

NO. 583.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR APPLIED TO A DISTRICT COURT FOR AN
ORDER UNDER SEC. 202(E) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, 56 STAT.
23, AS AMENDED, TO ENFORCE A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED BY A DISTRICT
DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DENIED AND DISMISSED THE APPLICATION.  65 F.SUPP.  164.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  156 F.2D 891.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 329 U.S. 705, AND ORDERED SUBSTITUTION OF THE TEMPORARY
CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR.  329 U.S. 688. 
REVERSED, P. 123. 

NO. 512.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR AN ORDER TO ENFORCE
A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION.  THAT COURT ORDERED COMPLIANCE WITH THE
SUBPOENA.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AFFIRMED.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 156, 156 F.2D 561.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 329 U.S. 705, AND ORDERED SUBSTITUTION OF THE
TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR.  329 U.S.
687.  AFFIRMED, P. 123. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
BLACK. 

THESE CASES PRESENT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT, 56 STAT. 23, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. V, SEC. 901 ET SEQ.,
AUTHORIZES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DELEGATE TO DISTRICT DIRECTORS
AUTHORITY TO SIGN AND ISSUE SUBPOENAS.  IN THE FIRST OF THESE CASES THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT SUCH AUTHORITY
DID NOT EXIST, 156 F.2D 891; IN THE SECOND, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HELD THAT IT DID.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 156, 156
F.2D 561.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT. 

FIRST.  AFTER WE GRANTED THE PETITIONS WE ORDERED, ON MOTION OF THE
ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL, THAT PHILIP B. FLEMING, TEMPORARY CONTROLS
ADMINISTRATOR, BE SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY IN EACH CASE IN PLACE OF PAUL
A. PORTER, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, RESIGNED. 
THEREAFTER RESPONDENTS IN THE FIRST OF THESE CASES FILED A MOTION TO
VACATE THE ORDER OF SUBSTITUTION, A MOTION WHICH WE DEFERRED TO THE
HEARING ON THE MERITS.  FN1  THE QUESTION HAS NOW BEEN BRIEFED AND
ARGUED AND WE CONCLUDE THAT THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER OF
SUBSTITUTION SHOULD BE DENIED. 

THE ACT WAS AMENDED IN 1946 TO PROVIDE FOR ITS TERMINATION NOT LATER
THAN JUNE 30, 1947, SAVING, HOWEVER, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES INCURRED
PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION DATE.  FN2  BY NOVEMBER 12, 1946, ALMOST ALL
COMMODITIES (INCLUDING SERVICES) WERE BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER  FN3
MADE EXEMPT FROM PRICE CONTROL.  FN4  PRICE CONTROL HAD THUS ENTERED A
TEMPORARY TRANSITION PERIOD.  ON DECEMBER 12, 1946, THE PRESIDENT
ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER "FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHER EFFECTUATING THE
TRANSITION FROM WAR TO PEACE AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE INTERNAL
MANAGEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT."  THAT ORDER CONSOLIDATED THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION AND THREE OTHER AGENCIES INTO THE OFFICE OF
TEMPORARY CONTROLS N5 - AN AGENCY IN THE OFFICE FOR EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.  THE LATTER HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE REORGANIZATION ACT OF
1939.  FN6  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER PROVIDED A TEMPORARY CONTROLS
ADMINISTRATOR, APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT, TO HEAD THE OFFICE OF
TEMPORARY CONTROLS AND VESTED IN HIM, INTER ALIA, THE FUNCTIONS OF THE
PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, INCLUDING THE AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN IN HIS OWN
NAME CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER OR NOT THEN PENDING, RELATING TO
MATTERS THERETOFORE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR. 
PETITIONER IS THE TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED BY THE
PRESIDENT. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR TO ANOTHER AGENCY AND TO VEST IN
AN OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT THE POWER WHICH THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT, SEC. 201, HAD CONFERRED UPON AN ADMINISTRATOR
APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE
SENATE.  AND IT IS SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTED, IT
CAME TO AN END WITH THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES. 

BY SEC. 1 OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941, 55 STAT. 838, 50
U.S.C. APP. SUPP. V, SEC. 601, THE PRESIDENT IS 

"AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SUCH REDISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS AMONG EXECUTIVE
AGENCIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY, INCLUDING ANY FUNCTIONS, DUTIES, AND
POWERS HITHERTO BY LAW CONFERRED UPON ANY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
COMMISSION, BUREAU, AGENCY, GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION, OFFICE, OR
OFFICER, IN SUCH MANNER AS IN HIS JUDGMENT SHALL SEEM BEST FITTED TO
CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS TITLE, AND TO THIS END IS AUTHORIZED TO
MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS AND TO ISSUE SUCH ORDERS AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY
...  " 

THAT POWER MAY BE EXERCISED "ONLY IN MATTERS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT
OF THE PRESENT WAR," SEC. 1, AND EXPIRES SIX MONTHS AFTER "THE
TERMINATION OF THE WAR."  SEC. 401. 

ON DECEMBER 31, 1946, AFTER THE CREATION OF THE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY
CONTROLS, THE PRESIDENT, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT "A STATE OF WAR STILL
EXISTS," BY PROCLAMATION DECLARED THAT HOSTILITIES HAD TERMINATED.  FN7
THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES DOES NOT NECESSARILY END THE WAR POWER. 
IT WAS STATED IN HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES & W. CO., 251 U.S.
146, 161, THAT THE WAR POWER INCLUDES THE POWER "TO REMEDY THE EVILS
WHICH HAVE ARISEN FROM ITS RISE AND PROGRESS" AND CONTINUES DURING THAT
EMERGENCY.  STEWART V. KAHN, 11 WALL.  493, 507.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE
REACH OF THAT POWER, IT IS PLAINLY ADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT WHICH ARISE DURING THE PERIOD OF HOSTILITIES BUT DO NOT
CEASE WITH THEM.  NO MORE IS INVOLVED HERE. 

CREATION OF A NEW AGENCY WHICH CONSOLIDATES THE FUNCTIONS AND POWERS
PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED BY ONE OR MORE OTHER AGENCIES.  BUT THE ACT HAS
BEEN REPEATEDLY CONSTRUED BY THE PRESIDENT TO CONFER SUCH AUTHORITY. 
FN8  SUCH CONSTRUCTION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, BEING BOTH
CONTEMPORANEOUS AND CONSISTENT, IS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. JACKSON, 280 U.S. 183, 193; BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321
U.S. 542, 552-553.  AND THE APPROPRIATION BY CONGRESS OF FUNDS FOR THE
USE OF SUCH AGENCIES STANDS AS CONFIRMATION AND RATIFICATION OF THE
ACTION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.  BROOKS V. DEWAR, 313 U.S. 354, 361. 

NOR DO WE THINK THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION THAT THE FIRST WAR
POWERS ACT GAVE THE PRESIDENT AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER FUNCTIONS ONLY FROM
AGENCIES IN EXISTENCE WHEN THAT ACT BECAME LAW.  IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 1
AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDENT "TO MAKE SUCH REDISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS
AMONG EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY, INCLUDING ANY
FUNCTIONS, DUTIES, AND POWERS HITHERTO BY LAW CONFERRED UPON" ANY
AGENCY.  BUT THE LATTER CLAUSE IS ONLY AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED, NOT A LIMITATION ON IT.  IT MAKES CLEAR THAT THE AUTHORITY
EXTENDS TO EXISTING AGENCIES AS WELL AS TO OTHERS.  THAT CONSTRUCTION
IS SUPPORTED BY SEC. 5 OF THE ACT WHICH STATES THAT UPON ITS
TERMINATION ALL EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES "SHALL EXERCISE
THE SAME FUNCTIONS, DUTIES, AND POWERS AS HERETOFORE OR AS HEREAFTER BY
LAW MAY BE PROVIDED, ANY AUTHORIZATION OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER THIS
TITLE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  AS STATED BY THE EMERGENCY
COURT OF APPEALS, UNLESS SEC. 1 AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDENT TO
REDISTRIBUTE FUNCTIONS OF AGENCIES CREATED AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE
ACT, THE REFERENCE IN SEC. 5 TO FUNCTIONS "HEREAFTER" PROVIDED BY LAW
IS "WHOLLY MEANINGLESS."  CALIFORNIA LIMA BEAN GROWERS ASSN. V. BOWLES,
150 F.2D 964, 967.  NOR IS THAT RESULT AFFECTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT
ENACTMENT OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT WHICH IN SEC. 201(B)
AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO TRANSFER ANY OF THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF
THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION "WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR
COMMODITY OR COMMODITIES" TO ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY HAVING OTHER
FUNCTIONS RELATING TO SUCH COMMODITIES.  WHATEVER EFFECT THAT PROVISION
MAY HAVE, IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO DEAL WITH GENERAL ENFORCEMENT
FUNCTIONS AND SO RESTRICTS IN NO WAY THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT
UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT TO TRANSFER THEM.  YET ENFORCEMENT
FUNCTIONS ARE ALL THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASES. 

WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT THE
PRESIDENT HAD AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER FUNCTIONS OF AN OFFICER WHO NEED BE
CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE TO ONE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT
SENATE CONFIRMATION.  FOR SEC. 2 OF THAT ACT PROVIDES: 

"THAT IN CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS TITLE THE PRESIDENT IS
AUTHORIZED TO UTILIZE, COORDINATE, OR CONSOLIDATE ANY EXECUTIVE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONS, BUREAUS, AGENCIES, GOVERNMENTAL
CORPORATIONS, OFFICES, OR OFFICERS NOW EXISTING BY LAW, TO TRANSFER ANY
DUTIES OR POWERS FROM ONE EXISTING DEPARTMENT, COMMISSION, BUREAU,
AGENCY, GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION, OFFICE, OR OFFICER TO ANOTHER, TO
TRANSFER THE PERSONNEL THEREOF OR ANY PART OF IT EITHER BY DETAIL OR
ASSIGNMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE RECORDS AND
PUBLIC PROPERTY BELONGING THERETO." 

THE AUTHORITY TO "UTILIZE  ...  OFFICES, OR OFFICERS NOW EXISTING BY
LAW" IS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS UNDER THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER FROM PORTER, RESIGNED, TO FLEMING.  FOR PRIOR TO THE
ACT FLEMING HAD BEEN APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE
SENATE AS FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR.  FN9  HE THUS WAS THE INCUMBENT
OF AN OFFICE "EXISTING BY LAW" AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT
AND BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 2 COULD BE THE LAWFUL RECIPIENT THROUGH TRANSFER
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE FUNCTIONS OF OTHER AGENCIES AS WELL.  TO HOLD
THAT AN OFFICER, PREVIOUSLY CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE, MUST BE ONCE MORE
CONFIRMED IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THE POWERS TRANSFERRED TO HIM BY THE
PRESIDENT WOULD BE QUITE INCONSISTENT WITH THE BROAD GRANT OF POWER
GIVEN THE PRESIDENT BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT.  ANY DOUBTS ON THIS
SCORE WOULD, MOREOVER, BE REMOVED BY THE RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS IN A
RECENT APPROPRIATION OF THE STATUS OF THE TEMPORARY CONTROLS
ADMINISTRATOR N10.  THAT RECOGNITION WAS AN ACCEPTANCE OR RATIFICATION
BY CONGRESS OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9809. 
SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 301-302; BROOKS V.
DEWAR, SUPRA. 

FOR THESE REASONS FLEMING IS A SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE OF PORTER AND MAY
BE SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY UNDER RULE 25, RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  THE
RULE REQUIRES A SHOWING OF "SUBSTANTIAL NEED" FOR CONTINUING AND
MAINTAINING THE ACTION.  THOUGH MOST OF THE CONTROLS HAVE BEEN LIFTED,
THE ACT IS STILL IN EFFECT.  LIABILITIES INCURRED PRIOR TO THE LIFTING
OF CONTROLS ARE NOT THEREBY WASHED OUT.  UNITED STATES V. HARK, 320
U.S. 531, 536; UTAH JUNK CO. V. PORTER, 328 U.S. 39, 44; COLLINS V.
PORTER, 328 U.S. 46, 49.  AND CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED THAT
ACCRUED RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT
ARE PRESERVED WHETHER OR NOT SUIT IS STARTED PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION
DATE OF THE ACT.  FN11  IF INVESTIGATION WERE FORECLOSED AT THIS STAGE,
SUCH RIGHTS AS MAY EXIST WOULD BE DEFEATED, CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF
THE ACT. 

SECOND.  WE COME THEN TO THE MERITS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR, BY ORDER,
DELEGATED THE FUNCTION OF SIGNING AND ISSUING SUBPOENAS TO REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATORS AND DISTRICT DIRECTORS N12.  SECTION 201(A) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY, SUBJECT TO THE CIVIL-SERVICE LAWS, APPOINT
SUCH EMPLOYEES AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT HIS
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES UNDER THIS ACT, AND SHALL FIX THEIR COMPENSATION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1923, AS AMENDED." 


"THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL BE IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, BUT HE OR ANY DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY EXERCISE
ANY OR ALL OF HIS POWERS IN ANY PLACE." 

PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL PROVISIONS WERE INCLUDED IN SEC. 4(B) AND (C)
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060, 1061-1062, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 204.  THE COURT HELD IN CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HOLLAND, 315 U.S.
357, THAT THE LATTER PROVISIONS DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATOR
UNDER THAT ACT, TO DELEGATE HIS POWER TO SIGN AND ISSUE SUBPOENAS. 
ACCORDINGLY THE MAIN CONTROVERSY HERE IS WHETHER THE CUDAHY DECISION
CONTROLS THIS CASE.  WE DO NOT THINK IT DOES. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT INVOLVED IN THE CUDAHY CASE SHOWED
THAT A PROVISION GRANTING AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE SUBPOENA POWER HAD
BEEN ELIMINATED WHEN THE BILL WAS IN CONFERENCE.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE SENATE COMMITTEE IN REPORTING THE BILL THAT BECAME THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT DESCRIBED SEC. 201(A) AS AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO "PERFORM HIS DUTIES THROUGH SUCH EMPLOYEES OR AGENCIES
BY DELEGATING TO THEM ANY OF THE POWERS GIVEN TO HIM BY THE BILL."  AND
IT SAID THAT SEC. 201(B) AUTHORIZED HIM OR "ANY REPRESENTATIVE OR OTHER
AGENCY TO WHOM HE MAY DELEGATE ANY OR ALL OF HIS POWERS, TO EXERCISE
SUCH POWERS IN ANY PLACE."  S. REP. NO. 931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP.
20-21.  IN THE CUDAHY CASE THE ACT MADE EXPRESSLY DELEGABLE THE POWER
TO GATHER DATA AND MAKE INVESTIGATIONS, THUS LENDING SUPPORT TO THE
VIEW THAT WHEN CONGRESS DESIRED TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE, IT SAID
SO EXPLICITLY.  IN THE PRESENT ACT, THERE IS NO PROVISION WHICH
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES DELEGATION AS TO A PARTICULAR FUNCTION.  IN THE
CUDAHY CASE, THE ACT MADE APPLICABLE TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR THE SUBPOENA PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT, SECS. 9 AND 10, 38 STAT. 722, 723, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 49 AND 50,
WHICH ONLY AUTHORIZED EITHER THE COMMISSION OR ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
TO SIGN SUBPOENAS.  THE SUBPOENA POWER UNDER THE PRESENT ACT IS FOUND
IN SEC. 202(B)  FN13  AND IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE PROVISIONS OF ANOTHER
ACT HAVING A HISTORY OF ITS OWN.  THE ACT INVOLVED IN THE CUDAHY CASE
GRANTED NO BROAD RULE-MAKING POWER.  SECTION 201(D) OF THE PRESENT ACT,
HOWEVER, PROVIDES: 

"THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY, FROM TIME TO TIME, ISSUE SUCH REGULATIONS AND
ORDERS AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR PROPER IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES AND PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT." 

SUCH A RULE-MAKING POWER MAY ITSELF BE AN ADEQUATE SOURCE OF
AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE A PARTICULAR FUNCTION, UNLESS BY EXPRESS
PROVISION OF THE ACT OR BY IMPLICATION IT HAS BEEN WITHHELD.  SEE
PLAPAO LABORATORIES V. FARLEY, 67 APP. D.C. 304, 92 F.2D 228.  THERE IS
NO PROVISION IN THE PRESENT ACT NEGATIVING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH
AUTHORITY, SO FAR AS THE SUBPOENA POWER IS CONCERNED.  NOR CAN THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH AUTHORITY BE FAIRLY INFERRED FROM THE HISTORY AND
CONTENT OF THE ACT.  THUS THE PRESENCE OF THE RULE-MAKING POWER,
TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER FACTORS DIFFERENTIATING THIS CASE FROM THE
CUDAHY CASE, INDICATES THAT THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SEC. 201(A) AND
(B) SHOULD NOT BE READ RESTRICTIVELY. 

AS STATED BY THE COURT IN PORTER V. MURRAY, 156 F.2D 781, 786-787,
THE OVERWHELMING NATURE OF THE PRICE CONTROL PROGRAM ENTRUSTED TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR SUGGESTS THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO GIVE
IT THE ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY NECESSARY FOR PROMPT AND EXPEDITIOUS
ACTION ON A MULTITUDE OF FRONTS.  THE PROGRAM OF PRICE CONTROL
INAUGURATED PROBABLY THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL CONTROLS OVER THE
ECONOMY EVER ATTEMPTED.  WE WOULD HESITATE TO CONCLUDE THAT ALL THE
VARIOUS FUNCTIONS GRANTED THE ADMINISTRATOR NEED BE PERFORMED
PERSONALLY BY HIM OR UNDER HIS PERSONAL DIRECTION.  CERTAINLY, SO FAR
AS THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTIONS WERE CONCERNED, HE COULD HARDLY BE
EXPECTED, IN VIEW OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE TASK,  FN14  TO EXERCISE HIS
PERSONAL DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION
SHOULD BE LAUNCHED.  DELAY MIGHT DO INJURY BEYOND REPAIR.  THE
PYRAMIDING IN WASHINGTON OF ALL DECISIONS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE
APT TO END IN PARALYSIS.  TO TEMPT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM BY SUPPLYING ALL HIS OFFICES WITH SUBPOENAS SIGNED IN BLANK
WOULD NOT FURTHER THE DEVELOPMENT OF ORDERLY AND RESPONSIBLE
ADMINISTRATION.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS REINFORCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ACT WHICH ALLOWS THE ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE HIS SUBPOENA
POWER. 

THE OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE SUBPOENAS ARE WITHOUT MERIT. 

WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT IN FLEMING V. MOHAWK WRECKING & LUMBER CO.,
AND AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT IN RALEY V. FLEMING.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  COMPARE PORTER V. AMERICAN DISTILLING CO., 71 F.SUPP.  483;
PORTER V. BOWERS, 70 F.SUPP.  751, AND BOWLES V. ELL-CARR CO., INC., 71
F.SUPP.  482, WITH PORTER V. WILSON, 69 F.SUPP.  447, AND PORTER V.
HIRAHARA, 69 F.SUPP.  441. 

FN2  60 STAT. 664.  SECTION 1(B) NOW PROVIDES: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND ALL REGULATIONS, ORDERS, PRICE
SCHEDULES, AND REQUIREMENTS THEREUNDER, SHALL TERMINATE ON JUNE 30,
1947, OR UPON THE DATE OF A PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT, OR UPON THE
DATE SPECIFIED IN A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION BY THE TWO HOUSES OF THE
CONGRESS, DECLARING THAT THE FURTHER CONTINUANCE OF THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED BY THIS ACT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE AND SECURITY, WHICHEVER DATE IS THE EARLIER; EXCEPT THAT AS TO
OFFENSES COMMITTED, OR RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES INCURRED, PRIOR TO SUCH
TERMINATION DATE, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND SUCH REGULATIONS,
ORDERS, PRICE SCHEDULES, AND REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE TREATED AS STILL
REMAINING IN FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUSTAINING ANY PROPER SUIT,
ACTION, OR PROSECUTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH RIGHT, LIABILITY, OR
OFFENSE." 

FN3  EXPRESS PROVISIONS FOR DECONTROL WERE ADDED BY THE 1946
AMENDMENTS.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, SEC. LA (B)-(H). 

FN4  SEE SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER 193, NOVEMBER 12, 1946, 11 FED. REG.
13464, AS AMENDED NOVEMBER 19, 1946, 11 FED. REG. 13637. 

FN5  EXEC. ORDER NO. 9809, 11 FED. REG. 14281. 

FN6  SEE REORGANIZATION PLAN I, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 133T (NOTE); 4 FED.
REG. 3864; 6 FED. REG. 192. 

FN7  PROCLAMATION 2714, 12 FED. REG. 1. 

FN8  EACH OF THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES WAS A NEW AGENCY CREATED BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER TO EXERCISE POWERS FORMERLY VESTED IN OTHER AGENCIES OR
TO PERFORM NEW FUNCTIONS:  NATIONAL HOUSING AGENCY, EXEC. ORDER NO.
9070, 7 FED. REG. 1529; WAR FOOD ADMINISTRATION, EXEC. ORDER NO. 9334,
8 FED. REG. 5423; OFFICE OF WAR MOBILIZATION, EXEC. ORDER NO. 9347, 8
FED. REG. 7207; OFFICE OF ECONOMIC WARFARE, EXEC. ORDER NO. 9361, 8
FED. REG. 9861; FOREIGN ECONOMIC ADMINISTRATION, EXEC. ORDER NO. 9380,
8 FED. REG. 13081; SURPLUS WAR PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION, EXEC. ORDER NO.
9425, 9 FED. REG. 2071. 

FN9  DECEMBER 4, 1941.  SEE 87 CONG. REC. 9413. 

FN10  61 STAT. 14, 16, UNDER THE HEADING "EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT, OFFICE FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT," THE FOLLOWING:

                     "OFFICE OF TEMPORARY CONTROLS 

"SALARIES AND EXPENSES:  FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT, FISCAL YEAR 1947,
FOR THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION TRANSFERRED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
9809 OF DECEMBER 12, 1946, TO THE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY CONTROLS,
$7,051,752, TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF TERMINAL LEAVE ONLY:
PROVIDED, THAT IT IS THE INTENT OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE FUNDS
HERETOFORE AND HEREIN APPROPRIATED SHALL INCLUDE ALL EXPENSES INCIDENT
TO THE CLOSING AND LIQUIDATION OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION
AND THE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY CONTROLS BY JUNE 30, 1947." 

FN11  SEE SEC. 1(B) SUPRA, NOTE 2.  AND FOR THE GENERAL STATUTE
PREVENTING THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF LIABILITY UNDER A REPEALED STATUTE,
UNLESS THE REPEALING ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR IT, SEE REV. STAT. SEC.
13, AS AMENDED, 58 STAT. 118, 1 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 29. 

FN12  REVISED GENERAL ORDER 53, MAY 13, 1944, 9 FED. REG. 5191. 

FN13  SECTION 202(B) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY ADMINISTER OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS AND MAY,
WHENEVER NECESSARY, BY SUBPENA REQUIRE ANY SUCH PERSON TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY OR TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, OR BOTH, AT ANY DESIGNATED
PLACE." 

FN14  THE FOLLOWING STATISTICS INDICATE THE VOLUME OF LITIGATION AND
INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVED:

                                1943     1944     1945 1946 

CIVIL CASES COMMENCED BY 

UNITED STATES IN DISTRICT 

COURTS UNDER EMERGENCY 

PRICE CONTROL ACT.*  (FISCAL 

YEARS ENDING JUNE 30)...............    2,219    6,524   28,283
31,094 

INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED BY 

OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRA- 

TION.**  (CALENDAR YEARS)...........  652,851  333,151  193,348
106,240$* 

*(REP. DIR.  ADM.  OFF. U.S. COURTS (1943) TABLE 7; ID. 1944 TABLE 7;
ID. (1945) TABLE C3; ID. (1946) TABLE C3.) 

**(QUARTERLY REP. O.P.A.:  EIGHTH, P. 71; TWELFTH, P. 75;
SEVENTEENTH, P. 104; EIGHTEENTH, P. 82; NINETEENTH, P. 95.) 

$* FIRST NINE MONTHS ONLY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE OPINION AND RESULT.  BUT THE ISSUE HERE IS SO RELATED
TO OTHER PROBLEMS THAT I DESIRE TO STATE MY GROUNDS. 

I WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO ADOPT A CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACT, SUCH AS THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY IMPEDE ITS
ADMINISTRATION UNLESS IT WERE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS OR TO PROTECT FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. 

IF THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY NOT DELEGATE HIS POWER TO SIGN SUBPOENAS BUT
MUST PERSONALLY SIGN ALL SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN THE PROCESS OF ENFORCEMENT
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, ONE OF TWO PRACTICES WOULD BE CERTAIN TO
RESULT.  HE MIGHT SIGN LARGE BATCHES OF BLANK SUBPOENAS AND TURN THEM
OVER TO SUBORDINATES TO BE FILLED IN OVER HIS SIGNATURE.  OR HE MIGHT
SIGN BATCHES OF SUBPOENAS ALREADY MADE OUT BY SUBORDINATES, PROBABLY
WITHOUT READING THEM AND CERTAINLY WITHOUT EXAMINING THE CAUSES FOR
THEIR ISSUANCE OR THE SCOPE OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED.  THE PERSONAL
SIGNATURE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ON THE SUBPOENA UNDER THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES IS NO PROTECTION TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. 

OF ALL THE SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, A VERY SMALL
PERCENTAGE ARE CONTESTED.  THE IMPORTANT THING FOR PROTECTION OF THE
INDIVIDUAL IS THAT WHEN HE DOES HAVE REASONS FOR RESISTING OBEDIENCE HE
CAN OBTAIN A HEARING.  I AM IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER UNDER THIS ACT AND
THE REGULATIONS FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION A PERSON WHO HAS REASONS FOR
RESISTING THE SUBPOENA HAS ANY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR REMEDY.  BUT IN
ANY EVENT HE CANNOT BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT UNTIL A COURT ORDER FOR
ITS ENFORCEMENT HAS ISSUED AND HAS BEEN DISOBEYED. 

ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH SUBPOENAS BY THE COURTS IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE
AUTOMATIC.  SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBJECT TO FULL INQUIRY AT THIS POINT
IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME IMPORTANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR INCONSISTENT WITH
THE POLICY OF CONGRESS THAT THE SUBPOENA ISSUE BY A SUBORDINATE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  IF THE COURTS WERE TO BE SHORN OF THEIR POWER OF
INDEPENDENT INQUIRY BEFORE ENFORCEMENT, AND I HAVE THOUGHT WE WERE
TENDING THAT WAY, CF. DISSENT IN PENFIELD CO. V. S.E.C., 330 U.S. 585,
I SHOULD EXPECT CONGRESS TO INTEND GREATER RESPONSIBILITY AT THE POINT
OF ORIGINAL ISSUE.  I CONCUR ONLY BECAUSE I THINK ADEQUATE JUDICIAL
SAFEGUARDS EXIST. 
..END :











CHAMPION PLUG CO. V. SANDERS, 331 U.S. 125 


NO. 680.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 3, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1947.  - 156
F.2D 488, AFFIRMED. 


1.  RESPONDENTS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REPAIRING USED TRADE-MARKED
SPARK PLUGS AND RESELLING THEM WITHOUT REMOVING THE ORIGINAL TRADE
MARKS.  IN A SUIT BY THE MANUFACTURER, THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT
RESPONDENTS HAD INFRINGED THE TRADE MARK BUT THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO
FRAUD OR PALMING OFF.  IT DENIED AN ACCOUNTING BUT ENJOINED FURTHER
INFRINGEMENT.  HELD:  THE EQUITIES OF THIS CASE ARE SATISFIED BY A
DECREE REQUIRING THAT THE WORD "REPAIRED" OR "USED" BE PLAINLY AND
DURABLY STAMPED ON EACH PLUG AND THAT THE CONTAINERS AND PRINTED MATTER
USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALES CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE PLUGS ARE USED
AND RECONDITIONED BY RESPONDENTS, GIVING THEIR NAMES AND ADDRESS - EVEN
THOUGH THE DECREE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE TRADE MARKS BE REMOVED. 
PP. 126-132. 

2.  UNDER THE TRADE MARK ACT OF 1905, A FINDING THAT A TRADE MARK HAS
BEEN INFRINGED DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THAT AN ACCOUNTING BE
ORDERED WHERE AN INJUNCTION WILL SATISFY THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE.  P.
131. 

3.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, A FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS HAD
ALSO ENGAGED IN UNFAIR COMPETITION DOES NOT REQUIRE MORE STRINGENT
CONTROLS OR THAT AN ACCOUNTING BE ORDERED.  PP. 130-132. 

CHAMPION SPARK PLUG CO. V. SANDERS ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS PERFECT
RECONDITION SPARK PLUG CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS HAD INFRINGED PETITIONER'S
TRADE MARK, ENJOINED FURTHER INFRINGEMENT, AND DENIED AN ACCOUNTING. 
56 F.SUPP.  782, 61 F.SUPP.  247.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
MODIFIED THE DECREE IN CERTAIN DETAILS.  156 F.2D 488.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 709.  AFFIRMED, P. 132. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
BLACK. 

PETITIONER IS A MANUFACTURER OF SPARK PLUGS WHICH IT SELLS UNDER THE
TRADE MARK "CHAMPION."  RESPONDENTS COLLECT THE USED PLUGS, REPAIR AND
RECONDITION THEM, AND RESELL THEM.  RESPONDENTS RETAIN THE WORD
"CHAMPION" ON THE REPAIRED OR RECONDITIONED PLUGS.  THE OUTSIDE BOX OR
CARTON IN WHICH THE PLUGS ARE PACKED HAS STAMPED ON IT THE WORD
"CHAMPION," TOGETHER WITH THE LETTER AND FIGURE DENOTING THE PARTICULAR
STYLE OR TYPE.  THEY ALSO HAVE PRINTED ON THEM "PERFECT PROCESS SPARK
PLUGS GUARANTEED DEPENDABLE" AND "PERFECT PROCESS RENEWED SPARK
PLUGS."  EACH CARTON CONTAINS SMALLER BOXES IN WHICH THE PLUGS ARE
INDIVIDUALLY PACKED.  THESE INSIDE BOXES ALSO CARRY LEGENDS INDICATING
THAT THE PLUG HAS BEEN RENEWED.  FN1  BUT RESPONDENT COMPANY'S BUSINESS
NAME OR ADDRESS IS NOT PRINTED ON THE CARTONS.  IT SUPPLIES CUSTOMERS
WITH PETITIONER'S CHARTS CONTAINING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE USE OF
CHAMPION PLUGS.  ON EACH INDIVIDUAL PLUG IS STAMPED IN SMALL LETTERS,
BLUE ON BLACK, THE WORD "RENEWED," WHICH AT TIMES IS ALMOST ILLEGIBLE. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, CHARGING
INFRINGEMENT OF ITS TRADE MARK AND UNFAIR COMPETITION.  SEE JUDICIAL
CODE SEC. 24(1), (7), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), (7).  THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS HAD INFRINGED THE TRADE MARK.  IT ENJOINED THEM
FROM OFFERING OR SELLING ANY OF PETITIONER'S PLUGS WHICH HAD BEEN
REPAIRED OR RECONDITIONED UNLESS (A) THE TRADE MARK AND TYPE AND STYLE
MARKS WERE REMOVED, (B) THE PLUGS WERE REPAINTED WITH A DURABLE GREY,
BROWN, ORANGE, OR GREEN PAINT, (C) THE WORD "REPAIRED" WAS STAMPED INTO
THE PLUG IN LETTERS OF SUCH SIZE AND DEPTH AS TO RETAIN ENOUGH WHITE
PAINT TO DISPLAY DISTINCTLY EACH LETTER OF THE WORD, (D) THE CARTONS IN
WHICH THE PLUGS WERE PACKED CARRIED A LEGEND INDICATING THAT THEY
CONTAINED USED SPARK PLUGS ORIGINALLY MADE BY PETITIONER AND REPAIRED
AND MADE FIT FOR USE UP TO 10,000 MILES BY RESPONDENT COMPANY.  FN2
THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN ACCOUNTING.  SEE 56 F.SUPP.  782, 61
F.SUPP.  247. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT RESPONDENTS NOT ONLY HAD
INFRINGED PETITIONER'S TRADE MARK BUT ALSO WERE GUILTY OF UNFAIR
COMPETITION.  IT LIKEWISE DENIED AN ACCOUNTING BUT MODIFIED THE DECREE
IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS:  (A) IT ELIMINATED THE PROVISION REQUIRING
THE TRADE MARK AND TYPE AND STYLE MARKS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE REPAIRED
OR RECONDITIONED PLUGS; (B) IT SUBSTITUTED FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
WORD "REPAIRED" BE STAMPED INTO THE PLUG, ETC., A PROVISION THAT THE
WORD "REPAIRED" OR "USED" BE STAMPED AND BAKED ON THE PLUG BY AN
ELECTRICAL HOT PRESS IN A CONTRASTING COLOR SO AS TO BE CLEARLY AND
DISTINCTLY VISIBLE, THE PLUG HAVING BEEN COMPLETELY COVERED BY
PERMANENT ALUMINUM PAINT OR OTHER PAINT OR LACQUER; AND (C) IT
ELIMINATED THE PROVISION SPECIFYING THE PRECISE LEGEND TO BE PRINTED ON
THE CARTONS AND SUBSTITUTED THEREFOR A MORE GENERAL ONE.  FN3  156 F.2D
488.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE OF THE APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND
CHAMPION SPARK PLUG CO. V. REICH, 121 F.2D 769, DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

THERE IS NO CHALLENGE HERE TO THE FINDINGS AS TO THE MISLEADING
CHARACTER OF THE MERCHANDISING METHODS EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENTS, NOR TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY HAVE NOT ONLY INFRINGED PETITIONER'S TRADE
MARK BUT HAVE ALSO ENGAGED IN UNFAIR COMPETITION.  FN4  THE CONTROVERSY
HERE RELATES TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE RELIEF GRANTED, PARTICULARLY THE
REFUSAL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REQUIRE RESPONDENTS TO
REMOVE THE WORD "CHAMPION" FROM THE REPAIRED OR RECONDITIONED PLUGS
WHICH THEY RESELL. 

WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE CASE OF A MANUFACTURER OR DISTRIBUTOR WHO
MARKETS NEW OR USED SPARK PLUGS OF ONE MAKE UNDER THE TRADE MARK OF
ANOTHER.  SEE BOURJOIS & CO. V. KATZEL, 260 U.S. 689; OLD DEARBORN CO.
V. SEAGRAM CORP., 299 U.S. 183, 194.  EQUITY THEN STEPS IN TO PROHIBIT
DEFENDANT'S USE OF THE MARK WHICH SYMBOLIZES PLAINTIFF'S GOOD WILL AND
"STAKES THE REPUTATION OF THE PLAINTIFF UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE
GOODS."  BOURJOIS & CO. V. KATZEL, SUPRA, P. 692. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH SECOND-HAND GOODS.  THE SPARK PLUGS, THOUGH
USED, ARE NEVERTHELESS CHAMPION PLUGS AND NOT THOSE OF ANOTHER MAKE. 
FN5  THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT WHAT ONE WOULD SUSPECT, THAT A USED
SPARK PLUG WHICH HAS BEEN REPAIRED OR RECONDITIONED DOES NOT MEASURE UP
TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF A NEW ONE.  BUT THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE OF A
SECOND-HAND FORD OR CHEVROLET CAR.  AND WE WOULD NOT SUPPOSE THAT ONE
COULD BE ENJOINED FROM SELLING A CAR WHOSE VALVES HAD BEEN REGROUND AND
WHOSE PISTON RINGS HAD BEEN REPLACED UNLESS HE REMOVED THE NAME FORD OR
CHEVROLET.  PRESTONETTES, INC. V. COTY, 264 U.S. 359, WAS A CASE WHERE
TOILET POWDERS HAD AS ONE OF THEIR INGREDIENTS A POWDER COVERED BY A
TRADE MARK AND WHERE PERFUMES WHICH WERE TRADE MARKED WERE REBOTTLED
AND SOLD IN SMALLER BOTTLES.  THE COURT SUSTAINED A DECREE DENYING AN
INJUNCTION WHERE THE PRESCRIBED LABELS TOLD THE TRUTH.  MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES STATED, "A TRADE MARK ONLY GIVES THE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE USE
OF IT SO FAR AS TO PROTECT THE OWNER'S GOOD WILL AGAINST THE SALE OF
ANOTHER'S PRODUCT AS HIS.  ...  WHEN THE MARK IS USED IN A WAY THAT
DOES NOT DECEIVE THE PUBLIC WE SEE NO SUCH SANCTITY IN THE WORD AS TO
PREVENT ITS BEING USED TO TELL THE TRUTH.  IT IS NOT TABOO."  P. 368. 

CASES MAY BE IMAGINED WHERE THE RECONDITIONING OR REPAIR WOULD BE SO
EXTENSIVE OR SO BASIC THAT IT WOULD BE A MISNOMER TO CALL THE ARTICLE
BY ITS ORIGINAL NAME, EVEN THOUGH THE WORDS "USED" OR "REPAIRED" WERE
ADDED.  CF. INGERSOLL V. DOYLE, 247 F. 620.  BUT NO SUCH PRACTICE IS
INVOLVED HERE.  THE REPAIR OR RECONDITIONING OF THE PLUGS DOES NOT GIVE
THEM A NEW DESIGN.  IT IS NO MORE THAN A RESTORATION, SO FAR AS
POSSIBLE, OF THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION.  THE TYPE MARKS ATTACHED BY THE
MANUFACTURER ARE DETERMINED BY THE USE TO WHICH THE PLUG IS TO BE PUT. 
BUT THE THREAD SIZE AND SIZE OF THE CYLINDER HOLE INTO WHICH THE PLUG
IS FITTED ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE RECONDITIONING.  THE HEAT RANGE ALSO
HAS RELEVANCE TO THE TYPE MARKS.  AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE
RECONDITIONED PLUGS ARE INFERIOR SO FAR AS HEAT RANGE AND OTHER
QUALITIES ARE CONCERNED.  BUT INFERIORITY IS EXPECTED IN MOST SECOND
HAND ARTICLES.  INDEED, THEY GENERALLY COST THE CUSTOMER LESS.  THAT IS
THE CASE HERE.  INFERIORITY IS IMMATERIAL SO LONG AS THE ARTICLE IS
CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY SOLD AS REPAIRED OR RECONDITIONED RATHER THAN AS
NEW.  FN6  THE RESULT IS, OF COURSE, THAT THE SECOND-HAND DEALER GETS
SOME ADVANTAGE FROM THE TRADE MARK.  BUT UNDER THE RULE OF
PRESTONETTES, INC. V. COTY, SUPRA, THAT IS WHOLLY PERMISSIBLE SO LONG
AS THE MANUFACTURER IS NOT IDENTIFIED WITH THE INFERIOR QUALITIES OF
THE PRODUCT RESULTING FROM WEAR AND TEAR OR THE RECONDITIONING BY THE
DEALER.  FULL DISCLOSURE GIVES THE MANUFACTURER ALL THE PROTECTION TO
WHICH HE IS ENTITLED. 

THE DECREE AS SHAPED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS FASHIONED TO
SERVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF FULL DISCLOSURE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT OF THE
ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE THE ONES IT CHOSE ARE INADEQUATE FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THIS CASE, UNLIKE
PRESTONETTES, INC. V. COTY, SUPRA, INVOLVES UNFAIR COMPETITION AS WELL
AS TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT; AND THAT WHERE UNFAIR COMPETITION IS
ESTABLISHED, ANY DOUBTS AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE RELIEF ARE GENERALLY
RESOLVED AGAINST THE TRANSGRESSOR.  WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265
U.S. 526, 532.  BUT THERE WAS HERE NO SHOWING OF FRAUD OR PALMING OFF. 
THEIR ABSENCE, OF COURSE, DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE FINDING OF UNFAIR
COMPETITION.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. WINSTED HOSIERY CO., 258 U.S.
483, 493-494; G.H. MUMM CHAMPAGNE V. EASTERN WINE CORP., 142 F.2D 499,
501.  BUT THE CHARACTER OF THE CONDUCT GIVING RISE TO THE UNFAIR
COMPETITION IS RELEVANT TO THE REMEDY WHICH SHOULD BE AFFORDED.  SEE
SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 327 U.S. 608.  WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE CONDUCT OF RESPONDENTS IN THIS CASE, OR THE NATURE OF THE
ARTICLE INVOLVED AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MERCHANDISING METHODS
USED TO SELL IT, CALLED FOR MORE STRINGENT CONTROLS THAN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS PROVIDED. 

MISHAWAKA MFG. CO. V. KRESGE CO., 316 U.S. 203, STATES THE RULE
GOVERNING AN ACCOUNTING OF PROFITS WHERE A TRADE MARK HAS BEEN
INFRINGED AND WHERE THERE IS A BASIS FOR FINDING DAMAGE TO THE
PLAINTIFF AND PROFIT TO THE INFRINGER.  BUT IT DOES NOT STAND FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT AN ACCOUNTING WILL BE ORDERED MERELY BECAUSE THERE HAS
BEEN AN INFRINGEMENT.  UNDER THE TRADE MARK ACT OF 1905,  FN7  AS UNDER
ITS PREDECESSORS, AN ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN DENIED WHERE AN INJUNCTION
WILL SATISFY THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE.  SAXLEHNER V. SIEGEL-COOPER CO.,
179 U.S. 42; ROWLEY CO. V. ROWLEY, 193 F. 390, 393; MIDDLEBY-MARSHALL
OVEN CO. V. WILLIAMS OVEN MFG. CO., 12 F.2D 919, 921; GOLDEN WEST
BREWING CO. V. MILONAS & SONS, 104 F.2D 880, 882; HEMMETER CIGAR CO. V.
CONGRESS CIGAR CO., 118 F.2D 64, 71-72; DURABLE TOY & NOVELTY CORP. V.
J. CHEIN & CO., 133 F.2D 853, 854-855.  THE SAME IS TRUE IN CASE OF
UNFAIR COMPETITION.  STRAUS V. NOTASEME CO., 240 U.S. 179, 181-183. 
HERE, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING OF FRAUD OR PALMING
OFF.  FOR SEVERAL YEARS RESPONDENTS APPARENTLY ENDEAVORED TO COMPLY
WITH A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REQUIRING
THEM TO PLACE ON THE PLUGS AND ON THE CARTONS A LABEL REVEALING THAT
THE PLUGS WERE USED OR SECOND-HAND.  MOREOVER, AS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, THE LIKELIHOOD OF DAMAGE TO PETITIONER OR PROFIT TO
RESPONDENTS DUE TO ANY MISREPRESENTATION SEEMS SLIGHT.  IN VIEW OF
THESE VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE INJUNCTION WILL
SATISFY THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THE PROCESS USED IN RENEWING THIS PLUG HAS BEEN DEVELOPED
THROUGH 10 YEARS CONTINUOUS EXPERIENCE.  THIS SPARK PLUG HAS BEEN
TESTED FOR FIRING UNDER COMPRESSION BEFORE PACKING." 

"THIS SPARK PLUG IS GUARANTEED TO BE A SELECTED USED SPARK PLUG,
THOROUGHLY RENEWED AND IN PERFECT MECHANICAL CONDITION AND IS
GUARANTEED TO GIVE SATISFACTORY SERVICE FOR 10,000 MILES." 

FN2  THE PRESCRIBED LEGEND READ:  "USED SPARK PLUGS) ORIGINALLY MADE
BY CHAMPION SPARK PLUG COMPANY REPAIRED AND MADE FIT FOR USE UP TO
10,000 MILES BY PERFECT RECONDITION SPARK PLUG CO., 1133 BEDFORD
AVENUE, BROOKLYN, N.Y." 

THE DECREE ALSO PROVIDED: 

"THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DEFENDANTS TO BE LARGER AND MORE
PROMINENT THAN THE LEGEND ITSELF, AND THE NAME OF PLAINTIFF MAY BE IN
SLIGHTLY LARGER TYPE THAN THE REST OF THE BODY OF THE LEGEND." 

FN3  "THE DECREE SHALL PERMIT THE DEFENDANTS TO STATE ON CARTONS AND
CONTAINERS, SELLING AND ADVERTISING MATERIAL, BUSINESS RECORDS,
CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER PAPERS, WHEN PUBLISHED, THE ORIGINAL MAKE AND
TYPE NUMBERS PROVIDED IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT ANY PLUG REFERRED TO
THEREIN IS USED AND RECONDITIONED BY THE DEFENDANTS, AND THAT SUCH
MATERIAL CONTAINS THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF DEFENDANTS." 

FN4  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. WINSTED HOSIERY CO., 258 U.S.
483, 493-494; WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526, 530. 

FN5  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KLEIN, 5 F.T.C. 327. 

FN6  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. TYPEWRITER EMPORIUM, 1 F.T.C.
105; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CHECK WRITER MANUFACTURERS, 4 F.T.C.
87; IN THE MATTER OF FEDERAL AUTO PRODUCTS CO., 20 F.T.C. 334. 

FN7  SECTION 19 OF THAT ACT, 33 STAT. 724, 729, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 99,
PROVIDES IN PART, "  ... UPON A DECREE BEING RENDERED IN ANY SUCH CASE
FOR WRONGFUL USE OF A TRADE-MARK THE COMPLAINANT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
RECOVER, IN ADDITION TO THE PROFITS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE
DEFENDANT, THE DAMAGES THE COMPLAINANT HAS SUSTAINED THEREBY, AND THE
COURT SHALL ASSESS THE SAME OR CAUSE THE SAME TO BE ASSESSED UNDER ITS
DIRECTION." 
..END :












AYRSHIRE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 331 U.S. 132 


NO. 467.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 8, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1947.  -
JUDGMENT VACATED AND APPEAL DISMISSED. 


1.  UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22,
1913, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47, REQUIRING THAT AN APPLICATION TO ENJOIN OR SET
ASIDE ANY ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BE "HEARD AND
DETERMINED" BY THREE JUDGES, A JUDGMENT BASED UPON A DETERMINATION BY
ONLY TWO JUDGES IS VOID - EVEN THOUGH ALL THREE JUDGES WERE PRESENT AT
THE HEARING AND ONE OF THEM WAS PREVENTED BY ILLNESS FROM PARTICIPATING
IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.  PP. 135-139. 

2.  THE FACT THAT A PRAYER FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS NOT
PRESSED AND THAT THE DECISION WAS ONLY ON AN APPLICATION FOR A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, SINCE THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT THAT THREE JUDGES HEAR AND DETERMINE AN APPLICATION APPLIES
TO SUITS FOR PERMANENT AS WELL AS INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS.  JUDICIAL
CODE SEC. 266, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 139-144. 

AYRSHIRE COLLIERIES CORP. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA. 

TWO JUDGES OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT, DURING THE ABSENCE OF THE THIRD,
DENIED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, THE JUDGMENT
IS VACATED AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.  P. 144. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS FILED COMPLAINTS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SEEKING A TEMPORARY STAY, AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, DATED
JULY 9, 1945.  THIS ORDER HAD BEEN ENTERED IN CONNECTION WITH FINDINGS
BY THE COMMISSION THAT CERTAIN RAILROAD TARIFFS WERE UNLAWFUL AND THAT
OTHER RATES SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED IN LIEU THEREOF.  COAL TO BELOIT,
WIS., AND NORTHERN ILLINOIS, 263 I.C.C. 179. 

THE COMPLAINTS REQUESTED THAT THE COURT CONVENE A SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED COURT OF THREE JUDGES, AS REQUIRED BY THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 208, 220, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
47, TO HEAR THE MOTIONS "FOR A TEMPORARY OR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
AND FOR FINAL HEARING IN THIS PROCEEDING."  CIRCUIT JUDGE EVANS AND
DISTRICT JUDGE IGOE WERE THEN ASSIGNED TO SIT WITH DISTRICT JUDGE
BALTZELL TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THESE APPLICATIONS, AND THE CASES WERE
CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES.  THE APPLICATIONS FOR A TEMPORARY STAY
AND AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WERE ASSIGNED FOR HEARING ON JANUARY 3,
1946.  BUT ON THAT DAY, IT APPEARING THAT THE COMMISSION HAD POSTPONED
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS ORDER TO APRIL 8, 1946, THE COURT ORDERED
THAT "THE HEARING UPON THE PETITIONERS' APPLICATION FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY STAY HERETOFORE ASSIGNED AND SET
FOR JANUARY 3, 1946, BE AND THE SAME HEREBY IS, CONTINUED TO THE DAY OF
FINAL HEARING HEREIN AND THAT SAID FINAL HEARING SHALL BE HAD ON MARCH
25, 1946  ...  "  THE COMMISSION MADE A FURTHER POSTPONEMENT OF THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS ORDER TO JULY 8, 1946, IN ORDER THAT THE CARRIERS
SUBJECT TO THE ORDER MIGHT AVOID THE NECESSITY OF PREPARING AND FILING
NEW TARIFFS PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OF THE COURT PROCEEDING.  IT ALSO
APPEARED THAT THE ILLNESS OF JUDGE BALTZELL MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
COURT TO CONVENE AS SCHEDULED ON MARCH 25.  AND SO THE COURT REASSIGNED
THE CASE FOR TRIAL ON APRIL 22, WITH JUDGE BALTZELL BEING REPLACED BY
CIRCUIT JUDGE MAJOR. 

ARGUMENT WAS HELD ON APRIL 22 BEFORE CIRCUIT JUDGES EVANS AND MAJOR
AND DISTRICT JUDGE IGOE AT THE "FINAL HEARING UPON THE PLAINTIFFS'
PETITIONS FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION."  ON JUNE 5, 1946, FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE FILED AND ENTERED UNDER THE SIGNATURES
OF JUDGES MAJOR AND IGOE; THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS SUSTAINED IN ALL
RESPECTS AND A JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED DISMISSING THE COMPLAINTS.  THE
FOLLOWING NOTATION WAS MADE IN THE MARGIN OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:  "JUDGE EVAN A. EVANS BECAME ILL SUBSEQUENT TO THE
HEARING OF THESE CAUSES AND HE IS AND HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN
A DETERMINATION THEREOF.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
JUDGMENT HAVE THEREFORE BEEN ENTERED BY THE REMAINING JUDGES OF SUCH
COURT." 

THE CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL.  FN1  WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT WAS VOID, ONLY TWO OF THE
THREE JUDGES HAVING PARTICIPATED IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.  WE
ACCORDINGLY DO NOT REACH THE ISSUES INVOLVING THE COMMISSION'S
AUTHORITY AND THE MERITS OF ITS ORDER, ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN ARGUED AT
LENGTH BEFORE US. 

THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, 38 STAT.
220, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47, STATE:  " ...  NO INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
SUSPENDING OR RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF,
OR SETTING ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY ORDER MADE OR ENTERED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SHALL BE ISSUED OR GRANTED BY ANY
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR BY ANY JUDGE THEREOF, OR BY ANY
CIRCUIT JUDGE ACTING AS DISTRICT JUDGE, UNLESS THE APPLICATION FOR THE
SAME SHALL BE PRESENTED TO A CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE, AND SHALL BE
HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THREE JUDGES, OF WHOM AT LEAST ONE SHALL BE A
CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND UNLESS A MAJORITY OF SAID THREE JUDGES SHALL CONCUR
IN GRANTING SUCH APPLICATION.  WHEN SUCH APPLICATION AS AFORESAID IS
PRESENTED TO A JUDGE, HE SHALL IMMEDIATELY CALL TO HIS ASSISTANCE TO
HEAR AND DETERMINE THE APPLICATION TWO OTHER JUDGES.  ...  PROVIDED,
THAT IN CASES WHERE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE WOULD OTHERWISE ENSUE TO THE
PETITIONER, A MAJORITY OF SAID THREE JUDGES CONCURRING, MAY, ON
HEARING,  ...  ALLOW A TEMPORARY STAY OR SUSPENSION, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, OF THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION FOR NOT MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS  ...  AND UPON THE FINAL
HEARING OF ANY SUIT BROUGHT TO SUSPEND OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, ANY ORDER OF SAID COMMISSION THE SAME REQUIREMENT AS TO JUDGES
AND THE SAME PROCEDURE AS TO EXPEDITION AND APPEAL SHALL APPLY .  ...
" 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT THREE JUDGES HEAR AND DETERMINE SUITS TO ENJOIN
OR SET ASIDE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERS HAD ITS ORIGIN IN
THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1903, 32 STAT.
823.  THAT ACT REQUIRED THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES, OR TWO CIRCUIT JUDGES AND
A DISTRICT JUDGE, TO HEAR CASES BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE
THE ANTITRUST AND COMMERCE LAWS.  THIS FEATURE WAS THEN EXTENDED BY THE
HEPBURN ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 584, 592, TO ALL SUITS BROUGHT TO ENFORCE
OR ENJOIN ANY ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, "INCLUDING
THE HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION."  THE ACT
OF JUNE 18, 1910, 36 STAT. 539, CREATED THE COMMERCE COURT AND VESTED
IN IT JURISDICTION OVER SUITS TO ENJOIN COMMISSION ORDERS; THAT COURT
WAS COMPOSED OF FIVE JUDGES, FOUR OF THEM CONSTITUTING A QUORUM AND AT
LEAST THREE BEING REQUIRED TO CONCUR IN ALL DECISIONS.  FINALLY, THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913 TRANSFERRED THIS JURISDICTION TO THREE
JUDGE DISTRICT COURTS, AS DETAILED ABOVE.  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN,
303 U.S. 226, 232-233. 

THE POLICY OF REQUIRING THE DELIBERATION OF THREE JUDGES IN SUITS TO
ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERS IS THUS
A WELL-ESTABLISHED ONE.  IT IS GROUNDED IN THE LEGISLATIVE DESIRE TO
GUARD AGAINST ILL-CONSIDERED ACTION BY A SINGLE JUDGE IN THE IMPORTANT
AND COMPLEX SITUATIONS FREQUENTLY PRESENTED BY COMMISSION ORDERS.  SUCH
MATTERS ARE DEEMED TO WARRANT THE FULL DELIBERATION WHICH A COURT OF
THREE JUDGES IS LIKELY TO SECURE. 

THIS REQUIREMENT, OF COURSE, IS NECESSARILY TECHNICAL.  IT IS NOT A
BROAD SOCIAL MEASURE TO BE CONSTRUED WITH LIBERALITY.  IT IS A
TECHNICAL RULE OF PROCEDURE TO BE APPLIED AS SUCH.  SEE PHILLIPS V.
UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 250-251.  WHILE DUE CONSIDERATION MUST BE
GIVEN TO THE STATUTORY POLICY OF EXPEDITING THE DISPOSITION OF
APPLICATIONS TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMMISSION ORDERS, THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT COMPELS STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE
COMMAND THAT SUCH APPLICATIONS "SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THREE
JUDGES, OF WHOM AT LEAST ONE SHALL BE A CIRCUIT JUDGE."  AND WE MUST
INSIST UPON OBEDIENCE TO THAT LEGISLATIVE WILL EVEN THOUGH THE
DISPOSITION OF SOME APPLICATIONS MAY THEREBY BE DELAYED. 

WHEN THE FRAMERS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT DECLARED THAT THESE
APPLICATIONS "SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THREE JUDGES," WE ASSUME
THAT THEY MEANT EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT THREE
JUDGES HEAR AND DETERMINE AN APPLICATION MEANS THAT THEY MUST
ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES OF LAW AND FACT WHICH ARE PRESENTED BY THE CASE,
A FUNCTION WHICH IMPLIES THAT THEY MUST WEIGH THE ARGUMENTS AND
TESTIMONY OFFERED BY BOTH SIDES AND VOTE EITHER TO GRANT OR DENY THE
RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE MOVING PARTY.  FN2  IN ADDITION, "COMPLIANCE WITH
THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE ASSENT OF THE THREE JUDGES GIVEN AFTER THE
APPLICATION IS MADE EVIDENCED BY THEIR SIGNATURES OR AN ANNOUNCEMENT IN
OPEN COURT WITH THREE JUDGES SITTING FOLLOWED BY A FORMAL ORDER TESTED
AS THEY DIRECT."  CUMBERLAND TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 260
U.S. 212, 218.  ALL THREE JUDGES, IN OTHER WORDS, MUST FULLY PERFORM
THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  FN3  SEE DOHANY V. ROGERS, 281 U.S. 362, 369
370. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS ACT MAKES NO PROVISION FOR A QUORUM OF
LESS THAN THREE JUDGES.  TWO JUDGES OF A THREE-JUDGE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ORDINARILY CONSTITUTE A STATUTORY QUORUM
FOR THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF CASES.  FN4  28 U.S.C. SEC. 212. 
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A QUORUM PROVISION AS TO THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT
COURTS IS A STRONG CORROBORATING INDICATION THAT PARTICIPATION BY ALL
THREE JUDGES IS NECESSARY TO RENDER A VALID DECISION.  THE ACT
PROVIDES, IT IS TRUE, THAT A DECISION MAY BE REACHED BY A THREE-JUDGE
COURT IF A "MAJORITY OF SAID THREE JUDGES" CONCUR.  BUT THAT MEANS ONLY
THAT THE DECISION OF THE THREE JUDGES NEED NOT BE UNANIMOUS; IT DOES
NOT IMPLY THAT TWO JUDGES ALONE MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CASE. 

MOREOVER, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE FAILURE OF THE THIRD JUDGE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE DETERMINATION OF A CASE, WHERE THE OTHER TWO ARE IN
AGREEMENT AS TO THE RESULT, IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  THE DECISION
REACHED BY TWO JUDGES IS NOT NECESSARILY THE ONE WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN
REACHED HAD THEY HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE
THIRD JUDGE.  AND SHOULD THE LATTER HAVE PUBLICLY INDICATED AN OPINION
DIFFERING FROM THAT OF HIS COLLEAGUES, HIS POSITION MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO
THE LITIGANTS AND TO THIS COURT IF THE CASE WERE APPEALED. 

IT IS READILY APPARENT THAT THIS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN
MET IN THIS CASE.  WHILE ALL THREE JUDGES OF THE SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED
COURT HEARD THE ORAL ARGUMENT, ONLY TWO OF THEM PARTICIPATED IN THE
DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND THE JUDGMENT WERE ALL ENTERED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL, CONCURRENCE
OR DISSENT OF THE THIRD JUDGE.  HE THUS MISSED THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE
JUDICIAL FUNCTION IN THIS CASE - THE ACTUAL ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES
OF LAW AND FACT.  ALL THAT WE HAVE HERE IS AN ADJUDICATION BY TWO
JUDGES.  BUT UNDER THE STATUTE IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THERE BE AN
ADJUDICATION BY TWO JUDGES.  THEY LACK ANY STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO HEAR
AND DETERMINE AN APPLICATION TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A COMMISSION
ORDER.  ANY ACTION OF THEIRS IN GRANTING OR DENYING SUCH AN APPLICATION
IS AS VOID AS SIMILAR ACTION BY A SINGLE JUDGE.  SEE CUMBERLAND TEL.
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SUPRA, 218-219; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS
S.W.R. CO., 282 U.S. 10, 16. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE THREE-JUDGE REQUIREMENT APPLIES
ONLY TO APPLICATIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERS; AND SINCE THE
DECISION IN THIS CASE WAS ONE DENYING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, NO
COMPLAINT CAN BE MADE THAT THE DECISION WAS RENDERED BY LESS THAN THREE
JUDGES.  REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS RESPECT TO SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380, WHICH DEALS WITH INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STATUTES OR STATE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ON THE
GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE INVOLVED.  PRIOR TO 1925,
THAT SECTION INDICATED THAT A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS NECESSARY ONLY TO
PASS UPON APPLICATIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS.  A SINGLE JUDGE
HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CAUSE ON FINAL HEARING AND TO GRANT OR
DENY A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, THEREBY PERMITTING HIM TO RECONSIDER AND
DECIDE QUESTIONS ALREADY PASSED UPON BY THE THREE JUDGES ON THE
APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  TO END THAT ANOMALOUS
SITUATION, AN AMENDMENT WAS ADDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43
STAT. 938, TO THE EFFECT THAT "THE REQUIREMENT RESPECTING THE PRESENCE
OF THREE JUDGES SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THE FINAL HEARING IN SUCH SUIT IN
THE DISTRICT COURT.  ...  "  THE PROBLEM THEN AROSE AS TO WHETHER THE
WORDS "SUCH SUIT" IN THIS AMENDMENT REFERRED ONLY TO A SUIT IN WHICH AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS IN FACT SOUGHT OR TO A SUIT IN WHICH IT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN, BUT WAS NOT, REQUESTED.  A SERIES OF DECISIONS BY THIS
COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE FORMER INTERPRETATION IS THE CORRECT
ONE.  A THREE-JUDGE COURT MUST BE CONVENED FOR FINAL HEARINGS ON
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
STATUTES ONLY WHERE AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION HAS BEEN SOUGHT AND
PRESSED TO A HEARING.  MOORE V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 272 U.S. 317;
SMITH V. WILSON, 273 U.S. 388; PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. WISCONSIN
TELEPHONE CO., 289 U.S. 67; MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 302 U.S.
419.  WHERE AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS NOT SOUGHT AND PRESSED, A
SINGLE JUDGE MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE APPLICATION FOR A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION. 

BY ANALOGY, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE SAME RULE SHOULD OBTAIN UNDER THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, THAT A THREE-JUDGE COURT SHOULD BE NECESSARY
FOR FINAL HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS ONLY WHERE
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN SOUGHT AND PRESSED.  WHILE IT IS
ADMITTED THAT AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT IN THIS CASE, THE
ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT THE APPLICATION WAS NOT PRESSED TO A HEARING, THE
NEED FOR SUCH TEMPORARY RELIEF HAVING BEEN ELIMINATED BY THE
POSTPONEMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE COMMISSION ORDER.  THE WHOLE
EMPHASIS OF THE ACT, LIKE THAT OF SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, IS
SAID TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD THE PREVENTION OF IMPROVIDENT ISSUANCE OF
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS OR RESTRAINING ORDERS.  SINCE THERE WAS NO
SUCH DANGER IN THIS CASE, THE CONCLUSION IS REACHED THAT THE UNDERLYING
REASON FOR THE CONVENING OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT IS ABSENT
HERE.    THE ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT IS TO BE FOUND IN THE CLEAR
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT ITSELF.  IT PROVIDES SIMPLY:  "AND UPON THE FINAL
HEARING OF ANY SUIT BROUGHT TO SUSPEND OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, ANY ORDER OF SAID COMMISSION THE SAME REQUIREMENT AS TO JUDGES
AND THE SAME PROCEDURE AS TO EXPEDITION AND APPEAL SHALL APPLY." 
UNLIKE SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, THERE IS NO REFERENCE HERE TO
"SUCH SUIT" - TO A SUIT WHERE AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT AND
PRESSED.  RATHER THERE IS AN UNAMBIGUOUS REFERENCE TO THE FINAL HEARING
OF "ANY SUIT" BROUGHT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A COMMISSION ORDER. 
THAT CAN ONLY MEAN ANY SUIT SEEKING PERMANENT RELIEF, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF IS ALSO REQUESTED.  AND SINCE "THE SAME
REQUIREMENT AS TO JUDGES" IS TO APPLY TO THE FINAL HEARING OF ANY SUIT,
THREE JUDGES MUST HEAR AND DETERMINE THE MATTER. 

IN ADDITION, THIS PORTION OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT WAS PART OF
THE ORIGINAL ENACTMENT AND WAS NOT ADDED TO MEET A PROBLEM LIKE THAT
WHICH AROSE UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  IT WAS DRAWN AGAINST
A BACKGROUND OF PRIOR STATUTES WHICH PROVIDED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMMISSION ORDERS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
PRESENCE OF A REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF.  THE HEPBURN ACT REQUIRED A
THREE-JUDGE COURT FOR "ALL" SUITS BROUGHT TO ENJOIN A COMMISSION ORDER,
"INCLUDING THE HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,"
- A CLEAR INDICATION THAT A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS ALSO NECESSARY WHERE
ONLY PERMANENT RELIEF WAS SOUGHT.  AND THE STATUTE WHICH CREATED THE
COMMERCE COURT, FROM WHICH THE DISTRICT COURTS INHERITED THEIR
JURISDICTION IN THIS INSTANCE, REFERRED TO "CASES" BROUGHT TO ENJOIN OR
SET ASIDE COMMISSION ORDERS, MAKING NO DISTINCTION AS TO THOSE IN WHICH
ONLY PERMANENT RELIEF WAS SOUGHT.  WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE
FRAMERS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT MEANT TO REQUIRE A THREE-JUDGE
COURT IN ANY SUIT BROUGHT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A COMMISSION
ORDER, INCLUDING A SUIT WHERE AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS NOT SOUGHT
AND PRESSED TO A HEARING. 

TIME AND AGAIN THIS COURT HAS REFERRED TO THE THREE-JUDGE COURT
REQUIREMENT UNDER THIS ACT WITHOUT MAKING THE DISTINCTION WHICH HAS
BEEN MADE UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  LAMBERT CO. V.
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 258 U.S. 377, 381-382; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 781, 784-785; UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN,
SUPRA, 232-233.  INDEED, WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE PRECISE PROBLEM, THIS
COURT HAS AFFIRMED JUDGMENTS OF THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURTS WHICH HAD
GRANTED PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS IN CASES WHERE NO INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTIONS HAD BEEN SOUGHT OR PRESSED.  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V.
IDAHO, 298 U.S. 105.  AND SEE HUDSON & MANHATTAN R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 28 F.SUPP.  137, 140. 

THE LANGUAGE AND BACKGROUND OF THE ACT, WHICH HAVE BEEN AUGMENTED BY
THE CONSISTENT UNDERSTANDING OF THIS COURT,  FN5  THUS COMBINE TO
REQUIRE THE USE OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT IN ALL CASES IN WHICH A
PERMANENT OR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT
OF A COMMISSION ORDER.  IT MATTERS NOT IN A PARTICULAR CASE WHETHER AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS REQUESTED OR WHETHER, IF SUCH RELIEF IS
ASKED, THE APPLICATION IS PRESSED TO A HEARING.  THIS ACT SEEKS TO
GUARD AGAINST MORE THAN AN IMPROVIDENT ISSUANCE OF INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTIONS BY SINGLE JUDGES; IT ALSO SEEKS TO PREVENT SINGLE JUDGES
FROM ISSUING PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS.  FN6  TO THAT END, CONGRESS HAS
REQUIRED THE USE OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT AND WE ARE BOUND TO CARRY OUT
THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF THAT REQUIREMENT.  THAT TWO JUDGES MIGHT,
IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE, GIVE THE SAME PROTECTION AGAINST SINGLE-JUDGE
ACTION AS THREE JUDGES DOES NOT JUSTIFY IGNORING OR RELAXING THE PLAIN
REQUIREMENT THAT THREE JUDGES HEAR AND DETERMINE ALL APPLICATIONS TO
ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMMISSION ORDERS.  IF SUCH AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ACT IS TO BE MADE, IT MUST BE MADE BY CONGRESS RATHER THAN BY THIS
COURT. 

SINCE THE JUDGMENT ENTERED BY TWO JUDGES IN THIS CASE WAS VOID AND
WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT AND DISMISS THE APPEAL.  APPELLANTS WILL BE FREE, OF COURSE,
TO SUGGEST THAT THE DISTRICT COURT BE RECONVENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ACT SO THAT THREE JUDGES MAY HEAR AND DETERMINE THE APPLICATION TO
ENJOIN THE COMMISSION ORDER IN ISSUE.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 208, 219,
220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 45 AND 47A; JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 238, AS AMENDED BY
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

FN2  IN OHIO V. UNITED STATES, 6 F.SUPP.  386, AFFIRMED, 292 U.S.
498, A CASE UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT WAS ARGUED BEFORE A COURT
OF THREE JUDGES, ALL OF WHOM PARTICIPATED IN THE DISCUSSIONS LEADING TO
A DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.  ONE OF THE JUDGES DIED BEFORE THE
DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED.  AN OPINION WRITTEN BY THE JUDGE WHO DIED WAS
FOUND AMONG HIS PAPERS AFTER HIS DEATH AND WAS PUBLISHED AS THE OPINION
OF THE COURT, CONCURRED IN BY THE OTHER TWO JUDGES.  THE OPINION HAD
BEEN WRITTEN PURSUANT TO AN ARRANGEMENT MADE AT A PRIOR CONFERENCE OF
THE THREE JUDGES.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, WHICH
WERE FILED SOME TIME AFTER THE OPINION, WERE SIGNED ONLY BY THE TWO
SURVIVING JUDGES.  THE MATTER, HOWEVER, WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES
ON APPEAL AND WAS NOT CONSIDERED OR DECIDED BY THIS COURT.  THE MERE
FACT THAT THE CASE WAS ENTERTAINED BY THIS COURT IS NO BASIS FOR
CONSIDERING IT AS AUTHORITATIVE ON THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, IT BEING
THE FIRM POLICY OF THIS COURT NOT TO RECOGNIZE THE EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION AS PRECEDENT WHERE THE ISSUE WAS IGNORED.  UNITED STATES
V. MORE, 3 CRANCH 159, 172; SNOW V. UNITED STATES, 118 U.S. 346, 354
355; CROSS V. BURKE, 146 U.S. 82, 87; LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V. KNOTT,
191 U.S. 225, 236; ARANT V. LANE, 245 U.S. 166, 170. 

CF. FRELLSEN & CO. V. CRANDELL, 217 U.S. 71, WHERE THIS COURT, AFTER
MR. JUSTICE BREWER'S DEATH, ADOPTED AS ITS OPINION ONE PREVIOUSLY
WRITTEN BY HIM. 

FN3  IN JAMES V. CLEMENTS, 217 F. 51, A CASE HAD BEEN ARGUED AND
SUBMITTED TO A THREE-JUDGE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND A DECISION
RENDERED BY A DIVIDED VOTE.  A PETITION FOR REHEARING HAD BEEN FILED
AND THE COURT HAD DECIDED THAT THE PRIOR DECISION WAS ERRONEOUS AND
THAT THE OPPOSITE RESULT SHOULD BE ANNOUNCED WITHOUT FURTHER BRIEFS OR
ARGUMENT.  BUT BEFORE AN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT COULD BE PROMULGATED, ONE
OF THE JUDGES DIED.  SINCE THE OTHER TWO JUDGES WERE DIVIDED IN THEIR
VIEWS, THE CASE WAS RESTORED FOR ARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL BENCH OF THREE
JUDGES.  SEE ALSO RYAN V. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, 44
F.SUPP.  912, 914. 

FN4  BUT SEE 32 STAT. 823, AS AMENDED BY 58 STAT. 272, 15 U.S.C.
(SUPP. V, 1946) SEC. 29, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE
AND THE TWO CIRCUIT JUDGES NEXT IN ORDER OF SENIORITY SHALL "HEAR AND
DETERMINE" APPEALS FROM DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENTS IN ANTITRUST CASES
WHERE THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO CONSIDER THE APPEALS BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
A QUORUM.  UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416. 

FN5  THE SAME UNDERSTANDING, THAT THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT
REQUIRES THREE JUDGES FOR ALL APPLICATIONS TO ENJOIN COMMISSION ORDERS
WHILE SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE REQUIRES A THREE-JUDGE COURT ONLY
FOR APPLICATIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS, IS SHOWN IN THE REMARKS
OF MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 2060 AND S. 2061, 68TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 33(S. 2060 LATER BECAME THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13,
1925): 

"SECTION 238 AS AMENDED AND REENACTED IN THE BILL WOULD PERMIT CASES
FALLING WITHIN FOUR PARTICULAR CLASSES, AND THOSE ONLY, TO COME FROM
THE DISTRICT COURTS DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT.  THE FIRST AND
FOURTH CLASSES ARE CONFINED TO ANTITRUST AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE CASES
COVERED BY THE SECOND SECTION OF THE EXPEDITION ACT OF FEBRUARY 11,
1903, AND THE PROVISION IN THE ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, RESPECTING THE
ENFORCEMENT, SUSPENSION, ETC., OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THESE CASES ARE HEARD IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY THREE
JUDGES, ONE OF WHOM MUST BE A CIRCUIT JUDGE.  THIS AND THE CHARACTER OF
THE CASES MAKE IT SUGGEST THAT THEY SHOULD GO DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME
COURT RATHER THAN THROUGH THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  THE THIRD
CLASS IS CONFINED TO CASES WHEREIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE
OR OF AN ORDER OF A STATE BOARD OR COMMISSION IS SUSPENDED BY AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH INJUNCTIONS ARE HEARD
IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY THREE JUDGES, ONE BEING A CIRCUIT JUDGE. 
THESE INJUNCTIONS NOW GO DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW, AND
THE BILL CONTINUES THAT PROCEDURE.  ...  " 

SEE ALSO MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER'S REMARKS AT HEARING BEFORE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 8206, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 15. 

FN6  SEE ALSO 50 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A, PROVIDING THAT NO
INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF,
OR SETTING ASIDE, ANY ACT OF CONGRESS ON THE GROUND OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY SHALL BE ISSUED BY A DISTRICT COURT, UNLESS THE
APPLICATION SHALL BE PRESENTED TO A CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE AND SHALL
BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THREE JUDGES, OF WHOM AT LEAST ONE SHALL BE
A CIRCUIT JUDGE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENTS. 
..END :



CRANE V. COMMISSIONER, 331 U.S. 1 


NO. 68.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 14, 1947.  - 153
F.2D 504, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, THE "UNADJUSTED
BASIS" FOR DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS ON THE SALE OF PHYSICAL PROPERTY
ACQUIRED BY BEQUEST SUBJECT TO AN UNASSUMED MORTGAGE IS THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY UNDIMINISHED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE.  PP. 5-11. 

THE WORD "PROPERTY," AS USED IN THAT SECTION, MEANS A PHYSICAL THING
WHICH IS A SUBJECT OF OWNERSHIP OR THE OWNER'S LEGAL RIGHTS THEREIN AND
NOT MERELY HIS "EQUITY" AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF MORTGAGES OR
OTHER LIENS.  PP. 5-11. 

2.  UNDER SEC. 113(B)(1)(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, A TAXPAYER
WHO ACQUIRED AN APARTMENT HOUSE BY BEQUEST SUBJECT TO AN UNASSUMED
MORTGAGE EQUAL TO THE VALUE THEREOF, OPERATED IT FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND
SOLD IT FOR A PRICE SLIGHTLY IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE,
WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION ON THE BUILDING; AND THE
"ADJUSTED BASIS" FOR DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS ON THE SALE IS TO BE
DETERMINED BY DEDUCTING SUCH DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES FROM THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION.  PP. 11-12. 

3.  UNDER SEC. 111(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, THE "AMOUNT
REALIZED" ON A SALE OF PROPERTY FOR CASH SUBJECT TO AN EXISTING
MORTGAGE IS THE AMOUNT OF THE CASH REALIZED PLUS THE AMOUNT OF THE
MORTGAGE, EVEN THOUGH THE SELLER HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO
THE MORTGAGE, WHICH HE NEVER ASSUMED, AND THE BUYER NEITHER ASSUMED NOR
PAID THE MORTGAGE.  PP. 12-14. 

4.  ON AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE TAX COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DETERMINATIONS BY THE TAX COURT
THAT "PROPERTY" AS USED IN SEC. 113(A) AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1938 MEANS "EQUITY," AND THAT THE AMOUNT OF A MORTGAGE
SUBJECT TO WHICH PROPERTY IS SOLD IS NOT THE MEASURE OF A BENEFIT
REALIZED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 111(B), SINCE THESE DETERMINATIONS
ANNOUNCED RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY ON CLEAR-CUT QUESTIONS OF
LAW.  P. 15. 

5.  AS HERE CONSTRUED, THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 DOES NOT TAX SOMETHING
WHICH IS NOT "INCOME" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
PP. 15-16. 

CRANE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

THE TAX COURT EXPUNGED PART OF A DEFICIENCY DETERMINED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX ON A GAIN
REALIZED ON THE SALE OF AN APARTMENT HOUSE WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY
THE TAXPAYER BY BEQUEST SUBJECT TO AN UNASSUMED MORTGAGE.  3 T.C. 585. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  153 F.2D 504.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 826.  AFFIRMED, P. 16. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS HOW A TAXPAYER WHO ACQUIRES DEPRECIABLE PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO AN UNASSUMED MORTGAGE, HOLDS IT FOR A PERIOD, AND FINALLY
SELLS IT STILL SO ENCUMBERED, MUST COMPUTE HER TAXABLE GAIN. 

PETITIONER WAS THE SOLE BENEFICIARY AND THE EXECUTRIX OF THE WILL OF
HER HUSBAND, WHO DIED JANUARY 11, 1932.  HE THEN OWNED AN APARTMENT
BUILDING AND LOT SUBJECT TO A MORTGAGE,  FN1  WHICH SECURED A PRINCIPAL
DEBT OF $255,000.00 AND INTEREST IN DEFAULT OF $7,042.50.  AS OF THAT
DATE, THE PROPERTY WAS APPRAISED FOR FEDERAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES AT A
VALUE EXACTLY EQUAL TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THIS ENCUMBRANCE.  SHORTLY
AFTER HER HUSBAND'S DEATH, PETITIONER ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE MORTGAGEE WHEREBY SHE WAS TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE PROPERTY -
COLLECTING THE RENTS, PAYING FOR NECESSARY REPAIRS, LABOR, AND OTHER
OPERATING EXPENSES, AND RESERVING $200.00 MONTHLY FOR TAXES - AND WAS
TO REMIT THE NET RENTALS TO THE MORTGAGEE.  THIS PLAN WAS FOLLOWED FOR
NEARLY SEVEN YEARS, DURING WHICH PERIOD PETITIONER REPORTED THE GROSS
RENTALS AS INCOME, AND CLAIMED AND WAS ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS FOR TAXES AND
OPERATING EXPENSES PAID ON THE PROPERTY, FOR INTEREST PAID ON THE
MORTGAGE, AND FOR THE PHYSICAL EXHAUSTION OF THE BUILDING.  MEANWHILE,
THE ARREARAGE OF INTEREST INCREASED TO $15,857.71.  ON NOVEMBER 29,
1938, WITH THE MORTGAGEE THREATENING FORECLOSURE, PETITIONER SOLD TO A
THIRD PARTY FOR $3,000.00 CASH, SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE, AND PAID
$500.00 EXPENSES OF SALE. 

PETITIONER REPORTED A TAXABLE GAIN OF $1,250.00.  HER THEORY WAS THAT
THE "PROPERTY" WHICH SHE HAD ACQUIRED IN 1932 AND SOLD IN 1938 WAS ONLY
THE EQUITY, OR THE EXCESS IN THE VALUE OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING AND
LOT OVER THE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE.  THIS EQUITY WAS OF ZERO VALUE
WHEN SHE ACQUIRED IT.  NO DEPRECIATION COULD BE TAKEN ON A ZERO VALUE. 
FN2  NEITHER SHE NOR HER VENDEE EVER ASSUMED THE MORTGAGE, SO, WHEN SHE
SOLD THE EQUITY, THE AMOUNT SHE REALIZED ON THE SALE WAS THE NET CASH
RECEIVED, OR $2,500.00.  THIS SUM LESS THE ZERO BASIS CONSTITUTED HER
GAIN, OF WHICH SHE REPORTED HALF AS TAXABLE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS A "CAPITAL ASSET."  FN3 

THE COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER, DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER REALIZED A NET
TAXABLE GAIN OF $23,767.03.  HIS THEORY WAS THAT THE "PROPERTY"
ACQUIRED AND SOLD WAS NOT THE EQUITY, AS PETITIONER CLAIMED, BUT RATHER
THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY ITSELF, OR THE OWNER'S RIGHTS TO POSSESS, USE,
AND DISPOSE OF IT, UNDIMINISHED BY THE MORTGAGE.  THE ORIGINAL BASIS
THEREOF WAS $262,042.50, ITS APPRAISED VALUE IN 1932.  OF THIS VALUE
$55,000.00 WAS ALLOCABLE TO LAND AND $207,042.50 TO BUILDING.  FN4
DURING THE PERIOD THAT PETITIONER HELD THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS AN
ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION OF $28,045.10 ON THE BUILDING,  FN5  SO THAT THE
ADJUSTED BASIS OF THE BUILDING AT THE TIME OF SALE WAS $178,997.40. 
THE AMOUNT REALIZED ON THE SALE WAS SAID TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE
$2,500.00 NET CASH RECEIPTS, BUT ALSO THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT  FN6  OF THE
MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD, BOTH TOTALING
$257,500.00.  THE SELLING PRICE WAS ALLOCABLE IN THE PROPORTION,
$54,471.15 TO THE LAND AND $203,028.85 TO THE BUILDING.  FN7  THE
COMMISSIONER AGREED THAT THE LAND WAS A "CAPITAL ASSET," BUT THOUGHT
THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT.  FN8  THUS, HE DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER
SUSTAINED A CAPITAL LOSS OF $528.85 ON THE LAND, OF WHICH 50% OR
$264.42 WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AND AN ORDINARY GAIN OF $24,031.45 ON
THE BUILDING, OR A NET TAXABLE GAIN AS INDICATED. 

THE TAX COURT AGREED WITH THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT A
"CAPITAL ASSET."  IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS IT ADOPTED PETITIONER'S
CONTENTIONS, AND EXPUNGED THE DEFICIENCY.  FN9  PETITIONER DID NOT
APPEAL FROM THE PART OF THE RULING ADVERSE TO HER, AND THESE QUESTIONS
ARE NO LONGER AT ISSUE.  ON THE COMMISSIONER'S APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  FN10  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED AS TO THE
PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE GAIN AND LOSS PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  FN11 

THE 1938 ACT,  FN12  SEC. 111(A), DEFINES THE GAIN FROM "THE SALE OR
OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY" AS "THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT REALIZED
THEREFROM OVER THE ADJUSTED BASIS PROVIDED IN SECTION 113(B)...."  IT
PROCEEDS, SEC. 111(B), TO DEFINE "THE AMOUNT REALIZED FROM THE SALE OR
OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY" AS "THE SUM OF ANY MONEY RECEIVED PLUS
THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY (OTHER THAN MONEY) RECEIVED." 
FURTHER, IN SEC. 113(B), THE "ADJUSTED BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE GAIN
OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY" IS DECLARED TO
BE "THE BASIS DETERMINED UNDER SUBSECTION (A), ADJUSTED  ...  ((1)(B))
...  FOR EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR, OBSOLESCENCE, AMORTIZATION  ...  TO
THE EXTENT ALLOWED (BUT NOT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE)...."  THE
BASIS UNDER SUBSECTION (A) "IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY  ...
DEVISE ...  OR BY THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE FROM THE DECEDENT," SEC.
113(A)(5), IS "THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF
SUCH ACQUISITION." 

LOGICALLY, THE FIRST STEP UNDER THIS SCHEME IS TO DETERMINE THE
UNADJUSTED BASIS OF THE PROPERTY, UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5), AND THE DISPUTE
IN THIS CASE IS AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN THE TERM
"PROPERTY."  IF "PROPERTY," AS USED IN THAT PROVISION, MEANS THE SAME
THING AS "EQUITY," IT WOULD NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT THE BASIS OF
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY WAS ZERO, AS SHE CONTENDS.  IF, ON THE CONTRARY,
IT MEANS THE LAND AND BUILDING THEMSELVES, OR THE OWNER'S LEGAL RIGHTS
IN THEM, UNDIMINISHED BY THE MORTGAGE, THE BASIS WAS $262,042.50. 

WE THINK THAT THE REASONS FOR FAVORING ONE OF THE LATTER
CONSTRUCTIONS ARE OF OVERWHELMING WEIGHT.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE
WORDS OF STATUTES - INCLUDING REVENUE ACTS - SHOULD BE INTERPRETED
WHERE POSSIBLE IN THEIR ORDINARY, EVERYDAY SENSES.  FN13  THE ONLY
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS OF "PROPERTY" TO BE FOUND IN THE PRINCIPAL
STANDARD DICTIONARIES  FN14  ARE THE TWO FAVORED BY THE COMMISSIONER,
I.E., EITHER THAT "PROPERTY" IS THE PHYSICAL THING WHICH IS A SUBJECT
OF OWNERSHIP, OR THAT IT IS THE AGGREGATE OF THE OWNER'S RIGHTS TO
CONTROL AND DISPOSE OF THAT THING.  "EQUITY" IS NOT GIVEN AS A SYNONYM,
NOR DO EITHER OF THE FOREGOING DEFINITIONS SUGGEST THAT IT COULD BE
CORRECTLY SO USED.  INDEED, "EQUITY" IS DEFINED AS "THE VALUE OF A
PROPERTY  ... ABOVE THE TOTAL OF THE LIENS...."  FN15  THE
CONTRADISTINCTION COULD HARDLY BE MORE POINTED.  STRONG COUNTERVAILING
CONSIDERATIONS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT A CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS,
IN USING THE WORD "PROPERTY," MEANT "EQUITY," OR THAT WE SHOULD IMPUTE
TO IT THE INTENT TO CONVEY THAT MEANING.  FN16 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE COMMISSIONER'S POSITION HAS THE APPROVAL OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 113(A)(5).  WITH RESPECT TO THE
VALUATION OF PROPERTY UNDER THAT SECTION, REG. 101, ART. 113(A)(5)-1,
PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1938 ACT, PROVIDED THAT "THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS
OF THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT AS APPRAISED FOR THE PURPOSE
OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX ...  SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ITS FAIR MARKET
VALUE...."  THE LAND AND BUILDING HERE INVOLVED WERE SO APPRAISED IN
1932, AND THEIR APPRAISED VALUE - $262,042.50 - WAS REPORTED BY
PETITIONER AS PART OF THE GROSS ESTATE.  THIS WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE ESTATE TAX LAW  FN17  AND REGULATIONS,  FN18 WHICH HAD ALWAYS
REQUIRED THAT THE VALUE OF DECEDENT'S PROPERTY, UNDIMINISHED BY LIENS,
BE SO APPRAISED AND RETURNED, AND THAT MORTGAGES BE SEPARATELY DEDUCTED
IN COMPUTING THE NET ESTATE.  FN19  AS THE QUOTED PROVISION OF THE
REGULATIONS HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 1918,  FN20  AND AS THE RELEVANT
STATUTORY PROVISION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY REENACTED SINCE THEN IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM,  FN21  THE FORMER MAY ITSELF NOW BE
CONSIDERED TO HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW.  FN22 

MOREOVER, IN THE MANY INSTANCES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE ACT IN WHICH
CONGRESS HAS USED THE WORD "PROPERTY," OR EXPRESSED THE IDEA OF
"PROPERTY" OR "EQUITY," WE FIND NO INSTANCES OF A MISUSE OF EITHER WORD
OR OF A CONFUSION OF THE IDEAS.  FN23  IN SOME PARTS OF THE ACT OTHER
THAN THE GAIN AND LOSS SECTIONS, WE FIND "PROPERTY" WHERE IT IS
UNMISTAKABLY USED IN ITS ORDINARY SENSE.  FN24 ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE
EITHER CONGRESS OR THE TREASURY INTENDED TO CONVEY THE MEANING OF
"EQUITY," IT DID SO BY THE USE OF APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE.  FN25 

A FURTHER REASON WHY THE WORD "PROPERTY" IN SEC. 113(A) SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO MEAN "EQUITY" IS THE BEARING SUCH CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE
ON THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION AND ON THE COLLATERAL
ADJUSTMENTS OF BASIS. 

ALLOWANCE FOR THE EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR OF PROPERTY...."  SECTIONS
23(N) AND 114(A) DECLARE THAT THE "BASIS UPON WHICH EXHAUSTION, WEAR
AND TEAR  ...  ARE TO BE ALLOWED" IS THE BASIS "PROVIDED IN SECTION
113(B) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE GAIN UPON THE SALE" OF THE
PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE SEC. 113(A) BASIS "ADJUSTED  ...  FOR
EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR  ...  TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED (BUT NOT LESS
THAN THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE)...." 

UNDER THESE PROVISIONS, IF THE MORTGAGOR'S EQUITY WERE THE SEC.
113(A) BASIS, IT WOULD ALSO BE THE ORIGINAL BASIS FROM WHICH
DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES ARE DEDUCTED.  IF IT IS, AND IF THE AMOUNT OF
THE ANNUAL ALLOWANCES WERE TO BE COMPUTED ON THAT VALUE, AS WOULD THEN
SEEM TO BE REQUIRED, FN26  THEY WILL REPRESENT ONLY A FRACTION OF THE
COST OF THE CORRESPONDING PHYSICAL EXHAUSTION, AND ANY RECOUPMENT BY
THE MORTGAGOR OF THE REMAINDER OF THAT COST CAN BE EFFECTED ONLY BY THE
REDUCTION OF HIS TAXABLE GAIN IN THE YEAR OF SALE.  FN27  IF, HOWEVER,
THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL ALLOWANCES WERE TO BE COMPUTED ON THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY, AND THEN DEDUCTED FROM AN EQUITY BASIS, WE WOULD IN SOME
INSTANCES HAVE TO ACCEPT DEDUCTIONS FROM A MINUS BASIS OR DENY
DEDUCTIONS ALTOGETHER.  FN28  THE COMMISSIONER ALSO ARGUES THAT TAKING
THE MORTGAGOR'S EQUITY AS THE SEC. 113(A) BASIS WOULD REQUIRE THE BASIS
TO BE CHANGED WITH EACH PAYMENT ON THE MORTGAGE,  FN29 AND THAT THE
ATTENDANT PROBLEM OF REPEATEDLY RECOMPUTING BASIS AND ANNUAL ALLOWANCES
WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS ACCOUNTING BURDEN ON BOTH THE COMMISSIONER AND
THE TAXPAYER.  MOREOVER, THE MORTGAGOR WOULD ACQUIRE CONTROL OVER THE
TIMING OF HIS DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES. 

THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY
PRECLUDE AN EQUITY BASIS, AND THE USE OF IT IS CONTRARY TO CERTAIN
IMPLICIT PRINCIPLES OF INCOME TAX DEPRECIATION, AND ENTAILS VERY GREAT
ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES.  FN30  IT MAY BE ADDED THAT THE TREASURY
HAS NEVER FURNISHED A GUIDE THROUGH THE MAZE OF PROBLEMS THAT ARISE IN
CONNECTION WITH DEPRECIATING AN EQUITY BASIS, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, HAS
CONSISTENTLY PERMITTED THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES TO BE
COMPUTED ON THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AND SUBTRACTED FROM IT AS A
BASIS.  SURELY, CONGRESS' LONG-CONTINUED ACCEPTANCE OF THIS SITUATION
GIVES IT FULL LEGISLATIVE ENDORSEMENT.  FN31 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PROPER BASIS UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5) IS THE VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY, UNDIMINISHED BY MORTGAGES THEREON, AND THAT THE
CORRECT BASIS HERE WAS $262,042.50.  THE NEXT STEP IS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT
ADJUSTMENTS ARE REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 113(B).  AS THE DEPRECIATION RATE
WAS STIPULATED, THE ONLY QUESTION AT THIS POINT IS WHETHER THE
COMMISSIONER WAS WARRANTED IN MAKING ANY DEPRECIATION ADJUSTMENTS
WHATSOEVER. 

THE PROPERTY SHALL IN ALL CASES BE MADE  ...  FOR EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND
TEAR  ...  TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED (BUT NOT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT
ALLOWABLE)  ...."  THE TAX COURT FOUND ON ADEQUATE EVIDENCE THAT THE
APARTMENT HOUSE WAS PROPERTY OF A KIND SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL EXHAUSTION,
THAT IT WAS USED IN TAXPAYER'S TRADE OR BUSINESS, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT
THE TAXPAYER WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO A DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE UNDER
SEC. 23(1), EXCEPT THAT, IN THE OPINION OF THAT COURT, THE BASIS OF THE
PROPERTY WAS ZERO, AND IT WAS THOUGHT THAT DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE
TAKEN ON A ZERO BASIS.  AS WE HAVE JUST DECIDED THAT THE CORRECT BASIS
OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT ZERO, BUT $262,042.50, WE AVOID THIS
DIFFICULTY, AND CONCLUDE THAT AN ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE MADE AS THE
COMMISSIONER DETERMINED. 

PETITIONER URGES TO THE CONTRARY THAT SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO
DEPRECIATION DEDUCTIONS, WHATEVER THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE
THE LAW ALLOWS THEM ONLY TO ONE WHO ACTUALLY BEARS THE CAPITAL LOSS,
FN32  AND HERE THE LOSS WAS NOT HERS BUT THE MORTGAGEE'S.  WE DO NOT
SEE, HOWEVER, THAT SHE HAS ESTABLISHED HER FACTUAL PREMISE.  THERE WAS
NO FINDING OF THE TAX COURT TO THAT EFFECT, NOR TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS EVER LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN.  NOR
WAS THERE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, OR ANY INDICATION THAT PETITIONER
COULD PRODUCE EVIDENCE, THAT THIS WAS SO.  THE FACTS THAT THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY WAS ONLY EQUAL TO THE LIEN IN 1932 AND THAT DURING THE
NEXT SIX AND ONE-HALF YEARS THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
DETERIORATED AND THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN INCREASED, ARE ENTIRELY
INCONCLUSIVE, PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE BUYER'S WILLINGNESS IN
1938 TO TAKE SUBJECT TO THE INCREASED LIEN AND PAY A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT
OF CASH TO BOOT.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE RULE AS TO ALLOWING DEPRECIATION
TO A MORTGAGOR ON PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION WHICH IS SUBJECT TO AN
UNASSUMED MORTGAGE AND CLEARLY WORTH LESS THAN THE LIEN, WE ARE NOT
FACED WITH THAT PROBLEM AND SEE NO REASON TO DECIDE IT NOW. 

AT LAST WE COME TO THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING THE "AMOUNT REALIZED"
ON THE 1938 SALE.  SECTION 111(B), IT WILL BE RECALLED, DEFINES THE
"AMOUNT REALIZED" FROM "THE SALE  ...  OF PROPERTY" AS "THE SUM OF ANY
MONEY RECEIVED PLUS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY (OTHER THAN
MONEY) RECEIVED," AND SEC. 111(A) DEFINES THE GAIN ON "THE SALE  ...
OF PROPERTY" AS THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT REALIZED OVER THE BASIS. 
QUITE OBVIOUSLY, THE WORD "PROPERTY," USED HERE WITH REFERENCE TO A
SALE, MUST MEAN "PROPERTY" IN THE SAME ORDINARY SENSE INTENDED BY THE
USE OF THE WORD WITH REFERENCE TO ACQUISITION AND DEPRECIATION IN SEC.
113, BOTH FOR CERTAIN OF THE REASONS STATED HERETOFORE IN DISCUSSING
ITS MEANING IN SEC. 113, AND ALSO BECAUSE THE FUNCTIONAL RELATION OF
THE TWO SECTIONS REQUIRES THAT THE WORD MEAN THE SAME IN ONE SECTION
THAT IT DOES IN THE OTHER.  IF THE "PROPERTY" TO BE VALUED ON THE DATE
OF ACQUISITION IS THE PROPERTY FREE OF LIENS, THE "PROPERTY" TO BE
PRICED ON A SUBSEQUENT SALE MUST BE THE SAME THING.  FN33 

STARTING FROM THIS POINT, WE COULD NOT ACCEPT PETITIONER'S CONTENTION
THAT THE $2,500.00 NET CASH WAS ALL SHE REALIZED ON THE SALE EXCEPT ON
THE ABSURDITY THAT SHE SOLD A QUARTER-OF-A-MILLION DOLLAR PROPERTY FOR
ROUGHLY ONE PER CENT OF ITS VALUE, AND TOOK A 99 PER CENT LOSS. 
ACTUALLY, PETITIONER DOES NOT URGE THIS.  SHE ARGUES, CONVERSELY, THAT
BECAUSE ONLY $2,500.00 WAS REALIZED ON THE SALE, THE "PROPERTY" SOLD
MUST HAVE BEEN THE EQUITY ONLY, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY WE ARE FORCED TO
ACCEPT HER CONTENTION AS TO THE MEANING OF "PROPERTY" IN SEC. 113.  WE
ADHERE, HOWEVER, TO WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID ON THE MEANING OF
"PROPERTY," AND WE FIND THAT THE ABSURDITY IS AVOIDED BY OUR CONCLUSION
THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE IS PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THE "AMOUNT
REALIZED" ON THE SALE. 

PETITIONER CONCEDES THAT IF SHE HAD BEEN PERSONALLY LIABLE ON THE
MORTGAGE AND THE PURCHASER HAD EITHER PAID OR ASSUMED IT, THE AMOUNT SO
PAID OR ASSUMED WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THE "AMOUNT REALIZED"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 111(B).  FN34  THE CASES SO DECIDING HAVE
ALREADY REPUDIATED THE NOTION THAT THERE MUST BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT BY
THE SELLER HIMSELF OF "MONEY" OR "OTHER PROPERTY," IN THEIR NARROWEST
SENSES.  IT WAS THOUGHT TO BE DECISIVE THAT ONE SECTION OF THE ACT MUST
BE CONSTRUED SO AS NOT TO DEFEAT THE INTENTION OF ANOTHER OR TO
FRUSTRATE THE ACT AS A WHOLE, FN35  AND THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS THE
"BENEFICIARY" OF THE PAYMENT IN "AS REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL (A SENSE) AS
IF THE MONEY HAD BEEN PAID IT AND THEN PAID OVER BY IT TO ITS
CREDITORS."  FN36 

BOTH THESE POINTS APPLY TO THIS CASE.  THE FIRST HAS BEEN MENTIONED
ALREADY.  AS FOR THE SECOND, WE THINK THAT A MORTGAGOR, NOT PERSONALLY
LIABLE ON THE DEBT, WHO SELLS THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE AND
FOR ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION, REALIZES A BENEFIT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE
MORTGAGE AS WELL AS THE BOOT.  FN37  IF A PURCHASER PAYS BOOT, IT IS
IMMATERIAL AS TO OUR PROBLEM WHETHER THE MORTGAGOR IS ALSO TO RECEIVE
MONEY FROM THE PURCHASER TO DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE PRIOR TO SALE, OR
WHETHER HE IS MERELY TO TRANSFER SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE - IT MAY MAKE
A DIFFERENCE TO THE PURCHASER AND TO THE MORTGAGEE, BUT NOT TO THE
MORTGAGOR.  OR PUT IN ANOTHER WAY, WE ARE NO MORE CONCERNED WITH
WHETHER THE MORTGAGOR IS, STRICTLY SPEAKING, A DEBTOR ON THE MORTGAGE,
THAN WE ARE WITH WHETHER THE BENEFIT TO HIM IS, STRICTLY SPEAKING, A
RECEIPT OF MONEY OR PROPERTY.  WE ARE RATHER CONCERNED WITH THE REALITY
THAT AN OWNER OF PROPERTY, MORTGAGED AT A FIGURE LESS THAN THAT AT
WHICH THE PROPERTY WILL SELL, MUST AND WILL TREAT THE CONDITIONS OF THE
MORTGAGE EXACTLY AS IF THEY WERE HIS PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS.  FN38  IF HE
TRANSFERS SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE, THE BENEFIT TO HIM IS AS REAL AND
SUBSTANTIAL AS IF THE MORTGAGE WERE DISCHARGED, OR AS IF A PERSONAL
DEBT IN AN EQUAL AMOUNT HAD BEEN ASSUMED BY ANOTHER. 

THEREFORE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS RIGHT IN DETERMINING
THAT PETITIONER REALIZED $257,500.00 ON THE SALE OF THIS PROPERTY. 

THE TAX COURT'S CONTRARY DETERMINATIONS, THAT "PROPERTY," AS USED IN
SEC. 113(A) AND RELATED SECTIONS, MEANS "EQUITY," AND THAT THE AMOUNT
OF A MORTGAGE SUBJECT TO WHICH PROPERTY IS SOLD IS NOT THE MEASURE OF A
BENEFIT REALIZED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 111(B), ANNOUNCED RULES OF
GENERAL APPLICABILITY ON CLEAR-CUT QUESTIONS OF LAW.  FN39  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THEM.  FN40 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE RESULT WE HAVE REACHED TAXES HER ON WHAT
IS NOT INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IF THIS
IS BECAUSE ONLY THE DIRECT RECEIPT OF CASH IS THOUGHT TO BE INCOME IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, HER CONTENTION IS WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT.  FN41
IF IT IS BECAUSE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN "BY
ALL DICTATES OF COMMON SENSE  ...  A RUINOUS DISASTER," AS IT WAS
TERMED IN HER BRIEF, WE DISAGREE WITH HER PREMISE.  SHE WAS ENTITLED TO
DEPRECIATION DEDUCTIONS FOR A PERIOD OF NEARLY SEVEN YEARS, AND SHE
ACTUALLY TOOK THEM IN ALMOST THE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT.  THE CRUX OF THIS
CASE, REALLY, IS WHETHER THE LAW PERMITS HER TO EXCLUDE ALLOWABLE
DEDUCTIONS FROM CONSIDERATION IN COMPUTING GAIN.  FN42  WE HAVE ALREADY
SHOWED THAT, IF IT DOES, THE TAXPAYER CAN ENJOY A DOUBLE DEDUCTION, IN
EFFECT, ON THE SAME LOSS OF ASSETS.  THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT RESULT ANY MORE THAN DOES THE ACT ITSELF.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER HE WAS PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR
THE DEBT. 

FN2  THIS POSITION IS, OF COURSE, INCONSISTENT WITH HER PRACTICE IN
CLAIMING SUCH DEDUCTIONS IN EACH OF THE YEARS THE PROPERTY WAS HELD. 
THE DEDUCTIONS SO CLAIMED AND ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER WERE IN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $25,500.00. 

FN3  SEE SEC. 117(A), (B), REVENUE ACT OF 1938, C. 289, 52 STAT.
447.  UNDER THIS PROVISION ONLY 50% OF THE GAIN REALIZED ON THE SALE OF
A "CAPITAL ASSET" NEED BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, IF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN
HELD MORE THAN TWO YEARS. 

FN4  THE PARTIES STIPULATED AS TO THE RELATIVE PARTS OF THE 1932
APPRAISED VALUE AND OF THE 1938 SALES PRICE WHICH WERE ALLOCABLE TO
LAND AND BUILDING. 

FN5  THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE
TO THE BUILDING WAS 2% PER ANNUM. 

FN6  THE COMMISSIONER EXPLAINS THAT ONLY THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, RATHER
THAN THE TOTAL PRESENT DEBT SECURED BY THE MORTGAGE, WAS DEEMED TO BE A
MEASURE OF THE AMOUNT REALIZED, BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO INTEREST DUE, A DEDUCTIBLE ITEM. 

FN7  SEE SUPRA, NOTE 4. 

FN8  SEE SEC. 117(A)(1), REVENUE ACT OF 1938, SUPRA. 

FN9  3 T.C. 585.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT A "CAPITAL
ASSET" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 117(A) AND THAT THE ENTIRE GAIN ON
THE BUILDING HAD TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT UNDER SEC. 117(B), BECAUSE IT
FOUND THAT THE BUILDING WAS OF A CHARACTER SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL
EXHAUSTION AND THAT PETITIONER HAD USED IT IN HER TRADE OR BUSINESS. 

BUT BECAUSE THE COURT ACCEPTED PETITIONER'S THEORY THAT THE ENTIRE
PROPERTY HAD A ZERO BASIS, IT HELD THAT SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE
1938 DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION ON THE BUILDING WHICH SHE HAD
INCONSISTENTLY CLAIMED. 

FOR THESE REASONS, IT DID NOT EXPUNGE THE DEFICIENCY IN ITS
ENTIRETY. 

FN10  153 F.2D 504. 

FN11  328 U.S. 826. 

FN12  ALL SUBSEQUENT REFERENCES TO A REVENUE ACT ARE TO THIS ACT
UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.  THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE GAIN AND LOSS
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND CODE ARE IDENTICAL. 

FN13  OLD COLONY R. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 284 U.S. 552, 560. 

FN14  SEE WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED, 2D ED.;
FUNK & WAGNALLS' NEW STANDARD DICTIONARY; OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY. 

FN15  SEE WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, SUPRA. 

FN16  CROOKS V. HARRELSON, 282 U.S. 55, 59. 

FN17  SEE SECS. 202 AND 203(A)(1), REVENUE ACT OF 1916; SECS. 402 AND
403(A)(1), REVENUE ACTS OF 1918 AND 1921; SECS. 302, 303(A)(1), REVENUE
ACTS OF 1924 AND 1926; SEC. 805, REVENUE ACT OF 1932. 

FN18  SEE REG. 37, ARTS. 13, 14, AND 47; REG. 63, ARTS. 12, 13, AND
41; REG. 68, ARTS. 11, 13, AND 38; REG. 70, ARTS. 11, 13, AND 38; REG.
80, ARTS. 11, 13, AND 38. 

FN19  SEE CITY BANK FARMERS' TRUST CO. V. BOWERS, 68 F.2D 909, CERT.
DENIED, 292 U.S. 644; RODIEK V. HELVERING, 87 F.2D 328; ADRIANCE V.
HIGGINS, 113 F.2D 1013. 

FN20  SEE ALSO REG. 45, ART. 1562; REG. 62, ART. 1563; REG. 65, ART.
1594; REG. 69, ART. 1594; REG. 74, ART. 596; REG. 77, ART. 596; REG.
86, ART. 113(A)(5)-1(C); REG. 94, ART. 113(A)(5)-1(C); REG. 103, SEC.
19.113(A)(5)-1(C); REG. 111, SEC. 29.113(A)(5)-1(C). 

FN21  SEC. 202(A)(3), REVENUE ACT OF 1921; SEC. 204(A)(5), REVENUE
ACT OF 1924; SEC. 204(A)(5), REVENUE ACT OF 1926; SEC. 113(A)(5),
REVENUE ACT OF 1928; SEC. 113(A)(5), REVENUE ACT OF 1932; SEC.
113(A)(5), REVENUE ACT OF 1934; SEC. 113(A)(5), REVENUE ACT OF 1936;
SEC. 113(A)(5), REVENUE ACT OF 1938; SEC. 113(A)(5), INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE. 

FN22  HELVERING V. REYNOLDS CO., 306 U.S. 110, 114. 

FN23  CF. HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS BANK, 293 U.S. 84, 87. 

FN24  SEC. 23(A)(1) PERMITS THE DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME OF
"RENTALS  ...  REQUIRED TO BE MADE AS A CONDITION TO THE CONTINUED USE
...  FOR PURPOSES OF THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, OF PROPERTY ...  IN WHICH
HE (THE TAXPAYER) HAS NO EQUITY." 

SEC. 23(L) PERMITS THE DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME OF "A REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE FOR THE EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR OF PROPERTY USED IN THE
TRADE OR BUSINESS  ...." 

SEE ALSO SEC. 303(A)(1), REVENUE ACT OF 1926, C. 27, 44 STAT. 9; SEC.
805, REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 280. 

FN25  SEE SEC. 23(A)(1), SUPRA, NOTE 24; SEC. 805, REVENUE ACT OF
1932, SUPRA, NOTE 24; SEC. 3482, I.R.C.; REG. 105, SEC. 81.38.  THIS
PROVISION OF THE REGULATIONS, FIRST APPEARING IN 1937, T.D. 4729, 1937
1 CUM. BULL.  284, 289, PERMITTED ESTATES WHICH WERE NOT LIABLE ON
MORTGAGES APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN OF DECEDENT'S PROPERTY TO RETURN "ONLY
THE VALUE OF THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION (OR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, LESS
THE INDEBTEDNESS)  ...." 

FN26  SECS. 23(N) AND 114(A), IN DEFINING THE "BASIS UPON WHICH"
DEPRECIATION IS "TO BE ALLOWED," DO NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BASIS AS
THE MINUEND FROM WHICH THE ALLOWANCES ARE TO BE DEDUCTED, AND AS THE
DIVIDEND FROM WHICH THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWANCE IS TO BE COMPUTED.  THE
REGULATIONS INDICATE THAT THE BASIS OF PROPERTY IS THE SAME FOR BOTH
PURPOSES.  REG. 101, ART. 23(L)-4, 5. 

FN27  THIS IS CONTRARY TO TREASURY PRACTICE, AND TO REG. 101, ART.
23(L)-5, WHICH PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE CAPITAL SUM TO BE RECOVERED SHALL BE CHARGED OFF OVER THE USEFUL
LIFE OF THE PROPERTY, EITHER IN EQUAL ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS OR IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ANY OTHER RECOGNIZED TRADE PRACTICE, SUCH AS AN
APPORTIONMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OVER UNITS OF PRODUCTION." 

SEE DETROIT EDISON CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 98, 101. 

FN28  SO LONG AS THE MORTGAGOR REMAINS IN POSSESSION, THE MORTGAGEE
CAN NOT TAKE DEPRECIATION DEDUCTIONS, EVEN IF HE IS THE ONE WHO
ACTUALLY SUSTAINS THE CAPITAL LOSS, AS SEC. 23(L) ALLOWS THEM ONLY ON
PROPERTY "USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS." 

FN29  SEC. 113(B)(1)(A) REQUIRES ADJUSTMENT OF BASIS "FOR
EXPENDITURES  ...  PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT  ...." 

FN30  OBVIOUSLY WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING A SITUATION IN WHICH A
TAXPAYER HAS ACQUIRED AND SOLD AN EQUITY OF REDEMPTION ONLY, I.E., A
RIGHT TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PRESENT POSSESSION.  IN
THAT SITUATION, THE RIGHT TO REDEEM WOULD ITSELF BE THE AGGREGATE OF
THE TAXPAYER'S RIGHTS AND WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY CONSTITUTE "PROPERTY"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 113(A).  NO DEPRECIATION PROBLEMS WOULD
ARISE.  SEE NOTE 28. 

FN31  SEE NOTE 22. 

FN32  SEE HELVERING V. LAZARUS & CO., 308 U.S. 252; DUFFY V. CENTRAL
R. CO., 268 U.S. 55, 64. 

FN33  SEE MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, 313 U.S. 1, 8. 

WE ARE NOT TROUBLED BY PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT HER CONTRACT OF
SALE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF THE EQUITY ONLY.  SHE
ACTUALLY CONVEYED TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, AND THE BUYER TOOK THE SAME
PROPERTY THAT PETITIONER HAD ACQUIRED IN 1932 AND USED IN HER TRADE OR
BUSINESS UNTIL ITS SALE. 

FN34  UNITED STATES V. HENDLER, 303 U.S. 564; BRONS HOTELS, INC., 34
B.T.A. 376; WALTER F. HAASS, 37 B.T.A. 948.  SEE DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS,
296 U.S. 1, 8. 

FN35  SEE BRONS HOTELS, INC., SUPRA, 34 B.T.A. AT 381. 

FN36  SEE UNITED STATES V. HENDLER, SUPRA, 303 U.S. AT 566. 

FN37  OBVIOUSLY, IF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT
OF THE MORTGAGE, A MORTGAGOR WHO IS NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE CANNOT
REALIZE A BENEFIT EQUAL TO THE MORTGAGE.  CONSEQUENTLY, A DIFFERENT
PROBLEM MIGHT BE ENCOUNTERED WHERE A MORTGAGOR ABANDONED THE PROPERTY
OR TRANSFERRED IT SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE WITHOUT RECEIVING BOOT.  THAT
IS NOT THIS CASE. 

FN38  FOR INSTANCE, THIS PETITIONER RETURNED THE GROSS RENTALS AS HER
OWN INCOME, AND OUT OF THEM PAID INTEREST ON THE MORTGAGE, ON WHICH SHE
CLAIMED AND WAS ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS.  SEE REG. 77, ART. 141; REG. 86,
ART. 23(B)-1; REG. 94, ART. 23(B)-1; REG. 101, ART. 23(B)-1.    FN39
SEE COMMISSIONER V. WILCOX, 327 U.S. 404, 410; TRUST OF BINGHAM V.
COMMISSIONER, 325 U.S. 365, 369-372.  CF. JOHN KELLEY CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 326 U.S. 521, 527; DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489. 

FN40  IBID; SEE ALSO SEC. 1141(A) AND (C), I.R.C. 

FN41  DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, 296 U.S. AT 9; BURNET V. WELLS, 289
U.S. 670, 677. 

FN42  IN THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENT SOME REFERENCE WAS MADE, AS BY
ANALOGY, TO A SITUATION IN WHICH A TAXPAYER ACQUIRED BY DEVISE PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO A MORTGAGE IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN THE THEN VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY, AND LATER TRANSFERRED IT TO A THIRD PERSON, STILL SUBJECT TO
THE MORTGAGE, AND FOR A CASH BOOT.  WHETHER OR NOT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON ACQUISITION AND THE AMOUNT OF THE
MORTGAGE WOULD IN THAT SITUATION CONSTITUTE EITHER STATUTORY OR
CONSTITUTIONAL INCOME IS A QUESTION WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE
BEFORE US, AND WHICH WE NEED NOT PRESENTLY ANSWER. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE TAX COURT CONCLUDED THAT THIS TAXPAYER ACQUIRED ONLY AN EQUITY
WORTH NOTHING.  THE MORTGAGE WAS IN DEFAULT, THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS
EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, ANY POSSESSION BY THE TAXPAYER WAS
FORFEITED AND TERMINABLE IMMEDIATELY BY FORECLOSURE, AND PERHAPS BY A
RECEIVER PENDENTE LITE.  ARGUMENTS CAN BE ADVANCED TO SUPPORT THE
THEORY THAT THE TAXPAYER RECEIVED THE WHOLE PROPERTY AND THEREUPON CAME
TO OWE THE WHOLE DEBT.  LIKEWISE IT IS ARGUED THAT WHEN SHE SOLD SHE
TRANSFERRED THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND RECEIVED RELEASE FROM
THE WHOLE DEBT.  BUT WE THINK THESE ARGUMENTS ARE NOT SO CONCLUSIVE
THAT IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE TAX COURT TO FIND THAT SHE
RECEIVED AN EQUITY WHICH AT THAT TIME HAD A ZERO VALUE.  DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489; COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN
INVESTMENT CO., LTD., 323 U.S. 119.  THE TAXPAYER NEVER BECAME
PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THE DEBT, AND HENCE WHEN SHE SOLD SHE WAS
RELEASED FROM NO DEBT.  THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS SIMPLY A SUBTRACTION FROM
THE VALUE OF WHAT SHE DID RECEIVE, AND FROM WHAT SHE SOLD.  THE
SUBTRACTION LEFT HER NOTHING WHEN SHE ACQUIRED IT AND A SMALL MARGIN
WHEN SHE SOLD IT.  SHE ACQUIRED A PROPERTY RIGHT EQUIVALENT TO AN
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION AND SOLD THE SAME THING.  IT WAS THE "PROPERTY"
BOUGHT AND SOLD AS THE TAX COURT CONSIDERED IT TO BE UNDER THE REVENUE
LAWS.  WE ARE NOT REQUIRED IN THIS CASE TO DECIDE WHETHER DEPRECIATION
WAS PROPERLY TAKEN, FOR THERE IS NO ISSUE ABOUT IT HERE. 

WE WOULD REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS
OPINION. 
..END :















WALLING V. HALLIBURTON CO., 331 U.S. 17 


NO. 74.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 10, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 14, 1947.  - 152
F.2D 622, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AN EMPLOYER WHOSE
EMPLOYEES WORKED IRREGULAR HOURS VARYING FROM LESS THAN 30 TO MORE THAN
100 PER WEEK AND FORMERLY RECEIVED FIXED MONTHLY SALARIES, ENTERED INTO
CONTRACTS WITH THEM INDIVIDUALLY WHICH IN EACH CASE SPECIFIED A BASIC
RATE OF PAY PER HOUR FOR THE FIRST 40 HOURS IN ANY WORKWEEK AND NOT
LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THAT RATE PER HOUR FOR OVERTIME, WITH
A GUARANTY THAT THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD RECEIVE EACH WEEK FOR REGULAR TIME
AND OVERTIME NOT LESS THAN A SPECIFIED AMOUNT.  UNDER THIS PLAN, THE
EMPLOYEE WORKED MORE THAN 84 HOURS BEFORE HE BECAME ENTITLED TO ANY PAY
IN ADDITION TO THE WEEKLY GUARANTY; BUT, WHEN HE WORKED ENOUGH HOURS TO
EARN MORE THAN THE GUARANTY, THE SURPLUS TIME WAS PAID FOR AT 150% OF
THE BASIC CONTRACT RATE.  HIS COMPENSATION EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED THAT
WHICH HE WAS RECEIVING WHEN THE ACT WENT INTO EFFECT AND EXCEEDED THE
MINIMA WHICH THE ACT PRESCRIBES.  HELD:  THIS CONTRACT DID NOT VIOLATE
SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT.  PP. 18-26. 

2.  WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624, FOLLOWED.  WALLING V.
HELMERICH & PAYNE, INC., 323 U.S. 37; OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL,
316 U.S. 572; WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S.
419; WALLING V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 325 U.S. 427, DISTINGUISHED.  PP.
20-26. 

WALLING, WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR, V. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL
CEMENTING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED RELIEF IN A SUIT BY THE WAGE AND HOUR
ADMINISTRATOR TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  57 F.SUPP.  408.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  152 F.2D 622.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S.
828.  AFFIRMED, P. 26. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE BRINGS HERE A QUESTION AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE
OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FN1  TO THE
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS SIMILAR TO
THOSE IN WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624. 

RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CEMENTING, TESTING AND
OTHERWISE SERVICING OIL WELLS, FOR WHICH IT USES ITS OWN PECULIAR
EQUIPMENT.  TO OPERATE THIS EQUIPMENT RESPONDENT RETAINS A HIGHLY
STABILIZED GROUP OF SKILLED AND SPECIALLY TRAINED "FIELD EMPLOYEES." 
THE VOLUME OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS, HOWEVER, IS HIGHLY INCONSTANT. 
CONSEQUENTLY, THESE EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED TO WORK A VARIABLE NUMBER OF
HOURS FROM DAY TO DAY AND FROM WEEK TO WEEK. 

PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE ACT IN 1938, THESE EMPLOYEES WERE PAID FIXED
MONTHLY SALARIES.  THEREAFTER, THEY WERE PUT ON A "WEEKLY-GUARANTEE"
PLAN SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH WAS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE BELO CASE.  THIS
PLAN WAS ABANDONED MARCH 1, 1942, UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE ACT, AND REINSTATED JULY 1, 1942, AFTER THE BELO DECISION HAD
SEEMED TO END ALL QUESTIONS AS TO ITS LEGALITY N2.  SINCE ITS
REINSTATEMENT THE PLAN HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY IN EFFECT, AND EMBODIED IN
FORMAL WRITTEN CONTRACTS BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE EMPLOYEES TO WHOM
IT HAS APPLIED. 

THE PART OF THESE CONTRACTS NOW IN ISSUE IS RESPONDENT'S AGREEMENT TO
PAY THESE EMPLOYEES "A REGULAR BASIC RATE OF (A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF)
CENTS PER HOUR FOR THE FIRST (40) HOURS OF ANY WORKWEEK, AND NOT LESS
THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES SUCH BASIC HOURLY RATE OF PAY FOR ALL TIME
OVER (40) HOURS IN ANY WORKWEEK, WITH A GUARANTEE THAT EMPLOYEE SHALL
RECEIVE FOR REGULAR TIME AND FOR SUCH OVERTIME AS THE NECESSITIES OF
THE BUSINESS MAY DEMAND A SUM NOT LESS THAN $ (A SPECIFIED NUMBER) FOR
EACH WORKWEEK."  FN3 

THE REGULAR BASIC RATE SO SPECIFIED WAS IN EACH CASE AT OR ABOVE THE
MINIMUM PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT OR BY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER, BUT THAT
RATE WAS ALWAYS SO RELATED TO THE GUARANTEED FLAT SUM THAT THE EMPLOYEE
BECAME ENTITLED TO MORE THAN THE GUARANTEE ONLY IN WEEKS IN WHICH HE
WORKED MORE THAN 84 HOURS.  FN4  THE COMPENSATION ACTUALLY PAID WAS
REGULARLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION AS STATED. 

PETITIONER SUED RESPONDENT UNDER SEC. 17 OF THE ACT TO ENJOIN AGAINST
FUTURE ADHERENCE TO THIS PLAN, ON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED TO INCLUDE
OVERTIME COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 7(A).  HE CONTENDED THAT THE
ACTUAL "REGULAR RATE" OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE UNDER THESE CONTRACTS WAS
NOT THE SPECIFIED BASIC RATE, BUT RATHER THE QUOTIENT OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE CORRELATIVE GUARANTEE DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED IN THAT
WEEK.  THIS WAS SAID TO FOLLOW FROM THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEES USUALLY
WORKED LESS THAN 84 HOURS A WEEK AND NEVERTHELESS RECEIVED THE FULL
GUARANTEED SUM. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE "BONA
FIDE," AND THAT THEY WERE "INTENDED TO AND DID REALLY FIX THE REGULAR
RATE" AT WHICH THE MEN WERE EMPLOYED.  IT DENIED RELIEF  FN5  AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,  FN6  BOTH COURTS RELYING ON OUR
DECISION IN THE BELO CASE. 

PETITIONER ADMITS A CLOSE SIMILARITY OF FACTS AND OF HIS BASIC
CONTENTIONS IN THIS AND THE BELO CASE.  HE ARGUES, HOWEVER, THAT THE
BELO DECISION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED:  (A) BECAUSE THERE ARE FACTUAL
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO CASES ADEQUATE TO DISTINGUISH THEM, (B)
BECAUSE BELO HAS BEEN IMPLICITLY OVERRULED BY LATER DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT, AND (C) BECAUSE THE BELO DECISION IS ERRONEOUS. 

AS TO THE FIRST OF THESE ARGUMENTS, WE NOTE THAT THE CONTRACTS IN
BELO AND IN THIS CASE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL, EXCEPT FOR THE
AMOUNT OF THE HOURLY RATE AND OF THE FIXED GUARANTEE.  UNDER THE BELO
CONTRACT, HOWEVER, OVERTIME WOULD BE PAID IN ADDITION TO THE GUARANTEED
WAGE AFTER 54 1/2 HOURS HAD BEEN WORKED IN ANY GIVEN WEEK; FN7  UNDER
THIS CONTRACT, ONLY AFTER 84 HOURS.  IT IS SAID THAT THIS 84 HOURS
BEARS NO RELATION TO THE USUAL WORKWEEK. 

ACTUALLY, THE EMPLOYEES IN THIS CASE HAVE NO USUAL WORKWEEK.  IN MANY
WEEKS THEY WORK MORE THAN 100 HOURS; IN OTHERS LESS THAN 30.  IN ABOUT
20 PER CENT OF THE WORKWEEKS, THEY WORK IN EXCESS OF 84 HOURS.  FN8
WHENEVER THEY DO, THEY ARE PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT ON THE
BASIS OF THE SPECIFIED HOURLY RATE WITH APPROPRIATE OVERTIME. 

NO MORE CAN BE SAID AS TO THE RELATION BETWEEN 54 1/2 HOURS AND THE
USUAL WORKWEEK IN BELO.  IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD IN THAT CASE THAT
THE EMPLOYEES THERE INVOLVED ALSO WORKED FLUCTUATING WORKWEEKS, AND
THAT THE AVERAGE WORKWEEK WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN 54 1/2 HOURS. 
INDEED, IT APPEARS THAT THE BELO EMPLOYEES EXCEEDED 54 1/2 HOURS IN
CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN 20 PER CENT OF THE WEEKS WORKED.  FN9  WHEN THEY
DID SO, THEY TOO WERE PAID AT THE CONTRACTUAL RATE WITH APPROPRIATE
OVERTIME.  FN10  THERE IS NOTHING HERE TO SUGGEST DIFFERENT TREATMENT
OF THE TWO CASES. 

PETITIONER ALSO POINTS TO ALLEGED DIFFERENCES IN THE FACT THAT
RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE PAID THE FULL WEEKLY GUARANTEE EVEN WHEN ITS
EMPLOYEES WORKED LESS THAN 40 HOURS IN THE WEEK, AND THE FACT THAT
RESPONDENT CARRIED FIXED RATHER THAN FLUCTUATING OVERTIME RATES ON ITS
PAYROLL RECORDS. 

AS TO THE FIRST OF THESE POINTS, THERE IS ACTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THIS CASE AND BELO.  THE EMPLOYEES IN BOTH CASES HAD A
CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO THE FULL GUARANTEE HOWEVER SHORT THEIR WORKWEEK,
AND THOSE IN BELO WERE PAID IT AS WELL AS THOSE HERE.  FN11  THE SECOND
FACT WE THINK WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  THE FUNCTION OF THE PAYROLL
RECORDS WAS MERELY TO SHOW THE AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE.  THESE
RECORDS DID NOT AFFECT RESPONDENT'S CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS, NOR SUGGEST A
PRACTICE AT VARIANCE WITH THE CONTRACT. 

WE THINK THAT WHATEVER DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN THIS CASE AND BELO
ARE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE, AND THAT IT MUST EITHER BE FOLLOWED OR
OVERRULED. 

THIS BRINGS US TO PETITIONER'S SECOND ARGUMENT, IN WHICH OUR
ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THREE CASES DECIDED SINCE BELO, WHEREIN WE
HELD THAT CERTAIN PLANS OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION FAILED TO MEET THE
SEC. 7(A) REQUIREMENT.  IT IS URGED THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR OVERTIME
COMPENSATION IN THESE CASES WERE LEGALLY NO LESS ADEQUATE THAN, AND
THAT THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THEY WERE DECIDED ARE NECESSARILY
INCONSISTENT WITH, THE OVERTIME PROVISION AND THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
BELO CASE. 

IN BELO ITSELF, THE SPECIFIED BASIC HOURLY RATE WAS HELD TO BE THE
ACTUAL REGULAR RATE BECAUSE, AS TO WEEKS IN WHICH EMPLOYEES WORKED MORE
THAN 54 1/2 HOURS, THE SPECIFIED RATE DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF
COMPENSATION ACTUALLY PAYABLE; AS TO WEEKS IN WHICH THEY WORKED LESS,
THE COURT INFERRED FROM THE COLLATERAL SPECIFICATION OF A BASIC RATE
AND PROVISION FOR A LEGAL BUT VARIABLE RATE OF OVERTIME PAY THAT THE
GUARANTEED FLAT SUM THEN DUE ALSO CONTEMPLATED BOTH BASIC PAY AND
OVERTIME.  FN12  ON THE OTHER HAND, WE FIND THAT IN THE THREE LATER
CASES RELIED ON BY PETITIONER, THE AGREED METHOD BY WHICH WAGES WERE
COMPUTED MADE A LIKE INFERENCE IMPOSSIBLE. 

IN WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, INC., 323 U.S. 37, WE CONSIDERED A
"SPLIT-DAY PLAN," UNDER WHICH A PRESCRIBED "REGULAR" HOURLY RATE WAS
PAYABLE FOR THE FIRST FOUR HOURS OF EACH EIGHT-HOUR SHIFT, AND A
PRESCRIBED "OVERTIME" RATE, OF ONE AND ONE-HALF THE "REGULAR" RATE, WAS
PAYABLE FOR THE OTHER FOUR HOURS.  FN13  IN THOSE WEEKS IN WHICH AN
EMPLOYEE WORKED STATUTORY OVERTIME, HE WAS PAID AT THE CONTRACT
"OVERTIME" RATE FOR MANY STRAIGHT-TIME HOURS AND AT THE CONTRACT
"REGULAR" RATE FOR MANY OVERTIME HOURS.  OBVIOUSLY, THESE PRESCRIBED
RATES WERE NOT ACTUAL REGULAR AND OVERTIME RATES, ALTHOUGH SO NAMED IN
THE PLAN.  CONSEQUENTLY, AS IN OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S.
572, WE HELD THAT THE REGULAR RATE WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THE
WAGES ACTUALLY PAID BY THE HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED.  IN SO DECIDING, WE
EXPRESSLY NOTED THAT BELO WAS NOT CONTROLLING BECAUSE THE WAGE PLANS
INVOLVED IN THE TWO CASES POSED ENTIRELY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS AS TO THE
APPLICATION OF SEC. 7(A).  FN14 

IN WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S. 419, AND
WALLING V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 325 U.S. 427, THE CONTRACTS ESTABLISHED
TWO ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR COMPUTING EACH EMPLOYEE'S WAGES.  ONE WAS
TO MULTIPLY HIS STRAIGHT-TIME HOURS OF WORK BY A SPECIFIED BASIC HOURLY
RATE, AND HIS OVERTIME HOURS BY ONE AND ONE-HALF THAT RATE, AND ADD THE
PRODUCTS.  THE OTHER WAS TO MULTIPLY THE NUMBER OF JOBS DONE BY A
SPECIFIED PIECEWORK RATE.  THE EMPLOYEE WAS ENTITLED TO BE PAID THE
GREATER OF THESE TWO SUMS.  FN15  THE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE AMOUNT
DUE AT PIECEWORK RATES, WHICH WERE CONSTANT FOR WORK DONE ON BOTH
STRAIGHT-TIME AND OVERTIME HOURS, OF COURSE NEGATED ANY POSSIBLE
INFERENCE THAT THE PAYMENT OF SUCH AMOUNT CONTEMPLATED LEGAL OVERTIME
COMPENSATION.  THE SPECIFIED HOURLY RATES WERE SO LOW, HOWEVER,
RELATIVE TO PIECEWORK RATES, THAT THE LATTER WERE ALWAYS, OR ALMOST
ALWAYS, DETERMINATIVE OF THE WAGE ACTUALLY TO BE PAID.  THESE CASES
HELD MERELY THAT SUCH SPECIFIED HOURLY RATES WERE NOT THE "REGULAR"
RATES OF WAGE PAYMENTS TO WHICH THEY WERE NOT RELATED, AND WHICH WERE
COMPUTED ACCORDING TO A NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT METHOD.  AGAIN, BELO
WAS EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED.  FN16 

INDEED, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE COURT'S OPINIONS IN THESE CASES, FAR
FROM UNDERMINING BELO, SHOWED AN AFFIRMATIVE CONCERN THAT LANGUAGE
APPROPRIATE TO THE SITUATIONS THEN BEFORE US SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO
THE DIFFERENT SITUATION INVOLVED IN THIS AND THE BELO CASE. 

FINALLY, PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT BELO WAS WRONGLY DECIDED AND THAT
WE SHOULD "DEFINE THE AREA OF (ITS) CONTINUED VITALITY, IF ANY."  HIS
ARGUMENT ON THIS SCORE IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT ADVANCED ON
BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN THE BELO
CASE ITSELF. 

THE REASONS STATED IN THE BELO OPINION FOR REJECTING THIS ARGUMENT
ARE EQUALLY VALID TODAY, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED.  MOREOVER, OUR
HOLDING IN BELO HAS BEEN A RULE OF DECISION IN THIS COURT FOR FIVE
YEARS, AND RECOGNIZED AS SUCH ON EACH APPROPRIATE OCCASION.  KNOWING OF
THE BELO DECISION, THE CONGRESS HAS PERMITTED SEC. 7(A) TO STAND
UNMODIFIED AND THE COURTS HAVE APPLIED IT AS SO CONSTRUED.  EMPLOYERS
AND EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE) HAVE REGULATED
THEIR AFFAIRS ON THE FAITH OF IT.  EVEN IF WE DOUBTED THE WISDOM OF THE
BELO DECISION AS AN ORIGINAL PROPOSITION, WE SHOULD NOT BE INCLINED TO
DEPART FROM IT AT THIS TIME.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. THE RELEVANT OVERTIME
PROVISIONS, CONTAINED IN SEC. 7(A), 29 U.S.C. SEC. 207(A), ARE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION,
EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED
AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED." 

FN2  THIS COURT DECIDED THE BELO CASE JUNE 8, 1942. 

FN3  COMPARE THE ALMOST IDENTICAL WORDING OF THE BELO CONTRACT, 316
U.S. AT 628. 

FN4  FOR INSTANCE, THE LOWEST SPECIFIED BASIC RATE IN MAY, 1944, WHEN
THIS CASE WAS TRIED, WAS 40 CENTS AN HOUR.  COMPENSATION AT THIS RATE
FOR 40 HOURS AND AT ONE AND ONE-HALF THIS RATE FOR 44 ADDITIONAL HOURS
EQUALS $42.40.  ACTUALLY, THE CORRELATIVE WEEKLY GUARANTEE WAS THE
SLIGHTLY GREATER SUM OF $42.69. 

FN5  57 F.SUPP.  408. 

FN6  152 F.2D 622. 

FN7  SEE THE STATEMENT AND EXPLANATION OF THE BELO CONTRACT, 316 U.S.
AT 627-629. 

FN8  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT OF 4,284 MAN-WEEKS WORKED BY RESPONDENT'S
CALIFORNIA FIELD EMPLOYEES BETWEEN JULY 5, 1942, AND MARCH 11, 1944,
ABOUT 3% WERE LESS THAN 20 HOURS IN LENGTH, ABOUT 13% WERE LESS THAN 40
HOURS, ABOUT 67% WERE FROM 40 TO 84 HOURS, ABOUT 20% WERE OVER 84
HOURS, AND ABOUT 7% OVER 104 HOURS, SOME RUNNING AS HIGH AS 140 AND 150
HOURS.  THIS "WORK-WEEK" WAS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING COMPENSATION,
BUT IT DID NOT REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED BY THE
EMPLOYEE.  IN THE COURSE OF TYPICAL CEMENTING AND TESTING OPERATIONS,
MANY HOURS COUNTED AS WORKING TIME WERE SPENT WAITING WHILE THE
DRILLING CREW WAS RUNNING THE CASING, THE CEMENT WAS SETTING, THE
PERFORATION WORK WAS BEING DONE BY ANOTHER COMPANY, OR THE TESTING TOOL
WAS STANDING IN THE WELL HOLE. 

FN9  SEE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
WALLING V. A.H. BELO CORP., NO. 622, O.T. 1941, PP. 194-337.    FN10
316 U.S. AT 631-632. 

FN11  FLEMING V. A.H. BELO CORP., 121 F.2D 207, AT 210, NOTE 6. 

FN12  316 U.S. AT 631-632.  IN OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316
U.S. 572, DECIDED THE SAME DAY AS BELO, THE EMPLOYEES ALSO WORKED AN
IRREGULAR NUMBER OF HOURS EACH WEEK, BUT WERE SIMPLY PAID A FIXED
WEEKLY WAGE.  THE COURT NOTED THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CONTRACTING PARTIES FOR THE PAYMENT OF A SPECIFIED RATE AND OVERTIME,
AND OF ANY CONTRACTUAL LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF HOURS THE EMPLOYEE
COULD BE REQUIRED TO WORK FOR THE FIXED WAGE.  IT ALSO NOTED THAT THESE
FACTORS WERE NOT ABSENT FROM THE BELO PLAN.  SEE 316 U.S. AT 581. 
FN13  THEORETICALLY, WHEN AN EMPLOYEE HAD SO ACCUMULATED 40 "REGULAR"
HOURS IN ONE WEEK, ALL SUBSEQUENT HOURS WERE COMPENSABLE AS
"OVERTIME."  ACTUALLY, NO EMPLOYEE EVER DID SO.  SEE 323 U.S. AT 41. 

FN14  "NOTHING IN THIS COURT'S DECISION IN WALLING V. BELO CORP.,
SUPRA, SANCTIONS THE USE OF THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN.  THE CONTROVERSY THERE
CENTERED ABOUT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE REGULAR RATE SHOULD BE COMPUTED
FROM THE GUARANTEED WEEKLY WAGE OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE IDENTICAL WITH
THE HOURLY RATE SET FORTH IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.  THERE WAS NO
QUESTION, AS HERE, PERTAINING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE REGULAR RATE
TO THE FIRST 40 HOURS ACTUALLY AND REGULARLY WORKED, WITH THE OVERTIME
RATE APPLYING TO ALL HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS THEREOF."  WALLING V.
HELMERICH & PAYNE, INC., 323 U.S. 37, AT 42. 

FN15  IN THE HARNISCHFEGER CASE, THE SCHEME WAS ACTUALLY A LITTLE
DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN THE YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS CASE, WHICH IS STATED IN
THE TEXT.  IN HARNISCHFEGER, THE EMPLOYEE WAS CREDITED WITH (A) THE
PRODUCT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED MULTIPLIED BY THE BASIC
RATE, PLUS (B) THE AMOUNT BY WHICH PIECEWORK EARNINGS DURING ALL HOURS
WORKED EXCEEDED THE PRODUCT IN (A), PLUS (C) THE PRODUCT OF THE NUMBER
OF OVERTIME HOURS WORKED MULTIPLIED BY ONE-HALF THE BASIC HOURLY RATE. 
THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN HARNISCHFEGER SOME PROVISION WAS MADE FOR
OVERTIME; BUT IN BOTH CASES THE PROVISION FOR OVERTIME WAS INADEQUATE,
AND FOR THE SAME REASON.  SEE 325 U.S. AT 431-432. 

FN16  "THIS COURT'S DECISION IN WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624,
LENDS NO SUPPORT TO RESPONDENT'S POSITION.  THE PARTICULAR WAGE
AGREEMENTS THERE INVOLVED WERE UPHELD BECAUSE IT WAS FELT THAT IN
FIXING A RATE OF 67 CENTS AN HOUR THE CONTRACTS DID IN FACT SET THE
ACTUAL REGULAR RATE AT WHICH THE WORKERS WERE EMPLOYED.  THE CASE IS NO
AUTHORITY, HOWEVER, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE REGULAR RATE MAY BE
FIXED BY CONTRACT AT A POINT COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE PAYMENTS
ACTUALLY AND NORMALLY RECEIVED EACH WEEK BY THE EMPLOYEES."  WALLING V.
YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S. 419, AT 426. 

SEE ALSO THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IN WALLING
V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 325 U.S. 427, 433.  THE COURT DID NOT EXPRESSLY
REFER TO BELO IN ITS OPINION IN THE HARNISCHFEGER CASE; BUT, AS IT DID
IN YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS, WHICH INVOLVES SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME QUESTION
AND WAS DECIDED THE SAME DAY, WE CONSIDER THAT FURTHER REFERENCE TO
BELO WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUNDANT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT UPON THE AUTHORITY OF WALLING V.
BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624.  I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE MURPHY THAT THE
BELO DECISION IS INCONSISTENT WITH LATER DECISIONS HERE, IN THE VIEW IT
TAKES CONCERNING THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 
BUT THOSE CASES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE UPON THEIR FACTS; THE BELO CASE HAS
BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES TO THIS CAUSE AND NO DOUBT ALSO BY
OTHERS, IN MAKING THEIR ARRANGEMENTS; AND THE FACTS HERE SEEM TO ME
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE COVERED BY THE BELO DECISION. 
ACCORDINGLY, ALTHOUGH I WOULD RESTRICT THE EFFECTS OF THAT DECISION
NARROWLY TO THE FACTUAL SITUATION PRESENTED, I JOIN IN THE JUDGMENT NOW
RENDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE WEEKLY GUARANTY WAS SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR 40
HOURS AT THE SO-CALLED "REGULAR BASIC RATE" AND FOR 44 ADDITIONAL HOURS
AT ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES SUCH "BASIC HOURLY RATE."  THE CONTRACT
OVERTIME RATE BECAME EFFECTIVE ONLY AS TO THOSE HOURS OF WORK IN EXCESS
OF 84.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE "REGULAR BASIC RATE" REFERRED TO IN THE
CONTRACTS HAD NO MEANING OR EFFECT WHATSOEVER UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE
WORKED MORE THAN 84 HOURS IN A WEEK.  WHETHER HE WORKED 20 HOURS, 40
HOURS OR 60 HOURS IN A WEEK, HE WAS PAID THE GUARANTEED AMOUNT. 

TO SQUARE SUCH A WAGE SCHEME WITH THE PLAIN REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7(A)
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 IS IMPOSSIBLE.  TIME AND AGAIN
THIS COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE REGULAR RATE OF COMPENSATION UPON
WHICH OVERTIME PAYMENTS ARE TO BE BASED IS THE HOURLY RATE ACTUALLY
PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE FOR THE NORMAL, NON-OVERTIME WORKWEEK FOR WHICH HE
IS EMPLOYED.  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 580; WALLING
V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37, 40; UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER,
323 U.S. 360, 363; WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., 325
U.S. 419, 424; WALLING V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 325 U.S. 427, 430.  "THE
REGULAR RATE BY ITS VERY NATURE MUST REFLECT ALL PAYMENTS WHICH THE
PARTIES HAVE AGREED SHALL BE RECEIVED REGULARLY DURING THE WORKWEEK,
EXCLUSIVE OF OVERTIME PAYMENTS.  IT IS NOT AN ARBITRARY LABEL CHOSEN BY
THE PARTIES; IT IS AN ACTUAL FACT.  ONCE THE PARTIES HAVE DECIDED UPON
THE AMOUNT OF WAGES AND THE MODE OF PAYMENT THE DETERMINATION OF THE
REGULAR RATE BECOMES A MATTER OF MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATION, THE RESULT
OF WHICH IS UNAFFECTED BY ANY DESIGNATION OF A CONTRARY 'REGULAR RATE'
IN THE WAGE CONTRACTS."  WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO.,
SUPRA, 424-425. 

OUR ATTENTION IN THIS CASE MUST THEREFORE BE FOCUSED UPON THE ACTUAL
PAYMENTS, EXCLUSIVE OF THOSE PAID FOR OVERTIME, WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE
AGREED SHALL BE PAID DURING EACH WORKWEEK.  AND WHEN WE DO THAT, WE
DISCOVER THAT THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE EMPLOYEES SHALL RECEIVE
THE GUARANTEED AMOUNT, NOT THE SO-CALLED "REGULAR BASIC RATE."  THAT
GUARANTEED AMOUNT IS THUS THE REGULAR RATE FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 7(A) OF
THE ACT, THE SO-CALLED "REGULAR BASIC RATE" BEING AN OBVIOUSLY
ARTIFICIAL ONE. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SCHEME IS SANCTIONED BY WALLING V.
BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624.  THAT IS TRUE, BUT IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY
CONTINUANCE OF THE ERRONEOUS BELO DOCTRINE.  THE BELO CASE HAS BEEN
DISTINGUISHED IN SUBSEQUENT OPINIONS OF THIS COURT, BUT THE
DISTINCTIONS WERE ESSENTIALLY ONES OF FACT.  ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL AND
STATUTORY THEORY, THE BELO CASE IS IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE LATER
CASES.  THE BELO CASE, WHICH CARRIES ITS OWN REFUTATION IN ITS
DISSENTING OPINION, SHOULD THEREFORE BE OVERRULED.  OTHERWISE WE SHALL
BE PERPETUATING AND AUGMENTING THE UNREALITIES AND CONFUSION WHICH HAVE
MARKED THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THAT CASE.  SEE FELDMAN,
"ALGEBRA AND THE SUPREME COURT," 40 ILL. L. REV. 489; "LEGALITY OF WAGE
READJUSTMENT PLANS UNDER THE OVERTIME PROVISION OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT," 13 U. OF CHI.  L. REV. 486; 44 MICH. L. REV. 866. 
..END :












UNITED STATES BANK V. CHASE BANK, 331 U.S. 28 


NO. 371.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 14, 1947.  - 155
F.2D 755, REVERSED. 


THE PRINCIPAL ASSET OF A BANKRUPT ESTATE WAS AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN
COAL LANDS, OPERATED IN PART BY LESSEES AND PRODUCING SUBSTANTIAL
ROYALTIES.  MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ADJUDICATION IN
BANKRUPTCY, TWO CREDITORS HAD OBTAINED JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE BANKRUPT,
WHICH CONSTITUTED FIRST AND SECOND LIENS ON THE INTEREST IN THESE
LANDS.  SUBSEQUENTLY, A PLAN SUGGESTED BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE TRUSTEE
AND CERTAIN GENERAL CREDITORS WAS ADOPTED, WHEREBY IN CONSIDERATION OF
THE SECURED CREDITORS FORBEARING TO PRESS THEIR CLAIMS, THE ESTATE WAS
DIVIDED INTO TWO FUNDS:  A REAL ESTATE FUND, AND A GENERAL FUND
INCLUDING ROYALTIES, ETC.  THE FIRST FUND WAS TO GO TO THE FIRST
JUDGMENT CREDITOR, THE SECOND FUND WAS TO BE DIVIDED PRO RATA AMONG ALL
CREDITORS.  AFTER THE PLAN HAD BEEN IN OPERATION FOR MORE THAN TWELVE
YEARS, A GENERAL CREDITOR WHOSE ATTORNEY HAD PROPOSED THE PLAN
PETITIONED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR A DECREE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TWO
JUDGMENT CREDITORS HAD WAIVED THEIR LIENS BY SHARING IN DISTRIBUTIONS
FROM THE GENERAL FUND.  HELD: 

1.  UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE LIENS ARE DECLARED
VALID AND IN EXISTENCE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 57(H) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS CONTRARY TO SEC. 65(A).  PP. 35-39. 

(A)  WHETHER A SECURED CREDITOR'S PARTICIPATION IN DISTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE GENERAL ASSETS OF A BANKRUPT ESTATE ON THE BASIS OF HIS FULL CLAIM
CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF HIS LIEN AND AN ELECTION TO BE TREATED AS AN
UNSECURED CREDITOR, DEPENDS UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE
RECEIPT OF THE DIVIDENDS.  IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY
DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF THE SECURITY AS WELL AS INDICATE
THE INEQUITY OF DECLARING THE SECURITY FORFEITED.  PP. 35-36. 

(B)  IN RARE CASES, WHERE THERE IS A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER A
WAIVER HAS OCCURRED, A CAREFUL EXAMINATION MUST BE MADE, IN THE LIGHT
OF RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, TO DETERMINE UPON WHAT CONDITIONS
THE DIVIDENDS FROM THE GENERAL ASSETS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THE SECURED
CREDITOR.  P. 36. 

(C)  THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS HAVING RECEIVED DIVIDENDS FROM THE
GENERAL FUND IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT INTENT TO WAIVE THEIR LIENS,
THERE BEING NO EQUITABLE REASON WHY THE LIENS SHOULD BE DECLARED
FORFEITED, THE GENERAL CREDITOR WHOSE COUNSEL RECOMMENDED THE PLAN AND
ACQUIESCED IN ITS OPERATION BEING EQUITABLY ESTOPPED TO OBJECT TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE LIENS ON THE BASIS OF THE OPERATION OF THE PLAN, AND
THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PERMANENT INJURY TO ANY GENERAL
CREDITOR RESULTED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE PLAN, THE EQUITIES OF THIS
CASE REQUIRE THAT THE LIENS BE HELD VALID AND IN EXISTENCE.  PP. 36
39. 

2.  IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN
UNDULY PROLONGED FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD NOW
TAKE STEPS TO WIND UP THE ESTATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 39. 

UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK ET AL. V. CHASE NATIONAL BANK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

IN A PROCEEDING IN BANKRUPTCY, A GENERAL CREDITOR PETITIONED FOR A
DECREE TO THE EFFECT THAT TWO SECURED CREDITORS HAD WAIVED THEIR LIENS
BY SHARING IN DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE GENERAL ASSETS OF THE BANKRUPT
ESTATE.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE PETITIONS, 56 F.SUPP.  190;
BUT, ON REHEARING, DENIED THEM, 61 F.SUPP.  151.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  155 F.2D 755.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329
U.S. 699.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 39. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A PROBLEM ARISING UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS PRESENTED BY THE UNIQUE
FACTS OF THIS CASE. 

ON JUNE 10, 1926, HARVEY C. STINEMAN WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT UPON
A VOLUNTARY PETITION AND THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO A REFEREE.  THE
PRINCIPAL ASSET OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE WAS AN UNDIVIDED ONE-SIXTH
INTEREST IN A LARGE ACREAGE OF VALUABLE COAL LANDS, A LARGE PORTION OF
WHICH WAS OPERATED BY LESSEES AND WAS PRODUCING SUBSTANTIAL ROYALTIES. 
THE VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE IN THIS ASSET IS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN APPRAISED AT $90,000. 

MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DATE WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED
AND THE ADJUDICATION MADE, THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF
JOHNSTOWN, PA., AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH FORK, PA., HAD
PROCURED JUDGMENTS AGAINST STINEMAN.  THESE TWO JUDGMENTS CONSTITUTED
FIRST AND SECOND LIENS, RESPECTIVELY, ON STINEMAN'S INTEREST IN THE
COAL LANDS.  THIS INTEREST HAD NO OTHER ENCUMBRANCES UPON IT. 

ON JANUARY 8, 1927, THE JOHNSTOWN BANK FILED ITS SECURED CLAIM IN THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000, RECITING AS ITS
SECURITY THE FIRST LIEN ON THE INTEREST IN THE COAL LANDS.  THIS CLAIM
WAS ALLOWED.  SUBSEQUENTLY, IN 1932, THE JOHNSTOWN BANK FILED AN
AMENDED CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,685, INTEREST ACCRUING AFTER
BANKRUPTCY HAVING BEEN ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.  THE AMENDED CLAIM
WAS ALLOWED IN THE AMOUNT FILED AND FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE BANK'S
PARTICIPATION IN THE DIVIDENDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND, MENTIONED
HEREINAFTER.  A COURT ORDER IN 1944 REDUCED THIS CLAIM TO $10,000. 

THE SOUTH FORK BANK, ON JUNE 29, 1926, FILED ITS SECURED CLAIM WITH
THE REFEREE FOR $11,290, RECITING THE SECOND LIEN AS ITS SECURITY,
ALONG WITH UNSECURED CLAIMS FOR $7,173.45.  DIVIDENDS FROM THE GENERAL
FUND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY PAID TO THE BANK ON THE BASIS OF THE FULL AMOUNT
OF ALL ITS CLAIMS, $18,463.45. 

NUMEROUS GENERAL, UNSECURED CLAIMS WERE FILED BY OTHER CREDITORS,
APPROXIMATING $225,000 IN AMOUNT.  INCLUDED AMONG THESE WAS THE CLAIM
OF THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, A CLAIM WHICH WAS
ALLOWED IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,231.98. 

THE REFEREE HELD A MEETING OF THE CREDITORS ON DECEMBER 31, 1929,
MORE THAN THREE AND A HALF YEARS AFTER THE ADJUDICATION.  THE MOTIVE
FOR THIS MEETING APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE FACT THAT THE JOHNSTOWN AND
SOUTH FORK BANKS, THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS, WERE PRESSING FOR
PAYMENT OF THEIR SECURED CLAIMS.  THIS MEETING WAS ATTENDED BY THE
BANKRUPT, THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TWO
JUDGMENT CREDITORS, THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK AND CERTAIN OTHER GENERAL
CREDITORS.  APPARENTLY NOT ALL OF THE GENERAL CREDITORS APPEARED AT
THIS MEETING.  THE CONSENSUS OF OPINION AMONG THOSE PRESENT WAS THAT
THE REAL ESTATE HAD A VALUE IN EXCESS OF THE LIENS BUT THAT "IF THE
LIEN CREDITORS FORECLOSED UPON THEIR LIENS, LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, WOULD
BE LEFT FOR GENERAL CREDITORS." 

ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS PRESENT, P. J. LITTLE, THEN MADE A SUGGESTION. 
MR. LITTLE AT THIS TIME WAS SERVING AS COUNSEL FOR THE TRUSTEE, THE
CHASE NATIONAL BANK AND SEVERAL OTHER GENERAL CREDITORS.  HIS
SUGGESTION WAS "THAT UNDER THE LAW THE ESTATE SHOULD BE DIVIDED INTO
TWO ITEMS; ONE ITEM SHOWING FUNDS ARISING WHOLLY FROM REAL ESTATE WHICH
DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE LEASES OR THE FUNDS FROM ANY OF THE LEASES;
THE OTHER FUND SHOULD BE MADE UP OF ALL ROYALTIES, RENTALS, OR
DIVIDENDS ON STOCKS OR BONDS.  THE FIRST FUND TO GO TO THE FIRST
JUDGMENT CREDITOR, THE SECOND FUND TO BE DIVIDED PRO RATA AMONG ALL THE
CREDITORS." 

THE PARTIES APPARENTLY AGREED TO THIS PROPOSAL.  ALTHOUGH NO
SUPPORTING ORDER OF THE REFEREE APPEARS IN THE RECORD, THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE PROCEEDED AS IF A SUPPORTING
ORDER HAD BEEN ENTERED.  THE TWO JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS ASSENTED TO
THIS COURSE OF EVENTS AND IT IS ASSERTED THAT ALL THE CREDITORS
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE LIENS WERE TO REMAIN INTACT UNTIL THE UNDERLYING
CLAIMS HAD BEEN PAID IN FULL. 

THEREAFTER, FOUR DIVIDENDS WERE DECLARED AND DISTRIBUTED FROM THE
REAL ESTATE FUND, WHILE SEVEN DIVIDENDS WERE DECLARED AND DISTRIBUTED
FROM THE GENERAL FUND.  THE JOHNSTOWN BANK RECEIVED AT LEAST $1,364.76
FROM THE REAL ESTATE FUND; THE SOUTH FORK BANK APPEARS TO HAVE RECEIVED
NOTHING FROM THAT FUND.  BOTH OF THESE BANKS SHARED WITH THE OTHER
CREDITORS IN THE SEVEN DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE GENERAL FUND, THE
JOHNSTOWN BANK RECEIVING $2,435.06 AND THE SOUTH FORK BANK, $3,285.35. 
NO EXCEPTIONS WERE EVER TAKEN TO ANY OF THE VARIOUS ORDERS OF
DISTRIBUTIONS.  IN ADDITION, THESE TWO BANKS HAVE CAREFULLY REVIVED
THEIR JUDGMENTS DURING EACH FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, MAKING THE TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS. 

IN OCTOBER, 1942, THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK FILED PETITIONS FOR A
DECREE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TWO BANKS HAD WAIVED THEIR LIENS BY
SHARING IN THE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE GENERAL FUND ALONG WITH THE
GENERAL CREDITORS AND THAT THE JOHNSTOWN BANK SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO
RETURN THE $1,364.76 IT HAD RECEIVED FROM THE REAL ESTATE FUND.  THE
REFEREE, HOWEVER, HELD THAT BOTH THE JOHNSTOWN AND SOUTH FORK BANKS
WERE ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN THEIR POSITIONS AS LIEN CREDITORS AND AT THE
SAME TIME PARTICIPATE IN THE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE GENERAL FUND.  THE
DISTRICT COURT REVERSED THE REFEREE'S DECISION, FEELING THAT
PARTICIPATION IN DISTRIBUTIONS FROM BOTH THE REAL ESTATE AND GENERAL
FUNDS WAS CONTRARY TO ACCEPTED BANKRUPTCY PRACTICE.  IN RE STINEMAN, 56
F.SUPP.  190.  ON REHEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT CHANGED ITS MIND; IT
BECAME CONVINCED THAT THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK HAD RECOMMENDED THE
ARRANGEMENT, HAD ACQUIESCED IN ITS EXECUTION AND WAS NOW ESTOPPED FROM
OBJECTING.  IN RE STINEMAN, 61 F.SUPP.  151.  THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE PARTIES HAD COMPLETELY
DISREGARDED THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND THAT THE
JOHNSTOWN AND SOUTH FORK BANKS HAD WAIVED THEIR LIENS AND WERE ENTITLED
TO SHARE IN THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE ONLY AS GENERAL CREDITORS.  IN RE
STINEMAN, 155 F.2D 755. 

TO THIS CASE.  SECTION 65(A) PROVIDES:  "DIVIDENDS OF AN EQUAL PER
CENTUM SHALL BE DECLARED AND PAID ON ALL ALLOWED CLAIMS, EXCEPT SUCH AS
HAVE PRIORITY OR ARE SECURED."  11 U.S.C. SEC. 105(A).  SECTION 57(H)
PROVIDES:  "THE VALUE OF SECURITIES HELD BY SECURED CREDITORS SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY CONVERTING THE SAME INTO MONEY ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF
THE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO WHICH SUCH SECURITIES WERE DELIVERED TO SUCH
CREDITORS, OR BY SUCH CREDITORS AND THE TRUSTEE BY AGREEMENT,
ARBITRATION, COMPROMISE OR LITIGATION, AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT, AND THE
AMOUNT OF SUCH VALUE SHALL BE CREDITED UPON SUCH CLAIMS, AND A DIVIDEND
SHALL BE PAID ONLY ON THE UNPAID BALANCE.  SUCH DETERMINATION SHALL BE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT."  11 U.S.C. SEC.
93(H). 

UNDER THESE PROVISIONS, THERE ARE SEVERAL AVENUES OF ACTION OPEN TO A
SECURED CREDITOR OF A BANKRUPT.  SEE 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH
ED.)  PP. 149-157, 255-259.  (1) HE MAY DISREGARD THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING, DECLINE TO FILE A CLAIM AND RELY SOLELY UPON HIS SECURITY
IF THAT SECURITY IS PROPERLY AND SOLELY IN HIS POSSESSION.  IN RE
CHEROKEE PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 94 F.2D 536; WARD V. FIRST NAT. BANK, 202
F. 609.  (2) HE MUST FILE A SECURED CLAIM, HOWEVER, IF THE SECURITY IS
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AND IF HE WISHES TO
RETAIN HIS SECURED STATUS, INASMUCH AS THAT COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE LIQUIDATION OF THE SECURITY.  ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE
& TIMBER CO., 282 U.S. 734.  (3) HE MAY SURRENDER OR WAIVE HIS SECURITY
AND PROVE HIS ENTIRE CLAIM AS AN UNSECURED ONE.  IN RE MEDINA QUARRY
CO., 179 F. 929; MORRISON V. RIEMAN, 249 F. 97.  (4) HE MAY AVAIL
HIMSELF OF HIS SECURITY AND SHARE IN THE GENERAL ASSETS AS TO THE
UNSECURED BALANCE.  MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, 173 U.S.
131; EX PARTE CITY BANK, 3 HOW.  292, 315. 

PERMITS THE SECURED CREDITOR TO RECEIVE DIVIDENDS ALONG WITH THE
GENERAL CREDITORS ONLY ON THE BALANCE REMAINING AFTER THE VALUE OF THE
SECURITY HAS BEEN DETERMINED AND DEDUCTED FROM THE CLAIM.  THIS RULE,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BANKRUPTCY RULE, IS DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE ANY
UNWARRANTED ADVANTAGE FROM ACCRUING TO THE SECURED CREDITOR.  GROUNDED
UPON THE STATUTORY PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY AND RATABLE DISTRIBUTION, IT
PROHIBITS THE SECURED CREDITOR FROM REAPING THE WHOLE BENEFIT OF HIS
SECURITY WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY TAKING DIVIDENDS FROM THE GENERAL ASSETS
ON THE BASIS OF HIS ENTIRE CLAIM AS IF HE HAD NO SECURITY.  THIS RULE
DIFFERS FROM THE ONE IN EQUITY, WHICH ALLOWS THE SECURED CREDITOR TO
RECEIVE DIVIDENDS ON THE FULL AMOUNT OF HIS CLAIM, CREDITING ALL
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED AND RESERVING THE SECURITY AGAINST ANY DEFICIENCY. 
MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, SUPRA.  AND SEE 3 COLLIER ON
BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  P. 153; HANSON, "THE SECURED CREDITOR'S SHARE OF
AN INSOLVENT ESTATE," 34 MICH. L. REV. 309; 12 FORD.  L. REV. 77. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE PLAN ADOPTED IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE SANCTIONED
UNDER THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES.  THIS PLAN ALLEGEDLY CALLED FOR THE USE
OF SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE EQUITY RULE OF DISTRIBUTION.  THE JUDGMENT
LIEN CREDITORS WERE TO RETAIN THEIR LIENS WHILE SHARING FULLY IN THE
DIVIDENDS FROM THE GENERAL FUNDS AS IF THEY HAD NO LIENS, CREDITING THE
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED AGAINST THEIR CLAIMS.  BUT SEC. 57(H) IS SAID
PLAINLY TO OUTLAW THE USE OF THAT RULE; IF THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS
WISHED TO RETAIN THEIR LIENS, THEY COULD SHARE IN THE DIVIDENDS ONLY TO
THE EXTENT THAT THEIR CLAIMS EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF THEIR LIENS.  SINCE
THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 57(H), THE CONCLUSION IS
REACHED THAT THEY HAVE WAIVED THEIR LIENS AND MUST NOW BE CONSIDERED
SOLELY AS UNSECURED CREDITORS. 

AT THIS POINT IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE INCOMPLETE RECORD BEFORE US
FAILS TO REVEAL THE VALUE OF THE INTEREST IN THE COAL LANDS TO WHICH
THE LIENS ATTACHED.  THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS CLAIM THAT THE VALUE
WAS FIXED AT $90,000, BUT NO SUCH VALUATION APPEARS IN THE RECORD. 
THAT IT MIGHT BE LESS THAN $90,000 IS INDICATED BY THE STATEMENT OF
THESE CREDITORS THAT IF THEY HAD FORECLOSED ON THEIR COMBINED LIENS OF
$21,290, "THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, LEFT FOR THE
GENERAL CREDITORS."  BUT IN THE SETTING OF THIS CASE, WE BELIEVE IT
IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE INTEREST IN THE COAL LANDS WAS
GREATER OR LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE SECURED CLAIMS.  IN EITHER
EVENT, THE PROBLEM BEFORE US CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THE PRESENT VALIDITY
OF THE LIENS.  HAS THE CONDUCT OF THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS BEEN SUCH
AS TO CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THEIR JUDGMENT LIENS?  THAT QUESTION WE
ANSWER IN THE NEGATIVE. 

THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS RECEIVED GENERAL DIVIDENDS
CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF SEC. 57(H) DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT
THEY THEREBY WAIVED THEIR LIENS.  NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 57(H)
OR OF ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE ACT MAKES SUCH A RECEIPT THE NECESSARY
EQUIVALENT OF A WAIVER.  IT IS GENERALLY TRUE THAT PARTICIPATION BY A
SECURED CREDITOR IN DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE GENERAL ASSETS ON THE BASIS
OF HIS FULL CLAIM INDICATES A WAIVER OF THE SECURITY AND AN ELECTION TO
BE TREATED AS AN UNSECURED CREDITOR.  SEE IN RE O'GARA COAL CO., 12
F.2D 426.  BUT THAT IS NOT AN INVARIABLE RESULT FLOWING FROM THE
APPLICATION OF ANY RIGID STATUTORY RULE.  THE RESULT DEPENDS, RATHER,
UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE RECEIPT OF THE DIVIDENDS.  AND
IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY DEMONSTRATE THE CONTINUED
VITALITY OF THE SECURITY AS WELL AS INDICATE THAT IT WOULD BE
INEQUITABLE TO DECLARE THE SECURITY FORFEITED.  SEE WUERPEL V.
COMMERCIAL GERMANIA TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, 238 F. 269; MAXWELL V.
MCDANIELS, 195 F. 426; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. COGGIN, 78
F.2D 471; STANDARD OIL CO. V. HAWKINS, 74 F. 395. 

IN THE RARE CASE WHERE THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER A
WAIVER HAS OCCURRED, A CAREFUL EXAMINATION MUST THEREFORE BE MADE TO
DETERMINE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE DIVIDENDS FROM THE GENERAL
ASSETS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THE SECURED CREDITOR.  AND THAT EXAMINATION
MUST BE MADE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY.  IT
HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT "COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY ARE ESSENTIALLY
COURTS OF EQUITY, AND THEIR PROCEEDINGS INHERENTLY PROCEEDINGS IN
EQUITY."  LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S. 234, 240; PEPPER V. LITTON,
308 U.S. 295, 304.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER A WAIVER OF LIENS HAS TAKEN
PLACE, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MUST ACCORDINGLY LOOK TO THE EQUITIES
INVOLVED AS WELL AS TO THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES.  A WAIVER MAY BE
INEQUITABLE OR UNFAIR TO THE SECURED CREDITOR; THE RECEIPT OF DIVIDENDS
MAY NOT HAVE CAUSED PERMANENT INJURY TO THE UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE
DIVIDENDS MAY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED UNDER A MISTAKE OF LAW OR FACT OR
PURSUANT TO COURT APPROVAL; THE OBJECTING PARTY MAY BE ESTOPPED FROM
QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE LIENS.  SUCH EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
MAY WELL BE DECISIVE OF A WAIVER OR FORFEITURE IN A PARTICULAR CASE. 
IT IS AT ONCE EVIDENT IN THIS CASE THAT THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS
RECEIVED DIVIDENDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT ANY
INTENT TO WAIVE THEIR LIENS.  THE PRINCIPAL ASSET OF THE ESTATE WAS THE
INTEREST IN THE COAL LANDS AND IT WAS THAT INTEREST TO WHICH THE LIENS
ATTACHED.  REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS GENERAL CREDITORS BELIEVED THAT
IT WOULD BE TO THEIR ADVANTAGE TO HAVE THIS INTEREST REMAIN INTACT,
WITHOUT BEING LIQUIDATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE
LIENS.  THEIR THOUGHT WAS THAT BY MAINTAINING UNDIMINISHED THE
ROYALTIES AND RENTALS FROM THIS INTEREST THE UNSECURED CLAIMS COULD
MORE RAPIDLY BE SATISFIED.  TO THAT END IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THE
JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS REFRAIN FROM IMMEDIATE LIQUIDATION OF THEIR
CLAIMS AND SHARE IN THE DIVIDENDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND, A FUND WHICH
INCLUDED THE ROYALTIES AND RENTALS FROM THE INTEREST IN THE COAL
LANDS.  THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS ACCEPTED THIS PROPOSAL, BEING
WILLING TO POSTPONE ANY IMMEDIATE REALIZATION OF THEIR SECURITY.  BUT
THEY DID SO WITH THE DISTINCT UNDERSTANDING THAT THEIR LIENS WERE NOT
FORFEITED AND THEY TOOK PAINS TO RENEW THE UNDERLYING JUDGMENTS EVERY
SUCCEEDING FIVE YEARS IN ORDER TO KEEP THE LIENS ALIVE.  THERE IS THUS
ABSENT ANY ELEMENT OF AN INTENTIONAL WAIVER OF THE LIENS OR ANY ACTION
INCONSISTENT WITH A DESIRE TO RETAIN THE LIENS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THE RECEIPT OF THE DIVIDENDS BY THE JUDGMENT LIEN
CREDITORS.  CF. THOMAS V. TAGGART, 209 U.S. 385; IN RE KAPLAN & MYERS,
241 F. 459. 

NOR DO WE PERCEIVE ANY EQUITABLE REASON WHY THESE LIENS SHOULD BE
DECLARED FORFEITED.  THE INCOMPLETE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT
INDICATE WHETHER THE REFEREE OR THE BANKRUPTCY COURT EVER GAVE FORMAL
APPROVAL TO THE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS
RECEIVED DIVIDENDS ALONG WITH THE UNSECURED CREDITORS.  BUT THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WENT FORWARD FOR MORE THAN TWELVE YEARS AS IF
SUCH APPROVAL HAD BEEN GIVEN, AUTHORIZATION BEING GIVEN FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF NUMEROUS DIVIDENDS PURSUANT TO THE PLAN.  CERTAINLY THE
AGREEMENT HAD THE IMPLIED, IF NOT THE EXPRESS, BLESSING OF THE REFEREE
AND THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  HENCE THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS CANNOT BE
ACCUSED OF HAVING PARTICIPATED IN A PLAN WHICH WAS UNKNOWN TO, OR
DISAPPROVED BY, THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.  A FORFEITURE OF THE LIENS WOULD ONLY PENALIZE UNFAIRLY
THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS, WHO JOINED THE PLAN IN GOOD FAITH AND
WITHOUT ANY APPARENT INTENTION OF HARMING OTHERS OR OF SECURING ANY
UNDUE ADVANTAGE FOR THEMSELVES. 

IT IS FURTHER SIGNIFICANT THAT THE PLAN WAS PROPOSED BY AN ATTORNEY
FOR CHASE NATIONAL BANK, THE GENERAL CREDITOR NOW OBJECTING. 
APPARENTLY NOT ALL THE GENERAL CREDITORS WERE PRESENT OR REPRESENTED AT
THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 31, 1929, WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS MADE AND
ACCEPTED.  BUT THE AGREEMENT, WITH ITS VARIOUS DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTIONS
TAKING PLACE BETWEEN 1935 AND 1942, MUST HAVE COME TO THE ATTENTION OF
ALL THE GENERAL CREDITORS SOONER OR LATER; YET NONE OF THEM RAISED ANY
OBJECTION TO THE VARIOUS DISTRIBUTIONS OR TO THE AGREEMENT DURING THIS
LONG PERIOD OF TIME.  NO REASON SUGGESTS ITSELF WHY ANY OF THESE
GENERAL CREDITORS SHOULD NOW BE PERMITTED TO QUESTION THE DIVIDENDS
RECEIVED IN THE PAST BY THE JUDGMENT LIEN CREDITORS OR TO DEMAND THAT
THE LIENS BE DECLARED FORFEITED BECAUSE OF THE RECEIPT OF SUCH
DIVIDENDS.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS SO AS TO CHASE NATIONAL BANK.  AS THE
DISTRICT COURT NOTED, 61 F.SUPP.  AT 152, ITS COUNSEL RECOMMENDED AND
HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE AGREEMENT; AND CHASE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE
SUBSEQUENT DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTIONS, TO WHICH IT DID NOT DEMUR.  AT THIS
LATE STAGE, IT IS EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM RAISING ANY OBJECTION TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE LIENS ON THE BASIS OF THE OPERATION OF THE PLAN WHICH
IT PROPOSED.  CF. MERCHANTS BANK V. SEXTON, 228 U.S. 634; IN RE
NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION, 68 F.2D 859; IN RE AMERICAN S.S.
NAV. CO., 14 F.SUPP.  106. 

MOREOVER, THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT ANY PERMANENT INJURY TO
CHASE NATIONAL BANK OR TO THE OTHER GENERAL CREDITORS RESULTED FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE PLAN.  THE WHOLE SCHEME WAS ADOPTED WITH THE IDEA THAT
THEY WOULD BE BENEFITED AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT THIS PURPOSE HAS FAILED
OF ACHIEVEMENT.  HAVING PROPOSED AND ACQUIESCED IN THE PLAN, THE CHASE
NATIONAL BANK CANNOT NOW BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN OF ANY RESULTING INJURY,
ESPECIALLY AN INJURY THAT IS NOT APPARENT IN THE RECORD. 

WE CONCLUDE FROM THESE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE LIENS SHOULD
BE HELD TO BE VALID AND IN EXISTENCE DESPITE THE FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 57(H) AND DESPITE THE DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS
CONTRARY TO SEC. 65(A).  THERE WAS NEVER ANY INTENTION TO WAIVE THE
SECURITY AND THOSE WHO MIGHT HAVE OBJECTED TO THE DISTRIBUTIONS ARE NOW
ESTOPPED.  BUT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS HAVE
BEEN UNDULY PROLONGED FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
SHOULD NOW TAKE STEPS TO WIND UP THE ESTATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THOSE PROVISIONS ARE DESIGNED TO
BRING ABOUT THE SPEEDY DISTRIBUTION OF THE BANKRUPT'S ASSETS, A
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE WHICH DEFINITELY HAS NOT OCCURRED IN THIS
CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CASE
IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IS OF OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD BE RESTORED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CREDITORS ENTERED INTO
AN AGREEMENT WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTIONABLE UNDER SEC. 57(H) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHEREBY THE LIENS OF THE PETITIONERS WERE SAVED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :





















TRAILMOBILE CO. V. WHIRLS, 331 U.S. 40 


NO. 85.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 14, 1947.  - 154
F.2D 866, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 8(C) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING & SERVICE ACT OF 1940, A
VETERAN'S STATUTORY RIGHT OF SENIORITY - INSOFAR AS IT GIVES A
REEMPLOYED VETERAN A PREFERRED STANDING OVER NON-VETERAN EMPLOYEES
HAVING IDENTICAL SENIORITY RIGHTS - DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE
EXPIRATION OF THE FIRST YEAR OF REEMPLOYMENT.  PP. 51-61. 

2.  A QUESTION OF RES JUDICATA ARISING FROM PRIOR LITIGATION IN STATE
COURTS AND DECIDED ADVERSELY TO PETITIONERS BY THE COURTS BELOW, BUT IN
RESPECT OF WHICH NO ERROR WAS ASSIGNED IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT.  P. 48. 

3.  A PROCEEDING IN WHICH A REEMPLOYED VETERAN SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH
SENIORITY RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 8(C) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING & SERVICE
ACT, AND IN WHICH THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW WAS IN HIS FAVOR,
HELD NOT MOOT ALTHOUGH, BECAUSE OF PROCEDURES INVOKED BY A LABOR UNION,
HE HAS NOT BEEN AT WORK BUT HAS BEEN ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITH FULL
PAY.  PP. 48-49. 

4.  THE REMAND IN THIS CASE WILL BE SO FRAMED AS TO PRECLUDE
FORECLOSURE, BY POSSIBLE FUTURE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA, OF SUCH CAUSE OF ACTION AS THE EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE IF HE HAS
BEEN UNLAWFULLY EXPELLED, SUSPENDED OR OTHERWISE DEALT WITH BY THE
UNION FOR ASSERTING HIS LEGAL RIGHTS.  PP. 50-51, 61-62. 

TRAILMOBILE COMPANY ET AL. V. WHIRLS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER,
ASSERTING RIGHTS UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING & SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  A
LABOR ORGANIZATION WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  64 F.SUPP.  713.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  154 F.2D 866.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328
U.S. 831.  REVERSED, P. 61. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, LIKE FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328 U.S.
275, PRESENTS A PROBLEM IN THE SENIORITY STANDING OF A REEMPLOYED
VETERAN.  IT ARISES UNDER SEC. 8 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT OF 1940.  FN1  THE FISHGOLD CASE HELD THAT UNDER THE ACT A VETERAN
IS ENTITLED TO BE RESTORED TO HIS FORMER POSITION PLUS SENIORITY WHICH
WOULD HAVE ACCUMULATED BUT FOR HIS INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED FORCES. 
FN2  HERE THE QUESTION CONCERNS THE DURATION OF THE VETERAN'S RESTORED
STATUTORY SENIORITY STANDING.  THE PETITIONERS MAINTAIN THAT IT ENDS
WITH THE FIRST YEAR OF HIS REEMPLOYMENT.  RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS THAT
IT LASTS AS LONG AS THE EMPLOYMENT CONTINUES.  FN3  A SUGGESTION HAS
ALSO BEEN MADE THAT OCCURRENCES TAKING PLACE SINCE THE DECISION IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY HAVE RENDERED THE CAUSE MOOT. 

THE CASE IS AN AFTERMATH OF A GENERAL CONTROVERSY OVER SENIORITY
RIGHTS WHICH AROSE AMONG THE EMPLOYEES OF TWO CORPORATIONS FOLLOWING
THEIR CONSOLIDATION ON JANUARY 1, 1944.  BECAUSE OF THE RELATION OF THE
GENERAL CONTROVERSY TO THIS LITIGATION A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE
FACTS BECOMES NECESSARY.  PRIOR TO THEIR CONSOLIDATION THE HIGHLAND
BODY MANUFACTURING COMPANY HAD BEEN A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE
PETITIONER, THE TRAILMOBILE COMPANY.  THE TWO CORPORATIONS MANUFACTURED
THE SAME COMMODITIES IN SEPARATE PLANTS IN CINCINNATI, OHIO.  FN4
DURING 1943 UNDER THE PLAN OF CONSOLIDATION THE SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT AND
PERSONNEL OF HIGHLAND WERE TRANSFERRED GRADUALLY TO THE PLANT OF
TRAILMOBILE.  IT TOOK OVER THE ASSETS AND BUSINESS OF HIGHLAND AND
ASSUMED ALL ITS OBLIGATIONS.  THE EMPLOYEES OF HIGHLAND WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE PAYROLL OF TRAILMOBILE AS OF JANUARY 1, 1944, WHEN
THE CONSOLIDATION BECAME FULLY EFFECTIVE.  FN5 

THE EMPLOYEES OF BOTH COMPANIES HAD BEEN AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR.  51 N.L.R.B. 1106, 1108.  AT THE TIME OF THE
CONSOLIDATION THE HIGHLAND GROUP, INCLUDING RESPONDENT, CLAIMED
SENIORITY WITH TRAILMOBILE AS OF THE DATES OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT BY
HIGHLAND.  THE FORMER TRAILMOBILE EMPLOYEES OPPOSED THIS, MAINTAINING
THAT THE HIGHLAND PERSONNEL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS NEW EMPLOYEES OF
TRAILMOBILE, WITH SENIORITY DATING ONLY FROM JANUARY 1, 1944.  THIS
DISPUTE WAS SUBMITTED TO NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE A.F. OF L.
THEY DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE HIGHLAND GROUP. 

THE FORMER TRAILMOBILE EMPLOYEES WERE DISSATISFIED WITH THIS
DECISION.  THEY OUTNUMBERED THE HIGHLAND CLAIMANTS ABOUT TEN TO ONE. 
ACCORDINGLY, REORGANIZING AS A UNIT OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATIONS, THEY REQUESTED RECOGNITION AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
AGENT OF TRAILMOBILE'S EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THE HIGHLAND TRANSFEREES. 
AN ELECTION WAS HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, IN WHICH THE NEW C.I.O. LOCAL WAS CHOSEN AS BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE FOR A UNIT COMPOSED OF BOTH GROUPS.  FN6 

TRAILMOBILE ACCORDINGLY NEGOTIATED WITH THE C.I.O. AND IN JULY, 1944,
A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS CONCLUDED, EFFECTIVE AS OF JUNE
21, 1944.  IT PROVIDED THAT THE SENIORITY RIGHTS OF FORMER HIGHLAND
EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE FIXED AS OF JANUARY 1, 1944, REGARDLESS OF THE
DATES OF THEIR ORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT BY HIGHLAND. 

RESPONDENT WHIRLS HAD BEEN IN HIGHLAND'S EMPLOY FROM 1935 TO 1942,
WHEN HE ENTERED MILITARY SERVICE.  HE WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED AND
RETURNED TO HIS WORK WITH HIGHLAND IN MAY, 1943.  FN7 HE WAS THUS AMONG
THE EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRED FROM HIGHLAND TO TRAILMOBILE AS OF JANUARY 1,
1944, WHOSE SENIORITY WAS REDUCED SO AS TO START AS OF THAT DATE BY THE
JULY, 1944, COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE C.I.O. 

THE HIGHLAND GROUP CONTESTED THE AGREEMENT'S VALIDITY IN THE OHIO
COURTS IN A CLASS SUIT BROUGHT JULY 17, 1944, BY HESS, ONE OF THEIR
NUMBER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND 178 OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THESE
INCLUDED 104 PERSONS ACTUALLY AT WORK, VETERANS AND NONVETERANS, AMONG
WHOM WAS WHIRLS, AND 74 EMPLOYEES THEN IN THE ARMED FORCES.  THE
PETITION ALLEGED THAT TRAILMOBILE THEN HAD ABOUT 500 EMPLOYEES IN
MILITARY SERVICE, OF WHOM APPARENTLY SOME 426 WERE OUTSIDE THE HIGHLAND
GROUP. 

THE THEORY OF THE CLASS SUIT WAS THAT, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFFS WERE
NOT THEN MEMBERS OF THE C.I.O., THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT WAS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT AND HENCE COULD NOT LEGALLY
DEPRIVE A MINORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES WHICH IT REPRESENTED OF THEIR
ACCRUED SENIORITY AND OTHER RIGHTS BY ANY COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
COMPANY.  FN8  THE PETITION ALLEGED THAT THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
ARBITRARILY AND UNLAWFULLY DEPRIVED THE PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR "VESTED
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS" AND ASKED MANDATORY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF RESTORING EACH
TO SENIORITY STATUS AS OF THE DATE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BY HIGHLAND.  THE
COMPANY AND THE COLLECTIVE AGENT STOOD UPON THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT AND THE AGENT'S AUTHORITY AS CERTIFIED REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE
IT AS JUSTIFYING THE ACTION TAKEN UNDER IT. 

THE OHIO COURTS HELD AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE ACTION, SUSTAINING
THE POSITION OF THE COMPANY AND THE UNION.  FN9  THEY HELD IN EFFECT
THAT THE SENIORITY RIGHTS IN ISSUE AROSE EXCLUSIVELY FROM CONTRACT,
MAKING NO REFERENCE WHATEVER TO SEC. 8 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OR ANY QUESTION RELATING TO IT; FN10  THAT THE COMPANY AND
THE COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE WERE LAWFULLY EMPOWERED TO ENTER INTO THE
CONTRACT FIXING THOSE RIGHTS AS OF JANUARY 1, 1944; THAT THE TRIAL
COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED IN ITS OWN LANGUAGE, "TO CONTRACT FOR THE
(PLAINTIFF) OR MAKE A NEW CONTRACT," SINCE THAT POWER "EXISTS ONLY IN
THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR ACT SO LONG AS THAT AGENT ACTS WITHIN THE LAW."  FN11 

ACCORDINGLY THE SUIT WAS DISMISSED.  THE RECORD HERE DOES NOT
DISCLOSE THE DATE OF THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT.  BUT ITS DECISION WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS BEFORE OCTOBER 2, 1945, WHEN THE
UNION'S ANSWER WAS FILED IN THE PRESENT CAUSE; AND THE CASE HAD BEEN
FINALLY DETERMINED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF OHIO PRIOR TO OCTOBER 15, 1945.  FN12 

THE RECORD IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR CONCERNING THE EXACT CHARACTER AND
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS BETWEEN JULY 15, 1944, WHEN WHIRLS AND OTHER FORMER
HIGHLAND EMPLOYEES WERE NOTIFIED THAT THEIR SENIORITY STATUS WOULD BE
CHANGED, AND SEPTEMBER 18, 1945, WHEN THE PRESENT SUIT WAS FILED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT.  APPARENTLY, AFTER THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN, SELECTIVE
SERVICE OFFICIALS INTERVENED IN BEHALF OF WHIRLS AND OTHER VETERANS,
FN13  ALTHOUGH HIS ALLEGATION THAT HIS SENIORITY WAS RESTORED AS A
RESULT OF THAT INTERVENTION WAS DENIED BOTH BY THE COMPANY AND BY THE
UNION.  THERE IS AMBIGUITY ALSO CONCERNING WHETHER THE CLOSED-SHOP
PROVISION APPEARED IN THE 1944 AGREEMENT OR ONLY IN THE 1945 ONE
BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE C.I.O.  THE FACTS OF RECORD, HOWEVER, ARE
MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT INTRODUCED UNTIL THE
LATTER YEAR. 

AT ANY RATE, IN JUNE OR JULY, 1945, WHIRLS JOINED THE C.I.O. UNION,
THUS COMPLYING WITH THE CLOSED-SHOP PROVISIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT.  AND UNTIL ABOUT SEPTEMBER 3 OF THAT YEAR HE CONTINUED TO BE
EMPLOYED IN THE PAINTING DEPARTMENT, WHERE HE HAD THE HIGHEST SENIORITY
AND WAS DRAWING PAY OF $1.05 PER HOUR.  ON OR ABOUT THAT DATE, HOWEVER,
THE COMPANY TRANSFERRED HIM TO THE STOCK DEPARTMENT, THREATENING TO
REDUCE HIS PAY TO $0.83 PER HOUR AND ALSO TO REDUCE HIS SENIORITY
RATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE THREATENED REDUCTIONS ACTUALLY TOOK EFFECT IS NOT
CLEAR FROM THE RECORD, FOR NOT LONG AFTERWARD WHIRLS WAS TRANSFERRED
AGAIN, TO A POSITION PAYING $1.18 PER HOUR IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT.  BUT
BEFORE THIS WAS DONE, REPRESENTED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,  FN14
HE BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT.  HE SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE THREATENED DECREASE IN PAY
AND CHANGE IN SENIORITY STATUS.  HE ALSO ASKED FOR RESTORATION TO HIS
FORMER POSITION IN THE PAINTING DEPARTMENT AND TO HIS SENIORITY AS
FIXED BY HIS ORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT WITH HIGHLAND.  THE EMPLOYER ANSWERED
AND THE LOCAL C.I.O. UNION INTERVENED IN SUPPORT OF THE EMPLOYER'S
POSITION.  HOWEVER, SINCE WHIRLS HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED AGAIN BEFORE THE
CASE CAME ON FOR HEARING, THE PARTIES AGREED AT THE HEARING TO LIMIT
THE ISSUES TO THOSE AFFECTING THE QUESTION OF SENIORITY.  THIS WAS
PRESENTED IN TWO FORMS, (1) ON THE MERITS, THE FACTS BEING
SUBSTANTIALLY STIPULATED; (2) ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE STATE COURT
PROCEEDING IN THE CLASS SUIT HAD DETERMINED THE SENIORITY RIGHTS OF
WHIRLS, MAKING THE ISSUE NOW RAISED RES JUDICATA FOR THIS SUIT.  SEE
ANGEL V. BULLINGTON, 330 U.S. 183. 

TAKING RESPONDENT'S VIEW IN BOTH RESPECTS, THE DISTRICT COURT
RENDERED JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT.  154 F.2D 866. 
BESIDES HOLDING RES JUDICATA INAPPLICABLE, BOTH COURTS TOOK THE VIEW,
CONTRARY TO THAT LATER REACHED HERE IN THE FISHGOLD CASE, THAT THE
REEMPLOYED VETERAN WAS ENTITLED TO "SUPERSENIORITY" FOR ONE YEAR
FOLLOWING HIS REEMPLOYMENT,  FN15  AND WENT ON TO HOLD THAT HIS
STATUTORY PREFERRED STATUS WITH RESPECT TO SENIORITY AND OTHER
INCIDENTS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT DID NOT END WITH THE EXPIRATION OF THAT
YEAR.  BECAUSE OF THE BEARING OF THE FISHGOLD DECISION UPON THE PROBLEM
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
328 U.S. 831. 

                                  I. 

AT THE OUTSET IT IS IMPORTANT, IN VIEW OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS WHICH
HAVE BEEN INJECTED BEYOND THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR DECISION, TO STATE
EXPLICITLY WHAT IS NOT BEFORE US.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CLASS SUIT IN THE STATE COURTS
CONSTITUTED AN ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN
THIS LITIGATION.  THAT QUESTION WAS PRESENTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  BOTH DETERMINED IT ADVERSELY TO
PETITIONERS, BUT NO ERROR WAS ASSIGNED TO THIS RULING IN THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI.  THE QUESTION IS THEREFORE NOT BEFORE THIS COURT AND WE
EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING IT. 

THE VIEW ENTERTAINED IN THIS RESPECT BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, HAS ASSUMED TANGENTAL BEARING IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT THE CAUSE MAY HAVE BECOME MOOT.  IN
ITS MEMORANDUM FILED UPON THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI AND IN ITS
BRIEF, THE GOVERNMENT CALLS ATTENTION TO CERTAIN EVENTS NOT APPEARING
OF RECORD BUT TAKING PLACE AFTER THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
THOUGH SUGGESTING THE FACTS FOR OUR ATTENTION, THE GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS
THAT THEY DO NOT RENDER THE CONTROVERSY MOOT.  THIS COURT, OF COURSE,
DOES NOT RENDER ADVISORY OPINIONS.  AND SINCE THE SUGGESTION OF THE
FACTS NOT ONLY IS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF MOOTNESS BUT HAS
INJECTED OTHERS NOT COMPREHENDED IN THE ISSUES, IT IS NECESSARY TO
DISPOSE OF THE MATTER BEFORE UNDERTAKING A DETERMINATION OF THE
QUESTION OTHERWISE PROPERLY HERE FOR DECISION. 

IT IS SUGGESTED AND NOT DENIED THAT UNDER DATE OF APRIL 10, 1946,
RESPONDENT WAS NOTIFIED BY THE COLLECTIVE AGENT THAT HE HAD BEEN
CHARGED WITH CONDUCT UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE UNION, NAMELY, IN
BRINGING THIS SUIT WITHOUT EXHAUSTING THE REMEDIES PROVIDED BY ITS
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS; IN THEREBY VIOLATING THE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT; IN NEGOTIATING WITH THE EMPLOYER THROUGH OTHERS THAN THE
UNION; AND IN CONDUCTING HIMSELF IN A MANNER HARMFUL TO ITS INTERESTS
AND THOSE OF ITS MEMBERS.  ACCORDINGLY, ON APRIL 15, 1946, THE UNION
REQUESTED TRAILMOBILE TO SUSPEND WHIRLS FROM WORK.  IN CONSEQUENCE, THE
COMPANY DIRECTED HIM NOT TO REPORT FOR DUTY.  SINCE THEN, HOWEVER, IT
HAS CONTINUED TO KEEP HIM ON THE PAYROLL, ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITH FULL
PAY.  ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT WHIRLS THUS CONTINUES IN THE
COMPANY'S EMPLOY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE CASE IS NOT MOOT, ITS SUGGESTION
OF THE FACTS HAS OVERLAID THE ONLY ISSUE BROUGHT HERE BY THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI WITH QUESTIONS OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION ALLEGEDLY
ARISING OUT OF THE SUGGESTED FACTS, UNDER THE DECISIONS IN STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 323 U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, 323 U.S. 210; AND WALLACE CORP. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 323 U.S. 248.  FN16 

THE FACTS THUS PUT FORWARD HAVE NO PROPER BEARING IN THIS CASE
OTHERWISE THAN TO SUGGEST THE QUESTION OF MOOTNESS AND TO REQUIRE THAT
ANY DECISION WHICH IS MADE UPON THE MERITS HERE BE MADE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE FUTURE ASSERTION OF ANY RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT WHICH MAY
HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE CONDUCT SET FORTH.  WE AGREE THAT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED HE REMAINS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY AND THE
CAUSE IS NOT MOOT.    WE ALSO AGREE THAT THE QUESTION OF UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE US FOR DECISION.  FN17  THAT
QUESTION, INSOFAR AS IT AROSE FROM EVENTS PRIOR TO THIS LITIGATION, WAS
INVOLVED IN THE OHIO CLASS SUIT WITHOUT REFERENCE, IT WOULD SEEM, TO
SEC. 8 OR ITS POSSIBLE EFFECTS.  AND BECAUSE THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, AS WE HAVE NOTED, ASSIGNED NO ERROR TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS' RULING ON THE ISSUE OF RES JUDICATA ARISING FROM THE OUTCOME
OF THE CLASS SUIT, WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY NOW TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF
THAT LITIGATION OR THE ISSUES OF DISCRIMINATION EMBRACED IN IT.
INSOFAR AS ANY QUESTION OF UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION MAY BE THOUGHT TO
ARISE FROM THE FACTS SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WE ARE ALSO NOT FREE AT THIS TIME TO CONSIDER
OR DETERMINE SUCH AN ISSUE.  AS THE BRIEF OF THE GOVERNMENT IN
RESPONDENT'S BEHALF PERTINENTLY STATES, "THESE POINTS WERE NOT RAISED
ON RESPONDENT'S BEHALF IN THE LOWER COURTS, AND NO EVIDENCE WAS
INTRODUCED BY ANY PARTY ON THE ISSUE OF UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION.  CF.
HORMEL V. HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552, 556.  IN VIEW OF THAT FACT, AND OF
THE HESS LITIGATION, WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE, AT THIS
STAGE, TO ARGUE THESE ISSUES." 

WHOLLY ASIDE FROM ANY QUESTION OF POWER, THIS DISCLAIMER ON BEHALF OF
THE PARTY AFFECTED IS A SUFFICIENT REASON TO JUSTIFY REFUSAL TO INJECT
SUCH AN ISSUE HERE OR TO VOLUNTEER AID NOT SOUGHT.  WE THEREFORE ARE
REQUIRED TO SAY NO MORE CONCERNING THE MATTER NOW THAN THAT, IF
RESPONDENT HAS BEEN UNLAWFULLY EXPELLED, SUSPENDED OR OTHERWISE DEALT
WITH BY THE UNION FOR ASSERTING HIS LEGAL RIGHTS, THE LAW HAS PROVIDED
REMEDIES FOR SUCH INJURIES AND THEY MAY BE REDRESSED IN APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS DESIGNED FOR THAT PURPOSE UPON PROOF OF THE FACTS
CONSTITUTING THE WRONG AND DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGAL ISSUES THEY
PRESENT.  TO ASSURE THIS POSSIBILITY, HOWEVER, THE REMAND WHICH BECOMES
NECESSARY IN THIS CAUSE ON THE MERITS WILL BE SO FRAMED AS TO PRECLUDE
ANY FORECLOSURE OF SUCH RIGHTS BY POSSIBLE FUTURE APPLICATION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA ARISING FROM THIS DETERMINATION. 

SINCE, MOREOVER, IN THE VIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND APPARENTLY OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE OHIO CLASS SUIT WAS DISPOSITIVE OF ISSUES OF
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION ARISING OUT OF THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THAT
LITIGATION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SEC. 8,  FN18  IT MAY BE ADDED THAT THE
OHIO DETERMINATION COULD NOT APPLY, OF COURSE, TO SUCH DISCRIMINATION
TAKING PLACE BY VIRTUE OF LATER EVENTS. 

WE TURN THEREFORE TO CONSIDERATION OF THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED ON
THE MERITS, NAMELY, WHETHER UNDER SEC. 8 THE VETERAN'S RIGHT TO
STATUTORY SENIORITY EXTENDS INDEFINITELY BEYOND THE EXPIRATION OF THE
FIRST YEAR OF HIS REEMPLOYMENT, BEING UNAFFECTED BY THAT EVENT AS LONG
AS THE EMPLOYMENT ITSELF CONTINUES. 

                                 II. 

THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF SECS. 8(A) AND 8(B) ARE SET OUT IN THE
MARGIN.  FN19  BUT WE ARE CONCERNED PARTICULARLY WITH SEC. 8(C), WHICH
READS: 

"ANY PERSON WHO IS RESTORED TO A POSITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (A) OR (B) OF SUBSECTION (B) SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN ON FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE DURING HIS
PERIOD OF TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, SHALL BE SO
RESTORED WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN
INSURANCE OR OTHER BENEFITS OFFERED BY THE EMPLOYER PURSUANT TO
ESTABLISHED RULES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO EMPLOYEES ON FURLOUGH OR
LEAVE OF ABSENCE IN EFFECT WITH THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME SUCH PERSON
WAS INDUCTED INTO SUCH FORCES, AND SHALL NOT BE DISCHARGED FROM SUCH
POSITION WITHOUT CAUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER SUCH RESTORATION." 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES ON RESPONDENT'S BEHALF THAT THE CORRECT MEANING
OF SEC. 8, AND PARTICULARLY OF SUBSECTION (C), IS THAT UPON
REEMPLOYMENT THE VETERAN IS ENTITLED TO RETAIN INDEFINITELY HIS PREWAR
PLUS SERVICE-ACCUMULATED SENIORITY.  FN20  UNDER THE STATUTE, IT SAYS,
THIS SENIORITY CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT OR BY THE EMPLOYER,  FN21 EITHER DURING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE
STATUTE INSURES THE VETERAN AGAINST DISCHARGE WITHOUT CAUSE OR
THEREAFTER WHILE THE EMPLOYMENT CONTINUES.  FN22  SUPPORT FOR THIS VIEW
IS THOUGHT TO BE DERIVED FROM THE SYNTAX OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT GRAMMATICALLY THE "WITHIN ONE YEAR" PROVISION
APPLIES ONLY TO THE LAST CLAUSE OF SUBSECTION (C), RELATING TO
DISCHARGE WITHOUT CAUSE, AND DOES NOT REFER TO THE "OTHER RIGHTS" FN23
GIVEN BY SUBSECTIONS (B) AND (C), INCLUDING RESTORED STATUTORY
SENIORITY.  BECAUSE THE "WITHIN ONE YEAR" PROVISION APPEARS MOST
PROXIMATELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCHARGE, THE
GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO GIVE THAT PROHIBITION, INCLUDING ITS TEMPORAL TERM,
EFFECT AS A COMMAND WHOLLY DISTINCT FROM AND UNRELATED TO ANYTHING
PRECEDING.  IT TREATS THE CLAUSE AS A GRAMMATICALLY INDEPENDENT
SENTENCE AND A SUBSTANTIVELY UNRELATED PROVISION, ALTHOUGH IT IS
SEPARATED FROM THE EARLIER ONES ONLY BY A COMMA FOLLOWED BY THE
CONJUNCTION "AND." 

ON THIS PREMISE OF COMPLETE SEVERABILITY THE GOVERNMENT BUILDS ITS
ENTIRE CASE.  THE PREMISE NECESSARILY REGARDS SEC. 8(C) AS MAKING NO
EXPRESS PROVISION FOR THE DURATION OF "OTHER RIGHTS," BUT AS LEAVING
THIS TO BE FOUND WHOLLY BY IMPLICATION.  THE GOVERNMENT THEN GOES ON TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE PERIOD TO BE IMPLIED IS INDEFINITE.  ALTHOUGH THE
STATUTORY SECURITY AGAINST DISCHARGE ENDS WITH THE PRESCRIBED YEAR, THE
PROTECTION GIVEN BY SEC. 8(C) TO "OTHER RIGHTS" IS SAID THEREFORE NOT
ONLY TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR THAT YEAR, CF. FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK &
REPAIR CORP., SUPRA, BUT TO CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE FOR AS LONG AS THE
JOB MAY LAST BEYOND THAT TIME.  IN THIS VIEW, OF COURSE, THE RESULT
WOULD BE TO "FREEZE" THE INCIDENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT INDEFINITELY WHILE
"FREEZING" THE RIGHT TO THE JOB ITSELF FOR ONLY ONE YEAR. 

DIFFICULTIES ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION, BOTH IN ITS
PREMISE AND IN ITS CONCLUSIONS.  ONE IS THAT THE CONCLUSION OF
INDEFINITE DURATION WOULD NOT FOLLOW NECESSARILY, IF THE PREMISE OF
COMPLETE SEVERABILITY WERE ACCEPTABLE.  ON THAT BASIS "INDEFINITE
DURATION" AS THE GOVERNMENT CONCEIVES IT WOULD NOT BE THE ONLY TENABLE
PERIOD OR EVEN THE MOST PROBABLY CONTEMPLATED ONE.  SEVERAL
ALTERNATIVES WOULD BE PRESENTED.  HOWEVER, THE STATUTORY YEAR WOULD NOT
BE AMONG THEM, SINCE IT IS IMPLICIT IN THE PREMISE OF SEVERABILITY THAT
THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF SEC. 8(C) TO "OTHER
RIGHTS" TO SECURE THEIR EXTENSION EITHER DURING OR AFTER THAT TIME.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW IGNORES THE USUAL RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION WHERE TIME IS NOT EXPRESSLY PRESCRIBED, BUT IS EVIDENTLY
TO BE IMPLIED.  FOR GENERALLY IN SUCH CASES DURATION FOR A REASONABLE
PERIOD IS THE TERM ACCEPTED BY THE LAW RATHER THAN PERMANENCY OR
INDEFINITE EXTENSION.  FN24  AND THIS, IN VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES, MIGHT
BE FOUND TO BE LONGER OR SHORTER THAN THE STATUTORY YEAR PRESCRIBED FOR
THE JOB ITSELF. 

THE REAL TROUBLE HOWEVER IS IN THE BASIC PREMISE BOTH GRAMMATICALLY
AND SUBSTANTIVELY.  IT ASSUMES NOT ONLY THE COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF
THE LAST CLAUSE OF SEC. 8 FROM WHAT PRECEDES, BUT ALSO THAT EMPLOYMENT
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT IS SOMETHING WHOLLY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE
FROM ITS INCIDENTS, INCLUDING SENIORITY, RATES OF PAY, ETC.  WE THINK,
HOWEVER, THAT THE IDEA OF TOTAL SEVERABILITY IS ALTOGETHER UNTENABLE. 
TO ACCEPT IT WOULD DO VIOLENCE BOTH TO THE GRAMMATICAL AND TO THE
SUBSTANTIVE STRUCTURE OF THE STATUTE. 

THE CLAUSE IS NEITHER AN INDEPENDENT SENTENCE NOR A DISCONNECTED
PROHIBITION WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT PRECEDES.  "FROM
SUCH POSITION" HAS NO MEANING SEVERED FROM THE PRIOR LANGUAGE.  THE
RESTORATION PROVISIONS DEFINE THE VERY CHARACTER OF THE PLACE NOT ONLY
TO WHICH THE VETERAN MUST BE RESTORED BUT EQUALLY FROM WHICH HE IS NOT
TO BE DISCHARGED.  NEITHER GRAMMATICALLY NOR SUBSTANTIVELY COULD THE
DISCHARGE PROVISION BE GIVEN EFFECT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE PRIOR
"RESTORATION" CLAUSES.  FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP.,
SUPRA.  INDEED SUCH REFERENCE IS EXPLICIT BOTH IN THE PHRASE "FROM SUCH
POSITION" AND IN THE TIME PROVISION ITSELF, NAMELY, "WITHIN ONE YEAR
AFTER SUCH RESTORATION." 

TO TEAR THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE FROM ITS CONTEXT IS THEREFORE
IMPOSSIBLE.  IT IS CONJUNCTIVE WITH ALL THAT PRECEDES.  NOR IS IT ANY
THE MORE PERMISSIBLE TO DISCONNECT ITS CONSTITUENT TEMPORAL TERM. 
THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT WHATEVER THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY SEC. 8(C) TO
SECURE THE "OTHER RIGHTS" GUARANTEED BY IT FOR AT LEAST THE MINIMUM
TERM OF THE PRESCRIBED ONE-YEAR PERIOD.  THIS INDEED WAS A SPECIFIC
RULING OF THE FISHGOLD CASE. 

THE EMPLOYEE THERE HAD NOT BEEN DISCHARGED IN THE SENSE OF BEING
THROWN OUT OF HIS JOB ALTOGETHER.  HE SIMPLY HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK BY THE OPERATION OF THE SENIORITY SYSTEM WHEN THERE
WAS NOT SUFFICIENT WORK FOR BOTH HIMSELF AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WITH
GREATER SENIORITY AFTER HE HAD BEEN ACCORDED HIS FULL STANDING UNDER
THE ACT.  THAT STANDING INCLUDED NOT ONLY HIS SENIORITY STATUS AS OF
THE TIME HE ENTERED THE ARMED FORCES, BUT ALSO ALL THAT WOULD HAVE
ACCUMULATED HAD HE REMAINED AT WORK UNTIL THE DATE OF HIS REEMPLOYMENT
WITHOUT GOING INTO THE SERVICE.  IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 8(C) HE IS TO
BE "CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN ON FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE DURING
HIS PERIOD OF TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES."  THE
COURT HELD, INDEED, THAT THE ACT DID NOT GIVE HIM STANDING TO OUTRANK
NONVETERAN EMPLOYEES WHO HAD MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF SENIORITY TO WHICH
HE WAS ENTITLED AND TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN RESTORED; IN OTHER WORDS, THAT
HE WAS NOT GIVEN SO-CALLED "SUPERSENIORITY."  BUT IT ALSO SQUARELY HELD
THAT HE WAS GIVEN SECURITY NOT ONLY AGAINST COMPLETE DISCHARGE, BUT
ALSO AGAINST DEMOTION, FOR THE STATUTORY YEAR.  AND DEMOTION WAS HELD
TO MEAN IMPAIRMENT OF "OTHER RIGHTS," INCLUDING HIS RESTORED STATUTORY
SENIORITY FOR THAT YEAR.  "IF WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD HE IS
DEMOTED, HIS STATUS, WHICH THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT, HAS BEEN
AFFECTED AND THE OLD EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN CHANGED.  HE
WOULD THEN LOSE HIS OLD POSITION AND ACQUIRE AN INFERIOR ONE.  HE WOULD
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(C) BE 'DISCHARGED FROM SUCH POSITION.'" 
328 U.S. AT 286. 

THAT SEC. 8(C) APPLIES TO SECURE THE PROTECTION OF "OTHER RIGHTS" FOR
AT LEAST THE STATUTORY YEAR WAS THEREFORE INHERENT IN THE
RATIONALIZATION OF THE FISHGOLD DECISION.  TO THAT EXTENT AT ANY RATE
THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE WAS HELD APPLICABLE, NOT SEVERABLE, CONCERNING
THEM.  THIS OF COURSE DESTROYS THE GOVERNMENT'S BASIC PREMISE OF THE
COMPLETE SEVERABILITY OF THAT CLAUSE AND ITS RESULTING NON
APPLICABILITY TO "OTHER RIGHTS."  WHILE THE REEMPLOYED VETERAN DID NOT
ACQUIRE "SUPERSENIORITY," SEC. 8(C) GAVE HIM THE RESTORED STANDING FOR
THE MINIMUM DURATION OF THE PRESCRIBED YEAR. 

IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT CONGRESS DID NOT CONFER THE RIGHTS GIVEN
AS INCIDENTS OF THE RESTORATION SIMPLY TO LEAVE THE EMPLOYER FREE TO
NULLIFY THEM AT WILL, ONCE HE HAD MADE IT. EQUALLY CLEARLY CONGRESS DID
NOT CREATE THEM TO BE OPERATIVE FOR THE VAGUELY INDEFINITE AND
VARIOUSLY APPLICABLE PERIOD OF A REASONABLE TIME.  BUT WE CANNOT AGREE
THAT THEY WERE GIVEN TO LAST AS LONG AS THE EMPLOYMENT CONTINUES,
UNAFFECTED BY EXPIRATION OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. 

TO ACCEPT THIS CONCLUSION, AS WE HAVE SAID, WOULD MEAN "FREEZING" THE
INCIDENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT INDEFINITELY WHILE "FREEZING" THE RIGHT TO
EMPLOYMENT ITSELF FOR ONLY ONE YEAR.  AS LONG AS THE EMPLOYEE MIGHT
REMAIN IN HIS JOB, HIS PAY COULD NOT BE REDUCED, HIS SENIORITY COULD
NOT BE DECREASED, INSURANCE AND OTHER BENEFITS COULD NOT BE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED.  AND THIS WOULD BE TRUE, ALTHOUGH FOR VALID REASONS ALL OF
THOSE RIGHTS COULD BE CHANGED TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF NONVETERAN
EMPLOYEES HAVING EQUAL OR GREATER SENIORITY AND OTHER RIGHTS THAN THOSE
OF THE VETERAN WITH RESTORED STATUTORY STANDING.  THE REEMPLOYED
VETERAN THUS NOT ONLY WOULD BE RESTORED TO HIS JOB SIMPLY, AS THE
FISHGOLD CASE REQUIRED, "SO THAT HE DOES NOT LOSE GROUND BY REASON OF
HIS ABSENCE."  328 U.S. AT 285.  HE WOULD GAIN ADVANTAGES BEYOND THE
STATUTORY YEAR OVER SUCH NONVETERAN EMPLOYEES. 

WE DO NOT THINK CONGRESS HAD IN MIND SUCH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES
FOR THE NATION-WIDE SYSTEM OF EMPLOYMENT, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, WHEN
MAKING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR THE VETERAN'S BENEFIT.  AT THE TIME
IT ACTED, WE HAD NOT DECLARED WAR AND THE MEN WHO WERE CALLED TO
SERVICE WERE BEING INDUCTED FOR A YEAR'S TRAINING, WITH THE IDEA IF NOT
THE ASSURANCE THAT THEY WOULD RETURN TO CIVILIAN LIFE AND OCCUPATIONS
AT THE END OF THAT YEAR, WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OF THEIR SERVICE. 
VISIONARY AS THIS NOTION PROVED TO BE, IT HARDLY CAN BE TAKEN TO
SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED "FREEZING" THE SPECIFIED
INCIDENTS OF RESTORED EMPLOYMENT INDEFINITELY. 

THE FISHGOLD CASE, IT IS TRUE, CONCERNED ONLY EVENTS TAKING PLACE
WITHIN THE STATUTORY YEAR.  AS THE COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT IN
DISTINGUISHING THIS CASE, 154 F.2D AT 871, THE ISSUES THERE INVOLVED NO
QUESTION OF THE REEMPLOYED VETERAN'S STANDING AFTER THE STATUTORY
YEAR.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE DECISION DID HOLD THAT SEC. 8(C)
APPLIES TO "OTHER RIGHTS" FOR THE YEAR.  AND THE RATIONALIZATION WAS
WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE IDEA THAT THOSE RESTORED RIGHTS CONTINUED
INDEFINITELY AFTER THE YEAR, UNAFFECTED BY ITS TERMINATION.  THE
RESTORED VETERAN, IT WAS HELD, COULD NOT BE DISADVANTAGED BY HIS
SERVICE TO THE NATION.  HE "WAS NOT TO BE PENALIZED ON HIS RETURN BY
REASON OF HIS ABSENCE FROM HIS CIVILIAN JOB."  328 U.S. AT 284.  HE WAS
TO BE RESTORED AND KEPT, FOR THE YEAR AT LEAST, IN THE SAME SITUATION
AS IF HE HAD NOT GONE TO WAR BUT HAD REMAINED CONTINUOUSLY EMPLOYED OR
HAD BEEN "ON FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE."  IT IS CLEAR, OF COURSE,
THAT THIS STATUTORY ADDITION TO THE VETERAN'S SENIORITY STATUS IS NOT
AUTOMATICALLY DEDUCTED FROM IT AT THE END OF HIS FIRST YEAR OF
REEMPLOYMENT.  BUT THE FISHGOLD DECISION ALSO RULED EXPRESSLY THAT HE
WAS NOT TO GAIN ADVANTAGE BEYOND SUCH RESTORATION, BY VIRTUE OF THE
ACT'S PROVISIONS, SO AS TO ACQUIRE "AN INCREASE IN SENIORITY OVER WHAT
HE WOULD HAVE HAD IF HE HAD NEVER ENTERED THE ARMED SERVICES.  ...  NO
STEP-UP OR GAIN IN PRIORITY CAN BE FAIRLY IMPLIED."  328 U.S. AT 285
286.    FOR THE STATUTORY YEAR INDEED THIS MEANT THAT THE RESTORED
RIGHTS COULD NOT BE ALTERED ADVERSELY BY THE USUAL PROCESSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF THE EMPLOYER'S ADMINISTRATION OF GENERAL
BUSINESS POLICY.  FN25  BUT IF THIS EXTRAORDINARY STATUTORY SECURITY
WERE TO BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE STATUTORY YEAR, THE RESTORED VETERAN
WOULD ACQUIRE NOT SIMPLY EQUALITY WITH NONVETERAN EMPLOYEES HAVING
IDENTICAL STATUS AS OF THE TIME HE RETURNED TO WORK.  HE WOULD ACQUIRE
INDEFINITE STATUTORY PRIORITY OVER NONVETERAN EMPLOYEES, A PREFERRED
STATUS WHICH WE THINK NOT ONLY INHARMONIOUS WITH THE BASIC FISHGOLD
RATIONALIZATION, BUT BEYOND THE PROTECTION CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS. 

WE ARE UNABLE THEREFORE TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION.  ASIDE
FROM THE EVENTS TAKING PLACE AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION,
WHICH AS WE HAVE SAID ARE NOT PROPERLY HERE FOR CONSIDERATION EXCEPT
UPON THE QUESTION OF MOOTNESS, WHIRLS WAS TREATED EXACTLY AS WERE OTHER
EMPLOYEES IN HIS GROUP HAVING THE SAME SENIORITY AND STATUS AS HE HAD
ON THE DATE OF HIS REEMPLOYMENT.  THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
HIM AS A VETERAN OR OTHERWISE THAN AS A MEMBER OF THAT GROUP.  BOTH
GROUPS, THE FORMER TRAILMOBILE EMPLOYEES AND THE FORMER HIGHLAND
EMPLOYEES, WHO COMPOSED HIS GROUP, CONTAINED VETERANS AND NONVETERANS
IN LARGE NUMBERS.  BOTH CONTAINED VETERANS IN ACTIVE SERVICE AND
REEMPLOYED VETERANS WHEN THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WAS MADE.  WHIRLS WAS
TREATED EXACTLY AS ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS GROUP, THE EX-HIGHLAND
EMPLOYEES, VETERANS AND NONVETERANS ALIKE.  WHETHER OR NOT THE
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WAS VALID, OR INFRINGED RIGHTS OF WHIRLS AND OTHER
MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP APART FROM RIGHTS GIVEN BY SEC. 8(C), IS NOT
BEFORE US, FOR REASONS WE HAVE STATED.  THE ONLY QUESTION HERE AND THE
ONLY ONE WE DECIDE IS THAT SEC. 8(C), ALTHOUGH GIVING THE REEMPLOYED
VETERAN A SPECIAL STATUTORY STANDING IN RELATION TO "OTHER RIGHTS," AS
DEFINED IN THE FISHGOLD CASE, DURING THE STATUTORY YEAR, AND CREATING
TO THAT EXTENT A PREFERENCE FOR HIM OVER NONVETERANS, DID NOT EXTEND
THAT PREFERENCE FOR A LONGER TIME. 

ON THE FACTS THEREFORE WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE FURTHER
QUESTION WHETHER THE STATUTE WOULD GIVE PROTECTION TO A REEMPLOYED
VETERAN AFTER THE STATUTORY YEAR, IF IT WERE SHOWN THAT HE THEN HAD
BEEN DEMOTED BENEATH HIS RIGHTFUL STANDING UNDER THE ACT AS OF THE DATE
OF HIS RESTORATION, THOUGH NONVETERAN EMPLOYEES HAVING THE SAME
SENIORITY STANDING AS OF THAT TIME HAD NOT BEEN DEMOTED OR ADVERSELY
AFFECTED.  NO SUCH QUESTION IS PRESENTED ON THE FACTS OF RECORD
PROPERLY BEFORE US FOR CONSIDERATION AND DECISION.  IT WILL BE TIME
ENOUGH TO CONSIDER SUCH AN ISSUE WHENEVER IT MAY BE PRESENTED. 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY THEREFORE TO PASS UPON PETITIONERS' POSITION
IN THIS CASE, NAMELY, THAT ALL PROTECTION AFFORDED BY VIRTUE OF SEC.
8(C) TERMINATES WITH THE ENDING OF THE SPECIFIED YEAR.  WE HOLD ONLY
THAT SO MUCH OF IT ENDS THEN AS WOULD GIVE THE REEMPLOYED VETERAN A
PREFERRED STANDING OVER EMPLOYEES NOT VETERANS HAVING IDENTICAL
SENIORITY RIGHTS AS OF THE TIME OF HIS RESTORATION.  WE EXPRESSLY
RESERVE DECISION UPON WHETHER THE STATUTORY SECURITY EXTENDS BEYOND THE
ONE-YEAR PERIOD TO SECURE THE REEMPLOYED VETERAN AGAINST IMPAIRMENT IN
ANY RESPECT OF EQUALITY WITH SUCH A FELLOW WORKER. 

THESE REASONS, FOUNDED IN THE LITERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE AND
THE POLICY CLEARLY EVIDENT ON ITS FACE, ARE SUFFICIENT FOR DISPOSITION
OF THE CASE.  THEY ARE NOT WEAKENED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S STRAINED AND
UNCONVINCING CITATION OF THE ACT'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

THAT ARGUMENT IS GROUNDED IN CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM CHANGES MADE
WITHOUT EXPLANATION IN COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS PROVISIONS
FINALLY TAKING FORM IN SEC. 8, CHANGES AFFECTING BILLS WHICH EVENTUALLY
BECAME THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT AND THE NATIONAL GUARD
ACT, 54 STAT. 858.  APART FROM THE INCONCLUSIVE CHARACTER OF THE
HISTORY, THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION ASSUMES THAT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVES
PRESENTED BY THE FINAL FORM OF THE BILL WERE INDEFINITE DURATION FOR
THE INCIDENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT NAMED AND NONE AT ALL.  THIS IGNORES
THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES CONSIDERED IN THIS OPINION, INCLUDING DURATION
FOR A REASONABLE TIME.  MOREOVER, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE MOST IMPORTANT
COMMITTEE CHANGES RELIED UPON WERE MADE WITHOUT EXPLANATION.  FN26  THE
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES CANNOT SAFELY BE MADE TO REST UPON MUTE
INTERMEDIATE LEGISLATIVE MANEUVERS.  FN27 

THE ARGUMENT FOR RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE IS OF WHOLE CLOTH IN
PRINCIPLE WITH THE CONTENTION FOR "SUPERSENIORITY" MADE AND REJECTED IN
THE FISHGOLD CASE, AS INDEED THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS REGARDED IT.  LACKING ANY BETTER LEGISLATIVE FOOTING, IT
EQUALLY CANNOT STAND. 

ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED.  THIS
HOWEVER WILL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FROM THE DECISION HERE TO
RESPONDENT'S ASSERTION IN THE FUTURE OF ANY RIGHTS HE MAY HAVE AGAINST
TRAILMOBILE OR THE COLLECTIVE AGENT ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR ACTS NOT
PRESENTED ON THIS RECORD OR INVOLVED IN THE ISSUES DETERMINED BY THIS
DECISION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  54 STAT. 885, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 301 ET SEQ. IN 1944 THERE WAS
A MINOR MODIFICATION OF SEC. 8 NOT HERE RELEVANT.  58 STAT. 798;
FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328 U.S. 275, 278, NOTE
1.  AS AMENDED THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT EXPIRED IN ITS
MAJOR PART MARCH 31, 1947.  ACT OF JUNE 29, 1946, 60 STAT. 341.  BUT
SEC. 8 IS SAVED INDEFINITELY. 

FN2  "HE ACQUIRES NOT ONLY THE SAME SENIORITY HE HAD; HIS SERVICE IN
THE ARMED SERVICES IS COUNTED AS SERVICE IN THE PLANT SO THAT HE DOES
NOT LOSE GROUND BY REASON OF HIS ABSENCE."  328 U.S. 275, 285. 

FN3  THOUGH THE FACT DOES NOT APPEAR AFFIRMATIVELY IN THE RECORD, THE
PARTIES AGREE THAT WHIRLS UPON HIS REEMPLOYMENT AFTER HIS MILITARY
SERVICE RECEIVED IN ADDITION TO THE SENIORITY HE HAD ACQUIRED AT THE
TIME OF HIS ENTRY INTO MILITARY SERVICE ALSO SENIORITY ACCRUED DURING
THE PERIOD OF HIS SERVICE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE STANDARD OF THE
FISHGOLD CASE.  THIS ACCORDED WITH THE THEN EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED:  "IN CASE OF A NATIONAL CRISIS,
SUCH AS A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED WAR, ANY MAN WHO RELINQUISHES HIS JOB
WITH THE COMPANY FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO THE GOVERNMENT, SHALL ON HIS
RETURN TO WORK RETAIN HIS PLACE ON THE SENIORITY LIST WITH
ACCUMULATION." 

FN4  SEE 51 N.L.R.B. 1106, 1107, FOR DETAILS OF THE COMPANIES'
OPERATIONS. 

FN5  IN THE LAST FULL YEAR OF INDEPENDENT OPERATION, 1942, HIGHLAND
HAD APPROXIMATELY 100 EMPLOYEES AND PRODUCED COMMODITIES WORTH
APPROXIMATELY $1,500,000 AND TRAILMOBILE HAD APPROXIMATELY 1,000
EMPLOYEES AND PRODUCED COMMODITIES WORTH $12,000,000. 

FN6  51 N.L.R.B. 1106; 53 N.L.R.B. 1248.  AS THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD DETERMINED THAT THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT WAS ONE
COMPOSED OF BOTH HIGHLAND AND TRAILMOBILE EMPLOYEES, 51 N.L.R.B. AT
1113, THE EX-HIGHLAND EMPLOYEES, OF COURSE, LOST THE ELECTION, SINCE
THERE WERE MANY MORE TRAILMOBILE EMPLOYEES.  SEE NOTE 5.  THE
BARGAINING UNIT EXCLUDED SUPERVISORY AND CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS
EMPLOYEES OF BOTH COMPANIES.  51 N.L.R.B. 1114-1115. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 3. 

FN8  THERE ARE HOLDINGS THAT, ALTHOUGH A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT
MAY BY CONTRACT WITH THE EMPLOYER MODIFY THE SENIORITY STRUCTURE, IT
MUST ACT IN GOOD FAITH TOWARD ALL EMPLOYEES.  SEE SENIORITY RIGHTS IN
LABOR RELATIONS (1937) 47 YALE L.J. 73, 90; CHRISTENSON, SENIORITY
RIGHTS UNDER LABOR UNION WORKING AGREEMENTS (1937) 11 TEMP.  L.Q. 355,
370-371.  THE CLASS SUIT WAS FILED AND DETERMINED BEFORE THE DECISIONS
WERE RENDERED HERE IN STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 323 U.S.
192; TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN, 323
U.S. 210; WALLACE CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 323 U.S.
248. 

FN9  HESS V. THE TRAILER CO., 31 O.O. 566, 17 O. SUPP. 39, AFFIRMED
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO, MOTION TO CERTIFY
RECORD TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT OVERRULED, O. LAW REP., OCTOBER 15,
1945, 51; 18 OHIO BAR 314. 

FN10  THE PLEADINGS IN THE CLASS SUIT HAVE BEEN MADE PART OF THE
RECORD IN THIS CASE.  NEITHER THEY NOR THE FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT IN THAT CAUSE DISCLOSE ANY REFERENCE TO OR CONSIDERATION OF
SEC. 8 OR ITS POSSIBLE EFFECTS UPON THAT LITIGATION. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 8 SUPRA. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 9 SUPRA. 

FN13  WHIRLS' PETITION IN THIS CASE ALLEGED THAT AFTER THE NOTICE OF
JULY 15, 1944, "DEFENDANT HEREIN AGAIN RESTORED PLAINTIFF TO HIS DATE
OF HIRING, AS REGULATING HIS SENIORITY, TO-WIT: FEBRUARY 8, 1935,
PURSUANT TO A DIRECTIVE OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND HE CONTINUED TO BENEFIT BY SUCH SENIORITY STATUS UNTIL ON
OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 3, 1945, AT WHICH TIME" THE DEFENDANT TRANSFERRED
HIM AS STATED BELOW IN THE TEXT AND THREATENED, UNLESS RESTRAINED, TO
REDUCE HIS PAY AND SENIORITY RATING. 

FN14  SECTION 8(E) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, QUOTED
IN FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328 U.S. AT 280, NOTE
3. 

FN15  THE COURT OF APPEALS EXPRESSLY STATED ITS DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
VIEWS EXPRESSED BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND, 154 F.2D 785, WRITING FOR THE
MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE FISHGOLD CASE, THE
DECISION IN WHICH WAS AFFIRMED HERE. 

FN16  THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF PUTS THE SUGGESTION AND DISCUSSION IT
MAKES AS A MATTER OF NOT DESIRING ITS "FAILURE TO EXPLORE THE NATURE
AND CAUSES" OF THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION TO BE TAKEN "AS AN ADMISSION
EITHER" THAT THERE WAS NOT UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE STEELE,
TUNSTALL AND WALLACE CASES, SUPRA; OR THAT SUCH DISCRIMINATION "CANNOT
BE REDRESSED UNDER SECTION 8  ...  AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE INITIAL YEAR
OF REEMPLOYMENT  ...  " 

FN17  SEE NOTE 16. 

FN18  THE COURT OF APPEALS, NOTING THAT WHIRLS WAS NOT NAMED AS A
PARTY TO THE CLASS SUIT OTHER THAN AS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, POINTED
OUT THAT NUMEROUS MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WERE INVOLVED IN BOTH
GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES, BUT THAT THEIR INTERESTS AS VETERANS UNDER SEC. 8
WERE NOT COMMON TO THE NONVETERAN EMPLOYEES IN EITHER GROUP.  HENCE, IT
CONCLUDED, THE CLASS SUIT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RENDERING A JUDGMENT
BINDING UPON VETERAN MEMBERS OF THE COMPLAINING CLASS AS TO THE
QUESTION OF THEIR SENIORITY UNDER SEC. 8.  154 F.2D 866, 872. 

FN19  "SEC.  8.  (A)  ANY PERSON INDUCTED INTO THE LAND OR NAVAL
FORCES UNDER THIS ACT FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE, WHO, IN THE JUDGMENT OF
THOSE IN AUTHORITY OVER HIM, SATISFACTORILY COMPLETES HIS PERIOD OF
TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER SECTION 3(B) SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A
CERTIFICATE TO THAT EFFECT UPON THE COMPLETION OF SUCH PERIOD OF
TRAINING AND SERVICE, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE A RECORD OF ANY SPECIAL
PROFICIENCY OR MERIT ATTAINED.  ... 

"(B)  IN THE CASE OF ANY SUCH PERSON WHO, IN ORDER TO PERFORM SUCH
TRAINING AND SERVICE, HAS LEFT OR LEAVES A POSITION, OTHER THAN A
TEMPORARY POSITION, IN THE EMPLOY OF ANY EMPLOYER AND WHO (1) RECEIVES
SUCH CERTIFICATE, (2) IS STILL QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF SUCH
POSITION, AND (3) MAKES APPLICATION FOR REEMPLOYMENT WITHIN FORTY DAYS
AFTER HE IS RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE - 

"(A)  IF SUCH POSITION WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, ITS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS, OR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, SUCH PERSON SHALL BE RESTORED TO SUCH POSITION OR TO A
POSITION OF LIKE SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY; 

"(B)  IF SUCH POSITION WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF A PRIVATE EMPLOYER, SUCH
EMPLOYER SHALL RESTORE SUCH PERSON TO SUCH POSITION OR TO A POSITION OF
LIKE SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY UNLESS THE EMPLOYER'S CIRCUMSTANCES
HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE OR UNREASONABLE TO DO SO; ...
" 

FN20 THE GOVERNMENT STATES THAT A VETERAN COULD BE REDUCED IN
SENIORITY ON ACCOUNT OF BONA FIDE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR ON ACCOUNT
OF CAUSE OR UPON WAIVER.  AS TO THIS, SEE NOTE 25. 

FN21  SENIORITY ARISES ONLY OUT OF CONTRACT OR STATUTE.  AN EMPLOYEE
HAS "NO INHERENT RIGHT TO SENIORITY IN SERVICE  ...  "  RYAN V. NEW
YORK CENTRAL R.R., 267 MICH. 202, 208; CASEY V. BROTHERHOOD, 197 MINN.
189, 191-192.  "THE SENIORITY PRINCIPLE IS CONFINED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY
TO UNIONIZED INDUSTRY."  DECISIONS (1946) 46 COL. L. REV. 1030, 1031,
AND AUTHORITIES CITED.  "IN PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT SENIORITY IS TYPICALLY
CREATED AND DELIMITED BY A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT  ...  "
IBID. 

FN22  SEE NOTE 20. 

FN23  THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT IS LIMITED TO SENIORITY.  BUT IT IS
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF "POSITION," SUCH AS PAY. 
THUS, IF ACCEPTED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT AFTER THE GUARANTEED ONE YEAR A
VETERAN COULD BE DISCHARGED BUT COULD NOT HAVE HIS PAY REDUCED. 

THE POSITION TO WHICH AN EMPLOYEE MUST BE RESTORED IS EITHER THE
POSITION PREVIOUSLY HELD OR "A POSITION OF LIKE SENIORITY, STATUS, AND
PAY."  SEE NOTE 18.  IT IS THUS RECOGNIZED THAT PART OF THE RESTORED
"POSITION" IS THE SENIORITY ACCRUED PRIOR TO SERVICE IN THE ARMED
FORCES AND, UNDER THE FISHGOLD CASE, DURING SERVICE.  "SENIORITY" IS
PART OF "POSITION," AND THEREFORE WHEN THE ACT STATES IN SUBSECTION (C)
THAT THE VETERAN MAY NOT BE DISCHARGED "FROM SUCH POSITION" IT MEANS
BOTH FROM THE JOB ITSELF AND FROM THE SENIORITY WHICH IS PART OF THE
JOB.    FN24  SEE, E.G., DILLON V. GLOSS, 256 U.S. 368, 375; SUNFLOWER
OIL CO. V. WILSON, 142 U.S. 313, 322; 1 WILLISTON, CONTRACTS (REV.
ED.)  152. 

FN25  SECTION 8(C), IT WILL BE RECALLED, FORBIDS DISCHARGE "WITHOUT
CAUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR."  IT MAY BE THAT THE "WITHOUT CAUSE"
QUALIFICATION APPLIES TO "OTHER RIGHTS" AS WELL AS TO TOTAL DISCHARGE,
MORE ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE POSITION WE TAKE CONCERNING THE
SEVERABILITY OF THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF SEC. 8(C).  BUT NO QUESTION IS
PRESENTED IN THIS CASE WHETHER THE EMPLOYER, FOR CAUSE, COULD DEMOTE A
REEMPLOYED VETERAN WITHIN THE STATUTORY YEAR CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 8(C), AND WE EXPRESS NO OPINION IN THIS RESPECT. 

FN26  SEE S. REP. 1987, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.; H. REP. 2847, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS.; H. REP. 2874, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. 

FN27  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO RELIES UPON CERTAIN STATEMENTS TAKEN OUT OF
CONTEXT FROM THE DEBATES.  "AS IS TRUE WITH RESPECT TO ALL SUCH
MATERIALS, IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXTRACT PARTICULAR SEGMENTS FROM THE
IMMEDIATE AND TOTAL CONTEXT AND COME OUT WITH ROAD SIGNS POINTING IN
OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS."  HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707,
733.  NONE OF THE SELECTIONS IS DIRECTED TOWARD THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE VETERAN'S SENIORITY CONTINUES AFTER THE GUARANTEED ONE-YEAR PERIOD
SO AS TO BE NOT SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

OF THE MILLIONS OF WAGE EARNERS WHOM THE WAR TOOK FROM THEIR JOBS
INTO THE ARMED SERVICES, SOME CAME FROM ORGANIZED INDUSTRIES, OTHERS
FROM UNORGANIZED INDUSTRIES; SOME HAD PRIORITY RIGHTS INCIDENT TO THEIR
JOBS, OTHERS HAD NO SUCH RIGHTS.  FOR ALL, CONGRESS PROVIDED THE
SECURITY OF BEING ABLE TO GET BACK THEIR OLD JOBS FOR AT LEAST A YEAR
AFTER THEIR RETURN TO CIVIL LIFE.  BUT SINCE INDUSTRIAL PRIORITY RIGHTS
USUALLY PREVAILING IN ORGANIZED INDUSTRY HAVE IMPORTANT BEARING BOTH ON
PERMANENCE OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES, CONGRESS GUARANTEED THE VETERAN NOT
MERELY "AGAINST LOSS OF POSITION" BUT ALSO AGAINST "LOSS OF SENIORITY
BY REASON OF HIS ABSENCE.  HE ACQUIRES NOT ONLY THE SAME SENIORITY HE
HAD; HIS SERVICE IN THE ARMED SERVICES IS COUNTED AS SERVICE IN THE
PLANT SO THAT HE DOES NOT LOSE GROUND BY REASON OF HIS ABSENCE." 
FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328 U.S. 275, 285.  IN
BRIEF, IN EMPLOYMENTS THAT WERE GOVERNED BY PRIORITY RIGHTS, ABSENCE IN
THE ARMED SERVICES WAS TREATED AS PRESENCE IN THE PLANT.  THE VETERAN
ACQUIRED A RATING WHICH HE WOULD HAVE HAD, HAD HE NOT BEEN AWAY. 

CONGRESS THUS DEALT WITH TWO VERY DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT. 
IT GAVE ALL WAGE EARNERS THE ASSURANCE OF HAVING THEIR OLD JOBS FOR A
YEAR.  IT FURTHER MADE IMPERATIVE THAT WAGE EARNERS WHO, BY VIRTUE OF
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, NORMALLY UNION CONTRACTS, HAD PREFERRED POSITIONS
SHOULD HAVE THE SAME PREFERRED POSITIONS AS THOSE ENJOYED BY THEIR
FELLOWS WHO HAD THEIR STATUS BUT REMAINED BEHIND.  CONGRESS LIMITED THE
RIGHT TO HAVE A JOB TO A YEAR.  BUT CONGRESS, HAVING ASSURED A VETERAN
THE PRIORITY STATUS HE WOULD HAVE HAD HAD HE REMAINED AT WORK, DID NOT
TAKE AWAY THAT STATUS AT THE END OF TWELVE MONTHS.  ACCORDINGLY,
BECAUSE OF THE CONGRESSIONALLY ASSURED STATUS, WHEREBY A VETERAN HAD A
PRIORITY RIGHT THAT HE WOULD HAVE HAD, HAD HE NEVER LEFT, HE HAS
WHATEVER RIGHTS THAT STATUS GAVE AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE GENERAL LAW OF
CONTRACT AND MORE PARTICULARLY, AS IN THIS CASE, UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

THE VETERAN AT THE END OF THE YEAR CERTAINLY IS NOT IN A WORSE
POSITION THAN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD HE NOT BEEN IN THE ARMED
SERVICES.  IF HE COULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF HIS SENIORITY RIGHTS UNDER
THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HAD HE REMAINED BEHIND, HE CANNOT BE DEPRIVED
OF THEM BECAUSE HE IS A VETERAN.  THEREFORE, IF UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THOSE WIELDING THE POWER OF AN EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING AGENCY ON BEHALF OF THE VETERAN COULD NOT HAVE DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST HIM HAD HE NOT BEEN A VETERAN, THEY CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
HIM BECAUSE HE IS A VETERAN.  ANY OTHER RESULT WOULD FLY SO COMPLETELY
IN THE FACE OF WHAT CONGRESS WAS ABOUT IN FASHIONING ECONOMIC SECURITY
FOR THE RETURNING VETERANS, THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE LANGUAGE TOTALLY
WANTING IN WHAT CONGRESS WROTE TO FIND SUCH A STRANGE PURPOSE ON ITS
PART. 

CONGRESS DID NOT AUTHORIZE ARBITRARY REDUCTION OF THE SENIORITY
RIGHTS TO WHICH THE VETERAN HAD BEEN RESTORED AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 
IF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT ASSURE THAT HE WILL NOT
BE DISCHARGED BEFORE AN EMPLOYEE WITH LOWER SENIORITY AND THAT HE IS
ENTITLED TO A CERTAIN WAGE SCALE HE CONTINUES IN EMPLOYMENT WITH THIS
SENIORITY STATUS AND IS ENTITLED TO ALL ITS BENEFITS, AS LONG AS OTHERS
WITH LOWER SENIORITY REMAIN ON THE JOB. 

IN ASSURING NOT MERELY THE RETENTION OF SENIORITY STATUS BUT ITS
PROGRESSION DURING THE YEARS IN THE SERVICE, CONGRESS AIMED TO INSURE
THAT THE YEARS WHICH THE VETERAN GAVE TO HIS COUNTRY SHOULD NOT RETARD
HIS ECONOMIC ADVANCEMENT.  IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT IN FURTHERING THIS
POLICY CONGRESS WOULD SAY THAT AN EMPLOYEE, BECAUSE HE IS A VETERAN,
SHOULD SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING BEEN TO WAR AFTER A YEAR'S
RETURN.  THE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WHICH CONGRESS DESIGNED AS BETWEEN
EMPLOYEES WHO WENT AND EMPLOYEES WHO STAYED COULD NOT BE ACHIEVED BY
DELAYING FOR ONE YEAR THE DISADVANTAGES OF HAVING BEEN AWAY AND THEN
LETTING THEM AFFECT THE VETERAN. 

WHIRLS CAME BACK FROM THE ARMY TO HIS OLD WORK, WHERE HE HAD CERTAIN
ADVANTAGES OF SENIORITY.  NOW HE HAS LOST HIS SENIORITY, AND BECAUSE HE
ASKED THE COURTS TO SAY WHETHER HE LOST IT LEGALLY HE WAS BOOTED OUT OF
HIS JOB AND, MOREOVER, WAS EXPELLED FROM THE UNION HE HAD BEEN
COMPELLED TO JOIN BY REASON OF A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT.  HE MAY FIND
OTHER EMPLOYMENT AT HIS OLD CRAFT CLOSED TO HIM.  THIS IS RATHER
SHOCKING AND IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WHIRLS HAS NO PROTECTION IN
LAW. 

WHAT HAPPENED TO WHIRLS IS THIS:  THE EMPLOYER TO WHOSE SERVICE HE
RETURNED WAS MERGED OR CONSOLIDATED WITH A BIGGER CONCERN OF THE SAME
KIND - A CORPORATION WHICH HAD OWNED THE COMPANY FOR WHICH WHIRLS
WORKED - AND BOTH BUSINESSES WERE CONTINUED UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP.  THIS
UNITED THE TWO WORKING FORCES AND THE QUESTION AROSE AS TO RELATIVE
SENIORITY RIGHTS.  BOTH GROUPS HAD BELONGED TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR UNIONS, SO THE PROBLEM WAS SUBMITTED TO ITS NATIONAL
AUTHORITIES.  THEY RULED THAT EACH EMPLOYEE SHOULD RETAIN SENIORITY
RIGHTS DATING FROM THE TIME HE ENTERED THE EMPLOY OF EITHER COMPANY. 

THE BIGGER GROUP REVOLTED.  THEY DEMANDED THEIR OWN SENIORITY AND
DEMANDED THAT THE SMALLER GROUP COMING INTO THE CONSOLIDATION BE
TREATED AS ENTIRELY NEW EMPLOYEES.  THEY REORGANIZED AS A C.I.O. UNIT,
DEMANDED RECOGNITION AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT OF THE WHOLE
ENTERPRISE AND, OF COURSE, WON THE ELECTION.  THEY THEN DEMANDED AND
OBTAINED A CONTRACT ALLOWING THEIR OWN SENIORITY AND ESTABLISHING A
CLOSED SHOP.  TO KEEP HIS JOB AT ALL, WHIRLS WAS OBLIGED THEREBY TO
JOIN THE C.I.O. UNION AND, WITH OTHERS, SUFFERED REDUCTION OF PAY AND
LOSS OF SENIORITY RIGHTS. 

BELIEVING THAT HE AND OTHERS HAD BEEN UNLAWFULLY DEALT WITH AND BEING
SUPPORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE BELIEF, HE SOUGHT A REMEDY IN THE
COURTS.  HIS CLAIM WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS, FOR TWO COURTS BELOW GRANTED HIM
RELIEF.  BUT BECAUSE HE TESTED HIS RIGHTS IN COURT, HE WAS EXPELLED
FROM THE UNION ON CHARGES THAT HE NEGOTIATED FOR HIMSELF THROUGH OTHERS
THAN THE UNION AND ACTED IN A WAY CONTRARY AND HARMFUL TO ITS
INTERESTS.  SINCE HE WAS NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THE UNION, IT DEMANDED
UNDER THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT THAT THE EMPLOYER OUST HIM FROM EVEN
THE REDUCED JOB WHICH ITS BARGAINING HAD LEFT TO HIM.  THE EMPLOYER WAS
OBLIGED BY ITS CONTRACT TO COMPLY BUT HAS BEEN PAYING HIM ON A LEAVE-OF
ABSENCE-WITH-PAY BASIS.  THE SHORT OF IT IS THAT WHIRLS IS OUT OF
SENIORITY, OUT OF WORK, AND OUT OF THE UNION, WITH ALL THAT THIS MEANS
IN A CLOSED-SHOP INDUSTRY.  HIS PREDICAMENT COMES ABOUT NOT BECAUSE OF
ANY FAULT OF WHIRLS AS A WORKMAN, NOR BECAUSE OF HIS EMPLOYER'S WISH. 

THE EMPLOYER URGES THAT WE RELIEVE IT FROM THE DUTY IMPOSED BY THE
COURT BELOW OF REINSTATING WHIRLS IN HIS SENIORITY RIGHTS BECAUSE "THE
MAJORITY UNION MEMBERS MAY COMPEL THE EMPLOYER TO DISCHARGE SUCH
RETURNING VETERAN AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF SAID ONE-YEAR PERIOD.  AS IN
THIS CASE, THE UNION MIGHT EXPEL THE VETERAN FROM THE UNION, AND
THEREBY COMPEL THIS EMPLOYER TO DISCHARGE SUCH VETERAN UNDER ITS CLOSED
SHOP CONTRACT WITH THE UNION."  ONE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT THIS AN
EXAGGERATED FEAR CONJURED UP IN HOSTILITY TO THE UNION EXCEPT THAT IT
IS JUST WHAT HAS HAPPENED, AND THAT INSTEAD OF REPUDIATING IT NOW THE
UNION ENDORSES THE THREAT.  IT SAYS THAT THE UNION "MUST DO ONE OF TWO
THINGS, (A) EITHER DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE TRAILMOBILE VETERANS AND
ALLOW THE HIGHLAND VETERANS TO SUPERSEDE THEM ON THE SENIORITY LIST,
OR, (B) IN FAIRNESS TO THE TRAILMOBILE VETERANS, NEGOTIATE FOR THE
DISCHARGE OF HIGHLAND VETERANS AT THE END OF ONE YEAR'S GUARANTEED
EMPLOYMENT." 

THIS COMBINES A FALSE ALTERNATIVE WITH A DISINGENUOUS THREAT.  BOTH
ALTERNATIVES PRESUPPOSE THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO
DISCHARGE VETERANS AFTER REEMPLOYING THEM FOR A YEAR, WHETHER OR NOT
THEY WORK UNDER A CONTRACT WHICH GIVES THEM SENIORITY RIGHTS.  BUT THE
QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE VETERAN IS SECURED IN HIS
SENIORITY RIGHTS BY THE ACT.  IF HE IS, HE IS TO THE EXTENT OF THOSE
RIGHTS UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT ENTITLED TO HIS JOB EVEN AFTER THE
ASSURED YEAR HAS ENDED. 

THERE IS NEITHER NEED NOR AUTHORITY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY
VETERAN OF EITHER PLANT.  THE FAIR SOLUTION WOULD BE THAT EACH EMPLOYEE
GO ON THE SENIORITY LIST AS OF THE DATE HE ENTERED EITHER OF THE TWO
UNITS NOW CONSOLIDATED.  THAT WAS THE SOLUTION UNDER THE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT BY WHICH WHIRLS WORKED AT THE TIME OF THE CONSOLIDATION.  TO
THWART IT, THE WHOLE MACHINERY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WAS SET IN MOTION AND APPARENTLY HAS BEEN USED IN DISREGARD OF WHIRLS'
RIGHTS UNDER THE LABOR ACT.  BEFORE WE REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER
RIGHTS UNDER THE LABOR ACT HAVE BEEN INFRINGED, HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE
CLEAR THAT THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT SECURED WHIRLS' SENIORITY RIGHTS,
FOR IT IS THOSE RIGHTS WHICH HE ASSERTS WERE TAKEN FROM HIM. 

BE RESTORED, I.E., SIMPLY THE SAME JOB WHICH HE LEFT, OR ITS
EQUIVALENT.  SECTION 8(C) SPECIFIES WHAT RIGHTS HE SHALL HAVE IN THAT
JOB.  HE IS TO HAVE THE SENIORITY WHICH WOULD HAVE ACCUMULATED WHILE HE
WAS IN SERVICE AND HE IS TO BE ASSURED AGAINST DISCHARGE FOR ONE YEAR,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HIS OR OTHERS' SENIORITY RIGHTS ARE.  SUCH ASSURANCE
AGAINST DISCHARGE CERTAINLY DOES NOT TERMINATE SENIORITY RIGHTS AFTER
ONE YEAR.  SECTION 8(B)(B) TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISION AGAINST
ARBITRARY DISCHARGE IS ENOUGH TO ASSURE THAT THE VETERAN WILL REMAIN IN
THE SAME JOB FOR ONE YEAR WITHOUT DIMINUTION OF ITS INCIDENTS.  SEE
FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328 U.S. 275, 286, IN
WHICH THIS COURT SAID, "WHAT IT (CONGRESS) UNDERTOOK TO DO WAS TO GIVE
THE VETERAN PROTECTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SENIORITY SYSTEM
PLUS A GUARANTEE AGAINST DEMOTION OR TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT CAUSE FOR A YEAR."  328 U.S. AT 288. 

THAT CASE INTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS AGAINST DISCHARGE AS BROAD
ENOUGH TO PROHIBIT ALSO ANY REDUCTION IN STATUS, PAY, OR SENIORITY,
DURING THE YEAR.  BUT WE DID NOT HOLD THAT SENIORITY RIGHTS ENDED WITH
THE YEAR.  SENIORITY RIGHTS ARE RIGHTS WHICH, BY THEIR NATURE, ENDURE
AS LONG AS THE EMPLOYMENT DOES, AND BECOME MORE AND MORE VALUABLE IN
PROTECTING THAT EMPLOYMENT AND ENHANCING ITS BENEFITS.  ORDINARILY, ONE
OF THEIR MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS IS TO GIVE A MEASURE OF SECURITY IN
THE JOB.  TO HAVE SENIORITY RIGHTS FOR A YEAR MAY NOT BE AN
IMPOSSIBILITY, BUT IT IS ALMOST A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS. 

THE JOB GUARANTEED AGAINST DISCHARGE FOR A YEAR, THEN, IS THE JOB
DEFINED IN SEC. 8(B)(B).  BUT THE RIGHT TO DISCHARGE AFTER THE YEAR IS
NOT UNCONDITIONAL WHERE THE EMPLOYEE IS THE BENEFICIARY OF A SENIORITY
PLAN.  OF COURSE, WHERE EMPLOYEES HAVE NO SENIORITY RIGHTS, THE
GUARANTEE OF ONE YEAR'S EMPLOYMENT IS THEIR ONLY RIGHT.  BUT IF A
SENIORITY SYSTEM DOES EXIST, THE CONGRESS GAVE THE EMPLOYEE "PROTECTION
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SENIORITY SYSTEM PLUS A GUARANTEE AGAINST
DEMOTION OR TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT CAUSE
FOR A YEAR."  FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328 U.S. AT
288. 

IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SENIORITY RIGHTS OF WHIRLS WERE BARGAINED
AWAY FROM HIM BY A UNION WHICH, UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
WAS ENTITLED TO BARGAIN AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE.  THE ACT MAKES THE
MAJORITY UNION "THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN
SUCH UNIT" FOR BARGAINING.  49 STAT. 453, SEC. 9(A), 29 U.S.C. SEC.
159(A).  WE HAVE HELD THAT THIS NOT ONLY PRECLUDES THE INDIVIDUAL FROM
BEING REPRESENTED BY OTHERS BUT ALSO PREVENTS HIM FROM BARGAINING FOR
HIMSELF.  J.I. CASE CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 321 U.S.
332.  WHILE THE INDIVIDUAL IS THUS PLACED WHOLLY IN THE POWER OF THE
UNION, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT UNION POWERS HAVE NO LIMIT.  COURTS FROM
TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HELD THAT THOSE WHO UNDERTAKE TO ACT FOR OTHERS
ARE HELD TO GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING AND MAY NOT FAVOR THEMSELVES AT
THE COST OF THOSE THEY HAVE ASSUMED TO REPRESENT.  THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, IN AUTHORIZING UNION ORGANIZATIONS "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION," 49 STAT. 452,
SEC. 7, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 157, INDICATES NO PURPOSE TO EXCUSE UNIONS FROM
THESE WHOLESOME PRINCIPLES OF TRUSTEESHIP.    WE HAVE HELD UNDER A
SIMILAR ACT THAT THE COURTS MAY INTERVENE TO PREVENT A MAJORITY UNION
FROM NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT IN FAVOR OF ITSELF AGAINST A COLORED
MINORITY.  SPEAKING FOR ALL BUT TWO MEMBERS OF THE COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE
STONE, AFTER RECOGNIZING THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES MAY MAKE "CONTRACTS
WHICH MAY HAVE UNFAVORABLE EFFECTS ON SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT
REPRESENTED" IN SUCH MATTERS AS SENIORITY, BASED ON RELEVANT
DIFFERENCES OF CONDITIONS, SAID:  "WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO MARK THE
ALLOWABLE LIMITS OF DIFFERENCES IN THE TERMS OF CONTRACTS BASED ON
DIFFERENCES OF CONDITIONS TO WHICH THEY APPLY, IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES TO SAY THAT THE STATUTORY POWER TO REPRESENT A CRAFT AND TO
MAKE CONTRACTS AS TO WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE AMONG MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT
DISCRIMINATIONS NOT BASED ON SUCH RELEVANT DIFFERENCES."  STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., 323 U.S. 192, 203.  THAT OPINION
ALSO DECLARED THAT "IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL APPLICATION THAT THE
EXERCISE OF A GRANTED POWER TO ACT IN BEHALF OF OTHERS INVOLVES THE
ASSUMPTION TOWARD THEM OF A DUTY TO EXERCISE THE POWER IN THEIR
INTEREST AND BEHALF, AND THAT SUCH A GRANT OF POWER WILL NOT BE DEEMED
TO DISPENSE WITH ALL DUTY TOWARD THOSE FOR WHOM IT IS EXERCISED UNLESS
SO EXPRESSED."  323 U.S. AT 202.  AND IN TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210, WE HELD THAT WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS
WITHOUT AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, THE COURTS MUST GRANT HIM
PROTECTION. 

I DO NOT THINK THAT WHIRLS' SENIORITY RIGHTS AFTER ONE YEAR ARE MADE
IMMUTABLE OR IMMUNE FROM COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  BUT THE STATUTE
RESTORED THESE RIGHTS TO HIM AS A VETERAN.  THEY STAND UNTIL THEY ARE
LAWFULLY MODIFIED.  THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN
TERMINATED OR MODIFIED BY GOOD FAITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE CRAFT.  IT RAISES THE SUSPICION THAT THEY WERE SIMPLY
MISAPPROPRIATED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE MAJORITY GROUP WHICH WAS UNDER A
DUTY TO REPRESENT HIS INTERESTS AS WELL AS ITS OWN. 

THE COURTS CANNOT TOLERATE THE EXPULSION OF A MEMBER OF A UNION,
DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING MERELY BECAUSE HE INVOKES
THE PROCESS OF THE COURTS TO PROTECT HIS RIGHTS - EVEN IF HE DOES SO
MISTAKENLY.  THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT MAKES IT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
BY AN EMPLOYER "TO DISCHARGE OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AN
EMPLOYEE BECAUSE HE HAS FILED CHARGES OR GIVEN TESTIMONY" IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER IT.  49 STAT. 453, SEC. 8, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 158. 
NEITHER MAY A UNION USE ITS OWN POWER OVER ITS MEMBERS TO BY-PASS THE
COURTS.  CF. DORCHY V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306. 

THIS ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN CHARACTER AND EQUITY TRADITIONALLY ADAPTS
ITS REMEDIES TO THE FACTS AS DEVELOPED BY TRIAL RATHER THAN TO THE FORM
OF PLEADINGS.  THERE COULD BE NO OBJECTION IF THE COURT WOULD REMAND
THE CASE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MORE COMPLETE RECORD.  BUT I COULD NOT
AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT WHIRLS WAS NOT
TREATED WITH DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE ALL IN THE HIGHLAND GROUP WERE
TREATED ALIKE.  IF THE TRAILMOBILE COMPANY HAD ABSORBED THE WHOLLY
OWNED HIGHLAND COMPANY BEFORE WHIRLS RETURNED AND USED THE
CONSOLIDATION AS AN EXCUSE TO DENY WHIRLS REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS, THIS
COURT WOULD HARDLY HAVE APPROVED SO TRANSPARENT A SCHEME.  THE UNION
HAS NO MORE RIGHT TO RELY ON THE CONSOLIDATION TO JUSTIFY DEPRIVATION
OF SENIORITY RIGHTS. 
..END :





INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES V. SCHEELE, 331 U.S. 70 


NO. 83.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 14, 1947.  - 134
N.J.L. 133, 45 A.2D 703, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE WHICH FORBIDS CARRYING ON THE
BUSINESS OF STORING GOODS FOR HIRE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF AN ANNUAL LICENSE
TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN
APPLIED (IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE) TO A WAREHOUSE IN WHICH
COAL SHIPPED FROM ANOTHER STATE IS STORED WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY UNDER
A "TRANSIT" PRIVILEGE, PENDING A DECISION BY THE OWNER WHETHER TO SHIP
IT TO ANOTHER STATE OR TO ANOTHER POINT IN THE SAME STATE - EVEN THOUGH
MOST OF THE COAL ACTUALLY IS SHIPPED TO OTHER STATES.  MINNESOTA V.
BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1.  PP. 79-85. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE ORDINANCE APPLIES ONLY TO COMMERCIAL STORAGE
FACILITIES, AND THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMERCIAL STORAGE FACILITIES
IN THE MUNICIPALITY SUBJECT TO THE TAX, DOES NOT RENDER THE ORDINANCE
VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 86. 

3.  THE DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE THAT A LOCAL TAX IS
VALID UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE IS BINDING UPON THIS COURT.  PP. 86
87. 

4.  THE TAX CAN NOT BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS EXCESSIVE, WHERE THE
AMOUNT OF IT IS NOT SHOWN TO BE UNRELATED TO THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE
CONFERRED.  P. 87. 

5.  THE POWER OF THE STATE TO IMPOSE THE TAX HERE IN QUESTION CAN NOT
BE DEFEATED BY PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS SUCH AS THOSE HERE
INVOLVED.  P. 87. 

6.  THE TAX CAN NOT BE DEEMED PROHIBITIVE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT
WAS IMPOSED IN LIEU OF OTHER TAXES OF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AMOUNT
WHICH HAD BEEN PAID IN PREVIOUS YEARS.  PP. 87-88. 

7.  SO FAR AS THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK IN UNLICENSED STORAGE FACILITIES, IT VIOLATES NO
PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 88. 

8.  ONE WHO HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE LICENSE REQUIRED BY THE
ORDINANCE, IS WITHOUT STANDING TO ATTACK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
PROVISION WHICH ALLEGEDLY GIVES TO THE MUNICIPALITY AN UNCONTROLLED
DISCRETION TO REVOKE LICENSES WHICH MAY BE ISSUED.  P. 88. 

9.  THE CLAIM THAT THE PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR CUMULATIVE
PENALTIES VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE, SINCE
THE PROVISION HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED IN THIS CASE SO AS TO IMPOSE
CUMULATIVE PENALTIES, AND SINCE THE PROVISION IS EXPRESSLY MADE
SEPARABLE IF INVALID.  PP. 88-89. 

INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES, INC. ET AL. V. SCHEELE, RECORDER OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF SADDLERIVER, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

FROM CONVICTIONS OF VIOLATING A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE
LICENSING OF STORAGE WAREHOUSES, THE APPELLANTS, A CORPORATION AND AN
INDIVIDUAL, APPEALED.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY REVERSED THE
CONVICTIONS.  132 N.J.L. 390, 40 A.2D 796.  THE COURT OF ERRORS AND
APPEALS REVERSED, SUSTAINING THE CONVICTIONS.  134 N.J.L. 133, 45 A.2D
703.  AFFIRMED, P. 89. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN ORDINANCE OF SADDLE RIVER TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY, FORBIDS CARRYING
ON THE BUSINESS OF STORING GOODS FOR HIRE EXCEPT UPON THE PAYMENT OF AN
ANNUAL LICENSE TAX.  FN1  INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES, INC., AND THOMPSON,
AN AGENT OF THAT COMPANY, HAVE BEEN CONVICTED AND FINED FOR CONDUCTING
SUCH A BUSINESS WITHOUT PROCURING THE LICENSE OR PAYING THE TAX.  THE
CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY NEW JERSEY'S HIGHEST COURT.  FN2
THE APPEAL HERE SEEKS TO HAVE THAT JUDGMENT REVERSED ON THE BASIS THAT
THE BUSINESS DONE WAS EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
APPLICATION MADE OF THE ORDINANCE CONTRAVENES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 8.  FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
OBJECTIONS ALSO ARE RAISED.  FN3 

THE MAIN THRUST OF THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN TOWARD THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
PHASE OF THE CASE.  IN THIS THE CONTROVERSY IS OF THE FAMILIAR
"INTERRUPTION" OR "CESSATION" TYPE.  THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY REQUIRES
ONLY A DETERMINATION OF THE PROPER APPLICATION TO BE MADE OF WELL
ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT IS
WHETHER THE CESSATION TAKING PLACE IN THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS INTERSTATE,
AS SHOWN BY THE RECORD, IS OF A NATURE WHICH PERMITS THE STATE OR A
MUNICIPALITY TO TAX THE GOODS OR SERVICES, HERE THE BUSINESS OF STORING
THEM, RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR HANDLING.  FN4 

THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES WERE STATED IN MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290
U.S. 1, 9-10, AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  THE STATES MAY NOT TAX PROPERTY IN TRANSIT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  BUT, BY REASON OF A BREAK IN THE TRANSIT, THE PROPERTY MAY
COME TO REST WITHIN A STATE AND BECOME SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE
STATE TO IMPOSE A NON-DISCRIMINATORY PROPERTY TAX.  FN5  SUCH AN
EXERTION OF STATE POWER BELONGS TO THAT CLASS OF CASES IN WHICH, BY
VIRTUE OF THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL CONCERNS, THE STATE MAY
ACT UNTIL CONGRESS, IF IT HAS PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OVER THE SUBJECT,
SUBSTITUTES ITS OWN REGULATION.  THE 'CRUCIAL QUESTION,' IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE STATE'S TAXING POWER MAY THUS BE EXERTED, IS THAT OF
'CONTINUITY OF TRANSIT.'  CARSON PETROLEUM CO. V. VIAL, 279 U.S. 95,
101. 

"IF THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT HAS NOT BEGUN, THE MERE FACT THAT SUCH A
MOVEMENT IS CONTEMPLATED DOES NOT WITHDRAW THE PROPERTY FROM THE
STATE'S POWER TO TAX IT.  ...  IF THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT HAS BEGUN, IT
MAY BE REGARDED AS CONTINUING, SO AS TO MAINTAIN THE IMMUNITY OF THE
PROPERTY FROM STATE TAXATION, DESPITE TEMPORARY INTERRUPTIONS DUE TO
THE NECESSITIES OF THE JOURNEY OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAFETY AND
CONVENIENCE IN THE COURSE OF THE MOVEMENT.  ...  FORMALITIES, SUCH AS
THE FORMS OF BILLING, AND MERE CHANGES IN THE METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION
DO NOT AFFECT THE CONTINUITY OF THE TRANSIT.  THE QUESTION IS ALWAYS
ONE OF SUBSTANCE, AND IN EACH CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE
PARTICULAR OCCASION OR PURPOSE OF THE INTERRUPTION DURING WHICH THE TAX
IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED.  ... 

"WHERE PROPERTY HAS COME TO REST WITHIN A STATE, BEING HELD THERE AT
THE PLEASURE OF THE OWNER, FOR DISPOSAL OR USE, SO THAT HE MAY DISPOSE
OF IT EITHER WITHIN THE STATE, OR FOR SHIPMENT ELSEWHERE, AS HIS
INTEREST DICTATES, IT IS DEEMED TO BE A PART OF THE GENERAL MASS OF
PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE AND IS THUS SUBJECT TO ITS TAXING POWER." 

SINCE THE CIRCUMSTANCES CHARACTERIZING THE INTERRUPTION ARE OF
CONTROLLING IMPORTANCE, WE TURN TO THE DETAILS OF THE MOVEMENT AND OF
THE STOPPAGE SHOWN BY THE RECORD. 

                      I. 

THE SUIT IS THE CULMINATION OF A CONTROVERSY EXTENDING BACK TO 1939,
WITH EARLIER LITIGIOUS CHAPTERS IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  IT
GROWS OUT OF THE OPERATION OF FACILITIES FOR STORING AND HANDLING COAL
UNDER VARIOUS ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY AND OTHER
CORPORATIONS AFFILIATED FOR THIS AND OTHER ENTERPRISES BY STOCK
OWNERSHIP OR BY CONTRACT. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA COAL COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF ERIE. 
IT OWNS AND OPERATES COAL MINES IN PENNSYLVANIA.  IN 1901 IT ACQUIRED
67.25 ACRES OF LAND IN SADDLE RIVER TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.  THIS ACREAGE
AND ITS FACILITIES, KNOWN AS COALBERG, ARE LOCATED ON THE NEW YORK,
SUSQUEHANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD AND PERFORM FUNCTIONS CONNECTED WITH
THAT ROAD'S OPERATIONS NOT MATERIAL TO THIS CAUSE.  COALBERG ALSO IS
CONNECTED DIRECTLY WITH THE BERGEN COUNTY RAILROAD, A FREIGHT CUTOFF OF
ERIE.  ITS CHIEF PURPOSE, AND THE ONLY ONE RELEVANT TO THIS
CONTROVERSY, IS TO PROVIDE STORAGE FOR COAL SHIPPED IN FROM THE COAL
COMPANY'S PENNSYLVANIA MINES AND LATER SHIPPED OUT TO VARIOUS
DESTINATIONS. 

PRIOR TO 1939, COALBERG WAS OPERATED BY THE COAL COMPANY OR ITS
LESSEES AS A PRIVATE BUSINESS, NOT AS A PUBLIC UTILITY.  DURING THIS
TIME THE TOWNSHIP LEVIED PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES UPON THE COAL IN
STORAGE, ASSESSING AND COLLECTING THEM FROM ITS OWNERS.  FN6  THESE
WERE, AS THEY ARE NOW, CHIEFLY COAL DISTRIBUTORS USING COALBERG'S
STORAGE FACILITIES, PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE OF THEIR ACCESSIBILITY TO
DISTRIBUTING CENTERS, ESPECIALLY IN THE VICINITY OF NEW YORK CITY, AND
TO SHIPPING FACILITIES BOTH BY RAIL AND BY WATER.  FN7 

IN 1939, HOWEVER, BY ARRANGEMENTS TO BE SET FORTH INVOLVING ERIE, THE
COAL COMPANY AND INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES, COALBERG WAS CONVERTED INTO A
PUBLIC UTILITY TO SERVE SHIPPERS OF COAL ON ERIE LINES.  UNDER NEW
JERSEY LAW, GOODS STORED IN WAREHOUSES CONDUCTED FOR HIRE ARE EXEMPTED
FROM PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.  REV. STAT. N.J. SEC. 54:4-3.20.  THE
TOWNSHIP, DESPITE THE CHANGE IN COALBERG'S MODE OF OPERATION, CONTINUED
TO LEVY SUCH TAXES ON THE STORED COAL UNTIL THE 1940 ASSESSMENT WAS
INVALIDATED IN THE STATE COURTS.  PATTISON & BOWNS V. SADDLE RIVER
TOWNSHIP, 129 N.J.L. 135; 130 N.J.L. 177. 

THE MUNICIPALITY'S RESULTING LOSS IN REVENUE AMOUNTED TO ABOUT EIGHT
PER CENT OF THE TOTAL COLLECTED FOR LOCAL, COUNTY AND STATE PURPOSES. 
TO MAKE UP FOR THIS, AS ITS BRIEF HERE CANDIDLY ADMITS, THE TOWNSHIP
ENACTED THE ORDINANCE NOW IN QUESTION, ACTING UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF
STATE LAW.  N.J. STAT. ANN. SECS. 40:52-1, 40:52-2.  THE EFFECT WAS TO
SHIFT THE DIRECT INCIDENCE OF THE TAX FROM THE OWNERS OF THE COAL,
I.E., THE SHIPPER-DISTRIBUTORS, TO THE OPERATOR OF THE STORAGE BUSINESS
AND TO CHANGE ITS CHARACTER FROM A DIRECT PROPERTY TAX TO THAT OF A
LICENSE OR FRANCHISE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING THAT BUSINESS
IN THE STATE.  THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THUS PRODUCED, THOUGH IN DISPUTE,
SUBSTANTIALLY WILL REPAIR THE LOSS SUFFERED FROM INVALIDATION OF THE
PROPERTY TAX.  THIS SUIT IS THE OUTGROWTH OF THE TOWNSHIP'S EFFORT TO
ENFORCE THE NEW TAXING PROVISIONS. 

IT IS NECESSARY TO STATE IN SOME DETAIL THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE IN 1939
BY WHICH THE CHANGE WAS BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE MODE OF OPERATING
COALBERG.  AN AGREEMENT THEN MADE BETWEEN THE COAL COMPANY AND ERIE
PROVIDES THAT THE FORMER SHALL OPERATE COALBERG "AS A PUBLIC SERVICE
FACILITY FOR SHIPPERS OF PREPARED ANTHRACITE COAL ON ERIE LINES
DESIRING STORAGE SPACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND UNDER THE RATES NAMED IN
A CERTAIN TARIFF ON FILE WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY  ...  "  THE
AGREEMENT RECITES THAT IT IS MADE IN VIEW OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT
THE COAL COMPANY HAS NO NEED FOR COALBERG'S STORAGE FACILITIES AND THAT
THEY ARE OF USE TO ERIE IN AFFORDING "FACILITIES FOR THE STORAGE OF
PREPARED ANTHRACITE COAL FOR SHIPPERS ON ERIE LINES WHEREON SAID
COALBERG STORAGE YARD IS LOCATED SO THAT SHIPMENTS OF COAL MAY NOT BE
DIVERTED TO OTHER AND COMPETING LINES ON WHICH FACILITIES FOR COAL
STORAGE ARE AVAILABLE  ...  "  ERIE PAYS THE NET MONTHLY LOSS, IF ANY,
OF OPERATING THE YARD AND THE COAL COMPANY REMITS TO ERIE THE NET
MONTHLY SURPLUS, IF ANY.  ERIE ALSO UNDERTAKES TO MAINTAIN AN AGENT AT
COALBERG DULY AUTHORIZED ON ITS BEHALF TO ISSUE WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS FOR
COAL PLACED IN STORAGE BY SHIPPERS. 

THE COAL COMPANY HAS DISCHARGED THE OPERATING FUNCTION UNDER ITS
AGREEMENT WITH ERIE BY AN ARRANGEMENT ALSO MADE IN 1939 WITH
INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES, WHICH IS A NEW YORK CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE
WAREHOUSING BUSINESS.  THE COAL COMPANY LEASED COALBERG TO INDEPENDENT
WAREHOUSES FOR $1.00 A YEAR AND THE LATTER UNDERTOOK TO OPERATE THE
PLANT FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH NOW AMOUNTS TO APPROXIMATELY $500 A
YEAR.  THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COAL COMPANY AND ERIE GOVERNS THE
MANNER OF COALBERG'S OPERATION BY INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES. 

UNDER THESE ARRANGEMENTS PURCHASERS FROM THE COAL COMPANY WHO SHIP
COAL FROM THE MINES DESIGNATE THE DESTINATION ON THE SHIPPING PAPERS. 
IF THEY DESIGNATE COALBERG, THE COAL IS SENT THERE IN RAILROAD CARS. 
IT IS UNLOADED TO THE STORAGE PILE WHERE IT IS KEPT UNTIL ORDERED OUT
BY THE OWNER.  IT IS THEN RELOADED INTO RAILROAD CARS, AND WHEN IT IS
RESHIPPED THERE IS A NEW BILLING TO THE NEW DESTINATION.  MOST OF THE
COAL, AFTER IT HAS BEEN STORED, GOES TO STATES OTHER THAN NEW JERSEY. 
SOME, HOWEVER, IS MARKETED IN NEW JERSEY.  IT IS DISPUTED WHETHER THERE
IS ANY LOCAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE TOWNSHIP, BUT IF SO THE AMOUNT IS
COMPARATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT. 

THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER THE GOVERNING TARIFF ARE AS
FOLLOWS.  ON ARRIVAL OF THE SHIPMENTS AT COALBERG THE TRANSPORTATION
CHARGES ON THE MOVEMENT FROM THE MINE TO COALBERG ARE PAID TO THE ERIE
FREIGHT AGENT AT COALBERG.  WHEN THE COAL IS MOVED AGAIN AFTER STORAGE,
THE REMAINDER OF THE THROUGH TARIFF RATE FROM THE POINT OF ORIGINAL
SHIPMENT AT THE MINE IN PENNSYLVANIA IS PAID.  THIS ARRANGEMENT IS
KNOWN AS THE TRANSIT PRIVILEGE.  "THE PRIVILEGE OF TRANSIT ENABLES
GRAIN (HERE COAL) TO BE SHIPPED FROM POINT A TO POINT B, THERE TO BE
STORED, MARKETED, OR PROCESSED, AND LATER RESHIPPED TO POINT C AT A
RATE LESS THAN THE COMBINATION OF THE SEPARATE RATES FROM A TO B AND B
TO C."  BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534, 537-538, AND
AUTHORITIES CITED. 

THE STORAGE FACILITIES GIVEN TO SHIPPERS ARE FREE FOR A PERIOD OF TWO
YEARS,  FN8  ALTHOUGH A CHARGE IS MADE BY ERIE FOR UNLOADING THE CARS
INTO THE STOCK PILE AND FOR RELOADING THE CARS FOR RESHIPMENT.  A
CHARGE IS ALSO MADE BY INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES UPON SUCH COAL OWNERS AS
OBTAIN WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS FROM IT. 

THE LICENSING ORDINANCE APPLIED IN THIS CASE WAS ADOPTED IN 1943,
FOLLOWING UPON THE NEW JERSEY DECISION IN PATTISON & BOWNS V. SADDLE
RIVER TOWNSHIP, SUPRA.  THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES: 

"NO PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION SHALL CONDUCT OR CARRY ON THE
BUSINESS OF THE STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IN A WAREHOUSE ENGAGED IN
STORING GOODS FOR HIRE OR WORK IN, OCCUPY, OR, DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY
IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, UTILIZE ANY PLACE OR PREMISES IN WHICH IS
CONDUCTED OR CARRIED ON THE STORAGE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IN A WAREHOUSE
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF STORING GOODS FOR HIRE, UNLESS AND UNTIL
THERE SHALL BE GRANTED BY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF
SADDLE RIVER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND SHALL
BE IN FORCE AND EFFECT, A LICENSE TO CONDUCT SAID BUSINESS FOR THE
PLACE AND PREMISES IN OR AT WHICH SAID BUSINESS SHALL BE CONDUCTED AND
CARRIED ON." 

THE ORDINANCE SPECIFIES THAT FOR THE LICENSE THERE SHALL BE CHARGED
AND COLLECTED IN ADVANCE AN ANNUAL FEE OF THREEQUARTERS OF A CENT FOR
EACH SQUARE FOOT OF GROUND IN THE TOWNSHIP WHERE THE BUSINESS IS
CARRIED ON.  THERE IS ALSO A PENALTY CLAUSE,  FN9  IN ADDITION TO OTHER
PROVISIONS NOT NOW PERTINENT. 

INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES DID NOT APPLY FOR THE LICENSE OR PAY THE TAX
FOR 1943.  CONSEQUENTLY THAT COMPANY AND THOMPSON WERE CONVICTED IN THE
MAGISTRATE'S COURT BEFORE APPELLEE SCHEELE, THE RECORDER OF THE
TOWNSHIP, FOR HAVING VIOLATED THE ORDINANCE BY CONDUCTING THE STORAGE
OPERATIONS AT COALBERG WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH ITS REQUIREMENTS.  EACH
WAS FINED $200.  FN10  THE COAL COMPANY AND ERIE WERE ALLOWED TO
INTERVENE WHEN THE CASE WENT BEFORE THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT,
BECAUSE OF THEIR OBVIOUS INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION. 
THAT COURT HELD THE ORDINANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN UNDUE BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND REVERSED THE CONVICTIONS.  132 N.J.L. 390.  IN
TURN THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS REVERSED THE SUPREME
COURT'S DETERMINATION.  134 N.J.L. 133.  IT HELD THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS
VALID UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW, AND THAT NEITHER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE NOR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTIES RELIED UPON HAD BEEN
INFRINGED.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL, PURSUANT TO SEC. 237(A) OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE.  SEE KING MFG. CO. V. AUGUSTA, 277 U.S. 100; JAMISON
V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413, 414. 

                                 II.    THAT THE STORAGE OF THE
COAL IS PART OF A TRANSIT PRIVILEGE DOES NOT IN ITSELF SUSTAIN
APPELLANTS' CLAIM THAT THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT HAD NOT STOPPED
SUFFICIENTLY FOR THE STATE'S TAXING POWER TO ATTACH WHEN THE COAL
REACHED AND WAS STORED IN COALBERG.  CF. MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, SUPRA;
BACON V. ILLINOIS, 227 U.S. 504.  IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT
TRANSIT PRIVILEGES REST "UPON THE FICTION THAT THE INCOMING AND THE
OUTGOING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WHICH ARE IN FACT DISTINCT,
CONSTITUTE A CONTINUOUS SHIPMENT OF THE IDENTICAL ARTICLE FROM POINT OF
ORIGIN TO FINAL DESTINATION."  CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. V. UNITED STATES,
257 U.S. 247, 257.  SEE ALSO ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768, 779-780.  OF COURSE THIS FICTION, WHICH
MAY BE DESIRABLE FOR RATEMAKING OR OTHER PURPOSES, CANNOT CONTROL THE
POWER OF A STATE OR MUNICIPALITY TO TAX ACTIVITIES PROPERLY SUBJECT TO
EXERCISE OF THAT POWER APART FROM THE FICTION'S APPLICATION TO THEM. 

INDEED, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE DEMONSTRATE THAT HERE AT LEAST THE
FICTION IS COMPLETE.  THEY SHOW THAT THE JOURNEY OF THE COAL FROM THE
PENNSYLVANIA MINES TO COALBERG AND THE SUBSEQUENT JOURNEYS UPON LEAVING
COALBERG WERE NOT PARTS OF A "CONTINUITY OF TRANSIT" IN THE SENSE HELD
BY THIS COURT'S PREVIOUS DECISIONS TO PRECLUDE A VALID EXERCISE OF THE
STATES' TAXING OR REGULATORY POWERS.  SEE, E.G., PITTSBURG & SOUTHERN
COAL CO. V. BATES, 156 U.S. 577; GENERAL OIL CO. V. CRAIN, 209 U.S.
211; BACON V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA; SUSQUEHANNA COAL CO. V. SOUTH AMBOY, 228
U.S. 665. 

A CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE OF THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE STATE HAS BEEN
ALLOWED TO TAX PROPERTY WHICH HAS COME TO REST AFTER AN INTERSTATE
JOURNEY IS THAT AT THE TIME THE TAX IS LAID IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED
WHAT THE ULTIMATE DESTINATION OR USE OF THE PROPERTY MAY BE.  THUS IN
GENERAL OIL CO. V. CRAIN, SUPRA, THE OIL WAS SHIPPED TO MEMPHIS AND
HELD THERE UNTIL REQUIRED TO SUPPLY ORDERS FROM OUT-OF-STATE
CUSTOMERS.  IN BROWN V. HOUSTON, 114 U.S. 622, COAL SENT FROM
PENNSYLVANIA TO NEW ORLEANS WAS HELD TAXABLE IN LOUISIANA BECAUSE,
ALTHOUGH SOME OF IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXPORTED, IT "WAS BEING HELD FOR
SALE TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT WISH TO BUY."  CHAMPLAIN CO. V. BRATTLEBORO,
260 U.S. 366, 376.  IN BACON V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA, THE GRAIN SENT TO
BACON'S ELEVATOR WAS AT HIS COMPLETE DISPOSAL.  "HE MIGHT SELL THE
GRAIN IN ILLINOIS OR FORWARD IT AS HE SAW FIT."  ALTHOUGH HIS INTENTION
WAS TO FORWARD IT AFTER INSPECTION, GRADING, ETC., THIS PURPOSE WAS
HELD IRRELEVANT.  227 U.S. AT 516.  AND IN SUSQUEHANNA COAL CO. V.
SOUTH AMBOY, SUPRA, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS AN ANTICIPATION OF ORDERS FOR
THE COAL UNLOADED AT SOUTH AMBOY, YET THERE WERE NO ACTUAL ORDERS FROM
CUSTOMERS.  SEE ALSO NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S.
249; EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, 289 U.S. 249. 

THOSE CASES ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THIS ONE AS TO THE FACTS AND
THE EFFECT OF THE STOPPAGE.  ONCE THE COAL HAS REACHED COALBERG, NO ONE
CAN DETERMINE, WITHOUT RECEIVING AN ORDER FROM THE OWNER, TO WHAT POINT
OR PERSON IT FINALLY WILL BE SENT OR TO WHAT USE IT WILL BE PUT. 
INDEED, AT THE ACTUAL TIME OF STORAGE, EVEN THE OWNER MAY NOT KNOW
WHERE THE COAL WILL GO NEXT, FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE STORAGE IS IN
PART TO MEET SEASONAL DEMAND.  FN11  AND WHILE THE FORM OF BILLING IS
NOT CONCLUSIVE, MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, SUPRA, THE FACT THAT THE COAL IS
BILLED TO COALBERG AND IS NOT REBILLED UNTIL THE OWNER ASKS THAT IT BE
RELEASED FROM STORAGE FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE FINAL DESTINATION IS NOT
KNOWN BY THE OWNER OR BY OTHERS. 

MOREOVER, IN ALL THESE CASES THE DURATION OF THE CESSATION OF TRANSIT
IS INDEFINITE AND IN THIS CASE MAY EXTEND AS LONG AS TWO YEARS WITHOUT
LOSS OF TRANSIT PRIVILEGE.  INDEED, EXCEPT FOR THAT LOSS IT MAY EXTEND
INDEFINITELY, SINCE UNDER THE CONTROLLING TARIFF ERIE DOES NOT REQUIRE,
BUT ONLY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE, REMOVAL AT THE END OF TWO
YEARS.  FN12  IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT THAT INVARIABLY THE GOODS ARE
FUNGIBLES, A FACT POINTING UP THE FICTIONAL BASIS OF THE IN-TRANSIT
PRIVILEGE.  THE GOODS WHICH ARE SENT INITIALLY INTO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE STREAM ARE NOT THE IDENTICAL GOODS WHICH FINALLY ARRIVE AT THE
PLACE OF CONSUMPTION. 

IN VIEW OF ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE CASE FALLS MORE
APPROPRIATELY IN THE CATEGORY ALLOWING THE STATE'S TAXING POWER TO
APPLY, THAN IN THE ONE DENYING ITS APPLICABILITY.  THE INTERRUPTION
HARDLY CAN BE HELD TO BE "DUE TO THE NECESSITIES OF THE JOURNEY OR FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE IN THE COURSE OF THE MOVEMENT,"
MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290 U.S. AT 9-10, BROAD AS MAY BE THE LATITUDE
GIVEN FOR SUCH INCIDENTS OF TRANSIT.  MORE IS INVOLVED HERE THAN
STOPPING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH LATITUDES.  THE CASE THEREFORE IS
ONE, AGAIN IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE BLASIUS CASE, "WHERE PROPERTY HAS
COME TO REST WITHIN A STATE, BEING HELD THERE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE
OWNER, FOR DISPOSAL OR USE, SO THAT HE MAY DISPOSE OF IT EITHER WITHIN
THE STATE, OR FOR SHIPMENT ELSEWHERE, AS HIS INTEREST DICTATES  ...  "
290 U.S. AT 10. 

THE FACTS BRING THE CASE EXACTLY WITHIN THIS DESCRIPTION, ALTHOUGH
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MOST OF THE COAL AFTER STORAGE GOES TO OTHER
STATES AND LITTLE, IF ANY, IS DISTRIBUTED LOCALLY AT COALBERG.  NOT
WHAT ULTIMATELY HAPPENS TO THE GOODS OR WHERE THEY FINALLY GO, BUT THE
OCCASION AND PURPOSE OF THE INTERRUPTION ARE CONTROLLING.  "THE
QUESTION IS ALWAYS ONE OF SUBSTANCE, AND IN EACH CASE IT IS NECESSARY
TO CONSIDER THE PARTICULAR OCCASION OR PURPOSE OF THE INTERRUPTION
DURING WHICH THE TAX IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED."  MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS,
290 U.S. AT 10. 

HERE THE CESSATION TAKES PLACE NOT SIMPLY FOR THE CARRIER'S TRANSIT
REASONS RELATING TO THE NECESSITIES OR CONVENIENCE OF THE JOURNEY, BUT
FOR REASONS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE OWNER'S BUSINESS INTERESTS. 
AS IN THE BACON AND SUSQUEHANNA COAL CASES, SUPRA, HE IS ENTIRELY FREE
TO KEEP OR MARKET THE GOODS IN NEW JERSEY OR TO SEND THEM ELSEWHERE. 
MARKETING CONSIDERATIONS PRIMARILY, AND IT MAY BE EXCLUSIVELY,
DETERMINE THIS CHOICE AND MANY OR ALL OF THE CONTROLLING FACTORS MAY
NOT ARISE UNTIL AFTER THE COAL HAS REACHED COALBERG OR INDEED MANY
MONTHS LATER. 

THE SITUATION IN THIS RESPECT IS NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
INVOLVED IN THE SUSQUEHANNA COAL, BACON, AND OTHER CASES CITED, OR
INDEED FROM ONE IN WHICH A COAL DISTRIBUTOR MIGHT PLACE HIS STORAGE
FACILITIES AT SOME DISTANCE FROM HIS PLACE OF MARKET, AS AT A NEAR-BY
WAY STATION, IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE COST OF HIS STORAGE OPERATIONS. 
THAT REASONS OF ECONOMY AND CONVENIENCE OR EVEN OF NECESSITY ARISING
FROM THE ABSENCE OR PROHIBITIVE COST OF STORAGE SPACE AT THE IMMEDIATE
POINT OF DISTRIBUTION MIGHT LEAD HIM THUS TO LOCATE HIS STORAGE
OPERATIONS, AND THEREBY INCUR THE NECESSITY AND EXPENSE OF HAULING THE
GOODS FROM STORAGE TO MARKET, HARDLY COULD BE HELD TO MAKE THE
INTERRUPTION AN INCIDENT OF TRANSIT RATHER THAN ONE OF HIS OWN BUSINESS
POLICY AND INTEREST.  THAT HE MAY SECURE THE SAME ADVANTAGES BY USING
THE STORAGE FACILITIES OF OTHERS FOR LIKE PURPOSES, RATHER THAN HIS
OWN, DOES NOT CHANGE THE RESULT.  IN NEITHER CASE DOES THE ARRANGEMENT
DEFEAT THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX HIS PROPERTY SO LOCATED OR HIS BUSINESS
THUS CONDUCTED. 

MOREOVER, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, SOME OF THE COAL REMAINS IN NEW JERSEY,
BEING SHIPPED OUT FROM COALBERG AS THE SHIPPER DIRECTS.  AS TO THIS ALL
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION HAS ENDED.  THE FACT THAT THE OWNER ELECTS TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF COALBERG'S STORAGE FACILITIES FOR CONDUCTING HIS
STORAGE OPERATIONS RATHER THAN HIS OWN LOCATED AT THE POINT OR POINTS
OF FINAL DISTRIBUTION IN NEW JERSEY, WHETHER NEAR TO COALBERG OR AT
SOME DISTANCE, DOES NOT MAKE THE FINAL WHOLLY INTRASTATE MOVEMENT
BETWEEN THOSE POINTS A LEG OF THE INITIAL INTERSTATE MOVEMENT BEGUN AT
THE MINE. 

AS FOR THE COAL MOVING OUT OF COALBERG INTERSTATE, THE FACT THAT THIS
MOVEMENT CROSSES A STATE LINE MAKES IT OF COURSE AN INTERSTATE
MOVEMENT.  BUT THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT PART OF A CONTINUOUS JOURNEY
BEGINNING AT THE MINE AND ENDING IN THE SECOND STATE OF DESTINATION. 
INDEED, NOT UNTIL AFTER THE STORAGE HAS TAKEN PLACE IS IT DETERMINED OR
CAN IT BE KNOWN WHETHER THIS COAL WILL MOVE OUT OF COALBERG INTERSTATE
OR INTRASTATE.  AND THIS IS BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE KNOWN BEFORE THAT TIME
WHETHER THE OWNER'S INTEREST, DISCONNECTED FROM THE ORDINARY AND USUAL
INCIDENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, WILL DICTATE ONE MARKET OR USE RATHER THAN
ANOTHER.  INTERRUPTIONS THUS GOVERNED CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS
INTERRUPTIONS MERELY INCIDENT TO TRANSIT OR DICTATED BY ITS NECESSITIES
OR CONVENIENCE. 

THE 1939 CHANGE IN COALBERG'S MODE OF OPERATION DID NOT ALTER IN ANY
SUBSTANTIAL WAY THE CHARACTER, DURATION OR PURPOSE OF THE STOPPAGE. 
SINCE THEN AS BEFORE, THE PRIMARY REASONS DICTATING THE SHIPPERS'
ACTION IN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT ARE THEIR BUSINESS REASONS RATHER THAN
TRANSIT REASONS AS SUCH.  ACCORDINGLY THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX THE
GOODS STORED COULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THAT CHANGE.  THAT THE STATE HAS
CHOSEN TO DISCONTINUE EXERCISING IT AS A MATTER OF STATE TAXING POLICY
CAN MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IN THIS RESPECT.  NOR CAN THIS FACT, OR THE
CHANGE IN METHOD OF OPERATION, DEFEAT THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX THE
BUSINESS OF FURNISHING THE FACILITIES FOR STORAGE, SINCE THAT BUSINESS
ALSO BECOMES LOCAL OR INTERSTATE DEPENDING UPON THE PURPOSES OF THE
STOPPAGE, WHETHER FOR TRANSIT REASONS OR CHIEFLY FOR NONTRANSIT ONES. 

THE AUTHORITIES ABOVE CITED, IT IS TRUE, GENERALLY INVOLVED PROPERTY
TAXES LEVIED UPON THE STORED COAL.  BUT THEIR CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE
APPLIES EQUALLY TO FRANCHISE OR OTHER TAXES UPON THE BUSINESS OF
FURNISHING THE STORAGE FACILITIES.  CF. GENERAL OIL CO. V. CRAIN, 209
U.S. 211; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED, 192 U.S. 500.  IT WOULD
BE AN IMPERMISSIBLE ANOMALY TO HOLD THAT THE GOODS STORED MAY BE TAXED,
BECAUSE THE INTERRUPTION OF TRANSIT IS FOR NONTRANSIT PURPOSES, BUT
THAT THE BUSINESS OF FURNISHING THE FACILITIES FOR STORING THEM IS NOT
AFFECTED OR GOVERNED LEGALLY BY THE SAME PURPOSES, FOR APPLYING THE
STATE'S POWERS OF TAXATION. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE IS GOVERNED BY THE PRIOR DECISIONS ALLOWING
STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES TO TAX IN SITUATIONS OF THIS SORT.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT THE TAX IS NOT FORBIDDEN BECAUSE IT IS PART OF A LICENSING
MEASURE.  EVEN WHERE IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE COMMERCE IS EXCLUSIVELY
INTERSTATE IN NATURE, "NOT THE MERE FACT OR FORM OF LICENSING, BUT WHAT
THE LICENSE STANDS FOR BY WAY OF REGULATION IS IMPORTANT."  ROBERTSON
V. CALIFORNIA, 328 U.S. 440, 458.  SEE ALSO UNION BROKERAGE CO. V.
JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202; FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17.  NOR
DOES ANYTHING IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT FORBID LOCAL TAXATION
WHERE IT IS OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE.  THE TAX THEREFORE IS VALID UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

                                 III. 

WHETHER THE TAX AND THE LICENSING MEASURE AS APPLIED MAY STAND UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ALSO MUST BE CONSIDERED.  APPELLANTS SAY THAT
THE ORDINANCE IS DISCRIMINATORY AND UNREASONABLE.  DISCRIMINATION IS
CLAIMED BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO COMMERCIAL
WAREHOUSES AND NOT TO PRIVATE WAREHOUSES AND BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER
COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING FACILITIES IN THE TOWNSHIP SUBJECT TO THE TAX. 
THIS CONTENTION IS GROUNDED ON THE PROVISIONS OF NEW JERSEY LAW, NOTED
ABOVE, EXEMPTING PROPERTY STORED IN COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSES FROM
TAXATION.  IT ALSO IS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE FURTHER CLAIM THAT THE TAX
IS PROHIBITORY AND UNREASONABLE, AND THE TWO CLAIMS MAY BE CONSIDERED
TOGETHER. 

"IT IS INHERENT IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO TAX THAT A STATE BE
FREE TO SELECT THE SUBJECTS OF TAXATION AND TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS. 
NEITHER DUE PROCESS NOR EQUAL PROTECTION IMPOSES UPON A STATE ANY RIGID
RULE OF EQUALITY OF TAXATION.  ...  THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT
INEQUALITIES WHICH RESULT FROM A SINGLING OUT OF ONE PARTICULAR CLASS
FOR TAXATION OR EXEMPTION, INFRINGE NO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION." 
CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495, 509. 

WE NEED NOT CONSIDER IN THIS CONNECTION THE ULTIMATE POWER OF THE
STATE TO TAX,  FN13  FOR WE ARE OF OPINION THAT NEITHER THE SELECTION
MADE HERE NOR THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX IS BARRED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS HAS HELD THAT THE PRESENT
TAX IS NOT AN ILLEGAL EVASION OF THE STATE LAWS EXEMPTING PERSONAL
PROPERTY IN COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSES FROM PROPERTY TAXES, AND THAT THE
MUNICIPALITY WAS EMPOWERED BY STATE LAW TO LEVY THIS TAX.  THOSE
RULINGS ARE CONCLUSIVE UPON US.  NOR IS IT MATERIAL TO ANY QUESTION WE
HAVE TO DECIDE THAT THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE VALID TAXING POWER
GIVEN THE MUNICIPALITY ENABLED IT TO MAKE UP THE LOSS IN REVENUE
SUFFERED WHEN COALBERG WAS TRANSFORMED TO A PUBLIC FACILITY. 

CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING, THE TAX IS NOT INVALID AS BEING
UNREASONABLY LARGE FOR THE PRIVILEGE CONFERRED.  FN14  IT IS NOT SHOWN
THAT THE EXACTION IS UNRELATED TO THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE CONFERRED
AND THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS FOUND TO THE CONTRARY.  FN15
PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS, SUCH AS HAVE BEEN MADE HERE,  FN16
CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE TO DEFEAT THE STATE'S POWER TO IMPOSE SUCH A TAX,
WITH THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF RELIEVING THE REAL BENEFICIARIES OF THE
PRIVILEGE FROM ALL TAXATION BY VIRTUE OF THEIR SUCCESS IN SHUNTING ITS
BURDEN CONTRACTUALLY TO THE NOMINAL OPERATOR N17.  AND THE SUGGESTION
THAT THE TAX UNDER THE ORDINANCE IS PROHIBITIVE CAN CARRY NO WEIGHT IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES WERE
PAID PRIOR TO 1939.  FN18 

APPELLANTS' OTHER ARGUMENTS MAY BE GIVEN SHORTER DISPOSITION.  THE
CONTENTION THAT THOMPSON'S CONVICTION IS "UNLAWFUL" IS ANSWERED BY THE
DECISION OF THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS WHICH HELD THAT
THE MUNICIPALITY POSSESSES THE POWER WHICH IT EXERCISED TO CONVICT
PERSONS WORKING IN UNLICENSED WAREHOUSING PREMISES AS WELL AS TO
PROHIBIT CORPORATIONS AND OTHERS FROM CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF
WAREHOUSING WITHOUT OBTAINING A LICENSE.  THOMPSON WAS CONVICTED NOT
FOR HIS EMPLOYER'S ACT BUT FOR HIS OWN.    IT IS SUGGESTED ALSO THAT
THE ORDINANCE GIVES TO THE MUNICIPALITY AN UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION TO
REVOKE THE LICENSE AND IS THEREFORE INVALID FOR UNCERTAINTY, SINCE IT
PERMITS THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE TO "REVOKE ANY SUCH LICENSE FOR
SUFFICIENT CAUSE AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING."  APPELLANTS HAVE MADE NO
ATTEMPT TO SECURE A LICENSE AND THEREFORE ARE NOT IN POSITION TO ATTACK
THE REVOCATION PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.  CF. BOURJOIS, INC. V.
CHAPMAN, 301 U.S. 183, 188, AND AUTHORITIES CITED.    FINALLY THE
ORDINANCE IS SAID TO BE INVALID BECAUSE OF THE PROVISION FOR CUMULATIVE
PENALTIES.  FN19  THE PENAL PROVISIONS HOWEVER HAVE NOT BEEN IMPOSED
CUMULATIVELY IN THIS CASE.  MOREOVER THE NEW JERSEY COURT HAS HELD THEM
SEPARABLE,  FN20  IF ILLEGAL.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OBJECTION
THAT THE MERE UNAPPLIED PROVISION FOR CUMULATION VIOLATES THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V.
GARRETT, 231 U.S. 298, 311, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE MATERIAL TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE APPEAR AT NOTE 9 INFRA AND
TEXT. 

FN2  SEE TEXT PART I INFRA.  A PRIOR SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A
"PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY" IN THE STATE COURTS.  INDEPENDENT
WAREHOUSES V. SADDLE RIVER TOWNSHIP, 52 F.SUPP.  96; 28 U.S.C. SEC.
41(1). 

FN3  THOSE OBJECTIONS ARE DISCUSSED IN PART III OF THIS OPINION. 

FN4  "A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON THE BUSINESS OF STORING" GOODS
WHICH ARE NOT YET IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT FORBIDDEN.  FEDERAL
COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17, 21. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 4. 

FN6  IN 1921 THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED THE IMPOSITION OF
THESE TAXES AGAINST ATTACK ON VARIOUS GROUNDS.  PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO.
V. SADDLE RIVER, 96 N.J.L. 40. 

FN7  COALBERG IS LOCATED CONVENIENTLY TO TIDEWATER PORTS, AS WELL AS
RAIL FACILITIES FOR DISTRIBUTION IN NORTHERN NEW JERSEY AND ELSEWHERE. 
THE DISTRIBUTORS USING COALBERG'S FACILITIES FORWARD THEIR COAL NOT
ONLY TO THE NEAR-BY METROPOLITAN AREA OF NEW YORK CITY AND NORTHERN NEW
JERSEY, BUT ALSO TO THE NEW ENGLAND STATES. 

FN8  THE TARIFF PROVIDES:  "THE PERIOD OF TIME ALLOWED FOR THE
STORAGE PRIVILEGE AND PROTECTION OF THE THROUGH RATE FROM POINT OF
ORIGIN TO ULTIMATE DESTINATION SHALL BE TWO (2) YEARS FROM DATE OF
DELIVERY AT STORAGE POINT, AS SHOWN ON THE INBOUND FREIGHT (EXPENSE)
BILL.  THE ERIE RAILROAD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE OWNERS TO REMOVE
THEIR COAL AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWO YEARS PERIOD.  ANY COAL WHICH
IS NOT RESHIPPED WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS WILL LOSE THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING
RESHIPPED AT THE THROUGH RATES FROM POINT OF ORIGIN TO DESTINATIONS
BEYOND THE STORAGE YARD  ... " 

FN9  "ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WHO SHALL VIOLATE ANY TERM OR
PROVISION OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL UPON CONVICTION THEREOF BE SUBJECT TO
IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL OR IN ANY PLACE PROVIDED BY THE
TOWNSHIP OF SADDLE RIVER FOR THE DETENTION OF PRISONERS, FOR A TERM NOT
EXCEEDING NINETY (90) DAYS OR TO A FINE NOT EXCEEDING TWO HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($200.00), OR BOTH.  ANY PERSON SO CONVICTED MAY, IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE MAGISTRATE BY WHOM HE WAS CONVICTED, IN DEFAULT OF
THE PAYMENT OF ANY FINE BE IMPRISONED IN THE COUNTY JAIL OR PLACE OF
DETENTION PROVIDED BY THE TOWNSHIP OF SADDLE RIVER, FOR ANY TERM NOT
EXCEEDING NINETY (90) DAYS.  ...  EACH DAY THAT A VIOLATION OF ANY OF
THE TERMS OR PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL CONTINUE SHALL
CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE OFFENSE." 

FN10  THOMPSON WAS TO BE IMPRISONED FOR 90 DAYS IN THE EVENT OF
DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF HIS FINE. 

FN11  IT IS TO BE NOTED HOWEVER THAT THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD ALLOWED BY
THE TARIFF FOR STORAGE, SEE NOTE 8, IS LONGER THAN IS NECESSARY TO
ALLOW FOR MEETING SEASONAL DEMAND. 

STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT PRIVILEGES ARE SUPPLIED, IT IS SAID, "AS A RESULT
OF TRAFFIC DEMANDS."  A WITNESS GAVE THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATIONS: 

"(A)  COAL IS A COMMODITY OF SEASONAL CONSUMPTION.  MOST OF IT IS
CONSUMED IN COLD WEATHER.  IF THE MINES COULD PRODUCE CURRENTLY
SUFFICIENT COAL TO MEET COLD WEATHER REQUIREMENTS, THE RAILROADS WOULD
BE SWAMPED WITH COAL TRAFFIC DURING THE FALL AND WINTER MONTHS WHEN
OTHER SEASONAL PRODUCTS ARE MOVING IN LARGE VOLUME AND WEATHER
CONDITIONS RETARD TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS.  BY SPREADING COAL
SHIPMENTS FOR WINTER USE OVER THE MONTHS OF MOST FAVORABLE OPERATING
CONDITIONS, A MORE UNIFORM TRANSPORTATION REVENUE IS ASSURED. 

"(B)  COAL DEALERS AND CONSUMERS SHIP IT MORE UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT
THE YEAR BY USING STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT PRIVILEGES UNDER RAILROAD TARIFFS,
AND USE NEGOTIABLE WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS TO FINANCE THEIR PURCHASES WHERE
NECESSARY. 

"(C)  THE MOVEMENT DURING WARM WEATHER OF THE BULK OF THE WINTER COAL
SUPPLY AVOIDS CAR STORAGE AND RELEASES CARS MORE RAPIDLY THAN IF THEY
ARRIVED FROZEN SOLID, AS THEY OFTEN DO IN WINTER, WHERE DELAYED BY BAD
WEATHER OR HAD TO WAIT UNLOADING AND USE AT THE PLACE OF CONSUMPTION. 

"(D)  EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN MANY INSTANCES, LIKE THOSE OF RECENT
OCCURRENCE, WHEN A SUPPLY OF STORED COAL CLOSE TO THE MARKET AREAS HAS
BEEN NECESSARY TO PREVENT OR RELIEVE ACUTE SHORTAGES OF FUEL IN CASES
OF LABOR, WEATHER, OR OTHER INTERRUPTIONS IN PRODUCTION OR
TRANSPORTATION. 

"(E)  A UNIFORM MOVEMENT OF COAL DURING FAVORABLE OPERATING
CONDITIONS, AVOIDS THE CONGESTION, DELAY AND INCREASED EXPENSE WHICH
OTHERWISE ATTENDS RUSH AND EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION IN WINTER WEATHER. 

"(F)  SUCH STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT FACILITATES A MORE UNIFORM AND STEADY
EMPLOYMENT, NOT ONLY OF THE MINERS BUT ALSO OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES, AS
WELL AS A MORE UNIFORM AND STEADY RAILROAD REVENUE." 

FN12  SEE NOTE 8. 

FN13  SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN LIGGETT
CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. AT 570 FF. 

FN14  THE TAX, HOWEVER, MAY BE SOMEWHAT LARGER THAN THE AGGREGATE OF
THE FORMER PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.  PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES PAID PRIOR
TO 1939 AMOUNTED TO ABOUT $12,000 A YEAR.  ESTIMATES OF THIS TAX GIVEN
IN THE RECORD VARY FROM ABOUT THAT SUM TO AROUND $20,000 A YEAR.  THE
VARIATION CORRESPONDS TO DIFFERENT ESTIMATES OF THE AREA, IN TERMS OF
FOOTAGE, CONSTITUTING THE BASE FOR CALCULATION OF THE TAX. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 14.  CF. THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS IN LIGGETT CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. AT 573, "THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT TAXES  ...  BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE
DIFFERENCES IN BENEFITS RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYERS  ...  OR THAT TAXES
BE PROPORTIONATE TO THE TAXPAYER'S ABILITY TO BEAR THE BURDEN." 

FN16  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE PRESENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES AND THE COAL COMPANY ARE FROM YEAR TO YEAR UNTIL
TERMINATED UPON NOTICE. 

FN17  CF. BROWNING V. WAYCROSS, 233 U.S. 16, 23; FEDERAL COMPRESS CO.
V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17, 22:  "IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF THE
PARTIES, BY THE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS OF THEIR CONTRACT, TO CONVERT A LOCAL
BUSINESS INTO AN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUSINESS PROTECTED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE." 

FN18  SEE NOTE 14. 

FN19  THE ORDINANCE MAKES EACH DAY'S CONTINUANCE OF VIOLATION A
SEPARATE OFFENSE. 

FN20  THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS STATED:  "THE
ORDINANCE CONTAINS A PROVISION THAT IN CASE 'ANY SECTION OR PART'
THEREOF SHALL BE HELD ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SUCH INVALIDITY
'SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS IMPAIRING THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE
REMAINDER OF THE ORDINANCE.'  IF IT BE CONCEDED ARGUENDO THAT THE
CUMULATIVE PENALTY CLAUSE IS INVALID IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE REMAINDER
OF THE PROVISION FOR SANCTIONS IS SEVERABLE AND WOULD STAND
UNAFFECTED.  134 N.J.L. AT 144. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE DISSENTING VIEWS LEAD ME TO ADD A FEW WORDS TO THE COURT'S
OPINION, IN WHICH I JOIN. 

NEARLY THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO MR. JUSTICE HOLMES OBSERVED THAT "ONE IN
MY PLACE SEES HOW OFTEN A LOCAL POLICY PREVAILS WITH THOSE WHO ARE NOT
TRAINED TO NATIONAL VIEWS AND HOW OFTEN ACTION IS TAKEN THAT EMBODIES
WHAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS MEANT TO END."  (HOLMES, SPEECHES, LAW AND
THE COURT, 98, 102).  HIS CONCERN HAS NOT LOST FORCE WITH TIME, AND IT
IS IMPORTANT TO BE DULY MINDFUL OF IT WHENEVER A STATE CLAIMS THE POWER
TO TAX IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT NOW BEFORE US. 

EQUALLY RELEVANT ARE OTHER OBSERVATIONS BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES
REGARDING THIS PROBLEM.  "IT BEING ONCE ADMITTED, AS OF COURSE IT MUST
BE, THAT NOT EVERY LAW THAT AFFECTS COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES IS A
REGULATION OF IT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, NICE DISTINCTIONS ARE TO BE
EXPECTED.  REGULATION AND COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES BOTH ARE PRACTICAL
RATHER THAN TECHNICAL CONCEPTIONS, AND, NATURALLY, THEIR LIMITS MUST BE
FIXED BY PRACTICAL LINES."  GALVESTON, HARRISBURG, ETC. R. CO. V.
TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 225.  AND SO, THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED A TAX UPON
THE MINING OF ORE ALTHOUGH SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE ORE LEFT THE STATE AND
WAS PUT UPON CARS FOR THAT PURPOSE BY THE SAME ACT BY WHICH IT WAS
PRODUCED.  OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES
JOINED IN THAT OPINION ALTHOUGH "THERE COULD NOT BE A CASE OF A STATE'S
PRODUCT MORE CERTAINLY DESTINED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  HOLMES, J.,
DISSENTING IN PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262 U.S. 553, 600, 601. 
AGAIN, THE COURT HAS HELD THAT A STATE MAY IMPOSE A NON-DISCRIMINATORY
TAX ON GOODS WHICH, ALTHOUGH CONNECTED "AS A GENERAL COURSE OF
BUSINESS" WITH "A FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE," "HAS COME TO REST AND
HAS ACQUIRED A SITUS WITHIN THE STATE" AT "A DEPOT  ...  FOR ANOTHER
INTERSTATE JOURNEY."  MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1, 8, 11.  FOR THE
PRACTICAL PURPOSES WHICH DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE THERE CAN
BE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TAXING SUCH GOODS AS PROPERTY AND TAXING THE
BUSINESS OF BEING A DEPOT FOR SUCH GOODS.  IN STRIKING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL POWERS, FIGURES OF
SPEECH ARE TREACHEROUS.  THE ORE WHICH MINNESOTA WAS ALLOWED TO TAX IN
THE LORD CASE, AND THE CATTLE WHICH MINNESOTA WAS ALLOWED TO TAX IN THE
BLASIUS CASE, WERE IN NO PRACTICAL SENSE LESS IN THE "FLOW OF COMMERCE"
THAN THE COAL THE STORAGE OF WHICH WAS THE BUSINESS SUBJECTED TO A NON
DISCRIMINATORY LICENSE TAX BY NEW JERSEY. 

NOR CAN IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE THAT THIS STORAGE BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED
BY A CONCERN CONTROLLED BY THE COAL-CARRYING ROAD.  IF A WHOLLY
INDEPENDENT STORAGE CONCERN WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY A LICENSE TAX, THE
CONTROLLING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES REQUIRE NO DIFFERENT RESULT
BECAUSE THE STORAGE FACILITY IS A SUBSIDIARY OF A RAILROAD.  PRESUMABLY
THERE ARE GOOD BUSINESS REASONS FOR THE USE OF SUCH A SUBSIDIARY
CORPORATION.  COMPARE EDWARDS V. CHILE COPPER CO., 270 U.S. 452, 456. 
THOSE REASONS ARE EQUALLY VALID FOR THE STATE'S TAXING PURPOSES.  IT
CANNOT BE SAID THAT NEW JERSEY HAS GIVEN NO OPPORTUNITIES, HAS AFFORDED
NO PROTECTION, AND HAS CONFERRED NO BENEFITS UPON INDEPENDENT
WAREHOUSES, INC., MERELY BECAUSE IN AN ULTIMATE SENSE THERE IS A
FINANCIAL IDENTIFICATION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES AND THE ERIE
RAILROAD.  COMPARE WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444.  IF
WHAT WAS HERE INVOLVED WERE MERELY AN OCCASIONAL AND TRANSIENT STORAGE
OF COAL MOVING FROM PENNSYLVANIA TO NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY COULD NOT LEVY
A PROPERTY TAX ON THE COAL NOR A LICENSE TAX FOR THE STORING OF IT.
THE CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION HERE IS THAT THERE WAS STORAGE OF THE
COAL PRECISELY LIKE THE HOLDING OF THE CATTLE IN THE BLASIUS CASE.  IN
BOTH CASES THERE WAS A SUFFICIENTLY DISTINCT AND PERMANENT BREAK IN THE
PROCESS OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE STATES SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO
INTERESTS IN THE STATE OF STORAGE TO JUSTIFY THE EXERTION OF ITS NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAXING POWER.  FOR ME THIS CASE IS CONTROLLED BY
SUSQUEHANNA COAL CO. V. SOUTH AMBOY, 228 U.S. 665.  HERE, AS IN THAT
CASE, THERE WAS SOMETHING MORE "THAN AN INCIDENTAL INTERRUPTION OF THE
CONTINUITY" OF THE COAL'S "JOURNEY THROUGH THE STATE."  THERE WAS "A
BUSINESS PURPOSE AND ADVANTAGE IN THE DELAY WHICH WAS AVAILED OF, AND
WHILE IT WAS AVAILED OF, THE PRODUCTS SECURED THE PROTECTION OF THE
STATE."  228 U.S. AT 668 AND 669.  THEREBY THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX
AROSE. 

THE FACT THAT FOR RAILROAD-RATE PURPOSES THIS STORAGE WAS TREATED AS
PART OF A TRANSIT PRIVILEGE DOES NOT AFFECT THE RELATION OF THE STORAGE
TO THE TAXING POWERS OF THE STATE.  ASSUMING THAT SUCH A STORAGE MAY
PROPERLY BE TREATED AS A STOP-OVER PRIVILEGE UNDER THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE BREAK IN THE PROCESS OF
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IS NOT OF SUCH SIGNIFICANCE IN ITS RELATION
TO A STATE AS TO ALLOW THAT STATE TO TAX THE PROTECTION GIVEN TO THE
PROPERTY DURING THE BREAK AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED IN
CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS FOR SUCH SEPARABLE AND ENDURING STORAGE IN THE
STATE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS, DISSENTING. 

THE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY IS A COMMON CARRIER ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  BY A SPECIFIC TARIFF FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, IT AND SEVERAL
OTHER RAIL CARRIERS HAVE LONG PUBLISHED A JOINT AND PROPORTIONAL
THROUGH-TARIFF ON ANTHRACITE COAL FROM COAL MINING STATIONS IN
PENNSYLVANIA TO POINTS IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.  THE TARIFF PROVIDES
FOR STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT SERVICES AT COALBERG, NEW JERSEY, WITH
RESHIPMENT TO DESTINATION UNDER ORIGINAL AGREEMENTS.  INDEPENDENT
WAREHOUSES, INC., AS CONTRACT AGENT FOR THE ERIE, OPERATES THESE
STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT FACILITIES, HAS CUSTODY OF THE COAL IN STORAGE UNDER
ERIE TARIFFS AS A PUBLIC WAREHOUSEMAN, AND ISSUES WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS
FOR COAL RECEIVED UNDER RAILROAD WAYBILLS.  TITLE TO COALBERG IS IN THE
PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO., A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF ERIE, AND IT
RECEIVES FROM INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR FOR ITS
LEASE.  THE ERIE ULTIMATELY BEARS ALL LOSSES AND GETS ALL GAINS.  IT IS
APPARENT THAT COALBERG IS A FACILITY FOR STORAGE IN TRANSIT OF COAL
OPERATED AS PART OF THE ERIE'S INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. 
THE FUNCTION OF THE STORAGE IN TRANSIT IS VITAL.  DURING THE SUMMER
SEASON, CONSUMPTION OF ANTHRACITE COAL IS LIGHT AND NEITHER DEALERS NOR
CONSUMERS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND ELSEWHERE ARE ABLE TO STORE
ADEQUATE WINTER RESERVES.  AT CRITICAL TIMES THERE WOULD BE GRAVE
DANGER OF INADEQUATE FUEL SUPPLIES FROM INTERRUPTIONS OF TRANSPORTATION
OR OF MINING OPERATIONS IF STOCK PILES WERE NOT ACCUMULATED NEAR
CONSUMING CENTERS, SUCH AS NEW YORK, TO BE DRAWN UPON IN PERIODS OF
PEAK DEMAND.  THEREFORE, THE RAILROAD ACCEPTS COAL SHIPMENTS WHICH IT
MINGLES IN STOCK PILES AT COALBERG, NEAR NEW YORK, WITH THE PRIVILEGE
TO THE SHIPPER OF ORDERING THE SAME GRADE AND QUANTITY SENT ON TO
DESTINATION AS NEEDED.  WHEN ORDERS FOR RESHIPMENT COME, THEY ARE DRAWN
FROM STOCK PILES AND DELIVERED.  STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT IS A DEVICE TO
EQUALIZE THE DEMANDS ON COAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND TO PROVIDE A
RESERVE SUPPLY OF COAL FOR PERIODS WHEN CONSUMPTION EXCEEDS PRODUCTION,
TO ENABLE MOVEMENT AWAY FROM THE MINES DURING THE PERIOD WHEN
PRODUCTION EXCEEDS CONSUMPTION, AND TO FINANCE FUTURE PURCHASES BY
WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS ISSUED AGAINST COAL IN TRANSIT.  IT IS AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF DEPENDABLE AND LOW-COST TRANSPORTATION OF ANTHRACITE COAL FROM
THE MINES TO THE GREAT METROPOLITAN CONSUMING AREA. 

FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING THIS STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT FACILITY AT
COALBERG IN NEW JERSEY, THE MUNICIPALITY DEMANDS AN ANNUAL LICENSE FEE,
IN ADVANCE, WHICH IT IS ALLEGED WOULD AMOUNT TO $20,475.  THIS IS
MERELY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING THE BUSINESS.  THE PROPERTY USED IN
THE OPERATION IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE USUAL PROPERTY TAX ON A VALUATION
OF $133,875, WHICH IS NOT IN QUESTION. 

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THIS LOCAL PRIVILEGE TAX UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE BURDEN AND ITS SUBSTANTIALITY ARE
UNDENIABLE, BUT THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THESE LOCAL ASSESSMENTS UPON
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC ARE WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE AND, OF COURSE,
THE AMOUNT, BE IT $20,000 PER YEAR OR $20,000,000 PER YEAR, IS WHOLLY
FOR THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO DETERMINE IF THEIR POWER TO TAX IS
UPHELD. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
HAS LEFT INTERSTATE TRAFFIC VULNERABLE TO SUCH LOCAL PERMISSIONS AND
BURDENS.  BECAUSE THE IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF THE TAX IS ON A RAILROAD, WE
SHOULD NOT DELUDE OURSELVES AS TO ITS REAL EFFECT.  IT IS A TAX ON
TRAFFIC - ON THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - AND ITS WEIGHT IS SHIFTED FROM THE
CARRIER TO THE CONSUMER.  THERE IS, OF COURSE, A "LOCAL INCIDENT," A
STOPPAGE IN TRANSIT, A RELOADING.  "LOCAL INCIDENTS" OF SOME SORT CAN
BE IDENTIFIED IN ALL INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  BUT IN THIS CASE LOCAL
SALES OR DELIVERIES ARE INSUBSTANTIAL IN AMOUNT.  THE WHOLE OPERATION
IS INCIDENTAL TO INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND NOT TO ANY LOCAL
BUSINESS.  IT IS INTEGRATED IN OPERATION, OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT WITH
TRANSPORTATION.  IT IS UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER AND UNDER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REGULATION.  THE STOPPAGE MAY BE LONGER
THAN MANY OTHER STOPPAGES IN TRANSIT INCIDENT TO RAILROADING.  BUT THE
STORAGE OF PERPETUALLY RENEWED AND CONTINUOUSLY DRAWN-UPON STOCK PILES
IS NO LONGER THAN NECESSARY TO ADAPT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES TO THE
NEEDS OF AN ECONOMY, ONE END OF WHICH MUST ENGAGE IN CONTINUOUS
PRODUCTION AND THE OTHER IN ONLY SEASONAL CONSUMPTION.  THAT A SINGLE
MUNICIPALITY OR STATE CAN FASTEN LOCAL TAX BURDENS UPON SUCH AN
INCIDENT MAKES INTERSTATE COMMERCE VULNERABLE TO THE VERY BARRIERS AND
OBSTRUCTIONS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO
END. 

THE UNEDIFYING STORY OF COLONIAL RIVALRY IN PREYING UPON COMMERCE,
WHICH MORE THAN ANY ONE THING MADE OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION A
NECESSITY, IS TOO OFTEN TOLD BY HISTORIANS TO JUSTIFY REPETITION.  THIS
TAX IS REMINISCENT, HOWEVER, OF SOME PHASES OF THAT COMMERCIAL
WARFARE.  IN 1787 NEW YORK WAS BEING SUPPLIED WITH FIREWOOD FROM
CONNECTICUT AND MUCH FARM PRODUCE FROM NEW JERSEY.  IT SEIZED UPON
"LOCAL INCIDENTS" TO LAY A TAX.  EVERY SLOOP WHICH CAME DOWN THROUGH
HELL GATE, EVERY CART OF FIREWOOD ENTERING THE CITY, AND EVERY MARKET
BOAT ROWED ACROSS THE HUDSON RIVER HAD TO PAY HEAVY ENTRANCE DUTIES. 
THEN CAME RETALIATORY MEASURES.  SEE FISKE, THE CRITICAL PERIOD OF
AMERICAN HISTORY, CHAP. IV.  THESE CHRONIC QUARRELS WERE DESTROYING THE
TRADE OF ALL THE RIVALS, AND IT WAS SOUGHT BY THE CONSTITUTION TO FREE
TRADE FROM LOCAL BURDENS AND CONTROLS. 

THIS NEW JERSEY TAX ON TRANSPORTATION OF NEW YORK'S COAL SUPPLY IS
MORE DANGEROUS IN THE END THAN THE OLD NEW YORK TAX ON ITS OWN
FIREWOOD.  IN THAT CASE THE CONSUMERS WHO ULTIMATELY WOULD PAY THE TAX
ALSO CONTROLLED THE GOVERNMENT WHICH SHORTSIGHTEDLY LAID THE TAX.  IT
WAS A TARIFF, AND THE TARIFF-RIDDEN PEOPLE COULD REMOVE IT. 

BUT HERE THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF THE TAX FALLS ON CONSUMERS OF NEW
YORK AND ELSEWHERE WHO HAVE NO REPRESENTATION IN THE GOVERNMENT WHICH
LAYS THE TAX AND FIXES ITS AMOUNT.  THE AUTHORITIES WHO FIX THE TAX
WILL NEVER HAVE TO ANSWER TO THOSE WHO PAY IT.  THAT IS THE EVIL OF
"TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION."  HERE IS A TAX THAT FALLS
IMMEDIATELY UPON A SINGLE TAXPAYER, FOR IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY
OTHER IS SIMILARLY AFFECTED.  IT IS A TAX THAT FALLS ULTIMATELY ON NON
RESIDENTS OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY.  IF IT IS VALID, I KNOW OF NO REASON
WHY THE COMMUNITY SHOULD BEAR ANY OF ITS OWN TAX BURDENS.  THIS IS THE
GREAT VICE OF THESE LOCAL BURDENS ON INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF GOODS.  IF
THIS IS NOT THE SORT OF BURDEN AND BARRIER TO A NATION'S FREE TRADE
THAT OUR COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS DESIGNED TO END, I SHOULD THINK ONE WOULD
BE HARD PUT TO FIND AN EXAMPLE.  THIS DECISION REPRESENTS A TREND THAT
SEEMS TO ME QUITE OUT OF THE SPIRIT OF OUR HISTORY AND QUITE AS
DETRIMENTAL TO OUR COMMERCIAL WELFARE AND UNITY.  SEE MY CONCURRING
OPINION, DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390, 397.  I AM NOT UNAWARE OF
THE NEEDS OF THIS LOCALITY, AS OF ALL OTHERS, FOR REVENUE.  BUT IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ACTIVITIES AT COALBERG ARE AS FULLY IN THE CURRENT
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS THOSE WE HELD IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION IN
FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, AND JOSEPH V. CARTER & WEEKES
STEVEDORING CO., 330 U.S. 422.  THE STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT SERVICE IS AS
ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAINING AND AS MUCH A PART OF THE FLOW OF COAL AS
LOADING AND UNLOADING OF GOODS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS OF
THAT COMMERCE.  THE CONSTITUTION LAID RESTRAINTS UPON EACH LOCALITY
LEST THEIR LOCAL ADVANTAGES BE PURSUED AT THE COST OF THE COMMERCE ON
WHICH THE PROSPERITY OF ALL DEPENDS.  I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :














U.S. V. OGILVIE HARDWARE CO., 330 U.S. 709 


NO. 430.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 7, 1947.  - 155 F.2D
577, AFFIRMED. 


A CORPORATION, ORGANIZED WITH A PAID-IN CAPITAL OF $100,000, INCREASED
ITS CAPITALIZATION IN 1924 TO $200,000 BY DECLARATION OF A $100,000
STOCK DIVIDEND OUT OF PAST EARNINGS.  THEREAFTER, OPERATING LOSSES
CREATED A DEFICIT IN TOTAL CAPITALIZATION, THE DEFICIT BEING ABOUT
$71,000 IN 1937 BUT BEING REDUCED TO ABOUT $61,000 BY 1938.  WITH THIS
DEFICIT, THE CORPORATION WAS FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW TO PAY ANY
DIVIDENDS AND IT REFRAINED FROM DOING SO.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE ASSESSED, AND THE COMPANY PAID, UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAXES
UNDER SEC. 14 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 FOR ITS FISCAL YEARS ENDING IN
1937 AND 1938.  THE CORPORATION SUED FOR A REFUND OF THESE TAXES UNDER
SEC. 26(C)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, AS ADDED BY SEC. 501(A)(3) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, CLAIMING TO BE A CORPORATION HAVING "A DEFICIT
IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT
719. 

(A)  THE 1942 AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO GRANT CORPORATIONS A REFUND
ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS OF UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAXES FOR TAX YEARS IN
WHICH THEY HAD AN ACCUMULATED DEFICIT, AND WHERE, FOR THAT REASON,
STATE LAW, FEDERAL LAW, OR PUBLIC REGULATORY ORDERS OF EITHER
PROHIBITED DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS.  P. 713. 

(B)  IT WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF MEASURE, AND ITS LANGUAGE, THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PROMPTED ITS PASSAGE, AND THE VERY MECHANICS OF THE
AMENDMENT ITSELF REQUIRE THAT DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS TO REFUND UNDER
IT BE BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE ESTABLISHED
MEANING UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW OF THE WORD "DEFICIT" AND THE PHRASE
"ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS."  PP. 714-719. 

(C) CONGRESS AT LEAST INTENDED TO REFUND TAXES IMPOSED ON
CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD FAILED TO DISTRIBUTE DIVIDENDS WHEN
DISTRIBUTION, IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, WOULD HAVE IMPAIRED LONG
EXISTING STATE-APPROVED CORPORATE CAPITALIZATIONS.  P. 719. 

UNITED STATES V. OGILVIE HARDWARE CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT COURT AWARDED A JUDGMENT UNDER SEC. 501(A)(3) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798, TO A CORPORATION FOR REFUND OF
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAXES PAID WHILE THE CORPORATION'S CAPITAL WAS
IMPAIRED, ALTHOUGH HALF THE CAPITAL HAD RESULTED FROM A STOCK DIVIDEND
PAID OUT OF PAST EARNINGS.  62 F.SUPP.  338.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  155 F.2D 577.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329
U.S. 699.  AFFIRMED, P. 719. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT FOR TAX REFUND WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED.  62
F.SUPP.  338.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  155 F.2D 577. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN APPARENT CONFLICT WITH CENTURY
ELECTRIC CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 144 F.2D 983. 

THE RESPONDENT, OGILVIE HARDWARE CO., INC., WAS INCORPORATED IN
LOUISIANA IN 1907 WITH A PAID-IN CAPITAL OF $100,000.  IN 1924 IT
INCREASED ITS CAPITALIZATION TO $200,000 BY DECLARATION OF A $100,000
STOCK DIVIDEND OUT OF PAST EARNINGS.  DEPRESSED BUSINESS CONDITIONS
DURING THE 1930'S BROUGHT HEAVY OPERATING LOSSES SO THAT BY 1937 THE
COMPANY'S ASSETS WERE ABOUT $71,000 LESS THAN THE $200,000
CAPITALIZATION.  THE COMPANY BOOKS ACCORDINGLY SHOWED A DEFICIT IN THIS
AMOUNT.  BY 1938 THIS DEFICIT WAS REDUCED TO ABOUT $61,000.  IN THIS
FINANCIAL POSTURE THE CORPORATION COULD NOT DECLARE DIVIDENDS WITHOUT
IMPAIRING ITS THEN CAPITAL STRUCTURE (WHICH INCLUDED CAPITALIZATION OF
THE $100,000 STOCK DIVIDEND) AND LOUISIANA LAW PROHIBITED PAYMENT OF A
DIVIDEND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN1  SECTION 14 OF THE GOVERNING
REVENUE ACT OF 1936 IMPOSED A SURTAX ON CERTAIN CORPORATE NET INCOME
EARNED DURING THE TAX YEAR BUT NOT DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS.  FN2  IT
PROVIDED NO EXEMPTION FROM THAT SURTAX BECAUSE A CORPORATION HAD AN
ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TAX YEAR, OR BECAUSE STATE
LAW PROHIBITED PAYMENTS OF DIVIDENDS. 

ACTING UNDER THIS 1936 LAW, THE COMMISSIONER, ON EXAMINATION OF
RESPONDENT'S 1937 AND 1938 TAX RETURNS, DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT WAS
SUBJECT TO THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX, DESPITE THE DEFICIT AND THE
STATE PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.  THE COMMISSIONER'S
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE 1936 ACT WAS IN ACCORD WITH OUR
HOLDING IN HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL ROLLING MILLS, 311 U.S. 46, AND
CRANE-JOHNSON CO. V. HELVERING, 311 U.S. 54.  THE TAXPAYERS IN THOSE
CASES CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM THE SURTAX ON THE GROUND THAT THEY COULD
NOT DISTRIBUTE DIVIDENDS "WITHOUT VIOLATING A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN
CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936, WHICH
PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS WITH THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS."  SECTION
26(C)(1) OF THE 1936 ACT RELIEVED CORPORATIONS FROM THE TAX IF SUCH
CONTRACTS EXISTED.  49 STAT. 1648, 1664.  THE QUESTION WE HAD TO DECIDE
IN THOSE CASES WAS WHETHER A STATE CONSTITUTION, CORPORATE CHARTER, OR
STATE STATUTE, WHICH PROHIBITED PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS, WAS A "WRITTEN
CONTRACT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SEC. 26(C)(1) EXEMPTION PROVISION. 
WE HELD THAT WE COULD NOT SO EXPAND THE PROVISION'S LANGUAGE, RELYING
IN PART UPON PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF THIS COURT "THAT PROVISIONS
GRANTING SPECIAL TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED." 
HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL ROLLING MILLS, SUPRA, 49.  SINCE THE
RESPONDENT HERE HAD NO "WRITTEN CONTRACT" AGAINST PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS,
IT HAD NO EXEMPTION FROM THE SURTAX IMPOSED BY THE ORIGINAL 1936 ACT. 

BUT THIS SUIT IS NOT BROUGHT TO DETERMINE THE COMPANY'S TAX LIABILITY
UNDER THE 1936 ACT AS IT STOOD IN THE TAXABLE YEARS 1937 AND 1938.  IT
IS AN ACTION FOR A REFUND UNDER A 1942 RELIEF AMENDMENT TO THE 1936 ACT
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO AUTHORIZE CORPORATIONS TO OBTAIN REPAYMENTS OF
TAXES THEY HAD BEEN FORCED TO PAY UNDER THE 1936 ACT AS WE HAD
INTERPRETED IT.  THAT AMENDMENT, AS ENACTED, PROVIDED FOR COMPLETE OR
PARTIAL RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM THE 1936 UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX
UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: 

"DEFICIT CORPORATIONS.  - IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION HAVING A
DEFICIT IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS AS OF THE CLOSE OF THE
PRECEDING TAXABLE YEAR, THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEFICIT, IF THE CORPORATION
IS PROHIBITED BY A PROVISION OF A LAW OR OF AN ORDER OF A PUBLIC
REGULATORY BODY FROM PAYING DIVIDENDS DURING THE EXISTENCE OF A DEFICIT
IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS, AND IF SUCH PROVISION WAS IN
EFFECT PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936."  SEC. 501(A)(3), REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56
STAT. 798, 954. 

THIS AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO GRANT CORPORATIONS A REFUND ON ACCOUNT
OF PAYMENTS OF UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAXES FOR TAX YEARS IN WHICH THEY
HAD AN ACCUMULATED DIFICIT, AND WHERE, FOR THAT REASON, STATE LAW,
FEDERAL LAW, OR PUBLIC REGULATORY ORDERS OF EITHER PROHIBITED
DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS.  IT THEREFORE AUTHORIZED REFUNDS TO THE VERY
TAXPAYERS WHO HAD BEEN LAWFULLY REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES BY THE 1936 ACT
AS WE HAD INTERPRETED IT IN THE TWO CASES CITED ABOVE.  FURTHERMORE, IN
ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT TAXPAYERS WHO HAD PAID UNDER OUR INTERPRETATION
MIGHT RECOVER REFUNDS, SEC. 501(C) OF THE SAME AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED CLAIMS FOR REPAYMENT TO BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER ITS
PASSAGE, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR OTHER
DESIGNATED STATUTORY BARS.  56 STAT. 798, 955. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION IS THAT WE SHOULD CONSTRUE THE WORD
"DEFICIT" AND THE PHRASE "ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS" ACCORDING
TO THEIR ESTABLISHED MEANING UNDER FEDERAL TAX LAW; THAT SO CONSTRUED
THE $100,000 ALLOTTED FOR STOCK DIVIDENDS REMAINED A PART OF EARNINGS
AND PROFITS FOR TAX PURPOSES; THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO DEFICIT IN THE
FEDERAL TAX SENSE, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE TAX PAYMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN REFUNDED HERE DESPITE THE STATE PROHIBITION AGAINST DISTRIBUTION. 
WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRECT IN CONTENDING THAT IF
CONGRESS INTENDED IN THE 1942 AMENDMENT TO USE THE WORDS "DEFICIT" AND
"EARNINGS AND PROFITS" IN THIS FEDERAL TAX SENSE, THE STOCK DIVIDEND
DID NOT REDUCE "EARNINGS," THERE WAS NO "DEFICIT," AND THE REFUND
SHOULD BE DENIED.  SEE SEC. 115, REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1648,
1687-1689; COMMISSIONER V. BEDFORD, 325 U.S. 283, 292.  THIS
CONSTRUCTION WOULD GREATLY LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE
1942 AMENDMENT.  TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED SO TO LIMIT THE
RELIEF IT GRANTED, WE MUST LOOK TO THE WHOLE 1942 AMENDMENT IN ITS
RELATIONSHIP TO THE 1936 ACT AND THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL HISTORY
INTERVENING BETWEEN THE TWO. 

THE 1936 UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX LAW WAS A NOVELTY IN THE FIELD OF
FEDERAL TAXATION.  ITS CHIEF NOVEL FEATURE WAS THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO
COMPEL CORPORATIONS TO DISTRIBUTE CURRENT EARNINGS TO SHAREHOLDERS BY
IMPOSING A SURTAX ON CORPORATIONS WHICH FAILED TO MAKE SUCH
DISTRIBUTIONS.  IT HAD DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR DEFINING THE NET INCOME
WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THIS TAX.  ITS APPLICATION, THEREFORE, RAISED
NEW AND SOMETIMES WHOLLY UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS.  WIDESPREAD OPPOSITION
DEVELOPED TO THE TAX.  SINCE 1938, ONLY A TOKEN OF IT HAS SURVIVED. 
SEE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 447.  BUT EVEN AFTER THE 1936
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX WAS NO LONGER IN EFFECT, COMPLAINTS ABOUT ITS
PRIOR APPLICATION FROM CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY AN
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX CONTINUED TO REACH AND TO CONCERN CONGRESS. 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THESE CORPORATIONS APPEARED BEFORE THE HOUSE AND
SENATE COMMITTEES IN 1942, AND CONGRESS RESPONDED TO THEIR COMPLAINTS
BY ENACTING THE SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 501 - THE RETROACTIVE RELIEF
LEGISLATION NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

ONE SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT WAS THAT UNDER THE INCOME TAX DEFINITIONS
ONLY A FRACTION OF CAPITAL LOSSES WAS DEDUCTIBLE FROM TAXABLE NET
INCOME.  CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD SUFFERED LARGE CAPITAL LOSSES IN A
GIVEN YEAR WERE REQUIRED TO PAY UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAXES IN THAT
YEAR AS THOUGH THEY HAD MADE A PROFIT.  THE 1942 AMENDMENT, AS REPORTED
BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, MET THIS COMPLAINT BY RECOMMENDING THAT REFUNDS
BE AUTHORIZED FOR CORPORATIONS WHO HAD PAID UNDER THIS 1936 DEFINITION
OF NET INCOME.  FN3  THIS AUTHORIZATION, SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE
SENATE COMMITTEE, FN4  CLEARLY SHOWS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO PROVIDE
FOR THIS PHASE OF THE REFUND WITHOUT REGARD TO TAX DEFINITIONS, AND DID
NOT INTEND ITS AUTHORIZED REFUND TO BE RESTRICTED BY THE APPLICATION OF
ESTABLISHED TAX TERMINOLOGY. 

WHEN THE BILL REACHED THE SENATE COMMITTEE, INSISTENT COMPLAINTS
RELATED TO THE FACT THAT CORPORATIONS WITH DEFICITS IN ACCUMULATED
EARNINGS AND PROFITS HAD BEEN COMPELLED TO PAY TAXES FOR NON
DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS ALTHOUGH STATE OR FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITED
DIVIDEND PAYMENTS.  A DEFICIT RAILROAD CORPORATION HAD BEEN TAXED OVER
ITS OBJECTION THAT PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS WOULD HAVE RENDERED ITS
OFFICERS SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT FOR A MISDEMEANOR UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND
A MONEY PENALTY UNDER STATE LAW.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAD
OVERRULED OBJECTIONS ON THESE GROUNDS, RELYING ON OUR DECISIONS IN THE
CRANE-JOHNSON AND NORTHWEST STEEL CASES, SUPRA.  PARIS & MT. PLEASANT
R. CO. V. COMM'R, 47 B.T.A. 439.  FN5  THE COUNSEL WHO HAD REPRESENTED
CRANE-JOHNSON BEFORE THIS COURT ALSO APPEARED ON THEIR BEHALF BEFORE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE AND MADE A PLEA FOR RELIEF FOR DEFICIT
CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN COMPELLED TO PAY THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS
TAX.  FN6  HE URGED THAT SUCH CORPORATIONS HAD BEEN "CAUGHT IN A TRAP,"
AND THAT THEY WERE JUSTLY ENTITLED TO HAVE A REFUND FOR THAT REASON. 
IT WAS APPARENTLY IN RESPONSE TO THE FOREGOING COMPLAINTS THAT THE
RELIEF PROVISION BEFORE US, NOT PART OF THE HOUSE BILL AS IT CAME TO
THE SENATE,  FN7  WAS INTRODUCED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE.  FN8  WE
THINK CONGRESS WAS MOVED TO RELIEVE THOSE CORPORATIONS WHICH IT
CONSIDERED TO BE "CAUGHT IN A TRAP" WHEREBY THEY WERE TAXED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF THEY DID NOT PAY DIVIDENDS AND SUBJECT TO
PROSECUTION AND PENALTIES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THE STATES IF
THEY DID. 

SOME OF THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS USED, CONSIDERED TAXWISE ONLY, PROVIDES
PLAUSIBLE SUPPORT FOR THE INTERPRETATION URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH
WOULD GIVE THE RELIEF AMENDMENT MORE LIMITED SCOPE.  BUT THE PROVISION
BEFORE US IS NOT A GENERAL TAX EXEMPTION TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE
FRAMEWORK OF A CURRENTLY OPERATING GENERAL REVENUE LAW.  IT IS A
SPECIAL RETROACTIVE RELIEF MEASURE TO AUTHORIZE REPAYMENT OF TAXES
COLLECTED IN PREVIOUS YEARS UNDER A REVENUE LAW WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY ABANDONED.  THE LANGUAGE OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
MEASURE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PROMPTED ITS PASSAGE CONVINCE US
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO PROVIDE REFUNDS TO CORPORATE TAXPAYERS, WITH
POSSIBLE MINOR EXCEPTIONS, WHO HAD PAID UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAXES AS
A CHOICE BETWEEN CONFLICTING STATE AND FEDERAL COMPULSIONS. 

FURTHERMORE, THE VERY MECHANICS OF THE 1942 AMENDMENT REQUIRE THAT
DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS TO REFUND UNDER IT BE BASED ON CONSIDERATION OF
SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE TAX MEANING OF THE 1936 ACT OR OTHER TAX
TERMINOLOGY.  THE RIGHT TO RECOVERY IN EVERY CASE DEPENDS ULTIMATELY
UPON WHETHER FEDERAL LAW OR FEDERAL REGULATORY BODIES, OR STATE LAW OR
STATE REGULATORY BODIES, PROHIBIT PAYMENTS OF DIVIDENDS.  IN THIS CASE
THE ULTIMATE RIGHT TO REFUND DEPENDS UPON STATE LAW.  CF. LYETH V.
HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 193.  BEFORE THAT RIGHT CAN BE FINALLY ESTABLISHED,
COURTS MUST EXAMINE STATE LAW AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF DETERMINING (1)
WHAT IS A "DEFICIT"; (2) WHAT ARE "ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS";
(3) WHAT WAS THE STATE LAW ON THESE QUESTIONS PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936; (4)
WHETHER PAYMENTS OF DIVIDENDS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE PROHIBITED
BY STATE LAW.  ACCEPTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION WOULD MEAN
THAT COURTS ADMINISTERING THE 1942 ACT MUST FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER A
DEFICIT EXISTS UNDER FEDERAL LAW; IF SUCH A FEDERAL DEFICIT EXISTS,
THEY MUST THEN TURN TO STATE LAW TO DECIDE WHETHER UNDER IT A DEFICIT
EXISTS SUCH AS PROHIBITS THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.  WE DO NOT THINK
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE COURTS SO TO ADMINISTER THE 1942 AMENDMENT. 
THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THAT IT DOES RELIES HEAVILY UPON THE SENATE
COMMITTEE REPORT. 

WE THINK THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT, AS A WHOLE, LEANS TOWARD THE
VIEW WE HAVE TAKEN OF THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW.  FN9  BUT IN ONE OF THE
SIX ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF THE NEW TAX RELIEF
PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT, AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT TREASURY
REGULATIONS, IT WAS INDICATED THAT NO TAX CREDIT SHOULD BE ALLOWED
WHERE A TAX DEFICIT RESULTED FROM "PRIOR CAPITALIZATION OF SURPLUS IN
THE COURSE OF A NONTAXABLE REORGANIZATION."  FN10  ASIDE FROM THE FACT
THAT CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS AND SIMPLE STOCK DIVIDENDS ARE QUITE
DIFFERENT THINGS, WE FIND THIS ONE ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE INSUFFICIENT TO
OUTWEIGH THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE GOVERNED OUR INTERPRETATION OF
THE 1942 AMENDMENT. 

WE ARE PERSUADED THAT CONGRESS AT LEAST INTENDED BY THE AMENDMENT TO
REFUND TAXES IMPOSED ON CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD FAILED TO DISTRIBUTE
DIVIDENDS WHEN DISTRIBUTION, IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, WOULD HAVE
IMPAIRED LONG-EXISTING STATE-APPROVED CORPORATE CAPITALIZATIONS.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. BYRON SASH & DOOR CO., 150 F.2D 44, 46.  IN ORDER THAT
THIS PURPOSE MAY BE EFFECTED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.    FN1  "I.  NO CORPORATION SHALL PAY DIVIDENDS IN
CASH OR PROPERTY, (A) EXCEPT FROM THE SURPLUS OF THE AGGREGATE OF ITS
ASSETS OVER THE AGGREGATE OF ITS LIABILITIES, PLUS THE AMOUNT OF ITS
CAPITAL STOCK; OR (B) OUT OF ANY SURPLUS DUE OR ARISING FROM (1) ANY
PROFIT ON TREASURY SHARES BEFORE RESALE; OR (2) ANY UNREALIZED
APPRECIATION IN VALUE OR REVALUATION OF FIXED ASSETS; OR (3) ANY
UNREALIZED APPRECIATION IN VALUE OR REVALUATION OF INVENTORIES BEFORE
SALE; OR (4) THE UNACCRUED PORTION OF UNREALIZED PROFIT ON NOTES, BONDS
OR OBLIGATIONS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY, PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED, UNLESS SUCH NOTES, BONDS OR OBLIGATIONS ARE READILY
MARKETABLE, IN WHICH CASE THEY MAY BE TAKEN AT THEIR ACTUAL MARKET
VALUE; OR (5) THE UNACCRUED OR UNEARNED PORTION OF ANY UNREALIZED
PROFIT IN ANY FORM WHATEVER, WHETHER IN THE FORM OF NOTES, BONDS,
OBLIGATIONS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY, INSTALLMENT SALES, CREDITS OR
OTHERWISE, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE PRECEDING SUB-PARAGRAPH (4). 

     . .         .         .         . 

"III.  NO CORPORATION SHALL PAY DIVIDENDS IN SHARES OF THE
CORPORATION, EXCEPT FROM THE SURPLUS OF THE AGGREGATE OF ITS ASSETS
...  OVER THE AGGREGATE OF ITS LIABILITIES, PLUS THE AMOUNT OF ITS
CAPITAL STOCK."  LA. ACTS 1928, NO. 250, SEC. 26, I, III, 1 LA. GEN.
STAT. SEC. 1106. 

FN2  49 STAT. 1648, 1655-1657. 

FN3  THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE REPORTED THAT SEC. 501 OF THE
1942 ACT ALLOWED CORPORATIONS TO DEDUCT CAPITAL LOSSES FROM THEIR
CAPITAL ASSETS FOR PURPOSES OF THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX EVEN
THOUGH ONLY $2,000 OF SUCH CAPITAL LOSS WAS DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS
INCOME FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

ANOTHER AMENDMENT PROVIDED A STOCK REDEMPTION CREDIT DEDUCTIBLE FROM
GROSS INCOME TAXABLE FOR UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX PURPOSES. 

AND THE BREADTH OF THE REFUND PROVISIONS IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE
PROVISIONS MAKING THE AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE THE 1936 ACT
WAS ENACTED, AND EXTENDING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO PERMIT REFUNDS
FOR ALL OVERPAYMENTS SINCE THAT DATE.  H.R. REP. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., 170(1942). 

FN4  SEN. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 244, 245(1942). 

FN5  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON REVENUE ACT OF
1942, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 2343-2345(1942).  COUNSEL FOR ANOTHER
DEFICIT RAILROAD CORPORATION POINTED OUT THAT UNDER GOVERNING STATE LAW
THAT RAILROAD'S OFFICERS WOULD HAVE BEEN LIABLE FOR A PENALTY OF DOUBLE
THE DAMAGES TO ANYONE HARMED.  ID. AT 1422. 

FN6  STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN E. HUGHES: 

"NEXT I HAVE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF CRANE JOHNSON CO. THAT SECTION
501 OF THE HOUSE BILL SHOULD BE SIMPLIFIED.  THAT POINT IS THIS:  IF A
CORPORATION WAS FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW TO DECLARE A DIVIDEND BECAUSE
ITS CAPITAL STOCK WAS IMPAIRED, IT COULD NOT AVOID THE UNDISTRIBUTED
PROFITS TAX ENACTED IN 1936 AND WAS CAUGHT IN A TRAP.  A RICH
CORPORATION COULD.  IT COULD DECLARE A DIVIDEND AND AVOID IT.  SURELY
YOU WOULD NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A POOR ONE. 

"FURTHERMORE, IF IT HAD AN IMPAIRMENT OF CAPITAL STOCK AND WAS
ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THE STATES WHERE
CORPORATIONS IN SUCH CONDITION ARE ALLOWED TO DECLARE DIVIDENDS, A
DIVIDEND WOULD BE A RETURN OF CAPITAL TO THE SHAREHOLDER AND NO CREDIT
FOR THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX WOULD BE GIVEN. 

"THERE IS NO REASON FOR GRANTING RELIEF RETROACTIVELY IN THE LIMITED
CASES WHICH MAY BE HELD TO BE COVERED BY THE VAUGE AND AMBIGUOUS
LANGUAGE OF SECTION 501 OF THE HOUSE BILL WITHOUT GRANTING RELIEF IN
THESE CASES ALSO. 

"THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 501 IS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AND OUGHT TO BE
SIMPLIFIED.  IN 1938 RELIEF WAS GRANTED AS SOON AS THIS SITUATION WAS
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WAS NOT MADE
RETROACTIVE TO 1936.  THE HOUSE BILL IN SECTION 501 PROPERLY MAKES IT
RETROACTIVE TO 1936, BUT IS NOT PHRASED IN SIMPLE ENOUGH LANGUAGE." 
HEARINGS, SUPRA 1022.  SEE ALSO ID. AT 1306-1308. 

FN7  SEE H.R. REP., NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN8  SEE SEN. REP., NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN9  SEN. REP. 1631, NOTE 4, SUPRA, OUTLINING SEC. 501 OF THE
PROPOSED REVENUE ACT OF 1942 STATED: 

"...  A NEW PARAGRAPH  ...  HAS BEEN ADDED, PROVIDING FOR AN
ADDITIONAL CREDIT IN CASES OF CORPORATIONS HAVING A DEFICIT IN
ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS AND PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM PAYING
DIVIDENDS, AND  ...  A NEW SUBSECTION HAS BEEN ADDED PROVIDING FOR A
STOCK REDEMPTION CREDIT. 

"SECTION 501  ...  GRANTS RELIEF FROM THE UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX
FOR TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1935, AND PRIOR TO
JANUARY 1, 1938, BY ALLOWING AS AN ADDITIONAL CREDIT IN COMPUTING
UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME THE PORTION OF THE ADJUSTED NET INCOME WHICH,
IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, COULD NOT BE DISTRIBUTED AS A TAXABLE DIVIDEND
.... 

"UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 CORPORATIONS IN GENERAL
WERE SUBJECT TO SURTAX AT VARIOUS RATES FROM 7 TO 27 PERCENT OF THEIR
UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME.  IN SOME INSTANCES STATE LAW OR AN ORDER OF A
PUBLIC REGULATORY BODY PROHIBITED PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS DURING THE
EXISTENCE OF A DEFICIT EVEN THOUGH THE CORPORATION HAD CURRENT EARNINGS
AND PROFITS WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME UNDER THE
DEFINITION THEREOF IN SECTION 14(A)(2).  SUCH CORPORATIONS WERE,
THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS SURTAX EVEN THOUGH THEY
WERE PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM PAYING DIVIDENDS.  THE ADDITION OF THE NEW
PARAGRAPH 3 TO SUBSECTION (C) OF SECTION 26 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIT IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS
AS OF THE CLOSE OF THE PRECEDING TAXABLE YEAR IS INTENDED TO GIVE
RELIEF IN CERTAIN OF THESE CASES. 

"ALSO UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, IT WAS POSSIBLE
THAT THE UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME OF A CORPORATION MIGHT EXCEED
ACCUMULATED AND CURRENT EARNINGS AND PROFITS.  IN SUCH CASE THE TAX
COULD NOT BE AVOIDED EVEN IF DISTRIBUTIONS WERE MADE TO SHAREHOLDERS." 
THE AMENDMENT WAS TO PROVIDE RELIEF IN THIS SITUATION ALSO. 

FN10  ID. AT 246. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS,
DISSENTING. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 IMPOSED A SURTAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED CORPORATE
PROFITS.  SECTION 26(C)(1) GAVE RELIEF FROM THIS SURTAX UNDER DEFINED
CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN1  IN HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL MILLS, 311 U.S.
46, IT WAS HELD THAT ALTHOUGH A RESTRICTION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF
CORPORATE PROFITS WAS IMPOSED BY STATE LAW, A CREDIT FOR SUCH WITHHELD
PROFITS WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 26(C)(1).  IN REACHING THIS
CONCLUSION, THE COURT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT "HAS BEEN SAID MANY
TIMES THAT PROVISIONS GRANTING SPECIAL TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE TO BE
STRICTLY CONSTRUED."  HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL MILLS, SUPRA, AT
49.  BY WAY OF RELAXING THE RESTRICTED SCOPE WHICH THIS COURT GAVE TO
EXEMPTION FROM THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX, CONGRESS, BY THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1942, SUBSTITUTED A NEW SUBDIVISION (3) TO SEC. 26(C) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  THIS SECTION DID NOT UNDO THE NORTHWEST STEEL
MILLS DOCTRINE.  IT DID NOT ALLOW A DEDUCTION FOR PROFITS FORBIDDEN TO
BE DISTRIBUTED BY STATE LAW, AS IT HAD IN SEC. 26(C)(1) ALLOWED CREDIT
FOR PROFITS UNDISTRIBUTED BECAUSE OF A "WRITTEN CONTRACT."  CONGRESS
GAVE RELIEF FOR EARNINGS FORBIDDEN TO BE DISTRIBUTED BY STATE LAW ONLY
"IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION HAVING A DEFICIT IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS
AND PROFITS AS OF THE CLOSE OF THE PRECEDING TAXABLE YEAR  ...."  FN2 

THIS IS TAX LANGUAGE AND SHOULD BE READ IN ITS TAX SENSE.  WE MUST
NOT DISREGARD THE ILLUMINATION OF AN AUTHORITATIVE TAX LEXICON IN
READING TAX LEGISLATION.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE 1942 AMENDMENT CARRIES
WITH IT TAX USAGE, TAX PRACTICE, AND THE GLOSS OF AUTHORITATIVE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  ALL COMBINE TO MAKE THE CONDITION UNDER WHICH
STATE LAW PROHIBITING DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS COMES INTO PLAY, THAT
WHICH CONGRESS IN WORDS OF ART SAID WAS THE CONDITION, NAMELY, THE
EXISTENCE OF "A DEFICIT IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS."  HERE
THERE WAS NO DEFICIT IN THE CONTROLLING SENSE OF THE TERM.  AND NOTHING
WARRANTS THE ATTRIBUTION OF A NON-TECHNICAL MEANING TO SO SETTLED A
TECHNICAL TERM.  NOTHING, THAT IS, EXCEPT THE SUGGESTION THAT TO GIVE
THE 1942 AMENDMENT THIS ESTABLISHED MEANING MIGHT NOT AFFORD THE RELIEF
THAT, AS A MATTER OF ABSTRACT JUSTICE, SHOULD BE AFFORDED.  BUT THIS IS
MERELY AN ATTEMPT TO INVOKE WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED THE "EQUITY" OF A
STATUTE.  I AM NO FRIEND OF ARTIFICIAL CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION, AND I
WOULD NOT STRAIN LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUE TAX EXEMPTIONS
STRICTLY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, REVENUE ACTS ARE NOT THE KIND OF
LEGISLATION WHICH SHOULD BE LOOSELY CONSTRUED IN ORDER TO GRANT
EXEMPTIONS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS ENACTMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE ONLY REENFORCE WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE COMPELLING
REQUIREMENT, TO RENDER TECHNICAL TERMS USED BY CONGRESS WITH THEIR
TECHNICAL MEANING.  IF IT BE SUGGESTED THAT COUNSEL FOR TAXPAYERS AT A
CONGRESSIONAL HEARING URGED THE FAIRNESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE
COURT NOW PLACES UPON WHAT CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSED, IT WOULD NOT BE THE
FIRST TIME THAT THE FINAL LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS DID NOT SATISFY THE
DESIRE OF SOME OF ITS PROPONENTS.  IN ANY EVENT, I DO NOT THINK THE
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL FOR A TAXPAYER URGING RELIEF SHOULD CARRY MORE
WEIGHT THAN THE USE BY CONGRESS OF SETTLED TAX LANGUAGE, CARRYING A
MEANING WHICH EXCLUDED THAT RESULT, A MEANING WHICH IS REENFORCED BY
THE LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY THAT LED UP TO AND
FOLLOWED THE ENACTMENT.  SEE CENTURY ELECTRIC CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 144
F.2D 983, AFFIRMING THE TAX COURT, 3 T.C. 297; S. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 244-46; TREASURY REGULATIONS 94 AND 101, ART. 115
11; TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, SEC. 19.115-11; TREASURY REGULATIONS 111,
SEC. 29.115-11.  THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS, THAT EVEN THOUGH CORPORATE
PROFITS HERE WERE WITHHELD BECAUSE LOUISIANA FORBADE THEIR
DISTRIBUTION, THERE CAN BE NO CREDIT ALLOWED FOR A DEFICIT BECAUSE IN A
FEDERAL TAX SENSE THERE WAS NO DEFICIT. 

NO DOUBT CONGRESS, TO SOME EXTENT, DESIRED TO RELIEVE FROM THE
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX CORPORATIONS FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW FROM
DECLARING DIVIDENDS.  BUT NEITHER WHAT CONGRESS ENACTED NOR ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES A PURPOSE TO DISREGARD THE LIMITING
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115(H) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  FN3 THIS
F.2D 931, SEE S. REP. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 19, REQUIRES THAT
IN RESPECT TO FEDERAL TAXES, ASSETS BE TREATED AS AVAILABLE FOR
DISTRIBUTION AS EARNINGS REGARDLESS OF STOCK DIVIDENDS WHICH CAPITALIZE
EARNINGS AND PROFITS.  H. REP. NO. 2894, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 41,
CITED IN COMMISSIONER V. WHEELER, 324 U.S. 542, 546.  THE SPECIFIC
EXAMPLE CITED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ON SEC. 501 OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1942 SHOWS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE RELIEF AFFORDED
BY THE AMENDMENT TO CASES WHERE THE DEFICIT IN QUESTION HAD NOT
RESULTED FROM THE CAPITALIZATION OF ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS. 
FN4  THE MAJORITY FINDS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAPITALIZATION OF EARNINGS
IN A NONTAXABLE REORGANIZATION AND CAPITALIZATION OF EARNINGS BY A
SIMPLE STOCK DIVIDEND.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT BUT THE
DIFFERENCE IS NOT SIGNIFICANT FOR THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE STOCK
DIVIDEND ON EARNINGS AND PROFITS.  THE EXAMPLE GIVEN IS CONCERNED WITH
THE EFFECT OF CAPITALIZING EARNINGS AND PROFITS, NOT WITH THE METHOD. 
IF CONGRESS MEANT TO RELIEVE UNDISTRIBUTED EARNINGS AND PROFITS EVEN
THOUGH THOSE EARNINGS AND PROFITS WERE CONSIDERED AVAILABLE UNDER SEC.
115(H), IT SHOULD HAVE SAID SO. 

WE THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 1648, 1664. 

"IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION THE FOLLOWING CREDITS SHALL BE ALLOWED
TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE VARIOUS SECTIONS IMPOSING TAX - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(1)  PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.  AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE
EXCESS OF THE ADJUSTED NET INCOME OVER THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS
WHICH CAN BE DISTRIBUTED WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR AS DIVIDENDS WITHOUT
VIOLATING A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION
PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936, WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS WITH THE PAYMENT
OF DIVIDENDS.  IF A CORPORATION WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A CREDIT UNDER
THIS PARAGRAPH BECAUSE OF A CONTRACT PROVISION AND ALSO TO ONE OR MORE
CREDITS BECAUSE OF OTHER CONTRACT PROVISIONS, ONLY THE LARGEST OF SUCH
CREDITS SHALL BE ALLOWED, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE IF TWO OR MORE CREDITS
ARE EQUAL IN AMOUNT ONLY ONE SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT." 

FN2  SECTION 501(A), REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798, 954.  "(3)
DEFICIT CORPORATION.  - IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION HAVING A DEFICIT
IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS AS OF THE CLOSE OF THE PRECEDING
TAXABLE YEAR, THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEFICIT, IF THE CORPORATION IS
PROHIBITED BY A PROVISION OF A LAW OR OF AN ORDER OF A PUBLIC
REGULATORY BODY FROM PAYING DIVIDENDS DURING THE EXISTENCE OF A DEFICIT
IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS, AND IF SUCH PROVISION WAS IN
EFFECT PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936." 

FN3  49 STAT. 1648, 1688-89.  SEC. 115(H):  "EFFECT ON EARNINGS AND
PROFITS OF DISTRIBUTIONS OF STOCK.  - THE DISTRIBUTION (WHETHER BEFORE
JANUARY 1, 1936, OR ON OR AFTER SUCH DATE) TO A DISTRIBUTEE BY OR ON
BEHALF OF A CORPORATION OF ITS STOCK OR SECURITIES OR STOCK OR
SECURITIES IN ANOTHER CORPORATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A
DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS OR PROFITS OF ANY CORPORATION - 

"(1)  IF NO GAIN TO SUCH DISTRIBUTEE FROM THE RECEIPT OF SUCH STOCK
OR SECURITIES WAS RECOGNIZED BY LAW, OR 

"(2)  IF THE DISTRIBUTION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF SUCH
DISTRIBUTEE BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME TO HIM WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OR BECAUSE
EXEMPT TO HIM UNDER SECTION 115(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 OR A
CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF A PRIOR REVENUE ACT.  AS USED IN THIS
SUBSECTION THE TERM 'STOCK OR SECURITIES' INCLUDES RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE
STOCK OR SECURITIES."    FN4  S. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
PP. 245-46: 

"(1)  THE X CORPORATION FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1936 HAD AN ADJUSTED NET
INCOME OF $200,000  .... 

"(2)  ASSUME IN THE ABOVE EXAMPLE THAT THE DEFICIT IN ACCUMULATED
EARNINGS AND PROFITS IS $20,000 FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, BUT THE
DEFICIT IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS ON THE CORPORATION'S BOOKS
BY REASON OF A PRIOR CAPITALIZATION OF SURPLUS IN THE COURSE OF A
NONTAXABLE REORGANIZATION AMOUNTS TO $250,000.  IN THIS CASE, ALTHOUGH
THE STATE LAW WOULD PROBABLY PROHIBIT PAYMENT OF ANY DIVIDENDS, THE
CREDIT ALLOWED UNDER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26(C) IS LIMITED TO
$20,000, WHICH IS THE DEFICIT IN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND PROFITS FOR
INCOME TAX PURPOSES.  X CORPORATION, THEREFORE, WILL BE LIABLE FOR
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS SURTAX ON $180,000 OF ITS ADJUSTED NET INCOME." 
..END :









UNITED STATES V. HOY, 330 U.S. 724 


NO. 585.  ARGUED MARCH 14, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 7, 1947.  - REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 5(G) OF THE FARM LABOR SUPPLY APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1944
DOES NOT EXCEPT AGRICULTURAL LABORERS FROM THE PROVISION OF SEC. 5 OF
THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917 MAKING IT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO INDUCE TO
MIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES AS CONTRACT LABORERS ALIENS WHO ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE 1917 ACT OR ANY OTHER LAW
OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 730-731. 

2.  SINCE DISMISSAL OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS CASE WAS BASED ON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1917 ACT AS THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO APPLY IT IN
THE INFORMATION, THE CASE WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT TO THIS COURT ON DIRECT
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 725. 

UNITED STATES V. LEM HOY. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AN INFORMATION CHARGING A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917, 39 STAT. 874, BY
INDUCING ALIENS TO MIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES AS CONTRACT LABORERS -
ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 5(G) OF THE FARM LABOR SUPPLY APPROPRIATION ACT
OF 1944, 58 STAT. 11, EXCEPTS AGRICULTURAL LABORERS FROM THE PROVISIONS
OF THE 1917 ACT.  ON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 731. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FILED AN INFORMATION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT CHARGING THAT THE APPELLEE, LEM HOY, "DID ATTEMPT TO INDUCE,
ASSIST, ENCOURAGE, AND SOLICIT, CERTAIN ALIEN PERSONS TO MIGRATE TO THE
UNITED STATES AS CONTRACT LABORERS  ...  WHO WERE NOT ALIEN CONTRACT
LABORERS DULY ENTITLED TO MIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 5, 1917, OR TO ENTER OR MIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER ANY
OTHER LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, AS THE DEFENDANT THEN AND THERE WELL
KNEW."  THE CONDUCT CHARGED WAS MADE AN OFFENSE BY SEC. 5 OF THE 1917
IMMIGRATION ACT REFERRED TO IN THE INFORMATION.  39 STAT. 874, 879, 8
U.S.C. SEC. 139.  HOY APPEARED, WAIVED INDICTMENT, ASKED FOR A BILL OF
PARTICULARS, AND MOVED TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND THAT
SEC. 5 OF THE 1917 ACT HAD BEEN REPEALED BY SEC. 5(G) OF THE FARM LABOR
SUPPLY APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1944.  58 STAT. 11, 15-16, 50 U.S.C. APP.,
SUPP. V, SEC. 1355(G).  THE BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOWED THAT HOY HAD
WRITTEN A LETTER TO CERTAIN PERSONS LIVING IN MEXICO TO INDUCE THEM TO
COME TO THE UNITED STATES TO WORK FOR HIM.  IN THE LETTER HOY TOLD THEM
THAT "IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF YOU PASS AS CONTRABAND (SMUGGLE IN), AS
WHEREVER THE IMMIGRATION CATCHES YOU I WILL GET YOU OUT WITH A BOND." 
THE LETTER ALSO DIRECTED THE ALIENS TO SEE A MAN NEAR THE BORDER WHO
WOULD "BRING" THEM TO HOY FOR $25, AND STATED THAT HOY WOULD "ARRANGE
EVERYTHING."  IT WAS STIPULATED THAT HOY WANTED THE MEN TO WORK FOR HIM
AS AGRICULTURAL LABORERS. 

HOLDING THAT THE 1944 FARM LABOR ACT HAD MADE THE 1917 ACT
INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH FARM LABORERS, AND THEREFORE TO THOSE WHO INDUCED
THEIR ENTRY, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE INFORMATION.  SINCE THIS
DISMISSAL WAS BASED ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1917 ACT AS THE
GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO APPLY IT IN THE INFORMATION, THE CASE IS PROPERLY
HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.  18 U.S.C. SUPP. V SEC.
682, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

THE 1944 FARM LABOR ACT, BY ITS TERMS, WAS DESIGNED TO FACILITATE THE
WARTIME EMPLOYMENT, AND THEREFORE THE IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED
STATES FOR A LIMITED STAY, OF AGRICULTURAL LABORERS FROM NORTH, SOUTH,
AND CENTRAL AMERICA, AND ISLANDS ADJACENT THERETO.  IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THIS INFORMATION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR
US TO CONSIDER WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED IN THE 1944 ACT TO REMOVE ALL
RESTRICTIONS, ENFORCEABLE BY SANCTIONS, AGAINST IMMIGRATION INTO THE
UNITED STATES OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL LABORERS FROM THE WESTERN
HEMISPHERE; AND AT THE SAME TIME WHETHER IT INTENDED TO REPEAL, NOT
ONLY THE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITED CONTRACT LABORERS FROM ENTERING THE
COUNTRY, BUT ALSO THE LONG-STANDING LAW WHICH MADE IT A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE TO INDUCE SUCH PERSONS, BARRED BY LAW, TO ENTER.  FN1  IF THE
1944 ACT HAS THESE EFFECTS, IT MARKS A COMPLETE REVERSAL OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FOR MORE THAN HALF A
CENTURY.  FN2 

IN LINE WITH THIS POLICY, THE PURPOSE OF THE 1917 ACT, ACCORDING TO
ITS TITLE, WAS "TO REGULATE THE IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS TO, AND THE
RESIDENCE OF ALIENS IN, THE UNITED STATES."  IT PROVIDED DETAILED
QUALIFICATIONS FOR PERSONS TO BE ADMITTED TO THE COUNTRY.  CERTAIN
PERSONS WERE TO BE COMPLETELY BARRED, SUCH AS IDIOTS, EPILEPTICS,
CHRONIC ALCOHOLICS, VAGRANTS, CRIMINALS, POLYGAMISTS, PROSTITUTES,
PERSONS AFFLICTED WITH LOATHSOME OR DANGEROUS CONTAGIOUS DISEASES,
PERSONS WHO ADVISE, ADVOCATE, OR TEACH OPPOSITION TO ORGANIZED
GOVERNMENT OR ITS OVERTHROW BY FORCE, ILLITERATES, AND CONTRACT
LABORERS, DEFINED AS PERSONS INDUCED OR ENCOURAGED TO COME TO THIS
COUNTRY BY OFFERS OR PROMISES OF EMPLOYMENT.  THE 1917 ACT FURTHER
PROVIDED FOR DEPORTATION OF IMPROPERLY ADMITTED ALIENS, AND AUTHORIZED
THE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS TO ENFORCE THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS
LOOKING TO EXCLUSION OF ALL PERSONS EXCEPT THOSE QUALIFIED TO ENTER THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE PRESCRIBED STATUTORY STANDARDS.  PURSUANT TO
THE BROAD TERMS OF THE 1917 AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ACTS, A BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, NOW A PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO EXAMINE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THOSE
SEEKING ADMISSION AND OTHERWISE TO ENFORCE AND ADMINISTER THE
IMMIGRATION LAWS IN THE INTERIOR AND AT THE BORDERS.  FN3 

THE 1944 FARM LABOR ACT DOES NOT ON ITS FACE PURPORT TO RELAX THE
STANDARDS OF THE 1917 AND OTHER ACTS, EXCEPT IN A VERY LIMITED WAY.  IT
DOES NOT ABOLISH THE SCREENING, ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION
OF THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES.  INDEED THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL ON THE
SENATE FLOOR EXPLAINED THAT THE MEASURE PROPOSED MADE CERTAIN, BY
PROVISION FOR STRICT CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRANTS, THAT THE
STAY OF WORKERS ADMITTED PURSUANT TO ITS PROVISIONS WOULD BE WHOLLY
TEMPORARY, AND THAT "WE" WHO SPONSORED THE BILL "ARE NOT IN ANY WAY
INTERFERING WITH THE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED NATIONAL IMMIGRATION POLICY." 
FN4 

AGRICULTURAL LABORERS FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE 1917 ACT, IS SET OUT
BELOW.  FN5  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THIS SECTION DOES PERMIT ENTRANCE OF
AGRICULTURAL WORKERS WHO, BUT FOR THIS ACT, WOULD NOT BE ADMITTED UNDER
THE FORMER LAW.  THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS FROM THE LONG LIST OF NON
ADMISSIBLES UNDER THE 1917 AND OTHER ACTS ARE THESE:  ILLITERATES AND
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO COME INTO THE COUNTRY BY PROMISES OF
EMPLOYMENT, OR WHOSE PASSAGE HAS BEEN PAID BY CORPORATIONS OR OTHER
PERSONS.  BY SPECIFICALLY LIFTING THE IMMIGRATION BARRIERS IN THESE
RESPECTS, CONGRESS LEFT THE BARRIERS IN EFFECT WHICH BARRED PHYSICAL
AND MENTAL DEFECTIVES, THOSE WITH CERTAIN DISEASES, ETC.  AND EVEN THE
EXCEPTIONS GRANTED WERE NOT UNCONDITIONAL, FOR UNDER THE 1944 ACT
AGRICULTURAL LABORERS COULD STILL BE ADMITTED ONLY "FOR SUCH TIME AND
UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS  ...  AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  ..." 

IN PURSUANCE OF THEIR AUTHORITY UNDER THIS ACT, THE IMMIGRATION
AUTHORITIES HAVE PROMULGATED REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDE IN DETAIL FOR
THE ADMISSION OF AGRICULTURAL LABORERS WHO ARE "IN ALL RESPECTS
ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS EXCEPT" AS TO
THE PARTICULAR LIMITED PROVISIONS OF THE 1917 ACT DESIGNATED IN THE
1944 ACT.  8 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 115.2(C).  AND AS SHOWN BY THE
SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS AND HEARINGS ON THE 1944 ACT, A VAST PROGRAM
WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT TO PERMIT AGRICULTURAL LABORERS TO ENTER AND TO
REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT ONLY FOR A LIMITED TIME AND UNDER SUCH
CONDITIONS AS CONFORM WITH THE IMMIGRATION LAWS AND REGULATIONS, AND IN
ACCORDANCE, SO FAR AS THIS CASE IS CONCERNED, WITH AGREEMENTS MADE WITH
THE GOVERNMENT OF MEXICO.  FN6  FAR FROM ABOLISHING THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN EXAMINING AND
APPROVING THESE PERSONS AT THE BORDER AND SUPERVISING THEIR STAY, THE
1944 ACT, THE TREATY AND THE REGULATIONS, ALTHOUGH CHANGING THOSE
RESPONSIBILITIES IN SOME RESPECTS, HAVE ACTUALLY INCREASED THEM. 
ALIENS MUST STILL MAKE A LAWFUL ENTRY AT THE PLACES DESIGNATED FOR
THEIR EXAMINATION, SCREENING, AND REGISTRATION.  THOSE WHO DO NOT MEET
THE STATUTORY STANDARDS OF THE 1917 ACT, WITH THE MINOR EXCEPTIONS MADE
IN THE 1944 ACT, MUST BE TURNED BACK.  AND THOSE WHO ARE PERMITTED TO
ENTER REMAIN SUBJECT TO SUPERVISION, CONTROL, AND EARLY DEPORTATION BY
IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES.  FN7 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE CONTENTION THAT HOY CANNOT BE PROSECUTED UNDER
SEC. 5 OF THE 1917 ACT BECAUSE THE 1944 ACT PROVIDES THAT SEC. 5 "SHALL
NOT APPLY TO THE IMPORTATION OF ALIENS UNDER THIS TITLE."  BUT HOY WAS
NOT CHARGED WITH INDUCING OR ENCOURAGING THE MEXICAN ALIENS WHOM HE
WROTE TO COME IN "UNDER THIS TITLE."  FN8  HE WAS ALLEGEDLY INVITING
THEM TO ENTER THE COUNTRY IN DISREGARD AND DEFIANCE OF "THIS TITLE" AND
ALL OTHER LAW.  THUS HE WAS SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH INDUCING ALIENS
TO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY WHO WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ENTER UNDER THE 1917
ACT OR "UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, AS  ...  (HE) THEN
AND THERE WELL KNEW."  IF THIS CHARGE, AS CLARIFIED BY THE BILL OF
PARTICULARS, IS TRUE, HE WAS URGING ALIENS TO COME INTO THIS COUNTRY
WITHOUT PASSING THROUGH THE IMMIGRATION STATIONS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
LENGTH OF THEIR STAY, OR WHETHER THEY WERE BARRED BY REASON OF DISEASE,
PHYSICAL WEAKNESS, OR ANY OF THE OTHER DISQUALIFICATIONS SET OUT IN THE
1917 AND OTHER LAWS OR REGULATIONS. 

THE 1944 ACT WAS INTENDED TO PERMIT ALIEN AGRICULTURAL WORKERS TO
ENTER THE COUNTRY FOR A LIMITED TIME UNDER GOVERNMENT RULES AND
REGULATIONS AFTER PROPER PROOFS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT THE ALIENS
WERE SO QUALIFIED.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE LAW WAS INTENDED TO FILL THE
NEED FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS BY REMOVING THE 1917 PROHIBITION AGAINST
WOULD-BE EMPLOYERS' INVITING AND INDUCING FOREIGN WORKERS TO COME TO
THE UNITED STATES.  BUT WE ARE NOT PERSUADED THAT THE LAW, WHICH
PROVIDED SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS AND REQUISITES TO ENTRY UNDER IT, CAN
PROPERLY BE INTERPRETED TO AUTHORIZE WOULD-BE EMPLOYERS TO INVITE,
INDUCE AND OFFER REWARDS TO ALIENS TO CIRCUMVENT IMMIGRATION PROCESSING
AND TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES IN DISREGARD AND DEFIANCE OF LAW.  THE
1917 PROHIBITION AGAINST EMPLOYERS INDUCING LABORERS TO ENTER THE
COUNTRY, ENFORCEABLE BY SANCTIONS, REMOVED OBSTACLES WHICH MIGHT HINDER
IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES; WE DO NOT
THINK THE 1944 ACT WAS INTENDED TO LICENSE EMPLOYERS TO OBSTRUCT THEIR
PERFORMANCE.  THE INFORMATION CHARGED AN OFFENSE AND IT SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN DISMISSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE 39 STAT. 894, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 163(CRIME TO AID OR ASSIST
ANY PERSON TO ENTER WHO BELIEVES IN VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT);
39 STAT. 880, 43 STAT. 166, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 145(CRIME TO BRING TO THE
UNITED STATES AN ALIEN WITH CERTAIN DISEASES); 45 STAT. 1551, 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 180A (CRIME FOR ALIEN TO ENTER AT ANY PLACE OTHER THAN AT AN
IMMIGRATION POINT, OR TO ELUDE EXAMINATION).  SEE ALSO 35 STAT. 1152,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 550 WHICH PROVIDES THAT "WHOEVER DIRECTLY COMMITS  ...
AN OFFENSE DEFINED IN ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, OR AIDS, ABETS,
COUNSELS, COMMANDS, INDUCES, OR PROCURES ITS COMMISSION, IS A
PRINCIPAL." 

FN2  SEE 23 STAT. 332; 32 STAT. 1213; 34 STAT. 898; 41 STAT. 1008;
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH V. UNITED STATES, 143 U.S. 457, 463-465. 

FN3  22 STAT. 214, 24 STAT. 415, 26 STAT. 1085, 28 STAT. 780, 32
STAT. 825, 828, 37 STAT. 736, 737, 54 STAT. 1238, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 100
103. 

FN4 90 CONG. REC. 864(1944). 

FN5  "IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE EMPLOYMENT BY AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYERS
IN THE UNITED STATES OF NATIVE-BORN RESIDENTS OF NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH
AMERICA, AND CENTRAL AMERICA, AND THE ISLANDS ADJACENT THERETO,
DESIRING TO PERFORM AGRICULTURAL LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES, DURING
CONTINUATION OF HOSTILITIES IN THE PRESENT WAR, ANY SUCH RESIDENT
DESIRING TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES FOR THAT PURPOSE SHALL BE EXEMPT
FROM THE PAYMENT OF HEAD TAX REQUIRED BY SECTION 2 OF THE IMMIGRATION
ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, AND FROM OTHER ADMISSION CHARGES, AND SHALL BE
EXEMPT FROM THOSE EXCLUDING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 OF SUCH ACT WHICH
RELATE TO CONTRACT LABORERS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF LITERACY, AND THE
PAYMENT OF PASSAGE BY CORPORATIONS, FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, OR OTHERS; AND
ANY SUCH RESIDENT SHALL BE ADMITTED TO PERFORM AGRICULTURAL LABOR IN
THE UNITED STATES FOR SUCH TIME AND UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS (BUT NOT
INCLUDING THE EXACTION OF BOND TO INSURE ULTIMATE DEPARTURE FROM THE
UNITED STATES) AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND IN THE EVENT SUCH REGULATIONS REQUIRE DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE OF THE COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF ANY SUCH RESIDENT WHICH HE IS
UNABLE TO FURNISH, SUCH REQUIREMENT MAY BE WAIVED BY THE ADMITTING
OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE POINT WHERE SUCH RESIDENT SEEKS
ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES IF SUCH OFFICIAL HAS OTHER PROOF
SATISFACTORY TO HIM THAT SUCH RESIDENT IS A NATIVE OF THE COUNTRY
CLAIMED AS HIS BIRTHPLACE.  EACH SUCH RESIDENT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH
AN IDENTIFICATION CARD (WITH HIS PHOTOGRAPH AND FINGERPRINTS) TO BE
PRESCRIBED UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS WHICH SHALL BE IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER
DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE REGISTRATION AT TIME OF ENTRY
OR AFTER ENTRY REQUIRED BY THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940.  ANY
SUCH RESIDENT ADMITTED UNDER THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS WHO FAILS TO
MAINTAIN THE STATUS FOR WHICH HE WAS ADMITTED OR TO DEPART FROM THE
UNITED STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF HIS ADMISSION SHALL BE
TAKEN INTO CUSTODY UNDER A WARRANT ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT
ANY TIME AFTER ENTRY AND DEPORTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 20 OF THE
IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917.  SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF SUCH ACT
SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE IMPORTATION OF ALIENS UNDER THIS TITLE.  NO
PROVISION OF THIS TITLE SHALL AUTHORIZE THE ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED
STATES OF ANY ENEMY ALIEN."  SEC. 5(G) FARM LABOR SUPPLY APPROPRIATION
ACT, 1944, 58 STAT. 11, 15-16, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. V, 1355(G).    FN6
SEE H. REP. NO. 246, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 3, 4, 6(1943); H. REP. NO.
358, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 8(1943); SEN. REP. NO. 157, 78TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., 3, 4(1943).    FN7  FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE TREATY WITH MEXICO
GOVERNING WARTIME IMMIGRATION OF THESE FARM LABORERS OUR GOVERNMENT HAS
THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHERE IN THE UNITED STATES WORKERS ARE NEEDED
MOST AND TO SEND THEM THERE.  OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY REQUIRE
THAT 10% OF EACH WORKER'S WAGES BE EARMARKED AND RETURNED FOR DEPOSIT
IN MEXICO, AND THAT THEIR LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS MEET SPECIFIED
STANDARDS.  THESE PROVISIONS REQUIRE CLOSE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMITTED
ALIENS BY IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES.  56 STAT. 1759-1768; 57 STAT. 1152
1163. 

FN8  THE PHRASE "THIS TITLE" REFERS ONLY TO THE "FARM LABOR SUPPLY
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1944," SEC. 5(1), 58 STAT. 11, 17. 
..END :

















LAND V. DOLLAR, 330 U.S. 731 


NO. 207.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 12, 1947.  - DECIDED APRIL 7, 1947.  - 81
U.S. APP. D.C. 28, 154 F.2D 307, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STEAMSHIP COMPANY BEING IN FINANCIAL STRAITS, ITS STOCKHOLDERS
(RESPONDENTS HERE) ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE MARITIME
COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO WHICH THEY DELIVERED THEIR COMMON STOCK,
ENDORSED IN BLANK, TO THE COMMISSION, WHICH RELEASED RESPONDENTS FROM
CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS, GRANTED AN OPERATING SUBSIDY AND MADE A LOAN TO
THE COMPANY, AND OBTAINED AN ADDITIONAL LOAN FOR IT FROM THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.  AFTER THE COMPANY HAD FULLY PAID
ALL ITS INDEBTEDNESS TO THE UNITED STATES, RESPONDENTS DEMANDED THE
RETURN OF THE STOCK, CLAIMING THAT IT HAD BEEN PLEDGED AS COLLATERAL
FOR A DEBT WHICH HAD BEEN PAID.  THE COMMISSION REFUSED AND OFFERED THE
STOCK FOR SALE.  RESPONDENTS SUED THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION (PETITIONERS HERE) IN A DISTRICT COURT, PRAYING THAT THEY BE
RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE STOCK AND DIRECTED TO RETURN IT TO
RESPONDENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT, ON ITS OWN MOTION, DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, HOLDING THAT THE SUIT WAS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  HELD:  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ITS
JURISDICTION BY PROCEEDING TO A DECISION ON THE MERITS.  PP. 734-739. 

(A)  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, IF PROVED, WOULD ESTABLISH
THAT PETITIONERS ARE UNLAWFULLY WITHHOLDING RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY UNDER
THE CLAIM THAT IT BELONGS TO THE UNITED STATES, SINCE THAT CONCLUSION
WOULD FOLLOW IF EITHER OF RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS WERE ESTABLISHED:
(1) THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE THE STOCK OR
ACQUIRE IT OUTRIGHT; OR (2) THAT, EVEN THOUGH SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTED,
THE CONTRACT RESULTED NOT IN AN OUTRIGHT TRANSFER BUT IN A PLEDGE OF
THE STOCK.  PP. 735-736. 

(B)  IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE TRUE, THE STOCK NEVER
WAS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND IS BEING WRONGFULLY WITHHELD
BY PETITIONERS, WHO ACTED IN EXCESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY AS PUBLIC
OFFICERS AND ARE ANSWERABLE PERSONALLY FOR THEIR ACTIONS.  UNITED
STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196.  PP. 736-739. 

(C)  WHILE A JUDGMENT ON SUCH A CLAIM WOULD NOT BE RES JUDICATA
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE MADE A PARTY TO THE
SUIT, THE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
THOSE WHO CLAIM POSSESSION.  ID.  PP. 736-737. 

2.  PURSUANT TO RULE 25(D) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL MOVED TO SUBSTITUTE AS DEFENDANTS THE NEW MEMBERS
OF THE COMMISSION FOR THOSE WHO ARE NO LONGER MEMBERS.  THIS COURT
ADDED THE NEW MEMBERS AS PETITIONERS-DEFENDANTS, AND DISMISSED AS TO A
DECEASED MEMBER, BUT RESERVED DECISION AS TO THE OTHER FORMER MEMBERS. 
HELD:  THESE QUESTIONS NOT HAVING BEEN BRIEFED OR ARGUED HERE AND THERE
BEING A POSSIBILITY THAT THE PRESENT RECORD MAY NOT PRESENT ALL THE
FACTS NECESSARY FOR DISPOSITION OF THE MOTIONS, THE ORDER OF
SUBSTITUTION IS VACATED, IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT COURT, ON REMAND OF
THE CASE, MAY PASS ON THE MOTION UNEMBARRASSED BY ANY ACTION HERE.  P.
739. 

LAND, CHAIRMAN, UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, ET AL. V. DOLLAR ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A SUIT AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF
THE MARITIME COMMISSION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A SUIT AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA REVERSED.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 28, 154 F.2D 307.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 700.  AFFIRMED, P. 739. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE PRESENT AND FORMER MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES
MARITIME COMMISSION.  RESPONDENTS ARE STOCKHOLDERS OF DOLLAR STEAMSHIP
LINES, INC., LTD. (DOLLAR OF DELAWARE), WHOSE CORPORATE NAME WAS
CHANGED TO AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXECUTION
IN 1938 OF A CONTRACT OUT OF WHICH THE PRESENT LITIGATION ARISES.  BY
1937 DOLLAR OF DELAWARE WAS IN DIFFICULT FINANCIAL STRAITS.  THE
PROBLEMS CONFRONTING IT AND THE VARIOUS STEPS TAKEN TO REMEDY THE
SITUATION NEED NOT BE RECAPITULATED HERE.  FN1  IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR
PURPOSES OF THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THIS CASE TO SAY THAT
THE COMMISSION AND RESPONDENTS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT IN 1938 BY WHICH
RESPONDENTS DELIVERED THEIR COMMON STOCK IN DOLLAR OF DELAWARE,
ENDORSED IN BLANK, TO THE COMMISSION; AND THE COMMISSION RELEASED SOME
OF RESPONDENTS FROM CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS AND AGREED TO GRANT DOLLAR OF
DELAWARE AN OPERATING SUBSIDY AND TO MAKE A LOAN TO IT AND TO OBTAIN
FOR IT ANOTHER LOAN FROM THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION. 

THE SUBSIDY WAS GRANTED AND THE LOANS WERE MADE.  BY 1943 AMERICAN
PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., HAD FULLY PAID ALL INDEBTEDNESS DUE THE UNITED
STATES.  RESPONDENTS THEREUPON DEMANDED RETURN OF THEIR SHARES OF STOCK
FROM THE THEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, CLAIMING THAT THE SHARES HAD
ONLY BEEN PLEDGED AS COLLATERAL FOR A DEBT WHICH HAD BEEN PAID.  THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO SURRENDER THE SHARES, CLAIMING
THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN PLEDGED UNDER THE 1938 CONTRACT BUT TRANSFERRED
OUTRIGHT.  ACTING ON THAT THEORY THE COMMISSION HAD INDEED OFFERED THE
SHARES FOR SALE AND HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION SUBSTANTIAL OFFERS TO
PURCHASE THEM. 

THEREUPON RESPONDENTS INSTITUTED THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SEE 11 D.C. CODE, SECS. 301, 305,
306, CLAIMING THAT PETITIONERS WERE UNLAWFULLY IN POSSESSION OF
RESPONDENTS' STOCK AND ILLEGALLY WITHHOLDING IT.  THE PRAYER WAS THAT
PETITIONERS BE RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE SHARES AND BE DIRECTED TO
RETURN THEM TO RESPONDENTS.  RESPONDENTS MOVED FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION.  PETITIONERS SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS OPPOSING THE MOTION. 
AFTER A HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, HOLDING THAT THE SUIT WAS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 28, 154 F.2D
307.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED.  FN2 

FIRST.  THE FACTS ASSERTED IN THE AFFIDAVITS SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT
THE 1938 CONTRACT CALLED FOR THE OUTRIGHT TRANSFER OF THE SHARES, NOT
FOR THEIR PLEDGE.  BUT WE PUT THE AFFIDAVITS TO ONE SIDE FOR TWO
REASONS.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE FUNCTION OF THE AFFIDAVITS WAS TO
OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.  THE CASE HAD NOT BEEN
SUBMITTED FOR DECISION ON THE MERITS.  ISSUE, INDEED, HAD NOT YET BEEN
JOINED.  AND THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AS WE READ IT, WAS BASED
ON THE PREMISE THAT SINCE THE COMMISSION HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE
CONTRACT, THE SUIT WAS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  FN3  HENCE WE DO NOT
THINK THE DISTRICT COURT IN FACT RELIED ON THE AFFIDAVITS IN DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, ALTHOUGH AS A GENERAL RULE THE
DISTRICT COURT WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS OF
JURISDICTION ON THE BASIS OF AFFIDAVITS AS WELL AS THE PLEADINGS,  FN4
THIS IS THE TYPE OF CASE WHERE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IS
DEPENDENT ON DECISION OF THE MERITS. 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, IF PROVED, WOULD ESTABLISH THAT
PETITIONERS ARE UNLAWFULLY WITHHOLDING RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY UNDER THE
CLAIM THAT IT BELONGS TO THE UNITED STATES.  THAT CONCLUSION WOULD
FOLLOW IF EITHER OF RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS WERE ESTABLISHED:  (1)
THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE THE SHARES OR ACQUIRE
THEM OUTRIGHT; OR (2) THAT, EVEN THOUGH SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTED, THE
1938 CONTRACT RESULTED NOT IN AN OUTRIGHT TRANSFER BUT IN A PLEDGE OF
THE SHARES. 

IF RESPONDENTS ARE RIGHT IN THESE CONTENTIONS, THEIR CLAIM RESTS ON
THEIR RIGHT UNDER GENERAL LAW TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF SPECIFIC
PROPERTY WRONGFULLY WITHHELD.  AT COMMON LAW THEIR SUIT AS PLEDGORS TO
RECOVER THE PLEDGED PROPERTY ON PAYMENT OF THE DEBT WOULD SOUND IN
TORT.  FN5 

IF VIEWED IN THAT POSTURE, THE CASE IS VERY CLOSE TO UNITED STATES V.
LEE, 106 U.S. 196.  THAT WAS AN ACTION IN EJECTMENT TO RECOVER
POSSESSION OF A TRACT OF LAND.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE MILITARY OFFICERS
WHO, ACTING UNDER ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT, TOOK POSSESSION OF THE LAND
AND CONVERTED ONE PART INTO A FORT AND ANOTHER INTO A CEMETERY.  FOR
THE LAWFULNESS OF THEIR POSSESSION THEY RELIED ON A TAX SALE OF THE
PROPERTY TO THE UNITED STATES.  ON THE TRIAL IT WAS HELD THAT THE CLAIM
OF THE PLAINTIFFS TO THE LAND WAS VALID AND THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE
WRONGFULLY IN POSSESSION.  THE COURT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OVER THE
OBJECTION THAT THE SUIT WAS ONE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  IT HELD
THAT THE ASSERTION BY OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THEIR AUTHORITY TO
ACT DID NOT FORECLOSE JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO THE LAWFULNESS OF THEIR
ACTION; THAT A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THEIR "AUTHORITY IS RIGHTFULLY
ASSUMED IS THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION, AND MUST LEAD TO THE DECISION
OF THE MERITS OF THE QUESTION."  P. 219.  IT FURTHER HELD THAT WHILE
SUCH AN ADJUDICATION IS NOT RES JUDICATA AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE MADE A PARTY TO THE SUIT, THE COURTS HAVE
JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THOSE WHO CLAIM
POSSESSION.  AND IT CONCLUDED THAT AN AGENT OR OFFICER OF THE UNITED
STATES WHO ACTS BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY IS ANSWERABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. 
AND SEE PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 619-620; SLOAN
SHIPYARDS CORP. V. UNITED STATES FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549, 567. 

WHERE THE RIGHT TO POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY UNDER GENERAL
LAW IS IN ISSUE, AND THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM AS OFFICERS OR AGENTS OF THE
SOVEREIGN, THE RULE OF UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA, HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
APPROVED.  CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK R. CO., 109 U.S. 446, 452;
TINDAL V. WESLEY, 167 U.S. 204; SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S. 436, 439;
SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141, 152-153; PHILADELPHIA CO. V.
STIMSON, SUPRA, PP. 619-620; GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536, 545; ICKES
V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82, 96; GREAT NORTHERN LIFE INS. CO. V. READ, 322 U.S.
47, 50-51.  THAT RULE IS APPLICABLE HERE ALTHOUGH WE ASSUME THAT RECORD
TITLE TO THE SHARES IS IN THE COMMISSION.  IN UNITED STATES V. LEE,
SUPRA, RECORD TITLE OF THE LAND WAS IN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS
OFFICERS WERE IN POSSESSION.  THE FORCE OF THE DECREE IN THAT CASE WAS
TO GRANT POSSESSION TO THE PRIVATE CLAIMANT.  THOUGH THE JUDGMENT WAS
NOT RES JUDICATA AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, P. 222, IT SETTLED AS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES THE CONTROVERSY OVER POSSESSION.  PRECISELY THE
SAME WILL BE TRUE HERE, IF WE ASSUME THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
ARE PROVED.  FOR IF WE VIEW THE CASE IN ITS POSTURE BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT, PETITIONERS, BEING MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, WERE IN POSITION
TO RESTORE POSSESSION OF THE SHARES WHICH THEY UNLAWFULLY HELD. 

WE DO NOT TRACE THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA, IN ITS
VARIOUS RAMIFICATIONS.  CASES ON WHICH PETITIONERS RELY ARE
DISTINGUISHABLE.  THIS IS NOT AN INDIRECT ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT
FROM THE UNITED STATES BY PREVENTING ACTION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
WHICH WOULD ALTER OR TERMINATE THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED
STATES TO PAY MONEY.  SEE WELLS V. ROPER, 246 U.S. 335; MINE SAFETY CO.
V. FORRESTAL, 326 U.S. 371.  IT IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO GET SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT TO DELIVER PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
GOLDBERG V. DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218.  IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE
SOVEREIGN ADMITTEDLY HAS TITLE TO PROPERTY AND IS SUED BY THOSE WHO
SEEK TO COMPEL A CONVEYANCE OR TO ENJOIN DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY,
THE ADVERSE CLAIMS BEING BASED ON AN ALLEGEDLY SUPERIOR EQUITY OR ON
RIGHTS ARISING UNDER ACTS OF CONGRESS.  CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK
R. CO., SUPRA; MINNESOTA V. HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373; OREGON V.
HITCHCOCK, 202 U.S. 60; NAGANAB V. HITCHCOCK, 202 U.S. 473; LOUISIANA
V. GARFIELD, 211 U.S. 70; MORRISON V. WORK, 266 U.S. 481.  AND SEE
STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255, 271-272. 

WE SAY THE FOREGOING CASES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRESENT ONE,
THOUGH AS A MATTER OF LOGIC IT IS NOT EASY TO RECONCILE ALL OF THEM. 
BUT THE RULE IS BASED ON PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS REFLECTED IN THE
POLICY WHICH FORBIDS SUITS AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. 
THE "ESSENTIAL NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE PROCEEDING" MAY BE SUCH AS TO
MAKE PLAIN THAT THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT WOULD EXPEND ITSELF ON THE PUBLIC
TREASURY OR DOMAIN, OR INTERFERE WITH THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION.  EX
PARTE NEW YORK, 256 U.S. 490, 500, 502.  IF SO, THE SUIT IS ONE AGAINST
THE SOVEREIGN.  MINE SAFETY CO. V. FORRESTAL, SUPRA, P. 374.  BUT
PUBLIC OFFICIALS MAY BECOME TORT-FEASORS BY EXCEEDING THE LIMITS OF
THEIR AUTHORITY.  AND WHERE THEY UNLAWFULLY SEIZE OR HOLD A CITIZEN'S
REALTY OR CHATTELS, RECOVERABLE BY APPROPRIATE ACTION AT LAW OR IN
EQUITY, HE IS NOT RELEGATED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER A MONEY
JUDGMENT.  THE DOMINANT INTEREST OF THE SOVEREIGN IS THEN ON THE SIDE
OF THE VICTIM WHO MAY BRING HIS POSSESSORY ACTION TO RECLAIM THAT WHICH
IS WRONGFULLY WITHHELD. 

IT IS IN THE LATTER CATEGORY THAT THE PLEADINGS HAVE CAST THIS CASE. 
THAT IS TO SAY, IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION ARE TRUE, THE SHARES
OF STOCK NEVER WERE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND ARE BEING
WRONGFULLY WITHHELD BY PETITIONERS WHO ACTED IN EXCESS OF THEIR
AUTHORITY AS PUBLIC OFFICERS.  IF OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES IS IN THE
UNITED STATES, SUIT TO RECOVER THEM WOULD OF COURSE BE A SUIT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES.  BUT IF IT IS DECIDED ON THE MERITS EITHER THAT THE
CONTRACT WAS ILLEGAL OR THAT RESPONDENTS ARE PLEDGORS, THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF THE SHARES AS AGAINST PETITIONERS, THOUGH, AS
WE HAVE SAID, THE JUDGMENT WOULD NOT BE RES JUDICATA AS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA, P. 222. 

WE INTIMATE NO OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY.  WE ONLY
HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ITS
JURISDICTION BY PROCEEDING TO A DECISION ON THE MERITS. 

SECOND.  MOTIONS WERE MADE BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TO SUBSTITUTE AS
DEFENDANTS THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR THOSE WHO ARE NO
LONGER MEMBERS.  FN6  WE ADDED THE NEW MEMBERS AS PETITIONERS
DEFENDANTS, AND DISMISSED AS TO A DECEASED MEMBER, BUT RESERVED
DECISION AS TO THE OTHER FORMER MEMBERS.  A MAJORITY OF THOSE JOINING
IN THIS OPINION ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE THAT BOTH
MOTIONS BE CONSIDERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE QUESTIONS HAVE NOT
BEEN BRIEFED OR ARGUED HERE.  MOREOVER, THE PRESENT RECORD MAY NOT
PRESENT ALL THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR DISPOSITION OF THE MOTIONS. 
ACCORDINGLY, WE VACATE THE ORDER OF SUBSTITUTION WHICH WE ENTERED, SO
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT MAY, ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE, PASS ON THE
MOTIONS UNEMBARRASSED BY ANY ACTION HERE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE DETAILS OF THE DIFFICULTIES, AND THE STEPS TAKEN TO REMEDY
THEM ARE CONTAINED IN TWO REPORTS TO CONGRESS BY THE COMMISSION:  (1)
FINANCIAL READJUSTMENTS IN DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., LTD., DATED
FEBRUARY 17, 1938; (2) REORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES,
LTD., DATED APRIL 10, 1939. 

FN2  ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT BELOW WAS NOT A FINAL ONE, WE CONSIDERED
IT APPROPRIATE FOR REVIEW BECAUSE IT INVOLVED AN ISSUE "FUNDAMENTAL TO
THE FURTHER CONDUCT OF THE CASE."  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS
CORP., 323 U.S. 373, 377. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT SAID:  "...  I THINK  ...  THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT; AND THEREFORE I THINK IT IS INESCAPABLE
THAT THIS IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND THEREFORE THAT THE
COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED  ..." 

FN4  IN PASSING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO
STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT ARE
ASSUMED TO BE TRUE AND AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE PRODUCED ON
APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED.  POLK
CO. V. GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5, 9; GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66, 76.  BUT WHEN
A QUESTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION IS RAISED, EITHER BY A
PARTY OR BY THE COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION, JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 37, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 80, FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B), THE COURT MAY INQUIRE, BY
AFFIDAVITS OR OTHERWISE, INTO THE FACTS AS THEY EXIST.  WETMORE V.
RYMER, 169 U.S. 115, 120-121; MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 298 U.S.
178, 184 ET SEQ.; KVOS, INC. V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 299 U.S. 269, 278. 
AS STATED IN GIBBS V. BUCK, SUPRA, PP. 71-72, "AS THERE IS NO STATUTORY
DIRECTION FOR PROCEDURE UPON AN ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, THE MODE OF ITS
DETERMINATION IS LEFT TO THE TRIAL COURT."    FN5  RESTATEMENT OF THE
LAW OF TORTS, SECS. 223, 237; 3 STREET, FOUNDATIONS OF LEGAL LIABILITY
(1906), P. 160. 

FN6  SEE FED. R. CIV. P. 25(D); ALLEN V. REGENTS, 304 U.S. 439, 444
445. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING.    AS I THINK THIS PROCEEDING STATES A
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, I DO NOT
AGREE WITH THE MANNER OF DISPOSITION.  NO DAMAGES ARE SOUGHT AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS.  RELIEF IS SOUGHT THAT CAN ONLY BE OBTAINED BY AN
ORDER DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMISSION. 

A CONTRACT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS, DOLLAR ET AL., AND THE UNITED STATES
MARITIME COMMISSION, WAS ATTACHED TO THE COMPLAINT AS AN EXHIBIT.  THE
CONTRACT WAS NOT SIGNED BY ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION BUT
BY THE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS DULY AUTHORIZED SPECIAL COUNSEL.  IN THE
COMPLAINT, RESPONDENTS ALLEGED THAT THEY AND THEIR PREDECESSORS IN
INTEREST "CAUSED SAID SHARES OF STOCK OF THE COMPANY TO BE TRANSFERRED
TO THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION."  THEY FURTHER ALLEGED THAT
THEY MADE DEMAND UPON THE "MARITIME COMMISSION FOR THE RETURN OF SAID
STOCK IN JULY, 1945.  THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED BY THE MARITIME
COMMISSION IN JULY, 1945."  THE ULTIMATE RESULT SOUGHT BY THE COMPLAINT
WAS THAT THE RESPONDENTS "BE DIRECTED AND ORDERED BY THIS COURT TO
RETURN THE PLAINTIFFS' STOCK, NOW IN THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION AND
CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANTS, TO THE PLAINTIFFS, THE LAWFUL OWNERS." 
TAKEN AS A WHOLE, I CANNOT READ THE COMPLAINT OTHERWISE THAN AS
ALLEGING THAT TITLE AND POSSESSION OF THIS STOCK IS NOW IN THE UNITED
STATES MARITIME COMMISSION.  ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS ASSERT POSSESSION IN
THE DEFENDANTS, THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS AND THE ATTACHED CONTRACT SHOW
THAT DEFENDANTS HOLD THE STOCK BY VIRTUE OF THEIR OFFICIAL POSITIONS AS
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.  IF THE BASIC ALLEGATIONS WERE PROVEN, THE
COMMISSION WOULD BE SHOWN TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE STOCK UNDER A
CLAIM OF RIGHT. 

IF THAT IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPLAINT, IT FOLLOWS OF
COURSE THAT THE MARITIME COMMISSION IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO THIS
PROCEEDING.  SEE COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. SMITH, 266 U.S. 152, 159. 
NO MATTER HOW FAR BEYOND THEIR STATUTORY POWERS THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION MAY HAVE ACTED IN CONTRACTING WITH THE RESPONDENTS OR HOW
ILLEGAL MAY BE THE RETENTION OF THE CERTIFICATES BY THE COMMISSION
UNDER ITS CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP THROUGH THE CONTRACT, THE TRANSFER TO THE
COMMISSION, AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION, PUT THE TITLE AND POSSESSION OF
THIS PROPERTY IN THE MARITIME COMMISSION AND NOT IN THE PETITIONERS AS
INDIVIDUALS.  IT MAY BE THAT THE COMMISSION HOLDS THE STOCK WRONGFULLY;
BUT, IF SO, IT CAN ONLY BE RESTORED TO THE RESPONDENTS BY AN ACT OF THE
COMMISSION.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, CASES LIKE UNITED STATES V. LEE,
106 U.S. 196, ARE INAPPLICABLE.  IN THE LEE CASE, AN ACTION IN
EJECTMENT WAS BROUGHT TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF LAND FROM OFFICERS OF
THE UNITED STATES WHO WERE WRONGFULLY IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND.  THAT
SUIT WAS NOT BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO COMPEL THE UNITED
STATES TO RETRANSFER TITLE TO THE COMPLAINANTS OR TO QUIET TITLE IN
THOSE WHO CLAIMED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  IN UNITED STATES V. LEE,
THE OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES COULD BE EJECTED FROM THE REAL
PROPERTY INVOLVED WITHOUT LOSS OF TITLE OR RIGHT OF POSSESSION TO THE
UNITED STATES.  THAT IS NOT THE RESULT IN THIS CASE.  A PIECE OF PAPER,
THE STOCK CERTIFICATE, WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE HANDS OF THE MARITIME
COMMISSION AND PLACED IN THE HANDS OF PLAINTIFFS BY A COURT DECREE, IF
PLAINTIFFS ARE SUCCESSFUL.  IF THE DECREE IS TO BE EFFECTIVE, IT WILL
REQUIRE THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS TO TRANSFER THE CERTIFICATES BY
ENDORSEMENT OF THE NAME OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION OR DELIVERY, IF THE
CERTIFICATE IS STILL IN THE NAME OF THE PLAINTIFFS.  THE SITUATION IS
AS IF THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN ORDERED BY THE DECREE IN THE LEE CASE
TO CONVEY TITLE TO AND POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO LEE.  PLAINTIFFS
DO NOT HERE SEEK DAMAGES FOR PAST ACTS OF PETITIONERS.  PLAINTIFFS WANT
PROPERTY NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION AND TO SECURE
THIS RELIEF, PLAINTIFFS, I SHOULD THINK, MUST IMPLEAD THE COMMISSION. 
WHETHER THE MARITIME COMMISSION HOLDS THE PROPERTY BY TITLE
UNCHALLENGED BY THE PLAINTIFFS OR CHALLENGED BY THE PLAINTIFFS CANNOT,
IT SEEMS TO ME, BE DETERMINATIVE AS TO THE NECESSITY OF MAKING THE
COMMISSION A PARTY.  SEE GOLDBERG V. DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218. 

CASES CITED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT AS FOLLOWING THE RULE OF
UNITED STATES V. LEE ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT HERE.  TWO ARE SIMILAR CASES
OF EJECTMENT.  FN1  OTHER CASES CITED TURN ON LIABILITY OF A SOVEREIGN
TO SUITS.  FN2  STILL OTHERS ARE THOSE WHICH ENJOIN AN OFFICER FROM
PROCEEDING ILLEGALLY.  FN3  IN GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536, 539, 549,
THERE WAS A SUIT BY A LESSEE TO ENJOIN OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
FROM TAKING POSSESSION OF BOATS LEASED TO THE PLAINTIFF BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND ALSO TO RETURN THE BOATS ALREADY TAKEN.  THE PRAYER FOR
A RETURN OF THE PROPERTY CONTAINED THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ISSUE HERE
RAISED BUT THIS COURT TREATED THE PROCEEDING AS ONE TO ENJOIN A
THREATENED TRESPASS. 

THE PRESENT SUIT IS FOR THE RETURN TO THE PLAINTIFFS OF PROPERTY HELD
BY THE MARITIME COMMISSION UNDER A CONTRACT WHICH THE DOLLAR INTERESTS
ALLEGE CALLED FOR A RETURN OF THE CERTIFICATES TO THEM ON PAYMENT OF A
DEBT.  SUCH A SUIT, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS AN EFFORT TO GET POSSESSION OF
PROPERTY ACTUALLY IN THE POSSESSION OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION.  THIS
CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT JOINING THE MARITIME COMMISSION AS A PARTY
DEFENDANT.  SEE GOLDBERG V. DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218; WELLS V. ROPER, 246
U.S. 335; MORRISON V. WORK, 266 U.S. 481, 487; MINE SAFETY CO. V.
FORRESTAL, 326 U.S. 371. 

AS THIS APPEARS TO ME AS A SUIT AGAINST THE COMMISSION, I WOULD
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THERE THE QUESTIONS OF THE SUABILITY OF THE COMMISSION
FN4  AND THE EFFECT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT OF JUNE 11,
1946, COULD BE CONSIDERED.  THERE THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY COULD
BE DECIDED. 

FN1  TINDAL V. WESLEY, 167 U.S. 204; SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S.
141. 

FN2  CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK R. CO., 109 U.S. 446; SMITH V.
REEVES, 178 U.S. 436; GREAT NORTHERN INS. CO. V. READ, 322 U.S. 47. 

FN3  ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82; PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S.
605. 

FN4  MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 49 STAT. 1988, SEC. 207, AS AMENDED, 52
STAT. 954, SEC. 2: 

"THE COMMISSION MAY ENTER INTO SUCH CONTRACTS, UPON BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND MAY MAKE SUCH DISBURSEMENTS AS MAY, IN ITS
DISCRETION, BE NECESSARY TO CARRY ON THE ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY THIS
ACT, OR TO PROTECT, PRESERVE, OR IMPROVE THE COLLATERAL HELD BY THE
COMMISSION TO SECURE INDEBTEDNESS, IN THE SAME MANNER THAT A PRIVATE
CORPORATION MAY CONTRACT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY
ITS CHARTER."  KEIFER & KEIFER V. R.F.C., 306 U.S. 381. 
..END :
























BRUCE'S JUICES V. AMER. CAN CO., 330 U.S. 743 


NO. 27.  REARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 7, 1947.  - 155
FLA. 877, 22 SO.2D 461, AFFIRMED. 


IN A SUIT BY A SELLER AGAINST A BUYER ON NOTES GIVEN FOR THE
ACCUMULATED BALANCE REMAINING ON A RUNNING ACCOUNT OF SALES AND CREDITS
OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, IT IS NO DEFENSE THAT THE SELLER HAD ENGAGED IN
PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST THE BUYER IN VIOLATION OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT, WHICH PRESCRIBES CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND ENTITLES INJURED
PERSONS TO TRIPLE DAMAGES, BUT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY MAKE THE CONTRACT OF
SALE ILLEGAL OR THE PURCHASE PRICE UNCOLLECTIBLE.  PP. 750-757. 

BRUCE'S JUICES, INC. V. AMERICAN CAN CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT ON CERTAIN NOTES FOR
THE UNPAID BALANCE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF GOODS.  155 FLA. 877, 22
SO.2D 461.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 326 U.S. 711, AND AFFIRMED
THE JUDGMENT BELOW BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT.  327 U.S. 758.  IT
GRANTED A REHEARING AND RESTORED THE CAUSE TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT
BEFORE A FULL BENCH.  327 U.S. 812.  AFFIRMED, P. 757. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH SURVIVES PROCEEDINGS IN THE FLORIDA STATE
COURTS IS WHETHER RENEWAL NOTES REPRESENTING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF
GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED ARE UNCOLLECTIBLE IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE
VENDOR VIOLATED THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, 49 STAT. 1526, 1528; 15 U.S.C.
SECS. 13, 13A. 

BRUCE IS A CANNER AND, OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, BOUGHT ITS CANS
CHIEFLY FROM THE AMERICAN CAN COMPANY.  A DEBT ACCUMULATED WHICH WAS
PUT INTO PROMISSORY NOTES AND ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS THEY WERE
RENEWED, REDUCED BY AMOUNTS WHICH HAD BEEN PAID.  UPON EVENTUAL
DEFAULT, TWO SUITS, LATER CONSOLIDATED, WERE BROUGHT ON RENEWAL NOTES
AGGREGATING ABOUT $114,000.  AS TO EACH NOTE, BRUCE PLEADED IN DEFENSE
THAT "THE CONSIDERATION FOR SAID NOTES IS ILLEGAL AND SAID NOTES VOID
AND OF NO FORCE AND EFFECT."  THIS WAS SAID TO BE FOR THE REASON THAT
THE CAN COMPANY HAD SOLD TO OTHERS AT PRICES WHICH DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST BRUCE AND THEREBY VIOLATED THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT. 

THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION CHIEFLY RELIED UPON CONSISTED OF QUANTITY
DISCOUNTS.  ANNUAL PURCHASES BY BRUCE WERE ABOUT $350,000.  SOME OTHER
CANNERS BOUGHT MUCH LARGER QUANTITIES.  THE CAN COMPANY'S CONTRACT WITH
ALL ITS CUSTOMERS ALLOWED A DISCOUNT OF 1% ON ANNUAL PURCHASES OF
$500,000, AND NOTHING TO THOSE WHOSE PURCHASES WERE LESS THAN THAT.  IT
WAS SO GRADUATED AS TO GIVE A MAXIMUM DISCOUNT OF 5% TO A CUSTOMER
WHOSE PURCHASES WERE $7,000,000 A YEAR.  THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT
RELATIVELY SMALL PACKERS PAY 5% MORE FOR THEIR CANS THAN THEIR LARGEST
COMPETITORS. 

IT IS CLAIMED THAT THIS ADVANTAGE TO QUANTITY BUYERS RENDERS THE
QUANTITY DISCOUNT PER SE A VIOLATION OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  TO
SUSTAIN THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO SO HOLD.  IT
IS NOT DENIED THAT BRUCE GOT THE SAME DISCOUNTS AS OTHER PURCHASERS OF
LIKE QUANTITIES WHEN IT QUALIFIED, AND IN ONE YEAR BRUCE WAS IN THE
$500,000 BRACKET AND RECEIVED THE 1% DISCOUNT.  IT IS NOT CLAIMED THAT
THE CAN COMPANY FAILED TO GIVE DISCOUNTS WHERE EARNED UNDER THIS
UNIFORM CONTRACT, OR THAT DISCOUNTS WERE GIVEN WHERE NOT SO EARNED. 
BRUCE RECEIVED THE SAME DISCOUNTS AS OTHERS WITHIN ITS CLASSIFICATION
AND IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT HAD IT BEEN A PURCHASER OF LARGER
QUANTITIES IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED THE SAME DISCOUNT AS OTHER
PURCHASERS OF THAT CLASS. 

BEFORE A COURT COULD SUSTAIN THE DEFENSE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT
WOULD ALSO HAVE TO OVERCOME OTHER DIFFICULTIES OF LAW AND FACT.  THE
ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT ALL QUANTITY DISCOUNTS BUT EXPRESSLY PERMITS THEM
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  IT INDICATES, TOO, THAT THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION IS THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUNAL TO HEAR IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
THE COMPLICATED ISSUES GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES AGAINST A QUANTITY
DISCOUNT PRACTICE OF A SELLER.  49 STAT. 1526; 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(A). 
QUANTITY DISCOUNTS ARE AMONG THE OLDEST, MOST WIDELY EMPLOYED AND BEST
KNOWN OF DISCOUNT PRACTICES.  THEY ARE COMMON IN RETAIL TRADE,
WHOLESALE TRADE, AND MANUFACTURER-JOBBER RELATIONS.  THEY ARE COMMON IN
REGULATED AS WELL AS UNREGULATED PRICE STRUCTURES.  CONGRESS REFUSED TO
DECLARE FLATLY THAT THEY ARE ILLEGAL.  THEY BECOME ILLEGAL ONLY UNDER
CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND WHEN THEY ARE ILLEGAL IT IS AS MUCH A VIOLATION
TO ACCEPT OR RECEIVE AS TO ALLOW THEM.  BRUCE, IN ONE OF THE YEARS
INCLUDED IN ITS BALANCE OF ACCOUNT, PURCHASED MORE THAN A HALF MILLION
DOLLARS OF CANS ON WHICH IT RECEIVED PRECISELY THE KIND AND AMOUNT OF
DISCOUNT IT NOW ASSERTS TO BE ILLEGAL. 

THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT SUCH A REMEDY AS BRUCE SEEKS HERE WOULD
SUPPORT THE ANTI-MONOPOLY POLICY OF CONGRESS.  BUT BRUCE IS NOT
COMPLAINING OF THE HIGH PRICE OF CANS.  BRUCE COMPLAINS OF A LOWER
PRICE FOR CANS TO OTHERS - WHICH WOULD ENABLE COMPETITORS TO PUT THEIR
PRODUCTS ON THE MARKET CHEAPER.  THIS MAY WELL PUT BRUCE TO SOME
DISADVANTAGE, BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT CONGRESS WOULD FORBID THE
SAVINGS OF LARGE-SCALE MASS PRODUCTION TO BE PASSED ALONG TO
CONSUMERS.  THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS ON COMPETITION OF SUCH DISCOUNTS ARE
FOR THE TRADE COMMISSION TO JUDGE.  UNTIL THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED
THE QUESTION, COURTS ARE NOT GIVEN GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST DOES REQUIRE CONCERNING THE HARM OR BENEFIT OF THESE QUANTITY
DISCOUNTS ON THE ULTIMATE PUBLIC INTERESTS SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED IN
THE ACT.  IT WOULD BE A FARREACHING DECISION TO OUTLAW ALL QUANTITY
DISCOUNTS.  COURTS SHOULD NOT RUSH IN WHERE CONGRESS FEARED TO TREAD. 

BECAUSE OF A MORE FUNDAMENTAL DEFECT IN PETITIONER'S CASE, HOWEVER,
THE COURT DOES NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THESE
FEATURES OF THE ACT ON THIS CASE, AS WOULD BE NECESSARY BEFORE A
CONCLUSION COULD BE REACHED THAT PETITIONER SHOULD WIN ON THE MERITS. 
ON THE QUESTIONS OF FACT, CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN AT PRE-TRIAL
HEARINGS AND THE PARTIES ARE IN DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE DECISION
THEREON WAS A FINAL JUDGMENT AND, IF SO, AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENSE WAS
NOT ALSO ADJUDICATED TO BE INSUFFICIENT ON THE FACTS.  ALTHOUGH THE
RECORD IS UNSATISFACTORY, WE TAKE IT THAT ALL OF THE SALES EVIDENCED BY
THE NOTES WERE MADE AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  IT
APPEARS, HOWEVER, THAT THE NOTES ARE NOT IDENTIFIED WITH ANY PARTICULAR
SALE BUT REPRESENT A BALANCE REMAINING ON A RUNNING ACCOUNT OF SALES
AND CREDITS IN MANY OF WHICH A CLAIM OF DISCRIMINATION MIGHT NOT BE
SUPPORTABLE.  THE INDEBTEDNESS THEY SUPPLANT IS CONCEDED TO HAVE BEEN
INCURRED BEFORE FEBRUARY, 1940.  THE PURCHASES COVERED AT LEAST A FOUR
YEAR PERIOD AND INVOLVED TWO TYPES OF CANS.  THE PURCHASE PRICE WHICH
BRUCE ASKS US TO EXCUSE IT FROM PAYING IS NOT IDENTIFIED EITHER AS TO
TYPE OF CAN OR DATE OF TRANSACTION.  BUT PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT IT IS
NOT NECESSARY IN PROVING A DISCRIMINATION TO SHOW THAT OTHERS RECEIVED
A DIFFERENT DISCOUNT ON THE SAME TYPE OF CAN AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME
TIME "BECAUSE THE SCHEME OF DISCOUNT BY AGGREGATE DOLLAR VOLUME OF
ANNUAL SALES COMPREHENDS ALL CANS BOUGHT WHATEVER THEIR SIZE OR
PRICE."  TO SUSTAIN THIS POSITION WOULD MEAN THAT A SALE TO A
COMPETITOR OF LARGE CANS IN 1940 AT A HIGHER DISCOUNT INVALIDATED A
SALE OF SMALL CANS TO PETITIONER IN 1936 SO THAT PETITIONER NEED NOT
PAY THE CONTRACT PRICE FOR CANS DELIVERED THAT YEAR.  THE CONTENTION IS
SIMPLY THAT IF SOME PURCHASERS GOT LARGER DISCOUNTS ON ANY BILL FOR
CANS THAN PETITIONER GOT, THE BILL AGAINST PETITIONER AND NOTES IN
SETTLEMENT AND EXTENSION OF IT ARE UNCOLLECTIBLE. 

HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION, IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAIN
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW, WE ASSUME, BUT DO NOT DECIDE, THAT THE
DEFENSE ON THE FACTS HAS BEEN OR COULD BE ESTABLISHED AS PLEADED.  WE
DO NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE QUANTITY DISCOUNT PLAN, WHATEVER THE FACTS
WERE, VIOLATED THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  THE SOLE QUESTION WE DECIDE IS
WHETHER NOTES GIVEN FOR PURCHASES ARE UNENFORCEABLE IF THE QUANTITY
DISCOUNT PLAN VIOLATES THE ACT.  PETITIONER SUGGESTS THAT THE COURT MAY
TAKE TWO PATHS TO THE ANSWER, BUT THAT THE ANSWER WILL BE YES.  THE
BROAD GROUND PETITIONER OFFERS IS "THAT A TRANSACTION UNLAWFUL UNDER
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT CONSTITUTES CRIMINAL CONDUCT UPON WHICH NO
MONEY JUDGMENT CAN BE BASED."  PETITIONER ALSO OFFERS A NARROW GROUND
ON WHICH WE CAN YET DECIDE IN ITS FAVOR.  "BUT, IF IT BE ADMITTED THAT
THE BUYER IS ENTITLED TO THE FAIR VALUE OF THE GOODS," PETITIONER SAYS,
RESPONDENT PROBABLY ALREADY HAS BEEN PAID THE FAIR VALUE OF ALL THE
CANS BOUGHT IN 1936-40.  WHEN THAT VALUE HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE
TRIAL COURT, IT URGES, IT WILL BE FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT IN NOTES IS
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT OF DISCRIMINATION IN DISCOUNT. 
FN1 

IN EFFECT, PETITIONER IS TREATING THE $114,000 IN NOTES AS
REPRESENTING THE DISCOUNT IT CLAIMS IT SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN ON ITS 1937
42 PURCHASES OF $2,000,000.  THIS ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT IS THAT
PETITIONER IS LIABLE ONLY FOR THE FAIR VALUE OF ALL THE CANS IT BOUGHT,
AND IN THIS SUIT IT ASKS THE COURTS TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT FAIR VALUE
WAS.  BUT THE FACT IS THAT AS TO THE TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH PETITIONER
PAID $2,000,000 IT HAS ALREADY PAID THE AGREED PRICE.  THOSE
TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED WITH PARTICULARITY, BUT THEY WERE
PAID FOR AT RESPONDENT'S PRICES.  PETITIONER DID NOT ALLEGE AND DOES
NOT CONTEND THAT THE NOTES REPRESENT SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS OR THAT THE
SALES FOR WHICH THEY WERE GIVEN COULD BE IDENTIFIED.  MR. BRUCE
CONCEDED IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT THE NOTES SIMPLY REPRESENT A BALANCE OF
AN ACCOUNT WHICH MINGLED THE PRICES OF INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS N2.  IN
ITS BRIEF HERE, PETITIONER'S ONLY RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT
THAT "NONE OF THE ORIGINAL NOTES  ...  HAD BEEN TIED TO A PARTICULAR
TRANSACTION" IS THAT "THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ALL OF THE NOTES ARE TIED
TO THE ENTIRE SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS."  THERE MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL
EQUIVALENCE NUMERICALLY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE NOTES AND THE AMOUNT OF
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION, BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE NOTES REPRESENT
THE SEPARATE ITEM OF PRICE DISCRIMINATION.  FN3 

THE ACT PRESCRIBES SANCTIONS, AND IT DOES NOT MAKE UNCOLLECTIBILITY
OF THE PURCHASE PRICE ONE OF THEM.  VIOLATION OF THE ACT IS MADE
CRIMINAL AND UPON CONVICTION A VIOLATOR MAY BE FINED OR IMPRISONED.  49
STAT. 1528, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13A.  ANY PERSON WHO IS INJURED IN HIS
BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY REASON OF ANYTHING FORBIDDEN THEREIN MAY SUE
AND RECOVER THREEFOLD THE DAMAGES BY HIM SUSTAINED AND THE COSTS OF
SUIT, INCLUDING A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE.  38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 15.  THIS TRIPLE DAMAGE PROVISION TO REDRESS PRIVATE INJURY AND
THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ARE THE ONLY
SANCTIONS PROVIDED BY CONGRESS. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT WE SHOULD ACT JUDICIALLY TO ADD A SANCTION NOT
PROVIDED BY CONGRESS BY DECLARING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF GOODS
UNCOLLECTIBLE WHERE THE VENDOR HAS VIOLATED THE ACT.  IT MAY BE
ADMITTED AS ARGUED THAT SUCH A SANCTION WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE
ENFORCEMENT PROVISION.  ADDRESSED TO CONGRESS, THIS ARGUMENT MIGHT BE
PERSUASIVE, BUT THE VERY FACT THAT IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE AN EFFECTIVE
SANCTION MAKES IT EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT THAT THE ACT MADE NO PROVISION
FOR IT; THAT NO COMMITTEE DEALING WITH THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT PROPOSED
IT; THAT NOT ONE WORD SUGGESTING ITS CONSIDERATION APPEARS IN THE
DEBATES OF CONGRESS; NO PROPONENT OF THE ACT POINTED OUT IN ITS FAVOR
THAT IT WOULD BE SELF-ENFORCING BECAUSE OF THIS SANCTION; AND NO
OPPONENT POINTED WITH ALARM TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A DRASTIC
SANCTION ON THE COMMERCE OF THE NATION.  ON THE CONTRARY, A PROPOSED
PROVISION OF THE ACT, PASSED ONLY BY THE SENATE WHICH LATER RECEDED,
SHOWS THAT CONGRESS GAVE CONSIDERATION TO NO SANCTION MORE EXTREME THAN
TO COMPEL THE REMISSION OF THE EXCESS CHARGED.  SEE S. 3154, SEC. 2(D),
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., S. REP. NO. 1502, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 8:
CONFERENCE REP., H. REP. NO. 2951, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 8. 
CONGRESS DECLINED TO ADOPT THIS RELATIVELY MODERATE PROVISION AND AT NO
TIME DOES IT APPEAR THAT EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS WANTED TO GO SO FAR
AS TO PERMIT A BUYER TO GET GOODS FOR NOTHING. 

WHERE THE INTERESTS OF INDIVIDUALS OR PRIVATE GROUPS OR THOSE WHO
BEAR A SPECIAL RELATION TO THE PROHIBITION OF A STATUTE ARE IDENTICAL
WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN HAVING A STATUTE ENFORCED, IT IS NOT
UNCOMMON TO PERMIT THEM TO INVOKE SANCTIONS.  THIS STIMULATES ONE SET
OF PRIVATE INTEREST TO COMBAT TRANSGRESSIONS BY ANOTHER WITHOUT RESORT
TO GOVERNMENTAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.  SUCH REMEDIES HAVE THE ADVANTAGE
OF PUTTING BACK OF SUCH STATUTES A STRONG AND RELIABLE MOTIVE FOR
ENFORCEMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT OF COST OF ENFORCEMENT. 
SUCH PRIVATE REMEDIES LOSE, OF COURSE, WHATEVER ADVANTAGE THERE MAY BE
IN THE PRESUMED DISINTERESTED, PUBLIC INTEREST STANDARDS AND EXPERTNESS
OF A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY WHICH HAS THE INITIATIVE CONTROL OF
RETRIBUTORY MEASURES.  IT IS CLEAR CONGRESS INTENDED TO USE PRIVATE
SELF-INTEREST AS A MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT AND TO ARM INJURED PERSONS WITH
PRIVATE MEANS TO RETRIBUTION WHEN IT GAVE TO ANY INJURED PARTY A
PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION IN WHICH HIS DAMAGES ARE TO BE MADE GOOD
THREEFOLD, WITH COSTS OF SUIT AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE. 

BRUCE, IT APPEARS, ALREADY HAS UNDERTAKEN THE TRIPLE DAMAGE SUIT
REMEDY AGAINST THE CAN COMPANY.  BRUCE'S JUICES, INC. V. AMERICAN CAN
CO., NO. 569, CIV. T., S.D. FLA., 1942.  TO INDICATE ITS NEED THAT THE
COURT ESTABLISH THIS ADDITIONAL REMEDY UNAUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, IT
SEEKS TO DISCREDIT AND BELITTLE BOTH OF THE REMEDIES CONGRESS HAS
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED.  IT SAYS, "THE TRIPLE DAMAGE SUIT IS LIKELY TO
PROVE PROTRACTED AND EXPENSIVE; DAMAGES CAUSED BY A DISADVANTAGEOUS
COMPETITIVE POSITION ARE SO SPECULATIVE AS TO BE USUALLY UNPROVABLE. 
NOR CAN THE BUYER RELY FOR PROTECTION UPON THE ACTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
MAY NEVER GET AROUND TO THE MATTER."  IT IS A LITTLE DUBIOUS WHETHER
THE SORT OF REMEDY WHICH HAS BEEN IN LITIGATION OVER FOUR YEARS IN THIS
CASE WHICH BRUCE ASKS US TO REVERSE AND SEND BACK AGAIN, IS AN ANTIDOTE
FOR "PROTRACTED AND EXPENSIVE" TRIPLE DAMAGE SUITS.  MOREOVER, IF BRUCE
CAN IN THIS SUIT PROVE THAT THE PRICES RESPONDENT CHARGED WERE ILLEGAL,
AS IT MUST IN ORDER TO WIN, IT CAN DO THE SAME IN A TRIPLE DAMAGE
SUIT.  THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION ARE NO MORE
"SPECULATIVE" NOR "UNPROVABLE" IN ONE SUIT THAN IN THE OTHER, AND THEIR
ESTABLISHMENT IN THE STATUTORY FORM OF ACTION CARRIES A BONUS. 

ANNEXATION OF THE PROPOSED DEFENSE TO THE STATUTE BY IMPLICATION
EITHER AS AN INFERENCE OF UNEXPRESSED INTENTION OF CONGRESS OR AS THE
RESULT OF SOME DOCTRINE OF COMMON LAW, WOULD BE JUSTIFIED ONLY IF IT
WOULD BE AT LEAST A RATIONAL, NONDISCRIMINATORY AND APPROPRIATE MEANS
OF MAKING THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE EFFECTIVE.  TO ALLOW A BUYER TO GET
HIS GOODS FOR NOTHING BECAUSE THE SELLER VIOLATED THE ACT BY GIVING
SOMEONE ELSE A GREATER DISCOUNT, DOES NOT MEET THIS TEST. 

IT WOULD SEEM THAT ONE TEST OF THE RATIONALITY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF
SUCH A DEFENSE BECAUSE OF A VIOLATION OF THE ACT WOULD BE THAT THE
REPARATION IT PERMITS SHOULD BE MEASURED AT LEAST ROUGHLY BY THE EXTENT
OF THE INJURY CAUSED BY THE VIOLATION.  THIS, OF COURSE, IS THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE SUIT FOR TRIPLE DAMAGES.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE DEFENSE HERE URGED.  THE EXTENT OF ITS INDEMNITY IS
NOT MEASURED BY INJURY, AND NOT MEASURED BY THE DEALINGS AFFECTED WITH
THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.  IT IS MEASURED SOLELY BY THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT
THE BUYER OBTAINED FROM THE SELLER.  THE SELLER WOULD LOSE THE AMOUNT
CARRIED IN NOTES OR IN OPEN ACCOUNT.  HAD BRUCE'S DELINQUENCY BEEN
GREATER, SO WOULD ITS GAIN; HAD THERE BEEN NO CREDIT ASKED OR GIVEN THE
BUYER COULD HAVE HAD NO REMEDY BY WAY OF DEFENSE.  THE OBVIOUS
CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE TO DISCOURAGE VENDORS FROM EXTENDING CREDIT WHERE
THE OPERATION OF THIS RATHER DIFFICULT STATUTE IS IN DOUBT.  SINCE THE
DANGER OF LOSS UNDER THE PROPOSED REMEDY IS GREATEST IN THE CASE OF
SMALL BUYERS WHO GET SMALL DISCOUNTS, THE CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE TO DENY
THE SMALL BUYERS CREDIT AND TRUST ONLY THOSE WHO, HAVING THE LARGEST
DISCOUNTS, WOULD BE LEAST LIKELY TO DEFEND ON A CLAIM OF VIOLATION. 
THIS RESULT WOULD HARDLY COMPORT WITH THE ARGUMENT, SO MUCH DWELT UPON
BY PETITIONER, THAT ITS STATUS IS THAT OF A SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN
TRYING TO BATTLE A BUSINESS GIANT.  BUT WE CANNOT SUPPOSE THAT "LITTLE
FELLOWS" ARE ALWAYS BUYERS AND ONLY GIANTS SELL GOODS.  BRUCE ITSELF IS
A SELLER OF CANNED GOODS AND IF ITS TRADE PRACTICES INCLUDE QUANTITY
DISCOUNTS, THIS "LITTLE" CANNER MIGHT BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SAME
ISSUE TRYING TO COLLECT AGAINST A SMALL WHOLESALER WHO HAD LESS
DISCOUNT THAN A LARGER ONE.  TO DECIDE ISSUES OF LAW ON THE SIZE OF THE
PERSON WHO GETS ADVANTAGE OR CLAIMS DISADVANTAGE IS TREACHEROUS. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD MAKE A GRANT OF CREDIT A POINT OF
VULNERABILITY COULD BE AVOIDED ONLY BY HOLDING THAT THE WHOLE PURCHASE
PRICE, NOT MERELY THAT INVOLVED IN THE CREDIT, IS UNCOLLECTIBLE AND
RECOVERABLE EVEN IF VOLUNTARILY PAID.  IN THAT CASE, THE VOLUME OF THE
TRANSACTION, RATHER THAN THE VOLUME OF THE CREDIT EXTENDED, WOULD
MEASURE THE LOSS A SELLER MIGHT SUFFER FROM VIOLATING THE ACT. 

BUT, OF COURSE, IF THE DISCOUNT SYSTEM OF THE CAN COMPANY MAKES ALL
OF THE BRUCE PURCHASES ILLEGAL AND THE PRICE THEREOF RECOVERABLE, ALL
SALES TO OTHERS UNDER THE DISCOUNT SYSTEM MUST BE SIMILARLY TAINTED. 
IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW ANY OF THE CAN COMPANY'S SALES ARE VALID IF THESE
TO BRUCE ARE VOID ON THE THEORY ADVANCED.  IF THIS VIEW IS TAKEN,
CERTAINLY THE REMEDY WOULD SOON END ILLEGAL QUANTITY BUSINESS DISCOUNTS
- BY ENDING THE BUSINESS.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE CONGRESS HAS CONTEMPLATED
SO DEADLY A REMEDY OR HAS LEFT THE WAY OPEN TO US BY JUDICIAL EDICT TO
DISLOCATE BUSINESS AS SUCH A HOLDING WOULD DO.  IT MUST NOT BE
FORGOTTEN THAT SUCH A DECISION WOULD HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT FOR
SEVERAL YEARS AND UNSETTLE MANY ACCOUNTS.  WE CANNOT JUSTIFY A JUDICIAL
DECLARATION TO THIS EFFECT. 

BUT IF ONLY A FEW CASES ARE TO BE UNSETTLED - THOSE, SAY, IN
POSITIONS SIMILAR TO BRUCE'S - WHAT BECOMES OF THE POLICY OF
NONDISCRIMINATION?  OTHER CANNERS WHO HAVE PAID CASH FIND THEMSELVES
COMPETING WITH BRUCE WHO IS ABSOLVED FROM PAYING FOR A VERY LARGE PART
OF ITS CANS - SOMETHING LIKE ONE-THIRD OF ITS ANNUAL DOLLAR VOLUME
BEING INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  IN OTHER WORDS, AS PENALTY FOR
ESTABLISHING A UNIFORM ONE TO FIVE PERCENT DISCOUNT, THE CAN COMPANY
WOULD BE OBLIGED TO GIVE BRUCE SOMETHING OVER A 30% DISCOUNT ON ONE
YEAR, OR ABOUT 5% ON ALL PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE EVER TO HAVE
BEEN MADE. 

IT IS URGED THAT HOLDINGS UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT SUPPLY AN
ANALOGY FOR ALLOWING THIS DEFENSE UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  THE
FORMER PROVIDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT EVERY CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT
OF TRADE OR COMMERCE "IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL."  26 STAT. 209,
50 STAT. 693, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE A SUIT
IS BASED UPON AN AGREEMENT TO WHICH BOTH DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF ARE
PARTIES, AND WHICH HAS AS ITS OBJECT AND EFFECT ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
ILLEGAL ENDS WHICH WOULD BE CONSUMMATED BY THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT, THE
COURT WILL ENTERTAIN THE DEFENSE THAT THE CONTRACT IN SUIT IS ILLEGAL
UNDER THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF THAT STATUTE.  CONTINENTAL WALL PAPER
CO. V. LOUIS VOIGHT AND SONS CO., 212 U.S. 227.  CF. SOLA ELECTRIC CO.
V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S. 173.  BUT WHEN THE CONTRACT SUED
UPON IS NOT INTRINSICALLY ILLEGAL, THE COURT HAS REFUSED TO ALLOW
PROPERTY TO BE OBTAINED UNDER A CONTRACT OF SALE WITHOUT ENFORCING THE
DUTY TO PAY FOR IT BECAUSE OF VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT NOT
INHERING IN THE PARTICULAR CONTRACT IN SUIT AND HAS REAFFIRMED THE
"DOCTRINE THAT 'WHERE A STATUTE CREATES A NEW OFFENSE AND DENOUNCES THE
PENALTY, OR GIVES A NEW RIGHT AND DECLARES THE REMEDY, THE PUNISHMENT
OR THE REMEDY CAN BE ONLY THAT WHICH THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES.'"  D.R.
WILDER MFG. CO. V. CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175;
CONNOLLY V. UNION SEWER PIPE CO., 184 U.S. 540. 

MOREOVER, NO SINGLE SALE CAN VIOLATE THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  AT
LEAST TWO TRANSACTIONS MUST TAKE PLACE IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE A
DISCRIMINATION.  THUS, A CONTRACT MAY BE MADE TODAY WHICH HAS NO LEGAL
DEFECT UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  A WEEK LATER, ANOTHER SALE MAY
BE MADE AT A DIFFERENT PRICE OR AT A DIFFERENT DISCOUNT, AND THE LATTER
TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THE FORMER MAY ESTABLISH A
DISCRIMINATION.  WHETHER A SALE WOULD BE RENDERED VOID ONLY BECAUSE OF
SIMULTANEOUS DISCRIMINATION OR PREEXISTING ONES, OR WHETHER A CONTRACT
VALID WHEN MADE BECOMES VOID BY REASON OF LATER TRANSACTIONS, AND, IF
SO, HOW MUCH LATER, ARE QUESTIONS WE NEED NOT DECIDE NOW.  IT IS PLAIN
THAT THE VIOLATION, IF THERE WAS ONE, IS NOT INHERENT IN THE CONTRACT
SUED UPON, WHETHER IT BE THE NOTES OR THE SALE OF THE GOODS, BUT CAN
ONLY BE FOUND IN DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS WHICH A PARTY TO THE LITIGATION
HAD WITH THIRD PERSONS WHO ARE NOT PARTIES.  NO SUCH DEFENSE HAS BEEN
APPROVED UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, AND, FURTHERMORE, THESE CHARACTERISTICS
SHOW THAT THE ENTIRE BASIS FOR JUDGING UNDER THE TWO ACTS IS DIFFERENT
AND THAT THE CASE LAW AS TO THE SHERMAN ACT DOES NOT FIT THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT. 

NONE THE LESS, WE ARE URGED TO SUPPLY JUDICIALLY THE SANCTION OF
INVALIDATING OBLIGATIONS TO PAY FOR GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED BECAUSE,
IT IS SAID, OTHERWISE THE COURTS BECOME PARTIES TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
DISCRIMINATION.  IF, IN ORDER TO PROVE HIS OWN CASE, A PLAINTIFF PROVES
HIS VIOLATION OF LAW, THEN NO COURT WILL AID THE PLAINTIFF TO RECOVER. 
FN4  HERE, HOWEVER, WHAT THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW IS THE NOTES WHICH
IMPORT CONSIDERATION.  IF CONSIDERATION IS DENIED, HE CAN PROVE THAT
CANS WERE SOLD AND DELIVERED AT A STATED PRICE.  THAT IS NO VIOLATION
OF LAW.  IT IS ONLY WHEN THE COURT GOES OUTSIDE OF THE DEALINGS BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AND IT IS PROVED THAT THE SAME KIND OF CANS
WERE SOLD TO OTHERS AT DIFFERENT PRICES WITHIN A RELEVANT PERIOD OF
TIME, AMOUNTING TO A DISCRIMINATION - A FACT UNNECESSARY TO SUSTAIN THE
PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION - THAT THE BASIS OF THE DEFENSE ASSERTED
HERE APPEARS.  THE COURT DOES NOT GIVE ITS APPROVAL TO TRANSACTIONS
BETWEEN ONE OF THE LITIGANTS AND A THIRD PARTY JUST BECAUSE IT HOLDS
THEM IRRELEVANT IN THIS LITIGATION. 

THE DEFENDANT'S CLAIM TO BE FREED OF THE OBLIGATION TO PAY HIS
PROMISSORY NOTE BECAUSE THE PAYEE, AS VENDOR OF CANS, MADE SALES TO
OTHERS THAT WHEN COMPARED WITH SALES TO ITSELF MAY BE HELD UNLAWFULLY
DISCRIMINATORY, CANNOT BE SUPPORTED AS RESTING ON ANY CONGRESSIONAL
WORD OR POLICY.  NOT ONLY WAS THIS REMEDY NOT NAMED BY CONGRESS, BUT IT
WOULD BE SURPRISING IF IT HAD BEEN, IN VIEW OF THE REMEDIES CONGRESS
DID GIVE.  WE HAVE ASSUMED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THAT
PETITIONER COULD ESTABLISH THAT THE PRICES RESPONDENT CHARGED WERE
DISCRIMINATORY SO THAT THEY VIOLATED THE ACT.  BUT IF PETITIONER CAN
SHOW THAT, CLEARLY IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN A TRIPLE DAMAGE
SUIT SUPPORTED BY THE SAME EVIDENCE.  FOR DESPITE PETITIONER'S PLAINT
ON THE DIFFICULTY OF PROVING DAMAGES, IT WOULD ESTABLISH ITS RIGHT TO
RECOVER THREE TIMES THE DISCRIMINATORY DIFFERENCE WITHOUT PROVING MORE
THAN THE ILLEGALITY OF THE PRICES.  IF THE PRICES ARE ILLEGALLY
DISCRIMINATORY, PETITIONER HAS BEEN DAMAGED, IN THE ABSENCE OF
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, AT LEAST IN THE AMOUNT OF THAT
DISCRIMINATION.  NO REASON SUGGESTS ITSELF WHY CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE
INTENDED A REMEDY BY WHICH THE VICTIM OF DISCRIMINATION COULD RECOVER
BY DEFENSE ONLY ONE-THIRD OF WHAT HE COULD RECOVER, ON THE SAME PROOF,
BY OFFENSE.  THE INDUCEMENT OF THRICE THE DAMAGES SUFFERED MAY BRING
THE SUFFERER TO AID IN ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE.  TO ASSURE HIS HELP,
HOWEVER, IT WOULD HARDLY BE THOUGHT APPROPRIATE TO OFFER HIM THE CHOICE
OF TAKING ONLY ONE-THIRD THAT AMOUNT.  SINCE THE REMEDY EMBODIED IN
PETITIONER'S SECOND THEORY WOULD BE BUT A WEAK ONE-THIRD SHADOW OF THE
ONE CONGRESS EXPRESSLY GAVE, WE CANNOT SEE THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL
REDUPLICATION IN MINIATURE.  WE HOLD THAT FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT SUPPORT
THE DEFENSE ALLEGED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ON PETITIONER'S FIRST THEORY, CLEARLY NO RECOVERY ON QUANTUM
MERUIT COULD BE HAD.  THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT A TRANSACTION WHOLLY
ILLEGAL WILL NOT SUPPORT SUCH A SUIT.  SEE WILLISTON, CONTRACTS (REV.
ED., 1938) SEC. 1786A; RESTATEMENT, CONTRACTS, SEC. 598, COMMENT C. AND
ON BRUCE'S SECOND THEORY, BECAUSE OF THE LENIENCY WITH WHICH RESPONDENT
EXTENDED CREDIT, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW WHICH
CANS THE NOTES REPRESENT AND IT WOULD OF COURSE BE UNABLE TO ESTABLISH
THEIR FAIR VALUE.  IF WE HOLD THE NOTES UNCOLLECTIBLE, THEREFORE,
RESPONDENT COULD NOT RECOVER ON QUANTUM MERUIT, AND BRUCE WOULD GET A
WINDFALL. 

FN2  HIS TESTIMONY ON THIS POINT FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  MR. BRUCE, DO THE NOTES EVIDENCE THE PURCHASE PRICE OF ANY
PARTICULAR SIZE OF CANS YOU PURCHASED FROM THE AMERICAN CAN CO.? 

A. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE FACE OF THE NOTES THAT SHOWS WHAT SIZE
THEY WERE. 

Q. DURING THAT PERIOD YOU PURCHASED A CERTAIN SIZE CAN? 

A. IT WAS PURCHASED DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD. 

Q. DID YOU RUN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT ON THE GROCERY CAN AND ON THE SOFT
DRINK CAN, OR SMALL AND LARGE? 

A. NO SIR. 

Q. THE NOTES THEMSELVES SIMPLY REPRESENT THAT ACCOUNT, IRRESPECTIVE
OF THE SIZE OF THE CANS? 

A. YES SIR, THE BLANKET WAY. 

Q. IN A BLANKET WAY.  IN OTHER WORDS THERE WAS NO DISTINCTION MADE IN
YOUR ACCOUNT BETWEEN THE LARGE AND SMALL CANS, I MEAN IN THE
INDEBTEDNESS? 

A. NOT WHILE THE NOTES WERE ACCRUING. 

Q. IN OTHER WORDS THE NOTES IN QUESTION ARE FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE OF
BOTH LARGE AND SMALL CANS? 

A. THAT IS RIGHT." 

FN3  IF THE NOTES ARE CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVELY AS REPRESENTING
RESPONDENT'S PRICE DUE ON THE LATEST PURCHASES TO THAT AMOUNT IN LATE
1939 AND EARLY 1940, PETITIONER, ON ITS THEORY, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO BE
EXCUSED PAYMENT OF ONLY ABOUT 5% OF THE $114,000, BECAUSE IT IS
DEFENDING ON THE GROUND THAT IT OUGHT NOT TO PAY THE ALLEGEDLY
DISCRIMINATORY PART OF THE PRICE.  BUT EVEN FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE,
IT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WHAT CANS THE $114,000 REPRESENTS, SO THE
COURT COULD NOT DETERMINE THEIR FAIR VALUE. 

IN PENN-ALLEN CEMENT CO. V. PHILLIPS & SOUTHERLAND, 182 N.C. 437, 109
S.E. 257, THE SPECIFIC SALES WERE IDENTIFIED AND THE PRICE UNPAID.  THE
COURT THERE HELD ONLY THAT THE BUYER SHOULD BE EXCUSED PAYMENT OF THE
DISCRIMINATORY PART OF THE CONTRACT PRICE.  BUT THE OPINION WAS GIVEN
AFTER THE COURT HAD DECIDED THAT THE APPEAL WAS PREMATURELY TAKEN. 

THE DEFENDANT HAD COUNTERCLAIMED FOR TREBLE DAMAGES, COMPUTED ON THE
BASIS OF THE ALLEGED OVERCHARGE.  THE PLAINTIFF URGED THAT TREBLE
DAMAGES COULD NOT BE RECOVERED IN AN ACTION FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE BUT
THAT THE DEFENDANT MUST PAY FIRST, AND THEN SUE ON THAT CLAIM.  THE
COURT SAID SIMPLY, "THIS MATTER ALSO HAS NOT BEEN PASSED UPON BY THE
COURT BELOW, AND THERE IS NOTHING FOR US TO CONSIDER."  182 N.C. AT
441, 109 S.E. AT 259.  BUT IF THE COURT WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT RECOVER THE OVERCHARGE, IT WOULD NECESSARILY FOLLOW
THAT THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.  FOR WITHOUT PAYING
THE OVERCHARGE, THE DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE HAD NO BASIS ON WHICH TO REST
ITS CLAIM THAT IT HAD BEEN DAMAGED IN THAT AMOUNT AND THEREFORE
ENTITLED TO TREBLE COMPENSATION.    FN4  IN MCMULLEN V. HOFFMAN, 174
U.S. 639, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COURT REFUSED TO ENFORCE A PARTNERSHIP
CONTRACT WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT AGREEMENT TO
SUBMIT COLLUSIVE BIDS FOR PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION.  THE PLAINTIFF ARGUED
THAT THE PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT ITSELF DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY ILLEGALITY,
BUT EVEN THAT WAS QUESTIONABLE.  THE COURT, MOREOVER, HELD THAT THE
AGREEMENT TO BE PARTNERS COULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE GENERAL
COLLUSIVE AGREEMENT WHICH GAVE RISE TO IT AGREEMENTS WITH THIRD
PERSONS, NOT PARTIES TO THE SUIT, HOWEVER, WERE NOT RELIED UPON BY
COURT OR LITIGANTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER SELLERS OF GOODS SHOULD BE ALLOWED
TO USE THE COURTS TO COLLECT PRICE DIFFERENTIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE
ILLEGAL BY CONGRESS IN THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT.  THE COURT APPROACHES
BUT NEVER QUITE MEETS THAT ISSUE.  BUT THE UNMISTAKABLE EFFECT OF THE
COURT'S DECISION IS TO PERMIT THE RECOVERY OF DISCRIMINATORY PRICES
DESPITE THE PLAIN LANGUAGE AND POLICY OF THE ACT AND DESPITE THE
LESSENING OF COMPETITION THAT MIGHT THEREBY RESULT.  I REMAIN
UNCONVINCED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH A RESULT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HIGH
IDEALS OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM OR THAT IT IS MADE NECESSARY BY ANY RULE
OF LAW OR POLICY. 

TO ANY SALE WHICH DISCRIMINATES, TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, AGAINST COMPETITORS
OF A PURCHASER BY GRANTING TO THAT PURCHASER "ANY DISCOUNT, REBATE,
ALLOWANCE, OR ADVERTISING SERVICE CHARGE" NOT AVAILABLE TO THE
COMPETITORS IN RESPECT OF A SALE OF GOODS OF LIKE GRADE, QUALITY AND
QUANTITY.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 13A.  SECTION 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON
"TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES
OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY" WHERE THE RESULT IS TO LESSEN COMPETITION OR
TO TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(A).  IT IS IN LIGHT OF
THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT WE MUST EXAMINE THE OPINION OF THE
COURT. 

1.  THE COURT PROCEEDS ON THE BASIC ASSUMPTION, UNSUPPORTED BY THE
RECORD OR BY PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS, THAT THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING
TO AVOID ALL LIABILITY FOR THE CANS SOLD TO IT BY THE RESPONDENT.  NO
SUCH ASSUMPTION IS JUSTIFIED.  PETITIONER'S BRIEF, IT IS TRUE, SUGGESTS
TWO ALTERNATIVE THEORIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION:  (1) A TRANSACTION
UNLAWFUL UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT CONSTITUTES CRIMINAL ACTION UPON
WHICH NO MONEY JUDGMENT CAN BE BASED; (2) DISCRIMINATORY PRICES OVER
AND ABOVE THE FAIR VALUE OF THE GOODS CANNOT BE COLLECTED BY THE
SELLER.  BUT PETITIONER DOES NOT PURSUE THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE, POINTING
OUT THAT ONLY THE SECOND AND NARROWER ALTERNATIVE IS PRESENTED BY THE
RECORD.  THUS THE ONLY CONTENTION REALLY BEFORE US IS THAT PROMISSORY
NOTES CANNOT BE COLLECTED BY LEGAL ACTION TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY
REPRESENT A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL OUTLAWED BY CONGRESS.  AS PETITIONER
NOTES, THIS CONTENTION "DOES NOT REQUIRE THE COURT TO DECIDE THAT THE
ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS SO TAINTED WITH ILLEGALITY THAT THE SELLER CANNOT
COLLECT EVEN THE FAIR VALUE OF THE GOODS, THUS GIVING THE BUYER A
WINDFALL."  IF THE PETITIONER WERE TO PREVAIL IN THIS CASE AND THE
PROMISSORY NOTES WERE TO BE DECLARED UNENFORCEABLE, RESPONDENT WOULD
STILL BE FREE TO RECOVER ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS IF IT HAS NOT
ALREADY SO RECOVERED.  SEE PENN-ALLEN CEMENT CO. V. PHILLIPS &
SOUTHERLAND, 182 N.C. 437, 109 S.E. 257. 

MOREOVER, THERE IS A STRONG INDICATION THAT PETITIONER ALREADY MAY
HAVE PAID THE RESPONDENT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE CANS.  SINCE THE PASSAGE
OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, PETITIONER HAS HAD A CONTINUING ACCOUNT
WITH THE RESPONDENT; UNDER THAT ACCOUNT, PETITIONER PAID RESPONDENT
MORE THAN $2,000,000 FOR CANS DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1937 TO 1942. 
WHEN THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED, PETITIONER OWED A BALANCE OF $114,000 ON
THIS ACCOUNT, REPRESENTED BY THE PROMISSORY NOTES IN ISSUE HERE.  TO
DENY ENFORCEABILITY TO THOSE NOTES MIGHT THUS AFFECT ONLY THE
DISCRIMINATORY PRICE DIFFERENTIAL, WHICH THE COURT ASSUMES VIOLATED THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT. 

IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE QUANTITY DISCOUNTS IN ISSUE WERE BASED UPON
THE AGGREGATE DOLLAR VALUE OF ANNUAL SALES RATHER THAN UPON INDIVIDUAL
TRANSACTIONS.  THE DISCRIMINATORY DIFFERENTIALS HAD A LIKE BASIS. 
HENCE IT IS ENOUGH IF PETITIONER CAN PROVE THAT THE $114,000 IN NOTES
REPRESENTS AN ILLEGAL DIFFERENTIAL FROM THIS OVER-ALL STANDPOINT. 

THE COURT STATES, HOWEVER, THAT THE TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTED BY THE
$114,000 CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED AND THAT THIS FIGURE CANNOT BE SAID TO
REFLECT THE SEPARATE ITEM OF PRICE DISCRIMINATION.  BUT SUCH SENTIMENTS
ARE NECESSARILY PREMATURE IN THE PRESENT POSTURE OF THE CASE;
PETITIONER HAS NOT YET HAD A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ALL ITS
EVIDENCE OR TO TRY TO CONNECT THE NOTES WITH A DISCRIMINATORY
DIFFERENTIAL.  PETITIONER CONCEDEDLY HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE
$114,000 IN NOTES DOES REPRESENT THE DISCRIMINATORY PART OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE, WHETHER IN RELATION TO SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS OR TO THE
AGGREGATE DOLLAR VOLUME OF ANNUAL SALES.  IF IT CANNOT SO PROVE, ITS
CASE COLLAPSES.  THE IMPORTANT AND THE ONLY POINT NOW IS THAT
PETITIONER SHOULD BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO PROVE THIS DEFENSE.  WE SHOULD
NOT SHUT THE COURT'S DOOR IN PETITIONER'S FACE BEFORE IT HAS HAD THAT
CHANCE.  NOR SHOULD WE PREJUDICE THAT DEFENSE BY HOLDING OR INTIMATING
THAT PROOF IS IMPOSSIBLE.  CERTAINLY THE RIGHT TO OFFER AND PROVE A
DEFENSE IS NOT TO BE DENIED BECAUSE A COURT THINKS THAT THE PURPORTED
DEFENSE HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVED.  IT IS ONE THING TO RAISE A DEFENSE;
IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO PROVE IT.  SINCE WE ARE CONCERNED HERE ONLY WITH
THE FIRST PROPOSITION, IT IS BESIDE THE POINT WHETHER THE DEFENSE HAS
BEEN OR CAN BE PROVED. 

WE MAY THUS DISMISS AS UNWARRANTED THE COURT'S FEAR THAT PETITIONER
IS GOING TO GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING IF ITS CONTENTION IS SUSTAINED. 
IT IS PLEADING ONLY FOR THE RIGHT TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COLLECTION OF
THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS DECLARED ILLEGAL. 

2.  EQUALLY IRRELEVANT IS THE COURT'S INQUIRY INTO WHETHER CONGRESS
"WANTED TO GO SO FAR AS TO PERMIT A BUYER TO GET GOODS FOR NOTHING"
WHERE THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT HAS BEEN VIOLATED.  IN THE CASE BEFORE
US, THE ONLY RELEVANT INQUIRY IS WHETHER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT WAS
DESIGNED TO ALLOW SELLERS TO RECOVER ILLEGAL PRICE DIFFERENTIALS
THROUGH COURT ACTION.  A DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT PRECLUDES SUCH A
RECOVERY DOES NOT INVOLVE A FINDING THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE ACT DESIRED
THESE SELLERS TO FORFEIT ALL THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCTS ON WHICH THEY
PLACED AN ILLEGAL PRICE DIFFERENTIAL.  IT INVOLVES SIMPLY A FINDING
THAT THE LANGUAGE AND POLICY OF THE ACT FROWN UPON THE USE OF THE
COURTS TO EFFECTUATE WHAT CONGRESS CLEARLY MADE ILLEGAL. 

3.  THE COURT THINKS IT SIGNIFICANT THAT THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT
MAKES NO PROVISION FOR A BUYER INTERPOSING THE VENDOR'S VIOLATION OF
THE ACT AS A DEFENSE TO A SUIT BY THE VENDOR.  IT IS SAID THAT THE
TRIPLE DAMAGE ACTIONS AND THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE
SANCTIONS PROVIDED BY CONGRESS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT. 

THIS OVERLOOKS THE FACT, HOWEVER, THAT A SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION
IS UNNECESSARY TO MAKE AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT UNENFORCEABLE IN THE
COURTS.  WHERE A CONTRACT IS OUTLAWED BY STATUTE OR IS OTHERWISE
CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, THE ILLEGALITY MAY BE SET UP AS A DEFENSE TO
A SUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A LEGISLATIVE RECOGNITION
OF THAT DEFENSE.  OTHERWISE THE COURTS WOULD BECOME PARTIES TO THE
ILLEGALITY BY SANCTIONING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNLAWFUL AGREEMENTS. 
MCMULLEN V. HOFFMAN, 174 U.S. 639, 669-670.  THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN
APPLIED MANY TIMES BY THIS COURT.  AT AN EARLY DATE IT WAS RECOGNIZED
THAT, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION IN THE SHERMAN ACT AUTHORIZING
A DEFENSE OF ILLEGALITY IN A PRIVATE SUIT ON A CONTRACT, SUCH A DEFENSE
MIGHT BE USED, THAT "ANY ONE SUED UPON A CONTRACT MAY SET UP AS A
DEFENCE THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS, AND IF FOUND TO
BE SO, THAT FACT WILL CONSTITUTE A GOOD DEFENCE TO THE ACTION."  BEMENT
V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, 88.  CONTINENTAL WALL PAPER CO. V.
VOIGHT & SONS CO., 212 U.S. 227.  SIMILARLY, WITHOUT SPECIFIC STATUTORY
PERMISSION, PRIVATE LITIGANTS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INVOKE THE POLICY OF
THE ANTITRUST LAWS SO AS TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF PATENT RIGHTS.  MERCOID
CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT CO., 320 U.S. 661; SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V.
JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S. 173; B.B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS, 314
U.S. 495; MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488; KATZINGER CO.
V. CHICAGO MFG. CO., 329 U.S. 394; MACGREGOR V. WESTINGHOUSE CO., 329
U.S. 402. 

AND SO WHEN A CONTRACT OR PROMISSORY NOTE IS TAINTED WITH A VIOLATION
OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, ITS ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE REFUSED BY A
COURT, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF THE ILLEGALITY INVOLVED.  THE FAILURE
OF CONGRESS TO MENTION SUCH A SANCTION SLIPS INTO INSIGNIFICANCE IN THE
LIGHT OF PRECEDENTS IN ANALOGOUS SITUATIONS. 

4.  THE COURT HOLDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT
INVALIDATES DISCRIMINATION RATHER THAN CONTRACTS OF SALE AT DISCOUNT
AND THAT THE ANALOGY OF DENYING THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS VIOLATIVE
OF OTHER ANTITRUST LAWS IS IMPERFECT. 

BUT SUCH A HOLDING MISCONCEIVES THE VERY NATURE OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT AND THE EVILS AT WHICH IT WAS DIRECTED.  NO ONE CONTENDS
THAT THE ACT MAKES ILLEGAL ALL CONTRACTS OF SALE AT A DISCOUNT.  NOR
DOES ANY ONE DENY THAT AN ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION BECOMES APPARENT ONLY
AFTER THERE HAVE BEEN TWO OR MORE SALES.  AS THE COURT STATES, A
CONTRACT MAY BE MADE TODAY WHICH HAS NO LEGAL DEFECT UNDER THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT.  BUT ONCE THERE ARE TWO OR MORE SALES AND ONCE THERE HAS
BEEN ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION, THE ILLEGALITY MAY REACH BACK TO THE FIRST
TRANSACTION, WHICH WAS FREE OF ALL DEFECTS WHEN MADE.  THAT IS INHERENT
IN THE VERY NATURE OF DISCRIMINATION AND IT SHOULD NOT SURPRISE US TO
DISCOVER THAT FACT.  DISCRIMINATION MAY THUS BECOME EVIDENT IN
CONTRACTS, PROMISSORY NOTES, OPEN ACCOUNTS AND OTHER FORMS OF
INDEBTEDNESS.  AND IT MAY PUT IN A TANGIBLE APPEARANCE WHEN A
SUBSEQUENT SUIT IS BROUGHT TO RECOVER, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WHAT HAS
PROVED TO BE AN ILLEGAL PRICE DIFFERENTIAL.  TO DENY EFFECT TO THAT
DISCRIMINATION IN A SUIT BY THE VENDOR DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A COURT
HOLD VOID THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION AND PERMIT THE BUYER TO RETAIN THE
GOODS FREE OF ANY CHARGE.  IT REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE COURT REFUSE TO
PERMIT THE RECOVERY OF THAT PART OF THE PURCHASE PRICE WHICH
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE BUYER WHO PURCHASED THE SAME KIND AND QUALITY
OF GOODS AS HIS COMPETITORS. 

THUS THAT PART OF A CONTRACT OF SALE PERMITTING A CERTAIN DISCOUNT
MAY BE OR BECOME ILLEGAL IF THE PURCHASER'S COMPETITORS ARE GIVEN
LARGER DISCOUNTS.  SUCH IS THE WHOLE TENOR AND POLICY OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT.  AND COLLECTION OF THE DISCRIMINATORY DIFFERENTIAL FALLS
SQUARELY WITHIN THE AREA OF ILLEGALITY DEFINED BY THE STATUTE.  INDEED,
THE ACT IS SHORN OF MUCH OF ITS MEANING IF THE VENDOR IS PERMITTED TO
RECOVER THE FRUITS OF HIS UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.  COURTS SHOULD NOT BE USED
FOR THAT PURPOSE ANY MORE THAN THEY SHOULD BE USED TO SANCTION RECOVERY
ON CONTRACTS MADE WHOLLY VOID BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN THE ONE CASE,
COURTS ARE ASKED TO GIVE JUDGMENT FOR AN UNLAWFUL PRICE DIFFERENTIAL;
IN THE OTHER, THEY ARE ASKED TO ENFORCE A MONOPOLISTIC AGREEMENT.  IN
BOTH CASES, THE ANSWER SHOULD BE A STRONG NEGATIVE.  THE ACTS ARE PART
AND PARCEL OF THE SAME LEGISLATIVE POLICY, THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT
MERELY ELABORATING SOME OF THE MORE SUBTLE AND REFINED MONOPOLISTIC
PRACTICES WHICH CONGRESS DESIRED TO ELIMINATE.  COURTS SHOULD TREAT
THEM ACCORDINGLY. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY, AS THE COURT DOES, THAT WE MUST GO OUTSIDE
THE TRANSACTION IN ISSUE IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO A DEFENSE OF
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION.  OF COURSE THAT MUST BE DONE, FOR
DISCRIMINATION IS A RELATIVE MATTER DEPENDING UPON THE VENDOR'S
TRANSACTIONS WITH THIRD PARTIES.  BUT SUCH AN INQUIRY MUST BE MADE BY A
COURT IN SUITS FOR TRIPLE DAMAGES UNDER THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT. 
AMERICAN CAN CO. V. LADOGA CANNING CO., 44 F.2D 763.  AND AN INQUIRY OF
THAT TYPE MUST FREQUENTLY BE MADE IN PRIVATE SUITS WHERE DEFENSES ARE
MADE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  DISCRIMINATIONS AND MONOPOLIES RARELY IF
EVER APPEAR ON THE FACE OF DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE INTRODUCED FOR PURPOSES
OF SECURING A RECOVERY IN A COURT OF LAW.  JUDGES CONSTANTLY MUST LOOK
BEYOND THE PARTICULAR DOCUMENTS IN ISSUE.  SURELY, IF IT BE ASSUMED
THAT A PARTICULAR DISCOUNT IS UNLAWFUL, NO FACTOR OF INCONVENIENCE OR
BURDEN IN LOOKING AT OTHER TRANSACTIONS CAN JUSTIFY IGNORING THE
ILLEGALITY AND PERMITTING AN UNWARRANTED RECOVERY.  AND TO INSIST THAT
RECOVERY MUST BE ALLOWED IF THE PLAINTIFF SHOWS NO VIOLATION OF LAW IN
PROVING THE AMOUNT DUE ON A PROMISSORY NOTE IS TO HARK BACK TO MEDIEVAL
CONCEPTS OF PLEADING AND PRACTICE.  THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT DEALS WITH
COMPLEX ECONOMIC REALITIES.  LITIGANTS AND JUDGES MUST ACT ACCORDINGLY
WHEN THE ACT IS PROPERLY BROUGHT INTO ISSUE BY A DEFENDANT.  IF THE
POLICY OF THE ACT IS TO BE RESPECTED, THE TRANSACTION BEFORE THE COURT
MUST BE JUDGED ON THE BASIS OF OTHER DEALINGS BY THE VENDOR DESPITE THE
SUPERFICIAL PERFECTION OF THE VENDOR'S PLEADINGS AND PROOF.    NOR IS
RECOVERY TO BE DENIED BECAUSE ONLY PART OF THE ILLEGALITY MAY BE IN
ISSUE.  COURTS MUST STRIKE DONW ILLEGALITY WHEREVER IT APPEARS. 
STATUTORY VIOLATIONS ARE NOT TO BE COUNTENANCED MERELY BECAUSE THE
VIOLATOR SEEKS TO REAP ONLY PART OF HIS ILLEGAL HARVEST AT A TIME. 

5.  THE COURT INTIMATES, WITHOUT ACTUALLY DECIDING, THAT COURTS
SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS TYPE OF DEFENSE TO BE RAISED UNTIL THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF QUANTITY
DISCOUNTS ON COMPETITION.  THE FEAR IS EXPRESSED THAT WITHOUT THE
COMMISSION'S GUIDANCE, COURTS MIGHT STRIKE DOWN ALL QUANTITY DISCOUNTS
AND CREATE UNTOLD RETROACTIVE LIABILITIES. 

THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT WE SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO ASSUME THAT JUDGES
ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT AND THE STANDARDS IT
SETS UP IN REGARD TO QUANTITY DISCOUNTS.  IT MAY BE GRANTED THAT THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION HAS MORE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE IN
DEALING WITH THE COMPLEXITIES OF THIS PROBLEM THAN MOST COURTS; AND THE
COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT WOULD BE OF INESTIMABLE VALUE TO ANY JUDGE CALLED
UPON TO DEAL WITH QUANTITY DISCOUNTS.  BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME
ACTION BY THE COMMISSION, COURTS MUST ACT AS BEST THEY CAN WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK PROVIDED BY CONGRESS.  THE ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13(A),
SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZES THAT QUANTITY DISCOUNTS ARE ILLEGAL ONLY WHERE
THEY LESSEN OR INJURE COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY; AND
WHERE PRICE DIFFERENTIALS ARE JUSTIFIED BY DIFFERENCES IN COSTS OF
MANUFACTURE, SALE OR DELIVERY, THE DISCOUNTS ARE PERMISSIBLE.  THIS
MATTER IS A COMPLEX ONE, BUT IT IS NO MORE COMPLEX THAN MANY OTHER
PROBLEMS WHICH FACE THE COURTS. 

THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO THE COURT'S APPARENT POSITION IN THIS RESPECT
IS FOR JUDGES TO SIT IDLY BY AND ALLOW SELLERS TO COLLECT ILLEGAL PRICE
DIFFERENTIALS - A FUNCTION THAT HARDLY QUALIFIES AS AN IDEAL TOWARD
WHICH WE SHOULD STRIVE.  INDEED, IF THE COURT'S CONCEPTION OF THE
JUDICIAL FUNCTION IN SUITS OF THIS NATURE IS TO BE CARRIED TO ITS
LOGICAL CONCLUSION, JUDGES WOULD ABDICATE ALL THEIR DUTIES UNDER THE
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT WHENEVER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION HAS FAILED TO
EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE SUBJECT IN ISSUE.  THEY WOULD REFUSE TO
ENTERTAIN TREBLE DAMAGE SUITS AND WOULD DISMISS ALL CRIMINAL
INDICTMENTS BROUGHT ON THE BASIS OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 
IT SEEMS TO ME, HOWEVER, THAT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS HAS MORE VIGOR AND
RESPONSIBILITY THAN THE COURT SEEMS WILLING TO IMPLY IN THIS CASE. 

6.  FINALLY, THE COURT INDICATES THAT THE FACT THAT PETITIONER IS A
SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN IS A TREACHEROUS BASIS FOR DECIDING ISSUES OF
LAW.  AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE WITH THAT
ATTITUDE.  BUT WE MUST NOT BLIND OURSELVES TO THE EQUALLY IMPORTANT
FACT THAT THE ANTITRUST LAWS, OF WHICH THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT IS AN
INTEGRAL PART, ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO AID THE SMALL BUSINESS
CONCERNS AND TO CURB THE GROWTH OF GIANT MONOPOLIES.  MANY YEARS AGO
THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT THAT TRADE AND COMMERCE MAY BE
"BADLY AND UNFORTUNATELY RESTRAINED BY DRIVING OUT OF BUSINESS THE
SMALL DEALERS AND WORTHY MEN WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN SPENT THEREIN, AND
WHO MIGHT BE UNABLE TO READJUST THEMSELVES TO THEIR ALTERED
SURROUNDINGS.  MERE REDUCTION IN THE PRICE OF THE COMMODITY DEALT IN
MIGHT BE DEARLY PAID FOR BY THE RUIN OF SUCH A CLASS, AND THE
ABSORPTION OF CONTROL OVER ONE COMMODITY BY AN ALL-POWERFUL COMBINATION
OF CAPITAL."  UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S.
290, 323.  THE SAME OBSERVATION APPLIES TO THIS CASE.  THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT WAS DESIGNED IN LARGE PART TO PROTECT THE SMALL BUSINESS
CONCERNS, CONGRESS REALIZING THE DISASTROUS EFFECTS OF THEIR BEING THE
VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATORY PRICES.  A PROPER TREATMENT OF THE ACT
DEMANDS APPRECIATION OF THIS PURPOSE. 

WE SHOULD PAUSE LONG BEFORE SANCTIONING THE RECOVERY OF
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES WHICH CONGRESS HAS FOUND INIMICAL TO THE NATION'S
WELFARE.  WE SHOULD BE ON GUARD AGAINST THE USE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
TO AUGMENT THE SUBTLE DESTRUCTION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONTRARY TO THE
LEGISLATIVE WILL, AND THE EROSION OF THE BARRIERS WHICH CONGRESS HAS
ERECTED AGAINST THE FLOOD-TIDE OF MONOPOLY.  TO THAT END, THEREFORE, WE
SHOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND ALLOW COURTS TO GIVE FULL EFFECT
TO THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :
























BETHLEHEM CO. V. STATE BOARD, 330 U.S. 767 


ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 17, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 7, 1947.  - 295 N.Y. 601,
607, 64 N.E.2D 350, 352, REVERSED. 


WHERE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAD ASSERTED GENERAL
JURISDICTION OVER UNIONS OF FOREMEN EMPLOYED BY INDUSTRIES SUBJECT TO
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT BUT HAD REFUSED TO CERTIFY SUCH UNIONS
AS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES ON THE GROUND THAT TO DO SO AT
THE TIME WOULD OBSTRUCT RATHER THAN FURTHER EFFECTUATION OF THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT, CERTIFICATION OF SUCH UNIONS BY THE NEW YORK STATE
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNDER A STATE ACT SIMILAR TO THE NATIONAL ACT
HELD INVALID AS IN CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 771-777. 

BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. ET AL. V. NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

NO. 55.  APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 76, ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORP. V. KELLEY ET AL.,
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK FOR CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY. 

NO. 55.  A NEW YORK STATE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER TO ENFORCE A SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM ISSUED BY THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN A
PROCEEDING FOR THE CERTIFICATION AS A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF A UNION
OF FOREMEN OF AN EMPLOYER WHOSE BUSINESS WAS PREDOMINANTLY INTERSTATE. 
9 C.C.H. LABOR CASES (1945) $* 62, 611.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED.  269 APP. DIV. 805, 56 N.Y.S.2D
195.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  295 N.Y. 601, 664, 64
N.E.2D 350, 65 N.E.2D 54.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED, P. 777. 

NO. 76.  A NEW YORK STATE COURT DISMISSED A SUIT BY AN EMPLOYER WHOSE
BUSINESS WAS PREDOMINANTLY INTERSTATE FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
DECREEING THAT THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE REPRESENTATION OF ITS FOREMEN AND ENJOINING
THE BOARD FROM ORDERING THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR
UNION.  184 MISC. 47, 49 N.Y.S.2D 762.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED.  269 APP. DIV. 805, 56 N.Y.S.2D
196.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK AFFIRMED.  295 N.Y. 607, 64
N.E.2D 352.  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 777. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE APPEALS CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK AS APPLIED TO APPELLANTS TO PERMIT UNIONIZATION
OF THEIR FOREMEN.  CONFLICT IS ASSERTED BETWEEN IT AND THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND HENCE WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

AFTER ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, JULY
5, 1935, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151, ET SEQ., NEW YORK ADOPTED A
STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT FOLLOWING THE FEDERAL PATTERN.  LAWS OF NEW
YORK, 1937, CHAP. 443, 30 MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW YORK,
SECS. 700-716.  IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS THEY CREATE, THE
PROCEDURES THEY ESTABLISH, THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES PROHIBITED, THE
TWO STATUTES MAY BE TAKEN FOR PRESENT PURPOSES TO BE THE SAME.  BUT IN
PROVISION FOR DETERMINATION OF UNITS OF REPRESENTATION FOR BARGAINING
PURPOSES, THE TWO ACTS ARE NOT IDENTICAL.  THEIR DIFFERENCES MAY BE
MADE PLAIN BY SETTING FORTH SEC. 9(B) OF THE FEDERAL ACT, WITH THAT
PART WHICH IS OMITTED FROM THE STATE ACT IN BRACKETS AND ADDITIONS MADE
BY THE STATE ACT AS AMENDED, LAWS OF NEW YORK, 1942, CHAP. 518, IN
ITALICS: 

"THE BOARD SHALL DECIDE IN EACH CASE WHETHER, IN ORDER TO INSURE TO
EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION (AND) TO
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND OTHERWISE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS
ACT, THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
SHALL BE THE EMPLOYER UNIT, MULTIPLE EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT UNIT, PLANT
UNIT, OR (SUBDIVISION THEREOF) ANY OTHER UNIT; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
IN ANY CASE WHERE THE MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES OF A PARTICULAR CRAFT SHALL
SO DECIDE THE BOARD SHALL DESIGNATE SUCH CRAFT AS A UNIT APPROPRIATE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING." 

THE PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED FOR THE TWO BOARDS FOR INVESTIGATION,
CERTIFICATION, AND HEARING ON REPRESENTATION UNITS AND FOR THEIR
ELECTION ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME EXCEPT THAT THE STATE LAW ADDS THE
FOLLOWING LIMITATION NOT FOUND IN THE FEDERAL ACT:  "...  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE BOARD SHALL NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE ANY
QUESTION OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS WITHIN THE SAME
LABOR ORGANIZATION OR BETWEEN LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AFFILIATED WITH THE
SAME PARENT LABOR ORGANIZATION."  LAWS OF NEW YORK, 1937, CHAP. 443, AS
AMENDED, LAWS 1942, CHAP. 518, 30 MCKINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW
YORK, SEC. 705.3. 

THE TWO BOARDS HAVE AT TIMES PURSUED INCONSISTENT POLICIES IN
APPLYING THEIR RESPECTIVE ACTS TO PETITIONS OF FOREMEN AS A CLASS TO
ORGANIZE BARGAINING UNITS THEREUNDER.  THE STATE BOARD HAS IN THESE
CASES RECOGNIZED THAT RIGHT; THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR A TIME RECOGNIZED
IT.  UNION COLLIERIES COAL CO., 41 N.L.R.B. 961; GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC.,
44 N.L.R.B. 874.  LATER, THERE WAS A PERIOD WHEN, FOR POLICY REASONS
BUT WITHOUT RENOUNCING JURISDICTION, IT REFUSED TO APPROVE FOREMEN
ORGANIZATION UNITS.  MARYLAND DRYDOCK CO., 49 N.L.R.B. 733; BOEING
AIRCRAFT CO., 51 N.L.R.B. 67; GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 51 N.L.R.B. 457. 
NOW, AGAIN, IT SUPPORTS THEIR RIGHT TO UNIONIZE.  PACKARD MOTOR CAR
CO., 61 N.L.R.B. 4, 64 N.L.R.B. 1212; L.A. YOUNG SPRING & WIRE CORP.,
65 N.L.R.B. 298.  THE FOREMEN OF THESE APPELLANTS, AT A TIME WHEN THEIR
DESIRE TO ORGANIZE WAS FRUSTRATED BY THE POLICY OF THE NATIONAL BOARD,
FILED APPLICATIONS WITH THE STATE BOARD.  IT ENTERTAINED THEIR
PETITIONS AND ITS POLICY PERMITTED THEM AS A CLASS TO BECOME A
BARGAINING UNIT.  BOTH EMPLOYERS, BY DIFFERENT METHODS ADEQUATE UNDER
STATE LAW TO RAISE THE QUESTION, CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE STATE ACT AS SO APPLIED TO THEM.  THEIR CONTENTIONS ULTIMATELY WERE
CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AND ITS
DECISIONS SUSTAINING STATE POWER OVER THE MATTER WERE BROUGHT HERE BY
APPEALS. 

BOTH OF THESE LABOR CONTROVERSIES AROSE IN MANUFACTURING PLANTS
LOCATED IN NEW YORK WHERE THE COMPANIES EMPLOY LARGE STAFFS OF FOREMEN
TO SUPERVISE A MUCH LARGER FORCE OF LABOR.  BUT BOTH CONCERNS HAVE SUCH
A RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301
U.S. 1, FEDERAL POWER REACHES THEIR LABOR RELATIONS.  ON THIS BASIS THE
NATIONAL BOARD HAS EXERCISED POWER TO CERTIFY BARGAINING AGENTS FOR
UNITS OF EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN FOREMEN OF BOTH COMPANIES.  MATTER OF
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORPORATION, CASE NO. III-R-411, N.L.R.B., JUNE
29, 1942; MATTER OF BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP. AND C.I.O., 30 N.L.R.B. 1006,
32 N.L.R.B. 264, 1941(PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES); MATTER OF
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP. AND A.F. OF L., 47 N.L.R.B. 1330, 1943(PLANT
PROTECTION EMPLOYEES); MATTER OF BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION AND
C.I.O., 52 N.L.R.B. 1217, 1943(EMPLOYEES IN ORDER DEPARTMENT); MATTER
OF BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. AND A.F. OF L., 55 N.L.R.B. 658, 1944(FIRE
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES).  THE COMPANIES CONTEND THAT THE NATIONAL BOARD'S
JURISDICTION OVER THEIR LABOR RELATIONS IS EXCLUSIVE OF STATE POWER;
THE STATE CONTENDS ON THE CONTRARY THAT WHILE FEDERAL POWER OVER THE
SUBJECT IS PARAMOUNT, IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVE AND IN SUCH A CASE AS WE HAVE
HERE, UNTIL THE FEDERAL POWER IS ACTUALLY EXERCISED AS TO THE
PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES, STATE POWER MAY BE EXERCISED. 

AT THE TIME THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WERE CONSIDERING THIS
ISSUE, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FEDERAL ACT WOULD AUTHORIZE OR PERMIT
UNIONIZATION OF FOREMEN WAS IN CONTROVERSY AND WAS UNSETTLED UNTIL OUR
DECISION IN PACKARD MOTOR CAR CO. V. N.L.R.B., 330 U.S. 485.  WHATEVER
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY EARLIER PHASES OF THE
EVOLUTION OF THE FEDERAL POLICY IN RELATION TO THAT OF THE STATE, THE
QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER, CONGRESS HAVING UNDERTAKEN TO DEAL WITH THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE COMPANIES AND THEIR FOREMEN, THE STATE IS
PREVENTED FROM DOING SO.  CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO LAY DOWN EVEN
THE MOST GENERAL OF GUIDES TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT, AS IT SOMETIMES
DOES, BY SAYING THAT ITS REGULATION EITHER SHALL OR SHALL NOT EXCLUDE
STATE ACTION.  CF. SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SEC. 18, 48 STAT. 85, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 77R; SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, SEC. 28, 48 STAT.
903, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 78BB; UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT, SEC. 29, BEFORE
AND AFTER 1931 AMENDMENT, 39 STAT. 490, 46 STAT. 1465, 7 U.S.C. SEC.
269.  OUR QUESTION IS PRIMARILY ONE OF THE CONSTRUCTION TO BE PUT ON
THE FEDERAL ACT.  IT LONG HAS BEEN THE RULE THAT EXCLUSION OF STATE
ACTION MAY BE IMPLIED FROM THE NATURE OF THE LEGISLATION AND THE
SUBJECT MATTER ALTHOUGH EXPRESS DECLARATION OF SUCH RESULT IS WANTING. 
NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 272 U.S. 605. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER EXCLUSION OF STATE POWER WILL OR WILL NOT BE
IMPLIED, WE WELL MAY CONSIDER THE RESPECTIVE RELATION OF FEDERAL AND
STATE POWER TO THE GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE CASE IN
HAND.  THESE COMPANIES ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK STATE,
THEY OPERATE LARGE MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THAT STATE, THEY DRAW THEIR
LABOR SUPPLY FROM ITS RESIDENTS, AND THE IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN
THEIR PLANTS IS IMMEDIATELY FELT BY STATE POLICE, WELFARE AND OTHER
DEPARTMENTS.  THEIR LABOR RELATIONS ARE PRIMARILY OF INTEREST TO THE
STATE, ARE WITHIN ITS COMPETENCE LEGALLY AND PRACTICALLY TO REGULATE,
AND UNTIL RECENTLY WERE LEFT ENTIRELY TO STATE CONTROL.  THUS, THE
SUBJECT MATTER IS NOT SO "INTIMATELY BLENDED AND INTERTWINED WITH
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT" THAT ITS NATURE ALONE
RAISES AN INFERENCE OF EXCLUSION.  CF. HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S.
52, 66. 

INDEED, THE SUBJECT MATTER IS ONE REACHABLE, AND ONE WHICH CONGRESS
HAS REACHED, UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER, NOT BECAUSE IT IS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT BECAUSE UNDER THE DOCTRINE GIVEN CLASSIC
EXPRESSION IN THE SHREVEPORT CASE, CONGRESS CAN REACH ADMITTEDLY LOCAL
AND INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES "HAVING SUCH A CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION
TO INTERSTATE TRAFFIC THAT THE CONTROL IS ESSENTIAL OR APPROPRIATE TO
THE SECURITY OF THAT TRAFFIC, TO THE EFFICIENCY OF THE INTERSTATE
SERVICE, AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH INTERSTATE
COMMERCE MAY BE CONDUCTED UPON FAIR TERMS AND WITHOUT MOLESTATION OR
HINDRANCE."  HOUSTON & TEXAS RY. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342, 351. 
SEE ALSO NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601. 

IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, CONGRESS HAS SOUGHT TO REACH
SOME ASPECTS OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATION OUT OF WHICH SUCH
INTERFERENCES ARISE.  IT HAS DEALT WITH THE SUBJECT OR RELATIONSHIP BUT
PARTIALLY, AND HAS LEFT OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF ITS DELEGATION OTHER
CLOSELY RELATED MATTERS.  WHERE IT LEAVES THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATION FREE OF REGULATION IN SOME ASPECTS, IT IMPLIES THAT IN SUCH
MATTERS FEDERAL POLICY IS INDIFFERENT, AND SINCE IT IS INDIFFERENT TO
WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL OF HIS OWN VOLITION MAY DO WE CAN ONLY ASSUME IT TO
BE EQUALLY INDIFFERENT TO WHAT HE MAY DO UNDER THE COMPULSION OF THE
STATE.  SUCH WAS THE SITUATION IN ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, 315
U.S. 740, WHERE WE HELD THAT EMPLOYEE AND UNION CONDUCT OVER WHICH NO
DIRECT OR DELEGATED FEDERAL POWER WAS EXERTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IS LEFT OPEN TO REGULATION BY THE STATE.  HOWEVER, THE
POWER OF THE STATE MAY NOT SO DEAL WITH MATTERS LEFT TO ITS CONTROL AS
TO STAND "AS AN OBSTACLE TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT AND EXECUTION OF THE
FULL PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF CONGRESS."  HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S.
538, 542.  CF. MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598.  WHEN CONGRESS HAS
OUTLINED ITS POLICY IN RATHER GENERAL AND INCLUSIVE TERMS AND DELEGATED
DETERMINATION OF THEIR SPECIFIC APPLICATION TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THE MERE FACT OF DELEGATION OF POWER TO DEAL WITH THE GENERAL
MATTER, WITHOUT AGENCY ACTION, MIGHT PRECLUDE ANY STATE ACTION IF IT IS
CLEAR THAT CONGRESS HAS INTENDED NO REGULATION EXCEPT ITS OWN.  OREGON
WASHINGTON CO. V. WASHINGTON, 270 U.S. 87.  IN OTHER CASES, CONGRESS
HAS PASSED STATUTES WHICH INITIATE REGULATION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES,
BUT WHERE EFFECTIVE REGULATION MUST WAIT UPON THE ISSUANCE OF RULES BY
AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.  IN THE INTERVAL BEFORE THOSE RULES ARE
ESTABLISHED, THIS COURT HAS USUALLY HELD THAT THE POLICE POWER OF THE
STATE MAY BE EXERCISED.  NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. NEBRASKA
STATE COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 471; WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S.
79.  BUT WHEN FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS
EFFECTIVELY GOVERNING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE STATUTE, THE COURT HAS
SAID THAT A STATE REGULATION IN THE FIELD OF THE STATUTE IS INVALID
EVEN THOUGH THAT PARTICULAR PHASE OF THE SUBJECT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN UP
BY THE FEDERAL AGENCY.  NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 272 U.S.
605.  HOWEVER, WHEN FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION HAS BEEN SLIGHT
UNDER A STATUTE WHICH POTENTIALLY ALLOWS MINUTE AND MULTITUDINOUS
REGULATION OF ITS SUBJECT, CF. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. GEORGIA,
234 U.S. 280, OR EVEN WHERE EXTENSIVE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, IF
THE MEASURE IN QUESTION RELATES TO WHAT MAY BE CONSIDERED A SEPARABLE
OR DISTINCT SEGMENT OF THE MATTER COVERED BY THE FEDERAL STATUTE AND
THE FEDERAL AGENCY HAS NOT ACTED ON THAT SEGMENT, THE CASE WILL BE
TREATED IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO CASES IN WHICH THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
FEDERAL SUPERVISION AWAITS FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION,
NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. NEBRASKA STATE COMMISSION, SUPRA;
WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA.  THE STATES ARE IN THOSE CASES
PERMITTED TO USE THEIR POLICE POWER IN THE INTERVAL.  TERMINAL RAILROAD
ASSN. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, 318 U.S. 1.  HOWEVER, THE
CONCLUSION MUST BE OTHERWISE WHERE FAILURE OF THE FEDERAL OFFICIALS
AFFIRMATIVELY TO EXERCISE THEIR FULL AUTHORITY TAKES ON THE CHARACTER
OF A RULING THAT NO SUCH REGULATION IS APPROPRIATE OR APPROVED PURSUANT
TO THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE.  NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 272 U.S.
605; COMPARE OREGON-WASHINGTON CO. V. WASHINGTON, 270 U.S. 87, WITH
PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341; CF. MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346. 
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FAILURE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO
ENTERTAIN FOREMEN'S PETITIONS WAS OF THE LATTER CLASS.  THERE WAS NO
ADMINISTRATIVE CONCESSION THAT THE NATURE OF THESE APPELLANTS' BUSINESS
PUT THEIR EMPLOYEES BEYOND REACH OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  THE BOARD
SEVERAL TIMES ENTERTAINED SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS BY OTHER EMPLOYEES WHOSE
RIGHT RESTED ON THE SAME WORDS OF CONGRESS.  NEITHER DID THE NATIONAL
BOARD EVER DENY ITS OWN JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE
BY FOREMEN.  SOSS MANUFACTURING CO., 56 N.L.R.B. 348.  IT MADE CLEAR
THAT ITS REFUSAL TO DESIGNATE FOREMEN'S BARGAINING UNITS WAS A
DETERMINATION AND AN EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THAT SUCH
UNITS WERE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR BARGAINING PURPOSES.  MARYLAND DRYDOCK
CO., 49 N.L.R.B. 733.  WE CANNOT, THEREFORE, DEAL WITH THIS AS A CASE
WHERE FEDERAL POWER HAS BEEN DELEGATED BUT LIES DORMANT AND
UNEXERCISED. 

COMPARISON OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES WILL SHOW THAT BOTH
GOVERNMENTS HAVE LAID HOLD OF THE SAME RELATIONSHIP FOR REGULATION, AND
IT INVOLVES THE SAME EMPLOYERS AND THE SAME EMPLOYEES.  EACH HAS
DELEGATED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY A WIDE DISCRETION IN APPLYING
THIS PLAN OF REGULATION TO SPECIFIC CASES, AND THEY ARE GOVERNED BY
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT STANDARDS.  THUS, IF BOTH LAWS ARE UPHELD, TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ARE ASSERTING A DISCRETIONARY CONTROL OVER THE
SAME SUBJECT MATTER, CONDUCTING HEARINGS, SUPERVISING ELECTIONS AND
DETERMINING APPROPRIATE UNITS FOR BARGAINING IN THE SAME PLANT.  THEY
MIGHT COME OUT WITH THE SAME DETERMINATION, OR THEY MIGHT COME OUT WITH
CONFLICTING ONES AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST.  CF. MATTER OF CREAMERY
PACKAGE MFG. CO., 34 N.L.R.B. 108; WISC.  EMP.  REL. BD. CASE III, NO.
348 E-117.  BUT THE POWER TO DECIDE A MATTER CAN HARDLY BE MADE
DEPENDENT ON THE WAY IT IS DECIDED.  AS SAID BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES FOR
THE COURT, "WHEN CONGRESS HAS TAKEN THE PARTICULAR SUBJECTMATTER IN
HAND COINCIDENCE IS AS INEFFECTIVE AS OPPOSITION  ..."  CHARLESTON R.
CO. V. VARNVILLE CO., 237 U.S. 597, 604.  SEE ALSO SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
V. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF INDIANA, 236 U.S. 439, 448; MISSOURI PACIFIC
R.R. V. PORTER, 273 U.S. 341, 345-6.  IF THE TWO BOARDS ATTEMPT TO
EXERCISE A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE APPROPRIATE UNIT OF
REPRESENTATION, ACTION BY ONE NECESSARILY DENIES THE DISCRETION OF THE
OTHER.  THE SECOND TO ACT EITHER MUST FOLLOW THE FIRST, WHICH WOULD
MAKE ITS ACTION USELESS AND VAIN, OR DEPART FROM IT, WHICH WOULD
PRODUCE A MISCHIEVOUS CONFLICT.  THE STATE ARGUES FOR A RULE THAT WOULD
ENABLE IT TO ACT UNTIL THE FEDERAL BOARD HAD ACTED IN THE SAME CASE. 
BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT A CASE BY CASE TEST OF FEDERAL SUPREMACY IS
PERMISSIBLE HERE.  THE FEDERAL BOARD HAS JURISDICTION OF THE INDUSTRY
IN WHICH THESE PARTICULAR EMPLOYERS ARE ENGAGED AND HAS ASSERTED
CONTROL OF THEIR LABOR RELATIONS IN GENERAL.  IT ASSERTS, AND
RIGHTFULLY SO, UNDER OUR DECISION IN THE PACKARD CASE, SUPRA, ITS POWER
TO DECIDE WHETHER THESE FOREMEN MAY CONSTITUTE THEMSELVES A BARGAINING
UNIT.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THIS LEAVES ROOM FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
STATE AUTHORITY ASSERTED. 

THE NATIONAL AND STATE BOARDS HAVE MADE A COMMENDABLE EFFORT TO AVOID
CONFLICT IN THIS OVERLAPPING STATE OF THE STATUTES.  WE FIND NOTHING IN
THEIR NEGOTIATIONS, HOWEVER, WHICH AFFECTS EITHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE FEDERAL STATUTE OR THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER INSOFAR AS
THEY ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE NATIONAL BOARD MADE NO
CONCESSION OR DELEGATION OF POWER TO DEAL WITH THIS SUBJECT.  THE
ELECTION OF THE NATIONAL BOARD TO DECLINE JURISDICTION IN CERTAIN TYPES
OF CASES, FOR BUDGETARY OR OTHER REASONS PRESENTS A DIFFERENT PROBLEM
WHICH WE DO NOT NOW DECIDE. 

WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT IT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF NEW YORK STATE
TO APPLY ITS POLICY TO THESE APPELLANTS AS ATTEMPTED HEREIN.  THE
JUDGMENTS APPEALED FROM ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH.  REVERSED. 

SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN. 

THE LEGAL ISSUE IN THESE CASES DERIVES FROM OUR DECISION IN PACKARD
MOTOR CAR CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 330 U.S. 485.  THE
COURT THERE HELD THAT FOREMEN ARE "EMPLOYEES" WITHIN SEC. 2(3) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 450, AND AS SUCH ARE
ENTITLED TO THE RIGHTS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION UNDER THE ACT.  AS THE
PACKARD CASE POINTS OUT, THE EXERCISE OF THIS AUTHORITY OVER FOREMEN
HAS HAD A CHEQUERED HISTORY BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 
THERE WAS A PERIOD WHEN THE BOARD IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION
DENIED RESORT TO ITS AUTHORITY BY FOREMEN SEEKING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATION.  DURING THAT PERIOD, FOREMEN OF THE TWO PETITIONING
STEEL COMPANIES INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR
BOARD TO CERTIFY THEM AS A BARGAINING UNIT UNDER THE NEW YORK LAW
DESCRIPTIVELY CHARACTERIZED AS A "LITTLE WAGNER ACT" BECAUSE IT
ENFORCES THE SAME POLICIES BY THE SAME MEANS AS DOES THE WAGNER ACT. 
THE STATE BOARD ASSUMED JURISDICTION AND THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
SUSTAINED THAT ASSUMPTION.  OUR PROBLEM IS WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IN ITS ENTIRETY - THE LAW AS CONGRESS GAVE IT TO THE
NATIONAL BOARD FOR ADMINISTRATION - PRECLUDED THIS EXERCISE OF STATE
AUTHORITY. 

IF THE COURT MERELY HELD THAT, HAVING GIVEN THE NATIONAL BOARD
JURISDICTION OVER FOREMEN CONGRESS ALSO GAVE IT DISCRETION TO DETERMINE
THAT IT MAY BE UNDESIRABLE, AS A MATTER OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, TO
COMPEL RECOGNITION OF FOREMEN'S UNIONS; THAT THE BOARD HAD SO EXERCISED
ITS DISCRETION AND, BY REFUSING TO SANCTION FOREMEN'S UNIONS, HAD
DETERMINED THAT FOREMEN IN ENTERPRISES LIKE THOSE BEFORE US COULD NOT
EXACT UNION RECOGNITION; THAT THEREFORE NEW YORK COULD NOT OPPOSE SUCH
FEDERAL ACTION BY A CONTRARY POLICY OF ITS OWN, I SHOULD CONCUR IN THE
COURT'S DECISION, WHATEVER THE DIFFERENCES OF INTERPRETATION TO WHICH
THE COURSE OF EVENTS BEFORE THE NATIONAL BOARD MAY LEND ITSELF.  BUT
THE COURT'S OPINION DOES NOT, AS I READ IT, HAVE THAT RESTRICTED SCOPE,
BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US.  APART FROM THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE NATIONAL BOARD'S DECLINATION OF JURISDICTION "IN
CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES, FOR BUDGETARY OR OTHER REASONS" MIGHT LEAVE
ROOM FOR THE STATE IN THOSE SITUATIONS, THE COURT'S OPINION CARRIES AT
LEAST OVERTONES OF MEANING THAT, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSENT OF THE
NATIONAL BOARD, NEW YORK IS EXCLUDED FROM ENFORCING RIGHTS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN ALL INDUSTRIES WITHIN ITS BORDERS AS TO WHICH
CONGRESS HAS GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO INVOKE THE AUTHORITY OF THE
NATIONAL BOARD. 

THE INABILITY OF THE NATIONAL BOARD TO EXERCISE ITS DORMANT POWERS
BECAUSE OF LACK OF FUNDS OUGHT NOT TO FURNISH A MORE PERSUASIVE REASON
FOR FINDING THAT CONCURRENT STATE POWER MAY FUNCTION THAN A DELIBERATE
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT BY THE NATIONAL BOARD THAT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
HAVING BOTH NATIONAL AND STATE CONCERN CAN MOST EFFECTIVELY BE PROMOTED
BY AN APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES BETWEEN THE
NATIONAL AND THE STATE BOARDS.  THIS STATES ABSTRACTLY A VERY PRACTICAL
SITUATION.  BASED ON THE REALIZATION THAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THE
NATIONAL BOARD COULD NOT EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT COMMITTED
TO IT OVER THE WHOLE RANGE OF ITS AUTHORITY, AN ARRANGEMENT WAS WORKED
OUT WHEREBY THE NATIONAL BOARD LEAVES TO THE STATE BOARD JURISDICTION
OVER SO-CALLED LOCAL INDUSTRIES COVERED BY THE FEDERAL ACT, WHILE THE
STATE BOARD DOES NOT ENTERTAIN MATTERS OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL BOARD
HAS CONSISTENTLY TAKEN JURISDICTION.  THIS PRACTICAL FEDERAL-STATE
WORKING ARRANGEMENT, ARRIVED AT BY THOSE CARRYING THE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR BREATHING LIFE INTO THE BARE BONES OF LEGISLATION, IS SO RELEVANT
TO THE SOLUTION OF THE LEGAL ISSUES ARISING OUT OF STATE-NATION
INDUSTRIAL INTERACTION, THAT I HAVE SET FORTH THE AGREEMENT IN FULL IN
AN APPENDIX.  PARTICULARLY WHEN DEALING WITH LEGAL ASPECTS OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IS IT IMPORTANT FOR COURTS NOT TO ISOLATE LEGAL
ISSUES FROM THEIR WORKADAY CONTEXT.  I CANNOT JOIN THE COURT'S OPINION
BECAUSE I READ IT TO MEAN THAT IT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE NATIONAL
BOARD TO AGREE WITH STATE AGENCIES ENFORCING LAWS LIKE THE WAGNER ACT
TO DIVIDE, WITH DUE REGARD TO LOCAL INTERESTS, THE DOMAIN OVER WHICH
CONGRESS HAD GIVEN THE NATIONAL BOARD ABSTRACT DISCRETION BUT WHICH,
PRACTICALLY, CANNOT BE COVERED BY IT ALONE.  IF SUCH COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL BOARDS ARE BARRED BECAUSE THE
POWER WHICH CONGRESS HAS GRANTED TO THE NATIONAL BOARD OUSTED OR
SUPERSEDED STATE AUTHORITY, I AM UNABLE TO SEE HOW STATE AUTHORITY CAN
REVIVE BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO PUT THE BOARD ON SHORT
RATIONS. 

SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH ASPECTS OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES THAT
ARE NOT LEGALLY OUTSIDE STATE ACTION BY VIRTUE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
ITSELF, NEW YORK HAS AUTHORITY TO ACT SO LONG AS CONGRESS HAS NOT
INTERDICTED HER ACTION.  WHILE WHAT THE STATE DOES SHE DOES ON
SUFFERANCE, IN ASCERTAINING WHETHER CONGRESS HAS ALLOWED STATE ACTION
WE ARE NOT TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AS THOUGH CONGRESS WERE CONFERRING A
MERE BOUNTY, THE EXTENT OF WHICH MUST BE VIEWED WITH A THRIFTY EYE. 
WHEN CONSTRUING FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT DEALS WITH MATTERS THAT ALSO
LIE WITHIN THE AUTHORITY, BECAUSE WITHIN THE PROPER INTERESTS, OF THE
STATES, WE MUST BE MINDFUL THAT WE ARE PART OF THE DELICATE PROCESS OF
ADJUSTING THE INTERACTING AREAS OF NATIONAL AND STATE AUTHORITY OVER
COMMERCE.  THE INEVITABLE EXTENSION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER ECONOMIC
ENTERPRISE HAS ABSORBED THE AUTHORITY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY LEFT TO THE
STATES.  BUT IN LEGISLATING, CONGRESS IS NOT INDULGING IN DOCTRINAIRE,
HARD-AND-FAST CURTAILMENT OF THE STATE POWERS REFLECTING SPECIAL STATE
INTERESTS.  FEDERAL LEGISLATION OF THIS CHARACTER MUST BE CONSTRUED
WITH DUE REGARD TO ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE ASSERTIONS OF NEW FEDERAL
AUTHORITY AND THE FUNCTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, AS REFLECTING THE
HISTORIC AND PERSISTENT CONCERNS OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 
SINCE CONGRESS CAN, IF IT CHOOSES, ENTIRELY DISPLACE THE STATES TO THE
FULL EXTENT OF THE FAR-REACHING COMMERCE CLAUSE, CONGRESS NEEDS NO HELP
FROM GENEROUS JUDICIAL IMPLICATIONS TO ACHIEVE THE SUPERSESSION OF
STATE AUTHORITY.  TO CONSTRUE FEDERAL LEGISLATION SO AS NOT NEEDLESSLY
TO FORBID PREEXISTING STATE AUTHORITY IS TO RESPECT OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM.  ANY INDULGENCE IN CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE
STATES, BECAUSE CONGRESS CAN SPEAK WITH DRASTIC CLARITY WHENEVER IT
CHOOSES TO ASSURE FULL FEDERAL AUTHORITY, COMPLETELY DISPLACING THE
STATES. 

THIS IS AN OLD PROBLEM AND THE CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED IN ITS
SOLUTION ARE COMMONPLACE.  BUT RESULTS NOT ALWAYS HARMONIOUS HAVE FROM
TIME TO TIME BEEN DRAWN FROM THE SAME PRECEPTS.  IN LAW ALSO THE
EMPHASIS MAKES THE SONG.  IT MAY MAKE A DECISIVE DIFFERENCE WHAT VIEW
JUDGES HAVE OF THE PLACE OF THE STATES IN OUR NATIONAL LIFE WHEN THEY
COME TO APPLY THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE THAT FOR AN ACT OF CONGRESS
COMPLETELY TO DISPLACE A STATE LAW "THE REPUGNANCE OR CONFLICT SHOULD
BE DIRECT AND POSITIVE, SO THAT THE TWO ACTS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED OR
CONSISTENTLY STAND TOGETHER."  SINNOT V. DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227, 243. 
CONGRESS CAN SPEAK SO UNEQUIVOCALLY AS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT.  BUT REAL
CONTROVERSIES ARISE ONLY WHEN CONGRESS HAS LEFT THE MATTER IN DOUBT,
AND THEN THE RESULT DEPENDS ON WHETHER WE REQUIRE THAT ACTUAL CONFLICT
BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL ACTION BE SHOWN, OR WHETHER ARGUMENTATIVE
CONFLICT SUFFICES. 

OUR GENERAL PROBLEM WAS ONLY RECENTLY CANVASSED IN THE THREE OPINIONS
IN HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538.  BUT THE FREQUENT RECURRENCE OF THE
PROBLEM AND THE RESPECTIVE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL SHARE IN ITS PROPER
SOLUTION JUSTIFY SOME REPETITION.  IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO RECALL THE
CIRCUMSPECTION WITH WHICH FEDERAL ABSORPTION OF AUTHORITY PREVIOUSLY
BELONGING TO THE STATES WAS OBSERVED IN THE CONTROL OF RAILROAD RATES. 

IN THE MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, THIS COURT, AFTER
ELABORATE ARGUMENT AND EXTENDED CONSIDERATION, HELD THAT STATE RATES
COVERING INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION COULD NOT BE STRICKEN DOWN
JUDICIALLY EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE SHOWN THAT SUCH RATES ADVERSELY AFFECT
CARRIERS IN THEIR INTERSTATE ASPECTS.  THIS DECISION WAS BASED LARGELY
ON THE RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED TO THE RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF STATE AND
NATIONAL AUTHORITY, AS EVINCED BY CONGRESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL HISTORY. 
BUT A YEAR LATER, THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT STATE REGULATION OF LOCAL RATES WAS DESIGNED TO
OPERATE DISCRIMINATORILY AGAINST RELATED INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST THE INTERSTATE RATES.  HOUSTON, EAST AND WEST R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 234 U.S. 342.  NEVERTHELESS, SO IMPORTANT DID THIS COURT DEEM
RESPECT FOR STATE POWER THAT IT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE SHREVEPORT DOCTRINE
TO BE LOOSELY USED AS A CURTAILMENT OF STATE AUTHORITY.  ACCORDINGLY,
IT INSISTED ON PRECISION AND DEFINITENESS IN THE ORDERS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THIS INTERACTING AREA.  ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO. V. STATE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 245 U.S. 493. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, CONGRESS FORMALIZED
THE SHREVEPORT DOCTRINE AND EXTENDED ITS SCOPE.  THE COMMISSION WAS
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO CORRECT STATE RATES THAT WERE UNREASONABLE WITH
REFERENCE TO RELATED INTERSTATE RATES, AND WAS ALSO GIVEN CONTROL OVER
STATE RATES WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECTED INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS SUCH.  SEE
SEC. 13, PAR. 4 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED BY SECS. 416
AND 422 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 456, 484, 488;
WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMMISSION V. C.B. & Q.R.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563; NEW
YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 591.  IT IS NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE
THAT IN EXERCISING THIS NEW POWER CONGRESS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCIES IN AN
ADVISORY CAPACITY.  EVEN WHERE FOREIGN COMMERCE IS INVOLVED, AS TO
WHICH STATE CONTROL IS NATURALLY VIEWED WITH LESS FAVOR, THIS COURT HAS
NOT RULED OUT STATE AUTHORITY DERIVED FROM A STATE INTEREST WHERE STATE
REGULATION WAS FOUND TO BE COMPLEMENTARY TO FEDERAL REGULATION.  UNION
BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 208-09.    NO DOUBT, AS
INDICATED, CASES HAVE NOT ALWAYS DEALT WITH SUCH SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR
STATE ACTION WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT PATENTLY TERMINATED IT.  METAPHOR -
"OCCUPIED THE FIELD" - HAS AT TIMES DONE SERVICE FOR CLOSE ANALYSIS. 
BUT THE RULES OF ACCOMMODATION THAT HAVE BEEN MOST CONSISTENTLY
PROFESSED AS WELL AS THE DOMINANT CURRENT OF DECISIONS MAKE FOR AND NOT
AGAINST THE MODUS VIVENDI ACHIEVED BY THE TWO AGENCIES IN THE LABOR
RELATIONS FIELD, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT, AS AMICUS CURIAE, HERE
SPONSORED.  SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT ASSURES THE EFFECTUATION OF THE
POLICIES WHICH UNDERLIE BOTH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THE
"LITTLE WAGNER ACT" OF NEW YORK IN A MANNER AGREED UPON BY THE TWO
BOARDS FOR DEALING WITH MATTERS AFFECTING INTERESTS OF COMMON CONCERN. 
"WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROVIDED FOR COLLABORATION THE COURTS SHOULD
NOT FIND CONFLICT."  UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 209. 

WHAT IS BEFORE US IS A VERY REAL AND PRACTICAL SITUATION.  THE VAST
RANGE OF JURISDICTION WHICH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT HAS
CONFERRED UPON THE BOARD RAISES PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATION WHOLLY APART
FROM AVAILABLE FUNDS.  AS A RESULT OF THIS COURT'S DECISION IN NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, UNTOLD SMALL
ENTERPRISES ARE SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE BOARD.  WHILE LABOR
DIFFICULTIES IN THESE UNITS IN THE AGGREGATE MAY UNQUESTIONABLY HAVE
SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN THEIR INDIVIDUALIZED
ASPECTS THEY ARE EQUALLY THE CONCERN OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCALITIES. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, INSTEAD OF VIEWING THE
ATTEMPT OF STATE AGENCIES TO ENFORCE THE PRINCIPLES OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AS AN ENCROACHMENT UPON NATIONAL AUTHORITY, REGARDS THE AID
OF THE STATE AGENCIES AS AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING A COMMON
END.  OF COURSE, AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID, "WHEN CONGRESS HAS TAKEN
THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT-MATTER IN HAND COINCIDENCE IS AS INEFFECTIVE AS
OPPOSITION" TO SAVE THE STATE LAW.  BUT SURELY THIS IS SO ONLY WHEN THE
STATE SEEKS "TO ENFORCE A STATE POLICY DIFFERENTLY CONCEIVED  ..." 
CHARLESTON & WESTERN CAROLINA R.R. CO. V. VARNVILLE FURNITURE COMPANY,
237 U.S. 597, 604. 

THE NATIONAL BOARD'S BUSINESS EXPLAINS THE REASON AND SUPPORTS THE
REASONABLENESS BEHIND ITS DESIRE TO SHARE BURDENS THAT MAY BE THE
STATE'S CONCERN NO LESS THAN THE NATION'S.  THE BOARD'S ANNUAL REPORTS
SHOW INCREASING ARREARS.  AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1944, 2602
CASES WERE PENDING; AT THE END OF 1945, 3244; AT THE END OF 1946, THERE
WERE 4605 UNFINISHED CASES.  A SHREWD CRITIC HAS THUS EXPRESSED THE
CONSIDERATIONS THAT IN THE PAST HAVE OFTEN LAIN BELOW THE SURFACE OF
MERELY DOCTRINAL APPLICATIONS:  "FORMALLY THE ENTERPRISE IS ONE OF THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS TO DISCOVER ITS SCOPE.  ACTUALLY
IT IS OFTEN THE ENTERPRISE OF REACHING A JUDGMENT WHETHER THE SITUATION
IS SO ADEQUATELY HANDLED BY NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION THAT THE IMPEDIMENT
OF FURTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS IS TO BE DEEMED A BANE RATHER THAN A
BLESSING."  T.R. POWELL, CURRENT CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
AND STATE POLICE POWER, 12 MINN. L. REV. 607.  IN THE SUBMISSION BY THE
BOARD BEFORE US, WE HAVE THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE MANIFESTATION BY
NATIONAL AUTHORITY THAT STATE COLLABORATION WOULD BE A BLESSING RATHER
THAN A BANE, AND YET JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION WOULD FORBID THE AID WHICH
THE AGENCY OF CONGRESS SEEKS IN CARRYING OUT ITS DUTY.  IT IS SURELY A
RESPONSIBLE INFERENCE THAT THE THE RESULT WILL BE TO LEAVE UNCONTROLLED
LARGE AREAS OF INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT.  NEITHER WHAT CONGRESS HAS SAID IN
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, NOR THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACT, NOR ITS
POLICY, NOR ITS ACTUAL OPERATION, SHOULD BE FOUND TO PROHIBIT THE BOARD
FROM EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION SO AS TO ENLIST THE AID OF AGENCIES
CHARGED WITH LIKE DUTIES WITHIN THE STATES IN ENFORCING A COMMON POLICY
BY A DISTRIBUTION OF CASES APPROPRIATE TO RESPECTIVE STATE AND NATIONAL
INTERESTS. 

                              APPENDIX. 

           DOCUMENTS INDICATING UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE NEW
YORK

           AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDS       NEW YORK

           STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD             250 WEST 57TH

           STREET      NEW YORK 19 

WILLIAM E. GRADY, JR.

   GENERAL COUNSEL

                                      JULY 10, 1945. 

ALVIN J. ROCKWELL, ESQUIRE

   GENERAL COUNSEL,

  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,   WASHINGTON, D.C. 

DEAR MR. ROCKWELL:  THE BOARD HAS EXAMINED YOUR MEMORANDUM OF OUR
CONFERENCE OF APRIL 20, 1945 AND CONSIDERS THAT IT REPRESENTS A FAIR
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 

AS TO INSURANCE COMPANIES (PAGE 6 OF YOUR MEMO), YOU WILL RECALL THAT
WE MENTIONED OUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH SUCH COMPANIES AND THE FACT THAT
UNITS OF LESS THAN STATE-WIDE SCOPE HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AND UPHELD BY
THE COURTS.  IN SUCH CASES, THEREFORE, WE THINK IT WOULD BE TO THE
BENEFIT OF BOTH BOARDS THAT YOU CLEAR WITH US.  A SITUATION MAY VERY
EASILY ARISE IN WHICH YOU WOULD PREFER TO HAVE US ENTERTAIN A PETITION
WHICH HAD BEEN FILED WITH US. 

BEST REGARDS. 

   SINCERELY,

                            /S/ WILLIAM E. GRADY, JR.

                            NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

                            WASHINGTON 25, D.C., JULY 26, 1945. 

WILLIAM E. GRADY, JR.,

GENERAL COUNSEL,

   NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

   250 WEST 57TH STREET,

   NEW YORK CITY 19, N.Y. 

DEAR MR. GRADY:  IN MR. ROCKWELL'S ABSENCE ON VACATION THIS WEEK, I
AM REPLYING TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 10. 

MR. ROCKWELL'S MEMORANDUM OF OUR CONFERENCE OF APRIL 20 AND YOUR
LETTER WERE DISCUSSED WITH AND APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 

WE ARE, ACCORDINGLY, CIRCULATING COPIES OF THIS MEMORANDUM TO THE
MEMBERS OF OUR STAFFS IN THE BUFFALO AND NEW YORK CITY OFFICES.  THIS
MEMORANDUM AND YOUR LETTER WILL HEREAFTER BE FOLLOWED AS A GUIDE IN
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO BOARDS AS REGARDS CASES ARISING IN NEW YORK
STATE. 

        SINCERELY YOURS,                /S/  OSCAR S. SMITH

       OSCAR S. SMITH,                  DIRECTOR

  OF FIELD DIVISION. 

MEMORANDUM RE CONFERENCE BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF NEW YORK STATE
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, HELD FRIDAY,
APRIL 20, 1945 

A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE OFFICES OF THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD ON FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1945, ATTENDED BY FATHER KELLEY,
CHAIRMAN, AND BOARD MEMBERS GOLDBERG AND LORENZ, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
GOLDBERG, GENERAL COUNSEL GRADY, AND ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
FELDBLUM, OF THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AND BY FIELD
DIRECTOR SMITH, NEW YORK REGIONAL DIRECTOR HOWARD LEBARON, GENERAL
COUNSEL ROCKWELL, AND NEW YORK REGIONAL ATTORNEY PERL, OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  THE SUBJECT OF THE CONFERENCE WAS THE PROPER
DIVISION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL AND STATE BOARDS. 

THIS CONFERENCE FOLLOWED AN EARLIER CONFERENCE HELD ON JANUARY 9,
1945, IN WASHINGTON, BETWEEN MESSRS.  SMITH AND ROCKWELL AND BUFFALO
REGIONAL DIRECTOR RYDER, REPRESENTING THE NLRB, AND MESSRS.  GOLDBERG
AND FELDBLUM, REPRESENTING THE NEW YORK BOARD.  AT THE CONFERENCE IN
WASHINGTON, THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECT DISCUSSED WAS THE ACTION OF THE STATE
BOARD IN ENTERTAINING ELECTION PETITIONS INVOLVING THE EMPLOYEES OF
LARGE INTERSTATE MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL
BOARD HAS CUSTOMARILY ASSERTED JURISDICTION.  THE CASES IN QUESTION
RELATED TO PETITIONS FILED BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WHICH SOUGHT TO BE
CERTIFIED AS REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITS OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES OR, IN
ONE CASE, A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH SOUGHT TO REPRESENT NON
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES BUT WHOSE MEMBERSHIP WAS COMPOSED OF A
SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SUPERVISORS.  AT THE TIME OF THE JANUARY
CONFERENCE, THE BOARD'S DECISION IN THE PACKARD CASE, 61 N.L.R.B., NO.
3, HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED; IT APPEARED THAT IN CERTIFYING A LABOR
ORGANIZATION FOR SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES THE STATE BOARD WAS TAKING
ACTION CONTRARY TO THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE NATIONAL
BOARD HAD THE PETITION BEEN FILED WITH IT.  IT WAS ALSO BELIEVED THAT
THE ACTION OF THE STATE BOARD IN PROCEEDING TO A CERTIFICATION OF A
LABOR ORGANIZATION FOR NON-SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WHOSE MEMBERSHIP
INCLUDED SUPERVISORS IN SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER MIGHT BE CONTRARY TO THE
NATIONAL BOARD'S DISPOSITION OF THE CASE UNDER ITS DECISION IN MATTER
OF ROCHESTER & PITTSBURGH COAL CO., 56 N.L.R.B. 1760.  NO UNDERSTANDING
WAS REACHED WITH REGARD TO THESE TYPES OF CASES AT THE JANUARY
CONFERENCE.  IN THE MEANTIME, ON MARCH 26, 1945, THE BOARD ISSUED ITS
DECISION IN THE PACKARD CASE, HOLDING THAT IT WOULD PROCEED TO CERTIFY
UNAFFILIATED UNIONS AS REPRESENTATIVE OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AND
LEAVING OPEN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT WOULD PROCEED TO CERTIFY
AFFILIATED UNIONS AS SUCH REPRESENTATIVES.  THE NEW YORK CONFERENCE WAS
ARRANGED IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THE TYPES OF CASES WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT
OF THE JANUARY CONFERENCE AND ALSO TO CANVASS IN GENERAL THE QUESTION
OF THE RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS OF THE TWO BOARDS. 

THE NEW YORK CONFERENCE BEGAN WITH CONSIDERATION OF FATHER BOLAND'S
LETTER TO MR. MADDEN DATED JULY 12, 1937, WHICH HAS CONSTITUTED THE
PRINCIPAL BASIS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TWO BOARDS DURING THE
ENSUING YEARS.  THE BOLAND LETTER STATES: 

UNLESS THERE ARE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD WILL ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER ALL CASES ARISING IN THE
FOLLOWING TRADES AND INDUSTRIES, WITHOUT CLEARING, EXCEPT AS A MATTER
OF RECORD, WITH THE NATIONAL BOARD'S OFFICIALS: 

1.  RETAIL STORES, 

2.  SMALL INDUSTRIES WHICH RECEIVE ALL OR PRACTICALLY ALL RAW
MATERIALS FROM WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND DO NOT SHIP ANY
MATERIAL PROPORTION OF THEIR PRODUCT OUTSIDE THE STATE, 

3.  SERVICE TRADES (SUCH AS LAUNDRIES), 

4.  OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, 

5.  SMALL AND CLEARLY LOCAL PUBLIC UTILITIES, (THIS INCLUDES LOCAL
TRACTION COMPANIES, AS WELL AS GAS AND ELECTRIC LIGHT CORPORATIONS.) 

6.  STORAGE WAREHOUSES, 

7.  CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, 

8.  OTHER OBVIOUSLY LOCAL BUSINESSES. 

A COPY OF THE LETTER OF JULY 12, 1937, IS ATTACHED TO THIS
MEMORANDUM. 

AT THE TIME OF THE PREPARATION OF THE LETTER OF JULY 12 AND THE
CONFERENCE WHICH PRECEDED IT AND UPON WHICH IT IS BASED, THERE WAS
RELATIVELY LITTLE CASE LAW AS TO THE JURISDICTION UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE NATIONAL BOARD UNDER THE NATIONAL ACT.  SINCE THAT TIME
THERE HAS BEEN A LARGE NUMBER OF DECISIONS IN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS AND SEVERAL IN THE SUPREME COURT WHICH HAVE
SUBSTANTIALLY EXTENDED THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT WHICH WAS
UNDERSTOOD TO EXIST IN JULY 1937.  TO TAKE ONLY ONE PERTINENT EXAMPLE:
IN JULY 1937 THE BOARD HAD NOT ASSERTED JURISDICTION OVER RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENTS.  SINCE 1937 THE BOARD HAS ACCEPTED A CONSIDERABLE
NUMBER OF CASES INVOLVING RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS SUCH AS DEPARTMENT
STORES AND THE BOARD'S POWER IN THIS RESPECT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE
COURTS.  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE
NATIONAL ACT, THE NATIONAL AND STATE BOARDS, RESPECTIVELY, HAVE, IN
GENERAL, FOLLOWED THE UNDERSTANDING REFLECTED BY THE LETTER OF JULY 12,
1937.  THUS, IN NEW YORK STATE THE NATIONAL BOARD HAS NOT ASSERTED
JURISDICTION OVER RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS.  THE REPRESENTATIVES AT THE
CONFERENCE OF APRIL 20 EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT, BY AND LARGE, THE
UNDERSTANDING HAD WORKED OUT WELL AS APPLIED TO THE TYPES OF BUSINESSES
THERE DEALT WITH.  THE POSITION WAS REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED BY THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH NATIONAL AND STATE BOARDS THAT AS A WORKING
MATTER THE JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE TWO BOARDS MUST BE ALLOTTED ON THE
BASIS OF THE TYPE OF INDUSTRY OR BUSINESS INVOLVED (RATHER, FOR
EXAMPLE, THAN ON THE BASIS OF WHICH BOARD A PETITION OR CHARGE IS
INITIALLY FILED WITH), AND THAT WHEN ONE BOARD, PURSUANT TO COMMON
UNDERSTANDING, HAS ASSERTED JURISDICTION IN THE PAST OVER A PARTICULAR
EMPLOYER, THE OTHER BOARD SHOULD THEREAFTER REFER ANY MATTERS COMING TO
IT TO THE BOARD WHICH HAD ENTERTAINED THE EARLIER CASE OR CASES.  FN1 

FOLLOWING REFERENCE TO THE LETTER OF JULY 12, THERE WAS DETAILED
DISCUSSION OF THE EIGHT CATEGORIES THERE LISTED, WHICH ARE QUOTED
ABOVE.  THE GIST OF THIS DISCUSSION WAS AS FOLLOWS: RETAIL STORES. 
WHERE THE SAME COMPANY OPERATES RETAIL STORES AND ALSO DOES A
SUBSTANTIAL INTERSTATE MAIL ORDER BUSINESS FROM WITHIN NEW YORK STATE,
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NATIONAL BOARD POINTED OUT THAT PROBABLY THE
NATIONAL ACT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE COMPANY.  THE UNDERSTANDING WAS
REACHED THAT BEFORE THE STATE BOARD ASSERTED JURISDICTION IN THE FUTURE
OVER ANY SUCH COMPANIES, THE CASE WOULD BE CLEARED WITH THE NATIONAL
BOARD THROUGH THE NEW YORK CITY OR BUFFALO OFFICES, DEPENDING UPON THE
REGION IN WHICH THE CASE AROSE.  SERVICE TRADES.  WHERE A NEW YORK
CONCERN IS IN THE BUSINESS OF FURNISHING GUARDS, WINDOW WASHERS,
LAUNDRY, OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF SERVICE WITHIN THE STATE, IT WAS FELT
THAT THE BUSINESS IS ESSENTIALLY LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND SHOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE STATE ACT EVEN THOUGH THE SERVICES ARE FURNISHED TO A
NUMBER OF LARGE INTERSTATE ENTERPRISES, WHICH IN THEMSELVES ARE SUBJECT
TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL ACT.  (AN EXCEPTION IS THE CASE OF
DETECTIVE AGENCIES DOING BUSINESS ON A NATIONAL SCALE, CONCERNING
WHICH, IT IS UNDERSTOOD, THE STATE BOARD WILL CLEAR WITH THE NATIONAL
BOARD BEFORE ASSERTING JURISDICTION.)  ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE THE
INTERSTATE ENTERPRISE, OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL BOARD WOULD CUSTOMARILY
ASSERT JURISDICTION, SUPPLIES ITS OWN GUARD, WINDOW WASHING, LAUNDRY,
OR OTHER SERVICE FOR ITSELF, IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE EMPLOYEES
INVOLVED WOULD RIGHTLY COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL
ACT.  THE TEST HERE IS WHETHER THE SERVICE IS PERFORMED BY A SEPARATE
BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT WHICH CAN PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED A LOCAL
ENTERPRISE, EVEN THOUGH SERVICES ARE RENDERED TO INTERSTATE BUSINESSES,
OR WHETHER THE SERVICE IS RENDERED BY THE INTERSTATE ENTERPRISE ITSELF
AS AN INCIDENT OF ITS OWN BUSINESS.  OFFICE BUILDINGS.  THE SAME TEST
APPLICABLE TO THE SERVICE TRADES WAS ALSO THOUGHT TO BE APPLICABLE TO
OFFICE BUILDINGS.  THUS, IF THE EMPLOYER INVOLVED IS IN THE BUSINESS OF
OPERATING OFFICE BUILDINGS HE IS SUBJECT TO THE STATE ACT EVEN THOUGH
TENANTS CONSIST OF INTERSTATE ENTERPRISES.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE
THE OFFICE BUILDING IS OWNED OR OPERATED, OR BOTH, BY AN INTERSTATE
ENTERPRISE, OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL BOARD WOULD CUSTOMARILY ASSERT
JURISDICTION, AND IS USED BY THE INTERSTATE ENTERPRISE IN CONDUCTING
ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS, THE NATIONAL BOARD WOULD EXPECT TO ASSERT
JURISDICTION.  PUBLIC UTILITIES.  IT WAS AGREED THAT THE NEW YORK BOARD
COULD PROPERLY ASSERT JURISDICTION OVER SUCH UTILITIES, INCLUDING
ELECTRIC, GAS, TRACTION, BUS COMPANIES, AND THE LIKE WHICH ARE NOT
THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN SUPPLYING SERVICE ACROSS THE STATE LINE.  IN
SHORT, WHERE THE NATIONAL BOARD COULD ONLY BASE ITS JURISDICTION ON THE
"AFFECTING COMMERCE" PRINCIPLE (PLUS THE SHIPMENT INTO THE STATE OF
FUEL AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, NOT FOR RESALE), IT WAS BELIEVED IN GENERAL
THAT THE NATIONAL BOARD COULD PROPERLY LEAVE JURISDICTION TO THE STATE
BOARD.  AN EXCEPTION TO THIS WORKING RULE IS PROVIDED BY A FEW VERY
LARGE UTILITIES, SUCH AS THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY, OVER WHICH
THE NATIONAL BOARD ORIGINALLY ASSERTED JURISDICTION.  WAREHOUSES.  THE
TEST APPLIED IN THE CASE OF SERVICE TRADES AND OFFICE BUILDINGS SEEMS
APPLICABLE TO WAREHOUSES, THE QUESTION BEING WHETHER THEY ARE OPERATED
AS SEPARATE LOCAL ENTERPRISES OR AS INCIDENTS OF THE OPERATION OF
INTERSTATE BUSINESS OVER WHICH THE NATIONAL BOARD WOULD CUSTOMARILY
TAKE JURISDICTION.  CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS.  THE NEW YORK BOARD IS
EXPECTED TO ASSERT JURISDICTION OVER THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY EXCEPT,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS, WHICH IS THOUGHT
OF AS FALLING WITHIN THE FIELD OF MANUFACTURING, OVER WHICH, IN
GENERAL, THE NATIONAL BOARD ASSERTS JURISDICTION. 

IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING LINES OF ACTIVITY, REFERRED TO IN THE
LETTER OF JULY 12, 1937, TWO OTHER BUSINESSES NOT DEALT WITH IN THAT
LETTER WERE ALSO DISCUSSED.  INSURANCE COMPANIES.  IN THE PAST BOTH THE
STATE AND THE NATIONAL BOARDS HAVE INTERMITTENTLY ASSERTED JURISDICTION
OVER INSURANCE COMPANIES.  SO FAR AS SMALL INSURANCE, BONDING, CASUALTY
COMPANIES, ETC., DOING BUSINESS PRIMARILY WITHIN THE STATE ARE
CONCERNED, IT WAS FELT THAT THE STATE BOARD SHOULD OCCUPY THIS FIELD. 
SO FAR AS THE LARGE NATIONAL COMPANIES ARE CONCERNED, HOWEVER, THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NATIONAL BOARD EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT HEREAFTER
CASES INVOLVING SUCH COMPANIES SHOULD BE HANDLED BY THE LATTER BOARD. 
IN THIS CONNECTION IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT AS ORGANIZATION HAS MATURED
AMONG THE LARGE COMPANIES, STATE-WIDE AND EVEN LARGER UNITS ARE BEING
ESTABLISHED AND THAT THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY HAD THEREFORE ADVANCED TO
THE STAGE WHERE IT WAS PECULIARLY THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL BOARD. 
IT WAS AGREED THAT THE STATE BOARD WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN ANY CASES
INVOLVING THE LARGE NATIONAL COMPANIES WITHOUT PRIOR CLEARANCE WITH THE
NATIONAL BOARD.  NEWSPAPERS.  THE NATIONAL BOARD HAS TAKEN JURISDICTION
OVER LARGE DAILY NEWSPAPERS IN NEW YORK AND OTHER STATES AND, WHERE
CHALLENGED, HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY SUSTAINED IN THIS BY THE COURTS.  AT THE
SAME TIME, THE CIRCULATION DEPARTMENTS OF SUCH NEWSPAPERS, TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE DISTRIBUTING ACTIVITY IS CONFINED WITHIN A SINGLE
STATE, ARE IN MANY ASPECTS LOCAL IN CHARACTER.  IN NEW YORK STATE, AND
PARTICULARLY IN NEW YORK CITY, WHERE NEWS VENDORS ARE SUBJECT TO LOCAL
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, THE NATIONAL BOARD FEELS THAT CASES INVOLVING
THE DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPERS SHOULD PROPERLY BE HANDLED BY THE STATE
BOARD.  CONSISTENT WITH THIS APPROACH, THE NEW YORK REGIONAL OFFICE OF
THE NATIONAL BOARD HAS RECENTLY REFERRED TO THE STATE BOARD NEWS VENDOR
CASES INVOLVING FOUR OF THE LARGEST AFTERNOON NEWSPAPERS IN NEW YORK
CITY.  THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE BOARD EXPRESSED AGREEMENT WITH
THIS APPROACH AND INDICATED THAT THE PROPER LINE OF DIVISION MIGHT COME
AT THE LEVEL OF THE CIRCULATION MANAGERS.  IT WAS AGREED THAT HEREAFTER
NEITHER BOARD WILL ACCEPT CASES AT THE CIRCULATION MANAGER LEVEL
WITHOUT PRIOR CLEARANCE WITH THE OTHER BOARD; THAT CASES ABOVE THIS
LEVEL WILL BE HANDLED BY THE NATIONAL BOARD; AND THAT CASES BELOW THIS
LEVEL WILL BE HANDLED BY THE STATE BOARD.  OF COURSE, SMALL NEWSPAPERS
OF LIMITED CIRCULATION WILL PROPERLY BE HANDLED BY THE STATE BOARD. 

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.  FN2  THE LETTER OF JULY 12, 1937, LEFT OPEN
THE QUESTION OF "CONCURRENT JURISDICTION" - BY WHICH, IT IS UNDERSTOOD,
WAS MEANT THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYERS WHO
MIGHT SIMULTANEOUSLY BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE STATE
AND NATIONAL ACTS.  THE LETTER STATED:  "SO FAR AS CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION IS CONCERNED, WE ASSUME THAT EVEN A TENTATIVE
UNDERSTANDING MUST AWAIT MUTUAL STUDY OF THE MEMORANDUM WHICH MR. FAHY
IS NOW PREPARING."  IT APPEARS THAT THE MEMORANDUM REFERRED TO WAS
NEVER PREPARED AND THAT NO SUBSEQUENT UNDERSTANDING WAS REACHED AS TO
SUCH CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.  IN PRACTICE, THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE
BEEN A PROBLEM, EXCEPT IN THE SITUATION DISCUSSED BELOW, SINCE THE
STATE BOARD HAS BY AND LARGE CONFINED ITS ACTIVITIES TO THE BUSINESSES
DETAILED IN THE LETTER OF JULY 12 AND THE NATIONAL BOARD IN TURN HAS
LEFT THIS FIELD OPEN TO THE STATE BOARD.  THE PROBLEM OF SO-CALLED
"CONCURRENT JURISDICTION" HAS ARISEN IN RECENT MONTHS BECAUSE,
FOLLOWING THE NATIONAL BOARD'S DECISION IN MATTER OF MARYLAND DRYDOCK
COMPANY, 49 N.L.R.B. 733, A NUMBER OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE FILED
ELECTION PETITIONS WITH THE STATE BOARD WHICH THEY KNEW WOULD NOT BE
ENTERTAINED BY THE NATIONAL BOARD.  (SEE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THIS
MEMORANDUM, ABOVE, CONCERNING THE CONFERENCE OF JANUARY 9, 1945, IN
WASHINGTON.)  PRIOR TO THE MARYLAND DRYDOCK CASE, THE STATE BOARD, IT
IS UNDERSTOOD, HAD REFRAINED FROM ENTERTAINING CASES INVOLVING LARGE
INTERSTATE MANUFACTURERS AND THE NATIONAL BOARD HAD ASSERTED EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER SUCH EMPLOYERS. 

AT THE CONFERENCE OF APRIL 20 THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NATIONAL
BOARD POINTED TO THE RECENT DECISION IN THE PACKARD CASE AND SUGGESTED
THAT THE STATE BOARD SHOULD ADHERE TO ITS GENERAL POLICY OF LEAVING ALL
CASES INVOLVING LARGE MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS DOING INTERSTATE
BUSINESS TO THE NATIONAL BOARD.  THE IMPRACTICABILITY OF BOTH BOARDS
INTERMITTENTLY ASSERTING JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME EMPLOYER WAS
EMPHASIZED, AND IN ADDITION THE QUESTION WAS RAISED WHETHER UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THE STATE BOARD COULD LAWFULLY ENFORCE ANY
REQUIREMENT AGAINST SUCH EMPLOYERS WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH OR WHICH
IMPOSED RESTRAINTS IN ADDITION TO THOSE ENFORCED BY THE NATIONAL
BOARD.  THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NEW YORK BOARD AGREED THAT CASES OF
THIS TYPE PRESENTED A LEGAL PROBLEM BUT WERE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS
ADVISABLE FOR THE STATE BOARD TO ENTERTAIN ELECTION PETITIONS FOR UNITS
OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WHERE IT WAS DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE NATIONAL
BOARD WOULD PROCEED WITH THE CASE WERE IT FILED WITH THE LATTER BOARD. 
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NEW YORK BOARD POINTED TO THEIR OBLIGATION
TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE WITHIN THE BORDERS
OF NEW YORK STATE AND RECALLED A PROVISION OF THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION
WHICH GUARANTEES ORGANIZATIONAL RIGHTS TO ALL EMPLOYEES.  THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LATTER BOARD AGREED, HOWEVER, THAT THEIR
OFFICIALS SHOULD NOT REACH OUT FOR CASES OF THIS CHARACTER, INVOLVING
LARGE INTERSTATE MANUFACTURERS, AND THAT THEY WOULD KEEP THE NATIONAL
BOARD ADVISED AS TO ALL SUCH CASES THEY DECIDED TO ENTERTAIN.  THUS, NO
BROAD UNDERSTANDING WAS REACHED ON THIS SCORE, BOTH BOARDS RESERVING
THEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS WITH REGARD TO PETITIONS FOR UNITS OF
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AND OTHER PETITIONS INVOLVING LARGE INTERSTATE
MANUFACTURERS. 

IT WAS BELIEVED THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE WORK OF BOTH BOARDS
IF LISTS OF CASES ENTERTAINED WITHIN THE STATE WERE PERIODICALLY
EXCHANGED.  THE DETAILS OF THIS WERE LEFT TO BE WORKED OUT. 

                 NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

                                      JULY 12, 1937. 

HONORABLE J. WARREN MADDEN,

   NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 

DEAR MR. MADDEN:  WE WISH, IN THE FIRST PLACE, TO THANK YOU AND YOUR
COLLEAGUES FOR YOUR WARM RECEPTION OF LAST WEDNESDAY.  IT IS GRATIFYING
TO KNOW THAT WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO SUCH WHOLEHEARTED COOPERATION FROM
YOUR BOARD AND ITS STAFF.  WE WILL GLADLY RECIPROCATE. 

AS REQUESTED, WE OUTLINE OUR RECOLLECTION OF THE UNDERSTANDINGS
REACHED.  SO FAR AS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IS CONCERNED, WE ASSUME
THAT EVEN A TENTATIVE UNDERSTANDING MUST AWAIT MUTUAL STUDY OF THE
MEMORANDUM WHICH MR. FAHY IS NOW PREPARING. 

UNLESS THERE ARE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD WILL ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER ALL CASES ARISING IN THE
FOLLOWING TRADES AND INDUSTRIES, WITHOUT CLEARING, EXCEPT AS A MATTER
OF RECORD, WITH THE NATIONAL BOARD'S OFFICIALS: 

1.  RETAIL STORES, 

2.  SMALL INDUSTRIES WHICH RECEIVE ALL OR PRACTICALLY ALL RAW
MATERIALS FROM WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND DO NOT SHIP ANY
MATERIAL PROPORTION OF THEIR PRODUCT OUTSIDE THE STATE, 

3.  SERVICE TRADES (SUCH AS LAUNDRIES), 

4.  OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, 

5.  SMALL AND CLEARLY LOCAL PUBLIC UTILITIES, (THIS INCLUDES LOCAL
TRACTION COMPANIES, AS WELL AS GAS AND ELECTRIC LIGHT CORPORATIONS), 

6.  STORAGE WAREHOUSES, 

7.  CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, 

8.  OTHER OBVIOUSLY LOCAL BUSINESSES. 

CLEARANCE IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF INDUSTRIES
WHERE THE RAW MATERIALS OR MOST OF THEM COME FROM WITHOUT THE STATE,
BUT THE PRODUCT IS NOT SHIPPED BEYOND THE BORDERS OF NEW YORK.  (THE
QUESTION HERE IS AS TO THE BREADTH OF APPLICATION OF THE "COME TO REST"
DOCTRINE OF THE SCHECHTER CASE.) 

YOU ARE FAMILIAR, OF COURSE, WITH SECTION 715 OF OUR STATUTE, PART OF
WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: "APPLICATION OF ARTICLE.  THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY EMPLOYER WHO
CONCEDES TO AND AGREES WITH THE BOARD THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT
TO AND PROTECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
OR THE FEDERAL RAILWAY LABOR ACT ...".  THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD WILL
UNDOUBTEDLY TAKE THE POSITION THAT THE WORDS "AGREES WITH" CONTEMPLATE
THE NECESSITY OF OUR BOARD'S AGREEING WITH THE EMPLOYER THAT HIS
EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL STATUTE, AND THAT NO EMPLOYER CAN
BY UNILATERAL ACTION SELECT HIS JURISDICTION. 

THIS HOWEVER, DOES NOT SOLVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE
THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT NECESSARILY BESTOW FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.  PRESUMABLY EVERY TIME SUCH A CONCESSION IS PROFFERED BY
AN EMPLOYER, OUR BOARD WILL HAVE TO CLEAR WITH THE NATIONAL BOARD
OFFICIALS IN THE SAME WAY IT WOULD CLEAR WITH THEM IF NO SUCH
CONCESSION WERE MADE. 

IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE SHOULD CLEAR ON ALL QUESTIONS OF
JURISDICTION WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTORS IN NEW YORK CITY AND BUFFALO
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AND THAT YOU WILL INSTRUCT YOUR DIRECTORS TO
RECIPROCATE BY CLEARING WITH US ALL DOUBTFUL CASES WHICH FIRST COME TO
THEIR ATTENTION. 

WHENEVER THIS BOARD AND EITHER OF YOUR REGIONAL DIRECTORS FIND
THEMSELVES UNABLE TO AGREE, THE MATTER WILL BE TAKEN UP WITH YOU AT
ONCE. 

WE WOULD APPRECIATE KNOWING THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION AND UNDERSTANDING
OF THE ABOVE ARE IN ACCORD WITH OUR OWN. 

        VERY SINCERELY YOURS,          S/ JOHN P. BOLAND

                        (DR.)  JOHN P. BOLAND, CHAIRMAN. 

           NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD            MINUTES OF

           AUGUST 16, 1946 

AN INFORMAL INQUIRY WAS MADE TO THE BOARD BY UNITED FINANCIAL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ASKING WHETHER THE BOARD WOULD ENTERTAIN A
UPHAM AND COMPANY, A NEW YORK BROKERAGE HOUSE.  THE BOARD WAS ALSO
ADVISED THAT SIMILAR PETITIONS WERE CONTEMPLATED FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF A
NUMBER OF SIMILAR NEW YORK BROKERAGE HOUSES.  THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT
IT WOULD NOT, AT THIS TIME, ENTERTAIN A PETITION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
EMPLOYEES OF HARRIS UPHAM AND COMPANY OR OTHER SUCH BROKERAGE HOUSES
BECAUSE OF BUDGETARY AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS.  THE
BOARD FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT, IN VIEW OF THIS DISPOSITION, IT HAD NO
OBJECTION TO HAVING THE STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK ENTERTAIN SUCH PETITIONS FILED UNDER THE STATE ACT. 

DATED AT WASHINGTON, D.C.

   AUGUST 16, 1946. 

                            DONN N. BENT

                    DONN N. BENT,

    EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 

APPROVED:

   S/ P.M.H.

  S/ J.M.H. 

CERTIFIED TO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY. 

                            S/ DONN N. BENT,

                   DONN N. BENT,

       EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 

FN1  IN CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 223, THE
SUPREME COURT INDICATED THAT IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO ASSERT
JURISDICTION THE NATIONAL BOARD COULD PROPERLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE
EXISTENCE OF STATE PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION, SUCH AS THE NEW YORK STATE
LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

THE NATIONAL ACT CONTAINS NO PROVISION AUTHORIZING THE NATIONAL BOARD
TO ENTER INTO COMPACTS OR AGREEMENTS WITH STATE BOARDS, BUT WOULD SEEM
TO REQUIRE THE NATIONAL BOARD IN EACH CASE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION
WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED.  IT IS BELIEVED, NEVERTHELESS, THAT
UNDERSTANDINGS SUCH AS THAT EMBODIED IN THE LETTER OF JULY 12, 1937,
ALTHOUGH OF NO LEGAL EFFECT, ASSIST BOTH BOARDS IN DETERMINING THE
PROPER DISPOSITION OF PARTICULAR CASES AS THEY ARISE. 

FN2  SEE DAVEGA-CITY RADIO, INC. V. NEW YORK LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
281 N.Y. 13; 22 N.E. 2ND 145; 4 L.R.R. MAN.  899.  (JULY 11, 1939.) 
..END :





WALLING V. GENERAL INDUSTRIES CO., 330 U.S. 545 


NO. 564.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 11, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1947.  -
155 F.2D 711, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A SUIT BY THE WAGE-HOUR ADMINISTRATOR TO ENJOIN ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 7 OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE EVIDENCE SUMMARIZED IN THE OPINION HELD
ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY THE DISTRICT COURT THAT CERTAIN
"OPERATING ENGINEERS" WHO HAD CHARGE OF A POWER PLANT IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SUPERVISED THE WORK OF FIREMEN AND COAL PASSERS,
RECEIVED MONTHLY SALARIES IN EXCESS OF $200, AND ENJOYED PRIVILEGES
USUALLY RESERVED FOR SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, WERE EXEMPTED BY SEC. 13(A)
AS EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED IN AN "EXECUTIVE" CAPACITY.  PP. 547-550. 

2.  WHERE FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY A DISTRICT COURT ON CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE AND INFERENCES DRAWN THEREFROM ARE NOT CLEARLY WRONG, THEY
SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 550. 

3.  UPON REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON
CERTIORARI, THE RESPONDENT, WITHOUT FILING A CROSS-PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, MAY SEEK TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT ON A GROUND WHICH THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED AS WELL AS UPON THAT WHICH IT
ACCEPTED.  P. 547, N. 5. 

WALLING, WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR, V. GENERAL INDUSTRIES CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE WAGE-HOUR ADMINISTRATOR SUED TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION WERE EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 13(A)
AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE EMPLOYER.  60 F.SUPP.  549.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION,
THOUGH NOT EXEMPT, HAD BEEN COMPENSATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT. 
155 F.2D 711.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 704.  AFFIRMED,
P. 550. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN A COMPLAINT FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, PETITIONER CHARGED THAT
RESPONDENT WAS VIOLATING THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FN1  BY FAILING
TO PAY SOME OF ITS EMPLOYEES TIME AND ONE-FALF FOR STATUTORY OVERTIME,
AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT, AND ASKED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
CONTINUED VIOLATION.  RESPONDENT DENIED THE CHARGE, AND SEPARATELY
ALLEGED THAT ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES NOT COMPENSATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7(A) WERE EXEMPT FROM THE ACT BY SEC. 13(A). 

THE COURT, WITHOUT A JURY, HEARD WITNESSES FOR BOTH PARTIES WITH
RESPECT TO THE COMPENSATION AND STATUS OF THREE ENGINEERS IN
RESPONDENT'S POWER PLANT.  IT MADE SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUDED
THAT THESE MEN WERE EXEMPT EMPLOYEES, AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR
RESPONDENT.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THE EVIDENCE DID
NOT SUSTAIN THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS RELATIVE TO THE ENGINEERS'
EXEMPT STATUS.  BUT IT THOUGHT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ALSO FOUND
THE ENGINEERS' COMPENSATION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT.  IT
DECIDED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS ADEQUATE TO THIS END, AND AFFIRMED THE
DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT.  FN3  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI  FN4 TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE RULING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS COURT'S DECISION ON COMPUTATION OF OVERTIME IN
OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572.  ON ARGUMENT HERE,
HOWEVER, RESPONDENT CONTINUED TO URGE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
WARRANTED IN ITS FINDINGS AS TO THE ENGINEERS' EXEMPT STATUS.  FN5
HAVING HEARD THE ARGUMENT AND EXAMINED THE RECORD, WE AGREE THAT IT
WAS.  THEREFORE, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER FURTHER THE QUESTION OF
COMPUTATION OF OVERTIME, AND PROCEED ONLY TO STATE THE CONSIDERATIONS
RELEVANT TO THE PARTICULAR GROUND OF OUR DECISION. 

THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW.  SECTION 13(A) EXEMPTS
FROM THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ANY PERSON EMPLOYED IN AN
"EXECUTIVE CAPACITY" AS DEFINED IN REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBE SIX CONJUNCTIVE CONDITIONS TO
AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY, WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN6
RESPONDENT HAD THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF THESE CONDITIONS,
IF IT WOULD RELY ON ITS DEFENSE THAT THE ENGINEERS WERE EXEMPT
EMPLOYEES.  FN7 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT.  RESPONDENT OPERATES AT
ELYRIA, OHIO, A PLANT ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF SMALL MOTORS AND
PLASTIC PRODUCTS.  PART OF THIS PLANT CONSISTS OF A POWERHOUSE
CONTAINING A BOILER ROOM AND ENGINE ROOM.  IN THE FORMER ARE FOUR
BOILERS.  THESE SUPPLY THE STEAM REQUIRED TO DRIVE THREE LARGE
ELECTRICAL GENERATORS WHICH ARE THE SOURCE OF POWER FOR THE ENTIRE
PLANT, AND TO CREATE THE HIGH STEAM-PRESSURES AND AIR-PRESSURES
EMPLOYED IN MOLDING PLASTICS.  IN THE ENGINE ROOM, BESIDES THE
GENERATORS, ARE COMPRESSORS, ENGINES, AND OTHER EQUIPMENT.  ALL THIS
MACHINERY, IN BOTH ROOMS, CONSTITUTES AN INTERRELATED AND
INTERDEPENDENT SYSTEM.  IT MUST BE CAREFULLY AND SKILLFULLY TENDED AT
ALL TIMES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE POWER AND PRESSURE REQUIRED FOR
CONTINUOUS 24-HOUR OPERATION OF THE PLANT, TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE
TREMENDOUS INVESTMENT IN THE MACHINERY ITSELF, AND TO GUARD AGAINST THE
FEARFUL CONSEQUENCES OF AN EXPLOSION. 

DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE EVIDENCE, THE POWERHOUSE WAS MANNED
BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONNEL.  AT THE TOP WAS THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WHO
APPARENTLY ADHERED TO NO PRECISE DUTY-HOURS, BUT WAS CUSTOMARILY
PRESENT MOST OF THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON AND SUBJECT TO CALL, IN THE
EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, TWENTY-FOUR HOURS A DAY.  DIRECTLY UNDER AND
RESPONSIBLE TO HIM WERE THE THREE "OPERATING ENGINEERS" WHOSE STATUS IS
IN ISSUE.  THEY WORKED CONSECUTIVE EIGHT OR EIGHT AND ONE-HALF HOUR
SHIFTS, ONE OF THEM BEING PRESENT IN THE POWERHOUSE AT ALL TIMES. 
FINALLY, THERE WERE AN UNSPECIFIED NUMBER OF FIREMEN AND COAL-PASSERS,
WHO, COLLECTIVELY, WERE ALSO ON TWENTY-FOUR HOUR DUTY. 

THE ENGINEERS IN QUESTION WERE PAID REGULAR MONTHLY SALARIES OF MORE
THAN $200 PER MONTH, FOR WHICH THEY REGULARLY WORKED SIX-SHIFT WEEKS. 
THEY RECEIVED SICK LEAVE, VACATIONS WITH PAY, BONUSES, INSURANCE, AND
PENSION RIGHTS USUALLY RESERVED FOR SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES. 

THE ENGINEERS WERE IN CHARGE OF THE POWERHOUSE AND PERFORMED THE
DUTIES GENERALLY INCIDENT TO DIRECT SUPERVISION OF A HIGHLY MECHANIZED
OPERATION.  RESPONDENT'S VICE PRESIDENT AND FACTORY MANAGER TESTIFIED
THAT THEY ACTED AS FOREMEN OF THE FIREMEN AND COAL-PASSERS.  THIS
TESTIMONY WAS CORROBORATED BY OTHER FACTS.  IN JULY, 1944, TWO MONTHS
BEFORE THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE WAS FILED, THE ENGINEERS SIGNED
AGREEMENTS WITH RESPONDENT STATING THEIR DESIRE "TO BE REGARDED AS
FOREMEN, AS IN THE PAST, WITH FOREMEN PRIVILEGES AND CONTINUE ON A
SALARY BASIS."  THREE WEEKS LATER THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
FIREMEN, OILERS AND HELPERS ABANDONED A LONG-CONTESTED CLAIM OF RIGHT
TO REPRESENT THE ENGINEERS, THEREBY FORMALLY RECOGNIZING THEIR
SUPERVISORY STATUS.  INDEED, THE NATURE OF THE OPERATIONS IN THE
POWERHOUSE WAS SUCH THAT THE IMMEDIATE AND CONTINUOUS SUPERVISION OF
TRAINED PERSONS WAS INDISPENSABLE, AND THERE WERE CONCEDEDLY NO OTHER
EMPLOYEES TO GIVE SUCH SUPERVISION.  THE ENGINEERS WERE REQUIRED TO
MAINTAIN CONSTANT OBSERVATION OF ALL MACHINERY IN THE POWERHOUSE, AND
TO MAKE REGULAR INSPECTIONS AND NECESSARY REPAIRS.  IN ADDITION THEY
WERE REQUIRED TO SPEND A SMALL PART OF THEIR TIME IN OILING AND
CLEANING THE ENGINES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, HAVING MADE FINDINGS SUBSTANTIALLY AS STATED
ABOVE, PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF THE EXISTENCE OF EACH
OF THE FACTS ON WHICH AN EXECUTIVE STATUS, AS DEFINED BY THE
REGULATIONS, IS MADE TO DEPEND. 

WE BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS AFFORD AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR
THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE COURT IN MAKING SUCH ADDITIONAL FINDINGS. 
AT THE LEAST, WE THINK THAT IN DRAWING SUCH INFERENCES THE COURT WAS
NOT CLEARLY WRONG, AND CONCLUDE THAT THE FINDINGS SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE
BEEN LEFT UNDISTURBED.  FN8  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' REJECTION OF
THOSE FINDINGS CANNOT REST ON THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY OF PETITIONER'S
WITNESSES.  THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD THE WITNESSES, AND WAS THE PROPER
JUDGE OF THEIR CREDIBILITY.  FN9  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. 

FN2 WALLING V. GENERAL INDUSTRIES CO., 60 F.SUPP.  549. 

FN3  WALLING V. GENERAL INDUSTRIES CO., 155 F.2D 711. 

FN4  329 U.S. 704. 

FN5  RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO MAKE THIS CONTENTION HERE WITHOUT
FILING A CROSS-PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S.
531, 538; PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF PUERTO RICO V. HAVEMEYER, 296
U.S. 506, 509. 

FN6  29 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 541.1, 5 FED. REG. 4077(REGULATIONS OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, OCT.
24, 1940, AMENDED JAN. 16, 1942) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 541.1 EXECUTIVE. 

"THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN A BONA FIDE EXECUTIVE  ...  CAPACITY'
IN SECTION 13(A)(1) OF THE ACT SHALL MEAN ANY EMPLOYEE 

"(A)  WHOSE PRIMARY DUTY CONSISTS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT IN WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED OR OF A CUSTOMARILY RECOGNIZED
DEPARTMENT OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF, AND 

"(B)  WHO CUSTOMARILY AND REGULARLY DIRECTS THE WORK OF OTHER
EMPLOYEES THEREIN, AND 

"(C)  WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE OR FIRE OTHER EMPLOYEES OR WHOSE
SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE HIRING OR FIRING AND AS TO
THE ADVANCEMENT AND PROMOTION OR ANY OTHER CHANGE OF STATUS OF OTHER
EMPLOYEES WILL BE GIVEN PARTICULAR WEIGHT, AND 

"(D)  WHO CUSTOMARILY AND REGULARLY EXERCISES DISCRETIONARY POWERS,
AND 

"(E)  WHO IS COMPENSATED FOR HIS SERVICES ON A SALARY BASIS AT NOT
LESS THAN $30 PER WEEK (EXCLUSIVE OF BOARD, LODGING, OR OTHER
FACILITIES), AND 

"(F)  WHOSE HOURS OF WORK OF THE SAME NATURE AS THAT PERFORMED BY
NONEXEMPT EMPLOYEES DO NOT EXCEED 20 PERCENT OF THE NUMBER OF HOURS
WORKED IN THE WORKWEEK BY THE NONEXEMPT EMPLOYEES UNDER HIS DIRECTION;
PROVIDED THAT THIS SUBSECTION (F) SHALL NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF AN
EMPLOYEE WHO IS IN SOLE CHARGE OF AN INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENT OR A
PHYSICALLY SEPARATED BRANCH ESTABLISHMENT." 

FN7  SEE HELLIWELL V. HABERMAN, 140 F.2D 833, 834(C.C.A. 2); FLETCHER
V. GRINNELL BROTHERS, 150 F.2D 337, 340-341(C.C.A. 6); SMITH V. PORTER,
143 F.2D 292, 294(C.C.A. 8). 

FN8  RULE 52(A), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; LAWSON V. UNITED
STATES MINING CO., 207 U.S. 1, 12; BUTTE & SUPERIOR COPPER CO. V. CLARK
MONTANA REALTY CO., 249 U.S. 12, 30.  SEE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. PACE,
320 U.S. 698, 701. 

FN9  RULE 52(A), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; ADAMSON V.
GILLILAND, 242 U.S. 350; UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO.,
247 U.S. 32, 37, 38, 41. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

IN MY OPINION THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE
EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS UPON WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE OPERATING ENGINEERS ARE EXEMPT UNDER
SEC. 13(A)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IT SAID, UNANIMOUSLY: 

"THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND AS A FACT THAT STEGMAN, PAGE AND SPOONER
WERE EMPLOYED AS FOREMEN OR SUPERVISORS OF THE DEPARTMENT, WITH POWER
TO SUPERVISE THE WORK OF FIREMEN AND COAL-PASSERS IN THE BOILERROOM;
THAT THEY CUSTOMARILY AND REGULARLY DIRECTED THE WORK OF OTHER
EMPLOYEES IN THE DEPARTMENT, AND CUSTOMARILY EXERCISED DISCRETIONARY
POWERS.  WE THINK THESE FINDINGS ARE NOT SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE. 
THE WORK DONE BY THE ENGINEERS WAS HIGHLY SKILLED MECHANICAL WORK. 
WHILE THE MACHINERY WAS VITAL TO THE PLANT, DANGEROUS AND COMPLICATED,
ITS OPERATION INVOLVED NO EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, BUT MERELY THE PROPER
APPLICATION OF THE SKILLED ENGINEERING TRAINING WHICH THESE MEN HAD
RECEIVED.  ALTHOUGH THE THREE ENGINEERS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER
OPERATION OF THE MACHINERY DURING THEIR SHIFTS, AND, AS THE FACTORY
MANAGER TESTIFIES, 'IN CHARGE OF MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY,' NONE OF
THEM COULD FIRE OR HIRE OR GIVE ORDERS TO ANY MAN IN THE BOILERROOM. 
LATTEMAN, THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE PLANT DURING ONE
SHIFT AND ON CALL 24 HOURS A DAY AND SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, WAS IN FULL
CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT.  WHILE LATTEMAN MIGHT ACT ON INFORMATION FROM
STEGMAN, PAGE, OR SPOONER, DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED, ORDERS EMANATED
ONLY FROM HIM.  IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT STEGMAN, PAGE OR SPOONER EVER MADE
ANY RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE CHANGE IN STATUS OF THE BOILER-MEN. 
IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO HAVE PROPER STEAM PRESSURE IN THE BOILER-ROOM, BUT
IF THE THREE ENGINEERS DESIRED IN THIS CONNECTION TO SECURE ACTION FROM
THE FIREMEN AND COAL-PASSERS, THEY HAD TO SECURE AN ORDER FROM
LATTEMAN.  THIS EVIDENCE IS NOT CONTRADICTED."  155 F.2D 711, 714. 

AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD CONFIRMS THE COURT OF
APPEALS' CONCLUSIONS.  IT DISCLOSES THAT ON ONE OR TWO OCCASIONS AN
OPERATING ENGINEER TRIED TO GIVE ORDERS TO FIREMEN OR COAL PASSERS IN
THE BOILER ROOM, BUT IN EACH INSTANCE THOSE MEN REFUSED TO FOLLOW THEM
AND TOOK THEIR ORDERS SOLELY FROM LATTEMAN.  THIS FALLS FAR SHORT AT
LEAST OF THE REGULAR AND CUSTOMARY SUPERVISION REQUIRED BY SECS.
541.1(A) AND (B) OF THE CONTROLLING REGULATIONS TO MAKE THE EXEMPTION
OPERATIVE. 

SINCE THE COURT DOES NOT REACH OTHER QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON THE
RECORD, I EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING THEM. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






















KOTCH V. PILOT COMM'RS, 330 U.S. 552 


NO. 291.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 6, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1947.  - 209
LA. 737, 25 SO.2D 527, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PILOTAGE LAW OF LOUISIANA REQUIRES THAT OCEAN-GOING VESSELS,
OTHER THAN COASTAL VESSELS WHOSE PILOTAGE IS SUBJECT EXCLUSIVELY TO
FEDERAL REGULATION, SHALL BE PILOTED THROUGH THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
APPROACHES TO THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS, AND IN THE PORT, ONLY BY PILOTS
APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR.  PILOTS SO APPOINTED HAVE THE STATUS OF
STATE OFFICERS.  ONLY THOSE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT AS STATE
PILOTS WHO, IN ADDITION TO OTHER SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS, HAVE SERVED
AN APPRENTICESHIP OF SIX MONTHS UNDER STATE PILOTS AND WHO ARE
CERTIFIED BY A BOARD COMPOSED OF STATE PILOTS.  APPELLANTS, EXPERIENCED
IN PILOTING COASTAL VESSELS ON THE RIVER AND IN THE PORT, AND
POSSESSING ALL OF THE STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS EXCEPT THE SIX MONTHS'
APPRENTICESHIP UNDER STATE PILOTS, WERE DENIED APPOINTMENT AS STATE
PILOTS.  SEEKING JUDICIAL RELIEF, APPELLANTS ALLEGED THAT THE INCUMBENT
PILOTS GENERALLY SELECTED AS APPRENTICES ONLY RELATIVES AND FRIENDS OF
INCUMBENTS; THAT THE SELECTIONS WERE MADE BY ELECTING PROSPECTIVE
APPRENTICES INTO A PILOTS' ASSOCIATION, FORMED UNDER AUTHORITY OF STATE
LAW; THAT SINCE "MEMBERSHIP  ...  HAS BEEN CLOSED  ...  TO ALL EXCEPT
THOSE HAVING THE FAVOR OF THE PILOTS" THE RESULT IS THAT GENERALLY ONLY
THEIR RELATIVES AND FRIENDS HAVE AND CAN BECOME STATE PILOTS.  HELD:
CONSIDERING THE ENTIRELY UNIQUE INSTITUTION OF PILOTAGE IN THE LIGHT OF
ITS HISTORY IN LOUISIANA AND ELSEWHERE, THE PILOTAGE LAW AS SO
ADMINISTERED DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 553-564. 

2.  THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A STATE GOVERNOR, OR
SUBORDINATES RESPONSIBLE TO HIM AND REMOVABLE BY HIM FOR CAUSE, TO
SELECT STATE PUBLIC SERVANTS BY COMPETITIVE TESTS OR BY ANY OTHER
PARTICULAR METHOD OF SELECTION.  PP. 563-564. 

3.  THE METHOD ADOPTED BY LOUISIANA FOR THE SELECTION OF PILOTS IS
NOT WITHOUT RELATION TO THE OBJECTIVE OF SECURING FOR THE STATE AND
OTHERS INTERESTED THE SAFEST AND MOST EFFICIENTLY OPERATED PILOTAGE
SYSTEM PRACTICABLE.  P. 564. 

KOTCH ET AL. V. BOARD OF RIVER PORT PILOT COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PORT
OF NEW ORLEANS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. 

A SUIT BROUGHT BY APPELLANTS IN A STATE COURT, CHALLENGING THE
VALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE PILOTAGE LAW OF
LOUISIANA, WAS DISMISSED.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE AFFIRMED. 
209 LA. 737, 25 SO.2D 527.  AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT. 
AFFIRMED, P. 564. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

LOUISIANA STATUTES PROVIDE IN GENERAL THAT ALL SEAGOING VESSELS
MOVING BETWEEN NEW ORLEANS AND FOREIGN PORTS MUST BE NAVIGATED THROUGH
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER APPROACHES TO THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS AND WITHIN
IT EXCLUSIVELY BY PILOTS WHO ARE STATE OFFICERS.  FN1  NEW STATE PILOTS
ARE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR ONLY UPON CERTIFICATION OF A STATE BOARD
OF RIVER PILOT COMMISSIONERS, THEMSELVES PILOTS.  FN2  ONLY THOSE WHO
HAVE SERVED A SIX-MONTH APPRENTICESHIP UNDER INCUMBENT PILOTS AND WHO
POSSESS OTHER SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS MAY BE CERTIFIED TO THE GOVERNOR
BY THE BOARD.  FN3  APPELLANTS HERE HAVE HAD AT LEAST FIFTEEN YEARS
EXPERIENCE IN THE RIVER, THE PORT, AND ELSEWHERE, AS PILOTS OF VESSELS
WHOSE PILOTAGE WAS NOT GOVERNED BY THE STATE LAW IN QUESTION.  FN4
ALTHOUGH THEY POSSESS ALL THE STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS EXCEPT THAT THEY
HAVE NOT SERVED THE REQUISITE SIX MONTHS APPRENTICESHIP UNDER LOUISIANA
OFFICER PILOTS,  FN5  THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED APPOINTMENT AS STATE
PILOTS.  SEEKING RELIEF IN A LOUISIANA STATE COURT, THEY ALLEGED THAT
THE INCUMBENT PILOTS, HAVING UNFETTERED DISCRETION UNDER THE LAW IN THE
SELECTION OF APPRENTICES, HAD SELECTED, WITH OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION, ONLY
THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS OF INCUMBENTS; THAT THE SELECTIONS WERE MADE
BY ELECTING PROSPECTIVE APPRENTICES INTO THE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION, WHICH
THE PILOTS HAVE FORMED BY AUTHORITY OF STATE LAW; FN6  THAT SINCE
"MEMBERSHIP  ...  HAS BEEN CLOSED ...  TO ALL EXCEPT THOSE HAVING THE
FAVOR OF THE PILOTS" THE RESULT IS THAT ONLY THEIR RELATIVES AND
FRIENDS HAVE AND CAN BECOME STATE PILOTS.  FN7  THE SUPREME COURT OF
LOUISIANA HAS HELD THAT THE PILOTAGE LAW SO ADMINISTERED DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 209
LA. 737, 25 SO.2D 527.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL FROM THAT DECISION
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND FOR A STATE TO AFFORD "EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS" SETS A GOAL NOT ATTAINABLE BY THE INVENTION AND APPLICATION
OF A PRECISE FORMULA.  THIS COURT HAS NEVER ATTEMPTED THAT IMPOSSIBLE
TASK.  A LAW WHICH AFFECTS THE ACTIVITIES OF SOME GROUPS DIFFERENTLY
FROM THE WAY IN WHICH IT AFFECTS THE ACTIVITIES OF OTHER GROUPS IS NOT
NECESSARILY BANNED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE E.G., TIGNER V.
TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141, 147.  OTHERWISE, EFFECTIVE REGULATION IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST COULD NOT BE PROVIDED, HOWEVER ESSENTIAL THAT
REGULATION MIGHT BE.  FOR IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT THE CONSEQUENCE OF
REGULATING BY SETTING APART A CLASSIFIED GROUP IS THAT THOSE IN IT WILL
BE SUBJECT TO SOME RESTRICTIONS OR RECEIVE CERTAIN ADVANTAGES THAT DO
NOT APPLY TO OTHER GROUPS OR TO ALL THE PUBLIC.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R.
CO. V. MATTHEWS, 174 U.S. 96, 106.  THIS SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF A
REGULATION IS DISCRIMINATION IN THE BROAD SENSE, BUT IT MAY OR MAY NOT
DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  CLEARLY, IT MIGHT OFFEND THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD IF IT RESTED ON GROUNDS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO
ACHIEVEMENT OF THE REGULATION'S OBJECTIVES.  AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE A LAW
APPLIED TO DENY A PERSON A RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING OR HOLD ANY JOB
BECAUSE OF HOSTILITY TO HIS PARTICULAR RACE, RELIGION, BELIEFS, OR
BECAUSE OF ANY OTHER REASON HAVING NO RATIONAL RELATION TO THE
REGULATED ACTIVITIES.  SEE AMERICAN SUGAR RFG.  CO. V. LOUISIANA, 179
U.S. 89, 92. 

THE CASE OF YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, RELIED ON BY APPELLANTS,
IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF A TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE
WITH ANY FAIR CONCEPTION OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  YICK WO WAS
DENIED THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN AN OCCUPATION SUPPOSEDLY OPEN TO ALL WHO
COULD CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW'S
REQUIREMENTS.  HE COULD MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS, BUT WAS DENIED THE
RIGHT TO DO SO SOLELY BECAUSE HE WAS CHINESE.  AND IT MADE NO
DIFFERENCE THAT UNDER THE LAW AS WRITTEN YICK WO WOULD HAVE ENJOYED THE
SAME PROTECTION AS ALL OTHERS.  ITS UNEQUAL APPLICATION TO YICK WO WAS
ENOUGH TO CONDEMN IT.  BUT YICK WO'S CASE, AS OTHER CASES HAVE
DEMONSTRATED, WAS TESTED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW THERE CONSIDERED
AND THE ADMINISTRATION THERE SHOWN.  CF. CROWLEY V. CHRISTENSEN, 137
U.S. 86, 93, 94; GUNDLING V. CHICAGO, 177 U.S. 183; NEW YORK EX REL.
LIEBERMAN V. VAN DE CARR, 199 U.S. 552; ENGEL V. O'MALLEY, 219 U.S.
128, 137.  SO HERE, WE MUST CONSIDER THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE METHOD OF
APPOINTING PILOTS TO THE BROAD OBJECTIVES OF THE ENTIRE LOUISIANA
PILOTAGE LAW.  SEE GRAINGER V. DOUGLAS PARK JOCKEY CLUB, 148 F. 513,
AND CASES THERE CITED.  IN SO DOING WE MUST VIEW THE APPOINTMENT SYSTEM
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE LAWS AND INSTITUTION
OF PILOTAGE IN LOUISIANA AND ELSEWHERE.  CF. OTIS CO. V. LUDLOW MFG.
CO., 201 U.S. 140, 154; JACKMAN V. ROSENBAUM, 260 U.S. 22, 31; BAYSIDE
FISH FLOUR CO. V. GENTRY, 297 U.S. 422, 428-430.  AND AN IMPORTANT
FACTOR IN OUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT THIS CASE TESTS THE RIGHT AND POWER
OF A STATE TO SELECT ITS OWN AGENTS AND OFFICERS.  TAYLOR V. BECKHAM,
178 U.S. 548; SNOWDEN V. HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1, 11-13. 

STUDIES OF THE LONG HISTORY OF PILOTAGE REVEAL THAT IT IS A UNIQUE
INSTITUTION AND MUST BE JUDGED AS SUCH.  FN8  IN ORDER TO AVOID
INVISIBLE HAZARDS, VESSELS APPROACHING AND LEAVING PORTS MUST BE
CONDUCTED FROM AND TO OPEN WATERS BY PERSONS INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH
THE LOCAL WATERS.  THE PILOT'S JOB GENERALLY REQUIRES THAT HE GO
OUTSIDE THE HARBOR'S ENTRANCE IN A SMALL BOAT TO MEET INCOMING SHIPS,
BOARD THEM AND DIRECT THEIR COURSE FROM OPEN WATER TO THE PORT.  THE
SAME SERVICE IS PERFORMED FOR VESSELS LEAVING THE PORT.  PILOTS ARE
THUS INDISPENSABLE COGS IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF EVERY MARITIME
ECONOMY.  THEIR WORK PREVENTS TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND ACCIDENTS WHICH
WOULD IMPAIR NAVIGATION IN AND TO THE PORTS.  IT AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF
LIVES AND CARGO, THE COST AND TIME EXPENDED IN PORT CALLS, AND, IN SOME
MEASURE, THE COMPETITIVE ATTRACTIVENESS OF PARTICULAR PORTS.  THUS, FOR
THE SAME REASONS THAT GOVERNMENTS OF MOST MARITIME COMMUNITIES HAVE
SUBSIDIZED, REGULATED, OR HAVE THEMSELVES OPERATED DOCKS AND OTHER
HARBOR FACILITIES AND SOUGHT TO IMPROVE THE APPROACHES TO THEIR PORTS,
THEY HAVE CLOSELY REGULATED AND OFTEN OPERATED THEIR PORTS' PILOTAGE
SYSTEMS.  FN9 

THE HISTORY AND PRACTICE OF PILOTAGE DEMONSTRATE THAT, ALTHOUGH
INEXTRICABLY GEARED TO A COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ECONOMY, IT IS ALSO A
HIGHLY PERSONALIZED CALLING.  FN10  A PILOT DOES NOT REQUIRE A
FORMALIZED TECHNICAL EDUCATION SO MUCH AS A DETAILED AND EXTREMELY
INTIMATE, ALMOST INTUITIVE, KNOWLEDGE OF THE WEATHER, WATERWAYS AND
CONFORMATION OF THE HARBOR OR RIVER WHICH HE SERVES.  THIS SEEMS TO BE
PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THE APPROACHES TO NEW ORLEANS THROUGH THE
TREACHEROUS AND SHIFTING CHANNEL OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.  FN11
MOREOVER, HARBOR ENTRANCES WHERE PILOTS CAN MOST CONVENIENTLY MAKE
THEIR HOMES AND STILL BE CLOSE TO PLACES WHERE THEY BOARD INCOMING AND
LEAVE OUTGOING SHIPS ARE USUALLY SOME DISTANCE FROM THE PORT CITIES
THEY SERVE.  FN12  THESE "PILOT TOWNS" HAVE BEGUN, AND GENERALLY EXIST
TODAY, AS SMALL COMMUNITIES OF PILOTS, PERHAPS NEAR BUT USUALLY
DISTINCT FROM THE PORT CITIES.  FN13  IN THESE COMMUNITIES YOUNG MEN
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUIRE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE WEATHER AND
WATER HAZARDS OF THE LOCALITY AND SEEM TO GROW UP WITH AMBITIONS TO
BECOME PILOTS IN THE TRADITIONS OF THEIR FATHERS, RELATIVES, AND
NEIGHBORS.  FN14  WE ARE ASKED, IN EFFECT, TO SAY THAT LOUISIANA IS
WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONCLUDE THAT APPRENTICESHIP UNDER
PERSONS SPECIALLY INTERESTED IN A PILOT'S FUTURE IS THE BEST WAY TO FIT
HIM FOR DUTY AS A PILOT OFFICER IN THE SERVICE OF THE STATE. 

THE STATES HAVE HAD FULL POWER TO REGULATE PILOTAGE OF CERTAIN KINDS
OF VESSELS SINCE 1789 WHEN THE FIRST CONGRESS DECIDED THAT THEN
EXISTING STATE PILOT LAWS WERE SATISFACTORY AND MADE FEDERAL REGULATION
UNNECESSARY.  1 STAT. 53, 54(1789), 46 U.S.C. SEC. 211; OLSEN V. SMITH,
195 U.S. 332, 341; ANDERSON V. PACIFIC COAST S.S. CO., 225 U.S. 187. 
LOUISIANA LEGISLATION HAS CONTROLLED THE ACTIVITIES AND APPOINTMENT OF
PILOTS SINCE 1805 - EVEN BEFORE THE TERRITORY WAS ADMITTED AS A STATE. 
FN15  THE STATE PILOTAGE SYSTEM, AS IT HAS EVOLVED SINCE 1805, IS
TYPICAL OF THAT WHICH GREW UP IN MOST SEABOARD STATES AND IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.  FN16  SINCE 1805 LOUISIANA PILOTS HAVE BEEN STATE OFFICERS
WHOSE WORK HAS BEEN CONTROLLED BY THE STATE.  FN17  THAT ACT FORBADE
ALL BUT A LIMITED NUMBER OF PILOTS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO SERVE
IN THAT CAPACITY.  THE PILOTS SO APPOINTED WERE AUTHORIZED TO SELECT
THEIR OWN DEPUTIES.  FN18  BUT PILOTS, AND THROUGH THEM, THEIR
DEPUTIES, WERE LITERALLY UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE MASTER AND THE
WARDENS OF THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS, APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR.  THE
MASTER AND WARDENS WERE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE RULES GOVERNING THE
PRACTICES OF PILOTS, SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERED TO ORDER PILOTS TO THEIR
STATIONS, AND TO FINE THEM FOR DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDERS OR RULES.  AND
THE PILOTS WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE OFFICIAL BOND FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
OF THEIR DUTY.  PILOTS' FEES WERE FIXED; FN19  SHIPS COMING TO THE
MISSISSIPPI WERE REQUIRED TO PAY PILOTAGE WHETHER THEY TOOK ON PILOTS
OR NOT.  FN20  THE PILOTS WERE AUTHORIZED TO ORGANIZE AN ASSOCIATION
WHOSE MEMBERSHIP THEY CONTROLLED IN ORDER "TO ENFORCE THE LEGAL
REGULATIONS, AND ADD TO THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SERVICE REQUIRED
THEREBY."  FN21 MOREOVER, EFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE SERVICE WAS SOUGHT TO
BE INSURED BY REQUIRING THE BOARD OF PILOT COMMISSIONERS TO REPORT TO
THE GOVERNOR AND AUTHORIZING HIM SUMMARILY TO REMOVE ANY PILOT GUILTY
OF "NEGLECT OF DUTY, HABITUAL INTEMPERANCE, CARELESSNESS, INCOMPETENCY,
OR ANY ACT OR CONDUCT ...  SHOWING" THAT HE "OUGHT TO BE REMOVED."  LA.
ACT NO. 113, SEC. 20(1857).  THESE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OVER
WITH SOME REVISION INTO THE PRESENT COMPREHENSIVE LOUISIANA PILOTAGE
LAW.  6 LA. GEN. STAT., TIT. 59, CC. 6, 8(1939).  THUS IN LOUISIANA, AS
ELSEWHERE, IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AT AN EARLY DATE THAT IN
PILOTAGE, UNLIKE OTHER OCCUPATIONS, COMPETITION FOR APPOINTMENT, FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE PARTICULAR SHIPS AND FOR FEES, ADVERSELY
AFFECTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PILOTAGE.  FN22 

IT IS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS LONG-STANDING PILOTAGE REGULATION
SYSTEM THAT THE PRACTICE HAS APPARENTLY EXISTED OF PERMITTING PILOTS,
IF THEY CHOOSE, TO SELECT THEIR RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AS THE ONLY ONES
ULTIMATELY ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT AS PILOTS BY THE GOVERNOR.  MANY
OTHER STATES HAVE ESTABLISHED PILOTAGE SYSTEMS WHICH MAKE THE SELECTION
OF PILOTS ON THIS BASIS POSSIBLE.  FN23 THUS IT WAS NOTED THIRTY YEARS
AGO IN A DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE STUDY OF PILOTAGE THAT MEMBERSHIP OF
PILOT ASSOCIATIONS "IS LIMITED TO PERSONS AGREEABLE TO THOSE ALREADY
MEMBERS, GENERALLY RELATIVES AND FRIENDS OF THE PILOTS.  PROBABLY IN
PILOTAGE MORE THAN IN ANY OTHER OCCUPATION IN THE UNITED STATES THE
MALE MEMBERS OF A FAMILY FOLLOW THE SAME WORK FROM GENERATION TO
GENERATION."  FN24 

THE PRACTICE OF NEPOTISM IN APPOINTING PUBLIC SERVANTS HAS BEEN A
SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY IN THIS COUNTRY THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY.  SOME
STATES HAVE ADOPTED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS  FN25  OR STATUTES  FN26
TO PROHIBIT IT.  THESE HAVE REFLECTED STATE POLICIES TO WIPE OUT THE
PRACTICE.  BUT LOUISIANA AND MOST OTHER STATES HAVE ADOPTED NO SUCH
GENERAL POLICY.  WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE
WEIGHED THE OBVIOUS POSSIBILITY OF EVIL AGAINST WHATEVER USEFUL
FUNCTION A CLOSELY KNIT PILOTAGE SYSTEM MAY SERVE.  THUS THE ADVANTAGES
OF EARLY EXPERIENCE UNDER FRIENDLY SUPERVISION IN THE LOCALITY OF THE
PILOT'S TRAINING, THE BENEFITS TO MORALE AND ESPRIT DE CORPS WHICH
FAMILY AND NEIGHBORLY TRADITION MIGHT CONTRIBUTE, THE CLOSE ASSOCIATION
IN WHICH PILOTS MUST WORK AND LIVE IN THEIR PILOT COMMUNITIES AND ON
THE WATER, AND THE DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION WHICH IS IMPOSED TO ASSURE
THE STATE COMPETENT PILOT SERVICE AFTER APPOINTMENT, MIGHT HAVE
PROMPTED THE LEGISLATURE TO PERMIT LOUISIANA PILOT OFFICERS TO SELECT
THOSE WITH WHOM THEY WOULD SERVE. 

THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WHO CAN BE PILOTS IS
VERY LIMITED.  NO MATTER WHAT SYSTEM OF SELECTION IS ADOPTED, ALL BUT
THE FEW OCCASIONALLY SELECTED MUST OF NECESSITY BE EXCLUDED.  CF. OLSEN
V. SMITH, SUPRA, 344, 345.  FN27  WE ARE AWARE OF NO DECISION OF THIS
COURT HOLDING THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A STATE GOVERNOR, OR
SUBORDINATES RESPONSIBLE TO HIM AND REMOVABLE BY HIM FOR CAUSE, TO
SELECT STATE PUBLIC SERVANTS BY COMPETITIVE TESTS OR BY ANY OTHER
PARTICULAR METHOD OF SELECTION.  THE OBJECT OF THE ENTIRE PILOTAGE LAW,
AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, IS TO SECURE FOR THE STATE AND OTHERS
INTERESTED THE SAFEST AND MOST EFFICIENTLY OPERATED PILOTAGE SYSTEM
PRACTICABLE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED IN LOUISIANA FOR
THE SELECTION OF PILOTS IS UNRELATED TO THIS OBJECTIVE.  SEE OLSEN V.
SMITH, SUPRA; CF. CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495, 509
510.  WE DO NOT NEED TO CONSIDER HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING ANY
SIMILAR SYSTEM OF SELECTION WHICH MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE PRACTICED IN
OTHER PROFESSIONS OR BUSINESSES REGULATED OR OPERATED BY STATE
GOVERNMENTS.  IT IS ENOUGH HERE THAT CONSIDERING THE ENTIRELY UNIQUE
INSTITUTION OF PILOTAGE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY IN LOUISIANA, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE PRACTICE APPELLANTS ATTACK IS THE KIND OF
DISCRIMINATION WHICH VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AFFIRMED.    FN1  A SHIP ENTERING THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO IS PILOTED THE TWENTY MILE
DISTANCE FROM THE MOUTH OF THE RIVER TO "PILOT TOWN" BY ONE OF A GROUP
OF PILOTS SPECIALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE "ENTRANCE" TO THE MISSISSIPPI
THROUGH THE SO-CALLED "PASSES."  LA. ACTS 1880, NO. 99, SEC. 2, LA.
ACTS 1908, NO. 55, SEC. 1, LA. ACTS 1910, NO. 26, SEC. 1, 6 LA. GEN.
STAT. SECS. 9141, 9163(1939).  BETWEEN PILOT TOWN AND NEW ORLEANS, A
DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY NINETY MILES, SHIPS ARE PILOTED EXCLUSIVELY
BY SO-CALLED RIVER PORT PILOTS.  LA. ACTS 1908, NO. 54, SEC. 1, 6 LA.
GEN. STAT., TIT. 59, C. 8(1939).  BY AN AMENDMENT IN 1942 THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE RIVER PORT PILOTS WAS EXTENDED TO THE PILOTING OF
SEAGOING VESSELS WITHIN THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS.  LA. ACTS 1942, NO.
134, 6 LA. GEN. STAT. SEC. 9155(SUPP.  1946).  APPELLANTS HERE SOUGHT
APPOINTMENT AS RIVER PORT PILOTS. 

FN2  SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE ACT OF 1908 PROVIDED FOR THE APPOINTMENT
AND COMMISSIONING OF TWENTY-EIGHT PILOTS BY THE GOVERNOR AND PRESCRIBED
THAT THEREAFTER THERE SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN TWENTY.  6 LA. GEN. STAT.
SECS. 9155, 9156(1939). 

THE STATEMENT OF THE LOUISIANA COURT IN THIS CASE THAT PILOTS SO
APPOINTED ARE CONSIDERED STATE OFFICERS HAS LONG BEEN THE ESTABLISHED
STATE RULE.  WILLIAMS V. PAYSON, 14 LA. ANN. REP. 7, 8(1859); LOUISIANA
V. FOLLETT, 33 LA. ANN. REP. 228, 230(1881); LEVINE V. MICHEL, 35 LA.
ANN. REP. 1121, 1124(1883). 

FROM AMONG THE PILOTS THE GOVERNOR WAS REQUIRED TO APPOINT THREE
RIVER PORT PILOT COMMISSIONERS.  LA. ACTS 1908, NO. 54, SEC. 1, 6 LA.
GEN. STAT. SEC. 9154(1939). 

FN3  "WHENEVER THERE EXISTS A NECESSITY FOR MORE PILOTS  ...  THE
...  BOARD OF RIVER PORT PILOT COMMISSIONERS SHALL HOLD EXAMINATIONS,
UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND WITH SUCH REQUIREMENTS AS THEY
SHALL HAVE PROVIDED, WITH THE GOVERNOR'S APPROVAL, PROVIDED THAT NO
APPLICANT SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY SAID BOARD, UNLESS HE SUBMITS PROPER
EVIDENCE OF MORAL CHARACTER AND IS A VOTER OF THIS STATE, AND SHALL
HAVE SERVED SIX MONTHS' APPRENTICESHIP IN HIS PROPOSED CALLING, AND
UPON THE CERTIFICATE OF THE BOARD TO THE GOVERNOR THAT THE APPLICANT
HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, THE GOVERNOR MAY, IN HIS
DISCRETION, APPOINT TO EXISTING VACANCIES."  LA. ACTS 1908, NO. 54,
SEC. 4.  6 LA. GEN. STAT. SEC. 9157(1939). 

FN4  APPELLANTS WERE LICENSED TO PILOT COASTWISE VESSELS TO AND
THROUGH THE PORT UNDER FEDERAL LAW WHICH EXCLUDES STATES FROM
CONTROLLING PILOTAGE OF COASTAL SHIPPING.  REV. STAT. SECS. 4401, 4444,
46 U.S.C. SECS. 215, 364.  ALSO PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF LA. ACTS 1942,
NO. 134, THEY HAD PILOTED ALL CLASSES OF VESSELS WITHIN THE PORT OF NEW
ORLEANS.  THAT ACT DEPRIVED APPELLANTS OF AUTHORITY TO PILOT WITHIN THE
PORT AND CONFERRED IT EXCLUSIVELY UPON STATE RIVER PORT PILOTS.  THUS
APPELLANTS ALLEGE THEY HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A
LIVING UNLESS THEY CAN OBTAIN APPOINTMENT AS RIVER PORT PILOTS UNDER
THE PILOTAGE LAW. 

FN5  WHILE THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE THAT THE
APPRENTICESHIPS BE PERFORMED UNDER INCUMBENT OFFICER PILOTS, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HAS SO CONSTRUED IT. 

FN6  LA. REV. STAT. SEC. 2707(1869), REENACTED IN SEC. 4 OF LA. ACTS
1928, NO. 198, 6 LA. GEN. STAT. SEC. 9149(1939). 

FN7  APPELLANTS' COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE
OF ACTION.  THEREFORE WE CONSIDER THEIR ALLEGATIONS AS FACTS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THIS DECISION. 

APPELLANTS' PRAYER HAD SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH
THEIR SERVING AS PILOTS, AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SOUGHT MANDAMUS TO
COMPEL THE BOARD TO EXAMINE APPELLANTS AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND TO
CERTIFY THEM TO THE GOVERNOR.  THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE
TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO COMPEL THE BOARD TO EXAMINE APPELLANTS BECAUSE
THEY DID NOT POSSESS THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED TO TAKE EXAMINATIONS -
SPECIFICALLY, THEY HAD NOT SERVED APPRENTICESHIPS. 

FN8  SEE GENERALLY, REPORT OF DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON PILOTAGE
(LONDON, 1911); PILOTAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, SPECIAL AGENTS SERIES,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (1917). 

FN9  SEE COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, 308, 312, 316,
326; EX PARTE MCNIEL, 13 WALL.  236, 238, 239. 

FN10  FOR AN EXCELLENT DESCRIPTION OF A PILOT'S LIFE AND DUTY, SEE
KANE, DEEP DELTA COUNTRY, C. 10(1944). 

FN11  SEE KANE, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 10.  SEE ALSO HEARINGS BEFORE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES ON H.R. 9678, 64TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., 106, 214, 229, 279(1916)(COMPULSORY BARGE PILOTAGE). 

FN12  SEE GIESECKE, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION BEFORE 1789(1910)
118; KANE, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 10. 

FN13  SEE KANE, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 10.  A LOUISIANA STATUTE
PROVIDES THAT "NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED ANY PERSON TO KEEP A TAVERN
...  AT THE BALIZE, SOUTH WEST PASS OR ANY OTHER STATION FOR PILOTS,
NOR WITHIN THREE MILES OF SUCH STATION, UNLESS THE PERSON APPLYING FOR
SUCH LICENSE SHALL BE RECOMMENDED IN WRITING BY A MAJORITY OF THE
BRANCH PILOTS."  LA. REV. STAT. SEC. 2704(1869), 6 LA. GEN. STAT. SEC.
9166(1939). 

FN14  SEE KANE OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 10, 128; SEE ALSO PILOTAGE IN THE
UNITED STATES, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 8, 8, 16. 

FN15  LA. ACTS (TERRITORY OF NEW ORLEANS) 1805, C. 24; SEE ALSO
SURREY, COMMERCE OF LOUISIANA, 1699-1763, C. III (1916). 

FN16  ALMOST ALL THE MARITIME STATES, SOME AS COLONIES BEFORE THE
REVOLUTION, ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PILOTAGE LAWS WHICH INCLUDED
UNRESTRICTED APPRENTICESHIP PROVISIONS.  MASS. LAWS, C. 13(1783); MASS.
REV. STAT. C. 32, SECS. 5-42(1836); NEW YORK LAWS, C. XVIII, SECS. I,
VII, X, XII (1819); PA. STATS. AT LARGE, C. 536, SEC. VI (1767); N.J.
REV. LAWS, TIT. 37, C. 7, SEC. 18(1847); 1 LAWS OF MD. (DORSEY) C. 63,
SECS. 2, 20, 23(1803); CODE OF VIRGINIA, C. 92, SECS. 4, 9(1849); N.C.
REV. STAT. C. 88, SECS. 1, 5, 14(1837).  SEE ALSO REPORT OF
DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON PILOTAGE, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 8, PART I. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 2 SUPRA. 

FN18  THE 1805 ACT REQUIRED DEPUTIES TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE FROM THE
MASTER AND WARDENS AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THEIR APPOINTMENT.  BUT
SEC. 1 OF LA. ACTS 1806, C. 26, GAVE PILOTS BLANKET AUTHORITY TO
APPOINT THEIR OWN DEPUTIES.  PILOTS WERE, HOWEVER, MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE NEGLECT OR MISCONDUCT OF THEIR DEPUTIES. 

FN19  LA. ACTS 1805, C. 24, SEC. 20; LA. ACTS 1837, NO. 106, SEC. 9. 

FN20  LA. ACTS 1805, C. 24, SEC. 17. 

FN21  LEVINE V. MICHEL, SUPRA, AT 1125; SEE ALSO NOTE 6 SUPRA. 

FN22  SEE KANE, OP. CIT. SUPRA, N. 10, AT 126-128; ALL OF THE STATE
AND COLONIAL STATUTES SET OUT IN NOTE 10, SUPRA, PROVIDED FOR
LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF PILOTS AND FIXED THE FEES THEY MIGHT
CHARGE.  THIS IS GENERALLY TRUE TODAY.  SEE N. 23 INFRA. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REPORT, SUPRA, N. 8, AT 28 OBSERVED THAT:
"THE FORMATION OF PILOTS' ASSOCIATIONS WAS LARGELY A RESULT OF THE
INTENSE COMPETITION THAT FORMERLY PREVAILED AMONG THE PILOTS,  ...
LITTLE EFFORT WAS MADE TO MAINTAIN DEFINITE PILOT STATIONS.  INSTEAD,
THE DESIRE TO BE THE FIRST TO SPEAK A SHIP FREQUENTLY LED THE PILOTS TO
CRUISE GREAT DISTANCES FROM THE PORT. 

"ONE OF THE UNFORTUNATE RESULTS OF THE INTENSE COMPETITION OF PILOTS
WAS THE FACT THAT FREQUENTLY PILOTS COULD NOT BE HAD WHEN WANTED,
ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT BE FAR OUT TO SEA IN QUEST OF BUSINESS.  ANOTHER
DRAWBACK WAS THAT PILOTS UNNECESSARILY EXPOSED THEMSELVES TO DANGER. 
AND A THIRD IMPORTANT DISADVANTAGE WAS THAT IT MADE THE EARNINGS
PRECARIOUS; A PILOT MIGHT EARN A GREAT DEAL THIS MONTH AND VERY LITTLE
THE NEXT.... 

"THE PILOTS THEMSELVES WERE THE FIRST TO SEE THE DISADVANTAGES OF THE
FREE OR COMPETITIVE SYSTEM AND TO TAKE STEPS TOWARD THE ORGANIZATION OF
ASSOCIATIONS.  THESE ASSOCIATIONS SOON DEVELOPED INTO STRONG WORKING
COMBINATIONS THAT ELIMINATED COMPETITION AND PLACED ON AN AMICABLE
BASIS MATTERS THAT FORMERLY PRODUCED MUCH SHARP RIVALRY. 

"FROM THE EVIDENCE AT HAND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE SHIPPING
INTERESTS AS WELL AS THE INSURANCE AND COMMERCIAL INTERESTS OF THE
PORTS ENCOURAGED THE PILOTS IN THE FORMATION OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS. 
THE ADVANTAGES OF A WELL-ORGANIZED PILOTAGE SYSTEM WERE AS APPARENT TO
THESE INTERESTS AS TO THE PILOTS THEMSELVES, FOR THE COMMERCE OF THE
PORT WAS NOT ONLY FACILITATED AND EXPEDITED BUT MADE MUCH SAFER BY
REASON OF THE BETTER ORGANIZATION OF THE PILOTAGE SYSTEM, WHICH CAME
WITH THE ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION. 

"SINCE ASSOCIATIONS HAVE BEEN FORMED ALONG THE PRESENT LINES PILOTAGE
GROUNDS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED  ...  THESE GROUNDS ARE WELL KNOWN TO
MARINERS, WHO MAY SAFELY COUNT ON FINDING THERE AT PRACTICALLY ALL
TIMES AND IN ALL CONDITIONS OF WEATHER A PILOT BOAT WITH A SUFFICIENT
NUMBER OF PILOTS ABOARD TO ACCOMMODATE ANY REASONABLE NUMBER OF VESSELS
THAT MAY COME.  THERE IS LITTLE CHANCE NOWADAYS THAT A VESSEL WILL FAIL
TO FIND A PILOT WHEN NEEDED.... 

"STILL ANOTHER ADVANTAGE OF THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF PILOTAGE
SYSTEMS IS THAT IT PERMITS THE MAINTENANCE OF A CENTRAL OFFICE WHICH IS
IN CONSTANT TOUCH WITH THE PILOT BOAT AND ARRANGES FOR THE ROTATION OF
PILOTS.  THE ASSOCIATION GENERALLY EMPLOYS AN AGENT TO LOOK AFTER THE
ROUTINE BUSINESS OF THE OFFICE." 

FN23  SEE N.J. LAWS 1898, C. 31, N.J. STAT. ANN. TITLE 12, C.
8(1939); PA. P.L. 542 OF 1803, PA. STATS. ANN. (PURDON) TITLE 55, C.
2(1930); MD. ANN. CODE (FLACK), ART. 74(1939); DEL. REV. CODE, C.
35(1935); VA. CODE, C. 142(1942); ALA. LAWS, 1931, P. 154, ALA. CODE,
TITLE 38, C. 2(1940); ORE.  COMP.  LAWS ANN., TITLE 105, C. 2(1940). 
SEE ALSO NOTE 16, SUPRA. 

FN24  PILOTAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, SUPRA, NOTE 8, P. 8. 

FN25  SEE E.G., MO. CONST., ART. 14, SEC. 13(1924). 

FN26  SEE E.G., IDAHO SESS. LAWS, 1915, C. 10, IDAHO CODE ANN., SEC.
57-701(1932); FLA. LAWS, 1933, C. 16088, FLA. STATS. ANN. SECS. 116.10,
116.11(1943); NEB. LAWS 1919, C. 190, SEC. 6, NEB. REV. STAT. SEC. 81
108(1943); TEX. ACTS 1909, P. 85, TEX. PENAL CODE (VERNON) ARTS. 432
438(1938). 

FN27  IN OLSEN V. SMITH, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TEXAS STATUTE
FORBIDDING ALL BUT PILOTS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO SERVE WAS
CHALLENGED BY ONE WHO HAD NOT BEEN APPOINTED AND HAD BEEN ENJOINED FROM
SERVING AS A PILOT.  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, SUPRA, WAS RELIED ON AS
AUTHORITY FOR A CONTENTION THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED RIGHTS PROTECTED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INCLUDING EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  ID.
334.  BUT THIS COURT IN SUSTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE, DID NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS THE QUESTION HERE RAISED. 
THEREFORE WE DO NOT DEPEND UPON OLSEN V. SMITH AS A NECESSARILY
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY FOR OUR DECISION HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

THE UNIQUE HISTORY AND CONDITIONS SURROUNDING THE ACTIVITIES OF RIVER
PORT PILOTS, SHORTLY RECOUNTED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, JUSTIFY A HIGH
DEGREE OF PUBLIC REGULATION.  BUT I DO NOT THINK THEY CAN SUSTAIN A
SYSTEM OF ENTAILMENT FOR THE OCCUPATION.  IF LOUISIANA WERE TO PROVIDE
BY STATUTE IN HAEC VERBA THAT ONLY MEMBERS OF JOHN SMITH'S FAMILY WOULD
BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC CALLING OF PILOT, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE
STATUTE ON ITS FACE WOULD INFRINGE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AND THIS
WOULD BE TRUE, EVEN THOUGH JOHN SMITH AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY HAD
BEEN PILOTS FOR GENERATIONS.  IT WOULD BE TRUE ALSO IF THE RIGHT WERE
EXPANDED TO INCLUDE A NUMBER OF DESIGNATED FAMILIES. 

IN FINAL ANALYSIS THIS IS, I THINK, THE SITUATION PRESENTED ON THIS
RECORD.  WHILE THE STATUTES APPLICABLE DO NOT PURPORT ON THEIR FACE TO
RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO BECOME A LICENSED PILOT TO MEMBERS OF THE
FAMILIES OF LICENSED PILOTS, THE CHARGE IS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SO
ADMINISTERED.  AND THIS CHARGE NOT ONLY IS BORNE OUT BY THE RECORD BUT
IS ACCEPTED BY THE COURT AS HAVING BEEN SUSTAINED.  FN1 

THE RESULT OF THE DECISION THEREFORE IS TO APPROVE AS CONSTITUTIONAL
STATE REGULATION WHICH MAKES ADMISSION TO THE RANKS OF PILOTS TURN
FINALLY ON CONSANGUINITY.  BLOOD IS, IN EFFECT, MADE THE CRUX OF
SELECTION.  THAT, IN MY OPINION, IS FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY AGAINST DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS.  THE DOOR IS THEREBY CLOSED TO ALL NOT HAVING BLOOD RELATIONSHIP
TO PRESENTLY LICENSED PILOTS.  WHETHER THE OCCUPATION IS CONSIDERED AS
HAVING THE STATUS OF "PUBLIC OFFICER" OR OF HIGHLY REGULATED PRIVATE
EMPLOYMENT, IT IS BEYOND LEGISLATIVE POWER TO MAKE ENTRANCE TO IT TURN
UPON SUCH A CRITERION.  THE AMENDMENT MAKES NO EXCEPTION FROM ITS
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST STATE ACTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT PUBLIC
RATHER THAN PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT IS AFFECTED BY THE FORBIDDEN
DISCRIMINATIONS.  THAT FACT SIMPLY MAKES VIOLATION ALL THE MORE CLEAR
WHERE THOSE DISCRIMINATIONS ARE SHOWN TO EXIST. 

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO AVOID THE AMENDMENT'S FORCE THAT A FAMILIAL
SYSTEM MAY HAVE A TENDENCY OR, AS THE COURT PUTS IT, A DIRECT
RELATIONSHIP TO THE END OF SECURING AN EFFICIENT PILOTAGE SYSTEM. 
CLASSIFICATION BASED ON THE PURPOSE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED MAY BE SAID
ABSTRACTLY TO BE SOUND.  BUT WHEN THE TEST ADOPTED AND APPLIED IN FACT
IS RACE OR CONSANGUINITY, IT CANNOT BE USED CONSTITUTIONALLY TO BAR ALL
EXCEPT A GROUP CHOSEN BY SUCH A RELATIONSHIP FROM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT. 
THAT IS NOT A TEST; IT IS A WHOLLY ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER. 
CONCEIVABLY THE FAMILIAL SYSTEM WOULD BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE POSSIBLE
SCHEME FOR TRAINING MANY KINDS OF ARTISANS OR PUBLIC SERVANTS, SHEERLY
FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF SECURING THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF SKILL AND
COMPETENCE.  INDEED, SOMETHING VERY WORTH WHILE LARGELY DISAPPEARED
FROM OUR NATIONAL LIFE WHEN THE ONCE PREVALENT FAMILIAL SYSTEM OF
CONDUCTING MANUFACTURING AND MERCANTILE ENTERPRISES WENT OUT AND WAS
REPLACED BY THE HIGHLY IMPERSONAL CORPORATE SYSTEM FOR DOING BUSINESS. 

BUT THAT LOSS IS NOT ONE TO BE REPAIRED UNDER OUR SCHEME BY
LEGISLATION FRAMED OR ADMINISTERED TO PERPETUATE FAMILY MONOPOLIES OF
EITHER PRIVATE OCCUPATIONS OR BRANCHES OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE.  IT IS
PRECISELY BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT FORBIDS ENCLOSING THOSE AREAS BY
LEGISLATIVE LINES DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, CREED AND THE
LIKE, THAT, IN CASES LIKE THIS, THE POSSIBLY MOST EFFICIENT METHOD OF
SECURING THE HIGHEST DEVELOPMENT OF SKILLS CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED BY
LAW.  ABSENT ANY SUCH BAR, THE PRESENCE OF SUCH A TENDENCY OR DIRECT
RELATIONSHIP WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FOR SUSTAINING THE LEGISLATION.  IT
CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE TO OVERCOME THE BAR ITSELF.  THE DISCRIMINATION
HERE IS NOT SHOWN TO BE CONSCIOUSLY RACIAL IN CHARACTER.  BUT I AM
UNABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE IN EFFECTS ONE FOUNDED ON BLOOD RELATIONSHIP. 

THE CASE THEREFORE FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE RULING IN YICK WO V.
HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356,  FN2 NOT ONLY WITH RELATION TO THE LINE OF
DISCRIMINATION EMPLOYED, BUT ALSO IN THE FACT THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ADMINISTRATION OF A STATUTE OTHERWISE VALID ON ITS FACE INCURS THE SAME
CONDEMNATION AS IF THE STATUTE HAD INCORPORATED THE DISCRIMINATION IN
TERMS.  APPELLANTS HERE ARE ENTITLED, IN MY JUDGMENT, TO THE SAME
RELIEF AS WAS AFFORDED IN THE YICK WO CASE. 

FN1  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN A FEW INSTANCES OVER A COURSE OF
SEVERAL YEARS NONRELATIVES OF LICENSED PILOTS HAVE RECEIVED APPOINTMENT
AS APPRENTICES AND QUALIFIED.  BUT THE GENERAL COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION
HAS BEEN THAT SUCH APPOINTMENTS ARE LIMITED TO RELATIVES. 

FN2  TO LIKE EFFECT IS ALSTON V. SCHOOL BOARD OF NORFOLK, 112 F.2D
992; CF. BURT V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 156 F.2D 791; REMEDIES FOR
DISCRIMINATION BY STATE AND LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES (1946) 60 HARV.
L. REV. 271. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :











I.C.C. V. MECHLING, 330 U.S. 567 


NO. 72.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 13, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1947.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZING, ON THE
CHICAGO-TO-THE-EAST LEG OF GRAIN SHIPMENTS ORIGINATING WEST OF CHICAGO,
A PROPORTIONAL RATE 3 CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS HIGHER ON EX-BARGE THAN
ON EX-LAKE OR EX-RAIL SHIPMENTS, HELD NOT BASED ON ADEQUATE FINDINGS
AND EVIDENCE, AND THEREFORE UNLAWFUL UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  PP. 572-573, 583. 

(A)  THE POLICY AND PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940
FORBID APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF BARGE RATES OR BARGE-RAIL RATES
WHICH DO NOT PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF CHEAPER WATER
TRANSPORTATION, BUT WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WATER CARRIERS AND THE
GOODS THEY TRANSPORT.  PP. 574-577. 

(B)  CHICAGO-TO-THE-EAST RAILROADS CAN NOT LAWFULLY CHARGE MORE FOR
CARRYING EX-BARGE THAN FOR CARRYING EX-LAKE OR EX-RAIL GRAINS TO AND
FROM THE SAME LOCALITIES, UNLESS THE EASTERN HAUL OF THE EX-BARGE GRAIN
COSTS THE EASTERN RAILROADS MORE TO HAUL THAN DOES EX-RAIL OR EX-LAKE
GRAIN.  P. 577. 

(C)  SECTION 307(D) OF PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO FIX DIFFERENTIALS AS BETWEEN THROUGH
WATER-RAIL AND THROUGH ALL-RAIL RATES, DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE
COMMISSION TO NEUTRALIZE THE EFFECTIVE PROHIBITIONS OF OTHER PROVISIONS
WHICH WERE STRENGTHENED IN 1940 EXPRESSLY TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST WATER CARRIERS.  P. 577. 

(D)  THE COMMISSION, NO MORE THAN IT COULD REQUIRE THE BARGE CARRIERS
TO RAISE RATES INBOUND TO CHICAGO WHICH IT ACCEPTED AS REASONABLE, CAN
NOT LAWFULLY BRING ABOUT THE SAME PROHIBITED RESULT BY RAISING THE
RAILROAD RATES CHARGED BY EASTERN ROADS FOR EX-BARGE GRAIN SHIPMENTS
EAST FROM CHICAGO.  PP. 577-578. 

(E)  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ITS CONCLUSION THAT
IT IS "INEQUITABLE" FOR THE BARGES TO CHARGE A MUCH LOWER RATE FOR THE
INBOUND GRAIN HAUL THAN THE COMPETITIVE WESTERN RAILROADS CAN AFFORD TO
CHARGE FOR THE SAME HAUL.  P. 578. 

(F)  IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE COMMISSION TO SO ADJUST
RATES AS TO EQUALIZE THE TRANSPORTATION COST OF BARGE SHIPPERS WITH
THAT OF SHIPPERS WHO DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO BARGE SERVICE OR TO PROTECT
THE TRAFFIC OF RAILROADS FROM BARGE COMPETITION.  P. 579. 

(G)  CONGRESS HAS NOT GRANTED THE COMMISSION DISCRETIONARY POWER TO
APPROVE ANY TYPE OF RATES WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE "INHERENT ADVANTAGE"
OF BARGE TRANSPORTATION IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  P. 579. 

(H)  PARTIAL COMPENSATION OF EASTERN ROADS FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSIT
COSTS CAN NOT BE MADE IN A MANNER WHICH SINGLES OUT EX-BARGE GRAIN FOR
DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
P. 583. 

2.  TO JUSTIFY THE HIGHER PROPORTIONAL RATES ON EX-BARGE GRAIN, THE
COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE TO SHOW
HOW MUCH GREATER IS THE COST TO THE EASTERN ROADS OF RESHIPPING EX
BARGE GRAIN THAN OF RESHIPPING EX-LAKE OR EX-RAIL GRAIN MOVING FROM THE
SAME LOCALITIES AND REQUIRING THE SAME SERVICE AS DOES THE EX-BARGE
GRAIN.  THE "UNSIFTED AVERAGES" PUT FORWARD BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS
CASE DO NOT MEASURE THE ALLEGEDLY GREATER COSTS NOR SHOW THAT THEY
EXIST.  P. 583. 

3.  SINCE IN THIS CASE THE UNITED STATES WAS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE ORDER OF THAT COURT REQUIRING
THE COMMISSION TO SERVE NOTICE OF APPEAL ON THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT
PREJUDICIAL ERROR.  P. 573, N. 6. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. MECHLING, DOING BUSINESS AS A.L.
MECHLING BARGELINE, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

IN 1939 THE EASTERN RAILROADS FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION SCHEDULES WHICH IMPOSED ON EX-BARGE GRAIN THE LOCAL RATE
FROM CHICAGO EAST, BUT ALLOWED EX-RAIL AND EX-LAKE GRAIN THE BENEFIT OF
8 1/2-CENT LOWER "RESHIPPING" RATES ON THE EASTERN HAUL.  THE
COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING, MADE AN ORDER WHICH LEFT THE RAILROAD
PROPOSED HIGHER RATES IN EFFECT, BUT STATED THAT "IN A PROPER
PROCEEDING WE MIGHT PRESCRIBE PROPORTIONAL RATES ON THE EX-BARGE
TRAFFIC LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES OR JOINT BARGERAIL RATES LOWER THAN THE
COMBINATIONS."  248 I.C.C. 307.  A DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT FIXING HIGHER RATES FOR EX-BARGE
GRAIN THAN FOR EX-RAIL AND EX-LAKE GRAIN "DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WATER
COMPETITION BY THE USERS OF BARGES."  44 F.SUPP.  368.  ON APPEAL THIS
COURT REVERSED, BUT WITH "NO IMPLICATION OF APPROVAL OF ANY RATES HERE
INVOLVED."  I.C.C. V. INLAND WATERWAYS CORP., 319 U.S. 671.  IN FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED EX-BARGE GRAIN RATES EAST FROM
CHICAGO 3 CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS HIGHER THAN RATES FOR EX-RAIL AND EX
LAKE GRAIN.  262 I.C.C. 7.  THE APPELLEES THEN BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, INSOFAR AS IT
PERMITTED THE RAILROADS TO PUT THE HIGHER EX-BARGE GRAIN RATES INTO
EFFECT.  THE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE AND ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER.  THE COMMISSION APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  AFFIRMED, P. 583. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINED IN PART AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28
U.S.C. SECS. 47, 47A, AND 345.  THE COMMISSION ORDER SPECIFICALLY
RELATES TO THE RAILROAD RATE FOR GRAIN TRANSPORTED FROM CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS, TO NEW YORK AND OTHER EASTERN POINTS,  FN1  AFTER THAT GRAIN
HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED TO CHICAGO FROM THE WEST BY CONNECTING RAIL OR
WATER CARRIERS ON THROUGH BILLS OF LADING.  IN SUCH THROUGH SHIPMENTS
THE THROUGH RATE IS A COMBINATION OF DISTINCTLY SEPARATE RATES CHARGED
RESPECTIVELY FOR SHIPMENTS FROM THE WEST TO CHICAGO AND FROM CHICAGO TO
THE EAST.  THE CHARGE FIXED FOR THE LAST LEG OF THE SHIPMENT IS CALLED,
IN RAILROAD PARLANCE, A "RESHIPPING" OR "PROPORTIONAL" RATE.  IT IS
LOWER FROM CHICAGO TO THE EAST THAN A "LOCAL" RATE CHARGED FOR A
SHIPMENT FROM CHICAGO TO THE EAST WHICH ORIGINATES IN CHICAGO.  SEE
ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768, 771. 

FOR MANY YEARS EASTERN RAILROADS HAVE CARRIED GRAIN EAST FROM CHICAGO
AT RESHIPPING RATES 8 1/2 CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS LOWER THAN LOCAL
RATES.  UP TO 1939 THIS CHICAGO-TO-THE-EAST RESHIPPING RATE HAD BEEN
IDENTICAL FOR GRAIN, WHETHER BROUGHT TO CHICAGO BY A CONNECTING
RAILROAD, CONNECTING LAKE STEAMER, OR CONNECTING BARGE.  ALTHOUGH BARGE
LINES WERE MUCH SLOWER THAN RAILROADS, THEY WERE LESS EXPENSIVE TO
OPERATE AND THEREFORE COULD AFFORD TO TRANSPORT FREIGHT MUCH MORE
CHEAPLY THAN RAILROADS.  THE RESULT WAS THAT THE BARGE-RAIL RATE FROM A
POINT IN THE WEST TO EASTERN DESTINATIONS WAS CONSIDERABLY CHEAPER THAN
THE ALL-RAIL RATE FROM THAT POINT - THE DIFFERENCE BEING MEASURED BY
THE RELATIVE CHEAPNESS OF SHIPPING OVER THE BARGE LEG OF THE THROUGH
ROUTE.  BECAUSE OF THE CHEAPER BARGE RATES, MUCH OF THE RAILROADS'
GRAIN FREIGHT BUSINESS FROM LOCALITIES WHICH COULD BE SERVED BY EITHER
BARGE OR RAIL SHIFTED TO THE BARGES FN2  AFTER 1933 WHEN BARGE SERVICE
FROM WESTERN GRAIN LOCALITIES TO CHICAGO WAS RESUMED.  FN3  THIS WAS
THE BARGE VERSUS RAIL COMPETITIVE SITUATION WHICH EXISTED WHEN IN 1939
THE EASTERN RAILROADS FILED SCHEDULES WITH THE COMMISSION WHICH IMPOSED
ON EX-BARGE GRAIN THE LOCAL RATE FROM CHICAGO EAST, BUT ALLOWED EX-RAIL
AND EX-LAKE GRAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE 8 1/2 CENT LOWER "RESHIPPING"
RATES ON THE EASTERN HAUL.  THE RESULT OF THIS RATE SCHEDULE WOULD HAVE
BEEN THAT, ALTHOUGH BARGE LINES COULD STILL HAVE CARRIED GRAIN FROM THE
WEST TO CHICAGO MUCH MORE CHEAPLY THAN THE RAILROADS COULD, BY THE TIME
THE GRAIN HAD BEEN RESHIPPED TO NEW YORK OR OTHER EASTERN POINTS, THE
BARGE-RAIL CARRIAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EXPENSIVE TO THE SHIPPER THAN
ALL-RAIL CARRIAGE.  THIS WOULD HAVE PUT THE BARGE LINES AT A
COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE WITH RAILROADS IN BARGE-SERVED LOCALITIES.  AT
THE COMMISSION HEARING TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE HIGHER EX-BARGE
GRAIN RATES, A RAILROAD REPRESENTATIVE CANDIDLY STATED THAT THE PURPOSE
OF THE PROPOSAL WAS TO "DRIVE THIS BUSINESS OFF THE WATER AND BACK ONTO
THE RAILS WHERE IT BELONGS."  248 I.C.C. 307, 321.  THIS PURPOSE WOULD
MOST PROBABLY HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED HAD THE HIGH EX-BARGE RESHIPPING
RATES GONE INTO EFFECT. 

THE COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING, MADE AN ORDER WHICH LEFT THE
RAILROAD-PROPOSED HIGHER RATES IN EFFECT, BUT STATED THAT "IN A PROPER
PROCEEDING WE MIGHT PRESCRIBE PROPORTIONAL RATES ON THE EX-BARGE
TRAFFIC LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES OR JOINT BARGE-RAIL RATES LOWER THAN THE
COMBINATIONS."  248 I.C.C. 307, 311.  A DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT FIXING HIGHER RATES FOR EX-BARGE
GRAIN THAN FOR EX-RAIL AND EX-LAKE GRAIN "DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WATER
COMPETITION BY THE USERS OF BARGES."  CARGILL, INC. V. UNITED STATES,
44 F.SUPP.  368, 375.  ON APPEAL THIS COURT REVERSED, SAYING THAT ITS
DECISION CARRIED "NO IMPLICATION OF APPROVAL OF ANY RATES HERE
INVOLVED."  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. INLAND WATERWAYS CORP.,
319 U.S. 671, 691.  IT RESERVED FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION IN A
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, WHICH THE EASTERN
RAILROADS COULD INCREASE "RESHIPPING" RATES FOR EX-BARGE OVER THOSE FOR
EX-LAKE AND EX-RAIL GRAIN.  ID. AT 687-688, 691. 

THE COMMISSION HAS NOW CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THAT QUESTION IN A
PROPER PROCEEDING.  262 I.C.C. 7.  IT FOUND THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED 8
1/2 CENT HIGHER RATES FOR EX-BARGE GRAIN TO BE UNLAWFUL AND REQUIRED
THE EASTERN ROADS TO CANCEL THE SCHEDULES FIXING THOSE INCREASED
RESHIPPING RATES.  THIS PART OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HAS NOT BEEN
CHALLENGED.  BUT IT ALSO CONCLUDED THAT EX-BARGE GRAIN RATES EAST FROM
CHICAGO WOULD BE REASONABLE AND LAWFUL EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE 3 CENTS
PER HUNDRED POUNDS HIGHER THAN RATES FOR EX-RAIL AND EX-LAKE GRAIN. 
CONSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSION PROVIDED THAT ITS ORDER CANCELLING THE
SCHEDULED RESHIPPING RATE INCREASE WAS "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FILING
OF NEW SCHEDULES IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDINGS HEREIN."  THUS, THE
EFFECT OF THE WHOLE ORDER WAS TO PERMIT, IF NOT REQUIRE, THE RAILROADS
TO CHARGE HIGHER RESHIPMENT RATES FOR EX-BARGE THAN FOR EX-LAKE AND EX
RAIL GRAIN.  UNDER THESE RATES, BARGE-RAIL GRAIN SHIPMENTS WOULD BE A
TRIFLE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN ALL-RAIL TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE SAME
POINTS.  FN4  BUT THE THROUGH BARGE-RAIL TRANSPORTATION WOULD COST MORE
THAN IT WOULD HAVE IF THE THROUGH RATES HAD ACCURATELY REFLECTED THE
CHEAPER IN-BOUND BARGE RATES.  THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THESE HIGHER
RATES FOR EX-BARGE GRAIN, WHICH RESULTED IN HIGHER THROUGH RATES,
JUSTIFIED SO LONG AS THERE REMAINED TO EX-BARGE GRAIN "A FAIR
OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE IN COMPETITION WITH LAKE-RAIL AND ALL-RAIL
TRAFFIC." 

APPELLEES  FN5  THEN FILED THIS ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST
THE COMMISSION AND THE UNITED STATES TO CANCEL, ANNUL, AND ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER, INSOFAR AS IT PERMITTED THE RAILROADS TO PUT
THESE NEW HIGHER EX-BARGE GRAIN RATES INTO EFFECT.  THE COMPLAINTS
CHARGED THAT THE ORDER WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 898.  IT WAS
CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER WAS VOID BECAUSE IT APPROVED RAILROAD RATES
WHICH PENALIZED EX-BARGE GRAIN TO THE EXTENT OF 3 CENTS PER HUNDRED
POUNDS, SOLELY BECAUSE THE GRAIN HAD BEEN TRANSPORTED TO CHICAGO IN
BARGES, AND WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR ADEQUATE FINDINGS THAT IT COST THE
RAILROADS 3 CENTS MORE TO TRANSPORT EX-BARGE THAN IT COST TO TRANSPORT
EX-RAIL OR EX-LAKE GRAIN.  THE UNITED STATES, REPRESENTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPEARING AS A DEFENDANT, ADMITTED THESE
ALLEGATIONS.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION INTERVENED AND
DEFENDED THE ORDER.  AFTER A HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE
ALLEGATIONS WERE SUSTAINED.  ACCORDINGLY, IT SET ASIDE AND ENJOINED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER TO THE EXTENT THAT IT PERMITTED THE 3-CENT
EXTRA CHARGE.  FN6  THE RESULT OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT WAS TO
LEAVE IN EFFECT THE LONG-EXISTING EASTERN RAILROAD RATES WHICH PROVIDE
THE SAME RATES FOR CARRYING EX-BARGE, EX-LAKE, AND EX-RAIL GRAIN EAST
FROM CHICAGO. 

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE EXPERT JUDGMENTS OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHERE THE COMMISSION ACTS WITHIN ITS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY IS EXTREMELY LIMITED.  AND SEC. 307(D) OF THE 1940
ACT  FN7  AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION "IN THE CASE OF A THROUGH ROUTE" TO
"PRESCRIBE SUCH REASONABLE DIFFERENTIALS AS IT MAY FIND TO BE JUSTIFIED
BETWEEN ALL-RAIL RATES AND THE JOINT RATES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH
COMMON CARRIER BY WATER."  CF. UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS
TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344, 352-353; BOARD OF TRADE OF KANSAS CITY V.
UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534, 546.  BUT THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND
COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE 1940 ACT AND THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH
EMERGED FROM THIS LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND SHOW THAT CONGRESS ENUNCIATED
POSITIVE POLICIES AND SPECIFIC LIMITING STANDARDS WHICH IT EXPECTED THE
COMMISSION TO FOLLOW IN FIXING RATES, INCLUDING "DIFFERENTIALS" BETWEEN
ALL-RAIL AND WATER-RAIL RATES.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION
ACT OF 1940 WHICH BROUGHT WATER CARRIERS UNDER INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION JURISDICTION WERE VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED IN CONGRESS BY THOSE
WHO FEARED THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT RAISE BARGE RATES IN ORDER TO
ENABLE RAILROADS BETTER TO COMPETE WITH INHERENTLY CHEAPER WATER
TRANSPORTATION.  THESE OPPONENTS WERE REPEATEDLY ASSURED BY SPONSORS OF
THE 1940 ACT WHO ADVOCATED COMMISSION REGULATION OF WATER
TRANSPORTATION THAT THE QUESTIONED LEGISLATION UNEQUIVOCALLY REQUIRED
THE COMMISSION TO FIX RATES WHICH WOULD PRESERVE FOR SHIPPERS THE
INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF BARGE TRANSPORTATION:  LOWER COST OF EQUIPMENT,
OPERATION, AND THEREFORE SERVICE.  FN8  AS SENATOR WHEELER, SPOKESMAN
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE OF WHICH HE WAS CHAIRMAN, POINTED
OUT ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, THE 1940 ACT CONTAINS AT LEAST THREE
SEPARATE PROVISIONS, A PRIME PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO PROTECT THE WATER
CARRIER'S NATURAL ADVANTAGES.  FN9  THE ACT'S DECLARATION OF POLICY
EMPHASIZES THAT THE ACT MUST BE "SO ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND
PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES" OF "ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBJECT TO ...  THIS ACT."  54 STAT. 898, 899, 49 U.S.C. NOTES
PRECEDING SECS. 1, 301, 901.  IN ORDER THAT THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES
MIGHT BE PRESERVED SEC. 305(C), 54 STAT. 898, 935, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
905(C), PROVIDED THAT "DIFFERENCES IN ...  RATES  ...  AND PRACTICES OF
A WATER CARRIER IN RESPECT OF WATER TRANSPORTATION FROM THOSE IN EFFECT
BY A RAIL CARRIER WITH RESPECT TO RAIL TRANSPORTATION SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE UNJUST DISCRIMINATION ...  OR AN UNFAIR OR
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICE  ..."  AND SEC. 307(F), 54 STAT. 898,
938, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 907(F), REQUIRING THE COMMISSION, IN FIXING RATES,
TO CONSIDER "THE EFFECT OF RATES UPON THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC BY THE
...  CARRIERS FOR WHICH THE RATES ARE PRESCRIBED," EMPHASIZED THAT THE
COMMISSION MUST CONSIDER IN FIXING RATES "...  THE NEED, IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT WATER TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT THE
LOWEST COST CONSISTENT WITH THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICE  ..."  IN
ADDITION SEC. 3(4) OF THE PRE-EXISTING ACT WHICH FORBADE CARRIERS TO
"DISCRIMINATE IN THEIR RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES BETWEEN CONNECTING
LINES," 41 STAT. 479, WAS AMENDED BY THE 1940 ACT SPECIFICALLY TO
INCLUDE WATER CARRIERS, SUCH AS THESE BARGE LINES, WITHIN THE
DEFINITION OF CONNECTING CARRIERS.  54 STAT. 898, 903-904, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 3(4).  FINALLY SEC. 2 OF THE PRE-EXISTING ACT HAS LONG FORBIDDEN
THE COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE RAILROADS TO CHARGE ONE PERSON MORE THAN
ANOTHER FOR "A LIKE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE IN THE TRANSPORTATION
OF A LIKE KIND OF TRAFFIC UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CONDITIONS  ..."  24 STAT. 379, 380, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 2. 

THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS FLATLY FORBID THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE
BARGE RATES OR BARGE-RAIL RATES WHICH DO NOT PRESERVE INTACT THE
INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF CHEAPER WATER TRANSPORTATION, BUT DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST WATER CARRIERS AND THE GOODS THEY TRANSPORT.  CONCRETELY, THE
PROVISIONS MEAN IN THIS CASE THAT CHICAGO-TO-THE-EAST RAILROADS CANNOT
LAWFULLY CHARGE MORE FOR CARRYING EX-BARGE THAN FOR CARRYING EX-LAKE OR
EX-RAIL GRAINS TO AND FROM THE SAME LOCALITIES, UNLESS THE EASTERN HAUL
OF THE EX-BARGE GRAIN COSTS THE EASTERN RAILROADS MORE TO HAUL THAN
DOES EX-RAIL OR EX-LAKE GRAIN.  AND SEC. 307(D), AUTHORIZING THE
COMMISSION TO FIX DIFFERENTIALS AS BETWEEN THROUGH WATER-RAIL AND
THROUGH ALL-RAIL RATES, DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO NEUTRALIZE
THE EFFECTIVE PROHIBITIONS OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS WHICH WERE
STRENGTHENED IN 1940 EXPRESSLY TO PREVENT A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
WATER CARRIERS.    THE BASIC ERROR OF THE COMMISSION HERE IS THAT IT
SEEMED TO ACT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITIONS OF
RAILROAD RATE DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST WATER CARRIERS WERE NOT
APPLICABLE TO SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS IF ACCOMPLISHED BY THROUGH RATES. 
BUT THIS ASSUMPTION WOULD PERMIT THE DESTRUCTION OR CURTAILMENT OF THE
ADVANTAGES TO SHIPPERS OF CHEAP BARGE TRANSPORTATION WHENEVER THE
TRANSPORTED GOODS WERE CARRIED BEYOND THE END OF THE BARGE LINE.  THIS
CASE PROVES THAT.  FOR WHILE CHICAGO IS A GREAT GRAIN CENTER, IT CANNOT
CONSUME ALL BARGE-TRANSPORTED GRAIN.  THAT GRAIN, LIKE OTHER GRAIN
COMING TO CHICAGO FOR MARKETING OR PROCESSING, IS RESHIPPED TO DISTANT
DESTINATIONS.  TO PENALIZE ITS TRANSPORTATION IN BARGES BY CHARGING
DISCRIMINATORY RATES FROM CHICAGO TO ITS FINAL DESTINATION HAS
PRECISELY THE SAME CONSEQUENCE AS WOULD FOLLOW FROM RAISING BARGE RATES
INBOUND TO CHICAGO.  RECOGNIZING THAT IT COULD NOT REQUIRE THESE BARGE
CARRIERS TO RAISE THESE INBOUND RATES WHICH IT ACCEPTED AS REASONABLE
N10, THE COMMISSION HAS HERE APPROVED AN ORDER WHICH WOULD BRING ABOUT
THE SAME PROHIBITED RESULT BY RAISING THE RAILROAD RATES CHARGED BY
EASTERN ROADS FOR EX-BARGE GRAIN SHIPMENTS EAST FROM CHICAGO.  CONGRESS
HAS FORBIDDEN THIS. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVE INCREASES IN THESE RESHIPPING RATES ON
THE GROUND THAT THE EASTERN ROADS WERE NOT RECEIVING A FAIR RETURN FOR
CARRYING EX-BARGE GRAIN.  AND THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE COMMISSION
RESTED ITS ORDER DO NOT SUPPORT THE RATES APPROVED.  MOST OF THE
ARGUMENT OF THE COMMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
TREATED MATTERS WHICH HAD NO RELATION TO WHAT THE RESHIPPING RATES FROM
CHICAGO SHOULD BE.  THE LENGTH OF THE TOTAL BARGE-RAIL HAUL EMPHASIZED
BY THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER SIGNIFICANT IT MIGHT BE UNDER OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS NO RELEVANCE HERE.  FOR THE LOWER RATES ALLOWED EX
RAIL AND EX-LAKE GRAINS INCLUDE CARRIAGE FOR DISTANCES IDENTICAL WITH
THE EX-BARGE HAULS.  NOR IS THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SUPPORTED BY ITS
CONCLUSION THAT IT IS "INEQUITABLE" FOR THE BARGES TO CHARGE A MUCH
LOWER RATE FOR THE INBOUND GRAIN HAUL THAN THE COMPETITIVE WESTERN
RAILROADS CAN AFFORD TO CHARGE FOR THE SAME HAUL, RESULTING IN BARGE
RAIL RATES LOWER THAN ALL-RAIL RATES FROM THE SAME LOCALITIES.  FN11
FOR THIS IS NO REASON FOR AUTHORIZING A HIGHER RATE TO EASTERN
RAILROADS WHICH DO NOT COMPETE WITH THE BARGES AT ALL.  IF THE WESTERN
RAILROADS NEED RELIEF FROM THE COMPETITION OF BARGES, THAT IS A
QUESTION WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE RATES OF EASTERN ROADS.  FURTHERMORE,
CONGRESS HAS DECIDED THIS QUESTION OF EQUITABLE RATES AS BETWEEN
RAILROADS AND BARGES.  IT HAS DECLARED IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS THAT THE
"INHERENT ADVANTAGE" OF THE LOWER COST OF BARGE CARRIAGE AS COMPARED
WITH THAT OF RAILROADS MUST BE PASSED ON TO THOSE WHO SHIP BY BARGE. 
IT IS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE COMMISSION TO ADJUST
RATES, EITHER TO EQUALIZE THE TRANSPORTATION COST OF BARGE SHIPPERS
WITH THAT OF SHIPPERS WHO DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO BARGE SERVICE OR TO
PROTECT THE TRAFFIC OF RAILROADS FROM BARGE COMPETITION.  FOR CONGRESS
LEFT THE COMMISSION NO DISCRETIONARY POWER TO APPROVE ANY TYPE OF RATES
WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE "INHERENT ADVANTAGE" OF BARGE TRANSPORTATION IN
WHOLE OR IN PART.  CF. MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 80, 97. 

RELATED TO THE QUESTION JUST DISCUSSED, IS THE COMMISSION'S
CONTENTION HERE THAT PERMITTING RESHIPPING RATES FOR EX-BARGE GRAIN TO
REMAIN EQUAL TO THE RATES FOR EX-RAIL AND EX-LAKE GRAIN WILL CAUSE
"INCURABLE CHAOS" IN AND DISRUPT THE NATIONAL RAIL RATE STRUCTURE WHICH
REFLECTS MANY INTERRELATED CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OF
GRAIN FROM WEST OF CHICAGO TO EASTERN MARKETS.  THE COMMISSION DOES NOT
SHOW HOW ANY POSSIBLE DISRUPTION OF RAILROAD RATE STRUCTURE ARISES FROM
GIVING SHIPPERS THE FULL INHERENT ADVANTAGE OF CHEAPER BARGE RATES,
OTHER THAN THAT COMPETING RAILROADS HAVE LOST TRAFFIC TO THE BARGE
LINES.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, CONGRESS KNEW THAT BARGE LINE RATES
WERE CHEAPER THAN RAIL RATES, WANTED THE SHIPPERS TO GET FULL BENEFIT
OF THEM, AND LEFT THE COMMISSION NO POWER TO TAKE THAT BENEFIT AWAY
FROM SHIPPERS BY ADJUSTING RAIL-BARGE TRAFFIC COMPETITION OR RATES. 
BUT WE NOTE INCIDENTALLY THAT THESE RATES HAD BEEN EQUAL PRIOR TO 1939
WITHOUT ANY APPARENT DISRUPTION OF THE TOTAL STRUCTURE.  THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A DISRUPTION DOES NOT REMOTELY JUSTIFY
DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST BARGE TRAFFIC WHICH ACTUALLY DEPRIVE SHIPPERS
AND THE BARGE COMPANIES OF THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF WATER
TRANSPORTATION GUARANTEED TO THEM BY CONGRESS.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 506-510.  NOR IS THE FACT
THAT BARGE-RAIL RATES, FROM CERTAIN PLACES IN THE WEST THROUGH CHICAGO
TO THE EAST, ARE LESS THAN LOCAL RAIL RATES FROM CHICAGO EAST, AN
ADEQUATE REASON FOR INCREASING THE EAST-OF-CHICAGO PART OF THE THROUGH
BARGE-RAIL RATE.  THE INITIATION OF NEW RATES WITH SUCH A DISPARITY IN
THROUGH RAIL RATES AS COMPARED WITH LOCAL RAIL RATES WOULD, OF COURSE,
BE FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 4 OF THE ACT AS AMENDED IN THE ABSENCE OF
COMMISSION APPROVAL.  FN12  BUT, INSOFAR AS THE INHERENT CHEAPNESS OF
THE BARGE LEG OF THE THROUGH ROUTE PRODUCES A DISPARITY BETWEEN BARGE
RAIL RATES AND LOCAL RAIL RATES, CONGRESS HAS SAID THAT THE ACT MUST BE
SO ADMINISTERED AS TO PRESERVE, NOT ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THE DISPARITY. 

CARRIAGE OF EX-BARGE GRAIN BY EASTERN ROADS MAY CONCEIVABLY ENTAIL
MORE SERVICE AND THEREFORE GREATER COSTS THAN ARE INVOLVED IN CARRYING
EX-RAIL OR EX-LAKE GRAIN.  IF SO, THE EASTERN ROADS MAY, IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES, BE JUSTIFIED IN RECEIVING AN EXTRA CHARGE FOR THAT EXTRA
SERVICE WHEREVER IT IS RENDERED.  BUT THE EXTRA SERVICE MUST FIT THE
EXTRA CHARGE AND CANNOT JUSTIFY LUMP SUM RATE INCREASES WHICH CUT INTO
THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF CHEAPER BARGE TRANSPORTATION WHICH CONGRESS
INTENDED TO GUARANTEE TO SHIPPERS.  HERE THE COMMISSION FOUND IN BROAD
GENERAL TERMS, WITHOUT LIMITATION TO THE LOCALITIES WHERE BARGE AND
RAIL COMPETE, THAT "ON THE AVERAGE" EX-RAIL GRAIN FROM ALL THE WEST
REQUIRES LESS TERMINAL AND TRANSIT SERVICE EAST OF CHICAGO THAN DOES
GRAIN MOVING BY BARGE FROM THE RELATIVELY FEW BARGE TERMINALS.  FN13
AS TO TERMINAL SERVICE, IT NOTED THAT SOME RAIL GRAIN TRAFFIC GOING
THROUGH CHICAGO WITHOUT STOPPING RECEIVES NO TERMINAL SERVICE AT ALL,
WHEREAS ALL BARGE GRAIN SHIPMENTS MUST BE UNLOADED IN CHICAGO AND
RELOADED ON FREIGHT CARS.  BUT ALL EX-LAKE GRAIN RESHIPPED FROM CHICAGO
AND AN UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT OF EX-RAIL GRAIN STOPPED IN CHICAGO FOR
PROCESSING REQUIRES EXACTLY THE SAME TERMINAL SERVICE AS IS RENDERED
THERE FOR EX-BARGE GRAIN.  FN14  YET THERE IS NO GREATER RATE CHARGED
FOR EX-BARGE AND EX-RAIL GRAIN WHICH RECEIVES THIS SAME TERMINAL
SERVICE.  THE FORMULA USED HERE WHICH LUMPS ALL THROUGH RAIL GRAIN
RATES, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED, TO GIVE RAIL-CARRIED
GRAIN A PREFERRED RATE OVER BARGE-CARRIED GRAIN, IS INDISTINGUISHABLE
IN CAUSE AND CONSEQUENCE FROM AN ORDER WHICH DIRECTLY RAISES BARGE
RATES TO RELIEVE THE RAILROADS FROM BARGE COMPETITION.  IN ANY EVENT,
THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING BY THE COMMISSION AS TO HOW MUCH, IF ANY, OF
THE 3-CENT RESHIPPING RATE INCREASE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FACT THAT EX
BARGE GRAIN REQUIRES MORE TERMINAL SERVICE ON THE AVERAGE THAN DOES EX
RAIL GRAIN. 

THE COMMISSION ALSO POINTED OUT IN ITS DECISION THAT RAIL RATES FROM
THE WEST TO CHICAGO (WHICH WE MUST ASSUME ON THIS RECORD ARE FAIR AND
REASONABLE FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED) PERMIT THREE TRANSIT STOPS WEST
OF CHICAGO WITHOUT EXTRA CHARGE.  THUS SOME EX-RAIL GRAIN, UNLIKE EX
BARGE AND EX-LAKE GRAIN, HAS ALREADY BEEN PROCESSED EN ROUTE TO OR IN
CHICAGO BEFORE IT EVER REACHES THE EASTERN LINES, REDUCING THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WILL REQUIRE FURTHER TRANSIT SERVICE ON THE ROUTE
FROM CHICAGO TO THE EAST.  FN15  BUT EX-LAKE GRAIN WHICH ENJOYS THE
PROPORTIONAL RATES WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION APPARENTLY IS
NOT PROCESSED BEFORE ARRIVING AT CHICAGO, OR BEFORE RESHIPMENT ON THE
EASTERN LINES, AND CONSEQUENTLY REQUIRES THE SAME TRANSIT SERVICE ON
THE EASTERN HAUL AS IS REQUIRED BY EX-BARGE GRAIN.  SIMILAR TRANSIT
SERVICE IS REQUIRED FOR THE UNSPECIFIED AMOUNTS OF EX-RAIL GRAIN NOT
PROCESSED EAST OF CHICAGO.  BUT THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDING THAT THE
EASTERN RESHIPPING RATES PERMIT TRANSIT SERVICE EAST OF CHICAGO WITHOUT
EXTRA CHARGE.  PROBABLY THE REASON THAT IT DID NOT MAKE SUCH A FINDING
IS THAT CARRIERS USUALLY MAKE A SPECIFIC EXTRA CHARGE FOR TRANSIT
SERVICE.  SEE CENTRAL R. CO. OF N.J. V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 247;
ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 777, 780.  AND THE
RECORD HERE SHOWS THAT EASTERN RAILROADS MAKE EXTRA CHARGES FOR TRANSIT
SERVICE RENDERED EX-BARGE GRAIN EAST OF CHICAGO.  THE COMMISSION MAKES
NO SHOWING WHY, IF THE EXISTING RAILROAD CHARGES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL
TRANSIT OPERATION IS INSUFFICIENT TO COVER THAT OPERATION'S COSTS,
THOSE CHARGES CANNOT BE ADJUSTED ALIKE FOR THE EX-RAIL, EX-LAKE, AND EX
BARGE SHIPMENTS WHICH REQUIRE THIS SERVICE.  IN ANY EVENT, PARTIAL
COMPENSATION OF EASTERN ROADS FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSIT COSTS CANNOT BE
MADE IN A MANNER WHICH SINGLES OUT EX-BARGE GRAIN FOR DISCRIMINATORY
TREATMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN16 

TO JUSTIFY INCREASING THE RESHIPPING RATES OF EX-BARGE GRAIN THE
COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE TO SHOW
HOW MUCH GREATER IS THE COST TO THE EASTERN ROADS OF RESHIPPING EX
BARGE GRAIN THAN OF RESHIPPING EX-LAKE OR EX-RAIL GRAIN MOVING FROM THE
SAME LOCALITIES AND REQUIRING THE SAME SERVICE AS DOES THE EX-BARGE
GRAIN.  CF. FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 212; NORTH CAROLINA
V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 507, 520.  THE UNSIFTED AVERAGES PUT FORWARD
BY THE COMMISSION DO NOT MEASURE THE ALLEGEDLY GREATER COSTS NOR INDEED
SHOW THAT THEY EXIST.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE EASTERN POINTS ARE IN NEW YORK AND ADJACENT STATES AND IN
NEW ENGLAND.  IT IS AROUND SHIPMENTS FROM CHICAGO TO THIS TERRITORY
THAT THIS RATE CONTROVERSY CHIEFLY REVOLVES.  THE PROPOSED NEW RATE
INCREASES ALSO RELATED TO GRAIN SHIPMENTS FROM CHICAGO TO THE SO-CALLED
CENTRAL TERRITORY.  THE REASONS SUPPORTING THE CONCLUSION WE REACH
APPLY EQUALLY TO THE CENTRAL TERRITORY INCREASES, AND CONSEQUENTLY WE
NEED NOT TREAT THEM SEPARATELY. 

FN2  SEE 246 I.C.C. 353, 361, 364, 383; 262 I.C.C. 7, 41. 

FN3  THERE WAS BARGE SERVICE FROM THE GRAIN SECTION WEST OF CHICAGO
TO THAT CITY FROM 1886 TO 1907 WHEN IT WAS DISCONTINUED.  SUCH BARGE
SERVICE WAS RESUMED IN 1933.  SEE 262 I.C.C. 7, 20. 

FN4  THE EX-BARGE PROPORTIONALS FIXED BY THE COMMISSION WERE
UNIFORMLY 5.5 CENTS LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES FROM CHICAGO TO THE EAST AND
3 CENTS HIGHER THAN EX-BARGE AND EX-LAKE PROPORTIONALS. 

FN5  APPELLEES ARE (1) A.L. MECHLING, A BARGE WATER CARRIER BETWEEN
CHICAGO AND POINTS IN ILLINOIS, MISSOURI, AND IOWA; (2) INLAND
WATERWAYS CORPORATION WHICH TRANSPORTS GRAIN BY BARGES BETWEEN, AMONG
OTHER POINTS, KANSAS CITY AND CHICAGO; (3) THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE TO MAKE COMPLAINTS TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND TO SEEK JUDICIAL RELIEF WITH
RESPECT TO RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF FARM PRODUCTS. 

FN6  TWO PROCEDURAL POINTS ARE RAISED BY THE COMMISSION WHICH NEED
NOT BE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH.  THE FIRST IS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS TOO BROAD BECAUSE IT ENJOINED THE COMMISSION
FROM PERMITTING THE CONTROVERSIAL RATES TO BECOME EFFECTIVE.  THIS
QUESTION IS NOW MOOT, BUT SEE INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306
U.S. 153, 159-160.  THE SECOND PROCEDURAL POINT URGED RELATES TO THE
DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER REQUIRING THE COMMISSION TO SERVE NOTICE OF
APPEAL ON THE UNITED STATES.  WE SEE NO ERROR IN THIS, AND EVEN IF
THERE WERE, IT COULD NOT BE PREJUDICIAL IN CONNECTION WITH THE
COMMISSION'S RIGHTS ON THIS APPEAL.  SINCE THE UNITED STATES WAS
NECESSARILY A PARTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT, 28 U.S. 46, LAMBERT RUN COAL
CO. V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 258 U.S. 377, 382, WE THINK THE DISTRICT
COURT CANNOT BE HELD IN ERROR FOR REQUIRING SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF
THE COMMISSION'S APPEAL. 

FN7  54 STAT. 898, 937; 49 U.S.C. SEC. 907D.  IN THE ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE LAST EVIDENCE WAS HEARD AND THE
RECORD WAS CLOSED BEFORE THE 1940 TRANSPORTATION ACT BECAME A LAW. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. INLAND WATERWAYS CORP., 319 U.S. 671,
678.  THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS ARE FULLY GOVERNED BY THE 1940 ACT. 

FN8  ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS IS THIS EXCHANGE
BETWEEN SENATOR LUCAS AND SENATOR WHEELER, CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMITTEE: 

"MR. LUCAS....  THE TOWN IN WHICH I LIVE IS A FOCAL POINT FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF WHEAT AND CORN DOWN THE ILLINOIS.  THE PRICE OF WHEAT
AND CORN AT THE ELEVATOR THERE IS ALWAYS 2 OR 3 CENTS HIGHER THAN IT IS
AT ELEVATORS SOME 25 OR 30 MILES FARTHER INLAND BECAUSE OF THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RATES BY RAIL AND THOSE BY WATER. 

"UNDER THE BILL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE POWER, AND IT WOULD BE ITS DUTY, TO FIX RATES
ON THE ILLINOIS RIVER WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF THAT WHEAT
AND CORN.  WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
TO FIX THE RATE THE SAME AS THE RAILROAD RATE FROM THAT POINT TO ST.
LOUIS? 

"MR. WHEELER.  NOT IF THE COMMISSION DOES ITS DUTY, BECAUSE THE BILL
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT IT MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE INHERENT
ADVANTAGES OF THE WATER CARRIER.  EVERYONE AGREES THAT GOODS CAN BE
SHIPPED MORE CHEAPLY BY WATER THAN BY RAIL."  84 CONG. REC.
5879(1939). 

CHAIRMAN LEA OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE STATED IN
DEBATE THAT:    "THE BILL VERY PLAINLY, ABOUT AS PLAINLY AS LANGUAGE
CAN BE WRITTEN, PROVIDES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES
OF WATER TRANSPORTATION AS CONTRASTED WITH OTHER MEANS OF
TRANSPORTATION.  IN FIXING RATES THE WATER CARRIER IS ASSURED THE
ADVANTAGES OF THE CHEAPER RATE AT WHICH HE CAN TRANSPORT PROPERTY."  84
CONG. REC. 9862(1939). 

SEE ALSO 84 CONG. REC. 5883, 6125-6128, 6131, 6149(1939), AND
CONFERENCE REPORT, 86 CONG. REC. 10172(1940). 

FN9  84 CONG. REC. 5873-5876, 5883, 6131(1939). 

FN10  THE COMMISSION STATED THAT "THE BARGE RATES YIELD FAIR RETURNS
TO THE BARGE CARRIERS, AND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING, MAY BE
ACCEPTED AS REASONABLE."  262 I.C.C. 7, 19. 

FN11  THE COMMISSION EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT "THE BARGE-RAIL RATES ARE
FAR BELOW THE ALL-RAIL RATES FROM THE SAME AND OTHER ILLINOIS ORIGINS. 
THIS IS AN INEQUITABLE SITUATION GIVING RISE TO REQUESTS FOR REDUCTIONS
IN THE ALL-RAIL RATES FROM THE ILLINOIS AND CENTRAL TERRITORY ORIGINS,
AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE, WITH SUCH EXTREME DISPARITIES, HOW SUCH
REQUESTS COULD PROPERLY BE DENIED....  THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL
PRODUCTION OF CORN IN CENTRAL TERRITORY.  WHILE THE FARMERS THEREIN DID
NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE HURT BY THIS
SITUATION, SUCH EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED BY OTHERS IN THE SAME RELATIVE
POSITION  ...  THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY THE STATEMENT ...  THAT THE
PRESENT EX-BARGE PROPORTIONALS FROM CHICAGO JEOPARDIZE THE ALL-RAIL
RATE STRUCTURE."  262 I.C.C. AT 20.  IN UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M. &
ST. P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 509, THIS COURT SAID OF AN EARLIER
COMMISSION RATE DECISION MADE ON THE BASIS OF PRESERVING THE OVER-ALL
RATE STRUCTURE FROM DISRUPTION:  "WE ARE WARNED  ...  THAT A CHANGE
ONCE PERMITTED HAS A TENDENCY TO SPREAD.  THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEW
SCHEDULE FOR MILWAUKEE WILL LEAD, IT IS SAID, TO REQUESTS FOR
PROPORTIONATE REDUCTIONS BY OTHER LINES IN INDIANA  ...  IN ILLINOIS
AND EVEN IN KENTUCKY, THE OUTCOME BEING CHARACTERIZED IN THE ARGUMENT
OF COUNSEL, THOUGH NOT IN THE REPORT, AS A RATE WAR BETWEEN THE
ROADS....  THE POINT OF THE DECISION IS NOT THAT PRESENT RATES ARE
SOUND, BUT THAT THEY MUST BE MAINTAINED, EVEN IF UNSOUND, FOR FEAR OF A
RATE WAR WHICH MIGHT SPREAD BEYOND CONTROL.  THE DANGER IS ILLUSORY. 
THE WHOLE SITUATION IS SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH
MAY KEEP THE CHANGES WITHIN BOUNDS." 

FN12  SEE SEC. 6, TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 898, 904, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 4. 

FN13  THE COMMISSION STATED THAT "ON THE AVERAGE, AS COMPARED WITH
THE EX-BARGE GRAIN, THE MOVEMENT UNDER THE EX-RAIL PROPORTIONALS  ...
REQUIRES LESS TERMINAL SERVICE AT THE GATEWAY  ... LESS TRANSIT SERVICE
AT INTERMEDIATE POINTS IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY, AND LESS LINE-HAUL
SERVICE TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION."  262 I.C.C. AT 28. 

FN14  THE COMMISSION'S STATEMENT WAS THAT, "LIKE THE LAKE-RAIL
TRAFFIC, THE BARGE-RAIL TRAFFIC REQUIRES TRANSFER OF LADING AND A FULL
ORIGIN TERMINAL SERVICE AT THE INTERCHANGE PORT....  IT NEVER MOVES IN
CONTINUOUS THROUGH TRANSPORTATION."  262 I.C.C. 7, 21. 

A SIMILAR PRECISE STATEMENT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE COMMISSION'S
DECISION WITH REFERENCE TO TERMINAL SERVICES RENDERED EX-RAIL GRAIN. 
IT ASSUMED THROUGHOUT ITS DISCUSSION, HOWEVER, AS SHOWN BY ITS RELIANCE
ON AVERAGES, THAT A LARGE BUT UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT OF ALL-RAIL GRAIN
SHIPMENTS RECEIVE THE SAME TERMINAL SERVICES AS DOES EX-BARGE GRAIN. 

FN15  THERE IS APPARENTLY NO PROCESSING OF BARGE-CARRIED GRAIN IN
CHICAGO.  THE RAILROADS THERE CHARGE 3.25-4.5 CENTS PER HUNDRED LBS. TO
SWITCH BARGE GRAIN AT CHICAGO FROM RIVERSIDE ELEVATORS TO PROCESSING
PLANTS.  262 I.C.C. 7, 24. 

FN16  IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT IN ITS PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF THESE
SAME EX-BARGE GRAIN RESHIPMENT RATES, THE COMMISSION WAS SATISFIED THAT
"THE PHYSICAL CARRIAGE BEYOND THE RESHIPPING POINT IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME" IN EX-RAIL, EX-LAKE, AND EX-BARGE SHIPMENTS.  248 I.C.C. 307,
311. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER WOULD SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, BECAUSE HE DEEMS IT AMPLY SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION DIFFERENTIATING THE AVERAGE CIRCUMSTANCES
AND CONDITIONS SURROUNDING ALL-RAIL AND LAKE-RAIL TRANSPORTATION FROM
THOSE AFFECTING BARGE-RAIL TRANSPORTATION, 262 I.C.C. 27-28, AND THESE
FINDINGS ARE NOT WITHOUT SUPPORT IN EVIDENCE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE COURT IN THIS CASE NOT ONLY IGNORES
FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CONTRARY TO OUR
OWN OFT-REPEATED PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT THE FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDINGS, BUT IT ALSO LEGISLATES OUT OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940
AT LEAST TWO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WHICH CONGRESS PUT IN AND DEPARTS FROM
THE POLICY LAID DOWN IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT.  WHETHER THE CONGRESSIONAL
LAW OR THE COURT'S AMENDMENTS ARE THE BETTER FOR THE COUNTRY IS A
COMPLICATED PROBLEM OF POLICY WHICH, IN MY CONCEPTION OF OUR JUDICIAL
FUNCTION, I AM NOT PRIVILEGED TO DECIDE. 

IN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 937, ET SEQ., CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH THROUGH RATES BY WATER AND RAIL
CARRIERS.  IT ALSO SAID, "IN THE CASE OF A THROUGH ROUTE, WHERE ONE OF
THE CARRIERS IS A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, THE COMMISSION SHALL
PRESCRIBE SUCH REASONABLE DIFFERENTIALS AS IT MAY FIND TO BE JUSTIFIED
BETWEEN ALL-RAIL RATES AND THE JOINT RATES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH
COMMON CARRIER BY WATER."  SEC. 307(D).  THE COURT READS THIS
DISCRETIONARY POWER OUT OF THE STATUTE AND HOLDS THAT THE COMMISSION
MAY NOT ESTABLISH ANY DIFFERENTIAL OTHER THAN THAT CREATED BY THE
CARRIERS THEMSELVES; THAT IS TO SAY, THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE DIFFERENTIAL
IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BARGE RATES AND RAIL RATES FOR THE WATER LEG
OF THE THROUGH JOURNEY. 

THE STATUTE ALSO SAYS THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS RATE-MAKING POWER
"THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION, AMONG OTHER FACTORS, TO
THE EFFECT OF RATES UPON THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC BY THE CARRIER OR
CARRIERS FOR WHICH THE RATES ARE PRESCRIBED  ..."  SEC.  307(F).  THE
COMMISSION HAS DONE SO AND FINDS THAT A GREATER DIFFERENTIAL THAN THAT
PRESCRIBED WOULD CREATE UNJUST ADVANTAGES AND DIVERSIONS OF TRAFFIC. 
BUT THE COURT IGNORES THE EFFECT OF WHAT IT ORDERS ON EXISTING RATE
STRUCTURES AND ON GRAIN-PRODUCING REGIONS AND SHIPPERS OTHER THAN BARGE
USERS.  IT SIMPLY WRITES IN "SHALL NOT CONSIDER" WHERE CONGRESS SAID
"SHALL CONSIDER." 

BECAUSE THIS DECISION SEEMS TO ME TO DEPRIVE THE COMMISSION OF THESE
DISCRETIONARY POWERS TO ADJUST THROUGH RATES TO GENERAL SHIPPING
CONDITIONS AND RATE STRUCTURES, I DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



PENFIELD CO. V. S.E.C., 330 U.S. 585 


NO. 453.  ARGUED JANUARY 16, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1947.  - 157
F.2D 65, AFFIRMED. 


IN A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER TO
ENFORCE A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION IN AID OF AN INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 20(A) OF THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 74, A DISTRICT COURT ADJUDGED THE
DEFENDANT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT AND IMPOSED AN UNCONDITIONAL FINE, BUT
REFUSED TO GRANT ANY COERCIVE RELIEF DESIGNED TO FORCE HIM TO PRODUCE
THE SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS.  HE PAID THE FINE AND TOOK NO APPEAL.  THE
COMMISSION FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND
SUBSEQUENTLY A STATEMENT OF POINTS CHALLENGING AS ERROR THE COURT'S
ACTION IN IMPOSING THE FINE INSTEAD OF A REMEDIAL PENALTY TO MAKE HIM
PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE FINE AND DIRECTED THAT THE
DEFENDANT BE ORDERED IMPRISONED UNTIL HE PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS. 
HELD: 

1.  THE APPEAL WAS IN A SUIT OF A CIVIL NATURE AND WAS PROPERLY
TAKEN, UNDER RULE 73(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, BY FILING A
NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE DISTRICT COURT.  PP. 589-591. 

(A)  WHERE A RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CONFLICTS WITH A PRIOR STATUTE,
THE RULE PREVAILS.  P. 589, N. 5. 

(B)  THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMISSION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS
SUBPOENA POSED A PROBLEM IN CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL, CONTEMPT.  UNITED
STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258.  P. 590. 

(C)  THE ORDER OF DENIAL, BEING FINAL, WAS APPEALABLE, AND THE RIGHT
TO APPEAL WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON AN APPEAL FROM THE IMPOSITION OF THE
FINE.  P. 591. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO GRANT
REMEDIAL RELIEF, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ERR IN
GRANTING IT.  PP. 591-595. 

3.  THE FACT THAT AN UNCONDITIONAL FINE HAD BEEN IMPOSED AND PAID DID
NOT EXHAUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OR DEPRIVE THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF AUTHORITY TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT WHICH
IMPOSED THE FINE AND SUBSTITUTE A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT CONDITIONED UPON
THE CONTINUANCE OF THE CONTEMPT.  PP. 593-594. 

(A)  ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AUTHORIZING
FEDERAL COURTS "TO PUNISH, BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT, AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE COURT, CONTEMPTS OF THEIR AUTHORITY" GOVERNS CIVIL AS WELL AS
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NO BARRIER TO THE IMPOSITION OF
BOTH A FINE AS A PUNITIVE EXACTION AND IMPRISONMENT AS A COERCIVE
SANCTION.  P. 594. 

(B)  WHEN A COURT IMPOSES A FINE AS A PENALTY, IT IS PUNISHING
YESTERDAY'S CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT.  WHEN IT ADDS THE COERCIVE SANCTION
OF IMPRISONMENT, IT IS ANNOUNCING THE CONSEQUENCES OF TOMORROW'S
CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT.  IN THAT SITUATION, THE TWO OFFENSES ARE NOT THE
SAME.  P. 594. 

4.  NOT HAVING APPEALED FROM THE ADVERSE JUDGMENT IN THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE DEFENDANT MAY NOT NOW RAISE
OBJECTIONS GOING TO THE MERITS OF THAT JUDGMENT.  P. 594. 

5.  ASSUMING THAT THE PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WHICH SET ASIDE THE UNCONDITIONAL FINE IS HERE FOR REVIEW, THAT
COURT WAS CORRECT IN SETTING ASIDE THE UNCONDITIONAL FINE, SINCE IT WAS
IMPOSED IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  P. 595. 

PENFIELD COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER
ENFORCING A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 74, A DISTRICT
COURT ADJUDGED THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT AND IMPOSED AN
UNCONDITIONAL FINE.  ON APPEAL BY THE COMMISSION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED, SET ASIDE THE FINE AND DIRECTED THAT THE DEFENDANT BE
IMPRISONED UNTIL HE PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS.  157 F.2D 65.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 706.  AFFIRMED, P. 595. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ACTING PURSUANT TO ITS
AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 20(A) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 74,
86, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77T, ISSUED ORDERS DIRECTING AN INVESTIGATION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER PENFIELD COMPANY HAD VIOLATED THE ACT IN THE SALE OF
STOCK OR OTHER SECURITIES.  IN THE COURSE OF THAT INVESTIGATION IT
DIRECTED A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO YOUNG, AS AN OFFICER OF PENFIELD,
REQUIRING HIM TO PRODUCE CERTAIN BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION COVERING A
FOUR YEAR PERIOD ENDING IN APRIL, 1943.  SEE SEC. 19(B) OF THE ACT. 
UPON YOUNG'S REFUSAL TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE THE BOOKS AND RECORDS, THE
COMMISSION FILED AN APPLICATION WITH THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ORDER
ENFORCING THE SUBPOENA.  FN1  AFTER A HEARING, THE COURT ORDERED YOUNG,
AS AN OFFICER OF PENFIELD, TO PRODUCE THEM.  FN2  YOUNG PERSISTED IN
HIS NON-COMPLIANCE.  THE COMMISSION THEN APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY YOUNG SHOULD NOT BE ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT -
A PROCEEDING WHICH, AS WE SHALL SEE, WAS ONE FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DELAYED ACTION ON THE MOTION UNTIL AFTER DISPOSITION OF
A CRIMINAL CASE INVOLVING YOUNG, PENFIELD, AND OTHERS.  WHEN THAT CASE
WAS CONCLUDED, THE COURT, AFTER HEARING, ADJUDGED YOUNG TO BE IN
CONTEMPT.  IT REFUSED, HOWEVER, TO GRANT ANY COERCIVE RELIEF DESIGNED
TO FORCE YOUNG TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS BUT INSTEAD IMPOSED ON HIM A
FLAT, UNCONDITIONAL FINE OF $50.00 WHICH HE PAID.  FN3 

THAT WAS ON JULY 2, 1945.  ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1945, THE COMMISSION
FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND SUBSEQUENTLY A
STATEMENT OF POINTS CHALLENGING AS ERROR THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IN IMPOSING THE $50.00 FINE INSTEAD OF A REMEDIAL PENALTY
CALCULATED TO MAKE YOUNG PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE
FINE AND DIRECTING THAT YOUNG BE ORDERED IMPRISONED UNTIL HE PRODUCED
THE DOCUMENTS.  157 F.2D 65.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI FILED BY PENFIELD CO. AND YOUNG.  NEITHER THE DISTRICT
COURT NOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED JUDGMENT AGAINST
PENFIELD.  NOR IS ANY RELIEF SOUGHT BY OR AGAINST IT HERE.  ACCORDINGLY
THE WRIT IS DISMISSED AS TO PENFIELD. 

FIRST.  IT IS ARGUED THAT SINCE NO APPLICATION FOR AN ALLOWANCE OF AN
APPEAL WAS MADE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD NO JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN IT.  FN4  IF THE APPEAL WAS IN A SUIT OF A CIVIL NATURE, THE
FILING OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ADEQUATE
UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  FN5 

IT IS THE NATURE OF THE RELIEF ASKED THAT IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING.  LAMB V. CRAMER, 285 U.S. 217, 220.  THIS WAS
NOT A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS A PARTY AND IN WHICH IT
WAS SEEKING TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  SEE GOMPERS V. BUCKS
STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 445.  THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WERE
INSTITUTED AS A PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE COMMISSION SOUGHT
ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA.  THE RELIEF WHICH THE COMMISSION SOUGHT WAS
PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS; AND THE ONLY SANCTION ASKED WAS A PENALTY
DESIGNED TO COMPEL THEIR PRODUCTION.  WHERE A FINE OR IMPRISONMENT
IMPOSED ON THE CONTEMNOR IS "INTENDED TO BE REMEDIAL BY COERCING THE
DEFENDANT TO DO WHAT HE HAD REFUSED TO DO," GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE &
RANGE CO., SUPRA, P. 442, THE REMEDY IS ONE FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT.  UNITED
STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. PP. 258, 303.  THEN "THE
PUNISHMENT IS WHOLLY REMEDIAL, SERVES ONLY THE PURPOSES OF THE
COMPLAINANT, AND IS NOT INTENDED AS A DETERRENT TO OFFENSES AGAINST THE
PUBLIC."  MCCRONE V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 61, 64.  ONE WHO IS FINED,
UNLESS BY A DAY CERTAIN HE PRODUCES THE BOOKS, HAS IT IN HIS POWER TO
AVOID ANY PENALTY.  AND THOSE WHO ARE IMPRISONED UNTIL THEY OBEY THE
ORDER, "CARRY THE KEYS OF THEIR PRISON IN THEIR OWN POCKETS."  IN RE
NEVITT, 117 F. 448, 461.  FINE AND IMPRISONMENT ARE THEN EMPLOYED NOT
TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BUT AS COERCIVE SANCTIONS TO COMPEL
THE CONTEMNOR TO DO WHAT THE LAW MADE IT HIS DUTY TO DO.  SEE DOYLE V.
LONDON GUARANTEE CO., 204 U.S. 599; ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358; FOX
V. CAPITAL CO., 299 U.S. 105; MCCRONE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE ACT GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE PRODUCTION OF
BOOKS AND RECORDS IN THE COURSE OF ITS INVESTIGATIONS.  AND IN ABSENCE
OF A BASIS FOR SAYING THAT ITS DEMAND EXCEEDS LAWFUL LIMITS (OKLAHOMA
PRESS PUBLISHING CO. V. WALLING, 327 U.S. 186), IT IS ENTITLED TO THE
AID OF THE COURT IN OBTAINING THEM.  FN6  A REFUSAL OF THE COURT TO
ENFORCE ITS PRIOR ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS DENIES THE
COMMISSION THAT STATUTORY RELIEF.  THE ISSUE THUS RAISED POSES A
PROBLEM IN CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL, CONTEMPT.  FN7 

WHERE A JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT IS EMBODIED IN A SINGLE ORDER WHICH
CONTAINS AN ADMIXTURE OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ELEMENTS, THE CRIMINAL
ASPECT OF THE ORDER FIXES ITS CHARACTER FOR PURPOSES OF PROCEDURE ON
REVIEW.  UNION TOOL CO. V. WILSON, 259 U.S. 107.  BUT THERE WAS NO SUCH
ADMIXTURE HERE.  THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO GRANT ANY REMEDIAL
RELIEF TO THE COMMISSION.  THE DENIAL OF THAT RELIEF WAS THE GROUND OF
THE COMMISSION'S APPEAL.  THE ORDER OF DENIAL BEING FINAL, WAS
APPEALABLE, LAMB V. CRAMER, SUPRA, PP. 220-221, AND THE RIGHT TO APPEAL
FROM IT WAS IN NO WAY DEPENDENT ON AN APPEAL FROM THE IMPOSITION OF THE
FINE. 

SECOND.  THE QUESTION ON THE MERITS IS TWO-FOLD:  (1) WHETHER THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GRANTING THE COMMISSION REMEDIAL
RELIEF BY DIRECTING THAT YOUNG BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS;
AND (2) WHETHER THAT COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY IN REVERSING THE
JUDGMENT WHICH IMPOSED THE FINE AND IN SUBSTITUTING A TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT CONDITIONED ON CONTINUANCE OF THE CONTEMPT. 

AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, THE ACT REQUIRES THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS DEMANDED PURSUANT TO LAWFUL ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION AND
LENDS JUDICIAL AID TO OBTAIN THEM.  THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE RECORD
BEFORE US FOR SAYING THAT THE DEMAND OF THE COMMISSION EXCEEDED LAWFUL
LIMITS.  THERE IS, HOWEVER, A SUGGESTION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
WARRANTED IN DENYING REMEDIAL RELIEF SINCE THE CONTEMPT HEARING CAME
AFTER A CRIMINAL TRIAL OF PETITIONERS IN ANOTHER CASE, DURING THE
COURSE OF WHICH MANY OF PENFIELD'S BOOKS AND RECORDS WERE EXAMINED. 
THE THOUGHT APPARENTLY IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAD PROBED ENOUGH INTO
PENFIELD'S AFFAIRS.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT HOLD THAT THE
COMMISSION'S REQUEST HAD BECOME MOOT, THAT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED
SATISFIED ITS LEGITIMATE NEEDS, OR THAT THE ADDITIONAL ONES SOUGHT WERE
IRRELEVANT TO ITS STATUTORY FUNCTIONS.  FN8  WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THAT AT LEAST IN ABSENCE OF SUCH A FINDING, THE
REFUSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT THE FULL REMEDIAL RELIEF WHICH
THE ACT PLACES BEHIND THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION WAS AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.  THE RECORDS MIGHT WELL DISCLOSE OTHER OFFENSES AGAINST THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 WHICH THE COMMISSION ADMINISTERS.  THE HISTORY
OF THIS CASE REVEALS A LONG, PERSISTENT EFFORT TO DEFEAT THE
INVESTIGATION.  THE FACT THAT YOUNG PAID THE FINE AND DID NOT APPEAL
INDICATES THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT MAY HAVE BEEN AN EASY VICTORY
FOR HIM.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DILATORY TACTICS EMPLOYED SUGGEST THAT
IF JUSTICE WAS TO BE DONE, COERCIVE SANCTIONS WERE NECESSARY. 

WHEN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUBSTITUTED IMPRISONMENT FOR THE
FINE, IT PUT A CIVIL REMEDY IN THE PLACE OF A CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.  FOR
THE IMPRISONMENT AUTHORIZED WOULD BE SUFFERED ONLY IF THE DOCUMENTS
WERE NOT PRODUCED OR WOULD CONTINUE ONLY SO LONG AS YOUNG WAS
RECALCITRANT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FINE IMPOSED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, UNLIKE THAT INVOLVED IN FOX V. CAPITAL CO., SUPRA, PP. 106-107,
WAS UNCONDITIONAL AND NOT RELIEF OF A COERCIVE NATURE SUCH AS THE
COMMISSION SOUGHT.  IT WAS SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY PUNITIVE IN
CHARACTER.  CF. NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, 42-43. 

AS ALREADY NOTED, YOUNG DID NOT APPEAL FROM THE ORDER HOLDING HIM IN
CONTEMPT AND SUBJECTING HIM TO A FINE.  YOUNG MAINTAINS, HOWEVER, THAT
ONCE THE FINE WAS IMPOSED AND PAID, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WAS
EXHAUSTED; THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
SUBSTITUTE ANOTHER PENALTY OR TO ADD TO THE ONE ALREADY IMPOSED AND
SATISFIED.  THAT ARGUMENT RESTS ON THE STATUTE GRANTING FEDERAL COURTS
THE POWER TO PUNISH CONTEMPTS OF THEIR AUTHORITY, JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
268, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 385, AND THE DECISIONS CONSTRUING IT.  THE STATUTE
GIVES THE FEDERAL COURTS POWER "TO PUNISH, BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT, AT
THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, CONTEMPTS OF THEIR AUTHORITY," INCLUDING
VIOLATIONS OF THEIR LAWFUL ORDERS.  AT LEAST IN A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
PROCEEDING BOTH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT MAY NOT BE IMPOSED SINCE THE
STATUTE PROVIDES ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES.  IN RE BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50. 
HENCE IF A FINE IS IMPOSED ON A CONTEMNOR AND HE PAYS IT, THE SENTENCE
MAY NOT THEREAFTER BE AMENDED SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR IMPRISONMENT.  THE
ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT AFTER A FINE FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT IS PAID,
IMPRISONMENT MAY NOT BE ADDED TO, OR SUBSTITUTED FOR THE FINE, AS A
COERCIVE SANCTION IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  IF THAT POSITION IS
SOUND, THEN THE STATUTORY LIMITATION OF "FINE OR IMPRISONMENT" WOULD
PRECLUDE A COURT FROM IMPOSING A FINE AS A PUNITIVE MEASURE AND
IMPRISONMENT AS A REMEDIAL MEASURE, OR VICE VERSA. 

THE DUAL FUNCTION OF CONTEMPT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED - (1)
VINDICATION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY PUNISHMENT OF CONTEMPTUOUS
CONDUCT; (2) COERCION TO COMPEL THE CONTEMNOR TO DO WHAT THE LAW
REQUIRES OF HIM.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., SUPRA, PP. 441 ET
SEQ. UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, SUPRA, P. 302.  AS STATED IN
BESSETTE V. W.B. CONKEY CO., 194 U.S. 324, 327, "THE PURPOSE OF
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IS TO UPHOLD THE POWER OF THE COURT AND ALSO TO
SECURE TO SUITORS THEREIN THE RIGHTS BY IT AWARDED." 

WE ASSUME, ARGUENDO, THAT THE STATUTE ALLOWING FINE OR IMPRISONMENT
GOVERNS CIVIL AS WELL AS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  IF THE STATUTE
IS SO CONSTRUED, WE FIND IN IT NO BARRIER TO THE IMPOSITION OF BOTH A
FINE AS A PUNITIVE EXACTION AND IMPRISONMENT AS A COERCIVE SANCTION, OR
VICE VERSA.  FN9  THAT PRACTICE HAS BEEN APPROVED.  KREPLIK V. COUCH
PATENTS CO., 190 F. 565, 571.  AND SEE PHILLIPS S. & T.P. CO. V.
AMALGAMATED ASSN., 208 F. 335, 340.  WHEN THE COURT IMPOSES A FINE AS A
PENALTY, IT IS PUNISHING YESTERDAY'S CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT.  WHEN IT
ADDS THE COERCIVE SANCTION OF IMPRISONMENT, IT IS ANNOUNCING THE
CONSEQUENCES OF TOMORROW'S CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT.  AT LEAST IN THAT
SITUATION THE OFFENSES ARE NOT THE SAME.  AND THE MOST THAT THE STATUTE
FORBIDS IS THE IMPOSITION OF BOTH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR THE SAME
OFFENSE. 

YOUNG RAISES OBJECTIONS THAT GO TO THE MERITS OF THE JUDGMENT OF
CONTEMPT.  THESE WERE CONSIDERED AND DETERMINED AGAINST HIM BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  SINCE HE DID NOT APPEAL FROM THAT ADVERSE JUDGMENT, HE
IS PRECLUDED FROM RENEWING THE OBJECTIONS AT THIS STAGE.  LE TULLE V.
SCOFIELD, 308 U.S. 415, 421-422; HELVERING V. PFEIFFER, 302 U.S. 247,
250-251. 

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF VIEW AMONG US WHETHER THE PORTION OF THE
ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH SET ASIDE THE UNCONDITIONAL
FINE OF $50 IMPOSED ON YOUNG IS HERE FOR REVIEW.  BUT IF WE ASSUME THAT
IT IS, A MAJORITY OF THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS WAS CORRECT IN SETTING IT ASIDE, SINCE THE FINE WAS IMPOSED
IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  SEE GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE
CO., SUPRA.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 22(B) PROVIDES: 

"IN CASE OF CONTUMACY OR REFUSAL TO OBEY A SUBPENA ISSUED TO ANY
PERSON, ANY OF THE SAID UNITED STATES COURTS, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF WHICH SAID PERSON GUILTY OF CONTUMACY OR REFUSAL TO OBEY IS FOUND OR
RESIDES, UPON APPLICATION BY THE COMMISSION MAY ISSUE TO SUCH PERSON AN
ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSION, OR ONE OF
ITS EXAMINERS DESIGNATED BY IT, THERE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
IF SO ORDERED, OR THERE TO GIVE EVIDENCE TOUCHING THE MATTER IN
QUESTION; AND ANY FAILURE TO OBEY SUCH ORDER OF THE COURT MAY BE
PUNISHED BY SAID COURT AS A CONTEMPT THEREOF." 

FN2  THAT ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  143
F.2D 746. 

FN3  THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION AND THE RULING OF THE COURT ARE
MADE CLEAR BY THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY:    "MR. CUTHBERTSON:  SO FAR AS
THE PUNISHMENT WHICH THE COURT MIGHT SEE FIT TO IMPOSE, THAT IS UP TO
THE COURT.  WE ARE STILL ANXIOUS TO GET A LOOK AT THESE BOOKS AND
RECORDS, SO I SUGGEST TO THE COURT, IF HE BE SO DISPOSED, WHATEVER
PUNISHMENT THE COURT MIGHT SEE FIT TO IMPOSE WOULD BE IN CONNECTION
WITH OR SO LONG AS HE REFUSED TO PRODUCE HIS BOOKS AND RECORDS FOR OUR
INSPECTION. 

"THE COURT:  I DON'T THINK THAT I AM GOING TO BE DISPOSED TO DO
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.  I SAT HERE FOR SIX WEEKS AND LISTENED TO BOOKS AND
RECORDS.  THE GOVERNMENT PRODUCED PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE UNITED
STATES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PENFIELD MATTER.    "MR. CUTHBERTSON:  I
MIGHT SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE HAVE IN MIND THAT THESE BOOKS AND
RECORDS MAY DISCLOSE CERTAIN ACTS OTHER THAN THOSE CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT.  WE DON'T PROPOSE TO GO OVER THE SAME MATTER THAT THE COURT
WENT OVER IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIMINAL CASE. 

"THE COURT:  THE COURT CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ITS OWN BOOKS AND
RECORDS, AND IN THAT TRIAL THE EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR AND DEFINITE AND
POSITIVE FROM ALL OF THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES, THAT DURING ONE PERIOD
OF TIME THIS DEFENDANT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE PENFIELD
COMPANY.  WHETHER THAT PERIOD OF TIME IS COVERED BY WHAT THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SEEKS OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW. 

"THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THE COURT IS THAT THE DEFENDANT PAY A
FINE OF $50, AND STAND COMMITTED UNTIL PAID." 

FN4  SECTION 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 940,
AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 230, PROVIDES:  "NO APPEAL INTENDED TO BRING
ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR REVIEW
SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS APPLICATION THEREFOR BE DULY MADE WITHIN THREE
MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF SUCH JUDGMENT OR DECREE."  SEE ALASKA PACKERS
ASSN. V. PILLSBURY, 301 U.S. 174; GEORGIA LUMBER CO. V. COMPANIA, 323
U.S. 334. 

FN5  RULE 73(A) PROVIDES IN PART:  "WHEN AN APPEAL IS PERMITTED BY
LAW FROM A DISTRICT COURT TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND WITHIN THE
TIME PRESCRIBED, A PARTY MAY APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT BY FILING WITH THE
DISTRICT COURT A NOTICE OF APPEAL."  WHERE A RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
CONFLICTS WITH A PRIOR STATUTE, THE RULE PREVAILS.  48 STAT. 1064, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 723B. 

FN6  SEE SEC. 22(B), SUPRA, NOTE 1. 

FN7  THIS THUS DISPOSES OF THE FURTHER CONTENTION THAT THE APPEAL WAS
NOT TIMELY UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SUPP. II SEC.
682.  UNITED STATES V. HARK, 320 U.S. 531. 

FN8  AS WILL BE SEEN FROM NOTE 3, SUPRA, THE COURT, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR
TO RENDERING ITS SENTENCE, NOTED THAT THERE WAS ONE PERIOD DURING WHICH
YOUNG WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH PENFIELD CO. BUT THE COURT ADDED:
"WHETHER THAT PERIOD OF TIME IS COVERED BY WHAT THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION SEEKS OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW." 

FN9  SOME RULES GOVERNING CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS ARE, OF COURSE,
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE GOVERNING CIVIL CONTEMPTS.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE
& RANGE CO., SUPRA, PP. 444, 446-449.  IF THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE
SATISFIED AND IF, AS IN IN RE SWAN, 150 U.S. 637; MATTER OF CHRISTENSEN
ENGINEERING CO., 194 U.S. 458; IN RE MERCHANTS' STOCK CO., 223 U.S.
639; FARMERS NAT'L BK. V. WILKINSON, 266 U.S. 503, THE CRIMINAL PENALTY
AND THE REMEDIAL RELIEF ARE SEGREGATED, NO PROBLEM OF THE ADEQUACY OF
THE ORDER FOR PURPOSES OF APPELLATE REVIEW IS PRESENTED.  NO QUESTION
IS RAISED HERE AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF COMBINING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT IN THE SAME PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

BUT FOR THE DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330
U.S. 258, I SHOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN CONCLUDING WITH THE COURT THAT
THIS CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WAS EXCLUSIVELY CIVIL IN CHARACTER AND THAT,
CONSEQUENTLY, NO CRIMINAL PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED, COERCIVE RELIEF
ALONE BEING ALLOWABLE IN SUCH A CASE.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE
CO., 221 U.S. 418.  FN1  THAT DECISION HELD THAT THE IMPOSITION OF
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT IN A CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING "WAS AS
FUNDAMENTALLY ERRONEOUS AS IF IN AN ACTION OF 'A. VS. B. FOR ASSAULT
AND BATTERY,' THE JUDGMENT ENTERED HAD BEEN THAT THE DEFENDANT BE
CONFINED IN PRISON FOR TWELVE MONTHS."  221 U.S. AT 449. 

BY EVERY TEST APPLIED IN THE GOMPERS CASE THIS PROCEEDING WAS CIVIL,
NOT CRIMINAL IN CHARACTER.  HERE AS THERE THE PROCEEDING WAS ENTITLED,
INSTITUTED AND CONDUCTED AS COLLATERAL TO CIVIL LITIGATION.  IT SOUGHT
ONLY REMEDIAL RELIEF, NAMELY, THE PRODUCTION OF SPECIFIED BOOKS AND
RECORDS.  FN2  AND ISSUANCE OF THE CITATION WAS GROUNDED UPON
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COURT'S LAWFUL ORDER FOR THEIR PRODUCTION.  FN3 

THIS ACT, LIKE THE ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE IN THE GOMPERS CASE,
CONSTITUTED CONDUCT WHICH WOULD HAVE SUSTAINED EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
PENALTY IN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS.  BUT THE UNEQUIVOCAL RULING OF THAT
CASE WAS THAT CRIMINAL PENALTIES CANNOT BE APPLIED IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS.  221 U.S. AT 444, 449, 451-452.  NOT ONLY THE RESULT, BUT
THE WHOLE TENOR OF THE OPINION WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CHARACTER OF
THE PROCEEDING AS A WHOLE, WHETHER AS CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, MUST BE
CORRELATED WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED, AND THAT THE TWO
CANNOT BE SCRAMBLED, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE CONDUCT
CONSTITUTING THE CONTEMPT WOULD SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF EITHER TYPE
OF RELIEF IN A PROCEEDING APPROPRIATE TO THE KIND OF RELIEF GIVEN.  FN4
NOT SIMPLY THE REMEDY SOUGHT BUT THE CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDING IN
WHICH IT IS PURSUED, IT WAS HELD, DETERMINES THE VALIDITY OF THE RELIEF
AFFORDED.  FN5 

THIS RULING, AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MAINTAINED, WAS ONE NOT ONLY OF
HISTORICAL GROUNDING BUT OF CONSTITUTIONAL COMPULSION.  FN6  MOREOVER,
IT RECENTLY HAS BEEN REINFORCED BY RULE 42(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, REQUIRING THAT THE NOTICE PRESCRIBED FOR
INSTITUTING THE PROCEEDING "SHALL STATE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS
CONSTITUTING THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CHARGED AND DESCRIBE IT AS SUCH." 
FN7 

HENCE, UNDER THE RULE OF THE GOMPERS CASE AND OTHERS FOLLOWING IT, IT
IS CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE HAD NO POWER IN THIS CASE TO IMPOSE
THE CRIMINAL PENALTY OF A FLAT $50 FINE AND IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR, ON THE
RECORD,  FN8  THAT HE EXCEEDED HIS POWER IN DENYING THE COMMISSION
CIVIL COERCIVE RELIEF ALTOGETHER.  FN9 

MOREOVER, I THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT BOTH OF THESE PROBLEMS ARE
PRESENTED FOR OUR DETERMINATION ON THE STATE OF THE RECORD HERE.  IT IS
TRUE THAT YOUNG DID NOT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND THAT HE PAID THE FINE.  BUT THE
COMMISSION APPEALED FROM THAT JUDGMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY, AS IT HAD A
RIGHT TO DO,  FN10  UNLESS THE PAYMENT OF THE FINE EXHAUSTED ALL
JUDICIAL POWER TO DEAL FURTHER WITH THE PROCEEDING.  THIS INDEED IS A
BASIS UPON WHICH YOUNG MAINTAINS THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD
NO POWER TO REVERSE THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT.  FN11 

BUT CLEARLY, AS THE COURT HOLDS, SUCH POWER COULD NOT BE WANTING, IF
THE LITIGATION WAS EXCLUSIVELY CIVIL IN CHARACTER.  ON THE CONTRARY THE
ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS EXACTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE RULING IN THE GOMPERS CASE AND WAS REQUIRED BY IT.  IN BOTH CASES
THE PROCEEDINGS WERE WHOLLY CIVIL IN CHARACTER.  IN BOTH A CRIMINAL
PENALTY WAS IMPOSED.  AND IN BOTH THE JUDGMENT LAYING IT WAS REVERSED
AND THE CAUSE WAS REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
LOOKING ONLY TO THE GIVING OF CIVIL RELIEF. 

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IN THE GOMPERS CASE THE CONTEMNORS HAD
NOT ENTERED UPON THE SERVICE OF THE VOID CRIMINAL SENTENCE OF
IMPRISONMENT BUT APPEALED FROM IT, WHILE HERE YOUNG PAID THE FINE AND
DID NOT APPEAL.  THAT ACTION ON HIS PART, HOWEVER, CANNOT OUST THE
COMMISSION OF ITS STATUTORY RIGHT OF APPEAL AND REVIEW OR OF ITS RIGHT
TO CIVIL RELIEF.  FN12  IF THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WERE CRIMINAL IN
CHARACTER, A DIFFERENT QUESTION MIGHT BE PRESENTED.  FN13  BUT
COMPLIANCE WITH A VOID CRIMINAL PENALTY, VOID BECAUSE IMPOSED IN A
WHOLLY CIVIL PROCEEDING, CANNOT MAKE IT VALID OR OUST EITHER THE COURTS
OF THEIR CIVIL JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF RELIEF OR OPPOSING PARTIES OF
THEIR RIGHTS IN THAT RESPECT. 

IN SHORT, THE COMMISSION WAS FORCED TO APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT
RENDERED, IF IT WAS NOT TO ACQUIESCE IN WHAT THE COURT HAD DONE AND
THEREBY SUFFER UNAUTHORIZED THWARTING OF ITS STATUTORY INVESTIGATING
POWER.  THAT JUDGMENT WAS RIGHTFULLY TAKEN IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WAS REVIEWED BY THAT COURT, AND WAS REVERSED
NOT PARTIALLY BUT COMPLETELY.  FN14  OUR ACTION IN GRANTING CERTIORARI
BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW THE ENTIRE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, INCLUDING ITS REVERSAL OF THE CRIMINAL JUDGMENT RENDERED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT AS WELL AS ITS MANDATE FOR CIVIL RELIEF.  FN15
HENCE IN MY OPINION WE ARE FORCED TO TAKE ACTION UPON THE JUDGMENT AS A
WHOLE, IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PHASES. 

SINCE I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COURT'S VIEW THAT THE GOMPERS RULING
AND OTHERS IN ACCORD WITH IT ARE CONTROLLING IN THIS CASE, I THINK THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED, THOUGH
WITH MODIFICATION IN ONE RESPECT.  FN16  I FIND IT DIFFICULT, HOWEVER,
TO RECONCILE THE ACTION TAKEN HERE WITH WHAT WAS DONE IN THE MINE
WORKERS DECISION.  A MAJORITY THERE HELD, AS I THOUGHT CONTRARY TO THE
GOMPERS RULING, THAT CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT COULD BE PROSECUTED IN
A SINGLE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF
PROCEDURE APPLICABLE IN EQUITY CAUSES,  FN17  AND THAT BOTH TYPES OF
RELIEF, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, COULD BE IMPOSED IN SUCH A MIXED
PROCEEDING.  IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT ON REVIEW THE APPELLATE COURT IS
FREE TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT CONCERNING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
BOTH TYPES OF RELIEF FOR THAT OF THE TRIAL COURT, AND THEREFORE THAT IN
REMANDING THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO
LEAVE ROOM FOR THE FURTHER EXERCISE OF THE TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION IN
RELATION TO EITHER TYPE OF RELIEF. 

IF IN THAT CASE A SINGLE MIXED PROCEEDING COULD SUFFICE WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 42(B) AND THE GOMPERS LINE OF
DECISIONS CONCERNING PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN INSTITUTING AND
CONDUCTING CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, FOR THE IMPOSITION OF BOTH CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL PENALTIES, I SEE NO VALID REASON WHY THE SAME THING COULD NOT
BE DONE IN THIS CAUSE OR WHY BOTH THE CRIMINAL FINE IMPOSED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIVIL RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IF THE PROCEEDING IS TO BE TAKEN AS HAVING BEEN BOTH
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL A SERIOUS QUESTION WOULD BE PRESENTED ON THE TERMS
OF SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE WHETHER IMPOSITION AND PAYMENT OF THE
FINE HERE DID NOT EXHAUST JUDICIAL POWER TO DEAL FURTHER WITH THE
PROCEEDING, MORE ESPECIALLY IN ITS CRIMINAL PHASE.  FN18  BUT THAT
QUESTION TOO, I TAKE IT, NECESSARILY WOULD BE SETTLED IF THE MINE
WORKERS RULING WERE TO GOVERN HERE. 

IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT IN THIS CASE THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT A PARTY
BY THAT NAME, AS IT WAS IN THE MINE WORKERS CASE, TO THE CIVIL
LITIGATION IN WHICH THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AROSE OR TO THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDING ITSELF.  BUT THE COMMISSION WAS THE MOVING PARTY IN BOTH,
REPRESENTATIVE AS SUCH OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE TRIAL COURT
POINTED OUT.  FN19  AND, IN VIEW OF THE VAST LIBERALITY ALLOWED BY THE
MINE WORKERS DECISION CONCERNING MATTERS OF PROCEDURE AND RELIEF IN
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, IT HARDLY CAN BE A SOLID GROUND FOR
DISTINGUISHING THE CASES THAT IN ONE THE PUBLIC INTEREST WAS
REPRESENTED, AS TO THE CRIMINAL PHASE, EO NOMINE UNITED STATES, IN THE
OTHER UNDER THE NAME OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.  CF. IN
RE BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50.  INDEED THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN THE PRESENT
CASE THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY PARTICIPATED IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING IN THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THESE DIFFICULTIES, SINCE THE COURT RESTS THE
DECISION IN THIS CAUSE UPON THE GOMPERS RULE, WHICH IN MY OPINION
REPRESENTS THE SETTLED LAW, I JOIN IN THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BOTH INSOFAR AS IT REVERSED THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF THE DENIAL OF COERCIVE RELIEF AND IN
RELATION TO ITS REVERSAL OF THE CRIMINAL PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT. 

BUT, WHILE THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS' POWER IN
PROPER CASES TO REVIEW AND REVISE CIVIL RELIEF GIVEN IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, IN THIS CASE NO SUCH RELIEF HAD BEEN AWARDED.  IN MY OPINION THE
QUESTION OF THE CHARACTER AND SCOPE OF THAT RELIEF WAS A MATTER, IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE, FOR THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT RATHER THAN FOR THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD MODIFY THE JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL
IN THE CIVIL PHASE SO THAT THE CAUSE WOULD BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FRAMING THE RELIEF
ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE TO MAKE EFFECTIVE THE COMMISSION'S RIGHT TO
DISCLOSURE.  FN20 

FN1  SEE IN RE FOX, 96 F.2D 23; NORSTROM V. WAHL, 41 F.2D 910. 

FN2  THE APPLICATION IN CONTEMPT WAS MADE BY AFFIDAVIT SETTING FORTH
THE FACTS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE THE VIOLATION.  THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING
WAS ENTERED UPON THE CIVIL DOCKET, BEING CAUSE "NO. 2863, CIVIL,
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. PENFIELD COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA." 
YOUNG WAS FIRST COMMANDED TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY A FURTHER ORDER
SHOULD NOT BE MADE DIRECTING HIM "TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER SHOULD NOT
BE MADE HOLDING SAID A.W. YOUNG IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT AND TO BE
DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY."  THE ORDER OF CITATION FOLLOWED IN THE SAME
TERMS.  AT THE HEARING COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION MAINTAINED
CONSISTENTLY AND URGENTLY THAT THE PROCEEDING WAS EXCLUSIVELY CIVIL,
NOT CRIMINAL IN CHARACTER.  NOT UNTIL PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT WAS ANY
STEP TAKEN INDICATING THE PROCEEDING TO BE CRIMINAL IN NATURE.    FN3
THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER FOR PRODUCTION WAS SUSTAINED ON APPEAL.  143
F.2D 746. 

FN4  SEE THE COURT'S DISCUSSION IN GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE
CO., 221 U.S. 418, PARTICULARLY AT PP. 444-449, 451 FF.; SEE ALSO
DISCUSSION IN UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258,
DISSENTING OPINION, P. 363, PART III. 

FN5  THE GOMPERS OPINION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DOES NOT HOLD THAT THE
CHARACTER OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS EXCLUSIVELY THE CRITERION OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDING.  IT WAS SAID TO BE A FACTOR TO BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT.  BUT, IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S STRESS UPON OTHER FACTORS,
INCLUDING THE PRIVATE OR PUBLIC CHARACTER OF THE COMPLAINANT, WHETHER
OR NOT THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING ARISES IN AND AS COROLLARY TO CIVIL
LITIGATION, AND THE NECESSITY FOR OBSERVING DISTINCT PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS IN THE COURSE OF TRIAL, THE CASE SEEMS CLEARLY TO RULE
THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDING DETERMINES THE NATURE OF THE
RELIEF WHICH CAN BE GIVEN RATHER THAN THE REVERSE. 

FN6  SEE THE REFERENCES CITED IN NOTE 4 SUPRA; AND SEE NOTE 5. 

FN7  "A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (A) OF
THIS RULE SHALL BE PROSECUTED ON NOTICE.  THE NOTICE SHALL STATE THE
TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING, ALLOWING A REASONABLE TIME FOR THE
PREPARATION OF THE DEFENSE, AND SHALL STATE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS
CONSTITUTING THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CHARGED AND DESCRIBE IT AS SUCH. 
THE NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN ORALLY BY THE JUDGE IN OPEN COURT IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT OR, ON APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OR OF AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED BY THE COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE, BY
AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AN ORDER OF ARREST...."  RULE 42(B), FEDERAL
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS,
330 U.S. 258, DISSENTING OPINION, P. 372, AND NOTE 45. 

THE RULE DID NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL MARCH 21, 1946, HENCE WAS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WHICH WAS INSTITUTED AND CONCLUDED
IN THE TRIAL COURT PRIOR TO THAT DATE. 

FN8  SEE TEXT INFRA.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE FUNCTION OF
THE SUBPOENA HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED AT THE TIME OF THE JUDGMENT IN
CONTEMPT, ALTHOUGH THIS WAS YOUNG'S CONTENTION ACCEPTED, APPARENTLY, BY
THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE CONTRARY, IN FACT, AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS.  THE
SUBPOENA DID NOT PURPORT TO BE ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH
AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL WHICH TRANSPIRED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT BETWEEN ITS ISSUANCE AND THE TIME OF THE JUDGMENT IN
CONTEMPT.  COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION EXPRESSLY STATED THAT THE
SUBPOENA WAS NOT LIMITED TO THAT MATTER AND THE COURT SAID, AFTER
REFERRING TO THE PERIOD OF THE CRIMINAL SUIT:  "WHETHER THAT PERIOD OF
TIME IS COVERED BY WHAT THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SEEKS OR
NOT, I DON'T KNOW." 

THE COURT MADE NO FINDING THAT THE SUBPOENA'S FUNCTION HAD BEEN
EXHAUSTED.  THE ONLY REASON ASSIGNED FOR REFUSING CIVIL RELIEF WAS THAT
THE COURT HAD SAT IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR SIX WEEKS DURING WHICH IT
HAD "LISTENED TO BOOKS AND RECORDS," AS WELL AS WITNESSES PRODUCED
"FROM ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PENFIELD
MATTER."  TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ITS OWN PROCEEDINGS, THE COURT
SAID:  "...  IN THAT TRIAL THE EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR AND DEFINITE  ...
THAT DURING ONE PERIOD OF TIME THIS DEFENDANT (YOUNG) HAD NOTHING
WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE PENFIELD COMPANY."  THESE GROUNDS, OF COURSE,
WERE NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF FINDING THAT THE RECORDS COVERED BY THE
SUBPOENA HAD BEEN PRODUCED OR THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO POWER OR VALID
REASON FOR PURSUING ITS STATUTORY INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE SUBPOENA
BEYOND THE CONFINES OF THE CLOSED CRIMINAL TRIAL. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 8.  AND SEE TEXT INFRA PRECEDING NOTE 20. 

FN10  28 U.S.C. SEC. 225; SEE CLARKE V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 128
F.2D 542; LAMB V. CRAMER, 285 U.S. 217, 220. 

FN11  THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTION IN THIS RESPECT IS BASED ON SEC. 268
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 385, AND THE DECISION IN IN RE
BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50.  THE BRADLEY CASE, HOWEVER, WAS ONE IN CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT AND THE DECISION WAS THAT IN SUCH A CASE SEC. 268 FORBIDS
IMPOSITION AS PENALTY OF BOTH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  THE PENALTIES
BEING ALTERNATIVE BY THE SECTION'S TERMS, IT WAS HELD THAT PAYMENT OF
THE FINE EXHAUSTED THE COURT'S POWER. 

THE BRADLEY CASE THEREFORE PRESENTED NO QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY
OF SEC. 268 IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS OR OF ITS EFFECT IF
APPLICABLE.  COMPARE THE MAJORITY AND CONCURRING OPINIONS IN IN RE
SIXTH & WISCONSIN TOWER, INC., 108 F.2D 538.  IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS
HAVING RULED THAT THE COURT'S INVALID IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT
IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS OR SATISFACTION OF SUCH A VOID SENTENCE
EXHAUSTS EITHER THE TRIAL COURT'S POWER OR THAT OF AN APPELLATE COURT
ON REVIEW TO DEAL WITH THE CIVIL CONTEMPT BY AFFORDING CIVIL RELIEF OR
TO AVOID THE INVALID CRIMINAL JUDGMENT. 

WHETHER OR NOT SEC. 268, IF APPLICABLE TO A SO-CALLED MIXED CIVIL
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, WOULD FORBID THE IMPOSITION OF RELIEF
BOTH BY WAY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT, ONE PUNITIVE, THE OTHER COERCIVE
AND REMEDIAL, NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE HOLDING THAT THIS
PROCEEDING WAS EXCLUSIVELY CIVIL IN CHARACTER. 

FN12  SEE NOTES 10, 14. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 11 SUPRA. 

FN14  THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS STATES:  "YOUNG DID
NOT APPEAL FROM THE ORDER HOLDING HIM IN CONTEMPT.  THAT DECISION IS
FINAL AND THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE EXTENT OF THE REMEDY TO
WHICH THE COMMISSION IS ENTITLED."  157 F.2D 65, 66.  RULING THAT THE
CAUSE DID NOT BECOME MOOT BY REASON OF YOUNG'S PAYMENT OF THE FINE, THE
COURT FURTHER HELD THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ABUSED ITS "DISCRETION" IN
NOT GRANTING THE FULL RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE COMMISSION.  THE CONCLUDING
PARAGRAPH OF THE OPINION STATED:  "THE ORDER IMPOSING THE FINE IS
REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ORDER
REQUIRING YOUNG'S IMPRISONMENT TO COMPEL HIS OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER TO
PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION."  THE OPINION CONCLUDED:  "THE ORDER
OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED," 157 F.2D AT 67, AND THE FORMAL
ORDER FOR JUDGMENT ENTITLED "DECREE" DIRECTED "THAT THE ORDER OF THE
SAID DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CAUSE BE, AND HEREBY IS, REVERSED, AND THAT
THIS CAUSE BE, AND HEREBY IS REMANDED TO THE SAID DISTRICT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT." 

THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT SET FORTH IN
THE PRINTED RECORD HERE.  BUT THE "STATEMENT OF POINTS ON WHICH THE
APPELLANT INTENDS TO RELY," FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIFIES
THAT "THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ORDERING YOUNG TO PAY A FINE OF
$50.00 INSTEAD OF IMPOSING A REMEDIAL PENALTY CALCULATED TO COERCE
YOUNG TO PRODUCE OR ALLOW INSPECTION OF THE BOOKS AND RECORDS  ..." 

IN THIS STATE OF THE RECORD IT CANNOT BE TAKEN THAT THE APPEAL AND
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT COMPREHEND THE CRIMINAL
PENALTY. 

FN15  THIS COURT'S ACTION IN GRANTING CERTIORARI, 329 U.S. 706, WAS
NOT LIMITED TO ANY QUESTION OR PHASE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS' ACTION,
BUT BROUGHT UP THE JUDGMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY.  SINCE THAT COURT'S
JUDGMENT COMPREHENDED THE REVERSAL OF THE CRIMINAL PENALTY IMPOSED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT PHASE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS' JUDGMENT IS
NECESSARILY HERE FOR REVIEW AND DETERMINATION. 

FN16  SEE TEXT AT NOTE 20. 

FN17  SEE UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258,
DISSENTING OPINION, P. 363, PART III.  THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED IN
THAT CASE PROVIDED:  "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT THE ACCUSED, AND EACH
OF THEM, SHALL, UNLESS WAIVED BY THEM, BE TRIED UPON SAID CHARGES OF
CONTEMPT BY THE COURT WITH AN ADVISORY JURY TO BE EMPANELLED BY THIS
COURT."  THE ADVISORY JURY WAS WAIVED. 

FN18  SEE NOTE 11 SUPRA AND TEXT. 

FN19  THE COURT INQUIRED OF COMMISSION COUNSEL, IN RESPONSE TO
ARGUMENT THAT THE PROCEEDING WAS EXCLUSIVELY CIVIL, SINCE IT AROSE IN
THE COURSE OF CIVIL LITIGATION AND SOUGHT ONLY REMEDIAL RELIEF FOR ONE
OF THE PARTIES, AND NOT AS AN INDEPENDENT PROCEEDING IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST TO VINDICATE THE COURT'S POWER:  "THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION DOES NOT OPERATE FOR ITSELF, DOES IT?  I MEAN IT OPERATES IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST, DOESN'T IT?" 

FN20  E. INGRAHAM CO. V. GERMANOW, 4 F.2D 1002, 1003. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM CONCURS MR. JUSTICE JACKSON,
DISSENTING. 

BEGINNING WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IN 1887, IT BECAME A
CONVENTIONAL FEATURE OF CONGRESSIONAL REGULATORY LEGISLATION TO GIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS FOR RELEVANT
INFORMATION.  CONGRESS HAS NEVER ATTEMPTED, HOWEVER, TO CONFER UPON AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ITSELF THE POWER TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE TO SUCH A
SUBPOENA.  IT IS BESIDE THE POINT TO CONSIDER WHETHER CONGRESS WAS
DETERRED BY CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFICULTIES.  THAT CONGRESS SHOULD SO
CONSISTENTLY HAVE WITHHELD POWERS OF TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION FROM
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES DISCLOSES A POLICY THAT SPEAKS WITH IMPRESSIVE
SIGNIFICANCE. 

INSTEAD OF AUTHORIZING AGENCIES TO ENFORCE THEIR SUBPOENAS, CONGRESS
HAS REQUIRED THEM TO RESORT TO THE COURTS FOR ENFORCEMENT.  IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THAT DUTY COURTS ACT AS COURTS AND NOT AS ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUNCTS.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO IMPOSE ON COURTS THE DUTY OF
ENFORCING OBEDIENCE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA WAS SUSTAINED
PRECISELY BECAUSE COURTS WERE NOT TO BE AUTOMATA CARRYING OUT THE
WISHES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE.  THEY WERE DISCHARGING JUDICIAL POWER
WITH ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, 154
U.S. 447; 155 U.S. 3.  ACCORDINGLY, AN ORDER DIRECTING OBEDIENCE TO A
SUBPOENA BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, LIKE A SUBPOENA OF
ANY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY, DOES NOT ISSUE AS A MATTER OF COURSE.  AN
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENA MAY BE CONTESTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT EXCEEDS
THE BOUNDS SET BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE; THAT THE INQUIRY IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY
DELEGATED TO THE AGENCY; THAT THE TESTIMONY SOUGHT TO BE ELICITED IS
IRRELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY; THAT THE PERSON TO
WHOM IT IS DIRECTED CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
THE PAPERS.  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, SUPRA, AT
479 AND 489; HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 211 U.S. 407;
ELLIS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 237 U.S. 434; SMITH V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 245 U.S. 33; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298; OKLAHOMA PRESS PUBLISHING CO. V.
WALLING, 327 U.S. 186.  AND SEE LILIENTHAL, THE POWER TO COMPEL
TESTIMONY, 39 HARV. L. REV. 694. 

IN THIS CASE, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ISSUED A
SUBPOENA TO YOUNG, AS OFFICER OF THE PENFIELD COMPANY, FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE COMPANY COVERING THE PERIOD MAY
1, 1939, TO APRIL 9, 1943.  UPON YOUNG'S FAILURE TO COMPLY, THE
COMMISSION APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, ON APRIL 13, 1943, FOR AN
ORDER COMPELLING OBEDIENCE.  FROM THIS ORDER AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH AFFIRMED THE ORDER ON JUNE 30, 1944, 143
F.2D 746, ITS MANDATE BEING SPREAD ON THE RECORD OF THE DISTRICT COURT
ON DECEMBER 7, 1944.  YOUNG HAVING PERSISTED IN HIS REFUSAL TO COMPLY,
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ON JANUARY 24, 1945, APPLIED
FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE CITED FOR CONTEMPT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT POSTPONED FINAL HEARINGS ON THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,
PENDING, APPARENTLY, THE COMPLETION OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL OF YOUNG AND
THE PENFIELD COMPANY THEN BEFORE THE COURT, ON AN INDICTMENT GROWING
OUT OF THE INQUIRY FOR WHICH THE SUBPOENA HAD BEEN ISSUED.  IT WAS NOT
UNTIL JULY 2, 1945, AFTER THE PETITIONERS HAD BEEN ACQUITTED IN THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THAT THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WAS HEARD. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND PETITIONER YOUNG GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT
FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF ITS ORDER OF JUNE 1, 1943, REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION
OF RECORDS CALLED FOR BY THE SUBPOENA ISSUED BY THE S.E.C.  BUT THE
COURT REFUSED THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST TO IMPOSE A CONTINGENT
PUNISHMENT TO SECURE PRODUCTION OF THE RECORDS.  INSTEAD, IT SENTENCED
YOUNG TO THE PAYMENT OF A FINE OF $50.  WITHOUT OBJECTION YOUNG PAID
THIS FINE, AND CONSISTENTLY THEREAFTER MAINTAINED THAT BY SUCH PAYMENT
JUDICIAL POWER HAD EXHAUSTED ITSELF.  SEE IN RE BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50. 
THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED FROM THIS DISPOSITION BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT, HAVING ADJUDGED YOUNG TO BE IN
CONTEMPT, ERRED IN ORDERING YOUNG TO PAY A FINE OF $50 AND STAND
COMMITTED UNTIL THE FINE WAS PAID, INSTEAD OF IMPOSING A REMEDIAL
PENALTY, CALCULATED TO COERCE YOUNG TO PRODUCE OR ALLOW INSPECTION OF
THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE PENFIELD CO., PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF
JUNE 1, 1943.  ON THE BASIS OF THIS APPEAL, WHICH CHALLENGED WHAT THE
DISTRICT COURT DID AND WHAT IT REFUSED TO DO, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER COURT:
"THE ORDER IMPOSING THE FINE IS REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING YOUNG'S IMPRISONMENT TO COMPEL
HIS OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION."  157
F.2D 65, 67.  THIS COURT THEN GRANTED CERTIORARI, THE PETITION FOR
WHICH ASKED THIS COURT TO "REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE."  THERE WAS THUS PROPERLY BEFORE
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE JUDGMENT IMPOSING THE FINE OF $50 AND
REFUSING TO GIVE COERCIVE REMEDY, AND THERE IS ACCORDINGLY BEFORE US
THE CORRECTNESS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SETTING
ASIDE THE $50 FINE AND ORDERING A COERCIVE DECREE. 

THE JUDGMENT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE US IS THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SETTING ASIDE THE FINE IMPOSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND
REVERSING ITS REFUSAL TO ISSUE A COERCIVE ORDER.  THE ULTIMATE QUESTION
IS THE CORRECTNESS OF WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID AND WHAT IT REFUSED
TO DO.  IT IS ESSENTIAL THEREFORE TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON THE PRECISE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT ACTED AS IT DID.  THIS IS
WHAT THE RECORD TELLS US:    "MR. CUTHBERTSON:  SO FAR AS THE
PUNISHMENT WHICH THE COURT MIGHT SEE FIT TO IMPOSE, THAT IS UP TO THE
COURT.  WE ARE STILL ANXIOUS TO GET A LOOK AT THESE BOOKS AND RECORDS,
SO I SUGGEST TO THE COURT, IF HE BE SO DISPOSED, WHATEVER PUNISHMENT
THE COURT MIGHT SEE FIT TO IMPOSE WOULD BE IN CONNECTION WITH OR SO
LONG AS HE REFUSED TO PRODUCE HIS BOOKS AND RECORDS FOR OUR
INSPECTION. 

"THE COURT:  I DON'T THINK THAT I AM GOING TO BE DISPOSED TO DO
ANYTHING LIKE THAT.  I SAT HERE FOR SIX WEEKS AND LISTENED TO BOOKS AND
RECORDS.  THE GOVERNMENT PRODUCED PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE UNITED
STATES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PENFIELD MATTER. 

"MR. CUTHBERTSON:  I MIGHT SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE HAVE IN MIND THAT
THESE BOOKS AND RECORDS MAY DISCLOSE CERTAIN ACTS OTHER THAN THOSE
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  WE DON'T PROPOSE TO GO OVER THE SAME MATTER
THAT THE COURT WENT OVER IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIMINAL CASE. 

"THE COURT:  THE COURT CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ITS OWN BOOKS AND
RECORDS, AND IN THAT TRIAL THE EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR AND DEFINITE AND
POSITIVE FROM ALL OF THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES, THAT DURING ONE PERIOD
OF TIME THIS DEFENDANT HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE PENFIELD
COMPANY.  WHETHER THAT PERIOD OF TIME IS COVERED BY WHAT THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SEEKS OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW. 

"THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THE COURT IS THAT THE DEFENDANT PAY A
FINE OF $50, AND STAND COMMITTED UNTIL PAID." 

BEARING IN MIND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT AN AUTOMATON WHICH
MUST UNQUESTIONINGLY COMPEL OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA SIMPLY BECAUSE THE
COMMISSION HAD ISSUED IT, WE MUST CONSIDER WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT
HAD ABUSED THE FAIR LIMITS OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  IF A DISTRICT COURT
BELIEVES THAT HOWSOEVER RELEVANT A DEMAND FOR DOCUMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN
AT THE TIME IT WAS MADE, CIRCUMSTANCES HAD RENDERED THE SUBPOENA
OBSOLETE, IT IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE SUBPOENA AS OF
THE TIME THAT ITS ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT AND NOT AS OF THE TIME THAT IT
WAS ISSUED.  THE ABOVE COLLOQUY MEANS NOTHING UNLESS IT MEANS THAT
JUDGE HALL WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EVENTS HAD APPARENTLY RENDERED NEEDLESS
THE CALL FROM YOUNG FOR THE DOCUMENTS.  HE MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG IN THAT
BELIEF.  AT ALL EVENTS IT WAS THE VIEW OF A JUDGE WHO HAD PRESIDED FOR
SIX WEEKS OVER A TRIAL IN WHICH THESE MATTERS WERE CANVASSED.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT HAVE BEFORE IT, NOR HAVE WE, THE
KNOWLEDGE OR THE BASIS FOR KNOWLEDGE THAT JUDGE HALL HAD, AND SO
NEITHER COURT CAN SAY WITH ANY CONFIDENCE THAT HE DID NOT HAVE GROUND
FOR THINKING THAT THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES REVEALED IN THE COURSE OF
THE TRIAL OBVIATED THE NEED FOR THE DEMAND THAT WAS MADE UPON YOUNG. 
WE SURELY OUGHT NOT TO REVERSE THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE ON THE
ABSTRACT ASSUMPTION THAT PAPERS ORDERED TO BE PRODUCED AS RELEVANT TO
AN INQUIRY AT THE TIME THE SUBPOENA ISSUED CONTINUED RELEVANT SEVERAL
MONTHS LATER.  WE OUGHT NOT TO ASSUME THAT A SUBPOENA WAS PROPER MONTHS
LATER WHEN A PROCEEDING LASTING MORE THAN SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE JUDGE
WHO HAD APPROVED THE SUBPOENA IN THE FIRST INSTANCE PERSUADED HIM THAT
THE CIRCUMSTANCES NO LONGER CALLED FOR CARRYING OUT THE TERMS OF THE
SUBPOENA.  WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE STATED HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
INTERVENING CIRCUMSTANCES HAD RENDERED INAPPROPRIATE THE USE OF HIS
COERCIVE POWERS, COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT GAINSAY THE JUDGE'S
VIEW.  THE FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT COUNSEL TO CONTRADICT THE
INTERPRETATION OF FACTS BY THE COURT DOES NOT PRESENT ANY TECHNICAL
GROUND OF NOT ALLOWING A POINT TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL TO WHICH NO
EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COUNSEL'S SILENCE IS ITS
CONFIRMATION OF THE JUDGE'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  AT
LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRADICTION, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS
BY THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE OF HIS JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. 

ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, JUDGE HALL EXERCISED ALLOWABLE DISCRETION IN
FINDING THAT THE SUBPOENA HAD SPENT ITS FORCE, AND IN CONCLUDING NOT TO
COMPEL OBEDIENCE TO IT.  AT THE SAME TIME, HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING
THAT BECAUSE YOUNG HAD DISOBEYED THE SUBPOENA WHILE IT WAS STILL ALIVE,
HE SHOULD BE FINED AND MADE TO FEEL THAT ONE CANNOT FLOUT A COURT'S
AUTHORITY WITH IMPUNITY. 

THE QUESTION, THEN, IS WHETHER THE COURT COULD IMPOSE WHAT
CONSTITUTED A FINE FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, THAT IS, TO VINDICATE THE LAW
AS SUCH, WITHOUT A FORMAL PLEADING CHARGING YOUNG WITH SUCH
DISOBEDIENCE.  WE DO NOT THINK JUDGE HALL HAD TO DIRECT THE CLERK TO
ISSUE AN ATTACHMENT AGAINST YOUNG TO INFORM HIM OF THAT WHICH HE
OBVIOUSLY KNEW AND WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS HAD MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO
HIM.  THE TRUE SIGNIFICANCE OF OUR OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. UNITED
MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS ARE SUI GENERIS AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH IN THEIR
PRACTICAL INCIDENCE.  THEY ARE NOT TO BE CIRCUMSCRIBED BY PROCEDURAL
FORMALITIES, OR BY TRADITIONAL LIMITATIONS OF WHAT ARE ORDINARILY
CALLED CRIMES, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE OTHER
STANDARDS OF DECENCY AND FAIRNESS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL
JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.  ON THIS RECORD WE FIND NOT THE FAINTEST DENIAL OF
ANY SAFEGUARD OR OF APPROPRIATE PROCEDURAL PROTECTION. 

WE THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE
REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT REINSTATED. 
..END :




HALVEY V. HALVEY, 330 U.S. 610 


NO. 384.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1947.  - 295
N.Y. 836, 66 N.E.2D 851, AFFIRMED. 


AFTER A MAN AND WIFE HAD BEEN MARRIED IN NEW YORK, HAD A CHILD BORN
THERE, AND HAD LIVED THERE SEVEN YEARS, THE WIFE TOOK THE CHILD TO
FLORIDA WITHOUT THE HUSBAND'S CONSENT AND ESTABLISHED A RESIDENCE
THERE.  THE NEXT YEAR, SHE INSTITUTED SUIT FOR DIVORCE IN FLORIDA. 
SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE HUSBAND WAS HAD BY PUBLICATION AND HE MADE NO
APPEARANCE.  THE FLORIDA COURT GRANTED THE WIFE A DIVORCE AND AWARDED
HER PERMANENT CARE, CUSTODY, AND CONTROL OF THE CHILD; BUT, THE DAY
BEFORE THE DECREE WAS GRANTED, THE HUSBAND TOOK THE CHILD TO NEW YORK
WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL OF THE WIFE.  THE WIFE INSTITUTED
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK, CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE
DETENTION OF THE CHILD.  THE NEW YORK COURT ORDERED (1) THAT THE
CUSTODY OF THE CHILD REMAIN WITH THE MOTHER, (2) THAT THE FATHER HAVE
RIGHTS OF VISITATION INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO KEEP THE CHILD WITH HIM
DURING STATED VACATION PERIODS EACH YEAR, AND (3) THAT THE MOTHER GIVE
A SURETY BOND CONDITIONED ON THE DELIVERY OF THE CHILD IN FLORIDA FOR
REMOVAL BY THE FATHER TO NEW YORK FOR THE PERIOD WHEN HE WAS ENTITLED
TO KEEP IT WITH HIM.  HELD:  THE ORDER OF THE NEW YORK COURT DID NOT
FAIL TO GIVE THE FLORIDA DECREE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIRED BY
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 612-616. 

(A)  UNDER FLORIDA LAW, CUSTODY DECREES OF FLORIDA COURTS ORDINARILY
ARE NOT RES JUDICATA IN FLORIDA OR ELSEWHERE, EXCEPT AS TO FACTS BEFORE
THE COURT AT THE TIME OF JUDGMENT.  PP. 612-613. 

(B)  THE FLORIDA COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN EMPOWERED TO MODIFY THE DECREE
IN THE INTERESTS OF THE CHILD AND TO GRANT THE FATHER THE RIGHT OF
VISITATION, HAD HE APPLIED TO IT RATHER THAN THE NEW YORK COURT AND
PRESENTED HIS VERSION OF THE CONTROVERSY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS
APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE FLORIDA DECREE.  PP. 613-614. 

(C)  SO FAR AS THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
IS CONCERNED, WHAT FLORIDA CAN DO IN MODIFYING THE DECREE, NEW YORK
ALSO MAY DO.  PP. 614-615. 

NEW YORK EX REL. HALVEY V. HALVEY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

A FLORIDA COURT HAVING GRANTED A DIVORCE AND AWARDED CUSTODY OF A
CHILD TO A MOTHER AND THE CHILD HAVING BEEN REMOVED TO NEW YORK BY THE
FATHER WITHOUT THE MOTHER'S CONSENT, THE MOTHER INSTITUTED HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK.  THE NEW YORK COURT ORDERED (1) THAT
THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD REMAIN WITH THE MOTHER, (2) THAT THE FATHER
HAVE RIGHTS OF VISITATION INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO KEEP THE CHILD WITH
HIM DURING STATED VACATION PERIODS EACH YEAR, AND (3) THAT THE MOTHER
GIVE A SURETY BOND CONDITIONED ON DELIVERY OF THE CHILD IN FLORIDA FOR
REMOVAL BY THE FATHER TO NEW YORK FOR THE PERIODS WHEN HE WAS ENTITLED
TO KEEP IT WITH HIM.  185 MISC. 52, 55 N.Y.S.2D 761.  BOTH THE
APPELLATE DIVISION, 269 APP. DIV. 1019, 59 N.Y.S.2D 396, AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 295 N.Y. 836, 66 N.E.2D 851.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 697.  AFFIRMED, P. 616. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE HALVEYS WERE MARRIED IN 1937 AND LIVED TOGETHER IN NEW YORK UNTIL
1944.  IN 1938 A SON WAS BORN.  MARITAL TROUBLES DEVELOPED.  IN 1944
MRS. HALVEY, WITHOUT HER HUSBAND'S CONSENT, LEFT HOME WITH THE CHILD,
WENT TO FLORIDA, AND ESTABLISHED HER RESIDENCE THERE.  IN 1945 SHE
INSTITUTED A SUIT FOR DIVORCE IN FLORIDA.  SERVICE OF PROCESS ON MR.
HALVEY WAS HAD BY PUBLICATION, HE MAKING NO APPEARANCE IN THE ACTION. 
THE DAY BEFORE THE FLORIDA DECREE WAS GRANTED, MR. HALVEY, WITHOUT THE
KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL OF HIS WIFE, TOOK THE CHILD BACK TO NEW YORK. 
THE NEXT DAY THE DECREE WAS ENTERED BY THE FLORIDA COURT, GRANTING MRS.
HALVEY A DIVORCE AND AWARDING HER THE PERMANENT CARE, CUSTODY, AND
CONTROL OF THE CHILD. 

THEREUPON SHE BROUGHT THIS HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN THE NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT, CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF MR. HALVEY'S DETENTION OF
THE CHILD.  AFTER HEARING, THE NEW YORK COURT ORDERED (1) THAT THE
CUSTODY OF THE CHILD REMAIN WITH THE MOTHER; (2) THAT THE FATHER HAVE
RIGHTS OF VISITATION INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO KEEP THE CHILD WITH HIM
DURING STATED VACATION PERIODS IN EACH YEAR, AND (3) THAT THE MOTHER
FILE WITH THE COURT A SURETY BOND IN THE SUM OF $5,000, CONDITIONED ON
THE DELIVERY OF THE CHILD IN FLORIDA FOR REMOVAL BY THE FATHER TO NEW
YORK FOR THE PERIODS WHEN HE HAD THE RIGHT TO KEEP THE CHILD WITH HIM. 
185 MISC. 52, 55 N.Y.S. 761.  BOTH THE APPELLATE DIVISION, 269 APP.
DIV. 1019, 59 N.Y.S.2D 396, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, 295 N.Y. 836, 66
N.E.2D 851, AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE IT PRESENTED AN
IMPORTANT PROBLEM UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1. 

THE CUSTODY DECREE WAS NOT IRREVOCABLE AND UNCHANGEABLE; THE FLORIDA
COURT HAD THE POWER TO MODIFY IT AT ALL TIMES.  FN1  UNDER FLORIDA LAW
THE "WELFARE OF THE CHILD" IS THE "CHIEF CONSIDERATION" IN SHAPING THE
CUSTODY DECREE OR IN SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFYING OR CHANGING IT. FRAZIER V.
FRAZIER, 109 FLA. 164, 169, 147 SO. 464, 466; SEE PHILLIPS V. PHILLIPS,
153 FLA. 133, 134-135, 13 SO.2D 922, 923.  BUT "THE INHERENT RIGHTS OF
PARENTS TO ENJOY THE SOCIETY AND ASSOCIATION OF THEIR OFFSPRING, WITH
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPRESS UPON THEM A FATHER'S OR A MOTHER'S
LOVE AND AFFECTION IN THEIR UPBRINGING, MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING OF AN
EQUALLY IMPORTANT, IF NOT CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION IN ADJUSTING THE
RIGHT OF CUSTODY AS BETWEEN PARENTS IN ORDINARY CASES."  FRAZIER V.
FRAZIER, 109 FLA., P. 169, 147 SO., P. 466.  FACTS WHICH HAVE ARISEN
SINCE THE ORIGINAL DECREE ARE ONE BASIS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE CUSTODY
DECREE.  FRAZIER V. FRAZIER, 109 FLA., P. 168, 147 SO., P. 465; JONES
V. JONES, 156 FLA. 524, 527, 23 SO.2D 623, 625.  BUT THE POWER IS NOT
SO RESTRICTED.  IT WAS HELD IN MEADOWS V. MEADOWS, 78 FLA. 576, 83 SO.
392-393, THAT "THE PROPER CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD IS A PROPER
SUBJECT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CHANCELLOR AT ANY TIME, EVEN IF FACTS
IN ISSUE COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AT A PREVIOUS HEARING, IF SUCH
FACTS WERE NOT PRESENTED OR CONSIDERED AT A FORMER HEARING."  OR, AS
STATED IN FRAZIER V. FRAZIER, 109 FLA., P. 168, 147 SO., P. 465, A
CUSTODY DECREE "IS NOT TO BE MATERIALLY AMENDED OR CHANGED AFTERWARD,
UNLESS ON ALTERED CONDITIONS SHOWN TO HAVE ARISEN SINCE THE DECREE, OR
BECAUSE OF MATERIAL FACTS BEARING ON THE QUESTION OF CUSTODY AND
EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE DECREE, BUT WHICH WERE UNKNOWN TO THE COURT
AND THEN ONLY FOR THE WELFARE OF THE CHILD."  THE RESULT IS THAT
CUSTODY DECREES OF FLORIDA COURTS ARE ORDINARILY NOT RES JUDICATA
EITHER IN FLORIDA OR ELSEWHERE, EXCEPT AS TO THE FACTS BEFORE THE COURT
AT THE TIME OF JUDGMENT.  MINICK V. MINICK, 111 FLA. 469, 490-491, 149
SO. 483, 492. 

RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR IN THE FLORIDA PROCEEDING.  WHAT EVIDENCE
WAS ADDUCED IN THAT PROCEEDING BEARING ON THE WELFARE OF THE CHILD DOES
NOT APPEAR.  BUT WE KNOW THAT THE FLORIDA COURT DID NOT SEE RESPONDENT
NOR HEAR EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON HIS BEHALF CONCERNING HIS FITNESS OR HIS
CLAIM "TO ENJOY THE SOCIETY AND ASSOCIATION" OF HIS SON.  FRAZIER V.
FRAZIER, 109 FLA., P. 169, 147 SO., P. 466.  IT SEEMS TO US PLAIN,
THEREFORE, THAT UNDER THE RULE OF MEADOWS V. MEADOWS, SUPRA, THE
FLORIDA COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN EMPOWERED TO MODIFY THE DECREE IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE CHILD AND TO GRANT RESPONDENT THE RIGHT OF VISITATION,
IF HE HAD APPLIED TO IT RATHER THAN TO THE NEW YORK COURT AND HAD
PRESENTED HIS VERSION OF THE CONTROVERSY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS
APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION. 

SO FAR AS THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS CONCERNED, WHAT FLORIDA
COULD DO IN MODIFYING THE DECREE, NEW YORK MAY DO.  ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1
OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN
IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF
EVERY OTHER STATE.  AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE
MANNER IN WHICH SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND
THE EFFECT THEREOF."  CONGRESS BY THE ACT OF MAY 26, 1790, C. 11, AS
AMENDED, R.S. SEC. 905, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687 DECLARED THAT JUDGMENTS
"SHALL HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN."  THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT THIS
COMMAND REQUIRES THE JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE TO BE GIVEN FULL, NOT
PARTIAL, CREDIT IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM.  SEE DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305
U.S. 32; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287.  BUT A JUDGMENT HAS
NO CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM TO A MORE CONCLUSIVE OR FINAL EFFECT IN THE
STATE OF THE FORUM THAN IT HAS IN THE STATE WHERE RENDERED.  SEE
REYNOLDS V. STOCKTON, 140 U.S. 254, 264.  IF THE COURT OF THE STATE
WHICH RENDERED THE JUDGMENT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OR THE
SUBJECT MATTER, THE JURISDICTIONAL INFIRMITY IS NOT SAVED BY THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  SEE THOMPSON V. WHITMAN, 18 WALL.  457;
GRIFFIN V. GRIFFIN, 327 U.S. 220.  AND IF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE UNDER A
DECREE - AS IN THE CASE OF A JUDGMENT FOR ALIMONY - IS DISCRETIONARY
WITH THE COURT WHICH RENDERED IT, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT DOES NOT
PROTECT THE JUDGMENT.  SISTARE V. SISTARE, 218 U.S. 1, 17.  WHATEVER
MAY BE THE AUTHORITY OF A STATE TO UNDERMINE A JUDGMENT OF A SISTER
STATE ON GROUNDS NOT COGNIZABLE IN THE STATE WHERE THE JUDGMENT WAS
RENDERED (CF. WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226, 230), IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE STATE OF THE FORUM HAS AT LEAST AS MUCH LEEWAY TO
DISREGARD THE JUDGMENT, TO QUALIFY IT, OR TO DEPART FROM IT AS DOES THE
STATE WHERE IT WAS RENDERED. 

IN THIS CASE THE NEW YORK COURT, HAVING THE CHILD AND BOTH PARENTS
BEFORE IT, HAD A FULL HEARING AND DETERMINED THAT THE WELFARE OF THE
CHILD AND THE INTERESTS OF THE FATHER WARRANTED A MODIFICATION OF THE
CUSTODY DECREE.  IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE NEW YORK COURT IN MODIFYING
THE FLORIDA DECREE EXCEEDED THE LIMITS PERMITTED UNDER FLORIDA LAW. 
THERE IS THEREFORE A FAILURE OF PROOF THAT THE FLORIDA DECREE RECEIVED
LESS CREDIT IN NEW YORK THAN IT HAD IN FLORIDA. 

THE NARROW GROUND ON WHICH WE REST THE DECISION MAKES IT UNNECESSARY
FOR US TO CONSIDER SEVERAL OTHER QUESTIONS ARGUED, E.G., WHETHER
FLORIDA AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL DECREE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE
CHILD,  FN2  THE FATHER HAVING REMOVED HIM FROM THE STATE AFTER THE
PROCEEDINGS STARTED BUT BEFORE THE DECREE WAS ENTERED; WHETHER IN
ABSENCE OF PERSONAL SERVICE THE FLORIDA DECREE OF CUSTODY HAD ANY
BINDING EFFECT ON THE HUSBAND; WHETHER THE POWER OF NEW YORK TO MODIFY
THE CUSTODY DECREE WAS GREATER THAN FLORIDA'S POWER; WHETHER THE STATE
WHICH HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CHILD MAY, REGARDLESS OF A CUSTODY
DECREE RENDERED BY ANOTHER STATE, MAKE SUCH ORDERS CONCERNING CUSTODY
AS THE WELFARE OF THE CHILD FROM TIME TO TIME REQUIRES.  ON ALL THESE
PROBLEMS WE RESERVE DECISION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "IN ANY SUIT FOR DIVORCE OR ALIMONY, THE COURT SHALL HAVE POWER
AT ANY STAGE OF THE CAUSE TO MAKE SUCH ORDERS TOUCHING THE CARE,
CUSTODY AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CHILDREN OF THE MARRIAGE, AND WHAT, IF
ANY, SECURITY TO BE GIVEN FOR THE SAME, AS FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE PARTIES AND THE NATURE OF THE CASE MAY BE FIT, EQUITABLE AND JUST,
AND SUCH ORDER TOUCHING THEIR CUSTODY AS THEIR BEST SPIRITUAL AS WELL
AS OTHER INTERESTS MAY REQUIRE."  FLA. STATS. (1941) SEC. 65.14. 

FN2  THE LEGAL DOMICILE OF THE CHILD IS USUALLY THE DOMICILE OF HIS
FATHER.  MINICK V. MINICK, 111 FLA., P. 490, 149 SO., P. 492; DORMAN V.
FRIENDLY, 146 FLA. 732, 738, 1 SO.2D 734, 736.  THE POWER OF THE
FLORIDA COURTS TO AWARD CUSTODY OF A CHILD IS DEPENDENT EITHER ON THE
CHILD BEING LEGALLY DOMICILED IN FLORIDA OR PHYSICALLY PRESENT THERE. 
DORMAN V. FRIENDLY, SUPRA; STATE EX REL. CLARK V. CLARK, 148 FLA. 452,
4 SO.2D 517. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
RECORD BEFORE US DOES NOT SHOW JURISDICTION IN THE FLORIDA COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

CONFLICTS ARISING OUT OF FAMILY RELATIONS RAISE PROBLEMS AND INVOLVE
CONSIDERATIONS VERY DIFFERENT FROM CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH DEBTOR
CREDITOR RELATIONS GIVE RISE.  SUCH CARDINAL DIFFERENCES IN LIFE ARE
PROPERLY REFLECTED IN LAW.  AND SO, THE USE OF THE SAME LEGAL WORDS AND
PHRASES IN ENFORCING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR JUDGMENTS INVOLVING THE
TWO TYPES OF RELATIONS OUGHT NOT TO OBLITERATE THE GREAT DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE INTERESTS AFFECTED BY THEM, AND SHOULD NOT LEAD TO AN
IRRELEVANT IDENTITY IN RESULT. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY FORMULATED BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE CANNOT BE FITTED INTO TIGHT LITTLE CATEGORIES OR TOO ABSTRACT
GENERALITIES.  THAT POLICY WAS THE NATION-WIDE RESTRICTION OF
LITIGIOUSNESS, TO THE EXTENT THAT STATES, AUTONOMOUS FOR CERTAIN
PURPOSES, SHOULD NOT BE EXPLOITED TO PERMIT REPETITIVE LITIGATION.  IN
SUBSTANCE, THE FRAMERS DEEMED IT AGAINST THE NATIONAL WELFARE FOR A
CONTROVERSY THAT WAS TRULY LITIGATED IN ONE STATE TO BE RELITIGATED IN
ANOTHER.  SUCH LIMITATION DOES NOT FORECLOSE INQUIRY INTO WHAT WAS
LITIGATED AND WHAT WAS ADJUDICATED.  THE SCOPE OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE IS BOUNDED BY ITS UNDERLYING POLICY AND NOT BY PROCEDURAL
CONSIDERATIONS UNRELATED TO IT.  THUS, IN JUDGMENTS AFFECTING DOMESTIC
RELATIONS TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF "FINALITY" AS TO ALIMONY AND CUSTODY
SEEM TO ME IRRELEVANT IN DECIDING THE RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED BY A STATE
TO A VALID PRIOR JUDGMENT TOUCHING CUSTODY AND ALIMONY RENDERED BY
ANOTHER STATE.  SEE THE CONCURRING OPINION IN BARBER V. BARBER, 323
U.S. 77, 86, AND THE DISSENTING OPINIONS IN GRIFFIN V. GRIFFIN, 327
U.S. 220, AT 236 AND 248.  COMPARE YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S.
202. 

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE PRESENT CASE.  IF THERE WERE NO QUESTION AS TO
THE POWER OF FLORIDA TO PROVIDE FOR THE CUSTODY OF THIS CHILD IN THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE FLORIDA DECREE OF DIVORCE DID, I THINK NEW YORK
WOULD HAVE TO RESPECT WHAT FLORIDA DECREED, UNLESS CHANGED CONDITIONS
AFFECTING THE WELFARE OF THE CHILD CALLED FOR A CHANGE IN CUSTODIAL
CARE.  NEW YORK COULD RESPOND TO SUCH CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE
CHILD'S WELFARE MUST BE THE CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION WHENEVER A COURT
WHICH CAN ACTUALLY LAY HOLD OF A CHILD IS APPEALED TO ON BEHALF OF THE
CHILD.  SHORT OF THAT, A VALID CUSTODIAL DECREE BY FLORIDA COULD NOT BE
SET ASIDE SIMPLY BECAUSE A NEW YORK COURT, ON INDEPENDENT
CONSIDERATION, HAS ITS OWN VIEW OF WHAT CUSTODY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. 

HERE THE LOWER NEW YORK COURT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE CHILD'S CUSTODY
ON THE BASIS OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES.  WHILE IT PROFESSED TO RESPECT
THE FLORIDA CUSTODY DECREE, THE COURT ACTED AS THOUGH IT HAD
INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF THE DISPERSION OF THE FAMILY.  ITS
ACTION SEEMED TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE FATHER'S RIGHT, ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THAT WAS THE TEST OF THE CHILD'S WELFARE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 
THE ORDER OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION,
BUT THAT COURT SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT IT DID "NOT ADOPT IN THEIR
ENTIRETY THE VIEWS EXPRESSED" BY THE COURT BELOW.  THE INTERMEDIATE
TRIBUNAL WAS, IN TURN, AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  OF COURSE, IF
THE FLORIDA DECREE IS ENTITLED TO NO RESPECT, IT IS NOT FOR US TO UPSET
THE CUSTODIAL PROVISIONS SANCTIONED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF NEW YORK. 
ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT AFFORDED THE GUIDANCE THAT AN OPINION WOULD GIVE AS
TO THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MOVED THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS TO
SUSTAIN THE CUSTODIAL DECREE, ON THE SLIM RECORD BEFORE US I AM NOT
JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS WAS UNMINDFUL
OF ITS DUTY UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO RESPECT A VALID
FLORIDA JUDGMENT.    IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT
SHOULD STAND OR FALL ACCOUNT MUST BE TAKEN OF TWO COMPETING
CONSIDERATIONS.  THERE IS FIRST THE PRESUMPTIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT OF A SISTER STATE - HERE FLORIDA - TO RENDER THE JUDGMENT FOR
WHICH FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IS ASKED.  THE OTHER IS THE POWER OF A
STATE COURT - HERE NEW YORK - WHICH HAS ACTUAL CONTROL OF THE CHILD TO
MAKE PROVISION FOR THE CHILD'S WELFARE.  WHERE, AS HERE, BOTH
CONSIDERATIONS CANNOT PREVAIL ONE MUST YIELD.  SINCE THE JURISDICTION
OF THE FLORIDA COURT IN MAKING THE CUSTODIAL DECREE IS DOUBTFUL, NEW
YORK WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING ITS POWER IN THE INTEREST OF THE
CHILD.  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226. 

A CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THE PRECISE ISSUE BEFORE US SEEMS TO ME TO
REQUIRE THIS CONCLUSION.  THE PROBLEM BEFORE THIS COURT IS THE VALIDITY
OF A NEW YORK JUDGMENT PROVIDING FOR THE CUSTODY OF A CHILD SUBJECT TO
ITS JURISDICTION BECAUSE WITHIN ITS POWER.  IT IS OUR DUTY TO SUSTAIN
THAT JUDGMENT UNLESS THERE IS CLEAR GROUND FOR UPSETTING IT.  APART
FROM THE EFFECT OF WHAT FLORIDA HAD PREVIOUSLY DONE, NEW YORK'S
AUTHORITY TO ENTER THIS JUDGMENT IS UNQUESTIONED.  NEW YORK'S POWER IS
QUALIFIED ONLY BY HER DUTY UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO
RESPECT A FLORIDA JUDGMENT.  BUT THIS DUTY ARISES ONLY IF THERE WAS
LEGAL POWER IN THE FLORIDA COURT TO ENTER THE CUSTODIAL DECREE, AND IF
IN THE FLORIDA COURTS THEMSELVES THE DECREE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE KIND
OF MODIFICATION WHICH NEW YORK HERE MADE.  ON THE BASIS OF THE MEAGER
RECORD BEFORE US AND IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTIES OF FLORIDA LAW, WE DO
NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY ASSURANCE THAT FLORIDA HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE
THE CUSTODIAL DECREE, OR THAT THE FLORIDA COURTS COULD NOT ENTER A
MODIFYING DECREE PRECISELY LIKE THE NEW YORK DECREE BEFORE US.  SO LONG
AS THERE IS THIS UNCERTAINTY, WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT NEW
YORK'S JUDGMENT WAS VITIATED BECAUSE OF A FAILURE IN HER DUTY UNDER THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  A FULL RECORD OF THE FLORIDA PROCEEDINGS
IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE FLORIDA LAW, MORE SECURELY ASCERTAINED THAN
BY OUR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY, MIGHT LEAD TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  AS
IT IS, I CONCUR IN AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE JUDGMENT DUBITANTE, IN THE VIEW THAT UNDER FLORIDA LAW
RES JUDICATA HAS NO APPLICATION TO AN AWARD OF CUSTODY  FN1  AND THE
DECREE THEREFORE IS LACKING IN ANY QUALITY OF FINALITY WHICH WOULD
PREVENT THE COURT RENDERING IT, OR ANOTHER ACQUIRING JURISDICTION OF
THE CHILD'S STATUS, FROM ALTERING IT.  FN2 

THE RESULT SEEMS UNFORTUNATE IN THAT, APPARENTLY, IT MAY MAKE
POSSIBLE A CONTINUING ROUND OF LITIGATION OVER CUSTODY, PERHAPS ALSO OF
ABDUCTION, BETWEEN ALIENATED PARENTS.  THAT CONSEQUENCE HARDLY CAN BE
THOUGHT CONDUCIVE TO THE CHILD'S WELFARE.  AND, IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD
AVOID SUCH A DISTRESSING RESULT, SINCE I THINK THAT THE CONTROLLING
CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, NOT ONLY FOR
DISPOSING OF SUCH CASES AS A MATTER OF LOCAL POLICY, AS IT IS IN
FLORIDA AND NEW YORK,  FN3  BUT ALSO FOR FORMULATING FEDERAL POLICIES
OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AS WELL AS OF JURISDICTION AND DUE PROCESS IN
RELATION TO SUCH DISPOSITIONS. 

I AM NOT SURE BUT THAT THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION MAY BE THAT THE
MOTHER, ONCE THE CHILD HAS BEEN RETURNED TO FLORIDA,  FN4  WILL THEN BE
ABLE TO SECURE ANOTHER DECREE THERE NULLIFYING THE FATHER'S RIGHTS OF
VISITATION AND CUSTODY GIVEN BY THE NEW YORK DECREE,  FN5  OR THAT IN
SUCH AN EVENT HE MIGHT LAWFULLY REPEAT THE ABDUCTION AND SECURE
RESTORATION OF THOSE RIGHTS IN NEW YORK.  IF SO, THE EFFECT OF THE
DECISION MAY BE TO SET UP AN UNSEEMLY LITIGIOUS COMPETITION BETWEEN THE
STATES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COURTS AS WELL AS BETWEEN PARENTS. 
SOMETIME, SOMEHOW, THERE SHOULD BE AN END TO LITIGATION IN SUCH
MATTERS. 

BUT OUR FUNCTION HERE IS LIMITED TO APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE.  I AGREE THAT TECHNICAL NOTIONS OF FINALITY APPLIED
GENERALLY TO OTHER TYPES OF JUDGMENT FOR SUCH PURPOSES HAVE NO PROPER
STRICT APPLICATION TO THESE DECREES.  FN6  BUT, EVEN SO, FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT IS CONCERNED WITH FINALITY AND ONLY WITH FINALITY WHEN THE
QUESTION ARISES IN RELATION TO THE BINDING EFFECTS OF JUDGMENTS.  AND
THE LAW IS CLEARLY SETTLED THAT WHILE GENERALLY THE CLAUSE REQUIRES
OTHER STATES TO GIVE JUDGMENTS AS MUCH EFFECT AS THEY HAVE WHERE
RENDERED, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO GIVE MORE.  FN7 

ACCORDINGLY, IF THE STATE RENDERING THE JUDGMENT GIVES IT NO FINAL
EFFECT TO PREVENT ITS ALTERATION, I AM UNABLE TO SEE HOW OTHERS HAVING
JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER MAY BE REQUIRED TO
GIVE IT FINALITY IN THIS RESPECT BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISION FOR FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT.  FN8  BUT THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO REQUIRE, IN
VIEW OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA LAW, IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT NEW YORK COULD
NOT MAKE THE CHANGES WHICH WERE INCORPORATED IN ITS JUDGMENT. 

WHETHER FLORIDA WILL BE BOUND TO OBSERVE THOSE CHANGES, IN THE EVENT
OF ANOTHER APPLICATION BY MRS. HALVEY, IS A QUESTION UPON WHICH HOWEVER
I DESIRE TO RESERVE JUDGMENT, ALONG WITH THE OTHER QUESTIONS RESERVED
IN THE COURT'S OPINION. 

FN1  IN MINICK V. MINICK, 111 FLA. 469, 491, THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT QUOTED WITH APPROVAL THE STATEMENT IN SCHOULER ON MARRIAGE AND
DIVORCE (6TH ED.)  SEC.  1896:  "THESE JUDGMENTS (OF CUSTODY) ARE
NECESSARILY PROVISIONAL AND TEMPORARY IN CHARACTER, AND ARE ORDINARILY
NOT RES JUDICATA, EITHER IN THE SAME COURT OR THAT OF A FOREIGN
JURISDICTION, EXCEPT AS TO FACTS BEFORE THE COURT AT THE TIME OF THE
JUDGMENT."  SEE ALSO MEADOWS V. MEADOWS, 78 FLA. 576. 

FN2  THE TRIAL COURT IN NEW YORK GAVE LIP SERVICE TO OBSERVING THE
FLORIDA AWARD OF CUSTODY TO THE MOTHER, BUT AWARDED THE FATHER RIGHTS
"OF VISITATION" NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE FLORIDA DECREE; AND THESE
INCLUDED NOT ONLY VISITATION DURING SPECIFIED HOURS WHILE THE CHILD IS
TO REMAIN IN THE MOTHER'S CUSTODY, BUT ALSO THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE
CUSTODY DURING MORE THAN THREE MONTHS OF EACH YEAR, DURING WHICH TIME
THE MOTHER WAS GIVEN SPECIFIED VISITING RIGHTS.  THE NEW YORK APPELLATE
COURTS AFFIRMED THE AWARD AS MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT. 

FN3  SEE FLA. STAT. ANN. (1943) SEC. 65.14; JONES V. JONES, 156 FLA.
524, 527; GREEN V. GREEN, 137 FLA. 359, 361. 

SEE MATTER OF RICH V. KAMINSKY, 254 APP. DIV. 6; MATTER OF BULL, 266
APP. DIV. 290, AFF'D, 291 N.Y. 792; SEE ALSO N.Y. DOMESTIC RELATIONS
LAW SEC. 70; FINLAY V. FINLAY, 240 N.Y. 429, 433. 

FN4  THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT PERMITS THE MOTHER TO TAKE THE CHILD TO
FLORIDA DURING THE TIME SHE IS TO HAVE CUSTODY, SEE NOTE 2, BUT
REQUIRES HER TO GIVE A SURETY BOND CONDITIONED UPON HER SURRENDERING
THE CHILD TO THE FATHER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED FOR
HIS HAVING CUSTODY. 

THE MOTHER THEREFORE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE NEW YORK DECREE MAY
LAWFULLY REMOVE THE CHILD TO FLORIDA.  ONCE HE IS PHYSICALLY AND
LAWFULLY PRESENT THERE, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE COURTS OF THAT STATE
WOULD BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER HIS STATUS AND TO MAKE
FURTHER AWARDS CONCERNING IT, UNLESS INDEED PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS
UPON THE FATHER IS REQUIRED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

FN5  SEE NOTES 2, 4.  THE QUESTION WOULD REMAIN WHETHER THE FLORIDA
COURTS BY MAKING A FURTHER DECREE COULD RELIEVE THE MOTHER OF THE
COMPULSION OF THE SURETY BOND. 

FN6  SEE THE OPINION DISSENTING IN PART IN GRIFFIN V. GRIFFIN, 327
U.S. 220, AT 247; ALSO THE CONCURRING OPINION IN BARBER V. BARBER, 323
U.S. 77, AT 86. 

FN7  REV. STAT. SEC. 905, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687, AND CASES CITED IN
GRIFFIN V. GRIFFIN, 327 U.S. 220, 236, NOTE 1. 

FN8  COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE SUGGESTED THAT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BE
GIVEN TO CUSTODY DECREES HAVE ASSUMED THAT SUCH AWARDS COULD BE
MODIFIED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF NEW FACTS OCCURRING SUBSEQUENT TO THE
ORIGINAL CUSTODY DECREE.  SEE, E.G., EFFECT OF CUSTODY DECREE IN A
STATE OTHER THAN WHERE RENDERED (1933) 81 U. PA. L. REV. 970, 972.  AS
THE OPINION OF THE COURT POINTS OUT, THE POWER OF FLORIDA TO MODIFY
SUCH A DECREE IS NOT LIMITED TO CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCE.  SEE ALSO NOTE
1. 
..END :




















INDUSTRIAL COMM'N V. MCCARTIN, 330 U.S. 622 


NO. 270.  ARGUED JANUARY 17, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1947.  - 248
WIS. 570, 22 N.W.2D 522, REVERSED. 


AN EMPLOYEE WAS INJURED IN WISCONSIN WHILE WORKING UNDER AN ILLINOIS
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WHILE BOTH HE AND HIS EMPLOYER WERE
RESIDENTS OF ILLINOIS.  HE APPLIED TO THE WISCONSIN INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIM AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER APPLIED TO
THE ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, STATING THAT THE GENERAL NATURE OF
THE DISPUTE WAS, "WHETHER ILLINOIS OR WISCONSIN HAS JURISDICTION IN MY
CASE."  A SETTLEMENT CONTRACT EXPRESSLY RESERVING ANY RIGHT THE
EMPLOYEE "MAY HAVE" UNDER THE WISCONSIN ACT WAS FILED WITH THE ILLINOIS
COMMISSION, WHICH APPROVED IT AND ISSUED A FORMAL SETTLEMENT ORDER. 
AFTER FULL PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT AWARDED IN ILLINOIS HAD BEEN MADE, THE
WISCONSIN COMMISSION AWARDED THE EMPLOYEE CERTAIN BENEFITS, LESS THE
AMOUNT RECEIVED UNDER THE ILLINOIS AWARD.  HELD:  THE ILLINOIS AWARD IS
FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ONLY AS TO RIGHTS ARISING IN ILLINOIS, AND
WISCONSIN IS FREE UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO AWARD
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN ACCORD WITH ITS OWN LAWS.  MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 626-630. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT THE ILLINOIS STATUTE EXPRESSLY APPLIES TO PERSONS
WHOSE EMPLOYMENT IS OUTSIDE THE STATE (WHERE THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
IS MADE IN ILLINOIS) AND PRECLUDES RECOVERY UNDER ANY "COMMON LAW OR
STATUTORY RIGHT" DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY UNDER THE WISCONSIN STATUTE,
BECAUSE THE ILLINOIS STATUTE HAD BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS AS ABOLISHING RIGHTS OF ACTION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER UNDER
THE ILLINOIS COMMON LAW OR UNDER THE ILLINOIS PERSONAL INJURIES ACT AND
CONTAINED NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY EXCLUSIVE OR WAS
DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE ANY RECOVERY UNDER PROCEEDINGS IN ANOTHER STATE
FOR INJURIES RECEIVED THERE IN THE COURSE OF AN ILLINOIS EMPLOYMENT. 
PP. 627-628. 

(B)  THE PROVISION IN THE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT SAVING THE RIGHTS OF
THE EMPLOYEE IN WISCONSIN BECAME A PART OF THE ILLINOIS AWARD, WHICH
HAD BECOME FINAL.  THEREFORE, THE ILLINOIS AWARD DID NOT FORECLOSE AN
ADDITIONAL AWARD UNDER THE LAWS OF WISCONSIN.  PP. 628-630. 

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN ET AL. V. MCCARTIN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

AN EMPLOYEE INJURED IN WISCONSIN WHILE WORKING UNDER AN ILLINOIS
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WHILE BOTH HE AND HIS EMPLOYER WERE
RESIDENTS OF ILLINOIS ACCEPTED SETTLEMENT UNDER THE ILLINOIS WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, RESERVING ANY RIGHTS HE MIGHT HAVE UNDER THE
WISCONSIN COMPENSATION ACT, AND LATER OBTAINED AN AWARD FOR ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS UNDER THE WISCONSIN ACT.  A WISCONSIN COURT SET ASIDE THE
WISCONSIN AWARD AND THIS ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
WISCONSIN.  248 WIS. 570, 22 N.W.2D 522.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 696.  REVERSED, P. 630. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, THIS COURT HAD
OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE AWARDS ARE SOUGHT UNDER THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS OF TWO STATES.  THIS CASE PRESENTS ANOTHER
FACET OF THAT PROBLEM. 

THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.  LEO THOMAS KOPP WORKED AS A BRICKLAYER FOR
E. E. MCCARTIN.  BOTH WERE RESIDENTS OF ILLINOIS.  PURSUANT TO A
CONTRACT MADE IN ILLINOIS, KOPP WORKED FOR MCCARTIN ON A BUILDING JOB
IN WISCONSIN.  HE DROVE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN HIS HOME IN ILLINOIS AND
HIS WORK IN WISCONSIN.  WHILE THUS EMPLOYED IN WISCONSIN, KOPP SUFFERED
AN INJURY TO HIS LEFT EYE.  ON JUNE 7, 1943, HE FILED AN APPLICATION
FOR ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIM WITH THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN. 
MCCARTIN AND HIS INSURANCE CARRIER ENTERED AN OBJECTION TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE WISCONSIN COMMISSION TO HEAR THE CLAIM.  THEN ON
JULY 20, 1943, KOPP FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIM WITH
THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS, IN WHICH THE GENERAL NATURE OF
THE DISPUTE WAS GIVEN AS "WHETHER ILLINOIS OR WISCONSIN HAS
JURISDICTION IN MY CASE." 

UNDER DATE OF OCTOBER 11, 1943, THE WISCONSIN COMMISSION WROTE THE
INSURANCE CARRIER THAT KOPP HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT, SO FAR AS WISCONSIN
LAW WAS CONCERNED, HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED UNDER THE ILLINOIS
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (ILL. REV. STAT. 1943, CH. 48, SECS. 138
172) AND THEREAFTER CLAIM COMPENSATION UNDER THE WISCONSIN WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT (WIS. STAT. 1945, CH. 102), WITH CREDIT TO BE GIVEN
FOR THE AMOUNT PAID HIM PURSUANT TO THE ILLINOIS ACT.  A COPY OF THIS
LETTER WAS SENT TO KOPP.  COUNSEL FOR THE INSURANCE CARRIER REPLIED ON
NOVEMBER 3, 1943.  IT WAS THERE STATED THAT THE INSURANCE CARRIER
UNDERSTOOD THAT IF PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY IT TO KOPP UNDER THE ILLINOIS
STATUTE CREDIT WOULD BE GIVEN FOR THOSE PAYMENTS IN THE EVENT AN AWARD
WAS MADE TO KOPP UNDER THE WISCONSIN ACT; AND WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING,
THE INSURANCE CARRIER WAS PROCEEDING TO PAY KOPP COMPENSATION UNDER THE
ILLINOIS STATUTE. 

ON NOVEMBER 3, 1943, A SETTLEMENT CONTRACT WAS SIGNED BY KOPP AND
MCCARTIN.  THE PARTIES THEREIN AGREED THAT THE SUM OF $2,112 WAS TO BE
PAID TO KOPP IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS ARISING
OUT OF KOPP'S INJURY BY VIRTUE OF THE ILLINOIS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
ACT.  THE CONTRACT ALSO STATED:  "THIS SETTLEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT ANY
RIGHTS THAT APPLICANT MAY HAVE UNDER THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN." 

THE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT AND A PETITION BY KOPP THAT THE AMOUNT DUE BE
PAID TO HIM IN A LUMP SUM WERE FILED WITH THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION ON
NOVEMBER 29, 1943.  A HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE A COMMISSIONER ON
DECEMBER 3, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ATTENTION WAS CALLED TO THE
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS IN WISCONSIN.  THE PRESIDING COMMISSIONER
INFORMED KOPP THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT EFFECT THE RESERVATION HAD OR
WHAT KOPP'S RIGHTS WERE UNDER THE WISCONSIN STATUTE.  KOPP REPLIED THAT
HE WOULD APPRECIATE RECEIVING THE LUMP SUM UNDER THE ILLINOIS LAW AND
THAT HE WOULD "TAKE CHANCES ON WISCONSIN."  FOLLOWING THE HEARING, THE
COMMISSIONER APPROVED THE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT AND THE PETITION FOR A
LUMP SUM PAYMENT.  KOPP RECEIVED PAYMENT ON DECEMBER 7 IN THE AMOUNT
SPECIFIED IN THE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT PLUS A SMALL ADDITIONAL SUM FOR
TEMPORARY DISABILITY.  THEREAFTER, ON JANUARY 10, 1944, A FORMAL ORDER
WAS ENTERED BY THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION DIRECTING PAYMENT OF THE LUMP
SUM OF $2,112.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ENTRY OF THIS LATER ORDER,
AFTER PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE IN FACT, ARE NOT DISCLOSED.  NO PETITION TO
REVIEW THE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT OR LUMP SUM PAYMENT WAS FILED AND NO
ACTION TO SECURE A REVIEW OF THE FORMAL ORDER WAS TAKEN. 

IN THE MEANTIME, ON DECEMBER 20, 1943, THIS COURT'S DECISION IN
MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, SUPRA, WAS RENDERED.  THE WISCONSIN
COMMISSION THEN HELD A HEARING ON FEBRUARY 20, 1944, ON KOPP'S
APPLICATION BEFORE IT.  MCCARTIN AND THE INSURANCE CARRIER FILED AN
AMENDED ANSWER, CONTENDING THAT UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
THE WISCONSIN PROCEEDINGS WERE BARRED BY THE AWARD AND PAYMENT UNDER
THE ILLINOIS ACT; RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO.
CASE.  THE COMMISSION OVERRULED THIS OBJECTION AND ORDERED THE PAYMENT
TO KOPP OF CERTAIN BENEFITS, AFTER GIVING CREDIT FOR THE SUMS PAID
UNDER THE ILLINOIS ACT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN, SET ASIDE THE WISCONSIN
COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO.
CASE.  ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN AFFIRMED THE LOWER
COURT'S JUDGMENT ON THE SAME AUTHORITY.  248 WIS. 570, 22 N.W.2D 522. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE, AS INTERPRETED IN THE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. CASE,
TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 

IT IS CLEAR, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PRIOR AWARD IN WISCONSIN, THAT THE
COMPENSATION PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE UNDER THE ILLINOIS WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROPER FROM THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT STANDPOINT.  ILLINOIS WAS THE STATE WHERE THE PARTIES ENTERED
INTO THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND ITS LEGITIMATE CONCERN WITH THAT
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP PERMITTED IT TO APPLY ITS OWN STATUTE
EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY OCCURRED ELSEWHERE.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 294 U.S. 532; CARDILLO V. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INS. CO., 330 U.S. 469.  AT THE SAME TIME, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE
ACCIDENT TOOK PLACE IN WISCONSIN, ANY FULL FAITH AND CREDIT QUESTIONS
THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RAISED HAD COMPENSATION FIRST BEEN AWARDED UNDER
THE WISCONSIN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT ARE ANSWERED BY PACIFIC
EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493. 
THE TROUBLESOME PROBLEM THAT ARISES HERE IS WHETHER THE COMPENSATION
PAID UNDER THE ILLINOIS STATUTE RAISES A FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BAR TO A
SUBSEQUENT AWARD IN WISCONSIN FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. 

IF IT WERE APPARENT THAT THE ILLINOIS AWARD WAS INTENDED TO BE FINAL
AND CONCLUSIVE OF ALL THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS AGAINST THE EMPLOYER AND
THE INSURER GROWING OUT OF THE INJURY, THE DECISION IN THE MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM CO. CASE WOULD BE CONTROLLING HERE.  THE COURT THERE FOUND
THAT THE COMPENSATION AWARD UNDER THE TEXAS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW
WAS MADE EXPLICITLY IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO THE
EMPLOYEE, PRECLUDING EVEN A RECOVERY UNDER THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE. 
SEE BRADFORD ELEC.  CO. V. CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, 153.  AND SINCE THE
TEXAS AWARD HAD THE DEGREE OF FINALITY CONTEMPLATED BY THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE, IT WAS HELD THAT LOUISIANA WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY
FORBIDDEN FROM ENTERING A SUBSEQUENT AWARD UNDER ITS STATUTE.  BUT WE
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SAME SITUATION EXISTS IN THIS CASE, THE
ILLINOIS AWARD BEING DIFFERENT IN ITS NATURE AND EFFECT FROM THE TEXAS
AWARD IN THE MAGNOLIA CASE. 

THE ILLINOIS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT WAS CONCEDEDLY APPLICABLE
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  SECTION 3 OF THAT ACT PROVIDES
THAT IT SHALL APPLY AUTOMATICALLY AND WITHOUT ELECTION TO ALL EMPLOYERS
AND EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN BUSINESSES OR ENTERPRISES SUCH AS THOSE
INVOLVING THE ERECTION OR CONSTRUCTION OF ANY STRUCTURE.  AT THE TIME
WHEN HE WAS INJURED, KOPP WAS DOING MASON WORK FOR HIS EMPLOYER IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ERECTION OF HOUSES.  SECTION 5 THEN PROVIDES THAT
THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" INCLUDES THOSE PERSONS "WHOSE EMPLOYMENT IS OUTSIDE
OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS WHERE THE CONTRACT OF HIRE IS MADE WITHIN THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS  ..."  KOPP WAS SUCH AN EMPLOYEE, HAVING BEEN HIRED
IN ILLINOIS AND INJURED WHILE EMPLOYED IN WISCONSIN. 

DAMAGES FOR INJURY OR DEATH SUSTAINED BY ANY EMPLOYE WHILE ENGAGED IN
THE LINE OF HIS DUTY AS SUCH EMPLOYE, OTHER THAN THE COMPENSATION
HEREIN PROVIDED, SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO ANY EMPLOYE WHO IS COVERED BY
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT,  ..."  THIS SECTION HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO
MEAN THAT, IN SITUATIONS TO WHICH THE ACT APPLIES, THE RIGHT OF ACTION
AGAINST THE EMPLOYER UNDER THE ILLINOIS COMMON LAW OR UNDER THE
ILLINOIS PERSONAL INJURIES ACT (ILL. REV. STAT. 1943, CH. 70, SECS. 1,
2) HAS BEEN ABOLISHED.  MISSISSIPPI RIVER POWER CO. V. INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSION, 289 ILL. 353, 124 N.E. 552; FABER V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION,
352 ILL. 115, 185 N.E. 255.  TO THAT EXTENT, THE ACT PROVIDES AN
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. 

BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR IN THE DECISIONS THEREUNDER TO
INDICATE THAT IT IS COMPLETELY EXCLUSIVE, THAT IT IS DESIGNED TO
PRECLUDE ANY RECOVERY BY PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT IN ANOTHER STATE FOR
INJURIES RECEIVED THERE IN THE COURSE OF AN ILLINOIS EMPLOYMENT.  CF.
BRADFORD ELEC.  CO. V. CLAPPER, SUPRA; COLE V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION,
353 ILL. 415, 187 N.E. 520.  AND IN LIGHT OF THE RULE THAT WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAWS ARE TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE ENACTED, BALTIMORE & PHILA.  STEAMBOAT CO.
V. NORTON, 284 U.S. 408, 414, WE SHOULD NOT READILY INTERPRET SUCH A
STATUTE SO AS TO CUT OFF AN EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO SUE UNDER OTHER
LEGISLATION PASSED FOR HIS BENEFIT.  ONLY SOME UNMISTAKABLE LANGUAGE BY
A STATE LEGISLATURE OR JUDICIARY WOULD WARRANT OUR ACCEPTING SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE WHERE THE RIGHTS AFFECTED ARE
THOSE ARISING UNDER LEGISLATION OF ANOTHER STATE AND WHERE THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT PROVISION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS BROUGHT
INTO PLAY.  SEE OHIO V. CHATTANOOGA BOILER CO., 289 U.S. 439. 

WE NEED NOT REST OUR DECISION, HOWEVER, SOLELY UPON THE ABSENCE OF
ANY PROVISION OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ILLINOIS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
ACT FORBIDDING AN EMPLOYEE FROM SEEKING ALTERNATIVE OR ADDITIONAL
RELIEF UNDER THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE.  THERE IS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS FREE TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN
WISCONSIN.  THAT EVIDENCE IS IN THE ILLINOIS AWARD ITSELF, AN AWARD
WHICH IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ILLINOIS
STATUTE. 

HERE THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT CONTRACT
FIXING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS ENTITLED
UNDER THE ILLINOIS STATUTE, THEREBY AVOIDING THE EXPENSE AND DELAY OF
LITIGATING THE MATTER.  THIS CONTRACT, TOGETHER WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S
PETITION FOR A LUMP SUM PAYMENT, WAS APPROVED BY ONE OF THE
COMMISSIONERS OF THE ILLINOIS INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.  BY THAT APPROVAL,
THE AGREEMENT BECAME "IN LEGAL EFFECT AN AWARD."  HARTFORD ACCIDENT CO.
V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 320 ILL. 544, 546, 151 N.E. 495, 496;
MICHELSON V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 375 ILL. 462, 31 N.E.2D 940.  UNDER
ILLINOIS LAW, SUCH AWARDS ARE DESCRIBED AS RES JUDICATA ON THE MATTERS
THUS ADJUDICATED AND AGREED UPON, PRECLUDING THE COMMISSION FROM
SUBSEQUENTLY REVIEWING THE AWARDS OR SETTING THEM ASIDE.  CENTRALIA
COAL CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 297 ILL. 451, 130 N.E. 727;
STROMBERG MOTOR DEVICE CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 305 ILL. 619, 137
N.E. 462; LEWIN METALS CORP. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 360 ILL. 371,
196 N.E. 482; TRIGG V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 364 ILL. 581, 5 N.E.2D
394. 

ONE OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE SETTLEMENT CONTRACT WHICH BECAME THE
AWARD WAS THE STATEMENT THAT "THIS SETTLEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT ANY
RIGHTS THAT APPLICANT MAY HAVE UNDER THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN."  THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE A PART OF THE
CONTRACT AT THE REQUEST OF THE EMPLOYEE, WHO HAD BEEN INFORMED BY THE
WISCONSIN COMMISSION THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
OF COMPENSATION IN WISCONSIN AFTER RECOVERING IN ILLINOIS.  SEE
INTERSTATE POWER CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 203 WIS. 466, 234 N.W.
889; SALVATION ARMY V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 219 WIS. 343, 263 N.W.
349; WISCONSIN BRIDGE & IRON CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 222 WIS.
194, 268 N.W. 134.  THE EMPLOYER'S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS LIKEWISE
INFORMED, AND ALL THE PARTIES PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
EMPLOYEE WAS ATTEMPTING TO RECOVER COMPENSATION UNDER THE STATUTES OF
BOTH ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN, WITH CREDIT TO BE GIVEN IN WISCONSIN FOR
ANY SUM RECOVERED IN ILLINOIS.  IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS COMMON
UNDERSTANDING, THE ABOVE STATEMENT WAS INSERTED IN THE ILLINOIS
SETTLEMENT CONTRACT AND WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSIONER BEFORE HE APPROVED THE CONTRACT.  THE COMMISSIONER
CONFESSED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF THIS PROVISION, BUT HE
DID NOT ORDER IT STRICKEN.  RATHER HE APPROVED IT FOR WHATEVER IT WAS
WORTH.    THIS CONTRACT PROVISION SAVING THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEE IN
WISCONSIN THUS BECAME PART OF THE ILLINOIS AWARD, AN AWARD WHICH HAS
ACHIEVED FINALITY IN THE ABSENCE OF A TIMELY APPEAL.  THIS PROVISION
MEANS MORE THAN MIGHT BE IMPLIED IN THE CASE OF AN ORDINARY JUDGMENT OR
DECREE.  ANY PARTY, OF COURSE, HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK ANOTHER JUDGMENT
OR DECREE, HOWEVER INCONSISTENT OR FUTILE SUCH AN ATTEMPT MIGHT BE; AND
IT TAKES NO RESERVATION IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE TO GIVE HIM
THAT RIGHT.  BUT WHEN THE RESERVATION IN THIS AWARD IS READ AGAINST THE
BACKGROUND OF THE ILLINOIS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, IT BECOMES CLEAR
THAT THE RESERVATION SPELLS OUT WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE IMPLICIT IN THAT
ACT - NAMELY, THAT AN ILLINOIS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AWARD OF THE TYPE
HERE INVOLVED DOES NOT FORECLOSE AN ADDITIONAL AWARD UNDER THE LAWS OF
ANOTHER STATE.  AND IN THE SETTING OF THIS CASE, THAT FACT IS OF
DECISIVE SIGNIFICANCE. 

SINCE THIS ILLINOIS AWARD IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ONLY AS TO RIGHTS
ARISING IN ILLINOIS, WISCONSIN IS FREE UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE TO GRANT AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION IN ACCORD WITH ITS OWN LAWS. 
MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, SUPRA, THUS DOES NOT CONTROL THIS
CASE.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :














HAUPT V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 631 


NO. 49.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 21, 22, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1947.  - 152
F.2D 771, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A TRIAL FOR TREASON, PROOF BY THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TWO
WITNESSES THAT DEFENDANT GAVE SHELTER FOR A PERIOD OF SIX DAYS TO AN
ENEMY AGENT WHO HAD ENTERED THIS COUNTRY FOR PURPOSES OF SABOTAGE,
HELPED HIM TO BUY AN AUTOMOBILE AND HELPED HIM TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT IN
A PLANT MANUFACTURING MILITARY EQUIPMENT, ALL IN AID OF HIS KNOWN
PURPOSE OF SABOTAGE, WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF OVERT ACTS TO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  CRAMER V.
UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 634-636. 

2.  PROOF BY DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES (DETAILED IN THE
OPINION) THAT THE SABOTEUR SPENT THE NIGHTS IN THE HOUSE WHERE THE
DEFENDANT LIVED AND WITH THE DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF
OF THE OVERT ACT OF HARBORING AND SHELTERING.  PP. 636-638. 

3.  PROOF BY DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES (DETAILED IN THE
OPINION) THAT THE DEFENDANT PURCHASED AN AUTOMOBILE AND THAT THE
SABOTEUR TOOK IT AND DROVE IT AWAY WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE OVERT
ACT OF ASSISTING IN THE PURCHASE OF AN AUTOMOBILE - EVEN THOUGH THE
TESTIMONY OF THE TWO WITNESSES WAS NOT IDENTICAL AND SOME OF THEIR
TESTIMONY RELATED TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SAME TRANSACTION.  PP. 638
640. 

4.  IT WAS FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE UPON THE EVIDENCE WHETHER THE
ACTS OF DEFENDANT WERE MOTIVATED BY PARENTAL SOLICITUDE FOR HIS SON,
THE SABOTEUR, OR BY ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY CAUSE.  PP. 641-642. 

5.  THE JURY WERE PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THAT, IF THEY FOUND THAT
DEFENDANT'S INTENTION WAS NOT TO INJURE THE UNITED STATES BUT MERELY TO
AID HIS SON "AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ASSISTING HIM IN
HIS PURPOSES, IF SUCH EXISTED, OF AIDING THE GERMAN REICH, OR OF
INJURING THE UNITED STATES, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE FOUND NOT GUILTY." 
PP. 641-642. 

6.  CONVERSATIONS AND OCCURRENCES EVIDENCING THE DEFENDANT'S SYMPATHY
WITH GERMANY AND WITH HITLER AND HOSTILITY TO THE UNITED STATES, THOUGH
LONG PRIOR TO THE INDICTMENT, WERE ADMISSIBLE ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT
AND ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY, AND THEIR WEIGHT WAS FOR THE JURY.  PP. 642
643. 

7. WHEN LEGAL BASIS FOR A CONVICTION OF TREASON HAS BEEN LAID BY THE
TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT, THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE TEXT OR POLICY OF THE CONSTITUTION PRECLUDING THE USE OF
CORROBORATIVE OUT-OF-COURT ADMISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS.  P. 643. 

8.  OTHER ERRORS ASSIGNED BY PETITIONER RELATIVE TO THE CONDUCT OF
THE TRIAL - SUCH AS PERMITTING THE INDICTMENT TO GO TO THE JURY ROOM,
ALLOWING THE JURY TO HAVE A TYPEWRITTEN COPY OF THE COURT'S CHARGE,
HOLDING THE JURY TOGETHER FOR A LONG TIME, READING THE TESTIMONY OF
CERTAIN WITNESSES TO THE JURY AT ITS REQUEST, FAILING TO ORDER A
SPECIAL VERDICT, AND IMPROPER APPEALS TO PASSION BY THE PROSECUTOR -
ARE EXAMINED AND FOUND NOT TO INVOLVE SUCH UNFAIRNESS OR IRREGULARITY
AS WOULD WARRANT REVERSAL.  P. 643. 

HAUPT V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS INDICTED AND CONVICTED OF TREASON.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  136 F.2D 661.  ON A SECOND TRIAL, PETITIONER WAS
AGAIN CONVICTED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  152 F.2D
771.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 831.  AFFIRMED, P. 644. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, HANS MAX HAUPT WAS INDICTED FOR TREASON, CONVICTED AND
SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY A FINE OF $10,000.  FROM THIS
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS HE
APPEALED TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT, WHICH BY A DIVIDED COURT AFFIRMED.  152 F.2D 771.  A PREVIOUS
CONVICTION OF THE SAME OFFENSE PREDICATED ON THE SAME ACTS HAD BEEN
REVERSED.  UNITED STATES V. HAUPT, 136 F.2D 661. 

PETITIONER IS THE FATHER OF HERBERT HAUPT, ONE OF THE EIGHT SABOTEURS
CONVICTED BY A MILITARY TRIBUNAL.  SEE EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1. 
SHELTERING HIS SON, ASSISTING HIM IN GETTING A JOB, AND IN ACQUIRING AN
AUTOMOBILE, ALL ALLEGED TO BE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE SON'S MISSION,
INVOLVED DEFENDANT IN THE TREASON CHARGE. 

THE BACKGROUND FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE DEFENDANT IS A
NATURALIZED CITIZEN, BORN IN GERMANY.  HE CAME TO THIS COUNTRY IN 1923
AND LIVED IN OR NEAR CHICAGO.  IN 1939 THE SON, HERBERT, WHO HAD ALSO
BEEN BORN IN GERMANY, WORKED FOR THE SIMPSON OPTICAL COMPANY IN CHICAGO
WHICH MANUFACTURED LENSES FOR INSTRUMENTS, INCLUDING PARTS FOR THE
NORDEN BOMB SIGHT.  IN THE SPRING OF 1941 HERBERT WENT TO MEXICO AND,
WITH THE AID OF THE GERMAN CONSUL, FROM THERE TO JAPAN AND THENCE TO
GERMANY WHERE HE ENTERED THE EMPLOY OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT AND WAS
TRAINED IN SABOTAGE WORK. 

ON THE 17TH OF JUNE 1942, HERBERT RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES BY
SUBMARINE.  HIS MISSION WAS TO ACT AS A SECRET AGENT, SPY AND SABOTEUR
FOR THE GERMAN REICH.  HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO PROCEED TO CHICAGO, TO
PROCURE AN AUTOMOBILE FOR THE USE OF HIMSELF AND HIS CONFEDERATES IN
THEIR WORK OF SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE, TO OBTAIN REEMPLOYMENT WITH THE
SIMPSON OPTICAL COMPANY WHERE HE WAS TO GATHER INFORMATION,
PARTICULARLY AS TO THE VITAL PARTS AND BOTTLENECKS OF THE PLANT, TO BE
COMMUNICATED TO HIS COCONSPIRATORS TO GUIDE THEIR ATTACK.  HE CAME WITH
VARIOUS OTHER INSTRUCTIONS, EQUIPPED WITH LARGE SUMS OF MONEY, AND WENT
TO CHICAGO. 

AFTER SOME SIX DAYS THERE, HERBERT WAS ARRESTED ON JUNE 27, 1942,
HAVING BEEN UNDER SURVEILLANCE BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS DURING HIS ENTIRE
STAY IN CHICAGO.  THIS PETITIONER WAS THEREAFTER TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND
WAS ARRAIGNED ON JULY 21, 1942.  HE LATER ASKED TO TALK TO AN F.B.I.
AGENT, TWO OF WHOM WERE SUMMONED, AND HE APPEARS TO HAVE VOLUNTEERED
CONSIDERABLE INFORMATION AND TO HAVE GIVEN MORE IN ANSWER TO THEIR
QUESTIONS.  HE BLAMED CERTAIN OTHERS FOR THE PREDICAMENT OF HIS SON AND
WANTED TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEM.  FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE DISCLOSED THAT HE
HAD BEEN PRESENT WHEN HERBERT HAD TOLD THE COMPLETE STORY OF HIS TRIP
TO MEXICO, JAPAN, HIS RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES BY SUBMARINE, AND HIS
BRINGING LARGE SUMS OF MONEY WITH HIM.  DURING HIS CONFINEMENT IN THE
COOK COUNTY JAIL, HE ALSO TALKED WITH TWO FELLOW PRISONERS CONCERNING
HIS CASE AND THEY TESTIFIED AS TO DAMAGING ADMISSIONS MADE TO THEM. 

THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED TWENTY-NINE OVERT ACTS OF TREASON.  ITS
SUFFICIENCY WAS CHALLENGED BY DEMURRER WHICH WAS OVERRULED AND BY A
MOTION TO QUASH WHICH WAS DENIED.  THE DEFENDANT, AT THE CLOSE OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CASE AND AGAIN AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, MADE
MOTIONS FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT GENERALLY AND ALSO SPECIFICALLY AS TO
EACH OVERT ACT CHARGED, ALL OF WHICH WERE DENIED.  SEVENTEEN OF THE
OVERT ACTS WERE WITHDRAWN BEFORE SUBMISSION AND TWELVE WERE SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY.  GENERALLY STATED, THE OVERT ACTS SUBMITTED FALL INTO
THREE GROUPS OF CHARGES:  FIRST, THE CHARGE THAT THIS DEFENDANT
ACCOMPANIED HIS SON TO ASSIST HIM IN OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT IN A PLANT
ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING THE NORDEN BOMB SIGHT; SECOND, THE CHARGE OF
HARBORING AND SHELTERING HERBERT HAUPT; AND THIRD, THE CHARGE OF
ACCOMPANYING HERBERT TO AN AUTOMOBILE SALES AGENCY, ARRANGING, MAKING
PAYMENT FOR AND PURCHASING AN AUTOMOBILE FOR HERBERT.  EACH OF THESE
WAS ALLEGED TO BE IN AID OF HERBERT'S KNOWN PURPOSE OF SABOTAGE. 

THE DEFENDANT ARGUES HERE THAT THE OVERT ACTS SUBMITTED DO NOT
CONSTITUTE ACTS OF TREASON, BUT THAT EACH IS COMMONPLACE, INSIGNIFICANT
AND COLORLESS, AND NOT SUFFICIENT, EVEN IF PROPERLY PROVED, TO SUPPORT
A CONVICTION.  WE HAVE HELD THAT THE MINIMUM FUNCTION OF THE OVERT ACT
IN A TREASON PROSECUTION IS THAT IT SHOW ACTION BY THE ACCUSED WHICH
REALLY WAS AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY.  CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, 325
U.S. 1, 34.  THIS IS A SEPARATE INQUIRY FROM THAT AS TO WHETHER THE
ACTS WERE DONE BECAUSE OF ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY, FOR ACTS HELPFUL TO
THE ENEMY MAY NEVERTHELESS BE INNOCENT OF TREASONABLE CHARACTER. 

CRAMER'S CASE HELD THAT WHAT MUST BE PROVED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO
WITNESSES IS A "SUFFICIENT" OVERT ACT.  THERE THE ONLY PROOF BY TWO
WITNESSES OF TWO OF THE THREE OVERT ACTS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY WAS THAT
THE DEFENDANT HAD MET AND TALKED WITH ENEMY AGENTS.  WE DID NOT SET
ASIDE CRAMER'S CONVICTION BECAUSE TWO WITNESSES DID NOT TESTIFY TO THE
TREASONABLE CHARACTER OF HIS MEETING WITH THE ENEMY AGENTS.  IT WAS
REVERSED BECAUSE THE COURT FOUND THAT THE ACT WHICH TWO WITNESSES SAW
COULD NOT ON THEIR TESTIMONY BE SAID TO HAVE GIVEN ASSISTANCE OR
COMFORT TO ANYONE, WHETHER IT WAS DONE TREACHEROUSLY OR NOT.  TO MAKE A
SUFFICIENT OVERT ACT, THE COURT THOUGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO
ASSUME THAT THE MEETING OR TALK WAS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE ENEMY, OR TO
RELY ON OTHER THAN TWO-WITNESS PROOF.  HERE, ON THE CONTRARY, SUCH
ASSUMPTION OR RELIANCE IS UNNECESSARY - THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT
SHELTERING, OR HELPING TO BUY A CAR, OR HELPING TO GET EMPLOYMENT IS
HELPFUL TO AN ENEMY AGENT, THAT THEY WERE OF AID AND COMFORT TO HERBERT
HAUPT IN HIS MISSION OF SABOTAGE.  THEY HAVE THE UNMISTAKABLE QUALITY
WHICH WAS FOUND LACKING IN THE CRAMER CASE OF FORWARDING THE SABOTEUR
IN HIS MISSION.  WE POINTED OUT THAT CRAMER FURNISHED NO SHELTER,
SUSTENANCE OR SUPPLIES.  325 U.S. 1, 37.  THE OVERT ACTS CHARGED HERE,
ON THE CONTRARY, MAY BE GENERALIZED AS FURNISHING HARBOR AND SHELTER
FOR A PERIOD OF SIX DAYS, ASSISTING IN OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT IN THE LENS
PLANT AND HELPING TO BUY AN AUTOMOBILE.  NO MATTER WHETHER YOUNG
HAUPT'S MISSION WAS BENIGN OR TRAITOROUS, KNOWN OR UNKNOWN TO
DEFENDANT, THESE ACTS WERE AID AND COMFORT TO HIM.  IN THE LIGHT OF HIS
MISSION AND HIS INSTRUCTIONS, THEY WERE MORE THAN CASUALLY USEFUL; THEY
WERE AID IN STEPS ESSENTIAL TO HIS DESIGN FOR TREASON.  IF PROOF BE
ADDED THAT THE DEFENDANT KNEW OF HIS SON'S INSTRUCTIONS, PREPARATION
AND PLANS, THE PURPOSE TO AID AND COMFORT THE ENEMY BECOMES CLEAR.  ALL
OF THIS, OF COURSE, ASSUMES THAT THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE PROPERLY IN
THE CASE IS CREDITED, AS THE JURY HAD A RIGHT TO DO.  WE HOLD,
THEREFORE, THAT THE OVERT ACTS LAID IN THE INDICTMENT AND SUBMITTED TO
THE JURY DO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO OVERT ACTS IN TREASON
CASES AND ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT AND TO SUSTAIN THE
CONVICTION IF THEY WERE PROVED WITH THE EXACTITUDE REQUIRED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE MOST DIFFICULT ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE OVERT ACTS HAVE
BEEN PROVED AS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, AND SEVERAL GROUNDS OF ATTACK
ON THE CONVICTION DISAPPEAR IF THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF PROOF.  THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT "NO
PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF TREASON UNLESS ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO
WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT  ..."  ART. III, SEC. 3.  WE CONSIDERED
THE APPLICATION OF THIS PROVISION TO THE PROBLEMS OF PROOF IN THE
CRAMER CASE.  DEFENDANT CLAIMS THIS CASE IN TWO RESPECTS FALLS SHORT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS THERE LAID DOWN AS TO ALL THE OVERT ACTS WHICH
COMPRISE HARBORING AND SHELTERING THE SABOTEUR:  FIRST, THAT THERE WAS
NO DIRECT PROOF THAT THE SABOTEUR WAS ACTUALLY IN THE DEFENDANT'S
APARTMENT, AND SECOND, THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT PROOF THAT THE DEFENDANT
WAS IN THE APARTMENT AT ANY TIME WHEN THE SABOTEUR WAS THERE.  BOTH OF
THESE WE FIND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT. 

THE ACT TO BE PROVED IS HARBORING AND SHELTERING IN THE HOUSE AT NO.
2234 NORTH FREMONT STREET.  THE DEFENDANT AND HIS WIFE LIVED THERE IN A
THIRD-FLOOR FRONT APARTMENT, WHICH HAD BUT ONE BEDROOM.  FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION AGENTS, NEVER LESS THAN TWO, HAD THE PLACE UNDER
CONTINUOUS SURVEILLANCE FROM 10:30 A.M., JUNE 22 TO THE ARREST OF THE
SABOTEUR ON JUNE 27, AND AT LEAST TWO TESTIFIED IN MINUTE DETAIL TO
EACH OF REPEATED ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES OF THE SABOTEUR, ON SOME
OCCASIONS ACCOMPAINED BY THE DEFENDANT, ON OTHERS BY THE DEFENDANT'S
WIFE, AND ON SOME BY BOTH.  HE ENTERED EACH NIGHT AND LEFT EACH DAY. 
ON SOME OCCASIONS HE CAME OUT WEARING DIFFERENT CLOTHES FROM THOSE HE
WORE WHEN HE WENT IN.  WHEN HE WENT IN AT NIGHT THE LIGHTS IN THE
DEFENDANT'S APARTMENT WERE TURNED ON AND AFTER A TIME EXTINGUISHED. 
TWO WITNESSES WHO WERE CALLERS AT THE APARTMENT TESTIFIED THAT ON ONE
OCCASION DEFENDANT AND HERBERT WERE THERE TOGETHER AT SUPPER TIME, THE
THREE HAUPTS BEING TOGETHER IN THE KITCHEN, HERBERT LATER COMING INTO
THE PARLOR AND ONE OF THE GUESTS GOING INTO THE KITCHEN.  THE DEFENDANT
CONTENDS THAT THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE REQUIRED TWO WITNESSES'
DIRECT PROOF THAT THE SABOTEUR WAS HARBORED AND SHELTERED IN THE
DEFENDANT'S APARTMENT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE FRONT ENTRANCE, WHERE ALL
OF THIS TESTIMONY SHOWS THE SABOTEUR TO HAVE ENTERED, CONNECTED WITH
TWO OTHER APARTMENTS.  THE OCCUPANTS OF EACH OF THE OTHER APARTMENTS,
TWO WITNESSES AS TO EACH, TESTIFIED THAT THE SABOTEUR DID NOT AT ANY
TIME OCCUPY THEIR RESPECTIVE APARTMENTS. 

IT IS SUFFICIENTLY PROVED BY DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES THAT
THE SABOTEUR STAYED IN THE HOUSE WHERE THE FATHER LIVED AND WITH THE
LATTER'S KNOWLEDGE.  BUT IT IS SAID THAT THIS IS NOT ENOUGH, THAT IT
FAILS BECAUSE THE TWO WITNESSES DID NOT SEE HIM ENTER HIS PARENTS'
APARTMENT THEREIN.  BUT THE HOSPITALITY AND HARBORING DID NOT BEGIN
ONLY AT THE APARTMENT DOOR.  IT BEGAN WHEN HE ENTERED THE BUILDING
ITSELF WHERE HE WOULD HAVE NO BUSINESS EXCEPT AS A GUEST OR MEMBER OF
THE FAMILY OF ONE OF THE TENANTS.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT HE
SLEPT IN THE DEFENDANT'S BED.  HERBERT WAS NEITHER TRESPASSER NOR
LOITERER.  HE ENTERED AS THE LICENSEE OF HIS FATHER, AND WAS UNDER THE
PRIVILEGES OF THE LATTER'S TENANCY EVEN IN PARTS OF THE BUILDING USED
IN COMMON WITH OTHER TENANTS.  HIS ENTRANCE TO AND SOJOURN IN THE
BUILDING WERE MADE POSSIBLE BY THE DEFENDANT, AND THE SABOTEUR SLEPT
AND STAYED IN SOME PART OF IT WITH THE FATHER'S KNOWLEDGE AND BY HIS
LEAVE.  WE THINK THE PROOF IS SUFFICIENT TO COMPLY WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT TWO WITNESSES TESTIFY TO THE OVERT ACTS
IN THAT GROUP WHICH CHARGES HARBORING AND SHELTERING OF THE SABOTEUR. 

THE OTHER GROUP OF SUBMITTED OVERT ACTS AS TO WHICH IT IS CLAIMED
THERE IS A DEFICIENCY OF TESTIMONY RELATES TO ASSISTANCE WHICH THE
DEFENDANT RENDERED TO THE SABOTEUR IN PURCHASING AN AUTOMOBILE AS
ALLEGED IN ACTS NOS. 15 AND 16 OF THE INDICTMENT.  ACCORDING TO THE
TESTIMONY OF AN AUTOMOBILE SALESMAN, FARRELL, THE DEFENDANT CAME TO HIS
SALESROOM AND SAID HE WANTED TO BUY A GOOD USED CAR OF LATE MODEL. 
DEFENDANT SELECTED A 1941 MODEL PONTIAC AND ASKED ABOUT INSTALLMENT
PAYMENTS.  AFTER CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION OF TERMS, DEFENDANT PAID $10
DEPOSIT ON THE PRICE OF $1045 AND SAID HE WOULD COME IN NEXT DAY TO
MAKE A FURTHER PAYMENT.  HE SIGNED AN ORDER FOR THE CAR AND GAVE
FINANCIAL REFERENCES.  ON THE NEXT DAY, DEFENDANT CAME TO THE SALESROOM
AND PAID AN ADDITIONAL $405, EXECUTING NOTES AND FINANCE CONTRACT.  THE
SON TOOK THE CAR AND DROVE IT AWAY. 

A SECOND WITNESS, VINSON, SALES MANAGER, CORROBORATED THE EARLIER
PARTS OF THIS TRANSACTION, BUT DEFENDANT CLAIMS HIS TESTIMONY IS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY COMPREHENSIVE TO COMPLY WITH THE TWO-WITNESS RULE,
ESPECIALLY AS TO OVERT ACTS 15 AND 16, RELATING TO EVENTS OF THE SECOND
DAY.  VINSON AT FIRST SAID HE DID NOT SEE DEFENDANT AND HIS SON ON THAT
DAY.  THE TRIAL COURT ALLOWED COUNSEL TO REFRESH VINSON'S RECOLLECTION
FROM HIS TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE FORMER TRIAL OF DEFENDANT.  VINSON THEN
TESTIFIED THAT HE DID SEE THE DEFENDANT AND HIS SON COME IN TOGETHER
AND BE TOGETHER IN THE SALESROOM THAT EVENING BUT DID NOT TALK WITH
THEM; THAT HE RECEIVED "THE MONEY THAT HAD BEEN PUT DOWN" ON THAT
EVENING AND THE NOTE SIGNED BY THE DEFENDANT.  BY APPROVAL OF HIS
ANSWERS AT THE FORMER TRIAL HE AFFIRMED THAT HE RECEIPTED FOR THE
MONEY.  HE ALSO SAW THE INVOICE MADE THAT EVENING FOR THE PURCHASE AND
IDENTIFIED A COPY OF THE BILL OF SALE OF THE CAR TO THE DEFENDANT.  HE
TESTIFIED FARRELL WAS THERE WHEN THE HAUPTS WERE. 

IT IS SAID THAT VINSON'S TESTIMONY FALLS SHORT BECAUSE IT IS NOT
EXPLICIT AS TO WHO PAID THE MONEY.  TAKING THE TESTIMONY AS A WHOLE,
VINSON HAS CORROBORATED FARRELL'S TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFENDANT CAME
THAT NIGHT TO THE AUTOMOBILE SALESROOM, THAT HE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE
SABOTEUR, THAT A PURCHASE OF THE AUTOMOBILE HAD BEEN STARTED AND WAS
PENDING.  THE PARTIALLY COMPLETED TRANSACTION WAS ONE IN WHICH
DEFENDANT HIMSELF BECAME PURCHASER, SIGNED HIS OWN NAME TO THE PURCHASE
NOTE AND FURNISHED HIS OWN, NOT HIS SON'S, FINANCIAL REFERENCES. 
VINSON'S TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THIS PENDING TRANSACTION WAS CONSUMMATED
ON THE LATTER NIGHT.  IT INVOLVED "A FURTHER PAYMENT IN CASH TOWARD THE
PURCHASE" AND COMPLETING "ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE" WHICH ARE
ALLEGED AS THE SIXTEENTH ACT.  VINSON SAID THAT HE RECEIVED THE MONEY. 
WHOEVER ACTUALLY HANDED OVER THE MONEY, IT WAS APPARENTLY IN
DEFENDANT'S PRESENCE AND WAS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF HIS OBLIGATION INCURRED
THE PREVIOUS EVENING IN SIGNING THE PURCHASE CONTRACT. 

THE TESTIMONY OF VINSON IN ITS INTERPRETATION MOST FAVORABLE TO THE
JURY'S VERDICT SEEMS CLEARLY TO HAVE BEEN TESTIMONY TO THE SAME OVERT
ACT AS THAT BY FARRELL.  DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL MADE NO EFFORT TO CORRECT
ANY AMBIGUITY IN IT BY CROSS-EXAMINATION.  THE DEFENSE OF COURSE IS
UNDER NO DUTY TO DO SO; IT MAY RELY UPON WEAKNESS IN THE PROSECUTION'S
CASE.  BUT IT TAKES THE RISK, WHEN IT RELIES ON AN AMBIGUITY RATHER
THAN ON A COMPLETE LACK OF LEGAL PROOF, THAT THE JURY WILL RESOLVE THE
MEANING IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION.  WHEN ENOUGH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO
MAKE A CASE FOR THE JURY, WE MAY NOT IMPEACH THE VERDICT BY DIFFERING
FROM THEM ON EQUALLY REASONABLE VIEWS OF A WITNESS' MEANING.  WE THINK
THE COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN SUBMITTING THIS OVERT ACT AND THE JURY WAS
JUSTIFIED IN FINDING IT PROVED. 

THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TESTIMONY TO THE ALLEGED OVERT ACT AND IS
NOT SATISFIED BY TESTIMONY TO SOME SEPARATE ACT FROM WHICH IT CAN BE
INFERRED THAT THE CHARGED ACT TOOK PLACE.  AND WHILE TWO WITNESSES MUST
TESTIFY TO THE SAME ACT, IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THEIR TESTIMONY BE
IDENTICAL.  MOST OVERT ACTS ARE NOT SINGLE, SEPARABLE ACTS, BUT ARE
COMBINATIONS OF ACTS OR COURSES OF CONDUCT MADE UP OF SEVERAL
ELEMENTS.  IT IS NOT EASY TO SET BY METES AND BOUNDS THE PERMISSIBLE
LATITUDE BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY OF THE TWO REQUIRED WITNESSES.  IT IS
PERHAPS EASIER TO SAY ON WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE A GIVEN CASE BELONGS
THAN TO DRAW A LINE THAT WILL SEPARATE ALL PERMISSIBLE DISPARITIES FROM
FORBIDDEN ONES.  CONCRETE EVEN IF HYPOTHETICAL CASES MAY ILLUSTRATE
THIS. 

ONE WITNESS MIGHT HEAR A REPORT, SEE A SMOKING GUN IN THE HAND OF
DEFENDANT AND SEE THE VICTIM FALL.  ANOTHER MIGHT BE DEAF, BUT SEE THE
DEFENDANT RAISE AND POINT THE GUN, AND SEE A PUFF OF SMOKE FROM IT.
THE TESTIMONY OF BOTH WOULD CERTAINLY BE "TO THE SAME OVERT ACT,"
ALTHOUGH TO DIFFERENT ASPECTS.  AND EACH WOULD BE TO THE OVERT ACT OF
SHOOTING, ALTHOUGH NEITHER SAW THE MOVEMENT OF A BULLET FROM THE GUN TO
THE VICTIM.  IT WOULD STILL BE A REMOTE POSSIBILITY THAT THE GUN
CONTAINED ONLY A BLANK CARTRIDGE AND THE VICTIM FELL OF HEART FAILURE. 
BUT IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT TESTIMONY BE SO MINUTE AS TO EXCLUDE EVERY
FANTASTIC HYPOTHESIS THAT CAN BE SUGGESTED. 

WE THINK TWO WITNESSES TESTIFIED TO THESE OVERT ACTS AND PETITIONER
CANNOT SERIOUSLY CONTEND THAT TWO DID NOT TESTIFY TO EACH OF THE OVERT
ACTS COMPRISING THE GROUP OF CHARGES ON OBTAINING A JOB.  SINCE THIS
WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE OF EVIDENCE AS TO EACH OVERT ACT
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
CONVICTION COULD STAND ON SOME SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN ACTS IF OTHERS
FAILED IN PROOF.  FN1 

IT IS URGED THAT THE CONVICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THERE IS
NO SUFFICIENT PROOF OF ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY, THE ACTS OF AID AND
COMFORT BEING NATURAL ACTS OF AID FOR DEFENDANT'S OWN SON.  CERTAINLY
THAT RELATIONSHIP IS A FACT FOR THE JURY TO WEIGH ALONG WITH OTHERS,
AND THEY WERE CORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THAT IF THEY FOUND THAT DEFENDANT'S
INTENTION WAS NOT TO INJURE THE UNITED STATES BUT MERELY TO AID HIS SON
"AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ASSISTING HIM IN HIS PURPOSES,
IF SUCH EXISTED, OF AIDING THE GERMAN REICH, OR OF INJURING THE UNITED
STATES, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE FOUND NOT GUILTY."  THE DEFENDANT CAN
COMPLAIN OF NO ERROR IN SUCH A SUBMISSION.  IT WAS FOR THE JURY TO
WEIGH THE EVIDENCE THAT THE ACTS PROCEEDED FROM PARENTAL SOLICITUDE
AGAINST THE EVIDENCE OF ADHERENCE TO THE GERMAN CAUSE.  IT IS ARGUED
THAT HAUPT MERELY HAD THE MISFORTUNE TO SIRE A TRAITOR AND ALL HE DID
WAS TO ACT AS AN INDULGENT FATHER TOWARD A DISLOYAL SON.  IN VIEW
HOWEVER OF THE EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S OWN STATEMENTS THAT AFTER THE
WAR HE INTENDED TO RETURN TO GERMANY, THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS GOING
TO BE DEFEATED, THAT HE WOULD NEVER PERMIT HIS BOY TO JOIN THE AMERICAN
ARMY, THAT HE WOULD KILL HIS SON BEFORE HE WOULD SEND HIM TO FIGHT
GERMANY, AND OTHERS TO THE SAME EFFECT, THE JURY APPARENTLY CONCLUDED
THAT THE SON HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF BEING A CHIP OFF THE OLD BLOCK - A
TREE INCLINED AS THE TWIG HAD BEEN BENT - METAPHORS WHICH EXPRESS THE
COMMON SENSE OBSERVATION THAT PARENTS ARE AS LIKELY TO INFLUENCE THE
CHARACTER OF THEIR CHILDREN AS ARE CHILDREN TO SHAPE THAT OF THEIR
PARENTS.  SUCH ARGUMENTS ARE FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE. 

IT IS ALSO URGED THAT ERRORS WERE MADE IN ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE. 
SOME OF THIS CONCERNED CONVERSATIONS AND OCCURRENCES LONG PRIOR TO THE
INDICTMENT WHICH WERE ADMITTED TO PROVE INTENT.  THEY CONSISTED OF
STATEMENTS SHOWING SYMPATHY WITH GERMANY AND WITH HITLER AND HOSTILITY
TO THE UNITED STATES.  SUCH TESTIMONY IS TO BE SCRUTINIZED WITH CARE TO
BE CERTAIN THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT EXPRESSIONS OF MERE LAWFUL AND
PERMISSIBLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITH OUR OWN GOVERNMENT OR QUITE
PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE LAND OF BIRTH.  BUT THESE STATEMENTS WERE
EXPLICIT AND CLEARLY WERE ADMISSIBLE ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT AND
ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY.  THEIR WEIGHT WAS FOR THE JURY. 

EVIDENCE OF F.B.I. AGENTS AND OF DEFENDANT'S FELLOW PRISONERS AS TO
CONVERSATIONS IS ALSO SAID TO BE INADMISSIBLE.  THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES THAT "NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF TREASON UNLESS ON THE
TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT, OR ON CONFESSION IN
OPEN COURT."  IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT WERE
CONFESSIONS, AND AS THEY WERE NOT MADE IN OPEN COURT WERE INADMISSIBLE
AS EVIDENCE.  IF THERE WERE NOT THE REQUIRED TWO-WITNESS TESTIMONY AND
IT WAS SOUGHT TO SUPPLY THAT DEFECT BY CONFESSION, WE WOULD HAVE A
DIFFERENT QUESTION.  BUT HAVING FOUND THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE
CONVICTION LAID BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES, WE FIND NOTHING IN
THE TEXT OR POLICY OF THE CONSTITUTION TO PRECLUDE USING OUT-OF-COURT
ADMISSIONS OR CONFESSIONS. 

IT MAY BE DOUBTED WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE TO CONFESSION
IN OPEN COURT HAS APPLICATION TO ANY ADMISSION OF A FACT OTHER THAN A
COMPLETE CONFESSION TO GUILT OF THE CRIME.  THE STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT
DID NOT GO SO FAR.  THEY WERE ADMISSIONS OF SPECIFIC ACTS AND KNOWLEDGE
AS TO WHICH, INSOFAR AS THEY WERE OVERT ACTS CHARGED, THE REQUIRED TWO
WITNESSES ALSO TESTIFIED.  THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT TO CONVICT HERE ON
SUCH ADMISSIONS ALONE, OR TO USE THE ADMISSIONS TO SUPPLY DEFECTS IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE OF PROOF.  IF SUCH AN ATTEMPT WERE MADE WE
WOULD BE FACED WITH A NOVEL QUESTION.  BUT HERE THE ADMISSIONS ARE
MERELY CORROBORATIVE OF A LEGAL BASIS LAID BY TESTIMONY AND THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE USING OUT-OF-COURT ADMISSIONS OR
CONFESSIONS IN THIS WAY.  CF. RESPUBLICA V. ROBERTS, 1 DALL.  39; CASE
OF FRIES, FED. CASE NO. 5126, 9 FED. CAS. 826, 909. 

THERE ARE MANY OTHER COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL, SUCH
AS PERMITTING THE INDICTMENT TO GO TO THE JURY ROOM, ALLOWING THE JURY
TO HAVE A TYPEWRITTEN COPY OF THE COURT'S CHARGE, HOLDING THE JURY
TOGETHER FOR A LONG TIME, READING THE TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN WITNESSES TO
THE JURY AT ITS REQUEST AND FAILING TO ORDER A SPECIAL VERDICT.  WE
FIND NOTHING IN ANY OF THEM TO WARRANT THE INFERENCE OF UNFAIRNESS OR
IRREGULARITY IN THE TRIAL.  IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE PROSECUTION
MADE IMPROPER APPEALS TO PASSION.  UNFORTUNATELY IT IS THE NATURE OF
THE CHARGE OF BETRAYAL THAT IT EASILY STIRS FEELINGS, AND THAT IS ONE
OF THE REASONS SUCH SAFEGUARDS HAVE BEEN THROWN AROUND ITS TRIAL.  BUT
WE FIND NO SUCH CONDUCT AS WOULD INVALIDATE THE CONVICTION. 

HAUPT HAS BEEN TWICE TRIED AND TWICE FOUND GUILTY.  THE LAW OF
TREASON MAKES, AND PROPERLY MAKES, CONVICTION DIFFICULT BUT NOT
IMPOSSIBLE.  HIS ACTS AIDED AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES TOWARD
ACCOMPLISHING HIS MISSION OF SABOTAGE.  THE MISSION WAS FRUSTRATED BUT
DEFENDANT DID HIS BEST TO MAKE IT SUCCEED.  HIS OVERT ACTS WERE PROVED
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HARD TEST OF THE CONSTITUTION, ARE HARDLY
DENIED, AND THE PROOF LEAVES NO REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE GUILT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  WHEN, SPEAKING OF A GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY IN CRAMER V.
UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1, 36, N. 45, WE SAID "SINCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE
TO IDENTIFY THE GROUNDS ON WHICH CRAMER WAS CONVICTED, THE VERDICT MUST
BE SET ASIDE IF ANY OF THE SEPARABLE ACTS SUBMITTED WAS INSUFFICIENT,"
OF COURSE WE DID NOT HOLD THAT ONE OVERT ACT PROPERLY PROVED AND
SUBMITTED WOULD NOT SUSTAIN A CONVICTION IF THE PROOF OF OTHER OVERT
ACTS WAS INSUFFICIENT.  ONE SUCH ACT MAY PROVE TREASON, AND ON REVIEW
THE CONVICTION WOULD BE SUSTAINED, PROVIDED THE RECORD MAKES CLEAR THAT
THE JURY CONVICTED ON THAT OVERT ACT.  BUT WHERE SEVERAL ACTS ARE
PLEADED IN A SINGLE COUNT AND SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, UNDER INSTRUCTIONS
WHICH ALLOW A VERDICT OF GUILTY ON ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTS, A
REVIEWING COURT HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT ANY WRONGLY SUBMITTED ACT
WAS NOT THE ONE CONVICTED UPON.  IF ACTS WERE PLEADED IN SEPARATE
COUNTS, OR A SPECIAL VERDICT WERE REQUIRED AS TO EACH OVERT ACT OF A
SINGLE COUNT, THE CONVICTION COULD BE SUSTAINED ON A SINGLE WELL-PROVED
ACT.  AS THE ACTS WERE HERE PLEADED IN A SINGLE COUNT, AND THE JURY
WERE INSTRUCTED THAT THEY COULD CONVICT ON ANY ONE, WE WOULD HAVE TO
REVERSE IF ANY ACT WERE INSUFFICIENT OR INSUFFICIENTLY PROVED.  CF.
STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA,
317 U.S. 287, 292, AND CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. 

THERE IS A CLOSE PARALLEL BETWEEN THIS CASE AND CRAMER V. UNITED
STATES, 325 U.S. 1. 

TWO WITNESSES SAW CRAMER TALKING WITH AN ENEMY AGENT.  SO FAR AS THEY
KNEW, THE CONVERSATION MAY HAVE BEEN WHOLLY INNOCENT, AS THEY DID NOT
OVERHEAR IT.  BUT CRAMER, BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL, EXPLAINED
WHAT TOOK PLACE:  HE KNEW OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE AGENT WAS
HERE ON A MISSION FOR THE ENEMY AND ARRANGED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO
CONCEAL THE FUNDS BROUGHT HERE TO PROMOTE THE PROJECT.  THUS THERE WAS
THE MOST CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT CRAMER WAS GUILTY OF "ADHERING" TO THE
ENEMY, GIVING HIM "AID AND COMFORT."  ARTICLE III, SEC. 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  AND THE OVERT ACT WHICH JOINED HIM WITH THE ENEMY AGENT
WAS PROVED BY TWO WITNESSES.  CRAMER'S CONVICTION, HOWEVER, WAS SET
ASIDE BECAUSE TWO WITNESSES DID NOT TESTIFY TO THE TREASONABLE
CHARACTER OF CRAMER'S MEETING WITH THE ENEMY AGENT. 

TWO WITNESSES SAW THE SON ENTER HAUPT'S APARTMENT HOUSE AT NIGHT AND
LEAVE IN THE MORNING.  THAT ACT, WITHOUT MORE, WAS AS INNOCENT AS
CRAMER'S CONVERSATION WITH THE AGENT.  FOR NOTHING WOULD BE MORE
NATURAL AND NORMAL, OR MORE "COMMONPLACE" (325 U.S. P. 34), OR LESS
SUSPICIOUS, OR LESS "INCRIMINATING" (325 U.S. P. 35), THAN THE ACT OF A
FATHER OPENING THE FAMILY DOOR TO A SON.  THAT ACT RAISED, THEREFORE,
NO MORE IMPLICATION THAT THE FATHER WAS GIVING HIS SON AID AND COMFORT
IN A TREASONABLE PROJECT THAN DID THE MEETING OF THE DEFENDANT WITH THE
ENEMY AGENT IN THE CRAMER CASE.  BUT THAT ACT, WHOLLY INNOCENT ON ITS
FACE, WAS SHOWN TO BE OF A TREASONABLE CHARACTER, NOT BY THE TWO
WITNESSES, BUT BY OTHER EVIDENCE:  THAT HAUPT WAS SYMPATHETIC WITH THE
NAZI CAUSE, THAT HE KNEW THE NATURE OF HIS SON'S MISSION TO THIS
COUNTRY.  HAUPT'S CONVICTION IS SUSTAINED, THOUGH THE CONVERSION OF AN
INNOCENT APPEARING ACT INTO A TREASONABLE ACT IS NOT MADE BY TWO
WITNESSES. 

THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES: 

"TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, SHALL CONSIST ONLY IN LEVYING WAR
AGAINST THEM, OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND
COMFORT.  NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF TREASON UNLESS ON THE
TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT, OR ON CONFESSION IN
OPEN COURT."  ARTICLE III, SEC. 3. 

AS THE CRAMER CASE MAKES PLAIN, THE OVERT ACT AND THE INTENT WITH
WHICH IT IS DONE ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME. 
INTENT NEED NOT BE PROVED BY TWO WITNESSES BUT MAY BE INFERRED FROM ALL
THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE OVERT ACT.  BUT IF TWO WITNESSES ARE
NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE TREASONABLE INTENT, TWO WITNESSES NEED NOT BE
REQUIRED TO SHOW THE TREASONABLE CHARACTER OF THE OVERT ACT.  FOR PROOF
OF TREASONABLE INTENT IN THE DOING OF THE OVERT ACT NECESSARILY
INVOLVES PROOF THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE OVERT ACT WITH THE
KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING OF ITS TREASONABLE CHARACTER. 

THE REQUIREMENT OF AN OVERT ACT IS TO MAKE CERTAIN A TREASONABLE
PROJECT HAS MOVED FROM THE REALM OF THOUGHT INTO THE REALM OF ACTION. 
THAT REQUIREMENT IS UNDENIABLY MET IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IT WAS IN
THE CASE OF CRAMER. 

THE CRAMER CASE DEPARTED FROM THOSE RULES WHEN IT HELD THAT "THE TWO
WITNESS PRINCIPLE IS TO INTERDICT IMPUTATION OF INCRIMINATING ACTS TO
THE ACCUSED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY THE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE
WITNESS."  325 U.S. P. 35.  THE PRESENT DECISION IS TRUER TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF TREASON WHEN IT FORSAKES THAT TEST AND
HOLDS THAT AN ACT, QUITE INNOCENT ON ITS FACE, DOES NOT NEED TWO
WITNESSES TO BE TRANSFORMED INTO AN INCRIMINATING ONE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE GROWS OUT OF A SINGULAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT, WHEN
COMBINED WITH THE SERIOUS NATURE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME, WARRANTS
EXTRAORDINARY SCRUTINY.  PETITIONER'S SON WAS TRIED AS A SABOTEUR
BEFORE A MILITARY TRIBUNAL, CONVICTED AND EXECUTED.  SEE EX PARTE
QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1.  PETITIONER, HIS WIFE AND FOUR OTHERS WERE THEN
JOINTLY TRIED FOR TREASON.  ALL WERE CONVICTED, PETITIONER BEING
SENTENCED TO DEATH AND HIS WIFE TO 20 YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.  UNITED
STATES V. HAUPT, 47 F.SUPP.  832; 47 F.SUPP.  836.  THESE CONVICTIONS,
HOWEVER, WERE REVERSED UPON APPEAL.  UNITED STATES V. HAUPT, 136 F.2D
661.  PETITIONER HAS NOW BEEN RETRIED SEPARATELY FOR TREASON; AGAIN HE
HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY, WITH THE SENTENCE BEING REDUCED TO LIFE
IMPRISONMENT AND A $10,000 FINE.  152 F.2D 771.    PETITIONER WAS
CHARGED WITH HAVING COMMITTED THREE GENERAL TYPES OF OVERT ACTS OF
TREASON:  (1) HARBORING AND SHELTERING HIS SON; (2) ASSISTING HIS SON
IN OBTAINING REEMPLOYMENT; (3) ACCOMPANYING AND ASSISTING HIS SON IN
THE PURCHASE OF AN AUTOMOBILE.  ALL OF THESE ALLEGED OVERT ACTS WERE
CONTAINED IN A SINGLE COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT AND THE JURY'S VERDICT
WAS A GENERAL ONE.  THE COURT INDICATES THAT A FATAL DEFICIENCY AS TO
ANY OF THE ALLEGED OVERT ACTS UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES INVALIDATES THE
CONVICTION.  SINCE THE ACTS RELATING TO THE HARBORING AND SHELTERING OF
PETITIONER'S SON DID NOT, IN MY OPINION, AMOUNT TO OVERT ACTS OF
TREASON, I WOULD ACCORDINGLY REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW, REGARDLESS OF
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE OTHER ACTS. 

THE HIGH CRIME OF TREASON, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CONSISTS OF AN ACT
RENDERING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY BY ONE WHO ADHERES TO THE
ENEMY'S CAUSE.  CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1.  THE ACT MAY BE
ONE WHICH EXTENDS MATERIAL AID; OR IT MAY BE ONE WHICH MERELY LENDS
COMFORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT.  THE ACT MAY APPEAR TO BE INNOCENT ON ITS
FACE, YET PROVE TO BE TREASONABLE IN NATURE WHEN EXAMINED IN LIGHT OF
ITS PURPOSE AND CONTEXT. 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, HOWEVER, THAT EVERY ACT THAT GIVES AID AND
COMFORT TO AN ENEMY AGENT CONSTITUTES AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON, EVEN
THOUGH THE AGENT'S STATUS IS KNOWN.  THE TOUCH OF ONE WHO AIDS IS NOT
MIDAS-LIKE, GIVING A TREASONABLE HUE TO EVERY MOVE.  AN ACT OF
ASSISTANCE MAY BE OF THE TYPE WHICH SPRINGS FROM THE WELL OF HUMAN
KINDNESS, FROM THE NATURAL DEVOTION TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS, OR FROM A
PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF RELIGIOUS TENETS.  SUCH ACTS ARE NOT
TREASONOUS, HOWEVER ELSE THEY MAY BE DESCRIBED.  THEY ARE NOT
TREASONOUS EVEN THOUGH, IN A SENSE, THEY HELP IN THE EFFECTUATION OF
THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSE.  TO RISE TO THE STATUS OF AN OVERT ACT OF
TREASON, AN ACT OF ASSISTANCE MUST BE UTTERLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH ANY OF
THE FOREGOING SOURCES OF ACTION.  IT MUST BE AN ACT WHICH IS CONSISTENT
ONLY WITH A TREASONABLE INTENTION AND WITH THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE
TREASONABLE PLAN, GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE RELEVANT
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES.  THUS AN ACT OF SUPPLYING A MILITARY MAP TO
A SABOTEUR FOR USE IN THE EXECUTION OF HIS NEFARIOUS PLOT IS AN OVERT
ACT OF TREASON SINCE IT EXCLUDES ALL POSSIBILITY OF HAVING BEEN
MOTIVATED BY NON-TREASONABLE CONSIDERATIONS.  BUT AN ACT OF PROVIDING A
MEAL TO AN ENEMY AGENT WHO IS ALSO ONE'S SON RETAINS THE POSSIBILITY OF
HAVING A NON-TREASONABLE BASIS EVEN WHEN PERFORMED IN A TREASONABLE
SETTING; ACCORDINGLY, IT CANNOT QUALIFY AS AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON. 

IT IS TRUE THAT REASONABLE DOUBTS MAY BE RAISED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
THE PRIME MOTIVE FOR AN ACT WAS TREASONOUS.  YET THE NATURE OF SOME
ACTS IS SUCH THAT A NON-TREASONOUS MOTIVE CANNOT BE COMPLETELY
DISMISSED AS A POSSIBILITY.  AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON, HOWEVER, SHOULD
REST UPON SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN A REASONABLE DOUBT.  TREASON
IS DIFFERENT FROM ORDINARY CRIMES, POSSESSING UNIQUE AND DIFFICULT
STANDARDS OF PROOF WHICH CONFINE IT WITHIN NARROW SPHERES.  IT HAS SUCH
SERIOUS CONNOTATIONS THAT ITS SUBSTANCE CANNOT BE LEFT TO CONJECTURE. 
ONLY WHEN THE ALLEGED OVERT ACT MANIFESTS TREASON BEYOND ALL REASONABLE
DOUBT CAN WE BE CERTAIN THAT THE TRAITOR'S STIGMA WILL BE LIMITED TO
THOSE WHOSE ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A REAL THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF THE
NATION. 

TESTED BY THAT STANDARD, THE CONVICTION IN THE INSTANT CASE CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED.  PETITIONER, IT IS SAID, HAD THE MISFORTUNE TO SIRE A
TRAITOR.  THAT SON LIVED WITH PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE IN THEIR CHICAGO
APARTMENT.  AFTER A SOJOURN IN GERMANY FOR TRAINING AS A SABOTEUR, THE
SON RETURNED TO THE CHICAGO APARTMENT AND BEGAN TO MAKE PREPARATIONS TO
CARRY OUT HIS MISSION OF SABOTAGE.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT PETITIONER KNEW
OF HIS SON'S ACTIVITIES AND DESIRED TO HELP HIM.  FOR SIX DAYS PRIOR TO
HIS ARREST, THE SON LIVED IN PETITIONER'S APARTMENT; HE WAS NOT
SECRETED IN ANY WAY, COMING AND GOING AS HE NORMALLY WOULD HAVE DONE. 

THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER COMMITTED AN OVERT ACT OF
TREASON BY SHELTERING AND HARBORING HIS SON FOR THOSE SIX DAYS. 
CONCEDEDLY, THIS WAS A NATURAL ACT FOR A FATHER TO PERFORM; IT IS
CONSISTENT WITH PARENTAL DEVOTION FOR A FATHER TO SHELTER HIS SON,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SON ORDINARILY LIVES WITH THE FATHER.  BUT THE
COURT SAYS THAT THE JURY MIGHT FIND, UNDER APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS,
THAT PETITIONER PROVIDED THIS SHELTER, NOT MERELY AS AN ACT OF AN
INDULGENT FATHER TOWARD A DISLOYAL SON, BUT AS AN ACT DESIGNED TO
INJURE THE UNITED STATES.  A SABOTEUR MUST BE LODGED IN A SAFE PLACE IF
HIS MISSION IS TO BE EFFECTED AND THE JURY MIGHT WELL FIND THAT
PETITIONER LODGED HIS SON FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

BUT THE ACT OF PROVIDING SHELTER WAS OF THE TYPE THAT MIGHT NATURALLY
ARISE OUT OF PETITIONER'S RELATIONSHIP TO HIS SON, AS THE COURT
RECOGNIZES.  BY ITS VERY NATURE, THEREFORE, IT IS A NON-TREASONOUS
ACT.  THAT IS TRUE EVEN WHEN THE ACT IS VIEWED IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES.  ALL THAT CAN BE SAID IS THAT THE PROBLEM OF
WHETHER IT WAS MOTIVATED BY TREASONOUS OR NON-TREASONOUS FACTORS IS
LEFT IN DOUBT.  IT IS THEREFORE NOT AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON, REGARDLESS
OF HOW UNLAWFUL IT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE.
..END :



LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR CO., 330 U.S. 649 


NO. 22.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1945.  REARGUED OCTOBER 21, 22, 1946.  -
DECIDED MARCH 31, 1947.  - 389 ILL. 466, 59 N.E.2D 817, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION "HAS POWER," UNDER SEC. 204 OF
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO A "CHECKER" OR "TERMINAL FOREMAN," A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF WHOSE ACTIVITIES CONSISTS OF DOING, OR IMMEDIATELY
DIRECTING, THE WORK OF ONE OR MORE "LOADERS" OF FREIGHT FOR AN
INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER, AS SUCH CLASS OF WORK HAS BEEN DEFINED BY THE
COMMISSION AND FOUND BY IT TO AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION; AND SUCH
AN EMPLOYEE IS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED BY SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT FROM THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7,
ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION HAS NOT EXERCISED ITS POWER AFFIRMATIVELY BY
ESTABLISHING QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT
TO "LOADERS."  PP. 651-653, 670-685. 

2.  IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT AN EMPLOYEE IS EXCLUDED BY SEC.
13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FROM A RIGHT TO INCREASED PAY
FOR OVERTIME SERVICES UNDER SEC. 7, IT IS NOT NECESSARY AS A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO FIND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS EXERCISED OR SHOULD EXERCISE
ITS POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE. 
THE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER IS ENOUGH.  P. 678. 

3.  FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE COMMISSION AND ITS JURISDICTION
OVER SAFETY OF OPERATION, IT IS THE CHARACTER OF AN EMPLOYEE'S
ACTIVITIES RATHER THAN THE PROPORTION OF HIS TIME OR OF HIS ACTIVITIES
THAT DETERMINES THE NEED FOR THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE.  PP. 674-675.  (SEE ALSO
PYRAMID MOTOR FREIGHT CORP. V. ISPASS, POST, P. 695.) 

4.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES CONSISTED OF DOING, OR IMMEDIATE
DIRECTION OF, THE VERY KIND OF ACTIVITIES OF A "LOADER" WHICH THE
COMMISSION FOUND TO AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION - ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT
APPEAR WHAT FRACTION OF HIS TIME WAS SPENT IN SUCH ACTIVITIES.  P.
681. 

5.  THE SCOPE OF THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 204 TO
ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO
CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS DEPENDS UPON AN
INTERPRETATION OF THAT SECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND THE REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO IT - NOT UPON
A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE EXEMPTION CREATED BY SEC. 13(B)(1)
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  PP. 676-677. 

6.  IN RECONCILING THESE TWO ACTS, IT IS NECESSARY TO PUT SAFETY
FIRST AND TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR TO
THOSE EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS WHOSE ACTIVITIES DO NOT AFFECT THE
SAFETY OF OPERATION.  P. 677. 

7. THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR HAS NO AUTHORITY TO EXPAND HIS
JURISDICTION UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BY ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATIONS WHICH REDUCE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  P. 684. 

LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

AN EMPLOYEE OF AN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER OBTAINED JUDGMENT IN A
STATE COURT FOR UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS REVERSED.  323 ILL.
APP. 505, 56 N.E.2D 142.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AFFIRMED.  389
ILL. 466, 59 N.E.2D 817.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S.
703.  AFFIRMED, P. 685. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAS THE POWER, UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT,
1935,  FN1  TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
WITH RESPECT TO ANY "CHECKER" OR "TERMINAL FOREMAN," A SUBSTANTIAL PART
OF WHOSE ACTIVITIES IN THAT CAPACITY CONSISTS OF DOING, OR IMMEDIATELY
DIRECTING, THE WORK OF ONE OR MORE "LOADERS" OF FREIGHT FOR AN
INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER AS SUCH CLASS OF WORK IS DEFINED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125, 133
134,  FN2  ALTHOUGH THE REST OF HIS ACTIVITIES DO NOT AFFECT THE SAFETY
OF OPERATION OF ANY SUCH MOTOR CARRIER.  FN3 

WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THAT POWER AND THAT SEC. 13(B)(1) OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FN4  THEREFORE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES ANY
SUCH EMPLOYEE FROM A RIGHT TO THE INCREASED PAY FOR OVERTIME SERVICE
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 7 OF THAT ACT.  FN5 

IN THIS ACTION, BROUGHT IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF CHICAGO, PURSUANT
TO SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,  FN6  THE PETITIONER
RECOVERED JUDGMENT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER, THE RESPONDENT, FOR $487.44
FOR UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR PETITIONER'S SERVICES, AS A
"CHECKER" OR "TERMINAL FOREMAN," COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 7 OF
THAT ACT.  IN ADDITION, THE JUDGMENT INCLUDED $487.44, AS LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES, AND $175 AS AN ATTORNEY'S FEE, MAKING A TOTAL OF $1,149.88 AND
COSTS.  THE DEFENSE WAS THAT, UNDER SEC. 13(B)(1), THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 7 DID NOT APPLY TO THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE.  ON THAT GROUND, THE
JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT, WITH COSTS, FOR THE
RESPONDENT.  323 ILL. APP. 505, 56 N.E.2D 142.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS AFFIRMED.  389 ILL. 466, 59 N.E.2D 817.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN INTERPRETING THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT AND FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  326 U.S. 703.  IT WAS ARGUED
AT THE OCTOBER TERM, 1945, OF THIS COURT AND, ON JANUARY 2, 1946, WAS
RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL BENCH AT THIS
TERM.  IT WAS SO ARGUED ON OCTOBER 21 AND 22, 1946.  IN ADDITION TO THE
BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES, WE HAVE HAD THE BENEFIT
OF THOSE PRESENTED, AT OUR REQUEST, ON BEHALF OF AMICI CURIAE.  THESE
WERE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WHO SUPPORTED THE POSITION OF THE
PETITIONER, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION WHICH CLAIMED THAT IT POSSESSED, UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT, THE POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, ALSO AT OUR
REQUEST, FILED A MEMORANDUM.  IN IT HE SUPPORTED THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI AND TOOK WHAT HE HAS DESCRIBED AS "A POSITION SOMEWHAT
BETWEEN THAT OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
ADMINISTRATOR." 

THE RESPONDENT IS A MISSOURI CORPORATION, LICENSED IN ILLINOIS, AND
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS A MOTOR CARRIER OF FREIGHT.  IT DOES
NOT APPEAR WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS A COMMON CARRIER, CONTRACT CARRIER
OR PRIVATE CARRIER OF PROPERTY.  THE RESULT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT TURN
UPON DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE CLASSIFICATIONS.  THE PETITIONER WAS
EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT FROM OCTOBER 1, 1940, THROUGH OCTOBER 6,
1941, IN ONE OR MORE CAPACITIES WHICH HE DESIGNATES GENERALLY AS THOSE
OF A "CHECKER" OR "TERMINAL FOREMAN."  WHILE THE EVIDENCE IS
CONFLICTING AS TO SOME OF HIS DUTIES, THERE IS AMPLE TO SUSTAIN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS ON THE BASIS THAT A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF HIS ACTIVITIES CONSISTED OF DOING, OR IMMEDIATELY
DIRECTING, THE WORK OF ONE OR MORE "LOADERS" OF FREIGHT FOR AN
INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER AS THAT CLASS OF WORK IS DEFINED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS ACCEPTED
THE APPELLATE COURT'S DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES.  FN7  THE
POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS
OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH "LOADERS" HAS BEEN DEFINED AND
DELIMITED BY IT IN A SERIES OF WELL-CONSIDERED DECISIONS, DATING FROM
THE EXTENSION OF ITS JURISDICTION, IN 1935, SO AS TO INCLUDE MOTOR
CARRIERS. 

THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL SAFETY PROGRAM IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ENACTMENT OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT IN 1935 AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN 1938, TELLS THE
STORY. 

IN COMPARABLE FIELDS, CONGRESS PREVIOUSLY HAD PRESCRIBED SAFETY
EQUIPMENT, LIMITED MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE AND IMPOSED PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS OF ITS REQUIREMENTS.  FN8  IN THOSE ACTS, CONGRESS DID NOT
RELY UPON INCREASES IN RATES OF PAY FOR OVERTIME SERVICE TO ENFORCE THE
LIMITATIONS IT SET UPON HOURS OF SERVICE.  WHILE A REQUIREMENT OF PAY
THAT IS HIGHER FOR OVERTIME SERVICE THAN FOR REGULAR SERVICE TENDS TO
DETER EMPLOYERS FROM PERMITTING SUCH SERVICE, IT TENDS ALSO TO
ENCOURAGE EMPLOYEES TO SEEK IT.  THE REQUIREMENT OF SUCH INCREASED PAY
IS A REMEDIAL MEASURE ADAPTED TO THE NEEDS OF AN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
PROGRAM RATHER THAN A POLICE REGULATION ADAPTED TO THE RIGID
ENFORCEMENT REQUIRED IN A SAFETY PROGRAM.  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V.
MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 577-578. 

BY 1935, 40 STATES HAD ATTEMPTED TO REGULATE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF
CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  SOME HAD ESTABLISHED QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR DRIVERS AND HELPERS.  INCREASED INTERSTATE
MOVEMENTS OF MOTOR CARRIERS THEN MADE NECESSARY THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT,
1935, APPROVED AUGUST 9, 1935, AS PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, 49 STAT. 543.  THIS ACT VESTED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION POWER TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY OF
OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR
VEHICLE.  SEC. 204(A)(1)(2).  SIMILAR, BUT NOT IDENTICAL, LANGUAGE WAS
USED AS TO PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  SEC.
204(A)(3).  THE ACT EXPRESSLY SUPERSEDED "ANY CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION
FOR ANY INDUSTRY EMBRACING MOTOR CARRIERS  ..."  SEC. 204(B).  SECTION
203(B) LISTED MANY TYPES OF MOTOR CARRIERS WHICH WERE EXEMPTED IN
GENERAL FROM THE ACT BUT THAT SECTION SIGNIFICANTLY APPLIED TO ALL OF
THEM THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204 AS TO QUALIFICATIONS, MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE, SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT.  FN9 

IT IS EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT THAT IN 1942, SEVERAL YEARS AFTER
ENACTMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, CONGRESS SLIGHTLY,
BUT EXPRESSLY, EXPANDED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION OVER THESE
SUBJECTS OF QUALIFICATIONS, MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE, SAFETY OF
OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT AND THEREBY RESTRICTED, TO A CORRESPONDING
DEGREE, THE APPLICATION OF THE COMPULSORY OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FN10 

IN 1940, THIS COURT, IN UNITED STATES V. AMER.  TRUCKING ASSNS., 310
U.S. 534, RECOGNIZED THE EMPHASIS GIVEN BY CONGRESS TO THE CLAUSE
"QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE" IN SECS. 204(A) AND
203(B).  THAT DECISION REVIEWED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT AND
HELD "THAT THE MEANING OF EMPLOYEES IN SEC. 204(A)(1) AND (2) IS
LIMITED TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES AFFECT THE SAFETY OF
OPERATION.  THE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REGULATE THE
QUALIFICATIONS OR HOURS OF SERVICE OF ANY OTHERS."  ID. AT 553.  THE
OPINION DEALT WITH EMPLOYEES WHO DEVOTED THEMSELVES EXCLUSIVELY TO
THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNMENTS, SUCH AS THOSE OF DRIVERS ON THE ONE HAND
OR OF CLERKS ON THE OTHER.  IT DEMONSTRATED THAT SEC. 204(A)(1) AND (2)
RELATED TO THE FORMER BUT NOT TO THE LATTER.  FN11  IT DID NOT DISCUSS
ITS RELATION TO EMPLOYEES WHO, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, ARE REQUIRED TO
DIVIDE THEIR ACTIVITIES BETWEEN THOSE AFFECTING SAFETY OF OPERATION AND
THOSE NOT AFFECTING IT. 

IN SOUTHLAND CO. V. BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44, THIS COURT APPLIED SIMILAR
REASONING TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A PRIVATE CARRIER OF PROPERTY UNDER SEC.
204(A)(3).  IT RECOGNIZED THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO FIND A NEED FOR ITS
ACTION AND, HAVING FOUND IT, TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE FOR EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE MOTOR CARRIERS OF PROPERTY
AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF SUCH CARRIERS.  IT HELD THAT,
UNDER SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE COMMISSION'S
MERE POSSESSION OF THAT POWER, WHETHER EXERCISED OR NOT, NECESSARILY
EXCLUDED ALL EMPLOYEES, WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THE POWER EXISTED, FROM
THE BENEFITS OF THE COMPULSORY OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7 OF THAT
ACT.  THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES A COMPARABLE SITUATION IN THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS FOUND HERE THAT IT HAS THE POWER TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THOSE DOING THE WORK OF
LOADERS FOR COMMON OR CONTRACT MOTOR CARRIERS OR PRIVATE MOTOR CARRIERS
OF PROPERTY, BUT IT HAS NOT FOUND IT ADVISABLE, AS YET, TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THAT WORK. 

THE LOGIC OF THE SITUATION IS THAT CONGRESS, AS A PRIMARY
CONSIDERATION, HAS PRESERVED INTACT THE SAFETY PROGRAM WHICH IT AND THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING FOR MOTOR CARRIERS
SINCE 1936.  TO DO THIS, CONGRESS HAS PROHIBITED THE OVERLAPPING OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WITH THAT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AS TO MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE.  CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE DONE
OTHERWISE.  IT MIGHT HAVE PERMITTED BOTH ACTS TO APPLY.  THERE IS NO
NECESSARY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN ENFORCING RIGID MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE FOR SAFETY PURPOSES AND AT THE SAME TIME, WITHIN THOSE
LIMITATIONS, REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE INCREASED RATES OF PAY FOR
OVERTIME WORK DONE IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITS SET IN SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  SUCH OVERLAPPING, HOWEVER, HAS NOT BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS N12 AND IT REMAINS FOR US TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO
THE SAFETY PROGRAM TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS ATTACHED PRIMARY IMPORTANCE,
EVEN TO THE CORRESPONDING EXCLUSION BY CONGRESS OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE COMPULSORY OVERTIME PAY PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  WHEN EXAMINED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT ALONE, MUCH LIGHT IS THROWN ON THE MEANING OF ITS SEC. 204
BY THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO IT AND THE APPLICATIONS MADE OF IT BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

THE REPORTS AND REGULATIONS OF THAT COMMISSION, ISSUED UNDER
AUTHORITY OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, BOTH BEFORE AND
AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, DEAL SO THOROUGHLY
AND EXPERTLY WITH THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF INTERSTATE MOTOR
TRANSPORTATION AS TO ENTITLE THEM TO ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT IN
THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS ACT, THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH HAS BEEN
COMMITTED BY CONGRESS SOLELY TO THAT COMMISSION. 

THE PRINCIPAL REPORTS AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION, BEARING UPON
THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY, ARE THE FOLLOWING:  FN13 

DECEMBER 23, 1936.  1 M.C.C. 1.  EX PARTE NO. MC-4 ESTABLISHED
QUALIFICATIONS FOR DRIVERS OF INTERSTATE, COMMON OR CONTRACT CARRIERS
BY MOTOR VEHICLE, OUTLINED A LONG-TERM SAFETY PROGRAM AND ISSUED
REGULATIONS AS TO SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT, CONSTITUTING
PARTS, I, II, III AND IV OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS. 

DECEMBER 29, 1937.  3 M.C.C. 665.  EX PARTE NO. MC-2 ESTABLISHED
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR DRIVERS OF INTERSTATE, COMMON OR CONTRACT
CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLES, PART V OF SUCH REGULATIONS. 

JULY 9, 1938.  8 M.C.C. 162.  EX PARTE NO. MC-4 MODIFIED PART III OF
SUCH REGULATIONS AS TO SAFETY GLASS. 

JULY 12, 1938.  6 M.C.C. 557.  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, IN THE LIGHT OF
CURRENT EXPERIENCE, MODIFIED PART V OF THE REGULATIONS AS TO MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE FOR SUCH DRIVERS. 

DECEMBER 3, 1938.  10 M.C.C. 533.  EX PARTE NO. MC-4 ADAPTED THE
COMMISSION'S GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS AND REGULATIONS TO THOSE TYPES OF
CARRIERS WHICH WERE EXEMPTED FROM THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT BY SEC. 203(B),
BUT WHICH HAD REMAINED SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION,
UNDER SEC. 204, AS TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF
EMPLOYEES, SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT. 

JANUARY 27, 1939.  11 M.C.C. 203.  EX PARTE NO. MC-2 FURTHER MODIFIED
PART V OF REGULATIONS AS TO MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS FOR
COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE. 

MAY 9, 1939.  13 M.C.C. 481.  EX PARTE NO. MC-28 INTERPRETED SEC.
204(A) AS GIVING THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS
AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF COMMON, CONTRACT AND
PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE ONLY AS TO THOSE
EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES AFFECTED SAFETY OF OPERATION.  IT SAID: 
"OUR EXPERIENCE AND THE STUDY WE NECESSARILY MADE IN CONNECTION WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT QUALIFY US TO PRESCRIBE
SUCH REGULATIONS (I.E., AS TO DRIVERS), TO PROMOTE SAFETY OF
OPERATION.  QUITE THE CONTRARY WOULD BE TRUE IF WE WERE CALLED UPON TO
PRESCRIBE GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF SUCH CARRIERS." 
ID. AT 485. 

CLERKS, SALESMEN AND EXECUTIVES WERE NAMED AS NOT BEING WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  REFERRING FURTHER TO ITS POWER TO PRESCRIBE
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO DRIVERS AND
OTHERS, THE COMMISSION SAID: 

"THAT POWER UNDOUBTEDLY EXTENDS TO DRIVERS OF SUCH VEHICLES.  IT MAY
WELL BE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF SOME EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN DRIVERS
LIKEWISE AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  IF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS, OR
PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY, OR THEIR EMPLOYEES BELIEVE THAT THE
ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN DRIVERS AFFECT THE SAFETY OF
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
THEY MAY FILE AN APPROPRIATE PETITION, ASKING THAT A HEARING BE HELD
AND THE QUESTION DETERMINED."  ID. AT 488. 

MAY 27, 1939.  14 M.C.C. 669.  EX PARTE NO. MC-4.  THE "MOTOR CARRIER
SAFETY REGULATIONS, REVISED," WERE FOUND TO BE "REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFICATIONS OF EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND
EQUIPMENT OF COMMON CARRIERS AND CONTRACT CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, 1935, AND THAT SAID REVISED REGULATIONS SHOULD BE
APPROVED, ADOPTED, AND PRESCRIBED."  ID. AT 683.  THESE REVISIONS
STRENGTHENED THE PROVISIONS AS TO QUALIFICATIONS OF DRIVERS, FOR COMMON
AND CONTRACT CARRIERS, AS TO EYESIGHT, PHYSICAL CONDITION, AGE, AND
ABILITY TO READ AND SPEAK ENGLISH.  THEY EXTENDED THE MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE REGULATIONS TO DRIVERS FOR THE "EXEMPT CARRIERS" ENUMERATED IN
SEC. 203(B), EXCEPTING ONLY THOSE REFERRED TO IN SUBPARAGRAPH (4A)
RELATING TO FARMERS.  FN14 

JUNE 15, 1939.  16 M.C.C. 497.  NO. MC-C-139.  UPON PETITION OF
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INCORPORATED, ET AL., THE COMMISSION
REAFFIRMED ITS DECISION OF MAY 9, 1939, IN EX PARTE NO. MC-28, AND
STATED THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF THE PROPOSITION THERE ESTABLISHED.  IT SAID
THAT SEC. 204(A) "DOES NOT EMPOWER US TO PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE FOR EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS WHOSE ACTIVITIES DO NOT AFFECT
THE SAFETY OF OPERATION."  ID. AT 497. 

MAY 1, 1940.  23 M.C.C. 1.  EX PARTE NO. MC-3.  FOLLOWING EXTENDED
HEARINGS, THE COMMISSION MADE FINDINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT HERE.  FIRST,
IT FOUND, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 204(A)(3), THAT "THERE IS NEED FOR
FEDERAL REGULATION OF PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY TO PROMOTE SAFETY OF
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES USED BY SUCH CARRIERS IN THE TRANSPORTATION
OF PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE."  ID. AT 42.  WITH
COMPARATIVELY FEW EXCEPTIONS, SUCH AS THOSE RELATING TO FARM TRUCKS AND
INDUSTRY TRUCKS, THE COMMISSION THEN APPLIED TO DRIVERS FOR PRIVATE
CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS, MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE AND
REGULATIONS AS TO SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT THAT IT PREVIOUSLY
HAD PRESCRIBED, BY ITS ORDERS IN EX PARTE NO. MC-2, SUPRA, AND EX PARTE
NO. MC-4, SUPRA, FOR DRIVERS OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS.  ID. AT
22, 42. 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS ACTION IN RELATION TO THE PRESENT CASE IS
THAT, IN CONSIDERING THE CLASSES OF WORK DONE BY DRIVERS FOR PRIVATE
MOTOR CARRIERS, THE COMMISSION FOUND MANY INSTANCES WHERE ONLY A PART
OF THE DRIVER'S ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DRIVING OR TO OTHER OPERATIONS
AFFECTING SAFETY OF TRANSPORTATION.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMMISSION DEALT
WITH DRIVERS OF FARM TRUCKS.  SECTION 203(B)(4A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT EXEMPTS FARM TRUCKS, FOR MOST PURPOSES, FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THAT
ACT.  NEVERTHELESS, SEC. 204 RETAINS THEM WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF
INTERSTATE CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THAT
SUCH DRIVERS HAVE MANY DUTIES UNRELATED TO THOSE OF DRIVING OR SAFETY
OF OPERATION; THAT FARM TRUCKS, TO A LARGE EXTENT, DO NOT TRAVEL PUBLIC
HIGHWAYS; THAT THE WORK IS NOT A YEAR-ROUND OPERATION BUT GENERALLY IS
CONFINED TO THE HARVEST SEASON; BUT THAT, NEVERTHELESS, WHENEVER SUCH A
TRUCK IS BEING OPERATED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION ON THE PUBLIC
HIGHWAY, THE HAZARDS INVOLVED IN SUCH OPERATION ARE COMPARABLE TO THOSE
FACED BY DRIVERS WHO DEVOTE THEIR ENTIRE TIME TO INTERSTATE TRUCK
DRIVING OF ALL KINDS.  WITH APPROPRIATE MODIFICATIONS, THE COMMISSION
THEREUPON PRESCRIBED FOR DRIVERS OF FARM TRUCKS QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE DIFFERENT FROM, BUT COMPARABLE TO, THOSE IT
HAD PRESCRIBED FOR DRIVERS OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIER TRUCKS IN
GENERAL.  INSTEAD OF ITS STANDARD MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 21 YEARS OF
AGE, IT SET THE MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENT FOR DRIVERS OF FARM TRUCKS AT
18, WHEN THE GROSS WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE AND LOAD COMBINED DID NOT
EXCEED 10,000 POUNDS.  IT DECLINED TO APPROVE A MINIMUM AGE OF 16,
ALTHOUGH THAT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY SOME STATES.  IT ELIMINATED THE
USUAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.  IT RELAXED ITS RULE AGAINST
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS.  IT ELIMINATED ITS REQUIREMENT OF KEEPING
A DRIVER'S LOG SHOWING A WRITTEN RECORD OF THE TRIPS AND STOPS MADE BY
EACH DRIVER.  IT RETAINED, HOWEVER, ITS RESTRICTION AGAINST DRIVING
MORE THAN 10 HOURS IN ANY ONE DAY AND, IN PLACE OF THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 60 HOURS ON DUTY IN A WEEK, IT LIMITED THE
TOTAL HOURS OF DRIVING, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER DUTIES, TO 50 HOURS
IN A WEEK.  EX PARTE NO. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1, 27-28, 43. 

THE COMMISSION TOOK COMPARABLE ACTION AS TO INDUSTRY TRUCKS.  IT
RECOGNIZED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A BAKERY DRIVER-SALESMAN DEVOTES MUCH OF
HIS EFFORT AND TIME TO SELLING BAKED GOODS RATHER THAN TO ACTIVITIES
AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF HIS TRUCK.  THE COMMISSION,
HOWEVER, DID NOT RELINQUISH JURISDICTION OVER THE QUALIFICATIONS OF
DRIVER-SALESMEN NOR DID IT REFRAIN FROM REGULATING THEIR DRIVING TIME. 
IT MODIFIED ITS USUAL RULE BY PROVIDING THAT, IF A DRIVER-SALESMAN
"SPENDS MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF HIS TIME IN SELLING AND LESS THAN 50
PERCENT IN PERFORMING SUCH DUTIES AS DRIVING, LOADING, AND UNLOADING,"
HE MAY BE PERMITTED TO EXCEED THE USUAL LIMIT OF 60 HOURS ON DUTY IN
ANY WEEK OF 168 CONSECUTIVE HOURS, PROVIDED ONLY THAT "HIS HOURS OF
DRIVING ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF NOT MORE THAN 40 IN ANY SUCH WEEK." 
ID. AT 44, AND SEE 31(RECOMMENDING 50 HOURS).  THIS USE BY THE
COMMISSION OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE DRIVER'S TIME AS A BASIS FOR THE
ADJUSTMENT OF HIS PERMISSIBLE MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE IS TO BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SUGGESTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, THAT THE ENTIRE POWER
OF THE COMMISSION OVER SAFETY REGULATIONS MUST BE DENIED AS A MATTER OF
LAW WHENEVER, IN ANY GIVEN WEEK, AN EMPLOYEE HAS DEVOTED OVER 50% OF
HIS WORKING TIME TO ACTIVITIES NOT AFFECTING SAFETY, ALTHOUGH HE MAY
HAVE DEVOTED THE REST OF HIS WORKING TIME TO DRIVING A COMMON CARRIER
TRUCK IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN15  IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
COMMISSION'S SAFETY PROGRAM WHENEVER AND WHEREVER HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES
ARE ENGAGED IN THAT AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION OF AN INTERSTATE MOTOR
CARRIER, THAT THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN THEM SHALL BE QUALIFIED TO DO SO AND
THAT MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE AFFECTING SUCH SAFETY OF OPERATION SHALL
BE ESTABLISHED AND ENFORCED.  THIS MEANS RETAINING AND USING, RATHER
THAN RELINQUISHING, THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER PARTIAL-DUTY
DRIVERS AND PARTIAL-DUTY LOADERS, A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF WHOSE
ACTIVITIES AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS,
ALTHOUGH THE REST OF THEIR ACTIVITIES MAY NOT AFFECT THE SAFETY OF SUCH
OPERATIONS. 

RECOGNIZING ITS POTENTIAL JURISDICTION OVER OTHERS THAN DRIVERS, THE
COMMISSION, IN THAT PROCEEDING, INVITED PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY OR
THEIR EMPLOYEES WHO "BELIEVE THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES OTHER
THAN DRIVERS AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ENGAGED
IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE" TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER
THAT THE QUESTION BE DETERMINED.  ID. AT 44. 

MARCH 4, 1941.  28 M.C.C. 125, EX PARTE NOS. MC-2 AND MC-3.  IN THE
LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING EXPERIENCE AND HEARINGS, TOGETHER WITH THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. AMER.  TRUCKING ASSNS.,
SUPRA, THE COMMISSION, IN THIS LATEST AND MOST INFORMATIVE DECISION,
FOUND THAT THE CLASSES OF ACTIVITIES WHICH IT DEFINED AS THOSE OF
MECHANICS, LOADERS AND HELPERS AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES AND THAT, THEREFORE, EMPLOYEES ENGAGING IN SUCH CLASSES OF
ACTIVITIES ARE SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO PRESCRIBE THEIR
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 204(A). 
FN16  AS RELATED TO LOADERS, THE COMMISSION ANNOUNCED THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANT IN THE PRESENT CASE: 

"FINDINGS OF FACT.  -  ... 

"2.  THAT LOADERS, AS ABOVE DEFINED,  FN17  EMPLOYED BY COMMON AND
CONTRACT CARRIERS AND PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE
SUBJECT TO PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT DEVOTE A LARGE PART
OF THEIR TIME TO ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

     .         .         . .         . 

"4.  THAT NO EMPLOYEES OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS OR PRIVATE
CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE, SUBJECT TO PART II OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, OTHER THAN DRIVERS AND THOSE CLASSES OF
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE THREE PRECEDING FINDINGS OF FACT (MECHANICS,
LOADERS AND HELPERS), PERFORM DUTIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT SAFETY OF
OPERATION."  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125, 138-139. 

THESE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE SQUARELY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION.  THEY STATE AFFIRMATIVELY THAT, IN THE OPINION OF THE
COMMISSION, THE ACTIVITIES OF LOADERS AS DESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION DO
AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THEY INCLUDE ALSO A FINDING THAT SUCH LOADERS
"DEVOTE A LARGE PART OF THEIR TIME TO ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT
THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE."  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCUSSION OR CLASSIFICATION, ON A
TIME BASIS, OF THE SEVERAL ACTIVITIES OF LOADERS DESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSION, THIS ADDITIONAL FINDING AMOUNTS TO ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING
THAT A LARGE PART OF THE LOADER'S ACTIVITIES AFFECT SUCH SAFETY OF
OPERATION.  THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT IT USES THE ELEMENT OF
TIME OTHER THAN AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONTINUING WORK PERIOD DURING
ALL OF WHICH THE LOADER IS DEVOTING HIMSELF TO THE ACTIVITIES OF HIS
JOB AS A LOADER.  IT AMOUNTS, THEREFORE, MERELY TO A FINDING AS TO THE
CHARACTER OF A LARGE PART OF THE ACTIVITIES OF LOADERS, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION'S PROCEEDING WHICH WAS TO
DETERMINE TO WHAT EXTENT, IF ANY, THE ACTIVITIES OF LOADERS AFFECT
SAFETY OF OPERATION. 

THIS ADDITIONAL FINDING, HOWEVER, IS MATERIAL FROM ANOTHER POINT OF
VIEW.  IT RECOGNIZES TACITLY THAT EVEN A FULL-DUTY LOADER MAY ENGAGE IN
SOME ACTIVITIES WHICH DO NOT AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION.  SUCH "NON
SAFETY" ACTIVITIES MAY MAKE UP ANOTHER "LARGE PART" OF THE LOADER'S
TOTAL ACTIVITIES.  THEY MAY CONSTITUTE AN EVEN LARGER PART OF HIS
ACTIVITIES THAN HIS SAFETY-AFFECTING ACTIVITIES.  IN THE PRESENT CASE
IT WAS SHOWN BY THE COURTS BELOW THAT, IN ADDITION TO HIS ACTIVITIES IN
CLERICAL CHECKING, ETC., A "SUBSTANTIAL PART" OF THE PETITIONER'S
ACTIVITIES CONSISTED OF THE VERY KIND OF ACTIVITIES OF A LOADER WHICH
THE COMMISSION HAS DESCRIBED AS DIRECTLY AFFECTING SAFETY OF
OPERATION.  IF IT BE SUGGESTED THAT SIGNIFICANCE SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO
THE COMMISSION'S USE OF THE WORD "LARGE" RATHER THAN THE LOWER COURTS'
USE OF THE WORD "SUBSTANTIAL" IN THIS CONNECTION, SUCH SIGNIFICANCE
DISAPPEARS COMPLETELY WHEN IT IS SEEN THAT THE COMMISSION ITSELF
SUBSTITUTES THE WORD "SUBSTANTIAL" FOR THE WORD "LARGE" IN ITS
CONCLUSION OF LAW WHICH IS QUOTED BELOW. 

WHILE THE INDEFINITENESS OF THE TERMS "LARGE" OR "SUBSTANTIAL" IS
OBVIOUS, NEVERTHELESS, THOSE ARE THE WORDS WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS
CHOSEN TO USE IN DEALING WITH THIS SUBJECT.  ARBITRARY OR SHARP LINES
OF DISTINCTION DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES READILY TO SUPPLYING THAT EXTRA
MARGIN OF SECURITY WHICH IS NATURAL IN SAFETY ENGINEERING.  THE
FUNDAMENTAL TEST IS SIMPLY THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES AFFECT SAFETY
OF OPERATION.  THIS IS THE TEST PRESCRIBED BY THIS COURT IN UNITED
STATES V. AMER.  TRUCKING ASSNS., SUPRA.  THE VERB "AFFECT" IS ITSELF
INCAPABLE OF EXACT MEASUREMENT.  FURTHERMORE, WE ARE DEALING HERE NOT
WITH THE FINAL APPLICATION OF THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION, BUT RATHER
WITH THE LIMITS OF ITS DISCRETIONARY POWER TO ESTABLISH THE
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE WHEN AND WHERE DEEMED BY IT
TO BE NEEDED.  IN ISSUING ITS REGULATIONS, THE COMMISSION ITSELF CAN
SUPPLY WHATEVER DEFINITENESS THE OCCASION SHALL REQUIRE.  FROM THE
POINT OF VIEW OF THE SAFETY PROGRAM UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, THERE
IS NO NEED FOR A SHARPLY DRAWN LIMIT TO THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO
MAKE REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES AFFECT THE
SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE. 

TURNING TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHICH WERE REACHED BY THE
COMMISSION IN THE SAME PROCEEDING WE FIND THE FOLLOWING: 

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  -  ... 

"2.  THAT OUR JURISDICTION TO PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE FOR EMPLOYEES OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS AND
PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE IS LIMITED TO THOSE
EMPLOYEES WHO DEVOTE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR TIME TO ACTIVITIES
WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE.    "3.  THAT WE HAVE POWER, UNDER SECTION 204(A) OF SAID PART
II, TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THE
CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES COVERED BY FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBERED 1, 2, AND 3
ABOVE (MECHANICS, LOADERS AND HELPERS), AND THAT WE HAVE NO SUCH POWER
OVER ANY OTHER CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT DRIVERS. 

"A FURTHER HEARING WILL BE HELD TO DETERMINE WHAT REGULATIONS, IF
ANY, SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES, OTHER THAN DRIVERS, WHOM
WE HAVE FOUND SUBJECT TO OUR JURISDICTION.  NO ORDER IS NECESSARY AT
THIS TIME."  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125, 139.  AS CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW, THESE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME CLAIM TO FINALITY AS DO THE FINDINGS OF
FACT MADE BY THE COMMISSION.  HOWEVER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMMISSION'S
LONG RECORD OF PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE WITH THIS SUBJECT AND ITS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS LAW,
THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE ENTITLED TO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.  CONCLUSION OF
LAW NO. 2 MUST BE READ IN CLOSE CONNECTION WITH FINDING OF FACT NO. 2
AND CONCLUSION OF LAW NO. 3.  IT IS APPARENT THAT, IN CONCLUSION OF LAW
NO. 2, THE PHRASE "EMPLOYEES WHO DEVOTE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR
TIME TO ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF
MOTOR VEHICLES" IS INTENDED TO MATCH THE CORRESPONDING PHRASE IN
FINDING OF FACT NO. 2 AS TO LOADERS WHO "DEVOTE A LARGE PART OF THEIR
TIME TO ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF
MOTOR VEHICLES."  THIS IS MADE STILL MORE CLEAR BY CONCLUSION OF LAW
NO. 3 WHICH FINDS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THE LOADERS INCLUDED IN
BOTH PARAGRAPHS.  HERE AGAIN THERE IS NO CLASSIFICATION OF THE
RESPECTIVE ACTIVITIES OF LOADERS ON THE BASIS OF THE TIME DEVOTED TO
EACH ACTIVITY.  THE PHRASE CLOSELY FOLLOWS A DISCUSSION OF FULL-DUTY
LOADERS AND ITS REFERENCE TO A "SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR TIME" IS BUT
ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING A "SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR ACTIVITIES AS
LOADERS." 

ADDRESSING OURSELVES TO THE QUESTIONS OF LAW PRESENTED BY THE CASE
BEFORE US, WE REAFFIRM OUR POSITION IN UNITED STATES V. AMER.  TRUCKING
ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, AND SOUTHLAND CO. V. BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44.  WE
RECOGNIZE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AS THE AGENCY CHARGED WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND
ESPECIALLY CHARGED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS AND
PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  WE SEE NO REASON TO QUESTION ITS CONSIDERED CONCLUSION THAT
THE ACTIVITIES OF FULL-DUTY DRIVERS, MECHANICS, LOADERS AND HELPERS, AS
DEFINED BY IT, AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION OF THE CARRIERS BY WHOM THEY
ARE EMPLOYED.  IN HARMONY WITH OUR REASONING IN SOUTHLAND CO. V.
BAYLEY, SUPRA, AND WITH THAT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN
EX PARTE NO. MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1, AS TO EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE CARRIERS,
AND IN EX PARTE NOS. MC-2 AND MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125, AS TO MECHANICS,
LOADERS AND HELPERS IN GENERAL, WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THE
POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE UNDER
SEC. 204(A) WITH RESPECT TO FULL-DUTY EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN DOING THE
WORK OF LOADERS, ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION HAS NOT EXERCISED THAT POWER
AFFIRMATIVELY BY ESTABLISHING QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO LOADERS. 

IN HARMONY WITH OUR DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. AMER.  TRUCKING
ASSNS., SUPRA, AND OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN EX PARTE
NO. MC-28, 13 M.C.C. 481, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS SUCH
POWER OVER ALL EMPLOYEES OF SUCH CARRIERS WHOSE ACTIVITIES AFFECT
SAFETY OF OPERATION AND THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE SUCH POWER
OVER EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES DO NOT AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION.  IN
THE AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS CASE IT WAS NOT DETERMINED THAT IT
WAS NECESSARY FOR ANY EMPLOYEE TO DEVOTE ALL, OR ANY PRECISE SHARE, OF
HIS WORKING TIME OR OF HIS ACTIVITIES, TO A PARTICULAR CLASS OF WORK IN
ORDER FOR SUCH CLASS OF WORK TO BE HELD TO AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION. 
IT WAS ASSUMED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT CASE, THAT THE EMPLOYEE
DEVOTED HIS ENTIRE WORKING TIME AND ACTIVITIES TO THE SINGLE CLASS OF
WORK UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

IT HAS BEEN NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION, IN DEFINING THE
CLASS OF WORK, AS A WHOLE, OF LOADERS, RECOGNIZED, IN ITS FINDINGS OF
FACT, THAT THAT CLASS OF WORK IN ITS NATURE INCLUDED DUTIES OTHER THAN
THOSE DIRECTLY AFFECTING SAFETY OF OPERATION.  IT SAID:  "WE CONCLUDE
THAT LOADERS DEVOTE A LARGE PART OF THEIR TIME TO ACTIVITIES WHICH
DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND HENCE THAT WE HAVE POWER TO
ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR SUCH
EMPLOYEES UNDER SAID SECTION 204(A)."  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C.
125, 134, AND SEE 139.  THIS MEANS THAT THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES OF
EVEN A FULL-DUTY "LOADER" IS SUCH THAT IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT MORE
THAN A "LARGE PART" OF HIS TIME OR ACTIVITIES BE CONSUMED IN ACTIVITIES
DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES - FOR
EXAMPLE - LOADING, DISTRIBUTING AND MAKING SECURE HEAVY OR LIGHT
PARCELS OF FREIGHT ON BOARD A TRUCK SO AS TO CONTRIBUTE AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE TO THE SAFETY OF THE TRIP.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MEANS ALSO
THAT MORE THAN HALF OF THE TIME OR ACTIVITIES OF A FULL-DUTY "LOADER"
MAY BE CONSUMED IN ACTIVITIES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES - FOR EXAMPLE - IN PLACING FREIGHT IN
CONVENIENT PLACES IN THE TERMINAL, CHECKING BILLS OF LADING, ETC.  FROM
THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE COMMISSION AND ITS JURISDICTION OVER SAFETY OF
OPERATION, THIS INDICATES THAT IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF FUNDAMENTAL
CONCERN WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE LARGER OR THE SMALLER FRACTION OF THE
EMPLOYEE'S TIME OR ACTIVITIES THAT IS DEVOTED TO SAFETY WORK.  IT IS
THE CHARACTER OF THE ACTIVITIES RATHER THAN THE PROPORTION OF EITHER
THE EMPLOYEE'S TIME OR OF HIS ACTIVITIES THAT DETERMINES THE ACTUAL
NEED FOR THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO QUALIFICATIONS, MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE, SAFETY OF
OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT.  THIS LINE OF REASONING IS CONSISTENT WITH
THAT APPLIED THROUGHOUT THIS CASE.  IT RESULTS IN KEEPING WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION'S SAFETY PROGRAM PARTIAL-DUTY LOADERS,
AS WELL AS FULL-DUTY LOADERS, PROVIDED ONLY THAT THE CLASS OF WORK DONE
BY THEM AFFECTS SAFETY OF OPERATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IN
ANY PARTICULAR WEEK THEY MAY HAVE DEVOTED MORE HOURS AND DAYS TO
ACTIVITIES NOT AFFECTING SAFETY OF OPERATION THAN THEY MAY HAVE DEVOTED
TO THOSE AFFECTING SUCH SAFETY OF OPERATION.  THE COMMISSION USES
SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN ASSERTING ITS JURISDICTION OVER MECHANICS AND
HELPERS.  THIS REASONING ALSO RESEMBLES THAT BY WHICH THE COMMISSION
IMPOSES UPON A "DRIVER" A MAXIMUM TOTAL OF 60 HOURS OF SERVICE "ON
DUTY" OF ANY KIND, IN A "WEEK" OF 168 CONSECUTIVE HOURS, AS WELL AS A
MAXIMUM OF 10 HOURS, IN THE AGGREGATE, OF DRIVING OR OPERATING OF A
MOTOR VEHICLE IN ANY PERIOD OF 24 CONSECUTIVE HOURS.  EX PARTE NO. MC
2, 3 M.C.C. 665, 6 M.C.C. 557, 11 M.C.C. 203.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE
COMMISSION HAS RECOGNIZED EXPRESSLY THAT, IN CHARTER OPERATIONS, THE
DRIVER OF A CHARTERED BUS MAY BE ON DUTY FOR LONG HOURS, BUT OFTEN MAY
SPEND AS LITTLE AS ONE-HALF OF THAT TIME ACTUALLY DRIVING.  EX PARTE
NO. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665, 679.  ALL OF THESE CONCLUSIONS RECOGNIZE THAT
AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN A CLASS OF WORK THAT AFFECTS SAFETY OF
OPERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY ENGAGED DURING EVERY HOUR OR EVERY DAY IN
ACTIVITIES THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION.  WHILE THE WORK OF
A FULL-DUTY DRIVER MAY AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION DURING ONLY THAT PART
OF THE TIME WHILE HE IS DRIVING, YET, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IT IS
ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO HIS
QUALIFICATIONS AND ACTIVITIES AT ALL TIMES IN ORDER THAT THE SAFETY OF
OPERATION OF HIS TRUCK MAY BE PROTECTED DURING THOSE PARTICULAR HOURS
OR DAYS WHEN, IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES AS ITS DRIVER, HE DOES THE
PARTICULAR ACTS THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF ITS OPERATION. 
FN18 

WE HAVE SET FORTH THE COMMISSION'S RECORD OF SUPERVISION OVER THIS
FIELD OF SAFETY OF OPERATION TO DEMONSTRATE NOT ONLY THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THE COMMISSION SERVES CONGRESS IN SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC WITH
RESPECT TO QUALIFICATIONS, MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE, SAFETY OF
OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS, BUT TO
DEMONSTRATE THE HIGH DEGREE OF ITS COMPETENCE IN THIS SPECIALIZED FIELD
WHICH JUSTIFIES RELIANCE UPON ITS FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. 

BEFORE EXAMINING FURTHER THE NEW ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT, BY VIRTUE OF THE UNIQUE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, WE ARE NOT
DEALING WITH AN EXCEPTION TO THAT ACT WHICH IS TO BE MEASURED BY
REGULATIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR.  FN19  INSTEAD, WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH THE INTERPRETATION
OF THE SCOPE OF THE SAFETY PROGRAM OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, WHICH IN TURN IS
TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE REGULATIONS MADE BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THAT ACT.  CONGRESS, IN THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO IMPINGE UPON THE SCOPE OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SAFETY PROGRAM.  IT ACCEPTS THAT
PROGRAM AS EXPRESSIVE OF A PRE-EXISTING CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED
PROJECT.  SECTION 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT THUS
REQUIRES THAT WE INTERPRET THE SCOPE OF SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND THE
REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO IT.  IT IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO SAID SEC. 204,
THAT THE SUBSEQUENT FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABLE
OR ITS ADMINISTRATOR HAS BEEN GIVEN CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO ACT. 
THIS INTERPRETATION PUTS SAFETY FIRST, AS DID CONGRESS.  IT LIMITS THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S AUTHORITY TO THOSE "EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS WHOSE
ACTIVITIES DO NOT AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION."  NO. MC-C-139, 16
M.C.C. 497. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE SHOULD APPROACH THE ISSUE OF THE PARTIALDUTY DRIVER
AND THE PARTIAL-DUTY LOADER SQUARELY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE
SAFETY PROGRAM OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AS DEVELOPED
UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, APART FROM THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  THE PRINCIPLE TO BE APPLIED IS THE SAME IN THE CASE OF
THE LOADER AS IN THAT OF THE DRIVER, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MORE OBVIOUS
WHEN THE TEST OF JURISDICTION IS APPLIED TO THE DRIVER THAN WHEN
APPLIED TO ANY OTHER CLASS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE MOTOR CARRIER.  THIS IS
BECAUSE THE DRIVER'S WORK MORE OBVIOUSLY AND DRAMATICALLY AFFECTS THE
SAFETY OF OPERATION OF THE CARRIER DURING EVERY MOMENT THAT HE IS
DRIVING THAN DOES THE WORK OF THE LOADER WHO LOADED THE FREIGHT WHICH
THE DRIVER IS TRANSPORTING.  FURTHERMORE, IN THE CASE OF THE DRIVER,
THE COMMISSION NOT ONLY HAS FOUND THAT IT HAS THE POWER TO ESTABLISH,
BUT IT ACTUALLY HAS ESTABLISHED, TESTED AND REVISED, A SET OF
QUALIFICATIONS FOR HIS SERVICE AND A MAXIMUM LIMITATION ON THE
AGGREGATE NUMBER OF HOURS DURING WHICH HE SAFELY MAY BE PERMITTED TO
DRIVE DURING ANY PERIOD OF 24 CONSECUTIVE HOURS.  IT ALSO HAS
ESTABLISHED A MAXIMUM LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF HOURS DURING ANY
"WEEK" OF 168 CONSECUTIVE HOURS DURING WHICH SUCH A DRIVER SAFELY MAY
BE PERMITTED TO BE "ON DUTY," EVEN THOUGH MANY OF HIS ACTIVITIES AND
MUCH OF HIS TIME WHILE "ON DUTY" MAY NOT AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION OF
THE CARRIER.  FN20 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS THE
POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE WITH
RESPECT TO PARTIAL-DUTY LOADERS COMPARABLE TO THE PETITIONER.  IT IS
NOT NECESSARY, AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, TO FIND THAT THE COMMISSION
HAS EXERCISED, OR SHOULD EXERCISE, SUCH POWER BY ACTUALLY ESTABLISHING
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO LOADERS IN
GENERAL, CORRESPONDING TO THOSE ESTABLISHED FOR DRIVERS IN GENERAL. 
THE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER IS ENOUGH.  THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS
FOUND IT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE WHICH COVER NOT ONLY DRIVERS, BUT ALSO PARTIALDUTY DRIVERS, IS
AN INDICATION THAT, IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION, ITS POWER, UNDER
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, EXTENDS TO PARTIAL-DUTY AS WELL AS TO FULL-DUTY
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF
INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS. 

THE PRINCIPLE CAN BE TESTED BY THE USE OF A PARTIAL-DUTY DRIVER AS AN
EXAMPLE.  HIS ACTIVITIES ARE SUCH THAT THE EXCLUSION OF THEM FROM THE
COMMISSION'S SAFETY PROGRAM WOULD HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.  IN THE
CASE OF THE FULL-DUTY DRIVER, THERE IS NO QUESTION AS TO THE POWER OF
THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO HIS
QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE.  FN21  REGULATIONS ON THESE
SUBJECTS WERE IN EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD WITH WHICH THIS CASE IS
CONCERNED.  IN THE CLASS OF WORK REFERRED TO BY THE COMMISSION AS THAT
OF DRIVER-SALESMEN OF INDUSTRY TRUCKS, THE REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN
ISSUED HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ABOVE.  FN22  THESE WERE ADAPTED EXPRESSLY
TO DRIVERS WHO DEVOTED LESS THAN 50% OF THEIR TIME TO DRIVING.  THE
EFFECT THUS GIVEN BY THE COMMISSION TO THE FACT THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES
DEVOTE LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF THEIR TIME TO DRIVING IS NOT TO EXCLUDE
SUCH PARTIAL-DUTY DRIVERS FROM ANY OF ITS REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS. 
THESE QUALIFICATIONS INCLUDE THOSE RELATING TO EYESIGHT, PHYSICAL
CONDITION, AGE, OR ABILITY TO READ OR SPEAK ENGLISH, ETC., WHICH ARE
DEEMED BY IT TO BE IMPORTANT FOR DRIVERS IN GENERAL.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THIS FACT THAT CERTAIN EMPLOYEES DEVOTE A PART, RATHER THAN ALL,
OF THEIR TIME TO DRIVING HAS BROUGHT FORTH FROM THE COMMISSION AN
APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF ITS SAFETY REGULATIONS TO FIT THAT FACT. 
THE MODIFICATION TAKES THE FORM OF ELIMINATING THE COMMISSION'S
LIMITATION ON THE TOTAL MAXIMUM HOURS THAT THE EMPLOYEE CAN REMAIN ON
DUTY IN A WEEK OF 168 CONSECUTIVE HOURS BUT LIMITING HIS HOURS OF
ACTUAL DRIVING TO AN AGGREGATE OF NOT MORE THAN 50 IN ANY SUCH WEEK. 
THIS REQUIREMENT, ESTABLISHED BY THE AGENCY WHICH IS RECOGNIZED BY
CONGRESS AS THE ONE BODY AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE APPLICABLE TO DRIVERS OF MOTOR CARRIERS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS A DEMONSTRATION THAT SUCH AGENCY HAS FOUND IT
NECESSARY TO MAKE ACTIVE USE OF ITS POWERS OF REGULATION IN THIS FIELD
OF PART-TIME DRIVING.  IT FOLLOWS, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, THAT, IF
SUCH POWER EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO FULL-DUTY DRIVERS AND PARTIAL-DUTY
DRIVERS BECAUSE THEY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF THE INTERSTATE
MOTOR CARRIERS, THE POWER EXISTS ALSO WITH RESPECT TO FULL-DUTY LOADERS
AND PARTIAL-DUTY LOADERS BECAUSE THEY TOO AFFECT SUCH SAFETY OF
OPERATION, ALTHOUGH NOT IN PRECISELY THE SAME MANNER. 

FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, A PARTIAL-DUTY DRIVER WHO DRIVES 30 HOURS
CONTINUOUSLY AND THEN DRIVES NO MORE DURING THAT WEEK CREATES A GREATER
HAZARD THAN THE MAN WHO DRIVES 10 HOURS DAILY FOR 6 DAYS A WEEK.  THE
HAZARD OF CONTINUOUS DRIVING IS NOT MEASURED ADEQUATELY BY THE TOTAL
HOURS DURING WHICH THE DRIVER IS EMPLOYED DURING THE WEEK, NOR IS IT
ELIMINATED BY A LAW WHICH ENTITLES HIM MERELY TO AN INCREASED RATE OF
PAY FOR WHATEVER TIME, ABOVE 40 HOURS PER WEEK, HE SHALL WORK IN ANY
ONE WORKWEEK.  THE LOADING OF ANY TRUCK LOAD OF MIXED FREIGHT REQUIRES
THAT THE GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS OF THE LOADER BE ADEQUATE, REGARDLESS
OF THE PROPORTION OF HIS WORKING TIME THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DEVOTED TO
THIS ACTIVITY OR TO OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THAT PARTICULAR WEEK. 
SIMILARLY, HIS HOURS OF CONTINUOUS WORK DURING A DAY OF HEAVY LOADING
MAY RENDER HIM UNFIT FOR LOADING THE LAST TRUCK ON THAT DAY EVEN
THOUGH, FOR THE ENTIRE BALANCE OF THAT WEEK, HE MAY ENGAGE IN NO
ACTIVITIES WHATEVER OR MAY ENGAGE IN ONLY SUCH ACTIVITIES AS ARE
UNRELATED TO SAFETY OF OPERATION. 

WE HAVE IN THIS CASE AN EMPLOYEE WORKING FULL TIME THROUGHOUT HIS
EMPLOYMENT AS A "CHECKER" OR "TERMINAL FOREMAN."  IF HE HAD WORKED FULL
TIME AS A "LOADER" AS DEFINED BY THE COMMISSION, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
UNQUESTIONABLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT
NECESSARY TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 
UNDER THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF THE COMMISSION IN EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28
M.C.C. 125, 139, A FULL-DUTY "LOADER" DOES NOT HAVE TO DEVOTE MORE THAN
A "SUBSTANTIAL PART" OF HIS TIME TO ACTIVITIES DIRECTLY AFFECTING
SAFETY OF OPERATION IN ORDER TO BE SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
WITH RESPECT TO HIM.  SO HERE IT IS ENOUGH FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
CASE THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES CONSISTED
OF THE DOING OR IMMEDIATE DIRECTION OF THE VERY KIND OF ACTIVITIES OF A
LOADER THAT ARE DESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION AS DIRECTLY AFFECTING
SAFETY OF OPERATION.  THE PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES THUS AFFECTED SAFETY
OF OPERATION, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHAT FRACTION OF HIS TIME WAS
SPENT IN ACTIVITIES AFFECTING SAFETY OF OPERATION.  AS A CONSEQUENCE,
HE COMES WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS
AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO HIM AND, BY THE EXPRESS
TERMS OF SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, HE IS EXCLUDED,
AUTOMATICALLY, FROM THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 7 OF THAT ACT. 

RECOGNIZING THAT IT IS THE INTENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO
GIVE FULL RECOGNITION TO THE SAFETY PROGRAM OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT,
THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE MEANING OR PURPOSE OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, ALTHOUGH IT DOES REDUCE THE SCOPE OF
APPLICATION OF THE COMPULSORY OVERTIME COMPENSATION PROVISIONS OF SEC.
7 OF THAT ACT. 

THE CONTRARY POSITION WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN AS TO PARTIAL-DUTY
DRIVERS, MECHANICS, LOADERS AND HELPERS BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, REQUIRES
MENTION.  THIS POSITION NO DOUBT AROSE FROM A DESIRE TO GIVE WIDE
EFFECT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN AN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH ITS
REMEDIAL CHARACTER.  GENERALLY, AN EXPANSION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
ACT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH JURISDICTIONS ESTABLISHED UNDER OTHER ACTS
OF CONGRESS, WHEREAS HERE EVERY EXPANSION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
ACT THROUGH INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 13(B)(1) CUTS DOWN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT. 
FURTHERMORE, IN SEEKING A PRACTICAL METHOD OF RESOLVING OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES SUCH AS THAT OF DETERMINING THE DEGREE OF
INTERSTATE ACTIVITY OR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE WHICH SHOULD BE THE
MEASURE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ACT OR OF EXEMPTION FROM IT, THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAS FOUND IT PRACTICAL TO FIX UPON A SPECIFIC PROPORTION
OF TIME DEVOTED TO A PARTICULAR KIND OF ACTIVITY AND TO MAKE THAT
PROPORTION DECISIVE.  IN SOME INSTANCES, IN REGULATIONS, HE HAS USED
20% AS A TEST OF SUBSTANTIALITY.  FN23 

IN AN ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE PRESENT DIFFICULTY IN A SIMILAR MANNER,
THE ADMINISTRATOR AT ONE TIME PROPOSED THAT, IF AN EMPLOYEE IN ANY
GIVEN WEEK DEVOTED 20% OR MORE OF HIS TIME TO ACTIVITIES NOT AFFECTING
SAFETY OF OPERATION, HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE
OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FN24
HE SOON ABANDONED THIS, BUT HE HAS ATTEMPTED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ON
A 50% BASIS IN INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 9, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION,
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER, 1943, 1944-1945 WH MAN.  520,
523, AS FOLLOWS: 

"4.... 

"(B)  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ANY TRUCK DRIVER, DRIVERS' HELPER,
MECHANIC, OR LOADER EMPLOYED BY A COMMON, CONTRACT, OR PRIVATE CARRIER
WHO SPENDS THE GREATER PART OF HIS TIME DURING ANY WORKWEEK ON
NONEXEMPT ACTIVITIES (SUCH AS PRODUCING, PROCESSING, OR MANUFACTURING
GOODS, WAREHOUSE OR CLERICAL WORK, OR OTHER TYPE OF WORK WHICH DOES NOT
AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATIONS) IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION
CONTAINED IN SECTION 13(B)(1).  IT IS THE OPINION OF THE DIVISION THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT THIS EXEMPTION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AS A
VEHICLE TO EXEMPT EMPLOYEES WHO SPEND MOST OF THEIR TIME IN WORK OTHER
THAN THAT WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE EXEMPTION." 

IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF THIS BULLETIN HE RECOGNIZES THE LIMITED LEGAL
EFFECT TO WHICH THIS INTERPRETATION IS ENTITLED, ESPECIALLY INSOFAR AS
IT CONCERNS THE MEANING OF SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  FN25 

SUCH AN INTERPRETATION CONFLICTS, HOWEVER, WITH THE COMMISSION'S
SAFETY PROGRAM.  IT CONFLICTS DIRECTLY, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE
REGULATION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO PARTIAL-DUTY DRIVERS OF INDUSTRY
TRUCKS OF PRIVATE CARRIERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN26 

THE FUNDAMENTAL AND EVER-RECURRING DIFFICULTY WITH THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT IS THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT HE EXPANDS THE JURISDICTION OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT HE MUST REDUCE THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, WHEREAS HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO
DO SO.  FN27 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT, UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES WHOSE SERVICE AFFECTS THE SAFETY
OF TRANSPORTATION OF COMMON CARRIERS, CONTRACT CARRIERS OR PRIVATE
CARRIERS OF PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE; THAT SUCH
COMMISSION HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
THAT ACT; AND THAT IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTIES AND AFTER
EXTENDED HEARINGS ON THE SUBJECT, IT HAS FOUND THAT THE WORK OF
LOADERS, AS DEFINED BY IT, AFFECTS SAFETY OF MOTOR CARRIER OPERATION. 
FURTHERMORE, WE CONCLUDE, UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURTS IN THIS
CASE, THAT THE PETITIONER WAS EMPLOYED BY A MOTOR CARRIER OF INTERSTATE
FREIGHT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND THAT,
THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD AT ISSUE, A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF HIS ACTIVITIES
CONSISTED OF DOING, OR IMMEDIATELY DIRECTING, THE WORK OF ONE OR MORE
LOADERS AS DEFINED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND AFFECTING
THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE; THAT, ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION, WITH RESPECT TO HIM, HAD
POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE; AND
THAT, BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7 OF THAT ACT AS TO OVERTIME PAY WERE RENDERED
INAPPLICABLE TO HIM.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
THEREFORE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE MATERIAL PARTS OF SEC. 204 ARE: 

"SEC. 204(A) IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION - 

"(1)  TO REGULATE COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN
THIS PART, AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CONTINUOUS AND ADEQUATE SERVICE,
TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS, UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS,
RECORDS, AND REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND
EQUIPMENT. 

"(2)  TO REGULATE CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN
THIS PART, AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND
REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT. 

"(3)  TO ESTABLISH FOR PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE,
IF NEED THEREFOR IS FOUND, REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE SAFETY OF
OPERATION, AND TO THAT END PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS
OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT  ...."  49 STAT.
546, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 304(A)(1), (2) AND (3). 

FN2  "(2)  LOADERS.  -  ... 

"THE LARGE CARRIERS,  ...  PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO HAVE IMPORTANT
OPERATIONS FROM TERMINAL TO TERMINAL, EMPLOY MEN VARIOUSLY CALLED
LOADERS, DOCKMEN, OR HELPERS, AND HEREINAFTER CALLED LOADERS, WHOSE
SOLE DUTIES ARE TO LOAD AND UNLOAD MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRANSFER FREIGHT
BETWEEN MOTOR VEHICLES AND BETWEEN THE VEHICLES AND THE WAREHOUSE. 

"THE EVIDENCE MAKES IT ENTIRELY CLEAR THAT A MOTOR VEHICLE MUST BE
PROPERLY LOADED TO BE SAFELY OPERATED ON THE HIGHWAYS OF THE COUNTRY. 
IF MORE WEIGHT IS PLACED ON ONE SIDE OF THE VEHICLE THAN ON THE OTHER,
THERE IS A TENDENCY TO TIP WHEN ROUNDING CURVES.  IF MORE WEIGHT IS
PLACED IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE, THE TENDENCY IS TO RAISE THE FRONT
WHEELS AND MAKE SAFE OPERATION DIFFICULT.  FURTHER, IT IS NECESSARY
THAT THE LOAD BE DISTRIBUTED PROPERLY OVER THE AXLES OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLE. 

"PROPER LOADING IS NOT ONLY NECESSARY WHEN HEAVY MACHINERY, STEEL,
AND OTHER LIKE COMMODITIES ARE BEING TRANSPORTED, BUT IS OF IMPORTANCE
WHEN NORMAL PACKAGE FREIGHT IS HANDLED.  IF SEVERAL PACKING CASES
WEIGHING FROM 150 TO 200 POUNDS ARE LOADED ON ONE SIDE OF A MOTOR
VEHICLE OR AT ONE END THEREOF, AND LIGHTER FREIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OR
AT THE OTHER END, SAFE OPERATION IS DIFFICULT.  THE GREAT MAJORITY, IF
NOT ALL, OF THE CARRIERS WHOSE OPERATIONS ARE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE OR
CHARACTER TO JUSTIFY THE EMPLOYMENT OF LOADERS HANDLE FREIGHT OF SUCH
WEIGHT THAT PROPER LOADING IS NECESSARY."  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C.
125, 133-134. 

FN3  THROUGHOUT THIS CASE IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS WITHIN
THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THE REGULAR "LOADERS" WHO SERVED UNDER THE
IMMEDIATE DIRECTION OF THE PETITIONER.  NO CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE ON THEIR
BEHALF TO THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE
PRESENT CONTROVERSY IS LIMITED TO THE STATUS OF THE PETITIONER
HIMSELF.  HIS STATUS IS REFERRED TO THROUGHOUT THIS OPINION AS THAT OF
A "PARTIAL-DUTY LOADER," EXCEPT WHERE HE IS REFERRED TO BY HIS OWN
DESIGNATION OF HIMSELF AS A "CHECKER" OR "TERMINAL FOREMAN."  THE TERM
"PARTIAL-DUTY LOADER" IS USED IN PREFERENCE TO THAT OF "PART-TIME
LOADER," SO AS TO AVOID THE IMPLICATION THAT TIME SPENT IN CERTAIN
ACTIVITIES, RATHER THAN THE CHARACTER OF THOSE ACTIVITIES, IS TO BE THE
CONCLUSIVE FACTOR IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THE INDIVIDUAL IS SUBJECT
TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. 

FN4  "SEC.  13.... 

"(B)  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 SHALL NOT APPLY WITH RESPECT TO (1)
ANY EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT,
1935; ..."  52 STAT. 1068, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 213(B)(1). 

FN5  "SEC.  7.  (A)  NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
IN THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

"(1)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, 

"(2)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-TWO HOURS DURING THE SECOND
YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, OR 

"(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED
AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  52 STAT. 1063, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 207(A).    FN6
"SEC.  16.... 

"(B)  ANY EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF  ...  SECTION 7 OF
THIS ACT SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES AFFECTED IN THE
AMOUNT OF  ...  THEIR UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION, ...  AND IN AN
ADDITIONAL EQUAL AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES....  THE COURT IN SUCH
ACTION SHALL, IN ADDITION TO ANY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR
PLAINTIFFS, ALLOW A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE TO BE PAID BY THE
DEFENDANT, AND COSTS OF THE ACTION."  52 STAT. 1069, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
216(B). 

FN7  SEE NOTE 2 FOR THE COMMISSION'S GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE WORK
OF "LOADERS."  THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS DESCRIBED THE
PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES AS FOLLOWS:  "PLAINTIFF (PETITIONER) CONTENDS
HE IS A CHECKER, NOT A LOADER, AND THEREFORE, NOT WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION.  WE BELIEVE THAT HIS DUTIES - NOT THE NAME
GIVEN HIS POSITION - ARE DETERMINATIVE.... 

"DEFENDANT TERMINAL AT 600 WEST 25TH STREET, CHICAGO, IS THE SCENE OF
THREE PHASES OF MOTOR CARRIER BUSINESS - INBOUND FREIGHT, OUTBOUND
FREIGHT AND LOCAL FREIGHT.  TRUCKS CARRYING FREIGHT ORIGINATING LOCALLY
AND IN FOREIGN CITIES AND STATES, ARE UNLOADED BY GANGS OF DEFENDANT'S
EMPLOYEES.  A GANG USUALLY CONSISTS OF 3 OR 4 MEN - A CHECKER, CALLER,
SORTER AND PACKER.  THE CHECKER DIRECTS THE GANG'S OPERATION.  DAY AND
NIGHT FOREMEN SUPERVISE THE ACTIVITIES OF ALL THE GANGS.  INCOMING
FREIGHT IS UNLOADED AND DEPOSITED ACCORDING TO ITS DESTINATION ON THE
DOCK IN VARIOUS SECTIONS AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CHECKER; LIKEWISE
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CHECKER, IT IS REMOVED FROM THESE SECTIONS
AND LOADED ON APPROPRIATE OUTGOING TRUCKS.  IT IS LOADED ACCORDING TO
SIZE AND WEIGHT; HEAVY WEIGHTED OR 'BOTTOM FREIGHT' BEING DISTRIBUTED
IN THE LOWER PART OF THE TRUCK AND LIGHTER WEIGHTED OR 'BALLOON
FREIGHT' IS PLACED AT THE TOP.  THIS PLAN IS FOLLOWED IN THE INTEREST
OF SAFETY OF EQUIPMENT AND OF FREIGHT.  TESTIMONY PERTINENT TO THE
ISSUE ON THE MERITS IS THAT, AS CHECKER, PLAINTIFF SUPERVISED AND
DIRECTED THE UNLOADING AND DISPOSITION OF INCOMING FREIGHT AND THE
COLLECTING AND LOADING OF THE OUTGOING FREIGHT AND THAT HE WATCHED THE
DISPOSITION OF THE WEIGHT OF THE FREIGHT IN LOADING.  THE DISPUTE IN
THE TESTIMONY ARISES AS TO THE QUANTITY OF PLAINTIFF'S ACTIVITIES
DEVOTED TO THESE PARTICULAR DUTIES.  PLAINTIFF SAYS THAT MOST OF THE
OUTBOUND FREIGHT WAS HANDLED AT NIGHT, WHILE HE WORKED MOSTLY DAYS;
THAT NOT MUCH LOADING WAS DONE DURING HIS HOURS, BUT THAT, WHATEVER
TOOK PLACE, WAS UNDER HIS DIRECT CHARGE.  THE DEFENSE TESTIMONY IS THAT
INBOUND AND OUTBOUND FREIGHT WAS EQUALLY DIVIDED DURING THE DAY -
INBOUND USUALLY DURING THE NIGHT AND OUTBOUND BETWEEN 8 A.M. AND
MIDNIGHT. 

"...  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT SOME PART OF PLAINTIFF'S WORK WEEK
WAS DEVOTED TO THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE LOADING OF
INTERSTATE MOTOR FREIGHT CARRIERS.  THERE IS NO QUESTION EITHER THAT
THE IN HIS GANG WERE EXEMPTED FROM SECTION 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  WE THINK, THEREFORE, THAT WITH GREATER FORCE, PLAINTIFF
COMES WITHIN THE EXEMPTION FOR, IF THE LOADERS ARE EXEMPT BECAUSE THE
MANNER IN WHICH THEY WORK AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF THE OPERATION OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTOR VEHICLES, CERTAINLY THE DUTIES OF PLAINTIFF, WHO
PLANNED AND DIRECTED THE LOADING, AFFECT THAT SAFETY.  CONSIDERING THE
PURPOSE OF THE MOTOR CARRIERS ACT, WE BELIEVE THAT THE TRUE DETERMINANT
IS WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMS ANY DUTIES WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT
THE SAFETY OF OPERATION, RATHER THAN WHETHER THE DUTIES AFFECTING
SAFETY ARE SUBSTANTIAL."  LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, 323 ILL.
APP. 505, 507, 508-509, 56 N.E.2D 142, 143, 144. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS SAID: 

"WE THINK THE QUESTION OF FACT TO BE PROPERLY DETERMINED IN THIS CASE
IS WHETHER OR NOT A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF PLAINTIFF'S WORK AFFECTS SAFETY
OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AND THAT THIS QUESTION OF FACT CONTROLS
THIS CASE.  IF IT BE DETERMINED FROM THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS THAT
PLAINTIFF, IN A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF HIS WORK, WAS ENGAGED IN SAFETY OF
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, OR THE CARGO THEREOF, HE WOULD BE EXEMPTED
FROM THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"...  UNDER THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE (APPELLATE) COURT, THE EMPLOYEE
CAME WITHIN THE SAME EXEMPTION AS LOADERS, DOCKMEN AND HELPERS." 
LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, 389 ILL. 466, 473-474, 59 N.E.2D
817, 820. 

FN8  THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS, APPROVED MARCH 2, 1893, 27 STAT. 531;
MARCH 2, 1903, 32 STAT. 943; APRIL 14, 1910, 36 STAT. 298; AND FEBRUARY
28, 1920, 41 STAT. 499; SEE TITLE 45, U.S.C. - RAILROADS, AND 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 26, ALL RELATE TO RAILROADS AND ARE ENFORCED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

THE HOURS OF SERVICE ACT, APPROVED MARCH 4, 1907, 34 STAT. 1415, 45
U.S.C. SEC. 61, REQUIRES THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO ENFORCE
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR RAILROAD EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE MOVEMENT
OF TRAINS.  IT INCLUDES ALSO OPERATORS, TRAIN DISPATCHERS AND OTHERS
HAVING MUCH TO DO WITH THE SAFETY OF TRAIN MOVEMENTS ALTHOUGH NOT
RIDING THE TRAINS. 

THE SEAMEN'S ACT, APPROVED MARCH 4, 1915, 38 STAT. 1164, SEE 46
U.S.C. SEC. 673, PRESCRIBES MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE AT SEA AND AT
ANCHOR FOR SAILORS, FIREMEN, OILERS AND OTHERS ENGAGED IN SAILING OR
MANAGING VESSELS.  IT ESTABLISHES QUALIFICATIONS FOR SEAMEN AND
PRESCRIBES CREW REQUIREMENTS, SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SANITARY FACILITIES
FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF VESSELS. 

FN9  "SEC.  203.... 

"(B)  NOTHING IN THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204
RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES
AND SAFETY OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
INCLUDE (1) MOTOR VEHICLES EMPLOYED SOLELY IN TRANSPORTING SCHOOL
CHILDREN AND TEACHERS TO OR FROM SCHOOL; OR (2) TAXICABS, OR OTHER
MOTOR VEHICLES PERFORMING A BONA FIDE TAXICAB SERVICE, HAVING A
CAPACITY OF NOT MORE THAN SIX PASSENGERS AND NOT OPERATED ON A REGULAR
ROUTE OR BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI; OR (3) MOTOR VEHICLES OWNED OR OPERATED
BY OR ON BEHALF OF HOTELS AND USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF HOTEL PATRONS BETWEEN HOTELS AND LOCAL RAILROAD OR OTHER COMMON
CARRIER STATIONS; OR (4) MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED, UNDER AUTHORIZATION,
REGULATION, AND CONTROL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, PRINCIPALLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING PERSONS IN AND ABOUT THE NATIONAL PARKS
AND NATIONAL MONUMENTS; OR (4A) MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLLED AND OPERATED
BY ANY FARMER, AND USED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS THEREOF, OR IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUPPLIES
TO HIS FARM; OR (4B) MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLLED AND OPERATED BY A
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AS DEFINED IN THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT,
APPROVED JUNE 15, 1929, AS AMENDED; OR (5) TROLLEY BUSSES OPERATED BY
ELECTRIC POWER DERIVED FROM A FIXED OVERHEAD WIRE, FURNISHING LOCAL
PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SIMILAR TO STREET-RAILWAY SERVICE; OR (6)
MOTOR VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY IN CARRYING LIVESTOCK, FISH (INCLUDING
SHELL FISH), OR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES (NOT INCLUDING MANUFACTURED
PRODUCTS THEREOF); OR (7) MOTOR VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPERS; NOR, UNLESS AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
COMMISSION SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME FIND THAT SUCH APPLICATION IS
NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF CONGRESS ENUNCIATED IN SECTION
202, SHALL THE PROVISIONS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204
RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES
AND SAFETY OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT APPLY TO:  (8) THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE WHOLLY WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY OR BETWEEN CONTIGUOUS
MUNICIPALITIES OR WITHIN A ZONE ADJACENT TO AND COMMERCIALLY A PART OF
ANY SUCH MUNICIPALITY OR MUNICIPALITIES, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH
TRANSPORTATION IS UNDER A COMMON CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT
FOR A CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OR SHIPMENT TO OR FROM A POINT WITHOUT SUCH
MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPALITIES, OR ZONE, AND PROVIDED THAT THE MOTOR
CARRIER ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER REGULAR OR
IRREGULAR ROUTE OR ROUTES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ALSO LAWFULLY
ENGAGED IN THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER THE ENTIRE
LENGTH OF SUCH INTERSTATE ROUTE OR ROUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS
OF EACH STATE HAVING JURISDICTION; OR (9) THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR
RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION BY ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS." 
49 STAT. 545, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(B). 

FN10  A NEW SEC. 202(C) WAS INSERTED IN THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT BY THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 920, SO AS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE PICKUP AND DELIVERY SERVICE
WITHIN TERMINAL AREAS.  THIS EXCLUSION AUTOMATICALLY PUT CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES, WHO WERE ENGAGED IN THAT SERVICE, BEYOND THE POWER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH THEIR QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, THEREUPON REGARDED SOME OF THEM AS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS
OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS TO COMPULSORY OVERTIME
PAY.  HOWEVER, WHEN THIS NEW SEC. 202(C) WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY
16, 1942, 56 STAT. 300, 49 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 302(C), TO INCLUDE
FREIGHT FORWARDERS, CONGRESS ALSO ADDED TO IT A GENERAL CLAUSE TO THE
EFFECT THAT "THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS
AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND
EQUIPMENT" SHOULD APPLY TO THE EXEMPTED OPERATIONS.  THIS AMENDMENT WAS
AN EXPRESS RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS OF THE NEED FOR CONTROL BY THE
COMMISSION OVER THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF
THESE EMPLOYEES IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ALTHOUGH ITS
PROVISION FOR THAT CONTROL AUTOMATICALLY DEPRIVED THOSE EMPLOYEES OF
THEIR RECENTLY ACQUIRED PRIVATE RIGHTS TO HIGHER OVERTIME PAY UNDER
SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

FN11  IN OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, AN EMPLOYEE WHO
SERVED AN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER AS A RATE CLERK AND PERFORMED OTHER
INCIDENTAL DUTIES, NONE OF WHICH WERE CONNECTED WITH SAFETY OF
OPERATION, WAS GIVEN JUDGMENT FOR THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION PRESCRIBED
BY SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 27, INFRA. 

FN13  SHORTLY AFTER THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE, THE COMMISSION, ON ITS
OWN MOTION, INSTITUTED THE EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS LISTED BELOW.  THESE
RESULTED IN MANY HEARINGS, EXAMINERS' REPORTS AND DIVISIONAL AND
COMMISSION REPORTS THOROUGHLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY COVERING THE SUBJECTS
INVESTIGATED.  FURTHER COMPARABLE INVESTIGATIONS DIRECTED BY THE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ARE PENDING.  ONE OF THESE IS TO DETERMINE WHAT, IF
ANY, QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED
BY THE COMMISSION FOR MECHANICS, LOADERS AND HELPERS. 

EX PARTE NO. MC-2, ORDER OF JULY 30, 1936.  THIS RELATED TO MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION
AND TO REGULATIONS AS TO SUCH HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO SEC.
204(A)(1), (2) AND (3).  SEE 3 M.C.C. 665, 666.  IT DEALT WITH DRIVERS
FOR COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS.  IT LED TO THE HOLDING THAT
MECHANICS, LOADERS AND HELPERS ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF MOTOR
CARRIER TRANSPORTATION.  28 M.C.C. 125. 

EX PARTE NO. MC-3, ORDERS OF JULY 30, 1936, DECEMBER 23, 1936, AND
JULY 12, 1938.  THIS RELATED TO QUALIFICATIONS, MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT OF PRIVATE
CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  23 M.C.C. 1, AND SEE 1 M.C.C.
1, 16. 

EX PARTE NO. MC-4, ORDER OF AUGUST 21, 1936.  THIS RELATED TO
QUALIFICATIONS OF EMPLOYEES, SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT OF
COMMON AND CONTRACT MOTOR CARRIERS.  IT DEALT ESPECIALLY WITH DRIVERS. 
1 M.C.C. 1. 

EX PARTE NO. MC-28, ORDER OF NOVEMBER 2, 1938.  THIS RELATED TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION OVER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF COMMON, CONTRACT AND
PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER SEC. 204(A).  THE
DECISION LIMITED SUCH JURISDICTION TO EMPLOYEES AFFECTING SAFETY OF
OPERATION BY MOTOR VEHICLES.  13 M.C.C. 481. 

THE RESULTS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE TEXT OF THIS
OPINION IN THE ORDER IN WHICH SUCH RESULTS HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN15  SEE INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 9, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION,
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, PAR. 4(B), NOVEMBER, 1943, 1944-1945 WH
MAN.  520, 523, DISCUSSED AT NOTE 24, INFRA. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA, FOR THE COMMISSION'S DEFINITION OF THE WORK
OF LOADERS. 

FN17  IBID. 

FN18  SEE RICHARDSON V. JAMES GIBBONS CO., 132 F.2D 627, ARGUED AND
AFFIRMED WITH SOUTHLAND CO. V. BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44.  IN THAT CASE THE
COMMISSION'S POWER, UNDER SEC. 204(A)(3), WAS UPHELD AS TO AN EMPLOYEE
WHO TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS EMPLOYED "TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE TIME AS
A TRUCK DRIVER AND SEVENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE TIME AS A DISTRIBUTOR
OPERATOR" OF LIQUID ASPHALT, AND WHOSE EMPLOYER TESTIFIED THAT THE SAME
EMPLOYEE "WAS EMPLOYED APPROXIMATELY THIRTY PER CENT OF THE TIME IN
DISTRIBUTING THE ASPHALT AND SEVENTY PER CENT IN TRANSPORTING SAME." 
ID. AT 628.  APPARENTLY HIS WORK WAS ACCEPTED AS AFFECTING SAFETY OF
OPERATION ALTHOUGH ONLY 25 TO 70% OF HIS TIME WAS SPENT AS A DRIVER AND
THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME WAS SPENT IN WORK NOT AFFECTING SAFETY OF
OPERATION. 

FN19  SECTION 13(B)(1), IN THIS PARTICULAR, IS IN SHARP CONTRAST WITH
SEC. 13(A)(1) WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS FOR THE DEFINITION AND
DELIMITATION OF THAT EXEMPTION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR:    "SEC. 13.  (A)
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 6 AND 7 SHALL NOT APPLY WITH RESPECT TO (1)
ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN A BONA FIDE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE,
PROFESSIONAL, OR LOCAL RETAILING CAPACITY, OR IN THE CAPACITY OF
OUTSIDE SALESMAN (AS SUCH TERMS ARE DEFINED AND DELIMITED BY
REGULATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR); ..."  52 STAT. 1067, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
213(A)(1).  SEE ALSO, SECS. 213(A)(7), 213(A)(10) AND 214. 

FN20  SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE, 49 CFR, CUM.
SUPP., PART 190 - GENERAL DEFINITIONS; PART 191 - HOURS OF SERVICE;
PART 192 - QUALIFICATIONS OF DRIVERS; PART 193 - DRIVING OF MOTOR
VEHICLES; PART 194 - NECESSARY MPARTS AND ACCESSORIES; PART 195 -
ACCIDENT REPORTS; PART 196 - INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE. 

FN21  SEE 49 CFR, CUM. SUPP., PARTS 191 AND 192. 

FN22  DISCUSSED AT PAGES 667-668, SUPRA.  EX PARTE NO. MC-3, 23
M.C.C. 1, 31, 44.  "...  NO DRIVER SALESMAN EMPLOYED BY A PRIVATE
CARRIER OF PROPERTY WHO DEVOTES MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF HIS TIME TO
SELLING AND LESS THAN 50 PERCENT TO SUCH WORK AS DRIVING, LOADING,
UNLOADING, AND THE LIKE, SHALL BE PERMITTED OR REQUIRED TO DRIVE OR
OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE FOR MORE THAN AN AGGREGATE OF 50 HOURS IN ANY
WEEK AS DEFINED IN SAID SEC. 191.1(E)."  (SUCH A "WEEK" IS DEFINED AS
"ANY PERIOD OF 168 CONSECUTIVE HOURS BEGINNING AT THE TIME THE DRIVER
REPORTS FOR DUTY,  ...") 49 CFR, CUM. SUPP., SEC. 191.3(B). 

FN23  29 CFR, CUM. SUPP., SECS. 541.1(F), 541.3(A)(4), 541.4(B), AND
541.5(B).  SEE ALSO, RALPH KNIGHT, INC. V. MANTEL, 135 F.2D 514. 

FN24  INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 9, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, OFFICE
OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, MARCH, 1942, PAR. 5(B), 1943 WH MAN.  186, 189. 

FN25  "2.  THE SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 13(B)(1)
INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION NOT ONLY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
BUT ALSO OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935.  THE ACT
CONFERS NO AUTHORITY UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR TO EXTEND OR RESTRICT THE
SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED IN SECTION 13(B)(1) OR EVEN TO IMPOSE
LEGALLY BINDING INTERPRETATIONS AS TO ITS MEANING.  THIS BULLETIN IS
MERELY INTENDED TO INDICATE THE COURSE WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL
FOLLOW IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES UNTIL OTHERWISE
REQUIRED BY THE AUTHORITATIVE RULINGS OF THE COURTS.  IT IS
NEVERTHELESS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE
INTERPRETATIONS EXPRESSED IN BULLETINS OF THIS DIVISION ARE ENTITLED TO
GREAT WEIGHT." 

FN26  SEE NOTE 22, SUPRA. 

FN27  IN 1945, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, S. 1349 WAS
INTRODUCED PROPOSING MANY AMENDMENTS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 
THAT BILL, AS INTRODUCED AND AS RECOMMENDED FOR PASSAGE BY THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, PROPOSED EXPRESSLY TO EXPAND SOMEWHAT
THE SCOPE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WITHOUT REDUCING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, BY AMENDING
SEC. 13(B)(1) TO READ: 

"SEC. 13.... 

"(B)  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 SHALL NOT APPLY WITH RESPECT TO (1)
ANY EMPLOYEE WHO DURING THE GREATER PART OF ANY WORKWEEK IS ENGAGED IN
WORK WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS
ESTABLISHED QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935; ..." 

HEARINGS ON S. 1349 BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR.  SEPTEMBER 25, 1945, PP. 4, 249, ET SEQ.; SEN.
REP. NO. 1012, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 3, 11, 17; PART 2, PP. 5,
135. 

THIS AMENDMENT, HOWEVER, WAS ELIMINATED ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE,
92 CONG. REC. 2656, 2657, 3094, 3095, 3096, 3185, BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE
BILL, APRIL 5, 1946.  FURTHERMORE, IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COMPANION
BILL, H.R. NO. 4130, AS REPORTED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR JUNE 19, 1946, H.R. REP. NO. 2300, 79TH CONG., 2D
SESS., ALTHOUGH IT WAS RECOMMENDED IN THE MINORITY REPORT OF THAT
COMMITTEE.  ID. AT 7, 15, 19.  SEE ALSO, HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
ON LABOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP.
864, 905.  CONGRESS ADJOURNED WITHOUT TAKING FINAL ACTION ON EITHER
BILL, BUT, WHEN CONGRESS ADJOURNED, NEITHER PENDING MEASURE CONTAINED
THE PROPOSAL. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

AS THE COURT'S OPINION SAYS, THERE IS NO NECESSARY INCONSISTENCY
BETWEEN ENFORCING INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REGULATIONS CONCERNING
"QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES" AFFECTING
SAFETY, 49 STAT. 543, 546, AND AT THE SAME TIME, WITHIN THOSE
LIMITATIONS, REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT'S
PROVISIONS FOR OVERTIME PAY.  INDEED THE LATTER WOULD REINFORCE THE
FORMER.  ORDINARILY, WHEN STATUTES ARE NOT INHERENTLY CONFLICTING, THE
RULE APPLIED IN CONSTRUING THEM IS TO GIVE EACH AS MUCH ROOM FOR
OPERATION AS IS CONSISTENT WITH ITS TERMS AND PURPOSES, RATHER THAN TO
CREATE CONFLICT UNNECESSARILY BETWEEN THEM. 

NOTHING IN THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT FORBIDS OR INHIBITS THE OPERATION OF
SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE LATTER STATUTE, IT HAS
BEEN HELD REPEATEDLY, IS TO BE BROADLY AND LIBERALLY APPLIED, IN ORDER
TO ACHIEVE ITS PRIME OBJECTS OF DISTRIBUTING AND RAISING STANDARDS OF
EMPLOYMENT AND LIVING.  FN1  THE ACT HOWEVER CONTAINS CERTAIN EXEMPTING
PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE TO BE NARROWLY CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF AND IN
ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME STATUTORY PURPOSES.  FN2 

AMONG THESE IS SEC. 13(B)(1).  IT READS:  "THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
7 SHALL NOT APPLY WITH RESPECT TO (1) ANY EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935  ..."  52 STAT. 1060,
1068.  IT IS THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF SEC. 13(B)(1) WHICH WE HAVE NOW
TO DETERMINE IN RELATION TO EMPLOYEES WHO DO SOME WORK AFFECTING SAFETY
IN OPERATIONS AND SOME NOT AFFECTING IT.  FN3 

READ LITERALLY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE SOUTHLAND DECISION,  FN4  THE
OPERATIONS, AS THE ILLINOIS COURT OF APPEALS HELD IN THIS CASE.  FN5
FOR, FACTUALLY SPEAKING, NOT THE AMOUNT OF TIME AN EMPLOYEE SPENDS IN
WORK AFFECTING SAFETY, BUT WHAT HE MAY DO IN THE TIME THUS SPENT
WHETHER IT BE LARGE OR SMALL DETERMINES THE EFFECT ON SAFETY.  TEN
MINUTES OF DRIVING BY AN UNQUALIFIED DRIVER MAY DO MORE HARM ON THE
HIGHWAY THAN A MONTH OR A YEAR OF CONSTANT DRIVING BY A QUALIFIED ONE. 

IT WOULD SEEM ESSENTIAL THEREFORE TO EFFECTIVE SAFETY CONTROL BY THE
COMMISSION THAT IT SHOULD HAVE POWER TO DETERMINE THE QUALIFICATIONS
AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF ALL EMPLOYEES WHOSE WORK SUBSTANTIALLY
AFFECTS SAFETY, WHETHER OR NOT THEY SPEND WHAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE LESS
THAN A "SUBSTANTIAL" AMOUNT OF TIME IN THAT SORT OF WORK.  ANYTHING
LESS THAN THIS WOULD OPEN THE DOOR TO THE GREATEST DANGER TO MOTOR
TRAFFIC FROM CASUAL, UNQUALIFIED DRIVERS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES WHOSE WORK
AFFECTS SAFETY. 

THERE IS OR MAY BE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES A RELATION BETWEEN TIME
SPENT IN SUCH WORK AND SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS UPON SAFETY, BUT IT IS BY NO
MEANS AN EXCLUSIVE OR CONTROLLING ONE.  TIME AFFECTS THE DURATION AND
SCOPE, NOT NECESSARILY THE EXISTENCE, OF THE RISK. 

I ACCEPT THE "SAFETY FIRST" VIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S POWER.  AND THIS
REQUIRES ACCEPTANCE OF THE VIEW THAT, IN RELATION TO SOME KINDS OF
WORK, THE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO PRESCRIBE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL
EMPLOYEES WHO ENGAGE IN IT TO ANY EXTENT, THOUGH THE TIME THUS SPENT IS
NOT FIVE MINUTES DAILY OR WEEKLY.  "SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT" IN THESE
INSTANCES HAS LITTLE IF ANY RELATION, NEGATIVELY SPEAKING, TO
"SUBSTANTIAL TIME."  DRIVING AND THE WORK OF MECHANICAL REPAIR OF
TRUCKS ARE OBVIOUS EXAMPLES.  LOADING MAY BE ANOTHER, LESS OBVIOUSLY AS
THE COURT SAYS, BUT DEPENDING UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT IS
DONE.  FN6  SO WITH THE WORK OF HELPERS IN THESE THREE FUNCTIONS. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMISSION'S CONTRARY FINDING,  FN7  THIS MEANS
THAT ALL EMPLOYEES WHO DO ANY PART OF CERTAIN KINDS OF WORK, FOR
HOWEVER SHORT A TIME, REGULARLY OR CASUALLY, FALL WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S POWER.  IT MEANS, FOR INSTANCE, THAT A PERSON WHO SPENDS
TEN MINUTES A DAY OR AN HOUR A WEEK IN DRIVING OR IN MECHANICALLY
REPAIRING TRUCKS, AND THE REMAINING 39 HOURS OF A 40-HOUR WEEK IN WORK
HAVING NO EFFECT UPON SAFETY FALLS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY. 
FOR, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE COMPARATIVELY
MINUTE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT IN WORK AFFECTING SAFETY IS TRIVIAL OR
INCONSEQUENTIAL IN ITS POSSIBLE EFFECTS UPON SAFETY.  AND IN THE
COURT'S VIEW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE RESULT IS NOT ONLY THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS POWER TO PRESCRIBE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL SUCH
EMPLOYEES,  FN8  BUT ALSO THAT THEY ARE THEREBY EXEMPTED FROM THE
OVERTIME PAY PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

IT IS FROM THE LATTER CONCLUSION THAT I DISSENT.  I CANNOT BELIEVE
THAT CONGRESS, WHEN IT INCORPORATED SEC. 13(B)(1) IN THE STATUTE,
INTENDED TO EXCLUDE FROM THOSE PROVISIONS EVERY EMPLOYEE WHO MIGHT
SPEND TEN MINUTES A DAY IN WORK SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTING SAFETY AND
SEVEN HOURS AND FIFTY MINUTES IN WORK HAVING NO EFFECT WHATEVER UPON
IT.  AN EXACTLY LITERAL APPLICATION OF SEC. 13(B)(1), IT IS TRUE, WOULD
LEAD TO THIS RESULT.  BUT WE ARE FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT RIGIDLY LITERAL
APPLICATION OF A STATUTE MAY BE RUINOUS TO ACHIEVING ITS PURPOSES.  FN9
IT IS ESPECIALLY SO IN THIS INSTANCE, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE AND
PURPOSES OF THE ACT WE ARE CONSTRUING, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS, IN MY JUDGMENT, THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
HAVE IN MIND SO EXPANSIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE AN EXEMPTION AS LITERAL
APPLICATION OF SEC. 13(B)(1) AND THE COURT'S RULING  FN10 WOULD
PRODUCE.  CONGRESS CLEARLY INTENDED TO EXEMPT SOME EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT
DEVOTE ALL THEIR TIME TO SUCH WORK.  BUT AT THE TIME IT ACTED ITS
PRIMARY CONCERN AND THAT OF THE COMMISSION  FN11 WERE WITH FULL-TIME
EMPLOYEES, PRINCIPALLY DRIVERS, SO ENGAGED.  IN VIEW OF THAT FACT, IT
CANNOT BE TAKEN THAT CONGRESS INTENDED EVERY EMPLOYEE ASSIGNED FOR A
FEW MINUTES DAILY OR WEEKLY TO WORK SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTING SAFETY TO
BE ELIMINATED FROM THE OVERTIME PAY PROVISIONS.  SUCH A VIEW IN
PRACTICAL EFFECT WOULD NULLIFY THE ACT'S BROAD AND INCLUSIVE PURPOSES
FOR LARGE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES AS TO WHOM, AT THE TIME, THE COMMISSION
HAD SHOWN NO CONCERN IN EXERCISING ITS SAFETY POWER OR IN ITS
REPRESENTATIONS TO CONGRESS, AND AS TO WHOM THEREFORE THERE WAS NO
SOUND REASON FOR OR PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION. 

MOREOVER, ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD SET UP AN EASY MODE
FOR EVASION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT'S REQUIREMENTS.  AN
EMPLOYER SO MINDED READILY COULD ASSIGN TO NONSAFETY EMPLOYEES WHOM HE
DESIRED TO REMOVE FROM THE OVERTIME PAY REQUIREMENTS WORK AFFECTING
SAFETY FOR MINUTE PORTIONS OF THEIR TOTAL SERVICE.  COMMITTING THE
ACT'S COVERAGE IN ALL SUCH POSSIBLE SITUATIONS TO A DETERMINATION OF
THE EMPLOYER'S GOOD FAITH COULD ONLY INVITE CONTINUOUS LITIGATION UPON
HIS MOTIVE, A RESULT IN ITSELF TENDING STRONGLY TO DEFEAT THE RIGHTS
GIVEN BY THE ACT.  I DO NOT THINK CONGRESS INTENDED SUCH CONSEQUENCES
FOR THE STATUTE'S EFFECTIVE OPERATION WHEN IT INCLUDED SEC. 13(B)(1). 

THE DIFFICULTY LIES OF COURSE NOT ONLY IN THE RIGIDLY LITERAL
INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO THAT SECTION, BUT IN THE COROLLARY ASSUMPTION
OF INTENDED COMPLETE MUTUAL EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE COMMISSION'S POWER AND
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT'S APPLICABILITY DRAWN FROM IT.  AS I DO
NOT THINK CONGRESS INTENDED THE ONE, IN RELATION TO THE PROBLEM NOW
PRESENTED, SO I DO NOT BELIEVE IT HAD THE OTHER IN MIND.  AND IF THIS
WAS TRUE, THEN THE PROBLEM FOR US BECOMES, AS IT MOST OFTEN DOES IN
SUCH SITUATIONS, ONE OF MAKING ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE TWO STATUTES
IN A MANNER WHICH WILL GIVE TO EACH ITS MAXIMUM EFFECT WITHOUT
NULLIFYING CONGRESS' MANIFEST INTENTION.  FN12 

IF THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSES OF THE STATUTES ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, WE
ARE NOT INESCAPABLY COMPELLED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE EQUALLY UNTENABLE
ALTERNATIVES OF A COMPLETELY LITERAL APPLICATION OF SEC. 13(B)(1) AND A
CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD NULLIFY THE COMMISSION'S POWER CONCERNING THE
GREAT BULK OF EMPLOYEES TO WHICH IT RIGHTFULLY EXTENDS.  ALTHOUGH THE
EXEMPTION OF SEC. 13(B)(1) IS NOT AMONG THOSE WHICH SPECIFICALLY
EMPOWER THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DETERMINE THEIR SCOPE BY REGULATIONS,
FN13  HE IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ADMINISTERING IT AND HIS
EXPERIENCE IS ENTITLED TO WEIGHT WHEN HE FORMULATES CONCLUSIONS FROM IT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE ACT'S PROVISIONS, ALBEIT THEY ARE NOT
CONCLUSIVE.  THE PRESENT PROBLEM HAS NOT BEEN WITHOUT DIFFICULTY FOR
THE ADMINISTRATOR,  FN14  BUT HIS FINAL RULING, RESULTING FROM HIS
EXPERIENCE, PRESENTS IN MY OPINION BOTH THE MOST WORKABLE SOLUTION AND
THE ONE MOST CONSISTENT WITH CONGRESS' PURPOSE AND INTENT RELATING TO
THE OPERATION OF BOTH ACTS.  IT IS THAT THE EXEMPTION IS INAPPLICABLE
TO ANY EMPLOYEE "WHO SPENDS THE GREATER PART OF HIS TIME DURING ANY
WORKWEEK ON NON-EXEMPT ACTIVITIES (SUCH AS PRODUCING, PROCESSING, OR
MANUFACTURING GOODS, WAREHOUSE OR CLERICAL WORK, OR OTHER TYPE OF WORK
WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATIONS)." 

SUCH A STANDARD IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE ACT'S PURPOSES THAN THE
ONE APPLIED BY THE COURT, NOT ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, BUT ALSO IN THAT IT IS MORE DEFINITE, MORE EASILY APPLIED, AND
NOT INVITINGLY CONDUCIVE TO LITIGATION.  FOR THESE REASONS, AND BECAUSE
I DO NOT BELIEVE A TOTALLY LITERAL APPLICATION OF SEC. 13(B)(1) WAS
COMPREHENDED FOR THE SITUATIONS NOW PRESENTED, I THINK A LINE SO DRAWN
MOST NEARLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND TO ACCOMPLISH BY
THE EXEMPTION.    HOWEVER, SINCE THERE IS NO ESSENTIAL INCONSISTENCY IN
THE TWO STATUTES OR THEIR OPERATION, I DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARILY
FOLLOWS THAT PART-TIME EMPLOYEES THUS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT'S COVERAGE ARE THEREBY EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMISSION'S
SAFETY POWER.  THAT POWER I WOULD LEAVE UNQUALIFIED AS TO THEM, SINCE
NOTHING IN EITHER STATUTE COMPELS QUALIFICATION, AS TO EMPLOYEES NOT
EXEMPTED, OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE
"QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES" WHOSE WORK AFFECTS
SAFETY.  THE TWO STATUTES CLEARLY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, THOUGH NOT
ESSENTIALLY INCONSISTENT, AS TO EMPLOYEES PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN
OPERATIONS AFFECTING SAFETY.  THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY OR, I THINK, BY
VIRTUE OF CONGRESS' INTENT OR COMMAND, THUS EXCLUSIVE AS TO OTHERS. 

I THEREFORE AGREE THAT "SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT" UPON SAFETY RATHER THAN
"SUBSTANTIAL TIME" SPENT IN DOING WORK AFFECTING IT DETERMINES THE
SCOPE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S SAFETY POWER.  HOWEVER,
IN ACCEPTING THIS CONCLUSION, THOUGH NOT THE FURTHER ONE THAT ALL
EMPLOYEES SO COVERED ARE WITHIN THE EXEMPTION OF SEC. 13(B)(1), I DO SO
NOT UPON THE BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S OWN DETERMINATION, WHICH
EXPRESSLY ADOPTS THE CRITERION OF "SUBSTANTIAL TIME" AND IS THEREFORE
BOTH NARROWER THAN AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING AS TO THE
EXTENT OF ITS POWER.  FN15 THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION TENDS
STRONGLY TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POSITION AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE
EXEMPTION INTENDED TO BE CREATED BY SEC. 13(B)(1).  BUT ITS VOICE IS
ONLY PERSUASIVE, NOT CONCLUSIVE, UPON THE QUESTION OF THE SCOPE OF ITS
POWER.  IN ADOPTING "SUBSTANTIAL TIME" RATHER THAN "SUBSTANTIAL
EFFECT," I AGREE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS RULED TOO NARROWLY.  INDEED,
ITS BRIEF IN THIS CASE MAINTAINS AS MUCH.  FN16  ACCORDINGLY I
CONCLUDE, INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS FORMAL DETERMINATION, THAT THE FULL AND
ADEQUATE PERFORMANCE BY THE COMMISSION OF THE SAFETY FUNCTION CONFERRED
BY THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT REQUIRES THE LARGER SCOPE WHICH THE COURT'S
RULING ALLOWS FOR ITS OPERATION. 

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS OPINION, OF COURSE, WOULD APPLY ALSO IN
PYRAMID MOTOR FREIGHT CORP. V. ISPASS, 330 U.S. 695, DECIDED THIS DAY,
BUT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO FILE A
SEPARATE DISSENT IN THE COMPANION ONE. 

FN1  TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, 597; PHILLIPS
CO. V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 490, 493; CALAF V. GONZALEZ, 127 F.2D 934,
937. 

FN2  PHILLIPS CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA; CALAF V. GONZALEZ, SUPRA. 

FN3  AS TO EMPLOYEES ENGAGED FULL TIME IN SUCH WORK, SOUTHLAND CO. V.
BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44, HELD THAT THE EXISTENCE OF POWER IN THE
COMMISSION, WHETHER OR NOT EXERCISED, TO PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND
HOURS OF SERVICE, EXCLUDES THEM UNDER SEC. 13(B)(1) FROM COVERAGE UNDER
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT'S TERMS.  CF. NOTE 11. 

FN4  IBID. 

FN5  THE COURT SAID:  "...  WE BELIEVE THAT THE TRUE DETERMINANT IS
WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMS ANY DUTIES WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE
SAFETY OF OPERATION, RATHER THAN WHETHER THE DUTIES AFFECTING SAFETY
ARE SUBSTANTIAL."  323 ILL. APP. 505, 509.  THIS IS ALSO THE
COMMISSION'S POSITION TAKEN IN THE BRIEF AND AT THE ARGUMENT IN THIS
CAUSE.  SEE NOTE 16.  THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT FOUND THE TEST IN "A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF PLAINTIFF'S WORK."  389 ILL. 466, 473. 

FN6  THUS, ONE WHO HAS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF LOADING OR OF
DIRECTING LOADING, WHERE WEIGHT OF THE ARTICLES CARRIED IS UNEQUAL AND
ITS DISTRIBUTION MAY AFFECT SAFETY, WOULD SEEM CLEARLY TO BE WITHIN THE
CLASSIFICATION WHETHER THE TIME SPENT IS LARGE OR SMALL.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, IF THE WORKER IS MERELY A HELPER, LOADING UNDER DIRECT AND ACTIVE
SUPERVISION OF ANOTHER, WITH NO RESPONSIBILITY OTHER THAN TO OBEY HIS
SUPERIOR'S ORDERS AS TO PLACEMENT, IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR THAT HIS WORK
DOES NOT AFFECT SAFETY. 

FN7  SEE TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 15; AND NOTE 16. 

FN8  THE OPINION PUTS THE MATTER IN VARIOUS WAYS.  E.G., "THE
FUNDAMENTAL TEST IS SIMPLY THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES AFFECT SAFETY
OF OPERATION."  "THE TERM 'PARTIAL-DUTY LOADER' IS USED ...  SO AS TO
AVOID THE IMPLICATION THAT TIME SPENT IN CERTAIN ACTIVITIES, RATHER
THAN THE CHARACTER OF THOSE ACTIVITIES, IS TO BE THE CONCLUSIVE FACTOR
..."  NOTE 3.  "IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE COMMISSION'S SAFETY PROGRAM
WHENEVER AND WHEREVER HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THAT AFFECT
SAFETY  ...  THAT THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN THEM SHALL BE QUALIFIED  ..." 
"WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS SUCH POWER OVER ALL EMPLOYEES
...  WHOSE ACTIVITIES AFFECT SAFETY  ..."  "IT IS THE CHARACTER OF THE
ACTIVITIES RATHER THAN THE PROPORTION OF EITHER THE EMPLOYEE'S TIME OR
OF HIS ACTIVITIES THAT DETERMINES THE ACTUAL NEED FOR THE COMMISSION'S
POWER  ..."  "THE LOADING OF ANY TRUCK LOAD OF MIXED FREIGHT REQUIRES
THAT THE GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS OF THE LOADER BE ADEQUATE, REGARDLESS
OF THE PROPORTION OF HIS WORKING TIME THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DEVOTED TO
THIS ACTIVITY  ..."  "THE PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES THUS AFFECTED SAFETY
OF OPERATION, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHAT FRACTION OF HIS TIME WAS
SPENT IN ACTIVITIES AFFECTING SAFETY OF OPERATION." 

FN9  CF. NOTE 12.  "ALL CONSTRUCTION IS THE ASCERTAINMENT OF
MEANING.  AND LITERALNESS MAY STRANGLE MEANING."  UTAH JUNK CO. V.
PORTER, 328 U.S. 39, 44; MARKHAM V. CABELL, 326 U.S. 404, 409; CHURCH
OF THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES, 143 U.S. 457. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 8 AND TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 15. 

FN11  THE EXEMPTION MADE BY SEC. 13(B)(1) WAS SUGGESTED TO CONGRESS
ORIGINALLY BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, 549.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
SHOWS THAT THE SECTION "WAS ADOPTED TO FREE OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
FROM THE REGULATION BY TWO AGENCIES OF THE HOURS OF DRIVERS," SOUTHLAND
GASOLINE CO. V. BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44, 48-49, UPON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION "HAD ALREADY ACTED UPON MAXIMUM
HOURS FOR DRIVERS  ...."  ID., AT 49, N. 5.  SEE ALSO NOTE 16. 

FN12  "THE PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION  ...  SHOULD NOT BE
SOLVED SIMPLY BY A LITERAL READING OF THE EXEMPTION SECTION OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND THE DELEGATION OF POWER SECTION OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT.  BOTH SECTIONS ARE PARTS OF IMPORTANT GENERAL STATUTES AND
THEIR PARTICULAR LANGUAGE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
PURPOSES WHICH LED TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ENTIRE LEGISLATION." 
SOUTHLAND GASOLINE CO. V. BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44, 47. 

FN13  SEE SECS. 13(A)(1), 13(A)(7), 13(A)(10), 14. 

FN14  THE ADMINISTRATOR ORIGINALLY INTERPRETED THE EXEMPTION TO BE
INAPPLICABLE TO ANY EMPLOYEE WHO SPENT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF HIS TIME
IN NONEXEMPT WORK.  SUBSEQUENTLY "SUBSTANTIAL" WAS EXPLAINED TO MEAN
MORE THAN TWENTY PER CENT OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TIME.  INTERPRETATIVE
BULLETIN, NO. 9, MARCH, 1942, WAGE & HOUR MANUAL (1943 ED.)  186, 189. 
LATER THE RULING WAS CHANGED SO THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS GIVEN ITS
PRESENT FORM AS STATED IN THE TEXT, INFRA.  INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO.
9, NOVEMBER, 1943, WAGE & HOUR MANUAL (1944-1945 ED.)  520, 523. 

FN15  THE COURT PURPORTS TO ADOPT THE COMMISSION'S BASIS FOR
DETERMINING WHAT EMPLOYEES ARE WITHIN THE SAFETY POWER, ESPECIALLY AS
MADE IN EX PARTE NOS. MC-2 AND MC-3, 28 M.C.C. 125.  BUT SINCE THE TEST
THE COURT NOW PRESCRIBES IS APPARENTLY ONE OF "SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT"
RATHER THAN "SUBSTANTIAL TIME," SEE NOTE 8, IT DIFFERS FROM THE BASIS
OF THE COMMISSION'S RULING.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ARE SET FORTH IN THE TEXT OF THE MAJORITY OPINION. 
THE QUOTED FINDING IS THAT LOADERS "DEVOTE A LARGE PART OF THEIR TIME
TO ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION."  28
M.C.C. AT 139.  AND THE CONCLUSION OF LAW IS STATED IN TERMS OF TIME,
NAMELY, "THAT OUR JURISDICTION  ... IS LIMITED TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO
DEVOTE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR TIME TO ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY
AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION," AND "THAT WE HAVE POWER  ...  TO
ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS  ...  FOR THE CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES" COVERED BY
THE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND "THAT WE HAVE NO SUCH POWER OVER ANY OTHER
CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT DRIVERS."  IBID.  THIS NECESSARILY
EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES OF THE CLASSES COVERED NOT DEVOTING A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF THEIR TIME TO WORK AFFECTING SAFETY, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS. 

FN16  THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, AS
MADE IN EX PARTE NOS. MC-2 AND MC-3, SEE NOTE 15, AND THE POSITION
TAKEN HERE BY COUNSEL IN ITS BEHALF WAS THE OCCASION FOR SOME
DIFFICULTY, IF NOT EMBARRASSMENT, AT THE ARGUMENT.  THE BRIEF AND
ARGUMENT, BY CONTRAST WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, MAINTAINED:
"...  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME DEVOTED TO
THE WORK BY AN INDIVIDUAL LOADER (OR LOADER FOREMAN), HE IS EXPECTED TO
BE FITTED, AND IN FIT CONDITION, TO PERFORM IT WHEN THE OCCASION ARISES
AND THEREFORE INTENDED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY OVER
QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE."  RELIANCE WAS PLACED SQUARELY
UPON THE POSITION TAKEN IN THIS CASE BY THE ILLINOIS COURT OF APPEALS. 
SEE NOTE 5. 

ABLE COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION SOUGHT TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF THE
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BY RESTRICTING IT TO CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES.  IT WAS NOT SATISFACTORILY
EXPLAINED, HOWEVER, HOW AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE COULD BE BROUGHT WITHIN
THE CLASS WITHOUT BEING BROUGHT WITHIN THE OUTER BOUNDARY PRESCRIBED BY
THE COMMISSION FOR DEFINING THE CLASS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :
























PYRAMID MOTOR CORP. V. ISPASS, 330 U.S. 695 


NO. 41.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1947.  - 152 F.2D
619, JUDGMENT VACATED IN PART AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


1.  WHERE A NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS BEEN DULY FILED IN A DISTRICT COURT
BUT THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DOCKETED AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD HAS
NOT BEEN FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN THE TIME
SPECIFIED IN RULE 73(G) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, IT IS
NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE QUESTION TO BE AT ISSUE ON THE
MERITS OF THE APPEAL, IN CONNECTION WITH ALL THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
BEFORE IT, WHEN REFUSING, UNDER AUTHORITY OF RULE 73(A), TO DISMISS THE
APPEAL.  PP. 702-705. 

2.  AFTER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD DEFINED SPECIFICALLY
THE CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS, INCLUDING
"LOADERS," AS TO WHOM IT "HAS POWER" UNDER SEC. 204(A) OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE,
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF AN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER SUED UNDER SEC. 16(B)
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNDER SEC.
7.  THE EMPLOYER DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR LABOR "CONSISTED
PRIMARILY OF THAT OF DRIVER'S HELPER AND OF LOADER," AND THAT THEY WERE
EXCLUDED BY SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FROM THE
BENEFITS OF SEC. 7.  HELD:  THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT AN INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEE IS WITHIN ANY CLASS OF EMPLOYEES AS TO WHICH THE COMMISSION
HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE IS
TO BE DETERMINED BY THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AND THERE IS NO OCCASION TO
SUSPEND FINAL JUDGMENT PENDING FURTHER FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION.  PP.
705-707. 

3.  THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF
THE STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES STATED
IN LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, ANTE, P. 649, AND THE FOLLOWING
PRINCIPLES: 

(A)  IN APPLYING SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT TO PLAINTIFFS, THE
DISTRICT COURT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTIVITIES OF EACH
PLAINTIFF, EITHER AS A WHOLE OR IN SUBSTANTIAL PART, COME WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S DEFINITION OF THE WORK OF A "LOADER."  P. 707. 

(B)  IN MAKING THIS DETERMINATION, THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL NOT BE
CONCLUDED BY THE NAME WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO HIS POSITION OR TO
THE WORK THAT HE DOES NOR BE REQUIRED TO FIND THAT ANY SPECIFIC PART OF
HIS TIME IN ANY GIVEN WEEK MUST HAVE BEEN SPENT IN THOSE ACTIVITIES. 
P. 707. 

(C)  THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL GIVE PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO WHETHER OR
NOT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RESPECTIVE PLAINTIFFS INCLUDED THAT KIND OF
"LOADING" WHICH IS HELD BY THE COMMISSION TO AFFECT SAFETY OF
OPERATION.  PP. 707-708. 

(D)  THE MERE HANDLING OF FREIGHT AT A TERMINAL, BEFORE OR AFTER
LOADING, OR EVEN THE PLACING OF CERTAIN ARTICLES OF FREIGHT ON A MOTOR
CARRIER TRUCK MAY FORM SO TRIVIAL, CASUAL OR OCCASIONAL PART OF AN
EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES, OR HIS ACTIVITIES MAY RELATE ONLY TO SUCH
ARTICLES OR TO SUCH LIMITED HANDLING OF THEM, THAT HIS ACTIVITIES WILL
NOT COME WITHIN THE KIND OF "LOADING" WHICH IS DESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSION AND WHICH IS FOUND BY IT TO AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION.  P.
708. 

(E)  IF NONE OF THE ALLEGED "LOADING" ACTIVITIES OF THE RESPECTIVE
PLAINTIFFS, DURING THE PERIODS AT ISSUE, COME WITHIN THE KIND OF
ACTIVITIES WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION, AFFECT THE SAFETY OF
OPERATION, THEN SUCH PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 7
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P. 708. 

(F)  IF THE WHOLE OR A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF SUCH ALLEGED "LOADING"
ACTIVITIES OF THE RESPECTIVE PLAINTIFFS, DURING THE PERIODS AT ISSUE,
DOES COME WITHIN THE KIND OF ACTIVITIES WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE
COMMISSION, AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION, SUCH PLAINTIFFS ARE EXCLUDED
FROM THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P. 708. 

(G)  IF SOME, BUT LESS THAN A SUBSTANTIAL PART, OF SUCH ACTIVITIES OF
THE RESPECTIVE PLAINTIFFS, DURING SOME OR ALL OF THE PERIODS AT ISSUE,
COME WITHIN THE KIND OF ACTIVITIES WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION,
AFFECT SUCH SAFETY OF OPERATION, THEN THE QUESTION AS TO THE RIGHT OF
SUCH PLAINTIFFS TO THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT IS RESERVED, SINCE IT DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PRECISE ISSUE
DETERMINED IN LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, ANTE, P. 649.  PP. 708
709. 

PYRAMID MOTOR FREIGHT CORP. V. ISPASS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF AN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER
UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FOR OVERTIME
COMPENSATION UNDER SEC. 7, A DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO DETERMINE
PLAINTIFFS' STATUS UNDER SEC. 13(B)(1) AND THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, BUT
HELD THE CASE "OPEN FOR FURTHER ACTION," IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THAT QUESTION TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  54 F.SUPP.  565.  UPON PLAINTIFFS' REFUSAL TO DO SO AND
THEIR MOTION REQUESTING A FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT "WITHOUT PREJUDICE."  59 F.SUPP.  341. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL AS TO ONE PLAINTIFF
AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS.  152 F.2D 619.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 774.  EXCEPT AS TO ONE PLAINTIFF, AS TO WHOM THE
JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WAS NOT QUESTIONED HERE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED IN PART AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  P. 709. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS TWO ISSUES: 

I. WAS IT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO DENY
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE
APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN DOCKETED AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD HAD NOT BEEN
FILED WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN RULE 73(G) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE?  WE HOLD THAT IT WAS NOT. 

II.  UNDER THE PRINCIPLES WE HAVE STATED IN THE COMPANION CASE OF
LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, 330 U.S. 649, WAS THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS JUSTIFIED IN REMANDING THE PRESENT CASE TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, IN
FAVOR OF ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS EXCEPT SHAPIRO?  WE HOLD THAT THE CASE
SHOULD BE REMANDED, BUT WITH DIRECTIONS TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN THIS CASE AND THE LEVINSON CASE.  THIS
WILL INCLUDE A DIRECTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT THE ACTIVITIES OF EACH RESPONDENT CONSISTED, WHOLLY OR IN
SUBSTANTIAL PART, OF THE CLASS OF WORK WHICH IS DEFINED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125, 133
134, AS THAT OF A "LOADER" OF FREIGHT FOR AN INTERSTATE COMMON CARRIER
BY MOTOR VEHICLE, AND AS AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  FN1 

THIS ACTION WAS BEGUN IN 1942 IN THE CITY COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, PURSUANT TO SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FN2  IT
SOUGHT TO RECOVER UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO
THE PETITIONER BY EACH OF SIX OF THE EIGHT RESPONDENTS AS "A DELIVERY
CLERK AND 'PUSH-BOY'," DURING VARIOUS PERIODS BETWEEN OCTOBER 24, 1938,
AND SEPTEMBER 20, 1941, COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT,  FN3  TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
AND AN ATTORNEY'S FEE.  THE CASE WAS REMOVED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 
THE OTHER TWO RESPONDENTS THERE JOINED IN THE COMPLAINT ON LIKE
GROUNDS.  THE PETITIONER ANSWERED THAT IT WAS AN INTERSTATE COMMON
CARRIER OF FREIGHT BY MOTOR VEHICLE; THAT THE LABOR PERFORMED BY EACH
OF THE RESPONDENTS "CONSISTED PRIMARILY OF THAT OF (A) DRIVER'S HELPER
AND OF (A) LOADER;" THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THEM, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAD POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, AND THAT,
BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,  FN4  SEC.
7 OF THAT ACT DID NOT APPLY TO THE SERVICES OF THE RESPONDENTS.  THE
CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT UPON AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS. 
FN5 

ON NOVEMBER 29, 1943, THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED AN OPINION IN WHICH
IT DECLINED TO DETERMINE THE STATUS OF THE RESPONDENTS BUT HELD THE
CASE "OPEN FOR FURTHER ACTION" IN ORDER TO GIVE THE RESPONDENTS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THAT QUESTION TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  54 F.SUPP.  565, 569.  PURSUANT TO RESPONDENTS' STATEMENT
THAT THEY WOULD NOT SO APPLY TO THE COMMISSION AND PURSUANT TO THEIR
MOTION REQUESTING A FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, THE COURT, ON
FEBRUARY 14, 1945, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT "WITHOUT PREJUDICE."  FN6
59 F.SUPP.  341.  AFTER CONSIDERABLE DELAY IN THE FILING OF THE RECORD
ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED
THE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AS TO THE RESPONDENT SHAPIRO ON THE GROUND
THAT "HE IS A 'HELPER' WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S RULING IN 28 M.C.C. AT
PAGES 135, 136."  152 F.2D 619, 622.  AS TO THE OTHER RESPONDENTS, IT
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT WITH COSTS AND REMANDED THE CAUSE "FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT IN THEIR FAVOR AND FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN ATTORNEY'S FEE."  ID.
AT 622.  THE JUDGMENT AS TO SHAPIRO HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED AND IS NOT
BEFORE US. 

BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 327 U.S.
774, AND THE CASE WAS ARGUED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE LEVINSON CASE. 
A BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AS AMICUS CURIAE, WAS FILED JOINTLY
IN THIS CASE AND IN THE LEVINSON CASE, SUPPORTING THE POSITION OF THE
RESPONDENTS.  FN7

                I. 

NOTICE OF APPEAL, DATED MARCH 29, 1945, WAS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT APRIL 2, 1945.  IN SPITE OF THE APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF RULE 73(G) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,  FN8
RESPONDENTS SOUGHT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT NO EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN
WHICH TO DOCKET THEIR APPEAL OR FILE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD.  ON
JULY 20, 1945, MORE THAN 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST NOTICE OF
APPEAL, RESPONDENTS, PURSUANT TO MOTION SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT, SECURED
FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE AUGUSTUS N. HAND AN ORDER EXTENDING TO SEPTEMBER 1,
1945, THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO SERVE AND FILE THEIR RECORD ON APPEAL. 
ON THAT DATE, THE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD WAS FILED.  THE PETITIONER
PROMPTLY MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL UNDER RULE 73(A) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE N9, QUESTIONING ESPECIALLY THE RIGHT OF A
SINGLE MEMBER OF THAT COURT TO MAKE THE ORDER OF JULY 20.  THIS MOTION
WAS DENIED OCTOBER 10, 1945, CIRCUIT JUDGES LEARNED HAND, SWAN AND
CLARK SPEAKING FOR THE COURT.  THE MOTION WAS RENEWED AT THE HEARING ON
THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL AND, ON DECEMBER 28, 1945, WAS DENIED AGAIN,
CIRCUIT JUDGES LEARNED HAND, SWAN AND FRANK SPEAKING FOR THE COURT. 
152 F.2D 619.  THE ISSUE WAS RAISED PROPERLY AND FULLY PRESENTED HERE. 

THE AUTHORITY OF A JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING THE RECORD ON APPEAL
APPEARS TO BE SUPPORTED BY RULE 15 OF THAT COURT.  FN10  THAT RULE,
HOWEVER, WAS NOT DISCUSSED BY COUNSEL AND WE SUSTAIN THE ACTION TAKEN
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER AUTHORITY OF RULE 73(A), EVEN
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS OWN RULE 15. 

THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FINAL ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS ON THIS MOTION IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IN THAT
COURT'S OPINION:  "IN THE CASE AT BAR THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION
IN EXTENDING THE TIME, DESPITE THE SOMEWHAT FEEBLE EXCUSES FOR DELAY,
SINCE THE APPEAL PRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION AS TO THE CORRECTNESS
OF THE JUDGMENT."  152 F.2D 2D 619, 621.  IT IS URGED THAT THIS SHOWS
THAT THE COURT BASED ITS REFUSAL TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE QUESTION TO BE PRESENTED ON THE MERITS OF THE
APPEAL, RATHER THAN ON THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE EXCUSES FOR THE DELAY
IN FILING THE RECORD. 

WE INTERPRET THE STATEMENT AS NO MORE THAN A RECOGNITION BY THE COURT
THAT THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE QUESTION TO BE AT ISSUE ON THE MERITS OF
THE APPEAL WAS A MATTER APPROPRIATE FOR ITS CONSIDERATION UNDER RULE
73(A), IN CONNECTION WITH ALL THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE IT.  RULE
73(A) IS INTENDED TO PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  WE SEE NO REASON TO QUESTION THE DISCRETION
EXERCISED IN THIS CASE AS EVIDENCED BY THE AGREEMENT OF ALL OF THE FIVE
CIRCUIT JUDGES TO WHOM THE ISSUE WAS PRESENTED.  AINSWORTH V. GILL
GLASS & FIXTURE CO., 104 F.2D 83; MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT
ASSN. V. SNYDER, 109 F.2D 469; BURKE V. CANFIELD, 72 APP. D.C. 127, 111
F.2D 526; UNITED STATES V. GALLAGHER, 151 F.2D 556. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE SUSTAIN THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE
APPEAL UNDER RULE 73(A). 

                                 II. 

ON THE MERITS, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WAS JUSTIFIED IN REMANDING THIS CASE WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER
A JUDGMENT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN FAVOR OF ALL OF THE
RESPONDENTS EXCEPT SHAPIRO.  WE HOLD THAT THE CAUSE SHOULD BE REMANDED
BUT THAT THE ORDER OF REMAND SHOULD BE MODIFIED.  THIS CASE WAS TRIED,
WITHOUT A JURY, ENTIRELY UPON AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND A PRE
TRIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT,
SETTLING THE ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED.  FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE HAVE
PROCEEDED ON THE SAME BASIS AND HAVE TREATED THE CASE AS THOUGH, UPON
REMAND OF IT TO THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT COURT WILL PROCEED UPON THE
SAME RECORD.  THIS, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS NECESSARILY
RESTRICTING THAT COURT TO THAT RECORD IF, FOR GOOD CAUSE, THAT COURT
SHOULD FIND IT ADVISABLE TO RETRY THE CASE DE NOVO.  FN11 

UNDER THE AGREED STATEMENT THERE WAS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT APPLIED TO EACH RESPONDENT PROVIDED ONLY THAT HE
WAS NOT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE OVERTIME PAY REQUIREMENTS
OF THAT ACT BY SEC. 13(B)(1) BECAUSE OF BEING AN "EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT
TO WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935; ..."  52 STAT. 1068, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 213(B)(1).  THERE THUS WILL REMAIN TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RESPECTIVE
RESPONDENTS CONSISTED, EITHER WHOLLY OR IN SUBSTANTIAL PART, OF THE
CLASS OF WORK WHICH IS DEFINED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN
EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125, 133-134, AS THAT OF A "LOADER," AND
AS AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  FN12 

IT WILL REMAIN FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO APPLY THE FACTS FOUND BY IT
AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RESPECTIVE RESPONDENTS TO THE
CLASSIFICATIONS OF WORK THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, DEFINING WHAT COMES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  THE COMMISSION HAS
DEFINED ITS JURISDICTION, BOTH AFFIRMATIVELY AND NEGATIVELY, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"...  WE HAVE POWER, UNDER SECTION 204(A) OF SAID PART II, TO
ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THE CLASSES
OF EMPLOYEES COVERED BY FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBERED 1, 2, AND 3 ABOVE
(MECHANICS, LOADERS AND HELPERS), AND  ...  WE HAVE NO SUCH POWER OVER
ANY OTHER CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT DRIVERS."  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 28
M.C.C. 125, 139.  FN13 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR US TO REFER TO
THE COMMISSION ANY QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS CASE NOR TO SUSPEND THE
LONG-DELAYED FINAL JUDGMENT PENDING FURTHER FINDINGS BY THE
COMMISSION.  THE COMMISSION HAS DONE ITS WORK.  THE DISTRICT COURT MUST
DETERMINE SIMPLY WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES WHO SEEK TO
RECOVER OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNDER SEC. 7 ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE
BENEFITS OF THAT SECTION BECAUSE THEY ARE WITHIN THE ABOVE
CLASSIFICATION.  THE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO
DETERMINE WHAT CLASSIFICATIONS OF WORK AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION OF
INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS HAVE BEEN APPLIED BY THE COMMISSION.  WHETHER
OR NOT AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE IS WITHIN ANY SUCH CLASSIFICATION IS TO
BE DETERMINED BY JUDICIAL PROCESS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, IN APPLYING SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT TO
RESPONDENTS, WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTIVITIES OF EACH
RESPONDENT, EITHER AS A WHOLE OR IN SUBSTANTIAL PART, COME WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S DEFINITION OF THE WORK OF A "LOADER."  IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES, OR ANY SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE ACTIVITIES, OF
AN INDIVIDUAL COME WITHIN THOSE OF SUCH A "LOADER," THE DISTRICT COURT
SHALL NOT BE CONCLUDED BY THE NAME WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO HIS
POSITION OR TO THE WORK THAT HE DOES, NOR SHALL THE DISTRICT COURT BE
REQUIRED TO FIND THAT ANY SPECIFIC PART OF HIS TIME IN ANY GIVEN WEEK
MUST HAVE BEEN SPENT IN THOSE ACTIVITIES.  THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL
GIVE PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
RESPECTIVE RESPONDENTS INCLUDED THAT KIND OF "LOADING" WHICH IS HELD BY
THE COMMISSION TO AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION.  IN CONTRAST TO THE
LOADING ACTIVITIES IN THE LEVINSON CASE, THE MERE HANDLING OF FREIGHT
AT A TERMINAL, BEFORE OR AFTER LOADING, OR EVEN THE PLACING OF CERTAIN
ARTICLES OF FREIGHT ON A MOTOR CARRIER TRUCK MAY FORM SO TRIVIAL,
CASUAL OR OCCASIONAL A PART OF AN EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES, OR HIS
ACTIVITIES MAY RELATE ONLY TO SUCH ARTICLES OR TO SUCH LIMITED HANDLING
OF THEM, THAT HIS ACTIVITIES WILL NOT COME WITHIN THE KIND OF "LOADING"
WHICH IS DESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION AND WHICH, IN ITS OPINION, AFFECTS
SAFETY OF OPERATION.  SEE ALSO, MCKEOWN V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FREIGHT
FORWARDERS, 49 F.SUPP.  543.  EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE COMMISSION HAS
FOUND THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF DRIVERS, MECHANICS, LOADERS AND HELPERS,
AS DEFINED BY IT, AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION, IT HAS DISCLAIMED ITS
POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS OR MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE UNDER
SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.    IF NONE OF THE ALLEGED "LOADING"
ACTIVITIES OF THE RESPECTIVE RESPONDENTS, DURING THE PERIODS AT ISSUE,
COME WITHIN THE KIND OF ACTIVITIES WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION,
AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, THEN
THOSE RESPONDENTS OF WHICH THAT IS TRUE ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF
SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE
WHOLE OR A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF SUCH ALLEGED "LOADING" ACTIVITIES OF THE
RESPECTIVE RESPONDENTS, DURING THE PERIODS AT ISSUE, DOES COME WITHIN
THE KIND OF ACTIVITIES WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION, AFFECT SUCH
SAFETY OF OPERATION, THEN THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN SUCH
ACTIVITIES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF SUCH SEC. 7.  IF SOME, BUT
LESS THAN A SUBSTANTIAL PART, OF SUCH ACTIVITIES OF THE RESPECTIVE
RESPONDENTS, DURING SOME OR ALL OF THE PERIODS AT ISSUE, COME WITHIN
THE KIND OF ACTIVITIES WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION, AFFECT SUCH
SAFETY OF OPERATION, THEN THE RIGHT OF THOSE RESPONDENTS WHO WERE
ENGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITIES TO RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 7 OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PRECISE ISSUE
DETERMINED IN THE LEVINSON CASE AND THIS COURT RESERVES ITS DECISION AS
TO THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO THEM AND, CONSEQUENTLY, RESERVES ITS
DECISION AS TO THEIR RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 7 OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
VACATED INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE RESPONDENTS OTHER THAN SHAPIRO,
AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEE LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, ANTE, P. 652, NOTE 2. 

FN2  SEE LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, ANTE, P. 653, NOTE 6. 

FN3  SEE LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, ANTE, P. 653, NOTE 5. 

FN4  SEE LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, ANTE, P. 653, NOTE 4. 

FN5  THIS INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK OF THE
RESPONDENTS AS EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER: 

"ITEM 3.  AS TO NORTHBOUND FREIGHT THE LOADED VEHICLES WOULD COME
INTO NEW YORK IN THE VERY EARLY MORNING HOURS TO THE WEST 11TH STREET
TERMINAL WHERE NEW DRIVERS TOOK CHARGE OF THE VEHICLES, AND WHAT WERE
CALLED DOWNTOWN HELPERS RODE ON THE VEHICLES WITH THE DRIVERS TO THE
38TH STREET TERMINAL.  AT SUCH TERMINAL THE DOORS OF THE TRUCKS WERE
OPENED IN THE MORNINGS, BOTH THE DRIVER AND DOWNTOWN HELPER REMAINING
ON THE VEHICLES.  AS THE DOWNTOWN HELPER PUSHED THE FREIGHT PACKAGES
OVER THE TAILBOARDS THEY WERE RECEIVED BY THE PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS),
WHO THEN PLACED THE FREIGHT PACKAGES IN THE SUB-TERMINAL BUILDING. 
STILL LATER IN THE MORNINGS THE PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS) THEN DELIVERED
THE PACKAGES TO VARIOUS CONSIGNEES IN THE GARMENT CENTER, GENERALLY
USING FOR THAT PURPOSE WHAT ARE CALLED HAND-TRUCKS OR FLAT TRUCKS,
USING THEIR OWN MANPOWER FOR PROPULSION. 

"DURING THOSE SAME DAYS OTHER NORTHBOUND TRUCKS AFTER FIRST STOPPING
AT THE WEST 11TH STREET MAIN TERMINAL TO CHANGE A DRIVER AND RECEIVE A
DOWNTOWN HELPER, BY-PASSED THE WEST 38TH STREET SUBTERMINAL AND PARKED
FIRST AT ONE PLACE AND THEN ANOTHER ALONGSIDE THE CURBS IN THE GARMENT
CENTER.  AT THOSE PLACES THE UNLOADING OPERATION WAS PERFORMED IN THE
SAME WAY AS AT THE SUB-TERMINAL HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AND THE
PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS) THEN MADE THE DELIVERIES BY HAND OR BY HAND
TRUCKS INTO THE INSIDES OF THE GARMENT CENTER BUILDINGS. 

"ITEM 4.  IN THE LATE AFTERNOONS AND EARLY EVENINGS FREIGHT
ORIGINATING WITH VARIOUS CONSIGNORS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE GARMENT
CENTER WAS 'PICKED UP' FOR INTENDED DELIVERY THE NEXT MORNING IN
PHILADELPHIA OR ELSEWHERE SOUTH OF NEW YORK.  AS TO THESE SOUTHBOUND
OPERATIONS THE FACTS WERE THESE:  SOME OF THE FREIGHT PACKAGES WOULD BE
PICKED UP BY THE PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS) AT THE CONSIGNOR'S PLACES OF
BUSINESS IN THE GARMENT CENTER AND HAND-TRUCKED BY THEM TO THE WEST
38TH STREET SUB-TERMINAL.  AT THAT PLACE THE PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS)
THEMSELVES DID, IN DUE COURSE, PHYSICALLY LOAD THE FREIGHT PACKAGES
INTO A WAITING TRUCK WHICH, WHEN LOADED, TOOK UP THIS JOURNEY FIRST TO
THE WEST 11TH STREET MAIN TERMINAL, AND THEN WITH A NEW DRIVER WENT ON
TO THE DESTINATIONS SOUTH OF NEW YORK.  A DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEE OTHER THAN
THE PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS) WOULD ALSO AT THE SAME TIME SO LOAD THE
VEHICLES. 

"OTHER TRUCKS FOR SOUTHBOUND LOADINGS TOOK THEIR STATIONS ON THE
PUBLIC STREETS IN THE GARMENT CENTER WHERE THE PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS)
BROUGHT THE PACKAGES BY HAND OR BY HAND TRUCK.  THE PART WHICH THE
PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS) TOOK IN SUCH LOADING CONSISTED OF THE LIFTING
OF THE PACKAGES ON TO THE TAILBOARDS OF THE TRUCKS, AND VERY OFTEN WHEN
THE WEIGHTS OR SIZE OF THE PACKAGES SO REQUIRED THEY WOULD STAND INSIDE
THE TRUCK BODIES AND, TOGETHER WITH THE DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEE, STACK AND
PILE THE FREIGHT IN THE VEHICLE. 

"ITEM 5.  AS TO ALL THE PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS) OTHER THAN SHAPIRO
THEY GENERALLY WALKED BETWEEN STOPPING POINTS BUT OCCASIONALLY RODE
UPON THE TRUCKS WHEN THE TRUCKS MOVED FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER IN THE
GARMENT CENTER, THEREBY AVOIDING LOSS OF TIME BY WALKING.  AS TO THE
PLAINTIFF SHAPIRO, HE REGULARLY AND AS A MATTER OF FIXED DUTY, BETWEEN
AUGUST 1939 AND SEPTEMBER 1, 1941, RODE ON THE TRUCK BETWEEN FOUR AND
FIVE HOURS DAILY.  ON THE TRUCK AT THE SAME TIME WAS THE DRIVER AND A
HELPER FROM THE DOWNTOWN TERMINAL.  IN ADDITION THERETO THE PLAINTIFF
SHAPIRO DEVOTED THREE AND A HALF HOURS EACH DAY TO INSIDE OFFICE WORK
AT THE 38TH STREET SUB-TERMINAL." 

FN6  THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL APPEARING IN THE RECORD WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT BE AND THE SAME HEREBY IS DISMISSED AND
THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ABATING AND DISMISSING SAID ACTION, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS), OR ANY ONE OF
THEM, TO BRING OTHER ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS, EITHER ADMINISTRATIVELY OR AT AN APPROPRIATE
TIME, BY ACTION IN THIS COURT OR OTHER PROPER TRIBUNAL." 

FN7  SEE ALSO, WALLING V. COMET CARRIERS, 57 F.SUPP.  1018, 151 F.2D
107, 109; CERT. GRANTED, 326 U.S. 716; WRIT OF CERTIORARI DISMISSED ON
MOTION OF COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER COMET CARRIERS, 328 U.S. 819.  THAT
CASE, ALSO IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT, RELATED TO "FOUR MOTOR TRUCK DRIVERS,
FOUR DRIVERS' HELPERS AND TWO HAND TRUCKERS OR PUSHERS" EMPLOYED BY
COMET CARRIERS IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS AND
CONTRACTORS MOSTLY ON INTRASTATE TRIPS WITHIN OR NEAR THE NEW YORK CITY
GARMENT CENTER.  AS TO THE HAND TRUCKERS OR PUSHERS, THE DISTRICT COURT
SAID:  "THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYED ON MOTOR VEHICLES NOR DO THEIR FUNCTIONS
AS EMPLOYEES AFFECT OR RELATE TO THE SAFETY OF OPERATION OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  57 F.SUPP.  1018, 1023.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS DISCUSSED ONLY THE DRIVERS AND DRIVERS' HELPERS.  AS
TO THEM IT SAID: 

"PROOF THAT TWO EMPLOYEES WORKED ONLY THREE HOURS A WEEK IN
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND THAT TWO EMPLOYEES MADE 'SOME' AND
'OCCASIONAL' DELIVERIES TO THE WAREHOUSES OF CHAIN STORES AND WORKED
THE REMAINING TIME IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE DOES NOT
SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE AMOUNT OF TIME DURING WHICH THEY ARE
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BE SUBSTANTIAL."  151 F.2D 107, 111. 

FN8  "RULE 73.  APPEAL TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

     . .         .         .         . 

"(G)  DOCKETING AND RECORD ON APPEAL.  THE RECORD ON APPEAL AS
PROVIDED FOR IN RULES 75 AND 76 SHALL BE FILED WITH THE APPELLATE COURT
AND THE ACTION THERE DOCKETED WITHIN 40 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE
NOTICE OF APPEAL; EXCEPT THAT, WHEN MORE THAN ONE APPEAL IS TAKEN FROM
THE SAME JUDGMENT TO THE SAME APPELLATE COURT, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY
PRESCRIBE THE TIME FOR FILING AND DOCKETING, WHICH IN NO EVENT SHALL BE
LESS THAN 40 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST NOTICE OF APPEAL.  IN ALL
CASES THE DISTRICT COURT IN ITS DISCRETION AND WITH OR WITHOUT MOTION
OR NOTICE MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING THE RECORD ON APPEAL AND
DOCKETING THE ACTION, IF ITS ORDER FOR EXTENSION IS MADE BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD FOR FILING AND DOCKETING AS ORIGINALLY
PRESCRIBED OR AS EXTENDED BY A PREVIOUS ORDER; BUT THE DISTRICT COURT
SHALL NOT EXTEND THE TIME TO A DAY MORE THAN 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
THE FIRST NOTICE OF APPEAL."  308 U.S. 752, 28 U.S.C. FOLLOWING SEC.
723(C). 

FN9  "RULE 73.  APPEAL TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

"(A)  HOW TAKEN.  WHEN AN APPEAL IS PERMITTED BY LAW FROM A DISTRICT
COURT TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED, A
PARTY MAY APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT BY FILING WITH THE DISTRICT COURT A
NOTICE OF APPEAL.  FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO TAKE ANY OF THE FURTHER
STEPS TO SECURE THE REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM DOES NOT
AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE APPEAL, BUT IS GROUND ONLY FOR SUCH REMEDIES
AS ARE SPECIFIED IN THIS RULE OR, WHEN NO REMEDY IS SPECIFIED, FOR SUCH
ACTION AS THE APPELLATE COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE, WHICH MAY INCLUDE
DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL."  308 U.S. 749, 28 U.S.C. FOLLOWING SEC.
723(C). 

FN10  RULE 15, U.S.C.C.A., SECOND CIRCUIT. 

          "DOCKETING CASES. 

"1.  IN AN APPEAL IN A CIVIL ACTION THE APPELLANT SHALL DOCKET THE
ACTION AND FILE THE RECORD IN THIS COURT WITHIN FORTY DAYS AFTER FILING
THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE DISTRICT COURT, OR WITHIN ANY ADDED TIME
GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE WITHIN FORTY DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE
NOTICE OF APPEAL, BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER SUCH
FILING (RULE 73(G))....  IF THE RECORD IS NOT PRESENTED TO THE CLERK
FOR FILING WITHIN THE PERIODS ABOVE PROVIDED, HE SHALL REFUSE TO ACCEPT
IT UNLESS THIS COURT SO ORDERS, OR A JUDGE THEREOF IF THE COURT IS NOT
SITTING. 

"2.  THIS COURT WILL NOT HEAR AND GRANT MOTIONS FOR FILING AND
DOCKETING APPEALS, OTHERWISE PROPERLY TAKEN, AT TIMES OTHER THAN AS
STATED IN SUBDIVISION 1 HEREOF, EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING BY AFFIDAVITS, OR
OTHERWISE AS THE COURT MAY ORDER, (A) THAT THE DELAY HAS BEEN DUE TO
CAUSE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE MOVING PARTY OR (B) THAT THE DELAY HAS
BEEN DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE MERELY EXCUSABLE
NEGLECT ON THE PART OF THE MOVING PARTY AND THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTION TO BE PRESENTED ON APPEAL AND (C) IN ALL CASES WHERE THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS POWER TO ACT, THAT AN EXTENSION OF TIME HAS BEEN
DENIED BY THAT COURT, TOGETHER WITH THE GROUNDS FOR SUCH DENIAL, IF ANY
ARE STATED. 

"3.  IF THE APPELLANT SHALL HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THIS RULE, ANY
APPELLEE MAY EITHER DOCKET THE ACTION AND FILE THE RECORD IN THIS
COURT, IN WHICH EVENT IT SHALL STAND FOR ARGUMENT, OR MAY HAVE THE
ACTION DOCKETED AND DISMISSED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT UPON PRODUCING
A CERTIFICATE FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT WHEREIN THE JUDGMENT OR
DECREE WAS RENDERED, CERTIFYING THAT SUCH APPEAL HAS BEEN DULY TAKEN OR
ALLOWED, AND PROOF THAT FOUR DAYS' NOTICE IN WRITING HAS BEEN SERVED ON
THE APPELLANT OR HIS ATTORNEY THAT APPLICATION WILL BE MADE TO THE
CLERK OF THIS COURT FOR SUCH DISMISSAL.  NO ACTION DISMISSED UNDER THIS
RULE SHALL BE REINSTATED EXCEPT IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT AND UPON
A SHOWING SIMILAR TO THAT REQUIRED UNDER SUBDIVISION 2 HEREOF."  11
U.S. SUP. CT. REP. DIGEST, L. ED., SUPP. NO. 4, P. 55. 

FN11  THE DISTRICT COURT, IN ITS ORDER OF FEBRUARY 14, 1945,
DESCRIBED THE BASIS ON WHICH THE CASE HAD BEEN TRIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"...  ON THE 3RD DAY OF MAY, 1943, AND THE PARTIES HERETO HAVING DULY
APPEARED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS, AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, IN
LIEU OF THE OFFERING OF PROOF, AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS SETTING
FORTH THE ISSUES FRAMED BY THE COMPLAINT, AND THE COURT, UPON THE
CONSENT OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, HAVING THEREUPON
MADE AND ENTERED AN ORDER HEREIN ON THE SAID 3RD DAY OF MAY, 1943,
WHEREIN AND WHEREBY THE SAID AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH WERE
SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, AS AFORESAID,
WAS SET FORTH AS THE ISSUES FRAMED BY THE COMPLAINT AND ANSWER, AND THE
SAID ACTION HAVING BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR ITS DETERMINATION
UPON THE SAID AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ORDER HEREINBEFORE
MENTIONED AND REFERRED TO,  ..." 

FN12  SEE LEVINSON V. SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, ANTE, P. 652, NOTE 2. 

FN13  THE FINDINGS OF FACT REFERRED TO BY THE COMMISSION, INSOFAR AS
THEY RELATE TO LOADERS, ARE THOSE QUOTED IN THE TEXT OF LEVINSON V.
SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, ANTE, P. 669, AT NOTE 17. 
..END :























UNITED STATES V. REMUND, 330 U.S. 539 


NO. 417.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 17, 1947.  - 70 S.D.
- , 23 N.W.2D 281, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "WHENEVER THE ESTATE OF
ANY DECEASED DEBTOR  ... IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL THE DEBTS DUE FROM
THE DECEASED, THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE FIRST
SATISFIED," A CLAIM ASSERTED IN A STATE PROBATE PROCEEDING BY AN
OFFICIAL OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES, ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID EMERGENCY FEED AND CROP LOANS MADE
PURSUANT TO THE ACTS OF FEBRUARY 23 AND JUNE 19, 1934, IS ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY.  PP. 541-545. 

2.  A DEBT OWED THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION IS A DEBT OWED THE
UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF R.S. SEC. 3466.  PP. 541-542. 

3.  THE PRIORITY GIVEN BY R.S. SEC. 3466 TO DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED
STATES IS UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT A CLAIM BASED UPON SUCH A DEBT IS
FILED IN THE NAME OF AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OR AN AUTHORIZED
OFFICER OF SUCH AN AGENCY.  PP. 542-543. 

4.  THERE IS NO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT BETWEEN MAKING EMERGENCY
LOANS TO DISTRESSED FARMERS AND GRANTING PRIORITY TO THE COLLECTION OF
SUCH LOANS PURSUANT TO R.S. SEC. 3466.  PP. 543-545. 

5.  ONLY THE PLAINEST INCONSISTENCY WOULD WARRANT AN IMPLIED
EXCEPTION TO THE PRIORITY ESTABLISHED BY R.S. SEC. 3466.  PP. 544-545. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, EMERGENCY CROP AND FEED LOANS
V. REMUND, ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA. 

A CLAIM BY AN OFFICIAL OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ESTATE OF AN INSOLVENT DECEDENT
IN A STATE PROBATE PROCEEDING WAS DENIED PRIORITY UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466
BY A PROBATE COURT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  70 S.D. -, 23
N.W.2D 281.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 703.  REVERSED,
P. 545. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE. 

WE ARE FACED HERE WITH THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER, IN A STATE PROBATE
PROCEEDING, A CLAIM ASSERTED BY THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION THROUGH
CERTAIN OF ITS OFFICIALS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES IS
ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 31 U.S.C.
SEC. 191. 

THE GOVERNOR OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION, PURSUANT TO THE ACTS
OF FEBRUARY 23, 1934,  FN1 AND JUNE 19, 1934, FN2  EXTENDED EMERGENCY
FEED AND CROP LOANS TOTALLING $370.00 TO WILHELM BUTTKE, A SOUTH DAKOTA
FARMER.  MOST OF THESE LOANS REMAINED UNPAID.  ON DECEMBER 26, 1941,
BUTTKE DIED INTESTATE, LEAVING AN ESTATE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL OF HIS
DEBTS.  RESPONDENT WAS APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE.  ON MARCH
2, 1942, AN AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE FARM CREDIT
ADMINISTRATION FILED IN THE COUNTY COURT OF ROBERTS COUNTY, SOUTH
DAKOTA, A CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE FOR $523.80, THE AMOUNT OF THE
UNPAID INDEBTEDNESS PLUS INTEREST.  THIS CLAIM WAS MADE "FOR AND ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" AND A PRIORITY THEREFOR ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ASSERTED UNDER SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES. 

THE COUNTY COURT DENIED PREFERENCE TO THIS CLAIM.  BUT IT DID ALLOW
THE CLAIM IN THE AMOUNT OF $79.53, WHICH REPRESENTED THE PRO RATA SHARE
OF A COMMON CREDITOR'S CLAIM.  THIS DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SOUTH DAKOTA AND BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.  70 S.D. -, 23 N.W.2D 281.  THE LATTER
COURT FELT THAT THE ACTS OF FEBRUARY 23, 1934, AND JUNE 19, 1934,
CREATED AN EXCEPTION TO SEC. 3466 AND THAT THE CLAIMED PRIORITY SHOULD
ACCORDINGLY BE REFUSED ON THE AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY
TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANT PROBLEMS THEREBY RAISED. 

THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES PROVIDES
THAT "...  WHENEVER THE ESTATE OF ANY DECEASED DEBTOR, IN THE HANDS OF
THE EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS, IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL THE DEBTS
DUE FROM THE DECEASED, THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE
FIRST SATISFIED  ..." 

INITIALLY, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SEC. 3466 IS INAPPLICABLE SINCE THE
CLAIM IN ISSUE IS NOT A DEBT DUE TO THE UNITED STATES.  THE CLAIM GROWS
OUT OF THE SEVEN NOTES EXECUTED BY THE DECEASED TO "THE GOVERNOR OF THE
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION, OR ORDER, AT WASHINGTON, D.C."  THESE NOTES
STATED THAT THEY WERE "GIVEN AS EVIDENCE OF A LOAN MADE BY THE GOVERNOR
OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION."  ON THE PREMISE THAT THE FARM
CREDIT ADMINISTRATION IS AN ENTITY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT OBLIGATIONS DUE THE
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION FALL OUTSIDE THE PRIORITY ESTABLISHED BY
SEC. 3466.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION IS PLAINLY ONE OF THE MANY
ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, ESTABLISHED TO
CARRY OUT THE FUNCTIONS DELEGATED TO IT BY CONGRESS.  IT BEARS NONE OF
THE FEATURES OF A GOVERNMENT CORPORATION WITH A LEGAL ENTITY SEPARATE
FROM THAT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHATEVER DIFFERENCE THAT MIGHT MAKE AS
TO THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 3466.  CF. SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. UNITED
STATES FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549.  IT HAD ITS INCEPTION IN 1933 AS AN
INDEPENDENT AGENCY, ASSUMING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL FARM BOARD
AND THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN BOARD.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6084.  IN 1939,
IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND PLACED UNDER
THE GENERAL SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 1, SEC. 401(A), 53 STAT. 1429, 4 FED. REG.
2730.  ITS FUNCTIONS, PERSONNEL AND PROPERTY WERE THEN CONSOLIDATED IN
1942 WITH THOSE OF CERTAIN OTHER AGENCIES TO FORM THE FOOD PRODUCTION
ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.
9280, 7 FED. REG. 10179.  AT NO TIME HAS THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
BEEN OTHER THAN AN UNINCORPORATED AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTERING AND LENDING FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS
OUT OF THE UNITED STATES TREASURY AND RETURNING THE MONEY TO THE
TREASURY UPON REPAYMENT.  IN SHORT, IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
GOVERNMENTAL MECHANISM.  AND THE USE OF A NAME OTHER THAN THAT OF THE
UNITED STATES CANNOT CHANGE THAT FACT.  UNITED STATES V. FONTENOT, 33
F.SUPP.  629; IN RE WILSON, 23 F.SUPP.  236; FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF
DALLAS V. SMYLIE, (TEX. CIV. APP.) 134 S.W.2D 838; HELMS V. EMERGENCY
CROP & SEED LOAN OFFICE, 216 N.C. 581, 5 S.E.2D 822.  SEE ALSO NORTH
DAKOTA-MONTANA WHEAT GROWERS' ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 66 F.2D 573. 
HENCE ANY DEBT OWED THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION IS A DEBT OWED THE
UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3466. 

MOREOVER, THE PRIORITY GIVEN BY SEC. 3466 TO A DEBT DUE TO THE UNITED
STATES IS UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT A CLAIM BASED UPON THAT DEBT IS
FILED IN THE NAME OF AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OR AN AUTHORIZED
OFFICER OF SUCH AN AGENCY.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THERE IS AN OBLIGATION
OWED THE UNITED STATES.  WHETHER THE CLAIM IS FILED IN THE NAME OF THE
UNITED STATES OR IN THE NAME OF AN OFFICER OR AGENCY IS IMMATERIAL; IN
THE LATTER INSTANCE, THE CLAIM IS NECESSARILY FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE LEGAL EFFECT IS THE SAME AS IF IT HAD BEEN FILED
IN THAT NAME.  NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OR POLICY OF SEC. 3466 JUSTIFIES
ANY OTHER CONCLUSION.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE METHOD OF FILING IN THIS
CASE CANNOT BE QUESTIONED.  THE CLAIM WAS FILED IN THE NAME OF THE
GOVERNOR OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION "FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" - AN EXPLICIT RECOGNITION OF THE LEGAL
REALITIES INVOLVED. 

THE MAIN CONTENTION, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTES
UNDER WHICH THE LOANS WERE MADE IS INCONSISTENT WITH SEC. 3466, THEREBY
RENDERING IT INAPPLICABLE.  THE ACTS OF FEBRUARY 23, 1934, AND JUNE 19,
1934, AUTHORIZED FEED AND CROP LOANS TO FARMERS IN DROUGHT AND STORM
STRICKEN AREAS OF THE NATION.  IT IS SAID THAT THE PRIME PURPOSE OF
THESE ACTS WAS TO RESTORE THE CREDIT OF THE FARMERS AND THAT TO GIVE
EFFECT TO SEC. 3466 WOULD IMPAIR THAT CREDIT.  RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON
UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., SUPRA.  THIS COURT THERE HELD THAT
SEC. 3466 WAS INAPPLICABLE TO THE COLLECTION OF LOANS MADE BY THE
GOVERNMENT TO RAILROAD CARRIERS TO REHABILITATE AND MAINTAIN THEIR
CREDIT STATUS; IT WAS FELT THAT TO GIVE PRIORITY UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION BY IMPAIRING
THE CREDIT OF THE RAILROADS.  SEE ALSO COOK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK V.
UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445. 

BUT IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTS OF FEBRUARY 23, 1934,
AND JUNE 19, 1934, WAS TO GIVE EMERGENCY RELIEF TO DISTRESSED FARMERS
RATHER THAN TO RESTORE THEIR CREDIT STATUS.  THESE WERE BUT TWO OF A
SERIES OF EMERGENCY FEED AND CROP LOAN STATUTES  FN3  ENACTED AT
VARIOUS TIMES FROM 1921 TO 1938, A PERIOD WHEN FARMERS WERE THE VICTIMS
OF REPEATED CROP FAILURES AND ADVERSE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.  THEIR
CREDIT WAS OFTEN IMPAIRED, BUT THEIR MOST URGENT NEED WAS FOR MONEY TO
PURCHASE FEED AND TO PLANT CROPS; WITHOUT SUCH MONEY, DISTRESS AND
UNEMPLOYMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THEIR LOT.  IT WAS TO MEET THAT URGENT
NEED THAT CONGRESS PASSED THESE STATUTES. 

MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE TWO ACTS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE DESIGNED TO
MAKE LOANS AVAILABLE TO THOSE FARMERS WHO WERE UNABLE TO SECURE CREDIT
FROM THE PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATIONS, ORGANIZED PURSUANT TO THE FARM
CREDIT ACT OF 1933.  FN4  IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT MANY FARMERS COULD NOT
QUALIFY FOR LOANS FROM THOSE ASSOCIATIONS.  SOME METHOD OF LENDING AID
AND ASSISTANCE TO THOSE WHO HAD NO CREDIT AND NO MONEY WITH WHICH TO
BUY FEED FOR THEIR LIVESTOCK AND SEEDS FOR THEIR CROPS WAS ESSENTIAL IN
THE ABSENCE OF A MORE DIRECT FORM OF GOVERNMENT RELIEF.  S. REP. 148,
73D CONG., 2D SESS.; H. REP. 521, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.  AS WAS SAID BY
REPRESENTATIVE KERR, "LET IT BE REMEMBERED THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT
SEEKING TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT; THIS IS SIMPLY AN ENDEAVOR TO FINANCE
THE FARMERS OF THIS COUNTRY WHO ARE UTTERLY UNABLE TO FINANCE
THEMSELVES."  78 CONG. REC. 1959.  SEE UNITED STATES V. THOMAS, 107
F.2D 765, 766; PERSON V. UNITED STATES, 112 F.2D 1, 2. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT BETWEEN GIVING
EMERGENCY LOANS TO DISTRESSED FARMERS AND GIVING PRIORITY TO THE
COLLECTION OF THESE LOANS PURSUANT TO SEC. 3466.  SUCH PRIORITY COULD
IN NO WAY IMPAIR THE AID WHICH THE FARMERS SOUGHT THROUGH THESE LOANS;
NOR COULD IT EMBARRASS THE FARMERS IN THEIR DAILY OPERATIONS. 
MOREOVER, THESE LOANS CALLED FOR A FIRST LIEN ON CROPS GROWING OR TO BE
GROWN, OR ON LIVESTOCK.  THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN 1934 MADE THIS
TYPE OF SECURITY UNCERTAIN AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT CONGRESS
MEANT SUCH A LIEN TO BE THE SOLE SECURITY TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT COULD
LOOK FOR REPAYMENT. 

WE REITERATE WHAT WAS SAID IN UNITED STATES V. EMORY, 314 U.S. 423,
433:  "ONLY THE PLAINEST INCONSISTENCY WOULD WARRANT OUR FINDING AN
IMPLIED EXCEPTION TO THE OPERATION OF SO CLEAR A COMMAND AS THAT OF
SEC. 3466."  IN THIS CASE, AS IN THAT, WE THINK SUCH INCONSISTENCY IS
WHOLLY WANTING.  UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., SUPRA, IS
THEREFORE INAPPOSITE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 354. 

FN2  48 STAT. 1021, 1056. 

FN3  41 STAT. 1347; 42 STAT. 467; 43 STAT. 110; 44 STAT. 1245, 1251;
45 STAT. 1306, AS AMENDED BY 46 STAT. 3; 46 STAT. 78, AS AMENDED BY 46
STAT. 254; 46 STAT. 1032, AS AMENDED BY 46 STAT. 1160; 46 STAT. 1276;
47 STAT. 5; 47 STAT. 795; 48 STAT. 354; 48 STAT. 1056; 49 STAT. 28; 50
STAT. 5; 52 STAT. 27. 

FN4  48 STAT. 257. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT ON THE AUTHORITY OF
UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478. 
..END :


















TESTA V. KATT, 330 U.S. 386 


NO. 431.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 14, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1947.  - 71
R.I. 472, 47 A.2D 312, REVERSED. 


AMENDED, PROVIDES THAT A BUYER OF GOODS AT ABOVE THE CEILING PRICE MAY
SUE THE SELLER "IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION" FOR THREE TIMES
THE AMOUNT OF THE OVERCHARGE PLUS COSTS AND A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S
FEE; AND SEC. 205(C) PROVIDES THAT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS SHALL
HAVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH SUITS "CONCURRENTLY WITH" STATE COURTS. 
HAVING PURCHASED AN AUTOMOBILE AT ABOVE THE CEILING PRICE, THE
PURCHASER SUED THE SELLER UNDER SEC. 205(E) AND OBTAINED JUDGMENT FOR
DAMAGES AND COSTS IN A STATE COURT HAVING ADEQUATE GENERAL JURISDICTION
TO ENFORCE SIMILAR CLAIMS ARISING UNDER STATE LAW.  ON APPEAL, THE
STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUIT
WAS FOR A PENALTY BASED ON A STATUTE OF A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN AND COULD
NOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE STATE COURTS.  HELD:  ASSUMING, WITHOUT
DECIDING, THAT SEC. 205(E) IS A PENAL STATUTE, THE STATE COURTS WERE
NOT FREE UNDER ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION TO REFUSE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE CLAIM.  CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130; MONDOU V. NEW YORK, N.H.
& H.R. CO., 223 U.S. 1.  PP. 389-394. 

TESTA ET AL. V. KATT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR PROVIDENCE AND BRISTOL COUNTIES,
RHODE ISLAND. 

A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AWARDED THE PURCHASER OF AN
AUTOMOBILE AT ABOVE THE CEILING PRICE A JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES AND COSTS
UNDER SEC. 205(E) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, 56 STAT. 34, AS
AMENDED.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED AND, PURSUANT TO LOCAL
PRACTICE, REMITTED THE CASE AND RECORD TO THE SUPERIOR COURT.  71 R.I.
472, 47 A.2D 312.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 703. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 394. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A BUYER OF GOODS AT ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED CEILING PRICE MAY SUE THE
SELLER "IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION" FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE
TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE OVERCHARGE PLUS COSTS AND A REASONABLE
ATTORNEY'S FEE.  SECTION 205(C)  FN2  PROVIDES THAT FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH SUITS "CONCURRENTLY WITH STATE
AND TERRITORIAL COURTS."  SUCH A SUIT UNDER SEC. 205(E) MUST BE BROUGHT
"IN THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT RESIDES OR HAS A
PLACE OF BUSINESS  ..." 

THE RESPONDENT WAS IN THE AUTOMOBILE BUSINESS IN PROVIDENCE,
PROVIDENCE COUNTY, RHODE ISLAND.  IN 1944 HE SOLD AN AUTOMOBILE TO
PETITIONER TESTA, WHO ALSO RESIDES IN PROVIDENCE, FOR $1100, $210 ABOVE
THE CEILING PRICE.  THE PETITIONER LATER FILED THIS SUIT AGAINST
RESPONDENT IN THE STATE DISTRICT COURT IN PROVIDENCE.  RECOVERY WAS
SOUGHT UNDER SEC. 205(E).  THE COURT AWARDED A JUDGMENT OF TREBLE
DAMAGES AND COSTS TO PETITIONER.  ON APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPERIOR
COURT, WHERE THE TRIAL WAS DE NOVO, THE PETITIONER WAS AGAIN AWARDED
JUDGMENT, BUT ONLY FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE OVERCHARGE PLUS ATTORNEY'S
FEES.  PENDING APPEAL FROM THIS JUDGMENT, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR WAS
ALLOWED TO INTERVENE.  ON APPEAL, THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED, 71
R.I. 472, 47 A.2D 312.  IT INTERPRETED SEC. 205(E) TO BE "A PENAL
STATUTE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SENSE."  IT HELD THAT AN ACTION FOR
VIOLATION OF SEC. 205(E) COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE COURTS OF THAT
STATE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT RESTED ITS HOLDING ON ITS EARLIER
DECISION IN ROBINSON V. NORATO, 71 R.I. 256, 43 A.2D 467(1945) IN WHICH
IT HAD REASONED THAT:  A STATE NEED NOT ENFORCE THE PENAL LAWS OF A
GOVERNMENT WHICH IS FOREIGN IN THE INTERNATIONAL SENSE; SEC. 205(E) IS
TREATED BY RHODE ISLAND AS PENAL IN THAT SENSE; THE UNITED STATES IS
"FOREIGN" TO THE STATE IN THE "PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL" AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM THE "PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL" SENSE; HENCE RHODE ISLAND COURTS,
THOUGH THEIR JURISDICTION IS ADEQUATE TO ENFORCE SIMILAR RHODE ISLAND
"PENAL" STATUTES, NEED NOT ENFORCE SEC. 205(E).  WHETHER STATE COURTS
MAY DECLINE TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAWS ON THESE GROUNDS IS A QUESTION OF
GREAT IMPORTANCE.  FOR THIS REASON, AND BECAUSE THE RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING WAS ALLEGED TO CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S
PREVIOUS HOLDING IN MONDOU V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 223 U.S. 1, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 703.  FN3 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT SEC.
205(E) IS A PENAL STATUTE IN THE "PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL," "PRIVATE
INTERNATIONAL," OR ANY OTHER SENSE.  SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
THE RHODE ISLAND COURTS PROPERLY DECLINED TO TRY THIS ACTION, IT MAKES
NO DIFFERENCE INTO WHICH OF THESE CATEGORIES THE RHODE ISLAND COURT
CHOSE TO PLACE THE STATUTE WHICH CONGRESS HAS PASSED.  FOR WE CANNOT
ACCEPT THE BASIC PREMISE ON WHICH THE RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT HELD
THAT IT HAS NO MORE OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE A VALID PENAL LAW OF THE
UNITED STATES THAN IT HAS TO ENFORCE A PENAL LAW OF ANOTHER STATE OR A
FOREIGN COUNTRY.  SUCH A BROAD ASSUMPTION FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE FACT
THAT THE STATES OF THE UNION CONSTITUTE A NATION.  IT DISREGARDS THE
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES:
"THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE BE
MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE
MADE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE SUPREME
LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY,
ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING." 

IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE CONSIDERED, THAT THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF A STATE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF A SISTER STATE ARE
IDENTICAL WITH ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAWS.  SUCH AN
ASSUMPTION REPRESENTS AN ERRONEOUS EVALUATION OF THE STATUTES OF
CONGRESS AND THE PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN THEIR HISTORIC
SETTING.  THOSE DECISIONS ESTABLISH THAT STATE COURTS DO NOT BEAR THE
SAME RELATION TO THE UNITED STATES THAT THEY DO TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 
THE FIRST CONGRESS THAT CONVENED AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED
CONFERRED JURISDICTION UPON THE STATE COURTS TO ENFORCE IMPORTANT
FEDERAL CIVIL LAWS,  FN4  AND SUCCEEDING CONGRESSES CONFERRED ON THE
STATES JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL CRIMES AND ACTIONS FOR PENALTIES AND
FORFEITURES.  FN5 

ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS BY STATE COURTS DID NOT GO UNCHALLENGED. 
VIOLENT PUBLIC CONTROVERSIES EXISTED THROUGHOUT THE FIRST PART OF THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY UNTIL THE 1860'S CONCERNING THE EXTENT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  DURING THAT PERIOD
THERE WERE INSTANCES IN WHICH THIS COURT AND STATE COURTS BROADLY
QUESTIONED THE POWER AND DUTY OF STATE COURTS TO EXERCISE THEIR
JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE UNITED STATES CIVIL AND PENAL STATUTES OR THE
POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REQUIRE THEM TO DO SO.  FN6  BUT
AFTER THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES OVER THE EXTENT OF FEDERAL SUPREMACY HAD
BEEN RESOLVED BY WAR, THIS COURT TOOK OCCASION IN 1876 TO REVIEW THE
PHASE OF THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP OF STATE COURTS TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130.  THE OPINION
OF A UNANIMOUS COURT IN THAT CASE WAS STRONGLY BUTTRESSED BY HISTORIC
REFERENCES AND PERSUASIVE REASONING.  IT REPUDIATED THE ASSUMPTION THAT
FEDERAL LAWS CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE STATES AS THOUGH THEY WERE LAWS
EMANATING FROM A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN.  ITS TEACHING IS THAT THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS PASSED PURSUANT TO IT ARE THE SUPREME LAWS OF
THE LAND, BINDING ALIKE UPON STATES, COURTS, AND THE PEOPLE, "ANY THING
IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING."  FN7 IT ASSERTED THAT THE OBLIGATION OF STATES TO
ENFORCE THESE FEDERAL LAWS IS NOT LESSENED BY REASON OF THE FORM IN
WHICH THEY ARE CAST OR THE REMEDY WHICH THEY PROVIDE.  AND THE COURT
STATED THAT "IF AN ACT OF CONGRESS GIVES A PENALTY TO A PARTY
AGGRIEVED, WITHOUT SPECIFYING A REMEDY FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT, THERE IS NO
REASON WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED, IF NOT PROVIDED OTHERWISE BY SOME
ACT OF CONGRESS, BY A PROPER ACTION IN A STATE COURT."  ID. AT 137. 
AND SEE UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK, 296 U.S. 463, 479. 

THE CLAFLIN OPINION THUS ANSWERED MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS THERETOFORE
ADVANCED AGAINST THE POWER AND DUTY OF STATE COURTS TO ENFORCE FEDERAL
PENAL LAWS.  AND SINCE THAT DECISION, THE REMAINING AREAS OF DOUBT HAVE
BEEN STEADILY NARROWED.  FN8  THERE HAVE BEEN STATEMENTS IN CASES
CONCERNED WITH THE OBLIGATION OF STATES TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF SISTER STATES WHICH SUGGESTED A THEORY CONTRARY
TO THAT PRONOUNCED IN THE CLAFLIN OPINION.  FN9  BUT WHEN IN MONDOU V.
NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 223 U.S. 1, THIS COURT WAS PRESENTED WITH A
CASE TESTING THE POWER AND DUTY OF STATES TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAWS, IT
FOUND THE SOLUTION IN THE BROAD PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE CLAFLIN
OPINION. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION IN THE MONDOU CASE WAS WHETHER RIGHTS ARISING
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 36 STAT. 291, COULD "BE
ENFORCED, AS OF RIGHT, IN THE COURTS OF THE STATES WHEN THEIR
JURISDICTION, AS FIXED BY LOCAL LAWS, IS ADEQUATE TO THE OCCASION
..."  ID. AT 46.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT HAD DECIDED THAT
THEY COULD NOT.  EXCEPT FOR THE PENALTY FEATURE, THE FACTORS IT
CONSIDERED AND ITS REASONING WERE STRIKINGLY SIMILAR TO THAT ON WHICH
THE RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL LAW HERE
INVOLVED.  BUT THIS COURT HELD THAT THE CONNECTICUT COURT COULD NOT
DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN THE ACTION.  THE CONTENTION THAT ENFORCEMENT OF
THE CONGRESSIONALLY CREATED RIGHT WAS CONTRARY TO CONNECTICUT POLICY
WAS ANSWERED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE SUGGESTION THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE
POLICY OF THE STATE, AND THEREFORE THAT THE COURTS OF THE STATE ARE
FREE TO DECLINE JURISDICTION, IS QUITE INADMISSIBLE, BECAUSE IT
PRESUPPOSES WHAT IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION DOES NOT EXIST.  WHEN CONGRESS,
IN THE EXERTION OF THE POWER CONFIDED TO IT BY THE CONSTITUTION,
ADOPTED THAT ACT, IT SPOKE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE AND ALL THE STATES, AND
THEREBY ESTABLISHED A POLICY FOR ALL.  THAT POLICY IS AS MUCH THE
POLICY OF CONNECTICUT AS IF THE ACT HAD EMANATED FROM ITS OWN
LEGISLATURE, AND SHOULD BE RESPECTED ACCORDINGLY IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE."  MONDOU V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., SUPRA AT 57. 

SO HERE, THE FACT THAT RHODE ISLAND HAS AN ESTABLISHED POLICY AGAINST
ENFORCEMENT BY ITS COURTS OF STATUTES OF OTHER STATES AND THE UNITED
STATES WHICH IT DEEMS PENAL, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A "VALID EXCUSE." 
CF. DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377, 388.  FN10  FOR
THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL ACT IS THE PREVAILING POLICY IN EVERY STATE. 
THUS, IN A CASE WHICH CHIEFLY RELIED UPON THE CLAFLIN AND MONDOU
PRECEDENTS, THIS COURT STATED THAT A STATE COURT CANNOT "REFUSE TO
ENFORCE THE RIGHT ARISING FROM THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF
CONCEPTIONS OF IMPOLICY OR WANT OF WISDOM ON THE PART OF CONGRESS IN
HAVING CALLED INTO PLAY ITS LAWFUL POWERS."  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R.
CO. V. BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S. 211, 222. 

THE RHODE ISLAND COURT IN ITS ROBINSON DECISION, ON WHICH IT RELIES,
CITES CASES OF THIS COURT WHICH HAVE HELD THAT STATES ARE NOT REQUIRED
BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO ENFORCE
JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS OF OTHER STATES BASED ON CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF
PENAL STATUTES.  FN11  BUT THOSE HOLDINGS HAVE NO RELEVANCE HERE, FOR
THIS CASE RAISES NO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT QUESTION.  NOR NEED WE
CONSIDER IN THIS CASE PRIOR DECISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT FEDERAL COURTS
ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE STATE PENAL LAWS.  COMPARE WISCONSIN V.
PELICAN INS. CO., 127 U.S. 265, WITH MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, 308
U.S. 1, 20.  FOR WHATEVER CONSIDERATION THEY MAY BE ENTITLED TO IN THE
FIELD IN WHICH THEY ARE RELEVANT, THOSE DECISIONS DID NOT BRING BEFORE
US OUR INSTANT PROBLEM OF THE EFFECT OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE ON THE
RELATION OF FEDERAL LAWS TO STATE COURTS.  OUR QUESTION CONCERNS ONLY
THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO DENY ENFORCEMENT TO CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF A
VALID FEDERAL LAW. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THIS SAME TYPE OF CLAIM ARISING UNDER RHODE
ISLAND LAW WOULD BE ENFORCED BY THAT STATE'S COURTS.  ITS COURTS HAVE
ENFORCED CLAIMS FOR DOUBLE DAMAGES GROWING OUT OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  FN12  THUS THE RHODE ISLAND COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION
ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE UNDER ESTABLISHED LOCAL LAW TO ADJUDICATE THIS
ACTION.  FN13  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE STATE COURTS ARE NOT FREE
TO REFUSE ENFORCEMENT OF PETITIONERS' CLAIM.  SEE MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS
& S.F.R. CO., 292 U.S. 230; AND COMPARE HERB V. PITCAIRN, 324 U.S. 117;
325 U.S. 77.  THE CASE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "(E)  IF ANY PERSON SELLING A COMMODITY VIOLATES A REGULATION,
ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PRICE OR MAXIMUM PRICES,
THE PERSON WHO BUYS SUCH COMMODITY FOR USE OR CONSUMPTION OTHER THAN IN
THE COURSE OF TRADE OR BUSINESS MAY, WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF
THE OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, BRING
AN ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER ON ACCOUNT OF THE OVERCHARGE.  IN SUCH
ACTION, THE SELLER SHALL BE LIABLE FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
COSTS AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT, PLUS WHICHEVER OF THE FOLLOWING SUMS
IS THE GREATER:  (1) SUCH AMOUNT NOT MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT
OF THE OVERCHARGE, OR THE OVERCHARGES, UPON WHICH THE ACTION IS BASED
AS THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY DETERMINE, OR (2) AN AMOUNT NOT LESS
THAN $25 NOR MORE THAN $50, AS THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY
DETERMINE:... ANY ACTION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION BY EITHER THE BUYER OR
THE ADMINISTRATOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAY BE BROUGHT IN ANY COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION...."  56 STAT. 34 AS AMENDED, 58 STAT. 632, 640,
50 U.S.C. APP., SUPP. V, SEC. 925(E). 

FN2  "THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS  ...  AND, CONCURRENTLY WITH STATE AND TERRITORIAL COURTS,
OF ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 205 OF THIS ACT...."  56 STAT.
32, AS AMENDED, 58 STAT. 632, 640, 50 U.S.C. APP., SUPP. V, SEC.
925(C). 

FN3  PURSUANT TO RHODE ISLAND PRACTICE, THE STATE SUPREME COURT
REMITTED THE CASE AND THE RECORD TO THE SUPERIOR COURT.  THAT COURT
THEN ENTERED JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION. 
IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT WHICH PETITIONER ASKED US TO
REVIEW ON CERTIORARI.  SEE JOSLIN CO. V. PROVIDENCE, 262 U.S. 668,
673.    FN4  JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 73, 77(SUITS BY ALIENS FOR
TORTS COMMITTED IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAWS AND TREATIES; SUITS BY THE
UNITED STATES). 

FN5  1 STAT. 376, 378(1794)(FINES, FORFEITURES AND PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATION OF THE LICENSE TAX ON WINES AND SPIRITS); 1 STAT. 373,
375(1794)(THE CARRIAGE TAX ACT); 1 STAT. 452(1796)(PENALTY FOR
PURCHASING GUNS FROM INDIANS); 1 STAT. 733, 740(1799)(CRIMINAL AND
CIVIL ACTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF THE POSTAL LAWS).  SEE WARREN, FEDERAL
CRIMINAL LAWS AND THE STATE COURTS, 38 HARV. L. REV. 545; BARNETT, THE
DELEGATION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO STATE COURTS, 3 SELECTED ESSAYS
ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1202(1938). 

FN6  SEE E.G., MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE, 1 WHEAT.  304, 334-337;
UNITED STATES V. BAILEY, 9 PET. 238, 259-260; PRIGG V. PENNSYLVANIA, 16
PET. 539, 615; FOX V. OHIO, 5 HOW.  410, 438; UNITED STATES V. LATHROP,
17 JOHNS.  (N.Y.)  4(1819).  SEE ALSO WARREN, SUPRA, 580-584. 

FN7  U.S. CONST. ART. VI.  SEE ALSO EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S. 371,
392-394. 

FN8  TENNESSEE V. DAVIS, 100 U.S. 257; MONDOU V. NEW YORK, N.H. &
H.R. CO., 223 U.S. 1; MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L.R. CO. V. BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S.
211; MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO., 292 U.S. 230; BALTIMORE &
O.R.R. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44; MILES V. ILLINOIS C.R. CO., 315 U.S.
698; HERB V. PITCAIRN, 324 U.S. 117, 121-123; 325 U.S. 77. 

FN9  SEE N. 10, INFRA. 

FN10  IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE HISTORIC ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT
FIRST EXPRESSED IN THIS COUNTRY BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN THE
ANTELOPE, 10 WHEAT.  66, 123, THAT "THE COURTS OF NO COUNTRY EXECUTE
THE PENAL LAWS OF ANOTHER  ..."  LIES IN AN EARLIER ENGLISH CASE,
FOLLIOTT V. OGDEN, 1 H. BL. 124(1789), AFF'D., OGDEN V. FOLLIOTT, 3
T.R. 726(1790), 4 BRO. P.C. 111.  IN THAT CASE THE ENGLISH COURTS
REFUSED TO ENFORCE AN AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY STATUTE CONFISCATING
PROPERTY OF LOYAL BRITISH SUBJECTS ON THE GROUND THAT ENGLISH COURTS
MUST REFUSE TO ENFORCE SUCH PENAL STATUTES OF A FOREIGN ENEMY.  IT HAS
BEEN OBSERVED OF THIS CASE THAT "OF COURSE THEY COULD AS WELL HAVE
SPOKEN OF LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY, AND HAVE REACHED THE SAME RESULT AS
SURELY."  LEFLAR, EXTRASTATE ENFORCEMENT OF PENAL AND GOVERNMENTAL
CLAIMS, 46 HARV. L. REV. 193, 195(1932).  SEE GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313
U.S. 498; CF. HINES V. LOWREY, 305 U.S. 85. 

FN11  SEE E.G., HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146 U.S. 657; ANGLO-AMERICAN
PROVISION CO. V. DAVIS PROVISION CO. NO. 1, 191 U.S. 373; KENNEY V.
SUPREME LODGE, 252 U.S. 411. 

FN12  NEWMAN V. GEO. A. FULLER CO., 72 R.I. 113, 48 A.2D 345. 

FN13  GEN. LAWS R.I. (1938) C. 500, SEC. 28; C. 525, SEC. 7; C. 631,
SEC. 4. 
..END :























BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS V. U.S., 330 U.S. 395 


ARGUED MARCH 8, 1945.  REARGUED APRIL 29, 30, 1946 AND OCTOBER 15, 16,
1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1947.  - 144 F.2D 546, REVERSED. 


A GROUP OF LOCAL MANUFACTURERS OF AND DEALERS IN MILLWORK AND
PATTERNED LUMBER AND THEIR INCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND
OFFICIALS THEREOF AND A GROUP OF UNINCORPORATED TRADE UNIONS AND THEIR
OFFICIALS OR BUSINESS AGENTS WERE INDICTED FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THEY UNLAWFULLY
COMBINED AND CONSPIRED TOGETHER, SUCCESSFULLY, TO MONOPOLIZE UNDULY A
PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE COMMODITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE AND
WITH THE EFFECT OF RESTRAINING OUT-OF-STATE MANUFACTURERS FROM SHIPPING
AND SELLING THE COMMODITIES WITHIN A CERTAIN AREA AND OF PREVENTING
DEALERS IN THAT AREA FROM FREELY HANDLING THEM, AND ALSO FOR THE
PURPOSE OF RAISING THE PRICES OF THE COMMODITIES; THAT, TO ACHIEVE THIS
PURPOSE, A CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN DEFENDANTS FOR A WAGE
SCALE FOR MEMBERS OF LABOR UNIONS WORKING ON THE ARTICLES, COMBINED
WITH A RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE THAT "NO MATERIAL WILL BE PURCHASED FROM, AND
NO WORK WILL BE DONE ON ANY MATERIAL OR ARTICLE THAT HAS HAD ANY
OPERATION PERFORMED ON SAME BY SAW MILLS, MILLS OR CABINET SHOPS, OR
THEIR DISTRIBUTORS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE RATES OF WAGE AND WORKING
CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT"; AND THAT THIS CLAUSE WAS ENFORCED TO THE
MUTUAL ADVANTAGE OF DEFENDANTS AND TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF OTHER
MANUFACTURERS AND OF CONSUMERS.  HELD: 

1.  CONSPIRACIES BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES TO RESTRAIN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE VIOLATE SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  ALLEN BRADLEY
CO. V. LOCAL UNION NO. 3, 325 U.S. 797.  PP. 400, 411. 

2.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGES A CONSPIRACY FORBIDDEN BY THE SHERMAN
ACT.  P. 401. 

3.  ON THAT ISSUE, THE POWER OF THE TRIAL COURT IS LIMITED BY SEC. 6
OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70, WHICH APPLIES TO ALL COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES IN ALL MATTERS GROWING OUT OF LABOR DISPUTES
COVERED BY THE ACT WHICH MAY COME BEFORE THEM.  P. 401. 

4.  THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF SEC. 6 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IS
TO RELIEVE ORGANIZATIONS, WHETHER OF LABOR OR CAPITAL, AND MEMBERS OF
THOSE ORGANIZATIONS FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES OR IMPUTATIONS OF GUILT
FOR LAWLESS ACTS DONE IN LABOR DISPUTES BY SOME INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS OR
MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION, WITHOUT CLEAR PROOF THAT THE ORGANIZATION
OR MEMBER CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE ACTUALLY
PARTICIPATED, GAVE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OR RATIFIED SUCH ACTS AFTER
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR PERPETRATION.  P. 403. 

5.  THE WORD "ORGANIZATION," AS USED IN THE ACT, IS NOT RESTRICTED TO
UNINCORPORATED ENTITIES BUT COVERS GENERICALLY ALL ORGANIZATIONS THAT
TAKE PART IN LABOR DISPUTES, INCLUDING CORPORATIONS.  P. 403, N. 12. 

6.  WHILE PARTICIPANTS IN A CONSPIRACY COVERED BY SEC. 6 ARE NOT
IMMUNIZED FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR AUTHORIZED ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF
SUCH A CONSPIRACY, THEY ARE PROTECTED AGAINST LIABILITY FOR
UNAUTHORIZED ILLEGAL ACTS OF OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSPIRACY.  P.
404. 

7.  AS USED IN SEC. 6, "AUTHORIZATION" MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM
CORPORATE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTS OF OFFICERS AND AGENTS
IN THE COURSE OR SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.  ITS REQUIREMENT RESTRICTS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY IN LABOR DISPUTES OF EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYEE
ASSOCIATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS OR THEIR MEMBERS FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS OF THE
OFFICERS OR MEMBERS OF THOSE ASSOCIATIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS, ALTHOUGH
SUCH OFFICERS OR MEMBERS ARE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR GENERAL
AUTHORITY AS SUCH OFFICERS OR MEMBERS, TO THOSE ASSOCIATIONS,
ORGANIZATIONS OR THEIR OFFICERS OR MEMBERS WHO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN
THE UNLAWFUL ACTS, EXCEPT UPON CLEAR PROOF THAT THE PARTICULAR ACT
CHARGED, OR ACTS GENERALLY OF THAT TYPE AND QUALITY, HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED, OR NECESSARILY FOLLOWED FROM AUTHORITY GRANTED, BY THE
ASSOCIATION OR NON-PARTICIPATING MEMBER SOUGHT TO BE CHARGED OR WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY RATIFIED BY SUCH ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZATION OR MEMBER AFTER
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF ITS OCCURRENCE.  PP. 406-407. 

8.  A REFUSAL TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO THIS EFFECT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR
- AS TO BOTH INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS AND AS TO BOTH EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES - NO MATTER HOW CLEAR THE EVIDENCE MAY BE OF PARTICIPATION IN
THE CONSPIRACY, SINCE THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE JURY
INSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PRESCRIBED.  PP. 407-412. 

9.  PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. LOCAL
UNION NO. 3, SUPRA, TWO EMPLOYER GROUPS, EACH CONTAINING AN
INCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATION AND ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, BOTH
INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE, DEMURRED TO THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE ON
THE GROUND THAT, AS THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT WAS DIRECTED AT THE
MAINTENANCE OF PROPER WORKING CONDITIONS, THE INDICTMENT DID NOT STATE
A CRIME UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE DEMURRER WAS OVERRULED AND THEY
PLEADED NOLO CONTENDERE.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI AS TO THEM. 
HELD:  IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTY EXISTING, AT THE TIME OF THEIR PLEAS
OF NOLO CONTENDERE, AS TO LIABILITY FOR CONTRACTS BETWEEN GROUPS OF
EMPLOYERS AND GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES THAT RESTRAINED INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND AS TO THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 6 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, THEY
SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE DEFENSE TO THE INDICTMENT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR PLEAS OF NOLO CONTENDERE.  PP. 411-412. 

UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA V. UNITED
STATES. 

NO. 6.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 7, BAY COUNTIES DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS ET
AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 8, LUMBER PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL.
V. UNITED STATES; NO. 9, ALAMEDA COUNTY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL V. UNITED STATES; AND NO. 10, BOORMAN LUMBER CO. ET AL.
V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF A
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  42
F.SUPP.  910.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  144 F.2D 546. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  323 U.S. 706-7.  REVERSED AND REMANDED,
P. 412. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE CRIMINAL CASES IN WHICH CONVICTION OF VARIOUS DEFENDANTS
HAS BEEN OBTAINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION, AND AFFIRMED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 144 F.2D 546.  THEY
WERE CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT, SEC. 1.  FN1
THE PARTIES TO THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY WERE OF TWO GROUPS:  ON THE ONE
HAND, LOCAL MANUFACTURERS OF AND DEALERS IN THE COMMODITIES AFFECTED
AND THEIR INCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND OFFICIALS THEREOF; AND,
ON THE OTHER, UNINCORPORATED TRADE UNIONS AND THEIR OFFICIALS OR
BUSINESS AGENTS.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS BELOW
UNLAWFULLY COMBINED AND CONSPIRED TOGETHER, SUCCESSFULLY, TO MONOPOLIZE
UNDULY A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN MILLWORK AND PATTERNED LUMBER. 
THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS ALLEGED TO BE TO RESTRAIN
OUT-OF-STATE MANUFACTURERS FROM SHIPPING AND SELLING THESE COMMODITIES
WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PREVENT THE
DEALERS IN THAT AREA FROM FREELY HANDLING THEM.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT
THE CONSPIRACY ALSO SOUGHT TO RAISE THE PRICES OF THE PRODUCTS
AFFECTED.  TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE, A CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN
THE DEFENDANTS FOR A WAGE SCALE FOR MEMBERS OF LABOR UNIONS WORKING ON
THE ARTICLES INVOLVED, COMBINED WITH A RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE, "...  NO
MATERIAL WILL BE PURCHASED FROM, AND NO WORK WILL BE DONE ON ANY
MATERIAL OR ARTICLE THAT HAS HAD ANY OPERATION PERFORMED ON SAME BY SAW
MILLS, MILLS OR CABINET SHOPS, OR THEIR DISTRIBUTORS THAT DO NOT
CONFORM TO THE RATES OF WAGE AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT,"
WITH SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL.  THIS CLAUSE, IT IS
ALLEGED, WAS ENFORCED TO THE MUTUAL ADVANTAGE OF THE CONSPIRATORS BY
SOME OF THE PARTIES THROUGH CONFERENCE OR PICKETING OR ACQUIESCENCE IN
THE ARRANGEMENT.  BY MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY, UNION WORKMEN OBTAINED
BETTER WAGES, THE EMPLOYERS HIGHER PROFITS AND MANUFACTURERS AGAINST
WHOM THE CONSPIRACY WAS DIRECTED WERE LARGELY PREVENTED FROM SHARING IN
THE BAY AREA BUSINESS, ALL TO THE PRICE DISADVANTAGE OF THE CONSUMER
AND THE UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE LEGAL
THEORY WHICH WAS FOLLOWED IN THEIR CONVICTION WAS THAT CONSPIRACIES
BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE VIOLATE
THE SHERMAN ACT. 

FIVE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI WERE PRESENTED TO THIS COURT BY
DIFFERENT DEFENDANTS EITHER SINGLY OR JOINTLY WITH OTHERS.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS REVIEW TO SAY THAT THEY RAISED THE
QUESTION OF THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO
CONSPIRACIES BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE AND,
EXCEPT THE PETITIONS IN THE EMPLOYER GROUP, THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 6
OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IN A TRIAL OF SUCH AN INDICTMENT.  FN2  ON
ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS RAISED AND ASSERTED
CONFLICTS IN THE CIRCUITS, THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI WERE GRANTED.  FN3 

SINCE THESE CASES WERE TAKEN THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE
APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN LABOR UNION AND
BUSINESS GROUPS HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US.  WE HELD THAT SUCH A CONSPIRACY
TO RESTRAIN TRADE VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT.  ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. LOCAL
UNION NO. 3, 325 U.S. 797.  THIS HOLDING CAUSES US TO APPROVE THE
RULING OF THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ON THE FIRST QUESTION
PRESENTED BY THE CERTIORARI BUT IT LEFT UNRESOLVED THE QUESTION AS TO
THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 6 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, THE POINT TO
WHICH THIS DECISION IS DIRECTED. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES A CONSPIRACY FORBIDDEN BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  ON
THAT ISSUE, THE POWER OF THE TRIAL COURT IS LIMITED BY SEC. 6 OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  NOTE 2, SUPRA.  THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT SECTION
ARE UPON ALL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN ALL MATTERS GROWING OUT OF
LABOR DISPUTES, COVERED BY THE ACT, WHICH MAY COME BEFORE THEM.  IT
PROPERLY IS CONCEDED THAT THIS AGREEMENT GREW OUT OF SUCH A LABOR
DISPUTE AND THAT ALL PARTIES DEFENDANT PARTICIPATED OR WERE INTERESTED
IN THAT DISPUTE.  SEE SEC. 13, 47 STAT. 73.  SECTION 6 OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT FIRST APPEARED IN A DRAFT BILL OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY AS SEC. 6 THEREOF.  AT THAT TIME ITS FORM WAS PRECISELY
THE SAME AS AT PRESENT.  THE DRAFT WAS DRAWN AS A COMPREHENSIVE
SUBSTITUTE FOR S. 1482 OF THE 70TH CONGRESS, A BILL PROVIDING ONLY FOR
A LIMITATION ON THE JURISDICTION OF EQUITY COURTS IN THE ISSUANCE OF
INJUNCTIONS.  IN THE 71ST CONGRESS, A SIMILARLY LIMITED BILL ON THE
SAME SUBJECT, S. 2497, WAS REINTRODUCED AND A LIKE COMPREHENSIVE
SUBSTITUTE PROPOSED.  NEITHER SUBSTITUTE WAS REPORTED OUT OF THE
COMMITTEE.  FN4  THESE SUBSTITUTE BILLS ARE QUITE SIMILAR IN FORM TO
THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  IN SUBSTANCE, AND THEREFORE IN
EFFECTIVENESS, THEY ARE THE SAME. 

IN THE NEXT, THE 72D CONGRESS, THE BILL, H.R. 5315, WHICH WAS TO
BECOME THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, WAS INTRODUCED.  SECTION 2 SUCCINCTLY
STATES THE PUBLIC POLICY THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO FURTHER - A DEFINITION
OF AND LIMITATION UPON THE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES IN LABOR DISPUTES.  FN5  THAT PURPOSE WAS IN ACCORD WITH
THAT BEHIND THE EARLIER DRAFTS REFERRED TO ABOVE.  FN6  AS THE NEW BILL
WAS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THESE LONG CONSIDERED COMMITTEE
SUBSTITUTES, THE HEARINGS ON H.R. 5315 WERE SHORT.  FN7  BUT EVEN SO,
THE ATTACK CONTINUED ON SEC. 6 AS A RESTRICTION ON THE GENERAL LAW OF
AGENCY IN LABOR DISPUTES.  FN8 THE REPLY OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WAS
THAT IT DID "NOT AFFECT THE GENERAL LAW OF AGENCY" AND WAS NECESSARY
"UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES" SO THAT "THE COURTS SHOULD KNOW THAT CONGRESS
EXPECTS THEM NOT TO HOLD OFFICERS OR ASSOCIATIONS LIABLE FOR THE
UNLAWFUL ACTS OF A MEMBER WITHOUT CLEAR PROOF OF ACTUAL PARTICIPATION
IN, OR AUTHORIZATION OF, ANY UNLAWFUL ACTS BY THE OFFICER OR
ASSOCIATION."  FN9  THE SENATE COMMITTEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS A
"RULE OF EVIDENCE," NOT A "NEW LAW OF AGENCY." 

"THERE IS NO PROVISION MADE RELIEVING AN INDIVIDUAL FROM
RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTS, BUT PROVISION IS MADE THAT A PERSON SHALL
NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR AN 'UNLAWFUL ACT' EXCEPT UPON 'CLEAR PROOF'
OF PARTICIPATION OR AUTHORIZATION OR RATIFICATION.  THUS A RULE OF
EVIDENCE, NOT A RULE OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW, IS ESTABLISHED."  N10 

WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER SEC. 6 SHOULD BE CALLED A RULE OF
EVIDENCE OR ONE THAT CHANGES THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF AGENCY.  WE HOLD
THAT ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT WAS TO RELIEVE ORGANIZATIONS, WHETHER OF
LABOR OR CAPITAL, FN11  AND MEMBERS OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS FROM
LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES OR IMPUTATION OF GUILT FOR LAWLESS ACTS DONE IN
LABOR DISPUTES BY SOME INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS OR MEMBERS OF THE
ORGANIZATION, WITHOUT CLEAR PROOF THAT THE ORGANIZATION OR MEMBER
CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED, GAVE
PRIOR AUTHORIZATION, OR RATIFIED SUCH ACTS AFTER ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF
THEIR PERPETRATION.  FN12 

THUS SEC. 6 LIMITED RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF A CO-CONSPIRATOR - A
MATTER OF MOMENT TO THE ADVOCATES OF THE BILL.  FN13  BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF SEC. 6, WHEN A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN LABOR UNIONS AND THEIR
MEMBERS, PROHIBITED UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, WAS ESTABLISHED, A WIDELY
PUBLICIZED CASE HAD HELD BOTH THE UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS LIABLE FOR
ALL OVERT ACTS OF THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS.  FN14  THIS LIABILITY RESULTED
WHETHER THE MEMBERS OR THE UNIONS APPROVED OF THE ACTS OR NOT OR
WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTS WERE OFFENSES UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW.  WHILE OF
COURSE PARTICIPANTS IN A CONSPIRACY THAT IS COVERED BY SEC. 6 ARE NOT
IMMUNIZED FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR AUTHORIZED ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF
SUCH A CONSPIRACY, THEY NOW ARE PROTECTED AGAINST LIABILITY FOR
UNAUTHORIZED ILLEGAL ACTS OF OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSPIRACY. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MAKES THE INTENDED MEANING OF THE WORD
"AUTHORIZATION," WE THINK, ALMOST EQUALLY CLEAR.  THE RULE OF LIABILITY
FOR ACTS OF AN AGENT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY, BASED ON THE
DANBURY HATTERS CASE, WAS URGED AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 6.  FN15 WHEN THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY REPORTED THE
BILL, IT DEALT WITH THIS CONTENTION. 

"BUT THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT A MAN IS HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE ACTS OF HIS AGENTS TAKEN IN DUE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.  THIS
ARGUMENT IS EVIDENTLY BASED UPON A DOCTRINE OF THE CIVIL LAW OF
NEGLIGENCE.  IT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE CRIMINAL LAW.  IF A MAN IS
HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR AN UNLAWFUL ACT, HIS RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ON THE
BASIS OF ACTUAL OR IMPLIED PARTICIPATION.  HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
CONSPIRING TO DO AN UNLAWFUL ACT OR FOR SETTING IN MOTION FORCES
INTENDED TO RESULT, OR NECESSARILY RESULTING, IN AN UNLAWFUL ACT. 

...  IT IS HIGH TIME THAT, BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION, THE COURTS SHOULD
BE REQUIRED TO UPHOLD THE LONG ESTABLISHED LAW THAT GUILT IS PERSONAL
AND THAT MEN CAN ONLY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACTS OF
ASSOCIATES BECAUSE OF PARTICIPATION IN, AUTHORIZATION OR RATIFICATION
OF SUCH ACTS.  AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE, CLEAR PROOF SHOULD BE REQUIRED,
SO THAT CRIMINAL GUILT AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE
IMPUTED BUT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN ORDER TO IMPOSE
LIABILITY."  FN16 

WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT "AUTHORIZATION" AS USED IN SEC. 6 MEANS
SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM CORPORATE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTS
OF OFFICERS AND AGENTS IN THE COURSE OR SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.  FN17  WE
ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF "AUTHORIZATION" RESTRICTS
THE RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY IN LABOR DISPUTES OF EMPLOYER OR
EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS OR THEIR MEMBERS FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS
OF THE OFFICERS OR MEMBERS OF THOSE ASSOCIATIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS,
ALTHOUGH SUCH OFFICERS OR MEMBERS ARE ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR
GENERAL AUTHORITY AS SUCH OFFICERS OR MEMBERS, TO THOSE ASSOCIATIONS,
ORGANIZATIONS OR THEIR OFFICERS OR MEMBERS WHO ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN
THE UNLAWFUL ACTS, EXCEPT UPON CLEAR PROOF THAT THE PARTICULAR ACT
CHARGED, OR ACTS GENERALLY OF THAT TYPE AND QUALITY, HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED, OR NECESSARILY FOLLOWED FROM A GRANTED AUTHORITY, BY THE
ASSOCIATION OR NON-PARTICIPATING MEMBER SOUGHT TO BE CHARGED OR WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY RATIFIED BY SUCH ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZATION OR MEMBER AFTER
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF ITS OCCURRENCE. 

IN THIS PROSECUTION THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
AND ALL THE LOCAL UNIONS WHO WERE CONVICTED REQUESTED AN INSTRUCTION OR
INSTRUCTIONS THAT EMBODIED THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 6.  FN18  A
SIMILAR REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS BY REQUESTED
INSTRUCTION NO. 58.  THESE REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS WERE REFUSED AND
INSTEAD INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN THAT STATED A DIFFERENT CONCEPT OF LAW
AS IS EVIDENCED BY THE EXCERPTS IN THE MARGINAL NOTE.  FN19 

SO FAR AS THE UNIONS, BOTH LOCAL AND NATIONAL, ARE CONCERNED, THE
NECESSITY UNDER OUR CONSTRUCTION FOR AN INSTRUCTION BASED ON SEC. 6 IS
APPARENT.  THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD WAS NOT A PARTY TO ANY OF THE
AGREEMENTS.  LOCAL UNIONS TOOK A MORE DEFINITIVE PART THAN THE UNITED
BROTHERHOOD.  IN SOME INSTANCES THE NAME OF A LOCAL UNION WAS SIGNED TO
THE AGREEMENT THAT CONTAINED THE RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE.  NECESSARILY ACTS
PERFORMED BY OR FOR THE UNIONS WERE DONE BY THEIR INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS,
MEMBERS OR AGENTS.  WE DO NOT ENTER INTO AN ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE
THAT WAS RELIED UPON TO SHOW THE PARTICIPATION OF THE UNIONS IN THE
CONSPIRACY.  THE EVIDENCE IN ANY NEW TRIAL MAY BE QUITE DIFFERENT.  NO
MATTER HOW STRONG THE EVIDENCE MAY BE OF AN ASSOCIATION'S OR
ORGANIZATION'S PARTICIPATION THROUGH ITS AGENTS IN THE CONSPIRACY,
THERE MUST BE A CHARGE TO THE JURY SETTING OUT CORRECTLY THE LIMITED
LIABILITY UNDER SEC. 6 OF SUCH ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION FOR ACTS OF
ITS AGENTS.  FN20  FOR A JUDGE MAY NOT DIRECT A VERDICT OF GUILTY NO
MATTER HOW CONCLUSIVE THE EVIDENCE.  FN21  THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING
HERE WHETHER THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS BASED ON FACTS WITHIN THE CONDEMNED
INSTRUCTIONS, NOTE 19 ABOVE, OR ON ACTUAL AUTHORIZATION OR RATIFICATION
OF SUCH ACTS, NOTE 18.  FN22  A FAILURE TO CHARGE CORRECTLY IS NOT
HARMLESS, SINCE THE VERDICT MIGHT HAVE RESULTED FROM THE INCORRECT
INSTRUCTION.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THEREFORE, THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD
HAVE INSTRUCTED THE JURY AS TO THE LIMITATIONS UPON THE ASSOCIATION'S
LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF ITS AGENTS UNDER SEC. 6.  THE ERROR IS
AGGRAVATED BY THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CORRECT CHARGE UPON REQUEST. 
THE SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT THE ALERT AND POWERFUL UNIONS AND
CORPORATIONS GAIN THE GREATEST DEGREE OF IMMUNITY UNDER OUR
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 6.  THAT IS NOT THE CASE.  SECTION 6 DRAWS NO
DISTINCTION AS TO LIABILITY FOR UNAUTHORIZED ACTS BETWEEN THE LARGE AND
THE SMALL, BETWEEN NATIONAL UNIONS AND LOCAL UNIONS, BETWEEN POWERFUL
UNIONS AND WEAK UNIONS, BETWEEN ASSOCIATIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR
MEMBERS.  AND WE DRAW NO SUCH DISTINCTIONS. 

THERE IS NO IMPLICATION IN WHAT WE HAVE SAID THAT AN ASSOCIATION OR
ORGANIZATION IN CIRCUMSTANCES COVERED BY SEC. 6 MUST GIVE EXPLICIT
AUTHORITY TO ITS OFFICERS OR AGENTS TO VIOLATE IN A LABOR CONTROVERSY
THE SHERMAN ACT OR ANY OTHER LAW OR TO GIVE ANTECEDENT APPROVAL TO ANY
ACT THAT ITS OFFICERS MAY DO.  CERTAINLY AN ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION
CANNOT ESCAPE RESPONSIBILITY BY STANDING ORDERS DISAVOWING AUTHORITY ON
THE PART OF ITS OFFICERS TO MAKE ANY AGREEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT AND DISCLAIMING UNION RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH AGREEMENTS. 
FACILE ARRANGEMENTS DO NOT CREATE IMMUNITY FROM THE ACT, WHETHER THEY
ARE MADE BY EMPLOYEE OR BY EMPLOYER GROUPS.  THE CONDITIONS OF
LIABILITY UNDER SEC. 6 ARE THE SAME IN THE CASE OF EACH.  THE GRANT OF
AUTHORITY TO AN OFFICER OF A UNION TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENTS WITH
EMPLOYERS REGARDING HOURS, WAGES, AND WORKING CONDITIONS MAY WELL BE
SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE UNION LIABLE.  AN ILLUSTRATIVE BUT
NONRESTRICTIVE EXAMPLE MIGHT BE WHERE THERE WAS KNOWING PARTICIPATION
BY THE UNION IN THE OPERATION OF THE ILLEGAL AGREEMENT AFTER ITS
EXECUTION.  AND THE CUSTOM OR TRADITIONAL PRACTICE OF A PARTICULAR
UNION CAN ALSO BE A SOURCE OF ACTUAL AUTHORIZATION OF AN OFFICER TO ACT
FOR AND BIND THE UNION. 

OUR ONLY POINT IS THIS:  CONGRESS IN SEC. 6 HAS SPECIFIED THE
STANDARDS BY WHICH THE LIABILITY OF EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER GROUPS IS TO
BE DETERMINED.  NO MATTER HOW CLEAR THE EVIDENCE, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO
HAVE THE JURY INSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED.  TO REPEAT, GUILT IS DETERMINED BY THE JURY,
NOT THE COURT.  THE PROBLEM IS NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM ONE WHERE
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST AN ACCUSED CHARGED WITH A CRIME IS WELL-NIGH
CONCLUSIVE AND THE COURT FAILS TO GIVE THE REASONABLE-DOUBT
INSTRUCTION.  IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE FAILURE WAS HARMLESS
ERROR.  FN23 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SINCE "CONSCIOUS PARTICIPATION" WAS REQUIRED FOR
CONVICTION BY THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN, ERROR AS TO THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS CANNOT BE FOUND UNDER ANY THEORY OF THE RULE OF SEC. 6.  BUT
WE THINK THAT FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE IMPUTATION OF GUILT
FROM THE ACTS OF OTHERS AS LIMITED IN LABOR DISPUTES BY SEC. 6 AFFECTS
THE INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS THE ASSOCIATIONS.  THE SECTION COVERS
ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS ALIKE.  INDIVIDUALS, WITHOUT
ASSOCIATION AUTHORITY, MAY BE GUILTY OF SUCH A CONSPIRACY AS THIS UNDER
THE SHERMAN ACT, BUT UNDER SEC. 6 THEY WILL NOT BE GUILTY MERELY
BECAUSE THEY ARE MEMBERS OR OFFICERS OF A GUILTY ASSOCIATION.  NOR ARE
INDIVIDUALS GUILTY BECAUSE OF ACTS OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN WHICH THEY
DID NOT PARTICIPATE, OR WHICH THEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE OR RATIFY. 
ALTHOUGH AN ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT WAS PROVEN AT THE
TRIAL, THE INDIVIDUALS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THEIR PARTICIPATION WEIGHED
BY A JURY UNDER AN INSTRUCTION EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
SEC. 6 PERMITS ACTS OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS OR OF ASSOCIATIONS OR OF
ORGANIZATIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES TO CREATE PERSONAL LIABILITY.  TO
INSTRUCT ONLY THAT CONSCIOUS PARTICIPATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS
REQUIRED LEAVES A JURY FREE TO WEIGH AN INDIVIDUAL'S GUILT IN THE LIGHT
OF UNAUTHORIZED AND UNRATIFIED ACTS OF OTHERS WITH WHOM HE IS
ASSOCIATED BUT IN WHOSE ACTS HE HAS NOT PARTICIPATED.  AS THE EVIDENCE
OF ANY INDIVIDUAL'S ACTIVITIES IN THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY IS A MINOR
PART OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE ENTIRE SCHEME, THIS DELIMITATION OF HIS
RESPONSIBILITY IS IMPORTANT. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO TWO EMPLOYER GROUPS, NOS. 8 AND 10, EACH
CONTAINING AN INCORPORATED TRADE ASSOCIATION AND ITS OFFICERS AND
MEMBERS, BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE.  BOTH GROUPS COMBATTED THE
INDICTMENT BY DEMURRER ON THE GROUND THAT, AS THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT
WAS DIRECTED AT THE MAINTENANCE OF PROPER WORKING CONDITIONS, IT DID
NOT STATE A CRIME UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE DEMURRER WAS OVERRULED BY
THE TRIAL COURT.  OUR DECISION IN ALLEN BRADLEY COMPANY REQUIRES US TO
UPHOLD THIS CONCLUSION.  THEREAFTER PLEAS OF NOLO CONTENDERE WERE
ENTERED BY EACH DEFENDANT IN THE EMPLOYER PETITIONER GROUPS. 

EACH OF THE EMPLOYER PETITIONERS, IF THEY HAD STOOD TRIAL, AS WE HAVE
INDICATED HEREINBEFORE, WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE SAME
INSTRUCTION UNDER SEC. 6 AS WE HAVE HELD THE UNION GROUP SHOULD HAVE
RECEIVED.  AND THOUGH THE FAILURE SO TO CHARGE WAS NOT EXCEPTED TO, WE
WOULD NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM ENTERTAINING THE OBJECTION.  FN24  THE
ERRONEOUS CHARGE WAS ON A VITAL PHASE OF THE CASE AND AFFECTED THE
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANTS.  WE HAVE THE POWER TO NOTICE A
"PLAIN ERROR" THOUGH IT IS NOT ASSIGNED OR SPECIFIED.  FN25  IN VIEW OF
THEIR PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE, DOES JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT THESE EMPLOYER
GROUPS SHOULD NOW BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO STAND TRIAL IN THE
SITUATION CREATED BY OUR SUBSEQUENT RULINGS IN THE ALLEN BRADLEY CASE
AND IN THIS CASE?  WE THINK THAT IT DOES. 

THIS PRESENT DECISION FURNISHES A GUIDE FOR THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 6
TO LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF AGENTS IN LABOR DISPUTES.  ORDINARILY A PLEA
OF NOLO CONTENDERE LEAVES OPEN FOR REVIEW ONLY THE SUFFICIENCY OF AN
INDICTMENT.  FN26  HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE THEN EXISTING UNCERTAINTY AS
TO LIABILITY FOR CONTRACTS BETWEEN GROUPS OF EMPLOYERS AND GROUPS OF
EMPLOYEES THAT RESTRAINED INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE APPLICATION OF
SEC. 6 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, WE CONCLUDE THAT IN THIS
EXCEPTIONAL SITUATION THE EMPLOYER GROUPS, ALSO, SHOULD HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE DEFENSE TO THE INDICTMENT.  FN27 

THE JUDGMENTS IN EACH CASE ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN1  15 U.S.C. SEC. 1: 

"EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR
CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL:...  EVERY
PERSON WHO SHALL MAKE ANY CONTRACT OR ENGAGE IN ANY COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY DECLARED BY SECTIONS 1-7 OF THIS TITLE TO BE ILLEGAL SHALL
BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING $5,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING
ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT." 

FN2  47 STAT. 70, 71: 

"SEC. 6.  NO OFFICER OR MEMBER OF ANY ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION,
AND NO ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A
LABOR DISPUTE, SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACTS OF INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS, MEMBERS, OR
AGENTS, EXCEPT UPON CLEAR PROOF OF ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN, OR ACTUAL
AUTHORIZATION OF, SUCH ACTS, OR OF RATIFICATION OF SUCH ACTS AFTER
ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE THEREOF." 

FN3  323 U.S. 706-7.  COMPARE ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. LOCAL UNION NO. 3,
145 F.2D 215, AND UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL FUR WORKERS UNION, 100
F.2D 541, 547, WITH THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS
CASE, 144 F.2D 546. 

THESE CASES WERE ARGUED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FIRST ON MARCH 8, 1945.  ON JUNE 18, 1945, THEY WERE RESTORED TO THE
DOCKET AND ASSIGNED FOR REARGUMENT, COUNSEL BEING REQUESTED TO DISCUSS
(1) THE SCOPE OF SEC. 6 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IN RELATION TO
PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE ANTITRUST ACT; (2) THE SCOPE OF SEC. 6 IN
RELATIONSHIP TO SEC. 13(B); (3) THE SCOPE OF THE WORDS "ASSOCIATION OR
ORGANIZATION" APPEARING IN SEC. 6, IN THAT SECTION'S RELATIONSHIP TO
SEC. 13(B); AND (4) CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S ORAL CHARGE AND
WRITTEN CHARGES REQUESTED AND REFUSED INVOLVING SEC. 6, IN THE LIGHT OF
OBJECTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS BY EACH AND ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS AND THE
STATE OF THE EVIDENCE ON THAT ISSUE AS TO EACH OF THEM.  JOURNAL, SUP.
CT., U.S., OCTOBER TERM 1944, PP. 284-5.  THE CASES WERE REARGUED ON
APRIL 29-30, 1946, AND AGAIN RESTORED TO THE DOCKET ON JUNE 10, 1946,
FOR A THIRD ARGUMENT. 

FN4  S. REP. NO. 1060, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4. 

IN THE HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE, THE LANGUAGE NOW
INCORPORATED INTO SEC. 6 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS CRITICIZED AS
CHANGING THE RULES OF AGENCY, SO AS TO RELIEVE ORGANIZATIONS OF
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF THEIR AGENTS IN LABOR DISPUTES.  IT WAS
DEFENDED AS INTENDED TO APPLY THE LAW OF AGENCY TO LABOR UNIONS. 
HEARINGS, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. SENATE,
70TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON S. 1482, PART 5, P. 759, ET SEQ. 

FN5  47 STAT. 70. 

FN6  S. REP. NO. 163, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 669, 72D
CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 1060, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS.; HEARINGS,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. SENATE, 70TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., ON S. 1482; HEARING, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY, U.S. SENATE, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS., ON S. 2497. 

FN7  HEARING, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
72D CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 5315. 

FN8  ID., P. 16: 

"BUT SECTION 6 EFFECTS A REVOLUTION IN THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF
AGENCY.  BY THAT SECTION NO OFFICER OR MEMBER OF ANY ORGANIZATION,
PARTICIPATING IN A LABOR DISPUTE, AND THIS APPLIES EQUALLY TO
EMPLOYERS, IS TO BE HELD LIABLE IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE UNLAWFUL ACT OF AGENTS ACTING IN SUCH DISPUTE, UNLESS THERE BE
CLEAR PROOF OF ACTUAL PARTICIPATION, AUTHORIZATION, OR RATIFICATION OF
THE AGENTS' ACTS AFTER ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.  THE GENERAL LAW OF AGENCY IS
THUS REPEALED OR RESTRICTED TO A LABOR DISPUTE, AND IT APPLIES EQUALLY
TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.  IT APPLIES TO MEN WHO BY COLLUSION ENTER
INTO AGREEMENTS WHICH MAY HARMFULLY AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS, AND
WHICH IN SOME INSTANCES MIGHT BE VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST ACT,
ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE THE RESULT, OR GROW OUT OF, OR INVOLVE TERMS OF A
LABOR DISPUTE." 

SEE ALSO PP. 33 AND 39. 

FN9  H. REP. NO. 669, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 9. 

FN10  S. REP. NO. 163, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 19. 

FN11  "SECTION 6 OF THE BILL RELATES TO DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS
ARISING OUT OF LABOR DISPUTES.  IT IS PROVIDED THAT OFFICERS AND
MEMBERS OF ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION, AND OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF ANY
EMPLOYERS' ORGANIZATION, SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES UNLESS IT
IS PROVEN THAT THE DEFENDANT EITHER PARTICIPATED IN OR AUTHORIZED SUCH
UNLAWFUL ACTS, OR RATIFIED SUCH UNLAWFUL ACTS AFTER ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
THEREOF."  S. REP. NO. 163, SUPRA, P. 19; 75 CONG. REC. 4507; 47 STAT.
70, 73: 

"SEC. 13.... 

"(B)  A PERSON OR ASSOCIATION SHALL BE HELD TO BE A PERSON
PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE IF RELIEF IS SOUGHT
AGAINST HIM OR IT, AND IF HE OR IT IS ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY,
TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION IN WHICH SUCH DISPUTE OCCURS, OR HAS A
DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST THEREIN, OR IS A MEMBER, OFFICER, OR AGENT
OF ANY ASSOCIATION COMPOSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF EMPLOYERS OR
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN SUCH INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION." 

FN12  SEE THE FULL STATEMENT IN S. REP. NO. 163, SUPRA, PP. 19-21. 
NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND TO GIVE DEFINITION TO THE WORD "ORGANIZATION" AS
USED IN THE ACT.  WE SEE NO REASON TO RESTRICT ITS MEANING TO
UNINCORPORATED ENTITIES.  APPARENTLY IT WAS EMPLOYED BY THE DRAFTSMEN
TO COVER, GENERICALLY, ALL ORGANIZATIONS THAT TAKE PART IN LABOR
DISPUTES.  SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA.  WE SO APPLY THE WORD.  THE CORPORATE
FORM, AS IS TRUE IN THIS CASE, IS FREQUENTLY EMPLOYED FOR TRADE
GROUPS. 

FN13  THE DANBURY HATTERS CASE - LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274, AND
LAWLOR V. LOEWE, 235 U.S. 522 - INVOLVING DAMAGES AGAINST UNION MEMBERS
FOR THEIR UNION'S ACTS IN AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY, WAS IN THEIR MINDS. 
HEARINGS ON S. 1482, SUPRA, P. 760, ET SEQ. COMPARE THE PARTNERSHIP IN
CRIME THEORY.  UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, 218 U.S. 601, 608; UNITED
STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 253. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' DEPT. A.F.L., 283 F. 479,
492. 

FN15  HEARINGS ON S. 1482, SUPRA, P. 760: 

"WHEN THAT CAME BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE
HOLMES - I DO NOT REMEMBER THE EXACT LANGUAGE, BUT HE HAD IN MIND THAT
IT MIGHT NOT BE NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THEY KNEW OR OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN
OR THAT THEY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN WARRANTED IN THEIR BELIEF - THAT UNDER
THE RULE OF AGENCY AS PREVAILING IN ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING
BANKERS' ASSOCIATIONS, TO WHICH YOU REFER, AND ALL OTHER ASSOCIATIONS,
IT IS THE COMMON ACCEPTED PROPOSITION, AS FUNDAMENTAL AS ANY I KNOW IN
ANGLO-SAXON JURISPRUDENCE, THAT A PRINCIPAL MAY BE LIABLE FOR THE ACTS
OF HIS AGENT, EVEN THOUGH HE NEVER KNEW OR HEARD OF THEM AND ACTUALLY
FORBADE THEM, PROVIDED HE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE GENERAL SCOPE OF HIS
AUTHORITY, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCIATION.  THAT IS
THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT
IS THE LAW THAT I AM AFRAID IS CURTAILED BY THIS PROVISION IN THIS

EXCERPTS FROM LAWLOR V. LOEWE, 235 U.S. AT 534-35, WILL EXPLAIN THE
REFERENCE:  "WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT A
COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY FORBIDDEN BY THE STATUTE WERE PROVED, AND
THAT THE QUESTION IS NARROWED TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEFENDANTS
FOR WHAT WAS DONE BY THE SANCTION AND PROCUREMENT OF THE SOCIETIES
ABOVE NAMED. 

"THE COURT IN SUBSTANCE INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT IF THESE MEMBERS
PAID THEIR DUES AND CONTINUED TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THEIR OFFICERS
UNLAWFULLY TO INTERFERE WITH THE PLAINTIFFS' INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY KNEW OR OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN, AND SUCH
OFFICERS WERE WARRANTED IN THE BELIEF THAT THEY WERE ACTING IN THE
MATTERS WITHIN THEIR DELEGATED AUTHORITY, THEN SUCH MEMBERS WERE
JOINTLY LIABLE, AND NO OTHERS.  IT SEEMS TO US THAT THIS INSTRUCTION
SUFFICIENTLY GUARDED THE DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS, AND THAT THE DEFENDANTS
GOT ALL THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO ASK IN NOT BEING HELD CHARGEABLE
WITH KNOWLEDGE AS MATTER OF LAW....  IF THE WORDS OF THE DOCUMENTS ON
THEIR FACE AND WITHOUT EXPLANATION DID NOT AUTHORIZE WHAT WAS DONE, THE
EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS DONE PUBLICLY AND HABITUALLY SHOWED THEIR MEANING
AND HOW THEY WERE INTERPRETED.  THE JURY COULD NOT BUT FIND THAT BY THE
USAGE OF THE UNIONS THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WERE AUTHORIZED, AND
AUTHORIZED WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE AMONG THE
STATES."    FN16  S. REP. NO. 163, SUPRA, P. 20. 

FN17  SEE NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 212 U.S. 481,
494. 

THESE CASES NOW BEING PASSED UPON HAVE NOT INVOLVED THE LIABILITY OF
AN EMPLOYER, WHETHER A MEMBER OR NOT OF AN ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION
OF EMPLOYERS, FOR THE ACTS, IN A LABOR DISPUTE, OF HIS OR ITS OWN
OFFICERS.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON THAT. 

FN18  A FAIR EXAMPLE, REQUESTED INSTRUCTION NO. 56, IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"YOU ARE INSTRUCTED THAT NO LABOR UNION OR ORGANIZATION CAN BE FOUND
GUILTY IN THIS CASE FOR AN UNLAWFUL ACT OR ACTS, IF ANY, OF INDIVIDUAL
OFFICERS, MEMBERS OR AGENTS, UNLESS YOU FIND UPON CLEAR PROOF FROM THE
EVIDENCE THAT SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN, OR
ACTUALLY AUTHORIZED SUCH UNLAWFUL ACT, IF ANY, OR RATIFIED SUCH AN ACT,
IF ANY, AFTER ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE THEREOF." 

FN19 "THE ACT OF AN AGENT DONE FOR OR ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATION AND
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY, OR AN ACT WHICH AN AGENT HAS ASSUMED
TO DO FOR A CORPORATION WHILE PERFORMING DUTIES ACTUALLY DELEGATED TO
HIM, IS DEEMED TO BE THE ACT OF THE CORPORATION. 

"IF YOU FIND THAT THERE DID EXIST A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY SUCH
AS IS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, AND THAT ANY DEFENDANT CORPORATION
PARTICIPATED THEREIN, THEN I INSTRUCT YOU THAT SUCH ACT OF
PARTICIPATION IS DEEMED TO BE ALSO THE ACT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTOR,
OFFICER OR AGENT OF SUCH DEFENDANT CORPORATION WHO AUTHORIZED, ORDERED
OR DID SUCH ACT IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 

"LIKEWISE, THE LIST OF DEFENDANTS INCLUDES A NUMBER OF LABOR UNION
ORGANIZATIONS AND SEVERAL MEMBERS THEREOF.  IT HAS BEEN STIPULATED IN
THIS CASE THAT THESE LABOR UNIONS ARE ASSOCIATIONS.  LIKE CORPORATIONS,
ASSOCIATIONS ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, AND MAY BE FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATIONS OF THAT ACT, SEPARATELY AND
APART FROM THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THEIR MEMBERS. 

"YOU ARE TO DETERMINE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE LABOR UNIONS
WHICH ARE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE IN THE SAME MANNER AS YOU DETERMINE
THAT OF THE CORPORATIONS, THAT IS, BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE ACTS OF
THEIR AGENTS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IN THIS CASE, SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS ARE NAMED AS DEFENDANTS, TOGETHER
WITH A NUMBER OF CORPORATIONS.  WHILE THESE DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN
JOINTLY INDICTED AND CHARGED WITH THE OFFENSES CONTAINED IN THE
INDICTMENT, EACH DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION
BY YOU OF THE EVIDENCE AS IT RELATES TO HIS CONSCIOUS PARTICIPATION IN
THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL ACTS, AND IT IS YOUR DUTY TO DETERMINE THE GUILT
OR INNOCENCE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL SEPARATELY." 

FN20  SEE BATTLE V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 36, 38. 

FN21  SPARF AND HANSEN V. UNITED STATES, 156 U.S. 51, 105, DISSENT
173.  COMPARE CAPITAL TRACTION COMPANY V. HOF, 174 U.S. 1, 13. 

FN22  BIRD V. UNITED STATES, 180 U.S. 356, 361:  "THE CHIEF OBJECT
CONTEMPLATED IN THE CHARGE OF THE JUDGE IS TO EXPLAIN THE LAW OF THE
CASE, TO POINT OUT THE ESSENTIALS TO BE PROVED ON THE ONE SIDE AND THE
OTHER, AND TO BRING INTO VIEW THE RELATIONS OF THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCE
ADDUCED TO THE PARTICULAR ISSUES INVOLVED."  SEE PIERCE V. UNITED
STATES, 314 U.S. 306. 

FN23  WEILER V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 606; BRUNO V. UNITED STATES,
308 U.S. 287. 

FN24  WIBORG V. UNITED STATES, 163 U.S. 632, 658; BRASFIELD V. UNITED
STATES, 272 U.S. 448, 450; SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. ATKINSON, 297 U.S.
157, 160.  AND SEE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT, RULE 27. 

FN25  WEEMS V. UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 349, 362; MAHLER V. EBY, 264
U.S. 32, 45; SIBBACH V. WILSON & CO., 312 U.S. 1, 16; SEE ALSO KESSLER
V. STRECKER, 307 U.S. 22, 34.  AND SEE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
RULE 52(B). 

FN26  NOLO CONTENDERE "IS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THE CASE."  HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 451, 455; UNITED STATES
V. NORRIS, 281 U.S. 619, 622.  AND LIKE PLEAS OF GUILTY MAY BE REVIEWED
TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CRIME IS STATED BY THE INDICTMENT.  HOCKING
VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 210 F. 735, 738; TUCKER V. UNITED
STATES, 196 F. 260, 262. 

FN27  SEE HUSTY V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 694, 703; ASHCRAFT V.
TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 155-56; R.F.C. V. PRUDENCE GROUP, 311 U.S.
579, 582; WATTS, WATTS & CO. V. UNIONE AUSTRIACA, 248 U.S. 9, 21;
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. DUNCAN, 311 U.S. 243, 254. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON CONCUR IN RESULT, DISSENTING. 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS CLEAR AND SIMPLE.  IT IS THIS.  WHEN
OFFICERS MAKE AN ARRANGEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR ORGANIZATION, WHETHER A
CORPORATION OR A UNION, WHILE ACTING IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS
AND WITHIN THEIR GENERAL AUTHORITY AS SUCH OFFICERS, IS THE
ORGANIZATION LIABLE FOR WHAT THESE OFFICERS DID IF THE COURT SHOULD
SUBSEQUENTLY FIND THAT SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT IS PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN
LAW?  THE ISSUE IS CLEAR AND IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF A CLEAR ANSWER. 
NEITHER THE ISSUE NOR THE ANSWER SHOULD BE OBSCURED.  EITHER THE
ORGANIZATION IS SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY THAT THE LAW IN OTHER RESPECTS
IMPOSES UPON ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE ACTS OF THEIR AGENTS, OR THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT FREED UNIONS AND CORPORATIONS FROM SUCH LIABILITY.  THE
LOWER COURTS MUST APPLY THE LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT AND WE OWE
THEM CLARITY OF PRONOUNCEMENT.  THEY CANNOT VERY WELL GUIDE JURIES, OR
EVEN THEMSELVES IN EQUITY SUITS, IF TOLD THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW
OF AGENCY DO NOT APPLY TO UNIONS AND CORPORATIONS UNDER THE SHERMAN
LAW, BUT THAT PERHAPS THEY "CAN" APPLY.  WHAT THE COURT MEANS TO DECIDE
OUGHT TO BE BROUGHT OUT OF THE TWILIGHT OF AMBIGUITY.  IT DOES NOT
ADVANCE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TO IMPART NEW DOUBTS TO AN OLD
STATUTE.  AND THE SHERMAN LAW IS NOT MERELY OLD.  IT EMBODIES, AS THIS
COURT HAS OFTEN INDICATED, A VITAL POLICY. 

BY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE CONGRESS FORBADE "CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS"
NO LESS THAN INDIVIDUALS TO ENGAGE IN COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES IN
RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE.  SECTION 8 OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  AND IT
HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT TRADE UNIONS ARE "ASSOCIATIONS" UNDER THE
SHERMAN LAW.  UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344. 
BEFORE THE CORONADO DECISION AND SINCE, REPEATED EFFORTS WERE MADE TO
HAVE CONGRESS TAKE TRADE UNIONS FROM UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW.  REGARDLESS
OF THE POLITICAL COMPLEXION OF CONGRESSES, THESE EFFORTS HAVE
CONSISTENTLY FAILED.  EQUALLY FUTILE HAVE BEEN EFFORTS TO HAVE THIS
COURT READ THE LIABILITY OF TRADE UNIONS OUT OF THE SHERMAN LAW BY
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.  THIS COURT HAS UNDEVIATINGLY HELD THAT TRADE
UNIONS ARE WITHIN "THE GENERAL INTERDICT OF THE SHERMAN LAW," ALTHOUGH
LATER ENACTMENTS HAVE WITHDRAWN "SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED PRACTICES OF
LABOR UNIONS" FROM THE SCOPE OF THAT LAW.  SEE SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT, 38 STAT. 730, 738, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 52; UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON,
312 U.S. 219, 230, AND APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 487
88.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS HISTORY IT WOULD BE STRANGE INDEED TO FIND
THAT CONGRESS, BY HITHERTO UNSUSPECTED INDIRECTION, HAD, FROM THE POINT
OF VIEW OF EFFECTIVENESS, STERILIZED THE SHERMAN LAW AS TO TRADE UNIONS
AND PARTICULARLY AS TO THOSE WHICH ALONE COULD TO ANY SERIOUS EXTENT
UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN COMMERCE.  IT IS A CONCLUSION WHICH CAN BE
REACHED ONLY BY DISREGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH SEC. 6 OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS ADDRESSED, AND BY WRENCHING IT FROM THE
CONTEXT OF HISTORY IN WHICH IT MUST BE READ.  FN1 

THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THE COURT TO SEC. 6 IS BASED ON
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MOVE IN A WORLD OF UNREALITY.  THE ARGUMENT IS
QUITE UNMINDFUL OF THE WAY IN WHICH TRADE UNIONS FUNCTION - THEIR
ORGANIZATION, THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR INTERNATIONAL OFFICERS, THE
INEVITABLE INFLUENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL OFFICE UPON THE AFFILIATED
LOCALS.  IN SHORT, SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS UNMINDFUL OF THE ANATOMY AND
PHYSIOLOGY OF TRADE UNION LIFE.  IT IS ESPECIALLY THE POWERFUL
INTERNATIONAL UNIONS WHO ARE IN STRATEGIC POSITIONS TO IMPOSE
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS ON COMMERCE, AND IT IS THESE THAT ARE
ESPECIALLY RENDERED IMMUNE BY THE CONSTRUCTION THE COURT GIVES TO SEC.
6.  IT IS SUCH UNIONS THAT CAN MOST READILY BE INSULATED FROM
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTS OF THEIR LEADING OFFICERS, ALTHOUGH SUCH
ACTION BE TAKEN IN FURTHERANCE OF THE VITAL CONCERNS OF THE UNION AND
IN EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY BE DEEMED WITHIN THE
DIRECT AUTHORITY OF THESE OFFICERS AND BINDING ON THE UNION. 

IT TOOK SOME TIME FOR THE LAW TO CATCH UP WITH REALITY AND TO HOLD
THAT WHEN MEN AGGREGATED TO FORM AN ENTITY, THE ENTITY AS SUCH ACQUIRES
POWER AND MAY THEREFORE BE HELD TO RESPONSIBILITY IN EXERTING ITS
POWER.  BUT IT CAN ACT ONLY THROUGH INDIVIDUALS.  ITS POWER IS EXERTED,
AND ITS RESPONSIBILITY ACCRUES, THROUGH THE CONDUCT OF INDIVIDUAL MEN
ENTRUSTED WITH THE POWER OF THE ENTITY TO ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSES.  THIS
CONCLUSION, SUPPORTED ALIKE BY MORALITY AND BY REASON, THE EARLY LAW
ESCAPED THROUGH EMPTY SUBTLETIES THAT SEEM FANCIFUL TO THE MODERN
READER.  ARGUMENTS NOT UNLIKE THEM UNDERLIE A READING OF SEC. 6 WHEREBY
THE SHERMAN LAW WILL BE STERILIZED, CERTAINLY SO FAR AS NATIONAL LABOR
UNIONS ARE CONCERNED.  THE COURT'S OPINION, TO BE SURE, DOES NOT SAY IN
WORDS THAT A NATIONAL UNION IS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW FOR
ACTS BY ITS CHIEF OFFICERS UNDERTAKEN IN THE COURSE OF DUTY AND FOR THE
FURTHERANCE OF THE UNION'S PURPOSES.  BUT THE CONDITIONS FORMULATED BY
THE COURT, WHICH MUST NOW BE MET BEFORE A UNION MAY BE HELD TO
LIABILITY, ARE PRACTICALLY UNREALIZABLE, WHETHER IN THE CASE OF A BIG
OR A SMALL UNION, A LOCAL OR AN INTERNATIONAL.  ESCAPE FROM
RESPONSIBILITY CAN BE EASILY CONTRIVED.  IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO CHARGE
A UNION WITH CULPABILITY UNLESS A CONVENTION OF ITS MEMBERSHIP, HELD
PERHAPS EVERY TWO YEARS OR EVEN FOUR, SHOULD KNOWINGLY AUTHORIZE OR
APPROVE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW, OR GIVE CARTE BLANCHE TO THE
OFFICERS OF THE UNION BY APPROVING IN ADVANCE WHATEVER THEY MAY DO, NO
MATTER WHAT THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.  FOR INSTANCE, IF THE PRESIDENT OF
AN INTERNATIONAL UNION SHOULD NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH EMPLOYERS
REGARDING HOURS AND WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, HIS UNION WILL NOT BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AGREEMENT, UNDER THE RULE NOW LAID DOWN BY THE
COURT, IF IT SHOULD TURN OUT TO RUN COUNTER TO THE SHERMAN LAW,
ALTHOUGH MAKING AGREEMENTS TO PROMOTE THE ECONOMIC BETTERMENT OF ITS
MEMBERSHIP IS THE AIM OF THE UNION AND THE JOB OF ITS PRESIDENT. 

THE CASE BEFORE US ILLUSTRATES HOW AN ASSOCIATION LIKE THE
BROTHERHOOD PURSUES ITS OBJECTIVES.  THE LOCALS TOOK NO ACTION UNTIL
THE GENERAL OFFICE OF THE BROTHERHOOD OFFERED ITS APPROVAL; THE
PRESIDENT OF THE BROTHERHOOD HIMSELF TOOK AN ACTIVE PART IN THE
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS; A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BROTHERHOOD WAS PRESENT
AT THE TIME THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE MADE; NO UNION AGREEMENT WAS
FORTHCOMING UNTIL THE GENERAL OFFICE APPROVED THE CONTRACTS IN THE
ROUTINE WAY FOR SUCH APPROVAL - COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT
ORDINARILY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT THE QUADRENNIAL CONVENTION OF THE
BROTHERHOOD; A CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GENERAL OFFICE REQUESTED
ADHERENCE TO THE CONTRACTS BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL.  SURELY HERE
WAS ACTIVE "PARTICIPATION" BY THE BROTHERHOOD IN WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO
BE AN OUTLAWED COMBINATION, IN THE NORMAL WAY IN WHICH SUCH A UNION
EXERTS ITS AUTHORITY AND "PARTICIPATES" IN AGREEMENTS.  ON SUCH
EVIDENCE DID THE JURY FIND THE BROTHERHOOD GUILTY. 

THE COURT FINDS THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN NOT GIVING A REQUESTED CHARGE
WHICH WAS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.  A TRIAL COURT DOES NOT
DISCHARGE ITS DUTY MERELY BY QUOTING A STATUTE RELEVANT TO THE CONDUCT
OF THE TRIAL.  THE ISSUE BEFORE AN APPELLATE COURT IS NOT WHETHER THE
TRIAL JUDGE MIGHT HAVE GIVEN A REQUEST OF ABSTRACT CORRECTNESS, OR EVEN
CHARGED DIFFERENTLY, BUT WHETHER THE JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS WERE ACCURATE
AND AMPLE.  IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WISE FOR THE JUDGE TO EMPHASIZE THE
COUNSEL OF CARE EMBODIED IN SEC. 6.  BUT THE FAILURE TO DO SO OR TO USE
THE STATUTORY FORMULA IS NOT THE COURT'S BASIS FOR UPSETTING THE
CONVICTIONS.  THE COURT UPSETS THE CONVICTIONS BECAUSE IT DEEMS
ERRONEOUS THE VIEW WHICH THE TRIAL COURT TOOK OF SEC. 6.  THE HOLDING
IS THAT THE VIEW WHICH THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN, WHICH ALL
TRIAL COURTS WILL HAVE TO TAKE HEREAFTER, AND WHICH, WHATEVER THE
LANGUAGE USED IN THE CHARGE, MUST CONTROL A JURY'S FINDINGS FROM THE
EVIDENCE, IS THE ELUCIDATION WHICH THE COURT NOW GIVES TO SEC. 6.  FOR
PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THIS ELUCIDATION IMMUNIZES UNIONS AND CORPORATE
OFFENDERS FOR ACTS WHICH THEIR AGENTS PERFORM BECAUSE THEY ARE AGENTS
AND, AS SUCH, ENDOWED WITH AUTHORITY.  FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, A UNION
OR A CORPORATION COULD NOT BE CONVICTED ON ANY EVIDENCE LIKELY TO
EXIST, IF THE TRIAL COURT HAS TO CHARGE WHAT THE COURT NOW HOLDS TO BE
REQUIRED BY SEC. 6. 

THE TRIAL COURT REPEATEDLY WARNED THE JURY THAT TO FIND GUILT THEY
MUST BE SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  IT INSTRUCTED THE JURY
THAT THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF LABOR UNIONS SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN THE
SAME MANNER AS THAT OF CORPORATIONS.  ON THE QUESTION OF AUTHORIZATION,
IT CHARGED THAT "THE ACT OF AN AGENT DONE FOR OR ON BEHALF OF A
CORPORATION AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY, OR AN ACT WHICH AN
AGENT HAS ASSUMED TO DO FOR A CORPORATION WHILE PERFORMING DUTIES
ACTUALLY DELEGATED TO HIM, IS DEEMED TO BE THE ACT OF THE
CORPORATION."  THAT STATEMENT CORRECTLY EXPRESSES THE STANDARD OF GUILT
OF CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS UNDER ALL OTHER CRIMINAL STATUTES.  IF IT IS
NOT THE STANDARD FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN LAW IT IS ONLY BECAUSE
THE COURT NOW READS IN SEC. 6 AN EXCEPTION TO THE WHOLE OF THE CRIMINAL
LAW.  PRESUMABLY TRIAL COURTS WILL CONSCIENTIOUSLY APPLY THE INTENDMENT
OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  THAT MEANS THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO CHARGE
JURIES THAT THE RULES OF AGENCY DO NOT APPLY IN SHERMAN LAW CASES -
THERE MUST BE MORE TO HOLD THE UNION FOR THE ACTS OF ITS OFFICERS.  AND
"MORE" WILL NOT BE FOUND IN VIEW OF THE PRACTICAL WORKINGS OF UNIONS,
REINFORCED BY THE SAFEGUARDS THEY WILL NATURALLY TAKE ON THE BASIS OF
THIS DECISION. 

ASIDE FROM THE ACTUALITIES OF TRADE UNION PRACTICE, THE TERMS OF SEC.
6, READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ITS PURPOSE, REPEL
THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT ONCE "WE FREE OUR MINDS FROM THE NOTION
THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST BE CONSTRUED BY SOME ARTIFICIAL  ...
RULE."  UNITED STATES V. UNION SUPPLY CO., 215 U.S. 50, 55.  TO ASSURE
IMMUNITY TO POWERFUL UNIONS COLLABORATING WITH EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS
IN DISREGARD OF THE SHERMAN LAW, WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 6, AND THE
PROVISION SHOULD NOT BE SO READ.  THIS MINOR PROVISION OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT WAS DIRECTED AGAINST DECISIONS BY SOME OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS IN LITIGATION INVOLVING INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSIES.  THE ABUSE WAS
MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW OF AGENCY SO THAT LABOR UNIONS WERE HELD
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF INDIVIDUALS IN WHOM WAS LODGED NO
AUTHORITY TO WIELD THE POWER OF THE UNION.  BY UNDUE EXTENSION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF CONSPIRACY, WHEREBY THE ACT OF EACH CONSPIRATOR IS
CHARGEABLE TO ALL, UNIONS WERE ON OCCASION HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR
ISOLATED ACTS OF INDIVIDUALS, BELIEVED IN SOME INSTANCES TO HAVE BEEN
AGENTS PROVOCATEURS WHO HELD A SPURIOUS MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION DURING
A STRIKE.  CONGRESS MERELY AIMED TO CURB SUCH AN ABUSIVE MISAPPLICATION
OF THE PRINCIPLE OF AGENCY.  IT DID NOT MEAN TO CHANGE THE WHOLE LEGAL
BASIS OF COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY.  BY TALKING ABOUT "ACTUAL
AUTHORIZATION," CONGRESS MERELY MEANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT PERSONS FOR
WHOSE ACTS A CORPORATION OR A UNION IS TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE SHOULD
REALLY BE WIELDING AUTHORITY FOR SUCH CORPORATION OR UNION. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE BEHIND SEC. 6, THEN, IS CLEAR.  FN2  ALL
THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT TO DO WAS TO ELIMINATE AN EXTRANEOUS DOCTRINE THAT
HAD CREPT INTO SOME OF THE DECISIONS, WHEREBY ORGANIZATIONS WERE HELD
RESPONSIBLE NOT FOR ACTS OF AGENTS WHO HAD AUTHORITY TO ACT, BUT FOR
EVERY ACT COMMITTED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE UNION MERELY BECAUSE HE WAS A
MEMBER, OR BECAUSE HE HAD SOME RELATION TO THE UNION ALTHOUGH NOT
AUTHORIZED BY VIRTUE OF HIS POSITION TO ACT FOR THE UNION IN WHAT HE
DID.  AND SO CONGRESS CHARGED THE FEDERAL COURTS WITH THE DUTY TO LOOK
SHARPLY TO THE RELATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO THE AFFAIRS OF THE
ORGANIZATION, AND NOT TO CONFOUND INDIVIDUAL WITH UNION UNLESS THE
INDIVIDUAL IS CLOTHED WITH POWER BY THE UNION, IN THE ORDINARY WAY OF
UNION OPERATION, IN DOING WHAT HE DOES FOR THE UNION.  A BASIS FOR
LIABILITY WHICH HAS ENTERED INTO THE WARP AND WOOF OF OUR LAW, AS IS
TRUE OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COLLECTIVE BODIES FOR THE ACTS OF THEIR
AGENTS, SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN UPROOTED BY AN ENACTMENT
WHICH MERELY EMPHASIZES THAT BASIS AND RULES OUT ITS DISTORTIONS.  1932
WAS TOO LATE IN THE DAY FOR CONGRESS NOT TO HAVE KNOWN THAT UNIONS,
LIKE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, ACT ONLY THROUGH OFFICERS, AND THAT UNIONS DO
NOT, ANY MORE THAN DO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, EXPLICITLY INSTRUCT THEIR
OFFICERS TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN LAW.  NEITHER BY INADVERTENCE NOR ON
PURPOSE DID CONGRESS REMOVE THE LEGAL LIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR
THE CONDUCT OF OFFICIALS WHO, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THEIR AUTHORITY,
WIELD THE POWER OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.  IT IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE
ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS WOULD THUS TURN BACK THE CLOCK OF LEGAL HISTORY A
HUNDRED YEARS AND DISREGARD THE PRACTICALITIES OF COLLECTIVE ACTION BY
POWERFUL ORGANIZATIONS. 

NOR ARE THE DEBILITATING IMPLICATIONS FOR SHERMAN LAW ENFORCEMENT OF
THE CONSTRUCTION NOW PLACED ON SEC. 6 LIMITED TO THEIR BEARING ON UNION
ACTIVITIES.  CONGRESS DID NOT LAY DOWN ONE RULE OF LIABILITY FOR
CORPORATIONS AND ANOTHER FOR UNIONS.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT SUBJECTED
BOTH GROUPS OF ORGANIZATIONS TO THE SAME BASIS AND MEASURE OF
LIABILITY.  BOTH CAN ACT ONLY THROUGH RESPONSIBLE AGENTS AND BOTH ARE
RESPONSIBLE AS ORGANIZATIONS ONLY THROUGH THE ACTS OF SUCH AGENTS.  SEE
SEC. 13(B) OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  FN3  IF THE LIABILITY OF A
UNION DOES NOT FLOW FROM THE ACTS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS ACTING IN THE
DUE COURSE OF THEIR AUTHORITY IN THE PURSUIT OF UNION PURPOSES, THEN A
CORPORATION "INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE" CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR
THE ACTS OF ITS RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS ACTING WITHIN THEIR CUSTOMARY
AUTHORITY IN PURSUIT OF CORPORATE PURPOSES.  VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN
LAW BY CORPORATE OFFICERS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION AND
PURSUING ITS ECONOMIC INTEREST ARE NOT USUALLY EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED BY
A FORMAL VOTE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR BY THE STOCKHOLDERS IN
ANNUAL MEETING ASSEMBLED. 

THE TEACHING OF THE PRESENT CASE CAN HARDLY FAIL.  TO COME UNDER THE
COURT'S INDULGENT RULE OF IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF ITS
OFFICERS, UNIONS WILL NOT REST ON A LACK OF AFFIRMATIVE AUTHORIZATION. 
TO MAKE ASSURANCE DOUBLY SURE THEY WILL, DOUBTLESS IN GOOD CONSCIENCE,
HAVE STANDING ORDERS DISAVOWING AUTHORITY ON THE PART OF THEIR OFFICERS
TO MAKE ANY AGREEMENTS WHICH MAY BE FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN LAW.  SO ALSO, CORPORATIONS "INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE,"
AS, FOR INSTANCE, BY COMBINING TO RESIST WHAT THEY DEEM UNREASONABLE
LABOR DEMANDS, WILL, BY THE FORMALITY OF A RESOLUTION AT A DIRECTORS'
MEETING, DISAVOW AND DISAPPROVE ANY ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THEIR OFFICERS
WHICH RUN AFOUL OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  THIS MAY ACHIEVE IMMUNITY EVEN
THOUGH THE OFFICERS ARE MOVING WITHIN THE ORBIT OF THEIR NORMAL
AUTHORITY AND ARE ACTING SOLELY IN THE INTERESTS OF THEIR CORPORATION. 

WORDS ARE SYMBOLS OF MEANING.  IN CONSTRUING SEC. 6, AS IN CONSTRUING
OTHER ENACTMENTS OF CONGRESS, MEANING MUST BE EXTRACTED FROM WORDS AS
THEY ARE USED IN RELATION TO THEIR SETTING, WITH DUE REGARD TO THE EVIL
WHICH THE LEGISLATION WAS DESIGNED TO CURE AS WELL AS TO THE
MISCHIEVOUS AND STARTLING CONSEQUENCES OF ONE CONSTRUCTION AS AGAINST
ANOTHER.  "DOUBT, IF THERE CAN BE ANY, IS NOT LIKELY TO SURVIVE A
CONSIDERATION OF THE MISCHIEFS CERTAIN TO BE ENGENDERED  ...  THE MIND
REBELS AGAINST THE NOTION THAT CONGRESS  ...  WAS WILLING TO FOSTER AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR JUGGLING SO FACILE AND SO OBVIOUS."  CARDOZO, J., IN
WOOLFORD REALTY CO. V. ROSE, 286 U.S. 319, 329-30. 

PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE COURT TO SEC. 6
SERVES TO IMMUNIZE UNIONS, ESPECIALLY THE MORE ALERT AND POWERFUL, AS
WELL AS CORPORATIONS INVOLVED IN LABOR DISPUTES, FROM SHERMAN LAW
LIABILITY.  TO INSIST THAT SUCH IS NOT THE RESULT INTENDED BY THE COURT
IS TO DENY THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE COURT'S RULING.  FOR THOSE
ENTRUSTED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SHERMAN LAW THERE MAY BE FOUND IN
THE OPINION WORDS OF PROMISE TO THE EAR, BUT THE DECISION BREAKS THE
PROMISE TO THE HOPE. 

IN OUR VIEW THE JUDGMENTS BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  6.  NO OFFICER OR MEMBER OF ANY ASSOCIATION OR
ORGANIZATION, AND NO ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION PARTICIPATING OR
INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE, SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE IN
ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACTS OF INDIVIDUAL
OFFICERS, MEMBERS, OR AGENTS, EXCEPT UPON CLEAR PROOF OF ACTUAL
PARTICIPATION IN, OR ACTUAL AUTHORIZATION OF, SUCH ACTS, OR OF
RATIFICATION OF SUCH ACTS AFTER ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE THEREOF."  47 STAT.
70, 71, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 106. 

FN2  SEE THE STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLAINE, A COMMITTEE SPOKESMAN:  "I
HAVE THIS MEMORANDUM WHICH I CAN REFER TO WHICH GIVES THE PURPOSE OF
THIS SECTION 6.  THIS IS MERELY THE APPLICATION OF THE SOUND PRINCIPLES
OF THE LAW OF AGENCY TO LABOR CASES.  IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY BECAUSE
THE FEDERAL COURTS IN MANY CASES HAVE HELD THE UNION OR MEMBERS NOT
CONNECTED WITH THE UNLAWFUL ACTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE ACTS ALTHOUGH
PROOF OF ACTUAL AUTHORIZATION OR RATIFICATION IS WHOLLY LACKING. 

"NOW, THAT IS THE LAW OF AGENCY, AND WE WANT TO APPLY THAT.  WE WANT
TO APPLY THAT FOR THIS REASON, THAT IF IT IS UNJUST TO HOLD ALL MEMBERS
OF THE UNION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF ITS OFFICERS AND THEIR MEMBERS
MERELY BECAUSE OF SUCH MEMBERSHIP, SIMILARLY IT IS UNJUST TO HOLD THE
OFFICERS RESPONSIBLE DURING THE STRIKE MERELY BECAUSE THEY PASS ON
QUESTIONS OF THIS KIND, THAT AN ATTEMPT IS HERE MADE TO RECOGNIZE THE
RULES OF LAW OF AGENCY IN LABOR CASES."  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE
SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, S. 1482, 70TH CONG.,
2D SESS., P. 763. 

THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORTED THIS:  "THERE HAS BEEN A DISTINCT
CONFLICT OF OPINION IN THE COURTS AS TO THE DEGREE OF PROOF REQUIRED. 
MERE EX PARTE AFFIDAVITS ESTABLISHING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LAWLESS
CONDUCT IN THE PROSECUTION OF A STRIKE HAVE BEEN HELD IN SOME INSTANCES
TO ESTABLISH A 'PRESUMPTION' THAT THE ENTIRE UNION AND ITS OFFICERS
WERE ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY; AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, OTHER
COURTS HAVE DECLINED THUS TO SUBSTITUTE INFERENCE FOR PROOF, REJECTING
SUCH A DOCTRINE IN LANGUAGE SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING USED IN A NEW YORK
CASE:  'IS IT THE LAW THAT A PRESUMPTION OF GUILT ATTACHES TO A LABOR
UNION ASSOCIATION?'  VARIOUS EXAMPLES OF THESE DIFFERENT RULINGS ARE
QUOTED IN THE LABOR INJUNCTION, BY FRANKFURTER AND GREENE, PP. 74-75. 

"IT IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO DEFINE BY LEGISLATION THE PROPER
RULE OF EVIDENCE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THIS MATTER IN FEDERAL COURTS.  THAT
IS THE ONLY OBJECT OF SECTION 6."  S. REP. NO. 163, 72D CONG., 1ST
SESS. (1932) PP. 20-21. 

FN3  "SEC.  13.  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT, AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
ACT -  ... (B) A PERSON OR ASSOCIATION SHALL BE HELD TO BE A PERSON
PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE IF RELIEF IS SOUGHT
AGAINST HIM OR IT, AND IF HE OR IT IS ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY,
TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION IN WHICH SUCH DISPUTE OCCURS, OR HAS A
DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST THEREIN, OR IS A MEMBER, OFFICER, OR AGENT
OF ANY ASSOCIATION COMPOSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF EMPLOYERS OR
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN SUCH INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION."  47
STAT. 70, 73, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 113(B). 
..END :



















JOSEPH V. CARTER & WEEKES CO., 330 U.S. 422 


ARGUED MARCH 1, 1946.  - REARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH
10, 1947.  - 294 N.Y. 906, 908, 63 N.E.2D 112, AFFIRMED. 


1.  NEW YORK CITY LEVIED AN EXCISE TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF A
STEVEDORING CORPORATION ENGAGED WHOLLY WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
THE CITY IN LOADING AND UNLOADING VESSELS MOVING IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  HELD:  SUCH A TAX IS INVALID, SINCE IT WOULD BURDEN
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 427, 433-434. 

2.  LOADING AND UNLOADING ARE ESSENTIAL PARTS OF TRANSPORTATION
ITSELF.  THEREFORE, STEVEDORING IS ESSENTIALLY A PART OF INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE AND CANNOT BE SEPARATED THEREFROM FOR PURPOSES OF
LOCAL TAXATION.  PP. 427, 433. 

3.  PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S. 90,
REAFFIRMED.  P. 433. 

4.  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250; SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE
COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V. WOOD PRESERVING
CORP., 313 U.S. 62, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 430-433. 

JOSEPH, COMPTROLLER, ET AL. V. CARTER & WEEKES STEVEDORING CO. 

NO. 29.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 30, JOSEPH, COMPTROLLER, ET AL. V. JOHN T. CLARK &
SON, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK DETERMINED THAT CERTAIN
STEVEDORING COMPANIES WERE LIABLE FOR TAXES ON THEIR GROSS RECEIPTS
UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS TAX LAWS OF NEW YORK CITY.  ON REVIEW, THE
COMPTROLLER'S DETERMINATIONS WERE ANNULLED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION.  269 APP. DIV. 685, 54 N.Y.S.2D 380, 383. 
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  294 N.Y. 906, 908, 63 N.E.2D
112.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 713.  AFFIRMED, P. 434. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE TWO WRITS OF CERTIORARI BRING BEFORE THIS COURT CONTENTIONS IN
REGARD TO THE APPLICATION TO THE RESPECTIVE RESPONDENTS, CARTER &
WEEKES STEVEDORING COMPANY AND JOHN T. CLARK & SON, OF NEW YORK CITY,
OF THE GENERAL BUSINESS TAX LAWS COVERING, WHEN BOTH CASES ARE
CONSIDERED, THE YEARS 1937 TO 1941, INCLUSIVE.  FN1  THE CHARACTER OF
THE TAXES IN ISSUE WILL APPEAR FROM A SECTION, SET OUT BELOW, OF A
LOCAL LAW IMPOSING THE TAX FOR 1939 AND 1940.  FN2  THE RESPECTIVE
TAXPAYERS ARE LIABLE ALSO FOR THE GENERAL INCOME AND AD VALOREM TAXES
OF THE STATE AND CITY OF NEW YORK.  BOTH RESPONDENTS ARE CORPORATIONS
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERAL STEVEDORING.  FOR THESE CASES, THE
BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS CONSISTING ONLY OF TAKING
FREIGHT FROM A CONVENIENT PLACE ON THE PIER OR LIGHTER WHOLLY WITHIN
THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF NEW YORK CITY AND STORING IT PROPERLY FOR
SAFETY AND FOR HANDLING IN OR ON THE OUTGOING VESSEL ALONGSIDE, OR OF
SIMILARLY UNLOADING A VESSEL ON ITS ARRIVAL.  THE VESSELS MOVED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, WITHOUT A CALL AT ANY OTHER PORT OF NEW
YORK.  WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER SEPARATELY INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE COVERS BOTH. 

THROUGH STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS UNNECESSARY TO PARTICULARIZE, THE
COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK DETERMINED THAT THE RESPONDENTS
WERE LIABLE FOR PERCENTAGE TAXES UPON THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
THE ABOVE ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE RESPECTIVE LOCAL LAWS TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE.  REVIEW OF
THESE DETERMINATIONS WAS HAD BY RESPONDENTS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION.  THE DETERMINATIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER WERE
ANNULLED ON THE AUTHORITY OF PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90.  269 APP. DIV. 685, 54 N.Y.S.2D 380, 383. 
THESE ORDERS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, 294 N.Y. 906, 908,
63 N.E.2D 112, AND REMITTITURS ISSUED STATING THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE LOCAL LAWS AS APPLIED IN THESE CASES
WERE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 3, OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN3  WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT WERE
SOUGHT AND GRANTED ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS TAX ON THESE
RESPONDENTS CONSTITUTED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON COMMERCE. 

PETITIONERS RECOGNIZE THE FORCE OF THE PUGET SOUND CASE AS A
PRECEDENT.  THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT SUBSEQUENT HOLDINGS OF THIS COURT
HAVE INDICATED THAT THE REASONS WHICH UNDERLAY THE DECISION ARE NO
LONGER CONTROLLING IN JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
STATE TAXATION OF THE GROSS PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM COMMERCE, SUBJECT TO
FEDERAL REGULATION.  THEY CITE, AMONG OTHERS, THESE LATER DECISIONS:
WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250; SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309
U.S. 33; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V. WOOD PRESERVING CORP., 313 U.S. 62. 

IN THE PUGET SOUND CASE A STATE TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS,
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT LAID BY NEW YORK CITY IN THIS CASE, WAS
HELD INVALID AS APPLIED TO STEVEDORING ACTIVITIES EXACTLY LIKE THOSE
WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED.  THE PUGET SOUND OPINION POINTED OUT,
P. 92 ET SEQ., THAT TRANSPORTATION BY WATER IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT
LOADING AND UNLOADING.  THOSE INCIDENTS TO TRANSPORTATION OCCUPY THE
SAME RELATION TO THAT COMMERCE WHETHER PERFORMED BY THE CREW OR BY
STEVEDORE, CONTRACTING INDEPENDENTLY TO HANDLE THE CARGO.  THE MOVEMENT
OF CARGO OFF AND ON THE SHIP IS SUBSTANTIALLY A CONTINUATION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION.  CF. BALTIMORE & O.S.W.R. CO. V. BURTCH, 263 U.S. 540. 

IT IS TRITE TO REPEAT THAT THE WANT OF POWER IN THE CONFEDERATION TO
REGULATE COMMERCE WAS A PRINCIPAL REASON FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BEARS NO LIMITATION OF POWER UPON
ITS FACE AND, WHEN THE CONGRESS ACTS UNDER IT, INTERPRETATION HAS
SUGGESTED NONE, EXCEPT SUCH AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 
GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 196; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS
CO., 304 U.S. 144, 147; NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686,
704.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CONSTITUTION, BY WORDS, PLACES NO
LIMITATION UPON A STATE'S POWER TO TAX THE THINGS OR ACTIVITIES OR
PERSONS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES.  WHAT LIMITATIONS THERE ARE SPRING FROM
APPLICATIONS TO STATE TAX SITUATIONS OF GENERAL CLAUSES OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  E.G., ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2 AND 3; NEW YORK INDIANS, 5
WALL.  761; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S.
343; BELL'S GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 134 U.S. 232, 237; LAWRENCE V.
STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, 284; HENDERSON BRIDGE CO. V.
HENDERSON CITY, 173 U.S. 592, 614-15; NEW YORK RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V.
CITY OF NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573, 581-82.  FROM THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
ITSELF, THERE COMES, ALSO, AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX
WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL LIMITS.  THIS HAS ARISEN FROM LONG-CONTINUED
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION THAT, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, THE WORDS
THEMSELVES OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBID UNDUE INTERFERENCES BY THE
STATES WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE  FN4  AND THAT THIS RULE APPLIES IN
FULL FORCE TO AN UNAPPORTIONED  FN5  TAX ON THE GROSS PROCEEDS FROM
INTERSTATE STATE BUSINESS,  FN6  WHERE THE TAXES WERE NOT IN LIEU OF AD
VALOREM TAXES ON PROPERTY.  FN7 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT A TAX ON GROSS INCOME FROM STEVEDORING,
OBVIOUSLY A "CONTINUATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION," IS A TAX APPORTIONED
TO INCOME DERIVED FROM ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE TAXING STATE.  THE
TRANSPORTATION IN COMMERCE, AT THE LEAST, BEGINS WITH LOADING AND ENDS
WITH UNLOADING.  LOADING AND UNLOADING HAS EFFECT ON TRANSPORTATION
OUTSIDE THE TAXING STATE BECAUSE THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT ONLY
PRELIMINARY TO BUT ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE
OF THE TRANSPORTATION ITSELF. 

WHEN WE COME TO WEIGH THE BURDEN OR INTERFERENCE OF THIS TAX ON THE
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE PURPOSES OF THAT PORTION
OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE - THE FREEING OF BUSINESS FROM UNNEIGHBORLY
REGULATIONS THAT INHIBIT THE INTERCOURSE WHICH SUPPLIES RECIPROCAL
WANTS BY COMMERCE  FN8  - IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR FOR CONSIDERATION. 
AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TEXT TO LEAVE THE STATES FREE TO TAX COMMERCE
UNTIL CONGRESS INTERVENED WOULD HAVE PERMITTED INTOLERABLE
DISCRIMINATIONS.  NIPPERT V. CITY OF RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416, AND CASES
COLLECTED IN NOTES 13, 14, 15 AND 16.  NEVERTHELESS, A PROPER REGARD
FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES AND THEIR RIGHT TO REQUIRE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO CONTRIBUTE BY TAXES TO THE SUPPORT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS
WHICH MAKE THEIR INTERSTATE COMMERCE POSSIBLE, HAS LED CONGRESS, OVER A
LONG PERIOD, TO LEAVE INTACT THE JUDICIAL RULINGS, REFERRED TO ABOVE,
THAT APPORTIONED, NON-DISCRIMINATORY GROSS RECEIPT TAXES OR THOSE
FAIRLY LEVIED IN LIEU OF PROPERTY TAXES CONFORMED TO THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  AS THE POWER LIES IN CONGRESS UNDER THE CLAUSE
TO MAKE ANY DESIRED ADJUSTMENT IN THE TAXATION AREA, ITS ACQUIESCENCE
IN OUR FORMER RULINGS ON STATE TAXATION INDICATES ITS AGREEMENT WITH
THE ADJUSTMENTS OF THE COMPETING INTERESTS OF COMMERCE AND NECESSARY
STATE REVENUES.  FN9 THERE IS ANOTHER REASON THAT MAY BE THE BASIS FOR
THE ACCEPTANCE, ALMOST COMPLETE, BY CONGRESS OF THE JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATIONS IN THIS FIELD.  THIS IS THAT A WIDE LATITUDE EXISTS FOR
PERMISSIBLE STATE TAXATION.  THIS TERM, IN AN EFFORT TO SHOW THAT THE
REACH OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DID NOT DESTROY THE STATE'S POWER TO MAKE
COMMERCE PAY ITS WAY, WE ELABORATED THE FACT THAT TAXES ON THE COMMERCE
ITSELF WAS NOT THE SOLE SOURCE OF STATE REVENUE FROM THAT COMMERCE. 
FREEMAN V. HEWIT, SUPRA, P. 254; SEE ALSO ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN,
SUPRA, 310. 

A POWER IN A STATE TO TAX INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR ITS GROSS PROCEEDS,
UNHAMPERED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WOULD PERMIT A MULTIPLE BURDEN UPON
THAT COMMERCE.  THIS HAS BEEN NOTED AS GROUND FOR THEIR INVALIDATION. 
WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250, 255.  THE SELECTION OF AN
INTRASTATE INCIDENT AS THE TAXABLE EVENT ACTUALLY CARRIES A SIMILAR
THREAT TO THE COMMERCE BUT, WHERE THE TAXABLE EVENT IS CONSIDERED
SUFFICIENTLY DISJOINED FROM THE COMMERCE, IT IS THOUGHT TO BE A
PERMISSIBLE STATE LEVY.  FN10  THIS RESULT GENERALLY IS REACHED BECAUSE
THE LOCAL INCIDENT SELECTED IS ONE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY LOCAL AND IS NOT
REPEATED IN EACH TAXING UNIT.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE THREAT OF A
MULTIPLE BURDEN, EXCEPT IN THE FEW INSTANCES IN THE RECORD OF
INTERSTATE, IN DISTINCTION TO FOREIGN, COMMERCE, IS ABSENT.  THE
MULTIPLE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION FROM TAXATION OF THE GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM STEVEDORING ARISES FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF A SIMILAR TAX
FOR UNLOADING.  THE ACTUAL EFFECT ON THE COST OF CARRYING ON THE
COMMERCE DOES NOT DIFFER FROM THAT IMPOSED BY ANY OTHER TAX EXACTION -
AD VALOREM, NET INCOME OR EXCISE.  CF. WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU,
SUPRA, 254.  WE NEED CONSIDER ONLY WHETHER OR NOT THE LOADING AND
UNLOADING IS DISTINCT ENOUGH FROM THE COMMERCE TO PERMIT THE TAX ON THE
GROSS. 

ON PRECEDENT, THE PUGET SOUND CASE IS CONTROLLING.  IT WAS PROMPTLY
AND RECENTLY CITED WITH APPROVAL.  FN11  IT APPEARS IN ADAMS MFG. CO.
V. STOREN  FN12  IN SUPPORT OF THE POSSIBLE DOUBLE TAX ARGUMENT AGAINST
LEVIES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, SUPRA,
258, IT WAS ADVERTED TO AS A CASE FOR COMPARISON WITH A RULING THAT
"PREPARING, PRINTING AND PUBLISHING MAGAZINE ADVERTISING IS PECULIARLY
LOCAL AND DISTINCT FROM ITS CIRCULATION WHETHER OR NOT THAT CIRCULATION
BE INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THE CASE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COURT'S
OPINION IN GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD,  FN13  WHERE A
STATE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON INCOME FROM MARKETING FRUIT INTERSTATE WAS
INVALIDATED UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, OR IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND
WHITE CO.,  FN14  THOUGH RELIED UPON IN THE CONCURRING OPINION IN THE
FIRST AT P. 442 AND THE DISSENT IN THE SECOND AT P. 62.  UPON
EXAMINATION THIS HISTORY GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A
DOUBT AS TO THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF PUGET SOUND.  WE COME NOW FACE TO
FACE WITH THE PROBLEM OF OVERRULING OR APPROVING THE CASE. 

SINCE PUGET SOUND THERE HAS BEEN FULL CONSIDERATION OF HOW FAR A STATE
MAY GO IN TAXING INTRASTATE INCIDENTS CLOSELY RELATED IN TIME AND
MOVEMENT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE CASES THAT LEND STRONGEST
SUPPORT TO PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT FOR OVERRULING THE PUGET SOUND
DECISION HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO ABOVE.  WE COMMENT FURTHER UPON THEM. 
THE 2% EXCISE TAX LEVIED BY NEW MEXICO ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF
PUBLISHERS FROM ADVERTISING, UPHELD IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK, WAS FOUND TO
BE AN EXACTION FOR CARRYING ON A LOCAL BUSINESS.  FN15  THE GALLAGHER
CASE TURNS EXPRESSLY ON OUR CONCLUSION THAT A USE TAX IS VALIDLY LEVIED
ON AN INTRASTATE EVENT, "SEPARATE AND APART FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE,"
P. 176, AND THE WOOD PRESERVING CASE  FN16  REACHED A SIMILAR RESULT BY
REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER SOLD AND DELIVERED ITS TIES
INTRASTATE BEFORE TRANSPORTATION BEGAN, 313 U.S. AT 67.  THIS IS
LIKEWISE TRUE OF AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, AS
EXPLAINED IN THE STOREN CASE.  FN17  WHEN WE EXAMINE THE BERWIND-WHITE
TAX ON THE PURCHASERS OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR CONSUMPTION,
THERE IS THE SAME RELIANCE UPON THE LOCAL CHARACTER OF THE SALE, PP.
43, 47, 49, 58.  FN18  WE THERE SAID, P. 48: 

"CERTAIN TYPES OF TAX MAY, IF PERMITTED AT ALL, SO READILY BE MADE
THE INSTRUMENT OF IMPEDING OR DESTROYING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS PLAINLY
TO CALL FOR THEIR CONDEMNATION AS FORBIDDEN REGULATIONS.  SUCH ARE THE
TAXES ALREADY NOTED WHICH ARE AIMED AT OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
COMMERCE OR IMPOSE A LEVY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING IT, OR TAX
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR COMMUNICATION OR THEIR GROSS EARNINGS, OR
LEVY AN EXACTION ON MERCHANDISE IN THE COURSE OF ITS INTERSTATE
JOURNEY."  THOUGH ALL OF THESE CASES WERE CLOSELY RELATED TO
TRANSPORTATION IN COMMERCE BOTH IN TIME AND MOVEMENT, IT WILL BE NOTED
THAT IN EACH THERE CAN BE DISTINGUISHED A DEFINITE SEPARATION BETWEEN
THE TAXABLE EVENT AND THE COMMERCE ITSELF.  WE HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT
THE SOUNDNESS OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS. 

STEVEDORING IS MORE A PART OF THE COMMERCE THAN ANY OF THE INSTANCES
TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS JUST BEEN MADE.  ALTHOUGH STATE LAWS DO NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN ACTUALITY OR BY
POSSIBILITY SUBJECT IT TO THE CUMULATIVE BURDEN OF MULTIPLE LEVIES,
THOSE LAWS MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY BURDEN OR INTERFERE
WITH COMMERCE.  SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761,
767.  STEVEDORING, WE CONCLUDE, IS ESSENTIALLY A PART OF THE COMMERCE
ITSELF AND THEREFORE A TAX UPON ITS GROSS RECEIPTS OR UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF STEVEDORING FOR INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE, MEASURED BY THOSE GROSS RECEIPTS, IS INVALID.  WE
REAFFIRM THE RULE OF PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING COMPANY.  "WHAT MAKES THE
TAX INVALID IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS INTERFERENCE BY A STATE WITH THE
FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  FREEMAN V. HEWIT, SUPRA, P. 256. 
SUCH A RULE MAY IN PRACTICE PROHIBIT A TAX THAT ADDS NO MORE TO THE
COST OF COMMERCE THAN A PERMISSIBLE USE OR SALES TAX.  WHAT LIFTS THE
RULE FROM FORMALISM IS THAT IT IS A RECOGNITION OF THE EFFECTS OF STATE
LEGISLATION AND ITS ACTUAL OR PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES.  NOT ONLY DOES IT
FOLLOW A LINE OF PRECEDENTS OUTLAWING TAXES ON THE COMMERCE ITSELF BUT
IT HAS REASON TO SUPPORT IT IN THE LIKELIHOOD THAT SUCH LEGISLATION
WILL FLOURISH MORE LUXURIANTLY WHERE THE MOST REVENUE WILL COME FROM
FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THUS IN PORT CITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
OR HANDLING CENTERS, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE AS
COMPARED WITH LOCAL BUSINESS, LARGER PROPORTIONS OF NECESSARY REVENUE
COULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE FLOW OF COMMERCE.  THE AVOIDANCE OF SUCH A
LOCAL TOLL ON THE PASSAGE OF COMMERCE THROUGH A LOCALITY WAS ONE OF THE
REASONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TAXES IN QUESTION WERE LEVIED BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK BY A
SERIES OF LOCAL LAWS, NO. 22 OF 1937, NO. 20 OF 1938, NO. 103 OF 1939,
NO. 78 OF 1940, NO. 47 OF 1941.  THE LOCAL LAWS WERE PASSED PURSUANT TO
AUTHORIZATION BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  SEE LAWS OF NEW YORK 1940, CH.
245.  THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE GENERAL VALIDITY OF THE LOCAL
LAWS.  SEE MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33,
AND NEW YORK RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573. 
THESE CASES INVOLVED OTHER PHASES OF THESE LOCAL LAWS. 

CERTIORARI GRANTED, 326 U.S. 713; ARGUED MARCH 1, 1946; RESTORED TO
THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT APRIL 22, 1946. 

FN2  LOCAL LAWS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK (1940), NO. 78: 

"SEC. R41-2.0.  IMPOSITION OF TAX.  A. FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING
ON OR EXERCISING FOR GAIN OR PROFIT WITHIN THE CITY ANY TRADE,
BUSINESS, PROFESSION, VOCATION OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OTHER THAN A
FINANCIAL BUSINESS, OR OF MAKING SALES TO PERSONS WITHIN SUCH CITY, FOR
EACH OF THE PERIODS OF ONE YEAR, OR ANY PART THEREOF, BEGINNING ON JULY
FIRST OF THE YEARS NINETEEN HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE AND NINETEEN HUNDRED
FORTY, EVERY PERSON SHALL PAY AN EXCISE TAX WHICH SHALL BE EQUAL TO ONE
TENTH OF ONE PERCENTUM UPON ALL RECEIPTS RECEIVED IN AND/OR ALLOCABLE
TO THE CITY FROM SUCH PROFESSION, VOCATION, TRADE, BUSINESS OR
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY EXERCISED OR CARRIED ON BY HIM DURING THE CALENDAR
YEAR IN WHICH SUCH PERIOD SHALL COMMENCE,  ..." 

NO PROBLEM OF ALLOCATION OR APPORTIONMENT IS INVOLVED.  SEE SEC. B. NO
QUESTION IS RAISED BY PETITIONER THAT ANY PART OF THE TAX IS ALLOCABLE
TO RECEIPTS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY,
IF ALL OF THE RECEIPTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL ACT.  SEC. R41
3.0. 

FN3  "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH
FOREIGN NATIONS, AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, AND WITH THE INDIAN
TRIBES; ..." 

FN4  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 767-69, AND CASES
CITED; MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373, 379, AND CASES CITED, N. 17;
FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249; RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION, 329 U.S. 69, 75. 

FN5  COMPARE MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 142 U.S. 217; OKLAHOMA V.
WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298, 301; UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V.
CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113; HANS REES' SONS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 283 U.S.
123; ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 309 U.S. 157. 

FN6  FARGO V. MICHIGAN, 121 U.S. 230; RATTERMAN V. WESTERN  UNION
TELEGRAPH CO., 127 U.S. 411, 428; LELOUP V. PORT OF MOBILE, 127 U.S.
640; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. ALABAMA, 132 U.S. 472; GALVESTON,
HARRISBURG & SAN ANTONIO R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217; OKLAHOMA V.
WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298, 300; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S.
352, 400; CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292, 295; FISHER'S
BLEND STATION V. TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650, 655; ADAMS MFG. CO. V.
STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 312; FREEMAN V. HEWIT, SUPRA. 

FN7  POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. ADAMS, 155 U.S. 688, 698; UNITED
STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335, 346-48. 

FN8  FEDERALIST 7, 22, 42; BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC., 294 U.S.
511, 523. 

FN9  SEE CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S.
311, 326; UNITED STATES V. HILL, 248 U.S. 420; WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297
U.S. 431; KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299
U.S. 334; PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408, 430; SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 769; FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S.
249, 253. 

FN10  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, SUPRA, 258-260; SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167, 176; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO.,
309 U.S. 33, 48; DEPT. OF TREASURY V. WOOD CORP., 313 U.S. 62. 

FN11  COVERDALE V. PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604, 609; SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167, 178; FREEMAN V. HEWIT, SUPRA, P. 257. 

FN12  304 U.S. 307, 312. 

FN13  305 U.S. 434. 

FN14  309 U.S. 33. 

FN15  303 U.S. AT 257.  "ALL THE EVENTS UPON WHICH THE TAX IS
CONDITIONED - THE PREPARATION, PRINTING AND PUBLICATION OF THE
ADVERTISING MATTER, AND THE RECEIPT OF THE SUMS PAID FOR IT - OCCUR IN
NEW MEXICO AND NOT ELSEWHERE."  P. 260.  "SO FAR AS THE ADVERTISING
RATES REFLECT A VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A CIRCULATION
OF THE MAGAZINE INTERSTATE, WE THINK THE BURDEN ON THE INTERSTATE
BUSINESS IS TOO REMOTE AND TOO ATTENUATED TO CALL FOR A RIGIDLY LOGICAL
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE THAT GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE
COMMERCE MAY NOT BE MADE THE MEASURE OF A TAX....  PRACTICAL RATHER
THAN LOGICAL DISTINCTIONS MUST BE SOUGHT."  P. 259. 

THE ALTERNATE GROUND, P. 260, THAT SUCH A LOCAL TAX CANNOT BE LEVIED
ELSEWHERE IS INAPPOSITE IN SUCH A FOREIGN COMMERCE SITUATION AS THIS. 

FN16  SEE HARVESTER CO. V. DEPT. OF TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340, 348. 

FN17  304 U.S. AT 312-13: 

"THE STATE COURT AND THE APPELLEES RELY STRONGLY UPON AMERICAN MFG.
CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, AS SUPPORTING THE TAX ON APPELLANT'S
TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM COMMERCE WITH CITIZENS OF THE STATE
AND THOSE OF OTHER STATES OR FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  BUT THAT CASE DEALT
WITH A MUNICIPAL LICENSE FEE FOR PURSUING THE OCCUPATION OF A
MANUFACTURER IN ST. LOUIS.  THE EXACTION WAS NOT AN EXCISE LAID UPON
THE TAXPAYER'S SALES OR UPON THE INCOME DERIVED FROM SALES.  THE TAX ON
THE PRIVILEGE FOR THE ENSUING YEAR WAS MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE
PAST YEAR'S SALES.  THE TAXPAYER HAD DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR REMOVED
SOME OF THE GOODS MANUFACTURED TO A WAREHOUSE IN ANOTHER STATE AND,
UPON SALE, DELIVERED THEM FROM THE WAREHOUSE.  IT CONTENDED THAT THE
CITY WAS WITHOUT POWER TO INCLUDE THESE SALES IN THE MEASURE OF THE TAX
FOR THE COMING YEAR.  THE COURT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE TAX WAS UPON
THE PRIVILEGE OF MANUFACTURING WITHIN THE STATE AND IT WAS PERMISSIBLE
TO MEASURE THE TAX BY THE SALES PRICE OF THE GOODS PRODUCED RATHER THAN
BY THEIR VALUE AT THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE.  IF THE TAX THERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN A SALES TAX THE CITY COULD NOT HAVE MEASURED IT
BY SALES CONSUMMATED IN ANOTHER STATE." 

CF. FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, 252. 

FN18 309 U.S. AT 49:  "ITS ONLY RELATION TO THE COMMERCE ARISES FROM
THE FACT THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TRANSFER OF POSSESSION TO THE
PURCHASER WITHIN THE STATE, WHICH IS THE TAXABLE EVENT REGARDLESS OF
THE TIME AND PLACE OF PASSING TITLE, THE MERCHANDISE HAS BEEN
TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND BROUGHT TO ITS JOURNEY'S END. 
SUCH A TAX HAS NO DIFFERENT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN A TAX
ON THE 'USE' OF PROPERTY WHICH HAS JUST BEEN MOVED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SUSTAINED IN MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86;
HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., SUPRA; FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V.
GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S.
167, OR THE TAX ON STORAGE OR WITHDRAWAL FOR USE BY THE CONSIGNEE OF
GASOLINE, SIMILARLY SUSTAINED IN GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY, 286 U.S.
472; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249; EDELMAN
V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, 289 U.S. 249, OR THE FAMILIAR PROPERTY TAX ON
GOODS BY THE STATE OF DESTINATION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR INTERSTATE
JOURNEY.  BROWN V. HOUSTON, SUPRA; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED,
192 U.S. 500." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS,
DISSENTING IN PART. 

FIRST.  I THINK THE TAX IS VALID INSOFAR AS IT REACHES THE GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM LOADING AND UNLOADING VESSELS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90, MAKES
CLEAR THAT RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES IN LOADING AND UNLOADING THE VESSELS
ARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THAT CASE FOLLOWED A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS
FN1  WHEN IT HELD IN 1937 THAT A STATE COULD NOT TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE BY EXACTING A PERCENTAGE OF
THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 

THOSE CASES, LIKE THE PRESENT ONE, INVOLVED NO EXACTION BY THE STATE
OF A LICENSE TO ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON THE PAYMENT OF A FLAT
LICENSE TAX OR OTHERWISE.  CF. LELOUP V. PORT OF MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640;
CRUTCHER V. KENTUCKY, 141 U.S. 47; BOWMAN V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 256
U.S. 642; COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TEL. CO., 294 U.S. 384; MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 114.  NOR DID THEY, ANY MORE THAN THE
PRESENT CASE, CONCERN LEGISLATION WHICH EXPRESSED HOSTILITY TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST IT.  CF. BEST & CO. V.
MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454; NIPPERT V. CITY OF RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416. 
ALTHOUGH ALL OR LIKE BUSINESS OF A LOCAL NATURE WAS SUBJECT TO THE SAME
TAX, THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS WAS GRANTED IMMUNITY.  THE THEORY, AS
EXPRESSED IN PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S.
326, 336, WAS THAT TAXATION WAS ONE FORM OF REGULATION AND A TAX ON THE
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION WOULD BE "A REGULATION OF
THE COMMERCE, A RESTRICTION UPON IT, A BURDEN UPON IT.  CLEARLY THIS
COULD NOT BE DONE BY THE STATE WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE POWER OF
CONGRESS." 

THE TAX IN THAT CASE WAS A TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM FARES AND
FREIGHT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS AND GOODS IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  IT WAS UNAPPORTIONED.  AS WE SHALL SEE, THE HOLDING
IN THE PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. CASE HAS NOT BEEN IMPAIRED. 
BUT THE PRINCIPLE IT ANNOUNCED - THAT A TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS WAS
FORBIDDEN BECAUSE IT WAS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE
- WAS NOT GIVEN FULL SCOPE.  FOR SOON GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES ON
BUSINESSES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION OR
COMMUNICATION) WERE SUSTAINED WHERE THEY WERE NOT DISCRIMINATORY AND
WHERE THEY WERE FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO THE COMMERCE CARRIED ON IN THE
TAXING STATE.  FN2  MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK RY. CO., 142 U.S. 217.  THEIR
VALIDITY WAS ESTABLISHED WHETHER THEY WERE EMPLOYED AS A MEASURE OF THE
VALUE OF A LOCAL FRANCHISE (MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK RY. CO., SUPRA;
WISCONSIN & M. RY. CO. V. POWERS, 191 U.S. 379) OR WERE USED IN LIEU OF
ALL OTHER PROPERTY TAXES TO MEASURE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE
STATE.  UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335; CUDAHY
PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450; ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 309 U.S. 157. 

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS TAX AND A TAX
ON ALL THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS, SUCH AS WAS
INVOLVED IN PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA,
PP. 335-336, WAS EXPLAINED IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE,
303 U.S. 250, 256, WHICH WAS DECIDED IN 1938.  THE COURT STATED THAT
THE LATTER TYPE OF TAX COULD BE IMPOSED OR ADDED TO "WITH EQUAL RIGHT
BY EVERY STATE WHICH THE COMMERCE TOUCHES, MERELY BECAUSE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS BEING DONE, SO THAT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE IT WOULD BEAR CUMULATIVE BURDENS NOT IMPOSED ON LOCAL
COMMERCE....  THE MULTIPLICATION OF STATE TAXES MEASURED BY THE GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS WOULD SPELL THE DESTRUCTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RENEW THE BARRIERS TO INTERSTATE TRADE WHICH IT
WAS THE OBJECT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REMOVE."  THIS EXPLANATION OF
THE VICE OF THE UNAPPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS TAX HAD BEEN EARLIER
SUGGESTED IN CASE OF THE STATE FREIGHT TAX, 15 WALL.  232, 280, AND HAS
BEEN ACCEPTED BY OUR DECISIONS SINCE THE WESTERN LIVE STOCK CASE. 
ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 311; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC.
V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 438-440; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO.,
309 U.S. 33, 45-46.  IN BOTH ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA, AND GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA, UNAPPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS
TAXES AS APPLIED TO THE RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE SALES WERE HELD
INVALID.  IT WAS SAID THAT THE VICE OF SUCH A TAX WAS THAT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WOULD BE SUBJECTED "TO THE RISK OF A DOUBLE TAX BURDEN TO
WHICH INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS NOT EXPOSED  ..."  ADAMS MFG. CO. V.
STOREN, SUPRA, P. 311.  OR AS STATED IN GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V.
HENNEFORD, SUPRA, P. 439: 

"HERE THE TAX, MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE VOLUME OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN WHICH APPELLANT PARTICIPATES, IS NOT APPORTIONED TO ITS
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE.  IF WASHINGTON IS FREE TO EXACT SUCH A
TAX, OTHER STATES TO WHICH THE COMMERCE EXTENDS MAY, WITH EQUAL RIGHT,
LAY A TAX SIMILARLY MEASURED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING WITHIN
THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL LIMITS THE ACTIVITIES THERE WHICH
CONTRIBUTE TO THE SERVICE.  THE PRESENT TAX, THOUGH NOMINALLY LOCAL,
THUS IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SINCE IT IMPOSES UPON IT, MERELY BECAUSE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS BEING DONE, THE RISK OF A MULTIPLE BURDEN TO WHICH LOCAL COMMERCE IS
NOT EXPOSED."    AS WAS LATER STATED IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167, 175, AS RESPECTS TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS OR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, "THE MEASUREMENT
OF A TAX BY GROSS RECEIPTS WHERE IT CANNOT RESULT IN A MULTIPLICATION
OF THE LEVIES IT UPHELD." 

UNDER THAT VIEW THE PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. CASE WOULD BE
DECIDED ONE WAY AND THE PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. CASE THE OTHER.  AS
WE HAVE NOTED, THE TAX IN THE PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. CASE WAS
A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON FARES AND FREIGHT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PERSONS AND GOODS IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  IT WAS
UNAPPORTIONED.  AND THERE WAS THE RISK OF MULTIPLE TAXATION TO WHICH
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION, THOUGH ALSO TAXED, WAS NOT SUBJECTED.  THE SAME
WAS TRUE OF RATTERMAN V. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO., 127 U.S. 411; WESTERN
UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. ALABAMA, 132 U.S. 472; AND MEYER V. WELLS, FARGO
& CO., 223 U.S. 298. 

BUT IN THE PUGET SOUND CASE ANY RISK OF MULTIPLE TAXATION WAS
ABSENT.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE PRESENT CASE.  FOR IN EACH THE
ACTIVITY OF LOADING AND UNLOADING WAS CONFINED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE STATE
THAT IMPOSED THE TAX.  NO OTHER STATE COULD TAX THE SAME ACTIVITY.  FN3
THE TAX THEREFORE IS IN ITS APPLICATION NOTHING MORE THAN A GROSS
RECEIPTS TAX APPORTIONED TO REACH ONLY INCOME DERIVED FROM ACTIVITIES
WITHIN THE TAXING STATE.  THE GROSS RECEIPTS REFLECT VALUES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OR PROPERTY WHOLLY WITHIN THE TAXING
STATE.  UNDER THE TEST OF OUR RECENT DECISIONS (WESTERN LIVE STOCK V.
BUREAU OF REVENUE, SUPRA; ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA; GWIN, WHITE
& PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA), THE TAX WOULD THEREFORE SEEM TO BE
UNOBJECTIONABLE. 

IT IS TRUE, HOWEVER, THAT TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF TRANSPORTATION
COMPANIES AND OTHER INTERSTATE ENTERPRISES WERE HELD INVALID IN CASES
PRIOR TO THE PUGET SOUND CASE, EVEN THOUGH ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES WERE
CONFINED TO THE TAXING STATE AND COULD NOT BE TAXED BY ANY OTHER
STATE.  GALVESTON, HARRISBURG & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217;
NEW JERSEY BELL TEL. CO. V. STATE BOARD, 280 U.S. 338.  CF. FARGO V.
MICHIGAN, 121 U.S. 230.  THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IN THE GALVESTON CASE
WAS THAT A TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS WAS A REGULATION OF COMMERCE, AS
THE PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. CASE HELD.  IT DISTINGUISHED MAINE
V. GRAND TRUNK RY. CO., SUPRA, AND THE OTHER APPORTIONMENT CASES ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY INVOLVED TAXES ON PROPERTY, THE GROSS RECEIPTS BEING
TAKEN AS THE MEASURE OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  THE COURT SAID (210
U.S., P. 227): 

"IT APPEARS SUFFICIENTLY, PERHAPS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, THAT WE
ARE TO LOOK FOR A PRACTICAL RATHER THAN A LOGICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL
DISTINCTION.  THE STATE MUST BE ALLOWED TO TAX THE PROPERTY AND TO TAX
IT AT ITS ACTUAL VALUE AS A GOING CONCERN.  ON THE OTHER HAND THE STATE
CANNOT TAX THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THE TWO NECESSITIES HARDLY ADMIT
OF AN ABSOLUTE LOGICAL RECONCILIATION.  YET THE DISTINCTION IS NOT
WITHOUT SENSE.  WHEN A LEGISLATURE IS TRYING SIMPLY TO VALUE PROPERTY,
IT IS LESS LIKELY TO ATTEMPT TO OR EFFECT INJURIOUS REGULATION THAN
WHEN IT IS AIMING DIRECTLY AT THE RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  A
PRACTICAL LINE CAN BE DRAWN BY TAKING THE WHOLE SCHEME OF TAXATION INTO
ACCOUNT.  THAT MUST BE DONE BY THIS COURT AS BEST IT CAN.  NEITHER THE
STATE COURTS NOR THE LEGISLATURES, BY GIVING THE TAX A PARTICULAR NAME
OR BY THE USE OF SOME FORM OF WORDS, CAN TAKE AWAY OUR DUTY TO CONSIDER
ITS NATURE AND EFFECT.  IF IT BEARS UPON COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES SO
DIRECTLY AS TO AMOUNT TO A REGULATION IN A RELATIVELY IMMEDIATE WAY, IT
WILL NOT BE SAVED BY NAME OR FORM." 

THE GALVESTON CASE, LIKE THE PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. CASE,
INVOLVED A TAX APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES ALONE.  FN4
WHATEVER MAY BE SAID FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX,
APPLICABLE ONLY TO TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES, MAY READILY BECOME THE
INSTRUMENT FOR IMPEDING OR DESTROYING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THAT
CONSIDERATION HAS NO RELEVANCY HERE.  FOR IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IN
THE PUGET SOUND CASE, ALL BUSINESSES ARE TAXED ALIKE.  THERE IS
EQUALITY THROUGHOUT; AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS TAXED NO HEAVIER THAN
LOCAL BUSINESS.  POLITICAL RESTRAINTS, PERHAPS LACKING WHEN A
PARTICULAR TYPE OF BUSINESS IS SINGLED OUT FOR SPECIAL TAXATION, WOULD
NOT BE ABSENT HERE. 

MOREOVER, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TAX ON PROPERTY MEASURED BY GROSS
RECEIPTS AND A TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS DOES NOT APPEAR SIGNIFICANT IN
CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS WHEN THE ISSUE IS ONE OF UNDUE BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  EITHER MIGHT BE AN INSTRUMENT TO THAT END.  THE
APPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS TAX IN MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK RY. CO., SUPRA,
WAS IN TERMS "AN ANNUAL EXCISE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF EXERCISING" THE
CORPORATION'S FRANCHISES IN THE STATE.  142 U.S. P. 219.  THE COURT
STATED, P. 228, "A RESORT TO THOSE RECEIPTS WAS SIMPLY TO ASCERTAIN THE
VALUE OF THE BUSINESS DONE BY THE CORPORATION, AND THUS OBTAIN A GUIDE
TO A REASONABLE CONCLUSION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE EXCISE TAX WHICH
SHOULD BE LEVIED  ..."  AS MUCH CAN BE SAID OF THE PRESENT CASE AND OF
THE PUGET SOUND CASE.  WHILE THE TAX IS IN TERMS ONE ON THE PRIVILEGE
OF DOING BUSINESS, RESORT IS MADE TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS MERELY TO
ASCERTAIN THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS.  NO VICE OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY OR
MULTIPLE TAXATION IS INVOLVED.  THE VALUE TAXED IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
BUSINESS WITHIN THE TAXING STATE AND MAY NOT BE REACHED BY ANY OTHER
STATE.  THAT VALUE IS, OF COURSE, AUGMENTED BY THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER
OF THE BUSINESS.  BUT THE SAME IS TRUE IN ANY APPORTIONMENT CASE. 
GALVESTON, HARRISBURG & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, SUPRA, P. 225; CUDAHY
PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA, PP. 455-456. 

RESPONDENTS PAY OTHER TAXES TO NEW YORK CITY, INCLUDING THE USUAL
PROPERTY TAXES.  BUT SO LONG AS A TAX DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IS FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO THE ACTIVITIES IN THE
TAXING STATE, TAXING THE BUSINESS TWICE IS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES
NO DIFFERENT THAN DOUBLING A SINGLE TAX.  IF THE WHOLE SCHEME OF
TAXATION ADOPTED BY A PARTICULAR STATE WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, IT
MIGHT BE THAT A CASE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COULD BE MADE OUT.  BUT THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS SUCH A
CASE.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE SYSTEM WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED HERE BIDS
FAIR TO BE MORE HARMFUL TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN A SYSTEM DESIGNED
TO RAISE THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE BY THE USE OF A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX
IN LIEU OF PROPERTY TAXES. 

MOREOVER, AS NOTED IN GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA,
P. 438, AND IN ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA, PP. 312-313, THERE HAVE
BEEN OTHER CASES SUSTAINING A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON INTERSTATE
ENTERPRISES WHERE THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX FAIRLY MEASURED THE VALUE OF A
LOCAL PRIVILEGE OR FRANCHISE AND ALL RISK OF MULTIPLE TAXATION WAS
ABSENT.  FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DIST., 145 U.S. 1, UPHELD A
STATE LICENSE TAX IMPOSED UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING A BROKERAGE
BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE AND MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALES
OF MERCHANDISE SHIPPED INTO THE STATE FOR DELIVERY AFTER SALES WERE
MADE.  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, UPHELD A MUNICIPAL
LICENSE TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF A MANUFACTURER WHO WAS PRODUCING
GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE TAX WAS SUSTAINED AS AN EXCISE UPON
THE CONDUCT OF A MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISE.  THOSE TAXES, LIKE PROPERTY
TAXES OR TAXES ON ACTIVITIES CONFINED SOLELY TO THE TAXING STATE (NEW
YORK, LAKE ERIE & W.R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 158 U.S. 431; UTAH POWER &
LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165; COVERDALE V. ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA PIPE
LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604), HAVE NO CUMULATIVE EFFECT CAUSED BY THE
INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS.  THEY ARE APPORTIONED TO THE
ACTIVITIES TAXED, ALL OF WHICH ARE INTRASTATE.  PLAINLY THE LOADING AND
UNLOADING INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE ACTIVITIES AS LOCAL IN
CHARACTER AS THE BROKERAGE ACTIVITIES IN THE FICKLEN CASE OR THE
MANUFACTURING BUSINESS IN THE AMERICAN MFG. CO. CASE.  ONE HAS AS CLOSE
AND AS IMMEDIATE A RELATIONSHIP TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS THE OTHER. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100.  IF ONE GIVES RISE TO A
TAXABLE EVENT FOR WHICH THE STATE MAY EXACT A PORTION OF THE GROSS
RECEIPTS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY THE OTHER DOES NOT.  THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS THE SAME IN EACH. 

IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., SUPRA, P. 52, WE HELD THAT A
SALES TAX ON THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT THE END OF ITS INTERSTATE
JOURNEY WAS NOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM A TAX ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF. 
FOR TAXATION OF THE SALE WAS MERELY TAXATION OF THE EXERCISE OF ONE OF
THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY.  UNLESS FORMAL DOCTRINE IS TO
BE RESTORED TO THIS FIELD, THE LABEL WHICH THE TAX BEARS SHOULD NOT BE
CONTROLLING; AND THE TAX SHOULD BE SUSTAINED UNLESS IT EVINCES
HOSTILITY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN PRACTICAL OPERATION OBSTRUCTS OR
IMPEDES IT. EITHER RESULT MAY OBTAIN WHETHER THE TAX BE CALLED A
PROPERTY TAX OR A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX.  AS MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE
CO., SUPRA, P. 48, STATES: 

"CERTAIN TYPES OF TAX MAY, IF PERMITTED AT ALL, SO READILY BE MADE
THE INSTRUMENT OF IMPEDING OR DESTROYING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS PLAINLY
TO CALL FOR THEIR CONDEMNATION AS FORBIDDEN REGULATIONS.  SUCH ARE THE
TAXES ALREADY NOTED WHICH ARE AIMED AT OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
COMMERCE OR IMPOSE A LEVY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING IT, OR TAX
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR COMMUNICATION OR THEIR GROSS EARNINGS, OR
LEVY AN EXACTION ON MERCHANDISE IN THE COURSE OF ITS INTERSTATE
JOURNEY.  EACH IMPOSES A BURDEN WHICH INTRASTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT
BEAR, AND MERELY BECAUSE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS BEING DONE PLACES IT AT
A DISADVANTAGE IN COMPARISON WITH INTRASTATE BUSINESS OR PROPERTY IN
CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH THAT IF THE ASSERTED POWER TO TAX WERE SUSTAINED,
THE STATES WOULD BE LEFT FREE TO EXERT IT TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
NATIONAL COMMERCE." 

MEASURED BY THAT TEST, THE PRESENT TAX IS NOT INVALID.  "EVEN
INTERSTATE BUSINESS MUST PAY ITS WAY ..."  POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO.
V. RICHMOND, 249 U.S. 252, 259.  A NON-DISCRIMINATORY GROSS RECEIPTS
TAX, APPORTIONED TO LOCAL ACTIVITY IN THE TAXING STATE, IS TO BE JUDGED
BY ITS PRACTICAL EFFECT.  AS WE STATED IN WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO.,
311 U.S. 435, 444: 

"THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A FORMULARY.  IT DOES NOT DEMAND OF STATES
STRICT OBSERVANCE OF RIGID CATEGORIES NOR PRECISION OF TECHNICAL
PHRASING IN THEIR EXERCISE OF THE MOST BASIC POWER OF GOVERNMENT, THAT
OF TAXATION.  FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES THE DECISIVE ISSUE TURNS ON
THE OPERATING INCIDENCE OF A CHALLENGED TAX.  A STATE IS FREE TO PURSUE
ITS OWN FISCAL POLICIES, UNEMBARRASSED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IF BY THE
PRACTICAL OPERATION OF A TAX THE STATE HAS EXERTED ITS POWER IN
RELATION TO OPPORTUNITIES WHICH IT HAS GIVEN, TO PROTECTION WHICH IT
HAS AFFORDED, TO BENEFITS WHICH IT HAS CONFERRED BY THE FACT OF BEING
AN ORDERLY, CIVILIZED SOCIETY." 

ALL LOCAL TAXES ON INTERSTATE BUSINESSES AFFECT TO SOME DEGREE THE
COMMERCE AND INCREASE THE COST OF DOING IT.  MATTERS OF FORM SHOULD NOT
BE DECISIVE IF THE TAX THREATENS NO HARM TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

PRIOR TO MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., SUPRA, IT HAD LONG BEEN
SAID THAT "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CANNOT BE TAXED AT ALL, EVEN THOUGH THE
SAME AMOUNT OF TAX SHOULD BE LAID ON DOMESTIC COMMERCE, OR THAT WHICH
IS CARRIED ON SOLELY WITHIN THE STATE."  ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY
TAXING DIST., 120 U.S. 489, 497.  THAT WAS THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE
PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. CASE.  AND SEE FARGO V. MICHIGAN,
SUPRA, PP. 246-247.  BUT MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., SUPRA, DID
NOT ADHERE TO THAT FORMAL DOCTRINE.  IT FOLLOWED WILOIL CORP. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 169, AND UPHELD A "NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX ON THE
SALE TO A BUYER WITHIN THE TAXING STATE OF A COMMODITY SHIPPED
INTERSTATE IN PERFORMANCE OF THE SALES CONTRACT, NOT UPON THE GROUND
THAT THE DELIVERY WAS NOT A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  BUT
BECAUSE THE TAX WAS NOT A PROHIBITED REGULATION OF, OR BURDEN ON, THAT
COMMERCE."  ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE
CO., 314 U.S. 498, 505.  THE TEST ADOPTED WAS WHETHER THE TAX ON THE
LOCAL ACTIVITY AS A PRACTICAL MATTER WAS BEING USED TO PLACE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE OR OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE IT.  THAT
SHOULD BE THE APPROACH HERE; "THE LOGIC OF WORDS SHOULD YIELD TO THE
LOGIC OF REALITIES."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DISSENTING, DI SANTO V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, 43.  THE FAILURE OF THE COURT TO ADHERE TO
THE PHILOSOPHY OF OUR RECENT CASES CORROBORATES THE IMPRESSION WHICH
SOME OF US HAD THAT FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, MARKED THE END OF
ONE CYCLE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE BEGINNING OF ANOTHER. 

SECOND.  I THINK THE TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSOFAR AS IT REACHES
THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM LOADING AND UNLOADING VESSELS ENGAGED IN
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  SUCH A TAX IS REPUGNANT TO ARTICLE I, SEC. 10,
CLAUSE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO STATE SHALL,
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON
IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR
EXECUTING IT'S INSPECTION LAWS  ..." 

LOADING AND UNLOADING ARE A PART OF "THE EXPORTING PROCESS" WHICH THE
IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE PROTECTS FROM STATE TAXATION.  SEE THAMES & MERSEY
INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 237 U.S. 19, 27.  ACTIVITY WHICH IS A "STEP
IN EXPORTATION" HAS THAT IMMUNITY.  SPALDING & BROS. V. EDWARDS, 262
U.S. 66, 68.  AS THE COURT SAYS, LOADING AND UNLOADING CARGO ARE "A
CONTINUATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION."  INDEED, THE COMMENCEMENT OF
EXPORTATION WOULD OCCUR NO LATER.  SEE RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE
BOARD, 329 U.S. 69.  AND THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX IS AN IMPOST ON AN
EXPORT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE, SINCE THE INCIDENT "WHICH GAVE
RISE TO THE ACCRUAL OF THE TAX WAS A STEP IN THE EXPORT PROCESS." 
RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, SUPRA, P. 84.    AS WE POINTED OUT
IN THAT CASE, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE "THOUGH
COMPLEMENTARY, SERVE DIFFERENT ENDS."  329 U.S. P. 76.  SINCE THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY FORBID ANY TAX, THE COURT HAS BEEN
FREE TO BALANCE LOCAL AND NATIONAL INTERESTS.  TAXES DESIGNED TO MAKE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEAR A FAIR SHARE OF THE COST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FROM WHICH IT RECEIVES BENEFITS HAVE BEEN UPHELD; TAXES WHICH
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH IMPOSE A LEVY FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING IT, OR WHICH PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON IT HAVE BEEN
INVALIDATED.  BUT THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE IS WRITTEN IN TERMS WHICH
ADMIT OF NO EXCEPTION BUT THE SINGLE ONE IT CONTAINS.  ACCORDINGLY A
STATE TAX MIGHT SURVIVE THE TESTS OF VALIDITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
AND FAIL TO SURVIVE THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE.  FOR ME THE PRESENT TAX
IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. 

FN1  PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326;
RATTERMAN V. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO., 127 U.S. 411; WESTERN UNION TEL.
CO. V. ALABAMA, 132 U.S. 472; GALVESTON, HARRISBURG & S.A. RY. CO. V.
TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217; MEYER V. WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298. 

FN2  IN RAILROAD CO. V. MARYLAND, 21 WALL.  456, THE PAYMENT OF A
PERCENTAGE OF GROSS RECEIPTS WAS UPHELD AS A CONDITION OF THE CORPORATE
FRANCHISE. 

FN3  THE COURT SUGGESTS THAT THE FACT THAT SIMILAR STEVEDORING
ACTIVITY WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE DESTINATION CREATES A RISK OF MULTIPLE
TAXATION, SINCE THE STATE OF DESTINATION WOULD BE AS FREE TO TAX THE
UNLOADING AS NEW YORK TO TAX THE LOADING.  THIS IS ONLY MULTIPLE IN THE
SENSE THAT EACH STATE TAXES WHAT OCCURS WITHIN ITS BORDERS; THE TWO
TAXES WOULD NOT BE ON THE SAME ACTIVITY.  IT IS NO MORE RELEVANT THAT
STEVEDORING IS INVOLVED IN BOTH CASES, THAN IS THE FACT THAT TWO STATES
MAY IMPOSE PROPERTY TAXES ON TERMINALS OR TRACKAGE WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE BORDERS. 

FN4  MOREOVER, THE TAX IN THE PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. CASE
WAS RESTRICTED NOT ONLY TO TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES BUT ALSO TO
RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION.  THOSE FACTS WERE EMPHASIZED BY MR.
JUSTICE BRADLEY (122 U.S. PP. 344-345):  "CAN THE TAX IN THIS CASE BE
REGARDED AS AN INCOME TAX?  AND, IF IT CAN, DOES THAT MAKE ANY
DIFFERENCE AS TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY?  WE DO NOT THINK THAT IT CAN
PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS AN INCOME TAX.  IT IS NOT A GENERAL TAX ON THE
INCOMES OF ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE; BUT A SPECIAL TAX ON
TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES.  CONCEDING, HOWEVER, THAT AN INCOME TAX MAY
BE IMPOSED ON CERTAIN CLASSES OF THE COMMUNITY, DISTINGUISHED BY THE
CHARACTER OF THEIR OCCUPATIONS; THIS IS NOT AN INCOME TAX ON THE CLASS
TO WHICH IT REFERS, BUT A TAX ON THEIR RECEIPTS FOR TRANSPORTATION
ONLY.  MANY OF THE COMPANIES INCLUDED IN IT MAY, AND UNDOUBTEDLY DO,
HAVE INCOMES FROM OTHER SOURCES, SUCH AS RENTS OF HOUSES, WHARVES,
STORES, AND WATER-POWER, AND INTEREST ON MONEYED INVESTMENTS.  AS A TAX
ON TRANSPORTATION, WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN FROM THE QUOTATIONS FROM THE
STATE FREIGHT TAX CASE THAT IT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED WHERE THAT
TRANSPORTATION IS AN INGREDIENT OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, EVEN
THOUGH THE LAW IMPOSING THE TAX BE EXPRESSED IN SUCH GENERAL TERMS AS
TO INCLUDE RECEIPTS FROM TRANSPORTATION WHICH ARE PROPERLY TAXABLE.  IT
IS UNNECESSARY, THEREFORE, TO DISCUSS THE QUESTION WHICH WOULD ARISE IF
THE TAX WERE PROPERLY A TAX ON INCOME.  IT IS CLEARLY NOT SUCH, BUT A
TAX ON TRANSPORTATION ONLY."  CF. UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK,
247 U.S. 321, WHICH SUSTAINED AS AGAINST AN INTERSTATE ENTERPRISE A NET
INCOME TAX OF GENERAL APPLICATION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS DISSENT EXCEPT AS TO THE SECOND
PART, AS TO WHICH HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TAX IN RELATION TO THE
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM LOADING AND UNLOADING VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN
COMMERCE IS CONSTITUTIONAL. 
..END :






















AMERICAN STEVEDORES V. PORELLO, 330 U.S. 446 


ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 12, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1947.  - 153 F.2D
605, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, 43 STAT. 1112, WHICH PROVIDES THAT A
"LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES  ...  FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED
STATES," AUTHORIZES A LIBEL AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE
UNITED STATES.  PP. 450-454, 458-460. 

2.  MERE ACCEPTANCE BY AN INJURED LONGSHOREMAN OF COMPENSATION FROM
HIS EMPLOYER PURSUANT TO THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT, 33 U.S.C. SECS. 901-950, WITHOUT AN AWARD BY A DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC. 19, DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE LONGSHOREMAN FROM
THEREAFTER ELECTING TO SUE A THIRD-PARTY TORTFEASOR FOR INJURIES
SUFFERED WHILE WORKING ON A VESSEL.  PP. 454-456. 

3.  A STEVEDORING CONTRACT BEING A MARITIME CONTRACT, AN ADMIRALTY
COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GRANT INDEMNITY UNDER AN INDEMNITY PROVISION
THEREOF.  P. 456. 

4.  A DISTRICT COURT AWARDED INDEMNITY TO THE EXTENT OF HALF OF THE
DAMAGES UNDER AN AMBIGUOUS INDEMNITY PROVISION OF A STEVEDORING
CONTRACT WITHOUT ADMITTING EVIDENCE AS TO THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES
OR MAKING ANY CLEAR FINDING AS TO THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT.  ON
APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE STEVEDORING
CONTRACTOR SHOULD INDEMNIFY THE OWNER COMPLETELY.  ON REVIEW IN THIS
COURT, THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF
THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT, SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT MAY HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF SUCH EVIDENCE AS THERE IS UPON THE INTENTION OF THE
PARTIES.  PP. 457-458. 

AMERICAN STEVEDORES, INC. V. PORELLO ET AL. 

NO. 69.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 514, UNITED STATES V. LAURO, ADMINISTRATRIX, ON
CERTIFICATE FROM THE SAME COURT. 

NO. 69.  A LONGSHOREMAN INJURED WHILE WORKING ON A PUBLIC VESSEL OF
THE UNITED STATES AS AN EMPLOYEE OF A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN LOADING
THE VESSEL UNDER A STEVEDORING CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES FILED A
LIBEL TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 781 ET SEQ. THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED
THE GOVERNMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE LIBEL.  53 F.SUPP.  569.  THE
GOVERNMENT THEN IMPLEADED THE STEVEDORING CONTRACTOR CHARGING IT WITH
FAULT AND SETTING FORTH AN INDEMNITY PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT.  THE
CONTRACTOR ANSWERED THE LIBEL, DENYING FAULT AND ASSERTING AS AN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT, BY ACCEPTING COMPENSATION PAYMENTS UNDER THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT, 33 U.S.C. SECS. 901-950, THE
LONGSHOREMAN HAD LOST HIS RIGHT TO SUE A THIRD-PARTY TORTFEASOR.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE LONGSHOREMAN WAS NOT BARRED FROM
MAINTAINING THE ACTION, AND THAT BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND THE
CONTRACTOR WERE NEGLIGENT, AWARDED DAMAGES FROM THE UNITED STATES, AND
AWARDED THE UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CONTRACTOR AS A JOINT
TORTFEASOR TO THE EXTENT OF HALF THE DAMAGES LESS THE COMPENSATION
PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE LONGSHOREMAN.  ON CROSS APPEALS BY THE UNITED
STATES AND THE CONTRACTOR, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE
CONTRACTOR WAS BOUND BY THE INDEMNITY PROVISION OF THE STEVEDORING
CONTRACT TO MAKE THE UNITED STATES COMPLETELY WHOLE AND AFFIRMED THE
DECREE WITH THAT MODIFICATION.  153 F.2D 605.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 827.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND
REMANDED, P. 458. 

NO. 514.  A DISTRICT COURT AWARDED DAMAGES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 781 ET SEQ., FOR THE DEATH
OF A LONGSHOREMAN RESULTING FROM INJURIES SUSTAINED WHILE WORKING
ABOARD A VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES.  63 F.SUPP.  538.  ON
APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 157 F.2D 416, CERTIFIED TO THIS
COURT A QUESTION WHICH IS ANSWERED AS FOLLOWS: "THE WORD 'DAMAGES' AS
USED IN 46 U.S.C. SEC. 781 INCLUDES DAMAGES UNDER SECS. 130-134 OF THE
DECEDENT ESTATE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RECOVERABLE BY A PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE BECAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A HUMAN BEING."  P. 460. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PORELLO, A LONGSHOREMAN, WAS INJURED ON SEPT. 23, 1942, WHILE WORKING
IN THE HOLD OF THE U.S.S. THOMAS STONE, A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED
STATES.  HIS EMPLOYER, AMERICAN STEVEDORES, INC. (CALLED AMERICAN
HEREINAFTER), WAS ENGAGED IN LOADING THE VESSEL UNDER A STEVEDORING
CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES.  WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE ACCIDENT
WHICH CAUSED THE INJURIES, AMERICAN'S INSURANCE CARRIER, IN COMPLIANCE
WITH SEC. 14 OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT,  FN1  33 U.S.C. SECS. 901-950, AND WITHOUT THE COMPULSION OF AN
AWARD OF COMPENSATION BY A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC. 19, BEGAN
COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO PORELLO, WHO NEGOTIATED THE CHECKS HE
RECEIVED.  IN MARCH OF 1943 PORELLO GAVE NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.
33(A) OF ELECTION TO SUE THE UNITED STATES AS A THIRD-PARTY TORTFEASOR
RATHER THAN TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION.  IN THE SAME MONTH HE FILED A
LIBEL, AMENDED IN NOVEMBER, 1943, TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT OF 1925,  FN2  46 U.S.C. SEC. 781
ET SEQ., FOR THE INJURIES TO HIS PERSON SUSTAINED IN THE ACCIDENT. 
EXCEPTIONS TO THE LIBEL BEING OVERRULED, THE UNITED STATES ANSWERED,
DENYING FAULT ON ITS PART AND CLAIMING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT. 
LATER, BY A PETITION CHARGING AMERICAN WITH FAULT AND SETTING FORTH AN
INDEMNITY PROVISION OF THE STEVEDORING CONTRACT, THE UNITED STATES
IMPLEADED AMERICAN.  FN3  AMERICAN THEN ANSWERED THE LIBEL, DENYING
FAULT AND ASSERTING AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT, BY ACCEPTING
COMPENSATION PAYMENTS, PORELLO HAD LOST HIS RIGHT TO SUE A THIRD-PARTY
TORTFEASOR. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT PORELLO WAS NOT BARRED FROM MAINTAINING
THE ACTION.  AT TRIAL IT APPEARED THAT A BEAM LYING ATHWART A HATCH HAD
FALLEN INTO THE HOLD AND STRUCK PORELLO, CAUSING THE INJURIES
COMPLAINED OF.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS NEGLIGENT IN
NOT PROVIDING A LOCKING DEVICE ON THE END OF THE BEAM, AND HELD THAT
AMERICAN WAS NEGLIGENT THROUGH ITS FOREMAN, WHOSE ORDERS TO THE
OPERATOR OF A CARGO BOOM CAUSED THE BEAM TO BE DISLODGED.  PORELLO WAS
AWARDED DAMAGES FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED STATES TO RECEIVE
CONTRIBUTION FROM AMERICAN AS A JOINT TORTFEASOR TO THE EXTENT OF HALF
THE DAMAGES LESS THE COMPENSATION PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY PORELLO.  ON
CROSS APPEALS BY THE UNITED STATES AND AMERICAN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HELD THAT AMERICAN WAS BOUND BY THE INDEMNITY PROVISION OF THE
STEVEDORING CONTRACT TO MAKE THE UNITED STATES COMPLETELY WHOLE.  WITH
THAT MODIFICATION IT AFFIRMED THE DECREE BELOW.  153 F.2D 605.  THE
IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING IS WHETHER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT
MAKES THE UNITED STATES LIABLE FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL
INJURIES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT THIS QUESTION WAS
DECIDED BY THE CANADIAN AVIATOR CASE,  FN4  BUT SINCE THE ISSUE WAS NOT
SQUARELY POSED IN THAT CASE WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
IT AT THIS TIME.  328 U.S. 827. 

THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT PROVIDES THAT A "LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN
ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES  ...  FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  FN5 PETITIONER
ARGUES THAT THE ACT ONLY PROVIDES A REMEDY FOR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. 
"DAMAGES," HOWEVER, HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN AWARDED BOTH FOR INJURY TO
PROPERTY AND INJURY TO THE PERSON - A FACT TOO WELL-KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN
OVERLOOKED BY THE CONGRESS IN ENACTING THIS STATUTE.  FN6  NOR IS IT
EASY TO CONCEIVE ANY REASON, ABSENT INTENT TO THE CONTRARY, NOT TO HAVE
INSERTED THE WORD "PROPERTY" IN THE STATUTE, AN OBVIOUS METHOD OF
IMPOSING THE LIMITATION FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER HERE CONTENDS. 
PETITIONER NONETHELESS ARGUES THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
STATUTE CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT WAS TO LIMIT
REDRESS TO PROPERTY DAMAGE. 

THE HISTORY OF THE ACT MAY BE BRIEFLY DETAILED.  STARTING IN 1920
VARIOUS BILLS WERE INTRODUCED WHICH PROVIDED FOR LIABILITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO SUIT FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY ITS VESSELS.  FN7 WE NEED ONLY
CONSIDER, HOWEVER, THE BILLS THAT WERE PENDING IN THE 68TH CONGRESS BY
WHICH THE PRESENT ACT WAS PASSED:  H.R. 6989, H.R. 9075 AND H.R. 9535. 
THE FIRST PROVIDED FOR SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES "FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED BY COLLISION BY A PUBLIC VESSEL."  THE SECOND, DESIGNED AS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, AND SUPPORTED BY THE MARITIME
LAW ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES,  FN8  WOULD HAVE AMENDED THAT ACT
SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO VESSELS OPERATED BY THE GOVERNMENT
AS MERCHANT VESSELS, AND WOULD THUS HAVE MADE THE UNITED STATES
UNQUESTIONABLY LIABLE TO SUIT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY PUBLIC
VESSELS.  FN9  THIS BILL NEVER REACHED THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.  THE
THIRD BILL, H.R. 9535, WAS ENACTED AND BECAME THE PRESENT PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT.  ALTHOUGH DESIGNED AS "A SUBSTITUTE FOR H.R. 6989,"  FN10
IT OMITTED THE WORDS "BY COLLISION" WHICH WOULD HAVE LIMITED THE
LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO DAMAGES RESULTING FROM COLLISIONS BY
PUBLIC VESSELS.  THE ONLY DISCUSSION OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO THE PRESENT
INQUIRY RELATED TO THE LAST OF THESE BILLS.  IT IS TRUE, AS PETITIONER
POINTS OUT, THAT THE PROPONENT OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE, MR. UNDERHILL,
SAID, WHEN THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED:  "THE BILL I HAVE INTRODUCED SIMPLY
ALLOWS SUITS IN ADMIRALTY TO BE BROUGHT BY OWNERS OF VESSELS WHOSE
PROPERTY HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY COLLISION OR OTHER FAULT OF GOVERNMENT
VESSELS AND GOVERNMENT AGENTS."  FN11  FURTHER, ON INQUIRY AS TO
WHETHER SUIT COULD BE BROUGHT ONLY WHERE BLAME WAS CHARGED TO THE
GOVERNMENT, HE ANSWERED:  "NOT ENTIRELY; WHERE A MAN'S PROPERTY IS
DAMAGED, HE CAN BRING A SUIT."  FN12  THESE STATEMENTS WERE NOT,
HOWEVER, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WHETHER THE ACT WOULD PROVIDE A REMEDY
FOR INJURY TO THE PERSON AS WELL AS TO PROPERTY, NOR DOES IT APPEAR
THAT THE SPEAKER WAS AT THE TIME ATTENTIVE TO SUCH POSSIBLE
DISTINCTIONS.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE COMMITTEE REPORT SAID THAT "THE
CHIEF PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO GRANT PRIVATE OWNERS OF VESSELS AND OF
MERCHANDISE A RIGHT OF ACTION WHEN THEIR VESSELS OR GOODS HAVE BEEN
DAMAGED AS THE RESULT OF A COLLISION WITH ANY GOVERNMENT-OWNED
VESSEL."  N13  HOWEVER, IN THE SAME REPORT A LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL WAS INCORPORATED, WHICH, WHILE IT WAS ADDRESSED TO THE
PREDECESSOR BILL, H.R. 6989, SERVES, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRADICTION BY
THE REPORT, AS AN INDICATION OF THE COMMITTEE'S OPINION ON THE INTENDED
EFFECT OF THE ACT.  THAT LETTER EXPLICITLY STATED THAT "THE PROPOSED
BILL INTENDS TO GIVE THE SAME RELIEF AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED  ...  BY ITS PUBLIC VESSELS  ...  AS IS NOW GIVEN AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES IN THE OPERATION OF ITS MERCHANT VESSELS, AS PROVIDED BY
THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT OF MARCH 9, 1920."  AS THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT WAS CLEAR, IT MAY BE
INFERRED, AT LEAST AS STRONGLY AS THE OPPOSITE IS IMPLIED BY MR.
UNDERHILL'S REMARKS, THAT THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ACT WOULD
PROVIDE A REMEDY TO PERSONS SUFFERING PERSONAL INJURIES AS WELL AS
PROPERTY DAMAGE.  FN14  MOREOVER, WHEN THE BILL REACHED THE FLOOR OF
THE SENATE THERE WAS NOT THE LEAST INDICATION THAT THE MEMBERS OF THAT
BODY BELIEVED THAT THE ACT LIMITED RELIEF TO OWNERS OF DAMAGED
PROPERTY.  FN15 

THE PASSAGE OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT,
AND THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT  FN16  ATTESTS TO THE GROWING FEELING
OF CONGRESS THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD PUT ASIDE ITS SOVEREIGN ARMOR
IN CASES WHERE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HAVE TORTIOUSLY CAUSED PERSONAL INJURY
OR PROPERTY DAMAGE.  TO HOLD NOW THAT THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT DOES NOT
PROVIDE A REMEDY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES WOULD
IN THE FUTURE ONLY THROW THIS FORM OF MARITIME ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL
TORT CLAIMS ACT; FOR THAT ACT EXCEPTS FROM ITS COVERAGE "ANY CLAIM FOR
WHICH A REMEDY IS PROVIDED BY THE ACT  ...  OF MARCH 3, 1925(THE PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT)(U.S.C., TITLE 46, SECS. 781-790, INCLUSIVE)  ..."  FN17 WE
CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EVINCES A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT ONLY TO PROVIDE A
REMEDY TO THE OWNERS OF DAMAGED PROPERTY. 

THIS DETERMINATION DOES NOT DISPOSE OF ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE
PORELLO CASE.  WHEN IMPLEADED BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE TRIAL COURT,
AMERICAN, THE PETITIONER HERE, PLEADED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT
PORELLO, HAVING ACCEPTED COMPENSATION PAYMENTS FROM AMERICAN, LOST
WHATEVER RIGHT OF ACTION HE HAD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AS A THIRD
PARTY TORTFEASOR.  THE PETITIONER ADMITS THAT SEC. 33(B) OF THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT WAS AMENDED IN 1938 SO THAT MERE ACCEPTANCE OF
COMPENSATION, WITHOUT AN AWARD, DOES NOT OPERATE AS AN ASSIGNMENT TO
THE EMPLOYER OF THE INJURED EMPLOYEE'S CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A THIRD
PARTY TORTFEASOR, A CONCLUSION WHICH COURTS HAD REACHED UNDER THE
FORMER WORDING OF THE ACT.  FN18  BUT IT CONTENDS THAT THE AMENDMENT
DID NO MORE, AND THAT ACCEPTANCE OF COMPENSATION STILL OPERATES AS A
CONCLUSIVE ELECTION NOT TO SUE.  IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT MERE ACCEPTANCE
OF COMPENSATION IS NOT THE KIND OF ELECTION FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE
BY SEC. 33(A) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR NOTICE OF INTENTION TO THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,  FN19  SO THE ARGUMENT IS TECHNICALLY IMPERFECT. 
BUT IN ANY EVENT, ELECTION NOT TO SUE A THIRD PARTY AND ASSIGNMENT OF
THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN.  SURELY THE ACT WAS
NEVER INTENDED AND HAS NEVER BEEN HELD TO PROVIDE THAT AFTER ACCEPTANCE
OF COMPENSATION, AND UNTIL AN AWARD, NEITHER EMPLOYER NOR EMPLOYEE
COULD SUE THE THIRD-PARTY TORTFEASOR.  IF SO HELD, AN EMPLOYER WHO WAS
NOT RESPONSIBLE OVER TO THE THIRD PARTY MIGHT LOSE HIS CHANCE TO RECOUP
COMPENSATION PAYMENTS FROM THE THIRD PARTY, WHILE THE THIRD PARTY MIGHT
ESCAPE ALL LIABILITY.  AMERICAN, IN THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, COULD HAVE PROTECTED ITSELF BY CONTROVERTING THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT
TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION.  FN20  IN THIS WAY IT COULD PROBABLY HAVE
FORCED AN AWARD AND THE CONSEQUENT ASSIGNMENT OF THE RIGHT OF ACTION TO
ITSELF. 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT UNLESS AN EMPLOYER CONTROVERTS THE RIGHT
OF THE EMPLOYEE TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION, HE MUST BEGIN PAYMENTS WITHIN
TWO WEEKS OF THE INJURY.  FN21  THE EMPLOYEE THUS RECEIVES COMPENSATION
PAYMENTS QUITE SOON AFTER HIS INJURY BY FORCE OF THE ACT.  YET THE ACT
DOES NOT PUT A TIME LIMITATION UPON THE PERIOD DURING WHICH AN EMPLOYEE
MUST ELECT TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION OR TO SUE, SAVE THE GENERAL
LIMITATION OF ONE YEAR UPON THE TIME TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. 
FN22  THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO PROVIDE PAYMENTS DURING THE
PERIOD WHILE THE EMPLOYEE IS UNABLE TO EARN, WHEN THEY ARE SORELY
NEEDED, WITHOUT COMPELLING HIM TO GIVE UP HIS RIGHT TO SUE A THIRD
PARTY WHEN HE IS LEAST FIT TO MAKE A JUDGMENT OF ELECTION.  FOR THESE
REASONS WE THINK THAT MERE ACCEPTANCE OF COMPENSATION PAYMENTS DOES NOT
PRECLUDE AN INJURED EMPLOYEE FROM THEREAFTER ELECTING TO SUE A THIRD
PARTY TORTFEASOR.    AMERICAN FURTHER ARGUES THAT THE COURT BELOW, AS
AN ADMIRALTY COURT, DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE INDEMNITY
PROVISION OF THE STEVEDORING CONTRACT, AND THAT THEREFORE THE DECREE
GRANTING FULL INDEMNITY TO THE UNITED STATES FROM AMERICAN WAS BEYOND
ITS POWER.  A STEVEDORING CONTRACT IS MARITIME.  ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO.
V. IMBROVEK, 234 U.S. 52, 62; THE MUSKEGON, 275 F. 348.  AND ALTHOUGH
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OVER CONTRACTS PARTLY MARITIME AND PARTLY NON
MARITIME IN NATURE IS DOUBTFUL, THE CASES RAISING SUCH DOUBTS ARE
CONCERNED ONLY WITH CONTRACTS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF PARTLY NON
MARITIME ACTIVITIES.  SEE THE RICHARD WINSLOW, 71 F. 426; PILLSBURY
FLOUR MILLS CO. V. INTERLAKE S.S. CO., 40 F.2D 439.  TO SEVER A
CONTRACT PROVISION FOR INDEMNITY FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE
PERFORMANCE OF WHOLLY MARITIME ACTIVITIES WOULD ONLY NEEDLESSLY
MULTIPLY LITIGATION.  SUCH A PROVISION IS A NORMAL CLAUSE IN CONTRACTS
TO ACT FOR OTHERS AND NO MORE DETERMINES THE NATURE OF A CONTRACT THAN
DO CONDITIONS ON THE TIME AND PLACE OF PAYMENT. 

WHETHER THE INDEMNITY PROVISION WAS RIGHTLY CONSTRUED BY THE COURT
BELOW IS A MORE DIFFICULT QUESTION.  IT WAS PROVIDED THAT: 

"THE STEVEDORE PERFORMING ANY SERVICE UNDER THIS SCHEDULE SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGE OR INJURY TO PERSONS AND CARGO WHILE
LOADING OR OTHERWISE HANDLING OR STOWING THE SAME, TO ANY SHIP
INCLUDING ITS APPAREL AND EQUIPMENT, WHARVES, DOCKS, LIGHTERS,
ELEVATORS, CARS, AND CAR-FLOATS USED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, THROUGH
THE NEGLIGENCE OR FAULT OF THE STEVEDORE, HIS EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS." 

THE STEVEDORE, AMERICAN, CONTENDS THAT IT IS LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY THE
UNITED STATES ONLY IF DAMAGES RESULTED FROM ITS NEGLIGENCE ALONE. 
RESPONDENT, UNITED STATES, ARGUES AND THE COURT BELOW HELD, THAT SUCH
AN INTERPRETATION WOULD RENDER THE PROVISION MEANINGLESS SINCE THE
UNITED STATES WOULD "BE LIABLE ONLY IF ITSELF AT FAULT" AND THAT THE
CLEAR MEANING OF THE PROVISION IS THAT THE STEVEDORE WOULD BE LIABLE SO
LONG AS THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART THROUGH ITS
NEGLIGENCE. 

AMERICAN, HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT THE CLAUSE MERELY STATED EXISTING
LAW.  ON THIS RECORD WE CANNOT ANSWER THE CONTENTION OF EITHER PARTY. 
AS IT STANDS THE CLAUSE IS AMBIGUOUS.  EVIDENCE MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN
TAKEN AS TO THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES, BUT WAS NOT.  FN23  IT MAY BE
THAT THE PARTIES ONLY MEANT AMERICAN TO INDEMNIFY THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGES SOLELY CAUSED BY
AMERICAN'S NEGLIGENCE.  IT MAY BE THAT THE INTENTION WAS THAT AMERICAN
SHOULD FULLY REIMBURSE THE UNITED STATES FOR ALL DAMAGES CAUSED IN ANY
PART BY AMERICAN'S NEGLIGENCE.  FINALLY, THE PARTIES MAY HAVE INTENDED
THAT AMERICAN, IN CASE OF THE JOINT NEGLIGENCE OF THE PARTIES, SHOULD
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT PROPORTION OF THE DAMAGES WHICH ITS FAULT BORE
TO THE TOTAL FAULT.  ALTHOUGH THE USUAL RULE IN ADMIRALTY, IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONTRACT, IS FOR EACH JOINT TORTFEASOR TO PAY THE INJURED
PARTY A MOIETY OF THE DAMAGES, THE ALABAMA, 92 U.S. 695; THE ATLAS, 93
U.S. 302; BARBARINO V. STANHOPE S.S. CO., 151 F.2D 553, WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THE LAST ALTERNATIVE, THICH PROVIDES FOR A MEASURE OF
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, IS NECESSARILY BEYOND THE INTENT OF THE
PARTIES.  COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT UNKNOWN TO OUR MARITIME LAW. 
THE MAX MORRIS, 137 U.S. 1; THE HENRY S. GROVE, 22 F.2D 444; SEE
ROBINSON ON ADMIRALTY, P. 91.  FROM THE RECORD IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER
THE DISTRICT COURT MADE ANY FINDING AS TO THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT. 
WE BELIEVE ITS INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE LEFT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO
THAT COURT, WHICH SHALL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SUCH EVIDENCE AS THERE IS
UPON THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES.  IF THE DISTRICT COURT INTERPRETS
THE CONTRACT NOT TO APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE COURT WOULD,
OF COURSE, BE FREE TO ADJUDGE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTIES TO THE
CONTRACT UNDER APPLICABLE RULES OF ADMIRALTY LAW. 

WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS TO
PORELLO.  WE REVERSE SO MUCH OF THE DECREE AS AWARDS INDEMNITY TO THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE CONTRACT AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT. 

THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. LAURO, NO. 514, IS HERE ON CERTIFICATE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  THE
CERTIFICATE IS QUOTED IN FULL IN THE NOTE.  FN24  THE ONLY QUESTION
POSED BY THE CASE IS WHETHER A SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR DEATH BY WRONGFUL
ACT WILL LIE UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  IT IS SETTLED THAT WHERE
DEATH "RESULTS FROM A MARITIME TORT COMMITTED ON NAVIGABLE WATERS
WITHIN A STATE WHOSE STATUTES GIVE A RIGHT OF ACTION ON ACCOUNT OF
DEATH" THE ADMIRALTY WILL ENTERTAIN A LIBEL FOR DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY
THOSE TO WHOM THE RIGHT IS GIVEN.  WESTERN FUEL CO. V. GARCIA, 257 U.S.
233, 242.  SEE DISCUSSION IN JUST V. CHAMBERS, 312 U.S. 383, 388-391. 
HERE THE DEATH OCCURRED ON NAVIGABLE WATERS OF NEW YORK, WHICH HAS A
STATUTE GRANTING A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF WRONGFUL
DEATH.  NOR CAN DAMAGES SUFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH BE DISTINGUISHED
FROM DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL INJURIES.  DEATH IS THE SUPREME
PERSONAL INJURY.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE PORELLO CASE WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE WORD "DAMAGES" IN THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, SEC. 1, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 781, MEANS DAMAGES UNDER SECS. 130-134 OF THE NEW YORK
DECEDENT ESTATE LAW.  ACCORDINGLY WE ANSWER THE CERTIFICATE AS FOLLOWS:
THE WORD "DAMAGES" AS USED IN 46 U.S.C. SEC. 781 INCLUDES DAMAGES
UNDER SECS. 130-134 OF THE DECEDENT ESTATE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
RECOVERABLE BY A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE BECAUSE OF THE DEATH OF A
HUMAN BEING. 

FN1  44 STAT. 1424, AS AMENDED BY 52 STAT. 1164. 

FN2  43 STAT. 1112: 

"...  A LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES, OR A PETITION IMPLEADING THE UNITED STATES, FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR COMPENSATION
FOR TOWAGE AND SALVAGE SERVICES, INCLUDING CONTRACT SALVAGE, RENDERED
TO A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES  ..." 

FN3  SEE RULE 56, RULES OF PRACTICE FOR U.S. COURTS IN ADMIRALTY AND
MARITIME JURISDICTION. 

FN4  CANADIAN AVIATOR, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 215. 

FN5  43 STAT. 1112, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 781. 

FN6  IT MIGHT BE NOTED HERE THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
DAMAGE AND DAMAGES.  BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY CAUTIONS THAT THE WORD
"DAMAGE," MEANING "LOSS, INJURY, OR DETERIORATION," IS "TO BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS PLURAL, - 'DAMAGES,' - WHICH MEANS A
COMPENSATION IN MONEY FOR A LOSS OR DAMAGE." 

FN7  H.R. 15977, 66TH CONG., 3D SESS.; H.R. 6256, 67TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; H.R. 6989, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 9075, 68TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; H.R. 9535, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN8  SEE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 9075, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., MAY 21, 1924. 

FN9  46 U.S.C. SECS. 741, 742: 

"NO VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL, IN VIEW OF THE
PROVISION HEREIN MADE FOR A LIBEL IN PERSONAM, BE SUBJECT TO ARREST OR
SEIZURE BY JUDICIAL PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS POSSESSIONS
..." 

"IN CASES WHERE IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED, OR
IF SUCH CARGO WERE PRIVATELY OWNED AND POSSESSED, A PROCEEDING IN
ADMIRALTY COULD BE MAINTAINED AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
ACTION HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, A LIBEL IN PERSONAM MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST ANY CORPORATION MENTIONED IN SECTION 741
OF THIS TITLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, PROVIDED THAT SUCH VESSEL IS
EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL OR IS A TUGBOAT OPERATED BY SUCH
CORPORATION...." 

JOHNSON V. FLEET CORPORATION, 280 U.S. 320; BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S.
CO., 317 U.S. 575. 

FN10  S. REP. NO. 941, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN11  66 CONG. REC. 2087. 

FN12  66 CONG. REC. 2088. 

FN13  S. REP. NO. 941, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 1.  OF COURSE THE
CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS TO PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR THOSE WHO CHIEFLY
URGED THE BILL - THE VESSEL OWNERS.  BUT THE COMMITTEE, IN SO STATING,
CANNOT BE TAKEN TO HAVE MADE THAT PURPOSE THE ONLY ONE.  BY THAT TOKEN
THE PURPOSE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE A REMEDY ONLY FOR COLLISION DAMAGES, A
LIMITATION CLEARLY DISCARDED BY OMITTING THE WORDS "BY COLLISION" FROM
THE ACT.  CANADIAN AVIATOR, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, N. 4. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN15  SO THE ONLY PERTINENT COMMENTS FOLLOW, 66 CONG. REC. 3560: 

"MR. ROBINSON.  I THINK THE SENATOR FROM DELAWARE SHOULD STATE
BRIEFLY TO THE SENATE THE EFFECT OF THE BILL.  IT SEEMS TO BE A MEASURE
OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE. 

"MR. BAYARD.  MR. PRESIDENT, THE SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS IS QUITE
RIGHT; IT IS A MEASURE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE.  THERE ARE CONTINUOUS
APPLICATIONS BEING MADE TO THE CLAIMS COMMITTEE OF BOTH HOUSES FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS TO REIMBURSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUFFERED DAMAGE
FROM MARITIME ACCIDENTS IN WHICH UNITED STATES VESSELS ARE CONCERNED,
TO ENABLE THEM TO PRESENT THEIR SUITS IN THE VARIOUS DISTRICT COURTS. 
IN THIS LAST CONGRESS THERE WERE NEARLY 200 SUCH CLAIM BILLS INTRODUCED
IN THE TWO HOUSES. 

"...  IT WOULD GIVE A PERSON AGGRIEVED BECAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT BY
REASON OF THE SHORTCOMINGS OF A UNITED STATES SHIP THE RIGHT TO GO INTO
A DISTRICT COURT AND PROSECUTE HIS ACTION.  IT PROVIDES FOR THE
APPEARANCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ALL
MARITIME ACCIDENTS OF ANY KIND RESULTING FROM COLLISION, AND SO ON, ARE
TAKEN CARE OF.  A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY WOULD BE SAVED TO THE
GOVERNMENT. 

"INCIDENTALLY, THE BILL WOULD ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING WHICH SHOULD HAVE
BEEN DONE IN THIS COUNTRY A LONG TIME AGO.  IT WOULD GIVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DO JUSTICE WHEN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HAVE COMMITTED AN
OFFENSE AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.... 

"MR. ROBINSON.  IF ENACTED, IT WOULD RELIEVE CONGRESS OF THE
CONSIDERATION OF A GREAT MANY MEASURES IN THE NATURE OF PRIVATE
CLAIMS. 

"MR. BAYARD.  ALL CLAIMS OF THIS NATURE." 

FN16  60 STAT. 812, SECS. 401-424. 

FN17  ID., SEC. 421. 

FN18  THE STATUTE FORMERLY PROVIDED, 44 STAT. 1440: 

"ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH COMPENSATION SHALL OPERATE AS AN ASSIGNMENT TO
THE EMPLOYER OF ALL RIGHT OF THE PERSON ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION TO
RECOVER DAMAGES AGAINST SUCH THIRD PERSON, WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION HAS NOTIFIED THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF HIS
ELECTION." 

UNDER THIS FORM OF THE STATUTE, COURTS HAD HELD THAT ACCEPTANCE OF
COMPENSATION PRECLUDED THE EMPLOYEE FROM SUING A THIRD-PARTY
TORTFEASOR.  SCIORTINO V. DIMON S.S. CORP., 39 F.2D 210, AFF'D 44 F.2D
1019; TOOMEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 123 F.2D 718; THE NAKO MARU, 101
F.2D 716; FREADER V. CITIES SERVICE TRANSP.  CO., 14 F.SUPP.  456. 
CONTRA:  JOHNSEN V. AMERICAN-HAWAIIAN S.S. CO., 98 F.2D 847. 

AS AMENDED THE STATUTE PROVIDES, 52 STAT. 1168: 

"ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH COMPENSATION UNDER AN AWARD IN A COMPENSATION
ORDER FILED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHALL OPERATE AS AN ASSIGNMENT
TO THE EMPLOYER OF ALL RIGHT OF THE PERSON ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION TO
RECOVER DAMAGES AGAINST SUCH THIRD PERSON." 

FN19  33 U.S.C. SEC. 933(A): 

"IF ON ACCOUNT OF A DISABILITY OR DEATH FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS
PAYABLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER THE PERSON ENTITLED TO SUCH COMPENSATION
DETERMINES THAT SOME PERSON OTHER THAN THE EMPLOYER IS LIABLE IN
DAMAGES, HE MAY ELECT, BY GIVING NOTICE TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN
SUCH MANNER AS THE COMMISSION MAY PROVIDE, TO RECEIVE SUCH COMPENSATION
OR TO RECOVER DAMAGES AGAINST SUCH THIRD PERSON." 

FN20  SEE 33 U.S.C. SEC. 914(D) AND (H). 

FN21  33 U.S.C. SEC. 914(B), (E). 

FN22  33 U.S.C. SEC. 913(A). 

FN23  AMERICAN MOVED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR AN ORDER
ALLOWING THE PARTIES TO TAKE PROOF AND TO SUBMIT IT TO THE COURT AS TO
THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES RESPECTING THE INDEMNITY CLAUSE OF THE
CONTRACT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR AN ORDER REMANDING THE PROCEEDING
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER HEARING AS TO THE INTENT AND MEANING
OF THE CLAUSE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED THE MOTION. 

FN24                           "STATEMENT OF FACTS 

"ON MAY 27, 1943, PETER LAURO DIED AS A RESULT OF INJURIES SUFFERED
BY HIM ON MAY 26, 1943, WHILE HE WAS EMPLOYED BY MARRA BROS.,
CONTRACTING STEVEDORES, ON BOARD RESPONDENT'S VESSEL, DESIGNATED AS NO.
596, WHICH VESSEL WAS DOCKED AT PIER 4, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK.  THE
DEATH WAS CAUSED BY PERSONAL INJURIES SUFFERED BY LAURO WHEN HE FELL
FROM A HATCH COVER ON THE VESSEL'S MAIN DECK INTO THE HOLD.  AT THE
TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE VESSEL, NO. 596, WAS OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT, AND HAD BEEN ALLOCATED BY THE RESPONDENT
TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY.  IT WAS BEING LOADED WITH CARGO WHICH WAS
OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND WHICH CONSISTED OF ARMY AND NAVY
PROPERTY AND LEND-LEASE MATERIAL WHICH WAS BEING SHIPPED TO NORTH
AFRICA.  MARRA BROS., THE EMPLOYER OF THE DECEASED, WAS HIRED BY THE
UNITED STATES ARMY TO LOAD THE VESSEL. 

"THEREAFTER, LAURO'S WIDOW FILED A LIBEL IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AGAINST UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO RECOVER DAMAGES UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT OF
1925; 46 U.S.C. SECTION 781, FOR WRONGFULLY CAUSING LAURO'S DEATH.  IN
THIS PROCEEDING THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED A DECREE AWARDING DAMAGES
TO THE LIBELANT IN THE SUM OF $25,000.  FROM THIS DECREE AN APPEAL WAS
TAKEN TO THIS COURT, AND THE CAUSE CAME ON FOR ARGUMENT ON MARCH 12,
1946.  ON THIS APPEAL, THE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE SAID
PUBLIC VESSELS ACT OF 1925 PROVIDED A REMEDY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
FOR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY ONLY, BUT NOT FOR DAMAGE TO A PERSON OR DAMAGE
ARISING BY REASON OF THE DEATH OF A HUMAN BEING.  THE QUESTION THUS
ARISING IS AS FOLLOWS:                               "QUESTION
CERTIFIED 

"DOES THE WORD 'DAMAGES,' AS IT APPEARS IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE OF
THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT OF 1925; 46 U.S.C. SEC. 781: 

'A LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, OR A PETITION IMPLEADING THE UNITED STATES, FOR DAMAGES CAUSED
BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR COMPENSATION FOR
TOWAGE AND SALVAGE SERVICES, INCLUDING CONTRACT SALVAGE, RENDERED TO A
PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES:  PROVIDED, THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION
AROSE AFTER THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 1920' 

MEAN DAMAGES TO PROPERTY ONLY, OR DOES IT MEAN, AS WELL, DAMAGES
UNDER SECTIONS 130 TO 134 OF THE DECEDENT ESTATE LAW OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK RECOVERABLE BY A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE BECAUSE OF THE DEATH
OF A HUMAN BEING?  WHICH QUESTION, ARISING FROM THE FACTS AFORESAID, IS
HEREBY SUBMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

WITHOUT DISREGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE WHICH WE HAVE HERETOFORE
ATTACHED TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, I CANNOT GIVE THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT
FN1  THE SCOPE GIVEN IT BY THE COURT. 

IT CAN HARDLY BE MAINTAINED THAT, IN THE SETTING OF LEGAL HISTORY,
THE PHRASE "DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL" MUST COVER PERSONAL
INJURIES DUE TO FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER WORKING CONDITIONS FOR A
LONGSHOREMAN.  THE PROBLEM FOR CONSTRUCTION IS NOT WHETHER THE TERM
"DAMAGES" MAY BE APPLIED TO MONEY COMPENSATION FOR HURT TO PERSON OR
PROPERTY.  WHAT IS TO BE CONSTRUED IS "DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC
VESSEL."  STANDING BY ITSELF, THAT PHRASE, SPONTANEOUSLY READ, MAY WELL
MEAN DAMAGE INFLICTED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL RATHER THAN "DAMAGES" INCURRED
IN CONNECTION WITH ITS OPERATION.  ALL WE HELD IN CANADIAN AVIATOR,
LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 215, WAS THAT ITS PERSONNEL WAS PART OF
THE PUBLIC VESSEL FOR PURPOSES OF "CAUSING" DAMAGE TO ANOTHER VESSEL. 

THE WORDS DO NOT STAND ALONE.  THEY ARE ILLUMINED BY THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  THIS HISTORY HAS BEEN SO ACCURATELY
SUMMARIZED IN THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF THAT WE SHALL AVAIL OURSELVES OF
IT: 

"ON MAY 29, 1924, MR. UNDERHILL INTRODUCED H.R. 9535, 68TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., WHICH BECAME THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT WITHOUT CHANGE SO FAR AS THE
PRESENT PROVISION IS CONCERNED.  AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE ALREADY
PENDING TWO OTHER BILLS, H.R. 6989 AND H.R. 9075, BOTH OF WHICH WOULD
ALSO HAVE AUTHORIZED SUIT IN CASE OF DAMAGE BY A PUBLIC VESSEL.  H.R.
6989, LIKEWISE INTRODUCED BY MR. UNDERHILL, WAS THE SUCCESSOR OF A
SERIES OF BILLS INTRODUCED AT EACH SESSION OF CONGRESS SINCE 1920.  IT
PROVIDED FOR SUIT 'FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY COLLISION BY A PUBLIC VESSEL,'
AND HAD THE APPROVAL OF ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.  H.R.
9075, A NEW MEASURE, WAS DESIGNED TO REVISE THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT
AND, AT THE SAME TIME, REMOVE ITS EXISTING LIMITATION TO ONLY SUCH
VESSELS AS ARE OPERATED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS MERCHANT VESSELS.  IT
WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN MAKING THE UNITED STATES LIABLE FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES BY ALL PUBLIC VESSELS EXACTLY AS IT WAS ALREADY FOR THOSE BY
ITS MERCHANT VESSELS.  H.R. 9075 HAD THE POWERFUL SUPPORT OF THE
MARITIME LAW ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF JUDGE HOUGH, THEN
THE COUNTRY'S OUTSTANDING ADMIRALTY JUDGE.  IT DID NOT HAVE THE
UNQUALIFIED APPROVAL OF THE INTERESTED DEPARTMENTS, WHICH WERE
INSISTING ON IMPORTANT CHANGES. 

"THE OMISSION OF H.R. 6989 AND ITS PREDECESSORS TO COVER PERSONAL
INJURIES HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CRITICISMS, SOME OF WHICH ARE CITED IN
THE BRIEF OF RESPONDENT PORELLO.  BUT PROTRACTED DELAYS WERE APPARENT
IF AN ATTEMPT WERE MADE TO REWRITE H.R. 9075 SO AS TO MEET THE
OBJECTIONS THERETO.  INSTEAD OF PROCEEDING FURTHER WITH EITHER H.R.
6989 OR H.R. 9075, MR. UNDERHILL, FOR THE COMMITTEE, INTRODUCED H.R.
9535, WHICH, IN PLACE OF LIMITING ITS GRANT OF JURISDICTION TO SUITS
'FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY COLLISION BY A PUBLIC VESSEL,' COVERED ALL SUITS
'FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL.'  THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHANGE IS
NOWHERE DISCUSSED.  MR. UNDERHILL, IN EXPLAINING THE INTENT OF THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION, STATED, HOWEVER (66 CONG. REC. 2087):  'THE BILL
I HAVE INTRODUCED SIMPLY ALLOWS SUITS IN ADMIRALTY TO BE BROUGHT BY
OWNERS OF VESSELS WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY COLLISION OR OTHER
FAULT OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS AND GOVERNMENT AGENTS.'  NEVER AT ANY TIME
IN THE COURSE OF THE DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OR SENATE WAS IT EXPRESSLY
STATED THAT THE BILL EXTENDED TO SUITS FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.  MANY
STATEMENTS IN THE COURSE OF THE DEBATES, SOME OF WHICH ARE CITED IN
PETITIONER'S BRIEF, SEEM TO INDICATE THAT ONLY RELIEF FOR PROPERTY
DAMAGE WAS INTENDED.  WE ACCORDINGLY SUBMIT THAT, IF DECISIVE WEIGHT IS
TO BE GIVEN TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO COVER SUITS FOR PERSONAL INJURY." 

IN SCORES OF CASES IN RECENT YEARS THIS COURT HAS GIVEN "DECISIVE
WEIGHT" TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  IT HAS DONE SO EVEN WHEN THE MERE
WORDS OF AN ENACTMENT CARRIED A CLEAR MEANING.  AN IMPRESSIVE COURSE OF
DECISIONS ENJOINS UPON US NOT TO DISREGARD THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT UNLESS IT IS SO COMPLETELY AT WAR WITH THE TERMS
OF THE STATUTE ITSELF THAT WE MUST DENY ONE OR THE OTHER.  WE CAN FIND
SUCH A CONFLICT ONLY BY READING THE ACT ITSELF WITH DOGMATIC
INHOSPITALITY TO THE USUAL ILLUMINATIONS FROM WITHOUT. 

WE CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION FOR
THIS LIBEL IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN2 

FN1  43 STAT. 1112, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 781:  "THAT A LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN
ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, OR A PETITION
IMPLEADING THE UNITED STATES, FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR COMPENSATION FOR TOWAGE AND SALVAGE
SERVICES, INCLUDING CONTRACT SALVAGE, RENDERED TO A PUBLIC VESSEL OF
THE UNITED STATES: PROVIDED, THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE AFTER THE
6TH DAY OF APRIL, 1920." 

FN2  THIS CONCLUSION IS REINFORCED BY THE REPORT OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE THAT "THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO GRANT PRIVATE
OWNERS OF VESSELS AND OF MERCHANDISE A RIGHT OF ACTION WHEN THEIR
VESSELS OR GOODS HAVE BEEN DAMAGED AS THE RESULT OF A COLLISION WITH
ANY GOVERNMENT-OWNED VESSEL."  S. REP. NO. 941, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
P. 1.  THE COURT'S OPINION FINDS OVERRIDING SIGNIFICANCE IN A LETTER BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMENTING ON THE BILL, IN WHICH HE STATED THAT IT
"INTENDS TO GIVE THE SAME RELIEF AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED  ...  BY ITS PUBLIC VESSELS" AS WAS GIVEN BY THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT.  THAT ACT DID AFFORD THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES.  TO PREFER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S VIEW TO THAT EXPRESSED BY
THOSE IN CHARGE OF A MEASURE WOULD IN ITSELF BE NOT THE NORMAL CHOICE. 
AND THIS LETTER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ANTEDATED THE REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE AND THE STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE UNDERHILL.  COMPARE
UNITED STATES V. DURKEE FAMOUS FOODS, 306 U.S. 68, 71, WHERE THE
COMMITTEE REPORT "STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS SET OUT IN A
LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHICH IT QUOTED."  TO REJECT THE
SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PROPONENTS OF
THE LEGISLATION AND TO ACCEPT THE VIEW OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT NOW DOES NOT EVEN REFER, IS TO DISCARD IN FAVOR OF DIM
REMOTE LIGHT WHAT HERETOFORE HAS BEEN DEEMED CONTROLLING ILLUMINATION. 

..END :





AETNA CASUALTY CO. V. FLOWERS, 330 U.S. 464 


NO. 432.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1947.  - 154
F.2D 881, REVERSED. 


1.  THE ACTION OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN DIRECTING A REMAND TO
A STATE COURT IS REVIEWABLE HERE; AND THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IS
NOT DEFEATED BY THE FACT THAT THE MANDATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HAS ISSUED.  PP. 466-467. 

2. A SUIT FOR DEATH BENEFITS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 UNDER THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW OF TENNESSEE, HELD TO INVOLVE THE SUM OF
$3,000 REQUISITE TO THE JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON THE
GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT UNDER THE
STATE LAW AN AWARD WOULD BE PAYABLE IN INSTALLMENTS AND, BY OPERATION
OF CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT, THE PAYMENTS MIGHT BE TERMINATED BEFORE
TOTALING $3,000.  PP. 467-468. 

3.  SINCE THE OTHER GROUNDS RELIED ON BY THE RESPONDENT TO SUSTAIN
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WERE NOT PASSED UPON BY
THAT COURT NOR ADEQUATELY PRESENTED HERE, THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THOSE QUESTIONS.  P.
468. 

AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. ET AL. V. FLOWERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT'S SUIT AGAINST PETITIONERS IN A STATE COURT, TO RECOVER
DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW OF TENNESSEE, WAS
REMOVED TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR WANT OF
PROPER VENUE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE REQUISITE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WAS NOT INVOLVED AND DIRECTED REMAND TO THE STATE
COURT.  154 F.2D 881.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 699. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 468. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION FOR DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW
OF TENNESSEE (TENN. CODE ANN. 1934, SEC. 6851 ET SEQ.) WAS COMMENCED IN
1945 BY PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF HAWKINS COUNTY,
TENNESSEE.  THE DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS ARE THE FORMER EMPLOYER OF HER
DECEASED HUSBAND AND THE EMPLOYER'S INSURANCE CARRIER.  SERVICE WAS HAD
ON THE INSURANCE CARRIER IN HAWKINS COUNTY, AND ON THE EMPLOYER IN KNOX
COUNTY.  RESPONDENT IS A CITIZEN OF TENNESSEE, THE EMPLOYER IS A NORTH
CAROLINA CORPORATION, AND THE INSURANCE CARRIER IS A CONNECTICUT
CORPORATION.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT'S HUSBAND DIED AS
THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT OCCURRING IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. 
BURIAL EXPENSES PLUS BENEFITS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000, THE MAXIMUM
UNDER THE TENNESSEE STATUTE,  FN1  WERE SOUGHT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
AND HER TWO MINOR CHILDREN, AGED TWELVE AND FIFTEEN. 

ON MAY 28, 1945, PETITIONERS MAILED A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A
PETITION FOR REMOVAL TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY
RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY ON THE MORNING OF MAY 29.  THE PETITION FOR
REMOVAL WAS FILED IN THE CHANCERY COURT THE SAME DAY, AND ON JUNE 5 THE
REMOVAL ORDER ISSUED.  IN THE FEDERAL COURT THE PETITIONERS MOVED FOR
DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND THAT VENUE WAS NOT PROPERLY LAID IN THE HAWKINS
COUNTY COURT, SO THAT UNDER TENNESSEE LAW THAT COURT HAD LACKED
JURISDICTION.  FN2  RESPONDENT SOUGHT A REMAND OF THE CASE TO THE STATE
COURT, CONTENDING THAT THE REQUISITES OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION HAD NOT
BEEN MET EITHER AS TO JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT OR AS TO PROPER NOTICE OF
FILING OF THE REMOVAL PETITION, AND THAT THE SUIT WAS NOT REMOVABLE
BECAUSE NOT ONE OF A CIVIL NATURE IN LAW OR EQUITY.  THE DISTRICT COURT
CONCLUDED THAT HAWKINS COUNTY WAS NOT THE PROPER VENUE.  IT THEREUPON
DISMISSED THE ACTION WITHOUT REACHING THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR A REMAND. 

THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL.  154 F.2D 881.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL MINIMUM OF $3,000 IN
CONTROVERSY (JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 24, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1)) WAS NOT
PRESENT, AND THEREFORE ORDERED THE CASE REMANDED TO THE STATE COURT. 
IN THIS DISPOSITION THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REACHED NEITHER THE
STATE VENUE QUESTION RAISED BY PETITIONERS, NOR RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION
THAT THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE REMOVAL PETITION WAS
LACKING.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN APPARENT CONFLICT WITH
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN V. PINKSTON, 293 U.S. 96, AS TO THE
JURISDICTIONAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. 

FIRST.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A DECISION OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ORDERING REMAND OF A CASE TO A STATE COURT IS NOT REVIEWABLE.  AND IT
IS ALSO SAID THAT WE LACK POWER TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, SINCE THE MANDATE OF THAT COURT HAS ISSUED AND THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE STATE COURT. 

AN ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT REMANDING A CAUSE TO THE STATE COURT
FROM WHENCE IT CAME IS NOT APPEALABLE, AND HENCE MAY NOT BE REVIEWED
EITHER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR HERE.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 28,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 71; KLOEB V. ARMOUR & CO., 311 U.S. 199; METROPOLITAN
CASUALTY INS. CO. V. STEVENS, 312 U.S. 563; UNITED STATES V. RICE, 327
U.S. 742.  BUT NO SUCH LIMITATION AFFECTS OUR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AN
ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, DIRECTING A REMAND TO A STATE
COURT.  GAY V. RUFF, 292 U.S. 25.  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THE MANDATE
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS ISSUED DEFEAT THIS COURT'S
JURISDICTION.  CARR V. ZAJA, 283 U.S. 52, AND CASES CITED. 

SECOND. WE THINK THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT OF $3,000 WAS
INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT.  THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WAS BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE AWARD UNDER THE TENNESSEE
STATUTE.  THE AWARD MAY BE PAID IN INSTALLMENTS AT REGULAR INTERVALS BY
THE EMPLOYER OR BY A TRUSTEE WITH WHOM THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD, REDUCED
TO PRESENT VALUE, HAS BEEN DEPOSITED.  TENN. CODE SEC. 6893.  MOREOVER,
THE DEATH OR REMARRIAGE OF RESPONDENT, PLUS THE DEATH OR ATTAINMENT OF
THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN BY THE CHILDREN, WOULD TERMINATE ALL PAYMENTS. 
TENN. CODE SEC. 6883.  SINCE AN AWARD TO RESPONDENT WOULD BE PAYABLE IN
INSTALLMENTS, AND BY OPERATION OF CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT THE TOTAL
PAYMENTS MIGHT NEVER REACH $3,000, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
CONCLUDED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WAS LACKING. 

IF THIS CASE WERE ONE WHERE JUDGMENT COULD BE ENTERED ONLY FOR THE
INSTALLMENTS DUE AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE SUIT (CF. NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO. V. VIGLAS, 297 U.S. 672, 678), FUTURE INSTALLMENTS COULD NOT
BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WAS
INVOLVED, EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT WOULD BE DETERMINATIVE OF LIABILITY
FOR FUTURE INSTALLMENTS AS THEY ACCRUED.  WRIGHT V. MUTUAL LIFE INS.
CO., 19 F.2D 117, AFF'D.  276 U.S. 602.  CF. BUTTON V. MUTUAL LIFE INS.
CO., 48 F.SUPP.  168.  BUT THIS IS NOT THAT TYPE OF CASE.  FOR THE
TENNESSEE STATUTE WHICH CREATES LIABILITY FOR THE AWARD CONTEMPLATES A
SINGLE ACTION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CLAIMANT'S RIGHT TO BENEFITS AND
A SINGLE JUDGMENT FOR THE AWARD GRANTED.  SEE TENN. CODE SECS. 6880,
6881, 6890, 6891, 6893; SHOCKLEY V. MORRISTOWN PRODUCE & ICE CO., 171
TENN. 591, 106 S.W.2D 562. 

NOR DOES THE FACT THAT IT CANNOT BE KNOWN AS A MATTER OF ABSOLUTE
CERTAINTY THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH MAY ULTIMATELY BE PAID, IF RESPONDENT
PREVAILS, WILL EXCEED $3,000, MEAN THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IS
LACKING.  THIS COURT HAS REJECTED SUCH A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF
THE STATUTE CREATING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION.  IT HAS HELD THAT A
POSSIBILITY THAT PAYMENTS WILL TERMINATE BEFORE THE TOTAL REACHES THE
JURISDICTIONAL MINIMUM IS IMMATERIAL IF THE RIGHT TO ALL THE PAYMENTS
IS IN ISSUE.  BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN V. PINKSTON, SUPRA;
THOMPSON V. THOMPSON, 226 U.S. 551.  FUTURE PAYMENTS ARE NOT IN ANY
PROPER SENSE CONTINGENT, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE DECREASED OR CUT OFF
ALTOGETHER BY THE OPERATION OF CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT.  THOMPSON V.
THOMPSON, SUPRA, P. 560.  AND THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT BY REASON OF
LIFE EXPECTANCY OR LAW OF AVERAGES THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT RECOVERABLE CAN
BE EXPECTED TO FALL BELOW THE JURISDICTIONAL MINIMUM.  CF. BROTHERHOOD
OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN V. PINKSTON, SUPRA, P. 101.  MOREOVER, THE
COMPUTATION OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT RECOVERABLE IS NOT COMPLICATED BY THE
NECESSITY OF DETERMINING THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF RESPONDENT.  FN3  CF.
THOMPSON V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, P. 559; BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN
V. PINKSTON, SUPRA, P. 100. 

THIRD.  RESPONDENT, AS IS HER RIGHT, UNITED STATES V. BALLARD, 322
U.S. 78, 88, AND CASES CITED, SEEKS TO SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON OTHER GROUNDS.  BUT THOSE QUESTIONS WERE
NOT PASSED UPON BY THAT COURT NOR ADEQUATELY PRESENTED HERE.  SO WE
DEEM IT MORE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SO IT MAY CONSIDER THOSE QUESTIONS.  UNITED STATES V. BALLARD,
SUPRA.  REVERSED. 

FN1  DEATH BENEFITS ARE PROVIDED IN THE AMOUNT OF 60% OF THE AVERAGE
WEEKLY WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEE (AS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TENN. CODE
SEC. 6852(C)), BUT PAYMENTS MAY NOT EXCEED $18 PER WEEK, NOR CONTINUE
FOR MORE THAN 400 WEEKS.  SEC. 6880; SEC. 6883(17).  IN ADDITION THERE
IS A CEILING OF $5,000 ON TOTAL BENEFITS EXCLUSIVE OF BURIAL AND
CERTAIN OTHER EXPENSES.  SEC. 6881.  SEE HAYNES V. COLUMBIA PICTURES
CORP., 178 TENN. 648, 162 S.W.2D 383.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT 60%
OF THE AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES FOR THE STATUTORY PERIOD WOULD EXCEED
$5,000. 

FN2  THE CONTENTION WAS THAT PROPER VENUE LAY ONLY IN ROANE COUNTY
WHERE, IT WAS ALLEGED, THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED AND THE BUSINESS OF THE
EMPLOYER IS CONDUCTED.  IT WAS ARGUED THAT SERVICE ON THE INSURER IN
HAWKINS COUNTY DID NOT GIVE THE HAWKINS COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION OF
THE CASE. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.
..END :














CARDILLO V. LIBERTY MUTUAL CO., 330 U.S. 469 


NO. 265.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1947.  - 81 U.S.
APP. D.C. 72, 154 F.2D 529, REVERSED. 


A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS EMPLOYED BY A DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA EMPLOYER, HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED IN THE DISTRICT FOR SIX YEARS,
AND WAS SUBJECT TO ASSIGNMENT TO WORK THERE, BUT HAD BEEN WORKING FOR
OVER THREE YEARS AT QUANTICO, VIRGINIA, AND COMMUTING DAILY BETWEEN
THERE AND HIS HOME IN THE DISTRICT, WHERE HIS WIFE ALSO RESIDED.  AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE'S UNION BOUND THE
EMPLOYER TO FURNISH "TRANSPORTATION  ...  FOR ALL WORK OUTSIDE THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  A FIXED SUM PER DAY WAS AGREED UPON AS
TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE TO QUANTICO AND WAS ADDED TO THE EMPLOYEE'S
PAY.  TRANSPORTATION ACTUALLY WAS PROVIDED DAILY BY COOPERATION OF
EMPLOYEES IN A CAR POOL, IN WHICH THE EMPLOYER ACQUIESCED BUT OVER
WHICH HE EXERCISED NO CONTROL.  THE EMPLOYEE WAS INJURED FATALLY IN
VIRGINIA WHILE DRIVING HIS CAR HOME FROM WORK.  HELD: 

1.  A CLAIM BY THE WIDOW FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF THE
EMPLOYEE WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.  PP. 473-477. 

2.  AS HERE APPLIED, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ACT SATISFIES ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OR FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. 
P. 476. 

3.  UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S
FINDING THAT THE DEATH OF THE EMPLOYEE "AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE
OF EMPLOYMENT" WAS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
LAW; IT WAS THEREFORE CONCLUSIVE AND THE COMPENSATION AWARD MUST BE
SUSTAINED.  PP. 477-485. 

(A)  THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE THAT THE
EMPLOYER HAD AGREED TO FURNISH TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM WORK AND HAD
PAID THE EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTATION IN LIEU OF ACTUALLY SUPPLYING THE
TRANSPORTATION ITSELF, AND THAT THE CASE THEREFORE WAS WITHIN A
RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT INJURIES RECEIVED BY AN
EMPLOYEE WHILE TRAVELING BETWEEN HOME AND WORK DO NOT "ARISE OUT OF AND
IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT," WAS NOT ERRONEOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW. 
PP. 478-480. 

(B)  IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN INJURY SUFFERED BY AN EMPLOYEE WHILE
TRAVELING BETWEEN HOME AND WORK IS ONE "ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT," THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF CONTROL BY THE
EMPLOYER OVER THE ACTS AND MOVEMENTS OF THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE
TRANSPORTATION IS A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED BUT IS NOT DECISIVE.  PP.
480-481. 

CARDILLO, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, V. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

AN EMPLOYER AND ITS INSURANCE CARRIER BROUGHT SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN
ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AWARDING COMPENSATION TO A CLAIMANT
UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 72, 154 F.2D 529.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 698.  REVERSED, P. 485. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ISSUED AN ORDER UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT  FN1  AWARDING COMPENSATION TO THE WIDOW OF
ONE CLARENCE H. TICER.  IT WAS SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT THE INJURY WHICH
LED TO TICER'S DEATH "AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THE
EMPLOYMENT."  THE PROPRIETY AND EFFECT OF THAT FINDING ARE THE MAIN
FOCAL POINTS OF OUR INQUIRY IN THIS CASE. 

PROVIDES IN PART THAT "THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ENTITLED
'LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT,'...  SHALL APPLY
IN RESPECT TO THE INJURY OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE OF AN EMPLOYER
CARRYING ON ANY EMPLOYMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE PLACE WHERE THE INJURY OR DEATH OCCURS."  THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT,  FN2  SEC. 2(2), IN TURN DEFINES THE
TERM "INJURY" TO INCLUDE "ACCIDENTAL INJURY OR DEATH ARISING OUT OF AND
IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, ..."  A FINDING THAT THE INJURY OR DEATH
WAS ONE "ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT" IS THEREFORE
ESSENTIAL TO AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT. 

IN SUPPORT OF HIS ORDER IN THIS CASE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MADE
VARIOUS FINDINGS OF FACT.  THESE MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

TICER AND HIS WIFE WERE RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  HE HAD
BEEN REGULARLY EMPLOYED SINCE ABOUT 1934  FN3  AS AN ELECTRICIAN BY
E.C. ERNST, INC., A CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION WORK
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND SURROUNDING AREAS.  IN NOVEMBER, 1940,
TICER WAS TRANSFERRED BY HIS EMPLOYER FROM A PROJECT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA TO A PROJECT AT THE QUANTICO MARINE BASE AT QUANTICO,
VIRGINIA.  HIS WORK AT THE MARINE BASE CONTINUED FOR OVER THREE YEARS
UNTIL THE TIME OF HIS INJURY IN DECEMBER, 1943. 

THERE WAS IN EFFECT AT ALL TIMES AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ELECTRICAL
WORKERS' UNION AND THE EMPLOYER.  SECTION 15(B) OF THIS AGREEMENT
PROVIDED THAT "TRANSPORTATION AND ANY NECESSARY EXPENSE SUCH AS BOARD
AND LODGING SHALL BE FURNISHED (BY THE EMPLOYER) FOR ALL WORK OUTSIDE
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  THE SUM OF $2 A DAY WAS FIXED BY THE
PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT AS TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE AND REPRESENTED THE
APPROXIMATE COST OF TRAVEL FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THE
QUANTICO MARINE BASE AND RETURN.  THIS SUM WAS PAID TO TICER AND OTHERS
IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR HOURLY RATE OF PAY.  AND IT WAS PAID IN LIEU
OF THE EMPLOYER'S FURNISHING TRANSPORTATION. 

BECAUSE THE JOB SITE AT THE MARINE BASE WAS SEVERAL MILES AWAY FROM
THE QUANTICO BUS OR TRAIN TERMINAL, IT WAS NECESSARY FOR TICER AND HIS
CO-WORKERS TO DRIVE THEIR OWN AUTOMOBILES TO AND FROM WORK.  THE
EMPLOYEES FORMED A CAR POOL.  EACH MORNING THEY STARTED FROM THEIR
RESPECTIVE HOMES IN THEIR OWN AUTOMOBILES AND DROVE TO A DESIGNATED
MEETING PLACE AT ROACHES RUN, VIRGINIA.  FROM THAT POINT THEY WOULD
PROCEED IN ONE CAR TO THE JOB SITE AT THE MARINE BASE.  THIS PROCEDURE
WAS REPEATED IN REVERSE IN THE EVENING.  THE WORKERS ALTERNATED IN THE
USE OF THE CARS BETWEEN ROACHES RUN AND THE JOB SITE.  NON-MEMBERS OF
THE CAR POOL EACH PAID THE CAR OWNER $1 FOR THE ROUND TRIP. 

THE EMPLOYER WAS AWARE OF THE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION BEING USED AND
ACQUIESCED THEREIN.  ON DECEMBER 13, 1943, TICER WAS DRIVING HIS CAR ON
A DIRECT ROUTE FROM HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT TO HIS HOME, FOLLOWING THE
CLOSE OF THE DAY'S WORK.  FOUR CO-WORKERS WERE RIDING WITH HIM, TWO OF
THEM BEING NON-MEMBERS OF THE CAR POOL.  AS THE CAR APPROACHED FORT
BELVOIR, VIRGINIA, A LARGE STONE, WHICH CAME FROM UNDER THE REAR WHEEL
OF A PASSING TRUCK, CRASHED THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD OF THE CAR.  IT
STRUCK TICER'S HEAD, CRUSHING HIS SKULL.  DEATH RESULTED FOUR DAYS
LATER. 

TICER'S WIDOW PRESENTED A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.  AT THE HEARING
BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYER AND THE INSURANCE CARRIER
CONTENDED THAT THE VIRGINIA COMPENSATION COMMISSION HAD SOLE
JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIM AND THAT TICER'S INJURY DID NOT ARISE OUT
OF OR IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RULED
AGAINST THESE CONTENTIONS.  AFTER MAKING THE FOREGOING FINDINGS, HE
ENTERED AN ORDER AWARDING DEATH BENEFITS AND FUNERAL EXPENSES TO THE
CLAIMANT. 

THE EMPLOYER AND THE INSURANCE CARRIER THEN BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN
THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. 
THEY RENEWED THEIR JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION AND ALLEGED A LACK OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT TICER'S INJURY AROSE
OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, HOLDING THAT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S
FINDINGS WERE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND THAT THE
COMPENSATION ORDER WAS IN ALL RESPECTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  ON
APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED, ONE
JUSTICE DISSENTING.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. 72, 154 F.2D 529.  WITHOUT
PASSING UPON THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, THE COURT HELD THAT TICER'S
INJURY HAD NOT ARISEN OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  IT
FELT THAT TICER HAD BECOME ENTIRELY FREE OF HIS EMPLOYER'S CONTROL AT
THE CLOSE OF THE DAY'S WORK AT THE MARINE BASE AND THAT HE HAD
THEREAFTER ASSUMED HIS OWN RISK IN SUBJECTING HIMSELF TO THE HAZARDS OF
THE HIGHWAY.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON A PETITION ALLEGING A CONFLICT
WITH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN VOEHL V. INDEMNITY INS. CO., 288
U.S. 162. 

AS NOTED, THE COURT OF APPEALS DEEMED IT UNNECESSARY TO DISPOSE OF
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE
INSTANT CLAIM.  BUT IN REVIEWING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, IT IS
ORDINARILY PREFERABLE, WHERE THE ISSUE IS RAISED AND WHERE THE RECORD
PERMITS AN ADJUDICATION, FOR A FEDERAL COURT FIRST TO SATISFY ITSELF
THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OR OFFICER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE
MATTER IN DISPUTE.  AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, IT IS NEEDLESS TO REMAND
THIS CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.  THAT ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED AND DETERMINED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, WHO WAS IN TURN SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 
THE FACTS PERTINENT TO THAT ISSUE ARE NOT SERIOUSLY DISPUTED AND THE
MATTER HAS BEEN FULLY BRIEFED AND ARGUED BEFORE US.  A REMAND UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT WARRANTED.  WE ACCORDINGLY TURN TO A
CONSIDERATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. 

WE ARE AIDED HERE, OF COURSE, BY THE PROVISION OF SEC. 20 OF THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT THAT, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THAT ACT, JURISDICTION IS
TO BE "PRESUMED, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY" - A PROVISION WHICH APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE TO PROCEEDINGS
UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ACT.  AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S
FINDINGS AS TO JURISDICTION ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT AND WILL BE
REJECTED ONLY WHERE THERE IS APPARENT ERROR.  DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, 317 U.S. 249, 256-257.  HIS CONCLUSION THAT JURISDICTION EXISTS
IN THIS CASE IS SUPPORTED BOTH BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND BY THE
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM IN
THIS CASE RESTS UPON THE STATEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ACT THAT
IT "SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT TO THE INJURY OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE OF AN
EMPLOYER CARRYING ON ANY EMPLOYMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PLACE WHERE THE INJURY OR DEATH OCCURS; EXCEPT THAT
IN APPLYING SUCH PROVISIONS THE TERM 'EMPLOYER' SHALL BE HELD TO MEAN
EVERY PERSON CARRYING ON ANY EMPLOYMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
AND THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE' SHALL BE HELD TO MEAN EVERY EMPLOYEE OF ANY
SUCH PERSON."  THERE IS NO QUESTION HERE BUT THAT TICER WAS EMPLOYED BY
A DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMPLOYER; THE LATTER HAD ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS
IN THE DISTRICT AND ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK IN THE DISTRICT, AS
WELL AS IN SURROUNDING AREAS.  BUT THE CONTENTION IS MADE THAT, DESPITE
THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, THE ACT APPLIES ONLY WHERE
THE EMPLOYEE, DURING THE WHOLE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, SPENT MORE TIME
WORKING WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAN HE SPENT WORKING OUTSIDE THE
DISTRICT.  USING THAT CRITERION, IT IS SAID THAT THE ACT IS
INAPPLICABLE TO THIS CASE SINCE TICER WAS EMPLOYED ON A CONSTRUCTION
JOB IN VIRGINIA CONTINUOUSLY FOR OVER THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT
AND DID NOTHING WITHIN THE DISTRICT FOR HIS EMPLOYER DURING THAT
PERIOD.  THE IMPLICATION IS THAT ONLY THE VIRGINIA WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAW IS APPLICABLE. 

BUT THE RECORD INDICATES THAT BOTH TICER AND HIS WIFE WERE RESIDENTS
OF THE DISTRICT.  HE HAD BEEN HIRED IN THE DISTRICT BY HIS EMPLOYER IN
1934 AND HAD WORKED ON VARIOUS PROJECTS IN AND AROUND THE DISTRICT FROM
THAT TIME UNTIL 1940, WHEN HE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE QUANTICO MARINE BASE
PROJECT.  WHILE AT THE MARINE BASE, HE WAS UNDER ORDERS FROM THE
DISTRICT AND WAS SUBJECT TO BEING TRANSFERRED AT ANYTIME TO A PROJECT
IN THE DISTRICT.  HIS PAY WAS EITHER CARRIED TO HIM FROM THE DISTRICT
OR WAS GIVEN TO HIM DIRECTLY IN THE DISTRICT.  AND HE COMMUTED DAILY
BETWEEN HIS HOME IN THE DISTRICT AND THE MARINE BASE PROJECT. 

WE HOLD THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION IS WITHOUT MERIT IN LIGHT
OF THESE FACTS.  NOTHING IN THE HISTORY, THE PURPOSE OR THE LANGUAGE OF
THE ACT WARRANTS ANY LIMITATION WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE ITS APPLICATION TO
THIS CASE.  THE ACT IN SO MANY WORDS APPLIES TO EVERY EMPLOYEE OF AN
EMPLOYER CARRYING ON ANY EMPLOYMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
"IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PLACE WHERE THE INJURY OR DEATH OCCURS."  THOSE
WORDS LEAVE NO POSSIBLE ROOM FOR READING IN AN IMPLIED EXCEPTION
EXCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYEES LIKE TICER WHO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS AND
PERSONAL CONNECTIONS IN THE DISTRICT AND WHO ARE INJURED OUTSIDE THE
DISTRICT.  WHETHER THIS LANGUAGE COVERS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MORE REMOTELY
RELATED TO THE DISTRICT IS A MATTER WHICH WE NEED NOT NOW DISCUSS AND
ANY ARGUMENTS BASED UPON SUCH HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS ARE WITHOUT
WEIGHT IN THIS CASE. 

NOR DOES ANY STATUTORY POLICY SUGGEST ITSELF TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED
EXCEPTION.  A PRIME PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO PROVIDE RESIDENTS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WITH A PRACTICAL AND EXPEDITIOUS REMEDY FOR THEIR
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS AND TO PLACE ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EMPLOYERS A
LIMITED AND DETERMINATE LIABILITY.  SEE BRADFORD ELEC.  CO. V. CLAPPER,
286 U.S. 145, 159.  THE DISTRICT IS RELATIVELY QUITE SMALL IN AREA;
MANY EMPLOYERS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN THE DISTRICT ASSIGN SOME
EMPLOYEES TO DO WORK OUTSIDE THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES, ESPECIALLY IN
NEARBY VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND AREAS.  WHEN SUCH EMPLOYEES RESIDE IN THE
DISTRICT AND ARE INJURED WHILE PERFORMING THOSE OUTSIDE ASSIGNMENTS,
THEY COME WITHIN THE INTENT AND DESIGN OF THE STATUTE TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS THOSE WHOSE WORK AND INJURIES OCCUR SOLELY WITHIN THE
DISTRICT.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE DISTRICT'S LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN
PROVIDING ADEQUATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION MEASURES FOR ITS RESIDENTS
DOES NOT TURN ON THE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PLACE OF THEIR WORK
OR INJURY.  NOR DOES IT VARY WITH THE AMOUNT OR PERCENTAGE OF WORK
PERFORMED WITHIN THE DISTRICT.  RATHER IT DEPENDS UPON SOME SUBSTANTIAL
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER
RELATIONSHIP, A CONNECTION WHICH IS PRESENT IN THIS CASE.  SUCH HAS
BEEN THE ESSENCE OF PRIOR HOLDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  B.F.
GOODRICH CO. V. BRITTON, 78 U.S. APP. D.C. 221, 139 F.2D 362; TRAVELERS
INS. CO. V. CARDILLO, 78 U.S. APP. D.C. 392, 141 F.2D 362; TRAVELERS
INS. CO. V. CARDILLO, 78 U.S. APP. D.C. 394, 141 F.2D 364.  AND AS SO
APPLIED, THE STATUTE FULLY SATISFIES ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS OF
DUE PROCESS OR FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 532.  CF. BRADFORD ELEC.  CO.
V. CLAPPER, SUPRA. 

HENCE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAD JURISDICTION UNDER
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ACT TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM BY THE WIDOW OF AN
EMPLOYEE WHO HAD BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT, WHO HAD BEEN EMPLOYED
BY A DISTRICT EMPLOYER AND WHO HAD BEEN SUBJECT TO WORK ASSIGNMENTS IN
THE DISTRICT.  WE ACCORDINGLY TURN TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPRIETY
AND EFFECT OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S FINDING THAT TICER'S INJURY
AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. 

OUR APPROACH TO THAT PROBLEM GROWS OUT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT, AS MADE APPLICABLE BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ACT.  SECTION 19(A) OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT PROVIDES FOR THE FILING
OF A "CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION" AND SPECIFIES THAT "THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER SHALL HAVE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DETERMINE
ALL QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF SUCH CLAIM."  THUS QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER
AN INJURY AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT NECESSARILY FALL
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S AUTHORITY.  SECTION 21(B)
THEN PROVIDES THAT COMPENSATION ORDERS MAY BE SUSPENDED OR SET ASIDE
THROUGH INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS "IF NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."    IN DETERMINING WHETHER A
PARTICULAR INJURY AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MUST NECESSARILY DRAW AN INFERENCE FROM WHAT HE HAS
FOUND TO BE THE BASIC FACTS.  THE PROPRIETY OF THAT INFERENCE, OF
COURSE, IS VITAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED. 
BUT THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THAT INFERENCE IS SHARPLY LIMITED
BY THE FOREGOING STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S INFERENCE THAT
AN INJURY DID OR DID NOT ARISE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT
IS CONCLUSIVE.  NO REVIEWING COURT CAN THEN SET ASIDE THAT INFERENCE
BECAUSE THE OPPOSITE ONE IS THOUGHT TO BE MORE REASONABLE; NOR CAN THE
OPPOSITE INFERENCE BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE COURT BECAUSE OF A BELIEF THAT
THE ONE CHOSEN BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IS FACTUALLY QUESTIONABLE. 
VOEHL V. INDEMNITY INS. CO., SUPRA, 166; DEL VECCHIO V. BOWERS, 296
U.S. 280, 287; SOUTH CHICAGO CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251, 257-258;
PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314 U.S. 244, 246; DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, SUPRA, 256; NORTON V. WARNER CO., 321 U.S. 565, 568-569. 

IT MATTERS NOT THAT THE BASIC FACTS FROM WHICH THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER DRAWS THIS INFERENCE ARE UNDISPUTED RATHER THAN
CONTROVERTED.  SEE BOEHM V. COMMISSIONER, 326 U.S. 287, 293.  IT IS
LIKEWISE IMMATERIAL THAT THE FACTS PERMIT THE DRAWING OF DIVERSE
INFERENCES.  THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ALONE IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF
INITIALLY SELECTING THE INFERENCE WHICH SEEMS MOST REASONABLE AND HIS
CHOICE, IF OTHERWISE SUSTAINABLE, MAY NOT BE DISTURBED BY A REVIEWING
COURT.  DEL VECCHIO V. BOWERS, SUPRA, 287.  MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THE
INFERENCE OF THE TYPE HERE MADE BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INVOLVES AN
APPLICATION OF A BROAD STATUTORY TERM OR PHRASE TO A SPECIFIC SET OF
FACTS GIVES RISE TO NO GREATER SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  LABOR BOARD
V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 131; COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH
AMERICAN CO., 323 U.S. 119, 124; UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION
V. ARAGON, 329 U.S. 143, 153-154.  EVEN IF SUCH AN INFERENCE BE
CONSIDERED MORE LEGAL THAN FACTUAL IN NATURE, THE REVIEWING COURT'S
FUNCTION IS EXHAUSTED WHEN IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE HAS SUBSTANTIAL ROOTS IN THE EVIDENCE AND IS NOT
FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW.  SUCH IS THE RESULT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION
PERMITTING THE SUSPENSION OR SETTING ASIDE OF COMPENSATION ORDERS ONLY
"IF NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW." 

OUR ATTENTION MUST THEREFORE BE CAST UPON THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN THIS CASE THAT TICER'S INJURY AND DEATH DID
ARISE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  IF THERE IS FACTUAL
AND LEGAL SUPPORT FOR THAT CONCLUSION, OUR TASK IS AT AN END. 

A REASONABLE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S ACTION IN THIS
RESPECT IS CLEAR.  THE STATUTORY PHRASE "ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT," WHICH APPEARS IN MOST WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAWS, IS DECEPTIVELY SIMPLE AND LITIGIOUSLY PROLIFIC.  FN4  AS APPLIED
TO INJURIES RECEIVED BY EMPLOYEES WHILE TRAVELING BETWEEN THEIR HOMES
AND THEIR REGULAR PLACES OF WORK, HOWEVER, THIS PHRASE HAS GENERALLY
BEEN CONSTRUED TO PRECLUDE COMPENSATION.  VOEHL V. INDEMNITY INS. CO.,
SUPRA, 169.  SUCH INJURIES ARE SAID NOT TO ARISE OUT OF AND IN THE
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT; RATHER THEY ARISE OUT OF THE ORDINARY HAZARDS OF
THE JOURNEY, HAZARDS WHICH ARE FACED BY ALL TRAVELERS AND WHICH ARE
UNRELATED TO THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS.  BUT CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS
GENERAL RULE HAVE COME TO BE RECOGNIZED.  THESE EXCEPTIONS RELATE TO
SITUATIONS WHERE THE HAZARDS OF THE JOURNEY MAY FAIRLY BE REGARDED AS
THE HAZARDS OF THE SERVICE.  THEY ARE THUS DEPENDENT UPON THE NATURE
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT AND NECESSITATE A
CAREFUL EVALUATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT TERMS. 

UNDER THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, AT LEAST
FOUR EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS:  (1)
WHERE THE EMPLOYMENT REQUIRES THE EMPLOYEE TO TRAVEL ON THE HIGHWAYS;
(2) WHERE THE EMPLOYER CONTRACTS TO AND DOES FURNISH TRANSPORTATION TO
AND FROM WORK; (3) WHERE THE EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO EMERGENCY CALLS, AS
IN THE CASE OF FIREMEN; (4) WHERE THE EMPLOYEE USES THE HIGHWAY TO DO
SOMETHING INCIDENTAL TO HIS EMPLOYMENT, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL
OF THE EMPLOYER.  WARD V. CARDILLO, 77 U.S. APP. D.C. 343, 345, 135
F.2D 260, 262.  SEE ALSO LAKE V. BRIDGEPORT, 102 CONN. 337, 128 A.
782.  IN PERFORMING HIS FUNCTION OF DECIDING WHETHER AN INJURY,
INCURRED WHILE TRAVELING, AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT,
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MUST DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE.  HERE HE DECIDED THAT THE SECOND
EXCEPTION WAS APPLICABLE, THAT TICER'S EMPLOYER HAD CONTRACTED TO
FURNISH TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM WORK AND HAD PAID THE EXPENSE OF
TRANSPORTATION IN LIEU OF ACTUALLY SUPPLYING THE TRANSPORTATION
ITSELF.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT HE WAS WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

THERE ARE NO RIGID LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE EMPLOYER CONTRACTED TO AND DID FURNISH
TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM WORK.  "NO EXACT FORMULA CAN BE LAID DOWN
WHICH WILL AUTOMATICALLY SOLVE EVERY CASE."  CUDAHY PACKING CO. V.
PARRAMORE, 263 U.S. 418, 424; VOEHL V. INDEMNITY INS. CO., SUPRA, 169. 
EACH EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP MUST BE PERUSED TO DISCOVER WHETHER THE
EMPLOYER, BY EXPRESS AGREEMENT OR BY A COURSE OF DEALING, CONTRACTED TO
AND DID FURNISH THIS TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION.  FOR THAT REASON IT WAS
ERROR FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE
EMPLOYER MUST HAVE CONTROL OVER THE ACTS AND MOVEMENTS OF THE EMPLOYEE
DURING THE TRANSPORTATION BEFORE IT CAN BE SAID THAT AN INJURY AROSE
OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.  THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF
CONTROL IS CERTAINLY A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED.  BUT IT IS NOT
DECISIVE.  AN EMPLOYER MAY IN FACT FURNISH TRANSPORTATION FOR HIS
EMPLOYEES WITHOUT ACTUALLY CONTROLLING THEM DURING THE COURSE OF THE
JOURNEY OR AT THE TIME AND PLACE WHERE THE INJURY OCCURS.  WARD V.
CARDILLO, SUPRA.  AND IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE JOURNEY IS IN OTHER
RESPECTS INCIDENTAL TO THE EMPLOYMENT, THE ABSENCE OF CONTROL BY THE
EMPLOYER HAS NOT BEEN HELD TO PRECLUDE A FINDING THAT AN INJURY AROSE
OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.  SEE CUDAHY PACKING CO. V.
PARRAMORE, SUPRA; VOEHL V. INDEMNITY INS. CO., SUPRA.  FN5 

INDEED, TO IMPORT ALL THE COMMON LAW CONCEPTS OF CONTROL AND TO ERECT
THEM AS THE SOLE OR PRIME GUIDE FOR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASES OF
THIS NATURE WOULD BE TO ENCUMBER HIS DUTIES WITH ALL THE TECHNICALITIES
AND UNREALITIES WHICH HAVE MARKED THE USE OF THOSE CONCEPTS IN OTHER
FIELDS.  SEE LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, SUPRA, 120-121, 125;
HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707, 723-725.  THAT WE REFUSE
TO DO.  "THE MODERN DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF INDUSTRY, WITH THE
CONSEQUENT CHANGES IN THE RELATIONS OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, HAVE BEEN
SO PROFOUND IN CHARACTER AND DEGREE AS TO TAKE AWAY, IN LARGE MEASURE,
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DOCTRINES UPON WHICH REST THE COMMON LAW
LIABILITY OF THE MASTER FOR PERSONAL INJURIES TO A SERVANT, LEAVING OF
NECESSITY A FIELD OF DEBATABLE GROUND WHERE A GOOD DEAL MUST BE
CONCEDED IN FAVOR OF FORMS OF LEGISLATION, CALCULATED TO ESTABLISH NEW
BASES OF LIABILITY MORE IN HARMONY WITH THESE CHANGED CONDITIONS." 
CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. PARRAMORE, SUPRA, 423. 

NOR IS THERE ANY OTHER FORMAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH WOULD INVALIDATE
THE CHOICE MADE BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN THIS INSTANCE.  THE FACT
THAT TICER WAS NOT BEING PAID WAGES AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT IS
CLEARLY IMMATERIAL.  CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. PARRAMORE, SUPRA.  FN6  AND
IT IS WITHOUT STATUTORY CONSEQUENCE THAT THE EMPLOYER HERE CARRIED OUT
HIS CONTRACT OBLIGATION TO FURNISH ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION BY PAYING THE
TRAVEL COSTS AND ALLOWING THE EMPLOYEES LIKE TICER TO MAKE THE JOURNEY
BY WHATEVER MEANS THEY SAW FIT.  TO BE SURE, THERE ARE MANY HOLDINGS TO
THE EFFECT THAT, WHERE THE EMPLOYER MERELY PAYS THE COSTS OF
TRANSPORTATION, AN INJURY OCCURRING DURING THE JOURNEY DOES NOT ARISE
OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT; THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE
THAN MERE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS.  FN7  BUT ASSUMING THOSE
HOLDINGS TO BE CORRECT AND ASSUMING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS
IN THIS CASE TO BE JUSTIFIED, THERE IS MORE HERE THAN MERE PAYMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION COSTS.  IT WAS FOUND THAT TICER'S EMPLOYER PAID THE
COSTS AS A MEANS OF CARRYING OUT ITS CONTRACT OBLIGATION TO FURNISH THE
TRANSPORTATION ITSELF.  WHERE THERE IS THAT OBLIGATION, IT BECOMES
IRRELEVANT IN THIS SETTING WHETHER THE EMPLOYER PERFORMS THE OBLIGATION
BY SUPPLYING ITS OWN VEHICLE, HIRING THE VEHICLE OF AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR, MAKING ARRANGEMENTS WITH A COMMON CARRIER, REIMBURSING
EMPLOYEES FOR THE USE OF THEIR OWN VEHICLES, OR REIMBURSING EMPLOYEES
FOR THE COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION BY ANY MEANS THEY DESIRE TO USE.  IN
OTHER WORDS, WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS PROMISED TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION
TO AND FROM WORK, THE COMPENSABILITY OF THE INJURY IS IN NO WAY
DEPENDENT UPON THE METHOD OF TRAVEL WHICH IS EMPLOYED.  FN8  FROM THE
STATUTORY STANDPOINT, THE EMPLOYER IS FREE TO CARRY OUT ITS
TRANSPORTATION OBLIGATION IN ANY WAY THE PARTIES DESIRE; AND THE RIGHTS
OF THE EMPLOYEES TO COMPENSATION ARE UNAFFECTED BY THE CHOICE MADE. 

TURNING TO THE FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S
INFERENCE THAT TICER'S INJURY AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF
EMPLOYMENT, WE FIND AMPLE SUSTAINING EVIDENCE.  TICER'S EMPLOYMENT WAS
GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF A LONG-STANDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN LOCAL UNION
NO. 26, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS (OF WHICH TICER
WAS A MEMBER) AND THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INC. (OF WHICH THE EMPLOYER WAS A MEMBER).  RULE
15(B) OF THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT "TRANSPORTATION AND ANY NECESSARY
EXPENSE SUCH AS BOARD AND LODGING SHALL BE FURNISHED FOR ALL WORK
OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." 

THE EMPLOYER CARRIED OUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS THIS OBLIGATION TO FURNISH
TRANSPORTATION.  ON CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION JOBS IN THE PAST, IT ACTUALLY
FURNISHED A STATION WAGON OR A PASSENGER CAR OF ITS OWN TO TRANSPORT
THE EMPLOYEES.  AT OTHER TIMES, HOWEVER, IT PAID THE EMPLOYEES AN
ALLOWANCE TO COVER THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION IN LIEU OF FURNISHING AN
AUTOMOBILE.  WHERE THE LATTER COURSE WAS FOLLOWED, THE WRITTEN CONTRACT
WAS NOT AMENDED OR CHANGED IN ANY WAY, THE EMPLOYER SIMPLY
COMMUNICATING WITH THE UNION TO ASCERTAIN THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO
DEFRAY THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION.  THE AMOUNT AGREED UPON AFFECTED ALL
CONTRACTORS IN THE INSTITUTE; AND THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION WAS
DETERMINED BEFORE THE CONTRACTORS MADE THEIR RESPECTIVE BIDS. 

ON THE QUANTICO MARINE BASE PROJECT, THE SUM OF $2 PER DAY WAS AGREED
UPON AS THE TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF FURNISHING AN
AUTOMOBILE.  THIS AMOUNT WAS FIXED AFTER INVESTIGATION INTO THE COST OF
TRANSPORTATION BY RAILROAD AND WAS PAID TO EACH EMPLOYEE, IRRESPECTIVE
OF HIS RATE OF PAY, TO COVER THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THE
MARINE BASE.  NO CHANGE WAS MADE IN THE WRITTEN CONTRACT. 

THERE WAS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT THE DISTANT LOCATION OF THE MARINE BASE
PROJECT, THE HOURS OF WORK AND THE INADEQUACY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES ALL COMBINED TO MAKE IT ESSENTIAL, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER,
THAT THE EMPLOYER FURNISH TRANSPORTATION IN SOME MANNER IF EMPLOYEES
WERE TO BE OBTAINED FOR THE JOB.  THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF EMPLOYEES
TRAVELING IN THE SAME CITY BETWEEN HOME AND WORK.  EXTENDED CROSS
COUNTRY TRANSPORTATION WAS NECESSARY.  AND IT WAS TRANSPORTATION OF A
TYPE THAT AN EMPLOYER MIGHT FAIRLY BE EXPECTED TO FURNISH.  SUCH
EVIDENCE ILLUSTRATES THE SETTING IN WHICH THE CONTRACT WAS DRAWN. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FELT, HOWEVER, THAT THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT TO
FURNISH TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT FOLLOWED AND THAT A NEW ORAL CONTRACT TO
PAY TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES WAS SUBSTITUTED IN ITS PLACE.  WE NEED NOT
DECIDE WHETHER THAT VIEW IS JUSTIFIED BY THE RECORD.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT
THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S VIEW
THAT THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS WAS MERELY ONE WAY OF CARRYING
OUT THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT OBLIGATION TO FURNISH THE TRANSPORTATION
ITSELF. 

WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT, UNDER THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT TICER'S
INJURY AND DEATH AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  AND
SINCE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE, THE
RESULTING AWARD OF COMPENSATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF MAY 17, 1928, 45 STAT. 600, D.C. CODE, 1940, SEC. 36
501. 

FN2  ACT OF MARCH 4, 1927, C. 509, 44 STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901
ET SEQ. 

FN3  THERE WAS ONE EXCEPTION.  FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT 6 MONTHS IN 1938
OR 1939 HE WORKED FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. 

FN4  "THE FEW AND SEEMINGLY SIMPLE WORDS 'ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE
COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT' HAVE BEEN THE FRUITFUL (OR FRUITLESS) SOURCE
OF A MASS OF DECISIONS TURNING UPON NICE DISTINCTIONS AND SUPPORTED BY
REFINEMENTS SO SUBTLE AS TO LEAVE THE MIND OF THE READER IN A MAZE OF
CONFUSION.  FROM THEIR NUMBER COUNSEL CAN, IN MOST CASES, CITE WHAT
SEEMS TO BE AN AUTHORITY FOR RESOLVING IN HIS FAVOUR, ON WHICHEVER SIDE
HE MAY BE, THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE."  LORD WRENBURY IN HERBERT V. FOX &
CO. (1916) 1 A.C. 405, 419.  SEE ALSO DODD, ADMINISTRATION OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION (1936), PP. 680-687; HOROVITZ, "MODERN TRENDS IN WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION," 21 IND. L.J. 473, 497-564; HOROVITZ, INJURY AND DEATH
UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS (1944), PP. 93-173; BROWN, "'ARISING
OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT' IN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAWS," 7 WIS. L. REV. 15, 67, 8 WIS. L. REV. 134, 217.    FN5  SEE ALSO
GAGNEBIN V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 140 CAL. APP. 80, 34 P.2D 1052; KEELY V.
METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., 157 PA. SUPER.  63, 41 A.2D 420; MCKINNEY V.
DORLAC, 48 N.M. 149, 146 P.2D 867; EXELBERT V. KLEIN & KAVANAGH, 243
APP. DIV. 839, 278 N.Y.S. 377.    FN6  "NOR IS IT ('IN THE COURSE OF
EMPLOYMENT') LIMITED TO THE TIME FOR WHICH WAGES ARE PAID.  INDEED THE
FACT THAT THE WORKMAN IS PAID WAGES FOR THE TIME WHEN THE ACCIDENT
OCCURS IS OF LITTLE, IF ANY, IMPORTANCE."  BOHLEN, "A PROBLEM IN THE
DRAFTING OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS," 25 HARV. L. REV. 328, 401,
402.  TURNER DAY & WOOLWORTH HANDLE CO. V. PENNINGTON, 250 KY. 433, 63
S.W.2D 490. 

FN7  PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS V. INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSION, 370 ILL. 334, 18 N.E.2D 914; GUENESA V. RALPH V. RULON,
INC., 124 PA. SUPER.  569, 189 A. 524; REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS V.
TERRELL, (TEX. CIVIL APP.) 126 S.W.2D 752; ORSINIE V. TORRANCE, 96
CONN. 352, 113 A. 924; KOWALEK V. NEW YORK CONSOLIDATED R. CO., 229
N.Y. 489, 128 N.E. 888; TALLON V. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., 232
N.Y. 410, 134 N.E. 327; KELLER V. REIS & DONOVAN, INC., 195 APP. DIV.
45, 185 N.Y.S. 741; LEVCHUK V. KRUG CEMENT PRODUCTS CO., 246 MICH. 589,
225 N.W. 559.  SEE ANNOTATIONS IN 20 A.L.R. 319, 49 A.L.R. 454, 63
A.L.R. 469, 87 A.L.R. 250, 100 A.L.R. 1053.  CF. NETHERTON V. COLES,
(1945) 1 ALL E.R. 227. 

FN8  SEE DONOVAN'S CASE, 217 MASS. 76, 104 N.E. 431; BRELAND V.
TRAYLOR ENGINEERING & MFG. CO., 52 CAL. APP.2D 415, 126 P.2D 455;
LEHIGH NAV. COAL CO. V. MCGONNELL, 120 N.J.L. 428, 199 A. 906;
BURCHFIELD V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, 165 WASH. 106, 4 P.2D
858; SWANSON V. LATHAM, 92 CONN. 87, 101 A. 492; CARY V. STATE
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 147 OKLA. 162, 296 P. 385; WILLIAMS V. TRAVELERS
INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN., (LA. APP.) 19 SO.2D 586; TURNER DAY &
WOOLWORTH HANDLE CO. V. PENNINGTON, 250 KY. 433, 63 S.W.2D 490. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT. 
..END :
























PACKARD CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 330 U.S. 485 


NO. 658.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1947.  - 157 F.2D
80, AFFIRMED. 


1.  FOREMEN AND OTHER SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED AS A CLASS TO
THE RIGHTS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND OTHER
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES ASSURED TO EMPLOYEES GENERALLY BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  PP. 488-490. 

(A)  THEY ARE "EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(3).  P. 488. 

(B)  THEY ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE TERM "EMPLOYEES" BY SEC. 2(2)
DEFINING THE TERM "EMPLOYER."  PP. 488-490. 

2.  WHEN A UNION OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES HAS BEEN DULY CERTIFIED BY
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AS A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, THE
ACT REQUIRES THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH IT. P. 490. 

3.  WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, A DETERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD UNDER SEC. 9(B) THAT A CERTAIN UNION IS AN APPROPRIATE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT EXCEED THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY, IS
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND IS NOT SO ARBITRARY OR
UNREASONABLE AS TO BE ILLEGAL, IT CANNOT BE SET ASIDE BY A COURT IN AN
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 10(E).  PP. 491-492. 

4.  ARGUMENTS AS TO THE WISDOM OF PERMITTING FOREMEN TO ORGANIZE
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO CONGRESS, NOT TO THE COURTS.  PP. 490, 493. 

PACKARD MOTOR CAR CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECREED ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH A
UNION OF FOREMEN.  157 F.2D 80.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329
U.S. 707.  AFFIRMED, P. 493. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER FOREMEN ARE ENTITLED
AS A CLASS TO THE RIGHTS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
AND OTHER CONCERTED ACTIVITIES AS ASSURED TO EMPLOYEES GENERALLY BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE CASE GROWS OUT OF CONDITIONS IN THE
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY, AND SO FAR AS THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO THE LEGAL
ISSUES HERE THE FACTS ARE SIMPLE. 

THE PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY EMPLOYS ABOUT 32,000 RANK-AND-FILE
WORKMEN.  SINCE 1937 THEY HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY THE UNITED
AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS.  THESE EMPLOYEES ARE SUPERVISED BY
APPROXIMATELY 1,100 EMPLOYEES OF FOREMAN RANK, CONSISTING OF ABOUT 125
"GENERAL FOREMEN," 643 "FOREMEN," 273 "ASSISTANT FOREMEN," AND 65
"SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT MEN."  EACH GENERAL FOREMAN IS IN CHARGE OF ONE OR
MORE DEPARTMENTS, AND UNDER HIM IN AUTHORITY ARE FOREMEN AND THEIR
ASSISTANT FOREMEN.  SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT MEN ARE DESCRIBED AS "TROUBLE
SHOOTERS." 

THE FUNCTION OF THESE FOREMEN IN GENERAL IS TYPICAL OF THE DUTIES OF
FOREMEN IN MASS-PRODUCTION INDUSTRY GENERALLY.  FOREMEN CARRY THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF PRODUCTION,
SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO THE OVERALL CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE
MANAGEMENT.  HIRING IS DONE BY THE LABOR RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, AS IS
THE DISCHARGING AND LAYING OFF OF EMPLOYEES.  BUT THE FOREMEN ARE
PROVIDED WITH FORMS AND WITH DETAILED LISTS OF PENALTIES TO BE APPLIED
IN CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF DISCIPLINE, AND INITIATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
PROMOTION, DEMOTION AND DISCIPLINE.  ALL SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE REVIEWING PROCEDURE CONCERNING GRIEVANCES PROVIDED IN
THE COLLECTIVELY-BARGAINED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE RANK
AND-FILE UNION. 

THE FOREMEN AS A GROUP ARE HIGHLY PAID AND, UNLIKE THE WORKMEN, ARE
PAID FOR JUSTIFIABLE ABSENCE AND FOR HOLIDAYS, ARE NOT DOCKED IN PAY
WHEN TARDY, RECEIVE LONGER PAID VACATIONS, AND ARE GIVEN SEVERANCE PAY
UPON RELEASE BY THE COMPANY. 

THESE FOREMEN DETERMINED TO ORGANIZE AS A UNIT OF THE FOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, AN UNAFFILIATED ORGANIZATION WHICH REPRESENTS
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES EXCLUSIVELY.  FOLLOWING THE USUAL PROCEDURE,
AFTER THE BOARD HAD DECIDED THAT "ALL GENERAL FOREMEN, FOREMEN,
ASSISTANT FOREMEN, AND SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT MEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY
AT ITS PLANTS IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN, CONSTITUTE A UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR
THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
9(B) OF THE ACT,"  FN1  THE FOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION WAS CERTIFIED AS THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  THE COMPANY ASSERTED THAT FOREMEN WERE NOT
"EMPLOYEES" ENTITLED TO THE ADVANTAGES OF THE LABOR ACT, AND REFUSED TO
BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  AFTER HEARING ON CHARGE OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, THE BOARD ISSUED THE USUAL CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER.  THE
COMPANY RESISTED AND CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF THE ORDER.  THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT BELOW DECREED ITS ENFORCEMENT, 157 F.2D 80, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 707. 

THE ISSUE OF LAW AS TO THE POWER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS SIMPLE AND OUR ONLY
FUNCTION IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IS AUTHORIZED
BY THE STATUTE. 

THE PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS OF THE ACT ARE CONFERRED UPON EMPLOYEES,
AND SEC. 2(3) OF THE ACT, SO FAR AS RELEVANT, PROVIDES "THE TERM
'EMPLOYEE' SHALL INCLUDE ANY EMPLOYEE  ..."  49 STAT. 450.  THE POINT
THAT THESE FOREMEN ARE EMPLOYEES BOTH IN THE MOST TECHNICAL SENSE AT
COMMON LAW AS WELL AS IN COMMON ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERM, IS TOO OBVIOUS
TO BE LABORED.  THE COMPANY, HOWEVER, TURNS TO THE ACT'S DEFINITION OF
EMPLOYER, WHICH IT CONTENDS READS FOREMEN OUT OF THE EMPLOYEE CLASS AND
INTO THE CLASS OF EMPLOYERS.  SECTION 2(2) READS:  "THE TERM 'EMPLOYER'
INCLUDES ANY PERSON ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYER, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY  ..."  49 STAT. 450.  THE CONTEXT OF THE ACT, WE THINK,
LEAVES NO ROOM FOR A CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SECTION TO DENY THE
ORGANIZATIONAL PRIVILEGE TO EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY ACT IN THE INTEREST
OF AN EMPLOYER.  EVERY EMPLOYEE, FROM THE VERY FACT OF EMPLOYMENT IN
THE MASTER'S BUSINESS, IS REQUIRED TO ACT IN HIS INTEREST.  HE OWES TO
THE EMPLOYER FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF SERVICE IN HIS INTEREST, THE
PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY IN HIS CUSTODY OR CONTROL, AND
ALL EMPLOYEES MAY, AS TO THIRD PARTIES, ACT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE
EMPLOYER TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT HE IS LIABLE FOR THEIR WRONGFUL ACTS. 
A FAMILIAR EXAMPLE WOULD BE THAT OF A TRUCK DRIVER FOR WHOSE NEGLIGENCE
THE COMPANY MIGHT HAVE TO ANSWER. 

THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 2(2) SEEMS OBVIOUSLY TO RENDER EMPLOYERS
RESPONSIBLE IN LABOR PRACTICES FOR ACTS OF ANY PERSONS PERFORMED IN
THEIR INTERESTS.  IT IS AN ADAPTATION OF THE ANCIENT MAXIM OF THE
COMMON LAW, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, BY WHICH A PRINCIPAL IS MADE LIABLE
FOR THE TORTIOUS ACTS OF HIS AGENT AND THE MASTER FOR THE WRONGFUL ACTS
OF HIS SERVANTS.  EVEN WITHOUT SPECIAL STATUTORY PROVISION, THE RULE
WOULD APPLY TO MANY RELATIONS.  BUT CONGRESS WAS CREATING A NEW CLASS
OF WRONGFUL ACTS TO BE KNOWN AS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, AND IT COULD
NOT BE CERTAIN THAT THE COURTS WOULD APPLY THE TORT RULE OF RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR TO THOSE DERELICTIONS.  EVEN IF IT DID, THE PROBLEM OF PROOF
AS APPLIED TO THIS KIND OF WRONGS MIGHT EASILY BE COMPLICATED BY
QUESTIONS AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE ACTOR'S AUTHORITY AND OF VARIANCE
BETWEEN HIS APPARENT AND HIS REAL AUTHORITY.  HENCE, IT WAS PROVIDED
THAT IN ADMINISTERING THIS ACT THE EMPLOYER, FOR ITS PURPOSES, SHOULD
BE NOT MERELY THE INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION WHICH WAS THE EMPLOYING
ENTITY, BUT ALSO OTHERS, WHETHER EMPLOYEE OR NOT, WHO ARE "ACTING IN
THE INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYER." 

EVEN THOSE WHO ACT FOR THE EMPLOYER IN SOME MATTERS, INCLUDING THE
SERVICE OF STANDING BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND MANUAL LABOR, STILL HAVE
INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN AS EMPLOYEES.  THOUGH THE FOREMAN IS THE
FAITHFUL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYER IN MAINTAINING A PRODUCTION
SCHEDULE, HIS INTEREST PROPERLY MAY BE ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE EMPLOYER
WHEN IT COMES TO FIXING HIS OWN WAGES, HOURS, SENIORITY RIGHTS OR
WORKING CONDITIONS.  HE DOES NOT LOSE HIS RIGHT TO SERVE HIMSELF IN
THESE RESPECTS BECAUSE HE SERVES HIS MASTER IN OTHERS.  AND WE SEE NO
BASIS IN THIS ACT WHATEVER FOR HOLDING THAT FOREMEN ARE FORBIDDEN THE
PROTECTION OF THE ACT WHEN THEY TAKE COLLECTIVE ACTION TO PROTECT THEIR
COLLECTIVE INTERESTS. 

THE COMPANY'S ARGUMENT IS REALLY ADDRESSED TO THE UNDESIRABILITY OF
PERMITTING FOREMEN TO ORGANIZE.  IT WANTS SELFLESS REPRESENTATIVES OF
ITS INTEREST.  IT FEARS THAT IF FOREMEN COMBINE TO BARGAIN ADVANTAGES
FOR THEMSELVES, THEY WILL SOMETIMES BE GOVERNED BY INTERESTS OF THEIR
OWN OR OF THEIR FELLOW FOREMEN, RATHER THAN BY THE COMPANY'S INTEREST. 
THERE IS NOTHING NEW IN THIS ARGUMENT.  IT IS ROOTED IN THE
MISCONCEPTION THAT BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER HAS THE RIGHT TO WHOLEHEARTED
LOYALTY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, THE EMPLOYEE
DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT HIS INDEPENDENT AND ADVERSE INTEREST
IN THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF AND THE CONDITIONS OF WORK.  BUT
THE EFFECT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS OTHERWISE, AND IT IS
FOR CONGRESS, NOT FOR US, TO CREATE EXCEPTIONS OR QUALIFICATIONS AT
ODDS WITH ITS PLAIN TERMS. 

MOREOVER, THE COMPANY CONCEDES THAT FOREMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO
ORGANIZE.  WHAT IT DENIES IS THAT THE STATUTE COMPELS IT TO RECOGNIZE
THE UNION.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT WANTS TO BE FREE TO FIGHT THE FOREMEN'S
UNION IN THE WAY THAT COMPANIES FOUGHT OTHER UNIONS BEFORE THE LABOR
ACT.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT WHICH INDICATES THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO DENY ITS BENEFITS TO FOREMEN AS EMPLOYEES, IF THEY CHOOSE
TO BELIEVE THAT THEIR INTERESTS AS EMPLOYEES WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY
ORGANIZATION THAN BY INDIVIDUAL COMPETITION.  FN2  N.L.R.B. V. SKINNER
& KENNEDY STATIONERY CO., 113 F.2D 667; SEE N.L.R.B. V. ARMOUR & CO.,
154 F.2D 570, 574. 

THERE IS NO MORE REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT THE LAW PROHIBITS FOREMEN AS
A CLASS FROM CONSTITUTING AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT THAN THERE IS
FOR CONCLUDING THAT THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THE ACT AT ALL.  SECTION 9(B)
OF THE ACT CONFERS UPON THE BOARD A BROAD DISCRETION TO DETERMINE
APPROPRIATE UNITS.  IT READS, "THE BOARD SHALL DECIDE IN EACH CASE
WHETHER, IN ORDER TO INSURE TO EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND OTHERWISE
TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT, THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SHALL BE THE EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT
UNIT, PLANT UNIT, OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF."  49 STAT. 453.  OUR POWER OF
REVIEW ALSO IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE PROVISION THAT FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE. 
SEC. 10(E), 49 STAT. 454.  SO WE HAVE POWER ONLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BOARD, OR ITS ORDER
OVERSTEPS THE LAW.  N.L.R.B. V. LINK-BELT CO., 311 U.S. 584; PITTSBURGH
PLATE GLASS CO. V. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146. 

THERE IS CLEARLY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DETERMINATION
THAT FOREMEN ARE AN APPROPRIATE UNIT BY THEMSELVES AND THERE IS EQUAL
EVIDENCE THAT, WHILE THE FOREMEN INCLUDED IN THIS UNIT HAVE DIFFERENT
DEGREES OF RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF AUTHORITY,
THEY HAVE SUCH A COMMON RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENTERPRISE AND TO OTHER
LEVELS OF WORKMEN THAT INCLUSION OF ALL SUCH GRADES OF FOREMEN IN A
SINGLE UNIT IS APPROPRIATE.  HENCE THE ORDER INSOFAR AS IT DEPENDS ON
FACTS IS BEYOND OUR POWER OF REVIEW.  THE ISSUE AS TO WHAT UNIT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR BARGAINING IS ONE FOR WHICH NO ABSOLUTE RULE OF LAW IS
LAID DOWN BY STATUTE, AND NONE SHOULD BE BY DECISION.  IT INVOLVES OF
NECESSITY A LARGE MEASURE OF INFORMED DISCRETION, AND THE DECISION OF
THE BOARD, IF NOT FINAL, IS RARELY TO BE DISTURBED.  WHILE WE DO NOT
SAY THAT A DETERMINATION OF A UNIT OF REPRESENTATION CANNOT BE SO
UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY AS TO EXCEED THE BOARD'S POWER, WE ARE CLEAR
THAT THE DECISION IN QUESTION DOES NOT DO SO.  THAT SETTLED, OUR POWER
IS AT AN END. 

WE ARE INVITED TO MAKE A LENGTHY EXAMINATION OF VIEWS EXPRESSED IN
CONGRESS WHILE THIS AND LATER LEGISLATION WAS PENDING TO SHOW THAT
EXCLUSION OF FOREMEN WAS INTENDED.  THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO AMBIGUITY IN
THIS ACT TO BE CLARIFIED BY RESORT TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, EITHER OF
THE ACT ITSELF OR OF SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS WHICH FAILED TO
BECOME LAW. 

COUNSEL ALSO WOULD PERSUADE US TO MAKE A CONTRARY INTERPRETATION BY
CITING A LONG RECORD OF INACTION, VACILLATION AND DIVISION OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN APPLYING THIS ACT TO FOREMEN.  IF WE
WERE OBLIGED TO DEPEND UPON ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION FOR LIGHT IN
FINDING THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE BOARD'S
DECISIONS WOULD LEAVE US IN THE DARK.  FN3  BUT THERE ARE DIFFICULT
QUESTIONS OF POLICY INVOLVED IN THESE CASES WHICH, TOGETHER WITH
CHANGES IN BOARD MEMBERSHIP, ACCOUNT FOR THE CONTRADICTORY VIEWS THAT
CHARACTERIZE THEIR HISTORY IN THE BOARD.  WHATEVER SPECIAL QUESTIONS
THERE ARE IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT FOR FOREMEN
ARE FOR THE BOARD, AND THE HISTORY OF THE ISSUE IN THE BOARD SHOWS THE
DIFFICULTY OF THE PROBLEM COMMITTED TO ITS DISCRETION.  WE ARE NOT AT
LIBERTY TO BE GOVERNED BY THOSE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IN DECIDING THE
NAKED QUESTION OF LAW WHETHER THE BOARD IS NOW, IN THIS CASE, ACTING
WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE. 

IT IS ALSO URGED UPON US MOST SERIOUSLY THAT UNIONIZATION OF FOREMEN
IS FROM MANY POINTS BAD INDUSTRIAL POLICY, THAT IT PUTS THE UNION
FOREMAN IN THE POSITION OF SERVING TWO MASTERS, DIVIDES HIS LOYALTY AND
MAKES GENERALLY FOR BAD RELATIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND LABOR. 
HOWEVER WE MIGHT APPRAISE THE FORCE OF THESE ARGUMENTS AS A POLICY
MATTER, WE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO BASE DECISION OF A QUESTION OF LAW
UPON THEM.  THEY CONCERN THE WISDOM OF THE LEGISLATION; THEY CANNOT
ALTER THE MEANING OF OTHERWISE PLAIN PROVISIONS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF ENFORCEMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  61 N.L.R.B. 4, 26. 

FN2  IF A UNION OF VICE PRESIDENTS, PRESIDENTS OR OTHERS OF LIKE
RELATIONSHIP TO A CORPORATION COMES HERE CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER THIS
ACT, IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH THEN TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS AND RELEVANT
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 1,100 FOREMEN OF THIS COMPANY AND CORPORATE
OFFICERS ELECTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 

FN3  THE BOARD HAD HELD THAT SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES MAY ORGANIZE IN AN
INDEPENDENT UNION, UNION COLLIERIES COAL CO., 41 N.L.R.B. 961, 44
N.L.R.B. 165; AND IN AN AFFILIATED UNION, GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC., 44
N.L.R.B. 874.  THEN IT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO UNIT APPROPRIATE TO THE
ORGANIZATION OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES.  MARYLAND DRYDOCK CO., 49
N.L.R.B. 733; BOEING AIRCRAFT CO., 51 N.L.R.B. 67; MURRAY CORP. OF
AMERICA, 51 N.L.R.B. 94; GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 51 N.L.R.B. 457.  IN
THIS CASE, 61 N.L.R.B. 4, 64 N.L.R.B. 1212; IN L.A. YOUNG SPRING & WIRE
CORP., 65 N.L.R.B. 298; JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 66 N.L.R.B. 386,
71 N.L.R.B. 1261; AND IN CALIFORNIA PACKING CORP., 66 N.L.R.B. 1461,
THE BOARD RE-EMBRACED ITS EARLIER CONCLUSIONS WITH THE SAME PROGRESSIVE
BOLDNESS IT HAD SHOWN IN THE UNION COLLIERIES AND GODCHAUX SUGARS
CASES.  IN NONE OF THIS SERIES OF CASES DID THE BOARD HOLD THAT
SUPERVISORS WERE NOT EMPLOYEES.  SEE SOSS MANUFACTURING CO., 56
N.L.R.B. 348.    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCUR, DISSENTING.    FIRST.  OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, WHILE STILL A PRIVATE CITIZEN, SAW THE NEED FOR
NARROWING THE GAP BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND LABOR, FOR ALLOWING LABOR
GREATER PARTICIPATION IN POLICY DECISIONS, FOR DEVELOPING AN INDUSTRIAL
SYSTEM IN WHICH COOPERATION RATHER THAN COERCION WAS THE DOMINANT
CHARACTERISTIC.  FN1  IN HIS VIEW, THESE WERE MEASURES OF THERAPEUTIC
VALUE IN DEALING WITH PROBLEMS OF INDUSTRIAL UNREST OR INEFFICIENCY. 

THE PRESENT DECISION MAY BE A STEP IN THAT DIRECTION.  IT AT LEAST
TENDS TO OBLITERATE THE LINE BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND LABOR.  IT LENDS
THE SANCTIONS OF FEDERAL LAW TO UNIONIZATION AT ALL LEVELS OF THE
INDUSTRIAL HIERARCHY.  IT TENDS TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE BASIC OPPOSING
FORCES IN INDUSTRY ARE NOT MANAGEMENT AND LABOR BUT THE OPERATING GROUP
ON THE ONE HAND AND THE STOCKHOLDER AND BONDHOLDER GROUP ON THE OTHER. 
THE INDUSTRIAL PROBLEM AS SO DEFINED COMES DOWN TO A CONTEST OVER A
FAIR DIVISION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF INDUSTRY BETWEEN THESE TWO
GROUPS.  THE STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OR POWER BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND LABOR
BECOMES SECONDARY TO A GROWING UNITY IN THEIR COMMON DEMANDS ON
OWNERSHIP. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS AN EXAGGERATED STATEMENT OF THE BASIC POLICY
QUESTIONS WHICH UNDERLIE THE PRESENT DECISION.  FOR IF FOREMEN ARE
"EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SO
ARE VICE-PRESIDENTS, MANAGERS, ASSISTANT MANAGERS, SUPERINTENDENTS,
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS - INDEED, ALL WHO ARE ON THE PAYROLL OF THE
COMPANY, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT; ALL WHO ARE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS
THE MANAGEMENT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DIRECTORS.  IF A UNION OF
VICE-PRESIDENTS APPLIED FOR RECOGNITION AS A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGENCY, I DO NOT SEE HOW WE COULD DENY IT AND YET ALLOW THE PRESENT
APPLICATION.  BUT ONCE VICE-PRESIDENTS, MANAGERS, SUPERINTENDENTS,
FOREMEN ALL ARE UNIONIZED, MANAGEMENT AND LABOR WILL BECOME MORE OF A
SOLID PHALANX THAN SEPARATE FACTIONS IN WARRING CAMPS.  INDEED, THE
THOUGHT OF SOME LABOR LEADERS THAT IF THOSE IN THE HIERARCHY ABOVE THE
WORKERS ARE UNIONIZED, THEY WILL BE MORE SYMPATHETIC WITH THE CLAIMS OF
THOSE BELOW THEM, IS A MANIFESTATION OF THE SAME IDEA.  FN2 

I MENTION THESE MATTERS TO INDICATE WHAT TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT
POLICY QUESTIONS ARE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT DECISION.  MY PURPOSE IS
TO SUGGEST THAT IF CONGRESS, WHEN IT ENACTED THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, HAD IN MIND SUCH A BASIC CHANGE IN INDUSTRIAL
PHILOSOPHY, IT WOULD HAVE LEFT SOME CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE TRACE OF
THAT PURPOSE.  BUT I FIND NONE. 

SECOND.  "EMPLOYEE" IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE "ANY" EMPLOYEE.  SEC. 2(3),
49 STAT. 449, 450, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 152.  IF WE STOP THERE, FOREMEN ARE
INCLUDED AS ARE ALL EMPLOYEES FROM THE PRESIDENT ON DOWN.  BUT WE ARE
NOT WARRANTED IN STOPPING THERE.  THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" MUST BE
CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ACT.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 124; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 191.  WHEN IT IS SO
CONSIDERED IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE USED IN AN ALL-EMBRACING SENSE. 
RATHER, IT IS USED IN OPPOSITION TO THE TERM "EMPLOYER."  AN "EMPLOYER"
IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE "ANY PERSON ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF AN
EMPLOYER."  SEC. 2(2).  THE TERM "EMPLOYER" THUS INCLUDES SOME
EMPLOYEES.  AND I FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT ONE PERSONNEL GROUP MAY BE BOTH
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  RATHER, THE ACT
ON ITS FACE SEEMS TO CLASSIFY THE OPERATING GROUP OF INDUSTRY INTO TWO
CLASSES; WHAT IS INCLUDED IN ONE GROUP IS EXCLUDED FROM THE OTHER. 

IT IS NOT AN ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE TWO STATUTORY GROUPS ARE NOT
EXCLUSIVE BECAUSE EVERY "EMPLOYEE" WHILE ON DUTY - WHETHER DRIVING A
TRUCK OR STOKING A FURNACE OR OPERATING A LATHE - IS "ACTING IN THE
INTEREST" OF HIS EMPLOYER AND IS THEN AN "EMPLOYER" IN THE STATUTORY
SENSE.  THE ACT WAS NOT DECLARING A POLICY OF VICARIOUS RESPONSIBILITY
OF INDUSTRY.  IT WAS DEALING SOLELY WITH LABOR RELATIONS.  IT PUT IN
THE EMPLOYER CATEGORY ALL THOSE WHO ACTED FOR MANAGEMENT NOT ONLY IN
FORMULATING BUT ALSO IN EXECUTING ITS LABOR POLICIES.  FN3 

FOREMOST AMONG THE LATTER WERE FOREMEN.  TRADE UNION HISTORY SHOWS
THAT FOREMEN WERE THE ARMS AND LEGS OF MANAGEMENT IN EXECUTING LABOR
POLICIES.  IN INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS THEY WERE ALLIED WITH MANAGEMENT. 
MANAGEMENT INDEED COMMONLY ACTED THROUGH THEM IN THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES WHICH THE ACT CONDEMNS.  FN4  WHEN WE UPHELD THE IMPOSITION
OF THE SANCTIONS OF THE ACT AGAINST MANAGEMENT, WE FREQUENTLY RELIED ON
THE ACTS OF FOREMEN THROUGH WHOM MANAGEMENT EXPRESSED ITS HOSTILITY TO
TRADE UNIONISM.  FN5 

THIRD.  THE EVIL AT WHICH THE ACT WAS AIMED WAS THE FAILURE OR
REFUSAL OF INDUSTRY TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF WORKINGMEN TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY.  IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT, CONGRESS NOTED THAT SUCH AN
ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF INDUSTRY LED "TO STRIKES AND OTHER FORMS OF
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE OR UNREST" SO AS TO BURDEN OR OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WE KNOW FROM THE HISTORY OF THAT DECADE THAT THE FRUSTRATED
EFFORTS OF WORKINGMEN, OF LABORERS, TO ORGANIZE LED TO STRIKES, STRIFE,
AND UNREST.  BUT WE ARE POINTED TO NO INSTANCES WHERE FOREMEN WERE
STRIKING; NOR ARE WE ADVISED THAT MANAGERS, SUPERINTENDENTS, OR
VICEPRESIDENTS WERE DOING SO. FN6 

INDEED, THE PROBLEMS OF THOSE IN THE SUPERVISORY CATEGORIES OF
MANAGEMENT DID NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF CONGRESS. 
"WORKERS."  THERE IS NO PHRASE IN THE ENTIRE ACT WHICH IS DESCRIPTIVE
OF THOSE DOING SUPERVISORY WORK.  SECTION 2(3) EXEMPTS FROM THE TERM
"EMPLOYEE" ANY "AGRICULTURAL LABORER."  BUT IF "EMPLOYEE" INCLUDES A
FOREMAN, IT WOULD BE MOST STRANGE TO FIND CONGRESS EXEMPTING
"AGRICULTURAL LABORERS," BUT NOT "AGRICULTURAL FOREMEN."  THE INFERENCE
IS STRONG THAT SINCE IT EXEMPTED ONLY AGRICULTURAL "LABORERS," IT HAD
NO IDEA THAT AGRICULTURAL "FOREMEN" WERE UNDER THE ACT. 

IF FOREMEN WERE TO BE INCLUDED AS EMPLOYEES UNDER THE ACT, SPECIAL
PROBLEMS WOULD BE RAISED - IMPORTANT PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE UNIT IN
WHICH THE FOREMEN MIGHT BE REPRESENTED.  FOREMEN ARE ALSO UNDER THE ACT
AS EMPLOYERS.  THAT DUAL STATUS CREATES SERIOUS PROBLEMS.  AN ACT OF A
FOREMAN, IF ATTRIBUTED TO THE MANAGEMENT, CONSTITUTES AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE; THE SAME ACT MAY BE PART OF THE FOREMAN'S ACTIVITY AS AN
EMPLOYEE.  IN THAT EVENT THE EMPLOYER CAN ONLY INTERFERE AT HIS PERIL. 
FN7  THE COMPLICATIONS OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS OF SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT IF CONGRESS HAD PLANNED TO INCLUDE THEM
IN ITS PROJECT, IT WOULD HAVE MADE SOME SPECIAL PROVISION FOR THEM. 
BUT WE FIND NO TRACE OF A SUGGESTION THAT WHEN CONGRESS CAME TO
CONSIDER THE UNITS APPROPRIATE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,  FN8  IT WAS
AWARE THAT GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES MIGHT HAVE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES.  YET
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND CONSPICUOUS PROBLEMS
IF FOREMEN WERE TO BE INCLUDED.  THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO FORMULATE A
POLICY RESPECTING THE PECULIAR AND SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF FOREMEN SUGGESTS
AN ABSENCE OF PURPOSE TO BRING THEM UNDER THE ACT.  AND THE NOTION IS
HARD TO RESIST THAT THE VERY ABSENCE OF A DECLARATION BY CONGRESS OF
ITS POLICY RESPECTING FOREMEN IS THE REASON THE BOARD HAS BEEN SO MUCH
AT LARGE IN THE TREATMENT OF THE PROBLEM UNDER THE ACT.  SEE THE CASES
COLLECTED IN NOTE 3 OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FOURTH.  WHEN WE TURN FROM THE ACT TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, WE
FIND NO TRACE OF CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN WITH THE PROBLEMS OF SUPERVISORY
PERSONNEL.  THE REPORTS AND DEBATES ARE BARREN OF ANY REFERENCE TO
THEM, THOUGH THEY ARE REPLETE WITH REFERENCES TO THE FUNCTION OF THE
LEGISLATION IN PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF "LABORERS" AND "WORKERS." 
FN9 

FIFTH.  WHEN WE TURN TO OTHER RELATED LEGISLATION, WE FIND THAT WHEN
CONGRESS DESIRED TO INCLUDE MANAGERIAL OFFICIALS OR SUPERVISORY
PERSONNEL IN THE CATEGORY OF EMPLOYEES, IT DID SO EXPRESSLY.  THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 577, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151, DEFINES
"EMPLOYEE" TO INCLUDE "SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL."  THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT
OF 1936, 52 STAT. 953, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1101 ET SEQ., WHICH DEALS WITH
MARITIME LABOR RELATIONS AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT (SEE 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1252), DEFINES "EMPLOYEE" TO INCLUDE
"SUBORDINATE OFFICIAL."  46 U.S.C. SEC. 1253(C).  AND THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT. 620, 647, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1301, INCLUDES AN
OFFICER OF A CORPORATION IN THE TERM EMPLOYEE.  FN10  THE FAILURE OF
CONGRESS TO DO THE SAME WHEN IT WROTE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
HAS SOME SIGNIFICANCE, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS
UTTERLY DEVOID OF ANY INDICATION THAT CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROBLEMS OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES. 

SIXTH.  THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, I THINK, THAT WHEN CONGRESS
PASSED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN 1935, IT WAS LEGISLATING
AGAINST THE ACTIVITIES OF FOREMEN, NOT ON THEIR BEHALF.  CONGRESS WAS
INTENT ON PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF FREE ASSOCIATION - THE RIGHT TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY - BY THE GREAT MASS OF WORKERS, NOT BY THOSE WHO
WERE IN AUTHORITY OVER THEM AND ENFORCING OPPRESSIVE INDUSTRIAL
POLICIES.  FOREMEN WERE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THOSE INDUSTRIAL
POLICIES.  THEY BLOCKED THE WAGE EARNERS' PATH TO FAIR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  TO SAY TWELVE YEARS LATER THAT FOREMEN WERE TREATED AS THE
VICTIMS OF THAT ANTI-LABOR POLICY SEEMS TO ME A DISTORTION OF HISTORY. 

IF WE WERE TO DECIDE THIS CASE ON THE BASIS OF POLICY, MUCH COULD BE
SAID TO SUPPORT THE MAJORITY VIEW.  FN11  BUT I AM CONVINCED THAT
CONGRESS NEVER FACED THOSE POLICY ISSUES WHEN IT ENACTED THIS
LEGISLATION.  I AM SURE THAT THOSE PROBLEMS WERE NOT IN THE
CONSCIOUSNESS OF CONGRESS.  A DECISION ON THESE POLICY MATTERS CUTS
DEEP INTO OUR INDUSTRIAL LIFE.  IT HAS PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS THROUGHOUT
OUR ECONOMY.  IT INVOLVES A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN MUCH OF THE THINKING
OF THE NATION ON OUR INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS.  THE QUESTION IS SO IMPORTANT
THAT I CANNOT BELIEVE CONGRESS LEGISLATED UNWITTINGLY ON IT.  SINCE
WHAT CONGRESS WROTE IS CONSISTENT WITH A RESTRICTION OF THE ACT TO
WORKINGMEN AND LABORERS, I WOULD LEAVE ITS EXTENSION OVER SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES TO CONGRESS. 

I HAVE USED THE TERMS FOREMEN AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
SYNONYMOUSLY.  BUT IT IS NOT THE LABEL WHICH IS IMPORTANT; IT IS
WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION REPRESENT OR ACT FOR MANAGEMENT ON
LABOR POLICY MATTERS.  THUS ONE MIGHT BE A SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEE WITHOUT
REPRESENTING MANAGEMENT IN THOSE RESPECTS.  AND THOSE WHO ARE CALLED
FOREMEN MAY PERFORM DUTIES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF
SKILLED LABORERS. 

WHAT I HAVE SAID DOES NOT MEAN THAT FOREMEN HAVE NO RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE GENERAL LAW RECOGNIZES THEIR RIGHT TO
DO SO.  SEE AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184,
209; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 570.  AND SOME
STATES HAVE PLACED ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY AND SANCTIONS BEHIND THAT
RIGHT.  FN12  BUT AS I READ THE FEDERAL ACT, CONGRESS HAS NOT YET DONE
SO. 

FN1  "THE GREATER PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR MUST NOT ONLY BE ATTAINABLE,
BUT ATTAINABLE UNDER CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSERVATION OF
HEALTH, THE ENJOYMENT OF WORK, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 
THE FACTS IN THIS REGARD HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED.  IN THE
TASK OF ASCERTAINING WHETHER PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF WORK DO CONFORM TO
THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE LABORER SHOULD TAKE PART.  HE IS INDEED A
NECESSARY WITNESS.  LIKEWISE IN THE TASK OF DETERMINING WHETHER IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE GAIN IN PRODUCTIVITY JUSTICE IS BEING DONE TO THE
WORKER, THE PARTICIPATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF LABOR IS INDISPENSABLE
FOR THE INQUIRY WHICH INVOLVES ESSENTIALLY THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT." 
BRANDEIS, BUSINESS - A PROFESSION (1933) PP. 52-53. 

FN2  THE FOREMAN ABDICATES, XXXII FORTUNE, NO. 3, P. 150, 152;
LEVENSTEIN, LABOR TODAY AND TOMORROW (1946) CH. VII. 

FN3  DAYKIN, THE STATUS OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 29 IOWA L. REV. 297; ROSENFARB, THE NATIONAL LABOR
POLICY (1940) PP. 54-56, 116-120; TWENTIETH CENTURY FUND, HOW
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WORKS (1942) PP. 512-514, 547, 557-558, 628,
780. 

FN4  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN DAYKIN, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 3, PP. 298
299. 

FN5  INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. NATIONAL LABOR REL.
BD., 311 U.S. 72, 79-80; HEINZ CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR REL. BD., 311 U.S.
514, 520-521. 

FN6  IT IS TRUE THAT FOR MANY YEARS SOME UNIONS INCLUDED SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES, BEATRICE AND SIDNEY WEBB, INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY (1902) P.
546, FN. 2; UNION MEMBERSHIP AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY FOREMEN, U.S.
DEPT. OF LABOR, B.L.S. BULL.  NO. 745(1943); REPORT OF PANEL OF WAR
LABOR BOARD IN DISPUTES INVOLVING SUPERVISORS (1945) IX; TWENTIETH
CENTURY FUND, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 3, PP. 67, 216; NORTHRUP,
UNIONIZATION OF FOREMEN, 21 HARV. BUS.  REV.  496.  BUT ORGANIZATION OF
FOREMEN ON A BROAD SCALE IS A DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAST FEW YEARS. 
DAYKIN, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 3, P. 314; ROSENFARB, FOREMEN ON THE
MARCH, 7 FED. BAR.  J. 168; NOTE, 59 HARV. L. REV. 606, 607; COMMENT,
55 YALE L.J. 754, 756; FOREMEN'S UNIONS, IX ADVANCED MANAGEMENT
QUARTERLY J. 110.    FN7  CF. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. V. NATIONAL
LABOR REL. BD., 146 F.2D 833; COMMENT, 55 YALE L.J. 754, 767-774;
ROSENFARB, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 6. 

FN8  SECTION 9(B) OF THE ACT PROVIDES:  "THE BOARD SHALL DECIDE IN
EACH CASE WHETHER, IN ORDER TO INSURE TO EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF
THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND
OTHERWISE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT, THE UNIT APPROPRIATE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SHALL BE THE EMPLOYER UNIT,
CRAFT UNIT, PLANT UNIT, OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF."    FN9  SEE H. REP.
NO. 969, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 972, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.;
H. REP. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 6-7; HEARINGS, SENATE COMM. ON EDUC.  AND LABOR ON S.
2926, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; HEARINGS, HOUSE COMM. ON LABOR ON H.R. 6288,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; HEARINGS, SENATE COMM. ON EDUC.  AND LABOR ON S.
1958, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 79 CONG. REC. 2371, 7565, 7648, 7668,
8537, 9676, 9713, 9736, 10720. 

FN10  CF. FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED,
45 U.S.C. SEC. 51, UNDER WHICH THE TERM "ANY EMPLOYEE OF A CARRIER" HAS
BEEN APPLIED TO FOREMEN.  OWENS V. UNION PAC. R. CO., 319 U.S. 715;
ELLIS V. UNION PAC. R. CO., 329 U.S. 649. 

FN11  DAYKIN, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 3, P. 313; ROSENFARB, OP. CIT.
SUPRA, NOTE 6; GARTENHAUS, THE FOREMAN GOES UNION, 113 NEW REPUBLIC
563; COMMENT, 55 YALE L.J. 754; HEARINGS, HOUSE COMM. ON MILITARY
AFFAIRS ON BILLS RELATING TO THE FULL UTILIZATION OF MANPOWER, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 299; NORTHRUP, THE FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA, 23 HARV. BUS.  REV.  187; CF. AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION,
RELATIONS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND FOREMEN IN AMERICAN INDUSTRY (1944);
ID. THE FOREMAN IN LABOR RELATIONS (1944); ID.  SHOULD MANAGEMENT BE
UNIONIZED?  (1945). 

FN12  THE STATE LAWS ARE DISCUSSED IN NORTHRUP, THE FOREMAN'S
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, 23 HARV. BUS.  REV.  187, 199-200. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AGREES WITH THIS OPINION EXCEPT THE PART
MARKED "FIRST" AS TO WHICH HE EXPRESSES NO VIEW. 
..END :










GULF OIL CORP. V. GILBERT, 330 U.S. 501 


NO. 93.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 19, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1947.  - 153
F.2D 883, REVERSED. 


1.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS POWER TO DISMISS AN ACTION AT LAW
PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS - AT LEAST WHERE ITS
JURISDICTION IS BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND THE STATE COURTS
HAVE SUCH POWER.  PP. 502-509, 512. 

2.  A RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA BROUGHT AN ACTION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT IN NEW YORK CITY AGAINST A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION QUALIFIED TO
DO BUSINESS IN BOTH VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK (WHERE IT HAD DESIGNATED
AGENTS TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS), TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR
DESTRUCTION OF PLAINTIFF'S PUBLIC WAREHOUSE AND ITS CONTENTS IN
VIRGINIA BY FIRE RESULTING FROM DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE.  THE COURT HAD
JURISDICTION (BASED SOLELY ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP) AND THE VENUE
WAS CORRECT; BUT ALL EVENTS IN LITIGATION HAD TAKEN PLACE IN VIRGINIA,
MOST OF THE WITNESSES RESIDED THERE, AND BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS
IN VIRGINIA WERE AVAILABLE TO PLAINTIFF AND WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN
JURISDICTION OF DEFENDANT.  APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS, THE COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT.  HELD:  IT DID NOT ABUSE ITS
DISCRETION IN DOING SO.  PP. 509-512. 

3.  IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF LITIGANTS, ARE RELATIVE
EASE OF ACCESS TO SOURCES OF PROOF, AVAILABILITY OF COMPULSORY PROCESS
FOR ATTENDANCE OF UNWILLING WITNESSES, COST OF OBTAINING ATTENDANCE OF
WILLING WITNESSES, POSSIBILITY OF VIEW OF THE PREMISES IF THAT BE
APPROPRIATE, AND ALL OTHER PRACTICAL PROBLEMS THAT MAKE TRIAL OF A CASE
EASY, EXPEDITIOUS AND INEXPENSIVE.  P. 508. 

4.  CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE
INCLUDE THE UNDESIRABILITY OF PILING UP LITIGATION IN CONGESTED
CENTERS, THE BURDEN OF JURY DUTY ON PEOPLE OF A COMMUNITY HAVING NO
RELATION TO THE LITIGATION, THE LOCAL INTEREST IN HAVING LOCALIZED
CONTROVERSIES DECIDED AT HOME AND THE UNNECESSARY INJECTION OF PROBLEMS
IN CONFLICT OF LAWS.  PP. 508-509. 

GULF OIL CORP. V. GILBERT, DOING BUSINESS AS GILBERT STORAGE &
TRANSFER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, A DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED A TORT ACTION IN NEW YORK ARISING OUT OF EVENTS OCCURRING IN
VIRGINIA.  62 F.SUPP.  291.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
153 F.2D 883.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 830.  REVERSED,
P. 512. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT HAS
INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A SUIT PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS AND, IF SO, WHETHER THAT POWER WAS ABUSED IN THIS CASE. 

THE RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK, BUT RESIDES AT LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA, WHERE HE OPERATED A
PUBLIC WAREHOUSE.  HE ALLEGES THAT THE PETITIONER-DEFENDANT, IN
VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCES OF LYNCHBURG, SO CARELESSLY HANDLED A
DELIVERY OF GASOLINE TO HIS WAREHOUSE TANKS AND PUMPS AS TO CAUSE AN
EXPLOSION AND FIRE WHICH CONSUMED THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO HIS DAMAGE
OF $41,889.10, DESTROYED MERCHANDISE AND FIXTURES TO HIS DAMAGE OF
$3,602.40, CAUSED INJURY TO HIS BUSINESS AND PROFITS OF $20,038.27, AND
BURNED THE PROPERTY OF CUSTOMERS IN HIS CUSTODY UNDER WAREHOUSING
AGREEMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF $300,000.  HE ASKS JUDGMENT OF $365,529.77
WITH COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS, AND INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRE. 
THE ACTION CLEARLY IS ONE IN TORT. 

THE PETITIONER-DEFENDANT IS A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
PENNSYLVANIA, QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN BOTH VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK,
AND IT HAS DESIGNATED OFFICIALS OF EACH STATE AS AGENTS TO RECEIVE
SERVICE OF PROCESS.  WHEN SUED IN NEW YORK, THE DEFENDANT, INVOKING THE
DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, CLAIMED THAT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE
FOR TRIAL IS VIRGINIA, WHERE THE PLAINTIFF LIVES AND DEFENDANT DOES
BUSINESS, WHERE ALL EVENTS IN LITIGATION TOOK PLACE, WHERE MOST OF THE
WITNESSES RESIDE, AND WHERE BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS ARE AVAILABLE
TO PLAINTIFF AND ARE ABLE TO OBTAIN JURISDICTION OF THE DEFENDANT. 

THE CASE, ON ITS MERITS, INVOLVES NO FEDERAL QUESTION AND WAS BROUGHT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOLELY BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY IN
CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES.  BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER OF ITS
JURISDICTION AND THE HOLDINGS OF AND UNDER ERIE RAILROAD CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE LAW OF
NEW YORK AS TO FORUM NON CONVENIENS APPLIED AND THAT IT REQUIRED THE
CASE TO BE LEFT TO VIRGINIA COURTS.  FN1  IT THEREFORE DISMISSED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISAGREED AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW
YORK LAW, TOOK A RESTRICTIVE VIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ENTIRE
DOCTRINE IN FEDERAL COURTS AND, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED.  FN2
THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 830. 

                                  I. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE VENUE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES PERMITTED
THE PLAINTIFF TO COMMENCE HIS ACTION IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK AND EMPOWER THAT COURT TO ENTERTAIN IT. FN3  BUT THAT DOES NOT
SETTLE THE QUESTION WHETHER IT MUST DO SO.  INDEED, THE DOCTRINE OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS CAN NEVER APPLY IF THERE IS ABSENCE OF
JURISDICTION OR MISTAKE OF VENUE. 

THIS COURT, IN ONE FORM OF WORDS OR ANOTHER, HAS REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED
THE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER TO DECLINE JURISDICTION IN EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES.  AS FORMULATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, THE RULE IS: 

"OBVIOUSLY, THE PROPOSITION THAT A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION MUST
EXERCISE IT, IS NOT UNIVERSALLY TRUE; ELSE THE ADMIRALTY COURT COULD
NEVER DECLINE JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE LITIGATION IS BETWEEN
FOREIGNERS.  NOR IS IT TRUE OF COURTS ADMINISTERING OTHER SYSTEMS OF
OUR LAW.  COURTS OF EQUITY AND OF LAW ALSO OCCASIONALLY DECLINE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE, TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION, WHERE THE SUIT IS
BETWEEN ALIENS OR NON-RESIDENTS OR WHERE FOR KINDRED REASONS THE
LITIGATION CAN MORE APPROPRIATELY BE CONDUCTED IN A FOREIGN TRIBUNAL." 
CANADA MALTING CO., LTD., V. PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, LTD., 285 U.S. 413,
422-23. 

WE LATER EXPRESSLY SAID THAT A STATE COURT "MAY IN APPROPRIATE CASES
APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS."  BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294
U.S. 629, 643; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 294, N. 5. 
EVEN WHERE FEDERAL RIGHTS BINDING ON STATE COURTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION ARE SOUGHT TO BE ADJUDGED, THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED STATE
COURTS IN A REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN A LITIGATION BETWEEN A NONRESIDENT AND
A FOREIGN CORPORATION OR BETWEEN TWO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  DOUGLAS V.
NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R.R., 279 U.S. 377; ANGLO-AMERICAN PROVISION CO. V.
DAVIS PROVISION CO. NO. 1, 191 U.S. 373.  IT HAS HELD THE USE OF AN
INAPPROPRIATE FORUM IN ONE CASE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  DAVIS V. FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE EQUITY CO., 262
U.S. 312.  ON SUBSTANTIALLY FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS WE HAVE
REQUIRED FEDERAL COURTS TO RELINQUISH DECISION OF CASES WITHIN THEIR
JURISDICTION WHERE THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY OF A STATE.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN &
NICHOLS OIL CO., 311 U.S. 570; BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315;
BUT CF. MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228.  AND MOST RECENTLY WE
DECIDED WILLIAMS V. GREEN BAY & WESTERN R.R. CO., 326 U.S. 549, IN
WHICH THE COURT, WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE DOCTRINE, HELD
IT HAD BEEN APPLIED IN THAT CASE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.  FN4 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN CASES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
WE HAVE HELD THAT PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE OF A FORUM CANNOT BE DEFEATED ON
THE BASIS OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  BUT THIS WAS BECAUSE THE SPECIAL
VENUE ACT UNDER WHICH THOSE CASES ARE BROUGHT WAS BELIEVED TO REQUIRE
IT. BALTIMORE & OHIO R.R. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44; MILES V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R.R., 315 U.S. 698.  THOSE DECISIONS DO NOT PURPORT TO MODIFY
THE DOCTRINE AS TO OTHER CASES GOVERNED BY THE GENERAL VENUE STATUTES. 

BUT THE COURT BELOW SAYS THAT "THE KEPNER CASE  ...  WARNED AGAINST
REFUSAL OF JURISDICTION IN A PARTICULAR CASE CONTROLLED BY
CONGRESSIONAL ACT; HERE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT CONGRESSIONAL ACT,
PLUS JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION (UNDER THE NEIRBO CASE), SPELLS OUT THE
RESULT."  153 F.2D AT 885.  THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT,
HOWEVER, WHICH CONTROLLED DECISION IN THE KEPNER CASE, SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDES WHERE VENUE MAY BE HAD IN ANY SUIT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION
ARISING UNDER THAT STATUTE.  WHAT THE COURT BELOW REFERS TO AS
"CONGRESSIONAL ACT, PLUS JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION," IS THE GENERAL
STATUTE OF VENUE IN DIVERSITY SUITS, PLUS OUR DECISION THAT IT GIVES
THE DEFENDANT "A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE RESPECTING THE VENUE, OR PLACE OF
SUIT, WHICH HE MAY ASSERT, OR MAY WAIVE, AT HIS ELECTION," NEIRBO CO.
V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S. 165, 168.  THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AS INTERPRETED BY KEPNER, INCREASES THE
NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SUED AND MAKES HIM ACCEPT
THE PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE.  THE NEIRBO CASE IS ONLY A DECLARATION THAT IF
THE DEFENDANT, BY FILING CONSENT TO BE SUED, WAIVES ITS PRIVILEGE TO BE
SUED AT ITS PLACE OF RESIDENCE, IT MAY BE SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AT
THE PLACE WHERE IT HAS CONSENTED TO BE SUED.  BUT THE GENERAL VENUE
STATUTE PLUS THE NEIRBO INTERPRETATION DO NOT ADD UP TO A DECLARATION
THAT THE COURT MUST RESPECT THE CHOICE OF THE PLAINTIFF, NO MATTER WHAT
THE TYPE OF SUIT OR ISSUES INVOLVED.  THE TWO TAKEN TOGETHER MEAN ONLY
THAT THE DEFENDANT MAY CONSENT TO BE SUED, AND IT IS PROPER FOR THE
FEDERAL COURT TO TAKE JURISDICTION, NOT THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE
CANNOT BE QUESTIONED.  THE DEFENDANT'S CONSENT TO BE SUED EXTENDS ONLY
TO GIVE THE COURT JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON; IT ASSUMES THAT THE
COURT, HAVING THE PARTIES BEFORE IT, WILL APPLY ALL THE APPLICABLE LAW,
INCLUDING, IN THOSE CASES WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE, ITS DISCRETIONARY
JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER THE SUIT SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED.  IN ALL CASES IN
WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS COMES INTO PLAY, IT
PRESUPPOSES AT LEAST TWO FORUMS IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS AMENABLE TO
PROCESS; THE DOCTRINE FURNISHES CRITERIA FOR CHOICE BETWEEN THEM. 

                                 II. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IS SIMPLY THAT A COURT MAY
RESIST IMPOSITION UPON ITS JURISDICTION EVEN WHEN JURISDICTION IS
AUTHORIZED BY THE LETTER OF A GENERAL VENUE STATUTE.  THESE STATUTES
ARE DRAWN WITH A NECESSARY GENERALITY AND USUALLY GIVE A PLAINTIFF A
CHOICE OF COURTS, SO THAT HE MAY BE QUITE SURE OF SOME PLACE IN WHICH
TO PURSUE HIS REMEDY.  BUT THE OPEN DOOR MAY ADMIT THOSE WHO SEEK NOT
SIMPLY JUSTICE BUT PERHAPS JUSTICE BLENDED WITH SOME HARASSMENT.  A
PLAINTIFF SOMETIMES IS UNDER TEMPTATION TO RESORT TO A STRATEGY OF
FORCING THE TRIAL AT A MOST INCONVENIENT PLACE FOR AN ADVERSARY, EVEN
AT SOME INCONVENIENCE TO HIMSELF. 

MANY OF THE STATES HAVE MET MISUSE OF VENUE BY INVESTING COURTS WITH
A DISCRETION TO CHANGE THE PLACE OF TRIAL ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, SUCH AS
THE CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES AND THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  FN5  THE FEDERAL
LAW CONTAINS NO SUCH EXPRESS CRITERIA TO GUIDE THE DISTRICT COURT IN
EXERCISING ITS POWER.  BUT THE PROBLEM IS A VERY OLD ONE AFFECTING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURTS AS WELL AS THE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS, AND
BOTH IN ENGLAND AND IN THIS COUNTRY THE COMMON LAW WORKED OUT
TECHNIQUES AND CRITERIA FOR DEALING WITH IT.  FN6 

WISELY, IT HAS NOT BEEN ATTEMPTED TO CATALOGUE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH WILL JUSTIFY OR REQUIRE EITHER GRANT OR DENIAL OF REMEDY.  THE
DOCTRINE LEAVES MUCH TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT TO WHICH PLAINTIFF
RESORTS, AND EXPERIENCE HAS NOT SHOWN A JUDICIAL TENDENCY TO RENOUNCE
ONE'S OWN JURISDICTION SO STRONG AS TO RESULT IN MANY ABUSES.  FN7 

IF THE COMBINATION AND WEIGHT OF FACTORS REQUISITE TO GIVEN RESULTS
ARE DIFFICULT TO FORECAST OR STATE, THOSE TO BE CONSIDERED ARE NOT
DIFFICULT TO NAME.  AN INTEREST TO BE CONSIDERED, AND THE ONE LIKELY TO
BE MOST PRESSED, IS THE PRIVATE INTEREST OF THE LITIGANT.  IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE RELATIVE EASE OF ACCESS TO SOURCES OF PROOF;
AVAILABILITY OF COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR ATTENDANCE OF UNWILLING, AND THE
COST OF OBTAINING ATTENDANCE OF WILLING, WITNESSES; POSSIBILITY OF VIEW
OF PREMISES, IF VIEW WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO THE ACTION; AND ALL OTHER
PRACTICAL PROBLEMS THAT MAKE TRIAL OF A CASE EASY, EXPEDITIOUS AND
INEXPENSIVE.  THERE MAY ALSO BE QUESTIONS AS TO THE ENFORCIBILITY OF A
JUDGMENT IF ONE IS OBTAINED.  THE COURT WILL WEIGH RELATIVE ADVANTAGES
AND OBSTACLES TO FAIR TRIAL.  IT IS OFTEN SAID THAT THE PLAINTIFF MAY
NOT, BY CHOICE OF AN INCONVENIENT FORUM, "VEX," "HARASS," OR "OPPRESS"
THE DEFENDANT BY INFLICTING UPON HIM EXPENSE OR TROUBLE NOT NECESSARY
TO HIS OWN RIGHT TO PURSUE HIS REMEDY.  FN8  BUT UNLESS THE BALANCE IS
STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, THE PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE OF FORUM
SHOULD RARELY BE DISTURBED. 

FACTORS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ALSO HAVE PLACE IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE. 
ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES FOLLOW FOR COURTS WHEN LITIGATION IS PILED
UP IN CONGESTED CENTERS INSTEAD OF BEING HANDLED AT ITS ORIGIN.  JURY
DUTY IS A BURDEN THAT OUGHT NOT TO BE IMPOSED UPON THE PEOPLE OF A
COMMUNITY WHICH HAS NO RELATION TO THE LITIGATION.  IN CASES WHICH
TOUCH THE AFFAIRS OF MANY PERSONS, THERE IS REASON FOR HOLDING THE
TRIAL IN THEIR VIEW AND REACH RATHER THAN IN REMOTE PARTS OF THE
COUNTRY WHERE THEY CAN LEARN OF IT BY REPORT ONLY.  THERE IS A LOCAL
INTEREST IN HAVING LOCALIZED CONTROVERSIES DECIDED AT HOME.  THERE IS
AN APPROPRIATENESS, TOO, IN HAVING THE TRIAL OF A DIVERSITY CASE IN A
FORUM THAT IS AT HOME WITH THE STATE LAW THAT MUST GOVERN THE CASE,
RATHER THAN HAVING A COURT IN SOME OTHER FORUM UNTANGLE PROBLEMS IN
CONFLICT OF LAWS, AND IN LAW FOREIGN TO ITSELF. 

THE LAW OF NEW YORK AS TO THE DISCRETION OF A COURT TO APPLY THE
DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, AND AS TO THE STANDARDS THAT GUIDE
DISCRETION IS, SO FAR AS HERE INVOLVED, THE SAME AS THE FEDERAL RULE. 
MURNAN V. WABASH R. CO., 246 N.Y. 244, 158 N.E. 508; WEDEMANN V. UNITED
STATES TRUST CO., 258 N.Y. 315, 179 N.E. 712; SEE GREGONIS V.
PHILADELPHIA AND READING CO., 235 N.Y. 152, 139 N.E. 223.  IT WOULD NOT
BE PROFITABLE, THEREFORE, TO PURSUE INQUIRY AS TO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH
OUR RULE MUST FLOW. 

         III. 

TURNING TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS IS ONE OF THOSE RATHER RARE
CASES WHERE THE DOCTRINE SHOULD BE APPLIED, WE LOOK FIRST TO THE
INTERESTS OF THE LITIGANTS. 

THE PLAINTIFF HIMSELF IS NOT A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, NOR DID ANY
EVENT CONNECTED WITH THE CASE TAKE PLACE THERE, NOR DOES ANY WITNESS,
WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF EXPERTS, LIVE THERE.  NO ONE CONNECTED
WITH THAT SIDE OF THE CASE SAVE COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES
THERE, AND HE HAS CANDIDLY TOLD US THAT HE WAS RETAINED BY INSURANCE
COMPANIES INTERESTED PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF SUBROGATION.  HIS AFFIDAVITS
AND ARGUMENT ARE DEVOTED TO CONTROVERTING CLAIMS AS TO DEFENDANT'S
INCONVENIENCE RATHER THAN TO SHOWING THAT THE PRESENT FORUM SERVES ANY
CONVENIENCE OF HIS OWN, WITH ONE EXCEPTION.  THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR
TRIAL IN NEW YORK ADVANCED HERE IS ONE REJECTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
AND IS SET FORTH IN THE BRIEF AS FOLLOWS:    "THIS COURT CAN READILY
REALIZE THAT AN ACTION OF THIS TYPE, INVOLVING AS IT DOES A CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES IN AN AMOUNT CLOSE TO $400,000, IS ONE WHICH MAY STAGGER THE
IMAGINATION OF A LOCAL JURY WHICH IS SURELY UNACCUSTOMED TO DEALING
WITH AMOUNTS OF SUCH A NATURE.  FURTHERMORE, REMOVED FROM LYNCHBURG,
THE RESPONDENT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY THIS CASE FREE FROM
LOCAL INFLUENCES AND PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS WHICH MAY MAKE IT DIFFICULT
TO PROCURE A JURY WHICH HAS NO PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THE FACTS
HEREIN." 

THIS UNPROVEN PREMISE THAT JURORS OF NEW YORK LIVE ON TERMS OF
INTIMACY WITH $400,000 TRANSACTIONS IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION WE EASILY
MAKE.  NOR CAN WE ASSUME THAT A JURY FROM LYNCHBURG AND VICINITY WOULD
BE "STAGGERED" BY CONTEMPLATING THE VALUE OF A WAREHOUSE BUILDING THAT
STOOD IN THEIR REGION, OR OF MERCHANDISE AND FIXTURES SUCH AS WERE USED
THERE, NOR ARE THEY LIKELY TO BE STAGGERED BY THE VALUE OF CHATTELS
WHICH THE PEOPLE OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD PUT IN STORAGE.  IT IS A STRANGE
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF A VIRGINIA PLAINTIFF THAT THE COMMUNITY WHICH
GAVE HIM PATRONAGE TO MAKE HIS BUSINESS VALUABLE IS NOT CAPABLE OF
FURNISHING JURORS WHO KNOW THE VALUE OF THE GOODS THEY STORE, THE
BUILDING THEY ARE STORED IN, OR THE BUSINESS THEIR PATRONAGE CREATES. 
AND THERE IS NO SPECIFICATION OF ANY LOCAL INFLUENCE, OTHER THAN
ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CONDITIONS, THAT WOULD MAKE A FAIR TRIAL
IMPROBABLE.  THE NET OF THIS IS THAT WE CANNOT SAY THE DISTRICT COURT
WAS BOUND TO ENTERTAIN A PROVINCIAL FEAR OF THE PROVINCIALISM OF A
VIRGINIA JURY.  THAT LEAVES THE VIRGINIA PLAINTIFF WITHOUT EVEN A
SUGGESTED REASON FOR TRANSPORTING THIS SUIT TO NEW YORK. 

DEFENDANT POINTS OUT THAT NOT ONLY THE PLAINTIFF, BUT EVERY PERSON
WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE ACTS CHARGED TO BE NEGLIGENT, RESIDES IN OR
NEAR LYNCHBURG.  IT ALSO CLAIMS A NEED TO INTERPLEAD AN ALLEGED
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WHICH MADE THE DELIVERY OF THE GASOLINE AND
WHICH IS A VIRGINIA CORPORATION DOMICILED IN LYNCHBURG, THAT IT CANNOT
INTERPLEAD IN NEW YORK.  THERE ALSO ARE APPROXIMATELY 350 PERSONS
RESIDING IN AND AROUND LYNCHBURG WHO STORED WITH PLAINTIFF THE GOODS
FOR THE DAMAGE TO WHICH HE SEEKS TO RECOVER.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY
HAVE LEFT THE COMMUNITY SINCE THE FIRE AND THE NUMBER OF THEM WHO WILL
ACTUALLY BE NEEDED IS IN DISPUTE.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT
DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT VIOLATED LYNCHBURG ORDINANCES.  CONDITIONS ARE SAID
TO REQUIRE PROOF BY FIREMEN AND BY MANY OTHERS.  THE LEARNED AND
EXPERIENCED TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT UNAWARE THAT LITIGANTS GENERALLY MANAGE
TO TRY THEIR CASES WITH FEWER WITNESSES THAN THEY PREDICT IN SUCH
MOTIONS AS THIS.  BUT HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THIS TRIAL IS
LIKELY TO BE LONG AND TO INVOLVE CALLING MANY WITNESSES, AND THAT
LYNCHBURG, SOME 400 MILES FROM NEW YORK, IS THE SOURCE OF ALL PROOFS
FOR EITHER SIDE, WITH POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF EXPERTS.  CERTAINLY TO FIX
THE PLACE OF TRIAL AT A POINT WHERE LITIGANTS CANNOT COMPEL PERSONAL
ATTENDANCE AND MAY BE FORCED TO TRY THEIR CASES ON DEPOSITION, IS TO
CREATE A CONDITION NOT SATISFACTORY TO COURT, JURY OR MOST LITIGANTS. 
NOR IS IT NECESSARILY CURED BY THE STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL
THAT HE WILL SEE TO GETTING MANY OF THE WITNESSES TO THE TRIAL AND THAT
SOME OF THEM "WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO COME TO NEW YORK TO TESTIFY." 
THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SUCH A PROPOSAL SHOULD BE GIVEN
WEIGHT.  IN OTHERS, THE OFFER MAY NOT TURN OUT TO BE AS GENEROUS AS
DEFENDANT OR COURT MIGHT SUPPOSE IT TO BE.  SUCH MATTERS ARE FOR THE
DISTRICT COURT TO DECIDE IN EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION. 

THE COURT LIKEWISE COULD WELL HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE TASK OF THE
TRIAL COURT WOULD BE SIMPLIFIED BY TRIAL IN VIRGINIA.  IF TRIAL WAS IN
A STATE COURT, IT COULD APPLY ITS OWN LAW TO EVENTS OCCURRING THERE. 
IF IN FEDERAL COURT BY REASON OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE COURT
WOULD APPLY THE LAW OF ITS OWN STATE IN WHICH IT IS LIKELY TO BE
EXPERIENCED.  THE COURSE OF ADJUDICATION IN NEW YORK FEDERAL COURT
MIGHT BE BESET WITH CONFLICT OF LAWS PROBLEMS ALL AVOIDED IF THE CASE
IS LITIGATED IN VIRGINIA WHERE IT AROSE. 

WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT EXCEED ITS POWERS OR
THE BOUNDS OF ITS DISCRETION IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND
REMITTING HIM TO THE COURTS OF HIS OWN COMMUNITY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TOOK TOO RESTRICTIVE A VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE AS APPROVED BY THIS
COURT.  ITS JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  GILBERT V. GULF OIL CORP., 62 F.SUPP.  291. 

FN2  GILBERT V. GULF OIL CORP., 153 F.2D 883. 

FN3  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 112; NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING
CORP., LTD., 308 U.S. 165. 

FN4  THE DOCTRINE DID NOT ORIGINATE IN FEDERAL BUT IN STATE COURTS. 
THIS COURT IN RECOGNIZING AND APPROVING IT BY NAME HAS NEVER INDICATED
THAT IT WAS REJECTING APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE TO LAW ACTIONS WHICH
HAD BEEN AN INTEGRAL AND NECESSARY PART OF EVOLUTION OF THE DOCTRINE. 
AND CF. SLATER V. MEXICAN NATIONAL R.R., 194 U.S. 120.  WHEREVER IT IS
APPLIED IN COURTS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS, ITS APPLICATION DOES NOT
DEPEND ON WHETHER THE ACTION IS AT LAW, COLLARD V. BEACH, 93 APP. DIV.
339, 87 N.Y.S. 884; MURNAN V. WABASH R. CO., 246 N.Y. 244, 158 N.E.
508; JACKSON & SONS V. LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., 86 N.H. 341,
168 A. 895; OR IN EQUITY, LANGFELDER V. UNIVERSAL LABORATORIES, 293
N.Y. 200, 56 N.E.2D 550; EGBERT V. SHORT, (1907) 2 CH. 205.  SEE
FOOTNOTE 1, KOSTER V. (AMERICAN) LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO.,
DECIDED THIS DAY, POST, P. 518. 

FN5  SEE FOSTER, PLACE OF TRIAL - INTERSTATE APPLICATION OF
INTRASTATE METHODS OF ADJUSTMENT, 44 HARV. L. REV. 41, 47, 62. 

FN6  SEE LOGAN V. BANK OF SCOTLAND, (1906) 1 K.B. 141; CF. LA SOCIETE
DU GAZ DE PARIS V. LA SOCIETE ANONYME DE NAVIGATION "LES ARMATEURS
FRANCAIS," (1926) SESS. CAS. (H.L.)  13.  COLLARD V. BEACH, 93 APP.
DIV. 339, 87 N.Y.S. 884; JACKSON & SONS V. LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY
CO., 86 N.H. 341, 168 A. 895; SEE PIETRAROIA V. NEW JERSEY & HUDSON
R.R. CO., 197 N.Y. 434, 91 N.E. 120; GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY CO. V.
MILLER, 19 MICH. 305. 

FN7  SEE DAINOW, THE INAPPROPRIATE FORUM, 29 ILL. L. REV. 867, 889. 

FN8  SEE BLAIR, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN ANGLO
AMERICAN LAW, 29 COL. L. REV. 1. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENT.  THEY DO NOT SET OUT
THE FACTUAL REASONS FOR THEIR DISSENT SINCE THE COURT'S AFFIRMANCE OF
KOSTER V. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO., DECIDED TODAY, POST, P. 518,
WOULD CONTROL. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION IS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
PENNSYLVANIA, BUT IS QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS AND MAINTAINS AN OFFICE
IN NEW YORK.  PLAINTIFF IS AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDING AND DOING BUSINESS IN
VIRGINIA.  THE ACCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGES TO HAVE BEEN DAMAGED
OCCURRED IN LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA.  PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEW YORK.  SECTION 11 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF
1789, 1 STAT. 78, CARRIED OVER INTO THE JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 24, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF
ALL ACTIONS AT LAW BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES.  THE COURT
DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEW YORK LACKS
JURISDICTION UNDER THIS STATUTE OR THAT THE VENUE WAS IMPROPER IN THIS
CASE.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 112.  CF. NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 308 U.S.
165.  BUT IT HOLDS THAT A DISTRICT COURT MAY ABDICATE ITS JURISDICTION
WHEN A DEFENDANT SHOWS TO THE SATISFACTION OF A DISTRICT COURT THAT IT
WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT AND LESS VEXATIOUS FOR THE DEFENDANT IF THE
TRIAL WERE HELD IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION.  NEITHER THE VENUE STATUTE NOR
THE STATUTE WHICH HAS GOVERNED JURISDICTION SINCE 1789 CONTAINS ANY
INDICATION OR IMPLICATION THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, ONCE SATISFIED
THAT JURISDICTION AND VENUE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET, MAY DECLINE TO
EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION.  EXCEPT IN RELATION TO THE EXERCISE OF THE
EXTRAORDINARY ADMIRALTY AND EQUITY POWERS OF DISTRICT COURTS, THIS
COURT HAS NEVER BEFORE HELD CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT "THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE BOUND TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT, AND TO
AFFORD REDRESS TO SUITORS BEFORE THEM, IN EVERY CASE TO WHICH THEIR
JURISDICTION EXTENDS.  THEY CANNOT ABDICATE THEIR AUTHORITY OR DUTY IN
ANY CASE IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION."  HYDE V. STONE, 20 HOW. 
170, 175, QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN CHICOT COUNTY V. SHERWOOD, 148 U.S.
529, 534.  SEE ALSO DENNICK V. RAILROAD CO., 103 U.S. 11; BALTIMORE &
O.R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44; EVEY V. MEXICAN C.R. CO., 81 F. 294. 
FN1  NEVER UNTIL TODAY HAS THIS COURT HELD, IN ACTIONS FOR MONEY
DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF COMMON LAW OR STATUTORY RIGHTS, THAT A
DISTRICT COURT CAN ABDICATE ITS STATUTORY DUTY TO EXERCISE ITS
JURISDICTION FOR THE ALLEGED CONVENIENCE OF THE DEFENDANT TO A
LAWSUIT.  COMPARE SLATER V. MEXICAN NATIONAL R. CO., 194 U.S. 120. 

FOR REASONS PECULIAR TO THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF ADMIRALTY AND TO THE
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES OF EQUITY, THE COURTS EXERCISING ADMIRALTY AND
EQUITY POWERS HAVE BEEN PERMITTED AT TIMES TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE THEIR
JURISDICTION.  CANADA MALTING CO. V. PATERSON S.S. CO., 285 U.S. 413;
ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 123; CF. WILLIAMS V. GREEN BAY &
W.R. CO., 326 U.S. 549.  THIS EXCEPTION IS ROOTED IN THE KIND OF RELIEF
WHICH THESE COURTS GRANT AND THE KINDS OF PROBLEMS WHICH THEY SOLVE. 
SEE MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228, 235; BURFORD V. SUN OIL
CO., 319 U.S. 315, 333 N. 29.  COURTS OF EQUITY DEVELOPED TO AFFORD
RELIEF WHERE A MONEY JUDGMENT IN THE COMMON LAW COURTS PROVIDED NO
ADEQUATE REMEDY FOR AN INJURED PERSON N2.  FROM THE BEGINNING OF
EQUITABLE JURISDICTION UP TO NOW, THE CHANCERY COURTS HAVE GENERALLY
GRANTED OR WITHHELD THEIR SPECIAL REMEDIES AT THEIR DISCRETION; AND
"COURTS OF ADMIRALTY  ...  ACT UPON ENLARGED PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY." 
O'BRIEN V. MILLER, 168 U.S. 287, 297.  BUT THIS COURT HAS, ON MANY
OCCASIONS, SEVERELY RESTRICTED THE DISCRETION OF DISTRICT COURTS TO
DECLINE TO GRANT EVEN THE EXTRAORDINARY EQUITABLE REMEDIES.  MEREDITH
V. WINTER HAVEN, SUPRA, AND CASES THERE CITED AT 234, 235.  PREVIOUSLY
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOT GENERALLY BEEN ALLOWED THE BROAD AND INDEFINITE
DISCRETION TO DISPOSE EVEN OF EQUITY CASES SOLELY ON A TRIAL COURT'S
JUDGMENT OF THE RELATIVE CONVENIENCE OF THE FORUM FOR THE PARTIES
THEMSELVES.  FOR A MAJOR FACTOR IN THESE EQUITY DECISIONS HAS BEEN THE
RELATIVE ABILITY OF THE FORUM TO SHAPE AND EXECUTE ITS EQUITABLE
REMEDY.  CF. ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., SUPRA. 

NO SUCH DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO DECIDE A CASE, HOWEVER,
HAS, BEFORE TODAY, BEEN VESTED IN FEDERAL COURTS IN ACTIONS FOR MONEY
JUDGMENTS DERIVING FROM STATUTES OR THE COMMON LAW.  FN3  TO ENGRAFT
THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS UPON THE STATUTES FIXING
JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE IN THE DISTRICT COURTS IN SUCH ACTIONS,
SEEMS TO ME TO BE FAR MORE THAN THE MERE FILLING IN OF THE INTERSTICES
OF THOSE STATUTES.  FN4 

IT MAY BE THAT A STATUTE SHOULD BE PASSED AUTHORIZING THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS TO DECLINE TO TRY SO-CALLED COMMON LAW CASES ACCORDING
TO THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES.  BUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE SUCH A
STATUTE, AND DETERMINATION OF ITS SCOPE AND THE SAFEGUARDS WHICH SHOULD
SURROUND IT, ARE, IN MY JUDGMENT, QUESTIONS OF POLICY WHICH CONGRESS
SHOULD DECIDE.  THERE ARE STRONG ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE COURT IN
ITS OPINION WHY FEDERAL COURTS EXERCISING THEIR COMMON LAW JURISDICTION
SHOULD HAVE THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS WHICH EQUITY COURTS HAVE ALWAYS
POSSESSED IN DISPENSING EQUITABLE RELIEF.  I THINK EQUALLY STRONG
ARGUMENTS COULD BE ADVANCED TO SHOW THAT THEY SHOULD NOT.  FOR ANY
INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE DEFENDANT WHO DOES PART OF HIS BUSINESS IN
STATES OTHER THAN THE ONE IN WHICH HE IS SUED WILL ALMOST INVARIABLY BE
PUT TO SOME INCONVENIENCE TO DEFEND HIMSELF.  IT WILL BE A POORLY
REPRESENTED MULTISTATE DEFENDANT WHO CANNOT PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE AND GOOD REASONS FITTING THE RULE NOW ADOPTED BY THIS COURT
TENDING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FORUM OF THE ACTION AGAINST HIM IS MOST
INCONVENIENT.  THE COURT'S NEW RULE WILL THUS CLUTTER THE VERY
THRESHOLD OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WITH A PRELIMINARY TRIAL OF FACT
CONCERNING THE RELATIVE CONVENIENCE OF FORUMS.  THE PRELIMINARY
DISPOSITION OF THIS FACTUAL QUESTION WILL, I BELIEVE, PRODUCE THE VERY
KIND OF UNCERTAINTY, CONFUSION, AND HARDSHIP WHICH STALLED AND
HANDICAPPED PERSONS SEEKING COMPENSATION FOR MARITIME INJURIES
FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S DECISION IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244
U.S. 205.  THE BROAD AND INDEFINITE DISCRETION LEFT TO FEDERAL COURTS
TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF CONVENIENCE FROM THE WELTER OF FACTORS WHICH
ARE RELEVANT TO SUCH A JUDGMENT, WILL INEVITABLY PRODUCE A COMPLEX OF
CLOSE AND INDISTINGUISHABLE DECISIONS FROM WHICH ACCURATE PREDICTION OF
THE PROPER FORUM WILL BECOME DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE.  YET
PLAINTIFFS WILL BE ASKED "TO DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY BEFORE BRINGING
THEIR ACTIONS THAT FACTUAL QUESTION OVER WHICH COURTS REGULARLY DIVIDE
AMONG THEMSELVES AND WITHIN THEIR OWN MEMBERSHIP.  AS PENALTY FOR
ERROR, THE INJURED INDIVIDUAL MAY NOT ONLY SUFFER SERIOUS FINANCIAL
LOSS THROUGH THE DELAY AND EXPENSE OF LITIGATION, BUT DISCOVER THAT HIS
CLAIM HAS BEEN BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE PROPER FORUM
WHILE HE WAS ERRONEOUSLY PURSUING IT ELSEWHERE."  DAVIS V. DEPT. OF
LABOR & INDUSTRIES, 317 U.S. 249, 254. 

THIS VERY CASE ILLUSTRATES THE HAZARDS OF DELAY.  IT MUST BE BEGUN
ANEW IN ANOTHER FORUM AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, AND NOW THIS COURT, HAVE HAD THEIR TIME-CONSUMING SAY AS TO
THE RELATIVE CONVENIENCE OF THE FORUM IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF CHOSE TO
SEEK REDRESS.  WHETHER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN AGAINST THE
PLAINTIFF, WE DO NOT KNOW.  THE CONVENIENCE WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANT WILL ENJOY FROM THE COURT'S NEW RULE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS
IN LAW ACTIONS MAY BE THOUGHT TO JUSTIFY ITS INHERENT DELAYS,
UNCERTAINTIES, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLICATIONS AND HARDSHIPS.  BUT IN ANY
EVENT, CONGRESS HAS NOT YET SAID SO; AND I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS COURT
SHOULD, 150 YEARS AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE JUDICIARY ACT, FILL IN WHAT
IT THINKS IS A DEFICIENCY IN THE DELIBERATE POLICY WHICH CONGRESS
ADOPTED.  FN5  WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IS GOOD OR
BAD, I SHOULD WAIT FOR CONGRESS TO ADOPT IT.    FN1  IN MONDOU V. NEW
YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 223 U.S. 1, 58, IT WAS STATED THAT:  "THE
EXISTENCE OF THE JURISDICTION CREATES AN IMPLICATION OF DUTY TO
EXERCISE IT, AND THAT ITS EXERCISE MAY BE ONEROUS DOES NOT MILITATE
AGAINST THAT IMPLICATION."  CF. DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO.,
279 U.S. 377, 388. 

FN2  ALTHOUGH THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACTIONS AT LAW AND SUITS IN
EQUITY IN FEDERAL COURTS HAS BEEN ABOLISHED BY THE ADOPTION OF THE
SINGLE FORM OF CIVIL ACTION, RULE 2, F.R.C.P., SEE 1 MOORE, FEDERAL
PRACTICE (1938) C. 2, THERE REMAINS TO FEDERAL COURTS THE SAME
DISCRETION, NO MORE AND NO LESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF SPECIAL EQUITABLE
REMEDIES AS EXISTED BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL RULES.  NEITHER
THE RULES, THE STATUTES, TRADITION, NOR PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
JUSTIFY APPLICATION OF EQUITABLE DISCRETION TO ACTIONS FOR MONEY
JUDGMENTS BASED ON COMMON LAW OR STATUTORY RIGHTS. 

FN3  THIS COURT, WHOSE JURISDICTION IS PRIMARILY APPELLATE, HAS HELD
THAT IT NEED NOT EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONALLY GRANTED ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION EVEN AT COMMON LAW WHERE THERE IS ANOTHER SUITABLE FORUM. 
GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S. 439, 464-65.  BUT THE
CONSTITUTION, NOT CONGRESS, FIXES THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION.  AND IT
WAS THIS COURT'S DUTY TO INTERPRET ITS CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION.  IT
IS THE DUTY OF CONGRESS TO FIX THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS
BY STATUTE.  IT DID SO.  IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO AMEND THAT
STATUTE. 

FN4  "I RECOGNIZE WITHOUT HESITATION THAT JUDGES DO AND MUST
LEGISLATE, BUT THEY CAN DO SO ONLY INTERSTITIALLY; THEY ARE CONFINED
FROM MOLAR TO MOLECULAR MOTIONS."  HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205, 218, 221.  SEE ALSO DISSENTING
OPINION, STATE TAX COMMISSION V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, 185, 202, N. 23
AND AUTHORITIES THERE COLLECTED. 

FN5  THE VERY LAW REVIEW ARTICLES WHICH ARE RELIED UPON TO DOCUMENT
THIS THEORY OF A FEDERAL RULE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS REVEAL THAT
JUDICIAL ADOPTION OF THIS THEORY WITHOUT A NEW ACT OF CONGRESS WOULD BE
AN UNWARRANTED JUDICIAL INNOVATION.  FOSTER, PLACE OF TRIAL -
INTERSTATE APPLICATION OF INTRASTATE METHODS OF ADJUSTMENT, 44 HARV. L.
REV. 41, 52; BLAIR, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN ANGLO
AMERICAN LAW, 29 COL. L. REV. 1, 18.  FOR INSTANCE, IT IS STATED THAT
"NO MATTER HOW LITTLE DISPUTE THERE IS AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF SUCH
LEGISLATION, THERE IS COMPARATIVELY LITTLE CHANCE OF OVERCOMING
LEGISLATIVE INERTIA AND SECURING ITS PASSAGE UNLESS SOME ACCIDENT
HAPPENS TO FOCUS ATTENTION UPON IT.  THE BEST HOPE IS THAT THE COURTS
WILL FEEL FREE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION WITHOUT SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
AUTHORIZING THEM TO DO SO."  FOSTER, SUPRA AT 52. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :











KOSTER V. LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CO., 330 U.S. 518 


NO. 206.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 10, 1947.  - 153
F.2D 888, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEW
YORK WAS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND
DISMISSING A DERIVATIVE SUIT BROUGHT IN HIS HOME DISTRICT ON THE GROUND
OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BY A POLICYHOLDER IN AN ILLINOIS MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY ALLEGING BREACHES OF TRUST IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
COMPANY'S AFFAIRS AND PRAYING FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND RESTITUTION.  PP.
521-532. 

2.  IN A DERIVATIVE SUIT, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT MAY REFUSE TO
EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION WHEN A DEFENDANT SHOWS MUCH HARASSMENT AND
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE NOT ONLY DISCLOSES LITTLE COUNTERVAILING BENEFIT
TO HIMSELF IN THE CHOICE OF FORUM, BUT ALSO INDICATES SUCH DISADVANTAGE
AS TO SUPPORT THE INFERENCE THAT THE FORUM CHOSEN WOULD NOT ORDINARILY
BE THOUGHT A SUITABLE ONE TO DECIDE THE CONTROVERSY.  PP. 531-532. 

3.  THIS COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN THIS CASE IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE UNDENIED SWORN
STATEMENTS OF FACT IN DEFENDANT'S MOTION PAPERS, ESPECIALLY WHERE
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT FAILED TO ADVANCE ANY REASON OF
CONVENIENCE TO THE PLAINTIFF.  P. 531. 

4.  WHERE THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IS INVOKED IN A
DERIVATIVE SUIT, THE COMPLEXITIES AND UNIQUE FEATURES OF SUCH SUITS ARE
RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE.  PP. 522, 525-526. 

5.  ALTHOUGH A PLAINTIFF'S OWN INTEREST IN A DERIVATIVE SUIT MAY BE
SMALL, IF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY RULE 23 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE FOR SECONDARY ACTIONS BY SHAREHOLDERS ARE COMPLIED WITH AND
JURISDICTION IS ESTABLISHED, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE EMPOWERED TO
ENTERTAIN SUCH SUITS; BUT THE PECULIARITIES OF SUCH SUITS SHOULD NOT BE
OVERLOOKED.  PP. 523-524. 

6.  WHERE THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS, ALL EQUALLY
ENTITLED VOLUNTARILY TO INVEST THEMSELVES WITH THE CORPORATION'S CAUSE
OF ACTION AND ALL OF WHOM COULD WITH EQUAL SHOW OF RIGHT GO INTO THEIR
MANY HOME COURTS, THE CLAIM OF ANY ONE PLAINTIFF THAT A FORUM IS
APPROPRIATE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS HIS HOME FORUM IS CONSIDERABLY
WEAKENED.  P. 524. 

7.  IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, THE ULTIMATE
INQUIRY IS WHERE TRIAL WILL BEST SERVE THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES
AND THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  P. 527. 

8. ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 123, CONSIDERED; WILLIAMS
V. GREEN BAY & WESTERN R. CO., 326 U.S. 549, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 528
529. 

KOSTER V. (AMERICAN) LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT IN NEW YORK DISMISSED A DERIVATIVE SUIT BROUGHT BY A POLICYHOLDER
IN AN ILLINOIS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.  64 F.SUPP.  595.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  153 F.2D 888.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 700.  AFFIRMED, P. 532. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A DERIVATIVE ACTION, IN EQUITY AS ARE ALL SUCH DERIVATIVE
ACTIONS, BEGUN BY PLAINTIFF AS A MEMBER AND POLICYHOLDER OF LUMBERMENS
MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY "IN THE RIGHT OF LUMBERMEN'S AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL ITS MEMBERS AND POLICY HOLDERS."  IT WAS BROUGHT IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, OF WHICH
PLAINTIFF IS A CITIZEN.  JURISDICTION RESTS ON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP.  THE DEFENDANTS ARE THE LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, A NOMINAL DEFENDANT, ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS; ONE
JAMES S. KEMPER, PRESIDENT AND MANAGER THEREOF, A CITIZEN OF ILLINOIS,
AND JAMES S. KEMPER & CO., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION.  THE RELIEF ASKED
IS THAT THE OTHER DEFENDANTS ACCOUNT TO LUMBERMENS, FOR DAMAGES IT HAS
SUSTAINED AND FOR PROFITS THEY HAVE REALIZED ON CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS. 
IT IS ALLEGED THAT DEFENDANT KEMPER, AS AN OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, HAS
BEEN GUILTY OF BREACHES OF TRUST BY WHICH HE, HIS FAMILY CORPORATION
AND HIS FRIENDS HAVE PROFITED.  PLAINTIFF CHARGES THAT KEMPER'S SALARY
WAS IMPROVIDENTLY INCREASED FROM LESS THAN $75,000 TO OVER $251,000;
THAT ALTHOUGH LUMBERMENS WAS STAFFED AND EQUIPPED TO WRITE INSURANCE
WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF ANY AGENCY, HE EMPLOYED THE KEMPER COMPANY
AND PAID IT "SUBSTANTIAL SUMS" AS "COMMISSIONS, FEES AND OTHERWISE" TO
LUMBERMENS' PREJUDICE AND KEMPER'S PROFIT, AND THAT KEMPER CAUSED
ASSETS OF LUMBERMENS TO BE SOLD TO HIMSELF AND FAVORITES AT PRICES LESS
THAN THEIR VALUES.  KEMPER INDIVIDUALLY WAS NEVER SERVED IN NEW YORK. 
UNLESS HE SHOULD BE FOUND WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION, SOME OF THE ALLEGED
CAUSES OF ACTION CANNOT BE TRIED IN THIS ACTION IN ANY EVENT FOR WANT
OF AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  SOME OF ITS ISSUES COULD BE TRIED WITHOUT
HIM. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, ON MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM
NON CONVENIENS,  FN1  FOUND THAT LUMBERMENS DOES BUSINESS IN FORTY
EIGHT STATES, BUT ITS HOME AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ARE IN
ILLINOIS.  THERE ITS DIRECTORS LIVE; THERE ALL RECORDS ARE KEPT; AND NO
WITNESS SHOWN TO BE NECESSARY TO EITHER SIDE OF THE CASE RESIDES
OUTSIDE OF ILLINOIS.  THE PLAINTIFF HIMSELF LIVES IN NEW YORK, BUT HE
DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ATTENDED ANY MEETINGS OF POLICYHOLDERS OR TO
HAVE RAISED OBJECTION TO THE ACTS ALLEGED, OR OTHERWISE TO HAVE
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE SO THAT HE COULD POSSIBLY BE A WITNESS EXCEPT AS TO
HIS OWNERSHIP OF THE POLICY OF INSURANCE WHICH IS NOT DENIED.  IT WOULD
APPEAR NECESSARY FOR HIM TO MAKE HIS OWN CASE LARGELY FROM BOOKS AND
RECORDS IN CHICAGO AND FROM TESTIMONY OF OFFICERS AND WITNESSES
RESIDENT THERE.  IT ALSO IS EVIDENT THAT THE LEGALITY OF MANY OF THESE
TRANSACTIONS WILL TURN ON THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, UNDER WHICH LUMBERMENS
EXISTS AND WITHIN WHOSE TERRITORY THE QUESTIONED ACTS TOOK PLACE.  THAT
WOULD BE HOME LAW IF THE CASE WERE TRIED IN CHICAGO; IT WOULD BE
FOREIGN LAW TO NEW YORK AND THE CASE, IF TRIED THERE, WOULD INVOLVE
CONFLICT OF LAWS.  IT ALSO IS URGED THAT PLAINTIFF'S TOTAL OF PREMIUM
PAYMENTS IS LESS THAN $250, WHICH WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE
INTEREST HE PERSONALLY COULD HAVE IN THE CONTROVERSY. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TWO COURTS BELOW CONCURRED IN THE VIEW
THAT THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE TRIED IN NEW YORK AS THERE WAS AMPLE REMEDY
AVAILABLE IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS OF ILLINOIS.  BOTH RELIED
UPON ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 123.  THE DISSENTING JUDGE
BELOW CONSIDERED THAT OUR MORE RECENT DECISION IN WILLIAMS V. GREEN BAY
& WESTERN R.R., 326 U.S. 549, IMPLIES DISAPPROVAL OF THE ROGERS CASE
AND RESTRICTS APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 700. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS WHICH
INHERE IN DERIVATIVE ACTIONS, AND WHICH HAVE BEEN LITTLE CONSIDERED BY
THIS COURT.  WILLIAMS V. GREEN BAY & WESTERN R.R., 326 U.S. 549, WAS
NOT A DERIVATIVE ACTION BROUGHT IN THE RIGHT OF A NOMINAL DEFENDANT
CORPORATION.  ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 123, WAS A
DERIVATIVE ACTION, BUT THAT FEATURE OF THE CASE WAS GIVEN ALMOST NO
ATTENTION AND THE EMPHASIS WAS ENTIRELY ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT
INVOLVED INQUIRY INTO THE "INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION,"
CERTAINLY NOT THE MOST DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF THESE ACTIONS. 

THE STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE ACTION, TO WHICH THIS POLICYHOLDER'S
ACTION IS ANALOGOUS, IS AN INVENTION OF EQUITY TO SUPPLY THE WANT OF AN
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW TO REDRESS BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BY
CORPORATE MANAGERS.  USUALLY THE WRONGDOING OFFICERS ALSO POSSESS THE
CONTROL WHICH ENABLES THEM TO SUPPRESS ANY EFFORT BY THE CORPORATE
ENTITY TO REMEDY SUCH WRONGS.  EQUITY THEREFORE TRADITIONALLY
ENTERTAINS THE DERIVATIVE OR SECONDARY ACTION BY WHICH A SINGLE
STOCKHOLDER MAY SUE IN THE CORPORATION'S RIGHT WHEN HE SHOWS THAT THE
CORPORATION ON PROPER DEMAND HAS REFUSED TO PURSUE A REMEDY, OR SHOWS
FACTS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE FUTILITY OF SUCH A REQUEST.  WITH POSSIBLE
RARE EXCEPTIONS, THESE ACTIONS INVOLVE ONLY ISSUES OF STATE LAW AND, AS
IN THE PRESENT CASE, CAN GET INTO FEDERAL COURTS ONLY BY REASON OF
DIVERSITY IN CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES.  THEIR EXISTENCE AND PECULIAR
CHARACTER WERE RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT IN THE OLD EQUITY RULES.  RULE
27, 226 U.S. 656.  THE COMPLEXITIES AND UNIQUE FEATURES OF THESE
ACTIONS, HOWEVER, ARE RELEVANT TO THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS ISSUE, FOR
IN THESE, AS IN ALL OTHER PETITIONS FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, HE WHO SEEKS
EQUITY MUST DO EQUITY, AND THE COURT WILL BE ALERT TO SEE THAT ITS
PECULIAR REMEDIAL PROCESS IS IN NO WAY ABUSED. 

THE CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH SUCH A PLAINTIFF BRINGS BEFORE THE COURT IS
NOT HIS OWN BUT THE CORPORATION'S.  FN2  IT IS THE REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST AND HE IS ALLOWED TO ACT IN PROTECTION OF ITS INTEREST
SOMEWHAT AS A "NEXT FRIEND" MIGHT DO FOR AN INDIVIDUAL, BECAUSE IT IS
DISABLED FROM PROTECTING ITSELF.  IF, HOWEVER, SUCH A CASE AS THIS WERE
TREATED AS OTHER ACTIONS, THE FEDERAL COURT WOULD REALIGN THE PARTIES
FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES ACCORDING TO THEIR REAL INTERESTS.  IN THIS
CASE, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF MANY, THIS WOULD PUT LUMBERMENS ON THE
PLAINTIFF'S SIDE.  ILLINOIS CORPORATIONS WOULD THEN APPEAR AMONG
PLAINTIFFS AND AMONG DEFENDANTS, AND JURISDICTION WOULD BE OUSTED. 
INDIANAPOLIS V. CHASE NATIONAL BANK, 314 U.S. 63.  BUT JURISDICTION IS
SAVED IN THIS CLASS OF CASES BY A SPECIAL DISPENSATION BECAUSE THE
CORPORATION IS IN ANTAGONISTIC HANDS.  DOCTOR V. HARRINGTON, 196 U.S.
579. 

PLAINTIFFS ALSO, AS IN THIS CASE, OFTEN HAVE ONLY A SMALL FINANCIAL
INTEREST IN A LARGE CONTROVERSY.  PLAINTIFFS, LIKE THIS ONE, IF THEIR
OWN FINANCIAL STAKE WERE THE TEST, SOMETIMES DO NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT
INDIVIDUAL INTEREST TO MAKE UP THE REQUIRED JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT. 
AGAIN THIS CLASS OF CASES IS FAVORED WITH THE FICTION THAT PLAINTIFFS'
POSSIBLE RECOVERY IS NOT THE MEASURE OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED FOR
JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES BUT THAT THE TEST IS THE DAMAGE ASSERTED TO
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION.  HENCE, ALTHOUGH A
PLAINTIFF'S OWN INTEREST MAY BE SMALL, IF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY
RULE 23 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR SECONDARY ACTIONS BY
SHAREHOLDERS ARE COMPLIED WITH AND JURISDICTION IS ESTABLISHED, THE
FEDERAL COURTS ARE EMPOWERED TO ENTERTAIN THE CASE.  BUT THE
PECULIARITIES OF SUCH ACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED. 

WHERE THERE ARE ONLY TWO PARTIES TO A DISPUTE, THERE IS GOOD REASON
WHY IT SHOULD BE TRIED IN THE PLAINTIFF'S HOME FORUM IF THAT HAS BEEN
HIS CHOICE.  HE SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE PRESUMED ADVANTAGES OF
HIS HOME JURISDICTION EXCEPT UPON A CLEAR SHOWING OF FACTS WHICH EITHER
(1) ESTABLISH SUCH OPPRESSIVENESS AND VEXATION TO A DEFENDANT AS TO BE
OUT OF ALL PROPORTION TO PLAINTIFF'S CONVENIENCE, WHICH MAY BE SHOWN TO
BE SLIGHT OR NONEXISTENT, OR (2) MAKE TRIAL IN THE CHOSEN FORUM
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING THE COURT'S OWN
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL PROBLEMS.  IN ANY BALANCING OF CONVENIENCES, A
REAL SHOWING OF CONVENIENCE BY A PLAINTIFF WHO HAS SUED IN HIS HOME
FORUM WILL NORMALLY OUTWEIGH THE INCONVENIENCE THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE
SHOWN.  BUT WHERE THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS, ALL
EQUALLY ENTITLED VOLUNTARILY TO INVEST THEMSELVES WITH THE
CORPORATION'S CAUSE OF ACTION AND ALL OF WHOM COULD WITH EQUAL SHOW OF
RIGHT GO INTO THEIR MANY HOME COURTS, THE CLAIM OF ANY ONE PLAINTIFF
THAT A FORUM IS APPROPRIATE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS HIS HOME FORUM IS
CONSIDERABLY WEAKENED.  FN3  SUCH A PLAINTIFF OFTEN MAY REPRESENT AN
IMPORTANT PUBLIC AND STOCKHOLDER INTEREST IN BRINGING FAITHLESS
MANAGERS TO BOOK.  THE NATURE OF THE SECONDARY ACTION IS SUCH THAT
WITHOUT INVITATION FROM OTHER STOCKHOLDERS AND WITHOUT THEIR APPROVAL
OR SUPERVISION, THE PLAINTIFF VOLUNTEERS IN A POSITION THAT ITSELF
CREATES SOMETHING OF A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP. 

WHILE, EVEN IN THE ORDINARY ACTION, THE RESIDENCE OF THE SUITOR WILL
NOT FIX THE PROPER FORUM WITHOUT REFERENCE TO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, IT
IS A FACT OF "HIGH SIGNIFICANCE."  INTERNATIONAL MILLING CO. V.
COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION CO., 292 U.S. 511, 520.  BUT, IN DERIVATIVE
ACTIONS, ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF HIS
OWN TO PROTECT, HE MAY ALSO BE A MERE PHANTOM PLAINTIFF WITH INTEREST
ENOUGH TO ENABLE HIM TO INSTITUTE THE ACTION AND LITTLE MORE.  HE MAY
HAVE TAKEN SOME ACTIVE PART IN THE CORPORATE AFFAIRS, OR HAVE PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE OF THEM, OR HAVE HAD DEALINGS IN COURSE OF PROTEST AND
OBJECTION WHICH MAKE IT REQUISITE OR AT LEAST EXPEDIENT FOR HIM
PERSONALLY TO BE PRESENT AT THE TRIAL.  OR HE MAY, LIKE THIS PLAINTIFF,
MAKE NO SHOWING OF ANY KNOWLEDGE BY WHICH HIS PRESENCE WOULD HELP TO
MAKE WHATEVER CASE CAN BE MADE IN BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION. 

TO ENTERTAIN SUCH AN ACTION PLACES THE FORUM IN A POSITION OF
RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD THE WHOLE CLASS WHICH THE PLAINTIFF ASSUMES TO
REPRESENT.  TO PREVENT COLLUSIVE SETTLEMENTS AND ABUSES, THE COURT MUST
APPROVE DISMISSAL OR COMPROMISE AND OFTEN MUST GIVE NOTICE TO THE OTHER
POTENTIAL PLAINTIFFS, IN THIS CASE TO THE OTHER MEMBERS AND
POLICYHOLDERS IN WHOSE BEHALF PLAINTIFF SUES AND WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO BE
HEARD ON THE PROPRIETY OF SETTLEMENT.  RULE 23, RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  IT ALSO TAKES ON THE TROUBLESOME BUSINESS OF FIXING
ALLOWANCES TO COUNSEL AND ACCOUNTANTS FOR THE PLAINTIFF PAYABLE OUT OF
THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION'S RECOVERY AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS.  FN4
THUS, SUCH A LITIGATION BRINGS TO THE COURT MORE THAN AN ORDINARY TASK
OF ADJUDICATION; IT BRINGS A TASK OF ADMINISTRATION; AND WHAT FORUM IS
APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH A TASK MAY REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF ITS RELATION
TO THE WHOLE GROUP OF MEMBERS AND STOCKHOLDERS WHOM PLAINTIFF
VOLUNTEERS TO REPRESENT AS WELL AS TO THE NOMINAL PLAINTIFF HIMSELF. 

THE NATURE OF THE ACTION IMPORTS OTHER UNUSUAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN
TRIAL COURTS ARE FACED WITH APPLICATIONS TO DISMISS FOR REASONS OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  IT MIGHT WELL BE THAT THE BOOKS, RECORDS AND
WITNESSES TO ESTABLISH ALL OR A PART OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARE IN OR
NEAR THE CHOSEN FORUM.  BUT IN OTHER CASES THEY MAY ALL BE IN SOME
DISTANT JURISDICTION, PERHAPS THAT OF THE DEFENDANTS, AS IS THE CASE
HERE.  IN THE ORDINARY SUIT IT IS PLAINTIFF'S OWN BOOKS AND RECORDS AND
TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT - IN THE DERIVATIVE ACTION IT IS MORE
LIKELY THAT ONLY THE CORPORATION'S BOOKS, RECORDS AND TRANSACTIONS WILL
BE IMPORTANT AND ONLY THE DEFENDANT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE CHOICE OF
THE PLACE OF PRODUCTION OF RECORDS.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, WHICH PRIMA FACIE
ESTABLISHED VEXATION TO DEFENDANT AND THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THE
COURT, THE PLAINTIFF SHOWS NOT A SINGLE FACT PROVABLE BY RECORD OR
WITNESS WITHIN THE DISTRICT OR STATE WHERE HE HAS BROUGHT SUIT.  IT IS
UNDENIED THAT EVERY SOURCE OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE PLAINTIFF'S OWN CASE,
AS WELL AS FOR DEFENDANT TO DISPROVE IT, IS IN ILLINOIS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO FOUND THAT "THE SUIT RELATES TO THE INTERNAL
AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION" AND FOR THAT REASON ALSO CONSIDERED
THAT THE "COURTS OF THE STATE OF DOMICILE OF LUMBERMENS AND THE KEMPER
CORPORATION ARE THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUNALS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THIS
CASE."  64 F.SUPP.  595, 599.  BUT MANY KINDS OF CASES MAY "RELATE TO
INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A CORPORATION," AND THAT FACT DOES NOT HAVE THE
SAME SIGNIFICANCE AS TO THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN ALL
SETTINGS. 

EVERY ISSUE OF ULTRA VIRES OR PROOF OF OFFICERS' AUTHORITY IN A
CONTRACT ACTION INVOLVES INQUIRY INTO INTERNAL AFFAIRS, BUT THAT
INQUIRY IS NOT ONE WHICH MUST BE RELEGATED TO HOME JURISDICTION.  THE
CONTRACTS OF A CORPORATION MAY MAKE ITS LIABILITIES TURN ON SUCH EVENTS
AS REALIZATION OF NET EARNINGS WHICH SUBMIT ITS INTERNAL AFFAIRS TO
SCRUTINY IN ORDER TO DETERMINE LIABILITY AND WHICH ANY COURT WITH
JURISDICTION MAY ADJUDICATE.  WILLIAMS V. GREEN BAY & WESTERN R.R., 326
U.S. 549.  ON THE OTHER HAND, PRIVATE ACTIONS MAY INVOLVE THE RIGHT OF
VISITATION OR SUPERVISION, A PUBLIC RIGHT EXISTING IN THE STATE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EXAMINING INTO THE CONDUCT OF THE CORPORATION WITH A VIEW TO
KEEPING IT WITHIN ITS LEGAL POWERS, TO CORRECT ABUSES OF AUTHORITY AND
NULLIFY IRREGULAR PROCEEDINGS.  SEE GUTHRIE V. HARKNESS, 199 U.S. 148,
159.  SUCH CASES PRESENT A MORE PERSUASIVE CHALLENGE TO THE
JURISDICTION OF A COURT FOREIGN TO THE CORPORATION'S DOMICILE UNDER THE
FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE.  WE ARE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE "WITH NO
PROBLEM OF ADMINISTRATION" OF THE AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION OF
THE SORT WHICH WOULD LEAD A COURT TO DECLINE JURISDICTION.  SEE
DISSENTING OPINION OF STONE, J., IN ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288
U.S. 123, 145. 

THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW, MOREOVER, WHICH REQUIRES DISMISSAL OF A
SUITOR FROM THE FORUM ON A MERE SHOWING THAT THE TRIAL WILL INVOLVE
ISSUES WHICH RELATE TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION. 
THAT IS ONE, BUT ONLY ONE, FACTOR WHICH MAY SHOW CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES
OR WITNESSES, THE APPROPRIATENESS OF TRIAL IN A FORUM FAMILIAR WITH THE
LAW OF THE CORPORATION'S DOMICILE, AND THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE REMEDY
IF ONE BE GRANTED.  BUT THE ULTIMATE INQUIRY IS WHERE TRIAL WILL BEST
SERVE THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  UNDER
MODERN CONDITIONS CORPORATIONS OFTEN OBTAIN THEIR CHARTERS FROM STATES
WHERE THEY NO MORE THAN MAINTAIN AN AGENT TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL
REQUIREMENTS, WHILE EVERY OTHER ACTIVITY IS CONDUCTED FAR FROM THE
CHARTERING STATE.  PLACE OF CORPORATE DOMICILE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
MIGHT BE ENTITLED TO LITTLE CONSIDERATION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM
NON CONVENIENS, WHICH RESISTS FORMALIZATION AND LOOKS TO THE REALITIES
THAT MAKE FOR DOING JUSTICE. 

ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 123, HOLDS ONLY THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT "...  WAS FREE IN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION TO
DECLINE TO PASS UPON THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY AND TO RELEGATE
PLAINTIFF TO AN APPROPRIATE FORUM....  OBVIOUSLY NO DEFINITE RULE OF
GENERAL APPLICATION CAN BE FORMULATED BY WHICH IT MAY BE DETERMINED
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A COURT WILL ASSUME JURISDICTION OF
STOCKHOLDERS' SUITS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  BUT IT SAFELY MAY BE SAID THAT JURISDICTION WILL
BE DECLINED WHENEVER CONSIDERATIONS OF CONVENIENCE, EFFICIENCY AND
JUSTICE POINT TO THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE AS APPROPRIATE
TRIBUNALS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE PARTICULAR CASE."  288 U.S. AT
130-31.  THERE WAS DISAGREEMENT IN THAT CASE AS TO WHETHER THE FACTS
WARRANTED EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION BUT LITTLE AS TO THE GENERAL RULE
BY WHICH DISCRETION IS GOVERNED AND NONE AS TO EXISTENCE OF THE POWER
OF THE COURT. 

IN THE WILLIAMS CASE WE REVERSED AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY A TRIAL
COURT, BUT FAR FROM LAYING DOWN A RIGID RULE TO GOVERN DISCRETION WE
SAID, "EACH CASE TURNS ON ITS FACTS."  326 U.S. AT 557.  THE FACTS IN
THAT CASE WERE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE BEFORE US NOW.  THE ACTION
WAS A CLASS SUIT BROUGHT TO RECOVER AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO
PLAINTIFFS ON DEBENTURES.  THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT UNDER ONE VIEW
AS TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEBENTURES, THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW
THE CORPORATE INTERNAL AFFAIRS TO DETERMINE NET EARNINGS WHICH WERE OR
SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AS DIVIDENDS, AND UNDER ANOTHER VIEW, TO DECIDE
WHETHER UNDER THE APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW DIRECTORS' DISCRETION HAD BEEN
ABUSED.  IN THAT CASE, AS HERE, THE PLAINTIFFS RESIDED IN NEW YORK. 
BUT THE OPINION POINTS OUT THAT THE DEFENDANT, WHILE LEGALLY DOMICILED
ELSEWHERE, MAINTAINED ITS FINANCIAL OFFICE IN NEW YORK; FIVE OF ITS SIX
DIRECTORS, ALL OF ITS EXECUTIVE AND FISCAL OFFICERS EXCEPT THE
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL AUDITOR, WERE FOUND THERE; DIRECTORS MEETINGS
WERE CUSTOMARILY HELD IN NEW YORK; FINANCIAL RECORDS, TRANSFER BOOKS,
MINUTE BOOKS AND THE LIKE WERE KEPT IN NEW YORK.  RECITING THESE FACTS,
AMONG OTHERS, WE CONCLUDED "THESE FACTS PLAINLY INDICATE TO US THAT IT
WOULD NOT BE VEXATIOUS OR OPPRESSIVE TO ENTERTAIN THIS SUIT IN NEW
YORK, WHETHER THE AVAILABILITY OF WITNESSES OR ANY OTHER ASPECT OF A
TRIAL BE CONSIDERED."  326 U.S. AT 560.  ACCORDINGLY, WE HELD THAT THE
CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 

SINCE THIS CASE IS PENDING IN NEW YORK AND IS A DIVERSITY CASE, IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO OBSERVE THAT THE LAW OF NEW YORK, IF APPLICABLE, IS TO
THE SAME EFFECT AS TO THE CONSIDERATIONS TO GOVERN FORUM NON CONVENIENS
QUESTIONS IN THIS CLASS OF CASES.  THE CASES ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIES
TO ESTABLISH HIS CONTENTION THAT IN A SIMILAR SUIT THE COURTS OF NEW
YORK WOULD NOT DECLINE JURISDICTION, SEEM TO BE ONES IN WHICH THE
CORPORATE DEFENDANT HAD ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN NEW YORK OR
A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY THERE, WHICH WOULD ASSURE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF A JUDGMENT.  MILLER V. QUINCY, 179 N.Y. 294, 72 N.E.
116; RAMSEY V. ROSENTHAL, 242 APP. DIV. 526, 275 N.Y.S. 783; HAMM V.
CHRISTIAN HERALD CORP., 236 APP. DIV. 639, 260 N.Y.S. 743; TARLOW V.
ARCHBELL, 47 N.Y.S.2D 3, 7-8, AFF'D, 269 APP. DIV. 837, 56 N.Y.S.2D
363.  FN5  THOSE CASES, HOWEVER, DO NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTIONS
BROUGHT ARE VEXATIOUS OR OPPRESSIVE OR WHETHER THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
REQUIRE THAT THE TRIAL BE HAD IN A MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM.  THEIR
PRINCIPAL ATTENTION IS GIVEN TO THE INQUIRY WHETHER THE SUIT CONCERNS
THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE FOREIGN CORPORATION, AND THEIR UNIFORM
CONCLUSION IS THAT THEY DO NOT.  BUT IN TAKING THAT VIEW OF ONE OF THE
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS, THEY SAY NOTHING TO DETRACT FROM THE GENERAL RULE OF NEW
YORK AS STATED BY CARDOZO, J., IN TRAVIS V. KNOX TERPEZONE CO., 215
N.Y. 259, 264, 109 N.E. 250, 251:  "TO TRACE IN ADVANCE THE PRECISE
LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE CONTROVERSIES AFFECTING A FOREIGN
CORPORATION IN WHICH JURISDICTION WILL BE ASSUMED AND THOSE IN WHICH
JURISDICTION WILL BE DECLINED, WOULD BE A DIFFICULT AND HAZARDOUS
VENTURE.  A LITIGANT IS NOT, HOWEVER, TO BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE HE IS A
STOCKHOLDER, UNLESS CONSIDERATIONS OF CONVENIENCE OR OF EFFICIENCY OR
OF JUSTICE POINT TO THE COURTS OF THE DOMICILE OF THE CORPORATION AS
THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUNALS."  AND IN LANGFELDER V. UNIVERSAL
LABORATORIES, 293 N.Y. 200, 204, 56 N.E.2D 550, 552, THE COURT SAID:
"BUT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT JURISDICTION IN ANY CASE WILL BE DECLINED
EITHER IN THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION IN THE STRICT SENSE OR WHERE A
DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS INVOLVES REGULATION AND
MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE CORPORATION DEPENDENT UPON
THE LAWS OF THE FOREIGN STATE OR WHERE THE COURT IN WHICH JURISDICTION
IS SOUGHT IS UNABLE TO ENFORCE A DECREE IF MADE OR WHERE THE RELIEF
SOUGHT MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATELY ADJUDICATED IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE
OR COUNTRY TO WHICH THE CORPORATION OWES ITS EXISTENCE." 

CONFRONTED WITH DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS IN THIS
CASE RECITING THE FACTS EARLIER SET FORTH HEREIN, THE PLAINTIFF WAS
UTTERLY SILENT AS TO ANY REASON OF CONVENIENCE TO HIMSELF OR TO
WITNESSES AND AS TO ANY ADVANTAGE TO HIM IN EXPENSE, SPEED OF TRIAL, OR
ADEQUACY OF REMEDY IF THE CASE WERE TRIED IN NEW YORK.  HE RECITED ONLY
THAT LUMBERMENS AND THE KEMPER COMPANY HAD BEEN SERVED WITH PROCESS,
AND THAT KEMPER INDIVIDUALLY HAD NOT, BUT THAT PLAINTIFF PROPOSED TO
SERVE HIM ON HIS "NEXT VISIT TO NEW YORK."  FOR THE REST, HE RELIED ON
A MEMORANDUM OF LAW.  THAT THE ABSENCE FROM THE CASE OF KEMPER MAKES
REMEDY IN NEW YORK INADEQUATE, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, AS TO SOME COUNTS IS
ADMITTED.  TO THAT EXTENT, IT MAKES IT INAPPROPRIATE FOR A COURT IN NEW
YORK TO ADJUDICATE SOME CLOSELY RELATED ISSUES, DECIDING PLAINTIFF'S
GRIEVANCES PIECEMEAL.  PETITIONER SHOWS NOT A SINGLE WITNESS OR SOURCE
OF EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO HIM IN NEW YORK AND DOES NOT DENY THAT HIS
COMPLAINT WILL REQUIRE EXHAUSTIVE EXAMINATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF
THESE ILLINOIS CORPORATIONS, ALL OF WHICH OCCURRED IN ILLINOIS AND ARE
TO BE TESTED BY ITS LAW.  THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDED TRIAL IN NEW YORK AS
MATTER OF RIGHT AND OF LAW IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACTS SET OUT BY
DEFENDANT.  THIS COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE UNDENIED SWORN STATEMENTS OF FACT IN
DEFENDANT'S MOTION PAPERS, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE OF
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERING AFFIDAVIT TO ADVANCE ANY REASON OF CONVENIENCE TO
THE PLAINTIFF.  WE HOLD ONLY THAT A DISTRICT COURT, IN A DERIVATIVE
ACTION, MAY REFUSE TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION WHEN A DEFENDANT SHOWS
MUCH HARASSMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE NOT ONLY DISCLOSES SO LITTLE
COUNTERVAILING BENEFIT TO HIMSELF IN THE CHOICE OF FORUM AS IT DOES
HERE, BUT INDICATES SUCH DISADVANTAGE AS TO SUPPORT THE INFERENCE THAT
THE FORUM HE CHOSE WOULD NOT ORDINARILY BE THOUGHT A SUITABLE ONE TO
DECIDE THE CONTROVERSY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1 SOME OF OUR CASES APPEAR TO HOLD BROADLY THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS
MUST EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTION, WHEN THEY HAVE IT.  HYDE V. STONE, 20
HOW.  170, 175; SUYDAM V. BROADNAX, 14 PET. 67; UNION BANK V. JOLLY'S
ADM'RS, 18 HOW.  503.  BUT THIS IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH IT IS URGED THAT
A STATE STATUTE RESTRICTING REMEDY TO STATE PROCEEDINGS DEFEATS FEDERAL
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, AS THEY WERE, AND AS WAS CHICOT COUNTY V.
SHERWOOD, 148 U.S. 529.  IN THOSE CASES, THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN A
STATE RECOGNIZES A CAUSE OF ACTION, SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT ON IT IN
FEDERAL COURT IF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION IS ESTABLISHED.  THAT HOLDING
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE.  WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH THE
AUTONOMOUS ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE DISCHARGE OF
THEIR OWN JUDICIAL DUTIES, SUBJECT OF COURSE TO THE CONTROL OF
CONGRESS. 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 112 PROVIDES "THAT SUIT BY A STOCKHOLDER ON
BEHALF OF A CORPORATION MAY BE BROUGHT IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH SUIT
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS IN SAID STOCKHOLDERS' ACTION, OTHER
THAN SAID CORPORATION, MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BY SUCH CORPORATION AND
PROCESS IN SUCH CASES MAY BE SERVED UPON SUCH CORPORATION IN ANY
DISTRICT WHEREIN SUCH CORPORATION RESIDES OR MAY BE FOUND."  49 STAT.
1214.  THIS REINFORCES THE VIEW THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS THAT OF THE
CORPORATION, IF REINFORCEMENT IS NECESSARY.  MOREOVER, IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT THE VENUE STATUTE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH FACILITATING SUIT IN THE
DISTRICT OF THE STOCKHOLDER'S RESIDENCE, BUT ASSURES ONLY THAT SUIT CAN
BE BROUGHT IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE CORPORATION COULD HAVE SUED. 
GREENBERG V. GIANNINI, 140 F.2D 550.  WHEN SUIT IS BROUGHT IN THE
DISTRICT OF THE STOCKHOLDER'S RESIDENCE, THE VENUE STATUTE DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR SERVICE ON THE CORPORATION "IN ANY DISTRICT WHEREIN SUCH
CORPORATION RESIDES OR MAY BE FOUND."  SINCE THE CORPORATION IS AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY, DAVENPORT V. DOWS, 18 WALL.  626, IT MUST BE ONLY
THE CHANCE STOCKHOLDER'S SUIT WHICH CAN BE MAINTAINED AT THE
STOCKHOLDER'S RESIDENCE.  CORPORATIONS WHICH HAVE STOCKHOLDERS IN MANY
OF THE STATES MAY NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO QUALIFY TO DO BUSINESS AND
CONSENT TO BE SUED IN ALL THE STATES IN WHICH THEY HAVE STOCKHOLDERS. 

FN3  BEFORE THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THIS CASE, A SIMILAR
DERIVATIVE ACTION WAS BEGUN AGAINST SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME DEFENDANTS
AND ON THE SAME CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION.  SCHWARTZ V.
KEMPER, 69 F.SUPP.  152.  IT ASSURES THAT THIS CONTROVERSY WILL NOT BE
BARRED FROM JUDICIAL HEARING FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION WITHIN THE
STATUTORY PERIOD.  ALL BUT TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THAT ACTION HAVE
ENTERED A GENERAL APPEARANCE, AND PETITIONER'S LAWYERS ARE ASSOCIATED
WITH PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IN THAT CASE. 

FN4  TRUSTEES V. GREENOUGH, 105 U.S. 527; SEE FEDERAL CASES CITED
THROUGHOUT HORNSTEIN, THE COUNSEL FEE IN STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE
SUITS, 39 COL. L. REV. 784.  FEES ALLOWED, MOREOVER, VARY GREATLY WITH
LOCAL CONSIDERATIONS AS TO PROFESSIONAL SCALES AND OTHER DETERMINANTS
OF EXPENSE. 

FN5  OF THE OTHER CASES CITED BY PETITIONER, GOLDSTEIN V. LIGHTNER,
266 APP. DIV. 357, 42 N.Y.S.2D 338, AFF'D, 292 N.Y. 670, 56 N.E.2D 98,
GAVE NO EXPRESSED CONSIDERATION TO THE PROBLEM OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS,
AND IN JACOBS V. MEXICAN SUGAR REFINING CO., 104 APP. DIV. 242, 93
N.Y.S. 776, THE ONLY QUESTION RAISED AND DECIDED WAS THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT OVER THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE SUIT.  CF. ERNST V.
RUTHERFORD & B.S.G. CO., 38 APP. DIV. 388, 56 N.Y.S. 403.  IN
HALLENBORG V. GREENE, 66 APP. DIV. 590, 73 N.Y.S. 403, THE APPELLATE
DIVISION REVERSED IN PART A BROAD DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT SO AS TO
RESTRICT THE EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S POWER TO CONFORM TO ITS STATEMENT
OF THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE:  "WHEN A JUDGMENT AGAINST A
FOREIGN CORPORATION WOULD NOT BE EFFECTUAL WITHOUT THE AID OF THE
COURTS OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY OR OF A SISTER STATE, AND IT MAY CONTRAVENE
THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE FOREIGN JURISDICTION OR REST UPON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A FOREIGN STATUTE, THE INTERPRETATION OF WHICH IS NOT
FREE FROM DOUBT - AS WHERE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE LITIGATION AND THE
JUDGMENT WOULD RELATE STRICTLY TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND MANAGEMENT
OF THE FOREIGN CORPORATION - THE COURT SHOULD DECLINE JURISDICTION
BECAUSE SUCH QUESTIONS ARE OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, AND SHOULD BE
RELEGATED TO THE COURTS OF THE STATE OR COUNTRY UNDER THE LAWS OF WHICH
THE CORPORATION WAS ORGANIZED."  66 APP. DIV. AT 597, 73 N.Y.S. AT
408. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE REED, BUT WISH
TO ADD THIS THOUGHT.  TODAY'S DECISION GOES FAR BEYOND THE DUBIOUS
DOCTRINE ANNOUNCED IN ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 123. 
THERE MAY BE RARE INSTANCES IN WHICH A FEDERAL COURT COULD DECLINE TO
PROVIDE AN EQUITABLE REMEDY AGAINST MULTI-STATE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS. 
A PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHICH REQUIRES THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER OR THE
DETAILED AND CONTINUING SUPERVISION OF THE AFFAIRS OF A DEFENDANT
CORPORATION WHOSE HEADQUARTERS IS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
WOULD IN MY VIEW CONSTITUTE SUCH A SITUATION.  CF. PENNSYLVANIA V.
WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176.    THE WHOLE TREND OF RECENT CONGRESSIONAL
LEGISLATION HAS BEEN TO PROTECT CORPORATE STOCK AND SECURITY HOLDERS. 
SEE E.G. SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 74, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77A ET
SEQ. BUT THIS LEGISLATION WAS NOT INTENDED AS A COMPLETE SUBSTITUTE FOR
THE ANTIDOTE PROVIDED BY STOCKHOLDERS' SUITS FOR THE DANGERS INHERENT
IN THE MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF FREQUENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST BETWEEN
CORPORATE OWNERS AND CORPORATE MANAGERS.  SEE LASSWELL, DEAN AND
PODELL, A NON-BUREAUCRATIC ALTERNATIVE TO MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS' SUITS,
43 COL. L. REV. 1036, 1045, 1047; KOESSLER, THE STOCKHOLDER'S SUIT:  A
COMPARATIVE VIEW, 46 COL. L. REV. 238, 241.  YET THE COURT'S OPINION
SETS UP ALMOST INSUPERABLE OBSTACLES TO MANY STOCKHOLDERS WHO WOULD
BRING SUCH SUITS.  A CALIFORNIA OR FLORIDA STOCKHOLDER CANNOT EASILY GO
TO DELAWARE, NEW JERSEY, OR NEW YORK TO PRESS HIS CLAIMS.  AND THERE IS
NO GOOD REASON, IN MOST ACTIONS BROUGHT TO CURB CORPORATE
MISMANAGEMENT, WHY A STOCKHOLDER SHOULD NOT BRING SUCH A SUIT IN THE
STATE WHERE HE LIVES, BOUGHT HIS STOCK, AND WHERE THE CORPORATION HAS
AGENTS AND DOES BUSINESS.  TO PUT HIM TO THE INCONVENIENCE AND
DISADVANTAGE OF GOING ACROSS THE CONTINENT TO THE STATE OF THE MANAGERS
TO LITIGATE HIS CAUSE, ALL BUT NULLIFIES HIS OPPORTUNITY AND
INCLINATION TO SUE TO PROTECT HIS INTEREST AND THAT OF OTHER OWNERS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE WE MAY ASSUME, WITHOUT EXAMINING NEW
YORK LAW, 153 F.2D 888, 890, THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, IN ITS
DISCRETION, CAN DISMISS A CAUSE ON THE GROUND THAT THE FORUM IS
VEXATIOUSLY INCONVENIENT TO THE DEFENDANT.  STILL WE THINK THE EXERCISE
OF SUCH A POWER IS NOT WARRANTED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

WE NEED NOT RESTATE THE FACTS, WHICH ARE AMPLY SET OUT BY THE
MAJORITY.  THE SOLE INQUIRY IS WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY
THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THIS CASE WAS AN ABUSE OF HIS POWER.  ON MOTION OF
LUMBERMENS, JOINED IN BY NO OTHER DEFENDANT, FOR DISMISSAL OF THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ACTION WOULD REQUIRE INTERFERENCE BY
THE COURT WITH THE INTERNAL MANAGEMENT OF LUMBERMENS AND THAT, FURTHER,
AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY HAD NOT BEEN SERVED, THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT REQUIRED INTERFERENCE WITH THE INTERNAL
AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND BECAUSE THE FORUM WAS NOT
CONVENIENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE FORUM IN WHICH THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT
WAS NOT CONVENIENT FOR THE TRIAL OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION ASSERTED BY
THE COMPLAINT. 

BY A VENUE STATUTE, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT AN ACTION MAY BE
BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE PLAINTIFF RESIDES AGAINST DEFENDANTS
RESIDING IN OTHER STATES THAN THAT OF THE FORUM.  THIS PLAINTIFF STARTS
WITH A PRESUMPTION IN HIS FAVOR THAT HE MAY MAINTAIN THIS ACTION AT HIS
OWN RESIDENCE.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 112. 

WE NEED NOT TARRY TO CONSIDER THE SMALL INTEREST OF THE PLAINTIFF IN
THE ASSETS OF HIS CORPORATION, NOR THE EFFECT OF REALIGNING THE
CORPORATION ON THE SIDE OF THE CAUSE WHERE ITS TRUE INTEREST LIES. 
HOWEVER INTERESTING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE FACTS, THEY HAVE NOTHING
TO DO WITH A DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF THE INCONVENIENCE OF THE
FORUM.  THE SAME FACTS WOULD EXIST NO MATTER WHAT THE FORUM, AND THEY
ARE ACCORDINGLY NOT PERTINENT TO OUR INQUIRY.  NOR SHOULD WE CONCERN
OURSELVES WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS MAY BE A STRIKE SUIT. 
WHATEVER THE MOTIVES OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE ONLY INQUIRY NOW HERE IS
WHETHER THE FORUM IS INCONVENIENT OR NOT. 

IN SOME CASES, WHICH MAY AT THE EXPENSE OF ANALYSIS BE GROUPED UNDER
THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, THE CONVENIENCE OF THE COURT MAY
BE IMPORTANT.  IN SUCH CASES THE CROWDED CONDITION OF THE COURT'S
CALENDAR AND ITS LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE LAW OF ANOTHER STATE MAY
BE WEIGHTY FACTORS.  BUT IN THOSE CASES NEITHER THE DEFENDANT NOR THE
PLAINTIFF IS A RESIDENT OF THE FORUM STATE.  WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH
CO. V. RUSSELL, 12 TEX. CIV. APP. 82, 83 S.W. 708; ROBINSON V. OCEANIC
STEAM NAV. CO., 112 N.Y. 315, 19 N.E. 625; BURDICK V. FREEMAN, 120 N.Y.
420, 24 N.E. 949; MORRIS V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 78 TEX. 17, 14
S.W. 228; SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 32 A.L.R. AT P. 34.  CF. SMITH V.
EMPIRE STATE-IDAHO CO., 127 F. 462.  SEE ALSO DAVIS V. FARMERS CO
OPERATIVE CO., 262 U.S. 312, 317.  SUCH CASES HAVE THE SUPPORT OF
POLICY WHICH HESITATES TO GIVE AN ADVANTAGE TO PARTIES WHO DO NOT BEAR
THE EXPENSE OF SUPPORTING THE COURTS OF THE FORUM.  DOUGLAS V. NEW
YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377, 387.  BUT WHERE THE CAUSE IS
TRANSITORY AND THE PLAINTIFF A RESIDENT OF THE FORUM STATE, THE
CONVENIENCE TO THE COURT WOULD SEEM TO BE OUTWEIGHED BY ITS DUTY TO
ENTERTAIN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF WHICH THE COURT
IS AN ARM.  SEE ARIZONA COMMERCIAL MINING CO. V. IRON CAP COPPER CO.,
119 ME. 213, 110 A. 429.  CF. MEXICAN NAT. R. CO. V. JACKSON, 89 TEX.
107, 33 S.W. 857; SLATER V. MEXICAN NAT. R. CO., 194 U.S. 120.  THIS
WOULD SEEM PARTICULARLY TRUE OF FEDERAL COURTS WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO
ENTERTAIN SUITS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES.  WILLIAMS V.
GREEN BAY & W.R. CO., 326 U.S. 549, 553-4. 

SINCE THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ACTION IS A RESIDENT OF THE FORUM STATE,
WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE RELATIVE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES.  IT
IS CLEAR THAT ORDINARILY A PLAINTIFF MAY BRING HIS SUIT IN A FORUM OF
HIS CHOOSING REGARDLESS OF THE INCONVENIENCE TO HIM OF MAKING PROOF, SO
LONG AS VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID.  BUT HERE, AS THE COURT POINTS OUT,
SHOULD THE INCONVENIENCE TO THE DEFENDANT FAR OUTWEIGH ANY CONVENIENCE
TO THE PLAINTIFF, IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR TO OPPRESS THE DEFENDANT, FOR IT
IS NOT A LEGITIMATE ADVANTAGE TO A PLAINTIFF TO VEX HIS OPPONENT.  WE
CANNOT AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IN ASSESSING THE RELATIVE CONVENIENCE OF
THE PARTIES THE COURT MAY PUT A BURDEN UPON THE PLAINTIFF TO MAKE A
POSITIVE SHOWING THAT IT IS TO HIS LEGITIMATE ADVANTAGE TO BRING SUIT
IN THE FORUM OF HIS CHOOSING.  IT IS THE DEFENDANT'S BURDEN TO CONVINCE
THE COURT THAT THE FORUM IS BOTH INCONVENIENT TO IT AND NOT CONVENIENT
TO THE PLAINTIFF.  DESPITE THE NECESSITY OF GOING ELSEWHERE FOR
EVIDENCE, IT IS HARDLY CAPRICIOUS FOR A PLAINTIFF TO BRING SUIT IN HIS
HOME STATE:  THE ADVANTAGES OF SO DOING ARE USUALLY NO LESS REAL THAN
APPARENT. 

ACCORDINGLY WE MUST JUDGE THIS CASE FROM THE SHOWING MADE BY THE
DEFENDANT AS TO THE RELATIVE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES IN ITS
AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS.  THE DEFENDANT'S
AFFIANTS URGED THAT THE SUIT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE ALL THE PROOF WOULD
COME FROM "VAST QUANTITIES OF DOCUMENTS" AND WITNESSES LOCATED IN
ILLINOIS, WHERE THE MAIN OFFICES OF LUMBERMENS ARE SITUATED, AND THAT
TRANSPORTING THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD PUT THE DEFENDANT TO GREAT EXPENSE. 
THEY ALSO URGED THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD NEVER ATTENDED ANY MEETINGS OF
THE CORPORATION, NOR EVER PROTESTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE OF
ILLINOIS WHICH AUDITED THE BOOKS OF LUMBERMENS, AND THAT HE WAS IN A
POSITION WHERE "THE ONLY PROOF PERSONALLY TO COME FROM HIM IS THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF HIS STATUS AS A POLICYHOLDER."  THEY ALSO URGED THAT
THE COURT WAS BEING ASKED TO PASS UPON THE INTERNAL MANAGEMENT AND
AFFAIRS OF LUMBERMENS. 

AS TO THE LAST ARGUMENT:  IT IS RECOGNIZED OF COURSE THAT A FEDERAL
COURT NEED NOT ENTERTAIN A CASE WHICH INVOLVES INTERFERENCE WITH THE
INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A CORPORATION.  ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288
U.S. 123; BUT SEE WILLIAMS V. GREEN BAY & W.R. CO., 326 U.S. 549.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE INTERNAL
AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION OF A KIND "TO MAKE THE COURTS OF
ILLINOIS A MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM THAN NEW YORK" WOULD BE REQUIRED BY
THIS ACTION.  THIS COURT SPECIFICALLY CONCEDES THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF
CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION THAT LEADS TO REFUSAL OF JURISDICTION IN THIS
CASE.  THIS COURT, HOWEVER, DEPENDS UPON THE RELATION OF THE ISSUES TO
THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A CORPORATION AS ONE FACTOR IN THE EXERCISE OF
THE COURT'S DISCRETION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS.  IF CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT INVOLVED, THE MERE FACT
THAT THE ISSUES RELATE TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE CORPORATION DOES
NOT SEEM SIGNIFICANT.  ALMOST ANY SUIT AGAINST A CORPORATION MAY
INVOLVE AN EXAMINATION INTO CORPORATE AFFAIRS.  HERE THE ONLY INQUIRY,
OTHER THAN THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT KEMPER, HAS TO DO
WITH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KEMPER & CO. AND LUMBERMENS.  ALTHOUGH
THIS INEVITABLY INVOLVES INQUIRY INTO INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A
CORPORATION, AS DOES ANY SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST A CORPORATE FIDUCIARY FOR
BREACH OF TRUST, THAT INQUIRY IS HARDLY AN INTERFERENCE WITH CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION. 

WHEN THERE IS NO SHOWING OF INTERFERENCE WITH CORPORATE
ADMINISTRATION, THE PARTY SEEKING DISMISSAL IS FORCED TO DEPEND UPON
WHAT "WILL BEST SERVE THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE."  THIS, WE THINK, REQUIRES STRONG AND CLEAR PROOF TO OVERCOME
THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PLACE OF TRIAL IS CONTROLLED BY THE VENUE
STATUTE.  MERE INCONVENIENCE IS NOT ENOUGH. 

AS FOR THE EXPENSE TO THE DEFENDANT OF BRINGING DOCUMENTS AND
WITNESSES TO NEW YORK, EVEN ADMITTING THAT PROOF IN THIS ACTION WILL
INVOLVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SITUATED IN ILLINOIS OR TESTIMONY OF
WITNESSES LOCATED IN ILLINOIS, IT IS NOT AMISS TO POINT OUT THAT THE
PLAINTIFF MUST CARRY THE BURDEN IN THIS ACTION AND MUST MAKE HIS CASE
BEFORE DEFENSE IS NECESSARY.  SINCE BOTH DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES ARE
BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHOSEN FORUM, IT WILL BE THE PLAINTIFF'S
EXPENSE INITIALLY TO TRANSPORT SUCH RECORDS AND WITNESSES, AN
INCONVENIENCE WHICH HE HAS DETERMINED TO BEAR, IF IT IS TRUE THAT HE
HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF PROOF.  BUT EVEN SUPPOSING THAT THE DEFENDANT
WILL HAVE TO TRANSPORT DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES TO MEET THE PLAINTIFF'S
PROOF, A BARE ALLEGATION TO THAT EFFECT IS HARDLY A SHOWING OF SUCH
HARDSHIP AS TO MAKE IT PROPER TO DISMISS THIS CASE ON THE GROUNDS OF
FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  THE SAME ALLEGATION MIGHT BE MADE IN ANY ACTION
BROUGHT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN ANY STATE OTHER THAN ILLINOIS ON ANY
CAUSE, CONTRACT OR TORT, WHICH INVOLVES RECORDS OF THE COMPANY, AND
THIS EVEN THOUGH THE CORPORATION HAS CHOSEN TO DO BUSINESS IN FORTY
EIGHT STATES.  TO DISMISS A CAUSE ON SUCH BARE ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT A
PARTICULAR SHOWING OF THE HARDSHIP INVOLVED IN TRANSPORTING A MASS OF
DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES NOT EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE FORUM PUTS A
POWERFUL WEAPON INTO THE HANDS OF CORPORATIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE
IMPROPERLY CONDUCTED THEIR AFFAIRS.  IT HAS BEEN THE WHOLE COURSE OF
OUR LAW TO BREAK DOWN BARRIERS AGAINST CALLING CORPORATIONS TO ACCOUNT
IN ALL STATES WHERE THEY MAY DO WRONG IN DOING BUSINESS.  NEIRBO CO. V.
BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S. 165.  LUMBERMENS QUALIFIED IN
NEW YORK TO CARRY ON ITS REGULAR INSURANCE BUSINESS.  IT SOLD PLAINTIFF
A POLICY THAT SHARES IN THE PROFITS OF THAT BUSINESS AND IT SHOULD
REQUIRE A SHOWING MUCH STRONGER THAN ANY HERE MADE TO REQUIRE THIS
POLICYHOLDER TO GO AWAY FROM HOME FOR RELIEF. 

PETITIONER, ON BEHALF OF LUMBERMENS, SEEKS RECOVERY FOR EXCESSIVE
PAYMENTS AND SERVICES BY LUMBERMENS TO THOSE WHO DOMINATE THE COMPANY,
AND FOR SALES OF COMPANY ASSETS TO THOSE PERSONS AT INADEQUATE PRICES. 
PETITIONER MUST PROVE THESE ALLEGATIONS.  NONE ARE NOW DENIED BY
DEFENDANT.  THAT PETITIONER'S SUCCESS WILL RESULT IN "MONETARY DAMAGE"
TO LUMBERMENS SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE.  PETITIONER'S SUCCESS WILL ENRICH
LUMBERMENS AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE MULCTED IT
OF LARGE SUMS.  PETITIONER SPEAKS FOR THE WHOLE MEMBERSHIP AND ALL
POLICYHOLDERS OF LUMBERMENS.  FROM THIS RECORD, WE DO NOT SEE THAT AN
ADEQUATE BASIS OF FACT HAS BEEN LAID BY THE RESPONDENT'S AFFIDAVITS TO
OVERCOME THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER TO PURSUE HIS REMEDIES IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. MINE WORKERS, 330 U.S. 258 


ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 6, 1947.  - 70 F.SUPP.  42,
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


1.  NEITHER THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70, NOR SEC. 20 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 738, DEPRIVES A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN
A SUIT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT A UNION AND ITS OFFICERS FROM
PRECIPITATING A NATION-WIDE STRIKE IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL MINES PENDING
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF A LABOR CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND
THE UNION, AT A TIME WHEN THE MINES ARE BEING OPERATED BY THE
GOVERNMENT DURING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER HIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS PRESIDENT
AND AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY AND AUTHORITY CONFERRED
UPON HIM BY THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, 57 STAT. 163.  PP. 269-289. 

(A)  THE GENERAL TERM "EMPLOYER," AS USED IN THE RESTRICTIVE
PROVISIONS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT AND THE CLAYTON ACT, DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE GOVERNMENT.  PP. 269-284. 

(B)  NEITHER THE POLICY NOR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THOSE ACTS
DISCLOSES ANY INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO MAKE THEM APPLICABLE TO DISPUTES
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS OWN EMPLOYEES.  PP. 273-280. 

(C)  VIEWS EXPRESSED IN DEBATES ON THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT ELEVEN
YEARS AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED
AS AUTHORITATIVE GUIDES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LATTER, WHEN SOME OF
THOSE MAKING THE STATEMENTS WERE NOT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AT THE TIME OF
THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT AND WHEN NONE HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE
WHICH REPORTED THE BILL.  PP. 281-282. 

(D)  NEITHER THE REJECTION OF A SUBSTITUTE BILL WHICH WOULD HAVE
AUTHORIZED INJUNCTIONS UPON APPLICATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT NOR ANYTHING ELSE IN
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THAT ACT CONSTITUTES AN AUTHORITATIVE
EXPRESSION OF CONGRESS DIRECTING THE COURTS TO WITHHOLD INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN DISPUTES WITH ITS OWN EMPLOYEES.  PP. 282
284. 

(E)  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CASE, THE MINERS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE
GOVERNMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE PRIVATE MANAGERS OF THE MINES HAVE BEEN
RETAINED AS OPERATING MANAGERS FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THE REGULATIONS
PROVIDE THAT NONE OF THE EARNINGS OR LIABILITIES RESULTING FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE MINES ARE FOR THE ACCOUNT OR AT THE RISK OR EXPENSE OF
THE GOVERNMENT.  PP. 284-288. 

(F)  IN SEIZING AND OPERATING THE MINES, THE GOVERNMENT WAS
EXERCISING A SOVEREIGN FUNCTION.  P. 289. 

2.  EVEN IF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WERE APPLICABLE, THE DISTRICT
COURT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, HAD POWER TO ISSUE A
RESTRAINING ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING EXISTING CONDITIONS
PENDING A DECISION UPON ITS OWN JURISDICTION; AND DISOBEDIENCE IS
PUNISHABLE AS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  PP. 289-295. 

3.  IN THIS CASE, NONE OF THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL
INVOLVED ERROR SO PREJUDICIAL AS TO REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENTS
FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  PP. 295-301. 

(A)  THE PROCEEDINGS COMPLIED WITH RULE 42(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REQUIRING CRIMINAL CONTEMPT TO BE PROSECUTED ON
NOTICE STATING THE ESSENTIAL FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CONTEMPT CHARGED. 
P. 296. 

(B)  RULE 42(B) WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CAST DOUBT UPON THE PROPRIETY OF
INSTITUTING CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS ON PLEADINGS RESTING ONLY ON
INFORMATION AND BELIEF.  P. 296. 

(C)  ALTHOUGH THE REQUIREMENT OF RULE 42(B) THAT THE NOTICE ISSUING
TO DEFENDANTS DESCRIBE THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CHARGED AS SUCH WAS NOT
COMPLIED WITH, THIS DID NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE TO
DEFENDANTS, WHERE THEY WERE FULLY AWARE THAT A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT WAS
CHARGED, ACTED ACCORDINGLY IN THEIR MOTIONS AND ARGUMENTS, AND ACTUALLY
ENJOYED DURING THE TRIAL ALL THE ENHANCED PROTECTIONS ACCORDED
DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 297-298. 

(D)  DEFENDANTS WERE PROPERLY TRIED BY THE COURT WITHOUT A JURY,
SINCE THEIR DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL WAS BASED ONLY ON SEC. 11 OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT AND THIS CASE WAS NOT ONE "ARISING UNDER" THAT
ACT.  P. 298. 

(E)  HAVING BEEN ACCORDED ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OWING TO
DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CASES, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED BECAUSE THEIR TRIAL INCLUDED A PROCEEDING IN
CIVIL CONTEMPT AND WAS CARRIED ON IN THE MAIN EQUITY SUIT.  PP. 298
301. 

(F)  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE
EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AT A TIME WHEN THERE WAS
IN PROGRESS ARGUMENT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE THE RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  P. 301. 

4.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO OBTAIN RELIEF IN THIS CASE BY WAY
OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AND WAS NOT LIMITED TO A PROCEEDING IN CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT.  PP. 301-302. 

5.  THE CONTEMPT CONTINUED FOR 15 DAYS FROM ISSUANCE OF THE
RESTRAINING ORDER UNTIL THE FINDING OF GUILTY.  ITS WILLFULNESS WAS NOT
QUALIFIED BY ANY CONCURRENT ATTEMPT OF DEFENDANTS TO CHALLENGE THE
ORDER.  IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF GUILTY, DEFENDANT LEWIS,
PRESIDENT OF THE UNION, STATED OPENLY IN COURT THAT DEFENDANTS WOULD
ADHERE TO THEIR POLICY OF DEFIANCE.  THIS POLICY WAS CAUSING ECONOMIC
PARALYSIS WHICH WAS RAPIDLY SPREADING FROM THE COAL MINES TO
PRACTICALLY EVERY OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRY.  IT CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS
THREAT TO ORDERLY CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT AND TO THE ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL WELFARE OF THE NATION.  WHILE LEWIS WAS THE AGGRESSIVE LEADER,
HE ACTED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION; AND IT WAS THE MEMBERS OF
THE UNION WHO EXECUTED THE NATION-WIDE STRIKE.  HELD: 

(A)  THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY FOUND BOTH LEWIS AND THE UNION GUILTY
OF BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  PP. 303-304. 

(B)  THE RECORD CLEARLY WARRANTS A FINE OF $10,000 AGAINST LEWIS FOR
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT; AND THAT FINE IS SUSTAINED.  P. 304. 

(C)  THE RECORD DOES NOT WARRANT THE UNCONDITIONAL IMPOSITION OF A
FINE OF $3,500,000 AGAINST THE UNION; AND THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
UNION IS MODIFIED SO AS TO REQUIRE IT (1) TO PAY A FINE OF $700,000 AND
(2) TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL FINE OF $2,800,000, UNLESS IT SHOWS WITHIN
FIVE DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE HEREIN THAT IT HAS FULLY
COMPLIED WITH THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION.  PP. 304-305. 

6.  IN IMPOSING A FINE FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, A TRIAL JUDGE MAY
PROPERLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXTENT OF THE WILLFUL AND
DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF THE COURT'S ORDER, THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTUMACIOUS BEHAVIOR, THE NECESSITY OF EFFECTIVELY
TERMINATING THE DEFENDANT'S DEFIANCE AS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF DETERRING SUCH ACTS IN THE FUTURE.  P.
303. 

7.  BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THESE STANDARDS, GREAT RELIANCE MUST BE
PLACED UPON THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.  P. 303. 

8.  WHERE THE PURPOSE OF JUDICIAL SANCTIONS IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS IS TO COERCE THE DEFENDANT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S
ORDER, THE COURT MUST CONSIDER THE CHARACTER AND MAGNITUDE OF THE HARM
THREATENED BY CONTINUED CONTUMACY AND THE PROBABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY
SUGGESTED SANCTION IN BRINGING ABOUT THE DESIRED RESULT.  P. 304. 

9.  A COURT WHICH HAS RETURNED A CONVICTION FOR CONTEMPT MUST, IN
FIXING THE AMOUNT OF A FINE TO BE IMPOSED AS A PUNISHMENT OR AS A MEANS
OF SECURING FUTURE COMPLIANCE, CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF DEFENDANT'S
FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND THE CONSEQUENT SERIOUSNESS OF THE BURDEN TO
THAT PARTICULAR DEFENDANT.  P. 304. 

UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA. 

NO. 759.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 760, UNITED STATES V. LEWIS; NO. 781, UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA V. UNITED STATES; NO. 782, LEWIS V. UNITED STATES;
AND NO. 811, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA ET AL. V. UNITED STATES,
ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, A UNION AND ITS PRESIDENT WERE ADJUDGED
GUILTY OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CONTEMPT AND FINED FOR VIOLATION OF A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED IN A SUIT BY THE GOVERNMENT IN A
LABOR DISPUTE ARISING WHILE THE COAL MINES WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF,
AND WERE BEING OPERATED BY, THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER
9728, 11 F.R. 5593, ISSUED UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY AND AUTHORITY
CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, 57 STAT. 163.  70
F.SUPP.  42.  WHILE AN APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS PENDING, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI
PURSUANT TO SEC. 240(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  329 U.S. 708, 709, 710. 
AFFIRMED, EXCEPT THAT THE FINE IMPOSED ON THE UNION IS MODIFIED
CONDITIONALLY, P. 307. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN OCTOBER, 1946, THE UNITED STATES WAS IN POSSESSION OF, AND
OPERATING, THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE COUNTRY'S BITUMINOUS COAL MINES. 
FN1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WERE CONTROLLED "FOR THE PERIOD
OF GOVERNMENT POSSESSION" BY AN AGREEMENT  FN2  ENTERED INTO ON MAY 29,
1946, BETWEEN SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR KRUG, AS COAL MINES
ADMINISTRATOR, AND JOHN L. LEWIS, AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA.  FN3  THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT EMBODIED FAR
REACHING CHANGES FAVORABLE TO THE MINERS; FN4  AND, EXCEPT AS AMENDED
AND SUPPLEMENTED THEREIN, THE AGREEMENT CARRIED FORWARD THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL WAGE AGREEMENT OF APRIL 11,
1945.  FN5 

ON OCTOBER 21, 1946, THE DEFENDANT LEWIS DIRECTED A LETTER TO
SECRETARY KRUG AND PRESENTED ISSUES WHICH LED DIRECTLY TO THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSY.  ACCORDING TO THE DEFENDANT LEWIS, THE KRUG-LEWIS
AGREEMENT CARRIED FORWARD SEC. 15 OF THE NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL WAGE
AGREEMENT OF APRIL 11, 1945.  UNDER THAT SECTION EITHER PARTY TO THE
CONTRACT WAS PRIVILEGED TO GIVE TEN DAYS' NOTICE IN WRITING OF A DESIRE
FOR A NEGOTIATING CONFERENCE WHICH THE OTHER PARTY WAS REQUIRED TO
ATTEND; FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE CONFERENCE EITHER PARTY
MIGHT GIVE NOTICE IN WRITING OF THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT,
EFFECTIVE FIVE DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE.  ASSERTING AUTHORITY
UNDER THIS CLAUSE, THE DEFENDANT LEWIS IN HIS LETTER OF OCTOBER 21
REQUESTED THAT A CONFERENCE BEGIN NOVEMBER 1 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
NEGOTIATING NEW ARRANGEMENTS CONCERNING WAGES, HOURS, PRACTICES, AND
OTHER PERTINENT MATTERS APPERTAINING TO THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY. 
FN6 

CAPTAIN N. H. COLLISSON, THEN COAL MINES ADMINISTRATOR, ANSWERED FOR
SECRETARY KRUG.  ANY CONTRACTUAL BASIS FOR REQUIRING NEGOTIATIONS FOR
REVISION OF THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT WAS DENIED.  FN7  IN THE OPINION
OF THE GOVERNMENT, SEC. 15 OF THE 1945 AGREEMENT HAD NOT BEEN PRESERVED
BY THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT; INDEED, SEC. 15 HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY
NULLIFIED BY THE CLAUSE OF THE LATTER CONTRACT PROVIDING THAT THE TERMS
CONTAINED THEREIN WERE TO COVER THE PERIOD OF GOVERNMENT POSSESSION. 
ALTHOUGH SUGGESTING THAT ANY NEGOTIATIONS LOOKING TOWARD A NEW
AGREEMENT BE CARRIED ON WITH THE MINE OWNERS, THE GOVERNMENT EXPRESSED
WILLINGNESS TO DISCUSS MATTERS AFFECTING THE OPERATION OF THE MINES
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT. 

CONFERENCES WERE SCHEDULED AND BEGAN IN WASHINGTON ON NOVEMBER 1,
BOTH THE UNION AND THE GOVERNMENT ADHERING TO THEIR OPPOSING VIEWS
REGARDING THE RIGHT OF EITHER PARTY TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT.  FN8 AT
THE FIFTH MEETING, HELD ON NOVEMBER 11, THE UNION FOR THE FIRST TIME
OFFERED SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES IN WAGES AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT.  ON NOVEMBER 13 SECRETARY KRUG REQUESTED THE UNION TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE MINE OWNERS.  THIS SUGGESTION WAS REJECTED.  FN9  ON
NOVEMBER 15 THE UNION, BY JOHN L. LEWIS, NOTIFIED SECRETARY KRUG THAT
"FIFTEEN DAYS HAVING NOW ELAPSED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF SAID
CONFERENCE, THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, EXERCISING ITS OPTION
HEREBY TERMINATES SAID KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT AS OF 12:00 O'CLOCK P.M.,
MIDNIGHT, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1946." 

SECRETARY KRUG AGAIN NOTIFIED THE DEFENDANT LEWIS THAT HE HAD NO
POWER UNDER THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT OR UNDER THE LAW TO TERMINATE THE
CONTRACT BY UNILATERAL DECLARATION N10.  THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES ANNOUNCED HIS STRONG SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION AND
REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION BY THE UNION IN ORDER TO AVOID A NATIONAL
CRISIS.  HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT LEWIS, AS UNION PRESIDENT, CIRCULATED
TO THE MINE WORKERS COPIES OF THE NOVEMBER 15 LETTER TO SECRETARY
KRUG.  THIS COMMUNICATION WAS FOR THE "OFFICIAL INFORMATION" OF UNION
MEMBERS. 

THE UNITED STATES ON NOVEMBER 18 FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA AND JOHN L. LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNION. 
THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT  FN11  AND
SOUGHT JUDGMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD NO POWER
UNILATERALLY TO TERMINATE THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT.  AND, ALLEGING THAT
THE NOVEMBER 15 NOTICE WAS IN REALITY A STRIKE NOTICE, THE UNITED
STATES, PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CAUSE, REQUESTED A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 

THE COURT, IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANTS, ISSUED A
TEMPORARY ORDER  FN12 RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS FROM CONTINUING IN
EFFECT THE NOTICE OF NOVEMBER 15, FROM ENCOURAGING THE MINE WORKERS TO
INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION OF THE MINES BY STRIKE OR CESSATION OF
WORK, AND FROM TAKING ANY ACTION WHICH WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION AND ITS DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.  THE ORDER BY ITS TERMS
WAS TO EXPIRE AT 3:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 27 UNLESS EXTENDED FOR GOOD
CAUSE SHOWN.  A HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS SET FOR 10:00
A.M. ON THE SAME DATE.  THE ORDER AND COMPLAINT WERE SERVED ON THE
DEFENDANTS ON NOVEMBER 18. 

A GRADUAL WALKOUT BY THE MINERS COMMENCED ON NOVEMBER 18, AND, BY
MIDNIGHT OF NOVEMBER 20, CONSISTENT WITH THE MINERS'"NO CONTRACT, NO
WORK" POLICY, A FULL-BLOWN STRIKE WAS IN PROGRESS.  MINES FURNISHING
THE MAJOR PART OF THE NATION'S BITUMINOUS COAL PRODUCTION WERE IDLE. 

ON NOVEMBER 21 THE UNITED STATES FILED A PETITION FOR A RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED AS AND FOR CONTEMPT,
ALLEGING A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER.  THE RULE
ISSUED, SETTING NOVEMBER 25 AS THE RETURN DAY AND, IF AT THAT TIME THE
CONTEMPT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY PURGED, SETTING NOVEMBER 27 AS THE DAY
FOR TRIAL ON THE CONTEMPT CHARGE. 

ON THE RETURN DAY, DEFENDANTS, BY COUNSEL, INFORMED THE COURT THAT NO
ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN CONCERNING THE NOVEMBER 15 NOTICE, AND DENIED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO ISSUE THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND RULE TO
SHOW CAUSE.  TRIAL ON THE CONTEMPT CHARGE WAS THEREUPON ORDERED TO
BEGIN AS SCHEDULED ON NOVEMBER 27.  ON NOVEMBER 26 THE DEFENDANTS FILED
A MOTION TO DISCHARGE AND VACATE THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE.  THEIR MOTION
CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, AND RAISED THE GRAVE QUESTION
OF WHETHER THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT  FN13  PROHIBITED THE GRANTING OF
THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AT THE INSTANCE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
FN14 

AFTER EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ON NOVEMBER 27, AND
AFTER FULL ARGUMENT ON NOVEMBER 27 AND NOVEMBER 29, THE COURT, ON THE
LATTER DATE, OVERRULED THE MOTION AND HELD THAT ITS POWER TO ISSUE THE
RESTRAINING ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS NOT AFFECTED BY EITHER THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT OR THE CLAYTON ACT.  FN15 

THE DEFENDANTS THEREUPON PLEADED NOT GUILTY AND WAIVED AN ADVISORY
JURY.  TRIAL ON THE CONTEMPT CHARGE PROCEEDED.  THE GOVERNMENT
PRESENTED EIGHT WITNESSES, THE DEFENDANTS NONE.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE TRIAL ON DECEMBER 3, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD
PERMITTED THE NOVEMBER 15 NOTICE TO REMAIN OUTSTANDING, HAD ENCOURAGED
THE MINERS TO INTERFERE BY A STRIKE WITH THE OPERATION OF THE MINES AND
WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, AND HAD INTERFERED WITH
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  BOTH DEFENDANTS WERE FOUND GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CONTEMPT DATING FROM
NOVEMBER 18.  THE COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT ON DECEMBER 4, FINING THE
DEFENDANT LEWIS $10,000, AND THE DEFENDANT UNION $3,500,000.  ON THE
SAME DAY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, EFFECTIVE UNTIL A FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE CASE, WAS ISSUED IN TERMS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE
RESTRAINING ORDER. 

ON DECEMBER 5 THE DEFENDANTS FILED NOTICES OF APPEAL FROM THE
JUDGMENTS OF CONTEMPT.  THE JUDGMENTS WERE STAYED PENDING THE APPEALS. 
THE UNITED STATES ON DECEMBER 6 FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN BOTH
CASES.  SECTION 240(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AUTHORIZES A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI BY ANY PARTY AND THE GRANTING OF CERTIORARI PRIOR TO
JUDGMENT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  PROMPT SETTLEMENT OF THIS
CASE BEING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON DECEMBER 9,
AND SUBSEQUENTLY, FOR SIMILAR REASONS, GRANTED PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI
FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS, 329 U.S. 708, 709, 710.  THE CASES WERE
CONSOLIDATED FOR ARGUMENT. 

                                I. 

DEFENDANTS' FIRST AND PRINCIPAL CONTENTION IS THAT THE RESTRAINING
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WERE ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CLAYTON AND NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACTS.  WE HAVE COME TO A CONTRARY
DECISION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT CONGRESS DECREED IN SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT THAT
"NO SUCH RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION SHALL PROHIBIT ANY PERSON OR
PERSONS  ...  FROM RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING OTHERS  ..." 
TO STRIKE.  BUT BY THE ACT ITSELF THIS PROVISION WAS MADE APPLICABLE
ONLY TO CASES "BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES, OR BETWEEN EMPLOYERS
AND EMPLOYEES, OR BETWEEN EMPLOYEES, OR BETWEEN PERSONS EMPLOYED AND
PERSONS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT...."  FN16  FOR REASONS WHICH WILL BE
EXPLAINED AT GREATER LENGTH IN DISCUSSING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, WE CANNOT CONSTRUE THE GENERAL TERM "EMPLOYER" TO
INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES, WHERE THERE IS NO EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE
UNITED STATES AND NO EVIDENT AFFIRMATIVE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO WITHHOLD AN OTHERWISE AVAILABLE REMEDY FROM THE
GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS FROM A SPECIFIED CLASS OF PRIVATE PERSONS. 

MOREOVER, IT SEEMS NEVER TO HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE PROSCRIPTION
ON INJUNCTIONS FOUND IN THE CLAYTON ACT IS IN ANY RESPECT BROADER THAN
THAT IN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  DEFENDANTS DO NOT SUGGEST IN THEIR
ARGUMENT THAT IT IS.  THIS COURT, ON THE CONTRARY, HAS STATED THAT THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT "STILL FURTHER  ...  (NARROWED) THE CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS COULD GRANT INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR
DISPUTES."  FN17  CONSEQUENTLY, WE WOULD FEEL JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE TO
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT ALONE.  IF IT DOES
NOT APPLY, NEITHER DOES THE LESS COMPREHENSIVE PROSCRIPTION OF THE
CLAYTON ACT; FN18  IF IT DOES, DEFENDANTS' RELIANCE ON THE CLAYTON ACT
IS UNNECESSARY. 

BY THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, CONGRESS DIVESTED THE FEDERAL COURTS OF
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN A SPECIFIED CLASS OF CASES.  IT
WOULD PROBABLY BE CONCEDED THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRESENT CASE
WOULD BE SUCH AS TO BRING IT WITHIN THAT CLASS IF THE BASIC DISPUTE HAD
REMAINED ONE BETWEEN DEFENDANTS AND A PRIVATE EMPLOYER, AND THE LATTER
HAD BEEN THE PLAINTIFF BELOW.  SO MUCH SEEMS TO BE FOUND IN THE EXPRESS
TERMS OF SECS. 4 AND 13 OF THE ACT, SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN19  THE
SPECIFICATIONS IN SEC. 13 ARE IN GENERAL TERMS AND MAKE NO EXPRESS
EXCEPTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  FROM THESE PREMISES, DEFENDANTS ARGUE
THAT THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTION WERE FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT AND
WERE WRONGFULLY ISSUED. 

EVEN IF OUR EXAMINATION OF THE ACT STOPPED HERE, WE COULD HARDLY
ASSENT TO THIS CONCLUSION.  THERE IS AN OLD AND WELL-KNOWN RULE THAT
STATUTES WHICH IN GENERAL TERMS DIVEST PRE-EXISTING RIGHTS OR
PRIVILEGES WILL NOT BE APPLIED TO THE SOVEREIGN WITHOUT EXPRESS WORDS
TO THAT EFFECT.  FN20  IT HAS BEEN STATED, IN CASES IN WHICH THERE WERE
EXTRANEOUS AND AFFIRMATIVE REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE SOVEREIGN
SHOULD ALSO BE DEEMED SUBJECT TO A RESTRICTIVE STATUTE, THAT THIS RULE
WAS A RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ONLY.  FN21  THOUGH THAT MAY BE TRUE, THE
RULE HAS BEEN INVOKED SUCCESSFULLY IN CASES SO CLOSELY SIMILAR TO THE
PRESENT ONE,  FN22  AND THE STATEMENT OF THE RULE IN THOSE CASES HAS
BEEN SO EXPLICIT,  FN23  THAT WE ARE INCLINED TO GIVE IT MUCH WEIGHT
HERE.  CONGRESS WAS NOT IGNORANT OF THE RULE WHICH THOSE CASES
REITERATED; AND, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THAT RULE, CONGRESS WOULD NOT, IN
WRITING THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, OMIT TO USE "CLEAR AND SPECIFIC
(LANGUAGE) TO THAT EFFECT" IF IT ACTUALLY INTENDED TO REACH THE
GOVERNMENT IN ALL CASES.    BUT WE NEED NOT PLACE ENTIRE RELIANCE ON
THIS EXCLUSIONARY RULE.  SECTION 2,  FN24  WHICH DECLARED THE PUBLIC
POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AS A GUIDE TO THE ACT'S INTERPRETATION,
CARRIES INDICATIONS AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE ACT.  IT PREDICATES THE
PURPOSE OF THE ACT ON THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE POSITION OF THE
"INDIVIDUAL UNORGANIZED WORKER" AND THAT OF THE "OWNERS OF PROPERTY"
WHO HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO "ORGANIZE IN THE CORPORATE AND OTHER FORMS
OF OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATION," AND ON THE CONSEQUENT HELPLESSNESS OF THE
WORKER "TO EXERCISE ACTUAL LIBERTY OF CONTRACT  ...  AND THEREBY TO
OBTAIN ACCEPTABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT."  THE PURPOSE OF
THE ACT IS SAID TO BE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WORKER'S "FULL FREEDOM OF
ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION, AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
HIS OWN CHOOSING, TO NEGOTIATE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT HE SHALL BE FREE FROM THE INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT,
OR COERCION OF EMPLOYERS OF LABOR, OR THEIR AGENTS, IN THE DESIGNATION
OF SUCH REPRESENTATIVES  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING...."  THESE CONSIDERATIONS, ON THEIR FACE, OBVIOUSLY DO NOT
APPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT AS AN EMPLOYER OR TO RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES. 

IF WE EXAMINE SECS. 4 AND 13, ON WHICH DEFENDANTS RELY, WE NOTE THAT
THEY DO NOT PURPORT TO STRIP COMPLETELY FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS ALL
THEIR PRE-EXISTING POWERS TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS, THAT THEY WITHDRAW THIS
POWER ONLY IN A SPECIFIED TYPE OF CASE, AND THAT THIS TYPE IS A CASE
"INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF ANY LABOR DISPUTE."  SECTION 13, IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE, DECLARES A CASE TO BE OF THIS TYPE WHEN IT "INVOLVES
PERSONS" OR "INVOLVES ANY CONFLICTING OR COMPETING INTERESTS" IN A
LABOR DISPUTE OF "PERSONS" WHO STAND IN ANY ONE OF SEVERAL DEFINED
ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS.  AND "PERSONS" MUST BE INVOLVED ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE CASE, OR THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF "PERSONS" ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE DISPUTE.  THE ACT DOES NOT DEFINE "PERSONS."  IN COMMON USAGE THAT
TERM DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SOVEREIGN, AND STATUTES EMPLOYING IT WILL
ORDINARILY NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DO SO.  FN25 CONGRESS MADE EXPRESS
PROVISION, R.S. SEC. 1, 1 U.S.C. SEC. 1, FOR THE TERM TO EXTEND TO
PARTNERSHIPS AND CORPORATIONS, AND IN SEC. 13 OF THE ACT ITSELF FOR IT
TO EXTEND TO ASSOCIATIONS.  THE ABSENCE OF ANY COMPARABLE PROVISION
EXTENDING THE TERM TO SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENTS IMPLIES THAT CONGRESS DID
NOT DESIRE THE TERM TO EXTEND TO THEM. 

THOSE CLAUSES IN SEC. 13(A) AND (B) SPELLING OUT THE POSITION OF
"PERSONS" RELATIVE TO THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP AFFIRMATIVELY
SUGGEST THAT THE UNITED STATES, AS AN EMPLOYER, WAS NOT MEANT TO BE
INCLUDED.  THOSE CLAUSES REQUIRE THAT THE CASE INVOLVE PERSONS "WHO ARE
ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION," WHO "HAVE
DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTERESTS THEREIN," WHO ARE "EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME
EMPLOYER," WHO ARE "MEMBERS OF THE SAME OR AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION
OF EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYEES," OR WHO STAND IN SOME ONE OF OTHER SPECIFIED
POSITIONS RELATIVE TO A DISPUTE OVER THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP.  EVERY ONE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN SEC. 13(A) AND (B)
WE THINK RELATES TO AN ECONOMIC ROLE ORDINARILY FILLED BY A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION, AND NOT BY A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT.  NONE OF
THEM IS AT ALL SUGGESTIVE OF ANY PART PLAYED BY THE UNITED STATES IN
ITS RELATIONS WITH ITS OWN EMPLOYEES.  WE THINK THAT CONGRESS' FAILURE
TO REFER TO THE UNITED STATES OR TO SPECIFY ANY ROLE WHICH IT MIGHT
COMMONLY BE THOUGHT TO FILL IS STRONG INDICATION THAT IT DID NOT INTEND
THAT THE ACT SHOULD APPLY TO SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES
APPEARS AS EMPLOYER. 

IN THE TYPE OF CASE TO WHICH THE ACT APPLIES, SEC. 7 REQUIRES CERTAIN
FINDINGS OF FACT AS CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTIONS
EVEN FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES RECOGNIZED BY THE ACT.  ONE SUCH REQUIRED
FINDING IS THAT "THE PUBLIC OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY TO PROTECT
COMPLAINANT'S PROPERTY ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO FURNISH ADEQUATE
PROTECTION."  OBVIOUSLY, SUCH FINDING COULD NEVER BE MADE IF THE
COMPLAINANT WERE THE UNITED STATES, AND FEDERAL PROPERTY WERE
THREATENED BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROTECTION
WOULD THEN REST NOT ONLY ON STATE OFFICERS, BUT ALSO ON ALL FEDERAL
CIVIL AND MILITARY FORCES.  IF THESE FAILED, A FEDERAL INJUNCTION WOULD
BE A MEANINGLESS FORM.  THIS PROVISION, LIKE THOSE IN SECS. 2, 4 AND
13, ALREADY DISCUSSED, INDICATES THAT THE ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO
AFFECT THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS EMPLOYEES. 

DEFENDANTS MAINTAIN THAT CERTAIN FACTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE ACT SO CLEARLY INDICATE AN INTENT TO RESTRICT THE GOVERNMENT'S USE
OF INJUNCTIONS THAT ALL THE FOREGOING ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY MUST BE
REJECTED. 

REPRESENTATIVE BECK OF PENNSYLVANIA INDICATED IN THE COURSE OF THE
HOUSE DEBATES THAT HE THOUGHT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN
THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACT.  FN26  MR. BECK WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED THE BILL, AND DID NOT VOTE FOR ITS
PASSAGE.  WE DO NOT ACCEPT HIS VIEWS AS EXPRESSIVE OF THE ATTITUDE OF
CONGRESS RELATIVE TO THE STATUS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ACT. 

REPRESENTATIVE BLANTON OF TEXAS INTRODUCED AN AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISION LIMITING THE
INJUNCTIVE POWER "WHERE THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS THE
PETITIONER," AND THIS AMENDMENT WAS DEFEATED BY THE HOUSE.  FN27  BUT
THE FIRST COMMENT MADE ON THIS AMENDMENT, AFTER ITS INTRODUCTION, WAS
THAT OF REPRESENTATIVE LAGUARDIA, THE HOUSE SPONSOR OF THE BILL, WHO
OPPOSED IT, NOT ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH AN EXCEPTION SHOULD NOT BE
MADE, BUT RATHER ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPRESS EXCEPTION WAS
UNNECESSARY.  MR. LAGUARDIA READ THE DEFINITION OF A PERSON
"PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE" IN SEC. 13(B),
REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 13(A), AND THEN ADDED:  "I DO NOT
SEE HOW IN ANY POSSIBLE WAY THE UNITED STATES CAN BE BROUGHT IN UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL."  WHEN MR. BLANTON THEREUPON SUGGESTED THE
NECESSITY OF ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO USE INJUNCTIONS TO MAINTAIN
DISCIPLINE IN THE ARMY AND NAVY, MR. LAGUARDIA POINTED OUT THAT THESE
SERVICES ARE NOT "A TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION."  MR. BLANTON'S ONLY
ANSWER TO MR. LAGUARDIA'S OPPOSITION WAS THAT THE LATTER "DOES NOT KNOW
WHAT EXTENSIONS WILL BE MADE."  A VOTE WAS THEN TAKEN AND THE AMENDMENT
DEFEATED.  FN28  OBVIOUSLY THIS INCIDENT DOES NOT REVEAL A
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO LEGISLATE CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND ITS EMPLOYEES. 

IN THE DEBATES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS NUMEROUS REFERENCES WERE
MADE TO PREVIOUS INSTANCES IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAD RESORTED TO
THE INJUNCTIVE PROCESS IN LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN PRIVATE EMPLOYERS AND
PRIVATE EMPLOYEES,  FN29  WHERE SOME PUBLIC INTEREST WAS THOUGHT TO
HAVE BECOME INVOLVED.  THESE INSTANCES WERE OFFERED AS ILLUSTRATIONS OF
THE ABUSES FLOWING FROM THE USE OF INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES AND
THE DESIRABILITY OF PLACING A LIMITATION THEREON.  THE FREQUENCY OF
THESE REFERENCES AND THE ATTENTION DIRECTED TO THEIR SUBJECT MATTER ARE
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES.  WE AGREE THAT THEY INDICATE THAT CONGRESS,
IN PASSING THE ACT, DID NOT INTEND TO PERMIT THE UNITED STATES TO
CONTINUE TO INTERVENE BY INJUNCTION IN PURELY PRIVATE LABOR DISPUTES. 

BUT WHETHER CONGRESS SO INTENDED OR NOT IS A QUESTION DIFFERENT FROM
THE ONE BEFORE US NOW.  HERE WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN A DISPUTE WITH ITS OWN
EMPLOYEES.  ALTHOUGH WE RECOGNIZE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO WITHDRAW
SUCH REMEDY IN THE FORMER SITUATION, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT
INTENDED TO DO SO IN THE LATTER.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT SOUGHT SUCH REMEDY IN 1894 AND 1922 WERE VASTLY DIFFERENT
FROM THOSE IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS SEEKING TO CARRY OUT ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES BY TAKING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST ITS OWN EMPLOYEES, AND
WE THINK THAT THE REFERENCES IN QUESTION HAVE ONLY THE MOST DISTANT AND
UNCERTAIN BEARING ON OUR PRESENT PROBLEM.  INDEED, WHEN WE LOOK FURTHER
INTO THE HISTORY OF THE ACT, WE FIND OTHER EVENTS WHICH UNEQUIVOCALLY
DEMONSTRATE THAT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE WITHDRAWN IN
THE LATTER SITUATION. 

WHEN THE HOUSE HAD BEFORE IT A RULE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
BILL, REPRESENTATIVE MICHENER, A RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND SPOKESMAN FOR THE MINORITY PARTY ON THE RULES
COMMITTEE, MADE A GENERAL STATEMENT IN THE HOUSE CONCERNING THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE BILL AND ADVOCATING ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.  IN THIS
SURVEY HE CLEARLY STATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO
ITS OWN EMPLOYEES WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED:  FN30 

"BE IT REMEMBERED THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO LEGISLATE
CONCERNING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ENACTMENT
OF THIS BILL INTO LAW WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANY
RIGHTS WHICH IT HAS UNDER EXISTING LAW, TO SEEK AND OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF WHERE THE SAME IS NECESSARY FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF THE
GOVERNMENT." 

IN A LATER STAGE OF THE DEBATE, REPRESENTATIVE MICHENER REPEATED THIS
VIEW IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:  FN31 

"THIS DEALS WITH LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS, NOT WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED.  IT IS MY NOTION THAT UNDER THIS BILL THE
GOVERNMENT CAN FUNCTION WITH AN INJUNCTION, IF THAT IS NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  I SHOULD LIKE TO SEE
THIS CLARIFIED, BUT I WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT UNDER MY
INTERPRETATION OF THIS BILL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL NOT AT ANY TIME
BE PREVENTED FROM APPLYING FOR AN INJUNCTION, IF ONE IS NECESSARY IN
ORDER THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY FUNCTION." 

REPRESENTATIVES MICHENER AND LAGUARDIA WERE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED THE BILL TO THE HOUSE.  THEY
WERE THE MOST ACTIVE SPOKESMEN FOR THE COMMITTEE, BOTH IN EXPLAINING
THE BILL AND ADVOCATING ITS PASSAGE.  NO MEMBER OF THE HOUSE WHO VOTED
FOR THE BILL CHALLENGED THEIR EXPLANATIONS.  AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER
EXPRESSED A LIKE UNDERSTANDING N32.  WE CANNOT BUT BELIEVE THAT THE
HOUSE ACCEPTED THESE AUTHORITATIVE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE BILL.  FN33  THE SENATE EXPRESSED NO CONTRARY
UNDERSTANDING,  FN34  AND WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS, IN PASSING
THE ACT, DID NOT INTEND TO WITHDRAW THE GOVERNMENT'S EXISTING RIGHTS TO
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST ITS OWN EMPLOYEES. 

IF WE WERE TO STOP HERE, THERE WOULD BE LITTLE DIFFICULTY IN
ACCEPTING THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE SCOPE OF THE
ACT.  AND THE CASES IN THIS COURT EXPRESS CONSISTENT VIEWS CONCERNING
THE TYPES OF SITUATIONS TO WHICH THE ACT APPLIES.  FN35  THEY HAVE GONE
NO FARTHER THAN TO FOLLOW CONGRESSIONAL DESIRES BY REGARDING AS BEYOND
THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS THE ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTIONS
SOUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AND DIRECTED TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES.  NONE OF THESE CASES DEALT WITH THE
NARROW SEGMENT OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP NOW BEFORE US. 

BUT REGARDLESS OF THE DETERMINATIVE GUIDANCE SO OFFERED, DEFENDANTS
RELY UPON THE OPINIONS OF SEVERAL SENATORS UTTERED IN MAY, 1943, WHILE
DEBATING THE SENATE VERSION OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT.  FN36  THE
DEBATE AT THAT TIME CENTERED AROUND A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BILL, S. 796,
AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED.  FN37  SECTION 5 OF THE SUBSTITUTE, AS
AMENDED, PROVIDED, "THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
UNITED STATES COURTS OF THE TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION, FOR CAUSE SHOWN, BUT SOLELY UPON APPLICATION BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR UNDER HIS DIRECTION  ...  TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OR
THREATENED VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT."  FN38  FOLLOWING THE REJECTION OF
OTHER AMENDMENTS AIMED AT PERMITTING A MUCH WIDER USE OF INJUNCTIONS
AND CHARACTERIZED AS CONTRARY TO THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT,  FN39
SEVERAL SENATORS WERE OF THE OPINION THAT SEC. 5 ITSELF WOULD REMOVE
SOME OF THE PROTECTION GIVEN EMPLOYEES BY THAT ACT,  FN40  A VIEW
CONTRARY TO WHAT WE HAVE JUST DETERMINED TO BE THE SCOPE OF THE ACT AS
PASSED IN 1932.  SECTION 5 WAS DEFEATED AND NO INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS
WERE CONTAINED IN THE SENATE BILL. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THESE OPINIONS, BUT CANNOT ACCEPT THEM AS
AUTHORITATIVE GUIDES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT. 
THEY WERE EXPRESSED BY SENATORS, SOME OF WHOM WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE IN 1932, AND NONE OF WHOM WAS ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
WHICH REPORTED THE BILL.  THEY WERE EXPRESSED ELEVEN YEARS AFTER THE
ACT WAS PASSED AND CANNOT BE ACCORDED EVEN THE SAME WEIGHT AS IF MADE
BY THE SAME INDIVIDUALS IN THE COURSE OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA DEBATES
N41.  MOREOVER, THESE OPINIONS WERE GIVEN BY INDIVIDUALS STRIVING TO
WRITE LEGISLATION FROM THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND WORKING WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE ISSUES CRUCIAL TO US
HERE.  FN42  WE FAIL TO SEE HOW THE REMARKS OF THESE SENATORS IN 1943
CAN SERVE TO CHANGE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF CONGRESS EXPRESSED IN
1932, AND WE ACCORDINGLY ADHERE TO OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT DID NOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS TO ISSUE
INJUNCTIONS WHEN SOUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES IN A LABOR DISPUTE WITH
ITS OWN EMPLOYEES. 

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS, IN PASSING THE WAR
LABOR DISPUTES ACT, EFFECTIVELY RESTRICTED THE THERETOFORE EXISTING
AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH LABOR
DISPUTES IN PLANTS SEIZED BY THE UNITED STATES.  CHIEF RELIANCE IS
PLACED UPON THE REJECTION BY THE SENATE OF SEC. 5 OF THE CONNALLY
SUBSTITUTE BILL.  FN43  BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT NO COMPARABLE ACTION
TRANSPIRED IN THE HOUSE.  INDEED, PROPOSALS IN THE HOUSE AND THE HOUSE
SUBSTITUTE  FN44  FOR S. 796 AUTHORIZED THE USE OF INJUNCTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE PLANTS NOT YET SEIZED BY THE UNITED STATES. 
THESE ADMITTED INROADS ON THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT DREW MUCH COMMENT
FN45  ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, BUT NEVERTHELESS PREVAILED.  SEIZURE
WAS ALSO CONTEMPLATED, AND CRIMINAL SANCTIONS WERE MADE AVAILABLE IN
THIS SITUATION, WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING THE USE OF INJUNCTIONS
BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE LATTER ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED, NOT DEBATED AND
NOT COMMENTED UPON IN THE HOUSE.  BUT THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE VERSION
DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTIONS TO AID IN THE OPERATION
OF SEIZED PLANTS IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.  RATHER, IT IS WHETHER THE
HOUSE EXPRESSED ANY INTENT TO RESTRICT THE EXISTING AUTHORITY OF THE
COURTS.  WE FIND NOT THE SLIGHTEST SUGGESTION TO THAT EFFECT IN EITHER
THE HOUSE SUBSTITUTE BILL OR THE DEBATES CONCERNING IT.    NOR CAN THE
ACTION OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE BE CONSTRUED AS A CONGRESSIONAL
PROSCRIPTION OF ISSUING INJUNCTIONS TO AID THE UNITED STATES IN DEALING
WITH EMPLOYEES IN SEIZED PLANTS.  NEITHER THE HOUSE NOR SENATE VERSION,
AS THESE BILLS WENT TO CONFERENCE, IN ANY WAY PLACED THIS ISSUE BEFORE
THE CONFEREES.  THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE SIMPLY STRUCK THE BROADER
PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSE BILL ALLOWING INJUNCTIONS TO ISSUE IN PRIVATE
LABOR DISPUTES AND HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE NARROWER QUESTION WE
HAVE BEFORE US NOW.  THE CONFEREES, IN PRODUCING THE ACT IN ITS FINAL
FORM, DID NOTHING WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED TO BAR
INJUNCTIONS SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO AID IN THE OPERATION OF SEIZED
PLANTS.  WE THUS FIND NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND OF THE WAR
LABOR DISPUTES ACT WHICH CONSTITUTES AN AUTHORITATIVE EXPRESSION OF
CONGRESS DIRECTING THE COURTS TO WITHHOLD FROM THE UNITED STATES
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN CONNECTION WITH AN ACT DESIGNED TO STRENGTHEN THE
HAND OF THE GOVERNMENT IN SERIOUS LABOR DISPUTES. 

THE DEFENDANTS CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT WORKERS IN MINES SEIZED BY THE
GOVERNMENT ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; THAT IN
OPERATING THE MINES THUS SEIZED, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ENGAGED IN A
SOVEREIGN FUNCTION; AND THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE
DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AREA WHICH WE HAVE INDICATED AS LYING OUTSIDE
THE SCOPE OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT
WORKERS IN THE MINES SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT STAND IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIP
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT FROM THAT
WHICH EXISTED BEFORE THE SEIZURE WAS EFFECTED.  THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
SUCH TO BE THE CASE IS APPARENT BOTH FROM THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE AND
FROM THE LEGISLATIVE DELIBERATIONS PRECEDING ITS ENACTMENT.  SECTION 3
OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT CALLS FOR THE SEIZURE OF ANY PLANT, MINE,
OR FACILITY WHEN THE PRESIDENT FINDS THAT THE OPERATION THEREOF IS
THREATENED BY STRIKE OR OTHER LABOR DISTURBANCE AND THAT AN
INTERRUPTION IN PRODUCTION WILL UNDULY IMPEDE THE WAR EFFORT.  CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT BY VIRTUE OF GOVERNMENT SEIZURE, A MINE SHOULD BECOME,
FOR PURPOSES OF PRODUCTION AND OPERATION, A GOVERNMENT FACILITY IN AS
COMPLETE A SENSE AS IF THE GOVERNMENT HELD FULL TITLE AND OWNERSHIP. 
FN46 CONSISTENTLY WITH THAT VIEW, CRIMINAL PENALTIES WERE PROVIDED FOR
INTERFERENCE WITH THE OPERATION OF SUCH FACILITIES.  FN47  ALSO
INCLUDED WERE PROCEDURES FOR ADJUSTING WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT OF THE WORKERS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO AVOID INTERRUPTIONS IN
PRODUCTION N48.  THE QUESTION WITH WHICH WE ARE CONFRONTED IS NOT
WHETHER THE WORKERS IN MINES UNDER GOVERNMENT SEIZURE ARE "EMPLOYEES"
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR EVERY PURPOSE WHICH MIGHT BE CONCEIVED,
FN49  BUT WHETHER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, THE INCIDENTS OF THE
RELATIONSHIP EXISTING BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE WORKERS ARE THOSE
OF GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 9728, IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SEIZED
POSSESSION OF THE MINES, AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINERS, AND THEREAFTER TO
APPLY TO THE NATIONAL WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD FOR APPROPRIATE CHANGES
IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE PERIOD OF GOVERNMENTAL
OPERATION.  FN50  SUCH NEGOTIATIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN AND RESULTED IN THE
KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT.  THAT AGREEMENT CONTAINS MANY BASIC DEPARTURES
FROM THE EARLIER CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE MINE WORKERS AND THE
PRIVATE OPERATORS ON APRIL 11, 1945, WHICH, EXCEPT AS AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTED BY THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT, WAS CONTINUED IN EFFECT FOR
THE PERIOD OF GOVERNMENT POSSESSION.  AMONG THE TERMS OF THE KRUG-LEWIS
AGREEMENT WERE PROVISIONS FOR A NEW MINE SAFETY CODE.  OPERATING
MANAGERS WERE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE MINE EMPLOYEES WITH THE
PROTECTION AND BENEFITS OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL
DISEASE LAWS.  PROVISION WAS MADE FOR A WELFARE AND RETIREMENT FUND AND
A MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL FUND.  THE AGREEMENT GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL WAGE
INCREASES AND CONTAINED TERMS RELATING TO VACATIONS AND VACATION PAY. 
INCLUDED WERE PROVISIONS CALLING FOR CHANGES IN EQUITABLE GRIEVANCE
PROCEDURES. 

IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT WAS ONE SOLELY
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE UNION.  THE PRIVATE MINE OPERATORS WERE
NOT PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT NOR WERE THEY MADE PARTIES TO ANY OF ITS
SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS.  IT SHOULD ALSO BE OBSERVED THAT THE
PROVISIONS RELATE TO MATTERS WHICH NORMALLY CONSTITUTE THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  MANY OF
THE PROVISIONS INCORPORATED INTO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE PERIOD OF
GOVERNMENT OPERATION HAD THERETOFORE BEEN VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED BY THE
PRIVATE OPERATORS AND HAVE NOT SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED THEIR APPROVAL. 

IT IS DESCRIPTIVE OF THE SITUATION TO STATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT, IN
ORDER TO MAINTAIN PRODUCTION AND TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF THE
SEIZURE, HAS SUBSTITUTED ITSELF FOR THE PRIVATE EMPLOYER IN DEALING
WITH THOSE MATTERS WHICH FORMERLY WERE THE SUBJECT OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE OPERATORS.  THE DEFENDANTS BY
THEIR CONDUCT HAVE GIVEN PRACTICAL RECOGNITION TO THIS FACT.  THE UNION
NEGOTIATED A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND HAS MADE USE
OF THE PROCEDURES PROVIDED BY THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT TO MODIFY ITS
TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  THE UNION HAS APPARENTLY REGARDED THE KRUG-LEWIS
AGREEMENT AS A SUFFICIENT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT TO SATISFY THE MINE
WORKERS' TRADITIONAL DEMAND OF A CONTRACT AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO
THEIR WORK.  THE DEFENDANT LEWIS, IN RESPONDING TO A SUGGESTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR THAT CERTAIN UNION DEMANDS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO
THE PRIVATE OPERATORS WITH THE VIEW OF MAKING POSSIBLE THE TERMINATION
OF GOVERNMENT POSSESSION, STATED IN A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1946:
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SEIZED THE MINES AND ENTERED INTO
A CONTRACT.  THE MINE WORKERS DO NOT PROPOSE TO DEAL WITH PARTIES WHO
HAVE NO STATUS UNDER THAT CONTRACT."  THE DEFENDANT LEWIS IN THE SAME
LETTER REFERRED TO THE OPERATORS AS "STRANGERS TO THE KRUG-LEWIS
AGREEMENT" AND TO THE MINERS AS THE "400,000 MEN WHO NOW SERVE THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL MINES." 

THE DEFENDANTS, HOWEVER, POINT TO THE FACT THAT THE PRIVATE MANAGERS
OF THE MINES HAVE BEEN RETAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE ROLE OF
OPERATING MANAGERS WITH SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FUNCTIONS AND
AUTHORITY.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
MINES ISSUED BY THE COAL MINES ADMINISTRATOR PROVIDE FOR THE RETENTION
OF THE PRIVATE MANAGERS TO ASSIST IN THE REALIZATION OF THE OBJECTS OF
GOVERNMENT SEIZURE AND OPERATION.  FN51  THE REGULATIONS, HOWEVER, ALSO
PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL OF SUCH OPERATING MANAGERS AT THE DISCRETION OF
THE COAL MINES ADMINISTRATOR.  FN52 THUS THE GOVERNMENT, THOUGH
UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF THE PRIVATE MANAGERS, HAS NEVERTHELESS
RETAINED ULTIMATE CONTROL. 

THE DEFENDANTS ALSO POINT TO THE REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDE THAT NONE
OF THE EARNINGS OR LIABILITIES RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
MINES, WHILE UNDER SEIZURE, ARE FOR THE ACCOUNT OR AT THE RISK OR
EXPENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT N53; THAT THE COMPANIES CONTINUE TO BE LIABLE
FOR ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAXES; FN54  AND THAT THE MINING
COMPANIES REMAIN SUBJECT TO SUIT.  FN55  THE REGULATIONS ON WHICH
DEFENDANTS RELY REPRESENT AN ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE COAL MINES
ADMINISTRATOR TO DEFINE THE RESPECTIVE POWERS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE OPERATORS DURING THE PERIOD OF GOVERNMENT
CONTROL.  WE DO NOT AT THIS TIME EXPRESS ANY OPINION AS TO THE VALIDITY
OF THESE REGULATIONS.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO STATE THAT, IN ANY EVENT,
THE MATTERS TO WHICH THEY REFER HAVE LITTLE PERSUASIVE WEIGHT IN
DETERMINING THE NATURE OF THE RELATION EXISTING BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE MINE WORKERS. 

WE DO NOT FIND CONVINCING THE CONTENTION OF THE DEFENDANTS THAT IN
SEIZING AND OPERATING THE COAL MINES THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT EXERCISING
A SOVEREIGN FUNCTION AND THAT, HENCE, THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHICH CAN
BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TERMS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  IN THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER WHICH DIRECTED THE SEIZURE OF THE MINES, THE PRESIDENT
FOUND AND PROCLAIMED THAT "THE COAL PRODUCED BY SUCH MINES IS REQUIRED
FOR THE WAR EFFORT AND IS INDISPENSABLE FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF
THE NATIONAL ECONOMY DURING THE TRANSITION FROM WAR TO PEACE; THAT THE
WAR EFFORT WILL BE UNDULY IMPEDED OR DELAYED BY  ...  INTERRUPTIONS (IN
PRODUCTION); AND THAT THE EXERCISE ...  OF THE POWERS VESTED IN ME IS
NECESSARY TO INSURE THE OPERATION OF SUCH MINES IN THE INTEREST OF THE
WAR EFFORT AND TO PRESERVE THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC STRUCTURE IN THE
PRESENT EMERGENCY  ..."  UNDER THE CONDITIONS FOUND BY THE PRESIDENT TO
EXIST, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A MORE VITAL AND URGENT
FUNCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT THAN THE SEIZURE AND OPERATION OF THE
BITUMINOUS COAL MINES.  WE HOLD THAT IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT HAS SEIZED ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE MINES, OR OTHER
FACILITIES, AND IS OPERATING THEM, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE WORKERS IS THAT OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT DOES NOT APPLY. 

                       II. 

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE HELD THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT DID NOT RENDER
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THERE
ARE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS WHICH SUPPORT THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
TO PUNISH VIOLATIONS OF ITS ORDERS AS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. 

ATTENTION MUST BE DIRECTED TO THE SITUATION OBTAINING ON NOVEMBER
18.  THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN
RESPECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANTS TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT BY
UNILATERAL ACTION.  WHAT AMOUNTED TO A STRIKE CALL, EFFECTIVE AT
MIDNIGHT ON NOVEMBER 20, HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE DEFENDANT LEWIS AS AN
"OFFICIAL NOTICE."  PENDING A DETERMINATION OF DEFENDANTS' RIGHT TO
TAKE THIS ACTION, THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  THE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE
RESTRAINING ORDER SERIOUSLY URGED THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AND THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT TO GRANT THE ANCILLARY RELIEF DEPENDED IN GREAT PART UPON THE
RESOLUTION OF THIS JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
THE DISTRICT COURT UNQUESTIONABLY HAD THE POWER TO ISSUE A RESTRAINING
ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING EXISTING CONDITIONS PENDING A
DECISION UPON ITS OWN JURISDICTION. 

THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS SERVED ON NOVEMBER 18.  THIS WAS
ROUGHLY TWO AND ONE-HALF DAYS BEFORE THE STRIKE WAS TO BEGIN.  THE
DEFENDANTS FILED NO MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER.  RATHER, THEY IGNORED
IT, AND ALLOWED A NATIONWIDE COAL STRIKE TO BECOME AN ACCOMPLISHED
FACT.  THIS COURT HAS USED UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE IN CONDEMNING SUCH
CONDUCT, FN56  AND HAS IN UNITED STATES V. SHIPP, 203 U.S. 563(1906),
PROVIDED PROTECTION FOR JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN SITUATIONS OF THIS KIND. 
IN THAT CASE THIS COURT HAD ALLOWED AN APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TENNESSEE.  THE PETITION HAD
BEEN FILED BY JOHNSON, THEN CONFINED UNDER A SENTENCE OF DEATH IMPOSED
BY A STATE COURT.  PENDING THE APPEAL, THIS COURT ISSUED AN ORDER
STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JOHNSON.  HOWEVER, THE PRISONER WAS
TAKEN FROM JAIL AND LYNCHED.  SHIPP, THE SHERIFF HAVING CUSTODY OF
JOHNSON, WAS CHARGED WITH CONSPIRING WITH OTHERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
LYNCHING JOHNSON, WITH INTENT TO SHOW CONTEMPT FOR THE ORDER OF THIS
COURT.  SHIPP DENIED THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT ON THE GROUND THAT THE STAY ORDER WAS ISSUED PENDING AN APPEAL
OVER WHICH THIS COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS ALLEGED WERE FRIVOLOUS AND ONLY A PRETENSE.  THE COURT,
THROUGH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, REJECTED THE CONTENTION AS TO WANT OF
JURISDICTION, AND IN ORDERING THE CONTEMPT TO BE TRIED, STATED: 

"WE REGARD THIS ARGUMENT AS UNSOUND.  IT HAS BEEN HELD, IT IS TRUE,
THAT ORDERS MADE BY A COURT HAVING NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE THEM MAY BE
DISREGARDED WITHOUT LIABILITY TO PROCESS FOR CONTEMPT.  IN RE SAWYER,
124 U.S. 200; EX PARTE FISK, 113 U.S. 713; EX PARTE ROWLAND, 104 U.S.
604.  BUT EVEN IF THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN
JOHNSON'S PETITION, AND IF THIS COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THE
APPEAL, THIS COURT, AND THIS COURT ALONE, COULD DECIDE THAT SUCH WAS
THE LAW.  IT AND IT ALONE NECESSARILY HAD JURISDICTION TO DECIDE
WHETHER THE CASE WAS PROPERLY BEFORE IT. ON THAT QUESTION, AT LEAST, IT
WAS ITS DUTY TO PERMIT ARGUMENT AND TO TAKE THE TIME REQUIRED FOR SUCH
CONSIDERATION AS IT MIGHT NEED.  SEE MANSFIELD, COLDWATER & LAKE
MICHIGAN RY. CO. V. SWAN, 111 U.S. 379, 387.  UNTIL ITS JUDGMENT
DECLINING JURISDICTION SHOULD BE ANNOUNCED, IT HAD AUTHORITY FROM THE
NECESSITY OF THE CASE TO MAKE ORDERS TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING
CONDITIONS AND THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION, JUST AS THE STATE COURT WAS
BOUND TO REFRAIN FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THE SAME TIME.  REV.
STAT. SEC. 766; ACT OF MARCH 3, 1893, C. 226, 27 STAT. 751.  THE FACT
THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ARGUE HIS CASE SHOWS WHAT NEEDS NO
PROOF, THAT THE LAW CONTEMPLATES THE POSSIBILITY OF A DECISION EITHER
WAY, AND THEREFORE MUST PROVIDE FOR IT."  203 U.S. 573.    IF THIS
COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL IN THE SHIPP CASE,
ITS ORDER WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE VACATED.  BUT IT WAS RULED THAT ONLY THE
COURT ITSELF COULD DETERMINE THAT QUESTION OF LAW.  UNTIL IT WAS FOUND
THAT THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION, "...  IT HAD AUTHORITY FROM THE
NECESSITY OF THE CASE TO MAKE ORDERS TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING
CONDITIONS AND THE SUBJECT OF THE PETITION  ..." 

APPLICATION OF THE RULE LAID DOWN IN UNITED STATES V. SHIPP, SUPRA,
IS APPARENT IN CARTER V. UNITED STATES, 135 F.2D 858(1943).  THERE A
DISTRICT COURT, AFTER MAKING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, ISSUED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.  AN INJUNCTION
FOLLOWED AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH THE COURT AFFIRMATIVELY DECIDED THAT
IT HAD JURISDICTION AND OVERRULED THE DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS BASED UPON
THE ABSENCE OF DIVERSITY AND THE ABSENCE OF A CASE ARISING UNDER A
STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES.  THESE OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS
PREVAILED ON APPEAL, AND THE INJUNCTION WAS SET ASIDE.  BROWN V.
COUMANIS, 135 F.2D 163(1943).  BUT IN CARTER, A COMPANION CASE,
VIOLATIONS OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WERE HELD PUNISHABLE AS
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  PENDING A DECISION ON A DOUBTFUL QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS HELD TO HAVE POWER TO MAINTAIN THE
STATUS QUO AND PUNISH VIOLATIONS AS CONTEMPT.  FN57 

IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD THE POWER TO PRESERVE
EXISTING CONDITIONS WHILE IT WAS DETERMINING ITS OWN AUTHORITY TO GRANT
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  THE DEFENDANTS, IN MAKING THEIR PRIVATE
DETERMINATION OF THE LAW, ACTED AT THEIR PERIL.  THEIR DISOBEDIENCE IS
PUNISHABLE AS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. 

ALTHOUGH A DIFFERENT RESULT WOULD FOLLOW WERE THE QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION FRIVOLOUS AND NOT SUBSTANTIAL, SUCH CONTENTION WOULD BE
IDLE HERE.  THE APPLICABILITY OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT TO THE UNITED
STATES IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED JUDICIAL
CONSIDERATION, AND BOTH THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT AND ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY INDICATED THE SUBSTANTIAL NATURE OF THE PROBLEM WITH WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS FACED. 

PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE FIND IMPRESSIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION
THAT AN ORDER ISSUED BY A COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER AND PERSON MUST BE OBEYED BY THE PARTIES UNTIL IT IS REVERSED BY
ORDERLY AND PROPER PROCEEDINGS.  FN58  THIS IS TRUE WITHOUT REGARD EVEN
FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH THE ORDER IS ISSUED. 
IN HOWAT V. KANSAS, 258 U.S. 181, 189-90(1922) THIS COURT SAID: 

"AN INJUNCTION DULY ISSUING OUT OF A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION
WITH EQUITY POWERS UPON PLEADINGS PROPERLY INVOKING ITS ACTION, AND
SERVED UPON PERSONS MADE PARTIES THEREIN AND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION,
MUST BE OBEYED BY THEM HOWEVER ERRONEOUS THE ACTION OF THE COURT MAY
BE, EVEN IF THE ERROR BE IN THE ASSUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF A SEEMING
BUT VOID LAW GOING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE.  IT IS FOR THE COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW,
AND UNTIL ITS DECISION IS REVERSED FOR ERROR BY ORDERLY REVIEW, EITHER
BY ITSELF OR BY A HIGHER COURT, ITS ORDERS BASED ON ITS DECISION ARE TO
BE RESPECTED, AND DISOBEDIENCE OF THEM IS CONTEMPT OF ITS LAWFUL
AUTHORITY, TO BE PUNISHED."  FN59 

VIOLATIONS OF AN ORDER ARE PUNISHABLE AS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT EVEN
THOUGH THE ORDER IS SET ASIDE ON APPEAL, WORDEN V. SEARLS, 121 U.S.
14(1887),  FN60  OR THOUGH THE BASIC ACTION HAS BECOME MOOT, GOMPERS V.
BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418(1911). 

WE INSIST UPON THE SAME DUTY OF OBEDIENCE WHERE, AS HERE, THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE SUIT, AS WELL AS THE PARTIES, WAS PROPERLY BEFORE THE
COURT; WHERE THE ELEMENTS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION WERE CLEARLY SHOWN;
AND WHERE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE TO ISSUE AN
ORDER ANCILLARY TO THE MAIN SUIT DEPENDED UPON A STATUTE, THE SCOPE AND
APPLICABILITY OF WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT ON NOVEMBER 29 AFFIRMATIVELY DECIDED THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT WAS OF NO FORCE IN THIS CASE AND THAT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WAS
THEREFORE AUTHORIZED.  ORDERS OUTSTANDING OR ISSUED AFTER THAT DATE
WERE TO BE OBEYED UNTIL THEY EXPIRED OR WERE SET ASIDE BY APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS, APPELLATE OR OTHERWISE.  CONVICTIONS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
INTERVENING BEFORE THAT TIME MAY STAND. 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, OF COURSE, THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE A DEFENDANT MAY BE
PUNISHED FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF AN ORDER LATER SET
ASIDE ON APPEAL, THAT THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ACTION MAY PROFIT BY WAY OF
A FINE IMPOSED IN A SIMULTANEOUS PROCEEDING FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT BASED
UPON A VIOLATION OF THE SAME ORDER.  THE RIGHT TO REMEDIAL RELIEF FALLS
WITH AN INJUNCTION WHICH EVENTS PROVE WAS ERRONEOUSLY ISSUED, WORDEN V.
SEARLS, SUPRA, AT 25, 26; SALVAGE PROCESS CORP. V. ACME TANK CLEANING
PROCESS CORP., 86 F.2D 727(1936); S. ANARGYROS V. ANARGYROS & CO., 191
F. 208(1911); FN61  AND A FORTIORI WHEN THE INJUNCTION OR RESTRAINING
ORDER WAS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  NOR DOES THE REASON
UNDERLYING UNITED STATES V. SHIPP, SUPRA, COMPEL A DIFFERENT RESULT. 
IF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WERE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, THE
CONVICTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT WOULD BE REVERSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. 

ASSUMING, THEN, THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT APPLIED TO THIS CASE
AND PROHIBITED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES,
WE WOULD SET ASIDE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION OF DECEMBER 4 AND THE
JUDGMENT FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT; BUT WE WOULD, SUBJECT TO ANY INFIRMITIES
IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE FINES IMPOSED, AFFIRM THE
JUDGMENTS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AS VALIDLY PUNISHING VIOLATIONS OF AN
ORDER THEN OUTSTANDING AND UNREVERSED. 

                   III. 

THE DEFENDANTS HAVE PRESSED UPON US THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THEIR
TRIAL AND ALLEGE ERROR SO PREJUDICIAL AS TO REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE
JUDGMENTS FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN
PERSUADED. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS WILL SUPPORT JUDGMENTS FOR
BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CONTEMPT; AND OUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO RULE
42(B) OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  FN62 THE RULE REQUIRES
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT TO BE PROSECUTED ON NOTICE STATING THE ESSENTIAL
FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CONTEMPT CHARGED.  IN THIS RESPECT, THERE WAS
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE HERE.  NOTICE WAS GIVEN BY A RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE SERVED UPON DEFENDANTS TOGETHER WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION
AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT.  THE PLEADINGS RESTED ONLY UPON INFORMATION
AND BELIEF, BUT RULE 42(B) WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CAST DOUBT UPON THE
PROPRIETY OF INSTITUTING CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MANNER. 
FN63  THE PETITION ITSELF CHARGED A VIOLATION OF THE OUTSTANDING
RESTRAINING ORDER, AND THE AFFIDAVIT ALLEGED IN DETAIL A FAILURE TO
WITHDRAW THE NOTICE OF NOVEMBER 15, THE CESSATION OF WORK IN THE MINES,
AND THE CONSEQUENT INTERFERENCE WITH GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE FAIRLY AND COMPLETELY
APPRISED OF THE EVENTS AND CONDUCT CONSTITUTING THE CONTEMPT CHARGED. 

HOWEVER, RULE 42(B) REQUIRES THAT THE NOTICE ISSUING TO THE
DEFENDANTS DESCRIBE THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CHARGED AS SUCH.  THE
DEFENDANTS URGE A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS RULE.  THE PETITION
ALLEGED A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER, AND BOTH THE
PETITION AND THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE INQUIRED AS TO WHY THE DEFENDANTS
SHOULD NOT BE "PUNISHED AS AND FOR A CONTEMPT" OF COURT.  BUT NOWHERE
WAS THE CONTEMPT DESCRIBED AS CRIMINAL AS REQUIRED BY THE RULE. 

NEVERTHELESS, THE DEFENDANTS WERE QUITE AWARE THAT A CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT WAS CHARGED.  FN64  IN THEIR MOTION TO DISCHARGE AND VACATE
THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, THE CONTEMPT CHARGED WAS REFERRED TO AS
CRIMINAL.  FN65  AND IN ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION THE DEFENDANTS STATED
AND WERE EXPRESSLY INFORMED THAT A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT WAS TO BE TRIED. 
YET IT IS NOW URGED THAT THE OMISSION OF THE WORDS "CRIMINAL CONTEMPT"
FROM THE PETITION AND RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR.  RULE
42(B) REQUIRES NO SUCH RIGOROUS APPLICATION, FOR IT WAS DESIGNED TO
INSURE A REALIZATION BY CONTEMNORS THAT A PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT IS CONTEMPLATED.  FN66  ITS PURPOSE WAS SUFFICIENTLY FULFILLED
HERE, FOR THIS FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE RULE IN ALL RESPECTS HAS NOT
RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANTS. 

NOT ONLY WERE THE DEFENDANTS FULLY INFORMED THAT A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
WAS CHARGED, BUT WE THINK THEY ENJOYED DURING THE TRIAL ITSELF ALL THE
ENHANCED PROTECTIONS ACCORDED DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS N67.  WE NEED NOT TREAT THESE AT LENGTH, FOR DEFENDANTS, IN
THIS RESPECT, URGE ONLY THEIR RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AS PROVIDED IN SEC.
11 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  BUT SEC. 11 IS NOT OPERATIVE HERE, FOR
IT APPLIES ONLY TO CASES "ARISING UNDER THIS ACT,"  FN68  AND WE HAVE
ALREADY HELD THAT THE RESTRICTION UPON INJUNCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE ACT
DO NOT GOVERN THIS CASE.  FN69  THE DEFENDANTS, WE THINK, WERE PROPERLY
TRIED BY THE COURT WITHOUT A JURY. 

IF THE DEFENDANTS WERE THUS ACCORDED ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
OWING TO DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CASES, THEY ARE PUT IN NO
BETTER POSITION TO COMPLAIN BECAUSE THEIR TRIAL INCLUDED A PROCEEDING
IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND WAS CARRIED ON IN THE MAIN EQUITY SUIT.  COMMON
SENSE WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT CONDUCT CAN AMOUNT TO BOTH CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  THE SAME ACTS MAY JUSTIFY A COURT IN RESORTING TO
COERCIVE AND TO PUNITIVE MEASURES.  FN70  DISPOSING OF BOTH ASPECTS OF
THE CONTEMPT IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING WOULD SEEM AT LEAST A CONVENIENT
PRACTICE.  LITIGATION IN PATENT CASES HAS FREQUENTLY FOLLOWED THIS
COURSE,  FN71  AND THE SAME METHOD CAN BE NOTED IN OTHER SITUATIONS IN
BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.  FN72  RULE 42(B), WHILE DEMANDING FAIR
NOTICE AND RECOGNITION OF THE CRIMINAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE, CONTAINS
NOTHING PRECLUDING A SIMULTANEOUS DISPOSITION OF THE REMEDIAL ASPECTS
OF THE CONTEMPT TRIED.  EVEN IF IT BE THE BETTER PRACTICE TO TRY
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT ALONE AND SO AVOID OBSCURING THE DEFENDANT'S
PRIVILEGES IN ANY MANNER, A MINGLING OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS MUST NEVERTHELESS BE SHOWN TO RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL
PREJUDICE BEFORE A REVERSAL WILL BE REQUIRED.  FN73  THAT THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDING CARRIED THE NUMBER AND NAME OF THE EQUITY SUIT  FN74  DOES
NOT ALTER THIS CONCLUSION, ESPECIALLY WHERE, AS HERE, THE UNITED STATES
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE COMPLAINING PARTY IN WHATEVER SUIT THE CONTEMPT WAS
TRIED.  IN SO FAR AS THE CRIMINAL NATURE OF THE DOUBLE PROCEEDING
DOMINATES N75 AND IN SO FAR AS THE DEFENDANTS' RIGHTS IN THE CRIMINAL
TRIAL ARE NOT DILUTED BY THE MIXING OF CIVIL WITH CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, TO
THAT EXTENT IS PREJUDICE AVOIDED.  FN76  HERE, AS WE HAVE INDICATED,
ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE FULLY RESPECTED, AND
THERE HAS BEEN NO SHOWING OF SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE FLOWING FROM THE
FORMAL PECULIARITIES OF DEFENDANTS' TRIAL. 

LASTLY, THE DEFENDANTS HAVE ASSIGNED AS ERROR AND ARGUED IN THEIR
BRIEF THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY EXTENDED THE RESTRAINING ORDER
ON NOVEMBER 27 FOR ANOTHER TEN DAYS.  THERE WAS THEN IN PROGRESS
ARGUMENT ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, A PART
OF THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE
THINK THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE SHOWN FOR EXTENDING THE ORDER.  FN77

                             IV. 

APART FROM THEIR CONTENTIONS CONCERNING THE FORMAL ASPECTS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BELOW, DEFENDANTS INSIST UPON THE INABILITY OF THE UNITED
STATES TO SECURE RELIEF BY WAY OF CIVIL CONTEMPT IN THIS CASE, AND
WOULD LIMIT THE RIGHT TO PROCEED BY CIVIL CONTEMPT TO SITUATIONS IN
WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS ENFORCING A STATUTE EXPRESSLY ALLOWING
RESORT TO THE COURTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STATUTORY ORDERS.  MCCRONE V.
UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 61(1939), HOWEVER, RESTS UPON NO SUCH NARROW
GROUND, FOR THE COURT THERE SAID THAT "ARTICLE 3, SEC. 2, OF THE
CONSTITUTION, EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATES THE UNITED STATES AS A PARTY TO
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS BY EXTENDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY 'TO CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE A
PARTY.'"  ID. AT 63.  THE UNITED STATES WAS FULLY ENTITLED TO BRING THE
PRESENT SUIT AND TO BENEFIT FROM ORDERS ENTERED IN ITS BEHALF.  FN78
WE WILL NOT REDUCE THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF THE RELIEF GRANTED BY
LIMITING THE UNITED STATES, WHEN THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN DISOBEYED, TO A
PROCEEDING IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, AND BY DENYING TO THE GOVERNMENT THE
CIVIL REMEDIES ENJOYED BY OTHER LITIGANTS, INCLUDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT DISOBEDIENCE HAS OCCASIONED LOSS.  FN79

                              V. 

IT IS URGED THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE OF $10,000
IMPOSED ON THE DEFENDANT LEWIS AND OF THE FINE OF $3,500,000 IMPOSED ON
THE DEFENDANT UNION WERE ARBITRARY, EXCESSIVE, AND IN NO WAY RELATED TO
THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING. 

SENTENCES FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT ARE PUNITIVE IN THEIR NATURE AND ARE
IMPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VINDICATING THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT. 
GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., SUPRA, AT 441.  THE INTERESTS OF
ORDERLY GOVERNMENT DEMAND THAT RESPECT AND COMPLIANCE BE GIVEN TO
ORDERS ISSUED BY COURTS POSSESSED OF JURISDICTION OF PERSONS AND
SUBJECT MATTER.  ONE WHO DEFIES THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND WILLFULLY
REFUSES HIS OBEDIENCE, DOES SO AT HIS PERIL.  IN IMPOSING A FINE FOR
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, THE TRIAL JUDGE MAY PROPERLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION
THE EXTENT OF THE WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF THE COURT'S ORDER,
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONTUMACIOUS BEHAVIOR, THE
NECESSITY OF EFFECTIVELY TERMINATING THE DEFENDANT'S DEFIANCE AS
REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF DETERRING SUCH
ACTS IN THE FUTURE.  BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THESE STANDARDS, GREAT
RELIANCE MUST BE PLACED UPON THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.    THE
TRIAL COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE DEFENDANTS GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. 
SUCH CONTEMPT HAD CONTINUED FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE
RESTRAINING ORDER UNTIL THE FINDING OF GUILTY.  ITS WILLFULNESS HAD NOT
BEEN QUALIFIED BY ANY CONCURRENT ATTEMPT ON DEFENDANTS' PART TO
CHALLENGE THE ORDER BY MOTION TO VACATE OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURES.  IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF GUILTY, DEFENDANT
LEWIS STATED OPENLY IN COURT THAT DEFENDANTS WOULD ADHERE TO THEIR
POLICY OF DEFIANCE.  THIS POLICY, AS THE EVIDENCE SHOWED, WAS THE GERM
CENTER OF AN ECONOMIC PARALYSIS WHICH WAS RAPIDLY EXTENDING ITSELF FROM
THE BITUMINOUS COAL MINES INTO PRACTICALLY EVERY OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRY
OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO REPUDIATE AND OVERRIDE THE
INSTRUMENT OF LAWFUL GOVERNMENT IN THE VERY SITUATION IN WHICH
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION WAS INDISPENSABLE. 

THE TRIAL COURT ALSO PROPERLY FOUND THE DEFENDANTS GUILTY OF CIVIL
CONTEMPT.  JUDICIAL SANCTIONS IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS MAY, IN A
PROPER CASE, BE EMPLOYED FOR EITHER OR BOTH OF TWO PURPOSES:  TO COERCE
THE DEFENDANT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER, AND TO COMPENSATE
THE COMPLAINANT FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE
CO., SUPRA, AT 448, 449.  WHERE COMPENSATION IS INTENDED, A FINE IS
IMPOSED, PAYABLE TO THE COMPLAINANT.  SUCH FINE MUST OF COURSE BE BASED
UPON EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT'S ACTUAL LOSS,  FN80  AND HIS RIGHT, AS A
CIVIL LITIGANT, TO THE COMPENSATORY FINE IS DEPENDENT UPON THE OUTCOME
OF THE BASIC CONTROVERSY.  FN81 

BUT WHERE THE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE THE DEFENDANT COMPLY, THE COURT'S
DISCRETION IS OTHERWISE EXERCISED.  IT MUST THEN CONSIDER THE CHARACTER
AND MAGNITUDE OF THE HARM THREATENED BY CONTINUED CONTUMACY, AND THE
PROBABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY SUGGESTED SANCTION IN BRINGING ABOUT THE
RESULT DESIRED.  FN82 

IT IS A COROLLARY OF THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES THAT A COURT WHICH HAS
RETURNED A CONVICTION FOR CONTEMPT MUST, IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF A FINE
TO BE IMPOSED AS A PUNISHMENT OR AS A MEANS OF SECURING FUTURE
COMPLIANCE, CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF DEFENDANT'S FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND
THE CONSEQUENT SERIOUSNESS OF THE BURDEN TO THAT PARTICULAR DEFENDANT. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PRINCIPLES, WE THINK THE RECORD CLEARLY
WARRANTS A FINE OF $10,000 AGAINST DEFENDANT LEWIS FOR CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT.  A MAJORITY OF THE COURT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT THINK THAT IT
WARRANTS THE UNCONDITIONAL IMPOSITION OF A FINE OF $3,500,000 AGAINST
THE DEFENDANT UNION.  A MAJORITY FEELS THAT, IF THE COURT BELOW HAD
ASSESSED A FINE OF $700,000 AGAINST THE DEFENDANT UNION, THIS, UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WOULD NOT BE EXCESSIVE AS PUNISHMENT FOR THE
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT THERETOFORE COMMITTED; AND FEELS THAT, IN ORDER TO
COERCE THE DEFENDANT UNION INTO A FUTURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S
ORDER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE TO MAKE THE OTHER $2,800,000 OF THE
FINE CONDITIONAL ON THE DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO PURGE ITSELF WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT UNION
IS HELD TO BE EXCESSIVE.  IT WILL BE MODIFIED SO AS TO REQUIRE THE
DEFENDANT UNION TO PAY A FINE OF $700,000, AND FURTHER, TO PAY AN
ADDITIONAL FINE OF $2,800,000 UNLESS THE DEFENDANT UNION, WITHIN FIVE
DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE HEREIN, SHOWS THAT IT HAS FULLY
COMPLIED WITH THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED NOVEMBER 18, 1946,
AND THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED DECEMBER 4, 1946.  THE DEFENDANT
UNION CAN EFFECT FULL COMPLIANCE ONLY BY WITHDRAWING UNCONDITIONALLY
THE NOTICE GIVEN BY IT, SIGNED JOHN L. LEWIS, PRESIDENT, ON NOVEMBER
15, 1946, TO J. A. KRUG, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, TERMINATING THE
KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT AS OF TWELVE O'CLOCK MIDNIGHT, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER
20, 1946, AND BY NOTIFYING, AT THE SAME TIME, ITS MEMBERS OF SUCH
WITHDRAWAL IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME MANNER AS THE MEMBERS OF THE
DEFENDANT UNION WERE NOTIFIED OF THE NOTICE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR ABOVE-MENTIONED; AND BY WITHDRAWING AND SIMILARLY INSTRUCTING
THE MEMBERS OF THE DEFENDANT UNION OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF ANY OTHER
NOTICE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT IS NOT IN FULL FORCE
AND EFFECT UNTIL THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE BASIC ISSUES ARISING
UNDER THE SAID AGREEMENT. 

WE WELL REALIZE THE SERIOUS PROPORTIONS OF THE FINES HERE IMPOSED
UPON THE DEFENDANT UNION.  BUT A MAJORITY FEELS THAT THE COURSE TAKEN
BY THE UNION CARRIED WITH IT SUCH A SERIOUS THREAT TO ORDERLY
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND TO THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL WELFARE OF
THE NATION, THAT A FINE OF SUBSTANTIAL SIZE IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO
EMPHASIZE THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENSE OF WHICH THE UNION WAS FOUND
GUILTY.  THE DEFENDANT LEWIS, IT IS TRUE, WAS THE AGGRESSIVE LEADER IN
THE STUDIED AND DELIBERATE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT; BUT, AS THE RECORD SHOWS, HE STATED IN OPEN COURT PRIOR
TO IMPOSITION OF THE FINES THAT "THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED MINE
WORKERS DETERMINED THAT THE SO-CALLED KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT WAS
BREACHED," AND THAT IT WAS THE UNION'S "REPRESENTATIVES" WHO "NOTIFIED
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR THAT THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED AS OF
NOVEMBER 20TH."  AND CERTAINLY IT WAS THE MEMBERS OF THE DEFENDANT
UNION WHO EXECUTED THE NATIONWIDE STRIKE.  LOYALTY IN RESPONDING TO THE
ORDERS OF THEIR LEADER MAY, IN SOME MINDS, MINIMIZE THE GRAVITY OF THE
MINERS' CONDUCT; BUT WE CANNOT IGNORE THE EFFECT OF THEIR ACTION UPON
THE RIGHTS OF OTHER CITIZENS, OR THE EFFECT OF THEIR ACTION UPON OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  THE GAINS, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC, WHICH THE MINERS
AND OTHER CITIZENS HAVE REALIZED IN THE PAST ARE ULTIMATELY DUE TO THE
FACT THAT THEY ENJOY THE RIGHTS OF FREE MEN UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT.  UPON THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT SYSTEM DEPENDS ALL FUTURE
PROGRESS TO WHICH THEY MAY JUSTLY ASPIRE.  IN OUR COMPLEX SOCIETY,
THERE IS A GREAT VARIETY OF LIMITED LOYALTIES, BUT THE OVERRIDING
LOYALTY OF ALL IS TO OUR COUNTRY AND TO THE INSTITUTIONS UNDER WHICH A
PARTICULAR INTEREST MAY BE PURSUED. 

WE ARE AWARE THAT THE DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE SINCERELY BELIEVED THAT THE
RESTRAINING ORDER WAS INEFFECTIVE AND WOULD FINALLY BE VACATED. 
HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT HAD SOUGHT A DECLARATION OF ITS CONTRACTUAL
RIGHTS UNDER THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT, EFFECTIVE SINCE MAY 29, 1946,
AND SOLEMNLY SUBSCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE DEFENDANT UNION.  THE
RESTRAINING ORDER SOUGHT TO PRESERVE CONDITIONS UNTIL THE CAUSE COULD
BE DETERMINED, AND OBEDIENCE BY THE DEFENDANTS WOULD HAVE SECURED THIS
RESULT.  THEY HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, BUT THEY DELIBERATELY REFUSED OBEDIENCE AND DETERMINED
FOR THEMSELVES THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER.  WHEN THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
WAS ISSUED, PROVISION WAS MADE FOR A HEARING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE
ALLEGED CONTEMPT WAS SUFFICIENTLY PURGED.  AT THAT HEARING THE
DEFENDANTS STATED TO THE COURT THAT THEIR POSITION REMAINED THEN IN THE
STATUS WHICH EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE RESTRAINING
ORDER.  THEIR CONDUCT SHOWED A TOTAL LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS.  PUNISHMENT IN THIS CASE IS FOR THAT WHICH THE DEFENDANTS HAD
DONE PRIOR TO IMPOSITION OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, COUPLED
WITH A COERCIVE IMPOSITION UPON THE DEFENDANT UNION TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE
WITH THE COURT'S OUTSTANDING ORDER. 

WE HAVE EXAMINED THE OTHER CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE DEFENDANTS BUT
HAVE FOUND THEM TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.  THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WERE PROPERLY ISSUED, AND THE ACTIONS OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IN THESE RESPECTS ARE AFFIRMED.  THE JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT LEWIS IS AFFIRMED.  THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT UNION IS MODIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION, AND, AS
MODIFIED, THAT JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE UNITED STATES HAD TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE MINES PURSUANT TO
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9728 OF MAY 21, 1946, 11 F.R. 5593, IN WHICH THE
PRESIDENT, AFTER DETERMINING THAT LABOR DISTURBANCES WERE INTERRUPTING
THE PRODUCTION OF BITUMINOUS COAL NECESSARY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
NATIONAL ECONOMY DURING THE TRANSITION FROM WAR TO PEACE, DIRECTED THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO TAKE POSSESSION OF AND OPERATE THE MINES
AND TO NEGOTIATE WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINERS CONCERNING THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. 

THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION WAS TAKEN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AS PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY, AND
BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES
ACT, 57 STAT. 163, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 1501-1511.  SECTION 3 OF THE
ACT AUTHORIZES THE SEIZURE OF FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR THE WAR EFFORT
IF AND WHEN THE PRESIDENT FINDS AND PROCLAIMS THAT STRIKES OR OTHER
LABOR DISTURBANCES ARE INTERRUPTING THE OPERATION OF SUCH FACILITIES. 

POSSESSION OF THE SPECIFIED FACILITIES WILL TERMINATE WITH THE ENDING
OF HOSTILITIES AND THAT THE AUTHORITY UNDER THAT SECTION TO OPERATE
FACILITIES SEIZED WILL TERMINATE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ENDING OF
HOSTILITIES.  THE PRESIDENT ON DECEMBER 31, 1946, PROCLAIMED THAT
HOSTILITIES WERE TERMINATED ON THAT DAY.  12 F.R. 1. 

FN2  THE INITIAL PARAGRAPH OF THE CONTRACT PROVIDED: 

"THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ACTING AS COAL
MINES ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.
9728(DATED MAY 21, 1946, 11 F.R. 5593), AND THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, COVERS FOR THE PERIOD OF GOVERNMENT POSSESSION THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT IN RESPECT TO ALL MINES IN GOVERNMENT
POSSESSION WHICH WERE AS OF MARCH 31, 1946, SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL
BITUMINOUS COAL WAGE AGREEMENT, DATED APRIL 11, 1945." 

FN3  IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9728 AND SEC. 5 OF THE WAR
LABOR DISPUTES ACT, THE AGREEMENT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY
THE NATIONAL WAGE STABILIZATION BOARD. 

FN4  SEE P. 286 INFRA. 

FN5  THE SAVING CLAUSE WAS IN THE FOLLOWING FORM: 

"EXCEPT AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED HEREIN, THIS AGREEMENT CARRIES
FORWARD AND PRESERVES THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN ALL JOINT
WAGE AGREEMENTS EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1941, THROUGH MARCH 31, 1943, THE
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE SIX (6) DAY WORKWEEK, AND ALL
THE VARIOUS DISTRICT AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE UNITED MINE
WORKERS AND THE VARIOUS COAL ASSOCIATIONS AND COAL COMPANIES (BASED
UPON THE AFORESAID BASIC AGREEMENT) AS THEY EXISTED ON MARCH 31, 1943,
AND THE NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL WAGE AGREEMENT, DATED APRIL 11,
1945." 

FN6  THE LETTER ALSO CHARGED CERTAIN BREACHES OF CONTRACT BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND ASSERTED SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT WAGE POLICY. 

FN7  CAPTAIN COLLISSON ALSO SPECIFICALLY DENIED BREACHES OF CONTRACT
ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

FN8  CONFERENCES WERE CARRIED ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CLAIMS OF
EITHER PARTY IN THIS RESPECT. 

FN9  SECRETARY KRUG AND DEFENDANT LEWIS MET PRIVATELY ON NOVEMBER 13
AND AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 14. 

FN10  SECRETARY KRUG HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHOSE
OPINION HAD BEEN SOUGHT, THAT SEC. 15 OF THE 1945 AGREEMENT WAS NO
LONGER IN FORCE. 

FN11  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 274D, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400. 

FN12  THE PERTINENT PART OF THE ORDER WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS BY THE COURT THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1946, 

"ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM AND THEIR AGENTS,
SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, AND ATTORNEYS, AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT
OR PARTICIPATION WITH THEM, BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY RESTRAINED PENDING
FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT FROM PERMITTING TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT THE
NOTICE HERETOFORE GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT, JOHN L. LEWIS, TO THE
SECRETARY OF INTERIOR DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1946; AND FROM ISSUING OR
OTHERWISE GIVING PUBLICITY TO ANY NOTICE THAT OR TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN, IS, OR WILL AT SOME FUTURE DATE BE
TERMINATED, OR THAT SAID AGREEMENT IS OR SHALL AT SOME FUTURE DATE BE
NUGATORY OR VOID AT ANY TIME DURING GOVERNMENT POSSESSION OF THE
BITUMINOUS COAL MINES; AND FROM BREACHING ANY OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS
UNDER SAID KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT; AND FROM COERCING, INSTIGATING,
INDUCING, OR ENCOURAGING THE MINE WORKERS AT THE BITUMINOUS COAL MINES
IN THE GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION, OR ANY OF THEM, OR ANY PERSON, TO
INTERFERE BY STRIKE, SLOW DOWN, WALKOUT, CESSATION OF WORK, OR
OTHERWISE, WITH THE OPERATION OF SAID MINES BY CONTINUING IN EFFECT THE
AFORESAID NOTICE OR BY ISSUING ANY NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
OR THROUGH ANY OTHER MEANS OR DEVICE; AND FROM INTERFERING WITH OR
OBSTRUCTING THE EXERCISE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OF HIS
FUNCTIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 9728; AND FROM TAKING ANY ACTION WHICH
WOULD INTERFERE WITH THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION OR WHICH WOULD IMPAIR,
OBSTRUCT, OR RENDER FRUITLESS, THE DETERMINATION OF THIS CASE BY THE
COURT; 

"AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS RESTRAINING ORDER SHALL EXPIRE
AT 3 O'CLOCK P.M. ON NOVEMBER 27TH, 1946, UNLESS BEFORE SUCH TIME THE
ORDER FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN IS EXTENDED, OR UNLESS THE DEFENDANTS
CONSENT THAT IT MAY BE EXTENDED FOR A LONGER PERIOD; 

"AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION BE SET DOWN FOR HEARING ON NOVEMBER 27TH, 1946, AT 10:00
O'CLOCK A.M." 

FN13  47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 101. 

FN14  THE GROUNDS OFFERED FOR THE MOTION WERE: 

"1.  THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS VOID IN THAT THIS CASE
INVOLVES AND GROWS OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE.  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT (47 STAT. 70), AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 20 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT (38 U.S. STAT. C. 323, 730), THIS HONORABLE COURT IS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THIS CAUSE.    "2.
EQUITY ACTS ONLY WHERE THERE IS NO PLAIN, ADEQUATE, AND COMPLETE REMEDY
AT LAW.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION FOR THE RULE PURPORT TO SHOW A
VIOLATION OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT - A SERIOUS OFFENSE - IN WHICH
FIELD THERE IS NO PLACE FOR EQUITY INTERVENTION. 

"3.  OBSERVANCE OF ALL THE STRICT RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IS
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  IT IS APPARENT THAT THE
ALLEGED FACTS SET OUT IN THE UNVERIFIED PETITION AND IN THE AFFIDAVIT
OF CAPTAIN COLLISSON, FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE RULE, ARE BASED WHOLLY
UPON HEARSAY, INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN
THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE.    "4.  THE OBJECT OF THE PETITION FOR THE RULE
IS NECESSARILY PUNITIVE AND NOT COMPENSATORY.  ACCORDINGLY, IT BEING
FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AS AN
INDEPENDENT PROCEEDING AND NOT AS SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE ORIGINAL CAUSE. 

"5.  THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS HONORABLE COURT AND THEREFORE VOID BECAUSE IT CONTRAVENES THE
FIRST, FIFTH, AND THIRTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES." 

FN15  38 STAT. 730, 738, SEC. 20, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 52. 

FN16  AMERICAN FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184,
202(1921); DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443,
470(1921). 

FN17  UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, 231(1941). 

FN18  SEE ALSO ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. UNION, 325 U.S. 797, 805(1945);
UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, 235, 236(1941). 

FN19  "SEC.  4.  NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY RESTRAINING ORDER OR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION IN ANY CASE INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF ANY LABOR DISPUTE TO
PROHIBIT ANY PERSON OR PERSONS PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN SUCH
DISPUTE (AS THESE TERMS ARE HEREIN DEFINED) FROM DOING, WHETHER SINGLY
OR IN CONCERT, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS: 

"(A)  CEASING OR REFUSING TO PERFORM ANY WORK OR TO REMAIN IN ANY
RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT; 

"(B)  BECOMING OR REMAINING A MEMBER OF ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION OR OF
ANY EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION, REGARDLESS OF ANY SUCH UNDERTAKING OR
PROMISE AS IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3 OF THIS ACT; 

"(C)  PAYING OR GIVING TO, OR WITHHOLDING FROM, ANY PERSON
PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN SUCH LABOR DISPUTE, ANY STRIKE OR
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OR INSURANCE, OR OTHER MONEYS OR THINGS OF
VALUE; 

"(D)  BY ALL LAWFUL MEANS AIDING ANY PERSON PARTICIPATING OR
INTERESTED IN ANY LABOR DISPUTE WHO IS BEING PROCEEDED AGAINST IN, OR
IS PROSECUTING, ANY ACTION OR SUIT IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR
OF ANY STATE; 

"(E)  GIVING PUBLICITY TO THE EXISTENCE OF, OR THE FACTS INVOLVED IN,
ANY LABOR DISPUTE, WHETHER BY ADVERTISING, SPEAKING, PATROLLING, OR BY
ANY OTHER METHOD NOT INVOLVING FRAUD OR VIOLENCE; 

"(F)  ASSEMBLING PEACEABLY TO ACT OR TO ORGANIZE TO ACT IN PROMOTION
OF THEIR INTERESTS IN A LABOR DISPUTE; 

"(G)  ADVISING OR NOTIFYING ANY PERSON OF AN INTENTION TO DO ANY OF
THE ACTS HERETOFORE SPECIFIED; 

"(H)  AGREEING WITH OTHER PERSONS TO DO OR NOT TO DO ANY OF THE ACTS
HERETOFORE SPECIFIED; AND 

"(I)  ADVISING, URGING, OR OTHERWISE CAUSING OR INDUCING WITHOUT
FRAUD OR VIOLENCE THE ACTS HERETOFORE SPECIFIED, REGARDLESS OF ANY SUCH
UNDERTAKING OR PROMISE AS IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3 OF THIS ACT." 

"SEC. 13.  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT, AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT - 

"(A)  A CASE SHALL BE HELD TO INVOLVE OR TO GROW OUT OF A LABOR
DISPUTE WHEN THE CASE INVOLVES PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME
INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION; OR HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT
INTERESTS THEREIN; OR WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME EMPLOYER; OR WHO
ARE MEMBERS OF THE SAME OR AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYERS OR
EMPLOYEES; WHETHER SUCH DISPUTE IS (1) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR
ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
EMPLOYEES; (2) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
EMPLOYERS AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS; OR
(3) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYEES AND ONE
OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYEES; OR WHEN THE CASE
INVOLVES ANY CONFLICTING OR COMPETING INTERESTS IN A 'LABOR DISPUTE'
(AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED) OF 'PERSONS PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED'
THEREIN (AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED). 

"(B)  A PERSON OR ASSOCIATION SHALL BE HELD TO BE A PERSON
PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE IF RELIEF IS SOUGHT
AGAINST HIM OR IT, AND IF HE OR IT IS ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY,
TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION IN WHICH SUCH DISPUTE OCCURS, OR HAS A
DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST THEREIN, OR IS A MEMBER, OFFICER, OR AGENT
OF ANY ASSOCIATION COMPOSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF EMPLOYERS OR
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN SUCH INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION. 

"(C)  THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING
TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION OR
REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING,
CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE
RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. 

"(D)  THE TERM 'COURT OF THE UNITED STATES' MEANS ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES WHOSE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN OR MAY BE CONFERRED OR
DEFINED OR LIMITED BY ACT OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING THE COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." 

FN20  LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 618, 622(1875); UNITED STATES
V. HERRON, 20 WALL.  251, 263(1873); SEE GUARANTEE CO. V. TITLE
GUARANTY CO., 224 U.S. 152, 155(1912). 

FN21  UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 186(1936); GREEN V.
UNITED STATES, 9 WALL.  655, 658(1869). 

FN22  UNITED STATES V. STEVENSON, 215 U.S. 190, 197(1909); UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE CO., 159 U.S. 548, 553-555(1895);
DOLLAR SAVINGS BANK V. UNITED STATES, 19 WALL.  227, 238, 239(1873). 

FN23  "THE MOST GENERAL WORDS THAT CAN BE DEVISED (FOR EXAMPLE, ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS, BODIES POLITIC OR CORPORATE) AFFECT NOT HIM (THE
SOVEREIGN) IN THE LEAST, IF THEY MAY TEND TO RESTRAIN OR DIMINISH ANY
OF HIS RIGHTS OR INTERESTS."  DOLLAR SAVINGS BANK V. UNITED STATES, 19
WALL.  227, 239(1873).  "IF SUCH PROHIBITION IS INTENDED TO REACH THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE USE OF KNOWN RIGHTS AND REMEDIES, THE LANGUAGE MUST
BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC TO THAT EFFECT."  UNITED STATES V. STEVENSON, 215
U.S. 190, 197(1909). 

IN BOTH THESE CASES THE QUESTION, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WAS WHETHER
THE UNITED STATES WAS DIVESTED OF A CERTAIN REMEDY BY A STATUTE OR A
RULE OF LAW WHICH, WITHOUT EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE UNITED STATES, MADE
THAT REMEDY GENERALLY UNAVAILABLE. 

FN24  "SEC.  2.  IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS ACT AND IN DETERMINING
THE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS
SUCH JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY ARE HEREIN DEFINED AND LIMITED, THE
PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES IS HEREBY DECLARED AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHEREAS UNDER PREVAILING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, DEVELOPED WITH THE AID
OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY FOR OWNERS OF PROPERTY TO ORGANIZE IN THE
CORPORATE AND OTHER FORMS OF OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATION, THE INDIVIDUAL
UNORGANIZED WORKER IS COMMONLY HELPLESS TO EXERCISE ACTUAL LIBERTY OF
CONTRACT AND TO PROTECT HIS FREEDOM OF LABOR, AND THEREBY TO OBTAIN
ACCEPTABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, WHEREFORE, THOUGH HE
SHOULD BE FREE TO DECLINE TO ASSOCIATE WITH HIS FELLOWS, IT IS
NECESSARY THAT HE HAVE FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION,
AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS OWN CHOOSING, TO NEGOTIATE
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT HE SHALL BE FREE
FROM THE INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYERS OF LABOR, OR
THEIR AGENTS, IN THE DESIGNATION OF SUCH REPRESENTATIVES OR IN SELF
ORGANIZATION OR IN OTHER CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION; THEREFORE, THE
FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS OF, AND LIMITATIONS UPON, THE JURISDICTION AND
AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE HEREBY ENACTED." 

FN25  UNITED STATES V. COOPER CORP., 312 U.S. 600, 604(1941); UNITED
STATES V. FOX, 94 U.S. 315, 321(1876). 

FN26  75 CONG. REC. 5473.  AN AMENDMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE BECK,
DESIGNED TO SAVE TO THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE BY
INJUNCTION IN PRIVATE LABOR DISPUTES, WAS DEFEATED.  75 CONG. REC.
5503, 5505. 

FN27  75 CONG. REC. 5503. 

FN28  IBID. 

FN29  MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED WAS THE GOVERNMENT ACTION IN
CONNECTION WITH THE RAILWAY STRIKES OF 1894 AND 1922. 

FN30  75 CONG. REC. 5464. 

FN31  75 CONG. REC. 5509. 

FN32  REPRESENTATIVE SCHNEIDER, AT 75 CONG. REC. 5514, STATED:  "AND
IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE ENACTMENT OF THIS BILL WILL NOT
TAKE AWAY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANY RIGHTS WHICH IT HAS UNDER
EXISTING LAW TO SEEK AND OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WHERE THE SAME IS
DEEMED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF
THE GOVERNMENT. 

"IN OTHER WORDS, A TREMENDOUS FIELD IN WHICH THE INJUNCTION CAN STILL
BE USED EFFECTIVELY WILL REMAIN AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THIS BILL." 

FN33  UNITED STATES V. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315 U.S. 110, 125(1942);
DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 475(1921). 

FN34  WE HAVE BEEN CITED TO NO INSTANCES IN WHICH THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE SENATE WAS DIRECTED TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS OWN EMPLOYEES.  THE USE OF THE
INJUNCTION BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN QUESTION, BUT PRIMARILY IN RESPECT
TO THOSE INSTANCES IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAD TAKEN ACTION IN
PRIVATE LABOR DISPUTES, E.G., 75 CONG. REC. 4509, 4619, 4620, 4693,
5001, 5005.  SILENCE UPON THE STATUS OF THE GOVERNMENT AS EMPLOYER IS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE DESIRE OF THE HOUSE TO EXCLUDE FROM THE ACT
THOSE DISPUTES IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS SEEKING RELIEF AGAINST ITS
OWN EMPLOYEES. 

FN35  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, 318 U.S.
741(1943); SEE UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, 227(1941).  IN
ACCORD IS UNITED STATES V. WEIRTON STEEL CO., 7 F.SUPP.  255(1934); CF.
ANDERSON V. BIGELOW, 130 F.2D 460(1942). 

FN36  IT WAS UPON SEC. 3 OF THIS ACT THAT THE PRESIDENT BASED IN PART
THE SEIZURE OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL MINES.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN37  89 CONG. REC. 3812.  THE SUBSTITUTE BILL EMBODIED TWO
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY SENATOR CONNALLY ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.  89
CONG. REC. 3809. 

FN38  SECTION 5 OF THE SUBSTITUTE BILL ORIGINALLY DID NOT LIMIT THE
ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTIONS TO THOSE SOUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT
SENATOR WAGNER'S PROPOSAL TO INSERT "BUT SOLELY UPON APPLICATION BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR UNDER HIS DIRECTION" WAS ACCEPTED.  89 CONG. REC.
3986. 

FN39  A GREAT NUMBER OF THE REFERENCES TO THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT
WERE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED TAFT AND REED AMENDMENTS.  89
CONG. REC. 3897, 3984, 3985, 3986. 

FN40  SENATORS CONNALLY AND DANAHER EXPRESSED THIS VIEW AND OTHER
SENATORS WERE APPARENTLY IN ACCORD.  89 CONG. REC. 3988-9. 

FN41  SEE UNITED STATES V. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315 U.S. 110,
125(1942); MCCAUGHN V. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE CO., 283 U.S. 488, 493(1931);
DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 474(1921). 

FN42  89 CONG. REC. 3889, 3890, 3904-5. 

FN43  SECTION 5, AS WE HAVE NOTED BEFORE, WOULD HAVE PERMITTED
ISSUING INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  IT IS NOT AT
ALL CLEAR THAT THE REJECTION OF A PROPOSAL IN THIS FORM SHOULD, IN ANY
EVENT, BE OF DETERMINATIVE SIGNIFICANCE IN THE CASE AT BAR.  HERE THE
UNITED STATES RESORTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR VINDICATION OF ITS
RIGHT UNDER A FORMAL CONTRACT, SAID TO BE OPERATIVE "FOR THE PERIOD OF
GOVERNMENT POSSESSION" AND MUTUALLY ADOPTED BY THE PARTIES CONCERNED AS
A SATISFACTORY SOLUTION TO A GRAVE SITUATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT, TO
PRESERVE EXISTING CONDITIONS, ISSUED A RESTRAINING ORDER AND A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, EFFECTIVE UNTIL CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS COULD BE
ASCERTAINED.  TRUE, THE ACTION OF THE DEFENDANT LEWIS IN CALLING A
STRIKE, IN ADDITION TO TERMINATING THE CONTRACT, SUGGESTS A VIOLATION
OF SEC. 6 OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT.  BUT SENATE DISAPPROVAL OF
USING INJUNCTIONS TO AVERT THE LATTER EVENT DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY
A DESIRE TO DIMINISH THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

FN44  89 CONG. REC. 5382. 

FN45  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, 89 CONG. REC. 5241, 5243, 5299, 5305, 5321,
5325. 

FN46  THUS IN THE LEGISLATIVE DEBATES SENATOR CONNALLY STATED:  "...
BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THE POWER AND AUTHORITY AND SOVEREIGNTY OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ARE SO COMPREHENSIVE THAT WHEN WE
ARE ENGAGED IN WAR AND A PLANT IS NOT PRODUCING, WE CAN TAKE IT OVER,
AND THAT WHEN WE DO TAKE IT OVER, IT IS A GOVERNMENT PLANT, JUST AS
MUCH AS IF WE HAD A FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO IT,  ..."  89 CONG. REC. 3811
3812.  SEE ALSO ID. AT 3809, 3884-3885, 5722. 

FN47  WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, SEC. 6, PROVIDED: 

"(A)  WHENEVER ANY PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY IS IN THE POSSESSION OF
THE UNITED STATES, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON (1) TO COERCE,
INSTIGATE, INDUCE, CONSPIRE WITH, OR ENCOURAGE ANY PERSON, TO
INTERFERE, BY LOCK-OUT, STRIKE, SLOW-DOWN, OR OTHER INTERRUPTION, WITH
THE OPERATION OF SUCH PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY, OR (2) TO AID ANY SUCH
LOCK-OUT, STRIKE, SLOW-DOWN, OR OTHER INTERRUPTION INTERFERING WITH THE
OPERATION OF SUCH PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY BY GIVING DIRECTION OR
GUIDANCE IN THE CONDUCT OF SUCH INTERRUPTION, OR BY PROVIDING FUNDS FOR
THE CONDUCT OR DIRECTION THEREOF OR FOR THE PAYMENT OF STRIKE,
UNEMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER BENEFITS TO THOSE PARTICIPATING THEREIN.  NO
INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CONTINUE TO WORK OR TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT.    "(B)  ANY PERSON WHO
WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A
FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE
YEAR, OR BOTH." 

FN48  ID., SEC. 5. 

FN49  THUS ACCORDING TO SEC. 23 OF THE REVISED REGULATIONS FOR THE
OPERATION OF THE COAL MINES UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTROL, ISSUED BY THE
COAL MINES ADMINISTRATOR ON JULY 8, 1946:  "...  NOTHING IN THESE
REGULATIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS RECOGNIZING SUCH PERSONNEL AS
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE STATUTES RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT."  AND SEE SEC. 16. 
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS CALLED UPON BY EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9728, TO SERVE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES  ..." 

FN50  AFTER THE NEGOTIATION OF THE KRUG-LEWIS AGREEMENT, THE CHANGES
AGREED UPON THEREIN WERE APPROVED BY THE NATIONAL WAGE STABILIZATION
ACT AND THEREAFTER BY THE PRESIDENT.  THIS PROCEDURE IS PROVIDED FOR IN
SEC. 5 OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT. 

FN51  REVISED REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE COAL MINES UNDER
GOVERNMENT CONTROL, SEC. 15. 

FN52  REGULATIONS, SECS. 16, 31. 

FN53  REGULATIONS, SECS. 17, 40. 

FN54  REGULATIONS, SEC. 24. 

FN55  IBID. 

FN56  "IF A PARTY CAN MAKE HIMSELF A JUDGE OF THE VALIDITY OF ORDERS
WHICH HAVE BEEN ISSUED, AND BY HIS OWN ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE SET THEM
ASIDE, THEN ARE THE COURTS IMPOTENT, AND WHAT THE CONSTITUTION NOW
FITTINGLY CALLS THE 'JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES' WOULD BE A
MERE MOCKERY."  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418,
450(1911). 

FN57  "IT CANNOT NOW BE BROADLY ASSERTED THAT A JUDGMENT IS ALWAYS A
NULLITY IF JURISDICTION OF SOME SORT OR OTHER IS WANTING.  IT IS NOW
HELD THAT, EXCEPT IN CASE OF PLAIN USURPATION, A COURT HAS JURISDICTION
TO DETERMINE ITS OWN JURISDICTION, AND IF IT BE CONTESTED AND ON DUE
HEARING IT IS UPHELD, THE DECISION UNREVERSED BINDS THE PARTIES AS A
THING ADJUDGED.  TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66, 60 S.
CT. 44, 84 L. ED. 85; SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S.
381, 403, 60 S. CT. 907, 84 L. ED. 1263; STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S.
165, 59 S. CT. 134, 83 L. ED. 104.  SO IN THE MATTER OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION, WHICH IS OFTEN A CLOSE QUESTION, THE FEDERAL COURT MAY
EITHER HAVE TO DETERMINE THE FACTS, AS IN CONTESTED CITIZENSHIP, OR THE
LAW, AS WHETHER THE CASE ALLEGED ARISES UNDER A LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

FN58  HOWAT V. KANSAS, 258 U.S. 181(1922); RUSSELL V. UNITED STATES,
86 F.2D 389(1936); LOCKE V. UNITED STATES, 75 F.2D 157(1935); O'HEARNE
V. UNITED STATES, 62 APP. D.C. 285, 66 F.2D 933(1933); SCHWARTZ V.
UNITED STATES, 217 F. 866(1914); BROUGHAM V. OCEANIC STEAM NAVIGATION
CO., 205 F. 857(1913); BLAKE V. NESBET, 144 F. 279(1905); SEE ALEMITE
MFG. CORP. V. STAFF, 42 F.2D 832, 833(1930). 

FN59  SEE ALEMITE MFG. CORP. V. STAFF, 42 F.2D 832, 833(1930). 

FN60 SEE SALVAGE PROCESS CORP. V. ACME TANK CLEANING PROCESS CORP.,
86 F.2D 727(1936). 

FN61  SEE LEMAN V. KRENTLER-ARNOLD CO., 284 U.S. 448, 453(1932);
BESSETTE V. W.B. CONKEY CO., 194 U.S. 324, 329(1904); MCCANN V. NEW
YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, 80 F.2D 211, 214(1935).  IN ACCORD IN THE CASE OF
SETTLEMENT IS GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 451
2(1911):  "... WHEN THE MAIN CAUSE WAS TERMINATED  ...  BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT REQUIRE AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY
COMPENSATION OR RELIEF OF ANY OTHER CHARACTER." 

FN62  18 U.S.C.A. FOLLOWING SEC. 687.  RULE 42(B) REGULATES VARIOUS
ASPECTS OF A PROCEEDING FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT WHERE THE CONTEMPT IS NOT
COMMITTED IN THE ACTUAL PRESENCE OF THE COURT: 

"DISPOSITION UPON NOTICE AND HEARING.  A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (A) OF THIS RULE SHALL BE PROSECUTED ON
NOTICE.  THE NOTICE SHALL STATE THE TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING, ALLOWING
A REASONABLE TIME FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE DEFENSE, AND SHALL STATE
THE ESSENTIAL FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CHARGED AND
DESCRIBE IT AS SUCH.  THE NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN ORALLY BY THE JUDGE IN
OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT OR, ON APPLICATION OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OR OF AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED BY THE COURT FOR
THAT PURPOSE, BY AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AN ORDER OF ARREST.  THE
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY CASE IN WHICH AN ACT OF
CONGRESS SO PROVIDES.  HE IS ENTITLED TO ADMISSION TO BAIL AS PROVIDED
IN THESE RULES.  IF THE CONTEMPT CHARGED INVOLVES DISRESPECT TO OR
CRITICISM OF A JUDGE, THAT JUDGE IS DISQUALIFIED FROM PRESIDING AT THE
TRIAL OR HEARING EXCEPT WITH THE DEFENDANT'S CONSENT.  UPON A VERDICT
OR FINDING OF GUILT THE COURT SHALL ENTER AN ORDER FIXING THE
PUNISHMENT." 

FN63  CONLEY V. UNITED STATES, 59 F.2D 929(1932); KELLY V. UNITED
STATES, 250 F. 947(1918); SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. ARCADE
SUNSHINE CO., 74 APP. D.C. 361, 362, 122 F.2D 964, 965(1941). 

FN64  IT COULD BE WELL ARGUED THAT THE USE OF THE WORD "PUNISHED" IN
THE PETITION AND RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WAS IN ITSELF ADEQUATE NOTICE, FOR
"PUNISHMENT" HAS BEEN SAID TO BE THE MAGIC WORD INDICATING A PROCEEDING
IN CRIMINAL, RATHER THAN CIVIL, CONTEMPT.  MOSKOVITZ, CONTEMPT OF
INJUNCTIONS, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, 43 COL. L. REV. 780, 789-90(1943). 
BUT "PUNISHMENT" AS USED IN CONTEMPT CASES IS AMBIGUOUS.  "IT IS NOT
THE FACT OF PUNISHMENT BUT RATHER ITS CHARACTER AND PURPOSE  ..." 
GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 441(1941). 

NOTEWORTHY ALSO IS THE ALLEGATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE
DEFENDANTS' VIOLATION OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER HAD "INTERFERED WITH
THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION."  AND THE CHARGE IN THE PETITION OF
"WILFULLY  ...  AND DELIBERATELY" DISOBEYING THE RESTRAINING ORDER
INDICATES AN INTENTION TO PROSECUTE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. 

FN65  SEE POINT 4, NOTE 14, SUPRA.  THE POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF THE MOTION USED SIMILAR LANGUAGE. 

FN66  THE RULE IN THIS RESPECT FOLLOWS THE SUGGESTION MADE IN MCCANN
V. NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, 80 F.2D 211, 214-215(1935).  NOTES TO THE
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MARCH, 1945, P. 34. 

FN67  COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517, 537(1925); SEE MICHAELSON
V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 42, 66-67(1924). 

FN68  SECTION 11 PROVIDES IN PART:  "IN ALL CASES ARISING UNDER THIS
ACT IN WHICH A PERSON SHALL BE CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT IN A COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES (AS HEREIN DEFINED), THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO
A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND
DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CONTEMPT SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED  ..." 

FN69  WE BELIEVE, AND THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS, THAT THE DEFENDANTS
WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL IF SEC. 11 APPLIED TO THE
INSTANT CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AND IF THIS CASE AROSE UNDER THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT. 

FN70  "IT MAY NOT BE ALWAYS EASY TO CLASSIFY A PARTICULAR ACT AS
BELONGING TO EITHER ONE OF THESE TWO CLASSES.  IT MAY PARTAKE OF THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF BOTH."  BESSETTE V. W.B. CONKEY CO., 194 U.S. 324,
329(1904).  SEE LAMB V. CRAMER, 285 U.S. 217, 221(1932); MERCHANTS'
STOCK & GRAIN CO. V. BOARD OF TRADE OF CHICAGO, 201 F. 20, 24(1912). 

FN71  "IN PATENT CASES IT HAS BEEN USUAL TO EMBRACE IN ONE PROCEEDING
THE PUBLIC AND THE PRIVATE REMEDY - TO PUNISH THE DEFENDANT IF FOUND
WORTHY OF PUNISHMENT, AND, AT THE SAME TIME, OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE, TO
ASSESS DAMAGES AND COSTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFF  ..." 
HENDRYX V. FITZPATRICK, 19 F. 810, 813(1884).  EXAMPLES OF THIS
PROCEDURE APPEAR IN UNION TOOL CO. V. WILSON, 259 U.S. 107(1922);
MATTER OF CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING CO., 194 U.S. 458(1904); WILSON V.
BYRON JACKSON CO., 93 F.2D 577(1937); KREPLIK V. COUCH PATENTS CO., 190
F. 565(1911). 

FN72  FARMERS NATIONAL BANK V. WILKINSON, 266 U.S. 503(1925); IN RE
SWAN, 150 U.S. 637(1893); IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443(1887); MERCHANTS'
STOCK & GRAIN CO. V. BOARD OF TRADE OF CHICAGO, 201 F. 20(1912).  SEE
PHILLIPS SHEET & TIN PLATE CO. V. AMALGAMATED ASSN. OF IRON & TIN
WORKERS, 208 F. 335, 340(1913).  INSTANCES IN THE STATE COURTS INCLUDE
CAREY V. DISTRICT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY, 226 IOWA 717, 285 N.W.
236(1939); HOLLOWAY V. PEOPLES WATER CO., 100 KAN. 414, 167 P.
265(1917); GRAND LODGE, K.P. OF NEW JERSEY V. JANSEN, 62 N.J. EQ. 737,
48 A. 526(1901). 

FN73  WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED WITH DEFENDANTS' ATTACK ON THE PLEADINGS
AS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT.  THE
PETITION, AFFIDAVIT, AND RULE TO SHOW CAUSE DID NOT EXPRESSLY MENTION
CIVIL CONTEMPT OR REMEDIAL RELIEF, BUT THE AFFIDAVIT CONTAINED
ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE OPERATION OF THE MINES AND WITH
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  THESE CLAIMS DO NOT NEGATIVE REMEDIAL OR
COERCIVE RELIEF.  MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, THE AFFIDAVIT CHARGED
DISOBEDIENCE OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER BY FAILING TO WITHDRAW THE NOTICE
OF NOV. 15.  WE WILL NOT ASSUME THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT INSTANTLY
AWARE THAT A USUAL REMEDY IN SUCH A SITUATION IS TO IMPOSE COERCIVE
SANCTIONS UNTIL THE ACT IS PERFORMED.  THIS IS A FUNCTION OF CIVIL
CONTEMPT.  LAMB V. CRAMER, 285 U.S. 217, 221(1932); MICHAELSON V.
UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 42, 66(1924); GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE
CO., 221 U.S. 418, 449(1911).  FURTHERMORE, DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL, IN
ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION TO VACATE, REMARKED THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS
PROCEEDING UPON THE THEORY OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, AND ATTEMPTED ONLY TO
DEMONSTRATE THE INABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO SEEK THIS RELIEF. 
AND WHEN THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTIONS FOR FINES WERE BEFORE THE COURT,
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL ARGUED THE EXCESSIVENESS OF THE FINES FOR EITHER
CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. 

FN74  CRIMINAL CONTEMPT WAS APPARENTLY TRIED OUT IN THE EQUITY SUIT
IN THE PATENT CASES IN NOTE 71 SUPRA.  AND THIS WAS THE PRACTICE
FOLLOWED IN MATTER OF CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING CO., 194 U.S. 458(1904);
BESSETTE V. W.B. CONKEY CO., 194 U.S. 324(1904); NEW ORLEANS V.
STEAMSHIP CO., 20 WALL.  387(1874).  IN NONE OF THESE CASES IN THIS
COURT, HOWEVER, HAS THERE BEEN AN AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSION OF THE
PROPRIETY OF PROCEEDING IN THIS MANNER.  COMPARE GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE
& RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 445(1911); UNITED STATES V. BITTNER, 11 F.2D
93, 95(1926), WITH NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, 42(1941). 

FN75  CF. NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, 42(1941); UNION TOOL CO.
V. WILSON, 259 U.S. 107, 110(1922); IN RE MERCHANTS' STOCK & GRAIN CO.,
223 U.S. 639, 642(1912); MATTER OF CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING CO., 194
U.S. 458, 461(1904). 

FN76  IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. A. MCLEAN & SON, 94 F.2D
802(1938), IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT HAD BEEN
DOMINANT AND CLEAR FROM THE VERY OUTSET OF THE CASE.  THE SAME IS TRUE
OF NORSTROM V. WAHL, 41 F.2D 910(1930). 

FN77  RULE 65(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES
THAT A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD EXPIRE ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS
"UNLESS WITHIN THE TIME SO FIXED THE ORDER, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IS
EXTENDED FOR A LIKE PERIOD  ..."  THERE BEING SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE
EXTENSION, THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH THE SUBSEQUENT CLAUSE OF RULE
65(B) REQUIRING THAT "THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHALL BE
SET DOWN FOR HEARING AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME AND TAKES PRECEDENCE
OF ALL MATTERS EXCEPT OLDER MATTERS OF THE SAME CHARACTER  ..."  308
U.S. 744. 

FN78  SECTION 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41, EXTENDS THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS TO "ALL SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE, AT
COMMON LAW OR IN EQUITY, BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES  ..." 

FN79  THE COURT IN THE MCCRONE CASE AFFIRMED 100 F.2D 322 AND NOTED,
307 U.S. 61, 63, NOTE 4, THE CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
A. MCCLEAN & SON, 94 F.2D 802, 804(1938), UPON WHICH DEFENDANTS NOW
RELY. 

FN80  LEMAN V. KRENTLER-ARNOLD CO., 284 U.S. 448, 455-456(1932);
GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 443-444(1911); PARKER
V. UNITED STATES, 126 F.2D 370, 380(1942); JUDELSHON V. BLACK, 64 F.2D
116(1933); NORSTROM V. WAHL, 41 F.2D 910, 914(1930). 

FN81  SEE PP. 294-295 SUPRA. 

FN82  CF. DOYLE V. LONDON GUARANTEE CO., 204 U.S. 599(1907).  SEE
ALSO IN RE CHILES, 22 WALL.  157, 168(1874). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS IN THIS OPINION EXCEPT AS TO THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT WHICH HE THINKS RELIEVED THE COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO
ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN THIS CLASS OF CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT. 

THE HISTORIC PHRASE "A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN" EPITOMIZES
THE DISTINGUISHING CHARACTER OF OUR POLITICAL SOCIETY.  WHEN JOHN ADAMS
PUT THAT PHRASE INTO THE MASSACHUSETTS DECLARATION OF RIGHTS HE WAS NOT
INDULGING IN A RHETORICAL FLOURISH.  HE WAS EXPRESSING THE AIM OF THOSE
WHO, WITH HIM, FRAMED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND FOUNDED THE
REPUBLIC.  "A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN" WAS THE REJECTION IN
POSITIVE TERMS OF RULE BY FIAT, WHETHER BY THE FIAT OF GOVERNMENTAL OR
PRIVATE POWER.  EVERY ACT OF GOVERNMENT MAY BE CHALLENGED BY AN APPEAL
TO LAW, AS FINALLY PRONOUNCED BY THIS COURT.  EVEN THIS COURT HAS THE
LAST SAY ONLY FOR A TIME.  BEING COMPOSED OF FALLIBLE MEN, IT MAY ERR. 
BUT REVISION OF ITS ERRORS MUST BE BY ORDERLY PROCESS OF LAW.  THE
COURT MAY BE ASKED TO RECONSIDER ITS DECISIONS, AND THIS HAS BEEN DONE
SUCCESSFULLY AGAIN AND AGAIN THROUGHOUT OUT HISTORY.  OR, WHAT THIS
COURT HAS DEEMED ITS DUTY TO DECIDE MAY BE CHANGED BY LEGISLATION, AS
IT OFTEN HAS BEEN, AND, ON OCCASION, BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 

BUT FROM THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE AND THEIR DEEP READING IN HISTORY, THE
FOUNDERS KNEW THAT LAW ALONE SAVES A SOCIETY FROM BEING RENT BY
INTERNECINE STRIFE OR RULED BY MERE BRUTE POWER HOWEVER DISGUISED. 
"CIVILIZATION INVOLVES SUBJECTION OF FORCE TO REASON, AND THE AGENCY OF
THIS SUBJECTION IS LAW."  FN1  THE CONCEPTION OF A GOVERNMENT BY LAWS
DOMINATED THE THOUGHTS OF THOSE WHO FOUNDED THIS NATION AND DESIGNED
ITS CONSTITUTION, ALTHOUGH THEY KNEW AS WELL AS THE BELITTLERS OF THE
CONCEPTION THAT LAWS HAVE TO BE MADE, INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED BY MEN. 
TO THAT END, THEY SET APART A BODY OF MEN, WHO WERE TO BE THE
DEPOSITORIES OF LAW, WHO BY THEIR DISCIPLINED TRAINING AND CHARACTER
AND BY WITHDRAWAL FROM THE USUAL TEMPTATIONS OF PRIVATE INTEREST MAY
REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE "AS FREE, IMPARTIAL, AND INDEPENDENT AS
THE LOT OF HUMANITY WILL ADMIT."  SO STRONGLY WERE THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION BENT ON SECURING A REIGN OF LAW THAT THEY ENDOWED THE
JUDICIAL OFFICE WITH EXTRAORDINARY SAFEGUARDS AND PRESTIGE.  NO ONE, NO
MATTER HOW EXALTED HIS PUBLIC OFFICE OR HOW RIGHTEOUS HIS PRIVATE
MOTIVE, CAN BE JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE.  THAT IS WHAT COURTS ARE FOR. 
AND NO TYPE OF CONTROVERSY IS MORE PECULIARLY FIT FOR JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION THAN A CONTROVERSY THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION THE POWER OF
A COURT TO DECIDE.  CONTROVERSIES OVER "JURISDICTION" ARE APT TO RAISE
DIFFICULT TECHNICAL PROBLEMS.  THEY USUALLY INVOLVE JUDICIAL
PRESUPPOSITIONS, TEXTUAL DOUBTS, CONFUSED LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND LIKE
FACTORS HARDLY FIT FOR FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE SELF-INTEREST OF A
PARTY. 

EVEN WHEN A STATUTE DEALS WITH A RELATIVELY UNCOMPLICATED MATTER, AND
THE "WORDS IN THEIR NATURAL SENSE AS THEY WOULD BE READ BY THE COMMON
MAN" WOULD APPEAR TO GIVE AN OBVIOUS MEANING, CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING
THE STATUTE HAVE LED THIS COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT "THE WORDS CANNOT BE
TAKEN QUITE SO SIMPLY."  SEE MILBURN CO. V. DAVIS CO., 270 U.S. 390,
400.  HOW MUCH MORE TRUE THIS IS OF LEGISLATION LIKE THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT.  THIS ACT ALTERED A LONG PROCESS OF JUDICIAL HISTORY,
BUT ALTERED IT BY A SCHEME OF COMPLICATED DEFINITIONS AND LIMITATIONS. 

THE GOVERNMENT HERE INVOKED THE AID OF A COURT OF EQUITY IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CERTAINLY WERE NOT COVERED BY THE ACT WITH
INESCAPABLE CLARITY.  COLLOQUIALLY SPEAKING, THE GOVERNMENT WAS
"RUNNING" THE MINES.  BUT IT WAS "RUNNING" THEM NOT AS AN EMPLOYER, IN
THE SENSE THAT THE OWNERS OF THE COAL MINES WERE THE EMPLOYERS OF THE
MEN THE DAY BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT SEIZED THE MINES.  NOR YET WAS THE
RELATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE MEN LIKE THE RELATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO THE CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR.  IT WOULD BE NAIVE OR WILFUL TO ASSERT THAT THE SCOPE OF THE
NORRIS-LA GUARDIA ACT IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT PRESENTED BY THIS BILL
RAISED A QUESTION SO FRIVOLOUS THAT ANY JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SUMMARILY
THROWN THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF COURT WITHOUT DAY.  ONLY WHEN A COURT IS
SO OBVIOUSLY TRAVELING OUTSIDE ITS ORBIT AS TO BE MERELY USURPING
JUDICIAL FORMS AND FACILITIES, MAY AN ORDER ISSUED BY A COURT BE
DISOBEYED AND TREATED AS THOUGH IT WERE A LETTER TO A NEWSPAPER.  SHORT
OF AN INDISPUTABLE WANT OF AUTHORITY ON THE PART OF A COURT, THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF A COURT PRESUPPOSES ITS POWER TO ENTERTAIN A CONTROVERSY,
IF ONLY TO DECIDE, AFTER DELIBERATION, THAT IT HAS NO POWER OVER THE
PARTICULAR CONTROVERSY.  WHETHER A DEFENDANT MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE BAR
OF JUSTICE IS NOT FOR THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF TO DECIDE. 

TO BE SURE, AN OBVIOUS LIMITATION UPON A COURT CANNOT BE CIRCUMVENTED
BY A FRIVOLOUS INQUIRY INTO THE EXISTENCE OF A POWER THAT HAS
UNQUESTIONABLY BEEN WITHHELD.  THUS, THE EXPLICIT WITHDRAWAL FROM
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE POWER TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN AN
ORDINARY LABOR DISPUTE BETWEEN A PRIVATE EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYEES
CANNOT BE DEFEATED, AND AN EXISTING RIGHT TO STRIKE THEREBY IMPAIRED,
BY PRETENDING TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT FOR SUCH AN INJUNCTION IN ORDER TO
DECIDE WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION.  IN SUCH A CASE, A JUDGE
WOULD NOT BE ACTING AS A COURT.  HE WOULD BE A PRETENDER TO, NOT A
WIELDER OF, JUDICIAL POWER. 

THAT IS NOT THIS CASE.  IT REQUIRED EXTENDED ARGUMENTS, LENGTHY
BRIEFS, STUDY AND REFLECTION PRELIMINARY TO ADEQUATE DISCUSSION IN
CONFERENCE, BEFORE FINAL CONCLUSIONS COULD BE REACHED REGARDING THE
PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE LEGISLATION CONTROLLING THIS CASE.  A
MAJORITY OF MY BRETHREN FIND THAT NEITHER THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT NOR
THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT LIMITED THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO
ISSUE THE ORDERS UNDER REVIEW.  I HAVE COME TO THE CONTRARY VIEW.  BUT
TO SUGGEST THAT THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE SO COMPLICATED AND NOVEL AN
ISSUE COULD NOT BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE COGNIZANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
AND EVENTUALLY OF THIS COURT, IS TO DENY THE PLACE OF THE JUDICIARY IN
OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT.  AND IF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER TO
DECIDE WHETHER THIS CASE WAS PROPERLY BEFORE IT, IT COULD MAKE
APPROPRIATE ORDERS SO AS TO AFFORD THE NECESSARY TIME FOR FAIR
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION WHILE EXISTING CONDITIONS WERE PRESERVED. 
TO SAY THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT MAY BE FLOUTED DURING THE TIME
NECESSARY TO DECIDE IS TO REJECT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS. 

IT DOES NOT MITIGATE SUCH DEFIANCE OF LAW TO URGE THAT HARD-WON
LIBERTIES OF COLLECTIVE ACTION BY WORKERS WERE AT STAKE.  THE MOST
PRIZED LIBERTIES THEMSELVES PRESUPPOSE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY THROUGH
WHICH THESE LIBERTIES MAY BE, AS THEY OFTEN HAVE BEEN, VINDICATED. 
WHEN IN A REAL CONTROVERSY, SUCH AS IS NOW HERE, AN APPEAL IS MADE TO
LAW, THE ISSUE MUST BE LEFT TO THE JUDGMENT OF COURTS AND NOT THE
PERSONAL JUDGMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTIES.  THIS PRINCIPLE IS A POSTULATE
OF OUR DEMOCRACY. 

AND SO I JOIN THE OPINION OF THE COURT INSOFAR AS IT SUSTAINS THE
JUDGMENT FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT UPON THE BROAD GROUND OF VINDICATING THE
PROCESS OF LAW.  FN2  THE RECORDS OF THIS COURT ARE FULL OF CASES, BOTH
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, INVOLVING LIFE OR LAND OR SMALL SUMS OF MONEY, IN
WHICH THE COURT PROCEEDED TO CONSIDER A FEDERAL CLAIM THAT WAS NOT
OBVIOUSLY FRIVOLOUS.  IT RETAINED SUCH CASES UNDER ITS POWER UNTIL
FINAL JUDGMENT, THOUGH THE CLAIM EVENTUALLY TURNED OUT TO BE UNFOUNDED
AND THE JUDGMENT WAS ONE DENYING THE JURISDICTION EITHER OF THIS COURT
OR OF THE COURT FROM WHICH THE CASE CAME.  IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER "TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS" IN THE
DISCHARGE OF "ITS DUTY TO PERMIT ARGUMENT AND TO TAKE THE TIME REQUIRED
FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION AS IT MIGHT NEED" TO DECIDE WHETHER THE
CONTROVERSY INVOLVED A LABOR DISPUTE TO WHICH THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT
APPLIED.  UNITED STATES V. SHIPP, 203 U.S. 563, 573, AND HOWAT V.
KANSAS, 258 U.S. 181. 

IN OUR COUNTRY LAW IS NOT A BODY OF TECHNICALITIES IN THE KEEPING OF
SPECIALISTS OR IN THE SERVICE OF ANY SPECIAL INTEREST.  THERE CAN BE NO
FREE SOCIETY WITHOUT LAW ADMINISTERED THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT
JUDICIARY.  IF ONE MAN CAN BE ALLOWED TO DETERMINE FOR HIMSELF WHAT IS
LAW, EVERY MAN CAN.  THAT MEANS FIRST CHAOS, THEN TYRANNY.  LEGAL
PROCESS IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.  FOR LEGAL
PROCESS IS SUBJECT TO DEMOCRATIC CONTROL BY DEFINED, ORDERLY WAYS WHICH
THEMSELVES ARE PART OF LAW.  IN A DEMOCRACY, POWER IMPLIES
RESPONSIBILITY.  THE GREATER THE POWER THAT DEFIES LAW THE LESS
TOLERANT CAN THIS COURT BE OF DEFIANCE.  AS THE NATION'S ULTIMATE
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL, THIS COURT, BEYOND ANY OTHER ORGAN OF SOCIETY, IS
THE TRUSTEE OF LAW AND CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF SECURING OBEDIENCE TO
IT. 

IT ONLY REMAINS TO STATE THE BASIS OF MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
COURT'S VIEWS ON THE BEARING OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 101, AND THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, 57 STAT. 163, 50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1501.  AS TO THE FORMER, THE COURT RELIES ESSENTIALLY
ON A GENERAL DOCTRINE EXCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE OPERATION OF A
STATUTE IN WHICH IT IS NOT NAMED, AND ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
ACT.  I FIND THE COUNTERVAILING CONSIDERATIONS WEIGHTIER.  THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT DEPRIVED THE FEDERAL COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO ISSUE
INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES EXCEPT UNDER CONDITIONS NOT HERE
RELEVANT.  THE QUESTION BEFORE A COURT OF EQUITY THEREFORE IS WHETHER A
CASE PRESENTS A LABOR DISPUTE AS DEFINED BY THE ACT.  SECTION 13(C)
DEFINES "LABOR DISPUTES": 

"THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING TERMS
OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ...  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE." 

THAT THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT COMES WITHIN THIS
DEFINITION DOES NOT NEED TO BE LABORED.  THE CONTROVERSY ARISING UNDER
THE LEWIS-KRUG CONTRACT CONCERNED "TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT"
AND WAS THEREFORE A "LABOR DISPUTE," WHATEVER FURTHER RADIATIONS THE
DISPUTE MAY HAVE HAD.  THE COURT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE TO INTERPOLATE AN
EXCEPTION REGARDING LABOR DISPUTES TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY. 
IT INVOKES A CANON OF CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS
EXCLUDED FROM THE OPERATION OF GENERAL STATUTES UNLESS IT IS INCLUDED
BY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE. 

THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT HAS SPECIFIC ORIGINS AND DEFINITE PURPOSES
AND SHOULD NOT BE CONFINED BY AN ARTIFICIAL CANON OF CONSTRUCTION.  THE
TITLE OF THE ACT GIVES ITS SCOPE AND PURPOSE, AND THE TERMS OF THE ACT
JUSTIFY ITS TITLE.  IT IS AN ACT "TO DEFINE AND LIMIT THE JURISDICTION
OF COURTS SITTING IN EQUITY."  IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE RIGHTS OF
PARTIES BUT WITH THE POWER OF THE COURTS.  AGAIN AND AGAIN THE STATUTE
SAYS "NO COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION," OR AN EQUIVALENT PHRASE. 
CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH THE WITHDRAWAL OF POWER FROM THE FEDERAL
COURTS TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN A DEFINED CLASS OF CASES.  NOTHING IN
THE ACT REMOTELY HINTS THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THIS POWER TURNS ON THE
CHARACTER OF THE PARTIES.  THE ONLY REFERENCE TO PARTIES UNDERSCORES
THEIR IRRELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, FOR THE POWER OF THE
COURTS IS WITHDRAWN IN A LABOR DISPUTE "REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT
THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE."  THE LIMITATION ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT DEPENDS
ENTIRELY ON THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONTROVERSY.  SECTION 13(A)
DEFINES IT: 

"A CASE SHALL BE HELD TO INVOLVE OR TO GROW OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE
WHEN THE CASE INVOLVES PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY,
TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION; OR HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTERESTS
THEREIN; OR WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME EMPLOYER; OR WHO ARE MEMBERS
OF THE SAME OR AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYEES;
..."  NEITHER THE CONTEXT NOR THE CONTENT OF THE ACT QUALIFIES THE
TERMS OF THAT SECTION.  DID NOT THE SUIT BROUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT
AGAINST LEWIS AND THE UNITED MINE WORKERS "GROW OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE"
WITHIN THE TERMS OF SEC. 13(A)? 

AS ALREADY INDICATED, THE COURT NOW FINDS AN EXCEPTION TO THE
LIMITATION WHICH THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT PLACED UPON THE EQUITY
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, NOT IN THE ACT BUT OUTSIDE IT.  IT
INVOKES A CANON OF CONSTRUCTION THAT A SOVEREIGN IS PRESUMPTIVELY NOT
INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY ITS OWN STATUTE UNLESS NAMED IN IT.  AT BEST,
THIS CANON, LIKE OTHER GENERALITIES ABOUT STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, IS
NOT A RULE OF LAW.  WHATEVER PERSUASIVENESS IT MAY HAVE IN CONSTRUING A
PARTICULAR STATUTE DERIVES FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE TERMS OF THE
ENACTMENT IN ITS TOTAL ENVIRONMENT.  "THIS RULE HAS ITS HISTORICAL
BASIS IN THE ENGLISH DOCTRINE THAT THE CROWN IS UNAFFECTED BY ACTS OF
PARLIAMENT NOT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AGAINST IT....  THE PRESUMPTION IS
AN AID TO CONSISTENT CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES OF THE ENACTING SOVEREIGN
WHEN THEIR PURPOSE IS IN DOUBT, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE AIM OF
A STATUTE FAIRLY TO BE INFERRED BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE NOT EXPLICITLY
STATED."  SO WROTE THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE FOR THE WHOLE COURT IN UNITED
STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 186, AND THIS POINT OF VIEW WAS
VERY RECENTLY APPLIED IN UNITED STATES V. RICE, 327 U.S. 742, 749.  IT
IS ONE THING TO READ A STATUTE SO AS NOT TO BIND THE SOVEREIGN BY
RESTRICTIONS, OR TO IMPOSE UPON IT DUTIES, WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO
ORDINARY CITIZENS.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO INTERPOLATE INTO A STATUTE
LIMITING THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT, THE QUALIFICATION THAT SUCH
LIMITATION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE GOVERNMENT INVOKES THE
JURISDICTION.  NO DECISION OF THIS COURT GIVES COUNTENANCE TO SUCH A
DOCTRINE OF INTERPOLATION.  THE TEXT, CONTEXT, CONTENT AND HISTORICAL
SETTING OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT ALL CONVERGE TO INDICATE THE
UNRESTRICTED WITHDRAWAL BY CONGRESS FROM THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF
THE POWER TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES, EXCEPTING ONLY UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLICITLY DEFINED AND NOT HERE PRESENT.  THE MEANING
WHICH A READING OF THE TEXT CONVEYS AND WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE
HISTORY WHICH LED CONGRESS TO FREE THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM
ENTANGLEMENTS IN THESE INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSIES THROUGH USE OF THE
INJUNCTION, OUGHT NOT TO BE SUBORDINATED TO AN ABSTRACT CANON OF
CONSTRUCTION THAT CARRIES THE RESIDUAL FLAVOR OF THE DAYS WHEN A
PERSONAL SOVEREIGN WAS THE LAW-MAKER. 

MOREOVER, THE RULE PROVES TOO MUCH.  IF THE UNITED STATES MUST
EXPLICITLY BE NAMED TO BE AFFECTED, THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT UPON THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION COULD NOT
DEPRIVE THE UNITED STATES OF THE REMEDIES IT THERETOFORE HAD. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE COURTS WOULD NOT BE LIMITED IN THEIR JURISDICTION WHEN
THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY AND THE ACT WOULD NOT APPLY IN ANY
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS COMPLAINANT.  IT WOULD MEAN
THAT, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH MAY BE JEOPARDIZED
JUST AS MUCH WHETHER AN ESSENTIAL INDUSTRY CONTINUED UNDER PRIVATE
CONTROL OR HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY SEIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT, A COURT
COULD, AT THE BEHEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AS COURTS DID WHEN THEY ISSUED THE DEBS, THE HAYES
AND THE RAILWAY SHOPMEN'S INJUNCTIONS.  FN3  BUT IT WAS THESE VERY
INJUNCTIONS, SECURED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER
CLAIM OF COMPELLING PUBLIC EMERGENCY, THAT GAVE THE MOST POWERFUL
MOMENTUM TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  THIS HISTORY IS
TOO FAMILIAR TO BE REHEARSED.  IT IS SURELY SURPRISING TO CONCLUDE THAT
WHEN A LONG AND PERSISTENT EFFORT TO TAKE THE FEDERAL COURTS OUT OF THE
INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT, INSOFAR AS THE LABOR INJUNCTION PUT THEM INTO IT,
FOUND ITS WAY TO THE STATUTE BOOKS, THE ACT FAILED TO MEET THE
GRIEVANCES THAT WERE MOST DRAMATIC AND DEEPEST IN THE MEMORY OF THOSE
MOST CONCERNED WITH THE LEGISLATION.    IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CUTS DOWN WHAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE THE SCOPE OF THE
ACT.  RELIANCE IS PLACED ON STATEMENTS BY TWO REPRESENTATIVES DURING
THE HOUSE DEBATES ON THE BILL, CALCULATED TO SHOW THAT CONGRESS
PURPOSED TO EXCLUDE FROM THE LIMITATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURTS LABOR DISPUTES INVOLVING "EMPLOYEES" OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AT LEAST WHERE INJUNCTIONS ARE SOUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  SINCE
BOTH STATEMENTS CAME FROM SPOKESMEN FOR THE BILL, THEY CARRY WEIGHT. 
THE NATURE OF THESE REMARKS, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE
DELIVERED, AS WELL AS THEIR SETTING, DEFINE THEIR MEANING AND THE
SIGNIFICANCE TO BE GIVEN THEM AS A GLOSS UPON THE ACT. 

THERE WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE AN AMENDMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE BLANTON
WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE THE ACT APPLICABLE "EXCEPT WHERE THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT IS THE PETITIONER."  (75 CONG. REC. 5503.) 
REPRESENTATIVE LAGUARDIA OPPOSED THE AMENDMENT, REMARKING "I DO NOT SEE
HOW IN ANY POSSIBLE WAY THE UNITED STATES CAN BE BROUGHT IN UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL."  IF THIS IS TO BE READ APART FROM THE MEANING
AFFORDED BY THE CONTEXT OF THE DEBATES AND THE WHOLE COURSE OF THE
LEGISLATION, IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE JURISDICTION TO GRANT A DEBS
INJUNCTION CONTINUED UNAFFECTED.  NO ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE STARTLED
BY SUCH A CONCLUSION THAN MR. LAGUARDIA.  THE FACT IS THAT A SITUATION
LIKE THE PRESENT, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT FOR A TIME HAS SOME RELATION TO
A LABOR DISPUTE IN AN ESSENTIALLY PRIVATE INDUSTRY, WAS EVIDENTLY NOT
IN THE THOUGHT OF CONGRESS.  CERTAINLY IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED.  MR.
LAGUARDIA'S STATEMENT REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE ACT FOLLOWED HIS READING OF SEC. 13(B) UNDER WHICH A PERSON IS TO
BE DEEMED INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE ONLY IF "ENGAGED IN THE SAME
INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION IN WHICH SUCH DISPUTE OCCURS." 
HIS BRIEF, ELLIPTICAL REMARK PLAINLY CONVEYED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AN "INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR
OCCUPATION."  THIS IS MADE UNEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR BY THE COLLOQUY THAT
FOLLOWED.  MR. BLANTON INQUIRED WHETHER MR. LAGUARDIA WAS WILLING "FOR
THE ARMY AND THE NAVY TO FORM A LABOR UNION AND AFFILIATE THEMSELVES
WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND NOT PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO PRESERVE ITS RIGHTS?"  THE SHORT ANSWER FOR MR.
LAGUARDIA TO HAVE MADE WAS "THE UNITED STATES IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, BECAUSE BY EMPLOYER WE MEAN A PRIVATE
EMPLOYER."  INSTEAD OF THAT, MR. LAGUARDIA REPLIED, "OH, THE ARMY AND
THE NAVY ARE NOT IN A TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION."  IN SHORT, THE
SCOPE OF THE LIMITATION UPON THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS DEPENDED
NOT ON PARTY, BUT ON SUBJECT MATTER.  REPRESENTATIVE BLANTON'S
AMENDMENT WAS REJECTED BY 125 TO 21. 

THE SECOND REPRESENTATIVE UPON WHOM THE COURT RELIES IS MR.
MICHENER.  HE SAID, "BE IT REMEMBERED THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT ATTEMPT
TO LEGISLATE CONCERNING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
THE ENACTMENT OF THIS BILL INTO LAW WILL TAKE AWAY FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ANY RIGHTS WHICH IT HAS UNDER EXISTING LAW, TO SEEK AND
OBTAIN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WHERE THE SAME IS NECESSARY FOR THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE GOVERNMENT."  (75 CONG. REC. 5464.)  LATER HE ADDED
"... THIS DEALS WITH LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS, NOT WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED.  IT IS MY NOTION THAT UNDER THIS BILL THE
GOVERNMENT CAN FUNCTION WITH AN INJUNCTION, IF THAT IS NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  I SHOULD LIKE TO SEE
THIS CLARIFIED, BUT I WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT UNDER MY
INTERPRETATION OF THIS BILL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL NOT AT ANY TIME
BE PREVENTED FROM APPLYING FOR AN INJUNCTION, IF ONE IS NECESSARY IN
ORDER THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY FUNCTION."  (ID. AT 5509.)  WHAT MR.
MICHENER GAVE AS HIS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT SURVIVED THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, WAS PRECISELY THE CLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT IN ASKING FOR
THE DEBS INJUNCTION.  THAT INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT AND GRANTED IN ORDER
THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT FUNCTION.  INSOFAR, THEN, AS MR. MICHENER'S
STATEMENTS IMPLY THAT THE UNITED STATES COULD AGAIN GET A DEBS
INJUNCTION, HIS UNDERSTANDING IS BELIED BY THE WHOLE HISTORY OF THE
LEGISLATION, AS REFLECTED IN ITS TERMS.  FN4  THESE STATEMENTS CAN ONLY
MEAN, THEN, THAT IF, SAY, EMPLOYEES IN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAD TO
BE ENJOINED SO THAT GOVERNMENT COULD GO ON, IT WAS REPRESENTATIVE
MICHENER'S VIEW THAT AN INJUNCTION COULD ISSUE.  NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO
MAKE THIS VIEW EXPLICIT IN THE ACT.  IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED, AND ONLY ONE
STATEMENT APPEARS TO SHARE IT.  FN5  IN ANY EVENT, IT DOES NOT IMPLY A
BROADER EXEMPTION THAN THAT OF WHICH REPRESENTATIVE LAGUARDIA SPOKE. 

IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE FOLLOWED PASSAGE IN
THE SENATE OF THAT WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME THE ACT.  IT IS A MATTER
OF HISTORY THAT THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WAS THE DRAFTING AND
DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE BILL.  THE BILL HAD EXTENDED CONSIDERATION BY
A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOLLOWED BY WEIGHTY
REPORTS AND FULL DISCUSSION ON THE SENATE FLOOR.  WE ARE NOT POINTED TO
A SUGGESTION OR A HINT IN THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES WAS SUBJECT TO A
LATENT EXCEPTION AS TO INJUNCTIONS SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE WHOLE
CONTEMPORANEOUS HISTORY IS AGAINST IT.  THE EXPERIENCE WHICH GAVE RISE
TO THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT ONLY UNDERSCORES THE UNRESTRICTED
LIMITATION UPON THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS, EXCEPT IN SITUATIONS OF
WHICH THIS IS NOT ONE.  TO FIND IMPLICATIONS IN THE FACT THAT IN THE
COURSE OF THE DEBATES IT WAS NOT EXPLICITLY ASSERTED THAT THE DISTRICT
COURTS COULD NOT ISSUE AN INJUNCTION IN A LABOR CONTROVERSY EVEN AT THE
BEHEST OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO FIND THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS MORE
REVEALING THAN THE NATURAL MEANING OF LEGISLATION AND THE HISTORY WHICH
BEGOT IT.  THE REMARKS OF MR. LAGUARDIA AND MR. MICHENER OUGHT NOT TO
BE MADE THE EQUIVALENT OF WRITING AN AMENDMENT INTO THE ACT.  IT IS ONE
THING TO DRAW ON ALL RELEVANT AIDS FOR SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE DARK
PLACES OF A STATUTE.  TO ALLOW INEXPLICIT REMARKS IN THE GIVE-AND-TAKE
OF DEBATE TO CONTRADICT THE VERY TERMS OF LEGISLATION AND THE HISTORY
BEHIND IT IS TO PUT OUT THE CONTROLLING LIGHT ON MEANING SHED BY THE
EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF AN ACT IN ITS SETTING. 

BUT EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THE ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO LABOR
DISPUTES INVOLVING "EMPLOYEES" OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE THE MINERS IN
THE CASE BEFORE US "EMPLOYEES" OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THIS INTERPOLATED EXCEPTION?  IT CAN HARDLY BE DENIED THAT THE
RELATION OF THE MINERS TO THE UNITED STATES IS A HYBRID ONE.  CLEARLY,
THEY HAVE A RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN THAT OF EMPLOYEES OF
PLANTS NOT UNDER GOVERNMENT OPERATION.  EQUALLY CLEARLY, THEY HAVE A
RELATION AND A STATUS DIFFERENT FROM THE RELATION AND STATUS OF THE
CLERKS AT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT.  NEVER IN THE COUNTRY'S HISTORY HAVE
THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE MILLIONS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE BEEN
ESTABLISHED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  BUT THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
- HOURS, WAGES, HOLIDAYS, VACATIONS, HEALTH AND WELFARE PROGRAM, ETC. -
WERE SO FIXED FOR THE MINERS DURING THE PERIOD OF GOVERNMENT SEIZURE. 
THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THIS COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED MINE WORKERS IS PRECISELY WHAT IS AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS CONTROVERSY.  NEITHER A SPONTANEOUS NOR A SOPHISTICATED
CHARACTERIZATION WOULD RESORT TO THE PHRASE "GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES"
WITHOUT MORE, IN SPEAKING OF THE MINERS DURING THE OPERATION OF THE
MINES BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE ONLY CONCRETE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
STATUS OF EMPLOYEES IN SEIZED PLANTS WAS EXPRESSED BY UNDER SECRETARY
PATTERSON AT A HEARING ON THE PREDECESSOR BILL TO THAT WHICH BECAME THE
LAW UNDER WHICH THIS SEIZURE WAS MADE.  HE SPOKE OF THE ROLE OF THE
GOVERNMENT AS THAT OF "A RECEIVER THAT WOULD BE CHARGED WITH THE
CONTINUITY OF OPERATION OF THE PLANT."  FN6  NOTHING IN THE ACTS
AUTHORIZING SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PLANTS INDICATES THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF
THESE PLANTS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES IN
THE USUAL AND NATURAL MEANING OF THE TERM.  IN THE FULL DEBATES ON
BILLS PROVIDING FOR GOVERNMENT SEIZURE OF PLANTS, CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS
CLEARLY INDICATED THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT AS THE LAW THEN STOOD THERE
COULD BE NO INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES IN SEIZED PLANTS.  FN7 

BUT NOT ONLY WAS SUCH THE UNDERSTANDING WHEN THE LEGAL QUESTION
EMERGED IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERING THE NEED OF WAR LEGISLATION. 
RECENT LEGISLATION AND ITS HISTORY ARE RELEVANT NOT MERELY BECAUSE THEY
SHOW LATER UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERMS OF AN OLDER STATUTE.  THE WAR
LABOR DISPUTES ACT OF 1943 IS DIRECTLY AND PRIMARILY INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE.  THE WHOLE CONTROVERSY ARISES UNDER THE AUTHORITY TO SEIZE MINES
GIVEN BY THAT ACT.  THE REAL QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER IN
AUTHORIZING SUCH SEIZURE AND OPERATION CONGRESS ALSO GAVE TO THE UNITED
STATES THE RIGHT TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH ITS STATUTORY OPERATION
THROUGH THE EQUITABLE REMEDIES HERE INVOKED. 

BY THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, CONGRESS CREATED A NEW RELATIONSHIP
AMONG THE GOVERNMENT, THE PLANT OWNERS, THE EMPLOYEES.  THE RIGHTS,
DUTIES, REMEDIES INCIDENT TO THAT RELATION ARE THOSE GIVEN BY THE ACT. 
CONGRESS NATURALLY ADDRESSED ITSELF TO POSSIBLE INTERFERENCES WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S OPERATION OF SEIZED PLANTS.  IT DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH
THIS SUBJECT.  IT GAVE THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFIC REMEDIES WHICH IT MIGHT
INVOKE AGAINST SUCH INTERFERENCE.  FN8  REMEDY BY INJUNCTION WAS NOT
GIVEN.  IT WAS NOT MERELY OMITTED.  A FAIR READING OF THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY SHOWS THAT IT WAS EXPRESSLY AND DEFINITIVELY DENIED.  AS
REPORTED OUT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE, S. 796 PROVIDED FOR PLANT
SEIZURE.  IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE INJUNCTION AMONG THE REMEDIES FOR
INTERFERENCE WITH GOVERNMENT OPERATION.  FN9  BUT WHEN THE BILL REACHED
THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, SENATOR CONNALLY, SPONSOR OF THE BILL, OFFERED
AND URGED AN AMENDMENT GIVING THE DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION TO
RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE MEASURE.  FN10  HE ACCEPTED, SOMEWHAT
RELUCTANTLY, THE AMENDMENT OF SENATOR WAGNER TO LIMIT THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO AN INJUNCTION AT THE BEHEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
PRECISELY AS WAS HERE SOUGHT AND GRANTED.  FN11  ON MOTION OF SENATOR
DANAHER, THIS PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED BY THE SENATE AFTER FULL DEBATE,
FN12  PARTICIPATED IN BY SENATORS ESPECIALLY CONVERSANT WITH THE
HISTORY AND SCOPE OF THE EXISTING REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE
GOVERNMENT.  WITH THIS REMEDY DENIED TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE BILL WAS
PASSED AND SENT TO THE HOUSE.  FN13  THE HOUSE DID NOT LIKE THE BILL. 
ITS VERSION DID NOT SEE FIT SPECIFICALLY TO ADD TO THE LIMITED SEIZURE
PROVISIONS OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1940, ALTHOUGH APPARENTLY IT
ASSUMED THAT THERE COULD BE SEIZURE UNDER EXISTING LAW IN THE CASE OF
FAILURE BY DEFENSE PLANTS TO PRODUCE AS A RESULT OF LABOR TROUBLES. 
INSTEAD, THE HOUSE VERSION PROVIDED STRINGENT ANTI-STRIKE AND ANTI
LOCKOUT PROVISIONS AS TO PLANTS IN PRIVATE OPERATION, AND BY SPECIFIC
AMENDMENT TO THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT THE DISTRICT COURTS WERE
AUTHORIZED TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SUCH PROVISIONS.  BUT THIS PRO
TANTO REPEAL OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
UNITED STATES AS A REMEDY AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH OPERATION OF PLANTS
SEIZED UNDER THE EARLIER, 1940 ACT.  FN14 

THE BILL THEN WENT TO CONFERENCE.  WHAT CAME OUT WAS, SO FAR AS HERE
MATERIAL, THE BILL THAT HAD PASSED THE SENATE.  THE UNITED STATES WAS
GRANTED POWER TO SEIZE AND OPERATE DEFENSE PLANTS WHOSE PRODUCTION WAS
HAMPERED BY LABOR DISPUTES.  SPECIFIC REMEDIES WERE FORMULATED BY
CONGRESS AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S OPERATION.  THE
INJUNCTION WAS NOT INCLUDED.  FN15  IN NEITHER HOUSE WAS FURTHER
ATTEMPT MADE TO REINTRODUCE THE CONNALLY PROPOSAL GIVING THE GOVERNMENT
RELIEF BY INJUNCTION.  NOR WAS IT SUGGESTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD
SUCH REDRESS UNDER EXISTING LAW.  ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, SENATOR
THOMAS OF UTAH, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
SAID: 

"MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO (MR. HATCH), THE
SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT (MR. DANAHER), AND THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS (MR.
CONNALLY), THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL, WHETHER THERE IS A UNANIMOUS
OPINION ON THE PART OF THOSE THREE GREAT LAWYERS THAT THERE WILL NOT BE
A REOPENING OF THE DISTRICT COURTS TO INDUSTRY-LABOR DISPUTES?...  I
SHOULD LIKE THAT POINT TO BE MADE SO FIRMLY AND SO STRONGLY THAT NO
LAWYER IN THE LAND WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION
CREATED BY THE MERE MENTION OF THE WORDS 'DISTRICT COURT' WILL RESORT
TO THE COURT IN ORDER TO CONFUSE OUR INDUSTRY-LABOR RELATIONS." 

MR. CONNALLY ANSWERED: 

"MR. PRESIDENT,  ...  I THINK I SPEAK FOR THE SENATOR FROM VERMONT
AND THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO AND THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT AND
ALSO THE SENATOR FROM INDIANA (MR. VAN NUYS), ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT
PRESENT, WHEN I SAY THAT THERE IS NO JURISDICTION WHATEVER CONFERRED BY
THIS BILL PROVIDING FOR RESORT TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
EXCEPT THE ONE MENTIONED BY THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT, WHICH IS
MERELY THE RIGHT TO GO THERE FOR A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES, AND NO
JURISDICTION WHATEVER IS GIVEN OVER LABOR DISPUTES.  DOES THAT ANSWER
THE SENATOR?" 

"MR. THOMAS OF UTAH.  I THANK THE SENATOR FOR MAKING THAT STATEMENT
AND I HOPE IT WILL SATISFY THE LAWYERS OF THE COUNTRY.    "MR.
CONNALLY.  I AM SURE IT WILL."  FN16 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE BILL BECAME LAW, AND THE SEIZURE GIVING
RISE TO THIS CONTROVERSY WAS MADE UNDER THAT LAW.  THE SEPARATE ITEMS
OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CANNOT BE JUDGED IN ISOLATION.  THEY MUST
BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, AND AS PART OF THE COURSE OF LEGISLATION
DEALING WITH INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES.  TO FIND THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT WHICH SENATOR CONNALLY'S AMENDMENT SOUGHT TO
CONFER BUT WHICH THE CONGRESS WITHHELD IS TO SAY THAT VOTING DOWN THE
AMENDMENT HAD THE SAME EFFECT AS VOTING IT UP. 

EVENTS SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT UNDERSCORE WHAT WOULD APPEAR TO
BE THE CONTROLLING LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT,
AND PROVE THAT CONGRESS SAW FIT NOT TO AUTHORIZE DISTRICT COURTS TO
ISSUE AN INJUNCTION IN CASES LIKE THIS.  TO MEET THE GRAVE CRISIS
GROWING OUT OF THE STRIKE ON THE RAILROADS LAST MAY, CONGRESS, UPON THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEEMED
ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION NECESSARY FOR DEALING WITH LABOR DISPUTES.  THE
PROPOSALS IN EACH HOUSE CARRIED A PROVISION WHICH AUTHORIZED AN
INJUNCTION TO ISSUE FOR VIOLATION OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT.  FN17
SENATOR MEAD PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE PROVISIONS FOR
INJUNCTIONS.  FN18  IN THE DEBATES THAT FOLLOWED NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT
THE NEW PROPOSAL WAS UNNECESSARY, THAT THE JURISDICTION PROPOSED TO BE
CONFERRED ALREADY EXISTED, OR THAT IF GRANTED, AS REQUESTED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, IT WOULD NOT, AS SENATOR MEAD CLAIMED, REPEAL PRO
TANTO THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  THE DEBATES SHOW CLEARLY THAT WHAT WAS
CONTEMPLATED WAS A CHANGE IN THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, WHEREBY A NEW
AND AN ADDITIONAL REMEDY WOULD BE AUTHORIZED.  FN19  THE BILL NEVER
BECAME LAW. 

AS IS WELL KNOWN, AS THE DEBATES CLEARLY SHOW, AS SENATOR CONNALLY
ADMITTED, THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT WAS DIRECTED PRIMARILY AGAINST
STOPPAGE IN THE COAL MINES.  FN20  THE SITUATION THAT CONGRESS FEARED
WAS EXACTLY THAT WHICH HAS OCCURRED AND WHICH UNDERLIES THIS
CONTROVERSY.  TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION, CONGRESS GAVE THE UNITED
STATES THE POWER TO SEIZE THE MINES.  TO EFFECTUATE THIS POWER, THE
GOVERNMENT WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO INVOKE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR
INTERFERENCES WITH THE OPERATION OF THE MINES.  SENATOR CONNALLY SOUGHT
MORE.  HE WANTED CONGRESS TO EMPOWER THE DISTRICT COURTS TO ENJOIN
INTERFERENCE.  THE SENATE DID NOT WANT AN INJUNCTION TO ISSUE AND VOTED
THE PROPOSAL DOWN.  THE SENATE'S POSITION WAS ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE.  THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES YIELDED ITS VIEW AND APPROVED
THE CONFERENCE REPORT.  THE WHOLE COURSE OF LEGISLATION INDICATES THAT
CONGRESS WITHHELD THE REMEDY OF INJUNCTION.  THIS COURT NOW HOLDS THAT
CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE INJUNCTION. 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S OPINION INSOFAR AS IT IS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THESE VIEWS, AND, UNDER THE COMPULSION OF THE RULING OF THE
MAJORITY THAT THE COURT BELOW HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ITS ORDERS, I
JOIN IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT. 

FN1  POUND, THE FUTURE OF LAW (1937) 47 YALE L.J. 1, 13. 

FN2  SINCE, IN MY VIEW, THIS WAS NOT A CONVICTION FOR CONTEMPT IN A
CASE "ARISING UNDER THIS ACT," THE JURY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT DO NOT APPLY.  FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, THE
PETITIONERS DO NOT CLAIM THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AFFORDS THEM A RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. DEBS, 64 F. 724; 158 U.S. 564; UNITED STATES V.
HAYES, UNREPORTED, D. IND. 1919; UNITED STATES V. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES'
DEPT. A.F.L., 283 F. 479, 286 F. 228, 290 F. 978. 

FN4  COMPARE REPRESENTATIVE LAGUARDIA'S REPLY TO A PROPOSED AMENDMENT
BY REPRESENTATIVE BECK WHICH WOULD HAVE EXEMPTED FROM THE OPERATION OF
THE ACT DISPUTES "WHERE THE WELFARE, HEALTH, OR LIVES OF A PUBLIC ARE
CONCERNED WHO ARE NOT PARTIES TO SUCH LABOR DISPUTE, OR WHERE A LABOR
DISPUTE INVOLVES THE OBSTRUCTION OF ANY INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE
OR FOREIGN COMMERCE."  MR. LAGUARDIA CLAIMED THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS OUT
OF ORDER BECAUSE NOT GERMANE TO THE PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION.  "THE
PRESENT BILL REFERS ONLY TO DISPUTES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYER
... THE PUBLIC IS FULLY PROTECTED BY PENAL AND OTHER STATUTES  ..."  75
CONG. REC. 5503. 

FN5  SEE STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SCHNEIDER, 75 CONG. REC. 5514. 

FN6  HEARINGS ON S. 2054 BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY, SENATE, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 14.  THE
CHARACTERIZATION WAS ACCEPTED BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHICH
APPROVED THE BILL.  ID. AT PP. 16, 18, 130.  SENATOR CONNALLY REFERS TO
THE PRIVATE EMPLOYER WHO "WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE IT UNDER THE
SUPERVISION OF THE GOVERNMENT."  ID. AT 55.  SEE ALSO P. 57.  WHILE AT
ONE POINT HE REFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES AS AN EMPLOYER (ID. AT 120),
HE DID SO IN A SPECIAL CONTEXT FOR THE PURPOSES OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH REFERENCE TO WAGES.  AS TO WAGES, OF COURSE,
THE GOVERNMENT WOULD STAND IN LOCO "EMPLOYER" DURING ITS OPERATION OF
THE PLANT. 

THE ANALOGY OF EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP IS NOT INAPT.  IN A LIMITED SENSE,
EMPLOYEES OF PLANTS IN RECEIVERSHIP IN A FEDERAL COURT MAY BE
CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, SINCE THE OPERATION OF THE
PLANT IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION AND CONTROL OF A UNITED STATES
OFFICER.  BUT NO ONE AWARE OF THE BACKGROUND OF MISCHIEF WHICH THE ACT
WAS INTENDED TO REMEDY COULD FIND AN INTENTION IN CONGRESS TO ALLOW
INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES INVOLVING PLANTS IN RECEIVERSHIP. 
COMPARE TRAINMEN V. TOLEDO, P. & W.R. CO., 321 U.S. 50, 55, 58-61.  NO
SERIES OF CASES CONTRIBUTED MORE TO THE FEELING THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS
ABUSED THEIR EQUITY JURISDICTION THAN THOSE INVOLVING EMPLOYEES OF
RAILROADS IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP.  SEE, E.G., 1 GRESHAM, LIFE OF WALTER
QUINTIN GRESHAM, CC. XXIII TO XXV; GREGORY, LABOR AND THE LAW, 95-97;
NELLES, A STRIKE AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES - AN EXAMINATION OF THE
RECEIVERSHIP PRECEDENT FOR THE LABOR INJUNCTION (1931) 40 YALE L.J.
507, PASSIM.  IF INJUNCTIONS WILL NOT ISSUE IN DISPUTES INVOLVING
EMPLOYEES OF RAILROADS OR OTHER INDUSTRIES IN RECEIVERSHIP UNDER
OPERATION BY THE FEDERAL COURTS, NOTHING RELEVANT TO THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE STATUTE WARRANTS THE INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS ALLOWED THE
INJUNCTION TO BE AVAILABLE IN DISPUTES INVOLVING EMPLOYEES OF PLANTS IN
"RECEIVERSHIP" UNDER OPERATION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

FN7  SEE ESPECIALLY THE DEBATES ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SMITH
CONNALLY BILL WHEREBY SENATOR CONNALLY SOUGHT TO ADD THE INJUNCTION AS
A REMEDY AGAINST VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 

"MR. CONNALLY....  THE PROVISION IS LIMITED TO PLANTS WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT TAKES OVER.  IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IN
ANY RESPECT, EXCEPT IN THE ONE PARTICULAR CASE  ... 

     .         .       .         .         . 

"MR. LANGER.  MR. PRESIDENT, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT UNLESS SECTION 5 IS
STRICKEN FROM THE BILL THAT A PORTION OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WILL
BE REPEALED? 

"MR. DANAHER.  IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE OVERRIDDEN; ...."  89 CONG. REC.
3988-89. 

SEE ALSO THE STATEMENTS OF SENATORS TAFT, VANDENBERG, AND WAGNER, AND
COMPARE THOSE OF SENATORS REVERCOMB AND BARKLEY; AND SEE THE COLLOQUY
BETWEEN SENATORS CONNALLY AND VANDENBERG, ID. AT 3906, QUOTED INFRA
NOTE 10. 

FN8  57 STAT. 163, 165-66, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1506(B). 

FN9  S. REP. NO. 147, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN10  89 CONG. REC. 3809.  AND SEE P. 3906: 

"MR. VANDENBERG.... 

"I AM VERY ANXIOUS THAT THERE SHALL BE ADDITIONAL STATUTORY
PROTECTION TO THE UNINTERRUPTED PRODUCTION OF WAR NECESSITIES, BUT I AM
WONDERING WHETHER IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT PURPOSE IT IS NECESSARY FOR
ME TO IMPINGE UPON A VERY PROFOUND HOSTILITY I HAVE ALWAYS HAD TO THE
USE OF INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES.  I VOTED FOR THE ORIGINAL NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, AND I HAVE ALWAYS FELT THAT ONE OF THE MOST USEFUL
THINGS WE EVER DID, NOT ONLY AS A MATTER OF FAIR PLAY, BUT IN RESPECT
TO THE STATUS OF THE COURTS WAS SUBSTANTIALLY TO SEPARATE FROM COURT
JURISDICTION THE RESPONSIBILITY OF, IN EFFECT, UMPIRING LABOR
DISPUTES. 

"WHAT I WISH TO ASK THE ABLE SENATOR FROM TEXAS, IF I MAY, IS THIS:
IN HIS PROPOSAL, ON PAGE 4, IT IS PROVIDED THAT ANY PERSON WHO
WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT IS TO BE GUILTY OF A
FELONY, AND SUBJECT TO A FINE OR IMPRISONMENT.  IS NOT THAT A
CONCLUSIVE PENALTY?  IS IT NECESSARY IN ADDITION TO GO BACK INTO ALL
THE OLD INJUNCTIVE PROCESS IN CONNECTION WITH LABOR DISPUTES? 

"MR. CONNALLY.  THAT IS NOT A LEGAL INQUIRY REALLY.  OF COURSE, IT
MIGHT BE THAT WE COULD GET ALONG WITHOUT THE PROVISION.  LIKE THE
SENATOR, I VOTED FOR THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, AND I FAVORED THE POLICY
EMBODIED THEREIN.  THIS PROVISION, HOWEVER, APPLIES ONLY TO PLANTS
TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS
TO OPERATE A PLANT, IT SHOULD HAVE THE WIDEST AND THE FULLEST AUTHORITY
TO OPERATE IT AS IT WANTS TO DO AND TO PREVENT INTERRUPTION. 
THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THE ATTITUDE OF SOME WHO WERE INTERESTED IN THE
BILL, I INSERTED SECTION 5.  I DO NOT THINK THE BILL WOULD BE VERY
SERIOUSLY CRIPPLED IF IT WERE ELIMINATED, BUT I THINK IT IS IMPROVED BY
ITS REMAINING IN.  I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE FATAL TO STRIKE OUT THAT
PROVISION, BUT I HOPE THAT WILL NOT BE DONE. 

"MR. VANDENBERG.  I THANK THE SENATOR FOR HIS FRANK STATEMENT.  WHEN
THE GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN OVER THE OPERATION OF A PLANT AND IT BECOMES
IN ESSENCE A GOVERNMENT OPERATION, IT IS RATHER DIFFICULT TO RESIST THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF ANY
INSTRUMENTALITY IN THE ENFORCEMENT, VIRTUALLY, OF ITS SOVEREIGNTY. 

"MR. CONNALLY.  THAT IS TRUE. 

"MR. VANDENBERG.  NEVERTHELESS, I APPREHEND THAT THE VERY FACT THAT
THE INJUNCTIVE PROCESS IS RESTORED IN THE SENATOR'S BILL IS THE REASON
WHY IT APPEARS IN THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE ABLE SENATOR
FROM OHIO, WHERE, IT SEEMS TO ME, IT BECOMES DECIDEDLY MORE OFFENSIVE,
USING THAT WORD IN THE SENSE IN WHICH I HAVE USED IT." 

THE REFERENCE IS TO AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY SENATOR TAFT AUTHORIZING
INJUNCTIONS IN ANY CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AT THE REQUEST OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CASE OF FAILURE TO OBEY ORDERS OF THE WAR LABOR
BOARD, OR WHENEVER "OPERATIONS ARE HINDERED OR REDUCED BY LOCK-OUT,
STRIKE, OR OTHERWISE."  THIS APPLIED APPARENTLY TO PLANTS IN PRIVATE
OPERATION.  89 CONG. REC. 3897-98.  COMPARE THE BILL PASSED BY THE
HOUSE, NOTE 14. 

FN11  89 CONG. REC. 3907, 3988-89. 

FN12  ID. AT 3989. 

FN13  ID. AT 3993. 

FN14  COMPARE SEC. 4(B) AND (C) WITH SEC. 12(A) AND (B), 89 CONG.
REC. 5382-83.  FOR THE EARLIER SEIZURE PROVISIONS SEE 54 STAT. 885,
892, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 309. 

FN15  SEE CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 796, H. REP. NO. 531, 78TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 

FN16  89 CONG. REC. 5754.  THE SENATORS MENTIONED BY MR. CONNALLY
WERE THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE SENATE OF THE BILL IN CONFERENCE. 

FN17  H.R. 6578, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN18  92 CONG. REC. 6019. 

FN19  SEE, PARTICULARLY, THE STATEMENTS OF SENATOR MEAD (PP. 6019
20), SENATOR MORSE (PP. 6021, 6022), SENATOR PEPPER (PP. 6022, 6023),
SENATOR WAGNER (P. 6022), SENATOR WHEELER (P. 6025), SENATOR BARKLEY
(P. 6028), SENATOR FULBRIGHT (P. 6024). 

FN20  SENATOR CONNALLY SAID:  "MR. LEWIS APPEARED BEFORE THE TRUMAN
COMMITTEE 3 OR 4 WEEKS AGO.  I HAPPEN TO BE A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE,
AND WHEN HE SAID HE DID NOT REGARD HIS NO-STRIKE AGREEMENT AS BINDING
...  I DETERMINED THEN THAT IF I COULD GET THIS BILL BEFORE THE SENATE,
I WAS GOING TO BRING IT UP AND PRESS IT IN ORDER THAT IF HE DID
DISREGARD THE AGREEMENT, THE PRESIDENT OR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES WOULD HAVE A WEAPON WITH WHICH TO MEET THE THREAT AND THE
DANGER."  89 CONG. REC. 3886.  SEE ALSO H. REP. NO. 440, 78TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 6.  THE REFERENCES TO THE COAL SITUATION IN THE DEBATES
ARE INNUMERABLE.  SEE, E.G., 89 CONG. REC. 3767, 3886, 3888, 3889, 3900
01. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING IN PART AND
DISSENTING IN PART. 

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE COURT'S OPINION, WE AGREE THAT NEITHER
THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT NOR THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT BARRED THE
GOVERNMENT FROM OBTAINING THE INJUNCTION IT SOUGHT IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS.  THE "LABOR DISPUTES" WITH WHICH CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED IN
THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WERE THOSE BETWEEN PRIVATE EMPLOYERS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES.  AS TO ALL SUCH "LABOR DISPUTES," THE ACT DRASTICALLY
LIMITED THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS; IT BARRED RELIEF BY
INJUNCTION EXCEPT UNDER VERY NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER INJUNCTION
BE SOUGHT BY PRIVATE EMPLOYERS, THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANYONE ELSE.  BUT
THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS WAS NEITHER FOCUSED UPON, NOR DID IT PURPORT
TO AFFECT, "LABOR DISPUTES," IF SUCH THEY CAN BE CALLED, BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND ITS OWN EMPLOYEES.  THERE WAS NEVER AN INTIMATION IN THE
PROGRESS OF THE ACT'S PASSAGE THAT A LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN THE ACT'S
MEANING WOULD ARISE BECAUSE OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTED
COLLECTIVELY BY EMPLOYEES OF THE INTERIOR, STATE, JUSTICE, OR ANY OTHER
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.  CONGRESS HAD NEVER IN ITS HISTORY PROVIDED A
PROGRAM FOR FIXING WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF ITS
EMPLOYEES BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES HAD NOT BEEN THE SUBJECT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, NOR BEEN
SETTLED AS A RESULT OF LABOR DISPUTES.  IT WOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC
CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE TO PERSUADE US THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO EMBARK
UPON SUCH A NOVEL PROGRAM OR TO TREAT THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP AS GIVING RISE TO A "LABOR DISPUTE" IN THE INDUSTRIAL
SENSE. 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE MINERS BECAME GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER THE MINES.  IT ASSUMED COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE
MINES AND THEIR OPERATION.  THE FACT THAT IT UTILIZED THE MANAGERIAL
FORCES OF THE PRIVATE OWNERS DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S
COMPLETE AUTHORITY.  FOR WHATEVER CONTROL GOVERNMENT AGENTS DELEGATED
TO THE PRIVATE MANAGERS, THOSE AGENTS HAD FULL POWER TO TAKE AWAY AND
EXERCISE THEMSELVES.  IF WE THOUGHT, AS IS HERE CONTENDED, THAT THE
GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION AND OPERATION OF THE MINES WERE NOT GENUINE,
BUT MERELY PRETENDED, WE SHOULD THEN SAY THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT
BARRED THESE PROCEEDINGS.  FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN FULL AND COMPLETE
GOVERNMENT OPERATION FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT  FN1  WOULD MAKE THIS
PROCEEDING THE EQUIVALENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SEEKING AN INJUNCTION FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.  WE THINK THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT PROHIBITS THAT.  BUT AS WE READ THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT AND THE
PRESIDENT'S ORDER TAKING OVER THE MINES AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PROMPTED BOTH, WE THINK, APPARENTLY CONTRARY TO THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE REGULATIONS, THAT THE GOVERNMENT OPERATES THESE
MINES FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT AS A MATTER OF LAW; FN2  AND THOSE WHO WORK
IN THEM, DURING THE PERIOD OF COMPLETE GOVERNMENT CONTROL, ARE
EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

SINCE THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IS INAPPLICABLE, WE AGREE THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS TO ENTER ORDERS NECESSARY
TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST AN INVASION OF THE RIGHTS IT
ASSERTED, PENDING ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY ITS COMPLAINT
PRESENTED TO THE COURT.  IT IS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY FOR US TO REACH
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO HAD POWER TO ENTER
THESE ORDERS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF UNITED STATES V. SHIPP, 203 U.S.
563. 

WE AGREE THAT THE COURT HAD POWER SUMMARILY TO COERCE OBEDIENCE TO
THOSE ORDERS AND TO SUBJECT DEFENDANTS TO SUCH CONDITIONAL SANCTIONS AS
WERE NECESSARY TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE.  AND WE AGREE THAT IN SUCH CIVIL
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE, IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE
COURT TO ABIDE BY ALL THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS WHICH SURROUND TRIALS
FOR CRIME.  WITHOUT SUCH COERCIVE POWERS, COURTS COULD NOT SETTLE THE
CASES AND CONTROVERSIES BEFORE THEM.  COURTS COULD NOT ADMINISTER
JUSTICE IF PERSONS WERE LEFT FREE PENDING ADJUDICATION TO ENGAGE IN
CONDUCT WHICH WOULD EITHER IMMEDIATELY INTERRUPT THE JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS OR SO CHANGE THE STATUS QUO OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A
CONTROVERSY THAT NO EFFECTIVE JUDGMENT COULD BE RENDERED.  DISORDER IN
THE COURTROOM, OR SO NEAR TO IT AS TO INTERRUPT A TRIAL, AND
DISOBEDIENCE OF AN AFFIRMATIVE COURT ORDER, ARE TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF
OFFENSES WHICH MUST NECESSARILY BE DEALT WITH SUMMARILY.  TO REMOVE
SUCH IMMINENT INTERFERENCE WITH ORDERLY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, COURTS
MUST HAVE POWER TO ACT IMMEDIATELY.  IN RECOGNITION OF THIS FACT, THE
CONTEMPT POWER CAME INTO EXISTENCE.  FN3  THIS POWER IS OF ANCIENT
LINEAGE,  FN4  HAS ALWAYS BEEN EXERCISED BY OUR COURTS, AND HAS THE
EXPRESS RECOGNITION OF CONGRESS UNDER THE NAME OF CONTEMPT.  REV. STAT.
SEC. 725, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 385.  WHERE THE COURT EXERCISES SUCH COERCIVE
POWER, HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPELLING FUTURE OBEDIENCE, THOSE
IMPRISONED "CARRY THE KEYS OF THEIR PRISON IN THEIR OWN POCKETS," IN RE
NEVITT, 117 F. 448, 461; BY OBEDIENCE TO THE COURT'S VALID ORDER, THEY
CAN END THEIR CONFINEMENT; AND THE COURT'S COERCIVE POWER IN SUCH A
"CIVIL CONTEMPT" PROCEEDING ENDS WHEN ITS ORDER HAS BEEN OBEYED. 
GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 441, 445.  SEE ALSO
DOYLE V. LONDON GUARANTEE CO., 204 U.S. 599, 607.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DID NOT ENTER A CONDITIONAL DECREE HERE.  BUT THIS COURT HAS MODIFIED
THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE TO PROVIDE AS PART OF THE JUDGMENT SUCH A
COERCIVE SANCTION IN THE FORM OF A CONDITIONAL FINE.  WE AGREE WITH THE
COURT'S DECISION IN THIS RESPECT.  FN5 

THE GOMPERS DECISION AND MANY OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THE OBJECT
OF SUCH COERCIVE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT TO PUNISH FOR AN OFFENSE
AGAINST THE PUBLIC, BUT TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE TO VALID COURT ORDERS.  YET
THE DECISION OF THIS COURT ALSO APPROVES UNCONDITIONAL FINES AS
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT FOR PAST DISOBEDIENCE.  WE CANNOT AGREE TO THIS
ASPECT OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT.  AT A VERY EARLY DATE THIS COURT
DECLARED, AND RECENTLY IT HAS REITERATED, THAT IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
COURTS SHOULD NEVER EXERCISE MORE THAN "THE LEAST POSSIBLE POWER
ADEQUATE TO THE END PROPOSED."  ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6 WHEAT.  204, 231;
IN RE MICHAEL, 326 U.S. 224, 227. 

IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CULMINATING IN
UNCONDITIONAL PUNISHMENT FOR PAST DISOBEDIENCE MAY WELL CONSTITUTE AN
EXERCISE OF "THE LEAST POSSIBLE POWER ADEQUATE TO THE END PROPOSED." 
THUS IN SITUATIONS WHICH WOULD WARRANT ONLY A USE OF COERCIVE SANCTIONS
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE AT A
LATER STAGE IF THE DEFENDANT SHOULD PERSIST IN DISOBEYING THE ORDER OF
THE COURT.  WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUISITES OF SUCH
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT, WE BELIEVE THE APPLICATION OF IT INAPPROPRIATE AND
IMPROPER HERE.  THE IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT HERE WAS AN
EXERCISE OF FAR MORE THAN "THE LEAST POSSIBLE POWER ADEQUATE TO THE END
PROPOSED."  FOR HERE THE GREAT AND LEGITIMATE "END PROPOSED" WAS
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY THE DEFENDANTS TO PREVENT INTERRUPTION OF COAL
PRODUCTION PENDING FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY.  COERCIVE
SANCTIONS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS END WERE JUSTIFIED.  FROM THE
RECORD WE HAVE NO DOUBT BUT THAT A CONDITIONAL CIVIL SANCTION WOULD
BRING ABOUT AT LEAST AS PROMPT AND UNEQUIVOCAL OBEDIENCE TO THE COURT'S
ORDER AS WOULD CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT FOR PAST DISOBEDIENCE.  AND THIS
WOULD ACCOMPLISH A VINDICATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S AUTHORITY
AGAINST A CONTINUING DEFIANCE.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE JUSTIFIABLE "END PROPOSED" CALLED FOR SUMMARY
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT WHICH IS DESIGNED TO DETER OTHERS FROM DISOBEDIENCE
TO COURT ORDERS OR TO AVENGE A PUBLIC WRONG, RATHER THAN THE IMPOSITION
OF A COERCIVE SANCTION.  AND FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE, WE THINK THAT THE FLAT $700,000 CRIMINAL FINE AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT UNION IS EXCESSIVE BY CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
STANDARDS. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT OR COERCIVE SANCTION
SHOULD BE EMPLOYED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE QUESTION OF INTENT - THE
MOTIVATION OF THE CONTUMACY - BECOMES RELEVANT.  DIFFICULT QUESTIONS OF
LAW WERE PRESENTED BY THIS CASE.  IT IS PLAIN THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTED
WILLFULLY FOR THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE DISOBEYING THE COURT'S ORDER. 
BUT THEY APPEAR TO HAVE BELIEVED IN GOOD FAITH, THOUGH ERRONEOUSLY,
THAT THEY WERE ACTING WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS.  MANY LAWYERS WOULD
HAVE SO ADVISED THEM.  THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE THEIR CONDUCT; THE WHOLE
SITUATION EMPHASIZED THE DUTY OF TESTING THE RESTRAINING ORDER BY
ORDERLY APPEAL INSTEAD OF DISOBEDIENCE AND OPEN DEFIANCE.  HOWEVER, AS
THIS COURT SAID IN COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517, 538, "THE
INTENTION WITH WHICH ACTS OF CONTEMPT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED MUST
NECESSARILY AND PROPERLY HAVE AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE DEGREE OF
GUILT AND THE PENALTY WHICH SHOULD BE IMPOSED." 

WE THINK IT SIGNIFICANT THAT THE CONDUCT WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BY THE
RESTRAINING ORDER FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH THESE DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN
PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT IS ALSO PUNISHABLE UNDER THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES
ACT.  THAT ACT PROVIDES A MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT OF $5,000 FINE AND ONE
YEAR IMPRISONMENT FOR THOSE WHO INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION OF MINES
TAKEN OVER BY THE UNITED STATES.  HAD THE DEFENDANTS BEEN TRIED UNDER
THAT STATUTE, THEIR PUNISHMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIMITED THEREBY AND IN
THEIR TRIAL THEY WOULD HAVE ENJOYED ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  WHATEVER CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS ARE REQUIRED
IN A SUMMARY CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, WHETHER IT BE FOR CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT, OR FOR THE IMPOSITION OF COERCIVE SANCTION, WE MUST BE EVER
MINDFUL OF THE DANGER OF PERMITTING PUNISHMENT BY CONTEMPT TO BE
IMPOSED FOR CONDUCT WHICH IS IDENTICAL WITH AN OFFENSE DEFINED AND MADE
PUNISHABLE BY STATUTE.  IN RE MICHAEL, SUPRA.  FN6 

THE SITUATION OF GRAVE EMERGENCY FACING THE COUNTRY WHEN THE DISTRICT
COURT ACTED CALLED FOR THE STRONGEST MEASURES - MEASURES DESIGNED TO
PRODUCE QUICK AND UNQUALIFIED OBEDIENCE OF THE COURT'S ORDER.  IF THE
$10,000 FINE ON DEFENDANT LEWIS AND THE $3,500,000 FINE ON THE
DEFENDANT UNION BE TREATED AS COERCIVE FINES, THEY WOULD NOT
NECESSARILY BE EXCESSIVE.  FOR THEY WOULD THEN BE PAYABLE ONLY IF THE
DEFENDANTS CONTINUED TO DISOBEY THE COURT'S ORDER.  DEFENDANTS COULD
THEN AVOID PAYMENT BY PURGING THEMSELVES.  THE PRICE OF CONTINUED
DISOBEDIENCE WOULD BE THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES.  SEE DOYLE V. LONDON
GUARANTEE CO., SUPRA, 602.  THE FINES WOULD BE FIXED SO AS TO PRODUCE
THE GREATEST LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WOULD COMPEL OBEDIENCE. 

WE SHOULD MODIFY THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREES BY MAKING THE ENTIRE
AMOUNT OF THE FINES PAYABLE CONDITIONALLY.  ON DECEMBER 7, 1946, MR.
LEWIS DIRECTED THE MINE WORKERS TO RETURN TO WORK UNTIL MIDNIGHT, MARCH
31, 1947.  BUT, SO FAR AS WE ARE AWARE, THE NOTICE WHICH PURPORTED TO
TERMINATE THE CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN.  THUS, THERE HAS BEEN,
AT MOST, ONLY A PARTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. 

HENCE OUR JUDGMENT SHOULD PROVIDE THAT THE DEFENDANTS PAY THEIR
RESPECTIVE FINES ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL
OBEDIENCE TO THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, INCLUDING WITHDRAWAL OF THE
NOTICE WHICH PURPORTED TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT, IS NOT HAD ON OR
BEFORE A DAY CERTAIN. 

FN1  AN ANALOGY IS A TAKING BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A LEASEHOLD INTEREST
IN PROPERTY IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO.,
327 U.S. 372. 

FN2  SECTION 9 OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT, 54 STAT. 892, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 309, GRANTED POWER "TO TAKE IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF ANY  ...
PLANT  ...  AND THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE BRANCH, BUREAU, OR DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY OR NAVY TO MANUFACTURE THEREIN SUCH PRODUCT  ...  AS MAY BE
REQUIRED  ..."  AND IT PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT:  "THE COMPENSATION TO BE
PAID  ...  AS RENTAL FOR USE OF ANY MANUFACTURING PLANT WHILE USED BY
THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE FAIR AND JUST  ..."  SECTION 3 OF THE WAR
LABOR DISPUTES ACT, 57 STAT. 164, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. V SEC. 309,
EXTENDED THIS AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE POWER TO TAKE IMMEDIATE POSSESSION
OF ANY "MINE  ...  EQUIPPED FOR THE MANUFACTURE, PRODUCTION, OR MINING
OF ANY ARTICLES OR MATERIALS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE WAR EFFORT
...  WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT FINDS  ...  AND PROCLAIMS THAT THERE IS AN
INTERRUPTION OF THE OPERATION OF SUCH  ...  MINE  ...  AS A RESULT OF A
STRIKE OR OTHER LABOR DISTURBANCE  ...  AND THAT THE EXERCISE OF SUCH
POWER AND AUTHORITY IS NECESSARY TO INSURE THE OPERATION OF SUCH  ...
MINE  ...  IN THE INTEREST OF THE WAR EFFORT  ..." 

FN3  SEE E.G., COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517, 534-537; FOX,
HISTORY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT (1927); BEALE, CONTEMPT OF COURT, 21 HARV.
L. REV. (1908) 161, 169-170. 

FN4  "AS EARLY AS THE TIME OF RICHARD III IT WAS SAID THAT THE
CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND COMPELS A PARTY AGAINST WHOM AN ORDER IS ISSUED
BY IMPRISONMENT; (2 R. III, 9 PL. 22) AND A LITTLE LATER IT WAS SAID IN
THE CHANCERY THAT 'A DECREE DOES NOT BIND THE RIGHT, BUT ONLY BINDS THE
PERSON TO OBEDIENCE, SO THAT IF THE PARTY WILL NOT OBEY, THEN THE
CHANCELLOR MAY COMMIT HIM TO PRISON TILL HE OBEY, AND THAT IT IS ALL
THE CHANCELLOR CAN DO.'  (27 H. VIII, 15.)  THIS IMPRISONMENT WAS BY NO
MEANS A PUNISHMENT, BUT WAS MERELY TO SECURE OBEDIENCE TO THE WRIT OF
THE KING.  DOWN TO WITHIN A CENTURY IT WAS VERY DOUBTFUL IF THE
CHANCELLOR COULD UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES INFLICT PUNISHMENT FOR
DISOBEDIENCE OF A DECREE.  IF THE DECREE COMMANDED THE DEFENDANT TO
TRANSFER PROPERTY, THE CHANCELLOR ACQUIRED POWER AS EARLY AS THE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO SEQUESTER THE PROPERTY AS SECURITY FOR
PERFORMANCE; BUT IF THE DECREE WERE FOR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT, OR
WERE A DECREE FOR AN INJUNCTION, THE CHANCELLOR WAS HELPLESS IF HE
COULD NOT COMPEL OBEDIENCE BY IMPRISONMENT....  IN ANY CASE THE
CONTEMPT OF A DEFENDANT WHO HAD VIOLATED A DECREE IN CHANCERY COULD BE
PURGED BY DOING THE ACT COMMANDED AND PAYING COSTS; OR, IF HIS
DISOBEDIENCE HAD BEEN THE VIOLATION OF A NEGATIVE INJUNCTION, HE COULD
PURGE HIMSELF OF CONTEMPT BY UNDOING WHAT HE HAD DONE AND PAYING
COSTS."  BEALE, SUPRA. 

FN5  "IN THE CASE OF CONTEMPT IN VIOLATING AN ORDER OR DECREE OF A
COURT OF EQUITY, WE HAVE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROBLEM....  IF THE
COURT LIMITS ITSELF TO ITS PROPER ACTION IN SUCH CASES, NAMELY, PROCESS
OF IMPRISONMENT MERELY TO PREVENT THE VIOLATION OF THE DECREE, AND IF
THE IMPRISONMENT IS TO CEASE AS SOON AS THE DANGER OF DISOBEDIENCE HAS
CEASED, THE JURY, WHICH IS THOUGHT NECESSARY TO PASS UPON THE DESERT OF
A DEFENDANT TO SUFFER PUNISHMENT, IS NOT REQUIRED....  SO FAR,
THEREFORE, AS POPULAR CLAMOR DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY IN SUCH A CASE, IT
SEEMS TO GO BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF JUSTICE; AND THE STATUTES WHICH
COMMIT THE TRIAL OF QUESTIONS OF FACT IN SUCH PROCESS TO A JURY ARE NOT
LIKELY PERMANENTLY TO PROVE SATISFACTORY.  THIS STATEMENT, HOWEVER, IS
TO BE LIMITED TO CASES OF MERELY PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT.  WHERE THE
COURT INFLICTS A DEFINITE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT BY WAY OF PUNISHMENT FOR
THE VIOLATION OF ITS ORDERS, THE CASE DOES NOT DIFFER, IT WOULD SEEM,
FROM THE CASE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OUT OF COURT, AND REGULAR PROCESS
AND TRIAL BY JURY SHOULD BE REQUIRED."  ID. 173-174. 

FN6  SEE ALSO IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564; GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE &
RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418; GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 604, 610,
611; EX PARTE GROSSMAN, 267 U.S. 87; EX PARTE HUDGINGS, 249 U.S. 378,
383; MICHAELSON V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 42; BLACKMER V. UNITED
STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 440; NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33; BRIDGES
V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 264; PENDERGAST V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S.
412; IN RE BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50.  FRANKFURTER AND LANDIS, POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS IN "INFERIOR" FEDERAL
COURTS, 317 HARV. L. REV. 1010, 1043-1045(1924) AND AUTHORITIES THERE
COLLECTED; NELLES AND KING, CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 28 COL. L. REV. 401(1928).    MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

AN OBJECTIVE READING OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT REMOVES ANY DOUBTS
AS TO ITS MEANING AND AS TO ITS APPLICABILITY TO THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE.  SECTION 4 PROVIDES IN CLEAR, UNMISTAKABLE LANGUAGE THAT "NO
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY
RESTRAINING ORDER OR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN ANY CASE
INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF ANY LABOR DISPUTE  ..."  THAT LANGUAGE,
WHICH IS REPEATED IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT, IS SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF
TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE WITHOUT FURTHER ADO.  BUT WHEN PROPER
RECOGNITION IS GIVEN TO THE BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT, IT
BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF TODAY'S DECISION CAST A DARK
CLOUD OVER THE FUTURE OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

DUE RECOGNITION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT GAVE RISE TO
THIS CASE.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE NECESSITY OF
PRESERVING THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE NATION; DIRE DISTRESS WOULD HAVE
EVENTUATED HERE AND ABROAD FROM A PROLONGED STRIKE IN THE BITUMINOUS
COAL MINES.  IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT SOME EFFECTIVE ACTION BE TAKEN TO
BREAK THE STALEMATE.  BUT THOSE FACTORS DO NOT PERMIT THE CONVERSION OF
THE JUDICIAL PROCESS INTO A WEAPON FOR MISAPPLYING STATUTES ACCORDING
TO THE GRAVE EXIGENCIES OF THE MOMENT.  THAT CAN HAVE TRAGIC
CONSEQUENCES EVEN MORE SERIOUS AND LASTING THAN A TEMPORARY DISLOCATION
OF THE NATION'S ECONOMY RESULTING FROM A STRIKE OF THE MINERS. 

THE WHOLE THRUST OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IS DIRECTED TOWARD THE
USE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS IN CASES ARISING OUT OF LABOR
DISPUTES BETWEEN PRIVATE EMPLOYERS AND PRIVATE EMPLOYEES.  IT WAS IN
THAT SETTING THAT THE ABUSES OF FEDERAL EQUITY POWER HAD FLOURISHED;
AND IT WAS THOSE ABUSES THAT LED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT.  THE
APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO THE INSTANT SITUATION IS THUS CLEAR.  IT
CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THIS CASE IS ONE GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE
BETWEEN THE PRIVATE COAL OPERATORS AND THE PRIVATE MINERS.  THAT IS A
MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9728, WHICH AUTHORIZED
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO TAKE POSSESSION OF AND TO OPERATE THE
COAL MINES, EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN "AS A RESULT
OF EXISTING OR THREATENED STRIKES AND OTHER LABOR DISTURBANCES."  THOSE
STRIKES AND LABOR DISTURBANCES GREW OUT OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
OPERATORS AND THE MINERS.  THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER RECOGNIZED THAT FACT
BY ITS SUBSEQUENT REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE MINERS ON THEIR DEMANDS
AND ITS INSISTENCE THAT THESE DEMANDS BE ADDRESSED TO THE PRIVATE MINE
OWNERS.  IT IS PRECISELY IN SITUATIONS ARISING OUT OF DISPUTES OF THIS
NATURE THAT CONGRESS HAS SAID THAT NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL
HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION. 

THE CRUX OF THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT TOOK
OVER THE POSSESSION AND OPERATION OF THE MINES CHANGED THE PRIVATE
CHARACTER OF THE UNDERLYING LABOR DISPUTE BETWEEN THE OPERATORS AND THE
MINERS SO AS TO MAKE INAPPLICABLE THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  THE ANSWER
IS CLEAR.  MUCH HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S STATUS AS EMPLOYER
AND THE MINERS' STATUS AS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOLLOWING THE SEIZURE. 
IN MY OPINION, THE MINERS REMAINED PRIVATE EMPLOYEES DESPITE THE
TEMPORARY GLOSS OF GOVERNMENT POSSESSION AND OPERATION OF THE MINES;
THEY BEAR NO RESEMBLANCE WHATEVER TO EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS, THE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND THE OTHER BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  BUT WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THE OBVIOUS FACT REMAINS
THAT THIS CASE INVOLVES AND GROWS OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
OPERATORS AND THE MINERS.  GOVERNMENT SEIZURE OF THE MINES CANNOT HIDE
OR CHANGE THAT FACT.  INDEED, THE SEIZURE TOOK PLACE ONLY BECAUSE OF
THE EXISTENCE OF THE DISPUTE AND BECAUSE IT WAS THOUGHT SOME SOLUTION
MIGHT THEREAFTER RESULT.  THE DISPUTE, HOWEVER, SURVIVED THE SEIZURE
AND IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE.  AND IT STILL RETAINS ITS PRIVATE
CHARACTER, THE OPERATORS ON THE ONE SIDE AND THE COAL MINERS ON THE
OTHER. 

THE IMPORTANT POINT, AND IT CANNOT BE OVEREMPHASIZED, IS THAT
CONGRESS HAS DECREED THAT STRIKES AND LABOR DISTURBANCES GROWING OUT OF
PRIVATE LABOR DISPUTES ARE TO BE DEALT WITH BY SOME MEANS OTHER THAN
FEDERAL COURT RESTRAINING ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS.  FURTHER
CONFIRMATION, IF ANY BE NEEDED, IS TO BE FOUND IN THE TERMS AND IN THE
HISTORY OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT.  TO THIS CLEARLY ENUNCIATED
POLICY OF MAKING "GOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION" ILLEGAL, CONGRESS HAS MADE
NO EXCEPTION WHERE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS AT STAKE OR WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT HAS SEIZED THE PRIVATE PROPERTIES INVOLVED.  CONGRESS CAN SO
PROVIDE.  BUT IT HAS NOT DONE SO AS YET; UNTIL IT DOES, WE ARE NOT FREE
TO SANCTION THE USE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS IN A CASE OF
THIS NATURE. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S SEIZURE OF THE COAL MINES THUS BECOMES IRRELEVANT TO
THE ISSUE.  THE FEDERAL EQUITY POWER TO ISSUE RESTRAINING ORDERS AND
INJUNCTIONS SIMPLY CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT GROWS OUT
OF A PRIVATE LABOR DISPUTE.  AND IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT THE PARTY
SEEKING THE PROSCRIBED RELIEF IS THE GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN A PRIVATE
EMPLOYER.  THE TOUCHSTONE OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IS THE EXISTENCE
OF A LABOR DISPUTE, NOT THE STATUS OF THE PARTIES.  AMONG THE SPECIFIC
EVILS WHICH THE FRAMERS OF THE ACT HAD IN MIND WERE THE INJUNCTIONS
SECURED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DEBS, THE HAYES AND THE RAILWAY
SHOPMEN'S CASES.  THE ACT WAS DRAWN TO PREVENT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE
RECURRENCE OF SUCH INJUNCTIONS.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDEDLY COULD NOT
OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION IN A PRIVATE LABOR DISPUTE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO
SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES, NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST
IN THE DISPUTE MIGHT BE.  TO PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN AN
INJUNCTION WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A SEIZURE WOULD EQUALLY FLOUT THE
LANGUAGE AND POLICY OF THE ACT.  IN WHATEVER CAPACITY THE GOVERNMENT
ACTS, THIS STATUTE CLOSES THE DOORS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WHERE A
RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT IN A CASE ARISING OUT OF A
PRIVATE LABOR DISPUTE. 

MOREOVER, IF SEIZURE ALONE JUSTIFIES AN INJUNCTION CONTRARY TO THE
EXPRESSED WILL OF CONGRESS, SOME FUTURE GOVERNMENT COULD EASILY UTILIZE
SEIZURE AS A SUBTERFUGE FOR BREAKING ANY OR ALL STRIKES IN PRIVATE
INDUSTRIES.  UNDER SOME WAR-TIME OR EMERGENCY POWER, IT COULD SEIZE
PRIVATE PROPERTIES AT THE BEHEST OF THE EMPLOYERS WHENEVER A STRIKE
THREATENED OR OCCURRED ON A FINDING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WAS IN
PERIL.  A RESTRAINING ORDER COULD THEN BE SECURED ON THE SPECIOUS
THEORY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ACTING IN RELATION TO ITS OWN
EMPLOYEES.  THE WORKERS WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY SUBDUED UNDER THE IMPACT
OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  AFTER THE STRIKE
WAS BROKEN, THE PROPERTIES WOULD BE HANDED BACK TO THE PRIVATE
EMPLOYERS.  THAT ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.  THAT
IS WHAT MAKES THE DECISION TODAY SO FULL OF DANGEROUS IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE FUTURE.  MOREOVER, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO USE ITS SEIZURE POWER TO
REPUDIATE THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT AND TO INTERVENE BY INJUNCTION IN
PRIVATE LABOR DISPUTES, THAT POLICY SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY CONGRESS. 
IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO SANCTION THAT POLICY WHERE
CONGRESS HAS REMAINED SILENT.  ONCE CONGRESS HAS SPOKEN, IT WILL BE
TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY AN
APPLICATION OF THAT POLICY. 

SINCE IN MY VIEW THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
IN THIS CASE ARE VOID AND WITHOUT EFFECT, THERE REMAINS FOR ME ONLY THE
CONTENTION THAT THE DEFENDANTS ARE GUILTY OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR
HAVING WILLFULLY IGNORED THE VOID RESTRAINING ORDER.  IT IS SAID THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT HAD THE POWER TO PRESERVE EXISTING CONDITIONS WHILE
IT WAS DETERMINING ITS OWN AUTHORITY TO GRANT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; HENCE
THE DEFENDANTS ACTED AT THEIR OWN PERIL IN DISOBEYING THE RESTRAINING
ORDER.  ELOQUENT PLEAS ARE MADE FOR THE SUPREMACY OF THE JUDICIARY OVER
THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON OBEY COURT ORDERS
UNTIL THEY ARE REVERSED BY ORDERLY AND PROPER PROCEEDINGS.  HEAVY
EMPHASIS IS PLACED UPON UNITED STATES V. SHIPP, 203 U.S. 563. 

THESE ARGUMENTS HAVE A SEDUCTIVE ATTRACTIVENESS HERE.  ORDINARILY, OF
COURSE, IT IS BETTER POLICY TO OBEY A VOID ORDER THAN RUN THE RISK OF A
CONTEMPT CITATION.  AND AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, INDIVIDUALS CANNOT BE
ALLOWED TO BE THE JUDGES OF THE VALIDITY OF COURT ORDERS ISSUED AGAINST
THEM.  BUT THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THE VIOLATION OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER
IN THIS CASE MUST BE VIEWED AGAINST THE BACKGROUND AND LANGUAGE OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT. 

UNLIKE MOST OTHER SITUATIONS, THIS ACT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THE
ISSUANCE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS EXCEPT IN SITUATIONS NOT HERE INVOLVED. 
THERE IS NO EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF A RESTRAINING ORDER WHERE THERE IS
SOME SERIOUS DOUBT ABOUT THE COURT'S JURISDICTION; INDEED, THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST RESTRAINING ORDERS WOULD BE FUTILE WERE SUCH AN
EXCEPTION RECOGNIZED, FOR THE MINDS OF LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE BOUNDLESS
IN THEIR ABILITIES TO RAISE SERIOUS JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTIONS.  AND SO
CONGRESS HAS FLATLY FORBIDDEN THE ISSUANCE OF ALL RESTRAINING ORDERS
UNDER THIS ACT.  IT FOLLOWS THAT WHEN SUCH AN ORDER IS ISSUED DESPITE
THIS CLEAR PROHIBITION, NO MAN CAN BE HELD IN CONTEMPT THEREOF, HOWEVER
UNWISE HIS ACTION MAY BE AS A MATTER OF POLICY.  WHEN HE VIOLATES THE
VOID ORDER, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 385 COMES INTO OPERATION, FORBIDDING
PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT EXCEPT WHERE THERE HAS BEEN DISOBEDIENCE OF A
"LAWFUL WRIT, PROCESS, ORDER, RULE, DECREE, OR COMMAND" OF A COURT. 

THIS ABSOLUTE OUTLAWRY OF RESTRAINING ORDERS IN CASES INVOLVING
PRIVATE LABOR DISPUTES IS NOT WITHOUT REASON.  THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH
ORDERS PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT HAD A LONG AND
TORTURED HISTORY.  TIME AND AGAIN STRIKES WERE BROKEN MERELY BY THE
ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PURPORTING TO MAINTAIN THE
STATUS QUO.  BECAUSE OF THE HIGHLY FLUID CHARACTER OF LABOR DISPUTES,
THE DELAY INVOLVED IN TESTING AN ORDER OF THAT NATURE OFTEN RESULTED IN
NEUTRALIZING THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES TO STRIKE AND PICKET.  AND TOO
OFTEN, THESE ORDERS DID MORE THAN STABILIZE EXISTING CONDITIONS; THEY
CALLED FOR AFFIRMATIVE CHANGE.  THE RESTRAINING ORDER IN THE INSTANT
CASE IS BUT ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS.  WHILE PURPORTING TO PRESERVE THE
STATUS QUO, IT ACTUALLY COMMANDS THE DEFENDANTS TO RESCIND THE STRIKE
CALL - THEREBY AFFIRMATIVELY INTERFERING WITH THE LABOR DISPUTE. 

CONGRESS WAS WELL AWARE OF THIS USE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS TO BREAK
STRIKES.  AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION, IT INTENTIONALLY AND SPECIFICALLY
PROHIBITED THEIR USE, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE RELEVANT.  WE
ARE NOT FREE TO DISREGARD THAT PROHIBITION.  HENCE THE DOCTRINE OF THE
SHIPP CASE HAS NO RELATION WHATEVER TO OUR PRESENT PROBLEM.  THAT CASE
DEALT WITH AN ORDER OF THIS COURT STAYING THE EXECUTION OF A CONVICTED
FELON, AN ORDER WHICH LAY WITHIN THE RECOGNIZED POWER OF THIS COURT AND
WHICH HAD NOT BEEN VALIDLY PROHIBITED BY CONGRESS.  NATURALLY, NO MAN
COULD VIOLATE THAT ORDER WITH IMPUNITY.  BUT WE ARE ACTING HERE IN THE
UNIQUE FIELD OF LABOR RELATIONS, DEALING WITH A TYPE OF ORDER WHICH
CONGRESS HAS DEFINITELY PROSCRIBED.  IF WE ARE TO HOLD THESE DEFENDANTS
IN CONTEMPT FOR HAVING VIOLATED A VOID RESTRAINING ORDER, WE MUST CLOSE
OUR EYES TO THE EXPRESSED WILL OF CONGRESS AND TO THE WHOLE HISTORY OF
EQUITABLE RESTRAINTS IN THE FIELD OF LABOR DISPUTES.  WE MUST DISREGARD
THE FACT THAT TO COMPEL ONE TO OBEY A VOID RESTRAINING ORDER IN A CASE
INVOLVING A LABOR DISPUTE AND TO REQUIRE THAT IT BE TESTED ON APPEAL IS
TO SANCTION THE USE OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER TO BREAK STRIKES - WHICH
WAS PRECISELY WHAT CONGRESS WANTED TO AVOID.  EVERY REASON SUPPORTING
THE SALUTARY PRINCIPLE OF THE SHIPP CASE BREAKS DOWN WHEN THAT
PRINCIPLE IS APPLIED IN THIS SETTING.  I WOULD THEREFORE REVERSE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN TOTO. 

IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS THREATENED
ORDERLY CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STABILITY
OF THE NATION.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE VALIDITY OF THOSE STATEMENTS, WE
LACK ANY POWER TO IGNORE THE PLAIN MANDATES OF CONGRESS AND TO IMPOSE
VINDICTIVE FINES UPON THE DEFENDANTS.  THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BE JUDGED
BY THIS COURT ACCORDING TO THE SOBER PRINCIPLES OF LAW.  A JUDICIAL
DISREGARD OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS DECREED MAY SEEM JUSTIFIED FOR THE
MOMENT IN VIEW OF THE CRISIS WHICH GAVE BIRTH TO THIS CASE.  BUT SUCH A
DISREGARD MAY ULTIMATELY HAVE MORE DISASTROUS AND LASTING EFFECTS UPON
THE ECONOMY OF THE NATION THAN ANY ACTION OF AN AGGRESSIVE LABOR LEADER
IN DISOBEYING A VOID COURT ORDER.  THE CAUSE OF ORDERLY CONSTITUTIONAL
GOVERNMENT IS ILL-SERVED BY MISAPPLYING THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN,
INADEQUATE THOUGH IT MAY BE, TO MEET AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, ESPECIALLY
WHERE THAT MISAPPLICATION PERMITS PUNITIVE SANCTIONS TO BE PLACED UPON
AN INDIVIDUAL OR AN ORGANIZATION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE BECAME A CAUSE CELEBRE THE MOMENT IT BEGAN.  NO GOOD
PURPOSE CAN BE SERVED BY IGNORING THAT OBVIOUS FACT.  BUT IT CANNOT
AFFECT OUR JUDGMENT SAVE ONLY PERHAPS TO STEEL US, IF THAT WERE
NECESSARY, TO THE ESSENTIAL AND ACCUSTOMED BEHAVIOR OF JUDGES.  FN1  IN
ALL CASES GREAT OR SMALL THIS MUST BE TO RENDER JUDGMENT EVENLY AND
DISPASSIONATELY ACCORDING TO LAW, AS EACH IS GIVEN UNDERSTANDING TO
ASCERTAIN AND APPLY IT. 

NO MAN OR GROUP IS ABOVE THE LAW.  NOR IS ANY BEYOND ITS PROTECTION. 
IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1, DISSENTING OPINION, 41.  THESE TRUTHS
APPLY EQUALLY TO THE GOVERNMENT.  WHEN ITS POWER IS EXERTED AGAINST THE
CITIZEN OR ANOTHER IN THE NATION'S COURTS, THOSE TRIBUNALS STAND NOT AS
PARTISANS, BUT AS INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL ARBITERS TO SEE THAT THE
BALANCE BETWEEN POWER AND RIGHT IS HELD EVEN.  IN DISCHARGING THAT HIGH
FUNCTION THE COURTS THEMSELVES, LIKE THE PARTIES, ARE SUBJECT TO THE
LAW'S MAJESTIC LIMITATIONS.  WE ARE NOT FREE TO DECIDE THIS CASE, OR
ANY, OTHERWISE THAN AS IN CONSCIENCE WE ARE ENABLED TO SEE WHAT THE LAW
COMMANDS.                                        I. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER HAS SHOWN CONCLUSIVELY, I THINK, THAT THE
POLICY OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70, APPLIES TO THIS
SITUATION.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY HE MARSHALS SO ACCURATELY AND
COGENTLY COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT OF
1943, 57 STAT. 163, NOT ONLY CONFIRMS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EARLIER
STATUTE, BUT ITSELF EXCLUDES RESORT TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS OWN PROVISIONS IN SITUATIONS OF THIS SORT. 

THAT ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THE REMEDIES FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  BEYOND
SEIZURE OF PLANTS, MINES AND FACILITIES FOR TEMPORARY  FN2
GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION, THEY ARE EXCLUSIVELY CRIMINAL IN CHARACTER. 
FN3  THEY DO NOT INCLUDE INJUNCTIVE OR OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF.  NOR WAS
THE OMISSION UNINTENTIONAL OR DUE TO OVERSIGHT.  IT WAS SPECIFIC AND
DELIBERATE. 

THE SENATE THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED AND DEBATED VARIOUS PROPOSALS FOR
AUTHORIZING EQUITY TO INTERVENE IN LABOR DISPUTES, ONE BY THE ACT'S
SPONSOR IN THAT BODY.  POSITIVELY, REPEATEDLY AND UNWAVERINGLY IT
REJECTED ALL OF THEM.  THEY WERE LIKEWISE REJECTED IN CONFERENCE, WHERE
THE SENATE'S VIEW PREVAILED OVER THAT OF THE HOUSE.  THE LATTER BODY
HAD NOT BEEN INATTENTIVE TO THE PROBLEM.  IT SOUGHT AND FAILED TO
SECURE THE VERY THING THIS COURT NOW SAYS, IN EFFECT, WAS INCLUDED. 
FN4  THAT ISSUE AND THAT POLICY WERE INDEED THE MAIN THRUST AND FOCUS
OF THE LEGISLATIVE STRUGGLE, AND THE OUTCOME WAS NOT NEGATIVE; IT WAS
POSITIVE AND CONCLUSIVE AGAINST USING OR GIVING THE EQUITABLE
REMEDIES. 

SURELY WE HAVE NOT COME SO FAR TOWARD COMPLETE INVERSION OF
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS TO WRITE OUT OF THE LAW THE VIEWS CONCERNING A
MATTER OF SUCH MAJOR POLICY HELD BY THE CHAMBER WHICH PREVAILED AT THE
FINAL STAGE OF ENACTMENT AND TO WRITE INTO THE LAW DIAMETRICALLY
OPPOSING VIEWS OF ANOTHER CHAMBER WHICH YIELDED AT THAT TIME.  THE
CASE, AS MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DEMONSTRATES BEYOND ANY DOUBT, CANNOT
BE ONE WHERE INATTENTION, OVERSIGHT OR INACTION MAY EXPLAIN OR GIVE
SIGNIFICANCE TO WHAT WAS DONE BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.  THAT
BODY WAS DEFEATED, NOT SIMPLY SILENT, IN THE OUTCOME.  WILLINGLY OR
OTHERWISE, IT ACQUIESCED IN THE SENATE'S POLICY OF REFUSING TO
AUTHORIZE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND IN DOING SO JOINED FORMALLY AND
EFFECTIVELY IN THE FINAL ACT WHICH MADE THAT POLICY LAW. 

THIS MEANS TO ME THAT CONGRESS, IN THAT ACTION, DID NOT SIMPLY
CONFIRM THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT'S POLICY OR LEAVE IT UNTOUCHED WITH
RESPECT TO SITUATIONS WITHIN THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT'S COVERAGE.  IT
MEANS THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT DEPARTING FROM OR NULLIFYING THAT POLICY. 
RATHER BY THE LATER ACT CONGRESS ADOPTED THE SAME POLICY, THE LONG
PREVAILING NATIONAL POLICY, FOR THOSE SITUATIONS. 

THE SENATE, AND AT THE END THE CONGRESS, WERE NOT DECLINING EXPRESSLY
TO AUTHORIZE LABOR INJUNCTIONS ONLY TO TURN SQUARELY ABOUT AND NULLIFY
THAT REFUSAL IN THE SAME BREATH, MERELY BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE
EMPLOYEES OF SEIZED PLANTS NECESSARILY WERE MADE SUBJECT TEMPORARILY TO
ULTIMATE GOVERNMENTAL OPERATING DIRECTION AND CONTROL N5.  WE CANNOT
ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS AN INTENT SO DUPLICITOUS.  THUS TO CONSTRUE THE
ACT NOT ONLY WOULD BRING THE PROVISION FOR TEMPORARY CONTROL INTO
COLLISION WITH ITS REMEDIAL PROVISIONS AS THE HISTORY SHOWS THEY WERE
INTENDED TO APPLY.  IT WOULD BE TO FIND CONGRESS GUILTY OF USING A
DEVIOUS METHOD FOR ACHIEVING INDIRECTLY EXACTLY THE THING IT EXPRESSLY
DECLINED TO DO.  THE WORDS "GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEE," "EMPLOYEE  ... FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE" OR "RELATIONSHIP  ...  OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE," NONE OF WHICH APPEAR IN THE STATUTE, CANNOT BE GIVEN EFFECT
CONSISTENTLY WITH OUR FUNCTION TO WRITE INTO THE ACT, BY JUDICIAL
INTERPOLATION, REMEDIAL PROVISIONS WHICH CONGRESS FLATLY AND FINALLY
DECLINED TO INCORPORATE. 

WHETHER CONGRESS ACTED WISELY IN THIS REFUSAL IS NOT OUR CONCERN. 
BUT IT IS NOT IRRELEVANT TO THE ACT'S MEANING, PURPOSE AND EFFECT THAT
THERE WERE GOOD REASONS, INDEED STRONG ONES, FOR CONGRESS TO CONTINUE
TO FOLLOW THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT'S POLICY RATHER THAN BREAK AWAY FROM
IT AT THAT CRUCIAL TIME.  UNDER THE STATUTE PRACTICALLY EVERY
INDUSTRIAL OR MINING FACILITY, TOGETHER WITH MANY OF TRANSPORTATION N6,
WAS SUBJECT TO SEIZURE AND GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION.  INTRODUCING THE
LABOR INJUNCTION INTO THE ACT'S STRUCTURE THEREFORE WOULD HAVE BEEN
TANTAMOUNT TO REPEAL OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT FOR THE DURATION OF
THE EMERGENCY POWERS, SINCE SEIZURE WAS AUTHORIZED WHENEVER THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD FIND, AFTER INVESTIGATION, AND PROCLAIM THAT THERE WAS
AN INTERRUPTION OF OPERATIONS "AS A RESULT OF A STRIKE OR OTHER LABOR
DISTURBANCE."  SEC. 3.  READY MEANS THUS WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE
AVAILABLE, IF SUCH HAD BEEN THE STATUTE'S PURPOSE, FOR SUSPENDING THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA POLICY AND PROVISIONS IN ANY CASE WHERE THEY MIGHT
BECOME OPERATIVE. 

CONGRESS WAS THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY AND EFFECTS OF
INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES, WITH THE LONG SETTLED NATIONAL POLICY
AGAINST THEM, AND WITH THE UNIVERSAL ABHORRENCE IN THE RANKS OF LABOR,
HOWEVER OTHERWISE DIVIDED, TOWARD THEM.  IN VIEW OF ALL THESE THINGS
CONGRESS WELL MAY HAVE FELT AND I THINK DID FEEL, AS MY BROTHER'S
RECITAL OF THE HISTORY SHOWS, THAT IT WAS BOTH UNNECESSARY AND UNWISE,
PERHAPS WOULD EVEN BE HARMFUL TO FURTHERANCE OF THE WAR EFFORT, IN
SUBSTANCE TO REPEAL THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA POLICY FOR THE DURATION OF THE
WAR EMERGENCY AND THUS TO RESURRECT, IN THAT CRITICAL SITUATION, THE
LONG DISUSED INSTRUMENTS THAT ACT HAD OUTLAWED. 

IT IS IMPORTANT IN THIS CONNECTION THAT 1943, RATHER THAN 1945 OR
1946, WAS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT WAS ADOPTED.  WE
WERE THEN NOT YET OVER THE HUMP OF THE WAR.  BUT NEITHER HAD WE REACHED
THE PEAK OF LABOR DISTURBANCES WHICH CAME ONLY AFTER ACTIVE HOSTILITIES
CEASED, MORE THAN TWO YEARS LATER.  FN7  THE GREAT BODY OF AMERICAN
WORKERS WAS BENDING TO THE PATRIOTIC DUTY OF PEAK PRODUCTION FOR WAR
PURPOSES.  BY COMPARISON WITH WHAT OCCURRED AFTER THE FIGHTING ENDED,
THE VOLUME OF MAN-DAYS LOST WAS ABOUT ONE-TENTH OF THE LATER POSTWAR
PEAK LOSS.  FN8  MOREOVER, AT THAT TIME THE WAR LABOR BOARD, SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED TO DEAL WITH SUCH DISTURBANCES, WAS FUNCTIONING WITH A HIGH
DEGREE OF EFFICIENCY IN THEIR SETTLEMENT.  FN9  THERE WAS NEVERTHELESS
STRONG FEELING THAT LABOR DISPUTES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INTERRUPT
WAR PRODUCTION, REGARDLESS OF CAUSE OR BLAME.  AND FROM THIS AROSE THE
DEMAND FOR MORE EFFECTIVE POWERS TO DEAL WITH THEM. 

IT WAS IN THIS SETTING AND TO MEET THE PROBLEMS IT HAD THROWN UP, NOT
THE LATER ONE OUT OF WHICH THIS CONTROVERSY AROSE, THAT THE WAR LABOR
DISPUTES ACT WAS ADOPTED.  THE ACT WAS EXACTLY WHAT ITS TITLE
INDICATED, A MEASURE FOR DEALING WITH LABOR DISPUTES IN THE EMERGENCY
OF THE WAR.  CONGRESS, IT IS TRUE, ANTICIPATED THAT FOR A LIMITED
PERIOD AFTER THE END OF FIGHTING THE SAME EMERGENCY POWERS WOULD BE
NEEDED.  FN10  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THOSE POWERS WERE SHAPED, OR
ARE NOW TO BE MEASURED IN SCOPE, SO AS TO MEET ALL OF THE SITUATIONS
WHICH SINCE HAVE ARISEN IN THE VASTLY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES; OR THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THEM TO BE MET BY REPEALING THE SETTLED POLICY
AGAINST INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES IN THE SWEEPING MANNER NOW
ACCOMPLISHED BY THE COURT'S DECISION.  ON THE CONTRARY, IN JUNE OF
1943, CONGRESS DEALT WITH THE SITUATION THEN BEFORE IT AND REFUSED TO
AUTHORIZE SUCH RELIEF BECAUSE THAT SITUATION DID NOT DEMAND THIS. 

IN VIEW OF ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS, I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS,
IN EFFECT AND BY INDIRECTION, WAS EXERTING ITS WAR POWER TO THE
GREATEST POSSIBLE EXTENT OR WAS THEREBY EITHER REPEALING OR SUSPENDING
THE NATION'S SETTLED POLICY AGAINST INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES. 
RATHER, THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT CONGRESS WAS RELYING
EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE ADDED POWERS OF ENFORCEMENT EXPRESSLY CONFERRED BY
THE ACT, NAMELY, THE POWER OF SEIZURE AND THE FORCE OF THE CRIMINAL
SANCTION, TO ACCOMPLISH THE NEEDED RESULTS.  FN11 

THESE WERE IN THEMSELVES POWERFUL SANCTIONS.  THEY CARRIED WITH THEM
THE ADDED AND VERY GREAT SANCTION OF AROUSED PUBLIC OPINION  FN12
WHICH WOULD FOLLOW NOT SIMPLY UPON INTERRUPTION OF ESSENTIAL WAR
PRODUCTION BUT MORE PARTICULARLY UPON SUCH AN EVENT IN ANY FACILITY
TAKEN OVER AND OPERATED UNDER GOVERNMENTAL AUSPICES.  CONGRESS, AFTER
MATURE DELIBERATION, CONCLUDED THAT THESE SANCTIONS WERE ADEQUATE, AND
FOR THAT REASON MADE THEM EXCLUSIVE.  IN NO OTHER WAY CAN ITS REPEATED
AND FINAL REFUSALS TO CONFER THE STRENUOUSLY SOUGHT EQUITABLE REMEDIES
BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL HISTORY OR BE GIVEN
MEANING AND EFFECT.  TO CONSTRUE THE ACT AS PERMITTING WHAT CONGRESS
THUS SO EXPLICITLY REFUSED TO ALLOW IS TO GO BEYOND OUR FUNCTION AND
INTRUDE UPON THAT OF CONGRESS.  THIS WE HAVE NO RIGHT OR POWER TO DO.
IF THE SITUATION PRESENTED BY THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IS ONE WHICH GOES
BEYOND THE POWERS CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED FOR DEALING WITH IT, THAT IS A
MATTER FOR CONGRESS' CONSIDERATION, NOT FOR CORRECTION BY THIS COURT. 

ACCORDINGLY, UPON THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT
ITSELF, UPON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS SUMMARIZED BY MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER, AND UPON THE HISTORICAL SETTING IN WHICH THE STATUTE WAS
ENACTED AS DEFINING THE PROBLEMS IT WAS DESIGNED TO MEET, TOGETHER WITH
SHAPING THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE MEASURES REQUIRED TO MEET THEM, I
CONCLUDE THAT THAT ACT IN NO WAY IMPAIRED BUT ON THE CONTRARY ADOPTED
AND INCORPORATED THE POLICY OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT CONCERNING THE
ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES. 

                            II. 

THIS CONCLUSION SUBSTANTIALLY COMPELS THE FURTHER ONE THAT UNITED
STATES V. SHIPP, 203 U.S. 563, HAS NO VALID APPLICATION TO THE
SITUATION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE. 

THIS COURT HAS NOT YET EXPRESSLY DENIED, RATHER IT HAS REPEATEDLY
CONFIRMED CONGRESS' POWER TO CONTROL THE JURISDICTION OF THE INFERIOR
FEDERAL COURTS AND ITS OWN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  CONST., ART. III,
SEC. 2.  EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 7 WALL.  506; LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319
U.S. 182, 187, AND AUTHORITIES CITED.  SEE WARREN, NEW LIGHT ON THE
HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789(1923), 37 HARV. L. REV.
49, 67 FF.  THAT POWER INCLUDES THE POWER TO DENY JURISDICTION AS WELL
AS TO CONFER IT.  IBID.  AND WHERE CONGRESS HAS ACTED EXPRESSLY TO
EXCLUDE PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER FROM THE JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT,
EXCEPT THIS COURT'S ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, I KNOW OF NO DECISION HERE
WHICH HOLDS THE EXCLUSION INVALID, OR THAT A REFUSAL TO OBEY ORDERS OR
JUDGMENTS CONTRAVENING CONGRESS' MANDATE IS CRIMINAL OR AFFORDS CAUSE
FOR PUNISHMENT AS FOR CONTEMPT. 

IF THAT WERE THE LAW, THE RESULT COULD ONLY BE TO NULLIFY THE
CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR A GREAT VOLUME OF
CASES.  AND IF IT SHOULD BECOME THE LAW, FOR EVERY CASE RAISING A
QUESTION NOT FRIVOLOUS CONCERNING THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ENTER AN
ORDER OR JUDGMENT, THAT PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT MAY BE IMPOSED
IRREVOCABLY SIMPLY UPON A SHOWING OF VIOLATION, THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD
BE EQUALLY OR MORE SERIOUS.  THE FORCE OF SUCH A RULE, MAKING THE PARTY
ACT ON PAIN OF CERTAIN PUNISHMENT REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
ORDER VIOLATED OR THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ENTER IT AS DETERMINED
FINALLY UPON REVIEW, WOULD BE NOT ONLY TO COMPEL SUBMISSION.  FN13  IT
WOULD BE ALSO IN PRACTICAL EFFECT FOR MANY CASES TO TERMINATE THE
LITIGATION, FORECLOSING THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS INVOLVED WITHOUT ANY
POSSIBILITY FOR THEIR EFFECTIVE APPELLATE REVIEW AND DETERMINATION. 

THIS WOULD BE TRUE, FOR INSTANCE, WHEREVER THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS
ASSERTED OR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR EXERCISING THEM WOULD VANISH WITH
OBEDIENCE TO THE CHALLENGED ORDER.  CF. EX PARTE FISK, 113 U.S. 713. 
THE FIRST AMENDMENT LIBERTIES ESPECIALLY WOULD BE VULNERABLE TO
NULLIFICATION BY SUCH CONTROL.  THUS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE
SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY COULD BE BROUGHT TO NAUGHT AND CENSORSHIP
ESTABLISHED WIDELY OVER THOSE AREAS MERELY BY APPLYING SUCH A RULE TO
EVERY CASE PRESENTING A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION CONCERNING THE EXERCISE OF
THOSE RIGHTS.  THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO COUNTENANCE A VIEW SO
DESTRUCTIVE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES.  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323
U.S. 516.  THESE AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WOULD BE NULLIFIED BY
THE FORCE OF INVALID ORDERS ISSUED IN FLAT VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS SECURING THEM, AND VOID FOR THAT REASON.  THE
SAME THING WOULD BE TRUE ALSO IN OTHER CASES INVOLVING DOUBT, WHERE
STATUTORY OR OTHER RIGHTS ASSERTED OR THE BENEFIT OF ASSERTING THEM
WOULD VANISH, FOR ANY PRACTICAL PURPOSE, WITH OBEDIENCE. 

INDEED IT WAS BECAUSE THESE WERE SO OFTEN THE EFFECTS, NOT SIMPLY OF
FINAL ORDERS ENTERED AFTER DETERMINATION UPON THE MERITS, BUT OF
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS AND EX PARTE RESTRAINING ORDERS, THAT THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT BECAME LAW AND, AS I THINK, THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES
ACT CONTINUED IN FORCE ITS POLICY.  FOR IN LABOR DISPUTES THE EFFECT OF
SUCH ORDERS, IT WAS POINTED OUT OFFICIALLY AND OTHERWISE,  FN14  IS
GENERALLY NOT MERELY FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO PENDING FINAL
DECISION ON THE MERITS.  IT IS ALSO MOST OFTEN TO BREAK THE STRIKE,
WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS LEGALITY OR ANY CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION ON THAT
ACCOUNT, AND THUS TO RENDER MOOT AND ABORTIVE THE SUBSTANTIVE
CONTROVERSY.  FN15 

IT IS NOT EVERY CASE THEREFORE WHERE SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT APPEARS,
CONCERNING EITHER THE ISSUES IN THE MAIN CAUSE OR THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE INTERLOCUTORY OR OTHER ORDERS, IN WHICH VIOLATION
WILL BRING THE SO-CALLED SHIPP DOCTRINE INTO PLAY.  IF THAT WERE TRUE,
THEN INDEED WOULD A WAY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO NULLIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS PLACED UPON THE POWERS OF COURTS, INCLUDING THE CONTROL OF
CONGRESS OVER THEIR JURISDICTION.  THEN ALSO THE LIBERTIES OF OUR
PEOPLE WOULD BE PLACED LARGELY AT THE MERCY OF INVALID ORDERS ISSUED
WITHOUT POWER GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION AND IN CONTRAVENTION OF POWER
CONSTITUTIONALLY WITHHELD BY CONGRESS.  EX PARTE FISK, 113 U.S. 713;
THOMAS V. COLLINS, SUPRA.    INDEED THE SHIPP DOCTRINE THUS BROADLY
CONCEIVED WOULD GO FAR TOWARD NULLIFYING THE HISTORIC JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT AND OTHERS IN HABEAS CORPUS, FOR IT WOULD DO THIS IN THE
MANY SITUATIONS WHERE THE CAUSE OF COMMITMENT IS VIOLATION OF A
DOUBTFULLY VALID COURT ORDER AND THE GROUND ASSERTED FOR RELEASE IS THE
COURT'S LACK OF JURISDICTION TO ENTER IT.  THUS, IN THIS CASE, IF THE
PARTY LEWIS HAD BEEN IMPRISONED RATHER THAN FINED, THE BROAD
APPLICATION NOW MADE OF THE SHIPP DECISION WOULD DICTATE THAT HE COULD
NOT BE RELEASED BY HABEAS CORPUS, EVEN THOUGH IT WERE NOW HELD HERE
THAT THE RESTRAINING ORDERS WERE BEYOND THE DISTRICT COURT'S
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE.  FN16  IF THOSE ORDERS WERE VALID, FOR PURPOSES
OF FINALLY AND CONCLUSIVELY IMPOSING PUNISHMENT IN CONTEMPT, REGARDLESS
OF THE COURT'S WANT OF POWER TO ISSUE THEM, THIS WOULD BE SO WHETHER
THE PUNISHMENT WERE FINE OR IMPRISONMENT.  AND IT CLEARLY WOULD FOLLOW
IN CASES OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, FN17  PERHAPS IN OTHERS, THAT THE
COURT'S LACK OF JURISDICTION COULD FURNISH NO BASIS FOR GRANTING
RELIEF, UNLESS THE PENALTY WERE FOUND TO BE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL OR, IN
THE CASE OF A FINE, EXCESSIVE.  FN18 

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE HISTORIC POWERS OF OUR COURTS IN HABEAS
CORPUS OR THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, CONFIRMED AS THESE HAVE BEEN FOR SO
LONG BY AN UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS N19, HAVE BEEN OR CAN BE
OVERTHROWN AND SUBVERTED, MERELY BY THE FACT THAT THE QUESTION OF THE
COURT'S POWER TO ISSUE THE ORDER VIOLATED MAY BE DOUBTFUL AND NOT
MERELY FRIVOLOUS.  NOR DO I THINK THE SHIPP DECISION ACCOMPLISHED OR
PURPORTED TO ACCOMPLISH SO MUCH. 

CERTAINLY IF ITS PURPOSE HAD BEEN TO OVERRULE THE DECISIONS SO
THOROUGHLY ESTABLISHED, AND TO TRENCH SO HEAVILY UPON THE HISTORIC
LIBERTIES THEY AND THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF SECURE, SOME NOTE WOULD HAVE
BEEN TAKEN OF THAT FACT.  SO GREAT A REVOLUTION HARDLY COULD HAVE BEEN
WROUGHT UNANIMOUSLY OR WITHOUT ATTENTIVE RECOGNITION OF WHAT WAS BEING
DONE.  THERE WAS INDEED REFERENCE IN THE OPINION TO THE PREVIOUS
DECISIONS.  THE COURT STATED:  "IT HAS BEEN HELD, IT IS TRUE, THAT
ORDERS MADE BY A COURT HAVING NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE THEM MAY BE
DISREGARDED WITHOUT LIABILITY TO PROCESS FOR CONTEMPT," CITING THE
SAWYER, FISK, AND ROWLAND CASES.  FN20  203 U.S. AT 573.  BUT THERE WAS
NOT THE SLIGHTEST SUGGESTION, BY THIS REFERENCE OR OTHERWISE, THAT THE
COURT HAD ANY PURPOSE WHATEVER TO IMPAIR THE FORCE OF THOSE DECISIONS,
MUCH LESS TO OVERRULE THEM.  NOR IN FACT WAS THIS ITS INTENT.  IT
MENTIONED THEM ONLY TO PUT THEM ASIDE AS INAPPLICABLE TO THE SITUATION
BEFORE IT. 

INDEED, IN GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & R. CO., 221 U.S. 418, DECIDED
FIVE YEARS AFTER THE SHIPP DECISION, A UNANIMOUS COURT JOINED IN CITING
EX PARTE ROWLAND, 104 U.S. 604, IN CONTEXT CONSISTENT ONLY WITH THE
VIEW THAT ITS DOCTRINE, AND THEREFORE THAT OF OTHERS LIKE IT DECIDED
PRIOR TO THE SHIPP CASE, REMAINED FULLY EFFECTIVE.  P. 436.  THERE WAS
NO INTIMATION, AS OTHERWISE NECESSARILY WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, THAT THE
SHIPP DECISION HAD REVERSED OR MODIFIED THE ROWLAND CASE, OR ANY LIKE
IT, IN ANY WAY.  AND IN EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, NOT ONLY THE
COURT, P. 143, BUT THE OPPOSING DISTINGUISHED COUNSEL, PP. 135, 139,
ALL CONCURRED IN REAFFIRMING THE ROWLAND RULING.  HARLAN, J.,
DISSENTING, RETRACTED HIS FORMER CONTRARY VIEW (SEE NOTE 19 SUPRA) IN
THIS RESPECT.  PP. 169, 174.  AND HOLMES, J., WHO SPOKE FOR THE COURT
IN THE SHIPP CASE, JOINED WITH THE COURT'S REAFFIRMATION OF THE ROWLAND
DOCTRINE IN BOTH THE GOMPERS AND YOUNG OPINIONS. 

THE COURT IN SHIPP WAS DEALING WITH A SITUATION QUITE DIFFERENT FROM
THE ONES PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND IN THIS CASE.  IN NONE
OF THEM WAS THE ACTION WHICH VIOLATED THE COURT'S ORDER SUCH AS WOULD
HAVE DEFEATED ITS JURISDICTION NOT ONLY TO ENTER THE ORDER BUT ALSO TO
PROCEED WITH THE CAUSE BEFORE IT IN ANY MANNER, EXCEPT TO DEAL WITH THE
MATTER OF CONTEMPT.  FN21  IN THEM THE COURT WAS NOT FACED WITH THE
NECESSITY FOR TAKING ACTION TO VINDICATE ITS POWER TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE THE MAIN CONTROVERSY, AS WELL AS THE INCIDENTAL ONE ARISING
UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY OR OTHER ORDER.  NOR IS IT
HERE. 

BUT EXACTLY SUCH A SITUATION WAS PRESENTED IN THE SHIPP CASE.  THE
CONDUCT THERE HELD TO BE CONTEMPT NOT ONLY WAS IN ITSELF CRIMINAL AND
IN VIOLATION, AS IT TURNED OUT, OF THIS COURT'S LAWFUL ORDER FOR TAKING
THE APPEAL IN JOHNSON'S CASE.  IT OUSTED THIS COURT ALTOGETHER OF
JURISDICTION TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN THAT CAUSE.  IT RENDERED THE CAUSE
MOOT, THEREBY PUTTING AN END TO ANY PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING IT HERE OR
ELSEWHERE.  SHIPP'S ALLEGED CONDUCT CONSTITUTED THEREFORE THE MOST
SERIOUS POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE WITH THE DUE AND ORDERLY COURSE OF
ADMINISTERING JUSTICE.  IT UTTERLY DESTROYED THE POWER OF ALL COURTS TO
ACT.  FURTHER, THE ORDER VIOLATED WAS NOT MADE DIRECTLY IN
CONTRAVENTION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, AS WAS TRUE IN THE FISK CASE AND,
AS I THINK, IN THIS ONE.  IT RATHER WAS MADE IN COMPLETE CONFORMITY
WITH THE STATUTES CONFERRING AUTHORITY ON THIS COURT TO TAKE
JURISDICTION OF AND HEAR SUCH CAUSES.  NOTHING IN IT VIOLATED EITHER A
CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE AND POLICY OR THE RIGHTS OF ANY PARTY. 

MOREOVER THE DECISION WAS NOT EFFECTIVE, AS ITS DOCTRINE IS NOW SAID
TO BE, TO PUT SHIPP TO ANY CHOICE OF OBEDIENCE ON PAIN OF CERTAIN
PUNISHMENT REGARDLESS OF THE VIOLATED ORDER'S VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY AS
ULTIMATELY DETERMINED ON REVIEW.  NO SUCH SITUATION WAS PRESENTED ON
THE FACTS, AND NO SUCH RULING COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN MADE.  SHIPP HAD
NOT BEEN CONVICTED.  THE CASE CAME HERE UPON A CHALLENGE IN LIMINE, NOT
AFTER THE EVENT, MADE UPON THE PLEADINGS IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS TO
THEIR VALIDITY.  THE BASIS ASSERTED WAS THE INVALIDITY OF THE ORDER
ALLOWING THE APPEAL IN JOHNSON'S CASE, FOR ALLEGED WANT OF JURISDICTION
OF THIS COURT TO ENTER IT.  FN22  THAT CONTENTION WAS REJECTED AND THE
ORDER WAS HELD VALID.  IT WAS IN THIS CONNECTION ONLY THAT THE COURT
STATED IT HAD "JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ITS JURISDICTION" IN DOUBTFUL
CASES.  THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT A RULING THAT, REGARDLESS OF A VIOLATED
ORDER'S ULTIMATE VALIDITY AS DETERMINED ON REVIEW,  FN23  PUNISHMENT IN
CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING IT COULD BE IRREVOCABLY IMPOSED.  IT WAS MERELY
A STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR THE ORDER'S VALIDITY N24.  THE HOLDING
WAS THAT THIS COURT HAD JURISDICTION, AS OF COURSE IT DOES IN DOUBTFUL
AS WELL AS CLEAR CASES, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURTS - THE
CIRCUIT COURT AND ACCORDINGLY THIS COURT ALSO - HAD POWER TO PASS UPON
JOHNSON'S PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  FN25 

FROM THAT RULING AND FROM IT ALONE THE CONSEQUENCE FOLLOWED THAT
SHIPP COULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT ON PROOF, STILL TO BE MADE, THAT HE HAD
DONE ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDER AS THUS CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED TO
BE VALID BY THE COURT OF LAST RESORT.  THIS WAS A FAR CRY FROM HOLDING
THAT PUNISHMENT IN CONTEMPT CAN BE LAID IRREVOCABLY, REGARDLESS OF THE
OUTCOME ON REVIEW CONCERNING THE ORDER'S VALIDITY.  THE COURT BY ITS
RULING WAS NOT MAKING VOID ORDERS VALID FOR PURPOSES OF PUNISHMENT BY
WAY OF CONTEMPT.  ONLY IF THE COURT HAS HELD ITS OWN ORDER WHICH SHIPP
VIOLATED INVALID WOULD SUCH A QUESTION HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. 

THE SHIPP DECISION THEREFORE WAS IN FACT SIMPLY AN APPLICATION OF THE
LONG ESTABLISHED RULE THAT PUNISHMENT IN CONTEMPT MAY BE INFLICTED ON
PROOF OF VIOLATION OF A VALID ORDER OF COURT AS DETERMINED FINALLY ON
REVIEW.  IT DID NOT OVERRULE, NOR WAS IT IN ANY WAY INCONSISTENT WITH
THE LONG PRIOR COURSE OF DECISIONS HOLDING THAT WHEN AN ORDER IS VOID
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION IT MAY BE DISOBEYED WITH IMPUNITY PENDING BUT
DEPENDING UPON DETERMINATION OF ITS INVALIDITY BY APPEAL, HABEAS
CORPUS, OR OTHER MODE OF REVIEW.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & R. CO.,
SUPRA; EX PARTE YOUNG, SUPRA.  IT WAS AN APPLICATION, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED, OF THE SETTLED RULE THAT ONE WHO TAKES IT UPON
HIMSELF TO VIOLATE AN ORDER OF COURT HE THINKS VOID THEREBY TAKES THE
RISK THAT ON REVIEW HE WILL BE SUSTAINED AND, IN THE CONTRARY EVENT AND
THEN ONLY, WILL HE BE SUBJECT IRREVOCABLY TO PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT. 
IBID. 

IN MY JUDGMENT THIS IS THE RULE PROPERLY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, THE
ONLY ONE CONSISTENT WITH THE SETTLED AND UNVARIED COURSE OF DECISION,
WITH THE COMMANDS OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, AND WITH SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 36 STAT. 1163,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 385. 

APART FROM IMMEDIATE AND OTHER INTERFERENCES WITH JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS NOT PRESENTED HERE, THAT SECTION AUTHORIZES PUNISHMENT FOR
CONTEMPT ONLY FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF A "LAWFUL WRIT, PROCESS, ORDER, RULE,
DECREE, OR COMMAND OF THE SAID COURTS."  THE SECTION BY ITS TERMS,
APART FROM THE EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE APPLICABLE, LIMITS POWER TO PUNISH
FOR CONTEMPT TO VIOLATIONS OF LAWFUL ORDERS, THEREBY NECESSARILY
EXCLUDING OTHERS.  NOR DID IT PURPORT TO MAKE LAWFUL FOR THAT PURPOSE
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS DETERMINED FINALLY
UPON REVIEW.  FN26 

THIS CASE, UNLIKE THE SHIPP CASE, IN NO WAY INVOLVES INTERFERENCE
WITH ANY OF THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OR THE DUE COURSE OF ADMINISTERING
JUSTICE IN ANY SENSE CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 268 OR BY THE SHIPP
DECISION.  NO COURT, TRIAL OR APPELLATE, WAS DEPRIVED BY THE
DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT OF JURISDICTION OR POWER TO TAKE ANY ACTION IN ANY
OF THE PROCEEDINGS, COLLATERAL OR IN THE MAIN SUIT, WHICH EXISTED AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTROVERSY.  THE ORDER THEREFORE FALLS
EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF SEC. 268 AND THE POWER TO
PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS VIOLATION DEPENDS, BY THE COMMAND
OF THAT CLAUSE, UPON THE ORDER'S LAWFUL CHARACTER. 

SINCE IN MY OPINION THE ORDER WAS JURISDICTIONALLY INVALID WHEN
ISSUED, BY VIRTUE OF THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT AND ITS ADOPTION OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT'S POLICY, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE VIOLATION GAVE NO
SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR SUSTAINING THE CONVICTION FOR CONTEMPT.  EX PARTE
FISK, SUPRA.  LEWIS AND THE UNITED MINE WORKERS NECESSARILY TOOK THE
RISK THAT THE ORDER WOULD BE FOUND VALID ON REVIEW AND, IN THAT EVENT,
THAT PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT WOULD APPLY.  THEY DID NOT TAKE THE RISK
THAT IT WOULD APPLY IN ANY EVENT, EVEN IF THE ORDER SHOULD BE FOUND
VOID AS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO ENTER.  SEE THE
DISSENTING OPINION IN CARTER V. UNITED STATES, 135 F.2D 858, 862.  THE
SHIPP CASE FURNISHES NO PRECEDENT FOR SUCH A VIEW NOR DO I KNOW OF ANY
OTHER IN THIS COURT WHICH DOES.  FN27 

ON THE CONTRARY THAT VIEW HAS BEEN LONG REJECTED, AND I DO NOT THINK
WE SHOULD DISTURB OR DEPART FROM THAT SETTLED COURSE OF DECISION NOW. 
"IF THE COMMAND OF THE WRIT (OF MANDAMUS) WAS IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION, SO NECESSARILY WERE THE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT IN NOT
OBEYING."  EX PARTE ROWLAND, 104 U.S. 604, 617-618.  THE POWER OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS TO ISSUE STAY ORDERS TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO PENDING
APPEAL, LIKE OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THEIR JURISDICTION EXCEPT IN THE
CASE OF THIS COURT'S ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, IS SUBJECT TO CONGRESS'
CONTROL.  THAT CONTROL HAS BEEN EXERCISED, IN MY VIEW, TO EXCLUDE SUCH
JURISDICTION IN CASES OF THIS CHARACTER.  AND, THIS BEING TRUE, I DO
NOT THINK EITHER THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT SUBJECT TO THAT MANDATE HAS
POWER TO PUNISH AS FOR CONTEMPT THE VIOLATION OF SUCH AN ORDER ISSUED
IN CONTRAVENTION OF CONGRESS' COMMAND.  EX PARTE FISK, SUPRA.

       III. 

THE ISSUES CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WAS
CONDUCTED ARE IN THEMSELVES OF GREAT MOMENT, APART FROM THE FOREGOING
CONCLUSIONS WHICH I THINK ARE DISPOSITIVE OF THE CONTROVERSY.  AND THE
COURT'S RULINGS UPON THEM ARE OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT I CANNOT ACCEDE
BY SILENCE. 

AT TIMES IN OUR SYSTEM THE WAY IN WHICH COURTS PERFORM THEIR FUNCTION
BECOMES AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT THEY DO IN THE RESULT.  IN SOME RESPECTS
MATTERS OF PROCEDURE CONSTITUTE THE VERY ESSENCE OF ORDERED LIBERTY
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  FOR THIS REASON, ESPECIALLY IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS, SPECIFIC GUARANTIES HAVE BEEN PUT AROUND THE MANNER IN WHICH
VARIOUS LEGAL PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED.  THEY DIFFERENTIATE
SHARPLY BETWEEN THE PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AND IN CIVIL ONES.  THESE DIFFERENCES MARK ONE OF THE GREAT
CONSTITUTIONAL DIVIDES.  FN28  THEY SEPARATE THE ZONE OF PUNISHMENT FOR
CRIME, WITH ALL ITS ODIOUS CONSEQUENCES, FROM THAT OF GIVING CIVIL
RELIEF, WHERE NO SUCH CONSEQUENCES ATTEND, NOT PARTIALLY BUT
COMPLETELY. 

IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT THAN ONE OF CONTEMPT, THE IDEA THAT A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION AND A CIVIL SUIT FOR DAMAGES OR EQUITABLE RELIEF COULD BE
HASHED TOGETHER IN A SINGLE CRIMINAL-CIVIL HODGEPODGE WOULD BE SHOCKING
TO EVERY AMERICAN LAWYER AND TO MOST CITIZENS.  TRUE, THE SAME ACT MAY
GIVE RISE TO ALL THESE VARIED LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.  BUT WE HAVE NEVER
ADOPTED, RATHER OUR CONSTITUTION HAS TOTALLY REJECTED, THE CONTINENTAL
SYSTEM OF COMPOUNDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WITH CIVIL ADJUDICATIONS. 
FN29  OUR TRADITION IS EXACTLY THE CONTRARY AND FEW WOULD MAINTAIN THAT
THIS HAS HAD NO PART IN BRINGING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE EXISTING TODAY
FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM HERE AND IN EUROPE. 

I DO NOT THINK THE CONSTITUTION CONTEMPLATED THAT THERE SHOULD BE IN
ANY CASE AN ADMIXTURE OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN ONE.  SUCH
AN IDEA IS ALTOGETHER FOREIGN TO ITS SPIRIT.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION
THAT CONTEMPT POWER WAS CONFERRED ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION, IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FORMS.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
THAT THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS LUMPING THE TWO TOGETHER OR DISCARDING
FOR THE CRIMINAL ONE ALL OF THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS SO CAREFULLY
PROVIDED FOR EVERY OTHER SUCH PROCEEDING.    THE FOUNDERS DID NOT
COMMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE.  THEY COULD NOT HAVE CONCEIVED THAT PROCEDURES
SO IRRECONCILABLY INCONSISTENT IN MANY WAYS  FN30  COULD BE APPLIED
SIMULTANEOUSLY.  NOR WAS THEIR PURPOSE TO CREATE ANY PART OF JUDICIAL
POWER, EVEN IN CONTEMPT, WHOLLY AT LARGE, FREE FROM ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATION OR TO PICK AND CHOOSE BETWEEN THE CONFLICTING CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES AT WILL.  MUCH LESS WAS IT TO ALLOW
MIXING CIVIL REMEDIES AND CRIMINAL PUNISHMENTS IN ONE LUMPED FORM OF
RELIEF, INDISTINGUISHABLY COMPOUNDING THEM AND THUS PUTTING BOTH IN
UNLIMITED JUDICIAL DISCRETION, WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF APPLYING ANY
STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT ON REVIEW.  FN31 

IF THIS CAN BE DONE IN ANY CASE, IT CAN BE DONE IN OTHERS.  AND THAT
BEING TRUE, IF IT CAN BE DONE AT ALL, NOT SIMPLY A LOOPHOLE BUT A VERY
LARGE BREACH HAS BEEN LEFT IN THE WALL OF PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS THROWN
AROUND THE CITIZEN'S PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME.  FOR IT IS TO BE RECALLED
THAT UNDER THE COURT'S RULING HERE UPON THE SHIPP DOCTRINE NOT MERELY
THE VIOLATION OF VALID JUDICIAL ORDERS, BUT ALSO THE DISOBEDIENCE OF
INVALID ORDERS ISSUED IN EXCESS OF ANY COURT'S JURISDICTION BECOMES A
CRIME AND PUNISHABLE AS SUCH BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT, ALTHOUGH THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION
ARE WHOLLY CIVIL ONES.  THE VASTLY EXPANDED AREA OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT
UNDER THIS CONCEPTION WOULD AFFORD EQUALLY WIDE ROOM FOR DISPENSING
WITH THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS UNDER THE UNRESTRICTED SCOPE,
OTHERWISE THAN BY "JUDICIAL DISCRETION," WHICH THE PRESENT RULING
CONCERNING CRIMINAL OR CRIMINAL-CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN CONTEMPT AFFORDS. 

IN MY OPINION, OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT COMPREHEND A POWER SO UNCONFINED
ANYWHERE WITHIN ITS BROAD BORDERS, AND IT IS TIME THE LARGE CONFUSION
ABOUT THIS WERE SWEPT AWAY.  FN32  IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO
ASK OR DECIDE WHETHER ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION'S CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL
PROTECTIONS THROWN ABOUT ALL OTHER CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, WITHOUT
SUGGESTION OF EXPLICIT EXCEPTION, APPLY TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT WE ARE SURE SOME OF THEM APPLY, AS THIS
COURT HAS RULED REPEATEDLY.  FN33  IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT SOME OF
THOSE WHICH INCONTESTABLY ARE APPLICABLE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PUT IN ISSUE
OR PRESERVED FOR REVIEW IN THIS CASE.  FN34  THE QUESTION CUTS MORE
DEEPLY THAN THE APPLICATION OF ANY SPECIFIC GUARANTY.  IT AFFECTS THE
RIGHT TO INSIST UPON OR HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ANY. 

THIS CASE IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE LONG-EXISTING CONFUSION CONCERNING
CONTEMPTS AND THE MANNER OF THEIR TRIAL, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IN THAT
MOST FREQUENTLY THE QUESTION OF THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE
PROCEEDING, WHETHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, IS DETERMINED AT ITS END IN THE
STAGE OF REVIEW RATHER THAN, AS IT SHOULD BE AND AS IN MY OPINION IT
MUST BE, AT THE BEGINNING.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & R. CO., 221 U.S.
418, 444.  AND THIS FACT IN ITSELF ILLUSTRATES THE COMPLETE JEOPARDY IN
WHICH RIGHTS ARE PLACED WHEN THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING REMAINS
UNKNOWN AND UNASCERTAINABLE UNTIL THE FINAL ACTION ON REVIEW. 

NOT ONLY IS ONE THUS PLACED IN CONTINUING DILEMMA THROUGHOUT THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT CONCERNING WHICH SET OF PROCEDURAL
RIGHTS HE IS ENTITLED TO STAND UPON, WHETHER UPON THE CRIMINAL
SAFEGUARDS OR ONLY ON THE CIVIL.  HE ALSO DOES NOT AND CANNOT KNOW
UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE, THAT IS, UNTIL THE APPELLATE PHASE IS ENDED,
WHETHER ONE GROUP OR THE OTHER OF APPELLATE JURISDICTIONAL AND
PROCEDURAL RULES APPLIES.  INDEED HE MAY FIND THAT HIS RIGHT OF REVIEW
HAS BEEN TAKEN EITHER PREMATURELY OR TOO LATE DEPENDING ENTIRELY ON
WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT FINALLY CONCLUDES THAT THE PROCEEDING HAS
BEEN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL IN CHARACTER.  FN35  SEE SWAYZEE, CONTEMPT OF
COURT IN LABOR INJUNCTION CASES (1935) 21-22. 

PRECISELY FOR THESE REASONS THIS COURT, WHEN CONFRONTED IN THE
GOMPERS CASE, SUPRA, WITH A PROCEEDING COMMINGLING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
FEATURES, SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE, REFUSED TO COUNTENANCE SUCH A MIXTURE
AND, FINDING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN CIVIL, HELD THE CRIMINAL
PENALTY OF FIXED TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT TO BE INVALID.  FN36  THE COURT
SAID: 

"THERE WAS THEREFORE A DEPARTURE - A VARIANCE BETWEEN THE PROCEDURE
ADOPTED AND THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED, WHEN, IN ANSWER TO A PRAYER FOR
REMEDIAL RELIEF, IN THE EQUITY CAUSE, THE COURT IMPOSED A PUNITIVE
SENTENCE APPROPRIATE ONLY TO A PROCEEDING AT LAW FOR CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT.  THE RESULT WAS AS FUNDAMENTALLY ERRONEOUS AS IF IN AN ACTION
OF 'A. VS. B. FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY,' THE JUDGMENT ENTERED HAD BEEN
THAT THE DEFENDANT BE CONFINED IN PRISON FOR TWELVE MONTHS."  221 U.S.
AT 449. 

NOT ONLY MUST THE PUNISHMENTS BE KEPT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT.  FN37
THIS MUST BE DONE WITH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS N38.  PUNISHMENT AND
CIVIL RELIEF MUST BE CORRELATED WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDING. 
PROCEDURAL RIGHTS NOT ONLY IN MATTERS OF PRACTICE,  FN39  BUT IN OTHERS
"WHICH INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES,"  FN40
ARE SO DISTINCT AND IN SOME INSTANCES CONTRADICTORY THAT "MANIFESTLY"
THEY CANNOT BE INTERMINGLED.  NOR CAN THOSE APPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS BE DISREGARDED WHEN CRIMINAL PENALTY IS SOUGHT.  NOT ONLY
SUCH MATTERS AS THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, THE
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, THE NECESSITY FOR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT,  FN41  THE ALLOWANCE OF COSTS, THE APPROPRIATE MODE OF REVIEW
FN42 WITH ATTENDANT LIMITATIONS OF TIME AND OTHER DIFFERENCES, REQUIRE
THIS.  WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THE APPLICATION AND OBSERVANCE
OF ALL THESE RIGHTS AND OTHERS DEPEND UPON IT, IS THAT THE PERSON
CHARGED IS ENTITLED TO KNOW FROM THE BEGINNING, NOT MERELY AT THE END
OR SOME INTERMEDIATE STAGE,  FN43  IN WHICH SORT OF PROCEEDING HE IS
INVOLVED. 

THIS, THE COURT SAID, "IS NOT A MERE MATTER OF FORM, FOR MANIFESTLY
EVERY CITIZEN, HOWEVER UNLEARNED IN THE LAW, BY A MERE INSPECTION OF
THE PAPERS IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHETHER IT
WAS INSTITUTED FOR PRIVATE LITIGATION OR FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTION  ...
HE SHOULD NOT BE LEFT IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER RELIEF OR PUNISHMENT WAS
THE OBJECT IN VIEW.  HE IS NOT ONLY ENTITLED TO BE INFORMED OF THE
NATURE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM, BUT TO KNOW THAT IT IS A CHARGE AND
NOT A SUIT.  UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 559."  221 U.S.
AT 446. 

THIS RULE HAS NOW BEEN INCORPORATED ALSO IN RULE 42(B) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,  FN44  AND WAS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 
BY THE TERMS OF THAT RULE THE CHARGE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT WAS REQUIRED
TO BE "PROSECUTED ON NOTICE" AND IT WAS FURTHER COMMANDED THAT THE
NOTICE STATE "THE ESSENTIAL FACTS CONSTITUTING THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
CHARGED AND DESCRIBE IT AS SUCH," WHICH WAS NOT DONE HERE.  THE RULE
WAS ADOPTED TO OUTLAW "THE FREQUENT CONFUSION BETWEEN CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS," FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY A SUGGESTION MADE
IN MCCANN V. NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, 80 F.2D 211.  FN45  SEE ALSO NYE
V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, 42-43.  BUT IT FLATLY INCORPORATES THE
EFFECT OF THE DECISION IN THE GOMPERS CASE, SUPRA. 

THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE COURT WAS LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
REINFORCED BY CITATION OF THE CRUIKSHANK CASE.  CAREFUL AS IT WAS ABOUT
EXPRESSLY OVERRULING PRIOR DECISIONS  FN46  WHERE THE SIXTH AMENDMENT'S
REQUIREMENT  FN47  HAD NOT BEEN OBSERVED, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT
THE COURT WAS ANNOUNCING FOR THE FUTURE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH.  AND THE RESULT IN THE CASE ITSELF
ACCORDED WITH WHAT THIS VIEW REQUIRED.  FN48 

ONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW UNTIL THE END OF LITIGATION WHAT HIS PROCEDURAL
RIGHTS IN TRIAL ARE, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, HAS NO SUCH RIGHTS.  HE IS
DENIED ALL BY A HIDE-AND-SEEK GAME BETWEEN THOSE THAT ARE CRIMINAL AND
THOSE THAT ARE CIVIL.  THE VIEW WHICH WOULD SEEM TO BE THE ONLY ONE
CONSISTENT WITH THE WHOLE SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND WITH THE
NATURE OF OUR FREE INSTITUTIONS, IS THAT ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTIES APPLICABLE TO TRIALS FOR CRIME SHOULD APPLY TO SUCH TRIALS
FOR CONTEMPT, EXCEPTING ONLY THOSE WHICH MAY BE WHOLLY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE NATURE AND EXECUTION OF THE FUNCTION THE COURT MUST PERFORM. 
FN49  AS HAS BEEN SAID, COURTS IN PERFORMING THIS FUNCTION ARE NOT
ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION; RATHER THEY ARE EMPOWERED TO PERFORM IT IN
ORDER TO MAKE THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF OPERATIVE N50.  ACCORDINGLY, NOT
THE LEAST BUT THE GREATEST POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF IT TO THIS PHASE OF
THEIR WORK IS THE ONLY RULE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR PLACE IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME.  IN RE MICHAEL, 326 U.S. 224, 227. 

HENCE, WHATEVER MAY BE TRUE OF INDICTMENT AND JURY TRIALS, I SEE NO
COMPELLING REASON WHATEVER FOR NOT APPLYING THE OTHER LIMITATIONS OF
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  NONE OF THEM IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DUE AND
PROPER PERFORMANCE OF THE COURT'S FUNCTION IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  SOME
AT THE LEAST ARE APPLICABLE BY VIRTUE OF THE DUE PROCESS GUARANTY OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  "DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THEREFORE, IN THE
PROSECUTION OF CONTEMPT, EXCEPT OF THAT COMMITTED IN OPEN COURT,
REQUIRES THAT THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE ADVISED OF THE CHARGES AND HAVE A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THEM BY WAY OF DEFENSE OR EXPLANATION. 
WE THINK THIS INCLUDES THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IF REQUESTED, AND THE
RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES TO GIVE TESTIMONY, RELEVANT EITHER TO THE ISSUE
OF COMPLETE EXCULPATION OR IN EXTENUATION OF THE OFFENSE AND IN
MITIGATION OF THE PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED."  COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267
U.S. 517, 537.  ONLY ONE CASE, APART FROM THOSE INVOLVING INDICTMENT OR
JURY TRIAL, HAS HELD THE SIXTH AMENDMENT INAPPLICABLE IN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS.  FN51  WHETHER OR NOT THAT CASE WAS A DEPARTURE FROM OUR
LONG ESTABLISHED TRADITION THAT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS THE DEFENDANT
IS ENTITLED TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, OTHER
DEPARTURES SHOULD NOT BE MADE. 

SURELY THE RIGHTS TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, TO HAVE COMPULSORY
PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESS IN HIS FAVOR, TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE, AND, AS THE GOMPERS CASE HELD, TO BE INFORMED
OF THE NATURE AS WELL AS THE CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION, CANNOT BE DENIED
IN OUR SYSTEM TO ANY PERSON CHARGED WITH CRIME, WITH THE SINGLE
EXCEPTION OF CONTEMPTS COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE PRESENCE OF THE COURT
BY WAY OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS.  THOSE GUARANTIES ARE IN
NO WAY INCONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S PROPER AND COMPLETE DISCHARGE OF
ITS FUNCTION IN CONTEMPT.  AND THEY WOULD SEEM TO BE ESSENTIAL TO ANY
CONCEPTION OF A FAIR TRIAL AS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
COMPREHENDS THIS. 

WHEN THE ASSERTION AND SECURING OF ALL OTHER RIGHTS DEPENDS UPON ONE,
THAT ONE IS THE CORE OF ALL.  HERE THE RIGHT "TO KNOW THAT IT WAS A
CHARGE, AND NOT A SUIT" COMPREHENDED ALL OTHER PROCEDURAL RIGHTS IN THE
TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS.  WITHOUT THIS, NONE COULD BE ASSERTED OR
MAINTAINED.  THE DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT, DEFERRING IT UNTIL THE DECISION
HERE IS HANDED DOWN, IS IN MY OPINION NOT ONLY A DENIAL OF ALL.  IT IS
A VIOLATION BOTH OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF RULE 42(B). 

BUT WE ARE TOLD THAT THIS, AND ALL THAT FOLLOWED OR MAY HAVE FOLLOWED
FROM IT, MAKE NO DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE.  THERE ARE
AT LEAST TWO ANSWERS.  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE DENIAL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES IN TRIALS FOR CRIME IS IN ITSELF PREJUDICE. 
KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 750, 765, AND CASES CITED IN N.
19.  THE OTHER, THERE WAS PREJUDICE AND IN THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
BEYOND KNOWING THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL,
NAMELY, IN THE PENALTY ITSELF. 

                                 IV. 

NOT ONLY WAS THE PENALTY AGAINST THE UNION EXCESSIVE, AS THE COURT
HOLDS.  VICE INFECTED BOTH "FINES" MORE DEEPLY.  AS THE PROCEEDING
ITSELF IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, SO ARE THE TWO
"FINES."  EACH WAS IMPOSED IN A SINGLE LUMP SUM, WITH NO ALLOCATION OF
SPECIFIC PORTIONS AS AMONG CIVIL DAMAGES, CIVIL COERCION AND CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT SOME PART OF EACH "FINE" WAS
LAID FOR EACH PURPOSE.  BUT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT STATE, AND THE
GOVERNMENT HAS REFUSED TO SPECULATE, HOW MUCH WAS IMPOSED IN EITHER
INSTANCE FOR EACH OF THOSE DISTINCT REMEDIAL FUNCTIONS. 

THIS WAS IN THE TEETH OF THE GOMPERS AND OTHER PREVIOUS DECISIONS
HERE.  THE LAW HAS FIXED STANDARDS FOR EACH REMEDY, AND THEY ARE
NEITHER IDENTICAL NOR CONGEALABLE.  THEY ARE, FOR DAMAGES IN CIVIL
CONTEMPT, THE AMOUNT OF INJURY PROVEN AND NO MORE, GOMPERS V. BUCKS
STOVE & R. CO., SUPRA, AT 444; FOR COERCION, WHAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO
BRING OBEDIENCE AND NOT MORE, WHETHER BY WAY OF IMPRISONMENT OR FINE;
FN52  FOR PUNISHMENT, WHAT IS NOT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL OR, IN THE CASE OF
A FINE, EXCESSIVE WITHIN THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION.  AND FOR
DETERMINING EXCESSIVENESS OF CRIMINAL FINES THERE ARE ANALOGIES FROM
LEGISLATIVE ACTION WHICH IN MY OPINION ARE CONTROLLING.  FN53 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S LIMITATION
APPLIES TO PENALTIES IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT; AND THAT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
THE DAMAGES AWARDED CANNOT EXCEED THE PROVEN AMOUNT OF INJURY.  IT ALSO
CONCEDES, AS I UNDERSTAND, THAT PURELY COERCIVE RELIEF CAN BE NO
GREATER THAN IS NECESSARY TO SECURE OBEDIENCE.  BUT IN ITS VIEW THERE
WAS NO NECESSITY HERE FOR ALLOCATION OF SPECIFIC AMOUNTS IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THESE DISTINCT STANDARDS.  RATHER PUNISHMENT AND DAMAGES
MAY BE LUMPED WITH A THIRD UNDEFINED AMOUNT FOR CIVIL COERCION; AND THE
WHOLE MASS SUSTAINED, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OR
ANY OF THE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS FOR MEASURING THEM, OTHER THAN BY OVER
ALL APPLICATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S LIMITATION TO THE MASS.  AND
IN THIS VIEW IT MAINTAINS NEITHER "FINE" IS EXCESSIVE.    OBVIOUSLY,
HOWEVER, WHEN ALL THESE DISTINCT TYPES AND FUNCTIONS OF RELIEF ARE
LUMPED TOGETHER, IN A SINGLE SO-CALLED "FINE," NONE OF THE LONG
ESTABLISHED BASES FOR MEASUREMENT CAN BE APPLIED, FOR THERE IS NOTHING
TO WHICH THEY CAN APPLY.  WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE UPON WHAT PORTION OF
EACH "FINE" MAY HAVE BEEN LAID TO COMPENSATE FOR DAMAGES, WHAT FOR
PUNISHMENT, AND WHAT, IF ANY,  FN54 FOR CIVIL COERCION.  MOREOVER, THE
DISTRICT COURT MADE NO FINDINGS WHATEVER CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF CIVIL
DAMAGES SUSTAINED, EVEN IF IT COULD BE ASSUMED THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE
TO SUSTAIN SUCH FINDINGS.  FN55  AND ON THE RECORD NONE OF THE "FINE"
WAS MADE CONTINGENT, AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPURGATION, AS IS
REQUIRED FOR COERCIVE PENALTIES.  FN56 

IT FOLLOWS THAT WE HAVE NO BASIS EXCEPT OUR OWN SPECULATIVE
IMAGINATION BY WHICH TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SO-CALLED "FINES," OR
EITHER OF THEM, ARE EXCESSIVE AS DAMAGES, OR INDEED AS COERCIVE RELIEF
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE, OR AS PENALTY FOR PAST CRIME. 

IN THIS STATE OF THINGS, IT IS UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PERFORM OUR
FUNCTION OF REVIEW IN THE MANNER HERETOFORE REQUIRED, EVEN WITHIN THE
BROAD LIMITS PRESCRIBED FOR CASES OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  THIS
COMMINGLING OF THE VARIOUS FORMS OF RELIEF, LIKE THAT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS THEMSELVES, DEPRIVES THESE CONTEMNORS OF ANY POSSIBILITY
FOR HAVING THE SCOPE OF THE RELIEF GIVEN AGAINST THEM MEASURED
ACCORDING TO LAW. 

THAT IS NO INSUBSTANTIAL DEPRIVATION.  WHEN HYBRID PROCEEDINGS CAN
PRODUCE HYBRID PENALTIES, CONCEALING WHAT IS FOR PUNISHMENT AND WHAT
REMEDIAL, WHAT CRIMINAL AND WHAT CIVIL, AND IN THE PROCESS CAN DISCARD
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS AGAINST JUST SUCH CONSEQUENCES,
AS CONVENIENCE OR OTHER WHOLLY DISCRETIONARY IMPULSE MAY COMMAND, THEN
INDEED TO THE EXTENT WE ALLOW THIS WILL WE HAVE ADOPTED THE CONTINENTAL
TRADITION OF THE CIVILIANS AND REJECTED OUR OWN.  NO CASE IN THIS COURT
HERETOFORE HAS EVER SUSTAINED SUCH CONGLOMERATE PROCEEDINGS AND
PENALTIES.  FN57 

THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS COMPLAINANT HERE, BOTH AS "EMPLOYER" SEEKING
REMEDIAL RELIEF AND IN SOVEREIGN CAPACITY N58 SEEKING TO VINDICATE THE
COURT'S AUTHORITY BY CRIMINAL PENALTY, DOES NOT NULLIFY ALL THESE LONG
ESTABLISHED LIMITATIONS OR PUT THE COURTS WHOLLY AT LARGE, LIMITED BY
NOTHING EXCEPT THEIR UNCONFINED DISCRETION AS TO THE SCOPE AND
CHARACTER OF THE RELIEF ALLOWABLE.  POWER THERE IS TO TAKE ADEQUATE
MEASURES WHEN VIOLATION IS CLEARLY SHOWN AND ADEQUATE PROOF IS MADE TO
SUSTAIN THEM.  FOR PROVEN VIOLATION, CRIMINAL PENALTY WITHIN THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT'S LIMITS AS WE WOULD MEASURE SIMILAR IMPOSITIONS PLACED BY
CONGRESS, AT THE MOST; FOR DAMAGES PROVEN AND FOUND, CIVIL AWARD
COMMENSURATE WITH THE FINDING; AND FOR COERCION, CIVIL RELIEF BY WAY OF
IMPRISONMENT OR "FINE," BUT IN EITHER CASE CONTINGENT ONLY, NOT FINAL,
GIVING OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPURGATION AND FOR TERMINATION, ON ITS BEING
MADE, OF FURTHER PENALTY FOR THE FUTURE. 

THESE ARE THE LIMITATIONS THE LAW HAS PRESCRIBED.  THEY APPLY EQUALLY
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS COMPLAINANT, AND WHETHER IN ONE CAPACITY OR THE
OTHER, OR BOTH, AS WHEN OTHERS ARE.  FN59  THEY CANNOT BE DISPENSED
WITH, SEPARATELY OR BY CONGLOMERATING ALL INTO A SINGLE INDISCRIMINATE
LUMP, AT THE SUIT OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ANOTHER, IN THIS CASE OR FOR
OTHERS.  TO PERMIT THIS WOULD BE TO THROW OVERBOARD THE LIMITATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND MAKE THE COURTS PURELY DISCRETIONARY ARBITRATORS
OF CONTROVERSIES.  THAT CANNOT BE DONE IN OUR SYSTEM. 

THE COURT SEEMINGLY RECOGNIZES THIS, IN PART, IN THE REVISION IT
MAKES OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S PENALTIES.  LEWIS' FINE IS AFFIRMED IN
AMOUNT BUT WHOLLY CHANGED IN CHARACTER.  INSTEAD OF COMPOSITE RELIEF AS
THE DISTRICT COURT MADE IT, THE COURT MAKES THAT FINE WHOLLY A CRIMINAL
PENALTY, THUS IN EFFECT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF HIS CRIMINAL
IMPOSITION.  THE UNION'S FINE, THOUGH HELD EXCESSIVE AND "REDUCED," BY
WHAT STANDARD IS NOT APPARENT, IS REPLACED BY A FLAT CRIMINAL FINE OF
$700,000 PLUS A CONTINGENT PENALTY OF $2,800,000 SAID TO BE ENTIRELY
FOR CIVIL COERCION, ALTHOUGH THE STRIKE WAS ENDED IN DECEMBER.  ANY
AWARD FOR CIVIL DAMAGES ALLEGEDLY SUSTAINED APPARENTLY IS ELIMINATED. 

THE COURT THUS PURPORTS TO MAKE SEPARATE THE DISTINCT ITEMS OF RELIEF
COMMINGLED IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION.  BUT IN DOING SO, IN MY
OPINION, IT WHOLLY DISREGARDS THE ESTABLISHED STANDARD FOR MEASURING
CRIMINAL FINES AND ITS OWN AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT COURT'S FUNCTION
RELATING TO THEM.  IF LEWIS AND THE UNION HAD BEEN CONVICTED ON
INDICTMENT AND JURY TRIAL IN A PROCEEDING SURROUNDED BY ALL THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER SAFEGUARDS OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR
VIOLATING THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, THE MAXIMUM FINES WHICH COULD BE
APPLIED BY THAT ACT'S TERMS WOULD BE $5,000 FOR EACH.  IN ADDITION,
LEWIS COULD HAVE BEEN IMPRISONED FOR A YEAR.  FN60 

IN MY OPINION, WHEN CONGRESS PRESCRIBES A MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR
CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF A STATUTE, THAT PENALTY FIXES THE MAXIMUM WHICH
CAN BE IMPOSED WHETHER THE CONVICTION IS IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AS
SUCH FOR ITS VIOLATION OR IS FOR CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING AN ORDER OF
COURT TO OBSERVE IT TEMPORARILY.  GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S.
604, 612.  IF THE FINE OR OTHER PENALTY IN SUCH A CASE CAN BE
MULTIPLIED TWICE OR ANY OTHER NUMBER OF TIMES, MERELY BY BRINGING A
CIVIL SUIT, SECURING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THEN CONVICTING
THE PERSON WHO VIOLATES IT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, REGARDLESS OF THE
ORDER'S VALIDITY AND OF ANY OF THE USUAL RESTRAINTS OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, THE WAY WILL HAVE BEEN FOUND TO DISPENSE WITH SUBSTANTIALLY
ALL OF THOSE PROTECTIONS RELATING NOT ONLY TO THE COURSE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BUT TO THE PENALTY ITSELF. 

BUT IT IS IN RELATION TO THE FLAT CRIMINAL FINE OF $700,000 AGAINST
THE UNION THAT THE COURT'S DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER
STANDARDS IS MOST APPARENT.  BY WHAT MEASURING ROD THIS SUM HAS BEEN
ARRIVED AT AS THE APPROPRIATE AND LAWFUL AMOUNT, I AM UNABLE TO SAY,
UNLESS INDEED IT IS SIMPLY BY A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE UNION SHOULD
BE FORCED TO PAY ON ALL COUNTS.  NEVER HAS A CRIMINAL FINE OF SUCH
MAGNITUDE BEEN HERETOFORE LAID AND SUSTAINED, SO FAR AS I AM ABLE TO
DISCOVER.  AND ONLY FOR TREASON, WITH ONE OTHER POSSIBLE EXCEPTION,
FN61  HAS CONGRESS AUTHORIZED ONE SO LARGE.  MOREOVER, THE COURT'S
ENUMERATION OF FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT INDICATES EXPRESSLY, AS
I READ THE OPINION, THAT ONE IS THE COERCIVE EFFECT OF THE IMPOSITION
FOR THE FUTURE, THOUGH IT IS THOROUGHLY SETTLED THAT IN CONTEMPT
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT IS TO BE LAID ONLY FOR PAST CONDUCT.  FN62  GOMPERS
V. BUCKS STOVE & R. CO., SUPRA, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

THUS, THE COURT IN EFFECT IMPOSES DOUBLE COERCIVE PENALTIES, IN VIEW
OF THE ADDITIONAL CONTINGENT AWARD OF $2,800,000 FOR THAT SPECIFIC AND
SOLE PURPOSE.  I THINK THE CRIMINAL FINE OF $700,000 NOT ONLY
CONSTITUTIONALLY EXCESSIVE, FAR BEYOND ANY HERETOFORE SUSTAINED FOR
VIOLATION OF ANY STATUTE OR ORDER OF COURT.  IT IS ALSO AN UNLAWFUL
COMMINGLING OF CIVIL COERCIVE AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES, WITHOUT THE
ESSENTIAL CONTINGENT FEATURE IN THE COERCIVE PHASE, UNDER OUR PRIOR
DECISIONS. 

MOREOVER, IT IS THE DISTRICT COURT'S FUNCTION, NOT OURS, IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE TO FIX THE AMOUNTS OF CRIMINAL FINES.  IN EQUITY PROCEEDINGS
FOR COERCIVE RELIEF, APPELLATE COURTS INCLUDING THIS ONE HAVE POWER TO
REVISE AND FIX AWARDS FOR SUCH PURPOSES, AND IF DAMAGES ALSO ARE SOUGHT
TO REVIEW AMOUNTS AWARDED FOR THIS PURPOSE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
PROOF.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & R. CO., SUPRA.  BUT IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING WHICH IS AT LAW EVEN IN CONTEMPT, IBID., OUR FUNCTION IS NOT
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO FIX THE FINES OURSELVES.  THAT FUNCTION IS THE
DISTRICT COURT'S. IBID.  WE CAN ONLY DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE IMPOSED BY
IT ARE EXCESSIVE UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. 

IN ITS REVISION OF THE PENALTIES THEREFORE THE COURT IN MY OPINION
NOT ONLY FAILS TO UNSCRAMBLE THE COERCIVE AND CRIMINAL ELEMENTS, AS THE
PRIOR DECISIONS HERE REQUIRE TO BE DONE.  FN63  IT IMPOSES GROSSLY
EXCESSIVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES, DETERMINED IN AMOUNT BY WHOLLY ARBITRARY
ESTIMATE RELATED TO NO PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED STANDARD LEGISLATIVELY OR
JUDICIALLY FIXED.  AND IN DOING SO, IT USURPS THE DISTRICT COURT'S
FUNCTION.  ALL THIS FLOWS IN PART AT LEAST FROM ITS BASIC ERROR, WHICH
IS ITS FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF THE GOMPERS AND OTHER CASES THAT
NOT ONLY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES, BUT ALSO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE THINGS, AND UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION MUST BE KEPT SO. 

MUCH MORE IS INVOLVED IN THIS CONTROVERSY THAN THE ISSUES WHICH HAVE
BEEN DISCUSSED.  THE ISSUES IN THE MAIN SUIT HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED
AND IT WOULD BE BEYOND OUR FUNCTION TO INTIMATE OPINION CONCERNING THEM
NOW.  BUT BEYOND THIS CONTROVERSY AS A WHOLE LIE STILL GRAVER
QUESTIONS.  THEY INVOLVE OPPOSING CLAIMS CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE
AND THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS AGAINST THIS, TO KEEP THE NATION'S
ECONOMY GOING.  THOSE ARE INDEED GRAVE MATTERS. 

NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE.  NOR IS ANY POWER, GOVERNMENTAL OR OTHER, IN
OUR SYSTEM.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT IT PROVIDES POWER TO MEET
THE GREATEST CRISES.  EQUALLY CERTAIN IS IT THAT UNDER "A GOVERNMENT OF
LAWS AND NOT OF MEN" SUCH AS WE POSSESS, POWER MUST BE EXERCISED
ACCORDING TO LAW; AND GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE COURTS, AS WELL AS THE
GOVERNED, MUST MOVE WITHIN ITS LIMITATIONS. 

THIS MEANS THAT THE COURTS AND ALL OTHER DIVISIONS OR AGENCIES OF
AUTHORITY MUST ACT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS. 
SPECIFICALLY IT MEANS IN THIS CASE THAT WE ARE BOUND TO ACT IN
DEFERENCE TO THE MANDATE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING LABOR INJUNCTIONS, AS
IN JUDGMENT AND CONSCIENCE WE CONCEIVE IT TO HAVE BEEN MADE.  THE
CRISIS HERE WAS GRAVE.  NEVERTHELESS, AS I VIEW CONGRESS' ACTION, I AM
UNABLE TO BELIEVE THAT IT HAS ACTED TO MEET, OR AUTHORIZED THE COURTS
TO MEET, THE SITUATION WHICH AROSE IN THE MANNER WHICH HAS BEEN
EMPLOYED. 

NO MAN OR GROUP IS ABOVE THE LAW.  ALL ARE SUBJECT TO ITS VALID
COMMANDS.  SO ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COURTS.  IF, AS I THINK,
CONGRESS HAS FORBIDDEN THE USE OF LABOR INJUNCTIONS IN THIS AND LIKE
CASES, THAT CONCLUSION IS THE END OF OUR FUNCTION.  AND IF MODIFICATION
OF THAT POLICY IS TO BE MADE FOR SUCH CASES, THAT PROBLEM IS FOR
CONGRESS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, NOT FOR THE COURTS. 

FN1  "GREAT CASES LIKE HARD CASES MAKE BAD LAW.  FOR GREAT CASES ARE
CALLED GREAT, NOT BY REASON OF THEIR REAL IMPORTANCE IN SHAPING THE LAW
OF THE FUTURE, BUT BECAUSE OF SOME ACCIDENT OF IMMEDIATE OVERWHELMING
INTEREST WHICH APPEALS TO THE FEELINGS AND DISTORTS THE JUDGMENT. 
THESE IMMEDIATE INTERESTS EXERCISE A KIND OF HYDRAULIC PRESSURE WHICH
MAKES WHAT PREVIOUSLY WAS CLEAR SEEM DOUBTFUL, AND BEFORE WHICH EVEN
WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW WILL BEND."  HOLMES, J., DISSENTING, IN
NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197, 400-401. 

FN2  "PROVIDED, THAT WHENEVER ANY SUCH PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY HAS
BEEN OR IS HEREAFTER SO TAKEN BY REASON OF A STRIKE, LOCK-OUT,
THREATENED STRIKE, THREATENED LOCK-OUT, WORK STOPPAGE, OR OTHER CAUSE,
SUCH PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE OWNERS THEREOF
AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, BUT IN NO EVENT MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE
RESTORATION OF THE PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY THEREOF PREVAILING PRIOR TO
THE TAKING OF POSSESSION THEREOF  ...."  WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT SEC.
3(ACT OF JUNE 25, 1943, 57 STAT. 163, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 1501,
1503). 

FN3  "SEC.  6.  (A)  WHENEVER ANY PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY IS IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON
(1) TO COERCE, INSTIGATE, INDUCE, CONSPIRE WITH, OR ENCOURAGE ANY
PERSON, TO INTERFERE, BY LOCK-OUT, STRIKE, SLOW-DOWN, OR OTHER
INTERRUPTION, WITH THE OPERATION OF SUCH PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY, OR
(2) TO AID ANY SUCH LOCK-OUT, STRIKE, SLOW-DOWN, OR OTHER INTERRUPTION
INTERFERING WITH THE OPERATION OF SUCH PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY BY
GIVING DIRECTION OR GUIDANCE IN THE CONDUCT OF SUCH INTERRUPTION, OR BY
PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE CONDUCT OR DIRECTION THEREOF OR FOR THE PAYMENT
OF STRIKE, UNEMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER BENEFITS TO THOSE PARTICIPATING
THEREIN.  NO INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS SECTION BY REASON ONLY OF HIS HAVING CEASED WORK OR HAVING
REFUSED TO CONTINUE TO WORK OR TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT. 

"(B)  ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR TO IMPRISONMENT
FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH."  WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT OF 1943,
SEC. 6. 

FN4  THE ISSUE IS NOT AVOIDED, NOR IS THE EFFECT OF FINAL LEGISLATIVE
REJECTION NULLIFIED, BY THE EASY DEVICE OF RESTING THE POWER SAID TO
EXIST UPON COMMON LAW RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WHICH, IF
OTHERWISE PERTINENT, WERE IN THE VERY TEETH OF CONGRESS' POSITIVE
REFUSAL TO CONFER THE POWER AFTER THE FULLEST AND MOST ATTENTIVE
CONSIDERATION.  THAT DEVICE ONLY CONCEALS THE TRUE ISSUE.  SEE ALSO
NOTE 11. 

FN5  SEIZURE WITHOUT SUCH ULTIMATE CONTROL, OF COURSE, WOULD HAVE
BEEN ONLY ONE-SIDED, HALFWAY SEIZURE, OPERATIVE ONLY AGAINST MANAGEMENT
AND OWNERS.  BUT SEIZURE WITH SUCH CONTROL DID NOT REQUIRE OR MEAN THAT
THE CONTROL WAS TO BE EXERCISED BY LABOR INJUNCTIONS.  THERE WAS, AND
IS, NO INCONSISTENCY WHATEVER BETWEEN CONFERRING THE ONE POWER AND
DENYING THE OTHER.  FOR THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT CONGRESS HAS DONE WITH
REFERENCE TO ALL PLANTS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SEIZURE POWER.  BESIDES
IMPUTING TO CONGRESS THE PURPOSE TO DO WITH ONE HAND WHAT THE OTHER
DENIED WAS BEING DONE, THE IDENTIFICATION OF THESE TWO VERY DISTINCT
THINGS SERVES ONLY TO CONFUSE AND MAKE OBSCURE THE REAL QUESTION.  THIS
IS SIMPLY WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED TO ABROGATE FOR SEIZED PLANTS OR TO
CONTINUE IN FORCE THE ESTABLISHED POLICY AGAINST LABOR INJUNCTIONS AS A
METHOD OF EXERCISING THE POWERS OF ULTIMATE CONTROL CONFERRED UPON THE
GOVERNMENT.    FN6  SECTION 2(C) EXCLUDES CARRIERS AS DEFINED IN TITLE
I OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151, OR CARRIERS BY AIR AS
SUBJECT TO TITLE II OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 181. 

FN7  THE AVAILABLE STATISTICS SPEAK IN TERMS OF "STRIKES" FOR 1943
AND "WORK STOPPAGES ARISING FROM LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES" FOR 1945
AND 1946.  FOR 1943, 13,500,529 MAN-DAYS WERE LOST THROUGH STRIKES. 
FOR 1945, 38,025,000 MAN-DAYS WERE LOST THROUGH WORK STOPPAGES, AND
113,000,000 MAN-DAYS WERE SO LOST IN 1946.  IN 1943 THERE WERE 3,752
STRIKES.  IN 1945 THERE WERE 4,750 WORK STOPPAGES AND IN 1946, 4,700. 
SEE STRIKES IN 1943, BULL.  NO. 782, U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS;
WORK STOPPAGES CAUSED BY LABOR-MANAGEMENT DISPUTES IN 1945, BULL.  NO.
878, U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS; REVIEW OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT
DISPUTES, 1946, U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS RELEASE, JANUARY 11,
1947. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 7. 

FN9  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON S. 796, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 25-26.  "THE
WAR LABOR BOARD WAS SET UP TO DEAL WITH INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.  WHILE
THIS BOARD MAY NOT HAVE A PERFECT RECORD, IT HAS A VERY GOOD RECORD TO
ITS CREDIT, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE CONSIDER THE GREAT PROBLEMS IT MUST
DEAL WITH."  89 CONG. REC. 5339. 

THE NUMBER OF WAR LABOR BOARD CASES RESULTING IN PLANT SEIZURES BY
THE UNITED STATES, SO FAR AS STATISTICS ARE AVAILABLE, IS AS FOLLOWS:
FOUR CASES FROM JUNE 25, 1943, THE DATE OF THE PASSAGE OF THE WAR LABOR
DISPUTES ACT, TO DECEMBER 31, 1943; SEVENTEEN CASES FROM JANUARY 1,
1944, TO DECEMBER 31, 1944; FIFTEEN CASES FROM JANUARY 1, 1945, TO
AUGUST, 1945.  WE ARE INFORMED THAT IN NO INSTANCE OF SEIZURE, EXCEPT
THE ONE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WAS A LABOR INJUNCTION ISSUED AT THE
BEHEST OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

FN10  SECTION 3 PROVIDES:  "PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT POSSESSION OF ANY
PLANT, MINE, OR FACILITY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN UNDER AUTHORITY OF THIS
PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT, OR AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE WAR LABOR
DISPUTES ACT; AND THE AUTHORITY TO OPERATE ANY SUCH PLANT, MINE, OR
FACILITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL TERMINATE AT THE
END OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF SUCH HOSTILITIES AS SO
PROCLAIMED." 

IT MAY BE NOTED THAT ON DECEMBER 31, 1946, THE PRESIDENT BY
PROCLAMATION ANNOUNCED THE END OF HOSTILITIES.  12 FED. REG. 1.  THE
EMERGENCY POWERS CONFERRED BY THE ACT TERMINATE SIX MONTHS THEREAFTER. 

FN11  IF GENERAL COMMON LAW RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WERE
APPROPRIATE FOR CRITERIA TO DETERMINE SUCH ISSUES AS THIS CASE PRESENTS
FOR THE MEANING OF THE ACT, CERTAINLY THAT RULE WOULD BE EQUALLY
APPLICABLE WITH ANY OTHER WHICH DICTATES THAT WHEN A STATUTE PROVIDES
SPECIFIC REMEDIES ADEQUATE FOR ENFORCING ITS PROVISIONS THOSE REMEDIES
ALONE ARE DEEMED TO BE MADE AVAILABLE.  BUT IN VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE
AND OTHER HISTORY, THIS CASE IS NOT ONE TO BE TURNED, IN MY OPINION, BY
SUCH VAGUE, CONVENIENTLY SELECTIVE AND OFTEN, AS HERE, CONTRADICTORY
CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION. 

FN12  IT IS THIS SANCTION UPON WHICH CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO RELY
ULTIMATELY, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, THOUGH PROVISION IS
MADE FOR PRELIMINARY RESORT TO PROCESSES OF CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION BEFORE THE USE OF ULTIMATE ECONOMIC FORCE BY
STRIKE OR LOCKOUT, WHEN THE SANCTION OF PUBLIC OPINION COMES CHIEFLY
INTO PLAY.  SEE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. TOLEDO, PEORIA &
W.R.R., 321 U.S. 50; GENERAL COMMITTEE V. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R.R.,
320 U.S. 323.  ON THE WHOLE, THAT POLICY AND THE SANCTIONS PROVIDED
HAVE WORKED SUCCESSFULLY TO ELIMINATE STOPPAGES IN RAILWAY
TRANSPORTATION.  AND AS OF JUNE, 1943, IT MAY BE FAIRLY ASSUMED THAT
CONGRESS, IN DECLINING TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF LABOR INJUNCTIONS,
WAS CONSCIOUS OF AND CHOSE TO RELY UPON THIS ACCEPTED SANCTION TOGETHER
WITH THE SPECIFIC ONES THEN CONFERRED BY THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT. 

FN13  MORE ESPECIALLY WHEN ACCOUNT IS TAKEN OF THE VAST LIBERTY,
CALLED "DISCRETION," WHICH COURTS ARE SAID TO HAVE, AND IN THIS CASE
ARE HELD TO HAVE, IN FIXING PUNISHMENTS FOR CONTEMPTS.  BUT SEE PART
IV. 

FN14  "THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INVOKED
IN LABOR DISPUTES REVEAL THE MOST CRUCIAL POINTS OF LEGAL
MALADJUSTMENT.  TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WITHOUT NOTICE, OR, IF UPON
NOTICE, RELYING UPON DUBIOUS AFFIDAVITS, SERVES THE IMPORTANT FUNCTION
OF STAYING DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT REGARDLESS OF THE ULTIMATE JUSTIFICATION
OF SUCH RESTRAINT.  THE PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS, IN OTHER WORDS, MAKE
THE ISSUE OF FINAL RELIEF A PRACTICAL NULLITY....  THE SUSPENSION OF
STRIKE ACTIVITIES, EVEN TEMPORARILY, MAY DEFEAT THE STRIKE FOR
PRACTICAL PURPOSES AND FOREDOOM ITS RESUMPTION, EVEN IF THE INJUNCTION
IS LATER LIFTED."  FRANKFURTER AND GREENE, THE LABOR INJUNCTION (1930)
200-201. 

"TIME IS THE ESSENCE OF THE STRIKE.  KEEPING THE INJUNCTION ALIVE BY
DILATORY TACTICS BLUNTS THE EDGE OF THE ONLY EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT THAT
LABOR POSSESSES, NAMELY, THE STRIKE. 

"THE BILL NOW BEFORE US MAKES IT WELL-NIGH IMPOSSIBLE TO SECURE A
RESTRAINING ORDER EXCEPT UNDER THE WELL-DEFINED AND LIMITED CONDITIONS
SET OUT IN SECTIONS 7 AND 8."  75 CONG. REC. 5489.  SEE ALSO PEOPLE EX
REL. SANDNES V. SHERIFF OF KINGS COUNTY, 164 MISC. 355, 359. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 14.  EX PARTE FISK, 113 U.S. 713, PRESENTS ANOTHER
CLEAR ILLUSTRATION OF THE TYPE OF RIGHT WHICH WOULD BE WHOLLY NULLIFIED
BY GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE ALLEGED BROAD CONCEPTION OF THE SHIPP
DOCTRINE.  THERE THE CIRCUIT COURT, IN CONTRAVENTION OF EXPLICIT ACTS
OF CONGRESS AS THIS COURT FOUND, HAD ORDERED FISK TO SUBMIT TO ORAL
EXAMINATION BEFORE TRIAL IN A REMOVED CIVIL CAUSE, THE EXAMINATION TO
BE BEFORE A JUSTICE OF THE COURT AND ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED
BY STATE LAW FOR THE STATE COURT FROM WHICH THE CASE WAS REMOVED.  FISK
REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER, STANDING UPON THE CIRCUIT COURT'S LACK OF
JURISDICTION TO ENTER IT, WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR THIS, AND FINED $500
AND ORDERED IMPRISONED UNTIL THE FINE WAS PAID.  HE BROUGHT HABEAS
CORPUS TO SECURE RELEASE FROM THE IMPRISONMENT THUS IMPOSED. 

THIS COURT HELD VOID BOTH THE ORDER FOR EXAMINATION AND THE ORDER OF
COMMITMENT, AS BEYOND THE CIRCUIT COURT'S JURISDICTION, AND GRANTED
PETITIONER'S RELEASE FROM CUSTODY.  THE COURT SAID: "NOT ONLY IS NO
SUCH POWER (OF EXAMINATION) CONFERRED, BUT IT IS PROHIBITED BY THE
PLAIN LANGUAGE AND THE EQUALLY PLAIN PURPOSE OF THE ACTS OF CONGRESS
...  THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS, THEREFORE, WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE
ORDERS FOR THE EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER IN THIS CASE, AND EQUALLY
WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THESE ORDERS BY PROCESS FOR CONTEMPT." 
PP. 724, 726.  HAD FISK SUBMITTED, AS SHIPP IS NOW SAID TO REQUIRE
SHOULD BE DONE, NOT ONLY WOULD THE SPECIFIC COMMANDS OF CONGRESS HAVE
BEEN NULLIFIED.  HIS RIGHT, SECURED BY THOSE COMMANDS, COULD NEVER HAVE
BEEN VINDICATED.  THE STATUTES WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE DEAD LETTERS. 

FN16  INDEED AT LEAST ONE STATE COURT HAS HELD THIS RESULT TO FOLLOW
AND IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200, 224,
HARLAN, J., STATED THIS TO BE HIS VIEW OF THE LAW (SEE HOWEVER NOTE
19), AS APPARENTLY ALSO IT WAS OF WAITE, C.J. P. 223.  SEE REID V.
INDEPENDENT UNION, 200 MINN. 599(CERTIORARI), BUT SEE THE DISSENTING
OPINION, 200 MINN. AT 612; COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON LABOR INJUNCTIONS
ISSUED IN DISREGARD OF ANTI-INJUNCTION STATUTES (1938) 47 YALE L.J.
1136; PEOPLE EX REL. SANDNES V. SHERIFF OF KINGS COUNTY, 164 MISC.
355. 

FN17  SEE PART IV. 

FN18  IBID. 

FN19  EX PARTE ROWLAND, 104 U.S. 604; EX PARTE FISK, 113 U.S. 713; IN
RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443, 507; IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200; IN RE BURRUS,
136 U.S. 586; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516(ARISING UNDER STATE
LAW).  AND SEE EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, 143; CF. PP. 135, 139,
COLLECTING THE AUTHORITIES. 

IN THE SAWYER CASE, SUPRA, THE COURT SAID:  "THE CASE CANNOT BE
DISTINGUISHED IN PRINCIPLE FROM THAT OF A JUDGMENT OF THE COMMON BENCH
IN ENGLAND IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, WHICH WAS CORAM NON JUDICE; OR
THE CASE OF A SENTENCE PASSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
UPON A CHARGE OF AN INFAMOUS CRIME, WITHOUT A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT
BY A GRAND JURY.  CASE OF THE MARSHALSEA, 10 REP. 68, 76; EX PARTE
WILSON, 114 U.S. 417; EX PARTE BAIN, 121 U.S. 1."  124 U.S. AT 221. 
HARDLY CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE SAWYER DECISION WENT ON THE GROUND THAT
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE ORDER WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL, IN
VIEW OF THE LENGTH AND DETAIL OF THE COURT'S OPINION, WHICH GAVE NO
HINT OF SUCH A SUGGESTION, AND IN VIEW ALSO OF THE FACT THAT FIELD, J.,
CONCURRED IN A SEPARATE OPINION AND WAITE, C. J., AND HARLAN, J., WROTE
SEPARATE DISSENTS TAKING THE POSITION WHICH THE COURT NOW ACCEPTS FOR
THIS CASE.  SEE NOTE 16 SUPRA.  HARLAN, J., HOWEVER, RECEDED FROM HIS
VIEW IN EX PARTE YOUNG, SUPRA, WHERE HE DISSENTED ON OTHER GROUNDS. 
209 U.S. AT 169, 174. 

FN20  SEE NOTE 19. 

FN21  IN EX PARTE ROWLAND, 104 U.S. 604, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
DISOBEDIENCE OF AN ORDER COMMANDING THEM TO COLLECT A CERTAIN TAX DID
NOT MOOT THE CONTROVERSY, WHICH WAS WHETHER THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR, BY
PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PROPER COUNTY OFFICIAL, THE TAX COLLECTOR, COULD
SATISFY ITS JUDGMENT BY FORCING COLLECTION OF THE TAX; AND, THE ORDER
BEING HELD VOID, THEIR ACTION IN DISOBEYING IT WAS HELD NOT TO BE
CONTEMPT. 

THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE PETITIONER IN EX PARTE FISK, 113 U.S. 713,
DEPRIVED THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT AGAINST HIM OF THE USE OF HIS
TESTIMONY BUT DID NOT DEFEAT THIS SUIT OR THE ABILITY OF THE COURTS TO
DECIDE WHETHER HE COULD BE FORCED TO SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION.  SEE NOTE
19 SUPRA. 

IN IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200, THE REFUSAL OF THE CITY OFFICIALS TO
OBEY AN ORDER ENJOINING THEM FROM REMOVING A POLICE JUDGE DID NOT
VITIATE JUDICIAL POWER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CITY OFFICIALS
POSSESSED THE REMOVAL POWER.  THE CONTROVERSY REMAINED AND, AS THIS
COURT POINTED OUT, IT WAS DETERMINABLE BY MANDAMUS OR QUO WARRANTO. 
THIS COURT HELD THE ORDER INVALID AND THE OFFICIALS NOT GUILTY OF
CONTEMPT. 

IN IN RE BURRUS, 136 U.S. 586, THE REFUSAL OF THE GRANDPARENTS TO
GIVE UP THE CHILD UPON ORDER ISSUED BY A FEDERAL COURT DID NOT DESTROY
THE POWER OF THE COURT, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN EXERCISED, THOUGH
IMPROPERLY THE COURT HELD, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHILD WAS PROPERLY
IN THEIR CUSTODY OR IN THE CUSTODY OF THE FATHER.  AS THE CONTEMPT
ORDER WAS HELD VOID, HABEAS CORPUS WAS GRANTED. 

MOREOVER IN NONE OF THESE CASES DID THE DISOBEDIENCE DESTROY THE
JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS TO DETERMINE
JURISDICTION. 

FN22  SEE NOTE 24.  THE ORDER ALLOWING APPEAL DIRECTED "THAT ALL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPELLANT BE STAYED, AND THE CUSTODY OF THE
SAID APPELLANT BE RETAINED, PENDING THIS APPEAL." 

FN23  SEE NOTE 24.  THE COURT WAS REVIEWING ITS OWN ORDER, THE ONE
THAT WAS VIOLATED. 

FN24  THE STATEMENT WAS MADE IN RESPONSE TO COUNSEL'S CONTENTION THAT
THE ORDER ALLOWING THE APPEAL WAS VOID AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT SUPPORT
A CONVICTION FOR CONTEMPT.  THE COURT REJECTED THE PREMISE, NOT THE
CONCLUSION. 

THE BASIS OF COUNSEL'S CONTENTION WAS THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT LACKED
JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE THAT THIS COURT ALSO LACKED JURISDICTION. 
HIS BRIEF STATED:  "THE ONLY QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER JOHNSON'S
PROCEEDING IN HABEAS CORPUS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT DID OR DID NOT IN FACT
CONSTITUTE A 'CASE THAT INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OR APPLICATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.'  IF IT DID, THIS COURT HAD
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF IT AND SHOULD PROCEED TO INQUIRE WHETHER ITS
ORDER HAS BEEN DISOBEYED.  IF IT DID NOT, THIS COURT HAD NO
JURISDICTION OF IT AND SHOULD NOW SO HOLD FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
PROCEEDING  ...."  AND ELSEWHERE THE BRIEF STATED: "WE ASSUME THAT IT
WILL HARDLY BE CONTENDED THAT THE MERE ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL IS
SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THE COURT JURISDICTION OF A CASE WHICH FROM ITS
NATURE IS NOT APPEALABLE.  SUCH ACTION IS PRO FORMA ONLY, AND AS IT IS
NECESSARILY HAD IN EVERY CASE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WOULD
ALWAYS BE ESTABLISHED BY AN EX PARTE ORDER." 

IN ANSWER TO THESE ARGUMENTS THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF SAID:  "CERTAINLY
NO ONE WOULD CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IF THE CIRCUIT
COURT HAD JURISDICTION, AND ACCORDINGLY THE DEFENDANTS HERE DENY THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT SIMPLY AS A COROLLARY TO THEIR CONTENTION
THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT DID NOT POSSESS JURISDICTION.  BUT THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON CONTENTIONS, AND IT
HAS JURISDICTION TO TAKE THE CASE AND RETAIN IT FOR FINAL DETERMINATION
WHETHER IT TURNS OUT THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OR NOT." 

FN25  SEE NOTE 24.  NO ARGUMENT WAS MADE THAT EVEN IF THE CIRCUIT
COURT HAD JURISDICTION THIS COURT DID NOT.  THUS, THE STATEMENT IN THE
OPINION "BUT EVEN IF THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN
JOHNSON'S PETITION, AND IF THIS COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THE
APPEAL, THIS COURT, AND THIS COURT ALONE, COULD DECIDE THAT SUCH WAS
THE LAW," 203 U.S. AT 573, MEANS "BUT EVEN IF THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN JOHNSON'S PETITION, AND IF FOR THAT REASON
THIS COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL," ETC. 

FN26  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT HABEAS CORPUS WILL NOT LIE WHERE THE
DISOBEDIENCE WAS TO A LAWFUL, BUT ERRONEOUS, ORDER OF A COURT.  EX
PARTE KEARNEY, 7 WHEAT.  38.  SEE ALSO LOCKE V. UNITED STATES, 75 F.2D
157, 159:  "ERROR MUST BE CORRECTED BY APPEAL, AND CANNOT BE TESTED BY
DISOBEDIENCE.... WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF AN INJUNCTION, HOWEVER
ERRONEOUS, ISSUED BY A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION WHILE SUCH INJUNCTION
IS IN FORCE UNREVERSED CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT OF COURT."  AND IT HAS BEEN
SAID THAT IF AN INJUNCTION IS REVERSED ON APPEAL ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN
"JURISDICTION," THE VIOLATOR MAY NEVERTHELESS BE PUNISHED FOR CRIMINAL,
THOUGH NOT FOR CIVIL, CONTEMPT.  WORDEN V. SEARLS, 121 U.S. 14; SALVAGE
PROCESS CORP. V. ACME TANK CLEANING CORP., 86 F.2D 727.    FN27  TO BE
DISTINGUISHED ARE CASES IN WHICH CONGRESS PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE BUT
LIMITED OPPORTUNITY FOR CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR
OTHER ORDERS, BUT FORECLOSES SUCH OPPORTUNITY WHEN IT IS NOT TAKEN AS
PRESCRIBED.  SEE YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, CF. DISSENTING
OPINION, P. 460.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. RUZICKA, 329 U.S. 287;
FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549; ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S.
114; GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 338.  THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT
FROM AFFORDING NO OPPORTUNITY WHATEVER EXCEPT BY OBEDIENCE. 

FN28 YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, DISSENTING OPINION, AT 479
FF. 

FN29  THUS, IN SOME CIVIL LAW COUNTRIES DAMAGES, AS WELL AS OTHER
PENALTIES, ARE ASSESSED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  SEE SCHWENK,
CRIMINAL CODIFICATION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW IN
ARGENTINA, MEXICO, CHILE, AND THE UNITED STATES:  A COMPARATIVE STUDY
(1942) 4 LA. L. REV. 351, 373-374; GOIRAND AND THOMPSON, THE FRENCH
JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND PROCEDURE IN FRENCH COURTS (1919) 14.  SEE ALSO
ESMEIN, A HISTORY OF CONTINENTAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1913) 429-430. 

FN30  UPON THE AUTHORITIES, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF
THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AT LEAST, WOULD SEEM TO APPLY TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT:
THE PROVISION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, SEE IN RE BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50;
THE PROVISION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & R.
CO., 221 U.S. 418, 444; THE PROVISION FOR DUE PROCESS INSOFAR AS IT
NECESSITATES "SUITABLE NOTICE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND TO
BE HEARD," BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 440; AND, ALTHOUGH
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN SAID NOT TO APPLY AS SUCH TO
CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS, MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 264 U.S. 95, 104-105;
BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. AT 440, BUT SEE TEXT INFRA,
DOUBTLESS AT LEAST THE PROVISIONS FOR "A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL," FOR
"COMPULSORY PROCESS" AND FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, SEE COOKE V.
UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517, 537, ARE IMPLIED IN THE DUE PROCESS
PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  AND IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THE
PROTECTION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS IN THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT APPLIES TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, UNITED STATES EX REL. BROWN V.
LEDERER, 140 F.2D 136, 139. 

THERE ARE ALSO PROTECTIONS NOT EXPRESSLY INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS WHICH APPLY IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, E.G., THAT THE DEFENDANT IS
PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT AND MUST BE PROVED GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & R. CO., 221 U.S. 418, 444.  AND SEE EX
PARTE HUDGINGS, 249 U.S. 378, 383:  "EXISTING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AND
SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT
COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT IS NOT CONTROLLED  ...  AS TO
MODES OF ACCUSATION AND METHODS OF TRIAL GENERALLY SAFEGUARDING THE
RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN.  THIS, HOWEVER, EXPRESSES NO PURPOSE TO EXEMPT
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY FROM CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, SINCE ITS GREAT AND
ONLY PURPOSE IS TO SECURE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY FROM OBSTRUCTION IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTIES TO THE END THAT MEANS APPROPRIATE FOR THE
PRESERVATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION MAY BE SECURED." 

FN31  SEE PART IV. 

FN32  THE CONFUSION, AT LEAST AS TO THE MATTER OF INDICTMENTS AND
JURY TRIAL, CF. NOTE 33, HAS ITS ORIGIN IN HISTORICAL ERROR EXPOSED IN
FOX, THE HISTORY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT (1927), AND FRANKFURTER AND
LANDIS, POWER OF CONGRESS OVER PROCEDURE IN "INFERIOR" FEDERAL COURTS -
A STUDY IN SEPARATION OF POWERS (1924) 37 HARV. L. REV. 1010.  "DOWN TO
THE EARLY PART OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CASES OF CONTEMPT EVEN IN AND
ABOUT THE COMMON-LAW COURTS WHEN NOT COMMITTED BY PERSONS OFFICIALLY
CONNECTED WITH THE COURT WERE DEALT WITH BY THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW,
I.E., TRIED BY JURY, EXCEPT WHEN THE OFFENDER CONFESSED OR WHEN THE
OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED 'IN THE ACTUAL VIEW OF THE COURT.'"  FRANKFURTER
AND LANDIS, SUPRA, AT 1042.  UNTIL 1720 "THERE IS NO INSTANCE IN THE
COMMON-LAW PRECEDENTS OF PUNISHMENT OTHERWISE THAN AFTER TRIAL IN THE
ORDINARY COURSE AND NOT BY SUMMARY PROCESS."  ID., 1046. 

HOWEVER, WILMOT, J., IN 1765, INFLUENCED BY STAR CHAMBER PROCEDURE
AND PRECEDENTS, ALTHOUGH THE STAR CHAMBER HAD BEEN ABOLISHED IN 1641,
STATED THAT IT WAS "IMMEMORIAL USAGE" TO PUNISH ALL CONTEMPTS
SUMMARILY.  ALMON'S CASE, WILMOT'S NOTES, P. 243.  AND ALTHOUGH THIS
OPINION WAS NOT PUBLISHED UNTIL THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS LATER, "THERE IS
AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT, AS A RESULT OF PRIVATE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
WILMOT AND BLACKSTONE, WILMOT'S VIEWS OF 1765 FOUND THEIR WAY, 'BOTH IN
PHRASE AND MATTER' INTO THE FOURTH VOLUME OF THE FAMOUS COMMENTARIES
PUBLISHED IN 1769  ..."  FRANKFURTER AND LANDIS, SUPRA, AT 1046, N.
128.  WILMOT'S ERROR "HAS BEDEVILLED THE LAW OF CONTEMPT BOTH IN
ENGLAND AND IN THIS COUNTRY EVER SINCE."  ID., 1047. 

THIS HISTORY FURNISHES A SLENDER THREAD INDEED FOR THINKING THAT THE
CONSTITUTION MAKERS HAD NO PURPOSE TO APPLY THE USUAL PROCEDURAL
PROTECTIONS TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS.  "...  IT IS VERY DOUBTFUL WHETHER
AT THE DATE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT DOCTRINE (OF ALMON'S CASE, SUPRA)
DID FORM PART OF THE COMMON LAW ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES.  MR.
JUSTICE WILMOT'S UNDELIVERED JUDGEMENT LAY CONCEALED UNTIL THE YEAR
1802, AND, SO FAR AS IS KNOWN, WAS NOT CITED IN AN ENGLISH COURT UNTIL
THE HEARING OF BURDETT V. ABBOT IN 1811.  IT WAS FIRST CITED WITH
APPROVAL FROM THE BENCH IN 1821, AND WAS NOT THEREFORE ADOPTED AS THE
COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND UNTIL AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AMERICAN
CONSTITUTION."  FOX, SUPRA, AT 207. 

FN33  SEE NOTE 30.  IT HAS BEEN RULED CONSISTENTLY, HOWEVER, THAT THE
RIGHTS TO HAVE THE PROCEEDING BEGUN BY INDICTMENT, AMEND. V, AND TRIED
BY JURY, AMEND. VI, DO NOT APPLY.  E.G., EILENBECKER V. DISTRICT COURT,
134 U.S. 31; GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 604; IN RE DEBS, 158
U.S. 564. 

FN34  DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT ARGUED EITHER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OR IN
THIS COURT THAT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL. 
AND THEY EXPRESSLY WAIVED IN OPEN COURT WHATEVER RIGHTS THEY HAD TO AN
ADVISORY JURY.  ON THE OTHER HAND IF, AS I THINK, THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT'S PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED FOR THIS AND LIKE CASES, CF. PART I,
SEC. 11 OF THAT ACT OF ITS OWN FORCE SECURED THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY
AND FORBADE WAIVER OTHERWISE THAN IN WRITING.  FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, RULE 23(A). 

FN35  IN CIVIL CASES UNDER RULE 73 APPEAL IS TAKEN BY FILING NOTICE
THEREOF "WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW," AND GENERALLY, THOUGH
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS, THE TIME IS THREE MONTHS.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 230;
MOSIER V. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, 132 F.2D 710, 712.  IN CRIMINAL CASES
THE FEDERAL RULES NOW ALLOW TAKING AN APPEAL BY FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL
AS IN CIVIL CASES.  BUT AN APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN BY A DEFENDANT WITHIN
10 DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR AFTER DENIAL OF MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL.  RULE 37(A)(2).  IN NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, IT WAS
HELD THAT 28 U.S.C. SEC. 230 RATHER THAN THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES
GOVERNED TIMELINESS IN A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT APPEAL.  BUT THE NEW
CRIMINAL RULES WOULD SEEM TO APPLY TO CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS.  MOORE V.
UNITED STATES, 150 F.2D 323, 324.  SEE RULES 42 AND 54; 55 STAT. 779,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 689. 

ON CERTIORARI, IF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GOVERN, THERE IS
ALSO A DIFFERENCE.  IN CIVIL CASES THE TIME FOR PETITIONING FOR
CERTIORARI IS THREE MONTHS.  IN CRIMINAL CASES THE PETITION MUST BE
FILED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.  RULE 37(B)(2). 
COMPARE NYE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 42, N. 6, AS TO THE LAW PRIOR
TO THE NEW CRIMINAL RULES. 

THE LARGEST PRESENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPEALS IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
CONTEMPTS IS THAT, "EXCEPT IN CONNECTION WITH AN APPEAL FROM A FINAL
JUDGMENT OR DECREE, A PARTY TO A SUIT MAY NOT REVIEW UPON APPEAL AN
ORDER FINING OR IMPRISONING HIM FOR THE COMMISSION OF A CIVIL
CONTEMPT."  FOX V. CAPITAL CO., 299 U.S. 105, 107, AND CASES CITED. 
COMPARE LAMB V. CRAMER, 285 U.S. 217.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE
CONTEMPT IS CRIMINAL, IT MAY BE DIRECTLY REVIEWED.  UNION TOOL CO. V.
WILSON, 259 U.S. 107.  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE CONTEMPT IS BOTH
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GOVERNS FOR PURPOSES OF
REVIEW SO THAT THERE MAY BE IMMEDIATE REVIEW OF BOTH THE PART THAT IS
CIVIL AND THE PART THAT IS CRIMINAL.  UNION TOOL CO. V. WILSON, SUPRA,
AT 111; NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. AT 42-43. 

FN36  THERE AS HERE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WERE ENTITLED AND
CONDUCTED AS COLLATERAL TO CIVIL LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE
ORDER FOR CONTEMPT HAD BEEN GROUNDED UPON DISOBEDIENCE TO A RESTRAINING
ORDER ISSUED IN THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION, CONDUCT WHICH WOULD HAVE
SUSTAINED EITHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PENALTY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD
HELD THE PROCEEDING CRIMINAL.  BUT THIS COURT HELD IT TO BE CIVIL SINCE
IT WAS COLLATERAL, NOT AN INDEPENDENT SUIT AT LAW TO VINDICATE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  HENCE, IT FOLLOWED THAT THE CRIMINAL PENALTY COULD
NOT STAND.  NEITHER THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT NOR THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES
ACT WAS THEN IN FORCE. 

FN37  THROUGHOUT THE OPINION THE COURT INSISTED THE TWO FORMS OF
RELIEF ARE ALTOGETHER INCOMPATIBLE NOT ONLY FOR INTERCHANGEABILITY
BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF PROCEEDING, BUT NECESSARILY FOR COMMINGLING IN
INDISTINGUISHABLE CONGLOMERATION.  IMPRISONMENT AS PENALTY FOR CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT COULD BE IMPOSED FOR FIXED TERMS, BUT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT THIS
COULD NOT BE DONE, THE COURT'S POWER BEING LIMITED TO REMEDIAL OR
COERCIVE IMPRISONMENT, THAT IS, UNTIL THE PERSON CONVICTED SHOULD
COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER.  SO ALSO WITH FINES, WHICH IN CIVIL
CONTEMPT CAN BE NO MORE IN AMOUNT THAN IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE INJURY
INFLICTED OR IS NECESSARY TO SECURE COMPLIANCE AND MUST BE CONTINGENT,
WHEREAS THE LIMITATION REQUIRING CORRELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF INJURY
DOES NOT APPLY TO FINES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  221 U.S. AT 442-444,
449.  THE SAME DISTINCTION APPLIES AS TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS.  P.
447.  SEE PART IV. 

AS WILL APPEAR, THIS DISTINCTION IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE IN THIS
CASE.  AND SO IT WAS IN THE GOMPERS CASE, FOR THE MAIN CAUSE HAD BEEN
SETTLED, AND THE COURT HELD THIS REQUIRED NOT ONLY REVERSAL, BUT
DISMISSAL OF THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRUE IN
ONE FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  221 U.S. AT 451-452. 

FN38  AS WITH THE FACTOR OF RELIEF, THE OPINION THROUGHOUT USES
ALTERNATIVE, NOT CONJUNCTIVE, LANGUAGE CONCERNING THE TWO TYPES OF
PROCEEDINGS.  CIVIL CONTEMPTS, IT SAID, "ARE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL
PARTIES AND ARE INSTITUTED AND TRIED AS A PART OF THE MAIN CAUSE.  BUT
ON THE OTHER HAND, PROCEEDINGS AT LAW FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT ARE BETWEEN
THE PUBLIC AND THE DEFENDANT, AND ARE NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL
CAUSE."  221 U.S. AT 445.  SEE ALSO P. 446. 

FN39  FOR EXAMPLE, MOST FREQUENTLY PERHAPS THE METHODS AND TIMES FOR
SECURING APPELLATE REVIEW, WHICH AT THE TIME OF THE GOMPERS DECISION
INCLUDED WHETHER THE CASE COULD BE REVIEWED BY WRIT OF ERROR OR
APPEAL.  221 U.S. AT 444; CF. BESSETTE V. CONKEY CO., 194 U.S. 324. 
SEE NOTE 40; SEE ALSO NOTE 35. 

FN40  "THE QUESTION AS TO THE CHARACTER OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS HAS
GENERALLY BEEN RAISED, IN THE APPELLATE COURT, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
CASE COULD BE REVIEWED BY WRIT OF ERROR OR ON APPEAL.  BESSETTE V.
CONKEY, 194 U.S. 324.  BUT IT MAY INVOLVE MUCH MORE THAN MERE MATTERS
OF PRACTICE.  FOR, NOTWITHSTANDING THE MANY ELEMENTS OF SIMILARITY IN
PROCEDURE AND IN PUNISHMENT, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO
CLASSES OF PROCEEDINGS WHICH INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES.  WITHOUT DECIDING WHAT MAY BE THE RULE IN
CIVIL CONTEMPT, IT IS CERTAIN THAT IN PROCEEDINGS FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
THE DEFENDANT IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT, HE MUST BE PROVED TO BE
GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY
AGAINST HIMSELF.  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616; UNITED STATES V.
JOSE, 63 FED. REP. 951; STATE V. DAVIS, 50 W. VA. 100; KING V. OHIO
RY., 7 BISS.  529; SABIN V. FOGARTY, 70 FED. REP. 482, 483; DRAKEFORD
V. ADAMS, 98 GEORGIA, 724."  221 U.S. AT 444. 

FN41  SEE NOTE 40. 

FN42  SEE NOTES 35, 37, 39. 

FN43  CF. NOTE 40. 

FN44  "A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (A) OF
THIS RULE SHALL BE PROSECUTED ON NOTICE.  THE NOTICE SHALL STATE THE
TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING, ALLOWING A REASONABLE TIME FOR THE
PREPARATION OF THE DEFENSE, AND SHALL STATE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS
CONSTITUTING THE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CHARGED AND DESCRIBE IT AS SUCH. 
THE NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN ORALLY BY THE JUDGE IN OPEN COURT IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT OR, ON APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY OR OF AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED BY THE COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE, BY
AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AN ORDER OF ARREST...."  RULE 42(B), FEDERAL
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 

FN45  JUDGE L. HAND'S OPINION IN THE MCCANN CASE READS IN PART AS
FOLLOWS:  "...  THE RESPONDENT WILL OFTEN FIND IT HARD TO TELL WHETHER
THE PROSECUTION IS NOT A REMEDIAL MOVE IN THE SUIT, UNDERTAKEN ON
BEHALF OF THE CLIENT.  THIS CAN BE MADE PLAIN IF THE JUDGE ENTERS AN
ORDER IN LIMINE, DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE THE RESPONDENT
CRIMINALLY ON BEHALF OF THE COURT, AND IF THE PAPERS SUPPORTING THE
PROCESS CONTAIN A COPY OF THIS ORDER OR ALLEGE ITS CONTENTS CORRECTLY. 
WE THINK THAT UNLESS THIS IS DONE THE PROSECUTION MUST BE DEEMED TO BE
CIVIL AND WILL SUPPORT NO OTHER THAN A REMEDIAL PUNISHMENT.  NOTHING OF
THE SORT WAS DONE HERE, AND THE ORDER MUST BE REVERSED...."  80 F.2D
211, 214-215. 

THE POSSIBILITIES OF CONFUSION ARE MULTIPLIED WHEN THE CONTEMPT IS
INSTITUTED IN A SUIT IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY, SINCE THE
UNITED STATES MAY BRING CIVIL AS WELL AS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS.  MCCRONE V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 61.    FN46  THE COURT
SAID:  "INASMUCH, THEREFORE, AS PROCEEDINGS FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT ARE A
PART OF THE ORIGINAL CAUSE, THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IS TO THE EFFECT
THAT THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED THEREIN.  BUT THE PRACTICE HAS HITHERTO
BEEN SO UNSETTLED IN THIS RESPECT THAT WE DO NOT NOW TREAT IT AS
CONTROLLING, BUT ONLY AS A FACT TO BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH OTHERS AS
WAS DONE IN WORDEN V. SEARLS, 121 U.S. 25, IN DETERMINING A SIMILAR
QUESTION."  221 U.S. AT 446. 

FN47  "IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE
AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH
DISTRICT SHALL HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, AND TO BE
INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED
WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR
OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
FOR HIS DEFENCE."  U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI. 

FN48  NOT ONLY IN THE RULING THAT REVERSAL WAS REQUIRED FOR THE
IMPOSITION OF THE CRIMINAL PENALTY IN THE PROCEEDING HELD TO BE CIVIL,
BUT ALSO IN THE ORDER FOR DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE CAUSE,
INCLUDING THE CONTEMPT PHASE, HAD BECOME MOOT.  SEE NOTE 37 SUPRA. 

FN49  CF. IN RE MICHAEL, 326 U.S. 224, 227; DISSENTING OPINION OF
HOLMES, J., IN TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402,
422; MICHAELSON V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 42, 67: "THE ONLY
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUCH A PROCEEDING AS WE HAVE HERE
(CRIMINAL CONTEMPT), AND A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BY INDICTMENT OR
INFORMATION IS THAT IN THE LATTER THE ACT COMPLAINED OF IS THE
VIOLATION OF A LAW AND IN THE FORMER THE VIOLATION OF A DECREE.  IN THE
CASE OF THE LATTER, THE ACCUSED HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF TRIAL BY
JURY; WHILE IN THE FORMER HE HAS NOT." 

FN50  SEE EX PARTE HUDGINGS, 249 U.S. 378, 383, QUOTED IN NOTE 30
SUPRA. 

FN51  BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 440.  THE RULING WAS
FIRST MADE IN MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 264 U.S. 95, 104-105, IN
CONNECTION WITH A STATUTORY VENUE PROBLEM RELATING TO JUDICIAL
DISTRICTS AND DIVISIONS WHICH IS CORRELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALLY TO THE
RIGHT OF JURY TRIAL.  THE RULING WAS REASSERTED IN EX PARTE GROSSMAN,
267 U.S. 87, 117, WHICH HELD THAT THE PARDONING POWER EXTENDED TO
CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS.  IN THE GROSSMAN CASE THE STATEMENT WAS OBVIOUSLY
DICTUM.  IN THE MYERS CASE IT WAS DICTUM AS TO ALL GUARANTIES EXCEPT
PERHAPS THAT OF TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED, A
GUARANTY AS STATED ABOVE CORRELATED TO JURY TRIAL. 

FN52  AS STATED IN NOTE 37, COERCIVE RELIEF IS CIVIL IN CHARACTER,
GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & R. CO., 221 U.S. 418, 442, THE DECREE BEING
WHEN IMPRISONMENT IS IMPOSED THAT THE DEFENDANT STAND COMMITTED UNLESS
AND UNTIL HE PERFORMS THE ACT REQUIRED BY THE COURT'S ORDER.  WHEN THIS
IS DONE THE SENTENCE IS DISCHARGED, FOR THE DEFENDANT CARRIES THE KEYS
OF HIS PRISON IN HIS OWN POCKET.  IN RE NEVITT, 117 F. 448, 461.  THE
LIMITATION IS A COROLLARY OF THE CIVIL CHARACTER OF THE REMEDY.  THIS
FORBIDS IMPOSITION OF FIXED-TERM SENTENCES FOR COERCIVE PURPOSES. 
GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & R. CO., SUPRA, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE "INCIDENTAL"
COERCIVE EFFECTS.  ID., AT 443. 

THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF THE RELIEF, NOT ITS PARTICULAR FORM,
DETERMINE ITS LIMITS.  ID., AT 443, CITING DOYLE V. LONDON GUARANTEE
CO., 204 U.S. 599, 605, 607.  HENCE, WHEN A FINE IS USED IN
SUBSTITUTION FOR COERCIVE IMPRISONMENT, IT ALSO MUST BE CONTINGENT,
GIVING OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPURGATION.  UNLESS THIS IS DONE, THE FINE
TAKES ON PUNITIVE CHARACTER.  DOYLE V. LONDON GUARANTEE CO., SUPRA. 

FN53  IT IS IN DEFINING THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF CRIMINAL
PENALTIES THAT LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT AND, WITHIN THE AUTHORITY IT
CONFERS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT RATHER THAN APPELLATE COURTS
HAVE THE WIDEST RANGE.  LEGISLATIVE EXPERIENCE AND JUDGMENT IN THIS
FIELD THEREFORE FURNISH A MEASURE ENTITLED TO GREAT AND IN SOME
INSTANCES I THINK CONCLUSIVE WEIGHT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ALLOWABLE
RANGE OF PUNISHMENT, AS SUCH, IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS WHERE THE PENALTY
IS UNDEFINED BY STATUTE. 

THE ONLY CRIME FOR WHICH THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE HAS NO MAXIMUM IS
TREASON, WHERE THE FINE AUTHORIZED IS NOT LESS THAN $10,000.  18 U.S.C.
SEC. 2.  FOR RESCUE OF ONE CONVICTED OF A CAPITAL CRIME WHILE GOING TO
OR DURING EXECUTION THE FINE MAY BE NOT MORE THAN $25,000.  18 U.S.C.
SEC. 248.  MAXIMUM FINES OF $20,000 ARE SET FOR OFFERING A BRIBE TO A
JUDICIAL OFFICER AND FOR ACCEPTANCE OF A BRIBE BY A JUDGE.  18 U.S.C.
SECS. 237, 238.  THE SAME MAXIMUM IS SET FOR MAILING MATTER WITH INTENT
TO INCREASE WEIGHT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE COMPENSATION OF A RAILROAD
MAIL CARRIER.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 358.  IN SOME CASES OF EMBEZZLEMENT AND
LIKE CRIMES, THE FINE MAY BE THE AMOUNT EMBEZZLED, E.G., 18 U.S.C. SEC.
173, AND IN ONE INSTANCE TWICE THAT AMOUNT.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 172.  BUT
ORDINARILY THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY CONGRESS HAS BEEN $10,000, AND OFTEN
IT IS LESS. 

MOREOVER, WHERE CONGRESS ITSELF HAS FIXED A MAXIMUM FINE FOR CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT OF THE ACT HELD TO BE A CONTEMPT, THAT JUDGMENT WOULD SEEM
TO FURNISH A STANDARD TO BE APPLIED IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  SEE IN
RE MICHAEL, 326 U.S. 224, 227.  IN THIS CASE THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT
AUTHORIZED A FINE OF NOT OVER $5000 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT OVER ONE
YEAR, OR BOTH.  50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1506(B). 

FN54  THE FINES IN THIS CASE WERE FLAT FINES IMPOSED ABSOLUTELY,
WITHOUT CONTINGENCY FOR COMPURGATION OR OTHERWISE.  THE COURT ACTED ON
THE GOVERNMENT'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH AS TO THE UNION WAS MADE ON THE
BASIS OF $250,000 A DAY FOR THE FOURTEEN DAYS ELAPSED AFTER THE
RESTRAINING ORDERS ISSUED AND THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED.  NO PART OF THE
FINE WAS LAID CONTINGENTLY UPON FUTURE CONDUCT.  BOTH PENALTIES
THEREFORE WOULD SEEM TO BE STRICTLY CRIMINAL, OR CRIMINAL COMBINED WITH
CIVIL DAMAGES FOR PAST CONDUCT, NOT COERCIVE IN THE SENSE OF COERCIVE
RELIEF AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE DECISIONS, SEE NOTE 52, ALTHOUGH THE
AMOUNTS FIXED FOR EACH FINE GAVE IT "INCIDENTAL" COERCIVE EFFECT IN THE
POPULAR SENSE.  IBID. 

FN55 THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSERTED LOSS IN REVENUES, CHIEFLY RELIED ON
FOR THIS PURPOSE, WAS NOT ONLY HIGHLY SPECULATIVE RATHER THAN PROVEN IN
AMOUNT.  IT WAS INJURY WHICH WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED FROM THE STRIKE HAD IT
ARISEN BEFORE OR AFTER SEIZURE.  SUCH DAMAGES MAY RESULT FROM ANY
STRIKE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OR ANOTHER IS "EMPLOYER," AND WOULD SEEM
TO BE BOTH SPECULATIVE AND INDIRECT WITHIN THE RULE FORBIDDING THE
AWARD OF SUCH DAMAGES.  HADLEY V. BAXENDALE, 9 EXCH.  341. 

FN56  SEE NOTES 54, 57.  THE ORDER FOR COERCIVE FINES READS, BY
ANALOGY TO THE ORDER FOR COERCIVE IMPRISONMENT, CF. NOTE 52, THAT,
UNLESS THERE IS OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT, THE FINE SHALL BE
PAID ON OR BEFORE A DAY CERTAIN, IN DEFAULT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT
SHALL BE IMPRISONED UNTIL IT IS PAID.  SEE DOYLE V. LONDON GUARANTEE
CO., 204 U.S. 599, 602.  IN THE CASE OF CORPORATIONS OR UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATIONS, THE DEFAULT PROVISION IS EITHER THAT THE RESPONSIBLE
OFFICERS BE IMPRISONED, PARKER V. UNITED STATES, 126 F.2D 370, 379, OR
PERHAPS THAT EXECUTION ISSUE AGAINST THE CONTEMNOR'S PROPERTY.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. RIDGEWOOD GARMENT CO., 44 F.SUPP.  435, 436.  COMPARE
REV. STAT. SEC. 1041, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 569, WITH 38 STAT. 738, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 387. 

FN57  SEE THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 330 U.S. 258, 300, N. 74.  ONLY
IN RARE INSTANCES HAVE OTHER FEDERAL COURTS, AFTER CONSIDERATION, DONE
SO.  SEE KREPLIK V. COUCH PATENTS CO., 190 F. 565.  SEE ALSO THE
DISCUSSION, BY WAY OF DICTUM, IN HENDRYX V. FITZPATRICK, 19 F. 810,
811, 813.  IN STILL OTHER INSTANCES THE TWO TYPES OF CONTEMPT HAVE BEEN
MINGLED WITHOUT DISCUSSION.  SEE CHICAGO DIRECTORY CO. V. UNITED STATES
DIRECTORY CO., 123 F. 194.  AND SEE WILSON V. BYRON JACKSON CO., 93
F.2D 577, DISMISSING FOR JURISDICTIONAL REASONS AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER
ADJUDGING THE APPELLANTS GUILTY OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. 

FN58  THE TWO CAPACITIES ARE DISTINCT, NOT IDENTICAL.  EACH, IT IS
TRUE, MAY BE EXERCISED ULTIMATELY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  BUT IF IN
THE CAPACITY OF TEMPORARY "EMPLOYER" THE GOVERNMENT IS TO HAVE THE
BENEFITS OF THAT STATUS, IT SHOULD BE SUBJECT ALSO TO ITS LIMITATIONS
EXCEPT AS CONGRESS OTHERWISE PROVIDES.  TO JUMBLE THE TWO CAPACITIES AS
IS DONE HERE IS ONLY TO NULLIFY THE RIGHTS IN TRIAL AND REMEDY OF
EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS. 

FN59  THE LIMITATIONS UPON CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, PROCEDURAL AND
REMEDIAL, ALWAYS APPLY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOR IT ALONE CAN BRING THAT
PROCEEDING.  IT CANNOT DEFEAT THEM BY MINGLING THAT PROCEEDING AND
RELIEF WITH CIVIL ONES, MERELY BY VIRTUE OF BEING ALSO THE COMPLAINING
CIVIL LITIGANT. 

FN60  SEE NOTE 53 SUPRA. 

FN61  IBID. 

FN62  THE OPINION STATES:  "IN IMPOSING A FINE FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT,
THE TRIAL JUDGE MAY PROPERLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION  ...  THE
NECESSITY OF EFFECTIVELY TERMINATING THE DEFENDANT'S DEFIANCE AS
REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC INTEREST  ..."  330 U.S. 258, 303. 

FN63  THE STATEMENT IN THE GOMPERS OPINION, 221 U.S. AT 443, THAT
CRIMINAL PENALTIES HAVE INCIDENTAL COERCIVE EFFECTS AND CIVIL ONES
INCIDENTAL PENAL EFFECTS, WAS NOT INTENDED TO CONTRADICT ITS RULING
THAT CRIMINAL PENALTIES CANNOT BE IMPOSED IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
OR THEREFORE COMMINGLED INDISTINGUISHABLY. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





















CONE V. WEST VIRGINIA PAPER CO., 330 U.S. 212 


NO. 184.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1947.  - 153 F.2D
576, REVERSED. 


WHERE A PARTY WHOSE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT HAS BEEN DENIED IN A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FAILS, WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER RECEPTION OF A
VERDICT AGAINST HIM, TO MAKE A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VERDICT, AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE 50(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, AN APPELLATE COURT IS PRECLUDED FROM DIRECTING ENTRY OF SUCH
A JUDGMENT.  PP. 217-218. 

CONE V. WEST VIRGINIA PULP & PAPER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER SUED RESPONDENT IN A STATE COURT FOR DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS
UPON LANDS.  THE SUIT WAS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE
OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  A JUDGMENT FOR THE PETITIONER WAS
REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH DIRECTED ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT.  153 F.2D 576.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI "LIMITED TO THE QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE RAISED BY THE
PETITION FOR THE WRIT."  329 U.S. 701.  REVERSED, P. 218. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A SOUTH CAROLINA STATE COURT. 
UPON MOTION OF RESPONDENT, IT WAS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES.  THE COMPLAINT
CLAIMED $25,000 DAMAGES UPON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE RESPONDENT'S AGENTS
HAD TRESPASSED UPON AND CUT TIMBER FROM LANDS OWNED BY AND IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER.  RESPONDENT'S ANSWER DENIED THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD TITLE OR POSSESSION OF THE LANDS AND TIMBER.  BOTH TITLE
AND POSSESSION BECAME CRUCIAL ISSUES IN THE TRIAL.  THE BURDEN OF
PROVING THEM RESTED ON THE PETITIONER.  FN1  WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCE OF
BOTH PARTIES HAD BEEN INTRODUCED, THE RESPONDENT MOVED FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT IN ITS FAVOR ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO
PROVE THAT HE EITHER OWNED OR WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND.  FN2  THIS
MOTION WAS DENIED.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER FOR
$15,000, AND THE COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT.  THE RESPONDENT
MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  THIS
MOTION WAS DENIED.  RESPONDENT DID NOT MOVE FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AS IT MIGHT HAVE DONE UNDER RULE 50(B) OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH IS SET OUT BELOW.  FN3 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN
EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER TO PROVE LEGAL TITLE WAS PREJUDICIAL
ERROR.  IT HELD THAT WITHOUT THIS IMPROPERLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE
PETITIONER'S PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUBMIT THE QUESTION OF TITLE
TO THE JURY.  THAT COURT ALSO HELD THAT PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE SHOWING
POSSESSION WAS INSUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE JURY.  IT THEREFORE REVERSED
THE CASE.  BUT INSTEAD OF REMANDING IT TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A NEW
TRIAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED
FOR RESPONDENT.  153 F.2D 576.  THAT COURT HAS THUS CONSTRUED RULE
50(B) AS AUTHORIZING AN APPELLATE COURT TO DIRECT A JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, EVEN THOUGH NO MOTION FOR SUCH A JUDGMENT
HAD BEEN MADE IN THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE JURY'S
DISCHARGE. 

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI CHALLENGED THE POWER OF AN APPELLATE
COURT TO DIRECT ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT WHERE
TIMELY MOTION FOR SUCH A JUDGMENT HAD NOT BEEN MADE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  ON THREE PREVIOUS OCCASIONS WE HAVE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
CONSIDER THIS POINT BUT FAILED TO REACH IT BECAUSE, UPON EXAMINATION OF
THE EVIDENCE, WE FOUND IT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SUBMISSION OF ALL THREE
CASES TO THE JURY.  CONWAY V. O'BRIEN, 312 U.S. 492; BERRY V. UNITED
STATES, 312 U.S. 450; HALLIDAY V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 94.  IN THIS
CASE WE GRANTED CERTIORARI "LIMITED TO THE QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL
PROCEDURE RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT."  329 U.S. 701.  THE
POINT WE HAD IN MIND WAS WHETHER A PARTY'S FAILURE TO MAKE A MOTION IN
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, AS
PERMITTED IN RULE 50(B), PRECLUDES AN APPELLATE COURT FROM DIRECTING
ENTRY OF SUCH A JUDGMENT.  OTHER QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED HERE,
BUT WE DO NOT CONSIDER THEM.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE ACCEPT, WITHOUT
APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' HOLDING THAT
THERE WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE AND IN THE
SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY. 

RULE 50(B) CONTAINS NO LANGUAGE WHICH ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES A TRIAL
COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT EVEN THOUGH THAT
COURT IS PERSUADED THAT IT ERRED IN FAILING TO DIRECT A VERDICT FOR THE
LOSING PARTY.  THE RULE PROVIDES THAT THE TRIAL COURT "MAY REOPEN THE
JUDGMENT AND EITHER ORDER A NEW TRIAL OR DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
AS IF THE REQUESTED VERDICT HAD BEEN DIRECTED."  THIS "EITHER-OR"
LANGUAGE MEANS WHAT IT SEEMS TO MEAN, NAMELY, THAT THERE ARE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MIGHT LEAD THE TRIAL COURT TO BELIEVE THAT A NEW
TRIAL RATHER THAN A FINAL TERMINATION OF THE TRIAL STAGE OF THE
CONTROVERSY WOULD BETTER SERVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  IN SHORT, THE RULE
DOES NOT COMPEL A TRIAL JUDGE TO ENTER A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VERDICT INSTEAD OF ORDERING A NEW TRIAL; IT PERMITS HIM TO EXERCISE A
DISCRETION TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO ALTERNATIVES.  SEE BERRY V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 452-453 N4.  AND HE CAN EXERCISE THIS DISCRETION WITH A
FRESH PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED, THE KIND OF EVIDENCE
GIVEN, AND THE IMPRESSION MADE BY WITNESSES.  HIS APPRAISAL OF THE BONA
FIDES OF THE CLAIMS ASSERTED BY THE LITIGANTS IS OF GREAT VALUE IN
REACHING A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED. 
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED OR A JUDGMENT
ENTERED UNDER RULE 50(B) CALLS FOR THE JUDGMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE JUDGE WHO SAW AND HEARD THE WITNESSES AND HAS THE FEEL OF THE
CASE WHICH NO APPELLATE PRINTED TRANSCRIPT CAN IMPART.  SEE MARCH V.
PHILADELPHIA & WEST CHESTER TRACTION CO., 285 PA. 413, 418, 132 A. 355,
357; BUNN V. FURSTEIN, 153 PA. SUPER.  637, 638, 34 A.2D 924.  SEE ALSO
YUTTERMAN V. STERNBERG, 86 F.2D 321, 324.  EXERCISE OF THIS DISCRETION
PRESENTS TO THE TRIAL JUDGE AN OPPORTUNITY, AFTER ALL HIS RULINGS HAVE
BEEN MADE AND ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN EVALUATED, TO VIEW THE
PROCEEDINGS IN A PERSPECTIVE PECULIARLY AVAILABLE TO HIM ALONE.  HE IS
THUS AFFORDED "A LAST CHANCE TO CORRECT HIS OWN ERRORS WITHOUT THE
DELAY, EXPENSE OR OTHER HARDSHIPS OF AN APPEAL."  SEE GREER V.
CARPENTER, 323 MO. 878, 882, 19 S.W.2D 1046, 1047.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. JOHNSON, 327 U.S. 106, 112. 

THERE ARE OTHER PRACTICAL REASONS WHY A LITIGANT SHOULD NOT HAVE HIS
RIGHT TO A NEW TRIAL FORECLOSED WITHOUT HAVING HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE
TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT ON THE QUESTION.  TAKE THE CASE WHERE A TRIAL
COURT IS ABOUT TO DIRECT A VERDICT BECAUSE OF FAILURE OF PROOF IN A
CERTAIN ASPECT OF THE CASE.  AT THAT TIME A LITIGANT MIGHT KNOW OR HAVE
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HE COULD FILL THE CRUCIAL GAP IN THE EVIDENCE. 
TRADITIONALLY, A PLAINTIFF IN SUCH A DILEMMA HAS HAD AN UNQUALIFIED
RIGHT, UPON PAYMENTS OF COSTS, TO TAKE A NONSUIT IN ORDER TO FILE A NEW
ACTION AFTER FURTHER PREPARATION, UNLESS THE DEFENDANT WOULD SUFFER
SOME PLAIN LEGAL PREJUDICE OTHER THAN THE MERE PROSPECT OF A SECOND
LAWSUIT.  PLEASANTS V. FANT, 22 WALL.  116, 122; JONES V. S.E.C., 298
U.S. 1, 19-20 AND CASES CITED.  RULE 41(A)(1) PRESERVES THIS
UNQUALIFIED RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFF TO A DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PRIOR TO THE FILING OF DEFENDANT'S ANSWER.  AND AFTER THE FILING OF AN
ANSWER, RULE 41(A)(2) STILL PERMITS A TRIAL COURT TO GRANT A DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE "UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE COURT DEEMS
PROPER."  FN5 

IN THIS CASE HAD RESPONDENTS MADE A TIMELY MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, THE PETITIONER COULD HAVE EITHER PRESENTED
REASONS TO SHOW WHY HE SHOULD HAVE A NEW TRIAL, OR AT LEAST ASKED THE
COURT FOR PERMISSION TO DISMISS.  IF SATISFIED FROM THE KNOWLEDGE
ACQUIRED FROM THE TRIAL AND BECAUSE OF THE REASONS URGED THAT THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE WOULD BEST BE SERVED BY ALLOWING PETITIONER ANOTHER CHANCE,
THE JUDGE COULD HAVE SO PROVIDED IN HIS DISCRETION.  THE RESPONDENT
FAILED TO SUBMIT A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT TO
THE TRIAL JUDGE IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT EXERCISE HIS DISCRETIONARY POWER
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE SUCH A JUDGMENT, A DISMISSAL OR A
NEW TRIAL.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A MOTION, WE THINK THE APPELLATE
COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT
CONTRARY TO THE ONE IT HAD PERMITTED TO STAND. 

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE PETITIONER COULD HAVE PRESENTED
AFFIDAVITS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM FOR A
NEW TRIAL, AND THAT THAT COURT COULD THEREUPON HAVE REMANDED THE
QUESTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO PASS UPON IT.  FN6  SUCH A CIRCUITOUS
METHOD OF DETERMINING THE QUESTION CANNOT BE APPROVED.  FOR RULE 50(B)
SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBES A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS FOR MAKING A MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  YET THE METHOD HERE SUGGESTED
WOULD ENABLE LITIGANTS TO EXTEND INDEFINITELY THE PRESCRIBED TEN-DAY
PERIOD SIMPLY BY ADOPTION OF THE EXPEDIENT OF AN APPEAL.  FURTHERMORE,
IT WOULD PRESENT THE QUESTION INITIALLY TO THE APPELLATE COURT WHEN THE
PRIMARY DISCRETIONARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS DECISION RESTS ON THE
DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  UNDER GOVERNING SOUTH CAROLINA LAW AN ACTION SUCH AS THIS IS NOT
ONE TO TRY TITLE BUT "TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS TO PROPERTY OF
WHICH THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN POSSESSION."  MACEDONIA BAPTIST CHURCH V.
COLUMBIA, 195 S.C. 59, 70, 10 S.E.2D 350, 355.  BUT POSSESSION MAY BE
PRESUMED FROM PROOF OF LEGAL TITLE.  BEAUFORT LAND & INVESTMENT CO. V.
NEW RIVER LUMBER CO., 86 S.C. 358, 68 S.E. 637; HAITHCOCK V. HAITHCOCK,
123 S.C. 61, 115 S.E. 727; CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA (1942) SEC.
377.  PETITIONER HERE UNDERTOOK TO PROVE POSSESSION BOTH BY SHOWING
THAT HE HAD LEGAL TITLE AND BY SHOWING THAT HE HAD OPENLY AND
NOTORIOUSLY EXERCISED ACTS OF DOMINION, POSSESSION, AND OWNERSHIP OVER
A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS. 

FN2  RESPONDENT FIRST MOVED TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE SAME GROUNDS
UNDER RULE 41(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  THAT RULE PROVIDES
FOR A DISMISSAL, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS THERE SET OUT,
WHERE "UPON THE FACTS AND THE LAW THE PLAINTIFF HAS SHOWN NO RIGHT TO
RELIEF."  SINCE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME DISPOSITION OF THE CASE ON THE
SAME GROUNDS WAS LATER REQUESTED BY RESPONDENT IN THE MOTION FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT, WE SHALL HAVE NO OCCASION FURTHER TO DISCUSS THE
MOTION TO DISMISS. 

FN3  50(B) "RESERVATION OF DECISION ON MOTION.  WHENEVER A MOTION FOR
A DIRECTED VERDICT MADE AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IS DENIED OR
FOR ANY REASON IS NOT GRANTED, THE COURT IS DEEMED TO HAVE SUBMITTED
THE ACTION TO THE JURY SUBJECT TO A LATER DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL
QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE MOTION.  WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE RECEPTION OF
A VERDICT, A PARTY WHO HAS MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT MAY MOVE TO
HAVE THE VERDICT AND ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON SET ASIDE AND TO HAVE
JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT
...  A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE JOINED WITH THIS MOTION, OR A NEW
TRIAL MAY BE PRAYED FOR IN THE ALTERNATIVE.  IF A VERDICT WAS RETURNED
THE COURT MAY ALLOW THE JUDGMENT TO STAND OR MAY REOPEN THE JUDGMENT
AND EITHER ORDER A NEW TRIAL OR DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE
REQUESTED VERDICT HAD BEEN DIRECTED.  IF NO VERDICT WAS RETURNED THE
COURT MAY DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE REQUESTED VERDICT HAD
BEEN DIRECTED OR MAY ORDER A NEW TRIAL." 

FN4  THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE IN
COMMENTING ON RULE 50(B) STATED THAT "A TRIAL COURT OR AN APPELLATE
COURT IN SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT ALWAYS HAS DISCRETION, IF JUSTICE
REQUIRES IT, TO ORDER A NEW TRIAL, INSTEAD OF DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT.  RULE 50(B) STATES THAT THE COURT ON A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT 'MAY EITHER ORDER A NEW TRIAL OR DIRECT THE
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT' FOR THE MOVING PARTY."  REPORT OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1946) 66.  SEE ALSO NEW YORK
SYMPOSIUM ON FEDERAL RULES (1938) 283-284.  COMPARE MARCH V.
PHILADELPHIA & WEST CHESTER TRACTION CO., 285 PA. 413, 132 A. 355;
NADEAU V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 170 MINN. 326, 331, 212 N.W. 595, 597;
ANDERSON V. NEWSOME, 193 MINN. 157, 258 N.W. 157; PORSMER V. DAVIS, 152
MINN. 181, 188 N.W. 279; JACKSON V. HANSARD, 45 WYO. 201, 218, 17 P.2D
659, 664. 

FN5  RULE 41(A)(2), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, HAS BEEN
INTERPRETED AS AUTHORIZING A PLAINTIFF TO DISMISS HIS ACTION "WITHOUT
PREJUDICE WHERE THE COURT BELIEVES THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS A TECHNICAL
FAILURE OF PROOF THERE IS NEVERTHELESS A MERITORIOUS CLAIM."  REPORT OF
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1946) 64; SEE UNITED
STATES V. LYMAN, 125 F.2D 67; 138 F.2D 509; HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORPORATION V. HUFFMAN, 134 F.2D 314, 317. 

FN6  THIS GENERAL SUGGESTION WAS MADE BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE IN ITS RECENT RECOMMENDATION TO US FOR
MODIFICATION OF RULE 50(B).  THE COMMITTEE SAID:  "EVEN ON APPEAL, IF
THE APPELLATE COURT SETS ASIDE HIS VERDICT, HE MAY PRESENT TO THE
APPELLATE COURT AFFIDAVITS TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM TO A NEW TRIAL, AND THE
APPELLATE COURT HAS POWER TO RECEIVE THE AFFIDAVITS AND REMAND THE CASE
TO THE TRIAL COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO CONSIDER THE AFFIDAVITS AND
DETERMINE WHETHER A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE ALLOWED."  REPORT OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS, SUPRA, 66. 
..END :
























LABOR BOARD V. DONNELLY CO., 330 U.S. 219 


ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1947.  - 151 F.2D 854,
REVERSED. 


BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A UNION CHARGED AN EMPLOYER
WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, INCLUDING THE FORMATION AND DOMINATION OF
A PLANT UNION TO FORESTALL THE EFFORTS OF THE COMPLAINING UNION TO
ORGANIZE THE EMPLOYEES.  THE TRIAL EXAMINER REJECTED AN OFFER BY THE
EMPLOYER TO PROVE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF 1,200 EMPLOYEES THAT THEY
HAD NOT BEEN COERCED TO JOIN THE PLANT UNION AND EXCLUDED EVIDENCE THAT
THE FORMATION OF THE PLANT UNION FOLLOWED STRIKE THREATS AND VIOLENCE
BY THE COMPLAINING UNION AGAINST OTHER PLANTS.  THE BOARD ORDERED
DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANT UNION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOUND NO BASIS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS AS UNFAIR ON THE
GROUND THAT EITHER THE EXAMINER OR THE BOARD WAS BIASED, HELD THAT THE
BOARD PROPERLY LIMITED THE EVIDENCE TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT,
AND FOUND NO IMPROPRIETY IN THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE OFFERED TO PROVE
MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE COMPLAINING UNION.  HOWEVER, IT FOUND
THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD BEEN DENIED A FAIR HEARING IN NOT BEING ALLOWED
TO PRESENT TESTIMONY OF ITS EMPLOYEES THAT THE PLANT UNION WAS TRULY
INDEPENDENT AND THAT THEY HAD JOINED IT VOLUNTARILY.  ACCORDINGLY, IT
DENIED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE BOARD "FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT." 
THE BOARD DENIED THE EMPLOYER'S APPLICATION FOR A NEW EXAMINER AND
ASSIGNED THE CASE TO THE ORIGINAL EXAMINER FOR FURTHER HEARING.  THIS
TIME THE EXAMINER HEARD ELEVEN OF THE 1,200 EMPLOYEES NAMED IN THE
OFFER OF PROOF REJECTED IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDING AND ALLOWED THE
PRESIDENT OF THE EMPLOYER CORPORATION TO TESTIFY FULLY; BUT EXCLUDED
ALL EVIDENCE OF EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE TERMINATION OF THE FIRST
HEARING.  UPON FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS
PREVIOUSLY MADE, THE BOARD ISSUED VIRTUALLY THE SAME ORDER.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED ENFORCEMENT "FOR WANT OF DUE PROCESS IN
THE PROCEEDINGS UPON WHICH THE ORDER IS BASED."  HELD: 

1.  UPON THE RECORD, THERE WAS NO WANT OF DUE PROCESS IN THE BOARD'S
PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 225-238. 

2.  IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WITH WHICH
THE BOARD IS ENTRUSTED AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT IN THE COURT'S
OPINION IN THE FIRST REVIEW THAT "THE LEAST THAT THE BOARD CAN DO  ...
IS  ...  TO ACCORD THE PETITIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE ALL OF
THE COMPETENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIAL
EXAMINER; AND TO RECEIVE AND CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE TOGETHER WITH ALL
OTHER COMPETENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD BEFORE MAKING NEW
FINDINGS AND A NEW ORDER," THE REMAND ON THE FIRST REVIEW DID NOT
REQUIRE A PROCEEDING DE NOVO BEFORE THE BOARD NOR A REHEARING ON ISSUES
AS TO WHICH THE ORIGINAL HEARING WAS ADEQUATE.  PP. 225-228. 

3.  UPON EXAMINATION OF THE WHOLE RECORD, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE
BOARD DISREGARDED THE RULING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER TESTIMONY OF EMPLOYEES TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY
VOLUNTARILY ORGANIZED AND JOINED THE PLANT UNION AND THAT THE UNION'S
AFFAIRS WERE UNINFLUENCED BY THE EMPLOYER.  PP. 222-231. 

4.  DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT BY THE BOARD IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE
FACT THAT EVIDENCE AS TO THE EFFECT OF VIOLENCE BY AN OUTSIDE UNION ON
THE FORMATION OF THE PLANT UNION WAS LIMITED TO EVENTS WITHIN SIX
MONTHS OF THE FORMATION OF THE PLANT UNION, WHEREAS EVIDENCE OF
COERCION BY THE EMPLOYER IN THE FORMATION OF THE PLANT UNION WAS
ADMITTED THOUGH RELATED TO A PERIOD TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF
THE PLANT UNION.  PP. 231-232. 

5.  THE BOARD WAS NOT BOUND ON THE SECOND HEARING TO ADMIT EVIDENCE
OF THE COMPLAINING UNION'S MISCONDUCT, INASMUCH AS THERE ALREADY WAS
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO APPRISE THE BOARD OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY
THE COMPLAINING UNION IF ON THAT SCORE THE BOARD CHOSE NOT TO ENTERTAIN
CHARGES OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AGAINST THE EMPLOYER.  LABOR BOARD V.
INDIANA & MICHIGAN ELECTRIC CO., 318 U.S. 9, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 233
236. 

6.  THE POWER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER SEC. 10(E) TO
REQUIRE THE BOARD TO TAKE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN NOT BE EMPLOYED TO
ENLARGE THE STATUTORY SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  PP. 234-235. 

7.  THE BOARD'S DENIAL OF THE EMPLOYER'S APPLICATION FOR THE
DESIGNATION OF A NEW EXAMINER FOR THE HEARING ON THE REMAND WAS NOT
IMPROPER.  PP. 236-237. 

8.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS NOT HAVING CONSIDERED THE QUESTION
OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS ON WHICH THE
ORDER OF THE BOARD WAS BASED, THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR
DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE.  PP. 237-238. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. DONNELLY GARMENT CO. ET AL. 

NO. 38.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 39, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION
V. DONNELLY GARMENT CO. ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 21
N.L.R.B. 164, AGAINST AN EMPLOYER WAS DENIED ENFORCEMENT BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH REMANDED THE CASE TO THE BOARD.  123 F.2D 215. 
A SECOND ORDER OF THE BOARD, ISSUED AFTER A FURTHER HEARING, 50
N.L.R.B. 241, WAS ALSO DENIED ENFORCEMENT.  151 F.2D 854.  ON PETITIONS
OF THE BOARD AND THE COMPLAINING UNION, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
327 U.S. 775.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 238. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON MARCH 6, 1940, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ON FINDING THAT
THE DONNELLY GARMENT COMPANY HAD ENGAGED IN LABOR PRACTICES CONDEMNED
AS "UNFAIR" BY THE WAGNER ACT, ISSUED AN ORDER AGAINST THE COMPANY "TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES" OF THE ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT DENIED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER AND REMANDED THE
CASE TO THE BOARD.  123 F.2D 215.  AFTER CARRYING OUT WHAT IT CONCEIVED
TO BE THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT, THE BOARD AGAIN FOUND AGAINST THE
COMPANY.  THE COURT BELOW DENIED ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S SECOND
ORDER "FOR WANT OF DUE PROCESS IN THE PROCEEDINGS UPON WHICH THE ORDER
IS BASED."  151 F.2D 854, 875.  THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS RULING IS NOW
BEFORE US, FOR WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 327 U.S. 775, TO RULE ON
IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WAGNER ACT.  THIS
PROTRACTED LITIGATION HAS GIVEN RISE TO A SWARM OF QUESTIONS.  IN VIEW
OF THE FACT THAT THE CASE COMES TO US AFTER IT HAS BEEN TWICE BEFORE
THE BOARD AND THREE TIMES BEFORE THE COURT BELOW, ON A RECORD OF
THIRTEEN VOLUMES WITH A TOTAL OF MORE THAN 5000 PAGES, EVEN AN EARNEST
ATTEMPT AT COMPACTNESS CANNOT AVOID A SOMEWHAT EXTENDED OPINION. 

THE CASE PRESENTS LIMITED LEGAL PHASES OF ONE OF THOSE BITTER,
UNEDIFYING CONFLICTS WITH WHICH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HISTORY IS
UNFORTUNATELY REPLETE.  FOR OTHER LITIGATION GROWING OUT OF THIS
STRIFE, SEE 20 F.SUPP.  767; 21 'F.SUPP.  807; 304 U.S. 243; 23
F.SUPP.  998; 99 F.2D 309; 119 F.2D 892; 121 F.2D 561; 47 F.SUPP.  61;
47 F.SUPP.  65; 47 F.SUPP.  67; 55 F.SUPP.  572; 55 F.SUPP.  587; 147
F.2D 246; 154 F.2D 38.  IT HAS ITS ROOTS IN A CAMPAIGN BY THE
INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION (HEREAFTER DESIGNATED AS
INTERNATIONAL) TO UNIONIZE THE WOMEN'S GARMENT INDUSTRY IN KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI.  BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE, THE DONNELLY GARMENT COMPANY (TO
BE CALLED COMPANY FOR SHORT) BECAME THE PARTICULAR TARGET OF THESE
UNIONIZING EFFORTS.  THESE CONTINUED WITH VARYING INTENSITY OVER A
PERIOD OF YEARS BUT MET WITH LITTLE SUCCESS AMONG THE COMPANY'S
EMPLOYEES. 

IN 1938, INTERNATIONAL BEGAN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD CHARGING
THE COMPANY WITH A SERIES OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 8(1), (2), (3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449,
29 U.S.C. SECS. 151 ET SEQ. THE MAIN CHARGE WAS THAT THE COMPANY, TO
COUNTERACT THE EFFORTS OF INTERNATIONAL, HAD STIMULATED THE FORMATION
OF A PLANT UNION, THE DONNELLY GARMENT WORKERS' UNION (HEREAFTER CALLED
UNION) AND HAD DOMINATED IT THROUGH FINANCIAL AND OTHER AID.  FOLLOWING
THE USUAL PROCEDURE THERE WAS A HEARING BEFORE A TRIAL EXAMINER.  AT
THE HEARING, THE EXAMINER REJECTED AN OFFER BY THE COMPANY TO PROVE,
THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF 1200 EMPLOYEES, THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN COERCED
BY THE COMPANY TO JOIN UNION, BUT THAT EACH OF THEM HAD DONE SO OF HIS
OWN FREE WILL, AND THAT THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF COMPANY INFLUENCE IN
THE AFFAIRS OF UNION.  THE EXAMINER ALSO EXCLUDED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
THE FORMATION OF THE UNION FOLLOWED STRIKE THREATS AND VIOLENCE BY
INTERNATIONAL, SUCCESSFUL AGAINST SMALLER COMPETITORS OF THE COMPANY,
TO COERCE THE COMPANY INTO A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT WITH INTERNATIONAL. 
TO THESE AND OTHER LESS IMPORTANT EXCLUSIONS THE COMPANY DULY EXCEPTED
ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S INTERMEDIATE REPORT.  THE
BOARD UPHELD THE EXAMINER'S RULINGS ON EVIDENCE, ACCEPTED HIS FINDINGS
OF FACT, AND, WITH A QUALIFICATION NOT HERE RELEVANT, ADOPTED HIS
RECOMMENDATIONS.  THEREUPON IT ISSUED THE USUAL CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER,
AND DIRECTED THE DISESTABLISHMENT OF UNION AND REIMBURSEMENT TO
EMPLOYEES OF THE AMOUNT OF THE DUES WHICH THE COMPANY HAD CHECKED OFF
ON BEHALF OF UNION (21 N.L.R.B. 164). 

REVIEW OF THIS ORDER CAME BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE
COMPANY'S PETITION TO SET IT ASIDE AND ON THE BOARD'S CROSS-PETITION
FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  ON SEVERAL CONTENTIONS, THE DISPOSITION OF WHICH
IS RELEVANT TO THE QUESTIONS NOW CALLING FOR DECISION, THE COURT
SUSTAINED THE BOARD.  IT FOUND NO BASIS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE
PROCEEDINGS AS UNFAIR ON THE CLAIM THAT EITHER THE EXAMINER OR THE
BOARD WAS BIASED.  IT HELD THAT THE BOARD PROPERLY LIMITED THE EVIDENCE
TO ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT, AND SINCE INTERNATIONAL WAS NOT ON
TRIAL IT FOUND NO IMPROPRIETY IN THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE OFFERED TO
PROVE ITS MISCONDUCT.  THE COURT DID HOWEVER FIND THAT THE COMPANY HAD
BEEN DENIED A FAIR HEARING IN NOT BEING ALLOWED TO PRESENT THE
TESTIMONY OF ITS EMPLOYEES TO THE EFFECT THAT UNION WAS TRULY
INDEPENDENT AND THAT THEY HAD JOINED IT VOLUNTARILY.  THE COURT
REMANDED THE CASE TO THE BOARD "FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT." 

THE BOARD THEREUPON SET THE CASE FOR A SECOND HEARING BEFORE THE
ORIGINAL EXAMINER.  INSISTING THAT HE WAS BIASED AND HAD PREJUDGED AS
VALUELESS "THE EVIDENCE TO BE ADDUCED AT THE PENDING HEARING," THE
COMPANY MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL EXAMINER.  THE BOARD DENIED THE
APPLICATION AND THE CASE PROCEEDED TO HEARING.  THIS TIME THE EXAMINER
HEARD ELEVEN OF THE 1200 EMPLOYEES NAMED IN THE OFFER OF PROOF REJECTED
IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDING, BUT DECLINED TO HEAR THE REST ON THE GROUND
THAT THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD BE MERELY CUMULATIVE.  HE ALLOWED THE
PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY, WHOM ILLNESS HAD KEPT FROM THE EARLIER
HEARING, TO TESTIFY FULLY.  OTHERWISE, HE RECEIVED NO EVIDENCE THAT HAD
BEEN AVAILABLE BUT WAS NOT OFFERED AT THE EARLIER PROCEEDING, AND
EXCLUDED ALL EVIDENCE OF EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE TERMINATION OF THE
FIRST HEARING.  THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IN
RESPECTS HERE MATERIAL, WERE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE HE HAD
PREVIOUSLY MADE, AND THE BOARD, ACTING UPON HIS INTERMEDIATE REPORT,
ISSUED VIRTUALLY THE SAME ORDER.  50 N.L.R.B. 241.  THE COMPANY AGAIN
PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER, AND THE
BOARD AGAIN REQUESTED ITS ENFORCEMENT.  DURING THE PENDENCY OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS, THE COMPANY INVOKED SEC. 10(E) OF THE WAGNER ACT AND ASKED
THE COURT LEAVE TO ADDUCE BEFORE THE BOARD EVIDENCE WHICH IT CLAIMED
HAD BEEN ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDED.  THIS MOTION WAS NOT GRANTED.  INSTEAD,
AS ALREADY NOTED, THE COURT DENIED THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT
"FOR WANT OF DUE PROCESS IN THE PROCEEDINGS UPON WHICH THE ORDER IS
BASED."  151 F.2D 854, 875.  THE COURT SET FORTH ITS VIEWS IN A CAREFUL
OPINION OF MORE THAN THIRTY PAGES IN THE PRINTED RECORD.  THERE WAS
ALSO A CONCURRING OPINION, AND A DISSENT. 

THE COURT CANVASSED MANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.  AS TO SOME OF THE
BOARD'S RULINGS WHICH IT DISAPPROVED, THE COURT STATED EXPLICITLY THAT
BY THEMSELVES THEY WOULD NOT HAVE AFFORDED SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR
REVERSAL.  RULINGS WHICH INDIVIDUALLY WOULD NOT INVALIDATE AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD DO NOT IN COMBINATION ACQUIRE THE NECESSARY STRENGTH TO UNDO
WHAT THE BOARD, ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY GIVEN IT BY CONGRESS, HAS DONE. 
WE DO NOT FIND THAT IN THEIR COMBINATION THESE RULINGS AMOUNTED TO
UNFAIRNESS.  WE MUST THEREFORE CONSIDER ONE BY ONE THOSE OBJECTIONS
WHICH THE COURT DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO VITIATE THE BOARD'S ORDER.  FOR
THE COURT BELOW DID NOT SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD AS A TRIBUNAL WAS SO
BIASED AS TO BE INCAPABLE OF FAIR JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE.  IT FOUND THAT
SUCH A FINDING AGAINST THE BOARD WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 

FIRST.  THE CONTROLLING BASIS OF THE COURT'S FINDING OF UNFAIRNESS IN
THE BOARD PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO TESTIMONY PROFFERED BY THE COMPANY AT
THE SECOND HEARING BEFORE THE EXAMINER.  THIS SECOND HEARING WAS NOT A
NEW PROCEEDING.  IT WAS A STAGE IN A PROCESS CONSISTING OF THE FIRST
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD, THE REMAND RESULTING FROM REVIEW OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE SECOND
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD IN RESPONSE TO THIS REMAND.  THE
CORRECTNESS OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT REFUSING ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S
SECOND ORDER MUST BE JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF THE INTERRELATION OF THE
TWO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD, AND THE BOARD'S JUSTIFIABLE
INTERPRETATION OF THE DIRECTIONS WHICH IT RECEIVED UPON REMAND OF THE
FIRST ORDER.  INDEED, THE DISPOSITION OF THE PRESENT CASE TURNS
DECISIVELY ON THE VIEW THAT IS TAKEN OF THE BOARD'S INTERPRETATION OF
ITS DUTY UNDER THE COURT'S MANDATE. 

IT BECOMES NECESSARY THEREFORE TO REVERT TO THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE
COURT'S MANDATE.  THE ORDER WAS REMANDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS "TO SAID LABOR BOARD FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT."  THE COURT'S OPINION YIELDS THIS GLOSS
UPON ITS MANDATE: 

"OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE PETITION OF THE BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW MUST BE DENIED.  WE THINK THAT THE LEAST THAT
THE BOARD CAN DO, IN ORDER TO CURE THE DEFECTS IN ITS PROCEDURE CAUSED
BY THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER TO RECEIVE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, IS
TO VACATE THE ORDER AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS UPON WHICH IT IS
BASED; TO ACCORD TO THE PETITIONERS (THE COMPANY AND THE PLANT UNION)
AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE ALL OF THE COMPETENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE
WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER; AND TO RECEIVE AND CONSIDER
SUCH EVIDENCE TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER COMPETENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE
IN THE RECORD BEFORE MAKING NEW FINDINGS AND A NEW ORDER."  123 F.2D
215, 225. 

THE BOARD BASED ITS NEW ORDER UPON THE RECORD OF THE FIRST
PROCEEDING, REOPENING THE HEARING ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMITTING THE
ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDED TESTIMONY OF THE EMPLOYEES.  IN SHORT, THE BOARD
DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE REMAND TO CALL FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THE COURT, WHEN
CALLED UPON TO CONSTRUE IT FOUR YEARS LATER, TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW OF
THE MEANING OF ITS DECISION OF NOVEMBER, 1941:  "IT IS, WE THINK,
APPARENT THAT WHAT THIS COURT, IN EFFECT, RULED WAS THAT THE COMPANY
AND THE PLANT UNION WERE ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL UPON THE EVIDENCE
ALREADY TAKEN AND SUCH COMPETENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE AS MIGHT BE
PROFFERED UPON A FURTHER HEARING."  151 F.2D 854, 856.  FROM THIS POINT
OF VIEW, THE COURT COULD READILY CONCLUDE THAT THE RECORD WHICH CAME TO
IT "PRESENTS AN INCOMPLETE PICTURE." 

WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT "THE COURT THAT ISSUES A MANDATE IS NORMALLY
THE BEST JUDGE OF ITS CONTENT, ON THE GENERAL THEORY THAT THE AUTHOR OF
A DOCUMENT IS ORDINARILY THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETER OF ITS
PURPOSES."  BUT, WE CONTINUED, "IT IS NOT EVEN TRUE THAT A LOWER
COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF ITS MANDATE IS CONTROLLING HERE.  COMPARE
UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183.  THEREFORE, WE WOULD NOT BE
FORECLOSED BY THE INTERPRETATION WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS GAVE TO ITS
MANDATE, EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO A LOWER COURT."  FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134,
141.  HERE, AS IN THAT CASE, A MUCH DEEPER ISSUE IS INVOLVED.  AS WE
HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT IN THE POTTSVILLE CASE, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RELATIONS OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO A LOWER
COURT AND THOSE OF A COURT TO A LAW-ENFORCING AGENCY, LIKE THE BOARD,
WHOSE ORDER IS SUBJECT ONLY TO RESTRICTED JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THESE
DIFFERENCES MAY BE PARTICULARLY TELLING UPON REMAND OF AN ORDER TO THE
AGENCY.  DUE REGARD FOR THESE DIFFERENCES MUST GUIDE US THROUGH THE
MAZE OF DETAILS IN THIS CASE. 

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OPINION REMANDING THE BOARD'S ORIGINAL ORDER
AND OF THE NATURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WITH WHICH IT IS
ENTRUSTED, THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT DEEMING ITSELF UNDER DUTY TO
GRANT A "NEW TRIAL" IN THE SENSE IN WHICH A LOWER COURT MUST START ANEW
WHEN AN UPPER COURT DIRECTS SUCH A NEW TRIAL.  THERE WAS NO REFERENCE
TO A "NEW TRIAL," NOR WAS ANY INTIMATION GIVEN THAT SUCH WAS THE
BREADTH OF WHAT THE REMAND REQUIRED.  FROM THE COURT'S OPINION THERE
APPEARS ONLY A VERY RESTRICTED DISSATISFACTION WITH THE ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD, CALLING FOR A CORRESPONDINGLY RESTRICTED
CORRECTION.  "THE LEAST THAT THE BOARD CAN DO," WROTE THE COURT, "IS
...  TO ACCORD TO THE PETITIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE ALL OF
THE COMPETENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIAL
EXAMINER; AND TO RECEIVE AND CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE TOGETHER WITH ALL
OTHER COMPETENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD BEFORE MAKING NEW
FINDINGS AND A NEW ORDER."  123 F.2D AT 225.  "THE LEAST THAT THE BOARD
CAN DO" MAY WELL IMPLY THAT THE BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO DRAW ON THE WIDE
SCOPE OF ITS STATUTORY DISCRETION.  BUT TO ADVISE THE BOARD OF "THE
LEAST THAT (IT) CAN DO" DOES NOT PUT THE BOARD IN DEFAULT FOR NOT DOING
MORE.  DUE PROCESS DOES NOT AFFORD A PARTY THE RIGHT TO TREAT AS A
REHEARSAL A HEARING ON THE ISSUES FOR WHICH THE HEARING WAS ADEQUATE. 
AND THE WAGNER ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT GROUND BE COVERED A SECOND
TIME OR PIECEMEAL.    SECOND.  SINCE IN OUR VIEW THE REMAND DID NOT
CALL FOR A PROCEEDING DE NOVO, THE BOARD WAS NOT REQUIRED TO RE-OPEN
ANY ISSUE AS TO WHICH ITS RULING WAS LEFT UNASSAILED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IN ITS FIRST DECISION.  WE SHALL THEREFORE CONSIDER
THE PARTICULAR DEFECTS WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND IN THE
SECOND HEARING, BY TREATING THAT HEARING NOT AS A NEW TRIAL BUT AS THE
SEQUEL OF THE FIRST HEARING UNDER A REMAND BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF CORRECTING THE PRIOR ERRONEOUS
EXCLUSION OF TESTIMONY. 

(1)  THE BOARD'S DECISION THAT THE COMPANY HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES TO A LARGE EXTENT TURNED ON THE COMPANY'S RELATION TO
THE PLANT UNION.  IT IS FAIR TO INFER THAT THE LOWER COURT'S DENIAL OF
ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS INFLUENCED MOST BY ITS FINDING
THAT THE TRIAL EXAMINER AND THE BOARD DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S
MANDATE ON THE FIRST REVIEW REGARDING THE PROFFER OF TESTIMONY OF THE
COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY VOLUNTARILY ORGANIZED AND
JOINED THE UNION AND THAT, TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE, ITS AFFAIRS WERE
UNINFLUENCED BY THE COMPANY.  AT THE SECOND HEARING THE EXAMINER
ADMITTED THE TESTIMONY OF ELEVEN SUCH EMPLOYEES, EXCLUDING FURTHER ORAL
TESTIMONY OF THE SAME NATURE AS MERELY CUMULATIVE.  THE COURT BELOW DID
NOT QUARREL WITH CONFINING THIS LINE OF TESTIMONY TO ELEVEN WITNESSES. 
BUT IT REACHED THE VIEW THAT NEITHER THE EXAMINER NOR THE BOARD TOOK
THIS TESTIMONY INTO ACCOUNT IN REACHING THE FINDINGS ON WHICH THE
BOARD'S SECOND ORDER WAS BASED.  IT WAS PRINCIPALLY FROM THIS THAT THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANY WAS DENIED THE FULL HEARING TO SECURE
WHICH THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE BOARD. 

ACCORDING TO AN EARLY ENGLISH JUDGE, "THE DEVIL HIMSELF KNOWETH NOT
THE MIND OF MAN," AND A MODERN REVIEWING COURT IS NOT MUCH BETTER
EQUIPPED TO LAY BARE UNEXPOSED MENTAL PROCESSES.  IT IS A GRAVE
RESPONSIBILITY TO CONCLUDE THAT IN ADMITTING THE TESTIMONY OF THE
COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD WENT THROUGH A MERE PRETENSE OF
OBEDIENCE TO THE COURT'S DIRECTION, AND HEARD THE TESTIMONY WITH A DEAF
EAR AND A CLOSED MIND.  IN LIGHT OF THE AUTHORITY WITH WHICH CONGRESS
HAS ENDOWED THE BOARD, AND WITH DUE REGARD TO THE CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
WHICH WE MUST ATTRIBUTE TO ANOTHER BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, WE CANNOT
REJECT ITS EXPLICIT AVOWAL THAT IT DID TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EVIDENCE WHICH
IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED UNLESS AN EXAMINATION OF THE WHOLE RECORD
PUTS ITS ACCEPTANCE BEYOND REASON.  SINCE THIS MATTER IS CRUCIAL, IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO QUOTE FULLY THE BOARD'S DECISION ON THE POINT: 

"IN REMANDING THE CASE TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER HEARING, THE CIRCUIT
COURT DIRECTED THAT THE RESPONDENT (THE COMPANY) AND THE D.G.W.U. (THE
PLANT UNION) BE PERMITTED TO ADDUCE THE PREVIOUSLY PROFFERED TESTIMONY
OF RESPONDENT'S (THE COMPANY'S) EMPLOYEES TO SHOW, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT
THEY FORMED AND JOINED THE D.G.W.U. OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL AND THAT
THEY WERE NOT INFLUENCED, INTERFERED WITH, OR COERCED BY THE RESPONDENT
IN CHOOSING THAT ORGANIZATION AS THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S MANDATE AND PURSUANT TO THE RESPECTIVE
OFFERS OF PROOF SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE D.G.W.U. AT THE
ORIGINAL HEARING, THE BOARD PERMITTED THE INTRODUCTION OF SUCH
TESTIMONY.  WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ALL SUCH EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY
THE RESPONDENT AND THE D.G.W.U.  WE FIND, HOWEVER, THAT THE TESTIMONY
IN QUESTION DOES NOT OVERCOME MORE POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT
THE RESPONDENT COMMITTED ACTS OF INTERFERENCE AND ASSISTANCE IN THE
FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE D.G.W.U. WHICH SUBJECTED THAT
ORGANIZATION TO THE RESPONDENT'S DOMINATION AND WHICH REMOVED FROM THE
EMPLOYEES' SELECTION OF THE D.G.W.U. THE COMPLETE FREEDOM OF CHOICE
WHICH THE ACT CONTEMPLATES.  SINCE WE FIND THE TESTIMONY HERE ADDUCED
TOTALLY UNPERSUASIVE THAT THE EMPLOYEES VOLUNTARILY DESIGNATED THE
D.G.W.U., WE ARE MOREOVER IMPELLED TO ADHERE TO THE OPINION, DERIVED
FROM OUR EXPERIENCE IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, THAT CONCLUSIONARY
EVIDENCE OF THIS NATURE IS IMMATERIAL TO ISSUES SUCH AS THOSE PRESENTED
IN THIS CASE.  A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE CONVINCES US, AND WE
FIND, THAT THE RESPONDENT DOMINATED AND INTERFERED WITH THE FORMATION
AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE D.G.W.U. AND CONTRIBUTED SUPPORT THERETO; AND
THAT THE RESPONDENT THEREBY INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED
ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7 OF
THE ACT."  50 N.L.R.B. 241. 

WE CANNOT READ THIS OTHERWISE THAN AS AN ASSURANCE BY THE BOARD THAT
IT DID NOT MERELY GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF ALLOWING THE TESTIMONY OF
THESE WITNESSES TO GET INTO THE RECORD AS AN EMPTY FORMALITY, BUT THAT
IT DULY HEEDED THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND REFLECTED UPON THE
TESTIMONY.  THE BOARD JUDGED OF ITS WORTH, AS IT HAD A RIGHT TO, IN
LIGHT OF THE MASS OF OTHER TESTIMONY IN THE CASE, AND FOUND IT
UNPERSUASIVE.  HAD THE BOARD SAID NO MORE THE COURT BELOW COULD HARDLY
HAVE FOUND DISREGARD OF ITS MANDATE.  THE BOARD'S SKEPTICAL EXPRESSION
REGARDING THIS KIND OF TESTIMONY HARDLY DISPROVES OBEDIENCE TO THE
COURT'S MANDATE.  EVEN LOWER COURTS SOMETIME INDICATE DISAGREEMENT WITH
A RULING THEY ARE BOUND TO ENFORCE.  OUT OF REPEATED INSTANCES OF
HEARING THE SAME THING A GENERALIZATION AS TO ITS WORTH WILL ALMOST
INEVITABLY EMERGE IN THE THOUGHTS OF A TRIBUNAL.  AS TO THIS SORT OF
TESTIMONY, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT A FEELING BY EMPLOYEES "THAT THEY
WERE UNDER NO SENSE OF CONSTRAINT  ...  IS A SUBTLE THING, AND THE
RECOGNITION OF CONSTRAINT MAY CALL FOR A HIGH DEGREE OF INTROSPECTIVE
PERCEPTION."  JUDGE MAGRUDER IN BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 114 F.2D 930, 937.  WE ARE NOT CALLED
UPON TO LAY DOWN A GENERAL RULE OF MATERIALITY REGARDING SUCH
TESTIMONY.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE BOARD OBEYED THE DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES
REGARDING UNION WAS TO BE ADDUCED AND CONSIDERED.  ITS PROBATIVE VALUE
WAS FOR THE BOARD.  SEE PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 313 U.S. 146, 163.  AND THE COURT DID NOT RULE THAT
THE REST OF THE RECORD REPELLED THE BOARD'S ASSURANCE THAT IT
"CAREFULLY CONSIDERED" THE EVIDENCE THE COURT BADE IT TO CONSIDER.  IT
EXPRESSLY WITHHELD CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD'S ORDER ON THE BASIS OF
THE WHOLE RECORD. 

(2)  THE NEW TESTIMONY OF THE DONNELLY EMPLOYEES LED TO RULINGS ON
EVIDENCE BY THE EXAMINER, APPROVED BY THE BOARD, WHICH IN THE VIEW OF
THE COURT BELOW CONTRIBUTED TO RENDER THE HEARING UNFAIR.  THE
TESTIMONY RELATED TO THE OFFENSIVE ASPECT OF INTERNATIONAL'S UNIONIZING
EFFORTS AND THE BEARING OF THIS UPON THE CLAIM OF COMPANY THAT UNION
WAS QUITE INDEPENDENT AND NOT THE COMPANY'S INSTRUMENT.  THE EMPLOYEES
WERE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY THAT THEY WERE ANTAGONIZED BY ACTS OF VIOLENCE
ON THE PART OF INTERNATIONAL AND THAT THEY SOUGHT SELF-PROTECTION IN A
UNION OF THEIR OWN, VOLUNTARILY FORMED.  THE EXAMINER LIMITED THIS LINE
OF TESTIMONY TO ACTS OF VIOLENCE WITHIN SIX MONTHS PRECEDING THE
ORGANIZATION OF UNION.  THIS WAS BASED ON THE NOTION THAT A TIME LIMIT
HAD TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE IN ASCERTAINING THE EFFECT OF KNOWN VIOLENCE
IN PERSUADING DONNELLY EMPLOYEES TO FORM THEIR OWN UNION, AND THAT A
PERIOD LONGER THAN SIX MONTHS WAS TOO REMOTE, OR, IN ANY EVENT, HAD NOT
SUFFICIENT PROBATIVE VALUE.  SURELY THIS WAS A REASONABLE RULING BY THE
HEARING-TRIBUNAL.  AT ANY RATE IT WAS NOT SO CIRCUMSCRIBING OF PROOF IN
ESTABLISHING THE ISSUE TOWARD WHICH THE EVIDENCE WAS DIRECTED AS TO
CALL FOR CORRECTION.  BUT IT IS URGED THAT WHILE THE COMPANY WAS SO
RESTRICTED ON PROOF OF THIS ISSUE THE BOARD ALLOWED EVIDENCE FURTHER
BACK CALCULATED TO SHOW A CONTINUOUS STATE OF MIND TOWARD INFLUENCING
EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION BY THE COMPANY.  BY WAY OF REBUTTAL TO THE
EMPLOYEES' TESTIMONY THAT THE PLANT UNION OF 1937 WAS A SPONTANEOUS
EFFORT OF THE EMPLOYEES WHOLLY UNINFLUENCED BY THE COMPANY, THE BOARD
ADMITTED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE COMPANY FOSTERED A COMPANY UNION IN
1935.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE LIMITATION OF TIME ON ADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE IS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE ISSUE FOR WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS
TENDERED.  CERTAINLY WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO ALLOW
THIS EVIDENCE OF COMPANY COERCION IN 1935 AS BEARING ON THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE NEW PLANT UNION IN 1937.  AND SO WE CANNOT FIND A
SOLID ENOUGH GROUND TO ESTABLISH DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT BY THE BOARD
BECAUSE ON THIS ISSUE IT WENT BACK TO 1935 WHEREAS ON THE ISSUE OF THE
INFLUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL'S VIOLENCE IN THE FORMATION OF THE 1937
PLANT UNION, IT DREW THE LINE AT EVENTS SIX MONTHS PRIOR THERETO. 

(3)  WHILE WE THINK THAT THE BOARD PROPERLY CONSTRUED THE SCOPE OF
THE REMAND NOT TO REQUIRE A RETRIAL OF ISSUES CANVASSED AT THE FIRST
HEARING, TIME DOES NOT STOP STILL EVEN FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. 
CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES MAY MAKE RELEVANT AT THE SECOND HEARING WHAT
WAS IRRELEVANT AT THE FIRST HEARING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOUND SUCH A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN A DECISION OF THIS COURT
RENDERED AFTER THE FIRST REVIEW BELOW.  IN ITS DECISION OF NOVEMBER 6,
1941, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE EXCLUSION BY THE BOARD
OF TESTIMONY TO PROVE MISDEEDS BY INTERNATIONAL.  THE TENOR OF ITS
REASONING WAS THAT AN INQUIRY INTO CHARGES OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY
THE COMPANY DID NOT MAKE RELEVANT CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST
INTERNATIONAL, THE COMPLAINANT.  THE BOARD ISSUED THE ORDER NOW
CHALLENGED ON JUNE 9, 1943.  IN THE MEANTIME, ON JANUARY 18, 1943, THIS
COURT DECIDED NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. INDIANA & MICHIGAN
ELECTRIC CO., 318 U.S. 9.  THAT CASE, SO THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT,
REQUIRED THE ADMISSION AT THE SECOND HEARING OF THE OFFER OF PROOF
REGARDING INTERNATIONAL'S ACTS OF VIOLENCE. 

WE REGARD THIS AS A MISAPPLICATION OF THE INDIANA & MICHIGAN CASE. 
THIS CASE IS NOT THAT CASE.  THEY HAVE IN COMMON AN ACCUSATION OF GRAVE
MISCONDUCT AGAINST A COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE BOARD.  OTHERWISE, THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TWO CASES, AND THE LEGAL ISSUES THEY RAISE, ARE
VERY DIFFERENT.  THE INDIANA & MICHIGAN CASE INVOLVED A PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AUTHORIZING THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO ORDER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN
BEFORE THE BOARD WHEN IT IS SHOWN "TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE" AT THE
HEARING.  WE HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT SUCH AN APPLICATION "WAS
ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION OF THE COURT."  SOUTHPORT
PETROLEUM CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 315 U.S. 100, 104.  SECTION 10(E) IN
EFFECT FORMULATES A FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE REGARDING NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE.  EVEN WITHOUT SUCH EXPLICITNESS THIS COURT HAS, ON OCCASION,
NOT ALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS TO STAND WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A
DRASTIC CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN INDIANA & MICHIGAN THE OFFER OF
PROOF RELATED TO EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE BOARD'S HEARING, TENDING TO
SHOW ACTS OF SERIOUS VIOLENCE ON BEHALF OF A COMPLAINING UNION.  THE
BOARD HAD REFUSED TO REOPEN THE CASE AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT GRANTED THE APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 10(E).  WE
HELD THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE IT, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE PROFFERED TESTIMONY WAS
HELD RELEVANT ON THREE GROUNDS:  (1) INASMUCH AS THE BOARD, BY THE VERY
NATURE OF ITS CASE LOAD, MUST EXERCISE DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING
COMPLAINTS, THE NEWLY REVEALED MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE
COMPLAINANT MIGHT AFFECT, NOT THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD, BUT THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO ENTERTAIN A CHARGE; (2) THE NEW EVIDENCE BORE
MATERIALLY UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF SOME IMPORTANT WITNESSES BEFORE THE
BOARD; (3) THE BOARD HAD ATTRIBUTED TO THE COMPANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE CONDUCT OF SOME OF ITS SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, AND THE NEW EVIDENCE
MIGHT LEAD THE BOARD TO CONCLUDE THAT THEIR CONDUCT WAS TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO SELF-INTEREST AND NOT CHARGED AGAINST THE EMPLOYER. 

HERE WE HAVE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION.  WE ARE NOT REVIEWING AN
ALLOWABLE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN ORDERING THE BOARD TO HEAR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  ON
REVIEW OF ITS ORDER, THE BOARD CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE
WHICH IT EXCLUDED UNLESS SUCH EXCLUSION WAS CLEARLY INSUPPORTABLE.  THE
POWER TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE GRANTED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS BY SEC. 10(E) CANNOT BE EMPLOYED TO ENLARGE THE STATUTORY SCOPE
OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE COURT DEEMED
IT REVERSIBLE ERROR ON THE PART OF THE BOARD NOT TO ENTERTAIN TESTIMONY
ON A MATTER WHICH THE COURT DEEMED IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUES AT THE
FIRST HEARING.  IT DID SO BECAUSE IT INTERPRETED THE INDIANA & MICHIGAN
CASE TO HOLD THAT FAILURE BY THE BOARD TO ALLOW A FULL-DRESS INQUIRY
INTO THE MISCONDUCT OF A COMPLAINANT, PARTICULARLY IF VERY SERIOUS,
RENDERS THE PROCEEDINGS UNFAIR AS A MATTER OF LAW.  WE WERE NOT DEALING
WITH SUCH AN ABSTRACTION IN THE INDIANA & MICHIGAN CASE.  NOTHING SHORT
OF SUCH AN ABSTRACTION WILL JUSTIFY INVALIDATION OF THE ORDER IN THIS
CASE BECAUSE THE BOARD DID NOT DEAL WITH THE CHARGES AGAINST
INTERNATIONAL AS A SEPARATE ISSUE, OR AS THOUGH THE INTERNATIONAL HAD
BEEN ON TRIAL.  THE ONLY CONSIDERATION AFFECTING THE BEHAVIOR OF A
COMPLAINANT THAT PLAYED A PART IN THE DECISION IN INDIANA & MICHIGAN
AND WHICH MAY HERE BE INVOKED, IS THE SUGGESTION THAT THE CHARACTER OF
A COMPLAINANT MAY RIGHTFULLY INFLUENCE THE BOARD IN ENTERTAINING A
COMPLAINT.  BUT THE CHARGES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL HAD IN FACT BEEN
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD EVEN THOUGH NOT IN THE WAY IN
WHICH INTERNATIONAL WOULD HAVE BEEN TRIED HAD IT BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED
WITH CRIME.  IT WOULD BE UNREAL TO DENY THAT THERE WAS PLENTY OF
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO APPRISE THE BOARD OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY
INTERNATIONAL IF ON THAT SCORE IT CHOSE NOT TO ENTERTAIN CHARGES OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AGAINST THE COMPANY.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE
BOARD'S OPINION, IT WOULD BE DOCTRINAIRE TO ASSUME THAT IT WOULD HAVE
REACHED ANY OTHER RESULT IF EVIDENCE OF INTERNATIONAL'S MISCONDUCT HAD
BEEN MORE VOLUMINOUS.  PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA.  THE TWO OTHER RESPECTS IN WHICH NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AS TO VIOLENCE WAS ORDERED TO BE HEARD IN THE
INDIANA & MICHIGAN CASE ARE COMPLETELY LACKING HERE.  HERE WE HAVE NOT
NEW EVIDENCE MATERIAL TO THE CREDIBILITY OF IMPORTANT WITNESSES OR
RELEVANT IN ASSESSING THE RESPONSIBILITY BY AN EMPLOYER FOR CONDUCT OF
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES.  THE REFUSAL OF THE BOARD IN EFFECT TO TRY
INTERNATIONAL DID NOT IMPAIR THE VALIDITY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER. 

EVEN IN JUDICIAL TRIALS, THE WHOLE TENDENCY IS TO LEAVE RULINGS AS TO
THE ILLUMINATING RELEVANCE OF TESTIMONY LARGELY TO THE DISCRETION OF
THE TRIAL COURT THAT HEARS THE EVIDENCE.  SEE, E.G., MORGAN, FOREWORD,
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE CODE OF EVIDENCE, P. 15.  COURTS OF APPEAL ARE
LESS AND LESS INCLINED TO BASE ERROR ON SUCH RULINGS.  ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNALS ARE GIVEN EVEN FREER SCOPE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
CONVENTIONAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.  SEE TAGG BROS. V. UNITED STATES, 280
U.S. 420, 442.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE WAGNER ACT SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED THAT "THE RULES OF EVIDENCE PREVAILING IN COURTS OF LAW OR
EQUITY SHALL NOT BE CONTROLLING."  SEC. 10(B). 

THIRD.  THIS BRINGS US TO THE ONLY OTHER OBJECTION TO A RULING OF THE
BOARD MADE AFTER THE FIRST HEARING.  ON THE FIRST REVIEW, THE COURT
BELOW REJECTED THE COMPANY'S CONTENTION THAT THE EXAMINER WAS BIASED. 
123 F.2D AT 219.  ON THE SECOND REVIEW, THE COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT
THE BOARD IMPROPERLY DENIED THE COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR A NEW
EXAMINER.  IT DID SO, APPARENTLY, NOT BECAUSE IT FOUND ACTUAL BIAS ON
THE PART OF THE EXAMINER DEMONSTRATED AT EITHER HEARING.  THE COURT
SEEMED TO BE MOVED BY THE GENEROUS FEELING THAT A PARTY OUGHT NOT TO BE
PUT TO TRIAL BEFORE AN EXAMINER WHO, BY REASON OF HIS PRIOR RULINGS AND
FINDINGS, MAY NOT BE CAPABLE OF EXERCISING IMPARTIALITY.  CERTAINLY IT
IS NOT THE RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION THAT, STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
APART, SEE JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 21, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 25, A JUDGE IS
DISQUALIFIED FROM SITTING IN A RETRIAL BECAUSE HE WAS REVERSED ON
EARLIER RULINGS.  WE FIND NO WARRANT FOR IMPOSING UPON ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES A STIFFER RULE, WHEREBY EXAMINERS WOULD BE DISENTITLED TO SIT
BECAUSE THEY RULED STRONGLY AGAINST A PARTY IN THE FIRST HEARING.  THE
BOARD MIGHT HAVE GONE BEYOND THE LEGAL COMPULSIONS AND ORDERED THE NEW
EVIDENCE TO BE HEARD BEFORE A NEW EXAMINER WHO COULD REPORT WITH A MIND
WHOLLY FREE FROM PRIOR LITIGIOUS EMBROILMENTS.  THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE
BEEN WELL ADVISED ALSO TO ALLOW GREATER LEEWAY IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE
NOT STRICTLY RELEVANT.  IT TAKES TIME TO AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF
GRIEVANCES.  BUT IT IS TIME WELL SPENT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT EASY TO
SATISFY INTERESTED PARTIES, AND DEFEATED LITIGANTS, NO MATTER HOW
FAIRLY TREATED, DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE FEELING THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED
JUSTICE.  IN ANY EVENT, WE ARE NOT THE ADVISERS OF THESE AGENCIES.  AND
WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO UPSET THEIR ORDERS UNLESS THEY FALL AFOUL OF LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS.  CF. INLAND EMPIRE COUNCIL V. MILLIS, 325 U.S. 697.  WE
DO NOT FIND THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER OFFENDS THEM. 

FOURTH.  WE HAVE EXAMINED ALL THE ISSUES PRESSED HERE BUT WE NEED NOT
ENLARGE UPON OUR CONCLUSION THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT MERIT.  THERE REMAINS
THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE CASE.  HAVING FOUND INFIRMITIES IN THE
PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED TO THE ORDER, THE COURT BELOW DID NOT CONSIDER
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS ON WHICH THE
ORDER WAS BASED.  THIS CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN SO LONG IN LITIGATION THAT,
OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, IT WOULD BE HIGHLY DESIRABLE FINALLY TO
DISPOSE OF THE WHOLE CASE HERE.  BUT OTHER THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL.  IT IS
NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THE
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE BOARD'S ORDER IS BASED.  CONGRESS
PLACED THAT FUNCTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  AND THIS CASE IS
PECULIARLY NOT ONE IN WHICH WE SHOULD DO THE UNUSUAL THING AND PASS ON
EVIDENCE WITHOUT ITS PRIOR CONSIDERATION BY THE LOWER COURT.  IT IS NOT
FOR US TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THIS ENTIRE RECORD.  THE
DEMANDS OF THE WORK OF THIS COURT PRECLUDE AN INDEPENDENT CANVASS OF A
RECORD OF THIRTEEN VOLUMES, CONTAINING MORE THAN 5000 PAGES.  TWO
JUDGES BELOW WHO HAD GONE OVER THIS MASS OF EVIDENCE REACHED OPPOSITE
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING ITS SUFFICIENCY TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS. 
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE WE REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. POWELL, 330 U.S. 238 


ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1947.  - 152 F.2D 228, 230,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 321(A) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 PROVIDES THAT
COMMERCIAL RATES SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY FOR
THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPTING "MILITARY OR NAVAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED
STATES MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL AND NOT FOR CIVIL USE."  HELD:
PHOSPHATE ROCK AND SUPERPHOSPHATE WHICH WERE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND WHICH WERE TRANSPORTED IN 1941 ON CONSIGNMENT TO THE
BRITISH MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT UNDER THE LEND-LEASE ACT, BUT WHICH
WERE FOR USE IN BRITAIN AS FARM FERTILIZER, WERE NOT WITHIN THE
EXCEPTION AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO LAND-GRANT RATHER THAN COMMERCIAL
RATES.  PP. 239-242, 247. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE GOODS TRANSPORTED WERE "DEFENSE ARTICLES" UNDER
THE LEND-LEASE ACT DID NOT OF ITSELF ENTITLE THEM TO LAND-GRANT RATES
UNDER SEC. 321(A).  PP. 242-245. 

3.  ALTHOUGH THE EXCEPTION IN SEC. 321(A) IS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY
IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES, THE STANDARDS OF THE LEND-LEASE ACT ARE
NOT TO BE READ INTO THE TRANSPORTATION ACT.  PP. 243-244. 

4.  THE PROPERTY HERE INVOLVED WAS BEING TRANSPORTED FOR A "CIVIL"
USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 321(A), SINCE IT WAS DESTINED FOR USE BY
CIVILIAN AGENCIES IN AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS AND NOT FOR USE BY THE ARMED
SERVICES TO SATISFY ANY OF THEIR NEEDS OR WANTS OR BY ANY CIVILIAN
AGENCY WHICH ACTED AS THEIR ADJUNCT OR OTHERWISE SERVICED THEM IN ANY
OF THEIR ACTIVITIES.  PP. 245-247. 

UNITED STATES V. POWELL ET AL., RECEIVERS. 

NO. 56.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 57, UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD
CO., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

RESPONDENTS BROUGHT SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TUCKER
ACT, 36 STAT. 1091, TO RECOVER SUMS ALLEGEDLY DUE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.  THE DISTRICT COURTS GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
RESPONDENTS.  60 F.SUPP.  433(NO. 56).  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  152 F.2D 228, 230.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S.
826.  AFFIRMED, P. 247. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES INVOLVE CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
RESPONDENT CARRIERS OVER THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FOR SHIPMENTS OF
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN 1941.  IN ONE CASE PHOSPHATE ROCK AND
SUPERPHOSPHATE ARE INVOLVED; IN THE OTHER, PHOSPHATE ROCK.  IN BOTH THE
COMMODITIES WERE PURCHASED BY THE UNITED STATES, SHIPPED ON GOVERNMENT
BILLS OF LADING OVER THE LINES OF RESPONDENTS, AND CONSIGNED TO THE
BRITISH MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT.  THEY WERE EXPORTED TO GREAT BRITAIN
UNDER THE LEND-LEASE ACT OF MARCH 11, 1941, 55 STAT. 31, 22 U.S.C.
SUPP. I, SEC. 411 ET SEQ., FOR USE AS FARM FERTILIZER UNDER BRITAIN'S
WARTIME PROGRAM FOR INTENSIFIED PRODUCTION OF FOOD.  IT IS AGREED THAT
THESE SHIPMENTS WERE "DEFENSE ARTICLES" AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2 OF THAT
ACT.  FN1 

RESPONDENTS BILLED THE UNITED STATES FOR TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ON
THESE SHIPMENTS AT THE COMMERCIAL RATE AND WERE PAID AT THAT RATE.  THE
SEABOARD IS A LAND-GRANT RAILROAD.  THE ATLANTIC COAST LINE IS NOT; BUT
IT ENTERED INTO AN EQUALIZATION AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES IN
1938 UNDER WHICH IT AGREED TO ACCEPT LAND-GRANT RATES FOR SHIPMENTS
WHICH THE UNITED STATES COULD ALTERNATIVELY MOVE OVER A LAND-GRANT
ROAD.  FN2  THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE EXCEPTED TO THESE PAYMENTS ON
THE GROUND THAT LAND-GRANT RATES WERE APPLICABLE.  THE AMOUNTS OF THE
ALLEGED OVERPAYMENTS WERE DEDUCTED FROM SUBSEQUENT BILLS CONCEDEDLY DUE
BY THE UNITED STATES.  RESPONDENTS THEREUPON INSTITUTED SUITS UNDER THE
TUCKER ACT, 36 STAT. 1091, 1093, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20), TO
RECOVER THE AMOUNTS WITHHELD.  THE UNITED STATES COUNTERCLAIMED FOR THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL RATE AND THOSE
DUE UNDER THE LAND-GRANT RATE AND ASKED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BE SET OFF
AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF RESPONDENTS AND THAT THE COMPLAINTS BE
DISMISSED.  THE DISTRICT COURTS GAVE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  152 F.2D 228, 230.  THE CASES ARE
HERE ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF DETERMINING THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE FOR SETTLEMENT
OF THE MANY CLAIMS OF THIS CHARACTER AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. 

FOR YEARS THE LAND-GRANT RATE WAS FIFTY PER CENT OF THE COMMERCIAL
RATE AND WAS APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY OR TROOPS OF
THE UNITED STATES.  43 STAT. 477, 486, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1375; UNITED
STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 249 U.S. 354, 355; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 72, 73.  A CHANGE WAS EFFECTED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1940, 54 STAT. 898, 954, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 65.  SEE KRUG V. SANTA FE PAC. R. CO., 329 U.S. 591.  ALL CARRIERS
BY RAILROAD WHICH RELEASED THEIR LAND-GRANT CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES  FN3  WERE BY THAT ACT ENTITLED TO THE FULL COMMERCIAL RATES FOR
ALL SHIPMENTS, EXCEPT THAT THOSE RATES WERE INAPPLICABLE TO THE
TRANSPORTATION OF "MILITARY OR NAVAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES
MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL AND NOT FOR CIVIL USE OR TO THE
TRANSPORTATION OF MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES (OR OF PROPERTY OF SUCH MEMBERS) WHEN SUCH MEMBERS ARE TRAVELING
ON OFFICIAL DUTY  ..."  SEC.  321(A).  FN4  THE SEABOARD FILED SUCH A
RELEASE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THESE CASES IS WHETHER
THE FERTILIZER WAS "MILITARY OR NAVAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES
MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL AND NOT FOR CIVIL USE" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 321(A) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 THROWS NO
LIGHT ON THE SCOPE OF THE EXCEPT CLAUSE.  FN5  BUT IT IS APPARENT FROM
THE FACE OF THE STATUTE THAT THERE ARE IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS ON THE
TYPE OF PROPERTY WHICH MUST BE CARRIED AT LESS THAN THE APPLICABLE
COMMERCIAL RATES.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS NOT THE TRANSPORTATION OF
"ALL" PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES THAT IS EXCEPTED BUT ONLY THE
TRANSPORTATION OF "MILITARY OR NAVAL" PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE EXCEPTED PROPERTY MUST BE "MOVING FOR MILITARY
OR NAVAL AND NOT FOR CIVIL USE."  THUS THE SCOPE OF THE CLAUSE IS
RESTRICTED BOTH BY THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY SHIPPED AND BY THE USE TO
WHICH IT WILL BE PUT AT THE END OF THE TRANSPORTATION. 

THE BULK AND MAIN STRESS OF PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT ARE BASED ON THE
LEND-LEASE ACT WHICH WAS ENACTED ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF EVERY
SHIPMENT UNDER THE LEND-LEASE ACT THERE WAS A FINDING BY THE EXECUTIVE
THAT THE SHIPMENT WOULD PROMOTE OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE,  FN6  THAT THE
ACT WAS INDEED A DEFENSE MEASURE,  FN7  AND THAT UNLESS THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THAT ACT IS IMPEACHED, ALL LEND-LEASE "DEFENSE
ARTICLES" FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPT CLAUSE AND ARE ENTITLED TO LAND-GRANT
RATES. 

UNDER CONDITIONS OF MODERN WARFARE, FOODSTUFFS LEND-LEASED FOR
CIVILIAN CONSUMPTION SUSTAINED THE WAR PRODUCTION PROGRAM AND MADE
POSSIBLE THE CONTINUED MANUFACTURE OF MUNITIONS, ARMS, AND OTHER WAR
SUPPLIES NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE ARMED FORCES.  FOR LIKE REASONS,
FERTILIZERS WHICH MADE POSSIBLE INCREASED FOOD PRODUCTION SERVED THE
SAME END.  IN THAT SENSE ALL CIVILIAN SUPPLIES WHICH MAINTAINED THE
HEALTH AND VIGOR OF CITIZENS AT HOME OR ABROAD SERVED MILITARY
FUNCTIONS. 

SO FOR US THE RESULT WOULD BE CLEAR IF THE STANDARDS OF THE LEND
LEASE ACT WERE TO BE READ INTO THE TRANSPORTATION ACT.  FOR THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE FERTILIZER WAS TO BE USED BY AN ALLY RATHER THAN
BY THIS NATION WOULD NOT BE CONTROLLING. 

OUR DIFFICULTY, HOWEVER, ARISES WHEN WE ARE ASKED TO TRANSPLANT THOSE
STANDARDS INTO THE TRANSPORTATION ACT.  AND THAT DIFFICULTY IS NOT
SURMOUNTED THOUGH THE EXCEPTION IN SEC. 321(A) BE CONSTRUED, AS IT MUST
BE, NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, DECIDED THIS DAY, POST,
P. 248, STRICTLY IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, WHICH PRECEDED THE LEND
LEASE ACT BY ONLY SIX MONTHS, PROVIDED ITS OWN STANDARDS.  THEY WERE
DIFFERENT AT LEAST IN TERMS FROM THE STANDARDS OF THE LEND-LEASE ACT;
AND THEY WERE PROVIDED AT A TIME WHEN CONGRESS WAS MUCH CONCERNED WITH
THE PROBLEMS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE.  IN SEPTEMBER, 1940, WHEN THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT WAS PASSED, CONGRESS AND THE NATION WERE VISIBLY
AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF WAR.  APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE ARMY AND
NAVY WERE BEING INCREASED AND THE SCOPE OF THEIR OPERATIONS WIDENED,
FN8  ALIEN REGISTRATION WAS REQUIRED,  FN9  TRAINING OF CIVILIANS FOR
MILITARY SERVICE WAS AUTHORIZED,  FN10 DEVELOPMENT OF STOCK PILES OF
STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MATERIALS WAS ENCOURAGED N11 - TO MENTION ONLY A
FEW OF THE MEASURES BEING PASSED IN THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE. 
SEE 50 YALE L.J. 250.  MOREOVER, THE REALITIES OF TOTAL WAR WERE BY
THEN PLAIN TO ALL.  EUROPE HAD FALLEN; MILITARISM WAS RAMPANT.  YET IN
SPITE OF OUR ACUTE AWARENESS OF THE NATURE OF TOTAL WAR, IN SPITE OF
THE MANY MEASURES BEING ENACTED AND THE MANY STEPS BEING TAKEN BY THE
CONGRESS AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO PREPARE OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE, SEC.
321(A) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT WAS COUCHED IN DIFFERENT TERMS.  IN
OTHER PARTS OF THAT ACT,  FN12 AS IN MANY OTHER CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENTS PASSED DURING THE PERIOD, THE EXIGENCIES OF NATIONAL DEFENSE
CONSTITUTED THE STANDARD TO GOVERN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  BUT THE
STANDARD WRITTEN INTO SEC. 321(A) DID NOT REFLECT THE NECESSITIES OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE OR THE DEMANDS WHICH TOTAL WAR MAKES ON AN ECONOMY. 
IT USED MORE CONVENTIONAL LANGUAGE - "MILITARY OR NAVAL" USE AS
CONTRASTED TO "CIVIL" USE.  THAT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT CONCLUSIVE ON THE
PROBLEM OF INTERPRETATION WHICH THESE CASES PRESENT.  BUT IN LIGHT OF
THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH SEC. 321(A) WAS WRITTEN WE ARE RELUCTANT TO
CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS MEANT "ALL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES
TRANSPORTED FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE" WHEN IT USED MORE RESTRICTIVE
LANGUAGE. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 321(A) EMPHASIZES A
DISTINCTION WHICH WOULD BE LARGELY OBLITERATED IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE, ACCENTUATED BY A TOTAL WAR BEING WAGED IN OTHER PARTS
OF THE WORLD, WERE READ INTO IT.  SECTION 321(A) USES "MILITARY OR
NAVAL" USE IN CONTRAST TO "CIVIL" USE.  YET IF THESE FERTILIZER
SHIPMENTS ARE NOT FOR "CIVIL" USE, WE WOULD FIND IT DIFFICULT TO HOLD
THAT LIKE SHIPMENTS BY THE GOVERNMENT TO FARMERS IN THIS COUNTRY DURING
THE COURSE OF THE WAR WERE FOR "CIVIL" USE.  FOR IN TOTAL WAR FOOD
SUPPLIES OF ALLIES ARE POOLED; AND THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING FULL
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN THIS COUNTRY IF THE WAR EFFORT WAS TO BE
SUCCESSFUL, CANNOT BE GAINSAID.  WHEN THE RESOURCES OF A NATION ARE
MOBILIZED FOR WAR, MOST OF WHAT IT DOES IS FOR A MILITARY END - WHETHER
IT BE RATIONING, OR INCREASED INDUSTRIAL OR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION,
PRICE CONTROL, OR THE HOST OF OTHER FAMILIAR ACTIVITIES.  BUT IN COMMON
PARLANCE, SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE CIVIL, NOT MILITARY.  IT SEEMS TO US THAT
CONGRESS MARKED THAT DISTINCTION WHEN IT WROTE SEC. 321(A).  IF THAT IS
NOT THE DISTINCTION, THEN "FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL AND NOT FOR CIVIL USE"
WOULD HAVE TO BE READ "FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL USE OR FOR CIVIL USE WHICH
SERVES THE NATIONAL DEFENSE."  SO TO CONSTRUE SEC. 321(A) WOULD, IT
SEEMS TO US, LARGELY OR SUBSTANTIALLY WIPE OUT THE LINE WHICH CONGRESS
DREW AND, IN TIME OF WAR, WOULD BLEND "CIVIL" AND "MILITARY" WHEN
CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO SEPARATE THEM.  YET SEC. 321(A) WAS DESIGNED AS
PERMANENT LEGISLATION, NOT AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE TO MEET THE
EXIGENCIES OF WAR.  IT WAS TO SUPPLY THE STANDARD BY WHICH RATES FOR
GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS WERE TO BE DETERMINED AT ALL TIMES - IN PEACE AS
WELL AS IN WAR.  ONLY IF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "MILITARY" AND "CIVIL"
WHICH COMMON PARLANCE MARKS IS PRESERVED, WILL THE STATUTE HAVE A
CONSTANT MEANING WHETHER SHIPMENTS ARE MADE IN DAYS OF PEACE, AT TIMES
WHEN THERE IS HURRIED ACTIVITY FOR DEFENSE, OR DURING A STATE OF WAR. 

IN THE THIRD PLACE, THE EXCEPTION IN SEC. 321(A) EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO
THE TRANSPORTATION OF SPECIFIED PROPERTY FOR SPECIFIED USES.  IT
EXTENDS AS WELL TO "THE TRANSPORTATION OF MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY OR
NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES (OR OF PROPERTY OF SUCH MEMBERS) WHEN
SUCH MEMBERS ARE TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL DUTY  ..."  THAT CLAUSE PLAINLY
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MULTITUDE OF CIVILIANS EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT
DURING THE WAR AND EXCLUSIVELY ENGAGED IN FURTHERING THE WAR EFFORT,
WHETHER THEY BE LEND-LEASE OFFICIALS OR OTHERS.  FN13  THUS, THE ENTIRE
EXCEPT CLAUSE CONTAINED IN SEC. 321(A) WILL RECEIVE A MORE HARMONIOUS
CONSTRUCTION IF THE SCOPE OF "MILITARY OR NAVAL" IS LESS BROADLY
CONSTRUED, SO AS TO BE MORE CONSONANT WITH THE RESTRICTIVE SENSE IN
WHICH IT IS OBVIOUSLY USED IN THE PERSONNEL PORTION OF THE CLAUSE. 

IN SUM, WE HOLD THAT RESPONDENTS IN THESE CASES WERE ENTITLED TO THE
FULL APPLICABLE COMMERCIAL RATE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
FERTILIZER.  IN NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WE
DEVELOP MORE FULLY THE BREADTH OF THE CATEGORY OF "MILITARY OR NAVAL
PROPERTY" OF THE UNITED STATES "MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL  ...
USE."  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE TO SAY THAT THE FERTILIZER WAS BEING
TRANSPORTED FOR A "CIVIL" USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 321(A), SINCE
IT WAS DESTINED FOR USE BY CIVILIAN AGENCIES IN AGRICULTURAL PROJECTS
AND NOT FOR USE BY THE ARMED SERVICES TO SATISFY ANY OF THEIR NEEDS OR
WANTS OR BY ANY CIVILIAN AGENCY WHICH ACTED AS THEIR ADJUNCT OR
OTHERWISE SERVICED THEM IN ANY OF THEIR ACTIVITIES.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TERM INCLUDES "ANY AGRICULTURAL, INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER
COMMODITY OR ARTICLE FOR DEFENSE." 

FN2  THE POINTS FROM WHICH THE PHOSPHATE WAS MOVED BY THE ATLANTIC
COAST LINE ARE ALSO STATIONS ON THE SEABOARD LINE.  HENCE THE UNITED
STATES IS ENTITLED TO SECURE LAND-GRANT DEDUCTIONS FROM THE ATLANTIC
COAST LINE IF THE SEABOARD WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO LAND-GRANT RATES
ON THOSE ARTICLES. 

SINCE THE LAND-GRANT RATES WERE SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER THAN THE
COMMERCIAL RATES, ROADS WHICH COMPETED WITH THE LAND-GRANT LINES WERE
UNABLE TO GET THE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.  FOR THAT REASON THEY ENTERED
INTO EQUALIZATION AGREEMENTS.  SEE SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
322 U.S. 72, 73-74. 

FN3  SECTION 321(B). 

FN4  THIS PROVISION WAS ELIMINATED FROM SEC. 321(A) BY THE ACT OF
DECEMBER 12, 1945, 59 STAT. 606, 49 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 65(A). 
AMENDMENT BUT PROVIDED THAT "ANY TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION SPECIFICALLY
CONTRACTED FOR PRIOR TO SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE SHALL BE PAID FOR AT THE
RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO SUCH
CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE OR SHIPMENT."    SENATOR WHEELER, CHAIRMAN OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHO HAD CHARGE OF THE BILL ON
THE FLOOR, MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT CONCERNING PENDING
CONTROVERSIES OF THE NATURE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASES: 

"NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I WISH TO REPEAT WHAT I SAID A MOMENT AGO.  IT
SHOULD BE MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL RESULTING
IN THE REPEAL OF THE LAND-GRANT RATES WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATEVER UPON
THE CONTROVERSIES AS TO THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION OF THIS MATERIAL,
PROVIDED IT HAS MOVED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT.  THESE
CONTROVERSIES, WHICH WERE DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY AT THE HEARINGS, WILL
HAVE TO BE SETTLED BY THE COURTS; AND ACTION ON THE PRESENT BILL, IF
FAVORABLE, WILL HAVE NO EFFECT WHATEVER UPON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
MATERIALS THAT HAVE MOVED PRIOR TO THE REPEAL FALL WITHIN OR WITHOUT
THE CLASSIFICATION OF MILITARY OR NAVAL PROPERTY."  91 CONG. REC. P.
9237. 

FN5  SEE H. REP. NO. 2016, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 87; H. REP. NO.
2832, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 93.  RELIEF FROM LAND-GRANT DEDUCTIONS
WAS URGED ON THE BASIS OF THE FINANCIAL PLIGHT OF THE RAILROADS AND THE
SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT TRAFFIC WHICH OCCURRED IN THE
1930'S.  SEE REPORT OF PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1938, 1
HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, 76TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 2531, PP. 261, 271-272; PUBLIC AIDS TO
TRANSPORTATION (1938), VOL. II, PP. 42-45.  THE SECTION FINALLY ENACTED
APPEARS TO REPRESENT A COMPROMISE BETWEEN A HOUSE BILL ELIMINATING LAND
GRANT RATES ENTIRELY (SEE H. REP. NO. 1217, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
27) AND A SENATE BILL WHICH BY ITS SILENCE LEFT THEM UNCHANGED.  S.
2009, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN6  THE AUTHORITY WAS VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT, WHO MIGHT, WHEN HE
DEEMED IT "IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL DEFENSE," AUTHORIZE THE
SECRETARY OF WAR, THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, OR THE HEAD OF ANY OTHER
DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO LEASE, LEND, ETC., "ANY
DEFENSE ARTICLE."  SEC. 3(A)(2). 

FN7  THE ACT WAS ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE DEFENSE OF THE
UNITED STATES"; AND THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE WERE THE
STANDARDS GOVERNING ITS ADMINISTRATION, AS SEC. 3(A)(2), SUPRA, NOTE 6,
MAKES PLAIN.  THE SAME PURPOSE IS EVIDENT FROM THE COMMITTEE REPORTS. 
H. REP. NO. 18, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 2, 11; S. REP. NO. 45, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.  AND AS PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT STATED ON SEPTEMBER
11, 1941, IN TRANSMITTING THE SECOND REPORT UNDER THE ACT, "WE ARE NOT
FURNISHING THIS AID AS AN ACT OF CHARITY OR SYMPATHY, BUT AS A MEANS OF
DEFENDING AMERICA....  THE LEND-LEASE PROGRAM IS NO MERE SIDE ISSUE TO
OUR PROGRAM OF ARMING FOR DEFENSE.  IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART, A KEYSTONE,
IN OUR GREAT NATIONAL EFFORT TO PRESERVE OUR NATIONAL SECURITY FOR
GENERATIONS TO COME, BY CRUSHING THE DISTURBERS OF OUR PEACE."  S. DOC.
NO. 112, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. VI. 

FN8  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, ACT OF JUNE 11, 1940, 54 STAT. 265, 292, 297;
ACT OF JUNE 13, 1940, 54 STAT. 350, 377; ACT OF JUNE 14, 1940, 54 STAT.
394; ACTS OF JUNE 15, 1940, 54 STAT. 396, 54 STAT. 400; ACT OF JUNE 26,
1940, 54 STAT. 599. 

FN9  ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, 54 STAT. 670, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 451 ET SEQ. 

FN10  ACT OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1940, 54 STAT. 885, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
301 ET SEQ. 

FN11  ACT OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1940, 54 STAT. 897. 

FN12  THUS SEC. 1 EMPHASIZED THE POLICY IN ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ADEQUATE, INTER ALIA, TO MEET THE NEEDS "OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE." 

FN13  THE PROVISION UNDER LAND-GRANT LEGISLATION THAT "TROOPS OF THE
UNITED STATES" SHOULD BE TRANSPORTED AT HALF RATES WAS HELD NOT TO
INCLUDE DISCHARGED SOLDIERS, DISCHARGED MILITARY PRISONERS, REJECTED
APPLICANTS FOR ENLISTMENT, APPLICANTS FOR ENLISTMENT PROVISIONALLY
ACCEPTED, RETIRED ENLISTED MEN, OR FURLOUGHED SOLDIERS EN ROUTE BACK TO
THEIR STATIONS.  UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA.  THE
SAME RESULT WAS REACHED IN THE CASE OF ENGINEER OFFICERS OF THE WAR
DEPARTMENT WHO WERE ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPROVEMENT
OF RIVERS AND HARBORS.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. UNITED STATES, 285 U.S.
240. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENTS. 
..END :






NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. U.S., 330 U.S. 248 


NO. 400.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1947.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1947.  - 156 F.2D
346, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 321(A) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 PROVIDES THAT
COMMERCIAL RATES SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY FOR
THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPTING "MILITARY OR NAVAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED
STATES MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL AND NOT FOR CIVIL USE."  HELD:  THE
PROPERTY INVOLVED IN EACH OF THE FIVE CLASSES HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED,
WHICH AT THE TIME OF THE SHIPMENTS IN 1941-1943 WAS PROPERTY OF THE
UNITED STATES, WAS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION AND HENCE ENTITLED TO LAND
GRANT RATHER THAN COMMERCIAL RATES.  PP. 250-255. 

(1)  COPPER CABLE CONSIGNED TO A NAVAL OFFICER FOR USE IN THE
INSTALLATION OF DEGAUSSING EQUIPMENT (A DEFENSE AGAINST MAGNETIC MINES)
ON A CARGO VESSEL, BEING BUILT BY A SHIPBUILDING COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT
WITH THE MARITIME COMMISSION, ACCORDING TO PLANS WHEREBY THE VESSEL
WOULD BE CONVERTIBLE INTO A MILITARY OR NAVAL AUXILIARY.  THE
DEGAUSSING SPECIFICATIONS WERE PREPARED BY THE NAVY, WHICH ALSO
FURNISHED ALL MATERIAL AND BORE THE COST.  THE VESSEL WAS DELIVERED IN
1941 AND WAS OPERATED AS DIRECTED BY THE MARITIME COMMISSION OR THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  PP. 251, 255. 

(2)  LUMBER FOR USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MUNITIONS PLANT WHICH
WAS BEING CONSTRUCTED FOR THE GOVERNMENT BY CONTRACTORS UNDER ARMY
SUPERVISION.  PP. 251, 255. 

(3)  LUMBER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PONTONS BY A CONTRACTOR UNDER A
CONTRACT WITH THE MARINE CORPS.  THE PRODUCT WAS EITHER SHIPPED
OVERSEAS IN CONNECTION WITH MILITARY OR NAVAL OPERATIONS OR USED IN THE
TRAINING OF COMBAT ENGINEERS.  PP. 251, 255. 

(4)  BOWLING ALLEY EQUIPMENT DESTINED FOR A NAVAL AIR BASE UNDER
CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND RESERVED FOR NAVY USE.  THE EQUIPMENT WAS
INTENDED TO BE USED FOR RECREATION BY THE CIVILIAN CONSTRUCTION CREW,
AND, UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, BY THE NAVY.  IN FACT IT WAS USED
ONLY BY SERVICEMEN.  PP. 252, 255. 

(5)  LIQUID PAVING ASPHALT CONSIGNED TO THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS
AUTHORITY FOR USE IN CONSTRUCTING RUNWAYS AT AN AIRPORT IN ALASKA UNDER
A PROGRAM APPROVED BY A JOINT CABINET BOARD AS BEING NECESSARY FOR THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE.  WORK WAS COMMENCED BY A CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR, AND,
AFTER THE SHIPMENT HAD MOVED, WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE ARMY WHICH
THEREAFTER HAD FULL CONTROL OF THE FIELD.  PP. 252, 255. 

2.  ALTHOUGH THE SHIPMENT OF ASPHALT WAS TO A CIVILIAN AGENCY (THE
CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY), IT WAS NEVERTHELESS "MILITARY OR NAVAL"
PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 321(A).  PP. 252-253. 

3.  "MILITARY OR NAVAL" PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 321(A) IS
NOT LIMITED TO PROPERTY SHIPPED BY OR UNDER CONTROL OF THE ARMY OR
NAVY, NOR TO PROPERTY PROCURED BY THOSE DEPARTMENTS.  P. 253. 

4.  THE EXCEPTION PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 321(A) IS NOT CONFINED TO
PROPERTY FOR ULTIMATE USE DIRECTLY BY THE ARMED FORCES.  P. 253. 

5.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 321(A), AN INTERMEDIATE MANUFACTURING
PHASE CAN NOT BE SAID TO HAVE AN ESSENTIAL "CIVIL" ASPECT, WHEN THE
PRODUCTS OR ARTICLES INVOLVED ARE DESTINED TO SERVE MILITARY OR NAVAL
NEEDS.  IT IS THE DOMINANT PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE MANUFACTURING OR
PROCESSING ACTIVITY IS CARRIED ON THAT IS CONTROLLING.  P. 255. 

6.  DOUBTS AS TO THE MEANING OF A STATUTE WHICH OPERATES AS A GRANT
OF PUBLIC PROPERTY, OR AS A RELINQUISHMENT OF A PUBLIC INTEREST, SHOULD
BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND AGAINST THE PRIVATE
CLAIMANT.  P. 257. 

7.  SECTION 321(A), THOUGH ENACTED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE RAILROADS,
CONTINUES LAND-GRANT RATES IN A NARROWER CATEGORY, AND IS TO BE
CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND AGAINST THE RAILROADS.  PP.
257-258. 

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TUCKER
ACT TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL RATES AND THE LAND
GRANT RATES WHICH IT RECEIVED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES.  64
F.SUPP.  1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  156 F.2D 346. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 701.  AFFIRMED, P. 258. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO UNITED STATES V. POWELL AND UNITED STATES
V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE, P. 238.  THIS
CASE, LIKE THOSE, INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISION OF SEC.
321(A) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 WHICH ENTITLES "MILITARY OR
NAVAL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL AND
NOT FOR CIVIL USE" TO LAND-GRANT RATES.  PETITIONER WAS A LAND-GRANT
ROAD, 13 STAT. 365, 370, AND FOR YEARS CARRIED GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AT
LAND-GRANT RATES.  43 STAT. 477, 486, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1375.  IT
QUALIFIED TO RECEIVE THE HIGHER RATES AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 321(A) OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 BY THE TIMELY FILING OF THE REQUIRED RELEASE
OF LAND-GRANT CLAIMS PURSUANT TO SEC. 321(B) OF THE ACT.  FN1 

THE SHIPMENTS IN CONTROVERSY WERE MADE OVER PETITIONER'S RAILROAD ON
GOVERNMENT BILLS OF LADING IN 1941, 1942, AND 1943.  THEY WERE
ADMITTEDLY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF CARRIAGE.  PETITIONER
SUBMITTED ITS BILLS TO THE GOVERNMENT AT THE PUBLISHED COMMERCIAL
TARIFF RATES.  THE UNITED STATES, CLAIMING THAT UNDER SEC. 321(A) OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT EACH SHIPMENT WAS ENTITLED TO MOVE AT LAND-GRANT
RATES, DEDUCTED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL RATES AND THE
LAND-GRANT RATES.  PETITIONER THEREUPON BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER THE
TUCKER ACT TO RECOVER THE DEDUCTED SUMS.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES ON THE CLAIMS HERE INVOLVED.  64
F.SUPP.  1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  156 F.2D 346.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

THE SHIPMENTS INVOLVED FIVE TYPES OF PROPERTY: 

COPPER CABLE.  - COPPER CABLE WAS TRANSPORTED TO TACOMA, WASH., FOR
USE IN THE INSTALLATION OF DEGAUSSING EQUIPMENT (A DEFENSE AGAINST
MAGNETIC MINES) ON A CARGO VESSEL BEING SO BUILT THAT IT MIGHT READILY
BE CONVERTED INTO A MILITARY OR NAVAL AUXILIARY.  THE WORK WAS DONE BY
A CONTRACTOR UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE MARITIME COMMISSION.  THE
DEGAUSSING SPECIFICATIONS WERE FURNISHED BY THE NAVY, WHICH ALSO
FURNISHED THE EQUIPMENT AND BORE THE COST.  THE VESSEL WAS DELIVERED IN
1941 AND WAS OPERATED AS DIRECTED BY THE MARITIME COMMISSION OR THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  WHETHER IT OPERATED AS A CARGO VESSEL OR AS A
MILITARY OR NAVAL AUXILIARY DOES NOT APPEAR. 

LUMBER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MUNITIONS PLANT.  - IN 1942 THE TWIN
CITIES ORDNANCE PLANT WAS BEING CONSTRUCTED IN MINNESOTA BY CONTRACTORS
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ARMY.  THE PLANT WAS GOVERNMENT OWNED AND
ARMY SPONSORED.  ARMY OFFICERS WERE PROCURING AGENTS FOR THE LUMBER
USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION.  PETITIONER TRANSPORTED LUMBER FOR USE IN THE
CONSTRUCTION.  THE PLANT WAS COMPLETED IN 1943 AND MANUFACTURED
AMMUNITION FOR THE ARMED FORCES. 

LUMBER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MARINE CORPS PONTONS.  - PETITIONER IN
1943 CARRIED FIR LUMBER TO A PLANT IN MINNESOTA TO BE TREATED, KILN
DRIED, MILLED, AND MANUFACTURED BY A CONTRACTOR INTO PARTS OF
DEMOUNTABLE FLOATING BRIDGES REQUIRED TO MOVE MILITARY PERSONNEL AND
WAR VEHICLES ACROSS WATER BARRIERS.  THE CONSTRUCTION WAS UNDER A
CONTRACT WITH THE MARINE CORPS.  THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCT WAS EITHER
SHIPPED OVERSEAS IN CONNECTION WITH MILITARY OR NAVAL OPERATIONS OR WAS
USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRAINING OF COMBAT ENGINEERS. 

BOWLING ALLEYS FOR DUTCH HARBOR.  - PETITIONER MOVED BOWLING ALLEY
EQUIPMENT TO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, FOR RESHIPMENT TO THE NAVAL AIR BASE,
DUTCH HARBOR, ALASKA.  THE NAVY HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN AIR BASE AT DUTCH HARBOR ON PUBLIC LAND RESERVED FOR
NAVY USE.  THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF THE BOWLING ALLEYS WERE
PURSUANT TO THAT CONTRACT AND WERE APPROVED BY THE NAVY OFFICER WHO HAD
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM.  THE RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES, WHICH INCLUDED THE BOWLING ALLEYS, WERE PLANNED FOR INITIAL
USE BY THE CIVILIAN CONSTRUCTION CREW AND THEN, WHEN CONSTRUCTION WORK
WAS ENDED, BY THE NAVY.  BUT IN FACT THEY WERE USED ONLY BY MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES. 

LIQUID PAVING ASPHALT FOR COLD BAY, ALASKA, AIRPORT.  - IN 1942
PETITIONER MOVED LIQUID PAVING ASPHALT TO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, FOR
RESHIPMENT TO ALASKA.  THE ASPHALT WAS FOR USE IN CONSTRUCTING RUNWAYS
AT AN AIRPORT AT COLD BAY UNDER A PROGRAM OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS
AUTHORITY APPROVED BY A JOINT CABINET BOARD AS BEING NECESSARY FOR THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE.  WORK WAS COMMENCED BY A CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR AND,
AFTER THE SHIPMENT HAD MOVED, WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE ARMY WHICH
THEREAFTER HAD FULL CONTROL OF THE FIELD. 

IN FOUR OF THE ABOVE INSTANCES THE PROPERTY WAS CONSIGNED TO AN ARMY
OR NAVY OFFICER; IN THE FIFTH, THE SHIPMENT OF LIQUID PAVING ASPHALT,
THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY WAS THE CONSIGNEE.  AND AS WE HAVE
SAID, THE PROPERTY IN EACH CASE WAS AT THE TIME OF SHIPMENT PROPERTY OF
THE UNITED STATES.  THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 321(A) IT WAS "MILITARY OR NAVAL" PROPERTY AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT
WAS "MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL" USE. 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT SINCE THE SHIPMENT OF ASPHALT WAS TO A
CIVILIAN AGENCY, THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY, IT WAS NOT "MILITARY
OR NAVAL" PROPERTY.  THE THEORY IS THAT "MILITARY OR NAVAL" PROPERTY
MEANS ONLY PROPERTY SHIPPED BY OR UNDER CONTROL OF THE ARMY OR NAVY. 

WE SEE NO MERIT IN THAT SUGGESTION.  SECTION 321(A) MAKES NO
REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC AGENCIES OR DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT.  THE FACT
THAT THE WAR OR NAVY DEPARTMENT DOES THE PROCUREMENT MIGHT, OF COURSE,
CARRY SPECIAL WEIGHT OR BE DECISIVE IN CLOSE CASES.  BUT IT IS WELL
KNOWN THAT PROCUREMENT OF MILITARY SUPPLIES OR WAR MATERIAL IS OFTEN
HANDLED BY AGENCIES OTHER THAN THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS. 
PROCUREMENT OF CARGO AND TRANSPORT VESSELS BY THE MARITIME COMMISSION
IS AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE.  SEE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, SEC. 902,
49 STAT. 2015-2016, AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1242.  AND SHORTLY
BEFORE THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 WAS ENACTED, CONGRESS BY THE ACT
OF JUNE 25, 1940, 54 STAT. 572, 573-574, AUTHORIZED THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION TO CREATE SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS TO PURCHASE AND
PRODUCE EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, AND MACHINERY FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ARMS,
AMMUNITION, AND IMPLEMENTS OF WAR.  AND LATER THAT ACT WAS AMENDED TO
ENABLE THOSE CORPORATIONS TO PURCHASE OR PRODUCE ANY SUPPLY OR ARTICLE
NECESSARY FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE OR WAR EFFORT.  ACT OF JUNE 10,
1941, 55 STAT. 248, 249.  AS WE HAVE HELD IN UNITED STATES V. POWELL,
SUPRA, NOT EVERY PURCHASE WHICH FURTHERS THE NATIONAL DEFENSE IS FOR
"MILITARY OR NAVAL" USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 321(A).  BUT
PROPERTY MAY FALL WITHIN THAT CATEGORY THOUGH IT IS PROCURED BY
DEPARTMENTS OTHER THAN WAR OR NAVY. 

IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE EXCEPTION IN
SEC. 321(A) IS CONFINED TO PROPERTY FOR ULTIMATE USE DIRECTLY BY THE
ARMED FORCES.  UNDER THAT VIEW MATERIALS SHIPPED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF VESSELS FOR THE MARITIME COMMISSION AND USED TO SERVICE TROOPS AT
HOME OR ABROAD WOULD NOT BE "MILITARY OR NAVAL" PROPERTY.  WE LIKEWISE
REJECT THAT ARGUMENT.  CIVILIAN AGENCIES MAY SERVICE THE ARMED FORCES
OR ACT AS ADJUNCTS TO THEM.  THE MARITIME COMMISSION IS A GOOD
EXAMPLE.  AN ARMY AND NAVY ON FOREIGN SHORES OR IN FOREIGN WATERS
CANNOT LIVE AND FIGHT WITHOUT A SUPPLY FLEET IN THEIR SUPPORT.  THE
AGENCY, WHETHER CIVIL OR MILITARY, WHICH PERFORMS THAT FUNCTION IS
SERVING THE ARMED FORCES.  THE PROPERTY WHICH IT EMPLOYS IN THAT
SERVICE IS MILITARY OR NAVAL PROPERTY, SERVING A MILITARY OR NAVAL
FUNCTION. 

BUT PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT, EVEN IF THAT IS TRUE, THE CONSTRUCTION
OF VESSELS OR OTHER MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR SUPPLIES IS IN A DIFFERENT
CATEGORY.  IT ARGUES THAT NONE OF THE ARTICLES SHIPPED IN THE PRESENT
CASE WAS MILITARY OR NAVAL, SINCE THEY WERE NOT FURNISHED TO THE ARMED
FORCES FOR THEIR USE.  THEY WERE SUPPLIED, SO THE ARGUMENT RUNS, FOR
MANUFACTURE AND CONSTRUCTION WHICH ARE CIVILIAN PURSUITS AND WHICH WERE
HERE IN FACT PERFORMED BY CIVILIAN CONTRACTORS.  ONLY THE COMPLETED
PRODUCT, NOT THE COMPONENT ELEMENTS, WAS, IN THAT VIEW, FOR MILITARY OR
NAVAL USE. 

MILITARY OR NAVAL PROPERTY MAY MOVE FOR CIVIL USE, AS WHERE ARMY OR
NAVY SURPLUS SUPPLIES ARE SHIPPED FOR SALE TO THE PUBLIC.  BUT IN
GENERAL THE USE TO WHICH THE PROPERTY IS TO BE PUT IS THE CONTROLLING
TEST OF ITS MILITARY OR NAVAL CHARACTER.  PENCILS AS WELL AS RIFLES MAY
BE MILITARY PROPERTY.  INDEED, THE NATURE OF MODERN WAR, ITS
MULTIFARIOUS ASPECTS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO
CONSTITUTE THE ARMED FORCES AND THEIR ADJUNCTS, GIVE MILITARY OR NAVAL
PROPERTY SUCH A BROAD SWEEP AS TO INCLUDE ALMOST ANY TYPE OF PROPERTY. 
MORE THAN ARTICLES ACTUALLY USED BY MILITARY OR NAVAL PERSONNEL IN
COMBAT ARE INCLUDED.  MILITARY OR NAVAL USE INCLUDES ALL PROPERTY
CONSUMED BY THE ARMED FORCES OR BY THEIR ADJUNCTS, ALL PROPERTY WHICH
THEY USE TO FURTHER THEIR PROJECTS, ALL PROPERTY WHICH SERVES THEIR
MANY NEEDS OR WANTS IN TRAINING OR PREPARATION FOR WAR, IN COMBAT, IN
MAINTAINING THEM AT HOME OR ABROAD, IN THEIR OCCUPATION AFTER VICTORY
IS WON.  IT IS THE RELATION OF THE SHIPMENT TO THE MILITARY OR NAVAL
EFFORT THAT IS CONTROLLING UNDER SEC. 321(A).  THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION
MAY HAVE TO BE RECONDITIONED, REPAIRED, PROCESSED OR TREATED IN SOME
OTHER WAY BEFORE IT SERVES THEIR NEEDS.  BUT THAT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM
ITS STATUS AS MILITARY OR NAVAL PROPERTY.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORP., 64 F.SUPP.  605.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
321(A) AN INTERMEDIATE MANUFACTURING PHASE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE AN
ESSENTIAL "CIVIL" ASPECT, WHEN THE PRODUCTS OR ARTICLES INVOLVED ARE
DESTINED TO SERVE MILITARY OR NAVAL NEEDS.  IT IS THE DOMINANT PURPOSE
FOR WHICH THE MANUFACTURING OR PROCESSING ACTIVITY IS CARRIED ON THAT
IS CONTROLLING. 

MEASURED BY THAT TEST, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE FIVE TYPES OF
PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION WERE "MILITARY OR NAVAL"
PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES "MOVING FOR MILITARY OR NAVAL AND NOT FOR
CIVIL USE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 321(A).  THE LUMBER FOR THE
PONTONS, THE ASPHALT FOR THE AIRFIELD, THE LUMBER FOR THE AMMUNITION
PLANT WERE USED IN ARMY OR NAVY PROJECTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO COMBAT
PREPARATION OR TO ACTUAL COMBAT.  COPPER CABLE FOR THE CARGO VESSEL,
THOUGH FARTHER REMOVED FROM THAT CATEGORY, WAS WELL WITHIN THE
DEFINITION OF "MILITARY OR NAVAL" PROPERTY.  IT, TOO, WAS A DEFENSIVE
WEAPON.  BEYOND THAT IT WAS PURCHASED BY THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AND
CONSIGNED TO ONE OF ITS OFFICERS.  IT WAS SUPPLIED PURSUANT TO NAVY
SPECIFICATIONS; AND THE SHIP ON WHICH IT WAS INSTALLED WAS BEING
PREPARED FOR POSSIBLE ULTIMATE USE BY THE NAVY.  THE BOWLING ALLEYS
WERE ALSO WELL WITHIN THE STATUTORY CLASSIFICATION.  THE NEEDS OF THE
ARMED FORCES PLAINLY INCLUDE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES.  THE MORALE AND
PHYSICAL CONDITION OF COMBAT FORCES ARE AS IMPORTANT TO THE SUCCESSFUL
PROSECUTION OF A WAR AS THEIR EQUIPMENT.  THE FACT THAT THE BOWLING
ALLEYS WERE PLANNED FOR INITIAL USE OF CIVILIAN WORKERS MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE.  IT IS THE NATURE OF THE WORK BEING DONE, NOT THE STATUS OF
THE PERSON HANDLING THE MATERIALS, THAT IS DECISIVE.  SUPPLIES TO
MAINTAIN CIVILIANS REPAIRING ARMY OR NAVY PLANES IS A CASE IN POINT. 
THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT IN THIS CASE WAS THE SAME WHETHER
CIVILIANS OR MILITARY OR NAVY PERSONNEL DID THE ACTUAL WORK. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT IF CONGRESS INTENDED TO INCLUDE IN "MILITARY
OR NAVAL PROPERTY" ARTICLES FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF IMPLEMENTS OF
WAR, IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO.  IT SEEKS SUPPORT FOR THAT POSITION FROM
OTHER CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS UNDER WHICH SUCH MATERIALS WERE EXCLUDED
BECAUSE NOT MENTIONED  FN2  OR WERE INCLUDED BY SPECIFIC REFERENCE N3. 
WE CAN FIND, HOWEVER, LITTLE SUPPORT FOR PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IN
THAT ARGUMENT.  APART FROM THE DIFFERENT WORDING OF THOSE ACTS AND THE
DIFFERENT ENDS THEY SERVED, THERE IS ONE DECISIVE AND CONTROLLING
CIRCUMSTANCE.  WE HAVE MORE IN SEC. 321(A) THAN A DECLARATION THAT
"MILITARY OR NAVAL" PROPERTY IS ENTITLED TO LAND-GRANT RATES.  CONGRESS
WENT FURTHER AND DREW THE LINE BETWEEN PROPERTY MOVING FOR "MILITARY OR
NAVAL" USE AND PROPERTY MOVING FOR "CIVIL" USE.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE
CONTROLLING TEST IS THE USE TO WHICH THE PROPERTY IS DEDICATED OR
DEVOTED.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS DID NOT DEFINE WHAT WAS A "MILITARY OR
NAVAL" USE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A "CIVIL" USE IS UNIMPORTANT.  THE
CLASSIFICATION MADE BY CONGRESS UNDER THIS ACT, UNLIKE THAT MADE UNDER
THE ACTS ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIES, WAS ALL-INCLUSIVE NOT PARTIAL. 
WHAT IS MILITARY OR NAVAL IS CONTRASTED TO WHAT IS CIVIL.  THE NORMAL
CONNOTATION OF ONE SERVES TO DELIMIT OR EXPAND THE OTHER.  IT IS IN
THAT CONTEXT THAT "MILITARY OR NAVAL" MUST BE CONSTRUED.    PETITIONER
ALSO CONTENDS THAT SEC. 321(A) IS A REMEDIAL ENACTMENT WHICH SHOULD BE
LIBERALLY CONSTRUED SO AS TO PERMIT NO EXCEPTION WHICH IS NOT
REQUIRED.  CF. PIEDMONT & N. RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
286 U.S. 299, 311-312.  BUT IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE THAT WHERE THERE IS
ANY DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OF A STATUTE WHICH "OPERATES AS A GRANT OF
PUBLIC PROPERTY TO AN INDIVIDUAL, OR THE RELINQUISHMENT OF A PUBLIC
INTEREST," THE DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND
AGAINST THE PRIVATE CLAIMANT.  SLIDELL V. GRANDJEAN, 111 U.S. 412,
437.  SEE SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 72, 76.  THAT
RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED IN CONSTRUING THE REDUCED RATE CONDITIONS OF THE
LAND-GRANT LEGISLATION.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. UNITED STATES, 307
U.S. 393, 401; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THAT
PRINCIPLE IS APPLICABLE HERE WHERE THE CONGRESS, BY WRITING INTO SEC.
321(A) AN EXCEPTION, RETAINED FOR THE UNITED STATES AN ECONOMIC
PRIVILEGE OF GREAT VALUE.  THE FACT THAT THE RAILROADS, INCLUDING
PETITIONER, FILED RELEASES OF THEIR LAND-GRANT CLAIMS IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 321(A) IS NOW RELIED UPON AS CONSTITUTING
FULL CONSIDERATION FOR THE RATE CONCESSION.  IT IS ACCORDINGLY ARGUED
THAT THE RAILROADS MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHOULD
BE GENEROUSLY CONSTRUED.  CF. RUSSELL V. SEBASTIAN, 233 U.S. 195, 205. 
THE ORIGINAL LAND-GRANTS RESULTED IN A CONTRACT.  BURKE V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC R. CO., 234 U.S. 669, 680.  YET, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THEY WERE
NONETHELESS PUBLIC GRANTS STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE GRANTEE.  THE
PRESENT ACT, THOUGH PASSED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE RAILROADS, WAS IN
ESSENCE MERELY A CONTINUATION OF LAND-GRANT RATES IN A NARROWER
CATEGORY.  THEREFORE, IT, TOO, MUST BE CONSTRUED LIKE ANY OTHER PUBLIC
GRANT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS RELEASE WAS FOLLOWED BY A SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION
BEFORE THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 311 U.S.
317.  SEE UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 41 F.SUPP.  273; S.
DOC. NO. 48, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN2  THE EMBARGO AGAINST "ARMS OR MUNITIONS OF WAR" AUTHORIZED BY THE
JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 14, 1912(SEE 37 STAT. 1733), WAS HELD NOT TO
INCLUDE MACHINERY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MUNITIONS PLANT.  32 OP.
ATTY. GEN. 132. 

FN3  THUS THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, 54 STAT. 712, 714, 50 U.S.C. APP.
SEC. 701, AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO PROHIBIT OR CURTAIL "THE
EXPORTATION OF ANY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR MUNITIONS, OR COMPONENT PARTS
THEREOF, OR MACHINERY, TOOLS, OR MATERIAL, OR SUPPLIES NECESSARY FOR
THE MANUFACTURE, SERVICING, OR OPERATION THEREOF  ..." 

THE ACT OF NOVEMBER 30, 1940, 54 STAT. 1220, AMENDING THE
ANTISABOTAGE ACT, DEFINED "NATIONAL-DEFENSE MATERIAL" AS INCLUDING
"ARMS, ARMAMENT, AMMUNITION, LIVESTOCK, STORES OF CLOTHING, FOOD,
FOODSTUFFS, FUEL, SUPPLIES, MUNITIONS, AND ALL OTHER ARTICLES OF
WHATEVER DESCRIPTION AND ANY PART OR INGREDIENT THEREOF," WHICH THE
UNITED STATES INTENDED TO USE IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE. 

THE ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1941, 55 STAT. 742, AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT
TO REQUISITION THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF PROPERTY FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE
UNITED STATES:  "MILITARY OR NAVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, OR MUNITIONS,
OR COMPONENT PARTS THEREOF, OR MACHINERY, TOOLS, OR MATERIALS NECESSARY
FOR THE MANUFACTURE, SERVICING, OR OPERATION OF SUCH EQUIPMENT,
SUPPLIES, OR MUNITIONS  ..." 
..END :











WALLING V. PORTLAND TERMINAL CO., 330 U.S. 148 


NO. 336.  ARGUED JANUARY 17, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1947.  - 155
F.2D 215, AFFIRMED. 


FOR MANY YEARS A RAILROAD HAS GIVEN TO PROSPECTIVE YARD BRAKEMEN A
PRACTICAL COURSE OF TRAINING LASTING SEVEN OR EIGHT DAYS.  UNDER THE
SUPERVISION OF A YARD CREW, EACH TRAINEE FIRST LEARNS ROUTINE
ACTIVITIES BY OBSERVATION AND IS THEN GRADUALLY PERMITTED TO DO ACTUAL
WORK UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY.  HIS ACTIVITIES DO NOT DISPLACE ANY OF THE
REGULAR EMPLOYEES, WHO DO MOST OF THE WORK THEMSELVES AND MUST STAND
IMMEDIATELY BY TO SUPERVISE WHAT THE TRAINEE DOES.  THE TRAINEE'S WORK
DOES NOT EXPEDITE THE RAILROAD'S BUSINESS, BUT MAY, AND SOMETIMES DOES,
ACTUALLY IMPEDE AND RETARD IT.  TRAINEES WHO COMPLETE THE COURSE
SATISFACTORILY AND ARE CERTIFIED AS COMPETENT ARE LISTED AS ELIGIBLE
FOR EMPLOYMENT WHEN NEEDED.  PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1943, TRAINEES
RECEIVED NO PAY OR ALLOWANCE OF ANY KIND; BUT, SINCE THAT DATE, THOSE
WHO PROVE THEIR COMPETENCY AND ARE LISTED AS ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT
ARE GIVEN A RETROACTIVE ALLOWANCE OF $4 PER DAY FOR THEIR TRAINING
PERIOD.  HELD: 

1.  SUCH A TRAINEE IS NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
3(E) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  PP. 152-153. 

2.  SECTION 14, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR TO
PERMIT THE EMPLOYMENT OF LEARNERS AND APPRENTICES AT LESS THAN THE
MINIMUM WAGE PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT, IS INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH TRAINEES;
SINCE IT RELATES ONLY TO LEARNERS WHO ARE IN "EMPLOYMENT" AND CARRIES
NO IMPLICATION THAT ALL INSTRUCTORS MUST EITHER GET A PERMIT OR PAY
MINIMUM WAGES TO ALL LEARNERS.  PP. 151-152. 

WALLING, WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR, V. PORTLAND TERMINAL CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR SUED A RAILROAD TO ENJOIN ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 15(A)(2) AND 15(A)(5) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT, 52 STAT. 1060.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE INJUNCTION.  61
F.SUPP.  345.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  155 F.2D 215. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 696.  AFFIRMED, P. 153. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION BROUGHT BY PETITIONER AGAINST RESPONDENT IN A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECS. 15(A)(2)
AND 15(A)(5) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060, 1068, 29
U.S.C. SECS. 215(A)(2), (5) WHICH REQUIRES AS TO THE EMPLOYEES COVERED
BY THE ACT THE MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS CONCERNING THEIR WAGES AND THE
PAYMENT TO THEM OF MINIMUM WAGES.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE PARTICULAR PERSONS INVOLVED WERE NOT
EMPLOYEES, 61 F.SUPP.  345, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED
ON THE SAME GROUND, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  155 F.2D 215.  SEE ALSO
WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL CO., 148 F.2D 768.  CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  329 U.S. 696.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, APPROVED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND NOT
CHALLENGED HERE, SHOW: 

FOR MANY YEARS THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD HAS GIVEN A COURSE OF
PRACTICAL TRAINING TO PROSPECTIVE YARD BRAKEMEN.  THIS TRAINING IS A
NECESSARY REQUISITE TO ENTRUSTING THEM WITH THE IMPORTANT WORK BRAKEMEN
MUST DO.  AN APPLICANT FOR SUCH JOBS IS NEVER ACCEPTED UNTIL HE HAS HAD
THIS PRELIMINARY TRAINING, THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF WHICH IS SEVEN OR
EIGHT DAYS.  IF ACCEPTED FOR THE TRAINING COURSE, AN APPLICANT IS
TURNED OVER TO A YARD CREW FOR INSTRUCTION.  UNDER THIS SUPERVISION, HE
FIRST LEARNS THE ROUTINE ACTIVITIES BY OBSERVATION, AND IS THEN
GRADUALLY PERMITTED TO DO ACTUAL WORK UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY.  HIS
ACTIVITIES DO NOT DISPLACE ANY OF THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES, WHO DO MOST OF
THE WORK THEMSELVES AND MUST STAND IMMEDIATELY BY TO SUPERVISE WHATEVER
THE TRAINEES DO. THE APPLICANT'S WORK DOES NOT EXPEDITE THE COMPANY
BUSINESS, BUT MAY, AND SOMETIMES DOES, ACTUALLY IMPEDE AND RETARD IT.
IF THESE TRAINEES COMPLETE THEIR COURSE OF INSTRUCTION SATISFACTORILY
AND ARE CERTIFIED AS COMPETENT, THEIR NAMES ARE INCLUDED IN A LIST FROM
WHICH THE COMPANY CAN DRAW WHEN THEIR SERVICES ARE NEEDED.  UNLESS THEY
COMPLETE THE TRAINING AND ARE CERTIFIED AS COMPETENT, THEY ARE NOT
PLACED ON THE LIST.  THOSE WHO ARE CERTIFIED AND NOT IMMEDIATELY PUT TO
WORK CONSTITUTE A POOL OF QUALIFIED WORKMEN AVAILABLE TO THE RAILROAD
WHEN NEEDED.  TRAINEES RECEIVED NO PAY OR ALLOWANCE OF ANY KIND PRIOR
TO OCTOBER 1, 1943.  AT THAT TIME, HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT AND THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT, THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN,
AGREED THAT, FOR THE WAR PERIOD, MEN WHO PROVED THEIR COMPETENCY AND
WERE THEREAFTER LISTED AS ACCEPTED AND AVAILABLE FOR WORK AS BRAKEMEN
SHOULD BE GIVEN A RETROACTIVE ALLOWANCE OF $4 PER DAY FOR THEIR
TRAINING PERIOD.  THE FINDINGS DO NOT INDICATE THAT THE RAILROAD EVER
UNDERTOOK TO PAY, OR THE TRAINEES EVER EXPECTED TO RECEIVE, ANY
REMUNERATION FOR THE TRAINING PERIOD OTHER THAN THE CONTINGENT
ALLOWANCE. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FIXES THE MINIMUM WAGE THAT EMPLOYERS
MUST PAY ALL EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IN ACTIVITIES COVERED BY THE ACT. 
THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THESE TRAINEES DO WORK IN THE KIND OF
ACTIVITIES COVERED BY THE ACT.  CONSEQUENTLY, IF THEY ARE EMPLOYEES
WITHIN THE ACT'S MEANING, THEIR EMPLOYMENT IS GOVERNED BY THE MINIMUM
WAGE PROVISIONS.  BUT IN DETERMINING WHO ARE "EMPLOYEES" UNDER THE ACT,
COMMON LAW EMPLOYEE CATEGORIES OR EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS
UNDER OTHER STATUTES ARE NOT OF CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE.  SEE N.L.R.B.
V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 128-129.  THIS ACT CONTAINS ITS
OWN DEFINITIONS, COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH TO REQUIRE ITS APPLICATION TO
MANY PERSONS AND WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WHICH, PRIOR TO THIS ACT, WERE
NOT DEEMED TO FALL WITHIN AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE CATEGORY.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360, 362-363. 

WITHOUT DOUBT THE ACT COVERS TRAINEES, BEGINNERS, APPRENTICES, OR
LEARNERS IF THEY ARE EMPLOYED TO WORK FOR AN EMPLOYER FOR
COMPENSATION.  THIS IS SHOWN BY SEC. 14 OF THE ACT WHICH EMPOWERS THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO GRANT SPECIAL CERTIFICATES FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF
LEARNERS, APPRENTICES AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS AT LESS THAN THE GENERAL
MINIMUM WAGE* .  THE LANGUAGE OF THIS SECTION AND ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY REVEAL ITS PURPOSE.  MANY PERSONS SUFFER FROM SUCH PHYSICAL
HANDICAPS, AND MANY OTHERS HAVE SO LITTLE EXPERIENCE IN PARTICULAR
VOCATIONS THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO GET AND HOLD JOBS AT STANDARD WAGES. 
CONSEQUENTLY, TO IMPOSE A MINIMUM WAGE AS TO THEM MIGHT DEPRIVE THEM OF
ALL OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE WORK, THEREBY DEFEATING ONE OF THE ACT'S
PURPOSES, WHICH WAS TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, TO HAVE WRITTEN A BLANKET EXEMPTION OF ALL OF THEM
FROM THE ACT'S PROVISIONS MIGHT HAVE LEFT OPEN A WAY FOR WHOLESALE
EVASIONS.  FLEXIBILITY OF WAGE RATES FOR THEM WAS THEREFORE PROVIDED
UNDER THE SAFEGUARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS.  THIS SECTION PLAINLY
MEANS THAT EMPLOYERS WHO HIRE BEGINNERS, LEARNERS, OR HANDICAPPED
PERSONS, AND EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY AGREE TO PAY THEM COMPENSATION,
MUST PAY THEM THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM WAGE, UNLESS A PERMIT NOT TO PAY
SUCH MINIMUM HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE SECTION CARRIES NO IMPLICATION THAT ALL INSTRUCTORS MUST
EITHER GET A PERMIT OR PAY MINIMUM WAGES TO ALL LEARNERS; THE SECTION
ONLY RELATES TO LEARNERS WHO ARE IN "EMPLOYMENT."  AND THE MEANING OF
THAT TERM IS FOUND IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT. 

*"THE ADMINISTRATOR, TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PREVENT
CURTAILMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT, SHALL BY REGULATIONS OR BY
ORDERS PROVIDE FOR (1) THE EMPLOYMENT OF LEARNERS, OF APPRENTICES, AND
OF MESSENGERS EMPLOYED EXCLUSIVELY IN DELIVERING LETTERS AND MESSAGES,
UNDER SPECIAL CERTIFICATES ISSUED PURSUANT TO REGULATIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR, AT SUCH WAGES LOWER THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE APPLICABLE
UNDER SECTION 6 AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS TO TIME, NUMBER,
PROPORTION, AND LENGTH OF SERVICE AS THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL PRESCRIBE,
..."  SEC. 14(1) FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060, 1068, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 214(1).  SEE ALSO SEC. 13(A)(7).  SEC. 14(2) PROVIDES THAT
HANDICAPPED PERSONS MAY BE EMPLOYED AT LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGES WHERE
THE ADMINISTRATOR PERMITS.  52 STAT. 1060, 1068, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
214(2). 

PERMIT TO WORK" AND SEC. 3(E) DEFINES "EMPLOYEE" AS "ANY INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYED BY AN EMPLOYER."  THE DEFINITION "SUFFER OR PERMIT TO WORK"
WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO STAMP ALL PERSONS AS EMPLOYEES WHO,
WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT, MIGHT WORK FOR
THEIR OWN ADVANTAGE ON THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER.  OTHERWISE, ALL
STUDENTS WOULD BE EMPLOYEES OF THE SCHOOL OR COLLEGE THEY ATTENDED, AND
AS SUCH ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MINIMUM WAGES.  SO ALSO, SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION WOULD SWEEP UNDER THE ACT EACH PERSON WHO, WITHOUT PROMISE
OR EXPECTATION OF COMPENSATION, BUT SOLELY FOR HIS PERSONAL PURPOSE OR
PLEASURE, WORKED IN ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY OTHER PERSONS EITHER FOR
THEIR PLEASURE OR PROFIT.  BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION FROM THE
LEGISLATION NOW BEFORE US THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO OUTLAW SUCH
RELATIONSHIPS AS THESE.  THE ACT'S PURPOSE AS TO WAGES WAS TO INSURE
THAT EVERY PERSON WHOSE EMPLOYMENT CONTEMPLATED COMPENSATION SHOULD NOT
BE COMPELLED TO SELL HIS SERVICES FOR LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM
WAGE.  THE DEFINITIONS OF "EMPLOY" AND OF "EMPLOYEE" ARE BROAD ENOUGH
TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.  BUT, BROAD AS THEY ARE, THEY CANNOT BE INTERPRETED
SO AS TO MAKE A PERSON WHOSE WORK SERVES ONLY HIS OWN INTEREST AN
EMPLOYEE OF ANOTHER PERSON WHO GIVES HIM AID AND INSTRUCTION.  HAD
THESE TRAINEES TAKEN COURSES IN RAILROADING IN A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
VOCATIONAL SCHOOL, WHOLLY DISASSOCIATED FROM THE RAILROAD, IT COULD NOT
REASONABLY BE SUGGESTED THAT THEY WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE SCHOOL WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  NOR COULD THEY, IN THAT SITUATION, HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED AS EMPLOYEES OF THE RAILROAD MERELY BECAUSE THE SCHOOL'S
GRADUATES WOULD CONSTITUTE A LABOR POOL FROM WHICH THE RAILROAD COULD
LATER DRAW ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS NOT
INTENDED TO PENALIZE RAILROADS FOR PROVIDING, FREE OF CHARGE, THE SAME
KIND OF INSTRUCTION AT A PLACE AND IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD MOST GREATLY
BENEFIT THE TRAINEES. 

ACCEPTING THE UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS HERE THAT THE RAILROADS RECEIVE
NO "IMMEDIATE ADVANTAGE" FROM ANY WORK DONE BY THE TRAINEES, WE HOLD
THAT THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE ACT'S MEANING.  WE HAVE NOT
IGNORED THE ARGUMENT THAT SUCH A HOLDING MAY OPEN UP A WAY FOR EVASION
OF THE LAW.  BUT THERE ARE NEITHER FINDINGS NOR CHARGES HERE THAT THESE
ARRANGEMENTS WERE EITHER CONCEIVED OR CARRIED OUT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO
VIOLATE EITHER THE LETTER OR THE SPIRIT OF THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW.  WE
THEREFORE HAVE NO CASE BEFORE US IN WHICH AN EMPLOYER HAS EVASIVELY
ACCEPTED THE SERVICES OF BEGINNERS AT PAY LESS THAT THE LEGAL MINIMUM
WITHOUT HAVING OBTAINED PERMITS FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR.  IT WILL BE
TIME ENOUGH TO PASS UPON SUCH EVASIONS WHEN IT IS CONTENDED THAT THEY
HAVE OCCURRED.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IN THIS CASE, AS WELL AS IN THE COMPANION CASE, NO. 335, POST, P.
158, WE HAVE A JUDGMENT OF TWO COURTS BASED ON FINDINGS WITH AMPLE
EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUCH FINDINGS.  IT WAS SOLELY ON THIS GROUND THAT I
AGREED TO AFFIRMANCE IN TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S.
590, AND ON THIS BASIS ALONE I THINK THE JUDGMENTS IN BOTH THESE CASES,
NOS. 335 AND 336, SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I, TOO, WOULD AFFIRM THIS JUDGMENT.  BUT MY REASON IS NOT THAT STATED
IN THE COURT'S OPINION. 

I HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS
INTENDED OR FITTED TO REGULATE LABOR RELATIONS, EXCEPT TO SUBSTITUTE
ITS OWN MINIMUM WAGE RATE FOR ANY THAT WAS SUBSTANDARD AND AN OVERTIME
RATE FOR HOURS ABOVE THE NUMBER IT SET.  IT, OF COURSE, LIKE OTHER
STATUTES, CAN AND SHOULD BE APPLIED TO STRIKE DOWN SHAM AND ARTIFICE
INVENTED TO EVADE ITS COMMANDS. 

BUT THE COMPLEX LABOR RELATIONS OF THIS COUNTRY, WHICH VARY FROM
LOCALITY TO LOCALITY, FROM INDUSTRY TO INDUSTRY, AND PERHAPS EVEN FROM
UNIT TO UNIT OF THE SAME INDUSTRY, WERE LEFT TO BE REGULATED BY
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IT WOULD
BE EASY TO DEMONSTRATE FROM THE ACT'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT SUCH WAS
THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS AND THAT IT HAD GOOD GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THIS
THE TENOR OF THE LEGISLATION.  ORGANIZED EMPLOYEES ON ONE SIDE, FREE OF
EMPLOYER DOMINATION OR COERCION, AND EMPLOYERS ON THE OTHER SIDE BEST
KNOW THE NEEDS AND CUSTOMS OF THEIR TRADES; THEY KNOW SOMETHING OF THE
STRAIN THEIR INDUSTRY CAN STAND; AND AFTER ALL, IT IS THEY WHO FEEL THE
EFFECTS.  GIVEN THUS THE MACHINERY TO CHANGE CUSTOMS THAT HAD OUTLIVED
THEIR TIME OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO ADJUST WAGE RATES TO TAKE ACCOUNT
OF THOSE CUSTOMS, IT WAS, I THINK, OUR DUTY TO PAY AT LEAST SOME
DEFERENCE TO THE CUSTOMS AND CONTRACTS OF AN INDUSTRY AND NOT TO APPLY
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO PUT INDUSTRY AND LABOR IN A LEGAL
STRAIT JACKET OF OUR OWN DESIGN. 

FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS APPARENT THAT THERE WERE BUT TWO WAYS OF
GIVING REAL FORCE AND MEANING TO THIS ACT WITHOUT THROWING ALL INDUSTRY
AND LABOR INTO STRIFE AND LITIGATION.  ONE WAS TO GIVE DECISIVENESS AND
INTEGRITY IN BORDERLINE CASES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  CF. J.I. CASE
CO. V. N.L.R.B., 321 U.S. 332; ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS V.
RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC., 321 U.S. 342.  THE OTHER WAS TO GIVE
STRENGTH AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, DECISIVENESS IN DOUBTFUL CASES TO THE
STUDIED RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, AS THE COURT ALSO AT MOMENTS
SEEMED INCLINED TO DO. ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126; SKIDMORE
V. SWIFT & CO., 323 U.S. 134.  BOTH OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS AS BASES
FOR DECISION WERE THROWN TO THE FOUR WINDS IN JEWELL RIDGE CORP. V.
UNITED MINE WORKERS, 325 U.S. 161. 

THIS COURT HAS FORECLOSED EVERY MEANS BY WHICH ANY CLAIM, HOWEVER
DUBIOUS, UNDER THIS STATUTE OR UNDER THE COURT'S ELASTIC AND SOMEWHAT
UNPREDICTABLE INTERPRETATIONS OF IT, CAN SAFELY OR FINALLY BE SETTLED,
EXCEPT BY LITIGATION TO FINAL JUDGMENT.  WE HAVE HELD THE INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEE INCOMPETENT TO COMPROMISE OR RELEASE ANY PART OF WHATEVER
CLAIM HE MAY HAVE.  BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V. O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697; CF.
D.A. SCHULTE, INC. V. GANGI, 328 U.S. 108.  THEN WE REFUSED TO FOLLOW
THE TERMS OF AGREEMENTS COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED.  JEWELL RIDGE CORP. V.
UNITED MINE WORKERS, 325 U.S. 161.  NO KIND OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES IN INTEREST SETTLING BORDERLINE CASES IN A WAY SATISFACTORY TO
THEMSELVES, HOWEVER FAIRLY ARRIVED AT, IS TODAY WORTH THE PAPER IT IS
WRITTEN ON.  INTERMINABLE LITIGATION, STIMULATED BY A CONTINGENT REWARD
TO ATTORNEYS, IS NECESSITATED BY THE PRESENT STATE OF THE COURT'S
DECISIONS.    IN THE VIEW THAT THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION SHOULD PAY SOME
DEFERENCE TO FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO CUSTOMS OF INDUSTRY IN APPLYING
THIS ACT, I FAVORED AFFIRMANCE OF THE AWARD TO MINERS IN THE CASE OF
TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, BECAUSE TWO LOWER
COURTS HAD MADE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT UNDER THE CONTRACTS AND
CONDITIONS IN THOSE PARTICULAR IRON MINES THE EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED
TO HAVE COUNTED AS WORKING TIME CERTAIN PERIODS SPENT IN TRAVEL.  THE
JUDGMENT WAS SUPPORTED, TOO, BY THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. 
THOSE REASONS WERE REJECTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT WHICH WENT ON TO
LAY DOWN RULES OF DECISION WHICH TAKE NO ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT OR
CUSTOM. 

THEN CAME THE CASE OF JEWELL RIDGE CORP. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 325
U.S. 161, IN WHICH THE RELATIONSHIPS WERE FIXED BY A DEEP-ROOTED CUSTOM
IN THE INDUSTRY OF WHICH BOTH PARTIES TOOK ACCOUNT AND EMBODIED IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS AND WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S RULINGS MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE VERY UNION THAT WAS
REPUDIATING THEM.  BUT A MAJORITY OF THE COURT AGAIN REJECTED THE
CONTENTION THAT THIS ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO INTERFERE WITH LONG
ESTABLISHED CUSTOMS WHICH ENTERED INTO COLLECTIVE WAGE AGREEMENTS, AND
IT REAFFIRMED A FLAT DECLARATION AS FOLLOWS: 

"BUT IN ANY EVENT IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PRIOR
CUSTOM OR CONTRACT NOT TO CONSIDER CERTAIN WORK WITHIN THE COMPASS OF
THE WORKWEEK OR NOT TO COMPENSATE EMPLOYEES FOR CERTAIN PORTIONS OF
THEIR WORK.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CODIFY OR
PERPETUATE THOSE CUSTOMS AND CONTRACTS WHICH ALLOW AN EMPLOYER TO CLAIM
ALL OF AN EMPLOYEE'S TIME WHILE COMPENSATING HIM ONLY FOR A PART OF IT.
CONGRESS INTENDED, INSTEAD, TO ACHIEVE A UNIFORM NATIONAL POLICY OF
GUARANTEEING COMPENSATION FOR ALL WORK OR EMPLOYMENT ENGAGED IN BY
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE ACT.  ANY CUSTOM OR CONTRACT FALLING SHORT OF
THAT BASIC POLICY, LIKE AN AGREEMENT TO PAY LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE
REQUIREMENTS, CANNOT BE UTILIZED TO DEPRIVE EMPLOYEES OF THEIR
STATUTORY RIGHTS."  325 U.S. AT 167; TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA
LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, 602. 

THE SAME DOCTRINE WAS THEN PRESSED INTO OTHER FIELDS OF INDUSTRY BY
THE DECISION IN ANDERSON V. MT. CLEMENS POTTERY CO., 328 U.S. 680,
WHICH DECLARED CERTAIN TIME SPENT ON THE PREMISES OF THE POTTERY
COMPANY MUST BE COMPENSATED "REGARDLESS OF CONTRARY CUSTOM OR
CONTRACT."  328 U.S. AT 692. 

THE COURT EVIDENTLY STANDS UPON AND REITERATES THE BASIC DOCTRINE
THAT THE ACT IS ONE TO REGULATE INDUSTRY LABOR RELATIONS, FOR IT SAYS:
"THIS ACT CONTAINS ITS OWN DEFINITIONS, COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH TO REQUIRE
ITS APPLICATION TO MANY PERSONS AND WORKING RELATIONSHIPS, WHICH PRIOR
TO THIS ACT, WERE NOT DEEMED TO FALL WITHIN AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
CATEGORY."  FN1 

THE CLAIMANTS NOW BEFORE US ASK TO PARTICIPATE IN THE JUDICIAL
LARGESS.  THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BE PAID FOR THE TIME
THAT THEY SPENT ON THE RAILROAD'S PREMISES, UNDER THE RAILROAD'S
DIRECTION, PERFORMING RAILROAD LABOR, IN ORDER TO LEARN TO QUALIFY FOR
RAILROAD JOBS WHEN THE RAILROAD MIGHT NEED THEM.  THE COURT DOES NOT
EVEN ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THE FOREGOING CASES ON WHICH THEIR CLAIM IS
BASED. 

THIS CASE AGAIN REQUIRES US TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN GROUNDS OF
DECISION SIMILAR TO THE CHOICE THAT WAS OPEN TO US IN THE CITED CASES
AND I THINK IT IS TIMELY FOR THE COURT TO RECONSIDER ITS APPROACH TO
CASES UNDER THIS ACT.  WE MAY PURPORT TO FIND GROUNDS FOR DENYING THESE
CLAIMS IN AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, ALTHOUGH CONGRESS NEVER
INTENDED TO REGULATE THE SUBJECT AT ALL.  OR WE CAN USE AS VALID GROUND
FOR DENYING THESE CLAIMS THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS BY TWO LOWER COURTS OF
A GOOD FAITH UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES, FOLLOWING A LONG-ESTABLISHED
CUSTOM OF AN INDUSTRY WHOSE LABOR RELATIONS HAVE LONG BEEN SUBJECT TO
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  I CONCUR ONLY ON THE LATTER GROUND. 

FN1  I DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHEN I CONCURRED IN UNITED STATES V.
ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360, THAT IT SO HELD.  IT APPLIED THE ACT TO
PIECEWORK EMPLOYEES.  PIECEWORK EMPLOYMENT IS A WELL-KNOWN FORM OF
EMPLOYMENT THAT HAS EXISTED PERHAPS AS LONG AS EMPLOYMENT AT A FIXED
HOURLY OR DAILY WAGE.  I UNDERSTOOD, AND STILL UNDERSTAND, THE
ROSENWASSER CASE TO HOLD ONLY THAT THIS FORM OF EMPLOYMENT IS NOT
EXCLUDED FROM THE TERMS OF THE ACT. 
..END :













WALLING V. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO., 330 U.S. 158 


NO. 335.  ARGUED JANUARY 17, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1947.  - 155
F.2D 1016, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR SUED TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS
OF SECS. 15(A)(2) AND 15(A)(5) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,
REQUIRING THAT MINIMUM WAGES BE PAID TO EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE ACT
AND THAT APPROPRIATE RECORDS BE KEPT CONCERNING THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND
PAY.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT, AS TO ONE GROUP OF ALLEGED EMPLOYEES,
THE DEFENDANT RAILROAD "FOR SEVERAL YEARS PAST HAS BEEN COMPLYING WITH
THE ACT AS TO THEM AND APPARENTLY INTENDS IN GOOD FAITH TO DO SO IN THE
FUTURE," AND DENIED THE INJUNCTION.  THAT FINDING WAS NOT CHALLENGED
HERE; AND NO ARGUMENT WAS MADE HERE THAT IT WAS NOT ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT
DENIAL OF THE RELIEF GRANTED.  HELD: DENIAL OF THE INJUNCTION AS TO
THIS GROUP IS SUSTAINED.  P. 159. 

2.  UNDER FACTS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THOSE INVOLVED IN WALLING
V. PORTLAND TERMINAL CO., ANTE, P. 148, AND FOR THE REASONS THERE
STATED.  PERSONS IN TRAINING TO BECOME YARD AND MAIN LINE FIREMEN,
BRAKEMEN, AND SWITCHMEN FOR A RAILROAD, HELD NOT TO BE "EMPLOYEES"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3(E) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P.
160. 

WALLING, WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR, V. NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST.
LOUIS RAILWAY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR SUED TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
SECS. 15(A)(2) AND 15(A)(5) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT.
1060, 1068.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE INJUNCTION.  60 F.SUPP. 
1004.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  155 F.2D 1016.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 696.  AFFIRMED, P. 160. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, FILED THIS ACTION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS BY THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD OF SECS.
15(A)(2) AND 15(A)(5) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  52 STAT. 1060,
1068.  THESE SECTIONS REQUIRE THAT MINIMUM WAGES BE PAID TO EMPLOYEES
COVERED BY THE ACT AND THAT APPROPRIATE RECORDS BE KEPT CONCERNING
THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND PAY.  THE RAILROAD WAS CHARGED WITH HAVING
VIOLATED THE ACT WITH REGARD TO TWO TYPES OF ALLEGED EMPLOYEES:  FIRST,
PERSONS IN TRAINING TO BECOME YARD AND MAIN LINE FIREMEN, BRAKEMEN, AND
SWITCHMEN; SECOND, OTHERS IN TRAINING TO BECOME CLERKS, STENOGRAPHERS,
CALLERS, MESSENGERS, AND OTHER SIMILAR GENERAL MISCELLANEOUS WORKERS. 
THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE FIRST GROUP WERE NOT "EMPLOYEES" AND
THEREFORE WERE NOT COVERED BY THE ACT.  ON THIS GROUND ALONE THE
INJUNCTION WAS DENIED AS TO THEM.  IT ALSO DENIED RELIEF AS TO THE
SECOND GROUP, CLERKS, ETC., PARTLY ON THIS SAME GROUND.  ANOTHER GROUND
FOR DENYING RELIEF AS TO THE SECOND GROUP WAS THE COURT'S FINDING THAT
THE RAILROAD "FOR SEVERAL YEARS PAST HAS BEEN COMPLYING WITH THE ACT AS
TO THEM, AND APPARENTLY INTENDS IN GOOD FAITH TO DO SO IN THE FUTURE." 
60 F.SUPP.  1004, 1007-1008.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEARLS AFFIRMED. 
155 F.2D 1016, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS DECIDED.  329 U.S. 696. 

THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE RAILROAD HAD BEEN
COMPLYING WITH THE ACT IN GOOD FAITH IN ITS BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH THE
TRAINEE CLERKS, STENOGRAPHERS, ETC. IS NOT CHALLENGED.  NO ARGUMENT IS
HERE MADE THAT THIS IS NOT ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR DENIAL OF THE RELIEF
GRANTED AS TO THIS SECOND GROUP.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AFFIRM
THE COURT'S ACTION IN DENYING AN INJUNCTION TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF THE
ACT AS TO THESE TRAINEES.  WE THEREFORE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER THIS GROUP AS A WHOLE OR ANY OF THE PERSONS IN IT WERE OR WERE
NOT EMPLOYEES UNDER THE ACT. 

THE SOLE GROUND FOR DENYING RELIEF AS TO THE PERSONS TRAINING TO
BECOME FIREMEN, BRAKEMEN, AND SWITCHMEN WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT
EMPLOYEES.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT HERE AS TO THE TRAINING OF THESE
TRAINEES ARE IN ALL RELEVANT RESPECTS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE
FINDINGS OF FACT IN WALLING V. PORTLAND TERMINAL CO., THIS DAY DECIDED,
ANTE, P. 148.  THESE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE NOT CHALLENGED.  FOR THE
REASONS SET OUT IN THAT OPINION WE HOLD THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WAS NOT IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE PERSONS RECEIVING TRAINING
IN ORDER TO BECOME QUALIFIED FOR EMPLOYMENT AS FIREMEN, BRAKEMEN, AND
SWITCHMEN, ARE NOT EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :















BOZZA V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 160 


NO. 190.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1947.  - 155
F.2D 592, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  IN A TRIAL ON AN INDICTMENT FOR MAKING AND FERMENTING MASH FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF ALCOHOL IN VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2834, THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED THAT C ALONE HANDLED AND MIXED THE INGREDIENTS OF THE MASH AND
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT B EVER TOOK ANY PART IN, OR
AIDED AND ABETTED, THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE PROCESS OF OPERATING AN
ILLICIT DISTILLERY OR THAT HE WAS EVER IN THE PART OF THE PREMISES
WHERE THE INGREDIENTS WERE STORED AND THE MASH WAS MADE, ALTHOUGH HE
HELPED TO OPERATE THE STILL IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE PREMISES AND TO
TRANSPORT THE PRODUCT.  HELD:  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSION THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION OF B IS ACCEPTED.  P.
163. 

2.  IN A TRIAL ON AN INDICTMENT FOR HAVING POSSESSION AND CUSTODY OF
AN ILLICIT STILL IN VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2810(A), THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED THAT THE DEFENDANT HELPED TO OPERATE THE STILL; BUT THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HE EVER EXERCISED ANY CONTROL OVER THE STILL,
AIDED IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY SUCH CONTROL, OR ACTED AS A CARETAKER,
WATCHMAN, LOOKOUT OR IN ANY SIMILAR CAPACITY CALCULATED TO FACILITATE
ITS CUSTODY OR POSSESSION.  HELD:  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSION THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN HIS CONVICTION IS ACCEPTED.  PP.
163-164. 

3.  IN A TRIAL ON AN INDICTMENT FOR OPERATING "THE BUSINESS OF
DISTILLER  ...  WITH INTENT WILFULLY TO DEFRAUD" THE GOVERNMENT OF
TAXES IN VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2833(A), THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT
C SECRETLY CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF A DISTILLER IN AN APPARENTLY
ABANDONED FARMHOUSE, THAT B ASSISTED HIM, AND THAT THE PRODUCTS WERE
TRANSPORTED TO A CITY IN A CAR WHICH FOLLOWED ANOTHER CAR, SOMETIMES
B'S. HELD:  THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN B'S CONVICTION.  PP.
164-165. 

(A)  UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 550, ONE WHO AIDS AND ABETS ANOTHER TO
COMMIT A CRIME IS GUILTY AS A PRINCIPAL.  P. 164. 

(B)  THE JURY COULD PROPERLY INFER THAT ONE HELPING TO OPERATE A
SECRET DISTILLERY IN THE MANNER HERE SHOWN KNEW THAT IT WAS OPERATED
WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT OF ITS TAXES.  PP. 164-165. 

4.  HAVING BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME CARRYING A MANDATORY MINIMUM
SENTENCE OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT, DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT ONLY AND PLACED IN TEMPORARY DETENTION AWAITING
TRANSPORTATION TO A PENITENTIARY.  FIVE HOURS LATER, THE JUDGE RE
CALLED HIM, CALLED ATTENTION TO THE MANDATORY PROVISION FOR FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT, AND SENTENCED HIM TO BOTH.  HELD: THIS DID NOT CONSTITUTE
DOUBLE JEOPARDY CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 165-167. 

BOZZA V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED ON FIVE COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT FOR
VIOLATING THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF
A STILL.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED ON TWO COUNTS AND
AFFIRMED ON THREE COUNTS.  155 F.2D 592.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 698.  REVERSED ON TWO COUNTS AND AFFIRMED ON ONE
COUNT, P. 167. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER AND ONE CHIRICHILLO WERE CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT ON ALL COUNTS OF A FIVE-COUNT INDICTMENT AGAINST THEM
WHICH CHARGED VIOLATION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH
THE OPERATION OF A STILL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION ON COUNTS FOUR AND FIVE BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE,
BUT AFFIRMED AS TO COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND THREE.  155 F.2D 592.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 698.  COUNT ONE CHARGED THAT THE
DEFENDANTS HAD CARRIED ON "THE BUSINESS OF DISTILLER  ...  WITH INTENT
WILFULLY TO DEFRAUD THE ...  UNITED STATES OF THE TAX ON  ...  SPIRITS
SO DISTILLED  ..."  IN VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2833(A).  COUNT TWO
CHARGED THEM WITH HAVING HAD POSSESSION AND CUSTODY OF THE STILL IN
VIOLATION OF 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2810(A).  COUNT THREE CHARGED THAT THEY HAD
MADE AND FERMENTED MASH FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ALCOHOL IN VIOLATION OF
26 U.S.C. SEC. 2834.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT ANY OF THE THREE COUNTS HERE AT ISSUE.  THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDES ITS INSUFFICIENCY AS TO COUNTS TWO AND THREE. 

THERE WAS TESTIMONY TO SHOW THE FOLLOWING:  CHIRICHILLO RENTED A
FARMHOUSE UNDER AN ASSUMED NAME AND INSTALLED A 300-GALLON STILL WITH
ALL EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO FERMENT MASH AND DISTILL ALCOHOL.  THE STILL
WAS OPERATED DAY AND NIGHT.  CHIRICHILLO HIMSELF MIXED THE INGREDIENTS
TO MAKE THE MASH IN THE ATTIC OF THE 2 1/2-STORY FRAME BUILDING, BUT
THE ALCOHOL DISTILLATION WAS CARRIED ON IN ANOTHER PART OF THE
BUILDING.  PETITIONER WAS AT THE HOUSE TWO OR THREE TIMES A WEEK.  WHEN
THERE HE TOOK INSTRUCTIONS FROM CHIRICHILLO AND HELPED HIM IN THE
OPERATION OF THE STILL; HE HELPED MANUFACTURE THE ALCOHOL.  WHEN
CHIRICHILLO CARRIED HIS PRODUCTS TO NEWARK, THE CAR IN WHICH HE CARRIED
THE ILLICITLY DISTILLED ALCOHOL WOULD FOLLOW ALONG BEHIND ANOTHER CAR -
SOMETIMES PETITIONER'S, SOMETIMES ANOTHER HELPER'S.  THE FARMHOUSE
WHERE THE ILLICIT BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON APPEARED FROM THE OUTSIDE TO
BE DESERTED; THE WINDOWS WERE WITHOUT SHADES AND THE HOUSE HAD BEEN
PRACTICALLY STRIPPED OF FURNITURE. 

WE ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSION THAT THE EVIDENCE FAILS TO SHOW
THAT THIS PETITIONER HAD MADE, OR HELPED TO MAKE, THE MASH AS CHARGED
IN COUNT THREE.  ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT CHIRICHILLO ALONE
HANDLED AND MIXED THE INGREDIENTS OF THE MASH, AND THERE IS NOTHING
WHATEVER TO INDICATE THAT THE PETITIONER EVER TOOK ANY PART IN, OR
AIDED AND ABETTED, THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE UNLAWFUL PROCESS IN ANY
MANNER, OR, INDEED, THAT HE WAS EVER IN OR AROUND THE ATTIC WHERE THE
MASH WAS MADE FROM INGREDIENTS STORED THERE.  THE INTERNAL REVENUE
STATUTES HAVE BROKEN DOWN THE VARIOUS STEPS AND PHASES OF A CONTINUOUS
ILLICIT DISTILLING BUSINESS AND MADE EACH OF THEM A SEPARATE OFFENSE. 
THUS, THESE STATUTES HAVE CLEARLY CARVED OUT THE CONDUCT OF MAKING MASH
AS A SEPARATE OFFENSE, THEREBY DISTINGUISHING IT FROM THE OTHER
OFFENSES INVOLVING OTHER STEPS AND PHASES OF THE DISTILLING BUSINESS. 
CONSEQUENTLY, TESTIMONY TO PROVE THIS SEPARATE OFFENSE OF MAKING MASH
MUST POINT DIRECTLY TO CONDUCT WITHIN THE NARROW MARGINS WHICH THE
STATUTE ALONE DEFINES.  ONE WHO NEITHER ENGAGES IN THE CONDUCT
SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED, NOR AIDS AND ABETS IT, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE

THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO COUNT TWO WHICH CHARGED THAT
THE PETITIONER HAD CUSTODY OR POSSESSION OF THE STILL IS A CLOSER
QUESTION.  IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE THAT PETITIONER'S HELPING TO MAKE THE
ALCOHOL AIDED AND ABETTED IN ITS "CUSTODY OR POSSESSION."  BUT THAT
WOULD BE A VERY STRAINED INFERENCE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  HERE AGAIN
THE STATUTES TREAT CUSTODY OR POSSESSION AS A WHOLLY DISTINCT OFFENSE. 
YET THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY THAT THE PETITIONER EVER EXERCISED, OR AIDED
THE EXERCISE OF, ANY CONTROL OVER THE DISTILLERY.  HIS PARTICIPATION IN
CARRYING THE FINISHED PRODUCT BY CAR DOES NOT FIT THE CATEGORY OF
"CUSTODY AND POSSESSION" SO NEARLY AS IT RESEMBLES THE TRANSPORTATION
OF ILLEGAL LIQUOR, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2803 - AN OFFENSE WHICH THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HAS FOUND THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE.  NOR WAS
THERE ANY TESTIMONY THAT THE PETITIONER ACTED IN ANY OTHER CAPACITY
CALCULATED TO FACILITATE THE CUSTODY OR POSSESSION, SUCH AS, FOR
ILLUSTRATION, SERVICE AS A CARETAKER, WATCHMAN, LOOKOUT, OR IN SOME
OTHER SIMILAR CAPACITY.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ACCEPT THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSION THAT A JUDGMENT OF GUILTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
RENDERED ON THE SECOND COUNT. 

WE THINK THERE WAS ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILT ON
THE FIRST COUNT WHICH CHARGED OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS OF DISTILLING
TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT OF TAXES.  THERE WAS CERTAINLY AMPLE EVIDENCE
TO SHOW THAT CHIRICHILLO CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF A DISTILLER AND
THAT THE PETITIONER HELPED HIM TO DO IT.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 550 PROVIDES
THAT ONE WHO AIDS AND ABETS ANOTHER TO COMMIT A CRIME IS GUILTY AS A
PRINCIPAL.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE JURY HAD A RIGHT TO FIND, AS IT DID, THAT
THE PETITIONER AND CHIRICHILLO WERE EQUALLY GUILTY OF OPERATING THE
BUSINESS OF THE DISTILLERY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 319 U.S.
503, 515, 518. 

BUT, IT IS ARGUED, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PETITIONER ACTED
WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE DISTILLERY BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON WITH AN
INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT OF ITS TAXES.  THE SAME EVIDENCE AS TO
KNOWLEDGE OF THIS GUILTY PURPOSE, HOWEVER, THAT APPLIED TO CHIRICHILLO
WAS ALMOST, IF NOT QUITE, EQUALLY PERSUASIVE AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS. 
PETITIONER ASSISTED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ALCOHOL IN CHIRICHILLO'S
STILL WHICH WAS OPERATED UNDER CONDITIONS OF SECRETIVENESS IN AN
APPARENTLY ABANDONED FARMHOUSE.  THE FINISHED ALCOHOL WAS CARRIED TO
NEWARK IN A CAR WHICH FOLLOWED ANOTHER CAR, SOMETIMES THE PETITIONER'S.
THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY COULD PROPERLY DRAW ON THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE
AND OBSERVATIONS THAT LAWFUL STILLS, UNLIKE THE STILL IN WHICH
PETITIONER WORKED, USUALLY ARE NOT OPERATED CLANDESTINELY AND DO NOT
DELIVER THEIR PRODUCTS IN THE FASHION EMPLOYED HERE.  THE MEMBERS OF
THE JURY WERE NOT PRECLUDED FROM DRAWING INFERENCES AS TO FRAUDULENT
PURPOSES FROM THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NOR WERE THEY COMPELLED TO BELIEVE
THAT THIS PETITIONER WAS OBLIVIOUS OF THE PURPOSES OF WHAT WENT ON
AROUND HIM.  MEN IN THE JURY BOX, LIKE MEN ON THE STREET, CAN CONCLUDE
THAT A PERSON WHO ACTIVELY HELPS TO OPERATE A SECRET DISTILLERY KNOWS
THAT HE IS HELPING TO VIOLATE GOVERNMENT REVENUE LAWS.  THAT IS A WELL
KNOWN OBJECT OF AN ILLICIT DISTILLERY.  DOUBTLESS FEW WHO EVER WORKED
IN SUCH A PLACE, OR EVEN HEARD ABOUT ONE, WOULD FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE
CRY:  "THE REVENUERS ARE COMING."  WE HOLD THAT THE VERDICT OF GUILTY
ON THE FIRST COUNT MUST STAND. 

THE ONLY STATUTE FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH PETITIONER'S CONVICTION IS
SUSTAINED BY US CARRIES A MINIMUM MANDATORY SENTENCE OF FINE OF ONE
HUNDRED DOLLARS AND IMPRISONMENT, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2833(A).  IN
ANNOUNCING SENTENCE AT A MORNING SESSION, THE TRIAL JUDGE MENTIONED
IMPRISONMENT ONLY.  THEREAFTER THE PETITIONER WAS TAKEN BRIEFLY TO THE
U.S. MARSHAL'S OFFICE AND THEN TO A LOCAL FEDERAL DETENTION JAIL
AWAITING TRANSPORTATION TO THE PENITENTIARY WHERE HE WAS FINALLY TO BE
CONFINED.  BUT ABOUT FIVE HOURS AFTER THE SENTENCE WAS ANNOUNCED, THE
JUDGE RECALLED THE PETITIONER AND, ACCORDING TO STIPULATION, STATED IN
THE PRESENCE OF PETITIONER AND HIS COUNSEL THAT "IN THE IMPOSITION OF
SENTENCE THIS MORNING  ...  IT HAS BEEN CALLED TO MY ATTENTION THAT
THERE ARE CERTAIN MANDATORY FINES AND PENALTIES WHICH I OMITTED TO
IMPOSE.  FOR THE RECORD NOW MINIMUM MANDATORY FINES AND PENALTIES WILL
BE IMPOSED."  THUS A ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR FINE WAS FIXED, AS REQUIRED BY
LAW, ALONG WITH THE IMPRISONMENT SENTENCE.  PETITIONER CHARGES THAT
THIS ACTION CONSTITUTED DOUBLE JEOPARDY FORBIDDEN BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A SENTENCE WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
LETTER OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZES IT IS SO ERRONEOUS THAT
IT MAY BE SET ASIDE ON APPEAL, REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145,
168-169; MURPHY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 177 U.S. 155, 157, OR IN HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.  IN RE BONNER, 151 U.S. 242.  BUT IN THOSE CASES IT
WAS RECOGNIZED THAT AN EXCESSIVE SENTENCE SHOULD BE CORRECTED, EVEN
THOUGH THE PRISONER HAD ALREADY SERVED PART OF HIS TERM, NOT BY
ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE OF THE PRISONER, BUT BY AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT OF
THE INVALID SENTENCE BY THE COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, AT LEAST
DURING THE TERM OF COURT IN WHICH THE INVALID SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED. 
FN1  CF. DE BENQUE V. UNITED STATES, 66 APP. D.C. 36, 85 F.2D 202.  IN
THE LIGHT OF THESE CASES, THE FACT THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN TWICE
BEFORE THE JUDGE FOR SENTENCING AND IN A FEDERAL PLACE OF DETENTION
DURING THE FIVE-HOUR INTERIM CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY AS WE HAVE HERETOFORE CONSIDERED IT.  PETITIONER CONTENDS,
HOWEVER, THAT THESE CASES ARE INAPPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE CORRECTION OF
THIS SENTENCE SO AS TO MAKE IT LAWFUL INCREASES HIS PUNISHMENT.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. BENZ, 282 U.S. 304, 309.  IF THIS INADVERTENT ERROR
CANNOT BE CORRECTED IN THE MANNER USED HERE BY THE TRIAL COURT, NO
VALID AND ENFORCEABLE SENTENCE CAN BE IMPOSED AT ALL.  CF. JORDAN V.
UNITED STATES, 60 F.2D 4, 6, WITH BARROW V. UNITED STATES, 54 APP. D.C.
128, 295 F. 949.  THIS COURT HAS REJECTED THE "DOCTRINE THAT A
PRISONER, WHOSE GUILT IS ESTABLISHED, BY A REGULAR VERDICT, IS TO
ESCAPE PUNISHMENT ALTOGETHER, BECAUSE THE COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR IN
PASSING THE SENTENCE."  IN RE BONNER, SUPRA AT 260.  THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT SENTENCING SHOULD BE A GAME IN WHICH A WRONG MOVE
BY THE JUDGE MEANS IMMUNITY FOR THE PRISONER.  SEE KING V. UNITED
STATES, 69 APP. D.C. 10, 15, 98 F.2D 291, 296.  IN THIS CASE THE COURT
"ONLY SET ASIDE WHAT IT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO AND SUBSTITUTED)
DIRECTIONS REQUIRED BY THE LAW TO BE DONE UPON THE CONVICTION OF THE
OFFENDER."  IN RE BONNER, SUPRA AT 260.  IT DID NOT TWICE PUT
PETITIONER IN JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.  FN2  THE SENTENCE, AS
CORRECTED, IMPOSES A VALID PUNISHMENT FOR AN OFFENSE INSTEAD OF AN
INVALID PUNISHMENT FOR THAT OFFENSE. 

OTHER CONTENTIONS HERE DO NOT MERIT OUR DISCUSSION.  THE JUDGMENT AS
TO COUNT ONE IS AFFIRMED.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AS TO COUNTS TWO
AND THREE.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  COMPARE RULE 45C, FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 

FN2  IN EX PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163, RELIED ON BY PETITIONER HHER,
THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN SENTENCED TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR VIOLATION
OF A STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZED A SENTENCE ONLY OF FINE OR IMPRISONMENT. 
SINCE HE HAD PAID HIS FINE AND THEREFORE SUFFERED PUNISHMENT UNDER A
VALID SENTENCE, IT WAS HELD THAT HIS SENTENCE HAD BEEN "EXECUTED BY
FULL SATISFACTION OF ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES OF THE LAW  ..." 
MURPHY V. MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA AT 160.  THEREFORE, LANGE'S PLEA, THAT
THE TRIAL COURT COULD NOT CORRECT THE SENTENCE WITHOUT CAUSING HIM TO
SUFFER DOUBLE PUNISHMENT, WAS SUSTAINED.  CF. IN RE BRADLEY, 318 U.S.
50.  BUT HERE THE PETITIONER HAD NOT SUFFERED ANY LAWFUL PUNISHMENT
UNTIL THE COURT HAD ANNOUNCED THE FULL MANDATORY SENTENCE OF
IMPRISONMENT AND FINE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
DISSENTING AS TO THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT ON COUNT ONE. 

WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TO CONVICT ONE AS AN AIDER AND ABETTER IN
ENGAGING IN OR CARRYING ON A DISTILLERY BUSINESS WITH INTENT "TO
DEFRAUD" THE UNITED STATES OF THE TAX ON THE DISTILLED SPIRITS, 53
STAT. 319, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2833(A), EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY WHICH SHOWS
THAT BY SOME ACT OF CONCEALMENT HE PROMOTED THE FRAUD, OR BY COUNSEL
AND ADVICE FURTHERED THE UNLAWFUL SCHEME, OR IN FACT HAD SOME INTEREST
IN THE PROJECT.  FN1  SEE UNITED STATES V. COOPER, 25 FED. CAS. 627,
629; UNITED STATES V. LOGAN, 26 FED. CAS. 990, 992; SEIDEN V. UNITED
STATES, 16 F.2D 197, 199; PARTSON V. UNITED STATES, 20 F.2D 127, 129;
ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 30 F.2D 485, 487.  AIDING AND ABETTING IN
THE ILLICIT MANUFACTURE OF LIQUOR IS ONE THING.  FN2  AIDING AND
ABETTING IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES OF A TAX IS QUITE A DIFFERENT MATTER, AND REQUIRES A DIFFERENT
TEST, IF THE TWO OFFENSES ARE NOT TO BE BLENDED.  THE EVIDENCE IN THE
CASE AND THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN THE JURY  FN3  SEEM TO US INADEQUATE TO
SUSTAIN A CONVICTION UNDER COUNT ONE, CHARGING BOZZA WITH AIDING AND
ABETTING IN A TAX FRAUD SCHEME. 

IN VIEW OF THIS CONCLUSION, MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE RESERVES EXPRESSION
OF OPINION CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF THE SENTENCE.    FN1  JUDGE
LEARNED HAND, AFTER REVIEWING THE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS OF AIDING AND
ABETTING, SAID: "IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT ALL THESE DEFINITIONS HAVE
NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE PROBABILITY THAT THE FORBIDDEN RESULT
WOULD FOLLOW UPON THE ACCESSORY'S CONDUCT; AND THAT THEY ALL DEMAND
THAT HE IN SOME SORT ASSOCIATE HIMSELF WITH THE VENTURE, THAT HE
PARTICIPATE IN IT AS IN SOMETHING THAT HE WISHES TO BRING ABOUT, THAT
HE SEEK BY HIS ACTION TO MAKE IT SUCCEED.  ALL THE WORDS USED - EVEN
THE MOST COLORLESS, 'ABET' - CARRY AN IMPLICATION OF PURPOSIVE ATTITUDE
TOWARDS IT."  UNITED STATES V. PEONI, 100 F.2D 401, 402. 

FN2 THUS SEC. 2833(A) MAKES IT AN OFFENSE TO "CARRY ON THE BUSINESS
OF A DISTILLER WITHOUT HAVING GIVEN BOND AS REQUIRED BY LAW."  SECTION
2834 MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO MAKE OR FERMENT MASH, FIT FOR DISTILLATION,
IN ANY BUILDING OR ON ANY PREMISES OTHER THAN AN AUTHORIZED
DISTILLERY. 

FN3  "...  IF YOU FIND THAT HE WAS MERELY AN UNDERLING, SERVING AT
THE BECK AND CALL OF AN EMPLOYER AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT WOULD NOT
JUSTIFY YOUR FINDING HIM TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF A DISTILLER. 
BUT IF FROM THE EVIDENCE YOU CONCLUDE LOGICALLY THAT HE AIDED AND
ABETTED IN THE CARRYING ON OF THIS BUSINESS, THEN HE WOULD BE
CHARGEABLE AS A PRINCIPAL.... AIDING AND ABETTING IS SOMETHING MORE
THAN MERELY COMMITTING AN ACT WHICH MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF ASSISTING OR
FURTHERING A CRIMINAL TRANSACTION.  BEFORE A DEFENDANT CAN BE HELD AS
AN AIDER AND ABETTER THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT HE COMMITTED AN ACT WHICH FURTHERED OR ASSISTED THE CRIMINAL
TRANSACTION, AND AT THE TIME HE COMMITTED THE ACT HE KNEW THAT A CRIME
WAS IN PROCESS OF COMMISSION, AND WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE HE ACTED WITH
INTENT TO AID AND ABET IN THE CRIMINAL TRANSACTION."  WHILE THE ABOVE
CHARGES WERE REQUESTED BY DEFENDANT, WE NEVERTHELESS FEEL THAT THE
FAILURE OF THE INSTRUCTIONS TO SATISFY THE STANDARD WE SUGGEST IS AN
ERROR WHICH WE SHOULD NOTICE.  SIBBACH V. WILSON & CO., 312 U.S. 1,
16. 
..END :

















UTE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 169 


NO. 141.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 15, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1947.  -
106 CT. CL. 33, 64 F.SUPP.  569, AFFIRMED. 


BY A TREATY OF 1868 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UTE INDIANS, A
RESERVATION WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE INDIANS IN COLORADO.  SUBSEQUENTLY,
AN ERRONEOUS SURVEY SHOWED THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY TO BE SOUTH OF THE
TRUE BOUNDARY AND AS EXCLUDING THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY LANDS WHICH
ACTUALLY WERE IN THE RESERVATION.  BELIEVING THE SURVEY TO BE ACCURATE
AND DESIRING TO PRESERVE THESE LANDS FOR THE USE OF THE INDIANS, THE
PRESIDENT, BY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875, WITHDREW FROM SALE AND "SET
APART FOR THE USE OF THE  ...  UTE INDIANS, AS AN ADDITION TO THE
PRESENT RESERVATION IN SAID TERRITORY" A STRIP OF LAND NORTH "OF THE
PRESENT UTE INDIAN RESERVATION."  LATER, IN ORDER TO PUNISH THE INDIANS
FOR A MASSACRE, DISPOSSESS THEM OF THE RESERVATION, AND REMOVE THEM
FROM COLORADO, CONGRESS PASSED THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880, 21 STAT. 199,
WHICH RATIFIED AND EMBODIED AN AGREEMENT BY THEIR LEADERS TO CEDE TO
THE UNITED STATES ALL TERRITORY OF "THE PRESENT UTE RESERVATION," AND
PROVIDED THAT ALL LANDS SO CEDED AND NOT ALLOTTED SPECIFICALLY TO
INDIVIDUAL INDIANS WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR SALE AS
PUBLIC LANDS AND THAT, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THE PROCEEDS OF
THEIR SALE SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE INDIANS.  AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OF
1882 DECLARED THAT THE LANDS "SET APART FOR THE USE OF THE  ...  UTE
INDIANS" BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875 IS "HEREBY RESTORED TO THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN."  THE INDIANS BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE
28, 1938, 52 STAT. 1209, AS AMENDED, 55 STAT. 593, TO OBTAIN
COMPENSATION FOR THE LANDS NORTH OF THE ORIGINAL RESERVATION MADE
AVAILABLE TO THEM BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875.  HELD: 

1.  INSOFAR AS THE CLAIM RESTS ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875, IT
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  P. 176. 

(A)  THE PRESIDENT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CONVEY TO THE INDIANS A
COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN THE LANDS LYING NORTH OF THE TRUE BOUNDARY OF
THE RESERVATION CREATED BY THE TREATY OF 1868.  PP. 176, 180. 

(B)  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875 MADE THE INDIANS NO MORE THAN
TENANTS AT WILL OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THAT PART OF THE LAND OUTSIDE THE
TRUE TREATY RESERVATION.  P. 176. 

(C)  THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS TO PROTECT THE
INDIANS' ENJOYMENT OF THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY LANDS CONVEYED TO THEM BY
THE ORIGINAL TREATY; AND THIS PURPOSE HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.  PP. 177,
180. 

2.  THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880, GIVES THE INDIANS NO RIGHT TO RECOVER
FOR THE LAND NORTH OF THE TRUE BOUNDARY OF THE TREATY RESERVATION SET
APART FOR THEIR USE BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875.  PP. 177-180. 

(A)  IT CONTAINS NOTHING SHOWING A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO CONVEY
SUCH LANDS TO THE INDIANS.  P. 177. 

(B)  NOR WAS IT INTENDED TO TRANSFORM THE EXECUTIVE ORDER INTO A
CONVEYANCE OF A COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN LANDS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
ORIGINAL TREATY RESERVATION.  PP. 178, 180. 

(C)  IT WAS INTENDED TO COMPENSATE THEM ONLY FOR THE LANDS IN THE
ORIGINAL RESERVATION WHICH THEY CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES.  P. 178. 

(D)  THE FACT THAT IT PROVIDED FOR THE CESSION OF THE "PRESENT UTE
RESERVATION" IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS A PURPOSE TO
TREAT AS PART OF THAT RESERVATION LANDS WHICH NEVER HAD BEEN LEGALLY
CONVEYED TO THE INDIANS AND HAD ONLY BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MAKING THEM SECURE IN THEIR POSSESSION OF THE WHITE
RIVER VALLEY.  PP. 178-179. 

3.  EVEN IF THE INDIANS UNDERSTOOD IN 1880 THAT THEY OWNED THE LANDS
DESCRIBED IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875 LYING NORTH OF THE WHITE RIVER
VALLEY, THAT THEIR "PRESENT UTE RESERVATION" INCLUDED THEM, AND THAT
CONGRESS UNDERTOOK BY THE 1880 ACT TO SELL THESE LANDS FOR THEIR
BENEFIT, AND, EVEN IF CONGRESS WAS AWARE OF THIS UNDERSTANDING, THIS
WOULD NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ACT
NEITHER CONVEYED NOR RATIFIED CONVEYANCE OF THESE LANDS.  P. 179. 

4.  WHILE A TREATY WITH INDIANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO CARRY OUT
THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR UNDERSTANDING
OF THE INDIANS, THIS COURT CANNOT, UNDER THE GUISE OF INTERPRETATION,
CREATE PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY WHERE THERE WAS NONE OR REWRITE
CONGRESSIONAL ACTS SO AS TO MAKE THEM MEAN SOMETHING THEY OBVIOUSLY
WERE NOT INTENDED TO MEAN.  P. 179. 

CONFEDERATED BANDS OF UTE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

IN A SUIT BY THE UTE INDIANS UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1938, 52 STAT.
1209, AS AMENDED, 55 STAT. 593, TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR LANDS MADE
AVAILABLE TO THEM BY AN 1875 EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT AND
SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN FROM THEM BY THE UNITED STATES, THE COURT OF CLAIMS
HELD THAT THEY HAD NO COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN SUCH LANDS.  106 CT. CL.
33, 64 F.SUPP.  569.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 694. 
AFFIRMED, P. 180. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER THE ACT
OF JUNE 28, 1938, 52 STAT. 1209, AS AMENDED, 55 STAT. 593, TO RECOVER
COMPENSATION FOR LANDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM BY AN 1875 EXECUTIVE
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT AND SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN FROM THEM BY THE UNITED
STATES.  THEIR CLAIM WAS THAT BY AN ACT OF 1880, CONGRESS HAD
UNDERTAKEN TO SELL THESE LANDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PETITIONERS, BUT
THAT THEY HAD NEVER BEEN COMPENSATED FOR THEM.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS,
ONE JUDGE CONCURRING SPECIALLY, MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUDED AS
A MATTER OF LAW THAT PETITIONERS HAD NO COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN THE
LANDS BECAUSE THEY "NEVER DID ACQUIRE TITLE TO THESE  ...  LANDS AND
...  THE CONGRESS NEVER DID AGREE TO SELL THEM FOR THE ACCOUNT OF"
PETITIONERS.  106 CT. CL. 33, 51, 64 F.SUPP.  569, 571.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 329 U.S. 694. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS FROM OFFICIAL LETTERS, EXECUTIVE
ORDERS AND STATUTES INCORPORATED IN THESE FINDINGS WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

A TREATY OF 1868, 15 STAT. 619, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
PETITIONERS' ANCESTORS, THE UTE INDIAN TRIBES, ESTABLISHED A
RESERVATION FOR THEM IN COLORADO.  THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE 15
MILLION ACRES THERE CEDED WAS DESCRIBED IN THE TREATY AS A LINE FIFTEEN
MILES NORTH OF, AND PARALLEL TO, THE 40TH PARALLEL OF NORTH LATITUDE. 
IN THE 15-MILE WIDE STRIP NORTH OF THE 40TH PARALLEL LAY THE WHITE
RIVER VALLEY WHICH HAD BEEN SETTLED BY THE UTES AS A MOST SUITABLE
PLACE FOR GRAZING AND CULTIVATION.  ONE OF THE TWO GOVERNMENT INDIAN
AGENCIES PROVIDED FOR THE RESERVATION BY THE TREATY WAS ESTABLISHED IN
THAT STRIP. 

AS A RESULT OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS IN 1869 AND 1874 BETWEEN THE UTES
AND WHITE SETTLERS TO THE NORTH AS TO THE TRUE LOCATION OF THE NORTHERN
TREATY BOUNDARY, A SURVEY WAS MADE IN 1875 BY ONE MILLER.  MILLER'S
INSTRUCTIONS, HOWEVER, REQUIRED HIM TO STAKE OUT A LINE WHICH HE
ADMITTED TO THE LOCAL INDIAN AGENT AND TO THE UTES THEMSELVES TO BE
FIFTEEN TO EIGHTEEN MILES SOUTH OF THE TRUE BOUNDARY DESCRIBED IN THE
TREATY.  IF MILLER'S LINE HAD BEEN CORRECT, IT WOULD HAVE EXCLUDED FROM
THE 1868 RESERVATION THE FERTILE WHITE RIVER VALLEY, AND WOULD HAVE
ALSO EXCLUDED THE AGENCY BUILDINGS WHICH HAD BEEN ERECTED THERE. 

THE MARKING OUT OF THE ERRONEOUS MILLER LINE GREATLY UPSET THE
INDIANS BECAUSE THEY FEARED THEY WOULD BE DRIVEN FROM THE WHITE RIVER
VALLEY.  THIS EMBARRASSED THE LOCAL INDIAN AGENT WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY
ASSURED THE INDIANS THAT THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY LAY WITHIN THEIR
RESERVATION.  HE PROMPTLY REPORTED THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY AND THE
REACTION OF THE INDIANS TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IN
WASHINGTON, AND URGED THE NECESSITY OF A NEW SURVEY AT THE EARLIEST
PRACTICABLE DATE.  HE STATED THAT IF THE MILLER SURVEY WERE CORRECT,
HOWEVER, THE INDIANS WOULD BE DRIVEN FROM THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY - "THE
ONLY FARMING LAND AND  ...  STOCK RANGE  ...  IN THIS PORTION OF THE
RESERVATION" - AND FORCED TO SETTLE ON A RIVER FORTY MILES TO THE
SOUTH.  THE COMMISSIONER, ACTING ON THIS REPORT AND A STATEMENT BY
MILLER'S ATTORNEY THAT MILLER'S LINE WAS CORRECT, WROTE TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR THAT THE MILLER SURVEY "DEVELOPS THE FACT
THAT THE WHITE RIVER AND SURROUNDING VALLEYS AS WELL AS THE AGENCY
BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS AT THE WHITE RIVER AGENCY LIE NORTH OF THE
...  BOUNDARY AND CONSEQUENTLY ARE NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE  ...
UTE RESERVATION."  HE THEREFORE RECOMMENDED TO THE SECRETARY THAT THE
PRESIDENT BE REQUESTED TO ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO
THE UTES ADDITIONAL TERRITORY NORTH OF THE 1868 TREATY BOUNDARY.  THE
PRESIDENT, ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
ISSUED THE ORDER.  FN1  AND THEREAFTER THE COMMISSIONER WROTE THE LOCAL
AGENT THAT THE ORDER INCLUDED "ALL THAT TRACT OF COUNTRY LYING BETWEEN
THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE UTE RESERVATION AS DEFINED IN TREATY OF MARCH
2, 1868  ...  WHICH WAS THE BOUNDARY SURVEYED BY MR. MILLER  ...  THIS
ACTION FULLY PROTECTS YOUR INDIANS IN THE PEACEABLE POSSESSION OF THEIR
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY AND THE AGENCY BUILDINGS, AND
WILL ENABLE YOU TO ASSURE THE INDIANS OF THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE
LIMITS OF THEIR RESERVATION AS ENLARGED." 

IN 1879, SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS ISSUED,
HOSTILITIES BROKE OUT BETWEEN SOME OF THE UTES AND GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVES IN WHICH THE INDIAN AGENT AT WHITE RIVER, ALL THE
AGENCY'S MALE EMPLOYEES, AND A U.S. MILITARY DETACHMENT WERE KILLED IN
THE SO-CALLED "MEEKER MASSACRE."  H.R. EX. DOC. NO. 1, PT. 5, 46TH
CONG., 2D SESS. (1879) 16-19, 82-97.  THERE HAVE BEEN CHARGES AND
COUNTERCHARGES AS TO WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INCITING THESE
HOSTILITIES.  WHOEVER WAS RESPONSIBLE, IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS,
AROUSED BY THE MASSACRE, TOOK STEPS TO PUNISH THE INDIANS WHO
PARTICIPATED IN IT, TO DISPOSSESS THE UTES OF THEIR RESERVATION, AND TO
REMOVE THEM FROM COLORADO.  CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH THIS WAS
PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880, 21 STAT. 199, WHICH RATIFIED AND
EMBODIED AN AGREEMENT REACHED EARLIER THAT YEAR BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE LEADERS OF THE UTES WHO HAD PROMISED "TO USE THEIR BEST
ENDEAVORS WITH THEIR PEOPLE TO PROCURE THEIR CONSENT TO CEDE TO THE
UNITED STATES ALL THE TERRITORY OF THE PRESENT UTE RESERVATION  ..." 
THIS ACT AUTHORIZED SPECIFIC ALLOTMENTS TO INDIVIDUAL INDIANS FROM THE
LANDS SO CEDED.  BUT SEC. 3 PROVIDED THAT "ALL THE LANDS NOT  ...
ALLOTTED, THE TITLE TO WHICH IS, BY THE SAID AGREEMENT OF  ...  THE UTE
INDIANS, AND THIS ACCEPTANCE BY THE UNITED STATES, RELEASED AND
CONVEYED TO THE UNITED STATES  ..."  WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN FOR SALE AS PUBLIC LANDS.  THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE LAND
SO CONVEYED BY THE UTES TO THE UNITED STATES WERE, UPON SATISFACTION OF
INDEMNITY CONDITIONS IMPOSED BECAUSE OF THE MASSACRE, TO BE DISTRIBUTED
TO THE INDIANS.  THEREAFTER, IN 1882, AN EXECUTIVE ORDER DECLARED THAT
THE LANDS WITHDRAWN FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF
1875 AND "SET APART FOR THE USE OF THE  ...  UTE INDIANS ...  HEREBY
IS, RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN."  1 KAPPLER, SUPRA, 834-835. 

PURSUANT TO AN ACT OF 1909, 35 STAT. 781, PETITIONERS RECOVERED A
JUDGMENT FOR THE PROCEEDS OF CERTAIN LANDS SOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT, AS
WELL AS THE VALUE OF CERTAIN LANDS APPROPRIATED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
ITS OWN USE, ALL OF WHICH WERE PART OF THE 1868 TREATY LANDS.  UTE
INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 45 CT. CL. 440, 46 CT. CL. 225.  THUS, EXCEPT
FOR CERTAIN TREATY LANDS NOT AT ISSUE HERE, LITIGATION CONCERNING WHICH
IS NOW PENDING IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE ONLY LANDS IN COLORADO FOR
WHICH THE INDIANS HAVE NOT BEEN PAID ARE THOSE TO THE NORTH OF AND
OUTSIDE THE 1868 TREATY RESERVATION WHICH WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM
BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875.  IN PURSUIT OF COMPENSATION FOR THESE
EXECUTIVE ORDER LANDS, PETITIONERS HAVE BROUGHT THIS ACTION PURSUANT TO
THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1938, SUPRA.  THAT ACT CONFERS JURISDICTION ON THE
COURT OF CLAIMS TO HEAR, DETERMINE, AND RENDER FINAL JUDGMENT ON ALL
LEGAL AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF THE UTES AND TO AWARD JUDGMENT FOR THE
INDIANS WHERE IT IS FOUND "THAT ANY LANDS FORMERLY BELONGING" TO THEM
"HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT COMPENSATION  ..." 

PETITIONERS CONTEND HERE THAT THEIR PREDECESSORS UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY
NOT ONLY OWNED THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY LANDS, BUT THAT THEY ALSO OWNED
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER LANDS WHEN, IN 1880, THEY AGREED TO CEDE THEIR
RESERVATION; AND THAT CONGRESS, BY INCORPORATING THE AGREEMENT IN THE
1880 ACT, THEREBY RATIFIED IT ALONG WITH THE INDIANS' UNDERSTANDING OF
IT.  PETITIONERS FURTHER CONTEND THAT WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS INTENDED
TO OBLIGATE THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXECUTIVE ORDER LANDS,
THEY KNEW OF THE INDIANS' UNDERSTANDING SO THAT "THE UNDERSTANDING OF
THE INDIANS HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED," THEIR UNDERSTANDING ENTITLES THEM
TO RECOVER.  FINALLY THEY ARGUE THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, UNLIKE THE
ONE IN ISSUE IN SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 317,
CONVEYED A COMPENSABLE INTEREST TO THESE INDIANS.  THE GOVERNMENT
COUNTERS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD NO POWER TO GIVE A COMPENSABLE INTEREST
TO THE INDIANS TO LANDS LYING OUTSIDE THE TRUE 1868 TREATY BOUNDARIES;
THAT IF THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO MAKE AVAILABLE LANDS OUTSIDE THE TRUE
BOUNDARY IT WAS ONLY TO GIVE A TRANSITORY, POSSESSORY, AND NOT A
COMPENSABLE, INTEREST; THAT HIS INTENT WAS, IN FACT, ONLY TO SECURE THE
INDIANS IN THEIR POSSESSION OF THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY, BUT NO MORE, ON
THE MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION THAT THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY HAD BEEN CUT OFF
FROM THE RESERVATION BY THE MILLER SURVEY; THAT THE 1880 ACT, NEITHER
BY ITS TERMS, ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, NOR ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION, SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO RATIFY OR EXPAND THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER OR TO COMPENSATE THE INDIANS FOR THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
LANDS; THAT THE INDIANS DID NOT HAVE A CONTRARY UNDERSTANDING; THAT IN
THE FACE OF SUCH CLEAR LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE AND INTENT, A CONTRARY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIANS, EVEN IF ESTABLISHED, COULD NOT JUSTIFY A
HOLDING THAT THE INDIANS OBTAINED A COMPENSABLE INTEREST. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE EITHER BEEN, OR ARE
CURRENTLY PRESSING LITIGATION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY WHICH THEY SEEK
TO BE, COMPENSATED FOR THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY LANDS, AND, IN FACT, FOR
ALL OF THE LAND WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN THE TRUE BOUNDARIES OF THE 1868
RESERVATION.  THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM, INSOFAR AS IT RESTS ON THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  FOR THE PRESIDENT HAD NO
AUTHORITY TO CONVEY TO THE PETITIONERS A COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN THE
LANDS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER LYING NORTH OF THE TRUE 1868 BOUNDARY. 
SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  FN2  NOR IS THERE ANY
INDICATION IN THE FINDINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO CONVEY MORE
THAN A TRANSITORY, POSSESSORY INTEREST BY THE 1875 ORDER.  THAT ORDER
MADE THE INDIANS NO MORE THAN TENANTS AT THE WILL OF THE GOVERNMENT ON
THAT PART OF THE LAND OUTSIDE THE TRUE TREATY RESERVATION.  ID. AT
331.  MOREOVER, THE COURT OF CLAIMS' FINDINGS OF FACT, AS EMPHASIZED BY
THE SPECIAL CONCURRING OPINION, INDICATE THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS
PROMULGATED UNDER THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT ITS ISSUANCE WAS NECESSARY
IN ORDER TO GIVE THE INDIANS THE USE OF THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY LANDS
INTENDED TO BE GRANTED TO THEM BY THE 1868 TREATY AND FROM WHICH THEY
MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BY THE MILLER SURVEY.  THESE
FINDINGS DO NOT INDICATE THAT THE COMMISSIONER, THE SECRETARY, OR THE
PRESIDENT INTENDED THE ORDER TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE LANDS IT IN FACT
DESCRIBED LYING NORTH OF THE TRUE TREATY BOUNDARY.  THE ORDER WAS
DESIGNED ONLY TO RESOLVE THE MISUNDERSTANDING CREATED BY MILLER ABOUT
THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY LANDS.  FN3  THE FULLEST POSSIBLE PURPOSE OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER HAS ACTUALLY BEEN CARRIED OUT.  FOR THE INDIANS'
ENJOYMENT OF THE WHITE RIVER LANDS WAS PROTECTED DURING THEIR STAY ON
THE RESERVATION, AND THE LANDS HAVE EITHER ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR, OR
ARE THE SUBJECT OF PENDING LITIGATION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS WHEREBY
THE INDIANS SEEK PAYMENT FOR THEM.  IT IS WITH THESE THINGS IN MIND
THAT WE MUST CONSIDER PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO
RECOVER COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF THE 1880 ACT. 

THERE IS NOT ONE WORD IN THAT ACT SHOWING A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO
CONVEY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER LANDS, OR ANY OTHER LANDS, TO THE INDIANS. 
ON THE CONTRARY, THE ACT EMBODIED A TRANSACTION WHEREBY THE INDIANS
WERE THE TRANSFERORS AND CONVEYED LANDS TO THE GOVERNMENT.  FOR THE
VALUE OF LANDS SO CONVEYED, AND FOR NO OTHER, THE GOVERNMENT WAS TO
MAKE AN ACCOUNT TO THE INDIANS AFTER CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS HAD BEEN MADE. 

NOR IS IT POSSIBLE TO DEDUCE FROM THE 1880 ACT A CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE TO TRANSFORM THE EXECUTIVE ORDER INTO A CONVEYANCE OF SOMETHING
MORE THAN A MERE TEMPORARY AND CANCELLABLE POSSESSORY RIGHT TO THE
INDIANS.  NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE 1880 ACT, ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, NOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH BROUGHT IT ABOUT, JUSTIFY THE
CLAIM THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXPAND THE EXECUTIVE ORDER INTO A
TRANSFER OF A COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN LANDS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
ORIGINAL TREATY RESERVATION.  THE ACT WAS AN AFTERMATH OF THE "MEEKER
MASSACRE."  WITH THE MASSACRE IN MIND, CONGRESS DECIDED TO REMOVE THE
INDIANS FROM THE COLORADO RESERVATION AS PART OF THE PUNISHMENT METED
OUT FOR THIS TRAGEDY.  FN4  THE VERY FIRST SECTION OF THE 1880 ACT
PROHIBITED ANY PAYMENTS AT ALL TO THE INDIANS UNTIL THE INDIANS
INVOLVED HAD SURRENDERED, BEEN APPREHENDED, OR UNTIL THE PRESIDENT HAD
PROOF THAT THEY WERE DEAD OR OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.  COMPENSATION
FOR THE FAMILIES OF THE MASSACRE VICTIMS WAS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE
LAND SALE PROCEEDS PAYABLE TO THE INDIANS.  WE CANNOT FIND FROM THIS
BACKGROUND A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO MAKE A GIFT TO THE INDIANS OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER LANDS FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS HERE SOUGHT.  THE ONLY
LANDS FOR WHICH CONGRESS AGREED IN 1880 TO COMPENSATE THE INDIANS WERE
THOSE "THE TITLE TO WHICH" THE INDIANS THEN "RELEASED AND CONVEYED TO
THE UNITED STATES."  THEY COULD ONLY RELEASE AND CONVEY THE LANDS THAT
BELONGED TO THEM, AND ONLY THE LANDS GIVEN TO THEM BY THE ORIGINAL 1868
TREATY BELONGED TO THEM.  IT WAS FOR COMPENSATION FOR SUCH LANDS ONLY
THAT CONGRESS, IN 1938, AUTHORIZED THIS ACTION TO BE MAINTAINED.  UNDER
ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FACT THAT THE 1880 ACT REQUIRED THE CHIEFS
AND HEADMEN TO PROCURE THE CONSENT OF THEIR PEOPLE TO THE CESSION OF
"THE PRESENT UTE RESERVATION" IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ATTRIBUTE TO
CONGRESS A PURPOSE TO TREAT AS A PART OF THAT RESERVATION LANDS WHICH
HAD NEVER BEEN LEGALLY CONVEYED TO THE INDIANS AND WHICH HAD ONLY BEEN
MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
MAKING THEM SECURE IN THEIR POSSESSION OF THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE INDIANS UNDERSTOOD IN 1880 THAT THEY
OWNED THE EXECUTIVE ORDER LANDS WHICH LAY NORTH OF THE WHITE RIVER
VALLEY; THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THEIR "PRESENT UTE RESERVATION" TO INCLUDE
THEM; THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT CONGRESS UNDERTOOK BY THE 1880 ACT TO
SELL THE LANDS FOR THEIR BENEFIT; AND THAT CONGRESS WAS AWARE OF THIS
UNDERSTANDING.  THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS STATED THAT
"IN ALL PROBABILITY" THIS WAS TRUE.  THE WRITER OF THE CONCURRING
OPINION THOUGHT DIFFERENTLY.  BUT EVEN IF THE INDIANS HAD BELIEVED THAT
THEY HAD A COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER LANDS, THIS FACT
WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE GIVEN IT TO THEM.  CERTAINLY THE ABSENCE OF
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO GIVE THEM A COMPENSABLE TITLE COULD NOT BE
SUPPLIED BY THE INDIANS' UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD SUCH
AUTHORITY.  THE SIOUX INDIANS MAY ALSO HAVE THOUGHT THE PRESIDENT HAD
AUTHORITY TO CONVEY TITLE TO THEM; BUT THE REASONS ON WHICH OUR
DECISION IN THE SIOUX CASE, SUPRA, RESTED DO NOT INDICATE THAT OUR
HOLDING DEPENDED IN ANY WAY UPON THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIANS.  NOR
CAN THIS ALLEGED UNDERSTANDING BE IMPUTED TO CONGRESS IN THE FACE OF
PLAIN LANGUAGE AND A RATHER FULL LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATING THAT
THE 1880 ACT NEITHER CONVEYED NOR RATIFIED CONVEYANCE OF THESE LANDS. 
WHILE IT HAS LONG BEEN THE RULE THAT A TREATY WITH INDIANS IS TO BE
CONSTRUED SO AS TO CARRY OUT THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATIONS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE FAIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDIANS, WE CANNOT, UNDER THE GUISE
OF INTERPRETATION, CREATE PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY WHERE THERE WAS NONE,
NOR REWRITE CONGRESSIONAL ACTS SO AS TO MAKE THEM MEAN SOMETHING THEY
OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT INTENDED TO MEAN.  CHOCTAW NATION V. UNITED STATES,
318 U.S. 423, 431-432.  WE CANNOT, UNDER ANY ACCEPTABLE RULE OF
INTERPRETATION, HOLD THAT THE INDIANS OWNED THE LANDS MERELY BECAUSE
THEY THOUGHT SO.  SOLICITOUS AS THE GOVERNMENT IS TO CARRY OUT ITS
PROMISES TO THE INDIANS IN GOOD FAITH, WE ARE SATISFIED FROM THIS
RECORD THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PERFORMED ALL THAT IT PROMISED. 

AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, IT SEEMS OBVIOUS TO US FROM THE FINDINGS OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS ONLY INTENDED TO
SECURE FOR THESE INDIANS' ANCESTORS POSSESSION OF THE WHITE RIVER
VALLEY LANDS CONVEYED TO THEM BY THE ORIGINAL 1868 TREATY, AND WHICH
WAS JEOPARDIZED BY THE MILLER SURVEY.  FN5  IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT HAD
NO AUTHORITY TO CONVEY A COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN THESE OR OTHER LANDS
TO THE UTES.  FAIRLY TO CARRY OUT THE 1868 TREATY WAS THE ORDER'S AIM. 
THE 1880 ACT, WE BELIEVE, DID NOT ENLARGE UPON THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  TO COMPENSATE THESE INDIANS FOR LANDS NOT
INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED BY THE 1868 TREATY, THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, NOR
THE 1880 ACT, WOULD BE TO PAY THEM FOR LANDS WHICH NEITHER THEY NOR
THEIR ANCESTORS EVER OWNED AND TO WHICH THEY HAD NO CLAIM IN EQUITY OR
JUSTICE, SO FAR AS THE TRANSACTIONS HERE AT ISSUE ARE CONCERNED.  NO
RULE OF CONSTRUCTION JUSTIFIES SUCH A RESULT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 22, 1875, 1 KAPPLER, INDIAN
AFFAIRS, LAWS AND TREATIES, 834(1904) IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE TRACT OF COUNTRY IN THE TERRITORY OF
COLORADO LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING-DESCRIBED BOUNDARIES, VIZ:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PRESENT UTE INDIAN
RESERVATION, AS DEFINED IN THE TREATY OF MARCH 2, 1868(STATS.  AT
LARGE, VOL. 15, P. 619); THENCE RUNNING NORTH ON THE 107TH DEGREE OF
LONGITUDE TO THE FIRST STANDARD PARALLEL NORTH; THENCE WEST ON SAID
FIRST STANDARD PARALLEL TO THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN COLORADO AND UTAH;
THENCE SOUTH WITH SAID BOUNDARY TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE UTE
INDIAN RESERVATION; THENCE EAST WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SAID
RESERVATION TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, BE, AND THE SAME HEREBY IS,
WITHDRAWN FROM SALE AND SET APART FOR THE USE OF THE SEVERAL TRIBES OF
UTE INDIANS, AS AN ADDITION TO THE PRESENT RESERVATION IN SAID
TERRITORY." 

FN2  CF. EXECUTIVE ORDER OF AUGUST 17, 1876, WHICH INTERPRETED A
TREATY SO AS TO "SET APART (CERTAIN LAND) AS A PART OF THE UTE INDIAN
RESERVATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST ARTICLE OF AN AGREEMENT MADE
WITH SAID INDIANS AND RATIFIED BY CONGRESS  ..."  1 KAPPLER, SUPRA,
834. 

FN3  THE COURT OF CLAIMS DID NOT FIND THIS AS AN ULTIMATE FACT.  BUT
THE CORRESPONDENCE WHICH PLAINLY SHOWS IT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE
FINDINGS.  THIS COURT HAS SAID WITH REFERENCE TO FINDINGS OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS THAT THE "ABSENCE OF THE FINDING OF AN ULTIMATE FACT DOES NOT
REQUIRE A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS AS FOUND
ARE SUCH THAT THE ULTIMATE FACT FOLLOWS FROM THEM AS A NECESSARY
INFERENCE."  UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S. 102, 120. 

FN4  SEE S. 772 AND S. RES. 51, 10 CONG. REC. PT. 1(1879) 30, 77;
H.R. 142, 10 CONG. REC. 44; H.R. 2420, 10 CONG. REC. 17; H.R. 154, 10
CONG. REC. 113; H.R. 5092, 10 CONG. REC. PT. 2(1880) 1538. 

FN5  SEE P. 177, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE UNITED STATES, IN MY OPINION, IS MORALLY AND LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO
PAY FOR THE LAND IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875 BY
ITS TERMS SET ASIDE CERTAIN LAND UP TO THE "FIRST STANDARD PARALLEL
NORTH" FOR THE USE OF THE UTE INDIANS "AS AN ADDITION TO THE PRESENT
RESERVATION."  THAT ORDER ALONE, OF COURSE, COULD CONVEY NO COMPENSABLE
INTEREST TO THE INDIANS UNDER THE RULE OF SIOUX TRIBE V. UNITED STATES,
316 U.S. 317.  BUT EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER IN THIS CASE MAKE INAPPLICABLE THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SIOUX CASE. 
IN 1880 THE UNITED STATES AND THE UTE CHIEFS AND HEADMEN ENTERED INTO
AN AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE LATTER PROMISED "TO USE THEIR BEST ENDEAVORS
WITH THEIR PEOPLE TO PROCURE THEIR CONSENT TO CEDE TO THE UNITED STATES
ALL THE TERRITORY OF THE PRESENT UTE RESERVATION IN COLORADO." 
CONGRESS THEREUPON PASSED THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880, WHICH RECITED IN
ITS PREAMBLE THAT THE CHIEFS AND HEADMEN HAD "SUBMITTED TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE TO THE UNITED
STATES OF THEIR PRESENT RESERVATION IN THE STATE OF COLORADO."  THE ACT
THEN INCORPORATED THE AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY MADE AND PROVIDED THAT ALL
UNALLOTTED LANDS SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE RELEASED AND CONVEYED TO THE
UNITED STATES. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR TO ME THAT BY 1880 THE TERM "PRESENT RESERVATION"
INCLUDED THE LAND WHICH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875 STATED HAD BEEN SET
ASIDE AS AN ADDITION TO THE THEN PRESENT RESERVATION.  AND WHEN THE
1880 AGREEMENT AND THE 1880 ACT REFERRED TO "PRESENT RESERVATION" THEY
MUST HAVE INCLUDED THAT ADDITIONAL LAND.  ADDING THIS INFORMAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY CONGRESS OF THE EXPANDED RESERVATION TO THE
OCCUPATION OF THE LAND BY THE INDIANS AND THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT
BELONGED TO THE RESERVATION, A COMPENSABLE INTEREST BECOMES EVIDENT. 
IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THERE WERE NO FORMAL DOCUMENTS CONVEYING A FEE
SIMPLE INTEREST TO THE INDIANS; IT IS LIKEWISE IRRELEVANT THAT THERE
WAS NO FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE INDIAN TITLE.  SPALDING V.
CHANDLER, 160 U.S. 394; UNITED STATES V. ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS, 329
U.S. 40.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE INDIANS HAD THE RIGHT TO POSSESS AND
OCCUPY THE LAND AND THAT THE INDIANS FAIRLY UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE THE
CASE.  AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY CONGRESS, HOWEVER INFORMAL, THEN ADDS A
LEGAL OBLIGATION TO THE MORAL DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES TO PAY FOR THE
LAND INVOLVED.  SUCH IS THE SITUATION HERE. 

THE COURT INDICATES, HOWEVER, THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 1875 DOES
NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAYS.  IT CLEARLY SET APART FOR THE USE OF THE INDIANS
"AS AN ADDITION TO THE PRESENT RESERVATION" ALL THE DESCRIBED LAND UP
TO THE "FIRST STANDARD PARALLEL NORTH."  BUT IT IS NOW SUGGESTED THAT
THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROMULGATION OF THAT ORDER DID NOT REALLY
INTEND TO SET ASIDE ALL THE LAND UP TO THE "FIRST STANDARD PARALLEL
NORTH," DESPITE THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE USED.  IT IS SAID, RATHER, THAT
THE ORDER ACTUALLY WAS DESIGNED TO AFFECT ONLY THE WHITE RIVER VALLEY
LANDS - LANDS WHICH ARE SOME NINE MILES SOUTH OF THE "FIRST STANDARD
PARALLEL NORTH."  THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS OF
THE ORDER WOULD MAKE THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER LAND
COTERMINOUS WITH THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE TRUE TREATY RESERVATION. 

BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO
JUSTIFY SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.  TO DISREGARD THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE
ORDER BY SUBTRACTING A NINE-MILE STRIP FROM A CLEARLY WORDED
DESCRIPTION REQUIRES DEFINITE FINDINGS TO THAT EFFECT WHICH ARE
SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION, OF COURSE, TO SUPPLY
THOSE FINDINGS OURSELVES.  NOR CAN WE INFER THEM FROM THE DECISION OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THAT COURT ALONE HAS THE POWER AND THE DUTY TO
MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS ON MATERIAL ISSUES.  53 STAT. 752, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 288; UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328 U.S. 256, 267-268.  IF IT
IS MATERIAL THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER INTENDED TO SET
ASIDE LESS LAND THAN THAT DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER, THE CASE SHOULD BE
REMANDED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS SO THAT IT CAN MAKE THE NECESSARY
FINDINGS IN THIS RESPECT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS
DISSENT. 
..END :








ANGEL V. BULLINGTON, 330 U.S. 183 


NO. 31.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1946.  REARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 19, 1946.  -
DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1947.  - 150 F.2D 679, REVERSED. 


A CITIZEN OF VIRGINIA SUED A CITIZEN OF NORTH CAROLINA IN A STATE
COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ON NOTES FOR THE
PURCHASE PRICE OF LAND IN VIRGINIA SECURED BY A DEED OF TRUST ON THE
LAND.  THE DEFENDANT DEMURRED, RELYING ON N.C.L., 1933, C. 36, MICHIE'S
N.C. CODE SEC. 2593(F), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE HOLDER OF SUCH A NOTE
"SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT."  THE TRIAL COURT
OVERRULED THE DEMURRER AND THE DEFENDANT APPEALED TO THE STATE SUPREME
COURT.  THERE THE PLAINTIFF CONTENDED THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
PRECLUDED THE STATE FROM CLOSING THE DOORS OF ITS COURTS TO HIM. 
DISCLAIMING ANY INTENTION OF PASSING ON ANY QUESTION OF SUBSTANTIVE
LAW, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATE STATUTE DENIED THE
STATE COURTS JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  ACCORDINGLY, IT
REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT AND DISMISSED THE SUIT.  WITHOUT APPEALING TO
THIS COURT, THE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A NEW SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT IN NORTH CAROLINA ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP,
SEEKING THE SAME RELIEF AGAINST THE SAME DEFENDANT ON THE SAME CLAIM. 
HELD:  THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING BEEN FINALLY ADJUDICATED IN THE STATE
COURTS AND THE CAUSE OF ACTION BEING BARRED THERE, IT MAY NOT BE
RELITIGATED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  PP. 186-193. 

(A)  THE FEDERAL QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE
STATUTE HAVING BEEN CLEARLY RAISED IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT, IT
NECESSARILY WAS ADJUDICATED BY THAT COURT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COURT'S
DISCLAIMER OF ANY INTENTION TO PASS ON ANY QUESTION OF "SUBSTANTIVE
LAW."  PP. 187-188. 

(B)  THE PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  SINCE HE
ELECTED NOT TO DO SO, THE DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT BECAME A
FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THAT QUESTION AS TO THIS CAUSE OF ACTION.  PP.
188-190. 

(C)  SINCE THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE STATE COURTS WAS WHETHER ALL COURTS
OF THE STATE WERE CLOSED TO THE LITIGATION AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT
HELD THAT THEY WERE, THEREBY DENYING ENFORCEMENT OF AN ASSERTED FEDERAL
CLAIM, THE "MERITS" OF THE CONTROVERSY WERE ADJUDICATED IN THE ONLY
SENSE THAT ADJUDICATION OF THE "MERITS" IS RELEVANT TO THE PRINCIPLES
OF RES JUDICATA.  PP. 190-191. 

(D)  THE DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT CLOSED THE DOOR NOT ONLY
TO THE SUIT IN THE STATE COURTS BUT ALSO TO A SIMILAR SUIT IN A FEDERAL
COURT IN NORTH CAROLINA BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, SINCE A
FEDERAL COURT IN SUCH A SUIT MUST FOLLOW STATE LAW AND POLICY.  ERIE R.
CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  PP. 191-192. 

ANGEL V. BULLINGTON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY A CITIZEN OF VIRGINIA AGAINST A CITIZEN OF NORTH
CAROLINA, THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA HELD THAT N.C.L., 1933,
C. 36, MICHIE'S N.C. CODE SEC. 2593(F) DENIED THE STATE COURTS
JURISDICTION TO GRANT A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ON A PURCHASE-MONEY NOTE
SECURED BY A DEED OF TRUST ON LAND IN VIRGINIA.  220 N.C. 18, 16 S.E.2D
411.  THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT SUIT THEN BROUGHT A NEW SUIT ON THE SAME
CLAIM IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NORTH CAROLINA ON GROUNDS OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 679.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 713.  REVERSED, P. 193. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1940, BULLINGTON, A CITIZEN OF VIRGINIA, SOLD LAND IN VIRGINIA TO
ANGEL, A CITIZEN OF NORTH CAROLINA.  ONLY PART OF THE PURCHASE PRICE
WAS PAID.  FOR THE BALANCE, ANGEL EXECUTED A SERIES OF NOTES SECURED BY
A DEED OF TRUST ON THE LAND.  UPON DEFAULT ON ONE OF THE NOTES,
BULLINGTON, ACTING UPON AN ACCELERATION CLAUSE IN THE DEED, CAUSED ALL
OTHER NOTES TO BECOME DUE AND CALLED UPON THE TRUSTEES TO SELL THE
LAND.  THE SALE WAS DULY MADE IN VIRGINIA AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE
APPLIED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE NOTES.  THIS CONTROVERSY CONCERNS
ATTEMPTS TO COLLECT THE DEFICIENCY. 

BULLINGTON BEGAN SUIT FOR THE DEFICIENCY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MACON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.  ANGEL COUNTERED WITH A DEMURRER, THE
SUBSTANCE OF WHICH WAS THAT A STATUTE OF NORTH CAROLINA (C. 36, PUBLIC
LAWS 1933, MICHIE'S CODE SEC. 2593(F)) PRECLUDED RECOVERY OF SUCH A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT.  THIS IS THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THAT ENACTMENT: 

"IN ALL SALES OF REAL PROPERTY BY MORTGAGEES AND/OR TRUSTEES UNDER
POWERS OF SALE CONTAINED IN ANY MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST HEREAFTER
EXECUTED,  ...  THE MORTGAGEE OR TRUSTEE OR HOLDER OF THE NOTES SECURED
BY SUCH MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH MORTGAGE, DEED OF TRUST OR OBLIGATION
SECURED BY THE SAME:..." 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OVERRULED THE DEMURRER, AND AN APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA FOLLOWED.  BULLINGTON SUPPORTED HIS
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION PRECLUDED NORTH CAROLINA FROM SHUTTING THE DOORS OF ITS
COURTS TO HIM.  THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, HOLDING THAT THE
NORTH CAROLINA ACT OF 1933 BARRED BULLINGTON'S SUIT AGAINST ANGEL,
REVERSED THE SUPERIOR COURT AND DISMISSED THE ACTION.  220 N.C. 18, 16
S.E.2D 411.  BULLINGTON DID NOT SEEK TO REVIEW THIS JUDGMENT HERE. 
INSTEAD, HE SUED ANGEL FOR THE DEFICIENCY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA.  ANGEL PLEADED IN BAR
THE JUDGMENT IN THE NORTH CAROLINA ACTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR BULLINGTON, 56 F.SUPP.  372, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 679.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 326 U.S. 713, BECAUSE THE FAILURE TO DISMISS THIS ACTION,
ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT PRECLUDED
THE RIGHT THEREAFTER TO RECOVER ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE
FEDERAL COURT, PRESENTED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE. 

1.  WE START WITH THE FACT THAT THE PREVAILING RULE AS TO RES
JUDICATA IS SETTLED LAW IN NORTH CAROLINA.  AN ADJUDICATION BARS FUTURE
LITIGATION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES NOT ONLY AS TO ALL ISSUES ACTUALLY
RAISED AND DECIDED BUT ALSO AS TO THOSE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED. 
SOUTHERN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. CARRAWAY, 196 N.C. 58, 60-61, 144 S.E.
535, 537; MOORE V. HARKINS, 179 N.C. 167, 101 S.E. 564.  WHEN THE
DISPOSITION OF A PRIOR LITIGATION IS INVOKED AS A BAR TO AN ACTION, THE
IDENTITY OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE TWO SUITS IS USUALLY THE BONE
OF CONTENTION.  ON THIS SCORE THERE CAN HERE BE NO CONTROVERSY.  IT IS
INDISPUTABLE THAT THE PARTIES, THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND THE DESIRED
RELIEF WERE PRECISELY THE SAME IN THE TWO ACTIONS SUCCESSIVELY BROUGHT
BY BULLINGTON AGAINST ANGEL, FIRST IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MACON
COUNTY AND THEN IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  FOR ALL PRACTICAL
PURPOSES, THE COMPLAINT IN THE PRESENT ACTION WAS A CARBON COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT IN THE STATE COURT ACTION.  IF THE NORTH CAROLINA ACTION HAD
BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT IN ONE NORTH CAROLINA COURT
RATHER THAN IN ANOTHER, OF COURSE NO FEDERAL ISSUE WOULD HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED.  SEE, E.G., WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211.  HAD THAT
BEEN THE CASE, A SUIT FOR THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN
INITIATED IN A NORTH CAROLINA FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, JUST AS ANOTHER
SUIT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN THE PROPER NORTH CAROLINA STATE COURT. 
BUT THAT IS NOT THE PRESENT SITUATION.  A QUITE DIFFERENT SITUATION IS
BEFORE US. BEING SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL, IT CALLS FOR A CRITICAL
CONSIDERATION OF THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA. 

2.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA WOULD CLEARLY
BAR THIS SUIT HAD IT BEEN BROUGHT ANEW IN A STATE COURT.  FOR PURPOSES
OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION A FEDERAL COURT IS, "IN EFFECT, ONLY ANOTHER
COURT OF THE STATE."  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, 108; SEE
TRACTION COMPANY V. MINING COMPANY, 196 U.S. 239, 253; EX PARTE
SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369, 377.  OF COURSE, BULLINGTON COULD NOT HAVE
SUCCEEDED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH
CAROLINA AFTER AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT IN THE STATE COURTS, HAD THE
DECISION IN THIS CASE INVOLVED NO FEDERAL GROUND.  THAT IS EQUALLY TRUE
WHERE A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS DECIDED IN THE STATE COURTS.  THAT THE
ADJUDICATION OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS BY THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
MAY HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUS IS IMMATERIAL FOR PURPOSES OF RES JUDICATA. 
BALTIMORE S.S. CO. V. PHILLIPS, 274 U.S. 316, 325.  A HIGHER COURT WAS
AVAILABLE FOR AN AUTHORITATIVE ADJUDICATION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS
INVOLVED.  AND SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER FEDERAL RIGHTS WERE
NECESSARILY INVOLVED AND ADJUDICATED IN THE LITIGATION IN THE STATE
COURTS. 

3.  FOR PURPOSES OF RES JUDICATA, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT A COURT
SAYS IT DECIDES IS CONTROLLED BY THE ISSUES THAT WERE OPEN FOR
DECISION.  WHAT WERE THE ISSUES IN THE NORTH CAROLINA LITIGATION? 
BULLINGTON SOUGHT A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT.  ANGEL, BY DEMURRER, RESISTED
ON THE GROUND THAT A NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE PRECLUDED A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT.  THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT,
FOUND THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE A BAR TO SUCH A SUIT.  IT SAID THAT 

"THE LIMITATION CREATED BY THE STATUTE IS UPON THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT IN THAT IT IS DECLARED THAT THE HOLDER OF NOTES GIVEN TO
SECURE THE PURCHASE PRICE OF REAL PROPERTY 'SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ON ACCOUNT' THEREOF.  THIS CLOSES THE COURTS OF
THIS STATE TO ONE WHO SEEKS A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ON A NOTE GIVEN FOR
THE PURCHASE PRICE OF REAL PROPERTY.  THE STATUTE OPERATES UPON THE
ADJECTIVE LAW OF THE STATE, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE, OR LEGAL MACHINERY BY WHICH THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS MADE
EFFECTIVE, AND NOT UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW ITSELF.  IT IS A LIMITATION
OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THIS STATE."  220 N.C. 18, 20, 16
S.E.2D 411, 412. 

BUT THE ALLOWABLE "LIMITATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS" OF
NORTH CAROLINA PRESENTS MORE THAN A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW FOR
DETERMINATION BY THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT.  SPEAKING FOR A
UNANIMOUS COURT, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS THUS EXPRESSED THE SUBORDINATION
TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE POWER OF A STATE TO
WITHDRAW JURISDICTION FROM ITS COURTS:  "THE POWER OF A STATE TO
DETERMINE THE LIMITS OF THE JURISDICTION OF ITS COURTS AND THE
CHARACTER OF THE CONTROVERSIES WHICH SHALL BE HEARD IN THEM IS, OF
COURSE, SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION."  MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F. RY. CO., 292 U.S. 230,
233.  THE CONTRACT CLAUSE, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, THE
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, ALL FETTER THE FREEDOM OF A STATE TO
DENY ACCESS TO ITS COURTS HOWSOEVER MUCH IT MAY REGARD SUCH WITHDRAWAL
OF JURISDICTION "THE ADJECTIVE LAW OF THE STATE," OR THE EXERCISE OF
ITS RIGHT TO REGULATE "THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE" OF ITS COURTS. 
BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, 642.  A STATE "CANNOT ESCAPE ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE SIMPLE DEVICE OF DENYING JURISDICTION
IN SUCH CASES TO COURTS OTHERWISE COMPETENT."  KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE,
252 U.S. 411, 415; AND SEE WHITE V. HART, 13 WALL.  646.  THIS
PERVASIVE PRINCIPLE OF OUR FEDERAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY,
WAS THUS PUT BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES:  "WHATEVER SPRINGES THE STATE MAY
SET FOR THOSE WHO ARE ENDEAVORING TO ASSERT RIGHTS THAT THE STATE
CONFERS, THE ASSERTION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS, WHEN PLAINLY AND REASONABLY
MADE, IS NOT TO BE DEFEATED UNDER THE NAME OF LOCAL PRACTICE."  DAVIS
V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22, 24. 

4.  HERE, CLAIMS BASED ON THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WERE PLAINLY
AND REASONABLY MADE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA SUIT.  THE NORTH CAROLINA
SUPREME COURT MET THESE CLAIMS.  IT MET THEM BY SAYING THAT THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATUTE DID NOT DEAL WITH SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS BUT MERELY WITH
MATTERS REGULATING LOCAL PROCEDURE.  BUT WHETHER THE CLAIMS ARE BASED
ON A FEDERAL RIGHT OR ARE MERELY OF LOCAL CONCERN IS ITSELF A FEDERAL
QUESTION ON WHICH THIS COURT, AND NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH
CAROLINA, HAS THE LAST SAY.  THAT COURT COULD NOT PUT A FEDERAL CLAIM
ASIDE, AS THOUGH IT WERE NOT IN LITIGATION, BY THE TALISMANIC WORD
"JURISDICTION."  WHEN AN ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT IS DENIED, THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE GROUNDS OF DENIAL IS FOR THIS COURT TO DECIDE. 
TITUS V. WALLICK, 306 U.S. 282, 291.  BULLINGTON COULD HAVE COME HERE,
NOT MERELY BY THE GRACE OF THIS COURT ON CERTIORARI, BUT ON APPEAL, AS
DID WHITE IN WHITE V. HART, SUPRA, TO CHALLENGE, SUCCESSFULLY, THE
RIGHT OF GEORGIA TO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE GEORGIA COURTS; AS
DID THE EAST NEW YORK SAVINGS BANK IN THE RECENT CASE OF EAST NEW YORK
BANK V. HAHN, 326 U.S. 230, TO CHALLENGE, THOUGH UNSUCCESSFULLY, THE
LIMITATION WHICH NEW YORK PLACED UPON THE JURISDICTION OF ITS COURTS. 
CF. KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, 252 U.S. 411, 416.  SINCE IT WAS OPEN FOR
BULLINGTON TO COME HERE TO SEEK REVERSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA SUPREME COURT SHUTTING HIM OUT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS
AND HE CHOSE NOT TO DO SO, THE DECISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME
COURT CONCLUDED AN ADJUDICATION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION EVEN THOUGH IT
WAS NOT COUCHED IN THOSE TERMS.  FOR PURPOSES OF LITIGATING THE ISSUES
IN CONTROVERSY IN THE NORTH CAROLINA ACTION, THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME
COURT WAS AN INTERMEDIATE TRIBUNAL.  IF A LITIGANT CHOOSES NOT TO
CONTINUE TO ASSERT HIS RIGHTS AFTER AN INTERMEDIATE TRIBUNAL HAS
DECIDED AGAINST HIM, HE HAS CONCLUDED HIS LITIGATION AS EFFECTIVELY AS
THOUGH HE HAD PROCEEDED THROUGH THE HIGHEST TRIBUNAL AVAILABLE TO HIM. 
AN ADJUDICATION OF AN ISSUE IMPLIES THAT A MAN HAD A CHANCE TO WIN HIS
CASE.  THE CHANCE WAS NECESSARILY AFFORDED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA
LITIGATION.  IT WAS IN PROCESS OF DETERMINATION WHEN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NORTH CAROLINA DECIDED IT AGAINST HIM.  HE FOREWENT HIS RIGHT TO
HAVE A HIGHER COURT, THIS COURT, ENABLE HIM TO WIN HIS CHANCE BY
HOLDING THAT HE WAS RIGHT AND THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT WAS
WRONG.  HE CANNOT BEGIN ALL OVER AGAIN IN AN ACTION INVOLVING THE SAME
ISSUES BEFORE ANOTHER FORUM IN THE SAME STATE. 

5.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT DID NOT
ADJUDICATE THE "MERITS" OF THE CONTROVERSY.  IT IS A MISCONCEPTION OF
RES JUDICATA TO ASSUME THAT THE DOCTRINE DOES NOT COME INTO OPERATION
IF A COURT HAS NOT PASSED ON THE "MERITS" IN THE SENSE OF THE ULTIMATE
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF A LITIGATION.  AN ADJUDICATION DECLINING TO REACH
SUCH ULTIMATE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES MAY BAR A SECOND ATTEMPT TO REACH THEM
IN ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE.  SUCH A SITUATION IS PRESENTED WHEN THE
FIRST DECISION IS BASED NOT ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF
JUDICIAL POWER AMONG THE VARIOUS COURTS OF THE STATE REQUIRES THE SUIT
TO BE BROUGHT IN ANOTHER COURT IN THE STATE, BUT ON THE INACCESSIBILITY
OF ALL THE COURTS OF THE STATE TO SUCH LITIGATION.  AND THAT IS THE
ESSENCE OF THE PRESENT CASE.  THE ONLY ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IN THE
FIRST NORTH CAROLINA LITIGATION WAS WHETHER OR NOT ALL THE COURTS OF
NORTH CAROLINA WERE CLOSED TO THAT LITIGATION.  THE MERITS OF THAT
ISSUE WERE ADJUDICATED.  AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE SECOND
LITIGATION IN NORTH CAROLINA - THAT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  THE
MERITS OF THIS ISSUE HAVING BEEN ADJUDICATED, THEY CANNOT BE
RELITIGATED. 

THE "MERITS" OF A CLAIM ARE DISPOSED OF WHEN IT IS REFUSED
ENFORCEMENT.  IF AN ASSERTED FEDERAL CLAIM IS DENIED ENFORCEMENT ON A
PROFESSED LOCAL GROUND, BUT A SO-CALLED LOCAL GROUND WHICH IS SUBJECT
TO REVIEW HERE BECAUSE IT IS IN FACT THE ADJUDICATION OF A FEDERAL
QUESTION, THEN THE "MERITS" OF THAT CLAIM WERE ADJUDICATED IN THE ONLY
SENSE THAT ADJUDICATION OF THE "MERITS" IS RELEVANT TO THE PRINCIPLES
OF RES JUDICATA.  A STATE COURT CANNOT STERILIZE FEDERAL CLAIMS BY
PUTTING ON THE ADJUDICATION A LOCAL LABEL.    6.  THE MERITS OF THIS
CONTROVERSY WERE ADJUDICATED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT SINCE
THAT COURT, OR THIS COURT ON APPEAL, MIGHT HAVE DECIDED THAT THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATUTE DID NOT BAR BULLINGTON'S FIRST ACTION.  THE NORTH
CAROLINA STATUTE MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FEDERAL
ISSUES WERE THUS INVOLVED IN THE ADJUDICATION BY THE NORTH CAROLINA
SUPREME COURT.  BULLINGTON KNEW THAT THERE WERE FEDERAL ISSUES IN THE
STATE SUIT BECAUSE HE RAISED THEM.  HE WAS THEN CONTENT TO DROP THEM
AND LET THE INTERMEDIATE ADJUDICATION STAND.  NOW HE WANTS AN ENCORE. 
7.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE TO CLOSE ONLY THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
COURTS BUT NOT THE FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN NORTH CAROLINA.  IN THE
FIRST PLACE, THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT SAID NO SUCH THING.  IT
CONSTRUED THE STATUTE EXPRESSIVE OF STATE POLICY AND SPOKE ONLY OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURTS BECAUSE IT WAS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE
STATE COURTS.  SECONDLY, IT IS MOST INCONGRUOUS TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE
LEGISLATURE AND JUDICIARY OF NORTH CAROLINA THE IMPOSITION OF A
RESTRICTION AGAINST ALL ITS CITIZENS FROM SUING FOR A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT, WHILE IMPLIEDLY AUTHORIZING CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES TO
SECURE SUCH DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS AGAINST NORTH CAROLINIANS.  THIRDLY, A
NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE, UPHELD BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA,
IS OF COURSE EXPRESSIVE OF NORTH CAROLINA POLICY.  THE ESSENCE OF
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION IS THAT A FEDERAL COURT ENFORCES STATE LAW AND
STATE POLICY.  IF NORTH CAROLINA HAS AUTHORITATIVELY ANNOUNCED THAT
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS CANNOT BE SECURED WITHIN ITS BORDERS, IT
CONTRADICTS THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION FOR A FEDERAL
COURT IN THAT STATE TO GIVE SUCH A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT.  NORTH CAROLINA
WOULD HARDLY ALLOW DEFEAT OF A STATE-WIDE POLICY THROUGH OCCASIONAL
SUITS IN A FEDERAL COURT.  WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION MUST FOLLOW STATE LAW AND POLICY.  A FEDERAL COURT IN
NORTH CAROLINA, WHEN INVOKED ON GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP,
CANNOT GIVE THAT WHICH NORTH CAROLINA HAS WITHHELD.  AVAILABILITY OF
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WHICH WAS PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO
PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OUTSIDERS IS NOT TO EFFECT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE GREAT BODY OF LOCAL CITIZENS. 

CASES LIKE LUPTON'S SONS CO. V. AUTOMOBILE CLUB, 225 U.S. 489, ARE
OBSOLETE INSOFAR AS THEY ARE BASED ON A VIEW OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
WHICH CAME TO AN END WITH ERIE RAILROAD V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  THAT
DECISION DRASTICALLY LIMITED THE POWER OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO
ENTERTAIN SUITS IN DIVERSITY CASES THAT COULD NOT BE BROUGHT IN THE
RESPECTIVE STATE COURTS OR WERE BARRED BY DEFENSES CONTROLLING IN THE
STATE COURTS.  COMPARE SUYDAM V. BROADNAX, 14 PET. 67, 75.  OF COURSE,
WHERE RESORT IS HAD TO A FEDERAL COURT NOT ON GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP BUT BECAUSE A FEDERAL RIGHT IS CLAIMED, THE LIMITATIONS
UPON THE COURTS OF A STATE DO NOT CONTROL A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN
THE STATE.  HOLMBERG V. ARMBRECHT, 327 U.S. 392. 

8.  AFTER AN ADVERSE DECISION AGAINST BULLINGTON ON A CAUSE OF ACTION
CREATED BY STATE LAW, BULLINGTON WANTS TO START ALL OVER AGAIN IN
ANOTHER NORTH CAROLINA COURT, ALBEIT A FEDERAL COURT.  THE FIRST
LITIGATION RAISED AND ADJUDICATED FEDERAL ISSUES EVERY ONE OF WHICH IS
AGAIN INVOLVED IN THE SECOND SUIT.  TO ALLOW SUCH A SECOND SUIT IS TO
SAY THAT A FEDERAL RIGHT IN ISSUE IN A STATE COURT EVAPORATES BECAUSE
THE STATE COURT CALLS IT A STATE RIGHT AND THE LITIGANT ACCEPTS THE
DECISION.  IF TOLERATED, OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM WOULD AFFORD FINE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEEDLESSLY MULTIPLYING LITIGATION IN THIS WAY.  THE
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IS A BARRIER AGAINST IT. LITIGATION IS THE
MEANS FOR VINDICATING RIGHTS, BUT IT MAY ALSO INVOLVE UNWARRANTED
FRICTION AND WASTE.  THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA REFLECTS THE REFUSAL
OF LAW TO TOLERATE NEEDLESS LITIGATION.  LITIGATION IS NEEDLESS IF, BY
FAIR PROCESS, A CONTROVERSY HAS ONCE GONE THROUGH THE COURTS TO
CONCLUSION.  COMPARE, E.G., HAZEL-ATLAS CO. V. HARTFORD CO., 322 U.S.
238, 244.  AND IT HAS GONE THROUGH, IF ISSUES THAT WERE OR COULD HAVE
BEEN DEALT WITH IN AN EARLIER LITIGATION ARE RAISED ANEW BETWEEN THE
SAME PARTIES.  CHICOT COUNTY DIST. V. BANK, 308 U.S. 371.  JUDGMENT
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE COURT'S DECISION IS THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA, THAT IS A FORMER ADJUDICATION, DEFEATS BULLINGTON'S CLAIM
AGAINST ANGEL.  THE OPINION IS LIMITED TO THAT POINT.  IN MY VIEW THE
CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT IS ERRONEOUS.  TO NARROW THE LINE OF MY
DISAGREEMENT, I SHALL STATE THE ISSUES TREATED IN THE OPINION WITH
WHICH I AGREE.  THE CAUSES OF ACTION AND THE PARTIES IN THE TWO SUITS
ARE IDENTICAL.  FEDERAL QUESTIONS WERE RAISED BY BULLINGTON'S
CONTENTION THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE, SUFFICIENTLY QUOTED AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE COURT'S OPINION, MICHIE'S CODE, 2593(F), WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY FEDERAL TESTS BECAUSE IT BARRED THE NORTH CAROLINA
COURTS TO BULLINGTON'S SUIT ON HIS NOTES.  IT IS IMMATERIAL, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE AVAILABILITY OF A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA,
WHETHER THE NORTH CAROLINA JUDGMENT WAS ERRONEOUS OR NOT.  I AGREE,
FURTHER, THAT, ON THE GROUND THAT A STATE CANNOT BAR THIS CAUSE OF
ACTION FROM ITS COURTS, BULLINGTON COULD HAVE HAD REVIEW IN THIS COURT
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA JUDGMENT AND THAT THIS COURT, IF IT DID NOT
CONCLUDE THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA JUDGMENT RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE
GROUND, COULD HAVE FINALLY SETTLED THAT FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. 

THE REASONING OF THE COURT LEADS TO THE ANNOUNCED RESULT BECAUSE OF
THESE PRESUPPOSITIONS WITH WHICH I DIFFER:  (I) "FOR PURPOSES OF RES
JUDICATA, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT A COURT SAYS IT DECIDES IS
CONTROLLED BY THE ISSUES THAT WERE OPEN FOR DECISION."  (II) "THE
'MERITS' OF A CLAIM ARE DISPOSED OF WHEN IT IS REFUSED ENFORCEMENT." 
(III) "SINCE IT WAS OPEN FOR BULLINGTON TO COME HERE TO SEEK REVERSAL
OF THE DECISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT SHUTTING HIM OUT OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS AND HE CHOSE NOT TO DO SO, THE DECISION OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED AN ADJUDICATION OF A FEDERAL
QUESTION EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT COUCHED IN THOSE TERMS."  (IV) "FOR
PURPOSES OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION A FEDERAL COURT IS, 'IN EFFECT, ONLY
ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE.'"  "HE CANNOT BEGIN ALL OVER AGAIN IN AN
ACTION INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUES BEFORE ANOTHER FORUM IN THE SAME
STATE." 

I. TO SAY THAT FOR PURPOSES OF RES JUDICATA THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT
A COURT SAYS IT DECIDES IS CONTROLLED BY THE ISSUES, ANNOUNCES A RULE
WHICH, SO FAR AS I KNOW, HAS NO PRIOR AUTHORITY.  TO ADOPT SUCH A RULE
IS TO DECLARE THAT A DECISION IN A CAUSE OF ACTION IS FINAL BETWEEN THE
SAME PARTIES ALTHOUGH THE COURT SPECIFICALLY RESERVES CERTAIN QUESTIONS
NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS DECISION.  RES JUDICATA SETTLES ALL QUESTIONS
WHICH WERE RAISED OR THOSE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RAISED BUT IT SETTLES
THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION THAT IS MADE.  OF COURSE, WHEN A
DECISION IS UPON THE MERITS, A MATTER DISCUSSED LATER, THE ENTIRE CAUSE
OF ACTION IS ADJUDICATED FINALLY.  BUT THIS NORTH CAROLINA ADJUDICATION
WAS NOT UPON THE MERITS.  IT WAS UPON A QUESTION OF JUDICIAL POWER. 
THE PERTINENT EXCERPTS FROM THE OPINION APPEAR BELOW.  FN1  THE FACT
THAT OTHER ISSUES, GOING TO THE MERITS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION, MIGHT
HAVE BEEN DECIDED SEEMS IMMATERIAL. 

THE RULE WHICH I CONSIDER SOUND APPEARS IN THE RESTATEMENT OF THE
LAW, JUDGMENTS SEC. 49, AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHERE A VALID AND FINAL PERSONAL JUDGMENT NOT ON THE MERITS IS
RENDERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT THEREBY
PRECLUDED FROM THEREAFTER MAINTAINING AN ACTION ON THE ORIGINAL CAUSE
OF ACTION AND THE JUDGMENT IS CONCLUSIVE ONLY AS TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY
DECIDED." 

THE WAY TO KNOW WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED IN THIS CASE IS TO READ THE
APPLICABLE PORTION OF THE OPINION PRINTED IN THE PRECEDING NOTE.  THE
RESULT OF THE DECISION WAS TO LEAVE THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNAFFECTED
BECAUSE WHEN A STATE DENIES A REMEDY, IT LEAVES "UNIMPAIRED THE
PLAINTIFF'S SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, SO THAT HE IS FREE TO ENFORCE IT
ELSEWHERE."  BRADFORD ELECTRIC CO. V. CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, 160;
DALTON V. WEBSTER, 82 N.C. 279. 

II.  IT IS NOW TO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER OR NOT THIS JUDGMENT OF THE
STATE COURT WAS ON THE MERITS.  THAT COURT SAID IT HAD NO "POWER TO
RENDER A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED." 
THIS COURT NOW SAYS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS A DISPOSITION ON THE
MERITS.  EVIDENTLY WHAT IS MEANT IS THAT WHEN A LITIGANT, WHO HAS
RAISED A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, HAS HIS CASE DISMISSED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE COURT "HAS NO POWER TO RENDER A JUDGMENT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED," THERE IS A JUDGMENT ON THE
MERITS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AS WELL AS UPON THE RIGHT TO
RECOVER IN NORTH CAROLINA ON ANY OTHER GROUND.  IF WE HAVE POWER TO
DECLARE THAT IT "CONCLUDED AN ADJUDICATION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS NOT COUCHED IN THOSE TERMS," I WOULD REACH THE OPPOSITE
CONCLUSION BASED UPON WHAT THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT DID.  IN MY VIEW,
THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT MERELY DECIDED THAT IT HAD NO POWER TO
ADJUDICATE THE CAUSE OF ACTION.  CERTAINLY THE STATE COURT HAD THE
POWER TO INTERPRET ITS OWN STATUTE.  KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS V. MEYER, 265
U.S. 30, 32; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568.  THE WITHDRAWAL
OF JURISDICTION SURELY DOES NOT MAKE A JUDGMENT ONE UPON THE MERITS. 
THE STATE COURT CITED EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 7 WALL.  506, TO EMPHASIZE
WHAT IT MEANT.  IF THERE WAS A SUIT ON THIS NOTE IN A FEDERAL COURT ON
AN ALLEGATION OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND THE FEDERAL COURT
DISMISSED THE SUIT WITH AN OPINION SAYING THAT THE CASE WAS DISMISSED
BECAUSE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION, E.G. PROOF OF NON-DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP, NO STATE COURT WOULD HOLD THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DECISION
UPON THE MERITS.  WHERE THERE IS NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE
ACTION THE JUDGMENT IS NOT UPON THE MERITS.  STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305
U.S. 165, 171-172.  OF COURSE, IF THERE IS A JUDGMENT UPON THE MERITS,
THAT JUDGMENT WOULD BE BINDING ON BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.  EVEN
IF THE NORTH CAROLINA DECISION IS NOT UPON THE MERITS, IT IS CONCLUSIVE
ON NORTH CAROLINA COURTS AND UPON FEDERAL COURTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, IF
THOSE FEDERAL COURTS ARE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE
SENSE THAT THEY MUST FOLLOW STATE DECISIONS UPON THE POWER OF STATE
COURTS, UNDER THE RULE OF GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99.  I
DO NOT THINK THAT THE GUARANTY RULE APPLIES.  SEE SUBDIVISION IV. 

III.  IF THE TWO PRECEDING NUMBERED DIVISIONS OF THIS OPINION ARE
SOUND, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR BULLINGTON TO SEEK A REVIEW OF THE
FIRST JUDGMENT IN THIS COURT.  HE WAS IN THE POSITION OF THE OWNER OF A
CAUSE OF ACTION, DISMISSED BECAUSE PREMATURELY BROUGHT OR BROUGHT IN
THE WRONG COUNTY.  THE JUDGMENT THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH
CAROLINA ORDERED WAS "DISMISSED," NOT ON THE MERITS, NOT WITH
PREJUDICE, AND NOT JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT, BUT A SIMPLE DISMISSAL. 
NORTH CAROLINA MIGHT HAVE DECLARED, BY STATUTE, THAT NO CAUSE OF ACTION
WOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN NORTH CAROLINA FOR THE RECOVERY OF A DEFICIENCY
ON A MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS.  INSTEAD OF THIS, WE ARE TOLD,
AUTHORITATIVELY, BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA THAT NORTH
CAROLINA HAS WITHDRAWN THE JURISDICTION OF ITS COURTS FROM SUCH A CAUSE
OF ACTION.  THIS PRODUCES QUITE A DIFFERENT SITUATION. 

IV.  THE PITH OF THE PROBLEM, AS I SEE IT, IS LAID BARE BY THE
FOREGOING DIFFERENTIATIONS.  IT CONSISTS OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
NORTH CAROLINA DECISION ESTABLISHES A CONTROLLING RULE OF LAW UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE STATUTE AS TESTED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION OR ADJUDICATES THAT THE STATUTE MERELY WITHDRAWS
JURISDICTION FROM STATE COURTS OVER A TYPE OF ACTION.  THIS COURT
CONCLUDES THAT THE STATE DECISION DETERMINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE STATUTE AND THAT ITS HOLDING WAS BINDING ON ALL FEDERAL COURTS IN
NORTH CAROLINA, AS WELL AS STATE COURTS.  THIS IDEA IS COMPREHENDED IN
THE COURT'S OPINION BY THE STATEMENTS THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE
COURTS OF THE STATE IN DIVERSITY CASES AND THAT A LITIGANT CANNOT STOP
WITH AN INTERMEDIATE COURT DECISION AGAINST HIM AND BEGIN A NEW
LITIGATION ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION. 

THE COURT REACHES THE CONCLUSION THAT RES JUDICATA SHOULD APPLY BY AN
APPLICATION OF ERIE RAILROAD V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AND GUARANTY
TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99.  THE TEACHING OF THOSE CASES IS
ACCEPTED BY ME.  THEY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN DIVERSITY CASES,
LEGAL OR EQUITABLE, AND THIS PROCEEDING IS A DIVERSITY CASE, THE
FEDERAL COURTS IN A STATE APPLY THE LAW OF THAT STATE IN MATTERS OF
SUBSTANTIVE LAW.  IN MATTERS OF PROCEDURE AND JURISDICTION, I TAKE IT,
NO ONE WOULD CONTEND THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ERIE RAILROAD IS APPLICABLE. 
ONE MAY REGRET THAT THE LINE OF THE GREAT DIVIDE BETWEEN SUBSTANCE AND
PROCEDURE CANNOT BE CLEARLY MARKED SO THAT ALL MAY AGREE AS TO ITS
LOCATION IN ANY ONE CASE.  BUT THAT LINE EXISTS.  WE HAVE SAID THAT
FEDERAL COURTS MUST FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE STATE AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF. 
CITIES SERVICE CO. V. DUNLAP, 308 U.S. 208; PALMER V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S.
109, 117; AS TO CONFLICT OF LAWS, GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313 U.S. 498;
KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487, AND AS TO STATE STATUTES OF
LIMITATION IN EQUITY CASES, GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, SUPRA.  THE
REASON FOR THESE CONCLUSIONS IS TO GAIN THE DESIRABLE END OF A SYMMETRY
OF LAW WITHIN EACH STATE.  THE MOMENTUM OF THE OPINIONS, JUST CITED,
AND OF THE DESIRE FOR UNIFORMITY SHOULD NOT CAUSE US TO DISREGARD THE
RULE THAT STATE LAW, STATUTORY OR JUDICIAL, DIRECTED AT REMEDIES OR
POWERS OF COURTS, CANNOT AFFECT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.  EACH OF THE CASES
JUST CITED FOLLOWS THE DECLARATIONS OF STATE LAW BY STATE COURTS.  IN
THIS CASE, THIS COURT DEPARTS FROM THE STATE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF
THE MEANING OF A STATE STATUTE IN ORDER TO BRING ABOUT THE FEDERAL
POLICY OF UNIFORMITY.  BY THIS, THE COURT DEPARTS FROM THE SOUND RULE
THAT A STATE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF STATE STATUTES IS BINDING ON
FEDERAL COURTS.  IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION WHICH IT DOES, THIS COURT
DECIDES THAT IF A STATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO ADJUDICATE A
CAUSE, NEITHER DOES A FEDERAL COURT IN THAT STATE.  IT ALSO DEPARTS
FROM CONTROLLING PRECEDENTS THAT STATE ENACTMENTS ON JURISDICTION,
REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES DO NOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION, REMEDIES OR
PROCEDURES OF FEDERAL COURTS.  IT IS TRUE THAT THESE ANTEDATE THE ERIE
CASE BUT THAT CASE DID NOT CHANGE THE STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 

IN PUSEY & JONES CO. V. HANSSEN, 261 U.S. 491, THIS COURT HELD THAT
AN AUTHORITY GIVEN BY DELAWARE TO ITS CHANCELLOR TO APPOINT A RECEIVER
FOR AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION ON THE APPLICATION OF ANY CREDITOR DID NOT
GIVE ADDITIONAL POWER TO THE FEDERAL COURT TO APPOINT A RECEIVER IN A
DIVERSITY CASE ON THE APPLICATION OF A SIMPLE CREDITOR ALTHOUGH THE
FEDERAL COURTS HAD LONG EXERCISED THE RIGHT TO APPOINT RECEIVERS ON THE
APPLICATION OF A SECURED CREDITOR.  THIS COURT SAID: 

"THAT A REMEDIAL RIGHT TO PROCEED IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN
EQUITY CANNOT BE ENLARGED BY A STATE STATUTE IS LIKEWISE CLEAR, SCOTT
V. NEELY, 140 U.S. 106; CATES V. ALLEN, 149 U.S. 451.  NOR CAN IT BE SO
NARROWED, MISSISSIPPI MILLS V. COHN, 150 U.S. 202; GUFFEY V. SMITH, 237
U.S. 101, 114.  THE FEDERAL COURT MAY THEREFORE BE OBLIGED TO DENY AN
EQUITABLE REMEDY WHICH THE PLAINTIFF MIGHT HAVE SECURED IN A STATE
COURT.  HANSSEN'S CONTENTION IS THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT ENLARGE THE
EQUITABLE JURISDICTION OR REMEDIES; AND THAT IT CONFERS UPON CREDITORS
OF A DELAWARE CORPORATION, IF THE COMPANY IS INSOLVENT, A SUBSTANTIVE
EQUITABLE RIGHT TO HAVE A RECEIVER APPOINTED.  IF THIS WERE TRUE, THE
RIGHT CONFERRED COULD BE ENFORCED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, SCOTT V.
NEELY, 140 U.S. 106, 109; SINCE THE PROCEEDING IS IN PLEADING AND
PRACTICE CONFORMABLE TO THOSE COMMONLY ENTERTAINED BY A COURT OF
EQUITY.  BUT IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THIS STATUTE CONFERS UPON THE CREDITOR
A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT." 

SEE HENRIETTA MILLS V. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, 281 U.S. 121, 127-128;
KELLEAM V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 312 U.S. 377, 382. 

IN LUPTON'S SONS CO. V. AUTOMOBILE CLUB, 225 U.S. 489, THIS COURT
HELD THAT A CONTRACT WHICH COULD NOT BE SUED UPON IN THE COURTS OF NEW
YORK BECAUSE A NEW YORK STATUTE PROVIDED THAT NO FOREIGN CORPORATION
COULD "MAINTAIN ANY ACTION IN THIS STATE" WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE THAT IT
HAD COMPLIED WITH CERTAIN STATE REQUIREMENTS TO DO BUSINESS IN THE
STATE, COULD NEVERTHELESS BE SUED UPON IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  IT WAS
SAID, P. 500: 

"THE STATE COULD NOT PRESCRIBE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF SUITORS IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND COULD NOT DEPRIVE OF THEIR PRIVILEGES
THOSE WHO WERE ENTITLED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES TO RESORT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A VALID
CONTRACT.... THE STATE IN THE STATUTE BEFORE US MADE NO SUCH ATTEMPT. 
THE ONLY PENALTY IT IMPOSED, TO QUOTE AGAIN FROM THE MAHAR CASE, WAS A
DISABILITY TO SUE 'IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK.'" 

THESE CASES MAKE CLEAR THAT IN DIVERSITY LITIGATION THE FEDERAL
COURTS ARE NOT SIMPLY COURTS OF THE STATE.  THEY ARE SO FAR AS THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBSTANTIVE LAWS OF THE STATE ARE CONCERNED, BUT NOT
WHEN PROCEDURE OR POWER TO ACT IS INVOLVED.  THE LUPTON CASE SHOWS TOO,
THAT, WHEN A STATE DENIES POWER TO ITS COURTS TO ADJUDICATE A CAUSE,
THAT DENIAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DECIDE
THE CASE.  AS I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE STATE COURT MERELY DENIED
ITS POWER TO ADJUDGE BETWEEN THESE PARTIES AND DID NOT DECIDE THE
MERITS OF BULLINGTON'S CAUSE OF ACTION, THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT CANNOT
BE RES JUDICATA IN THE FEDERAL COURT. 

IF IT IS TRUE THAT IN PASSING UPON THE MEANING OF A STATE STATUTE, A
FEDERAL COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE STATE COURT'S
CHARACTERIZATION OF ITS STATUTE, AS REMEDIAL OR SUBSTANTIVE, THIS
COURT'S PRESENT DETERMINATION THAT THE STATUTE IS SUBSTANTIVE FOR OUR
PURPOSES CANNOT CHANGE THE EFFECT IN THIS LITIGATION OF THE STATE'S
DECISION TO THE CONTRARY.  WHEN THE STATE COURT HELD THAT FOR ITS
PURPOSES THE STATUTE WAS REMEDIAL, IT WAS REMEDIAL IN THAT COURT.  IF
REMEDIAL, THE STATE JUDGMENT WAS NOT UPON THE MERITS AND COULD NOT BE
RES JUDICATA IN ANY COURT AS TO THE RIGHT TO RECOVER ON THE CAUSE OF
ACTION. 

IF THE PLEA OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT GOOD AND THIS COURT SHOULD DECIDE
THAT THE STATE STATUTE IS SUBSTANTIVE LAW, I.E., A DECLARATION OF THE
POLICY OF NORTH CAROLINA AGAINST CLAIMS ON DEFICIENCIES AFTER SALES OF
INCUMBERED PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE THAT DECLARES
UNCOLLECTIBLE IN NORTH CAROLINA A CLAIM ON A CONTRACT THAT WAS GOOD IN
VIRGINIA.  IN VIEW OF THIS COURT'S PRESENT DECISION, I EXPRESS NO
OPINION UPON THIS ISSUE. 

FN1  220 N.C. AT 20-21, 16 S.E.2D AT 412: "THE STATUTE OPERATES UPON
THE ADJECTIVE LAW OF THE STATE, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE, OR LEGAL MACHINERY BY WHICH THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS MADE
EFFECTIVE, AND NOT UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW ITSELF.  IT IS A LIMITATION
OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THIS STATE. 

"THE LEGISLATURE, WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, CAN FIX AND
CIRCUMSCRIBE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THIS STATE.  THE
LEGISLATURE HAS EXERCISED ITS PREROGATIVE TO SO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURTS OF THIS STATE THAT HOLDERS OF NOTES GIVEN FOR PURCHASE
PRICE OF REAL ESTATE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT THEREON
IN SUCH COURTS.  WE CANNOT HOLD THAT THIS ACTION UPON PART OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT IMPINGED THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE GENERAL DOCTRINE
THAT THE VALIDITY OF A CONTRACT IS DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE PLACE
WHERE MADE, THE LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE LEX
FORI.  BOTH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION URGED AND THE GENERAL DOCTRINE
INVOKED BY THE APPELLEE ARE SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND THE STATUTE INVOLVED,
AS AFORESAID, RELATES SOLELY TO THE ADJECTIVE LAW.  NO DENIAL OF THE
FULL FORCE AND CREDIT OF THE VIRGINIA CONTRACT IS MADE, AND NO
INTERPRETATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT INVOLVED IS ATTEMPTED. 
THE COURT, BEING DEPRIVED OF ITS JURISDICTION, HAS NO POWER TO RENDER A
JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED. 
'JURISDICTION IS POWER TO DECLARE THE LAW, AND WHEN IT CEASES TO EXIST,
THE ONLY FUNCTION REMAINING TO THE COURT IS THAT OF ANNOUNCING THE FACT
AND DISMISSING THE CAUSE.  AND THIS IS NOT LESS CLEAR UPON AUTHORITY
THAN UPON PRINCIPLE.'" 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

THIS IS A HARD CASE MAKING, I THINK, PROVERBIALLY BAD LAW.  ON THE
SURFACE WHAT SEEMS TO BE DECIDED IS SIMPLY A QUESTION OF RES JUDICATA. 
ACTUALLY THE DECISION RESTS ON AN "AND/OR" HODGEPODGE OF RES JUDICATA
AND ERIE DOCTRINES.  FN1  IN MY JUDGMENT THE ADMIXTURE NOT ONLY IS
UNNECESSARY BUT DISTORTS AND MISAPPLIES BOTH DOCTRINES.  IF RES
JUDICATA PROPERLY APPLIES AND IS ADEQUATE TO DISPOSE OF THE CAUSE,
THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE SIDEWISE INTRODUCTION OF ERIE IDEAS. 
LIKEWISE, IF ERIE APPROPRIATELY GOVERNS THE CASE, THE COURT'S ELABORATE
AND ALTOGETHER NOVEL DISCUSSION OF RES JUDICATA IS SUPERFLUOUS. 

THE COURT HAS NOT DECIDED THIS CASE ON ANY BASIS OF FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT.  FN2  ACCORDINGLY RES JUDICATA AS IT IS APPLIED HAS NEITHER
CONSTITUTIONAL NOR STATUTORY STATUS.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IT IS
THEREFORE PURELY A RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION TO BE APPLIED, LIKE
ALL SUCH RULES, AS CONSIDERATIONS OF JUSTICE AND RIGHT APPLICATION OF
THE POLICY REQUIRE, NOT OMITTING DUE REGARD FOR ITS APPROPRIATE
LIMITS. 

RES JUDICATA IS A GENERALLY SOUND BUT BY NO MEANS UNLIMITED POLICY OF
JUDICIAL ACTION.  THE DOCTRINE IS GROUNDED IN THE NEED FOR PUTTING AN
END TO LITIGATION.  FN3  IT DOES THIS BY PRECLUDING THE PARTIES FROM
SHOWING WHAT IS OR MAY BE THE TRUTH.  FN4  THE SOUND CORE OF THE POLICY
IS THAT ORDINARILY ONE SUIT WHICH DETERMINES OR GIVES A FULL AND FAIR
CHANCE FOR DETERMINING CAUSES OF ACTION AND ISSUES  FN5  BETWEEN
LITIGANTS SHOULD BE ENOUGH AND WHEN THIS MUCH HAS BEEN GIVEN FURTHER
OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE DENIED. 

STATED SO SIMPLY, HOWEVER, THE DOCTRINE WOULD BE AS MUCH TRAP FOR THE
UNWARY AS BOON FOR THE WISE OR LUCKY LITIGANT.  EXCEPTIONS AND
QUALIFICATIONS ARE SO NUMEROUS AS TO MAKE THE FIELD NOT ONLY TECHNICAL
BUT TREACHEROUS, THIS CASE BEING A NICE ILLUSTRATION.  QUALIFICATION
MAY ITSELF LOSE SIGHT OF BASIC POLICY AND BECOME SHEER TECHNICALITY
N6.  BUT GENERAL RULES ARE NOT QUALIFIED SO EXTENSIVELY AS THIS ONE HAS
BEEN WITHOUT REASON.  THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR MUCH OF WHAT HAS BEEN
DONE IN THIS RESPECT WITH RES JUDICATA. 

THE EFFECT OF THE RULE QUALIFIES ITS SCOPE.  IT IS NOT EVERY CASE IN
WHICH A LITIGANT HAS HAD "ONE BITE AT THE CHERRY" THAT THE LAW FORBIDS
ANOTHER.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS NOT EVERY SUCH CASE IN WHICH THE POLICY
OF STOPPING LITIGATION OUTWEIGHS THAT OF SHOWING THE TRUTH.  THIS IS SO
NOT ONLY WHERE THE FIRST SUIT ACTUALLY GIVES NO REAL CHANCE TO SECURE A
SUBSTANTIAL DETERMINATION, FN7  BUT ALSO THOUGH LESS GENERALLY OF
OTHERS IN WHICH THE LITIGANT HAS SUCH A CHANCE AND FOREGOES OR MISSES
IT.  FN8  IT IS SO TOO WHETHER THE CLAIMED ESTOPPEL BY PRIOR SUIT IS
"DIRECT" OR "INDIRECT," THAT IS, ON THE SAME OR A DIFFERENT CAUSE OF
ACTION.  FN9 

UPON THE LAW AS WELL AS THE POLICY, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ONE OF
BALANCING CONSIDERATIONS OF JUSTICE AND CONVENIENCE BETWEEN STOPPING
LITIGATION AND STOPPING THE SHOWING OF THE TRUTH.  FN10 THAT BALANCE
HAS NEVER BEEN SO ONE-SIDED IN FAVOR OF THE FORMER THAT THE MATTER IS
ENDED SIMPLY BY SHOWING THAT A PARTY HAS HAD SOME CHANCE, HOWEVER
SLIGHT, IN A PREVIOUS LITIGATION TO SECURE A FAVORABLE DECISION. 

IF THIS WERE THE LAW EVERY CASE WHERE A PARTY TAKES A NONSUIT OR A
DISMISSAL EXPRESSLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STARTING OVER AGAIN WOULD BE A
FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION AGAINST HIM.  I KNOW OF NO
JURISDICTION WHERE THE LAW HAS BEEN SO HARSH.  NOR DO I THINK IT SHOULD
BE IN THIS ONE. 

THERE ARE TOO MANY GOOD REASONS WHY PERSONS STARTING OUT IN
LITIGATION SHOULD NOT BE BARRED OF THEIR RIGHTS BY THE FACT ALONE THAT
THEY WITHDRAW IN ORDER TO START AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH BY GOING ON TO THE
END THEY MIGHT PULL THROUGH SUCCESSFULLY AGAINST GREAT ODDS.  CRUCIAL
WITNESSES MAY DISAPPEAR OR DIE AND TIME BE REQUIRED FOR FINDING THEM OR
OTHERS.  SURPRISE IN THE COURSE OF TRIAL MAY OCCUR JUSTIFYING
WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT FATAL LOSS OF RIGHTS.  EVEN AS IN THIS CASE,
JURISDICTIONAL AND OTHER UNCERTAINTIES MAY ARISE PUTTING IN JEOPARDY OR
MAKING COMPARATIVELY OR COMPLETELY FUTILE FURTHER PURSUIT OF THE
PENDING LITIGATION WHEN ANOTHER SUIT IN THE SAME OR A DIFFERENT COURT
MIGHT PROVIDE A MORE CERTAIN AND LESS EXPENSIVE MODE OF DISPOSING OF
THE CONTROVERSY FOR ALL THE PARTIES. 

THESE AND OTHER REASONS HAVE QUALIFIED FLAT APPLICATION OF RES
JUDICATA TOO LONG AND TOO UNIVERSALLY FOR THEIR QUALIFYING EFFECTS TO
BE THROWN OVERBOARD NOW SIMPLY BECAUSE A WITHDRAWING LITIGANT MIGHT
CONCEIVABLY HAVE COME OUT VICTORIOUS HAD HE GONE ON TO THE VERY
FARTHEST END.  FN11 SUCH A CRITERION WOULD TURN RES JUDICATA INTO A
RIGID RULE REQUIRING EXHAUSTION OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES, A NOTION
HERETOFORE WHOLLY ALIEN TO THE DOCTRINE.  FN12 

THIS COURSE, MOREOVER, SEEMS TO BE JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS THAT THE
GROUNDS OF AN ADJUDICATION HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ADJUDICATION OR
ITS EFFECTS, FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING RES JUDICATA.  THAT IS TRUE,
APPARENTLY, FOR APPLYING RES JUDICATA TO BULLINGTON'S FAILURE TO TAKE
HIS APPEAL HERE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE COURT SUIT, SO AS TO CUT
OFF HIS RIGHT EVER TO SECURE A DECISION ON THE "'MERITS' IN THE SENSE
OF THE ULTIMATE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF A LITIGATION."  BUT IT IS NOT
TRUE, APPARENTLY, FOR APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE TO DIFFERENT
JURISDICTIONAL RULINGS.  FOR "AN ADJUDICATION DECLINING TO REACH SUCH
ULTIMATE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES MAY BAR A SECOND ATTEMPT TO REACH THEM IN
ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE.  SUCH A SITUATION IS PRESENTED WHEN THE
FIRST DECISION IS BASED NOT ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF
JUDICIAL POWER AMONG THE VARIOUS COURTS OF THE STATE REQUIRES THE SUIT
TO BE BROUGHT IN ANOTHER COURT IN THE STATE, BUT ON THE INACCESSIBILITY
OF ALL THE COURTS OF THE STATE TO SUCH LITIGATION.  AND THAT IS THE
ESSENCE OF THE PRESENT CASE." 

I CAN UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION DRAWN.  BUT I FIND DIFFICULTY IN
UNDERSTANDING WHY RES JUDICATA TURNS FOR APPLICATION IN THIS CASE TO
CUT OFF DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES NOT AT ALL UPON THE GROUNDS
OF DECISION BUT ONLY ON THE FACT OF ADVERSE DECISION; BUT, FOR
APPLICATION TO SUCH ISSUES WHEN A JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION IS ALSO
INVOLVED, IT TURNS NOT SIMPLY UPON THE ADJUDICATION, BUT UPON THE
GROUNDS FOR THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.  IF RES JUDICATA IS
GOVERNED SOLELY BY THE ADJUDICATION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHAT IS
ADJUDICATED, THAT IS, MERELY BY THE FACT OF ADVERSE DECISION, I SHOULD
THINK THAT RULE WOULD APPLY IN ALL CASES.  IF, ON THE CONTRARY, THE
GROUNDS OF ADJUDICATION ARE RELEVANT AND CONTROLLING FOR THE ONE CLASS
OF QUESTIONS, I SHOULD THINK THEY WOULD BE FOR THE OTHER. 

THE FALLACY LIES IN THE NOVEL AND UNPRECEDENTED IDEA THAT THE
GROUNDINGS OF A COURT'S DECISION HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER RES
JUDICATA APPLIES, EXCEPT WHEN THEY RELATE TO ONE KIND OF JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION RATHER THAN ANOTHER.  APART FROM THE EXCEPTION, THE IDEA
IGNORES THE VAST BODY OF LAW WHICH HAS GROWN UP ON THE BASIS THAT THE
GROUNDING OF THE DECISION IS THE CRITERION FOR APPLYING THE DOCTRINE. 
FN13  AND MUCH OF THAT CASE LAW HAS BEEN THAT IF THE "'MERITS' IN THE
SENSE OF THE ULTIMATE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF A LITIGATION" ARE NOT
REACHED, THEIR LATER DETERMINATION IS NOT FORECLOSED.  FN14  THIS IS
TRUE WHETHER OR NOT THE JURISDICTIONAL RULING IS ERRONEOUS OR VALID AND
WHETHER OR NOT IF ERRONEOUS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CORRECTED ON APPEAL. 
THAT LAW I THINK IS SOUND, AND I THINK IT IS JUST AS SOUND WHEN THE
JURISDICTIONAL DECISION GOES OFF ERRONEOUSLY ON A FEDERAL GROUND OR
ERRONEOUSLY IGNORING ONE AS WHEN IT RESTS ON A VALID BASIS.  IT IS
GROUNDED IN THE POLICY THAT UNLESS A LITIGANT GETS A REAL BITE AT THE
APPLE OF DISCORD HE SHOULD NOT BE FORECLOSED FROM ANOTHER ATTEMPT.  ITS
BASIS IS THAT IN SUCH A CASE IT IS BETTER AND MORE JUST NOT TO STOP
LITIGATION THAN IT IS TO STOP THE SHOWING OF THE TRUTH AND THEREBY
BRING ABOUT A FORFEITURE OF VALUABLE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS WITHOUT GIVING
AT LEAST ONE FULL AND FAIR, WHICH MEANS FAIRLY CERTAIN, OPPORTUNITY FOR
SECURING DECISION UPON THEM. 

BULLINGTON HAS NOT HAD SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY.  HE HAS NEVER RECEIVED,
AND NOW NEVER CAN RECEIVE A DECISION ON THE SUBSTANTIVE MERITS OF HIS
CLAIM, UNLESS POSSIBLY HE CAN CATCH AND SERVE ANGEL IN ANOTHER STATE
AND AFTER PROLONGED FURTHER LITIGATION SUCCEED IN INDUCING THIS COURT
TO HOLD THE NORTH CAROLINA BAR AND RES JUDICATA NOT OPERATIVE THERE. 
SEE RILEY V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 315 U.S. 343, 349:  "BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, THE LOCAL DOCTRINES
OF RES JUDICATA, SPEAKING GENERALLY, BECOME A PART OF NATIONAL
JURISPRUDENCE, AND THEREFORE FEDERAL QUESTIONS COGNIZABLE HERE." 

CONCEIVABLY BULLINGTON BY COMING HERE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA SUIT
MIGHT HAVE SECURED A DECISION THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE AND
DECISION WERE INVALID CONSTITUTIONALLY IN EXCLUDING HIM FROM ALL THE
STATE'S COURTS AND THAT THE STATE MUST AFFORD HIM A REMEDY ON PROOF OF
HIS SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM.  BUT THE VERY MULTIPLICITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS ENUMERATED IN THE COURT'S OPINION WHICH WERE OR MIGHT HAVE
BEEN PERTINENT MADE THAT CHANCE SLIM INDEED.  WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS
THAT IF THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN THUS REVERSED AND REMANDED, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN WIPED OUT AND HE THEN WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO DISMISS THE SUIT AND
START OVER AGAIN IN THE FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN THE STATE OR IN THE
STATE COURTS.  BUCHER V. CHESHIRE R.R. CO., 125 U.S. 555, 578-579. 
FN15 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE CASE HAD GONE AGAINST HIM HERE, THEN HIS
RIGHT TO START OVER IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN NORTH CAROLINA WOULD DEPEND
UPON WHETHER ONE OF TWO GROUNDS WERE ACCEPTED FOR THIS COURT'S
DECISION, NAMELY, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT NORTH CAROLINA HAD POWER TO BAR
HIS SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM AND HAD DONE SO IN EFFECT THOUGH NOT IN WORDS,
THUS CLOSING THE DOORS OF THE FEDERAL COURT TO IT UNDER THE ERIE RULE;
ON THE OTHER, THAT THE STATE HAD POWER TO CLOSE ITS COURTS AGAINST HIS
CLAIM WITHOUT ADJUDICATING ITS SUBSTANTIVE VALIDITY, THUS LEAVING HIM
FREE TO GO TO THE FEDERAL COURT UNDER THE ERIE RULE.  EITHER RESULT WAS
A CONCEIVABLE ONE, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT
A "RIGHT WITHOUT A REMEDY" REMAINS A RIGHT, FOR THIS PURPOSE, OR
BECOMES NONE AT ALL.  BUT THE ONLY CHANCE FOR BULLINGTON'S ULTIMATE
SUCCESS, IN THE EVENT OF ADVERSE DECISION HERE, WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THE
DECISION TO HAVE TURNED OUT ON THE LATTER GROUND. 

THAT CHANCE WAS HARDLY WORTH THE GAMBLE.  FOR THIS COURT HAS DECLARED
IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, 108-109, THAT A RIGHT
WITHOUT A REMEDY IS NO RIGHT AT ALL FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT BY A
DIVERSITY SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN THE STATE.  FN16  AND THE
NATURE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT
REACHES EXACTLY THE RESULT WHICH THE YORK CASE SAYS PRECLUDES RESORT TO
THE FEDERAL COURT ON THE SAME CAUSE IN A DIVERSITY SUIT.  FN17 INDEED
THIS SEEMS TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE BASIS FOR THE PRESENT DECISION.  FN18
BULLINGTON'S CHANCE TO GET TO THE FEDERAL COURT ON SUCH A BASIS WAS
THEREFORE PRACTICALLY NIL. 

SHOULD HE NOW BE BARRED BECAUSE HE DID NOT TAKE THE EXTREMELY REMOTE
CHANCE OF SECURING A FAVORABLE DECISION, REVERSING THE STATE COURT'S
JUDGMENT AND FORCING THE STATE TO HEAR HIS CASE ON THE MERITS?  NOT, I
THINK, UNLESS WE CAN SAY HE THEN WOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED, IF SUCCESSFUL,
TO CONTINUE THE LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURTS AND COULD NOT WITHDRAW
TO START OVER IN THE NORTH CAROLINA FEDERAL COURT.  THIS WE COULD NOT
SAY UNLESS WE WERE TO OVERRULE THE BUCHER CASE, WHICH BULLINGTON HAD A
RIGHT TO ASSUME WE WOULD NOT DO.  WHY HE SHOULD BE BARRED FROM DOING
NOW, BECAUSE HE DID NOT TAKE HIS ALMOST HOPELESS APPEAL, WHAT HE WOULD
HAVE BEEN AT LIBERTY TO DO IF HE HAD TAKEN IT SUCCESSFULLY, I AM NOT
ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.  NO SOUND POLICY OF ENDING LITIGATION, CONSERVING
JUDICIAL TIME OR LITIGANTS' RIGHTS OR IN ANY OTHER RESPECT CAN POSSIBLY
BE SERVED BY SUCH A RULING.  FN19  MOREOVER, THE VERY DIFFICULTIES IN
HIS WAY FOR SECURING A SUCCESSFUL DETERMINATION HERE, WHICH WOULD GIVE
HIM SOME CERTAIN REMEDY EITHER IN THE STATE OR IN THE FEDERAL COURTS,
WERE SUFFICIENT REASON, IN MY OPINION, TO JUSTIFY HIS FOREGOING THAT
DUBIOUS PROCEDURE AND STARTING OVER AGAIN IN THE FEDERAL COURT. 

THE REAL TROUBLE HERE IS NOT WITH THE LAW OF RES JUDICATA, FOR THAT
LAW HAS NO VALID APPLICATION TO THESE FACTS.  IT IS THAT THE DOCTRINE
IS USED AS AN ESCAPE FROM FACING SQUARELY THE REAL QUESTION PRESENTED. 
THIS IS WHETHER NORTH CAROLINA'S DECISION MADE THE ERIE DOCTRINE
APPLICABLE.  THE COURT'S OPINION DOES STATE EXPRESSLY THAT THE EFFECT
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DECISION WAS TO CREATE A POLICY OF THE STATE
AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF ALL CLAIMS FOR DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS, AND COMES
ALMOST BUT NOT QUITE TO SAYING THIS REQUIRES THE CASE TO GO OFF ON
APPLICATION OF THE YORK RULE. 

THAT ISSUE IS INESCAPABLE HERE.  THE ERIE RULE DID NOT PURPORT TO
CHANGE THE LAW OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN DIVERSITY CASES, TAKING IT
OUT OF THE HANDS OF CONGRESS AND THE FEDERAL COURTS AND PUTTING IT
WITHIN THE STATES' POWER TO DETERMINE.  IT PURPORTED ONLY TO PRESCRIBE
THE RULE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD FOLLOW IN APPLYING THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW. 
IF THE NORTH CAROLINA DECISION WAS EXCLUSIVELY A JURISDICTIONAL ONE, IT
HAD NO EFFECT ON THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THAT STATE TO HEAR
CONTROVERSIES EXCLUDED BY IT FROM THE STATE COURTS, AND THE DECISION
NEITHER REACHED THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY "IN THE SENSE OF THE
ULTIMATE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF A LITIGATION" NOR BARRED BULLINGTON FROM
GOING TO THE FEDERAL COURT.  SEE LUPTON'S SONS CO. V. AUTOMOBILE CLUB,
225 U.S. 489.  IF ON THE OTHER HAND THE DECISION WAS IN EFFECT,
ALTHOUGH NOT IN WORDS, A DETERMINATION OF THE MERITS IN THAT SENSE, IT
BOTH ADJUDICATED BULLINGTON'S SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AND BARRED HIM FROM
MAINTAINING THE LATER SUIT SUCCESSFULLY IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  THAT
QUESTION IS HERE AND UNTIL IT IS RESOLVED HE IS DEPRIVED OF ANY DAY IN
COURT EXCEPT TO GO FROM ONE TO ANOTHER WITHOUT SECURING DECISION EITHER
ON THE MERITS SUBSTANTIALLY OR "ON THE MERITS" JURISDICTIONALLY. 

FROM THE COURT'S OPINION I CANNOT SAY WHETHER THE QUESTION HAS BEEN
RESOLVED.  ITS DISCUSSION OF NORTH CAROLINA'S "POLICY" AND ITS
OVERRULING OF THE LUPTON'S SONS CASE, SUPRA, WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE
THAT IT IS APPLYING YORK, THOUGH WITHOUT SAYING SO FRANKLY.  BUT, IF
SO, WHY SPEAK ALSO OF RES JUDICATA?  THE LAW SHOULD NOT BE MADE INTO
SUCH A MERRY-GO-ROUND.  BULLINGTON IS ENTITLED TO ONE FULL DAY IN COURT
ON THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS CLAIM.  THIS HE HAS NOT HAD. 

I HARDLY NEED ADD THAT I AGREE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR.
JUSTICE REED. 

FN1  ERIE R.R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

FN2  THE COURT DOES NOT HOLD THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE,
CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 1, BINDS THE FEDERAL COURTS TO GIVE THE NORTH
CAROLINA JUDGMENT THE EFFECT OF PRECLUDING A FURTHER SUIT IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS ON THE SUBSTANTIVE CAUSE OF ACTION.  TWO DIFFICULTIES
WOULD ARISE.  (1) IF, AS THE COURT ASSERTS, THE FEDERAL COURT IN
DIVERSITY CASES WERE ONLY "ANOTHER NORTH CAROLINA COURT," THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION; BUT, THAT IT MAY,
SEE COOPER V. NEWELL, 173 U.S. 555, 567:  "...  THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES ARE TRIBUNALS OF A DIFFERENT SOVEREIGNTY, AND EXERCISE A
DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT JURISDICTION FROM THAT EXERCISED BY THE STATE
COURTS, AND THIS IS TRUE IN RESPECT OF THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES
AS BETWEEN EACH OTHER.  AND THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE BOUND
TO GIVE TO THE JUDGMENTS OF THE STATE COURTS THE SAME FAITH AND CREDIT
THAT THE COURTS OF ONE STATE ARE BOUND TO GIVE TO THE JUDGMENTS OF THE
COURTS OF HER SISTER STATES."  SEE ALSO AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN,
287 U.S. 156, WHERE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SPOKE OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE OBLIGATION OF A FEDERAL COURT
SITTING IN IDAHO TO FOLLOW, AS RES JUDICATA, A PREVIOUS IDAHO
DECISION.  (2) THE DECISION WOULD CONTRADICT, NOT CONFIRM, AS FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIRE, THE BASIS FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT'S
JUDGMENT, NAMELY, THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT OUTLAW SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS
BUT ONLY DEPRIVES THE STATE COURTS OF POWER TO ENTERTAIN THEM. 

FN3  SEE MOSCHZISKER, RES JUDICATA (1929) 38 YALE L.J. 299, 300.  IN
THIS RESPECT, OF COURSE, RES JUDICATA RESEMBLES BOTH STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS AND THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES IN EQUITY, AS WELL AS FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT WHEN APPLICABLE TO JUDGMENTS. 

FN4  SCOTT, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT (1942) 56 HARV. L. REV.
1.  SO DO STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, LACHES AND FULL FAITH AND CREDIT RE
JUDGMENTS, WHEN APPLICABLE. 

FN5  CF. NOTE 9 INFRA AND TEXT. 

FN6  A SIGN GENERALLY THAT SOMETHING IS RADICALLY WRONG WITH THE RULE
OR WITH IT AND THE EXCEPTIONS TOGETHER.  CF. GEORGETOWN COLLEGE V.
HUGHES, 76 U.S. APP. D.C. 123, 130 F.2D 810. 

FN7  SEE WALDEN V. BODLEY, 14 PET. 156, 161; HUGHES V. UNITED STATES,
4 WALL.  232, 237; RESTATEMENT, JUDGMENTS (1942) SEC. 49. 

FN8  "JUDGMENTS OF NONSUIT, OF NON PROSEQUITUR, OF NOLLE PROSEQUI, OF
DISCONTINUANCE AND OF DISMISSAL GENERALLY, ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE
GENERAL RULE THAT WHEN THE PLEADINGS, THE COURT, AND THE PARTIES ARE
SUCH AS TO PERMIT OF A TRIAL ON THE MERITS, THE JUDGMENT WILL BE
CONSIDERED AS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE OF ALL MATTERS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN
SO TRIED."  2 FREEMAN, JUDGMENTS (5TH ED.)  1579-1580.  AND "GENERALLY
SPEAKING, JUDGMENTS MERELY OF DISMISSAL, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR
INVOLUNTARY, IN ACTIONS AT LAW ARE NOT ON THE MERITS AND DO NOT OPERATE
AS A BAR OR ESTOPPEL IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE SAME
MATTERS."  ID. AT 1582.  SEE HALDEMAN V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 584;
JACOBS V. MARKS, 182 U.S. 583; MANHATTAN LIFE INS. CO. V. BROUGHTON,
109 U.S. 121; RESTATEMENT, JUDGMENTS (1942) SECS. 53, 54. 

FN9  SCOTT, OP. CIT. SUPRA NOTE 4, P. 2; RESTATEMENT, JUDGMENTS
(1942) 175-176.  USUALLY "DIRECT" ESTOPPEL IS SAID TO PRECLUDE
REDETERMINATION OF ISSUES ACTUALLY DETERMINED OR WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN
DETERMINED "ON THE MERITS."  IBID.  BUT "INDIRECT" ESTOPPEL PRECLUDES
RELITIGATING ONLY ISSUES ACTUALLY DECIDED.  CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC,
94 U.S. 351, 352-353. 

FN10  THE PROCESS OF COURSE CRYSTALLIZES IN DEFINITE RULES FOR TYPES
OF CASES, BUT THE IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT THESE RULES DO NOT ALL COME
OUT THE SAME WAY FOR APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF PRECLUSION AND THAT IN
THE PROCESS OF CRYSTALLIZATION THE WEIGHING OF THE OPPOSING
CONSIDERATIONS FORMS THE RULE FOR OR AGAINST THAT POLICY. 

FN11  THE COURT CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT BULLINGTON WOULD NOT BE
FORECLOSED ON RES JUDICATA BY THE NORTH CAROLINA DECISION IF HIS ROUTE
TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW HAD BEEN BY CERTIORARI RATHER THAN BY APPEAL. 
BUT THE RULING AS MADE, IN SO FAR AS IT RESTS ON THE FAILURE TO APPEAL,
IGNORES THE SETTLED LAW THAT FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING RES JUDICATA
FAILURE TO TAKE APPEAL HAS NO BEARING ONCE THE JUDGMENT BECOMES FINAL. 
SEE NOTE 19.  IT ALSO DEFEATS THE POLICY OF RES JUDICATA; FOR A PARTY,
INSTEAD OF BEING ALLOWED TO ACCEPT THE JURISDICTIONAL RULING, IS FORCED
TO APPEAL TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN ORDER TO SAVE HIS RIGHTS NO MATTER
HOW MERITLESS THE APPEAL, THUS PROLONGING RATHER THAN SHORTENING
LITIGATION. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 19. 

FN13  SEE SCOTT, OP. CIT., SUPRA NOTE 4; RESTATEMENT, JUDGMENTS
(1942) SECS. 49, 50, 53, 54. 

FN14  SEE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 7 SUPRA. 

FN15  "IF  ...  A JUDGMENT HAS BEEN VACATED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR
REVERSED BY AN APPELLATE COURT, IT IS NO LONGER CONCLUSIVE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, EITHER AS A MERGER OF THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION OR AS A BAR
TO AN ACTION UPON THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION  ..."  RESTATEMENT,
JUDGMENTS (1942) 163. 

"ORDINARILY, AFTER A JUDGMENT HAS BEEN REVERSED ON APPEAL AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED, THE CASE STANDS FOR TRIAL DE NOVO ON THE ISSUES
PROPERLY JOINED....  WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF TO TAKE A
VOLUNTARY NONSUIT, IT STANDS IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION WHICH IT
OCCUPIED BEFORE THE TRIAL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE."  SHELL PETROLEUM
CORP. V. SHORE, 80 F.2D 785, 786. 

THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE.  89 A.L.R. 109; 126 A.L.R. 305.  IT WOULD
SEEM TO APPLY IN NORTH CAROLINA.  NORTH CAROLINA FOLLOWS BOTH THE
DOCTRINE THAT THE TRIAL COURT, UPON REMAND BY AN APPELLATE COURT, IS TO
PROCEED AS IF THERE HAD BEEN NO PREVIOUS TRIAL AND THE DOCTRINE THAT
JUDGMENTS NOT ON THE MERITS DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN ESTOPPEL TO SUBSEQUENT
ACTIONS.  HICKORY V. RAILROAD, 138 N.C. 311, 318; GRIMES V. ANDREWS,
170 N.C. 515; CF. GEN. STAT. N.C. (1943) SEC. 1-25, AS INTERPRETED IN
GRIMES V. ANDREWS, 170 N.C. AT 522. 

FN16  THE YORK CASE HOWEVER DID NOT PURPORT TO APPLY OR EXTEND THE
RULE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING UNDER AND GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF
ANOTHER STATE THAN THAT IN WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT WAS SITTING.  BUT
CF. KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR ELEC.  MFG.  CO., 313 U.S. 487.    FN17
EXCEPT FOR THE FACTOR NOTED IN NOTE 16. 

FN18  SEE TEXT INFRA. 

FN19  "THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA HAS NOT IN
ANY WAY BEEN MADE TO DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE JUDGMENT IN QUESTION IS
SUBJECT TO REVIEW IN ANOTHER TRIBUNAL.  EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS IT MAY
AFFECT THE QUESTION OF ITS FINALITY, AS IN THE CASE OF ORDERS ON
MOTIONS, THE FACT THAT A JUDGMENT MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPEALABLE SHOULD
HAVE NO BEARING UPON ITS EFFECT AS RES JUDICATA."  2 FREEMAN, JUDGMENTS
(5TH ED.)  1339.    THUS, THERE IS NO DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
JUDICIAL REMEDIES.  IF THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT GOES ON JURISDICTIONAL
GROUNDS, THE PARTY MAY ACCEPT IT AND, INSTEAD OF APPEALING, MAY
INSTITUTE ANOTHER ACTION WHERE HE WILL NOT BE MET BY THE JURISDICTIONAL
BAR.  CF. RESTATEMENT, JUDGMENTS (1942) 194-195; COOK, THE LOGICAL AND
LEGAL BASES OF THE CONFLICT OF LAWS (1942) 133-135. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
























EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1 


NO. 52.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 20, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 10, 1947.  - 133
N.J.L. 350, 44 A.2D 333, AFFIRMED. 


PURSUANT TO A NEW JERSEY STATUTE AUTHORIZING DISTRICT BOARDS OF
EDUCATION TO MAKE RULES AND CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
CHILDREN TO AND FROM SCHOOLS OTHER THAN PRIVATE SCHOOLS OPERATED FOR
PROFIT, A BOARD OF EDUCATION BY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED THE REIMBURSEMENT
OF PARENTS FOR FARES PAID FOR THE TRANSPORTATION BY PUBLIC CARRIER OF
CHILDREN ATTENDING PUBLIC AND CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.  THE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS
OPERATED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCY OF A CATHOLIC PRIEST AND, IN
ADDITION TO SECULAR EDUCATION, GAVE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN THE
CATHOLIC FAITH.  A DISTRICT TAXPAYER CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE STATUTE AND RESOLUTION, SO FAR AS THEY
AUTHORIZED REIMBURSEMENT TO PARENTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN
ATTENDING SECTARIAN SCHOOLS.  NO QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE
EXCLUSION OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS OPERATED FOR PROFIT DENIED EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; NOR DID THE RECORD SHOW THAT THERE WERE ANY
CHILDREN IN THE DISTRICT WHO ATTENDED, OR WOULD HAVE ATTENDED BUT FOR
THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION, ANY BUT PUBLIC OR CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.  HELD: 

1.  THE EXPENDITURE OF TAX-RAISED FUNDS THUS AUTHORIZED WAS FOR A
PUBLIC PURPOSE, AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 5-8. 

2.  THE STATUTE AND RESOLUTION DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT (MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT) PROHIBITING ANY "LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION."  PP. 8-18. 

EVERSON V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

IN A SUIT BY A TAXPAYER, THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE
STATE LEGISLATURE WAS WITHOUT POWER UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO
AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT TO PARENTS OF BUS FARES PAID FOR TRANSPORTING
THEIR CHILDREN TO SCHOOLS OTHER THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  132 N.J.L. 98, 39
A.2D 75.  THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING
THAT NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR A RESOLUTION PASSED PURSUANT TO IT
VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION OR THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IN ISSUE.  133 N.J.L. 350, 44 A.2D 333.  ON APPEAL OF THE
FEDERAL QUESTIONS TO THIS COURT, AFFIRMED, P. 18. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A NEW JERSEY STATUTE AUTHORIZES ITS LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO MAKE
RULES AND CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN TO AND FROM
SCHOOLS.  FN1  THE APPELLEE, A TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, ACTING
PURSUANT TO THIS STATUTE, AUTHORIZED REIMBURSEMENT TO PARENTS OF MONEY
EXPENDED BY THEM FOR THE BUS TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR CHILDREN ON
REGULAR BUSSES OPERATED BY THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  PART OF
THIS MONEY WAS FOR THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF SOME CHILDREN IN
THE COMMUNITY TO CATHOLIC PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS.  THESE CHURCH SCHOOLS GIVE
THEIR STUDENTS, IN ADDITION TO SECULAR EDUCATION, REGULAR RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION CONFORMING TO THE RELIGIOUS TENETS AND MODES OF WORSHIP OF
THE CATHOLIC FAITH.  THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THESE SCHOOLS IS A CATHOLIC
PRIEST. 

THE APPELLANT, IN HIS CAPACITY AS A DISTRICT TAXPAYER, FILED SUIT IN
A STATE COURT CHALLENGING THE RIGHT OF THE BOARD TO REIMBURSE PARENTS
OF PAROCHIAL SCHOOL STUDENTS.  HE CONTENDED THAT THE STATUTE AND THE
RESOLUTION PASSED PURSUANT TO IT VIOLATED BOTH THE STATE AND THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.  THAT COURT HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO AUTHORIZE SUCH PAYMENT UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION. 
132 N.J.L. 98, 39 A.2D 75.  THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS
REVERSED, HOLDING THAT NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE RESOLUTION PASSED
PURSUANT TO IT WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATE CONSTITUTION OR THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN ISSUE.  133 N.J.L. 350, 44
A.2D 333.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTACK ON THE STATUTE ON THE GROUND THAT A
PART OF ITS LANGUAGE EXCLUDES CHILDREN ATTENDING PRIVATE SCHOOLS
OPERATED FOR PROFIT FROM ENJOYING STATE PAYMENT FOR THEIR
TRANSPORTATION, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THIS EXCLUSIONARY LANGUAGE; IT HAS
NO RELEVANCY TO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION HERE PRESENTED.  FN2
FURTHERMORE, IF THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE HAD BEEN PROPERLY CHALLENGED, WE
DO NOT KNOW WHETHER NEW JERSEY'S HIGHEST COURT WOULD CONSTRUE ITS
STATUTES AS PRECLUDING PAYMENT OF THE SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION OF ANY
GROUP OF PUPILS, EVEN THOSE OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL RUN FOR PROFIT.  FN3
CONSEQUENTLY, WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT IT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE PAYMENT FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION GENERALLY OF SCHOOL CHILDREN IN NEW JERSEY. 

THE ONLY CONTENTION HERE IS THAT THE STATE STATUTE AND THE
RESOLUTION, INSOFAR AS THEY AUTHORIZED REIMBURSEMENT TO PARENTS OF
CHILDREN ATTENDING PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
IN THESE TWO RESPECTS, WHICH TO SOME EXTENT OVERLAP.  FIRST.  THEY
AUTHORIZE THE STATE TO TAKE BY TAXATION THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF SOME
AND BESTOW IT UPON OTHERS, TO BE USED FOR THEIR OWN PRIVATE PURPOSES. 
THIS, IT IS ALLEGED, VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  SECOND.  THE STATUTE AND THE RESOLUTION FORCED INHABITANTS
TO PAY TAXES TO HELP SUPPORT AND MAINTAIN SCHOOLS WHICH ARE DEDICATED
TO, AND WHICH REGULARLY TEACH, THE CATHOLIC FAITH.  THIS IS ALLEGED TO
BE A USE OF STATE POWER TO SUPPORT CHURCH SCHOOLS CONTRARY TO THE
PROHIBITION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MADE
APPLICABLE TO THE STATES. 

FIRST.  THE DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT THAT THE STATE LAW TAXES SOME PEOPLE
TO HELP OTHERS CARRY OUT THEIR PRIVATE PURPOSES IS FRAMED IN TWO
PHASES.  THE FIRST PHASE IS THAT A STATE CANNOT TAX A TO REIMBURSE B
FOR THE COST OF TRANSPORTING HIS CHILDREN TO CHURCH SCHOOLS.  THIS IS
SAID TO VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE BECAUSE THE CHILDREN ARE SENT TO
THESE CHURCH SCHOOLS TO SATISFY THE PERSONAL DESIRES OF THEIR PARENTS,
RATHER THAN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE GENERAL EDUCATION OF ALL
CHILDREN.  THIS ARGUMENT, IF VALID, WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO PROHIBIT
STATE PAYMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN TO ANY NON-PUBLIC
SCHOOL, WHETHER OPERATED BY A CHURCH OR ANY OTHER NON-GOVERNMENT
INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP.  BUT, THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE HAS DECIDED THAT
A PUBLIC PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED BY USING TAX-RAISED FUNDS TO PAY THE
BUS FARES OF ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN, INCLUDING THOSE WHO ATTEND PAROCHIAL
SCHOOLS.  THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS HAS REACHED THE
SAME CONCLUSION.  THE FACT THAT A STATE LAW, PASSED TO SATISFY A PUBLIC
NEED, COINCIDES WITH THE PERSONAL DESIRES OF THE INDIVIDUALS MOST
DIRECTLY AFFECTED IS CERTAINLY AN INADEQUATE REASON FOR US TO SAY THAT
A LEGISLATURE HAS ERRONEOUSLY APPRAISED THE PUBLIC NEED. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT HAS, IN RARE INSTANCES, STRUCK DOWN STATE
STATUTES ON THE GROUND THAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH TAX-RAISED FUNDS WERE
TO BE EXPENDED WAS NOT A PUBLIC ONE.  LOAN ASSOCIATION V. TOPEKA, 20
WALL.  655; PARKERSBURG V. BROWN, 106 U.S. 487; THOMPSON V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES CORP., 300 U.S. 55.  BUT THE COURT HAS ALSO
POINTED OUT THAT THIS FAR-REACHING AUTHORITY MUST BE EXERCISED WITH THE
MOST EXTREME CAUTION.  GREEN V. FRAZIER, 253 U.S. 233, 240.  OTHERWISE,
A STATE'S POWER TO LEGISLATE FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE MIGHT BE SERIOUSLY
CURTAILED, A POWER WHICH IS A PRIMARY REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF
STATES.  CHANGING LOCAL CONDITIONS CREATE NEW LOCAL PROBLEMS WHICH MAY
LEAD A STATE'S PEOPLE AND ITS LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO BELIEVE THAT LAWS
AUTHORIZING NEW TYPES OF PUBLIC SERVICES ARE NECESSARY TO PROMOTE THE
GENERAL WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT
STRIP THE STATES OF THEIR POWER TO MEET PROBLEMS PREVIOUSLY LEFT FOR
INDIVIDUAL SOLUTION.  DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97, 103-104;
BARBIER V. CONNOLLY, 113 U.S. 27, 31-32; FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DISTRICT
V. BRADLEY, 164 U.S. 112, 157-158. 

IT IS MUCH TOO LATE TO ARGUE THAT LEGISLATION INTENDED TO FACILITATE
THE OPPORTUNITY OF CHILDREN TO GET A SECULAR EDUCATION SERVES NO PUBLIC
PURPOSE.  COCHRAN V. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 281 U.S. 370;
HOLMES, J., IN INTERSTATE RY. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 207 U.S. 79, 87.  SEE
OPINION OF COOLEY, J., IN STUART V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 OF KALAMAZOO,
30 MICH. 69(1874).  THE SAME THING IS NO LESS TRUE OF LEGISLATION TO
REIMBURSE NEEDY PARENTS, OR ALL PARENTS, FOR PAYMENT OF THE FARES OF
THEIR CHILDREN SO THAT THEY CAN RIDE IN PUBLIC BUSSES TO AND FROM
SCHOOLS RATHER THAN RUN THE RISK OF TRAFFIC AND OTHER HAZARDS INCIDENT
TO WALKING OR "HITCHHIKING."  SEE BARBIER V. CONNOLLY, SUPRA, AT 31. 
SEE ALSO CASES COLLECTED 63 A.L.R. 413; 118 A.L.R. 806.  NOR DOES IT
FOLLOW THAT A LAW HAS A PRIVATE RATHER THAN A PUBLIC PURPOSE BECAUSE IT
PROVIDES THAT TAX-RAISED FUNDS WILL BE PAID TO REIMBURSE INDIVIDUALS ON
ACCOUNT OF MONEY SPENT BY THEM IN A WAY WHICH FURTHERS A PUBLIC
PROGRAM.  SEE CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495,
518.  SUBSIDIES AND LOANS TO INDIVIDUALS SUCH AS FARMERS AND HOME
OWNERS, AND TO PRIVATELY OWNED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, AS WELL AS MANY
OTHER KINDS OF BUSINESSES, HAVE BEEN COMMONPLACE PRACTICES IN OUR STATE
AND NATIONAL HISTORY. 

INSOFAR AS THE SECOND PHASE OF THE DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT MAY DIFFER
FROM THE FIRST, IT IS BY SUGGESTING THAT TAXATION FOR TRANSPORTATION OF
CHILDREN TO CHURCH SCHOOLS CONSTITUTES SUPPORT OF A RELIGION BY THE
STATE.  BUT IF THE LAW IS INVALID FOR THIS REASON, IT IS BECAUSE IT
VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION BY LAW.  THIS IS THE EXACT QUESTION RAISED BY APPELLANT'S
SECOND CONTENTION, TO CONSIDERATION OF WHICH WE NOW TURN. 

SECOND.  THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE IS CHALLENGED AS A "LAW RESPECTING AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION."  THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AS MADE APPLICABLE TO
THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH, MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105,
COMMANDS THAT A STATE "SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF...."  THESE WORDS OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT REFLECTED IN THE MINDS OF EARLY AMERICANS A VIVID
MENTAL PICTURE OF CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES WHICH THEY FERVENTLY WISHED
TO STAMP OUT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE LIBERTY FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THEIR
POSTERITY.  DOUBTLESS THEIR GOAL HAS NOT BEEN ENTIRELY REACHED; BUT SO
FAR HAS THE NATION MOVED TOWARD IT THAT THE EXPRESSION "LAW RESPECTING
AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION," PROBABLY DOES NOT SO VIVIDLY REMIND
PRESENT-DAY AMERICANS OF THE EVILS, FEARS, AND POLITICAL PROBLEMS THAT
CAUSED THAT EXPRESSION TO BE WRITTEN INTO OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.  WHETHER
THIS NEW JERSEY LAW IS ONE RESPECTING AN "ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION"
REQUIRES AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OF THAT LANGUAGE, PARTICULARLY
WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF TAXES.  ONCE AGAIN,  FN4  THEREFORE,
IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE BRIEFLY TO REVIEW THE BACKGROUND AND
ENVIRONMENT OF THE PERIOD IN WHICH THAT CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE WAS
FASHIONED AND ADOPTED. 

A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE EARLY SETTLERS OF THIS COUNTRY CAME HERE
FROM EUROPE TO ESCAPE THE BONDAGE OF LAWS WHICH COMPELLED THEM TO
SUPPORT AND ATTEND GOVERNMENT-FAVORED CHURCHES.  THE CENTURIES
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE COLONIZATION OF AMERICA
HAD BEEN FILLED WITH TURMOIL, CIVIL STRIFE, AND PERSECUTIONS, GENERATED
IN LARGE PART BY ESTABLISHED SECTS DETERMINED TO MAINTAIN THEIR
ABSOLUTE POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS SUPREMACY.  WITH THE POWER OF
GOVERNMENT SUPPORTING THEM, AT VARIOUS TIMES AND PLACES, CATHOLICS HAD
PERSECUTED PROTESTANTS, PROTESTANTS HAD PERSECUTED CATHOLICS,
PROTESTANT SECTS HAD PERSECUTED OTHER PROTESTANT SECTS, CATHOLICS OF
ONE SHADE OF BELIEF HAD PERSECUTED CATHOLICS OF ANOTHER SHADE OF
BELIEF, AND ALL OF THESE HAD FROM TIME TO TIME PERSECUTED JEWS.  IN
EFFORTS TO FORCE LOYALTY TO WHATEVER RELIGIOUS GROUP HAPPENED TO BE ON
TOP AND IN LEAGUE WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF A PARTICULAR TIME AND PLACE,
MEN AND WOMEN HAD BEEN FINED, CAST IN JAIL, CRUELLY TORTURED, AND
KILLED.  AMONG THE OFFENSES FOR WHICH THESE PUNISHMENTS HAD BEEN
INFLICTED WERE SUCH THINGS AS SPEAKING DISRESPECTFULLY OF THE VIEWS OF
MINISTERS OF GOVERNMENT-ESTABLISHED CHURCHES, NON-ATTENDANCE AT THOSE
CHURCHES, EXPRESSIONS OF NON-BELIEF IN THEIR DOCTRINES, AND FAILURE TO
PAY TAXES AND TITHES TO SUPPORT THEM.  FN5 

THESE PRACTICES OF THE OLD WORLD WERE TRANSPLANTED TO AND BEGAN TO
THRIVE IN THE SOIL OF THE NEW AMERICA.  THE VERY CHARTERS GRANTED BY
THE ENGLISH CROWN TO THE INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES DESIGNATED TO MAKE
THE LAWS WHICH WOULD CONTROL THE DESTINIES OF THE COLONIALS AUTHORIZED
THESE INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES TO ERECT RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH
ALL, WHETHER BELIEVERS OR NON-BELIEVERS, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT
AND ATTEND.  FN6  AN EXERCISE OF THIS AUTHORITY WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A
REPETITION OF MANY OF THE OLD-WORLD PRACTICES AND PERSECUTIONS. 
CATHOLICS FOUND THEMSELVES HOUNDED AND PROSCRIBED BECAUSE OF THEIR
FAITH; QUAKERS WHO FOLLOWED THEIR CONSCIENCE WENT TO JAIL; BAPTISTS
WERE PECULIARLY OBNOXIOUS TO CERTAIN DOMINANT PROTESTANT SECTS; MEN AND
WOMEN OF VARIED FAITHS WHO HAPPENED TO BE IN A MINORITY IN A PARTICULAR
LOCALITY WERE PERSECUTED BECAUSE THEY STEADFASTLY PERSISTED IN
WORSHIPPING GOD ONLY AS THEIR OWN CONSCIENCES DICTATED.  FN7 AND ALL OF
THESE DISSENTERS WERE COMPELLED TO PAY TITHES AND TAXES  FN8  TO
SUPPORT GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED CHURCHES WHOSE MINISTERS PREACHED
INFLAMMATORY SERMONS DESIGNED TO STRENGTHEN AND CONSOLIDATE THE
ESTABLISHED FAITH BY GENERATING A BURNING HATRED AGAINST DISSENTERS. 

THESE PRACTICES BECAME SO COMMONPLACE AS TO SHOCK THE FREEDOM-LOVING
COLONIALS INTO A FEELING OF ABHORRENCE.  FN9  THE IMPOSITION OF TAXES
TO PAY MINISTERS' SALARIES AND TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN CHURCHES AND
CHURCH PROPERTY AROUSED THEIR INDIGNATION.  FN10  IT WAS THESE FEELINGS
WHICH FOUND EXPRESSION IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  NO ONE LOCALITY AND NO
ONE GROUP THROUGHOUT THE COLONIES CAN RIGHTLY BE GIVEN ENTIRE CREDIT
FOR HAVING AROUSED THE SENTIMENT THAT CULMINATED IN ADOPTION OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS' PROVISIONS EMBRACING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.  BUT VIRGINIA,
WHERE THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH HAD ACHIEVED A DOMINANT INFLUENCE IN
POLITICAL AFFAIRS AND WHERE MANY EXCESSES ATTRACTED WIDE PUBLIC
ATTENTION, PROVIDED A GREAT STIMULUS AND ABLE LEADERSHIP FOR THE
MOVEMENT.  THE PEOPLE THERE, AS ELSEWHERE, REACHED THE CONVICTION THAT
INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COULD BE ACHIEVED BEST UNDER A GOVERNMENT
WHICH WAS STRIPPED OF ALL POWER TO TAX, TO SUPPORT, OR OTHERWISE TO
ASSIST ANY OR ALL RELIGIONS, OR TO INTERFERE WITH THE BELIEFS OF ANY
RELIGIOUS INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP. 

THE MOVEMENT TOWARD THIS END REACHED ITS DRAMATIC CLIMAX IN VIRGINIA
IN 1785-86 WHEN THE VIRGINIA LEGISLATIVE BODY WAS ABOUT TO RENEW
VIRGINIA'S TAX LEVY FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.  THOMAS
JEFFERSON AND JAMES MADISON LED THE FIGHT AGAINST THIS TAX.  MADISON
WROTE HIS GREAT MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE AGAINST THE LAW.  FN11  IN
IT, HE ELOQUENTLY ARGUED THAT A TRUE RELIGION DID NOT NEED THE SUPPORT
OF LAW; THAT NO PERSON, EITHER BELIEVER OR NON-BELIEVER, SHOULD BE
TAXED TO SUPPORT A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION OF ANY KIND; THAT THE BEST
INTEREST OF A SOCIETY REQUIRED THAT THE MINDS OF MEN ALWAYS BE WHOLLY
FREE; AND THAT CRUEL PERSECUTIONS WERE THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF
GOVERNMENT-ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS.  MADISON'S REMONSTRANCE RECEIVED
STRONG SUPPORT THROUGHOUT VIRGINIA,  FN12  AND THE ASSEMBLY POSTPONED
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED TAX MEASURE UNTIL ITS NEXT SESSION.  WHEN
THE PROPOSAL CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THAT SESSION, IT NOT ONLY
DIED IN COMMITTEE, BUT THE ASSEMBLY ENACTED THE FAMOUS "VIRGINIA BILL
FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY" ORIGINALLY WRITTEN BY THOMAS JEFFERSON.  FN13
THE PREAMBLE TO THAT BILL STATED AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT 

"ALMIGHTY GOD HATH CREATED THE MIND FREE; THAT ALL ATTEMPTS TO
INFLUENCE IT BY TEMPORAL PUNISHMENTS OR BURTHENS, OR BY CIVIL
INCAPACITATIONS, TEND ONLY TO BEGET HABITS OF HYPOCRISY AND MEANNESS,
AND ARE A DEPARTURE FROM THE PLAN OF THE HOLY AUTHOR OF OUR RELIGION,
WHO BEING LORD BOTH OF BODY AND MIND, YET CHOSE NOT TO PROPAGATE IT BY
COERCIONS ON EITHER  ...; THAT TO COMPEL A MAN TO FURNISH CONTRIBUTIONS
OF MONEY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF OPINIONS WHICH HE DISBELIEVES, IS
SINFUL AND TYRANNICAL; THAT EVEN THE FORCING HIM TO SUPPORT THIS OR
THAT TEACHER OF HIS OWN RELIGIOUS PERSUASION, IS DEPRIVING HIM OF THE
COMFORTABLE LIBERTY OF GIVING HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PARTICULAR
PASTOR, WHOSE MORALS HE WOULD MAKE HIS PATTERN  ..." 

AND THE STATUTE ITSELF ENACTED 

"THAT NO MAN SHALL BE COMPELLED TO FREQUENT OR SUPPORT ANY RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP, PLACE, OR MINISTRY WHATSOEVER, NOR SHALL BE ENFORCED,
RESTRAINED, MOLESTED, OR BURTHENED IN HIS BODY OR GOODS, NOR SHALL
OTHERWISE SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OR BELIEF  ..." 
FN14 

THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, IN THE DRAFTING AND ADOPTION OF WHICH MADISON AND JEFFERSON
PLAYED SUCH LEADING ROLES, HAD THE SAME OBJECTIVE AND WERE INTENDED TO
PROVIDE THE SAME PROTECTION AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION ON RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY AS THE VIRGINIA STATUTE.  REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT
164; WATSON V. JONES, 13 WALL.  679; DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333,
342.  PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE FIRST
AMENDMENT DID NOT APPLY AS A RESTRAINT AGAINST THE STATES.  FN15  MOST
OF THEM DID SOON PROVIDE SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.  FN16  BUT SOME STATES PERSISTED FOR ABOUT HALF A
CENTURY IN IMPOSING RESTRAINTS UPON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND
IN DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS GROUPS.  FN17  IN RECENT
YEARS, SO FAR AS THE PROVISION AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION
IS CONCERNED, THE QUESTION HAS MOST FREQUENTLY ARISEN IN CONNECTION
WITH PROPOSED STATE AID TO CHURCH SCHOOLS AND EFFORTS TO CARRY ON
RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TENETS
OF A PARTICULAR SECT.  FN18  SOME CHURCHES HAVE EITHER SOUGHT OR
ACCEPTED STATE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THEIR SCHOOLS.  HERE AGAIN THE
EFFORTS TO OBTAIN STATE AID OR ACCEPTANCE OF IT HAVE NOT BEEN LIMITED
TO ANY ONE PARTICULAR FAITH.  FN19  THE STATE COURTS, IN THE MAIN, HAVE
REMAINED FAITHFUL TO THE LANGUAGE OF THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND TO SEPARATE
RELIGIONS AND GOVERNMENTS.  THEIR DECISIONS, HOWEVER, SHOW THE
DIFFICULTY IN DRAWING THE LINE BETWEEN TAX LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES
FUNDS FOR THE WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THAT WHICH IS DESIGNED
TO SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS WHICH TEACH RELIGION.  FN20 

THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, PREVENTING
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, IN
THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY AND THE EVILS IT WAS DESIGNED FOREVER TO
SUPPRESS, HAVE BEEN SEVERAL TIMES ELABORATED BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE STATES BY
THE FOURTEENTH N21.  THE BROAD MEANING GIVEN THE AMENDMENT BY THESE
EARLIER CASES HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT IN ITS DECISIONS
CONCERNING AN INDIVIDUAL'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RENDERED SINCE THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS INTERPRETED TO MAKE THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE
FIRST APPLICABLE TO STATE ACTION ABRIDGING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  FN22
THERE IS EVERY REASON TO GIVE THE SAME APPLICATION AND BROAD
INTERPRETATION TO THE "ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" CLAUSE.  THE
INTERRELATION OF THESE COMPLEMENTARY CLAUSES WAS WELL SUMMARIZED IN A
STATEMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF SOUTH CAROLINA,  FN23  QUOTED WITH
APPROVAL BY THIS COURT IN WATSON V. JONES, 13 WALL.  679, 730:  "THE
STRUCTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT HAS, FOR THE PRESERVATION OF CIVIL LIBERTY,
RESCUED THE TEMPORAL INSTITUTIONS FROM RELIGIOUS INTERFERENCE.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, IT HAS SECURED RELIGIOUS LIBERTY FROM THE INVASION OF THE
CIVIL AUTHORITY." 

THE "ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT MEANS
AT LEAST THIS:  NEITHER A STATE NOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN SET UP A
CHURCH.  NEITHER CAN PASS LAWS WHICH AID ONE RELIGION, AID ALL
RELIGIONS, OR PREFER ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER.  NEITHER CAN FORCE NOR
INFLUENCE A PERSON TO GO TO OR TO REMAIN AWAY FROM CHURCH AGAINST HIS
WILL OR FORCE HIM TO PROFESS A BELIEF OR DISBELIEF IN ANY RELIGION.  NO
PERSON CAN BE PUNISHED FOR ENTERTAINING OR PROFESSING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
OR DISBELIEFS, FOR CHURCH ATTENDANCE OR NON-ATTENDANCE.  NO TAX IN ANY
AMOUNT, LARGE OR SMALL, CAN BE LEVIED TO SUPPORT ANY RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITIES OR INSTITUTIONS, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE CALLED, OR WHATEVER
FORM THEY MAY ADOPT TO TEACH OR PRACTICE RELIGION.  NEITHER A STATE NOR
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN, OPENLY OR SECRETLY, PARTICIPATE IN THE
AFFAIRS OF ANY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS OR GROUPS AND VICE VERSA.  IN
THE WORDS OF JEFFERSON, THE CLAUSE AGAINST ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION BY
LAW WAS INTENDED TO ERECT "A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND
STATE."  REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 164. 

WE MUST CONSIDER THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
FOREGOING LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  BUT WE MUST NOT
STRIKE THAT STATE STATUTE DOWN IF IT IS WITHIN THE STATE'S
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER EVEN THOUGH IT APPROACHES THE VERGE OF THAT
POWER.  SEE INTERSTATE RY. V. MASSACHUSETTS, HOLMES, J., SUPRA AT 85,
88.  NEW JERSEY CANNOT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE "ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION" CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT CONTRIBUTE TAX-RAISED FUNDS TO
THE SUPPORT OF AN INSTITUTION WHICH TEACHES THE TENETS AND FAITH OF ANY
CHURCH.  ON THE OTHER HAND, OTHER LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT COMMANDS
THAT NEW JERSEY CANNOT HAMPER ITS CITIZENS IN THE FREE EXERCISE OF
THEIR OWN RELIGION.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT CANNOT EXCLUDE INDIVIDUAL
CATHOLICS, LUTHERANS, MOHAMMEDANS, BAPTISTS, JEWS, METHODISTS, NON
BELIEVERS, PRESBYTERIANS, OR THE MEMBERS OF ANY OTHER FAITH, BECAUSE OF
THEIR FAITH, OR LACK OF IT, FROM RECEIVING THE BENEFITS OF PUBLIC
WELFARE LEGISLATION.  WHILE WE DO NOT MEAN TO INTIMATE THAT A STATE
COULD NOT PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION ONLY TO CHILDREN ATTENDING PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, WE MUST BE CAREFUL, IN PROTECTING THE CITIZENS OF NEW JERSEY
AGAINST STATE-ESTABLISHED CHURCHES, TO BE SURE THAT WE DO NOT
INADVERTENTLY PROHIBIT NEW JERSEY FROM EXTENDING ITS GENERAL STATE LAW
BENEFITS TO ALL ITS CITIZENS WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEF. 

MEASURED BY THESE STANDARDS, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
PROHIBITS NEW JERSEY FROM SPENDING TAX-RAISED FUNDS TO PAY THE BUS
FARES OF PAROCHIAL SCHOOL PUPILS AS A PART OF A GENERAL PROGRAM UNDER
WHICH IT PAYS THE FARES OF PUPILS ATTENDING PUBLIC AND OTHER SCHOOLS. 
IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE THAT CHILDREN ARE HELPED TO GET TO CHURCH
SCHOOLS.  THERE IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THE CHILDREN MIGHT
NOT BE SENT TO THE CHURCH SCHOOLS IF THE PARENTS WERE COMPELLED TO PAY
THEIR CHILDREN'S BUS FARES OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS WHEN TRANSPORTATION
TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID FOR BY THE STATE.  THE SAME
POSSIBILITY EXISTS WHERE THE STATE REQUIRES A LOCAL TRANSIT COMPANY TO
PROVIDE REDUCED FARES TO SCHOOL CHILDREN INCLUDING THOSE ATTENDING
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS,  FN24  OR WHERE A MUNICIPALLY OWNED TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM UNDERTAKES TO CARRY ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN FREE OF CHARGE. 
MOREOVER, STATE-PAID POLICEMEN, DETAILED TO PROTECT CHILDREN GOING TO
AND FROM CHURCH SCHOOLS FROM THE VERY REAL HAZARDS OF TRAFFIC, WOULD
SERVE MUCH THE SAME PURPOSE AND ACCOMPLISH MUCH THE SAME RESULT AS
STATE PROVISIONS INTENDED TO GUARANTEE FREE TRANSPORTATION OF A KIND
WHICH THE STATE DEEMS TO BE BEST FOR THE SCHOOL CHILDREN'S WELFARE. 
AND PARENTS MIGHT REFUSE TO RISK THEIR CHILDREN TO THE SERIOUS DANGER
OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS GOING TO AND FROM PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, THE
APPROACHES TO WHICH WERE NOT PROTECTED BY POLICEMEN.  SIMILARLY,
PARENTS MIGHT BE RELUCTANT TO PERMIT THEIR CHILDREN TO ATTEND SCHOOLS
WHICH THE STATE HAD CUT OFF FROM SUCH GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS
ORDINARY POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION, CONNECTIONS FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL,
PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AND SIDEWALKS.  OF COURSE, CUTTING OFF CHURCH SCHOOLS
FROM THESE SERVICES, SO SEPARATE AND SO INDISPUTABLY MARKED OFF FROM
THE RELIGIOUS FUNCTION, WOULD MAKE IT FAR MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE
SCHOOLS TO OPERATE.  BUT SUCH IS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  THAT AMENDMENT REQUIRES THE STATE TO BE A NEUTRAL IN ITS
RELATIONS WITH GROUPS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS AND NON-BELIEVERS; IT DOES
NOT REQUIRE THE STATE TO BE THEIR ADVERSARY.  STATE POWER IS NO MORE TO
BE USED SO AS TO HANDICAP RELIGIONS THAN IT IS TO FAVOR THEM. 

THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT PARENTS MAY, IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTY
UNDER STATE COMPULSORY EDUCATION LAWS, SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO A
RELIGIOUS RATHER THAN A PUBLIC SCHOOL IF THE SCHOOL MEETS THE SECULAR
EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH THE STATE HAS POWER TO IMPOSE.  SEE
PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510.  IT APPEARS THAT THESE
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS MEET NEW JERSEY'S REQUIREMENTS.  THE STATE
CONTRIBUTES NO MONEY TO THE SCHOOLS.  IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THEM.  ITS
LEGISLATION, AS APPLIED, DOES NO MORE THAN PROVIDE A GENERAL PROGRAM TO
HELP PARENTS GET THEIR CHILDREN, REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGION, SAFELY
AND EXPEDITIOUSLY TO AND FROM ACCREDITED SCHOOLS. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS ERECTED A WALL BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE. 
THAT WALL MUST BE KEPT HIGH AND IMPREGNABLE.  WE COULD NOT APPROVE THE
SLIGHTEST BREACH.  NEW JERSEY HAS NOT BREACHED IT HERE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "WHENEVER IN ANY DISTRICT THERE ARE CHILDREN LIVING REMOTE FROM
ANY SCHOOLHOUSE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT MAY MAKE RULES
AND CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH CHILDREN TO AND FROM
SCHOOL, INCLUDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF SCHOOL CHILDREN TO AND FROM
SCHOOL OTHER THAN A PUBLIC SCHOOL, EXCEPT SUCH SCHOOL AS IS OPERATED
FOR PROFIT IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 

"WHEN ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDES ANY TRANSPORTATION FOR PUBLIC
SCHOOL CHILDREN TO AND FROM SCHOOL, TRANSPORTATION FROM ANY POINT IN
SUCH ESTABLISHED SCHOOL ROUTE TO ANY OTHER POINT IN SUCH ESTABLISHED
SCHOOL ROUTE SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO SCHOOL CHILDREN RESIDING IN SUCH
SCHOOL DISTRICT IN GOING TO AND FROM SCHOOL OTHER THAN A PUBLIC SCHOOL,
EXCEPT SUCH SCHOOL AS IS OPERATED FOR PROFIT IN WHOLE OR IN PART."  NEW
JERSEY LAWS, 1941, C. 191, P. 581; N.J.R.S. CUM. SUPP., TIT. 18, C. 14,
SEC. 8. 

FN2  APPELLANT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OR THE
RESOLUTION ON THE GROUND THAT EITHER VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY EXCLUDING PAYMENT FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF ANY PUPIL WHO ATTENDS A "PRIVATE SCHOOL RUN FOR
PROFIT."  ALTHOUGH THE TOWNSHIP RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED REIMBURSEMENT
ONLY FOR PARENTS OF PUBLIC AND CATHOLIC SCHOOL PUPILS, APPELLANT DOES
NOT ALLEGE, NOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE RECORD WHICH WOULD OFFER THE
SLIGHTEST SUPPORT TO AN ALLEGATION, THAT THERE WERE ANY CHILDREN IN THE
TOWNSHIP WHO ATTENDED OR WOULD HAVE ATTENDED, BUT FOR WANT OF
TRANSPORTATION, ANY BUT PUBLIC AND CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.  IT WILL BE
APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE EXCLUSION OF STUDENTS OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS
OPERATED FOR PROFIT WHEN AND IF IT IS PROVED TO HAVE OCCURRED, IS MADE
THE BASIS OF A SUIT BY ONE IN A POSITION TO CHALLENGE IT, AND NEW
JERSEY'S HIGHEST COURT HAS RULED ADVERSELY TO THE CHALLENGER.  STRIKING
DOWN A STATE LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF SUCH LIGHT MOMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE
DONE BY A FEDERAL COURT EX MERO MOTU ON A POSTULATE NEITHER CHARGED NOR
PROVED, BUT WHICH RESTS ON NOTHING BUT A POSSIBILITY.  CF. LIVERPOOL,
N.Y. & P.S.S. CO. V. COMM'RS OF EMIGRATION, 113 U.S. 33, 39. 

FN3  IT MIGHT HOLD THE EXCEPTING CLAUSE TO BE INVALID, AND SUSTAIN
THE STATUTE WITH THAT CLAUSE EXCISED.  N.J.R.S., TIT. 1, C. 1, SEC. 10,
PROVIDES WITH REGARD TO ANY STATUTE THAT IF "ANY PROVISION THEREOF,
SHALL BE DECLARED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL  ...  IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY
A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, SUCH  ...  ARTICLE  ... SHALL, TO
THE EXTENT THAT IT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL,  ...  BE ENFORCED...."  THE
OPINION OF THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS IN THIS VERY CASE SUGGESTS
THAT STATE LAW NOW AUTHORIZES TRANSPORTATION OF ALL PUPILS.  ITS
OPINION STATED:  "SINCE WE HOLD THAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY APPROPRIATE
GENERAL STATE FUNDS OR AUTHORIZE THE USE OF LOCAL FUNDS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS TO ANY SCHOOL, WE CONCLUDE THAT SUCH
AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF LOCAL FUNDS IS LIKEWISE AUTHORIZED BY
PAMPH.  L. 1941, CH. 191, AND R.S. 18:7-78."  133 N.J.L. 350, 354, 44
A.2D 333, 337. 

FN4  SEE REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 162; CF. KNOWLTON V.
MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 89, 106. 

FN5  SEE E.G. MACAULAY, HISTORY OF ENGLAND (1849) I, CC. 2, 4; THE
CAMBRIDGE MODERN HISTORY (1908) V, CC. V, IX, XI; BEARD, RISE OF
AMERICAN CIVILIZATION (1933) I, 60; COBB, RISE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN
AMERICA (1902) C. II; SWEET, THE STORY OF RELIGION IN AMERICA (1939) C.
II; SWEET, RELIGION IN COLONIAL AMERICA (1942) 320-322.    FN6  SEE
E.G. THE CHARTER OF THE COLONY OF CAROLINA WHICH GAVE THE GRANTEES THE
RIGHT OF "PATRONAGE AND ADVOWSONS OF ALL THE CHURCHES AND CHAPELS  ...
TOGETHER WITH LICENCE AND POWER TO BUILD AND FOUND CHURCHES, CHAPELS
AND ORATORIES  ...  AND TO CAUSE THEM TO BE DEDICATED AND CONSECRATED,
ACCORDING TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS OF OUR KINGDOM OF ENGLAND." 
POORE, CONSTITUTIONS (1878) II, 1390, 1391.  THAT OF MARYLAND GAVE TO
THE GRANTEE LORD BALTIMORE "THE PATRONAGES, AND ADVOWSONS OF ALL
CHURCHES WHICH  ...  SHALL HAPPEN TO BE BUILT, TOGETHER WITH LICENCE
AND FACULTY OF ERECTING AND FOUNDING CHURCHES, CHAPELS, AND PLACES OF
WORSHIP  ...  AND OF CAUSING THE SAME TO BE DEDICATED AND CONSECRATED
ACCORDING TO THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS OF OUR KINGDOM OF ENGLAND, WITH
ALL, AND SINGULAR SUCH, AND AS AMPLE RIGHTS, JURISDICTIONS, PRIVILEGES,
...  AS ANY BISHOP  ...  IN OUR KINGDOM OF ENGLAND, EVER  ...  HATH HAD
..."  MACDONALD, DOCUMENTARY SOURCE BOOK OF AMERICAN HISTORY (1934)
31, 33.  THE COMMISSION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE OF 1680, POORE, SUPRA, II,
1277, STATED:  "AND ABOVE ALL THINGS WE DO BY THESE PRESENTS WILL,
REQUIRE AND COMAND OUR SAID COUNCILL TO TAKE ALL POSSIBLE CARE FOR YE
DISCOUNTENANCING OF VICE AND ENCOURAGING OF VIRTUE AND GOOD LIVING; AND
THAT BY SUCH EXAMPLES YE INFIDLE MAY BE INVITED AND DESIRE TO PARTAKE
OF YE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, AND FOR YE GREATER EASE AND SATISFACTION OF
YE SD LOVING SUBJECTS IN MATTERS OF RELIGION, WE DO HEREBY REQUIRE AND
COMAND YT LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE SHALL BE ALLOWED UNTO ALL PROTESTANTS;
YT SUCH ESPECIALLY AS SHALL BE CONFORMABLE TO YE RITES OF YE CHURCH OF
ENGD SHALL BE PARTICULARLY COUNTENANCED AND ENCOURAGED."  SEE ALSO
PAWLET V. CLARK, 9 CRANCH 292. 

FN7  SEE E.G. SEMPLE, BAPTISTS IN VIRGINIA (1894); SWEET, RELIGION IN
COLONIAL AMERICA, SUPRA AT 131-152, 322-339. 

FN8  ALMOST EVERY COLONY EXACTED SOME KIND OF TAX FOR CHURCH
SUPPORT.  SEE E.G. COBB, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 5, 110(VIRGINIA);
131(NORTH CAROLINA); 169(MASSACHUSETTS); 270(CONNECTICUT); 304, 310,
339(NEW YORK); 386(MARYLAND); 295(NEW HAMPSHIRE). 

FN9  MADISON WROTE TO A FRIEND IN 1774:  "THAT DIABOLICAL, HELL
CONCEIVED PRINCIPLE OF PERSECUTION RAGES AMONG SOME  ...  THIS VEXES ME
THE WORST OF ANYTHING WHATEVER.  THERE ARE AT THIS TIME IN THE ADJACENT
COUNTRY NOT LESS THAN FIVE OR SIX WELL-MEANING MEN IN CLOSE JAIL FOR
PUBLISHING THEIR RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS, WHICH IN THE MAIN ARE VERY
ORTHODOX.  I HAVE NEITHER PATIENCE TO HEAR, TALK, OR THINK OF ANYTHING
RELATIVE TO THIS MATTER; FOR I HAVE SQUABBLED AND SCOLDED, ABUSED AND
RIDICULED, SO LONG ABOUT IT TO LITTLE PURPOSE, THAT I AM WITHOUT COMMON
PATIENCE.  SO I MUST BEG YOU TO PITY ME, AND PRAY FOR LIBERTY OF
CONSCIENCE TO ALL."  I WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON (1900) 18, 21. 

FN10  VIRGINIA'S RESISTANCE TO TAXATION FOR CHURCH SUPPORT WAS
CRYSTALLIZED IN THE FAMOUS "PARSONS' CAUSE" ARGUED BY PATRICK HENRY IN
1763.  FOR AN ACCOUNT SEE COBB, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 5, 108-111. 

FN11  II WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, 183. 

FN12  IN A RECENTLY DISCOVERED COLLECTION OF MADISON'S PAPERS,
MADISON RECOLLECTED THAT HIS REMONSTRANCE "MET WITH THE APPROBATION OF
THE BAPTISTS, THE PRESBYTERIANS, THE QUAKERS, AND THE FEW ROMAN
CATHOLICS, UNIVERSALLY; OF THE METHODISTS IN PART; AND EVEN OF NOT A
FEW OF THE SECT FORMERLY ESTABLISHED BY LAW."  MADISON, MONOPOLIES,
PERPETUITIES, CORPORATIONS, ECCLESIASTICAL ENDOWMENTS, IN FLEET,
MADISON'S "DETACHED MEMORANDUM," 3 WILLIAM AND MARY Q. (1946) 534, 551,
555. 

FN13  FOR ACCOUNTS OF BACKGROUND AND EVOLUTION OF THE VIRGINIA BILL
FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY SEE E.G. JAMES, THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY IN VIRGINIA (1900); THOM, THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN
VIRGINIA:  THE BAPTISTS (1900); COBB, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 5, 74-115;
MADISON, MONOPOLIES, PERPETUITIES, CORPORATIONS, ECCLESIASTICAL
ENDOWMENTS, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 12, 554, 556. 

FN14  12 HENING, STATUTES OF VIRGINIA (1823) 84; COMMAGER, DOCUMENTS
OF AMERICAN HISTORY (1944) 125. 

FN15  PERMOLI V. NEW ORLEANS, 3 HOW.  589.  CF. BARRON V. BALTIMORE,
7 PET. 243. 

FN16  FOR A COLLECTION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON FREEDOM
OF RELIGION SEE GABEL, PUBLIC FUNDS FOR CHURCH AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS
(1937) 148-149.  SEE ALSO 2 COOLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (1927)
960-985. 

FN17  TEST PROVISIONS FORBADE OFFICEHOLDERS TO "DENY  ...  THE TRUTH
OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION," E.G. CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA (1776)
SEC. XXXII, II POORE, SUPRA, 1413.  MARYLAND PERMITTED TAXATION FOR
SUPPORT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND LIMITED CIVIL OFFICE TO
CHRISTIANS UNTIL 1818, ID., I, 819, 820, 832. 

FN18  SEE NOTE 50 YALE L.J. (1941) 917; SEE ALSO CASES COLLECTED 14
L.R.A. 418; 5 A.L.R. 879; 141 A.L.R. 1148. 

FN19  SEE CASES COLLECTED 14 L.R.A. 418; 5 A.L.R. 879; 141 A.L.R.
1148. 

FN20  IBID.  SEE ALSO COOLEY, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 16. 

FN21  TERRETT V. TAYLOR, 9 CRANCH 43; WATSON V. JONES, 13 WALL.  679;
DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333; CF. REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
162; REUBEN QUICK BEAR V. LEUPP, 210 U.S. 50. 

FN22  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296; JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318
U.S. 413; LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
SUPRA; WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S.
624; FOLLETT V. MCCORMICK, 321 U.S. 573; MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S.
501.  CF. BRADFIELD V. ROBERTS, 175 U.S. 291. 

FN23  HARMON V. DREHER, SPEER'S EQUITY REPORTS (S.C., 1843), 87,
120. 

FN24  NEW JERSEY LONG AGO PERMITTED PUBLIC UTILITIES TO CHARGE SCHOOL
CHILDREN REDUCED RATES.  SEE PUBLIC S.R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITY COMM'RS,
81 N.J.L. 363, 80 A. 27(1911); SEE ALSO INTERSTATE RY. V.
MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA.  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE REQUIRES THAT THE
NEW CHARTER OF THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY PROVIDE A
THREE-CENT FARE "FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN  ...  GOING TO AND FROM PUBLIC,
PAROCHIAL, OR LIKE SCHOOLS  ..."  47 STAT. 752, 759. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I FIND MYSELF, CONTRARY TO FIRST IMPRESSIONS, UNABLE TO JOIN IN THIS
DECISION.  I HAVE A SYMPATHY, THOUGH IT IS NOT IDEOLOGICAL, WITH
CATHOLIC CITIZENS WHO ARE COMPELLED BY LAW TO PAY TAXES FOR PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, AND ALSO FEEL CONSTRAINED BY CONSCIENCE AND DISCIPLINE TO
SUPPORT OTHER SCHOOLS FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN.  SUCH RELIEF TO THEM AS
THIS CASE INVOLVES IS NOT IN ITSELF A SERIOUS BURDEN TO TAXPAYERS AND I
HAD ASSUMED IT TO BE AS LITTLE SERIOUS IN PRINCIPLE.  STUDY OF THIS
CASE CONVINCES ME OTHERWISE.  THE COURT'S OPINION MARSHALS EVERY
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF STATE AID AND PUTS THE CASE IN ITS MOST FAVORABLE
LIGHT, BUT MUCH OF ITS REASONING CONFIRMS MY CONCLUSIONS THAT THERE ARE
NO GOOD GROUNDS UPON WHICH TO SUPPORT THE PRESENT LEGISLATION.  IN
FACT, THE UNDERTONES OF THE OPINION, ADVOCATING COMPLETE AND
UNCOMPROMISING SEPARATION OF CHURCH FROM STATE, SEEM UTTERLY DISCORDANT
WITH ITS CONCLUSION YIELDING SUPPORT TO THEIR COMMINGLING IN
EDUCATIONAL MATTERS.  THE CASE WHICH IRRESISTIBLY COMES TO MIND AS THE
MOST FITTING PRECEDENT IS THAT OF JULIA WHO, ACCORDING TO BYRON'S
REPORTS, "WHISPERING 'I WILL NE'ER CONSENT,'  - CONSENTED." 

                        I. 

THE COURT SUSTAINS THIS LEGISLATION BY ASSUMING TWO DEVIATIONS FROM
THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE; FIRST, IT ASSUMES A STATE OF FACTS
THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT, AND SECONDLY, IT REFUSES TO CONSIDER FACTS
WHICH ARE INESCAPABLE ON THE RECORD. 

THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THIS "LEGISLATION, AS APPLIED, DOES NO MORE
THAN PROVIDE A GENERAL PROGRAM TO HELP PARENTS GET THEIR CHILDREN,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGION, SAFELY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY TO AND FROM
ACCREDITED SCHOOLS," AND IT DRAWS A COMPARISON BETWEEN "STATE
PROVISIONS INTENDED TO GUARANTEE FREE TRANSPORTATION" FOR SCHOOL
CHILDREN WITH SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION, AND IMPLIES
THAT WE ARE HERE DEALING WITH "LAWS AUTHORIZING NEW TYPES OF PUBLIC
SERVICES  ..."  THIS HYPOTHESIS PERMEATES THE OPINION.  THE FACTS WILL
NOT BEAR THAT CONSTRUCTION. 

THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING IS NOT FURNISHING TRANSPORTATION TO THE
CHILDREN IN ANY FORM; IT IS NOT OPERATING SCHOOL BUSSES ITSELF OR
CONTRACTING FOR THEIR OPERATION; AND IT IS NOT PERFORMING ANY PUBLIC
SERVICE OF ANY KIND WITH THIS TAXPAYER'S MONEY.  ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN
ARE LEFT TO RIDE AS ORDINARY PAYING PASSENGERS ON THE REGULAR BUSSES
OPERATED BY THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  WHAT THE TOWNSHIP DOES,
AND WHAT THE TAXPAYER COMPLAINS OF, IS AT STATED INTERVALS TO REIMBURSE
PARENTS FOR THE FARES PAID, PROVIDED THE CHILDREN ATTEND EITHER PUBLIC
SCHOOLS OR CATHOLIC CHURCH SCHOOLS.  THIS EXPENDITURE OF TAX FUNDS HAS
NO POSSIBLE EFFECT ON THE CHILD'S SAFETY OR EXPEDITION IN TRANSIT.  AS
PASSENGERS ON THE PUBLIC BUSSES THEY TRAVEL AS FAST AND NO FASTER, AND
ARE AS SAFE AND NO SAFER, SINCE THEIR PARENTS ARE REIMBURSED AS
BEFORE. 

IN ADDITION TO THUS ASSUMING A TYPE OF SERVICE THAT DOES NOT EXIST,
THE COURT ALSO INSISTS THAT WE MUST CLOSE OUR EYES TO A DISCRIMINATION
WHICH DOES EXIST.  THE RESOLUTION WHICH AUTHORIZES DISBURSEMENT OF THIS
TAXPAYER'S MONEY LIMITS REIMBURSEMENT TO THOSE WHO ATTEND PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AND CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.  THAT IS THE WAY THE ACT IS APPLIED TO
THIS TAXPAYER. 

THE NEW JERSEY ACT IN QUESTION MAKES THE CHARACTER OF THE SCHOOL, NOT
THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN, DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF PARENTS TO
REIMBURSEMENT.  THE ACT PERMITS PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION TO PAROCHIAL
SCHOOLS OR PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUT PROHIBITS IT TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS OPERATED
IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR PROFIT.  CHILDREN OFTEN ARE SENT TO PRIVATE
SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS FEEL THAT THEY REQUIRE MORE INDIVIDUAL
INSTRUCTION THAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAN PROVIDE, OR BECAUSE THEY ARE
BACKWARD OR DEFECTIVE AND NEED SPECIAL ATTENTION.  IF ALL CHILDREN OF
THE STATE WERE OBJECTS OF IMPARTIAL SOLICITUDE, NO REASON IS OBVIOUS
FOR DENYING TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT TO STUDENTS OF THIS CLASS, FOR
THESE OFTEN ARE AS NEEDY AND AS WORTHY AS THOSE WHO GO TO PUBLIC OR
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS.  REFUSAL TO REIMBURSE THOSE WHO ATTEND SUCH SCHOOLS
IS UNDERSTANDABLE ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF A PURPOSE TO AID THE SCHOOLS,
BECAUSE THE STATE MIGHT WELL ABSTAIN FROM AIDING A PROFIT-MAKING
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.  THUS, UNDER THE ACT AND RESOLUTION BROUGHT TO US
BY THIS CASE, CHILDREN ARE CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO THE SCHOOLS THEY
ATTEND AND ARE TO BE AIDED IF THEY ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR PRIVATE
CATHOLIC SCHOOLS, AND THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE AIDED IF THEY ATTEND
PRIVATE SECULAR SCHOOLS OR PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS OF OTHER FAITHS. 

OF COURSE, THIS CASE IS NOT ONE OF A BAPTIST OR A JEW OR AN
EPISCOPALIAN OR A PUPIL OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL COMPLAINING OF
DISCRIMINATION.  IT IS ONE OF A TAXPAYER URGING THAT HE IS BEING TAXED
FOR AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE.  I THINK HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE US
CONSIDER THE ACT JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN.  THE STATEMENT BY THE NEW
JERSEY COURT THAT IT HOLDS THE LEGISLATURE MAY AUTHORIZE USE OF LOCAL
FUNDS "FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS TO ANY SCHOOL," 133 N.J.L. 350,
354, 44 A.2D 333, 337, IN VIEW OF THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL VIEWS
EXPRESSED, IS NOT A HOLDING THAT THIS ACT AUTHORIZES TRANSPORTATION OF
ALL PUPILS TO ALL SCHOOLS.  AS APPLIED TO THIS TAXPAYER BY THE ACTION
HE COMPLAINS OF, CERTAINLY THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT TO
THOSE WHO CHOOSE ANY ALTERNATIVE TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL EXCEPT CATHOLIC
CHURCH SCHOOLS. 

IF WE ARE TO DECIDE THIS CASE ON THE FACTS BEFORE US, OUR QUESTION IS
SIMPLY THIS:  IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL TO TAX THIS COMPLAINANT TO PAY THE
COST OF CARRYING PUPILS TO CHURCH SCHOOLS OF ONE SPECIFIED
DENOMINATION? 

                                 II. 

WHETHER THE TAXPAYER CONSTITUTIONALLY CAN BE MADE TO CONTRIBUTE AID
TO PARENTS OF STUDENTS BECAUSE OF THEIR ATTENDANCE AT PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS
DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF THOSE SCHOOLS AND THEIR RELATION TO THE
CHURCH.  THE CONSTITUTION SAYS NOTHING OF EDUCATION.  IT LAYS NO
OBLIGATION ON THE STATES TO PROVIDE SCHOOLS AND DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO
REGULATE STATE SYSTEMS OF EDUCATION IF THEY SEE FIT TO MAINTAIN THEM. 
BUT THEY CANNOT, THROUGH SCHOOL POLICY ANY MORE THAN THROUGH OTHER
MEANS, INVADE RIGHTS SECURED TO CITIZENS BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.  WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319
U.S. 624.  ONE OF OUR BASIC RIGHTS IS TO BE FREE OF TAXATION TO SUPPORT
A TRANSGRESSION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND THAT THE AUTHORITIES
"SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR
PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF  ..."  U.S. CONST., AMEND. I;
CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296. 

THE FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH SCHOOL IS A SUBJECT ON WHICH THIS RECORD
IS MEAGER.  IT SHOWS ONLY THAT THE SCHOOLS ARE UNDER SUPERINTENDENCE OF
A PRIEST AND THAT "RELIGION IS TAUGHT AS PART OF THE CURRICULUM."  BUT
WE KNOW THAT SUCH SCHOOLS ARE PAROCHIAL ONLY IN NAME - THEY, IN FACT,
REPRESENT A WORLD-WIDE AND AGE-OLD POLICY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH.  UNDER THE RUBRIC "CATHOLIC SCHOOLS," THE CANON LAW OF THE
CHURCH, BY WHICH ALL CATHOLICS ARE BOUND, PROVIDES: 

"1215.  CATHOLIC CHILDREN ARE TO BE EDUCATED IN SCHOOLS WHERE NOT
ONLY NOTHING CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC FAITH AND MORALS IS TAUGHT, BUT
RATHER IN SCHOOLS WHERE RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TRAINING OCCUPY THE FIRST
PLACE....  (CANON 1372.)" 

"1216.  IN EVERY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THE CHILDREN MUST, ACCORDING TO
THEIR AGE, BE INSTRUCTED IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 

"THE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ATTEND THE HIGHER SCHOOLS ARE TO RECEIVE A
DEEPER RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE, AND THE BISHOPS SHALL APPOINT PRIESTS
QUALIFIED FOR SUCH WORK BY THEIR LEARNING AND PIETY.  (CANON 1373.)" 

"1217.  CATHOLIC CHILDREN SHALL NOT ATTEND NON-CATHOLIC, INDIFFERENT,
SCHOOLS THAT ARE MIXED, THAT IS TO SAY, SCHOOLS OPEN TO CATHOLICS AND
NON-CATHOLICS ALIKE.  THE BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE ONLY HAS THE RIGHT, IN
HARMONY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE HOLY SEE, TO DECIDE UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WITH WHAT SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT LOSS OF FAITH, IT
MAY BE TOLERATED THAT CATHOLIC CHILDREN GO TO SUCH SCHOOLS.  (CANON
1374.)"    "1224.  THE RELIGIOUS TEACHING OF YOUTH IN ANY SCHOOLS IS
SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY AND INSPECTION OF THE CHURCH. 

"THE LOCAL ORDINARIES HAVE THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO WATCH THAT NOTHING
IS TAUGHT CONTRARY TO FAITH OR GOOD MORALS, IN ANY OF THE SCHOOLS OF
THEIR TERRITORY. 

"THEY, MOREOVER, HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPROVE THE BOOKS OF CHRISTIAN
DOCTRINE AND THE TEACHERS OF RELIGION, AND TO DEMAND, FOR THE SAKE OF
SAFEGUARDING RELIGION AND MORALS, THE REMOVAL OF TEACHERS AND BOOKS. 
(CANON 1381.)"  (WOYWOD, REV. STANISLAUS, THE NEW CANON LAW, UNDER
IMPRIMATUR OF MOST REV. FRANCIS J. SPELLMAN, ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK AND
OTHERS, 1940.) 

IT IS NO EXAGGERATION TO SAY THAT THE WHOLE HISTORIC CONFLICT IN
TEMPORAL POLICY BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND NON-CATHOLICS COMES TO
A FOCUS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SCHOOL POLICIES.  THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH, COUNSELED BY EXPERIENCE IN MANY AGES AND MANY LANDS AND WITH
ALL SORTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEN, TAKES WHAT, FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF ITS
OWN PROGRESS AND THE SUCCESS OF ITS MISSION, IS A WISE ESTIMATE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION TO RELIGION.  IT DOES NOT LEAVE THE INDIVIDUAL
TO PICK UP RELIGION BY CHANCE.  IT RELIES ON EARLY AND INDELIBLE
INDOCTRINATION IN THE FAITH AND ORDER OF THE CHURCH BY THE WORD AND
EXAMPLE OF PERSONS CONSECRATED TO THE TASK. 

OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL, IF NOT A PRODUCT OF PROTESTANTISM, AT LEAST IS
MORE CONSISTENT WITH IT THAN WITH THE CATHOLIC CULTURE AND SCHEME OF
VALUES.  IT IS A RELATIVELY RECENT DEVELOPMENT DATING FROM ABOUT 1840. 
FN1  IT IS ORGANIZED ON THE PREMISE THAT SECULAR EDUCATION CAN BE
ISOLATED FROM ALL RELIGIOUS TEACHING SO THAT THE SCHOOL CAN INCULCATE
ALL NEEDED TEMPORAL KNOWLEDGE AND ALSO MAINTAIN A STRICT AND LOFTY
NEUTRALITY AS TO RELIGION.  THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT AFTER THE INDIVIDUAL
HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED IN WORLDLY WISDOM HE WILL BE BETTER FITTED TO
CHOOSE HIS RELIGION.  WHETHER SUCH A DISJUNCTION IS POSSIBLE, AND IF
POSSIBLE WHETHER IT IS WISE, ARE QUESTIONS I NEED NOT TRY TO ANSWER. 

I SHOULD BE SURPRISED IF ANY CATHOLIC WOULD DENY THAT THE PAROCHIAL
SCHOOL IS A VITAL, IF NOT THE MOST VITAL, PART OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH.  IF PUT TO THE CHOICE, THAT VENERABLE INSTITUTION, I SHOULD
EXPECT, WOULD FOREGO ITS WHOLE SERVICE FOR MATURE PERSONS BEFORE IT
WOULD GIVE UP EDUCATION OF THE YOUNG, AND IT WOULD BE A WISE CHOICE. 
ITS GROWTH AND COHESION, DISCIPLINE AND LOYALTY, SPRING FROM ITS
SCHOOLS.  CATHOLIC EDUCATION IS THE ROCK ON WHICH THE WHOLE STRUCTURE
RESTS, AND TO RENDER TAX AID TO ITS CHURCH SCHOOL IS INDISTINGUISHABLE
TO ME FROM RENDERING THE SAME AID TO THE CHURCH ITSELF. 

                                 III. 

IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE IN THIS SITUATION WHETHER THE BENEFICIARY OF
THIS EXPENDITURE OF TAX-RAISED FUNDS IS PRIMARILY THE PAROCHIAL SCHOOL
AND INCIDENTALLY THE PUPIL, OR WHETHER THE AID IS DIRECTLY BESTOWED ON
THE PUPIL WITH INDIRECT BENEFITS TO THE SCHOOL.  THE STATE CANNOT
MAINTAIN A CHURCH AND IT CAN NO MORE TAX ITS CITIZENS TO FURNISH FREE
CARRIAGE TO THOSE WHO ATTEND A CHURCH.  THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION CANNOT BE CIRCUMVENTED BY A SUBSIDY, BONUS OR
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE TO INDIVIDUALS FOR RECEIVING RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION AND INDOCTRINATION. 

THE COURT, HOWEVER, COMPARES THIS TO OTHER SUBSIDIES AND LOANS TO
INDIVIDUALS AND SAYS, "NOR DOES IT FOLLOW THAT A LAW HAS A PRIVATE
RATHER THAN A PUBLIC PURPOSE BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THAT TAX-RAISED FUNDS
WILL BE PAID TO REIMBURSE INDIVIDUALS ON ACCOUNT OF MONEY SPENT BY THEM
IN A WAY WHICH FURTHERS A PUBLIC PROGRAM.  SEE CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN
COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495, 518."  OF COURSE, THE STATE MAY PAY OUT
TAX-RAISED FUNDS TO RELIEVE PAUPERISM, BUT IT MAY NOT UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTION DO SO TO INDUCE OR REWARD PIETY.  IT MAY SPEND FUNDS TO
SECURE OLD AGE AGAINST WANT, BUT IT MAY NOT SPEND FUNDS TO SECURE
RELIGION AGAINST SKEPTICISM.  IT MAY COMPENSATE INDIVIDUALS FOR LOSS OF
EMPLOYMENT, BUT IT CANNOT COMPENSATE THEM FOR ADHERENCE TO A CREED. 

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE BASIC FALLACY IN THE COURT'S REASONING, WHICH
ACCOUNTS FOR ITS FAILURE TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLES IT AVOWS, IS IN
IGNORING THE ESSENTIALLY RELIGIOUS TEST BY WHICH BENEFICIARIES OF THIS
EXPENDITURE ARE SELECTED.  A POLICEMAN PROTECTS A CATHOLIC, OF COURSE -
BUT NOT BECAUSE HE IS A CATHOLIC; IT IS BECAUSE HE IS A MAN AND A
MEMBER OF OUR SOCIETY.  THE FIREMAN PROTECTS THE CHURCH SCHOOL - BUT
NOT BECAUSE IT IS A CHURCH SCHOOL; IT IS BECAUSE IT IS PROPERTY, PART
OF THE ASSETS OF OUR SOCIETY.  NEITHER THE FIREMAN NOR THE POLICEMAN
HAS TO ASK BEFORE HE RENDERS AID "IS THIS MAN OR BUILDING IDENTIFIED
WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?"  BUT BEFORE THESE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES DRAW A
CHECK TO REIMBURSE FOR A STUDENT'S FARE THEY MUST ASK JUST THAT
QUESTION, AND IF THE SCHOOL IS A CATHOLIC ONE THEY MAY RENDER AID
BECAUSE IT IS SUCH, WHILE IF IT IS OF ANY OTHER FAITH OR IS RUN FOR
PROFIT, THE HELP MUST BE WITHHELD.  TO CONSIDER THE CONVERSE OF THE
COURT'S REASONING WILL BEST DISCLOSE ITS FALLACY.  THAT THERE IS NO
PARALLEL BETWEEN POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION AND THIS PLAN OF
REIMBURSEMENT IS APPARENT FROM THE INCONGRUITY OF THE LIMITATION OF
THIS ACT IF APPLIED TO POLICE AND FIRE SERVICE.  COULD WE SUSTAIN AN
ACT THAT SAID THE POLICE SHALL PROTECT PUPILS ON THE WAY TO OR FROM
PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND CATHOLIC SCHOOLS BUT NOT WHILE GOING TO AND COMING
FROM OTHER SCHOOLS, AND FIREMEN SHALL EXTINGUISH A BLAZE IN PUBLIC OR
CATHOLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS BUT SHALL NOT PUT OUT A BLAZE IN PROTESTANT
CHURCH SCHOOLS OR PRIVATE SCHOOLS OPERATED FOR PROFIT?  THAT IS THE
TRUE ANALOGY TO THE CASE WE HAVE BEFORE US AND I SHOULD THINK IT PRETTY
PLAIN THAT SUCH A SCHEME WOULD NOT BE VALID. 

THE COURT'S HOLDING IS THAT THIS TAXPAYER HAS NO GRIEVANCE BECAUSE
THE STATE HAS DECIDED TO MAKE THE REIMBURSEMENT A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND
THEREFORE WE ARE BOUND TO REGARD IT AS SUCH.  I AGREE THAT THIS COURT
HAS LEFT, AND ALWAYS SHOULD LEAVE TO EACH STATE, GREAT LATITUDE IN
DECIDING FOR ITSELF, IN THE LIGHT OF ITS OWN CONDITIONS, WHAT SHALL BE
PUBLIC PURPOSES IN ITS SCHEME OF THINGS.  IT MAY SOCIALIZE UTILITIES
AND ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES AND MAKE TAXPAYERS' BUSINESS OUT OF WHAT
CONVENTIONALLY HAD BEEN PRIVATE BUSINESS.  IT MAY MAKE PUBLIC BUSINESS
OF INDIVIDUAL WELFARE, HEALTH, EDUCATION, ENTERTAINMENT OR SECURITY. 
BUT IT CANNOT MAKE PUBLIC BUSINESS OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OR INSTRUCTION,
OR OF ATTENDANCE AT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF ANY CHARACTER.  THERE IS
NO ANSWER TO THE PROPOSITION, MORE FULLY EXPOUNDED BY MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE, THAT THE EFFECT OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AMENDMENT TO OUR
CONSTITUTION WAS TO TAKE EVERY FORM OF PROPAGATION OF RELIGION OUT OF
THE REALM OF THINGS WHICH COULD DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BE MADE PUBLIC
BUSINESS AND THEREBY BE SUPPORTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART AT TAXPAYERS'
EXPENSE.  THAT IS A DIFFERENCE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION SETS UP BETWEEN
RELIGION AND ALMOST EVERY OTHER SUBJECT MATTER OF LEGISLATION, A
DIFFERENCE WHICH GOES TO THE VERY ROOT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND WHICH
THE COURT IS OVERLOOKING TODAY.  THIS FREEDOM WAS FIRST IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS BECAUSE IT WAS FIRST IN THE FOREFATHERS' MINDS; IT WAS SET FORTH
IN ABSOLUTE TERMS, AND ITS STRENGTH IS ITS RIGIDITY.  IT WAS INTENDED
NOT ONLY TO KEEP THE STATES' HANDS OUT OF RELIGION, BUT TO KEEP
RELIGION'S HANDS OFF THE STATE, AND, ABOVE ALL, TO KEEP BITTER
RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE BY DENYING TO EVERY
DENOMINATION ANY ADVANTAGE FROM GETTING CONTROL OF PUBLIC POLICY OR THE
PUBLIC PURSE.  THOSE GREAT ENDS I CANNOT BUT THINK ARE IMMEASURABLY
COMPROMISED BY TODAY'S DECISION. 

THIS POLICY OF OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN WHOLLY
PLEASING TO MOST RELIGIOUS GROUPS.  THEY ALL ARE QUICK TO INVOKE ITS
PROTECTIONS; THEY ALL ARE IRKED WHEN THEY FEEL ITS RESTRAINTS.  THIS
COURT HAS GONE A LONG WAY, IF NOT AN UNREASONABLE WAY, TO HOLD THAT
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF SUCH PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE AS MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
ORDER, PROTECTION OF THE PRIVACY OF THE HOME, AND TAXATION MAY NOT BE
PURSUED BY A STATE IN A WAY THAT EVEN INDIRECTLY WILL INTERFERE WITH
RELIGIOUS PROSELYTING.  SEE DISSENT IN DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, 319 U.S.
157, 166; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105; MARTIN V. STRUTHERS,
319 U.S. 141; JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, REVERSED ON REHEARING,
319 U.S. 103. 

BUT WE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.  RELIGIOUS TEACHING CANNOT BE A
PRIVATE AFFAIR WHEN THE STATE SEEKS TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS WHICH
INFRINGE ON IT INDIRECTLY, AND A PUBLIC AFFAIR WHEN IT COMES TO TAXING
CITIZENS OF ONE FAITH TO AID ANOTHER, OR THOSE OF NO FAITH TO AID ALL. 
IF THESE PRINCIPLES SEEM HARSH IN PROHIBITING AID TO CATHOLIC
EDUCATION, IT MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT IT IS THE SAME CONSTITUTION
THAT ALONE ASSURES CATHOLICS THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THESE SCHOOLS AT ALL
WHEN PREDOMINANT LOCAL SENTIMENT WOULD FORBID THEM.  PIERCE V. SOCIETY
OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510.  NOR SHOULD I THINK THAT THOSE WHO HAVE DONE
SO WELL WITHOUT THIS AID WOULD WANT TO SEE THIS SEPARATION BETWEEN
CHURCH AND STATE BROKEN DOWN.  IF THE STATE MAY AID THESE RELIGIOUS
SCHOOLS, IT MAY THEREFORE REGULATE THEM.  MANY GROUPS HAVE SOUGHT AID
FROM TAX FUNDS ONLY TO FIND THAT IT CARRIED POLITICAL CONTROLS WITH IT.
INDEED THIS COURT HAS DECLARED THAT "IT IS HARDLY LACK OF DUE PROCESS
FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE THAT WHICH IT SUBSIDIZES."  WICKARD V.
FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111, 131. 

BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE GREAT PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTION DO NOT
DEPEND ON THE APPROVAL OR CONVENIENCE OF THOSE THEY RESTRAIN.  I CANNOT
READ THE HISTORY OF THE STRUGGLE TO SEPARATE POLITICAL FROM
ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS, WELL SUMMARIZED IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE IN WHICH I GENERALLY CONCUR, WITHOUT A CONVICTION THAT THE
COURT TODAY IS UNCONSCIOUSLY GIVING THE CLOCK'S HANDS A BACKWARD TURN. 

FN1  SEE CUBBERLEY, PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES (1934) CH.
VI; KNIGHT, EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES (1941) CH. VIII. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON AGREE, DISSENTING. 

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION,
OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF  ..."  U.S. CONST., AMEND. I. 

"WELL AWARE THAT ALMIGHTY GOD HATH CREATED THE MIND FREE; ...  THAT
TO COMPEL A MAN TO FURNISH CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY FOR THE PROPAGATION
OF OPINIONS WHICH HE DISBELIEVES, IS SINFUL AND TYRANNICAL; ... 

"WE, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT, THAT NO MAN SHALL BE COMPELLED
TO FREQUENT OR SUPPORT ANY RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, PLACE, OR MINISTRY
WHATSOEVER, NOR SHALL BE ENFORCED, RESTRAINED, MOLESTED, OR BURTHENED
IN HIS BODY OR GOODS, NOR SHALL OTHERWISE SUFFER, ON ACCOUNT OF HIS
RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OR BELIEF  ..."  FN1 

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE GREAT AUTHOR OF THOSE WORDS, OR THE MEN WHO
MADE THEM LAW, COULD HAVE JOINED IN THIS DECISION.  NEITHER SO HIGH NOR
SO IMPREGNABLE TODAY AS YESTERDAY IS THE WALL RAISED BETWEEN CHURCH AND
STATE BY VIRGINIA'S GREAT STATUTE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, NOW MADE APPLICABLE TO ALL THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH. 
FN2  NEW JERSEY'S STATUTE SUSTAINED IS THE FIRST, IF INDEED IT IS NOT
THE SECOND BREACH TO BE MADE BY THIS COURT'S ACTION.  THAT A THIRD, AND
A FOURTH, AND STILL OTHERS WILL BE ATTEMPTED, WE MAY BE SURE.  FOR JUST
AS COCHRAN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 281 U.S. 370, HAS OPENED THE WAY BY
OBLIQUE RULING  FN3  FOR THIS DECISION, SO WILL THE TWO MAKE WIDER THE
BREACH FOR A THIRD.  THUS WITH TIME THE MOST SOLID FREEDOM STEADILY
GIVES WAY BEFORE CONTINUING CORROSIVE DECISION. 

THIS CASE FORCES US TO DETERMINE SQUARELY FOR THE FIRST TIME  FN4
WHAT WAS "AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S
CONCEPTION; AND BY THAT MEASURE TO DECIDE WHETHER NEW JERSEY'S ACTION
VIOLATES ITS COMMAND.  THE FACTS MAY BE STATED SHORTLY, TO GIVE SETTING
AND COLOR TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM. 

BY STATUTE NEW JERSEY HAS AUTHORIZED LOCAL BOARDS OF EDUCATION TO
PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN "TO AND FROM SCHOOL OTHER
THAN A PUBLIC SCHOOL" EXCEPT ONE OPERATED FOR PROFIT WHOLLY OR IN PART,
OVER ESTABLISHED PUBLIC SCHOOL ROUTES, OR BY OTHER MEANS WHEN THE CHILD
LIVES "REMOTE FROM ANY SCHOOL."  FN5  THE SCHOOL BOARD OF EWING
TOWNSHIP HAS PROVIDED BY RESOLUTION FOR "THE TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS
OF EWING TO THE TRENTON AND PENNINGTON HIGH SCHOOLS AND CATHOLIC
SCHOOLS BY WAY OF PUBLIC CARRIER  ..."  FN6 

NAMED PARENTS HAVE PAID THE COST OF PUBLIC CONVEYANCE OF THEIR
CHILDREN FROM THEIR HOMES IN EWING TO THREE PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS AND
FOUR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT N7.  SEMIANNUALLY THE BOARD
HAS REIMBURSED THE PARENTS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDS RAISED BY GENERAL
TAXATION.  RELIGION IS TAUGHT AS PART OF THE CURRICULUM IN EACH OF THE
FOUR PRIVATE SCHOOLS, AS APPEARS AFFIRMATIVELY BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS IN THE DIOCESE OF TRENTON. 

THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY, REVERSING THE SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION, 132 N.J.L. 98, 39 A.2D 75, HAS HELD THE EWING BOARD'S
ACTION NOT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OR STATUTES OR OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  133 N.J.L. 350, 44 A.2D 333.  WE HAVE TO
CONSIDER ONLY WHETHER THIS RULING ACCORDS WITH THE PROHIBITION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLIED IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH. 

                                  I. 

NOT SIMPLY AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH, BUT ANY LAW RESPECTING AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION IS FORBIDDEN.  THE AMENDMENT WAS BROADLY BUT
NOT LOOSELY PHRASED.  IT IS THE COMPACT AND EXACT SUMMATION OF ITS
AUTHOR'S VIEWS FORMED DURING HIS LONG STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 
IN MADISON'S OWN WORDS CHARACTERIZING JEFFERSON'S BILL FOR ESTABLISHING
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, THE GUARANTY HE PUT IN OUR NATIONAL CHARTER, LIKE
THE BILL HE PILOTED THROUGH THE VIRGINIA ASSEMBLY, WAS "A MODEL OF
TECHNICAL PRECISION, AND PERSPICUOUS BREVITY."  FN8  MADISON COULD NOT
HAVE CONFUSED "CHURCH" AND "RELIGION," OR "AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH" AND
"AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION."    THE AMENDMENT'S PURPOSE WAS NOT TO
STRIKE MERELY AT THE OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A SINGLE SECT, CREED OR
RELIGION, OUTLAWING ONLY A FORMAL RELATION SUCH AS HAD PREVAILED IN
ENGLAND AND SOME OF THE COLONIES.  NECESSARILY IT WAS TO UPROOT ALL
SUCH RELATIONSHIPS.  BUT THE OBJECT WAS BROADER THAN SEPARATING CHURCH
AND STATE IN THIS NARROW SENSE.  IT WAS TO CREATE A COMPLETE AND
PERMANENT SEPARATION OF THE SPHERES OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY AND CIVIL
AUTHORITY BY COMPREHENSIVELY FORBIDDING EVERY FORM OF PUBLIC AID OR
SUPPORT FOR RELIGION.  IN PROOF THE AMENDMENT'S WORDING AND HISTORY
UNITE WITH THIS COURT'S CONSISTENT UTTERANCES WHENEVER ATTENTION HAS
BEEN FIXED DIRECTLY UPON THE QUESTION. 

"RELIGION" APPEARS ONLY ONCE IN THE AMENDMENT.  BUT THE WORD GOVERNS
TWO PROHIBITIONS AND GOVERNS THEM ALIKE.  IT DOES NOT HAVE TWO
MEANINGS, ONE NARROW TO FORBID "AN ESTABLISHMENT" AND ANOTHER, MUCH
BROADER, FOR SECURING "THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF."  "THEREOF" BRINGS
DOWN "RELIGION" WITH ITS ENTIRE AND EXACT CONTENT, NO MORE AND NO LESS,
FROM THE FIRST INTO THE SECOND GUARANTY, SO THAT CONGRESS AND NOW THE
STATES ARE AS BROADLY RESTRICTED CONCERNING THE ONE AS THEY ARE
REGARDING THE OTHER. 

NO ONE WOULD CLAIM TODAY THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CONSTRICTED, IN
"PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE" OF RELIGION, TO SECURING THE FREE
EXERCISE OF SOME FORMAL OR CREEDAL OBSERVANCE, OF ONE SECT OR OF MANY. 
IT SECURES ALL FORMS OF RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION, CREEDAL, SECTARIAN OR
NONSECTARIAN, WHEREVER AND HOWEVER TAKING PLACE, EXCEPT CONDUCT WHICH
TRENCHES UPON THE LIKE FREEDOMS OF OTHERS OR CLEARLY AND PRESENTLY
ENDANGERS THE COMMUNITY'S GOOD ORDER AND SECURITY.  FN9  FOR THE
PROTECTIVE PURPOSES OF THIS PHASE OF THE BASIC FREEDOM, STREET
PREACHING, ORAL OR BY DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE, HAS BEEN GIVEN "THE
SAME HIGH ESTATE UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS  ...  WORSHIP IN THE
CHURCHES AND PREACHING FROM THE PULPITS."  FN10  AND ON THIS BASIS
PARENTS HAVE BEEN HELD ENTITLED TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO PRIVATE,
RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.  PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510. 
ACCORDINGLY, DAILY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION COMMINGLED WITH SECULAR IS
"RELIGION" WITHIN THE GUARANTY'S COMPREHENSIVE SCOPE.  SO ARE RELIGIOUS
TRAINING AND TEACHING IN WHATEVER FORM.  THE WORD CONNOTES THE BROADEST
CONTENT, DETERMINED NOT BY THE FORM OR FORMALITY OF THE TEACHING OR
WHERE IT OCCURS, BUT BY ITS ESSENTIAL NATURE REGARDLESS OF THOSE
DETAILS. 

"RELIGION" HAS THE SAME BROAD SIGNIFICANCE IN THE TWIN PROHIBITION
CONCERNING "AN ESTABLISHMENT."  THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT DUPLICITOUS. 
"RELIGION" AND "ESTABLISHMENT" WERE NOT USED IN ANY FORMAL OR TECHNICAL
SENSE.  THE PROHIBITION BROADLY FORBIDS STATE SUPPORT, FINANCIAL OR
OTHER, OF RELIGION IN ANY GUISE, FORM OR DEGREE.  IT OUTLAWS ALL USE OF
PUBLIC FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 

       II. 

NO PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE CLOSELY TIED TO OR GIVEN
CONTENT BY ITS GENERATING HISTORY THAN THE RELIGIOUS CLAUSE OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  IT IS AT ONCE THE REFINED PRODUCT AND THE TERSE
SUMMATION OF THAT HISTORY.  THE HISTORY INCLUDES NOT ONLY MADISON'S
AUTHORSHIP AND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST CONGRESS, BUT ALSO THE
LONG AND INTENSIVE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN AMERICA, MORE
ESPECIALLY IN VIRGINIA,  FN11  OF WHICH THE AMENDMENT WAS THE DIRECT
CULMINATION.  FN12  IN THE DOCUMENTS OF THE TIMES, PARTICULARLY OF
MADISON, WHO WAS LEADER IN THE VIRGINIA STRUGGLE BEFORE HE BECAME THE
AMENDMENT'S SPONSOR, BUT ALSO IN THE WRITINGS OF JEFFERSON AND OTHERS
AND IN THE ISSUES WHICH ENGENDERED THEM IS TO BE FOUND IRREFUTABLE
CONFIRMATION OF THE AMENDMENT'S SWEEPING CONTENT. 

FOR MADISON, AS ALSO FOR JEFFERSON, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WAS THE CRUX OF
THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM IN GENERAL.  REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 15, APPENDIX
HERETO.  MADISON WAS COAUTHOR WITH GEORGE MASON OF THE RELIGIOUS CLAUSE
IN VIRGINIA'S GREAT DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF 1776.  HE IS CREDITED WITH
CHANGING IT FROM A MERE STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF TOLERANCE TO THE
FIRST OFFICIAL LEGISLATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT THAT FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND
RELIGION ARE INHERENT RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  FN13 HE SOUGHT ALSO TO
HAVE THE DECLARATION EXPRESSLY CONDEMN THE EXISTING VIRGINIA
ESTABLISHMENT.  FN14  BUT THE FORCES SUPPORTING IT WERE THEN TOO
STRONG. 

ACCORDINGLY MADISON YIELDED ON THIS PHASE BUT NOT FOR LONG.  AT ONCE
HE RESUMED THE FIGHT, CONTINUING IT BEFORE SUCCEEDING LEGISLATIVE
SESSIONS.  AS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 1779 HE THREW HIS
FULL WEIGHT BEHIND JEFFERSON'S HISTORIC BILL FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.  THAT BILL WAS A PRIME PHASE OF JEFFERSON'S BROAD PROGRAM OF
DEMOCRATIC REFORM UNDERTAKEN ON HIS RETURN FROM THE CONTINENTAL
CONGRESS IN 1776 AND SUBMITTED FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S CONSIDERATION
IN 1779 AS HIS PROPOSED REVISED VIRGINIA CODE.  FN15  WITH JEFFERSON'S
DEPARTURE FOR EUROPE IN 1784, MADISON BECAME THE BILL'S PRIME SPONSOR. 
FN16  ENACTMENT FAILED IN SUCCESSIVE LEGISLATURES FROM ITS INTRODUCTION
IN JUNE, 1779, UNTIL ITS ADOPTION IN JANUARY, 1786.  BUT DURING ALL
THIS TIME THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM MOVED FORWARD IN VIRGINIA ON
VARIOUS FRONTS WITH GROWING INTENSITY.  MADISON LED THROUGHOUT, AGAINST
PATRICK HENRY'S POWERFUL OPPOSING LEADERSHIP UNTIL HENRY WAS ELECTED
GOVERNOR IN NOVEMBER, 1784. 

THE CLIMAX CAME IN THE LEGISLATIVE STRUGGLE OF 1784-1785 OVER THE
ASSESSMENT BILL.  SEE SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX HERETO.  THIS WAS NOTHING
MORE NOR LESS THAN A TAXING MEASURE FOR THE SUPPORT OF RELIGION,
DESIGNED TO REVIVE THE PAYMENT OF TITHES SUSPENDED SINCE 1777.  SO LONG
AS IT SINGLED OUT A PARTICULAR SECT FOR PREFERENCE IT INCURRED THE
ACTIVE AND GENERAL HOSTILITY OF DISSENTIENT GROUPS.  IT WAS BROADENED
TO INCLUDE THEM, WITH THE RESULT THAT SOME SUBSIDED TEMPORARILY IN
THEIR OPPOSITION.  FN17  AS ALTERED, THE BILL GAVE TO EACH TAXPAYER THE
PRIVILEGE OF DESIGNATING WHICH CHURCH SHOULD RECEIVE HIS SHARE OF THE
TAX.  IN DEFAULT OF DESIGNATION THE LEGISLATURE APPLIED IT TO PIOUS
USES.  FN18  BUT WHAT IS OF THE UTMOST SIGNIFICANCE HERE, "IN ITS FINAL
FORM THE BILL LEFT THE TAXPAYER THE OPTION OF GIVING HIS TAX TO
EDUCATION."  FN19 

MADISON WAS UNYIELDING AT ALL TIMES, OPPOSING WITH ALL HIS VIGOR THE
GENERAL AND NONDISCRIMINATORY AS HE HAD THE EARLIER PARTICULAR AND
DISCRIMINATORY ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED.  THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT BILL
PASSED SECOND READING IN DECEMBER, 1784, AND WAS ALL BUT ENACTED. 
MADISON AND HIS FOLLOWERS, HOWEVER, MANEUVERED DEFERMENT OF FINAL
CONSIDERATION UNTIL NOVEMBER, 1785.  AND BEFORE THE ASSEMBLY RECONVENED
IN THE FALL HE ISSUED HIS HISTORIC MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE.  FN20 

THIS IS MADISON'S COMPLETE, THOUGH NOT HIS ONLY, INTERPRETATION OF
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.  FN21  IT IS A BROADSIDE ATTACK UPON ALL FORMS OF
"ESTABLISHMENT" OF RELIGION, BOTH GENERAL AND PARTICULAR,
NONDISCRIMINATORY OR SELECTIVE.  REFLECTING NOT ONLY THE MANY
LEGISLATIVE CONFLICTS OVER THE ASSESSMENT BILL AND THE BILL FOR
ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BUT ALSO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STRUGGLES FOR
RELIGIOUS INCORPORATIONS AND THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF THE GLEBES,
THE REMONSTRANCE IS AT ONCE THE MOST CONCISE AND THE MOST ACCURATE
STATEMENT OF THE VIEWS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S AUTHOR CONCERNING WHAT
IS "AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION."  BECAUSE IT BEHOOVES US IN THE
DIMMING DISTANCE OF TIME NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT HE AND HIS COWORKERS
HAD IN MIND WHEN, BY A SINGLE SWEEPING STROKE OF THE PEN, THEY FORBADE
AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION AND SECURED ITS FREE EXERCISE, THE TEXT OF
THE REMONSTRANCE IS APPENDED AT THE END OF THIS OPINION FOR ITS WIDER
CURRENT REFERENCE, TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THE BILL AGAINST WHICH IT
WAS DIRECTED. 

THE REMONSTRANCE, STIRRING UP A STORM OF POPULAR PROTEST, KILLED THE
ASSESSMENT BILL.  FN22  IT COLLAPSED IN COMMITTEE SHORTLY BEFORE
CHRISTMAS, 1785.  WITH THIS, THE WAY WAS CLEARED AT LAST FOR ENACTMENT
OF JEFFERSON'S BILL FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  MADISON
PROMPTLY DROVE IT THROUGH IN JANUARY OF 1786, SEVEN YEARS FROM THE TIME
IT WAS FIRST INTRODUCED.  THIS DUAL VICTORY SUBSTANTIALLY ENDED THE
FIGHT OVER ESTABLISHMENTS, SETTLING THE ISSUE AGAINST THEM.  SEE NOTE
33. 

THE NEXT YEAR MADISON BECAME A MEMBER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION.  ITS WORK DONE, HE FOUGHT VALIANTLY TO SECURE THE
RATIFICATION OF ITS GREAT PRODUCT IN VIRGINIA AS ELSEWHERE, AND NOWHERE
ELSE MORE EFFECTIVELY.  FN23  MADISON WAS CERTAIN IN HIS OWN MIND THAT
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION "THERE IS NOT A SHADOW OF RIGHT IN THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT TO INTERMEDDLE WITH RELIGION"  FN24  AND THAT "THIS SUBJECT
IS, FOR THE HONOR OF AMERICA, PERFECTLY FREE AND UNSHACKLED.  THE
GOVERNMENT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER IT  ..."  FN25  NEVERTHELESS HE
PLEDGED THAT HE WOULD WORK FOR A BILL OF RIGHTS, INCLUDING A SPECIFIC
GUARANTY OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AND VIRGINIA, WITH OTHER STATES,
RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION ON THIS ASSURANCE.  FN26 

RATIFICATION THUS ACCOMPLISHED, MADISON WAS SENT TO THE FIRST
CONGRESS.  THERE HE WENT AT ONCE ABOUT PERFORMING HIS PLEDGE TO
ESTABLISH FREEDOM FOR THE NATION AS HE HAD DONE IN VIRGINIA.  WITHIN A
LITTLE MORE THAN THREE YEARS FROM HIS LEGISLATIVE VICTORY AT HOME HE
HAD PROPOSED AND SECURED THE SUBMISSION AND RATIFICATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AS THE FIRST ARTICLE OF OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.  FN27 

ALL THE GREAT INSTRUMENTS OF THE VIRGINIA STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY THUS BECAME WARP AND WOOF OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION, NOT
SIMPLY BY THE COURSE OF HISTORY, BUT BY THE COMMON UNIFYING FORCE OF
MADISON'S LIFE, THOUGHT AND SPONSORSHIP.  HE EPITOMIZED THE WHOLE OF
THAT TRADITION IN THE AMENDMENT'S COMPACT, BUT NONETHELESS
COMPREHENSIVE, PHRASING. 

AS THE REMONSTRANCE DISCLOSES THROUGHOUT, MADISON OPPOSED EVERY FORM
AND DEGREE OF OFFICIAL RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND CIVIL AUTHORITY. 
FOR HIM RELIGION WAS A WHOLLY PRIVATE MATTER BEYOND THE SCOPE OF CIVIL
POWER EITHER TO RESTRAIN OR TO SUPPORT.  FN28  DENIAL OR ABRIDGMENT OF
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WAS A VIOLATION OF RIGHTS BOTH OF CONSCIENCE AND OF
NATURAL EQUALITY.  STATE AID WAS NO LESS OBNOXIOUS OR DESTRUCTIVE TO
FREEDOM AND TO RELIGION ITSELF THAN OTHER FORMS OF STATE INTERFERENCE. 
"ESTABLISHMENT" AND "FREE EXERCISE" WERE CORRELATIVE AND COEXTENSIVE
IDEAS, REPRESENTING ONLY DIFFERENT FACETS OF THE SINGLE GREAT AND
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM.  THE REMONSTRANCE, FOLLOWING THE VIRGINIA
STATUTE'S EXAMPLE, REFERRED TO THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS AND
THE EFFECTS OF ALL SORTS OF ESTABLISHMENTS, CURRENT AND HISTORICAL, TO
SUPPRESS RELIGION'S FREE EXERCISE.  WITH JEFFERSON, MADISON BELIEVED
THAT TO TOLERATE ANY FRAGMENT OF ESTABLISHMENT WOULD BE BY SO MUCH TO
PERPETUATE RESTRAINT UPON THAT FREEDOM.  HENCE HE SOUGHT TO TEAR OUT
THE INSTITUTION NOT PARTIALLY BUT ROOT AND BRANCH, AND TO BAR ITS
RETURN FOREVER. 

IN NO PHASE WAS HE MORE UNRELENTINGLY ABSOLUTE THAN IN OPPOSING STATE
SUPPORT OR AID BY TAXATION.  NOT EVEN "THREE PENCE" CONTRIBUTION WAS
THUS TO BE EXACTED FROM ANY CITIZEN FOR SUCH A PURPOSE.  REMONSTRANCE,
PAR. 3.  FN29  TITHES HAD BEEN THE LIFEBLOOD OF ESTABLISHMENT BEFORE
AND AFTER OTHER COMPULSIONS DISAPPEARED.  MADISON AND HIS COWORKERS
MADE NO EXCEPTIONS OR ABRIDGMENTS TO THE COMPLETE SEPARATION THEY
CREATED.  THEIR OBJECTION WAS NOT TO SMALL TITHES.  IT WAS TO ANY
TITHES WHATSOEVER.  "IF IT WERE LAWFUL TO IMPOSE A SMALL TAX FOR
RELIGION, THE ADMISSION WOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR OPPRESSIVE LEVIES." 
FN30  NOT THE AMOUNT BUT "THE PRINCIPLE OF ASSESSMENT WAS WRONG."  AND
THE PRINCIPLE WAS AS MUCH TO PREVENT "THE INTERFERENCE OF LAW IN
RELIGION" AS TO RESTRAIN RELIGIOUS INTERVENTION IN POLITICAL MATTERS. 
FN31  IN THIS FIELD THE AUTHORS OF OUR FREEDOM WOULD NOT TOLERATE "THE
FIRST EXPERIMENT ON OUR LIBERTIES" OR "WAIT TILL USURPED POWER HAD
STRENGTHENED ITSELF BY EXERCISE, AND ENTANGLED THE QUESTION IN
PRECEDENTS."  REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 3.  NOR SHOULD WE. 

IN VIEW OF THIS HISTORY NO FURTHER PROOF IS NEEDED THAT THE AMENDMENT
FORBIDS ANY APPROPRIATION, LARGE OR SMALL, FROM PUBLIC FUNDS TO AID OR
SUPPORT ANY AND ALL RELIGIOUS EXERCISES.  BUT IF MORE WERE CALLED FOR,
THE DEBATES IN THE FIRST CONGRESS AND THIS COURT'S CONSISTENT
EXPRESSIONS, WHENEVER IT HAS TOUCHED ON THE MATTER DIRECTLY,  FN32
SUPPLY IT. 

BY CONTRAST WITH THE VIRGINIA HISTORY, THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES ON
CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT REVEAL ONLY SPARSE DISCUSSION,
REFLECTING THE FACT THAT THE ESSENTIAL ISSUES HAD BEEN SETTLED.  FN33
INDEED THE MATTER HAD BECOME SO WELL UNDERSTOOD AS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN
FOR GRANTED IN ALL BUT FORMAL PHRASING.  HENCE, THE ONLY ENLIGHTENING
REFERENCE SHOWS CONCERN, NOT TO PRESERVE ANY POWER TO USE PUBLIC FUNDS
IN AID OF RELIGION, BUT TO PREVENT THE AMENDMENT FROM OUTLAWING PRIVATE
GIFTS INADVERTENTLY BY VIRTUE OF THE BREADTH OF ITS WORDING.  FN34  IN
THE MARGIN ARE NOTED ALSO THE PRINCIPAL DECISIONS IN WHICH EXPRESSIONS
OF THIS COURT CONFIRM THE AMENDMENT'S BROAD PROHIBITION.  FN35

          III. 

COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE UPON RELIGIOUS EXERCISES WENT OUT EARLY IN THE
PROCESS OF SEPARATING CHURCH AND STATE, TOGETHER WITH FORCED OBSERVANCE
OF RELIGIOUS FORMS AND CEREMONIES.  FN36  TEST OATHS AND RELIGIOUS
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICE FOLLOWED LATER.  FN37  THESE THINGS NONE
DEVOTED TO OUR GREAT TRADITION OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WOULD THINK OF
BRINGING BACK.  HENCE TODAY, APART FROM EFFORTS TO INJECT RELIGIOUS
TRAINING OR EXERCISES AND SECTARIAN ISSUES INTO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE
ONLY SERIOUS SURVIVING THREAT TO MAINTAINING THAT COMPLETE AND
PERMANENT SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND CIVIL POWER WHICH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT COMMANDS IS THROUGH USE OF THE TAXING POWER TO SUPPORT
RELIGION, RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, OR ESTABLISHMENTS HAVING A
RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION WHATEVER THEIR FORM OR SPECIAL RELIGIOUS
FUNCTION.    DOES NEW JERSEY'S ACTION FURNISH SUPPORT FOR RELIGION BY
USE OF THE TAXING POWER?  CERTAINLY IT DOES, IF THE TEST REMAINS
UNDILUTED AS JEFFERSON AND MADISON MADE IT, THAT MONEY TAKEN BY
TAXATION FROM ONE IS NOT TO BE USED OR GIVEN TO SUPPORT ANOTHER'S
RELIGIOUS TRAINING OR BELIEF, OR INDEED ONE'S OWN.  FN38  TODAY AS THEN
THE FURNISHING OF "CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF
OPINIONS WHICH HE DISBELIEVES" IS THE FORBIDDEN EXACTION; AND THE
PROHIBITION IS ABSOLUTE FOR WHATEVER MEASURE BRINGS THAT CONSEQUENCE
AND WHATEVER AMOUNT MAY BE SOUGHT OR GIVEN TO THAT END. 

THE FUNDS USED HERE WERE RAISED BY TAXATION.  THE COURT DOES NOT
DISPUTE, NOR COULD IT, THAT THEIR USE DOES IN FACT GIVE AID AND
ENCOURAGEMENT TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.  IT ONLY CONCLUDES THAT THIS
AID IS NOT "SUPPORT" IN LAW.  BUT MADISON AND JEFFERSON WERE CONCERNED
WITH AID AND SUPPORT IN FACT, NOT AS A LEGAL CONCLUSION "ENTANGLED IN
PRECEDENTS."  REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 3.  HERE PARENTS PAY MONEY TO SEND
THEIR CHILDREN TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS AND FUNDS RAISED BY TAXATION ARE
USED TO REIMBURSE THEM.  THIS NOT ONLY HELPS THE CHILDREN TO GET TO
SCHOOL AND THE PARENTS TO SEND THEM.  IT AIDS THEM IN A SUBSTANTIAL WAY
TO GET THE VERY THING WHICH THEY ARE SENT TO THE PARTICULAR SCHOOL TO
SECURE, NAMELY, RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND TEACHING. 

BELIEVERS OF ALL FAITHS, AND OTHERS WHO DO NOT EXPRESS THEIR FEELING
TOWARD ULTIMATE ISSUES OF EXISTENCE IN ANY CREEDAL FORM, PAY THE NEW
JERSEY TAX.  WHEN THE MONEY SO RAISED IS USED TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION
TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS, THE CATHOLIC TAXPAYER TO THE EXTENT OF HIS
PROPORTIONATE SHARE PAYS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF LUTHERAN, JEWISH AND
OTHERWISE RELIGIOUSLY AFFILIATED CHILDREN TO RECEIVE THEIR NON-CATHOLIC
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.  THEIR PARENTS LIKEWISE PAY PROPORTIONATELY FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF CATHOLIC CHILDREN TO RECEIVE CATHOLIC
INSTRUCTION.  EACH THUS CONTRIBUTES TO "THE PROPAGATION OF OPINIONS
WHICH HE DISBELIEVES" IN SO FAR AS THEIR RELIGIONS DIFFER, AS DO OTHERS
WHO ACCEPT NO CREED WITHOUT REGARD TO THOSE DIFFERENCES.  EACH THUS
PAYS TAXES ALSO TO SUPPORT THE TEACHING OF HIS OWN RELIGION, AN
EXACTION EQUALLY FORBIDDEN SINCE IT DENIES "THE COMFORTABLE LIBERTY" OF
GIVING ONE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARTICULAR AGENCY OF INSTRUCTION HE
APPROVES.  FN39 

NEW JERSEY'S ACTION THEREFORE EXACTLY FITS THE TYPE OF EXACTION AND
THE KIND OF EVIL AT WHICH MADISON AND JEFFERSON STRUCK.  UNDER THE TEST
THEY FRAMED IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION IS NO
PART OF THE COST OF EDUCATION OR OF THE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION GIVEN. 
THAT IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL AND A NECESSARY ELEMENT IS SHOWN MOST PLAINLY
BY THE CONTINUING AND INCREASING DEMAND FOR THE STATE TO ASSUME IT.
NOR IS THERE PRETENSE THAT IT RELATES ONLY TO THE SECULAR INSTRUCTION
GIVEN IN RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS OR THAT ANY ATTEMPT IS OR COULD BE MADE
TOWARD ALLOCATING PROPORTIONAL SHARES AS BETWEEN THE SECULAR AND THE
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.  IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THE INSTRUCTION IS
RELIGIOUS AND RELATES TO A PARTICULAR FAITH, WHETHER ONE OR ANOTHER,
THAT PARENTS SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS UNDER THE PIERCE
DOCTRINE.  AND THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE STATE'S CONTRIBUTION IS TO
DEFRAY THE COST OF CONVEYING THE PUPIL TO THE PLACE WHERE HE WILL
RECEIVE NOT SIMPLY SECULAR, BUT ALSO AND PRIMARILY RELIGIOUS, TEACHING
AND GUIDANCE. 

INDEED THE VIEW IS SINCERELY AVOWED BY MANY OF VARIOUS FAITHS,  FN40
THAT THE BASIC PURPOSE OF ALL EDUCATION IS OR SHOULD BE RELIGIOUS, THAT
THE SECULAR CANNOT BE AND SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE RELIGIOUS
PHASE AND EMPHASIS.  HENCE, THE INADEQUACY OF PUBLIC OR SECULAR
EDUCATION AND THE NECESSITY FOR SENDING THE CHILD TO A SCHOOL WHERE
RELIGION IS TAUGHT.  BUT WHATEVER MAY BE THE PHILOSOPHY OR ITS
JUSTIFICATION, THERE IS UNDENIABLY AN ADMIXTURE OF RELIGIOUS WITH
SECULAR TEACHING IN ALL SUCH INSTITUTIONS.  THAT IS THE VERY REASON FOR
THEIR BEING.  CERTAINLY FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTITUTIONALITY WE CANNOT
CONTRADICT THE WHOLE BASIS OF THE ETHICAL AND EDUCATIONAL CONVICTIONS
OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN RELIGIOUS SCHOOLING. 

YET THIS VERY ADMIXTURE IS WHAT WAS DISESTABLISHED WHEN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT FORBADE "AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION."  COMMINGLING THE
RELIGIOUS WITH THE SECULAR TEACHING DOES NOT DIVEST THE WHOLE OF ITS
RELIGIOUS PERMEATION AND EMPHASIS OR MAKE THEM OF MINOR PART, IF
PROPORTION WERE MATERIAL.  INDEED, ON ANY OTHER VIEW, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ALWAYS COULD BE BROUGHT TO NAUGHT BY ADDING
A MODICUM OF THE SECULAR. 

AN APPROPRIATION FROM THE PUBLIC TREASURY TO PAY THE COST OF
TRANSPORTATION TO SUNDAY SCHOOL, TO WEEKDAY SPECIAL CLASSES AT THE
CHURCH OR PARISH HOUSE, OR TO THE MEETINGS OF VARIOUS YOUNG PEOPLE'S
RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES, SUCH AS THE Y.M.C.A., THE Y.W.C.A., THE Y.M.H.A.,
THE EPWORTH LEAGUE, COULD NOT WITHSTAND THE CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK. 
THIS WOULD BE TRUE, WHETHER OR NOT SECULAR ACTIVITIES WERE MIXED WITH
THE RELIGIOUS.  IF SUCH AN APPROPRIATION COULD NOT STAND, THEN IT IS
HARD TO SEE HOW ONE BECOMES VALID FOR THE SAME THING UPON THE MORE
EXTENDED SCALE OF DAILY INSTRUCTION.  SURELY CONSTITUTIONALITY DOES NOT
TURN ON WHERE OR HOW OFTEN THE MIXED TEACHING OCCURS. 

FINALLY, TRANSPORTATION, WHERE IT IS NEEDED, IS AS ESSENTIAL TO
EDUCATION AS ANY OTHER ELEMENT.  ITS COST IS AS MUCH A PART OF THE
TOTAL EXPENSE, EXCEPT AT TIMES IN AMOUNT, AS THE COST OF TEXTBOOKS, OF
SCHOOL LUNCHES, OF ATHLETIC EQUIPMENT, OF WRITING AND OTHER MATERIALS;
INDEED OF ALL OTHER ITEMS COMPOSING THE TOTAL BURDEN.  NOW AS ALWAYS
THE CORE OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS IS THE TEACHER-PUPIL RELATIONSHIP. 
WITHOUT THIS THE RICHEST EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES WOULD GO FOR NAUGHT. 
SEE JUDD V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 278 N.Y. 200, 212, 15 N.E.2D 576, 582. 
BUT THE PROVERBIAL MARK HOPKINS CONCEPTION NO LONGER SUFFICES FOR THE
COUNTRY'S REQUIREMENTS.  WITHOUT BUILDINGS, WITHOUT EQUIPMENT, WITHOUT
LIBRARY, TEXTBOOKS AND OTHER MATERIALS, AND WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION TO
BRING TEACHER AND PUPIL TOGETHER IN SUCH AN EFFECTIVE TEACHING
ENVIRONMENT, THERE CAN BE NOT EVEN THE SKELETON OF WHAT OUR TIMES
REQUIRE.  HARDLY CAN IT BE MAINTAINED THAT TRANSPORTATION IS THE LEAST
ESSENTIAL OF THESE ITEMS, OR THAT IT DOES NOT IN FACT AID, ENCOURAGE,
SUSTAIN AND SUPPORT, JUST AS THEY DO, THE VERY PROCESS WHICH IS ITS
PURPOSE TO ACCOMPLISH.  NO LESS ESSENTIAL IS IT, OR THE PAYMENT OF ITS
COST, THAN THE VERY TEACHING IN THE CLASSROOM OR PAYMENT OF THE
TEACHER'S SUSTENANCE.  MANY TYPES OF EQUIPMENT, NOW CONSIDERED
ESSENTIAL, BETTER COULD BE DONE WITHOUT. 

FOR ME, THEREFORE, THE FEAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SELECT SO INDISPENSABLE
AN ITEM FROM THE COMPOSITE OF TOTAL COSTS, AND CHARACTERIZE IT AS NOT
AIDING, CONTRIBUTING TO, PROMOTING OR SUSTAINING THE PROPAGATION OF
BELIEFS WHICH IT IS THE VERY END OF ALL TO BRING ABOUT.  UNLESS THIS
CAN BE MAINTAINED, AND THE COURT DOES NOT MAINTAIN IT, THE AID THUS
GIVEN IS OUTLAWED.  PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS NO MORE, NOR IS IT ANY
THE LESS ESSENTIAL TO EDUCATION, WHETHER RELIGIOUS OR SECULAR, THAN
PAYMENT FOR TUITIONS, FOR TEACHERS' SALARIES, FOR BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT
AND NECESSARY MATERIALS.  NOR IS IT ANY THE LESS DIRECTLY RELATED, IN A
SCHOOL GIVING RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, TO THE PRIMARY RELIGIOUS OBJECTIVE
ALL THOSE ESSENTIAL ITEMS OF COST ARE INTENDED TO ACHIEVE.  NO RATIONAL
LINE CAN BE DRAWN BETWEEN PAYMENT FOR SUCH LARGER, BUT NOT MORE
NECESSARY, ITEMS AND PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION.  THE ONLY LINE THAT
CAN BE SO DRAWN IS ONE BETWEEN MORE DOLLARS AND LESS.  CERTAINLY IN
THIS REALM SUCH A LINE CAN BE NO VALID CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE.  MURDOCK
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516.  FN41
NOW, AS IN MADISON'S TIME, NOT THE AMOUNT BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF
ASSESSMENT IS WRONG.  REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 3. 

                                 IV. 

BUT WE ARE TOLD THAT THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE IS VALID IN ITS PRESENT
APPLICATION BECAUSE THE APPROPRIATION IS FOR A PUBLIC, NOT A PRIVATE
PURPOSE, NAMELY, THE PROMOTION OF EDUCATION, AND THE MAJORITY ACCEPT
THIS IDEA IN THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL WE HAVE HERE IS "PUBLIC WELFARE
LEGISLATION."  IF THAT IS TRUE AND THE AMENDMENT'S FORCE CAN BE THUS
DESTROYED, WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BECOMES ALL THE MORE PERTINENT.  FOR THEN
THERE COULD BE NO POSSIBLE OBJECTION TO MORE EXTENSIVE SUPPORT OF
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION BY NEW JERSEY. 

IF THE FACT ALONE BE DETERMINATIVE THAT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS ARE ENGAGED
IN EDUCATION, THUS PROMOTING THE GENERAL AND INDIVIDUAL WELFARE,
TOGETHER WITH THE LEGISLATURE'S DECISION THAT THE PAYMENT OF PUBLIC
MONEYS FOR THEIR AID MAKES THEIR WORK A PUBLIC FUNCTION, THEN I CAN SEE
NO POSSIBLE BASIS, EXCEPT ONE OF DUBIOUS LEGISLATIVE POLICY, FOR THE
STATE'S REFUSAL TO MAKE FULL APPROPRIATION FOR SUPPORT OF PRIVATE,
RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS, JUST AS IS DONE FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.  THERE COULD
NOT BE, ON THAT BASIS, VALID CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.  FN42 

OF COURSE PAYING THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION PROMOTES THE GENERAL
CAUSE OF EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  SO DOES PAYING
ALL OTHER ITEMS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSE.  AND OBVIOUSLY, AS THE MAJORITY
SAY, IT IS MUCH TOO LATE TO URGE THAT LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO
FACILITATE THE OPPORTUNITIES OF CHILDREN TO SECURE A SECULAR EDUCATION
SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE.  OUR NATION-WIDE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
RESTS ON THE CONTRARY VIEW, AS DO ALL GRANTS IN AID OF EDUCATION,
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, WHICH IS NOT RELIGIOUS IN CHARACTER. 

THESE THINGS ARE BESIDE THE REAL QUESTION.  THEY HAVE NO POSSIBLE
MATERIALITY EXCEPT TO OBSCURE THE ALL-PERVADING, INESCAPABLE ISSUE. 
CF. COCHRAN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA.  STRIPPED OF ITS RELIGIOUS
PHASE, THE CASE PRESENTS NO SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  IBID.  THE
PUBLIC FUNCTION ARGUMENT, BY CASTING THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF PROMOTING
THE GENERAL CAUSE OF EDUCATION AND THE WELFARE OF THE INDIVIDUAL,
IGNORES THE RELIGIOUS FACTOR AND ITS ESSENTIAL CONNECTION WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION, THEREBY LEAVING OUT THE ONLY VITAL ELEMENT IN THE
CASE.  SO OF COURSE DO THE "PUBLIC WELFARE" AND "SOCIAL LEGISLATION"
IDEAS, FOR THEY COME TO THE SAME THING. 

WE HAVE HERE THEN ONE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE, NOT TWO.  TO SAY THAT NEW
JERSEY'S APPROPRIATION AND HER USE OF THE POWER OF TAXATION FOR RAISING
THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED ARE NOT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES BUT ARE FOR PRIVATE
ENDS, IS TO SAY THAT THEY ARE FOR THE SUPPORT OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS
TEACHING.  CONVERSELY, TO SAY THAT THEY ARE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES IS TO
SAY THAT THEY ARE NOT FOR RELIGIOUS ONES. 

THIS IS PRECISELY FOR THE REASON THAT EDUCATION WHICH INCLUDES
RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND TEACHING, AND ITS SUPPORT, HAVE BEEN MADE
MATTERS OF PRIVATE RIGHT AND FUNCTION, NOT PUBLIC, BY THE VERY TERMS OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THAT IS THE EFFECT NOT ONLY IN ITS GUARANTY OF
RELIGION'S FREE EXERCISE, BUT ALSO IN THE PROHIBITION OF
ESTABLISHMENTS.  IT WAS ON THIS BASIS OF THE PRIVATE CHARACTER OF THE
FUNCTION OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION THAT THIS COURT HELD PARENTS ENTITLED
TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.  PIERCE V.
SOCIETY OF SISTERS, SUPRA.  NOW IT DECLARES IN EFFECT THAT THE
APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO DEFRAY PART OF THE COST OF ATTENDING
THOSE SCHOOLS IS FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE.  IF SO, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY
THE STATE CANNOT GO FARTHER OR WHY THIS CASE APPROACHES THE VERGE OF
ITS POWER. 

IN TRUTH THIS VIEW CONTRADICTS THE WHOLE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT AS HERETOFORE CONCEIVED.  THE "PUBLIC FUNCTION" -
"PUBLIC WELFARE" - "SOCIAL LEGISLATION" ARGUMENT SEEKS, IN MADISON'S
WORDS, TO "EMPLOY RELIGION (THAT IS, HERE, RELIGIOUS EDUCATION) AS AN
ENGINE OF CIVIL POLICY."  REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 5.  IT IS OF ONE PIECE
WITH THE ASSESSMENT BILL'S PREAMBLE, ALTHOUGH WITH THE VITAL DIFFERENCE
THAT IT WHOLLY IGNORES WHAT THAT PREAMBLE EXPLICITLY STATES.  FN43 

OUR CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.  IT DOES NOT DENY
THE VALUE OR THE NECESSITY FOR RELIGIOUS TRAINING, TEACHING OR
OBSERVANCE.  RATHER IT SECURES THEIR FREE EXERCISE.  BUT TO THAT END IT
DOES DENY THAT THE STATE CAN UNDERTAKE OR SUSTAIN THEM IN ANY FORM OR
DEGREE.  FOR THIS REASON THE SPHERE OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SECULAR INTELLECTUAL LIBERTIES, HAS BEEN GIVEN
THE TWOFOLD PROTECTION AND, AS THE STATE CANNOT FORBID, NEITHER CAN IT
PERFORM OR AID IN PERFORMING THE RELIGIOUS FUNCTION.  THE DUAL
PROHIBITION MAKES THAT FUNCTION ALTOGETHER PRIVATE.  IT CANNOT BE MADE
A PUBLIC ONE BY LEGISLATIVE ACT.  THIS WAS THE VERY HEART OF MADISON'S
REMONSTRANCE, AS IT IS OF THE AMENDMENT ITSELF. 

IT IS NOT BECAUSE RELIGIOUS TEACHING DOES NOT PROMOTE THE PUBLIC OR
THE INDIVIDUAL'S WELFARE, BUT BECAUSE NEITHER IS FURTHERED WHEN THE
STATE PROMOTES RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, THAT THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT TO
DO SO.  BOTH LEGISLATURES AND COURTS ARE BOUND BY THAT DISTINCTION.  IN
FAILURE TO OBSERVE IT LIES THE FALLACY OF THE "PUBLIC FUNCTION" -
"SOCIAL LEGISLATION" ARGUMENT, A FALLACY FACILITATED BY EASY
TRANSFERENCE OF THE ARGUMENT'S BASING FROM DUE PROCESS UNRELATED TO ANY
RELIGIOUS ASPECT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

BY NO DECLARATION THAT A GIFT OF PUBLIC MONEY TO RELIGIOUS USES WILL
PROMOTE THE GENERAL OR INDIVIDUAL WELFARE, OR THE CAUSE OF EDUCATION
GENERALLY, CAN LEGISLATIVE BODIES OVERCOME THE AMENDMENT'S BAR.  NOR
MAY THE COURTS SUSTAIN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO DO SO BY FINDING SUCH
CONSEQUENCES FOR APPROPRIATIONS WHICH IN FACT GIVE AID TO OR PROMOTE
RELIGIOUS USES.  CF. NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 590; HOOVEN &
ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652, 659; AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398,
402.  LEGISLATURES ARE FREE TO MAKE, AND COURTS TO SUSTAIN,
APPROPRIATIONS ONLY WHEN IT CAN BE FOUND THAT IN FACT THEY DO NOT AID,
PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE OR SUSTAIN RELIGIOUS TEACHING OR OBSERVANCES, BE THE
AMOUNT LARGE OR SMALL.  NO SUCH FINDING HAS BEEN OR COULD BE MADE IN
THIS CASE.  THE AMENDMENT HAS REMOVED THIS FORM OF PROMOTING THE PUBLIC
WELFARE FROM LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL COMPETENCE TO MAKE A PUBLIC
FUNCTION.  IT IS EXCLUSIVELY A PRIVATE AFFAIR.    THE REASONS
UNDERLYING THE AMENDMENT'S POLICY HAVE NOT VANISHED WITH TIME OR
DIMINISHED IN FORCE.  NOW AS WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED THE PRICE OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM IS DOUBLE.  IT IS THAT THE CHURCH AND RELIGION SHALL LIVE BOTH
WITHIN AND UPON THAT FREEDOM.  THERE CANNOT BE FREEDOM OF RELIGION,
SAFEGUARDED BY THE STATE, AND INTERVENTION BY THE CHURCH OR ITS
AGENCIES IN THE STATE'S DOMAIN OR DEPENDENCY ON ITS LARGESSE. 
MADISON'S REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 6, 8.  FN44  THE GREAT CONDITION OF
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS THAT IT BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM SUSTENANCE, AS
ALSO FROM OTHER INTERFERENCES, BY THE STATE.  FOR WHEN IT COMES TO REST
UPON THAT SECULAR FOUNDATION IT VANISHES WITH THE RESTING.  ID., PAR.
7, 8.  FN45  PUBLIC MONEY DEVOTED TO PAYMENT OF RELIGIOUS COSTS,
EDUCATIONAL OR OTHER, BRINGS THE QUEST FOR MORE.  IT BRINGS TOO THE
STRUGGLE OF SECT AGAINST SECT FOR THE LARGER SHARE OR FOR ANY.  HERE
ONE BY NUMBERS ALONE WILL BENEFIT MOST, THERE ANOTHER.  THAT IS
PRECISELY THE HISTORY OF SOCIETIES WHICH HAVE HAD AN ESTABLISHED
RELIGION AND DISSIDENT GROUPS.  ID., PAR. 8, 11.  IT IS THE VERY THING
JEFFERSON AND MADISON EXPERIENCED AND SOUGHT TO GUARD AGAINST, WHETHER
IN ITS BLUNT OR IN ITS MORE SCREENED FORMS.  IBID.  THE END OF SUCH
STRIFE CANNOT BE OTHER THAN TO DESTROY THE CHERISHED LIBERTY.  THE
DOMINATING GROUP WILL ACHIEVE THE DOMINANT BENEFIT; OR ALL WILL EMBROIL
THE STATE IN THEIR DISSENSIONS.  ID., PAR. 11.  FN46 

EXACTLY SUCH CONFLICTS HAVE CENTERED OF LATE AROUND PROVIDING
TRANSPORTATION TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS FROM PUBLIC FUNDS.  FN47  THE ISSUE
AND THE DISSENSION WORK TYPICALLY, IN MADISON'S PHRASE, TO "DESTROY
THAT MODERATION AND HARMONY WHICH THE FORBEARANCE OF OUR LAWS TO
INTERMEDDLE WITH RELIGION, HAS PRODUCED AMONGST ITS SEVERAL SECTS." 
ID., PAR. 11.  THIS OCCURS, AS HE WELL KNEW, OVER MEASURES AT THE VERY
THRESHOLD OF DEPARTURE FROM THE PRINCIPLE.  ID., PAR. 3, 9, 11. 

IN THESE CONFLICTS WHEREVER SUCCESS HAS BEEN OBTAINED IT HAS BEEN
UPON THE CONTENTION THAT BY PROVIDING THE TRANSPORTATION THE GENERAL
CAUSE OF EDUCATION, THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND THE WELFARE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL WILL BE FORWARDED; HENCE THAT THE MATTER LIES WITHIN THE
REALM OF PUBLIC FUNCTION, FOR LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION.  FN48  STATE
COURTS HAVE DIVIDED UPON THE ISSUE, SOME TAKING THE VIEW THAT ONLY THE
INDIVIDUAL, OTHERS THAT THE INSTITUTION RECEIVES THE BENEFIT.  FN49 A
FEW HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THIS DICHOTOMY IS FALSE, THAT BOTH IN FACT ARE
AIDED.  FN50 

THE MAJORITY HERE DOES NOT ACCEPT IN TERMS ANY OF THOSE VIEWS.  BUT
NEITHER DOES IT DENY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE SCHOOL, OR INDEED BOTH,
ARE BENEFITED DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY N51.  TO DO SO WOULD CUT THE
GROUND FROM UNDER THE PUBLIC FUNCTION - SOCIAL LEGISLATION THESIS.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THE OPINION CONCEDES THAT THE CHILDREN ARE AIDED BY BEING
HELPED TO GET TO THE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLING.  BY CONVERSE NECESSARY
IMPLICATION AS WELL AS BY THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS DENIAL, IT MUST BE
TAKEN TO CONCEDE ALSO THAT THE SCHOOL IS HELPED TO REACH THE CHILD WITH
ITS RELIGIOUS TEACHING.  THE RELIGIOUS ENTERPRISE IS COMMON TO BOTH, AS
IS THE INTEREST IN HAVING TRANSPORTATION FOR ITS RELIGIOUS PURPOSES
PROVIDED. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE RECOGNITION THAT THIS TWO-WAY AID IS GIVEN AND
THE ABSENCE OF ANY DENIAL THAT RELIGIOUS TEACHING IS THUS FURTHERED,
THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE AID SO GIVEN IS NOT "SUPPORT" OF
RELIGION.  IT IS RATHER ONLY SUPPORT OF EDUCATION AS SUCH, WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO ITS RELIGIOUS CONTENT, AND THUS BECOMES PUBLIC WELFARE
LEGISLATION.  TO THIS ELISION OF THE RELIGIOUS ELEMENT FROM THE CASE IS
ADDED GLOSS IN TWO RESPECTS, ONE THAT THE AID EXTENDED PARTAKES OF THE
NATURE OF A SAFETY MEASURE, THE OTHER THAT FAILURE TO PROVIDE IT WOULD
MAKE THE STATE UNNEUTRAL IN RELIGIOUS MATTERS, DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
OR HAMPERING SUCH CHILDREN CONCERNING PUBLIC BENEFITS ALL OTHERS
RECEIVE. 

AS WILL BE NOTED, THE ONE GLOSS IS CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTS OF
RECORD AND THE OTHER IS OF WHOLE CLOTH WITH THE "PUBLIC FUNCTION"
ARGUMENT'S EXCISION OF THE RELIGIOUS FACTOR N52.  BUT MOST IMPORTANT IS
THAT THIS APPROACH, IF VALID, SUPPLIES A READY METHOD FOR NULLIFYING
THE AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY, NOT ONLY FOR THIS CASE AND OTHERS INVOLVING
SMALL GRANTS IN AID FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, BUT EQUALLY FOR LARGER
ONES.  THE ONLY THING NEEDED WILL BE FOR THE COURT AGAIN TO TRANSPLANT
THE "PUBLIC WELFARE - PUBLIC FUNCTION" VIEW FROM ITS PROPER
NONRELIGIOUS DUE PROCESS BEARING TO FIRST AMENDMENT APPLICATION,
HOLDING THAT RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IS NOT "SUPPORTED" THOUGH IT MAY BE
AIDED BY THE APPROPRIATION, AND THAT THE CAUSE OF EDUCATION GENERALLY
IS FURTHERED BY HELPING THE PUPIL TO SECURE THAT TYPE OF TRAINING. 

THIS IS NOT THEREFORE JUST A LITTLE CASE OVER BUS FARES.  IN
PARAPHRASE OF MADISON, DISTANT AS IT MAY BE IN ITS PRESENT FORM FROM A
COMPLETE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, IT DIFFERS FROM IT ONLY IN DEGREE;
AND IS THE FIRST STEP IN THAT DIRECTION.  ID., PAR. 9.  FN53  TODAY AS
IN HIS TIME "THE SAME AUTHORITY WHICH CAN FORCE A CITIZEN TO CONTRIBUTE
THREE PENCE ONLY  ...  FOR THE SUPPORT OF ANY ONE (RELIGIOUS)
ESTABLISHMENT, MAY FORCE HIM" TO PAY MORE; OR "TO CONFORM TO ANY OTHER
ESTABLISHMENT IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER."  AND NOW, AS THEN, "EITHER  ...
WE MUST SAY, THAT THE WILL OF THE LEGISLATURE IS THE ONLY MEASURE OF
THEIR AUTHORITY; AND THAT IN THE PLENITUDE OF THIS AUTHORITY, THEY MAY
SWEEP AWAY ALL OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS; OR, THAT THEY ARE BOUND TO LEAVE
THIS PARTICULAR RIGHT UNTOUCHED AND SACRED."  REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 15. 

THE REALM OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF REMAINS, AS THE AMENDMENT
MADE IT, THE KINGDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAN AND HIS GOD.  IT SHOULD BE
KEPT INVIOLATELY PRIVATE, NOT "ENTANGLED  ...  IN PRECEDENTS"  FN54  OR
CONFOUNDED WITH WHAT LEGISLATURES LEGITIMATELY MAY TAKE OVER INTO THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN. 

    V. 

NO ONE CONSCIOUS OF RELIGIOUS VALUES CAN BE UNSYMPATHETIC TOWARD THE
BURDEN WHICH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION PUTS ON PARENTS WHO DESIRE
RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION MIXED WITH SECULAR FOR THEIR CHILDREN.  THEY PAY
TAXES FOR OTHERS' CHILDREN'S EDUCATION, AT THE SAME TIME THE ADDED COST
OF INSTRUCTION FOR THEIR OWN.  NOR CAN ONE HAPPILY SEE BENEFITS DENIED
TO CHILDREN WHICH OTHERS RECEIVE, BECAUSE IN CONSCIENCE THEY OR THEIR
PARENTS FOR THEM DESIRE A DIFFERENT KIND OF TRAINING OTHERS DO NOT
DEMAND. 

BUT IF THOSE FEELINGS SHOULD PREVAIL, THERE WOULD BE AN END TO OUR
HISTORIC CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY AND COMMAND.  NO MORE UNJUST OR
DISCRIMINATORY IN FACT IS IT TO DENY ATTENDANTS AT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS
THE COST OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION THAN IT IS TO DENY THEM TUITIONS,
SUSTENANCE FOR THEIR TEACHERS, OR ANY OTHER EDUCATIONAL EXPENSE WHICH
OTHERS RECEIVE AT PUBLIC COST.  HARDSHIP IN FACT THERE IS WHICH NONE
CAN BLINK.  BUT, FOR ASSURING TO THOSE WHO UNDERGO IT THE GREATER, THE
MOST COMPREHENSIVE FREEDOM, IT IS ONE WRITTEN BY DESIGN AND FIRM INTENT
INTO OUR BASIC LAW. 

OF COURSE DISCRIMINATION IN THE LEGAL SENSE DOES NOT EXIST.  THE
CHILD ATTENDING THE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL HAS THE SAME RIGHT AS ANY OTHER TO
ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL.  BUT HE FOREGOES EXERCISING IT BECAUSE THE
SAME GUARANTY WHICH ASSURES THIS FREEDOM FORBIDS THE PUBLIC SCHOOL OR
ANY AGENCY OF THE STATE TO GIVE OR AID HIM IN SECURING THE RELIGIOUS
INSTRUCTION HE SEEKS. 

WERE HE TO ACCEPT THE COMMON SCHOOL, HE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO PROTEST
THE TEACHING THERE OF ANY CREED OR FAITH NOT HIS OWN.  AND IT IS
PRECISELY FOR THE REASON THAT THEIR ATMOSPHERE IS WHOLLY SECULAR THAT
CHILDREN ARE NOT SENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNDER THE PIERCE DOCTRINE.  BUT
THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY, BECAUSE WE HAVE STAKED THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF OUR COUNTRY ON THE FAITH THAT COMPLETE SEPARATION BETWEEN
THE STATE AND RELIGION IS BEST FOR THE STATE AND BEST FOR RELIGION. 
REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 8, 12. 

THAT POLICY NECESSARILY ENTAILS HARDSHIP UPON PERSONS WHO FOREGO THE
RIGHT TO EDUCATIONAL ADVANTAGES THE STATE CAN SUPPLY IN ORDER TO SECURE
OTHERS IT IS PRECLUDED FROM GIVING.  INDEED THIS MAY HAMPER THE PARENT
AND THE CHILD FORCED BY CONSCIENCE TO THAT CHOICE.  BUT IT DOES NOT
MAKE THE STATE UNNEUTRAL TO WITHHOLD WHAT THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT
TO GIVE.  ON THE CONTRARY IT IS ONLY BY OBSERVING THE PROHIBITION
RIGIDLY THAT THE STATE CAN MAINTAIN ITS NEUTRALITY AND AVOID
PARTISANSHIP IN THE DISSENSIONS INEVITABLE WHEN SECT OPPOSES SECT OVER
DEMANDS FOR PUBLIC MONEYS TO FURTHER RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, TEACHING OR
TRAINING IN ANY FORM OR DEGREE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.  LIKE ST.
PAUL'S FREEDOM, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WITH A GREAT PRICE MUST BE BOUGHT. 
AND FOR THOSE WHO EXERCISE IT MOST FULLY, BY INSISTING UPON RELIGIOUS
EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN MIXED WITH SECULAR, BY THE TERMS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION THE PRICE IS GREATER THAN FOR OTHERS. 

THE PROBLEM THEN CANNOT BE CAST IN TERMS OF LEGAL DISCRIMINATION OR
ITS ABSENCE.  THIS WOULD BE TRUE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE IN GIVING AID
SHOULD TREAT ALL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION ALIKE.  THUS, IF THE PRESENT
STATUTE AND ITS APPLICATION WERE SHOWN TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL
RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS OF WHATEVER FAITH,  FN55  YET IN THE LIGHT OF OUR
TRADITION IT COULD NOT STAND.  FOR THEN THE ADHERENT OF ONE CREED STILL
WOULD PAY FOR THE SUPPORT OF ANOTHER, THE CHILDLESS TAXPAYER WITH
OTHERS MORE FORTUNATE.  THEN TOO THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO BAR TO
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER EXPENSES OF CHILDREN
ATTENDING PUBLIC OR OTHER SECULAR SCHOOLS, AFTER HOURS IN SEPARATE
PLACES AND CLASSES FOR THEIR EXCLUSIVELY RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.  THE
PERSON WHO EMBRACES NO CREED ALSO WOULD BE FORCED TO PAY FOR TEACHING
WHAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE.  AGAIN, IT WAS THE FURNISHING OF
"CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF OPINIONS WHICH HE
DISBELIEVES" THAT THE FATHERS OUTLAWED.  THAT CONSEQUENCE AND EFFECT
ARE NOT REMOVED BY MULTIPLYING TO ALL-INCLUSIVENESS THE SECTS FOR WHICH
SUPPORT IS EXACTED.  THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES, NOT COMPREHENSIVE
IDENTIFICATION OF STATE WITH RELIGION, BUT COMPLETE SEPARATION. 

              VI. 

SHORT TREATMENT WILL DISPOSE OF WHAT REMAINS.  WHATEVER MIGHT BE SAID
OF SOME OTHER APPLICATION OF NEW JERSEY'S STATUTE, THE ONE MADE HERE
HAS NO SEMBLANCE OF BEARING AS A SAFETY MEASURE OR, INDEED, FOR
SECURING EXPEDITIOUS CONVEYANCE.  THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPLIED IS BY
PUBLIC CONVEYANCE, SUBJECT TO ALL THE HAZARDS AND DELAYS OF THE HIGHWAY
AND THE STREETS INCURRED BY THE PUBLIC GENERALLY IN GOING ABOUT ITS
MULTIFARIOUS BUSINESS. 

NOR IS THE CASE COMPARABLE TO ONE OF FURNISHING FIRE OR POLICE
PROTECTION, OR ACCESS TO PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.  THESE THINGS ARE MATTERS OF
COMMON RIGHT, PART OF THE GENERAL NEED FOR SAFETY.  FN56 CERTAINLY THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT MUST NOT STAND IDLY BY WHILE THE CHURCH BURNS.  NOR IS
THIS REASON WHY THE STATE SHOULD PAY THE EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTATION OR
OTHER ITEMS OF THE COST OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.  FN57 

NEEDLESS TO ADD, WE HAVE NO SUCH CASE AS GREEN V. FRAZIER, 253 U.S.
233, OR CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495, WHICH DEALT WITH
MATTERS WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT, INVOLVING ONLY
SITUATIONS WHERE THE "PUBLIC FUNCTION" ISSUE WAS DETERMINATIVE. 

I HAVE CHOSEN TO PLACE MY DISSENT UPON THE BROAD GROUND I THINK
DECISIVE, THOUGH STRICTLY SPEAKING THE CASE MIGHT BE DECIDED ON
NARROWER ISSUES.  THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE MIGHT BE HELD INVALID ON ITS
FACE FOR THE EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN WHO ATTEND PRIVATE, PROFIT-MAKING
SCHOOLS.  FN58 I CANNOT ASSUME, AS DOES THE MAJORITY, THAT THE NEW
JERSEY COURTS WOULD WRITE OFF THIS EXPLICIT LIMITATION FROM THE
STATUTE.  MOREOVER, THE RESOLUTION BY WHICH THE STATUTE WAS APPLIED
EXPRESSLY LIMITS ITS BENEFITS TO STUDENTS OF PUBLIC AND CATHOLIC
SCHOOLS.  FN59  THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER PRIVATE OR
RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS IN THIS POPULOUS DISTRICT.  FN60  I DO NOT THINK IT
CAN BE ASSUMED THERE WERE NONE.  FN61  BUT IN THE VIEW I HAVE TAKEN, IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO LIMIT GROUNDING TO THESE MATTERS. 

TWO GREAT DRIVES ARE CONSTANTLY IN MOTION TO ABRIDGE, IN THE NAME OF
EDUCATION, THE COMPLETE DIVISION OF RELIGION AND CIVIL AUTHORITY WHICH
OUR FOREFATHERS MADE.  ONE IS TO INTRODUCE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND
OBSERVANCES INTO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  THE OTHER, TO OBTAIN PUBLIC FUNDS
FOR THE AID AND SUPPORT OF VARIOUS PRIVATE RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.  SEE
JOHNSON, THE LEGAL STATUS OF CHURCH-STATE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UNITED
STATES (1934); THAYER, RELIGION IN PUBLIC EDUCATION (1947); NOTE (1941)
50 YALE L.J. 917.  IN MY OPINION BOTH AVENUES WERE CLOSED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  NEITHER SHOULD BE OPENED BY THIS COURT.  THE MATTER IS
NOT ONE OF QUANTITY, TO BE MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF MONEY EXPENDED. 
NOW AS IN MADISON'S DAY IT IS ONE OF PRINCIPLE, TO KEEP SEPARATE THE
SEPARATE SPHERES AS THE FIRST AMENDMENT DREW THEM; TO PREVENT THE FIRST
EXPERIMENT UPON OUR LIBERTIES; AND TO KEEP THE QUESTION FROM BECOMING
ENTANGLED IN CORROSIVE PRECEDENTS.  WE SHOULD NOT BE LESS STRICT TO
KEEP STRONG AND UNTARNISHED THE ONE SIDE OF THE SHIELD OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM THAN WE HAVE BEEN OF THE OTHER. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  "A BILL FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM," ENACTED BY THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA, JANUARY 19, 1786.  SEE 1 RANDALL, THE
LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (1858) 219-220; XII HENING'S STATUTES OF
VIRGINIA (1823) 84. 

FN2  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105; PRINCE V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 530. 
FN3  THE BRIEFS DID NOT RAISE THE FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUE.  THE ONLY ONE
PRESENTED WAS WHETHER THE STATE'S ACTION INVOLVED A PUBLIC OR AN
EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE FUNCTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE PART IV INFRA.  ON THE FACTS, THE COST OF
TRANSPORTATION HERE IS INSEPARABLE FROM BOTH RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR
TEACHING AT THE RELIGIOUS SCHOOL.  IN THE COCHRAN CASE THE STATE
FURNISHED SECULAR TEXTBOOKS ONLY.  BUT SEE TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 40 ET
SEQ., AND PART IV. 

FN4  CF. NOTE 3 AND TEXT PART IV; SEE ALSO NOTE 35.    FN5  THE
STATUTE READS:  "WHENEVER IN ANY DISTRICT THERE ARE CHILDREN LIVING
REMOTE FROM ANY SCHOOLHOUSE, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DISTRICT MAY
MAKE RULES AND CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH CHILDREN TO AND
FROM SCHOOL  ...  OTHER THAN A PUBLIC SCHOOL, EXCEPT SUCH SCHOOL AS IS
OPERATED FOR PROFIT IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 

"WHEN ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDES ANY TRANSPORTATION FOR PUBLIC
SCHOOL CHILDREN TO AND FROM SCHOOL, TRANSPORTATION FROM ANY POINT IN
SUCH ESTABLISHED SCHOOL ROUTE TO ANY OTHER POINT IN SUCH ESTABLISHED
SCHOOL ROUTE SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO SCHOOL CHILDREN RESIDING IN SUCH
SCHOOL DISTRICT IN GOING TO AND FROM SCHOOL OTHER THAN A PUBLIC SCHOOL,
EXCEPT SUCH SCHOOL AS IS OPERATED FOR PROFIT IN WHOLE OR IN PART." 
LAWS OF NEW JERSEY (1941) C. 191. 

FN6  THE FULL TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION IS GIVEN IN NOTE 59 INFRA. 

FN7  THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ATTENDED WERE THE TRENTON SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL,
THE TRENTON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND THE PENNINGTON HIGH SCHOOL.  EWING
TOWNSHIP ITSELF PROVIDES NO PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS, AFFORDING ONLY
ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCHOOLS WHICH STOP WITH THE EIGHTH GRADE.  THE EWING
SCHOOL BOARD PAYS FOR BOTH TRANSPORTATION AND TUITIONS OF PUPILS
ATTENDING THE PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS.  THE ONLY PRIVATE SCHOOLS, ALL
CATHOLIC, COVERED IN APPLICATION OF THE RESOLUTION ARE ST. MARY'S
CATHEDRAL HIGH SCHOOL, TRENTON CATHOLIC BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, AND TWO
ELEMENTARY PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, ST. HEDWIG'S PAROCHIAL SCHOOL AND ST.
FRANCIS SCHOOL.  THE EWING BOARD PAYS ONLY FOR TRANSPORTATION TO THESE
SCHOOLS, NOT FOR TUITIONS.  SO FAR AS THE RECORD DISCLOSES, THE BOARD
DOES NOT PAY FOR OR PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO ANY OTHER ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.  SEE NOTES 58, 59 AND TEXT INFRA. 

FN8  IX WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON (ED. BY HUNT, 1910) 288; PADOVER,
JEFFERSON (1942) 74.  MADISON'S CHARACTERIZATION RELATED TO JEFFERSON'S
ENTIRE REVISION OF THE VIRGINIA CODE, OF WHICH THE BILL FOR
ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WAS PART.  SEE NOTE 15. 

FN9  SEE REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145; DAVIS V. BEASON, 133
U.S. 333; MORMON CHURCH V. UNITED STATES, 136 U.S. 1; JACOBSON V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11; PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158; ALSO
CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 14. 

POSSIBLY THE FIRST OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER" DOCTRINE WAS JEFFERSON'S DECLARATION IN THE VIRGINIA STATUTE
FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:  "THAT IT IS TIME ENOUGH FOR THE
RIGHTFUL PURPOSES OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT FOR ITS OFFICERS TO INTERFERE
WHEN PRINCIPLES BREAK OUT INTO OVERT ACTS AGAINST PEACE AND GOOD
ORDER."  1 RANDALL, THE LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (1858) 220; PADOVER,
JEFFERSON (1942) 81.  FOR MADISON'S VIEW TO THE SAME EFFECT, SEE NOTE
28 INFRA. 

FN10  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 109; MARTIN V.
STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141; JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413; MARSH V.
ALABAMA, 326 U.S. 501; TUCKER V. TEXAS, 326 U.S. 517. 

FN11  CONFLICTS IN OTHER STATES, AND EARLIER IN THE COLONIES,
CONTRIBUTED MUCH TO GENERATION OF THE AMENDMENT, BUT NONE SO DIRECTLY
AS THAT IN VIRGINIA OR WITH SUCH FORMATIVE INFLUENCE ON THE AMENDMENT'S
CONTENT AND WORDING.  SEE COBB, RISE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN AMERICA
(1902); SWEET, THE STORY OF RELIGION IN AMERICA (1939).  THE CHARTER OF
RHODE ISLAND OF 1663, II POORE, CONSTITUTIONS (1878) 1595, WAS THE
FIRST COLONIAL CHARTER TO PROVIDE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 

THE CLIMACTIC PERIOD OF THE VIRGINIA STRUGGLE COVERS THE DECADE 1776
1786, FROM ADOPTION OF THE DELCARATION OF RIGHTS TO ENACTMENT OF THE
STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  FOR SHORT ACCOUNTS SEE PADOVER,
JEFFERSON (1942) C. V; BRANT, JAMES MADISON, THE VIRGINIA REVOLUTIONIST
(1941) CC. XII, XV; JAMES, THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN
VIRGINIA (1900) CC. X, XI; ECKENRODE, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN
VIRGINIA (1910).  THESE WORKS AND RANDALL, SEE NOTE 1, WILL BE CITED IN
THIS OPINION BY THE NAMES OF THEIR AUTHORS.  CITATIONS TO "JEFFERSON"
REFER TO THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (ED. BY FORD, 1904-1905); TO
"MADISON," TO THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON (ED. BY HUNT, 1901-1910). 

FN12  BRANT, CC. XII, XV; JAMES, CC. X, XI; ECKENRODE. 

FN13  SEE BRANT, C. XII, PARTICULARLY AT 243.  CF. MADISON'S
REMONSTRANCE, APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION.  JEFFERSON OF COURSE HELD THE
SAME VIEW.  SEE NOTE 15. 

"MADISON LOOKED UPON  ...  RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, TO JUDGE FROM THE
CONCENTRATED ATTENTION HE GAVE IT, AS THE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM."  BRANT,
243; AND SEE REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 1, 4, 15, APPENDIX. 

FN14  SEE BRANT, 245-246.  MADISON QUOTED LIBERALLY FROM THE
DECLARATION IN HIS REMONSTRANCE AND THE USE MADE OF THE QUOTATIONS
INDICATES THAT HE CONSIDERED THE DECLARATION TO HAVE OUTLAWED THE
PREVAILING ESTABLISHMENT IN PRINCIPLE, IF NOT TECHNICALLY. 

FN15  JEFFERSON WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE REVISING COMMITTEE AND CHIEF
DRAFTSMAN.  COREVISERS WERE WYTHE, PENDLETON, MASON AND LEE.  THE FIRST
ENACTED PORTION OF THE REVISION, WHICH BECAME KNOWN AS JEFFERSON'S
CODE, WAS THE STATUTE BARRING ENTAILMENTS.  PRIMOGENITURE SOON
FOLLOWED.  MUCH LONGER THE AUTHOR WAS TO WAIT FOR ENACTMENT OF THE BILL
FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM; AND NOT UNTIL AFTER HIS DEATH WAS THE COROLLARY
BILL TO BE ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE WHICH HE CONSIDERED MOST IMPORTANT OF
ALL, NAMELY, TO PROVIDE FOR COMMON EDUCATION AT PUBLIC EXPENSE.  SEE V
JEFFERSON, 153.  HOWEVER, HE LINKED THIS WITH DISESTABLISHMENT AS
COROLLARY PRIME PARTS IN A SYSTEM OF BASIC FREEDOMS.  I JEFFERSON, 78. 

JEFFERSON, AND MADISON BY HIS SPONSORSHIP, SOUGHT TO GIVE THE BILL
FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AS NEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS AS
THEY COULD AT THE TIME.  ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ONE LEGISLATURE COULD NOT
"RESTRAIN THE ACTS OF SUCCEEDING ASSEMBLIES  ...  AND THAT THEREFORE TO
DECLARE THIS ACT IRREVOCABLE WOULD BE OF NO EFFECT IN LAW," THE BILL'S
CONCLUDING PROVISION AS ENACTED NEVERTHELESS ASSERTED:  "YET WE ARE
FREE TO DECLARE, AND DO DECLARE, THAT THE RIGHTS HEREBY ASSERTED ARE OF
THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF MANKIND, AND THAT IF ANY ACT SHALL BE HEREAFTER
PASSED TO REPEAL THE PRESENT OR TO NARROW ITS OPERATION, SUCH ACT WILL
BE AN INFRINGEMENT OF NATURAL RIGHT."  1 RANDALL, 220. 

FN16  SEE I JEFFERSON, 70-71; XII JEFFERSON, 447; PADOVER, 80. 

FN17  MADISON REGARDED THIS ACTION AS DESERTION.  SEE HIS LETTER TO
MONROE OF APRIL 12, 1785; II MADISON, 129, 131-132; JAMES, CC. X, XI.
BUT SEE ECKENRODE, 91, SUGGESTING IT WAS SURRENDER TO THE INEVITABLE. 

THE BILL PROVIDED:  "THAT FOR EVERY SUM SO PAID, THE SHERIFF OR
COLLECTOR SHALL GIVE A RECEIPT, EXPRESSING THEREIN TO WHAT SOCIETY OF
CHRISTIANS THE PERSON FROM WHOM HE MAY RECEIVE THE SAME SHALL DIRECT
THE MONEY TO BE PAID  ...."  SEE ALSO NOTES 19, 43 INFRA. 

A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT BILL IS TO BE FOUND AMONG THE WASHINGTON
MANUSCRIPTS IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.  PAPERS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON,
VOL. 231.  BECAUSE OF ITS CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE VIRGINIA STRUGGLE AND
BEARING UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S MEANING, THE TEXT OF THE BILL IS SET
FORTH IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION. 

FN18  ECKENRODE, 99, 100. 

FN19  ID., 100; II MADISON, 113.  THE BILL DIRECTED THE SHERIFF TO
PAY "ALL SUMS WHICH  ...  MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATED BY THE PERSON PAYING
THE SAME  ...  INTO THE PUBLIC TREASURY, TO BE DISPOSED OF UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF SEMINARIES
OF LEARNING WITHIN THE COUNTIES WHENCE SUCH SUMS SHALL ARISE, AND TO NO
OTHER USE OR PURPOSE WHATSOEVER."  SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX. 

FN20  SEE GENERALLY ECKENRODE, C. V; BRANT, JAMES, AND OTHER
AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 11 ABOVE. 

FN21  II MADISON, 183; AND THE APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION.  ECKENRODE,
100 FF.  SEE ALSO FLEET, MADISON'S "DETACHED MEMORANDA" (1946) III
WILLIAM & MARY Q. (3D SERIES) 534, 554-562. 

FN22  THE MAJOR CAUSES ASSIGNED FOR ITS DEFEAT INCLUDE THE ELEVATION
OF PATRICK HENRY TO THE GOVERNORSHIP IN NOVEMBER OF 1784; THE BLUNDER
OF THE PROPONENTS IN ALLOWING THE BILL FOR INCORPORATIONS TO COME TO
THE FLOOR AND INCUR DEFEAT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT BILL WAS ACTED ON;
MADISON'S ASTUTE LEADERSHIP, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF EVERY "BREAK" TO
CONVERT HIS INITIAL MINORITY INTO A MAJORITY, INCLUDING THE DEFERMENT
OF ACTION ON THE THIRD READING TO THE FALL; THE REMONSTRANCE, BRINGING
A FLOOD OF PROTESTING PETITIONS; AND THE GENERAL POVERTY OF THE TIME. 
SEE ECKENRODE, C. V, FOR AN EXCELLENT SHORT, DETAILED ACCOUNT. 

FN23  SEE JAMES, BRANT, OP. CIT. SUPRA NOTE 11. 

FN24  V MADISON, 176.  CF. NOTES 33, 37. 

FN25  V MADISON, 132. 

FN26  BRANT, 250.  THE ASSURANCE MADE FIRST TO HIS CONSTITUENTS WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR MADISON'S BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION
WHICH RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE JAMES, 154-158. 

FN27  THE AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES READ, AS
MADISON INTRODUCED IT:  "THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF NONE SHALL BE ABRIDGED ON
ACCOUNT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR WORSHIP, NOR SHALL ANY NATIONAL RELIGION
BE ESTABLISHED, NOR SHALL THE FULL AND EQUAL RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE BE IN
ANY MANNER, OR ON ANY PRETEXT, INFRINGED."  1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 434. 
IN THE PROCESS OF DEBATE THIS WAS MODIFIED TO ITS PRESENT FORM.  SEE
ESPECIALLY 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 729-731, 765; ALSO NOTE 34. 

FN28  SEE TEXT OF THE REMONSTRANCE, APPENDIX; ALSO NOTES 13, 15, 24,
25 SUPRA AND TEXT. 

MADISON'S ONE EXCEPTION CONCERNING RESTRAINT WAS FOR "PRESERVING
PUBLIC ORDER."  THUS HE DECLARED IN A PRIVATE LETTER, IX MADISON, 484,
487, WRITTEN AFTER THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED: "THE TENDENCY TO A
USURPATION ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER, OR TO A CORRUPTING COALITION OR
ALLIANCE BETWEEN THEM, WILL BE BEST GUARDED AGST.  BY AN ENTIRE
ABSTINANCE OF THE GOVT. FROM INTERFERENCE IN ANY WAY WHATEVER, BEYOND
THE NECESSITY OF PRESERVING PUBLIC ORDER, & PROTECTING EACH SECT AGST. 
TRESPASSES ON ITS LEGAL RIGHTS BY OTHERS."  CF. NOTE 9. 

FN29  THE THIRD GROUND OF REMONSTRANCE, SEE THE APPENDIX, BEARS
REPETITION FOR EMPHASIS HERE: "BECAUSE, IT IS PROPER TO TAKE ALARM AT
THE FIRST EXPERIMENT ON OUR LIBERTIES  ...  THE FREEMEN OF AMERICA DID
NOT WAIT TILL USURPED POWER HAD STRENGTHENED ITSELF BY EXERCISE, AND
ENTANGLED THE QUESTION IN PRECEDENTS.  THEY SAW ALL THE CONSEQUENCES IN
THE PRINCIPLE, AND THEY AVOIDED THE CONSEQUENCES BY DENYING THE
PRINCIPLE.  WE REVERE THIS LESSON TOO MUCH, SOON TO FORGET IT.  WHO
DOES NOT SEE THAT  ...  THE SAME AUTHORITY WHICH CAN FORCE A CITIZEN TO
CONTRIBUTE THREE PENCE ONLY OF HIS PROPERTY FOR THE SUPPORT OF ANY ONE
ESTABLISHMENT, MAY FORCE HIM TO CONFORM TO ANY OTHER ESTABLISHMENT IN
ALL CASES WHATSOEVER?"  II MADISON 183, 185-186. 

FN30  ECKENRODE, 105, IN SUMMARY OF THE REMONSTRANCE. 

FN31  "BECAUSE THE BILL IMPLIES EITHER THAT THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE IS A
COMPETENT JUDGE OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH; OR THAT HE MAY EMPLOY RELIGION AS
AN ENGINE OF CIVIL POLICY.  THE FIRST IS AN ARROGANT PRETENTION
FALSIFIED BY THE CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS OF RULERS IN ALL AGES, AND
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD:  THE SECOND AN UNHALLOWED PERVERSION OF THE MEANS
OF SALVATION."  REMONSTRANCE, APPENDIX, PAR. 5; II MADISON 183, 187. 

FN32  AS IS POINTED OUT ABOVE, NOTE 3, AND IN PART IV INFRA, COCHRAN
V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 281 U.S. 370, WAS NOT SUCH A CASE. 

FN33  SEE TEXT SUPRA AT NOTES 24, 25.  MADISON, OF COURSE, WAS BUT
ONE OF MANY HOLDING SUCH VIEWS, BUT NEVERTHELESS AGREEING TO THE COMMON
UNDERSTANDING FOR ADOPTION OF A BILL OF RIGHTS IN ORDER TO REMOVE ALL
DOUBT ENGENDERED BY THE ABSENCE OF EXPLICIT GUARANTIES IN THE ORIGINAL
CONSTITUTION. 

BY 1791 THE GREAT FIGHT OVER ESTABLISHMENTS HAD ENDED, ALTHOUGH SOME
VESTIGES REMAINED THEN AND LATER, EVEN IN VIRGINIA.  THE GLEBES, FOR
EXAMPLE, WERE NOT SOLD THERE UNTIL 1802.  CF. ECKENRODE, 147.  FIXING
AN EXACT DATE FOR "DISESTABLISHMENT" IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE, SINCE THE
PROCESS WAS PIECEMEAL.  ALTHOUGH MADISON FAILED IN HAVING THE VIRGINIA
BILL OF RIGHTS DECLARE EXPLICITLY AGAINST ESTABLISHMENT IN 1776, CR.
NOTE 14 AND TEXT SUPRA, IN 1777 THE LEVY FOR SUPPORT OF THE ANGLICAN
CLERGY WAS SUSPENDED.  IT WAS NEVER RESUMED.  ECKENRODE STATES:  "THIS
ACT, IN EFFECT, DESTROYED THE ESTABLISHMENT.  MANY DATES HAVE BEEN
GIVEN FOR ITS END, BUT IT REALLY CAME ON JANUARY 1, 1777, WHEN THE ACT
SUSPENDING THE PAYMENT OF TITHES BECAME EFFECTIVE.  THIS WAS NOT SEEN
AT THE TIME  ....  BUT IN FREEING ALMOST HALF OF THE TAXPAYERS FROM THE
BURDEN OF THE STATE RELIGION, THE STATE RELIGION WAS AT AN END.  NOBODY
COULD BE FORCED TO SUPPORT IT, AND AN ATTEMPT TO LEVY TITHES UPON
ANGLICANS ALONE WOULD BE TO RECRUIT THE RANKS OF DISSENT."  P. 53.  SEE
ALSO PP. 61, 64.  THE QUESTION OF ASSESSMENT HOWEVER WAS REVIVED "WITH
FAR MORE STRENGTH THAN EVER, IN THE SUMMER OF 1784."  ID., 64.  IT
WOULD SEEM MORE FACTUAL THEREFORE TO FIX THE TIME OF DISESTABLISHMENT
AS OF DECEMBER, 1785-JANUARY, 1786, WHEN THE ISSUE IN LARGE WAS FINALLY
SETTLED. 

FN34  AT ONE POINT THE WORDING WAS PROPOSED:  "NO RELIGION SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED BY LAW, NOR SHALL THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE BE
INFRINGED."  1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 729.  CF. NOTE 27.  REPRESENTATIVE
HUNTINGTON OF CONNECTICUT FEARED THIS MIGHT BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT
JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF PRIVATE PLEDGES.  HE STATED "THAT HE FEARED
...  THAT THE WORDS MIGHT BE TAKEN IN SUCH LATITUDE AS TO BE EXTREMELY
HURTFUL TO THE CAUSE OF RELIGION.  HE UNDERSTOOD THE AMENDMENT TO MEAN
WHAT HAD BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA; BUT OTHERS
MIGHT FIND IT CONVENIENT TO PUT ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION UPON IT.  THE
MINISTERS OF THEIR CONGREGATIONS TO THE EASTWARD WERE MAINTAINED BY THE
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THOSE WHO BELONGED TO THEIR SOCIETY; THE EXPENSE OF
BUILDING MEETING-HOUSES WAS CONTRIBUTED IN THE SAME MANNER.  THESE
THINGS WERE REGULATED BY BY-LAWS.  IF AN ACTION WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A
FEDERAL COURT ON ANY OF THESE CASES, THE PERSON WHO HAD NEGLECTED TO
PERFORM HIS ENGAGEMENTS COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO DO IT; FOR A SUPPORT
OF MINISTERS OR BUILDINGS OF PLACES OF WORSHIP MIGHT BE CONSTRUED INTO
A RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT."  1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 730. 

TO AVOID ANY SUCH POSSIBILITY, MADISON SUGGESTED INSERTING THE WORD
"NATIONAL" BEFORE "RELIGION," THEREBY NOT ONLY AGAIN DISCLAIMING INTENT
TO BRING ABOUT THE RESULT HUNTINGTON FEARED BUT ALSO SHOWING
UNMISTAKABLY THAT "ESTABLISHMENT" MEANT PUBLIC "SUPPORT" OF RELIGION IN
THE FINANCIAL SENSE.  1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 731.  SEE ALSO IX MADISON,
484-487. 

FN35  THE DECISION MOST CLOSELY TOUCHING THE QUESTION, WHERE IT WAS
SQUARELY RAISED, IS QUICK BEAR V. LEUPP, 210 U.S. 50.  THE COURT
DISTINGUISHED SHARPLY BETWEEN APPROPRIATIONS FROM PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THE
SUPPORT OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUNDS HELD IN
TRUST BY THE GOVERNMENT ESSENTIALLY AS TRUSTEE FOR PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS,
INDIAN WARDS, AS BENEFICIAL OWNERS.  THE RULING WAS THAT THE LATTER
COULD BE DISBURSED TO PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AT THE DESIGNATION OF
THOSE PATRONS FOR PAYING THE COST OF THEIR EDUCATION.  BUT IT WAS
STATED ALSO THAT SUCH A USE OF PUBLIC MONEYS WOULD VIOLATE BOTH THE
FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE SPECIFIC STATUTORY DECLARATION INVOLVED,
NAMELY, THAT "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE SETTLED POLICY OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO HEREAFTER MAKE NO APPROPRIATION WHATEVER FOR EDUCATION IN
ANY SECTARIAN SCHOOL."  210 U.S. AT 79.  CF. PONCE V. ROMAN CATHOLIC
APOSTOLIC CHURCH, 210 U.S. 296, 322.  AND SEE BRADFIELD V. ROBERTS, 175
U.S. 291, AN INSTANCE OF HIGHLY ARTIFICIAL GROUNDING TO SUPPORT A
DECISION SUSTAINING AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE CARE OF INDIGENT PATIENTS
PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WITH A PRIVATE HOSPITAL.  CF. ALSO THE
AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 9. 

FN36  SEE TEXT AT NOTE 1. 

FN37  "...  BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A
QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES." 
CONST., ART. VI, SEC. 3.  SEE ALSO THE TWO FORMS PRESCRIBED FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S OATH OR AFFIRMATION.  CONST., ART. II, SEC. 1.  CF. EX
PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333; CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277; UNITED
STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303. 

FN38  IN THE WORDS OF THE VIRGINIA STATUTE, FOLLOWING THE PORTION OF
THE PREAMBLE QUOTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS OPINION:  "...  EVEN THE
FORCING HIM TO SUPPORT THIS OR THAT TEACHER OF HIS OWN RELIGIOUS
PERSUASION, IS DEPRIVING HIM OF THE COMFORTABLE LIBERTY OF GIVING HIS
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PARTICULAR PASTOR, WHOSE MORALS HE WOULD MAKE HIS
PATTERN, AND WHOSE POWERS HE FEELS MOST PERSUASIVE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS,
AND IS WITHDRAWING FROM THE MINISTRY THOSE TEMPORARY REWARDS, WHICH
PROCEEDING FROM AN APPROBATION OF THEIR PERSONAL CONDUCT, ARE AN
ADDITIONAL FROM AN APPROBATION OF THEIR PERSONAL CONDUCT, ARE AN
ADDITIONAL OF MANKIND  ...."  CF. NOTES 29, 30, 31 AND TEXT SUPRA. 

FN39  SEE NOTE 38. 

FN40  SEE BOWER, CHURCH AND STATE IN EDUCATION (1944) 58:  "...  THE
FUNDAMENTAL DIVISION OF THE EDUCATION OF THE WHOLE SELF INTO THE
SECULAR AND THE RELIGIOUS COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUNDS OF
EITHER A SOUND EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY OR A MODERN FUNCTIONAL CONCEPT OF
THE RELATION OF RELIGION TO PERSONAL AND SOCIAL EXPERIENCE."  SEE ALSO
VERE, THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, IN ESSAYS ON CATHOLIC EDUCATION IN THE
UNITED STATES (1942) 110-111; GABLE, PUBLIC FUNDS FOR CHURCH AND
PRIVATE SCHOOLS (1937) 737-739. 

FN41  IT WOULD SEEM A STRANGE RULING THAT A "REASONABLE," THAT IS,
PRESUMABLY A SMALL, LICENSE FEE CANNOT BE PLACED UPON THE EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, YET THAT UNDER THE CORRELATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY AGAINST "AN ESTABLISHMENT" TAXES MAY BE LEVIED
AND USED TO AID AND PROMOTE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, IF ONLY THE AMOUNTS
SO USED ARE SMALL.  SEE NOTES 30-31 SUPRA AND TEXT. 

MADISON'S OBJECTION TO "THREE PENCE" CONTRIBUTIONS AND HIS STRESS
UPON "DENYING THE PRINCIPLE" WITHOUT WAITING UNTIL "USURPED POWER HAD
...  ENTANGLED THE QUESTION IN PRECEDENTS," NOTE 29, WERE REINFORCED BY
HIS FURTHER CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT BILL:  "DISTANT AS IT
MAY BE, IN ITS PRESENT FORM, FROM THE INQUISITION IT DIFFERS FROM IT
ONLY IN DEGREE.  THE ONE IS THE FIRST STEP, THE OTHER THE LAST IN THE
CAREER OF INTOLERANCE."  REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 9; II MADISON 183, 188. 

FN42  IF IT IS PART OF THE STATE'S FUNCTION TO SUPPLY TO RELIGIOUS
SCHOOLS OR THEIR PATRONS THE SMALLER ITEMS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSE,
BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE MAY SAY THEY PERFORM A PUBLIC FUNCTION, IT IS
HARD TO SEE WHY THE LARGER ONES ALSO MAY NOT BE PAID.  INDEED, IT WOULD
SEEM EVEN MORE PROPER AND NECESSARY FOR THE STATE TO DO THIS.  FOR IF
ONE CLASS OF EXPENDITURES IS JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT IT SUPPORTS
THE GENERAL CAUSE OF EDUCATION OR BENEFITS THE INDIVIDUAL, OR CAN BE
MADE TO DO SO BY LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION, SO EVEN MORE CERTAINLY WOULD
BE THE OTHER.  TO SUSTAIN PAYMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION TO SCHOOL, FOR
TEXTBOOKS, FOR OTHER ESSENTIAL MATERIALS, OR PERHAPS FOR SCHOOL
LUNCHES, AND NOT FOR WHAT MAKES ALL THESE THINGS EFFECTIVE FOR THEIR
INTENDED END, WOULD BE TO MAKE A PUBLIC FUNCTION OF THE SMALLER ITEMS
AND THEIR CUMULATIVE EFFECT, BUT TO MAKE WHOLLY PRIVATE IN CHARACTER
THE LARGER THINGS WITHOUT WHICH THE SMALLER COULD HAVE NO MEANING OR
USE. 

FN43  "WHEREAS THE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE HATH A
NATURAL TENDENCY TO CORRECT THE MORALS OF MEN, RESTRAIN THEIR VICES,
AND PRESERVE THE PEACE OF SOCIETY; WHICH CANNOT BE EFFECTED WITHOUT A
COMPETENT PROVISION FOR LEARNED TEACHERS, WHO MAY BE THEREBY ENABLED TO
DEVOTE THEIR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THE DUTY OF INSTRUCTING SUCH
CITIZENS, AS FROM THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES AND WANT OF EDUCATION, CANNOT
OTHERWISE ATTAIN SUCH KNOWLEDGE; AND IT IS JUDGED THAT SUCH PROVISION
MAY BE MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE, WITHOUT COUNTERACTING THE LIBERAL
PRINCIPLE HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND INTENDED TO BE PRESERVED BY ABOLISHING
ALL DISTINCTIONS OF PRE-EMINENCE AMONGST THE DIFFERENT SOCIETIES OF
COMMUNITIES OF CHRISTIANS; ...."  SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX; FOOTE,
SKETCHES OF VIRGINIA (1850) 340. 

FN44  "BECAUSE THE ESTABLISHMENT PROPOSED BY THE BILL IS NOT
REQUISITE FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.  TO SAY THAT IT
IS, IS A CONTRADICTION TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ITSELF; FOR EVERY PAGE
OF IT DISAVOWS A DEPENDENCE ON THE POWERS OF THIS WORLD  ....  BECAUSE
THE ESTABLISHMENT IN QUESTION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE SUPPORT OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT  ....  WHAT INFLUENCE IN FACT HAVE ECCLESIASTICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS HAD ON CIVIL SOCIETY?...  IN NO INSTANCE HAVE THEY BEEN
SEEN THE GUARDIANS OF THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE."  II MADISON 183,
187, 188. 

FN45 "BECAUSE EXPERIENCE WITNESSETH THAT ECCLESIASTICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS, INSTEAD OF MAINTAINING THE PURITY AND EFFICACY OF
RELIGION, HAVE HAD A CONTRARY OPERATION."  II MADISON 183, 187. 

FN46  "AT LEAST LET WARNING BE TAKEN AT THE FIRST FRUITS OF THE
THREATENED INNOVATION.  THE VERY APPEARANCE OF THE BILL HAS TRANSFORMED
THAT 'CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE, LOVE AND CHARITY,' WHICH OF LATE MUTUALLY
PREVAILED, INTO ANIMOSITIES AND JEALOUSIES, WHICH MAY NOT SOON BE
APPEASED."  II MADISON 183, 189. 

FN47  IN THIS CASE BRIEFS AMICI CURIAE HAVE BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF
VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING THREE RELIGIOUS SECTS, ONE LABOR
UNION, THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AND THE STATES OF ILLINOIS,
INDIANA, LOUISIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN AND NEW YORK.  ALL THESE
STATES HAVE LAWS SIMILAR TO NEW JERSEY'S AND ALL OF THEM, WITH ONE
RELIGIOUS SECT, SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NEW JERSEY'S ACTION. 
THE OTHERS OPPOSE IT.  MARYLAND AND MISSISSIPPI HAVE SUSTAINED SIMILAR
LEGISLATION.  NOTE 49 INFRA.  NO STATE WITHOUT LEGISLATION OF THIS SORT
HAS FILED AN OPPOSING BRIEF.  BUT AT LEAST SIX STATES HAVE HELD SUCH
ACTION INVALID, NAMELY, DELAWARE, OKLAHOMA, NEW YORK, SOUTH DAKOTA,
WASHINGTON AND WISCONSIN.  NOTE 49 INFRA.  THE NEW YORK RULING WAS
OVERTURNED BY AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION IN 1938. 
CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK, ART. XI, 4. 

FURTHERMORE, IN THIS CASE THE NEW JERSEY COURTS DIVIDED, THE SUPREME
COURT HOLDING THE STATUTE AND RESOLUTION INVALID, 132 N.J.L. 98, 39
A.2D 75, THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS REVERSING THAT DECISION, 133
N.J.L. 350, 44 A.2D 333.  IN BOTH COURTS, AS HERE, THE JUDGES SPLIT,
ONE OF THREE DISSENTING IN THE SUPREME COURT, THREE OF NINE IN THE
COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS.  THE DIVISION IS TYPICAL.  SEE THE CASES
CITED IN NOTE 49. 

FN48  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 49; AND SEE NOTE 54. 

FN49  SOME STATE COURTS HAVE SUSTAINED STATUTES GRANTING FREE
TRANSPORTATION OR FREE SCHOOL BOOKS TO CHILDREN ATTENDING
DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS ON THE THEORY THAT THE AID WAS A BENEFIT TO THE
CHILD RATHER THAN TO THE SCHOOL.  SEE NICHOLS V. HENRY, 301 KY. 434,
191 S.W.2D 930, WITH WHICH COMPARE SHERRARD V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION, 294 KY. 469, 171 S.W.2D 963; COCHRAN V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 168 LA. 1030, 123 SO. 664, AFF'D, 281 U.S. 370; BORDEN V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 168 LA. 1005, 123 SO. 655; BOARD OF EDUCATION V.
WHEAT, 174 MD. 314, 199 A. 628; ADAMS V. ST. MARY'S COUNTY, 180 MD.
550, 26 A.2D 377; CHANCE V. STATE TEXTBOOK R. & P. BOARD, 190 MISS. 
453, 200 SO. 706.  SEE ALSO BOWKER V. BAKER, 73 CAL. APP.2D 653, 167
P.2D 256.  OTHER COURTS HAVE HELD SUCH STATUTES UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER
STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS AID TO THE SCHOOLS.  JUDD V. BOARD OF EDUCATION,
278 N.Y. 200, 15 N.E.2D 576, BUT SEE NOTE 47 SUPRA; SMITH V. DONAHUE,
202 APP. DIV. 656, 195 N.Y.S. 715; STATE EX REL. TRAUB V. BROWN, 36
DEL. 181, 172 A. 835; GURNEY V. FERGUSON, 190 OKLA. 254, 122 P.2D 1002;
MITCHELL V. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 17 WASH.2D 61, 135 P.2D 79;
VAN STRATEN V. MILQUET, 180 WIS. 109, 192 N.W. 392.  AND CF. HLEBANJA
V. BREWE, 58 S.D. 351, 236 N.W. 296.  AND SINCE MANY STATE
CONSTITUTIONS HAVE PROVISIONS FORBIDDING THE APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES, IN THESE AND OTHER CASES THE ISSUE WHETHER
THE STATUTE WAS FOR A "PUBLIC" OR "PRIVATE" PURPOSE HAS BEEN PRESENT. 
SEE NOTE (1941) 50 YALE L.J. 917, 925. 

FN50  E.G., GURNEY V. FERGUSON, 190 OKLA. 254, 255, 122 P.2D 1002,
1003; MITCHELL V. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, 17 WASH.2D 61, 68, 135
P.2D 79, 82; SMITH V. DONAHUE, 202 APP. DIV. 656, 664, 195 N.Y.S. 715,
722; BOARD OF EDUCATION V. WHEAT, 174 MD. 314, DISSENTING OPINION AT
340, 199 A. 628 AT 639.  THIS IS TRUE WHETHER THE APPROPRIATION AND
PAYMENT ARE IN FORM TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR TO THE INSTITUTION.  IBID.
QUESTIONS OF THIS GRAVITY TURN UPON THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE
STATE'S EXPENDITURE TO ACCOMPLISH THE FORBIDDEN OBJECT, NOT UPON WHO
RECEIVES THE AMOUNT AND APPLIES IT TO THAT END OR THE FORM AND MANNER
OF THE PAYMENT. 

FN51  THE PAYMENTS HERE AVERAGED ROUGHLY $40.00 A YEAR PER CHILD. 

FN52  SEE PART V. 

FN53  SEE ALSO NOTE 46 SUPRA AND REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 3. 

FN54  THUS EACH BRIEF FILED HERE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF NEW JERSEY'S
ACTION, SEE NOTE 47, NOT ONLY RELIES STRONGLY ON COCHRAN V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 281 U.S. 370, BUT EITHER EXPLICITLY OR IN EFFECT MAINTAINS
THAT IT IS CONTROLLING IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

FN55  SEE TEXT AT NOTES 17-19 SUPRA AND AUTHORITIES CITED; ALSO
FOOTE, SKETCHES OF VIRGINIA (1850) C. XV.  MADISON'S ENTIRE THESIS, AS
REFLECTED THROUGHOUT THE REMONSTRANCE AND IN HIS OTHER WRITINGS, AS
WELL AS IN HIS OPPOSITION TO THE FINAL FORM OF THE ASSESSMENT BILL, SEE
NOTE 43, WAS ALTOGETHER INCOMPATIBLE WITH ACCEPTANCE OF GENERAL AND
"NONDISCRIMINATORY" SUPPORT.  SEE BRANT, C. XII. 

FN56  THE PROTECTIONS ARE OF A NATURE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE
APPROPRIATIONS SPECIALLY MADE FROM THE PUBLIC TREASURY AND EARMARKED,
AS IS NEW JERSEY'S HERE, PARTICULARLY FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OR
USES.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT EXCLUDE RELIGIOUS PROPERTY OR
ACTIVITIES FROM PROTECTION AGAINST DISORDER OR THE ORDINARY ACCIDENTAL
INCIDENTS OF COMMUNITY LIFE.  IT FORBIDS SUPPORT, NOT PROTECTION FROM
INTERFERENCE OR DESTRUCTION. 

IT IS A MATTER NOT FREQUENTLY RECALLED THAT PRESIDENT GRANT OPPOSED
TAX EXEMPTION OF RELIGIOUS PROPERTY AS LEADING TO A VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.  SEE PRESIDENT GRANT'S
SEVENTH ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, DECEMBER 7, 1875, IN IX MESSAGES
AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS (1897) 4288-4289.  GARFIELD, IN A LETTER
ACCEPTING THE NOMINATION FOR THE PRESIDENCY SAID:  "...  IT WOULD BE
UNJUST TO OUR PEOPLE, AND DANGEROUS TO OUR INSTITUTIONS, TO APPLY ANY
PORTION OF THE REVENUES OF THE NATION, OR OF THE STATES, TO THE SUPPORT
OF SECTARIAN SCHOOLS.  THE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH AND THE STATE IN
EVERYTHING RELATING TO TAXATION SHOULD BE ABSOLUTE."  II THE WORKS OF
JAMES ABRAM GARFIELD (ED. BY HINSDALE, 1883) 783. 

FN57  NEITHER DO WE HAVE HERE A CASE OF RATE-MAKING BY WHICH A PUBLIC
UTILITY EXTENDS REDUCED FARES TO ALL SCHOOL CHILDREN, INCLUDING PATRONS
OF RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS.  WHETHER OR NOT LEGISLATIVE COMPULSION UPON A
PRIVATE UTILITY TO EXTEND SUCH AN ADVANTAGE WOULD BE VALID, OR ITS
EXTENSION BY A MUNICIPALLY OWNED SYSTEM, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
CONSIDER.  IN THE FORMER INSTANCE, AT ANY RATE, AND GENERALLY IF NOT
ALWAYS IN THE LATTER, THE VICE OF USING THE TAXING POWER TO RAISE FUNDS
FOR THE SUPPORT OF RELIGION WOULD NOT BE PRESENT. 

FN58  IT WOULD SEEM AT LEAST A DOUBTFULLY SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR
REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION THAT SOME CHILDREN SHOULD BE EXCLUDED SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE ONLY SCHOOL FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO ATTEND, IN VIEW OF
GEOGRAPHIC OR OTHER SITUATION, MIGHT BE ONE CONDUCTED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART FOR PROFIT.  CF. NOTE 5.    FN59  SEE NOTE 7 SUPRA.  THE
RESOLUTION WAS AS FOLLOWS, ACCORDING TO THE SCHOOL BOARD'S MINUTES READ
IN PROOF:  "THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THE TRANSPORTATION
OF PUPILS OF EWING TO THE TRENTON AND PENNINGTON HIGH SCHOOLS AND
CATHOLIC SCHOOLS BY WAY OF PUBLIC CARRIER AS IN RECENT YEARS.  ON
MOTION OF MR. RALPH RYAN AND MR. M. FRENCH THE SAME WAS ADOPTED."  THE
NEW JERSEY COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE RESOLUTION WAS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY
CONFERRED BY THE STATE STATUTE IS BINDING ON US.  REINMAN V. LITTLE
ROCK, 237 U.S. 171, 176; HADACHECK V. SEBASTIAN, 239 U.S. 394, 414. 

FN60  THE POPULATION OF EWING TOWNSHIP, LOCATED NEAR THE CITY OF
TRENTON, WAS 10,146 ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OF 1940.  SIXTEENTH CENSUS
OF THE UNITED STATES, POPULATION, VOL. 1, 674. 

FN61  IN THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 530, IT WAS SAID THAT THE
PREFERRED PLACE GIVEN IN OUR SCHEME TO THE GREAT DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS
SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES THEM "A SANCTITY AND A SANCTION
NOT PERMITTING DUBIOUS INTRUSIONS."  CF. REMONSTRANCE, PAR. 3, 9.  AND
IN OTHER CASES IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE USUAL PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY WILL NOT WORK TO SAVE SUCH LEGISLATIVE EXCURSIONS IN
THIS FIELD.  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152,
NOTE 4; SEE WECHSLER, STONE AND THE CONSTITUTION (1946) 46 COL. L. REV.
764, 795 ET SEQ. 

APART FROM THE COURT'S ADMISSION THAT NEW JERSEY'S PRESENT ACTION
APPROACHES THE VERGE OF HER POWER, IT WOULD SEEM THAT A STATUTE,
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION WHICH ON ITS FACE SINGLES OUT ONE SECT ONLY BY
NAME FOR ENJOYMENT OF THE SAME ADVANTAGES AS PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR THEIR
STUDENTS, SHOULD BE HELD DISCRIMINATORY ON ITS FACE BY VIRTUE OF THAT
FACT ALONE, UNLESS IT WERE POSITIVELY SHOWN THAT NO OTHER SECTS SOUGHT
OR WERE AVAILABLE TO RECEIVE THE SAME ADVANTAGES. 

                    APPENDIX. 

                   MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE AGAINST

                        RELIGIOUS ASSESSMENTS. 

                 TO THE HONORABLE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

                                  OF

                 THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. 

           A MEMORIAL AND REMONSTRANCE. 

WE, THE SUBSCRIBERS, CITIZENS OF THE SAID COMMONWEALTH, HAVING TAKEN
INTO SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, A BILL PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE LAST SESSION
OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ENTITLED "A BILL ESTABLISHING A PROVISION FOR
TEACHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION," AND CONCEIVING THAT THE SAME, IF
FINALLY ARMED WITH THE SANCTIONS OF A LAW, WILL BE A DANGEROUS ABUSE OF
POWER, ARE BOUND AS FAITHFUL MEMBERS OF A FREE STATE, TO REMONSTRATE
AGAINST IT, AND TO DECLARE THE REASONS BY WHICH WE ARE DETERMINED.  WE
REMONSTRATE AGAINST THE SAID BILL, 

1.  BECAUSE WE HOLD IT FOR A FUNDAMENTAL AND UNDENIABLE TRUTH, "THAT
RELIGION OR THE DUTY WHICH WE OWE TO OUR CREATOR AND THE MANNER OF
DISCHARGING IT, CAN BE DIRECTED ONLY BY REASON AND CONVICTION, NOT BY
FORCE OR VIOLENCE."  THE RELIGION THEN OF EVERY MAN MUST BE LEFT TO THE
CONVICTION AND CONSCIENCE OF EVERY MAN; AND IT IS THE RIGHT OF EVERY
MAN TO EXERCISE IT AS THESE MAY DICTATE.  THIS RIGHT IS IN ITS NATURE
AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT.  IT IS UNALIENABLE; BECAUSE THE OPINIONS OF MEN,
DEPENDING ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE CONTEMPLATED BY THEIR OWN MINDS, CANNOT
FOLLOW THE DICTATES OF OTHER MEN:  IT IS UNALIENABLE ALSO; BECAUSE WHAT
IS HERE A RIGHT TOWARDS MEN, IS A DUTY TOWARDS THE CREATOR.  IT IS THE
DUTY OF EVERY MAN TO RENDER TO THE CREATOR SUCH HOMAGE, AND SUCH ONLY,
AS HE BELIEVES TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO HIM.  THIS DUTY IS PRECEDENT BOTH IN
ORDER OF TIME AND DEGREE OF OBLIGATION, TO THE CLAIMS OF CIVIL
SOCIETY.  BEFORE ANY MAN CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A MEMBER OF CIVIL
SOCIETY, HE MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A SUBJECT OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE
UNIVERSE:  AND IF A MEMBER OF CIVIL SOCIETY, WHO ENTERS INTO ANY
SUBORDINATE ASSOCIATION, MUST ALWAYS DO IT WITH A RESERVATION OF HIS
DUTY TO THE GENERAL AUTHORITY; MUCH MORE MUST EVERY MAN WHO BECOMES A
MEMBER OF ANY PARTICULAR CIVIL SOCIETY, DO IT WITH A SAVING OF HIS
ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGN.  WE MAINTAIN THEREFORE THAT IN
MATTERS OF RELIGION, NO MAN'S RIGHT IS ABRIDGED BY THE INSTITUTION OF
CIVIL SOCIETY, AND THAT RELIGION IS WHOLLY EXEMPT FROM ITS COGNIZANCE. 
TRUE IT IS, THAT NO OTHER RULE EXISTS, BY WHICH ANY QUESTION WHICH MAY
DIVIDE A SOCIETY, CAN BE ULTIMATELY DETERMINED, BUT THE WILL OF THE
MAJORITY; BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE, THAT THE MAJORITY MAY TRESPASS ON THE
RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY. 

2.  BECAUSE IF RELIGION BE EXEMPT FROM THE AUTHORITY OF THE SOCIETY
AT LARGE, STILL LESS CAN IT BE SUBJECT TO THAT OF THE LEGISLATIVE
BODY.  THE LATTER ARE BUT THE CREATURES AND VICEGERENTS OF THE FORMER. 
THEIR JURISDICTION IS BOTH DERIVATIVE AND LIMITED:  IT IS LIMITED WITH
REGARD TO THE CO-ORDINATE DEPARTMENTS, MORE NECESSARILY IS IT LIMITED
WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTITUENTS.  THE PRESERVATION OF A FREE GOVERNMENT
REQUIRES NOT MERELY, THAT THE METES AND BOUNDS WHICH SEPARATE EACH
DEPARTMENT OF POWER MAY BE INVARIABLY MAINTAINED; BUT MORE ESPECIALLY,
THAT NEITHER OF THEM BE SUFFERED TO OVERLEAP THE GREAT BARRIER WHICH
DEFENDS THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.  THE RULERS WHO ARE GUILTY OF SUCH AN
ENCROACHMENT, EXCEED THE COMMISSION FROM WHICH THEY DERIVE THEIR
AUTHORITY, AND ARE TYRANTS.  THE PEOPLE WHO SUBMIT TO IT ARE GOVERNED
BY LAWS MADE NEITHER BY THEMSELVES, NOR BY AN AUTHORITY DERIVED FROM
THEM, AND ARE SLAVES. 

3.  BECAUSE, IT IS PROPER TO TAKE ALARM AT THE FIRST EXPERIMENT ON
OUR LIBERTIES.  WE HOLD THIS PRUDENT JEALOUSY TO BE THE FIRST DUTY OF
CITIZENS, AND ONE OF (THE) NOBLEST CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LATE
REVOLUTION.  THE FREEMEN OF AMERICA DID NOT WAIT TILL USURPED POWER HAD
STRENGTHENED ITSELF BY EXERCISE, AND ENTANGLED THE QUESTION IN
PRECEDENTS.  THEY SAW ALL THE CONSEQUENCES IN THE PRINCIPLE, AND THEY
AVOIDED THE CONSEQUENCES BY DENYING THE PRINCIPLE.  WE REVERE THIS
LESSON TOO MUCH, SOON TO FORGET IT.  WHO DOES NOT SEE THAT THE SAME
AUTHORITY WHICH CAN ESTABLISH CHRISTIANITY, IN EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER
RELIGIONS, MAY ESTABLISH WITH THE SAME EASE ANY PARTICULAR SECT OF
CHRISTIANS, IN EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER SECTS?  THAT THE SAME AUTHORITY
WHICH CAN FORCE A CITIZEN TO CONTRIBUTE THREE PENCE ONLY OF HIS
PROPERTY FOR THE SUPPORT OF ANY ONE ESTABLISHMENT, MAY FORCE HIM TO
CONFORM TO ANY OTHER ESTABLISHMENT IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER? 

4.  BECAUSE, THE BILL VIOLATES THAT EQUALITY WHICH OUGHT TO BE THE
BASIS OF EVERY LAW, AND WHICH IS MORE INDISPENSIBLE, IN PROPORTION AS
THE VALIDITY OR EXPEDIENCY OF ANY LAW IS MORE LIABLE TO BE IMPEACHED. 
IF "ALL MEN ARE BY NATURE EQUALLY FREE AND INDEPENDENT," ALL MEN ARE TO
BE CONSIDERED AS ENTERING INTO SOCIETY ON EQUAL CONDITIONS; AS
RELINQUISHING NO MORE, AND THEREFORE RETAINING NO LESS, ONE THAN
ANOTHER, OF THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS.  ABOVE ALL ARE THEY TO BE CONSIDERED
AS RETAINING AN "EQUAL TITLE TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION ACCORDING
TO THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE".  WHILST WE ASSERT FOR OURSELVES A
FREEDOM TO EMBRACE, TO PROFESS AND TO OBSERVE THE RELIGION WHICH WE
BELIEVE TO BE OF DIVINE ORIGIN, WE CANNOT DENY AN EQUAL FREEDOM TO
THOSE WHOSE MINDS HAVE NOT YET YIELDED TO THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAS
CONVINCED US.  IF THIS FREEDOM BE ABUSED, IT IS AN OFFENCE AGAINST GOD,
NOT AGAINST MAN:  TO GOD, THEREFORE, NOT TO MEN, MUST AN ACCOUNT OF IT
BE RENDERED.  AS THE BILL VIOLATES EQUALITY BY SUBJECTING SOME TO
PECULIAR BURDENS; SO IT VIOLATES THE SAME PRINCIPLE, BY GRANTING TO
OTHERS PECULIAR EXEMPTIONS.  ARE THE QUAKERS AND MENONISTS THE ONLY
UNWARANTABLE?  CAN THEIR PIETY ALONE BE INTRUSTED WITH THE CARE OF
PUBLIC WORSHIP?  OUGHT THEIR RELIGIONS TO BE ENDOWED ABOVE ALL OTHERS,
WITH EXTRAORDINARY PRIVILEGES, BY WHICH PROSELYTES MAY BE ENTICED FROM
ALL OTHERS?  WE THINK TOO FAVORABLY OF THE JUSTICE AND GOOD SENSE OF
THESE DENOMINATIONS, TO BELIEVE THAT THEY EITHER COVET PREEMINENCIES
OVER THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS, OR THAT THEY WILL BE SEDUCED BY THEM, FROM
THE COMMON OPPOSITION TO THE MEASURE. 

5.  BECAUSE THE BILL IMPLIES EITHER THAT THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE IS A
COMPETENT JUDGE OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH; OR THAT HE MAY EMPLOY RELIGION AS
AN ENGINE OF CIVIL POLICY.  THE FIRST IS AN ARROGANT PRETENSION
FALSIFIED BY THE CONTRADICTORY OPINIONS OF RULERS IN ALL AGES, AND
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD:  THE SECOND AN UNHALLOWED PERVERSION OF THE MEANS
OF SALVATION. 

6.  BECAUSE THE ESTABLISHMENT PROPOSED BY THE BILL IS NOT REQUISITE
FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.  TO SAY THAT IT IS, IS A
CONTRADICTION TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ITSELF; FOR EVERY PAGE OF IT
DISAVOWS A DEPENDENCE ON THE POWERS OF THIS WORLD:  IT IS A
CONTRADICTION TO FACT; FOR IT IS KNOWN THAT THIS RELIGION BOTH EXISTED
AND FLOURISHED, NOT ONLY WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF HUMAN LAWS, BUT IN
SPITE OF EVERY OPPOSITION FROM THEM; AND NOT ONLY DURING THE PERIOD OF
MIRACULOUS AID, BUT LONG AFTER IT HAD BEEN LEFT TO ITS OWN EVIDENCE,
AND THE ORDINARY CARE OF PROVIDENCE:  NAY, IT IS A CONTRADICTION IN
TERMS; FOR A RELIGION NOT INVENTED BY HUMAN POLICY, MUST HAVE
PREEXISTED AND BEEN SUPPORTED, BEFORE IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY HUMAN
POLICY.  IT IS MOREOVER TO WEAKEN IN THOSE WHO PROFESS THIS RELIGION A
PIOUS CONFIDENCE IN ITS INNATE EXCELLENCE, AND THE PATRONAGE OF ITS
AUTHOR; AND TO FOSTER IN THOSE WHO STILL REJECT IT, A SUSPICION THAT
ITS FRIENDS ARE TOO CONSCIOUS OF ITS FALLACIES, TO TRUST IT TO ITS OWN
MERITS. 

7.  BECAUSE EXPERIENCE WITNESSETH THAT ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS,
INSTEAD OF MAINTAINING THE PURITY AND EFFICACY OF RELIGION, HAVE HAD A
CONTRARY OPERATION.  DURING ALMOST FIFTEEN CENTURIES, HAS THE LEGAL
ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTIANITY BEEN ON TRIAL.  WHAT HAVE BEEN ITS
FRUITS?  MORE OR LESS IN ALL PLACES, PRIDE AND INDOLENCE IN THE CLERGY;
IGNORANCE AND SERVILITY IN THE LAITY; IN BOTH, SUPERSTITION, BIGOTRY
AND PERSECUTION.  ENQUIRE OF THE TEACHERS OF CHRISTIANITY FOR THE AGES
IN WHICH IT APPEARED IN ITS GREATEST LUSTRE; THOSE OF EVERY SECT, POINT
TO THE AGES PRIOR TO ITS INCORPORATION WITH CIVIL POLICY.  PROPOSE A
RESTORATION OF THIS PRIMITIVE STATE IN WHICH ITS TEACHERS DEPENDED ON
THE VOLUNTARY REWARDS OF THEIR FLOCKS; MANY OF THEM PREDICT ITS
DOWNFALL.  ON WHICH SIDE OUGHT THEIR TESTIMONY TO HAVE GREATEST WEIGHT,
WHEN FOR OR WHEN AGAINST THEIR INTEREST? 

8.  BECAUSE THE ESTABLISHMENT IN QUESTION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE
SUPPORT OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.  IF IT BE URGED AS NECESSARY FOR THE
SUPPORT OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT ONLY AS IT IS A MEANS OF SUPPORTING
RELIGION, AND IT BE NOT NECESSARY FOR THE LATTER PURPOSE, IT CANNOT BE
NECESSARY FOR THE FORMER.  IF RELIGION BE NOT WITHIN (THE) COGNIZANCE
OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT, HOW CAN ITS LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT BE SAID TO BE
NECESSARY TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT?  WHAT INFLUENCE IN FACT HAVE
ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS HAD ON CIVIL SOCIETY?  IN SOME INSTANCES
THEY HAVE BEEN SEEN TO ERECT A SPIRITUAL TYRANNY ON THE RUINS OF CIVIL
AUTHORITY; IN MANY INSTANCES THEY HAVE BEEN SEEN UPHOLDING THE THRONES
OF POLITICAL TYRANNY; IN NO INSTANCE HAVE THEY BEEN SEEN THE GUARDIANS
OF THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE.  RULERS WHO WISHED TO SUBVERT THE
PUBLIC LIBERTY, MAY HAVE FOUND AN ESTABLISHED CLERGY CONVENIENT
AUXILIARIES.  A JUST GOVERNMENT, INSTITUTED TO SECURE & PERPETUATE IT,
NEEDS THEM NOT.  SUCH A GOVERNMENT WILL BE BEST SUPPORTED BY PROTECTING
EVERY CITIZEN IN THE ENJOYMENT OF HIS RELIGION WITH THE SAME EQUAL HAND
WHICH PROTECTS HIS PERSON AND HIS PROPERTY; BY NEITHER INVADING THE
EQUAL RIGHTS OF ANY SECT, NOR SUFFERING ANY SECT TO INVADE THOSE OF
ANOTHER. 

9.  BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THAT
GENEROUS POLICY, WHICH, OFFERING AN ASYLUM TO THE PERSECUTED AND
OPPRESSED OF EVERY NATION AND RELIGION, PROMISED A LUSTRE TO OUR
COUNTRY, AND AN ACCESSION TO THE NUMBER OF ITS CITIZENS.  WHAT A
MELANCHOLY MARK IS THE BILL OF SUDDEN DEGENERACY?  INSTEAD OF HOLDING
FORTH AN ASYLUM TO THE PERSECUTED, IT IS ITSELF A SIGNAL OF
PERSECUTION.  IT DEGRADES FROM THE EQUAL RANK OF CITIZENS ALL THOSE
WHOSE OPINIONS IN RELIGION DO NOT BEND TO THOSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY.  DISTANT AS IT MAY BE, IN ITS PRESENT FORM, FROM THE
INQUISITION IT DIFFERS FROM IT ONLY IN DEGREE.  THE ONE IS THE FIRST
STEP, THE OTHER THE LAST IN THE CAREER OF INTOLERANCE.  THE MAGNANIMOUS
SUFFERER UNDER THIS CRUEL SCOURGE IN FOREIGN REGIONS, MUST VIEW THE
BILL AS A BEACON ON OUR COAST, WARNING HIM TO SEEK SOME OTHER HAVEN,
WHERE LIBERTY AND PHILANTHROPHY IN THEIR DUE EXTENT MAY OFFER A MORE
CERTAIN REPOSE FROM HIS TROUBLES. 

10.  BECAUSE, IT WILL HAVE A LIKE TENDENCY TO BANISH OUR CITIZENS. 
THE ALLUREMENTS PRESENTED BY OTHER SITUATIONS ARE EVERY DAY THINNING
THEIR NUMBER.  TO SUPERADD A FRESH MOTIVE TO EMIGRATION, BY REVOKING
THE LIBERTY WHICH THEY NOW ENJOY, WOULD BE THE SAME SPECIES OF FOLLY
WHICH HAS DISHONOURED AND DEPOPULATED FLOURISHING KINGDOMS. 

11.  BECAUSE, IT WILL DESTROY THAT MODERATION AND HARMONY WHICH THE
FORBEARANCE OF OUR LAWS TO INTERMEDDLE WITH RELIGION, HAS PRODUCED
AMONGST ITS SEVERAL SECTS.  TORRENTS OF BLOOD HAVE BEEN SPILT IN THE
OLD WORLD, BY VAIN ATTEMPTS OF THE SECULAR ARM TO EXTINGUISH RELIGIOUS
DISCORD, BY PROSCRIBING ALL DIFFERENCE IN RELIGIOUS OPINIONS.  TIME HAS
AT LENGTH REVEALED THE TRUE REMEDY.  EVERY RELAXATION OF NARROW AND
RIGOROUS POLICY, WHEREVER IT HAS BEEN TRIED, HAS BEEN FOUND TO ASSUAGE
THE DISEASE.  THE AMERICAN THEATRE HAS EXHIBITED PROOFS, THAT EQUAL AND
COMPLEAT LIBERTY, IF IT DOES NOT WHOLLY ERADICATE IT, SUFFICIENTLY
DESTROYS ITS MALIGNANT INFLUENCE ON THE HEALTH AND PROSPERITY OF THE
STATE.  IF WITH THE SALUTARY EFFECTS OF THIS SYSTEM UNDER OUR OWN EYES,
WE BEGIN TO CONTRACT THE BONDS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, WE KNOW NO NAME
THAT WILL TOO SEVERELY REPROACH OUR FOLLY.  AT LEAST LET WARNING BE
TAKEN AT THE FIRST FRUITS OF THE THREATENED INNOVATION.  THE VERY
APPEARANCE OF THE BILL HAS TRANSFORMED THAT "CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE,
LOVE AND CHARITY," WHICH OF LATE MUTUALLY PREVAILED, INTO ANIMOSITIES
AND JEALOUSIES, WHICH MAY NOT SOON BE APPEASED.  WHAT MISCHIEFS MAY NOT
BE DREADED SHOULD THIS ENEMY TO THE PUBLIC QUIET BE ARMED WITH THE
FORCE OF A LAW?    12.  BECAUSE, THE POLICY OF THE BILL IS ADVERSE TO
THE DIFFUSION OF THE LIGHT OF CHRISTIANITY.  THE FIRST WISH OF THOSE
WHO ENJOY THIS PRECIOUS GIFT, OUGHT TO BE THAT IT MAY BE IMPARTED TO
THE WHOLE RACE OF MANKIND.  COMPARE THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO HAVE AS YET
RECEIVED IT WITH THE NUMBER STILL REMAINING UNDER THE DOMINION OF FALSE
RELIGIONS; AND HOW SMALL IS THE FORMER.  DOES THE POLICY OF THE BILL
TEND TO LESSEN THE DISPROPORTION?  NO; IT AT ONCE DISCOURAGES THOSE WHO
ARE STRANGERS TO THE LIGHT OF (REVELATION) FROM COMING INTO THE REGION
OF IT; AND COUNTENANCES, BY EXAMPLE THE NATIONS WHO CONTINUE IN
DARKNESS, IN SHUTTING OUT THOSE WHO MIGHT CONVEY IT TO THEM.  INSTEAD
OF LEVELLING AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, EVERY OBSTACLE TO THE VICTORIOUS
PROGRESS OF TRUTH, THE BILL WITH AN IGNOBLE AND UNCHRISTIAN TIMIDITY
WOULD CIRCUMSCRIBE IT, WITH A WALL OF DEFENCE, AGAINST THE
ENCROACHMENTS OF ERROR. 

13.  BECAUSE ATTEMPTS TO ENFORCE BY LEGAL SANCTIONS, ACTS OBNOXIOUS
TO SO GREAT A PROPORTION OF CITIZENS, TEND TO ENERVATE THE LAWS IN
GENERAL, AND TO SLACKEN THE BANDS OF SOCIETY.  IF IT BE DIFFICULT TO
EXECUTE ANY LAW WHICH IS NOT GENERALLY DEEMED NECESSARY OR SALUTARY,
WHAT MUST BE THE CASE WHERE IT IS DEEMED INVALID AND DANGEROUS?  AND
WHAT MAY BE THE EFFECT OF SO STRIKING AN EXAMPLE OF IMPOTENCY IN THE
GOVERNMENT, ON ITS GENERAL AUTHORITY. 

14.  BECAUSE A MEASURE OF SUCH SINGULAR MAGNITUDE AND DELICACY OUGHT
NOT TO BE IMPOSED, WITHOUT THE CLEAREST EVIDENCE THAT IT IS CALLED FOR
BY A MAJORITY OF CITIZENS:  AND NO SATISFACTORY METHOD IS YET PROPOSED
BY WHICH THE VOICE OF THE MAJORITY IN THIS CASE MAY BE DETERMINED, OR
ITS INFLUENCE SECURED.  "THE PEOPLE OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTIES ARE
INDEED REQUESTED TO SIGNIFY THEIR OPINION RESPECTING THE ADOPTION OF
THE BILL TO THE NEXT SESSION OF ASSEMBLY."  BUT THE REPRESENTATION MUST
BE MADE EQUAL, BEFORE THE VOICE EITHER OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OR OF THE
COUNTIES, WILL BE THAT OF THE PEOPLE.  OUR HOPE IS THAT NEITHER OF THE
FORMER WILL, AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, ESPOUSE THE DANGEROUS PRINCIPLE
OF THE BILL.  SHOULD THE EVENT DISAPPOINT US, IT WILL STILL LEAVE US IN
FULL CONFIDENCE, THAT A FAIR APPEAL TO THE LATTER WILL REVERSE THE
SENTENCE AGAINST OUR LIBERTIES. 

15.  BECAUSE, FINALLY, "THE EQUAL RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO THE FREE
EXERCISE OF HIS RELIGION ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE" IS
HELD BY THE SAME TENURE WITH ALL OUR OTHER RIGHTS.  IF WE RECUR TO ITS
ORIGIN, IT IS EQUALLY THE GIFT OF NATURE; IF WE WEIGH ITS IMPORTANCE,
IT CANNOT BE LESS DEAR TO US; IF WE CONSULT THE DECLARATION OF THOSE
RIGHTS WHICH PERTAIN TO THE GOOD PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA, AS THE "BASIS AND
FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT," IT IS ENUMERATED WITH EQUAL SOLEMNITY, OR
RATHER STUDIED EMPHASIS.  EITHER THEN, WE MUST SAY, THAT THE WILL OF
THE LEGISLATURE IS THE ONLY MEASURE OF THEIR AUTHORITY; AND THAT IN THE
PLENITUDE OF THIS AUTHORITY, THEY MAY SWEEP AWAY ALL OUR FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS; OR, THAT THEY ARE BOUND TO LEAVE THIS PARTICULAR RIGHT
UNTOUCHED AND SACRED:  EITHER WE MUST SAY, THAT THEY MAY CONTROUL THE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, MAY ABOLISH THE TRIAL BY JURY, MAY SWALLOW UP THE
EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIARY POWERS OF THE STATE; NAY THAT THEY MAY DESPOIL
US OF OUR VERY RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE, AND ERECT THEMSELVES INTO AN
INDEPENDENT AND HEREDITARY ASSEMBLY:  OR WE MUST SAY, THAT THEY HAVE NO
AUTHORITY TO ENACT INTO LAW THE BILL UNDER CONSIDERATION.  WE THE
SUBSCRIBERS SAY, THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THIS COMMONWEALTH HAVE NO
SUCH AUTHORITY:  AND THAT NO EFFORT MAY BE OMITTED ON OUR PART AGAINST
SO DANGEROUS AN USURPATION, WE OPPOSE TO IT, THIS REMONSTRANCE;
EARNESTLY PRAYING, AS WE ARE IN DUTY BOUND, THAT THE SUPREME LAWGIVER
OF THE UNIVERSE, BY ILLUMINATING THOSE TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED, MAY ON
THE ONE HAND, TURN THEIR COUNCILS FROM EVERY ACT WHICH WOULD AFFRONT
HIS HOLY PREROGATIVE, OR VIOLATE THE TRUST COMMITTED TO THEM:  AND ON
THE OTHER, GUIDE THEM INTO EVERY MEASURE WHICH MAY BE WORTHY OF HIS
(BLESSING, MAY REDOUND TO THEIR OWN PRAISE, AND MAY ESTABLISH MORE
FIRMLY THE LIBERTIES, THE PROSPERITY, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH. 

                                      II MADISON, 183-191. 

                        SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX. 

            A BILL ESTABLISHING A PROVISION FOR TEACHERS OF

                       THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 

WHEREAS THE GENERAL DIFFUSION OF CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE HATH A NATURAL
TENDENCY TO CORRECT THE MORALS OF MEN, RESTRAIN THEIR VICES, AND
PRESERVE THE PEACE OF SOCIETY; WHICH CANNOT BE EFFECTED WITHOUT A
COMPETENT PROVISION FOR LEARNED TEACHERS, WHO MAY BE THEREBY ENABLED TO
DEVOTE THEIR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THE DUTY OF INSTRUCTING SUCH
CITIZENS, AS FROM THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES AND WANT OF EDUCATION, CANNOT
OTHERWISE ATTAIN SUCH KNOWLEDGE; AND IT IS JUDGED THAT SUCH PROVISION
MAY BE MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE, WITHOUT COUNTERACTING THE LIBERAL
PRINCIPLE HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND INTENDED TO BE PRESERVED BY ABOLISHING
ALL DISTINCTIONS OF PRE-EMINENCE AMONGST THE DIFFERENT SOCIETIES OR
COMMUNITIES OF CHRISTIANS; 

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THAT FOR THE SUPPORT
OF CHRISTIAN TEACHERS, PER CENTUM ON THE AMOUNT, OR    IN THE POUND ON
THE SUM PAYABLE FOR TAX ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN THIS COMMONWEALTH, IS
HEREBY ASSESSED, AND SHALL BE PAID BY EVERY PERSON CHARGEABLE WITH THE
SAID TAX AT THE TIME THE SAME SHALL BECOME DUE; AND THE SHERIFFS OF THE
SEVERAL COUNTIES SHALL HAVE POWER TO LEVY AND COLLECT THE SAME IN THE
SAME MANNER AND UNDER THE LIKE RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS, AS ARE OR
MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS FOR RAISING THE REVENUES OF THIS STATE. 

AND BE IT ENACTED, THAT FOR EVERY SUM SO PAID, THE SHERIFF OR
COLLECTOR SHALL GIVE A RECEIPT, EXPRESSING THEREIN TO WHAT SOCIETY OF
CHRISTIANS THE PERSON FROM WHOM HE MAY RECEIVE THE SAME SHALL DIRECT
THE MONEY TO BE PAID, KEEPING A DISTINCT ACCOUNT THEREOF IN HIS BOOKS. 
THE SHERIFF OF EVERY COUNTY, SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE    DAY OF    IN
EVERY YEAR, RETURN TO THE COURT, UPON OATH, TWO ALPHABETICAL LISTS OF
THE PAYMENTS TO HIM MADE, DISTINGUISHING IN COLUMNS OPPOSITE TO THE
NAMES OF THE PERSONS WHO SHALL HAVE PAID THE SAME, THE SOCIETY TO WHICH
THE MONEY SO PAID WAS BY THEM APPROPRIATED; AND ONE COLUMN FOR THE
NAMES WHERE NO APPROPRIATION SHALL BE MADE.  ONE OF WHICH LISTS, AFTER
BEING RECORDED IN A BOOK TO BE KEPT FOR THAT PURPOSE, SHALL BE FILED BY
THE CLERK IN HIS OFFICE; THE OTHER SHALL BY THE SHERIFF BE FIXED UP IN
THE COURT-HOUSE, THERE TO REMAIN FOR THE INSPECTION OF ALL CONCERNED. 
AND THE SHERIFF, AFTER DEDUCTING FIVE PER CENTUM FOR THE COLLECTION,
SHALL FORTHWITH PAY TO SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS AS SHALL BE APPOINTED TO
RECEIVE THE SAME BY THE VESTRY, ELDERS, OR DIRECTORS, HOWEVER
DENOMINATED OF EACH SUCH SOCIETY, THE SUM SO STATED TO BE DUE TO THAT
SOCIETY; OR IN DEFAULT THEREOF, UPON THE MOTION OF SUCH PERSON OR
PERSONS TO THE NEXT OR ANY SUCCEEDING COURT, EXECUTION SHALL BE AWARDED
FOR THE SAME AGAINST THE SHERIFF AND HIS SECURITY, HIS AND THEIR
EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS; PROVIDED THAT TEN DAYS PREVIOUS NOTICE BE
GIVEN OF SUCH MOTION.  AND UPON EVERY SUCH EXECUTION, THE OFFICER
SERVING THE SAME SHALL PROCEED TO IMMEDIATE SALE OF THE ESTATE TAKEN,
AND SHALL NOT ACCEPT OF SECURITY FOR PAYMENT AT THE END OF THREE
MONTHS, NOR TO HAVE THE GOODS FORTHCOMING AT THE DAY OF SALE; FOR HIS
BETTER DIRECTION WHEREIN, THE CLERK SHALL ENDORSE UPON EVERY SUCH
EXECUTION THAT NO SECURITY OF ANY KIND SHALL BE TAKEN. 

AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, THAT THE MONEY TO BE RAISED BY VIRTUE OF
THIS ACT, SHALL BE BY THE VESTRIES, ELDERS, OR DIRECTORS OF EACH
RELIGIOUS SOCIETY, APPROPRIATED TO A PROVISION FOR A MINISTER OR
TEACHER OF THE GOSPEL OF THEIR DENOMINATION, OR THE PROVIDING PLACES OF
DIVINE WORSHIP, AND TO NONE OTHER USE WHATSOEVER; EXCEPT IN THE
DENOMINATIONS OF QUAKERS AND MENONISTS, WHO MAY RECEIVE WHAT IS
COLLECTED FROM THEIR MEMBERS, AND PLACE IT IN THEIR GENERAL FUND, TO BE
DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER WHICH THEY SHALL THINK BEST CALCULATED TO
PROMOTE THEIR PARTICULAR MODE OF WORSHIP. 

AND BE IT ENACTED, THAT ALL SUMS WHICH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE
SHERIFF OR COLLECTOR MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATED BY THE PERSON PAYING THE
SAME, SHALL BE ACCOUNTED FOR WITH THE COURT IN MANNER AS BY THIS ACT IS
DIRECTED; AND AFTER DEDUCTING FOR HIS COLLECTION, THE SHERIFF SHALL PAY
THE AMOUNT THEREOF (UPON ACCOUNT CERTIFIED BY THE COURT TO THE AUDITORS
OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, AND BY THEM TO THE TREASURER) INTO THE PUBLIC
TREASURY, TO BE DISPOSED OF UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY, FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF SEMINARIES OF LEARNING WITHIN THE
COUNTIES WHENCE SUCH SUMS SHALL ARISE, AND TO NO OTHER USE OR PURPOSE
WHATSOEVER. 

THIS ACT SHALL COMMENCE, AND BE IN FORCE, FROM AND AFTER THE    DAY
OF    IN THE YEAR 

A COPY FROM THE ENGROSSED BILL. 

                                   JOHN BECKLEY, C.H.D. 

WASHINGTON MSS.  (PAPERS OF GEORGE WASHINGTON, VOL. 231); LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS* . 

*THIS COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT BILL IS FROM ONE OF THE HANDBILLS WHICH
ON DECEMBER 24, 1784, WHEN THE THIRD READING OF THE BILL WAS POSTPONED,
WERE ORDERED DISTRIBUTED TO THE VIRGINIA COUNTIES BY THE HOUSE OF
DELEGATES.  SEE JOURNAL OF THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES, DECEMBER
24, 1784; ECKENRODE, 102-103.  THE BILL IS THEREFORE IN ITS FINAL FORM,
FOR IT NEVER AGAIN REACHED THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.  ECKENRODE, 113. 
..END :






















UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, 330 U.S. 75 


NO. 20.  ARGUED DECEMBER 3, 1945.  REARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1946.  - DECIDED
FEBRUARY 10, 1947.  - 56 F.SUPP.  621, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 752, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 380A, A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS TAKEN FROM A
JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENYING AN INJUNCTION IN A
CASE INVOLVING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A FEDERAL STATUTE.  THE CASE
WAS NOT DOCKETED IN THIS COURT UNTIL AFTER 60 DAYS FROM THE TIME THE
APPEAL WAS ALLOWED.  THE STEPS PRESCRIBED BY RULE 11 OF THIS COURT FOR
OBTAINING A DISMISSAL WERE NOT TAKEN BY THE APPELLEES.  HELD: THIS
COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL.  PP. 84-86. 

(A)  THE PROVISION OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A REQUIRING AN APPEAL
THEREUNDER TO BE DOCKETED IN THIS COURT WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE TIME
THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED WAS NOT INTENDED TO VARY RULE 11 OF THIS COURT
AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO HEAR
THIS APPEAL.  PP. 85-86. 

(B)  RULE 47 OF THIS COURT REQUIRES THE SAME PRACTICE FOR APPEALS
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A THAT RULE 11 DOES FOR OTHER APPEALS.  P. 86. 

2.  CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SUED FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION TO PROHIBIT THEM FROM ENFORCING AGAINST SUCH
EMPLOYEES SEC. 9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT, 18 U.S.C. SUPP. V SEC. 61H, WHICH
FORBIDS SUCH EMPLOYEES FROM TAKING "ANY ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL
MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS," AND ALSO FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS SECTION.  THEY DID NOT
ALLEGE THAT THEY HAD VIOLATED THE ACT OR THAT THEY ACTUALLY WERE
THREATENED WITH ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION, BUT ONLY THAT THEY DESIRE TO
ENGAGE IN ACTS OF POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
(SPECIFYING THE NATURE OF THE ACTIONS WHICH THEY WISH TO TAKE) AND ARE
PREVENTED FROM DOING SO BY FEAR OF DISMISSAL FROM FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT. 
HELD:  THEIR SUIT DOES NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY. 
PP. 86-91. 

3.  ANOTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BROUGHT A SIMILAR SUIT, ALLEGING THAT HE ACTUALLY HAD
COMMITTED SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAD
CHARGED HIM WITH VIOLATIONS AND HAD ISSUED A PROPOSED ORDER FOR HIS
REMOVAL, SUBJECT TO HIS RIGHT TO REPLY TO THE CHARGES AND TO PRESENT
FURTHER EVIDENCE IN REFUTATION.  HELD:  HIS SUIT PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE
CASE OR CONTROVERSY.  PP. 91-94. 

(A)  SINCE THE EMPLOYEE ADMITS THAT HE VIOLATED THE ACT AND THAT
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE IS THEREFORE MANDATORY UNDER THE ACT, THERE IS NO
QUESTION AS TO EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  P. 93. 

(B)  THERE BEING NO ADMINISTRATIVE OR STATUTORY REVIEW FOR THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER AND NO PRIOR PROCEEDING PENDING IN THE COURTS, THERE
IS NO REASON WHY A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION DOES NOT LIE, EVEN
THOUGH CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED.  P. 93. 

4.  A PERSON EMPLOYED AS A ROLLER IN A UNITED STATES MINT ACTED
OUTSIDE OF WORKING HOURS AS A WARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN OF A
POLITICAL PARTY AND WAS POLITICALLY ACTIVE ON ELECTION DAY AS A WORKER
AT THE POLLS AND AS A PAYMASTER FOR THE SERVICES OF OTHER WORKERS.  THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FOUND THAT HE HAD TAKEN AN "ACTIVE PART IN
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS" IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT, 18 U.S.C. SUPP. V SEC. 61H, AND RULE 1 OF THE
COMMISSION AND ISSUED AN ORDER FOR HIS REMOVAL FROM FEDERAL
EMPLOYMENT.  HELD:  SUCH A BREACH OF THE HATCH ACT AND RULE 1 OF THE
COMMISSION CAN BE MADE THE BASIS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION WITHOUT
VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 94-104. 

(A)  CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE, WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS,
THE POLITICAL CONDUCT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE
EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE.  EX PARTE CURTIS, 106
U.S. 371; UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH, 280 U.S. 396.  PP. 96-103. 

(B)  THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST, FIFTH,
NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTES; AND THIS COURT MUST
BALANCE THE EXTENT OF THE GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM AGAINST A CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENT TO PROTECT A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AGAINST THE SUPPOSED EVIL OF
POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP BY EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT.  PP. 95-96. 

(C)  THE HATCH ACT PERMITS FULL PARTICIPATION BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN
POLITICAL DECISIONS AT THE BALLOT BOX AND FORBIDS ONLY THE PARTISAN
ACTIVITY DEEMED OFFENSIVE TO EFFICIENCY.  P. 99. 

(D)  IT DOES NOT RESTRICT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EXPRESSIONS ON PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, PERSONALITIES AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT AN OBJECTIVE
OF PARTY ACTION, SO LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE DOES NOT DIRECT HIS
ACTIVITIES TOWARD PARTY SUCCESS.  P. 100. 

(E)  IF POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IS HARMFUL TO THE
SERVICE, THE EMPLOYEES OR PEOPLE DEALING WITH THEM, IT IS HARDLY LESS
SO BECAUSE IT TAKES PLACE AFTER HOURS.  P. 95. 

(F)  THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT APPLIES WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT, WHETHER INDUSTRIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE.  P. 102. 

(G)  WHATEVER DIFFERENCES THERE MAY BE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE
EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN ITS EMPLOY ARE
DIFFERENCES IN DETAIL FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF CONGRESS, SO FAR AS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER HERE INVOLVED IS CONCERNED.  P. 102. 

(H)  THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SHALL BE REGULATED LIES PRIMARILY WITH CONGRESS;
AND THE COURTS WILL INTERFERE ONLY WHEN SUCH REGULATION PASSES BEYOND
THE GENERALLY EXISTING CONCEPTION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER.  P. 102. 

5.  ACTING AS WARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN OF A POLITICAL PARTY AND AS
A WORKER AT THE POLLS IS WITHIN THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 9 OF THE HATCH
ACT AND THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.  P. 103. 

UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS OF AMERICA (C.I.O.)  ET AL. V. MITCHELL ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND A UNION OF SUCH EMPLOYEES SUED TO ENJOIN THE MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION FROM ENFORCING THE PROVISION OF SEC. 9(A) OF THE
HATCH ACT, 18 U.S.C. SUPP. V SEC. 61H, WHICH FORBIDS SUCH EMPLOYEES TO
TAKE "ANY ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS" AND FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT HOLDING THE ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT.  56 F.SUPP. 
621.  A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS TAKEN UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ACT
OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A.  AFFIRMED, P.
104. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE HATCH ACT* , ENACTED IN 1940, DECLARES UNLAWFUL CERTAIN SPECIFIED
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  FN1  SECTION 9 FORBIDS
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, WITH EXCEPTIONS, FROM TAKING "ANY ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL
MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS."  FN2  SECTION 15 DECLARES THAT
THE ACTIVITIES THERETOFORE DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION TO BE PROHIBITED TO EMPLOYEES IN THE CLASSIFIED
CIVIL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES SHALL BE
DEEMED TO BE PROHIBITED TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE HATCH ACT. 
FN3  THESE SECTIONS OF THE ACT COVER ALL FEDERAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
WHETHER IN THE CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE OR NOT AND A PENALTY OF
DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT IS IMPOSED FOR VIOLATION.  THERE IS NO
DESIGNATION OF A SINGLE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT. 

*ANOTHER CONTROVERSY UNDER THE SAME ACT IS DECIDED TODAY.  OKLAHOMA
V. UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, POST, P. 127. 

FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE THE HATCH ACT THE CONGRESS HAD AUTHORIZED THE
EXCLUSION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE COMPETITIVE CLASSIFIED SERVICE
FROM ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS.  FN4  IN JUNE, 1938, THE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR
EXCLUSION HAD BEEN MADE MORE EFFECTIVE BY A CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
DISCIPLINARY RULE.  FN5  THAT POWER TO DISCIPLINE MEMBERS OF THE
COMPETITIVE CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE CONTINUES IN THE COMMISSION UNDER
THE HATCH ACT BY VIRTUE OF THE PRESENT APPLICABILITY OF THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 8705, MARCH 5, 1941.  THE APPLICABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
RULES ARE PRINTED IN THE MARGIN.  FN6  THE ONLY CHANGE IN THE CIVIL
SERVICE RULES RELATING TO POLITICAL ACTIVITY, CAUSED BY THE HATCH ACT
LEGISLATION, THAT IS OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CASE IS THE ELIMINATION ON
MARCH 5, 1941, OF THE WORD "PRIVATELY" FROM THE PHRASE "TO EXPRESS
PRIVATELY THEIR OPINIONS."  THIS LIMITATION TO PRIVATE EXPRESSION HAD
REGULATED CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL SINCE 1907.  FN7 

THE PRESENT APPELLANTS SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION BEFORE A STATUTORY THREE
JUDGE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST APPELLEES,
MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, TO PROHIBIT THEM
FROM ENFORCING AGAINST APPELLANTS THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND SENTENCE
OF SEC. 9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT FOR THE REASON THAT THE SENTENCE IS
REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN8  A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SENTENCE WAS ALSO SOUGHT. 
FN9  THE SENTENCE REFERRED TO READS, "NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IN THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  ...  SHALL TAKE ANY ACTIVE
PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS." 

VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL EXECUTIVE CIVIL SERVICE
AND THE UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS OF AMERICA,  FN10  A LABOR UNION WITH
THESE AND OTHER EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES AS MEMBERS, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF
ALL ITS MEMBERS, JOINED IN THE SUIT.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE
INDIVIDUALS DESIRE TO ENGAGE IN ACTS OF POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND IN
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  THEIR PURPOSES ARE AS STATED IN THE EXCERPT FROM
THE COMPLAINT SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN11  FROM THE AFFIDAVITS IT IS
PLAIN, AND WE SO ASSUME, THAT THESE ACTIVITIES WILL BE CARRIED ON
COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF THE HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT.  APPELLANTS CHALLENGE
THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SEC. 9(A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR VARIOUS
REASONS.  THEY ARE SET OUT BELOW IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COMPLAINT. 
FN12 

NONE OF THE APPELLANTS, EXCEPT GEORGE P. POOLE, HAS VIOLATED THE
PROVISIONS OF THE HATCH ACT.  THEY WISH TO ACT CONTRARY TO ITS
PROVISIONS AND THOSE OF SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND DESIRE A
DECLARATION OF THE LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF REGULATION. 
DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF A JUSTICIABLE
CASE OR CONTROVERSY.  THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED THAT EACH OF THESE
INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS HAD AN INTEREST IN THEIR CLAIMED PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THEM A RIGHT TO
MAINTAIN THIS SUIT.  UNITED FEDERAL WORKERS OF AMERICA (C.I.O.)  V.
MITCHELL, 56 F.SUPP.  621, 624.  THE DISTRICT COURT FURTHER DETERMINED
THAT THE QUESTIONED PROVISION OF THE HATCH ACT WAS VALID AND THAT THE
COMPLAINT THEREFORE FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  IT ACCORDINGLY
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS. 

FIRST.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ENTERED ON SEPTEMBER
26, 1944.  AN ORDER WAS DULY ENTERED ON OCTOBER 26, 1944, ALLOWING AN
APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A.  THE SAME SECTION OF THE STATUTES
PROVIDES:  "IN THE EVENT THAT AN APPEAL IS TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION,
THE RECORD SHALL BE MADE UP AND THE CASE DOCKETED IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE TIME SUCH APPEAL IS
ALLOWED, UNDER SUCH RULES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE PROPER COURTS." 
THIS APPEAL WAS NOT DOCKETED IN THIS COURT UNTIL FEBRUARY 2, 1945, A
DATE AFTER THE RETURN DATE OF THE ORDER UNDER SEC. 380A.  THEREAFTER
THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTED A LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THIS COURT TO
CONSIDER THE APPEAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF APPELLANTS TO DOCKET THE
APPEAL IN TIME.  WE POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF OUR JURISDICTION OVER
THIS APPEAL TO THE HEARING.  WE PROCEED NOW TO A DISPOSITION OF THIS
QUESTION. 

TO COMPLY WITH THE SUGGESTION OF SEC. 380A, THIS COURT ADOPTED RULE
47.  FN13  IN OTHER CASES OF APPEALS, RULE 11 GOVERNS DOCKETING.  FN14
IF RULE 11 APPLIES ALSO TO APPEALS UNDER SEC. 380A, WE MAY HEAR THIS
APPEAL, FOR THE STEPS FOR DISMISSAL REQUIRED BY RULE 11 WERE NOT TAKEN
BY THE APPELLEES.  THIS IS BECAUSE UPON THE ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL BY A
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS HERE, SUPREME COURT RULES 10 AND 36, THE
CASE IS TRANSFERRED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT TO THIS COURT AND
SUBSEQUENT STEPS FOR DISMISSAL OR AFFIRMANCE ARE TO BE TAKEN HERE. 
FN15  IF, HOWEVER, THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISION OF SEC. 380A AS TO
DOCKETING IS A PREREQUISITE TO THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW, THIS
APPEAL MUST FAIL. 

PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF SEC. 380A, APPEALS DOCKETED AFTER THE RETURN
DAY WERE GOVERNED BY RULE 11, 275 U.S. 602.  IN PRINCIPLE IT HAS LONG
BEEN IN EXISTENCE.  FN16  BY THE WORDS OF THE RULE, IT APPEARS THAT
DISMISSAL FOR APPELLANT'S TARDINESS IN DOCKETING REQUIRES A STEP BY THE
APPELLEE.  EVEN AFTER DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO DOCKET, THE RULE PERMITS
THIS COURT TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT TO DOCKET.  NOTHING IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION INDICATES
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED ITS DOCKETING PROVISION TO VARY RULE 11.  DIRECT
APPEAL ACCOMPLISHES THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE OF EXPEDITING REVIEW, OF
COURSE, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH AN UNCHANGED PRACTICE AS TO DISMISSALS. 
THE TIME TO DOCKET MAY HAVE BEEN ENLARGED FROM THE CONVENTIONAL RETURN
DAY OF RULES 10 AND 11 TO BRING CONTINENTAL UNIFORMITY, SEE RULE 10, OR
TO GIVE TIME FOR THE PREPARATION OF A RECORD WHICH WOULD OFTEN BE LARGE
AND NOT TRANSCRIBED OR PRINTED.  IT WILL NOT EXPEDITE DETERMINATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS TO DISMISS APPEALS BECAUSE OF ERRORS OF
PRACTICE.  IN FACT THE SENTENCE OF SEC. 380A ON DOCKETING SEEMS
DELIBERATELY TO LEAVE THE PRACTICE ON FAILURE TO DOCKET TO RULES OF
COURT.  WE DO NOT CONSTRUE THE REQUIREMENT OF DOCKETING WITHIN SIXTY
DAYS AS A LIMITATION ON OUR POWER TO HEAR THIS APPEAL. 

SO FAR AS OUR RULE 47 IS CONCERNED, WE CONSTRUE IT AS REQUIRING IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 380A THE DOCKETING IN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE
ALLOWANCE OF THE APPEAL, INSTEAD OF THE FORTY DAYS OF OUR RULE 10, AND
THAT, AS TO DISMISSALS, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF RULE 47 REQUIRES THE SAME
PRACTICE FOR APPEALS UNDER SEC. 380A THAT RULE 11 DOES FOR OTHER
APPEALS.  WE THINK IT DESIRABLE TO HAVE SUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY IN THE
RULE TO PERMIT EXTENSIONS OF THE TIME FOR RETURN IN THE UNUSUAL
SITUATIONS THAT OCCUR WHEN LARGE RECORDS ARE INVOLVED.  IN VIEW OF THE
RECOGNIZED CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO QUICKEN REVIEW UNDER SEC. 380A, THE
DISCRETION TO DELAY FINAL HEARING ALLOWED UNDER RULE 11 WILL BE
EXERCISED ONLY ON A DEFINITE SHOWING OF NEED THEREFOR TO ASSURE FAIR
REVIEW.  THIS LEADS US TO HEAR THIS APPEAL.  FN17 

SECOND.  AT THE THRESHOLD OF CONSIDERATION, WE ARE CALLED UPON TO
DECIDE WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATES A CONTROVERSY COGNIZABLE IN THIS
COURT.  WE DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OF MR. POOLE
UNTIL SECTION THREE OF THIS OPINION.  THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES
HAVE ELABORATED THE GROUNDS OF THEIR OBJECTION IN INDIVIDUAL AFFIDAVITS
FOR USE IN THE HEARING ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  WE SELECT AS AN
EXAMPLE ONE THAT CONTAINS THE ESSENTIAL AVERMENTS OF ALL THE OTHERS AND
PRINT BELOW THE PORTIONS WITH SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS SUIT.  FN18  NOTHING
SIMILAR TO THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF THE PRINTED AFFIDAVIT IS CONTAINED
IN THE OTHER AFFIDAVITS.  THE ASSUMED CONTROVERSY BETWEEN AFFIANT AND
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AS TO AFFIANT'S RIGHT TO ACT AS WATCHER AT
THE POLLS ON NOVEMBER 2, 1943, HAD LONG BEEN MOOT WHEN THIS COMPLAINT
WAS FILED.  WE DO NOT THEREFORE TREAT THIS ALLEGATION SEPARATELY.  THE
AFFIDAVITS, IT WILL BE NOTICED, FOLLOW THE GENERALITY OF PURPOSE
EXPRESSED BY THE COMPLAINT.  SEE NOTE 11 SUPRA.  THEY DECLARE A DESIRE
TO ACT CONTRARY TO THE RULE AGAINST POLITICAL ACTIVITY BUT NOT THAT THE
RULE HAS BEEN VIOLATED.  IN THIS RESPECT, WE THINK THEY DIFFER FROM THE
TYPE OF THREAT ADJUDICATED IN RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION V. CORSI, 326
U.S. 88.  IN THAT CASE, THE REFUSAL TO ADMIT AN APPLICANT TO MEMBERSHIP
IN A LABOR UNION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE WAS INVOLVED.  ADMISSION HAD BEEN
REFUSED.  326 U.S. AT P. 93, NOTE 10.  DEFINITE ACTION HAD ALSO BEEN
TAKEN IN HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538.  IN THE HILL CASE AN INJUNCTION
HAD BEEN SOUGHT AND ALLOWED AGAINST HILL AND THE UNION FORBIDDING HILL
FROM ACTING AS THE BUSINESS AGENT OF THE UNION AND THE UNION FROM
FURTHER FUNCTIONING AS A UNION UNTIL IT COMPLIED WITH THE STATE LAW. 
THE THREATS WHICH MENACED THE AFFIANTS OF THESE AFFIDAVITS IN THE CASE
NOW BEING CONSIDERED ARE CLOSER TO A GENERAL THREAT BY OFFICIALS TO
ENFORCE THOSE LAWS WHICH THEY ARE CHARGED TO ADMINISTER, COMPARE WATSON
V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387, 400, THAN THEY ARE TO THE DIRECT THREAT OF
PUNISHMENT AGAINST A NAMED ORGANIZATION FOR A COMPLETED ACT THAT MADE
THE MAIL ASSOCIATION AND THE HILL CASES JUSTICIABLE. 

AS IS WELL KNOWN, THE FEDERAL COURTS ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE
III OF THE CONSTITUTION DO NOT RENDER ADVISORY OPINIONS.  FN19  FOR
ADJUDICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, "CONCRETE LEGAL ISSUES,
PRESENTED IN ACTUAL CASES, NOT ABSTRACTIONS," ARE REQUISITE.  FN20
THIS IS AS TRUE OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS AS ANY OTHER FIELD.  FN21
THESE APPELLANTS SEEM CLEARLY TO SEEK ADVISORY OPINIONS UPON BROAD
CLAIMS OF RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST, FIFTH, NINTH AND TENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.  AS THESE APPELLANTS ARE CLASSIFIED
EMPLOYEES, THEY HAVE A RIGHT SUPERIOR TO THE GENERALITY OF CITIZENS,
COMPARE FAIRCHILD V. HUGHES, 258 U.S. 126, BUT THE FACTS OF THEIR
PERSONAL INTEREST IN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, OF THE GENERAL THREAT OF
POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE WITH THOSE RIGHTS BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
UNDER ITS RULES, IF SPECIFIED THINGS ARE DONE BY APPELLANTS, DOES NOT
MAKE A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY.  APPELLANTS WANT TO ENGAGE IN
"POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS," TO PERSUADE OTHERS TO
FOLLOW APPELLANTS' VIEWS BY DISCUSSION, SPEECHES, ARTICLES AND OTHER
ACTS REASONABLY DESIGNED TO SECURE THE SELECTION OF APPELLANTS'
POLITICAL CHOICES.  SUCH GENERALITY OF OBJECTION IS REALLY AN ATTACK ON
THE POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY OF THE HATCH ACT, NOT THE PRESENTATION OF
LEGAL ISSUES.  IT IS BEYOND THE COMPETENCE OF COURTS TO RENDER SUCH A
DECISION.  TEXAS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 258 U.S. 158, 162. 

THE POWER OF COURTS, AND ULTIMATELY OF THIS COURT, TO PASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTS OF CONGRESS ARISES ONLY WHEN THE INTERESTS OF
LITIGANTS REQUIRE THE USE OF THIS JUDICIAL AUTHORITY FOR THEIR
PROTECTION AGAINST ACTUAL INTERFERENCE.  A HYPOTHETICAL THREAT IS NOT
ENOUGH.  WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE AS TO THE KINDS OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY
THE APPELLANTS DESIRE TO ENGAGE IN OR AS TO THE CONTENTS OF THEIR
PROPOSED PUBLIC STATEMENTS OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR PUBLICATION. 
IT WOULD NOT ACCORD WITH JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ADJUDGE, IN A
MATTER INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALITY, BETWEEN THE FREEDOM OF THE
INDIVIDUAL AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC ORDER EXCEPT WHEN DEFINITE
RIGHTS APPEAR UPON THE ONE SIDE AND DEFINITE PREJUDICIAL INTERFERENCES
UPON THE OTHER.  FN22    THE CONSTITUTION ALLOTS THE NATION'S JUDICIAL
POWER TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.  UNLESS THESE COURTS RESPECT THE LIMITS OF
THAT UNIQUE AUTHORITY, THEY INTRUDE UPON POWERS VESTED IN THE
LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE BRANCHES.  JUDICIAL ADHERENCE TO THE DOCTRINE
OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS PRESERVES THE COURTS FOR THE DECISION OF
ISSUES, BETWEEN LITIGANTS, CAPABLE OF EFFECTIVE DETERMINATION. 
JUDICIAL EXPOSITION UPON POLITICAL PROPOSALS IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY WHEN
NECESSARY TO DECIDE DEFINITE ISSUES BETWEEN LITIGANTS.  WHEN THE COURTS
ACT CONTINUALLY WITHIN THESE CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSED BOUNDARIES OF
THEIR POWER, THEIR ABILITY TO PERFORM THEIR FUNCTION AS A BALANCE FOR
THE PEOPLE'S PROTECTION AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER BY OTHER BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT REMAINS UNIMPAIRED.  SHOULD THE COURTS SEEK TO EXPAND THEIR
POWER SO AS TO BRING UNDER THEIR JURISDICTION ILL-DEFINED CONTROVERSIES
OVER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, THEY WOULD BECOME THE ORGAN OF POLITICAL
THEORIES.  SUCH ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER WOULD PROPERLY MEET REBUKE AND
RESTRICTION FROM OTHER BRANCHES.  BY THESE MUTUAL CHECKS AND BALANCES
BY AND BETWEEN THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, DEMOCRACY UNDERTAKES TO
PRESERVE THE LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE FROM EXCESSIVE CONCENTRATIONS OF
AUTHORITY.  NO THREAT OF INTERFERENCE BY THE COMMISSION WITH RIGHTS OF
THESE APPELLANTS APPEARS BEYOND THAT IMPLIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF THE
LAW AND THE REGULATIONS.  WATSON V. BUCK, SUPRA, P. 400.  WE SHOULD NOT
TAKE JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE OF THE SITUATION PRESENTED ON THE PART OF THE
APPELLANTS CONSIDERED IN THIS SUBDIVISION OF THE OPINION.  THESE
REASONS LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRIAL COURT,
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS, OTHER THAN POOLE, COULD MAINTAIN THIS
ACTION, WAS ERRONEOUS. 

THIRD.  THE APPELLANT POOLE DOES PRESENT BY THE COMPLAINT AND
AFFIDAVIT MATTERS APPROPRIATE FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION N23.  THE
AFFIDAVITS FILED BY APPELLEES CONFIRM THAT POOLE HAS BEEN CHARGED BY
THE COMMISSION WITH POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND A PROPOSED ORDER FOR HIS
REMOVAL FROM HIS POSITION ADOPTED SUBJECT TO HIS RIGHT UNDER COMMISSION
PROCEDURE TO REPLY TO THE CHARGES AND TO PRESENT FURTHER EVIDENCE IN
REFUTATION.  FN24  WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE CONTROVERSY OVER
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AT ISSUE BETWEEN POOLE AND THE COMMISSION AS
DEFINED BY THE CHARGE AND PRELIMINARY FINDING UPON ONE SIDE AND THE
ADMISSIONS OF POOLE'S AFFIDAVIT UPON THE OTHER.  OUR DETERMINATION IS
LIMITED TO THOSE FACTS.  THIS PROCEEDING SO LIMITED MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DEFINED RIGHTS AND A DEFINITE THREAT TO INTERFERE WITH
A POSSESSOR OF THE MENACED RIGHTS BY A PENALTY FOR AN ACT DONE IN
VIOLATION OF THE CLAIMED RESTRAINT.  FN25 

BECAUSE WE CONCLUDE HEREINAFTER THAT THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 9 OF THE
HATCH ACT AND CIVIL SERVICE RULE 1, SEE NOTES 2 AND 6 ABOVE, ARE VALID,
IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER, AS THIS IS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACTION, WHETHER OR NOT THIS APPELLANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES THAT AN
IRREPARABLE INJURY TO HIM WOULD RESULT FROM HIS REMOVAL FROM HIS
POSITION.  FN26  NOR NEED WE INQUIRE WHETHER OR NOT A COURT OF EQUITY
WOULD ENFORCE BY INJUNCTION ANY JUDGMENT DECLARING RIGHTS.  FN27  SINCE
POOLE ADMITS THAT HE VIOLATED THE RULE AGAINST POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND
THAT REMOVAL FROM OFFICE IS THEREFORE MANDATORY UNDER THE ACT, THERE IS
NO QUESTION AS TO THE EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  THE ACT
PROVIDES NO ADMINISTRATIVE OR STATUTORY REVIEW FOR THE ORDER OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.  COMPARE STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288, 306
10; MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORPORATION, 327 U.S. 540.  AS NO PRIOR
PROCEEDING, OFFERING AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY OR OTHERWISE, IS PENDING IN
THE COURTS, THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER TO
TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THIS CASE.  BRILLHART V. EXCESS INSURANCE CO., 316
U.S. 491, 496-97, DISSENT AT 500; LARSON V. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
134 F.2D 450, 453.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SEE NO REASON WHY A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, EVEN THOUGH CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE
INVOLVED, DOES NOT LIE.  SEE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 57.  STEELE
V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., 323 U.S. 192, 197, 207;
TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN, 323 U.S.
210, 212, ET SEQ.* 

*IN MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT PROCEEDING, P. 46, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF RULE 57, A
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE N.L.R.B. WAS REQUIRED.  THERE IS STATUTORY
JUDICIAL REVIEW FROM THAT BOARD'S DECISIONS, HOWEVER. 

FOURTH. THIS BRINGS US TO CONSIDER THE NARROW BUT IMPORTANT POINT
INVOLVED IN POOLE'S SITUATION.  FN28  POOLE'S STATED OFFENSE IS TAKING
AN "ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS."  HE
WAS A WARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN OF A POLITICAL PARTY AND WAS
POLITICALLY ACTIVE ON ELECTION DAY AS A WORKER AT THE POLLS AND A
PAYMASTER FOR THE SERVICES OF OTHER PARTY WORKERS.  THE ISSUE FOR
DECISION AND THE ONLY ONE WE DECIDE IS WHETHER SUCH A BREACH OF THE
HATCH ACT AND RULE 1 OF THE COMMISSION CAN, WITHOUT VIOLATING THE
CONSTITUTION, BE MADE THE BASIS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION. 

WHEN THE ISSUE IS THUS NARROWED, THE INTERFERENCE WITH FREE
EXPRESSION IS SEEN IN BETTER PROPORTION AS COMPARED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF ORDERLY MANAGEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL.  ONLY
WHILE THE EMPLOYEE IS POLITICALLY ACTIVE, IN THE SENSE OF RULE 1, MUST
HE WITHHOLD EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON PUBLIC SUBJECTS.  SEE NOTE 6.  WE
ASSUME THAT MR. POOLE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO COMMENT PUBLICLY AS
COMMITTEEMAN ON POLITICAL MATTERS, SO THAT INDIRECTLY THERE IS AN
ATTENUATED INTERFERENCE.  WE ACCEPT APPELLANTS' CONTENTION THAT THE
NATURE OF POLITICAL RIGHTS RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE BY THE NINTH AND
TENTH AMENDMENTS ARE INVOLVED.  THE RIGHT CLAIMED AS INVIOLATE MAY BE
STATED AS THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO ACT AS A PARTY OFFICIAL OR WORKER
TO FURTHER HIS OWN POLITICAL VIEWS.  THUS WE HAVE A MEASURE OF
INTERFERENCE BY THE HATCH ACT AND THE RULES WITH WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD
BE THE FREEDOM OF THE CIVIL SERVANT UNDER THE FIRST, NINTH AND TENTH
AMENDMENTS.  AND, IF WE LOOK UPON DUE PROCESS AS A GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM
IN THOSE FIELDS, THERE IS A CORRESPONDING IMPAIRMENT OF THAT RIGHT
UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  APPELLANTS' OBJECTIONS UNDER THE AMENDMENTS
ARE BASICALLY THE SAME. 

WE DO NOT FIND PERSUASION IN APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT THAT SUCH
ACTIVITIES DURING FREE TIME ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION EVEN THOUGH
ADMITTEDLY POLITICAL ACTIVITIES CANNOT BE INDULGED IN DURING WORKING
HOURS.  FN29  THE INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, IF EVIL IN ITS EFFECTS ON THE SERVICE, THE EMPLOYEES OR
PEOPLE DEALING WITH THEM, IS HARDLY LESS SO BECAUSE THAT ACTIVITY TAKES
PLACE AFTER HOURS.  OF COURSE, THE QUESTION OF THE NEED FOR THIS
REGULATION IS FOR OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN THE COURTS. 
OUR DUTY IN THIS CASE ENDS IF THE HATCH ACT PROVISION UNDER EXAMINATION
IS CONSTITUTIONAL. 

OF COURSE, IT IS ACCEPTED CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE THAT THESE
FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTES.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF
RESIDENCE AND AGE MUST BE MET.  THE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT IN SOME INSTANCES ARE SUBJECT TO THE ELEMENTAL NEED FOR ORDER
WITHOUT WHICH THE GUARANTEES OF CIVIL RIGHTS TO OTHERS WOULD BE A
MOCKERY N30.  THE POWERS GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ARE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTALITY OF SOVEREIGNTY ORIGINALLY
IN THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE.  THEREFORE, WHEN OBJECTION IS MADE THAT
THE EXERCISE OF A FEDERAL POWER INFRINGES UPON RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE
NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS, THE INQUIRY MUST BE DIRECTED TOWARD THE
GRANTED POWER UNDER WHICH THE ACTION OF THE UNION WAS TAKEN.  IF
GRANTED POWER IS FOUND, NECESSARILY THE OBJECTION OF INVASION OF THOSE
RIGHTS, RESERVED BY THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS, MUST FAIL.  AGAIN
THIS COURT MUST BALANCE THE EXTENT OF THE GUARANTEES OF FREEDOM AGAINST
A CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT TO PROTECT A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AGAINST THE
SUPPOSED EVIL OF POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP BY CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES OF
GOVERNMENT. 

AS POINTED OUT HEREINBEFORE IN THIS OPINION, THE PRACTICE OF
EXCLUDING CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES FROM PARTY OFFICES AND PERSONAL
POLITICAL ACTIVITY AT THE POLLS HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR SEVERAL
DECADES.  SOME INCIDENTS SIMILAR TO THOSE THAT ARE UNDER EXAMINATION
HERE HAVE BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT AND THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN
TYPES OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY OFFICEHOLDERS HAS BEEN UPHELD.  THE
LEADING CASE WAS DECIDED IN 1882.  EX PARTE CURTIS, 106 U.S. 371. 
THERE A SUBORDINATE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEE WAS INDICTED FOR VIOLATION
OF AN ACT THAT FORBADE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE NOT APPOINTED BY THE
PRESIDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE FROM GIVING OR RECEIVING MONEY
FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES FROM OR TO OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT ON
PENALTY OF DISCHARGE AND CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.  CURTIS URGED THAT THE
STATUTE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THIS COURT UPHELD THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS
TO PUNISH THE INFRACTION OF THIS LAW.  THE DECISIVE PRINCIPLE WAS THE
POWER OF CONGRESS, WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS, TO REGULATE, SO FAR AS IT
MIGHT DEEM NECESSARY, THE POLITICAL CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  A LIST
OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST ACTS BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT ARE PERMITTED TO
OTHER CITIZENS WAS GIVEN.  THIS COURT SAID, P. 373: 

"THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN ALL THIS CLASS OF ENACTMENTS HAS
BEEN TO PROMOTE EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY IN THE DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL
DUTIES, AND TO MAINTAIN PROPER DISCIPLINE IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE. 
CLEARLY SUCH A PURPOSE IS WITHIN THE JUST SCOPE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER,
AND IT IS NOT EASY TO SEE WHY THE ACT NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION DOES NOT
COME FAIRLY WITHIN THE LEGITIMATE MEANS TO SUCH AN END." 

THE RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTE MONEY THROUGH FELLOW EMPLOYEES TO ADVANCE THE
CONTRIBUTOR'S POLITICAL THEORIES WAS HELD NOT TO BE PROTECTED BY ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  IT WAS HELD SUBJECT TO REGULATION.  A
DISSENT BY MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY EMPHASIZED THE BROAD BASIS OF THE
COURT'S OPINION.  HE CONTENDED THAT A CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO PROMOTE HIS
POLITICAL VIEWS COULD NOT BE SO RESTRICTED MERELY BECAUSE HE WAS AN
OFFICIAL OF GOVERNMENT.  FN31 

NO OTHER MEMBER OF THE COURT JOINED IN THIS DISSENT.  THE CONCLUSION
OF THE COURT, THAT THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BAR TO REGULATION OF
SUCH FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
THE EXERCISE OF POLITICAL PRIVILEGES SUCH AS THE BALLOT, HAS FOUND
ACCEPTANCE IN THE SUBSEQUENT PRACTICE OF CONGRESS AND THE GROWTH OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF REQUIRED POLITICAL NEUTRALITY FOR CLASSIFIED PUBLIC
SERVANTS AS A SOUND ELEMENT FOR EFFICIENCY.  FN32  THE CONVICTION THAT
AN ACTIVELY PARTISAN GOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL THREATENS GOOD
ADMINISTRATION HAS DEEPENED SINCE EX PARTE CURTIS.  CONGRESS RECOGNIZES
DANGER TO THE SERVICE IN THAT POLITICAL RATHER THAN OFFICIAL EFFORT MAY
EARN ADVANCEMENT AND TO THE PUBLIC IN THAT GOVERNMENTAL FAVOR MAY BE
CHANNELED THROUGH POLITICAL CONNECTIONS.  FN33 

IN UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH, 280 U.S. 396, THE DOCTRINE OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS WAS HELD VALID
WHEN EXTENDED TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.  THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE
PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR "ANY POLITICAL PURPOSE
WHATEVER" FROM ANY OTHER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  PRIVATE CITIZENS WERE NOT
AFFECTED.  THE ARGUMENT OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BECAUSE OF INTERFERENCE
WITH THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN BY THAT TIME WAS DISMISSED IN A
SENTENCE.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. THAYER, 209 U.S. 39. 

THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9 OF THE HATCH ACT AND THE CIVIL SERVICE RULE
1 ARE NOT DISSIMILAR IN PURPOSE FROM THE STATUTES AGAINST POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS OF MONEY.  THE PROHIBITIONS NOW UNDER DISCUSSION ARE
DIRECTED AT POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF ENERGY BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. 
THESE CONTRIBUTIONS, TOO, HAVE A LONG BACKGROUND OF DISAPPROVAL N34. 
CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EFFICIENT PUBLIC
SERVICE.  IF, IN THEIR JUDGMENT, EFFICIENCY MAY BE BEST OBTAINED BY
PROHIBITING ACTIVE PARTICIPATION BY CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES IN POLITICS AS
PARTY OFFICERS OR WORKERS, WE SEE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.  FN35 

ANOTHER CONGRESS MAY DETERMINE THAT, ON THE WHOLE, LIMITATIONS ON
ACTIVE POLITICAL MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL PERSONNEL ARE UNWISE.  THE
TEACHING OF EXPERIENCE HAS EVIDENTLY LED CONGRESS TO ENACT THE HATCH
ACT PROVISIONS.  TO DECLARE THAT THE PRESENT SUPPOSED EVILS OF
POLITICAL ACTIVITY ARE BEYOND THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REDRESS WOULD
LEAVE THE NATION IMPOTENT TO DEAL WITH WHAT MANY SINCERE MEN BELIEVE IS
A MATERIAL THREAT TO THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM.  CONGRESS IS NOT
POLITICALLY NAIVE OR REGARDLESS OF PUBLIC WELFARE OR THAT OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  IT LEAVES UNTOUCHED FULL PARTICIPATION BY EMPLOYEES IN
POLITICAL DECISIONS AT THE BALLOT BOX AND FORBIDS ONLY THE PARTISAN
ACTIVITY OF FEDERAL PERSONNEL DEEMED OFFENSIVE TO EFFICIENCY.  WITH
THAT LIMITATION ONLY, EMPLOYEES MAY MAKE THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUBLIC
AFFAIRS OR PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS, AS BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE
ACT. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT POLITICAL NEUTRALITY IS NOT INDISPENSABLE TO A
MERIT SYSTEM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MAY BE ACCEPTED.  BUT BECAUSE IT IS
NOT INDISPENSABLE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NOT DESIRABLE OR
PERMISSIBLE.  MODERN AMERICAN POLITICS INVOLVES ORGANIZED POLITICAL
PARTIES.  MANY CLASSIFICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN
ACCUSTOMED TO WORK IN POLITICS - NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL - AS A
MATTER OF PRINCIPLE OR TO ASSURE THEIR TENURE.  CONGRESS MAY REASONABLY
DESIRE TO LIMIT PARTY ACTIVITY OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SO AS TO AVOID A
TENDENCY TOWARD A ONE-PARTY SYSTEM.  IT MAY HAVE CONSIDERED THAT
PARTIES WOULD BE MORE TRULY DEVOTED TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE IF PUBLIC
SERVANTS WERE NOT OVERACTIVE POLITICALLY. 

APPELLANTS URGE THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ARE PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF
RIGHTS AND THAT CONGRESS MAY NOT "ENACT A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT NO
REPUBLICAN, JEW OR NEGRO SHALL BE APPOINTED TO FEDERAL OFFICE, OR THAT
NO FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SHALL ATTEND MASS OR TAKE ANY ACTIVE PART IN
MISSIONARY WORK."  NONE WOULD DENY SUCH LIMITATIONS ON CONGRESSIONAL
POWER BUT, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
A PROHIBITION AGAINST ACTING AS WARD LEADER OR WORKER AT THE POLLS IS
INVALID.  A READING OF THE ACT AND RULE 1, NOTES 2 AND 6, SUPRA,
TOGETHER WITH THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION  FN36  SHOWS THE WIDE
RANGE OF PUBLIC ACTIVITIES WITH WHICH THERE IS NO INTERFERENCE BY THE
LEGISLATION.  IT IS ONLY PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY THAT IS
INTERDICTED.  IT IS ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  EXPRESSIONS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, ON PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, PERSONALITIES AND MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT AN OBJECTIVE
OF PARTY ACTION, ARE UNRESTRICTED BY LAW SO LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE DOES NOT DIRECT HIS ACTIVITIES TOWARD PARTY SUCCESS. 

IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS HAS GONE FURTHER THAN NECESSARY
IN PROHIBITING POLITICAL ACTIVITY TO ALL TYPES OF CLASSIFIED
EMPLOYEES.  IT IS POINTED OUT BY APPELLANTS "THAT THE IMPARTIALITY OF
MANY OF THESE IS A MATTER OF COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE TO THE EFFECTIVE
PERFORMANCE" OF THEIR DUTIES.  FN37  MR. POOLE WOULD APPEAR TO BE A
GOOD ILLUSTRATION FOR APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT.  THE COMPLAINT STATES THAT
HE IS A ROLLER IN THE MINT.  WE TAKE IT THIS IS A JOB CALLING FOR THE
QUALITIES OF A SKILLED MECHANIC AND THAT IT DOES NOT INVOLVE CONTACT
WITH THE PUBLIC.  NEVERTHELESS, IF IN FREE TIME HE IS ENGAGED IN
POLITICAL ACTIVITY, CONGRESS MAY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTIVITY MAY
PROMOTE OR RETARD HIS ADVANCEMENT OR PREFERMENT WITH HIS SUPERIORS. 
CONGRESS MAY HAVE THOUGHT THAT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ARE HANDY ELEMENTS
FOR LEADERS IN POLITICAL POLICY TO USE IN BUILDING A POLITICAL
MACHINE.  FOR REGULATION OF EMPLOYEES IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ACT
REGULATED BE ANYTHING MORE THAN AN ACT REASONABLY DEEMED BY CONGRESS TO
INTERFERE WITH THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE.  THERE ARE
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES WITH POSITIONS NO MORE
INFLUENTIAL UPON POLICY DETERMINATION THAN THAT OF MR. POOLE. 
EVIDENTLY WHAT CONGRESS FEARED WAS THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON EMPLOYEE
MORALE OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY ALL EMPLOYEES WHO COULD BE INDUCED TO
PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY.  IT DOES NOT SEEM TO US AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
FOR LEGISLATION. 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT ADMINISTRATIVE WORKERS MAY BE BARRED,
CONSTITUTIONALLY, FROM POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
WHILE THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS MAY NOT BE BARRED, CONSTITUTIONALLY,
WITHOUT AN ACT "NARROWLY AND SELECTIVELY DRAWN TO DEFINE AND PUNISH THE
SPECIFIC CONDUCT."  A READY ANSWER, IT SEEMS TO US, LIES IN THE FACT
THAT THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT "APPLIES WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION TO ALL EMPLOYEES WHETHER INDUSTRIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE"
AND THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES, BY SEC. 15 MADE A PART OF THE HATCH
ACT, MAKES CLEAR THAT INDUSTRIAL WORKERS ARE COVERED IN THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST POLITICAL ACTIVITY.  CONGRESS HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PRESENCE
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, WHETHER INDUSTRIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE, IN THE
RANKS OF POLITICAL PARTY WORKERS IS BAD.  WHATEVER DIFFERENCES THERE
MAY BE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN ITS EMPLOY ARE DIFFERENCES IN DETAIL SO FAR AS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER UNDER REVIEW IS CONCERNED.  WHETHER THERE ARE
SUCH DIFFERENCES AND WHAT WEIGHT TO ATTACH TO THEM, ARE ALL MATTERS OF
DETAIL FOR CONGRESS.  WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE NUMBER OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES WILL EXPAND OR CONTRACT; WHETHER THE NEED FOR REGULATION OF
THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES WILL INCREASE OR DIMINISH.  THE USE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF REGULATION IS FOR CONGRESS, NOT FOR THE
COURTS. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT CONGRESS MAY REGULATE THE POLITICAL CONDUCT OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES "WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS," EVEN THOUGH THE
REGULATION TRENCHES TO SOME EXTENT UPON UNFETTERED POLITICAL ACTION. 
THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF
GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES SHALL BE REGULATED LIES PRIMARILY WITH
CONGRESS.  COURTS WILL INTERFERE ONLY WHEN SUCH REGULATION PASSES
BEYOND THE GENERALLY EXISTING CONCEPTION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER.  THAT
CONCEPTION DEVELOPS FROM PRACTICE, HISTORY, AND CHANGING EDUCATIONAL,
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.  THE REGULATION OF SUCH ACTIVITIES AS
POOLE CARRIED ON HAS THE APPROVAL OF LONG PRACTICE BY THE COMMISSION,
COURT DECISIONS UPON SIMILAR PROBLEMS AND A LARGE BODY OF INFORMED
PUBLIC OPINION.  CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES HAVE
AUTHORITY OVER THE DISCIPLINE AND EFFICIENCY OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE. 
WHEN ACTIONS OF CIVIL SERVANTS IN THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS MENACE THE
INTEGRITY AND THE COMPETENCY OF THE SERVICE, LEGISLATION TO FORESTALL
SUCH DANGER AND ADEQUATE TO MAINTAIN ITS USEFULNESS IS REQUIRED.  THE
HATCH ACT IS THE ANSWER OF CONGRESS TO THIS NEED.  WE CANNOT SAY WITH
SUCH A BACKGROUND THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AS THE SAME ACTIVITIES THAT
THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED TO BE
PROHIBITED TO CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES BY THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES WHEN SEC. 15 TOOK EFFECT JULY 19, 1940.  54
STAT. 767.  THE ACTIVITIES OF MR. POOLE, AS WARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN
AND A WORKER AT THE POLLS, OBVIOUSLY FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITIONS OF
SEC. 9 OF THE HATCH ACT AGAINST TAKING AN ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL
MANAGEMENT AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  THEY ARE ALSO COVERED BY THE PRIOR
DETERMINATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.  FN38  WE NEED TO EXAMINE NO FURTHER
AT THIS TIME INTO THE VALIDITY OF THE DEFINITION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY
AND SEC. 15.  FN39 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AUGUST 2, 1939, 53 STAT. 1147; JULY 19, 1940, 54 STAT. 767; 56
STAT. 181, 986; 58 STAT. 136, 148, 727; 59 STAT. 108, 658; 60 STAT.
937.  ONLY THE FIRST TWO ARE IMPORTANT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE. 

FN2  18 U.S.C. SEC. 61H, AS AMENDED: 

"(A)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON EMPLOYED IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR ANY AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT THEREOF,
TO USE HIS OFFICIAL AUTHORITY OR INFLUENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INTERFERING WITH AN ELECTION OR AFFECTING THE RESULT THEREOF.  NO
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
OR ANY AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT THEREOF, EXCEPT A PART-TIME OFFICER OR PART
TIME EMPLOYEE WITHOUT COMPENSATION OR WITH NOMINAL COMPENSATION SERVING
IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXISTING WAR EFFORT, OTHER THAN IN ANY CAPACITY
RELATING TO THE PROCUREMENT OR MANUFACTURE OF WAR MATERIAL SHALL TAKE
ANY ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  ALL
SUCH PERSONS SHALL RETAIN THE RIGHT TO VOTE AS THEY MAY CHOOSE AND TO
EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS ON ALL POLITICAL SUBJECTS AND CANDIDATES.  FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION THE TERM 'OFFICER' OR 'EMPLOYEE' SHALL NOT
BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE (1) THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES; (2) PERSONS WHOSE COMPENSATION IS PAID FROM THE
APPROPRIATION FOR THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; (3) HEADS AND ASSISTANT
HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS; (4) OFFICERS WHO ARE APPOINTED BY THE
PRESIDENT, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, AND WHO
DETERMINE POLICIES TO BE PURSUED BY THE UNITED STATES IN ITS RELATIONS
WITH FOREIGN POWERS OR IN THE NATIONWIDE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL
LAWS. 

"(B)  ANY PERSON VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE POSITION OR OFFICE HELD BY HIM, AND
THEREAFTER NO PART OF THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS FOR
SUCH POSITION OR OFFICE SHALL BE USED TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF SUCH
PERSON."  53 STAT. 1147, 1148; 54 STAT. 767; 56 STAT. 181. 

FN3  18 U.S.C. SEC. 61O: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBCHAPTER WHICH PROHIBIT PERSONS TO WHOM
SUCH PROVISIONS APPLY FROM TAKING ANY ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL
MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS SHALL BE DEEMED TO PROHIBIT THE
SAME ACTIVITIES ON THE PART OF SUCH PERSONS AS THE UNITED STATES CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION HAS HERETOFORE DETERMINED ARE AT THE TIME THIS
CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CIVIL-SERVICE RULES PROHIBITING SUCH EMPLOYEES FROM TAKING ANY ACTIVE
PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS."  54 STAT. 767,
771. 

FN4  SEE CIVIL SERVICE ACT (1883), SEC. 2, 22 STAT. 403-404: 

"SEC. 2.  THAT IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF SAID COMMISSIONERS: 

"FIRST.  TO AID THE PRESIDENT, AS HE MAY REQUEST, IN PREPARING
SUITABLE RULES FOR CARRYING THIS ACT INTO EFFECT, AND WHEN SAID RULES
SHALL HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL OFFICERS OF THE
UNITED STATES IN THE DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICES TO WHICH ANY SUCH RULES
MAY RELATE TO AID, IN ALL PROPER WAYS, IN CARRYING SAID RULES, AND ANY
MODIFICATIONS THEREOF, INTO EFFECT. 

"SECOND.  AND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SAID RULES SHALL PROVIDE AND
DECLARE, AS NEARLY AS THE CONDITIONS OF GOOD ADMINISTRATION WILL
WARRANT, AS FOLLOWS: 

    .         .         .         .         . 

"SIXTH, THAT NO PERSON IN SAID SERVICE HAS ANY RIGHT TO USE HIS
OFFICIAL AUTHORITY OR INFLUENCE TO COERCE THE POLITICAL ACTION OF ANY
PERSON OR BODY." 

5 U.S.C. SEC. 631: 

"THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO  ...  ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR THE
CONDUCT OF PERSONS WHO MAY RECEIVE APPOINTMENTS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE." 

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, H.R. EX. DOC. NO. 105,
48TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 45: 

"IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT BY THE
CONSTITUTION, AND BY VIRTUE OF THE 1753D SECTION OF THE REVISED
STATUTES, AND OF THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT APPROVED JANUARY 16, 1883, THE
FOLLOWING RULES FOR THE REGULATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE
CIVIL SERVICE ARE HEREBY AMENDED AND PROMULGATED:

     RULE I. 

"NO PERSON IN SAID SERVICE SHALL USE HIS OFFICIAL AUTHORITY OR
INFLUENCE EITHER TO COERCE THE POLITICAL ACTION OF ANY PERSON OR BODY
OR TO INTERFERE WITH ANY ELECTION." 

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 642, JUNE 3, 1907(AMENDED TO CONSOLIDATE WITHOUT
CHANGING WORDING, EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 655, JUNE 15, 1907); TWENTY
FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, HOUSE DOC. NO. 600,
60TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 104: 

"SECTION 1 OF RULE I OF THE CIVIL-SERVICE RULES IS HEREBY AMENDED TO
READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO PERSON IN THE EXECUTIVE CIVIL SERVICE SHALL USE HIS OFFICIAL
AUTHORITY OR INFLUENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH AN ELECTION
OR AFFECTING THE RESULT THEREOF.  PERSONS WHO, BY THE PROVISIONS OF
THESE RULES ARE IN THE COMPETITIVE CLASSIFIED SERVICE, WHILE RETAINING
THE RIGHT TO VOTE AS THEY PLEASE AND TO EXPRESS PRIVATELY THEIR
OPINIONS ON ALL POLITICAL SUBJECTS, SHALL TAKE NO ACTIVE PART IN
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS." 

FN5  CIVIL SERVICE RULES 15, 3 FED. REG. 1525. 

FN6  5 C.F.R., CUM. SUPP., SEC. 1.1:  "NO INTERFERENCE WITH
ELECTIONS.  NO PERSON IN THE EXECUTIVE CIVIL SERVICE SHALL USE HIS
OFFICIAL AUTHORITY OR INFLUENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH AN
ELECTION OR AFFECTING THE RESULTS THEREOF.  PERSONS WHO BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE RULES IN THIS CHAPTER ARE IN THE COMPETITIVE
CLASSIFIED SERVICE, WHILE RETAINING THE RIGHT TO VOTE AS THEY PLEASE
AND TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION ON ALL POLITICAL SUBJECTS, SHALL TAKE NO
ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS." 

THE COMMISSION FINDS, AFTER DUE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPLANATION,
THAT ANY PERSON HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO OR IS HOLDING ANY POSITION,
WHETHER BY ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER, OR
REINSTATEMENT, IN VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT OR RULES, OR OF
ANY EXECUTIVE ORDER OR ANY REGULATION OF THE COMMISSION, OR THAT ANY
EMPLOYEE SUBJECT THERETO HAS VIOLATED SUCH ACT, RULES, ORDERS, OR
REGULATIONS, IT SHALL CERTIFY THE FACTS TO THE PROPER APPOINTING
OFFICER WITH SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AS TO DISCIPLINE OR DISMISSAL OF THE
PERSON OR EMPLOYEE AFFECTED.  IF THE APPOINTING OFFICER FAILS TO CARRY
OUT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT
THEREOF, THE COMMISSION SHALL CERTIFY THE FACTS TO THE PROPER
DISBURSING AND AUDITING OFFICERS, AND SUCH OFFICERS SHALL MAKE NO
PAYMENT OR ALLOWANCE OF THE SALARY OR WAGES OF ANY SUCH PERSON OR
EMPLOYEE THEREAFTER ACCRUING." 

SEE E.O. 8705, MARCH 5, 1941, 6 FED. REG. 1313. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA, AND 5 C.F R. SEC. 1.1, JUNE 1, 1938. 

A CHANGE OCCURRED ALSO IN RULE 15.  THIS WAS TO COMPLY WITH A RULING
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE HATCH ACT MADE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE A
MANDATORY PENALTY FOR FORBIDDEN POLITICAL ACTIVITY.  40 OP. A.G.,
POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, JANUARY 8, 1941.  SEE NOTE
5, SUPRA, FOR RULE 15 PRIOR TO HATCH ACT. 

FN8  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380(A); SEC. 11-306 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CODE. 

FN9  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 274D; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400. 

FN10  NO CONTENTION THAT APPELLANT, UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS OF AMERICA
(C.I.O.), LACKED CAPACITY TO BRING THIS ACTION IS MADE BY APPELLEES. 
WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION HERE.  MCCANDLESS V. FURLAUD, 293
U.S. 67, 73-74.  SEE FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP., 328
U.S. 275. 

FN11  "IN DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES OF CITIZENSHIP, OF THEIR RIGHT TO
VOTE, AND IN EXERCISE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OF THE PRESS, OF ASSEMBLY, AND THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL
ACTIVITY, THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS DESIRE TO ENGAGE IN THE FOLLOWING
ACTS: WRITE FOR PUBLICATION LETTERS AND ARTICLES IN SUPPORT OF
CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE; BE CONNECTED EDITORIALLY WITH PUBLICATIONS WHICH
ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM OF UFWA (FORMER NAME OF THE
PRESENT UNION APPELLANT) AND CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT IT; SOLICIT VOTES,
AID IN GETTING OUT VOTERS, ACT AS ACCREDITED CHECKER, WATCHER, OR
CHALLENGER; TRANSPORT VOTERS TO AND FROM THE POLLS WITHOUT COMPENSATION
THEREFOR; PARTICIPATE IN AND HELP IN ORGANIZING POLITICAL PARADES;
INITIATE PETITIONS, AND CANVASS FOR THE SIGNATURES OF OTHERS ON SUCH
PETITIONS; SERVE AS PARTY WARD COMMITTEEMAN OR OTHER PARTY OFFICIAL;
AND PERFORM ANY AND ALL ACTS NOT PROHIBITED BY ANY PROVISION OF LAW
OTHER THAN THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 9(A) AND SECTION 15 OF THE
HATCH ACT, WHICH CONSTITUTE TAKING AN ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL
MANAGEMENT AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS."    FN12  "THE SECOND SENTENCE OF
UNITED STATES AS A DEPRIVATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OF THE PRESS, AND
OF ASSEMBLY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

"THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT IS REPUGNANT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS A DEPRIVATION OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO ENGAGE IN
POLITICAL ACTIVITY, RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE
NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS. 

"THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT IS REPUGNANT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, SINCE IT UNREASONABLY PROHIBITS
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FROM ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE LAWFULLY
CARRIED ON BY PERSONS WHO ARE NOT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, THUS CONSTITUTING
A DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

"THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT IS REPUGNANT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE IT EFFECTS AN ARBITRARY AND
GROSSLY UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE SUBJECT TO ITS PROVISIONS
AND EMPLOYEES SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED THEREFROM, IN VIOLATION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

"THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT IS REPUGNANT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE IT IS SO VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE AS TO PROHIBIT LAWFUL ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS ACTIVITIES WHICH
ARE PROPERLY MADE UNLAWFUL BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW, IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT." 

FN13  RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, RULE 47: 

"APPEALS TO THIS COURT UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, SHALL BE
GOVERNED, AS FAR AS MAY BE, BY THE RULES OF THIS COURT REGULATING THE
PROCEDURE ON APPEAL IN OTHER CASES FROM COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES;
...  THE RECORD SHALL BE MADE UP AND THE CASE DOCKETED IN THIS COURT
WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE TIME THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED." 

FN14  ID., RULE 11:  "1.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE APPELLANT TO
DOCKET THE CASE AND FILE THE RECORD THEREOF WITH THE CLERK OF THIS
COURT BY OR BEFORE THE RETURN DAY, WHETHER IN VACATION OR IN TERM
TIME.  BUT, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THE JUSTICE OR JUDGE WHO SIGNED THE
CITATION, OR ANY JUSTICE OF THIS COURT, MAY ENLARGE THE TIME, BEFORE
ITS EXPIRATION, THE ORDER OF ENLARGEMENT TO BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF
THIS COURT.  IF THE APPELLANT SHALL FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS RULE, THE
APPELLEE MAY HAVE THE CAUSE DOCKETED AND THE APPEAL DISMISSED UPON
PRODUCING A CERTIFICATE, WHETHER IN TERM OR VACATION, FROM THE CLERK OF
THE COURT WHEREIN THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE WAS RENDERED, STATING THE CASE
AND CERTIFYING THAT SUCH APPEAL HAS BEEN DULY ALLOWED.  AND IN NO CASE
SHALL THE APPELLANT BE ENTITLED TO DOCKET THE CAUSE AND FILE THE RECORD
AFTER THE APPEAL SHALL HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THIS RULE, UNLESS BY
SPECIAL LEAVE OF THE COURT." 

FN15  STEPS ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AFTER THE ALLOWANCE OF
APPEAL, SUCH AS PREPARATION OF THE RECORD, EXTENSION OF TIME AND COST
OR SUPERSEDEAS BONDS, ARE FOR CONVENIENCE TAKEN IN THE COURT POSSESSED
OF THE RECORD.  RULES 10, 11 AND 36, SUPREME COURT; RULE 72, RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE. 

FN16  3 CRANCH 239; BINGHAM V. MORRIS, 7 CRANCH 99; SPARROW V.
STRONG, 3 WALL.  97, 103.  COMPARE GRIGSBY V. PURCELL, 99 U.S. 505. 

FN17  COMPARE GEORGIA LUMBER CO. V. COMPANIA, 323 U.S. 334. 

FN18  "AT THIS TIME, WHEN THE FATE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD IS IN THE
BALANCE I BELIEVE IT IS NOT ONLY PROPER BUT AN OBLIGATION FOR ALL
CITIZENS TO PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY IN THE MAKING OF THE VITAL POLITICAL
DECISIONS ON WHICH THE SUCCESS OF THE WAR AND THE PERMANENCE OF THE
PEACE TO FOLLOW SO LARGELY DEPEND.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN
THE MAKING OF THESE DECISIONS IT IS MY EARNEST DESIRE TO ENGAGE
ACTIVELY IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  I WISH TO
ENGAGE IN SUCH ACTIVITY UPON MY OWN TIME, AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. 

"I WISH TO ENGAGE IN SUCH ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THOSE CANDIDATES
FOR PUBLIC OFFICE WHO I BELIEVE WILL BEST SERVE THE NEEDS OF THIS
COUNTRY AND WITH THE OBJECT OF PERSUADING OTHERS OF THE CORRECTNESS OF
MY JUDGMENTS AND OF ELECTING THE CANDIDATES OF MY CHOICE.  THIS
OBJECTIVE I WISH TO PURSUE BY ALL PROPER MEANS SUCH AS ENGAGING IN
DISCUSSION, BY SPEECHES TO CONVENTIONS, RALLIES AND OTHER ASSEMBLAGES,
BY PUBLICIZING MY VIEWS IN LETTERS AND ARTICLES FOR PUBLICATION IN
NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER PERIODICALS, BY AIDING IN THE CAMPAIGN OF
CANDIDATES FOR POLITICAL OFFICE BY POSTING BANNERS AND POSTERS IN
PUBLIC PLACES, BY DISTRIBUTING LEAFLETS, BY 'RINGING DOORBELLS', BY
ADDRESSING CAMPAIGN LITERATURE, AND BY DOING ANY AND ALL ACTS OF LIKE
CHARACTER REASONABLY DESIGNED TO ASSIST IN THE ELECTION OF CANDIDATES I
FAVOR. 

"I DESIRE TO ENGAGE IN THESE ACTIVITIES FREELY, OPENLY, AND WITHOUT
CONCEALMENT.  HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION
9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT AND THE RULES OF THE C.S.C. PROVIDE THAT IF I
ENGAGE IN THIS ACTIVITY, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WILL ORDER THAT I
BE DISMISSED FROM FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT.  SUCH DEPRIVATION OF MY JOB IN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BE A SOURCE OF IMMEDIATE AND SERIOUS
FINANCIAL LOSS AND OTHER INJURY TO ME. 

"AT THE LAST CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION I WAS VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN THE
OUTCOME OF THE CAMPAIGN AND OFFERED TO HELP THE PARTY OF MY CHOICE BY
BEING A WATCHER AT THE POLLS.  I OBTAINED A WATCHER'S CERTIFICATE BUT I
WAS ADVISED THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME QUESTION OF MY RIGHT TO USE THE
CERTIFICATE AND RETAIN MY FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT.  THEREFORE, ON NOVEMBER
1, 1943, THE DAY BEFORE ELECTION, I CALLED THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IN PHILADELPHIA AND SPOKE TO A PERSON WHO GAVE
HIS NAME AS  ...  MR....  STATED THAT IF I USED MY WATCHER'S
CERTIFICATE, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WOULD SEE THAT I WAS
DISMISSED FROM MY JOB AT THE  ...  FOR VIOLATION OF THE HATCH ACT.  I,
THEREFORE, DID NOT USE THE CERTIFICATE AS I HAD INTENDED. 

"I BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS MAY NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ABRIDGE MY RIGHT TO
ENGAGE IN THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES MENTIONED ABOVE.  HOWEVER, UNLESS
THE COURTS PREVENT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FROM ENFORCING THIS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW, I WILL BE UNABLE FREELY TO EXERCISE MY RIGHTS AS
A CITIZEN."  (IDENTIFYING WORDS OMITTED.) 

FN19  CORRESPONDENCE & PUBLIC PAPERS OF JOHN JAY, VOL. 3, P. 486;
HAYBURN'S CASE AND NOTES, 2 DALL.  409; ALABAMA V. ARIZONA, 291 U.S.
286, 291; ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450,
461. 

FN20  ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 419, 443; UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC
POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377, 423; ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V.
MCADORY, SUPRA, 461, AND CASES CITED; COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS,
323 U.S. 316, 324, AND CASES CITED. 

FN21  ALTVATER V. FREEMAN, 319 U.S. 359, 363. 

FN22  IT HAS LONG BEEN THIS COURT'S "CONSIDERED PRACTICE NOT TO
DECIDE ABSTRACT, HYPOTHETICAL OR CONTINGENT QUESTIONS,  ...  OR TO
DECIDE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IN ADVANCE OF THE NECESSITY FOR ITS
DECISION,  ...  OR TO FORMULATE A RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BROADER
THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE PRECISE FACTS TO WHICH IT IS TO BE APPLIED,
...  OR TO DECIDE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION EXCEPT WITH REFERENCE TO
THE PARTICULAR FACTS TO WHICH IT IS TO BE APPLIED, ..."  ALABAMA STATE
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, 461, AND CASES CITED. 
SEE ALMA MOTOR CO. V. TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO., 329 U.S. 129. 

FN23  "I HAVE FOR A LONG TIME BEEN INTERESTED IN POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES.  BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE MY EMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
MINT, I HAVE TAKEN AN ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS AND POLITICAL
MANAGEMENT.  IN THE 28TH WARD, 7TH DIVISION IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
I AM AND HAVE BEEN A WARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN.  IN THAT POSITION I
HAVE ON MANY OCCASIONS TAKEN AN ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  I HAVE VISITED THE RESIDENTS OF MY WARD AND
SOLICITED THEM TO SUPPORT MY PARTY AND ITS CANDIDATES; I HAVE ACTED AS
A WATCHER AT THE POLLS; I HAVE CONTRIBUTED MONEY TO HELP PAY ITS
EXPENSES; I HAVE CIRCULATED CAMPAIGN LITERATURE, PLACED BANNERS AND
POSTERS IN PUBLIC PLACES, DISTRIBUTED LEAFLETS, ASSISTED IN ORGANIZING
POLITICAL RALLIES AND ASSEMBLIES, AND HAVE DONE ANY AND ALL ACTS WHICH
WERE ASKED OF ME IN MY CAPACITY AS A WARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN.  I
HAVE ENGAGED IN THESE ACTIVITIES BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER MY EMPLOYMENT IN
THE UNITED STATES MINT.  I INTEND TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN THESE
ACTIVITIES ON MY OWN TIME AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, OPENLY, FREELY, AND
WITHOUT CONCEALMENT. 

"HOWEVER, I HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH A PROPOSED ORDER OF THE UNITED
STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DATED JANUARY 12, 1944, WHICH ADVISES
ME THAT BECAUSE OF THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES MENTIONED ABOVE, AND FOR NO
OTHER REASON, 'IT IS,  ..., THE OPINION OF THIS COMMISSION THAT GEORGE
P. POOLE, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES MINT AT PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA, HAS BEEN GUILTY OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY IN VIOLATION OF
CHARGES THAT I HAVE ENGAGED IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, I WILL BE DISMISSED
FROM MY POSITION AS A ROLLER IN THE UNITED STATES MINT AT PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA." 

FN24  THE TENTATIVE CHARGE AND FINDING READS:

                                  I. 

"IT IS CHARGED:  THAT  ... 

"THE SAID GEORGE P. POOLE HELD THE POLITICAL PARTY OFFICE OF
DEMOCRATIC WARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA. 

"THE SAID GEORGE P. POOLE WAS POLITICALLY ACTIVE BY AIDING AND
ASSISTING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN THE CAPACITY OF WORKER AT THE POLLS
ON GENERAL ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1940, AND ASSISTED IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS IN PAYING PARTY WORKERS FOR THEIR SERVICES ON
GENERAL ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1940." 

          III. 

"THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ACTIVITY CONSTITUTES TAKING AN ACTIVE PART IN
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND IN A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN CONTRAVENTION OF
COMMISSIONERS THEREUNDER." 

FN25  MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. PACIFIC COAL & OIL CO., 312 U.S. 270,
273; ALTVATER V. FREEMAN, 319 U.S. 359, 364; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY.
V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 260. 

FN26  28 U.S.C. SEC. 400:  "IN CASES OF ACTUAL CONTROVERSY EXCEPT
WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL TAXES THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL
HAVE POWER UPON PETITION, DECLARATION, COMPLAINT, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
PLEADINGS TO DECLARE RIGHTS AND OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS OF ANY INTERESTED
PARTY PETITIONING FOR SUCH DECLARATION, WHETHER OR NOT FURTHER RELIEF
IS OR COULD BE PRAYED, AND SUCH DECLARATION SHALL HAVE THE FORCE AND
EFFECT OF A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE AND BE REVIEWABLE AS SUCH." 

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 241; NASHVILLE, C.
& ST. L. RY. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 264. 

FN27  SEE WHITE V. BERRY, 171 U.S. 366, 377; IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S.
200, 212. 

FN28  WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT FAIL
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE COMMISSION BECAUSE IT SEEKS
RELIEF AGAINST THE COMMISSION'S ACTION UNDER THE HATCH ACT INSTEAD OF
RULE 1 OF THE COMMISSION.  SO FAR AS POOLE'S CONTROVERSY IS CONCERNED,
THE ACT AND THE RULE ARE THE SAME. 

FN29  IN LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY
THIS COURT THAT CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT JUSTIFY THE PROHIBITION BY
EMPLOYERS OF UNION ACTIVITY BY EMPLOYEES ON THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY,
EVEN THOUGH CARRIED OUT DURING NON-WORKING HOURS.  REPUBLIC AVIATION
CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 324 U.S. 793, 803. 

FN30  CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 571; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 304, 310; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147,
165; DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 364; COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312
U.S. 569, 574; PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158, 169; REYNOLDS V.
UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145. 

FN31  106 U.S. 376-77:  "...  EVERY CITIZEN HAVING THE PROPER
QUALIFICATIONS HAS THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OFFICE, AND TO BE A CANDIDATE
THEREFOR.  THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF WHICH THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT
DEPRIVE THE CITIZEN, NOR CLOG ITS EXERCISE WITH CONDITIONS THAT ARE
REPUGNANT TO HIS OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.  SUCH A CONDITION I REGARD
THAT IMPOSED BY THE LAW IN QUESTION TO BE.  IT PREVENTS THE CITIZEN
FROM CO-OPERATING WITH OTHER CITIZENS OF HIS OWN CHOICE IN THE
PROMOTION OF HIS POLITICAL VIEWS....  THE WHOLE THING SEEMS TO ME
ABSURD.  NEITHER MEN'S MOUTHS NOR THEIR PURSES CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
TIED UP IN THAT WAY." 

FN32  KAPLAN, POLITICAL NEUTRALITY OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, 1 PUB. PERS. 
REV.  10; WHITE, CIVIL SERVICE IN THE MODERN STATE (1930); MOSHER AND
KINGSLEY, PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION (1936); WHITE, GOVERNMENT
CAREER SERVICE (1935); MERIAM, PUBLIC PERSONNEL PROBLEMS (1938). 

MILITARY PERSONNEL IS RESTRICTED IN MUCH THE SAME MANNER.  ARMY
REGULATIONS NO. 600-10, P. 5: "6.  POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF PERSONS IN
MILITARY SERVICE.  - A. GENERAL.  - NO MEMBER OF THE ARMY, WHILE ON
ACTIVE DUTY, WILL USE HIS OFFICIAL AUTHORITY OR INFLUENCE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH AN ELECTION OR AFFECTING THE COURSE OR
OUTCOME THEREOF.  SUCH PERSONS, WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY, RETAIN THE RIGHT
TO VOTE, TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS PRIVATELY AND INFORMALLY ON ALL
POLITICAL SUBJECTS AND CANDIDATES, AND TO BECOME CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC
OFFICE AS PERMITTED IN THESE REGULATIONS.  THEY WILL NOT BE PERMITTED
TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS."    AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION OF THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF
INTERFERENCE BY FEDERAL OFFICERS IN ELECTIONS WILL BE FOUND IN THE
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, DEC. 3, 1838-FEB.  19, 1839, PP.
157, 160 AND 409, 411. 

FN33  86 CONG. REC. 2338-2367, 2426-2442, 2696-2723, 2920-2963, 2969
2987, 9360-9380, 9426-9432, 9434-9463.    FN34  RICHARDSON, MESSAGES
AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS (1897), HARRISON, VOL. IV, P. 52; ID.,
HAYES, VOL. VII, PP. 450-51.  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

WHEN IN 1891 NEW BEDFORD, MASS., UNDER A RULE REMOVED A POLICEMAN FOR
POLITICAL ACTIVITY, AN OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE, THEN JUDGE, HOLMES
DISPOSED SUMMARILY OF MCAULIFFE'S CONTENTION THAT THE RULE INVADED HIS
RIGHT TO EXPRESS HIS POLITICAL OPINION WITH THE EPIGRAM, "THE
PETITIONER MAY HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TALK POLITICS, BUT HE HAS
NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A POLICEMAN."  MCAULIFFE V. NEW BEDFORD,
155 MASS. 216, 220, 29 N.E. 517. 

FN35  SEVERAL STATES HAVE SIMILAR PROVISIONS.  ALA. CODE (1940), TIT.
12, SEC. 157; CONN. GEN. STAT. (SUPP. 1939), C. 105A SEC. 698E; OHIO
GEN. CODE (PAGE, 1937), SEC. 486-23; PA. STAT. ANN. (PURDON, 1942),
TIT. 71, SEC. 741.904; R.I. ACTS & RESOLVES, 1939, P. 118. 

FN36  UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND
POLITICAL ASSESSMENTS, FORM 1236, JANUARY 1944. 

FN37 "IN THE LIGHT OF THESE WIDE VARIATIONS IN DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND ITS FAIR ENFORCEMENT, A
RESTRICTION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THE IMPARTIALITY OF A
COLLECTOR OF THE REVENUE, A U.S. MARSHAL, AN F.B.I. OR TREASURY AGENT
MAY BE UTTERLY ABSURD AND UNJUSTIFIED WHEN APPLIED TO A LENS GRINDER, A
STOCK CLERK, A MACHINIST, OR AN ELEVATOR OPERATOR.  IT IS THEREFORE
IMPOSSIBLE BOTH TO OBSERVE REASONABLE REGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
AND TO ENACT SWEEPING PROHIBITIONS AS TO POLITICAL RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO
ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHATEVER THE NATURE OF THEIR DUTIES.  IN DEALING
WITH SO COMPLICATED AND VARIED A SUBJECT MATTER, A HATCHET CANNOT
READILY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A SCALPEL." 

FN38  UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND
POLITICAL ASSESSMENTS, FORM 1236, SEPTEMBER 1939: 

"15.  COMMITTEES.  - SERVICE ON OR FOR ANY POLITICAL COMMITTEE OR
SIMILAR ORGANIZATION IS PROHIBITED.... 

    .         .         .         .         . 

"20.  ACTIVITY AT THE POLLS AND FOR CANDIDATES.  -  ... 

     .     .         .         .         . 

"IT IS THE DUTY OF AN EMPLOYEE TO AVOID ANY OFFENSIVE ACTIVITY AT
PRIMARY AND REGULAR ELECTIONS.  HE MUST REFRAIN FROM SOLICITING VOTES,
ASSISTING VOTERS TO MARK BALLOTS, HELPING TO GET OUT THE VOTERS ON
REGISTRATION AND ELECTION DAYS, ACTING AS THE ACCREDITED CHECKER,
WATCHER, OR CHALLENGER OF ANY PARTY OR FACTION, ASSISTING IN COUNTING
THE VOTE, OR ENGAGING IN ANY OTHER ACTIVITY AT THE POLLS EXCEPT THE
MARKING AND DEPOSITING OF HIS OWN BALLOT." 

FN39  UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH, 280 U.S. 396, 399. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENTS AS TO POOLE FOR THE REASONS STATED BY
MR. JUSTICE BLACK.  HE DOES NOT PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
PRESENTED BY THE OTHER APPELLANTS FOR THE REASON THAT HE FEELS THE
CONTROVERSY AS TO THEM IS NOT YET APPROPRIATE FOR THE DISCRETIONARY
EXERCISE OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JURISDICTION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE TERMS OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 751, 752, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 380A, IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY, HAVE CONVINCED ME THAT THIS
CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

IN THAT ACT, CONGRESS PUT A LIMIT TO THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A CASE MAY
BE DOCKETED HERE AFTER AN APPEAL BELOW IS ALLOWED.  SUCH A LIMITATION
BY CONGRESS IS IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO REGULATE THE APPELLATE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR POWER TO ENLARGE A
LIMIT FIXED BY CONGRESS UNLESS CONGRESS ITSELF GAVE THE COURT SUCH
DISPENSING POWER. 

IN ALLOWING A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A DISTRICT COURT
"UNDER SUCH RULES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED," CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN TO GIVE
THIS COURT POWER TO DEFEAT THE CONSIDERATIONS OF SPEED IN THE
DISPOSITION OF CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL
LEGISLATION WHICH LED TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT A CASE BE DOCKETED
"WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE TIME SUCH APPEAL IS ALLOWED."  NO RULE OF
THIS COURT COULD DISREGARD THE LIMITATIONS FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL
MADE BY CONGRESS.  NOR DOES RULE 47, WHICH WAS THE RULE RESPONSIVE TO
THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, PURPORT TO DO SO.  IT MERELY REASSERTS THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT IN A CASE LIKE THIS "THE RECORD SHALL BE
MADE UP AND THE CASE DOCKETED IN THIS COURT WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE
TIME THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED."  THE INTRODUCTORY PART OF RULE 47, WHEREBY
THE RULES OF THIS COURT REGULATING APPELLATE PROCEDURE IN OTHER CASES
ARE ADOPTED "AS FAR AS MAY BE," HAS AMPLE SCOPE FOR OPERATION WITHOUT
QUALIFYING THE NECESSITY FOR SPEEDY PERFECTION OF AN APPEAL IN CASES
INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALITY, SO THAT THE VALIDITY OF ACTS OF CONGRESS
MAY NOT REMAIN IN DOUBT THROUGH PROTRACTED LITIGATION.  THIS WAS A DEEP
CONCERN OF CONGRESS AND ITS REASON FOR IMPOSING THE SIXTY-DAY
LIMITATION FOR PERFECTING APPEALS IN THIS CLASS OF CASES. 

BUT UNDER COMPULSION OF THE COURT'S ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, I
REACH THE MERITS AND JOIN IN MR. JUSTICE REED'S OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE SENTENCE IN SEC. 9 OF THE STATUTE, HERE UPHELD, MAKES IT UNLAWFUL
FOR ANY PERSON EMPLOYED IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, WITH MINOR NUMERICAL EXCEPTIONS,  FN1  TO "TAKE ANY ACTIVE
PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS."  THE
PUNISHMENT PROVIDED IS IMMEDIATE DISCHARGE AND A PERMANENT BAN AGAINST
REEMPLOYMENT IN THE SAME POSITION.  FN2  THE NUMBER OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES THUS BARRED FROM POLITICAL ACTION IS APPROXIMATELY THREE
MILLION.  SECTION 12 OF THE SAME ACT AFFECTS THE PARTICIPATION IN
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS OF MANY THOUSANDS OF STATE EMPLOYEES.  FN3  NO ONE
OF ALL THESE MILLIONS OF CITIZENS CAN, WITHOUT VIOLATING THIS LAW,
"TAKE ANY ACTIVE PART" IN ANY CAMPAIGN FOR A CAUSE OR FOR A CANDIDATE
IF THE CAUSE OR CANDIDATE IS "SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED WITH ANY NATIONAL
OR STATE POLITICAL PARTY."  SINCE UNDER OUR COMMON POLITICAL PRACTICES
MOST CAUSES AND CANDIDATES ARE ESPOUSED BY POLITICAL PARTIES, THE
RESULT IS THAT, BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID OUT OF THE PUBLIC TREASURY, ALL
THESE CITIZENS WHO ENGAGE IN PUBLIC WORK CAN TAKE NO REALLY EFFECTIVE
PART IN CAMPAIGNS THAT MAY BRING ABOUT CHANGES IN THEIR LIVES, THEIR
FORTUNES, AND THEIR HAPPINESS.  FN4 

WE ARE NOT LEFT IN DOUBT AS TO HOW NUMEROUS AND VARIED ARE THE
"ACTIVITIES" PROHIBITED.  FOR SEC. 15 SWEEPINGLY DESCRIBES THEM AS "THE
SAME ACTIVITIES  ...  AS THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION HAS
HERETOFORE DETERMINED ARE AT THE TIME THIS SECTION TAKES EFFECT
PROHIBITED ON THE PART OF EMPLOYEES IN THE CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES  ..."  ALONG WITH THE VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN PRIOR
PROHIBITIONS OF THE COMMISSION, ARE THESE THINGS WHICH THE COMMISSION
HAD CLEARLY PROHIBITED:  SERVING AS AN ELECTION OFFICER; PUBLICLY
EXPRESSING POLITICAL VIEWS AT A PARTY CAUCUS OR POLITICAL GATHERING FOR
OR AGAINST ANY CANDIDATE OR CAUSE IDENTIFIED WITH A PARTY; SOLICITING
VOTES FOR A PARTY OR CANDIDATE; PARTICIPATING IN A POLITICAL PARADE;
WRITING FOR PUBLICATION OR PUBLISHING ANY LETTER OR ARTICLE, SIGNED OR
UNSIGNED, IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST ANY POLITICAL PARTY, CANDIDATE, OR
FACTION; INITIATING, OR CANVASSING FOR SIGNATURES ON, COMMUNITY
PETITIONS OR PETITIONS TO CONGRESS. 

IN VIEW OF THESE PROHIBITIONS, IT IS LITTLE CONSOLATION TO EMPLOYEES
THAT THE ACT CONTRADICTORILY SAYS THAT THEY MAY "EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS
ON ALL POLITICAL SUBJECTS AND CANDIDATES."  FOR THIS PERMISSION TO
"EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS" IS, THE COMMISSION HAS RIGHTLY SAID, "SUBJECT
TO THE PROHIBITION THAT EMPLOYEES MAY NOT TAKE ANY ACTIVE PART IN  ...
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS."  THE HOPELESS CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THIS
PRIVILEGE OF AN EMPLOYEE TO TALK AND THE PROHIBITION AGAINST HIS
TALKING STANDS OUT IN THE COMMISSION'S FURTHER WARNING TO ALL EMPLOYEES
THAT THEY CAN EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS PUBLICLY, BUT "PUBLIC EXPRESSION
OF OPINION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CONSTITUTE TAKING AN ACTIVE PART IN
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IS ACCORDINGLY
PROHIBITED."  THUS, WHATEVER OPINIONS EMPLOYEES MAY DARE TO EXPRESS,
EVEN SECRETLY, MUST BE AT THEIR PERIL.  THEY CANNOT KNOW WHAT
PARTICULAR EXPRESSIONS MAY BE REPORTED TO THE COMMISSION AND HELD BY IT
TO BE A SUFFICIENT POLITICAL ACTIVITY TO COST THEM THEIR JOBS.  THEIR
PERIL IS ALL THE GREATER BECAUSE OF ANOTHER WARNING BY THE COMMISSION
THAT "EMPLOYEES ARE  ... ACCOUNTABLE FOR POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY PERSONS
OTHER THAN THEMSELVES, INCLUDING WIVES OR HUSBANDS, IF, IN FACT, THE
EMPLOYEES ARE THUS ACCOMPLISHING BY COLLUSION AND INDIRECTION WHAT THEY
MAY NOT LAWFULLY DO DIRECTLY AND OPENLY."  THUS ARE THE FAMILIES OF
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES STRIPPED OF THEIR FREEDOM OF POLITICAL ACTION.  THE
RESULT IS THAT THE SUM OF POLITICAL PRIVILEGE LEFT TO GOVERNMENT AND
STATE EMPLOYEES, AND THEIR FAMILIES, TO TAKE PART IN POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS SEEMS TO BE THIS: THEY MAY VOTE IN SILENCE; THEY MAY
CAREFULLY AND QUIETLY EXPRESS A POLITICAL VIEW AT THEIR PERIL; AND THEY
MAY BECOME "SPECTATORS" (THIS IS THE COMMISSION'S WORD) AT CAMPAIGN
GATHERINGS, THOUGH IT MAY BE HIGHLY DANGEROUS FOR THEM TO "SECOND A
MOTION" OR LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH A SPEAKER. 

ALL OF THE PETITIONERS HERE CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
THAT SENTENCE OF SEC. 9 OF THE STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITS ALL FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES FROM TAKING "ANY ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS" AND WHICH BY REFERENCE ONLY SWEEPS UNDER THIS
PROHIBITION ALL THEN-EXISTING CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS.  THE CHARGE IS
THAT THIS PROVISION, THUS SUPPLEMENTED BY THE REGULATIONS, VIOLATES THE
FIRST AMENDMENT BY PROHIBITING FREEDOM OF PRESS, SPEECH, AND ASSEMBLY;
THAT IT VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT EFFECTS AN ARBITRARY
AND GROSS DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COVERED AND THOSE
EXEMPTED; THAT IT ALSO VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT IS SO
VAGUE AND INDEFINITE AS TO PROHIBIT LAWFUL ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS
ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE PROPERLY MADE UNLAWFUL BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF
LAW.  THUS, THESE ATTACKS OF POOLE AND ALL THE OTHER PETITIONERS ARE
IDENTICAL, NAMELY, THAT THE PROVISION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE. 
THE COURT DECIDES THIS QUESTION AGAINST POOLE AFTER HOLDING THAT HIS
CASE PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  I THINK POOLE'S CHALLENGE TO
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED.  AND SINCE
I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS THAT ALL THE PETITIONERS' COMPLAINTS
STATE A CASE OR CONTROVERSY, AND SHOW THREATS OF IMMINENT IRREPARABLE
DAMAGES, I THINK THAT THE CONTENTION THAT THE CHALLENGED PROVISION IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AS TO ALL OF THEM. 

HAD THIS MEASURE DEPRIVED FIVE MILLION FARMERS OR A MILLION
BUSINESSMEN OF ALL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN ELECTIONS, BECAUSE CONGRESS
THOUGHT THAT FEDERAL FARM OR BUSINESS SUBSIDIES MIGHT PROMPT SOME OF
THEM TO EXERCISE, OR BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO, A CORRUPTING INFLUENCE ON
POLITICS OR GOVERNMENT, I WOULD NOT SUSTAIN SUCH AN ACT ON THE GROUND
THAT IT COULD BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO APPLY ONLY TO SOME OF THEM. 
CERTAINLY LAWS WHICH RESTRICT THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT SHOULD BE NARROWLY DRAWN TO MEET THE EVIL AIMED AT AND TO
AFFECT ONLY THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PEOPLE IMPERATIVELY NECESSARY TO
PREVENT A GRAVE AND IMMINENT DANGER TO THE PUBLIC.  FN5 FURTHERMORE,
WHAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CAN OR CANNOT DO, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE VARIOUS
CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS, RULES, WARNINGS, ETC., IS A MATTER OF SO
GREAT UNCERTAINTY THAT NO PERSON CAN EVEN MAKE AN INTELLIGENT GUESS. 
THIS WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEFS AND ORAL ARGUMENTS IN
THIS CASE.  I WOULD HOLD THAT THE PROVISION HERE ATTACKED IS TOO BROAD,
AMBIGUOUS, AND UNCERTAIN IN ITS CONSEQUENCES TO BE MADE THE BASIS OF
REMOVING DESERVING EMPLOYEES FROM THEIR JOBS.  SEE DISSENTING OPINION,
WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226, 261, 276-278 AND CASES
COLLECTED, NOTE 16. 

THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND PRIVATELY TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON POLITICAL
MATTERS, IMPORTANT THOUGH THEY BE, ARE BUT PARTS OF THE BROAD FREEDOMS
WHICH OUR CONSTITUTION HAS PROVIDED AS THE BULWARK OF OUR FREE
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.  POPULAR GOVERNMENT, TO BE EFFECTIVE, MUST
PERMIT AND ENCOURAGE MUCH WIDER POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY ALL THE PEOPLE. 
FN6  REAL POPULAR GOVERNMENT MEANS "THAT MEN MAY SPEAK AS THEY THINK ON
MATTERS VITAL TO THEM AND THAT FALSEHOODS MAY BE EXPOSED THROUGH THE
PROCESSES OF EDUCATION AND DISCUSSION  ...  THOSE WHO WON OUR
INDEPENDENCE HAD CONFIDENCE IN THE POWER OF FREE AND FEARLESS REASONING
AND COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS TO DISCOVER AND SPREAD POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC TRUTH."  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 95.  LEGISLATION
WHICH MUZZLES SEVERAL MILLION CITIZENS THREATENS POPULAR GOVERNMENT,
NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT INJURES THE INDIVIDUALS MUZZLED, BUT ALSO BECAUSE
OF ITS HARMFUL EFFECT ON THE BODY POLITIC IN DEPRIVING IT OF THE
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND INTEREST OF SUCH A LARGE SEGMENT OF OUR
CITIZENS.  FORCING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO CONTRIBUTE MONEY AND INFLUENCE
CAN WELL BE PROSCRIBED IN THE INTEREST OF "CLEAN POLITICS" AND PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION.  BUT I THINK THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS LEGISLATION
WHICH PREVENTS MILLIONS OF CITIZENS FROM CONTRIBUTING THEIR ARGUMENTS,
COMPLAINTS, AND SUGGESTIONS TO THE POLITICAL DEBATES WHICH ARE THE
ESSENCE OF OUR DEMOCRACY; PREVENTS THEM FROM ENGAGING IN ORGANIZATIONAL
ACTIVITY TO URGE OTHERS TO VOTE AND TAKE AN INTEREST IN POLITICAL
AFFAIRS; BARS THEM FROM PERFORMING THE INTERESTED CITIZEN'S DUTY OF
INSURING THAT HIS AND HIS FELLOW CITIZENS' VOTES ARE COUNTED.  SUCH
DRASTIC LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT OF ALL THE PEOPLE TO EXPRESS POLITICAL
OPINIONS AND TAKE POLITICAL ACTION WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, AND
PETITION.  AND IT WOULD VIOLATE, OR COME DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO
VIOLATING, ARTICLE I AND THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION,
WHICH PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR THEIR CONGRESSMEN AND
THEIR UNITED STATES SENATORS AND TO HAVE THEIR VOTES COUNTED.  SEE EX
PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651; UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383;
UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 314. 

THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT FEDERAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES AS A CLASS WHICH
JUSTIFIES DEPRIVING THEM OR SOCIETY OF THE BENEFITS OF THEIR
PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS.  THEY, LIKE OTHER CITIZENS, PAY TAXES
AND SERVE THEIR COUNTRY IN PEACE AND IN WAR.  THE TAXES THEY PAY AND
THE WARS IN WHICH THEY FIGHT ARE DETERMINED BY THE ELECTED SPOKESMEN OF
ALL THE PEOPLE.  THEY COME FROM THE SAME HOMES, COMMUNITIES, SCHOOLS,
CHURCHES, AND COLLEGES AS DO THE OTHER CITIZENS.  I THINK THE
CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES TO THEM THE SAME RIGHT THAT OTHER GROUPS OF
GOOD CITIZENS HAVE TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES WHICH DECIDE WHO THEIR
ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE. 

NO STATUTE OF CONGRESS HAS EVER BEFORE ATTEMPTED SO DRASTICALLY TO
STIFLE THE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN POLITICAL UTTERANCES AND LAWFUL POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES AS A CLASS.  THE NEAREST
APPROACH WAS THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT OF 1883, 22 STAT. 403-4, WHICH
AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO PROMULGATE RULES SO THAT, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, NO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SHOULD "USE HIS OFFICIAL AUTHORITY OR
INFLUENCE TO COERCE THE POLITICAL ACTION OF ANY PERSON OR BODY."  IN
1907, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER AUTHORITY
OF THE 1883 ACT, DID, AS THE COURT POINTS OUT, PROHIBIT CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES FROM TAKING "AN ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS."  BUT THIS COURT HAS NOT APPROVED THE STATUTORY
POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO PROMULGATE SUCH A RULE, NOR HAS IT EVER
EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION APPROVED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF ANY
SUCH SWEEPING ABRIDGEMENT OF THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. 
NEITHER EX PARTE CURTIS, 106 U.S. 371, NOR UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH,
280 U.S. 396, LEND THE SLIGHTEST SUPPORT TO THE PRESENT STATUTE.  BOTH
OF THESE CASES RELATED TO STATUTES WHICH DID NO MORE THAN LIMIT THE
RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO COLLECT MONEY FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES FOR POLITICAL
PURPOSES.  INDEED, THE CURTIS DECISION SEEMS IMPLICITLY TO HAVE RESTED
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT MANY POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, BEYOND MERELY VOTING AND SPEAKING SECRETLY, WOULD NOT, AND
COULD NOT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, BE IMPAIRED BY THE LEGISLATION THERE
AT ISSUE.  EX PARTE CURTIS, SUPRA, AT 375. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF CLEAN POLITICS TO SUPPRESS
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL AND STATE EMPLOYEES.  IT WOULD HARDLY
SEEM TO BE IMPERATIVE TO MUZZLE MILLIONS OF CITIZENS BECAUSE SOME OF
THEM, IF LEFT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS, MIGHT CORRUPT THE
POLITICAL PROCESS.  ALL POLITICAL CORRUPTION IS NOT TRACEABLE TO STATE
AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  THEREFORE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OTHER GROUPS MAY
LATER BE COMPELLED TO SACRIFICE THEIR RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PURITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF WHICH
THEY ARE A PART. 

IT MAY BE TRUE, AS CONTENDED, THAT SOME HIGHER EMPLOYEES, UNLESS
RESTRAINED, MIGHT COERCE THEIR SUBORDINATES OR THAT GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES MIGHT USE THEIR OFFICIAL POSITION TO COERCE OTHER CITIZENS. 
BUT IS SUCH A POSSIBILITY OF COERCION OF A SUBORDINATE BY HIS EMPLOYER
LIMITED TO GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS?  FN7  THE SAME
QUALITY OF ARGUMENT WOULD SUPPORT A LAW TO SUPPRESS THE POLITICAL
FREEDOM OF ALL EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE EMPLOYERS, AND PARTICULARLY OF
EMPLOYERS WHO BORROW MONEY OR DRAW SUBSIDIES FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  NOR
DOES IT SEEM PLAUSIBLE THAT ALL OF THE MILLIONS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
WHOSE RIGHTS TO FREE EXPRESSION ARE HERE STIFLED MIGHT, IF THEY
PARTICIPATE IN ELECTIONS, COERCE OTHER CITIZENS NOT EMPLOYED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OR THE STATES.  POOLE, ONE OF THE PETITIONERS HERE, IS A
ROLLER IN A UNITED STATES MINT.  HIS JOB IS ABOUT ON A PAR IN TERMS OF
POLITICAL INFLUENCE WITH THAT OF MOST OTHER STATE, FEDERAL, AND PRIVATE
BUSINESS EMPLOYEES.  SUCH JOBS GENERALLY DO NOT GIVE SUCH EMPLOYEES WHO
HOLD THEM SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY TO ENABLE THEM TO WIELD A DANGEROUS OR
COERCIVE INFLUENCE ON THE POLITICAL WORLD.  IF THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS
THAT SOME OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MAY, BY REASON OF THEIR MORE
INFLUENTIAL POSITIONS, COERCE OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OR OTHER CITIZENS,
LAWS CAN BE DRAWN TO PUNISH THE COERCERS.  FN8  IT HARDLY SEEMS
CONSISTENT WITH OUR SYSTEM OF EQUAL JUSTICE TO ALL TO SUPPRESS THE
POLITICAL AND SPEAKING FREEDOM OF MILLIONS OF GOOD CITIZENS BECAUSE A
FEW BAD CITIZENS MIGHT ENGAGE IN COERCION.  FN9 

IT MAY ALSO BE TRUE, AS CONTENDED, THAT IF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ARE
PERMITTED TO EXERCISE A FULL FREEDOM TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS IN
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, SOME PUBLIC OFFICIALS WILL DISCHARGE SOME
EMPLOYEES AND GRANT PROMOTION TO OTHERS ON A POLITICAL RATHER THAN ON A
MERIT BASIS.  FOR THE SAME REASONS OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS, OCCUPYING
POSITIONS OF INFLUENCE, MAY USE THEIR INFLUENCE TO HAVE THEIR OWN
POLITICAL SUPPORTERS APPOINTED OR PROMOTED.  BUT HERE AGAIN, IF THE
PRACTICE OF MAKING DISCHARGES, PROMOTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
PROMOTIONS ON A POLITICAL BASIS IS SO GREAT AN EVIL AS TO REQUIRE
LEGISLATION, THE LAW COULD PUNISH THOSE PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO ENGAGE IN
THE PRACTICE.  TO PUNISH MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES AND TO DEPRIVE THE
NATION OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC AFFAIRS, IN ORDER TO REMOVE
TEMPTATION FROM A PROPORTIONATELY SMALL NUMBER OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS,
SEEMS AT THE LEAST TO BE A NOVEL METHOD OF SUPPRESSING WHAT IS THOUGHT
TO BE AN EVIL PRACTICE. 

OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM, DIFFERENT FROM MANY OTHERS, RESTS ON THE
FOUNDATION OF A BELIEF IN RULE BY THE PEOPLE - NOT SOME, BUT ALL THE
PEOPLE.  EDUCATION HAS BEEN FOSTERED BETTER TO FIT PEOPLE FOR SELF
EXPRESSION AND GOOD CITIZENSHIP.  IN A COUNTRY WHOSE PEOPLE ELECT THEIR
LEADERS AND DECIDE GREAT PUBLIC ISSUES, THE VOICE OF NONE SHOULD BE
SUPPRESSED - AT LEAST SUCH IS THE ASSUMPTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 
THAT AMENDMENT, UNLESS I MISUNDERSTAND ITS MEANING, INCLUDES A COMMAND
THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE ITS OWN INTEREST, LEAVE
THE PEOPLE AT LIBERTY TO SPEAK THEIR OWN THOUGHTS ABOUT GOVERNMENT,
ADVOCATE THEIR OWN FAVORED GOVERNMENTAL CAUSES, AND WORK FOR THEIR OWN
POLITICAL CANDIDATES AND PARTIES. 

THE SECTION OF THE ACT HERE HELD VALID REDUCES THE CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED LIBERTY OF SEVERAL MILLION CITIZENS TO LESS THAN A SHADOW OF
ITS SUBSTANCE.  IT RELEGATES MILLIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES TO THE ROLE OF MERE SPECTATORS OF EVENTS UPON WHICH HINGE THE
SAFETY AND WELFARE OF ALL THE PEOPLE, INCLUDING PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.  IT
REMOVES A SIZABLE PROPORTION OF OUR ELECTORATE FROM FULL PARTICIPATION
IN AFFAIRS DESTINED TO MOULD THE FORTUNES OF THE NATION.  IT MAKES
HONEST PARTICIPATION IN ESSENTIAL POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AN OFFENSE
PUNISHABLE BY PROSCRIPTION FROM PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT.  IT ENDOWS A
GOVERNMENTAL BOARD WITH THE AWESOME POWER TO CENSOR THE THOUGHTS,
EXPRESSIONS, AND ACTIVITIES OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS IN THE FIELD OF
FREE EXPRESSION, FROM WHICH NO PERSON SHOULD BE BARRED BY A GOVERNMENT
WHICH BOASTS THAT IT IS A GOVERNMENT OF, FOR, AND BY THE PEOPLE - ALL
THE PEOPLE.  LAUDABLE AS ITS PURPOSE MAY BE, IT SEEMS TO ME TO HACK AT
THE ROOTS OF A GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES; AND CONSEQUENTLY I
CANNOT AGREE TO SUSTAIN ITS VALIDITY. 

FN1  THOSE EXCEPTED ARE "A PART-TIME OFFICER OR PART-TIME EMPLOYEE
WITHOUT COMPENSATION OR WITH NOMINAL COMPENSATION SERVING IN CONNECTION
WITH THE EXISTING WAR EFFORT," COMMONLY DESIGNATED AS "DOLLAR-A-YEAR
MEN" AND "(1) THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
(2) PERSONS WHOSE COMPENSATION IS PAID FROM THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; (3) HEADS AND ASSISTANT HEADS OF EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS; (4) OFFICERS WHO ARE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT, BY AND
WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, AND WHO DETERMINE POLICIES
TO BE PURSUED BY THE UNITED STATES IN ITS RELATIONS WITH FOREIGN POWERS
OR IN THE NATION-WIDE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL LAWS."  SEC. 9A; 18
U.S.C. 61H (A), AS AMENDED. 

FN2  "ANY PERSON VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE POSITION OR OFFICE HELD BY HIM, AND
THEREAFTER NO PART OF THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS FOR
SUCH POSITION OR OFFICE SHALL BE USED TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF SUCH
PERSON."  SEC. 9B; 18 U.S.C. 61H (B). 

FN3  ALL STATE EMPLOYEES WHO WORK FOR ANY STATE AGENCY FINANCED IN
WHOLE OR IN PART BY FEDERAL GRANTS OR LOANS ARE AFFECTED BY THE ACT. 

IN 1945 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAID $865,729,569.15 IN GRANTS IN AID
TO STATES, ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ON THE STATE
OF THE FINANCES, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1945(1946) 714, AND
$688,506,157.11 IN DIRECT PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY
PROGRAM, PUBLIC ROADS AND EMERGENCY MATERNITY AND INFANT CARE.  ID. AT
718.  GRANTS TO AND EXPENDITURES WITHIN STATES, PROVIDING DIRECT
RELIEF, WORK RELIEF, AND OTHER AID SUCH AS THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
PROGRAM, NATIONAL HOUSING AGENCY ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS, ETC., TOTALED
$1,353,427,735.68.  ID. AT 721. 

IN JULY 1946 THE NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED BY STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TOTALED APPROXIMATELY 2,754,000 OF WHOM 641,000 WERE
EMPLOYED IN SCHOOLS AND 2,114,000 WERE NON-SCHOOL EMPLOYEES.  PUBLIC
EMPLOYMENT IN JULY, 1946, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT, DEPT. OF COMMERCE,
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, VOL. 7, NO. 3(1946) 1.  A BREAKDOWN OF COUNTY
EMPLOYEES IS A SAMPLE WHICH SUGGESTS THE PROPORTION STATE AND LOCAL
WHOSE SALARIES MAY BE PAID IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY FEDERAL FUNDS THUS
COMING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  OF A TOTAL OF 310,000 NON
SCHOOL COUNTY EMPLOYEES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, 77,000 WERE EMPLOYED IN
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS; 4,700 IN NATURAL RESOURCES; 12,600 IN HEALTH AND
SANITATION; 40,000 IN HOSPITALS; 22,000 IN PUBLIC WELFARE.  COUNTY
EMPLOYMENT IN 1944, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT, OP. CIT. SUPRA, VOL. 5, NO.
2(1944) 7. 

FN4  THERE ARE MINOR EXCEPTIONS.  ONE CONCESSION ONLY IS GRANTED
THOSE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO LIVE "IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL IN THE STATES OF MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA OR IN
MUNICIPALITIES THE MAJORITY OF WHOSE VOTERS ARE EMPLOYED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ..."  THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MAY
"PERMIT" THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN CAMPAIGNS INVOLVING THE "MUNICIPALITY
OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION" IN WHICH THEY RESIDE "TO THE EXTENT THE
COMMISSION DEEMS TO BE IN (THEIR) DOMESTIC INTEREST  ..."  SECTION 16;
18 U.S.C. 61P.  A GENERAL EXCEPTION PERMITS PARTICIPATION (1) IN AN
"ELECTION AND THE PRECEDING CAMPAIGN IF NONE OF THE CANDIDATES IS TO BE
NOMINATED OR ELECTED  ...  AS REPRESENTING A (POLITICAL) PARTY  ...
(2) IN CONNECTION WITH ANY QUESTION WHICH IS NOT SPECIFICALLY
IDENTIFIED WITH ANY NATIONAL OR STATE POLITICAL PARTY.  FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, QUESTIONS RELATING TO CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS, REFERENDUMS, APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, AND OTHERS
OF A SIMILAR CHARACTER, SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE SPECIFICALLY
IDENTIFIED WITH ANY NATIONAL OR STATE POLITICAL PARTY."  SEC. 18, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 61R.  THE IMPORTANCE AND NUMBER OF POLITICAL ISSUES THUS
EXCEPTED, E.G. SUNDAY MOVIES, LOCAL SCHOOL BOND ISSUES, LOCATION OF
LOCAL PARKS, ELECTION OF LOCAL OFFICIALS IN WHOM NO POLITICAL PARTY IS
INTERESTED, ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY SMALL. 

FN5  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S.
501; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 260, 263. 

FN6  SOME STATES REQUIRE THAT EMPLOYERS PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES FOR THE
TIME THEY SPEND AWAY FROM WORK WHILE VOTING.  SEE PEOPLE V. FORD MOTOR
CO., 271 APP. DIV. 141, 63 N.Y.S.2D 697; NOTE, PAY WHILE VOTING, 47
COL. L. REV. 135(1947). 

FN7  MANY STATES HAVE LAWS PROTECTING NON-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FROM
EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR VOTING INDEPENDENCE.  SEE NOTE, PAY
WHILE VOTING, 47 COL. L. REV. 135, 136, NOTE 9(1947). 

FN8  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN9  THE ACT, IN FACT, LEAVES FREE THE HIGHER OFFICIALS WHOSE
POSITIONS GIVE THEM THE ACTUAL POWER TO COERCE SUBORDINATES AND OTHER
CITIZENS NOT EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  SEC. 9A; 18 U.S.C. 61H. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I DISAGREE WITH THE COURT ON TWO OF THE FOUR MATTERS DECIDED. 

FIRST.  THERE ARE TWELVE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS HERE ASKING FOR AN
ADJUDICATION OF THEIR RIGHTS.  FN1  THE COURT PASSES ON THE CLAIM OF
ONLY ONE OF THEM, POOLE.  IT DECLINES TO PASS ON THE CLAIMS OF THE
OTHER ELEVEN ON THE GROUND THAT THEY DO NOT PRESENT JUSTICIABLE CASES
OR CONTROVERSIES.  WITH THIS CONCLUSION I CANNOT AGREE. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE IS AVAILABLE IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS ONLY IN CASES INVOLVING ACTUAL CONTROVERSIES AND MAY
NOT BE USED TO OBTAIN AN ADVISORY OPINION IN A CONTROVERSY NOT YET
ARISEN.  COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, 323 U.S. 316, 324-325, AND
CASES CITED.  THE REQUIREMENT OF AN "ACTUAL CONTROVERSY," WHICH IS
WRITTEN INTO THE STATUTE (JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 274D, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400)
AND HAS ITS ROOTS IN THE CONSTITUTION (ARTICLE III, SEC. 2), SEEMS TO
ME TO BE FULLY MET HERE.    WHAT THESE APPELLANTS PROPOSE TO DO IS
PLAIN ENOUGH.  IF THEY DO WHAT THEY PROPOSE TO DO, IT IS CLEAR THAT
THEY WILL BE DISCHARGED FROM THEIR POSITIONS.  THE ANALYSIS OF THE
SITUATION BY THE DISTRICT COURT SEEMS TO ME TO BE ACCURATE AND
CONCLUSIVE: 

"THE MERE EXISTENCE OF THE STATUTE, SAYING THAT THEY SHALL NOT ENGAGE
IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, THE PENALTY IN THE STATUTE THAT THEY SHALL BE
DISMISSED IF THEY DO, AND THE WARNING ADDRESSED TO THEM BY THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION IN THEIR POSTERS CERTAINLY PREVENT THEM FROM
ENGAGING IN SUCH ACTIVITY, IF THE STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  IF THE
STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEY ARE BEING PREVENTED FROM THINGS WHICH
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO.  IF THE STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IT IS
MANDATORY THAT THEY BE DISMISSED FOR DOING SUCH THINGS....  THE
PROVISIONS OF CIVIL SERVICE RULE XV THAT IN CASE OF ANY VIOLATION OF
THE CIVIL SERVICE ACT OR RULES OR OF ANY EXECUTIVE ORDER OR ANY
REGULATION OF THE COMMISSION THE COMMISSION SHALL CERTIFY THE FACTS TO
THE PROPER APPOINTING OFFICER WITH SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS AS TO
DISCIPLINE OR DISMISSAL IS NOW CONTROLLED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
HATCH ACT THAT IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 9(A) OF THAT ACT,
DISMISSAL IS MANDATORY."  56 F.SUPP.  621, 624. 

THEIR PROPOSED CONDUCT IS SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO SHOW PLAINLY THAT
IT WILL VIOLATE THE ACT.  THE POLICY OF THE COMMISSION AND THE MANDATE
OF THE ACT LEAVE NO LINGERING DOUBT AS TO THE CONSEQUENCES.  FN2 

ON A DISCHARGE THESE EMPLOYEES WOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS, THEIR
SENIORITY, AND OTHER CIVIL SERVICE BENEFITS.  THEY COULD, OF COURSE,
SUE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303. 
BUT THE REMEDY THERE IS A MONEY JUDGMENT, NOT A RESTORATION TO THE
OFFICE FORMERLY HELD.  OF COURSE, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER REMEDIES
AVAILABLE IN THESE SITUATIONS TO DETERMINE THEIR RIGHTS TO THE OFFICES
FROM WHICH THEY ARE DISCHARGED.  SEE WHITE V. BERRY, 171 U.S. 366,
377.  BUT TO REQUIRE THESE EMPLOYEES FIRST TO SUFFER THE HARDSHIP OF A
DISCHARGE IS NOT ONLY TO MAKE THEM INCUR A PENALTY; IT MAKES
INADEQUATE, IF NOT WHOLLY ILLUSORY, ANY LEGAL REMEDY WHICH THEY MAY
HAVE.  FN3  MEN WHO MUST SACRIFICE THEIR MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD IN ORDER
TO TEST THEIR RIGHTS TO THEIR JOBS MUST EITHER PURSUE PROLONGED AND
EXPENSIVE LITIGATION AS UNEMPLOYED PERSONS OR PULL UP THEIR ROOTS,
CHANGE THEIR LIFE CAREERS, AND SEEK EMPLOYMENT IN OTHER FIELDS.  AT
LEAST TO THE AVERAGE PERSON IN THE LOWER INCOME GROUPS THE BURDEN OF
TAKING THAT COURSE IS IRREPARABLE INJURY, FN4  CF. EX PARTE YOUNG, 209
U.S. 123, 165, NO MATTER HOW EXACT THE REQUIRED SHOWING.  CF. WATSON V.
BUCK, 313 U.S. 387, 400. 

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE MAY NOT, OF COURSE, BE USED AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR OTHER EQUITABLE REMEDIES TO DEFEAT A LEGISLATIVE POLICY,
GREAT LAKES CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, 300-301, OR TO CIRCUMVENT THE
NECESSITY OF EXHAUSTING ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  ORDER OF CONDUCTORS
V. PENN.  R. CO., 323 U.S. 166; MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 327
U.S. 540.  BUT IT FILLS A NEED AND SERVES A HIGH FUNCTION PREVIOUSLY
"PERFORMED RATHER CLUMSILY BY OUR EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS AND
INADEQUATELY BY THE LAW COURTS."  H.R. REP. NO. 1264, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 2.  FN5 

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE IS DESIGNED "TO DECLARE RIGHTS AND
OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS OF ANY INTERESTED PARTY  ...  WHETHER OR NOT
FURTHER RELIEF IS OR COULD BE PRAYED."  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 274D, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 400.  THE FACT THAT EQUITY WOULD NOT RESTRAIN A WRONGFUL
REMOVAL OF AN OFFICEHOLDER BUT WOULD LEAVE THE COMPLAINANT TO HIS LEGAL
REMEDIES, WHITE V. BERRY, SUPRA, IS, THEREFORE, IMMATERIAL.  A JUDGMENT
WHICH, WITHOUT MORE, ADJUDICATES THE STATUS OF A PERSON IS PERMISSIBLE
UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT.  PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S. 325, 349
350.  THE "DECLARATION OF A STATUS WAS PERHAPS THE EARLIEST EXERCISE OF
THIS PROCEDURE."  H.R. REP. NO. 1264, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2.  THE
RIGHT TO HOLD AN OFFICE OR PUBLIC POSITION AGAINST SUCH THREATS IS A
COMMON EXAMPLE OF ITS USE.  FN6  BORCHARD, DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS (2D
ED.), PP. 858 ET SEQ. DECLARATORY RELIEF IS THE SINGULAR REMEDY
AVAILABLE HERE TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THESE APPELLANTS TO MAKE THESE UTTERANCES AND TO ENGAGE IN
THESE ACTIVITIES ARE DETERMINED.  THE THREAT AGAINST THEM IS REAL NOT
FANCIFUL, IMMEDIATE NOT REMOTE.  THE CASE IS THEREFORE AN ACTUAL NOT A
HYPOTHETICAL ONE.  FN7  AND THE PRESENT CASE SEEMS TO ME TO BE A GOOD
EXAMPLE OF A SITUATION WHERE UNCERTAINTY, PERIL, AND INSECURITY RESULT
FROM IMMINENT AND IMMEDIATE THREATS TO ASSERTED RIGHTS. 

SINCE THE COURT DOES NOT REACH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CLAIMS OF
THESE ELEVEN INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS, A DISCUSSION OF THEM WOULD SEEM TO
BE PREMATURE. 

SECOND.  POOLE IS NOT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CATEGORY OF CIVIL
SERVICE.  HE IS AN INDUSTRIAL WORKER - A ROLLER IN THE MINT, A SKILLED
LABORER OR ARTISAN WHOSE WORK OR FUNCTIONS IN NO WAY AFFECT THE POLICY
OF THE AGENCY NOR INVOLVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PUBLIC.  THERE IS A
MARKED DIFFERENCE IN THE BRITISH TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND
INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES UNDER CIVIL SERVICE.  FN8  AND THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE TWO IS FOR ME RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE. 

THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM HAS BEEN CALLED "THE ONE GREAT POLITICAL
INVENTION" OF NINETEENTH CENTURY DEMOCRACY.  FN9  THE INTRICACIES OF
MODERN GOVERNMENT, THE IMPORTANT AND MANIFOLD TASKS IT PERFORMS, THE
SKILL AND EXPERTISE REQUIRED, THE VAST DISCRETIONARY POWERS VESTED IN
THE VARIOUS AGENCIES, AND THE IMPACT OF THEIR WORK ON INDIVIDUAL
CLAIMANTS AS WELL AS ON THE GENERAL WELFARE HAVE MADE THE INTEGRITY,
DEVOTION, AND SKILL OF THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO COMPOSE THE SYSTEM A
MATTER OF DEEP CONCERN OF MANY THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE.  FN10  POLITICAL
FORTUNES OF PARTIES WILL EBB AND FLOW; TOP POLICY MEN IN
ADMINISTRATIONS WILL COME AND GO; NEW LAWS WILL BE PASSED AND OLD ONES
AMENDED OR REPEALED.  BUT THOSE WHO GIVE CONTINUITY TO ADMINISTRATION,
THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE THE BASIC SKILL AND EFFICIENCY TO THE DAILY WORK
OF GOVERNMENT, AND THOSE ON WHOM THE NEW AS WELL AS THE OLD
ADMINISTRATION IS DEPENDENT FOR SMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF THE COMPLICATED
MACHINERY OF MODERN GOVERNMENT ARE THE CORE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE.  IF
THEY ARE BENEFICIARIES OF POLITICAL PATRONAGE RATHER THAN PROFESSIONAL
CAREERISTS, SERIOUS RESULTS MIGHT FOLLOW - OR SO CONGRESS COULD
REASONABLY BELIEVE.  PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE OBJECTIVITY AND INTEGRITY
OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM MIGHT BE SO WEAKENED AS TO JEOPARDIZE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNMENT.  OR IT MIGHT FOUNDER ON THE
ROCKS OF INCOMPETENCY, IF EVERY CHANGE IN POLITICAL FORTUNES TURNED OUT
THE INCUMBENTS, BROKE THE CONTINUITY OF ADMINISTRATION, AND THUS
INTERFERED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERT MANAGEMENT AT THE TECHNICAL
LEVELS.  OR IF THE INCUMBENTS WERE POLITICAL ADVENTURERS OR PARTY
WORKERS, PARTISANSHIP MIGHT COLOR OR CORRUPT THE PROCESSES OF
ADMINISTRATION OF LAW WITH WHICH MOST OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
ARE ENTRUSTED. 

THE PHILOSOPHY IS TO DEVELOP A CIVIL SERVICE WHICH CAN AND WILL SERVE
LOYALLY AND EQUALLY WELL ANY POLITICAL PARTY WHICH COMES INTO POWER. 
FN11 

THOSE CONSIDERATIONS MIGHT WELL APPLY TO THE ENTIRE GROUP OF CIVIL
SERVANTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CATEGORY - WHETHER THEY ARE THOSE IN THE
SO-CALLED EXPERT CLASSIFICATION OR ARE CLERKS, STENOGRAPHERS AND THE
LIKE.  THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE ACCESS TO THE FILES, WHO MEET THE
PUBLIC, WHO ARRANGE APPOINTMENTS, WHO PREPARE THE BASIC DATA ON WHICH
POLICY DECISIONS ARE MADE.  EACH MAY BE A TRIBUTARY, THOUGH PERHAPS A
SMALL ONE, TO THE MAIN STREAM WHICH WE CALL POLICY MAKING OR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  IF THE ELEMENT OF PARTISANSHIP ENTERS INTO THE
OFFICIAL ACTIVITIES OF ANY MEMBER OF THE GROUP, IT MAY HAVE ITS
REPERCUSSIONS OR EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  THUS IN
THAT TYPE OF CASE THERE WOULD BE MUCH TO SUPPORT THE VIEW OF THE COURT
THAT CONGRESS NEED NOT UNDERTAKE TO DRAW THE LINE TO INCLUDE ONLY THE
MORE IMPORTANT OFFICES BUT CAN TAKE THE PRECAUTION OF PROTECTING THE
WHOLE BY INSULATING EVEN THE LOWEST ECHELON FROM PARTISAN ACTIVITIES. 

SO, I THINK THAT IF THE ISSUES TENDERED BY POOLE WERE TENDERED BY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE, WE WOULD HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT CASE.  FOR
POOLE CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO WORK AS A WARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMAN, I.E.,
AS AN OFFICEHOLDER IN A POLITICAL PARTY. 

BUT POOLE, BEING AN INDUSTRIAL WORKER, IS AS REMOTE FROM CONTACT WITH
THE PUBLIC OR FROM POLICY MAKING OR FROM THE FUNCTIONING OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AS A CHARWOMAN.  THE FACT THAT HE IS IN THE
CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE IS NOT, I THINK, RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF
THE DEGREE TO WHICH HIS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES MAY BE CURTAILED.  HE IS
IN A POSITION NOT ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM ONE WHO WORKS IN THE
MACHINE SHOP OF A RAILROAD OR STEAMSHIP WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RUNS, OR
WHO ROLLS ALUMINUM IN A MANUFACTURING PLANT WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OWNS
AND OPERATES.  CAN ALL OF THOSE CATEGORIES OF INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE INSULATED FROM AMERICAN POLITICAL LIFE?  IF AT SOME
FUTURE TIME IT SHOULD COME TO PASS IN THIS COUNTRY, AS IT HAS IN
ENGLAND, THAT A BROAD POLICY OF STATE OWNERSHIP OF BASIC INDUSTRIES IS
INAUGURATED, DOES THIS DECISION MEAN THAT ALL OF THE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS AFFECTED COULD BE DEBARRED FROM THE
NORMAL POLITICAL ACTIVITY WHICH IS ONE OF OUR VALUED TRADITIONS? 

THE EVILS OF THE "SPOILS" SYSTEM DO NOT, OF COURSE, END WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP OF CIVIL SERVANTS.  HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE
POLITICAL REGIMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL WORKERS PRODUCES ITS
OWN CROP OF ABUSES.  THOSE IN TOP POLICY POSTS OR OTHERS IN SUPERVISORY
POSITIONS MIGHT SEEK TO KNIT THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN CIVIL SERVICE
INTO A POLITICAL MACHINE.  AS A WEAPON THEY MIGHT SEEK TO MAKE THE
ADVANCEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WORKERS DEPENDENT ON POLITICAL LOYALTY, ON
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS, OR ON OTHER PARTISAN EFFORTS.  OR POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES OF THESE WORKERS MIGHT TAKE PLACE ON GOVERNMENT PREMISES, ON
GOVERNMENT TIME, OR OTHERWISE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE.  THESE ARE
SPECIFIC EVILS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIFIC TREATMENT. 

THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO SHOWING OF ANY SUCH ABUSE HERE.  WHAT POOLE DID,
HE DID ON HIS OWN WITHOUT COMPULSION OR SUGGESTION OR INVITATION FROM
ANY ONE HIGHER UP.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT WHAT HE DID WAS DONE ON
GOVERNMENT TIME OR ON GOVERNMENT PREMISES.  MOREOVER, AS MR. JUSTICE
BLACK POINTS OUT, LAWS CAN BE DRAWN TO PUNISH THOSE WHO USE SUCH
COERCION.  SEE EX PARTE CURTIS, 106 U.S. 371.  SUCH ACTIVITY IS MORE
THAN THE EXERCISE OF POLITICAL PREROGATIVES; IT IS THE USE OF OFFICIAL
POWER AS WELL, AND HENCE CAN BE RESTRAINED OR PUNISHED.  CF. BAKERY
DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769, 776-777; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323
U.S. 516, 543-544. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A PERMISSIBLE REMEDY IS COMPLETE OR PARTIAL
POLITICAL STERILIZATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP.  THERE IS, OF COURSE,
THE POSSIBILITY OF THE MOBILIZATION, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR OTHERWISE, OF
MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED
STATE AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING A PARTICULAR PARTY OR
GROUP IN POWER.  THE MARKED INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES IN RECENT YEARS HAS ACCENTUATED THE PROBLEM.  THE DIFFICULTY
LIES IN ATTEMPTING TO PRESERVE OUR DEMOCRATIC WAY OF LIFE BY MEASURES
WHICH DEPRIVE A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION OF ALL POLITICAL RIGHTS
EXCEPT THE RIGHT TO VOTE.  ABSENT COERCION, IMPROPER USE OF GOVERNMENT
POSITION OR GOVERNMENT FUNDS, OR NEGLECT OR INEFFICIENCY IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF DUTY, FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS OTHER
CITIZENS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  THEY ARE NOT SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS. 
IF, IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS, THEY FIND COMMON POLITICAL
INTERESTS AND JOIN WITH EACH OTHER OR OTHER GROUPS IN WHAT THEY
CONCEIVE TO BE THEIR INTERESTS OR THE INTERESTS OF THE NATION, THEY ARE
SIMPLY DOING WHAT ANY OTHER GROUP MIGHT DO.  IN OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE
THE BALANCE WAS BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS AND A
COMMUNITY INTEREST WHICH SOUGHT TO QUALIFY THOSE RIGHTS, WE HAVE
INSISTED THAT THE STATUTE BE "NARROWLY DRAWN TO DEFINE AND PUNISH
SPECIFIC CONDUCT AS CONSTITUTING A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO A
SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST" OF GOVERNMENT.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S.
296, 311.  AND SEE MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 116;
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 104-105. 

THAT SEEMS TO ME THE PROPER COURSE TO FOLLOW HERE.  THE PROHIBITION
IN SEC. 9(A) OF THE HATCH ACT AGAINST GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TAKING AN
"ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS" APPLIES
WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION TO ALL EMPLOYEES WHETHER INDUSTRIAL OR
ADMINISTRATIVE.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES.  SEE
RULES I, SEC. 1, XV, 5 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP., SECS. 1.1, 15.1.  BUT THE
SUPPOSED EVILS ARE BOTH DIFFERENT AND NARROWER IN CASE OF INDUSTRIAL
WORKERS THAN THEY ARE IN THE CASE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP.  FN12
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF A MACHINIST OR
ELEVATOR OPERATOR OR CHARWOMAN IS A DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT PROBLEM. 
FN13  IN THOSE CASES THE PUBLIC CONCERN IS IN THE PRESERVATION OF AN
UNREGIMENTED INDUSTRIAL GROUP, IN A GROUP FREE FROM POLITICAL PRESSURES
OF SUPERIORS WHO USE THEIR OFFICIAL POWER FOR A PARTISAN PURPOSE.  THEN
OFFICIAL POWER IS MISUSED, PERVERTED.  THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPTED BY
MAKING ITS INDUSTRIAL WORKERS POLITICAL CAPTIVES, VICTIMS OF
BUREAUCRATIC POWER, AGENTS FOR PERPETUATING ONE PARTY IN POWER. 

OFFSET AGAINST THAT PUBLIC CONCERN ARE THE INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYEES
IN THE EXERCISE OF CHERISHED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THE NATURE AND
IMPORTANCE OF THOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN FULLY EXPOUNDED IN MR. JUSTICE
BLACK'S OPINION.  IF THOSE RIGHTS ARE TO BE QUALIFIED BY THE LARGER
REQUIREMENTS OF MODERN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, THE RESTRICTIONS SHOULD
BE NARROWLY AND SELECTIVELY DRAWN TO DEFINE AND PUNISH THE SPECIFIC
CONDUCT WHICH CONSTITUTES A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE OPERATIONS
OF GOVERNMENT.  IT SEEMS PLAIN TO ME THAT THAT EVIL HAS ITS ROOTS IN
THE COERCIVE ACTIVITY OF THOSE IN THE HIERARCHY WHO HAVE THE POWER TO
REGIMENT THE INDUSTRIAL GROUP OR WHO UNDERTAKE TO DO SO.  TO SACRIFICE
THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS GOES FAR BEYOND ANY
DEMONSTRATED OR DEMONSTRABLE NEED.  THOSE RIGHTS ARE TOO BASIC AND
FUNDAMENTAL IN OUR DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SOCIETY TO BE SACRIFICED OR
QUALIFIED FOR ANYTHING SHORT OF A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE CIVIL
SERVICE SYSTEM.  NO SUCH SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THESE
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS  FN14  WHICH JUSTIFIES THEIR POLITICAL STERILIZATION
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SELECTIVE MEASURES AIMED AT THE COERCIVE
PRACTICES ON WHICH THE SPOILS SYSTEM FEEDS. 

FN1  ELKIN, SENIOR ECONOMIC STATISTICIAN, RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD;
ABELSON, ASSOCIATE FINANCIAL ANALYST, SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD; PHILLIPS,
LABOR ECONOMIST, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION; MITCHELL, WAGE ANALYST,
NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD; FAGAN, AREA DIRECTOR, WAR MANPOWER
COMMISSION; WINEGAR, SENIOR OFFICER, BUREAU OF PRISONS; HINDIN,
PROCEDURAL ASSISTANT, FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY; RIECK, STOCK CLERK,
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION; POOLE, ROLLER, UNITED STATES MINT; SHANE, LENS
GRINDER, FRANKFORD ARSENAL; WEBER, MACHINIST SPECIALIST, FRANKFORD
ARSENAL; TEMPEST, ELECTRIC WELDER, PHILADELPHIA NAVY YARD. 

FN2  THE CASE IS, THEREFORE, UNLIKE THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE COURT
REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN ACTIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS, THE STATE OF
FACTS BEING HYPOTHETICAL IN THE SENSE THAT THE CHALLENGE WAS TO
STATUTES WHICH HAD NOT AS YET BEEN CONSTRUED OR THEIR SPECIFIC
APPLICATION KNOWN.  SEE ELECTRIC BOND & S. CO. V. SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 419, 443; ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF
LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450. 

FN3  WHERE THE LEGAL REMEDY IS ADEQUATE, IT MAY BE THE MORE
APPROPRIATE ONE.  THUS IN COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, SUPRA,
DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS DENIED A LICENSOR OF A PATENT WHO SUED HIS
LICENSEE FOR AN ADJUDICATION THAT THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE IT APPEARED THAT A SUIT TO RECOVER ROYALTIES WAS
AN ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY AND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES COULD BE
LITIGATED THERE. 

FN4  IF THE PRAYER FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY
FROM THE PRAYER FOR AN INJUNCTION, AS IT MAY BE, ALLEGATIONS OF
IRREPARABLE INJURY THREATENED ARE NOT REQUIRED.  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V.
HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 241. 

FN5  AS STATED IN THE SENATE REPORT: 

"THE PROCEDURE HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY USEFUL IN AVOIDING THE NECESSITY,
NOW SO OFTEN PRESENT, OF HAVING TO ACT AT ONE'S PERIL OR TO ACT ON
ONE'S OWN INTERPRETATION OF HIS RIGHTS, OR ABANDON ONE'S RIGHTS BECAUSE
OF A FEAR OF INCURRING DAMAGES.  SO NOW IT IS OFTEN NECESSARY, IN THE
ABSENCE OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE, TO VIOLATE OR PURPORT TO
VIOLATE A STATUTE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF ITS
MEANING OR VALIDITY  ...  SO NOW IT IS OFTEN NECESSARY TO BREAK A
CONTRACT OR A LEASE, OR ACT UPON ONE'S OWN INTERPRETATION OF HIS RIGHTS
WHEN DISPUTED, IN ORDER TO PRESENT TO THE COURT A JUSTIFIABLE
CONTROVERSY.  IN JURISDICTIONS HAVING THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
PROCEDURE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO BRING ABOUT SUCH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
WASTE AND DESTRUCTION IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A DETERMINATION OF ONE'S
RIGHTS  ...  THERE SEEMS LITTLE QUESTION THAT IN MANY SITUATIONS IN THE
CONDUCT OF BUSINESS SERIOUS DISPUTES OCCUR BETWEEN PARTIES, WHERE, IF
THERE WERE A POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING A JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
IN A FORMAL ACTION, MUCH ECONOMIC WASTE COULD BE AVOIDED AND SOCIAL
PEACE PROMOTED.  PERSONS NOW OFTEN HAVE TO ACT AT THEIR PERIL, A DANGER
WHICH COULD BE FREQUENTLY AVOIDED BY THE ABILITY TO SUE FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO THEIR RIGHTS OR DUTIES."  S. REP. NO. 1005,
73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 2-3.  AND SEE BORCHARD, DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS
(2D ED.)  P. 4. 

FN6  THE CASE IS THEREFORE UNLIKE ONE WHERE THE MOVING PARTY SHOWS NO
INVASION OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS BUT ONLY POSSIBLE INJURY TO THE PUBLIC
(PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113, 125) OR ONE WHERE NO
JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR THE ALLEGED WRONG HAS BEEN CREATED.  GENERAL
COMMITTEE V. MISSOURI-K.-T.R. CO., 320 U.S. 323. 

FN7  THE FOLLOWING ARE CASES IN WHICH THE COURT HAS ALLOWED ACTIONS
FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS TO BE ENTERTAINED:  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V.
HAWORTH, SUPRA, WHERE AN INSURED CLAIMED AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY
DENIED THAT HE HAD BECOME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED AND HENCE
WAS RELIEVED OF THE OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS;
CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, WHERE TOBACCO WAREHOUSEMEN AND
AUCTIONEERS CLAIMED THE TOBACCO INSPECTION ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL;
PERKINS V. ELG, SUPRA, WHERE ONE CLAIMING TO BE A CITIZEN WAS
THREATENED WITH DEPORTATION AS AN ALIEN AND HAD BEEN DECLINED A
PASSPORT ON THE SAME GROUND; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. PACIFIC COAL &
OIL CO., 312 U.S. 270, WHERE A THIRD PARTY WAS SUING AN INSURED AND THE
INSURER SOUGHT A JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEFEND THE INSURED
NOR TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURED IF THE THIRD PARTY RECOVERED; ALTVATER V.
FREEMAN, 319 U.S. 359, WHERE ROYALTIES WERE BEING DEMANDED AND PAID
UNDER PROTEST AND BY REASON OF AN INJUNCTION; MERCOID CORP. V.
HONEYWELL CO., 320 U.S. 680, WHERE AN ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGER SOUGHT A
DECLARATION OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE PATENT; TENNESSEE COAL, I. & R.
CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, WHERE AN EMPLOYER SUED
REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES FOR AN ADJUDICATION OF WHETHER PORTAL
TO-PORTAL PAY WAS DUE UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT; HILLSBOROUGH
V. CROMWELL, 326 U.S. 620, WHERE A TAXPAYER SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURT
TO HAVE ASSESSMENTS DECLARED INVALID ON THE GROUND THAT THEY VIOLATED
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE STATE REMEDY BEING INADEQUATE TO PROTECT
THE FEDERAL RIGHT; KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO METALLIC MFG. CO., 329 U.S.
394, WHERE A LICENSEE SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT HE OWED NO ROYALTIES
BECAUSE OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE PATENT; ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS V.
SWAN, 329 U.S. 520, WHERE IT WAS SOUGHT TO DETERMINE WHICH DIVISION OF
THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAD JURISDICTION OVER RAILROAD
YARDMASTERS.  CF. RAILWAY MAIL ASSN. V. CORSI, 326 U.S. 88, WHERE A
LABOR MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, WHICH DID NOT ADMIT NEGROES AND WAS
THREATENED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE DECLARING THAT PRACTICE
OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS UNLAWFUL, SUED IN A STATE COURT FOR AN
ADJUDICATION THAT THE STATUTE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED TO
IT. 

FN8  REPORT, COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY, ETC., CANDIDATURE OF CROWN
SERVANTS (1925), PP. 12, 13. 

FN9  WALLAS, HUMAN NATURE IN POLITICS (2D ED.), P. 263. 

FN10  FISH, THE CIVIL SERVICE AND THE PATRONAGE (1905); MERIAM,
PUBLIC PERSONNEL PROBLEMS (1938), CH. XI; MOSHER & KINGSLEY, PUBLIC
PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION (1941), CH. XVIII; KINGSLEY, REPRESENTATIVE
BUREAUCRACY (1944), CH. X; MORSTEIN MARX, PUBLIC MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW
DEMOCRACY (1940), CH. XIV; FIELD, CIVIL SERVICE LAW (1939), P. 196;
DAWSON, THE PRINCIPLE OF OFFICIAL INDEPENDENCE (1922), PP. 90 ET SEQ.;
KAPLAN, POLITICAL NEUTRALITY OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, 1 PUBLIC PERSONNEL
REV. 10; CHEN, THE DOCTRINE OF CIVIL SERVICE NEUTRALITY IN PARTY
CONFLICTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN (1937). 

FN11  SEE CHEN, OP. CIT. SUPRA NOTE 10, CH. I; REPORT OF PRESIDENT'S
COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE IMPROVEMENT, H. DOC. NO. 118, 77TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., CH. III. 

FN12  SEE MORSTEIN MARX, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 10, PP. 205-206;
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY, ETC., CANDIDATURE OF CROWN
SERVANTS, SUPRA, NOTE 8, P. 32; FINER, THE BRITISH CIVIL SERVICE
(1937), PP. 203-204. 

FN13  AS STATED IN MORSTEIN MARX, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 10, PP. 205
206: 

"THE POLITICAL NEUTRALITY OF A POSTAL CLERK, OF A CONDUCTOR ON THE
CITY-OWNED SUBWAY SYSTEM IN NEW YORK, OF A TECHNICIAN IN THE CHICAGO
SANITARY DISTRICT, OR OF AN ARTISAN IN THE LABOR CLASS, DOES NOT HAVE
THE SAME SIGNIFICANCE AS THE POLITICAL NEUTRALITY OF THE PROMINENT
OF AN ASSISTANT TO A COMMISSIONER IN A NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT.  NO
DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM WHICH IGNORES THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES IS ANYTHING BUT AN ACADEMIC CONSIDERATION OF
THE PROBLEM.  TOP OFFICIALDOM HAS SUCH MARKED OPPORTUNITIES OF SHAPING
POLICY THAT ITS POLITICAL BEHAVIOR MUST BE SO NEUTRAL AS TO RAISE NO
QUESTION OF A DIVERGENCE IN POINT OF VIEW BETWEEN IT AND THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF GOVERNMENT.  IT IS QUITE PROPER, THEREFORE, TO REQUIRE THE
MOST IMPECCABLE POLITICAL NEUTRALITY FROM SUCH OFFICIALS.  BUT THE
AVERAGE OR TYPICAL CIVIL SERVANT HAS NO MORE OPPORTUNITY IN THE SPHERE
OF POLICY MAKING THAN DOES THE AVERAGE CITIZEN.  HE IS ENTRUSTED WITH A
FUNCTION MINISTERIAL IN NATURE, A ROUTINE TASK ALMOST WHOLLY UNAFFECTED
BY HIS POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW.  THIS PRINCIPLE IS RECOGNIZED IN THE
ENGLISH RULE THAT INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT MAY STAND
FOR ELECTION, A PRIVILEGE DENIED ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES." 

FN14  WHETHER THE ACT, BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO POOLE,
COULD BE SEPARABLY APPLIED TO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN OTHER
CATEGORIES IS A QUESTION I DO NOT REACH. 
..END :












OKLAHOMA V. CIVIL SERVICE COMM'N, 330 U.S. 127 


NO. 84.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 18, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 10, 1947.  -
153 F.2D 280, AFFIRMED. 


A MEMBER OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA, WHOSE PRINCIPAL
EMPLOYMENT WAS IN CONNECTION WITH AN ACTIVITY FINANCED IN PART BY LOANS
AND GRANTS FROM A FEDERAL AGENCY, SERVED AT THE SAME TIME AS CHAIRMAN
OF THE DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.  DURING HIS SERVICE ON THE
HIGHWAY COMMISSION, THERE WAS NO GENERAL ELECTION IN THE STATE; BUT HE
ADVISED WITH THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING A DINNER SPONSORED BY HIS
COMMITTEE TO RAISE FUNDS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, CALLED THE MEETING TO
ORDER, AND INTRODUCED THE TOASTMASTER.  PURSUANT TO SEC. 12 OF THE
HATCH ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 61L, THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT THESE ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTED TAKING AN
"ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS" AND
THAT THIS WARRANTED HIS REMOVAL FROM THE OFFICE OF HIGHWAY
COMMISSIONER.  IT SO NOTIFIED HIM AND THE STATE.  PURSUANT TO SEC.
12(C) OF THE HATCH ACT, THE STATE INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT TO REVIEW THIS DETERMINATION.  HELD: 

1.  IN THIS PROCEEDING, THE STATE MAY PROPERLY CHALLENGE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 12 OF THE HATCH ACT.  PP. 134-142. 

(A)  SINCE SEC. 12(C) AUTHORIZES THE REVIEWING COURT TO DECIDE
WHETHER ANY ORDER OR DETERMINATION MADE UNDER SEC. 12(B) IS "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW," THE STATE CAN PROPERLY CHALLENGE, AND THE COURT
IS AUTHORIZED TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
LAW UPON WHICH THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW IS PREDICATED.  MASSACHUSETTS V.
MELLON, 262 U.S. 447; PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113;
ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, DIFFERENTIATED.  PP. 135
139. 

(B)  IF THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE HAS NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT BE TREATED AS AN OBJECTION TO ITS
CAPACITY TO BRING THE SUIT, IT WAS WAIVED BY FAILURE TO OBJECT IN THE
TRIAL COURT.  P. 134. 

(C)  IF IT BE TREATED AS MEANING THAT NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY
EXISTS AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 12, IT IS TIMELY ALTHOUGH
FIRST MADE IN THIS COURT.  P. 134. 

(D)  UNDER SEC. 12(C), EITHER THE STATE EMPLOYEE OR THE STATE MAY BE
THE PARTY "AGGRIEVED" AND MAY MAINTAIN THE ACTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. 
P. 137. 

(E)  SINCE FAILURE TO REMOVE THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER FROM
OFFICE WOULD RESULT UNDER SEC. 12(B) IN INTERFERENCE WITH PAYMENT OF
THE FULL ALLOTMENT OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS TO THE STATE, THE STATUTORY
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW THE ORDER FINDING THAT HIS VIOLATION OF THE HATCH
ACT WARRANTED HIS REMOVAL FROM OFFICE WAS A CASE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
THE STATE AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.  P. 137. 

(F)  THE RULE THAT ONE MAY NOT IN THE SAME PROCEEDING BOTH RELY UPON
AND ASSAIL A STATUTE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE.  P. 139. 

(G)  LACK OF EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
DURING THE LEGISLATIVE DEBATES ON THE ACT DOES NOT BY IMPLICATION DENY
TO A LITIGANT THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT. 
PP. 140-142. 

2.  SECTION 12 OF THE HATCH ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF
ITS INTERFERENCE WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN POLITICAL
MATTERS.  UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, ANTE, P. 75.  P. 142. 

3.  IT DOES NOT INVADE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF A STATE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO
VIOLATE THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 142-144. 

(A)  WHILE THE UNITED STATES IS NOT CONCERNED WITH, AND HAS NO POWER
TO REGULATE, POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AS SUCH OF STATE OFFICIALS, IT DOES
HAVE POWER TO FIX THE TERMS UPON WHICH ITS MONEY ALLOTMENTS TO STATES
SHALL BE DISBURSED.  P. 143. 

(B)  THE TENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER
IN THE WAY THAT CONGRESS HAS PROCEEDED IN THIS CASE.  P. 143. 

4.  THE ACTIONS OF THE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER CONSTITUTED TAKING AN
"ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF
SEC. 12(A).  PP. 142, 144, 146. 

5.  THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT HIS ACTS
CONSTITUTE SUCH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 12(A) AS TO WARRANT HIS REMOVAL
FROM OFFICE WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WAS NOT ARBITRARY,
UNREASONABLE OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  PP. 144-146. 

OKLAHOMA V. UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 12(C) OF THE
HATCH ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 61L (C), TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE UNITED
STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT A STATE HIGHWAY
COMMISSIONER HAD ENGAGED IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES WHICH WARRANTED HIS
REMOVAL FROM OFFICE UNDER THAT ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE
ACTION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.  61 F.SUPP.  355.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  153 F.2D 280.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 831.  AFFIRMED, P. 146. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING BRINGS TO THIS COURT* ANOTHER PHASE OF THE HATCH
ACT.  THE PETITIONER, THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, OBJECTS TO THE ENFORCEMENT
BY THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF SEC. 12(A) OF THE
ACT.  FN1 

*SEE UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, DECIDED TODAY, ANTE, P. 75. 

FRANCE PARIS HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF
OKLAHOMA SINCE JANUARY 14, 1943.  HE WAS ELECTED CHAIRMAN OF THE
DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR OKLAHOMA FOR HIS THIRD TERM IN
FEBRUARY 1942 AND HE OCCUPIED SUCH POSITION CONTINUOUSLY UNTIL OCTOBER
18, 1943, WHEN HE RESIGNED.  ON OCTOBER 12, 1943, THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION ISSUED ITS LETTER OF CHARGES IN THE MATTER OF FRANCE PARIS
AND THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, IN WHICH IT NOTIFIED MR. PARIS AND OKLAHOMA
THAT INFORMATION WHICH THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION HAD RECEIVED
WARRANTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO AN ALLEGED IMPROPER POLITICAL ACTIVITY
ON THE PART OF FRANCE PARIS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 12 OF THE
HATCH ACT.  THE CHARGE WAS THAT SINCE JANUARY 14, 1943, MR. PARIS HAD
BEEN AN OFFICER OF OKLAHOMA WHOSE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYMENT WAS AND IS IN
CONNECTION WITH AN ACTIVITY FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY LOANS AND
GRANTS FROM A FEDERAL AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT DURING SUCH
TIME MR. PARIS ALSO HELD A POLITICAL PARTY OFFICE, TO WIT, THE
CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE ABOVE REFERRED TO.  IT
LATER DEVELOPED THAT NO GENERAL ELECTION OCCURRED IN OKLAHOMA IN 1943. 
THE STATE DEMOCRATIC HEADQUARTERS HAD BEEN CLOSED ON JANUARY 4, 1943,
BY MR. PARIS AND WERE LATER REOPENED DURING THE YEAR UNDER THE DIRECT
CHARGE OF THE VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE, WE ASSUME PRIOR TO MR.
PARIS' RESIGNATION ON OCTOBER 18, 1943.  ON JUNE 14 THE COMMITTEE
SPONSORED A "VICTORY DINNER" IN OKLAHOMA CITY.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND
AS FOLLOWS: 

"THIS DINNER WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC
COMMITTEE AND THE STATE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE WITH FUNDS TO DISCHARGE A
DEFICIT INCURRED BY THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR
CONTEMPLATED FUTURE ACTIVITIES.  IT ALSO PROMOTED THE SALE OF WAR BONDS
AND DID RESULT IN THE SALE OF APPROXIMATELY $14,500,000.00 IN WAR
BONDS.  THE DINNER NETTED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WHICH WAS CONCEDED TO
BE A POLITICAL PARTY, APPROXIMATELY $30,000.00.  THE DINNER WAS STAGED
UNDER THE GENERAL SUPERVISION OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE AND THE
DETAILS WERE HANDLED BY A COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR.  W. G.
JOHNSTON WAS CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE.  FRANCE PARIS WAS AN EX
OFFICIO MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE AND HE ADVISED WITH THE GOVERNOR
CONCERNING THE DINNER AND CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND INTRODUCED
THE TOASTMASTER, BUT HE WAS NOT ACTIVE IN PLANNING OR ARRANGING THE
DINNER."  THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT THESE FACTS
CONSTITUTED TAKING AN ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND IN
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  IT CONSIDERED THAT THE VIOLATION WARRANTED MR.
PARIS' REMOVAL FROM THE OFFICE OF HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER OF OKLAHOMA.  IT
ORDERED THAT NOTICE OF THE AFORESAID DETERMINATIONS BE GIVEN PURSUANT
TO SEC. 12(B) OF THE HATCH ACT.  THIS ORDER FORESHADOWED, IF MR. PARIS
WAS NOT REMOVED, A FURTHER ORDER BY THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 12(B) TO
THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY THAT CERTAIN HIGHWAY GRANTS TO OKLAHOMA
SHOULD BE WITHHELD "IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TWO YEARS COMPENSATION" OF
MR. PARIS. 

PURSUANT TO SEC. 12(C) THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, AFTER HAVING RECEIVED
NOTICE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION, INSTITUTED
THESE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER IN THE PROPER DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THAT COURT UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, 61 F.SUPP.  355, AND THIS ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.  STATE OF OKLAHOMA
V. UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 153 F.2D 280.  CERTIORARI
WAS SOUGHT AND ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, 328 U.S. 831, UNDER SEC. 12(C), 53
STAT. 1147, AS AMENDED, 54 STAT. 767, AND SEC. 240A OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE. 

THE STATE CONTENDS THAT THE JUDGMENTS BELOW ARE INVALID FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS: 

"(1)  THE HATCH POLITICAL ACTIVITY ACT, IN SO FAR AS IT ATTEMPTS TO
REGULATE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A STATE, IS AN INVASION OF THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.  IT FURTHER IS INVALID AS AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF
POWER. 

"(2)  IF VALID, THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO 'ACTIVE' PARTICIPATION IN
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  SUCH 'ACTIVE'
PARTICIPATION IS NOT SHOWN TO BE PRESENT IN THIS CASE. 

"(3)  IF VALID, THE ACT DID NOT WARRANT THE UNITED STATES CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION IN ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF A STATE OFFICER OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, THE APPLICATION OF A PENALTY TO THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. 

"(4)  THE DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS PLACE AN INTOLERABLE AND
UNJUSTIFIED RESTRICTION UPON THE RIGHT OF AN AGGRIEVED PERSON TO A
COMPLETE JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE HATCH POLITICAL ACTIVITY ACT." 

FIRST.  THE GOVERNMENT'S FIRST CONTENTION IS THAT THE PETITIONER, THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, HAS NO STANDING TO ATTACK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
SEC. 12.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE STATE HAS NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO QUESTION
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES LIMITS THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
THROUGH SEC. 12(A); THAT SEC. 12(B) IS MERELY PROCEDURAL TO ASSURE THAT
THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE OBSERVED AND THAT SEC. 12(C) IS A
SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY POWER BY THE COMMISSION,
NOT A PERMISSION TO WAGE AN ATTACK ON THE ENTIRE ARRANGEMENT.  FN2 

IF THIS CONTENTION IS TREATED AS AN OBJECTION TO THE STATE'S CAPACITY
TO BRING THIS SUIT, AS NO OBJECTION WAS MADE UNTIL THE MEMORANDUM FOR
THE RESPONDENT ON THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, IT WOULD BE OUT OF
TIME.  A FAILURE TO OBJECT IN THE TRIAL COURT TO A PARTY'S CAPACITY IS
A WAIVER OF THAT DEFECT.  PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314 U.S. 244,
251.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE CONTENTION IS TREATED AS MEANING THAT
NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 12(A)
EXISTS BECAUSE PETITIONER SUFFERS NO INJURY WHICH IT MAY PROTECT
LEGALLY FROM THE WITHDRAWAL BY THE UNITED STATES OF A PORTION OF A
GRANT-IN-AID, THE OBJECTION, AS IT QUESTIONS JUDICIAL POWER TO ACT ON
THAT POINT, IS TIMELY ALTHOUGH FIRST MADE IN THIS COURT.  FN3  WE THINK
THAT THE LATTER POSITION MORE CORRECTLY REFLECTS RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION.  THE COMMISSION URGES THE CASES LISTED IN NOTE 2 ABOVE AS
SHOWING THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ARISING OUT OF GRANTS-IN-AID ARE POLITICAL AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION THAT PARIS BE REMOVED WAS NOT MANDATORY.  WE THEREFORE TREAT
THE ISSUE AS PROPERLY BEFORE US. 

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OKLAHOMA CAN CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
SEC. 12 ON STATUTORY REVIEW OF A COMMISSION ORDER.  SUBSECTION (C)
GIVES TO ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION
ORDER.  THE REVIEW IS ON THE ENTIRE RECORD AND EXTENDS TO QUESTIONS OF
FACT AND QUESTIONS OF LAW.  THE ORDER IS TO BE AFFIRMED IF THE COURT
DETERMINES THAT IT IS "IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  IF THE COURT
DETERMINES THE ORDER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, THE PROCEEDING IS
TO BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION "WITH DIRECTIONS EITHER TO MAKE SUCH
DETERMINATION OR ORDER AS THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW OR TO TAKE SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS, IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT, THE LAW REQUIRES."  FN4  WE THINK THE CHALLENGE CAN BE MADE IN
THESE REVIEW PROCEEDINGS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW UPON WHICH
THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW IS PREDICATED. 

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA WERE FINANCED IN
PART BY LOANS AND GRANTS FROM A FEDERAL AGENCY DURING ALL THE PERTINENT
TIMES.  THIS WAS THE ORGANIZATION OF WHICH PARIS WAS A MEMBER.  DURING
THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, JANUARY 15, 1943, TO OCTOBER 18, 1943, WHILE
PARIS WAS ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE, THE
UNITED STATES THROUGH ALLOTMENT BY FEDERAL STATUTE CONTRIBUTED OVER
$2,000,000 FOR THE HIGHWAY WORK OF THE OKLAHOMA COMMISSION.  FN5
NOTHING INDICATES THAT THESE SUMS WERE TO BE RECEIVED BY OKLAHOMA
OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULAR STATUTORY APPORTIONMENT AMONG
THE STATES OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS AND WE ASSUME THE SUMS WERE TO BE
SO RECEIVED BY OKLAHOMA.  CONGRESS MAY CREATE LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE
RIGHTS WHERE NONE BEFORE EXISTED.  PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE AT THE
UNFETTERED INCLINATION OF A FEDERAL DISBURSING OFFICER OR HIGHWAY
AGENCY BUT ACCORDING TO STATUTORY STANDARDS, COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH
ENTITLED OKLAHOMA TO RECEIVE HER PROPER SHARE OF THE FEDERAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION THROUGH STATE AGENCIES.  IF IT
WERE NOT FOR SEC. 12, OKLAHOMA WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGALLY ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE PAYMENT FROM THE FEDERAL DISBURSING OFFICE OF THE SUMS,
INCLUDING THE AMOUNT THAT SEC. 12(B) AUTHORIZES THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION TO REQUIRE THE DISBURSING OR ALLOCATING FEDERAL AGENCY TO
WITHHOLD FROM ITS LOANS OR GRANTS.  FN6  OKLAHOMA HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO
RECEIVE FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS BY VIRTUE OF CERTAIN CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENTS AND UNDER THE TERMS THEREIN PRESCRIBED.  VIOLATION OF SUCH A
STATUTORY RIGHT NORMALLY CREATES A JUSTICIABLE CAUSE OF ACTION EVEN
WITHOUT A SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR REVIEW.  FN7  IT MAY BE
THAT BEFORE THE PAYMENT OF THOSE FUNDS TO OKLAHOMA CONGRESS COULD HAVE
WITHDRAWN THE GRANT WITHOUT LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH ACTION EITHER
IN ITS OFFICERS OR THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  PERHAPS, BEFORE
DISBURSEMENT, IT COULD ADD OF ITS OWN FREE WILL ANY ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS BUT WHEN IT ERECTED ADMINISTRATIVE BARS, THAT IS, A
CONDITION THAT A PART OF THE ALLOTMENT MIGHT BE WITHHELD BY ACTION OF
THE COMMISSION, WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION,
WE THINK THOSE BARS LEFT TO OKLAHOMA THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE ALL FEDERAL
HIGHWAY FUNDS ALLOTTED TO THAT STATE, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONDITION
THAT THE LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE FUNDS COMPLIED WITH THE
CONSTITUTION.  ISSUES PRESENTED BY THIS SUIT, EVEN THOUGH RAISED BY A
STATE, ARE CLOSELY AKIN TO PRIVATE WRONGS.  FN8  EITHER THE STATE
EMPLOYEE OR THE STATE MAY BE THE PARTY AGGRIEVED AND MAY MAINTAIN THE
ACTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THE POWER TO EXAMINE INTO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONDITIONS WAS GIVEN THE FEDERAL COURTS BY THE
GRANT OF THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW THE LEGALITY OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
ORDER.  THEREFORE WHEN BY SEC. 12 A RIGHT OF REVIEW OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS GIVEN TO OKLAHOMA, WE ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTORY BASIS, SEC. 12(A), OF THE
ORDER IS OPEN FOR ADJUDICATION. 

CONGRESS HAS POWER TO FIX THE CONDITIONS FOR REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS.  FN9  BY PROVIDING FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ORDERS OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, CONGRESS MADE OKLAHOMA'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE
FUNDS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE.  OKLAHOMA'S RIGHT BECAME LEGALLY
ENFORCEABLE.  INTERFERENCE WITH THE PAYMENT OF THE FULL ALLOTMENT OF
FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS TO OKLAHOMA MADE THE STATUTORY PROCEEDING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER A CASE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN OKLAHOMA AND THE
COMMISSION, WHOSE ORDER OKLAHOMA WAS AUTHORIZED TO CHALLENGE.  FN10  A
READING OF SEC. 12 WILL SHOW THE SPECIAL INTEREST OKLAHOMA HAD IN
PREVENTING THE EXERCISE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION'S POWER TO
DIRECT THAT OKLAHOMA'S FUNDS BE WITHHELD.  FN11  IT WAS NAMED AS THE
EMPLOYER AFFECTED BY SEC. 12(A).  NOTICES WERE SENT TO IT.  FUNDS
ALLOTTED TO OKLAHOMA WERE TO BE WITHHELD UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  IT
WAS A "PARTY AGGRIEVED."  FN12  WHEN IT BROUGHT THIS SUIT, UNDER THIS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY, OKLAHOMA WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
AS TO WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WAS "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  WAS THE ORDER WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF THE
COMMISSION?  THAT QUESTION OF COMPETENCY INCLUDED THE ISSUE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BASIS FOR THE ORDER, SEC. 12(A).  FN13  ONLY
IF THE STATUTORY BASIS FOR AN ORDER IS WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS CAN
IT BE SAID THAT THE RESULTING ORDER IS LEGAL.  TO DETERMINE THAT
QUESTION, THE STATUTORY REVIEW MUST INCLUDE THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 12(A). 

THE CASES CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS POINTING TOWARD LACK OF POWER TO
ADJUDICATE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 12 ARE INAPPOSITE.  NONE DENY
TO A COURT WITH JURISDICTION BY STATUTE TO REVIEW THE LEGALITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS THE POWER TO EXAMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.  THE AUTHORITIES IN
NOTE 2 ABOVE, RELIED UPON BY THE GOVERNMENT, DO NOT HOLD OR IMPLY A
POSITION CONTRARY TO OUR CONCLUSION.  IN MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262
U.S. 447, THE COMMONWEALTH AND OTHERS SOUGHT DECREES TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL MATERNITY ACT.  THIS COURT DENIED FEDERAL
JURISDICTION, P. 480, BECAUSE NO BURDEN WAS PLACED UPON A STATE AND NO
RIGHT INFRINGED, P. 482.  PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113,
DENIED A MANUFACTURER WHO DESIRED TO SELL TO THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT
TO QUESTION A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S DEFINITION OF "LOCALITY," WHICH THE
OFFICIAL WAS REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO MAKE TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM WAGES
OF THE "LOCALITY" UNDER THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT.  THE DENIAL OF
FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE QUESTION WAS BECAUSE NO "LITIGABLE
RIGHTS" TO DEAL WITH THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN BESTOWED BY THE STATUTE
ON THE WOULD-BE SELLER, PP. 125 AND 127.  THE PROSPECTIVE SELLER BY
STATUTE OR OTHERWISE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
FIXED BY THE UNITED STATES.  ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464,
DENIED THAT THE POWER COMPANY HAD ANY ENFORCEABLE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE
FREE OF COMPETITION, FINANCED BY ILLEGAL LOANS, P. 479.  THIS PRESENT
OKLAHOMA CASE IS DIFFERENTIATED FROM EACH OF THE FOREGOING BY THE
AUTHORITY FOR STATUTORY REVIEW AND BY THE EXISTENCE OF THE LEGALLY
ENFORCEABLE RIGHT TO RECEIVE ALLOCATED GRANTS WITHOUT UNLAWFUL
DEDUCTIONS. 

WE DO NOT THINK THE RULE THAT ONE MAY NOT IN THE SAME PROCEEDING BOTH
RELY UPON AND ASSAIL A STATUTE  FN14  IS APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT
SITUATION.  IN THE CASES THE GOVERNMENT CITES, THE LITIGANTS HAD
RECEIVED OR SOUGHT ADVANTAGES FROM THE STATUTE THAT THEY WISHED TO
ATTACK, ADVANTAGES OTHER THAN THE MERE RIGHT TO SUE.  WHAT WE ARE
CONCERNED WITH IN THIS CASE IS NOT AN ESTOPPEL TO SUE BUT THE ALLOWABLE
SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY JURISDICTION. 

FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW, THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE CONGRESS DID
NOT INTEND TO CREATE A JUSTICIABLE RIGHT BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE AN
ATTACK UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 12(A).  WE THINK THE FINAL
SENTENCE OF SEC. 12(C), NOTE 1 SUPRA, COMES NEAR TO DEMONSTRATING THE
UNSOUNDNESS OF SUCH A CONTENTION.  IT READS: 

"IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS SUBSECTION IS HELD TO BE INVALID AS APPLIED
TO ANY PARTY WITH RESPECT TO ANY DETERMINATION OR ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION, SUCH DETERMINATION OR ORDER SHALL THEREUPON BECOME FINAL
AND EFFECTIVE AS TO SUCH PARTY IN THE SAME MANNER AS IF SUCH PROVISION
HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED." 

WE DO NOT SEE THAT THIS SENTENCE CAN MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT
THE INVALIDITY (UNCONSTITUTIONALITY) OF ANY PROVISION OF SUBSECTION
12(B) SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE DETERMINATION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION.  IN VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSION HEREINAFTER EXPRESSED THAT SEC.
12(A) IS CONSTITUTIONAL, WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION WOULD
BE ENFORCEABLE WITHOUT A PARTICULAR STATUTORY PROVISION IS NOT INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE ABSENCE OF LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF
ATTACKS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 12 THROUGH THE PROVISION FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW NEGATIVES "THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
DO NOT AGREE THAT THIS LACK OF EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF THE SCOPE OF THE
JUDICIAL REVIEW BY IMPLICATION DENIES TO A LITIGANT THE RIGHT TO ATTACK
CONSTITUTIONALITY.  THE FINAL FORM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IS DIFFERENT FROM
THAT FIRST PROPOSED.  86 CONG. REC. 2468.  NO CHANGE OF PURPOSE,
HOWEVER, APPEARS.  THE PROPOSER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW FEARED ARBITRARY
ACTION.  ID., 2469.  OTHERS A VIOLATION OF POLITICAL LIBERTY.  IT WAS
THOUGHT THE LATTER OBJECTION MIGHT BE REACHED WITHOUT RIGHT OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  NO ONE INTIMATED CONSTITUTIONALITY COULD NOT BE REACHED WITH
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  FN16  NONE OF THE SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN THE BILL ARE
EFFECTIVE TO MODIFY THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCOPE OF THIS JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  FN17 

SECOND.  PETITIONER'S CHIEF RELIANCE FOR ITS CONTENTION THAT SEC.
12(A) OF THE HATCH ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO OKLAHOMA IN
THIS PROCEEDING IS THAT THE SO-CALLED PENALTY PROVISIONS INVADE THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF A STATE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO VIOLATE THE TENTH AMENDMENT
FN18 BY PROVIDING FOR "POSSIBLE FORFEITURE OF STATE OFFICE OR
ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES AGAINST THE STATE."  OKLAHOMA SAYS SEC. 12(C)
"PROVIDES THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION:  '...  SHALL NOT OPERATE AS A STAY OF SUCH DETERMINATION OR
ORDER UNLESS (1) IT IS SPECIFICALLY SO ORDERED BY THE COURT, AND (2)
SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IS SUSPENDED FROM HIS OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT
DURING THE PENDENCY OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS....'"  THE COERCIVE EFFECT OF
THE AUTHORIZATION TO WITHHOLD SUMS ALLOCATED TO A STATE IS RELIED UPON
AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATE. 

IN UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE, P. 75,
WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS PROVISION FROM THE
VIEWPOINT OF INTERFERENCE WITH A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE'S FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION IN POLITICAL MATTERS AND AS TO WHETHER ACTING AS AN OFFICIAL
OF A POLITICAL PARTY VIOLATES THE PROVISION IN SEC. 12(A) AGAINST
TAKING PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  WE DO
NOT THINK THAT THE FACTS IN THIS CASE REQUIRE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF
THAT ANGLE.  WE THINK THAT ACTING AS CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC STATE
CENTRAL COMMITTEE AND ACTING, EX OFFICIO, AS A MEMBER OF THE "VICTORY
DINNER" COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING FUNDS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY AND FOR SELLING WAR BONDS CONSTITUTE TAKING AN ACTIVE PART IN
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT.  WHILE THE UNITED STATES IS NOT CONCERNED WITH,
AND HAS NO POWER TO REGULATE, LOCAL POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AS SUCH OF
STATE OFFICIALS, IT DOES HAVE POWER TO FIX THE TERMS UPON WHICH ITS
MONEY ALLOTMENTS TO STATES SHALL BE DISBURSED. 

THE TENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER IN THE
WAY THAT CONGRESS HAS PROCEEDED IN THIS CASE.  AS POINTED OUT IN UNITED
STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 124, THE TENTH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN
CONSISTENTLY CONSTRUED "AS NOT DEPRIVING THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF
AUTHORITY TO RESORT TO ALL MEANS FOR THE EXERCISE OF A GRANTED POWER
WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE AND PLAINLY ADAPTED TO THE PERMITTED END."  THE
END SOUGHT BY CONGRESS THROUGH THE HATCH ACT IS BETTER PUBLIC SERVICE
BY REQUIRING THOSE WHO ADMINISTER FUNDS FOR NATIONAL NEEDS TO ABSTAIN
FROM ACTIVE POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP.  SO EVEN THOUGH THE ACTION TAKEN BY
CONGRESS DOES HAVE EFFECT UPON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE, IT
HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT THAT SUCH EFFECT MADE THE FEDERAL ACT INVALID. 
FN19  AS NOTHING IN THIS RECORD SHOWS ANY ATTEMPT TO SUSPEND MR. PARIS
FROM HIS DUTIES AS A MEMBER OF THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, WE ARE NOT
CALLED UPON TO DEAL WITH THE ASSERTION OF OKLAHOMA THAT A STATE OFFICER
MAY BE SUSPENDED BY A FEDERAL COURT IF SEC. 12 IS VALID.  THERE IS AN
ADEQUATE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE.  NO PENALTY WAS IMPOSED UPON THE STATE. 
A HEARING WAS HAD, CONFORMABLY TO SEC. 12, AND THE CONCLUSION WAS
REACHED THAT MR. PARIS' ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS JUSTIFIED HIS
REMOVAL FROM MEMBERSHIP ON THE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.  OKLAHOMA CHOSE NOT
TO REMOVE HIM.  WE DO NOT SEE ANY VIOLATION OF THE STATE'S SOVEREIGNTY
IN THE HEARING OR ORDER.  OKLAHOMA ADOPTED THE "SIMPLE EXPEDIENT" OF
NOT YIELDING TO WHAT SHE URGES IS FEDERAL COERCION.  COMPARE
MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 482.  THE OFFER OF BENEFITS TO A
STATE BY THE UNITED STATES DEPENDENT UPON COOPERATION BY THE STATE WITH
FEDERAL PLANS, ASSUMEDLY FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE, IS NOT UNUSUAL. 
FN20 

IN ORDER TO GIVE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ADEQUATE STANDARDS TO
MEASURE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, CONGRESS ADOPTED
SEC. 15 OF THE HATCH ACT, QUOTED ABOVE IN NOTE 1.  BY THIS SECTION
CONGRESS MADE THE TEST OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY FOR STATE EMPLOYEES THE
SAME AS THE TEST THEN IN EFFECT FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE CLASSIFIED CIVIL
SERVICE.  THE COMMISSION HAD AT THAT TIME DETERMINED THAT "SERVICE ON
OR FOR ANY POLITICAL COMMITTEE OR SIMILAR ORGANIZATION IS PROHIBITED." 
THIS COULD ONLY MEAN THAT SERVICE ON SUCH A COMMITTEE WAS ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN POLITICS.  SUCH DETERMINATION WAS MADE A MATTER OF
RECORD BY SENATOR HATCH IN CHARGE OF THE BILL DURING DEBATE ON THE
SCOPE OF POLITICAL PROHIBITION.  FN21  OBVIOUSLY THE ACTIVITIES OF MR.
PARIS WERE COVERED BY THE PURPOSE AND LANGUAGE OF SEC. 12.  THE WORDS
OF SEC. 12(A) REQUIRING MR. PARIS' ABSTENTION FROM "ANY ACTIVE PART IN
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS" ARE DERIVED FROM RULE I OF
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND HAVE PERSISTED THERE SINCE 1907. 
FN22 

OKLAHOMA ALSO ARGUES THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DETERMINATION
THAT THE ACTS OF MR. PARIS CONSTITUTE SUCH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 12(A) AS
TO WARRANT HIS REMOVAL FROM HIS STATE OFFICE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW BUT ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  THE FACTS
OF MR. PARIS' ACTIVITIES AND HIS CONNECTION WITH THE DEMOCRATIC STATE
CENTRAL COMMITTEE DURING HIS TENURE OF OFFICE AS A MEMBER OF THE
HIGHWAY COMMISSION OF OKLAHOMA HAVE BEEN STATED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SAID, 153 F.2D AT 284, "MANIFESTLY, THE COMMISSION HAD SOLID
FOOTING IN THE ACT FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT REMOVAL OF PARIS FROM OFFICE
WAS WARRANTED."  WE AGREE.  FN23 

FINALLY, PETITIONER SAYS THAT SEC. 12(C), NOTE 1, SUPRA, AUTHORIZES A
REVIEW OF "EVERY MINUTE DETAIL OF THE CASE" TO "DETERMINE WHETHER
SUFFICIENT FACTS EXIST TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, DECIDE
WHETHER THE STATUTE HAS BEEN REASONABLY AND JUSTLY APPLIED, AND
INDEPENDENTLY RESOLVE THE ENTIRE QUESTION AS THOUGH THE FEDERAL COURT
HAD BEEN THE FORUM IN THE FIRST INSTANCE."  THE BASIS FOR THIS
ARGUMENT, IN SO FAR AS IT DIFFERS FROM THAT REFERRED TO IN THE
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, IS DRAWN FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 12(C) THAT "THE
REVIEW BY THE COURT SHALL BE ON THE RECORD ENTIRE, INCLUDING ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE TAKEN ON THE HEARING, AND SHALL EXTEND TO QUESTIONS OF FACT
AND QUESTIONS OF LAW....  THE COURT SHALL AFFIRM THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION OR ORDER, OR ITS MODIFIED DETERMINATION OR ORDER, IF THE
COURT DETERMINES THAT THE SAME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  AS THE
FACTS WERE STIPULATED AND NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE FINDINGS
OF FACT, 61 F.SUPP.  355, 357(5); 153 F.2D 280, 283, THE ATTACK, ON
THIS ISSUE, IS LIMITED TO AN EXAMINATION INTO WHETHER OR NOT THE
COMMISSION ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN THE ORDER OF REMOVAL.  AS
HERETOFORE STATED, THE PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW UNDERWENT CHANGES DURING
THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT.  FN24 AS FINALLY ADOPTED, HOWEVER, THE
REVIEWING COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMAND WHEN IT DETERMINES THAT THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION "IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  SEC. 12(C). 
FN25  THE QUESTION OF "THE REMOVAL OF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE," SEC.
12(B), NOTE 1, SUPRA, WE THINK IS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION.  SINCE UNDER RULE I OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION THE
TAKING OF "ANY ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS" HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION TO INCLUDE SERVICE ON
A POLITICAL COMMITTEE, SEE NOTES 37 AND 38 OF UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V.
MITCHELL, ANTE, P. 75, IT IS CLEAR MR. PARIS' POSITION VIOLATED SEC. 15
OF THE HATCH ACT.  NOTE 1, SUPRA.  IT COULD HARDLY BE SAID THAT THE
DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION IN ORDERING HIS REMOVAL WAS AN ABUSE OF
ITS DISCRETION.  SEE 61 F.SUPP.  AT 357(6) AND (7); 153 F.2D AT 283
84.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  53 STAT. 1147, AS MAENDED, 54 STAT. 767: 

"SEC. 12.  (A)  NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY
WHOSE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYMENT IS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTIVITY WHICH IS
FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY LOANS OR GRANTS MADE BY THE UNITED
STATES OR BY ANY FEDERAL AGENCY SHALL  ...  TAKE ANY ACTIVE PART IN
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS  .... 

"(B)  IF ANY FEDERAL AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF MAKING ANY LOAN
OR GRANT OF FUNDS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR USE IN ANY ACTIVITY BY ANY
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO WHOM THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A) ARE
APPLICABLE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE HAS
VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH SUBSECTION, IT SHALL MAKE A REPORT WITH
RESPECT THERETO TO THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'COMMISSION').  UPON THE RECEIPT OF ANY
SUCH REPORT, OR UPON THE RECEIPT OF ANY OTHER INFORMATION WHICH SEEMS
TO THE COMMISSION TO WARRANT AN INVESTIGATION, THE COMMISSION SHALL FIX
A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING, AND SHALL BY REGISTERED MAIL SEND TO
THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE CHARGED WITH THE VIOLATION AND TO THE STATE OR
LOCAL AGENCY EMPLOYING SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE A NOTICE SETTING FORTH
A SUMMARY OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION AND THE TIME AND PLACE OF SUCH
HEARING.  AT SUCH HEARING (WHICH SHALL BE NOT EARLIER THAN TEN DAYS
AFTER THE MAILING OF SUCH NOTICE) EITHER THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR THE
STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY, OR BOTH, MAY APPEAR WITH COUNSEL AND BE HEARD. 
AFTER SUCH HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER ANY
VIOLATION OF SUCH SUBSECTION HAS OCCURRED AND WHETHER SUCH VIOLATION,
IF ANY, WARRANTS THE REMOVAL OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE BY WHOM IT WAS
COMMITTED FROM HIS OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, AND SHALL BY REGISTERED MAIL
NOTIFY SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND THE APPROPRIATE STATE OR LOCAL
AGENCY OF SUCH DETERMINATION.  IF IN ANY CASE THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT
SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM HIS OFFICE OR
EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF A DETERMINATION BY THE
COMMISSION THAT SUCH VIOLATION WARRANTS HIS REMOVAL, OR THAT HE HAS
BEEN SO REMOVED AND HAS SUBSEQUENTLY (WITHIN A PERIOD OF EIGHTEEN
MONTHS) BEEN APPOINTED TO ANY OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT IN ANY STATE OR
LOCAL AGENCY IN SUCH STATE, THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE AND CERTIFY TO
THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCY AN ORDER REQUIRING IT TO WITHHOLD FROM
ITS LOANS OR GRANTS TO THE STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY TO WHICH SUCH
NOTIFICATION WAS GIVEN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TWO YEARS' COMPENSATION AT
THE RATE SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WAS RECEIVING AT THE TIME OF SUCH
VIOLATION; EXCEPT THAT IN ANY CASE OF SUCH A SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENT TO
A POSITION IN ANOTHER STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY WHICH RECEIVES LOANS OR
GRANTS FROM ANY FEDERAL AGENCY, SUCH ORDER SHALL REQUIRE THE
WITHHOLDING OF SUCH AMOUNT FROM SUCH OTHER STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY:.... 
"(C)  ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY ANY DETERMINATION OR ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION UNDER SUBSECTION (B) MAY, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE
MAILING OF NOTICE OF SUCH DETERMINATION OR ORDER, INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE REVIEW THEREOF BY FILING A WRITTEN PETITION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE RESIDES; BUT THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS SHALL NOT
OPERATE AS A STAY OF SUCH DETERMINATION OR ORDER UNLESS (1) IT IS
SPECIFICALLY SO ORDERED BY THE COURT, AND (2) SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
IS SUSPENDED FROM HIS OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT DURING THE PENDENCY OF SUCH
PROCEEDINGS.  A COPY OF SUCH PETITION SHALL FORTHWITH BE SERVED UPON
THE COMMISSION, AND THEREUPON THE COMMISSION SHALL CERTIFY AND FILE IN
THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE DETERMINATION OR
THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF WAS MADE.  THE REVIEW BY THE COURT SHALL BE ON
THE RECORD ENTIRE, INCLUDING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN ON THE HEARING,
AND SHALL EXTEND TO QUESTIONS OF FACT AND QUESTIONS OF LAW  ....  THE
COURT SHALL AFFIRM THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OR ORDER, OR ITS
MODIFIED DETERMINATION OR ORDER, IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE SAME
IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT ANY SUCH
DETERMINATION OR ORDER, OR MODIFIED DETERMINATION OR ORDER, IS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, THE COURT SHALL REMAND THE PROCEEDING TO THE
COMMISSION WITH DIRECTIONS EITHER TO MAKE SUCH DETERMINATION OR ORDER
AS THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR TO TAKE
SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THE LAW
REQUIRES.  THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE COURT SHALL BE FINAL, SUBJECT
TO REVIEW BY THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS IN OTHER
CASES, AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF SUCH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SHALL BE FINAL, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES ON CERTIORARI OR CERTIFICATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 239 AND
240 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED (U.S.C., 1934 EDITION, TITLE 28,
SECS. 346 AND 347).  IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS SUBSECTION IS HELD TO BE
INVALID AS APPLIED TO ANY PARTY WITH RESPECT TO ANY DETERMINATION OR
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, SUCH DETERMINATION OR ORDER SHALL THEREUPON
BECOME FINAL AND EFFECTIVE AS TO SUCH PARTY IN THE SAME MANNER AS IF
SUCH PROVISION HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED. 

     .    .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 15.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT WHICH PROHIBIT PERSONS TO WHOM
SUCH PROVISIONS APPLY FROM TAKING ANY ACTIVE PART IN POLITICAL
MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS SHALL BE DEEMED TO PROHIBIT THE
SAME ACTIVITIES ON THE PART OF SUCH PERSONS AS THE UNITED STATES CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION HAS HERETOFORE DETERMINED ARE AT THE TIME THIS
CLASSIFIED CIVIL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CIVIL-SERVICE RULES PROHIBITING SUCH EMPLOYEES FROM TAKING ANY ACTIVE
PART IN POLITICAL MANAGEMENT OR IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS." 

FN2  MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 482; PERKINS V. LUKENS
STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113; ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 479,
ARE CITED AS AUTHORITY, TOGETHER WITH OTHER CASES. 

FN3  A RESPONDENT CAN SUPPORT HIS JUDGMENT ON ANY GROUND THAT APPEARS
IN THE RECORD.  LETULLE V. SCOFIELD, 308 U.S. 415, 421; GAINESVILLE V.
BROWN-CRUMMER CO., 277 U.S. 54, 59. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA, SEC. 12(C). 

FN5  SEE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ACT, 42 STAT. 212, AS AMENDED, 23 U.S.C.
SEC. 1-117. 

FN6  CF. COLUMBIA SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407, 422. 

FN7  SEE DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190, 198, 200-201; STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO., 323 U.S. 192, 202. 

FN8  SEE THE DISCUSSION IN COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549. 

FN9  AMERICAN POWER CO. V. S.E.C., 325 U.S. 385, 389. 

FN10  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT CO., 307 U.S.
156, 159. 

FN11  CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 266(SECOND); Z. & F.
ASSETS REALIZATION CORP. V. HULL, 311 U.S. 470, 485. 

FN12  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT CO., 307 U.S.
156, 159; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS BROTHERS RADIO
STATION, 309 U.S. 470, 476; AMERICAN POWER CO. V. S.E.C., 325 U.S. 385,
390; PARKER V. FLEMING, 329 U.S. 531. 

FN13  CF. LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1, 25, 43, 49;
NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 321-24;
UNITED STATES V. RUZICKA, 329 U.S. 287, 294. 

JUDICIAL REVIEW NORMALLY INCLUDES ISSUES OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
ENACTMENTS AND ACTION THEREUNDER.  60 STAT. 237, 243, SEC. 10(E): 

"SCOPE OF REVIEW.  - SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO DECISION AND WHERE
PRESENTED THE REVIEWING COURT SHALL DECIDE ALL RELEVANT QUESTIONS OF
LAW, INTERPRET CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AND DETERMINE
THE MEANING OR APPLICABILITY OF THE TERMS OF ANY AGENCY ACTION.  IT
SHALL (A) COMPEL AGENCY ACTION UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD OR UNREASONABLY
DELAYED; AND (B) HOLD UNLAWFUL AND SET ASIDE AGENCY ACTION, FINDINGS,
AND CONCLUSIONS FOUND TO BE (1) ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, OR OTHERWISE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; (2) CONTRARY TO
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, POWER, PRIVILEGE, OR IMMUNITY; (3) IN EXCESS OF
STATUTORY JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY, OR LIMITATIONS, OR SHORT OF
STATUTORY RIGHT; (4) WITHOUT OBSERVANCE OF PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY LAW;
(5) UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ANY CASE SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 7 AND 8 OR OTHERWISE REVIEWED ON THE RECORD OF
AN AGENCY HEARING PROVIDED BY STATUTE; OR (6) UNWARRANTED BY THE FACTS
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FACTS ARE SUBJECT TO TRIAL DE NOVO BY THE
REVIEWING COURT.  IN MAKING THE FOREGOING DETERMINATIONS THE COURT
SHALL REVIEW THE WHOLE RECORD OR SUCH PORTIONS THEREOF AS MAY BE CITED
BY ANY PARTY, AND DUE ACCOUNT SHALL BE TAKEN OF THE RULE OF PREJUDICIAL
ERROR." 

SEE THE FULL DISCUSSION OF THE "SCOPE OF REVIEW," LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, S. DOC. NO. 248, 79TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 213, (E), AND P. 278, SEC. 10(E). 

FN14  SEE HURLEY V. COMMISSION OF FISHERIES, 257 U.S. 223; UNITED
FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF KENTUCKY, 278 U.S. 300; GREAT
FALLS MFG. CO. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 124 U.S. 581. 

FN15  IT CITES 86 CONG. REC. 2354, 2429, 2440, 2468-2474, 9448, 9452;
H. REP. 2376, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 9. 

FN16  86 CONG. REC. 2470: 

"MR. LUCAS.  I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR THE OPINIONS OF THE SENATOR
FROM NEBRASKA.  I RISE TO ASK HIM A QUESTION:  DOES THE SENATOR FROM
NEBRASKA BELIEVE THAT THE QUESTION OF POLITICAL LIBERTY IS INVOLVED IN
THE PENDING LEGISLATION IN ANY WAY? 

"MR. NORRIS.  I HAVE NOT THOUGHT SO. 

"MR. LUCAS.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE SENATOR DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE
POLITICAL RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTE ARE BEING INVADED? 

"MR. NORRIS.  MR. PRESIDENT, I NOW UNDERSTAND THE SENATOR'S
QUESTION.  I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. SOME HONEST MEN WHO ARE BETTER LAWYERS
THAN I AM BELIEVE THOSE RIGHTS ARE INVADED.  THAT QUESTION CAN EASILY
BE TESTED, HOWEVER, WITHOUT HAVING THE AMENDMENT ADOPTED AND PASSED
UPON.  IF THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL WERE INVADED, THEN THE
LAW WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND ONE COULD GET INTO COURT IMMEDIATELY
BY VARIOUS KINDS OF APPLICATIONS.  THE QUESTION COULD BE PLACED BEFORE
A COURT AND CARRIED TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THAT COURT COULD PASS UPON
IT.  THE ADOPTION OF THE PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IN QUESTION WOULD NOT
ASSIST IN THAT RESPECT.  IF THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT WILL BE SO
FOUND VERY SOON, EVEN WITHOUT THE ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT, AND THE
LAW WILL FALL. 

"MR. LUCAS.  BUT IF THE SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA ENTERTAINS THE SAME
VIEW AS THAT ENTERTAINED BY THE SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS WITH RESPECT TO
THE INVASION OF THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL, THEN, I TAKE IT,
THE SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA WILL AGREE THAT IN CASE AN INDIVIDUAL WERE
CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE HE SHOULD HAVE HIS RIGHTS
DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF LAST RESORT? 

"MR. NORRIS.  I AGREE WITH THE SENATOR.  BUT WE DO NOT NEED THIS
AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO GET A DECISION ON THE MATTER.  THAT IS MY
CONTENTION.  WE COULD NOT PUT ANYTHING INTO THE LAW, HOWEVER INGENIOUS
WE MIGHT BE, WHICH WOULD TAKE AWAY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ANY
CITIZEN, AND IF SUCH AN ATTEMPT WERE MADE THE CITIZEN COULD GO INTO
COURT AND HAVE THE QUESTION DETERMINED, EVEN WITHOUT THE ADOPTION OF
LANGUAGE SUCH AS CONTAINED IN THE PENDING AMENDMENT." 

FN17  SEE 86 CONG. REC. 9446, 9495. 

FN18  "THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE
CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE
STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE." 

FN19  VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8 WALL.  533, 547; STEARNS V. MINNESOTA,
179 U.S. 223, 244; FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12; HELVERING V.
THERRELL, 303 U.S. 218; WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., 304 U.S. 502,
516; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 338. 

FN20  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 593-98; UNITED
STATES V. BEKINS, 304 U.S. 27, 51-54.  A REVIEW OF GRANTS-IN-AID WILL
BE FOUND IN 8 AMERICAN LAW SCHOOL REVIEW, CORWIN: NATIONAL-STATE
COOPERATION, 687, 698. 

FN21  86 CONG. REC. 2938, SEC. 15 OF EXHIBIT. 

FN22  SEE UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS V. MITCHELL, ANTE, PP. 79-81, NOTES
4, 5 AND 6. 

FN23  SEE JACOB SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 327 U.S.
608. 

FN24  SEE 86 CONG. REC. 2468-2474; S. 3046 IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, UNION CALENDAR NO. 924, JUNE 4, 1940, PP. 4 AND 17; H.
REP. NO. 2376, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 9.  THE AMENDMENT WHICH
RESULTED IN THE PRESENT FORM OF THE SECTION APPEARS AT 86 CONG. REC.
9448. 

FN25  THE FOLLOWING ALSO APPEARS IN THE SECTION: 

"THE COMMISSION MAY MODIFY ITS FINDINGS OF FACT OR ITS DETERMINATION
OR ORDER BY REASON OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO TAKEN AND SHALL FILE
WITH THE COURT SUCH MODIFIED FINDINGS, DETERMINATION, OR ORDER, AND ANY
SUCH MODIFIED FINDINGS OF FACT, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  54 STAT. 767, 769. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IT IS OF COURSE SETTLED THAT THIS COURT MUST CONSIDER, WHENEVER THE
QUESTION IS RAISED OR EVEN THOUGH NOT RAISED BY COUNSEL, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS AS WELL AS THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT.  MANSFIELD, C. & L.M. RY. V. SWAN, 111 U.S. 379, 382.  BUT
WHETHER A STATE HAS STANDING TO URGE A CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER
A CONGRESSIONAL GRANT-IN-AID STATUTE DOES NOT INVOLVE "JURISDICTION IN
THE SENSE OF A COURT'S POWER BUT ONLY THE CAPACITY OF THE STATE TO BE A
LITIGANT TO INVOKE THAT POWER.  IN THIS LITIGATION THE GOVERNMENT DID
NOT CHALLENGE THE STANDING OF OKLAHOMA TO QUESTION THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT UNTIL THE CASE CAME HERE.  I THINK IT IS
TOO LATE TO RAISE THAT QUESTION AT THIS STAGE.  ASSUMING THAT IT IS
HERE, IT IS MY VIEW THAT UNDER THE HATCH ACT, IN THE LEGISLATIVE AND
JUDICIAL CONTEXT IN WHICH IT MUST BE READ, THE STATE CAN QUESTION ONLY
THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PROCEDURE AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE COMMISSION, NOT THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT.  SECTION 12(B), (C),
54 STAT. 767, AMENDING 53 STAT. 1147, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 61L (B) AND (C). 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE. 
ACT OF JUNE 11, 1946, 60 STAT. 237, SEC. 12.  THAT ACT WILL, IN DUE
COURSE, PRESENT PROBLEMS FOR ADJUDICATION.  WE OUGHT NOT TO ANTICIPATE
THEM WHEN, BEING IRRELEVANT, THEY ARE NOT BEFORE US.  THE ACT OUGHT NOT
TO BE USED EVEN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSE BECAUSE ILLUSTRATIONS DEPEND
ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT. 

APART FROM THE FOREGOING, I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE REED'S OPINION. 
..END :
















KRUG V. SANTA FE P.R. CO., 329 U.S. 591 


NOS. 97 AND 98.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 7, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3,
1947.  - 153 F.2D 305, REVERSED. 


1.  A RELEASE FILED BY A LAND-GRANT RAILROAD PURSUANT TO SEC. 321(B)
OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, AS A CONDITION TO COLLECTING
COMMERCIAL RATES ON TRANSPORTATION FOR THE GOVERNMENT, EXTINGUISHES THE
RIGHT OF THE RAILROAD TO SELECT LANDS IN LIEU OF LANDS ORIGINALLY
ACQUIRED UNDER THE ACT OF 1866 IN AID OF CONSTRUCTION BUT RELINQUISHED
UNDER THE ACTS OF 1874 AND 1904.  PP. 596-597. 

2.  CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE 1940 ACT THAT A RELEASE FILED PURSUANT
THERETO SHOULD BAR ANY FUTURE CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF ANY OR ALL OF THE
LAND-GRANT ACTS, SO FAR AS SUCH CLAIMS ARISE FROM ORIGINALLY GRANTED,
INDEMNITY OR LIEU LANDS.  P. 598. 

KRUG, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. V. SANTA FE PACIFIC RAILROAD
CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

RESPONDENT RAILROAD COMPANY BROUGHT TWO SUITS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TO COMPEL THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO DETERMINE RESPONDENT'S RIGHT
TO "LIEU" LANDS, WITHOUT REGARD TO A RELEASE FILED BY RESPONDENT
PURSUANT TO SEC. 321(B) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTS ON THE MERITS.  57 F.SUPP. 
984.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  80 U.S. APP. D.C. 360, 153 F.2D
305.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 832.  REVERSED, P. 598. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY THE UNITED STATES
ACQUIRED A VAST NEW AREA OF SPARSELY POPULATED LANDS IN THE SOUTH AND
WEST.  SETTLEMENT AND ABSORPTION OF THIS TERRITORY INTO THE OLDER PART
OF THE COUNTRY BECAME A NATIONAL PROBLEM WHICH DEMANDED FOR ITS
SOLUTION A MORE RAPID AND EXTENSIVE MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS
AND PEOPLE THAN WAS PROVIDED BY WAGONS, STAGECOACHES, AND WATERWAYS. 
THE BUILDING OF RAILROADS LARGELY PROVIDED THE ANSWER.  THEY MADE IT
POSSIBLE FOR THE FRONTIER HOMESTEADS AND COMMUNITIES TO BE ESTABLISHED
ON THE LANDS OF THE NEW TERRITORY AND YET MAINTAIN LIVE CONTACT WITH
THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND CULTURE.  TO ENCOURAGE A RAPID RAILROAD
BUILDING PROGRAM, CONGRESS CHOSE TO MAKE PUBLIC GRANTS OF A LARGE
PROPORTION OF THE NEW LANDS TO UNDERWRITE AND SUBSIDIZE THE
PARTICIPATION OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANIES IN
THE PROGRAM.  FN1  IN THIS CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM OF LAND GRANTS "IN AID
OF CONSTRUCTION" WERE SOWN THE SEEDS OF THE PRESENT LAWSUIT. 

ENORMOUS AREAS OF PUBLIC LANDS WERE GRANTED RAILROADS, ALMOST EQUAL
TO THE ACREAGE OF THE NEW ENGLAND STATES, NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA
COMBINED.  FN2  EXECUTION OF THE LAND-GRANT PROGRAM WAS MARKED BY
INNUMERABLE COMPLEX AND UNFORESEEN DIFFICULTIES; ITS COURSE HAS BEEN
BESET BY CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS ASSERTED BY AND BETWEEN SETTLERS,
RAILROADS, AND GOVERNMENT.  FN3  CONGRESS, THE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, AND
THE COURTS HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY CALLED UPON TO HELP RESOLVE THESE
CONFLICTING CLAIMS.  THE LAPSE OF NEARLY A CENTURY SINCE THE PROGRAM
WAS INSTITUTED HAS NOT RESOLVED ALL OF THEM.  THIS LAWSUIT REQUIRES
CONSIDERATION OF OLD AND RECENT CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS TO SETTLE THESE
PERSISTENTLY RECURRING CONTROVERSIES. 

ONE SUBSTANTIAL FIELD OF RAILROAD-GOVERNMENT CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN THE
TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL LAND-GRANT ACTS WHICH REQUIRED THE RAILROADS TO
CARRY GOVERNMENT GOODS AND PERSONNEL FREE OF TOLLS.  BY REASON OF
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THESE TERMS, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY PERIODIC
LEGISLATION,  FN4  LAND-GRANT RAILROADS FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY
IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO 1940 TRANSPORTED FOR THE GOVERNMENT AT ONE-HALF OF
THE STANDARD COMMERCIAL RATES.  DURING THE DEPRESSION YEARS BEGINNING
IN THE LATE 1920'S AND IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, RAILROAD EARNINGS
DECLINED CONSIDERABLY, AND A MOVEMENT BEGAN TO RELIEVE THE ROADS OF
THEIR LAND-GRANT RATE OBLIGATIONS.  STUDIES BY SOME GOVERNMENT-SELECTED
AGENCIES RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION FOR OUTRIGHT REPEAL OF THE PROVISIONS
FOR RATE CONCESSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT.  FN5  BILLS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS
IN THE 75TH AND 76TH CONGRESSES FAILED TO PASS.  FN6  BUT SEC. 321 OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 FN7  PROVIDED THAT LAND-GRANT ROADS
COULD, BY COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIED CONDITIONS,  FN8  COLLECT FROM THE
GOVERNMENT FULL COMMERCIAL RATES, EXCEPT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
MILITARY AND NAVAL FREIGHT AND PERSONNEL.  IN BRIEF, IT REQUIRED THAT A
RAILROAD, TO QUALIFY FOR FULL RATES, MUST EXECUTE, WITHIN A YEAR AFTER
PASSAGE OF THE ACT, A RELEASE OF ANY CLAIM IT MIGHT HAVE "AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES TO LANDS, INTERESTS IN LANDS, COMPENSATION, OR
REIMBURSEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF LANDS OR INTERESTS IN LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN
GRANTED, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OR WHICH IT IS CLAIMED SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO SUCH CARRIER OR ANY  ...  PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST
UNDER ANY GRANT TO SUCH CARRIER OR SUCH PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST AS
AFORESAID." 

SHORTLY AFTER PASSAGE OF THIS ACT RESPONDENT TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT,
AND GAVE THE GOVERNMENT A RELEASE FRAMED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE WORDS OF
THE STATUTE.  FN9  ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST HAD OBTAINED A GRANT OF
LANDS IN ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO, UNDER AN ACT OF 1866 CONTAINING THE
USUAL GOVERNMENTAL RATE-CONCESSION TERMS.  14 STAT. 292, 297.  FN10
THE 1866 ACT HAD SPECIFICALLY RECITED THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE
OF PRIOR SETTLEMENT OF PART OF THE GRANTED LANDS BY HOMESTEADERS, COULD
NOT GIVE POSSESSION TO SOME OF THE LANDS GRANTED TO THE RAILROAD, IT
COULD SELECT, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
OTHER PUBLIC LANDS IN LIEU OF THEM AS AN INDEMNITY.  RESPONDENT HAD
LARGE OUTSTANDING CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR THESE "INDEMNITY"
LANDS WHEN IT SIGNED THE RELEASE AND CONCEDES THAT THE RELEASE
EXTINGUISHES THESE CLAIMS. 

BUT IT HAD OTHER SO-CALLED LIEU LAND CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
WHICH IT ASSERTS WERE NOT EXTINGUISHED.  THE RAILROAD URGES THAT THESE
CLAIMS ARE NOT COVERED BY THE ACT OR BY THE RELEASE.  THEY, ALLEGEDLY,
ARE NOT CLAIMS "ON ACCOUNT OF" OR "UNDER ANY GRANT" OF LANDS, BUT REST
ON CONTRACTUAL EXCHANGES OF LANDS MADE UNDER THE ACTS OF 1874 AND
1904.  18 STAT. 194; 33 STAT. 556.  THESE ACTS LARGELY REPRESENTED A
CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT TO SETTLE CONFLICTS AMONG RAILROADS, GOVERNMENT,
AND SETTLERS, WHICH AROSE BY REASON OF SETTLEMENT BY HOMESTEADERS ON
RAILROAD-GRANTED LANDS AFTER THE GRANTS HAD BEEN MADE.  BOTH ACTS
PROVIDED THAT WHERE SETTLERS HAD SO OCCUPIED RAILROAD-GRANTED LANDS,
THE RAILROAD COULD, UPON RELINQUISHMENT OF ITS TITLE TO THEM, SELECT
OTHER LANDS IN LIEU OF THEM.  THE PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING THE LIEU
LANDS UNDER THE 1874 AND 1904 ACTS WAS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE
ORIGINAL PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY THE ACTS FOR SELECTION OF INDEMNITY
LANDS.  BEFORE THE 1940 ACT RESPONDENT HAD, UNDER THE 1874 AND 1904
ACTS, RELINQUISHED TITLE TO THE GOVERNMENT TO CERTAIN LANDS PREVIOUSLY
GRANTED.  IN AUGUST 1940, AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN MARCH 1943, RESPONDENT
FILED APPLICATIONS WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO SELECT ITS
LIEU LANDS.  AFTER THE RESPONDENT SIGNED THE RELEASE, AND BECAUSE OF
IT, THE SECRETARY REJECTED THE APPLICATIONS.  THE RAILROAD THEN FILED
THIS SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR RELIEF BY INJUNCTION OR BY
WAY OF MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY AND OTHER INTERIOR DEPARTMENT
OFFICIALS TO PASS ON ITS APPLICATIONS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE RELEASE. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE BILL ON THE MERITS, HOLDING THAT THE
STATUTE AND RELEASE BARRED THE CLAIMS.  IT READ THE 1940 ACT AS
DEFINING A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE "TO WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN OF SUCH
CLAIMS BY ANY RAILROAD WHICH ENJOYED THE BENEFITS OF THE RATE
CONCESSIONS MADE BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT  ..."  57 F.SUPP.  984,
987.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REVERSED, HOLDING, AS RESPONDENT URGES IN THIS COURT, THAT THE 1940 ACT
DID NOT APPLY TO THE TYPE OF CLAIMS INVOLVED HERE.  80 U.S. APP. D.C.
360, 153 F.2D 305.  IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION DECIDED CAUSED US TO
GRANT CERTIORARI. 

WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE THINK, AS IT HELD, THAT THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1940 ACT WAS CLEARLY
RIGHT.  THEREFORE, WE DO NOT DISCUSS THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT,
SINCE THE SECRETARY'S CONSTRUCTION WAS A REASONABLE ONE, IT WAS AN
ALLOWABLE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION WHICH SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE BY
INJUNCTION OR RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS.  SEE SANTA FE P.R.R. V.
WORK, 267 U.S. 511, 517; CF. SANTA FE P.R.R. V. LANE, 244 U.S. 492. 

THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THE CASE HERE AS THOUGH THE 1940 ACT APPLIED
ONLY TO CLAIMS FOR "LANDS UNDER ANY GRANT."  THE LANGUAGE IS NOT SO
NARROW.  IT ALSO REQUIRED RAILROADS TO SURRENDER CLAIMS FOR
"COMPENSATION, OR REIMBURSEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF LANDS OR INTERESTS IN
LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OR WHICH
IT IS CLAIMED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED  ...  UNDER ANY GRANT."  THIS
LANGUAGE IN ITSELF INDICATES A PURPOSE OF ITS DRAFTSMEN TO UTILIZE
EVERY TERM WHICH COULD POSSIBLY BE CONCEIVED TO GIVE THE REQUIRED
RELEASE A SCOPE SO BROAD THAT IT WOULD PUT AN END TO FUTURE
CONTROVERSIES, ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES, AND CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF
LAND GRANTS.  BEYOND A DOUBT, THE WORDS "COMPENSATION" AND
"REIMBURSEMENT" AS ORDINARILY UNDERSTOOD WOULD DESCRIBE A PAYMENT TO
RAILROADS IN MONEY OR IN KIND FOR THE SURRENDER OF LANDS PREVIOUSLY
ACQUIRED BY THEM "UNDER A GRANT."  FN11  IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS
MEANING, THEIR USE IN THE ACT WOULD HAVE BEEN HARDLY MORE THAN
SURPLUSAGE.  AND WHEN VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSIES AND CLAIMS UNDER THE LAND GRANTS, THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
1940 ACT COVERS CLAIMS SUCH AS RESPONDENT'S SEEMS INESCAPABLE. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT CONGRESS WAS FAMILIAR
WITH THESE CONTROVERSIES.  IN 1929 IT PASSED AN ACT INTENDED TO
AUTHORIZE AND REQUIRE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF LAND-GRANT CLAIMS OF
THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD IN ORDER FINALLY AND COMPLETELY TO SET
THEM AT REST.  46 STAT. 41.  THE SUIT AUTHORIZED BY THAT ACT WAS TRIED
IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND WAS PENDING IN THIS COURT WHEN THE 1940
ACT WAS PASSED.  UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PAC. RY., 311 U.S. 317.  OUR
DECISION IN IT SHOWS THE COMPLEXITY AND RAMIFICATIONS OF THE NUMEROUS
QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN LAND-GRANT CONTROVERSIES.  REFERENCE TO THIS CASE
WAS MADE BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN URGING CONGRESS TO INCLUDE IN THE
PREDECESSORS OF THE 1940 ACT A REQUIREMENT THAT THE RAILROAD SURRENDER
ALL CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF LAND GRANTS AS A PREREQUISITE TO ANY
GOVERNMENT RATE CONCESSIONS.  FN12 HERE, AS IN THE 1929 ACT, WHICH
APPLIED TO THE CLAIMS OF ONLY ONE RAILROAD, WE THINK CONGRESS INTENDED
TO BAR ANY FUTURE CLAIMS BY ALL ACCEPTING RAILROADS WHICH AROSE OUT OF
ANY OR ALL OF THE LAND-GRANT ACTS, INSOFAR AS THOSE CLAIMS AROSE FROM
ORIGINALLY GRANTED, INDEMNITY OR LIEU LANDS.  ALL THE ACTS HERE
INVOLVED, THE ACTS OF 1866, 1874, 1904 AND 1940, RELATE TO A CONTINUOUS
STREAM OF INTERRELATED TRANSACTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES, ALL BASICALLY
STEMMING FROM ONE THING - THE LAND GRANTS.  WE THINK CONGRESS WROTE
FINIS TO ALL THESE CLAIMS FOR ALL RAILROADS WHICH ACCEPTED THE ACT BY
EXECUTING RELEASES.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FOR AN ACCOUNT SEE PUBLIC AIDS TO TRANSPORTATION, SECTION OF
RESEARCH, FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION (1940) I, 45-46;
HIBBARD, LAND GRANTS, ENCYC.  SOC.  SCIENCES (1935) IX, 32-35. 

FN2  HIBBARD, LAND GRANTS, SUPRA, 35.  OTHER SOURCES PUT THE FIGURE
OF FEDERAL GRANTS-IN-AID AT 134,303,668 ACRES, EQUIVALENT TO 209,849
SQUARE MILES OR 6.93 PER CENT OF THE AREA OF THE CONTINENTAL UNITED
STATES.  SEVENTY RAILROADS RECEIVED THESE GRANTS.  PUBLIC AIDS TO
TRANSPORTATION, OP. CIT. SUPRA, N. 1, 12, 13.  SEE ALSO GREAT NORTHERN
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 262, 273. 

FN3  SEE PUBLIC AIDS TO TRANSPORTATION, OP. CIT. SUPRA, N. 1, II, 5
56, GATES, LAND GRANTS TO RAILWAYS, DICTIONARY OF AMER.  HIST.  (1940)
III, 237.  SEE ALSO CASES COLLECTED 43 U.S.C.A. SECS. 888, 890, 893,
894, 900, 904; 43 F.C.A. SECS. 888, 890, 893, 894, 900, 904. 

FN4  SEE LAKE SUPERIOR & M.R.R. V. UNITED STATES, 93 U.S. 442;
ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 15 CT. CL. 126, 148.  CF.
18 STAT. 72, 74; 18 STAT. 452, 453-454; 20 STAT. 377, 390; 27 STAT.
174, 180. 

FN5  SEE COMMITTEE OF THREE:  REPORT OF MARCH 24, 1938, H. DOC. NO.
583, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., 32; COMMITTEE OF SIX:  REPORT OF DECEMBER
23, 1938, IN HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE ON H.R. 2531, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., II, 260. 

FN6  H.R. 10620, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.; S. 3876, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.;
S. 1915 AND S. 1990, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN7  54 STAT. 954, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 65. 

FN8  SECTION 321(B) PROVIDES THAT 

"IF ANY CARRIER BY RAILROAD  ...  OR ANY PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST,
SHALL HAVE RECEIVED A GRANT OF LANDS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO AID IN
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY PART OF THE RAILROAD OPERATED BY IT, THE
PROVISIONS OF LAW WITH RESPECT TO (REDUCED RATE) COMPENSATION FOR SUCH
A TRANSPORTATION SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY TO SUCH TRANSPORTATION AS
THOUGH SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED UNTIL SUCH
CARRIER SHALL FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IN THE FORM AND
MANNER PRESCRIBED BY HIM, A RELEASE OF ANY CLAIM IT MAY HAVE AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS, INTERESTS IN LANDS, COMPENSATION, OR
REIMBURSEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF LANDS OR INTERESTS IN LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN
GRANTED, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OR WHICH IT IS CLAIMED SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO SUCH CARRIER OR ANY SUCH PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST
UNDER ANY GRANT TO SUCH CARRIER OR SUCH PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST AS
AFORESAID.  SUCH RELEASE MUST BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF
THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT.  NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED
AS REQUIRING ANY SUCH CARRIER TO RECONVEY TO THE UNITED STATES LANDS
WHICH HAVE BEEN HERETOFORE PATENTED OR CERTIFIED TO IT, OR TO PREVENT
THE ISSUANCE OF PATENTS CONFIRMING THE TITLE TO SUCH LANDS AS THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SHALL FIND HAVE BEEN HERETOFORE SOLD BY ANY
SUCH CARRIER TO AN INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE OR AS PREVENTING THE
ISSUANCE OF PATENTS TO LANDS LISTED OR SELECTED BY SUCH CARRIER, WHICH
LISTING OR SELECTION HAS HERETOFORE BEEN FULLY AND FINALLY APPROVED BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH
PATENTS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY LAW."    FN9  "SANTA FE PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING BY VIRTUE OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS APPROVED MARCH 3, 1897(29 STAT. 622), WITH OFFICE AND
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NEW YORK, IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
HEREBY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 321 OF PART II OF TITLE III OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED
THEREUNDER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, RELINQUISHES, REMISES AND
QUITCLAIMS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ANY AND ALL CLAIMS OF
WHATEVER DESCRIPTION TO LANDS, INTERESTS THEREIN, COMPENSATION OR
REIMBURSEMENT THEREFOR ON ACCOUNT OF LANDS OR INTERESTS GRANTED,
CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OR CLAIMED SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY
ANY ACT OF THE CONGRESS TO SANTA FE PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY OR TO ANY
PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST IN AID OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY PORTION OF
ITS RAILROAD. 

"THIS RELEASE DOES NOT EMBRACE THE RIGHTS OF WAY OR STATION GROUNDS
OF THIS COMPANY, LANDS SOLD BY THE COMPANY TO INNOCENT PURCHASERS FOR
VALUE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 18, 1940, LANDS EMBRACED IN SELECTIONS MADE BY
THE COMPANY AND APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PRIOR TO
SEPTEMBER 18, 1940, OR LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN PATENTED OR CERTIFIED TO
THE COMPANY OR ANY PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST IN AID OF THE CONSTRUCTION
OF ITS RAILROAD." 

FN10  CF. NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN11  SEE UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN P. RY., 311 U.S. 317, 332, 335,
353, 354. 

FN12  SEE HEARINGS, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, S. 1915, 1990 AND 2294, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 65,
66; SEE ALSO IBID., 59, 164. 
..END :





















ALBRECHT V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 599 


ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1947.  - 155 F.2D 73, 77,
AFFIRMED. 


CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LANDS BY THE GOVERNMENT STIPULATED THE
PURCHASE PRICE, GRANTED THE RIGHT OF IMMEDIATE POSSESSION, BUT
CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR INTEREST.  THE GOVERNMENT SUBSEQUENTLY
INSTITUTED CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, FILED A DECLARATION OF TAKING, AND
DEPOSITED IN COURT SUMS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE CONTRACT PRICES. 
THE LANDOWNERS ASSERTED THEIR CONTRACT RIGHTS.  THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONTRACTS HAVING THEREAFTER BEEN JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED, THE GOVERNMENT
PAID INTO COURT THE FULL CONTRACT PRICE.  HELD: 

1.  THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT OBLIGATED IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO PAY
INTEREST, SINCE THE COMPENSATION OF THE LANDOWNERS IS CONTROLLED BY THE
CONTRACTS, WHICH CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR INTEREST, RATHER THAN BY
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 600, 602. 

2.  THE LANDOWNERS HAVING RELIED UPON THE PURCHASE-PRICE PROVISIONS
OF THEIR CONTRACTS, THE INTEREST PROVISIONS OF THE DECLARATION OF
TAKING ACT ARE INAPPLICABLE.  P. 604. 

ALBRECHT ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 148.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 149, LINNENBRINGER V. UNITED STATES; NO. 150,
PITMAN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 151, OLIVER, EXECUTOR, ET AL. V.
UNITED STATES; AND NO. 155, Q.W.S.S. REALTY & INVESTMENT CO. V. UNITED
STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE
LANDOWNERS, PETITIONERS HERE, RELIED UPON THE PURCHASE-PRICE PROVISIONS
OF EARLIER CONTRACTS AND IN ADDITION CLAIMED INTEREST.  IN NO. 151, THE
DISTRICT COURT, ON THE QUESTION OF INTEREST, HELD FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 
60 F.SUPP.  741.  IN THE OTHER CASES, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD FOR THE
LANDOWNERS.  61 F.SUPP.  199.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD FOR
THE GOVERNMENT.  155 F.2D 73, 77.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329
U.S. 694.  AFFIRMED, P. 606. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY
INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOLLOWING LAND-PURCHASE ARRANGEMENTS
AND CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.  THE GOVERNMENT MADE SEPARATE CONTRACTS
WITH THE PETITIONERS TO BUY CERTAIN LANDS FROM THEM TO BE USED FOR A
PUBLIC PURPOSE.  THE CONTRACTS STIPULATED A PURCHASE PRICE TO BE PAID
AT AN INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME WHEN CERTAIN CONDITIONS HAD BEEN
FULFILLED.  FN1  THEY ALSO GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO
IMMEDIATE POSSESSION.  LATER THE GOVERNMENT QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF
THE CONTRACTS AND ATTEMPTED TO RESCIND THEM ON THE GROUND THAT BY
REASON OF FRAUD AND OTHER THINGS THE CONTRACT PRICES WERE GROSSLY
EXCESSIVE AND REPRESENTED FAR MORE THAN THE "JUST COMPENSATION"
REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IT FILED CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS IN
DISTRICT COURTS UNDER 40 STAT. 241, AS AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 171,
ASKING THE COURTS TO FIX "JUST COMPENSATION" AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE ON
THAT SUBJECT.  IT ALSO FILED A DECLARATION OF TAKING UNDER 46 STAT.
1421, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 258A, AT THE SAME TIME DEPOSITING IN THE COURTS
SUMS OF MONEY, SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE CONTRACT PRICES, WHICH IT
ESTIMATED TO BE THE TRUE "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN. 
THE COURTS THEN ENTERED ORDERS DIVESTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF ALL
TITLE AND VESTING IT IN THE GOVERNMENT.  A COMPANION CASE IN WHICH A
DISTRICT COURT HELD AN IDENTICAL CONTRACT VALID WAS APPEALED AND
EVENTUALLY REACHED THIS COURT.  PRIOR TO AND PENDING THIS APPEAL THESE
PETITIONERS VIGOROUSLY ASSERTED THE VALIDITY OF THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACTS WHICH FIXED THE AGREED PRICES FOR TRANSFER OF POSSESSION AND
TITLE TO THEIR PROPERTIES.  SEVERAL YEARS LATER THIS COURT UPHELD THE
VALIDITY OF THE IDENTICAL CONTRACT IN THE COMPANION CASE.  FN2
THEREUPON THE GOVERNMENT, COMPLYING WITH THAT DECISION, PAID THE FULL
CONTRACT PURCHASE PRICES INTO THE DISTRICT COURTS.  IT PRAYED THAT THE
LANDOWNERS' COMPENSATION BE FIXED AS THE CONTRACT PRICE WITHOUT
INTEREST.  PETITIONERS ASSERTED THAT THEY HAD A RIGHT TO INTEREST FROM
THE TIME OF THE "TAKING," GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROVISION
FOR "JUST COMPENSATION."  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT THE "JUST
COMPENSATION" PROVISION WAS NOT APPLICABLE, AND THAT PETITIONERS HAD NO
RIGHT TO INTEREST BECAUSE THEIR PURCHASE CONTRACTS DID NOT PROVIDE FOR
IT.  ONE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED THIS QUESTION IN FAVOR OF THE
GOVERNMENT, 60 F.SUPP.  741, BUT TWO DECIDED AGAINST IT.  61 F.SUPP. 
199.  FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  155
F.2D 73, 77.  IN A CASE INVOLVING SOMEWHAT SIMILAR FACTS, UNITED STATES
V. BAUGH, 149 F.2D 190, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT HAD DECIDED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  BECAUSE OF THE APPARENT
CONFLICT PRESENTED AND BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS OF WIDESPREAD
IMPORTANCE, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  THE FACTS AND ISSUES, SO FAR AS WE
DEEM THEM RELEVANT TO DISPOSITION OF ALL THE CASES, ARE IDENTICAL, AND
SO WE CONSIDER ALL OF THEM TOGETHER. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT
OBLIGATED TO PAY INTEREST IN THESE CASES.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN CASES
SUBMITTED TO THEM FOR DETERMINATION OF "JUST COMPENSATION," COURTS HAVE
EVOLVED A RULE WHEREBY AN ELEMENT OF COMPENSATION DESIGNATED AS
INTEREST IS SOMETIMES ALLOWED.  UNDER THIS RULE, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF
AN AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES FIXING COMPENSATION, COURTS FIRST FIX THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS OF THE TIME IT IS TAKEN.  THE PROPERTY
OWNER, AGAINST WHOM THERE IS NO COUNTERCLAIM, IS ALWAYS ENTITLED TO
PAYMENT OF THIS MUCH.  BUT WHERE PAYMENT OF THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE IS
DEFERRED, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SOMETHING MORE THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE
IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PROPERTY OWNER WHOLE, TO AFFORD HIM "JUST
COMPENSATION."  THIS ADDITIONAL ELEMENT OF COMPENSATION HAS BEEN
MEASURED IN TERMS OF REASONABLE INTEREST.  THUS, "JUST COMPENSATION" IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE HAS BEEN HELD, ABSENT A SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF TAKING PLUS "INTEREST"
FROM THAT DATE TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT.  FN4 

BUT THE METHOD USED BY COURTS TO DETERMINE "JUST COMPENSATION" IN AN
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE FAILED PREVIOUSLY TO AGREE
ON ITS AMOUNT IS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THAT
QUESTION.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROHIBIT LANDOWNERS AND THE
GOVERNMENT FROM AGREEING BETWEEN THEMSELVES AS TO WHAT IS JUST
COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY TAKEN.  SEE DANFORTH V. UNITED STATES, 308
U.S. 271.  NOR DOES IT BAR THEM FROM EMBODYING THAT AGREEMENT IN A
CONTRACT, AS WAS DONE HERE.  AND CERTAINLY WHERE A PARTY TO SUCH A
CONTRACT STANDS UPON ITS TERMS TO ENFORCE THEM FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE,
HE CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME SUCCESSFULLY DISAVOW THOSE TERMS SO FAR AS
HE CONCEIVES THEM TO BE TO HIS DISADVANTAGE.  THAT IS PRECISELY THE
POSITION OF THE PETITIONERS HERE.  THEY MADE CONTRACTS FOR THE TRANSFER
AND POSSESSION OF LANDS AT PRICES CONCERNING WHICH THEY HAVE NEVER
COMPLAINED.  AT THE END OF PROLONGED LITIGATION, THE GOVERNMENT WAS
BARRED FROM SHOWING THAT COMPENSATIONS FIXED BY THE CONTRACTS WERE NOT
JUST, BUT WERE EXCESSIVE.  HAVING THUS BOUND THE GOVERNMENT TO THE
CONTRACT PRICES AS THE MEASURE OF "JUST COMPENSATION," WHICH PRICES, TO
SAY THE LEAST, GENEROUSLY MEET THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S "JUST
COMPENSATION" REQUIREMENT, THEY NOW SEEK TO ESCAPE THE BURDENS OF THESE
IDENTICAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS.  THEY INVOKE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN
PURSUIT OF SOMETHING MORE THAN THE COMPENSATION FOR WHICH THEIR
CONTRACTS PROVIDE - CONTRACTS WHICH THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO ABANDON. 

THE ANSWER TO THEIR CONTENTION IS THAT IN THIS POSTURE OF THE CASES
THESE TRANSACTIONS HAVE PASSED OUT OF THE RANGE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  FOR THE REASONING ON WHICH INTEREST IS ADDED TO VALUE AS A
PART OF "JUST COMPENSATION" IN COURT CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THIS SITUATION.  THAT REASONING IS THAT WHEN A COURT
DETERMINES JUST COMPENSATION, IT FIRST FIXES BARE VALUE AT THE TIME OF
THE TAKING AND ADDS A SUM TO COMPENSATE FOR DEFERRED PAYMENT OF BARE
VALUE SO AS TO MAKE THE PROPERTY OWNER WHOLE AS REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  WE DO NOT THINK THIS FORMULA FITS CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS
FOR COMPENSATION.  EXACTLY WHAT FACTORS THE PARTIES CONSIDER, IN
ADDITION TO BARE VALUE, CANNOT EASILY BE ASCERTAINED.  THIS VERY GROUP
OF TRANSACTIONS ILLUSTRATES THAT THERE MAY BE MANY SUCH ADDITIONAL
FACTORS.  FOR EXAMPLE, ALL THE CONTRACTS HERE PROVIDED FOR IMMEDIATE
GOVERNMENT POSSESSION, THOUGH NONE CONTEMPLATED IMMEDIATE PAYMENTS.  WE
CANNOT KNOW WHAT AMOUNTS WERE ADDED IN THE BARGAINS TO THE BARE MARKET
VALUES AS ESTIMATED, THOUGH UNARTICULATED, ALLOWANCES FOR THE
ANTICIPATED DELAYS IN PAYMENT.  AND OTHER FACTORS, WHICH NEED NOT BE
ENUMERATED, ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT PRICES.  THESE THINGS DEMONSTRATE
THE INADVISABILITY OF APPLYING A CONSTITUTIONAL RULE AS TO INTEREST,
SPECIALLY DESIGNED TO ENABLE COURTS TO CALCULATE "JUST COMPENSATION,"
TO AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SITUATION IN WHICH PARTIES, SUPPOSEDLY WITH
DUE REGARD TO THEIR OWN INTERESTS, BARGAIN BETWEEN THEMSELVES AS TO
COMPENSATION.  SINCE THESE PETITIONERS HAVE CHOSEN TO STAND ON THEIR
CONTRACT TERMS AS TO THE AMOUNT THEY WILL RECEIVE FOR THEIR PROPERTY,
RATHER THAN TO HAVE "JUST COMPENSATION," IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE,
FIXED BY THE COURTS, WE MUST LOOK TO THOSE TERMS FOR THE MEASURE OF
THEIR COMPENSATION, INCLUDING THEIR RIGHT TO THAT PART OF COMPENSATION
WHICH COURTS HAVE CALLED INTEREST. 

WE HAVE NOT OVERLOOKED THE CONTENTION THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS IN
CONFLICT WITH OUR HOLDING IN DANFORTH V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 271. 
WE DO NOT THINK IT IS.  THAT WAS ALSO A CASE IN WHICH A STATUTE
AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT AGENTS TO PURCHASE PROPERTY, AND A PRICE HAD BEEN
AGREED ON PRIOR TO CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.  BUT THE ASSERTED INTEREST
CLAIM WAS THERE DENIED.  THE DECISION IN THAT CASE REASSERTED THE
PRINCIPLE THAT INTEREST IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT BEGIN
UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A TAKING.  AFTER NOTING THE SEVERAL INCIDENTS
ASSERTED TO CONSTITUTE A TAKING, WE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO INTERVAL
BETWEEN THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY THERE AND PAYMENT FOR IT.  THUS THE
QUESTION WE HAVE CONSIDERED HERE WAS NEITHER DIRECTLY INVOLVED, RAISED,
NOR GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.  A FURTHER INCIDENTAL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THAT CASE AND THIS IS THAT IN THE DANFORTH CASE THE CONTRACT
DID NOT ANTICIPATE THAT THE TAKING WOULD PRECEDE PAYMENT. 

TURNING NOW TO THE RIGHT TO INTEREST UNDER THE CONTRACTS, AND APART
FROM THE CONTENTION REGARDING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, WE FIND THAT THE
CONTRACTS HAVE NO PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST.  NO STATUTE
AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN CASES LIKE THIS.  IN THE ABSENCE
OF SPECIFIC CONTRACT OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS NO INTEREST RUNS AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT'S PAYMENT FOR THE CONTRACT
PURCHASES BE DELAYED.  SEE SMYTH V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 329, 353;
UNITED STATES V. THAYER-WEST POINT HOTEL CO., 329 U.S. 585, 588; UNITED
STATES V. N.Y. RAYON IMPORTING CO., 329 U.S. 654, 659-660. 

THERE IS SOME ARGUMENT THAT INTEREST SHOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE
DECLARATION OF TAKING ACT, 46 STAT. 1421, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 258A, UNDER
WHICH CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WERE FILED, AUTHORIZES PAYMENT OF
INTEREST FROM THE DATE PROPERTY IS TAKEN.  CF. UNITED STATES V. THAYER
WEST POINT HOTEL CO., SUPRA, P. 588.  THIS PROVISION, HOWEVER, IS NO
MORE THAN A STATUTORY EMBODIMENT OF THE RULE FOR DETERMINING
CONSTITUTIONAL "JUST COMPENSATION" IN THE ABSENCE OF A GOVERNING
CONTRACT, AND WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE
CLAIM FOR INTEREST UNDER THE STATUTE.  IT CONTAINS NO SPECIFIC
PROVISION FOR INTEREST ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS OF PURCHASE.  AND HERE,
WHILE THE LITIGATION WAS UNDER THE CONDEMNATION STATUTE, THE
PETITIONERS' RELIANCE ON THE PURCHASE PRICE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACTS
AS TO VALUE TOOK THESE CLAIMS FOR INTEREST OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE
INTEREST PROVISIONS OF THE DECLARATION OF TAKING ACT, AND LEFT THEM TO
BE GOVERNED BY THE INTEREST RULES WHICH WOULD HAVE APPLIED HAD SUIT
BEEN BROUGHT BY PETITIONERS TO ENFORCE THE CONTRACT TERMS.  PETITIONERS
WERE BARRED FROM RECEIVING INTEREST IN ANY PROCEEDING FOR THE REASON
THAT THEIR CONTRACTS CONTAINED NO PROMISE TO PAY INTEREST.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE FIRST CONTRACT CONDITION AS TO PAYMENT WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE
MADE UPON CONVEYANCE OF A GOOD AND MERCHANTABLE TITLE.  THE SECOND WAS
THAT IF "FOR ANY REASON" THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT APPROVE THE
TITLE, THE GOVERNMENT COULD OBTAIN A GOOD TITLE BY CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS IN AN APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT, IN WHICH EVENT THE AGREED
COMPENSATION WAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN COURT. 

FN2  MUSCHANY V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 49. 

FN3  SOME OF THE PETITIONERS CLAIMED INTEREST FROM THE DATE THE
GOVERNMENT TOOK POSSESSION OF THE LANDS UNDER THE CONTRACT TO THE DATE
THE GOVERNMENT DEPOSITED THE FULL CONTRACT PRICE.  ONE PETITIONER
CLAIMED INTEREST ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE DECLARATION OF
TAKING ON THE DIFFERENCE ON THAT DATE BETWEEN THE SUM THE GOVERNMENT
DEPOSITED AS THE ESTIMATED "JUST COMPENSATION" AND THE FULL CONTRACT
PRICE FINALLY DEPOSITED.  INTEREST WAS AWARDED BY THE TWO DISTRICT
COURTS ON THIS LATTER THEORY ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE DECLARATION OF
TAKING. 

FN4  SEABOARD AIR LINE V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299, 306; SHOSHONE
TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 496, 497; JACOBS V. UNITED
STATES, 290 U.S. 13, 16-17; UNITED STATES V. KLAMATH INDIANS, 304 U.S.
119, 123. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

"THE STIPULATION MERELY HAD THE EFFECT OF RELIEVING THE GOVERNMENT
FROM HAVING TO MAKE PROOF AS TO WHAT WAS JUST COMPENSATION AND OF
RUNNING THE RISK OF HAVING AN AMOUNT FIXED WHICH MIGHT BE
UNSATISFACTORY."  UNITED STATES V. BAUGH, 149 F.2D 190, 192.  THE
LANDOWNERS'"RIGHT TO HAVE INTEREST IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION AND IS
NEITHER FOUND NOR LOST IN THE CONTRACT."  ID., P. 193.  THE JUSTNESS OF
THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST IN THESE CASES IS UNDERLINED BY THE FACT THAT
THE LAND WAS TAKEN OVER FOUR YEARS BEFORE FULL PAYMENT WAS MADE.  THE
UNITED STATES RENOUNCED THESE CONTRACTS AND RETAINED POSSESSION OF THE
PROPERTIES BY THE DECLARATION OF TAKING ACT, WHICH BY ITS TERMS, 46
STAT. 1421, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 258A, ENTITLED THE CONDEMNEE TO INTEREST ON
THE VALUE FROM THE DATE OF TAKING EXCEPT AS TO SUMS PAID INTO COURT. 
AFTER THE DECISION IN MUSCHANY V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 49, THE
GOVERNMENT CARRIED OUT ITS CONDEMNATION SUITS AND OBTAINED TITLES TO
THESE PROPERTIES BY CONDEMNATION.    IN THESE CONDEMNATION ACTIONS THE
AGREED PRICE, STATED IN THE CONTRACTS, BECAME THE "JUST COMPENSATION"
OF THE DECLARATION OF TAKING ACT AND BY THAT ACT INTEREST WAS DUE FOR
SUCH AMOUNT AS HAD NOT BEEN DEPOSITED WITH THE TRIAL COURT WHEN THE
DECLARATION WAS FILED.  INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DECLARATION
AND THE PAYMENT OF THE VALUE INTO THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON
THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE SUM FIXED IN THE FINAL DECREE EXCEEDED THE SUM
DEPOSITED WITH THE DECLARATION OF TAKING. 
..END :




















INSURANCE GROUP V. D. & R.G.W.R. CO., 329 U.S. 607 


NO. 690.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1947.  - ORDER
DENYING PETITION AFFIRMED. 


AFTER CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION OF A RAILROAD UNDER
SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT HAD BEEN AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT, 328 U.S.
495, THE DEBTOR MOVED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE
PLAN IN THE LIGHT OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAD CHANGED SINCE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S HEARINGS ON THE PLAN.  THE DEBTOR
SPECIFIED THREE CATEGORIES OF CHANGED CONDITIONS:  (A) THE DECLINE IN
MONEY RATES TO A LEVEL FAR BELOW THE RATES PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF
THE COMMISSION'S HEARINGS, (B) THE RECENT PURCHASE BY PRIVATE CAPITAL
FOR PRIVATE OPERATION OF A STEEL PLANT WHICH HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY
THE GOVERNMENT DURING THE WAR IN THE AREA SERVED BY THE RAILROAD, AND
(C) A PERMANENT ELEVATION OF THE NATIONAL INCOME THROUGH INTENSIFIED
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY INVOLVING FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE A GREATLY
INCREASED DEMAND FOR RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION.  THE DEBTOR PRAYED THAT,
UPON RE-EXAMINATION, THE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE ITS ORDERS APPROVING
AND CONFIRMING THE PLAN AND REFER THE PROCEEDING BACK TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR THE FORMULATION OF A NEW PLAN.  HELD: 

1.  RE-EXAMINATION WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE; BECAUSE THE
DEBTOR HAS FAILED TO ALLEGE THE EXISTENCE, SINCE THIS COURT'S DECISION
AFFIRMING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN, OF CHANGED CONDITIONS OF A KIND
NOT ENVISAGED AND CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS DELIBERATIONS
UPON OR EXPLANATIONS OF THE PLAN.  P. 611. 

2.  THIS COURT HAVING RULED IN ITS PRIOR DECISION THAT IN THIS
REORGANIZATION NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, UP TO THAT DATE, PRESENTED TO
IT BY THE DEBTOR OR OTHER RESPONDENTS IN THAT REVIEW JUSTIFIED A RE
EXAMINATION OF THE PLAN AS CONFIRMED, THAT RULING WAS BINDING ON THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS TO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING AFTER THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION AND PRIOR TO THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT.  P. 612. 

3.  WHILE POWER RESTS IN A FEDERAL COURT THAT PASSES AN ORDER OR
DECISION TO CHANGE ITS POSITION ON A SUBSEQUENT REVIEW IN THE SAME
CAUSE, ORDERLY JUDICIAL ACTION, EXCEPT IN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES,
REQUIRES IT TO REFUSE TO PERMIT THE RELITIGATION OF MATTERS OR ISSUES
PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED ON A FORMER REVIEW.  P. 612. 

4.  THE CHANGED CONDITIONS RELIED UPON BY THE DEBTOR IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PLAN HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED OR
ANTICIPATED HERETOFORE BY THE COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT COURT, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THIS COURT.  PP. 613-617. 

5. UNTIL IT CAN BE CONTENDED WITH SOME SHOW OF REASONABLENESS THAT
CREDITORS SENIOR TO THE CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WHOM THE DEBTOR
REPRESENTS HERE HAVE RECEIVED MORE IN VALUE THAN THE FACE OF THEIR
CLAIMS, THE DEBTOR'S INSISTENCE ON A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PLAN IS
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT.  P. 618. 

6.  WHILE ALLEGATIONS OF A PETITION FOR RE-EXAMINATION INTO A
CONFIRMED RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PLAN NEED NOT CONTAIN ALLEGATIONS OF
THE PRIMARY FACTS, THEY SHOULD ALLEGE ULTIMATE FACTS, SUCH AS SALES AND
VALUES OF SECURITIES OR IMPROVED EARNINGS, SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE THE
FACTUAL BASIS FOR A RE-EXAMINATION; AND SUCH FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN
ALLEGED HERE.  PP. 618-619. 

7.  TO OPEN A CONFIRMED PLAN OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATION, ASSUMING THE
POWER TO DO SO, ACCEPTED AFTER YEARS OF CONSIDERATION, REQUIRES A
SHOWING BY ALLEGATION OF INJUSTICE TO THE COMPLAINING DEBTOR OR JUNIOR
CREDITORS FAR STRONGER THAN ANY MADE HERE.  P. 619. 

8.  THE RECORD AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS A PROPER BASIS FOR THE VALUATION
AND ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES BY THE COMMISSION AND FAILS TO SHOW ANY
SOUND BASIS FOR A RE-EXAMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION'S HEARINGS AND THE DATE OF THIS
COURT'S PRIOR DECISION.  P. 619. 

9.  AS TO THE PERIOD SINCE THIS COURT'S PRIOR DECISION, THERE IS NO
BASIS IN THE RECORD OR IN ANYTHING JUDICIALLY KNOWN TO THIS COURT FOR A
CONCLUSION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN INTEREST RATES,
EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST, OR TRAFFIC.  P. 620. 

10.  THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN PASSING A BILL PERTAINING TO RAILROAD
REORGANIZATIONS, WHICH WAS VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT, DOES NOT REQUIRE A
STAY TO AWAIT FURTHER ENACTMENTS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THIS REORGANIZATION,
SINCE THIS COURT DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER ANY CHANGES WILL BE ENACTED AND
MUST CONTINUE TO ACT UNDER EXISTING LAW.  P. 620. 

11.  THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN WHAT PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS HOLD IN THE
FUTURE A CONTROLLING VOICE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS RAILROAD HAS
ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND PROTECTED BY THE COMMISSION.  P. 620. 

12.  NOTHING BEFORE OR SINCE THE CONFIRMATION OF THIS PLAN INDICATES
ANY DISREGARD BY THE COMMISSION OR THE COURTS OF THE INTERESTS OF
OPERATORS, STOCKHOLDERS, CREDITORS OR THE PUBLIC.  PP. 620-621. 

INSURANCE GROUP COMMITTEE ET AL. V. DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN
RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

AFTER CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION OF A RAILROAD UNDER
SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT HAD BEEN AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT, 328 U.S.
495(REHEARING DENIED, 329 U.S. 824), THE DEBTOR MOVED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PLAN IN THE LIGHT OF CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH HAD CHANGED SINCE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S HEARINGS
ON THE PLAN (254 U.C.C. 6).  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
PETITION.  THE DEBTOR APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND A
JUDGE OF THAT COURT ISSUED AN ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT TO CONSUMMATE THE PLAN.  UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 240(A) THIS
COURT GRANTED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  329 U.S. 708.  THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGE DIRECTING A
STAY OF THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN IS VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT JUDGE DENYING THE PETITION IS AFFIRMED, P. 621. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON NOVEMBER 29, 1944, THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
CONFIRMED A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR THE DEBTOR, THE DENVER & RIO
GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD CO., 62 F.SUPP.  384, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
REJECTION OF THE PLAN BY HOLDERS OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS PURSUANT
TO SEC. 77(E).  UPON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE
ORDER OF CONFIRMATION.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, REVERSED THE
CIRCUIT COURT AND AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION.  328 U.S. 495. 
THE DEBTOR CONSISTENTLY OPPOSED THE PLAN THROUGHOUT THOSE PROCEEDINGS. 
AFTER THE OPINION OF THIS COURT WAS FILED ON JUNE 10, 1946, THE DEBTOR
PETITIONED FOR A REHEARING, WHICH WAS DENIED OCTOBER 28, 1946.  AT
ABOUT THE SAME TIME AS THAT OF FILING ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING, IT
MOVED IN THE DISTRICT COURT (SEPTEMBER 17, 1946) FOR A RE-EXAMINATION
OF THE PLAN IN THE LIGHT OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAD CHANGED SINCE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S HEARINGS ON THE PLAN IN MAY, 1941. 
254 I.C.C. 5, 6.  THE DEBTOR SPECIFIED THREE CATEGORIES OF CHANGED
CONDITIONS:  "(A) THE DECLINE IN MONEY RATES TO A LEVEL FAR BELOW THE
RATES PREVAILING AT THESE DATES; (B) THE RECENT PUBLIC OFFERING BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND PURCHASE BY PRIVATE CAPITAL FOR PRIVATE OPERATION OF THE
STEEL PLANT AT GENEVA, NEAR PROVO, UTAH, WHICH HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED BY
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE EXIGENCIES OF THE WAR AT A COST IN EXCESS OF
$200,000,000; (C) A PERMANENT ELEVATION OF THE NATIONAL INCOME THROUGH
INTENSIFIED INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY INVOLVING FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE A
GREATLY INCREASED DEMAND FOR RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION." 

THE DEBTOR PRAYED THAT UPON RE-EXAMINATION THE DISTRICT COURT SET
ASIDE ITS ORDER OF OCTOBER 25, 1943, APPROVING THE PLAN, AND ITS ORDER
OF NOVEMBER 29, 1944, CONFIRMING THE PLAN, AND REFER THE PROCEEDING
BACK TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR THE FORMULATION OF A NEW
PLAN.  AFTER A HEARING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE DEBTOR'S PETITION BUT
WITHOUT THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
PETITION ON OCTOBER 30, 1946, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ORDER OF
CONFIRMATION DETERMINED THE RIGHTS OF PARTICIPATION AND THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT DID NOT NOW HAVE POWER TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE PETITION FAILED TO STATE A CASE THAT
JUSTIFIED RECONSIDERATION.  THE DEBTOR FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL AND
REQUESTED A STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE PLAN ON THE SAME DAY; THE LATTER
MOTION WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AT THAT TIME.  THEREUPON THE
DEBTOR DOCKETED ITS APPEAL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND APPLIED
FOR AN ORDER STAYING EXECUTION OF THE PLAN UNTIL THE APPEAL SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED.  THIS APPLICATION OF THE DEBTOR WAS GRANTED ON NOVEMBER 2,
1946, BY AN ORDER OF JUDGE PHILLIPS STAYING PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT TO CONSUMMATE THE PLAN.  A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT WAS FILED IN THIS COURT UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 240(A) WHICH
ASKED THAT WE GRANT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, BEFORE JUDGMENT, AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT BE
AFFIRMED IN THIS COURT.  THE GROUNDS URGED WERE THAT THE ACTION OF THE
RESPONDENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT ISSUED JUNE
10, 1946, AND THAT EVEN IF THE MANDATE HAD NOT BEEN VIOLATED THE DENIAL
OF THE PETITION TO REOPEN PROCEEDINGS ON THE PLAN WAS NOT APPEALABLE
BECAUSE THE PETITION FOR RE-EXAMINATION WAS IN REALITY A PETITION FOR
REHEARING.  FURTHER, PETITIONER URGED THAT THIS COURT TAKE AND DECIDE
THE WHOLE CASE BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES WAS
REPETITIOUS OF THE SAME CLAIM REJECTED BY THIS COURT IN ITS JUNE, 1946,
DECISION AND THAT NO ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A RE
EXAMINATION OF THE PLAN ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE
THE JUNE DECISION.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED
TO THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS UNDER THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 708. 

WE MAY ASSUME, ARGUENDO, THAT BOTH THIS COURT UPON APPEAL FROM AN
ORDER OF CONFIRMATION IN BANKRUPTCY, AND THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ITSELF,
AFTER ITS ORDER OF CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED ON REVIEW (11 U.S.C.
SEC. 205(F)), MAY TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN CONDITIONS
AND ORDER A PLAN RE-EXAMINED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  ON
THAT ASSUMPTION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DEBTOR HAS FAILED TO
ALLEGE THE EXISTENCE OF CHANGED CONDITIONS SINCE OUR DECISION OF JUNE
10, 1946, OF A KIND NOT "ENVISAGED AND CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN
ITS DELIBERATIONS UPON OR EXPLANATIONS OF THE PLAN."  RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORP. V. DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO., 328 U.S. 495, 522.  WE DO NOT
THEREFORE THINK THAT RE-EXAMINATION WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE. 

THE CONCLUSION IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH REMOVES THE NECESSITY OF
CONSIDERING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RESPONDENT DISREGARDED THE EFFECT
OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT OF JUNE 10, 1946, WHICH AFFIRMED THE
ORDERS OF APPROVAL AND CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN.  LIKEWISE IT DISPOSES
OF ANY NECESSITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS PETITION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS IN REALITY A REQUEST FOR A REHEARING.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 247. 

UPON THE SAME ASSUMPTION EMPLOYED ABOVE, WE RULED IN OUR DECISION OF
JUNE 10, 1946, 328 U.S. 495, 534, THAT IN THIS REORGANIZATION NO
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, UP TO THAT DATE, PRESENTED TO US BY THE DEBTOR
OR OTHER RESPONDENTS IN THAT REVIEW JUSTIFIED A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE
PLAN AS CONFIRMED.  THIS RULING WAS BINDING UPON THE DISTRICT COURT AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS TO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING AFTER
THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION AND PRIOR TO OUR DECISION.  WHEN MATTERS ARE
DECIDED BY AN APPELLATE COURT, ITS RULINGS, UNLESS REVERSED BY IT OR A
SUPERIOR COURT, BIND THE LOWER COURT.  THUS A CAUSE PROCEEDS TO FINAL
DETERMINATION.  WHILE POWER RESTS IN A FEDERAL COURT THAT PASSES AN
ORDER OR DECISION TO CHANGE ITS POSITION ON A SUBSEQUENT REVIEW IN THE
SAME CAUSE, ORDERLY JUDICIAL ACTION, EXCEPT IN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES,
REQUIRES IT TO REFUSE TO PERMIT THE RELITIGATION OF MATTERS OR ISSUES
PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED ON A FORMER REVIEW.  FN1 

THE DEBTOR'S BRIEF AND THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON
THE HEARING OF THE REVIEW OF THE ORDERS OF APPROVAL AND CONFIRMATION OF
THE PLAN MAKE CLEAR THAT CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HEARINGS IN MAY, 1941, AND OUR
DECISION OF JUNE 10, 1946, OF A LIKE CHARACTER WITH THOSE NOW ALLEGED,
WERE RELIED UPON BY THE DEBTOR IN ITS FORMER EFFORT TO SET ASIDE THE
DISTRICT COURT'S ORDERS OF APPROVAL AND CONFIRMATION.  THE DEBTOR
ARGUED ON THE FORMER REVIEW, AS IT AGAIN ARGUES, THAT THE PLAN SHOULD
NOT BE CONFIRMED BECAUSE OF THE "RADICAL LOWERING FOR THE INDEFINITE
FUTURE OF MONEY RATES."  AND IT WAS EMPHASIZED AT THAT TIME THAT
CAPITALIZING ON THESE LOWER RATES WOULD PERMIT THE ISSUANCE OF A
GREATER VOLUME OF SECURITIES AGAINST EARNINGS OF THE DEBTOR, AND
CONSEQUENTLY A LARGER ALLOTMENT TO PRESENTLY DISSATISFIED CREDITORS. 
EVERY EXAMPLE OF RAILROAD REFINANCING, LISTED IN RESPONDENT'S PRESENT
BRIEF TO SUPPORT BY ILLUSTRATION THE ARGUMENT OF FALLING INTEREST
RATES, WAS LISTED IN THE BRIEF ON THE LAST REVIEW FOR THE SAME
PURPOSE.  THE PURPOSE WAS TO SET FORTH INSTANCES OF THE ISSUE OF
RAILROAD SECURITIES AT INTEREST RATES DEFINITELY LOWER THAN THOSE BORNE
BY THE DEBTOR'S ISSUES.  THE DEBTOR IN ITS BRIEF OF THAT TIME ALSO
ARGUED THE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF THE "PERMANENT ELEVATION OF NATIONAL
INCOME" UPON THE ANTICIPATED EARNINGS OF THE DEBTOR.  LASTLY, THE
DEBTOR THERE POINTED OUT THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
GREAT GENEVA STEEL PLANT WAS "CERTAIN TO BE REVOLUTIONARY IN ITS
CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEW EARNING POWER OF THE DEBTOR  ..."  ALTHOUGH IT
DID NOT THEN RELY, AS IT DOES NOW, UPON THE PURCHASE OF THAT
CORPORATION BY PRIVATE CAPITAL, THE ARGUMENT, THEN AS NOW, WAS THAT THE
PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS FROM A GREAT STEEL PLANT WAS A FACTOR INDICATING
HIGHER EARNINGS.  THE PLANT MAY OR MAY NOT TURN OUT TO BE STRATEGICALLY
LOCATED FOR PRIVATE LOW COST OPERATION AND DISTRIBUTION.  THE SHIFT OF
OWNERSHIP HAS ONLY MODERATE SIGNIFICANCE. 

IN SUM, THE VERY KINDS OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE ARGUED
HERE FORMERLY AS REASONS FOR NOT APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION WERE PRESENTED BY THE PETITION NOW UNDER REVIEW TO THE
DISTRICT COURT AS REASONS WHY THAT COURT SHOULD VACATE ITS ORDERS OF
APPROVAL AND CONFIRMATION, AND REMAND THE PLAN TO THE COMMISSION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.  THE DEBTOR ARGUES THAT IT ONLY URGED THIS COURT TO
TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THESE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES,
AND THAT OUR REFUSAL TO DO SO SHOULD NOT BAR IT FROM PROVING THESE
CHANGES IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  OUR HOLDING WAS NOT BASED UPON A
CONCLUSION THAT THIS COURT COULD NOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CHANGES IN
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  WE CONCLUDED THAT, EVEN IF WEIGHED, THE ALLEGED CHANGES
WERE NOT OF A KIND WHICH JUSTIFIED RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PLAN.  328
U.S. 495, 534. 

THE QUESTIONS OF INTEREST RATES AND INCREASED EARNINGS FROM THE
GENEVA STEEL PLANT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT
COURT BEFORE THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION.  THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN BY
THE COMMISSION ON JUNE 14, 1943, APPRAISED ECONOMIC CHANGES SUBSEQUENT
TO THE HEARINGS.  254 I.C.C. 349, 356, 358, 359. 

THE COMMISSION GAVE CONSIDERATION TO THE INTEREST RATES THE PROPOSED
SECURITIES SHOULD BEAR.  328 U.S. 495, 515, 516.  THERE WAS A FORECAST
OF AVAILABLE INCOME OF $6,215,423 FOR ANNUAL CHARGES IN A FUTURE NORMAL
YEAR.  IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD SUPPORT A CAPITALIZATION OF
$155,000,000 PLUS, EVEN THOUGH MORE THAN $35,000,000 OF THAT
REPRESENTED BY COMMON STOCK PARTICIPATED ONLY IN EARNINGS ABOVE THE
ESTIMATED NORMAL EXCEPT AS TO LONG-RANGE ADVANTAGES FROM CAPITAL
INVESTMENTS AND BOND SINKING-FUND PAYMENTS THAT HAD THE EFFECT OF
INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK EQUITIES.  254 I.C.C. 15,
356.  AS APPEARS FROM THE TABLES OF CAPITALIZATION, ANNUAL CHARGES AND
DISTRIBUTION OF SECURITIES, 328 U.S. 495, 502-503, THE INTEREST RATES
CHOSEN VARIED WITH THE TYPE OF SECURITY.  AS NONE OF THE AUTHORIZED
SECURITIES ARE ALLEGED BY THE DEBTOR TO HAVE SHOWN VALUES MUCH ABOVE
PAR, THE CHOSEN RATES OF RETURN HAVE NOT PROVEN TO BE EXCESSIVE.  SEE
NOTE 6, INFRA.  FROM THE VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE PROPER
INTEREST FOR THE NEW FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS, THE COMMISSION SELECTED
FINALLY A FIXED RATE OF THREE PER CENT AND A CONTINGENT RATE OF AN
ADDITIONAL ONE PER CENT.  FN2  233 I.C.C. 537, 542, 554-5; 254 I.C.C.
15, 387.  TO GUARD AGAINST A DRAIN UPON THE REORGANIZED RAILROAD IF
INTEREST RATES SHOULD FALL, A PROVISION APPEARS IN THE PLAN  FN3  FOR
REFUNDING THE AUTHORIZED FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS AT A MAXIMUM PREMIUM OF 5
PER CENT.  THIS GIVES PROTECTION TO THE REORGANIZED ROAD IF NOT TO THE
UNPAID CREDITORS AND EXCLUDED STOCKHOLDERS. 

MUCH THE SAME SITUATION EXISTS AS TO THE GENEVA STEEL PLANT.  A
DISCUSSION OCCURRED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT ON OCTOBER 23, 1942, IN
WHICH IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE PLANT WOULD MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL
CONTRIBUTION TO THE TRAFFIC OF THE ROAD.  THIS WAS THE BASIS FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION BEFORE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION ON ITS
RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLAN, 254 I.C.C. 349, 356.  THE EFFECT OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THIS PLANT RECEIVED FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, 150 F.2D 28, 34, 38, 43. 

AS WE INDICATED ABOVE, THE ALLEGED INCREASES IN THE NATIONAL INCOME
WERE BRIEFED AND DECIDED CONTRARY TO THE DEBTOR'S CONTENTION ON THE
FORMER REVIEW.  NOTHING WAS CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION IN THE FORMER
REVIEW TO INDICATE THAT AN INCREASED LEVEL OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ABOVE
THAT IN ACTUAL EXISTENCE WHEN THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION WAS ISSUED HAD
OCCURRED BEYOND THAT ANTICIPATED BY THE COMMISSION.  FN4  EARNINGS
AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST DEPEND UPON COSTS AS WELL AS UPON REVENUE.  IT
MIGHT BE ADDED TO THIS COURT'S COMMENTS ON RAILROAD RATE INCREASES, 328
U.S. 495, 522, N. 29, THAT IN HANDING DOWN ITS ORDER OF DECEMBER 5,
1946, GRANTING CERTAIN INCREASES, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
CONSIDERED THE NECESSITY OF MEETING THE INCREASED COSTS.  FN5    THE
COMMISSION MADE NO FINDING THAT THE CASH VALUE OF THE SECURITIES
ALLOCATED TO THE SENIOR CREDITORS PAID THEM IN FULL.  TO JUSTIFY THE
CHANGE OF POSITION OF CREDITORS FROM FULLY SECURED TO PARTIALLY
SECURED, CREDITORS WERE GIVEN OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFITS
THROUGH COMMON STOCK OWNERSHIP WITH A CHANCE AT LARGER EARNINGS THAN
THE COMMISSION'S FORECAST ANTICIPATED.  WE HELD THE PRIORITY RULE WAS
SATISFIED BY THIS TYPE OF ALLOCATION.  THIS WAS EXPLAINED BY OUR
DECISION ON THE LAST REVIEW.  328 U.S. 495, 517-518.  THE DEBTOR HAS
MADE NO ALLEGATION, EITHER IN THIS EFFORT FOR RE-EXAMINATION OR BEFORE,
THAT THE EXISTING CASH VALUE OF THE SECURITIES ALLOTTED ANY CREDITOR
HAS EVER AGGREGATED THE AMOUNT OF THE CREDITOR'S CLAIM AGAINST THE
DEBTOR.  FN6  WE THINK THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN ALLEGATION, OF ITSELF,
DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PLAN IS NOT, BECAUSE OF EXCESSIVE INTEREST,
UNFAIR TO THE DEBTOR OR THOSE FOR WHOM IT IS ALLOWED TO APPEAR. 

UNTIL IT CAN BE CONTENDED WITH SOME SHOW OF REASONABLENESS THAT THE
CREDITORS SENIOR TO THE CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WHOM THE DEBTOR
REPRESENTS HERE HAVE RECEIVED MORE IN VALUE THAN THE FACE OF THEIR
CLAIMS, THE DEBTOR'S INSISTENCE ON A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PLAN IS
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT.  SEE NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, 228
U.S. 482; GROUP OF INVESTORS V. MILWAUKEE R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 541. 

NOT ONLY DOES THE DEBTOR FAIL TO ALLEGE ANY ACTUAL SALES OR VALUES OF
THE SECURITIES WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE RECEIVED
THROUGH THE ALLOTTED SECURITIES PAYMENTS ON THEIR CLAIMS IN EXCESS OF
THEIR FACE, BUT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF A RADICALLY IMPROVED
SITUATION AS TO THIS RAILROAD'S EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST.  FN7
ALTHOUGH DISTORTIONS OF INCOME AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST FROM VARYING
CAUSES DO APPEAR IN THE REPORTS OF THE TRUSTEES, AVAILABLE INTEREST IS
AN IMPORTANT FIGURE AS A BASIS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF
CAPITALIZATION.  TRAFFIC COMPARISONS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY SET OUT.  FN8
WHILE THE ALLEGATIONS OF A PETITION FOR RE-EXAMINATION INTO A
CONFIRMED RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PLAN NEED NOT CONTAIN ALLEGATIONS OF
THE PRIMARY FACTS, THE ALLEGATIONS SHOULD ALLEGE ULTIMATE FACTS, SUCH
AS THOSE JUST REFERRED TO, SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR
A RE-EXAMINATION.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF CHANGED CONDITIONS IN THIS
PETITION TO THE DISTRICT COURT DO NOT HAVE THE SPECIFICITY OF THOSE
WHICH CAUSED THIS COURT IN 1932 TO DIRECT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST A
COMMISSION ORDER OF 1930 THAT WAS BASED ON HEARINGS THAT ANTEDATED THE
DEPRESSION, BEGINNING IN 1929.  FN9  THE RULING IN THAT CASE HAS NOT
BEEN EXTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE REOPENING OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION BECAUSE OF ALLEGED CHANGES IN CONDITIONS.  FOR CASES OF THAT
TYPE, THIS COURT HAS POINTED OUT, THERE MUST BE A SHOWING OF
SUBSTANTIAL INJURY.  FN10  WE HAVE APPROVED A STATEMENT THAT THE
ATCHISON CASE RESTED UPON EXCEPTIONAL FACTS.  FN11 

TO OPEN A CONFIRMED PLAN OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATION, ASSUMING THE
POWER TO DO SO, ACCEPTED AFTER YEARS OF CONSIDERATION, REQUIRES A
SHOWING BY ALLEGATION OF INJUSTICE TO THE COMPLAINING DEBTOR OR JUNIOR
CREDITORS FAR STRONGER THAN ANY HERE MADE.  COMPARE PEWABIC MINING CO.
V. MASON, 145 U.S. 349, 356, 367; GROUP OF INVESTORS V. MILWAUKEE R.
CO., 318 U.S. 523, 543. 

MUCH OF WHAT WE HAVE WRITTEN IS DIRECTED AT THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE
SHOULD BE A PLENARY RE-EXAMINATION OF REORGANIZATION PROPOSALS FOR THE
DENVER & RIO GRANDE.  AS TO THAT SUGGESTION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
THE RECORD AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS A PROPER BASIS FOR THE VALUATION AND
ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES BY THE COMMISSION, 328 U.S. 495, 502-503, AND
THAT THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW ANY SOUND BASIS FOR A RE-EXAMINATION ON
ACCOUNT OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES BETWEEN MAY, 1941, AND JUNE 10, 1946. 

SO FAR AS THE PERIOD SINCE JUNE 10, 1946, IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO
BASIS IN THIS RECORD OR IN ANYTHING JUDICIALLY KNOWN TO US FOR A
CONCLUSION THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN INTEREST RATES,
EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST OR TRAFFIC.  NOR DO WE SEE THAT THE
ACTION OF CONGRESS IN PASSING S. 1253, ON JULY 31, 1946, SHOULD
PERSUADE US TO REQUIRE A STAY TO AWAIT FURTHER ENACTMENTS THAT MIGHT
AFFECT THIS REORGANIZATION.  IT WAS VETOED.  PRESIDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF
DISAPPROVAL, AUGUST 13, 1946.  OUR UNDERSTANDING OF OUR DUTIES UNDER
THE RAILROAD REORGANIZATION ACT, IN THE FACE OF STRONG CRITICISM OF ITS
PROVISIONS, WAS EXPRESSED IN THE FORMER REVIEW OF THIS PLAN, 328 U.S.
495, 509, 510.  IT NEED NOT BE REPEATED.  WE MUST CONTINUE TO ACT UNDER
THE NOW EXISTING LAW.  WHETHER OR NOT CHANGES MAY BE MADE THAT WILL
EFFECT THIS REORGANIZATION, WE DO NOT KNOW.  IT IS QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE
TO US THAT STOCKHOLDERS STRIVE TO PRESERVE THE EQUITIES OF THEIR
INVESTMENTS AND THAT CREDITORS SHOULD FEEL, IN THIS CASE, THAT THEY
HAVE NOT RECOVERED THE VALUE OF THEIR INVESTMENT.  SUCH CONVICTIONS ARE
TO BE RESPECTED. 

THE SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT THERE IS A PUBLIC INTEREST IN WHAT
PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS HOLD IN THE FUTURE A CONTROLLING VOICE IN THE
MANAGEMENT OF THIS RAILROAD.  THIS MATTER HAD THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
COMMISSION, 254 I.C.C. AT 367 ET SEQ. THE PLAN ADOPTED CONTAINS A TEN
YEAR VOTING TRUST FOR THE NEW STOCK WITH COMMISSION-REGULATED
PROVISIONS FOR ITS SALE.  254 I.C.C. AT 400.  THE RECORD DOES NOT
PRESENT ANY GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE NEW OWNERS WILL BE ANY THE
LESS SOLICITOUS FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE THAN THOSE WHO, AT PRESENT, HOLD
THE STOCK CERTIFICATES. 

HOWEVER, NOTHING BEFORE OR SINCE THE CONFIRMATION OF THIS PLAN
INDICATES ANY DISREGARD BY THE COMMISSION OR THE COURTS OF THE INTEREST
OF OPERATORS, STOCKHOLDERS, THE CREDITORS OR THE PUBLIC.  WHEN THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FINDS THE VALUE OF A RAILROAD SYSTEM BY
ANY MEANS, THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RESULT CANNOT BE MATHEMATICALLY
PROVED OR DISPROVED.  THE DIFFICULTIES OF APPRAISAL ARE MULTIPLIED BY
THE NECESSITY OF LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE TO ESTIMATE EARNINGS. 
EARNINGS ESTIMATES ARE MADE WITH ALLOWANCE FOR CHANGING ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS.  SO ARE INTEREST RATES.  ALL THIS IS RECOGNIZED BY
EVERYONE; BUT THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND NO BETTER WAY TO DETERMINE THE
ALLOCATION OF NEW SECURITIES AMONG THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF STOCKHOLDERS
OR OF CREDITORS OF A RAILROAD WITH THEIR DIFFERENT RIGHTS.  CF.
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V. DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO., 328 U.S. 495,
505-509. 

THE REORGANIZATION SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT.  THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT
JUDGE IN DIRECTING A STAY OF THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN IS VACATED
AND THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE OF OCTOBER 30, 1946, DENYING THE
PETITION IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  GREAT WESTERN TELEGRAPH CO. V. BURNHAM, 162 U.S. 339, 344; KING
V. WEST VIRGINIA, 216 U.S. 92, 101; MESSENGER V. ANDERSON, 225 U.S.
436, 444; WICHITA CO. V. CITY BANK, 306 U.S. 103, 106.  CF. CHAFFIN V.
TAYLOR, 116 U.S. 567, 572. 

FN2  THE EARNINGS CONTINGENCY WHICH AUTHORIZED THE PAYMENT OF THE
PRIOR CONTINGENT INTEREST, AS EXPRESSED IN TECHNICAL DETAIL AT 254
I.C.C. 393-94, WAS THE NET INCOME LESS CERTAIN FIXED CHARGES. 

FN3  254 I.C.C. 387. 

FN4  THE NATIONAL INCOME* AS REPORTED IN THE ANNUAL PUBLICATION OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, THE SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS, FOR THE
FOLLOWING YEARS WAS, IN BILLIONS: 

1940............ 77.6   1943............149.4 

1941............ 96.9   1944............160.7 

1942............122.2   1945............161.0 

THE NATIONAL INCOME AS COMPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IS
TENTATIVELY ESTIMATED AT 164.0 BILLIONS FOR 1946; FOR 1947, NO
STATEMENT OF AN EXPECTED INCREASE.  SEE THE ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE
PRESIDENT TO THE CONGRESS, OF JANUARY 8, 1947, H. DOC. NO. 49, 80TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., AS REQUIRED UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1946, 60
STAT. 23. 

THE DOW-JONES AVERAGE OF THE TEN FIRST-GRADE RAILS WAS 117.25 ON JUNE
10, 1946, BUT HAD FALLEN TO 110.73 ON DECEMBER 30, 1946.  THE MARKET
BID FOR THE FIRST BONDS OF THE REORGANIZED DEBTOR, WHEN, AS, AND IF
ISSUED, WAS 101 ON JUNE 10, 1946, BUT HAD FALLEN TO 89 ON DECEMBER 30,
1946.  THESE LATTER FIGURES ARE FROM THE COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL
CHRONICLE, ISSUES OF JUNE 10 AND DECEMBER 30, 1946. 

*NATIONAL INCOME IS THE TOTAL NET INCOME EARNED IN PRODUCTION BY
INDIVIDUALS OR BUSINESSES. 

FN5  WHILE THE REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION DEAL WITH THE NATIONAL
RAILROAD SITUATION RATHER THAN WITH INDIVIDUAL ROADS, AN EXAMINATION OF
THEM DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE COMMISSION INTENDED TO SUPPLY BY MEANS
OF THE INCREASE IN RATES A NET RAILWAY OPERATING INCOME SUFFICIENT TO
GIVE A RATE OF RETURN ON INVESTED CAPITAL SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN FOR
NORMAL PRE-WAR YEARS.  264 I.C.C. 695, 722, 728; I.C.C., EX PARTE NO.
162, DECEMBER 5, 1946, MIMEOGRAPHED REPORT, P. 7. 

SEE THE DISCUSSION OF INCREASED REVENUE AND COSTS, MIMEOGRAPHED
REPORT, SUPRA, PP. 3, 4, 5. 

FN6  AS FAR AS THEY ARE READILY AVAILABLE TO US, THE RANGES OF THE
REORGANIZED ROAD'S SECURITIES TRADED ON A WHEN, AS AND IF ISSUED BASIS
HAVE BEEN AS FOLLOWS:

                              1945            1946

                         HIGH   LOW      HIGH   LOW 

FIRST BONDS...............    103   82        102   89 

INCOME BONDS.............. 89 1/2  44 1/2     89   50 

PREFERRED STOCK...........                   75 1/2  37 

COMMON STOCK..............                   35 1/2  16 

BOND RANGES ARE FROM YEAR'S END EDITION OF MOODY'S BOND RECORD, VOL.
14, NO. 1, JANUARY 10, 1947; STOCK RANGES ARE FROM STANDARD & POOR'S
EARNINGS AND RATINGS STOCK GUIDE, YEAR'S END EDITION, JANUARY, 1947. 

THE HIGHEST MARKET BIDS ON THE SECURITIES SO FAR THIS YEAR ARE, SO
FAR AS THE FIGURES ARE AVAILABLE TO US: 

FIRST BONDS.....................89 

INCOME BONDS....................62 

PREFERRED STOCK.................50 

COMMON STOCK....................16 1/2 

FROM COMMERCIAL & FINANCIAL CHRONICLE, EDITIONS OF JANUARY 6, JANUARY
13, AND JANUARY 20, 1947. 

FN7  THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE TRUSTEES TO STOCKHOLDERS SHOW THE
INCOME AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST AS FOLLOWS: 

1942.............$17,044,420.39 

1943............. 11,573,667.94 

1944.............  8,157,880.25 

1945.............  1,503,289.07 DR.* 

IN 1946 THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR ALL FIXED CHARGES AT THE END OF
ELEVEN MONTHS WAS $3,405,118.00. 

*THIS DEFICIT IS SHOWN AFTER DEDUCTING FROM GROSS EARNINGS A TAX
ACCRUAL FOR PRIOR YEARS OF $3,648,589.63(IN ADDITION TO THE TAX ACCRUAL
FOR THE YEAR 1945) AND $12,790,657.50 IN AMORTIZATION OF WAR
FACILITIES. 

FN8  REVENUE FREIGHT CARLOADING WEEKLY REPORT OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
OF RAILROADS SHOWS CAR LOADINGS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER FOR THE YEARS
1941 TO 1946 AS FOLLOWS: 

1941................14,045    1944................15,308 

1942................16,915    1945................12,007 

1943................14,571    1946................13,517 

FN9  ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284
U.S. 248, 256. 

FN10  UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO., 288 U.S. 490,
494. 

FN11  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, 322 U.S.
503, 515. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

FORMALLY, THIS IS A LITIGATION BETWEEN PRIVATE LITIGANTS, CREDITORS
QUARRELING OVER THEIR SHARE IN THE CAPITALIZATION OF A REORGANIZED
ENTERPRISE.  INTRINSICALLY, THE CASE CONCERNS ISSUES OF SERIOUS PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE.  CONTROL OF ONE OF THE MAJOR RAILROAD SYSTEMS OF THE
COUNTRY IS AT STAKE.  DISPOSITION OF THE CONTROVERSY BRINGS INTO PLAY
CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY ON WHICH THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT HAVE
CLEARLY EXPRESSED THEMSELVES WITH RELEVANCE TO THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE
COURT. 

THE PECULIAR AND CONTROLLING PUBLIC ASPECT OF THE CASE IS EMPHASIZED
BY THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT FREQUENTLY
INTERVENES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SO-CALLED PRIVATE LITIGATION TO PRESENT
THE DOMINANT PUBLIC ASPECTS OF SUCH LITIGATION.  IN THE EARLIER STAGES
OF THIS LITIGATION THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN FACT A PARTY OF RECORD. 
THROUGH ONE OF ITS AGENCIES, THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION,
THE GOVERNMENT IS ITSELF A CREDITOR.  WHEN THE PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION,
NOW ORDERED TO BE CARRIED OUT, WAS FOUND BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS NOT "FAIR AND EQUITABLE," AND JUSTIFIABLY REJECTED BY THE
GENERAL BONDHOLDERS WHOSE CLAIMS CONSTITUTED ABOUT ONE-FOURTH OF THE
ENTIRE DEBT OF THE RAILROAD, THE GOVERNMENT HERE JOINED THE PRESENT
PETITIONERS IN URGING REVERSAL OF THAT DECISION AND APPROVAL OF THE
PLAN.  SEE 150 F.2D 28, AND 328 U.S. 495.  AFTER SUCH REVERSAL HERE,
THE CASE WENT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
WERE BEGUN FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE PLAN.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THESE PROCEEDINGS, BUT AN ORDER BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS STAYED THE EXECUTION OF THE PLAN UNTIL THE COURT HAD
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL DULY DOCKETED.  WHEN A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI WAS FILED HERE TO LIFT THE CASE OUT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS BEFORE IT COULD BE HEARD, THE GOVERNMENT NO LONGER ASKED THIS
COURT TO APPROVE THE PLAN WHICH IT HAD SUPPORTED HERE LAST MARCH. 
INSTEAD, THE GOVERNMENT BOWED ITSELF OUT OF THE CASE.  WHAT HAS
HAPPENED TO MAKE THE GOVERNMENT ABSTAIN FROM STANDING ON THE DECISION
WHICH IT OBTAINED HERE LAST JUNE?  THAT WHICH HAS HAPPENED CONSTRAINS
ME TO THE VIEW THAT THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE REORGANIZATION PLAN CALLS
FOR FURTHER SCRUTINY, AND SHOULD NOT, AS MATTERS NOW STAND, BE CARRIED
OUT. 

WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THIS COURT RENDERED ITS DECISION LAST JUNE? 
THE GOVERNMENT, IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ABSTENTION, STATES IT SUCCINCTLY
AND WITH CANDOR: 

"BECAUSE OF THE ACTION OF THE CONGRESS LAST SUMMER IN PASSING THE
BILL KNOWN AS S. 1253 AND THE REASONING OF THE PRESIDENT'S MEMORANDUM
OF DISAPPROVAL, DATED AUGUST 13, 1946, BOTH OF WHICH INDICATED
DISAPPROVAL OF CERTAIN FEATURES OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS APPROVED
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH
IS THE EXISTING LAW, THE RFC, AS AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES CREATED
AND EXISTING BY VIRTUE OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, IS NOT TAKING ANY
POSITION AS TO WHETHER THE PETITIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED."    THE
DECISIVE CHANGE IN RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH THUS CAUSED A DECISIVE
CHANGE OF POSITION BY THE GOVERNMENT SINCE THE CASE WAS HERE
ORIGINALLY, IS THE ESSENTIAL BASIS FOR THE DEBTOR-RAILROAD'S
UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO SECURE RE-EXAMINATION OF
THE REORGANIZATION PLAN, AND WAS PRESUMABLY THE BASIS FOR THE ORDER OF
JUDGE PHILLIPS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS STAYING PROCEEDINGS IN
THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONSUMMATE THE PLAN. 

THIS CONTROLLING CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES IS DISMISSED BY THE COURT
WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT "THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN PASSING S. 1253
...  WAS VETOED.  PRESIDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL, AUGUST 13,
1946."  BUT THE DECISIVE CONSIDERATION IS NOT THAT THE PRESIDENT VETOED
THE BILL BUT WHY HE VETOED IT.  THE PRESIDENT LEFT NO DOUBT REGARDING
THE GROUNDS OF HIS VETO.  IN THE INTEREST OF AN ADEQUATE APPRECIATION
OF THEM THE FULL TEXT OF HIS MEMORANDUM IS MADE PART OF THIS OPINION
(APPENDIX I).  THE PRESIDENT DID NOT VETO THE BILL BECAUSE HE
DISAPPROVED ITS PURPOSES.  HE VETOED THE BILL BECAUSE IT WAS TOO WEAK,
IN SOME OF ITS PROVISIONS, FOR CARRYING OUT THOSE PURPOSES.  "BY
WITHHOLDING MY SIGNATURE TO THIS BILL," WROTE PRESIDENT TRUMAN, "I DO
NOT INTEND TO INDICATE THAT I FAVOR THE PENDING REORGANIZATION PLANS. 
I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THOSE OBJECTIVES OF THE BILL WHICH PREVENT
UNDESIRABLE CONTROL OF THE RAILROADS, EITHER IMMEDIATELY OR WITHIN A
FEW YEARS, AND WHICH PREVENT FORFEITURES OF SECURITIES."  HE CONTINUED:
"I BELIEVE THAT THE NEXT CONGRESS CAN PASS A BILL WHICH WILL MEET THE
STATED OBJECTIONS AND WHICH WILL BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
PUBLIC, THE RAILROADS, THE BONDHOLDERS AND OTHER CREDITORS, AND THE
STOCKHOLDERS."  THESE ARE NOT MERELY THE VIEWS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THEY ARE THE VIEWS OF A PRESIDENT WITH EXPERT KNOWLEDGE
OF THE SUBJECT, GAINED THROUGH YEARS OF ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE
MOST ELABORATE INVESTIGATION OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS EVER CONDUCTED
BY A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. 

THE PRESIDENT'S VETO STATEMENT ELICITED A PROMPT RESPONSE FROM
LEADERS OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OUT OF WHICH THE VETOED BILL CAME. 
THEY REPRESENTED BOTH HOUSES AND BOTH PARTIES.  THE STATEMENT DESERVES
QUOTATION IN FULL:

              "STATEMENT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS REGARDING

                          FURTHER LEGISLATION 

"THE RAILROAD REORGANIZATION BILL, S. 1253, WAS THE CULMINATION OF
OVER 3 YEARS OF INTENSIVE EFFORT TO SAVE $2,000,000,000 OF INVESTMENTS
MADE BY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF STOCKHOLDERS AND JUNIOR BONDHOLDERS IN
RAILROADS NOW IN PROCESS OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THOSE INVESTMENTS WILL BE WIPED OUT UNDER PENDING
PLANS OF REORGANIZATION UNLESS LEGISLATION IS ENACTED TO PREVENT IT.
THIS BILL WAS DESIGNED AND PASSED BY THE CONGRESS PRIMARILY FOR THAT
PURPOSE. 

"THOSE WHO HAVE SUPPORTED THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE DEFINITELY
HEARTENED BY THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN THE PRESIDENT'S
MEMORANDUM STATING WHY HE WITHHELD HIS SIGNATURE FROM THE BILL.  FOR IT
IS CLEAR THAT THE BROAD PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED BY THE PRESIDENT ARE
SHARED BY THE PROPONENTS AND SUPPORTERS OF THIS LEGISLATION. 
BROADENING OF THE BILL TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S
OBJECTIONS CAN AND WILL BE DRAFTED.  SUCH A BILL WILL BE PROMPTLY
INTRODUCED AT THE NEXT SESSION OF THE CONGRESS.  AS CONGRESS HAS
ALREADY OVERWHELMINGLY COMMITTED ITSELF TO SUCH LEGISLATION AND THE
PRESIDENT HAS DECLARED THAT HE, TOO, FAVORS ITS PURPOSES, THE PROMPT
ENACTMENT OF SUCH A MEASURE APPEARS CERTAIN. 

"WHILE THIS LEGISLATION WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE COMMITTEES OF
THE SENATE AND HOUSE, A NUMBER OF COURTS AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THE APPROPRIATENESS OF COOPERATING WITH CONGRESS
IN MEETING THIS PUBLIC PROBLEM AND ABSTAINED FROM TAKING STEPS WHICH
WOULD HAVE CARRIED FORWARD ANY OF THE PENDING REORGANIZATION PLANS
UNDER SECTION 77.  THIS WAS MONTHS BEFORE THE LEGISLATION CAME UP FOR A
VOTE IN EITHER THE SENATE OR HOUSE.  NOW THAT THE LEGISLATION, BOTH IN
THE FORM IN WHICH IT WAS REPORTED BY THE RESPECTIVE COMMITTEES OF THE
SENATE AND HOUSE AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FORM CONTAINED IN THE CONFERENCE
REPORT, WAS PASSED BY AN OVERWHELMING VOTE IN EACH CHAMBER AND THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION HAVE RECEIVED THE APPROBATION OF THE
PRESIDENT, IT IS CONFIDENTLY HOPED THAT THE COURTS AND THE COMMISSION
WILL TAKE NO STEPS IN SUPPORT OR FURTHERANCE OF PENDING REORGANIZATION
PLANS UNDER SECTION 77, BUT WILL INSTEAD AWAIT ACTION BY THE CONGRESS
AND THE PRESIDENT ON LEGISLATION GIVING EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLES
FAVORED BY BOTH. 

         CLYDE M. REED. 

          JAMES M. TUNNELL. 

              SAM HOBBS. 

           CHAUNCEY W. REED. 

 WASHINGTON, D.C.,

    AUGUST 14, 1946." 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT HAD THE PRESIDENT SIGNED S. 1253 THIS
COURT WOULD HAVE SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
DISMISSING OUT OF HAND THE PETITION FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN.  THE CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY WHICH
UNDERLAY THAT MEASURE COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED, FOR THE
INEQUITIES OF THIS VERY REORGANIZATION PLAN WERE EXTENSIVELY CITED IN
CONGRESS AS DEMONSTRATING THE NEED FOR CORRECTION.  THIS WOULD HAVE
BEEN SO ALTHOUGH CONGRESS DID NOT SEE FIT TO WITHDRAW ENTIRELY THE
FURTHER JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THESE REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS.  BUT THE GROUNDS OF THE PRESIDENT'S VETO ONLY EMPHASIZE
THESE CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY.  THEY SHOULD PROMPT A COURT OF
EQUITY TO STAY ITS HAND UNTIL FURTHER SCRUTINY OF THE PLAN.  THE BI
PARTISAN STATEMENT OF THE CONFERENCE LEADERS UNDERWRITES THE
PRESIDENT'S FORMULATION OF PUBLIC POLICY.  OF COURSE, NEITHER THE
PRESIDENT'S HOPES NOR THE CONFIDENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS INSURES
LEGISLATION.  BUT IF THE REALIZATION OF THE DESIRES OF THE PRESIDENT
AND THE EXPECTATIONS OF BI-PARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS CONCERNED
WITH THIS LEGISLATION WOULD AFFECT, AS I CANNOT BELIEVE IT WOULD NOT,
THE ACTION OF A COURT OF EQUITY WHEN ASKED TO ENFORCE THIS
REORGANIZATION PLAN, THE COURT OUGHT NOT TO PROCEED ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THE LEGISLATION AS OUTLINED BY THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT BE
FORTHCOMING. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE NOT WITH AN ORDINARY LITIGATION AS TO WHICH
COURTS ARE EXERCISING CONVENTIONAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.  THE COURTS ARE
CARRYING OUT THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE OF CONGRESS AS TO THE
CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY BY WHICH THE ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY IN
RAILROAD REORGANIZATION SHOULD BE GUIDED.  THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY
IS LODGED WITH AN AGENCY OF CONGRESS, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION IS AT ONCE VERY LIMITED AND
NOVEL.  IF LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD MAKE IT THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO
RECONSIDER THE REORGANIZATION PLAN NOW BEFORE US IS REALLY IN PROSPECT,
ONLY THE MOST IMPERATIVE PUBLIC EMERGENCY SHOULD REQUIRE THIS COURT TO
ENGAGE IN A RACE WITH THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS IN THE DISPOSITION OF
QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY.  CF. PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING AND BELMONT
BRIDGE CO., 13 HOW.  518, AND 18 HOW.  421. 

MOREOVER, CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION HAS NOT BEEN LATENT AND CONJECTURAL
SINCE LAST SUMMER.  LEGISLATION, AS SUGGESTED BY THE PRESIDENT, APPEARS
TO HAVE EVERY PROSPECT OF PROMPT CONSIDERATION IN THE NEW CONGRESS.  IN
SUBMITTING A JOINT BI-PARTISAN RESOLUTION (SEE APPENDIX II OF THIS
OPINION) DEALING WITH RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS, AFTER REFERRING TO THE
PRESIDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL AND THE STATEMENT OF MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS REGARDING FURTHER LEGISLATION, SUPRA, SENATOR REED STATED
THAT 

"PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO WITH MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE, WITH A VIEW TO EXPEDITING THIS LEGISLATION IN THE EIGHTIETH
CONGRESS.  IT IS HOPED THAT IT CAN BE TAKEN UP, IN A PRELIMINARY STAGE,
WITH THE WHITE HOUSE SO THAT THE GREATEST POSSIBLE SPEED CAN BE SECURED
FOR THE LEGISLATION TO BE FINALLY ENACTED IN THE EIGHTIETH CONGRESS." 

THE COURT RIGHTLY ASSUMES THAT NEITHER THIS COURT NOR THE DISTRICT
COURT IS CONCLUDED BY WHAT WAS DECIDED HERE LAST JUNE.  CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES, OF COURSE, MAY REQUIRE THE RE-EXAMINATION OF A PLAN BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FIRST AND LAST, THIS IS A
PROCEEDING IN EQUITY, AND UNTIL A DECREE CONSUMMATING A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION IS FINALLY SIGNED IT IS THE DUTY OF A COURT OF EQUITY
NOT TO MAKE OF ITSELF AN INSTRUMENT OF INEQUITY.  PECULIARLY IS THIS SO
WHERE THE PARAMOUNT INTEREST IS THAT OF THE PUBLIC, THOUGH THE FORMAL
LITIGATION IS CARRIED ON BY PRIVATE PARTIES.  IN SUCH A SITUATION WE
ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO THE SPECIFIC CLAIMS OF THE FORMAL LITIGANTS.  WE
ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO THE LIMITED SPECIFIC FINANCIAL FACTORS WHICH, IN
THE DEBTOR'S OPINION, HAVE AFFECTED THE SITUATION SINCE LAST JUNE.  THE
DECISIVE ISSUES ARE THOSE POSED BY THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT.  THE
REAL QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS WHETHER, IN THE LIGHT OF EVENTS SINCE
ITS PRIOR DECISION, THERE IS A SOLID BASIS FOR THE JUDGMENT WHICH WE
ARE ASKED TO ENFORCE.  TO BE SURE, EVEN IN A COURT OF EQUITY A MATTER
ONCE ADJUDICATED SHOULD NOT BE RELITIGATED EVEN THOUGH THE LITIGATION
IS STILL OPEN, AS IT ALWAYS IS UNTIL THERE IS A FINAL DECREE.  USUALLY
RECONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM DETERMINATION BECAUSE OF "CHANGED
CONDITIONS" IMPLIES NEW EVENTS IN NATURE.  BUT NEW UNDERSTANDING OF OLD
FACTS OR HITHERTO UNEXPLORED RELEVANT FACTS MAY CONSTITUTE THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT KIND OF CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT IS THIS.  WE ARE ASKED TO
GIVE OUR IMPRIMATUR TO A PLAN OF FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, IN THAT IT CONCERNS THE CONTROL OF ONE OF THE MAJOR
RAILROAD SYSTEMS OF THE NATION.  THAT PLAN WAS BORN OF THE CONFUSED
UNCERTAINTIES OF THE WAR YEARS, AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF INCUBATION AND
MANY CHANGES.  JUDGMENT OFTEN INVOLVES PROPHECY, AND ALL PROPHECY HAS
AN ELEMENT OF GUESSWORK.  BUT GUESSING CAN BE LESS RATHER THAN MORE. 
HOW MUCH GUESSWORK IS INVOLVED IN THIS PLAN HAS BEEN CANDIDLY INDICATED
BY MEMBERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  TO EXPECT A "NORMAL"
PERIOD, IN THE SENSE OF ASSURED STABILITY, FOR A GOOD STRETCH AHEAD IS
DOUBTLESS TO PURSUE A WILL-O'-THE-WISP.  BUT THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
POINTED TO FACTORS TO WHICH CERTAINLY NO ADEQUATE ATTENTION HAS THUS
FAR BEEN PAID IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. 

THE PRESIDENT SPOKE OF THE "EVIL, PRESENT IN REORGANIZATIONS UNDER
REORGANIZATION."  REPEATEDLY HE REFERRED TO THIS VITAL ASPECT OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, THE PROTECTION OF WHICH REQUIRES "THAT REORGANIZATIONS
SHALL PLACE CONTROL OF RAILROADS IN PERSONS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE COMMUNITIES SERVED AND FOR THE NATION AS A
WHOLE, WITHOUT ANY STRINGS DIRECT OR INDIRECT, CONDITIONAL OR
OTHERWISE, TO INSTITUTIONS OR OTHERS IN DISTANT FINANCIAL CENTERS." 

HERE IS CERTAINLY A MATTER OF PRIME RELEVANCE IN ASCERTAINING WHETHER
THIS REORGANIZATION PLAN SHOULD BE GIVEN FINAL JUDICIAL SANCTION.  THE
CONTROL OF THIS MAJOR RAILROAD SYSTEM IS TO PASS INTO THE HANDS OF THE
SO-CALLED INSURANCE GROUP IN NEW YORK AND ITS TWO LARGEST LENDING
NATIONAL BANKS.  THE DIRECTIONS IN WHICH INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE IN
THE PAST EXERTED THEIR POWER OVER THE RAILROADS OF THE COUNTRY ARE NOT
CALCULATED TO GIVE CONFIDENCE IN FUTURE CONTROL BY THEM.  THE
GEOGRAPHICAL AND FUNCTIONAL REMOTENESS OF POWERFUL FINANCIAL INTERESTS
IN NEW YORK, IN RELATION TO A RAILROAD SYSTEM OPERATING IN COLORADO AND
UTAH, BARS THAT SINGLE-MINDED ATTENTIVENESS AND PIONEERING ENTERPRISE
WHICH CHARACTERIZED GREAT RAILROAD MEN LIKE EDWARD H. HARRIMAN, JAMES
J. HILL AND DANIEL WILLARD. 

ANOTHER GROUND OF PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S DISSATISFACTION WITH S. 1253 WAS
ITS FAILURE TO DEAL ADEQUATELY WITH THE "GROSSLY EXCESSIVE INTEREST
RATES NOW WASTING THE FUNDS OF THE RAILROADS IN SECTION 77
PROCEEDINGS."  TO BE SURE, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS NOT
UNMINDFUL OF THE PRESENT LOW INTEREST LEVELS WHEN IT APPROVED THE 1943
REORGANIZATION PLAN.  IT IS SAFE TO SAY, HOWEVER, THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE SHARP DROP IN INTEREST LEVELS HAS RECENTLY BEEN MADE MORE
MANIFEST AND FURTHER INQUIRY WOULD LAY IT BARE. 

FINALLY, THE PRESIDENT SEEMED MUCH CONCERNED BY NEEDLESS FORFEITURES
UNDER REORGANIZATION PLANS.  IN ALL DISCUSSIONS IN CONGRESS, THE PLAN
BEFORE US WAS GIVEN AS A CONSPICUOUS EXAMPLE.  THE AVOIDANCE OF
FORFEITURES DOES NOT INVOLVE LARGE CAPITALIZATIONS.  IT IS TO BE
AVOIDED IN OTHER WAYS, SUCH AS CALLING FOR TENDERS OF BONDS BY
BONDHOLDERS AND THEIR PURCHASE BY COURT TRUSTEES AT THE BELOW-PAR
PREVAILING MARKET PRICES. 

ON TWO OF THESE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF SOUND FINANCING IN RAILROAD
REORGANIZATIONS, PROPER INTEREST RATES AND WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED "THE
PAINLESS REORGANIZATION OF THE RAILROAD DEBT STRUCTURE," (SEE SPEECH OF
SENATOR VANDENBERG, AUGUST 3, 1939, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 84 CONG.
REC. 11127), THE RECORD HERE IS SLENDER INDEED, IF NOT BARREN. 

HERE ARE LINES OF CRUCIAL PUBLIC INTEREST TO WHICH THE CONGRESS AND
THE PRESIDENT HAVE CALLED AUTHORITATIVE ATTENTION SINCE THE CASE WAS
LAST HERE.  THESE ARE MATTERS ON WHICH THE COURT SHOULD SATISFY ITSELF
ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE LITIGANTS HAVE ADEQUATELY
PRESENTED THEM.  THE COURT IS NOT PASSING MERELY ON SPECIFIC ISSUES
FRAMED BY THE PARTIES OR ON THE NARROW CLAIMS ON WHICH THE PARTIES
PRESS FOR RECONSIDERATION.  ABSTRACTLY, NO ONE WILL REJECT WHAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS CALLED THE PRINCIPLE THAT "REORGANIZATIONS MUST GIVE
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  BUT THAT PUBLIC
INTEREST IS IN THE KEEPING OF THE COURTS.  IT MUST BE SAFEGUARDED BY
THEM WITHOUT REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THOSE WHO HAVE ALSO PRIVATE
INTERESTS REPRESENT THE PUBLIC INTEREST.    AND WHAT CONSIDERATION IS
MORE COMPELLING THAN THAT THIS REORGANIZATION BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE VAST CHANGES OF THE
TRANSFORMING SIX YEARS SINCE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CLOSED
ITS RECORD IN THIS CASE, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE SCRUTINY WHICH
THESE REORGANIZATIONS HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT
SINCE THIS COURT LAST CONSIDERED THE CASE?  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT
THE INTERESTS OF THE RAILROAD, OR THE PUBLIC THAT IT SERVES, OR ITS
CREDITORS, WILL SUFFER BY THE DELAY NECESSARY TO EXPLORE FURTHER THESE
BASIC ISSUES BEFORE TURNING ITS CONTROL OVER TO DISTANT FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS.  NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED THAT THIS RAILROAD HAS NOT SERVED
THE PUBLIC EFFECTIVELY WHILE UNDER COURT CONTROL, OR THAT IT CANNOT
CONTINUE TO DO SO UNTIL FULL INQUIRY DISSIPATES THE HEAVY CLOUDS OF
DOUBT RESTING OVER THIS REORGANIZATION.  TO BE SURE, THE ROAD HAS BEEN
IN REORGANIZATION SINCE 1935.  BUT IT TOOK FOUR YEARS FOR THE
FORMULATION OF THE FIRST REORGANIZATION PLAN AND ANOTHER FOUR TO
FORMULATE THE ADDITIONAL PLANS.  WHAT JUDGE LEARNED HAND RECENTLY SAID
OF ANOTHER SITUATION IS HERE APPLICABLE:  "THERE CAN BE CONSIDERATIONS
MORE IMPERATIVE THAN THE DESPATCH OF JUDICIAL BUSINESS, EVEN AFTER
DELAYS SO LONG AS EXISTED IN THIS CASE.  IF THE LEGALLY PROTECTED
INTERESTS OF ANY OPPOSING PARTIES ARE FULLY PRESERVED, IT IS NOT A GOOD
REASON TO DENY OTHERS ANY REASONABLE CHANCE TO PROTECT THEIR OWN
INTERESTS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN LONG IN ASSERTING THEM."  KNIGHT V.
WERTHEIM & CO., 158 F.2D 838, 844.  SURELY THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN THE APECIAL KEEPING OF THE COURT IS MORE IMPERATIVE THAN
THE DESPATCH OF JUDICIAL BUSINESS, AND NO LEGALLY PROTECTED INTEREST OF
THOSE TO WHOM THE FINANCIAL CONTROL OF THIS ROAD HAS BEEN AWARDED CAN
POSSIBLY SUFFER BY FULL INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE PARAMOUNT PUBLIC
INTEREST HAS BEEN PROPERLY SAFEGUARDED. 

       APPENDIX I.

                      MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL. 

I AM WITHHOLDING MY APPROVAL OF S. 1253, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO ENABLE
DEBTOR RAILROAD CORPORATIONS, WHOSE PROPERTIES DURING A PERIOD OF SEVEN
YEARS HAVE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EARNINGS TO PAY FIXED CHARGES, TO EFFECT
A READJUSTMENT OF THEIR FINANCIAL STRUCTURES; TO ALTER OR MODIFY THEIR
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." 

EVEN THOUGH I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE DEFICIENCIES AND INEQUITIES AND
THE EVILS THAT EXIST UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE PRESENT BANKRUPTCY ACT, I
FEAR THAT THIS NEW BILL WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT
WAS INTENDED. 

THE BILL CONTAINS TWO SECTIONS, THE FIRST OF WHICH CONTEMPLATES THE
PREVENTION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WHERE PRACTICABLE; THE SECOND
CONTEMPLATES THE REORGANIZATION OF CERTAIN RAILROAD CARRIERS BY THE
INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE BILL FOR READJUSTMENT
OF THEIR FINANCIAL AFFAIRS. 

OBJECTIONS WHICH I HAVE TO THE BILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 

THE BILL FAILS TO DIRECT SPECIFICALLY THE IMMEDIATE REDUCTION OF THE
GROSSLY EXCESSIVE INTEREST RATES NOW WASTING THE FUNDS OF THE RAILROADS
IN SECTION 77 PROCEEDINGS.  MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR CAN BE SAVED
AT ONCE FOR EACH OF THE RAILROADS IN SECTION 77 PROCEEDINGS, BY
REDUCING THE INTEREST RATES ON THEIR BONDS AND OTHER DEBT DOWN TO THE
LEVEL OF THE INTEREST RATES PAID BY RAILROADS NOT IN SECTION 77
PROCEEDINGS.  I REITERATE A STATEMENT WHICH I MADE IN MY MESSAGE TO
CONGRESS ON THE STATE OF THE UNION WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS, "LOW INTEREST
RATES WILL BE AN IMPORTANT FORCE IN PROMOTING THE FULL PRODUCTION AND
FULL EMPLOYMENT IN THE POST-WAR PERIOD FOR WHICH WE ARE ALL STRIVING." 

THE BILL DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CURE THE EVIL, PRESENT IN
REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SECTION 77, OF PERMITTING IMPROPER CONTROL OF
RAILROADS AFTER THEIR REORGANIZATION. 

THE BILL FAILS TO PROVIDE FULL PROTECTION AGAINST FORFEITURE OF
SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS. 

THE LEVEL OF FEES AND EXPENSES IN REORGANIZATION CASES UNDER SECTION
77 HAS BEEN EXCESSIVE.  THIS IS NOT CORRECTED IN THIS BILL. 
AFFIRMATIVE PROVISIONS TO CURB THIS EVIL AND TO BRING IT UNDER STRICT
CONTROL SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ANY BILL WHICH MAY BE ENACTED. 

THE BILL EXCLUDES FROM ITS BENEFITS CERTAIN RAILROADS WHICH SHOULD BE
BROUGHT WITHIN ITS PROVISIONS IF IT IS TO BECOME LAW.  IN THIS REGARD
IT APPEARS THAT THE FIFTY MILLION DOLLAR LIMITATION IN SECTION 2 OF THE
BILL WOULD EXCLUDE SOME RAILROADS FOR WHOSE EXCLUSION THERE APPEARS TO
BE NO LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION. 

THIS BILL FAILS TO CORRECT A SERIOUS ABUSE WHICH I CONDEMNED IN THE
COURSE OF THE SENATE RAILROAD INVESTIGATION.  I REFER TO THE ABUSE OF
DIVERTING, UNDER COVER OF A REORGANIZATION PLAN, THE FUNDS OF A
RAILROAD FOR THE PURCHASE OF ITS OWN STOCKS IN THE MARKET. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BILL DOES INCORPORATE PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH I
WAS ONE OF THE SPONSORS IN THE SENATE.  I COMMEND PARTICULARLY THE
EMPHASIS WHICH THE BILL PLACES ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT REORGANIZATIONS
MUST GIVE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND TO THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE RAILROADS WHICH ARE BEING REORGANIZED. 

THIS REQUIRES AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT REORGANIZATIONS SHALL PLACE
CONTROL OF RAILROADS IN PERSONS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH TRANSPORTATION
FOR THE COMMUNITIES SERVED AND FOR THE NATION AS A WHOLE, WITHOUT ANY
STRINGS DIRECT OR INDIRECT, CONDITIONAL OR OTHERWISE, TO INSTITUTIONS
OR OTHERS IN DISTANT FINANCIAL CENTERS. 

SUCH REGARD FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL ALSO HELP THE STOCKHOLDERS,
WHETHER THEY BE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE INVESTED IN THE STOCKS OF
THE COMPANIES FOR WHICH THEY WORK, OR ORDINARY INVESTORS, DESIROUS OF
SAFEGUARDING THEIR INVESTMENT, BUT NOT OF HELPING ANY INTEREST TO
CAPTURE CONTROL OF THEIR RAILROAD.  THESE STOCKHOLDERS, WHOM THE BILL
JUSTLY SEEKS TO PROTECT AGAINST FORFEITURE, CAN AND SHOULD GET SUCH
PROTECTION, BUT WITHOUT ENABLING ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST TO USE SUCH
LEGISLATION TO ACQUIRE CONTROL. 

BY WITHHOLDING MY SIGNATURE TO THIS BILL I DO NOT INTEND TO INDICATE
THAT I FAVOR THE PENDING REORGANIZATION PLANS.  I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH
THOSE OBJECTIVES OF THE BILL WHICH PREVENT UNDESIRABLE CONTROL OF THE
RAILROADS, EITHER IMMEDIATELY OR WITHIN A FEW YEARS, AND WHICH PREVENT
FORFEITURES OF SECURITIES. 

I BELIEVE THAT THE NEXT CONGRESS CAN PASS A BILL WHICH WILL MEET THE
STATED OBJECTIONS AND WHICH WILL BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
PUBLIC, THE RAILROADS, THE BONDHOLDERS AND OTHER CREDITORS, AND THE
STOCKHOLDERS. 

                  HARRY S. TRUMAN

   THE WHITE HOUSE,

             AUGUST 13, 1946. 

   APPENDIX II.

(S. RES. 65, 80TH CONG., 1ST SESS., JAN. 22, 1947, CONG. REC. P.
543.) 

WHEREAS MANY RAILROADS IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES ARE IN THE
HANDS OF RECEIVERS AND TRUSTEES BECAUSE OF INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS
BROUGHT UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, OR THROUGH EQUITY COURT
PROCEDURE; AND 

WHEREAS THE MILEAGE OF THESE RAILROADS IS APPROXIMATELY FORTY
THOUSAND, AND THE INVESTMENT IN ROAD AND EQUIPMENT AMOUNTS TO SEVERAL
BILLION DOLLARS; AND 

WHEREAS MANY OF THESE ROADS ENTERED BANKRUPTCY IN 1933, 1934, 1935,
OR 1936, 10 TO 14 YEARS AGO, AND THE EARNINGS OF THESE ROADS IN RECENT
YEARS HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO ACCUMULATE LARGE CASH AMOUNTS, AND HAVE
PLACED SUCH ROADS IN A SOLVENT POSITION; AND 

WHEREAS, ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE, COURT
PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING SOME VERY IMPORTANT RAILROADS ARE IN SUCH A
CONDITION THAT IT IS DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO APPROXIMATE THE
TIME WHEN REORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 77 WILL BE COMPLETED, AND IT IS
FEASIBLE FOR A NUMBER OF THESE ROADS TO RETIRE PART OF THEIR
INDEBTEDNESS, AT A DISCOUNT, AND TO REFUND OR EXTEND THE MATURITY DATE
OF THE BALANCE OF THEIR INDEBTEDNESS, AND IT FURTHER APPEARS DESIRABLE
TO DISCHARGE SUCH RAILROADS FROM BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT THE
NECESSITY OF DRASTIC REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SECTION 77; AND 

WHEREAS THE CONTINUED HOLDING OF ROADS THAT HAVE BECOME SOLVENT IN
TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER OPERATION AS INSOLVENT ROADS, AND FURTHER EFFORTS
TO REORGANIZE, UNDER SECTION 77, RAILROADS WHICH NO LONGER NEED SUCH
REORGANIZATION, ARE CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST AND
CONTRARY TO SOUND PUBLIC POLICY; AND 

WHEREAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS JOINED WITH CONGRESS
IN GOING ON RECORD IN FAVOR OF MODIFICATIONS OF PRESENT REORGANIZATION
LEGISLATION AND IN FAVOR OF THE PRINCIPLES PROPOSED BY THE APPROPRIATE
COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 1946, AND IN
FAVOR OF THE PRINCIPLES ENACTED BY CONGRESS IN 1946, AND THE PRESIDENT
HAS FURTHER URGED THE STRENGTHENING OF SUCH PROPOSALS AND THE ADOPTION
OF FURTHER PROVISIONS TO CARRY OUT THOSE GENERAL PRINCIPLES: THEREFORE
BE IT 

RESOLVED, THAT THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE SENATE IS
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED EITHER AS A COMMITTEE, OR THROUGH A DULY
CONSTITUTED SUBCOMMITTEE, TO MAKE AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONDITIONS
SURROUNDING THE OPERATION AND HANDLING OF SAID RAILROADS BY TRUSTEES
AND RECEIVERS THROUGH THE PERIOD OF RECEIVERSHIP OR TRUSTEESHIP; TO
ASCERTAIN THE EXTENT TO WHICH THERE SHOULD BE ELIMINATION OR REDUCTION
OF ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS HERETOFORE PROPOSED TO LEGISLATION ON THIS
SUBJECT; TO INQUIRE INTO THE CAUSES FOR THE FAILURES, (A) TO REDUCE THE
INTEREST RATES OF RAILROADS IN RECEIVERSHIP AND BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS;
(B) TO ARRANGE FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE RATES OF INTEREST PAYABLE BY
SUCH RAILROADS ON THEIR OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS; (C) TO ARRANGE FOR
THE REFUNDING AND EXTENSION OF MATURITY DATES OF PART OR ALL OF THE
INDEBTEDNESS OF SUCH RAILROADS WHILE IN THE HANDS OF THE COURTS; (D) TO
CALL FOR THE TENDER OF BONDS AND THE PURCHASE OF BONDS OF SUCH
RAILROADS EITHER AT A DISCOUNT OR OTHERWISE, BY THE RECEIVERS OR
TRUSTEES, OUT OF FUNDS IN THEIR HANDS; (E) TO DISCHARGE SUCH RAILROADS
FROM COURT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF BEING SUBJECTED TO
DRASTIC REORGANIZATION UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT; AND (F)
TO RETURN SUCH RAILROADS TO THEIR OWNERS AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE; TO
INVESTIGATE THE FEES PAID TRUSTEES, RECEIVERS, COUNSEL, BANKERS OR BANK
SYNDICATES, COMMITTEES AND EXPERTS, AND ANY AND ALL MATTERS RELATING
THERETO, AND TO ASCERTAIN THE METHODS OF REDUCING REORGANIZATION
EXPENSES AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ELIMINATING, BY DISCHARGE OF RAILROADS
WITHOUT FURTHER REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 77, THE
NECESSITY FOR ANY FURTHER REORGANIZATION EXPENSES UNDER ELABORATE AND
THEREFORE COSTLY REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS; TO ASCERTAIN WHAT
LEGISLATIVE METHODS CAN BE PROVIDED TO ENABLE RAILROADS NOW UNDERGOING
REORGANIZATION TO OBTAIN MANAGEMENT LOCAL TO THEIR LINES OF OPERATION
AND TO THE COMMUNITIES, SHIPPERS, AND PASSENGERS THEY SERVE, AND TO
ENABLE THE OWNERS OF SUCH RAILROADS TO SECURE CONTROL FREE FROM
DOMINATION BY INTERESTS WHICH HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE AFFIRMATIVE AND
EXPRESS VOTE OF THE SECURITY HOLDERS SUBSEQUENT TO REORGANIZATION; TO
ASCERTAIN WHAT VOLUNTARY METHODS AND STEPS ADDITIONAL TO THOSE PROPOSED
IN LEGISLATION ADOPTED BY THE SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS ON THIS SUBJECT
WILL BE USEFUL IN EXPEDITING THE DISCHARGE OF RAILROADS FROM COSTLY
BANKRUPTCY AND REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF
DRASTIC REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SECTION 77, AND TO PERMIT REORGANIZATION
BY VOLUNTARY PROCEEDINGS IN A BUSINESSLIKE MANNER AND ON A BUSINESSLIKE
BASIS; TO ASCERTAIN WHAT METHODS AND PROCEDURES, ADDITIONAL TO THOSE
PROVIDED IN LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS ON THIS
SUBJECT, WILL BE USEFUL FOR THE PROTECTION OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AND
OTHER INVESTORS IN THE STOCKS OF THE RAILROADS.  THE COMMITTEE IS
DIRECTED TO REPORT TO THE SENATE AS EARLY AS PRACTICABLE, WITH SUCH
RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW AS MAY BE FOUND
DESIRABLE. 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION, THE COMMITTEE, OR ANY DULY
AUTHORIZED SUBCOMMITTEE THEREOF, IS AUTHORIZED TO HOLD SUCH HEARINGS,
TO SIT AND ACT AT SUCH TIMES AND PLACES DURING THE SESSIONS, RECESSES,
AND ADJOURNED PERIODS OF THE EIGHTIETH CONGRESS, TO EMPLOY SUCH
CLERICAL AND OTHER ASSISTANTS, TO REQUIRE BY SUBPENA OR OTHERWISE THE
ATTENDANCE OF SUCH WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH CORRESPONDENCE,
BOOKS, PAPERS, AND DOCUMENTS, TO ADMINISTER SUCH OATHS, TO TAKE SUCH
TESTIMONY, AND TO MAKE SUCH EXPENDITURES, AS IT DEEMS ADVISABLE.  THE
COST OF STENOGRAPHIC SERVICES TO REPORT SUCH HEARINGS SHALL NOT BE IN
EXCESS OF 25 CENTS PER 100 WORDS. 
..END :




















TRANSWRAP CORP. V. STOKES CO., 329 U.S. 637 


NO. 208.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 8, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1947.  - 156
F.2D 198, REVERSED. 


A PATENT-LICENSING AGREEMENT GRANTED AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL IN THE UNITED STATES, CANADA AND MEXICO A PATENTED
MACHINE UNDER THE PATENTS THEN OWNED OR LATER ACQUIRED BY THE LICENSOR,
SUBJECT TO A CONDITION THAT THE LICENSEE ASSIGN TO THE LICENSOR ANY
IMPROVEMENT PATENTS APPLICABLE TO THE MACHINE AND SUITABLE FOR USE IN
CONNECTION WITH IT.  HELD:  THE INCLUSION IN THE LICENSE OF THE
CONDITION REQUIRING THE LICENSEE TO ASSIGN IMPROVEMENT PATENTS IS NOT
PER SE ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE.  PP. 642-648. 

TRANSPARENT-WRAP MACHINE CORP. V. STOKES & SMITH CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND AN INJUNCTION INSTITUTED BY
A LICENSEE UNDER A PATENT-LICENSING AGREEMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF A CONDITION REQUIRING THE LICENSEE TO ASSIGN
IMPROVEMENT PATENTS TO THE LICENSOR.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  156 F.2D 198.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S.
695.  REVERSED, P. 648. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 274D,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 400) AND AN INJUNCTION, INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF THE LEGALITY AND ENFORCEABILITY OF A PROVISION OF A
PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT, WHOSE JURISDICTION WAS
BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP (JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 24(1), 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 41(1)), ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER, HOLDING THE PROVISION
VALID.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED BY A DIVIDED VOTE, 156
F.2D 198, BEING OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISION IN QUESTION WAS
ILLEGAL UNDER THE LINE OF DECISIONS REPRESENTED BY MERCOID CORPORATION
V. MID-CONTINENT CO., 320 U.S. 661.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED AND OF THE APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
DECISION BELOW AND ALLBRIGHT-NELL CO. V. STANLEY HILLER CO., 72 F.2D
392, DECIDED BY THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

PETITIONER, ORGANIZED IN 1934, HAS PATENTS ON A MACHINE WHICH BEARS
THE TRADE-MARK "TRANSWRAP."  THIS MACHINE MAKES TRANSPARENT PACKAGES,
SIMULTANEOUSLY FILLS THEM WITH SUCH ARTICLES AS CANDY, AND SEALS THEM. 
IN 1937 PETITIONER SOLD AND RESPONDENT ACQUIRED THE TRANSWRAP BUSINESS
IN THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, AND MEXICO, THE RIGHT TO USE THE TRADE
MARK "TRANSWRAP," AND AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE
TRANSWRAP MACHINE UNDER THE PATENTS PETITIONER THEN OWNED OR MIGHT
ACQUIRE.  THE AGREEMENT CONTAINED A FORMULA BY WHICH ROYALTIES WERE TO
BE COMPUTED AND PAID.  THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT WAS TEN YEARS WITH AN
OPTION IN RESPONDENT TO RENEW IT THEREAFTER FOR FIVE-YEAR PERIODS
DURING THE LIFE OF THE PATENTS COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.  THE AGREEMENT
COULD BE TERMINATED BY PETITIONER ON NOTICE FOR SPECIFIED DEFAULTS ON
RESPONDENT'S PART.  THE PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT AROUND WHICH THE
PRESENT CONTROVERSY TURNS IS A COVENANT BY RESPONDENT TO ASSIGN TO
PETITIONER IMPROVEMENT PATENTS APPLICABLE TO THE MACHINE AND SUITABLE
FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH IT.  FN1 

THE PARTIES HAD OPERATED UNDER THE AGREEMENT FOR SEVERAL YEARS WHEN
PETITIONER ASCERTAINED THAT RESPONDENT HAD TAKEN OUT CERTAIN PATENTS ON
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MACHINE.  PETITIONER NOTIFIED RESPONDENT THAT ITS
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE AND ASSIGN THESE IMPROVEMENTS CONSTITUTED A BREACH
OF THE AGREEMENT AND CALLED ON RESPONDENT TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT.  WHEN
THAT DID NOT OCCUR, PETITIONER NOTIFIED RESPONDENT THAT THE AGREEMENT
WOULD BE TERMINATED ON A DAY CERTAIN.  THEREUPON RESPONDENT INSTITUTED
THIS ACTION ASKING THAT THE PROVISIONS RESPECTING THE IMPROVEMENT
PATENTS BE DECLARED ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE AND THAT PETITIONER BE
ENJOINED FROM TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT.  FN2 

IN A LONG AND CONSISTENT LINE OF CASES THE COURT HAS HELD THAT AN
OWNER OF A PATENT MAY NOT CONDITION A LICENSE SO AS TO TIE TO THE USE
OF THE PATENT THE USE OF OTHER MATERIALS, PROCESSES OR DEVICES WHICH
LIE OUTSIDE OF THE MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT.  MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO.
V. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO., 243 U.S. 502; CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN
PATENTS DEV.  CORP., 283 U.S. 27; LEITCH MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO., 302
U.S. 458; MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488; B.B. CHEMICAL
CO. V. ELLIS, 314 U.S. 495; MERCOID CORPORATION V. MID-CONTINENT CO.,
SUPRA; MERCOID CORP. V. HONEYWELL CO., 320 U.S. 680.  AS STATED IN
MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., SUPRA, P. 492, "...  THE PUBLIC POLICY
WHICH INCLUDES INVENTIONS WITHIN THE GRANTED MONOPOLY EXCLUDES FROM IT
ALL THAT IS NOT EMBRACED IN THE INVENTION.  IT EQUALLY FORBIDS THE USE
OF THE PATENT TO SECURE AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OR LIMITED MONOPOLY NOT
GRANTED BY THE PATENT OFFICE AND WHICH IT IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY
TO GRANT."  IF SUCH PRACTICES WERE TOLERATED, OWNERSHIP OF A PATENT
WOULD GIVE THE PATENTEE CONTROL OVER UNPATENTED ARTICLES WHICH BUT FOR
THE PATENT HE WOULD NOT POSSESS.  "IF THE RESTRAINT IS LAWFUL BECAUSE
OF THE PATENT, THE PATENT WILL HAVE BEEN EXPANDED BY CONTRACT.  THAT ON
WHICH NO PATENT COULD BE OBTAINED WOULD BE AS EFFECTIVELY PROTECTED AS
IF A PATENT HAD BEEN ISSUED.  PRIVATE BUSINESS WOULD FUNCTION AS ITS
OWN PATENT OFFICE AND IMPOSE ITS OWN LAW UPON ITS LICENSEES."  MERCOID
CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT CO., SUPRA, P. 667.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT A
LICENSEE UNDER A PATENT USE AN UNPATENTED MATERIAL OR DEVICE WITH THE
PATENT MIGHT VIOLATE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS BUT FOR THE ATTEMPTED
PROTECTION OF THE PATENT.  ID. THE CONDEMNATION OF THE PRACTICE,
HOWEVER, DOES NOT DEPEND ON SUCH A SHOWING.  THOUGH CONTROL OF THE
UNPATENTED ARTICLE OR DEVICE FALLS SHORT OF A PROHIBITED RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR MONOPOLY, IT WILL NOT BE SANCTIONED.  MORTON SALT CO. V.
SUPPIGER CO., SUPRA.  FOR IT IS THE TENDENCY IN THAT DIRECTION WHICH
CONDEMNS THE PRACTICE AND WHICH, IF APPROVED BY A COURT EITHER THROUGH
ENJOINING INFRINGEMENT OR ENFORCING THE COVENANT, WOULD RECEIVE A
POWERFUL IMPETUS.  ID. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF
THOSE CASES WAS APPLICABLE HERE AND RENDERED ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE
THE COVENANT TO ASSIGN THE IMPROVEMENT PATENTS TO PETITIONER.  IT
STATED, 156 F.2D, P. 202, "THE OWNER OF ALL PROPERTY, BY WITHHOLDING IT
UPON ANY OTHER TERMS, MAY, IF HE CAN, FORCE OTHERS TO BUY FROM HIM;
LAND IS THE BEST EXAMPLE AND EVERY PARCEL OF LAND IS A MONOPOLY.  BUT
IT IS PRECISELY IN THIS THAT A PATENT IS NOT LIKE OTHER PROPERTY; THE
PATENTEE MAY NOT USE IT TO FORCE OTHERS TO BUY OF HIM THINGS OUTSIDE
ITS FOUR CORNERS.  IF THE DEFENDANT GETS THE PLAINTIFF'S PATENTS, IT
WILL HAVE PUT ITSELF IN THAT POSITION, IN PART AT ANY RATE, BY VIRTUE
OF THE COMPULSION OF ITS OWN PATENTS." 

IT WENT ON TO NOTE THAT SINCE ALL IMPROVEMENT PATENTS WOULD NOT
EXPIRE UNTIL AFTER EXPIRATION OF PETITIONER'S PATENTS ON THE MACHINE,
THE ARRANGEMENT PUT RESPONDENT AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.  FOR
RESPONDENT WOULD LOSE THE NEGATIVE COMMAND OVER THE ART WHICH OWNERSHIP
OF THE IMPROVEMENT PATENTS WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT.  MOREOVER, RESPONDENT,
THOUGH ABLE TO RENEW THE LICENSE ON CONDITIONS STATED IN THE AGREEMENT,
WOULD BE IRRETRIEVABLY TIED TO IT SO AS TO BE "FORCED, EITHER TO CEASE
ALL EFFORTS TO PATENT IMPROVEMENTS, OR TO KEEP RENEWING THE CONTRACT IN
ORDER TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS OWN INGENUITY."  ID., P. 203. 

FIRST.  THE FIRST DIFFICULTY WE HAVE WITH THE POSITION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IS THAT CONGRESS HAS MADE ALL PATENTS ASSIGNABLE AND
HAS GRANTED THE ASSIGNEE THE SAME EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS AS THE PATENTEE. 
"EVERY APPLICATION FOR PATENT OR PATENT OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN SHALL
BE ASSIGNABLE IN LAW BY AN INSTRUMENT IN WRITING, AND THE APPLICANT OR
PATENTEE OR HIS ASSIGNS OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MAY IN LIKE MANNER
GRANT AND CONVEY AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT UNDER HIS APPLICATION FOR PATENT OR
PATENT TO THE WHOLE OR ANY SPECIFIED PART OF THE UNITED STATES."  R.S.
SEC. 4898, 35 U.S.C. SUPP. V SEC. 47.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT LIMIT THE
CONSIDERATION WHICH MAY BE PAID FOR THE ASSIGNMENT TO ANY SPECIES OR
KIND OF PROPERTY.  AT LEAST SO FAR AS THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE ARE
CONCERNED, WE SEE NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE CONSIDERATION IS SERVICES
(CF. STANDARD PARTS CO. V. PECK, 264 U.S. 52) OR CASH, OR THE RIGHT TO
USE ANOTHER PATENT. 

AN IMPROVEMENT PATENT MAY, LIKE A PATENT ON A STEP IN A PROCESS, HAVE
GREAT STRATEGIC VALUE.  FOR IT MAY, ON EXPIRATION OF THE BASIC PATENT,
BE THE KEY TO A WHOLE TECHNOLOGY.  ONE WHO HOLDS IT MAY THEREFORE HAVE
A CONSIDERABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.  AND ONE WHO ASSIGNS IT AND
THEREBY LOSES NEGATIVE COMMAND OF THE ART MAY BY REASON OF HIS
ASSIGNMENT HAVE SUFFERED A REAL COMPETITIVE HANDICAP.  FOR THEREAFTER
HE WILL HAVE TO PAY TOLL TO THE ASSIGNEE, IF HE PRACTICES THE
INVENTION.  BUT THE COMPETITIVE HANDICAP OR DISADVANTAGE WHICH HE
SUFFERS IS NO GREATER AND NO LESS WHETHER THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE
ASSIGNMENT BE THE RIGHT TO USE THE BASIC PATENT OR SOMETHING ELSE OF
VALUE.  THAT IS TO SAY, THE FREEDOM OF ONE WHO ASSIGNS A PATENT IS
RESTRICTED TO THE SAME DEGREE WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT IS MADE PURSUANT
TO A LICENSE AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE. 

IF CONGRESS, BY WHOSE AUTHORITY PATENT RIGHTS ARE CREATED, HAD
ALLOWED PATENTS TO BE ASSIGNED ONLY FOR A SPECIFIED CONSIDERATION, IT
WOULD BE OUR DUTY TO PERMIT NO EXCEPTIONS.  BUT HERE CONGRESS HAS MADE
NO SUCH LIMITATION.  A PATENT IS A SPECIES OF PROPERTY.  IT GIVES THE
PATENTEE OR HIS ASSIGNEE THE "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE, AND VEND
THE INVENTION OR DISCOVERY" FOR A LIMITED PERIOD.  R.S. SEC. 4884, 35
U.S.C. SEC. 40.  THAT IS TO SAY, IT CARRIES FOR THE STATUTORY PERIOD "A
RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM COMPETITION IN THE PRACTICE OF THE INVENTION." 
MERCOID CORPORATION V. MID-CONTINENT CO., SUPRA, P. 665.  THAT
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT, BEING THE ESSENCE OF THE PATENT PRIVILEGE, IS, FOR
PURPOSES OF THE ASSIGNMENT STATUTE, OF THE SAME DIGNITY AS ANY OTHER
PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE USED TO PURCHASE PATENTS. 

SECOND.  WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS NOT, OF COURSE, A COMPLETE ANSWER TO
THE POSITION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FOR THE QUESTION REMAINS
WHETHER HERE, AS IN MERCOID CORPORATION V. MID-CONTINENT CO., SUPRA,
AND ITS PREDECESSORS, THE CONDITION IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT VIOLATES
SOME OTHER PRINCIPLE OF LAW OR PUBLIC POLICY.  THE FACT THAT A PATENTEE
HAS THE POWER TO REFUSE A LICENSE DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE HAS THE POWER
TO GRANT A LICENSE ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS HE MAY CHOOSE.  UNITED STATES
V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 277. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, SUCH A POWER, IF CONCEDED, WOULD ENABLE THE
PATENTEE NOT ONLY TO EXPLOIT THE INVENTION BUT TO USE IT TO ACQUIRE A
MONOPOLY NOT EMBRACED IN THE PATENT.  THUS, IF HE COULD REQUIRE ALL
LICENSEES TO USE HIS UNPATENTED MATERIALS WITH THE PATENT, HE WOULD
HAVE, OR STAND IN A STRATEGIC POSITION TO ACQUIRE, A MONOPOLY IN THE
UNPATENTED MATERIALS THEMSELVES.  BEYOND THE "LIMITED MONOPOLY" GRANTED
BY THE PATENT, THE METHODS BY WHICH A PATENT IS EXPLOITED ARE "SUBJECT
TO THE GENERAL LAW."  UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., SUPRA, P. 277. 
PROTECTION FROM COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF UNPATENTED MATERIALS IS NOT
GRANTED BY EITHER THE PATENT LAW OR THE GENERAL LAW.  HE WHO USES HIS
PATENT TO OBTAIN PROTECTION FROM COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF UNPATENTED
MATERIALS EXTENDS BY CONTRACT HIS PATENT MONOPOLY TO ARTICLES AS
RESPECTS WHICH THE LAW SANCTIONS NEITHER MONOPOLIES NOR RESTRAINTS OF
TRADE. 

IT IS AT PRECISELY THIS POINT THAT OUR SECOND DIFFICULTY WITH THE
VIEW OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS FOUND.  AN IMPROVEMENT PATENT,
LIKE THE BASIC PATENT TO WHICH IT RELATES, IS A LEGALIZED MONOPOLY FOR
A LIMITED PERIOD.  THE LAW PERMITS BOTH TO BE BOUGHT AND SOLD.  ONE WHO
USES ONE PATENT TO ACQUIRE ANOTHER IS NOT EXTENDING HIS PATENT MONOPOLY
TO ARTICLES GOVERNED BY THE GENERAL LAW AND AS RESPECTS WHICH NEITHER
MONOPOLIES NOR RESTRAINTS OF TRADE ARE SANCTIONED.  HE IS INDEED USING
ONE LEGALIZED MONOPOLY TO ACQUIRE ANOTHER LEGALIZED MONOPOLY. 

MERCOID CORPORATION V. MID-CONTINENT CO., SUPRA, AND ITS
PREDECESSORS, BY LIMITING A PATENTEE TO THE MONOPOLY FOUND WITHIN THE
FOUR CORNERS OF THE GRANT, OUTLAWED BUSINESS PRACTICES WHICH THE PATENT
LAW UNAIDED BY RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS DID NOT PROTECT.  TAKE THE CASE
OF THE OWNER OF AN UNPATENTED MACHINE WHO LEASES IT OR OTHERWISE
LICENSES ITS USE ON CONDITION THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS WHICH THE LESSEE OR
LICENSEE PATENTS SHOULD BE ASSIGNED.  HE IS USING HIS PROPERTY TO
ACQUIRE A MONOPOLY.  BUT THE MONOPOLY, BEING A PATENT, IS A LAWFUL
ONE.  THE GENERAL LAW WOULD NO MORE MAKE THAT ACQUISITION OF A PATENT
UNLAWFUL THAN IT WOULD THE ASSIGNMENT OF A PATENT FOR CASH.  YET A
PATENT IS A SPECIES OF PROPERTY; FN3  AND IF THE OWNER OF AN UNPATENTED
MACHINE COULD EXACT THAT CONDITION, WHY MAY NOT THE OWNER OF A PATENTED
MACHINE? 

IT IS TRUE THAT FOR SOME PURPOSES THE OWNER OF A PATENT IS UNDER
DISABILITIES WITH WHICH OWNERS OF OTHER PROPERTY ARE NOT BURDENED. 
THUS WHERE THE USE OF UNPATENTED MATERIALS IS TIED TO THE USE OF A
PATENT, A COURT WILL NOT LEND ITS AID TO ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT THOUGH
CONTROL OF THE UNPATENTED ARTICLE FALLS SHORT OF A PROHIBITED RESTRAINT
OF TRADE OR MONOPOLY.  MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., SUPRA.  THERE
IS A SUGGESTION THAT THE SAME COURSE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE
SINCE THE TENDENCY OF THE PRACTICE WE HAVE HERE WOULD BE IN THE
DIRECTION OF CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER THAT MIGHT RUN COUNTER TO
THE POLICY OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT CONGRESS HAS
NOT MADE ILLEGAL THE ACQUISITION OF IMPROVEMENT PATENTS BY THE OWNER OF
A BASIC PATENT.  THE ASSIGNMENT OF PATENTS IS INDEED SANCTIONED.  AND
AS WE HAVE SAID, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE POLICY OF THE ASSIGNMENT
STATUTE WHATEVER CONSIDERATION MAY BE USED TO PURCHASE THE IMPROVEMENT
PATENTS.  AND APART FROM VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS TO WHICH WE
WILL SHORTLY ADVERT, THE END RESULT IS THE SAME WHETHER THE OWNER OF A
BASIC PATENT USES A LICENSE TO OBTAIN IMPROVEMENT PATENTS OR USES THE
WEALTH WHICH HE ACCUMULATES BY EXPLOITING HIS BASIC PATENT FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  IN SUM, A PATENT LICENSE MAY NOT BE USED COERCIVELY TO EXACT
A CONDITION CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.  BUT WHAT FALLS WITHIN THE TERMS
OF THE ASSIGNMENT STATUTE IS PLAINLY NOT PER SE AGAINST THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.    IT IS, OF COURSE, TRUE THAT THE MONOPOLY WHICH THE
LICENSOR OBTAINS WHEN HE ACQUIRES THE IMPROVEMENT PATENTS EXTENDS
BEYOND THE TERM OF HIS BASIC PATENT.  BUT AS WE HAVE SAID, THAT IS NOT
CREATING BY AGREEMENT A MONOPOLY WHICH THE LAW OTHERWISE WOULD NOT
SANCTION.  THE GRANT OF THE IMPROVEMENT PATENT ITSELF CREATES THE
MONOPOLY.  ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WOULD SEEM TO BE THE SAME WHETHER THE LICENSEE OR THE LICENSOR
OWNS THE IMPROVEMENT PATENTS. 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONDITION GIVES THE
LICENSEE LESS INCENTIVE TO MAKE INVENTIONS WHEN HE IS BOUND TO TURN
OVER TO THE LICENSOR THE PRODUCTS OF HIS INVENTIVE GENIUS.  SINCE THE
PRIMARY AIM OF THE PATENT LAWS IS TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE
AND THE USEFUL ARTS (UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., SUPRA, P. 278 AND
CASES CITED), AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH DIMINISHES THE INCENTIVE IS SAID TO
BE AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WHATEVER FORCE THAT ARGUMENT MIGHT
HAVE IN OTHER SITUATIONS, IT IS NOT PERSUASIVE HERE.  RESPONDENT PAYS
NO ADDITIONAL ROYALTY ON ANY IMPROVEMENT PATENTS WHICH ARE USED.  BY
REASON OF THE AGREEMENT ANY IMPROVEMENT PATENT CAN BE PUT TO IMMEDIATE
USE AND EXPLOITED FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE LICENSEE.  AND THAT BENEFIT
CONTINUES SO LONG AS THE AGREEMENT IS RENEWED.  THE AGREEMENT THUS
SERVES A FUNCTION OF SUPPLYING A MARKET FOR THE IMPROVEMENT PATENTS. 
WHETHER THAT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLOIT THE IMPROVEMENT PATENTS WOULD BE
INCREASED BUT FOR THE AGREEMENT DEPENDS ON VICISSITUDES OF BUSINESS TOO
CONJECTURAL ON THIS RECORD TO APPRAISE. 

THIRD.  WE ARE QUITE AWARE OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF ABUSE IN THE
PRACTICE OF LICENSING A PATENT ON CONDITION THAT THE LICENSEE ASSIGN
ALL IMPROVEMENT PATENTS TO THE LICENSOR.  CONCEIVABLY THE DEVICE COULD
BE EMPLOYED WITH THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF VIOLATING THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS.  HE WHO ACQUIRES TWO PATENTS ACQUIRES A DOUBLE MONOPOLY.  AS
PATENTS ARE ADDED TO PATENTS A WHOLE INDUSTRY MAY BE REGIMENTED.  THE
OWNER OF A BASIC PATENT MIGHT THUS PERPETUATE HIS CONTROL OVER AN
INDUSTRY LONG AFTER THE BASIC PATENT EXPIRED.  COMPETITORS MIGHT BE
ELIMINATED AND AN INDUSTRIAL MONOPOLY PERFECTED AND MAINTAINED.  FN4
THROUGH THE USE OF PATENT POOLS OR MULTIPLE LICENSING AGREEMENTS THE
FRUITS OF INVENTION OF AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY MIGHT BE SYSTEMATICALLY
FUNNELED INTO THE HANDS OF THE ORIGINAL PATENTEE.  SEE UNITED SHOE
MACHINERY CO. V. LA CHAPELLE, 212 MASS. 467, 99 N.E. 289. 

A PATENT MAY BE SO USED AS TO VIOLATE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  STANDARD
SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20; UNITED SHOE MACHINERY
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 309 U.S. 436; UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., SUPRA.  SUCH
VIOLATIONS MAY ARISE THROUGH CONDITIONS IN THE LICENSE WHEREBY THE
LICENSOR SEEKS TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF THE LICENSEE BY THE FIXING OF
PRICES (ETHYL GASOLINE CORP V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V.
MASONITE CORP., SUPRA) OR BY OTHER RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES.  UNITED SHOE
MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  MOREOVER, IN THE CLAYTON ACT,
38 STAT. 730, 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 14, CONGRESS MADE IT UNLAWFUL TO
CONDITION THE SALE OR LEASE OF ONE ARTICLE ON AN AGREEMENT NOT TO USE
OR BUY A COMPETITOR'S ARTICLE (WHETHER EITHER OR BOTH ARE PATENTED),
WHERE THE EFFECT IS "TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION OR TEND TO
CREATE A MONOPOLY."  SEE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 131.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, HAS MADE NO SPECIFIC
PROHIBITION AGAINST CONDITIONING A PATENT LICENSE ON THE ASSIGNMENT BY
THE LICENSEE OF IMPROVEMENT PATENTS.  BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
PRACTICE WE HAVE HERE HAS IMMUNITY UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  INDEED,
THE RECENT CASE OF HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386,
324 U.S. 570, DRAMATICALLY ILLUSTRATES HOW THE USE OF A CONDITION OR
COVENANT IN A PATENT LICENSE THAT THE LICENSEE WILL ASSIGN IMPROVEMENT
PATENTS MAY GIVE RISE TO VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  FN5 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND NO VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IN THE
PRESENT CASE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT REACH THAT
QUESTION.  HENCE IT, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
PRESERVED, ARE OPEN ON OUR REMAND OF THE CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS. 

WE ONLY HOLD THAT THE INCLUSION IN THE LICENSE OF THE CONDITION
REQUIRING THE LICENSEE TO ASSIGN IMPROVEMENT PATENTS IS NOT PER SE
ILLEGAL AND UNENFORCEABLE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THIS PROVISION READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF THE LICENSEE SHALL DISCOVER OR INVENT AN IMPROVEMENT WHICH IS
APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSWRAP PACKAGING MACHINE AND SUITABLE FOR USE IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH AND APPLICABLE TO THE MAKING AND CLOSING OF THE
PACKAGE, BUT NOT TO THE FILLING NOR TO THE CONTENTS OF THE PACKAGE, IT
SHALL SUBMIT THE SAME TO THE LICENSOR, WHICH MAY, AT ITS OPTION, APPLY
FOR LETTERS PATENT COVERING THE SAME.  IN THE EVENT OF THE FAILURE OF
THE LICENSOR SO TO APPLY FOR LETTERS PATENT COVERING SUCH ADDITIONAL
IMPROVEMENTS, INVENTIONS OR PATENTABLE IDEAS, THE LICENSEE MAY APPLY
FOR THE SAME.  IN THE EVENT THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL LETTERS PATENT ARE
APPLIED FOR AND ARE GRANTED TO THE LICENSOR, THEY SHALL BE DEEMED
COVERED BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT AND MAY BE USED BY THE
LICENSEE HEREUNDER WITHOUT ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION, LICENSE FEE OR
ROYALTY AS ABOVE PROVIDED.  IN THE EVENT THAT ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL
IMPROVEMENTS ARE PATENTED BY THE LICENSEE FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH
TRANSWRAP PACKAGING MACHINES, (AFTER THE REFUSAL OR FAILURE OF THE
LICENSOR TO APPLY FOR PATENTS THEREON), THE LICENSOR MAY, NEVERTHELESS,
HAVE THE USE BUT NOT THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE SAME OUTSIDE OF THE
SEVERAL TERRITORIES COVERED BY THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT.  THE EXPENSES OF
OBTAINING ANY SUCH PATENTS SHALL BE PAID BY THE PARTY APPLYING
THEREFOR." 

BY ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT, LIKEWISE CHALLENGED, IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT DURING THE TERM OF THE LICENSE ALL IMPROVEMENT PATENTS,
WHETHER SECURED BY PETITIONER OR BY RESPONDENT, WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN
THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL ROYALTY.  THE
PETITIONER, HOWEVER, WAS TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE AND LICENSE THE USE
OF ANY SUCH IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIES COVERED BY THE
AGREEMENT. 

FN2  PETITIONER JOINED ISSUE AND FILED A COUNTERCLAIM ASKING THAT THE
IMPROVEMENT PATENTS BE ASSIGNED, THAT THE AGREEMENT BE HELD TERMINATED
AND THAT RESPONDENT BE ENJOINED FROM USING THE ORIGINAL OR IMPROVEMENT
PATENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, DECLARED THE
AGREEMENT TERMINATED, AND ORDERED RESPONDENT TO ASSIGN THE PETITIONER
THE IMPROVEMENT PATENTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ON REVERSING,
HELD NOT ONLY THAT THE PROVISION FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE IMPROVEMENT
PATENTS WAS UNLAWFUL BUT ALSO THAT PETITIONER WAS EXCUSED FROM ANY
FURTHER PERFORMANCE BECAUSE RESPONDENT HAD REPUDIATED ITS AGREEMENT TO
ASSIGN THOSE PATENTS.  IT REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION. 

FN3  SEE JAMES V. CAMPBELL, 104 U.S. 356, 358; HOLLISTER V. BENEDICT
MFG. CO., 113 U.S. 59, 67; CRAMP & SONS CO. V. INTERNATIONAL CURTIS
CO., 246 U.S. 28, 39-40; UNITED STATES V. DUBILIER CONDENSER CORP., 289
U.S. 178, 187. 

FN4  SEE PATENTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE, MONOGRAPH NO. 31, INVESTIGATION
OF CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER, TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., CHS.  V & VII; WOOD, PATENTS AND
ANTITRUST LAW (1941), CHS.  3 & 4; MARCUS, PATENTS, ANTITRUST LAW AND
ANTITRUST JUDGMENTS THROUGH HARTFORD-EMPIRE, (1945-46) 34 GEORGETOWN
L.J. 1. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 45 COL. L. REV. 601. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON WOULD
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED.  HE BELIEVES THAT THE COURT'S DECISION IN THIS CASE UNDULY
ENLARGES THE SCOPE OF PATENT MONOPOLIES AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PHILOSOPHY ENUNCIATED IN MERCOID CORPORATION V. MID-CONTINENT CO., 320
U.S. 661, AND SIMILAR CASES. 
..END :







ELLIS V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 329 U.S. 649 


NO. 320.  ARGUED JANUARY 16, 17, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1947.  -
147 NEB. 18, 22 N.W.2D 305, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE (DETAILED IN THE OPINION) WAS
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY; AND THE
JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF IS REVERSED.  PP. 652-653. 

2.  THE CHOICE OF CONFLICTING VERSIONS OF THE WAY THE ACCIDENT
HAPPENED, THE DECISION AS TO WHICH WITNESS WAS TELLING THE TRUTH, THE
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM UNCONTROVERTED AS WELL AS CONTROVERTED
FACTS, ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY.  P. 653. 

3.  IF THERE IS A REASONABLE BASIS IN THE RECORD FOR CONCLUDING THAT
THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE OF THE EMPLOYER WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY, IT WOULD
BE AN INVASION OF THE JURY'S FUNCTION FOR AN APPELLATE COURT TO DRAW
CONTRARY INFERENCES OR TO CONCLUDE THAT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION WOULD BE
MORE REASONABLE.  LAVENDER V. KURN, 327 U.S. 645.  P. 653. 

ELLIS V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA. 

IN A SUIT IN A NEBRASKA COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, THE PLAINTIFF OBTAINED A JUDGMENT ON A JURY VERDICT.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEBRASKA REVERSED FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW
NEGLIGENCE AND ORDERED THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED.  146 NEB. 397, 19
N.W.2D 641; 147 NEB. 18, 22 N.W.2D 305.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 706.  REVERSED, P. 653. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CRUSHED BETWEEN A MOVING RAILROAD CAR AND A BUILDING
WHILE WORKING FOR RESPONDENT RAILROAD AS AN ENGINE FOREMAN IN CHARGE OF
A SWITCHING CREW.  DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES WERE SOUGHT IN A
NEBRASKA STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35
STAT. 65, AS AMENDED, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ. JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED
FOR PETITIONER ON A JURY VERDICT FOR $10,000, BUT ON APPEAL THE STATE
SUPREME COURT REVERSED FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW
NEGLIGENCE, AND ORDERED THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED.  146 NEB. 397, 19
N.W.2D 641; 147 NEB. 18, 22 N.W.2D 305.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF AN APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT DECISION AND LAVENDER V. KURN, 327
U.S. 645. 

PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE TENDED TO SHOW THE FOLLOWING:  PETITIONER, AGED
41, HAD BEEN IN THE EMPLOY OF RESPONDENT ONLY ONE YEAR, AND HAD A TOTAL
RAILROAD EXPERIENCE OF TWO OR THREE YEARS.  JUST BEFORE SUNSET ON MARCH
15, 1943, HE WAS ENGAGED, ALONG WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS CREW, IN
BACKING AN ENGINE AND BOX CAR AROUND A CURVE ON A SPUR TRACK WHERE
VISIBILITY WAS OBSTRUCTED BY A BUILDING LOCATED ON THE INSIDE AND NEAR
THE MIDDLE OF THE CURVE.  HE WAS STANDING ON THE GROUND ON THE SAME
SIDE AS THE BUILDING AND TO THE RIGHT OF THE ENGINE, AND WAS
CONTROLLING OPERATIONS BY HAND SIGNALS TO THE ENGINEER.  ENGINE FOREMEN
FREQUENTLY STAND TO THE RIGHT OF THE ENGINE, ON THE ENGINEER'S SIDE OF
THE CAB.  A SWITCHMAN WAS LOCATED AROUND THE CURVE, OUT OF SIGHT OF THE
ENGINEER, ON A LOADING PLATFORM AT WHICH THE CAR WAS TO BE "SPOTTED." 
PETITIONER MOVED BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE TRACK IN AN ATTEMPT TO BE
IN A CENTRAL POSITION FROM WHICH HE COULD RECEIVE SIGNALS FROM THE
SWITCHMAN AND RELAY THEM TO THE ENGINEER.  AS THE CAR MOVED PAST
PETITIONER, IT CAUGHT AND PINNED THE UPPER PART OF HIS BODY AGAINST THE
WALL OF THE BUILDING, CAUSING SERIOUS INJURIES.  THE SITUATION WAS
DECEPTIVE BECAUSE THE OVERHANG OF THE CAR ON THE CURVE AND ITS TILT
TOWARD THE BUILDING RESULTING FROM A HIGHER OUTSIDE RAIL, REDUCED
CLEARANCE MATERIALLY.  IN FACT, THE PLACE WHERE PETITIONER WAS STANDING
WAS IN THE ONE SHORT SEGMENT OF THE ARC OF THE CURVE WHERE CLEARANCE
WAS INSUFFICIENT.  PETITIONER WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AND ITS
HAZARDS; IF THERE WAS A SIGN WARNING OF THE DANGER, HE DID NOT SEE IT;
NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO WARN HIM PERSONALLY.  THE NEARNESS OF THE TRACK
TO THE BUILDING CREATED AN UNSAFE PLACE FOR WORK.  THOUGH THE ENGINEER
WAS AN EXPERIENCED RAILROAD WORKER THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THIS
PARTICULAR SPUR, AND THOUGH IT WAS HIS DUTY TO WATCH PETITIONER
CONTINUOUSLY OR STOP THE ENGINE,  FN1  HE FAILED EITHER TO WARN
PETITIONER OR TO STOP IN TIME TO AVERT THE TRAGEDY.  DURING THE
OPERATION THE ENGINEER COULD SEE THE RIGHT SIDE OF PETITIONER AND WHEN
HE SAW PETITIONER'S RIGHT FOOT TWISTED ON THE GROUND, HE STOPPED THE
TRAIN. 

RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE, ON THE OTHER HAND, TENDED TO ESTABLISH THE
FOLLOWING:  PETITIONER WAS INCONSISTENT IN HIS STATEMENTS, AND IT
ACTUALLY APPEARED THAT HE HAD WORKED AROUND THIS SPUR A NUMBER OF
TIMES.  THE CLEARANCE, ONCE ADEQUATE, WAS IMPAIRED BY A SUBSEQUENT
EXTENSION OF THE BUILDING OVER WHICH THE RESPONDENT HAD NO CONTROL. 
NEITHER THE OVERHANG OF THE CAR NOR THE PITCH OF THE CURVE WAS
UNUSUAL.  RESPONDENT MAINTAINED, NEAR THE BUILDING AND SOME EIGHT FEET
ABOVE THE GROUND, A PROMINENT, LEGIBLE SIGN READING "IMPAIRED
CLEARANCE."  IT WAS NOT REQUIRED OR DESIRABLE THAT PETITIONER STAND
BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE TRACK; HE COULD EQUALLY WELL HAVE
PERFORMED HIS FUNCTIONS ON THE LEFT, OR SAFE, SIDE OF THE ENGINE.  HE
DID NOT STAND WHERE HE COULD SEE THE SWITCHMAN, AND, IN FACT, IT WAS
NOT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO RELAY SIGNALS FROM THE SWITCHMAN SINCE THE
ENGINEER WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO WATCH THE SWITCHMAN HIMSELF WHEN THE
CAR APPROACHED THE LOADING PLATFORM.  THE ENGINEER HAD NOT WORKED ON
THE GROUND AND WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PRECISE HAZARD; HIS DISTANCE FROM
THE PETITIONER (ABOUT 60 FEET) AND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE BUILDING
WERE SUCH THAT IT WAS NOT APPARENT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS IN PERIL. 
THAT THE ENGINEER WAS VIGILANT IS SOMEWHAT SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT
THE TRAIN WAS MOVING ONLY ONE OR TWO MILES AN HOUR AND THAT HE STOPPED
IT ALMOST INSTANTLY, AND WITHIN A DISTANCE OF 12 OR 14 INCHES, WHEN
PETITIONER WAS PINNED BETWEEN THE CAR AND THE BUILDING. 

FROM THIS EVIDENCE THE JURY MIGHT HAVE CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER HAD
A SAFE PLACE TO WORK BUT ELECTED TO CHOOSE A DANGEROUS ONE, THAT ANY
DUTY OF WARNING WAS FULLY DISCHARGED BY THE PRESENCE OF THE SIGN, AND
THAT THE ENGINEER HAD NOT BEEN NEGLIGENT IN ANY WAY.  IN THAT VIEW OF
THE CASE THE ACCIDENT WOULD BE AN UNFORESEEABLE, FREAK EVENT OR ONE
CAUSED SOLELY BY PETITIONER'S OWN NEGLIGENCE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNREASONABLE FOR THE TRIERS OF FACT TO HAVE
INFERRED THAT IT WAS PROPER AND USUAL PROCEDURE TO WORK ON THE RIGHT
SIDE OF THE ENGINE, THAT THE HAZARD WAS NOT READILY APPARENT AND WAS
ALMOST IN THE NATURE OF A TRAP, THAT WHILE THE SIGN WAS PLACED SO AS TO
BE READILY VISIBLE FROM A TRAIN, IT WAS INSUFFICIENT WARNING TO A MAN
ON THE GROUND, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY PETITIONER WAS NOT FURNISHED A
SAFE PLACE TO WORK.  FN2  AND THE JURY MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE
ENGINEER WAS NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO PERCEIVE THE PERIL IN TIME TO
AVERT THE ACCIDENT BY A WARNING OR BY STOPPING THE ENGINE.  AGAIN, BOTH
PARTIES MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOUND NEGLIGENT, IN WHICH EVENT IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN THE DUTY OF THE JURY, AS THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED, TO RENDER A
VERDICT BASED UPON THE DAMAGES CAUSED BY RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE
DIMINISHED BY THE PROPORTION OF NEGLIGENCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO PETITIONER. 
45 U.S.C. SEC. 53. 

THE ACT DOES NOT MAKE THE EMPLOYER THE INSURER OF THE SAFETY OF HIS
EMPLOYEES WHILE THEY ARE ON DUTY.  THE BASIS OF HIS LIABILITY IS HIS
NEGLIGENCE, NOT THE FACT THAT INJURIES OCCUR.  AND THAT NEGLIGENCE MUST
BE "IN WHOLE OR IN PART" THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.  45 U.S.C. SEC. 51;
BRADY V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 320 U.S. 476, 484.  WHETHER THOSE STANDARDS
ARE SATISFIED IS A FEDERAL QUESTION, THE RIGHTS CREATED BEING FEDERAL
RIGHTS.  BRADY V. SOUTHERN R. CO., SUPRA; BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT R.
CO., 319 U.S. 350. 

THE CHOICE OF CONFLICTING VERSIONS OF THE WAY THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED,
THE DECISION AS TO WHICH WITNESS WAS TELLING THE TRUTH, THE INFERENCES
TO BE DRAWN FROM UNCONTROVERTED AS WELL AS CONTROVERTED FACTS, ARE
QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY.  TENNANT V. PEORIA & P.U.R. CO., 321 U.S. 29;
LAVENDER V. KURN, SUPRA.  ONCE THERE IS A REASONABLE BASIS IN THE
RECORD FOR CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE WHICH CAUSED THE
INJURY, IT IS IRRELEVANT THAT FAIR-MINDED MEN MIGHT REACH A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION.  FOR THEN IT WOULD BE AN INVASION OF THE JURY'S FUNCTION
FOR AN APPELLATE COURT TO DRAW CONTRARY INFERENCES OR TO CONCLUDE THAT
A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION WOULD BE MORE REASONABLE.  LAVENDER V. KURN,
SUPRA, P. 652.  AND WHERE, AS HERE, THE CASE TURNS ON CONTROVERTED
FACTS AND THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, THE CASE IS PECULIARLY ONE FOR
THE JURY.  WASHINGTON & GEORGETOWN R. CO. V. MCDADE, 135 U.S. 554, 572;
TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, 68. 

WE THINK THE EVIDENCE RAISED SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY TO
DETERMINE AND THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE VERDICT WHICH
IT RETURNED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE ENGINEER WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE SOME MEMBER OF THE CREW IN
SIGHT AT ALL TIMES WHEN THE ENGINE WAS IN MOTION.  AT THE TIME OF THE
ACCIDENT THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY INDICATED THAT PETITIONER WAS THE
ONLY MEMBER OF THE CREW THAT THE ENGINEER COULD SEE.  THE ENGINEER
TESTIFIED THAT HE WATCHED PETITIONER CONTINUOUSLY. 

FN2  THE DUTY OF THE CARRIER TO FURNISH A SAFE PLACE TO WORK "IS NOT
RELIEVED BY THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S WORK AT THE PLACE IN QUESTION
IS FLEETING OR INFREQUENT."  BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO., 319 U.S.
350, 353. 
..END :





















UNITED STATES V. N.Y. RAYON CO., 329 U.S. 654 


ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1947.  - 105 CT. CL. 606,
64 F.SUPP.  684, REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS PRECLUDED BY SEC. 177(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE FROM AWARDING INTEREST ON CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS OF CUSTOMS-DUTIES,
EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIMS WERE BASED UPON PRE-EXISTING JUDGMENTS OF THE
CUSTOMS COURT, AND EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE HAD
UNREASONABLY DELAYED THE DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE FUNDS.  P.
658. 

2.  APART FROM CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, INTEREST CAN BE RECOVERED
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ONLY IF EXPRESS CONSENT TO SUCH A RECOVERY
HAS BEEN GIVEN BY CONGRESS.  P. 658. 

3.  THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO RECOVERY OF INTEREST AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES MAY BE GIVEN, AS INDICATED BY SEC. 177(A), ONLY BY (1) A
SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN A STATUTE, OR (2) AN
EXPRESS STIPULATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN A CONTRACT DULY
ENTERED INTO BY AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 659. 

4.  SINCE THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL STIPULATION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE,
AND SINCE THE APPROPRIATION STATUTES WHICH COVER THE REFUNDS HERE IN
ISSUE CONTAIN NO PROVISION FOR THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST, THE
TRADITIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS CODIFIED IN SEC. 177(A),
APPLIES.  P. 659. 

5.  THAT AN AWARD OF INTEREST ON A CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
WOULD BE JUST OR EQUITABLE DOES NOT EMPOWER THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO MAKE
IT.  PP. 659-660. 

6.  ASSUMING THAT OFFICIALS OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
UNREASONABLY DELAYED DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FUNDS, THIS
COULD NOT OPERATE AS A CONSENT ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO
IMPOSITION OF INTEREST.  P. 660. 

7.  THE IMMUNITY ESTABLISHED BY SEC. 177(A) EMBRACES CLAIMS ARISING
OUT OF PRE-EXISTING JUDGMENTS.  P. 661. 

8.  THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3,
1933(31 U.S.C. SEC. 227), RELATES SOLELY TO CASES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT
ASSERTS A SET-OFF AGAINST A JUDGMENT CREDITOR, AND IS INAPPLICABLE IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE.  P. 662. 

9.  COURTS LACK THE POWER TO AWARD INTEREST AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THEY MAY CONSIDER TO BE SOUND POLICY.  P. 663. 

UNITED STATES V. N.Y. RAYON IMPORTING CO., INC. (#2) ET AL. 

NO. 94.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 96, N.Y. RAYON IMPORTING CO., INC. (#2) ET AL. V.
UNITED STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, WHICH INCLUDED AN AWARD OF
INTEREST, 105 CT. CL. 606, 64 F.SUPP.  684, THE UNITED STATES AND THE
CLAIMANTS SOUGHT REVIEW ON CROSS-PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, WHICH THIS
COURT GRANTED.  329 U.S. 699.  IN NO. 94, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED SO
FAR AS IT INCLUDES INTEREST.  IN NO. 96, THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS
DISMISSED.  P. 663. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES ANOTHER IMPACT OF SEC. 177(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
FN1  ON THE POWER OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO AWARD INTEREST IN A
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 

THE N.Y. RAYON IMPORTING CO., INC., (RAYON #1) AND THE NYRAYCO
IMPORTING & CONVERTING CORPORATION (NYRAYCO) WERE ENGAGED IN THE
IMPORTATION OF RAYON YARN.  BETWEEN 1925 AND 1929 THEY PAID CUSTOMS
DUTIES ON SUCH IMPORTATIONS WHICH THEY CLAIMED WERE ERRONEOUS.  PRIOR
TO MARCH 1, 1930, THEY FILED PROTESTS WITH THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE TARIFF ACT PROVISIONS, WHICH RESULTED IN THE
INSTITUTION OF ACTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS COURT. 

ON MARCH 1, 1930, THE N.Y. RAYON IMPORTING CO., INC., (RAYON #2) WAS
INCORPORATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING ALL THE ASSETS AND ASSUMING
ALL THE LIABILITIES OF RAYON #1, NYRAYCO AND TWO OTHER CORPORATIONS IN
THE RAYON BUSINESS.  AS A PART OF THIS REORGANIZATION, RAYON #1 WAS
DISSOLVED AS OF MARCH 1, 1930, THE NEW YORK SECRETARY OF STATE ISSUING
A CERTIFICATE OF DISSOLUTION ON THAT DATE. 

RAYON #2 WAS VOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED ON JANUARY 9, 1931, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH NEW YORK LAW.  NYRAYCO WAS DISSOLVED ON DECEMBER 16, 1935, BY
PROCLAMATION FOR NONPAYMENT OF NEW YORK FRANCHISE TAXES. 

IN 1937, LONG AFTER THESE THREE CORPORATIONS WERE DISSOLVED, THE
CUSTOMS COURT RENDERED DECISIONS SUSTAINING THE PROTESTS WHICH RAYON #1
AND NYRAYCO HAD FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DUTIES ON RAYON YARN
IMPORTED BETWEEN 1925 AND 1929.  A RELIQUIDATION OF THE CUSTOMS ENTRIES
WAS DIRECTED.  ON RELIQUIDATION, THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS ASCERTAINED
THAT A REFUND OF $362,482.71 WAS PAYABLE TO RAYON #1 AND $30,809.75 TO
NYRAYCO.  CHECKS PAYABLE TO THOSE CORPORATIONS WERE DRAWN, BUT SINCE
THE CORPORATIONS HAD BEEN DISSOLVED THE COLLECTOR CAUSED THE CHECKS TO
BE TRANSMITTED TO THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE "FOR LAWFUL
DISPOSITION."  REPRESENTATIVES OF RAYON #2 THEREAFTER REQUESTED THE
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO DELIVER THESE CHECKS TO THEM; THIS REQUEST
WAS DENIED AND THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DEPOSITED THE PROCEEDS OF THE
CHECKS IN THE TREASURY IN A TRUST FUND ENTITLED "OUTSTANDING
LIABILITIES 1938," PURSUANT TO LAW.  FN2 

SEVERAL UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS WERE MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
THREE DISSOLVED CORPORATIONS TO OBTAIN THE MONEY IN THE TRUST FUND. 
FIRST, A CONSENT DECREE WAS ENTERED IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ADJUDICATING
THAT, AS AMONG THE THREE DISSOLVED CORPORATIONS, RAYON #2 WAS THE OWNER
OF THESE CUSTOMS REFUNDS OR THE PROCEEDS THEREOF.  FN3  BUT THE GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE REFUSED TO MAKE PAYMENT WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS
DECREE.  THEREAFTER, ON FEBRUARY 26, 1943, ATTORNEYS FOR THE THREE
DISSOLVED CORPORATIONS SUGGESTED TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL THAT THE
MONEY BE RELEASED TO RAYON #1 AND NYRAYCO WITH THE CONSENT OF RAYON #2,
EACH CORPORATION BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OR DIRECTORS AS
TRUSTEES IN LIQUIDATION.  THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL REJECTED THIS
PROPOSAL AND STATED THAT PAYMENT WOULD BE PERMITTED ONLY UPON FINAL
JUDGMENT BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION CONCLUDING THE ISSUE OF
OWNERSHIP.  HE SUGGESTED THAT A SUIT BE BROUGHT FOR THIS PURPOSE IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS. 

RAYON #2 AND ITS LIQUIDATING DIRECTORS AND TRUSTEES THEN BROUGHT THIS
SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, CLAIMING THAT RAYON #2 CONTINUED TO EXIST
FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING AND DISTRIBUTING ITS ASSETS AND THAT IT
WAS THE OWNER OF THE FUNDS IN ISSUE.  RAYON #1 AND NYRAYCO ALSO BROUGHT
SUITS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS; THEY CLAIMED THE AMOUNTS OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE REFUNDS AND ALLEGED THAT OWNERSHIP REMAINED IN THEM.  AFTER
CONSIDERATION OF ALL THREE CLAIMS,  FN4  THE COURT HELD THAT THE RIGHTS
OF RAYON #1 AND NYRAYCO HAD BEEN TAKEN OVER BY RAYON #2 AND ITS
LIQUIDATING DIRECTORS AND TRUSTEES, WHO WERE THUS ENTITLED TO RECOVER
THE AMOUNTS HELD IN TRUST BY THE UNITED STATES.  64 F.SUPP.  684.  AS A
PART OF ITS JUDGMENT, HOWEVER, THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED 6% INTEREST
ON THE TOTAL FUND, SUCH INTEREST TO RUN FROM APRIL 19, 1941, THE DATE
OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE NEW YORK TAX LAW WHICH RETROACTIVELY CLARIFIED
THE CAPACITY TO SUE OF INVOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED CORPORATIONS.  FN5 

WE ISSUED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN NO. 94, ON PETITION OF THE UNITED
STATES, TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN AWARDING SUCH
INTEREST.  AT THE SAME TIME, WE ISSUED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN NO. 96
ON A CROSS-PETITION OF RAYON #2 AND ITS LIQUIDATING DIRECTORS AND
TRUSTEES URGING THAT INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FROM THE TIME OF
THE ISSUANCE OF THE REFUND CHECKS IN 1937 AND 1938 RATHER THAN FROM
APRIL 19, 1941. 

IN OUR OPINION, SEC. 177(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE PROHIBITS THE AWARD
OF ANY INTEREST UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  SECTION 177(A)
PROVIDES THAT "NO INTEREST SHALL BE ALLOWED ON ANY CLAIM UP TO THE TIME
OF THE RENDITION OF JUDGMENT BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, UNLESS UPON A
CONTRACT EXPRESSLY STIPULATING FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST, ..."  AS WE
RECENTLY POINTED OUT IN UNITED STATES V. THAYER-WEST POINT HOTEL CO.,
329 U.S. 585, THIS PROVISION CODIFIES THE TRADITIONAL RULE REGARDING
THE IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM LIABILITY FOR INTEREST ON UNPAID
ACCOUNTS OR CLAIMS.  IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS, INTEREST CAN BE RECOVERED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ONLY
IF EXPRESS CONSENT TO SUCH A RECOVERY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY CONGRESS.  AND
CONGRESS HAS INDICATED IN SEC. 177(A) THAT ITS CONSENT CAN TAKE ONLY
TWO FORMS:  (1) A SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN A
STATUTE; (2) AN EXPRESS STIPULATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN A
CONTRACT DULY ENTERED INTO BY AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THUS THERE
CAN BE NO CONSENT BY IMPLICATION OR BY USE OF AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE.  NOR
CAN AN INTENT ON THE PART OF THE FRAMERS OF A STATUTE OR CONTRACT TO
PERMIT THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST SUFFICE WHERE THE INTENT IS NOT
TRANSLATED INTO AFFIRMATIVE STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL TERMS.  THE
CONSENT NECESSARY TO WAIVE THE TRADITIONAL IMMUNITY MUST BE EXPRESS,
AND IT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  TILLSON V. UNITED STATES, 100 U.S.
43; UNITED STATES V. THAYER-WEST POINT HOTEL CO., SUPRA. 

TESTED BY THOSE STANDARDS, THE AWARD OF INTEREST IN THIS CASE CANNOT
BE SUSTAINED.  THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO CONTRACTUAL STIPULATION INVOLVED. 
AND THE APPROPRIATION STATUTES WHICH COVER THE REFUNDS HERE IN ISSUE
CONTAIN NO PROVISION WHATEVER FOR THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST.  ACT OF MAY
14, 1937, 50 STAT. 137, 142; ACT OF JUNE 25, 1938, 52 STAT. 1114,
1149.  THE TRADITIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS CODIFIED IN
SEC. 177(A), ACCORDINGLY APPLIES. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS, WITHOUT MAKING A REFERENCE TO SEC. 177(A),
SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY ITS AWARD OF INTEREST ON WHAT IT THOUGHT "WOULD BE
RIGHT OR JUST."  IT FELT THAT THE OFFICIALS OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE HAD DELAYED TOO LONG IN DETERMINING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE REFUND
CLAIMS AND THAT, AT THE VERY LEAST, THEY COULD HAVE SUGGESTED AT AN
EARLIER DATE THAT A SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS NECESSARY. 
INASMUCH AS IT WAS KNOWN SINCE THE TIME OF THE CUSTOMS COURT'S
DECISIONS IN 1937 THAT THE MONEY DID NOT BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE
COURT OF CLAIMS BELIEVED THAT IT WAS ONLY FAIR THAT THE TRUE OWNERS GET
INTEREST FROM THE TIME WHEN ALL DEFECTS AND UNCERTAINTIES WERE REMOVED
IN NEW YORK AS TO THE CAPACITY OF DISSOLVED CORPORATIONS TO MAINTAIN
SUITS OR TO BE SUED.  FN6 

BUT ASSUMING THAT THE EQUITIES OF THE SITUATION ALL FAVOR THE OWNERS
OF THE REFUND CLAIMS, THE COURT OF CLAIMS DID NOT THEREBY ACQUIRE POWER
TO CARVE OUT AN IMPLIED EXCEPTION TO THE PLAIN WORDS OF SEC. 177(A). 
HAD CONGRESS DESIRED TO PERMIT THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST IN SITUATIONS
WHERE THE COURT OF CLAIMS FELT IT JUST OR EQUITABLE, IT COULD HAVE SO
PROVIDED.  THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PROVISION IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT
THE COURT LACKS ANY POWER OF THAT NATURE.  INDEED, ANY OTHER CONCLUSION
WOULD PERMIT THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO SUPPLY THE CONSENT WHICH ONLY
CONGRESS CAN GIVE TO THE IMPOSITION OF INTEREST AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES. 

BY THE SAME TOKEN, IF WE ASSUME THAT THE OFFICIALS OF THE GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE UNREASONABLY DELAYED THE DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP
OF THE FUNDS, SUCH ACTION OR INACTION COULD NOT OPERATE AS A CONSENT ON
THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES.  TILLSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IT
HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES POSSESS NO
POWER THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS TO WAIVE AN IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES
OR TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON A COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME EXPRESS
PROVISION BY CONGRESS.  CARR V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 433; STANLEY V.
SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255; MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382;
UNITED STATES V. SHAW, 309 U.S. 495.  THE SAME RULE APPLIES HERE.  ONLY
CONGRESS CAN TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO WAIVE THE IMMUNITY OF THE
UNITED STATES FROM LIABILITY FOR INTEREST ON UNPAID CLAIMS.  CF. SMYTH
V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 329, 353. 

THE OWNERS OF THE REFUND CLAIMS, HOWEVER, SEEK TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF
SEC. 177(A) BY URGING THAT IT APPLIES ONLY TO ORIGINAL CLAIMS WHICH
HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN REDUCED TO JUDGMENT.  THIS PROCEEDING, IT IS
SAID, IS BASED UPON THE PRE-EXISTING JUDGMENTS OF THE CUSTOMS COURT,
THEREBY PRECLUDING THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 177(A).  WE DO NOT PAUSE
HERE TO INQUIRE INTO THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY
THE CUSTOMS COURT OR THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO
ENTERTAIN SUITS BASED UPON PRE-EXISTING JUDGMENTS.  IT IS ENOUGH TO
NOTE THAT THE TRADITIONAL RULE EMBODIED IN SEC. 177(A) IS A COMPLETE
ONE COVERING ALL TYPES OF CLAIMS, INCLUDING THOSE ARISING OUT OF PRE
EXISTING JUDGMENTS.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, ANY EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE MUST
BE GROUNDED UPON AN EXPRESS PROVISION IN A STATUTE OR CONTRACT.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT ANY EXCEPTION RELATING TO PRE-EXISTING JUDGMENTS MUST BE
TRACED TO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN A CONTRACT OR SOME OTHER STATUTE. 
SEC. 226. 

IN THIS CONNECTION, THE OWNERS OF THE REFUND CLAIMS POINT TO THE ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1875, AS AMENDED IN 1933.  FN7  THAT ACT DIRECTS THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR OF THE
UNITED STATES, IF SUCH CREDITOR IS INDEBTED IN TURN TO THE UNITED
STATES, UNTIL THE INDEBTEDNESS IS SATISFIED.  THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
IS TO CAUSE SUIT TO BE BROUGHT ON THE GOVERNMENT'S CROSS DEBT IF THE
JUDGMENT CREDITOR DENIES THE INDEBTEDNESS.  THE ACT THEN EXPRESSLY
PERMITS 6% INTEREST TO BE PAID TO THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR FOR THE PERIOD
OF THE WITHHOLDING IF THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO WIN ITS SUIT AND TO
SUBSTANTIATE ITS ASSERTED SET-OFF.  THUS TO THAT LIMITED EXTENT THE ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1875, MARKS AN EXCEPTION TO THE TRADITIONAL RULE SET FORTH
IN SEC. 177(A).  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, AMERICAN POTASH CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 80 CT. CL. 160, 8 F.SUPP.  717; STEWART & CO. V. UNITED STATES,
71 CT. CL. 126. 

BUT THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THAT ACT TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IS AT
ONCE APPARENT.  THE ACT RELATES SOLELY TO THE SITUATION WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT ASSERTS A SET-OFF AGAINST A JUDGMENT CREDITOR.  NO SUCH SET
OFF IS HERE ASSERTED; THERE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A WITHHOLDING OF
PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT UNTIL AN ASCERTAINMENT OF OWNERSHIP.  IN
FACT, THERE IS NO REAL CLAIM THAT THE SITUATION IN THE INSTANT CASE CAN
BE FITTED WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875.  THERE IS
MERELY AN ARGUMENT THAT THE POLICY OF THAT ACT IN PROVIDING FOR THE
PAYMENT OF INTEREST WHERE THE WITHHOLDING RESULTS FROM AN ERRONEOUS
BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF A CROSS-INDEBTEDNESS APPLIES WITH EQUAL
FORCE WHERE THE WITHHOLDING RESULTS FROM AN ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE
OWNERSHIP OF A CLAIM.  BUT THE IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM
LIABILITY FOR INTEREST IS NOT TO BE WAIVED BY POLICY ARGUMENTS OF THIS
NATURE.  COURTS LACK THE POWER TO AWARD INTEREST AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THEY THINK IS OR IS NOT SOUND POLICY.  WE
REITERATE THAT ONLY EXPRESS LANGUAGE IN A STATUTE OR CONTRACT CAN
JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH INTEREST.  SUCH LANGUAGE IS ABSENT IN
THIS INSTANCE. 

WE ACCORDINGLY REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN NO. 94
TO THE EXTENT THAT IT INCLUDES AN AWARD OF INTEREST.  AND SINCE IT
BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE CROSS-CLAIMS, THE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY ISSUED IN NO. 96 IS DISMISSED.  SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SEC. 284(A).    FN2  SECTION 21 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 26,
1934, C. 756, 48 STAT. 1235, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 725T. 

FN3  THIS NON-ADVERSARY PROCEEDING ONLY AFFECTED RIGHTS AS BETWEEN
RAYON #1 AND NYRAYCO, ON THE ONE HAND, AND RAYON #2 ON THE OTHER.  IT
PROVIDED THE GOVERNMENT NO PROTECTION AS AGAINST THE OTHER POSSIBLE
CLAIMANTS WHO WERE LATER IMPLEADED AND CITED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS
ACTION.  SEE FOOTNOTE 4. 

FN4  THE THREE SUITS WERE CONSOLIDATED.  IN ALL THREE CASES, THE
SOCIETE POUR NOUVEAUX PLACEMENTS DE CAPITAUX WAS IMPLEADED AS
PLAINTIFF.  IT FILED A DISCLAIMER OF INTEREST AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS
DISMISSED "ALL CLAIMS OF INTEREST" WHICH IT HAD.  SEVERAL OTHER PERSONS
AND COMPANIES WERE NAMED BY THE UNITED STATES AS HAVING POSSIBLE
CLAIMS, BUT NONE OF THEM ASSERTED ANY CLAIMS OR FILED ANY INTERVENING
PETITIONS; THE COURT DISMISSED "ALL CLAIMS OF INTEREST" AS TO THEM. 

FN5  APRIL 19, 1941, WAS THE DATE WHEN THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK
APPROVED AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 203A OF THE NEW YORK TAX LAW, REMOVING
ALL POSSIBLE QUESTION WHETHER CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY AND
INVOLUNTARILY BEEN DISSOLVED UNDER THE NEW YORK TAX LAW FOR NON-PAYMENT
OF FRANCHISE TAXES HAD THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN SUITS.  THIS HAD
RELEVANCE, HOWEVER, ONLY TO NYRAYCO.  RAYON #1 AND RAYON #2 WERE
VOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 105 OF THE NEW YORK STOCK
CORPORATION LAW.  THEIR RIGHT TO MAINTAIN SUIT TO COLLECT THEIR ASSETS
WAS NEVER QUESTIONED. 

FN6  RAYON #2 AND ITS LIQUIDATING DIRECTORS AND TRUSTEES CLAIM THAT
THE DATE OF APRIL 19, 1941, HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATEVER TO THE CLAIM OF
RAYON #1.  SEE FOOTNOTE 5.  AND THEY CLAIM THAT THIS DATE HAS NO PROPER
RELATION TO THE NYRAYCO CLAIM SINCE THE GOVERNMENT MADE NO OBJECTION TO
NYRAYCO'S CAPACITY TO SUE UNTIL SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE DECISIONS OF
THE CUSTOMS COURT AND AFTER CHECKS IN ITS NAME HAD BEEN DRAWN BY THE
GOVERNMENT. 

FN7  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, 18 STAT. 481, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1933, C. 212, TITLE II, SEC. 13, 47 STAT. 1516, 31 U.S.C. SEC.
227.  THIS PROVIDES: 

"WHEN ANY FINAL JUDGMENT RECOVERED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES DULY
ALLOWED BY LEGAL AUTHORITY SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PAYMENT, AND THE PLAINTIFF THEREIN
SHALL BE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IN ANY MANNER, WHETHER AS
PRINCIPAL OR SURETY, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT OF AN AMOUNT OF SUCH JUDGMENT
EQUAL TO THE DEBT THUS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES; AND IF SUCH PLAINTIFF
ASSENTS TO SUCH SET-OFF, AND DISCHARGES HIS JUDGMENT OR AN AMOUNT
THEREOF EQUAL TO SAID DEBT, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES SHALL EXECUTE A DISCHARGE OF THE DEBT DUE FROM THE PLAINTIFF TO
THE UNITED STATES.  BUT IF SUCH PLAINTIFF DENIES HIS INDEBTEDNESS TO
THE UNITED STATES, OR REFUSES TO CONSENT TO THE SET-OFF, THEN THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL WITHHOLD PAYMENT OF SUCH
FURTHER AMOUNT OF SUCH JUDGMENT, AS IN HIS OPINION WILL BE SUFFICIENT
TO COVER ALL LEGAL CHARGES AND COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE DEBT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO FINAL JUDGMENT.  AND IF SUCH DEBT IS NOT ALREADY IN
SUIT, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES TO CAUSE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO BE IMMEDIATELY COMMENCED TO
ENFORCE THE SAME, AND TO CAUSE THE SAME TO BE PROSECUTED TO FINAL
JUDGMENT WITH ALL REASONABLE DISPATCH.  AND IF IN SUCH ACTION JUDGMENT
SHALL BE RENDERED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, OR THE AMOUNT RECOVERED
FOR DEBT AND COSTS SHALL BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT SO WITHHELD AS BEFORE
PROVIDED, THE BALANCE SHALL THEN BE PAID OVER TO SUCH PLAINTIFF BY SUCH
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WITH 6 PER CENTUM INTEREST
THEREON FOR THE TIME IT HAS BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE PLAINTIFF." 
..END :




DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN, 329 U.S. 663 


NO. 140.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1947.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1947.  - 313
MICH. 548, 21 N.W.2D 849, REVERSED. 


ON THE SAME DAY THAT AN INFORMATION WAS FILED IN A STATE COURT
CHARGING HIM WITH MURDER, A 17-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT WAS ARRAIGNED,
CONVICTED ON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY, AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT. 
HE HAD NO COUNSEL AND NONE WAS OFFERED OR ASSIGNED; THE COURT DID NOT
APPRISE HIM OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA OF GUILTY; NO EVIDENCE WAS
OFFERED IN HIS BEHALF AND NONE OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES WERE CROSS
EXAMINED.  HELD THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR
HEARING UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 665. 

DE MEERLEER V. MICHIGAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

A STATE COURT IN WHICH HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR MURDER
DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A DELAYED MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  313 MICH. 548, 21 N.W.2D
849.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 702.  REVERSED, P. 665. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN CONFORMITY WITH MICHIGAN PROCEDURE, PETITIONER MOVED FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A DELAYED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THE COURT IN WHICH HE HAD BEEN
CONVICTED OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.  SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT THE ARRAIGNMENT AND TRIAL WERE ASSERTED AS
GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION.  THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE MOTION, AND THE
SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN ON APPEAL AFFIRMED THAT RULING.  313 MICH.
548, 21 N.W.2D 849.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES PRESENTED. 

THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  ON MAY 16, 1932, AN INFORMATION WAS
FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LENAWEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, CHARGING
PETITIONER, THEN SEVENTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND ONE VIRGIL SCOTT WITH THE
CRIME OF MURDER.  ON THE SAME DAY, PETITIONER WAS ARRAIGNED, TRIED,
CONVICTED OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT. 
THE RECORD INDICATES THAT PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT LEGAL ASSISTANCE
THROUGHOUT ALL THESE PROCEEDINGS AND WAS NEVER ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO
COUNSEL.  THE COURT DID NOT EXPLAIN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA OF
GUILTY, AND THE RECORD INDICATES CONSIDERABLE CONFUSION IN PETITIONER'S
MIND AT THE TIME OF THE ARRAIGNMENT AS TO THE EFFECT OF SUCH A PLEA. 
NO EVIDENCE IN PETITIONER'S BEHALF WAS INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL AND NONE
OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES WERE SUBJECTED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

AFTER REVIEWING THE FOREGOING FACTS, THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN
DETERMINED THAT THE RECORD REVEALED NO DEPRIVATION OF PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THE COURT INDICATED THAT IT HAD GIVEN
CONSIDERATION TO THE CASE OF HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271(1945), AND THE
AUTHORITIES CITED THEREIN, BUT CONCLUDED THAT THE RULE OF THE MICHIGAN
CASES WAS DETERMINATIVE.  SEE PEOPLE V. WILLIAMS, 225 MICH. 133, 195
N.W. 818(1923).  IN THIS THERE WAS ERROR. 

HERE A SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT, CONFRONTED BY A SERIOUS AND
COMPLICATED CRIMINAL CHARGE, WAS HURRIED THROUGH UNFAMILIAR LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT A WORD BEING SAID IN HIS DEFENSE.  AT NO TIME WAS
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OFFERED OR MENTIONED TO HIM, NOR WAS HE APPRISED
OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA.  UNDER THE HOLDINGS OF THIS COURT,
PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR HEARING UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45(1932); WILLIAMS
V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471(1945); TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485(1945);
WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760(1945); HAWK V. OLSON, SUPRA.  SEE BETTS V.
BRADY, 316 U.S. 455(1942).  REVERSED. 
..END :








PARKER V. FLEMING, 329 U.S. 531 


NO. 80.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1947.  - 154
F.2D 830, REVERSED. 


UNDER RENT REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED AN ORDER GRANTING TO
LANDLORDS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SPECIAL CERTIFICATES AUTHORIZING
EVICTION PROCEEDINGS.  HELD:  THE TENANTS WERE "SUBJECT TO" THE ORDER,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 203(A) OF THE ACT, AND HAD A RIGHT TO FILE A
PROTEST WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR; AND WERE ENTITLED, UNDER SEC. 204(A) OF
THE ACT, TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DISMISSAL OF THEIR
PROTEST.  PP. 533, 538. 

PARKER ET AL. V. FLEMING, TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR DISMISSED PETITIONERS' PROTEST AGAINST AN
ORDER ISSUED BY HIM UNDER RENT REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED
PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT.  154 F.2D 830.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
328 U.S. 828.  THE TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR
THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR AS THE RESPONDENT IN THIS COURT.  REVERSED, P.
538. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE TENANTS OF A NEW YORK APARTMENT HOUSE.  THEIR
LANDLORDS APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE FROM THE NEW YORK AREA RENT
DIRECTOR AUTHORIZING EVICTION PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS.  FN1
PRICE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 2 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT, 56 STAT. 23, 58 STAT. 632, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. V, SEC.
902, PROHIBITS LANDLORDS FROM INSTITUTING SUCH PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT UNDER
CERTAIN SPECIFIC CONDITIONS NOT HERE RELEVANT,  FN2  OR WHEN A SPECIAL
CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING EVICTION IS ISSUED BY THE AREA RENT DIRECTOR
UPON HIS FINDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT FAILURE TO AUTHORIZE EVICTION WOULD
IMPOSE "SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP" UPON THE LANDLORDS.  FN3 

IN THIS CASE THE AREA RENT DIRECTOR REFUSED TO ISSUE THE REQUESTED
CERTIFICATE AFTER EXTENSIVE HEARINGS AT WHICH BOTH THE LANDLORDS AND
THE TENANTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE.  DENIAL WAS BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE
LANDLORDS HAD WHOLLY FAILED TO MEET THE REGULATION'S CONDITIONS; THAT
THEIR REQUEST WAS PART OF A CONCERTED PLAN TO EVADE THE PRICE CONTROL
ACT; AND THAT A FRAUD HAD BEEN PERPETRATED AGAINST THE OPA.  THE
REGIONAL RENT DIRECTOR AFFIRMED THIS RULING.  ON PROTEST BY THE
LANDLORDS, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR REVERSED THE RULING OF THE AREA
DIRECTOR AND ORDERED THAT THE CERTIFICATE BE ISSUED.  PETITIONERS
THEREUPON FILED A PROTEST OF THEIR OWN WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR.  WHEN
THE ADMINISTRATOR DISMISSED THIS PROTEST, THEY SOUGHT RELIEF IN THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, COMPLAINING THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
WAS "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW" AND WAS "ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS." 
ON MOTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, THAT ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND
THAT PETITIONERS WERE NOT "SUBJECT TO" THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER AND
THEREFORE HAD NO RIGHT TO PROTEST OR HAVE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
DISMISSAL OF THEIR PROTEST.  PARKER V. PORTER, 154 F.2D 830.  FN4  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE RAISED.  328
U.S. 828. 

PERSON WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DENIAL  ...  OF HIS PROTEST" AGAINST AN
ORDER OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT MAY,
UPON COMPLAINT TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, SECURE A JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF SUCH "PROTEST."  UNDER SEC.
204(B) THAT COURT CAN ENJOIN OR SET ASIDE THE PROTESTED "ORDER" IN
WHOLE OR IN PART ONLY IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THE ORDER "IS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, OR IS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS."  BUT SEC. 203(A)
DENIES THE RIGHT TO MAKE A "PROTEST" UPON WHICH REVIEW MAY BE HAD TO
ALL BUT PERSONS WHO ARE "SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISION OF SUCH  ...
ORDER."  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT QUESTION THAT THE
PETITIONERS WERE "AGGRIEVED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 204(B) BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S SPECIAL ORDER AUTHORIZING THEIR LANDLORD TO INSTITUTE
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO EVICT THEM FROM THEIR APARTMENTS.  SEE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS BROS. RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470,
476, 477.  REVIEW WAS DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE NOT
"SUBJECT TO" THAT ORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 203(A). 

IN DECIDING A CASE CONCERNING REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ONE OF HIS GENERAL REGULATIONS, WE ARE
MINDFUL THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT STRONGLY
INDICATES THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S GENERAL
REGULATIONS AND ORDERS WAS INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO BE LIMITED TO
RELATIVELY FEW OF THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE MORE OR LESS
AFFECTED BY THEM.  CONGRESS DID NOT PROVIDE FOR PROTEST AND JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF GENERAL PRICE ORDERS BY THE GREAT MASS OF CONSUMERS BECAUSE
OF AN APPREHENSION THAT THIS MIGHT CAUSE DELAY AND DIFFICULTY IN
ADMINISTERING THE PRICE CONTROL ACT WITH THE EFFICIENCY AND EXPEDITION
DEEMED NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH ITS BROAD PURPOSE.  FN5  ONLY A FEW
CATEGORIES OF PERSONS WHOM THE ACT AFFECTED AND WHOSE PROTESTS, IF
REVIEWED, WOULD NOT HAVE THESE CONSEQUENCES, WERE SPECIFICALLY
PERMITTED BY THE ACT TO PROTEST AND HAVE GENERAL PRICE ORDERS AFFECTING
THEM JUDICIALLY REVIEWED.  FN6  THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COURTS HAVE
ADHERED TO THIS CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  SEE E.G. YAKUS V. UNITED STATES,
321 U.S. 414; BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503. 

PROCEDURAL REGULATION NO. 1 OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, 7
FED. REG. 971, DEFINED A PERSON AS "SUBJECT TO" A GENERAL PRICE
REGULATION OR ORDER, AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO PROTEST AND OBTAIN
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF IT, ONLY WHEN SUCH REGULATION OR ORDER "PROHIBITS OR
REQUIRES ACTION BY HIM."  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
REGULATION WHICH CONTAINED THIS DEFINITION.  BUKA COAL CO. V. BROWN,
133 F.2D 949, 952.  BUT IN OTHER SPECIAL SITUATIONS NOT DIRECTLY
INVOLVING GENERAL PRICEFIXING ORDERS THE WORDS "SUBJECT TO" HAVE BEEN
CONSTRUED MORE BROADLY BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS. 

REVISED PROCEDURAL REGULATION NO. 1, 7 F.R. 8961, PROMULGATED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR, PROVIDES THAT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS MAY PROTEST AN
ORDER WHICH DENIES THEM A SUBSIDY GRANTED BY CONGRESS AS ONE OF THE
MECHANISMS OF THE PRICE CONTROL PROGRAM, THE REGULATION STATING THAT
SUCH A PRODUCER "SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION."  AND IN ILLINOIS PACKING CO. V. SNYDER, 151 F.2D 337, THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT MEAT PACKERS, DENIED SUCH A
SUBSIDY UNDER REGULATIONS OF THE DEFENSE SUPPLIES CORPORATION
PROMULGATED UNDER THE SAME AUTHORITY ON WHICH OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION ORDERS WERE BASED, WERE SUBJECT TO AND COULD PROTEST
AGAINST SUCH REGULATIONS.  THE COURT THERE SAID THAT: 

"IF ANYBODY COULD BE 'SUBJECT TO' A PROVISION OF THE SUBSIDY
REGULATION, COMPLAINANT CERTAINLY WOULD MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, SINCE IT
CLAIMS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SUBSIDY BY A DISCRIMINATORY AND UNLAWFUL
CONDITION INSERTED IN THE SUBSIDY REGULATION BY AMENDMENT NO. 2.  SINCE
VALIDITY OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2,' AND SINCE
AMENDMENT NO. 2 IS SUCH A REGULATION OR ORDER, IT IS INADMISSIBLE TO
PUT UPON THE PHRASE 'ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISION' OF A
REGULATION UNDER SECTION 2 AN INTERPRETATION WHICH WOULD MAKE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO INVOKE OUR JURISDICTION IN THIS TYPE OF CASE,
ESPECIALLY ONE WHO, LIKE COMPLAINANT, IS MOST IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY
PREJUDICED BY THE CHALLENGED PROVISION OF THE SUBSIDY REGULATION." 
ILLINOIS PACKING CO. V. SNYDER, SUPRA, AT 338-339. 

THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A PERSON IS
"SUBJECT TO" AN ORDER IS DEPENDENT TO SOME EXTENT UPON WHETHER THE
ORDER IMMEDIATELY, SUBSTANTIALLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTS HIM, AS WELL AS
WHETHER THE ORDER REQUIRES OR PROHIBITS ACTION BY HIM.  UNDER THESE
STANDARDS WE THINK THE TENANTS HERE WERE "SUBJECT TO" THE ORDER. 

WHETHER THE REGULATIONS GAVE THE TENANTS A "VESTED RIGHT" TO REMAIN
IN POSSESSION IS NOT DECISIVE OF THEIR RIGHT TO PROTEST OR OBTAIN
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, GENERAL REGULATIONS PROHIBITED
THESE LANDLORDS FROM EVICTING THE TENANTS UNLESS THE ADMINISTRATOR
GRANTED A CERTIFICATE.  THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT WAS INTENDED IN
PART TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE RENTS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,  FN7  AND THE
VERY ANTI-EVICTION REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR GRANTED
THE EVICTION CERTIFICATE HERE WERE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PREVENT
MANIPULATIVE RENTING PRACTICES WHICH WOULD RESULT IN EXCESSIVE RENTS. 
FN8  THOSE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN HELD VALID BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS, TAYLOR V. BROWN, 137 F.2D 654, 662-663, AND THEIR VALIDITY IS
NOT HERE CHALLENGED.  IF THESE TENANTS CANNOT "PROTEST" THIS ORDER
ISSUED UNDER THESE REGULATIONS, NO ONE CAN; AND IF THEY CANNOT
CHALLENGE IT IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, THEY CANNOT EFFECTIVELY
CHALLENGE IT AT ALL. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT TENANTS WHO ARE ABOUT TO BE EVICTED FROM THEIR
APARTMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THE ORDER ARE NOT "SUBJECT TO" IT.  WE ARE
PERSUADED THAT THESE TENANTS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ACT BY THE ISSUANCE
OF THE CERTIFICATE.  THEY WOULD EITHER HAVE TO MOVE THEMSELVES AND
THEIR POSSESSIONS TO ANOTHER ABODE, WHICH MIGHT BE DIFFICULT OR
IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN, OR UNDERTAKE DEFENSE OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS IN
THE STATE COURTS, WHICH PROCEEDINGS, BUT FOR THE CERTIFICATE, WOULD
HAVE BEEN BARRED BY THE REGULATION PROMULGATED UNDER THE ACT.  FOR THE
SAME REASON, IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT THEY WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY,
SUBSTANTIALLY, AND ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE ORDER. 

THIS SITUATION IS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT, IN TERMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLICATIONS AND THE IMPACT OF THE ORDER ON THE INDIVIDUAL, FROM ONE
IN WHICH A CONSUMER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHES TO ATTACK A GENERAL
PRICE-FIXING REGULATION WHICH WILL REQUIRE HIM TO PAY HIGHER PRICES, OR
EVEN A TENANT TO PAY HIGHER RENT.  FOR THIS REASON, THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY RELIED ON BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, THOUGHT TO INDICATE A PURPOSE
NOT TO MAKE SUCH GENERAL PRICE-FIXING ORDERS OPEN TO WIDESPREAD
CHALLENGE, HAS NO RELEVANCY HERE.  WHILE THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT IS A LIMITED ONE, ILLINOIS PACKING CO. V. SNYDER,
SUPRA AT 339, WE THINK THAT THESE TENANTS WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE THEIR
PROTEST CONSIDERED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THAT THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION OF THEIR COMPLAINT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE LANDLORDS HERE CLAIMED TO BE PURCHASERS OF STOCK IN A CO
OPERATIVE APARTMENT CORPORATION WHICH STOCK HOLDING ENTITLED EACH OF
THEM TO POSSESSION OF AN APARTMENT UNDER A PROPRIETARY LEASE. 

FN2  SECTION 6(A) OF THE RENT REGULATIONS FOR NEW YORK CITY DEFENSE
AREA, 8 FED. REG. 13914, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES THAT "NO TENANT SHALL BE
REMOVED FROM ANY HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, BY ACTION TO EVICT  ...
UNLESS:"  (1) THE TENANT HAS REFUSED TO RENEW HIS LEASE; (2) THE TENANT
HAS UNREASONABLY REFUSED THE LANDLORD ACCESS TO THE PREMISES; (3) THE
TENANT HAS VIOLATED AN OBLIGATION OF TENANCY OR IS COMMITTING A
NUISANCE; (4) SUBTENANTS OCCUPY THE PREMISES AT THE TIME OF THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PRIME TENANT'S LEASE; (5) THE LANDLORD "HAS AN
IMMEDIATE COMPELLING NECESSITY TO RECOVER POSSESSION  ...  FOR USE AND
OCCUPANCY AS A DWELLING FOR HIMSELF." 

FN3  SECTION 6(B)(3) "APPLIES TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE FOR
OCCUPANCY OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN A STRUCTURE OR PREMISES OWNED OR
LEASED BY A COOPERATIVE CORPORATION  ...  BY A PURCHASER OF STOCK  ...
IN SUCH COOPERATIVE WHO IS ENTITLED BY REASON OF OWNERSHIP OF SUCH
STOCK TO POSSESSION OF SUCH HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS BY VIRTUE OF A
PROPRIETARY LEASE OR OTHERWISE."  THE PART OF SEC. 6(B)(3) II PERTINENT
HERE PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE CO-OPERATIVE WAS ORGANIZED AFTER FEBRUARY
17, 1945, OR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATION, "NO CERTIFICATE
SHALL BE ISSUED, UNLESS ON SUCH DATE THE COOPERATIVE WAS IN THE PROCESS
OF ORGANIZATION AND THE ADMINISTRATOR FINDS THAT SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP
WOULD RESULT FROM THE FAILURE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE  ..." 

FN4  THE ORIGINAL RESPONDENT HERE WAS PAUL A. PORTER, PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR.  THE FUNCTIONS OF HIS OFFICE HAVE BEEN ASSUMED BY PHILIP
B. FLEMING, TEMPORARY CONTROLS ADMINISTRATOR, WHO HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED
AS RESPONDENT. 

FN5  THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED IN
OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 423,
431-433, 439, 441 AND BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 513, 520
521. 

FN6  SECTION 4(A) OF THE ACT LISTS THE CLASSES OF PERSONS TO BE
PUNISHED FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF A REGULATION OR ORDER
AND THEREFORE IPSO FACTO "SUBJECT TO" IT AS SELLERS OF COMMODITIES,
BUYERS OF COMMODITIES IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND LANDLORDS. 

FN7  AMONG OTHER PROVISIONS SHOWING THAT SUCH WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE
ACT, SEC. 2(D) PROVIDES IN PART THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY PROMULGATE
REGULATIONS OR ORDERS TO "PROHIBIT SPECULATIVE OR MANIPULATIVE
PRACTICES  ...  OR RENTING OR LEASING PRACTICES (INCLUDING PRACTICES
RELATING TO RECOVERY OF THE POSSESSION)  ...  WHICH IN HIS JUDGMENT ARE
EQUIVALENT TO OR ARE LIKELY TO RESULT IN PRICE OR RENT INCREASES  ..." 
58 STAT. 634. 

FN8  THE LANDLORDS HERE CLAIMED TO BE RECENT PURCHASERS OF STOCK IN A
COOPERATIVE OWNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT.  REGULATION 6(B), HERE INVOLVED, WAS
PROMULGATED, ACCORDING TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, FOR THE FOLLOWING, AMONG
OTHER, STATED REASONS: 

"IN RECENT MONTHS THE PROBLEM OF EVICTIONS AND POTENTIAL EVICTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF STOCK IN COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATIONS
HAS REACHED SERIOUS PROPORTIONS.  APARTMENT HOUSES AND OTHER MULTIPLE
UNIT PREMISES ARE BEING SOLD TO COOPERATIVE CORPORATIONS.  THESE
CORPORATIONS IN TURN SELL STOCK IN THE CORPORATION WHICH ENTITLES THE
PURCHASER TO A 'PROPRIETARY LEASE' OF A DWELLING UNIT IN THE
STRUCTURE.  IN SELLING STOCK IN THE COOPERATIVE, TENANTS USUALLY ARE
FIRST APPROACHED.  THEY ARE UNDER HEAVY PRESSURE TO PURCHASE STOCK
BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS LIKELY TO BE EVICTION IN FAVOR OF THE
ULTIMATE PURCHASER OF THE STOCK.  IF THE STOCK IS NOT PURCHASED BY A
TENANT, IT IS THEN SOLD TO ANOTHER PERSON WHO OBTAINS A PROPRIETARY
LEASE OF THE TENANT'S DWELLING UNIT AND SEEKS POSSESSION OF THAT UNIT
FOR PERSONAL OCCUPANCY.           .         .  .         .         . 

"IN THE PAST COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATIONS WERE VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN
IN MOST DEFENSE-RENTAL AREAS.  SINCE RENT CONTROL THERE HAS BEEN A
TENDENCY TO MAKE MORE FREQUENT USE OF THE DEVICE AND THERE IS EVERY
INDICATION THAT THIS WILL ACCELERATE. 

     .         .         .         .      . 

"...  DURING RECENT MONTHS, AS THE HOUSING SHORTAGE HAS BECOME MORE
ACUTE, THE COOPERATIVE CORPORATIONS OR OTHER OWNERS OF THIS STOCK HAVE
BEGUN TO SELL IT TO PURCHASERS WHO BECOME ENTITLED TO PROPRIETARY
LEASES."  STATEMENT OF REASONS ACCOMPANYING AMENDMENT 17 TO THE RENT
REGULATION FOR HOUSING FOR THE NEW YORK CITY DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON
DISSENT. 
..END :







PATTERSON V. LAMB, 329 U.S. 539 


NO. 229.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1947.  - DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1947.  - 81
U.S. APP. D.C. -, 154 F.2D 319, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT WAS ORDERED BY HIS LOCAL DRAFT BOARD TO REPORT TO THE BOARD
ON NOVEMBER 11, 1918, AT 9 A.M., FOR "IMMEDIATE MILITARY SERVICE"; AND
WAS INFORMED THAT FROM THAT DAY AND HOUR HE WOULD BE "A SOLDIER IN THE
MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES."  HE REPORTED AS ORDERED AND WAS
MADE THE LEADER OF A GROUP OF DRAFTEES AWAITING ENTRAINMENT FOR A
MOBILIZATION CAMP.  LATER THAT DAY HE WAS TOLD THAT, BECAUSE OF THE
ARMISTICE, THE DRAFT CALL HAD BEEN CANCELED; AND THAT HE WOULD NOT GO
TO CAMP BUT COULD RETURN HOME AND AWAIT FURTHER ORDERS.  FOUR DAYS
LATER HE RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM THE BOARD THAT ALL REGISTRANTS WHO HAD
BEEN INDUCTED BUT HAD NOT ENTRAINED WERE DISCHARGED FROM THE ARMY; AND
THAT THE CANCELLATION OF THE INDUCTION ORDERS WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF
AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY.  HELD:  THE WAR DEPARTMENT ACTED
WITHIN ITS POWER IN LATER GRANTING TO THE RESPONDENT A "DISCHARGE FROM
DRAFT" RATHER THAN A CERTIFICATE OF HONORABLE DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY. 
P. 544. 

PATTERSON, SECRETARY OF WAR, ET AL. V. LAMB. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE SECRETARY
OF WAR AND THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY PRAYING A MANDATORY
INJUNCTION TO COMPEL ISSUANCE TO HIM OF A CERTIFICATE OF HONORABLE
DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. - , 154 F.2D 319. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  329 U.S. 695.  REVERSED, P. 545. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON OCTOBER 28, 1944, RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST THE THEN
SECRETARY OF WAR AND ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY.  FN1  HE PRAYED FOR
A JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT HE HAD SERVED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY FROM
NOVEMBER 11, 1918(ARMISTICE DAY) UNTIL NOVEMBER 14, 1918, AND THAT FOR
THIS SERVICE HE WAS ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE OF HONORABLE DISCHARGE
FROM THE ARMY, INSTEAD OF THE CERTIFICATE OF "DISCHARGE FROM DRAFT"
WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED TO HIM.  HE ALSO PRAYED FOR A MANDATORY
INJUNCTION TO COMPEL ISSUANCE TO HIM OF A CERTIFICATE OF HONORABLE
DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY. 

THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT ON NOVEMBER 9, 1918, HE RECEIVED A
COMMUNICATION FROM HIS LOCAL DRAFT BOARD DIRECTING HIM TO REPORT TO THE
BOARD AT DAVENPORT, IOWA, FOR "IMMEDIATE MILITARY SERVICE" AT 9 A.M.,
NOVEMBER 11, 1918, AND STATING THAT FROM THAT DAY AND HOUR HE WOULD BE
"A SOLDIER IN THE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES"; THAT HE
REPORTED AS ORDERED, AND WAS MADE THE LEADER OF THE DRAFTED GROUP THERE
ASSEMBLED WHICH WAS TO BOARD A TRAIN THAT DAY FOR A MOBILIZATION CAMP
AT CAMP DODGE, IOWA; THAT DURING THE DAY HE WAS TOLD THAT BECAUSE OF
THE ARMISTICE THE DRAFT CALL HAD BEEN CANCELED; THAT HE AND THE OTHER
DRAFTEES WOULD NOT GO TO CAMP DODGE, BUT COULD RETURN HOME, STILL
SOLDIERS, AND AWAIT FURTHER ORDERS; THAT FOUR DAYS LATER HE RECEIVED A
NOTICE FROM HIS BOARD THAT BY TELEGRAPHIC ORDER OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL,
ACTING UNDER INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT, ALL INDUCTION ORDERS
THROUGHOUT THE NATION HAD BEEN CANCELED, AND ALL REGISTRANTS, WHO, LIKE
HIMSELF, HAD BEEN INDUCTED BUT NOT ENTRAINED, WERE DISCHARGED FROM THE
ARMY; AND THAT CANCELLATION OF THEIR INDUCTION ORDERS WOULD HAVE THE
EFFECT OF AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY.  HE FURTHER ALLEGED
THAT IN JANUARY, 1919, HE RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE DATED NOVEMBER 14,
1918, ENTITLED "DISCHARGE FROM DRAFT," ACCOMPANYING WHICH WAS A CHECK
FOR FOUR DOLLARS ($4.00) BEARING THE NOTATION "FINAL PAY"; THAT BECAUSE
OF THE FOREGOING CIRCUMSTANCES HE HAD ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT HIS DISCHARGE
HAD THE EFFECT OF AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY; THAT HE HAD
OBTAINED CERTAIN TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA ON THE GROUND
THAT HE HAD SUCH A DISCHARGE, BUT WAS LATER AUTHORITATIVELY DENIED THE
EXEMPTIONS BY REASON OF A DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT, LAMB V.
KROEGER, 233 IOWA 730, 8 N.W.2D 405; THAT IT WAS AFTER THIS DECISION
THAT HE APPLIED FOR AND WAS DENIED AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE BY THE
SECRETARY AND ADJUTANT GENERAL. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED PETITIONERS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED.  OTHER GROUNDS OF THE MOTION, NOT PASSED
ON BY THE DISTRICT COURT, WERE THAT THE ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT
JUSTICIABLE, WAS BARRED BY LACHES, AND THAT THE TYPE OF CERTIFICATE TO
BE ISSUED DRAFTEES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGED WAS A MATTER SOLELY
WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND NOT A SUBJECT FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, REJECTING ALL THE
GROUNDS SET UP IN THE MOTION TO DISMISS.  81 U.S. APP. D.C. - , 154
F.2D 319.  THIS HOLDING NOT ONLY DECIDED IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING
THE POWER OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT, BUT ALSO UPSET TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF
IMPORTANT WAR DEPARTMENT RULINGS AND PRACTICES WHICH HAVE AFFECTED, AND
WILL HEREAFTER AFFECT, THE STATUS AND CLAIMS OF THOUSANDS OF DRAFTEES
OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR.  THIS CALLED FOR OUR REVIEW, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE COURTS HAVE POWER TO REVIEW OR CONTROL
THE WAR DEPARTMENT'S ACTION IN FIXING THE TYPE OF DISCHARGE
CERTIFICATES ISSUED TO SOLDIERS,  FN2  IS A QUESTION THAT WE NEED NOT
HERE DETERMINE; NOR NEED WE DECIDE WHETHER THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED BECAUSE OF LACHES.  FOR WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE WAR
DEPARTMENT WAS WITHIN ITS POWER IN GRANTING A DISCHARGE FROM DRAFT
RATHER THAN THE TYPE OF DISCHARGE IT GRANTED SOLDIERS WHO PERFORMED
MILITARY SERVICE AFTER HAVING BECOME FULLY AND FINALLY ABSORBED INTO
THAT SERVICE. 

THE ONLY STATUTE WHICH DIRECTLY BEARS UPON "CERTIFICATES OF
DISCHARGE" FOR ENLISTED MEN, ARTICLE OF WAR 108, SET OUT BELOW,  FN3
DOES NOT PARTICULARLY PRESCRIBE THE TYPES OR CONTENTS OF CERTIFICATES
AUTHORIZED TO BE GRANTED.  BUT PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED BY
CONGRESS,  FN4  THE WAR DEPARTMENT MANY YEARS AGO PROMULGATED ARMY
REGULATION NO. 150 WHICH PROVIDED FOR THREE TYPES OF CERTIFICATES OF
DISCHARGE:  HONORABLE, DISHONORABLE, AND UNCLASSIFIED.  FN5  AN
HONORABLE DISCHARGE WAS ONE GRANTED TO A SOLDIER WHOSE CONDUCT IN
SERVICE HAD BEEN SUCH AS TO WARRANT HIS REENLISTMENT.  THIS REGULATION
WAS WELL SUITED TO FIT CASES OF SOLDIERS WHO HAD ENLISTED UNDER
ORDINARY CONDITIONS, HAD SEEN SERVICE AND HAD BEEN DISCHARGED IN THE
COURSE OF REGULAR ARMY ROUTINE.  ON ITS FACE, HOWEVER, IT SHOWS HOW
POORLY IT WAS ADAPTED TO FIT THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES BOUND TO
DEVELOP IN CONNECTION WITH A NATION-WIDE PROGRAM FOR PASSING UPON
ACCEPTANCES, REJECTIONS, AND DISCHARGES OF DRAFTEES IN THE COURSE OF
THEIR PROGRESS FROM THEIR HOMES TO THEIR COMPLETE AND FINAL INTEGRATION
INTO THE ARMY.  SO, AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE 1917 DRAFT ACT, 40 STAT.
76, THE WAR DEPARTMENT, ON JANUARY 12, 1918, ISSUED ITS CIRCULAR NO.
651 IN WHICH IT MADE PROVISION FOR MEN DISCHARGED FROM DRAFT AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM MEN DISCHARGED FROM THE ARMY.  THIS PROVISION, IN
EFFECT WHEN RESPONDENT REPORTED FOR INDUCTION, HAD PARTICULAR, THOUGH
NOT NECESSARILY EXCLUSIVE, REFERENCE TO DRAFTEES REJECTED FOR ONE
REASON OR ANOTHER AT MOBILIZATION CAMPS AFTER THEIR INDUCTION AT THEIR
LOCAL DRAFT BOARDS.  BUT DESPITE THE FACT THAT DRAFTEES BECAME SUBJECT
TO MILITARY LAW AND DUTY FROM THE MOMENT OF THEIR ARRIVAL FOR
ENTRAINMENT AT THE LOCAL BOARD, SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATION 174-176
PROVIDED THAT THEY NEVERTHELESS WERE NOT FINALLY ACCEPTED FOR MILITARY
SERVICE, AND COULD BE REJECTED AFTER ARRIVAL AT CAMP.  FN6  AND IT WAS
NOT UNTIL THEY HAD BEEN FINALLY ACCEPTED THAT THEY COULD OR WOULD BE
ASSIGNED TO FULL-FLEDGED DUTY AS SOLDIERS. 

THE DISCHARGE FROM DRAFT FORM NO. 638, REFERRED TO IN CIRCULAR NO.
651, WAS ORIGINALLY PREPARED FOR DRAFTEES REJECTED AT CAMP AFTER
INDUCTION "ON ACCOUNT OF PHYSICAL UNFITNESS, DEPENDENCY, ETC." FORM NO.
638 HAD BEEN IN USE LONG PRIOR TO THE RESPONDENT'S REJECTION ON THE
GROUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT NEED HIS SERVICES AFTER THE
ARMISTICE.  HAD THE ARMISTICE NOT BEEN DECLARED, HAD RESPONDENT GONE ON
TO CAMP DODGE, AND HAD HE THEN BEEN REJECTED FOR ANY REASON THERE, HE
WOULD HAVE RECEIVED, NOT AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY, BUT A
"DISCHARGE FROM DRAFT."  YET WE ARE ASKED TO GIVE THE REGULATIONS AND
CERTIFICATES A JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, CONTRARY TO THE ARMY'S
CONSTRUCTION, WHEREBY RESPONDENT, WHO GOT NO FARTHER THAN HIS LOCAL
BOARD, WOULD STAND IN A BETTER STATUS THAN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
OTHER DRAFTEES WHO CAME MUCH CLOSER TO COMPLETE INTEGRATION INTO THE
ARMY THAN HE EVER DID. 

AN ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION IS THAT THE TELEGRAPHIC ORDER
ISSUED FROM ARMY HEADQUARTERS ON ARMISTICE DAY, WHICH CANCELED
ENTRAINMENT ORDERS FOR RESPONDENT AND ABOUT 155,000 OTHER DRAFTEES THEN
READY FOR ENTRAINMENT, PROVIDED THAT ALL OF THEM WERE "DISCHARGED FROM
THE ARMY."  BUT THAT SAME ORDER STATED THAT "THE ISSUE OF FORMAL PAPERS
OF DISCHARGE WILL BE CONSIDERED AND DETERMINED LATER" AND THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE TELEGRAPHIC ORDER WAS "MERELY TO CANCEL OUTSTANDING
CALLS AND STOP THE ENTRAINMENT THEREUNDER OF MEN FOR THE ARMY."  AND
WHEN "THE ISSUE OF FORMAL PAPERS OF DISCHARGE" WAS "LATER" CONSIDERED,
IT RESULTED IN WAR DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 111 OF 1918.  THAT CIRCULAR
WAS THE FOLLOW-UP OF THE PRESIDENT'S ARMISTICE DAY DRAFT CANCELLATION
ORDER, AND AS FORESHADOWED BY THE ARMISTICE DAY ORDER, THIS CIRCULAR
PRESCRIBED WITH DEFINITENESS THE TYPE OF "FORMAL PAPERS OF DISCHARGE"
WHICH THIS RESPONDENT AND OTHERS LIKE HIM WOULD LATER RECEIVE.  IT WAS
A "DISCHARGE FROM DRAFT." 

NO STATUTE OR PREVIOUS ARMY REGULATION HAD PROVIDED FOR THE
EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION WHICH DEVELOPED ON ARMISTICE DAY AND WHICH MADE
IT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO HALT THE PROCESSING OF THESE
THOUSANDS OF MEN AND DIRECT THAT THEY RETURN TO THEIR HOMES.  WHEN THIS
NEW SITUATION AROSE, IT WAS CERTAINLY WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE WAR
DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE FOR ITS SOLUTION BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ISSUING
TO THOSE RETURNED HOME AN APPROPRIATE FORM OF CERTIFICATE, WHETHER OF
THE HONORABLE DISCHARGE VARIETY, A "DISCHARGE FROM DRAFT," OR SOME
SPECIAL FORM DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE OCCASION.  RESPONDENT WAS
INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY AND WAS DISCHARGED BEFORE HE REACHED A
MOBILIZATION CAMP FOR FINAL PROCESSING.  HIS DISCHARGE ADEQUATELY
INDICATES THESE FACTS.  THE LAW DEMANDS NO MORE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE ADJUTANT GENERAL AGAINST WHOM THE
ACTION WAS ORIGINALLY INSTITUTED ARE NO LONGER IN OFFICE; THEIR
SUCCESSORS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED AS PARTIES. 

FN2  SEE DENBY V. BERRY, 51 APP. D.C. 335, 279 F. 317, 263 U.S. 29;
DAVIS V. WOODRING, 111 F.2D 523; PALMER V. UNITED STATES, 72 CT. CL.
401; WILBUR V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 206; CF. 58 STAT. 286, 38 U.S.C.
SUPP. IV, SEC. 693H. 

FN3  "NO ENLISTED MAN, LAWFULLY INDUCTED INTO THE MILITARY SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE DISCHARGED FROM SAID SERVICE WITHOUT A
CERTIFICATE OF DISCHARGE, SIGNED BY A FIELD OFFICER OF THE REGIMENT OR
OTHER ORGANIZATION TO WHICH THE ENLISTED MAN BELONGS  ..."  39 STAT.
619, 668. 

FN4  18 STAT. 337, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 16; SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V.
ELIASON, 16 PET. 291, 301-302. 

FN5  PARAGRAPH 150 OF THE ARMY REGULATIONS OF 1913, CORRECTED TO
APRIL 15, 1917, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"150.  BLANK FORMS FOR DISCHARGE AND FINAL STATEMENTS WILL BE
FURNISHED BY THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT AND WILL BE RETAINED IN
THE PERSONAL CUSTODY OF COMPANY COMMANDERS.  DISCHARGE CERTIFICATES
WILL BE USED IN THE DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED MEN AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE,
AND WILL BE OF THREE CLASSES:  FOR HONORABLE DISCHARGE, FOR DISCHARGE,
AND FOR DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE. 

THEY WILL BE USED AS FOLLOWS: 

1.  THE BLANK FOR HONORABLE DISCHARGE, WHEN THE SOLDIER'S CONDUCT HAS
BEEN SUCH AS TO WARRANT HIS REENLISTMENT AND HIS SERVICE HAS BEEN
HONEST AND FAITHFUL. 

2.  THE BLANK FOR DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE, FOR DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE
BY SENTENCE OF A COURT MARTIAL OR A MILITARY COMMISSION. 

3.  THE BLANK FOR DISCHARGE WHEN THE SOLDIER IS DISCHARGED EXCEPT AS
SPECIFIED UNDER SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THIS PARAGRAPH (C.A.R. NOS. 14 AND
34)." 

FN6  CF. GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 338; DODEZ V. UNITED
STATES, 329 U.S. 338. 
..END :








MORRIS V. JONES, 329 U.S. 545 


NO. 62.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 10, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1947.  -
391 ILL. 492, 63 N.E.2D 479, REVERSED. 


AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION WAS AUTHORIZED BY ILLINOIS TO TRANSACT
AN INSURANCE BUSINESS THERE AND IN OTHER STATES.  IT QUALIFIED TO DO
BUSINESS IN MISSOURI.  PETITIONER SUED THE ASSOCIATION IN A MISSOURI
COURT.  SUBSEQUENTLY, BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED IN MISSOURI, AN
ILLINOIS COURT APPOINTED A LIQUIDATOR FOR THE ASSOCIATION AND ISSUED AN
ORDER STAYING SUITS AGAINST IT.  ALL ASSETS OF THE ASSOCIATION VESTED
IN THE LIQUIDATOR.  WITH NOTICE OF THE STAY ORDER, PETITIONER CONTINUED
TO PROSECUTE THE MISSOURI SUIT; BUT COUNSEL FOR THE ASSOCIATION
WITHDREW AND DID NOT DEFEND IT.  PETITIONER OBTAINED A JUDGMENT AGAINST
THE ASSOCIATION IN MISSOURI AND FILED A COPY AS PROOF OF HIS CLAIM IN
THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS.  AN ORDER DISALLOWING THE CLAIM WAS SUSTAINED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.  AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT. 
HELD: 

1.  THE QUESTION WHETHER FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN
THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT DOES NOT PRESENT A GROUND FOR APPEAL; BUT
CERTIORARI IS GRANTED UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237(C).  P. 547. 

2.  UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (ART.
IV, SEC. 1) AND R.S. SEC. 905, THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF PETITIONER'S
CLAIM WAS CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED BY THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT AND MAY NOT
BE RELITIGATED IN THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS, IT NOT APPEARING THAT THE
MISSOURI COURT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER EITHER THE PARTIES OR THE
SUBJECT MATTER.  PP. 550-554. 

3.  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EXISTENCE AND AMOUNT OF A CLAIM AGAINST
THE DEBTOR IN NO WAY DISTURBS THE POSSESSION OF THE LIQUIDATION COURT,
IN NO WAY AFFECTS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY
INVOLVE A DETERMINATION OF WHAT PRIORITY THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE.  PP.
549, 554. 

MORRIS V. JONES, DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

PETITIONER OBTAINED A JUDGMENT IN MISSOURI AGAINST AN ILLINOIS
ASSOCIATION FOR WHICH A LIQUIDATOR HAD BEEN APPOINTED IN ILLINOIS AFTER
THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT AND FILED A COPY AS PROOF OF HIS CLAIM IN THE
ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AFFIRMED AN ORDER
DISALLOWING THE CLAIM.  391 ILL. 492, 63 N.E.2D 479.  AN APPEAL TO THIS
COURT WAS TREATED AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237(C).  REVERSED, P. 554. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE (ART. IV, SEC. 1) OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

CHICAGO LLOYDS, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, WAS AUTHORIZED BY
ILLINOIS TO TRANSACT AN INSURANCE BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS AND OTHER
STATES.  IT QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN MISSOURI.  IN 1934 PETITIONER
SUED CHICAGO LLOYDS IN A MISSOURI COURT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND
FALSE ARREST.  IN 1938, BEFORE JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED IN MISSOURI,
RESPONDENT'S PREDECESSOR WAS APPOINTED BY AN ILLINOIS COURT AS
STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR FOR CHICAGO LLOYDS.  THE ILLINOIS COURT FIXED A
TIME FOR THE FILING OF CLAIMS AGAINST CHICAGO LLOYDS AND ISSUED AN
ORDER STAYING SUITS AGAINST IT. PETITIONER HAD NOTICE OF THE STAY ORDER
BUT NEVERTHELESS CONTINUED TO PROSECUTE THE MISSOURI SUIT.  AT THE
INSTANCE OF THE LIQUIDATOR, HOWEVER, COUNSEL FOR CHICAGO LLOYDS
WITHDREW FROM THE SUIT AND DID NOT DEFEND IT, STATING TO THE MISSOURI
COURT THAT THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS HAD VESTED ALL THE
PROPERTY OF CHICAGO LLOYDS IN THE LIQUIDATOR.  THEREAFTER PETITIONER
OBTAINED A JUDGMENT IN THE MISSOURI COURT AND FILED AN EXEMPLIFIED COPY
OF IT AS PROOF OF HIS CLAIM IN THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS.  AN ORDER
DISALLOWING THE CLAIM WAS SUSTAINED BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT ITS ALLOWANCE WAS REQUIRED BY THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  391 ILL. 492, 63 N.E.2D 479. 

THE CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL.  WE POSTPONED THE QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION TO THE MERITS.  UNDER THE RULE OF ROCHE V. MCDONALD, 275
U.S. 449, 450, THE QUESTION WHETHER FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN GIVEN THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT DOES NOT PRESENT A GROUND FOR APPEAL. 
BUT TREATING THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
(JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237(C), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(C)), THAT WRIT IS
GRANTED; AND WE COME TO THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE STATUTE WHICH IMPLEMENTS IT
(R.S. SEC. 905, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687) REQUIRE THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS
OF ONE STATE TO BE GIVEN THE SAME FAITH AND CREDIT IN ANOTHER STATE AS
THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE RENDERING THEM. 
THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THAT MANDATE
REQUIRED THAT PRECEDENCE BE GIVEN TO THE ILLINOIS DECREE APPOINTING THE
STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR.  IT HELD THAT TITLE TO ALL THE PROPERTY OF
CHICAGO LLOYDS, WHEREVER LOCATED, VESTED IN THE LIQUIDATOR; THAT THE
LIQUIDATOR WAS ENTITLED TO KEEP AND RETAIN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY
TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE PROCESS OF ANY OTHER COURT; THAT ALTHOUGH
MISSOURI MIGHT GIVE PRIORITY TO MISSOURI CREDITORS IN THE PROPERTY OF
THE DEBTOR LOCATED THERE,  FN1  CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112, THE
MISSOURI JUDGMENT COULD HAVE NO PRIORITY AS RESPECTS ILLINOIS ASSETS;
THAT IF A LIQUIDATOR HAD BEEN APPOINTED IN MISSOURI, PETITIONER COULD
NOT HAVE OBTAINED HIS JUDGMENT, OR IF HE HAD OBTAINED IT, HE COULD NOT
HAVE ENFORCED IT AGAINST THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE MISSOURI
LIQUIDATOR, SEE MCDONALD V. PACIFIC STATES LIFE INS. CO., 344 MO. 1,
124 S.W.2D 1157; AND THAT TO DISALLOW THE JUDGMENT IN THE ILLINOIS
PROCEEDINGS IS, THEREFORE, TO GIVE IT THE SAME EFFECT THAT IT WOULD
HAVE HAD UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES IN MISSOURI. 

FIRST.  WE CAN PUT TO ONE SIDE, AS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND,
SEVERAL ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRESSED UPON US.  WE ARE NOT DEALING
HERE WITH ANY QUESTION OF PRIORITY OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF
THE DEBTOR.  FOR IN THIS PROCEEDING PETITIONER IS NOT SEEKING, NOR IS
RESPONDENT DENYING HIM, ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE RIGHT TO PROVE HIS
CLAIM IN JUDGMENT FORM.  NO QUESTION OF PARITY OF TREATMENT OF
CREDITORS, OR THE LACK THEREOF (SEE BLAKE V. MCCLUNG, 172 U.S. 239), IS
IN ISSUE.  NOR IS THERE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ANY CHALLENGE TO THE
ILLINOIS RULE, WHICH FOLLOWS RELFE V. RUNDLE, 103 U.S. 222, THAT TITLE
TO ALL THE PROPERTY OF CHICAGO LLOYDS, WHEREVER LOCATED, VESTED IN THE
LIQUIDATOR.  NOR DO WE HAVE HERE A CHALLENGE TO THE POSSESSION OF THE
LIQUIDATOR EITHER THROUGH AN ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY
OR OTHERWISE.  AS POINTED OUT IN RIEHLE V. MARGOLIES, 279 U.S. 218,
224, THE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS OF A DEBTOR AMONG CREDITORS ORDINARILY
HAS A "TWOFOLD ASPECT."  IT DEALS "DIRECTLY WITH THE PROPERTY" WHEN IT
FIXES THE TIME AND MANNER OF DISTRIBUTION.  NO ONE CAN OBTAIN PART OF
THE ASSETS OR ENFORCE A RIGHT TO SPECIFIC PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF
THE LIQUIDATION COURT EXCEPT UPON APPLICATION TO IT.  BUT PROOF AND
ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS ARE MATTERS DISTINCT FROM DISTRIBUTION.  THEY DO
NOT "DEAL DIRECTLY WITH ANY OF THE PROPERTY."  "THE LATTER FUNCTION,
WHICH IS SPOKEN OF AS THE LIQUIDATION OF A CLAIM, IS STRICTLY A
PROCEEDING IN PERSONAM."  ID., P. 224.  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
EXISTENCE AND AMOUNT OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEBTOR IN NO WAY DISTURBS
THE POSSESSION OF THE LIQUIDATION COURT, IN NO WAY AFFECTS TITLE TO THE
PROPERTY, AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVE A DETERMINATION OF WHAT
PRIORITY THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE.  AND SEE CHICAGO TITLE & T. CO. V. FOX
THEATRES CORP., 69 F.2D 60. 

ONE LINE OF CASES HOLDS THAT WHERE A STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR OR RECEIVER
IS APPOINTED, THE COURT TAKING JURISDICTION OF THE PROPERTY DRAWS UNTO
ITSELF EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE PROOF OF ALL CLAIMS.  FN2  BUT THE
NOTION THAT SUCH CONTROL OVER THE PROOF OF CLAIMS IS NECESSARY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OVER THE PROPERTY
IS A MISTAKEN ONE.  AS JUSTICE BEACH OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF
CONNECTICUT APTLY SAID, "THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY ONE OF THE
ADMISSIBILITY AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE; AND THE OBLIGATION TO RECEIVE A
JUDGMENT IN EVIDENCE IS NO MORE DEROGATORY TO THE JURISDICTION IN REM
THAN THE OBLIGATION TO RECEIVE IN EVIDENCE A PROMISSORY NOTE OR OTHER
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DEBT."  BEACH, JUDGMENT CLAIMS IN RECEIVERSHIP
PROCEEDINGS, 30 YALE L. JOURN.  674, 680. 

MOREOVER, WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A SITUATION LIKE THAT INVOLVED IN
PENDLETON V. RUSSELL, 144 U.S. 640, WHERE IT WAS SOUGHT TO PROVE IN A
NEW YORK RECEIVERSHIP OF A DISSOLVED CORPORATION A JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN
TENNESSEE AFTER DISSOLUTION.  THE PROOF WAS DISALLOWED, DISSOLUTION
HAVING OPERATED, LIKE DEATH, AS AN ABATEMENT OF THE SUIT.  NO SUCH
INFIRMITY APPEARS TO BE PRESENT IN THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT; AND THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DID NOT HOLD THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF A
LIQUIDATOR FOR CHICAGO LLOYDS OPERATED AS AN ABATEMENT OF THE SUIT. 
NOR IS IT SOUGHT ON ANY OTHER GROUND TO BRING THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT
WITHIN THE EXCEPTION ON WHICH WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226,
RESTS, BY CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE MISSOURI COURT OVER
EITHER THE PARTIES OR THE SUBJECT MATTER.  NOR IS THERE ANY LACK OF
PRIVITY BETWEEN CHICAGO LLOYDS AND THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR.  CF.
INGERSOLL V. CORAM, 211 U.S. 335, 362-364.  THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN
THE CAUSE OF ACTION, CF. UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA BRIDGE CO., 245
U.S. 337, WHETHER CHICAGO LLOYDS OR THE LIQUIDATOR IS SUED.  THE
MISSOURI JUDGMENT REPRESENTS A LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED BY CHICAGO
LLOYDS, NOT FOR THOSE OF THE LIQUIDATOR.  THE CLAIMS FOR WHICH THE
ILLINOIS ASSETS ARE BEING ADMINISTERED ARE CLAIMS AGAINST CHICAGO
LLOYDS.  THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT REPRESENTS ONE OF THEM.  THERE IS NO
MORE REASON FOR DISCHARGING A LIQUIDATOR FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
DEFENDING PENDING ACTIONS THAN THERE IS FOR RELIEVING A RECEIVER OF
THAT TASK.  RIEHLE V. MARGOLIES, SUPRA. 

SECOND.  "A JUDGMENT OF A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES
AND OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OPERATES AS RES JUDICATA, IN THE ABSENCE OF
FRAUD OR COLLUSION, EVEN IF OBTAINED UPON A DEFAULT."  RIEHLE V.
MARGOLIES, SUPRA, P. 225.  SUCH A JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN A SISTER STATE
IS, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT RELEVANT HERE, SEE WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA,
317 U.S. 287, 294-295, ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN ANOTHER
STATE, THOUGH THE UNDERLYING CLAIM WOULD NOT BE ENFORCED IN THE STATE
OF THE FORUM.  CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290; FAUNTLEROY V. LUM
210 U.S. 230; ROCHE V. MCDONALD, SUPRA; TITUS V. WALLICK, 306 U.S. 282,
291.  IT IS NO MORE IMPORTANT THAT THE SUIT ON THIS UNDERLYING CLAIM
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED IN ILLINOIS AFTER THE LIQUIDATOR HAD
BEEN APPOINTED THAN THE FACT THAT A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE STATE
OF THE FORUM MIGHT HAVE BARRED IT.  SEE CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, SUPRA;
ROCHE V. MCDONALD, SUPRA.  AND THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT MAY NOT BE
DEFEATED BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
PETITIONER MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN IT IN MISSOURI OR TO HAVE
RECEIVED ANY BENEFIT FROM IT THERE, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF A LIQUIDATOR
HAD BEEN APPOINTED FOR THE DEBTOR IN MISSOURI PRIOR TO JUDGMENT.  THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO WHICH A JUDGMENT IS ENTITLED IS THE CREDIT
WHICH IT HAS IN THE STATE FROM WHICH IT IS TAKEN, NOT THE CREDIT THAT
UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS IT MIGHT HAVE HAD.  MOREOVER,
THE QUESTION WHETHER A JUDGMENT IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE PRESENCE OF RECIPROCAL ENGAGEMENTS BETWEEN THE
STATES. 

UNDER MISSOURI LAW PETITIONER'S JUDGMENT WAS A FINAL DETERMINATION OF
THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF HIS CLAIM.  SEE PITTS V. FUGATE, 41 MO. 405;
CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. D'ARCY, 238 MO. 676, 142 S.W. 294; STATE EX REL.
ROBB V. SHAIN, 347 MO. 928, 149 S.W.2D 812.  THAT DETERMINATION IS
FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE IN ALL COURTS.  "BECAUSE THERE IS A FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE A DEFENDANT MAY NOT A SECOND TIME CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY
OF THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT WHICH HAS RIPENED INTO A JUDGMENT."  MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 439-440.  FOR THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE ESTABLISHED "THROUGHOUT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM THE SALUTARY
PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON LAW THAT A LITIGATION ONCE PURSUED TO JUDGMENT
SHALL BE AS CONCLUSIVE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN EVERY OTHER
COURT AS IN THAT WHERE THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED."  ID., P. 439.  AND
SEE RILEY V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 315 U.S. 343, 348-349.  THE NATURE AND
AMOUNT OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM MAY NOT, THEREFORE, BE CHALLENGED OR
RETRIED IN THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS. 

AS TO RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE ILLINOIS DECREE, OF WHICH
PETITIONER HAD NOTICE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BY
THE MISSOURI COURT, ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID.  ROCHE V. MCDONALD,
SUPRA, PP. 454-455, MAKES PLAIN THAT THE PLACE TO RAISE THAT DEFENSE
WAS IN THE MISSOURI PROCEEDINGS.  AND SEE TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING
CO., 308 U.S. 66, 77.  AND WHATEVER MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE RULING ON THE
QUESTION, THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES COULD HAVE BEEN PRESERVED BY A
RESORT TO THIS COURT, WHICH IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF QUESTIONS ARISING
UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA,
317 U.S. 287, 302.  IN ANY EVENT, THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT IS RES JUDICATA
AS TO THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM AS AGAINST ALL
DEFENSES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED.  ROCHE V. MCDONALD, SUPRA;
MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 275; MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM
CO. V. HUNT, SUPRA, P. 438. 

IT IS FINALLY SUGGESTED THAT SINCE THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT
PROVIDES FOR EXCLUSIVE ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
FN3  AND EXCEPTS INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM THE ACT (SEC. 4, 52 STAT.
840, 845, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 22; VALLELY V. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS.
CO., 254 U.S. 348), THE STATE LIQUIDATORS OF INSOLVENT INSURANCE
COMPANIES SHOULD HAVE THE SAME CONTROL OVER THE DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS
AS THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS.  THIS IS TO ARGUE THAT BY REASON OF ITS
POLICE POWER A STATE MAY DETERMINE THE METHOD AND MANNER OF PROVING
CLAIMS AGAINST PROPERTY WHICH IS IN ITS JURISDICTION AND WHICH IS BEING
ADMINISTERED BY ITS COURTS OR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  WE HAVE NO
DOUBT THAT IT MAY DO SO EXCEPT AS SUCH PROCEDURE COLLIDES WITH THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  SEE BRODERICK V. ROSNER,
294 U.S. 629.  BUT WHERE THERE IS SUCH A COLLISION, THE ACTION OF A
STATE UNDER ITS POLICE POWER MUST GIVE WAY BY VIRTUE OF THE SUPREMACY
CLAUSE.  ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2.  THERE IS SUCH A COLLISION HERE.  WHEN
WE LOOK TO THE GENERAL STATUTE WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, WE FIND NO EXCEPTION IN CASE OF
LIQUIDATIONS OF INSOLVENT INSURANCE COMPANIES.  THE COMMAND IS TO GIVE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO EVERY JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE.  AND WHERE
THERE IS NO JURISDICTIONAL INFIRMITY, EXCEPTIONS HAVE RARELY, IF EVER,
BEEN READ INTO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OR THE ACT OF CONGRESS IN
CASES INVOLVING MONEY JUDGMENTS RENDERED IN CIVIL SUITS.  MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, SUPRA, P. 438; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317
U.S. 287, 294, FOOTNOTE 6.    THE FUNCTION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE IS TO RESOLVE CONTROVERSIES WHERE STATE POLICIES DIFFER.  ITS
NEED MIGHT NOT BE SO GREATLY FELT IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE WAS NO
CLASH OF INTERESTS BETWEEN THE STATES.  THE ARGUMENT OF CONVENIENCE IN
ADMINISTRATION IS AT BEST ONLY ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT OF ONE STATE IN ANOTHER STATE MAY RUN COUNTER
TO THE LATTER'S POLICIES.  BUT THE ANSWER GIVEN BY FAUNTLEROY V. LUM,
SUPRA, IS CONCLUSIVE.  IF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IS NOT GIVEN IN THAT
SITUATION, THE CLAUSE AND THE STATUTE FAIL WHERE THEIR NEED IS THE
GREATEST.  THE ARGUMENT OF CONVENIENCE, MOREOVER, PROVES TOO MUCH.  IN
THE FIRST PLACE, IT WOULD OFTEN BE EQUALLY APPEALING TO INDIVIDUALS OR
CORPORATIONS ENGAGING IN MULTISTATE ACTIVITIES WHICH MIGHT WELL PREFER
TO DEFEND LAW SUITS AT HOME.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, AGAINST THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS IN ILLINOIS IS THE HARDSHIP
ON THE MISSOURI CREDITOR IF HE WERE FORCED TO DROP HIS MISSOURI
LITIGATION, BRING HIS WITNESSES TO ILLINOIS, AND START ALL OVER AGAIN. 
BUT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IS A MORE INEXORABLE COMMAND; ITS
APPLICABILITY DOES NOT TURN ON A BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE AS BETWEEN
LITIGANTS.  IF THIS WERE A SITUATION WHERE MISSOURI'S POLICY WOULD
RESULT IN THE DISMEMBERMENT OF THE ILLINOIS ESTATE SO THAT ILLINOIS
CREDITORS WOULD GO BEGGING, ILLINOIS WOULD HAVE SUCH A LARGE INTEREST
AT STAKE AS TO PREVENT IT.  SEE CLARK V. WILLIARD, 294 U.S. 211.  BUT,
AS WE HAVE SAID, PROOF AND ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS ARE MATTERS DISTINCT
FROM DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS. 

THE SINGLE POINT OF OUR DECISION IS THAT THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF
PETITIONER'S CLAIM HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED BY THE MISSOURI
JUDGMENT AND MAY NOT BE RELITIGATED IN THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS, IT NOT
APPEARING THAT THE MISSOURI COURT LACKED JURISDICTION OVER EITHER THE
PARTIES OR THE SUBJECT MATTER.  WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT PETITIONER BY
PROVING HIS CLAIM IN JUDGMENT FORM CAN GAIN A PRIORITY WHICH HE WOULD
NOT HAVE HAD IF HE HAD TO RELITIGATE HIS CLAIM IN ILLINOIS.  AND, AS WE
HAVE SAID, THERE IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ANY RULE OF DISTRIBUTION
WHICH DEPARTS FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF PARITY AS BETWEEN ILLINOIS
CREDITORS AND CREDITORS FROM OTHER STATES.  SEE CLARK V. WILLIARD, 294
U.S. 211; BLAKE V. MCCLUNG, SUPRA.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE IS ANY PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR IN
MISSOURI; NOR WAS A LIQUIDATOR APPOINTED IN MISSOURI. 

FN2  ATTORNEY GENERAL V. SUPREME COUNCIL, 196 MASS. 151, 159, 81 N.E.
966(RECEIVERSHIP); HACKETT V. SUPREME COUNCIL, 206 MASS. 139, 142, 92
N.E. 133(RECEIVERSHIP). 

THE ILLINOIS RULE ANNOUNCED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LIKEWISE
APPLICABLE IN RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS.  EVANS V. ILLINOIS SURETY CO.,
319 ILL. 105, 149 N.E. 802. 

CONTRA:  PRINGLE V. WOOLWORTH, 90 N.Y. 502(RECEIVERSHIP).  THE
FEDERAL RECEIVERSHIP RULE PERMITS CONTINUANCE OF SUITS IN OTHER COURTS
AT LEAST WHERE THEY WERE PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
RECEIVER.  RIEHLE V. MARGOLIES, SUPRA. AND SEE CHICAGO TITLE & T. CO.
V. FOX THEATRES CORP., SUPRA, AND DICKINSON V. UNIVERSAL SERVICE
STATIONS, 100 F.2D 753, 757, APPLYING THE RIEHLE RULING TO A SUIT
STARTED IN A STATE COURT AFTER THE RECEIVERSHIP.  FOR COLLECTION OF
CASES SEE 96 A.L.R. 485. 

FN3  SEE IN RE PARAMOUNT PUBLIX CORP., 85 F.2D 42, AND CASES
COLLECTED IN 106 A.L.R. PP. 1121 ET SEQ.  CF. ROBINSON V. TRUSTEES, 318
MASS. 121, 60 N.E.2D 593; IN RE CHICAGO & E.I. RY. CO., 121 F.2D 785. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM CONCUR MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR.
JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

SO FAR AS THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION BEFORE US, THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE MAY BE BRIEFLY STATED.  AS PART OF ITS POLICY IN REGULATING
THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, ILLINOIS HAS FORMULATED A SYSTEM FOR
LIQUIDATING THE BUSINESS OF ANY ILLINOIS INSURANCE CONCERN THAT FALLS
BELOW REQUISITE STANDARDS.  TO THAT END IT HAS PROVIDED THAT THE TITLE
TO THE ASSETS OF SUCH AN ILLINOIS CONCERN SHOULD, UPON THE APPROVAL OF
THE ILLINOIS COURTS, PASS TO A STATE OFFICER KNOWN AS A LIQUIDATOR.  A
FURTHER PROVISION OF THE STATE LAW DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCING
CLAIMS AGAINST THE ASSETS IN ILLINOIS THAT HAVE THUS PASSED INTO THE
LIQUIDATOR'S HANDS.  CLAIMS AGAINST SUCH ASSETS MUST BE PROVED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE LIQUIDATOR, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF HIS DETERMINATIONS. 

IT IS NOT IN QUESTION THAT THE ILLINOIS ASSETS OF CHICAGO LLOYDS, AN
ILLINOIS INSURANCE CONCERN, PASSED INTO THE OWNERSHIP OF AN ILLINOIS
LIQUIDATOR IN DUE CONFORMITY WITH ILLINOIS LAW.  CHICAGO LLOYDS HAD
ALSO DONE BUSINESS IN MISSOURI UNDER A MISSOURI LICENSE.  WHILE THE
ILLINOIS ASSETS WERE BEING ADMINISTERED BY THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR,
MORRIS, A MISSOURI CLAIMANT, PRESSED AGAINST CHICAGO LLOYDS IN A
MISSOURI COURT AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES BEGUN WHILE THE COMPANY WAS STILL
SOLVENT.  WITHOUT SUBSTITUTION OF THE ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATOR OR
APPEARANCE BY HIM, MORRIS OBTAINED A JUDGMENT IN THE MISSOURI COURT
AGAINST CHICAGO LLOYDS.  APPARENTLY, THERE WERE NO ASSETS IN MISSOURI
AGAINST WHICH THIS JUDGMENT COULD GO.  THEREUPON THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT
CREDITOR ASSERTED A CLAIM IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ILLINOIS ASSETS ON
THE BASIS OF THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT.  THE LIQUIDATOR DECLINED TO
RECOGNIZE THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT AS SUCH, MAINTAINING THAT THE MISSOURI
CREDITOR MUST PROVE HIS CLAIM ON ITS MERITS, PRECISELY AS DID ILLINOIS
CREDITORS.  THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COOK COUNTY SUSTAINED THE LIQUIDATOR
AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM BASED ON THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT.  DISALLOWANCE
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.  391 ILL. 492, 63 N.E.2D
479.  THE QUESTION NOW HERE IS WHETHER IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM BASED
ON THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT AGAINST CHICAGO LLOYDS, ILLINOIS FAILED TO
GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE, AS
REQUIRED BY ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND 1 STAT. 122, 2
STAT. 299, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687. 

WE HAVE UNDER REVIEW A DECISION OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
REGARDING THE MODE OF PROVING CLAIMS AGAINST ILLINOIS ASSETS OF AN
ILLINOIS INSURANCE COMPANY IN LIQUIDATION IN AN ILLINOIS COURT.  THE
ISSUE BEFORE US MUST BE DETERMINED, HOWEVER, AS THOUGH THE CONSTRUCTION
WHICH THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT PLACED UPON THE ILLINOIS LAW HAD BEEN
SPELT OUT UNAMBIGUOUSLY IN THE LEGISLATION ITSELF.  AND SO THE REAL
ISSUE IS THIS.  MAY ILLINOIS PROVIDE THAT WHEN AN INSURANCE CONCERN TO
WHICH ILLINOIS HAS GIVEN LIFE CAN, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURTS,
NO LONGER BE ALLOWED TO CONDUCT THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS, THE
STATE MAY TAKE OVER THE LOCAL ASSETS OF SUCH AN INSURANCE CONCERN FOR
FAIR DISTRIBUTION AMONG ALL WHO HAVE CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFUNCT
CONCERN?  MAY THE STATE, PURSUANT TO SUCH A POLICY, ANNOUNCE IN
ADVANCE, AS A RULE OF FAIRNESS, THAT ALL CLAIMS NOT PREVIOUSLY REDUCED
TO VALID JUDGMENT, NO MATTER HOW OR WHERE THEY AROSE, IF THEY ARE TO BE
PAID OUT OF ASSETS THUS ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE, MUST BE PROVEN ON
THEIR MERITS TO THE SATISFACTION OF ILLINOIS?  AND MAY THE STATE
SPECIFY THAT THIS MODE OF PROOF APPLY ALSO TO OUT-OF-STATE CREDITORS SO
AS TO REQUIRE SUCH CREDITORS TO PROVE THE MERIT OF THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST
THE ILLINOIS ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION AS THOUGH THEY WERE ILLINOIS
CREDITORS, AND PRECLUDE THEM FROM BASING THEIR CLAIMS MERELY ON A
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURANCE CONCERN, OBTAINED AFTER IT HAD LEGALLY
CEASED TO BE, AND AFTER ITS ILLINOIS ASSETS HAD BY APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS PASSED INTO OWNERSHIP OF AN ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR? 

IT IS SAFE TO SAY THAT STATE REGULATION OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IS
AS OLD AND AS PERVASIVE AS ANY REGULATORY POWER EXERCISED BY OUR
STATES.  SEE, E.G., OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53; HOOPESTON CO. V.
CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313.  NOT EVEN THE BANKING BUSINESS, OF WHICH, AFTER
ALL, INSURANCE IS ANOTHER PHASE, HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO SUCH CONTINUOUS
AND EXTENSIVE STATE SURVEILLANCE.  BUT WHILE BANKING HAS INCREASINGLY
BEEN ABSORBED BY FEDERAL REGULATION, THE REVERSE HAS BEEN TRUE AS TO
INSURANCE.  INDEED, AFTER A PRONOUNCEMENT BY THIS COURT THAT INSURANCE
PARTAKES OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES, CONGRESS BY PROMPT LEGISLATION
DELEGATED OR RELEGATED THE REGULATION OF INSURANCE, WITH APPROPRIATE
EXCEPTIONS, TO THE DIVERSE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  SEE PRUDENTIAL
INSURANCE CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408. 

WE ARE CONCERNED HERE SOLELY WITH THE SITUATION PRESENTED BY A
STATE'S EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OVER THE LIQUIDATION OF THE ASSETS OF AN
INSURANCE COMPANY OF ITS OWN CREATION.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
THAT IN THIS AS WELL AS IN OTHER CONNECTIONS RIGHTS ARE LARGELY
DEPENDENT ON PROCEDURE.  IT SEEMS, THEREFORE, DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT
WHEN THE PROPERTY OF A DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY WITHIN THE CONFINES
OF A STATE COMES INTO THE STATE'S HANDS FOR THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF
STILL UNLIQUIDATED CLAIMS AGAINST THAT PROPERTY, THE STATE MAY NOT
PROVIDE A RULE OF PARITY IN PROVING THE AMOUNT OF ALL CLAIMS WHICH ARE
TO BE PAID OUT OF THE COMMON POT.  WE ASSUME, OF COURSE, THAT THE
PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE
PROCESS, AND NOT IN CONFLICT WITH OVERRIDING FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  IT
IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT THE PROCEDURE WHICH ILLINOIS AFFORDS DOES NOT
SATISFY THESE REQUIREMENTS.  STANDING BY ITSELF, SUCH A RULE OF
ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT BE BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF A STATE.  WE MUST
ASSUME IT TO BE ILLINOIS LAW THAT THE POWER TO PASS UPON CLAIMS AGAINST
PROPERTY OF A DEFUNCT ILLINOIS INSURANCE COMPANY IS LODGED IN THE
LIQUIDATOR AND THAT SUCH POWER IS NOT TO BE FORECLOSED BY A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE DEFUNCT CONCERN AFTER TITLE PASSES TO THE LIQUIDATOR.  DOES
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE CUT THE GROUND FROM UNDER SUCH A STATE
LAW AS TO JUDGMENTS OBTAINED OUTSIDE THE STATE AFTER THE CONTROL OF THE
COMPANY AND ITS ASSETS HAD PASSED TO THE STATE? 

CONCEDEDLY, AFTER THE TITLE TO THE ILLINOIS ASSETS OF CHICAGO LLOYDS
HAS PASSED TO THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO A
CITIZEN OF ILLINOIS TO OBTAIN IN THE COURTS OF ILLINOIS, SO AS TO SERVE
AS A BASIS OF A CLAIM IN LLOYDS ILLINOIS ASSETS, SUCH A JUDGMENT AS
MORRIS, A CITIZEN OF MISSOURI, SECURED IN THE MISSOURI COURTS.  IT IS
THOUGHT, HOWEVER, THAT BECAUSE OF ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1, OF THE
CONSTITUTION, ILLINOIS COULD NOT DENY SUCH A SUPERIOR RIGHT TO THE
MISSOURI CITIZEN WITHOUT DENYING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE MISSOURI
JUDGMENT.  BUT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT A
JUDGMENT VALIDLY PROCURED IN ONE STATE IS AUTOMATICALLY ENFORCEABLE IN
ANOTHER, QUITE REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ENFORCEMENT UPON
THAT STATE'S POLICY IN MATTERS PECULIARLY WITHIN ITS CONTROL.  ALASKA
PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 294 U.S. 532, 546.  THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT EAT UP THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES BY
THE CONSTITUTION.  THAT CLAUSE DOES NOT EMBODY AN ABSOLUTIST CONCEPTION
OF MECHANICAL APPLICABILITY.  AS IS SO OFTEN TRUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
PROBLEMS, AN ACCOMMODATION MUST BE STRUCK BETWEEN DIFFERENT PROVISIONS
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  WHEN RIGHTS ARE ASSERTED IN ONE STATE ON THE
BASIS OF A JUDGMENT PROCURED IN ANOTHER, IT FREQUENTLY BECOMES
NECESSARY, AS IT DOES HERE, TO DEFINE THE DUTY OF THE COURTS OF THE
FORMER STATE IN VIEW OF THAT STATE'S POWER TO REGULATE ITS OWN
AFFAIRS. 

THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE A STATE TO PROVIDE
A COURT FOR ENFORCING EVERY VALID SISTER STATE JUDGMENT, EVEN IF ITS
COURTS ENFORCE LIKE JUDGMENTS IN GENERAL.  ANGLO-AM. PROV.  CO. V.
DAVIS PROV.  CO. NO. 1, 191 U.S. 373.  AGAIN, A JUDGMENT IN ONE STATE
DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF A WILL IS NOT A JUDGMENT BINDING ON ANOTHER
ALTHOUGH IT CONTROLS ISSUES OF SUCCESSION IN THE FIRST STATE. 
ROBERTSON V. PICKRELL, 109 U.S. 608; OVERBY V. GORDON, 177 U.S. 214. 
SURELY, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE A STATE TO
GIVE AN ADVANTAGE TO PERSONS DWELLING WITHOUT, WHEN STATE POLICY MAY
JUSTIFIABLY RESTRICT ITS OWN CITIZENS TO A PARTICULAR PROCEDURE IN
PROVING CLAIMS AGAINST A STATE FUND.  BUT THAT PRECISELY MIGHT BE THE
RESULT IF ILLINOIS HAD TO ACCEPT AT FACE VALUE JUDGMENTS OBTAINED
OUTSIDE ILLINOIS AGAINST A DEFUNCT ILLINOIS INSURANCE CONCERN AFTER THE
ILLINOIS ASSETS HAD PASSED TO THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR. 

PRECEDENT AND POLICY SUSTAIN THE RIGHT OF ILLINOIS TO HAVE EACH
CLAIMANT PROVE HIS FAIR SHARE TO THE ASSETS IN ILLINOIS BY THE SAME
PROCEDURE.  CHICAGO LLOYDS IS AN ILLINOIS ENTITY DOING BUSINESS IN
ILLINOIS ACCORDING TO CONDITIONS WHICH ILLINOIS HAD A RIGHT TO FIX FOR
ENGAGING IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS.  ILLINOIS INITIATED HER
POLICY FOR LIQUIDATING INSURANCE COMPANIES IN 1925.  LLOYDS WAS FIRST
AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN 1928, AND THEREAFTER RENEWED ANNUAL
AUTHORITY WAS REQUIRED.  MISSOURI GAVE LLOYDS ENTRY IN 1932, AND LATER
RENEWED ITS AUTHORITY FOR ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS.  THUS, ILLINOIS
GAVE ADVANCE NOTICE THAT IF CHICAGO LLOYDS SHOULD FALL SHORT OF THOSE
STANDARDS OF SOLVENCY AND SAFETY APPROPRIATE FOR AN INSURANCE CONCERN,
IT WILL, THROUGH A LIQUIDATOR, SEIZE THE ILLINOIS ASSETS OF CHICAGO
LLOYDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL CLAIMANTS AS TO THE MERITS OF THEIR
CLAIMS.  IT WARNED THE WORLD THAT WHEN SUCH A SITUATION AROSE CLAIMS
AGAINST ASSETS IN ILLINOIS MUST BE PROVEN IN THE MANNER WHICH ILLINOIS
HAS HERE REQUIRED.  THE AUTHORIZATION TO DO LLOYDS BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS
CREATED AGAINST THE LLOYDS ASSETS IN ILLINOIS A SORT OF EQUITABLE LIEN,
TO SPEAK FREELY BUT NOT TOO LOOSELY, TO BECOME EFFECTIVE AT INSOLVENCY
AND LIQUIDATION.  TO REQUIRE THAT ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE IN
ILLINOIS LIQUIDATION SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED ON THEIR MERITS IN THE
ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS MAY WELL HAVE BEEN DEEMED BY ILLINOIS THE ONLY WAY
TO PROTECT THE ESTATE AGAINST FOREIGN JUDGMENTS WHICH THE ILLINOIS
LIQUIDATOR MIGHT HAVE NO ADEQUATE MEANS OF CONTESTING.  IT IS
IRRELEVANT WHETHER IN THIS OR IN ANY OTHER PARTICULAR SITUATION THE
LIQUIDATOR COULD HAVE CONTESTED A SUIT OUTSIDE OF ILLINOIS.  CERTAINLY
NOTHING CAN TURN ON WHETHER THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR APPEARS SPECIALLY
IN THE FOREIGN LITIGATION TO ASSERT THE LIQUIDATION OF THE COMPANY AND
THE VESTING OF TITLE TO ITS ASSETS IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.  WE ARE
CONCERNED HERE WITH THE RESPECT THAT IS TO BE ACCORDED TO A JUDGMENT
SECURED AGAINST THE COMPANY BY APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE IN ANOTHER STATE. 
EITHER SUCH A JUDGMENT, OBTAINED AFTER THE TITLE TO THE ILLINOIS ASSETS
VESTED IN THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR, COULD BE PROVEN FOR THE FACE VALUE
OF THE JUDGMENT, OR IT COULD NOT.  THE RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED SUCH A
JUDGMENT MUST TURN ON THE CONTROL WHICH ILLINOIS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY
EXERCISE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF ILLINOIS PROPERTY.  RELEVANT TO THAT
ISSUE OF POWER IS NOT WHETHER IN A PARTICULAR SUIT THE LIQUIDATOR COULD
HAVE PROTECTED HIMSELF BY ENTERING AS A LITIGANT IN THE SUIT IN ANOTHER
STATE.  WHAT IS RELEVANT IS WHETHER ILLINOIS MAY DEEM THAT ITS
LIQUIDATOR MIGHT NOT BE ABLE ADEQUATELY TO DEFEND THE ESTATE IN
LIQUIDATION IN EVERY STATE IN WHICH A SUIT MIGHT BE PRESSED TO
JUDGMENT.  WHAT IS RELEVANT ALSO IS WHETHER IN SUCH LIQUIDATION
PROCEEDINGS ILLINOIS CAN REFUSE TO ACCEPT AT FACE VALUE A JUDGMENT
AGAINST AN ILLINOIS INSURANCE COMPANY OBTAINED AFTER THAT COMPANY HAD
CEASED TO EXIST, A JUDGMENT WHICH THE CREDITOR WOULD ENFORCE AGAINST
ASSETS WHICH PASSED TO THE STATE BEFORE THE JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED. 

DUE REGARD FOR THE RELATIONS OF THE STATES TO ONE ANOTHER, EXPRESSED
BY APPROPRIATE RESPECT BY ONE FOR THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF ANOTHER,
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE PROVISIONS CAREFULLY ESTABLISHED BY ILLINOIS
FOR THE PROPER SAFEGUARDING OF THESE ILLINOIS ASSETS SHOULD BE
DISTURBED BY JUDGMENTS SECURED OUTSIDE OF ILLINOIS AFTER THE VERY
CONTINGENCY FOR WHICH ILLINOIS PROVIDED HAD BECOME A REALITY.  IT WOULD
BE UNFAIR THUS TO SUBORDINATE THE PRIMARY AND PREDOMINANT INTEREST OF
ILLINOIS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ILLINOIS ENTITY WAS ALLOWED TO ENTER
MISSOURI.  MISSOURI, LIKE EVERY OTHER STATE, IN ADMITTING CHICAGO
LLOYDS HAD NOTICE OF THE CONGENITAL LIMITATIONS, SO FAR AS ILLINOIS
ASSETS WERE CONCERNED, UNDER WHICH CHICAGO LLOYDS CAME INTO BEING.  AND
SO, WHEN MISSOURI ADMITTED CHICAGO LLOYDS, IT ADMITTED AN ILLINOIS
INSURANCE CONCERN WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT ILLINOIS WOULD EXACT, IN
CASE TROUBLE AROSE, TO THE EXTENT OF ASSETS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF
ILLINOIS.  OF COURSE MISSOURI HAS A RIGHT TO PROVIDE FOR ITS METHODS OF
ADMINISTRATION, IN CASE OF DEFAULT, AS TO MISSOURI ASSETS.  BUT WE ARE
NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH AN ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT
AGAINST MISSOURI ASSETS.  WE PUT TO ONE SIDE WHETHER ILLINOIS LAW COULD
PASS TITLE TO MISSOURI ASSETS TO THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR.  SEE CLARK V.
WILLIARD, 294 U.S. 211.  WE DO SAY THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF
ANY OTHER STATE, BY ADMITTING THE ILLINOIS ENTITY, TO EFFECT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF ILLINOIS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF
ILLINOIS ASSETS THAT HAD PASSED TO THE STATE, FOR THE FAIR DISTRIBUTION
OF WHICH ILLINOIS HAD FORMULATED AN APPROPRIATE METHOD OF PROOF. 

THIS ANALYSIS ASSUMES A HEAVIER BURDEN THAN THE CASE MAKES
NECESSARY.  IT IS NOT MERELY THAT MISSOURI HAD NOTICE OF THE CONDITIONS
UNDER WHICH CHICAGO LLOYDS WAS DOING BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS AND THEREBY
CHARGED ALL ITS CITIZENS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE LIMITED POWER OF
MISSOURI TO AFFECT ILLINOIS ASSETS UPON LIQUIDATION.  THE MISSOURI
CLAIMANT HAD ACTUAL NOTICE THAT THE ILLINOIS ASSETS HAD PASSED TO THE
ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR AND THAT HE WAS AT LIBERTY TO COME INTO THE
ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE HIS CLAIM.  THE MISSOURI CLAIMANT HAD IN
FACT COME INTO THE ILLINOIS PROCEEDINGS AND FILED HIS CLAIM WITH THE
ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR BEFORE HE PRESSED HIS MISSOURI SUIT TO JUDGMENT. 
IT IS A STRONG THING TO SAY THAT ILLINOIS COULD NOT SAY THAT UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MISSOURI CLAIMANT MUST PROVE HIS CLAIM THE WAY
EVERY CLAIMANT IN ILLINOIS WAS BOUND TO PROVE HIS.  SURELY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT BAR LEGISLATION BY ILLINOIS
WHICH PROVIDES A FAIR SIFTING PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF
CLAIMS AGAINST ILLINOIS ASSETS OF AN ILLINOIS INSURANCE COMPANY IN
LIQUIDATION IN AN ILLINOIS COURT SO AS TO SECURE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT
FOR ALL WHO ASSERT CLAIMS AGAINST SUCH A FUND.  THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON ILLINOIS A DUTY TO ALLOW THE FACE
VALUE OF A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY SECURED IN MISSOURI
AFTER THE COMPANY'S ASSETS HAD PASSED INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE
ILLINOIS COURT, IN A PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR WAS
NOT A PARTY AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE ONE. 

THE PRECISE RELATION OF THE LIQUIDATOR'S LEGAL POSITION TO THE
MISSOURI JUDGMENT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH MORRIS ASSERTS A CLAIM AGAINST
THE LIQUIDATOR'S ASSETS, REINFORCES THE MORE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. 
MORRIS HAD NO JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COMPANY WHEN BY ILLINOIS LAW TITLE
TO LLOYDS' ASSETS PASSED TO THE LIQUIDATOR.  THE MERE INSTITUTION OF
THE MISSOURI SUIT GAVE MORRIS NO GREATER RIGHT TO THE ILLINOIS ASSETS
OF LLOYDS THAN HE HAD BEFORE THE ACTION WAS BEGUN.  BY THE TIME HE
OBTAINED HIS JUDGMENT IN MISSOURI, THE COMPANY NO LONGER HAD TITLE TO
ANY ASSETS IN ILLINOIS TO WHICH THE JUDGMENT MIGHT ATTACH.  BY
UNASSAILABLE ILLINOIS LAW, LLOYDS' ASSETS HAD PASSED TO THE
LIQUIDATOR.  THESE ASSETS COULD BE REACHED ONLY BY VALID JUDGMENT
AGAINST HIM.  IN THIS RESPECT, THE LAW OF ILLINOIS CONTROLLING THE
LIQUIDATION OF LLOYDS, AS AUTHORITATIVELY GIVEN US BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS, IS DECISIVELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THIS COURT FOUND TO BE
THE LAW OF ILLINOIS REGARDING THE ILLINOIS SURETY COMPANY IN PROCESS OF
DISSOLUTION IN EWEN V. AMERICAN FIDELITY COMPANY, 261 U.S. 322.  THE
LIQUIDATOR WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE MISSOURI ACTION; HE HAD NOT BEEN
SERVED; HE HAD NOT APPEARED; HE EXPRESSLY DENIED THE RIGHT OF LLOYDS TO
REPRESENT AND BIND THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATION ESTATE.  THE AUTHORITY WITH
WHICH ILLINOIS CLOTHED ITS LIQUIDATOR PUT HIM UNDER A DUTY TO CONTEST
CLAIMS WHICH THE COMPANY MIGHT NOT HAVE DEEMED ITSELF UNDER DUTY TO
CONTEST, WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND IT ENABLED HIM TO RECOGNIZE, AS THE
COMPANY MIGHT NOT HAVE RECOGNIZED, THE MERIT OF CLAIMS OTHERWISE THAN
BY JUDICIAL COMMAND.  THE LIQUIDATOR, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CREDITORS OF
THE EXTINCT ILLINOIS COMPANY, REPRESENTED INTERESTS THAT WERE NOT THE
SAME AS THOSE REPRESENTED BY THE EXTINCT COMPANY WHEN IT CONDUCTED ITS
OWN BUSINESS.  IN SHORT, THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR WAS THUS A STRANGER TO
THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT AND IT CANNOT BE INVOKED AGAINST HIM IN
ILLINOIS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA BRIDGE CO., 245 U.S. 337;
KERSH LAKE DIST. V. JOHNSON, 309 U.S. 485.  INDEED, TO SUBJECT THE
ASSETS OF THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR TO THE CLAIM OF A JUDGMENT OBTAINED
AGAINST LLOYDS IN MISSOURI SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSAGE OF THOSE ASSETS TO
THE LIQUIDATOR MAY WELL RAISE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  RILEY V. NEW
YORK TRUST CO., 315 U.S. 343; CF. RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC.
450, COMMENT D. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT OUT-OF-STATE CREDITORS SHOULD BE SAVED THE
BURDEN OF PROVING THEIR CLAIMS IN ILLINOIS.  OF COURSE THAT IS A PROPER
CONSIDERATION, AND IT WOULD BE CONTROLLING, WHERE A CREDITOR HAS
OBTAINED JUDGMENT, IF THERE WERE NO COUNTERVAILING CONSIDERATIONS. 
AGAINST THE CLAIM OF OUT-OF-STATE CREDITORS MUST BE SET NOT MERELY THE
INTERESTS OF ILLINOIS CREDITORS, BUT ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF A UNIFIED
LIQUIDATION ADMINISTRATION, THE BURDEN TO THE LIQUIDATOR OF DEFENDING
SUITS ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THE RESULTING HAZARDS TO A
FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE.  TO REQUIRE THE FACE VALUE OF THE
MISSOURI JUDGMENT OF THE MISSOURI CLAIMANT TO DETERMINE HIS SHARE OUT
OF THE ILLINOIS FUND MIGHT, OF COURSE, DILUTE THE SHARE IN THE ILLINOIS
ASSETS THAT CAN GO TO LEGITIMATE ILLINOIS CLAIMANTS.  CONSIDERING THE
PRIMARY AND PREDOMINANT RELATION OF ILLINOIS IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF THESE
CONFLICTING INTERESTS, CONSIDERING, THAT IS, THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH A
CREATURE OF ILLINOIS AND THE PROPERTY OF THAT CREATURE WITHIN HER
BOUNDS, NEITHER THE DEMANDS OF FAIRNESS NOR ANYTHING IN THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE OUT-OF-STATE CREDITORS
SHOULD CONTROL THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  THE RESOLUTION OF THIS
CONFLICT SO THAT THE OUT-OF-STATE CREDITOR MUST TAKE HIS PLACE WITH THE
ILLINOIS CREDITORS IS ANOTHER INSTANCE OF A PRICE TO BE PAID FOR OUR
FEDERALISM, AND IN THIS INSTANCE IT IS A VERY SMALL PRICE.  IF THE
SITUATION CALLS FOR CORRECTION BY A UNIFORM REGULATION, CONGRESS HAS
THE POWER TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER.  OR THE STATES MIGHT DO SO THROUGH
THE VARIOUS DEVICES FOR SECURING UNIFORMITY OF STATE LEGISLATION. 
ILLINOIS, IN FACT, HAS MADE OVERTURES TO ITS SISTER STATES IN THIS
REGARD.  IT HAS ADOPTED THE UNIFORM RECIPROCAL LIQUIDATION ACT AS
PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS.  BY THIS ACT
CLAIMS AGAINST INSOLVENT ILLINOIS INSURANCE COMPANIES MAY BE PROVED IN
ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY "RECIPROCAL STATE."  ILL. LAWS 1941, PP.
832-37, REPLACING LAWS 1937, PP. 788-90, SMITH-HURD ANN. STAT. C. 73,
SEC. 833.3.  THAT MISSOURI HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF
MISSOURI CREDITORS BY BECOMING A "RECIPROCAL STATE" IS NOT THE FAULT OF
ILLINOIS. 

A FINAL WORD.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS COURT IS MERELY DECIDING THE
FINALITY OF THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT IN ILLINOIS, WITHOUT ANY REGARD TO
ITS PROVABILITY ON A PARITY WITH THE CLAIMS OF ILLINOIS CREDITORS IN
THE DISTRIBUTION OF ILLINOIS ASSETS.  BUT WE ARE NOT MERELY PASSING ON
THE ABSTRACT STATUS OF THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT.  THE ONLY ISSUE THAT HAS
EVER BEEN IN THIS CASE IS THE RIGHT OF THE MISSOURI CLAIMANT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE ILLINOIS ASSETS ON THE BASIS OF THE FACE VALUE OF
HIS JUDGMENT.  SUCH WAS THE CLAIM MADE BY THE CREDITOR; SUCH WAS THE
CLAIM DISALLOWED BY THE LIQUIDATOR; SUCH WAS THE CLAIM REJECTED BY THE
LOWER COURT, AND SUCH WAS THE DISALLOWANCE AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED THAT THE THRUST OF THE
CASE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE MISSOURI JUDGMENTCREDITOR-CLAIMANT TO
COMPETE WITH THE ILLINOIS CLAIMANTS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE
NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE MERITS OF HIS CLAIM, BUT ON THE AMOUNT FIXED BY
THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT.  NEITHER BY ANY OF THE COURTS NOR BY ANY OF THE
PARTIES WAS ANY SUGGESTION MADE THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW THE ILLINOIS
CREDITORS HAVE PRIORITY TO EXHAUST THE ILLINOIS ASSETS.  WHAT WAS
BEFORE THAT COURT AND WHAT IS BEFORE THIS COURT IS WHETHER A MISSOURI
CLAIMANT MAY SHARE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF A COMMON FUND NOT ON THE
BASIS OF A CLAIM ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO A UNIFORM PROCEDURE BUT ON
THE BASIS OF A JUDGMENT SECURED IN MISSOURI SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSING
OF THAT FUND TO THE ILLINOIS LIQUIDATOR. 

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT IS INVALID.  WHETHER
RECOVERY MAY BE BASED ON THIS JUDGMENT IN MISSOURI, OR IN ANY OTHER
STATE EXCEPT ILLINOIS, OR EVEN IN ILLINOIS SHOULD THE ASSETS GO OUT OF
THE STATE'S HANDS AND RETURN TO A REANIMATED CHICAGO LLOYDS, ARE
QUESTIONS THAT DO NOT NOW CALL FOR CONSIDERATION. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :





GARDNER V. NEW JERSEY, 329 U.S. 565 


NO. 92.  ARGUED DECEMBER 20, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1947.  - 152
F.2D 408, AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. 


A RAILROAD PETITIONED FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT AFTER NEW JERSEY TAXES HAD ACCRUED AGAINST IT IN AN
AGGREGATE AMOUNT EXCEEDING THE VALUE OF ITS LIQUID ASSETS AND EXTENSIVE
LITIGATION OVER THE TAX ASSESSMENTS HAD RESULTED ADVERSELY TO IT.  THE
STATE COMPTROLLER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE A CLAIM FOR TAXES, PLUS
INTEREST, CLAIMING THAT, UNDER THE STATE LAW, THE SUMS OWED WERE
SECURED BY "A LIEN PARAMOUNT TO ALL OTHER LIENS UPON ALL THE LANDS AND
TANGIBLE PROPERTY AND FRANCHISES OF THE COMPANY IN THIS STATE." 
OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM WERE FILED BY THE DEBTOR, THE TRUSTEE, SECURITY
HOLDERS, AND AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE, WHO CLAIMED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE
DEBTOR'S PROPERTY WAS GROSSLY OVERVALUED, THAT THE DEBTOR HAD BEEN
INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN MAKING THE
ASSESSMENTS, THAT NO INTEREST ACCRUED AFTER THE PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION WAS FILED OR DURING THE PERIOD WHEN COLLECTION OF THE
TAXES WAS ENJOINED AND THE DEBTOR WAS CONTESTING THEIR VALIDITY, THAT
THE STATE HAD NO LIEN ON THE DEBTOR'S PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND THAT NO
PART OF THE STATE'S CLAIM EXCEPT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF TAXES WAS
ENTITLED TO A LIEN EQUAL OR PARAMOUNT TO THE DEBTOR'S GENERAL
MORTGAGE.  AFTER AN ATTEMPT BY THE TRUSTEE TO COMPROMISE THE STATE'S
TAX CLAIMS PURSUANT TO STATE LEGISLATION FACILITATING SUCH COMPROMISES
HAD BEEN FRUSTRATED BY A DECLARATION OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE
LEGISLATION, THE TRUSTEE PETITIONED THE REORGANIZATION COURT FOR
ADJUDICATION OF THESE CLAIMS.  APPEARING SPECIALLY, THE STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CLAIMED THAT ENTERTAINMENT OF THE PETITION WOULD CONSTITUTE A
PROHIBITED SUIT AGAINST THE STATE.  HELD: 

1.  THE REORGANIZATION COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER PROOF AND
ALLOWANCE OF THE TAX CLAIMS, AND THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER WAS NOT A
SUIT AGAINST THE STATE.  P. 572. 

2.  AS SO CONSTRUED, SEC. 77 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  NEW YORK V. IRVING
TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 329.  P. 574. 

3. THE CONCLUSION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEW JERSEY THAT
THE STATE COMPTROLLER HAD AUTHORITY UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW TO FILE THE
CLAIM IS ENTITLED TO SPECIAL WEIGHT, AND THIS COURT FINDS NOTHING TO
IMPEACH IT.  P. 574. 

4.  THE REORGANIZATION COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER ALL PROPERTY OF
THE DEBTOR, INCLUDING THAT ON WHICH THE STATE ASSERTS A LIEN, AND THE
COURT'S POWER TO DEAL WITH LIENS EXTENDS TO THE LIEN CLAIMED BY THE
STATE.  P. 575. 

5.  THE REORGANIZATION COURT HAS NO POWER TO REDETERMINE FOR STATE
TAX PURPOSES THE VALUATIONS OF THE RAILROAD'S PROPERTY UNDERLYING THE
ASSESSMENTS OR THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS.  ARKANSAS CORPORATION
COMMISSION V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 132.  P. 578. 

6.  THE REORGANIZATION COURT IS NOT PRECLUDED, HOWEVER, FROM
ADJUDICATING OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTIONS TO THE STATE'S CLAIM. 
P. 579. 

(A)  THE VALIDITY AND PRIORITY OF ONE LIEN, WHETHER OR NOT CLAIMED BY
A STATE, AS AGAINST OTHER LIENS, ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE REORGANIZATION
COURT.  P. 579. 

(B)  THE EXTENT OF THE LIEN - TO WHAT PROPERTY IT APPLIES AND WHETHER
IT IS RESTRICTED TO REALTY OR COVERS PERSONAL PROPERTY OR REVENUES AS
WELL - IS A QUESTION FOR THE REORGANIZATION COURT.  P. 580. 

(C)  EXCEPTING QUESTIONS INVOLVING THE VALUATIONS UNDERLYING THE
ASSESSMENTS AND THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS, THE REORGANIZATION
COURT MAY ADJUDICATE QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE AMOUNT OF A TAX CLAIM
SECURED BY A LIEN - E.G., WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN
SWOLLEN BY THE INCLUSION OF FORBIDDEN PENALTIES, WHAT CLAIMS SOUGHT TO
BE PROVED BY THE STATE ARE "PENALTIES," THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 57J
TO REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77, THE LIABILITY OF THE ESTATE FOR
PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE TRUSTEE IN THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS, AND
WHAT INTEREST, IF ANY, ACCRUES AFTER THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION
HAS BEEN FILED.  P. 580. 

(D)  THROUGH APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO COMPROMISE OR
SETTLE CLAIMS, THE COURT MAY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEE TO COMPROMISE
CLAIMS, SECURED OR UNSECURED, AND MAY APPROVE EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS OF
THEM, THUS REDUCING OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING THE PARTICIPATION THAT THE
CLAIMANT, WHETHER A STATE OR ANOTHER, MAY HAVE IN THE RES WHICH IS IN
CUSTODIA LEGIS.  P. 581. 

7.  THIS COURT WILL NOT PASS ON QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW AS TO THE
VALIDITY OR EFFECT OF SETTLEMENTS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE
LEGISLATION LATER HELD INVALID, SINCE THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN
PASSED UPON BY EITHER THE REORGANIZATION COURT OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE GREATER FAMILIARITY THAN THIS COURT WITH
LOCAL LAW AND LOCAL PRACTICE.  PP. 582-583. 

8.  THESE RULINGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION THAT RES JUDICATA MAY
HAVE MADE BINDING ON THE REORGANIZATION COURT VARIOUS QUESTIONS OF
LOCAL LAW, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT AND VALIDITY OF THE TAXES UNDER THE
STATE LAW AND THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF THE LIEN WHICH THAT LAW
AFFORDS THEM.  P. 584. 

GARDNER, TRUSTEE, V. NEW JERSEY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

IN A PROCEEDING FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF A RAILROAD UNDER SEC. 77 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE REORGANIZATION COURT CONFIRMED A REPORT OF A
SPECIAL MASTER FINDING THAT (1) CERTAIN PROOFS OF CLAIM OF NEW JERSEY
FOR TAXES WERE PROPERLY FILED BY STATE OFFICERS ACTING IN PURSUANCE OF
THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY, (2) SEC. 77 CONFERS ON THE REORGANIZATION
COURT JURISDICTION OVER THE KIND OF CLAIMS ASSERTED BY THE STATE IN THE
PROCEEDING, AND SUCH CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
AND (3) THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR IS IN CUSTODIA LEGIS, SUBJECT
TO THE RIGHTS OF LIENHOLDERS, AND THE REORGANIZATION COURT IS THE
PROPER COURT TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY AND AMOUNT OF THE TAX CLAIMS,
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.  NEW JERSEY APPEALED AND PETITIONED FOR
A WRIT OF PROHIBITION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE ORDER
OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT AND DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION.  152 F.2D 408.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S.
876.  AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, P. 584. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, HERE ON CERTIORARI, PRESENTS IMPORTANT PROBLEMS UNDER SEC.
77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  49 STAT. 911, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205.  THE
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY (THE DEBTOR), OF WHICH
PETITIONER IS TRUSTEE, FILED ITS PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IN 1939
SHORTLY AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
THAT HE WOULD APPLY TO A STATE COURT FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR UNPAID
TAXES OF THE DEBTOR AND SEEK TO SELL ITS PROPERTY IN SATISFACTION OF
THE JUDGMENT.  THE TAX ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEARS 1932 TO 1939 HAD BEEN
EXTENSIVELY LITIGATED BOTH IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS AND THE
RESULTS WERE FOR THE MOST PART ADVERSE TO THE DEBTOR.  FN1 BY THE END
OF 1939 THE TAX CLAIMS OF THE STATE AGAINST THE DEBTOR, EXCLUSIVE OF
INTEREST AND PENALTIES, EXCEEDED $15,000,000, WHILE THE LIQUID ASSETS
OF THE DEBTOR AVAILABLE TO PAY THEM WERE APPARENTLY LESS THAN HALF THAT
AMOUNT.  THE REORGANIZATION COURT STAYED SUITS TO COLLECT THE TAXES BUT
FROM TIME TO TIME ENTERED ORDERS DIRECTING THE DEBTOR TO MAKE SPECIFIED
INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAXES FOR VARIOUS YEARS. 

IN 1941 THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW DESIGNED TO LESSEN
THE TAX BURDEN OF RAILROADS IN THE STATE.  P.L. 1941, CHS.  290, 291. 
THIS LAW WAS IMPLEMENTED AND SOMEWHAT MODIFIED IN 1942.  P.L. 1942,
CHS.  169, 241.  THESE ACTS INCLUDED CHANGES IN THE TAX RATES AND
PROVIDED FOR INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS OF THE FULL PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
UNPAID PROPERTY TAXES WITHOUT INTEREST OR PENALTIES, WHICH WERE DUE ON
OR BEFORE DECEMBER 1, 1940.  THE STATUTORY SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS WAS
CONDITIONED ON (1) THE EXECUTION OF INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PLANS AND THE
PAYMENT OF THE FIRST INSTALLMENT, AND (2) A WAIVER OF ALL RIGHTS TO
CONTEST THE LEGALITY OR AMOUNT OF ANY ASSESSMENT MADE PRIOR TO DECEMBER
1, 1941, TOGETHER WITH WRITTEN CONSENT TO THE DISCONTINUANCE AND
DISMISSAL OF ALL PENDING SUITS CONCERNING SUCH ASSESSMENTS.  THE
REORGANIZATION COURT AUTHORIZED PETITIONER TO SETTLE AND COMPROMISE THE
DELINQUENT TAXES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THESE ACTS. 
PETITIONER UNDERTOOK TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, FILING
DOCUMENTS AND PAYMENTS REQUIRED OF A DELINQUENT TAXPAYER, DISCONTINUING
LITIGATION, AND CONSENTING TO THE DISCONTINUANCE OF PENDING APPEALS. 
FN2  THE STATE OFFICIALS - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TREASURER, AND
COMPTROLLER - DID NOT ACCEPT THESE TENDERS.  FN3  INSTEAD, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL INSTITUTED SUIT TO ENJOIN THE TREASURER FROM CARRYING OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE 1941 AND 1942 ACTS.  THE RESULT WAS A HOLDING THAT
THE ACTS VIOLATED THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION.  WILENTZ V. HENDRICKSON,
135 N.J. EQ. 244, 38 A.2D 199. 

MEANWHILE THE REORGANIZATION COURT SET A TIME WITHIN WHICH ALL CLAIMS
AGAINST THE DEBTOR SHOULD BE FILED.  IN COMPLIANCE THEREWITH THE STATE
COMPTROLLER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY A CLAIM FOR
TAXES OWING IT.  FN4  THE PROOF OF CLAIM STATED THAT OVER $18,000,000
HAD BEEN PAID ON THE TAX CLAIM, LEAVING UNPAID SOME $12,000,000, PLUS
INTEREST OF OVER $7,700,000, PLUS ADDITIONAL INTEREST ON THOSE SUMS
FROM DECEMBER 1, 1940.  THE PROOF OF CLAIM ALSO STATED THAT UNDER NEW
JERSEY LAW THE SUMS OWED WERE SECURED BY "A LIEN PARAMOUNT TO ALL OTHER
LIENS UPON ALL THE LANDS AND TANGIBLE PROPERTY AND FRANCHISES OF THE
COMPANY IN THIS STATE." 

THE DEBTOR AND TRUSTEE FILED INITIAL OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM.  THEY
CONTENDED THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR WAS GROSSLY OVERVALUED AND
THAT THE DEBTOR AND OTHER RAILROADS HAD BEEN INTENTIONALLY AND
SYSTEMATICALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THE MAKING OF THE ASSESSMENTS. 
THEY ALSO OBJECTED TO THE INTEREST OR PENALTY PART OF THE CLAIM,
CONTENDING, INTER ALIA, THAT NO INTEREST ACCRUED AFTER THE DATE WHEN
THE DEBTOR'S PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION WAS FILED OR DURING THE PERIOD
WHEN COLLECTION OF THE TAXES WAS ENJOINED AND THE DEBTOR WAS IN GOOD
FAITH CONTESTING THEIR VALIDITY.  SUBSEQUENTLY THEY OBJECTED TO THE
CLAIM ON THE FURTHER GROUND THAT ITS AMOUNT AND THE TIME ALLOWED FOR
ITS PAYMENT WERE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT OR COMPROMISE
TENDERED UNDER THE 1941 AND 1942 ACTS OF THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE. 
THEY ALSO CONTENDED THAT NEW JERSEY HAD NO LIEN ON THE DEBTOR'S
PERSONAL PROPERTY.  LIKE OBJECTIONS WERE MADE BY A GROUP OF SECURITY
HOLDERS OF THE DEBTOR AND BY AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE.  THEY ALSO OBJECTED
TO THE STATE'S CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT NO PART OF IT OTHER THAN THAT
REPRESENTING THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF TAXES WAS ENTITLED TO A LIEN EQUAL
OR PARAMOUNT TO THE DEBTOR'S GENERAL MORTGAGE. 

NEW JERSEY, THROUGH HER ATTORNEY GENERAL, FILED REPLIES TO THE
VARIOUS OBJECTIONS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE TO HER CLAIM, STATING, INTER
ALIA, THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM HAD BEEN FINALLY
ADJUDICATED AND WAS LAWFULLY OWING, THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT TOGETHER
WITH INTEREST WAS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER SEC. 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT, AND THAT THE CLAIM WAS ENTITLED TO A PARAMOUNT LIEN ON ALL THE
LANDS, TANGIBLE PROPERTY, AND FRANCHISES OF THE DEBTOR. 

SHORTLY AFTER WILENTZ V. HENDRICKSON, SUPRA, WAS DECIDED, THE TRUSTEE
FILED WITH THE REORGANIZATION COURT A PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION OF NEW
JERSEY'S TAX CLAIMS WHICH IN SUBSTANCE RECAPITULATED HIS EARLIER
OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM AND ASKED FOR AN ADJUDICATION THAT THE
SETTLEMENT OR COMPROMISE TENDERED UNDER THE 1941 AND 1942 ACTS OF NEW
JERSEY WAS BINDING; OR ALTERNATIVELY, IF IT WAS NOT BINDING, A
DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND
THE RELATIVE RIGHTS, LIENS AND PRIORITIES OF THE VARIOUS CLAIMANTS IN
THE DEBTOR'S ASSETS. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY THEREUPON ENTERED A SPECIAL
APPEARANCE IN THE PROCEEDINGS, CLAIMING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE
ENTERTAINMENT OF THE PETITION WOULD CONSTITUTE A PROHIBITED SUIT
AGAINST THE STATE, BOTH AS RESPECTS THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE CLAIM AND ITS PRIORITY OR LIEN. 

THE REORGANIZATION COURT REFERRED NEW JERSEY'S CLAIM TO A SPECIAL
MASTER TO CONSIDER THIS ADDITIONAL CONTENTION OF THE STATE, AS WELL AS
THE PREVIOUS OBJECTIONS TO IT AND THE STATE'S REPLIES THERETO. 

THE SPECIAL MASTER RENDERED A REPORT IN 1945 IN WHICH HE FOUND (1)
THAT THE PROOFS OF CLAIM OF NEW JERSEY WERE PROPERLY FILED BY STATE
OFFICERS ACTING IN PURSUANCE OF THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY; (2) THAT
SEC. 77 CONFERS ON THE REORGANIZATION COURT JURISDICTION OVER THE KIND
OF CLAIMS ASSERTED BY THE STATE IN THE PROCEEDING AND THAT SUCH
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND (3) THAT THE
ENTIRE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR IS IN CUSTODIA LEGIS SUBJECT TO THE
RIGHTS OF LIENHOLDERS, AND THAT THE REORGANIZATION COURT IS THE PROPER
COURT TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY AND AMOUNT OF THE TAX CLAIMS AND THEIR
LIEN, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 132, WHICH HE DID NOT THINK WERE PRESENTLY INVOLVED
IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  NEW JERSEY, THROUGH HER ATTORNEY GENERAL, FILED
OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT.  THE REORGANIZATION COURT OVERRULED THEM AND
ADOPTED AND CONFIRMED THE REPORT.  NEW JERSEY TOOK AN APPEAL TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  SHE ALSO FILED IN THAT COURT A PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF PROHIBITION IN WHICH SHE CHALLENGED THE RULINGS OF THE
REORGANIZATION COURT ON THE SAME GROUNDS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TREATED THE APPEAL AS IF ALL OF THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED WERE COVERED BY ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION V.
THOMPSON, SUPRA.  IT HELD THAT THE "ONLY MATTERS LEFT OPEN" FOR THE
REORGANIZATION COURT WERE (1) MATHEMATICAL ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF
THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX OR (2) LEGAL ERROR IN ITS ASSESSMENT.  IT
ACCORDINGLY REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT AND
DISMISSED THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION.  152 F.2D 408,
418. 

FIRST.  WE THINK, CONTRARY TO THE POSITION OF NEW JERSEY, THAT THE
REORGANIZATION COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PROOF AND ALLOWANCE OF
THE TAX CLAIMS AND THAT THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER WAS NOT A SUIT
AGAINST THE STATE.  SECTION 77 DEALS NOT ONLY WITH CLAIMS OF PRIVATE
PARTIES BUT WITH THOSE OF PUBLIC AGENCIES AS WELL.  SECTION 77(B)
DEFINES "CREDITORS" AS "ALL HOLDERS OF CLAIMS OF WHATEVER CHARACTER
AGAINST THE DEBTOR OR ITS PROPERTY, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CLAIMS WOULD
OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE PROVABLE CLAIMS UNDER THIS ACT."  AND "CLAIMS" ARE
DEFINED TO INCLUDE "DEBTS, WHETHER LIQUIDATED OR UNLIQUIDATED,
SECURITIES (OTHER THAN STOCK AND OPTION WARRANTS TO SUBSCRIBE TO
STOCK), LIENS, OR OTHER INTERESTS OF WHATEVER CHARACTER."  ID.  AND
SEC. 77(C)(7) PROVIDES FOR THE PROMPT FIXING OF A REASONABLE TIME
WITHIN WHICH THE "CLAIMS OF CREDITORS" MAY BE FILED AND THE MANNER IN
WHICH THEY MAY BE FILED AND ALLOWED.  THE WORDS "ALL HOLDERS OF CLAIMS"
HAVE NO QUALIFICATION AND ARE SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO INCLUDE PUBLIC
AGENCIES AS WELL AS PRIVATE PARTIES.  THE "CLAIMS" OF CREDITORS INCLUDE
SECURED AND UNSECURED CLAIMS.  WE FIND NOT THE SLIGHTEST SUGGESTION
THAT CONGRESS LEFT OUT THE LARGE CLASS OF TAX CLAIMS WHICH RECURRINGLY
APPEARS IN REORGANIZATIONS AND OFTEN ASSUMES, AS HERE, LARGE
PROPORTIONS.  THEY ARE EXPRESSLY INCLUDED AMONG PROVABLE CLAIMS IN SEC.
57N OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 52 STAT. 840, 867, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 93(N). 
FN5 AND THE SWEEPING, ALL-INCLUSIVE DEFINITIONS OF "CLAIMS" AND
"CREDITORS" IN SEC. 77 LEAVE ROOM FOR NO EXCEPTION UNDER IT. 

WHEN A STATE FILES A PROOF OF CLAIM IN THE REORGANIZATION COURT, IT
IS USING A TRADITIONAL METHOD OF COLLECTING A DEBT.  A PROOF OF CLAIM
IS, OF COURSE, PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF ITS VALIDITY.  WHITNEY V.
DRESSER, 200 U.S. 532.  BUT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WHOSE AID IS SOUGHT
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ASSERTED CLAIM IS NOT BOUND TO TREAT THE TENDERED
PROOF AS CONCLUSIVE.  WHEN OBJECTIONS ARE MADE, IT IS DUTY BOUND TO
PASS ON THEM.  THAT PROCESS IS, INDEED, OF BASIC IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF A BANKRUPTCY ESTATE WHETHER THE OBJECTIVE BE
LIQUIDATION OR REORGANIZATION.  WITHOUT THAT SIFTING PROCESS,
UNMERITORIOUS OR EXCESSIVE CLAIMS MIGHT DILUTE THE PARTICIPATION OF THE
LEGITIMATE CLAIMANTS. 

IT IS TRADITIONAL BANKRUPTCY LAW THAT HE WHO INVOKES THE AID OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT BY OFFERING A PROOF OF CLAIM AND DEMANDING ITS
ALLOWANCE MUST ABIDE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT PROCEDURE.  WISWALL V.
CAMPBELL, 93 U.S. 347, 351.  IF THE CLAIMANT IS A STATE, THE PROCEDURE
OF PROOF AND ALLOWANCE IS NOT TRANSMUTED INTO A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE
BECAUSE THE COURT ENTERTAINS OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM.  THE STATE IS
SEEKING SOMETHING FROM THE DEBTOR.  NO JUDGMENT IS SOUGHT AGAINST THE
STATE.  THE WHOLE PROCESS OF PROOF, ALLOWANCE, AND DISTRIBUTION IS,
SHORTLY SPEAKING, AN ADJUDICATION OF INTERESTS CLAIMED IN A RES. IT IS
NONE THE LESS SUCH BECAUSE THE CLAIM IS REJECTED IN TOTO, REDUCED IN
PART, GIVEN A PRIORITY INFERIOR TO THAT CLAIMED, OR SATISFIED IN SOME
WAY OTHER THAN PAYMENT IN CASH.  WHEN THE STATE BECOMES THE ACTOR AND
FILES A CLAIM AGAINST THE FUND, IT WAIVES ANY IMMUNITY WHICH IT
OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE HAD RESPECTING THE ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIM.  SEE
CLARK V. BARNARD, 108 U.S. 436, 447-448; GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE,
200 U.S. 273, 284-289; MISSOURI V. FISKE, 290 U.S. 18, 24-25. 

THE EXTENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN
THIS RESPECT WAS PASSED UPON IN NEW YORK V. IRVING TRUST CO., 288 U.S.
329.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT SUSTAINED AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
WHICH BARRED A STATE'S TAX CLAIM BECAUSE NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME
FIXED FOR THE FILING OF CLAIMS.  THE COURT STATED, P. 333, "IF A STATE
DESIRES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSETS OF A BANKRUPT, SHE MUST SUBMIT TO
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS BY THE CONTROLLING POWER; OTHERWISE, ORDERLY
AND EXPEDITIOUS PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE AND A FUNDAMENTAL
PURPOSE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WOULD BE FRUSTRATED." 

IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO COLLISION
BETWEEN SEC. 77 AND THE CONSTITUTION. 

NOR CAN WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT PROPERLY FILED BY THE
STATE.  THE STATE COMPTROLLER, WHO FILED THE CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE, IS AUTHORIZED TO "INSTITUTE AND DIRECT PROSECUTION ...  FOR JUST
CLAIMS AND DEBTS DUE TO THE STATE." N.J.R.S. SEC. 52:19-10C.  AND SEE
ID., SEC. 52:19-15.  THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO RESISTED THE
OBJECTIONS MADE TO THE CLAIM, IS AUTHORIZED TO "ATTEND GENERALLY TO ALL
MATTERS IN WHICH THE STATE IS A PARTY OR IN WHICH ITS RIGHTS AND
INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED."  ID., SEC. 52:  17-2G.  THE SPECIAL MASTER,
WHOSE REPORT THE REORGANIZATION COURT ADOPTED, HELD THAT WHAT THESE
OFFICIALS DID IN THIS CASE WAS IN PURSUANCE OF THEIR AUTHORITY.  FOR
THAT CONCLUSION HE RELIED ON THE STATUTES WHICH WE HAVE MENTIONED AND
THE PRACTICE IN OTHER REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  THAT CONSTRUCTION OF
NEW JERSEY LAW MADE BY A FEDERAL JUDGE OF THE NEW JERSEY DISTRICT COURT
IS ENTITLED TO SPECIAL WEIGHT.  STEELE V. GENERAL MILLS, 329 U.S. 433. 
WE FIND NOTHING WHICH IMPEACHES IT.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE MIGHT, INDEED,
IMPERIL THE CLAIM WHICH NEW JERSEY SO VIGOROUSLY ASSERTS.  FOR IT
APPEARS THAT THE TIME FOR FILING CLAIMS HAS EXPIRED AND UNDER THE RULE
OF NEW YORK V. IRVING TRUST CO., SUPRA, A FILING AT THIS LATE DATE
MIGHT COME TOO LATE.  FN6 

SECOND.  NEW JERSEY CONTENDS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INCLUDE A STATE'S
TAX LIENS WITHIN THE SCHEME OF SEC. 77 PROCEEDINGS.  THAT IS BUT
ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT SINCE THE STATE'S ASSERTED LIENS ATTACHED
BEFORE THE REORGANIZATION PETITION WAS FILED, THE ONLY PROPERTY OF THE
DEBTOR IN CUSTODIA LEGIS WAS ITS EQUITY AFTER THE TAX LIENS WERE
SATISFIED. 

WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT CONCLUSION.  WE PARTIALLY ANSWERED THE
CONTENTION WHEN WE REVIEWED THE BROAD, ALLINCLUSIVE NATURE OF THE
DEFINITIONS OF "CREDITORS" AND "CLAIMS" CONTAINED IN SEC. 77(B).  AS
THOSE DEFINITIONS MAKE PLAIN, "ALL HOLDERS OF CLAIMS" INCLUDE THOSE WHO
ASSERT "LIENS" AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR. 

OVER ALL TYPES OF LIENS.  THUS A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION "SHALL INCLUDE
PROVISIONS MODIFYING OR ALTERING THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS GENERALLY, OR
OF ANY CLASS OF THEM, SECURED OR UNSECURED, EITHER THROUGH THE ISSUANCE
OF NEW SECURITIES OF ANY CHARACTER OR OTHERWISE."  SEC. 77(B)(1).  A
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION MAY PROVIDE FOR "THE SALE OF ALL OR ANY PART OF
THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR EITHER SUBJECT TO OR FREE FROM ANY LIEN AT
NOT LESS THAN A FAIR UPSET PRICE."  SEC. 77(B)(5).  IT MAY ORDER "THE
DISTRIBUTION OF ALL OR ANY ASSETS, OR THE PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM THE
SALE THEREOF, AMONG THOSE HAVING AN INTEREST THEREIN."  ID. OR IT MAY
PROVIDE FOR "THE SATISFACTION OR MODIFICATION OF ANY LIENS" OR "THE
CURING OR WAIVER OF DEFAULTS."  ID. THIS IS COMPREHENSIVE LANGUAGE
SUGGESTING THAT ALL LIENS ARE INCLUDED, NOT THAT SOME ARE BEYOND THE
REACH OF THE COURT.  WHILE VALID LIENS EXISTING AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PRESERVED, IT HAS LONG BEEN A
FUNCTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO ASCERTAIN THEIR VALIDITY AND EXTENT
AND TO DETERMINE THE METHOD OF THEIR LIQUIDATION.  WHITNEY V. WENMAN,
198 U.S. 539, 552; ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & TIMBER CO., 282 U.S. 734, 737
738;*  ISTRATON V. NEW, 283 U.S. 318, 321.  MOREOVER, BOTH IN
RECEIVERSHIP CASES, NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S. 290; UNITED STATES V.
TEXAS, 314 U.S. 480, AND IN BANKRUPTCY CASES, VAN HUFFEL V. HARKELRODE,
284 U.S. 225; NEW YORK V. IRVING TRUST CO., SUPRA, THE AUTHORITY OF THE
COURT TO DEAL WITH THE LIEN OF A STATE HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED.  IN
REORGANIZATION CASES THE TASK OF RESOLVING DISPUTES AS TO LIENS IS A
COMMON ONE FOR THE COURT.  SEE INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M.,
ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 569.  INDEED, BEFORE A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION CAN BE DESIGNED IN ACCORD WITH FAIR AND EQUITABLE
REQUIREMENTS, LIENS MUST BE DISENTANGLED AND THEIR RELATIVE PRIORITIES
ASCERTAINED.  THIS PROBLEM, PRESENT IN MOST REORGANIZATIONS, IS ACUTE
IN THE RAILROAD FIELD. 

IF THE REORGANIZATION COURT LACKED THE POWER TO DEAL WITH TAX LIENS
OF A STATE, THE ASSERTION BY A STATE OF A LIEN WOULD PULL OUT CHUNKS OF
AN ESTATE FROM THE REORGANIZATION COURT AND TRANSFER A PART OF THE
STRUGGLE OVER THE CORPUS INTO TAX BUREAUS AND OTHER STATE TRIBUNALS. 
THAT WOULD NOT ONLY SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE POWER OF THE COURT TO
ADMINISTER THE ESTATE AND ADVERSELY AFFECT THE POWER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE COURT TO PROMULGATE A REORGANIZATION PLAN. 
SEE ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448, 466-475; SMITH V.
HOBOKEN RAILROAD, W. & S.C. CO., 328 U.S. 123.  IT WOULD FLY IN THE
TEETH OF SEC. 77(A), WHICH GRANTS THE REORGANIZATION COURT "EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED."  THAT
JURISDICTION IS NOT LIMITED TO THE PREVENTION OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE
USE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE TRUSTEE; IT "EXTENDS ALSO TO THE
ADJUDICATION OF QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE TITLE."  EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291
U.S. 610, 616; THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN RY. CO., 328 U.S. 134, 140. 
IT IS THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT WHICH
GIVES IT POWER TO PRESERVE THE RAILWAY AS A UNIT AND AS A GOING CONCERN
AND TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING DIVIDED UP AND DISMEMBERED PIECEMEAL. 
ONLY IN THAT WAY CAN CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF THE ROAD BE ASSURED AND A
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION BE EFFECTED WHICH NOT ONLY SAFEGUARDS THE
INTERESTS OF THE VARIOUS CLAIMANTS BUT IS ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 294
U.S. 648; SMITH V. HOBOKEN RAILROAD, W. & S.C. CO., SUPRA. 

WHEN SEC. 77 IS READ AGAINST THIS HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND IN LIGHT
OF PRACTICAL REQUIREMENTS, WE CANNOT CONCEIVE THAT CONGRESS GAVE THE
REORGANIZATION COURT POWER LESS REPLETE THAN THE SWEEPING LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 77 SUGGESTS. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO GRANT THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT POWER TO DEAL WITH THE LIEN OF A STATE HAS BEEN SETTLED.  IN VAN
HUFFEL V. HARKELRODE, SUPRA, THE COURT HELD THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY EMPOWERED TO ORDER A SALE OF PROPERTY OF A
BANKRUPT FREE AND CLEAR OF A LIEN OF A STATE FOR TAXES. 

WE HOLD THAT THE REORGANIZATION COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER ALL OF
THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR, INCLUDING THAT ON WHICH NEW JERSEY ASSERTS
A LIEN, AND THAT THE POWER OF THE COURT TO DEAL WITH LIENS EXTENDS TO
THE LIEN WHICH NEW JERSEY CLAIMS.  FN7 

THIRD.  WE HELD IN ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION V. THOMPSON,
SUPRA, THAT THE REORGANIZATION COURT LACKED THE POWER UNDER SEC. 77 TO
REDETERMINE FOR STATE TAX PURPOSES THE PROPERTY VALUE OF A RAILROAD
WHERE THAT VALUE HAD ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED IN STATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH
AFFORDED AMPLE PROTECTION TO THE RAILROAD'S RIGHTS.  WE ADHERE TO THAT
DECISION.  ITS RULING PRECLUDES REDETERMINATION BY THE REORGANIZATION
COURT IN THIS CASE OF THE VALUATIONS UNDERLYING THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY
THE STATE AUTHORITIES AND THE VALIDITY OF THOSE ASSESSMENTS USED AS THE
BASIS FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAXES.  IT MAY NOT THEREFORE ENTERTAIN
THE OBJECTIONS TO NEW JERSEY'S CLAIM WHICH TENDER THOSE ISSUES.  THE
PROPER TRIBUNALS WHERE THOSE ISSUES MAY BE LITIGATED, IF THEY ARE STILL
OPEN FOR ANY YEAR, ARE THE STATE AGENCIES AND COURTS AND, UNDER SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FEDERAL COURTS.  HILLSBOROUGH V. CROMWELL, 326 U.S.
620.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS REVIEWED AT LENGTH THE NEW
JERSEY PROCEDURE AVAILABLE FOR CHALLENGING THE VALUATIONS WHICH
UNDERLIE ASSESSMENTS.  152 F.2D PP. 411-414.  BY THE STANDARDS OF
ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, THAT PROCEDURE IS
ADEQUATE, SO THAT RELITIGATION OF THE QUESTION IN THE REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE. 

FOURTH.  THE RULE OF ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION V. THOMPSON,
SUPRA, DOES NOT, HOWEVER, PRECLUDE THE REORGANIZATION COURT FROM
ADJUDICATING THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE OBJECTIONS TO NEW JERSEY'S
CLAIM.  THE CONTRARY VIEW, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
APPARENTLY TOOK, FAILS TO RECOGNIZE HISTORIC BANKRUPTCY POWERS WHICH,
AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT,  FN8  ARE PART OF THE ARSENAL OF
AUTHORITY GRANTED THE REORGANIZATION COURT BY SEC. 77. 

(1)  THE VALIDITY AND PRIORITY OF ONE LIEN, WHETHER OR NOT CLAIMED BY
A STATE, AS AGAINST OTHER LIENS, ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE REORGANIZATION
COURT.  ILLUSTRATING BUT NOT LIMITING THE RANGE OF THAT INQUIRY ARE
QUESTIONS WHETHER LOCAL LAW CREATES THE LIEN ASSERTED; WHETHER IT WAS
SUFFICIENTLY PERFECTED PRIOR TO THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION AS TO
BE GOOD AGAINST OTHER LIENS, CF. NEW YORK V. MACLAY, SUPRA; UNITED
STATES V. TEXAS, SUPRA; WHETHER, IF IT WERE INCHOATE AT THAT TIME, IT
COULD BE PERFECTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE PETITION, LYFORD V. STATE OF NEW
YORK, 140 F.2D 840; AND WHETHER THE LIEN, THOUGH PARAMOUNT, IS
SUBORDINATE TO ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES OR OTHER CLAIMS UNDER EITHER THE
GENERAL BANKRUPTCY RULE, CITY OF NEW YORK V. HALL, 139 F.2D 935, OR THE
EQUITY RULE,  FN9  5 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  P77.21.  SEE
WARREN V. PALMER, 310 U.S. 132. 

(2)  THE EXTENT OF THE LIEN - TO WHAT PROPERTY IT APPLIES, AND
WHETHER IT IS RESTRICTED TO REALTY OR COVERS PERSONAL PROPERTY OR
REVENUES AS WELL - ARE ALSO QUESTIONS FOR THE REORGANIZATION COURT. 
SEE ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., SUPRA, PP. 489, 503. 

(3)  THE REORGANIZATION COURT MAY ALSO ADJUDICATE QUESTIONS
PERTAINING TO THE AMOUNT OF A TAX CLAIM SECURED BY A LIEN WITHOUT
CROSSING THE FORBIDDEN LINE MARKED BY ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION
V. THOMPSON, SUPRA.  THERE IS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN SWOLLEN BY THE INCLUSION OF A FORBIDDEN
PENALTY AND THUS TO THAT EXTENT DOES NOT MEET THE BANKRUPTCY
REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF AND ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS.  SECTION 57J OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT PROVIDES THAT DEBTS OWING A STATE AS A "PENALTY OR
FORFEITURE"  FN10  SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED.  WHAT CLAIMS ACCRUING BEFORE
BANKRUPTCY AND SOUGHT TO BE PROVED BY A STATE ARE "PENALTIES," NEW YORK
V. JERSAWIT, 263 U.S. 493, AND WHAT ARE NOT, MEILINK V. UNEMPLOYMENT
RESERVES COMMISSION, 314 U.S. 564; THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 57J TO
REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77; FN11  THE LIABILITY OF THE ESTATE FOR
PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE TRUSTEE IN THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS,
BOTELER V. INGELS, 308 U.S. 57; WHAT INTEREST, IF ANY, ACCRUES AFTER
THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION HAS BEEN FILED, VANSTON COMMITTEE V.
GREEN, 329 U.S. 156, ARE ALL QUESTIONS FOR THE REORGANIZATION COURT. 

(4)  WE NOTED IN CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308 U.S.
106, 130, THAT ONE USEFUL AND FITTING FUNCTION OF A REORGANIZATION
COURT WAS THE COMPROMISE OR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS, SO THAT INTERMINABLE
LITIGATION MIGHT BE ENDED AND THE INTERESTS OF EXPEDITION IN
PROMULGATING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION SERVED.  THAT POWER, EXPRESSLY
INCLUDED IN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN12  AND GOVERNED BY OUR GENERAL ORDER
NO. 33,  FN13  IS PART OF THE BROAD AUTHORITY GRANTED THE
REORGANIZATION COURT BY SEC. 77.  FN14  THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE
EXERCISE OF THAT POWER, THE COURT MAY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEE TO
COMPROMISE CLAIMS, SECURED OR UNSECURED, AND MAY APPROVE EQUITABLE
ADJUSTMENTS OF THEM, AND SO REDUCE OR OTHERWISE AFFECT THE
PARTICIPATION THAT THE CLAIMANT, WHETHER A STATE OR ANOTHER, MAY HAVE
IN THE RES WHICH IS IN CUSTODIA LEGIS. 

IT IS URGED IN THIS CASE THAT THE SETTLEMENT AND COMPROMISE OF NEW
JERSEY'S TAX CLAIM WHICH THE REORGANIZATION COURT AUTHORIZED THE
TRUSTEE TO MAKE UNDER THE SO-CALLED SETTLEMENT ACTS OF THE NEW JERSEY
LEGISLATURE OF 1941 AND 1942 WAS AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER;
THAT THE COMPROMISE WAS VALID AND BINDING UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW; AND
THAT EVEN IF THE COMPROMISE WAS NOT VALID, PAYMENTS MADE BY THE TRUSTEE
AND THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES HAVE ALTERED THE CLAIM AS RESPECTS THE
LIEN, THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM, AND THE INTEREST OR PENALTY
PORTION OF IT.  NEW JERSEY VIGOROUSLY CONTESTS ALL AND EACH OF THESE
CONTENTIONS. 

A PHASE OF THIS CONTROVERSY WAS BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IN IN RE CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY, SUPRA.  THAT COURT HAD BEFORE IT
ON APPEAL THE ORDER OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT (ENTERED PRIOR TO THE
DECISION IN WILENTZ V. HENDRICKSON, SUPRA, HOLDING THE ACTS OF 1941 AND
1942 UNCONSTITUTIONAL) WHICH, ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPROMISE, ALLOWED
NEW JERSEY'S CLAIM ONLY IN A REDUCED AMOUNT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HELD (1) THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
REORGANIZATION COURT TO HAVE STAYED ITS HAND PENDING DETERMINATION OF
THE STATE LITIGATION AND (2) THAT, IN ANY EVENT, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE
PASSED ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 1941 AND 1942 ACTS WITHOUT
GIVING NEW JERSEY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING AND ARGUMENT ON THE
ISSUE.  THIS CONTROVERSY IS NOW IN A DIFFERENT POSTURE.  NEW QUESTIONS
OF LOCAL LAW EMERGE - WHETHER WILENTZ V. HENDRICKSON, SUPRA, CONTROLS
THIS CASE; WHETHER A VALID SETTLEMENT CAN BE MADE UNDER AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT AND, IF SO, WHETHER THIS ALLEGED COMPROMISE WAS
VALID AND EFFECTIVE; WHETHER, IF THE SETTLEMENT WAS NOT BINDING, THE
AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM OR THE EXTENT OF THE LIEN HAS BEEN ALTERED BY THE
PAYMENTS MADE DURING REORGANIZATION OR BY THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES. 

THESE POINTS HAVE BEEN BRIEFED AND ARGUED HERE.  THE DIFFICULTY IS
THAT NEITHER THE REORGANIZATION COURT NOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
PASSED ON THEM.  THE REORGANIZATION COURT PASSED SOLELY ON A QUESTION
OF JURISDICTION - WHETHER IT HAD THE POWER TO MAKE ADJUDICATIONS
CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF NEW JERSEY'S CLAIM WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND
THE VALIDITY AND EXTENT OF HER LIEN, OR WHETHER NEW JERSEY'S SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY STOOD IN THE WAY OF SUCH DETERMINATIONS.  AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT PASS ON THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE IT, TOO, WAS
CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION. 

THESE ISSUES BRISTLE WITH QUESTIONS OF NEW JERSEY LAW ON WHICH WE
SHOULD NOT PASS, EVEN IF WE WERE TO ASSUME THEY ARE PROPERLY HERE,
WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWS OF JUDGES WHO SIT THERE AND HAVE A
GREATER FAMILIARITY WITH LOCAL LAW AND LOCAL PRACTICES THAN WE.  SEE
HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232, 237; BRILLHART V. EXCESS INSURANCE
CO., 316 U.S. 491, 497; HAMMOND V. SCHAPPI BUS LINE, 275 U.S. 164, 169;
WILSON CYPRESS CO. V. DEL POZO, 236 U.S. 635, 656-657.  AND FOR A
REVIEW OF THE EARLIER CASES, SEE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS IN RAILROAD COMMISSION V. LOS ANGELES R. CO., 280 U.S. 145,
164-165.  MOREOVER, WE ARE NOW ADVISED THAT THERE IS PRESENTLY PENDING
BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AN APPEAL BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF NEW JERSEY FROM AN ORDER OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT DENYING LEAVE
TO JOIN THE TRUSTEE AS PARTY DEFENDANT IN A SUIT IN THE NEW JERSEY
COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS A VALID SETTLEMENT OF THE TAX
CLAIMS AND TO STAY FURTHER DETERMINATION OF THAT CONTROVERSY IN THE
FEDERAL COURT UNTIL THE STATE COURTS HAVE PASSED ON THE QUESTION.  FN15
IF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ORDERS THE APPLICATION GRANTED, CF.
THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478, 483; EX PARTE
BALDWIN, SUPRA, P. 619, THE STATE LAW PHASES OF THE CONTROVERSY WILL BE
AUTHORITATIVELY SETTLED.  IF THE OTHER COURSE IS FOLLOWED, THE ISSUES
CAN BE RESOLVED BY THE REORGANIZATION COURT ON A RECORD MORE ADEQUATE
THAN THE PRESENT ONE FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW.  WHATEVER PROCEDURE IS
FOLLOWED, IT IS MORE FITTING THAT THOSE MORE VERSED THAN WE IN THE
INTRICACIES AND NICETIES OF NEW JERSEY LAW FIRST PASS ON THESE
QUESTIONS. 

WE INTIMATE NO OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE SETTLEMENT CONTROVERSY. 
NOR DO WE INTIMATE ANY VIEW ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX CLAIM WHICH SHOULD
BE ALLOWED OR ON THE VALIDITY, CHARACTER, PRIORITY, OR EXTENT OF THE
LIEN ASSERTED BY NEW JERSEY, OR ON THE MANNER IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE
SATISFIED IN A PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION.  WE ONLY HOLD THAT THE
REORGANIZATION COURT COULD PROPERLY ENTERTAIN ALL OBJECTIONS TO THE
CLAIM EXCEPT THOSE INVOLVING THE VALUATIONS UNDERLYING THE ASSESSMENTS
AND THE VALIDITY OF THOSE ASSESSMENTS. 

ON THE PRESENT RECORD WE DO NOT KNOW ALL THE ISSUES THAT WERE
INVOLVED IN THE PROLONGED LITIGATION CONCERNING THE TAXES FOR THE YEARS
IN QUESTION.  HENCE, WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION
THAT RES JUDICATA MAY HAVE MADE BINDING ON THE REORGANIZATION COURT
VARIOUS QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT AND VALIDITY OF
THE TAXES UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW AND THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF THE LIEN
WHICH THAT LAW AFFORDS THEM. 

WE AFFIRM IN PART AND REVERSE IN PART THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION IS REVIEWED IN THE OPINION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE.  152 F.2D PP. 408-411. 

FN2  DELINQUENCIES OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES OF THE DEBTOR WERE ALSO
INCLUDED. 

THE 1942 ACT INCREASED THE 1941 FRANCHISE TAX OF THE DEBTOR.  THE
WAIVER AUTHORIZED BY THE REORGANIZATION COURT INCLUDED A WAIVER OF THE
RIGHT TO CONTEST THE LEGALITY OF THAT ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT. 

FN3  SEE IN RE CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY, 136 F.2D 633, WHICH
CONTAINS A REVIEW OF THE FACTS OF THIS EPISODE. 

FN4  LIKE CLAIMS WERE ALSO FILED AGAINST SUBSIDIARIES OF THE DEBTOR. 

FN5  SEE H. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 13; S. REP. NO.
1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 5, 16. 

FN6  SEE MEYER V. FLEMING, 327 U.S. 161, 169, FOOTNORE 18:  "SEC. 
77(C)(7) PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGE 'SHALL PROMPTLY DETERMINE AND FIX A
REASONABLE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS MAY BE FILED OR
EVIDENCED AND AFTER WHICH NO CLAIM NOT SO FILED OR EVIDENCED MAY
PARTICIPATE EXCEPT ON ORDER FOR CAUSE SHOWN  ...'  THIS IS THE EQUITY
RULE (5 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (1944) P. 537) WHICH PERMITS THE FILING
OF CLAIMS OUT OF TIME PROVIDED THE CLAIM IS EQUITABLE, THE CLAIMANT IS
NOT CHARGEABLE WITH LACHES, AND THE ASSETS HAVE NOT BEEN DISTRIBUTED
(SEE CONKLIN V. UNITED STATES SHIPBUILDING CO., 136 F. 1006, 1009-1010;
PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK CITY R. CO., 198 F. 721, 740-742);
AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE LATE FILING DOES NOT UNDULY DELAY THE
PROCEEDINGS.  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. HENWOOD, 86 F.2D 347, 353." 

FN7  SECTION 64A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT DETERMINES THE PRIORITY TO
WHICH TAXES OWING A STATE ARE ENTITLED AND GRANTS THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
POWER TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS CONCERNING "THE AMOUNT OR LEGALITY OF ANY
TAXES."  IN ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, WE
RESERVED DECISION ON WHETHER SEC. 64A WAS APPLICABLE IN REORGANIZATIONS
UNDER SEC. 77.  WE DO NOT REACH THAT QUESTION HERE.  FOR SEC. 77 ALONE
IS ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE ASSERTED JURISDICTION OF THE REORGANIZATION
COURT OVER ALL THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR.  SEE LYFORD V. CITY OF NEW
YORK, 137 F.2D 782, 785-786. 

FN8  AS STATED IN ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & TIMBER CO., SUPRA, P. 738,
"WHILE VALID LIENS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF A
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING ARE PRESERVED, IT IS SOLELY WITHIN THE POWER OF A
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY TO ASCERTAIN THEIR VALIDITY AND AMOUNT AND TO
DECREE THE METHOD OF THEIR LIQUIDATION." 

FN9  SECTION 77(A) PROVIDES THAT IF THE PETITION IS APPROVED THE
REORGANIZATION COURT "DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS
IN ADDITION TO THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS SECTION ALL THE POWERS, NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SECTION, WHICH A FEDERAL COURT WOULD HAVE HAD IF
IT HAD APPOINTED A RECEIVER IN EQUITY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR FOR
ANY PURPOSE." 

FN10  SECTION 57J READS IN FULL: 

"DEBTS OWING TO THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF
AS A PENALTY OR FORFEITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED, EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT
OF THE PECUNIARY LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE ACT, TRANSACTION, OR PROCEEDING
OUT OF WHICH THE PENALTY OR FORFEITURE AROSE, WITH REASONABLE AND
ACTUAL COSTS OCCASIONED THEREBY AND SUCH INTEREST AS MAY HAVE ACCRUED
THEREON ACCORDING TO LAW." 

FN11  SECTION 77(L) PROVIDES: 

"IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF, THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE COURT, THE DUTIES OF THE
DEBTOR AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY, SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A
VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF
ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE DEBTOR'S PETITION WAS
FILED." 

FN12  SECTION 27 PROVIDES: 

"THE RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE MAY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT,
COMPROMISE ANY CONTROVERSY ARISING IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE
UPON SUCH TERMS AS HE MAY DEEM FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ESTATE." 
52 STAT. 855. 

FN13  GENERAL ORDER NO. 33 PROVIDES: 

"WHENEVER A RECEIVER, TRUSTEE OR DEBTOR IN POSSESSION SHALL MAKE
APPLICATION TO THE COURT FOR AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION ANY
CONTROVERSY ARISING IN THE SETTLEMENT OF AN ESTATE, OR FOR AUTHORITY TO
COMPROMISE ANY SUCH CONTROVERSY, THE APPLICATION SHALL CLEARLY AND
DISTINCTLY SET FORTH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONTROVERSY, AND THE
REASONS WHY IT IS PROPER AND FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ESTATE THAT
THE CONTROVERSY SHOULD BE SETTLED BY ARBITRATION OR COMPROMISE."  305
U.S. 696. 

FN14 SEE SEC. 77(L), NOTE 11, SUPRA, AND SEC. 77(A), NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN15  NEW JERSEY ET AL. V. CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. OF NEW JERSEY, NO.
8808.  WE ARE ADVISED THAT BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES THE CASE IS
BEING HELD IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNTIL THE JURISDICTIONAL
QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED. 
..END :











UNITED STATES V. HOTEL CO., 329 U.S. 585 


NO. 106.  ARGUED DECEMBER 20, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1947.  - 106
CT. CL. 60, 64 F.SUPP.  565, REVERSED IN PART. 


THE ACT OF MARCH 30, 1920 AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO LEASE
LAND ON A MILITARY RESERVATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
HOTEL.  THE ACT PROVIDED THAT THE LEASE SHOULD CONTAIN A PROVISION FOR
"JUST COMPENSATION" TO THE LESSEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL,
ETC., UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE.  A LEASE WAS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT
TO THE ACT; THE HOTEL WAS CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED FOR A TIME.  LATER
THE SECRETARY CANCELLED THE LEASE.  HELD: 

1.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS PRECLUDED BY SEC. 177(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE FROM INCLUDING INTEREST IN ITS AWARD OF "JUST COMPENSATION" UPON
THE CLAIM OF THE LESSEE, SINCE THE CASE WAS NOT ONE OF EMINENT DOMAIN
AND NEITHER THE ACT NOR THE LEASE CONTAINED AN EXPRESS PROVISION FOR
THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST.  P. 588. 

2.  THE FACT THAT "JUST COMPENSATION" INCLUDES INTEREST IN THE
EMINENT DOMAIN SETTING DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE TERM MUST BE
GIVEN THE SAME SCOPE IN OTHER SITUATIONS.  P. 589. 

3.  REFERENCES IN THE ACT AND IN THE LEASE TO "JUST COMPENSATION,"
WITHOUT MORE, ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESS PROVISION FOR THE
PAYMENT OF INTEREST.  P. 589. 

UNITED STATES V. THAYER-WEST POINT HOTEL CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER UPON A
CLAIM ARISING OUT OF THE TERMINATION OF A LEASE EXECUTED PURSUANT TO
THE ACT OF MARCH 30, 1920.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS ALLOWED RECOVERY AND
INCLUDED INTEREST IN ITS AWARD.  106 CT. CL. 60, 64 F.SUPP.  565.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 329 U.S. 698.  JUDGMENT REVERSED SO FAR AS IT
INCLUDED INTEREST, P. 591. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DECISION HERE TURNS UPON THE POWER OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, IN
LIGHT OF SEC. 177(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,  FN1  TO INCLUDE INTEREST IN
ITS AWARD OF "JUST COMPENSATION" TO A LESSEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
HOTEL AND OTHER BUILDINGS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF
MARCH 30, 1920.  FN2 

THE ACT OF MARCH 30, 1920, AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO LEASE
LAND ON THE UNITED STATES MILITARY RESERVATION AT WEST POINT, N.Y., TO
ANY PERSON FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING 50 YEARS UPON WHICH TO ERECT A
HOTEL AND OTHER NECESSARY BUILDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.  THE LEASE
IS TO CONTAIN SUCH CONDITIONS, TERMS, RESERVATIONS AND COVENANTS AS MAY
BE AGREED UPON AND IS TO PROVIDE "FOR JUST COMPENSATION TO THE LESSEES
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID HOTEL, APPURTENANCES, AND EQUIPMENTS, TO
BE PAID TO SAID LESSEES AT THE TERMINATION OF SAID LEASE." 

ON OCTOBER 17, 1924, THE SECRETARY OF WAR DULY MADE A LEASE UNDER
THIS ACT TO ONE WILLIAMS FOR A PERIOD OF 50 YEARS.  THE LEASE PROVIDED,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT IT MIGHT BE CANCELED AT ANY TIME BY THE
SECRETARY IF THE LESSEE SHOULD FAIL TO OBSERVE ALL THE COVENANTS AND
CONDITIONS IN THE LEASE.  ONE OF THE COVENANTS WAS THAT THE LESSEE WAS
TO "KEEP THE SAID HOTEL OPEN FOR BUSINESS EVERY DAY DURING THE
CONTINUANCE OF THIS LEASE, EXCEPT AT SUCH TIMES AS PERMISSION TO CLOSE
MAY BE GIVEN IN WRITING BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, U.S.M.A."  UPON A
CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE, "JUST COMPENSATION" WAS TO BE PAID TO THE
LESSEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL, APPURTENANCES AND EQUIPMENT,
AND TITLE THERETO WAS TO PASS AT ONCE TO THE UNITED STATES.  SIMILAR
PROVISIONS WERE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE ON
THE EXPIRATION OF THE 50-YEAR TERM.  THE LEASE ALSO SET FORTH NUMEROUS
RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE OPERATION OF THE HOTEL - SUCH
RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS BEING PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
MILITARY ACADEMY. 

THE LEASE WAS ASSIGNED TO A CORPORATION AND A HOTEL AND OTHER
BUILDINGS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ERECTED.  THROUGH A SERIES OF EVENTS WHICH
NEED NOT BE DETAILED HERE, THE RESPONDENT TOOK OVER THE LEASEHOLD AND
THE HOTEL PROPERTIES IN 1930 WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
THE MILITARY ACADEMY.  RESPONDENT BEGAN OPERATING THE HOTEL ON JANUARY
1, 1931, AND CONTINUED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE UNTIL MARCH 10,
1943. 

ON JANUARY 5, 1943, RESPONDENT WROTE TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR THAT
CONDITIONS THEN EXISTING MADE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE HOTEL
IMPOSSIBLE AND THAT TO AVOID A CURTAILMENT OF OPERATIONS OR A CLOSING
DOWN OF THE HOTEL "THE PROPERTIES SHOULD BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE
GOVERNMENT."  IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUGGESTED THAT THE SECRETARY DECLARE
THE LEASE FORFEITED UPON THE CLOSING OF THE HOTEL BY RESPONDENT, A
DEFAULT CONTEMPLATED BY THE LEASE.  THE SECRETARY AGREED TO THIS
PROPOSAL.  THE RESPONDENT THEN GAVE NOTICE OF ITS INTENTION TO CLOSE
THE HOTEL ON THE MORNING OF MARCH 10, 1943.  THE AGENTS OF THE
SECRETARY IMMEDIATELY TOOK OVER THE POSSESSION, MANAGEMENT AND
OPERATION OF THE HOTEL ON MARCH 10 AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE SECRETARY
DECLARED THE LEASE ANNULLED. 

THE PARTIES WERE UNABLE TO AGREE ON THE AMOUNT OF "JUST COMPENSATION"
DUE UNDER THE LEASE.  RESPONDENT THEN BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS, PRAYING FOR A JUDGMENT IN THE SUM OF $1,932,000.  THAT COURT
FOUND THAT THE "TOTAL OF JUST COMPENSATION TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL, ITS APPURTENANCES, AND EQUIPMENTS, IS
THEREFORE $867,682, AS OF MARCH 10, 1943."  106 CT. CL. 60, 80, 64
F.SUPP.  565, 568.  THE COURT THEN ADDED INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 4% PER
ANNUM FROM MARCH 10, 1943, TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT AS "ADDITIONAL
ALLOWANCE TO MAKE COMPENSATION A JUST ONE AS OF THE DATE OF PAYMENT." 
THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE US CONCERNS THE PROPRIETY OF ADDING THE 4%
INTEREST FROM MARCH 10, 1943. 

THE PERTINENT PART OF SEC. 177(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE PROVIDES THAT
"NO INTEREST SHALL BE ALLOWED ON ANY CLAIM UP TO THE TIME OF THE
RENDITION OF JUDGMENT BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, UNLESS UPON A CONTRACT
EXPRESSLY STIPULATING FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST,  ..."  SECTION
177(A) THUS EMBODIES BODIES THE TRADITIONAL RULE THAT INTEREST CANNOT
BE RECOVERED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UPON UNPAID ACCOUNTS OR CLAIMS
IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY IN A RELEVANT
STATUTE OR CONTRACT.  TILLSON V. UNITED STATES, 100 U.S. 43, 47; UNITED
STATES V. NORTH AMERICAN CO., 253 U.S. 330, 336; UNITED STATES V.
GOLTRA, 312 U.S. 203, 207.  THIS RULE IS INAPPLICABLE, HOWEVER, WHERE
THE UNITED STATES TAKES PROPERTY UNDER ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN; IN
SUCH CASES IT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN HELD THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S
REFERENCE TO "JUST COMPENSATION" ENTITLES THE PROPERTY OWNER TO RECEIVE
INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE TAKING TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT AS A PART
OF HIS JUST COMPENSATION.  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. UNITED STATES, 261
U.S. 299, 306; BROOKS-SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S. 106,
123; PHELPS V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 341, 344. 

SINCE IT IS CLEAR IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT THE UNITED STATES DID NOT
EXERCISE ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND THAT THERE WAS NO TAKING OF
THE HOTEL PROPERTIES IN THE LEGAL SENSE, WE CAN PUT TO ONE SIDE THE
EMINENT DOMAIN SITUATION.  THERE IS NOTHING MORE HERE THAN AN ORDINARY
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE RESPONDENT. 
THAT RELATIONSHIP WAS VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO BY RESPONDENT'S
PREDECESSOR AND WAS SEVERED AT RESPONDENT'S SUGGESTION.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY TO PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL
PROPERTIES WAS FIXED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 30, 1920, AND BY THE LEASE,
NOT BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THE SOLE ISSUE THUS BECOMES WHETHER THERE IS
ANY EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE ACT OR IN THE LEASE PERMITTING THE
RECOVERY OF INTEREST UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  ONLY IF THERE IS SUCH A
PROVISION CAN RESPONDENT AVOID THE TRADITIONAL RULE SET FORTH IN SEC.
177(A). 

RESPONDENT'S CLAIM IN THIS RESPECT RESTS UPON THE REFERENCES IN THE
ACT AND IN THE LEASE TO THE PAYMENT OF "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL, APPURTENANCES AND EQUIPMENT.  "JUST
COMPENSATION," IT IS SAID, IS TO BE GIVEN THE SAME MEANING HERE AS IN
THE CASE OF A TAKING UNDER THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, THEREBY
ENTITLING RESPONDENT TO THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES DOWN TO THE
DATE OF PAYMENT.  FROM THIS VIEWPOINT, THE COURT OF CLAIMS COULD USE
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 4% AS THE MEASURE OF THE VALUE OF THE USE OF
THE HOTEL PROPERTIES FROM THE TIME WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TOOK POSSESSION
ON MARCH 10, 1943, TO THE TIME OF PAYMENT AND INCLUDE SUCH INTEREST AS
A COMPONENT PART OF JUST COMPENSATION.  THE CONCLUSION IS REACHED THAT
THE TERM "JUST COMPENSATION," AS USED IN THE ACT AND IN THE LEASE,
CONSTITUTES AN EXPRESS PROVISION FOR INTEREST SO THAT THE BAR OF SEC.
177(A) IS REMOVED.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

THE FACT THAT "JUST COMPENSATION" INCLUDES INTEREST IN THE EMINENT
DOMAIN SETTING DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE TERM MUST BE GIVEN
THE SAME SCOPE IN OTHER SITUATIONS.  UNITED STATES V. GOLTRA, SUPRA.
IT MAY OR IT MAY NOT IMPLY AN OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST.  FOR EXAMPLE,
INTEREST CONCEIVABLY MAY NOT BE CONTEMPLATED WHERE THE TERM REFERS TO
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR A TORT OR A BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR WHERE IT
HAS REFERENCE TO THE PRICE TO BE PAID FOR THE EXCHANGE OR SALE OF
PROPERTY AT A FUTURE DATE.  HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
CONNOTATIONS, "JUST COMPENSATION" IS NOT A TERM OF ART SO FAR AS
INTEREST IS CONCERNED.  THE INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF INTEREST DEPENDS
UPON OTHER CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS, THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE USE OF THE TERM. 

BUT IN ORDER TO OVERRIDE THE HISTORICAL RULE CODIFIED IN SEC. 177(A),
SOMETHING MORE IS NECESSARY THAN AN EQUIVOCAL USE OF THE TERM "JUST
COMPENSATION."  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE TERM MIGHT BE CONSTRUED TO
INCLUDE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST.  AS SEC. 177(A) ITSELF INDICATES,
THERE MUST BE A PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT "EXPRESSLY STIPULATING FOR
THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST."  THAT PROVISION MUST BE AFFIRMATIVE, CLEAR
CUT, UNAMBIGUOUS; AND AN UNEXPRESSED INTENTION BY THE PARTIES THAT THE
TERM "JUST COMPENSATION" BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE INTEREST IS
INSUFFICIENT.  LIKEWISE, WHERE A STATUTE IS RELIED UPON TO OVERCOME THE
FORCE OF SEC. 177(A), THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO PERMIT THE RECOVERY
OF INTEREST MUST BE EXPRESSLY AND SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN THE
STATUTE.  TILLSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 46; UNITED STATES EX REL.
ANGARICA V. BAYARD, 127 U.S. 251, 260.  MERE USE OF THE TERM "JUST
COMPENSATION," WITHOUT MORE, IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR AN EXPRESS PROVISION
FOR INTEREST. 

HERE NEITHER THE ACT OF MARCH 30, 1920, NOR THE LEASE UNDER WHICH
RESPONDENT OPERATED CONTAINS AN EXPRESS PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF
INTEREST, EITHER IN ADDITION TO OR AS A PART OF THE "JUST COMPENSATION"
TO BE PAID TO RESPONDENT.  IF THE UNITED STATES HAD DESIRED TO PROVIDE
BY STATUTE OR TO CONTRACT IN THE LEASE FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO HAVE SAID SO IN EXPRESS TERMS.  FN3  BECAUSE IT
DID NOT SAY SO, WE ARE LED IRRESISTIBLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT DID
NOT INTEND TO NEGATIVE THE EFFECT OF SEC. 177(A) IN THIS INSTANCE. 
TILLSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT INCLUDES AN ALLOWANCE FOR INTEREST. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SEC. 284(A). 

FN2  41 STAT. 538, 548. 

FN3  CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN
OTHER INSTANCES.  SEE JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 177(B), 28 U.S.C. SEC.
284(B); CONTRACT SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 649, 654, SEC. 6(F),
41 U.S.C., SUPP. V, SEC. 106(F). 
..END :
























JESIONOWSKI V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., 329 U.S. 452 


NO. 88.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1947.  - 154
F.2D 703, REVERSED. 


IN AN ACTION AGAINST A RAILROAD IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF A
BRAKEMAN RESULTING FROM THE DERAILMENT OF CERTAIN CARS, THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED THAT HE THREW A SWITCH AND SIGNALED THE ENGINEER TO BACK THE
CARS, WHICH WERE BEING SWITCHED FROM A MAIN LINE TO A SIDING.  THERE
WAS EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT HE NEGLIGENTLY THREW THE SWITCH WHILE
THE LEAD CAR STRADDLED IT, WHICH MIGHT HAVE CAUSED THE DERAILMENT. 
OTHER EVIDENCE TENDED TO SHOW THAT, WHEN THE DERAILMENT OCCURRED,
SPLINTERS AND PLANKS WERE THROWN INTO THE AIR NEAR A FROG (75 FEET FROM
THE SWITCH) WHICH COULD HAVE CAUSED THE DERAILMENT.  SOME TESTIFIED
THEY WERE FOUND ON THE TRACK CLOSE TO THE SWITCH AND SOME THAT THEY
WERE CLOSE TO THE FROG.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE FROG AND SWITCH
HAD BEEN IN GOOD CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE DERAILMENT AND THAT THE
CARS HAD BEEN OPERATED AND THE TRACKS USED PREVIOUSLY WITHOUT ANY
SIMILAR MISHAP.  THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED THAT, IF IT FOUND THAT THE
ACCIDENT DID NOT RESULT FROM NEGLIGENCE OF THE DECEASED, IT COULD INFER
THAT IT RESULTED FROM NEGLIGENCE OF THE RAILROAD.  IT FOUND FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.  HELD: 

1.  THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR WAS APPLICABLE AND THE JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE RAILROAD IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 456-459. 

2.  IN THIS CASE, THE JURY'S RIGHT TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM EVIDENCE
AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A VERDICT ARE FEDERAL
QUESTIONS.  P. 457. 

3.  THE FACTS SUPPORT THE JURY'S FINDINGS BOTH THAT THE DECEASED'S
CONDUCT DID NOT CAUSE THE ACCIDENT AND THAT THE RAILROAD'S DID.  P.
458. 

4.  UNDER RULE 75(D) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, A STATEMENT IN
THE DESIGNATION OF RECORD ON APPEAL THAT "THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA
LOQUITUR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE" WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO RAISE THE POINT THAT, BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE DIRECTED A
VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT ON THE FIRST COUNT OF THE COMPLAINT (WHICH
CHARGED A DEFECT IN THE CAR, TRACK OR ROADBED), HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN
SUBMITTING TO THE JURY THE QUESTION OF SUCH A DEFECT UNDER THE SECOND
COUNT CHARGING NEGLIGENCE GENERALLY.  PP. 458-459. 

JESIONOWSKI, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

IN AN ACTION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, 53 STAT. 1404, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ.,
PETITIONER OBTAINED A JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND
IN A RAILROAD ACCIDENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  154
F.2D 703.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 830.  REVERSED, P.
459. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR DAMAGES IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, 53 STAT.
1404, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ., FOR CAUSING THE DEATH OF HER
INTESTATE.  COUNT I ALLEGED THAT "BY REASON OF A DEFECT OR
INSUFFICIENCY, DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, IN ITS CAR,
TRACK, OR ROADBED, THE CAR UPON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT WAS
RIDING WAS DERAILED  ...," CAUSING THE DECEDENT TO BE THROWN FROM THE
CAR AND KILLED.  COUNT II, WITHOUT SPECIFYING ANY PARTICULAR ACTS OF
NEGLIGENCE, CHARGED GENERALLY THAT THE DERAILMENT AND DECEDENT'S DEATH
WERE THE "RESULT OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT."  AFTER THE
EVIDENCE WAS IN, THE COURT, AT THE REQUEST OF THE RESPONDENT, DIRECTED
THE JURY TO RETURN A VERDICT FOR THE RESPONDENT ON THE FIRST COUNT. 
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE SECOND COUNT, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO JUSTIFY A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE AND
THAT IT SHOWED THAT DECEASED WAS KILLED AS THE SOLE RESULT OF HIS OWN
NEGLIGENCE, WAS OVERRULED.  THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER
AND JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON IT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED
AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO RENDER JUDGMENT
FOR THE RESPONDENT.  154 F.2D 703. 

THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT THE BURDEN WAS UPON PETITIONER
TO PROVE BY A FAIR PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DECEASED'S
DEATH WAS CAUSED BY RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE.  IT INVOKED THE TRIAL RULE
UNDER WHICH NEGLIGENCE MAY BE INFERRED FROM UNUSUAL HAPPENINGS GROWING
OUT OF CONDITIONS UNDER A DEFENDANT'S CONTROL.  REFERRING TO THIS RULE
UNDER THE NAME OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, THE COURT CHARGED:  "OF COURSE IF
THE DECEASED'S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT THE
PLAINTIFF HERE CANNOT RECOVER.  AND SINCE THERE CAN BE NO APPLICATION
OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR IF OTHER CAUSES THAN THE
NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, ITS AGENTS OR SERVANTS, MIGHT HAVE
PRODUCED THE ACCIDENT, THE PLAINTIFF IS BOUND, SHE HAS THE BURDEN, TO
EXCLUDE THE OPERATION OF SUCH CAUSES BY A FAIR PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE RULE CAN BE APPLIED.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE IF THERE
ARE OTHER CAUSES THAN THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT THAT MIGHT HAVE
CAUSED THE ACCIDENT, THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IN EXCLUSIVE
CONTROL - ONE OF THE PREREQUISITES TO THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE HERE
INVOKED."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED BECAUSE IT THOUGHT
THAT THE JURY SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DRAW AN INFERENCE OF
DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE FROM AN EXTRAORDINARY ACCIDENT GROWING OUT OF A
GENERAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INCLUDED ACTIVITIES OF THE INJURED
PERSON, EVEN THOUGH A JURY, UNDER PROPER INSTRUCTIONS, COULD FIND FROM
THE EVIDENCE THAT THE INJURED PERSON'S ACTIVITIES DID NOT CAUSE THE
INJURY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT'S LIMITATION OF THE JURY'S PROVINCE BY THIS
INTERPRETATION OF A DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR RAISED A QUESTION OF
IMPORTANCE IN THE TRIAL OF CASES ARISING UNDER FEDERAL LAW.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER THIS QUESTION.  328 U.S. 830. 

THE TESTIMONY, SO FAR AS RELEVANT TO POINT THE ISSUES, MAY BE BRIEFLY
SUMMARIZED.  FOUR RAILROAD CARS WERE BEING PUSHED BACKWARD AND EASTWARD
BY AN ENGINE IN ORDER TO PUT THEM ON A SIDING NORTH OF THE MAIN TRACK. 
IT WAS THE DUTY OF DECEASED, A BRAKEMAN, TO THROW THE SWITCH BEFORE THE
FIRST CAR REACHED IT IN ORDER THAT THE FOUR CARS WOULD TAKE THE
SIDING.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT HE THREW THE SWITCH AND GAVE A SIGNAL
TO THE ENGINEER TO BACK THE CARS.  RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT
TO AUTHORIZE, BUT NOT TO COMPEL, THE JURY TO FIND THAT THE DECEASED
NEGLIGENTLY THREW THE SWITCH WHILE THE LEAD CAR IN THE BACKWARD
MOVEMENT STRADDLED THE SWITCH WITH ONE SET OF THE CAR WHEELS ON ONE
SIDE OF THE SWITCH AND ONE ON THE OTHER.  IF TRUE, THIS COULD MEAN THAT
THE WHEELS EAST OF THE SWITCH WOULD MOVE DOWN THE MAIN LINE AND THE
OTHERS WOULD ENTER THE SIDING WHEN THE SWITCH WAS THROWN AND THE
BACKWARD MOVEMENT TOOK PLACE, THUS PROBABLY CAUSING DERAILMENT.  IF THE
JURY HAD BELIEVED RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE THAT THIS LAST CAR WAS ASTRIDE
THE SWITCH WHEN IT WAS THROWN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED, UNDER THE
COURT'S CHARGE, TO FIND FOR THE RESPONDENT.  BUT ABOUT 75 FEET EAST OF
THIS SWITCH, AT A POINT WHERE THE SOUTH RAIL OF THE SIDING TRACK
INTERSECTED THE NORTH RAIL OF THE MAIN TRACK, THERE WAS A FROG.  THERE
WAS TESTIMONY THAT THIS FROG OPERATED WITH A SPRING MECHANISM, AND THAT
IF THE SPRING FAILED TO WORK WHEN THE WHEELS PASSED OVER IT, THE CARS
MIGHT BE DERAILED.  SOME OTHER EVIDENCE TENDED TO SHOW THAT, AT THE
TIME THE DERAILMENT OCCURRED, SPLINTERS AND PLANKS WERE THROWN INTO THE
AIR NEAR THE FROG.  OTHER EVIDENCE TENDED TO SHOW THAT PLANKS AND
SPLINTERS WERE FOUND ON THE TRACK.  SOME TESTIMONY SHOWED THAT THEY
WERE CLOSE TO THE SWITCH, AND SOME THAT THEY WERE CLOSE TO THE FROG. 
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE FROG AND SWITCH HAD BEEN IN GOOD CONDITION
BEFORE THE DERAILMENT AND AFTER THE DERAILMENT.  THE CARS HAD BEEN
OPERATED AND THE TRACKS HAD BEEN USED PREVIOUSLY, SO FAR AS THE
EVIDENCE SHOWED, WITHOUT ANY SIMILAR MISHAP. 

IN SAN JUAN LIGHT CO. V. REQUENA, 224 U.S. 89, 98-99, THIS COURT
SAID:  "WHEN A THING WHICH CAUSES INJURY, WITHOUT FAULT OF THE INJURED
PERSON, IS SHOWN TO BE UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE DEFENDANT,
AND THE INJURY IS SUCH AS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THINGS DOES NOT
OCCUR IF THE ONE HAVING SUCH CONTROL USES PROPER CARE, IT AFFORDS
REASONABLE EVIDENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLANATION, THAT THE INJURY
AROSE FROM THE DEFENDANT'S WANT OF CARE."  BOTH PRIOR TO AND AFTER THAT
CASE WAS DECIDED, THIS COURT HAS ACTED UPON THIS RULE IN VARYING TYPES
OF CASES.  TRANSPORTATION CO. V. DOWNER, 11 WALL.  129; INLAND &
SEABOARD COASTING CO. V. TOLSON, 139 U.S. 551, 555; GLEESON V. VIRGINIA
M.R.R., 140 U.S. 435; SWEENEY V. ERVING, 228 U.S. 233, 240.  SEE ALSO
SOUTHERN RY. V. BENNETT, 233 U.S. 80; FOLTIS, INC. V. CITY OF NEW YORK,
287 N.Y. 108, 38 N.E.2D 455, AND CASES COLLECTED, 153 A.L.R. 1134.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT, HOWEVER, THAT THE RULE WAS IMPROPERLY
APPLIED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE RAILROAD INSTRUMENTALITIES HERE WERE
NOT UNDER THE "EXCLUSIVE CONTROL" OF THE RAILROAD; THAT "THE THING THAT
CAUSED THE INJURY COULD HAVE BEEN JESIONOWSKI'S FAULT, OR IT COULD HAVE
BEEN THE RAILROAD CORPORATION'S FAULT."  154 F.2D 703, 705. 

THE COURT'S REASONING WAS THIS:  PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE
HER CASE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY EXCEPT UNDER THE RULE OF RES IPSA
LOQUITUR.  THAT RULE HAS RIGIDLY DEFINED PREREQUISITIES, ONE OF WHICH
IS THAT, TO APPLY IT, THE DEFENDANT MUST HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF ALL
THE THINGS USED IN AN OPERATION WHICH MIGHT PROBABLY HAVE CAUSED
INJURY.  HERE THE RAILROAD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF ALL
PROBABLE CAUSATIVE FACTORS, SINCE DECEASED HAD SOME IMMEDIATE CONTROL
OVER SWITCHING AND SIGNALING.  "EXCLUSIVE CONTROL" OF ALL PROBABLE
CAUSATIVE FACTORS, THE COURT REASONED, MEANS THAT RES IPSA LOQUITUR
CANNOT BE APPLIED EVEN THOUGH THOSE NON-EXCLUSIVELY CONTROLLED FACTORS
ARE CLEARLY SHOWN TO HAVE HAD NO CAUSAL CONNECTION WITH THE ACCIDENT. 

WE CANNOT AGREE.  RES IPSA LOQUITUR, THUS APPLIED, WOULD BAR JURIES
FROM DRAWING AN INFERENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ON ACCOUNT OF UNUSUAL ACCIDENTS
IN ALL OPERATIONS WHERE THE INJURED PERSON HAD HIMSELF PARTICIPATED IN
THE OPERATIONS, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PROVED THAT HIS OPERATIONS OF THE
THINGS UNDER HIS CONTROL DID NOT CAUSE THE ACCIDENT.  THIS VIEWPOINT
UNDULY RESTRICTS THE POWER OF JURIES TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF FACT, AND
IN THIS CASE THE JURY'S RIGHT TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM EVIDENCE AND THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THAT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A VERDICT ARE FEDERAL
QUESTIONS.  A CONCEPTUALISTIC INTERPRETATION OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR HAS
NEVER BEEN USED BY THIS COURT TO REDUCE THE JURY'S POWER TO DRAW
INFERENCES FROM FACTS.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION UNDULY NARROWS THE
DOCTRINE AS THIS COURT HAS APPLIED IT. 

THIS COURT SAID, IN SWEENEY V. ERVING, 228 U.S. 233, 240, A DECISION
WHICH CUT THROUGH THE MASS OF VERBIAGE BUILT UP AROUND THE DOCTRINE OF
RES IPSA LOQUITUR, THAT "RES IPSA LOQUITUR MEANS THAT THE FACTS OF THE
OCCURRENCE WARRANT THE INFERENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, NOT THAT THEY COMPEL
SUCH AN INFERENCE; THAT THEY FURNISH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE WHERE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF IT MAY BE LACKING, BUT IT IS
EVIDENCE TO BE WEIGHED, NOT NECESSARILY TO BE ACCEPTED AS SUFFICIENT;
THAT THEY CALL FOR EXPLANATION OR REBUTTAL, NOT NECESSARILY THAT THEY
REQUIRE IT; THAT THEY MAKE A CASE TO BE DECIDED BY THE JURY, NOT THAT
THEY FORESTALL THE VERDICT."  THUS, THE QUESTION HERE REALLY IS NOT
WHETHER THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE RELIED ON FITS SQUARELY INTO SOME
JUDICIAL DEFINITION, RIGIDLY CONSTRUED, BUT WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WERE SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY A FINDING THAT THIS DERAILMENT WAS A RESULT OF
THE DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE.  WE HOLD THAT THEY WERE. 

DERAILMENTS ARE EXTRAORDINARY, NOT USUAL, HAPPENINGS.  WHEN THEY DO
OCCUR, A JURY MAY FAIRLY FIND THAT THEY OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF
NEGLIGENCE.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE JURY MIGHT HAVE FOUND HERE THAT THIS
ACCIDENT HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DECEASED; BUT
ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT OFFERED EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THIS FACT, IT
"DID NOT SATISFY THE JURY."  SOUTHERN RY. V. BENNETT, SUPRA AT 86. 
WITH THE DECEASED FREED FROM ANY NEGLIGENT CONDUCT IN CONNECTION WITH
THE SWITCH OR THE SIGNALING, WE HAVE LEFT AN ACCIDENT, ORDINARILY THE
RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE, WHICH MAY BE ATTRIBUTED ONLY TO THE LACK OF CARE
OF THE RAILROAD, THE ONLY OTHER AGENCY INVOLVED.  ONCE A JURY, HAVING
BEEN APPROPRIATELY INSTRUCTED, FINDS THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES DID
NOT CAUSE THE DERAILMENT, THE DEFENDANT REMAINS AS THE EXCLUSIVE
CONTROLLER OF ALL THE FACTORS WHICH MAY HAVE CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.  IT
WOULD RUN COUNTER TO COMMON EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE TO SAY THAT, AFTER A
FINDING BY THE JURY THAT THE THROWING OF THE SWITCH AND THE SIGNALING
DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE DERAILMENT, THE JURY WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
INFER THAT EITHER THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF THE TRAIN OR THE NEGLIGENT
MAINTENANCE OF THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OTHER THAN THE SWITCH WAS THE
CAUSE OF THE DERAILMENT.  IT WAS UNCONTROVERTED THAT THE RAILROAD HAD
EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF BOTH.  WE THINK THAT THE FACTS SUPPORT THE JURY'S
FINDINGS BOTH THAT THE DECEASED'S CONDUCT DID NOT CAUSE THE ACCIDENT
AND THAT THE RAILROAD'S NEGLIGENCE DID. 

RESPONDENT ALSO URGES HERE, AS IT DID IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, THAT BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE DIRECTED A VERDICT FOR IT ON THE
FIRST COUNT OF THE COMPLAINT, WHICH CHARGED A DEFECT IN THE CAR, TRACK
OR ROADBED, THE COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUBMITTING TO THE JURY THE
QUESTION OF A DEFECT IN THESE RESPECTS UNDER THE SECOND COUNT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT HELD THAT THIS QUESTION WAS NOT PROPERLY RAISED BEFORE IT
BECAUSE RESPONDENT HAD FAILED ON APPEAL TO MAKE "A CONCISE STATEMENT"
OF THE POINT AS REQUIRED BY RULE 75(D) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE QUESTION WAS PROPERLY RAISED,
THOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY, BY ITS GENERAL POINT THAT "THE DOCTRINE OF RES
IPSA LOQUITUR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE."  WE CANNOT
HOLD THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE
QUESTION BECAUSE OF RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE 75(D). 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON WOULD
AFFIRM ON THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 
..END :














FRANCIS V. RESWEBER, 329 U.S. 459 


NO. 142.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1947.  -
AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO
BE ELECTROCUTED.  A WARRANT FOR HIS EXECUTION WAS DULY ISSUED.  HE WAS
PREPARED FOR ELECTROCUTION, PLACED IN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR AND SUBJECTED
TO A SHOCK WHICH WAS INTENDED TO CAUSE HIS DEATH BUT WHICH FAILED TO DO
SO, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF SOME MECHANICAL DIFFICULTY.  HE WAS REMOVED
FROM THE CHAIR AND RETURNED TO PRISON; BUT ANOTHER WARRANT FOR HIS
EXECUTION AT A LATER DATE WAS ISSUED.  HELD: 

1.  ASSUMING, BUT NOT DECIDING, THAT VIOLATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT PROVISION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT WOULD VIOLATE THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - 

(A)  THE PROPOSED EXECUTION WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 462. 

(B)  IT WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CLAUSE OF
THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT.  P. 463. 

2.  THE PROPOSED EXECUTION WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 465. 

3.  THE RECORD OF THE ORIGINAL TRIAL, SHOWING THE WARRANT OF ARREST,
THE INDICTMENT, THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND THE MINUTE ENTRIES OF
TRIAL, SELECTION OF JURY, VERDICT AND SENTENCE, CONTAINS NOTHING ON
WHICH THIS COURT COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
PETITIONER WERE INFRINGED AT THE TRIAL.  P. 465. 

LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER, SHERIFF, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA DENIED PETITIONER'S APPLICATIONS FOR
WRITS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND HABEAS CORPUS TO PREVENT
A SECOND ATTEMPT TO EXECUTE HIM FOR MURDER.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 833.  AFFIRMED, P. 466. 

MR. JUSTICE REED ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN AN OPINION IN
WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
JOIN. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRINGS BEFORE THIS COURT A UNIQUE SITUATION. 
THE PETITIONER, WILLIE FRANCIS, IS A COLORED CITIZEN OF LOUISIANA.  HE
WAS DULY CONVICTED OF MURDER AND IN SEPTEMBER, 1945, SENTENCED TO BE
ELECTROCUTED FOR THE CRIME.  UPON A PROPER DEATH WARRANT, FRANCIS WAS
PREPARED FOR EXECUTION AND ON MAY 3, 1946, PURSUANT TO THE WARRANT, WAS
PLACED IN THE OFFICIAL ELECTRIC CHAIR OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE AUTHORIZED WITNESSES.  THE EXECUTIONER THREW THE SWITCH
BUT, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE OF SOME MECHANICAL DIFFICULTY, DEATH DID NOT
RESULT.  HE WAS THEREUPON REMOVED FROM THE CHAIR AND RETURNED TO PRISON
WHERE HE NOW IS.  A NEW DEATH WARRANT WAS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNOR OF
LOUISIANA, FIXING THE EXECUTION FOR MAY 9, 1946. 

APPLICATIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE WERE FILED FOR WRITS
OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION AND HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS IN THE STATE.  EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE WAS
STAYED.  BY THE APPLICATIONS PETITIONER CLAIMED THE PROTECTION OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ON THE GROUND THAT AN
EXECUTION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED WOULD DENY DUE PROCESS TO
HIM BECAUSE OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND
THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT PROVISION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. 
FN1  THESE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, PETITIONER CLAIMED,
WOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE HE HAD ONCE GONE THROUGH THE DIFFICULT
PREPARATION FOR EXECUTION AND HAD ONCE RECEIVED THROUGH HIS BODY A
CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY INTENDED TO CAUSE DEATH.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
LOUISIANA DENIED THE APPLICATIONS ON THE GROUND OF A LACK OF ANY BASIS
FOR JUDICIAL RELIEF.  THAT IS, THE STATE COURT CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO
VIOLATION OF STATE OR NATIONAL LAW ALLEGED IN THE VARIOUS
APPLICATIONS.  IT SPOKE OF THE FACT THAT NO "CURRENT OF SUFFICIENT
INTENSITY TO CAUSE DEATH" PASSED THROUGH PETITIONER'S BODY.  IT
REFERRED SPECIFICALLY TO THE FACT THAT THE APPLICATIONS OF PETITIONER
INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION AGAINST CRUEL AND
INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS AND PUTTING ONE IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIBERTY
TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON A PETITION
SETTING FORTH THE AFOREMENTIONED CONTENTIONS, TO CONSIDER THE ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THE UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  328 U.S. 833.  FOR MATTERS OF STATE LAW,
THE OPINION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA ARE BINDING ON
THIS COURT, HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 317.  SO FAR AS WE ARE
AWARE, THIS CASE IS WITHOUT PRECEDENT IN ANY COURT. 

TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE EXECUTION OF THE PETITIONER MAY
FAIRLY TAKE PLACE AFTER THE EXPERIENCE THROUGH WHICH HE PASSED, WE
SHALL EXAMINE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE ASSUMPTION, BUT WITHOUT SO
DECIDING, THAT VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIFTH AND EIGHTH
AMENDMENTS, AS TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT,
WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  FN2  AS NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION TO
SUGGEST THE CONTRARY, WE MUST AND DO ASSUME THAT THE STATE OFFICIALS
CARRIED OUT THEIR DUTIES UNDER THE DEATH WARRANT IN A CAREFUL AND
HUMANE MANNER.  ACCIDENTS HAPPEN FOR WHICH NO MAN IS TO BLAME.  WE TURN
TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL
LAW OF THE STATE IS OFFENSIVE TO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO
WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE. 

FIRST.  OUR MINDS REBEL AGAINST PERMITTING THE SAME SOVEREIGNTY TO
PUNISH AN ACCUSED TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.  EX PARTE LANGE, 18
WALL.  163, 168, 175; IN RE BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50.  COMPARE UNITED
STATES V. LANZA, 260 U.S. 377, 382.  BUT WHERE THE ACCUSED SUCCESSFULLY
SEEKS REVIEW OF A CONVICTION, THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY UPON A NEW
TRIAL.  UNITED STATES V. BALL, 163 U.S. 662, 672.  SEE PEOPLE V.
TREZZA, 128 N.Y. 529, 535, 28 N.E. 533.  EVEN WHERE A STATE OBTAINS A
NEW TRIAL AFTER CONVICTION BECAUSE OF ERRORS, WHILE AN ACCUSED MAY BE
PLACED ON TRIAL A SECOND TIME, IT IS NOT THE SORT OF HARDSHIP TO THE
ACCUSED THAT IS FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PALKO V.
CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 328.  FN3  AS THIS IS A PROSECUTION UNDER
STATE LAW, SO FAR AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS CONCERNED, THE PALKO CASE IS
DECISIVE.  FOR WE SEE NO DIFFERENCE FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF VIEW
BETWEEN A NEW TRIAL FOR ERROR OF LAW AT THE INSTANCE OF THE STATE THAT
RESULTS IN A DEATH SENTENCE INSTEAD OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND AN
EXECUTION THAT FOLLOWS A FAILURE OF EQUIPMENT.  WHEN AN ACCIDENT, WITH
NO SUGGESTION OF MALEVOLENCE, PREVENTS THE CONSUMMATION OF A SENTENCE,
THE STATE'S SUBSEQUENT COURSE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF ITS CRIMINAL LAW
IS NOT AFFECTED ON THAT ACCOUNT BY ANY REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WE FIND NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY HERE WHICH CAN BE
SAID TO AMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF FEDERAL DUE PROCESS IN THE PROPOSED
EXECUTION. 

SECOND.  WE FIND NOTHING IN WHAT TOOK PLACE HERE WHICH AMOUNTS TO
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  THE CASE
BEFORE US DOES NOT CALL FOR AN EXAMINATION INTO ANY PUNISHMENTS EXCEPT
THAT OF DEATH.  SEE WEEMS V. UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 349.  THE
TRADITIONAL HUMANITY OF MODERN ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW FORBIDS THE
INFLICTION OF UNNECESSARY PAIN IN THE EXECUTION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE. 
PROHIBITION AGAINST THE WANTON INFLICTION OF PAIN HAS COME INTO OUR LAW
FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF 1688.  THE IDENTICAL WORDS APPEAR IN OUR
EIGHTH AMENDMENT.  THE FOURTEENTH WOULD PROHIBIT BY ITS DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE EXECUTION BY A STATE IN A CRUEL MANNER.  FN4 

PETITIONER'S SUGGESTION IS THAT BECAUSE HE ONCE UNDERWENT THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL STRAIN OF PREPARATION FOR ELECTROCUTION, NOW TO REQUIRE
HIM TO UNDERGO THIS PREPARATION AGAIN SUBJECTS HIM TO A LINGERING OR
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.  EVEN THE FACT THAT PETITIONER HAS
ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO A CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY DOES NOT MAKE HIS
SUBSEQUENT EXECUTION ANY MORE CRUEL IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE THAN
ANY OTHER EXECUTION.  THE CRUELTY AGAINST WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
PROTECTS A CONVICTED MAN IS CRUELTY INHERENT IN THE METHOD OF
PUNISHMENT, NOT THE NECESSARY SUFFERING INVOLVED IN ANY METHOD EMPLOYED
TO EXTINGUISH LIFE HUMANELY.  THE FACT THAT AN UNFORESEEABLE ACCIDENT
PREVENTED THE PROMPT CONSUMMATION OF THE SENTENCE CANNOT, IT SEEMS TO
US, ADD AN ELEMENT OF CRUELTY TO A SUBSEQUENT EXECUTION.  THERE IS NO
PURPOSE TO INFLICT UNNECESSARY PAIN NOR ANY UNNECESSARY PAIN INVOLVED
IN THE PROPOSED EXECUTION.  THE SITUATION OF THE UNFORTUNATE VICTIM OF
THIS ACCIDENT IS JUST AS THOUGH HE HAD SUFFERED THE IDENTICAL AMOUNT OF
MENTAL ANGUISH AND PHYSICAL PAIN IN ANY OTHER OCCURRENCE, SUCH AS, FOR
EXAMPLE, A FIRE IN THE CELL BLOCK.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE HARDSHIP
IMPOSED UPON THE PETITIONER RISES TO THAT LEVEL OF HARDSHIP DENOUNCED
AS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS BECAUSE OF CRUELTY. 

THIRD.  THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA ALSO REJECTED PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION THAT DEATH INFLICTED AFTER HIS PRIOR SUFFERINGS WOULD DENY
HIM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THIS SUGGESTION IN SO FAR AS IT DIFFERS FROM THE DUE
PROCESS ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT EXECUTION, AFTER AN ATTEMPT
AT EXECUTION HAS FAILED, WOULD BE A MORE SEVERE PUNISHMENT THAN IS
IMPOSED UPON OTHERS GUILTY OF A LIKE OFFENSE.  THAT IS, SINCE OTHERS DO
NOT GO THROUGH THE STRAIN OF PREPARATION FOR EXECUTION A SECOND TIME OR
HAVE NOT EXPERIENCED A NON-LETHAL CURRENT IN A PRIOR ATTEMPT AT
EXECUTION, AS PETITIONER DID, TO COMPEL PETITIONER TO SUBMIT TO
EXECUTION AFTER THESE PRIOR EXPERIENCES DENIES TO HIM EQUAL
PROTECTION.  EQUAL PROTECTION DOES NOT PROTECT A PRISONER AGAINST EVEN
ILLEGAL ACTS OF OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF HIM, MUCH LESS AGAINST ACCIDENTS
DURING HIS DETENTION FOR EXECUTION.  SEE LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314
U.S. 219, 226.  LAWS CANNOT PREVENT ACCIDENTS NOR CAN A LAW EQUALLY
PROTECT ALL AGAINST THEM.  SO LONG AS THE LAW APPLIES TO ALL ALIKE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF EQUAL PROTECTION ARE MET.  WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASSUME
THAT LOUISIANA SINGLED OUT FRANCIS FOR A TREATMENT OTHER THAN THAT
WHICH HAS BEEN OR WOULD GENERALLY BE APPLIED. 

FOURTH.  THERE IS A SUGGESTION IN THE BRIEF THAT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL
ITSELF WAS SO UNFAIR TO THE PETITIONER AS TO JUSTIFY A REVERSAL OF THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND A NEW TRIAL.  PETITIONER'S CLAIM IN HIS
BRIEF IS THAT HE WAS INADEQUATELY REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  THE RECORD
OF THE ORIGINAL TRIAL PRESENTED TO US SHOWS THE WARRANT FOR ARREST, THE
INDICTMENT, THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND THE MINUTE ENTRIES OF TRIAL,
SELECTION OF JURY, VERDICT AND SENTENCE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN ANY OF
THESE PAPERS TO SHOW ANY VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  SEE CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173.  REVIEW IS SOUGHT HERE
BECAUSE OF A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT ABOUT
BY EXECUTION OF PETITIONER AFTER FAILURE OF THE FIRST EFFORT TO
ELECTROCUTE HIM.  NOTHING IS BEFORE US UPON WHICH A RULING CAN BE
PREDICATED AS TO ALLEGED DENIAL OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING
PETITIONER'S TRIAL.  ON THIS RECORD, WE SEE NOTHING UPON WHICH WE COULD
CONCLUDE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PETITIONER WERE INFRINGED. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  FIFTH AMENDMENT:  "...  NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE
SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; ..." 

EIGHTH AMENDMENT:  "EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR
EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED." 

FN2  SEE TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 99; PALKO V.
CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 324; IN RE KEMMLER, 136 U.S. 436, 445;
COLLINS V. JOHNSTON, 237 U.S. 502, 510. 

FN3  SEE KEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 100, 129; CF. UNITED
STATES V. BALL, 163 U.S. 662, 666-70. 

FN4  THIS COURT SAID OF A SIMILAR CLAUSE EMBODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION
OF NEW YORK, IN RE KEMMLER, 136 U.S. 436, 446: 

"...  BUT THE LANGUAGE IN QUESTION AS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK WAS INTENDED PARTICULARLY TO OPERATE UPON THE
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE, TO WHOSE CONTROL THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIME WAS
ALMOST WHOLLY CONFIDED.  SO THAT, IF THE PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED FOR AN
OFFENCE AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE STATE WERE MANIFESTLY CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL, AS BURNING AT THE STAKE, CRUCIFIXION, BREAKING ON THE WHEEL,
OR THE LIKE, IT WOULD BE THE DUTY OF THE COURTS TO ADJUDGE SUCH
PENALTIES TO BE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION." 

IT ADDED, P. 447: 

"PUNISHMENTS ARE CRUEL WHEN THEY INVOLVE TORTURE OR A LINGERING
DEATH; BUT THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH IS NOT CRUEL, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THAT WORD AS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION.  IT IMPLIES THERE SOMETHING
INHUMAN AND BARBAROUS, SOMETHING MORE THAN THE MERE EXTINGUISHMENT OF
LIFE." 

LOUISIANA HAS THE SAME HUMANE PROVISION IN ITS CONSTITUTION. 
LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 12.  THE KEMMLER CASE DENIED THAT
ELECTROCUTION INFRINGED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF A
CONVICTED CRIMINAL SENTENCED TO EXECUTION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

WHEN FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COURT FIND THAT A STATE HAS DENIED TO A
PERSON THE DUE PROCESS WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SAFEGUARDS, IT
SEEMS TO ME IMPORTANT TO BE EXPLICIT REGARDING THE CRITERIA BY WHICH
THE STATE'S DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE JUDGED. 
PARTICULARLY IS THIS SO WHEN LIFE IS AT STAKE. 

UNTIL JULY 28, 1868, WHEN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED, THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES LEFT THE STATES FREE TO CARRY OUT
THEIR OWN NOTIONS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THEY WERE
LIMITED BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH DECLARES:  "NO
STATE SHALL  ... PASS ANY BILL OF ATTAINDER, (OR) EX POST FACTO LAW
..."  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACED NO SPECIFIC RESTRAINTS UPON THE
STATES IN THE FORMULATION OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR CRIMINAL LAW. 
IT RESTRICTED THE FREEDOM OF THE STATES GENERALLY, SO THAT STATES
THEREAFTER COULD NOT "ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES," OR "DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW," OR "DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

THESE ARE BROAD, INEXPLICIT CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNLIKE
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS FORMULATED BY THE
FOUNDERS TO GUARD AGAINST RECURRENCE OF WELL-DEFINED HISTORIC
GRIEVANCES.  BUT BROAD AS THESE CLAUSES ARE, THEY ARE NOT GENERALITIES
OF EMPTY VAGUENESS.  THEY ARE CIRCUMSCRIBED PARTLY BY HISTORY AND
PARTLY BY THE PROBLEMS OF GOVERNMENT, LARGE AND DYNAMIC THOUGH THEY BE,
WITH WHICH THEY ARE CONCERNED.  THE "PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES" CONCERN THE DUAL CITIZENSHIP UNDER OUR
FEDERAL SYSTEM.  THE SAFEGUARDS OF "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" AND "THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS" SUMMARIZE THE MEANING OF THE STRUGGLE FOR
FREEDOM OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES.  THEY RUN BACK TO MAGNA CARTA BUT
CONTEMPLATE NO LESS ADVANCES IN THE CONCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE AND FREEDOM
BY A PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY.  SEE THE CLASSIC LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE
MATTHEWS IN HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516, 530-31.    WHEN,
SHORTLY AFTER ITS ADOPTION, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CAME BEFORE THIS
COURT FOR CONSTRUCTION, IT WAS URGED THAT THE "PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES
OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES" WHICH WERE NOT TO BE ABRIDGED BY ANY
STATE WERE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES WHICH CITIZENS THERETOFORE
ENJOYED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  IF THAT VIEW HAD PREVAILED, THE
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE
PLACED UPON THE STATES THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE SPECIFIC ARTICLES OF
THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS HAD THERETOFORE PLACED UPON THE AGENCIES OF
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  AFTER THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION THAT VIEW WAS
REJECTED.  THE REJECTION HAS THE AUTHORITY THAT COMES FROM
CONTEMPORANEOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
SEE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 67-68; DAVIDSON V. NEW
ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97.  THE NOTION THAT THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ABSORBED, AS IT IS CALLED, THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT LIMIT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
NEVER BEEN GIVEN COUNTENANCE BY THIS COURT. 

NOT UNTIL RECENTLY WAS IT SUGGESTED THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS MERELY A COMPENDIOUS REFERENCE TO THE BILL
OF RIGHTS WHEREBY THE STATES WERE NOW RESTRICTED IN DEVISING AND
ENFORCING THEIR PENAL CODE PRECISELY AS IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY
THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS.  ON THIS VIEW, THE STATES WOULD BE CONFINED
IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR CRIMINAL CODES BY THOSE VIEWS FOR
SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHICH WERE DEEMED NECESSARY
IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.  SOME OF THESE SAFEGUARDS HAVE PERDURING
VALIDITY.  SOME GREW OUT OF TRANSIENT EXPERIENCE OR FORMULATED REMEDIES
WHICH TIME MIGHT WELL IMPROVE.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT MEAN
TO IMPRISON THE STATES INTO THE LIMITED EXPERIENCE OF THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY.  IT DID MEAN TO WITHDRAW FROM THE STATES THE RIGHT TO ACT IN
WAYS THAT ARE OFFENSIVE TO A DECENT RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF MAN, AND
HEEDLESS OF HIS FREEDOM. 

THESE ARE VERY BROAD TERMS BY WHICH TO ACCOMMODATE FREEDOM AND
AUTHORITY.  AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED FROM TIME TO TIME, THEY MAY BE TOO
LARGE TO SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR ADJUDICATION, IN THAT THEY ALLOW MUCH
ROOM FOR INDIVIDUAL NOTIONS OF POLICY.  THAT IS NOT OUR CONCERN.  THE
FACT IS THAT THE DUTY OF SUCH ADJUDICATION ON A BASIS NO LESS NARROW
HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO THIS COURT. 

IN AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF DECISIONS THIS COURT HAS DECIDED THAT THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EXPRESSES A DEMAND FOR
CIVILIZED STANDARDS WHICH ARE NOT DEFINED BY THE SPECIFICALLY
ENUMERATED GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THEY NEITHER CONTAIN THE
PARTICULARITIES OF THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS NOR ARE THEY CONFINED TO
THEM.  THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS ITS OWN INDEPENDENT FUNCTION HAS
BEEN ILLUSTRATED IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS, AND HAS BEEN EXPOUNDED IN THE
OPINIONS OF THE COURT WHICH HAVE CANVASSED THE MATTER MOST THOROUGHLY. 
SEE HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78;
SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S.
319.  INSOFAR AS DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES
THE STATES TO OBSERVE ANY OF THE IMMUNITIES "THAT ARE VALID AS AGAINST
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OF THE SPECIFIC PLEDGES OF PARTICULAR
AMENDMENTS," IT DOES SO BECAUSE THEY "HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE IMPLICIT IN
THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY, AND THUS, THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, BECOME VALID AS AGAINST THE STATES."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT,
SUPRA, AT 324-25. 

THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS REQUIRES THAT PROSECUTIONS FOR FEDERAL
CRIMES BE INITIATED BY A GRAND JURY AND TRIED BY A PETTY JURY; IT
PROTECTS AN ACCUSED FROM BEING A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.  THE STATES
ARE FREE TO CONSULT THEIR OWN CONCEPTIONS OF POLICY IN DISPENSING WITH
THE GRAND JURY, IN MODIFYING OR ABOLISHING THE PETTY JURY, IN
WITHHOLDING THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-CRIMINATION.  SEE MAXWELL V.
DOW, 176 U.S. 581; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA; SNYDER V.
MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 323, 324; CF.
FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 487.  IN SHORT, THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT WITHDRAW THE FREEDOM OF A
STATE TO ENFORCE ITS OWN NOTIONS OF FAIRNESS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNLESS, AS IT WAS PUT FOR THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE
CARDOZO, "IN SO DOING IT OFFENDS SOME PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE SO ROOTED IN
THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AS TO BE RANKED AS
FUNDAMENTAL."  SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA, AT 105. 

A STATE MAY OFFEND SUCH A PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE BY BRUTAL SUBJECTION
OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO SUCCESSIVE RETRIALS ON A CHARGE ON WHICH HE HAS
BEEN ACQUITTED.  SUCH CONDUCT BY A STATE MIGHT BE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS, BUT NOT BECAUSE THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN A
FEDERAL PROSECUTION AGAINST WHICH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SAFEGUARDS LIMITS
A STATE.  FOR THE DISPUTATIONS THAT ARE ENGENDERED BY TECHNICAL ASPECTS
OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS ENSHRINED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, SEE THE
MAJORITY AND DISSENTING OPINIONS IN EX PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163, AND
IN RE BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50.  AGAIN, A STATE MAY BE FOUND TO DENY A
PERSON DUE PROCESS BY TREATING EVEN ONE GUILTY OF CRIME IN A MANNER
THAT VIOLATES STANDARDS OF DECENCY MORE OR LESS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED
THOUGH NOT WHEN IT TREATS HIM BY A MODE ABOUT WHICH OPINION IS FAIRLY
DIVIDED.  BUT THE PENOLOGICAL POLICY OF A STATE IS NOT TO BE TESTED BY
THE SCOPE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE
CONTROVERSY WHICH IS NECESSARILY EVOKED BY THAT AMENDMENT AS TO THE
HISTORIC MEANING OF "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT."  SEE WEEMS V.
UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 349, AND PARTICULARLY THE DISSENTING OPINION OF
WHITE AND HOLMES, JJ. 

ONCE WE ARE EXPLICIT IN STATING THE PROBLEM BEFORE US IN TERMS
DEFINED BY AN UNBROKEN SERIES OF DECISIONS, WE CANNOT ESCAPE
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT INVOLVES THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS
AND JUSTICE VERY BROADLY CONCEIVED.  THEY ARE NOT THE APPLICATION OF
MERELY PERSONAL STANDARDS BUT THE IMPERSONAL STANDARDS OF SOCIETY WHICH
ALONE JUDGES, AS THE ORGANS OF LAW, ARE EMPOWERED TO ENFORCE.  WHEN THE
STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL JUDGMENT ARE NOT NARROWER THAN "IMMUTABLE
PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE WHICH INHERE IN THE VERY IDEA OF FREE
GOVERNMENT," HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366, 389, "FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR
CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS," HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312,
316, "IMMUNITIES  ... IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY,"
PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 324-25, GREAT TOLERANCE TOWARD A
STATE'S CONDUCT IS DEMANDED OF THIS COURT.  SUCH WERE RECENTLY STATED
TO BE "THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES."  SEE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE IN
MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 438, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONCURRING OPINION IN THAT CASE, IBID., 412, 416, 417. 

I CANNOT BRING MYSELF TO BELIEVE THAT FOR LOUISIANA TO LEAVE TO
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, RATHER THAN TO REQUIRE, MITIGATION OF A SENTENCE OF
DEATH DULY PRONOUNCED UPON CONVICTION FOR MURDER BECAUSE A FIRST
ATTEMPT TO CARRY IT OUT WAS AN INNOCENT MISADVENTURE, OFFENDS A
PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE "ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR
PEOPLE."  SEE SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA, AT 105.  SHORT OF THE
COMPULSION OF SUCH A PRINCIPLE, THIS COURT MUST ABSTAIN FROM
INTERFERENCE WITH STATE ACTION NO MATTER HOW STRONG ONE'S PERSONAL
FEELING OF REVULSION AGAINST A STATE'S INSISTENCE ON ITS POUND OF
FLESH.  ONE MUST BE ON GUARD AGAINST FINDING IN PERSONAL DISAPPROVAL A
REFLECTION OF MORE OR LESS PREVAILING CONDEMNATION.  STRONGLY DRAWN AS
I AM TO SOME OF THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY MY BROTHER BURTON, I CANNOT
RID MYSELF OF THE CONVICTION THAT WERE I TO HOLD THAT LOUISIANA WOULD
TRANSGRESS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IF THE STATE WERE ALLOWED, IN THE
PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US, TO CARRY OUT THE DEATH SENTENCE, I
WOULD BE ENFORCING MY PRIVATE VIEW RATHER THAN THAT CONSENSUS OF
SOCIETY'S OPINION WHICH, FOR PURPOSES OF DUE PROCESS, IS THE STANDARD
ENJOINED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE FACT THAT I REACH THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT MEAN THAT A
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION, WHICH ASSUMES A SERIES OF ABORTIVE ATTEMPTS AT
ELECTROCUTION OR EVEN A SINGLE, CRUELLY WILLFUL ATTEMPT, WOULD NOT
RAISE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.  WHEN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FIRST CAME
HERE FOR APPLICATION THE COURT ABSTAINED FROM VENTURING EVEN A
TENTATIVE DEFINITION OF DUE PROCESS.  WITH WISE FORETHOUGHT IT
INDICATED THAT WHAT MAY BE FOUND WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE MUST INEVITABLY BE LEFT TO "THE GRADUAL PROCESS OF JUDICIAL
INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION, AS THE CASES PRESENTED FOR DECISION SHALL
REQUIRE, WITH THE REASONING ON WHICH SUCH DECISIONS MAY BE FOUNDED." 
DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, SUPRA, AT 104.  THIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING
THAT THESE ARE MATTERS WHICH DEPEND ON "DIFFERENCES OF DEGREE.  THE
WHOLE LAW DOES SO AS SOON AS IT IS CIVILIZED."  HOLMES, J., IN LEROY
FIBRE CO. V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO., 232 U.S. 340, 354.  ESPECIALLY
IS THIS SO AS TO QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  A
FINDING THAT IN THIS CASE THE STATE OF LOUISIANA HAS NOT GONE BEYOND
ITS POWERS IS FOR ME NOT THE STARTING POINT FOR ABSTRACTLY LOGICAL
EXTENSION.  SINCE I CANNOT SAY THAT IT WOULD BE "REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSCIENCE OF MANKIND," PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 323, FOR
LOUISIANA TO EXERCISE THE POWER ON WHICH SHE HERE STANDS, I CANNOT SAY
THAT THE CONSTITUTION WITHHOLDS IT. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE IN JUDICIAL HISTORY, THE RELATOR ASKS THIS
COURT TO STAY HIS EXECUTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WILL VIOLATE THE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  WE BELIEVE THAT THE UNUSUAL FACTS BEFORE US REQUIRE THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA BE VACATED AND THAT THIS
CAUSE BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  THOSE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD INCLUDE THE DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN
MATERIAL FACTS NOT PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED, INCLUDING THE EXTENT, IF ANY,
TO WHICH ELECTRIC CURRENT WAS APPLIED TO THE RELATOR DURING HIS
ATTEMPTED ELECTROCUTION ON MAY 3, 1946.  WHERE LIFE IS TO BE TAKEN,
THERE MUST BE NO AVOIDABLE ERROR OF LAW OR UNCERTAINTY OF FACT. 

THE RELATOR'S EXECUTION WAS ORDERED BY THE GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA TO
TAKE PLACE MAY 3, 1946.  OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON THAT DAY, THE SUPREME
COURT OF LOUISIANA HAS SAID: 

"...  BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 12:00 O'CLOCK NOON AND 3:00 O'CLOCK P.M.,
WILLIE FRANCIS WAS STRAPPED IN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR AND AN ATTEMPT WAS
MADE TO ELECTROCUTE HIM, BUT, BECAUSE OF SOME DEFECT IN THE APPARATUS
DEVISED AND USED FOR ELECTROCUTIONS, THE CONTRIVANCE FAILED TO
FUNCTION, AND AFTER AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO ELECTROCUTE FRANCIS HE
WAS REMOVED FROM THE CHAIR." 

OF THE SAME PROCEEDINGS, THE STATE'S BRIEF SAYS: 

"THROUGH A LATENT ELECTRICAL DEFECT, THE ATTEMPT TO ELECTROCUTE
FRANCIS FAILED, THE STATE CONTENDING NO CURRENT WHATSOEVER REACHED
FRANCIS' BODY, THE RELATOR CONTENDING A CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY DID PASS
THROUGH HIS BODY; BUT IN ANY EVENT, WILLIE FRANCIS WAS NOT PUT TO
DEATH." 

ON MAY 8, THE DEATH WARRANT WAS CANCELED, AND THE RELATOR'S EXECUTION
HAS BEEN STAYED PENDING COMPLETION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.  THE GOVERNOR
PROPOSES TO ISSUE ANOTHER DEATH WARRANT FOR THE RELATOR'S ELECTROCUTION
AND THE RELATOR NOW ASKS THIS COURT TO PREVENT IT FOR THE REASON THAT,
UNDER THE PRESENT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES, HIS ELECTROCUTION WILL BE SO
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL AS TO VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THAT AMENDMENT PROVIDES:  "NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF
LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ..."  WHEN THIS
WAS ADOPTED IN 1868, THERE LONG HAD BEEN IMBEDDED DEEPLY IN THE
STANDARDS OF THIS NATION A REVULSION AGAINST SUBJECTING GUILTY PERSONS
TO TORTURE CULMINATING IN DEATH.  PRECONSTITUTIONAL AMERICAN HISTORY
REEKED WITH CRUEL PUNISHMENT TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT, IN 1791, THE
EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES EXPRESSLY
IMPOSED UPON FEDERAL AGENCIES A MANDATE THAT "EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT
BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL
PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED."  LOUISIANA AND MANY OTHER STATES HAVE ADOPTED
LIKE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  SEE SECTION 12 OF ARTICLE I OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF LOUISIANA (1921). 

THE CAPITAL CASE BEFORE US PRESENTS AN INSTANCE OF THE VIOLATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS THAT IS MORE CLEAR THAN WOULD BE PRESENTED
BY MANY LESSER PUNISHMENTS PROHIBITED BY THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OR ITS
STATE COUNTERPARTS.  TAKING HUMAN LIFE BY UNNECESSARILY CRUEL MEANS
SHOCKS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL INSTINCTS OF CIVILIZED MAN.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE POSSIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE OF A SELF-GOVERNING
PEOPLE.  ABHORRENCE OF THE CRUELTY OF ANCIENT FORMS OF CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT HAS INCREASED STEADILY UNTIL, TODAY, SOME STATES HAVE
PROHIBITED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ALTOGETHER.  IT IS UNTHINKABLE THAT ANY
STATE LEGISLATURE IN MODERN TIMES WOULD ENACT A STATUTE EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BY REPEATED APPLICATIONS OF AN ELECTRIC
CURRENT SEPARATED BY INTERVALS OF DAYS OR HOURS UNTIL FINALLY DEATH
SHALL RESULT.  THE LEGISLATURE OF LOUISIANA DID NOT DO SO.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF LOUISIANA DID NOT SAY THAT IT DID.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
LOUISIANA SAID MERELY THAT THE PENDING PETITIONS FOR RELIEF IN THIS
CASE PRESENTED AN EXECUTIVE RATHER THAN A JUDICIAL QUESTION AND, BY
THAT MISTAKE OF LAW, IT PRECLUDED ITSELF FROM DISCUSSING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE BEFORE US.    IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PROPOSED
PROCEDURE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WE MUST MEASURE IT AGAINST A LAWFUL
ELECTROCUTION.  THE CONTRAST IS THAT BETWEEN INSTANTANEOUS DEATH AND
DEATH BY INSTALLMENTS - CAUSED BY ELECTRIC SHOCKS ADMINISTERED AFTER
ONE OR MORE INTERVENING PERIODS OF COMPLETE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE
VICTIM.  ELECTROCUTION, WHEN INSTANTANEOUS, CAN BE INFLICTED BY A STATE
IN CONFORMITY WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  IN RE KEMMLER, 136 U.S. 436. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA HAS HELD THAT ELECTROCUTION, IN THE
MANNER PRESCRIBED IN ITS STATUTE, IS MORE HUMANE THAN HANGING.  STATE
EX REL. PIERRE V. JONES, 200 LA. 807, 9 SO.2D 42, CERT. DENIED, 317
U.S. 633.  SEE ALSO, MALLOY V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 237 U.S. 180. 

THE ALL-IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE EXECUTION SHALL BE SO
INSTANTANEOUS AND SUBSTANTIALLY PAINLESS THAT THE PUNISHMENT SHALL BE
REDUCED, AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE, TO NO MORE THAN THAT OF DEATH ITSELF. 
ELECTROCUTION HAS BEEN APPROVED ONLY IN A FORM THAT ELIMINATES
SUFFERING. 

THE LOUISIANA STATUTE MAKES THIS CLEAR.  IT PROVIDES THAT: 

"EVERY SENTENCE OF DEATH IMPOSED IN THIS STATE SHALL BE BY
ELECTROCUTION; THAT IS, CAUSING TO PASS THROUGH THE BODY OF THE PERSON
CONVICTED A CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY OF SUFFICIENT INTENSITY TO CAUSE
DEATH, AND THE APPLICATION AND CONTINUANCE OF SUCH CURRENT THROUGH THE
BODY OF THE PERSON CONVICTED UNTIL SUCH PERSON IS DEAD...."  LA. CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1928), ACT NO. 2, ART. 569, AS AMENDED BY SEC.
1, ACT NO. 14, 1940. 

IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ELECTROCUTION BY INTERRUPTED OR REPEATED
APPLICATIONS OF ELECTRIC CURRENT AT INTERVALS OF SEVERAL DAYS OR EVEN
MINUTES.  IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICATION OF ELECTRIC CURRENT
OF AN INTENSITY LESS THAN THAT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE DEATH.  IT
PRESCRIBES EXPRESSLY AND SOLELY FOR THE APPLICATION OF A CURRENT OF
SUFFICIENT INTENSITY TO CAUSE DEATH AND FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THAT
APPLICATION UNTIL DEATH RESULTS.  PRESCRIBING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, IT
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY.  THERE CAN BE NO IMPLIED PROVISION FOR A
SECOND, THIRD OR MULTIPLE APPLICATION OF THE CURRENT.  THERE IS NO
STATUTORY OR JUDICIAL PRECEDENT UPHOLDING A DELAYED PROCESS OF
ELECTROCUTION. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS WERE EMPHASIZED IN IN RE KEMMLER, SUPRA, WHEN AN
EARLY NEW YORK STATUTE AUTHORIZING ELECTROCUTION WAS ATTACKED AS
VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE
PRESCRIBING A CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.  IN UPHOLDING THAT STATUTE,
THIS COURT STRESSED THE FACT THAT THE ELECTRIC CURRENT WAS TO CAUSE
INSTANTANEOUS DEATH.  LIKE THE LOUISIANA STATUTE BEFORE US, THAT
STATUTE CALLED EXPRESSLY FOR THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF A SUFFICIENT
ELECTRIC CURRENT TO CAUSE DEATH.  IT WAS THE RESULTING "INSTANTANEOUS"
AND "PAINLESS" DEATH THAT WAS REFERRED TO AS "HUMANE." 

AFTER QUOTING THE NEW YORK COUNTY AND SUPREME COURTS, THIS COURT
QUOTED THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, AT 119 N.Y. 579, AS FOLLOWS: 

"'WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS TESTIMONY AND CAN FIND BUT LITTLE IN IT TO
WARRANT THE BELIEF THAT THIS NEW MODE OF EXECUTION IS CRUEL, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION, THOUGH IT IS CERTAINLY UNUSUAL.  ON THE
CONTRARY, WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT IT REMOVES EVERY
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE APPLICATION OF ELECTRICITY TO THE VITAL PARTS
OF THE HUMAN BODY, UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AND IN THE MANNER CONTEMPLATED
BY THE STATUTE, MUST RESULT IN INSTANTANEOUS, AND CONSEQUENTLY IN
PAINLESS, DEATH.'"  IN RE KEMMLER, SUPRA, AT 443-444. 

FINALLY, SPEAKING FOR ITSELF, THIS COURT SAID: 

"PUNISHMENTS ARE CRUEL WHEN THEY INVOLVE TORTURE OR A LINGERING
DEATH; BUT THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH IS NOT CRUEL, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THAT WORD AS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION.  IT IMPLIES THERE SOMETHING
INHUMAN AND BARBAROUS, SOMETHING MORE THAN THE MERE EXTINGUISHMENT OF
LIFE."  ID. AT 447. 

IF THE STATE OFFICIALS DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY HAD PLACED THE
RELATOR IN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR FIVE TIMES AND, EACH TIME, HAD APPLIED
ELECTRIC CURRENT TO HIS BODY IN A MANNER NOT SUFFICIENT, UNTIL THE
FINAL TIME, TO KILL HIM, SUCH A FORM OF TORTURE WOULD RIVAL THAT OF
BURNING AT THE STAKE.  ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE OF THE FIRST ATTEMPT, IN
THE PRESENT CASE, WAS UNINTENDED, THE REAPPLICATION OF THE ELECTRIC
CURRENT WILL BE INTENTIONAL.  HOW MANY DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL
REAPPLICATIONS OF ELECTRIC CURRENT DOES IT TAKE TO PRODUCE A CRUEL,
UNUSUAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PUNISHMENT?  WHILE FIVE APPLICATIONS WOULD
BE MORE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL THAN ONE, THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PRESENT CASE
DEMONSTRATES THAT, TODAY, TWO SEPARATED APPLICATIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY
"CRUEL AND UNUSUAL" TO BE PROHIBITED.  IF FIVE ATTEMPTS WOULD BE "CRUEL
AND UNUSUAL," IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN TWO,
THREE, FOUR AND FIVE.  IT IS NOT DIFFICULT, HOWEVER, AS WE HERE
CONTEND, TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE ONE CONTINUOUS APPLICATION
PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE AND ANY OTHER APPLICATION OF THE CURRENT. 

LACK OF INTENT THAT THE FIRST APPLICATION BE LESS THAN FATAL IS NOT
MATERIAL.  THE INTENT OF THE EXECUTIONER CANNOT LESSEN THE TORTURE OR
EXCUSE THE RESULT.  IT WAS THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE STATE OFFICIALS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE.  THE PROCEDURE IN THIS CASE
CONTRASTS WITH COMMON KNOWLEDGE OF PRECAUTIONS GENERALLY TAKEN
ELSEWHERE TO INSURE AGAINST FAILURE OF ELECTROCUTIONS.  THE HIGH
STANDARD OF CARE GENERALLY TAKEN EVIDENCES THE SIGNIFICANCE PROPERLY
ATTACHED TO THE UNCONDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF A SINGLE CONTINUED
APPLICATION OF THE CURRENT UNTIL DEATH RESULTS.  IN OUR VIEW OF THIS
CASE, WE ARE GIVING CAREFUL RECOGNITION TO THE LAW OF LOUISIANA. 
NEITHER THE LEGISLATURE NOR THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA HAS
EXPRESSED APPROVAL OF ELECTROCUTION OTHER THAN BY ONE CONTINUOUS
APPLICATION OF A LETHAL CURRENT. 

EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY PROVIDES A COMMON MEANS OF AVOIDING
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHERWISE QUESTIONABLE EXECUTIONS.  WHEN, HOWEVER,
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF PROPOSED EXECUTIVE PROCEDURE IS BROUGHT
BEFORE THIS COURT, AS IN THIS CASE, WE SHOULD APPLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION.  IN THIS CASE, FINAL RECOURSE IS HAD TO THE HIGH
TRUSTEESHIP VESTED IN THIS COURT BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
OVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS BY WHICH THEIR OWN LIVES MAY BE TAKEN. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER A CASE OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, EACH CASE MUST TURN UPON
ITS PARTICULAR FACTS.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE IS NOT LIMITED TO AN
INSTANCE WHERE A PRISONER WAS PLACED IN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR AND RELEASED
BEFORE BEING SUBJECTED TO THE ELECTRIC CURRENT.  IT PRESENTS MORE THAN
A CASE OF MENTAL ANGUISH, HOWEVER SEVERE SUCH A CASE MIGHT BE.  THE
PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA EXPRESSLY STATES THAT A
CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY WAS CAUSED TO PASS THROUGH THE BODY OF THE
RELATOR.  THIS ALLEGATION WAS DENIED IN THE ANSWER AND NO EVIDENCE WAS
PRESENTED BY EITHER SIDE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA THEREUPON
UNDERTOOK TO DECIDE THE CASE ON THE PLEADINGS.  IT SAID: 

"OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE RELATOR IS A MATTER
OVER WHICH THE COURTS HAVE NO AUTHORITY.  INASMUCH AS THE PROCEEDINGS
HAD IN THE DISTRICT COURT, UP TO AND INCLUDING THE PRONOUNCING OF THE
SENTENCE OF DEATH, WERE ENTIRELY REGULAR, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO SET
ASIDE THE SENTENCE AND RELEASE THE RELATOR FROM THE SHERIFF'S
CUSTODY."  FN1 

THIS STATEMENT ASSUMED THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
LOUISIANA WAS ONLY A REVIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE LOWER
STATE COURTS PRIOR TO THE PASSING OF SENTENCE UPON THE RELATOR ON
SEPTEMBER 14, 1945.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE ISSUE RAISED THERE AND HERE
PRIMARILY CONCERNS THE ACTION OF STATE OFFICIALS ON AND AFTER MAY 3,
1946, IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR PAST AND PROPOSED ATTEMPTS TO
ELECTROCUTE THE RELATOR.  THIS ISSUE PROPERLY PRESENTS A FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BASED ON THE IMPENDING DEPRIVATION OF THE LIFE
OF THE RELATOR BY EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA IN A
MANNER ALLEGED TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE REFUSAL OF THE WRITS NECESSARILY
DENIED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION PRAYED FOR.  IN RULING AGAINST THE
RELATOR ON THE PLEADINGS, IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER EVIDENCE, THE
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE ACTED UPON THE
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE RELATOR.  THE PETITION
CONTAINS THE UNEQUIVOCAL ALLEGATION THAT THE OFFICIAL ELECTROCUTIONER
"TURNED ON THE SWITCH AND A CURRENT OF ELECTRICITY WAS CAUSED TO PASS
THROUGH THE BODY OF RELATOR, ALL IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OFFICIAL
WITNESSES."  THIS ALLEGATION MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE LOUISIANA
STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZED THE ELECTROCUTIONER TO APPLY TO THE BODY OF
THE RELATOR ONLY SUCH AN ELECTRIC CURRENT AS WAS OF "SUFFICIENT
INTENSITY TO CAUSE DEATH."  ON THAT RECORD, DENIAL OF RELIEF MEANS THAT
THE PROPOSED REPEATED, AND AT LEAST SECOND, APPLICATION TO THE RELATOR
OF AN ELECTRIC CURRENT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE DEATH IS NOT, UNDER PRESENT
CIRCUMSTANCES, A CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.  IT EXCEEDS ANY PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED BY LAW.  THERE IS NO
PRECEDENT FOR IT.  WHAT THEN IS IT, IF IT BE NOT CRUEL, UNUSUAL AND
UNLAWFUL?  IN SPITE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE THUS RAISED, THE
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA TREATED IT AS AN EXECUTIVE QUESTION NOT
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  WE BELIEVE THAT IF THE FACTS ARE AS
ALLEGED BY THE RELATOR THE PROPOSED ACTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  WE
BELIEVE ALSO THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS AND THEN PROCEED IN A MANNER NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 

THAT COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES RECOGNIZE THE MATERIALITY OF WHAT
OCCURRED ON MAY 3, 1946, IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE AFFIDAVITS AND THE
TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY WHICH THEY TOOK FROM AVAILABLE PUBLIC RECORDS
AND CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT BY PUBLICATION OF THEM IN
CONNECTION WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE BRIEFS IN THIS COURT.  EXCERPTS FROM
THOSE PUBLIC RECORDS, PRINTED IN THE MARGIN, INDICATE THE CONFLICT OF
TESTIMONY WHICH SHOULD BE RESOLVED.  FN2 

THE REMAND OF THIS CAUSE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA IN THE
MANNER INDICATED WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE RELATOR NECESSARILY IS
ENTITLED TO A COMPLETE RELEASE.  IT WOULD MEAN MERELY THAT THE COURTS
OF LOUISIANA MUST EXAMINE THE FACTS, BOTH AS TO THE ACTUAL NATURE OF
THE PUNISHMENT ALREADY INFLICTED AND THAT PROPOSED TO BE INFLICTED AND,
IF THE PROPOSED PUNISHMENT AMOUNTS TO A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THEN THE STATE MUST FIND
SOME MEANS OF DISPOSING OF THIS CASE THAT WILL NOT VIOLATE THAT
CONSTITUTION. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT OF
THIS COURT WHICH AFFIRMS THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

FN1  THAT COURT, IN DISCUSSING THE PLEADINGS, ALSO SAID: 

"IN THIS LATTER ANSWER OR OPPOSITION IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE ATTEMPT
WAS MADE TO ELECTROCUTE WILLIE FRANCIS ON MAY 3, 1946, IN OBEDIENCE OF
THE DEATH WARRANT, BUT IT IS AVERRED THAT THROUGH SOME LATENT
ELECTRICAL DEFECT IN THE APPARATUS, NO ELECTRIC CURRENT REACHED THE
BODY OF WILLIE FRANCIS AND FOR THAT REASON THE SENTENCE OF DEATH WAS
NOT CARRIED OUT.  WE HAVE NO OTHER EVIDENCE, OF COURSE, AS TO WHETHER
AN ELECTRIC CURRENT DID REACH THE BODY OF WILLIE FRANCIS.  THE
IMPORTANT FACT, HOWEVER, IS THAT A CURRENT OF SUFFICIENT INTENSITY TO
CAUSE DEATH, AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE ON THE SUBJECT, AND BY THE
DEATH WARRANT, DID NOT PASS THROUGH THE BODY OF WILLIE FRANCIS." 

THIS MEANS THAT, AS LONG AS THE RELATOR DID NOT DIE, THE COURT
APPARENTLY REGARDED THE CARRYING OUT OF THE DEATH SENTENCE AS A PURELY
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

FN2  THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS ARE FROM COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS PRINTED AS
APPENDICES TO THE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.  THE OFFICIAL
WITNESSES NAMED WERE PERSONS CHARGED BY STATUTE WITH THE DUTY OF MAKING
A SIGNED REPORT OR "PROCES VERBAL" RECITING THE MANNER AND DATE OF THE
EXECUTION TO BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT IN WHICH THE SENTENCE
WAS IMPOSED.  LA. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1928), ACT NO. 2, ART.
571.  THE STATEMENTS REFER TO WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE RELATOR HAD BEEN
STRAPPED INTO THE ELECTRIC CHAIR AND A HOOD PLACED BEFORE HIS EYES. 

"THEN THE ELECTROCUTIONER TURNED ON THE SWITCH AND WHEN HE DID WILLIE
FRANCIS' LIPS PUFFED OUT AND HE GROANED AND JUMPED SO THAT THE CHAIR
CAME OFF THE FLOOR.  APPARENTLY THE SWITCH WAS TURNED ON TWICE AND THEN
THE CONDEMNED MAN YELLED:  'TAKE IT OFF.  LET ME BREATH.'"  AFFIDAVIT
OF OFFICIAL WITNESS HAROLD RESWEBER, DATED MAY 23, 1946. 

"I SAW THE ELECTROCUTIONER TURN ON THE SWITCH AND I SAW HIS LIPS PUFF
OUT AND SWELL, HIS BODY TENSED AND STRETCHED.  I HEARD THE ONE IN
CHARGE YELL TO THE MAN OUTSIDE FOR MORE JUICE WHEN HE SAW THAT WILLIE
FRANCIS WAS NOT DYING AND THE ONE ON THE OUTSIDE YELLED BACK HE WAS
GIVING HIM ALL HE HAD.  THEN WILLIE FRANCIS CRIED OUT 'TAKE IT OFF. 
LET ME BREATH.'  THEN THEY TOOK THE HOOD FROM HIS EYES AND UNSTRAPPED
HIM. 

     .         .         .         .   . 

"THIS BOY REALLY GOT A SHOCK WHEN THEY TURNED THAT MACHINE ON." 
AFFIDAVIT OF OFFICIAL WITNESS IGNACE DOUCET, DATED MAY 30, 1946. 

"AFTER HE WAS STRAPPED TO THE CHAIR THE SHERIFF OF ST. MARTIN PARISH
ASKED HIM IF HE HAD ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT ANYTHING AND HE SAID
NOTHING.  THEN THE HOOD WAS PLACED BEFORE HIS EYES.  THEN THE OFFICIALS
IN CHARGE OF THE ELECTROCUTION WERE ADJUSTING THE MECHANISMS AND WHEN
THE NEEDLE OF THE METER REGISTERED TO A CERTAIN POINT ON THE DIAL, THE
ELECTROCUTIONER PULLED DOWN ON THE SWITCH AND AT THE SAME TIME SAID:
'GOODBY WILLIE.'  AT THAT VERY MOMENT, WILLIE FRANCIS' LIPS PUFFED OUT
AND HIS BODY SQUIRMED AND TENSED AND HE JUMPED SO THAT THE CHAIR ROCKED
ON THE FLOOR.  THEN THE CONDEMNED MAN SAID:  'TAKE IT OFF.  LET ME
BREATH.'  THEN THE SWITCH WAS TURNED OFF.  THEN SOME OF THE MEN LEFT
AND A FEW MINUTES AFTER THE SHERIFF OF ST. MARTIN PARISH, MR. E.L.
RESWEBER, CAME IN AND ANNOUNCED THAT THE GOVERNOR HAD GRANTED THE
CONDEMNED MAN A REPRIEVE."  AFFIDAVIT OF OFFICIAL CHAPLAIN REVEREND
MAURICE L. ROUSSEVE, DATED MAY 25, 1946.    ATTACHED TO THE BRIEF ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS THERE WAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT
OF TESTIMONY TAKEN BEFORE THE LOUISIANA PARDON BOARD ON MAY 31, 1946,
IN SUPPORT OF THE RELATOR'S APPLICATION FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY WHICH
WAS DENIED JUNE 1, 1946.  THIS TRANSCRIPT INCLUDES TESTIMONY OF THOSE
WHO WERE IN CHARGE OF THE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ON MAY 3, TO THE EFFECT
THAT NO ELECTRIC CURRENT REACHED THE BODY OF THE RELATOR AND THAT HIS
FLESH DID NOT SHOW ELECTRICAL BURNS.  IT ALSO INCLUDED A STATEMENT BY
THE SHERIFF OF A NEIGHBORING PARISH, WHO ACCOMPANIED THE RELATOR FROM
THE CHAIR, THAT THE RELATOR TOLD HIM ON LEAVING THE CHAIR THAT THE
ELECTRIC CURRENT HAD "TICKLED HIM." 

THESE PUBLIC RECORDS WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE AND THEREFORE NOT BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA WHEN IT RENDERED ITS DECISION ON MAY 15,
1946. 
..END :











ANDERSON V. YUNGKAU, 329 U.S. 482 


NO. 87.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 20, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1947.  -
153 F.2D 685, AFFIRMED. 


RULE 25(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT "IF A
PARTY DIES AND THE CLAIM IS NOT THEREBY EXTINGUISHED, THE COURT WITHIN
2 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH MAY ORDER SUBSTITUTION OF THE PROPER PARTIES. 
IF SUBSTITUTION IS NOT SO MADE, THE ACTION SHALL BE DISMISSED AS TO THE
DECEASED PARTY."  HELD:  MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DEATHS OF
DEFENDANTS, ACTIONS MAY NOT BE REVIVED AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
SUBSTITUTED; AND THE ACTIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED - EVEN THOUGH THE
FAILURE TO ACT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD WAS THE RESULT OF "EXCUSABLE
NEGLECT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 6(B).  PP. 484-486. 

ANDERSON, RECEIVER, V. YUNGKAU, EXECUTOR, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED MOTIONS TO REVIVE CERTAIN ACTIONS AGAINST
CERTAIN PARTIES AND SUBSTITUTE THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES MORE THAN
TWO YEARS AFTER THE DEATHS OF THE ORIGINAL PARTIES, AND DISMISSED THE
ACTIONS UNDER RULE 25(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  1
F.R.D. 589.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  153 F.2D 685. 
AFFIRMED, P. 486. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE SEVEN CASES IN WHICH PETITIONER SUED TO RECOVER STOCK
ASSESSMENTS FROM SHAREHOLDERS OF THE BANCO KENTUCKY CO. THEY WERE
STARTED IN 1936 IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AND WERE STAYED BY
AGREEMENT WHILE THE PRINCIPAL CASE UPON WHICH THESE DEPENDED, ANDERSON
V. ABBOTT, 321 U.S. 349, WENDED ITS WAY THROUGH THE COURTS.  IN THE
LATTER CASE WE SUSTAINED THE LIABILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF BANCO FOR
THE STOCK ASSESSMENT.  THAT WAS IN 1944.  DURING THE TIME ANDERSON V.
ABBOTT WAS BEING LITIGATED, THE SHAREHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT
LITIGATION DIED AND RESPONDENTS BECAME EXECUTORS OF THEIR ESTATES. 
THROUGH NO LACK OF DILIGENCE,  FN1  PETITIONER FAILED TO LEARN OF THESE
FACTS UNTIL MORE THAN TWO YEARS LATER.  UPON LEARNING OF THEM HE
PROMPTLY MOVED TO REVIVE THE ACTIONS AGAINST THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
DECEDENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT, FOLLOWING ANDERSON V. BRADY, 1 F.R.D.
589, DENIED THE MOTIONS FOR REVIVOR AND GRANTED MOTIONS OF THE
EXECUTORS TO DISMISS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BY A
DIVIDED VOTE.  153 F.2D 685.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE THE CASE PRESENTED AN IMPORTANT
PROBLEM IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  FN2 

THE CASE INVOLVES A RECONCILIATION OF RULE 25(A) AND RULE 6(B).  SO
FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, RULE 25(A) PROVIDES: 

"IF A PARTY DIES AND THE CLAIM IS NOT THEREBY EXTINGUISHED, THE COURT
WITHIN 2 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH MAY ORDER SUBSTITUTION OF THE PROPER
PARTIES.  IF SUBSTITUTION IS NOT SO MADE, THE ACTION SHALL BE DISMISSED
AS TO THE DECEASED PARTY." 

AND THE RELEVANT PART OF RULE 6(B) READS: 

"WHEN BY THESE RULES OR BY A NOTICE GIVEN THEREUNDER OR BY ORDER OF
COURT AN ACT IS REQUIRED OR ALLOWED TO BE DONE AT OR WITHIN A SPECIFIED
TIME, THE COURT FOR CAUSE SHOWN MAY, AT ANY TIME IN ITS DISCRETION  ...
(2) UPON MOTION PERMIT THE ACT TO BE DONE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE
SPECIFIED PERIOD WHERE THE FAILURE TO ACT WAS THE RESULT OF EXCUSABLE
NEGLECT; BUT IT MAY NOT ENLARGE THE PERIOD FOR TAKING ANY ACTION UNDER
RULE 59, EXCEPT AS STATED IN SUBDIVISION (C) THEREOF, OR THE PERIOD FOR
TAKING AN APPEAL AS PROVIDED BY LAW." 

IT IS SAID THAT SINCE BY RULE 25(A) SUBSTITUTION MAY BE MADE WITHIN
TWO YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF A PARTY, SUBSTITUTION IS, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF RULE 6(B), AN ACT "ALLOWED" TO BE DONE "WITHIN A SPECIFIED
TIME" WHICH THE COURT MAY ON A SHOWING OF "EXCUSABLE NEGLECT" PERMIT TO
BE DONE AFTER THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.  THAT ARGUMENT IS REINFORCED BY
RELIANCE ON THE PROVISION IN RULE 6(B) WHICH GRANTS BUT TWO EXCEPTIONS
TO THE POWER OF ENLARGEMENT OF TIME.  SINCE RULE 25(A) IS NOT INCLUDED
IN THE EXCEPTIONS, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE TIME ALLOWED BY THAT RULE MAY
BE ENLARGED UNDER RULE 6(B).  AND IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTS OF
THE PRESENT CASES ESTABLISH THAT THE FAILURE OF THE RECEIVER TO ACT
WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD WAS THE RESULT OF "EXCUSABLE NEGLECT,"  FN3
THUS GIVING THE DISTRICT COURT DISCRETION TO ALLOW THE SUBSTITUTION
UNDER RULE 6(B). 

WE AGREE, HOWEVER, WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  RULE 25(A) IS
BASED IN PART ON 28 U.S.C. SEC. 778, 42 STAT. 352, WHICH LIMITED THE
POWER OF SUBSTITUTION TO TWO YEARS FROM THE DEATH OF A PARTY.  FN4  AND
EVEN WITHIN THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD SUBSTITUTION COULD NOT BE MADE UNLESS
THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR WAS SERVED "BEFORE FINAL SETTLEMENT AND
DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE."  THAT STATUTE, LIKE OTHER STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS, WAS A STATUTE OF REPOSE.  IT WAS DESIGNED TO KEEP SHORT
THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ACTIONS MIGHT BE REVIVED SO THAT THE CLOSING AND
DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATES MIGHT NOT BE INTERMINABLY DELAYED.  FN5  THAT
POLICY IS REFLECTED IN RULE 25(A).  EVEN WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD
SUBSTITUTION IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT; THE COURT "MAY" ORDER
SUBSTITUTION BUT IT IS UNDER NO DUTY TO DO SO.  UNDER THE RULE, AS
UNDER THE STATUTE, THE SETTLEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE MIGHT
BE SO FAR ADVANCED AS TO WARRANT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR
SUBSTITUTION WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.  IN CONTRAST TO THE DISCRETION
OF THE COURT TO ORDER SUBSTITUTION WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD IS THE
PROVISION OF RULE 25(A) THAT IF SUBSTITUTION IS NOT MADE WITHIN THAT
TIME THE ACTION "SHALL BE DISMISSED" AS TO THE DECEASED.  THE WORD
"SHALL" IS ORDINARILY "THE LANGUAGE OF COMMAND."  ESCOE V. ZERBST, 295
U.S. 490, 493.  AND WHEN THE SAME RULE USES BOTH "MAY" AND "SHALL," THE
NORMAL INFERENCE IS THAT EACH IS USED IN ITS USUAL SENSE - THE ONE ACT
BEING PERMISSIVE, THE OTHER MANDATORY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. THOMAN,
156 U.S. 353, 360. 

THUS, AS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, RULE 25(A) OPERATES
BOTH AS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UPON REVIVOR AND AS A MANDATE TO THE
COURT TO DISMISS AN ACTION NOT REVIVED WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD. 
RULE 6(B) RELATES TO ACTS REQUIRED OR ALLOWED TO BE DONE BY PARTIES TO
AN ACTION AND PERMITS THE COURT TO AFFORD RELIEF TO A PARTY FOR HIS
FAILURE TO ACT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMITS.  THERE WOULD BE MORE
FORCE IN PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IF RULE 25(A) HAD, WITHOUT MORE, SET A
TWO-YEAR PERIOD WITHIN WHICH SUBSTITUTION MIGHT BE MADE.  BUT RULE
25(A) DOES NOT STOP THERE.  IT DIRECTS THE COURT TO DISMISS THE ACTION
IF SUBSTITUTION HAS NOT BEEN MADE WITHIN THAT TIME.  THAT IS ACTION
REQUIRED OF THE COURT, NOT OF A PARTY.  AND RULE 6(B) SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO OVERRIDE AN EXPRESS DIRECTION OF ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE
COURT.  SEE WALLACE V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 240, 244. 

REASONS OF POLICY SUPPORT THIS CONSTRUCTION.  IT IS, TO BE SURE,
STIPULATED THAT IN FIVE OF THE PRESENT CASES THE ESTATE IS "STILL OPEN
AND UNDISTRIBUTED"; IN ONE IT IS "STILL OPEN"; IN ANOTHER IT HAS BEEN
DISTRIBUTED.  AT LEAST WHERE AN ESTATE IS READY TO BE CLOSED OR WHERE
THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A DISTRIBUTION, REVIVOR MAY WORK UNFAIRNESS AND
BE DISRUPTIVE OF ORDERLY AND EXPEDITIOUS ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES. 
BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT IF RULE 6(B) AND RULE 25(A) ARE
CONSTRUED TO PERMIT SUBSTITUTION AFTER THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD, THE COURT
NEED NOT ALLOW IT WHERE UNFAIRNESS OR PREJUDICE WOULD RESULT.  FOR THE
NORMAL POLICY OF A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TO CLOSE THE DOOR -
FINALLY, NOT QUALIFIEDLY OR CONDITIONALLY.  THE FEDERAL LAW EMBODIED IN
RULE 25(A) HAS A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE PROBATE OF ESTATES IN THE STATE
COURTS.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE MORE DISRUPTIVE OF PROMPT AND
ORDERLY PROBATE ADMINISTRATION IN THOSE COURTS THAN ITS LANGUAGE MAKES
NECESSARY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PETITIONER BROUGHT ACTIONS AGAINST APPROXIMATELY 5,000
SHAREHOLDERS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND SOME IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.  DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE LITIGATION SOME CHANGED THEIR
RESIDENCES.  AND IT WAS STIPULATED THAT PETITIONER, WITH A LIMITED
STAFF, COULD NOT DURING THIS TIME KEEP UP WITH THE CHANGES OF RESIDENCE
OR DEATHS OF DEFENDANTS. 

FN2  CF. AINSWORTH V. GILL GLASS & FIXTURE CO., 104 F.2D 83, WITH
BURKE V. CANFIELD, 72 APP. D.C. 127, 111 F.2D 526, AND MUTUAL BENEFIT
HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASSN. V. SNYDER, 109 F.2D 469. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN4  BUT SEE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. JOY, 173 U.S. 226; WINSLOW V.
DOMESTIC ENGINEERING CO., 20 F.SUPP.  578. 

FN5  AND SEE H. REP. NO. 429, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

RULE 25(A) PROVIDES: 

"IF A PARTY DIES AND THE CLAIM IS NOT THEREBY EXTINGUISHED, THE COURT
WITHIN 2 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH MAY ORDER SUBSTITUTION OF THE PROPER
PARTIES.  IF SUBSTITUTION IS NOT SO MADE, THE ACTION SHALL BE DISMISSED
AS TO THE DECEASED PARTY...." 

I AGREE THAT THE RULE CONFERS DISCRETION TO ORDER SUBSTITUTION OF
PARTIES, HENCE IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES TO REFUSE TO DO SO AND
THEREUPON TO DISMISS THE ACTION.  BUT I DO NOT THINK THE DISCRETION
ENDS WITH THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.  FN1  THE RULE IS NOT WORDED TO REQUIRE
THIS AND ASCRIBING SUCH A CONSTRUCTION TO IT BRINGS IT INTO COLLISION
WITH THE EXPRESS TERMS AND THE POLICY OF RULE 6(B).  THE DIFFERENCE
MADE BY EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD IS NOT TO CONVERT THE RULE'S COMMAND
FOR DISMISSAL FROM A DISCRETIONARY TO A MANDATORY ONE.  IT IS MERELY TO
NARROW THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE DISCRETIONARY POWER SHALL BE
EXERCISED.  FN2 

I FIND NO BASIS FOR THINKING THAT THE TIME LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY
THE FIRST SENTENCE OF RULE 25(A) WAS INTENDED TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY
THAN ANY OTHER PRESCRIBED BY THE RULES, EXCEPT THOSE CONCERNING WHICH
THEY EXPRESSLY FORBID ENLARGEMENT.  THE COMMITTEE WHICH DRAFTED THE
RULES WAS HIGHLY COMPETENT, SPENT YEARS IN EXACTING PREPARATION, AND
WAS THOROUGHLY COGNIZANT OF WHAT IT INTENDED TO PROPOSE CONCERNING TIME
LIMITATIONS.  METICULOUS ATTENTION WAS GIVEN TO THEM.  BY COUNT THE
INDEX SHOWS 134 REFERENCES TO PROVISIONS RELATING TO TIME FOR TAKING
VARIOUS ACTIONS. 

THE COMMITTEE KNEW THEIR VOLUME AND VARIETY.  IT WAS CONSCIOUS ALSO
OF THE MANY DIFFICULTIES AND INJUSTICES WHICH HAD ARISEN BY VIRTUE OF
RIGID TIME LIMITATIONS, WHETHER LAID BY STATUTE, RULE OF COURT, OR
JUDICIAL DECISION.  FN3  THE DELIBERATELY CHOSEN POLICY WAS TO DO AWAY
WITH THOSE RIGIDITIES AND TO SUBSTITUTE SOUND DISCRETIONARY
LIMITATIONS, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY DIRECTED.  FN4  THIS POLICY
WAS STATED CLEARLY, FULLY AND I THINK ACCURATELY IN THE RULES
THEMSELVES BY THE ADDITION OF RULE 6, OF WHICH SUBDIVISION (B) IS
EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE HERE. 

BY THIS UNAMBIGUOUS DECLARATION IT WAS PROVIDED THAT "THE COURT FOR
CAUSE SHOWN MAY, AT ANY TIME IN ITS DISCRETION  ...  (2) UPON MOTION
PERMIT THE ACT TO BE DONE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE SPECIFIED PERIOD
WHERE THE FAILURE TO ACT WAS THE RESULT OF EXCUSABLE NEGLECT."  FN5
THIS WAS APPLICABLE IN ANY SITUATION "WHEN BY THESE RULES OR BY A
NOTICE GIVEN THEREUNDER OR BY ORDER OF COURT AN ACT IS REQUIRED OR
ALLOWED TO BE DONE AT OR WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD," WITH TWO AND ONLY
TWO EXCEPTIONS.  THESE WERE TO FORBID ENLARGING THE TIME FOR TAKING ANY
ACTION UNDER RULE 59, EXCEPT AS STATED IN SUBDIVISION (C) THEREOF, AND
THE PERIOD FOR TAKING APPEAL.  RULE 73.  THE FORBIDDEN ENLARGEMENTS
UNDER RULE 59 INVOLVE MATTERS CONCERNING THE GRANTING OF NEW TRIALS. 

IN THOSE TWO RESPECTS AND IN THEM ALONE THE TIME LIMITATION WAS MADE,
AND WAS INTENDED TO BE, "JURISDICTIONAL."  FOR THE REST, THE COURTS
WERE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION.  IT IS TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE LIMITS OF
DISCRETION FIXED FOR ENLARGING TIME AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PERIODS WERE
NARROWED BY REQUIRING THAT ENLARGEMENT BE MADE, IF AT ALL, ONLY UPON
MOTION AND ONLY UPON SHOWING THAT THE FAILURE TO ACT WITHIN TIME WAS
DUE TO EXCUSABLE NEGLECT.  FN6  THOSE LIMITATIONS WERE APPLICABLE HERE,
IN MY OPINION, AND ADMITTEDLY THEY WERE SATISFIED. 

RULE 6, INCLUDING SUBDIVISIONS (B) AND (C), WAS THUS A GENERAL AND A
CAREFULLY DRAWN DECLARATION OF PARAMOUNT POLICY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
LIMITATIONS OF TIME.  IT MADE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN RULES GOVERNING
ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE PARTIES AND ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE
COURTS.  FN7  IT MADE NO EXCEPTIONS OTHER THAN THE TWO EXPRESSLY SET
FORTH.  THIS COURT APPROVED THE RULE AS DRAWN AND CONGRESS ALLOWED IT
TO BECOME LAW WITHOUT MODIFICATION.  TO ASSUME OR TO RULE THAT
ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS WERE INTENDED IS TO ASSUME THAT THE COMMITTEE,
THE COURT AND CONGRESS OVERLOOKED OTHERS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED
IN RULE 6(B) OR DID NOT INTEND THE DECLARED POLICY OF THAT SECTION TO
BE EFFECTIVE FULLY ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS.  I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT
EITHER CONCLUSION.  IF WE MAY MAKE AN ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION FORBIDDING
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN CASES COVERED BY RULE 25(A) IN THE FACE OF THE
EXPRESS PROVISION OF RULE 6(B), THERE IS NO REASON WHY OTHERS MAY NOT
ALSO BE MADE, AND THUS THE SALUTARY POLICY OF RULE 6(B) BE DEFEATED. 
FN8 

THE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY SAID TO SUPPORT THE DECISION WOULD BE
GROUNDS EITHER FOR THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING
WHETHER TO DENY ENLARGEMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION OR FOR
AMENDMENT OF RULE 6(B) SO AS TO EXCLUDE SUCH CASES AS THIS.  FN9  THEY
ARE NOT A BASIS IN MY OPINION FOR CHANGING THAT RULE BY INTERPRETATION
OR FOR OPENING THE DOOR TO FURTHER RESTRICTIVE AMENDMENTS OF RULE 6(B)
IN THIS RESPECT BY THAT PROCESS.  IF THIS IS TO BE DONE, IT SHOULD BE
BY THE PRESCRIBED RULE-MAKING PROCEDURE.  INDEED THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, IN THE RECENTLY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RULE, HAS
RECOMMENDED THAT RULE 25(A) BE REPHRASED SO AS TO ELIMINATE ANY
QUESTION THAT THE RULE HAS THE MEANING ASCRIBED TO IT IN THIS OPINION. 
AND ITS NOTE APPENDED TO THE RECOMMENDATION STATES THAT THE PURPOSE IS
TO GUARD AGAINST INJUSTICES LIKELY TO RESULT FROM A FLAT TWO-YEAR
LIMITATION.  FN10  IN MY OPINION THE COMMITTEE'S ACTION AND THE REASONS
GIVEN FOR IT CONFIRM, RATHER THAN DISAVOW, THE SECTION'S ORIGINALLY
INTENDED MEANING.    THIS CASE IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE KINDS OF
INJUSTICE THE COMMITTEE SOUGHT TO AVOID.  AND THE CONSIDERATIONS OF
POLICY ARE NOT ALTOGETHER ONE-SIDED.  THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION IN
SUCH A CASE AS THIS IS NOT ONLY TO THROW AN ADMITTEDLY IMPOSSIBLE
BURDEN UPON THE PARTY SEEKING WITHOUT NEGLECT TO ENFORCE HIS CAUSE OF
ACTION.  IT IS ALSO TO THROW UPON OTHER PARTIES, EQUALLY HELPLESS, A
HEAVIER BURDEN OF FINANCIAL LOSS, WHETHER BY DEPRIVING THEM OF RIGHTFUL
RECOVERY OR BY FORCING THEM, IN SOME INSTANCES AT LEAST, TO BEAR A
LARGER SHARE OF THE COMMON RESPONSIBILITY.  FN11    IN MY OPINION THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION GIVEN BY THE RULES. 

FN1  THE NOTES OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ORIGINAL FEDERAL
RULES STATE THAT RULE 25(A) "IS BASED UPON EQUITY RULE 45(DEATH OF
PARTY - REVIVOR) AND U.S.C., TITLE 28, SEC. 778(DEATH OF PARTIES;
SUBSTITUTION OF EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR)."  PRIOR TO 1921 WHAT IS NOW
28 U.S.C. SEC. 778 DID NOT APPLY TO SUITS IN EQUITY.  EQUITY RULE 45,
WITH ITS PROVISION THAT A MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION MIGHT BE MADE WITHIN
"A REASONABLE TIME," WAS GOVERNING.  BUT BY 42 STAT. 352 IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT THE REVIVAL OF EQUITY SUITS SHOULD BE BY SCIRE FACIAS,
AND A TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS MADE APPLICABLE.  SEE 28
U.S.C.A. (1928) SEC. 774 TO END, P. 99, "COMPILER'S NOTE." 

HOWEVER, IN GENERAL THE RULES WERE INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE RATHER THAN
INCORPORATE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING STATUTORY OR OTHER PROVISIONS, WHERE
THE WORDING WAS DIFFERENT; AND THE COMMITTEE'S STATEMENT THAT RULE
25(A) "IS BASED UPON EQUITY RULE 45" AS WELL AS 28 U.S.C. SEC. 778,
TOGETHER WITH THE DIFFERENT WORDING OF THE RULE AND THAT SECTION, MAY
INDICATE THAT THE COMMITTEE EITHER CONSIDERED EQUITY RULE 45 STILL
EFFECTIVE, FOR WHICH THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SOME JUDICIAL AUTHORITY,
SEE ELECTROPURE SALES CORP. V. ANGLIM, 21 F.SUPP.  451, 452; GASKINS V.
BONFILS, 4 F.SUPP.  547, 550-551, OR INTENDED TO ADOPT IT IN SUBSTANCE
AS THE BASIS AND EFFECT OF RULE 25(A).  HAD THE PURPOSE BEEN TO
INCORPORATE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 778, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NECESSITY FOR
CHANGING THE WORDING, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO THE SCIRE FACIAS
PROCEDURE.  SEE NOTE 10 INFRA AND TEXT. 

FN2  SEE TEXT AT NOTE 6 INFRA. 

FN3  SEE RULES 6(B), (C) AND 60, ALL OF WHICH HAVE RECEIVED WIDE
COMMENT.  SEE ALSO NOTES 4 AND 10. 

FN4  SEE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTE ON THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE AT WASHINGTON, D.C., AND OF THE SYMPOSIUM AT NEW YORK CITY
(1939) 83-84; PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTE ON THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE AT CLEVELAND (1938) 210-211; HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH REGARD
TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., 60. 

FN5  THE RULE IN FULL IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"RULE 6(B) ENLARGEMENT.  WHEN BY THESE RULES OR BY A NOTICE GIVEN
THEREUNDER OR BY ORDER OF COURT AN ACT IS REQUIRED OR ALLOWED TO BE
DONE AT OR WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME, THE COURT FOR CAUSE SHOWN MAY, AT
ANY TIME IN ITS DISCRETION (1) WITH OR WITHOUT MOTION OR NOTICE, ORDER
THE PERIOD ENLARGED IF APPLICATION THEREFOR IS MADE BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD ORIGINALLY PRESCRIBED OR AS EXTENDED BY A
PREVIOUS ORDER OR (2) UPON MOTION PERMIT THE ACT TO BE DONE AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE SPECIFIED PERIOD WHERE THE FAILURE TO ACT WAS THE
RESULT OF EXCUSABLE NEGLECT; BUT IT MAY NOT ENLARGE THE PERIOD FOR
TAKING ANY ACTION UNDER RULE 59, EXCEPT AS STATED IN SUBDIVISION (C)
THEREOF, OR THE PERIOD FOR TAKING AN APPEAL AS PROVIDED BY LAW." 

FN6  SEE NOTE 5.  IF RULE 25(A) CONSTITUTES IN EFFECT A STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, AS THE COURT HOLDS, IT MAY BE INQUIRED WHETHER, EVEN UPON
PROPER APPLICATION MADE WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD UNDER RULE 6(B)(1),
SEE NOTE 5, THE COURT COULD ENLARGE THE TIME BY EXTENSION, AS SEEMS
CLEARLY CONTEMPLATED BY THE CLAUSE "OR AS EXTENDED BY A PREVIOUS
ORDER." 

FN7  SEE NOTE 5.  THE RULES ARE REPLETE WITH PROVISIONS FOR ACTION TO
BE TAKEN WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIODS BY THE COURTS UPON THEIR OWN
INITIATIVE AS WELL AS UPON MOTION BY THE PARTIES.  RULE 6(B) IS ITSELF
AN ILLUSTRATION.  CERTAINLY IT CANNOT BE SAID, IN VIEW OF THE RULE'S
COMPREHENSIVE LANGUAGE, THAT IT APPLIES ONLY TO ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY
THE PARTIES AND HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF INSTANCES IN
WHICH LIMITATIONS OF TIME ARE IMPOSED FOR ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE
COURTS.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD BRING BACK MANY OF THE EVILS THE
RULES WERE DESIGNED TO AVOID.  IT WOULD DEFEAT PERHAPS AS MANY OF THE
LITERAL AND INTENDED APPLICATIONS OF RULE 6(B) AS IT WOULD PRESERVE. 

RULE 6(C) IS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE PERIOD OF TIME PROVIDED FOR THE DOING
OF ANY ACT OR THE TAKING OF ANY PROCEEDING IS NOT AFFECTED OR LIMITED
BY THE EXPIRATION OF A TERM OF COURT.  THE EXPIRATION OF A TERM OF
COURT IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE POWER OF A COURT TO DO ANY ACT OR TAKE ANY
PROCEEDING IN ANY CIVIL ACTION WHICH HAS BEEN PENDING BEFORE IT." 

FN8  THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN ITS REPORT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1946) 2-6 POINTS OUT THAT DISTRICT COURTS
AND CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS IN SOME CASES HAVE REFUSED TO APPLY RULE
6(B) TO OTHER RULES AS WELL AS RULE 25(A), SEE, E.G., WALLACE V. UNITED
STATES, 142 F.2D 240; REED V. SOUTH ATLANTIC S.S. CO., 2 F.R.D. 475;
MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASSN. V. SNYDER, 109 F.2D 469; CF.
BURKE V. CANFIELD, 72 APP. D.C. 127, 111 F.2D 526, THOUGH OTHER CASES
HAVE RULED THE OTHER WAY.  SEE, E.G., SCHRAM V. O'CONNOR, 2 F.R.D. 192,
194; AINSWORTH V. GILL GLASS & FIXTURE CO., 104 F.2D 83. 

FN9  BUT SEE NOTE 10 AND TEXT. 

FN10  REPORT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR
THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES (1946) 31-32. 

THE REVISION OF RULE 25(A) RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE READS AS
FOLLOWS, THE REVISED MATTER APPEARING IN ITALICS:  "IF A PARTY DIES AND
THE CLAIM IS NOT THEREBY EXTINGUISHED, THE COURT UPON APPLICATION MADE
WITHIN 2 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH SHALL ORDER SUBSTITUTION OF THE PROPER
PARTIES.  IF THE APPLICATION IS MADE AFTER 2 YEARS THE COURT MAY ORDER
SUBSTITUTION BUT ONLY UPON THE SHOWING OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR
FAILURE TO APPLY WITHIN THAT PERIOD.  IF SUBSTITUTION IS NOT SO MADE,
THE ACTION SHALL BE DISMISSED AS TO THE DECEASED PARTY...." 

THE COMMITTEE APPENDS THE FOLLOWING COMMENT:  "THIS AMENDMENT GUARDS
AGAINST POSSIBLE INJUSTICE IN A CASE WHERE THERE IS SOME REASONABLE
EXCUSE FOR NOT APPLYING FOR SUBSTITUTION WITHIN THE 2-YEAR PERIOD.  IT
HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE COURT HAS NO POWER TO PERMIT SUBSTITUTION AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF THE 2-YEAR LIMIT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 
WINKELMAN V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. (S.D.N.Y. 1939) 30 F.SUPP.  112;
ANDERSON V. BRADY (E.D. KY. 1941) 4 FED. RULES SERV. 25A.1, CASE 1;
PHOTOMETRIC PRODUCTS CORP. V. RADTKE (S.D.N.Y. 1946) 9 FED. RULES SERV.
25A.3, CASE 1; ANDERSON V. YUNGKAU (C.C.A.6TH, 1946) 153 F.(2D) 685,
CERT. GRANTED (1946) 66 S. CT. 1025." 

IN ITS COMMENT RELATING TO RULE 6(B), PP. 2-3, THE COMMITTEE STATES:
"IN A NUMBER OF CASES THE EFFECT OF RULE 6(B) ON THE TIME LIMITATIONS
OF THESE RULES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED.  CERTAINLY THE RULE IS SUSCEPTIBLE
OF THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE COURT IS GIVEN THE POWER IN ITS
DISCRETION TO RELIEVE A PARTY FROM FAILURE TO ACT WITHIN THE TIMES
SPECIFIED IN ANY OF THESE OTHER RULES, WITH ONLY THE EXCEPTIONS STATED
IN RULE 6(B), AND IN SOME CASES THE RULE HAS BEEN SO CONSTRUED." 

"WITH REGARD TO RULE 25(A) FOR SUBSTITUTION, IT WAS HELD IN ANDERSON
V. BRADY (E.D. KY. 1941) 4 FED. RULES SERVICE 25A.1, CASE 1, AND IN
ANDERSON V. YUNGKAU (C.C.A.6TH, 1946) 153 F.(2D) 685, CERT. GRANTED
(1946) 66 S. CT. 1025, THAT UNDER RULE 6(B) THE COURT HAD NO AUTHORITY
TO ALLOW SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE LIMIT
FIXED IN RULE 25(A)." 

FN11  THE STATUTORY LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS IN NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATIONS WAS CREATED BY 12 U.S.C. SECS. 63, 64.  BY SEC. 63 THE
SHAREHOLDER WAS MADE "INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE, EQUALLY AND RATABLY AND
NOT ONE FOR ANOTHER, FOR ALL CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS OF SUCH
ASSOCIATION, TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF THEIR STOCK THEREIN, AT THE
PAR VALUE THEREOF, IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN SUCH
SHARES...."  BY SEC. 64 THE SHAREHOLDER WAS MADE "INDIVIDUALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS OF SUCH
ASSOCIATION, EACH TO THE AMOUNT OF HIS STOCK THEREIN, AT THE PAR VALUE
THEREOF IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN SUCH STOCK." 

TO WHAT EXTENT SEC. 64 MAY HAVE MODIFIED SEC. 63 HAS BEEN DISPUTED. 
SEE AMERICAN TRUST CO. V. GRUT, 80 F.2D 155; FIRST NAT. BANK V. FIRST
NAT. BANK, 14 F.2D 129.  BUT IN ANDERSON V. ABBOTT WE SAID:  "IT IS
SUFFICIENT AT THIS TIME TO STATE THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS
OF BANCO WOULD BE MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF SHARES OF STOCK OF THE
BANK, WHETHER SEVERAL OR ONLY FRACTIONAL, REPRESENTED BY EACH SHARE OF
STOCK OF BANCO; AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT LIABILITY OF EACH SHARE OF
STOCK OF BANCO WOULD BE A LIKE PROPORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT LIABILITY
OF THE SHARES OF THE BANK REPRESENTED BY THE FORMER."  321 U.S. 349,
368-369.  AND IN FRANK V. GIESY, 117 F.2D 122, 125, IT WAS HELD THAT
THE OMISSION IN SEC. 64 OF THE PRO RATA LIMITATION OF SEC. 63 WAS
INTENDED TO STRENGTHEN THE POSITION OF CREDITORS, MAKING EACH
SHAREHOLDER'S LIABILITY SEVERAL AND FULLY ENFORCEABLE THOUGH OTHERS GO
FREE.  IN FIRST NAT. BANK V. FIRST NAT. BANK, SUPRA, THE SHAREHOLDER
MADE TO PAY WAS HELD ENTITLED TO ENFORCE CONTRIBUTION AGAINST OTHERS
NOT PROCEEDED AGAINST.  THE SHAREHOLDER'S LIABILITY IS SECONDARY ONLY,
MCCLAINE V. RANKIN, 197 U.S. 154, 161; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. NICHOLS,
294 MASS. 173, 181, 200 N.E. 869, AND THOUGH ONE IS NOT RELIEVED EITHER
WHOLLY OR IN PART BECAUSE OTHERS ARE NOT COMPELLED TO PAY, NEITHER IS
ANY REQUIRED TO PAY MORE PROPORTIONATELY THAN IS NEEDED FROM THE FUND
ACTUALLY COLLECTED TO DISCHARGE THE BANK'S OBLIGATIONS.  BANK OF WARE
SHOALS V. MARTIN, 17 F.SUPP.  61, 63.  THE LIABILITY IS NOT A DEBT BUT
IS ONE MERELY ASSURING PAYMENT OF THE BANK'S OBLIGATIONS.  MCCLAINE V.
RANKIN, SUPRA. 

THE COURT'S DECISION THEREFORE IN EFFECT CUTS OFF ANY POSSIBILITY
SHAREHOLDERS FORCED TO PAY MAY HAVE FOR REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNTS OF
THEIR PAYMENTS EITHER THROUGH THE RECEIVER'S ENFORCEMENT OF THE
LIABILITY DIRECTLY AGAINST DECEDENT SHAREHOLDERS' ESTATES OR BY SEEKING
CONTRIBUTION FROM THEM AFTER THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.  AND THIS IS DONE
REGARDLESS OF THE ESTATE'S COMPARATIVE ABILITY TO PAY, OF WHETHER IT IS
IN AN EARLY OR A LATE STAGE OF ADMINISTRATION, AND OF WHEN THE DEATH
OCCURS.  THUS, IN THESE CASES, ONLY ONE ESTATE HAS BEEN CLOSED AND ONE
OTHER IS NEARING THAT STAGE; BUT SO FAR AS APPEARS THE OTHER FIVE
REMAIN OPEN AND UNDISTRIBUTED. 

THE SUITS WERE BEGUN IN 1936.  EIGHT YEARS WERE TAKEN UP FOR
LITIGATION OF THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE OF LIABILITY IN ANDERSON V. ABBOTT,
SUPRA.  THAT LIABILITY HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED AFTER SO LONG A TIME,
NOW ELEVEN YEARS AFTER THE SUITS WERE INSTITUTED THIS DECISION COMES TO
NULLIFY IT IN SUBSTANTIAL PART AND EFFECT.  THE RESULT, IN MY OPINION,
IS QUITE AS MUCH TO MAKE THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THESE STATUTES TURN
ON ACCIDENTS OF LIFE AND DEATH IN SOME INSTANCES, PERHAPS IN MANY, AT
VARIANCE WITH THE NATURE OF THE LIABILITY AND ITS FAIR ADMINISTRATION,
AS OTHER DISTINCTIONS WERE SAID IN THE ANDERSON CASE TO MAKE THE
PROTECTION TURN ON IRRELEVANT ACCIDENTS.  321 U.S. AT 367. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :
























HICKMAN V. TAYLOR, 329 U.S. 495 


NO. 47.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1947.  - 153
F.2D 212, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT IN A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AGAINST CERTAIN TUG OWNERS TO RECOVER FOR THE
DEATH OF A SEAMAN IN THE SINKING OF THE TUG FILED NUMEROUS
INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO THE DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING ONE INQUIRING
WHETHER ANY STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE CREW WERE TAKEN IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ACCIDENT AND REQUESTING THAT EXACT COPIES OF ALL SUCH WRITTEN
STATEMENTS BE ATTACHED AND THAT THE DEFENDANT "SET FORTH IN DETAIL THE
EXACT PROVISIONS OF ANY SUCH ORAL STATEMENTS OR REPORTS."  THERE WAS NO
SHOWING OF NECESSITY OR OTHER JUSTIFICATION FOR THESE REQUESTS.  A
PUBLIC HEARING HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE THE UNITED STATES STEAMBOAT
INSPECTORS, AT WHICH THE SURVIVORS OF THE ACCIDENT HAD BEEN EXAMINED
AND THEIR TESTIMONY RECORDED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL INTERESTED
PARTIES.  DEFENDANTS ANSWERED ALL OTHER INTERROGATORIES, STATING
OBJECTIVE FACTS AND GIVING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES, BUT
DECLINED TO SUMMARIZE OR SET FORTH THE STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM WITNESSES,
ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE "PRIVILEGED MATTER OBTAINED IN PREPARATION
FOR LITIGATION."  AFTER A HEARING ON OBJECTIONS TO THE INTERROGATORIES,
THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE REQUESTED MATTERS WERE NOT PRIVILEGED
AND DECREED THAT THEY BE PRODUCED AND THAT MEMORANDA OF DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL CONTAINING STATEMENTS OF FACT BY WITNESSES EITHER BE PRODUCED
OR SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF THOSE PORTIONS WHICH
SHOULD BE REVEALED TO PLAINTIFF.  DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL REFUSED
AND WERE ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT.  HELD: 

1.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RULES 26, 33 AND 34 OF THE FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DO NOT REQUIRE THE PRODUCTION AS OF RIGHT OF ORAL
AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES SECURED BY AN ADVERSE PARTY'S
COUNSEL IN THE COURSE OF PREPARATION FOR POSSIBLE LITIGATION AFTER A
CLAIM HAS ARISEN.  PP. 509-514. 

2.  SINCE PLAINTIFF ADDRESSED SIMPLE INTERROGATORIES TO ADVERSE
PARTIES, DID NOT DIRECT THEM TO SUCH PARTIES OR THEIR COUNSEL BY WAY OF
DEPOSITION UNDER RULE 26, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HE FILED A MOTION
UNDER RULE 34 FOR A COURT ORDER DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF THE
DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION, HE WAS PROCEEDING PRIMARILY UNDER RULE 33,
RELATING TO INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES.  P. 504. 

3.  RULES 33 AND 34 ARE LIMITED TO PARTIES, THEREBY EXCLUDING THEIR
COUNSEL OR AGENTS.  P. 504. 

4.  RULE 33 DID NOT PERMIT THE PLAINTIFF TO OBTAIN, AS ADJUNCTS TO
INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANTS, MEMORANDA AND STATEMENTS
PREPARED BY THEIR COUNSEL AFTER A CLAIM HAD ARISEN.  P. 504. 

5.  THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT FOR
FAILURE TO PRODUCE THAT WHICH WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THEIR COUNSEL
AND IN HOLDING THEIR COUNSEL IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE THAT
WHICH HE COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE UNDER EITHER RULE 33 OR RULE
34.  P. 505. 

6.  MEMORANDA, STATEMENTS AND MENTAL IMPRESSIONS PREPARED OR OBTAINED
FROM INTERVIEWS WITH WITNESSES BY COUNSEL IN PREPARING FOR LITIGATION
AFTER A CLAIM HAS ARISEN ARE NOT WITHIN THE ATTORNEYCLIENT PRIVILEGE
AND ARE NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY ON THAT BASIS.  P. 508. 

7.  THE GENERAL POLICY AGAINST INVADING THE PRIVACY OF AN ATTORNEY'S
COURSE OF PREPARATION IS SO ESSENTIAL TO AN ORDERLY WORKING OF OUR
SYSTEM OF LEGAL PROCEDURE THAT A BURDEN RESTS ON THE ONE WHO WOULD
INVADE THAT PRIVACY TO ESTABLISH ADEQUATE REASONS TO JUSTIFY PRODUCTION
THROUGH A SUBPOENA OR COURT ORDER.  P. 512. 

8.  RULE 30(B) GIVES THE TRIAL JUDGE THE REQUISITE DISCRETION TO MAKE
A JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER DISCOVERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS TO WRITTEN
STATEMENTS SECURED FROM WITNESSES; BUT IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO GROUND
FOR THE EXERCISE OF THAT DISCRETION IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF.  P. 512. 

9.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, NO SHOWING OF NECESSITY
COULD BE MADE WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF ORAL
STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES TO DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL, WHETHER PRESENTLY
IN THE FORM OF HIS MENTAL IMPRESSIONS OR IN THE FORM OF MEMORANDA.  P.
512. 

HICKMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, V. TAYLOR ET AL., TRADING AS TAYLOR & ANDERSON
TOWING & LIGHTERAGE CO., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT COURT ADJUDGED RESPONDENTS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE
TO PRODUCE, IN RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES, COPIES OF CERTAIN WRITTEN
STATEMENTS AND MEMORANDA PREPARED BY COUNSEL IN CONNECTION WITH PENDING
LITIGATION.  4 F.R.D. 479.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  153
F.2D 212.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 876.  AFFIRMED, P.
514. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH A PARTY MAY INQUIRE INTO ORAL
AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES, OR OTHER INFORMATION, SECURED BY
AN ADVERSE PARTY'S COUNSEL IN THE COURSE OF PREPARATION FOR POSSIBLE
LITIGATION AFTER A CLAIM HAS ARISEN.  EXAMINATION INTO A PERSON'S FILES
AND RECORDS, INCLUDING THOSE RESULTING FROM THE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
OF AN ATTORNEY, MUST BE JUDGED WITH CARE.  IT IS NOT WITHOUT REASON
THAT VARIOUS SAFEGUARDS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED TO PRECLUDE UNWARRANTED
EXCURSIONS INTO THE PRIVACY OF A MAN'S WORK.  AT THE SAME TIME, PUBLIC
POLICY SUPPORTS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY INQUIRIES.  PROPERLY TO
BALANCE THESE COMPETING INTERESTS IS A DELICATE AND DIFFICULT TASK. 

ON FEBRUARY 7, 1943, THE TUG "J. M. TAYLOR" SANK WHILE ENGAGED IN
HELPING TO TOW A CAR FLOAT OF THE BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD ACROSS THE
DELAWARE RIVER AT PHILADELPHIA.  THE ACCIDENT WAS APPARENTLY UNUSUAL IN
NATURE, THE CAUSE OF IT STILL BEING UNKNOWN.  FIVE OF THE NINE CREW
MEMBERS WERE DROWNED.  THREE DAYS LATER THE TUG OWNERS AND THE
UNDERWRITERS EMPLOYED A LAW FIRM, OF WHICH RESPONDENT FORTENBAUGH IS A
MEMBER, TO DEFEND THEM AGAINST POTENTIAL SUITS BY REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE DECEASED CREW MEMBERS AND TO SUE THE RAILROAD FOR DAMAGES TO THE
TUG. 

A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON MARCH 4, 1943, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
STEAMBOAT INSPECTORS, AT WHICH THE FOUR SURVIVORS WERE EXAMINED.  THIS
TESTIMONY WAS RECORDED AND MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER, FORTENBAUGH PRIVATELY INTERVIEWED THE SURVIVORS AND
TOOK STATEMENTS FROM THEM WITH AN EYE TOWARD THE ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION; THE SURVIVORS SIGNED THESE STATEMENTS ON MARCH 29. 
FORTENBAUGH ALSO INTERVIEWED OTHER PERSONS BELIEVED TO HAVE SOME
INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ACCIDENT AND IN SOME CASES HE MADE
MEMORANDA OF WHAT THEY TOLD HIM.  AT THE TIME WHEN FORTENBAUGH SECURED
THE STATEMENTS OF THE SURVIVORS, REPRESENTATIVES OF TWO OF THE DECEASED
CREW MEMBERS HAD BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH HIM.  ULTIMATELY CLAIMS
WERE PRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL FIVE OF THE DECEASED; FOUR OF
THE CLAIMS, HOWEVER, WERE SETTLED WITHOUT LITIGATION.  THE FIFTH
CLAIMANT, PETITIONER HEREIN, BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT UNDER THE
JONES ACT ON NOVEMBER 26, 1943, NAMING AS DEFENDANTS THE TWO TUG
OWNERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNERS, AND THE RAILROAD. 

ONE YEAR LATER, PETITIONER FILED 39 INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO THE
TUG OWNERS.  THE 38TH INTERROGATORY READ:  "STATE WHETHER ANY
STATEMENTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CREWS OF THE TUGS 'J. M. TAYLOR' AND
'PHILADELPHIA' OR OF ANY OTHER VESSEL WERE TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE
TOWING OF THE CAR FLOAT AND THE SINKING OF THE TUG 'JOHN M. TAYLOR.' 
ATTACH HERETO EXACT COPIES OF ALL SUCH STATEMENTS IF IN WRITING, AND IF
ORAL, SET FORTH IN DETAIL THE EXACT PROVISIONS OF ANY SUCH ORAL
STATEMENTS OR REPORTS." 

SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES ASKED WHETHER ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN
STATEMENTS, RECORDS, REPORTS OR OTHER MEMORANDA HAD BEEN MADE
CONCERNING ANY MATTER RELATIVE TO THE TOWING OPERATION, THE SINKING OF
THE TUG, THE SALVAGING AND REPAIR OF THE TUG, AND THE DEATH OF THE
DECEASED.  IF THE ANSWER WAS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THE TUG OWNERS WERE
THEN REQUESTED TO SET FORTH THE NATURE OF ALL SUCH RECORDS, REPORTS,
STATEMENTS OR OTHER MEMORANDA. 

THE TUG OWNERS, THROUGH FORTENBAUGH, ANSWERED ALL OF THE
INTERROGATORIES EXCEPT NO. 38 AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ONES JUST
DESCRIBED.  WHILE ADMITTING THAT STATEMENTS OF THE SURVIVORS HAD BEEN
TAKEN, THEY DECLINED TO SUMMARIZE OR SET FORTH THE CONTENTS.  THEY DID
SO ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH REQUESTS CALLED "FOR PRIVILEGED MATTER
OBTAINED IN PREPARATION FOR LITIGATION" AND CONSTITUTED "AN ATTEMPT TO
OBTAIN INDIRECTLY COUNSEL'S PRIVATE FILES."  IT WAS CLAIMED THAT
ANSWERING THESE REQUESTS "WOULD INVOLVE PRACTICALLY TURNING OVER NOT
ONLY THE COMPLETE FILES, BUT ALSO THE TELEPHONE RECORDS AND, ALMOST,
THE THOUGHTS OF COUNSEL." 

IN CONNECTION WITH THE HEARING ON THESE OBJECTIONS, FORTENBAUGH MADE
A WRITTEN STATEMENT AND GAVE AN INFORMAL ORAL DEPOSITION EXPLAINING THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE HAD TAKEN THE STATEMENTS.  BUT HE WAS NOT
EXPRESSLY ASKED IN THE DEPOSITION TO PRODUCE THE STATEMENTS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, SITTING EN
BANC, HELD THAT THE REQUESTED MATTERS WERE NOT PRIVILEGED.  4 F.R.D.
479.  THE COURT THEN DECREED THAT THE TUG OWNERS AND FORTENBAUGH, AS
COUNSEL AND AGENT FOR THE TUG OWNERS, FORTHWITH "ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S
38TH INTERROGATORY AND SUPPLEMENTARY INTERROGATORIES; PRODUCE ALL
WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES OBTAINED BY MR. FORTENBAUGH, AS COUNSEL
AND AGENT FOR DEFENDANTS; STATE IN SUBSTANCE ANY FACT CONCERNING THIS
CASE WHICH DEFENDANTS LEARNED THROUGH ORAL STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES
TO MR. FORTENBAUGH WHETHER OR NOT INCLUDED IN HIS PRIVATE MEMORANDA AND
PRODUCE MR. FORTENBAUGH'S MEMORANDA CONTAINING STATEMENTS OF FACT BY
WITNESSES OR TO SUBMIT THESE MEMORANDA TO THE COURT FOR DETERMINATION
OF THOSE PORTIONS WHICH SHOULD BE REVEALED TO PLAINTIFF."  UPON THEIR
REFUSAL, THE COURT ADJUDGED THEM IN CONTEMPT AND ORDERED THEM
IMPRISONED UNTIL THEY COMPLIED. 

THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ALSO SITTING EN BANC, REVERSED
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  153 F.2D 212.  IT HELD THAT THE
INFORMATION HERE SOUGHT WAS PART OF THE "WORK PRODUCT OF THE LAWYER"
AND HENCE PRIVILEGED FROM DISCOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM, WHICH HAS ENGENDERED A GREAT
DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS AMONG DISTRICT COURTS, FN1  LED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 876. 

THE PRE-TRIAL DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY MECHANISM ESTABLISHED BY RULES 26
TO 37 IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INNOVATIONS OF THE FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  UNDER THE PRIOR FEDERAL PRACTICE, THE PRE-TRIAL
FUNCTIONS OF NOTICEGIVING, ISSUE-FORMULATION AND FACT-REVELATION WERE
PERFORMED PRIMARILY AND INADEQUATELY BY THE PLEADINGS.  FN2  INQUIRY
INTO THE ISSUES AND THE FACTS BEFORE TRIAL WAS NARROWLY CONFINED AND
WAS OFTEN CUMBERSOME IN METHOD.  FN3  THE NEW RULES, HOWEVER, RESTRICT
THE PLEADINGS TO THE TASK OF GENERAL NOTICE-GIVING AND INVEST THE
DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY PROCESS WITH A VITAL ROLE IN THE PREPARATION FOR
TRIAL.  THE VARIOUS INSTRUMENTS OF DISCOVERY NOW SERVE (1) AS A DEVICE,
ALONG WITH THE PRE-TRIAL HEARING UNDER RULE 16, TO NARROW AND CLARIFY
THE BASIC ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND (2) AS A DEVICE FOR
ASCERTAINING THE FACTS, OR INFORMATION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OR
WHEREABOUTS OF FACTS, RELATIVE TO THOSE ISSUES.  THUS CIVIL TRIALS IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS NO LONGER NEED BE CARRIED ON IN THE DARK.  THE WAY
IS NOW CLEAR, CONSISTENT WITH RECOGNIZED PRIVILEGES, FOR THE PARTIES TO
OBTAIN THE FULLEST POSSIBLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUES AND FACTS BEFORE
TRIAL.  FN4 

THERE IS AN INITIAL QUESTION AS TO WHICH OF THE DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY
RULES IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  PETITIONER, IN FILING HIS
INTERROGATORIES, THOUGH THAT HE WAS PROCEEDING UNDER RULE 33.  THAT
RULE PROVIDES THAT A PARTY MAY SERVE UPON ANY ADVERSE PARTY WRITTEN
INTERROGATORIES TO BE ANSWERED BY THE PARTY SERVED.  FN5  THE DISTRICT
COURT PROCEEDED ON THE SAME ASSUMPTION IN ITS OPINION, ALTHOUGH ITS
ORDER TO PRODUCE AND ITS CONTEMPT ORDER STATED THAT BOTH RULES 33 AND
34 WERE INVOLVED.  RULE 34 ESTABLISHES A PROCEDURE WHEREBY, UPON MOTION
OF ANY PARTY SHOWING GOOD CAUSE THEREFOR AND UPON NOTICE TO ALL OTHER
PARTIES, THE COURT MAY ORDER ANY PARTY TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT THE
INSPECTION AND COPYING OR PHOTOGRAPHING OF ANY DESIGNATED DOCUMENTS,
ETC., NOT PRIVILEGED, WHICH CONSTITUTE OR CONTAIN EVIDENCE MATERIAL TO
ANY MATTER INVOLVED IN THE ACTION AND WHICH ARE IN HIS POSSESSION,
CUSTODY OR CONTROL.  FN6 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, FELT THAT RULE 26 WAS THE
CRUCIAL ONE.  PETITIONER, IT SAID, WAS PROCEEDING BY INTERROGATORIES
AND, IN CONNECTION WITH THOSE INTERROGATORIES, WANTED COPIES OF
MEMORANDA AND STATEMENTS SECURED FROM WITNESSES.  WHILE THE COURT
BELIEVED THAT RULE 33 WAS INVOLVED, AT LEAST AS TO THE DEFENDING TUG
OWNERS, IT STATED THAT THIS RULE COULD NOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR
CONDEMNING FORTENBAUGH'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE OR PRODUCE THE MEMORANDA
AND STATEMENTS, SINCE THE RULE APPLIES ONLY TO INTERROGATORIES
ADDRESSED TO ADVERSE PARTIES, NOT TO THEIR AGENTS OR COUNSEL.  AND RULE
34 WAS SAID TO BE INAPPLICABLE SINCE PETITIONER WAS NOT TRYING TO SEE
AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND TO COPY OR PHOTOGRAPH IT, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THAT RULE.  THE COURT THEN CONCLUDED THAT RULE 26 MUST BE THE ONE
REALLY INVOLVED.  THAT PROVIDES THAT THE TESTIMONY OF ANY PERSON,
WHETHER A PARTY OR NOT, MAY BE TAKEN BY ANY PARTY BY DEPOSITION UPON
ORAL EXAMINATION OR WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISCOVERY OR FOR USE AS EVIDENCE; AND THAT THE DEPONENT MAY BE EXAMINED
REGARDING ANY MATTER, NOT PRIVILEGED, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT
MATTER INVOLVED IN THE PENDING ACTION, WHETHER RELATING TO THE CLAIM OR
DEFENSE OF THE EXAMINING PARTY OR OF ANY OTHER PARTY, INCLUDING THE
EXISTENCE, DESCRIPTION, NATURE, CUSTODY, CONDITION AND LOCATION OF ANY
BOOKS, DOCUMENTS OR OTHER TANGIBLE THINGS.  FN7 

THE MATTER IS NOT WITHOUT DIFFICULTY IN LIGHT OF THE EVENTS THAT
TRANSPIRED BELOW.  WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT PETITIONER WAS PROCEEDING
PRIMARILY UNDER RULE 33.  HE ADDRESSED SIMPLE INTERROGATORIES SOLELY TO
THE INDIVIDUAL TUG OWNERS, THE ADVERSE PARTIES, AS CONTEMPLATED BY THAT
RULE.  HE DID NOT, AND COULD NOT UNDER RULE 33, ADDRESS SUCH
INTERROGATORIES TO THEIR COUNSEL, FORTENBAUGH.  NOR DID HE DIRECT THESE
INTERROGATORIES EITHER TO THE TUG OWNERS OR TO FORTENBAUGH BY WAY OF
DEPOSITION; RULE 26 THUS COULD NOT COME INTO OPERATION.  AND IT DOES
NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT PETITIONER FILED A MOTION UNDER RULE 34
FOR A COURT ORDER DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS IN
QUESTION.  INDEED, SUCH AN ORDER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED AS TO
FORTENBAUGH SINCE RULE 34, LIKE RULE 33, IS LIMITED TO PARTIES TO THE
PROCEEDING, THEREBY EXCLUDING THEIR COUNSEL OR AGENTS. 

THUS TO THE EXTENT THAT PETITIONER WAS SEEKING THE PRODUCTION OF THE
MEMORANDA AND STATEMENTS GATHERED BY FORTENBAUGH IN THE COURSE OF HIS
ACTIVITIES AS COUNSEL, PETITIONER MISCONCEIVED HIS REMEDY.  RULE 33 DID
NOT PERMIT HIM TO OBTAIN SUCH MEMORANDA AND STATEMENTS AS ADJUNCTS TO
THE INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO THE INDIVIDUAL TUG OWNERS.  A PARTY
CLEARLY CANNOT REFUSE TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE
INFORMATION SOUGHT IS SOLELY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ATTORNEY.  BUT
THAT IS NOT THIS CASE.  HERE PRODUCTION WAS SOUGHT OF DOCUMENTS
PREPARED BY A PARTY'S ATTORNEY AFTER THE CLAIM HAS ARISEN.  RULE 33
DOES NOT MAKE PROVISION FOR SUCH PRODUCTION, EVEN WHEN SOUGHT IN
CONNECTION WITH PERMISSIBLE INTERROGATORIES.  MOREOVER, SINCE
PETITIONER WAS ALSO FORECLOSED FROM SECURING THEM THROUGH AN ORDER
UNDER RULE 34, HIS ONLY RECOURSE WAS TO TAKE FORTENBAUGH'S DEPOSITION
UNDER RULE 26 AND TO ATTEMPT TO FORCE FORTENBAUGH TO PRODUCE THE
MATERIALS BY USE OF A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 45. 
HOLTZOFF, "INSTRUMENTS OF DISCOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE," 41 MICH. L. REV. 205, 220.  BUT DESPITE PETITIONER'S FAULTY
CHOICE OF ACTION, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN ORDER, APPARENTLY UNDER
RULE 34, COMMANDING THE TUG OWNERS AND FORTENBAUGH, AS THEIR AGENT AND
COUNSEL, TO PRODUCE THE MATERIALS IN QUESTION.  THEIR REFUSAL LED TO
THE ANOMALOUS RESULT OF HOLDING THE TUG OWNERS IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE
TO PRODUCE THAT WHICH WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THEIR COUNSEL AND OF
HOLDING FORTENBAUGH IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE THAT WHICH HE
COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE UNDER EITHER RULE 33 OR RULE 34. 

BUT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY AND UNWISE TO
REST OUR DECISION UPON THIS PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY, AN IRREGULARITY
WHICH IS NOT STRONGLY URGED UPON US AND WHICH WAS DISREGARDED IN THE
TWO COURTS BELOW.  IT MATTERS LITTLE AT THIS LATE STAGE WHETHER
FORTENBAUGH FAILS TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES FILED UNDER RULE 26 OR
UNDER RULE 33 OR WHETHER HE REFUSES TO PRODUCE THE MEMORANDA AND
STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA UNDER RULE 45 OR A COURT ORDER UNDER
RULE 34.  THE DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY RULES CREATE INTEGRATED PROCEDURAL
DEVICES.  AND THE BASIC QUESTION AT STAKE IS WHETHER ANY OF THOSE
DEVICES MAY BE USED TO INQUIRE INTO MATERIALS COLLECTED BY AN ADVERSE
PARTY'S COUNSEL IN THE COURSE OF PREPARATION FOR POSSIBLE LITIGATION. 
THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER MAY HAVE USED THE WRONG METHOD DOES NOT
DESTROY THE MAIN THRUST OF HIS ATTEMPT.  NOR DOES IT RELIEVE US OF THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THAT ATTEMPT.  IT
WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIBERAL ATMOSPHERE SURROUNDING THESE
RULES TO INSIST THAT PETITIONER NOW GO THROUGH THE EMPTY FORMALITY OF
PURSUING THE RIGHT PROCEDURAL DEVICE ONLY TO REESTABLISH PRECISELY THE
SAME BASIC PROBLEM NOW CONFRONTING US.  WE DO NOT MEAN TO SAY, HOWEVER,
THAT THERE MAY NOT BE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE FAILURE TO PROCEED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A SPECIFIC RULE WOULD BE IMPORTANT OR DECISIVE.  BUT IN
THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION, THE
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY IS NOT MATERIAL.  HAVING NOTED THE PROPER
PROCEDURE, WE MAY ACCORDINGLY TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM.    IN URGING THAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO INQUIRE
INTO THE MATERIALS SECURED AND PREPARED BY FORTENBAUGH, PETITIONER
EMPHASIZES THAT THE DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY PORTIONS OF THE FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ARE DESIGNED TO ENABLE THE PARTIES TO DISCOVER THE
TRUE FACTS AND TO COMPEL THEIR DISCLOSURE WHEREVER THEY MAY BE FOUND. 
IT IS SAID THAT INQUIRY MAY BE MADE UNDER THESE RULES, EPITOMIZED BY
RULE 26, AS TO ANY RELEVANT MATTER WHICH IS NOT PRIVILEGED; AND SINCE
THE DISCOVERY PROVISIONS ARE TO BE APPLIED AS BROADLY AND LIBERALLY AS
POSSIBLE, THE PRIVILEGE LIMITATION MUST BE RESTRICTED TO ITS NARROWEST
BOUNDS.  ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IS THE ONE
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, PETITIONER ARGUES THAT IT MUST BE STRICTLY
CONFINED TO CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY A CLIENT TO HIS
ATTORNEY.  AND SINCE THE MATERIALS HERE IN ISSUE WERE SECURED BY
FORTENBAUGH FROM THIRD PERSONS RATHER THAN FROM HIS CLIENTS, THE TUG
OWNERS, THE CONCLUSION IS REACHED THAT THESE MATERIALS ARE PROPER
SUBJECTS FOR DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 26. 

AS ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THIS RESULT, PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT TO
PROHIBIT DISCOVERY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD GIVE A CORPORATE
DEFENDANT A TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE IN A SUIT BY AN INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF. 
THUS IN A SUIT BY AN INJURED EMPLOYEE AGAINST A RAILROAD OR IN A SUIT
BY AN INSURED PERSON AGAINST AN INSURANCE COMPANY THE CORPORATE
DEFENDANT COULD PULL A DARK VEIL OF SECRECY OVER ALL THE PERTINENT
FACTS IT CAN COLLECT AFTER THE CLAIM ARISES MERELY ON THE ASSERTION
THAT SUCH FACTS WERE GATHERED BY ITS LARGE STAFF OF ATTORNEYS AND CLAIM
AGENTS.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF, WHO OFTEN HAS
DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTER IN ISSUE AND HAS NO COUNSEL UNTIL SOME
TIME AFTER HIS CLAIM ARISES COULD BE COMPELLED TO DISCLOSE ALL THE
INTIMATE DETAILS OF HIS CASE.  BY ENDOWING WITH IMMUNITY FROM
DISCLOSURE ALL THAT A LAWYER DISCOVERS IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES, IT
IS SAID, THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL LITIGANTS IN SUCH CASES ARE DRAINED
OF VITALITY AND THE LAWSUIT BECOMES MORE OF A BATTLE OF DECEPTION THAN
A SEARCH FOR TRUTH. 

BUT FRAMING THE PROBLEM IN TERMS OF ASSISTING INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS
IN THEIR SUITS AGAINST CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IS UNSATISFACTORY. 
DISCOVERY CONCEDEDLY MAY WORK TO THE DISADVANTAGE AS WELL AS TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS.  DISCOVERY, IN OTHER WORDS, IS NOT
A ONE-WAY PROPOSITION.  IT IS AVAILABLE IN ALL TYPES OF CASES AT THE
BEHEST OF ANY PARTY, INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE, PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT. 
THE PROBLEM THUS FAR TRANSCENDS THE SITUATION CONFRONTING THIS
PETITIONER.  AND WE MUST VIEW THAT PROBLEM IN LIGHT OF THE LIMITLESS
SITUATIONS WHERE THE PARTICULAR KIND OF DISCOVERY SOUGHT BY PETITIONER
MIGHT BE USED. 

WE AGREE, OF COURSE, THAT THE DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY RULES ARE TO BE
ACCORDED A BROAD AND LIBERAL TREATMENT.  NO LONGER CAN THE TIME-HONORED
CRY OF "FISHING EXPEDITION" SERVE TO PRECLUDE A PARTY FROM INQUIRING
INTO THE FACTS UNDERLYING HIS OPPONENT'S CASE.  FN8  MUTUAL KNOWLEDGE
OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS GATHERED BY BOTH PARTIES IS ESSENTIAL TO
PROPER LITIGATION.  TO THAT END, EITHER PARTY MAY COMPEL THE OTHER TO
DISGORGE WHATEVER FACTS HE HAS IN HIS POSSESSION.  THE DEPOSITION
DISCOVERY PROCEDURE SIMPLY ADVANCES THE STAGE AT WHICH THE DISCLOSURE
CAN BE COMPELLED FROM THE TIME OF TRIAL TO THE PERIOD PRECEDING IT,
THUS REDUCING THE POSSIBILITY OF SURPRISE.  BUT DISCOVERY, LIKE ALL
MATTERS OF PROCEDURE, HAS ULTIMATE AND NECESSARY BOUNDARIES.  AS
INDICATED BY RULES 30(B) AND (D) AND 31(D), LIMITATIONS INEVITABLY
ARISE WHEN IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE EXAMINATION IS BEING CONDUCTED IN
BAD FAITH OR IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ANNOY, EMBARRASS OR OPPRESS THE
PERSON SUBJECT TO THE INQUIRY.  AND AS RULE 26(B) PROVIDES, FURTHER
LIMITATIONS COME INTO EXISTENCE WHEN THE INQUIRY TOUCHES UPON THE
IRRELEVANT OR ENCROACHES UPON THE RECOGNIZED DOMAINS OF PRIVILEGE. 

WE ALSO AGREE THAT THE MEMORANDA, STATEMENTS AND MENTAL IMPRESSIONS
IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE FALL OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE AND HENCE ARE NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY ON THAT BASIS.  IT
IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO DELINEATE THE CONTENT AND SCOPE OF THAT
PRIVILEGE AS RECOGNIZED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES,
IT SUFFICES TO NOTE THAT THE PROTECTIVE CLOAK OF THIS PRIVILEGE DOES
NOT EXTEND TO INFORMATION WHICH AN ATTORNEY SECURES FROM A WITNESS
WHILE ACTING FOR HIS CLIENT IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION.  NOR DOES
THIS PRIVILEGE CONCERN THE MEMORANDA, BRIEFS, COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER
WRITINGS PREPARED BY COUNSEL FOR HIS OWN USE IN PROSECUTING HIS
CLIENT'S CASE; AND IT IS EQUALLY UNRELATED TO WRITINGS WHICH REFLECT AN
ATTORNEY'S MENTAL IMPRESSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, OPINIONS OR LEGAL
THEORIES. 

BUT THE IMPROPRIETY OF INVOKING THAT PRIVILEGE DOES NOT PROVIDE AN
ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM BEFORE US.  PETITIONER HAS MADE MORE THAN AN
ORDINARY REQUEST FOR RELEVANT, NON-PRIVILEGED FACTS IN THE POSSESSION
OF HIS ADVERSARIES OR THEIR COUNSEL.  HE HAS SOUGHT DISCOVERY AS OF
RIGHT OF ORAL AND WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES WHOSE IDENTITY IS
WELL KNOWN AND WHOSE AVAILABILITY TO PETITIONER APPEARS UNIMPAIRED.  HE
HAS SOUGHT PRODUCTION OF THESE MATTERS AFTER MAKING THE MOST SEARCHING
INQUIRIES OF HIS OPPONENTS AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE
FATAL ACCIDENT, WHICH INQUIRIES WERE SWORN TO HAVE BEEN ANSWERED TO THE
BEST OF THEIR INFORMATION AND BELIEF.  INTERROGATORIES WERE DIRECTED
TOWARD ALL THE EVENTS PRIOR TO, DURING AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE SINKING OF
THE TUG.  FULL AND HONEST ANSWERS TO SUCH BROAD INQUIRIES WOULD
NECESSARILY HAVE INCLUDED ALL PERTINENT INFORMATION GLEANED BY
FORTENBAUGH THROUGH HIS INTERVIEWS WITH THE WITNESSES.  PETITIONER
MAKES NO SUGGESTION, AND WE CANNOT ASSUME, THAT THE TUG OWNERS OR
FORTENBAUGH WERE INCOMPLETE OR DISHONEST IN THE FRAMING OF THEIR
ANSWERS.  IN ADDITION, PETITIONER WAS FREE TO EXAMINE THE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES TAKEN BEFORE THE UNITED STATES STEAMBOAT
INSPECTORS.  WE ARE THUS DEALING WITH AN ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE
PRODUCTION OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND MENTAL IMPRESSIONS CONTAINED IN
THE FILES AND THE MIND OF THE ATTORNEY FORTENBAUGH WITHOUT ANY SHOWING
OF NECESSITY OR ANY INDICATION OR CLAIM THAT DENIAL OF SUCH PRODUCTION
WOULD UNDULY PREJUDICE THE PREPARATION OF PETITIONER'S CASE OR CAUSE
HIM ANY HARDSHIP OR INJUSTICE.  FOR AUGHT THAT APPEARS, THE ESSENCE OF
WHAT PETITIONER SEEKS EITHER HAS BEEN REVEALED TO HIM ALREADY THROUGH
THE INTERROGATORIES OR IS READILY AVAILABLE TO HIM DIRECT FROM THE
WITNESSES FOR THE ASKING. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER HEARING OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER'S REQUEST,
COMMANDED FORTENBAUGH TO PRODUCE ALL WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES
AND TO STATE IN SUBSTANCE ANY FACTS LEARNED THROUGH ORAL STATEMENTS OF
WITNESSES TO HIM.  FORTENBAUGH WAS TO SUBMIT ANY MEMORANDA HE HAD MADE
OF THE ORAL STATEMENTS SO THAT THE COURT MIGHT DETERMINE WHAT PORTIONS
SHOULD BE REVEALED TO PETITIONER.  ALL OF THIS WAS ORDERED WITHOUT ANY
SHOWING BY PETITIONER, OR ANY REQUIREMENT THAT HE MAKE A PROPER
SHOWING, OF THE NECESSITY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ANY OF THIS MATERIAL OR
ANY DEMONSTRATION THAT DENIAL OF PRODUCTION WOULD CAUSE HARDSHIP OR
INJUSTICE.  THE COURT SIMPLY ORDERED PRODUCTION ON THE THEORY THAT THE
FACTS SOUGHT WERE MATERIAL AND WERE NOT PRIVILEGED AS CONSTITUTING
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS. 

IN OUR OPINION, NEITHER RULE 26 NOR ANY OTHER RULE DEALING WITH
DISCOVERY CONTEMPLATES PRODUCTION UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  THAT IS
NOT BECAUSE THE SUBJECT MATTER IS PRIVILEGED OR IRRELEVANT, AS THOSE
CONCEPTS ARE USED IN THESE RULES.  FN9  HERE IS SIMPLY AN ATTEMPT,
WITHOUT PURPORTED NECESSITY OR JUSTIFICATION, TO SECURE WRITTEN
STATEMENTS, PRIVATE MEMORANDA AND PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS PREPARED OR
FORMED BY AN ADVERSE PARTY'S COUNSEL IN THE COURSE OF HIS LEGAL
DUTIES.  AS SUCH, IT FALLS OUTSIDE THE ARENA OF DISCOVERY AND
CONTRAVENES THE PUBLIC POLICY UNDERLYING THE ORDERLY PROSECUTION AND
DEFENSE OF LEGAL CLAIMS.  NOT EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL OF DISCOVERY
THEORIES CAN JUSTIFY UNWARRANTED INQUIRIES INTO THE FILES AND THE
MENTAL IMPRESSIONS OF AN ATTORNEY. 

HISTORICALLY, A LAWYER IS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AND IS BOUND TO
WORK FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF JUSTICE WHILE FAITHFULLY PROTECTING THE
RIGHTFUL INTERESTS OF HIS CLIENTS.  IN PERFORMING HIS VARIOUS DUTIES,
HOWEVER, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT A LAWYER WORK WITH A CERTAIN DEGREE OF
PRIVACY, FREE FROM UNNECESSARY INTRUSION BY OPPOSING PARTIES AND THEIR
COUNSEL.  PROPER PREPARATION OF A CLIENT'S CASE DEMANDS THAT HE
ASSEMBLE INFORMATION, SIFT WHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE THE RELEVANT FROM
THE IRRELEVANT FACTS, PREPARE HIS LEGAL THEORIES AND PLAN HIS STRATEGY
WITHOUT UNDUE AND NEEDLESS INTERFERENCE.  THAT IS THE HISTORICAL AND
THE NECESSARY WAY IN WHICH LAWYERS ACT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF OUR
SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE TO PROMOTE JUSTICE AND TO PROTECT THEIR
CLIENTS' INTERESTS.  THIS WORK IS REFLECTED, OF COURSE, IN INTERVIEWS,
STATEMENTS, MEMORANDA, CORRESPONDENCE, BRIEFS, MENTAL IMPRESSIONS,
PERSONAL BELIEFS, AND COUNTLESS OTHER TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE WAYS -
APTLY THOUGH ROUGHLY TERMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS
CASE AS THE "WORK PRODUCT OF THE LAWYER."  WERE SUCH MATERIALS OPEN TO
OPPOSING COUNSEL ON MERE DEMAND, MUCH OF WHAT IS NOW PUT DOWN IN
WRITING WOULD REMAIN UNWRITTEN.  AN ATTORNEY'S THOUGHTS, HERETOFORE
INVIOLATE, WOULD NOT BE HIS OWN.  INEFFICIENCY, UNFAIRNESS AND SHARP
PRACTICES WOULD INEVITABLY DEVELOP IN THE GIVING OF LEGAL ADVICE AND IN
THE PREPARATION OF CASES FOR TRIAL.  THE EFFECT ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION
WOULD BE DEMORALIZING.  AND THE INTERESTS OF THE CLIENTS AND THE CAUSE
OF JUSTICE WOULD BE POORLY SERVED. 

WE DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT ALL WRITTEN MATERIALS OBTAINED OR PREPARED
BY AN ADVERSARY'S COUNSEL WITH AN EYE TOWARD LITIGATION ARE NECESSARILY
FREE FROM DISCOVERY IN ALL CASES.  WHERE RELEVANT AND NON-PRIVILEGED
FACTS REMAIN HIDDEN IN AN ATTORNEY'S FILE AND WHERE PRODUCTION OF THOSE
FACTS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PREPARATION OF ONE'S CASE, DISCOVERY MAY
PROPERLY BE HAD.  SUCH WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS MIGHT, UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE OR GIVE CLUES AS TO
THE EXISTENCE OR LOCATION OF RELEVANT FACTS.  OR THEY MIGHT BE USEFUL
FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT OR CORROBORATION.  AND PRODUCTION MIGHT BE
JUSTIFIED WHERE THE WITNESSES ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE OR CAN BE REACHED
ONLY WITH DIFFICULTY.  WERE PRODUCTION OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRECLUDED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LIBERAL IDEALS
OF THE DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY PORTIONS OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE WOULD BE STRIPPED OF MUCH OF THEIR MEANING.  BUT THE GENERAL
POLICY AGAINST INVADING THE PRIVACY OF AN ATTORNEY'S COURSE OF
PREPARATION IS SO WELL RECOGNIZED AND SO ESSENTIAL TO AN ORDERLY
WORKING OF OUR SYSTEM OF LEGAL PROCEDURE THAT A BURDEN RESTS ON THE ONE
WHO WOULD INVADE THAT PRIVACY TO ESTABLISH ADEQUATE REASONS TO JUSTIFY
PRODUCTION THROUGH A SUBPOENA OR COURT ORDER.  THAT BURDEN, WE BELIEVE,
IS NECESSARILY IMPLICIT IN THE RULES AS NOW CONSTITUTED.  FN10 

RULE 30(B), AS PRESENTLY WRITTEN, GIVES THE TRIAL JUDGE THE REQUISITE
DISCRETION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER DISCOVERY SHOULD BE ALLOWED
AS TO WRITTEN STATEMENTS SECURED FROM WITNESSES.  BUT IN THE INSTANT
CASE THERE WAS NO ROOM FOR THAT DISCRETION TO OPERATE IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER.  NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ESTABLISH ANY REASON WHY
FORTENBAUGH SHOULD BE FORCED TO PRODUCE THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS.  THERE
WAS ONLY A NAKED, GENERAL DEMAND FOR THESE MATERIALS AS OF RIGHT AND A
FINDING BY THE DISTRICT COURT THAT NO RECOGNIZABLE PRIVILEGE WAS
INVOLVED.  THAT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY DISCOVERY UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE COURT SHOULD HAVE SUSTAINED THE REFUSAL OF THE
TUG OWNERS AND FORTENBAUGH TO PRODUCE. 

BUT AS TO ORAL STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES TO FORTENBAUGH, WHETHER
PRESENTLY IN THE FORM OF HIS MENTAL IMPRESSIONS OR MEMORANDA, WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT ANY SHOWING OF NECESSITY CAN BE MADE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE SO AS TO JUSTIFY PRODUCTION.  UNDER ORDINARY
CONDITIONS, FORCING AN ATTORNEY TO REPEAT OR WRITE OUT ALL THAT
WITNESSES HAVE TOLD HIM AND TO DELIVER THE ACCOUNT TO HIS ADVERSARY
GIVES RISE TO GRAVE DANGERS OF INACCURACY AND UNTRUSTWORTHINESS.  NO
LEGITIMATE PURPOSE IS SERVED BY SUCH PRODUCTION.  THE PRACTICE FORCES
THE ATTORNEY TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HE REMEMBERS OR WHAT HE SAW FIT TO
WRITE DOWN REGARDING WITNESSES' REMARKS.  SUCH TESTIMONY COULD NOT
QUALIFY AS EVIDENCE; AND TO USE IT FOR IMPEACHMENT OR CORROBORATIVE
PURPOSES WOULD MAKE THE ATTORNEY MUCH LESS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AND
MUCH MORE AN ORDINARY WITNESS.  THE STANDARDS OF THE PROFESSION WOULD
THEREBY SUFFER. 

DENIAL OF PRODUCTION OF THIS NATURE DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY MATERIAL,
NON-PRIVILEGED FACTS CAN BE HIDDEN FROM THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE. 
HE NEED NOT BE UNDULY HINDERED IN THE PREPARATION OF HIS CASE, IN THE
DISCOVERY OF FACTS OR IN HIS ANTICIPATION OF HIS OPPONENTS' POSITION. 
SEARCHING INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO FORTENBAUGH AND THE TUG OWNERS,
PRODUCTION OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS UPON A PROPER SHOWING
AND DIRECT INTERVIEWS WITH THE WITNESSES THEMSELVES ALL SERVE TO REVEAL
THE FACTS IN FORTENBAUGH'S POSSESSION TO THE FULLEST POSSIBLE EXTENT
CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.  PETITIONER'S COUNSEL FRANKLY ADMITS
THAT HE WANTS THE ORAL STATEMENTS ONLY TO HELP PREPARE HIMSELF TO
EXAMINE WITNESSES AND TO MAKE SURE THAT HE HAS OVERLOOKED NOTHING. 
THAT IS INSUFFICIENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO PERMIT HIM AN EXCEPTION
TO THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE PRIVACY OF FORTENBAUGH'S PROFESSIONAL
ACTIVITIES.  IF THERE SHOULD BE A RARE SITUATION JUSTIFYING PRODUCTION
OF THESE MATTERS, PETITIONER'S CASE IS NOT OF THAT TYPE.    WE FULLY
APPRECIATE THE WIDE-SPREAD CONTROVERSY AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION OVER THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THIS CASE.  FN11  IT IS A PROBLEM
THAT RESTS ON WHAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST HAZY FRONTIERS OF THE
DISCOVERY PROCESS.  BUT UNTIL SOME RULE OR STATUTE DEFINITELY
PRESCRIBES OTHERWISE, WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN PERMITTING DISCOVERY IN A
SITUATION OF THIS NATURE AS A MATTER OF UNQUALIFIED RIGHT.  WHEN RULE
26 AND THE OTHER DISCOVERY RULES WERE ADOPTED, THIS COURT AND THE
MEMBERS OF THE BAR IN GENERAL CERTAINLY DID NOT BELIEVE OR CONTEMPLATE
THAT ALL THE FILES AND MENTAL PROCESSES OF LAWYERS WERE THEREBY OPENED
TO THE FREE SCRUTINY OF THEIR ADVERSARIES.  AND WE REFUSE TO INTERPRET
THE RULES AT THIS TIME SO AS TO REACH SO HARSH AND UNWARRANTED A
RESULT. 

WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE CASES COLLECTED BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE IN ITS REPORT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (JUNE, 1946), PP. 40-47;
5 F.R.D. 433, 457-460.  SEE ALSO 2 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE (1945 CUM.
SUPP.), SEC. 26.12, PP. 155-159; HOLTZOFF, "INSTRUMENTS OF DISCOVERY
UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE," 41 MICH. L. REV. 205, 210-212;
PIKE AND WILLIS, "FEDERAL DISCOVERY IN OPERATION," 7 UNIV.  OF CHICAGO
L. REV. 297, 301-307. 

FN2  "THE GREAT WEAKNESS OF PLEADING AS A MEANS FOR DEVELOPING AND
PRESENTING ISSUES OF FACT FOR TRIAL LAY IN ITS TOTAL LACK OF ANY MEANS
FOR TESTING THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PLEADER'S ALLEGATIONS AND
DENIALS."  SUNDERLAND, "THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PRE-TRIAL
PROCEDURE," 36 MICH. L. REV. 215, 216.  SEE ALSO RAGLAND, DISCOVERY
BEFORE TRIAL (1932), CH. I. 

FN3  2 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE (1938), SEC. 26.02, PP. 2445-2455. 

FN4  PIKE AND WILLIS, "THE NEW FEDERAL DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY
PROCEDURE," 38 COL. L. REV. 1179, 1436; PIKE, "THE NEW FEDERAL
DEPOSITION-DISCOVERY PROCEDURE AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE," 34 ILL. L.
REV. 1. 

FN5  RULE 33 READS:  "ANY PARTY MAY SERVE UPON ANY ADVERSE PARTY
WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES TO BE ANSWERED BY THE PARTY SERVED OR, IF THE
PARTY SERVED IS A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE CORPORATION OR A PARTNERSHIP OR
ASSOCIATION, BY ANY OFFICER THEREOF COMPETENT TO TESTIFY IN ITS
BEHALF.  THE INTERROGATORIES SHALL BE ANSWERED SEPARATELY AND FULLY IN
WRITING UNDER OATH.  THE ANSWERS SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE PERSON MAKING
THEM; AND THE PARTY UPON WHOM THE INTERROGATORIES HAVE BEEN SERVED
SHALL SERVE A COPY OF THE ANSWERS ON THE PARTY SUBMITTING THE
INTERROGATORIES WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DELIVERY OF THE
INTERROGATORIES, UNLESS THE COURT, ON MOTION AND NOTICE AND FOR GOOD
CAUSE SHOWN, ENLARGES OR SHORTENS THE TIME.  OBJECTIONS TO ANY
INTERROGATORIES MAY BE PRESENTED TO THE COURT WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER
SERVICE THEREOF, WITH NOTICE AS IN CASE OF A MOTION; AND ANSWERS SHALL
BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE OBJECTIONS ARE DETERMINED, WHICH SHALL BE AT AS
EARLY A TIME AS IS PRACTICABLE.  NO PARTY MAY, WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT,
SERVE MORE THAN ONE SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO BE ANSWERED BY THE SAME
PARTY." 

FN6  RULE 34 PROVIDES:  "UPON MOTION OF ANY PARTY SHOWING GOOD CAUSE
THEREFOR AND UPON NOTICE TO ALL OTHER PARTIES, THE COURT IN WHICH AN
ACTION IS PENDING MAY (1) ORDER ANY PARTY TO PRODUCE AND PERMIT THE
INSPECTION AND COPYING OR PHOTOGRAPHING, BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE MOVING
PARTY, OF ANY DESIGNATED DOCUMENTS, PAPERS, BOOKS, ACCOUNTS, LETTERS,
PHOTOGRAPHS, OBJECTS, OR TANGIBLE THINGS, NOT PRIVILEGED, WHICH
CONSTITUTE OR CONTAIN EVIDENCE MATERIAL TO ANY MATTER INVOLVED IN THE
ACTION AND WHICH ARE IN HIS POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL; OR (2)
ORDER ANY PARTY TO PERMIT ENTRY UPON DESIGNATED LAND OR OTHER PROPERTY
IN HIS POSSESSION OR CONTROL FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTING, MEASURING,
SURVEYING, OR PHOTOGRAPHING THE PROPERTY OR ANY DESIGNATED RELEVANT
OBJECT OR OPERATION THEREON.  THE ORDER SHALL SPECIFY THE TIME, PLACE,
AND MANNER OF MAKING THE INSPECTION AND TAKING THE COPIES AND
PHOTOGRAPHS AND MAY PRESCRIBE SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS ARE JUST." 

FN7  THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF RULE 26 PROVIDE AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  WHEN DEPOSITIONS MAY BE TAKEN.  BY LEAVE OF COURT AFTER
JURISDICTION HAS BEEN OBTAINED OVER ANY DEFENDANT OR OVER PROPERTY
WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTION OR WITHOUT SUCH LEAVE AFTER AN
ANSWER HAS BEEN SERVED, THE TESTIMONY OF ANY PERSON, WHETHER A PARTY OR
NOT, MAY BE TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF ANY PARTY BY DEPOSITION UPON ORAL
EXAMINATION OR WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCOVERY OR
FOR USE AS EVIDENCE IN THE ACTION OR FOR BOTH PURPOSES.  THE ATTENDANCE
OF WITNESSES MAY BE COMPELLED BY THE USE OF SUBPOENA AS PROVIDED IN
RULE 45.  DEPOSITIONS SHALL BE TAKEN ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE
RULES.  THE DEPOSITION OF A PERSON CONFINED IN PRISON MAY BE TAKEN ONLY
BY LEAVE OF COURT ON SUCH TERMS AS THE COURT PRESCRIBES. 

"(B)  SCOPE OF EXAMINATION.  UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT AS
PROVIDED BY RULE 30(B) OR (D), THE DEPONENT MAY BE EXAMINED REGARDING
ANY MATTER, NOT PRIVILEGED, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER
INVOLVED IN THE PENDING ACTION, WHETHER RELATING TO THE CLAIM OR
DEFENSE OF THE EXAMINING PARTY OR TO THE CLAIM OR DEFENSE OF ANY OTHER
PARTY, INCLUDING THE EXISTENCE, DESCRIPTION, NATURE, CUSTODY,
CONDITION, AND LOCATION OF ANY BOOKS, DOCUMENTS, OR OTHER TANGIBLE
THINGS AND THE IDENTITY AND LOCATION OF PERSONS HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF
RELEVANT FACTS." 

FN8  "ONE OF THE CHIEF ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE 'FISHING EXPEDITION'
OBJECTION IS THE IDEA THAT DISCOVERY IS MUTUAL - THAT WHILE A PARTY MAY
HAVE TO DISCLOSE HIS CASE, HE CAN AT THE SAME TIME TIE HIS OPPONENT
DOWN TO A DEFINITE POSITION."  PIKE AND WILLIS, "FEDERAL DISCOVERY IN
OPERATION," 7 UNIV.  OF CHICAGO L. REV. 297, 303. 

FN9  THE ENGLISH COURTS HAVE DEVELOPED THE CONCEPT OF PRIVILEGE TO
INCLUDE ALL DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY OR FOR COUNSEL WITH A VIEW TO
LITIGATION.  "ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE CALLED INTO EXISTENCE FOR THE
PURPOSE - BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE SOLE PURPOSE - OF ASSISTING THE
DEPONENT OR HIS LEGAL ADVISERS IN ANY ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
ARE PRIVILEGED FROM PRODUCTION.... THUS ALL PROOFS, BRIEFS, DRAFT
PLEADINGS, ETC., ARE PRIVILEGED; BUT NOT COUNSEL'S INDORSEMENT ON THE
OUTSIDE OF HIS BRIEF  ..., NOR ANY DEPOSITION OR NOTES OF EVIDENCE
GIVEN PUBLICLY IN OPEN COURT....  SO ARE ALL PAPERS PREPARED BY ANY
AGENT OF THE PARTY BONA FIDE FOR THE USE OF HIS SOLICITOR FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACTION, WHETHER IN FACT SO USED OR NOT....  REPORTS BY
A COMPANY'S SERVANT, IF MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ROUTINE, ARE NOT
PRIVILEGED, EVEN THOUGH IT IS DESIRABLE THAT THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE
THEM AND THEY ARE SUBSEQUENTLY SENT TO HIM; BUT IF THE SOLICITOR HAS
REQUESTED THAT SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL ALWAYS BE PREPARED FOR HIS USE AND
THIS WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY WERE PREPARED, THEY NEED NOT BE
DISCLOSED."  ODGERS ON PLEADING AND PRACTICE (12TH ED., 1939), P. 264. 

SEE ORDER 31, RULE 1, OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1883, SET
FORTH IN THE ANNUAL PRACTICE, 1945, P. 519, AND THE DISCUSSION
FOLLOWING THAT RULE.  FOR A COMPILATION OF THE ENGLISH CASES ON THE
MATTER SEE 8 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940), SEC. 2319, PP. 618
622, NOTES. 

FN10  RULE 34 IS EXPLICIT IN ITS REQUIREMENTS THAT A PARTY SHOW GOOD
CAUSE BEFORE OBTAINING A COURT ORDER DIRECTING ANOTHER PARTY TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS.  SEE REPORT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUNE, 1946); 5 F.R.D. 433. 

FN11  SEE REPORT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUNE, 1946), PP. 44-47; 5 F.R.D. 433, 459
460; DISCOVERY PROCEDURE SYMPOSIUM BEFORE THE 1946 CONFERENCE OF THE
THIRD UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 5 F.R.D. 403; ARMSTRONG,
"REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS," 5 F.R.D. 339, 353-357. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

THE NARROW QUESTION IN THIS CASE CONCERNS ONLY ONE OF THIRTY-NINE
INTERROGATORIES WHICH DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL REFUSED TO ANSWER. 
AS THERE WAS PERSISTENCE IN REFUSAL AFTER THE COURT ORDERED THEM TO
ANSWER IT, COUNSEL AND CLIENTS WERE COMMITTED TO JAIL BY THE DISTRICT
COURT UNTIL THEY SHOULD PURGE THEMSELVES OF CONTEMPT. 

THE INTERROGATORY ASKED WHETHER STATEMENTS WERE TAKEN FROM THE CREWS
OF THE TUGS INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT, OR OF ANY OTHER VESSEL, AND
DEMANDED "ATTACH HERETO EXACT COPIES OF ALL SUCH STATEMENTS IF IN
WRITING, AND IF ORAL, SET FORTH IN DETAIL THE EXACT PROVISIONS OF ANY
SUCH ORAL STATEMENTS OR REPORTS."  THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY WHETHER SUCH
A DEMAND IS AUTHORIZED BY THE RULES RELATING TO VARIOUS ASPECTS OF
"DISCOVERY." 

THE PRIMARY EFFECT OF THE PRACTICE ADVOCATED HERE WOULD BE ON THE
LEGAL PROFESSION ITSELF.  BUT IT TOO OFTEN IS OVERLOOKED THAT THE
LAWYER AND THE LAW OFFICE ARE INDISPENSABLE PARTS OF OUR ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE.  LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE CAN GO NOWHERE ELSE TO LEARN THE EVER
CHANGING AND CONSTANTLY MULTIPLYING RULES BY WHICH THEY MUST BEHAVE AND
TO OBTAIN REDRESS FOR THEIR WRONGS.  THE WELFARE AND TONE OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION IS THEREFORE OF PRIME CONSEQUENCE TO SOCIETY, WHICH WOULD
FEEL THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A PRACTICE AS PETITIONER URGES
SECONDARILY BUT CERTAINLY. 

"DISCOVERY" IS ONE OF THE WORKING TOOLS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.  IT
TRACES BACK TO THE EQUITY BILL OF DISCOVERY IN ENGLISH CHANCERY
PRACTICE AND SEEMS TO HAVE HAD A FORERUNNER IN CONTINENTAL PRACTICE. 
SEE RAGLAND, DISCOVERY BEFORE TRIAL (1932) 13-16.  SINCE 1848 WHEN THE
DRAFTSMEN OF NEW YORK'S CODE OF PROCEDURE RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF
A BETTER SYSTEM OF DISCOVERY, THE IMPETUS TO EXTEND AND EXPAND
DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE OPPOSITION TO IT, HAS COME FROM WITHIN THE
BAR ITSELF.  IT HAPPENS IN THIS CASE THAT IT IS THE PLAINTIFF'S
ATTORNEY WHO DEMANDS SUCH UNPRECEDENTED LATITUDE OF DISCOVERY AND,
STRANGELY ENOUGH, AMICUS BRIEFS IN HIS SUPPORT HAVE BEEN FILED BY
SEVERAL LABOR UNIONS REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS AS A CLASS.  IT IS THE
HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT FOR BROADER DISCOVERY, HOWEVER, THAT IN ACTUAL
EXPERIENCE THE CHIEF OPPOSITION TO ITS EXTENSION HAS COME FROM LAWYERS
WHO SPECIALIZE IN REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS HAVE MADE
LIBERAL USE OF IT TO FORCE PLAINTIFFS TO DISCLOSE THEIR CASES IN
ADVANCE.  SEE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
IN NEW YORK STATE (1934) 330-31; RAGLAND, DISCOVERY BEFORE TRIAL (1932)
35-36.  DISCOVERY IS A TWO-EDGED SWORD AND WE CANNOT DECIDE THIS
PROBLEM ON ANY DOCTRINE OF EXTENDING HELP TO ONE CLASS OF LITIGANTS. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR AND LONG HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT DISCOVERY SHOULD
PROVIDE A PARTY ACCESS TO ANYTHING THAT IS EVIDENCE IN HIS CASE.  CF.
REPORT OF COMMISSION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN NEW YORK STATE
(1934) 41-42.  IT SEEMS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT NULLIFY
THE PRIVILEGE OF CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND
CLIENT.  BUT THOSE PRINCIPLES GIVE US NO REAL ASSISTANCE HERE BECAUSE
WHAT IS BEING SOUGHT IS NEITHER EVIDENCE NOR IS IT A PRIVILEGED
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. 

TO CONSIDER FIRST THE MOST EXTREME ASPECT OF THE REQUIREMENT IN
LITIGATION HERE, WE FIND IT CALLS UPON COUNSEL, IF HE HAS HAD ANY
CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY OF THE CREWS OF THE VESSELS IN QUESTION OR OF
ANY OTHER, TO "SET FORTH IN DETAIL THE EXACT PROVISION OF ANY SUCH ORAL
STATEMENTS OR REPORTS."  THUS THE DEMAND IS NOT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A
TRANSCRIPT IN EXISTENCE BUT CALLS FOR THE CREATION OF A WRITTEN
STATEMENT NOT IN BEING.  BUT THE STATEMENT BY COUNSEL OF WHAT A WITNESS
TOLD HIM IS NOT EVIDENCE WHEN WRITTEN.  PLAINTIFF COULD NOT INTRODUCE
IT TO PROVE HIS CASE.  WHAT, THEN, IS THE PURPOSE SOUGHT TO BE SERVED
BY DEMANDING THIS OF ADVERSE COUNSEL? 

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER CANDIDLY SAID ON ARGUMENT THAT HE WANTED
THIS INFORMATION TO HELP PREPARE HIMSELF TO EXAMINE WITNESSES, TO MAKE
SURE HE OVERLOOKED NOTHING.  HE BASES HIS CLAIM TO IT IN HIS BRIEF ON
THE VIEW THAT THE RULES WERE TO DO AWAY WITH THE OLD SITUATION WHERE A
LAW SUIT DEVELOPED INTO "A BATTLE OF WITS BETWEEN COUNSEL."  BUT A
COMMON LAW TRIAL IS AND ALWAYS SHOULD BE AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING. 
DISCOVERY WAS HARDLY INTENDED TO ENABLE A LEARNED PROFESSION TO PERFORM
ITS FUNCTIONS EITHER WITHOUT WITS OR ON WITS BORROWED FROM THE
ADVERSARY. 

THE REAL PURPOSE AND THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF THE PRACTICE ORDERED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD BE TO PUT TRIALS ON A LEVEL EVEN LOWER THAN A
"BATTLE OF WITS."  I CAN CONCEIVE OF NO PRACTICE MORE DEMORALIZING TO
THE BAR THAN TO REQUIRE A LAWYER TO WRITE OUT AND DELIVER TO HIS
ADVERSARY AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT WITNESSES HAVE TOLD HIM.  EVEN IF HIS
RECOLLECTION WERE PERFECT, THE STATEMENT WOULD BE HIS LANGUAGE,
PERMEATED WITH HIS INFERENCES.  EVERY ONE WHO HAS TRIED IT KNOWS THAT
IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE SO FAIRLY TO RECORD THE EXPRESSIONS AND
EMPHASIS OF A WITNESS THAT WHEN HE TESTIFIES IN THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
COURT AND UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE LEADING QUESTION THERE WILL NOT BE
DEPARTURES IN SOME RESPECTS.  WHENEVER THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS
WOULD DIFFER FROM THE "EXACT" STATEMENT THE LAWYER HAD DELIVERED, THE
LAWYER'S STATEMENT WOULD BE WHIPPED OUT TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS. 
COUNSEL PRODUCING HIS ADVERSARY'S "INEXACT" STATEMENT COULD LOSE
NOTHING BY SAYING, "HERE IS A CONTRADICTION, GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY.  I
DO NOT KNOW WHETHER IT IS MY ADVERSARY OR HIS WITNESS WHO IS NOT
TELLING THE TRUTH, BUT ONE IS NOT."  OF COURSE, IF THIS PRACTICE WERE
ADOPTED, THAT SCENE WOULD BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.  THE LAWYER
WHO DELIVERS SUCH STATEMENTS OFTEN WOULD FIND HIMSELF BRANDED A
DECEIVER AFRAID TO TAKE THE STAND TO SUPPORT HIS OWN VERSION OF THE
WITNESS'S CONVERSATION WITH HIM, OR ELSE HE WILL HAVE TO GO ON THE
STAND TO DEFEND HIS OWN CREDIBILITY - PERHAPS AGAINST THAT OF HIS CHIEF
WITNESS, OR POSSIBLY EVEN HIS CLIENT.    EVERY LAWYER DISLIKES TO TAKE
THE WITNESS STAND AND WILL DO SO ONLY FOR GRAVE REASONS.  THIS IS
PARTLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT HIS ROLE; HE IS ALMOST INVARIABLY A POOR
WITNESS.  BUT HE STEPS OUT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARACTER TO DO IT.  HE
REGRETS IT; THE PROFESSION DISCOURAGES IT.  BUT THE PRACTICE ADVOCATED
HERE IS ONE WHICH WOULD FORCE HIM TO BE A WITNESS, NOT AS TO WHAT HE
HAS SEEN OR DONE BUT AS TO OTHER WITNESSES' STORIES, AND NOT BECAUSE HE
WANTS TO DO SO BUT IN SELF-DEFENSE. 

AND WHAT IS THE LAWYER TO DO WHO HAS INTERVIEWED ONE WHOM HE BELIEVES
TO BE A BIASED, LYING OR HOSTILE WITNESS TO GET HIS UNFAVORABLE
STATEMENTS AND KNOW WHAT TO MEET?  HE MUST RECORD AND DELIVER SUCH
STATEMENTS EVEN THOUGH HE WOULD NOT VOUCH FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
WITNESS BY CALLING HIM.  PERHAPS THE OTHER SIDE WOULD NOT WANT TO CALL
HIM EITHER, BUT THE ATTORNEY IS OPEN TO THE CHARGE OF SUPPRESSING
EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL IF HE FAILS TO CALL SUCH A HOSTILE WITNESS EVEN
THOUGH HE NEVER REGARDED HIM AS RELIABLE OR TRUTHFUL. 

HAVING BEEN SUPPLIED THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES, PETITIONER'S LAWYER
GIVES NO REASON WHY HE CANNOT INTERVIEW THEM HIMSELF.  IF AN EMPLOYEE
WITNESS REFUSES TO TELL HIS STORY, HE, TOO, MAY BE EXAMINED UNDER THE
RULES.  HE MAY BE COMPELLED ON DISCOVERY, AS FULLY AS ON THE TRIAL, TO
DISCLOSE HIS VERSION OF THE FACTS.  BUT THAT IS HIS OWN DISCLOSURE - IT
CAN BE USED TO IMPEACH HIM IF HE CONTRADICTS IT AND SUCH A DEPOSITION
IS NOT USEFUL TO PROMOTE AN UNSEEMLY DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WITNESS
AND THE COUNSEL IN THE CASE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE RULES WOULD ADMIT OF AN
INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD SUSTAIN THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER.  SO THE
LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH MAKES "ANY WRITING OR
RECORD  ...  MADE AS A MEMORANDUM OR RECORD OF ANY  ...  OCCURRENCE, OR
EVENT" ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE, WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE RAILROAD COMPANY
TO PUT ITS ENGINEER'S ACCIDENT STATEMENTS IN EVIDENCE.  CF. PALMER V.
HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109, 111.  BUT ALL SUCH PROCEDURAL MEASURES HAVE A
BACKGROUND OF CUSTOM AND PRACTICE WHICH WAS ASSUMED BY THOSE WHO WROTE
AND SHOULD BE BY THOSE WHO APPLY THEM.  WE REVIEWED THE BACKGROUND OF
THE ACT AND THE CONSEQUENCES ON THE TRIAL OF NEGLIGENCE CASES OF
ALLOWING RAILROADS AND OTHERS TO PUT IN THEIR STATEMENTS AND THUS TO
SHIELD THE CREW FROM CROSS-EXAMINATION.  WE SAID, "SUCH A MAJOR CHANGE
WHICH OPENS WIDE THE DOOR TO AVOIDANCE OF CROSSEXAMINATION SHOULD NOT
BE LEFT TO IMPLICATION."  318 U.S. AT 114.  WE POINTED OUT THAT THERE,
AS HERE, THE "SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS OF HISTORY BEHIND THE ACT  ...
INDICATE THE NATURE OF THE REFORMS WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED TO EFFECT." 
318 U.S. AT 115.  WE REFUSED TO APPLY IT BEYOND THAT POINT.  WE SHOULD
FOLLOW THE SAME COURSE OF REASONING HERE.  CERTAINLY NOTHING IN THE
TRADITION OR PRACTICE OF DISCOVERY UP TO THE TIME OF THESE RULES WOULD
HAVE SUGGESTED THAT THEY WOULD AUTHORIZE SUCH A PRACTICE AS HERE
PROPOSED. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO SIGNED STATEMENTS OR THOSE WRITTEN BY
WITNESSES.  SUCH STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANT.  PALMER
V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109.  NOR SHOULD I THINK THEY ORDINARILY COULD BE
EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  BUT SUCH A STATEMENT MIGHT BE USEFUL FOR
IMPEACHMENT OF THE WITNESS WHO SIGNED IT, IF HE IS CALLED AND IF HE
DEPARTS FROM THE STATEMENT.  THERE MIGHT BE CIRCUMSTANCES, TOO, WHERE
IMPOSSIBILITY OR DIFFICULTY OF ACCESS TO THE WITNESS OR HIS REFUSAL TO
RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION OR OTHER FACTS WOULD SHOW THAT THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT SUCH STATEMENTS BE MADE AVAILABLE. 
PRODUCTION OF SUCH STATEMENTS ARE GOVERNED BY RULE 34 AND ON "SHOWING
GOOD CAUSE THEREFOR" THE COURT MAY ORDER THEIR INSPECTION, COPYING OR
PHOTOGRAPHING.  NO SUCH APPLICATION HAS HERE BEEN MADE; THE DEMAND IS
MADE ON THE BASIS OF RIGHT, NOT ON SHOWING OF CAUSE. 

I AGREE TO THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WHICH REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




















ORDER OF CONDUCTORS V. SWAN, 329 U.S. 520 


ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 11, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1947.  - 152 F.2D
325, AFFIRMED. 


1.  MEMBERS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTH DIVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD WERE EVENLY DIVIDED, IN EACH DIVISION, AS TO WHETHER
UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT THEIR DIVISION HAS JURISDICTION OF DISPUTES
INVOLVING YARDMASTERS.  IT WAS CONCEDED THAT NEITHER THE SECOND NOR THE
THIRD DIVISION HAS JURISDICTION OF SUCH DISPUTES.  NO SETTLEMENT OF
SUCH DISPUTES WAS POSSIBLE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  HELD:  THE FEDERAL
COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 274D OF A SUIT BY
INTERESTED PARTIES FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE WHICH
DIVISION OF THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION OF SUCH DISPUTES.  SWITCHMEN'S
UNION V. MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R.
CO., 320 U.S. 323; AND GENERAL COMMITTEE V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 320
U.S. 338, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 524. 

2.  UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, YARDMASTERS ARE NOT "YARD-SERVICE
EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  PP. 524-529. 

3.  UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, DISPUTES INVOLVING YARDMASTERS ARE
EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE "CATCH-ALL" JURISDICTION OF THE FOURTH DIVISION
OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  P. 530. 

4.  WHATEVER PERSUASIVE EFFECT PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATIONS ON
THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE MAY HAVE HAD IS DESTROYED BY PRESENT AND
PROLONGED ADMINISTRATIVE DEADLOCK ON THIS ISSUE.  P. 529. 

5.  ALTHOUGH AMENDATORY BILLS WHICH WOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED
YARDMASTERS FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD WERE INTRODUCED AND REFERRED TO AN APPROPRIATE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO AMEND THE STATUTE
IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE FOR PURPOSES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, WHERE
THE COMMITTEE HELD NO HEARINGS AND MADE NO REPORT.  P. 529. 

ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA ET AL. V. SWAN ET AL. 

NO. 63.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 64, WILLIAMS ET AL. V. SWAN ET AL., ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS, TWO NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, BROUGHT AN ACTION IN
THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 274D AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE
FIRST AND FOURTH DIVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD,
SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FIRST DIVISION
HAS JURISDICTION UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF DISPUTES INVOLVING
YARDMASTERS.  ANOTHER NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION AND TWO RAILROAD
COMPANIES WERE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
YARDMASTER DISPUTES ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FOURTH DIVISION
OF THE BOARD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  152 F.2D 325. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 776.  AFFIRMED, P. 530. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OUR ATTENTION HERE IS DIRECTED TO A DETERMINATION OF WHICH DIVISION
OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAS JURISDICTION OVER
DISPUTES INVOLVING RAILROAD YARDMASTERS.  THE FOUR DIVISIONS OF THE
BOARD AND THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS ARE ESTABLISHED BY SEC. 3,
FIRST (H), OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AS AMENDED IN 1934.  FN1 

EACH DIVISION OF THE BOARD IS COMPOSED OF AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF CARRIERS AND OF NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  THE
STATUTE AUTHORIZES THE CARRIERS AND THE NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO
SELECT THEIR RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES AND TO DESIGNATE THE DIVISION
ON WHICH EACH SUCH REPRESENTATIVE SHALL SERVE.  SEC. 3, FIRST (B) AND
(C).  THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISIONS RELATES TO DISPUTES GROWING OUT
OF "GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF
AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS  ..." 
SEC. 3, FIRST (I).  DISPUTES INVOLVING EMPLOYEES IN CERTAIN
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED CRAFTS ARE ASSIGNED TO EACH DIVISION; THE
FOURTH DIVISION ALSO HAS A "CATCH-ALL" JURISDICTION OVER ALL DISPUTES
NOT ASSIGNED TO ONE OF THE OTHER THREE DIVISIONS.  APPROPRIATE
PROVISIONS ARE MADE FOR HEARINGS AND FOR THE ENTRY OF AN AWARD, TO BE
FOLLOWED BY AN ORDER DIRECTED TO THE CARRIER IF THE AWARD BE IN FAVOR
OF THE PETITIONER.  IN THE EVENT THAT THE CARRIER FAILS TO COMPLY WITH
THE ORDER, THE PETITIONER OR ANY PERSON FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE ORDER WAS
MADE MAY SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
SEC. 3, FIRST (P).  IN SUCH SUITS, "THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE
DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE
FACTS THEREIN STATED  ..."  AND THE COURT IS GIVEN POWER TO TAKE SUCH
ACTION AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO ENFORCE OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER.  SEE
SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297, 305. 

TWO OF THE NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ARE THE ORDER OF RAILWAY
CONDUCTORS AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, PETITIONERS
HEREIN.  THEIR MEMBERSHIP INCLUDES A SMALL PORTION OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF RAILROAD YARDMASTERS IN THE COUNTRY, APPROXIMATELY 20% OF THE TOTAL
ON THE BASIS OF THE RAILROAD MILEAGE REPRESENTED.  EACH OF THESE
ORGANIZATIONS HAS ONE REPRESENTATIVE ON THE FIRST DIVISION AND EACH
CONTENDS THAT ALL YARDMASTER DISPUTES MUST BE HEARD SOLELY BY THAT
DIVISION.  BUT THAT CONTENTION IS CONTRADICTED BY THE RAILROAD
YARDMASTERS OF AMERICA, A NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION COMPOSED ALMOST
ENTIRELY OF YARDMASTERS AND CLAIMING TO REPRESENT MORE THAN 70% OF ALL
THE YARDMASTERS IN THE COUNTRY.  THAT ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS AN
INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT HEREIN, HAS FAILED TO PLACE A REPRESENTATIVE ON
ANY OF THE FOUR DIVISIONS.  ALONG WITH CERTAIN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
REPRESENTING THE SMALL BALANCE OF YARDMASTERS, IT CLAIMS THAT
YARDMASTER DISPUTES LIE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FOURTH
DIVISION.  VARIOUS CARRIERS WITH REPRESENTATIVES ON BOTH THE FIRST AND
THE FOURTH DIVISIONS JOIN IN THAT CLAIM. 

THE RESULT OF THIS CONTROVERSY IS A STALEMATE SO FAR AS YARDMASTER
DISPUTES ARE CONCERNED.  THE CARRIER AND THE LABOR MEMBERS OF THE FIRST
DIVISION ARE SPLIT EVENLY, THE CARRIER MEMBERS CLAIMING THAT THE
DIVISION HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THESE MATTERS.  THE MEMBERS OF THE
FOURTH DIVISION ARE ALSO EVENLY DIVIDED ON THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION,
THE LABOR MEMBERS BEING OF THE VIEW THAT YARDMASTER DISPUTES ARE
OUTSIDE THAT DIVISION'S JURISDICTION.  AND SINCE ALL THE PARTIES
CONCEDE THAT NEITHER THE SECOND NOR THE THIRD DIVISION HAS
JURISDICTION, NO SETTLEMENT OF THESE DISPUTES IS POSSIBLE UNDER THE
PRESENT SITUATION.  FN2 

THE ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
TRAINMEN BROUGHT THIS ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400(1) TO OBTAIN A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FIRST DIVISION HAS SOLE
JURISDICTION OVER YARDMASTER DISPUTES.  MEMBERS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTH
DIVISIONS WERE MADE PARTIES DEFENDANT; AND THE RAILROAD YARDMASTERS OF
AMERICA, THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
COMPANY WERE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE.  THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER A
HEARING, HELD THAT YARDMASTER DISPUTES FALL WITHIN THE "CATCH-ALL"
JURISDICTION OF THE FOURTH DIVISION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AGREED.  152 F.2D 325.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE ISSUE RAISED
IS ONE OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT.  327 U.S. 776. 

AT THE OUTSTART IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS
MATTER IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN SWITCHMEN'S
UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, SUPRA, AND COMPANION CASES, GENERAL
COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO., 320 U.S. 323, AND GENERAL COMMITTEE V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 320 U.S. 338.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH SOMETHING
QUITE DIFFERENT FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION WHICH CONGRESS HAS
MADE FINAL AND BEYOND THE REALM OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.  WE ARE DEALING
WITH A JURISDICTIONAL FRUSTRATION ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL, MAKING
IMPOSSIBLE THE ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS WHICH CONGRESS
EXPLICITLY HAS OPENED TO REVIEW BY THE COURTS.  UNTIL THAT BASIC
JURISDICTIONAL CONTROVERSY IS SETTLED, THE PROCEDURE CONTEMPLATED BY
SEC. 3 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT REMAINS A DEAD LETTER SO FAR AS
YARDMASTERS ARE CONCERNED AND THE STATUTORY RIGHTS OF SUCH PERSONS
BECOME ATROPHIED.  A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION IS THEREFORE
APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE SUCH AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAGNATION. 

IN OTHER INSTANCES, WE HAVE LEFT THE PROBLEM OF JURISDICTION TO BE
DETERMINED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  MYERS
V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41.  BUT HERE BOTH THE FIRST AND THE
FOURTH DIVISIONS OF THE BOARD, DUE TO THE EVENLY-MATCHED MEMBERSHIP OF
RAILROAD AND LABOR REPRESENTATIVES, APPEAR HOPELESSLY DIVIDED ON THE
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, MAKING A DETERMINATION IMPOSSIBLE.  JUDICIAL
GUIDANCE AT THIS STAGE IS JUSTIFIED AS LONG AS SUCH A CONDITION
EXISTS. 

THE ISSUE IS PRIMARILY ONE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.  THE FIRST
DIVISION IS GIVEN JURISDICTION OVER DISPUTES "INVOLVING TRAIN- AND YARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS; THAT IS, ENGINEERS, FIREMEN, HOSTLERS,
AND OUTSIDE HOSTLER HELPERS, CONDUCTORS, TRAINMEN, AND YARD-SERVICE
EMPLOYEES."  THE FOURTH DIVISION'S JURISDICTION EXTENDS TO DISPUTES
"INVOLVING EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY WATER, AND ALL OTHER
EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS OVER WHICH JURISDICTION IS NOT GIVEN TO THE
FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD DIVISIONS."  IT IS AGREED THAT THE ONLY
POSSIBLE CATEGORY UNDER THE FIRST DIVISION INTO WHICH YARDMASTERS MIGHT
BE PLACED IS "YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES."  BUT IF THEY CANNOT BE SO
PLACED, THEY MUST NECESSARILY FALL INTO THE "CATCH-ALL" JURISDICTION OF
THE FOURTH DIVISION.  THE PROBLEM THUS IS TO DETERMINE WHAT CONGRESS
MEANT WHEN IT USED THE TERM "YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES." 

THERE IS NO STATUTORY DEFINITION OF "YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES."  NOR IS
THE TERM EXPLAINED IN ANY OF THE RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE DEBATES OR
REPORTS; AND IT DERIVES NO MEANING FROM THE STATUTORY POLICY OR
FRAMEWORK.  MOREOVER, IT IS NOT IN COMMON OR GENERAL USAGE OUTSIDE OF
THE RAILROAD WORLD.  IT IS A TECHNICAL TERM FOUND ONLY IN RAILROAD
PARLANCE.  EVIDENCE AS TO THE MEANING ATTACHED TO IT BY THOSE WHO ARE
FAMILIAR WITH SUCH PARLANCE THEREFORE BECOMES RELEVANT IN DETERMINING
THE MEANING OF THE TERM AS USED BY CONGRESS.  SEE O'HARA V. LUCKENBACH
S.S. CO., 269 U.S. 364, 370-371. 

THE PARTIES, ALL OF WHOM ARE WELL ACQUAINTED WITH RAILROAD
TERMINOLOGY, STIPULATED CERTAIN FACTS.  IT WAS AGREED THAT A RAILROAD
YARD IS A SYSTEM OF TRACKS WITHIN DEFINED LIMITS OVER WHICH MOVEMENTS
OF ENGINES AND CARS NOT AUTHORIZED BY TIMETABLE OR TRAIN ORDER MAY BE
MADE, SUBJECT TO PRESCRIBED SIGNALS AND RULES OR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. 
IT WAS FURTHER AGREED THAT THE "YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES" OR "YARDMEN"
WORKING IN A YARD PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS AS SWITCHING, MAKING AND
BREAKING UP TRAINS, MOVING AND STORING CARS, INSPECTING CARS AND
FREIGHT, REPAIRING CARS, MAINTAINING EQUIPMENT, SENDING AND RECEIVING
MESSAGES, KEEPING RECORDS AND MAKING REPORTS.  AS TO YARDMASTERS, THE
STIPULATION STATED:  "ALL SUCH YARDMEN AND OTHER EMPLOYEES PERFORMING
WORK IN A YARD ARE DIRECTED AND SUPERVISED IN THEIR WORK BY A
YARDMASTER, WITH THE AID, IF NECESSARY, OF ONE OR MORE ASSISTANT
YARDMASTERS.  YARDMASTERS DO NOT AND MAY NOT PERFORM THE WORK OF
YARDMEN AND EMPLOYEES IN TRAIN AND ENGINE SERVICE; THEY MAY PERFORM
SOME CLERICAL WORK, IF THEIR ENTIRE TIME IS NOT TAKEN UP WITH THE
DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF YARDMEN AND OTHER EMPLOYEES WORKING IN
YARDS....  IN GENERAL, YARDMASTERS RUN THE YARDS, OF WHICH THEY ARE IN
CHARGE, AND THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS WITHIN THE SAME. 
NECESSARILY, THEY EXERCISE A SUBSTANTIAL MEASURE OF INDIVIDUAL
INITIATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY." 

ALL OF THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING AGREED THAT
YARDMASTERS ARE FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES WORKING IN
YARDS DUE TO THEIR SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.  THE
EVIDENCE ALSO INDICATED THAT YARDMASTERS HAVE SUPERVISION OVER SOME WHO
WORK WITHIN THE YARDS BUT WHO ARE NOT SPOKEN OF AS "YARD-SERVICE
EMPLOYEES," SUCH AS STOREKEEPERS, SECTION MEN AND CLERKS.  ON THE
CRUCIAL POINT, THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE WITNESSES THAT
YARDMASTERS ARE NOT COMMONLY DESIGNATED IN RAILROAD PARLANCE AS "YARD
SERVICE EMPLOYEES," THAT TERM BEING RESERVED FOR THE YARDMEN DESCRIBED
IN THE STIPULATION WHO WORK UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE YARDMASTERS. 
FN3 

THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES TENDS TO BEAR OUT
THIS TESTIMONY.  THUS NUMEROUS PAST AWARDS MADE BY THE FIRST AND FOURTH
DIVISIONS SPEAK OF YARDMASTERS AS DISTINCT FROM YARDMEN OR YARD-SERVICE
EMPLOYEES.  FN4  AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN MAKING
VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES, RECOGNIZES A CLEAR
DISTINCTION BETWEEN YARDMASTERS AND THOSE OVER WHOM THEY HAVE
SUPERVISION.  FN5  IN ADDITION, OTHER DOCUMENTS INTRODUCED INTO THE
RECORD AND SOURCES TO WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE MADE REFERENCE EITHER SHOW
THE SAME DISTINCTION OR ARE INCONCLUSIVE ON THE MATTER.  FN6 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN FINDING AS A FACT THAT
RAILROAD USAGE HAS NEVER INCLUDED YARDMASTERS AND ASSISTANT YARDMASTERS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERMS "YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES" OR "YARDMEN." 
THAT COURT WAS ALSO CORRECT IN CONCLUDING THAT THE HISTORY OF THE
ADJUSTMENT OF DISPUTES PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE PRESENT STATUTE IN
1934 AFFORDS NO ASSISTANCE IN RESOLVING THE PROBLEM CONFRONTING US.  AS
POINTED OUT MORE FULLY BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 152 F.2D AT 327
328, DISPUTES INVOLVING YARDMASTERS AND DISPUTES INVOLVING YARDSERVICE
EMPLOYEES WERE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO VARIOUS ADJUSTMENT BOARDS, WHICH
HAD BEEN CREATED BY AGREEMENT, PRIMARILY ON THE BASIS OF MEMBERSHIP IN
SIGNATORY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  JURISDICTION WAS NOT THEN GROUNDED, AS
IT IS NOW, ON A CRAFT OR JOB CLASSIFICATION IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES INVOLVED.  HENCE
THERE WAS NO OCCASION GIVING RISE TO A CONSISTENT AND UNEQUIVOCAL
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES" TO
INCLUDE YARDMASTERS - AN INTERPRETATION WHICH, HAD IT EXISTED, MIGHT
HAVE SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE ADOPTION OF THE TERM BY CONGRESS IN 1934. 

PETITIONERS ALSO URGE THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE FIRST DIVISION
OVER YARDMASTER DISPUTES IS ESTABLISHED BY THE SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION OF THAT DIVISION SINCE ITS CREATION IN 1934.  FN7 THERE IS A
SERIOUS QUESTION WHETHER THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE NOW BEFORE US WAS
FULLY CONSIDERED BY THE DIVISION IN MANY OF THE CASES TO WHICH
REFERENCE IS MADE; CERTAINLY NONE OF THE AWARDS DID MORE THAN RECITE
PERFUNCTORILY THAT THE DIVISION HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTICULAR
DISPUTE.  AND NONE OF THE AWARDS INVOLVED THE RAILROAD YARDMASTERS OF
AMERICA, WHICH HAS CONSISTENTLY OBJECTED TO THE ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION BY THE FIRST DIVISION.  FN8  BUT ASIDE FROM THOSE FACTORS,
THE PRESENT AND PROLONGED ADMINISTRATIVE DEADLOCK ON THE JURISDICTIONAL
ISSUE DESTROYS WHATEVER PERSUASIVE EFFECT THESE PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS BY
THE FIRST DIVISION MAY HAVE HAD.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION HAS BECOME
ANYTHING BUT SETTLED.    FINALLY, PETITIONERS POINT OUT THAT CONGRESS
HAS FAILED TO AMEND SEC. 3, FIRST (H), SO AS SPECIFICALLY TO EXCLUDE
"YARDMASTERS AND OTHER SUBORDINATE OFFICERS" FROM THE JURISDICTION OF
THE FIRST DIVISION, DESPITE THE INTRODUCTION OF TWO BILLS TO THAT
EFFECT IN THE SENATE IN 1940 AND 1941.  FN9  THESE BILLS WERE SENT TO
AN APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE, BUT WERE NEVER REPORTED OUT.  IT DOES NOT
APPEAR WHETHER THE BILLS DIED BECAUSE THEY WERE THOUGHT TO BE
UNNECESSARY OR UNDESIRABLE.  NO HEARINGS WERE HELD; NO COMMITTEE
REPORTS WERE MADE.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS
TO AMEND THE STATUTE IS WITHOUT MEANING FOR PURPOSES OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION. 

WE ACCORDINGLY AGREE WITH THE TWO COURTS BELOW THAT YARDMASTERS ARE
NOT "YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FIRST
DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  YARDMASTER
DISPUTES FALL EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE "CATCH-ALL" JURISDICTION OF THE
FOURTH DIVISION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 1185, 1190-1191; 45 U.S.C. SEC. 153, FIRST (H). 

FN2  A DECREE WAS ENTERED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN 1938 COMMANDING
THE FOURTH DIVISION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE CERTAIN DISPUTES INVOLVING
YARDMASTERS.  THAT CASE AROSE ON A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS FILED BY THE
RAILROAD YARDMASTERS OF AMERICA AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE FOURTH
DIVISION.  AFTER ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS, THE MEMBERS OF THE FOURTH
DIVISION APPEARED AND FILED AN ANSWER STATING THAT THEY WERE OF THE
OPINION THAT THE FOURTH DIVISION DID HAVE JURISDICTION.  THE DECREE WAS
THEN ENTERED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION, BUT WITHOUT
ARGUMENT AND WITHOUT THE DISTRICT COURT BEING AWARE THAT A PUBLIC
QUESTION WAS INVOLVED AND THAT OTHER PARTIES HAD AN INTEREST IN THE
MATTER.  THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE
INSTANT CASE HELD THAT THIS 1938 DECREE WAS NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE
ISSUE NOW PRESENTED IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS
ENTERED. 

FN3  PETITIONERS' SOLE WITNESS TESTIFIED:  "YARDMEN ARE USUALLY MEN
WHO HAVE TO DO WITH THE MAKING UP AND BREAKING UP OF TRAINS, SWITCHING
IN THE YARD, AND SUPERVISING THE WORK OF THE YARDMEN, WHICH WOULD
INCLUDE, IN MY OPINION, YARDMASTERS AND ASSISTANT YARDMASTERS."  BUT
HIS OPINION AS TO YARDMASTERS IN THIS RESPECT WAS BASED UPON HIS
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, NOT UPON HIS OWN USE OR HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE
USE OF THE TERM "YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES."  HE EXPLAINED HIS BELIEF THAT
"EVERY TRIBUNAL THAT HAS DECIDED A DISPUTE FOR MEN ENGAGED IN YARD
SERVICE, SUCH AS YARD ENGINEERS, FIREMEN, HOSTLERS, HOSTLER HELPERS,
ROAD CONDUCTORS, TRAINMEN AND YARDMEN, HAVE ALSO DECIDED CASES FOR
YARDMASTERS AND ASSISTANT YARDMASTERS.  DIVISION 1, SET UP UNDER, BY
AGREEMENT, IN 1918, THE VERY FIRST BOARD IN EXISTENCE, DID THAT.  THE
WESTERN TRAIN SERVICE BOARD, UPON WHICH I SERVED, DID THAT, AS
EVIDENCED BY BOARD DECISIONS SUBMITTED HERE AS AN EXHIBIT." 

THIS WITNESS ALSO STATED THAT YARDMASTERS "FIT MORE NEARLY IN WITH
THE YARD SERVICE EMPLOYEES THAN WITH ANY OTHER CLASS" - A RECOGNITION
THAT YARDMASTERS ARE DIFFERENT IN FACT FROM YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND
THAT THEY DO NOT FIT PRECISELY WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. 

FN4  SEE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, FIRST DIVISION, AWARD
NO. 1274(JULY 13, 1936), AWARD NO. 1464(OCT.  7, 1936), AWARD NO.
1603(DEC.  14, 1936), AWARD NO. 1648(JAN.  21, 1937), AWARD NO.
1728(FEB.  11, 1937), AWARD NO. 1896(APRIL 15, 1937), AWARD NO.
2065(JULY 16, 1937), AWARD NO. 2364(NOV.  12, 1937), AWARD NO.
4466(JAN.  15, 1940), AWARD NO. 4548(FEB.  8, 1940), AWARD NO.
4584(FEB.  20, 1940), AWARD NO. 5816(JUNE 24, 1941), AWARD NO.
7355(OCT.  15, 1942); FOURTH DIVISION, AWARD NO. 67(JULY 25, 1940). 

FN5  SEE EX PARTE NO. 72(NOV.  24, 1920, UNREPORTED); EX PARTE NO.
106, SIX-HOUR DAY INVESTIGATION, 190 I.C.C. 750.  THE FORMS AND
CLASSIFICATION PLAN TO BE USED IN REPORTING WAGE AND COMPENSATION DATA
OF STEAM RAILROAD EMPLOYEES TO THE UNITED STATES RAILROAD LABOR BOARD
AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PLACE YARDMASTERS UNDER
"SUPERVISORY SKILLED TRADES AND LABOR SERVICE," WHILE THOSE PERFORMING
YARD-SERVICE WORK ARE PLACED UNDER "TRAIN AND ENGINE SERVICE." 

FN6  THUS THE METHOD USED BY THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
IN INDEXING AWARDS OF THE FIRST DIVISION DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY HELPFUL
GUIDE AS TO THE USAGE OF "YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES" IN THE RAILROAD
WORLD. 

FN7  SEE CASES CITED IN FOOTNOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN8  SEE FOOTNOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN9  S. 4375, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.; S. 1660, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
BOTH BILLS WERE INTRODUCED BY SENATOR SMITH AT THE REQUEST OF THE
AMERICAN SHORT LINE RAILROAD ASSOCIATION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

AFTER THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION THIS COURT RECENTLY HELD IN TWO CASES
THAT JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES BETWEEN RAILROAD UNIONS SUBJECT TO THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT ARE NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL COMPETENCE.  SWITCHMEN'S
UNION V. BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO., 320
U.S. 323.  THE DECISION IN THOSE CASES DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS "HAD NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED JUDICIAL REVIEW" AND THE
HISTORY, THE SETTING, AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF RAILWAY LABOR
CONTROVERSIES COUNSELED AGAINST INFERRING JUDICIAL REVIEW.  HERE WE
HAVE A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO DIVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD AS TO THE DISPUTES OVER WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY HAVE
JURISDICTION.  THIS CONTROVERSY, HOWEVER, ENTAILS CONSIDERATION OF
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS IN THE RAILROAD WORLD AND CONSEQUENCES IN CONSTRUING
THE DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY AMONG THE DIVISIONS OF THE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD FOR WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW SEEMS NO MORE APPROPRIATE THAN IT DID
TO SETTLE JURISDICTIONAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN RAILROAD BROTHERHOODS.  NOT
FINDING ANY COMMAND IN THE STATUTE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS
CONTROVERSY, IT SEEMS TO ME, THEREFORE, APPROPRIATE TO LEAVE IT TO THE
MEDIATORY RESOURCES OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  IF IT BE SAID THAT THUS
FAR DEADLOCK HAS RESULTED, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT WILL CONTINUE, IF
THE COURT KEEPS HANDS OFF.  IN ANY EVENT, BECAUSE MEDIATORY MACHINERY
MAY NOT BE EFFECTIVE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION, UNLESS THE DIRECTION OF CONGRESS IS MUCH MORE CLEAR THEN
I FIND IT IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  THIS VIEW IS REINFORCED BY THE
FACT THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT MAY BE NO MORE THAN AN ADVISORY
OPINION.  MY DOUBTS HAVE NOT COMMENDED THEMSELVES TO THE COURT, BUT
SINCE I AM NOT ALONE IN ENTERTAINING THEM IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THEY
SHOULD BE EXPRESSED. 
..END :













KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO MFG. CO., 329 U.S. 394 


NOS. 70 AND 71.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 15, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6,
1947.  - 153 F.2D 149, AFFIRMED. 


A PATENT-LICENSING AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE LICENSEE SHOULD SELL
THE LICENSED PRODUCTS AT PRICES FIXED BY THE LICENSOR AND SHOULD BE
ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT.  THE PRODUCTS WERE
SOLD WIDELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  A CONTROVERSY HAVING ARISEN AS TO
THE COVERAGE OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS BY THE PATENT, THE LICENSING AGREEMENT
WAS TERMINATED, THE LICENSEE SUED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECLARING
THE PATENT INVALID, AND THE LICENSOR COUNTERCLAIMED FOR UNPAID
ROYALTIES OR DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT.  THE PATENT WAS HELD INVALID. 
HELD: 

1.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LICENSEE IS NOT ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE
THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT.  SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC
CO., 317 U.S. 173; SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS MFG. CO., 326 U.S. 249. 
PP. 398-401. 

2.  THE LICENSEE'S OBLIGATIONS TO PAY ROYALTIES AND TO SELL AT PRICES
FIXED BY THE LICENSOR ARE NOT SEVERABLE.  P. 401. 

3.  SINCE THE ROYALTIES HERE CLAIMED ACCRUED, IF THEY ACCRUED AT ALL,
PRIOR TO THE TIME THE LICENSING AGREEMENT TERMINATED, THE FACT OF
SUBSEQUENT TERMINATION DOES NOT FREE THE PROMISE TO PAY ROYALTIES FROM
THE TAINT OF THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISION.  P. 401. 

4.  THE ALLEGED FACT THAT THE LICENSEE SUGGESTED THE PRICE-FIXING
PROVISION IN THE LICENSING AGREEMENT DOES NOT ESTOP HIM FROM
CHALLENGING ITS VALIDITY AS BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 
P. 401. 

5.  THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT NOT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT
CANNOT OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AGAINST CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF
INTERSTATE TRADE ANY MORE THAN CAN AN IMPLIED ESTOPPEL.  P. 402. 

EDWARD KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO METALLIC MANUFACTURING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY A LICENSEE FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECLARING A PATENT
INVALID, THE LICENSOR COUNTERCLAIMED FOR UNPAID ROYALTIES OR DAMAGES
FOR INFRINGEMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE LICENSEE WAS
ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO PASS ON THE
VALIDITY OF THE PATENT.  139 F.2D 291.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE
PATENT INVALID.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  153 F.2D 149. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 826.  AFFIRMED, P. 402. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT, IN A SUIT TO RECOVER
ROYALTIES ONLY UNDER A TERMINATED PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT CONTAINING
PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS, CAN CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT
DESPITE A COVENANT IN THE LICENSE CONTRACT THAT HE WOULD NOT DO SO. 

THE PETITIONER, EDWARD KATZINGER COMPANY, AND THE RESPONDENT, CHICAGO
METALLIC MFG. COMPANY, MAKE AND SELL TIN BAKING PANS.  THE UNDENIED
TESTIMONY WAS THAT METALLIC SOLD ITS PANS OVER A LARGE PART OF THE
UNITED STATES, PROBABLY IN EVERY STATE IN THE COUNTRY.  KATZINGER
BECAME OWNER OF JACKSON PATENT NO. 2,077,757 ON A CERTAIN TYPE OF PAN. 
FN1  METALLIC, ACCUSED OF INFRINGING, ENTERED INTO A LICENSING CONTRACT
UNDER WHICH, UPON PAYMENT OF STIPULATED ROYALTIES, IT WAS AUTHORIZED TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL PANS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLAIMED
INVENTION.  SECTIONS 3 AND 11 OF THE LICENSE CONTRACT, SET OUT BELOW,
FN2  PROVIDED THAT METALLIC, LIKE ALL OTHER LICENSEES, SHOULD SELL
THESE PANS AT PRICES FIXED BY KATZINGER.  ROYALTIES WERE TO BE COMPUTED
ON THE BASIS OF "NET SALES" OF ARTICLES "MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY OF
THE PATENTS OR APPLICATIONS UNDER THIS LICENSE."  SECTION 14 PROVIDED
THAT IF METALLIC ELECTED TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT, WITHOUT CEASING TO
MANUFACTURE THE PANS, METALLIC SHOULD "BE ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THE
VALIDITY OF SAID PATENT  ...  AND BE DEEMED AN INFRINGER THEREOF." 
METALLIC MAINTAINED THE PATENTEEFIXED PRICES AND PAID ROYALTIES ON PANS
DEEMED BY IT TO BE COVERED BY THE PATENT.  FN3 

A CONTROVERSY LATER AROSE AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN TYPES OF PANS
MANUFACTURED BY METALLIC WERE COVERED.  DECLINING TO PAY ROYALTIES ON
THIS TYPE OF PAN, METALLIC GAVE NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT
AND INITIATED THIS ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PRAYING THAT THE
COURT DECLARE THAT THE PATENT WAS INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION AND
THAT THE CONTROVERSIAL PANS WERE NOT COVERED BY, AND DID NOT INFRINGE,
ANY OF KATZINGER'S PATENTS.  KATZINGER IN AN ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
ALLEGED, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, THAT THE PATENT COVERED ALL THE
METALLIC PANS, THAT METALLIC WAS ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE VALIDITY OF THE
PATENT BY SEC. 14 OF THE CONTRACT, AND THAT METALLIC EITHER OWED
ROYALTIES OR WAS LIABLE FOR INFRINGEMENT.  IT PRAYED, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, FOR AN ACCOUNTING FOR UNPAID ROYALTIES WHICH WERE TO BE
COMPUTED AT 2.5% TO 5% OF THE SALES PRICE WHICH WAS GOVERNED BY THE
MINIMUM PRICE LIST ATTACHED TO THE LICENSE.  FN4  IN THE ALTERNATIVE IT
PRAYED THAT METALLIC BE REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR PROFITS AND DAMAGES AS
AN INFRINGER.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT METALLIC WAS ESTOPPED TO
CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS, AND, TREATING THEM AS VALID,
FOUND THAT THE PATENT CLAIMS DID COVER ALL THE PANS.  ACCORDINGLY, IT
ORDERED AN ACCOUNTING TO DETERMINE ROYALTIES DUE FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR
TO TERMINATION OF THE LICENSE CONTRACT, AND FOR INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES
THEREAFTER. 

RELYING UPON OUR DECISION IN SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC
CO., 317 U.S. 173, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  IT HELD THAT
THE AGREEMENT TO FIX PRICES WAS INSEPARABLY CONNECTED WITH THE
AGREEMENT TO PAY ROYALTIES; THAT IF THE PATENT WAS INVALID, THE PRICE
FIXING PROVISION VIOLATED THE FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST LAWS; THAT CONFLICT OF
THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISION WITH THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WOULD MAKE THE
AGREEMENT TO PAY ROYALTIES UNENFORCEABLE; AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
HAD ERRED IN BARRING METALLIC FROM CHALLENGING THE PATENT'S VALIDITY AS
A PREDICATE TO ESTABLISHING THE ILLEGALITY AND CONSEQUENT
UNENFORCEABILITY OF THE ROYALTY COVENANT.  THE CAUSE WAS REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT TO PASS UPON VALIDITY OF THE PATENT.  139 F.2D 291. 
THAT COURT THEN HELD THE PATENT INVALID AND RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR
METALLIC.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  153 F.2D 149.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A CONFLICTING DECISION IN WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. V. MACGREGOR, 350 PA. 333, 38 A.2D 244.  THE
PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT IN THE MACGREGOR CASE RULED THAT PRICE
FIXING PROVISIONS IN A LICENSE AGREEMENT SUCH AS THE ONE BEFORE US WERE
SEVERABLE FROM THE AGREEMENT TO PAY ROYALTIES, AND READ OUR SOLA CASE
AS THOUGH IT WERE A HOLDING THAT A LICENSEE WAS ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE A
PATENT'S VALIDITY EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE A LICENSOR SOUGHT AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF TO ENFORCE PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS OF A LICENSE. 

WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER UNDER THE RULING OF BEMENT V. NATIONAL
HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, 87-91, THESE PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS WOULD BE
LAWFUL IF THE PATENT WERE VALID.  THE QUESTION HERE IS ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT.  NOR NEED WE, AS IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, DISCUSS THIS COURT'S
OPINIONS IN KINSMAN V. PARKHURST, 18 HOW.  289, AND UNITED STATES V.
HARVEY STEEL CO., 196 U.S. 310, WHICH WERE CONCERNED WITH PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES THERE INVOLVED.  IN THE SOLA CASE WE DECLINED TO EXAMINE
THESE PRIOR DECISIONS, HOLDING THAT NEITHER OF THEM WAS RELEVANT
BECAUSE "NO PRICE-FIXING STIPULATION WAS INVOLVED IN THE LICENSE
CONTRACT" AT ISSUE IN THOSE CASES.  SO HERE, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE
TO RE-EXAMINE THOSE DECISIONS NOW.  UNDER WHAT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES A
FEDERAL RULE OF ESTOPPEL MIGHT BE APPLIED IS A QUESTION WHICH CAN BE
MET WHEN PARTICULAR FACTS PRESENT IT. 

THE SOLA CASE REAFFIRMED PAST DECISIONS HOLDING THAT PRICE-FIXING
AGREEMENTS SUCH AS THOSE HERE INVOLVED ARE UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE OF
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT SAVE AS THEY MAY BE WITHIN THE PROTECTION
OF A LAWFUL PATENT.  THAT CASE HELD FURTHER THAT LOCAL RULES OF
ESTOPPEL CANNOT SCREEN SUCH AGREEMENTS FROM COURT SCRUTINY, AND THAT
FEDERAL COURTS MUST, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, KEEP THE WAY OPEN FOR THE
CHALLENGE OF PATENTS WHICH ARE UTILIZED FOR PRICE-FIXING OF INTERSTATE
GOODS.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE LICENSOR THERE NOT ONLY SOUGHT A RECOVERY
OF ROYALTIES, BUT PRAYED GENERALLY FOR AN INJUNCTION TO REQUIRE
OBSERVANCE OF ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT, ONE OF WHICH
PROVISIONS WAS FOR PRICE-FIXING.  BUT THAT THE CHIEF OBJECT OF THAT
SUIT WAS TO RECOVER ROYALTIES AND NOT TO REQUIRE OBSERVANCE OF THE
PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS IS INDICATED BY THE FACT THAT, WHILE BREACHES
OF OTHER COVENANTS OF THE CONTRACT WERE ALLEGED IN THE PETITION, AND
SPECIFIC PRAYERS FOR THEIR OBSERVANCE WERE INCLUDED, THERE WAS NO
CHARGE THAT THE LICENSEE HAD BREACHED THE PRICE-FIXING COVENANT AND
THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC PRAYER TO REQUIRE OBSERVANCE OF IT. NOR DID THIS
COURT INDICATE THAT THE PATENT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMMUNE FROM CHALLENGE
HAD THE LICENSOR SUED FOR ROYALTIES ONLY.  THIS WOULD HAVE PERMITTED A
LICENSOR TO BE PROTECTED ON AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT MERELY BECAUSE HE CHOSE
ONE REMEDY RATHER THAN ANOTHER ON THE SAME SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE.  IF WE
HAD INTENDED TO DRAW SUCH A FINE LINE, IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH
A CAREFUL WRITER AS THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE WOULD HAVE FAILED TO
INDICATE IN THE OPINION OR THE MANDATE OF THE COURT IN THE SOLA CASE
THAT ON REMAND THE TRIAL COURT, WHILE PERMITTING CHALLENGE OF THE
PATENT TO DEFEAT THE INJUNCTION, MUST TREAT THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISION
AS SEVERABLE, AND FORBID CHALLENGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFEATING THE
CLAIM FOR RECOVERY OF ROYALTIES.  FN5  THAT DECISION, INSTEAD OF
RESTING ON SUCH A NARROW PROCEDURAL BASE, WAS FIRMLY GROUNDED UPON THE
BROAD PUBLIC INTEREST IN FREEING OUR COMPETITIVE ECONOMY FROM THE TRADE
RESTRAINTS WHICH MIGHT BE IMPOSED BY PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS STEMMING
FROM NARROW OR INVALID PATENTS.  SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON
ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA AT 177. 

IN SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS CO., 326 U.S. 249, IT WAS HELD THAT
EVEN AN ASSIGNOR WHO HAD SOLD A PATENT ISSUED TO ITSELF WAS FREE TO
CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT AND THEREBY DEFEAT AN ACTION FOR
INFRINGEMENT BY SHOWING THAT THE INVENTION HAD BEEN DESCRIBED IN AN
EXPIRED PATENT.  IN THUS EMPHASIZING THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING OUR
COMPETITIVE ECONOMY BY KEEPING OPEN THE WAY FOR INTERESTED PERSONS TO
CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF PATENTS WHICH MIGHT BE SHOWN TO BE INVALID,
THE COURT WAS BUT STATING AN OFTEN EXPRESSED POLICY THAT "IT IS THE
PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH IS DOMINANT IN THE PATENT SYSTEM," MERCOID CORP.
V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S. 661, 665, AND THAT THE RIGHT
TO CHALLENGE "IS NOT ONLY A PRIVATE RIGHT TO THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT IT IS
FOUNDED ON PUBLIC POLICY WHICH IS PROMOTED BY HIS MAKING THE DEFENCE,
AND CONTRAVENED BY HIS REFUSAL TO MAKE IT."  POPE MFG. CO. V. GORMULLY,
144 U.S. 224, 235.  FN6 

IF THE QUESTION OF SEVERABILITY, URGED BY THE PETITIONER HERE, WERE A
NEW ONE, WE SHOULD AGAIN ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION WE REACHED IN THE
SOLA CASE.  METALLIC'S OBLIGATION TO PAY ROYALTIES AND ITS AGREEMENT TO
SELL AT PRICES FIXED BY KATZINGER CONSTITUTED AN INTEGRATED
CONSIDERATION FOR THE LICENSE GRANT.  CONSEQUENTLY, WHEN ONE PART OF
THE CONSIDERATION IS UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE IN VIOLATION OF LAW, ITS
INTEGRATED COMPANION MUST GO WITH IT.  SEE HAZELTON V. SHECKELLS, 202
U.S. 71, 78.  MOREOVER, SOLICITUDE FOR THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC
FOSTERED BY FREEDOM FROM INVALID PATENTS AND FROM RESTRAINTS OF TRADE,
WHICH HAS BEEN MANIFEST BY THE LINE OF DECISIONS OF WHICH THE SCOTT
PAPER CO. AND SOLA CASES ARE TWO OF THE LATEST EXAMPLES, REQUIRES THAT
THERE SHOULD BE NO DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES THEY
ANNOUNCED. 

THE ROYALTIES HERE CLAIMED ACCRUED, IF THEY ACCRUED AT ALL, PRIOR TO
THE TIME THE LICENSE AGREEMENT TERMINATED.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE FACT OF
SUBSEQUENT TERMINATION DOES NOT FREE THE PROMISE TO PAY ROYALTIES FROM
THE TAINT OF THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISION.  NOR DOES THE FACT, IF IT BE A
FACT, THAT METALLIC ITSELF SUGGESTED THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISION, BAR
METALLIC'S CHALLENGE TO THE PATENT'S VALIDITY.  FOR THE CONTRACT WAS
STILL ILLEGAL, WHOEVER SUGGESTED IT, SO THAT THERE IS NO LESS REASON
FOR LEAVING THE WAY OPEN TO CHALLENGE THE PATENT AS A SERVICE TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST THAN IF KATZINGER HAD SUGGESTED PRICE-FIXING.  FINALLY,
METALLIC'S SPECIFIC CONTRACT NOT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF
KATZINGER'S PATENT CAN NO MORE OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY THAN CAN
AN IMPLIED ESTOPPEL.  SEE SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS MFG. CO., SUPRA,
AT 257 AND CASES CITED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  OTHER PATENTS, ORIGINALLY IN SUIT, ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE. 

FN2  "3.  LICENSOR AGREES THAT WHILE THIS AGREEMENT REMAINS IN FORCE
AND EFFECT, IF IT PERMITS OTHERS UNDER LICENSE OR OTHER AGREEMENT TO
MANUFACTURE OR SELL ARTICLES OR DEVICES EMBODYING OR MADE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ANY OF THE PATENTS OR APPLICATIONS HEREINBEFORE DESCRIBED, UPON
TERMS MORE FAVORABLE THAN THOSE GRANTED THE LICENSEE HEREUNDER, THE
LICENSOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LICENSEE HEREUNDER AND GRANT THE
SAME TERMS TO THE LICENSEE." 

     .   .         .         .         . 

"11.  LICENSOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM SALES PRICE
FOR THE ARTICLES OR PRODUCTS WHICH LICENSEE IS LICENSED TO MANUFACTURE
HEREUNDER AND TO MODIFY OR CHANGE SUCH MINIMUM PRICES FROM TIME TO TIME
DURING THE LIFE OF THIS AGREEMENT.  THE LICENSOR, AS WELL AS LICENSEE
AND ANY OTHER PERSON, PERSONS OR CORPORATION LICENSED BY LICENSOR,
SHALL NOT, WITH THE CONSENT OF LICENSOR, SELL OR OFFER FOR SALE, OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY OF THE LICENSED DEVICES OR PRODUCTS BELOW SAID
MINIMUM SALES PRICE, OR ON MORE FAVORABLE TERMS OF SALE THAN THOSE SET
FORTH IN ANY SUCH SCALE OF PRICES SO ESTABLISHED BY LICENSOR. 
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THIS LICENSE
AGREEMENT, LICENSEE HAS RECEIVED FROM LICENSOR A SCHEDULE OF MINIMUM
PRICES, EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE HEREOF, BELOW WHICH NONE OF THE
PRODUCTS OR DEVICES MADE UNDER THIS LICENSE SHALL BE SOLD.  LICENSOR
RESERVES THE RIGHT, UPON THIRTY (30) DAYS' NOTICE IN WRITING GIVEN BY
LICENSOR TO LICENSEE, TO CHANGE SAID MINIMUM PRICES FROM TIME TO TIME
DURING THE LIFE HEREOF.  ON SUCH ARTICLES OR DEVICES MADE AND SOLD BY
LICENSEE AS TO WHICH LICENSOR SHALL HAVE FAILED OR NEGLECTED TO
ESTABLISH A MINIMUM SALES PRICE, THE ROYALTY SHALL LIKEWISE BE COMPUTED
ON THE NET SALES PRICE RECEIVED BY LICENSEE FROM ITS CUSTOMERS. 
LICENSEE OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES SHALL HAVE ACCESS FROM
TIME TO TIME TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF LICENSOR DURING ORDINARY
BUSINESS HOURS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT LICENSOR
HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH." 

FN3  OF COURSE IT IS THE UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT, WHETHER IT IS EXECUTED
OR NOT, WHICH VIOLATES THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY
VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150; AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES,
328 U.S. 781, 809.  IN THE CASES HERE THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT "IN
PURSUANCE OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT METALLIC DID, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO
YEARS MORE OR LESS, EXERCISE THE LICENSE THEREIN GIVEN BY MAKING
CERTAIN TINWARE PRODUCTS," MAINTAINING "MINIMUM PRICES AND PAYING
THEREFOR THE APPLICABLE ROYALTIES."  WHILE THE COURT ORIGINALLY MADE
FINDINGS TO THE EFFECT THAT METALLIC DID NOT ATTEMPT TO CARRY OUT THE
PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENT AND WAS WILLING TO HAVE IT REMOVED FROM THE
CONTRACT, THESE FINDINGS WERE EXPRESSLY VACATED ON REMAND.    FN4  THE
SCHEDULE OF MINIMUM PRICES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE LICENSE
AGREEMENT WAS SET OUT AS AN EXHIBIT IN KATZINGER'S COUNTERCLAIM.    FN5
THE CASES CITED IN THE SOLA DECISION REJECTED CONTENTIONS THAT THE
OFFENDING PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEVERABLE FROM
THE REST OF THE CONTRACT AND THEREFORE ENFORCEABLE.  SEE E.G., BEMENT
V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, 88; CONTINENTAL WALL PAPER CO. V.
LOUIS VOIGHT & SONS CO., 212 U.S. 227, 230, 266. 

THAT THIS COURT'S ATTENTION WAS CALLED IN THE SOLA CASE TO THIS
QUESTION IS SHOWN BY EXAMINATION OF THE BRIEF FILED HERE FOR SOLA WHICH
CITED DECISIONS OF THIS COURT TO SUPPORT A CONTENTION THAT THE
PROVISIONS FOR ROYALTIES AND PRICE-FIXING WERE INSEPARABLE AND THAT
ROYALTIES MUST BE DENIED IF THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISION WERE ILLEGAL. 
MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488; LOUD V. POMONA LAND &
WATER CO., 153 U.S. 564, 576; WILLIAMS V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 2
PET. 96. 

FN6  SEE MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., SUPRA AT 492. 

(FOR DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRED IN BY
MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON, IN THIS
CASE AND IN MACGREGOR V. WESTINGHOUSE MFG. CO., SEE POST, P. 408.) 
..END :












MACGREGOR V. WESTINGHOUSE CO., 329 U.S. 402 


NO. 28.  REARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1947.  - 352
PA. 443, 43 A.2D 332, REVERSED. 


A PATENT-LICENSING AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED THE LICENSEE TO MAKE, USE AND
SELL BRAZING SOLDER CONTAINING COPPER AND PHOSPHORUS AND REQUIRED HIM
TO PAY ROYALTIES AND NOT TO SELL THE PRODUCT AT PRICES LOWER THAN THOSE
CHARGED BY THE LICENSOR.  AFTER PAYING ROYALTIES ON THIS PRODUCT AND
ALSO ON SOLDERS CONTAINING TIN OR SILVER IN ADDITION TO COPPER AND
PHOSPHORUS, THE LICENSEE OBTAINED PATENTS ON THE SOLDERS CONTAINING TIN
AND SILVER AND REFUSED TO PAY ROYALTIES ON THEM.  THE LICENSOR SUED IN
A STATE COURT FOR ROYALTIES.  IN HIS ANSWER, THE LICENSEE CHALLENGED
THE VALIDITY AND COVERAGE OF THE LICENSOR'S PATENT, THE VALIDITY OF THE
PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENT AND THE VALIDITY OF THE LICENSOR'S EXERCISE OF
ITS MONOPOLY.  HE COUNTER-CLAIMED FOR REFUND OF THE ROYALTIES PAID AND
FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF THE RESTRAINT IMPOSED ON HIM BY THE
AGREEMENT.  HELD: 

1.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LICENSEE WAS NOT ESTOPPED TO
CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE LICENSOR'S PATENT.  SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V.
JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S. 173; SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS MFG.
CO., 326 U.S. 249; KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO METALLIC CO., ANTE, P.
394.  P. 407. 

2.  THE COVENANT TO PAY ROYALTIES WAS NOT SEVERABLE FROM THE PRICE
FIXING COVENANT.  KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO METALLIC CO., ANTE, P. 394. 
P. 407. 

3.  THE LICENSEE'S CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT, ITS
ALLEGED MISUSE, AND THE PRICE-FIXING COVENANT RAISED FEDERAL QUESTIONS
NOT GOVERNED BY STATE RULES AS TO ESTOPPEL OR CONTRACT SEVERABILITY. 
P. 407. 

4.  IF THE PATENT IS INVALID, THE PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENT VIOLATES THE
ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  P. 407. 

5.  SINCE THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL, THIS COURT WILL NOT
NOW PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT, THE LICENSING AGREEMENT, OR THE
LICENSOR'S ALLEGED MISUSE OF ITS PATENT.  PP. 407-408. 

MACGREGOR V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING CO. 

ON REHEARING. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY A LICENSOR OF A PATENT IN A STATE COURT FOR
ROYALTIES UNDER A LICENSING AGREEMENT, THE LICENSEE CHALLENGED THE
VALIDITY OF THE PATENT, A PRICE-FIXING COVENANT IN THE AGREEMENT, AND
THE LICENSOR'S EXERCISE OF ITS MONOPOLY, AND COUNTERCLAIMED FOR REFUND
OF ROYALTIES ALREADY PAID AND FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE RESTRAINT
IMPOSED ON HIM BY THE LICENSING AGREEMENT.  THE TRIAL COURT GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE LICENSOR.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AFFIRMED.  352 PA. 443, 43 A.2D 332.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI,
326 U.S. 708, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT BELOW IN A PER CURIAM DECISION BY
AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 327 U.S. 758, AND LATER GRANTED A REHEARING. 
327 U.S. 812.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 408. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, LIKE THAT OF EDWARD KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO METALLIC MFG.
CO., ANTE, P. 394, THIS DAY DECIDED, INVOLVES THE RIGHT OF A PATENT
LICENSEE TO DEFEND A SUIT FOR ROYALTIES ONLY UNDER A LICENSING
AGREEMENT WHICH CONTAINS A PRICE-FIXING PROVISION.  CERTAIN SUBSIDIARY
QUESTIONS ARE ALSO RAISED. 

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MANUFACTURING COMPANY OWNED JONES' PATENT NO.
1,651,709.  THE INVENTION CLAIMED WAS A BRAZING "SOLDER COMPRISING
COPPER AND PHOSPHORUS AS THE MAIN AND ESSENTIAL CONSTITUENTS." 
WESTINGHOUSE SUED MACGREGOR FOR INFRINGEMENT.  THE LITIGATION WAS
SETTLED, AND MACGREGOR TOOK A LICENSE FROM WESTINGHOUSE AUTHORIZING
MACGREGOR TO MAKE, USE, AND SELL SOLDER CONTAINING THE CONSTITUENTS
DESCRIBED IN WESTINGHOUSE'S PATENT CLAIM.  MACGREGOR AGREED TO PAY 10%
ROYALTIES ON THE NET SELLING PRICE OF THE SOLDER.  SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF
THE LICENSE AGREEMENT, SET OUT BELOW,  FN1  REQUIRED MACGREGOR TO SELL
THE SOLDER FOR NO LESS THAN THE PRICE WESTINGHOUSE CHARGED ITS OWN
CUSTOMERS.  MACGREGOR PAID ROYALTIES ON SOLDER HE MADE AND SOLD WHICH
CONTAINED ONLY PHOSPHORUS AND COPPER.  LATER HE BEGAN TO MAKE AND SELL
SOLDERS COMPOSED OF PHOSPHORUS, COPPER, AND TIN, OR PHOSPHORUS, COPPER,
AND SILVER.  FOR A TIME HE PAID ROYALTIES ON THESE.  BUT HE ALSO
APPLIED FOR AND OBTAINED PATENTS ON THESE TWO LATTER SOLDERS WHICH
ADDED TIN AND SILVER RESPECTIVELY TO THE PHOSPHORUS-COPPER
COMBINATION.  FN2  MACGREGOR THEN DECLINED TO PAY ROYALTIES ON THESE
SOLDERS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE NOT COVERED BY WESTINGHOUSE'S
PATENT.  WESTINGHOUSE BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND PAYMENT
OF UNPAID ROYALTIES IN A PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT.  MACGREGOR FILED AN
ANSWER DENYING LIABILITY AND ASSERTING A COUNTERCLAIM.  HIS ANSWER
ASSERTED THAT THE SOLDERS WHICH WERE DESCRIBED IN HIS PATENTS WERE NOT
COVERED BY WESTINGHOUSE'S PATENT.  HE ALLEGED THAT THE EFFORT OF
WESTINGHOUSE TO MAKE HIM PAY ROYALTIES ON THESE SOLDERS CONSTITUTED AN
UNLAWFUL EXERCISE OF WESTINGHOUSE'S PATENT MONOPOLY AND THAT
WESTINGHOUSE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RECOVER IN THE COURTS FOR THIS
REASON.  IN A COUNTER-CLAIM, HE MAINTAINED THAT BY INADVERTENCE AND
MISTAKE HE HAD PAID ROYALTIES ON SOLDERS COVERED BY HIS OWN PATENTS. 
HE CHARGED THAT IF THE WESTINGHOUSE PATENT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO COVER
THESE LATTER SOLDERS, IT WAS INVALID.  HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE
PRICE-FIXING PROVISION WAS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE
CLAYTON ACT AND CONSTITUTED AN UNLAWFUL USE OF WESTINGHOUSE'S PATENT
MONOPOLY WHICH RENDERED THE WHOLE LICENSE AGREEMENT ILLEGAL.  FN3  IN
HIS COUNTERCLAIM MACGREGOR ASKED, NOT ONLY FOR JUDGMENT FOR REFUND OF
THE ROYALTIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INADVERTENTLY PAID, BUT ALSO FOR
DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF THE ILLEGAL RESTRAINT IMPOSED UPON HIM BY THE
AGREEMENT. 

THE STATE TRIAL COURT DECLINED TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE
PATENT, HOLDING THAT IT WAS PRESUMED TO BE VALID, AND THAT MACGREGOR AS
A LICENSEE HAD NO RIGHT TO CHALLENGE IT.  ASSUMING THE PATENT AND ALL
THE CLAIMS IN IT TO BE VALID ON THIS THEORY, THE STATE COURT FOUND THE
CLAIMS BROAD ENOUGH IN SCOPE TO COVER ALL THE SOLDERS MANUFACTURED AND
SOLD BY MACGREGOR.  THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT GIVE A LIKE PRESUMPTION TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS ISSUED TO MACGREGOR, BUT HELD THAT THE
SOLDERS COVERED BY THOSE PATENTS INFRINGED THE PRESUMPTIVELY VALID
PATENTS OF WESTINGHOUSE.  FN4 THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  350
PA. 333, 38 A.2D 244.  IT AGREED WITH THE TRIAL COURT THAT MACGREGOR
WAS ESTOPPED TO ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF WESTINGHOUSE'S PATENT.  IT
RECOGNIZED THAT THERE COULD BE NO ESTOPPEL IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDER
OUR DECISION IN SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S.
173, BUT FOR ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE SOLA DECISION AS APPLYING ONLY
TO SUITS IN WHICH THE LICENSOR SOUGHT AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF TO ENFORCE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISION.  SINCE NO SUCH RELIEF WAS
ASKED IN THIS CASE, THE STATE SUPREME COURT FELT THAT THERE WAS NO
EXISTING CONTROVERSY WHICH INVOLVED THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISION - THAT
THE QUESTIONS OF THEIR EFFECT AND VALIDITY WERE "MOOT."  THUS IT
ASSUMED, AS DID THE PETITIONER IN KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO METALLIC
MFG. CO., SUPRA, THAT A ROYALTY AGREEMENT WAS SEVERABLE FROM PRICE
FIXING COVENANTS. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN TODAY'S KATZINGER OPINION WE HOLD THAT THE
COVENANT TO PAY ROYALTIES WAS NOT SEVERABLE FROM THE COVENANT TO SELL
AT FIXED PRICES.  SINCE MACGREGOR INVOKED FEDERAL LAW TO SUSTAIN HIS
CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT, THE ALLEGED MISUSE OF THE
PATENT, AND THE PRICE-FIXING COVENANT, HIS CONTENTIONS RAISED FEDERAL
QUESTIONS NOT GOVERNED BY STATE ESTOPPEL OR CONTRACT SEVERABILITY
RULES.  SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA, 176-177;
SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS CO., 326 U.S. 249.  ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD AS
A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS WRONG IN
AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CAUSE ON THE GROUND THAT THE LICENSEE,
MACGREGOR, WAS ESTOPPED TO OFFER PROOF OF HIS ALLEGATION OF
INVALIDITY.  THIS ERROR WILL REQUIRE, AS THE STATE COURT ANTICIPATED,
THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF
WESTINGHOUSE'S PATENT.  FOR WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE PRESENT STATE OF
THIS RECORD JUSTIFIES ACCEPTANCE OF MACGREGOR'S CONTENTION THAT WE
SHOULD NOW PASS ON VALIDITY OF THE PATENT.  IF IT BE DETERMINED ON
REMAND THAT THE PATENT IS INVALID, THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT, AS
MACGREGOR CONTENDS, THE PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENT VIOLATES THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS.  KATZINGER CO. V. CHICAGO METALLIC CO., SUPRA; SOLA ELECTRIC CO.
V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA, AT 175; SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS
CO., SUPRA. 

BUT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE FEDERAL QUESTIONS RAISED HERE BY MACGREGOR
UPON WHICH DECISION MIGHT TURN EVEN THOUGH WESTINGHOUSE'S PATENT BE
HELD VALID.  MACGREGOR PLEADED THAT THE PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENT SO
EFFECTIVELY WIPED OUT ALL COMPETITION TO WESTINGHOUSE IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF THESE SOLDERS THAT THE WHOLE LICENSE CONTRACT
SHOULD BE HELD ILLEGAL AS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS. 
MACGREGOR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE LICENSE CONTRACT SHOULD BE HELD
UNENFORCEABLE IN THE COURTS ON THE GROUND THAT WESTINGHOUSE HAD
ATTEMPTED TO USE IT TO EXTEND THE PATENT'S SCOPE BEYOND ITS LAWFUL
COVERAGE.  BUT SINCE THE CAUSE MUST AGAIN BE TRIED IN THE STATE COURT
WE SHALL NOT PASS ON EITHER OF THESE CONTENTIONS AT THIS TIME. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  "5.  WESTINGHOUSE GRANTS THIS LICENSE ON THE EXPRESS CONDITION
THAT THE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE FOR USE OR SALE IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ITS TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS OF BRAZING
SOLDERS EMBODYING THE INVENTION COVERED BY SAID LETTERS PATENT AND SO
LONG AS SUCH BRAZING SOLDERS CONTINUE TO BE COVERED BY SAID PATENT,
SHALL BE NO MORE FAVORABLE TO THE CUSTOMER THAN THOSE WHICH FROM TIME
TO TIME WESTINGHOUSE ESTABLISHES AND MAINTAINS FOR ITS OWN SALES OF
SIMILAR OR COMPETING BRAZING SOLDERS UNDER SUCH PATENT TO SUCH OR OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED CUSTOMER PURCHASING IN LIKE QUANTITIES.  MACGREGOR
SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ALL SUCH PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE
FIXED BY WESTINGHOUSE. 

"THE PRICES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE OF WESTINGHOUSE MAY BE
CHANGED BY WESTINGHOUSE FROM TIME TO TIME, NOTICE BEING GIVEN
MACGREGOR, BUT NOT LESS THAN FIVE DAYS' NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN BEFORE
ANY SUCH CHANGE SHALL GO INTO EFFECT. 

"6.  IT IS AGREED THAT IT SHALL BE REGARDED AS AN EVASION OF THIS
AGREEMENT AMOUNTING TO A BREACH THEREOF FOR MACGREGOR TO REDUCE
WESTINGHOUSE'S SALE PRICE OR ALTER WESTINGHOUSE'S SELLING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF SALE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EITHER THROUGH ITS OWN
ORGANIZATION, ITS AGENTS OR OTHERS BY ANY DEVICE, SUBTERFUGE OR EVASION
OR BY ANY MEANS WHATEVER OR TO MAKE THE PRICES LOWER OR THE TERMS OR
CONDITIONS MORE FAVORABLE THAN THOSE SET FORTH BY WESTINGHOUSE." 

FN2  COPPER, PHOSPHORUS AND TIN SOLDER IS PATENT NO. 2,125,680;
COPPER, PHOSPHORUS AND SILVER SOLDER IS PATENT NO. 2,162,627. 

FN3  THE AGREEMENT TO FIX PRICES, IF UNLAWFUL AT ALL, WAS SO WHETHER
IT WAS EXECUTED OR NOT.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310
U.S. 150; AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 781, 810. 
BUT THIS AGREEMENT BY MACGREGOR TO SELL AT FIXED PRICES WAS NO MERE
TOKEN, FOR THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT ON JULY 11, 1940, WESTINGHOUSE
CALLED MACGREGOR'S ATTENTION TO HIS OBLIGATION TO OBSERVE USER AND
DISTRIBUTOR PRICES, AND THAT ON OCTOBER 23, 1940, WESTINGHOUSE, THROUGH
ONE OF ITS ATTORNEYS, WROTE MACGREGOR'S ATTORNEY THAT "IF MACGREGOR
SELLS DIRECT TO THE USER, HE SHOULD CONFORM TO THE USER PRICES
ESTABLISHED, AND WHEN HE SELLS DIRECT TO THE DEALER, HE SHOULD CONFORM
TO THE DEALER PRICES ESTABLISHED."  THE ORAL TESTIMONY OF
WESTINGHOUSE'S REPRESENTATIVES CONSTRUED THE CONTRACT AS REQUIRING
MACGREGOR TO MAINTAIN THE PRICES.  MOREOVER, THE RECORD BEFORE US SHOWS
THAT MACGREGOR POSITIVELY TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD MAINTAINED THE
WESTINGHOUSE PRICES ON THE COPPER-PHOSPHORUS COMBINATION BECAUSE HE
CONSIDERED HIMSELF BOUND TO DO SO UNDER THE LICENSE CONTRACT. 

FN4  SINCE THE CASE IS TO BE REMANDED FOR TRIAL OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE PATENT, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE PROPRIETY IN ANY
EVENT OF INDULGING A PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY IN FAVOR OF WESTINGHOUSE'S
PATENT WITHOUT GIVING A PRESUMPTION OF A PATENTABLE DIFFERENCE TO THOSE
OF MACGREGOR.  SEE MILLER V. EAGLE MANUFACTURING CO., 151 U.S. 186,
208. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM CONCUR MR. JUSTICE REED, MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING* . 

*(THIS IS ALSO A DISSENT FROM THE DECISION IN KATZINGER CO. V.
CHICAGO METALLIC CO., ANTE, P. 394.) 

THE COURT DEEMS THE ISSUES IN THESE CASES TO BE CONTROLLED BY OUR
DECISION IN SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON CO., 317 U.S. 173.  SUCH IS
NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOLA DECISION.  THESE CASES CANNOT BE
PROPERLY DECIDED, I BELIEVE, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ONE OF THE OLDEST
DOCTRINES OF THE PATENT LAW, NAMELY, THAT A LICENSEE CANNOT CHALLENGE
THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT THOUGH EVERYONE ELSE MAY. 

(1)  NINETY YEARS AGO THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY ANNOUNCED THE DOCTRINE
THAT A LICENSEE UNDER A PATENT IS ESTOPPED FROM CHALLENGING THE
VALIDITY OF THAT PATENT.  KINSMAN V. PARKHURST, 18 HOW.  289.  THE CASE
MAY PERHAPS BE EXPLAINED, OR EVEN EXPLAINED AWAY.  BUT THE RULE IT
EXPRESSED HAD BECOME SO MUCH PART OF OUR LAW THAT FIFTY YEARS LATER THE
COURT DEEMED IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS IT AND UNANIMOUSLY APPLIED IT
EVEN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AS LICENSEE.  UNITED STATES V. HARVEY
STEEL CO., 196 U.S. 310.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE LICENSEE IN THAT
CASE, WHILE VIGOROUSLY CONTESTING ITS LIABILITY UPON THE PARTICULAR
FACTS, CONCEDED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL WAS LAW "AS A GENERAL
PROPOSITION." 

(2)  BEFORE THOSE CASES AND SINCE, IN ALL ENGLISH-SPEAKING
JURISDICTIONS, IN THE COURTS OF ENGLAND, OF THE DOMINIONS AND OF THE
VARIOUS STATES, AS WELL AS IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, WHERE MOST
PATENT LITIGATION ORIGINATES AND STOPS, A WEIGHTY BODY OF CASES
AFFIRMED AND APPLIED THAT DOCTRINE WITH RARE UNANIMITY.  FN1  THIS
COURT HAS NEVER QUESTIONED THE RULE.  FN2  THE PRINCIPLE HAS WITHSTOOD
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY FOR NEARLY A CENTURY. 

(3)  NOR HAS THE OPERATION OF THE RULE REVEALED INROADS UPON THE
PUBLIC INTEREST SO AS TO STIR EFFORTS FOR ITS ABROGATION OR RESTRICTION
BY CONGRESS.  PATENT POLICY HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY RECONSIDERED, AND SOME
RULES FORMULATED BY COURTS WERE ELIMINATED OR MODIFIED.  YET IN NONE OF
THE FOUR MAJOR PATENT STATUTES NOR IN ANY OF THE OTHER NUMEROUS
AMENDATORY ENACTMENTS WAS ATTEMPT MADE TO ABOLISH OR LIMIT ESTOPPEL IN
FAVOR OF THE LICENSOR.  FN3  THE PATENT OFFICE, CHARGED BY CONGRESS
WITH SUPERVISION OF THE PATENT SYSTEM AND THE SOURCE OF MANY
SUGGESTIONS ENACTED INTO LAW, HAS NEVER INCLUDED AMONG ITS PROPOSALS
RECOMMENDATION TO ALTER THAT DOCTRINE. 

(4)  NOT UNTIL 1942, APPARENTLY, WAS LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION INVOKED,
AND EVEN THEN ONLY PARTIALLY.  SEVERAL BILLS WERE INTRODUCED TO PERMIT
CONTEST OF THE VALIDITY OF A PATENT IN ANTI-TRUST SUITS.  SEE S. 2730,
AUG. 20, 1942; H.R. 7713, OCT. 15, 1942; H.R. 109, JAN. 6, 1943; H.R.
1371, JAN. 20, 1943.  ONLY IN THE LATEST BILLS TO BE INTRODUCED IS IT
PROPOSED THAT "IN ANY PROCEEDING INVOLVING A VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST
LAWS OR INVOLVING A PATENT OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN, A PARTY SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO SHOW THE INVALIDITY OR THE LIMITED SCOPE OF ANY PATENT OR
PATENT RIGHTS INVOLVED."  H.R. 3874, DEC. 18, 1943; H.R. 97, JAN. 3,
1945; H.R. 3462, JUNE 13, 1945; S. 2482, JULY 26, 1946.  NOT ONE OF
THESE BILLS HAS YET REACHED THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.    (5)  IF EVER A
DOCTRINE HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS PART OF OUR LAW TO BE RESPECTED BY
THE JUDICIARY, THIS IS IT.  IF IT IS TO BE CHANGED, CONGRESS IS THERE
TO CHANGE IT.  PERHAPS CONGRESS WILL SEE FIT TO REEXAMINE THE DOCTRINE
IN ALL ITS RAMIFICATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY AND THE EXPERIENCE
UNDER IT, AND WITH DUE REGARD TO ALL FACTORS RELEVANT TO OUR PATENT
SYSTEM.  WE CANNOT DO THAT.  WE CAN ONLY ADHERE TO THE DOCTRINE OR
OVERRULE IT.  UNTIL CONGRESS DOES UNDO A PRINCIPLE SO EMBEDDED IN OUR
LAW, WE SHOULD LEAVE IT WHERE WE FIND IT. 

(6)  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, IF WE ARE TO WIPE OUT SO SETTLED A PHASE OF
OUR LAW IT SHOULD BE DONE EXPLICITLY, NOT CRYPTICALLY.  IN MY JUDGMENT
THE SOLA DECISION DOES NOT GIVE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE COURT'S
OPINION.  THE CASES BEFORE US NECESSARILY INVOLVE THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE
AND CANNOT BE DISPOSED OF WITHOUT APPEARING TO OVERRULE A SETTLED
COURSE OF DECISION. 

(7)  NO DOUBT THE SOLA CASE, LIKE THESE TWO, AROSE OUT OF A CLAIM FOR
ROYALTIES UNDER A PATENT LICENSE.  BUT THAT THERE WAS A CLAIM FOR
ROYALTIES WAS HARDLY MENTIONED IN THE COURT'S OPINION IN THE SOLA
CASE.  THE SOLE ISSUE TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS DIRECTED WAS A PRAYER
THAT THE LICENSEE BE ENJOINED FROM BREACH OF HIS PROMISE TO ABIDE BY
THE PRICES FIXED BY THE LICENSOR FOR THE SALE OF ARTICLES MANUFACTURED
UNDER THE PATENT.  EVER SINCE THE DECISION IN DR. MILES MEDICAL CO. V.
PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S. 373, THIS COURT, AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL
POLICY REFLECTED IN LEGISLATION, HAS DENIED ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENTS
NOT TO SELL GOODS BELOW A FIXED PRICE.  AND SO THIS COURT HAS BEEN ON
THE ALERT NOT TO ALLOW AN EXCEPTION TO WHAT IS A CONGRESSIONAL AS WELL
AS A JUDICIAL POLICY UNLESS THE BASIS FOR IT IS CLEAN AND CLEAR. 

THE PRECISE ISSUE WHICH WE DECIDED IN THE SOLA CASE IS NOT A MATTER
FOR INFERENCE OR CONJECTURE.  IT WAS EXPLICITLY DEFINED AND DELIMITED. 
"THE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION," THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE WROTE, "IS
WHETHER A PATENT LICENSEE, BY VIRTUE OF HIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, IS
ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE A PRICE-FIXING CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT BY SHOWING
THAT THE PATENT IS INVALID, AND THAT THE PRICE RESTRICTION IS
ACCORDINGLY UNLAWFUL BECAUSE NOT PROTECTED BY THE PATENT MONOPOLY." 
317 U.S. AT 173.  THAT WAS THE ISSUE IN THE SOLA CASE.  IT WAS NOT
WHETHER A LICENSEE MAY CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF A PATENT WHEN SUED FOR
ROYALTIES.  IT WAS NOT WHETHER A PROVISION FOR PRICE-FIXING UNDERMINED
RIGHTS UNDER ESTOPPEL AGAINST A LICENSEE.  IT WAS WHETHER THE LICENSOR
COULD SHOW THE SPECIAL DISPENSATION PERTAINING TO THE HOLDER OF A VALID
PATENT, WHICH ENTITLES HIM TO FIX THE PRICE OF A COMMODITY MANUFACTURED
UNDER HIS PATENT, ALTHOUGH SUCH A PRICING AGREEMENT WOULD BE
UNENFORCEABLE IN THE GENERALITY OF CASES.  WHAT WAS SOUGHT AND WHAT WAS
DENIED IN SOLA WAS THE ACTIVE BENEFIT OF A PRICE-FIXING CLAUSE. 

(8)  IN THE CASES BEFORE US PRICE-FIXING IS NOT IN ISSUE.  FN4  WE
ARE NOT ASKED TO ALLOW THE LICENSOR TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A PRACTICE
AVAILABLE ONLY UNDER A VALID PATENT.  TO GRANT RELIEF HERE WILL NOT,
UNLIKE THE SOLA CASE, APPROVE A PRACTICE PRIMA FACIE IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE.  WHAT WE HERE HAVE TO DECIDE IS WHETHER WE SHALL ALLOW THE
LICENSEE TO REPUDIATE AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY MADE IN AN
ARM'S LENGTH TRANSACTION.  FOR NEARLY A HUNDRED YEARS THIS COURT HAS
UNIFORMLY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION BY USING THE LEGAL SHORTHAND OF
ESTOPPEL. 

(9)  BUT IF ALL THE CASES WHICH HAVE RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED THE
DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL HAVE BEEN REDUCED, AS APPARENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN,
TO DERELICTS, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN AS OBSTRUCTIONS ON
THE STREAM OF LAW.  AND NOT MERELY OUT OF REGARD FOR THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF LAW.  THE MATTER HAS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ALL
WHOSE CONCERN IS PATENTS.  IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT A PRICE-FIXING
CLAUSE IN A LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE UNDER A VALID PATENT FALLS OUTSIDE
THE INTERDICT OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS.  BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO.,
186 U.S. 70.  FN5 THE POWER TO FIX THE PRICE OF PATENTED ARTICLES IS
PART OF THE PATENT GRANT.  IT IS A MODE OF MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF
A PATENT AND AS SUCH IS SANCTIONED BY PUBLIC POLICY.  ALL THAT THE SOLA
CASE HELD, AND THE ONLY THING IT HELD, WAS THAT A VALID PATENT IS
INDISPENSABLE TO THIS RIGHT TO FIX PRICES. 

BUT WHETHER AN INVENTOR HAS A VALID PATENT IS A MATTER OF INCREASING
UNCERTAINTY.  HITHERTO, UNDER THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE, A PATENTEE COULD
BE ASSURED THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO LITIGATE THE VALIDITY OF HIS
PATENT WITH THOSE TO WHOM HE GRANTS LICENSE RIGHTS UNDER IT.  UNDER THE
PRESENT DECISION, HE CANNOT HAVE THIS ASSURANCE OF FREEDOM FROM
LITIGATION IF, UNDER REASONABLE BELIEF THAT HE HAS A VALID PATENT, HE
INSERTS A PRICE-FIXING CLAUSE IN THE LICENSE, EVEN THOUGH AFTERWARDS HE
MERELY ASKS FOR ROYALTIES. 

WHAT MATTERS IS NOT MERELY THAT A PATENTEE MUST NOW CHOOSE BETWEEN
TWO SAFEGUARDS OF HIS PATENT GRANT.  IN THE SOLA CASE THE LICENSOR
ASKED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A PRICING AGREEMENT.  HERE THE PRICE
FIXING AGREEMENT IS NOT BROUGHT INTO QUESTION AND THE PATENTEE STANDS
ON HIS ESTOPPEL.  THIS IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IS DISREGARDED, THE SOLA
CASE IS DEEMED CONTROLLING, AND THE ESTOPPEL IS LEFT TO FEND FOR ITSELF
AS A LEGAL STRAY.  BY ITS SILENCE, AS BY ITS REASONING IN APPLYING THE
SOLA CASE, THE DECISION WILL ENGENDER NATURAL DOUBTS AS TO THE
CONTINUING VALIDITY OF THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE EVEN IN THOSE CASES WHERE
NO PRICING AGREEMENT HAD EVER EXISTED.  THE RESULT IS THAT ALL FUTURE
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN LICENSOR AND LICENSEE ARE OVERHUNG BY A CLOUD OF
DOUBT AS TO WHAT ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT HE HOLDS A VALID PATENT SHOULD
DO IN GRANTING LICENSES UNDER IT. 

IF HE INSISTS ON A PRICE AGREEMENT TO HELP MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF
HIS BUSINESS, HE RUNS THE RISK OF LOSING HIS ROYALTIES SINCE THE MERE
EXISTENCE OF THE PRICE-FIXING CLAUSE (WHICH IS ALL WE HAVE HERE) MAY
FIND HIM ENTIRELY IN THE COLD IF IT SHOULD TURN OUT THAT THE PATENT IS
NOT SUSTAINED.  SO LONG AS THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AS SUCH STANDS
UNREJECTED, THE PATENTEE MAY, THEREFORE, PREFER TO FOREGO PRICE-FIXING
AND BE SATISFIED WITH THE BIRD IN THE HAND IN RELIANCE ON ESTOPPEL. 
BUT THE UPSHOT OF THE PRESENT DECISION IS THAT THE COURT CREATES AN
UNFAIR UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF THE HISTORIC
ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE.  THE RESULT IS THAT THE PATENTEE WHO FOREGOES HIS
RIGHT TO MAINTAIN PRICES IN ORDER TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT HE CAN AT LEAST
COLLECT HIS PATENT ROYALTIES WITHOUT THE COST AND UNCERTAINTY OF
LITIGATION, MAY FIND HIMSELF CAUGHT IN THE OPTIMISM OF HIS BELIEF AS TO
THE VITALITY OF THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE UNEMBARRASSED BY ANY PRICE-FIXING
PROVISION.  FOR HE MAY HAVE GIVEN UP WHAT HE MIGHT OTHERWISE ASSERT AS
A PATENTEE TO MAKE SURE THAT HE CAN IN ANY EVENT HAVE WHAT ESTOPPEL
WOULD GIVE HIM.  IT WOULD SEEM FAIR TO PRONOUNCE NOW THAT THE DOCTRINE
OF ESTOPPEL HAS OR HAS NOT SURVIVED SO THAT THOSE WHO DEEM THEMSELVES
HOLDERS OF PATENT RIGHTS MIGHT NOT SUFFER BECAUSE THEY ASSUMED THAT THE
COURT WOULD PRESERVE THAT WHICH BY NO INTIMATION IT PURPORTS TO
JETTISON. 

(10)  THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE COURT CAN BE TREATED AS THOUGH IT WAS
THE SAME AS THAT IN THE SOLA CASE ONLY IF A DISTINCTION WITH A
DIFFERENCE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.  IT IS ONE THING TO REFUSE TO ENFORCE A
CONTRACT RESTRAINING TRADE BY PRICE-FIXING UNLESS POSITIVE
JUSTIFICATION IS SHOWN IN THE FORM OF A VALID PATENT.  IT IS QUITE
ANOTHER TO USE THE EXCUSE OF AN INOPERATIVE PRICE-FIXING CLAUSE TO
ALLOW A LICENSEE TO ESCAPE HIS OTHERWISE VALID PROMISE TO PAY
ROYALTIES.  FN6  NOWHERE IN THE SOLA CASE DID THE COURT INTIMATE THAT
THE DECISION RESTED UPON THE IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC ECONOMY OF
ALLOWING CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF A PATENT BY THOSE PARTICULAR
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO IN A FAIR BARGAIN HAD AGREED NOT TO DO SO.
IN FACT, THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, FLOWING FROM KINSMAN V. PARKHURST
AND APPLIED IN UNITED STATES V. HARVEY STEEL CO., WAS EXPLICITLY NOTED
ONLY TO BE PUT TO ONE SIDE BECAUSE "HERE A DIFFERENT QUESTION IS
PRESENTED."  317 U.S. AT 175.  IT WAS AGAIN PUT ASIDE IN ALTVATER V.
FREEMAN, 319 U.S. 359, 364.  FN7  THE QUESTION WHICH THOSE CASES DID
NOT HAVE TO MEET SHOULD NOW BE MET OTHERWISE THAN BY DISREGARD.  THE
COURT'S ESSENTIAL REASONING WOULD APPLY EQUALLY WHERE THE LICENSE NEVER
ATTEMPTED TO FIX PRICES.  IF A DOCTRINE THAT WAS VITAL LAW FOR MORE
THAN NINETY YEARS WILL BE FOUND TO HAVE NOW BEEN DEPRIVED OF LIFE, WE
OUGHT AT LEAST TO GIVE IT DECENT PUBLIC BURIAL. 

FN1  THE EARLY CASES ARE COLLECTED IN 14 ANN. CAS. 1184.  NOTE ALSO
THE UNANIMITY AMONG THE AUTHORS OF TREATISES.  AMDUR, PATENT LAW AND
PRACTICE 598; ELLIS, PATENT ASSIGNMENTS AND LICENSES SEC. 692 ET SEQ.;
2 FROST, PATENT LAW AND PRACTICE 201; MOULTON, PATENTS 244; RIVISE AND
CAESAR, PATENTABILITY AND VALIDITY SEC. 10; 2 ROBINSON, PATENTS SEC.
820; 2 WALKER, PATENTS (DELLER'S ED.)  SEC. 383.  AND SEE THE CASES
CITED, ESPECIALLY IN WALKER, PATENTS, SUPRA. 

FN2  CF. EUREKA COMPANY V. BAILEY COMPANY, 11 WALL.  488, 492;
ECLIPSE BICYCLE COMPANY V. FARROW, 199 U.S. 581, 587. 

FN3  SEE PATENT ACT OF 1790, 1 STAT. 109; PATENT ACT OF 1793, 1 STAT.
318; PATENT ACT OF 1836, 5 STAT. 117; PATENT ACT OF 1870, 16 STAT.
198.  SEE ALSO THE SUBSEQUENT MINOR ENACTMENTS, SUMMARIZED, J. PAT. 
OFF.  SOC., JULY 1936, PP. 103-22.  AND SEE 1 WALKER, PATENTS (DELLER'S
ED.)  APPENDIX. 

FN4  "IN THE INSTANT CASE THE COURT HAS NOT BEEN REQUESTED EITHER
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO REQUIRE MACGREGOR TO MAINTAIN WESTINGHOUSE
PRICES.  BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY HE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THEM.  THE PRICE
FIXING CLAUSE IS NOT IN ISSUE.  IT IS RAISED MERELY AS A DEFENSE TO A
SUIT FOR ACCOUNTING AND PAYMENT OF ACCRUED ROYALTIES."  DISCUSSION OF
FINDINGS BY TRIAL COURT IN THE MACGREGOR CASE. 

AS TO THE KATZINGER CASE THE DISTRICT COURT OPINION FOUND THAT "NO
PRICE FIXING BY THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PROVED BY THE PETITIONER....
AT NO TIME DID THE RESPONDENT ATTEMPT TO CARRY IT OUT AND THE
RESPONDENT WAS AT ALL TIMES WILLING TO HAVE SAME REMOVED FROM THE
CONTRACT."  FURTHER, A SPECIFIC FINDING OF FACT WAS THAT "RESPONDENT
WAS ALWAYS WILLING TO ELIMINATE THE PRICE FIXING PROVISIONS OF THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT, AND THESE PROVISIONS TERMINATED IPSO FACTO UPON
TERMINATION OF THE LICENSE BY PETITIONER."  IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE
FACTS SO FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HELD, WHEN THE ESTOPPEL ISSUE WAS BEFORE IT, THAT THE MERE PRESENCE OF
A PRICE-FIXING CLAUSE IN THE LICENSING AGREEMENT, WHATEVER ITS SETTING
AND HOWEVER INOPERATIVE, PRECLUDED ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE LICENSEE.  139
F.2D 291.  WITH THE ESTOPPEL ISSUE THUS ELIMINATED, THE CASE WAS
RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT. 
INASMUCH AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD ERRED IN ITS DECREE ENFORCING ESTOPPEL, THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS
REGARDING ESTOPPEL BECAME IRRELEVANT AND FELL WITH THE REVERSED
DECREE.  THESE FINDINGS, HOWEVER, DID NOT CEASE TO BE PART OF THE
RECORD BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE FIRST APPEAL.  IT IS
THAT DECISION, WITH THE RECORD ON WHICH IT IS BASED, THAT IS NOW BEFORE
US.  IF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD ENFORCED ESTOPPEL, THE DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE FINDINGS ON WHICH IT IS BASED WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN VACATED.  THE FINDINGS THAT WERE BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ON THE FIRST APPEAL ARE NOW BEFORE US ON REVIEW OF THAT COURT'S
DECISION. 

THE LICENSE AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR ROYALTIES BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF
THE NET SALES.  THE AMOUNT OF THE NET SALES WAS NOT FIXED BY AGREEMENT
EXCEPT INSOFAR AS CERTAIN SCHEDULED ARTICLES CALLED FOR A MINIMUM
PRICE.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THE PRICES AT WHICH THE SALES WERE
MADE.  NOT ONLY THAT, THE CLAIM OF THE LICENSEE WAS THAT THE ARTICLES
FOR WHICH ROYALTIES WERE CLAIMED WERE OUTSIDE THE LICENSE.  PLAINLY
SUCH ARTICLES WERE NOT INCLUDED ON THE MINIMUM PRICE SCHEDULE AND COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN SOLD ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULED PRICE LIST.  THE CLAIM
FOR ROYALTIES, THEREFORE, WAS NOT A CLAIM FOR ROYALTIES AT FIXED
PRICES. 

FN5  UPON FULL CONSIDERATION THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BEMENT CASE WAS
REAFFIRMED AND APPLIED IN UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272
U.S. 476.  THE LATTER CASE IN TURN WAS CITED WITH APPROVAL IN CARBICE
CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27, 31.  IT IS RELEVANT TO
NOTE THAT MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS JOINED IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC OPINION
AND HIMSELF WROTE THE CARBICE OPINION.  NO MEMBER OF THIS COURT HAS
BEEN MORE RESOURCEFULLY ALERT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST FROM UNDUE
EXTENSION OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME OBSERVING THE
RIGHTS WHICH CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO CONFER BY THE PATENT GRANT. 

FN6  THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT DETERMINE THE GRANTING OF A LICENSE ON
PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES ARE DISTINCT FROM THOSE THAT UNDERLIE AN
ADDITIONAL CLAUSE FOR PRICE-FIXING.  THEY ARE NOT INTERDEPENDENT IN
FACT AND WERE NOT SO TREATED BY THE PARTIES; NO ARTIFICIAL NOTION
REGARDING CONSIDERATION REQUIRES THAT THEY BE TREATED AS
INTERDEPENDENT.  ON LESSER CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY THAN HAVE GUIDED
THE COURSE OF PATENT LAW, THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO TREAT SEPARATE
PROVISIONS OF A CONTRACT AS INTEGRATED.  SEE PHILADELPHIA, WILMINGTON &
BALTIMORE RAILROAD CO. V. HOWARD, 13 HOW.  307, 339; POLLAK V. BRUSH
ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, 128 U.S. 446, 455. 

FN7  SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS CO., 326 U.S. 249, WENT ON THE
GROUND THAT AN EARLIER EXPIRED PATENT HAD PUT THE DEVICE IN QUESTION
INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 
..END :




















HARVESTER CO. V. EVATT, 329 U.S. 416 


NO. 75.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1947.  - 146
OHIO ST. 58, 64 N.E.2D 53, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SEC. 5495, OHIO GEN. CODE, OHIO LEVIED A FRANCHISE TAX ON
APPELLANT FOR THE "PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS" IN THE STATE. 
APPELLANT OWNS AND OPERATES SEVERAL FACTORIES, SALES AGENCIES,
WAREHOUSES, AND RETAIL STORES IN OHIO AND NUMEROUS FACTORIES, SALES
AGENCIES, AND RETAIL STORES IN OTHER STATES.  GOODS MANUFACTURED IN
OHIO ARE SOLD PARTLY IN OHIO AND PARTLY IN OTHER STATES.  SOME GOODS
MANUFACTURED IN OTHER STATES ARE SOLD BY APPELLANT'S SALES AGENCIES IN
OHIO TO CUSTOMERS IN OHIO.  UNDER SEC. 5498, OHIO GEN. CODE, THE TAX
BASE IS COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS: THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE TAXPAYER'S ISSUED
CAPITAL STOCK IS DIVIDED IN HALF.  ONE HALF IS MULTIPLIED BY A
FRACTION, WHOSE NUMERATOR IS THE VALUE OF ALL THE TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY
IN OHIO AND WHOSE DENOMINATOR IS THE TOTAL VALUE OF ALL ITS PROPERTY
WHEREVER LOCATED.  THE OTHER HALF IS MULTIPLIED BY A FRACTION WHOSE
NUMERATOR IS THE TOTAL VALUE OF "BUSINESS DONE" IN OHIO AND WHOSE
DENOMINATOR IS THE TOTAL VALUE OF BUSINESS DONE EVERYWHERE.  THE SUM OF
THESE TWO PRODUCTS IS THE TAX BASE.  HELD: 

1.  THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TAX ON SALES MADE OUTSIDE OHIO IN
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SINCE
IT IS A FRANCHISE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE
STATE.  PP. 419-421. 

(A)  THE FACT THAT THE STATE CHOSE TO MEASURE THE TAX ON THE BUSINESS
OF MANUFACTURING DONE IN THE STATE BY THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCTS
(INCLUDING THOSE SOLD OUT OF THE STATE) DOES NOT TRANSFORM THE TAX ON
THAT BUSINESS TO A TAX ON SALES OUT OF THE STATE.  P. 420. 

(B)  TREATMENT OF SALES WITHIN OHIO OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED
ELSEWHERE AS "BUSINESS DONE" IN OHIO DID NOT RESULT IN TAXING OUT-OF
STATE OR INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS OR SALES IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE, SINCE THE BUSINESS OF OHIO SALES AGENCIES AND THEIR
SALES TO OHIO CUSTOMERS WERE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES.  PP. 420-421. 

2.  THE TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SINCE THE PURPOSE OF
THE FORMULA WAS TO ARRIVE AT A FAIR CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT WAS THE VALUE
OF THE INTRASTATE BUSINESS AND IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT IT
ACHIEVES AN UNFAIR RESULT.  PP. 421-423. 

(A)  A STATE'S TAX LAW IS NOT TO BE NULLIFIED MERELY BECAUSE THE
RESULT IS ACHIEVED THROUGH A FORMULA WHICH INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF
INTERSTATE AND OUT-OF-STATE TRANSACTIONS IN THEIR RELATION TO THE
INTRASTATE PRIVILEGE.  P. 423. 

(B)  NO MULTIPLICATION OF THIS TAX THROUGH ITS IMPOSITION BY OTHER
STATES IS INVOLVED, SINCE THE TAX IS LEVIED ONLY AGAINST THE PRIVILEGE
OF DOING LOCAL BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING IN OHIO AND NO
OTHER STATE CAN TAX THAT PRIVILEGE.  P. 423. 

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. EVATT, TAX COMMISSIONER. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO AFFIRMED A DECISION OF OHIO'S BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS FIXING THE AMOUNT OWED BY APPELLANT FOR ITS STATE CORPORATION
FRANCHISE TAX ASSESSED PURSUANT TO SECS. 5495-5499, OHIO GEN. CODE. 
146 OHIO ST. 58, 64 N.E.2D 53.  AFFIRMED, P. 423. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO AFFIRMED A DECISION OF THAT STATE'S BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS FIXING THE AMOUNT OWED BY APPELLANT FOR ITS STATE
CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX FOR THE YEARS 1935 TO 1940, INCLUSIVE.  146
OHIO STATE 58, 64 N.E.2D 53.  IN AFFIRMING, THE OHIO COURT REJECTED
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE CONTROLLING TAX ACT, SECS. 5495-5499,
OHIO GEN. CODE, AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 344.  APPELLANT REPEATS ITS ARGUMENTS AS TO INVALIDITY OF THE TAX,
BUT ONLY AS TO THE YEARS 1937 TO 1940, INCLUSIVE. 

CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE MUST PAY A TAX OR
FEE FOR THE "PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS" OR "OWNING OR USING A PART OR
ALL OF ITS CAPITAL OR PROPERTY" OR "HOLDING A CERTIFICATE  ...
AUTHORIZING IT TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS STATE."  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT
APPELLANT OWED A FRANCHISE TAX UNDER THIS SECTION, FOR IT HELD A
CERTIFICATE TO DO BUSINESS IN OHIO DURING ALL THE YEARS IN QUESTION. 
IT ALSO OWNED AND OPERATED TWO LARGE FACTORIES AT SPRINGFIELD, OHIO,
WHICH PRODUCED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF GOODS.  AND IT OPERATED
FOUR BRANCH SELLING ESTABLISHMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH FOUR WAREHOUSES, AND
FOURTEEN RETAIL STORES, ALL LOCATED AT VARIOUS PLACES IN OHIO, WHICH
STORED AND SOLD GOODS PRODUCED AT THE OHIO FACTORY. 

BUT APPELLANT ALSO OWNS AND OPERATES SIXTEEN FACTORIES, NEARLY A
HUNDRED SELLING AGENCIES, AND NUMEROUS RETAIL STORES IN OTHER STATES. 
GOODS PRODUCED AT ITS OHIO FACTORIES ARE NOT ONLY SOLD IN OHIO, BUT IN
ADDITION, ARE SHIPPED FOR STORAGE TO OUT-OF-OHIO WAREHOUSES TO BE SOLD
BY OUT-OF-OHIO SELLING AGENCIES TO OUT-OF-OHIO CUSTOMERS.  SOME ARE
SHIPPED DIRECTLY TO OUT-OF-OHIO CUSTOMERS ON ORDERS FROM OUT-OF-OHIO
SELLING AGENCIES.  CONVERSELY, GOODS MANUFACTURED BY APPELLANT OUT-OF
OHIO ARE SHIPPED TO ITS OHIO WAREHOUSES, AND SOLD BY ITS OHIO SELLING
AGENCIES TO OHIO CUSTOMERS.  APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF
THE TAX ASSESSED AGAINST IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED IN SUCH MANNER THAT A
PART OF IT IS FOR SALES MADE OUTSIDE OHIO AND ANOTHER PART FOR
INTERSTATE SALES.  THESE CONSEQUENCES RESULT, APPELLANT ARGUES, FROM
THE FORMULA USED BY OHIO IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT AND VALUE OF OHIO
MANUFACTURING AND SALES, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM INTERSTATE AND OUT-OF
STATE SALES. 

THE TAX IS COMPUTED UNDER THE OHIO STATUTE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
TAXPAYER'S TOTAL CAPITAL STOCK REPRESENTS BUSINESS AND PROPERTY
CONDUCTED AND LOCATED IN OHIO.  TO DETERMINE THIS, THE TOTAL VALUE OF
ISSUED CAPITAL STOCK  FN1  IS DIVIDED IN HALF.  ONE HALF IS THEN
MULTIPLIED BY A FRACTION, THE NUMERATOR OF WHICH IS THE VALUE OF ALL
THE TAXPAYER'S OHIO PROPERTY, AND THE DENOMINATOR OF WHICH IS THE TOTAL
VALUE OF ALL ITS PROPERTY WHEREVER OWNED.  THE OTHER HALF IS MULTIPLIED
BY ANOTHER FRACTION WHOSE NUMERATOR IS THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE "BUSINESS
DONE" IN THE STATE AND WHOSE DENOMINATOR IS COUNTRY-WIDE BUSINESS. 
ADDITION OF THESE TWO PRODUCTS GIVES THE TAX BASE, WHICH, WHEN
MULTIPLIED BY THE TAX RATE OF 1/10 OF 1%, PRODUCES THE AMOUNT OF THE
FRANCHISE TAX. 

IN THE "BUSINESS DONE" NUMERATOR, THE STATE INCLUDED AS A PART OF
OHIO BUSINESS AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SALES PROCEEDS OF A LARGE PART OF
THE GOODS MANUFACTURED AT APPELLANT'S OHIO PLANTS, NO MATTER WHERE THE
GOODS HAD BEEN SOLD OR DELIVERED.  FN2  A PART OF THE MEASURE OF THE
TAX IS CONSEQUENTLY AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SALES PRICE OF OHIO
MANUFACTURED GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED TO CUSTOMERS IN OTHER STATES. 
APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE STATE HAS THUS TAXED SALES MADE OUTSIDE OF
OHIO IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  A COMPLETE ANSWER TO THIS
DUE PROCESS CONTENTION IS THAT OHIO DID NOT TAX THESE SALES.  ITS
STATUTE IMPOSED THE FRANCHISE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS
IN OHIO FOR PROFIT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED THE STATUTE AS
IMPOSING THE TAX ON CORPORATIONS FOR ENGAGING IN BUSINESS SUCH AS THAT
IN WHICH TAXPAYER ENGAGED.  ONE BRANCH OF THAT BUSINESS WAS
MANUFACTURING.  IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT A STATE CAN TAX THE
BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING.  THE FACT THAT IT CHOSE TO MEASURE THE
AMOUNT OF SUCH A TAX BY THE VALUE OF THE GOODS THE FACTORY HAS
PRODUCED, WHETHER OF THE CURRENT OR A PAST YEAR, DOES NOT TRANSFORM THE
TAX ON MANUFACTURING TO SOMETHING ELSE.  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST.
LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459; HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284, 288
289; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165, 189-190; WALLACE V.
HINES, 253 U.S. 66, 69; FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249, 255.  SEE ALSO
ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 313-314, AND CASES CITED IN
NOTES 14 AND 15. 

IN THE OHIO "BUSINESS DONE" NUMERATOR, WE ASSUME THE STATE ALSO
INCLUDED SALES MADE BY OHIO BRANCHES TO OHIO CUSTOMERS OF GOODS
MANUFACTURED AND DELIVERED TO THESE OHIO CUSTOMERS FROM OUT-OF-OHIO
FACTORIES.  FN3  APPELLANT'S BUSINESS PRACTICE WAS TO CONDUCT AND
ACCOUNT FOR ITS SALES AGENCIES' ACTIVITIES SEPARATELY AND DISTINCTLY
FROM ITS FACTORY OPERATIONS.  THE STATE FOLLOWED THIS DISTINCTION.  IT
TREATED THE SALES AGENCIES AS CONDUCTING ONE TYPE OF BUSINESS AND THE
FACTORIES ANOTHER.  THUS IT MEASURED THE VALUE OF THE OHIO SALES
AGENCIES' BUSINESS BY THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE PRECEDING YEAR'S OHIO
SALES OF GOODS MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE OF OHIO AS WELL AS THOSE
MANUFACTURED IN OHIO.  HERE AGAIN, APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THIS
RESULTED IN TAXING OUT-OF-STATE OR INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS OR SALES IN
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS WHOLLY WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  THE
OHIO SALES AGENCIES' BUSINESS AND THEIR SALES TO OHIO CUSTOMERS WERE
INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES.  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340.  WHAT EFFECT INCLUSION OF THIS ELEMENT IN THE
"BUSINESS DONE" NUMERATOR WOULD HAVE WERE THESE TRANSACTIONS NOT
INTRASTATE IS A QUESTION WE NEED NOT NOW DECIDE. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID DISPOSES OF THE ONLY GROUNDS URGED TO SUPPORT THE
DUE PROCESS CONTENTION.  IT ALSO ANSWERS MOST OF THE ARGUMENT MADE
AGAINST THE OHIO STATUTE ON THE GROUND THAT ITS APPLICATION TO
APPELLANT UNDULY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THEREFORE VIOLATES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  OF COURSE, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT BAR A STATE
FROM IMPOSING A TAX BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE TO DO AN
INTRASTATE BUSINESS MERELY BECAUSE IT ALSO DOES AN INTERSTATE
BUSINESS.  FORD MOTOR CO. V. BEAUCHAMP, 308 U.S. 331, 336.  NOR DOES
THE FACT THAT A COMPUTATION SUCH AS THAT UNDER OHIO'S LAW INCLUDES
RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE SALES AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF A FAIR
APPORTIONMENT.  SEE E.G., HUMP HAIRPIN CO. V. EMMERSON, 258 U.S. 290;
UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113; AMERICAN MFG.
CO. V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. SHARTEL, 279 U.S.
429, 433; WESTERN CARTRIDGE CO. V. EMMERSON, 281 U.S. 511.  AND HERE,
IT CLEARLY APPEARS FROM THE BACKGROUND OF OHIO'S TAX LEGISLATION THAT
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE STATE FORMULA WAS TO ARRIVE, WITHOUT UNDUE
COMPLICATION, AT A FAIR CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT WAS THE VALUE OF THE
INTRASTATE BUSINESS FOR WHICH ITS FRANCHISE WAS GRANTED.  IN OCTOBER,
1924, THIS COURT STRUCK DOWN OHIO'S THEN CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX ON
THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT MAKE AN APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN LOCAL AND
INTERSTATE BUSINESS SO AS TO CONFINE ITS TAX TO LOCAL BUSINESS ONLY. 
THE TAX WAS ALSO HELD TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE.  AIR-WAY ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CORPORATION V. DAY, 266 U.S. 71. 
IN APRIL 1925, THE LEGISLATURE OF OHIO PASSED A NEW ACT EXPRESSLY TO
CURE THE DEFECTS THIS COURT HAD FOUND IN THE OLD LAW.  FN4  111 OHIO
LAWS 471.  THAT 1925 ACT, AS SLIGHTLY AMENDED,  FN5  IS THE LAW UNDER
WHICH THE PRESENT APPORTIONMENT WAS MADE. 

PLAINLY OHIO SOUGHT TO TAX ONLY WHAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO TAX, AND
THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA IN THIS CASE THAT
INDICATES A POTENTIALLY UNFAIR RESULT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT IS
NOT EVEN CONTENDED HERE THAT THE AMOUNT OF THESE TAXES COULD BE
CONSIDERED TO BEAR AN UNJUST OR IMPROPER RELATION TO THE VALUE OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN OHIO IF THE LEGISLATURE HAD IMPOSED A
FLAT FRANCHISE TAX OF THE SAME AMOUNTS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS WHICH
APPLICATION OF THIS FORMULA HAS PRODUCED.  SEE HUMP HAIRPIN CO. V.
EMMERSON, SUPRA AT 296.  FURTHERMORE, THIS COURT HAS LONG REALIZED THE
PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF A STATE'S ACHIEVING A PERFECT APPORTIONMENT
OF EXPANSIVE, COMPLEX BUSINESS ACTIVITIES SUCH AS THOSE OF APPELLANT,
AND HAS DECLARED THAT "ROUGH APPROXIMATION RATHER THAN PRECISION" IS
SUFFICIENT.  ILLINOIS CENTRAL RY. V. MINNESOTA, 309 U.S. 157, 161. 
UNLESS A PALPABLY DISPROPORTIONATE RESULT COMES FROM AN APPORTIONMENT,
A RESULT WHICH MAKES IT PATENT THAT THE TAX IS LEVIED UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE RATHER THAN UPON AN INTRASTATE PRIVILEGE, THIS COURT HAS NOT
BEEN WILLING TO NULLIFY HONEST STATE EFFORTS TO MAKE APPORTIONMENTS. 
SEE CASES COLLECTED IN OPINION OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING,
NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292, 325.  A STATE'S TAX LAW
IS NOT TO BE NULLIFIED MERELY BECAUSE THE RESULT IS ACHIEVED THROUGH A
FORMULA WHICH INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF INTERSTATE AND OUT-OF-STATE
TRANSACTIONS IN THEIR RELATION TO THE INTRASTATE PRIVILEGE.  SINCE IT
HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE APPORTIONMENT HERE ACHIEVES AN
UNFAIR RESULT, CF. HANS REES' SONS, INC. V. NORTH CAROLINA, 283 U.S.
123, 134, 135, AND SINCE IT IS ASSESSED ONLY AGAINST THE PRIVILEGE OF
DOING LOCAL OHIO BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING, WE DO NOT COME
TO THE QUESTION, ARGUED BY APPELLANT, OF POSSIBLE MULTIPLICATION OF
THIS TAX BY REASON OF ITS IMPOSITION BY OTHER STATES.  NONE OF THEM CAN
TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING FACTORIES AND SALES AGENCIES IN OHIO. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 5498 ALSO SETS OUT IN SOME DETAIL THE FACTORS TO BE
CONSIDERED, AND THOSE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED, IN CALCULATING THE TOTAL
VALUE OF A TAXPAYER'S ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING STOCK.  THESE PROVISIONS
ARE NOT HERE AT ISSUE. 

FN2  RULE 275, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO, OCT. 13, 1939, EXEMPTED FROM
THE COMPUTATION ALL GOODS MANUFACTURED BY APPELLANT IN OHIO, BUT
SHIPPED TO APPELLANT'S OUT-OF-OHIO WAREHOUSES BEFORE SALE. 

FN3  THE STATE CONTENDS HERE THAT IT DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE
"BUSINESSDONE" NUMERATOR AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PROCEEDS FROM SALES BY
OHIO BRANCHES TO OHIO CUSTOMERS OF GOODS WHICH WERE SHIPPED TO THE OHIO
CUSTOMERS FROM FACTORIES OUTSIDE OHIO.  APPELLANT INSISTS THAT IT DID. 
WE NEED NOT RESOLVE THIS CONTROVERSY, FOR WE THINK THE RESULT IS THE
SAME WHICHEVER VIEW IS TAKEN. 

FN4  IN VETOING THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE LAW, ON GROUNDS NOT HERE
RELEVANT, THE GOVERNOR OF OHIO SAID:  "THE SUPREME COURT DECISION, OF
COURSE, MADE IT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO DEVISE A BASIS FOR THE LEVY OF THE
TAX OTHER THAN ON THE AUTHORIZED CAPITALIZATION OF FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS.  YOU HAVE SEEN FIT TO EMBODY IN THE PENDING MEASURE AN
ASSET VALUE OR TOTAL NET WORTH BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX ON
DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS AS WELL."  OHIO HOUSE JOURNAL 1925, VOL. 111,
874.  THE BILL WAS PASSED OVER HIS VETO. 

FN5  112 OHIO LAWS 410(1927); 113 OHIO LAWS 637(1929); 114 OHIO LAWS
714(1931); 115 OHIO LAWS 589(1933). 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE OPINION AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.  BUT I DESIRE TO
ADD THAT, IN THE DUE PROCESS PHASE OF THE CASE, I FIND NO BASIS FOR
CONCLUSION THAT ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS INCLUDED IN THE MEASURE OF THE
TAX WAS SO LACKING IN SUBSTANTIAL FACT CONNECTIONS WITH OHIO AS TO
PRECLUDE THE STATE'S USE OF THEM, CF. MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S.
327, DISSENTING OPINION AT 352-357, IF INDEED A LIMITATION OF THIS SORT
WERE MATERIAL TO AN APPORTIONMENT FOUND ON THE WHOLE TO BE FAIRLY
MADE.  FOR THE REST, AS THE COURT HOLDS, THE APPORTIONMENT CLEARLY IS
VALID. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. SEATRAIN LINES, 329 U.S. 424 


NO. 61.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1947.  - 64
F.SUPP.  156, AFFIRMED. 


PURSUANT TO PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ISSUED TO A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, WHOSE VESSELS
HAD SPECIAL FACILITIES FOR CARRYING LOADED RAILROAD CARS AND TANK SPACE
FOR LIQUID CARGOES IN BULK, A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AUTHORIZING IT TO CARRY "COMMODITIES GENERALLY" BETWEEN
CERTAIN PORTS SUBJECT "TO SUCH TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS AS
ARE NOW, OR MAY HEREAFTER BE, ATTACHED TO THE EXERCISE OF SUCH
AUTHORITY BY THE COMMISSION."  LATER THE COMMISSION, ON ITS OWN MOTION
AND OVER THE PROTEST OF THE CARRIER, REOPENED THE PROCEEDINGS AND
ISSUED AN ORDER DIRECTING THE CANCELLATION OF THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE
AND THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW ONE, WHICH DEPRIVED THE CARRIER OF ITS RIGHT
TO CARRY "COMMODITIES GENERALLY" AND LIMITED IT TO CARRYING LIQUID
CARGOES IN BULK, EMPTY RAILROAD CARS, AND PROPERTY LOADED IN FREIGHT
CARS RECEIVED FROM AND DELIVERED TO RAIL CARRIERS.  HELD: 

1.  THE COMMISSION HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THE ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE.  PP. 428-433. 

2.  IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THIS CASE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS
WERE NOT REOPENED TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE BUT TO EXECUTE A SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED POLICY OF
HOLDING THAT A CERTIFICATE TO CARRY "COMMODITIES GENERALLY" DID NOT
AUTHORIZE WATER CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT CARS.  PP. 428-429. 

3.  THE COMMISSION HAS NO EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO REVOKE A CERTIFICATE
OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED TO WATER CARRIERS UNDER PART
III OF THE ACT.  PP. 429-431. 

4.  THE ORDER WAS NOT WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.
309(D) TO FIX "TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS" FOR WATER CARRIER
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS.  PP. 431-432. 

5.  NOR WAS IT WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 315(C) TO
"SUSPEND, MODIFY, OR SET ASIDE ITS ORDERS," SINCE THE ACT MAKES A CLEAR
DISTINCTION BETWEEN "ORDERS" AND "CERTIFICATES."  P. 432. 

6.  WHEN A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY HAS BEEN
FINALLY GRANTED TO A WATER CARRIER UNDER PART III OF THE ACT, AND THE
TIME FIXED FOR REHEARING HAS PASSED, IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.  PP.
432-433. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. SEATRAIN LINES, INC. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF DELAWARE. 

HAVING ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO A
WATER CARRIER UNDER PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SUBSEQUENTLY ORDERED ITS CANCELLATION
AND THE ISSUANCE OF A NEW CERTIFICATE SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING THE
RIGHTS GRANTED.  260 I.C.C. 430.  THE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  64 F.SUPP.  156.  AFFIRMED, P. 433. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEATRAIN IS AND LONG HAS BEEN A COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS BY WATER. 
ITS HARBOR FACILITIES AND VESSELS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED TO ENABLE IT TO
PERFORM A DISTINCTIVE TYPE OF WATER CARRIAGE.  LOADED RAILROAD CARS CAN
BE HOISTED AND TRANSPORTED IN ITS VESSELS, THEREBY ELIMINATING SUCH
THINGS AS TROUBLE, TIME AND BREAKAGE, SAID TO BE INCIDENT TO LOADING
AND UNLOADING GOODS FROM RAILROAD CARS.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 323 U.S. 612.  SEATRAIN VESSELS ALSO HAVE TANK
SPACE FOR CARRIAGE OF LIQUID CARGOES IN BULK.  FN1 

PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 929, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
901, ET SEQ., SUBJECTED WATER CARRIERS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  SECTION 309(A) OF THAT ACT REQUIRED
THEM TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM
THE COMMISSION.  THE SAME SECTION CONTAINS A PROVISO COMMONLY REFERRED
TO AS THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.  IT PROVIDES THAT ANY WATER CARRIER, WITH
AN EXCEPTION NOT HERE MATERIAL, WHICH WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A
COMMON CARRIER BY WATER ON JANUARY 1, 1940, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A
CERTIFICATE TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS OVER THE ROUTE OR ROUTES WHICH IT
HAD BEEN SERVING PREVIOUS TO THAT DATE WITHOUT DETERMINATION BY THE
COMMISSION OF THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. 

MAY 29, 1941, SEATRAIN FILED TWO APPLICATIONS WITH THE COMMISSION TO
OBTAIN CERTIFICATES FOR TWO DIFFERENT ROUTES, ONE OF WHICH IT HAD
OPERATED SINCE 1932, AND ANOTHER WHICH IT HAD BEGUN TO OPERATE IN 1940
SHORTLY AFTER PASSAGE OF THE WATER CARRIER PROVISIONS.  SEATRAIN'S
APPLICATION DESCRIBED ITS OPERATION ON EACH ROUTE AS THAT OF A "COMMON
CARRIER BY WATER OF COMMODITIES GENERALLY."  AFTER DUE NOTICE HAD BEEN
GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, DIVISION 4 OF THE COMMISSION CONDUCTED
INVESTIGATIONS, SATISFIED ITSELF AS TO THE RIGHT OF SEATRAIN TO BE
GRANTED BOTH APPLICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, MADE
APPROPRIATE FINDINGS, AND CONCLUDED THAT SEATRAIN WAS ENTITLED TO
ENGAGE IN TRANSPORTATION ON BOTH THE ROUTES AS "A COMMON CARRIER BY
WATER OF COMMODITIES GENERALLY."  A SINGLE CERTIFICATE TO CARRY
"COMMODITIES GENERALLY BETWEEN THE PORTS OF NEW YORK, N.Y., NEW
ORLEANS, LA., AND TEXAS CITY, TEX., BY WAY OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN AND
THE GULF OF MEXICO" WAS ACCORDINGLY ISSUED TO SEATRAIN.  BY ITS TERMS
IT BECAME EFFECTIVE AUGUST 10, 1942, SUBJECT "TO SUCH TERMS,
CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS AS ARE NOW, OR MAY HEREAFTER BE, ATTACHED
TO THE EXERCISE OF SUCH AUTHORITY BY THIS COMMISSION." 

A YEAR AND A HALF LATER, JANUARY 27, 1944, THE COMMISSION, ON ITS OWN
MOTION, ORDERED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BE REOPENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING WHETHER THE 1942 CERTIFICATE SHOULD NOT BE MODIFIED SO AS
TO DEPRIVE SEATRAIN OF THE RIGHT TO CARRY COMMODITIES GENERALLY. 
SEATRAIN APPEARED AND MOVED TO VACATE AND RESCIND THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS
WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE ALTERATION PROPOSED. 
SEATRAIN'S MOTION WAS REJECTED.  AT THE SUBSEQUENT HEARING ON THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATION, SEATRAIN DECLINED TO OFFER EVIDENCE, RESTING ITS
CASE ENTIRELY ON THE COMMISSION'S LACK OF AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER AND
ALTER THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE.  AFTER ARGUMENT, THE COMMISSION ENTERED
AN ORDER CANCELING THE FORMER CERTIFICATE AND DIRECTING THAT A
DIFFERENT ONE BE ISSUED.  260 I.C.C. 430.  THE PROPOSED NEW CERTIFICATE
IN EFFECT DEPRIVED SEATRAIN OF THE RIGHT TO CARRY GOODS GENERALLY
BETWEEN THE PORTS IT SERVED, AND LIMITED IT TO OPERATIONS ONLY "AS A
COMMON CARRIER BY THE 'SEATRAIN' TYPE OF VESSELS, IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE, IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUID CARGOES IN BULK; OF
EMPTY RAILROAD CARS; AND OF PROPERTY LOADED IN FREIGHT CARS RECEIVED
FROM AND DELIVERED TO RAIL CARRIERS AND TRANSPORTED WITHOUT TRANSFER
FROM THE FREIGHT CARS BETWEEN THE PORTS OF NEW YORK, N.Y., NEW ORLEANS,
LA., AND TEXAS CITY, TEX." 

SEATRAIN THEN BROUGHT THIS ACTION BEFORE A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(28), 47, TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 
THE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD EXCEEDED ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN REOPENING THE
PROCEEDING AND ALTERING THE CERTIFICATE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FURTHER
HELD THAT EVEN IF THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE HAD POWER UNDER DIFFERENT
CIRCUMSTANCES TO ALTER A CERTIFICATE, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE SO IN
THIS CASE WHERE, AS THE COURT FOUND FROM EVIDENCE BEFORE IT BUT WHICH
HAD NOT BEEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION, SEATRAIN HAD EXPENDED LARGE SUMS OF
MONEY IN RELIANCE UPON THE COMPLETE VALIDITY OF ITS CERTIFICATE.  64
F.SUPP.  156.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE COMMISSION'S OBJECTION TO THE
DISTRICT COURT'S ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE NOT HEARD BY THE COMMISSION
SINCE WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THIS CERTIFICATE. 

IN ALTERING SEATRAIN'S CERTIFICATE, THE COMMISSION HELD THAT A
CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING THE CARRIAGE OF "COMMODITIES GENERALLY" DOES
NOT EMBRACE THE RIGHT TO CARRY LOADED OR UNLOADED RAILROAD CARS; THAT
CONSEQUENTLY THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE GRANTED SEATRAIN ACTUALLY
DEPRIVED IT OF ANY FUTURE RIGHT TO CARRY RAILROAD CARS - ITS CHIEF
BUSINESS; THAT ISSUANCE OF THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE TO CARRY
COMMODITIES GENERALLY WAS CONSEQUENTLY AN INADVERTENT ERROR, PATENT ON
THE FACE OF THE RECORD, WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS THE RIGHT AND POWER TO
CHANGE AT ANY TIME THE MATTER COMES TO ITS ATTENTION.  BUT SEATRAIN
ARGUES THAT, FAR FROM RESTORING THE RIGHT TO WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED
UNDER THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE NEW ORDER ACTUALLY RESULTS IN A
DRASTIC LIMITATION ON THE NATURE OF THE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE SEATRAIN
IS PRIVILEGED TO EMPLOY IN LOADING AND CARRYING FREIGHT, AND COULD BAR
DELIVERY OR RECEIPT OF FREIGHT TO OR FROM ANY CONSIGNEES EXCEPT
RAILROADS. 

WE NEED NOT DETERMINE THE COMMISSION'S STATUTORY POWER TO CORRECT
CLERICAL MISTAKES, SINCE WE ARE PERSUADED FROM SEATRAIN'S APPLICATIONS
FOR ITS CERTIFICATES, FROM THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE COMMISSION
INDICATING THAT SEATRAIN HAD LONG TRANSPORTED GOODS OF ALL KINDS LOADED
IN FREIGHT CARS TO CONSIGNEES OTHER THAN RAILROADS, FROM THE FINDINGS
OF THE COMMISSION, AND FROM THE COURSE OF THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE
COMMISSION REGARDING SEATRAIN, THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE WAS NOT AN "INADVERTENT" ERROR WHICH THE COMMISSION'S
SUBSEQUENT ACTION WAS INTENDED TO CORRECT.  FOR ALL THESE INDICATE THAT
PRIOR TO AND AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE SEATRAIN CERTIFICATE IT
WAS THE UNDERSTANDING OF SEATRAIN AND THE COMMISSION THAT ITS
TRANSPORTATION OF "COMMODITIES GENERALLY" INCLUDED CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT
CARS AND THAT CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT CARS WOULD NOT EXCLUDE CARRIAGE OF
COMMODITIES GENERALLY.  MOREOVER, THE SEATRAIN APPLICATION WAS NOT
REOPENED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION UNTIL ITS DECISION IN FOSS
LAUNCH & TUG CO., 260 I.C.C. 103, DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1943.  THERE THE
COMMISSION POINTEDLY RULED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT A CERTIFICATE TO
CARRY "COMMODITIES GENERALLY" DID NOT AUTHORIZE WATER CARRIAGE OF
LOADED OR UNLOADED FREIGHT CARS - SO-CALLED "CAR-FERRY SERVICE."  THUS
IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT THE SEATRAIN PROCEEDINGS WERE REOPENED NOT TO
CORRECT A MERE CLERICAL ERROR, BUT TO EXECUTE THE NEW POLICY ANNOUNCED
IN THE FOSS CASE.  THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT IN
PRIOR PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING SEATRAIN, THE COMMISSION HAD REJECTED THE
CONTENTION THAT SEATRAIN'S VESSELS COULD BE CLASSED AS "CAR FERRIES,"
AND HAD CONCLUDED THAT THEY WERE OCEAN-GOING WATER CARRIERS.  FN2 

SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS APPARENTLY WERE NOT REOPENED TO CORRECT A MERE
CLERICAL ERROR BUT WERE MORE LIKELY AN EFFORT TO REVOKE OR MODIFY
SUBSTANTIALLY SEATRAIN'S ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE UNDER THE NEW POLICY
ANNOUNCED IN THE FOSS CASE, THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE ACT
AUTHORIZES SUCH ALTERATIONS.  THE WATER CARRIER PROVISIONS ARE PART OF
THE GENERAL PATTERN OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WHICH GRANTS THE
COMMISSION POWER TO REGULATE RAILROADS AND MOTOR CARRIERS AS WELL AS
WATER CARRIERS.  FN3  THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATES TO ALL THREE TYPES OF CARRIERS.  BUT IT IS SPECIFICALLY
EMPOWERED TO REVOKE ONLY THE CERTIFICATES OF MOTOR CARRIERS.  SECTION
212(A), PART II, INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 STAT. 555, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
312(A).  IN FACT, WHEN THE WATER CARRIER PROVISIONS WERE PENDING IN
CONGRESS, THE COMMISSION'S SPOKESMAN, COMMISSIONER EASTMAN, SEEMS
SPECIFICALLY TO HAVE REQUESTED THE CONGRESS TO INCLUDE NO POWER TO
REVOKE A CERTIFICATE.  THE COMMISSIONER EXPLAINED THAT WHILE THE POWER
TO REVOKE MOTOR CARRIERS' CERTIFICATES WAS ESSENTIAL AS AN EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER SECTION, IT WAS NOT NECESSARY
TO USE SUCH SANCTIONS IN THE REGULATION OF WATER CARRIERS.  FN4  IT IS
CONTENDED NONETHELESS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS GREATER POWER TO REVOKE
WATER CARRIER CERTIFICATES, WHERE CONGRESS GRANTED NO SPECIFIC
AUTHORITY AT ALL, THAN TO CANCEL AND REVOKE MOTOR CARRIER CERTIFICATES,
WHERE SPECIFIC BUT LIMITED AUTHORITY WAS GRANTED.  BUT IN RULING UPON
ITS POWER TO REVOKE MOTOR CARRIER CERTIFICATES, THE COMMISSION ITSELF
HAS HELD THAT UNLESS IT CAN FIND A REASON TO REVOKE A MOTOR CARRIER'S
CERTIFICATE, WHICH REASON IS SPECIFICALLY SET OUT IN SEC. 212(A), IT
CANNOT REVOKE SUCH A CERTIFICATE UNDER ITS GENERAL STATUTORY POWER TO
ALTER ORDERS PREVIOUSLY MADE.  SMITH BROS. REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE,
33 M.C.C. 465. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PROCEEDING DOES NOT EFFECT A PARTIAL
REVOCATION OF SEATRAIN'S CERTIFICATE, BUT IS MERELY AN EXERCISE OF THE
COMMISSION'S STATUTORY POWER UNDER SEC. 309(D) TO FIX "TERMS,
CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS" FOR WATER CARRIER CERTIFICATE HOLDERS. 
WHETHER THE COMMISSION COULD, UNDER THIS AUTHORITY, HAVE IMPOSED A
RESTRICTION IN AN ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE AS TO THE TYPE OF SERVICE A
WATER CARRIER COULD UTILIZE TO SERVE ITS SHIPPERS BEST IS BY NO MEANS
FREE FROM DOUBT.  YET THE ALLEGED AUTHORITY TO ALTER A CERTIFICATE
AFTER IT HAS BEEN FINALLY GRANTED SO AS TO LIMIT THE TYPE OF SERVICE IS
CERTAINLY NO GREATER THAN THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO LIMIT THE TYPE
OF SERVICE WHEN ISSUING THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE.  IT IS OF SOME
SIGNIFICANCE THAT SEC. 208, WHICH PRESCRIBES THE AUTHORITY OF THE
COMMISSION IN GRANTING CERTIFICATES TO MOTOR CARRIERS, AUTHORIZES THE
COMMISSION TO "SPECIFY THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED" BY THOSE CARRIERS. 
BUT SEC. 309, WHICH EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO GRANT CERTIFICATES TO
WATER CARRIERS, DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO SPECIFY "THE
SERVICE TO BE RENDERED."  FURTHERMORE, SEC. 309(D), RELATING TO WATER
CARRIER CERTIFICATES, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES "THAT NO TERMS, CONDITIONS,
OR LIMITATIONS SHALL RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE CARRIER TO ADD TO ITS
EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, OR SERVICE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUCH CERTIFICATE,
AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND THE DEMANDS OF THE PUBLIC SHALL
REQUIRE  ..."  THE LANGUAGE OF THIS SECTION WOULD SEEM TO PRECLUDE THE
COMMISSION FROM ATTACHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO A CERTIFICATE WHICH
WOULD DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF THE BEST TYPE OF SERVICE WHICH COULD BE
RENDERED BETWEEN PORTS BY A WATER CARRIER.  IN VIEW OF THIS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE THE
SERVICE OF WATER CARRIERS AND OF MOTOR CARRIERS, OUR DECISIONS RELATING
TO THE COMMISSION'S POWER AS TO MOTOR CARRIERS IN THIS RESPECT  FN5
ARE NOT CONTROLLING AS TO THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO REGULATE THE
DETAILS OF THE SERVICE OF WATER CARRIERS.  WE CAN FIND NO AUTHORITY FOR
ALTERATION OF SEATRAIN'S CERTIFICATE FROM THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO FIX
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS." 

NOR DO WE THINK THAT THE COMMISSION'S RULING WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 315(C) WHICH AUTHORIZES IT TO "SUSPEND, MODIFY, OR SET
ASIDE ITS ORDERS UNDER THIS PART UPON SUCH NOTICE AND IN SUCH MANNER AS
IT SHALL DEEM PROPER."  THAT THE WORD "ORDER," AS HERE USED, WAS
INTENDED TO DESCRIBE SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE WORD "CERTIFICATE"
USED IN OTHER PLACES, IS CLEARLY SHOWN BY THE WAY BOTH THESE WORDS ARE
USED IN THE ACT.  SECTION 309 DESCRIBES THE CERTIFICATE, THE METHOD OF
OBTAINING IT, AND ITS SCOPE AND EFFECT, BUT IT NOWHERE REFERS TO THE
WORD "ORDER."  SECTION 315 OF THE ACT, HAVING SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO
ORDERS, AND WHICH IN SUBSECTION (C), HERE RELIED ON, AUTHORIZES
SUSPENSION, ALTERATION, OR MODIFICATION OF ORDERS, NOWHERE MENTIONS THE
WORD "CERTIFICATE."  FN6  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE "ORDERS" REFERRED TO IN
SEC. 315(C) ARE FORMAL COMMANDS OF THE COMMISSION RELATING TO ITS
PROCEDURE AND THE RATES, FARES, PRACTICES, AND LIKE THINGS COMING
WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY.  BUT, AS THE COMMISSION HAS SAID AS TO MOTOR
CARRIER CERTIFICATES, WHILE THE PROCEDURAL "ORDERS" ANTECEDENT TO A
WATER CARRIER CERTIFICATE CAN BE MODIFIED FROM TIME TO TIME, THE
CERTIFICATE MARKS THE END OF THAT PROCEEDING.  FN7  THE CERTIFICATE,
WHEN FINALLY GRANTED AND THE TIME FIXED FOR REHEARING IT HAS PASSED, IS
NOT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION IN WHOLE OR IN PART EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO REVOKE SEATRAIN'S CERTIFICATE.  THAT CERTIFICATE, PROPERLY
INTERPRETED, AUTHORIZED IT TO CARRY COMMODITIES GENERALLY, INCLUDING
FREIGHT CARS, ON THE ROUTES FOR WHICH THE CERTIFICATE ORIGINALLY
ISSUED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.    FN1  FOR A
DESCRIPTION OF SEATRAIN EQUIPMENT, SEE INVESTIGATION OF SEATRAIN LINES,
INC., 195 I.C.C. 215, 218-222. 

FN2  SEE INVESTIGATION OF SEATRAIN LINES, INC., SUPRA; SEATRAIN
LINES, INC. V. AKRON, C. & Y.R. CO., 226 I.C.C. 7; HOBOKEN
MANUFACTURERS' R. CO. V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN R. CO., 248 I.C.C. 109, BUT
SEE COMMISSIONER PATTERSON DISSENTING, ID. AT 120. 

FN3  24 STAT. 379(AS AMENDED), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. (RAILROADS);
49 STAT. 543, 54 STAT. 919, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 301 ET SEQ. (MOTOR
CARRIERS); 54 STAT. 929, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET SEQ. (WATER CARRIERS). 

FN4  COMMISSIONER EASTMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION'S LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE, REPORTING TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON
S. 2009 ON JANUARY 29, 1940, STATED, "THIS BILL LEAVES SECTION 212(A)
UNCHANGED, AND HAS NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN THE NEW PART III. 
WHILE THERE IS ROOM FOR ARGUMENT, WE ARE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT
PROVISION FOR THE REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF WATER CARRIER
CERTIFICATES OR PERMITS IS NOT ESSENTIAL, IF ADEQUATE PENALTY
PROVISIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR VIOLATIONS OF PART III.  REVOCATION OR
SUSPENSION, IN THE CASE OF MOTOR CARRIERS, IS BELIEVED TO BE THE MOST
EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT, SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY SUCH CARRIERS,
AND THE OPERATIONS OF THE GREAT MAJORITY ARE SO SMALL, THAT ENFORCEMENT
THROUGH PENAL ACTIONS IN COURTS PRESENTS MANY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES;
BUT THIS SHOULD NOT BE TRUE OF WATER CARRIERS." 

FN5  CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 1;
CRESCENT EXPRESS LINES V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 401; NOBLE V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 88.  SEE ALSO SMITH BROS. REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE,
33 M.C.C. 465; QUAKER CITY BUS CO., 38 M.C.C. 603. 

FN6  AND SECS. 316 AND 317 OF THE ACT POINTEDLY TREAT AN ORDER AS ONE
THING AND A CERTIFICATE AS ANOTHER. 

FN7  SEE SMITH BROS. REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE, SUPRA, QUAKER CITY
BUS CO., SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :










STEELE V. GENERAL MILLS, 329 U.S. 433 


NO. 79.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1947.  - 154
F.2D 367, REVERSED. 


A MOTOR CARRIER AND A SHIPPER ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN CONTRACT UNDER
WHICH THE CARRIER WAS TO TRANSPORT GOODS FOR THE SHIPPER BY TRUCK
ENTIRELY WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS.  ON THE BASIS OF THAT CONTRACT, THE
CARRIER OBTAINED FROM THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION A PERMIT TO OPERATE
AS A CONTRACT CARRIER PURSUANT TO RULES PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION
UNDER TEXAS R.S., ART. 911(B), SECS. 1-22(B) GRANTING REGULATORY POWER
OVER TRANSPORTATION.  THE RULES REQUIRED CONTRACT CARRIERS TO CHARGE
NOT LESS THAN THE RATE PRESCRIBED FOR COMMON MOTOR CARRIERS.  LATER,
PURSUANT TO A PREARRANGEMENT AND WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION, THE
PARTIES ENTERED INTO A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE SHIPPER
ACTUALLY PAID THE CARRIER LOWER RATES.  ABOUT 3 1/2 YEARS LATER, THE
CARRIER SUED THE SHIPPER IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RATE PAID AND THE FULL RATE FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION.  HELD: 

1.  THIS COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN TEXAS
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT BARRED BY ART. 5526,
TEX. R.S., WHICH APPLIES ONLY TO ACTIONS FOR DEBTS NOT "EVIDENCED BY A
CONTRACT IN WRITING."  P. 438. 

2.  NOR CAN THIS COURT SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE TEXAS LAW TO RENDER VOID AND
UNENFORCEABLE THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT DESIGNED TO CIRCUMVENT PAYMENT
OF THE RATES FIXED BY THE COMMISSION.  P. 438. 

3.  NOR WILL THIS COURT DISTURB THE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON PURELY
LOCAL LAW BY A DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN TEXAS IN HOLDING THAT THE
COMMISSION'S RATE-FIXING ORDERS APPLIED TO THE CARRIER'S BUSINESS, THAT
THEY WERE NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK IN SUCH A SUIT, AND THAT THE
CARRIER COULD NOT LAWFULLY CARRY THE SHIPPER'S GOODS AT LOWER RATES -
ESPECIALLY WHERE THESE INTERPRETATIONS WERE WELL BUTTRESSED BY STATE
STATUTES AND COURT DECISIONS AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT
DISAGREE WITH THEM.  P. 439. 

4.  UNDER TEXAS LAW, NO DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL OR PARI DELICTO CAN BE
INVOKED TO DEFEAT PAYMENT OF THE FULL RATE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION; AND
A DIFFERENT RULE CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  PP. 439
441. 

STEELE V. GENERAL MILLS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

A CARRIER SUED A SHIPPER IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RATE ACTUALLY PAID FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
GOODS AND A HIGHER RATE FIXED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
PURSUANT TO TEX. R.S., ART. 911(B), SECS. 1-22(B).  THE DISTRICT COURT
GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE CARRIER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
154 F.2D 367.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 830.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  P. 441. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN CONTRACT UNDER WHICH
THE PETITIONER WAS TO TRANSPORT GOODS FOR RESPONDENT BY TRUCK ENTIRELY
WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS AT "SUCH RATES, CHARGES OR TARIFFS AS MAY BE
FIXED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS."  BASED ON THAT
CONTRACT PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION FOR A PERMIT TO OPERATE
AS A CONTRACT CARRIER PURSUANT TO RULES OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION
PROMULGATED UNDER TEXAS LAW WHICH GRANTS REGULATORY POWER OVER
TRANSPORTATION TO THAT COMMISSION.  ARTICLE 911B, SECS. 1 TO 22(B),
REV. STAT. OF TEX. PETITIONER'S APPLICATION STATED THAT "THE TARIFF TO
BE CHARGED FOR THE SERVICE PROPOSED TO BE RENDERED WILL BE THAT AS
PROMULGATED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS."  AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING, AT WHICH PETITIONER AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENT
TESTIFIED, THE COMMISSION MADE AN ORDER WHICH STATED THAT "AFTER
CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE, THE LAWS AND ITS OWN RULES AND
REGULATIONS," THE COMMISSION WAS OF THE OPINION THAT "THE CHARACTER OF
BUSINESS PROPOSED TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT STRICTLY CONFORMS WITH
THE DEFINITION OF A CONTRACT CARRIER."  THE ORDER DIRECTED THAT
PETITIONER BE GRANTED A PERMIT, WHICH WAS LATER ISSUED, TO TRANSPORT
GOODS FOR RESPONDENT IN TEXAS, BUT DIRECTED ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT
THE COMMISSION'S "TARIFFS AND ORDERS PRESCRIBED AS A MINIMUM RATE TO BE
CHARGED BY CONTRACT CARRIERS THE RATES PRESCRIBED FOR COMMON CARRIER
MOTOR CARRIERS."  LATER, PURSUANT TO A PREARRANGEMENT, THE PARTIES
ENTERED INTO A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT CONCERNING WHICH THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION WAS KEPT UNINFORMED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH RESPONDENT
ACTUALLY PAID PETITIONER FOR CARRIAGE OF ITS GOODS LESS THAN THE RATES
PRESCRIBED FOR COMMON MOTOR CARRIERS.  ABOUT THREE AND A HALF YEARS
LATER THE PETITIONER FILED THIS SUIT, OF WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION BY REASON OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, TO RECOVER THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RATE PAID AND THE FULL RATE FIXED BY PRIOR
GENERAL ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION PRESCRIBING COMMON CARRIER RATES AS
PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT. 

THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER ADMITTED THAT IT HAD PAID LESS THAN THE
TARIFF RATE FIXED IN PRIOR GENERAL ORDERS, BUT DENIED LEGAL LIABILITY
TO PAY THAT RATE ON SEVERAL GROUNDS.  IT DENIED THAT RESPONDENT'S RATES
WERE GOVERNED BY THE COMMISSION'S PRIOR GENERAL RATE ORDERS OR BY THE
SPECIAL ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT CARRIER.  IT
ALSO CLAIMED THAT A STATE TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARRED
RECOVERY FOR PART OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED.  IT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT
PETITIONER HAD LED RESPONDENT TO BELIEVE THAT HIS TYPE OF
TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION, AND THAT NO PRIOR GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDERS HAD FIXED
PETITIONER'S TRANSPORTATION RATES.  IN RELIANCE UPON THE PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATIONS, RESPONDENT ALLEGED, IT HAD ENTERED INTO THE
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO PAY LESS THAN THE TARIFF RATE HERE CLAIMED. 
RESPONDENT PLEADED THAT BY THIS CONDUCT PETITIONER WAS ESTOPPED FROM
CLAIMING THAT THE COMMISSION HAD POWER TO OR HAD FIXED A RATE FOR
PETITIONER'S TRANSPORTATION, OR FROM PREDICATING HIS CAUSE OF ACTION
UPON THE COMMISSION'S TARIFFS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTED ALL OF RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS.  CITING
TEXAS STATUTES, COURT DECISIONS, AND THE COMMISSION'S PRACTICES, THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT BARRED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; THAT THE COMMISSION'S PRIOR GENERAL RATE ORDERS
GOVERNED THE CHARGES TO BE FIXED BY CONTRACT CARRIERS SUCH AS
PETITIONER; THAT TEXAS LAW BARRED RESPONDENT FROM ANY COLLATERAL ATTACK
ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDERS; THAT HAD THE RATE-FIXING ORDERS BEEN
DIRECTLY ATTACKED, AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD
VALID; THAT SHIPPERS AND CARRIERS COULD NOT BY PRIVATE AGREEMENTS
DEFEAT THE STATE'S STATUTORY PURPOSE TO REQUIRE PAYMENTS OF UNIFORM
TRANSPORTATION RATES; THAT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO PAY THE COMMISSION
FIXED RATE WAS VALID, AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO PAY LESS THAN
THAT RATE WAS VOID; AND THAT, UNDER TEXAS LAW, PETITIONER WAS NOT
ESTOPPED TO RELY ON THE COMMISSION'S TARIFF IN ORDER TO RECOVER THE
FULL TARIFF RATE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTED THE JURY TO
RETURN A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER FOR THE BALANCE DUE IT UNDER THE
COMMISSION RATE, AND A JUDGMENT FOR THE PETITIONER WAS ENTERED ON THAT
VERDICT.  FN1 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED.  154
F.2D 367.  THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER SHOULD NOT RECOVER
BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT TO PAY LESS THAN THE FULL RATES WAS A SUBTERFUGE,
THAT NEITHER PARTY HAD ANY INTENTION OF LIVING UP TO THE AGREEMENT, AND
THAT THEIR CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO A FRAUD UPON THE RAILROAD COMMISSION,
"CONTRARY TO GOOD MORALS AND THAT (IT) TENDED  ...  TO INTERFERE WITH
THE PURITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW SUCH AS PUTS BOTH PARTIES
IN PARI DELICTO WITH NO RIGHT TO SEEK ADVANTAGE OR RECOVERY  ..."  ON
THE "SPURIOUS" CONTRACT.  THE DISSENTING JUDGE DID NOT AGREE THAT THE
RECORDS SHOWED A DELIBERATE PURPOSE TO EVADE THE STATUTES.  HE FURTHER
THOUGHT THAT UNDER CONTROLLING TEXAS LAW AND POLICY THE DOCTRINE OF
PARI DELICTO COULD NOT BE APPLIED SO AS TO HAVE THE GOODS OF A TEXAS
SHIPPER HAULED IN TEXAS AT A LESS RATE THAN THE OTHERS WERE COMPELLED
TO PAY BY LAW.  ALL THE JUDGES AGREED, HOWEVER, THAT THE AGREEMENT TO
PAY LESS THAN THE COMMISSION-FIXED RATES WAS VOID. 

ON PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR REHEARING, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
INTERVENED.  HE CONTENDED THAT THE COURT'S DECISION RAN COUNTER TO THE
STATE'S LONG-ESTABLISHED POLICY AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY TRANSPORTATION
RATE-CUTTING, AND THAT IF THE JUDGMENT STOOD, IT WOULD IMPAIR THE
INTEGRITY OF THE STATE'S REGULATORY SYSTEM, A PRIMARY PURPOSE OF WHICH
WAS, HE ARGUED, TO ASSURE UNIFORM RATES TO ALL SHIPPERS FOR
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  IN ITS OPINION DENYING
REHEARING, THE COURT REAFFIRMED ITS FORMER HOLDING AND STATED THAT THIS
WAS "A SUIT BY ONE PARTY, IN PARTICEPS CRIMINIS, AGAINST ANOTHER IN
LIKE SITUATION, UNDER A FULLY COMPLETED CONTRACT, WHEREIN IT WAS SOUGHT
TO PENALIZE ONE PARTY TO THE EXTENT OF $37,000.00 AND TO REWARD THE
PRIME OFFENDER IN LIKE AMOUNT."  WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS'
JUDGMENT DOES UNDERMINE THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF TEXAS IS A
QUESTION OF SUCH IMPORTANCE THAT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE
CASE.  328 U.S. 830. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT NO PART OF THE CLAIM SUED
ON WAS BARRED BY THE TEXAS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS DID NOT DISCUSS THE QUESTION.  ARTICLE 5526 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES OF TEXAS, ON WHICH RESPONDENT RELIES, BY ITS LANGUAGE APPLIES
ONLY TO ACTIONS FOR DEBTS NOT "EVIDENCED BY A CONTRACT IN WRITING." 
THE CONTRACT HERE SUED ON WAS "IN WRITING."  RESPONDENT HAS CITED NO
TEXAS DECISIONS WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THIS STATUTE TO BE A BAR TO SUITS
ON CONTRACTS SUCH AS THE ONE HERE INVOLVED.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN TEXAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO PART OF THE
CLAIM WAS BARRED BY ARTICLE 5526.  SEE TEXARKANA & FT. S.R. CO. V.
HOUSTON GAS & FUEL CO., 121 TEX. 594, 51 S.W.2D 284. 

NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN INTERPRETING TEXAS LAW TO RENDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT, DESIGNED TO CIRCUMVENT
PAYMENT OF COMMISSION-FIXED RATES, VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT'S HOLDINGS THAT THE COMMISSION'S RATE-FIXING ORDERS
APPLIED TO PETITIONER'S BUSINESS, THAT THEY WERE NOT SUBJECT UNDER
TEXAS LAW TO THE COLLATERAL ATTACK HERE MADE, AND THAT PETITIONER COULD
NOT CARRY RESPONDENT'S GOODS AT LESS THAN THE RATES FIXED WERE WELL
BUTTRESSED BY STATE STATUTES AND COURT DECISIONS.  FN2  NO ARGUMENTS
HERE MADE BY RESPONDENT, OR STATE DECISIONS ON WHICH IT RELIES, REFUTE
THE DISTRICT COURT'S REASONING OR CONCLUSION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HAS NOT DISAGREED WITH THIS HOLDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT
SITTING IN TEXAS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE SHALL LEAVE UNDISTURBED
THE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON PURELY LOCAL LAW BY A TEXAS FEDERAL
JUDGE.  MACGREGOR V. STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO., 315 U.S. 280;
HENDERSON CO. V. THOMPSON, 300 U.S. 258, 266; THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED
GAS CO., 300 U.S. 55, 74-75.  THEREFORE WE CAN PROCEED TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT COULD ESCAPE
PAYMENT OF THE COMMISSION-FIXED RATES BY APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
PARI DELICTO. 

RESPONDENT DOES NOT REFUTE WHAT THE TEXAS COURTS HAVE FREQUENTLY
DECIDED, THAT AGREEMENTS BY RAILROADS TO CUT CHARGES TO BELOW TARIFF
RATES ARE UNLAWFUL AND THAT NO DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL OR PARI DELICTO CAN
BE INVOKED TO DEFEAT PAYMENT OF THE FULL TARIFF RATE.  IN TEXAS &
N.O.R. CO. V. YATES, 139 TEX. 89, 93, 161 S.W.2D 1050, 1052, THE TEXAS
COURT SAID, "IN A WORD THE PURPOSE OF OUR STATUTES, AS THEY RELATE TO
INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATES, IS IN EVERY ESSENTIAL RESPECT THE SAME AS
THAT OF THE FEDERAL STATUTES WHICH WE HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION IN
HOUSTON & T.C.R. CO. V. JOHNSON, TEX. COM. APP., 41 S.W.2D 14, 83
A.L.R. 241."  JUST AS 49 U.S.C. SEC. 41(3) PROHIBITS REBATE AND SIMILAR
DEVICES WHICH MIGHT UNDERMINE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION RATE SYSTEMS,
SO ART. 1690(B), SEC. (I) OF THE PENAL CODE OF TEXAS MAKES IT UNLAWFUL
FOR MOTOR CARRIERS TO CHARGE LESS THAN COMMISSION-FIXED RATES, AND ART.
1687 MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR RAILROADS TO ENGAGE IN THE SAME PRACTICE. 
NO TEXAS DECISIONS REFERRED TO BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR BY
THE RESPONDENT HERE INDICATE THAT THE STATE'S PUBLIC POLICY IS ANY
DIFFERENT OR LESS EFFECTIVE IN PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF MOTOR
CARRIER RATES THAN RAILROAD RATES.  THE TEXAS MOTOR CARRIER LEGISLATION
WAS DESIGNED TO BE A PART OF A STATE TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY SYSTEM
APPLICABLE ALIKE TO ALL LINES OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH REPRESENTS A
"STUDIED EFFORT  ...  TO PREVENT, THROUGH REGULATION, UNFAIR,
DISCRIMINATORY, OR DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION BETWEEN SUCH AUTHORIZED
CARRIERS AS WOULD ULTIMATELY IMPAIR THEIR USEFULNESS."  TEXAS & PACIFIC
R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N (TEX. CIV. APP.) 138 S.W.2D 927, 931,
REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 138 TEX. 148, 157 S.W.2D 622.  CF.
STEPHENSON V. BINFORD, 287 U.S. 251, 272-273. 

UNDER TEXAS LAW THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION-FIXED CARRIER RATES IS NOT
MERELY A PRIVATE OBLIGATION BETWEEN SHIPPERS AND CARRIERS.  THE DUTY TO
PAY IS A PUBLIC ONE, HOUSTON & T.C.R. CO. V. JOHNSON (TEX. COM. APP.)
41 S.W.2D 14.  AND, AS SAID IN THE YATES CASE, SUPRA, WITH REFERENCE TO
A RAILROAD, NO CARRIER CAN "BY MEANS OF ESTOPPEL 'OR BY ANY OTHER
DEVICE' ESCAPE THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS PUBLIC DUTY."  WHILE THE
DOCTRINE OF PARI DELICTO MIGHT BE APPLIED IN TEXAS TO SOME TYPES OF
CONTRACTS SO AS TO DEFEAT RECOVERY, SEE WRIGHT V. WIGHT & WIGHT (TEX.
CIV. APP.) 229 S.W. 881, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TEXAS COURTS WOULD APPLY IT IN THIS
CASE.  APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PARI DELICTO IN THIS PROCEEDING,
THEREFORE, WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION BY REASON OF
DIVERSITY, WOULD RESULT IN APPLYING A RULE OF LAW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
DIFFERENT FROM THE RULE WE BELIEVE HAS BEEN APPLICABLE IN THE STATE
COURTS.  SUCH A RESULT CANNOT BE APPROVED.  HOLMBERG V. ARMBRECHT, 327
U.S. 392. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COURT PERMITTED RESPONDENT TO OFFER EVIDENCE INTENDED TO
SHOW THAT THE PETITIONER'S CONTRACT CARRIAGE WAS NEITHER IN COMPETITION
WITH COMMON CARRIERS NOR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TYPE OF SERVICES AS
COMMON CARRIERS PERFORMED.  THIS EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO SUPPORT
RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
FIX PETITIONER'S RATES BECAUSE, AS RESPONDENT URGED, SEC. 6 AA OF THE
STATE MOTOR CARRIER LAW LIMITED ITS POWER TO FIX CONTRACT CARRIER RATES
TO MOTOR CARRIERS THAT DID COMPETE WITH OR PERFORM SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME SERVICES AS COMMON CARRIERS.  THESE TWO QUESTIONS WERE SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY, AND THEY MADE SPECIAL FINDINGS ON THE ISSUES IN
RESPONDENT'S FAVOR.  THE DISTRICT COURT LATER DIRECTED THE JURY TO FIND
FOR PETITIONER DESPITE THESE FINDINGS, HOLDING, AS SET OUT IN THE
OPINION, THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS WERE VALID AND BEYOND COLLATERAL
ATTACK IN THIS CASE. 

FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT CITED THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES TO SUPPORT
ITS POSITION:  ART. 911B REV. STAT. OF TEX.; GENERAL ORDER NO. 25, R.R.
COMM'N OF TEX., AUG. 22, 1931; TEXAS STEEL CO. V. FT. WORTH & DENVER
C.R. CO., 120 TEX. 597, 40 S.W.2D 78; GREER V. RAILROAD COMM'N (TEX.
CIV. APP.) 117 S.W.2D 142; ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO. V. LANDA & STOREY
(TEX. CIV. APP.) 187 S.W. 358; RAILROAD COMM'N V. UVALDE CONSTRUCTION
CO. (TEX. CIV. APP.) 49 S.W.2D 1113; ALPHA PETROLEUM CO. V. TERRELL,
122 TEX. 257, 59 S.W.2D 364; MINGUS V. WADLEY, 115 TEX. 551, 285 S.W.
1084.  IT ALSO CITED THE FOLLOWING FEDERAL CASES:  BURFORD V. SUN OIL
CO., 319 U.S. 315; UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 278 U.S.
300. 
..END :





BOARD OF GOVERNORS V. AGNEW, 329 U.S. 441 


NO. 66.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1947.  - 153
F.2D 785, REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER SEC. 30 OF THE BANKING ACT OF 1933 BY THE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM REMOVING A DIRECTOR OF
A NATIONAL BANK FROM OFFICE FOR CONTINUING VIOLATIONS OF LAW AFTER
HAVING BEEN WARNED TO DESIST IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW; AND A
DISTRICT COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO ENJOIN THE REMOVAL IF THE BOARD ACTS
BEYOND THE LIMITS OF ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  P. 444. 

2.  SECTION 32 OF THE BANKING ACT OF 1933 PROHIBITS, INTER ALIA, ANY
EMPLOYEE OF ANY PARTNERSHIP "PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN THE UNDERWRITING OR
DISTRIBUTION OF SECURITIES FROM SERVING AT THE SAME TIME AS DIRECTOR OF
A MEMBER BANK OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.  RESPONDENTS WERE
DIRECTORS OF A MEMBER BANK AND EMPLOYEES OF A PARTNERSHIP WHICH HELD
ITSELF OUT AS BEING "UNDERWRITERS, DISTRIBUTORS  ...  AND BROKERS" IN
SECURITIES, WAS ACTIVELY GETTING WHAT BUSINESS IT COULD IN THE
UNDERWRITING FIELD, AND ONE YEAR RANKED 9TH AMONG 94 LEADING INVESTMENT
BANKERS WITH RESPECT TO ITS TOTAL PARTICIPATIONS IN UNDERWRITINGS.  ITS
GROSS INCOME FROM THE UNDERWRITING FIELD RANGED FROM 26% TO 39%, AND
ITS GROSS INCOME FROM THE BROKERAGE BUSINESS RANGED FROM 40% TO 47%, OF
ITS GROSS INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES.  ABOUT 15% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
TRANSACTIONS AND OF THE TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES BOUGHT AND
SOLD BY IT AS BROKER OR DEALER WERE IN THE UNDERWRITING FIELD.  THE
PARTNERSHIP DID NO BUSINESS WITH THE BANK AND RESPONDENTS DID ONLY A
STRICTLY COMMISSION BUSINESS WITH THE BANK'S CUSTOMERS.  HELD:  THE
PARTNERSHIP WAS "PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN THE UNDERWRITING AND
DISTRIBUTION OF SECURITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 32 OF THE ACT AND
ITS EMPLOYEES WERE DISQUALIFIED FROM SERVING AS DIRECTORS OF A MEMBER
BANK OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.  PP. 445-449. 

(A)  IF THE UNDERWRITING BUSINESS OF A FIRM IS SUBSTANTIAL, IT IS
"PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN THE UNDERWRITING BUSINESS, THOUGH BY ANY
QUANTITATIVE TEST UNDERWRITING MAY NOT BE ITS CHIEF OR PRINCIPAL
ACTIVITY; AND WHETHER ITS UNDERWRITING BUSINESS EXCEEDS 50% OF ITS
TOTAL BUSINESS IS IRRELEVANT.  PP. 446-449. 

(B)  SECTION 32 BEING A PREVENTIVE MEASURE, THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS
HAVE BEEN SCRUPULOUS IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE BANK IS IMMATERIAL. 
P. 449. 

3.  SUBSTANTIALITY BEING THE STATUTORY GUIDE, SEC. 32 DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD,
SINCE THE LIMITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ARE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE OR
ASCERTAINABLE.  P. 449. 

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM ET AL. V. AGNEW ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

IN A SUIT TO REVIEW OR ENJOIN THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM IN REMOVING RESPONDENTS FROM OFFICE AS
DIRECTORS OF A NATIONAL BANK ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE EMPLOYEES OF
A FIRM "PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN UNDERWRITING WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
32 OF THE BANKING ACT OF 1933, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA REVERSED.  153 F.2D 785.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328
U.S. 825.  REVERSED, P. 449. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, PRESENTS IMPORTANT PROBLEMS UNDER SEC. 30 AND SEC. 32 OF
THE BANKING ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 162, 193, 194, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT.
684, 709, 12 U.S.C. SECS. 77, 78. 

WHENEVER HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT A DIRECTOR OR OFFICER OF A NATIONAL
BANK HAS VIOLATED ANY LAW RELATING TO THE BANK, SHALL WARN HIM TO
DISCONTINUE THE VIOLATION AND, IF THE VIOLATION CONTINUES, MAY CERTIFY
THE FACTS TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.  THE
BOARD IS GRANTED POWER TO ORDER THAT THE DIRECTOR OR OFFICER BE REMOVED
FROM OFFICE IF IT FINDS AFTER NOTICE AND A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD THAT HE HAS CONTINUED TO VIOLATE THE LAW.  FN1 

OF ANY PARTNERSHIP "PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN THE ISSUE, FLOTATION,
UNDERWRITING, PUBLIC SALE, OR DISTRIBUTION, AT WHOLESALE OR RETAIL, OR
THROUGH SYNDICATE PARTICIPATION, OF STOCKS, BONDS, OR OTHER SIMILAR
SECURITIES" FROM SERVING AT THE SAME TIME AS AN OFFICER, DIRECTOR, OR
EMPLOYEE OF A MEMBER BANK.  FN2 

PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN SEC. 30 THE BOARD ORDERED
RESPONDENTS REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS DIRECTORS OF THE PATERSON NATIONAL
BANK ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE EMPLOYEES OF A FIRM "PRIMARILY
ENGAGED" IN UNDERWRITING WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 32.  RESPONDENTS
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO
REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OR TO ENJOIN ITS ACTION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED BY A
DIVIDED VOTE, HOLDING THAT THE BOARD EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND THAT AN
INJUNCTION SHOULD ISSUE.  153 F.2D 785. 

FIRST.  THE BOARD CONTENDS THAT THE REMOVAL ORDERS OF THE BOARD MADE
UNDER SEC. 30 ARE NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE ABSENCE OF A
CHARGE OF FRAUD.  IT RELIES ON THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS RIGHT OF
REVIEW AND ON THE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL BANK SUPERVISORY SCHEME OF
WHICH SEC. 30 IS AN INTEGRAL PART.  CF. ADAMS V. NAGLE, 303 U.S. 532;
SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; ESTEP V. UNITED
STATES, 327 U.S. 114.  A MAJORITY OF THE COURT, HOWEVER, IS OF THE
OPINION THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED
THE BOARD TO ISSUE REMOVAL ORDERS UNDER SEC. 30 OF THE ACT IS SUBJECT
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO ENJOIN
THE REMOVAL IF THE BOARD TRANSCENDS ITS BOUNDS AND ACTS BEYOND THE
LIMITS OF ITS STATUTORY GRANT OF AUTHORITY.  SEE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF
MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94; PHILADELPHIA CO. V.
STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 620; STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288, 309-310. 
THAT BEING DECIDED, IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT THE CLAIM TO THE OFFICE OF
DIRECTOR IS SUCH A PERSONAL ONE AS WARRANTS JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION OF
THE CONTROVERSY.  CF. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES,
316 U.S. 407; STARK V. WICKARD, SUPRA, P. 305. 

SECOND.  WE COME THEN TO THE MERITS.  RESPONDENTS FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS HAVE BEEN DIRECTORS OF THE PATERSON NATIONAL BANK, A NATIONAL
BANKING ASSOCIATION AND A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.  SINCE
1941 THEY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY EASTMAN, DILLON & CO., A PARTNERSHIP,
WHICH HOLDS ITSELF OUT AS BEING "UNDERWRITERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS
AND BROKERS IN INDUSTRIAL, RAILROAD, PUBLIC UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL
SECURITIES."  DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 1943, ITS
GROSS INCOME FROM THE UNDERWRITING FIELD  FN3  WAS 26 PER CENT OF ITS
GROSS INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES, WHILE ITS GROSS INCOME FROM THE
BROKERAGE BUSINESS WAS 42 PER CENT OF ITS GROSS INCOME FROM ALL
SOURCES.  THE SAME PERCENTAGES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING FEBRUARY 29,
1944, WERE 32 PER CENT AND 47 PER CENT RESPECTIVELY; AND FOR THE PERIOD
FROM MARCH 1, 1944, TO JULY 31, 1944, 39 PER CENT AND 40 PER CENT
RESPECTIVELY.  OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS, AS WELL AS THE
TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES BOUGHT AND SOLD BY THE FIRM AS
BROKER AND AS DEALER FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 20,
1943, ABOUT 15 PER CENT WERE IN THE UNDERWRITING FIELD.  THE FIRM IS
ACTIVE IN THE UNDERWRITING FIELD, GETTING WHAT BUSINESS IT CAN.  IN
1943 IT RANKED NINTH AMONG 94 LEADING INVESTMENT BANKERS IN THE COUNTRY
WITH RESPECT TO ITS TOTAL PARTICIPATIONS IN UNDERWRITINGS OF BONDS. 
FOR A TIME DURING 1943 IT RANKED FIRST AMONG THE UNDERWRITERS OF THE
COUNTRY.  APART FROM MUNICIPALS AND RAILS, ITS PARTICIPATION IN
UNDERWRITINGS DURING 1943 AMOUNTED TO $14,657,000.  SINCE OCTOBER,
1941, RESPONDENTS HAVE DONE NO BUSINESS WITH THE BANK OTHER THAN A
STRICTLY COMMISSION BUSINESS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS.  NOR HAS THE FIRM DONE
BUSINESS WITH THE BANK SINCE THE FALL OF 1941. 

THESE ARE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS FOUND BY THE BOARD. 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT DURING THE TIMES
RELEVANT HERE EASTMAN, DILLON & CO. WAS "PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN THE
UNDERWRITING BUSINESS AND THAT RESPONDENTS, BEING EMPLOYEES OF THE
FIRM, WERE DISQUALIFIED FROM SERVING AS DIRECTORS OF THE BANK. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT WHEN APPLIED TO A SINGLE SUBJECT
"PRIMARY" MEANS FIRST, CHIEF, OR PRINCIPAL; THAT A FIRM IS NOT
"PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN UNDERWRITING WHEN UNDERWRITING IS NOT BY ANY
STANDARD ITS CHIEF OR PRINCIPAL BUSINESS.  SINCE THIS FIRM'S
UNDERWRITING BUSINESS DID NOT BY ANY QUANTITATIVE TEST EXCEED 50 PER
CENT OF ITS TOTAL BUSINESS, THE COURT HELD THAT IT WAS NOT "PRIMARILY
ENGAGED" IN THE UNDERWRITING BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 32 OF
THE ACT. 

WE TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW.  IT IS TRUE THAT "PRIMARY" WHEN APPLIED TO
A SINGLE SUBJECT OFTEN MEANS FIRST, CHIEF, OR PRINCIPAL.  BUT THAT IS
NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.  FOR OTHER ACCEPTED AND COMMON MEANINGS OF
"PRIMARILY" ARE "ESSENTIALLY" (OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY) OR
"FUNDAMENTALLY" (WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL).  AN ACTIVITY OR FUNCTION
MAY BE "PRIMARY" IN THAT SENSE IF IT IS SUBSTANTIAL.  IF THE
UNDERWRITING BUSINESS OF A FIRM IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN
THE UNDERWRITING BUSINESS IN A PRIMARY WAY, THOUGH BY ANY QUANTITATIVE
TEST UNDERWRITING MAY NOT BE ITS CHIEF OR PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY.  ON THE
FACTS IN THIS RECORD WE WOULD FIND IT HARD TO SAY THAT UNDERWRITING WAS
NOT ONE PRIMARY ACTIVITY OF THE FIRM AND BROKERAGE ANOTHER.  IF
"PRIMARILY" IS NOT USED IN THE SENSE WE SUGGEST, THEN THE FIRM IS NOT
"PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN ANY LINE OF BUSINESS THOUGH IT SPECIALIZES IN AT
LEAST TWO AND DOES A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF EACH.  ONE MIGHT AS WELL SAY
THAT A PROFESSIONAL MAN IS NOT "PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN HIS PROFESSION
THOUGH HE HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO SERVE ALL COMERS AND DEVOTES SUBSTANTIAL
TIME TO THE PRACTICE BUT MAKES THE GREATER SHARE OF HIS INCOME ON THE
STOCK MARKET. 

THAT IS THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE ACT BY THE BOARD.  AND IT IS, WE
THINK, NOT ONLY PERMISSIBLE BUT ALSO MORE CONSONANT WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE THAN THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS
ADOPTED.  FIRMS WHICH DO UNDERWRITING ALSO ENGAGE IN NUMEROUS OTHER
ACTIVITIES.  THE BOARD INDEED OBSERVED THAT, IF ONE WAS NOT "PRIMARILY
ENGAGED" IN UNDERWRITING UNLESS BY SOME QUANTITATIVE TEST IT WAS HIS
PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY, THEN SEC. 32 WOULD APPLY TO NO ONE.  MOREOVER, THE
EVIL AT WHICH THE SECTION WAS AIMED IS NOT ONE LIKELY TO EMERGE ONLY
WHEN THE FIRM WITH WHICH A BANK DIRECTOR IS CONNECTED HAS AN
UNDERWRITING BUSINESS WHICH EXCEEDS 50 PER CENT OF ITS TOTAL BUSINESS. 
EXPERIENCE OF THE 1920'S, THAT A BANK DIRECTOR INTERESTED IN THE
UNDERWRITING BUSINESS MAY USE HIS INFLUENCE IN THE BANK TO INVOLVE IT
OR ITS CUSTOMERS IN SECURITIES WHICH HIS UNDERWRITING HOUSE HAS IN ITS
PORTFOLIO OR HAS COMMITTED ITSELF TO TAKE.  THAT LIKELIHOOD OR
PROBABILITY DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER THE FIRM'S UNDERWRITING BUSINESS
EXCEEDS 50 PER CENT OF ITS TOTAL BUSINESS.  IT MIGHT, OF COURSE, EXIST
WHATEVER THE PROPORTION OF THE UNDERWRITING BUSINESS.  BUT CONGRESS DID
NOT GO THE WHOLE WAY; IT DREW THE LINE WHERE THE NEED WAS THOUGHT TO BE
THE GREATEST.  AND THE LINE BETWEEN SUBSTANTIAL AND UNSUBSTANTIAL SEEMS
TO US TO BE THE ONE INDICATED BY THE WORDS "PRIMARILY ENGAGED." 

THERE IS OTHER INTRINSIC EVIDENCE IN THE BANKING ACT OF 1933 TO
SUPPORT OUR CONCLUSION.  SECTION 20 OF THE ACT OUTLAWS AFFILIATION  FN4
OF A MEMBER BANK WITH AN ORGANIZATION "ENGAGED PRINCIPALLY" IN THE
UNDERWRITING BUSINESS.  SECTION 19 PROVIDES CONTROL OVER BANK HOLDING
COMPANIES.  IN ORDER TO VOTE ITS STOCK IN CONTROLLED BANKS A BANK
HOLDING COMPANY MUST SHOW THAT IT DOES NOT OWN, CONTROL, OR HAVE ANY
INTEREST IN, AND IS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE MANAGEMENT OR DIRECTION OF
ANY ORGANIZATION "ENGAGED PRINCIPALLY" IN THE UNDERWRITING BUSINESS. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN CONGRESS CAME TO DEAL WITH THE PRACTICE OF
UNDERWRITERS TAKING CHECKING DEPOSITS, IT USED LANGUAGE DIFFERENT FROM
WHAT IT USED EITHER IN SECS. 19 AND 20 ON THE ONE HAND OR IN SEC. 32 ON
THE OTHER.  BY SEC. 21 IT PROHIBITED ANY ORGANIZATION "ENGAGED" IN THE
UNDERWRITING BUSINESS "TO ENGAGE AT THE SAME TIME TO ANY EXTENT
WHATEVER" IN THE BUSINESS OF RECEIVING CHECKING DEPOSITS.  THUS WITHIN
THE SAME ACT WE FIND CONGRESS DEALING WITH SEVERAL TYPES OF
UNDERWRITING FIRMS - THOSE "ENGAGED" IN UNDERWRITING, THOSE "PRIMARILY
ENGAGED" IN UNDERWRITING, THOSE "ENGAGED PRINCIPALLY" IN UNDERWRITING. 
THE INFERENCE SEEMS REASONABLE TO US THAT CONGRESS BY THE WORDS IT
CHOSE MARKED A DISTINCTION WHICH WE SHOULD NOT OBLITERATE BY READING
"PRIMARILY" TO MEAN "PRINCIPALLY." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS LAID SOME STRESS ON THE FACT THAT CONGRESS DID
NOT ABOLISH THE BANK AFFILIATE SYSTEM BUT ONLY THOSE UNDERWRITER
AFFILIATES WHICH WERE UNDER THE CONTROL OF A MEMBER BANK OR WHICH WERE
UNDER A COMMON CONTROL WITH IT.  FN5  SECTION 20.  SINCE CONGRESS MADE
MAJORITY CONTROL CRITICAL UNDER SEC. 20, IT WAS THOUGHT THAT UNDER SEC.
32 A FIRM WAS NOT "PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN UNDERWRITING UNLESS
UNDERWRITING CONSTITUTED A MAJORITY OF ITS BUSINESS.  BUT THE TWO
SITUATIONS ARE NOT COMPARABLE.  IN SEC. 32 CONGRESS WAS NOT DEALING
WITH THE PROBLEM OF CONTROL OF UNDERWRITERS BY BANKS OR VICE VERSA. 
THE PROHIBITED NEXUS IS IN NO WAY DEPENDENT ON THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE
OF CONTROL, NOR WOULD IT BE MADE SO EVEN IF "PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN
UNDERWRITING WERE CONSTRUED TO MEAN PRINCIPALLY ENGAGED IN THAT
BUSINESS.  SECTION 32 WAS DESIGNED, AS WE HAVE SAID, TO REMOVE TEMPTING
OPPORTUNITIES FROM THE MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL OF MEMBER BANKS.  IN NO
REALISTIC SENSE DO THOSE OPPORTUNITIES DISAPPEAR MERELY BECAUSE THE
UNDERWRITING ACTIVITIES OF THE OUTSIDE FIRM WITH WHICH THE OFFICER,
DIRECTOR, OR EMPLOYEE IS CONNECTED HAPPENS TO FALL BELOW 51 PER CENT.
FIFTY-ONE PER CENT, WHICH IS RELEVANT IN TERMS OF CONTROL, IS
IRRELEVANT HERE.  THE FACT THEN THAT CONGRESS DID NOT ABOLISH
UNDERWRITER AFFILIATES SERVES AS NO GUIDE IN DETERMINING WHETHER
"PRIMARILY ENGAGED" IN UNDERWRITING AS USED IN SEC. 32 MEANS
PRINCIPALLY ENGAGED OR SUBSTANTIALLY ENGAGED IN THAT BUSINESS. 

DIRECTOR IN QUESTION HAS IN FACT BEEN DERELICT IN HIS DUTIES OR HAS IN
ANY WAY BREACHED HIS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO THE BANK.  IT IS A
PREVENTIVE OR PROPHYLACTIC MEASURE.  THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE
BEEN SCRUPULOUS IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO THE BANK IS THEREFORE
IMMATERIAL. 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT IF "PRIMARILY" DOES NOT MEAN PRINCIPALLY
BUT MERELY CONNOTES SUBSTANTIALITY, SEC. 32 CONSTITUTES AN UNLAWFUL
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD.  BUT WE THINK IT PLAIN UNDER OUR
DECISIONS THAT IF SUBSTANTIALITY IS THE STATUTORY GUIDE, THE LIMITS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ARE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE OR ASCERTAINABLE SO AS
TO SURVIVE CHALLENGE ON THE GROUNDS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  SUNSHINE
ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 397-400; OPP COTTON MILLS
V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 142-146; YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321
U.S. 414, 424-428; BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, 512-516. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 30 ALSO PROVIDES: 

"THAT SUCH ORDER AND THE FINDINGS OF FACT UPON WHICH IT IS BASED
SHALL NOT BE MADE PUBLIC OR DISCLOSED TO ANYONE EXCEPT THE DIRECTOR OR
OFFICER INVOLVED AND THE DIRECTORS OF THE BANK INVOLVED, OTHERWISE THAN
IN CONNECTION WITH PROCEEDINGS FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.  ANY
SUCH DIRECTOR OR OFFICER REMOVED FROM OFFICE AS HEREIN PROVIDED WHO
THEREAFTER AFTER PARTICIPATES IN ANY MANNER IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SUCH
BANK SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE
THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT."    FN2  NOT
MATERIAL HERE IS AN EXCEPTION "IN LIMITED CLASSES OF CASES IN WHICH THE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM MAY ALLOW SUCH SERVICE
BY GENERAL REGULATIONS WHEN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SAID BOARD IT WOULD
NOT UNDULY INFLUENCE THE INVESTMENT POLICIES OF SUCH MEMBER BANK OR THE
ADVICE IT GIVES ITS CUSTOMERS REGARDING INVESTMENTS."  SEC. 32. 

FN3  THE ISSUE, FLOTATION, UNDERWRITING, PUBLIC SALE OR DISTRIBUTION,
AT WHOLESALE OR RETAIL OR THROUGH SYNDICATE PARTICIPATION, OF STOCKS,
BONDS OR OTHER SIMILAR SECURITIES.  THE FIRM DOES NOT DEAL IN UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT BONDS. 

FN4  DEFINED IN SEC. 2(B) AS DIRECT OR INDIRECT OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL
OF MORE THAN 50 PER CENT OF THE VOTING STOCK OF THE ORGANIZATION IN
QUESTION, COMMON OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF 50 PER CENT OR MORE OF SUCH
VOTING STOCK, OR A MAJORITY OF COMMON DIRECTORS. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

IF THE QUESTION PRESENTED ON THE MERITS IS REVIEWABLE JUDICIALLY, IN
MY OPINION IT IS ONLY FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS.  NOT ONLY BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS COMMITTED THE SYSTEM'S
OPERATION TO THEIR HANDS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE SYSTEM ITSELF IS A
HIGHLY SPECIALIZED AND TECHNICAL ONE, REQUIRING EXPERT AND COORDINATED
MANAGEMENT IN ALL ITS PHASES, I THINK THEIR JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
CONCLUSIVE UPON ANY MATTER WHICH, LIKE THIS ONE, IS OPEN TO REASONABLE
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.  THEIR SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE GIVES THEM AN
ADVANTAGE JUDGES CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE, NOT ONLY IN DEALING WITH THE
PROBLEMS RAISED FOR THEIR DISCRETION BY THE SYSTEM'S WORKING, BUT ALSO
IN ASCERTAINING THE MEANING CONGRESS HAD IN MIND IN PRESCRIBING THE
STANDARDS BY WHICH THEY SHOULD ADMINISTER IT.  ACCORDINGLY THEIR
JUDGMENT IN SUCH MATTERS SHOULD BE OVERTURNED ONLY WHERE THERE IS NO
REASONABLE BASIS TO SUSTAIN IT OR WHERE THEY EXERCISE IT IN A MANNER
WHICH CLEARLY EXCEEDS THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY. 

IN THIS CASE I CANNOT SAY THAT EITHER OF THESE THINGS HAS OCCURRED. 
THE BOARD MADE ITS DETERMINATION AFTER THE REQUIRED STATUTORY HEARING
ON NOTICE.  48 STAT. 162, 193, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 77.  THE CONSIDERATION
GIVEN WAS FULL AND THOROUGH, INCLUDING DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, FOLLOWED BY A CAREFULLY WRITTEN OPINION.  FN1  THE
BOARD CONCLUDED THAT "PRIMARILY" IN SEC. 32 DOES NOT MEAN "FIRST IN
VOLUME IN COMPARISON WITH ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR BUSINESSES IN WHICH IT
(THE EMPLOYER) ENGAGES,"  FN2  BUT MEANS RATHER AS "A MATTER OF PRIMARY
IMPORTANCE," LIKE "PRIMARY" COLORS OR PLANETS OR AS THE WORD IS USED IN
THE PHRASE "THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF A WAR."  THIS VIEW IT FOUND NOT ONLY
SUPPORTED BY ACCEPTED DICTIONARY MEANING BUT ALSO IN CONFORMITY WITH
CONGRESS' INTENT AS ESTABLISHED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  IN A
FURTHER GROUND WHICH WE MUST TAKE AS REFLECTING ITS SPECIALIZED
EXPERIENCE, THE BOARD STATED:  "TO SAY THAT A SECURITIES FIRM RANKING
NINTH AMONG THE LEADING INVESTMENT BANKERS OF THE COUNTRY WITH RESPECT
TO ITS TOTAL PARTICIPATIONS IN UNDERWRITINGS OF BONDS, AND FOR A PERIOD
RANKING FIRST, SHOULD BE HELD TO BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE IS
TO SAY THAT CONGRESS ENACTED A STATUTE WITH THE INTENTION THAT IT WOULD
APPLY TO NO ONE." 

I CANNOT SAY THAT THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION, IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE
GROUNDINGS, IS WANTING EITHER FOR WARRANT IN LAW OR FOR REASONABLE
BASIS IN FACT.  THE CONSIDERATIONS STATED IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND IN
THE DISSENTING OPINION FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, 153 F.2D 785,
795, AS WELL AS BY THE BOARD ITSELF, CONFIRM THIS VIEW.  I THINK IT
IMPORTANT, NOT ONLY FOR THIS CASE BUT FOR LIKE ONES WHICH MAY ARISE IN
THE FUTURE, PERHAPS AS A RESULT OF THIS DECISION, TO MAKE CLEAR THAT MY
CONCURRENCE IN THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE CASE IS BASED UPON THE
GROUND I HAVE SET FORTH, AND NOT UPON INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED ON THE MERITS.  I DO NOT THINK
THIS COURT OR ANY OTHER SHOULD UNDERTAKE TO RECONSIDER, AS AN
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION UPON THAT QUESTION OR
SIMILAR ONES LIKELY TO ARISE, IF THE BOARD WAS NOT WITHOUT BASIS IN
FACT FOR ITS JUDGMENT AND DOES NOT CLEARLY TRANSGRESS A STATUTORY
MANDATE.  MORE THAN HAS BEEN SHOWN HERE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CAUSE ME
TO BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD HAS EXCEEDED ITS POWER IN EITHER RESPECT. 

FN1  THE OPINION IS NOT REPORTED, PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY
PROHIBITION, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 77, WHICH IS EFFECTIVE EXCEPT IN CONNECTION
WITH PROCEEDINGS FOR ENFORCEMENT. 

FN2  UNDER SUCH A VIEW, IN CASES INVOLVING DIFFERENT FACTS THE
QUESTION WOULD BECOME JUDICIAL WHETHER "PRIMARILY" MEANS MORE THAN HALF
OF (1) THE GROSS VOLUME OF BUSINESS DONE; (2) THE GROSS PROFIT; (3) THE
NET PROFIT, WHERE SOME BUT NOT ALL THESE FACTORS AS RELATING TO ONE
PHASE OF THE TOTAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON AMOUNTS TO MORE THAN HALF THE
GROSS.  SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS WOULD SEEM TO BE CLEARLY WITHIN THE
BOARD'S POWER TO DETERMINE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  IF SO, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY THAT POWER DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DETERMINATION MADE
HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















EAGLES V. SAMUELS, 329 U.S. 304 


NO. 59.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 21, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 23, 1946.  - 151
F.2D 801, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT REGISTERED UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940 AND WAS CLASSIFIED IV-D UNDER SEC. 5(D), WHICH EXEMPTS "STUDENTS
WHO ARE PREPARING FOR THE MINISTRY IN THEOLOGICAL OR DIVINITY SCHOOLS
RECOGNIZED AS SUCH FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR" PRIOR TO THE ACT. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, HE APPEARED BEFORE AN ADVISORY PANEL ON THEOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE NEW YORK CITY DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(A)(2), WHICH CONSISTED OF PROMINENT LAYMEN
AND RABBIS OF RESPONDENT'S FAITH.  AFTER HEARING RESPONDENT, THE PANEL
CONCLUDED THAT HE WAS NOT "PREPARING IN GOOD FAITH FOR A CAREER OF
SERVICE IN THE PRACTICING RABBINATE" AND SO REPORTED TO THE CITY
DIRECTOR, WHO TRANSMITTED THIS REPORT AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING
TO THE LOCAL BOARD WITH A REQUEST THAT RESPONDENT'S CLASSIFICATION BE
REOPENED BUT WITH THE STATEMENT THAT, WHILE THE LOCAL BOARD SHOULD GIVE
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL, THE
DETERMINATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION MUST BE MADE BY THE BOARD ITSELF OR
BY AN APPEAL AGENCY.  THE LOCAL BOARD RECLASSIFIED RESPONDENT I-A.
AFTER RESPONDENT SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND HAD TWO HEARINGS
BEFORE THE LOCAL BOARD AND ONE BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL, HIS
CLASSIFICATION AS I-A WAS SUSTAINED AND HE WAS INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY. 
HE PETITIONED FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND WAS RELEASED
UNCONDITIONALLY FROM MILITARY CUSTODY.  HELD: 

1.  THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT HAD BEEN RELEASED UNCONDITIONALLY FROM
MILITARY CUSTODY UNDER A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DOES NOT MAKE THE CASE
MOOT IN THIS COURT, SINCE A REVERSAL WOULD MAKE LAWFUL A RESUMPTION OF
THE CUSTODY.  PP. 306-308. 

2.  HABEAS CORPUS MAY NOT BE USED AS A WRIT OF ERROR AND ITS FUNCTION
IS EXHAUSTED WHEN IT IS ASCERTAINED THAT THE AGENCY UNDER WHOSE ORDER
THE PETITIONER IS BEING HELD HAD JURISDICTION TO ACT.  PP. 311, 315. 

3.  THE USE OF THE THEOLOGICAL PANEL WAS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10(A)(2)
OF THE ACT, AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF "CIVILIAN LOCAL BOARDS,
CIVILIAN APPEAL BOARDS, AND SUCH OTHER AGENCIES  ...  AS MAY BE
NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  PP. 308, 312-313. 

4.  FAILURE OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PANEL TO DISCLOSE THE NAMES
OF ITS MEMBERS DID NOT RENDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS INVALID
PER SE, WHERE THE REGISTRANT APPEARED BEFORE THEM, SAW THEM FACE TO
FACE, RECOGNIZED ONE OF THEM, AND MADE NO EFFORT, EITHER AT THE TIME OR
SUBSEQUENTLY, TO ASCERTAIN WHO THE OTHERS WERE.  P. 314. 

5.  NOR ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS INVALIDATED BY THE FACT
THAT, IN ADDITION TO ANSWERING ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS, THE PANEL
RENDERED AN ADVISORY OPINION ON THE BONA FIDES OF HIS CLAIM.  P. 316. 

6.  THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A TWO-YEAR INTERRUPTION IN RESPONDENT'S
EDUCATION, THAT HE RETURNED TO THE DAY SESSION OF THE SEMINARY IN THE
MONTH WHEN HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS RETURNED, AND THAT
THE SEMINARY WAS NOT PREPARING MEN EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE RABBINATE, MAKES
IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE FINAL CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE BOARD OF
APPEAL WAS WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. PP. 316-317. 

EAGLES, POST COMMANDING OFFICER, V. UNITED STATES EX REL. SAMUELS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SOUGHT BY
RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY INDUCTED INTO
MILITARY SERVICE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 151 F.2D 801,
AND HE WAS RELEASED UNCONDITIONALLY.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
328 U.S. 830.  REVERSED, P. 317. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SAMUELS REGISTERED UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940,  FN1  AS AMENDED, AND THEREAFTER CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM MILITARY
SERVICE UNDER SEC. 5(D) OF THE ACT.  THAT EXEMPTION INCLUDES NOT ONLY
REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF RELIGION BUT ALSO "STUDENTS WHO
ARE PREPARING FOR THE MINISTRY IN THEOLOGICAL OR DIVINITY SCHOOLS
RECOGNIZED AS SUCH FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR" TO THE ACT.  HE WAS
CLASSIFIED I-A AND INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY.  THEREAFTER HE FILED A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, SEEKING
RELEASE FROM MILITARY CUSTODY ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO AN
EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 5(D) OF THE ACT AND THAT HIS CLASSIFICATION AS I-A
WAS UNLAWFUL.  THERE WAS A RETURN AND A HEARING, AND THE DISTRICT COURT
ORDERED THE WRIT DISMISSED.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN
RELIANCE ON UNITED STATES V. CAIN, 149 F.2D 338, REVERSED AND REMANDED
THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO "DISCHARGE" SAMUELS
"FROM MILITARY CUSTODY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FURTHER LAWFUL PROCEEDINGS
UNDER THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT."  151 F.2D 801, 802. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND
UNITED STATES V. HEARN, 153 F.2D 186, IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS. 

FIRST.  A QUESTION OF MOOTNESS LIES AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE CASE
PRESENTED HERE.  WE ARE ADVISED THAT AFTER REMAND OF THE CAUSE THE
DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THE RELEASE OF SAMUELS AND THAT HE WAS THEREUPON
UNCONDITIONALLY RELEASED FROM MILITARY CUSTODY.  SAMUELS CONTENDS THAT
THE CASE IS MOOT SINCE HE IS NO LONGER IN CUSTODY OF THE MILITARY OR OF
ANY ONE ELSE BUT IS FREE TO COME AND GO AS HE PLEASES. 

UNDER OUR DECISIONS THE CASE WOULD BE MOOT IF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS HAD BEEN DENIED BELOW AND, PENDING DISPOSITION OF THE PETITION
HERE, SAMUELS HAD RECEIVED A DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY.  ZIMMERMAN V.
WALKER, 319 U.S. 744.  AND SEE WEBER V. SQUIER, 315 U.S. 810; TORNELLO
V. HUDSPETH, 318 U.S. 792.  THAT SITUATION, LIKE THE CASE OF A PRISONER
WHO, PENDING AN APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, IS
GRANTED BAIL, JOHNSON V. HOY, 227 U.S. 245; WALES V. WHITNEY, 114 U.S.
564, 572-574, WOULD PRESENT NO EXISTING CONTROVERSY.  HABEAS CORPUS IS
THE MEANS OF MAKING A JUDICIAL "INQUIRY INTO THE CAUSE OF RESTRAINT OF
LIBERTY."  R.S. SEC. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 452.  AS STATED IN MCNALLY V.
HILL, 293 U.S. 131, 137, "THERE IS NO WARRANT IN EITHER THE STATUTE OR
THE WRIT FOR ITS USE TO INVOKE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS
WHICH COULD NOT AFFECT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CUSTODY AND DETENTION." 
IF THE CUSTODY OR RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY IS TERMINATED WITHOUT USE OF THE
WRIT, THE CASE IS FINISHED.  DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS ARE BROUGHT INTO
PLAY IF CUSTODY IS ENDED THROUGH THE WRIT ITSELF. 

OUR RULES RECOGNIZE THE BENEFICENT FUNCTION OF THE WRIT, BOWEN V.
JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 26-27; PEOPLE V. JENNINGS, 246 N.Y. 258, 158
N.E. 613,  FN2  BY PROVIDING THAT A PRISONER TO WHOM THE WRIT HAS BEEN
GRANTED MAY, PENDING APPEAL, BE ENLARGED ON A RECOGNIZANCE.  RULE 45. 
THE FACT THAT HE HAS BEEN SO ENLARGED DOES NOT RENDER THE APPEAL OF THE
CUSTODIAN MOOT.  CARR V. ZAJA, 283 U.S. 52, 53.  FN3  IN SUCH A CASE
THE RELEASE IS OBTAINED THROUGH THE ASSERTION OF JUDICIAL POWER.  IT IS
THE PROPRIETY OF THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER WHICH IS IN ISSUE IN THE
APPELLATE COURT, WHETHER THE PRISONER IS DISCHARGED OR REMANDED TO
CUSTODY.  THOUGH THE WRIT HAS BEEN GRANTED AND THE PRISONER RELEASED,
THE APPELLATE COURT BY WHAT IT DOES IS NOT RENDERING AN OPINION AND
ISSUING AN ORDER WHICH CANNOT AFFECT THE LITIGANTS IN THE CASE BEFORE
IT.  CF. ST. PIERRE V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 41, 42, AND CASES
CITED.  AFFIRMANCE MAKES THE PRISONER'S RELEASE FINAL AND
UNCONDITIONAL.  REVERSAL UNDOES WHAT THE HABEAS CORPUS COURT DID AND
MAKES LAWFUL A RESUMPTION OF THE CUSTODY.  KNEWEL V. EGAN, 268 U.S.
442, 448; HADDOX V. RICHARDSON, 168 F. 635; JAMES V. AMRINE, 157 KAN.
397, 140 P.2D 362; STATE V. LANGUM, 135 MINN. 320, 160 N.W. 858. 

SECOND.  ON THE MERITS THE CASE INVOLVES PRIMARILY THE USE BY THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM IN NEW YORK CITY OF ADVISORY PANELS ON
THEOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATIONS.  UNDER THE ACT THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED
TO ESTABLISH "CIVILIAN LOCAL BOARDS, CIVILIAN APPEAL BOARDS, AND SUCH
OTHER AGENCIES, INCLUDING AGENCIES OF APPEAL, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO
CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  SECTION 10(A)(2), 57 STAT. 597,
598, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. III, SEC. 310(A)(2).  WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT
MATERIAL HERE, THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO DELEGATE TO THE DIRECTOR
OF SELECTIVE SERVICE ANY AUTHORITY VESTED IN HIM UNDER THE ACT. 
310(B).  AND THE DIRECTOR MAY REDELEGATE THAT AUTHORITY.  ID.  THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM IN EACH STATE IS DELEGATED UNDER THE
REGULATIONS TO A STATE DIRECTOR.  SECTIONS 603.11, 603.12, 6 FED. REG.
6827.  IN NEW YORK CITY, HOWEVER, A CITY DIRECTOR HAS BEEN APPOINTED
WHO PERFORMS WITHIN THAT AREA THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE DIRECTOR. 
LOCAL BOARDS AND BOARDS OF APPEAL IN NEW YORK CITY.  HE MAY REQUIRE A
LOCAL BOARD TO REOPEN AND CONSIDER ANEW THE CLASSIFICATION OF A
REGISTRANT.  SECTION 626.2(B), 9 FED. REG. 11619, SEC. 626.2-1, 10 FED.
REG. 9210.  HE MAY APPEAL TO A BOARD OF APPEAL ANY DETERMINATION OF A
LOCAL BOARD.  SECTION 627.1, 8 FED. REG. 16720, 10 FED. REG. 9210.  HE
MAY REQUIRE A BOARD OF APPEAL TO RECONSIDER ITS DECISION, SEC. 627.61,
8 FED. REG. 6017, OR APPEAL FROM IT TO THE PRESIDENT.  SECTION 628.1, 7
FED. REG. 10521. 

IT APPEARS THAT THE CITY DIRECTOR, IN AID OF THESE FUNCTIONS,
ESTABLISHED THEOLOGICAL PANELS.  IT WAS THOUGHT DESIRABLE TO GIVE THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE PERSONNEL THE BENEFIT OF THE ADVICE OF THOSE FAMILIAR
WITH THE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES OF VARIOUS RELIGIOUS GROUPS SO THAT
SELECTIVE SERVICE MIGHT EXERCISE A MORE INFORMED JUDGMENT IN EVALUATING
CLAIMS TO CLASSIFICATIONS IN IV-D. ACCORDINGLY, THEOLOGICAL PANELS WERE
CONSTITUTED, ONE OF WHICH CONSISTED OF PROMINENT LAYMEN AND RABBIS OF
THE JEWISH FAITH WHO GAVE ADVISORY OPINIONS ON THOSE WHO SOUGHT A IV-D
CLASSIFICATION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY WERE EITHER RABBIS OR STUDENTS
PREPARING FOR THE MINISTRY IN THE JEWISH RELIGION.  THE MEMBERS OF THE
PANEL WERE VOLUNTEERS, AS PERMITTED BY THE REGULATIONS.  SECTION 602.2,
6 FED. REG. 6826.  AND PURSUANT TO THE REGULATIONS EACH TOOK THE OATH
OF OFFICE.  SECTION 602.4(A), 6 FED. REG. 6826. 

SAMUELS REGISTERED UNDER THE ACT IN FEBRUARY, 1942.  IN MAY AND JULY,
1942, HE FILED WITH HIS LOCAL BOARD QUESTIONNAIRES STATING THAT HE HAD
HAD TWO YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION; THAT HE WAS A STUDENT AT THE
MESIFTA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PREPARING FOR THE RABBINATE; THAT SINCE
1940 HIS REGULAR OCCUPATION WAS THAT OF A CLERK; THAT FOR THE PAST TWO
YEARS HE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY A TEXTILE COMPANY; AND THAT THE JOB FOR
WHICH HE WAS BEST FITTED WAS THAT OF A SPIRITUAL LEADER AND A TEACHER
OF HEBREW OR RABBINICAL DUTIES.  THE LOCAL BOARD WAS ADVISED BY THE
SEMINARY THAT SAMUELS HAD ATTENDED THERE SINCE HE WAS SIX YEARS OLD,
THAT HE HAD FINISHED THE EIGHT-YEAR ELEMENTARY COURSE AND THE FOUR-YEAR
PRE-RABBINICAL COURSE, THAT HE HAD BEEN ADMITTED TO THE RABBINICAL
DIVISION IN 1937, THAT HE LEFT THE SCHOOL IN 1939 TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT,
THAT HE RETURNED TO THE EVENING SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER, 1941, AND THAT HE
WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE DAY SESSION IN JULY, 1942, WHICH, AS LATER
APPEARED, WAS A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE SCHOOL CLOSED FOR THE SUMMER. 

IN AUGUST, 1942, THE LOCAL BOARD CLASSIFIED HIM IV-D.  SECTION
622.44(A), 6 FED. REG. 6607, 6610.  IN MAY, 1944, HE WAS GIVEN A
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE FOR MILITARY SERVICE. 
THEREAFTER THE CITY DIRECTOR REQUESTED THAT HE APPEAR BEFORE THE
THEOLOGICAL PANEL IN RESPECT TO HIS CLAIM TO A IV-D CLASSIFICATION.  HE
APPEARED BEFORE THE PANEL IN JUNE, 1944, STATING, INTER ALIA, THAT HE
EXPECTED TO GRADUATE FROM THE SEMINARY IN 1945, THAT ILL HEALTH CAUSED
HIM TO LEAVE THE SCHOOL IN 1939, THAT BETWEEN 1940 AND 1942 HE WORKED
AS A CLERK, AND THAT HE RETURNED TO THE SEMINARY AS A FULL-TIME STUDENT
AT ABOUT THE TIME HE FILED HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE. 

THE PANEL REPORTED THAT THE SEMINARY WHICH SAMUELS ATTENDED WAS NOT
PREPARING MEN EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE RABBINATE, THAT ORTHODOX TRADITION
ENCOURAGED ADVANCED STUDY OF THE SUBJECTS IN WHICH STUDENTS FOR THE
MINISTRY WERE TRAINED, AND THAT STUDENTS ULTIMATELY INTENDING TO ENTER
BUSINESS OR A PROFESSION OR SOME NON-RABBINIC ACTIVITY IN THE FIELD OF
RELIGION MAY BE ENROLLED IN THE SAME CLASSES AS THOSE PREPARING FOR THE
RABBINATE.  THE PANEL STATED THAT IT THEREFORE SEEMED ESSENTIAL TO
DETERMINE IN EACH CASE WHAT THE REGISTRANT HAD IN MIND IN PURSUING HIS
COURSE OF STUDY; THAT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THE CHARACTER OF THE
SEMINARY, THE SINCERITY OF THE REGISTRANT'S DECLARED PURPOSE, HIS
DEMEANOR, AND THE IMPRESSION AS TO HIS CANDOR AND HONESTY SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED.  IT CONCLUDED THAT SAMUELS WAS NOT "PREPARING IN GOOD FAITH
FOR A CAREER OF SERVICE IN THE PRACTICING RABBINATE."  ITS
RECOMMENDATION AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING BEFORE IT WERE SENT TO
THE CITY DIRECTOR WHO FORWARDED THEM TO THE LOCAL BOARD WITH A REQUEST
THAT SAMUELS' CLASSIFICATION BE REOPENED AND WITH THE STATEMENT THAT
"WHILE THE LOCAL BOARD SHOULD GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ADVISORY PANEL, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING
THE REGISTRANT'S CLASSIFICATION MUST REST WITH THE LOCAL BOARD ITSELF,
OR THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY OF APPEAL." 

THE LOCAL BOARD RECLASSIFIED SAMUELS I-A IN AUGUST, 1944.  HE
SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND REQUESTED A HEARING.  ONE WAS HAD IN
SEPTEMBER, 1944 AND ANOTHER IN OCTOBER, 1944.  THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL OR THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING BEFORE
IT WAS KEPT FROM SAMUELS.  THEY WERE NOT MARKED CONFIDENTIAL IN THE
FILE.  THE LOCAL BOARD, INDEED, ALLOWED SAMUELS TO CORRECT ALLEGED
INACCURACIES IN THE TRANSCRIPT.  THE LOCAL BOARD ORDERED HIM CONTINUED
IN I-A AND, ON APPEAL, THE BOARD OF APPEAL ALSO CLASSIFIED HIM AS I-A.
A FEW DAYS LATER SAMUELS FILED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WITH THE LOCAL
BOARD AND REQUESTED THAT HIS CLASSIFICATION BE REOPENED.  ANOTHER
HEARING WAS HELD, SAMUELS BEING PRESENT.  HE ADVISED THE BOARD THAT HE
HAD APPEARED OF HIS OWN VOLITION BEFORE A COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE
UNION OF ORTHODOX RABBIS (BUT NOT CONNECTED WITH THE SELECTIVE SERVICE
SYSTEM) AND THAT THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDED HE WAS A STUDENT PREPARING IN
GOOD FAITH FOR THE MINISTRY.  WHAT FACTS THAT COMMITTEE MAY HAVE ACTED
UPON DO NOT APPEAR.  IN ANY EVENT, THE LOCAL BOARD DENIED SAMUELS'
REQUEST TO REOPEN THE CLASSIFICATION BY A DIVIDED VOTE; AND SHORTLY
THEREAFTER HE WAS INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY. 

CONGRESS MADE THE DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS AND OF THE BOARDS OF
APPEAL "FINAL," EXCEPT AS APPEALS FROM THEM MAY BE AUTHORIZED, SEC.
10(A)(2), WITHHOLDING FROM THE COURTS THE CUSTOMARY POWER OF REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  SEE ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114. 

IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT HABEAS CORPUS MAY NOT BE USED AS A WRIT OF
ERROR.  TISI V. TOD, 264 U.S. 131; WOOLSEY V. BEST, 299 U.S. 1.  THE
FUNCTION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS EXHAUSTED WHEN IT IS ASCERTAINED THAT THE
AGENCY UNDER WHOSE ORDER THE PETITIONER IS BEING HELD HAD JURISDICTION
TO ACT.  IF THE WRIT IS TO ISSUE, MERE ERROR IN THE PROCEEDING WHICH
RESULTED IN THE DETENTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT.  TISI V. TOD, SUPRA.
DEPRIVATION OF PETITIONER OF BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL PROCEDURAL
SAFEGUARDS, AN ASSERTION OF POWER TO ACT BEYOND THE AUTHORITY GRANTED
THE AGENCY, AND ACTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS ORDER, ARE
FAMILIAR EXAMPLES OF THE SHOWING WHICH IS NECESSARY.  SEE JOHNSON V.
ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458; BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135, 149.  BUT IT IS
NOT ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE DECISION WAS WRONG, TISI V. TOD, SUPRA, OR
THAT INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED AND CONSIDERED.  VAJTAUER V.
COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103.  IF IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WERE
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES OF SUCH A NATURE OR MAGNITUDE AS TO RENDER
THE HEARING UNFAIR, BRIDGES V. WIXON, SUPRA, P. 156, OR THAT THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ORDER, VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, THE
INQUIRY IS AT AN END. 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE USE OF THE THEOLOGICAL PANEL PER SE INFECTED
THE WHOLE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING AND RENDERED IT SO UNFAIR AS TO BE
NUGATORY.  THE TASK OF THE LOCAL BOARDS IN EVALUATING CLAIMS TO
EXEMPTION IS ALMOST CERTAIN TO RAISE PERPLEXING PROBLEMS, ESPECIALLY IN
LARGE CENTERS WHERE THE STATUS AND ACTIVITIES OF REGISTRANTS ARE NOT SO
WELL KNOWN IN THE COMMUNITY.  THE LOCAL BOARDS WILL FREQUENTLY HAVE TO
MAKE INQUIRIES ON THEIR OWN.  AND WHEN IT COMES TO EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED
UNDER SEC. 5(D), THE VARIETY OF RELIGIOUS FAITHS AND THE DIFFERING
EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES OF THE CHURCHES OR OF SECTS WITHIN ONE FAITH MAY
CREATE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARDS.    WE AGREE WITH THE COURT
IN UNITED STATES V. HEARN, SUPRA, P. 188, THAT ADVICE FROM WELL
INFORMED MEMBERS OF THE FAITH IN QUESTION MAY "BOTH HELP AND SPEED JUST
CLASSIFICATION."  CONGRESS WROTE INTO THE ACT A COMPARABLE PROCEDURE
FOR THE HANDLING OF CLAIMS FOR EXEMTION BY CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS. 
WHERE SUCH CLAIMS ARE DENIED BY THE LOCAL BOARD AND APPEALED, THEY ARE
REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR A HEARING AND AN ADVISORY
REPORT.  SECTION 5(G).  BUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC
STATUTORY PROVISION FOR THE CREATION OF THEOLOGICAL PANELS DOES NOT
MAKE THEIR USE IMPROPER.  WISE ADMINISTRATION MAY CALL FOR THE EXPERT
ADVICE WHICH THEY ALONE CAN OFFER.  AND WE SEE NO DIFFERENCE IN
PRINCIPLE IF THEY ARE FORMALLY CONSTITUTED AND REGULARLY USED IN LIEU
OF INQUIRY TO MEMBERS OF THE PARTICULAR FAITH AS INDIVIDUAL CASES
ARISE.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION ENTRUSTED TO THE SELECTIVE SERVICE
IS AN ENORMOUS ONE.  THE ACT CONTEMPLATES AN ADMINISTRATIVE
ORGANIZATION HIGHLY DECENTRALIZED SO AS TO OPERATE EFFECTIVELY AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL.  MORE THAN THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL BOARDS, AND BOARDS OF
APPEAL WERE AUTHORIZED.  FOR SEC. 10(A)(2), AS WE HAVE NOTED,
AUTHORIZED THE CREATION OF "OTHER AGENCIES" AS WELL.  A THEOLOGICAL
ADVISORY PANEL, SERVING SOLELY IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY, WOULD SEEM TO
BE INCLUDED IN THAT CATEGORY.  THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE BOARD
FROM THE PANEL, LIKE INFORMATION FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE, MUST BE PUT IN
WRITING IN THE FILE SO THAT THE REGISTRANT MAY EXAMINE IT, EXPLAIN OR
CORRECT IT, OR DENY IT.  FN4  THERE IS, MOREOVER, NO CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION WHICH CAN BE KEPT FROM THE REGISTRANT UNDER THE
REGULATIONS.  FN5  WITH THOSE SAFEGUARDS A TRULY EXPERT PANEL MIGHT
SERVE A MOST USEFUL FUNCTION WITHOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BEING
CORRUPTED BY ANY UNFAIR PROCEDURE. 

DISTINCT QUESTIONS WOULD BE RAISED IF A REGISTRANT OF ONE FAITH WERE
REFERRED TO A THEOLOGICAL PANEL ON WHICH HIS FAITH WAS NOT
REPRESENTED.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BALOGH, 157 F.2D 939.  BUT IT HAS
NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT SUCH A CONDITION OBTAINED HERE. 

THE COURT IN UNITED STATES V. CAIN, SUPRA, P. 341, HELD THAT THOUGH
THE PROPRIETY OF THE USE OF A THEOLOGICAL PANEL BE ASSUMED, IT MUST BE
LIMITED BY TWO CONDITIONS:  THE NAMES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL MUST
BE DISCLOSED TO THE REGISTRANT SO THAT HE MAY BE IN A POSITION TO
CHALLENGE IT; THE ADVICE OR ANSWERS WHICH IT GIVES MUST BE LIMITED TO
ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS. 

IN THE STATEMENT WHICH THE PANEL FILED IN THIS CASE THE NAMES ARE NOT
DISCLOSED.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT FACT RENDERED THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS INVALID PER SE.  THIS IS NOT A CASE OF A REGISTRANT BEING
PASSED UPON BY A SECRET GROUP.  HE APPEARED BEFORE THEM, SAW THEM FACE
TO FACE, AND INDEED RECOGNIZED ONE OF THEM.  THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT
SAMUELS TRIED TO ASCERTAIN WHO THE PANEL MEMBERS WERE, EITHER AT THE
TIME OR SUBSEQUENTLY, AND WAS DENIED THE INFORMATION.  THOUGH WE ASSUME
THAT THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE THE FILE TO DISCLOSE THE NAMES AND
AFFILIATIONS OF THE PANEL MEMBERS, THE MERE ABSENCE OF A FORMAL
DISCLOSURE IS NOT, WITHOUT MORE, SO GRAVE AN OMISSION AS TO UNDERMINE
THE WHOLE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING. 

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION ARE
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE GRANT OF THE WRIT OR THE ISSUANCE OF A RULE
TO SHOW CAUSE, SO THAT THE FACTS CAN BE ASCERTAINED IN ACCORD WITH THE
PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275.  IN THIS CASE
THERE WAS A RETURN TO THE WRIT, A FULL HEARING WAS HAD, AND ALL
EVIDENCE OFFERED WAS RECEIVED.  SAMUELS HAD THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT
HE WAS UNLAWFULLY DETAINED.  WALKER V. JOHNSTON, SUPRA.  NOT EVERY
PROCEDURAL ERROR, BUT ONLY THOSE SO FLAGRANT AS TO RESULT IN AN UNFAIR
HEARING RENDER THE PROCEEDINGS VULNERABLE IN A COLLATERAL ATTACK.  TISI
V. TOD, SUPRA, P. 133; BRIDGES V. WIXON, SUPRA, PP. 152-156.  ON THE
CASE SAMUELS HAS MADE OUT, THE MOST THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN IS THAT THE USE
OF THE THEOLOGICAL PANEL MIGHT RESULT IN A HEARING SO UNFAIR AS TO
DEPRIVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OF VITALITY.  SAMUELS HAS FAILED
TO SHOW THAT IN HIS CASE IT HAD THAT EFFECT.  HE HAS THEREFORE FAILED
TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROOF WHICH WAS ON HIM. 

SECRECY AND ANONYMITY ARE NOT CONGENIAL TO OUR TRADITIONS OF
PROCEDURE, NOR IN KEEPING WITH THE REGULATIONS UNDER THIS ACT.  BUT AS
WE HAVE SAID, THE RANGE OF INQUIRY IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IS
LIMITED.  WE ARE NOT SITTING IN REVIEW OF ACTION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES
OVER WHICH WE HAVE THE POWER OF SUPERVISION.  CF. MCNABB V. UNITED
STATES, 318 U.S. 332.  THE FUNCTION OF HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT TO CORRECT
A PRACTICE BUT ONLY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PROCEDURE COMPLAINED OF
HAS RESULTED IN AN UNLAWFUL DETENTION.  IT IS THE IMPACT OF THE
PROCEDURE ON THE PERSON SEEKING THE WRIT THAT IS CRUCIAL.  WHATEVER
POTENTIALITIES OF ABUSE A PARTICULAR PROCEDURE MAY HAVE, THE CASE IS AT
AN END IF THE CHALLENGED PROCEEDING CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SO
CORRUPTED AS TO HAVE MADE IT UNFAIR.  SAMUELS POINTS TO POSSIBILITIES
OF ABUSE.  BUT HE FAILS TO ESTABLISH PREJUDICE IN HIS CASE. 

IF, AS WAS HELD IN UNITED STATES V. CAIN, SUPRA, THE PANEL MUST BE
RESTRICTED TO ANSWERING ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS, SAMUELS SHOULD
PREVAIL.  FOR THE PANEL IN QUESTION NOT ONLY GAVE THE BOARD INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE SEMINARY WHICH SAMUELS ATTENDED BUT ALSO RENDERED AN
ADVISORY OPINION ON THE BONA FIDES OF HIS CLAIM.  THE ARGUMENT FOR
RESTRICTING THE PANEL TO ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS IS BASED ON THE
THOUGHT THAT IT IS ONLY ON SUCH SUBJECTS THAT THE BOARD NEEDS
SPECIALIZED INFORMATION, WHILE IF THE BOARD RELIES ON A GENERAL
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE PANEL, IT IS DEVOLVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
RESPONSIBILITY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CAIN, SUPRA, PP. 341-342. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE LOCAL BOARDS AND THE BOARDS OF APPEAL MAY NOT
ABDICATE THEIR DUTY BY DELEGATING TO OTHERS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MAKING CLASSIFICATIONS.  THAT IS THEIR STATUTORY FUNCTION.  SECTION
10(A)(2).  BUT NO SUCH CASE IS MADE OUT IN THIS RECORD.  THE CITY
DIRECTOR SUBMITTED THE PANEL'S REPORT WITH THE ADMONITION THAT IT WAS
ADVISORY ONLY AND THAT IT WAS THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE
CLASSIFICATION.  THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL WAS FOLLOWED.  BUT
SAMUELS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN NOT ONLY ONE BUT TWO HEARINGS BEFORE THE
LOCAL BOARD AND A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL.  THERE IS NO
INDICATION THAT EITHER BOARD RELIED SOLELY ON THE PANEL'S REPORT OR
CONSIDERED ITSELF BOUND BY IT.  IN FACT BOTH BOARDS RECEIVED ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY SAMUELS AND CONSIDERED IT.  THE RECORD DOES NOT
BEAR OUT THE SUGGESTION THAT EITHER BOARD WAS A RUBBER STAMP FOR THE
PANEL. 

NOR DO WE THINK THAT THE RANGE OF INQUIRY AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PANEL WAS TOO BROAD.  IF A PANEL IS TRULY EXPERT IN THE FIELD, ITS
EXPERTNESS IS NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO KNOWLEDGE OF THE THEOLOGICAL
SCHOOLS, THE COURSE OF TRAINING, AND THE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES AND
TRADITIONS.  ITS ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE MINISTRY OF THAT FAITH AND WITH
THE NORMS OF THE PROFESSION MAY WELL GIVE IT SPECIAL INSIGHT INTO THE
CLAIMS OF THOSE SEEKING EXEMPTION.  TO DRAW THE LINE AT QUESTIONS
TECHNICALLY ECCLESIASTICAL IS TO MAKE A DISTINCTION WHICH MAY BE WHOLLY
ARBITRARY IN TERMS OF THE PANEL'S EXPERTNESS.  A PANEL MIGHT ACT ON
IRRELEVANCIES; IT MIGHT USURP THE FUNCTIONS OF A BOARD.  WE DISCOVER
NOTHING OF THE KIND HERE.  THE FACT THAT THE BOARD FOLLOWS THE ADVICE
OF THE PANEL DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT FUNCTIONS IN A
SUBSERVIENT WAY.  THE FACT IS THAT THE LOCAL BOARD AND THE BOARD OF
APPEAL GAVE SAMUELS FURTHER HEARINGS AND RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED ALL
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED.  WE FIND NO PROCEDURAL ERROR OF SUCH MAGNITUDE AS
TO WARRANT AN UPROOTING OF THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING IN THIS
COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON IT. 

NOR CAN WE SAY THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINAL
CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE BOARD OF APPEAL.  SAMUELS' STATEMENT THAT HE
WAS BEST FITTED TO BE A HEBREW SCHOOL TEACHER AND SPIRITUAL LEADER, THE
TWO-YEAR INTERRUPTION IN HIS EDUCATION, HIS RETURN TO THE DAY SESSION
OF THE SEMINARY IN THE MONTH WHEN HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE
WAS RETURNED, AND THE FACT THAT THE SEMINARY IN QUESTION WAS APPARENTLY
NOT PREPARING MEN EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE RABBINATE MAKE QUESTIONABLE HIS
CLAIM THAT HE WAS PREPARING IN GOOD FAITH FOR THE RABBINATE.  A
REGISTRANT MIGHT SEEK A THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL AS A REFUGE FOR THE DURATION
OF THE WAR.  CONGRESS DID NOT CREATE THE EXEMPTION IN SEC. 5(D) FOR
HIM.  THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THIS WAS SAMUELS' PLAN; AND THAT
EVIDENCE, COUPLED WITH HIS DEMEANOR AND ATTITUDE, MIGHT HAVE SEEMED
MORE PERSUASIVE TO THE BOARDS THAN IT DOES IN THE COLD RECORD.  OUR
INQUIRY IS ENDED WHEN WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE BOARD FLOUTED THE
COMMAND OF CONGRESS IN DENYING SAMUELS THE EXEMPTION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  54 STAT. 885, 55 STAT. 211, 621, 845, 56 STAT. 386, 50 U.S.C.
APP., 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. I, AND 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. II, SEC. 301 ET
SEQ. 

OUR CITATIONS OF THE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS THROUGHOUT THE OPINION
REFER TO THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE AT THE TIMES RELEVANT HERE. 

FN2  IN THAT CASE MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, THEN CHIEF JUDGE OF THE NEW
YORK COURT OF APPEALS, SAID, "IT WOULD BE INTOLERABLE THAT A CUSTODIAN
ADJUDGED TO BE AT FAULT, PLACED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THE
POSITION OF A WRONGDOER, SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY, BY A MERE NOTICE OF
APPEAL, PROLONG THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT, AND FRUSTRATE THE OPERATION
OF THE HISTORIC WRIT OF LIBERTY."  246 N.Y. P. 260, 158 N.E. 613. 

FN3  IT APPEARS FROM THE BRIEFS IN THAT CASE THAT AFTER THE WRIT HAD
ISSUED IN THE LOWER COURT THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN DISCHARGED, PENDING
APPEAL, ON A RECOGNIZANCE. 

FN4  THE REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT IN CLASSIFYING A REGISTRANT, "ORAL
INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED UNLESS IT IS SUMMARIZED IN WRITING
AND THE SUMMARY PLACED IN THE REGISTRANT'S FILE.  UNDER NO
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE LOCAL BOARD RELY UPON INFORMATION RECEIVED BY
A MEMBER PERSONALLY UNLESS SUCH INFORMATION IS REDUCED TO WRITING AND
PLACED IN THE REGISTRANT'S FILE."  SECTION 623.2, 9 FED. REG. 437, 10
FED. REG. 8541. 

FN5  SEE SEC. 605.32(A), 9 FED. REG. 9190. 
..END :



EAGLES V. HOROWITZ, 329 U.S. 317 


NO. 58.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 21, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 23, 1946.  - 151
F.2D 801, REVERSED. 


THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO EAGLES V. U.S. EX REL. SAMUELS, ANTE, P.
304, IN WHICH MOST OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED HERE WERE RULED UPON.  THE
PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCES IN THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ADVISORY PANEL WAS
COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF LAYMEN, ITS REPORT WAS MARKED "CONFIDENTIAL," AND
RESPONDENT WAS ENLARGED UPON A RECOGNIZANCE.  HELD: 

1.  THE CASE IS NOT MOOT, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE SAMUELS
CASE.  P. 318. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE PANEL WAS COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF LAYMEN DOES NOT
REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT FROM THAT REACHED IN THE SAMUELS CASE.  PP.
322-323. 

3.  THE FACT THAT ITS REPORT WAS MARKED "CONFIDENTIAL" CONTRARY TO
THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT, BECAUSE
THE LOCAL BOARD WAS NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP THE REPORT CONFIDENTIAL AND
THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT IT DID.  P. 323. 

EAGLES, POST COMMANDING OFFICER, V. UNITED STATES EX REL. HOROWITZ. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT, HAVING BEEN INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY, WAS RELEASED ON A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD REVERSED,
151 F.2D 801, A DECISION BY THE DISTRICT COURT ADVERSE TO HIM.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 830.  REVERSED, P. 323. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO EAGLES V. SAMUELS, NO. 59, DECIDED THIS
DAY, ANTE P. 304.  CERTIORARI ALSO BRINGS IT HERE FROM THE THIRD
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THAT COURT FOLLOWED THE SAME PROCEDURE HERE
AS IT DID IN SAMUELS' CASE; IT REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH HAD
DISMISSED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF HOROWITZ, AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISCHARGE
HIM FROM MILITARY CUSTODY.  151 F.2D 801. 

IT APPEARS THAT AFTER THE REMAND HOROWITZ WAS ENLARGED UPON A
RECOGNIZANCE AS PERMITTED UNDER OUR RULES.  RULE 45.  THE SUGGESTION
THAT THE CASE IS THEREFORE MOOT IS WITHOUT MERIT FOR THE REASONS STATED
IN SAMUELS' CASE. 

HOROWITZ REGISTERED PURSUANT TO THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED, EARLY IN 1941 AND FILED A QUESTIONNAIRE
STATING HE WAS A COLLEGE STUDENT PREPARING FOR A CAREER AS A
PSYCHIATRIC SOCIAL WORKER.  AT THE TIME, HE ASKED FOR A DEFERMENT IN
INDUCTION UNTIL FEBRUARY, 1943, SAYING THAT "IF YOU TAKE ME NOW, YOU
PRACTICALLY NEGATE MY POSSIBILITIES TO ATTAIN THE POSITION I SEEK IN
LIFE, NAMELY, A PSYCHIATRIC SOCIAL WORKER."  SHORTLY AFTER HE WAS
PHYSICALLY EXAMINED AND FOUND QUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE, HE
ADVISED THE LOCAL BOARD THAT HE HAD BEEN ENROLLED IN THE RABBINICAL
SEMINARY OF AMERICA, A RECOGNIZED THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL.  ON JULY 1, 1941,
HE WAS CLASSIFIED I-A.  THE BOARD OF APPEAL LIKEWISE GAVE HIM THAT
CLASSIFICATION IN AUGUST, 1941. 

MEANWHILE, HE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 5(D) OF THE ACT.  THE
BASIS OF HIS CLAIM WAS THE REPRESENTATION THAT HE WAS A STUDENT IN A
RECOGNIZED THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL FOR RABBIS AND WAS PREPARING FOR THE
RABBINATE.  IN AN AFFIDAVIT HE STATED THAT HE HAD NOT DISCLOSED HIS
INTENTION TO BECOME A RABBI BECAUSE HE HAD NO "CONCRETE FACTS" TO
PRESENT, ONLY "HOPES."  IN NOVEMBER, 1941, THE LOCAL BOARD CLASSIFIED
HIM IV-D, WHICH CLASSIFICATION HE RETAINED UNTIL MAY, 1944.  IN 1942 HE
FILED AN OCCUPATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE WITH THE LOCAL BOARD, STATING THAT
HE WAS TAKING A COURSE IN RABBINICAL STUDIES AT THE SEMINARY AND ALSO A
BACHELOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCE COURSE AT ANOTHER INSTITUTION WHICH HE HOPED
TO COMPLETE IN 1944.  HE LISTED HIMSELF AS A SOCIAL WORKER. 

IN APRIL, 1944, THE CITY DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE REVIEWED THE
FILE AND REQUESTED HOROWITZ TO APPEAR BEFORE AN ADVISORY THEOLOGICAL
PANEL.  HE APPEARED BEFORE A PANEL AND THERE WAS A HEARING.  THE PANEL
STATED THAT ALL STUDENTS IN THIS SEMINARY WERE NOT NECESSARILY
PREPARING FOR THE MINISTRY AND THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE SHOULD BE
SEPARATELY APPRAISED.  FN1  IT CONCLUDED THAT HIS ATTENDANCE AT THE
SEMINARY HAD BEEN MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO SECURE A BASIS FOR EXEMPTION
UNDER THE ACT.  THIS WAS BASED ON HIS DECLARED INTENTION EARLY IN 1941
TO BE A SOCIAL WORKER, INCONSISTENCIES IN HIS EXPLANATION OF HIS
FAILURE TO REFER TO THE RABBINATE AT THAT TIME, HIS INDIFFERENT AND
UNSYSTEMATIC MANNER IN PREPARING FOR THAT PROFESSED OBJECTIVE, AND AN
APPRAISAL OF HIS RELIABILITY AND CANDOR.  THE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE PANEL AND LATER THE REPORT WERE TRANSMITTED TO THE LOCAL
BOARD BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE WITH A
REQUEST TO THE BOARD TO REOPEN AND RECONSIDER HIS CLASSIFICATION.  THE
REPORT MADE BY THE PANEL WAS NOT SIGNED.  MOREOVER, THE REPORT WAS
HEADED "CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD."  THE LOCAL BOARD WAS
ADVISED BY THE CITY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE THAT, WHILE IT SHOULD GIVE
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PANEL, DETERMINATION
OF THE CLASSIFICATION MUST BE MADE BY THE BOARD ITSELF OR BY AN APPEAL
AGENCY. 

HOROWITZ WAS IMMEDIATELY RECLASSIFIED AS I-A.  HE ASKED FOR A HEARING
WHICH WAS GRANTED.  IT APPEARS THAT THE PANEL WHICH INTERVIEWED HIM AND
RENDERED THE REPORT WAS COMPOSED OF THREE PROMINENT JEWISH LAYMEN BUT
NO RABBI.  WHETHER THAT WAS THE CAUSE DOES NOT APPEAR, BUT THE BOARD,
AS A RESULT OF THE HEARING, REFERRED THE FILE TO A RABBI FOR ANOTHER
ADVISORY RECOMMENDATION.  THE RABBI RECOMMENDED THAT HOROWITZ BE
CLASSIFIED IV-D.  THE LOCAL BOARD GAVE HIM THAT CLASSIFICATION IN JUNE,
1944.  IN AUGUST, 1944, THE LOCAL BOARD HELD ANOTHER HEARING.  HOROWITZ
WAS PRESENT AND WAS EXAMINED.  THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT HE SHOULD BE IN
I-A AND SO CLASSIFIED HIM, STATING AS ITS REASON THAT HE BECAME A
STUDENT IN THE RABBINICAL SCHOOL AFTER HE HAD REGISTERED UNDER THE
ACT.  HE REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED ANOTHER HEARING, AT WHICH HE
SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.  THE LOCAL BOARD REFUSED TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION.  ON APPEAL THE BOARD OF APPEAL CLASSIFIED HIM AS I-A. 

ON TWO SUBSEQUENT OCCASIONS HOROWITZ ASKED THAT HIS CLASSIFICATION BE
REOPENED AND SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.  THE BOARD WAS UNPERSUADED
AND REFUSED TO REOPEN THE CLASSIFICATION.  THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
DIRECTOR ADVISED THE BOARDS THAT THE PANEL WHICH INTERVIEWED HOROWITZ
WAS COMPOSED SOLELY OF LAYMEN AND THAT, IF BY VIRTUE OF THAT FACT THE
BOARD OF APPEAL DESIRED TO RECONSIDER THE CASE, TO INFORM THE OFFICE. 
BOTH THE LOCAL BOARD AND THE BOARD OF APPEAL REPLIED THAT THERE WAS NO
OCCASION FOR REOPENING THE CLASSIFICATION.  THE BOARD OF APPEAL STATED
THAT IT HAD "ONCE AGAIN UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT THE REGISTRANT'S STATUS
DOES NOT WARRANT A IV-D CLASSIFICATION."  EARLY IN 1945 HOROWITZ WAS
INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY. 

HOROWITZ RELIES UPON AFFIDAVITS AND STATEMENTS FROM VARIOUS PEOPLE
CONCERNING THE BONA FIDES OF HIS PROFESSED DESIRE TO BECOME A RABBI, ON
A STATEMENT MADE WHEN HE GRADUATED FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN 1932 THAT
THAT WAS HIS AMBITION IN LIFE, ON THE FACT THAT HE STATED IN 1936 THAT
HIS FIRST VOCATIONAL CHOICE WAS THE RABBINATE, AND ON ALL OF HIS
SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITIES WHICH, HE ASSERTED, FITTED INTO THAT PATTERN.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, IT DOES APPEAR THAT IN 1937 HIS FIRST VOCATIONAL CHOICE
WAS TEACHING, HIS SECOND THE RABBINATE.  FURTHERMORE, AS ALREADY NOTED,
HIS PROFESSED OBJECTIVE STATED TO THE LOCAL BOARD EARLY IN 1941 WAS
SOCIAL WORK.  AND HE IN FACT ENTERED THE SEMINARY SHORTLY AFTER HE HAD
PASSED HIS PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND QUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE. 
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ALONE MAKE HIS CLAIM TO EXEMPTION COLORABLE. 
CERTAINLY WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL IN
FINALLY CLASSIFYING HIM AS I-A WAS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THERE WAS ANYTHING IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE WHICH VITIATED HOROWITZ' CLASSIFICATION.  WHAT WE HAVE SAID
ABOUT THE USE OF A THEOLOGICAL PANEL AND THE RANGE OF ITS INQUIRY IN
EAGLES V. SAMUELS, SUPRA, NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.  THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE PRESENT CASE WHICH MAKES FOR A DIFFERENT RESULT.  WE CAN NO MORE
CONCLUDE HERE, THAN IN SAMUELS' CASE, THAT THE BOARD ABDICATED ITS
FUNCTION.  IT FIRST FOLLOWED THE PANEL'S RECOMMENDATION.  BUT ITS MIND
WAS NOT CLOSED, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT IT LATER SOUGHT THE
ADVICE OF A RABBI AND FOLLOWED HIS RECOMMENDATION.  AND WHEN IT
RETURNED TO ITS EARLIER POSITION, IT PROCEEDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
BASIC DEFECT IN HOROWITZ' CASE WAS THE SHIFT IN HIS POSITION IN 1941
AFTER HE HAD REGISTERED.  THE RECORD SHOWS INDECISION BY THE BOARD BUT
NO SUBSERVIENCE TO THE PANEL.  AS RESPECTS THE FACT THAT THE PANEL'S
REPORT WAS UNSIGNED, ONLY A WORD NEED BE ADDED.  HOROWITZ, LIKE
SAMUELS, APPEARED IN PERSON BEFORE THE PANEL AND SAW ITS MEMBERS FACE
TO FACE.  AT NO TIME DOES IT APPEAR THAT HE SOUGHT THE IDENTITY OF THE
MEMBERS AND WAS REFUSED THE INFORMATION. 

THE ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS CASE AND SAMUELS'
ARE TWO - IT APPEARS THAT THIS PANEL WAS COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF LAYMEN;
AND ITS REPORT WAS NOT ONLY UNSIGNED BUT MARKED CONFIDENTIAL FOR THE
FILE.  THE FIRST OBJECTION CARRIES LITTLE WEIGHT.  THESE LAYMEN WERE
PROMINENT CITIZENS OF THE JEWISH FAITH.  THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THEY
WERE OF A SECT HOSTILE TO HOROWITZ.  THERE IS NOTHING TO IMPEACH THEIR
INTEGRITY OR TO SUGGEST THAT THEY WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO SERVE IN THE
EXPERT ROLE ASSIGNED TO THEM. 

THE FACT THAT THEIR REPORT WAS MARKED CONFIDENTIAL IS GIVEN GREAT
EMPHASIS.  IT IS ARGUED THAT ALTHOUGH THE USE OF A THEOLOGICAL PANEL
MAY BE AUTHORIZED, THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR CLOTHING ITS ACTION IN SUCH
SECRECY. 

THE REGULATIONS, INDEED, PRESCRIBE THAT NO INFORMATION IN A
REGISTRANT'S FILE SHALL BE CONFIDENTIAL AS TO HIM OR ANY ONE HAVING
WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM HIM.  SECTION 605.32(A), 8 FED. REG. 2641, 9
FED. REG. 9190.  BUT THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THAT IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT
THE PANEL'S REPORT WAS IN FACT TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL BY THE LOCAL
BOARD.  IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT HOROWITZ SOUGHT AND WAS DENIED ACCESS TO
THE REPORT.  NOR IS IT SHOWN THAT WHEN HOROWITZ EXAMINED THE FILE THE
REPORT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM.  IF THOSE WERE THE FACTS, WE DO
NOT DOUBT THAT HOROWITZ' COUNSEL WOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED THEM AT THE
HABEAS CORPUS HEARING.  WE FIND NO COMMAND TO THE LOCAL BOARD TO KEEP
THE REPORT CONFIDENTIAL.  WE CANNOT PRESUME THAT THE BOARD VIOLATED THE
REGULATIONS.  YET THAT IS IN EFFECT WHAT WE ARE ASKED TO HOLD. 
HOROWITZ, LIKE SAMUELS, POINTS TO POSSIBILITIES OF ABUSE IN THE USE OF
THE PANEL.  BUT LIKE SAMUELS HE FAILS TO ESTABLISH PREJUDICE IN HIS
CASE.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED. 

FN1  THE APPROACH OF THE PANEL TO THE QUESTION IS SHOWN AS FOLLOWS IN
ITS STATEMENT: 

"ORTHODOX TRADITION HAS ALWAYS ENCOURAGED ADVANCED STUDY OF TALMUDIC
LITERATURE, BOTH PRIVATELY AND AT ACADEMIES INSTITUTED FOR THAT
PURPOSE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SPECIFIC OCCUPATIONAL OBJECTIVES OF THOSE
ENGAGED IN SUCH STUDY, AND ALL COURSES OFFERED BY THESE ACADEMIES ARE
OPEN TO QUALIFIED STUDENTS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT'S
SPECIFIC INTENTION TO PREPARE FOR A CAREER OF SERVICE IN THE
RABBINATE. 

"THUS, A STUDENT ULTIMATELY INTENDING TO ENTER BUSINESS OR A
PROFESSION, OR SOME NON-RABBINIC ACTIVITY IN THE FIELD OF RELIGION, MAY
BE ENROLLED IN THE SAME COURSES ATTENDED BY OTHER STUDENTS WHO ARE
SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED WITH PREPARATION FOR THE RABBINATE.  IT IS,
THEREFORE, ESSENTIAL FOR PURPOSES OF SELECTIVE SERVICE CLASSIFICATION
TO DETERMINE IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE THE PURPOSE WHICH THE REGISTRANT
HAS IN MIND IN PURSUING HIS COURSE OF STUDY. 

"MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THE RELIGIOUS TRADITION IN QUESTION DOES NOT
ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE SERIOUS STUDENT OF TALMUDIC
LITERATURE AND THE STUDENT PREPARING FOR A PROFESSIONAL CAREER IN THE
RABBINATE, TENDS TO MAKE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR SCHOOL OFFICIALS,
MINISTERS, AND OTHERS IDENTIFIED WITH THAT TRADITION, TO HAVE AND
EXPRESS AN OBJECTIVE JUDGMENT IN SUCH MATTERS. 

"TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DISTINCTION IS UNDERSTOOD, THERE IS A
TENDENCY TO ACCEPT AT FACE VALUE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE REGISTRANT AND
MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY AND TO RESOLVE ANY DOUBT IN HIS FAVOR, WHERE IT
IS AT LEAST APPARENT THAT HE IS A SERIOUS AND PIOUS TALMUDIC STUDENT." 

..END :











LABOR BOARD V. TOWER CO., 329 U.S. 324 


NO. 60.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 21, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 23, 1946.  - 152
F.2D 275, REVERSED. 


A CONSENT ELECTION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS HELD PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
EMPLOYER AND THE UNION PROVIDING THAT THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SHOULD SUPERVISE THE ELECTION AND THAT
HIS DETERMINATION ON ANY QUESTION OF ELIGIBILITY OF VOTERS SHOULD BE
FINAL.  THE EMPLOYER PROVIDED A LIST OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES AND HAD
OBSERVERS AT THE POLLS WITH THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF
VOTERS.  AFTER THE UNION HAD BEEN ELECTED BY A CLOSE VOTE AND THE
RESULTS HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED, THE EMPLOYER SOUGHT TO CHALLENGE THE
ELIGIBILITY OF A VOTER INCLUDED IN THE LIST IT HAD FURNISHED AND WHOSE
ELIGIBILITY WAS UNCHALLENGED AT THE POLLS.  THIS, TOGETHER WITH A VOTE
CHALLENGED BY THE UNION AND NOT COUNTED, MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THE
RESULT.  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD WAIVED ITS
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOTE OR TO OBJECT TO THE ELECTION ON THIS GROUND
AND THAT THE UNION HAD RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF THE VALID VOTES CAST. 
THE EMPLOYER REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION ON THE GROUND THAT IT
HAD NOT BEEN VALIDLY ELECTED.  THE BOARD SUSTAINED THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR'S FINDING AS BEING IN ACCORD WITH ITS ESTABLISHED POLICY AND
ORDERED THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  HELD: 

1.  THE BOARD'S ORDER IS SUSTAINED.  P. 335. 

2.  A PROPER APPLICATION OF THE RULE PROHIBITING POST-ELECTION
CHALLENGES, EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN
DIFFERENT HAD THE CHALLENGE BEEN MADE AND SUSTAINED, DID NOT DEPRIVE
THE BOARD OF JURISDICTION TO FIND THE EMPLOYER GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE IN REFUSING TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  P. 333. 

3.  THE RULE FORBIDDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF A VOTER TO BE CHALLENGED
AFTER THE VOTES HAVE BEEN CAST IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT AND THE PRINCIPLE OF MAJORITY RULE AND IS JUSTIFIED BY
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.  PP. 330-333. 

4.  THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY HAVE BEEN HONESTLY MISTAKEN AS TO
THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE VOTER IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISREGARDING THE
RULE.  P. 333. 

5.  A PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENT FOR THE ELECTION AS TO THE FILING OF
OBJECTIONS "TO THE CONDUCT OF THE BALLOT" AND "TO A DETERMINATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES BASED ON THE RESULTS THEREOF" WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER
ISSUANCE OF THE "TALLY OF BALLOTS" DID NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE
RULE, SINCE THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN OBJECTIONS AND
CHALLENGES IN ELECTORAL PARLANCE.  P. 334. 

6.  IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BOARD
AND THE EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ANTI-UNION EMPLOYEES IN
PREPARING THE ELIGIBILITY LIST OR IN RAISING TIMELY ELIGIBILITY ISSUES,
IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INTERESTS OF ANTI-UNION EMPLOYEES WERE
INADEQUATELY REPRESENTED.  PP. 334-335. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. A.J. TOWER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE
ELECTION OF A UNION AS A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE AND
ORDERED THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH IT.  60 N.L.R.B. 1414.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE THE ORDER.  152 F.2D 275.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 827.  REVERSED, P. 335. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE HERE CONCERNS THE PROCEDURE USED IN ELECTIONS UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT FN1  IN WHICH EMPLOYEES CHOOSE A STATUTORY
REPRESENTATIVE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  SPECIFICALLY, WE
MUST DETERMINE THE PROPRIETY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'S
REFUSAL TO ACCEPT AN EMPLOYER'S POST-ELECTION CHALLENGE TO THE
ELIGIBILITY OF A VOTER WHO PARTICIPATED IN A CONSENT ELECTION. 

THE RESPONDENT AND A UNION ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO CONDUCT AN
ELECTION BY SECRET BALLOT ON MAY 5, 1944, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE
BOARD'S REGIONAL DIRECTOR, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES AT
RESPONDENT'S ROXBURY PLANT IN THE UNIT DEFINED IN THE AGREEMENT DESIRED
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE UNION.  THE AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR AND PROVIDED THAT THE ELECTION WAS TO BE HELD "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE BOARD'S RULES AND
REGULATIONS, AND THE CUSTOMARY PROCEDURES AND POLICIES OF THE BOARD." 

THE AGREEMENT SET FORTH THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE
ELECTION.  ONLY THOSE WHO APPEARED ON THE PAY-ROLL ON APRIL 21, 1944,
WERE ELIGIBLE; INCLUDED WERE THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO DID NOT WORK AT THE
TIME BECAUSE THEY WERE ILL, OR ON VACATION, OR TEMPORARILY LAID OFF, OR
IN THE ARMED FORCES.  THE RESPONDENT HAD THE DUTY OF FURNISHING THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR WITH AN ACCURATE LIST OF THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS,
TOGETHER WITH A LIST OF THE INELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES.  FN2  THE LIST OF
ELIGIBLE VOTERS WAS DULY SUBMITTED ON MAY 1, 1944. 

THE AGREEMENT FURTHER PROVIDED THAT BOTH THE UNION AND THE RESPONDENT
COULD HAVE OBSERVERS AT THE POLLING PLACES TO ASSIST IN THE HANDLING OF
THE ELECTION, TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF VOTERS AND TO VERIFY THE
TALLY.  IF CHALLENGES WERE MADE AND IF THEY WERE DETERMINATIVE OF THE
RESULTS OF THE ELECTION, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR WAS TO INVESTIGATE THE
CHALLENGES AND ISSUE A REPORT THEREON.  ALL OBJECTIONS "TO THE CONDUCT
OF THE BALLOT" OR "TO A DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES BASED ON THE
RESULTS THEREOF" WERE TO BE FILED WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR WITHIN
FIVE DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE "TALLY OF BALLOTS."  IF THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR SUSTAINED THE OBJECTIONS, HE HAD THE POWER TO VOID THE RESULTS
AND ORDER A NEW ELECTION.  THE DETERMINATION OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
WAS TO BE FINAL AND BINDING UPON ANY QUESTION, "INCLUDING QUESTIONS AS
TO THE ELIGIBILITY OF VOTERS, RAISED BY ANY PARTY HERETO RELATING IN
ANY MANNER TO THE ELECTION."  CF. ARTICLE III, SECS. 10 AND 12, OF THE
BOARD'S RULES AND REGULATIONS (SERIES 3, EFFECTIVE NOV. 26, 1943). 

THE BALLOTING TOOK PLACE ON MAY 5 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGREEMENT. 
AFTER THE BALLOTS WERE COUNTED, THE UNION AND THE RESPONDENT SIGNED A
"TALLY OF BALLOTS," IN WHICH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR CERTIFIED THAT, OF
THE 230 VALID VOTES COUNTED, 116 WERE CAST FOR THE UNION AND 114
AGAINST IT, WITH ONE OTHER BALLOT BEING CHALLENGED BY THE UNION.  FN3
FOUR DAYS LATER, ON MAY 9, RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL WROTE THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ELECTION "IT CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY THAT MRS. JENNIE A. KANE, ONE OF THE
PERSONS WHO VOTED AT THE ELECTION, WAS NOT AT THE TIME AN EMPLOYEE OF
THE COMPANY."  FN4  THE LETTER EXPLAINED THAT MRS. KANE WAS EMPLOYED BY
RESPONDENT FROM MARCH 16, 1943, THROUGH MARCH 24, 1944, BUT THAT AFTER
THE LATTER DATE SHE HAD NEVER REPORTED AGAIN FOR WORK AND HAD NEVER
APPEARED AT THE PLANT EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING ON MAY 5.  IT WAS
ADMITTED THAT THE RESPONDENT, "NOT BEING ADVISED BY MRS. KANE OF ANY
INTENTION ON HER PART TO LEAVE THEIR EMPLOY, ASSUMED THAT SHE WAS ILL
AND CONTINUED HER AMONG THEIR LIST OF EMPLOYEES AND, THEREFORE, DID NOT
EXCLUDE HER FROM THE LIST OF EMPLOYEES THEY BELIEVED ELIGIBLE TO
VOTE."  THE LETTER ACCORDINGLY CHALLENGED MRS. KANE'S RIGHT TO VOTE, AS
WELL AS THE BALLOT CAST BY HER.  A HEARING WAS REQUESTED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PASSING UPON THE ONE BALLOT CHALLENGED BY THE UNION.  IF
THAT CHALLENGE WERE NOT SUSTAINED AND THE BALLOT PROVED TO BE A VOTE
AGAINST THE UNION, MRS. KANE'S BALLOT WOULD BECOME MATERIAL TO THE
RESULT OF THE ELECTION; ON THAT CONDITION, THE RESPONDENT REQUESTED A
HEARING ON ITS CHALLENGE TO MRS. KANE'S VOTE. 

A HEARING ON THE MATTERS RAISED BY THIS LETTER WAS HELD BEFORE THE
REGIONAL DIRECTOR.  HE SUBSEQUENTLY MADE A REPORT IN WHICH HE FOUND
THAT RESPONDENT INCLUDED MRS. KANE'S NAME ON THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE
VOTERS SUBMITTED ON MAY 1 ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SHE WAS ILL AND HAD
NOT QUIT HER JOB; THAT RESPONDENT MADE NO ATTEMPT BETWEEN MAY 1 AND MAY
5 TO REMOVE MRS. KANE'S NAME FROM THE LIST, ALTHOUGH PRIOR TO THE
ELECTION RESPONDENT RECEIVED BY MAIL A NOTICE OF MRS. KANE'S CLAIM FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION; THAT RESPONDENT'S OBSERVERS AT THE POLLS HAD
NOT CHALLENGED MRS. KANE WHEN SHE VOTED IN THEIR PRESENCE; AND THAT
THESE OBSERVERS CERTIFIED BEFORE THE BALLOTS WERE COUNTED THAT THE
ELECTION HAD BEEN PROPERLY CONDUCTED.  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR ALSO FOUND
THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS CONFLICTING AS TO MRS. KANE'S ACTUAL STATUS.  FN5
BUT HE CONCLUDED THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RESPONDENT HAD
WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE HER VOTE OR TO OBJECT TO THE ELECTION ON
THIS GROUND.  THIS DETERMINATION MADE IT UNNECESSARY FOR HIM TO RULE ON
THE BALLOT PREVIOUSLY CHALLENGED BY THE UNION, SINCE IT COULD NOT
AFFECT THE RESULT.  HE THUS FOUND THAT THE UNION HAD RECEIVED A
MAJORITY OF THE VALID VOTES CAST AND WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT. 

THE RESPONDENT THEREAFTER REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION IN
QUESTION.  UPON A COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE BOARD, THE RESPONDENT
ADMITTED ITS REFUSAL BUT DENIED THAT THE UNION HAD EVER BEEN DESIGNATED
BY A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT.  IT ASSERTED
THAT THE ELECTION OF MAY 5 WAS INCONCLUSIVE ON THE SUBJECT BECAUSE IF
MRS. KANE'S BALLOT WERE SUBTRACTED FROM THE UNION'S TOTAL AND IF THE
BALLOT CHALLENGED BY THE UNION WERE OPENED UPON OVERRULING THE
CHALLENGE AND PROVED TO BE AGAINST THE UNION, THE OUTCOME OF THE
ELECTION WOULD BE A TIE VOTE.  THE BOARD, AFTER THE USUAL PROCEEDINGS,
HELD THAT IT WOULD NOT DISTURB THE RULINGS OF A REGIONAL DIRECTOR ON
QUESTIONS ARISING OUT OF A CONSENT ELECTION "UNLESS SUCH RULINGS APPEAR
TO BE UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR ARE ARBITRARY OR
CAPRICIOUS" AND THAT NO SUCH GROUNDS FOR DISTURBING THE RULING WERE
PRESENT IN THE INSTANT CASE.  AS AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND FOR ITS ACTION,
THE BOARD HELD THAT THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S REFUSAL UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES TO PERMIT AN ATTACK ON MRS. KANE'S STATUS AS A VOTER
AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED "IS IN COMPLETE
ACCORD WITH THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES AND POLICY OF THE BOARD" - WHICH
EXCLUDED POST-ELECTION CHALLENGES "BECAUSE OF OUR BELIEF THAT OTHERWISE
AN ELECTION COULD BE CONVERTED FROM A DEFINITIVE RESOLUTION OF
PREFERENCE INTO A PROTRACTED RESOLUTION OF OBJECTIONS DISREGARDED OR
SUPPRESSED AGAINST THE CONTINGENCY OF AN ADVERSE RESULT."  SEE ALSO
MATTER OF NORRIS, INC., 63 N.L.R.B. 502, 512.  THE BOARD ACCORDINGLY
ORDERED RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ITS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
AND TO TAKE THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OF BARGAINING COLLECTIVELY WITH THE
UNION.  60 N.L.R.B. 1414. 

THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, SET ASIDE THE BOARD'S
ORDER.  152 F.2D 275.  IT CONSTRUED THE ACT AS MAKING IT A
JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITE TO A DETERMINATION THAT AN EMPLOYER HAS
COMMITTED THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF REFUSING TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THAT THE UNION WITH WHICH HE HAS REFUSED TO DEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CHOSEN BY A MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING WHO WERE IN FACT EMPLOYEES.  IT
HELD THAT SINCE THE VOTE CHALLENGED BY THE UNION MAY HAVE BEEN CAST
AGAINST IT AND SINCE MRS. KANE WAS NOT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN AN EMPLOYEE
ON THE CRUCIAL DATE, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A TIE VOTE AND THE BOARD WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO FIND THE RESPONDENT GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF
SEC. 8(5).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
MATTER IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT AND BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE RESULT BELOW AND THAT REACHED BY THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN LABOR BOARD V. CAPITOL GREYHOUND LINES, 140 F.2D 754. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED BEFORE, CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED THE BOARD WITH A WIDE
DEGREE OF DISCRETION IN ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURE AND SAFEGUARDS
NECESSARY TO INSURE THE FAIR AND FREE CHOICE OF BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES BY EMPLOYEES.  SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 316
U.S. 31, 37; LABOR BOARD V. WATERMAN S.S. CO., 309 U.S. 206, 226; LABOR
BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453, 458.  SECTION 9(C) OF THE ACT
AUTHORIZES THE BOARD TO "TAKE A SECRET BALLOT OF EMPLOYEES, OR UTILIZE
ANY OTHER SUITABLE METHOD TO ASCERTAIN SUCH REPRESENTATIVES."  IN
CARRYING OUT THIS TASK, OF COURSE, THE BOARD MUST ACT SO AS TO GIVE
EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MAJORITY RULE SET FORTH IN SEC. 9(A), A RULE
THAT "IS SANCTIONED BY OUR GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES, BY BUSINESS
PROCEDURE, AND BY THE WHOLE PHILOSOPHY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS."  S.
REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 13.  IT IS WITHIN THIS
DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK THAT THE BOARD MUST ADOPT POLICIES AND PROMULGATE
RULES AND REGULATIONS IN ORDER THAT EMPLOYEES' VOTES MAY BE RECORDED
ACCURATELY, EFFICIENTLY AND SPEEDILY. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF MAJORITY RULE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT FORECLOSE PRACTICAL
ADJUSTMENTS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE ELECTION MACHINERY FROM THE EVER
PRESENT DANGERS OF ABUSE AND FRAUD.  INDEED, UNLESS SUCH ADJUSTMENTS
ARE MADE, THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS MAY BE PERVERTED AND THE ELECTION MAY
FAIL TO REFLECT THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE.  ONE OF THE
COMMONEST PROTECTIVE DEVICES IS TO REQUIRE THAT CHALLENGES TO THE
ELIGIBILITY OF VOTERS BE MADE PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL CASTING OF BALLOTS,
SO THAT ALL UNCONTESTED VOTES ARE GIVEN ABSOLUTE FINALITY.  IN
POLITICAL ELECTIONS, THIS DEVICE OFTEN INVOLVES REGISTRATION LISTS
WHICH ARE CLOSED SOME TIME PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY; ALL CHALLENGES AS TO
REGISTRANTS MUST BE MADE DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD OR AT THE
POLLS.  THEREAFTER IT IS TOO LATE.  THE FACT THAT CUTTING OFF THE RIGHT
TO CHALLENGE CONCEIVABLY MAY RESULT IN THE COUNTING OF SOME INELIGIBLE
VOTES IS THOUGHT TO BE FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THE DANGERS ATTENDANT UPON THE
ALLOWANCE OF INDISCRIMINATE CHALLENGES AFTER THE ELECTION.  TO PERMIT
SUCH CHALLENGES, IT IS SAID, WOULD INVADE THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT,
DESTROY THE FINALITY OF THE ELECTION RESULT, INVITE UNWARRANTED AND
DILATORY CLAIMS BY DEFEATED CANDIDATES AND "KEEP PERPETUALLY BEFORE THE
COURTS THE SAME EXCITEMENTS, STRIFES, AND ANIMOSITIES WHICH
CHARACTERIZE THE HUSTINGS, AND WHICH OUGHT, FOR THE PEACE OF THE
COMMUNITY, AND THE SAFETY AND STABILITY OF OUR INSTITUTIONS, TO
TERMINATE WITH THE CLOSE OF THE POLLS."  COOLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS (8TH ED., 1927), P. 1416. 

LONG EXPERIENCE HAS DEMONSTRATED THE FAIRNESS AND EFFICACIOUSNESS OF
THE GENERAL RULE THAT ONCE A BALLOT HAS BEEN CAST WITHOUT CHALLENGE AND
ITS IDENTITY HAS BEEN LOST, ITS VALIDITY CANNOT LATER BE CHALLENGED. 
THIS RULE IS UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED AS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS.  AND IT IS GENERALLY FOLLOWED IN CORPORATE ELECTIONS.  THE
BOARD'S ADOPTION OF THE RULE IN ELECTIONS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IS THEREFORE IN ACCORD WITH THE PRINCIPLES WHICH CONGRESS
INDICATED SHOULD BE USED IN SECURING THE FAIR AND FREE CHOICE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES. 

MOREOVER, THE RULE IN QUESTION IS ONE THAT IS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE
TO THE SITUATIONS CONFRONTING THE BOARD IN THESE ELECTIONS.  IN AN
ATMOSPHERE THAT MAY BE CHARGED WITH ANIMOSITY, POST-ELECTION CHALLENGES
WOULD TEMPT A LOSING UNION OR AN EMPLOYER TO MAKE UNDUE ATTACKS ON THE
ELIGIBILITY OF VOTERS SO AS TO DELAY THE FINALITY AND STATUTORY EFFECT
OF THE ELECTION RESULTS.  SUCH CHALLENGES WOULD ALSO EXTEND AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE INCLUSION OF INELIGIBLE PRO-UNION OR ANTI-UNION MEN
ON THE PAY-ROLL LIST IN THE HOPE THAT THEY MIGHT ESCAPE CHALLENGE
BEFORE VOTING, THEREAFTER GIVING RISE TO A CHARGE THAT THE ELECTION WAS
VOID BECAUSE OF THEIR INELIGIBILITY AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY HAD
VOTED WITH THE MAJORITY AND WERE A DECISIVE FACTOR.  THE PRIVACY OF THE
VOTING PROCESS, WHICH IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN THE INDUSTRIAL WORLD,
WOULD FREQUENTLY BE DESTROYED BY POST-ELECTION CHALLENGES.  AND VOTERS
WOULD OFTEN INCUR UNION OR EMPLOYER DISFAVOR THROUGH THEIR REACTION TO
THE INQUIRIES. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY, THEREFORE, THAT THE BOARD'S PROHIBITION OF POST
ELECTION CHALLENGES IS WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION IN LAW OR IN REASON.  IT
GIVES A DESIRABLE AND NECESSARY FINALITY TO ELECTIONS, YET AFFORDS ALL
INTERESTED PARTIES A REASONABLE PERIOD IN WHICH TO CHALLENGE THE
ELIGIBILITY OF ANY VOTER.  AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE IS RECOGNIZED
WHERE THE BOARD'S AGENTS OR THE PARTIES BENEFITING FROM THE BOARD'S
REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN THE ISSUE KNOW OF THE VOTER'S INELIGIBILITY AND
SUPPRESS THE FACTS.  FN6  THE BOARD THUS APPEARS TO APPLY THE
PROHIBITION FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY IN LIGHT OF THE REALITIES INVOLVED. 
THE RELIANCE OF THE COURT BELOW UPON THE ASSERTED JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENT WAS MISPLACED.  IT IS TRUE THAT IT IS AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN WITH A UNION ONLY IF THAT
UNION WAS CHOSEN BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTING EMPLOYEES.  BUT THE
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A MAJORITY IN FACT VOTED FOR THE UNION MUST BE
MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH FORMAL RULES OF PROCEDURE AS THE BOARD MAY
FIND NECESSARY TO ADOPT IN THE SOUND EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION.  THE
RULE PROHIBITING POST-ELECTION CHALLENGES IS ONE OF THOSE RULES.  WHEN
IT IS APPLIED PROPERLY, IT CANNOT DEPRIVE THE BOARD OF JURISDICTION TO
FIND AN UNLAWFUL FAILURE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY.  THAT IS TRUE EVEN
WHERE IT SUBSEQUENTLY IS ASCERTAINABLE THAT SOME OF THE VOTES CAST WERE
IN FACT INELIGIBLE AND THAT THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN
DIFFERENT HAD THE TRUTH PREVIOUSLY BEEN KNOWN.  THE RULE DOES NOT
PRETEND TO BE AN ABSOLUTE GUARANTEE THAT ONLY THOSE VOTES WILL BE
COUNTED WHICH ARE IN FACT ELIGIBLE.  IT IS SIMPLY A JUSTIFIABLE AND
REASONABLE ADJUSTMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. 

THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR DISREGARDING THE BOARD'S
POLICY IN THIS RESPECT.  THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY HAVE BEEN
HONESTLY MISTAKEN AS TO THE STATUS OF MRS. KANE HAS NO RELEVANCE
WHATEVER TO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE USE OF THE POLICY.  AND NOTHING
IN THE CONSENT AGREEMENT CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE POLICY BY THE
BOARD.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY STATED THAT THE
ELECTION WAS TO BE HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH "THE CUSTOMARY PROCEDURES
AND POLICIES OF THE BOARD," WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE POLICY PROHIBITING
POST-ELECTION CHALLENGES.  THE PROVISION AS TO THE FILING OF OBJECTIONS
"TO THE CONDUCT OF THE BALLOT" AND "TO A DETERMINATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES BASED ON THE RESULTS THEREOF" WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER
ISSUANCE OF THE "TALLY OF BALLOTS," A PROVISION WHICH WAS QUITE
SEPARATE FROM THAT RELATING TO CHALLENGES, OBVIOUSLY HAS NO APPLICATION
HERE.  OBJECTIONS AND CHALLENGES ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS IN ELECTORAL
PARLANCE.  OBJECTIONS RELATE TO THE WORKING OF THE ELECTION MECHANISM
AND TO THE PROCESS OF COUNTING THE BALLOTS ACCURATELY AND FAIRLY. 
CHALLENGES, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONCERN THE ELIGIBILITY OF PROSPECTIVE
VOTERS.  THE BOARD USES THIS CLEAR DISTINCTION AS A MATTER OF POLICY
AND WE ARE NOT FREE TO DISREGARD IT.  FN7 

NEITHER THE RECORD IN THIS CASE NOR THE PAST HISTORY OF THE POLICY
AGAINST POST-ELECTION CHALLENGES JUSTIFIES AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE
INTERESTS OF THE ANTI-UNION EMPLOYEES IN THIS ELECTION WERE
INADEQUATELY PROTECTED.  DUE NOTICE OF THE MANNER AND CONDUCT OF THE
ELECTION WAS GIVEN TO ALL EMPLOYEES; AND, DESPITE THE LACK OF ANY
AFFIRMATIVE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSENT AGREEMENT, THERE WAS NO
INDICATION THAT ANY OF THE EMPLOYEES WERE PROHIBITED FROM EXAMINING THE
ELIGIBILITY LIST OR FROM CHALLENGING ANY PROSPECTIVE VOTER.  NOR WAS
THERE COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT ANY ANTI-UNION EMPLOYEE MADE ANY
OBJECTION, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE ELECTION, TO THE PROCEDURE
ADOPTED OR TO THE CASTING OF ANY BALLOTS.  FN8  MOREOVER, THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BOARD, AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE RESPONDENT, WERE
BOUND TO PERFORM THEIR ELECTORAL FUNCTIONS ON BEHALF OF ALL EMPLOYEES,
INCLUDING THOSE WITH ANTI-UNION SENTIMENTS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
EVIDENCE THAT SUCH REPRESENTATIVES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE ANTI-UNION
EMPLOYEES IN PREPARING THE ELIGIBILITY LIST OR IN RAISING TIMELY
ELIGIBILITY ISSUES, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE INTERESTS OF THOSE EMPLOYEES
WERE INADEQUATELY REPRESENTED. 

SINCE WE REST OUR DECISION SOLELY ON THE PROPRIETY OF THE BOARD'S
POLICY AGAINST POST-ELECTION CHALLENGES, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS
THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN BY THE BOARD TO THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR'S RULING
THAT THE RESPONDENT WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MRS. KANE'S VOTE OR
THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT ELECTION AGREEMENT
APART FROM THE GENERAL POLICY. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN REFUSING TO ENFORCE THE
BOARD'S ORDER IN FULL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151, ET SEQ. 

FN2  AMONG THE INELIGIBLE PERSONS WERE THOSE WHO HAD QUIT OR BEEN
DISCHARGED FOR CAUSE AND HAD NOT BEEN REHIRED OR REINSTATED PRIOR TO
THE DATE OF THE ELECTION. 

FN3  IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO RULE ON THE CHALLENGED BALLOT SINCE IT
COULD NOT AFFECT THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION, EVEN THOUGH THE BALLOT
PROVED TO BE AGAINST THE UNION. 

FN4 THE LETTER RECITED THAT "IT HAS NOW COME TO THEIR ATTENTION,
HOWEVER, THAT ON APRIL 28, 1944, MRS. KANE FILED WITH THE DIVISION OF
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS A CLAIM FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS STATING, IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CLAIM, THAT SHE
HAD LEFT THE EMPLOY OF THE A.J. TOWER COMPANY IN MARCH, 1944, AND THAT
HER REASON FOR LEAVING WAS THAT SHE 'COULD NOT CONTINUE TO DO HEAVY
WORK OF CARRYING BUNDLES WHICH WAS PART OF HER JOB.'  THE COMPANY HAS
ALSO LEARNED THAT ON THE SAME DAY, APRIL 28, 1944, MRS. KANE VISITED
THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT OFFICE AND WAS PLACED ON ITS LIST OF
PERSONS AVAILABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT." 

FN5  AN AGENT OF THE BOARD INTERVIEWED MRS. KANE AND WAS TOLD BY HER
THAT:  "ON APRIL 28, 1944, I APPLIED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
BENEFITS, THINKING I WAS ENTITLED TO SUCH BECAUSE OF MY ILLNESS.  AT NO
TIME, PRIOR OR SINCE, HAVE I CONSIDERED MYSELF NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
A.J. TOWER CO.  I HAVE NEVER REQUESTED MY RELEASE OF THE A.J. TOWER CO.
AND IN FACT I INTEND TO RETURN TO THE COMPANY WHEN I HAVE REGAINED MY
STRENGTH.  I DID NOT THINK THAT MY APPLICATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A TERMINATION FROM THE COMPANY....  ON MAY
5, 1944, WHEN I PRESENTED MYSELF AT THE ELECTION POLLS AT THE A.J.
TOWER CO., I CONSIDERED MYSELF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY AND THEREFORE
ENTITLED TO CAST A BALLOT.  I STILL CONSIDER MYSELF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
A.J. TOWER CO." 

BUT THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR POINTED OUT THAT, DESPITE THIS STATEMENT,
SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION CONFIRMED THE FACT THAT MRS. KANE ADVISED THE
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ON APRIL 28, 1944, THAT SHE HAD LEFT
HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE RESPONDENT IN MARCH BECAUSE OF THE HEAVY WORK
IN CARRYING BUNDLES.  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN6  SEE MATTER OF HALE, 62 N.L.R.B. 1393; MATTER OF BEGGS & COBB,
INC., 62 N.L.R.B. 193. 

FN7  "THE BOARD FOLLOWS A POLICY OF DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION AND CHALLENGES (TO) THE
ELIGIBILITY OF VOTERS AND IT DOES NOT ORDINARILY PERMIT CHALLENGES
UNDER THE GUISE OF OBJECTIONS AFTER THE ELECTION."  MATTER OF NORRIS,
INC., 63 N.L.R.B. 502, 512.  CF. MATTER OF GREAT LAKES STEEL
CORPORATION, 15 N.L.R.B. 510. 

FN8  THE RESPONDENT'S FACTORY SUPERINTENDENT TESTIFIED THAT AN
UNIDENTIFIED EMPLOYEE CAME TO HIM AND "OBJECTED TO THE VOTE OF THIS
JENNIE KANE" SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION AND EVEN LONGER AFTER THE
RECEIPT BY RESPONDENT OF THE NOTICE OF MRS. KANE'S UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION CLAIM, WHICH HAD BEEN MAILED TO RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
ELECTION.  THIS TESTIMONY WAS ADMITTED MERELY TO SHOW "HOW THE COMPANY
BECAME INTERESTED IN THE QUESTION" OF MRS. KANE'S ELIGIBILITY.  THE
BOARD, OF COURSE, WAS NOT COMPELLED TO ACCEPT THIS TESTIMONY AS PROOF
OF AN OBJECTION TO MRS. KANE'S VOTE BY AN ANTI-UNION EMPLOYEE OR AS AN
INDICATION THAT THE INTERESTS OF ANTI-UNION EMPLOYEES MAY HAVE BEEN
INADEQUATELY REPRESENTED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

IF THE ONLY INTERESTS AFFECTED WERE THE COMPLAINING EMPLOYER AND THE
VICTORIOUS UNION, I SHOULD AGREE WITH THE COURT'S DECISION.  BUT THERE
IS A THIRD AND, AS USUAL, A FORGOTTEN INTEREST HERE - THOSE EMPLOYEES
WHO DID NOT WANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE UNION. 

THE ELECTION WAS HELD BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION
WHICH WAS SEEKING TO ORGANIZE THE PLANT.  THE COMPANY WAS TO FURNISH A
LIST OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS.  THE COMPANY AND THE UNION WERE EACH TO HAVE
OBSERVERS ATTEND, WITH THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VOTERS.  THE
AGREEMENT DID NOT GIVE ANTI-ORGANIZATION EMPLOYEES EITHER OBSERVERS OR
THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE.  THE CERTIFIED RESULT OF 116 UNION AGAINST 114
ANTI-UNION VOTES WAS REACHED BY NOT COUNTING A BALLOT WHICH THE UNION
CHALLENGED AND BY COUNTING THE BALLOT WHICH THE COMPANY NOW POINTS OUT
WAS PROBABLY INVALID.  MRS. KANE'S VOTE, NO MATTER WHETHER VALID OR
INVALID, IS THUS ALLOWED TO DECIDE THE ELECTION. 

IT IS IN EVIDENCE AND UNDISPUTED THAT, AFTER THE ELECTION AN EMPLOYEE
- PRESUMABLY ANTI-UNION, FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HE WAS OBJECTING -
RAISED THE QUESTION THAT MRS. KANE, WHO WAS CARRIED ON THE COMPANY'S
ELIGIBLE LIST BECAUSE THE COMPANY BELIEVED SHE WAS ABSENT FOR ILLNESS,
HAD, IN FACT, LEFT THE EMPLOY OF THE COMPANY WITH NO INTENTION TO
RETURN.  IF THAT IS TRUE, SHE WAS NOT A QUALIFIED VOTER. 

BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CHALLENGE AT THE TIME HER BALLOT WAS CAST,
THE COURT HOLDS THERE CAN BE NO INQUIRY INTO ITS VALIDITY.  COMPARISON
WITH THE PRACTICE AT GENERAL PUBLIC ELECTIONS IS SPECIOUS, FOR IN THOSE
ELECTIONS EVERY CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT OF CHALLENGE AND REGISTRATION LISTS
USUALLY ARE MADE UP AND AVAILABLE IN ADVANCE.  NO COMPARABLE SAFEGUARDS
FOR THE EMPLOYEES OPPOSED TO THE UNION APPEAR TO EXIST HERE, THOUGH
BOTH THE EMPLOYER AND THE UNION WERE PROTECTED. 

THE COURT TAKES THE POSITION THAT ALTHOUGH EVERY OTHER INTEREST HAS
AFFIRMATIVE PROTECTION, THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR SIMILAR AFFIRMATIVE
PROTECTION TO THE ANTI-UNION EMPLOYEES.  DESPITE THE FACT THAT BOTH OF
THE CONTRACTING PARTIES WERE CAREFUL TO PROVIDE SUCH PROTECTION FOR
THEMSELVES, THE COURT ASSUMES IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THE THIRD
INTEREST.  THE COURT SAYS THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, IT WILL
ASSUME THAT SUCH INTERESTS WERE ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED, AT THE SAME
TIME CLOSING THE DOOR TO HEARING EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER THOSE INTERESTS
WERE PREJUDICED UNLESS THOSE WHO ARE DENIED AFFIRMATIVE REPRESENTATION
OR CHALLENGE RIGHTS SHOULD HAVE MADE AFFIRMATIVE OBJECTION BEFORE THE
WRONG WAS CONSUMMATED BY CASTING THE ILLEGAL BALLOT.  AND, OF COURSE,
THE MEMBERS OF SUCH A MINORITY HAVE NO STANDING TO BRING THEIR PROBLEMS
EITHER TO THE BOARD OR TO THE COURT.  WE HEAR OF THEIR GRIEVANCE, IF AT
ALL, ONLY THROUGH ITS BEING IDENTICAL WITH SOME COMPLAINT WHICH THE
EMPLOYER RAISES. 

THE COURT FEARS THAT TO PERMIT INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF MRS.
KANE'S VOTE WOULD "EXTEND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE INCLUSION OF
INELIGIBLE PRO-UNION OR ANTI-UNION MEN ON THE PAY-ROLL LIST" WHO WOULD
BE CHALLENGED AFTER THE ELECTION IN THE HOPE OF VOIDING AN UNWANTED
RESULT.  OF COURSE, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MANIPULATION OF SUCH A
LIST, FOR COLLUSION BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND FAVORED GROUPS, FOR FRAUD, AND
FOR HONEST MISTAKES. 

BUT IF THE COURT IS CONCERNED TO KEEP THE ELECTIONS PURE, WHY CLOSE
THE DOOR TO PROOF OF SUCH CORRUPTION OR MISTAKE WHEN IT OPERATES
AGAINST AN ANTI-UNION GROUP, BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY ONE
OF THE PARTIES TO IT: TO WIT, THE EMPLOYER?  IN THE USUAL ELECTION, IT
MAY BE DESIRABLE TO PUT AN END TO CHALLENGES AT THE TIME WHEN THE
BALLOTS BECOME INTERMINGLED AND INDISTINGUISHABLE.  BUT TO JUSTIFY
CUTTING OFF INQUIRY, IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN
THE ELECTION HAVE HAD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE BALLOTS
CAST.  AS LONG AS NO SUCH PROVISION IS MADE FOR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
OPPOSED TO ORGANIZATION, I WOULD PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS BY ALLOWING POST
ELECTION CHALLENGES ON SUCH GROUNDS AS ARE URGED HERE. 

OF COURSE THE PROTECTION THIS GIVES IS FAR FROM SATISFACTORY.  THE
CHALLENGE MUST BE INITIATED BY THE PARTIES THE BOARD RECOGNIZES, THE
EMPLOYER OR THE UNION.  BUT THERE WILL BE SOME INSTANCES IN WHICH THEIR
INTEREST COINCIDES WITH THAT OF THE ANTI-UNION EMPLOYEES.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, I CAN SCARCELY THINK OF A MORE PERFECT DEVICE FOR ENCOURAGING
UNSCRUPULOUSNESS, THAN TO INVEST IT WITH FINALITY AGAINST ALL INQUIRY
EITHER BY THE BOARD OR THE COURTS.  HERE HALF THE EMPLOYEES ARE FORCED
TO ACCEPT UNION REPRESENTATION AS THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION IN WHICH
THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO PROTECT THE BALLOT, AND THOSE WHO WERE, FAILED
TO DO SO.  IF I REALLY WANTED TO DISCOURAGE FRAUD, COLLUSION, AND
MISTAKES, AND PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS AND THE RIGHTS OF BOTH
MINORITY AND MAJORITY, I SHOULD HOLD THAT SUCH ELECTIONS CAN BE LOOKED
INTO WHENEVER IRREGULARITY APPEARS TO HAVE AFFECTED THE RESULT. 
..END :








GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 338 


ARGUED JANUARY 2, 3, 1946.  REARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1946.  - DECIDED
DECEMBER 23, 1946.  - 149 F.2D 751 AND 154 F.2D 637, REVERSED. 


1.  HAVING BEEN DENIED CLASSIFICATION AS A MINISTER OF RELIGION UNDER
THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, CLASSIFIED AS A CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTOR AND ORDERED TO REPORT TO A CIVILIAN CAMP FOR WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE, AND HAVING EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UP TO THAT
POINT, DODEZ REFUSED TO GO TO CAMP.  THE REGULATIONS THEN APPLICABLE
PROVIDED FOR A PREINDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION BEFORE ISSUANCE OF THE
ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION BUT NOT AFTER REPORTING TO CAMP, SO THAT
THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY THAT HE WOULD BE REJECTED AFTER REPORTING TO
CAMP.  HE WAS INDICTED FOR VIOLATING SEC. 11 OF THE ACT AND DEFENDED ON
THE GROUND THAT HIS CLASSIFICATION WAS INVALID.  HELD:  HE WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO REPORT TO CAMP IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS AND IS NOT FORECLOSED FROM MAKING THE DEFENSE THAT HIS
CLASSIFICATION WAS INVALID.  PP. 343-350. 

(A)  FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, DISTINGUISHED ON THE GROUND
THAT, UNDER THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING FALBO, HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
REJECTED UPON A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AFTER REPORTING TO CAMP.  PP. 343
350. 

2.  HAVING BEEN DENIED CLASSIFICATION AS A MINISTER OF RELIGION UNDER
THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, CLASSIFIED AS A CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTOR AND ORDERED TO REPORT TO A CIVILIAN CAMP FOR WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE, AND HAVING EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, GIBSON
REPORTED TO CAMP, REMAINED FIVE DAYS, AND DEPARTED WITHOUT LEAVE.  THE
REGULATIONS THEN APPLICABLE PROVIDED FOR A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AFTER
THE REGISTRANT REPORTED TO CAMP BUT REQUIRED THE CAMP DIRECTOR TO NOTE
THE FACT OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE REGISTRANT "IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
DETERMINATION MADE AS THE RESULT OF" THIS EXAMINATION.  HE WAS INDICTED
FOR VIOLATING SEC. 11 OF THE ACT AND DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT HIS
CLASSIFICATION WAS INVALID.  HELD:  BY REPORTING TO A CIVILIAN CAMP, HE
DID NOT FORFEIT THE RIGHT TO DEFEND AGAINST A CHARGE OF DESERTION ON
THE GROUND THAT HIS CLASSIFICATION WAS INVALID, SINCE HE REMAINED A
CIVILIAN AND WAS NOT SUBJECT TO MILITARY JURISDICTION.  PP. 351-361. 

(A) NO ANALOGY EXISTS BETWEEN A SELECTEE INDUCTED INTO MILITARY
SERVICE WHO MAY THEREAFTER OBTAIN HIS RELEASE ONLY BY RESORT TO HABEAS
CORPUS AND A SELECTEE REPORTING TO A CIVILIAN CAMP FOR WHOM THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DOUBTFUL.  PP. 356-361. 

3.  ON REVIEW OF A CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL CASE, THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONFESSION OF ERROR DOES NOT RELIEVE THIS COURT OF THE DUTY TO EXAMINE
INDEPENDENTLY THE ERRORS CONFESSED.  P. 344, N. 9. 

4.  THIS COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THESE CASES FINALLY ON
THEIR MERITS BUT REMANDS THEM FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL
COURT.  PP. 350-351, 361-362. 

GIBSON V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 23.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 86, DODEZ V. UNITED STATES, ON CERTIORARI TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, ARGUED OCTOBER 23,
1946. 

NO. 23.  PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED FOR VIOLATING SEC. 11 OF THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT BY UNLAWFULLY DESERTING CAMP.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 751.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 326 U.S. 708, AND, AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT, RESTORED THE
CASE TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL BENCH.  REVERSED, P.
362. 

NO. 86.  PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED FOR VIOLATING SEC. 11 OF THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT BY FAILING TO REPORT TO CAMP.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  154 F.2D 637.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 828.  REVERSED, P. 362. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES CARRY FORWARD ANOTHER STEP THE SEQUENCE IN DECISION
REPRESENTED BY FALBO, BILLINGS, ESTEP AND SMITH.  FN1  EACH PETITIONER
HAS BEEN CONVICTED FOR VIOLATING SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT (54 STAT. 894, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311), DODEZ FOR FAILING
TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE AFTER BEING ORDERED TO DO SO
AND GIBSON FOR HAVING UNLAWFULLY DESERTED THE CAMP TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN
ASSIGNED FOR SUCH WORK.  FN2 

IN EACH INSTANCE THE CONVICTION WAS SUSTAINED ON APPEAL N3 AND
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  NO. 23, 326 U.S. 708,
RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL BENCH; NO. 86, 328
U.S. 828. 

THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES RELATE TO THE TIME OF COMPLETING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE SELECTIVE PROCESS AND THE EFFECT IN EACH CASE OF WHAT
WAS DONE IN THIS RESPECT UPON THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO MAKE DEFENSE IN
THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS GOING TO THE VALIDITY OF
THE CLASSIFICATION. 

IN BOTH CASES TENDERED DEFENSES OF THIS CHARACTER WERE EXCLUDED IN
THE TRIAL COURT AND THE EXCLUSION WAS SUSTAINED ON APPEAL.  THE EFFECT
WAS, IN GIBSON'S CASE, TO RULE THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAD COMPLETED THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BY REPORTING TO THE CAMP, PURSUANT TO THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE FALBO DECISION, NEVERTHELESS HIS REMEDY, IF ANY, ON
ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED MISCLASSIFICATION WAS BY HABEAS CORPUS, NOT BY
DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL CAUSE.  149 F.2D 751.  IN DODEZ' CASE IT WAS
HELD THAT BY REFUSING TO REPORT FOR SERVICE AT THE CAMP HE HAD FAILED
TO EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND THEREFORE UNDER THE FALBO
DOCTRINE HE COULD NOT QUESTION HIS CLASSIFICATION IN THE CRIMINAL
SUIT.  154 F.2D 637.  FN4

                                  I. 

BOTH PETITIONERS ARE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  EACH HAS CLAIMED
CONSISTENTLY SINCE THE TIME OF HIS REGISTRATION THAT HE IS A MINISTER
OF RELIGION AND THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THE
ACT.  FN5  EACH WAS DENIED THIS CLASSIFICATION (IV-D), BEING CLASSIFIED
INSTEAD AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR (IV-E).  FN6  ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEALS WERE EXHAUSTED.  PURSUANT TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS GIVEN AND THE
APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS, DODEZ AND GIBSON WERE
ASSIGNED TO WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE AND ORDERED TO REPORT FOR SUCH
WORK AT DESIGNATED CAMPS. 

DODEZ REFUSED TO GO TO THE CAMP.  BUT GIBSON, THINKING THE FALBO
DECISION REQUIRED HIM TO REPORT THERE IN ORDER TO EXHAUST HIS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, WENT TO THE CAMP, REMAINED FOR FIVE DAYS, AND
THEN DEPARTED WITHOUT LEAVE.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT HE INTENDED AT NO
TIME TO SUBMIT TO THE CAMP'S JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY AND THAT HE AT
ALL TIMES MADE THIS INTENT CLEAR.  EVERYTHING HE DID WAS DONE SOLELY TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS HAD BEEN FINISHED AND WITH A
VIEW TO AVOIDING THE BARRIER FALBO ENCOUNTERED IN HIS TRIAL WHEN HE
SOUGHT TO QUESTION HIS CLASSIFICATION. 

OBVIOUSLY THE PETITIONERS HAVE SOUGHT TO REACH THE SAME POINT,
NAMELY, THE PLACE AT WHICH THE SELECTIVE PROCESS IS EXHAUSTED
ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT HAVE DIFFERED CONCERNING ITS EXACT LOCATION. 
DODEZ MAINTAINS THAT THE POINT WAS REACHED, UNDER THE APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS,  FN7  WHEN HIS PREINDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION HAD BEEN
GIVEN AND HE WAS FOUND ACCEPTABLE FOR SERVICE BY THE SELECTIVE SERVICE
SYSTEM.  THIS WAS ON FEBRUARY 21, 1944, TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DATE
(APRIL 21, 1944) WHEN HE WAS ORDERED TO REPORT FOR WORK AND REFUSED TO
GO. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, GIBSON ARGUES THAT UNTIL THE PRELIMINARIES TO
ACTUAL SERVICE, INCLUDING PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, WERE COMPLETED AT THE
CAMP, HE WAS NOT FORECLOSED BY GOING THROUGH WITH THEM FROM EXERCISING
HIS CHOICE NOT TO SUBMIT TO THE CAMP'S JURISDICTION, CF. BILLINGS V.
TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542, OR, UPON DOING SO, FROM ASSERTING THE
INVALIDITY OF HIS CLASSIFICATION IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL EITHER FOR FAILING
TO REPORT FOR SERVICE OR FOR DESERTION FROM THE CAMP.  CF. ESTEP V.
UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114; SMITH V. UNITED STATES, IBID.  CLEARLY, ON
THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES, THE QUESTION AS TO DODEZ, LIKE THAT IN
FALBO'S CASE, IS WHETHER HE WENT FAR ENOUGH TO EXHAUST THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS; WHILE AS TO GIBSON IT IS SAID THAT HE WENT TOO
FAR, THAT IS, BEYOND THE POINT OF COMPLETING THAT PROCESS, AND THAT
THIS CUT OFF THE RIGHT OF DEFENSE CONCEDEDLY AVAILABLE TO HIM AT THAT
POINT. 

                                 II. 

IF THESE CASES WERE CONTROLLED IN ALL RESPECTS BY THE REGULATIONS
EFFECTIVE WHEN FALBO'S CASE WAS DECIDED, DODEZ WOULD SEEM CLEARLY TO
FALL WITHIN THE DECISION'S PROSCRIPTION.  THE COURT THERE SAID:
"COMPLETION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS AND APPELLATE
AGENCIES, IMPORTANT AS ARE THESE FUNCTIONS, IS NOT THE END OF THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCESS.  THE SELECTEE MAY STILL BE REJECTED AT THE
INDUCTION CENTER AND THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR WHO IS OPPOSED TO
NONCOMBATANT DUTY MAY BE REJECTED AT THE CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE CAMP. 
THE CONNECTED SERIES OF STEPS INTO THE NATIONAL SERVICE WHICH BEGINS
WITH REGISTRATION WITH THE LOCAL BOARD DOES NOT END UNTIL THE
REGISTRANT IS ACCEPTED BY THE ARMY, NAVY, OR CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE
CAMP.  THUS A BOARD ORDER TO REPORT IS NO MORE THAN A NECESSARY
INTERMEDIATE STEP IN A UNITED AND CONTINUOUS PROCESS DESIGNED TO RAISE
AN ARMY SPEEDILY AND EFFICIENTLY."  320 U.S. AT 553.  SINCE
ACCEPTABILITY FOR SERVICE WAS NOT FINALLY DETERMINED UNDER THE
REGULATIONS THEN APPLICABLE UNTIL THE REGISTRANT HAD REACHED CAMP, HAD
THERE UNDERGONE OR WAIVED THE SPECIFIED PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS, AND
THEREUPON HAD BEEN FOUND ACCEPTABLE,  FN8  AND SINCE FALBO HAD NOT
TAKEN THOSE STEPS, THE COURT HELD HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO QUESTION HIS
CLASSIFICATION AND THEREFORE SUSTAINED HIS CONVICTION. 

HOWEVER, INTERMEDIATE THE FALBO DECISION AND ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER TO
DODEZ TO REPORT, THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE RELATING TO
SELECTION FOR SERVICE WERE CHANGED AND IN A MANNER WHICH DODEZ SAYS
RELIEVED HIM FROM THE NECESSITY OF GOING TO THE CAMP IN ORDER TO
COMPLETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  THE GOVERNMENT NOW CONCEDES, WE
THINK PROPERLY,  FN9  THAT DODEZ IS RIGHT IN THIS VIEW. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REVIEW IN DETAIL THE REGULATIONS WHICH WERE
GOVERNING IN FALBO'S CASE, SINCE THEY ARE NOT CONTROLLING IN EITHER OF
THE PRESENT ONES.  ALTHOUGH IT IS NOW ARGUED THAT THE COURT
MISCONCEIVED THEIR EFFECT,  FN10  WE NEED ONLY TO NOTE THAT IT WAS
WITHIN THE REGISTRANT'S POWER TO SECURE A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION BY THE
CAMP PHYSICIAN BY INDICATING A CHANGE IN HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION, IT
COULD NOT BE KNOWN IN ADVANCE IN ANY CASE WHETHER HE WOULD DEMAND IT,
AND UNTIL THIS WAS DETERMINED IT COULD NOT BE KNOWN FINALLY AND
IRREVOCABLY WHETHER HE WOULD BE "ACCEPTED FOR WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE."  FN11  THE DECISION THEREFORE CORRECTLY RULED THAT "THE
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR WHO IS OPPOSED TO NONCOMBATANT DUTY MAY BE
REJECTED AT THE CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE CAMP" AND THAT THE BOARD'S
ORDER TO REPORT THERE FOR SERVICE WAS "NO MORE THAN A NECESSARY
INTERMEDIATE STEP" IN THE CONTINUOUS SELECTIVE PROCESS, WHICH WAS NOT
ENDED UNTIL THE LAST POSSIBILITY FOR REJECTION HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED. 
UNDER THOSE REGULATIONS THERE WAS NO FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ACCEPTANCE
FOR SERVICE UNTIL AFTER THOSE PROCEDURES AT THE CAMP WERE COMPLETED. 

IT WAS EXACTLY IN THIS RESPECT, HOWEVER, THAT THE CHANGES MADE IN THE
REGULATIONS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE FALBO DECISION N12 AND SHORTLY PRIOR
TO ISSUANCE OF DODEZ' ORDER TO REPORT, TOGETHER WITH STILL OTHERS MADE
LATER BUT PRIOR TO THE ORDER TO GIBSON, WERE EFFECTIVE.  THE CHANGES
WERE EXTENSIVE AND IMPORTANT.  THE ALTERED REGULATIONS ARE LENGTHY.  WE
THEREFORE GIVE A SUMMARY IN THE MARGIN, NOTING THE MORE IMPORTANT
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE APPLICABLE TO DODEZ AND THOSE IN EFFECT AS TO
GIBSON.  FN13 

IT IS OF SOME IMPORTANCE TO NOTE THAT THE CHANGES AFFECTING BOTH
REGISTRANTS WERE MADE IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 5 OF
PUBLIC LAW 197, 78TH CONGRESS, APPROVED DECEMBER 5, 1943.  57 STAT.
596, 599, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 304A.  THIS REQUIRED PREINDUCTION
PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS TO BE GIVEN BEFORE THE REGISTRANT WAS ORDERED TO
REPORT FOR INDUCTION AND SERVICE.  FN14  PREVIOUSLY HE FIRST HAD BEEN
ORDERED TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION, WAS THEN GIVEN HIS PREINDUCTION
EXAMINATION BY THE ARMED FORCES AND, ON BEING FOUND ACCEPTABLE, WAS
INDUCTED AT ONCE.  FN15  THE MAJOR CHANGES IN THE REGULATIONS GIVING
EFFECT TO SEC. 5 WERE MADE ON JANUARY 10, 1944, ONE WEEK AFTER THE
FALBO DECISION CAME DOWN, SOME TAKING EFFECT ON THAT DATE,  FN16
OTHERS ON FEBRUARY 2D FOLLOWING.  THESE APPLIED TO DODEZ.  STILL OTHERS
NOT APPLICABLE TO HIM BUT OPERATIVE AS TO GIBSON TOOK EFFECT ON JUNE 7,
1944.  FN17 

THE CHANGED REGULATIONS, FOLLOWING OUT THE COMMAND OF SEC. 5 OF
PUBLIC ACT 197, PROVIDED FOR A PREINDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION TO BE
GIVEN BEFORE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION, RATHER THAN
AFTERWARD.  SECTION 629.1 OF AMENDMENT NO. 200(9 F.R. 440-442),
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 10, 1944.  FN18  THIS WAS THE BASIC AMENDMENT.  IT
APPLIED TO ALL REGISTRANTS SUBJECT TO CALL FOR SERVICE, INCLUDING THOSE
CLASSIFIED IV-E.  MOREOVER, BY AMENDMENT NO. 210(9 F.R. 1416),
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2, 1944, SEC. 653.11 OF THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE
TO MEN SO CLASSIFIED WAS CHANGED TO ELIMINATE THE PREVIOUSLY EFFECTIVE
PARAGRAPH (C) PROVIDING FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION BY THE CAMP PHYSICIAN
ON INDICATION OF CHANGED CONDITION AND CONSEQUENT POSSIBLE REJECTION AT
THE CAMP.  INSTEAD THE AMENDED REGULATION STATED SIMPLY THAT (A), WHEN
THE "ASSIGNEE" HAD REPORTED TO THE CAMP, THE CAMP DIRECTOR SHOULD
"COMPLETE THE ORDER TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE (FORM
50)"; AND (B) PLACE, AS SPECIFIED, ON THE ASSIGNEE'S PAPERS, "A
STATEMENT THAT (THE) REGISTRANT IS ACCEPTED" FOR WORK AT THE DESIGNATED
CAMP, STATING ALSO THE DATE AND PLACE OF ACCEPTANCE; (C) THE LOCAL
BOARD, "UPON RECEIVING NOTICE THAT A REGISTRANT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR
WORK," SHOULD NOT "CHANGE HIS CLASSIFICATION BUT SHALL NOTE THE FACT OF
HIS ACCEPTANCE" ON FORM 100; AND (D), IF THE ASSIGNEE FAILED TO REPORT
WHEN REQUIRED, THE CAMP DIRECTOR WAS TO NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR OF
SELECTIVE SERVICE.  FN19 

THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE AND THE AMENDED REGULATION WAS TO PLACE THE
ORDER TO REPORT FOR SERVICE NEARER THE END OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS THAN IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY, SO FAR AS CONCERNED THE POWER OF
THE REGISTRANT TO TAKE ACTION WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN HIS REJECTION.  THE
ELIMINATION OF THE PROVISION PERMITTING MEDICAL EXAMINATION AT THE
CAMP, BY AMENDMENT NO. 210, REMOVED ANY CHANCE THE REGISTRANT FORMERLY
HAD TO SECURE REJECTION BY DEMANDING EXAMINATION THERE, AND LEFT TO BE
PERFORMED AT THE CAMP ONLY THE FORMAL ENTRIES OF "COMPLETING THE ORDER
TO REPORT" AND NOTING THE FACT, TIME AND PLACE OF "ACCEPTANCE" UPON THE
ASSIGNEE'S PAPERS, TOGETHER WITH THE DUTIES OF NOTIFYING THE LOCAL
BOARD OF ACCEPTANCE OR THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE OF FAILURE TO
REPORT. 

ALTHOUGH THE AMENDED REGULATIONS THUS SPEAK OF "COMPLETING THE ORDER
TO REPORT" AND OF PLACING ON HIS PAPERS "A STATEMENT THAT A REGISTRANT
IS ACCEPTED," WE AGREE THAT THESE WERE ONLY FORMAL MATTERS TO BE
PERFORMED BY CAMP OFFICIALS, AND LEFT NOTHING TO BE DONE BY THEM OR BY
THE APPLICANT AFTER REACHING THE CAMP WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN HIS BEING
REJECTED OR RELEASED FROM THE DUTY TO REMAIN AND PERFORM THE FURTHER
DUTIES IMPOSED ON HIM.  TO CONSTRUE THE REGULATIONS OTHERWISE WOULD BE
TO FORCE THE REGISTRANT NOT ONLY TO PERFORM ALL REQUIREMENTS AFFORDING
POSSIBILITY OF RELIEF BUT ALSO TO GO THROUGH WITH PURELY FORMAL STEPS
TO BE TAKEN BY CAMP OFFICIALS OFFERING NO SUCH POSSIBILITY.  EXACTING
THIS WOULD STRETCH THE REQUIREMENT OF EXHAUSTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS BEYOND ANY REASON SUPPORTING IT.  CF. LEVERS V. ANDERSON, 326
U.S. 219.  AND, AS APPEARS FROM GIBSON'S EXPERIENCE, BY GOING THROUGH
WITH THOSE FORMALITIES DODEZ WOULD HAVE FOUND HIMSELF CONFRONTED WITH
THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT HE HAD GONE TOO FAR. 

WE HOLD THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH DODEZ' VIEW AND THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSION, THAT HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THE
CAMP, UNDER THE REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE WHEN HIS ORDER TO REPORT BECAME
OPERATIVE, IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS; AND THAT HE
THEREFORE WAS NOT FORECLOSED BY THE FALBO DECISION FROM MAKING ANY
DEFENSE OPEN TO HIM IN HIS CRIMINAL TRIAL UNDER THE STATUTE OR THE
CONSTITUTION ASIDE FROM THE EFFECT OF THAT DECISION.  ESTEP V. UNITED
STATES, 327 U.S. 114; SMITH V. UNITED STATES, IBID.; CF. BILLINGS V.
TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542.    THIS VIEW REQUIRES REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT
IN NO. 86 AND REMANDING THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A FURTHER
TRIAL.  DODEZ INSISTS HOWEVER THAT WE SHOULD GO FURTHER AND DETERMINE
THE CASE FINALLY UPON THE MERITS.  HE URGES THAT THE EVIDENCE PROPERLY
TENDERED AND ADMISSIBLE UPON THE EXCLUDED DEFENSES, AS WELL AS THAT
ADDUCED N20, WOULD SUPPORT NO OTHER VERDICT THAN ONE OF ACQUITTAL AND
THAT THEREFORE THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE SUSTAINED HIS MOTION TO
DISMISS THE CAUSE.  FN21  ACCORDINGLY HE ASKS FOR A JUDGMENT HERE
DIRECTING THAT SUCH RELIEF BE GIVEN. 

IN THE ESTEP AND SMITH CASES, AFTER HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD
BEEN WRONGFULLY DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND BY ATTACKING THE VALIDITY
OF THEIR CLASSIFICATIONS, THIS COURT REVERSED THE CONVICTIONS AND
REMANDED THE CAUSES FOR NEW TRIALS, STATING:  "WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON
THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSES WHICH WERE TENDERED.  SINCE THE PETITIONERS
WERE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT THEIR LOCAL BOARDS EXCEEDED
THEIR JURISDICTION, A NEW TRIAL MUST BE HAD IN EACH CASE."  327 U.S. AT
125.  DODEZ' SITUATION IS IDENTICAL, IN THIS RESPECT, WITH THOSE OF
ESTEP AND SMITH.  FN22 ACCORDINGLY WE REMAND THE CAUSE, AS WAS DONE IN
THE SMITH AND ESTEP CASES, FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT,
WITHOUT EXPRESSING OPINION UPON THOSE FURTHER ISSUES. 

                                 III. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE CONCLUSION WE HAVE ACCEPTED FOR DODEZ
FORCES THE CONTRARY RESULT IN GIBSON'S CASE NO. 23.  THE ARGUMENT, AS
WE HAVE POINTED OUT, IS NOT THAT GIBSON FELL SHORT OF EXHAUSTING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, FOR HE CLEARLY HAD DONE THIS.  IT IS RATHER
THAT HE WENT BEYOND WHAT WAS REQUIRED FOR THAT PURPOSE, THEREBY BECAME
SUBJECT TO THE CAMP'S JURISDICTION, AND IN DOING THIS IRREVOCABLY
FORECLOSED HIMSELF FROM DEFENDING AGAINST THE CHARGE OF DESERTION ON
THE GROUND THAT HIS CLASSIFICATION WAS INVALID. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION IS FOUNDED UPON ANALOGY TO THE CASES WHICH
HOLD THAT ONE WHO HAS BEEN INDUCTED INTO THE ARMED FORCES, ALTHOUGH
WRONGFULLY, BECOMES SUBJECT TO MILITARY JURISDICTION, IS THEREAFTER
AMENABLE TO ITS PROCESSES N23, AND CAN SECURE HIS RELEASE FROM SERVICE
OR MILITARY CUSTODY ONLY BY RESORT TO HABEAS CORPUS.  FN24 

APPLYING THE ANALOGY, THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT WHEN GIBSON WENT TO
THE CAMP AND THERE WENT THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY FORMALITIES FOR
BECOMING A MEMBER, HE BECAME "INDUCTED" AS A CAMP MEMBER, JUST AS ONE
BECOMES A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES BY UNDERGOING THE INDUCTION
CEREMONY, CF. BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, SUPRA, EVEN THOUGH THE INDUCTION
IS IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS.  THEREAFTER, THE ARGUMENT CONTINUES,
GIBSON BECAME SUBJECT TO THE CAMP'S "JURISDICTION," JUST AS THE
WRONGFULLY INDUCTED SOLDIER WOULD BECOME SUBJECT TO MILITARY
JURISDICTION; AND, LIKE THE LATTER, CANNOT RAISE THE ILLEGALITY OF HIS
INDUCTION AS A DEFENSE TO A CHARGE OF VIOLATING ANY DUTY IMPOSED UPON
INDUCTED MEMBERS; BUT MUST SEEK HIS RELIEF, IF ANY, BY THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.  SINCE THE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS LAID UPON CAMP
MEMBERS A DUTY TO REMAIN AND PERFORM THE FURTHER DUTIES PRESCRIBED FOR
THEM,  FN25  GIBSON'S DEPARTURE WITHOUT LEAVE AMOUNTED TO DESERTION;
HIS DEFENSE OF WRONGFUL CLASSIFICATION IS NO MORE OPEN TO HIM THAN A
DEFENSE OF ILLEGAL INDUCTION WOULD BE OPEN TO A WRONGFULLY INDUCTED
SOLDIER VIOLATING A MILITARY ORDER; AND HIS REMEDY, IF ANY, IS TO APPLY
FOR RELEASE FROM THE CAMP THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS. 

THE ARGUMENT IS SUPPORTED BY EXTENSIVE REFERENCE TO THE REGULATIONS
IN FORCE WHEN GIBSON WAS ORDERED TO REPORT, INCLUDING THE CHANGES
AFFECTING DODEZ AND THE OTHERS WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE JUNE 7, 1944, BY
AMENDMENT NO. 236(9 F.R. 6207).  THE IMPORTANT CHANGES THIS AMENDMENT
MADE WERE TWO, NAMELY:  (1) TO REINTRODUCE INTO SEC. 653.11 THE
PROVISION APPLICABLE IN FALBO'S CASE BUT ELIMINATED AS TO DODEZ BY
AMENDMENT NO. 210, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2, 1944,  FN26  FOR MEDICAL
EXAMINATIONS TO BE GIVEN AT THE CAMP TO DETERMINE CHANGE IN CONDITION;
AND (2) TO ADD TO THE PREEXISTING REQUIREMENT FOR THE CAMP DIRECTOR'S
NOTING THE FACT OF ACCEPTANCE ON THE REGISTRANT'S PAPERS  FN27  THE
EXPLICIT NEW PROVISION THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE "IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
DETERMINATION WHICH IS MADE AS A RESULT OF THE EXAMINATION."  FN28 

THE GOVERNMENT ALSO EMPHASIZES TWO OTHER REGULATIONS.  ONE IS SEC.
652.12, REQUIRING THE LOCAL BOARD TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION FOR
REGISTRANTS REPORTING TO IT FOR TRANSPORTATION TO THE CAMP.  THE OTHER,
SEC. 652.13, PROVIDING THAT A CLASS IV-E REGISTRANT "AFTER HE HAS LEFT
THE LOCAL BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 652.12 FOR WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE UNDER CIVILIAN DIRECTION IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
CAMP TO WHICH HE IS ASSIGNED."  FN29 

THE SHORT EFFECT OF SEC. 653.11, AS ALTERED AT THE TIME OF GIBSON'S
ORDER TO REPORT, WAS TO RETAIN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FORMAL ENTRIES OF
"ACCEPTANCE" AND GIVING NOTICE, AT THE CAMP, WHICH APPLIED TO DODEZ; TO
REINTRODUCE THE PROVISION FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION THERE; BUT AT THE
SAME TIME TO NULLIFY THE POSSIBILITY THIS PRESENTED IN FALBO'S CASE FOR
GIVING RELIEF, BY PROVIDING THAT THE CAMP DIRECTOR SHOULD NOTE THE FACT
OF ACCEPTANCE "IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DETERMINATION WHICH IS MADE AS THE
RESULT OF" THIS EXAMINATION. 

TAKING ACCOUNT OF REVISED SEC. 653.11 AS PRECLUDING ANY POSSIBILITY
FOR SECURING ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF AT THE CAMP, THE GOVERNMENT REGARDS
SEC. 652.13 AS MARKING THE PRECISE AND CRUCIAL LINE FOR CROSSING FROM
THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION INTO THAT OF THE CAMP, NAMELY, AT THE POINT
WHERE THE REGISTRANT BEGINS HIS JOURNEY TO THE CAMP.  TO TAKE THIS
STEP, IT SAYS, IS EQUIVALENT TO THE OATH IN THE INDUCTION CEREMONY
PRESCRIBED FOR MEN ENTERING THE ARMED FORCES, CF. BILLINGS V.
TRUESDELL, SUPRA; AND PRODUCES THE SAME CONSEQUENCES FOR FORECLOSING
THE DEFENSE OF ILLEGAL CLASSIFICATION, REGARDLESS OF INTENTION TO
SUBMIT TO THE CAMP'S JURISDICTION, INDEED IN SPITE OF GIBSON'S
UNWAVERING MANIFESTATION OF INTENTION NOT TO SUBMIT.  FN30 

MUCH OF THE ARGUMENT WAS DEVOTED TO WHETHER, ON THE BASIS OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S ANALOGY, SEC. 652.13 COULD BE TAKEN TO FIX THE END OF THE
"INTERVAL OF CHOICE," CF. BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, SUPRA, IN VIEW OF THE
CONSTANTLY CHANGING CHARACTER OF THE REGULATIONS, THE ABSENCE OF ANY
PRESCRIBED INDUCTION CEREMONY SUCH AS THE BILLINGS CASE INVOLVED, AND
THE CONSEQUENT DIFFICULTY CONFRONTING ONE SEEKING TO COMPLY WITH THE
FALBO DECISION IN ASCERTAINING THE EXACT LOCATION OF SUCH A LINE.  FN31
WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE CONFLICTING CONTENTIONS IN
THIS RESPECT, OR THEREFORE TO SCRUTINIZE THE REGULATIONS WITH A VIEW TO
LOCATING SUCH A POINT.  MORE FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE
CONTROLLING. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT IS FOUNDED ENTIRELY UPON
ANALOGY, BECAUSE NO CASE HAS RULED THAT ONE WHO BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE
"JURISDICTION" OF A WORK CAMP UNDER THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCEDURE
THEREBY FORFEITS HIS RIGHT TO DEFEND AGAINST A CHARGE OF DESERTION OR
OTHER BREACH OF DUTY, ON THE GROUND THAT HIS CLASSIFICATION WAS
INVALID.  NOR HAS IT BEEN HELD THAT HIS ONLY RECOURSE FOR RELEASE FROM
THE CAMP IS BY WAY OF HABEAS CORPUS.  FURTHERMORE, WE THINK THERE ARE
COMPELLING REASONS WHY THE ANALOGY DOES NOT HOLD TRUE. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE ARE OBVIOUS AND IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE TWO SITUATIONS WHICH IT IS SOUGHT TO CONNECT BY THE CLAIMED
RESEMBLANCE.  NOT THE LEAST IS THAT IN THE ONE INSTANCE THE PERSON
CONCERNED CROSSES THE VAST GULF BETWEEN CIVIL AND MILITARY
JURISDICTION, WITH ALL THE ATTENDANT CONSEQUENCES FOR CHANGE IN STATUS
AND RIGHTS, WHEREAS IN THE OTHER NO SUCH CHASM IS TRAVERSED.  THE
ALLEGED TRANSFER OF "JURISDICTION" IS ONLY FROM ONE CIVILIAN AGENCY TO
ANOTHER, BOTH BRANCHES OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, AND THERE IS
NONE AT ALL FROM THE AUTHORITY OF THE CIVILIAN COURTS AS AGENCIES FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE LAW.  THERE IS IN FACT NO
CHANGE IN "JURISDICTION" WHATSOEVER, EXCEPT IN THE SENSE THAT FROM THE
TIME HE BECOMES A CAMP MEMBER THE REGISTRANT'S DUTIES ARE DIFFERENT AND
HIS ORDERS COME THROUGH DIFFERENT CHANNELS OF THE SAME AGENCY. 

UNLIKE THE MAN "ACTUALLY INDUCTED," THE PERSON CLASSIFIED IV-E
REMAINS A CIVILIAN; HIS DUTIES ARE NOT MILITARY IN CHARACTER; HE IS NOT
SUBJECT TO MILITARY DISCIPLINE OR AUTHORITY; AND FOR VIOLATION OF
DUTIES OR ORDERS HE CANNOT BE TRIED BY COURT MARTIAL OR MILITARY
TRIBUNAL.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT EXPRESSLY
PROVIDES THE SAME CIVIL PENALTIES AND MODE OF TRIAL FOR VIOLATING
DUTIES ARISING WHEN HE ENTERS THE CAMP AS FOR THOSE ARISING BEFORE THAT
TIME.  FN32 

THERE IS THEREFORE NO SUCH PROFOUND CHANGE IN RIGHTS, DUTIES AND
STATUS AS OCCURS WHEN ONE CROSSES THE LINE BETWEEN CIVIL AND MILITARY
JURISDICTION BY BEING "ACTUALLY INDUCTED" UNDER THE RULE OF BILLINGS V.
TRUESDELL, SUPRA.  IT WAS THIS CHANGE AND THE CONSEQUENCES IT ENTAILED,
TOGETHER WITH THE STATUTE'S COMMAND THAT NO ONE SHOULD BE TRIED BY
MILITARY OR NAVAL COURT MARTIAL IN ANY CASE ARISING UNDER THE ACT UNTIL
HE HAD BEEN ACTUALLY INDUCTED,  FN33  WHICH WE THERE HELD TO REQUIRE
PLACING THE LINE PRECISELY, NOT ONLY FOR EXHAUSTING ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES UNDER THE FALBO RULE, BUT ALSO FOR MARKING THE POINT OF ACTUAL
INDUCTION AT WHICH THE REGISTRANT'S RIGHT ENDS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN GOING
FORWARD INTO THE SERVICE AND INCURRING THE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR BREACH
OF THAT DUTY. 

THE PERSON CLASSIFIED AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR IS NEVER CONFRONTED
WITH THAT CHOICE.  HE IS RELIEVED BY THE ACT FROM ANY DUTY TO PERFORM
MILITARY SERVICE.  HE IS NOT THREATENED WITH INDUCTION.  HE IS IN FACT
FARTHER REMOVED FROM MILITARY STATUS OR JURISDICTION AFTER HE IS
FINALLY ASSIGNED TO CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, AND
FOR THIS REASON IS REJECTED FOR MILITARY SERVICE, THAN HE WAS BEFORE
THAT TIME.  HIS CHOICE IS NOT BETWEEN GOING INTO SERVICE AND TAKING THE
CIVIL PENALTY LAID FOR VIOLATING THAT DUTY.  IT IS BETWEEN PERFORMING
CIVILIAN SERVICE UNDER CIVILIAN AUTHORITY AND INCURRING THE CIVIL
PENALTY FOR REFUSING TO DO SO. 

MOREOVER, IN THE CASE OF ONE ENTERING THE ARMED FORCES, THE LOSS OF
CIVIL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THOSE OF RECOURSE TO THE CIVIL COURTS OTHER
THAN BY WAY OF HABEAS CORPUS,  FN34  RESULTS ALTOGETHER BY VIRTUE OF
THE CHANGE FROM CIVILIAN TO MILITARY STATUS.  THE REASONS UNDERLYING
THOSE RULINGS DO NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO DOES NOT UNDERGO THAT
CHANGE, REMAINS AT ALL TIMES A CIVILIAN, SUBJECT ONLY TO CIVILIAN
DUTIES AND TO CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING THEM.  THERE IS NOT THE
SAME NECESSITY OR COMPULSION IN SUCH A CASE FOR BRINGING ABOUT
FORFEITURE OF CIVILIAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING REMEDIES FOR QUESTIONING THE
VALIDITY OF THE ORDER THE REGISTRANT IS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING.  THAT
COMPULSION ARISES FROM THE NECESSITY FOR PREVENTING INTERRUPTION OF
MILITARY PROCESSES BY INTRUSION OF THE CIVIL COURTS BEYOND THE
ESSENTIAL MINIMUM OF KEEPING OPEN THE HABEAS CORPUS CHANNEL TO SHOW
THAT THE MILITARY AUTHORITY HAS EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN DEALING
WITH THE INDIVIDUAL.  FN35  IT IS ON THIS FOUNDATION THAT THE
FORFEITURE OF OTHER CIVIL REMEDIES IS HELD TO TAKE PLACE. 

BUT THERE IS NO SUCH NECESSITY, OR THEREFORE ANY SUCH FOUNDATION FOR
FORFEITURE, IN THE CASE OF ONE CLASSIFIED AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
AND ASSIGNED FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.  SERIOUS AS ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS REFUSAL TO PERFORM THAT WORK, DEALING WITH SUCH
BREACHES OF DUTY BY THE CIVIL COURTS DOES NOT INVOLVE, IN THE REMOTEST
SENSE, INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE BY CIVILIAN AUTHORITY WITH MILITARY
PROCESSES OR JURISDICTION.  ENTIRELY WANTING THEREFORE IS ANY SUCH
FOUNDATION FOR FORFEITURE OF CIVIL RIGHTS AS EXISTS IN THE CASE OF ONE
INDUCTED INTO THE ARMED SERVICES.  WITHOUT SUCH A FOUNDATION THE
ANALOGY DISSOLVES AND WITH IT THE ASSERTED FORFEITURE. 

THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE CLEAR WHEN IT IS RECALLED THAT ONE BASIS FOR
THE FORFEITURE, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS MAINTAINED, IS THAT HABEAS
CORPUS IS AVAILABLE FOR THE PERSON CLASSIFIED IV-E AND WRONGFULLY
DENIED CLASSIFICATION AND EXEMPTION AS A MINISTER OF RELIGION.  THIS
REMEDY, IT WAS ASSERTED ORIGINALLY, IS ADEQUATE AND EXCLUSIVE, AND
THEREFORE SHOULD BE HELD TO FORECLOSE RESORT TO OTHER FORMS OF RELIEF. 

BUT HERE AGAIN THE ASSERTED ANALOGY FAILS.  IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED THAT THE REMEDY BY WAY OF HABEAS CORPUS IS OPEN TO THE
WRONGFULLY INDUCTED MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES TO SECURE HIS RELEASE. 
FN36  BUT AT THE ARGUMENT IT WAS CONCEDED THAT NEITHER THE CAMP
DIRECTOR NOR OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM ARE
AUTHORIZED TO USE FORCE TO ARREST OR RESTRAIN ONE WHO REFUSES TO REMAIN
IN THE CAMP.  AND THIS, IT WAS ALSO ADMITTED, WOULD MAKE DOUBTFUL THE
AVAILABILITY OF RELIEF BY WAY OF HABEAS CORPUS.  FN37  INDEED IT MIGHT
WELL BE URGED THAT THE REMEDY IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ONE CHARGED WITH
VIOLATION OF ANY DUTY, WHETHER FAILURE TO REPORT TO THE CAMP, TO REMAIN
THERE, OR TO PERFORM OTHER OBLIGATIONS, SINCE THE ONLY COMPULSION LAID
UPON SUCH A PERSON BY THE ACT OR OTHERWISE IS THE FORCE OF THE LEGAL
COMMAND PLUS THE PROVISION FOR CRIMINAL PENALTY IN CASE OF
DISOBEDIENCE. 

WE NEED NOT DECIDE THIS QUESTION, HOWEVER, AND WE EXPRESS NO OPINION
UPON IT.  FOR IT IS ENOUGH TO DESTROY THE ANALOGY THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS
TO DRAW THAT THE REMEDY BY HABEAS CORPUS IS AN UNCERTAIN ONE.  SHOULD
IT BE FOUND UNAVAILABLE AND AT THE SAME TIME WE SHOULD RULE THAT
PETITIONER'S DEFENSE COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, HE
WOULD BE LEFT ENTIRELY WITHOUT REMEDY, A RESULT CONSISTENT NEITHER WITH
OUR DECISION IN THE CASES OF ESTEP AND SMITH, SUPRA, NOR WITH THE
STATUTE.  NO MORE, WE THINK, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE ACT OR THOSE
RULINGS TO FORECLOSE THE RIGHT OF DEFENSE UPON THE BASIS OF UNCERTAINTY
WHETHER THE HABEAS CORPUS REMEDY MIGHT BE HAD.    FINALLY, CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED EXPRESSLY FOR ENFORCING THE DUTY TO REPORT TO THE CAMP FOR
WORK AND DUTIES ARISING THEREAFTER THROUGH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND
PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 11.  IN ITS VIEW THESE WERE ADEQUATE FOR
THE PURPOSE.  NOTHING IN THE SECTION OR THE STATUTE, IN THE LIGHT OF
OUR PRIOR DECISIONS, CAN BE TAKEN TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
PERSONS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING SUCH DUTIES TO BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR
RIGHTS OF DEFENSE ON THE GROUND OF INVALID CLASSIFICATION, EITHER
ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HABEAS CORPUS PROVE UNAVAILABLE OR CONTINGENTLY
DEPENDING UPON HOW THE DOUBT CONCERNING THAT REMEDY'S AVAILABILITY
MIGHT BE RESOLVED.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SOME
REMEDY TO BE AVAILABLE.  WE KNOW OF NO WAY BY WHICH THIS CAN BE
ASSURED, IN SUCH A CASE AS GIBSON'S, OTHERWISE THAN BY PERMITTING THE
DEFENSE TO BE RAISED IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL. 

THE ANALOGY FAILING, FOR BOTH OF THE REASONS WE HAVE STATED, BY WHICH
IT IS SOUGHT TO CONFINE THE REMEDY TO HABEAS CORPUS, WE THINK THE
DEFENSE HAS BEEN LEFT OPEN FOR PRESENTATION IN THIS CASE AND SHOULD
HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.  ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114; SMITH V.
UNITED STATES, IBID.  FN38 

GIBSON, LIKE DODEZ, AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS, INSISTS THAT WE SHOULD
DISPOSE OF THE CASE UPON THE MERITS, BY EXAMINING AND SUSTAINING HIS
DEFENSE.  THE SAME COURSE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED FOR GIBSON IN THIS RESPECT
AS WAS DIRECTED FOR DODEZ. 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING WHETHER A DIFFERENT RESULT MIGHT
FOLLOW FOR ONE IN GIBSON'S POSITION IF HE SHOULD REMAIN AT THE CAMP FOR
A SUBSTANTIALLY LONGER PERIOD AND THEN DEPART WITHOUT LEAVE.  FN39 

THE QUESTION RAISED CONCERNING VENUE HAS BEEN DETERMINED ADVERSELY TO
GIBSON'S CONTENTION BY OUR DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, 328
U.S. 699. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURTS FROM WHICH THEY CAME, FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549; BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321
U.S. 542; ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114; SMITH V. UNITED STATES,
IBID. 

FN2  SECTION 11 PROVIDES, IN PART:  "ANY PERSON CHARGED AS HEREIN
PROVIDED WITH THE DUTY OF CARRYING OUT ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT, OR THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE OR DIRECTIONS GIVEN THEREUNDER,
WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM SUCH DUTY,  ...  SHALL,
UPON CONVICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING
JURISDICTION THEREOF, BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN
FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT  ..." 

CLASSIFIED IV-E TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE; AND BY SEC. 653.12 ASSIGNEES ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THE
CAMP TO WHICH THEY ARE ASSIGNED AND TO REMAIN THEREIN UNTIL RELEASED OR
TRANSFERRED ELSEWHERE BY PROPER AUTHORITY, EXCEPT WHEN ON AUTHORIZED
MISSIONS OR LEAVE. 

FN3  149 F.2D 751(C.C.A. 8); 154 F.2D 637(C.C.A. 6). 

FN4  APPARENTLY IN BOTH CASES THE IMPORTANT CHANGES IN THE APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS MADE AFTER THE FALBO DECISION WERE NOT CALLED TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE TRIAL COURTS OR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS. 

FN5  THE EXEMPTION IS PROVIDED BY SEC. 5(D) OF THE ACT, 54 STAT. 885,
888, AS FOLLOWS:  "REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF RELIGION, AND
STUDENTS WHO ARE PREPARING FOR THE MINISTRY IN THEOLOGICAL OR DIVINITY
SCHOOLS RECOGNIZED AS SUCH FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TRAINING AND SERVICE (BUT
NOT FROM REGISTRATION) UNDER THIS ACT." 

FN6  PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(G) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT PERSONS SO
CLASSIFIED SHALL BE ASSIGNED TO NONCOMBATANT SERVICE OR, IF
CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO THIS, THEN TO "WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE
UNDER CIVILIAN DIRECTION." 

FN7  SEE TEXT PART II INFRA AT NOTE 19; ALSO NOTE 13. 

FN8  AT THAT TIME SEC. 653.11(C) OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS
PROVIDED:  "IF THE ASSIGNEE INDICATES THAT HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION HAS
CHANGED SINCE HIS FINAL-TYPE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION FOR REGISTRANTS IN
CLASS IV-E, THE CAMP PHYSICIAN SHALL EXAMINE HIM WITH REFERENCE
THERETO.  IF THE ASSIGNEE IS NOT ACCEPTED FOR WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE, THE CAMP DIRECTOR WILL INDICATE THE REASON THEREFOR, AND
THE ASSIGNEE, PENDING INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE, WILL BE RETAINED IN THE CAMP OR HOSPITALIZED WHERE
NECESSARY."  CF. NOTE 10. 

THIS PROVISION, EFFECTIVE BY AMENDMENT NO. 40 ON MARCH 16, 1942(7
F.R. 2093), WAS ELIMINATED ENTIRELY BY AMENDMENT NO. 210(9 F.R. 1416),
EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 2, 1944, A LITTLE MORE THAN TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO THE
DATE SPECIFIED FOR DODEZ TO REPORT FOR WORK, NAMELY, APRIL 21, 1944;
BUT WAS RESTORED IN MODIFIED FORM ON JUNE 7, 1944, BY AMENDMENT NO.
236(9 F.R. 6207), NEARLY TWO MONTHS BEFORE GIBSON WAS ORDERED TO REPORT
ON AUGUST 21 OF THAT YEAR. 

FN9  A CONFESSION OF ERROR ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES "DOES NOT
RELIEVE THIS COURT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  THE
CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT REVERSIBLE
ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED IS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT, BUT OUR JUDICIAL
OBLIGATIONS COMPEL US TO EXAMINE INDEPENDENTLY THE ERRORS CONFESSED." 
YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 257, 258-259. 

FN10  THE CONTENTION IS THAT SEC. 653.11(C) OF THE REGULATIONS AS IT
THEN STOOD, SEE NOTE 8, PROVIDED FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AT THE CAMP
AND POSSIBLE REJECTION THERE ONLY IF THE REGISTRANT ON REPORTING
INDICATED A CHANGE IN HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION AND THAT THIS WAS
EFFECTIVE ONLY AS TO PERSONS SUSTAINING SUCH A CHANGE, NOT TO OTHERS,
OF WHOM FALBO WAS ONE.  THE ARGUMENT ASSUMES THAT THE REGISTRANT'S
ACTUAL CONDITION, NOT THE POSSIBILITY THAT A CHANGE MIGHT OCCUR AND BE
FOUND IN ANY CASE, WAS CONTROLLING NOT ONLY TO DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF
THE EXAMINATION, BUT TO FORECLOSE THE POSSIBILITY THAT CHANGE MIGHT BE
"INDICATED" AND, IN THAT EVENT, FINAL DETERMINATION OF ACCEPTABILITY
WOULD BE MADE AFTER THE EXAMINATION. 

FN11  THE REGULATION CLEARLY CONTEMPLATED THAT, UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH
INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE, THE REGISTRANT
MIGHT BE REJECTED OR RELEASED. 

FN12  THE DECISION WAS RENDERED JANUARY 3, 1944.  THE BASIC CHANGES
IN THE REGULATIONS WERE MADE JANUARY 10, 1944.  SEE TEXT INFRA AT NOTES
13-17. 

FN13  AFTER A REGISTRANT HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED IV-E HE IS GIVEN A
PREINDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.  REG. SECS. 629.1, 629.2.  IF FOUND
ACCEPTABLE FOR SERVICE HE IS ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS.  REG.
SEC. 629.32.  THEREAFTER THE LOCAL BOARD NOTIFIES THE DIRECTOR OF
SELECTIVE SERVICE THAT THE REGISTRANT IS AVAILABLE FOR ASSIGNMENT TO
WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, REG. SEC. 652.1, AND SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT IS
SENT TO THE LOCAL BOARD.  UPON RECEIPT THEREOF, THE LOCAL BOARD ISSUES
TO THE REGISTRANT AN ORDER TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE,
COMMANDING HIM TO REPORT AT A DESIGNATED TIME AND PLACE, REG. SEC.
652.11.  WHEN THE REGISTRANT REPORTS, TRANSPORTATION TO A CAMP FOR WORK
OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE IS FURNISHED, REG. SEC. 652.12.  THEREAFTER HE
"IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CAMP TO WHICH HE IS ASSIGNED."  THE
LOCAL BOARD THEN CAN TAKE NO FURTHER STEPS WITH REGARD TO SUCH
REGISTRANT WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE,
BUT SHOULD REPORT ANY INFORMATION TO THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE
WHICH MIGHT AFFECT THE REGISTRANT'S STATUS, REG. SEC. 652.13. 

UPON ARRIVAL AT THE CAMP THE REGISTRANT (NOW CALLED ASSIGNEE IN THE
REGULATIONS) IS GIVEN A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, ALTHOUGH AT THE TIME THE
CASE OF DODEZ AROSE SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR SUCH AN EXAMINATION WAS NOT
MADE IN THE REGULATIONS.  SEE NOTE 8.  IT WAS MERELY PROVIDED THAT "THE
CAMP DIRECTOR SHALL, ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 4 OF THE ORIGINAL AND FIRST
COPY OF THE REPORT OF PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND INDUCTION (FORM 221),
PLACE A STATEMENT THAT A REGISTRANT IS ACCEPTED FOR WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE AT THE CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE CAMP TO WHICH THE REGISTRANT
HAS BEEN ASSIGNED."  REG. SEC. 653.11(B).  HOWEVER, THIS REGULATION
SUBSEQUENTLY WAS AMENDED IN THE FORM APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF GIBSON. 
SEE NOTE 28 INFRA. 

FN14  THE STATUTE, IN SO FAR AS IS NOW MATERIAL, PROVIDED:  "ANY
REGISTRANT WITHIN THE CATEGORIES HEREIN DEFINED WHEN IT APPEARS THAT
HIS INDUCTION WILL SHORTLY OCCUR SHALL, UPON REQUEST, BE ORDERED BY HIS
LOCAL BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEDULES AUTHORIZED BY THE SECRETARY OF
WAR, THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, AND THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE,
TO ANY REGULARLY ESTABLISHED INDUCTION STATION FOR A PREINDUCTION
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, SUBJECT TO REEXAMINATIONS. 

"THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF SUCH INDUCTION STATION WHERE SUCH PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION IS CONDUCTED UNDER THIS PROVISION SHALL ISSUE TO THE
REGISTRANT A CERTIFICATE SHOWING HIS PHYSICAL FITNESS OR LACK THEREOF,
AND THIS EXAMINATION SHALL BE ACCEPTED BY THE LOCAL BOARD, SUBJECT TO
PERIODIC REEXAMINATION.  THOSE REGISTRANTS WHO ARE CLASSIFIED AS I-A AT
THE TIME OF SUCH PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND WHO ARE FOUND PHYSICALLY
QUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE AS A RESULT THEREOF, SHALL REMAIN SO
CLASSIFIED AND REPORT FOR INDUCTION IN REGULAR ORDER." 

FN15  COMPARE THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321
U.S. 542. 

FN16  SEE NOTES 18, 19, INFRA, AND TEXT FOR THE PRINCIPAL CHANGES. 

FN17  THESE ARE NOTED SPECIFICALLY INFRA AT NOTE 28 AND TEXT. 

FN18  PERTINENTLY THE BASIC REGULATION PROVIDED:  "EVERY REGISTRANT,
BEFORE HE IS ORDERED TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION, SHALL BE GIVEN A PRE
INDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART UNLESS
(1) HE SIGNS A REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE INDUCTION (FORM 219) OR (2) HE IS
A DELINQUENT...." 

FN19  BECAUSE SEC. 653.11 AS CHANGED BY AMENDMENT NO. 210 IS CRUCIAL
IN DODEZ' CASE, THE EXACT LANGUAGE IS QUOTED:  "(A) WHEN THE ASSIGNEE
HAS REPORTED TO CAMP, THE CAMP DIRECTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE ORDER TO
REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE (FORM 50).  FOUR COPIES OF THE
COMPLETED ORDER TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE (FORM 50)
SHALL BE SENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE; ONE COPY WILL BE
RETAINED BY THE CAMP DIRECTOR.  THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE WILL
FORWARD TWO COPIES OF THE ORDER TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE (FORM 50) TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE, WHO WILL RETAIN ONE COPY FOR HIS FILES AND MAIL THE OTHER COPY
TO THE LOCAL BOARD FOR FILING IN THE REGISTRANT'S COVER SHEET (FORM
53). 

"(B)  THE CAMP DIRECTOR SHALL, ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 4 OF THE
ORIGINAL AND FIRST COPY OF THE REPORT OF PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND
INDUCTION (FORM 221), PLACE A STATEMENT THAT A REGISTRANT IS ACCEPTED
FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE AT THE CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE CAMP TO
WHICH THE REGISTRANT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED.  THE STATEMENT SHALL SPECIFY
THE DATE AND PLACE OF SUCH ACCEPTANCE AND SHALL BE SIGNED BY THE CAMP
DIRECTOR WHO SHALL RETAIN THE FIRST COPY OF THE REPORT OF PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION AND INDUCTION (FORM 221) AND SHALL FORWARD THE ORIGINAL TO
THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE. 

"(C)  UPON RECEIVING NOTICE THAT A REGISTRANT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED FOR
WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, THE LOCAL BOARD SHALL NOT CHANGE HIS
CLASSIFICATION BUT SHALL NOTE THE FACT OF HIS ACCEPTANCE FOR SUCH WORK
IN THE CLASSIFICATION RECORD (FORM 100). 

"(D)  IN THE EVENT AN ASSIGNEE DOES NOT REPORT TO THE CAMP AT THE
TIME PRESCRIBED IN HIS ORDER TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE
(FORM 50) OR PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARD, THE CAMP
DIRECTOR WILL REPORT SUCH FACT TO THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE." 

FN20  THE TRIAL COURT PERMITTED DODEZ TO INTRODUCE DE NOVO EVIDENCE
INTENDED TO SHOW THAT AS OF THE TIME OF THE TRIAL HE WAS A MINISTER. 
BUT THE COURT, OVER OBJECTION, DECLINED TO ALLOW THIS EVIDENCE TO GO TO
THE JURY. 

FN21  THE QUESTION WAS ALSO RAISED BY MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT,
WHICH WAS OVERRULED. 

FN22  IN EACH CASE THE TENDERED DEFENSES WERE SUBSTANTIALLY TWO,
NAMELY, (1) THAT A FULL AND FAIR HEARING HAD BEEN DENIED IN THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCEEDINGS, PARTICULARLY BEFORE THE LOCAL BOARD; AND
(2) THAT THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE WOULD SUSTAIN NO OTHER CONCLUSION THAN
THAT THE REGISTRANT WAS A MINISTER OF RELIGION.  IN EACH CASE ALSO
EVIDENCE WAS TENDERED AND EXCLUDED IN THE TRIAL COURT TO SUSTAIN THE
FIRST OF THESE DEFENSES.  APPROPRIATE DETERMINATION OF THAT DEFENSE
WOULD REQUIRE NOT ONLY RECEPTION AND CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY
TENDERED UPON THE ISSUE, BUT ALSO IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF DETERMINATION
OF ISSUES OF FACT, INCLUDING CREDIBILITY AND INFERENTIAL CONCLUSIONS,
PROPERLY TO BE MADE IN THE TRIAL COURT RATHER THAN BY AN APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL.  SINCE ISSUES OF CREDIBILITY ALSO MAY BE INVOLVED IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WOULD SUPPORT NO OTHER CONCLUSION THAN
THAT THE REGISTRANT WAS A MINISTER, THAT QUESTION TOO IS MORE
APPROPRIATELY DETERMINABLE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN THE TRIAL COURT. 
MOREOVER, IT IS NOT CERTAIN THAT ANOTHER TRIAL WILL BE HAD OR THAT THE
IDENTICAL ISSUES WILL BE PRESENTED IF ONE IS HELD. 

FN23  SEE, E.G., IN RE MORRISSEY, 137 U.S. 157; IN RE MILLER, 114 F.
838; UNITED STATES V. REAVES, 126 F. 127; IN RE CARVER, 142 F. 623; IN
RE SCOTT, 144 F. 79; MOORE V. UNITED STATES, 159 F. 701; DILLINGHAM V.
BOOKER, 163 F. 696; UNITED STATES EX REL. LAIKUND V. WILLIFORD, 220 F.
291; EX PARTE ROMANO, 251 F. 762; EX PARTE TINKOFF, 254 F. 912; EX
PARTE KEREKES, 274 F. 870.  BUT CF. VER MEHREN V. SIRMYER, 36 F.2D 876;
EX PARTE BECK, 245 F. 967.  CF. KURTZ V. MOFFITT, 115 U.S. 487.    FN24
SEE IN RE GRIMLEY, 137 U.S. 147; STINGLE'S CASE, FED. CAS. NO. 13,458;
UNITED STATES EX REL. TURNER V. WRIGHT, FED. CAS. NO. 16,778.  SEE ALSO
CASES CITED IN NOTE 23. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN26  SEE TEXT AT NOTES 18, 19.  UNDER SEC. 653.11, AS REINTRODUCED,
THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AT THE CAMP WAS GIVEN TO ALL "ASSIGNEES,"
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY INDICATED A CHANGE IN PHYSICAL CONDITION. 
CF. NOTE 8.    FN27  CF. NOTE 19, SEC. 653.11(B). 

FN28  THE ALTERATIONS MADE IN SEC. 653.11 BY AMENDMENT NO. 236 WILL
APPEAR FROM COMPARING THE TEXT OF THE SECTION PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT,
SEE NOTE 19, WITH THE FOLLOWING QUOTED PORTIONS, FOLLOWING THE
AMENDMENT: 

"(B)  AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE ASSIGNEE HAS REPORTED TO CAMP,
THE CAMP PHYSICIAN SHALL GIVE HIM A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND SHALL
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY CHANGE IN THE ASSIGNEE'S PHYSICAL
OR MENTAL CONDITION SINCE HIS PREINDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.  IF A
CAMP PHYSICIAN IS NOT AVAILABLE, THE CAMP DIRECTOR, TO THE EXTENT THAT
HE IS CAPABLE OF DOING SO, SHALL, BY OBSERVING AND QUESTIONING THE
ASSIGNEE, MAKE SUCH DETERMINATION.  THE CAMP PHYSICIAN OR THE CAMP
DIRECTOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL, ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 4 OF THE
ORIGINAL AND FIRST COPY OF THE REPORT OF PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND
INDUCTION (FORM 221), MAKE A RECORD OF SUCH DETERMINATION. 

"(C)  IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DETERMINATION WHICH IS MADE AS A RESULT OF
THE EXAMINATION OF AN ASSIGNEE MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH
(B) OF THIS SECTION, THE CAMP DIRECTOR SHALL, ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 4
OF THE ORIGINAL AND FIRST COPY OF THE REPORT OF PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
AND INDUCTION (FORM 221), PLACE A STATEMENT THAT A REGISTRANT IS
ACCEPTED FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE AT THE CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE
CAMP TO WHICH THE REGISTRANT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED.  THE STATEMENT SHALL
SPECIFY THE DATE AND PLACE OF SUCH ACCEPTANCE AND SHALL BE SIGNED BY
THE CAMP DIRECTOR WHO SHALL RETAIN THE FIRST COPY OF THE REPORT OF
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION AND INDUCTION (FORM 221) AND SHALL FORWARD THE
ORIGINAL TO THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE." 

THE REINTRODUCED PROVISION OF SEC. 653.11 BECAME SUBSECTION (B) OF
THE AMENDED SECTION AND THE FORMER SUBSECTION (B) BECAME SUBSECTION (C)
WITH THE ADDED INITIAL PROVISION, "IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DETERMINATION
...," ETC. 

FN29  THE REGULATION, SEC. 652.13, READS AS FOLLOWS:  "A REGISTRANT
IN CLASS IV-E WHO HAS REPORTED FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE PURSUANT
TO THIS PART SHALL BE RETAINED IN CLASS IV-E BY THE LOCAL BOARD.  SUCH
REGISTRANT AFTER HE HAS LEFT THE LOCAL BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.
652.12 FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE UNDER CIVILIAN DIRECTION IS
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CAMP TO WHICH HE IS ASSIGNED.  THE LOCAL
BOARD SHALL TAKE NO FURTHER STEPS WITH REGARD TO SUCH REGISTRANT
WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE, BUT SHOULD
REPORT ANY INFORMATION TO THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE WHICH MIGHT
AFFECT THE REGISTRANT'S STATUS."  7 F.R. 112. 

FEBRUARY 1, 1942, AND THEREFORE WAS IN EFFECT AS TO FALBO AS WELL AS TO
ESTEP, SMITH, DODEZ AND GIBSON. 

FN30  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT URGE THAT GIBSON WAIVED HIS RIGHTS BY
SUBMITTING TO "INDUCTION," IN THE SENSE OF VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERING
THEM; IT IS RATHER THAT HE ACTED AT HIS PERIL IN TAKING STEPS BEYOND
THOSE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIAL PROCESS, EVEN
THOUGH HE MISTAKENLY THOUGHT THEM NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE
ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY ONE OF FORFEITURE RATHER THAN OF WAIVER.  THE
FACTS WOULD SUSTAIN NO IMPLICATION OF INTENTION TO SUBMIT TO
"INDUCTION" OR TO SURRENDER ANY RIGHTS. 

FN31  IT IS GIBSON'S POSITION THAT HAD HE NOT GONE TO THE CIVILIAN
PUBLIC SERVICE CAMP AND SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
GIVEN BY THE CAMP PHYSICIAN, SEE NOTE 29, THE COURTS MIGHT SUBSEQUENTLY
HAVE HELD THAT IN A PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 11 HE WAS FORECLOSED BY THE
FALBO DOCTRINE FROM MAKING THE DEFENSE THAT HIS CLASSIFICATION WAS
ILLEGAL.  HE SAYS FURTHER THAT THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO FALBO AND
THOSE APPLICABLE TO HIM WERE SO SIMILAR THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON
READING THEM COULD HAVE DETERMINED THAT UNDER THE LATTER IT WAS NOT
NECESSARY TO UNDERGO THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION GIVEN AT THE CAMP IN
ORDER TO COMPLETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  INDEED, HE ASSERTS THAT
IN SOME WAYS THE LATER REGULATIONS WERE MORE COMPELLING THAN THOSE
APPLICABLE TO FALBO, SINCE AT THE TIME FALBO WAS ORDERED TO REPORT THE
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WAS REQUIRED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO INDICATED A CHANGE
IN THEIR PHYSICAL CONDITION, WHEREAS WHEN HE WAS ORDERED TO REPORT ALL
ASSIGNEES WERE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.  CF. NOTES
8, 26. 

FN32  SEE SEC. 11, NOTE 2 SUPRA. 

FN33  SECTION 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT READS IN
PART:  "NO PERSON SHALL BE TRIED BY ANY MILITARY OR NAVAL COURT MARTIAL
IN ANY CASE ARISING UNDER THIS ACT UNLESS SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN ACTUALLY
INDUCTED FOR THE TRAINING AND SERVICE PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS ACT OR
UNLESS HE IS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL UNDER LAWS IN FORCE
PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT."  IT WAS HELD IN THE BILLINGS CASE
THAT IN VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CONGRESS COULD NOT BE PRESUMED
"TO HAVE RESTORED BY THE SECOND 'UNLESS' CLAUSE IN SEC. 11 WHAT IT TOOK
AWAY BY THE FIRST 'UNLESS' CLAUSE."  SECTION 11 RATHER INDICATED "A
PURPOSE TO VEST IN THE CIVIL COURTS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL
VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT PRIOR TO ACTUAL INDUCTION."  321 U.S. AT 547. 

FN34  SEE NOTES 23, 24, SUPRA, AND TEXT. 

FN35  IBID. 

FN36 BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542; AND SEE THE AUTHORITIES
CITED IN NOTE 24, SUPRA. 

FN37  CF. WALES V. WHITNEY, 114 U.S. 564; STALLINGS V. SPLAIN, 253
U.S. 339; MCNALLY V. HILL, 293 U.S. 131, 137-138; WEBER V. SQUIER, 315
U.S. 810; TORNELLO V. HUDSPETH, 318 U.S. 792; ZIMMERMAN V. WALKER, 319
U.S. 744; UNITED STATES EX REL. INNES V. CRYSTAL, 319 U.S. 755; UNITED
STATES EX REL. LYNN V. DOWNER, 322 U.S. 756; BAKER V. HUNTER, 323 U.S.
740. 

FN38  IN THIS CASE, AS IN THE ESTEP AND SMITH CASES, THE UNITED
STATES IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS ASKING JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF A
DRAFT BOARD'S COMMAND OR ORDER.  IN THE ESTEP CASE, THOUGH THE ACT
PROVIDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE DRAFT BOARD SHOULD BE "FINAL," LIMITED
JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS PERMITTED.  SECTION 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ONE ORDER OF A BOARD AND
ANOTHER.  PROVIDED THAT HE HAS EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES,
THE REGISTRANT WHO HAS NOT BEEN ACTUALLY INDUCTED INTO THE ARMED FORCES
MAY IN DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ATTACK A BOARD'S ORDER AS
ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL. 

FN39  SEE NOTE 30. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT FOR THE REASONS
STATED THEREIN AND FOR THE ADDITIONAL REASONS SET FORTH IN HIS
DISSENTING OPINION IN FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, 555, AND IN
HIS CONCURRING OPINION IN ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114, 125. 
..END :


















ILLINOIS V. CAMPBELL, 329 U.S. 362 


NO. 35.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1946.  REARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1946.  - DECIDED
DECEMBER 23, 1946.  - 391 ILL. 29, 62 N.E.2D 537, AFFIRMED. 


HAVING FILED NOTICE OF A LIEN FOR STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
TAXES UNDER JONES ILL. STAT. ANN., 1944, SEC. 45.154, CREATING A LIEN
"UPON ALL THE PERSONAL PROPERTY" OF AN EMPLOYER "USED BY HIM IN
CONNECTION WITH HIS  ...  BUSINESS," THE STATE DIRECTOR OF LABOR
BROUGHT SUIT IN A STATE COURT TO ENFORCE THE LIEN, ALLEGING THAT THE
EMPLOYER WAS INSOLVENT AND THAT A CREDITOR HAD OBTAINED JUDGMENT AND
EXECUTION AGAINST HIM SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF NOTICE OF THE LIEN. 
THE COURT ENJOINED ALL CREDITORS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE EMPLOYER'S
PROPERTY AND APPOINTED A RECEIVER, WHO TOOK CHARGE OF ALL HIS ASSETS. 
THEREAFTER, THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FILED CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES UNDER SEC. 1400 OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND AN INTERVENING PETITION ALLEGING THAT THE
DEBTOR WAS INSOLVENT AND CLAIMING PRIORITY OF PAYMENT.  THE RECEIVER
LIQUIDATED ALL OF THE DEBTOR'S ASSETS AND REALIZED LESS THAN ENOUGH TO
SATISFY THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS.  HELD: 

1.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466, A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY TAXES UNDER SEC. 1400 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE TAKES
PRIORITY OVER A CLAIM OF A STATE FOR TAXES UNDER A STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT.  ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 8.  PP. 366
367. 

2.  THE RECEIVER HAVING BEEN PLACED IN CONTROL OF ALL THE DEBTOR'S
ASSETS AND HAVING LIQUIDATED ALL OF THEM, AND ANOTHER CREDITOR HAVING
INTERVENED, THE PROCEEDING MUST BE TREATED AS A GENERAL EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIP.  PP. 368-369. 

3.  THE DEBTOR BEING INSOLVENT AND A RECEIVER HAVING BEEN APPOINTED
TO TAKE CHARGE OF HIS PROPERTY, AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY WAS COMMITTED
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THUS ENTITLING THE
UNITED STATES TO THE PRIORITY GIVEN BY R.S. SEC. 3466.  PP. 367-370. 

4.  UNDER JONES ILL. STAT. ANN., 1944, SEC. 45.154(E), MAKING IT
UNNECESSARY FOR THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR TO DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY TO WHICH
THE LIEN IS TO ATTACH AND REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO FILE A SCHEDULE OF
"ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY  ...  USED IN CONNECTION WITH HIS  ...
BUSINESS," THE ILLINOIS LIEN WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC OR PERFECTED
TO DEFEAT THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SINCE NEITHER THE NOTICE
OF LIEN NOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER MADE DEFINITE AND CERTAIN
THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE LIEN WAS TO ATTACH.  PP. 370-376. 

ILLINOIS EX REL. GORDON, DIRECTOR OF LABOR, V. CAMPBELL, COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

IN A SUIT BY THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR OF ILLINOIS TO ENFORCE A LIEN FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CONTRIBUTIONS DUE THE STATE, A GENERAL EQUITY
RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED AND THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE INTERVENED
AND FILED A CLAIM FOR SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES DUE THE UNITED STATES,
CLAIMING PRIORITY OF PAYMENT UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466.  THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY. 
391 ILL. 29, 62 N.E.2D 537.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 327 U.S.
772, AND, AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT AND DISPOSING OF A COMPANION CASE
(ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 8), RESTORED THE CASE TO THE
DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL BENCH.  AFFIRMED, P. 376. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE WAS COMPANION TO ILLINOIS EX REL GORDON V. UNITED STATES,
328 U.S. 8, DECIDED LAST TERM, BUT BRINGS FOR SETTLEMENT OTHER PROBLEMS
RAISED BY A CONFLICT OF CLAIMS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS.  THE CONFLICT CONCERNS WHETHER ONE OR THE OTHER CLAIMANT
IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OF PAYMENT FROM ASSETS OF A COMMON DEBTOR.  THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DEALT WITH BOTH CASES IN A SINGLE OPINION.  391
ILL. 29, 62 N.E.2D 537.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN EACH.  327 U.S. 771;
327 U.S. 772.  ON THE SAME DAY THAT ILLINOIS EX REL. GORDON V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, WAS DECIDED, THIS CASE WAS RESTORED TO THE DOCKET AND
ASSIGNED FOR REARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL BENCH, BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF
THE QUESTIONS NOT DETERMINED BY THAT DECISION. 

THE CONTROVERSY AROSE ON JUNE 29, 1942, WHEN THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR OF
ILLINOIS BROUGHT SUIT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, TO
ENFORCE AGAINST THE CHICAGO WASTE AND TEXTILE COMPANY A STATUTORY LIEN
FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CONTRIBUTIONS DUE THE STATE.  ASSOCIATED
AGENCIES, INC.,  FN1  WAS A CREDITOR OF THE CHICAGO WASTE AND TEXTILE
COMPANY.  IN HIS COMPLAINT THE DIRECTOR ALLEGED THAT ASSOCIATED
AGENCIES HAD OBTAINED A JUDGMENT AGAINST ITS DEBTOR IN THE MUNICIPAL
COURT OF CHICAGO AND THAT EXECUTION HAD ISSUED ON THIS JUDGMENT JUNE 3,
1942, BUT THAT THE INTEREST OF ASSOCIATED AGENCIES WAS SUBORDINATE TO
THAT OF THE LIEN SOUGHT TO BE FORECLOSED.  THIS, "FOR THE REASON THAT
THE EXECUTION UPON SAID JUDGMENT WAS ISSUED LONG AFTER NOTICE OF THE
LIEN OF THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR WAS RECORDED WITH THE RECORDER OF
DEEDS."  FN2  THE DIRECTOR ALLEGED FURTHER, UPON INFORMATION AND
BELIEF, THAT THE CHICAGO WASTE AND TEXTILE COMPANY WAS INSOLVENT AND
THAT "THE PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN HEREIN BEING
FORECLOSED, IS SCANT SECURITY FOR THE DEBT DUE THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR
...  AND THAT UNLESS A RECEIVER BE APPOINTED FOR ALL OF THE SAID
PROPERTY, PENDING A FULL AND COMPLETE HEARING UPON THE ISSUES HEREIN,
THE PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER FINANCIAL LOSS AND SAID PROPERTY WILL BE
WASTED." 

GRANTING THE IMMEDIATE RELIEF REQUESTED, THE CIRCUIT COURT ENJOINED
ALL CREDITORS OF THE CHICAGO WASTE AND TEXTILE COMPANY FROM INTERFERING
WITH THE PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY, WHETHER BY JUDICIAL ACTION  FN3  OR
OTHERWISE, AND ALSO APPOINTED A RECEIVER "FOR THE PROPERTY OF THE
CHICAGO WASTE AND TEXTILE COMPANY." 

SUBSEQUENTLY RESPONDENT, THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE
FIRST DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, FILED CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES
AMOUNTING TO $1,954.07 PLUS INTEREST.  OF THIS AMOUNT, $522.91 WAS FOR
FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION TAXES AND $1,431.16 WAS FOR FEDERAL
UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES.  OF THE FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION TAXES,
$229.91 REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES' TAXES, SEE HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S.
619, COLLECTED BY THE EMPLOYER UNDER STATUTORY WITHHOLDING PROVISIONS. 
I.R.C. SECS. 1400, 1401.  THE COLLECTOR ALSO FILED AN INTERVENING
PETITION, ALLEGING THAT THE DEBTOR WAS INSOLVENT AND ASKING THAT THE
CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY
OF PAYMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND BEFORE PAYMENT
OF OTHER CREDITORS.  THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR ANSWERED, DENYING THAT THE
CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES WERE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER THE CLAIMS
OF ILLINOIS. 

THE RECEIVER REALIZED $677.81 FROM SALE OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY AND
THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT.  A
HEARING WAS HELD, AND THE COURT ORDERED THAT NINETY PER CENT OF THE
FUNDS ON DEPOSIT BE GIVEN TO THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR AND THE OTHER TEN
PER CENT TO THE UNITED STATES.  THE COLLECTOR APPEALED TO THE APPELLATE
COURT FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT.  ON MOTION OF THE APPELLEE, THE CAUSE WAS
TRANSFERRED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS ON JURISDICTIONAL
GROUNDS. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY OVER THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AS TO ITS CLAIM FOR FEDERAL
INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION TAXES.  FN4  WHETHER IT WAS CORRECT TO AWARD
THIS PRIORITY IS THE ISSUE WE NOW HAVE TO DECIDE. 

ILLINOIS EX REL. GORDON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 8, HELD THAT IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CALLED INTO APPLICATION REV. STAT. SEC. 3466, 31
U.S.C. SEC. 191, THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR FEDERAL INSURANCE
CONTRIBUTIONS TAXES UNDER TITLE 8 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT.
620, 636, AND FOR FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAXES UNDER TITLE 9
OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT. AT 639, HAD PRIORITY OVER CLAIMS
OF ILLINOIS FOR TAXES UNDER ITS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT.  FN5
THAT DECISION IS CONTROLLING, OF COURSE, UPON THE SAME FEATURE OF THIS
CASE, ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS TAXES CLAIMED BY THE
UNITED STATES ARISE UNDER THE 1939 AMENDMENTS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT, RATHER THAN, AS IN THE CASE LAST TERM, UNDER THE ORIGINAL ACT
ITSELF.  COMPARE SECS. 801, 802, 804, 807(C) OF THE ORIGINAL SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT. 620, WITH SECS. 1400, 1401, 1410, AND 1430 OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 53 STAT. 175, AS AMENDED BY 53 STAT. 1381. 

                            I. 

BUT THE STATE URGES THAT SEC. 3466 DOES NOT APPLY IN THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE.  THIS ARGUMENT, AS WELL AS ANOTHER, THAT THE LIEN OF THE
STATE WAS SO SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED AS TO DEFEAT THE PRIORITY, IF ANY,
OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER REV. STAT. SEC. 3466, MUST BE MET BEFORE THE
CASE CAN BE AFFIRMED ON THE AUTHORITY OF ILLINOIS EX REL. GORDON V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

REV. STAT. SEC. 3466 PROVIDES: 

"WHENEVER ANY PERSON INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IS INSOLVENT, OR
WHENEVER THE ESTATE OF ANY DECEASED DEBTOR, IN THE HANDS OF THE
EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS, IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL THE DEBTS DUE
FROM THE DECEASED, THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE FIRST
SATISFIED; AND THE PRIORITY ESTABLISHED SHALL EXTEND AS WELL TO CASES
IN WHICH A DEBTOR, NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT PROPERTY TO PAY ALL HIS DEBTS,
MAKES A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT THEREOF, OR IN WHICH THE ESTATE AND
EFFECTS OF AN ABSCONDING, CONCEALED, OR ABSENT DEBTOR ARE ATTACHED BY
PROCESS OF LAW, AS TO CASES IN WHICH AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY IS
COMMITTED." 

THE FIFTH ACT OF BANKRUPTCY, WHICH IS THE ONE ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
RELIES AS HAVING BROUGHT SEC. 3466 INTO OPERATION, CONSISTS OF A
PERSON'S  FN6  HAVING, 

"(5) WHILE INSOLVENT OR UNABLE TO PAY HIS DEBTS AS THEY MATURE,
PROCURED, PERMITTED, OR SUFFERED VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY THE
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE TO TAKE CHARGE OF HIS PROPERTY
..."  52 STAT. 844, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 21(A). 

THE STATE CONTENDS, FIRST, THAT THE RECEIVER APPOINTED AT ITS
INSTANCE WAS NOT A RECEIVER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS PROVISION AND,
SECOND, THAT THE CHICAGO WASTE AND TEXTILE COMPANY WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE
RECORD TO BE INSOLVENT. 

THIS COURT HAS NOTED THAT THE VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED THAT TO SATISFY
THE FIFTH ACT OF BANKRUPTCY "THE RECEIVERSHIP MUST BE GENERAL, AS
CONTRASTED WITH A RECEIVERSHIP INCIDENTAL TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
LIEN."  DUPARQUET HUOT & MONEUSE CO. V. EVANS, 297 U.S. 216, 224.  FN7
IT HAS NOT DETERMINED THE CORRECTNESS OF THAT VIEW, EMIL V. HANLEY, 318
U.S. 515, 521, N. 5, NOR NEED WE DO SO NOW.  FOR, THOUGH THE RECEIVER
WAS APPOINTED AT THE INSTANCE OF A SECURED CREDITOR, AS IN UNITED
STATES V. TEXAS, 314 U.S. 480, 483-484, "ANY LIMITATIONS UPON THE
OPERATION OF SEC. 3466(WHICH) MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE FLOWED FROM THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE  ...  WERE REMOVED BY THE SUBSEQUENT CHARACTER OF THE
PROCEEDING."  THE RECEIVER WAS PLACED IN CONTROL OF ALL THE ASSETS OF
THE CHICAGO WASTE AND TEXTILE COMPANY, AND ALL OF THE ASSETS WERE
LIQUIDATED.  AT LEAST ONE PARTY OTHER THAN THE SECURED CREDITOR WHICH
HAD INSTITUTED THE PROCEEDING, NAMELY, THE UNITED STATES, WAS ALLOWED
TO INTERVENE AND WAS HEARD.  "WE THINK THAT REALITIES REQUIRE US TO
TREAT THE PROCEEDING AS A GENERAL EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF SEC. 3466."  UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, SUPRA. 

MOREOVER, IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THE FACT OF INSOLVENCY IS
PROPERLY CONTESTABLE BY THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.  THE RECEIVER WAS
APPOINTED UPON THE ALLEGATIONS OF ITS COMPLAINT, WHICH INCLUDED
INSOLVENCY, AND THE STATE ADMITTED IN ITS ANSWER TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
INTERVENING PETITION THAT THE DEBTOR WAS INSOLVENT.  ALTHOUGH
ORDINARILY THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL OR THAT PART OF IT WHICH PRECLUDES
INCONSISTENT POSITIONS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IS NOT APPLIED TO
STATES,  FN8  IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION ILLINOIS IS IN THE POSITION OF
ANY LIEN CREDITOR. 

IT WOULD SEEM THEREFORE THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE STATE SHOULD
BE HELD ESTOPPED TO CONTEST INSOLVENCY.  BUT IN ANY EVENT THE RECORD
DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DEBTOR WAS INSOLVENT AT THE TIME OF THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER, FOR WHEN ITS PROPERTY WAS LIQUIDATED THERE
WAS NOT ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE CLAIMS OF THE TWO CONTESTING CREDITORS AT
THE BAR. 

THUS, THE FIFTH ACT OF BANKRUPTCY WAS COMMITTED AND IN CONSEQUENCE
THE UNITED STATES HAS THE BENEFIT OF THE PRIORITY GIVEN IT BY REV.
STAT. SEC. 3466.  WE THEREFORE TURN TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE STATE THAT
THE SPECIFICITY OF ITS LIEN DEFEATED THIS PRIORITY. 

                           II. 

THE UNITED STATES WAS GIVEN THE PRIORITY, NOW INCORPORATED IN REV.
STAT. SEC. 3466, IN 1797.  1 STAT. 515.  FN9  SEE ALSO THE DISCUSSION
IN PRICE V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 492, 500-501.  YET THE COURT HAS
NEVER DECIDED WHETHER THE PRIORITY IS OVERCOME BY A FULLY PERFECTED AND
SPECIFIC LIEN.  SEE ROGGE, THE DIFFERENCES IN THE PRIORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES IN BANKRUPTCY AND IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS (1929) 43 HARV.
L. REV. 251, 267-270.  THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN RESERVED MANY
TIMES IN EXPRESS TERMS.  SEE CONARD V. ATLANTIC INSURANCE CO., 1 PET.
386, 442; BRENT V. BANK OF WASHINGTON, 10 PET. 596, 611-612; SPOKANE
COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 80, 95; NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S.
290, 294; UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 314 U.S. 480, 485-486; UNITED STATES
V. WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. 353, 355.  FN10  AND AGAIN WE NEED NOT DECIDE
IT, FOR WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ILLINOIS LIEN WAS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC OR PERFECTED, IN THE PURVIEW OF CONTROLLING
DECISIONS, TO DEFEAT THE GOVERNMENT'S PRIORITY. 

THE EFFECT AND OPERATION OF A LIEN IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF
PRIORITY BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER REV. STAT. SEC. 3466 IS ALWAYS A
FEDERAL QUESTION.  "THE PRIORITY GIVEN THE UNITED STATES CANNOT BE
IMPAIRED OR SUPERSEDED BY STATE LAW."  UNITED STATES V. OKLAHOMA, 261
U.S. 253, 260.  HENCE A STATE COURT'S CHARACTERIZATION OF A LIEN AS
SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  UNITED STATES V. WADDILL
CO., 323 U.S. 353, 357.  THE STATE CHARACTERIZATION, THOUGH ENTITLED TO
WEIGHT, IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO REEXAMINATION BY THIS COURT. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE STATE COURT ITSELF CHARACTERIZES THE LIEN
AS INCHOATE, THIS CHARACTERIZATION IS PRACTICALLY CONCLUSIVE. 
"WHATEVER MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE EFFECT OF MORE COMPLETED PROCEDURE IN THE
PERFECTING OF THE LIENS UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE, UPON THE PRIORITY
OF THE UNITED STATES HEREIN, THE ATTITUDE OF THE STATE COURT RELIEVES
US OF CONSIDERATION OF IT."  SPOKANE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
80, 95; CF. UNITED STATES V. KNOTT, 298 U.S. 544. 

IN THIS CASE THE UNITED STATES ARGUES THAT THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
JUDGED THE LIEN OF THE STATE INCHOATE AND THAT THEREFORE WE MAY AFFIRM
ITS JUDGMENT ON THIS BASIS.  ILLINOIS, HOWEVER, DISPUTES THIS READING. 
IT STATES THAT THE ILLINOIS COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THE
LIEN IN RELATION TO THE FACTS PRESENTED BY THIS CASE, BUT MERELY
DETERMINED THAT UNDER THE FACTS OF ILLINOIS EX REL. GORDON V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, THE LIEN HAD NOT BECOME CHOATE.  WE CAN HARDLY ACCEPT
THIS VIEW IN THE FACE OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED AND THE OPINION'S
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AT THE OUTSET, TOGETHER WITH THE
LATER EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO IT IN HOLDING THE LIEN NOT OF A SORT TO
DEFEAT THE FEDERAL PRIORITY.  BUT WE DO NOT STOP TO ANALYZE THE OPINION
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS IN DETAIL.  FOR IT IS CLEAR, QUITE
APART FROM THE OPINION, THAT THE LIEN WAS NOT SO SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED
AS TO DEFEAT THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, IF THAT IS AT ALL
POSSIBLE. 

THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE ILLINOIS LIEN ARISES IS SET OUT IN THE
MARGIN.  FN11  THE STATE ASSERTS THAT THE LIEN BECAME SPECIFIC AND
PERFECTED WHEN NOTICE OF LIEN HAD BEEN FILED AND RECORDED  FN12  AND
WHEN THE RECEIVER HAD BEEN APPOINTED.  IN ITS VIEW, UPON APPOINTMENT OF
THE RECEIVER "ALL SUBSTANTIAL AIDS TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE'S
LIEN HAD BEEN UTILIZED."    WITH THIS CONCLUSION WE DO NOT AGREE.  IT
IS TRUE THAT THE FILING OF NOTICE OF LIEN DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF THE
LIEN, THOUGH THE STATE MAY HAVE COMPUTED WRONGLY THE AMOUNT OF TAXES
OWED IT. FN13  SEE UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. AT 357-358. 
BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN BE KNOWN.  THE LIEN
MUST ATTACH TO SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR.  THIS THE ILLINOIS LIEN
HAD NOT DONE AT THE TIME THE RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED.  FN14  INDEED, AS
WAS STATED AT THE ARGUMENT, NOT ONLY WAS THE PROPERTY NOT IN THE HANDS
OF THE BAILIFF, BUT SO FAR AS APPEARS THE AMOUNT OR TYPE OF PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE STATE. 

UNDER THE ILLINOIS LAW, WHERE IT IS SOUGHT TO FORECLOSE A LIEN FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAXES IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE DIRECTOR IN
HIS COMPLAINT TO DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY TO WHICH SAID LIEN HAS
ATTACHED.  FN15  ON THE CONTRARY BY EXPRESS PROVISION, 

"...  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE EMPLOYER AGAINST WHOM SUCH PETITION
HAS BEEN FILED TO FILE IN SAID PROCEEDINGS, A FULL AND COMPLETE
SCHEDULE, UNDER OATH, OF ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS THERETO WHICH
HE OWNED AT THE TIME THE CONTRIBUTIONS, UPON WHICH THE LIEN SOUGHT TO
BE FORECLOSED IS BASED, BECOME DUE, OR WHICH HE SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED,
INDICATING UPON SUCH SCHEDULE THE PROPERTY SO OWNED BY SUCH EMPLOYER
WHICH WAS, OR IS USED BY SUCH EMPLOYER IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRADE,
OCCUPATION, PROFESSION OR BUSINESS, AND IF SUCH EMPLOYER SHALL SO FAIL
TO DO AFTER HAVING BEEN SO ORDERED BY THE COURT, HE MAY BE PUNISHED AS
IN OTHER CASES OF CONTEMPT OF COURT."  JONES ILL. STAT. ANN. (1944)
SEC. 45.154(E). 

NOT UNTIL THE DEBTOR HAS FILED THE REQUIRED SCHEDULES  FN16  WOULD THE
STATE KNOW THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY IN THE DEBTOR'S POSSESSION OR, MORE
IMPORTANT, THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE LIEN ATTACHED.  FOR THE LIEN
ATTACHES ONLY TO PERSONAL PROPERTY USED BY THE EMPLOYER "IN CONNECTION
WITH HIS TRADE, OCCUPATION, PROFESSION OR BUSINESS  ..." 

THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, THEN, WAS ONLY AN INITIAL STEP IN THE
PERFECTION OF THE LIEN.  IT, TOGETHER WITH THE INJUNCTION, PROTECTED
WHATEVER RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY THE STATE MIGHT HAVE.  BUT IT WAS NOT A
FINAL ASSERTION OR ATTACHMENT OF RIGHTS TO SPECIFIC PROPERTY, AS IS,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT BY EXECUTION AND LEVY. 
CONARD V. ATLANTIC INS. CO., 1 PET. 386, 443-444. 

THE STATE HAS NOT RELIED MERELY UPON THE RECORDING OF THE NOTICES OF
LIEN BUT HAS RESTED ON THIS TOGETHER WITH THE RECEIVER'S APPOINTMENT AS
ACCOMPLISHING THE REQUIRED SPECIFICITY AND PERFECTION.  BUT NOW IT IS
SAID THE FILING OF THE NOTICES ALONE ACHIEVED THIS RESULT.  NEITHER
VIEW IS CORRECT.  BOTH HAVE BEEN REPUDIATED BY REPEATED DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT, THE LATEST BEING UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., SUPRA. 

IT HAS NEVER BEEN SUFFICIENT TO SHOW MERELY A GENERAL LIEN, EFFECTIVE
TO PROTECT THE LIENOR AGAINST OTHERS THAN THE GOVERNMENT, BUT
CONTINGENTLY ON TAKING SUBSEQUENT STEPS EITHER FOR GIVING PUBLIC NOTICE
OF THE LIEN OR FOR ENFORCING IT.  FN17  CONARD V. ATLANTIC INS. CO., 1
PET. 386, 444; UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., SUPRA.  THE FEDERAL
PRIORITY IS NOT DESTROYED BY STATE RECORDING ACTS ANY MORE THAN BY
STATE STATUTES CREATING OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING LIENS, IF THE LIEN AS
RECORDED OR OTHERWISE EXECUTED DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED DEGREE OF
SPECIFICITY AND PERFECTION.  UNDER THE DECISIONS THE TEST IS NOT, AND
CANNOT BE, SIMPLY WHETHER BY HIS TAKING FURTHER STEPS THE LIENOR'S
RIGHTS WILL BE ENFORCED AGAINST OTHERS THAN THE GOVERNMENT. 

THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE REQUIRES THAT THE LIEN MUST BE DEFINITE,
AND NOT MERELY ASCERTAINABLE IN THE FUTURE BY TAKING FURTHER STEPS, IN
AT LEAST THREE RESPECTS AS OF THE CRUCIAL TIME.  THESE ARE:  (1) THE
IDENTITY OF THE LIENOR, UNITED STATES V. KNOTT, 298 U.S. 544, 549-551;
(2) THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN, UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. AT
357-358; AND (3) THE PROPERTY TO WHICH IT ATTACHES, UNITED STATES V.
WADDILL CO., SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, SUPRA; NEW YORK V. MACLAY,
SUPRA.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE LIENOR HAS POWER TO BRING THESE
ELEMENTS, OR ANY OF THEM, DOWN FROM BROAD GENERALITY TO THE EARTH OF
SPECIFIC IDENTITY. 

IN THIS CASE THE IDENTITY OF THE LIENOR WAS MADE CERTAIN, BEFORE THE
GOVERNMENT'S PRIORITY ATTACHED, BOTH BY THE STATUTE AND BY THE NOTICES
OF LIEN.  THE LATTER ALSO FIXED THE AMOUNTS OF THE LIENS, THOUGH
MISCALCULATED.  BUT NEITHER THE NOTICES OF LIEN NOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
THE RECEIVER MADE DEFINITE AND CERTAIN THE PROPERTY, AS WE HAVE SHOWN. 

HERE, AS IN UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 314 U.S. AT 487, "...  'PROPERTY
DEVOTED TO OR USED IN HIS BUSINESS  ...'  IS NEITHER SPECIFIC NOR
CONSTANT."  AS IN UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. AT 359, THE
GOODS SUBJECT TO THE LIEN HAD NOT "SEVERED THEMSELVES FROM THE GENERAL
AND FREE ASSETS OF THE TENANT (OWNER) FROM WHICH THE CLAIMS OF THE
UNITED STATES WERE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OF PAYMENT."  HERE, AS IN THAT
AND OTHER CASES, THERE WAS MERELY "A CAVEAT OF A MORE PERFECT LIEN TO
COME," NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S. AT 294, WHETHER TESTED BY STATE
LAW, 323 U.S. AT 357, OR BY PERFECTION "AS A MATTER OF ACTUAL FACT,
REGARDLESS OF HOW COMPLETE IT (THE LIEN) MAY HAVE BEEN AS A MATTER OF
STATE LAW."  IBID., 358.  THE STATE HAS ACQUIRED NEITHER TITLE NOR
POSSESSION, THELUSSON V. SMITH, 2 WHEAT.  396; NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288
U.S. 290, SINCE THE RECEIVER'S POSSESSION WAS THAT OF THE COURT, NOT OF
THE STATE, AND DID NOT SEVER THE PROPERTY FROM THE DEBTOR'S GENERAL
ASSETS AS OF THE CRUCIAL DATE. 

TO PERMIT THE RECORDING OF THE NOTICES OR THE RECEIVER'S APPOINTMENT,
OR BOTH, IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE, TO OVERCOME THE GOVERNMENT'S
PRIORITY WOULD BE IN SUBSTANCE TO OVERRULE THE NUMEROUS DECISIONS CITED
IN WHICH LIENS NO LESS "SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED" HAVE BEEN HELD IMPOTENT
FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IT WOULD OPEN THE DOOR, TOO, WE THINK, TO
SUBSTANTIAL NULLIFICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PRIORITY.  FOR THEN THIS
COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED SIMPLY BY RECORDED NOTICES OF LIEN, DISCLOSING
CLAIMS TO PROPERTY NOT SEGREGATED FROM THE DEBTOR'S GENERAL ESTATE;
DESIGNATED ONLY BY GENERAL WORDS OF CLASSIFICATION, INCLUDING AFTER
ACQUIRED PROPERTY AS HERE; AND ASCERTAINABLE DEFINITIVELY ONLY BY
FURTHER PROCEDURES.  CONGRESS ALONE SHOULD MAKE SUCH A CHANGE, IF IT
SHOULD BE MADE AT ALL. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  FN18 

FN1  ASSOCIATED AGENCIES WAS MADE A DEFENDANT IN THE SUIT BROUGHT BY
THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR. 

FN2  AS EXHIBITS TO THE DIRECTOR'S COMPLAINT THREE NOTICES OF LIEN
WERE FILED, ONE FOR $225.51, ONE FOR $303.29, AND ONE FOR $259.65. 
ALTHOUGH THESE AGGREGATE $788.45, THE LIEN SOUGHT TO BE FORECLOSED WAS
FOR $767.29.  SEE NOTE 12. 

FN3  THE PROPERTY OF THE CHICAGO WASTE AND TEXTILE COMPANY WAS TO BE
SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION AT THE BEHEST OF ASSOCIATED AGENCIES.  THE
INJUNCTION PREVENTED THIS SALE. 

FN4  THIS DID NOT EXHAUST THE FUND, AND THE COURT AWARDED THE BALANCE
TO THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR, INSTEAD OF TO THE UNITED STATES IN PART
PAYMENT OF ITS CLAIM FOR FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES.  391 ILL. 29, 32
34.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. SPENCER, 65 F.SUPP.  763.  THE UNITED
STATES HAS NOT PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI, AND THEREFORE THE CORRECTNESS
OF THIS DISPOSITION OF THE BALANCE OF THE FUND IS NOT NOW IN
CONTROVERSY. 

FN5  JONES ILL. STAT. ANN. (1944) SECS. 45.128-45.161.  THE ARGUMENT
OF THE STATE IN THAT CASE WAS THAT, SINCE TITLE 9 CONTAINED "PROVISIONS
INTENDED TO INDUCE STATES TO SET UP SOUND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CONGRESSIONALLY PRESCRIBED STANDARDS" AND "TO THIS END"
PERMITTED THE STATES "TO BUILD UP THEIR OWN FUNDS BY COLLECTION FROM
EMPLOYERS WITHIN THE STATE OF 90% OF THE TAX THOSE EMPLOYERS WOULD
OTHERWISE HAVE TO PAY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT," IT WAS CONGRESS'
INTENTION TO GIVE STATES PRIORITY OVER THE UNITED STATES FOR THEIR
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CLAIMS.  THIS ARGUMENT WAS APPLICABLE, IT MAY
BE NOTED, ONLY TO FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAXES AND NOT TO
FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS TAXES, WHICH ARE THE ONLY ONES INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE, SINCE AS TO FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS TAXES THERE
ARE NO PROVISIONS FOR FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION AS THERE ARE IN TITLE
9.  COMPARE HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619, WITH STEWARD MACHINE CO.
V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548.  SEE ALSO RIVARD V. BIJOU FURNITURE CO., 68
R.I. 358, 361, 27 A.2D 853. 

FN6  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT USES THE TERM "PERSON," 11 U.S.C. SEC. 21(A),
BUT THE ACT DEFINES "PERSONS" AS INCLUDING "CORPORATIONS, EXCEPT WHERE
OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, AND OFFICERS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND WOMEN  ..."  52
STAT. 841, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 1(23). 

FN7  SINCE DECISION OF THE EVANS CASE, THE FIFTH ACT OF BANKRUPTCY
HAS BEEN AMENDED TO INCLUDE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER WHEN THERE IS
INSOLVENCY IN THE EQUITY SENSE AS WELL AS IN THE BANKRUPTCY SENSE.  SEE
1 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  475.  BUT UNDER THE AMENDED STATUTE
THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED.  ELFAST V. LAMB, 111 F.2D 434, 436. 

FN8  SEE NOTE (1946) 59 HARV. L. REV. 1132, 1136. 

FN9  THERE ARE MINOR DIFFERENCES IN PHRASEOLOGY BETWEEN 1 STAT. 515
AND REV. STAT. SEC. 3466, WHICH "DID NOT WORK ANY CHANGE IN THE PURPOSE
OR MEANING  ..."  PRICE V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 492, 501. 

FN10  THE STATEMENT IN UNITED STATES V. KNOTT, 298 U.S. 544, 551,
THAT "SUCH AN INTEREST (AN INCHOATE GENERAL LIEN CREATED BY THE LAWS OF
FLORIDA) LACKS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A SPECIFIC PERFECTED LIEN WHICH
ALONE BARS THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES" WAS NOT INTENDED TO
SETTLE THE PROBLEM AND MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN MADE WITH REFERENCE TO
THE EARLY MORTGAGE LIEN CASES DISCUSSED AND DISTINGUISHED IN UNITED
STATES V. TEXAS, 314 U.S. AT 484-485, AND NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S.
AT 293-294. 

FN11  "A LIEN IS HEREBY CREATED IN FAVOR OF THE DIRECTOR UPON ALL THE
PERSONAL PROPERTY OR RIGHTS THERETO OWNED OR THEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY ANY
EMPLOYER AND USED BY HIM IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRADE, OCCUPATION,
PROFESSION OR BUSINESS, FROM WHOM CONTRIBUTIONS, INTEREST OR PENALTIES
ARE OR MAY HEREAFTER BECOME DUE.  SUCH LIEN SHALL BE FOR A SUM EQUAL TO
THE AMOUNT AT ANY TIME DUE FROM SUCH EMPLOYER TO THE DIRECTOR ON
ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS, INTEREST AND PENALTIES THEREON.  SUCH LIEN
SHALL ATTACH TO SUCH PROPERTY AT THE TIME SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS, INTEREST
OR PENALTIES BECAME, OR SHALL HEREAFTER BECOME, DUE.  IN ALL CASES
WHERE A REPORT SETTING FORTH THE AMOUNT OF SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS HAS BEEN
FILED WITH THE DIRECTOR, NO ACTION TO ENFORCE SUCH LIEN SHALL BE
BROUGHT AFTER THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF SUCH REPORT
AND IN ALL OTHER CASES NO ACTION TO ENFORCE SUCH LIEN SHALL BE BROUGHT
AFTER THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE THAT THE DETERMINATION AND ASSESSMENT
OF THE DIRECTOR MADE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT BECAME
FINAL."  JONES ILL. STAT. ANN. (1944) SEC. 45.154(A).  SEE ALSO NOTE
2. 

FN12  "SUCH LIEN SHALL BE INVALID ONLY AS TO ANY INNOCENT PURCHASER
FOR VALUE OF STOCK IN TRADE OF ANY EMPLOYER IN THE USUAL COURSE OF SUCH
EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS, AND SHALL BE INVALID AS TO ANY INNOCENT PURCHASER
FOR VALUE OF ANY OF THE OTHER ASSETS TO WHICH SUCH LIEN HAS ATTACHED,
UNLESS NOTICE THEREOF HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DIRECTOR IN THE OFFICE OF
THE RECORDER OF DEEDS OF THE COUNTY WITHIN WHICH THE PROPERTY SUBJECT
TO THE LIEN IS SITUATED...."  JONES ILL. STAT. ANN. (1944) SEC.
45.154(B)(1).  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN13  CF. NOTE 2. 

FN14  THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES ATTACHES UPON APPOINTMENT OF
THE RECEIVER.  UNITED STATES V. OKLAHOMA, 261 U.S. 253, 260; SPOKANE
COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 80, 93. 

FN15  JONES ILL. STAT. ANN. (1944) SEC. 45.154(E) PROVIDES FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIEN BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR FORECLOSURE.  THE
SAID PETITION DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY TO WHICH SAID LIEN HAS ATTACHED";
AND CONTINUES WITH THE FURTHER LANGUAGE QUOTED IN THE TEXT. 

FN16  IN HIS COMPLAINT THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR PRAYED, "THAT AN ORDER
BE ENTERED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT COMMANDING THAT THE DEFENDANT,
CHICAGO WASTE & TEXTILE CO., A CORPORATION, FILE WITHIN A SHORT DAY TO
BE FIXED BY THE COURT, A FULL AND COMPLETE SCHEDULE UNDER OATH, OF ALL
PERSONAL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS THERETO, WHICH IT OWNED ON THE 1ST DAY OF
MAY, 1941, OR THEREAFTER ACQUIRED, AND TO INDICATE UPON SUCH SCHEDULE
THE PROPERTY SO OWNED BY IT WHICH WAS OR IS USED BY IT IN CONNECTION
WITH ITS TRADE, OCCUPATION, PROFESSION OR BUSINESS." 

FN17  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN THE TEXT AT THE BEGINNING OF PART
II OF THIS OPINION. 

FN18  AS WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNITED STATES
UNDER REV. STAT. SEC. 3466 HAS PRIORITY OVER ILLINOIS AS TO ALL FEDERAL
INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS TAXES OWING IT, WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT
THAT, EVEN IF THIS GENERAL PRIORITY DID NOT EXIST, THE UNITED STATES
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FUND WHICH REPRESENTS EMPLOYEES'
TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

IN MY OPINION THE NOTICES OF LIEN CAUSED TO BE DULY RECORDED BY
ILLINOIS ON APRIL 3, MAY 8 AND MAY 20, 1942, WITH THE RECORDER OF DEEDS
OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, PERFECTED AND MADE SPECIFIC THE STATE'S CLAIM
UNDER ITS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION STATUTE.  THESE NOTICES NAMED THE
CREDITOR AND GAVE HIS PRECISE ADDRESS.  THEY STATED THE AMOUNT OF THE
CLAIM AND ASSERTED A LIEN FOR THE AGGREGATE SUM UPON ALL THE PERSONAL
PROPERTY OWNED AND USED BY THE LIENEE IN CONNECTION WITH ITS BUSINESS. 
UNDER ANY VIEW OF CHATTEL LIEN LAW, SUCH A LEGALLY RECORDED INSTRUMENT
WOULD CREATE A LIEN IN THE LIENOR ON THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED AND
USED BY THE TAXPAYER AT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS SUPERIOR TO THE RIGHTS OF
GENERAL CREDITORS OR SUBSEQUENT INNOCENT PURCHASERS FOR VALUE.  THIS IS
TRUE BY STATUTE IN ILLINOIS.  JONES ILL. STAT. ANN. (1944) SEC.
45.154(B)(1), UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF ILLINOIS.    THE COURT
DEEMS THAT THE LIEN ATTACHES TO SPECIFIC AND ASCERTAINABLE PROPERTY OF
THE TAXPAYER ONLY WHEN THE TAXPAYER FILES HIS SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY IN
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE LIEN.  FN1  I DEEM THE RECORDED NOTICE AS
THE INCIDENT THAT CONSUMMATES THE LIEN UPON THE SPECIFIC AND
ASCERTAINABLE PROPERTY.  THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THAT
RECORDATION ARE ONLY AN ENFORCEMENT OF A LIEN ALREADY FIXED UPON THE
SPECIFIC PROPERTY ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED IN THE RECORDED NOTICE.    THE
COURT SUGGESTS THAT THE RULING IN UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 314 U.S. 480,
THAT THE STATUTORY LIEN ON "PROPERTY DEVOTED TO OR USED IN HIS
BUSINESS" IS NOT A SPECIFIC AND FIXED LIEN ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER
THE UNITED STATES, IS PERSUASIVE THAT SIMILAR WORDS IN THE ILLINOIS
STATUTE ARE NOT SPECIFIC AND CONSTANT.  BUT IN THE TEXAS CASE, NO STEPS
HAD BEEN TAKEN TO FIX THE AMOUNT OF THE LIEN ON THE PROPERTY DEVOTED TO
THE BUSINESS, P. 487.  OF COURSE, THEREFORE, THE LIEN COULD NOT BE
FIXED AND CERTAIN.  THIS FINAL STEP TO PERFECT THE LIEN HAD BEEN TAKEN
IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

AS THE COURT CONCLUDES NO SPECIFIC LIEN ATTACHES TO ASCERTAINABLE
PROPERTY, I CONTENT MYSELF WITH ADDING, AS TO THE RESPECTIVE PRIORITIES
OF THE UNITED STATES AND A LIENOR WITH A SPECIFIC LIEN ON ASCERTAINABLE
PROPERTY, THAT IN MY OPINION SUCH A LIENOR HAS PRIORITY FOR HIS LIEN
DESPITE REV. STAT. SEC. 3466.  SEE THELUSSON V. SMITH, 2 WHEAT.  396,
424; CONARD V. ATLANTIC INSURANCE CO., 1 PET. 386, 441; UNITED STATES
V. WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. 353, 355. 

FN1  JONES ILL. STAT. ANN. (1944) SEC. 45.154(E): 

"FORECLOSURE OF LIEN.  IN ADDITION AND AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ANY OTHER
REMEDY PROVIDED BY THIS ACT, OR BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
THE DIRECTOR MAY ENFORCE THE LIEN HEREIN CREATED BY PETITION IN THE
NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
COUNTY WHEREIN THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN IS SITUATED, PRAYING
THAT THE LIEN WHICH HAS ATTACHED TO SAID PROPERTY, BE FORECLOSED AND
THE AFORESAID PROPERTY BE SOLD IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN CASES OF
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGES UPON PERSONAL PROPERTY IN COURTS OF RECORD. 
IN ALL SUCH CASES, IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY THAT SAID PETITION
DESCRIBE THE PROPERTY TO WHICH SAID LIEN HAS ATTACHED AND IT SHALL BE
THE DUTY OF THE EMPLOYER AGAINST WHOM SUCH PETITION HAS BEEN FILED TO
FILE IN SAID PROCEEDINGS, A FULL AND COMPLETE SCHEDULE, UNDER OATH, OF
ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS THERETO WHICH HE OWNED AT THE TIME THE
CONTRIBUTIONS, UPON WHICH THE LIEN SOUGHT TO BE FORECLOSED IN (IS)
BASED, BECOME DUE, OR WHICH HE SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED, INDICATING UPON
SUCH SCHEDULE THE PROPERTY SO OWNED BY SUCH EMPLOYER WHICH WAS, OR IS
USED BY SUCH EMPLOYER IN CONNECTION WITH HIS TRADE, OCCUPATION,
PROFESSION OR BUSINESS, AND IF SUCH EMPLOYER SHALL SO FAIL TO DO AFTER
HAVING BEEN SO ORDERED BY THE COURT, HE MAY BE PUNISHED AS IN OTHER
CASES OF CONTEMPT OF COURT." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. SHERIDAN, 329 U.S. 379 


NO. 53.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 13, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 23, 1946.  -
152 F.2D 57, REVERSED. 


1.  A PERSON WHO CASHES IN ONE STATE A FORGED CHECK DRAWN ON A BANK IN
ANOTHER STATE, KNOWING IT TO HAVE BEEN FORGED AND THAT IT WOULD BE
FORWARDED ACROSS STATE LINES TO THE DRAWEE BANK, AND THE CHECK ACTUALLY
BEING SO FORWARDED, IS GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 OF THE NATIONAL
STOLEN PROPERTY ACT, WHICH FORBIDS ANY PERSON TO "CAUSE TO BE
TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE  ...  COMMERCE" ANY FORGED CHECK "WITH
UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT."  KANN V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 88,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 381-391. 

2.  PROOF THAT A DEFENDANT CASHED CERTAIN CHECKS, RECEIVING CASH,
GOODS OR SERVICES, THAT THEY WERE DRAWN ON A BANK IN ANOTHER STATE,
THAT THEY WERE FORWARDED TO THE DRAWEE BANK FOR PAYMENT, THAT THEY
PURPORTED TO BE SIGNED BY AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAD NO SUCH AGENT, AND THAT THE CHECKS WERE RETURNED UNPAID
AND MARKED "NO ACCOUNT," HELD SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION FOR
FRAUDULENTLY CAUSING THE TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF
FORGED CHECKS, KNOWING THEM TO HAVE BEEN FORGED, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3
OF THE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT.  PP. 391-392. 

3.  SINCE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HAVING REVERSED THE
CONVICTION ON OTHER GROUNDS, DID NOT PASS UPON RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION
THAT CERTAIN EVIDENCE WAS INADMISSIBLE, THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR
CONSIDERATION OF THAT QUESTION.  PP. 391-393. 

4.  THE RECORD CONTAINS NEITHER THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN NOR THE
RULINGS ON INSTRUCTIONS REQUESTED.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
TAKING ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A COMPLETE RECORD MAY
BE LEFT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON THE
REMAND.  PP. 392-393. 

UNITED STATES V. SHERIDAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 OF THE NATIONAL
STOLEN PROPERTY ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  152 F.2D
57.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 829.  REVERSED, P. 393. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SHERIDAN WAS INDICTED ON THREE COUNTS FOR HAVING VIOLATED SEC. 3 OF
THE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT, AS AMENDED, 48 STAT. 794, 53 STAT.
1178, 18 U.S.C. SECS. 413-419.  A JURY FOUND HIM GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS. 
FN1  ON THE AUTHORITY OF KANN V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 88, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE
CONVICTION.  152 F.2D 57.  BECAUSE OF DOUBT AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF
THE KANN CASE, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN2  328 U.S. 829. 

EACH COUNT CHARGED THAT SHERIDAN, WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT, CAUSED THE
TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF A SPECIFIED FORGED CHECK,
KNOWING IT TO HAVE BEEN FORGED.  THE PROOF  FN3 OFFERED TO SUPPORT
THESE COUNTS SHOWED THAT ON JULY 19, 1943, IN JACKSON, MICHIGAN,
SHERIDAN CASHED THREE CHECKS, RECEIVING FOR THEM EITHER CASH OR CASH
AND HOTEL SERVICE OR GOODS.  TWO, WHICH WERE MADE THE BASIS OF COUNTS
ONE AND TWO, WERE DRAWN ON A BANK IN CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, WERE
PAYABLE TO THE ORDER OF "P. H. D. SHERIDAN," AND PURPORTED TO BE DRAWN
BY "U.S.E.F.C. 14A A. J. DAVIS, COMMISSIONER."  AS WILL BE SEEN, IT IS
NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE THIRD COUNT, INVOLVING THE OTHER CHECK. 

FROM THE ENDORSEMENTS IT WAS CLEAR THAT EACH CHECK HAD BEEN CASHED BY
OR DEPOSITED IN BANKS AT JACKSON, MICHIGAN.  THEY FORWARDED THE TWO
CHECKS DRAWN ON THE MISSOURI BANK TO IT FOR PAYMENT.  BOTH WERE MARKED
"NO ACCOUNT" AND RETURNED UNPAID TO THE FORWARDING BANK.  AN AGENT OF
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TESTIFIED THAT HIS OFFICE HAD
CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THAT THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAD NO AGENT "U.S.E.F.C. 14A," NOR ONE
"A. J. DAVIS, COMMISSIONER." 

SHERIDAN WAS SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT ON EACH COUNT, THE
SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.  HENCE, IF THE CONVICTION ON ANY IS
VALID, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE CONVICTIONS ON THE OTHER TWO. 
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 85; PINKERTON V. UNITED
STATES, 328 U.S. 640, 641, N. 1.  ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
DECISION IT MAY BE TAKEN THAT ONLY THE CONVICTIONS ON COUNTS ONE AND
TWO ARE IN ISSUE.  FN4

    I. 

THE PERTINENT PART OF AMENDED SEC. 3 IS SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN5
WHETHER OR NOT SHERIDAN'S SITUATION IS WITHIN THE INTENDED COVERAGE
DEPENDS UPON THE ANSWER TO BE GIVEN TO TWO QUESTIONS, NAMELY:  (1) DID
HE CAUSE TO BE TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ANY FORGED SECURITY;
FN6  (2) IF SO, DID HE DO THIS "WITH UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT"? 
IT IS IN THESE RESPECTS THAT THE SECTION'S MEANING MUST BE DETERMINED. 

IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE CHECKS WERE "SECURITIES," THAT THEY
WERE "FORGED," OR THAT THEY WERE TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
FN7  IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT SHERIDAN DID NOT "CAUSE" THE
TRANSPORTATION, SINCE HIS OBJECTIVE WAS ATTAINED WHEN HE CASHED THE
CHECKS AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM LATER WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO HIM OR
HIS PLAN.  HENCE IT IS CONCLUDED THAT HE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE "CAUSED"
THE TRANSPORTATION ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED IF
HE HAD NOT CASHED THE CHECKS.  THIS "BUT FOR" RELATION IS CONSIDERED
INSUFFICIENT SINCE THE STATUTE IS THOUGHT NOT SIMPLY TO FORBID USE OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF FORGED SECURITIES WITHOUT
MORE, BUT TO OUTLAW SUCH USE ONLY WHEN IT CONTRIBUTES TO OR IS AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF CARRYING OUT THE INTENDED SPECIFIC FRAUD. 

THE SECOND CONTENTION, THOUGH STATED DIFFERENTLY, COMES SUBSTANTIALLY
TO THE SAME THING.  IT IS THAT, UPON THE ASSUMPTION SHERIDAN MAY BE
HELD TO HAVE "CAUSED" THE TRANSPORTATION, STILL HE DID NOT DO SO WITH
THE REQUISITE "UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT," NAMELY, TO AID IN
COMPLETING THE FRAUD.  THESE VIEWS ARE BOLSTERED BY STRONG RELIANCE ON
THE KANN DECISION. 

THE GOVERNMENT ANSWERS WITH ESSENTIALLY TWO ARGUMENTS.  ONE IS DRAWN
PRIMARILY FROM THE EMBODIMENT OF AMENDED SEC. 3 IN THE NATIONAL STOLEN
PROPERTY ACT.  IT IS SHORTLY THAT THE OFFENSE TAKES COLOR AND CHARACTER
FROM THE OTHER OFFENSES WITH WHICH IT IS ASSOCIATED IN THE CONTEXT OF
SEC. 3.  BROADLY, THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT THE SECTION AS
AMENDED EXCLUDES FORGED SECURITIES FROM INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION JUST
AS IT DOES STOLEN GOODS,  FN8  MONEY OR SECURITIES, COUNTERFEITED
SECURITIES AND COUNTERFEITING TOOLS; OR, FOR THAT MATTER, JUST AS
DISEASED CATTLE, LOTTERY TICKETS, ADULTERATED FOODS, ETC., ARE EXCLUDED
UNDER VARIOUS STATUTES RELATED TO THE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT. 
FN9  MORE NARROWLY THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE TRANSPORTATION HERE
NECESSARILY AIDED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE PERPETRATION OF THE FRAUD, IF
NOT BY ENABLING RESPONDENT TO SECURE POSSESSION ORIGINALLY OF ITS
FRUITS, THEN BY GIVING HIM THE NECESSARY INTERVAL TO MAKE HIS ESCAPE
AND THUS TO AVOID EITHER PROSECUTION OR RESTITUTION OF THE AMOUNT WHICH
EARLY DETECTION WOULD MAKE PROBABLE. 

AS AN ENTIRELY FRESH MATTER, WE SHOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY IN AVOIDING
THE FORCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEWS.  THE SETTING OF THE OFFENSE IN
AMENDED SEC. 3, TOGETHER WITH THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO INDICATE THAT CAUSING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
OF FORGED SECURITIES WAS DESIGNED TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM
CAUSING THE TRANSPORTATION OF STOLEN GOODS, COUNTERFEITED SECURITIES,
COUNTERFEITING TOOLS, ETC., INDICATES PLAINLY THAT TRANSPORTING ALL
THESE ARTICLES IS TO BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AND, MOREOVER, NOT
IN THE LIMITED SENSE FOR WHICH RESPONDENT ARGUES. 

CONGRESS HAD IN MIND PREVENTING FURTHER FRAUDS OR THE COMPLETION OF
FRAUDS PARTIALLY EXECUTED.  BUT IT ALSO CONTEMPLATED COMING TO THE AID
OF THE STATES IN DETECTING AND PUNISHING CRIMINALS WHOSE OFFENSES ARE
COMPLETE UNDER STATE LAW, BUT WHO UTILIZE THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO MAKE A SUCCESSFUL GETAWAY AND THUS MAKE THE STATE'S
DETECTING AND PUNITIVE PROCESSES IMPOTENT.  FN10  THIS WAS INDEED ONE
OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAYS OF PREVENTING FURTHER FRAUDS AS WELL AS
IRREVOCABLE COMPLETION OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED ONES.  IN THE LIGHT OF
THIS PURPOSE, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE
PROHIBITED TRANSPORTATION OF STOLEN GOODS, SECURITIES AND MONEY, OR OF
COUNTERFEITED SECURITIES AND COUNTERFEITING TOOLS, TO SITUATIONS WHERE
IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE TO COMPLETE A SPECIFIC FRAUD, IN THE SENSE OF
ENABLING THE DEFRAUDER TO SECURE POSSESSION INITIALLY OF WHAT HE
SEEKS.  THE INTENT WAS MORE GENERAL. 

IT IS TRUE THAT AMENDED SEC. 3 FORBIDS THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
OF FORGED AND COUNTERFEITED SECURITIES, AND FORGING AND COUNTERFEITING
TOOLS, "WITH UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT," WHILE THE EARLIER
PROSCRIBED TRANSPORTATION OF STOLEN GOODS, SECURITIES AND MONEY IS NOT
REQUIRED IN TERMS TO BE DONE WITH SUCH AN INTENT, BUT ONLY WITH
KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN STOLEN.  THIS DIFFERENCE WOULD SEEM TO BE
ENTIRELY PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE IN CHARACTER N11.  BUT, IN ANY
EVENT, IT IS NOT CONTROLLING HERE.  FOR THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER
THE KANN CASE REQUIRES US TO HOLD THAT "WITH UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT
INTENT" MUST BE TAKEN AS RESTRICTING THE FORBIDDEN TRANSPORTATION TO
CASES WHERE THAT ELEMENT AIDS IN ORIGINALLY SECURING THE FRUITS OF THE
FRAUD. 

II. 

THAT CASE HELD THAT ONE ALLEGED TO BE PARTY TO A FRAUDULENT SCHEME
COULD NOT BE CONVICTED UNDER SEC. 215 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 338, FOR USING THE MAILS "FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING SUCH
SCHEME," BY PROVING THAT HE OR HIS ASSOCIATES CASHED CHECKS, RECEIVING
THE PROCEEDS AT FORWARDING BANKS, WHICH IN TURN MAILED THEM TO THE
DRAWEE BANKS FOR COLLECTION, THE CHECKS BEING NEITHER FORGED NOR
DISHONORED BY THE BANKS ON WHICH THEY WERE DRAWN.  WE THINK THE CASE IS
DISTINGUISHABLE BOTH ON THE STATUTES APPLIED AND ON THE FACTS.  IN
ORDER THAT COMPARISON MAY BE EXACT, WE SET FORTH THE APPLICABLE WORDING
OF THE TWO SECTIONS. 

FOLLOWS:  "WHOEVER, HAVING DEVISED  ...  ANY SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO
DEFRAUD, OR FOR OBTAINING MONEY OR PROPERTY BY MEANS OF FALSE OR
FRAUDULENT PRETENSES, REPRESENTATIONS, OR PROMISES,  ...  SHALL, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING SUCH SCHEME OR ARTIFICE OR ATTEMPTING SO TO
DO, PLACE, OR CAUSE TO BE PLACED, ANY LETTER ...  IN ANY POST OFFICE,
OR  ...  CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED BY MAIL ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTION
THEREON ...  ANY SUCH LETTER,  ...  SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN
$1,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH." 

AMENDED SEC. 3 OF THE STOLEN PROPERTY ACT READS PERTINENTLY, EXCEPT
FOR ITS IMPORTANT CONTEXTUAL COLORING:  FN12  "...  WHOEVER WITH
UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT SHALL TRANSPORT OR CAUSE TO BE
TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE  ...  COMMERCE ANY FALSELY MADE, FORGED,
ALTERED, OR COUNTERFEITED SECURITIES, KNOWING THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN
FALSELY MADE, FORGED, ALTERED, OR COUNTERFEITED,  ... SHALL BE PUNISHED
BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN
TEN YEARS, OR BOTH  ..." 

UNDER SEC. 215 THE EXPRESS REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE MAILING OR CAUSING
TO BE DELIVERED BY MAIL SHALL BE "FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING SUCH
SCHEME OR ARTIFICE OR ATTEMPTING SO TO DO."  THERE IS NO SUCH EXPLICIT
REQUIREMENT IN AMENDED SEC. 3.  THE WORDING THERE IS THAT THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE DONE "WITH UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT
INTENT."  THIS DIFFERENT WORDING AND THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CONTEXTUAL
SETTINGS OF THE PROSCRIPTIONS HAVE MEANING, WE THINK, TO MAKE THEIR
EFFECTS DISTINCT.  WE EMPHASIZE AT THE OUTSET THAT AMENDED SEC. 3 IS
PART OF A SCHEME OF FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION IN APPREHENDING AND
PUNISHING CRIMINALS, WHILE SEC. 215 DEALS ONLY WITH A DISTINCTLY
FEDERAL CRIME. 

THE LANGUAGE OF AMENDED SEC. 3 IS BROADER AND LESS SPECIFIC THAN THAT
OF SEC. 215.  THE WORD "UNLAWFUL" IN THE FORMER IS NOT TO BE IGNORED. 
NOR IS IT TO BE RENDERED MEANINGLESS BY IDENTIFYING IT WITH
"FRAUDULENT," MORE ESPECIALLY IF THE LATTER IS TO BE ENDOWED WITH THE
RESTRICTIVE CONNOTATION, NOT EXPRESSLY STATED, OF "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXECUTING SUCH SCHEME."  THE WORD "UNLAWFUL" HAS NO SUCH NARROW
MEANING.  LITERALLY IT IS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ANY UNLAWFUL PURPOSE,
SUCH AS TO AID IN CONCEALING WHAT HAS BEEN DONE AND THUS IN AVOIDING
PROSECUTION AND RESTORATION. 

MOREOVER, IN THE KANN SETTING, THE QUOTED WORDING NOW SOUGHT TO BE
READ INTO AMENDED SEC. 3 WAS RESTRICTED TO SIGNIFICANCE IN RELATION TO
GETTING THE PROCEEDS OF THE CHECKS IRREVOCABLY, AND THE SUBSEQUENT
MAILING WAS HELD TO HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE IN PRODUCING THAT
EFFECT OR, THEREFORE, UPON COMPLETING THE SCHEME; FN13  OR, MOREOVER,
TOWARD CONCEALING THE CRIME. 

WHETHER OR NOT IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MAILING HAD CONCEALING
EFFECTS, THE SITUATION IN THIS RESPECT WAS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE
NOW PRESENTED.  THE CHECKS THERE WERE NOT FORGED OR ALTERED.  HERE THEY
WERE.  THERE THE CHECKS WERE HONORED BY THE DRAWEES AFTER THE MAILING. 
HERE THEY WERE DISHONORED AFTER THE TRANSPORTATION.  THERE THE PAYEE
INDORSERS KNEW THEY WOULD NOT BE. IN THAT CASE THE MAILING WAS MUCH
LESS LIKELY TO PRODUCE DISCLOSURE THAN WAS THE TRANSPORTATION IN THIS
ONE.  ACCORDINGLY THE IRREVOCABLE COMPLETION OF THE SCHEME WAS MUCH
LESS AFFECTED BY THE MAILING THAN IT WAS BY THE TRANSPORTATION HERE. 
SO ALSO WITH ANY CONCEALING EFFECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND,
THEREFORE, WITH ANY UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT CONCERNING IT. 

INDEED THE KANN OPINION RECOGNIZED THAT IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES A
DIFFERENT RESULT MIGHT BE CALLED FOR, EVEN UNDER THE EXPLICIT AND
RESTRICTED PURPOSIVE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 215.  FOR IN PUTTING ASIDE THE
CASES SUSTAINING CONVICTIONS WHERE USE OF THE MAILS WAS "A MEANS OF
CONCEALMENT SO THAT FURTHER FRAUDS WHICH ARE PART OF THE SCHEME MAY BE
PERPETRATED,"  FN14  THE COURT SAID: "IN THESE THE MAILING HAS
ORDINARILY HAD A MUCH CLOSER RELATION TO FURTHER FRAUDULENT CONDUCT
THAN HAS THE MERE CLEARING OF A CHECK, ALTHOUGH IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT
THIS ALONE, IN SOME SETTINGS, WOULD BE ENOUGH."  323 U.S. AT 95. 

THE COURT WAS NOT DEALING WITH THE TRANSMISSION OF A FORGED CHECK,
CERTAIN TO BE DISHONORED AFTER THE MAILING OR TRANSPORTATION, OR
THEREFORE WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH THE FORBIDDEN TRANSMISSION WAS
EITHER SO LIKELY TO RESULT IN DISCLOSURE OF THE CRIME OR SO OBVIOUSLY
INTENDED TO PROVIDE AN INTERVAL FOR ESCAPE BEFORE THAT DISCLOSURE WOULD
BE MADE.  FN15  WE CANNOT SAY THAT IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS ARE NOW
HERE THE SAME RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN REACHED IN APPLYING SEC. 215, IN
VIEW OF THESE DIFFERENCES AND THE EXPRESS RESERVATION MADE FOR OTHER
SITUATIONS INVOLVING GREATER POSSIBILITIES FOR CONCEALMENT. 

THIS IS ENOUGH TO DISTINGUISH THE KANN CASE.  BUT WE THINK, IN
ADDITION, WE WOULD BE ALTOGETHER UNJUSTIFIED TO REWRITE THE WORDS "WITH
UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT" TO MEAN "FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING
SUCH SCHEME OR ARTIFICE" IN THE SENSE OF AIDING TO SECURE POSSESSION OF
THE PROCEEDS OF THE CHECKS IRREVOCABLY, WHICH WAS THE MEANING GIVEN
THAT PHRASE IN THE KANN DECISION.  APART FROM THE ABSENCE HERE OF
IRREVOCABILITY IN THE LEGAL SENSE, TO DO THIS WOULD BE TO DISREGARD
WHAT WE THINK WAS CONGRESS' CLEAR PURPOSE TO MAKE AMENDED SEC. 3, LIKE
THE SECTION IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, A MEANS OF APPREHENSION AND OF
PUNISHMENT SUBSTANTIALLY, THOUGH NOT STRICTLY IN THE LEGAL SENSE, FOR
PAST CRIMES OF THE SORT SPECIFIED IN SITUATIONS WHERE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WAS USED AS A METHOD OF DEFEATING THE STATE'S EXERCISE OF
THOSE FUNCTIONS.    WE CANNOT THUS TEAR THE TRANSPORTATION OF FORGED
CHECKS FROM ITS SETTING AND GIVE IT THE DISTINCT STATUS, WITH REFERENCE
TO INTENT, AS COMPARED WITH THE OTHER FORBIDDEN TRANSPORTATIONS, WHICH
WE THINK WOULD RESULT FROM RESPONDENT'S READING.  IN AMENDING SEC. 3
CONGRESS WAS EXTENDING THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ARM TO REACH
PRIMARILY THE LARGER DEALERS IN FORGED AND COUNTERFEITED SECURITIES. 
FN16  NOT ONLY FORGED CHECKS, BUT FORGED OR COUNTERFEITED BONDS AND
COUPONS, AS WELL AS OTHER FORMS OF SECURITIES, AND THE INSTRUMENTS WITH
WHICH THESE ARE MADE, WERE THE TARGET.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS
THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO BRING OPERATORS IN THESE FALSE SECURITIES INTO
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME REACH OF FEDERAL POWER AS APPLIED TO OTHERS
DEALING IN STOLEN GOODS, SECURITIES AND MONEY.  FN17  IN ONE RESPECT
THE OBJECT WAS TO MAKE THEIR APPREHENSION AND CONVICTION MORE EASY, FOR
THE $5,000 MINIMUM IN VALUE WAS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED.  THE AMENDMENT
WAS THUS AN EXTENSION, NOT A CONTRACTION OF THE PREEXISTING
PROVISIONS. 

THE PURPOSE HOWEVER WAS NOT TO REACH PERSONS INNOCENTLY, BUT
KNOWINGLY, TRANSPORTING THE FORBIDDEN ARTICLES.  HENCE IT WAS NECESSARY
TO INTRODUCE SAFEGUARDING LANGUAGE.  THIS WAS DONE BY INSERTING "WITH
UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT."  BROAD AS THIS WAS, IT WAS SUFFICIENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING INNOCENT TRANSPORTATION.  WE DO NOT THINK
IT WAS ALSO INTENDED TO SAFEGUARD THE COUNTERFEITER OR PROFESSIONAL
FORGER, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE TRANSPORTATION ALLEGED AND PROVED DOES NOT
AID HIM INITIALLY IN SECURING THE POSSESSION OF THE PROCEEDS OF HIS
FRAUDULENT DISPOSITIONS.  TO TAKE THIS VIEW WOULD NULLIFY MUCH OF THE
AMENDMENT'S INTENDED EFFECTIVENESS. 

NOR CAN WE TREAT FORGED CHECKS DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER SECURITIES,
EITHER BECAUSE THEY ARE FORGED OR BECAUSE THE FORGERY IS DONE BY
"LITTLE FELLOWS" WHO PERHAPS WERE NOT THE PRIMARY AIM OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL FIRE.  THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY INCLUDES CHECKS.  FN18  IT
MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN LARGE AND SMALL OPERATORS.  THERE IS NO
ROOM FOR IMPLYING SUCH A DISTINCTION IN VIEW OF THE ABSENCE OF THE
$5,000 LIMITATION WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF FORGED CHECKS. 
WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND PRIMARILY SUCH SMALL SCALE
TRANSACTIONS AS SHERIDAN'S, HIS OPERATION WAS COVERED LITERALLY AND WE
THINK PURPOSIVELY.  HAD THIS NOT BEEN INTENDED, APPROPRIATE EXCEPTION
COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN MADE. 

IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS ON WHICH
THE CASE HAS COME HERE, FN19  SHERIDAN PERPETRATED THREE FRAUDS,
INCLUDING TWO FORGERIES, IN ONE DAY.  FORGERY, THUS REPEATED, IS NOT
AMATEURISH, THOUGH THE AMOUNTS OBTAINED ARE SMALL.  NOTORIOUSLY THE
CRIME DONE ONCE BECOMES HABITUAL.  AND FORGERS ARE NOTORIOUSLY
ITINERANT.  DRAWING THE CHECK UPON AN OUT-OF-STATE BANK, KNOWING IT
MUST BE SENT THERE FOR PRESENTATION, IS AN OBVIOUSLY FACILE WAY TO
DELAY AND OFTEN TO DEFEAT APPREHENSION, CONVICTION AND RESTORATION OF
THE ILL-GOTTEN GAIN.  THERE ARE SOUND REASONS THEREFORE WHY CONGRESS
WOULD WISH NOT TO EXCLUDE SUCH PERSONS, AMONG THEM THE VERY EASE WITH
WHICH THEY MAY ESCAPE THE STATE'S GRASP. 

A WORD WILL DISPOSE OF THE IDEA THAT SHERIDAN DID NOT "CAUSE" THE
TRANSPORTATION.  CERTAINLY HE KNEW THE CHECKS WOULD HAVE TO BE SENT TO
THE MISSOURI BANK FOR COLLECTION.  GIVEN THE PROVEN FORGERY AND
UTTERING, NO OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD BE POSSIBLE.  NECESSARILY, TOO, IT
WOULD FOLLOW HE INTENDED THE PAYING BANK TO SEND THE CHECKS THERE FOR
THAT PURPOSE.  HE KNEW THEY MUST CROSS STATE LINES TO BE PRESENTED. 
ONE WHO INDUCES ANOTHER TO DO EXACTLY WHAT HE INTENDS, AND DOES SO BY
DEFRAUDING HIM, HARDLY CAN BE HELD NOT TO "CAUSE" WHAT IS SO DONE.  THE
KANN CASE ITSELF IS AUTHORITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT ON THIS POINT, IN FACT
GOES FARTHER THAN IS NECESSARY HERE.  FOR, AS RESPECTED THE SAME
CONTENTION THERE ADVANCED, THE OPINION SAID:  "...  WE THINK IT A FAIR
INFERENCE THAT THOSE DEFENDANTS WHO DREW, OR THOSE WHO CASHED, THE
CHECKS BELIEVED THAT THE BANKS WHICH TOOK THEM WOULD MAIL THEM TO THE
BANKS ON WHICH THEY WERE DRAWN, AND, ASSUMING THE PETITIONER
PARTICIPATED IN THE SCHEME, THEIR KNOWLEDGE WAS HIS KNOWLEDGE."  323
U.S. AT 93.  THE STATEMENT WAS IN ANSWER TO ARGUMENT THAT KANN HAD NOT
"CAUSED" THE MAILING. 

                                 III. 

SINCE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE CONVICTION ON ALL
COUNTS ON ITS VIEW THAT THE KANN CASE WAS CONTROLLING, IT DID NOT
DISCUSS RESPONDENT'S OTHER CONTENTIONS.  THESE ARE RENEWED HERE.  THEY
ARE, FIRST, THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT;
AND, SECOND, THAT CERTAIN TESTIMONY WAS INADMISSIBLE, INCLUDING THAT OF
THE FEDERAL AGENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAD NO
AGENCY "U.S.E.F.C. 14A" NOR ONE "A. J. DAVIS, COMMISSIONER."  ON THE
FACTS THE TWO CONTENTIONS ARE CLOSELY RELATED.  FN20 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE.  IT IS
DESIRABLE THAT THE LITIGANTS AND THIS COURT, IF THE CASE IS AGAIN
BEFORE US, HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE VIEWS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BALLARD, 322 U.S. 78, 88.  HOWEVER, WITH
RESPECT TO THE FIRST CONTENTION, UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE RECORD,
AS STIPULATED, CORRECTLY SETS FORTH THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND ALSO THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE, IT FOLLOWS
FROM OUR DISCUSSION OF THE STATUTE THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO
SEND THE CASE TO THE JURY.  THE JURY PROPERLY COULD HAVE INFERRED THAT
RESPONDENT HAD FORGED THE CHECKS IN QUESTION; FN21  THAT HE THEREFORE
HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR SPURIOUS CHARACTER; AND, FURTHERMORE, THAT THE
CHECKS WERE NEGOTIATED AND CAUSED TO BE TRANSPORTED WITH UNLAWFUL OR
FRAUDULENT INTENT. 

HOWEVER, COUNSEL ASSIGNED HERE FOR RESPONDENT CALLS OUR ATTENTION TO
THE FACT THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN AND THE RULINGS ON INSTRUCTIONS
REQUESTED DO NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD.  HE SUGGESTS THAT, IF THE CAUSE
SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO SUGGEST TO THAT COURT IN
THE REMAND THAT IT EXERCISE ITS POWERS TO SECURE A COMPLETE BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS, INCLUDING THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN AND ALL PERTINENT RULINGS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. 

THAT COURSE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE MILLER
V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 192, 199-200; HELWIG V. UNITED STATES, 328
U.S. 820.  SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRESENTED ON THIS RECORD.  RESPONDENT
DEFENDED HIMSELF AT THE TRIAL.  HE DID NOT HAVE COUNSEL ON THE APPEAL. 
THE CASE IS HERE IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND IT IS STATED IN HIS BRIEF THAT
"RESPONDENT IS NOW CONFINED IN A MICHIGAN STATE PRISON, IS WITHOUT
FUNDS AND IS UNABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOICE."  SINCE THE
DECISION IN MILLER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HAVE TAKEN EFFECT  FN22  AND EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT
THEY SHALL GOVERN ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE "SO FAR
AS JUST AND PRACTICABLE."  FN23  RULE 59.  BILLS OF EXCEPTION ARE
ABOLISHED.  FN24  SINCE THE RECORD CONTAINS A STATEMENT OF THE
EVIDENCE, APPARENTLY THE ONLY SERIOUS DEFICIENCY IS IN THE MATTERS
RELATING TO THE INSTRUCTIONS, NOTED ABOVE.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE
THINK TAKING ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION, IN THIS RESPECT OR OTHERWISE, IN
THE INTEREST OF SEEING THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IS DONE, WELL MAY BE
LEFT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  THE RECORD STATES THAT RESPONDENT "HAVING BEEN FULLY INFORMED OF
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AND HAVING BEEN ASKED WHETHER HE
DESIRED COUNSEL ASSIGNED,  ...  STATED HE DID NOT DESIRE THE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL." 

FN2  SINCE CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED CLARKE V. SANFORD, 156 F.2D 115,
HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.  IT APPEARS TO BE IN CONFLICT
WITH THE CASE AT BAR.  SEE ALSO TOLLE V. SANFORD, 58 F.SUPP.  695. 

FN3  THE PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL WERE NOT STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED. 
HENCE THE PARTIES PREPARED A STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE FROM MEMORY AND FROM
NOTES MADE DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, AND STIPULATED THAT IT
"SUBSTANTIALLY SETS FORTH THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE" PRESENTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  UPON APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THE STATEMENT WAS
MADE PART OF THE RECORD. 

FN4  COUNT TWO IS IDENTICAL IN EFFECT WITH COUNT ONE FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE ARGUMENT MADE HERE.  COUNT 3, HOWEVER, INVOLVES A CHECK SIGNED
BY RESPONDENT IN HIS OWN NAME AS MAKER, AND THE GOVERNMENT - APPARENTLY
OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH A CHECK IS NOT "ALTERED" OR "COUNTERFEITED" -
STATES:  "IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT SUCH A CHECK IS FALSELY MADE OR FORGED
WITHIN THE GENERAL LAW." 

FN5  THE PERTINENT TEXT OF SEC. 3 IS AS FOLLOWS:  "WHOEVER SHALL
TRANSPORT OR CAUSE TO BE TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE
ANY GOODS WARES, OR MERCHANDISE, SECURITIES, OR MONEY, OF THE VALUE OF
$5,000 OR MORE THERETOFORE STOLEN, FELONIOUSLY CONVERTED, OR TAKEN
FELONIOUSLY BY FRAUD OR WITH INTENT TO STEAL OR PURLOIN, KNOWING THE
SAME TO HAVE BEEN SO STOLEN, FELONIOUSLY CONVERTED, OR TAKEN, OR
WHOEVER WITH UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT SHALL TRANSPORT OR CAUSE TO
BE TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE ANY FALSELY MADE,
FORGED, ALTERED, OR COUNTERFEITED SECURITIES, KNOWING THE SAME TO HAVE
BEEN FALSELY MADE, FORGED, ALTERED, OR COUNTERFEITED, OR WHOEVER WITH
UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT SHALL TRANSPORT, OR CAUSE TO BE
TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, ANY BED PIECE, BED
PLATE, ROLL, PLATE, DIE, SEAL, STONE, TYPE, OR OTHER TOOL, IMPLEMENT,
OR THING USED OR FITTED TO BE USED IN FALSELY MAKING, FORGING,
ALTERING, OR COUNTERFEITING ANY SECURITY, OR ANY PART THEREOF, SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT
MORE THAN TEN YEARS, OR BOTH  ..."  48 STAT. 794, 795, AS AMENDED BY 53
STAT. 1178. 

FN6  THE ACT, SEC. 2(B), DEFINES THE TERM "SECURITIES" AS INCLUDING
CHECKS. 

FN7  THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACT OF FORGERY IS
CHALLENGED, CF. PART III, BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRINCIPAL
CONTENTIONS, IT IS CONCEDED ARGUENDO. 

FN8  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R.
10287, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. 2528, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H.
REP. 1462, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP. 538, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; H.
REP. 1599, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; H. REP. 422, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S.
REP. 674, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

SEE NOTE 5 FOR PERTINENT TEXT OF SEC. 3. 

FN9  THE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT IS SAID TO BE MODELED AFTER THE
NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT ACT, 41 STAT. 324.  H. REP. 2528, 70TH
CONG., 2D SESS., 4; H. REP. 1462, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., 2. 

SEE ALSO THE ANIMAL INDUSTRY ACT OF 1884, 23 STAT. 31; THE ACT FOR
THE SUPPRESSION OF LOTTERY TRAFFIC OF 1895, 28 STAT. 963; THE PURE FOOD
AND DRUG ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 768; THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT OF
1910, 36 STAT. 825; THE WEBB-KENYON ACT OF 1913, 37 STAT. 699. 

FN10  SEE H. REP. 2528, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS., 2:  "MOST OF THE STATES
HAVE LAWS COVERING THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF THIS PROPOSED
LEGISLATION, BUT IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE
STATE COURT DOES NOT REACH INTO ALL OF THE STATES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE
MATTER OF PRODUCING WITNESSES AND BRINGING TO THE COURT THE PROOF IS
CONCERNED."  SEE ALSO HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON
H.R. 10287, SUPRA NOTE 8, PASSIM. 

FN11  ONE WHO KNOWINGLY TRANSPORTS STOLEN GOODS WOULD DO SO FOR ONE
OF THREE SORTS OF OBJECTS, NAMELY:  (1) TO DISPOSE OF THEM OR USE THEM
UNLAWFULLY; (2) TO AID IN CONCEALING THE THEFT, THUS AVOIDING
PROSECUTION FOR HIMSELF OR ANOTHER; OR (3) FOR SOME PURPOSE WHOLLY
INNOCENT, SUCH AS TO TURN THEM OVER TO THE POLICE OR THE RIGHTFUL
OWNER. 

IN THE FIRST TWO INSTANCES THERE WOULD BE INHERENT IN THE ACT
"UNLAWFUL INTENT" OR "FRAUDULENT INTENT," THOUGH PROOF OF THIS MIGHT
NOT BE REQUIRED APART FROM THE PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE AND ABSENCE OF ANY
SHOWING OF INNOCENT PURPOSE.  CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY DID NOT INTENT TO MAKE
CRIMINAL SUCH AN INSTANCE AS THE THIRD.  HOWEVER, PROOF OF THE INNOCENT
INTENT MIGHT BE REQUIRED AS MATTER OF DEFENSE, THE OTHER ELEMENTS BEING
MADE OUT.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT MAY WELL BE DOUBTED THAT ADDING THE
REQUIREMENT "WITH UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT INTENT" IN THE AMENDED PART OF
THE SECTION ADDED ANYTHING TO THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME; FOR ITS EFFECT IS
APPARENTLY ONLY TO REQUIRE THE STATE TO ALLEGE AND PROVE THE UNLAWFUL
OR FRAUDULENT INTENT, RATHER THAN TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO ALLEGE
AND PROVE HIS INNOCENT PURPOSE. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 5. 

FN13  IT WAS AS TO THIS CONCLUSION THAT FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COURT
DISSENTED.  323 U.S. AT 95. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. LOWE, 115 F.2D 596; DUNHAM V. UNITED STATES,
125 F.2D 895; UNITED STATES V. RIEDEL, 126 F.2D 81. 

FN15  THE DISCOVERY OF THE SCHEME RESULTED FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE
ALLEGEDLY DEFRAUDED CORPORATION'S BOOKS BY A GOVERNMENT EXAMINER, NOT
AS HERE FROM RETURN OF THE CHECKS UNPAID BY THE FORWARDING BANK. 

FN16 SEE THE LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SENATOR ASHURST,
CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SET OUT IN S. REP.
674, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 2. 

FN17  IBID.    FN18  SEE NOTE 6. 

FN19  SEE PART III. 

FN20  IT IS ARGUED THAT EXCLUDING THE EVIDENCE REGARDED AS
INADMISSIBLE WOULD RENDER THE REMAINING EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT. 

FN21  THAT IS, THE CHECKS WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF COUNTS 1 AND 2.  WE
EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING THE CHECK ON WHICH COUNT 3 WAS BASED. 
SEE NOTE 4. 

FN22  18 U.S.C. FOLLOWING SEC. 687, EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 1946. 

FN23  IN THIS CASE THE INDICTMENT WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 27, 1944; THE
JURY VERDICT AND JUDGMENT WERE FILED ON NOVEMBER 30, 1944; THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS ENTERED ON NOVEMBER 19, 1945; AND A
GOVERNMENT PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS DENIED ON JANUARY 28, 1946. 
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED ON MAY 13, 1946. 

FN24  SEE RULE 39(C) AND THE NOTE PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  "THE NEW RULE
SUPERSEDES RULES VII, VIII, AND IX OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES OF
1933, 292 U.S. 661.  ONE OF THE RESULTS OF THE CHANGE IS THE ABOLITION
OF BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS."  S. DOC. 175, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., 62-63. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT. 
..END :




FREEMAN V. HEWIT, 329 U.S. 249 


NO. 3.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1944.  REARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1946.  - DECIDED
DECEMBER 16, 1946.  - 221 IND. 675, 51 N.E.2D 6, REVERSED. 


A TRUSTEE OF AN ESTATE CREATED BY THE WILL OF A DECEDENT DOMICILED IN
INDIANA AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH INSTRUCTED HIS INDIANA BROKER TO
ARRANGE FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN SECURITIES AT STATED PRICES.  THEY WERE
OFFERED FOR SALE ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE THROUGH THE INDIANA
BROKER'S NEW YORK CORRESPONDENTS.  WHEN A PURCHASER WAS FOUND, THE
TRUSTEE DELIVERED THE SECURITIES IN INDIANA TO HIS INDIANA BROKER, WHO
MAILED THEM TO NEW YORK.  THE NEW YORK BROKERS MADE DELIVERY, RECEIVED
THE PURCHASE PRICE, AND REMITTED THE PROCEEDS (LESS EXPENSE AND
COMMISSION) TO THE INDIANA BROKER, WHO DELIVERED THE PROCEEDS (LESS
COMMISSION) TO THE TRUSTEE IN INDIANA.  HELD: 

1.  THE INDIANA GROSS INCOME TAX ACT OF 1933 CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
BE APPLIED TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THESE SALES, SINCE IT WOULD
CONSTITUTE A DIRECT BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PP. 252-259. 

2.  MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33; AMERICAN MFG. CO.
V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459; HARVESTER CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
322 U.S. 340, DIFFERENTIATED.  PP. 257, 258. 

3.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PROTECTS INTERSTATE SALES OF INTANGIBLES AS
WELL AS INTERSTATE SALES OF TANGIBLES.  P. 258. 

FREEMAN, TRUSTEE, V. HEWIT, DIRECTOR OF GROSS INCOME TAX DIVISION. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA SUSTAINING
APPLICATION OF THE INDIANA GROSS INCOME TAX ACT OF 1933 TO GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE SALES OF SECURITIES.  221 IND. 675, 51 N.E.2D
6.  REVERSED, P. 259. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS ANOTHER PHASE OF THE INDIANA GROSS INCOME TAX ACT
OF 1933, WHICH HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT IN A SERIES OF CASES
BEGINNING WITH ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307.  THE ACT IMPOSES
A TAX UPON "THE RECEIPT OF THE ENTIRE GROSS INCOME" OF RESIDENTS AND
DOMICILIARIES OF INDIANA BUT EXCEPTS FROM ITS SCOPE "SUCH GROSS INCOME
AS IS DERIVED FROM BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN COMMERCE BETWEEN THIS STATE
AND OTHER STATES OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
STATE OF INDIANA IS PROHIBITED FROM TAXING SUCH GROSS INCOME BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  INDIANA LAWS 1933, PP. 388, 392,
AS AMENDED, LAWS 1937, PP. 611, 615, BURNS' IND. STAT. ANNO.  SEC.  64
2601 ET SEQ. 

APPELLANT'S PREDECESSOR, DOMICILED IN INDIANA, WAS TRUSTEE OF AN
ESTATE CREATED BY THE WILL OF A DECEDENT DOMICILED IN INDIANA AT THE
TIME OF HIS DEATH.  DURING 1940, THE TRUSTEE INSTRUCTED HIS INDIANA
BROKER TO ARRANGE FOR THE SALE AT STATED PRICES OF SECURITIES FORMING
PART OF THE TRUST ESTATE.  THROUGH THE BROKER'S NEW YORK CORRESPONDENTS
THE SECURITIES WERE OFFERED FOR SALE ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE. 
WHEN A PURCHASER WAS FOUND, THE NEW YORK BROKERS NOTIFIED THE INDIANA
BROKER WHO IN TURN INFORMED THE TRUSTEE, AND THE LATTER BROUGHT THE
SECURITIES TO HIS BROKER FOR MAILING TO NEW YORK.  UPON THEIR DELIVERY
TO THE PURCHASERS, THE NEW YORK BROKERS RECEIVED THE PURCHASE PRICE,
WHICH, AFTER DEDUCTING EXPENSES AND COMMISSION, THEY TRANSMITTED TO THE
INDIANA BROKER.  THE LATTER DELIVERED THE PROCEEDS LESS HIS COMMISSION
TO THE TRUSTEE.  ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THESE SALES, AMOUNTING TO
$65,214.20, INDIANA, UNDER THE ACT OF 1933, IMPOSED A TAX OF 1%.
HAVING PAID THE TAX UNDER PROTEST, THE TRUSTEE BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR
ITS RECOVERY.  THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, REVERSING A COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE, SUSTAINED THE TAX ON THE GROUND THAT THE SITUS OF THE
SECURITIES WAS IN INDIANA.  221 IND. 675, 51 N.E.2D 6.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344(A), AND HAS HAD THE CONSIDERATION WHICH TWO ARGUMENTS AFFORD. 

THE POWER OF THE STATES TO TAX AND THE LIMITATIONS UPON THAT POWER
IMPOSED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAVE NECESSITATED A LONG, CONTINUOUS
PROCESS OF JUDICIAL ADJUSTMENT.  THE NEED FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENT IS
INHERENT IN A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LIKE OURS, WHERE THE SAME TRANSACTION
HAS ASPECTS THAT MAY CONCERN THE INTERESTS AND INVOLVE THE AUTHORITY OF
BOTH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CONSTITUENT STATES.  FN1 

THE HISTORY OF THIS PROBLEM IS SPREAD OVER HUNDREDS OF VOLUMES OF OUR
REPORTS.  TO ATTEMPT TO HARMONIZE ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE PAST
WOULD NEITHER CLARIFY WHAT HAS GONE BEFORE NOR GUIDE THE FUTURE. 
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT ESPECIALLY IN THIS FIELD OPINIONS MUST BE READ
IN THE SETTING OF THE PARTICULAR CASES AND AS THE PRODUCT OF
PREOCCUPATION WITH THEIR SPECIAL FACTS. 

OUR STARTING POINT IS CLEAR.  IN TWO RECENT CASES WE APPLIED THE
PRINCIPLE THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS NOT MERELY AN AUTHORIZATION TO
CONGRESS TO ENACT LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF COMMERCE
AMONG THE STATES, BUT BY ITS OWN FORCE CREATED AN AREA OF TRADE FREE
FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE STATES.  IN SHORT, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE EVEN
WITHOUT IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS IS A LIMITATION UPON THE
POWER OF THE STATES.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761;
MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373.  IN SO DECIDING WE REAFFIRMED, UPON
FULLEST CONSIDERATION, THE COURSE OF ADJUDICATION UNBROKEN THROUGH THE
NATION'S HISTORY.  THIS LIMITATION ON STATE POWER, AS THE MORGAN CASE
SO WELL ILLUSTRATES, DOES NOT MERELY FORBID A STATE TO SINGLE OUT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR HOSTILE ACTION.  A STATE IS ALSO PRECLUDED FROM
TAKING ANY ACTION WHICH MAY FAIRLY BE DEEMED TO HAVE THE EFFECT OF
IMPEDING THE FREE FLOW OF TRADE BETWEEN STATES.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT
LOCAL COMMERCE IS SUBJECTED TO A SIMILAR ENCUMBRANCE.  IT MAY COMMEND
ITSELF TO A STATE TO ENCOURAGE A PASTORAL INSTEAD OF AN INDUSTRIAL
SOCIETY.  THAT IS ITS CONCERN AND ITS PRIVILEGE.  BUT TO COMPARE A
STATE'S TREATMENT OF ITS LOCAL TRADE WITH THE EXERTION OF ITS AUTHORITY
AGAINST COMMERCE IN THE NATIONAL DOMAIN IS TO COMPARE INCOMPARABLES. 

THESE PRINCIPLES OF LIMITATION ON STATE POWER APPLY TO ALL STATE
POLICY NO MATTER WHAT STATE INTEREST GIVES RISE TO ITS LEGISLATION.  A
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NONE THE LIGHTER AND NO LESS
OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSED BY A STATE UNDER THE TAXING POWER
RATHER THAN UNDER MANIFESTATIONS OF POLICE POWER IN THE CONVENTIONAL
SENSE.  BUT, IN THE NECESSARY ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN LOCAL NEEDS AND THE
OVERRIDING REQUIREMENT OF FREEDOM FOR THE NATIONAL COMMERCE, THE
INCIDENCE OF A PARTICULAR TYPE OF STATE ACTION MAY THROW THE BALANCE IN
SUPPORT OF THE LOCAL NEED BECAUSE INTERFERENCE WITH THE NATIONAL
INTEREST IS REMOTE OR UNSUBSTANTIAL.  A POLICE REGULATION OF LOCAL
ASPECTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A POWER OFTEN ESSENTIAL TO A STATE IN
SAFEGUARDING VITAL LOCAL INTERESTS.  AT LEAST UNTIL CONGRESS CHOOSES TO
ENACT A NATION-WIDE RULE, THE POWER WILL NOT BE DENIED TO THE STATE. 
THE MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 402 ET SEQ.; S.C. HWY.  DEPT. 
V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177; UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322
U.S. 202, 209-12.  STATE TAXATION FALLING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ON
THE OTHER HAND, CAN ONLY BE JUSTIFIED AS DESIGNED TO MAKE SUCH COMMERCE
BEAR A FAIR SHARE OF THE COST OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHOSE PROTECTION
IT ENJOYS.  BUT REVENUE SERVES AS WELL NO MATTER WHAT ITS SOURCE.  TO
DENY TO A STATE A PARTICULAR SOURCE OF INCOME BECAUSE IT TAXES THE VERY
PROCESS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT IMPOSE A CRIPPLING LIMITATION
ON A STATE'S ABILITY TO CARRY ON ITS LOCAL FUNCTION.  MOREOVER, THE
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE INVOLVED IN A DIRECT TAX UPON IT IS
INHERENTLY GREATER, CERTAINLY LESS UNCERTAIN IN ITS CONSEQUENCES, THAN
RESULTS FROM THE USUAL POLICE REGULATIONS.  THE POWER TO TAX IS A
DOMINANT POWER OVER COMMERCE.  BECAUSE THE GREATER OR MORE THREATENING
BURDEN OF A DIRECT TAX ON COMMERCE IS COUPLED WITH THE LESSER NEED TO A
STATE OF A PARTICULAR SOURCE OF REVENUE, ATTEMPTS AT SUCH TAXATION HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN MORE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED AND MORE CONSISTENTLY RESISTED
THAN POLICE POWER REGULATIONS OF ASPECTS OF SUCH COMMERCE.  THE TASK OF
SCRUTINIZING IS A TASK OF DRAWING LINES.  THIS IS THE HISTORIC DUTY OF
THE COURT SO LONG AS CONGRESS DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO MAKE SPECIFIC
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES IN REGARD
TO REVENUES FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE ACT OF JULY 3, 1944, 58
STAT. 723; H. DOC. 141, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., "MULTIPLE TAXATION OF
AIR COMMERCE"; AND COMPARE 54 STAT. 1059, 4 U.S.C. SEC. 13 ET SEQ.
(PERMISSION TO STATES TO EXTEND TAXING POWER TO FEDERAL AREAS). 
CONSIDERATIONS OF PROXIMITY AND DEGREE ARE HERE, AS SO OFTEN IN THE
LAW, DECISIVE. 

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT SUCH A TAX IS VALID WHEN A SIMILAR TAX IS
PLACED ON LOCAL TRADE, AND A SPECIOUS APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS IS SOUGHT
TO BE IMPARTED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE
FAVORED AT THE EXPENSE OF LOCAL TRADE.  SO TO ARGUE IS TO DISREGARD THE
LIFE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  OF COURSE A STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE
ACTIVE ADVANTAGE TO INTERSTATE TRADE.  BUT IT CANNOT AIM TO CONTROL
THAT TRADE EVEN THOUGH IT DESIRES TO CONTROL ITS OWN.  IT CANNOT
JUSTIFY WHAT AMOUNTS TO A LEVY UPON THE VERY PROCESS OF COMMERCE ACROSS
STATES LINES BY POINTING TO A SIMILAR HOBBLE ON ITS LOCAL TRADE.  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A TAX ON ITS LOCAL COMMERCE DETRACTS FROM
THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF A TAX ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT REMOVES THE TEMPTATION TO SELL THE GOODS LOCALLY.  BUT THE FACT OF
SUCH A TAX, IN ANY EVENT, PUTS IMPEDIMENTS UPON THE CURRENTS OF
COMMERCE ACROSS THE STATE LINE, WHILE THE AIM OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
WAS PRECISELY TO PREVENT STATES FROM EXACTING TOLL FROM THOSE ENGAGED
IN NATIONAL COMMERCE.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT INVOLVE AN EXERCISE
IN THE LOGIC OF EMPTY CATEGORIES.  IT OPERATES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF
OUR FEDERAL SCHEME AND WITH DUE REGARD TO THE NATIONAL EXPERIENCE
REFLECTED BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE TERMS IN
WHICH THESE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN CAST MAY HAVE VARIED.  LANGUAGE ALTERS,
AND THERE IS A FASHION IN JUDICIAL WRITING AS IN OTHER THINGS. 

THIS CASE, LIKE ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA, INVOLVES A TAX
IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF THE SELLER ON THE PROCEEDS OF INTERSTATE
SALES.  TO EXTRACT A FAIR TITHE FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR THE LOCAL
PROTECTION AFFORDED TO IT, A SELLER STATE NEED NOT IMPOSE THE KIND OF
TAX WHICH INDIANA HERE LEVIED.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IT CAN MAKE SUCH
COMMERCE PAY ITS WAY, AS THE PHRASE RUNS, APART FROM TAXING THE VERY
SALE.  THUS, IT CAN TAX LOCAL MANUFACTURE EVEN IF THE PRODUCTS ARE
DESTINED FOR OTHER STATES.  FOR SOME PURPOSES, MANUFACTURE AND THE
SHIPMENT OF ITS PRODUCTS BEYOND A STATE MAY BE LOOKED UPON AS AN
INTEGRAL TRANSACTION.  BUT WHEN ACCOMMODATION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN
STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS, MANUFACTURE WITHIN A STATE, THOUGH
DESTINED FOR SHIPMENT OUTSIDE, IS NOT A SEAMLESS WEB SO AS TO PREVENT A
STATE FROM GIVING THE MANUFACTURING PART DETACHED RELEVANCE FOR
PURPOSES OF LOCAL TAXATION.  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S.
459; UTAH POWER & L. CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165.  IT CAN IMPOSE LICENSE
TAXES ON DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WHO WOULD DO BUSINESS IN THE
STATE, CHENEY BROTHERS CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S. 147; ST. LOUIS
S.W. RY. V. ARKANSAS, 235 U.S. 350, 364, THOUGH IT CANNOT, EVEN UNDER
THE GUISE OF SUCH EXCISES, "HAMPER" INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WESTERN UNION
TEL. CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1; PULLMAN CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S.
56(PARTICULARLY WHITE, J. CONCURRING AT P. 63); HENDERSON, THE POSITION
OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1918) 118-23,
128-31.  IT CAN TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF RESIDENCE IN THE STATE AND MEASURE
THE PRIVILEGE BY NET INCOME, INCLUDING THAT DERIVED FROM INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  U.S. GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321; CF. ATLANTIC COAST
LINE V. DAUGHTON, 262 U.S. 413.  AND WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE
COMMODITIES SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD INTERSTATE ARE SECURITIES, THEY CAN BE
REACHED BY A PROPERTY TAX BY THE STATE OF DOMICIL OF THE OWNER. 
VIRGINIA V. IMPERIAL SALES CO., 293 U.S. 15, 19; AND SEE CITIZENS
NATIONAL BANK V. DURR, 257 U.S. 99. 

THESE ILLUSTRATIVE INSTANCES SHOW THAT A SELLER STATE HAS VARIOUS
MEANS OF OBTAINING LEGITIMATE CONTRIBUTION TO THE COSTS OF ITS
GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT IMPOSING A DIRECT TAX ON INTERSTATE SALES.  WHILE
THESE PERMITTED TAXES MAY, IN AN ULTIMATE SENSE, COME OUT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THEY ARE NOT, AS WOULD BE A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS, A DIRECT
IMPOSITION ON THAT VERY FREEDOM OF COMMERCIAL FLOW WHICH FOR MORE THAN
A HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS HAS BEEN THE WARD OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE VALIDITY OF A GROSS SALES TAX
SHOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER ANOTHER STATE HAS ALSO SOUGHT TO IMPOSE ITS
BURDEN ON THE TRANSACTIONS.  IF ANOTHER STATE HAS TAXED THE SAME
INTERSTATE TRANSACTION, THE BURDENSOME CONSEQUENCES TO INTERSTATE TRADE
ARE UNDENIABLE.  BUT THAT, FOR THE TIME BEING, ONLY ONE STATE HAS TAXED
IS IRRELEVANT TO THE KIND OF FREEDOM OF TRADE WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
GENERATED.  THE IMMUNITIES IMPLICIT IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE
POTENTIAL TAXING POWER OF A STATE CAN HARDLY BE MADE TO DEPEND, IN THE
WORLD OF PRACTICAL AFFAIRS, ON THE SHIFTING INCIDENCE OF THE VARYING
TAX LAWS OF THE VARIOUS STATES AT A PARTICULAR MOMENT.  COURTS ARE NOT
POSSESSED OF INSTRUMENTS OF DETERMINATION SO DELICATE AS TO ENABLE THEM
TO WEIGH THE VARIOUS FACTORS IN A COMPLICATED ECONOMIC SETTING WHICH,
AS TO AN ISOLATED APPLICATION OF A STATE TAX, MIGHT MITIGATE THE
OBVIOUS BURDEN GENERALLY CREATED BY A DIRECT TAX ON COMMERCE.  NOR IS
THERE ANY WARRANT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES HERETOFORE APPLIED
BY THIS COURT TO SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT A STATE MAY BE ALLOWED ONE
SINGLETAX-WORTH OF DIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE. 
AN EXACTION BY A STATE FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE FALLS NOT BECAUSE OF A
PROVEN INCREASE IN THE COST OF THE PRODUCT.  WHAT MAKES THE TAX INVALID
IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS INTERFERENCE BY A STATE WITH THE FREEDOM OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SUCH A TAX BY THE SELLER STATE ALONE MUST BE
JUDGED BURDENSOME IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE TAX
TAKES EFFECT.  TRADE BEING A SENSITIVE PLANT, A DIRECT TAX UPON IT TO
SOME EXTENT AT LEAST DETERS TRADE EVEN IF ITS EFFECT IS NOT PRECISELY
CALCULABLE.  MANY STATES, FOR INSTANCE, IMPOSE TAXES ON THE CONSUMPTION
OF GOODS, AND SUCH TAXES HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED REGARDLESS OF THE EXTRA
STATE ORIGIN OF THE GOODS, OR WHETHER A TAX ON THEIR SALE HAD BEEN
IMPOSED BY THE SELLER STATE.  SUCH POTENTIAL TAXATION BY CONSUMER
STATES IS BUT ONE FACTOR POINTING TO THE DETERRENT EFFECT ON COMMERCE
BY A SUPERIMPOSED GROSS RECEIPTS TAX.    IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT THE
FORCE OF THE DECISION IN THE ADAMS CASE HAS BEEN SAPPED BY MCGOLDRICK
V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33.  THE DECISION IN MCGOLDRICK V.
BERWIND-WHITE WAS FOUND NOT TO IMPINGE UPON "THE RATIONALE OF THE ADAMS
MANUFACTURING CO. CASE," AND THE TAX WAS SUSTAINED BECAUSE IT WAS
"CONDITIONED UPON A LOCAL ACTIVITY, DELIVERY OF GOODS WITHIN THE STATE
UPON THEIR PURCHASE FOR CONSUMPTION."  309 U.S. AT 58.  COMPARE MCLEOD
V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327.  TAXES WHICH HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS
CONSUMPTION TAXES ARE PROPERLY DIFFERENTIATED FROM A DIRECT IMPOSITION
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SUCH AS WAS BEFORE THE COURT IN THE ADAMS CASE
AND IS NOW BEFORE US.  THE TAX ON THE SALE ITSELF CANNOT BE
DIFFERENTIATED FROM A DIRECT UNAPPORTIONED TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH
HAS BEEN DEFINITELY HELD BEYOND THE STATE TAXING POWER EVER SINCE FARGO
V. MICHIGAN, 121 U.S. 230, AND PHILADELPHIA STEAMSHIP CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326.  SEE ALSO, E.G., GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO.
V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217; KANSAS CITY, FT. S. & M.R. CO. V. KANSAS, 240
U.S. 227, 231; PUGET SOUND CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90, 94; AND
COMPARE WALLACE V. HINES, 253 U.S. 66.  FOR NOT EVEN AN "INTERNAL
REGULATION" BY A STATE WILL BE ALLOWED IF IT DIRECTLY AFFECTS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ROBBINS V. SHELBY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489,
494. 

NOR IS AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, OR HARVESTER CO.
V. DEPT. OF TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340, ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRESENT
TAX.  THE AMERICAN MFG. CO. CASE INVOLVED AN IMPOSITION BY ST. LOUIS OF
A LICENSE FEE UPON THE CONDUCT OF MANUFACTURING WITHIN THAT CITY.  IT
HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT A STATE CAN LEVY SUCH AN OCCUPATION TAX
GRADUATED ACCORDING TO THE VOLUME OF MANUFACTURE.  IN THAT CASE, TO
LIGHTEN THE MANUFACTURER'S BURDEN, THE IMPOSITION OF THE OCCUPATION TAX
WAS MADE CONTINGENT UPON THE ACTUAL SALE OF THE GOODS LOCALLY
MANUFACTURED.  SALES IN ST. LOUIS OF GOODS MADE ELSEWHERE WERE NOT
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MEASURING THE LICENSE FEE.  THAT TAX, THEN,
UNLIKE THIS, WAS NOT IN FACT A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS.  CF. CORNELL V.
COYNE, 192 U.S. 418.  AND, IF WORDS ARE TO CORRESPOND TO THINGS, THE
TAX NOW HERE IS NOT "A TAX ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY" WITHIN THE
STATE, WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR SUSTAINING THE TAX IN HARVESTER CO. V.
DEPT. OF TREASURY, SUPRA, AT 348. 

THERE REMAINS ONLY THE CLAIM THAT AN INTERSTATE SALE OF INTANGIBLES
DIFFERS FROM AN INTERSTATE SALE OF TANGIBLES IN RESPECTS MATERIAL TO
THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  IT WAS BY THIS DISTINCTION THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIANA SOUGHT TO ESCAPE THE AUTHORITY OF ADAMS MFG. CO. V.
STOREN, SUPRA. LATIN TAGS LIKE MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM OFTEN DO
SERVICE FOR LEGAL ANALYSIS, BUT THEY OUGHT NOT TO CONFOUND
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.  WHAT MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID ABOUT THAT PHRASE
IS RELEVANT HERE.  "IT IS A FICTION, THE HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF WHICH IS
FAMILIAR TO SCHOLARS, AND IT IS THIS FICTION THAT GIVES WHATEVER
MEANING IT HAS TO THE SAYING MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM.  BUT BEING A
FICTION IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO OBSCURE THE FACTS, WHEN THE FACTS BECOME
IMPORTANT."  BLACKSTONE V. MILLER, 188 U.S. 189, 204.  OF COURSE THIS
IS AN INTERSTATE SALE.  AND CONSTITUTIONALLY IT IS COMMERCE NO LESS AND
NO DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE SUBJECT WAS PIECES OF PAPER WORTH $65,214.20,
RATHER THAN MACHINES.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE REPORT OF THE (AUSTRALIAN) ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE
CONSTITUTION (1929) PP. 260, 322-24, AND REPORT OF THE (CANADIAN) ROYAL
COMMISSION ON DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS (1940), BK. II, PP. 62-67,
111-21, 150-62, 216-19.  SEE AUSTRALIA, ACT NO. 1, 1946, REPEALING ACT
NO. 20, 1942, AND ACT NO. 43, 1942; SOUTH AUSTRALIA V. COMMONWEALTH, 65
C.L.R. 373; ALSO PROPOSALS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, DOMINION
PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON RECONSTRUCTION, PP. 47-49; PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE (1945) PASSIM, PARTICULARLY THE
STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER MACKENZIE KING, P. 388, AND THE DISCUSSION
FOLLOWING.  AND SEE MAXWELL, THE FISCAL IMPACT OF FEDERALISM IN THE
UNITED STATES (1946) CC. II, XIII, XIV. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

THIS IS A CASE IN WHICH THE GROUNDING OF THE DECISION IS MORE
IMPORTANT THAN THE DECISION ITSELF.  WHETHER THE COURT NOW INTENDS
SIMPLY TO QUALIFY OR TO REPUDIATE ENTIRELY, EXCEPT IN RESULT, ADAMS
MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, I AM UNABLE TO DETERMINE FROM ITS
OPINION.  BUT THAT ONE OR THE OTHER CONSEQUENCE IS INTENDED SEEMS
OBVIOUS FROM ITS REFUSAL TO REST THE PRESENT DECISION SQUARELY ON THAT
CASE, TOGETHER WITH THE WHOLLY DIFFERENT FOUNDATION ON WHICH IT NOW
RELIES.  IN EITHER EVENT, THE MATTER IS IMPORTANT AND CALLS FOR
DISCUSSION. 

                                  I. 

THE ADAMS CASE HELD THE INDIANA TAX NOW IN ISSUE TO BE INVALID WHEN
APPLIED, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, TO GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM
INTERSTATE SALES OF GOODS MADE BY INDIANA MANUFACTURERS WHO SOLD AND
SHIPPED THEM TO PURCHASERS IN OTHER STATES.  "THE VICE OF THE STATUTE"
AS THUS APPLIED, IT WAS HELD, WAS "THAT THE TAX INCLUDES IN ITS
MEASURE, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM ACTIVITIES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND THAT THE EXACTION IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT
IF LAWFUL IT MAY IN SUBSTANCE BE LAID TO THE FULLEST EXTENT BY STATES
IN WHICH THE GOODS ARE SOLD AS WELL AS THOSE IN WHICH THEY ARE
MANUFACTURED.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD THUS BE SUBJECTED TO THE RISK
OF A DOUBLE TAX BURDEN TO WHICH INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS NOT EXPOSED, AND
WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBIDS."  304 U.S. 307, 311.  FN1 

TODAY'S OPINION REFUSES TO REST SQUARELY ON THE ADAMS CASE, ALTHOUGH
THAT CASE WOULD BE COMPLETELY CONTROLLING IF NO CHANGE IN THE LAW WERE
INTENDED.  NO BASIS FOR DISTINGUISHING THE CASES ON THE FACTS OR THE
ULTIMATE QUESTIONS IS FOUND OR STATED.  THE COURT TAKES THEM AS
IDENTICAL.  FN2  YET IT PLACES NO EMPHASIS UPON APPORTIONMENT, THE
ABSENCE OF WHICH THE ADAMS OPINION HELD CRUCIAL.  THE COURT ALSO PUTS
TO ONE SIDE AS IRRELEVANT THE FACTOR THERE MOST STRESSED, NAMELY, THE
DANGER OF MULTIPLE TAXATION, THAT IS, OF SIMILAR TAXATION BY OTHER
STATES, IF THE INDIANA TAX SHOULD BE UPHELD IN THE ATTEMPTED
APPLICATION. 

THOSE MATTERS WERE THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE ADAMS DECISION.  THEY WERE
IN ITS WORDS "THE VICE" OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED.  THE ADAMS OPINION
GIVES NO REASON FOR BELIEVING THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE TAX WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IF EITHER OF THE TWO ELEMENTS VITIATING IT HAD BEEN
ABSENT.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE FAIR, INDEED THE NECESSARY, INFERENCE
FROM THE LANGUAGE AND REASONS GIVEN IS THAT THE TAX WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
VOIDED IF THERE HAD BEEN NO DANGER OF MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION OR IF THE
TAX HAD BEEN APPORTIONED SO AS TO ELIMINATE THAT RISK.  MOREOVER THOSE
GROUNDINGS WERE STRICTLY IN ACCORD WITH LONG LINES OF PREVIOUS
DECISIONS RENDERED HERE,  FN3  WERE INTENDED TO CONFORM TO THEM AND TO
PRESERVE THEM UNIMPAIRED. 

YET NOW THEY ARE PUT TO ONE SIDE, EITHER AS IRRELEVANT OR AS NOT
CONTROLLING AND THEREFORE PRESUMABLY AS INSUFFICIENT N4, IN FAVOR OF
ANOTHER RATIONALIZATION WHICH IGNORES THEM COMPLETELY.  SHORTLY, THIS
IS, IN REITERATED FORMS, THAT THE TAX AS APPLIED IS LAID "DIRECTLY ON"
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS A LEVY "ON THE VERY SALE" OR "THE VERY PROCESS"
OF SUCH COMMERCE, IS THEREFORE AND SOLELY THEREBY A "BURDEN" ON IT, AND
CONSEQUENTLY IS AN EXACTION THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBIDS.  WHAT OUTLAWS
IT IS NEITHER COMPARATIVE DISADVANTAGE WITH LOCAL TRADE NOR ANY ACTUAL
OR PROBABLE CLOGGING OR IMPEDING EFFECT IN FACT.  FN5  IT IS SIMPLY THE
"DIRECT" BEARING AND "INCIDENCE" OF THE TAX ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THIS ALONE.  STRIPPED OF ANY DISCRIMINATORY ELEMENT AND OF ANY ACTUAL
OR PROBABLE TENDENCY TO BLOCK OR IMPEDE THE COMMERCE IN FACT, THIS
"DIRECT INCIDENCE" IS ITSELF ENOUGH WITHOUT MORE TO INVALIDATE THE TAX,
ALTHOUGH IT IS ONE OF GENERAL APPLICATION SINGLING OUT THE COMMERCE
NEITHER FOR SEPARATE NOR FOR DISTINCT OR INVIDIOUS TREATMENT. 

IF THIS EVER WAS THE LAW, IT HAS NOT BEEN SUCH FOR MANY YEARS.  IN A
SENSE IT IS A REVERSION TO IDEAS ONCE PREVALENT, BUT LONG SINCE
REPUDIATED,  FN6  ABOUT THE "EXCLUSIVENESS" OF CONGRESS' POWER OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH, IF NOW RESURRECTED FOR GENERAL APPLICATION,
WILL STRIKE DOWN STATE TAXES IN A GREAT VARIETY OF FORMS SUSTAINED
CONSISTENTLY OF LATE.  NOT SINCE COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW. 
299, HAS THE NOTION PREVAILED THAT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF POWER IN
CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE EXCLUDES THE STATES FROM EXACTING REVENUE
FROM IT THROUGH EXERCISE OF THEIR POWERS OF TAXATION.  FN7  YET IF A
GENERAL TAX, APPLYING TO ALL COMMERCE ALIKE, IS TO BE OUTLAWED,
REGARDLESS OF DISCRIMINATORY CONSEQUENCES OR ACTUAL OR PROBABLE
IMPEDING EFFECT IN FACT, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT BEARS "DIRECTLY" ON THE
COMMERCE AND FOR NO OTHER REASON, NOT ONLY WILL THERE BE A RESURRECTION
OF MARSHALL'S "EXCLUSIVE" IDEA, NEVER PREVAILING AFTER THE COOLEY
CASE.  THE EFFECT WILL BE TO KNOCK DOWN MANY TYPES OF STATE TAXES HELD
VALID SINCE THAT LANDMARK DECISION.  FN8 

THAT CONSEQUENCE MUST FOLLOW IF THE PRESENTLY ASSERTED BASIS FOR
DECISION IS TO BE TAKEN AS A PRINCIPLE FIT FOR GENERAL APPLICATION AND
INTENDED TO BE SO USED.  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE COURT INTENDS IT TO
BE USED OTHERWISE, FOR THAT WOULD BE TO MAKE OF IT AN ARBITRARY FORMULA
APPLIED TO DISPOSE OF THE PRESENT CASE ALONE AND HAVING NO VALIDITY FOR
ANY OTHER SITUATION.  BUT THE GROUND RELIED UPON IS BROAD ENOUGH TO
INCLUDE MANY OTHER TYPES OF SITUATION AND OF TAX, AND CANNOT BE
RESTRICTED LOGICALLY OR IN REASON TO THESE NARROW FACTS.  IF
DISCRIMINATION AND REAL RISK, IN THE SENSE OF PRACTICAL EFFECT TO CLOG
OR IMPEDE TRADE, ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE VALIDITY OF THIS TYPE OF TAX,
THEY ARE EQUALLY IRRELEVANT TO MANY OTHERS, UNLESS SHEER FICTION AND
ARBITRARY DISTINCTION BASED ON INCONSEQUENTIAL FACTORS ARE TO BE
CONTROLLING.  IF THE GROUNDING WHICH DISREGARDS THEM IS ADEQUATE FOR
DISPOSING OF THIS CASE, IT IS ADEQUATE ALSO FOR DISPOSING OF MANY
OTHERS INVOLVING IT IN WHICH THE COURT HAS BEEN AT GREAT PAINS TO REST
ON OTHER FACTORS, UNNECESSARILY IT NOW WOULD SEEM. 

IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE, BEFORE TURNING TO FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF
THE MORE PERTINENT DECISIONS, TO NOTE THE ONLY BASIS UPON WHICH THE
COURT GROUNDS ITS RULING THAT "DIRECT" STATE TAXES ON "THE VERY
PROCESS" OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE VOID.  THIS IS BECAUSE, IN THE
WORDS OF THE OPINION, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE "BY ITS OWN FORCE CREATED AN
AREA OF TRADE FREE FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE STATES."  ALTHOUGH THIS IS
STATED AS GROUNDING FOR THE LONG-ESTABLISHED CONCLUSION THAT EVEN
WITHOUT IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS THE CLAUSE IS A LIMITATION
UPON STATE POWER, IT ALSO IS QUITE OBVIOUSLY THE FOUNDATION OF THE
FURTHER CONCLUSION THAT "DIRECT" TAXES LAID BY THE STATES WITHIN THAT
AREA ARE OUTLAWED REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER FACTOR THAN THEIR DIRECT
INCIDENCE UPON IT.

II. 

I AGREE THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE "OF ITS OWN FORCE" PLACES
RESTRICTIONS UPON STATE POWER TO TAX, AS WELL AS TO REGULATE,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS HAS BEEN HELD THROUGH VARIOUS LINES OF
DECISION EXTENDING BACK TO GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, SOME OF THEM
UNBROKEN.  FN9  I ALSO AGREE THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION IS CONSONANT WITH
THE GREAT PURPOSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO MAINTAIN OUR DISTINCTIVELY
NATIONAL TRADE FREE FROM STATE RESTRICTIONS AND BARRIERS AGAINST IT
WHICH THE CLAUSE WAS ADOPTED TO PREVENT.  BUT, AT ANY RATE SINCE COOLEY
V. BOARD OF WARDENS, SUPRA, THIS HAS NOT MEANT THAT THE CLAUSE WAS
INTENDED TO OR COULD SECURE "BY ITS OWN FORCE" THAT VAST AREA OF
COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WHOLLY FREE FROM "INTERFERENCE," THAT IS, FROM
TAXATION AND REGULATION, BY THE STATES.  FN10  NOR FOR MANY YEARS HAS
IT MEANT THAT THE FIELD OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS TO BE FREE FROM SUCH
"INTERFERENCE," SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS "DIRECT" OR HAS IMMEDIATE
INCIDENCE UPON IT.  FN11 TRUE, LANGUAGE FREQUENTLY APPEARS IN THE
CASES, ESPECIALLY THE EARLIER ONES, TO THE EFFECT THAT "DIRECT"
TAXATION AND REGULATION BY THE STATES ARE FORBIDDEN.  BUT APART FROM
ITS INCONSISTENCY WITH BOTH LANGUAGE AND RESULTS IN OTHER CASES,  FN12
IN MOST OF THOSE WHERE IT HAS APPEARED THERE WERE OTHER INVALIDATING
FACTORS, SUCH AS SINGLING OUT THE COMMERCE FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT, OTHER
TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION, OR FAILURE TO APPORTION WHERE MULTIPLE STATE
TAXATION COULD RESULT IF THE TAX WERE SUSTAINED.  FN13 

THE FACT IS THAT "DIRECT INCIDENCE" OF A STATE TAX OR REGULATION,
APART FROM THE PRESENCE OF SUCH A FACTOR, HAS LONG SINCE BEEN DISCARDED
AS BEING IN ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO OUTLAW STATE LEGISLATION.  "LOCAL"
REGULATIONS, UNDER THE COOLEY FORMULA, BEAR DIRECTLY ON THE COMMERCE
ITSELF.  FN14  BUT THEY ARE NOT OUTLAWED FOR THAT REASON.  CALLING THEM
"INCIDENTAL," WHERE THIS IS DONE, DOES NOT MAKE THEM "INDIRECT," EXCEPT
IN JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE.  POLICE REGULATIONS BEAR NO MORE INDIRECTLY OR
REMOTELY UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH MUST OBSERVE THEM THAN UPON
THE LOCAL COMMERCE FALLING EQUALLY WITHIN THEIR INCIDENCE. 

AGAIN, AN APPORTIONED TAX ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A "DIRECT" TAX
BEARING IMMEDIATELY UPON IT IN INCIDENCE.  BUT SUCH A TAX IS NOT FOR
THAT REASON INVALID.  DECISIONS HAVE SUSTAINED SUCH TAXES REPEATEDLY,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR DIRECT BEARING, PROVIDED THE APPORTIONMENT WERE
FAIRLY MADE AND NO OTHER VITIATING ELEMENT WERE PRESENT, SUCH AS THOSE
ABOVE MENTIONED.  FN15  IT WAS THIS FACT, WITHOUT QUESTION, WHICH THE
COURT HAD IN MIND IN THE ADAMS CASE, WHEN IT CAREFULLY SAVED FROM ITS
BAN ANY QUESTION CONCERNING SUCH A TAX AS INDIANA'S IF PROPERLY
APPORTIONED IN A SITUATION LIKE THE ONES PRESENTED THERE AND NOW.  FN16
                                III. 

THE LANGUAGE PURPORTING TO OUTLAW "DIRECT" TAXES BECAUSE THEY ARE
DIRECT HAS APPEARED MORE FREQUENTLY PERHAPS IN RELATION TO GROSS
RECEIPTS TAXES THAN ANY OTHER, INCLUDING BOTH "DIRECT" TAXES,
APPORTIONED AND UNAPPORTIONED, AND OTHERS CONSIDERED "INDIRECT" BECAUSE
PURPORTING TO BE LAID NOT "ON THE COMMERCE ITSELF" BUT UPON SOME "LOCAL
INCIDENT."  WE HAVE RECENTLY HELD THAT A TAX HAVING EFFECTS FORBIDDEN
BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WILL NOT BE SAVED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS CAST IN
TERMS OF BEARING UPON SOME "LOCAL INCIDENT."  FN17  AS WE THEN SAID,
ALL INTERSTATE COMMERCE TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE STATES AND THE
CONSEQUENCES FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE CANNOT BE ACHIEVED
LEGALLY SIMPLY BY THE DEVICE OF HOOKING THE TAX OR OTHER FORBIDDEN
REGULATION TO SOME SELECTED "LOCAL INCIDENT."  THAT SUCH A FACTOR MAY
BE CHOSEN FOR BEARING THE "DIRECT" INCIDENCE OF THE TAX MAY BE A
CONSIDERATION TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING ITS VALIDITY. 
BUT IT CANNOT VALIDATE A TAX OR REGULATION WHICH PRODUCES THE FORBIDDEN
CONSEQUENCES, ANY MORE THAN A "DIRECT TAX" WHICH DOES NOT PRODUCE THEM
CAN BE OUTLAWED BECAUSE IT IS DIRECT.  NOT "DIRECTNESS" OR "IMMEDIACY"
OF INCIDENCE PER SE, WHETHER "UPON THE COMMERCE ITSELF" OR UPON A
"LOCAL INCIDENT," IS THE OUTLAWING FACTOR, BUT WHETHER THE TAX,
REGARDLESS OF THE SPECIAL POINT OF INCIDENCE, HAS THE CONSEQUENCES FOR
INTERSTATE TRADE INTENDED TO BE OUTLAWED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE DIFFICULTY OF ANY OTHER RULE OR APPROACH IS DISCLOSED MOST
CLEARLY PERHAPS BY CONTRASTING THE DECISION IN AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST.
LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, WITH THE ADAMS DECISION AND THIS ONE, IN BOTH OF
WHICH EFFORTS ARE MADE, UNSUCCESSFULLY IN MY OPINION, TO DISTINGUISH
THE AMERICAN CASE.  THERE THE TAX WAS LAID UPON THE MANUFACTURE,
LOCALLY DONE, OF GOODS SOLD LOCALLY AND OUT OF STATE.  BUT THE TAX WAS
"MEASURED BY" THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALES OF THE GOODS MANUFACTURED,
INCLUDING THOSE SOLD INTERSTATE.  FN18 

A TAX UPON A LOCAL PRIVILEGE MEASURED BY THE VOLUME OF GROSS RECEIPTS
FROM BOTH LOCAL AND INTERSTATE TRADE  FN19  WOULD SEEM TO HAVE, IN
PRACTICAL EFFECT, THE SAME CONSEQUENCES FOR BLOCKING OR IMPEDING THE
COMMERCE AS ONE LAID "DIRECTLY" UPON IT, IN ANY SITUATION WHERE NO
MULTIPLE LEVY IS MADE, LIKEWISE IN ANY WHERE MORE THAN ONE STATE MIGHT
FIND SUCH A LOCAL PRIVILEGE FOR PEGGING THE TAX.  FN20  AND A TAX UPON
GROSS RECEIPTS "IN LIEU OF" PROPERTY OR OTHER TAXES FN21  CANNOT BE
SAID EITHER TO BE LESS "DIRECT" IN ITS INCIDENCE UPON THE COMMERCE THAN
THE APPLICATION OF THE INDIANA TAX NOW IN ISSUE OR TO AFFORD PROTECTION
AGAINST MULTIPLE LEVIES THE RISK OF WHICH WAS HELD IN ADAMS MFG. CO. V.
STOREN TO MAKE THE INDIANA TAX INHERENTLY VICIOUS IN THAT APPLICATION. 
FN22 

UNLESS WE ARE TO RETURN TO THE FORMALISM OF ANOTHER DAY, NEITHER THE
"DIRECTNESS" OF THE INCIDENCE OF A TAX "UPON THE COMMERCE ITSELF" NOR
THE FACT THAT ITS INCIDENCE IS MANIPULATED TO REST UPON SOME "LOCAL
INCIDENT" OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION CAN BE USED AS A CRITERION OR,
MANY TIMES, AS A CONSIDERATION OF FIRST IMPORTANCE IN DETERMINING THE
VALIDITY OF A STATE TAX BEARING UPON OR AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
NOT THE WORDS "DIRECT" AND "INDIRECT" OR "LOCAL INCIDENT" CAN FULFILL
THE FUNCTION OF JUDGMENT IN DECIDING WHETHER THE TAX BRINGS THE
FORBIDDEN RESULTS.  SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE STONE IN
DI SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, 44, QUOTED IN NOTE 11.  THAT CAN
BE DONE ONLY BY TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE SPECIFIC EFFECTS OF STATE
LEGISLATION THE CLAUSE WAS INTENDED TO OUTLAW, AND OF THE CONSEQUENCES
ACTUAL OR PROBABLE OF THE LEGISLATION CALLED IN QUESTION TO CREATE
THEM. 

  IV. 

JUDGMENTS OF THIS CHARACTER AND MAGNITUDE CANNOT BE MADE BY LABELS OR
FORMULAE.  THEY REQUIRE MUCH MORE THAN POINTING TO A WORD.  IT IS FOR
THIS REASON THAT INCREASINGLY WITH THE YEARS EMPHASIS HAS BEEN PLACED
UPON PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS, EITHER ACTUAL OR THREATENED,
OF QUESTIONED LEGISLATION TO BLOCK OR IMPEDE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
PLACE IT AT PRACTICAL DISADVANTAGE WITH THE LOCAL TRADE.  FN23
FORMULAE AND ADJECTIVES HAVE BEEN RETAINED AT TIMES IN INTERMIXTURE
WITH THE EFFECTIVE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.  BUT PROPORTIONATELY THE
STRESS UPON THEM HAS BEEN GREATLY REDUCED, UNTIL THE PRESENT DECISION;
AND THE TREND OF RECENT DECISIONS TO SUSTAIN STATE TAXES FORMERLY
REGARDED AS INVALID HAS BEEN DUE IN LARGE PART TO THIS FACT. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED TO OUTLAW ALL STATE
TAXES BEARING "DIRECTLY" ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ITS DESIGN WAS ONLY
TO EXCLUDE THOSE HAVING THE EFFECTS TO BLOCK OR IMPEDE IT WHICH CALLED
IT AND THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF INTO BEING.  NOT ALL STATE TAXES, NOR
INDEED ALL DIRECT STATE TAXES, CAN BE SAID TO PRODUCE THOSE EFFECTS. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, MANY "INDIRECT" FORMS OF STATE TAXATION, THAT IS,
"INDIRECT" AS RELATED TO "INCIDENCE," DO IN FACT PRODUCE SUCH
CONSEQUENCES AND FOR THAT REASON ARE INVALID. 

IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT SELECTION OF A "LOCAL INCIDENT" FOR
HANGING THE TAX WILL NOT SAVE IT, IF ALSO THE EXACTION DOES NOT IN FACT
AVOID THE OUTLAWED INTERFERENCES WITH THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE. 
SELECTION OF A LOCAL INCIDENT FOR PEGGING THE TAX HAS TWO FUNCTIONS
RELEVANT TO DETERMINATION OF ITS VALIDITY.  ONE IS TO MAKE PLAIN THAT
THE STATE HAS SUFFICIENT FACTUAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE TRANSACTION TO
COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.  FN24  THE OTHER IS TO ACT AS A
SAFEGUARD, TO SOME EXTENT, AGAINST REPETITION OF THE SAME OR A SIMILAR
TAX BY ANOTHER STATE.  FN25  THESE MATTERS ARE OFTEN INTERRELATED, CF.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1, THOUGH IN OTHER
SITUATIONS THEY MAY BE ENTIRELY SEPARATE.  THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IS
BETWEEN SITUATIONS WHERE IT IS ESSENTIAL TO SHOW MINIMAL FACTUAL
CONNECTIONS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THE TAXING STATE IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN THE LEVY AS AGAINST DUE PROCESS OBJECTIONS FOR "WANT OF
JURISDICTION TO TAX"; FN26  AND OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE, ALTHOUGH SUCH
CONNECTIONS CLEARLY ARE PRESENT, THE NECESSITY IS FOR SHOWING THAT THE
TAX, IF SUSTAINED, WILL CREATE A MULTIPLE TAX LOAD OR OTHER
CONSEQUENCES HAVING THE FORBIDDEN EFFECTS. 

THIS CASE IS NOT ONE OF THE FORMER SORT.  THE TRANSACTIONS WERE AS
CLOSELY CONNECTED IN FACT WITH INDIANA AS WITH ANY OTHER STATE.  FN27
BUT THE CASE IS ONE OF THE LATTER TYPE, THAT IS, WHERE, DESPITE THOSE
CONNECTIONS, THERE WERE EQUALLY CLOSE AND IMPORTANT ONES IN ANOTHER
STATE, NEW YORK; AND THEREFORE, AS THE ADAMS CASE DECLARED, THE RISK OF
MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION WOULD BE INCURRED, UNLESS ONE OR THE OTHER OR
BOTH STATES WERE FORBIDDEN TO TAX THE TRANSACTION AS SUCH, OR WERE
REQUIRED TO APPORTION THE TAX.  NOT THE "DIRECTNESS" OF THE TAX IN ITS
BEARING UPON THE COMMERCE, BUT THIS DANGER IS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE IN THIS
CASE, AS IT WAS IN THE ADAMS CASE.  IN OTHER WORDS, BUT FOR THE
POSSIBILITY THAT MORE STATES THAN ONE WOULD LEVY THE SAME OR A SIMILAR
TAX, SUCH AN APPLICATION AS WAS MADE OF INDIANA'S TAX IN THE ADAMS CASE
AND HERE WOULD BE NO MORE BURDENSOME OR OBJECTIONABLE THAN OTHER
APPLICATIONS OF THE SAME TAX THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED OR OF OTHER TAXES
LIKEWISE HELD VALID.  FN28

  V. 

THIS COURT IN RECENT YEARS HAS GONE FAR IN SUSTAINING STATE TAXES
LAID UPON LOCAL INCIDENTS OF INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS BY BOTH THE STATE
OF ORIGIN AND THE STATE OF THE MARKET N29.  PERHAPS IT MAY BE SAID, IN
VIEW OF SUCH DECISIONS, THAT IT HAS MORE CLEARLY SUSTAINED SUCH TAXES
AT THE MARKETING END THAN BY THE STATE OF ORIGIN,  FN30  ALTHOUGH THIS
MAY BE MATTER FOR DEBATE.  IN ANY EVENT, THE FACTUAL CONNECTIONS OF THE
TAXING STATE WITH THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION IN THE CASES WHERE THE TAX
HAS BEEN SUSTAINED HARDLY CAN BE REGARDED AS GREATER OR MORE IMPORTANT
THAN THOSE OF INDIANA WITH THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED IN THE ADAMS CASE
AND HERE.  NOR COULD IT BE SHOWN IN FACT THAT IN SOME OF THEM, AT ANY
RATE, THE DANGER OF MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION WAS APPRECIABLY LESS, IF IT
BE ASSUMED THAT THE FORWARDING STATE HAS THE SAME POWER TO TAX THE
TRANSACTION, BY PEGGING THE TAX UPON A LOCAL INCIDENT, AS HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED FOR THE STATE OF MARKET. 

SUCH TAXES, WHETHER IN ONE STATE OR THE OTHER, MAY IN FACT BLOCK OR
IMPEDE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS MUCH AS, OR MORE THAN, ONE PLACED
DIRECTLY UPON THE COMMERCE ITSELF.  THEY HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED,
NEVERTHELESS, NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR BEARING UPON A LOCAL
INCIDENT, BUT BECAUSE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR APPLICATION THEY
WERE CONSIDERED TO HAVE NEITHER DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE
TRADE AS COMPARED WITH LOCAL COMMERCE NOR TO IMPOSE UPON IT THE
BLOCKING OR IMPEDING EFFECTS WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS TAKEN TO
FORBID.  FN31 

THIS IN MY JUDGMENT IS THE APPROPRIATE CRITERION TO BE APPLIED,
RATHER THAN ANY MERE QUESTION OF "DIRECT" OR "INDIRECT" INCIDENCE UPON
A "LOCAL INCIDENT."  THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH CONNECTION WITH THE TAXING
STATE IS HIGHLY MATERIAL.  FN32  ITS PRESENCE CANNOT BE THE CONTROLLING
CONSIDERATION FOR VALIDATING THE TAX.  NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S.
416.  IN THIS VIEW IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR THAT THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A TAX
AS INDIANA'S, APPLIED TO SITUATIONS LIKE THOSE PRESENTED IN THE ADAMS
CASE AND NOW, SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE NOT MERELY TO THE
"DIRECT INCIDENCE" OF THE TAX, BUT BY WHETHER THOSE FORBIDDEN
CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE PRODUCED, EITHER THROUGH THE ACTUAL INCIDENCE OF
MULTIPLE TAXES LAID BY DIFFERENT STATES OR BY THE THREAT OF THEM, WITH
RESULTING UNCERTAINTIES PRODUCING THE SAME IMPEDING CONSEQUENCES. 
FN33 

THUS, IT IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL THAT THE LEVY IN THIS CASE, OR IN THE
ADAMS CASE, ACTUALLY HAD ANY IMPEDING EFFECT WHATEVER UPON THE
TRANSACTIONS OR THE FREE FLOW INTERSTATE OF SUCH COMMERCE.  FN34 BUT
THE ADAMS CASE FOUND THE IMPEDIMENT IN THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF ONE STATE
COULD TAX, SO ALSO COULD THE OTHER, AND IN THAT EVENT, A DOUBLE BURDEN
WOULD RESULT FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOT BORNE BY LOCAL TRADE.  THIS
DANGER, IT WAS SAID, WAS INHERENT IN THE TYPE OF THE TAX, SINCE IT WAS
NOT APPORTIONED, AND IN CONSEQUENCE THE TAX AS APPLIED MUST FALL. 

THE BASIC ASSUMPTION WAS NOT TRUE AS A UNIVERSALLY OR EVEN A
GENERALLY RESULTING CONSEQUENCE, FOR TWO REASONS.  ONE IS THAT IT WOULD
NOT FOLLOW NECESSARILY AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT BOTH STATES WOULD TAX
OR, IF THEY DID SO, THAT THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF THE TAXES WOULD BE
EITHER TO CLOG OR TO IMPEDE THE COMMERCE.  FN35  THE OTHER, IT NO MORE
FOLLOWS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT BECAUSE ONE STATE MAY TAX THE OTHER
MAY DO LIKEWISE. 

THE ADAMS DECISION DID NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF ANY DIFFERENCE, AS REGARDS
THE RISK OF MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION, BETWEEN SITUATIONS WHERE THE
MULTIPLE BURDEN WOULD ACTUALLY OR PROBABLY BE INCURRED IN FACT AND
OTHERS IN WHICH NO SUCH RISK WOULD BE INVOLVED.  IT RATHER DISREGARDED
SUCH DIFFERENCES, SO THAT "THE RISK OF A DOUBLE TAX BURDEN" ON WHICH
THE COURT RELIED TO INVALIDATE THE LEVY WAS NOT ONE ACTUALLY, PROBABLY,
OR EVEN DOUBTFULLY IMPOSED IN FACT BY ANOTHER STATE.  FN36  IT RATHER
WAS ONE WHICH RESULTED ONLY FROM AN ASSUMED, AND AN UNEXERCISED, POWER
IN THAT STATE TO IMPOSE A SIMILAR TAX. 

THE COURT WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH WHETHER THE FORBIDDEN CONSEQUENCES
HAD BEEN INCURRED IN THE PARTICULAR SITUATION OR MIGHT NOT BE INCURRED
IN OTHERS COVERED BY ITS RULING.  THE MOTIVATING FEAR WAS MORE
GENERAL.  THE ULTIMATE RISK WHICH THE COURT SOUGHT TO AVOID WAS THE
DANGER THAT GROSS INCOME OR GROSS RECEIPTS TAX LEGISLATION, WITHOUT
APPORTIONMENT, MIGHT BE WIDELY ADOPTED IF THE DOOR WERE ONCE OPENED
AND, IF ADOPTED AND APPLIED TO INTERSTATE SALES BY ALL OR MANY OF THE
STATES, WOULD RESULT GENERALLY IN BRINGING SUCH SALES WITHIN THE
INCIDENCE OF MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION OF THAT NATURE.  RATHER THAN INCUR
THIS RISK, WITH THE ANTICIPATED CONSEQUENT WIDESPREAD CREATION OF
MULTIPLE LEVIES, THE COURT IN EFFECT FORESTALLED THEM AT THE SOURCE. 
ITS ACTION WAS PROPHYLACTIC AND THE PROPHYLAXIS WAS MADE ABSOLUTE. 

BY THUS RELIEVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM LIABILITY TO PAY TAXES IN
EITHER STATE, WITHOUT ANY SHOWING THAT BOTH HAD LAID THEM, THE EFFECT
WAS, NOT SIMPLY TO RELIEVE THAT COMMERCE FROM MULTIPLE BURDEN, BUT TO
GIVE IT EXEMPTION FROM TAXES ALL OTHER TRADE MUST BEAR.  FN37  LOCAL
TRADE WAS THUS PLACED AT DISADVANTAGE WITH INTERSTATE TRADE, BY THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX, AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THEREBY BECAME A REFUGE FOR
TAX EXEMPTION, NOT SIMPLY A MEANS OF PROTECTION AGAINST UNEQUAL OR
UNDUE TAXATION.  CERTAINLY ITS OBJECT WAS NOT TO CREATE FOR INTERSTATE
TRADE SUCH A SPECIALLY PRIVILEGED POSITION. 

BUT THE ALTERNATIVES TO SUCH A RULING WERE NOT THEMSELVES FREE FROM
DIFFICULTY.  THEY MAY BE STATED SHORTLY.  BUT PRELIMINARILY I ACCEPT
THE VIEW, FREQUENTLY DECLARED,  FN38  THAT A STATE RUNS AFOUL THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE WHEN IT SINGLES OUT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR SPECIAL
TAXATION NOT APPLIED TO OTHER TRADE OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
IT OR TREATS IT INVIDIOUSLY.  MOREOVER, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL,
MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION OF GROSS RECEIPTS, ALTHOUGH BY NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAXES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, DOES COMPEL THE LATTER
TO BEAR A HEAVIER TAX BURDEN THAN LOCAL TRADE IN EITHER STATE.  THE
CUMULATIVE TAX BURDEN IS IN EFFECT DISCRIMINATORY, INVOLVING IN ANY
PRACTICAL VIEW THE EXACT EFFECTS OF A SINGLE DISCRIMINATORY TAX. 
ALTHOUGH THE DIFFERENCE IN TOTAL TAX LOAD MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT
ACTUALLY TO BLOCK OR IMPEDE THE FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE TRADE,  FN39
DISCRIMINATION ALONE, WITHOUT REGARD TO SHOWING OF FURTHER
CONSEQUENCES, HAS BEEN HELD CONSISTENTLY TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR OUTLAWING
THE TAX. 

THIS TOO I ACCEPT.  FOR DISCRIMINATION NOT ONLY IS ORDINARILY ITSELF
INVIDIOUS TREATMENT, BUT HAS AN OBVIOUS TENDENCY TOWARD BLOCKING OR
IMPEDING THE COMMERCE, IF NOT ALWAYS THE ACTUAL EFFECT OF DOING SO.
NOR IS THE DISCRIMINATORY TENDENCY OR EFFECT LESSENED BECAUSE IT
RESULTS FROM CUMULATION OF TAX BURDENS RATHER THAN FROM A SINGLE TAX
PRODUCING THE SAME CONSEQUENCE.  TO ALLOW BOTH STATES TO TAX "TO THE
FULLEST EXTENT" WOULD PRODUCE THE INVIDIOUS SORT OF BARRIER OR
IMPEDIMENT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS DESIGNED TO STOP.  BUT THE BARE
UNEXERCISED POWER OF ANOTHER STATE TO TAX DOES NOT PRODUCE SUCH
RESULTS.  IT ONLY OPENS THE WAY FOR THEM TO BE PRODUCED.  THIS DANGER
IS NOT FANCIFUL BUT REAL, MORE ESPECIALLY IN A TIME WHEN NEW SOURCES OF
REVENUE CONSTANTLY ARE BEING SOUGHT.  ACCORDINGLY, I AGREE THAT THIS
DOOR SHOULD NOT BE OPENED.    BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GO AS FAR AS
THE ADAMS CASE WENT, OR AS THE DECISION NOW RENDERED GOES, IN ORDER TO
PREVENT THE ANTICIPATED DELUGE.  THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE A HAVEN OF REFUGE FROM TAXATION, ALBEIT OF GROSS RECEIPTS OR
FROM "DIRECT" INCIDENCE, IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD IT FROM EVILS AGAINST
WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS DESIGNEDLY PROTECTIVE.  LESS BROAD AND
ABSOLUTE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE AND ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROTECTION WITHOUT CREATING THE EVILS OF TOTAL EXEMPTION. 

THE ALTERNATIVE METHODS AVAILABLE FOR AVOIDING THE MULTIPLE STATE TAX
BURDEN MAY NOW BE STATED.  THEY ARE:  (1) TO APPLY THE ADAMS RULING,
STOPPING SUCH TAXES AT THE SOURCE, UNLESS THE TAX IS APPORTIONED, THUS
ELIMINATING THE CUMULATIVE BURDENS; FN40  (2) TO RULE THAT EITHER THE
STATE OF ORIGIN OR THE STATE OF MARKET, BUT NOT BOTH, CAN LEVY THE
EXACTION; (3) TO DETERMINE FACTUALLY IN EACH CASE WHETHER APPLICATION
OF THE TAX CAN BE MADE BY ONE STATE WITHOUT INCURRING ACTUAL DANGER OF
ITS BEING MADE IN ANOTHER OR THE RISK OF REAL UNCERTAINTY WHETHER IN
FACT IT WILL BE SO MADE. 

THE ADAMS SOLUTION IS NOT UNOBJECTIONABLE, FOR REASONS ALREADY SET
FORTH.  TO DEPRIVE EITHER STATE, WHETHER OF ORIGIN OR OF MARKET, OF THE
POWER TO LAY THE TAX, PERMITTING THE OTHER TO DO SO, HAS THE VICE OF
ALLOWING ONE STATE TO TAX BUT DENYING THIS POWER TO THE OTHER WHEN
NEITHER MAY BE AS MUCH AFFECTED BY THE DEPRIVATION AS WOULD BE THE ONE
ALLOWED TO TAX AND, IN ANY EVENT, BOTH MAY HAVE EQUAL OR SUBSTANTIAL
DUE PROCESS CONNECTIONS WITH THE TRANSACTION.  THE SOLUTION BY FACTUAL
DETERMINATION IN PARTICULAR CASES OF THE ACTUAL OR PROBABLE INCIDENCE
OF BOTH TAXES IS OPEN TO TWO OBJECTIONS.  ONE IS THAT TO SOME EXTENT IT
WOULD MAKE THE TAXING POWER OF ONE OR BOTH STATES DEPEND UPON WHETHER
THE OTHER HAD EXERCISED, OR PROBABLY WOULD EXERCISE, THE SAME POWER. 
THE OTHER WOULD LIE IN THE VOLUME OF LITIGATION SUCH A RULE WOULD
INCITE AND THE DIFFICULTIES, IN SOME CASES AT LEAST, OF MAKING THE
FACTUAL DETERMINATION. 

                                 VI. 

THE PROBLEM OF MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION, ABSENT OTHER FACTORS MAKING
FOR PROHIBITION, IS THEREFORE ONE OF CHOOSING AMONG EVILS.  THERE IS NO
IDEAL SOLUTION.  TO LEAVE THE MATTER TO CONGRESS, ALLOWING BOTH STATES
TO TAX "TO THE FULLEST EXTENT" UNTIL IT INTERVENES, WOULD RUN COUNTER
NOT ONLY TO THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULES REQUIRING APPORTIONMENT WHERE
INCIDENCE OF MULTIPLE TAXES WOULD BE LIKELY, BUT ALSO IN SUBSTANCE AND
EFFECT TO THOSE FORBIDDING DISCRIMINATION, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
CONGRESS, CF. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408, AS WELL AS
THE LONG-SETTLED RULE THAT THE CLAUSE IS "OF ITS OWN FORCE" A
PROHIBITION UPON THE STATES.  TO REQUIRE FACTUAL DETERMINATION OF
FORBIDDEN EFFECTS IN EACH CASE WOULD BE TO INVITE COSTLY LITIGATION,
MAKE DECISION TURN IN SOME CASES, PERHAPS MANY, ON DOUBTFUL FACTS OR
CONCLUSIONS, AND ENCOURAGE THE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION INVOLVING THOSE
CONSEQUENCES.  THE ADAMS RULING, AS I HAVE SAID, CREATES FOR MANY
SITUATIONS A TAX REFUGE FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND DOES THIS IN BOTH
STATES. 

AS AMONG THE VARIOUS POSSIBILITIES, I THINK THE SOLUTION MOST NEARLY
IN ACCORD WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AT ONCE MOST CONSISTENT WITH ITS
PURPOSE AND LEAST OBJECTIONABLE FOR PRODUCING EITHER EVILS IT HAD NO
DESIGN TO BRING OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN ADMINISTRATION, WOULD BE
TO VEST THE POWER TO TAX IN THE STATE OF THE MARKET, SUBJECT TO POWER
IN THE FORWARDING STATE ALSO TO TAX BY ALLOWING CREDIT TO THE FULL
AMOUNT OF ANY TAX PAID OR DUE AT THE DESTINATION.  THIS TOO IS MORE
NEARLY CONSONANT WITH WHAT THE MORE RECENT DECISIONS HAVE ALLOWED, IF
FULL ACCOUNT IS TAKEN OF THEIR EFFECTS. 

IN MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327, 361, I HAVE SET FORTH THE
REASONS LEADING TO THIS CONCLUSION.  FN41  IT MAY BE ADDED THAT SUCH A
RESULT WOULD AVOID ALTOGETHER THE UNDESIRABLE FEATURES OF FACTUAL
DETERMINATION IN EACH CASE; WOULD PREVENT THE MULTIPLE AND, IN EFFECT,
DISCRIMINATORY BURDEN WHICH WOULD FOLLOW FROM ALLOWING BOTH STATES TO
TAX UNTIL CONGRESS SHOULD INTERVENE; AND WOULD REDUCE BY HALF, AT
LEAST, THE TAX REFUGE CREATED BY THE ADAMS RULING, WITHOUT INCURRING
OTHER OUTLAWED EFFECTS. 

IT IS TRUE THIS VIEW LOGICALLY WOULD DENY THE STATE OF ORIGIN POWER
TO TAX, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS ADEQUATE DUE PROCESS CONNECTIONS, EXCEPT BY
GIVING CREDIT FOR TAXES DUE AT THE DESTINATION.  FN42 BUT THE
FORWARDING STATE HAS NO GREATER POWER UNDER THE ADAMS RULING AND NONE
AT ALL UNDER THE PRESENT ONE IF IT IS TO BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY AND,
AS I THINK, THIS CAN BE TAKEN TO OUTLAW BOTH UNAPPORTIONED AND
APPORTIONED TAXES. 

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT UNDER THE LAW PREVAILING UNTIL NOW THIS TAX
WOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED, IF APPORTIONED, UNDER THE ADAMS DECISION AND
OTHERS.  FN43  NOR HAVE I ANY QUESTION THAT SUCH A TAX LAID BY NEW YORK
WOULD BE UPHELD UNDER THOSE DECISIONS.  INDEED, IN MY OPINION, THE
NECESSARY EFFECT OF MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, AS
APPELLEE ASSERTS, IS TO SUSTAIN POWER IN THE STATE OF THE MARKET TO TAX
"TO THE FULLEST EXTENT" WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT BY NONDISCRIMINATORY
TAXES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, TRANSACTIONS ESSENTIALLY NO DIFFERENT
FROM THE ONES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AND IN THE ADAMS CASE. 

IT IS TRUE THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE PURPORTED TO DISTINGUISH THE ADAMS
CASE.  BUT IT DID SO BY POINTING OUT THAT THE NEW YORK TAX WAS
"CONDITIONED UPON A LOCAL ACTIVITY, DELIVERY OF GOODS WITHIN THE STATE
UPON THEIR PURCHASE FOR CONSUMPTION" AND THAT "THE EFFECT OF THE TAX,
EVEN THOUGH MEASURED BY THE SALES PRICE, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, NEITHER
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NOR OBSTRUCTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE MORE THAN
NUMEROUS OTHER STATE TAXES WHICH HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN SUSTAINED AS
INVOLVING NO PROHIBITED REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  309 U.S.
33, 58. 

THIS COMES DOWN TO SUSTAINING THE TAX, AS WAS DONE IN AMERICAN MFG.
CO. V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA, RELIED UPON TO DISTINGUISH THE ADAMS CASE,
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE TAX WAS PEGGED UPON THE "LOCAL INCIDENT" OF
DELIVERY.  APART FROM THE REASONS I HAVE SET FORTH ABOVE FOR REGARDING
THIS AS NOT BEING CONTROLLING, THAT BASIS WAS FLATLY REPUDIATED IN
NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416, AS ADEQUATE FOR SUSTAINING A TAX
HAVING OTHERWISE THE FORBIDDEN EFFECTS AND FEATURES.  SO HERE, IN MY
OPINION, IT IS HARDLY ADEQUATE TO DISTINGUISH THE ADAMS CASE, LEAVING
IT UNIMPAIRED, OR TO DIFFERENTIATE CONSISTENTLY THE BROADER RULING MADE
IN THIS CASE. 

I THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE APPELLEE THAT THE EFFECT OF THE BERWIND
WHITE RULING WAS IN SUBSTANCE, THOUGH NOT IN WORDS, TO QUALIFY THE
ADAMS DECISION, AND THAT THE COMBINED EFFECT OF THE TWO CASES, TAKEN
TOGETHER, WAS TO PERMIT THE STATE OF THE MARKET TO TAX THE INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION, BUT TO DENY THIS POWER TO THE FORWARDING STATE, UNLESS BY
CREDIT OR OTHERWISE IT SHOULD MAKE PROVISION FOR APPORTIONMENT.  SEE
POWELL, NEW LIGHT ON GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES (1940) 53 HARV. L. REV. 909,
939.  WHETHER OR NOT SUCH A PROVISION WOULD SAVE THE INDIANA TAX AS NOW
APPLIED, IN VIEW OF WHAT I THINK WAS THE EFFECT OF BERWIND-WHITE ON ANY
BASIS OTHER THAN SHEER FORMALISM, NEED NOT NOW BE CONSIDERED.  FN44 

WHETHER OR NOT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THIS EFFECT OF THE BERWIND-WHITE
DECISION WOULD REQUIRE RECONSIDERATION OF THE VALIDITY OF APPORTIONED
TAXES OTHERWISE THAN BY FULL CREDIT, LAID BY THE FORWARDING STATE,
FN45  NEITHER THAT FACT NOR THE EFFECT OF BERWIND-WHITE IN QUALIFYING
THE ADAMS RULING JUSTIFIES THE BROADER RULING NOW MADE TO REACH THE
SAME RESULT AS THE ADAMS CASE REACHED.  THE TREND OF RECENT DECISIONS
HAS BEEN TOWARD SUSTAINING STATE TAXES FORMERLY REGARDED AS OUTLAWED BY
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE PRESENT DECISION, BY ITS REVERSION TO THE
FORMAL AND DISCARDED GROUNDING IN THE "DIRECT INCIDENCE" OF THE TAX, IS
A REVERSAL OF THAT TREND.  IT IS ONE, MOREOVER, UNNECESSARY FOR
SUSTAINING THE RESULT THE COURT HAS REACHED.  ITS CONSEQUENCE, IF
FOLLOWED IN LOGICAL APPLICATION TO APPORTIONED TAXES, WILL BE TO OUTLAW
THEM, FOR THEY BEAR AS "DIRECTLY" ON "THE COMMERCE ITSELF" AS DOES THE
TAX NOW STRICKEN DOWN IN ITS PRESENT APPLICATION.  SO ALSO DOES THE
TYPE OF TAX SUSTAINED IN THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE, IN EVERYTHING BUT
VERBALISM. 

I THINK THE RESULT NOW REACHED IS JUSTIFIED, AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT
THE CUMULATIVE AND THEREFORE DISCRIMINATORY TAX BURDEN WHICH WOULD REST
ON OR SERIOUSLY THREATEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IF MORE THAN ONE STATE IS
ALLOWED TO IMPOSE THE TAX, AS DOES INDIANA, UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS
FROM THE SALE WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT OR CREDIT FOR TAXES VALIDLY IMPOSED
ELSEWHERE.  THIS RESULT WOULD FOLLOW IN VIEW OF THE BERWIND-WHITE
DECISION AND OTHERS LIKE IT,  FN46  IF NOT ONLY THE STATE OF THE MARKET
BUT ALSO THE FORWARDING STATE COULD TAX THE SALE "TO THE FULLEST
EXTENT" UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS.  FOR THIS REASON I CONCUR IN THE
RESULT. 

BUT IN DOING SO I DISSENT FROM GROUNDING THE DECISION UPON A
FOUNDATION WHICH NOT ONLY WILL OUTLAW PROPERLY APPORTIONED TAXES, THUS
GOING BEYOND THE ADAMS DECISION, UNLESS THE COURT IS MERELY TO
REITERATE THE RULE FORBIDDING "DIRECT" TAXATION OF INTERSTATE SALES
ONLY TO RECALL IT WHEN A CASE INVOLVING A PROPERLY APPORTIONED TAX
SHALL ARISE; BUT ALSO WILL REQUIRE OUTLAWING MANY OTHER TYPES OF TAX
HERETOFORE SUSTAINED, UNLESS A SIMILAR RETREAT IS MADE. 

FN1  THE COURT ADDED:  "WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT SUCH A TAX IS A
REGULATION OF, AND A BURDEN UPON, INTERSTATE COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE OPINION OF THE STATE
SUPREME COURT STRESSES THE GENERALITY AND NONDISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER
OF THE EXACTION, BUT IT IS SETTLED THAT THIS WILL NOT SAVE THE TAX IF
IT DIRECTLY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  304 U.S. 307, 311-312.  CF.
NOTES 5 AND 16. 

FN2  THE ONLY FACTUAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT HERE THE SALES WERE OF
SECURITIES, THERE OF GOODS.  IT WAS THIS UPON WHICH INDIANA HAS RELIED
TO DISTINGUISH THE ADAMS CASE, ASSERTING ORIGINALLY THAT IT GAVE
DOMICILIARY FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINING THE TAX.  THIS CLAIM DISAPPEARED,
IN EFFECT, AT THE SECOND ORAL ARGUMENT, AND THE COURT DOES NOT REST ON
IT.  I AGREE THAT, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, SALES OF INTANGIBLES SHOULD BE
TREATED IDENTICALLY WITH SALES OF GOODS. 

FN3  SEE, E.G. PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S. 18;
CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450; U.S. EXPRESS CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335.  AND SEE ESPECIALLY DISCUSSION IN WESTERN LIVE
STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 255-257. 

FN4  COMPARE THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IN NORTHWEST
AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292. 

FN5  AS THE COURT SAYS, "AN EXACTION BY A STATE FROM INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FALLS NOT BECAUSE OF A PROVEN INCREASE IN THE COST OF THE
PRODUCT.  WHAT MAKES THE TAX INVALID IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS
INTERFERENCE BY A STATE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THE
ONLY "INTERFERENCE" HELD TO BE IMPORTANT IS THE DIRECT INCIDENCE OF THE
TAX ON THE COMMERCE, NOT THE DOUBLE BURDEN OR RISK OF IT. CF. NOTES 1
AND 16. 

FN6  SEE E.G. RIBBLE, STATE AND NATIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE (1937)
204; DOWLING, INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND STATE POWER (1940) 27 VA. L. REV.
1, 3-10.  SEE ALSO FRANKFURTER, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE (1937) 53:  "HAD
MARSHALL'S THEORY OF THE 'DORMANT' COMMERCE POWER PREVAILED, THE
TAXABLE RESOURCES OF THE STATES WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATLY CONFINED.  THE
FULL IMPLICATIONS OF HIS THEORY, IF LOGICALLY PURSUED, MIGHT WELL HAVE
PROFOUNDLY ALTERED THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT." 

FN7  SEE NOTE 6.  SEE ALSO WECHSLER, STONE AND THE CONSTITUTION
(1946) 46 COL. L. REV. 764, 785, QUOTED IN NOTE 10 INFRA. 

FN8  CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTES 14 TO 16, ALSO 21, AND AUTHORITIES
CITED. 

FN9  SEE E.G., ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S.
489; REAL SILK HOSIERY MILLS V. PORTLAND, 268 U.S. 325; NIPPERT V.
RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN10  SEE RIBBLE, SUPRA, AT 72 FF.; FRANKFURTER, SUPRA, AT 24, 56;
WECHSLER, STONE AND THE CONSTITUTION (1946) 46 COL. L. REV. 764, 785:
"IT WILL SUMMARIZE HIS BASIC CONCEPTION TO SAY THAT AS THE ISSUES WERE
FRAMED IN THE LONG DEBATE THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE COURT IN COOLEY V.
BOARD OF WARDENS COMES CLOSEST TO ACCORDING WITH HIS THOUGHT." 

FN11  "EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT THAT THE OPPOSING DEMANDS THAT THE
COMMERCE SHALL BEAR ITS SHARE OF LOCAL TAXATION, AND THAT IT SHALL NOT,
ON THE OTHER HAND, BE SUBJECTED TO MULTIPLE TAX BURDENS MERELY BECAUSE
IT IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ARE NOT CAPABLE OF RECONCILIATION BY RESORT
TO THE SYLLOGISM.  PRACTICAL RATHER THAN LOGICAL DISTINCTIONS MUST BE
SOUGHT."  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 259. 
SEE ALSO THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE STONE IN DI SANTO V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, 44(OVERRULED BY CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313
U.S. 109), "IN THUS MAKING USE OF THE EXPRESSIONS, 'DIRECT' AND
'INDIRECT INTERFERENCE' WITH COMMERCE, WE ARE DOING LITTLE MORE THAN
USING LABELS TO DESCRIBE A RESULT RATHER THAN ANY TRUSTWORTHY FORMULA
BY WHICH IT IS REACHED." 

FN12  SEE, E.G., MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309
U.S. 33; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434; NIPPERT V.
RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416. 

FN13  GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED FALL INTO THE
FOLLOWING GROUPS:  (A) THOSE WHICH WERE FAIRLY APPORTIONED.  SEE, E.G.,
ILLINOIS CENT. R. V. MINNESOTA, 309 U.S. 157; PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO.
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S. 18; WISCONSIN & MICHIGAN RY. V. POWERS, 191
U.S. 379; U.S. EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335; FICKLEN V.
TAXING DISTRICT, 145 U.S. 1.  (B) THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED ON A
"LOCAL INCIDENCE" THEORY.  SEE, E.G., WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, WITH WHICH COMPARE FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX
COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309
U.S. 33; AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459.  SEE ALSO CASES
CITED IN NOTE 21.  IN MANY CASES APPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES HAVE
BEEN SUSTAINED NOT ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE APPORTIONED BUT THAT
THEY WERE LOCAL IN NATURE.  SEE, E.G., MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK RY., 142
U.S. 217; NEW YORK, L.E. & W.R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 158 U.S. 431;
WISCONSIN & MICHIGAN RY. V. POWERS, SUPRA; U.S. EXPRESS CO. V.
MINNESOTA, SUPRA. 

GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SUSTAINED FALL INTO THE
FOLLOWING GROUPS:  (A) THOSE WHICH WERE NOT FAIRLY APPORTIONED.  SEE,
E.G., OKLAHOMA V. WELLS FARGO CO., 223 U.S. 298.  (B) THOSE WHICH WERE
NOT APPORTIONED AND SUBJECTED INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE RISK OF
MULTIPLE TAXATION.  PHILADELPHIA & SO. S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122
U.S. 326; RATTERMAN V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 127 U.S. 411;
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. ALABAMA, 132 U.S. 472; ADAMS MFG. CO. V.
STOREN, 304 U.S. 307; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434,
439.  CF. FARGO V. MICHIGAN, 121 U.S. 230, AS EXPLAINED IN WESTERN LIVE
STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 256.  (C) THOSE IN WHICH
THERE WAS A DISCRIMINATORY ELEMENT IN THAT THEY WERE DIRECTED
EXCLUSIVELY "AT TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION," LOCKHART, GROSS
RECEIPTS TAXES ON TRANSPORTATION (1943) 57 HARV. L. REV. 40, 65-66. 
GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, AND CF. NEW JERSEY
TEL. CO. V. TAX BOARD, 280 U.S. 338.  BUT SEE NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.
RY. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362.  IN BOTH THE GALVESTON AND NEW JERSEY
TELEPHONE COMPANY CASES, ALTHOUGH THE TAXABLE EVENTS ALL OCCURRED
WITHIN THE TAXING STATE, THE POSSIBILITY OF MULTIPLE TAXATION WAS
NEVERTHELESS PRESENT.  (D) THOSE IN WHICH THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATION
BUT A POSSIBLE MULTIPLE BURDEN.  FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX COMM'N,
SUPRA, AS EXPLAINED IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303
U.S. AT 260-261.  (E) THOSE IN WHICH THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATION, NO
APPORTIONMENT AND NO POSSIBILITY OF MULTIPLE BURDEN.  PUGET SOUND
STEVEDORING CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90.  THIS DECISION, IT MAY
BE NOTED, MIGHT HAVE BEEN RESTED UPON THE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
FORBIDDING THE STATES TO TAX EXPORTS.  CF. RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE
BOARD, 329 U.S. 69. 

FN14  CF. CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109; UNION BROKERAGE CO.
V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202; ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, 328 U.S. 440. 
INDEED, SOMETIMES POLICE REGULATIONS BEAR MORE HEAVILY ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  CF. ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, AND CASES CITED AT NOTE
28 THEREIN. 

FN15  SEE CASES CITED IN NOTE 13, SUPRA. 

FN16  THE COURT SAID, IN ANSWER TO THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT'S
EMPHASIS UPON THE "GENERALITY AND NONDISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER" OF THE
LEVY, "BUT IT IS SETTLED THAT THIS WILL NOT SAVE THE TAX IF IT DIRECTLY
BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  304 U.S. AT 312; CF. NOTE 1, SUPRA.  THE
SAME STATEMENT IS NOW MADE IN THIS CASE NOT TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION
THAT THESE FEATURES CANNOT SAVE A TAX WHERE THE RISK OF MULTIPLE STATE
TAXATION WOULD OUTLAW IT, AS IN THE ADAMS CASE, BUT TO SUPPORT THE
VASTLY BROADER GROUNDING THAT THE TAX IS INVALID SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS
"DIRECT" IN ITS INCIDENCE.  THE QUOTED ADAMS STATEMENT HAD NO SUCH
SIGNIFICANCE, AS APPEARS NOT ONLY FROM ITS IMMEDIATE CONTEXT BUT ALSO
FROM THE FURTHER STATEMENT, MADE APROPOS OF AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST.
LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, IN AN EFFORT TO DISTINGUISH IT:  "IT IS BECAUSE
THE TAX, FORBIDDEN AS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, REACHES INDISCRIMINATELY
AND WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, THE GROSS COMPENSATION FOR BOTH INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES THAT IT MUST FAIL IN ITS ENTIRETY SO
FAR AS APPLIED TO RECEIPTS FROM SALES INTERSTATE."  304 U.S. AT 314. 
NOT "DIRECT" TAXATION SIMPLY, BUT TAXING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS WITHOUT
APPORTIONMENT IN THE FACE OF THREATENED OR POSSIBLE MULTIPLE STATE
TAXATION WAS THE "DIRECT BURDEN" FOUND AND OUTLAWED IN THE ADAMS CASE. 

FN17  "IF THE ONLY THING NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN A STATE TAX BEARING
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE TO DISCOVER SOME LOCAL INCIDENT WHICH
MIGHT BE REGARDED AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM 'THE TRANSPORTATION OR
INTERCOURSE WHICH IS' THE COMMERCE ITSELF AND THEN TO LAY THE TAX ON
THAT INCIDENT, ALL INTERSTATE COMMERCE COULD BE SUBJECTED TO STATE
TAXATION AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE
TAX UPON THE COMMERCE."  NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416, 423. 

FN18  TO SAY THAT THIS WAS NOT IN SUBSTANCE A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS,
BECAUSE SALES IN ST. LOUIS OF GOODS MADE ELSEWHERE WERE NOT TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT IN MEASURING THE TAX, IS SIMPLY TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE TAX
DID INCLUDE ALL INTERSTATE SALES OF GOODS MANUFACTURED AND ALL RETURNS
FROM THEM.  THAT THE LOCAL SALES OF GOODS BROUGHT IN FROM OTHER STATES
WERE EXCEPTED DOES NOT MEAN EITHER THAT THOSE SALES WERE INTERSTATE
TRANSACTIONS (WHICH IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE IN VIEW OF THEIR
EXEMPTION) OR THAT THE SALES OUT OF STATE INCLUDED IN THE MEASURE WERE
NOT INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS; OR THAT THEY WERE NOT, IN SUBSTANTIAL
EFFECT, TAXED UPON THEIR GROSS RETURNS BY THE MEASURE, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE TAX WAS MADE LEGALLY TO FALL UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF MANUFACTURING. 

THE ADAMS DECISION PURPORTED TO DISTINGUISH AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST.
LOUIS SIMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX WAS NOT ONE LAID ON THE
TAXPAYER'S SALES OR THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THEM, BUT WAS A LICENSE FEE
FOR ENGAGING IN THE MANUFACTURE WHICH COULD BE MEASURED "BY THE SALES
PRICE OF THE GOODS PRODUCED RATHER THAN BY THEIR VALUE AT THE DATE OF
MANUFACTURE." 

FN19  IN ADDITION TO AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459,
SEE OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172; HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. V.
HALL, 274 U.S. 284; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165. 

FN20  CF. GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 227;
MORRISON, STATE TAXATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE (1942) 36 ILL. L. REV.
727, 738. 

FN21  SEE POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. ADAMS, 155 U.S. 688; U.S.
EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335; PULLMAN CO. V. RICHARDSON, 261
U.S. 330.  SEE ALSO DISCUSSION IN GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS,
210 U.S. 217, 226-227. 

FN22  THIS IS TRUE, THOUGH CONCEDEDLY SUCH A TAX MIGHT WORK TO
PREVENT CUMULATIVE OR HIGHER TAX BURDENS IMPOSED BY A SINGLE TAXING
STATE.  CF. LOCKHART, GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES ON INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
AND COMMUNICATION (1943) 57 HARV. L. REV. 40. 

FN23  SEE NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416; BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL,
311 U.S. 454.  CF. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408.  SEE
ALSO WECHSLER, STONE AND THE CONSTITUTION (1946) 46 COL. L. REV. 764,
785-787. 

FN24  SEE DISSENTING OPINION IN MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327,
AT 356-357.  SEE ALSO WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444
445. 

FN25  SEE MCNAMARA, JURISDICTIONAL AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE PROBLEMS
IN THE IMPOSITION OF EXCISES ON SALES (1941) 8 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB. 
482, 491.  COMPARE THE DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED FEDERAL STATUTE TO GIVE
THE BUYER'S STATE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE NONDISCRIMINATORY SALES TAXES. 
PROC. 27TH ANN. CONF. NAT. TAX ASSN. (1934) 136-160.  SEE ALSO PERKINS,
THE SALES TAX AND TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (1934) 12 N.C.L.
REV. 99. 

FN26  CF. NOTE 25. 

FN27  INDIANA WAS THE STATE BY WHOSE LAW THE TRUST WAS CREATED.  IT
WAS THE SITUS OF THE TRUST'S ADMINISTRATION.  IT WAS THE PLACE WHERE
THE SECURITIES WERE KEPT PRIOR TO MAILING FOR DELIVERY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TERMS OF THEIR SALE.  CF. CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357. 
THE DIRECTIONS FOR SALE WERE GIVEN THERE.  THE PROCEEDS WERE FORWARDED
TO INDIANA AND THERE RECEIVED INTO THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST.  THE
STATE'S CONNECTIONS WITH THE TRUST, AND WITH THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS THE
SUBJECT OF THE SALE, MORE THAN SATISFY ANY DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT FOR
EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO TAX EITHER THE PROPERTY OR TRANSACTIONS
RELATING TO ITS DISPOSITION TAKING PLACE AS LARGELY WITHIN INDIANA'S
BORDERS AS DID THE SALES IN THIS CASE. 

FN28  THE CASES, ASIDE FROM ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307,
WHICH INVOLVE THE INDIANA GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ARE:  DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY V. WOOD PRESERVING CORP., 313 U.S. 62; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
V. INGRAM-RICHARDSON MFG. CO., 313 U.S. 252; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
CO. V. DEPT. OF TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340; FORD MOTOR CO. V. DEPT. OF
TREASURY, 323 U.S. 459.  SEE ALSO GENERAL TRADING CO. V. STATE TAX
COMMISSION, 322 U.S. 335; CF. NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S.
292. 

FN29  SEE, E.G., MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33; NELSON
V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359; GENERAL TRADING CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION, 322 U.S. 335; WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303
U.S. 250; COVERDALE V. ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604;
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V. INGRAM-RICHARDSON MFG. CO., 313 U.S. 252. 

FN30  COMPARE MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, WITH
MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327.  SEE POWELL, NEW LIGHT ON GROSS
RECEIPTS TAXES (1940) 53 HARV. L. REV. 909. 

FN31  SEE MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, 58, QUOTED
INFRA PART VI. 

FN32  AS A MATTER OF MINIMAL DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS.  CF. TEXT
INFRA AT NOTES 24 TO 27. 

FN33  THE DANGER OF AN IMPENDING BURDEN OR BARRIER FROM MULTIPLE
STATE TAXATION COULD BE REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL IN A PARTICULAR CASE IF
THE THREAT OF SUCH TAXATION WERE ACTUAL OR PROBABLE OR IF ITS
THREATENED INCIDENCE WERE INVOLVED IN SUCH ACTUAL UNCERTAINTY THAT THIS
UNCERTAINTY ITSELF WOULD CONSTITUTE, IN PRACTICAL EFFECT, A SUBSTANTIAL
CLOG. 

FN34  THE INDIANA TAX WAS ONLY ONE PER CENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE
SALES.  THE RECORD INDICATES, TOO, THAT THE NEW YORK STOCK TRANSFER TAX
WAS COLLECTED FROM THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE IN NEW YORK.  THE AMOUNT OF
THE TAX WAS THREE CENTS PER SHARE SOLD FOR LESS THAN TWENTY DOLLARS,
AND FOUR CENTS PER SHARE SOLD FOR MORE THAN TWENTY DOLLARS.  TAX LAW
SECS. 270, 270A; O'KANE V. NEW YORK, 283 N.Y. 439, 28 N.E.2D 905.  THE
TAX DID NOT APPLY TO THE TRANSFER OF BONDS.  CF. OP. ATTY. GEN. N.Y.
1939, P. 208. 

FN35  CF. NOTE 31.  WHETHER SUCH A TAX WOULD IN FACT PRODUCE THE
FORBIDDEN RESULTS OR NOT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE INCIDENCE OR LIKELIHOOD
OF THE INCIDENCE OF A LIKE TAX IN THE OTHER, OR ANOTHER, JURISDICTION
HAVING SIMILAR POWER.  FREQUENTLY THIS LIKELIHOOD WILL BE, IN FACT,
EITHER NIL OR SMALL. 

FN36  THE OPINION DISCLOSES NO CONSIDERATION OF ANY QUESTION OR
SUGGESTION WHETHER A LIKE OR OTHER TAX HAD BEEN OR WAS LIKELY TO BE
IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF DESTINATION, OR EVEN THAT SUCH A TAX BY THAT
STATE WAS DOUBTFULLY INCIDENT.  SUCH AN INQUIRY WOULD HAVE BEEN
INCONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S THESIS. 

FN37  IT IS ASSUMED, OF COURSE, THAT A NONDISCRIMINATORY TAX OF
GENERAL APPLICABILITY LAID BY THE TAXING STATE WOULD BE INVOLVED. 

FN38  SEE BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454; HALE V. BIMCO TRADING
CO., 306 U.S. 375; GUY V. BALTIMORE, 100 U.S. 434; WEBBER V. VIRGINIA,
103 U.S. 344; WELTON V. MISSOURI, 91 U.S. 275; VOIGHT V. WRIGHT, 141
U.S. 62; BRIMMER V. REBMAN, 138 U.S. 78. 

FN39  FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AMONG WHICH MIGHT BE THE LARGER
CAPACITY OF SUCH TRADE TO ABSORB THE DIFFERENCE, BY REASON OF GREATER
VOLUME, WITHOUT SUSTAINING LOSS OF PROFIT, IN THE PARTICULAR SORT OF
COMMERCE OR TYPE OF TRANSACTION.  SEE ALSO NOTE 34. 

FN40  THE ADAMS DECISION, OF COURSE, MADE NO DIRECT RULING UPON AN
ACTUAL TAX LAID BY THE STATE OF DESTINATION.  BUT THE BASIC PREMISE OF
ITS RATIONALIZATION WOULD BE ALTOGETHER WITHOUT SUBSTANCE IF IT WERE
TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH A TAX COULD BE LEVIED THERE WITHOUT MEETING THE
SAME BARRIER, AND FOR THE SAME REASON, AS THE TAX LEVIED BY INDIANA,
THE STATE OF ORIGIN, ENCOUNTERED. 

FN41  "IF IN THIS CASE IT WERE NECESSARY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE STATE
OF ORIGIN AND THAT OF MARKET FOR THE EXERCISE OF EXCLUSIVE POWER TO
TAX, OR FOR REQUIRING ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT IN ORDER TO AVOID THE
CUMULATIVE BURDEN, IN MY OPINION THE CHOICE SHOULD LIE IN FAVOR OF THE
STATE OF MARKET RATHER THAN THE STATE OF ORIGIN.  THE FORMER IS THE
STATE WHERE THE GOODS MUST COME IN COMPETITION WITH THOSE SOLD
LOCALLY.  IT IS THE ONE WHERE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX NECESSARILY WILL
FALL EQUALLY ON BOTH CLASSES OF TRADE.  TO CHOOSE THE TAX OF THE STATE
OF ORIGIN PRESENTS AT LEAST SOME POSSIBILITIES THAT THE BURDEN IT
IMPOSES ON ITS LOCAL TRADE, WITH WHICH THE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC DOES NOT
COMPETE, AT ANY RATE DIRECTLY, WILL BE HEAVIER THAN THAT PLACED BY THE
CONSUMING STATE ON ITS LOCAL BUSINESS OF THE SAME CHARACTER." 

FN42  CREDIT ALLOWED FOR TAXES PAID ELSEWHERE, SEE HENNEFORD V. SILAS
MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577; GENERAL TRADING CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 322
U.S. 335, IS A FORM OF APPORTIONMENT, THOUGH NOT THE ONLY ONE. 

FN43  SEE ALSO GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434. 

FN44  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT AN APPORTIONED TAX LAID BY THE FORWARDING
STATE, TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN UNAPPORTIONED ONE LEVIED BY THE
STATE OF THE MARKET, WOULD PRODUCE THE EFFECT OF MULTIPLE STATE LEVIES
TO THE EXTENT OF THE APPORTIONED TAX UNLESS THE APPORTIONMENT WERE MADE
BY GIVING FULL CREDIT FOR THE OTHER TAX.  IN THE LATTER EVENT, OF
COURSE, THERE WOULD BE NO EFFECT OF MULTIPLE BURDEN IN THE SENSE
FORBIDDEN BY THE RULE REQUIRING APPORTIONMENT AND SUSTAINING PROPERLY
APPORTIONED TAXES.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A CREDIT TO THE FULL AMOUNT OF
THE MARKETING STATE'S TAX, THE APPORTIONED TAX OF THE FORWARDING STATE,
ALTHOUGH MAKING A CUMULATIVE BURDEN, WOULD IMPOSE ONLY A REDUCED ONE AS
COMPARED WITH AN UNAPPORTIONED TAX BY THAT STATE.    FN45  CF. NOTE
44. 

FN46  SEE THE "USE TAX" CASES:  GENERAL TRADING CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION, 322 U.S. 335; FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306
U.S. 62; NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359; NELSON V.
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 312 U.S. 373.  SEE ALSO JAGELS V. TAYLOR, 309
U.S. 619, DISCUSSED IN MCNAMARA, SUPRA, NOTE 25, AT 487. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE COURT CONFUSES A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON THE INDIANA BROKER
WITH A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON HIS INDIANA CUSTOMER.  GWIN, WHITE &
PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, WOULD HOLD INVALID A GROSS
RECEIPTS TAX, UNAPPORTIONED, ON THE BROKER.  IN THAT CASE THE TAXPAYER
WAS A MARKETING AGENT FOR FRUIT GROWERS IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 
THE AGENT MADE SALES AND DELIVERIES OF THE FRUIT IN OTHER STATES AND IN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES, COLLECTED THE SALES PRICES, AND REMITTED THE
PROCEEDS, LESS CHARGES, TO THE CUSTOMERS.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE
GROSS RECEIPTS TAX, BEING UNAPPORTIONED, WAS INVALID.  THERE ARE TWO
REASONS WHY THAT RESULT FOLLOWED.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS THE COURT
STATED AT P. 437, "THE ENTIRE SERVICE FOR WHICH THE COMPENSATION IS
PAID IS IN AID OF THE SHIPMENT AND SALE OF MERCHANDISE" IN INTERSTATE
OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  "SUCH SERVICES ARE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE."  IN THE SECOND PLACE, AS THE COURT STATED AT P. 439,
"IF WASHINGTON IS FREE TO EXACT SUCH A TAX, OTHER STATES TO WHICH THE
COMMERCE EXTENDS MAY, WITH EQUAL RIGHT, LAY A TAX SIMILARLY MEASURED
FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL
LIMITS THE ACTIVITIES THERE WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE SERVICE.  THE
PRESENT TAX, THOUGH NOMINALLY LOCAL, THUS IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SINCE IT IMPOSES UPON IT,
MERELY BECAUSE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS BEING DONE, THE RISK OF A
MULTIPLE BURDEN TO WHICH LOCAL COMMERCE IS NOT EXPOSED." 

UNDER THAT VIEW A TAX ON THE COMMISSIONS OF THE INDIANA BROKER WOULD
BE INVALID.  BUT I SEE NO MORE REASON FOR GIVING THE CUSTOMER IMMUNITY
THAN I WOULD FOR GIVING IMMUNITY TO THE FRUIT GROWERS WHO SOLD THEIR
FRUIT THROUGH THE BROKER IN GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD,
SUPRA. 

CONCEDEDLY ALMOST ANY LOCAL ACTIVITY COULD, IF INTEGRATED WITH
EARLIER OR SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS, BE TREATED AS PARTS OF AN
INTERSTATE WHOLE.  IN THAT VIEW AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250
U.S. 459, WOULD FIND SURVIVAL DIFFICULT.  FOR IN THAT CASE A STATE TAX
ON A MANUFACTURER WAS UPHELD THOUGH THE TAX WAS MEASURED BY THE VALUE
OF THE GOODS MANUFACTURED WITHIN THE STATE AND THEREAFTER SOLD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303
U.S. 250, A TAX LAID ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF A TRADE JOURNAL PUBLISHED
IN NEW MEXICO WAS SUSTAINED ALTHOUGH OUT-OF-STATE ADVERTISEMENTS WERE
INCLUDED IN THE JOURNAL AND THERE WAS INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION OF IT.
THE COURT TREATED THE LOCAL BUSINESS AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION AND INTERCOURSE WHICH ARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WHICH
WERE EMPLOYED TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS. 

I THINK THE LEAST THAT CAN BE SAID IS THAT THE LOCAL TRANSACTIONS OR
ACTIVITIES OF THIS TAXPAYER CAN BE AS EASILY UNTANGLED FROM THE
INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES OF HIS BROKER. 

ANY RECEIPT OF INCOME IN INDIANA FROM OUT-OF-STATE SOURCES INVOLVES,
OF COURSE, THE USE OF INTERSTATE AGENCIES OF COMMUNICATION.  THAT
ALONE, HOWEVER, IS NO BARRIER TO ITS TAXATION BY INDIANA.  WESTERN LIVE
STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, SUPRA.  CF. NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V.
GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308.  THE RECEIPT OF INCOME IN INDIANA, LIKE THE
DELIVERY OF PROPERTY THERE, INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. DEPT. OF
TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340, IS A LOCAL TRANSACTION WHICH CONSTITUTIONALLY
CAN BE MADE A TAXABLE EVENT.  FOR A LOCAL ACTIVITY WHICH IS SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE TAXED THOUGH INTERSTATE
ACTIVITY IS INDUCED OR OCCASIONED BY IT. WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU
OF REVENUE, SUPRA, P. 253.  THE MANAGEMENT OF AN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
WITH INCOME FROM OUT-OF-STATE SOURCES IS AS MUCH A LOCAL ACTIVITY AS
THE MANUFACTURE OF GOODS DESTINED FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AMERICAN
MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA, THE PUBLICATION OF A TRADE JOURNAL WITH
INTERSTATE REVENUES, WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, SUPRA, OR
THE GROWING OF FRUIT FOR INTERSTATE MARKETS, GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC.
V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA.  ALL SUCH TAXES AFFECT IN SOME MEASURE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR INCREASE THE COST OF DOING IT.  BUT, AS WE POINTED OUT IN
MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33, 48, THAT IS
NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE. 

ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, IS DIFFERENT.  IN THAT CASE
THE TAXPAYER HAD ITS FACTORY AND PLACE OF BUSINESS IN INDIANA AND SOLD
ITS PRODUCTS IN OTHER STATES ON ORDERS TAKEN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT THE
HOME OFFICE.  THE COURT THOUGHT THE RISK OF MULTIPLE TAXATION WAS REAL,
BECAUSE OF THE INTERSTATE REACH OF THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 
THE FACT IS THAT THE INCIDENCE OF THAT TAX WAS COMPARABLE TO THE
INCIDENCE OF AN UNAPPORTIONED TAX ON INTERSTATE FREIGHT REVENUES. 

THE PRESENT TAX IS NOT AIMED AT INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND DOES NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST IT.  IT IS NOT IMPOSED AS A LEVY FOR THE PRIVILEGE
OF DOING IT.  IT IS NOT A TAX ON INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR
COMMUNICATION.  IT IS NOT AN EXACTION ON PROPERTY IN ITS INTERSTATE
JOURNEY.  IT IS NOT A TAX ON INTERSTATE SELLING.  THE TAX IS ON THE
PROCEEDS OF THE SALES LESS THE BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS AND THEREFORE DOES
NOT REACH THE REVENUES FROM THE ONLY INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN
THESE TRANSACTIONS.  IT IS THEREFORE ESSENTIALLY NO DIFFERENT, SO FAR
AS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS CONCERNED, FROM A TAX BY INDIANA ON THE
PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF A FARM OR OTHER PROPERTY IN NEW YORK WHERE THE
MAILS ARE USED TO AUTHORIZE IT, TO TRANSMIT THE DEED, AND TO RECEIVE
THE PROCEEDS. 

I WOULD ADHERE TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF OUR RECENT CASES  FN1  AND AFFIRM
THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

FN1  OF WHICH GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA, WESTERN
LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, SUPRA, AND MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE
COAL MINING CO., SUPRA, ARE ILLUSTRATIVE. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. RUZICKA, 329 U.S. 287 


NO. 54.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 20, 21, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 16, 1946.  -
152 F.2D 167, REVERSED. 


IN A SUIT BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER SEC. 8A (6) OF THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT TO ENFORCE AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE UNDER SEC. 8C, REQUIRING HANDLERS OF MILK TO PAY MONEY INTO
A PRODUCER-SETTLEMENT FUND, THE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THEIR
FAILURE TO PAY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEMAND WAS BASED UPON FAULTY
INSPECTION OF THEIR ACCOUNTS AND IMPROPER TESTS OF THEIR MILK AND MILK
PRODUCTS.  HELD:  THEY CAN NOT ASSERT THIS DEFENSE IN AN ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 8A (6) BUT ARE LEFT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY SEC. 8C (15).  STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288,
DIFFERENTIATED.  PP. 290-296. 

UNITED STATES V. RUZICKA ET AL., TRADING AS SEELEY DAIRY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER SEC. 8A (6) OF THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 AGAINST CERTAIN HANDLERS OF MILK TO
ENFORCE THEIR OBLIGATION TO MAKE PAYMENTS INTO A PRODUCER-SETTLEMENT
FUND, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  152 F.2D 167.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 776.  REVERSED, P. 296. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE, 327 U.S. 776, BECAUSE IT RAISES QUESTIONS
OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937.  50 STAT. 246, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 601 ET SEQ. THE
GENERAL SCHEME OF THE ACT AND ITS OPERATION HAVE BEEN BEFORE US IN A
SERIES OF CASES.  UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533;
UNITED STATES V. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315 U.S. 110; STARK V. WICKARD,
321 U.S. 288.  OUR IMMEDIATE CONCERN IS WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
THAT DISTRIBUTE ENFORCING AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE COURTS AND THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  THESE BECOME RELEVANT TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF
MILK ORDER NO. 41, AN "ORDER REGULATING THE HANDLING OF MILK IN THE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MARKETING AREA," AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE PORTION
OF THAT ELABORATE ORDER WHICH DEFINES THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF
"HANDLERS" OF MILK.  SECTION 941.1(5).  THE ORDER WAS ISSUED UNDER THE
POWERS DELEGATED TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  SECTION 8C OF THE ACT. 

ORDER NO. 41 CLASSIFIES MILK RECEIVED INTO THE CHICAGO AREA ACCORDING
TO ITS USES.  TO MILK IN EACH OF THE FOUR CLASSES THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR ASSIGNS A UNIFORM "USE VALUE."  ALL HANDLERS ARE REQUIRED
TO REPORT TO THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR THE QUANTITY OF MILK PURCHASED
AND PUT TO ITS CLASSIFIED USES.  ON THE BASIS OF THESE REPORTS, THE
ADMINISTRATOR, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF MILK PRODUCED
AND THE AMOUNT DEVOTED TO EACH CLASSIFICATION, AS WELL AS THE BALANCE
IN THE PRODUCER-SETTLEMENT FUND, AND MAKING AUTHORIZED ADJUSTMENTS,
ANNOUNCES MONTHLY A UNIFORM MINIMUM PRICE TO BE PAID BY HANDLERS TO
PRODUCERS.  SINCE A HANDLER'S RECEIPTS FROM THE RE-SALE OF MILK, OR THE
SALE OF MILK PRODUCTS, VARY WITH THE AMOUNT OF THE MILK DISTRIBUTED IN
EACH CLASS, THE UNIFORM PRICE PAID BY HANDLERS WILL CREATE INEQUITIES
UNLESS ADJUSTMENT IS MADE, BASED ON THE COMPARATIVE USE VALUE OF THE
MILK DISTRIBUTED BY A PARTICULAR HANDLER.  THE MECHANISM FOR ADJUSTMENT
IS THE PRODUCER-SETTLEMENT FUND.  HANDLERS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE
TO THIS FUND WHENEVER THE USE VALUE OF THE MILK HANDLED BY THEM DURING
THE MONTH IS GREATER THAN THE NORM ON WHICH THE UNIFORM PRICE IS
BASED.  CONVERSELY, HANDLERS WHOSE MILK DISTRIBUTION IS OF LOW USE
VALUE AND WHOSE FIXED MINIMUM COSTS ARE THEREFORE OUT OF LINE WITH
THEIR RECEIPTS, ARE RECOMPENSED FROM THIS FUND.  EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
OF SUCH A MARKETING SCHEME RESTS ON PROPER ACCOUNTING, RELIABLE REPORTS
AND ALERT INSPECTION.  AT BEST, HOWEVER, ERRORS ARE INEVITABLE, WHICH
MAY CALL FOR PAYMENTS BY HANDLERS INTO THE FUND.  THE RELIANCE OF THE
INDUSTRY UPON THAT FUND MAKES PROMPT PAYMENTS INTO IT IMPERATIVE. 

AN ORDER FOR PAYMENT INTO THE FUND AND ITS RESISTANCE LED TO THIS
LITIGATION.  THE RUZICKAS, HANDLERS OF MILK, FILED WITH THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED REPORTS AND RECEIVED FROM HIM A TRANSCRIPT OF
THEIR ACCOUNT WITH THE FUND FOR THE PERIOD IN CONTROVERSY. 
DEFICIENCIES WERE DISCLOSED WHICH THE RUZICKAS REFUSED TO PAY, IN
DISREGARD OF SEC. 941.8(E) AND (G) OF ORDER 41 REQUIRING A HANDLER TO
PAY WITHIN FIVE DAYS "THE AMOUNT SO BILLED."  UNDER SEC. 8(6) OF THE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT THIS SUIT WAS BEGUN IN THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS FOR ENFORCEMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT PRAYED
FOR A MANDATORY INJUNCTION COMMANDING COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER 41 BY
PAYMENT OF THE SUMS ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO THE FUND.  IF IT BE RELEVANT,
IT WAS NOT ALLEGED THAT THERE WAS DANGER OF IRREPARABLE LOSS BECAUSE OF
INSOLVENCY OF THE FUND.  BY THEIR ANSWER THE RUZICKAS JUSTIFIED THEIR
FAILURE TO PAY, CHIEFLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEMAND WAS BASED UPON
FAULTY INSPECTION OF THEIR ACCOUNTS AND IMPROPER TESTS OF THEIR MILK
AND MILK PRODUCTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT "THE DEFENDANTS
HAVING FAILED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY PROVIDED
BY SAID ACT, MAY NOT RAISE SUCH ISSUES OF FACT BEFORE THIS COURT."  ON
THE ISSUE IN THE SUIT THUS LIMITED, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED THE
DISTRICT COURT, RULING THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE DEMAND BY THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE MAY BE CONTESTED IN AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SEC.
8A (6).  152 F.2D 167. 

THUS THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER A HANDLER MAY RESIST A CLAIM
AGAINST HIM BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, MADE ACCORDING TO THE
PROCEDURE DEFINED IN THE ACT, WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY HAVING SOUGHT TO
CHALLENGE THE CLAIM IN A PROCEEDING, ALSO DEFINED IN THE ACT, BEFORE
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  THE ANSWER IS FOUND ON A FAIR READING OF
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS PURPOSES
AND OF THE SCHEME DESIGNED BY CONGRESS FOR THEIR REALIZATION. 

THE SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO OUR PROBLEM ARE SET
OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 BRIEFLY, THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES ARE "VESTED WITH JURISDICTION SPECIFICALLY TO ENFORCE" ORDERS
ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE ACT.  FN2  THE ACT AUTHORIZES A HANDLER TO
CHALLENGE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE HIS ORDER "OR ANY
OBLIGATION IMPOSED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH" AS "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW," AND TO ASK TO HAVE IT MODIFIED OR TO BE EXEMPTED FROM IT.  WHEN
THE ORDER IS SO CHALLENGED, THE DETERMINATION OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, AFTER HEARING, IS FINAL BUT ONLY "IF IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW."  SECTION 8C (15)(A).  TO TEST WHETHER SUCH RULING IS "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW," THE HANDLER MAY BRING THE SECRETARY'S ACTION FOR
REVIEW BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT.  SECTION 8C (15)(B).  BUT
THE VERY SUBSECTION, (15), WHICH GIVES THE HANDLER ACCESS TO THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF HIS DETERMINATION, PROVIDES THAT THE PENDENCY OF THE
PROCEDINGS BEFORE THE SECRETARY, OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO REVIEW THE
SECRETARY'S RULING, "SHALL NOT IMPEDE, HINDER, OR DELAY THE UNITED
STATES OR THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FROM OBTAINING RELIEF" UNDER
SEC. 8A (6).  IT IS ONLY WHEN "A FINAL DECREE HAS BEEN RENDERED IN
PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, AND COVERING THE SAME SUBJECT
MATTER, INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION (15)" THAT PROCEEDINGS
BROUGHT FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER SEC. 8A (6) "SHALL ABATE."  SECTION 8C
(15)(B). 

TO BE SURE, CONGRESS DID NOT SAY IN WORDS THAT, IN A PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 8A (6) TO ENFORCE AN ORDER, A HANDLER MAY NOT QUESTION AN
OBLIGATION WHICH FLOWS FROM IT.  BUT MEANING, THOUGH NOT EXPLICITLY
STATED IN WORDS, MAY BE IMBEDDED IN A COHERENT SCHEME.  AND SUCH WE
FIND TO BE THE PROVISIONS TAKEN IN THEIR ENTIRETY, AS A MEANS FOR
ATTAINING THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PROTECTING
ADEQUATELY THE INTERESTS OF INDIVIDUAL HANDLERS. 

THE PROCEDURE DEVISED BY CONGRESS EXPLICITLY GAVE TO AN AGGRIEVED
HANDLER AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS OR
ABUSES BY THE AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE INTRICATE BUSINESS OF MILK
CONTROL.  IN ADDITION, IF THE SECRETARY FAILS TO MAKE AMENDS CALLED FOR
BY LAW THE HANDLER MAY CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE SECRETARY'S RULING
IN COURT.  HANDLERS ARE THUS ASSURED OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH CLAIMS OF
GRIEVANCES WHILE STEPS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE
MAY GO FORWARD.  SECTIONS 8A (6) AND 8C (15) THUS FORM A COMPLEMENTARY
PROCEDURAL SCHEME.  CONTRARIWISE, IT WOULD MAKE FOR DISHARMONY TO
EXTRAPOLATE FROM THESE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE THE RIGHT TO CONSIDER
INDEPENDENTLY, IN A PROCEEDING BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE SECRETARY'S ORDER, QUESTIONS FOR WHICH CONGRESS EXPLICITLY
FURNISHED THE HANDLER AN EXPERT FORUM FOR CONTEST WITH ULTIMATE REVIEW
BY A DISTRICT COURT. 

THE SITUATION BEFORE US INDICATES HOW DISRUPTIVE IT WOULD BE TO ALLOW
ISSUES THAT MAY PROPERLY COME BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT IN A PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 8C (15) TO BE OPEN FOR INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION IN A SUIT
FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER SEC. 8A (6).  AFTER A PRESUMABLY CAREFUL STUDY BY
THOSE TECHNICALLY EQUIPPED, A PROGRAM WAS DEVISED FOR THE DAIRY FARMERS
IN ONE OF THE LARGE AREAS OF THE COUNTRY.  THE SUCCESS OF THE OPERATION
OF SUCH CONGRESSIONALLY AUTHORIZED MILK CONTROL MUST DEPEND ON THE
EFFICIENCY OF ITS ADMINISTRATION.  PROMPTNESS OF COMPLIANCE BY THOSE
SUBJECT TO THE SCHEME IS THE PRESUPPOSITION OF ORDER NO. 41.  THUS,
DEFINITE MONTHLY DEADLINES ARE FIXED BY THE ORDER FOR EVERY STEP IN THE
PROGRAM.  IN LARGE MEASURE, THE SUCCESS OF THIS SCHEME REVOLVES AROUND
A "PRODUCERS" FUND WHICH IS SOLVENT AND TO WHICH ALL CONTRIBUTE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A FORMULA EQUITABLY DETERMINED AND OF UNIFORM
APPLICABILITY.  FAILURE BY HANDLERS TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS PROMPTLY
WOULD THREATEN THE WHOLE SCHEME.  EVEN TEMPORARY DEFAULTS BY SOME
HANDLERS MAY WORK UNFAIRNESS TO OTHERS, ENCOURAGE WIDER NON-COMPLIANCE,
AND ENGENDER THOSE SUBTLE FORCES OF DOUBT AND DISTRUST WHICH SO READILY
DISLOCATE DELICATE ECONOMIC ARRANGEMENTS.  TO MAKE THE VITALITY OF THE
WHOLE ARRANGEMENT DEPEND ON THE CONTINGENCIES AND INEVITABLE DELAYS OF
LITIGATION, NO MATTER HOW ALERTLY PURSUED, IS NOT A RESULT TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO CONGRESS UNLESS SUPPORT FOR IT IS MUCH MORE MANIFEST THAN
WE HERE FIND.  THAT CONGRESS AVOIDED SUCH HAZARDS FOR ITS POLICY IS
PERSUASIVELY INDICATED BY THE PROCEDURE IT DEVISED FOR THE CAREFUL
ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION OF A HANDLER'S GRIEVANCE.  IT
THEREBY SAFEGUARDED INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS COLLECTIVE INTERESTS.  IN THE
CASE BEFORE US, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED BEFORE THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND, APPARENTLY, ARE AWAITING HIS ACTION. 
PRESUMABLY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WILL GIVE THE RESPONDENTS THE
RIGHTS TO WHICH CONGRESS SAID THEY WERE ENTITLED.  IF THEY ARE
DISSATISFIED WITH HIS RULING, THEY MAY QUESTION IT IN A DISTRICT
COURT.  THE INTERESTS OF THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY NEED NOT BE DISTURBED IN
ORDER TO DO JUSTICE TO AN INDIVIDUAL CASE.  FN3 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT CONGRESS DID NOT AUTHORIZE A DISTRICT COURT TO
ENFORCE AN ORDER NOT "IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  THE SHORT ANSWER TO
THIS RATHER DIALECTIC POINT IS THAT WHETHER SUCH AN ORDER IS OR IS NOT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IS NOT A QUESTION THAT BRINGS ITS OWN IMMEDIATE
ANSWER, OR EVEN AN ANSWER WHICH IT IS THE FAMILIAR, EVERYDAY BUSINESS
OF COURTS TO FIND.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR
ASCERTAINING WHETHER SUCH AN ORDER IS OR IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW.  THE QUESTIONS ARE NOT, OR MAY NOT BE, ABSTRACT QUESTIONS OF LAW. 
EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FORMULATED IN CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS, THEY ARE
QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING OUT OF, OR ENTWINED WITH, FACTORS THAT CALL
FOR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MILK INDUSTRY.  AND SO CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED
THAT THE REMEDY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE MUST BE SOUGHT FROM THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE.  IT IS ON THE BASIS OF HIS RULING, AND OF THE
ELUCIDATION WHICH HE WOULD PRESUMABLY GIVE TO HIS RULING, THAT RESORT
MAY BE HAD TO THE COURTS.  CONGRESS SEEMS TO HAVE EMPHASIZED THE
DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT THAT SEC. 8A AND SEC.
8C SERVE BY EXPLICITLY DIRECTING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS FOR RELIEF
INSTITUTED BY A HANDLER UNDER SEC. 8C SHALL NOT "IMPEDE, HINDER, OR
DELAY" ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 8A. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE SOLELY WITH THE RIGHTS OF HANDLERS.  THIS IS NOT
STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT
SINCE CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED NO ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY FOR A PRODUCER TO
REVIEW THE LEGALITY OF AN ORDER AGAINST HIM, PRESUMABLY THE COURTS WERE
NOT CLOSED TO HIM.  BUT BY SEC. 8C (15) CONGRESS HAS MADE PRECISELY
SUCH PROVISIONS FOR HANDLERS.  AS TO THEM THE PROCEDURAL SCHEME IS
COMPLETE. 

THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT IS ONE OF MANY ENACTMENTS BY
WHICH CONGRESS IN REGULATING ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE HAS DIVIDED THE DUTY
OF ENFORCEMENT BETWEEN COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  BUT THERE
IS THE GREATEST VARIETY IN THE MANNER IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS DISTRIBUTED
THIS RESPONSIBILITY.  THOSE WHO ARE ENTITLED TO SPEAK TELL US THAT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES HAS OFTEN SUFFERED FROM PREMATURE
GENERALIZATION.  CERTAINLY THE RECENT GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
COUNSELS AGAINST GENERALIZATIONS REGARDING WHAT IS COMPENDIOUSLY CALLED
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  AND SO WE DEEM IT DESIRABLE,
IN A CASE LIKE THIS, TO HUG THE SHORE OF THE PRECISE PROBLEM BEFORE US
IN RELATION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PARTICULAR ACT IMMEDIATELY
RELEVANT.  ONE GENERAL OBSERVATION MAY, HOWEVER, BE PERMITTED.  BOTH
COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ARE LAW-ENFORCING AGENCIES, UTILIZED
BY CONGRESS AS SUCH.  IN CONSTRUING THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF
LEGISLATION LIKE THE MARKETING ACT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT
COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE COLLABORATIVE "INSTRUMENTALITIES
OF JUSTICE," AND NOT BUSINESS RIVALS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307
U.S. 183, 191; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE
BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 141 ET SEQ. AND SO WE ARE NOT CALLED
UPON TO DECIDE WHAT POWERS INHERE IN A COURT OF EQUITY, EXERCISING DUE
JUDICIAL DISCRETION, EVEN IN A SUIT SUCH AS WAS HERE BROUGHT BY THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER UNDER SEC. 8A.  WE SAY
THIS BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT AT A STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DISTRICT COURT A MOTION FOR A STAY, PENDING DISPOSITION OF THE PETITION
BY THE RUZICKAS BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, WAS MADE BY THE
RESPONDENTS.  WITH THE COURT'S LEAVE, THIS MOTION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
WITHDRAWN.  THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO HAVE ACTED ON IT IS
THEREFORE NOT BEFORE US. COMPARE SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO V. COMM'N, 316
U.S. 4; HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 321.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  "8A(6)  THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
HEREBY VESTED WITH JURISDICTION SPECIFICALLY TO ENFORCE, AND TO PREVENT
AND RESTRAIN ANY PERSON FROM VIOLATING ANY ORDER, REGULATION, OR
AGREEMENT, HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER MADE OR ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS
TITLE, IN ANY PROCEEDING NOW PENDING OR HEREAFTER BROUGHT IN SAID
COURTS. 

"8C(15)(A)  ANY HANDLER SUBJECT TO AN ORDER MAY FILE A WRITTEN
PETITION WITH THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, STATING THAT ANY SUCH ORDER
OR ANY PROVISION OF ANY SUCH ORDER OR ANY OBLIGATION IMPOSED IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PRAYING FOR A
MODIFICATION THEREOF OR TO BE EXEMPTED THEREFROM.  HE SHALL THEREUPON
BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING UPON SUCH PETITION, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH REGULATIONS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT.  AFTER SUCH HEARING, THE SECRETARY SHALL
MAKE A RULING UPON THE PRAYER OF SUCH PETITION WHICH SHALL BE FINAL, IF
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 

"8C(15)(B)  THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES (INCLUDING THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) IN
ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH HANDLER IS AN INHABITANT, OR HAS HIS
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, ARE HEREBY VESTED WITH JURISDICTION IN
EQUITY TO REVIEW SUCH RULING, PROVIDED A BILL IN EQUITY FOR THAT
PURPOSE IS FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ENTRY OF SUCH
RULING.  SERVICE OF PROCESS IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS MAY BE HAD UPON THE
SECRETARY BY DELIVERING TO HIM A COPY OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  IF THE
COURT DETERMINES THAT SUCH RULING IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IT
SHALL REMAND SUCH PROCEEDINGS TO THE SECRETARY WITH DIRECTIONS EITHER
(1) TO MAKE SUCH RULING AS THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE TO BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, OR (2) TO TAKE SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS, IN ITS
OPINION, THE LAW REQUIRES.  THE PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED
PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION (15) SHALL NOT IMPEDE, HINDER, OR DELAY THE
UNITED STATES OR THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FROM OBTAINING RELIEF
PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A (6) OF THIS TITLE.  ANY PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A (6) OF THIS TITLE (EXCEPT WHERE BROUGHT BY WAY
OF COUNTERCLAIM IN PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION
(15)) SHALL ABATE WHENEVER A FINAL DECREE HAS BEEN RENDERED IN
PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, AND COVERING THE SAME SUBJECT
MATTER, INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION (15)." 

FN2  SECTION 8A (8) IS ALSO INVOKED BY PETITIONER.  BUT THAT SECTION
ADDS TO THE GOVERNMENT'S REMEDIES.  IT IMPLIES NO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN
FAVOR OF HANDLERS. 

FN3  "DURING THE PERIOD WHILE ANY SUCH PETITION IS PENDING BEFORE THE
SECRETARY AND UNTIL NOTICE OF THE SECRETARY'S RULING IS GIVEN TO THE
PETITIONER, THE PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF AN ORDER
CANNOT BE IMPOSED UPON THE PETITIONER IF THE COURT FINDS THAT THE
PETITION WAS FILED IN GOOD FAITH AND NOT FOR DELAY.  THE SECRETARY MAY,
NEVERTHELESS, DURING THIS PERIOD PROCEED TO OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A (6) OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT....  IT IS BELIEVED THAT THESE PROVISIONS ESTABLISH AN
EQUITABLE AND EXPEDITIOUS PROCEDURE FOR TESTING THE VALIDITY OF ORDERS,
WITHOUT HAMPERING THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH
THEIR TERMS."  S. REP. NO. 1011, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 14. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :

















ROTHENSIES V. ELECTRIC BATTERY CO., 329 U.S. 296 


NO. 48.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 18, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 16, 1946.  -
152 F.2D 521, REVERSED. 


FROM APRIL 1919 TO APRIL 1926, A TAXPAYER PAID EXCISE TAXES ON CERTAIN
SALES AND DEDUCTED THE TAX FROM INCOME BEFORE CALCULATION OF ITS INCOME
TAX.  IN JULY 1926, IT FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE EXCISE TAXES
PAID BETWEEN 1922 AND 1926(REFUND OF THOSE PAID EARLIER BEING BARRED BY
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS), BROUGHT SUIT, OBTAINED JUDGMENT, AND
RECEIVED SETTLEMENT IN 1935.  THE COMMISSIONER TREATED THE REFUND AS
INCOME FOR 1935 AND ASSESSED ADDITIONAL INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS
TAXES.  THE TAXPAYER PAID THE DEFICIENCY SO ASSESSED AND SUED FOR A
REFUND, CONTENDING THAT THE REFUND OF THE EXCISE TAXES WAS NOT INCOME,
BUT THAT, IF IT WERE SO CONSIDERED, THE TAXPAYER SHOULD BE PERMITTED,
AS AGAINST THE ADDITIONAL TAX CAUSED BY ITS INCLUSION, TO RECOUP THE
AMOUNT OF THE BARRED EXCISE TAXES WHICH IT HAD PAID BETWEEN 1919 AND
1922.  HELD: 

1.  THE REFUND OF THE EXCISE TAXES WAS PROPERLY ASSESSED AS INCOME
FOR 1935.  P. 298. 

2.  REFUND OF THE EXCISE TAXES IMPROPERLY PAID BETWEEN 1919 AND 1922
BEING BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THEY MAY NOT BE RECOUPED IN
THIS PROCEEDING AGAINST THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR 1935.  PP. 299
303. 

(A)  RECOUPMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF A DEFENSE ARISING OUT OF SOME
FEATURE OF THE TRANSACTION UPON WHICH A PLAINTIFF'S ACTION IS
GROUNDED.  IT DOES NOT ALLOW ONE TRANSACTION TO BE OFFSET AGAINST
ANOTHER, BUT ONLY PERMITS A TRANSACTION WHICH IS MADE THE SUBJECT OF A
SUIT BY A PLAINTIFF TO BE EXAMINED IN ALL ITS ASPECTS, AND JUDGMENT TO
BE RENDERED THAT DOES JUSTICE IN VIEW OF THE ONE TRANSACTION AS A
WHOLE.  P. 299. 

(B)  BULL V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 247; STONE V. WHITE, 301 U.S.
532, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 300. 

(C)  TO GIVE THE DOCTRINE OF RECOUPMENT THE BREADTH HERE CLAIMED
WOULD SERIOUSLY UNDERMINE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN TAX MATTERS. 
P. 302. 

ROTHENSIES, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY
CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

A TAXPAYER SUED TO RECOVER INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES ASSESSED
AND PAID ON A REFUND IN 1935 OF EXCISE TAXES ERRONEOUSLY PAID BETWEEN
1922 AND 1926, CLAIMING THAT THE REFUND WAS NOT INCOME AND THAT, IF IT
WERE, HE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO RECOUP OTHER EXCISE TAXES ERRONEOUSLY
PAID BETWEEN 1919 AND 1922.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
TAXPAYER.  57 F.SUPP.  731.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
152 F.2D 521.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 774.  REVERSED,
P. 303. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE REPRESENTS AN EFFORT, THUS FAR SUCCESSFUL, TO OBTAIN
ADVANTAGE BY WAY OF RECOUPMENT OF A CLAIM FOR TAX REFUND LONG SINCE
BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THE FACTS OF THIS SINGULAR
SITUATION ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  FROM APRIL 1919 TO APRIL 1926 THE
ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY COMPANY PAID EXCISE TAXES ON THE SALE OF
STORAGE BATTERIES IN THE BELIEF, SHARED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THAT SUCH
SALES WERE SUBJECT TO TAX.  IN JULY OF 1926 THE COMPANY ASSERTED
OTHERWISE AND FILED A REFUND CLAIM.  IT ASKED REFUND ONLY OF THAT PART
OF THE TAXES WHICH IT HAD PAID BETWEEN 1922 AND 1926.  REFUND OF THE
TAXES PAID EARLIER WHICH THE COMPANY NOW SEEKS TO RECOUP WAS THEN
BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND NO CLAIM EVER HAS BEEN FILED
FOR THEIR REFUND AND NO ACTION EVER WAS BEGUN FOR THEIR RECOVERY.  SUIT
WAS BROUGHT, HOWEVER, AGAINST THE COLLECTOR FOR REFUND OF THE TAXES
PAID AFTER JULY 1922; JUDGMENT THEREFOR WAS OBTAINED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT AND AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE GOVERNMENT
FINALLY SETTLED BY REFUND OF $1,395,515.35, OF WHICH $825,151.52
REPRESENTED TAX AND THE BALANCE INTEREST. 

DURING THE YEARS THAT THE REFUNDED EXCISE TAX WAS BEING COLLECTED,
THE TAXPAYER DEDUCTED IT FROM INCOME BEFORE CALCULATION OF ITS INCOME
TAX, THEREBY DERIVING SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS.  THE COMMISSIONER,
THEREFORE, TREATED THE REFUND AS INCOME FOR 1935, THE YEAR IN WHICH IT
WAS RECEIVED, AND BECAUSE OF IT ASSESSED ADDITIONAL INCOME AND EXCESS
PROFITS TAXES WHICH WITH INTEREST THEREON TOTALED $229,805.34.  THE
TAXPAYER PAID THE DEFICIENCY, FILED CLAIM FOR REFUND, AND AFTER IT WAS
REJECTED SUED THE COLLECTOR.  IT CONTENDED THAT THE REFUND FROM THE
GOVERNMENT WAS NOT INCOME TO THE TAXPAYER BUT THAT IF IT WERE SO
CONSIDERED TAXPAYER SHOULD BE PERMITTED, AS AGAINST THE ADDITIONAL TAX
CAUSED BY ITS INCLUSION, TO RECOUP THE AMOUNT OF THE BARRED EXCISE
TAXES WHICH IT HAD PAID BETWEEN 1919 AND 1922.  BOTH COURTS BELOW
CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE REFUND WAS PROPERLY ASSESSED AS INCOME.  CF.
SECURITY FLOUR MILLS CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 321 U.S. 281; FREIHOFER
BAKING CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 151 F.2D 383.  BOTH HAVE HELD, HOWEVER,
THAT THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR 1935 SHOULD BE EXTINGUISHED BY
RECOUPMENT OF THE 1919 TO 1922 EXCISE TAXES.  THE GRAVITY OF THIS
HOLDING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX LAWS LED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI.  ROTHENSIES V. ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY CO., 327 U.S. 774. 

IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THERE IS ANY STATUTORY WARRANT FOR ALLOWING
BARRED TAX REFUND CLAIMS BY WAY OF RECOUPMENT OR OTHERWISE.  FN1
AUTHORITY FOR IT IS SAID TO BE FOUND IN CASE LAW AND TAXPAYER RELIES
CHIEFLY ON TWO DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, BULL V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S.
247, AND STONE V. WHITE, 301 U.S. 532.  THE ESSENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF
RECOUPMENT IS STATED IN THE BULL CASE:  "RECOUPMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF
A DEFENSE ARISING OUT OF SOME FEATURE OF THE TRANSACTION UPON WHICH THE
PLAINTIFF'S ACTION IS GROUNDED."  295 U.S. 247, 262.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN
THOUGHT TO ALLOW ONE TRANSACTION TO BE OFFSET AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT ONLY
TO PERMIT A TRANSACTION WHICH IS MADE THE SUBJECT OF SUIT BY A
PLAINTIFF TO BE EXAMINED IN ALL ITS ASPECTS, AND JUDGMENT TO BE
RENDERED THAT DOES JUSTICE IN VIEW OF THE ONE TRANSACTION AS A WHOLE. 

THE APPLICATION OF THIS GENERAL PRINCIPLE TO CONCRETE CASES IN BOTH
OF THE CITED DECISIONS IS INSTRUCTIVE AS TO THE LIMITED SCOPE GIVEN TO
RECOUPMENT IN TAX LITIGATION.  IN BOTH CASES A SINGLE TRANSACTION
CONSTITUTED THE TAXABLE EVENT CLAIMED UPON AND THE ONE CONSIDERED IN
RECOUPMENT.  IN BOTH, THE SINGLE TRANSACTION OR TAXABLE EVENT HAD BEEN
SUBJECTED TO TWO TAXES ON INCONSISTENT LEGAL THEORIES, AND WHAT WAS
MISTAKENLY PAID WAS RECOUPED AGAINST WHAT WAS CORRECTLY DUE.  IN BULL
V. UNITED STATES, THE ONE TAXABLE EVENT WAS RECEIPT BY EXECUTORS OF A
SUM OF MONEY.  AN EFFORT WAS MADE TO TAX IT TWICE - ONCE UNDER THE
INCOME TAX ACT AS INCOME TO THE ESTATE AFTER DECEDENT'S DEATH AND ONCE
UNDER THE ESTATE TAX ACT AS PART OF DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE.  THIS
COURT HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX COLLECTED ON A WRONG THEORY
SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN RECOUPMENT AGAINST AN ASSESSMENT UNDER THE CORRECT
THEORY.  FN2  IN STONE V. WHITE, LIKEWISE, BOTH THE CLAIM AND
RECOUPMENT INVOLVED A SINGLE TAXABLE EVENT, WHICH WAS RECEIPT BY AN
ESTATE OF INCOME FOR A PERIOD.  THE TRUSTEES HAD PAID THE INCOME TAX ON
IT BUT THIS COURT HELD IT WAS TAXABLE TO THE BENEFICIARY.  ASSESSMENT
AGAINST THE BENEFICIARY HAD MEANWHILE BECOME BARRED.  THEN THE TRUSTEES
SUED FOR A REFUND, WHICH WOULD INURE TO THE BENEFICIARY.  THE COURT
TREATED THE TRANSACTION AS A WHOLE AND ALLOWED RECOUPMENT OF THE TAX
WHICH THE BENEFICIARY SHOULD HAVE PAID AGAINST THE TAX THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD NOT HAVE COLLECTED FROM THE TRUSTEES.  WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN
SAID INDICATING A BROADER SCOPE TO THE DOCTRINE OF RECOUPMENT, THESE
FACTS ARE THE ONLY ONES IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPLIED BY THIS COURT IN
TAX CASES. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS ARGUED THAT ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF RECOUPMENT
IN VOLVED HERE WOULD EXPAND THE HOLDING IN THE BULL CASE.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AGREED THAT IN THE BULL CASE "THE MAIN CLAIM AND
RECOUPMENT CLAIM WERE MORE CLOSELY CONNECTED THAN THEY ARE HERE." 
ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY CO. V. ROTHENSIES, 152 F.2D 521, 524.  BUT THE
COURT NEVERTHELESS ALLOWED THE CLAIM BECAUSE IT CONSIDERED THAT THIS
COURT HAD INTRODUCED THE DOCTRINE OF RECOUPMENT INTO TAX LAW AND THAT
IT WAS "BASED ON CONCEPTS OF FAIRNESS."  152 F.2D 521, 524.  IT SAID IT
SAW NO REASON FOR NARROWLY CONSTRUING THE REQUIREMENT THAT BOTH CLAIMS
ORIGINATE IN THE SAME TRANSACTION.  WE THINK THIS MISAPPREHENDS THE
LIMITATIONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF RECOUPMENT AS APPLIED TO TAX LAW AND IT
LEADS US TO STATE MORE FULLY REASONS FOR DECLINING TO EXPAND THE
DOCTRINE BEYOND THE FACTS OF THE CITED CASES. 

IT PROBABLY WOULD BE ALL BUT INTOLERABLE, AT LEAST CONGRESS HAS
REGARDED IT AS ILL-ADVISED, TO HAVE AN INCOME TAX SYSTEM UNDER WHICH
THERE NEVER WOULD COME A DAY OF FINAL SETTLEMENT AND WHICH REQUIRED
BOTH THE TAXPAYER AND THE GOVERNMENT TO STAND READY FOREVER AND A DAY
TO PRODUCE VOUCHERS, PROVE EVENTS, ESTABLISH VALUES AND RECALL DETAILS
OF ALL THAT GOES INTO AN INCOME TAX CONTEST.  HENCE, A STATUTE OF
LIMITATION IS AN ALMOST INDISPENSABLE ELEMENT OF FAIRNESS AS WELL AS OF
PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF AN INCOME TAX POLICY. 

WE HAVE HAD RECENT OCCASION TO POINT OUT THE REASON AND THE CHARACTER
OF SUCH LIMITATION STATUTES.  "STATUTES OF LIMITATION, LIKE THE
EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, IN THEIR CONCLUSIVE EFFECTS ARE DESIGNED
TO PROMOTE JUSTICE BY PREVENTING SURPRISES THROUGH THE REVIVAL OF
CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO SLUMBER UNTIL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LOST,
MEMORIES HAVE FADED, AND WITNESSES HAVE DISAPPEARED.  THE THEORY IS
THAT EVEN IF ONE HAS A JUST CLAIM IT IS UNJUST NOT TO PUT THE ADVERSARY
ON NOTICE TO DEFEND WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND THAT THE RIGHT
TO BE FREE OF STALE CLAIMS IN TIME COMES TO PREVAIL OVER THE RIGHT TO
PROSECUTE THEM."  ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS V. RAILWAY EXPRESS
AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342, 348-9.  "THEY ARE BY DEFINITION ARBITRARY, AND
THEIR OPERATION DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THE JUST AND THE UNJUST
CLAIM, OR THE VOIDABLE (AVOIDABLE) AND UNAVOIDABLE DELAY.  THEY HAVE
COME INTO THE LAW NOT THROUGH THE JUDICIAL PROCESS BUT THROUGH
LEGISLATION."  CHASE SECURITIES CORP. V. DONALDSON, 325 U.S. 304, 314. 

AS STATUTES OF LIMITATION ARE APPLIED IN THE FIELD OF TAXATION, THE
TAXPAYER SOMETIMES GETS ADVANTAGES AND AT OTHER TIMES THE GOVERNMENT
GETS THEM.  BOTH HARDSHIPS TO THE TAXPAYERS AND LOSSES TO THE REVENUES
MAY BE POINTED OUT.  FN3  THEY TEMPT THE EQUITY-MINDED JUDGE TO SEEK
FOR WAYS OF RELIEF IN INDIVIDUAL CASES. 

BUT IF WE SHOULD APPROVE A DOCTRINE OF RECOUPMENT OF THE BREADTH HERE
APPLIED WE WOULD SERIOUSLY UNDERMINE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN TAX
MATTERS.  IN MANY, IF NOT MOST, CASES OF ASSERTED DEFICIENCY THE ITEMS
WHICH OCCASION IT RELATE TO PAST YEARS CLOSED BY STATUTE, AT LEAST AS
CLOSELY AS DOES THE ITEM INVOLVED HERE.  CF. HALL V. UNITED STATES, 43
F.SUPP.  130.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF ITEMS WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF REFUND
CLAIMS.  EVERY ASSESSMENT OF DEFICIENCY AND EACH CLAIM FOR REFUND WOULD
INVITE A SEARCH OF THE TAXPAYER'S ENTIRE TAX HISTORY FOR ITEMS TO
RECOUP.  THIS CASE PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS WOULD
GO.  WHEN THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN 1943, THE CLAIM PLEADED AS A
RECOUPMENT WAS FOR TAXES COLLECTED OVER TWENTY YEARS BEFORE AND FOR
OVER SIXTEEN YEARS BARRED BY THE STATUTE.  THAT CLAIMS DEAD SO LONG CAN
BE RESURRECTED UNDER THIS DOCTRINE, IS ENOUGH TO SHOW ITS MENACE TO THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - AT LEAST AS TO THOSE TAXPAYERS WHOSE AFFAIRS
BY ACCIDENT OR DESIGN TAKE SUCH SHAPE THAT THEY CAN AVAIL THEMSELVES OF
RECOUPMENT REMEDIES.  MOREOVER, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE TAX COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER RECOUPMENT.  COMMISSIONER V. GOOCH MILLING &
ELEVATOR CO., 320 U.S. 418.  HENCE, THE AVAILABILITY OF THE REMEDY
WOULD DEPEND ON DIVERTING THE LITIGATION TO THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

WE CANNOT APPROVE SUCH ENCROACHMENTS ON THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE OUT
OF CONSIDERATION FOR A TAXPAYER WHO FOR MANY YEARS FAILED TO FILE OR
PROSECUTE ITS REFUND CLAIM.  IF THERE ARE TO BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, IT IS FOR CONGRESS RATHER THAN FOR THE COURTS
TO CREATE AND LIMIT THEM. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1 INDEED, THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 SEEM
TO DIRECT A RESULT OPPOSITE TO THAT ASKED BY RESPONDENT.  SECTION 608
PROVIDES THAT "A REFUND OF ANY PORTION OF AN INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX (OR
ANY INTEREST, PENALTY, ADDITIONAL AMOUNT, OR ADDITION TO SUCH TAX) MADE
AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE CONSIDERED ERRONEOUS - (A) IF
MADE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR FILING CLAIM
THEREFOR, UNLESS WITHIN SUCH PERIOD CLAIM WAS FILED; ..."  SECTION
609(B) PROVIDES, "A CREDIT OF AN OVERPAYMENT IN RESPECT OF ANY TAX
SHALL BE VOID IF A REFUND OF SUCH OVERPAYMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED
ERRONEOUS UNDER SECTION 608."  45 STAT. 874, 875.  AND CF. MCEACHERN V.
ROSE, 302 U.S. 56. 

FN2  BUT THE COURT EMPHASIZED THAT REFUND OF THE INCORRECT TAX WAS
NOT BARRED BY THE STATUTE AT THE TIME THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDED FOR
COLLECTION OF THE CORRECT TAX. 

FN3  IN AMERICAN LIGHT & TRACTION CO. V. HARRISON, 142 F.2D 639, THE
COURT DID NOT ALLOW RECOUPMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT.  BUT, JUDICIOUSLY, IT
SAID, "ALTHOUGH HERE A HARDSHIP ON THE GOVERNMENT RESULTS FROM THE
TAXPAYER'S INCONSISTENCY, THE CORRELATIVE PROVISIONS OF THIS SAME
STATUTE WILL, IN THE CONVERSE OF THE INSTANT SITUATION, WORK AN EQUAL
HARDSHIP ON THE TAXPAYER."  142 F.2D 639, 643.  WHETHER OR NOT THE
STATUTE, SECS. 608 AND 609 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, BE TAKEN TO
COMPEL THE CONCLUSION WE REACH IN THIS CASE, THE COURT'S RECOGNITION
THAT BOTH PARTIES TO TAXATION ARE AFFECTED IMPARTIALLY, THOUGH PERHAPS
HARSHLY, BY POLICY OF REPOSE HAS APPLICATION HERE.  IT MAY EASILY BE
OVERLOOKED, WHEN THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S RETAINING
INCORRECTLY COLLECTED MONIES OF RESPONDENT IS STRESSED, THAT THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS PRIMARILY AN INSTRUMENT OF FAIRNESS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY IS OF THE OPINION, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND
MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN, THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
HE BELIEVES THAT THE CLAIMS FOR REFUND OF THE ILLEGAL ASSESSMENT
EXACTED FROM 1919 TO 1922 ARISE OUT OF THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER AS WAS
INVOLVED IN THE GOVERNMENT'S DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL TAXES FOR 1935,
THEREBY MAKING APPLICABLE THE RULE OF BULL V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S.
247. 
..END :




ALMA MOTOR CO. V. TIMKEN CO., 329 U.S. 129 


NO. 11.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 26, 1945.  REARGUED OCTOBER 24, 25, 1946.  -
DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  - 144 F.2D 714, JUDGMENT VACATED AND CASE
REMANDED. 


1.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI ON A PETITION RAISING A QUESTION AS
TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT OF OCTOBER 31,
1942, 56 STAT. 1013, AND AN ORDER OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT ISSUED
THEREUNDER.  AFTER HEARING ARGUMENTS AND SETTING THE CASE FOR
REARGUMENT, IT FOUND THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD BEFORE IT, BUT DID NOT PASS UPON, A
QUESTION AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT.  HELD:  THE JUDGMENT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO IT
FOR DECISION OF ANY NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES MATERIAL TO THE APPEAL. 
PP. 132, 136, 142. 

(A)  NEITHER THIS COURT NOR THE LOWER COURTS SHOULD PASS ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS UNLESS SUCH ADJUDICATION IS
UNAVOIDABLE, EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTION IS PROPERLY PRESENTED BY THE
RECORD.  P. 136. 

(B)  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE PASSED ON THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER BEFORE CONSIDERING THEIR
CONSTITUTIONALITY, SINCE A DECISION ON THEIR APPLICABILITY MIGHT HAVE
MADE UNNECESSARY ANY CONSIDERATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY.  P.
137. 

(C)  THAT MUCH TIME HAS BEEN WASTED BY THE EARLIER FAILURE OF THE
PARTIES TO INDICATE, OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR THIS COURT TO
SEE, THE COURSE WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IS NO REASON TO
CONTINUE ON THE WRONG COURSE OR TO DISREGARD THE TRADITIONAL POLICY OF
AVOIDING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  P. 142. 

2.  THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT WAS TO REDUCE
ROYALTIES FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS ULTIMATELY LIABLE ON
INVENTIONS MANUFACTURED FOR IT BY A LICENSEE, FROM PRE-WAR RATES TO
RATES APPROPRIATE TO THE VOLUME OF PRODUCTION IN WARTIME.  P. 134. 

3.  THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THEREUNDER TURN, NOT ON A CLAIM OF
COVERAGE, BUT ON ACTUAL COVERAGE BY A PATENT AND LICENSE OF AN
INVENTION MANUFACTURED FOR THE UNITED STATES AND UPON A CONDITION
SUBSEQUENT - THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEAD BELIEVES
THE STIPULATED ROYALTIES TO BE UNREASONABLE.  SMITHERS V. SMITH, 204
U.S. 632, AND BELL V. HOOD, 327 U.S. 678, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 137-139. 

4.  THE FACT THAT A SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT INVOLVING THE QUESTION
WHETHER CERTAIN PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED FOR THE UNITED STATES IN WARTIME
WERE COVERED BY A PATENT AND LICENSE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND THE
OWNER OF THE PATENT RELEGATED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER THE ACT OF
JUNE 25, 1910, AS AMENDED, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 68, IF THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT
ACT WERE INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE PRODUCTS WERE NOT COVERED BY THE
LICENSE, WAS NO REASON FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO FAIL TO PASS
ON THE QUESTION OF COVERAGE; SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF 35 U.S.C.
SEC. 68 ALREADY HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT AND A DISMISSAL UNDER
THAT SECTION WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED A DECISION ON ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION.  PP. 139, 140. 

5.  SECTION 2 OF THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT, PROVIDING THAT, IF THE
LICENSOR SUES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE UNITED STATES MAY AVAIL
ITSELF OF ALL DEFENSES THAT MIGHT BE PLEADED BY A DEFENDANT IN AN
INFRINGEMENT SUIT, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT ALL SUITS INVOLVING LICENSES
UNDER THE ACT AND PRESENTING QUESTIONS OF COVERAGE OR VALIDITY BE TRIED
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  PP. 140, 141. 

6.  NEITHER PARTY HAVING APPEALED FROM THE PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT HOLDING THAT SOME OF THE PRODUCTS WERE COVERED BY
THE PATENT AND LICENSE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT PROPERLY
CONCERNED WITH THEIR COVERAGE OR WITH THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ROYALTY
ADJUSTMENT ACT TO THEM; THE PART OF ITS ORDER AFFECTING THOSE PRODUCTS
WAS UNWARRANTED; AND IT SHOULD NOT NOW BE MADE THE BASIS FOR APPROVING
A CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION WHICH WAS OTHERWISE UNNECESSARY.  P. 141. 

ALMA MOTOR CO. V. TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF A PATENT AND THE RIGHTS OF A
LICENSOR AND LICENSEE THEREUNDER, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE
LICENSEE WAS ESTOPPED TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT, THAT SOME
OF ITS PRODUCTS WERE NOT COVERED, THAT OTHERS WERE COVERED AND THAT THE
LICENSEE WAS INDEBTED FOR ROYALTIES.  47 F.SUPP.  582.  ONLY THE
LICENSOR APPEALED.  WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING, THE WAR DEPARTMENT,
PURSUANT TO THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT OF OCTOBER 31, 1942, 56 STAT.
1013, 35 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SECS. 89-96, ISSUED NOTICE STOPPING PAYMENT OF
ROYALTIES BY THE LICENSEE ON PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED FOR THE UNITED
STATES AND AN ORDER FIXING A "FAIR AND JUST" ROYALTY AT ZERO, ON THE
THEORY THAT THE PATENT WAS INVALID.  THEREUPON THE LICENSEE MOVED TO
DISMISS THE APPEAL AND REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO
VACATE ITS JUDGMENT - ON THE GROUND THAT THE PRODUCTS WERE MANUFACTURED
FOR THE UNITED STATES ALONE AND THAT THE OPERATION OF THE ROYALTY
ADJUSTMENT ACT AND THE ORDER THEREUNDER TRANSFERRED JURISDICTION OF THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ENTIRE CASE TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE LICENSOR
CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT AND THE GOVERNMENT
INTERVENED TO DEFEND IT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT PASSING
ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT, SUSTAINED ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY,
VACATED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND REMANDED THE CAUSE WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED NO FURTHER UNTIL A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY
EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  144 F.2D 714.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 832, HEARD ARGUMENTS, AND SET THE CASE FOR
REARGUMENT.  THEN THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE AVOIDED THE QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY BY FIRST CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF COVERAGE.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CASE
REMANDED FOR DECISION OF ANY NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES MATERIAL TO THE
APPEAL.  P. 142. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN THIS CASE FEBRUARY 5, 1945, ON A PETITION
ADDRESSED TO THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ROYALTY
ADJUSTMENT ACT OF OCTOBER 31, 1942,  FN1  AND OF ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT
ORDER NO. W-3, ISSUED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT JULY 28, 1943.  WE FIND
NOW, HOWEVER, THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD BEFORE IT, NOT ONLY
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, WHICH WAS DECIDED, BUT ALSO A NON
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, WHICH ALONE MIGHT PROPERLY HAVE SERVED AS AN
ADEQUATE GROUND ON WHICH TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL.  THIS NON
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WAS NEITHER CONSIDERED NOR DECIDED BY THE COURT
BELOW, NOR ARGUED HERE.  WE HAVE CONCLUDED, THEREFORE, THAT WE SHOULD
NOT PASS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AT THIS TIME, BUT SHOULD VACATE
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND REMAND THE CASE TO IT
FOR DECISION OF ANY NON-CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES MATERIAL TO THE APPEAL. 

TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THIS CONCLUSION, WE MUST STATE THE HISTORY
OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS IN SOME DETAIL. 

THEY WERE BEGUN BY A COMPLAINT IN A DISTRICT COURT FILED BY
RESPONDENT, THE TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE COMPANY, AGAINST PETITIONER, ALMA
MOTOR COMPANY, ASKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
RIGHTS UNDER A PATENT HELD BY ALMA AND A COEXTENSIVE LICENSE FROM ALMA
TO TIMKEN.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE EXISTENCE OF THE PATENT,
PURPORTING TO COVER CERTAIN "TRANSFER CASES" OR AUXILIARY AUTOMOTIVE
TRANSMISSIONS, AND THE LICENSE, BY WHICH TIMKEN WAS AUTHORIZED TO
MANUFACTURE THE PATENTED ARTICLES AND REQUIRED TO PAY CERTAIN SPECIFIED
ROYALTIES.  IT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT TIMKEN WAS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING
VARIOUS DESIGNS OF TRANSFER CASES, THAT SOME OF THESE WERE ONCE
BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN COVERED BY ALMA'S PATENT AND HAD BEEN MADE THE
SUBJECT OF ROYALTY PAYMENTS, BUT ON THE BASIS OF LATER INFORMATION
TIMKEN HAD CONCLUDED THAT NONE OF THEM WERE COVERED, AND THAT THE
PATENT WAS INVALID.  IT ASKED FOR A JUDGMENT CONFIRMING THIS
CONCLUSION. 

ALMA ANSWERED, CLAIMING THAT ALL TIMKEN'S TRANSFER CASES WERE
COVERED, THAT THE PATENT WAS VALID, AND THAT TIMKEN WAS ESTOPPED FROM
CHALLENGING VALIDITY, AND COUNTERCLAIMED FOR A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR
UNPAID ROYALTIES. 

FOLLOWING A TRIAL, THE DISTRICT COURT FILED FINDINGS AND AN OPINION,
FN2  AND ENTERED JUDGMENT DECEMBER 2, 1942.  IT HELD TIMKEN ESTOPPED
FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ALMA'S PATENT; THAT CERTAIN SPECIFIED
TYPES OF TIMKEN'S TRANSFER CASES (GENERALLY THOSE DENOMINATED T-32 AND
T-43) WERE COVERED BY THE PATENT AND LICENSE; THAT TIMKEN WAS INDEBTED
TO ALMA FOR ROYALTIES THEREON; AND THAT OTHER TYPES (GENERALLY THOSE
DENOMINATED T-79) WERE OUTSIDE THE PATENT AND LICENSE.  THE COURT
INDICATED THAT UNLESS THE PARTIES COULD AGREE ON THE AMOUNT OF THE
ROYALTIES SO HELD TO BE PAYABLE, A SPECIAL MASTER WOULD BE APPOINTED TO
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT. 

SHORTLY BEFORE THIS JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, CONGRESS ENACTED THE
ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT, WHICH ALMA SEEKS TO ATTACK HERE.  THE PRIMARY
PURPOSE OF THIS ACT WAS TO REDUCE ROYALTIES FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES
WAS ULTIMATELY LIABLE ON INVENTIONS MANUFACTURED FOR IT BY A LICENSEE,
FROM PRE-WAR RATES TO RATES APPROPRIATE TO THE VOLUME OF PRODUCTION IN
WARTIME.  WHENEVER DURING THE WAR A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR MANUFACTURED
UNDER A LICENSE, AND THE ROYALTIES SEEMED EXCESSIVE TO THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT CONCERNED, THE LATTER WAS EMPOWERED TO STOP PAYMENTS BY
NOTICE TO THE LICENSOR AND LICENSEE, AND AFTER A HEARING, TO FIX BY
ORDER "FAIR AND JUST" ROYALTIES, "TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONDITIONS OF
WARTIME PRODUCTION."  N3  THEREAFTER, THE LICENSOR COULD COLLECT
ROYALTIES FROM THE LICENSEE ONLY AT THE RATE SO DETERMINED.  IF THE
LICENSOR FELT THAT THE REDUCTION WAS UNFAIR, HIS REMEDY WAS BY SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, WHERE HE COULD
RECOVER "FAIR AND JUST COMPENSATION  ...  TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE
CONDITIONS OF WARTIME PRODUCTION" N4 WHATEVER REDUCTION WAS EFFECTED BY
THE ORDER WAS TO INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE NOTICE, STOPPING PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES FROM TIMKEN TO ALMA, WAS
ISSUED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 30, 1942.  ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT
ORDER NO. W-3 FOLLOWED ON JULY 28, 1943, FIXING A "FAIR AND JUST"
ROYALTY AT ZERO.  THE BASIS OF THIS DETERMINATION WAS THE ALLEGED
INVALIDITY OF ALMA'S PATENT, WHICH THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS THAT THE
ACT PERMITS IT TO ASSERT.  FN5 

IN THE MEANTIME, ALMA HAD TAKEN AN APPEAL FROM PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH HELD THAT THE T-79 TRANSFER CASES
WERE OUTSIDE THE PATENT.  TIMKEN DID NOT APPEAL.  AFTER THE ORDER WAS
PROMULGATED, TIMKEN MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AND REMAND TO THE
DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE ITS JUDGMENT.  THE MOTION WAS
PREDICATED ON AN AFFIDAVIT THAT TIMKEN HAD MANUFACTURED TRANSFER CASES
FOR THE UNITED STATES ALONE, TOGETHER WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
OPERATION OF THE ACT AND ORDER TRANSFERRED JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE ENTIRE CASE TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  ALMA COUNTERED WITH
AN ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT AND ORDER, PRIMARILY AS
WORKING A DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE UNITED STATES HAD AT THIS TIME ALREADY SUBMITTED AN AMICUS BRIEF,
IN WHICH IT ARGUED THAT THE ORDER HAD MADE THE APPEAL MOOT; AND WHEN
ALMA'S CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK WAS FILED, THE UNITED STATES INTERVENED IN
SUPPORT OF THE ACT AND ORDER. 

IN ITS OPINION  FN6  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED THAT THE
QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT AND ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS
SIMPLY A QUESTION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY.  IT PROCEEDED TO
CONSIDER THIS LATTER QUESTION, AND DECIDED THAT BOTH THE ACT AND THE
ORDER WERE ENTIRELY VALID.  ACCORDINGLY, IT ENTERED THE FOLLOWING
ORDER: 

"...  IT IS NOW HERE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED BY THIS COURT THAT
PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SAID DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE BE,
AND THE SAME IS HEREBY VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO PROCEED NO FURTHER THEREIN UNLESS AND
UNTIL IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COURT THAT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY AGAIN
FN7  EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARISING OUT OF THE FACTS SET FORTH IN
THE COMPLAINT, EXCEPT THAT THE COURT MAY, IF IT DEEMS SUCH ACTION TO BE
APPROPRIATE, VACATE ALL OR ANY PART OF THE REMAINDER OF THE JUDGMENT
AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AS MOOT." 

THE WAR DEPARTMENT NOTICE WAS ISSUED AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT'S
JUDGMENT, BUT BEFORE APPEAL WAS FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
IT APPEARS THAT AT NO TIME DID ANY PARTY URGE ON THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OR DID THAT COURT PASS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE T-79
TRANSFER CASES WERE COVERED BY ALMA'S PATENT AND LICENSE.  INDEED, IT
WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER WE HAD GRANTED CERTIORARI AND HEARD ARGUMENT AT THE
OCTOBER 1944 TERM ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, AND SET THE CASE DOWN
FOR FURTHER ARGUMENT THIS TERM, THAT THE UNITED STATES POINTED TO THIS
OMISSION, AND SUGGESTED THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE
AVOIDED THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY BY FIRST CONSIDERING THE
QUESTION OF COVERAGE.  IT ARGUED HERE THAT THE PRIOR DETERMINATION OF
ANY NON-CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH MIGHT DISPOSE OF A CONTROVERSY
IS A PRACTICE WHICH IS DICTATED BY SOUND PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.  IT MOVED TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO IT FOR SUCH DETERMINATION.  BOTH
ALMA AND TIMKEN OPPOSED THE MOTION.  ACTION WAS WITHHELD PENDING
ARGUMENT ON THE MOTION AND THE CASE ITSELF. 

THIS COURT HAS SAID REPEATEDLY THAT IT OUGHT NOT PASS ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS UNLESS SUCH ADJUDICATION IS
UNAVOIDABLE.  THIS IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTION IS PROPERLY
PRESENTED BY THE RECORD.  IF TWO QUESTIONS ARE RAISED, ONE OF NON
CONSTITUTIONAL AND THE OTHER OF CONSTITUTIONAL NATURE, AND A DECISION
OF THE NON-CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WOULD MAKE UNNECESSARY A DECISION OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, THE FORMER WILL BE DECIDED.  FN8  THIS
SAME RULE SHOULD GUIDE THE LOWER COURTS AS WELL AS THIS ONE.  WE
BELIEVE THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROBLEMS BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REQUIRED THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE TO THIS CASE. 

AT THE OUTSET THAT COURT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE MERITS OF THE
APPEAL, WHICH INVOLVED SIMPLY THE COVERAGE BY THE PATENT AND LICENSE OF
THE T-79 TRANSFER CASES.  LATER, HOWEVER, IT WAS CONFRONTED ALSO WITH A
PROBLEM OF JURISDICTIONAL NATURE.  THIS INVOLVED THE EFFECT WROUGHT BY
THE ACT AND ORDER ON ITS POWER TO PROCEED TO AN ADJUDICATION ON THE
MERITS.  IF FOR ANY REASON, THE ACT AND ORDER HAD NO APPLICABILITY IN
THE CASE, THE COURT SHOULD PROCEED TO THE MERITS.  IF, HOWEVER, THEY
WERE CONTROLLING, ALMA WAS RELEGATED TO ITS STATUTORY REMEDY AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, AND THE COURT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DISMISS THE
APPEAL, AND TO VACATE PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

IN THE DETERMINATION OF THIS JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEM, WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED.  IT ASSUMED THAT THIS
PROBLEM INVOLVED ONLY THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT
AND ORDER.  BUT THE ACT AND ORDER, WHETHER OR NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, DO
NOT CONTROL THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE UNLESS THEY WERE INTENDED TO
APPLY TO IT.  THE QUESTION OF THEIR APPLICABILITY IS A NON
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, THE DECISION OF WHICH MIGHT HAVE MADE
UNNECESSARY ANY CONSIDERATION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

WERE THE ACT AND ORDER INTENDED TO APPLY?  THEIR TERMS SEEM TO MAKE
THAT DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE SUBJECTMATTER OF THE APPEAL - THE T-79
TRANSFER CASES - WERE COVERED BY THE PATENT AND LICENSE.  THE ACT
PROVIDES THAT IT IS ONLY "WHENEVER AN INVENTION  ...  SHALL BE
MANUFACTURED  ...  FOR THE UNITED STATES, WITH LICENSE FROM THE OWNER
THEREOF  ..."  AND THE DEPARTMENT HEAD BELIEVES THE STIPULATED
ROYALTIES TO BE UNREASONABLE, THAT THE LATTER SHALL GIVE "WRITTEN
NOTICE OF SUCH FACT TO THE LICENSOR AND TO THE LICENSEE."  IT IS ONLY
AFTER SUCH NOTICE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEAD MAY FIX "FAIR AND JUST"
ROYALTIES, AND ONLY "SUCH LICENSEE" WHO IS FORBIDDEN TO PAY ADDITIONAL
AMOUNTS AS ROYALTIES, AND ONLY "SUCH LICENSOR" WHO IS RELEGATED TO THE
COURT OF CLAIMS.  FN9  CONVERSELY, IF THE PUTATIVE INVENTION IS
MANUFACTURED WITHOUT LICENSE, OR IF THE PUTATIVE PATENTEE IS NOT
ACTUALLY THE OWNER, THESE POWERS AND DISABILITIES DO NOT ARISE.  EVEN
ORDER NO. W-3 DOES NOT REFER TO T-79 TRANSFER CASES AS SUCH.  IT
FORBIDS THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES ONLY ON TRANSFER CASES "UNDER" THIS
LICENSE, OR ANY LICENSE PURSUANT TO THIS PATENT, "WHICH EMBODY  ...
THE  ... ALLEGED INVENTIONS."  AGAIN, IF THE T-79S ARE NOT "UNDER" THE
ALMA-TIMKEN LICENSE, OR IF THEY DO NOT "EMBODY" ALMA'S PATENTED CLAIM,
THEN THE ORDER EXPRESSLY LEAVES ALMA'S AND TIMKEN'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
UNAFFECTED. 

CONSEQUENTLY, COVERAGE OF THE T-79S, AS WELL AS CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE ACT AND ORDER, WAS A CRUCIAL ISSUE IN DECIDING THE JURISDICTION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IF THEY ARE COVERED, THE ACT AND ORDER
APPLY, AND IT WAS THEN NECESSARY TO DECIDE CONSTITUTIONALITY IN ORDER
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COURT COULD PROCEED TO A JUDGMENT ON THE
MERITS.  IF THE T-79S ARE NOT COVERED, THE ACT AND ORDER MANIFESTLY DO
NOT APPLY, AND THE COURT COULD PROCEED TO A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS,
WHETHER THE ACT AND ORDER ARE CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT.  IN THAT EVENT, OF
COURSE, NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WOULD BE DECIDED.    THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS MAY HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT AND
ORDER TURN NOT ON ACTUAL COVERAGE, BUT ON A CLAIM OF COVERAGE, AND
HENCE THAT APPLICABILITY WAS UNDISPUTED AND ONLY CONSTITUTIONALITY WAS
PERTINENT TO JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE.  SUCH CONSTRUCTION IS SAID TO
HAVE SOME SUPPORT IN CASES LIKE SMITHERS V. SMITH, 204 U.S. 632, AND
BELL V. HOOD, 327 U.S. 678, IN WHICH BONA FIDE CLAIMS OF RIGHTS WERE
HELD TO SATISFY JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY AND AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A CERTAIN FEDERAL QUESTION,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH CLAIMS WOULD ULTIMATELY BE ESTABLISHED. 

THE ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE N10 WHICH
CONTROLLED THE CITED CASES EXPRESSLY REFERS TO THE CLAIM AS THE TEST OF
JURISDICTION, WHEREAS, AS WE HAVE SHOWN, THE INSTANT ACT REFERS TO THE
OBJECTIVE EVENT.  FURTHERMORE, THE TEST IN THE SMITHERS AND BELL CASES,
SUPRA, IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION. 
UNLESS SUCH EXERCISE IS MADE TO TURN ON WHAT THE PLAINTIFF RATHER THAN
WHAT THE COURT SAYS IS AT STAKE, THE COURT'S JURISDICTIONAL RULING WILL
OFTEN DENY THE PLAINTIFF A FORUM WHEN A FULL HEARING MIGHT LATER HAVE
SHOWN A RIGHT TO RELIEF.  THE TEST IN THIS CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS
A CONDITION SUBSEQUENT, IN CERTAIN INSTANCES DEPRIVING THE COURT OF
JURISDICTION, AND THE SAME DANGER IS NOT PRESENT. 

TIMKEN CONTENDS THAT THE JURISDICTION OF ALL SUITS WITH RESPECT TO
INVENTIONS MANUFACTURED FOR THE UNITED STATES IN WARTIME IS TRANSFERRED
TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS, AND THAT THE COVERAGE QUESTION IS IMMATERIAL. 
IT ARGUES THAT WHERE THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH
THIS TRANSFER BECAUSE THE MANUFACTURE IS NOT BY A LICENSEE, THE ACT OF
JUNE 25, 1910, AS AMENDED,  FN11  SHOULD APPLY, AND THAT IT HAS THE
SAME EFFECT.  IT IS SAID, THEREFORE, THAT THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED WHETHER THERE WAS COVERAGE OR NOT, AND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS PROPERLY REFRAINED FROM DECIDING THAT QUESTION. 

ASSUMING THE PREMISE IS CORRECT, WE DO NOT REACH THE SAME
CONCLUSION.  DISMISSAL CAN BE ORDERED UNDER THE 1910 ACT, IF IT
APPLIES, WITHOUT DECIDING ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, FOR THAT ACT
HAS ALREADY BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT AND BEEN APPROVED.  FN12  TO ORDER
DISMISSAL UNDER THE 1942 ACT, HOWEVER, OR UNDER ONE OF THE TWO ACTS
ALTERNATIVELY, REQUIRES A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
LATTER.  AS WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, THIS IS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR
FIRST DECIDING WHICH ACT IMPELS THE TRANSFER. 

IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 2 OF THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT PROVIDES THAT,
IF THE LICENSOR SUES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE UNITED STATES "MAY
AVAIL ITSELF OF ANY AND ALL DEFENSES, GENERAL OR SPECIAL, THAT MIGHT BE
PLEADED BY A DEFENDANT IN AN ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT AS SET FORTH IN
TITLE SIXTY OF THE REVISED STATUTES, OR OTHERWISE."  FN13  WE DEEM IT
CLEAR THAT SUCH DEFENSES WOULD INCLUDE QUESTIONS OF COVERAGE AS WELL AS
VALIDITY OF A PATENT.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT SEC. 2 REFLECTS A
DECISION BY CONGRESS THAT ALL SUITS INVOLVING LICENSES UNDER THE ACT
AND PRESENTING QUESTIONS OF COVERAGE OR VALIDITY SHOULD BE TRIED IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS.  AS RESPECTS THE PROBLEM WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW
CONCERNED, SEC. 2 DOES NO MORE THAN TO MAKE AVAILABLE SUCH DEFENSES IN
THE COURT OF CLAIMS WHENEVER THE SUITS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT ARE
BROUGHT THERE. 

BOTH ALMA AND TIMKEN MAINTAIN THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION COULD
NOT BE AVOIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BECAUSE THE T-32 AND T
43 TRANSFER CASES WERE COVERED, IF THE T-79S WERE NOT, AND WERE
THEREFORE NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO THE ORDER.  INDEED, THE DISTRICT COURT
DECIDED THAT THEY WERE COVERED, AND TIMKEN DID NOT APPEAL. 

THIS POINT CARRIES ITS OWN REFUTATION.  NEITHER PARTY APPEALED FROM
THE ADJUDICATION AS TO THE T-32 AND T-43 TRANSFER CASES.  NO CLAIM AS
TO THEM WAS BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THERE IS NO CLAIM NOW
THAT A LITIGANT MAY NOT APPEAL FROM PART OF A JUDGMENT, OR THAT AN
APPEAL FROM PART BRINGS UP THE WHOLE.  FN14  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WAS NOT PROPERLY CONCERNED WITH THEIR COVERAGE, OR WITH THE
APPLICABILITY TO THEM OF THE ACT OR ORDER.  THEREFORE, THE PART OF ITS
ORDER AFFECTING T-32S AND T-43S WAS UNWARRANTED, AND SHOULD NOT NOW BE
MADE THE BASIS FOR APPROVING A CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION WHICH WAS
OTHERWISE UNNECESSARY. 

ALMA OBJECTS STRENUOUSLY TO THE GOVERNMENT "MENDING ITS HOLD" BETWEEN
THE TIME IT URGED DISMISSAL IN AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AND ARGUED CONSTITUTIONALITY THERE AND HERE, AND THE TIME IT
FILED HERE ITS MOTION TO VACATE AND REMAND.  THE GOVERNMENT CERTAINLY
AIDED AND ABETTED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ITS ERROR.  BUT ALMA
IS NOT WITHOUT FAULT IN CREATING THE CONFUSION.  IN ITS "PETITION TO
REVIEW" THE ORDER, ALMA ASKED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO HOLD THE
ORDER UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IN ITS PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR REHEARING, IT ARGUED THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PASSED
ON CONSTITUTIONALITY BECAUSE TIMKEN HAD NOT CHARGED ANY ROYALTIES TO
THE UNITED STATES ON T-79S, AND THE ACT AND ORDER WERE ALLEGEDLY
INAPPLICABLE.  BEFORE THIS COURT IT HAS RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL
POSITION. 

WE AGREE THAT MUCH TIME HAS BEEN WASTED BY THE EARLIER FAILURE OF THE
PARTIES TO INDICATE, OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR THIS COURT TO
SEE, THE COURSE WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED.  THIS, HOWEVER, IS NO
REASON TO CONTINUE NOW ON THE WRONG COURSE.  THE PRINCIPLE OF AVOIDING
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IS ONE WHICH WAS CONCEIVED OUT OF
CONSIDERATIONS OF SOUND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.  IT IS A TRADITIONAL
POLICY OF OUR COURTS.  FN15 

THE JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  56 STAT. 1013, 35 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SECS. 89-96. 

FN2  TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO. V. ALMA MOTOR CO., 47 F.SUPP.  582(D.
DEL. 1942). 

FN3  56 STAT. 1013, 35 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 89. 

FN4  56 STAT. 1013, 35 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 90. 

FN5  56 STAT. 1013, 35 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 90. 

FN6  TIMKEN-DETROIT AXLE CO. V. ALMA MOTOR CO., 144 F.2D 714(CCA 3,
1944). 

FN7  THE WORD "AGAIN" WAS DELETED BY AN ORDER OF OCTOBER 2, 1944. 

FN8  SILER V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 213 U.S. 175, 193; LIGHT
V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 523, 538; SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN,
323 U.S. 101, 105.  SEE BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING IN ASHWANDER V..
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 347. 

FN9  35 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 89. 

FN10  "THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  ...
WHERE THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS  ...  THE SUM OR VALUE OF
$3,000, AND (A) ARISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES  ..."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 41. 

FN11  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, 36 STAT. 851, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
JULY 1, 1918, 40 STAT. 705, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 68, PROVIDES IN PART:
"WHENEVER AN INVENTION DESCRIBED IN AND COVERED BY A PATENT OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL HEREAFTER BE USED OR MANUFACTURED BY OR FOR THE
UNITED STATES WITHOUT LICENSE OF THE OWNER THEREOF OR LAWFUL RIGHT TO
USE OR MANUFACTURE THE SAME, SUCH OWNER'S REMEDY SHALL BE BY SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR THE RECOVERY OF
HIS REASONABLE AND ENTIRE COMPENSATION FOR SUCH USE AND MANUFACTURE
..." 

FN12  CROZIER V. KRUPP, 224 U.S. 290; RICHMOND SCREW ANCHOR CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 331. 

FN13  SECTION 2 PROVIDES IN FULL: 

"ANY LICENSOR AGGRIEVED BY ANY ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1
HEREOF, FIXING AND SPECIFYING THE MAXIMUM RATES OR AMOUNTS OF ROYALTIES
UNDER A LICENSE ISSUED BY HIM, MAY INSTITUTE SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, OR IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES INSOFAR AS SUCH COURTS MAY HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE
COURT OF CLAIMS, TO RECOVER SUCH SUM, IF ANY, AS, WHEN ADDED TO THE
ROYALTIES FIXED AND SPECIFIED IN SUCH ORDER, SHALL CONSTITUTE FAIR AND
JUST COMPENSATION TO THE LICENSOR FOR THE MANUFACTURE, USE, SALE, OR
OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE LICENSED INVENTION FOR THE UNITED STATES,
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONDITIONS OF WARTIME PRODUCTION.  IN ANY SUCH
SUIT THE UNITED STATES MAY AVAIL ITSELF OF ANY AND ALL DEFENSES,
GENERAL OR SPECIAL, THAT MIGHT BE PLEADED BY A DEFENDANT IN AN ACTION
FOR INFRINGEMENT AS SET FORTH IN TITLE SIXTY OF THE REVISED STATUTES,
OR OTHERWISE." 

FN14  RULE 73(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES
THAT THE "NOTICE OF APPEAL ...  SHALL DESIGNATE THE JUDGMENT OR PART
THEREOF APPEALED FROM  ..." 

FN15  CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 11 PET. 420, 553(1837). 

..END :








UNEMPLOYMENT COMM'N V. ARAGON, 329 U.S. 143 


NO. 25.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 1946.  REARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1946.  -
DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  - 149 F.2D 447, AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED
IN PART. 


COMPANIES ENGAGED IN CATCHING AND CANNING SALMON IN ALASKA TERMINATED
THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION REPRESENTING THEIR EMPLOYEES AT THE END
OF THE 1939 SEASON.  PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE 1940 SEASON, THEY
OPENED NEGOTIATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO WITH THE SAME UNION FOR A NEW
AGREEMENT.  THERE ENSUED A CONTROVERSY OVER WAGES WHICH RESULTED IN A
FAILURE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT AND A DECISION TO CONDUCT NO OPERATIONS
DURING THE 1940 SEASON.  INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD WORKED FOR THE COMPANIES
DURING THE 1939 SEASON FILED CLAIMS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WITH THE
ALASKA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION.  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT
THEY WERE DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING PAYMENTS FOR EIGHT WEEKS UNDER
SEC. 5(D) OF ALASKA EXTRA.  SESS.  L., 1937, C. 4, AS AMENDED BY ALASKA
SESS. L., 1939, CC. 1, 51, WHICH DISQUALIFIES AN INDIVIDUAL FOR EIGHT
WEEKS IF "THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT HIS  ...  UNEMPLOYMENT IS DUE TO A
LABOR DISPUTE WHICH IS IN ACTIVE PROGRESS AT THE FACTORY, ESTABLISHMENT
OR OTHER PREMISES AT WHICH HE  ...  WAS LAST EMPLOYED."  HELD: 

1.  THE COMMISSION COULD PROPERLY FIND THAT A "LABOR DISPUTE" EXISTED
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 5(D) OF THE ALASKA ACT.  PP. 149-151. 

2.  THE TERM "LABOR DISPUTE," AS USED IN SEC. 5(D) OF THE ALASKA ACT,
NEED NOT BE NARROWLY CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE A STRIKE OR LEAVING OF
EMPLOYMENT BUT MAY BE CONSTRUED AS COVERING A SITUATION WHERE THE
CONTROVERSY PRECEDES THE EMPLOYMENT.  PP. 149-151. 

3.  EVIDENCE THAT TWO OF THE COMPANIES HAD MADE EXTENSIVE
PREPARATIONS FOR THE 1940 OPERATIONS, PURCHASING EQUIPMENT AND
SUPPLIES, PREPARING SHIPS AND HOLDING THEM IN READINESS FOR THE
EXPEDITION, AND THAT THEY NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH AND FAILED TO
OPERATE ONLY BECAUSE OF THEIR INABILITY TO NEGOTIATE SATISFACTORY LABOR
AGREEMENTS BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE SEASON, WAS SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT WAS "DUE" TO A
LABOR DISPUTE.  PP. 149-151. 

4.  EVIDENCE SHOWING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF ANOTHER
COMPANY FROM NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNION AND ITS DETERMINATION NOT TO
OPERATE DURING THE 1940 SEASON OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE FOR ITS
OPERATIONS AND WAS CAUSED PRIMARILY BY FACTORS OTHER THAN ITS INABILITY
TO NEGOTIATE A SATISFACTORY LABOR CONTRACT DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING BY
THE COMMISSION THAT ITS EMPLOYEES WERE UNEMPLOYED "DUE" TO A LABOR
DISPUTE AT THE ESTABLISHMENT AT WHICH THEY WERE LAST EMPLOYED.  PP.
152, 153. 

5.  WHERE THE NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUED BEYOND THE DEADLINE DATES SET BY
THE COMPANIES FOR THE CONSUMMATION OF AN AGREEMENT AND BEYOND THE DATES
OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, THE COMMISSION COULD
PROPERLY FIND THAT A LABOR DISPUTE WAS IN "ACTIVE PROGRESS" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 5(D) OF THE ALASKA ACT, EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT AT
SOME TIME WITHIN THE EIGHT-WEEK PERIOD OF DISQUALIFICATION THE POINT
WAS REACHED WHEN ALL POSSIBILITY OF SETTLEMENT DISAPPEARED.  P. 153. 

(A)  THE QUESTION IS ONE OF SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF A BROAD STATUTORY
TERM IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE AGENCY ADMINISTERING THE STATUTE MUST
DETERMINE IT INITIALLY.  P. 153. 

(B)  THE REVIEWING COURT'S FUNCTION IS LIMITED; AND ALL THAT IS
NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT HAS
"WARRANT IN THE RECORD" AND A "REASONABLE BASIS IN LAW."  PP. 153,
154. 

6.  THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION'S CONSTRUCTION
WAS IRRATIONAL OR WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, SINCE THE COMMISSION
MIGHT REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT WAS NOT OF THE
"INVOLUNTARY" NATURE WHICH THE STATUTE WAS DESIGNED TO ALLEVIATE.  P.
154. 

7.  THE FACT THAT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USUAL PROCEDURE, THE WAGE
NEGOTIATIONS WERE CONDUCTED IN SAN FRANCISCO AND SEATTLE, INSTEAD OF AT
THE PLACE OF WORK IN ALASKA, DID NOT PREVENT THE DISPUTE FROM BEING "AT
THE FACTORY, ESTABLISHMENT, OR OTHER PREMISES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 5(D) OF THE ALASKA ACT.  PP. 154-156. 

8.  A REVIEWING COURT USURPS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY'S FUNCTION
WHEN IT SETS ASIDE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION ON A GROUND NOT
THERETOFORE PRESENTED AND DEPRIVES THE AGENCY OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CONSIDER THE MATTER, MAKE ITS RULING, AND STATE THE REASONS FOR ITS
ACTION - WHERE THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PERMITTED
ONLY AFTER EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  P. 155. 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF ALASKA ET AL. V. ARAGON ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF ALASKA HELD CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES OF SALMON CANNERIES DISQUALIFIED FOR EIGHT WEEKS FROM
RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS, ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR
UNEMPLOYMENT WAS DUE TO A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ALASKA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW, ALASKA EXTRA.  SESS.  L., 1937,
C. 4, AS AMENDED BY ALASKA SESS. L., 1939, CC. 1, 51.  THE DISTRICT
COURT AFFIRMED THE COMMISSION'S HOLDING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  149 F.2D 447.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S.
700.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.  P. 156. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN MAY, 1940, THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS FILED CLAIMS FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WITH THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF
THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA.  AFTER AN INITIAL DETERMINATION BY AN EXAMINER
AND AFTER DECISION BY A REFEREE, THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE CLAIMANTS
WERE DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING BENEFITS FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT WEEKS,
SINCE THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT WAS DUE TO A LABOR DISPUTE IN ACTIVE PROGRESS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ALASKA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW.  FN1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED THE COMMISSION'S HOLDING IN
ALL PARTICULARS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  FN2 

AMONG THE PETITIONERS ARE THREE CORPORATIONS ENGAGED PRINCIPALLY IN
THE BUSINESS OF SALMON FISHING, CANNING, AND MARKETING.  ONE OF THE
COMPANIES OWNS CANNERIES AND OTHER FACILITIES AT KARLUK, CHIGNIK, AND
BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA.  THE OTHER TWO COMPANIES OPERATE ONLY AT BRISTOL
BAY.  CATCHING AND CANNING SALMON IS A SEASONAL ACTIVITY.  FN3 THE
COMPANIES CUSTOMARILY HIRE WORKERS AT SAN FRANCISCO AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE SEASON, TRANSPORT THEM TO THE ALASKAN ESTABLISHMENTS, AND RETURN
THEM TO SAN FRANCISCO AT THE SEASON'S END.  SIMILAR OPERATIONS ARE
CARRIED ON BY OTHER COMPANIES OUT OF OTHER WEST COAST PORTS, NOTABLY
SEATTLE AND PORTLAND.  THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS ARE ALL MEMBERS OF
THE ALASKA CANNERY WORKERS UNION LOCAL NO. 5, AND EACH WORKED IN ALASKA
FOR ONE OF THE THREE COMPANIES DURING THE 1939 SEASON.  LOCAL NO. 5 IS
THE RECOGNIZED BARGAINING AGENT OF THE CANNERY WORKERS IN THE SAN
FRANCISCO AREA. 

IN 1939, AS HAD BEEN THE PRACTICE FOR SOME YEARS, THE UNION ENTERED
INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANIES, COVERING IN CONSIDERABLE
DETAIL THE MATTERS OF WAGES, HOURS, CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND THE
LIKE.  AFTER THE END OF THE 1939 SEASON, THE COMPANIES TERMINATED THE
AGREEMENT THEN IN EFFECT, WHICH MADE NECESSARY THE NEGOTIATION OF A NEW
CONTRACT FOR THE 1940 SEASON.  CONSEQUENTLY, ON MARCH 6, 1940, THE
COMPANIES THROUGH THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENT, ALASKA SALMON INDUSTRY, INC.,
INVITED THE UNION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR A NEW AGREEMENT.  IN A
SERIES OF MEETINGS HELD SHORTLY THEREAFTER, SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT
APPEARED WHICH QUICKLY DEVELOPED INTO AN IMPASSE ON THE QUESTION OF
WAGES.  THE UNION DEMANDED WAGES EQUAL TO OR IN EXCESS OF THOSE PAID
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE 1939 AGREEMENT.  THE COMPANIES OFFERED WAGES
WHICH FOR THE MOST PART WERE BELOW THOSE PAID IN 1939.  ON APRIL 1,
1940, THE UNION CAUSED THE NEGOTIATIONS AS TO THE WAGE ISSUE TO BE
TRANSFERRED FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO SEATTLE, WHERE AN ATTEMPT WAS BEING
MADE TO EFFECT A COASTWIDE AGREEMENT TO COVER ALL WEST COAST COMPANIES
CARRYING ON SALMON OPERATIONS IN ALASKA.  LOCAL NO. 5, HOWEVER, REFUSED
TO SIGN A "MEMORANDUM" AGREEMENT INCORPORATING SUCH TERMS AS MIGHT
RESULT FROM THE CONCURRENT SEATTLE NEGOTIATIONS. 

ON APRIL 3, THE COMPANIES NOTIFIED THE UNION THAT IF OPERATIONS WERE
TO BE CARRIED ON IN KARLUK AND CHIGNIK DURING THE 1940 SEASON, AN
AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMER WOULD HAVE TO BE REACHED BY APRIL
10 AND WITH RESPECT TO THE LATTER BY APRIL 12.  ALTHOUGH NEGOTIATIONS
PROCEEDED UP TO THE DEADLINES, THE PARTIES ARRIVED AT NO UNDERSTANDING,
AND ON APRIL 22 ALASKA SALMON INDUSTRY, INC., FORMALLY ANNOUNCED THAT
NO OPERATIONS WOULD BE CARRIED ON IN KARLUK AND CHIGNIK DURING 1940. 
MEETINGS CONTINUED, HOWEVER, IN AN EFFORT TO COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING
WITH RESPECT TO BRISTOL BAY BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF THE MAY 3D DEADLINE
WHICH HAD BEEN SET FOR THOSE OPERATIONS.  ALTHOUGH FEDERAL MEDIATORS
INTERVENED IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISCOVER A SUITABLE COMPROMISE, THE
DEADLINE DATE PASSED WITHOUT AGREEMENT.  IT APPEARS THAT, AFTER MAY 3,
NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUED IN SEATTLE, WHERE A CONTRACT AFFECTING ONLY
CANNERS AND WORKERS OPERATING OUT OF PORTS OTHER THAN SAN FRANCISCO WAS
FINALLY EXECUTED ON MAY 29.  THE COMPANIES AND UNION WHICH ARE INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE WERE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE TERMS OF THE 1940
SEATTLE AGREEMENT. 

SHORTLY AFTER MAY 3, THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS FILED CLAIMS FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WITH THE ALASKA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
COMMISSION.  THE COMMISSION, ACTING THROUGH AN EXAMINER, HELD THAT
RESPONDENTS WERE DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING PAYMENTS FOR THE STATUTORY
PERIOD OF EIGHT WEEKS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5(D) OF THE ALASKA
LAW.  AT THE TIME THIS CASE AROSE, THAT SECTION STATED IN PART:  "AN
INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED FOR BENEFITS ...  (D) FOR ANY WEEK
WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT HIS TOTAL OR PARTIAL
UNEMPLOYMENT IS DUE TO A LABOR DISPUTE WHICH IS IN ACTIVE PROGRESS AT
THE FACTORY, ESTABLISHMENT OR OTHER PREMISES AT WHICH HE IS OR WAS LAST
EMPLOYED; PROVIDED, THAT SUCH DISQUALIFICATION SHALL NOT EXCEED THE 8
WEEKS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE BEGINNING OF SUCH DISPUTE  ..." 

IN PURSUANCE OF THE APPEAL PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE,  FN4
RESPONDENTS ASKED FOR A REVIEW OF THE EXAMINER'S DETERMINATION.  THE
COMMISSION, IN RESPONSE TO THIS APPLICATION, APPOINTED A REFEREE TO
PASS ON THE DISPUTED CLAIMS.  THE SCOPE OF THE HEARINGS WAS CONFINED TO
THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE UNEMPLOYMENT OF THE CLAIMANTS WAS CAUSED BY
THE EXISTENCE OF A LABOR DISPUTE.  AT THE END OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE
REFEREE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A LABOR DISPUTE
IN EXISTENCE INITIALLY, THE DISPUTE WAS NO LONGER "IN ACTIVE PROGRESS"
AFTER THE PASSING OF THE DATES FIXED BY THE COMPANIES FOR CONSUMMATION
OF THE WORKING AGREEMENTS.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE DISQUALIFICATION UNDER
SEC. 5(D) WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE LOCALITIES WAS HELD NO LONGER TO
ATTACH AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE RESPECTIVE DEADLINE DATES.  FN5 

THE COMMISSION, ON APPEAL,  FN6  REVERSED THE REFEREE'S DECISION AND
HELD THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ALASKA LAW, A LABOR DISPUTE WAS IN
ACTIVE PROGRESS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EIGHT-WEEK STATUTORY PERIOD OF
DISQUALIFICATION BEGINNING WITH THE OPENING OF THE SEASON IN EACH
LOCALITY.  CONSEQUENTLY, NO BENEFITS WERE PAYABLE UNTIL THE EXPIRATION
OF THE DISQUALIFICATION PERIOD.  THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN ALL PARTICULARS.  FN7  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED, HOWEVER,
ON THE GROUND THAT THE LABOR DISPUTE WAS NOT PHYSICALLY AT THE ALASKA
CANNERIES WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN LAST EMPLOYED. 

WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE DO NOT PRESENT A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 5(D)
OF THE ALASKA ACT.  RESPONDENTS URGE THAT THE TERM MUST BE NARROWLY
CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE A STRIKE OR LEAVING OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH, IN TURN,
CALLS FOR A PRESENTLY-EXISTING EMPLOYMENT RELATION AT THE TIME THE
DISPUTE ARISES.  FN8  ACCORDING TO THIS VIEW, THE TERM WOULD NOT COVER
A SITUATION, SUCH AS PRESENTED HERE, WHERE THE CONTROVERSY PRECEDES THE
EMPLOYMENT.  RESPONDENTS WOULD JUSTIFY THIS RESTRICTED CONSTRUCTION ON
THE GROUND THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW IS REMEDIAL
LEGISLATION, AND ANY PROVISION LIMITING BENEFITS UNDER THE ACT SHOULD
BE NARROWLY INTERPRETED. 

THE TERM "LABOR DISPUTE" IS NOT DEFINED IN THE STATUTE.  THE TERM
APPEARS IN THE ACT IN ONE OTHER CONNECTION, HOWEVER.  SECTION
5(C)(2)(A) PROVIDES THAT BENEFITS UNDER THE ACT WILL NOT BE DENIED ANY
INDIVIDUAL, OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE, WHO REFUSES TO ACCEPT NEW WORK "IF THE
POSITION OFFERED IS VACANT DUE DIRECTLY TO A STRIKE, LOCKOUT, OR OTHER
LABOR DISPUTE."  THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935  FN9  REQUIRES THAT
THE STATE OR TERRITORIAL LAW CONTAIN A PROVISION TO THIS EFFECT BEFORE
THE LEGISLATION CAN BE APPROVED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD. 
OBVIOUSLY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 5(C)(2)(A), THE TERM, "LABOR
DISPUTE," HAS A BROADER MEANING THAN THAT ATTRIBUTED TO IT BY
RESPONDENTS.  UNLESS THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO GIVE A
DIFFERENT MEANING TO THE SAME LANGUAGE APPEARING IN ANOTHER SUBDIVISION
OF THE SAME SECTION, THE TERM MUST BE GIVEN A BROADER MEANING THAN THAT
CONTENDED FOR BY THE RESPONDENTS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 5(D) AS
WELL.  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER "LABOR DISPUTE" MUST IN ALL CASES
BE CONSTRUED AS BROADLY AS IT IS DEFINED IN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT
FN10  AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  FN11  BUT HERE THERE WAS
FULLSCALE CONTROVERSY.  COMPANIES ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON A SEASONAL
BUSINESS WERE RANGED AGAINST A UNION REPRESENTING SEASONAL WORKERS WHO
HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANIES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.  DISPUTE THERE
CERTAINLY WAS; AND THE SUBJECT OF THAT DISPUTE CONSISTED OF MATTERS
USUALLY CONTESTED IN LABOR DISPUTES AS THAT TERM IS NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD
N12.  SINCE WE FIND NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE TERRITORIAL
LEGISLATURE INTENDED A CONTRARY RESULT, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSION
MIGHT PROPERLY FIND A "LABOR DISPUTE" HERE PRESENTED WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 5(D) OF THE ALASKA ACT. 

WE THINK THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE
COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENTS' UNEMPLOYMENT WAS "DUE" TO A
LABOR DISPUTE INSOFAR AS THAT HOLDING RELATES TO THE INDIVIDUAL
RESPONDENTS EMPLOYED IN 1939 BY THE ALASKA PACKERS ASSOCIATION AND THE
RED SALMON CANNING COMPANY.  AT THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE REFEREE, THE
RESPONDENTS ATTEMPTED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE COMPANIES CALLED OFF THEIR
1940 OPERATIONS FOR REASONS OTHER THAN THEIR INABILITY TO NEGOTIATE A
SATISFACTORY LABOR AGREEMENT.  IT WAS ARGUED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE
COMPANIES FEARED A POOR CATCH AS A RESULT OF GOVERNMENTAL RESTRICTIONS
ON FISHING APPLICABLE TO THE 1940 SEASON.  THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE
THE REFEREE INDICATES THAT BOTH OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED COMPANIES MADE
EXTENSIVE PREPARATIONS FOR THE 1940 OPERATIONS.  IN ANTICIPATION,
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES OF THE VALUE OF SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS
WERE PURCHASED.  SHIPS WERE PREPARED AND HELD IN READINESS FOR THE
EXPEDITIONS.  THE REFEREE FOUND THAT THESE COMPANIES NEGOTIATED IN GOOD
FAITH AND FAILED TO OPERATE IN ALASKA DURING THE 1940 SEASON ONLY
BECAUSE OF THEIR INABILITY TO NEGOTIATE SATISFACTORY LABOR AGREEMENTS
BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE DEADLINE DATES.  THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE
ALASKA PACKERS ASSOCIATION EXPECTED TO HIRE ABOUT TWO-THIRDS THE NUMBER
OF WORKERS IN 1940 IT HAD EMPLOYED IN 1939.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY OF THE CLAIMANTS IN THIS ACTION WOULD
HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED AS A RESULT OF THIS CONTEMPLATED CURTAILMENT IN
ACTIVITY, OR, IF ANY OF THE RESPONDENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED, WHICH
OF THEIR NUMBER WOULD HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED.  IT APPEARS THAT THE RED
SALMON CANNING COMPANY EXPECTED TO USE THE SAME NUMBER OF WORKERS IN
1940 AS IN 1939, OR POSSIBLY A FEW MORE.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE
THINK THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT WAS "DUE" TO
THE LABOR DISPUTE SHOULD STAND INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE CLAIMANTS
INDICATED. 

BUT A DIFFERENT SITUATION IS PRESENTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE
RESPONDENTS EMPLOYED BY THE ALASKA SALMON COMPANY IN 1939.  THAT
COMPANY HAS AN ESTABLISHMENT ONLY AT BRISTOL BAY.  ON APRIL 30, THREE
DAYS BEFORE THE DEADLINE RELATING TO THE BRISTOL BAY OPERATIONS, ALASKA
SALMON WITHDREW FROM THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNION AND ANNOUNCED THAT
IT WAS UNABLE TO SEND AN EXPEDITION TO ALASKA IN 1940.  THE REFEREE
FOUND THAT THE WITHDRAWAL WAS CAUSED PRIMARILY BY FACTORS OTHER THAN
THE COMPANY'S INABILITY TO NEGOTIATE A SATISFACTORY LABOR CONTRACT.  AT
THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE REFEREE, COUNSEL FOR THE COMPANY STIPULATED
THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER COMPANIES HAD NEGOTIATED A LABOR AGREEMENT
WITH THE UNION BEFORE THE DEADLINE DATE, ALASKA SALMON WOULD HAVE
CONDUCTED NO OPERATIONS OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO IN 1940 AFTER ITS
WITHDRAWAL FROM NEGOTIATIONS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT
SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE RESPONDENTS EMPLOYED BY
THE ALASKA SALMON COMPANY IN 1939 WERE UNEMPLOYED "DUE" TO A LABOR
DISPUTE AT THE ESTABLISHMENT AT WHICH LAST EMPLOYED. 

RESPONDENTS URGE THAT, ASSUMING THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT WAS DUE TO A LABOR
DISPUTE, THERE WAS NO LABOR DISPUTE IN ACTIVE PROGRESS," WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT, AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE DEADLINE DATES.  IT IS
ARGUED THAT WHEN THE EXPEDITIONS WERE ABANDONED BY THE COMPANIES, THE
DISPUTE MUST NECESSARILY HAVE TERMINATED SINCE THERE WAS NO POSSIBLE
WAY IN WHICH NEGOTIATIONS COULD HAVE BROUGHT ABOUT A SETTLEMENT. IT
SHOULD BE OBSERVED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT REVEAL THAT
NEGOTIATIONS ABRUPTLY TERMINATED WITH THE PASSING OF THE LAST DEADLINE
DATE.  CONFERENCES CONTINUED AT SEATTLE IN WHICH BOTH THE COMPANIES AND
THE UNION WERE REPRESENTED.  THE RESPONDENTS CONSIDERED THE
NEGOTIATIONS SUFFICIENTLY ALIVE TO MAKE AN OFFER OF TERMS AT LEAST AS
LATE AS MAY 29.  EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT AT SOME TIME WITHIN THE
EIGHT-WEEK PERIOD OF DISQUALIFICATION THE POINT WAS REACHED WHEN ALL
POSSIBILITY OF SETTLEMENT DISAPPEARED, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING OF A DISPUTE IN "ACTIVE PROGRESS" MUST BE
OVERTURNED.  HERE, AS IN LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, INC., 322
U.S. 111, 131(1944), THE QUESTION PRESENTED "IS ONE OF SPECIFIC
APPLICATION OF A BROAD STATUTORY TERM IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE
AGENCY ADMINISTERING THE STATUTE MUST DETERMINE IT INITIALLY."  TO
SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S APPLICATION OF THIS STATUTORY TERM, WE NEED
NOT FIND THAT ITS CONSTRUCTION IS THE ONLY REASONABLE ONE, OR EVEN THAT
IT IS THE RESULT WE WOULD HAVE REACHED HAD THE QUESTION ARISEN IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  THE "REVIEWING COURT'S
FUNCTION IS LIMITED."  ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S
INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT HAS "WARRANT IN THE RECORD" AND A "REASONABLE
BASIS IN LAW."  LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, INC., SUPRA;
ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125(1939). 

APPLYING THESE TESTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION'S
CONSTRUCTION WAS IRRATIONAL OR WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD.  THE
COMMISSION APPARENTLY VIEWS A DISPUTE AS "ACTIVE" DURING THE
CONTINUANCE OF A WORK STOPPAGE INDUCED BY A LABOR DISPUTE.  THAT AGENCY
MIGHT REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RESULTING FROM SUCH
WORK STOPPAGE IS NOT OF THE "INVOLUNTARY" NATURE WHICH THE STATUTE WAS
DESIGNED TO ALLEVIATE, AS INDICATED BY THE STATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY
INCORPORATED IN THE ACT BY THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE.  FN13  WE SEE
NOTHING IN SUCH A VIEW TO REQUIRE OUR SUBSTITUTING A DIFFERENT
CONSTRUCTION FROM THAT MADE BY THE COMMISSION ENTRUSTED WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF ADMINISTERING THE STATUTE.  FN14 

NOR CAN WE ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT SINCE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE COMPANIES AND THE WORKERS
WERE CARRIED ON IN SAN FRANCISCO AND SEATTLE, THE DISPUTE COULD NOT BE
SAID TO BE "AT" THE ALASKAN ESTABLISHMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE. 
SO FAR AS WE ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE, THIS ISSUE WAS INJECTED FOR THE
FIRST TIME BY THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE
CONTENTION DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN RAISED OR PRESSED BY RESPONDENTS
UP TO THAT POINT.  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLYING THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS TO THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE WAS GIVEN IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE TO THE COMMISSION.  A REVIEWING COURT USURPS THE AGENCY'S
FUNCTION WHEN IT SETS ASIDE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION UPON A
GROUND NOT THERETOFORE PRESENTED AND DEPRIVES THE COMMISSION OF AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE MATTER, MAKE ITS RULING, AND STATE THE
REASONS FOR ITS ACTION.  FN15  NOR DO WE FIND THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED
BELOW CONVINCING ON ITS MERITS.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
THE DISPUTE RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF THE ALASKAN ESTABLISHMENTS.  AS
A RESULT OF THE DISPUTE, THE NORMAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVED IN CATCHING AND
CANNING SALMON WERE NOT CARRIED ON THROUGHOUT THE 1940 SEASON AT ANY OF
THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER SIGNIFICANT THE FACT THAT THE
COMPANIES AND THE UNION DID NOT NEGOTIATE AT THE CANNERIES OR ON THE
SHIPS IN ALASKAN WATERS.  A LEGISLATURE FAMILIAR WITH THE NATURE OF
SEASONAL OPERATIONS CARRIED ON IN THE TERRITORY COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN
UNAWARE OF THE FACT THAT COMPANIES AND WORKERS CUSTOMARILY CARRIED ON
NEGOTIATIONS FAR DISTANT FROM THE ALASKAN ESTABLISHMENTS.  IT SEEMS
UNLIKELY THAT IT WAS INTENDED THAT THIS ORDINARY AND USUAL PROCEDURE
SHOULD DEFEAT THE DISQUALIFICATION FOR BENEFITS INCORPORATED IN THE
ACT.  FURTHERMORE, IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE RESPONDENT UNION
VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO THE NEGOTIATIONS CONDUCTED AT SAN FRANCISCO
AND SEATTLE AND AT NO TIME CHALLENGED THE PROPRIETY OF THIS PRACTICE. 
THUS IF WE ASSUME WITH RESPONDENTS THAT THIS ISSUE IS PROPERLY
PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION, WE CONCLUDE THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE THE DISPUTE WAS "AT THE FACTORY, ESTABLISHMENT, OR OTHER
PREMISES" IN THE SENSE INTENDED BY THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IS AFFIRMED INSOFAR AS IT HOLDS THAT THE STATUTORY EIGHT-WEEK PERIOD OF
DISQUALIFICATION IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS EMPLOYED
BY THE ALASKA SALMON COMPANY IN 1939.  IN ALL OTHER PARTICULARS, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CASE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THIS OPINION. 

FN1  EXTRAORDINARY SESSION LAWS OF ALASKA, 1937, CHAPTER 4 AS AMENDED
BY CHAPTERS 1 AND 51, SESSION LAWS OF ALASKA, 1939. 

FN2  THE ALASKA STATUTE IS PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION INDUCED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT OF 1935.  49 STAT. 620, 626-627, 640.  IT IS SAID THAT
FORTY-THREE STATES AND TERRITORIES HAVE PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN
THE ALASKA LAW DISQUALIFYING FROM UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS PERSONS
UNEMPLOYED DUE TO A LABOR DISPUTE. 

FN3  AS PROVIDED BY BENEFIT REGULATION NO. 10 OF THE ALASKA
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION, THE SEASON AT KARLUK EXTENDS FROM
APRIL 5 TO SEPTEMBER 5, AT CHIGNIK FROM APRIL 1 TO SEPTEMBER 10, AND AT
BRISTOL BAY FROM MAY 5 TO AUGUST 25. 

FN4  SECTION 6(C) AND SEC. 6(D), CHAPTER 1, SESSION LAWS OF ALASKA,
1939. 

FN5  THE REFEREE FOUND THAT THERE HAD BEEN UNEMPLOYMENT DUE TO A
LABOR DISPUTE IN ACTIVE PROGRESS AT KARLUK FROM APRIL 5, WHEN THE
SEASON OPENED, TO APRIL 10, THE DEADLINE DATE, AND AT CHIGNIK FROM
APRIL 1 TO APRIL 12.  SINCE THE DEADLINE DATE WITH RESPECT TO BRISTOL
BAY WAS SET TWO DAYS BEFORE THE SEASON OPENED THERE, THE REFEREE FOUND
THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE IN ACTIVE PROGRESS AT THOSE PLANTS. 

FN6  THIS PROCEDURE WAS IN PURSUANCE OF SEC. 6(E) OF THE ACT AS
AMENDED BY CHAPTER 1, SESSION LAWS OF ALASKA, 1939. 

FN7  SECTION 6(I) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER
THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION HAS BECOME FINAL, ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED
MAY SECURE JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.  THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
AND IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE, AND THE JURISDICTION
OF SAID COURT SHALL BE CONFINED TO QUESTIONS OF LAW." 

FN8  A NUMBER OF STATE COURTS IN CONSTRUING SIMILAR LEGISLATION HAVE
FOUND "LABOR DISPUTES" TO HAVE EXISTED IN SITUATIONS WHERE NO
CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYMENT RELATION PRESENTLY EXISTED.  EACH OF THESE CASES
INVOLVED A WORK STOPPAGE IN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE EXPIRATION OF AN
OLD LABOR CONTRACT AND THE CONSUMMATION OF A NEW AGREEMENT.  MINERS IN
GENERAL GROUP V. HIX, 123 W. VA. 637, 17 S.E.2D 810(1941); EX PARTE
PESNELL, 240 ALA. 457, 199 SO. 726(1940); BARNES V. HALL, 285 KY. 160,
146 S.W.2D 929(1940); BLOCK COAL & COKE CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, 177 TENN. 247, 148 S.W.2D 364, 149 S.W.2D 469(1941); SANDOVAL
V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 110 COLO. 108, 130 P.2D 930(1942). 

FN9  49 STAT. 640, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1603(5)(A). 

FN10  47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 101.  THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT
CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION:  "THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES
ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR
CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING,
FIXING, MAINTAINING, CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTANTS
STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE."  47 STAT.
73, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 113(C).  A NUMBER OF STATE COURTS HAVE FOUND THIS
AND THE SIMILAR DEFINITION IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
PERSUASIVE IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM APPEARING IN UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO THE ALASKA ACT.  MINERS IN GENERAL
GROUP V. HIX, 123 W. VA. 637, 17 S.E.2D 810(1941); BARNES V. HALL, 285
KY. 160, 146 S.W.2D 929(1940); EX PARTE PESNELL, 240 ALA. 457, 199 SO.
726(1940); SANDOVAL V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 110 COLO. 108, 130 P.2D
930(1942).  THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE INCORPORATED THE DEFINITION
APPEARING IN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT INTO THE ALABAMA UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT.  ALA. CODE, TIT. 26 SEC. 214(A). 

FN11  49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151. 

FN12  THE EXAMINER, THE REFEREE, THE COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT COURT,
AND PRESUMABLY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ALL FOUND A "LABOR DISPUTE"
TO HAVE EXISTED, AT LEAST BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF THE DEADLINE DATES. 

FN13  THE "DECLARATION OF TERRITORIAL PUBLIC POLICY" STATES THAT
"INVOLUNTARY UNEMPLOYMENT IS ...  A SUBJECT OF GENERAL INTEREST AND
CONCERN WHICH REQUIRES APPROPRIATE ACTION BY THE LEGISLATURE."  IT IS
FURTHER STATED THAT THE PUBLIC WELFARE DEMANDS THE COMPULSORY SETTING
ASIDE OF UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVES "FOR THE BENEFIT OF PERSONS UNEMPLOYED
THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN."  CHAPTER 4, EXTRAORDINARY SESSION LAWS
OF ALASKA, 1937. 

SEVERAL STATE COURTS HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE DISQUALIFICATION
RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT DUE TO A LABOR DISPUTE IS A REFLECTION OF THE
BROAD POLICY OF THE LEGISLATION TO COMPENSATE ONLY PERSONS
INVOLUNTARILY UNEMPLOYED.  BARNES V. HALL, 285 KY. 160, 146 S.W.2D
929(1940); DESHLER BROOM FACTORY V. KINNEY, 140 NEB. 889, 2 N.W.2D
332(1942); SANDOVAL V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 110 COLO. 108, 130 P.2D
930(1942). 

FN14  LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, SUPRA; ROCHESTER TELEPHONE
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  CF. SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD V. NIEROTKO,
327 U.S. 358(1946). 

FN15  SECTION 6(H) OF THE ACT STATES THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSION'S DECISION "SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY AFTER ANY PARTY CLAIMING
TO BE AGGRIEVED THEREBY HAS EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AS
PROVIDED BY THIS ACT."  CF. MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303
U.S. 41, 50-51(1938); REGAL KNITWEAR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 324 U.S. 9,
13(1945); PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 196
197(1941). 
..END :




















VANSTON COMMITTEE V. GREEN, 329 U.S. 156 


ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  - 151 F.2D 470,
AFFIRMED. 


IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
CLAIM WAS MADE UNDER A COVENANT IN A FIRST MORTGAGE INDENTURE FOR
INTEREST ON INTEREST WHICH HAD ACCRUED AFTER PAYMENTS BY THE DEBTOR
CORPORATION HAD BEEN SUSPENDED BY A COURT ORDER IN AN EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIP, WHICH WAS SUCCEEDED BY A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 77B AND LATER BY THE CHAPTER X PROCEEDING.  THE CORPORATION WAS
INSOLVENT; ITS ASSETS WERE SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE FIRST MORTGAGE
BONDHOLDERS IN FULL, INCLUDING THE INTEREST ON INTEREST; BUT TO ALLOW
PAYMENT OF THE INTEREST ON INTEREST WOULD GREATLY REDUCE THE SHARE OF
THE SUBORDINATE CREDITORS IN THE REORGANIZED CORPORATION.  HELD: 

1.  SINCE THE INTEREST WAS LEFT UNPAID BY ORDER OF THE COURT,
IMPOSITION OF INTEREST ON THAT UNPAID INTEREST WOULD BE INEQUITABLE. 
P. 165. 

2.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THIS COURT TO PASS ON THE QUESTION OF
POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE LAWS OF DIFFERENT STATES HAVING SOME
INTEREST IN THE INDENTURE TRANSACTION OR UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE
PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON INTEREST UNDER APPLICABLE
STATE LAW; BECAUSE A BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN DETERMINING WHAT CLAIMS ARE
ALLOWABLE AND HOW A DEBTOR'S ASSETS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED, DOES NOT
APPLY THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE IT SITS, BUT ADMINISTERS AND ENFORCES
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  P. 162. 

3.  THE GENERAL RULE IN BANKRUPTCY AND IN FEDERAL EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP
HAS LONG BEEN THAT INTEREST ON THE DEBTOR'S OBLIGATIONS CEASES TO
ACCRUE AT THE BEGINNING OF PROCEEDINGS, SINCE EXACTION OF INTEREST
WHERE POWER OF A DEBTOR TO PAY WAS SUSPENDED BY LAW WOULD BE
INEQUITABLE.  P. 163. 

4.  SIMPLE INTEREST ON SECURED CLAIMS ACCRUING AFTER THE PETITION WAS
FILED IS DENIED UNLESS THE SECURITY IS WORTH MORE THAN THE SUM OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST DUE.  P. 164. 

5.  TO ALLOW A SECURED CREDITOR INTEREST WHERE HIS SECURITY IS WORTH
LESS THAN THE VALUE OF HIS DEBT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE TO UNSECURED
CREDITORS.  P. 164. 

6.  BUT, WHERE AN ESTATE IS AMPLE TO PAY ALL CREDITORS AND TO PAY
INTEREST EVEN AFTER THE PETITION WAS FILED, EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
PERMIT PAYMENT OF THIS ADDITIONAL INTEREST TO THE SECURED CREDITOR
RATHER THAN TO THE DEBTOR.  P. 164. 

7.  THE TOUCHSTONE OF EACH DECISION ON ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN
BANKRUPTCY, RECEIVERSHIP AND REORGANIZATION HAS BEEN A BALANCE OF
EQUITIES BETWEEN CREDITOR AND CREDITOR OR BETWEEN CREDITORS AND THE
DEBTOR.  P. 165. 

8.  THAT THIS PROCEEDING HAS MOVED FROM EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP THROUGH
SEC. 77B TO CHAPTER X IN THE WAKE OF STATUTORY CHANGE DOES NOT MAKE
THESE EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS INAPPLICABLE.  P. 165. 

9.  IT WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES TO ENRICH
THE FIRST MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SUBORDINATE
CREDITORS BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO PAY WHEN PAYMENT HAD BEEN PROHIBITED
BY A COURT ORDER ENTERED FOR THE JOINT BENEFIT OF DEBTOR, CREDITORS,
AND THE PUBLIC.  PP. 165-167. 

VANSTON BONDHOLDERS PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE V. GREEN ET AL. 

NO. 42.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 43, VANSTON BONDHOLDERS PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE V.
EARLY ET AL.; NO. 44, VANHORN BONDHOLDERS PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE V. GREEN
ET AL.; AND NO. 45, VANHORN BONDHOLDERS PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE V. EARLY
ET AL., ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

A DISTRICT COURT APPOINTED AN EQUITY RECEIVER FOR A CORPORATION AND
SUSPENDED PAYMENT OF ITS DEBTS.  THE EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP WAS SUCCEEDED
BY REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND
LATER BY A CHAPTER X PROCEEDING.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON INTEREST ACCRUING AFTER
THE RECEIVERSHIP, ON THE THEORY THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE COVENANT
THEREFOR WAS DETERMINED BY NEW YORK LAW AND THAT IT WAS VALID
THEREUNDER.  HOLDING THAT NEW YORK LAW PROHIBITED COVENANTS FOR PAYMENT
OF INTEREST ON INTEREST, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  151
F.2D 470.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 774.  AFFIRMED ON
OTHER GROUNDS.  P. 167. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DECEMBER 2, 1930, A KENTUCKY DISTRICT COURT APPOINTED AN EQUITY
RECEIVER OF INLAND GAS CORPORATION TO TAKE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE
CONTROL, POSSESSION, AND CUSTODY OF ALL OF INLAND'S PROPERTIES, AND
ENJOINED INLAND'S OFFICERS FROM PAYING ITS DEBTS.  AT THAT TIME THERE
WAS NO INTEREST UNPAID ON INLAND'S FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS.  FEBRUARY 1,
1931, SEMIANNUAL INTEREST COUPONS FELL DUE ON THESE BONDS.  THE DEBTOR
COULD NOT PAY; THE COURT DID NOT DIRECT THE RECEIVER TO PAY.  THE
INDENTURE TRUSTEE, ACTING UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INDENTURE, PROMPTLY
DECLARED THE ENTIRE PRINCIPAL DUE AND PAYABLE DESPITE THE PREVIOUS
ASSUMPTION OF CUSTODY OF THE ESTATE BY THE FEDERAL COURT.  IN 1935, THE
SAME DISTRICT COURT APPROVED A CREDITOR'S PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION
UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND AT A SUBSEQUENT DATE THE
REORGANIZATION WAS CONTINUED AS A CHAPTER X PROCEEDING.  FN1  THE
INDENTURE PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON UNPAID INTEREST.  INLAND
IS INSOLVENT, BUT ITS ASSETS ARE SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE FIRST MORTGAGE
BONDHOLDERS IN FULL, INCLUDING THE INTEREST ON INTEREST.  SHOULD
INTEREST ON INTEREST BE PAID, HOWEVER, SUBORDINATE CREDITORS WOULD
RECEIVE A GREATLY REDUCED SHARE IN THE REORGANIZED CORPORATION.  THESE
LATTER CONCEDE THAT THE FIRST MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS SHOULD RECEIVE
SIMPLE INTEREST ON THE PRINCIPAL DUE THEM, BUT CHALLENGE THEIR RIGHT TO
BE PAID INTEREST ON INTEREST  FN2  WHICH FELL DUE AFTER THE COURT TOOK
CHARGE OF INLAND, AND WHICH INTEREST THE COURT, OUT OF CONSIDERATION
FOR ORDERLY AND FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, DIRECTED THE
RECEIVER NOT TO PAY ON THE DUE DATE.  IT IS THIS CONTROVERSY WHICH WE
MUST DETERMINE. 

THE FIRST MORTGAGE INDENTURE DOCUMENT WAS WRITTEN AND SIGNED IN NEW
YORK, DESIGNATED A NEW YORK BANK AS TRUSTEE, AND PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT
OF THE BONDS AND ATTACHED INTEREST COUPONS AT THE OFFICE OF THE TRUSTEE
IN NEW YORK OR, AT THE OPTION OF THE BEARER, AT A BANK IN CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS.  A GROUP OF INVESTMENT BANKERS UNDERWROTE THE ISSUE, SOLD THE
BONDS TO THE PUBLIC, AND RECEIVED A PERCENTAGE OF THE PROCEEDS AND
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR THEIR SERVICES.  INLAND WAS ORGANIZED UNDER
THE CORPORATION LAWS OF DELAWARE.  ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS
IN KENTUCKY, AND THE PROPERTY MORTGAGED WAS LOCATED IN THAT STATE. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT
IT MUST ALLOW THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON INTEREST IF THE INDENTURE
COVENANT WAS VALID; THAT ITS VALIDITY MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF
NEW YORK, BECAUSE THE INDENTURE WAS SIGNED AND THE BONDS WERE PAYABLE
THERE; AND THAT THE COVENANT WAS VALID THERE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS WERE HELD ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON INTEREST. 
HOLDING THAT NEW YORK PROHIBITED COVENANTS FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON
INTEREST, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  151 F.2D 470.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MUST ALLOW
OR DISALLOW THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON INTEREST ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE
COVENANT TO PAY IT WAS VALID OR INVALID AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THAT
COVENANT.  IT CONSIDERED THE COVENANT INVALID AND THEREFORE
UNENFORCEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY UPON TWO ALTERNATIVE ASSUMPTIONS.  FIRST,
IT ASSUMED THAT A CONTROLLING FEDERAL RULE REQUIRED THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT BY LOOKING TO
THE LAW OF NEW YORK, THE STATE WHERE THE COURT FOUND THAT THE CONTRACT
WAS "MADE" AND PRIMARILY PAYABLE.  FN3  SECOND, SINCE THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT WAS SITTING IN KENTUCKY, IT SHOULD DETERMINE VALIDITY OF THE
COVENANT AS WOULD A KENTUCKY COURT.  REVIEWING KENTUCKY DECISIONS, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT KENTUCKY COURTS ALSO WOULD
APPLY NEW YORK SUBSTANTIVE LAW.  ARRIVING AT NEW YORK LAW BY BOTH
HYPOTHESES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INTERPRETED THAT LAW AS
RENDERING THE COVENANT INVALID.  WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON INTEREST SHOULD
NOT BE PERMITTED TO SHARE IN THE DEBTOR'S ASSETS, BUT DISAGREE WITH THE
REASONS GIVEN FOR THAT CONCLUSION. 

A PURPOSE OF BANKRUPTCY IS SO TO ADMINISTER AN ESTATE AS TO BRING
ABOUT A RATABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS AMONG THE BANKRUPT'S CREDITORS. 
WHAT CLAIMS OF CREDITORS ARE VALID AND SUBSISTING OBLIGATIONS AGAINST
THE BANKRUPT AT THE TIME A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY IS FILED IS A
QUESTION WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF OVERRULING FEDERAL LAW, IS TO BE
DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO STATE LAW.  FN4  BRYANT V. SWOFFORD BROS.,
214 U.S. 279, 290-291; SECURITY MORTGAGE CO. V. POWERS, 278 U.S. 149,
153-154.  BUT OBLIGATIONS, SUCH AS THE ONE HERE FOR INTEREST, OFTEN
HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONTACTS IN MANY STATES, SO THAT THE QUESTION OF WHICH
PARTICULAR STATE'S LAW SHOULD MEASURE THE OBLIGATION SELDOM LENDS
ITSELF TO SIMPLE SOLUTION.  IN DETERMINING WHICH CONTACT IS THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT IN A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION, COURTS CAN SELDOM FIND A
COMPLETE SOLUTION IN THE MECHANICAL FORMULAE OF THE CONFLICTS OF LAW. 
DETERMINATION REQUIRES THE EXERCISE OF AN INFORMED JUDGMENT IN THE
BALANCING OF ALL THE INTERESTS OF THE STATES WITH THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
CONTACTS IN ORDER BEST TO ACCOMMODATE THE EQUITIES AMONG THE PARTIES TO
THE POLICIES OF THOSE STATES.  CERTAINLY THE PART OF THIS TRANSACTION
WHICH TOUCHED NEW YORK, NAMELY, THAT THE INDENTURE CONTRACT WAS
WRITTEN, SIGNED, AND PAYABLE THERE, MAY BE A REASON WHY THAT STATE'S
LAW SHOULD GOVERN.  BUT APPARENTLY THE BONDS WERE SOLD TO PEOPLE ALL
OVER THE NATION.  AND KENTUCKY'S INTEREST IN HAVING ITS OWN LAWS GOVERN
THE OBLIGATION CANNOT BE MINIMIZED.  FOR THE PROPERTY MORTGAGED WAS
THERE; THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS WAS CHIEFLY THERE; ITS PRODUCTS WERE
WIDELY DISTRIBUTED THERE; AND THE PRICES PAID BY KENTUCKIANS FOR THOSE
PRODUCTS WOULD DEPEND, AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT, ON THE STABILITY OF THE
COMPANY AS AFFECTED BY THE CARRYING CHARGES ON ITS DEBTS.  BUT WE NEED
NOT DECIDE WHICH, IF EITHER, OF THESE TWO STATES' LAWS GOVERN THE
CREATION AND SUBSISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THE OBLIGATION FOR INTEREST ON
INTEREST HERE INVOLVED.  FOR ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, THAT THE OBLIGATION
FOR INTEREST ON INTEREST IS VALID UNDER THE LAW OF NEW YORK, KENTUCKY,
AND THE OTHER STATES HAVING SOME INTEREST IN THE INDENTURE TRANSACTION,
WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM WOULD BE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE POLICY OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  CF. KUEHNER V.
IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 445, 451. 

IN DETERMINING WHAT CLAIMS ARE ALLOWABLE AND HOW A DEBTOR'S ASSETS
SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED, A BANKRUPTCY COURT DOES NOT APPLY THE LAW OF THE
STATE WHERE IT SITS.  ERIE R.R. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, HAS NO SUCH
IMPLICATION.  THAT CASE DECIDED THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ACQUIRING
JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP SHOULD ADJUDICATE
CONTROVERSIES AS IF IT WERE ONLY ANOTHER STATE COURT.  SEE HOLMBERG V.
ARMBRECHT, 327 U.S. 392.  BUT BANKRUPTCY COURTS MUST ADMINISTER AND
ENFORCE THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CONGRESS TO DETERMINE HOW AND WHAT CLAIMS
SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  FN5  AND WE THINK AN
ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON INTEREST UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN BY THIS
CASE WOULD NOT BE IN ACCORD WITH THE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING
BANKRUPTCY DISTRIBUTIONS. 

WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES FEDERAL COURTS WILL ALLOW INTEREST
ON CLAIMS AGAINST DEBTORS' ESTATES BEING ADMINISTERED BY THEM HAS LONG
BEEN DECIDED BY FEDERAL LAW.  CF. BOARD OF COMM'RS OF JACKSON COUNTY V.
UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343; ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313
U.S. 289.  THE GENERAL RULE IN BANKRUPTCY AND IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP
HAS BEEN THAT INTEREST ON THE DEBTORS' OBLIGATIONS CEASES TO ACCRUE AT
THE BEGINNING OF PROCEEDINGS.  EXACTION OF INTEREST, WHERE THE POWER OF
A DEBTOR TO PAY EVEN HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS IS SUSPENDED BY LAW,
HAS BEEN PROHIBITED BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE NATURE OF A
PENALTY IMPOSED BECAUSE OF DELAY IN PROMPT PAYMENT - A DELAY
NECESSITATED BY LAW IF THE COURTS ARE PROPERLY TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT
THE ESTATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL INTERESTS INVOLVED.  THUS THIS COURT
HAS SAID:  "WE CANNOT AGREE THAT A PENALTY IN THE NAME OF INTEREST
SHOULD BE INFLICTED UPON THE OWNERS OF THE MORTGAGE LIEN FOR RESISTING
CLAIMS WHICH WE HAVE DISALLOWED.  AS A GENERAL RULE, AFTER PROPERTY OF
AN INSOLVENT PASSES INTO THE HANDS OF A RECEIVER OR OF AN ASSIGNEE IN
INSOLVENCY, INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE FUNDS. 
THE DELAY IN DISTRIBUTION IS THE ACT OF THE LAW; IT IS A NECESSARY
INCIDENT TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE."  THOMAS V. WESTERN CAR CO.,
149 U.S. 95, 116-117.  CF. AMERICAN IRON CO. V. SEABOARD AIR LINE, 233
U.S. 261.  COURTS HAVE FELT THAT IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE FOR ANYONE TO
GAIN AN ADVANTAGE OR SUFFER A LOSS BECAUSE OF SUCH DELAY.  SEXTON V.
DREYFUS, 219 U.S. 339, 346.  ACCRUAL OF SIMPLE INTEREST ON UNSECURED
CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY WAS PROHIBITED IN ORDER THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE
INCONVENIENCE OF CONTINUOUS RECOMPUTATION OF INTEREST CAUSING
RECOMPUTATION OF CLAIMS COULD BE AVOIDED.  MOREOVER, DIFFERENT
CREDITORS WHOSE CLAIMS BORE DIVERSE INTEREST RATES OR WERE PAID BY THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT ON DIFFERENT DATES WOULD SUFFER NEITHER GAIN NOR LOSS
CAUSED SOLELY BY DELAY.  FN6 

SIMPLE INTEREST ON SECURED CLAIMS ACCRUING AFTER THE PETITION WAS
FILED WAS DENIED UNLESS THE SECURITY WAS WORTH MORE THAN THE SUM OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST DUE.  SEXTON V. DREYFUS, SUPRA.  TO ALLOW A
SECURED CREDITOR INTEREST WHERE HIS SECURITY WAS WORTH LESS THAN THE
VALUE OF HIS DEBT WAS THOUGHT TO BE INEQUITABLE TO UNSECURED
CREDITORS.  THUS WE RECENTLY SAID:  "SINCE THE DISTRIBUTION PROVIDED
FOR THESE BONDS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR MORTGAGE SECURITIES IS LESS THAN
THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIM, THE LIMITATION OF THEIR RIGHT TO
SHARE THE UNMORTGAGED ASSETS RATABLY WITH THE UNSECURED CREDITORS ON
THE BASIS OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PRIOR TO BANKRUPTCY ONLY IS
JUSTIFIED UNDER THE RULE OF TICONIC NATIONAL BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S.
406."  GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL
& PACIFIC R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 573.  BUT WHERE AN ESTATE WAS AMPLE TO
PAY ALL CREDITORS AND TO PAY INTEREST EVEN AFTER THE PETITION WAS
FILED, EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS WERE INVOKED TO PERMIT PAYMENT OF THIS
ADDITIONAL INTEREST TO THE SECURED CREDITOR RATHER THAN TO THE DEBTOR. 
CODER V. ARTS, 213 U.S. 223, 245; SEXTON V. DREYFUS, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO
JOHNSON V. NORRIS, 190 F. 459.  FN7 

IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE TOUCHSTONE OF EACH DECISION ON ALLOWANCE OF
INTEREST IN BANKRUPTCY, RECEIVERSHIP AND REORGANIZATION HAS BEEN A
BALANCE OF EQUITIES BETWEEN CREDITOR AND CREDITOR OR BETWEEN CREDITORS
AND THE DEBTOR.  SEE SEXTON V. DREYFUS, SUPRA, AT 346.  THAT THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US HAVE MOVED FROM EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP THROUGH SEC.
77B TO CHAPTER X IN THE WAKE OF STATUTORY CHANGE DOES NOT MAKE THESE
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS HERE INAPPLICABLE.  A CHAPTER X OR SEC. 77B
REORGANIZATION COURT IS JUST AS MUCH A COURT OF EQUITY AS WERE ITS
STATUTORY AND CHANCERY ANTECEDENTS.  SEE CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO.
V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 527.  FN8 

IN THIS CASE, WHERE BY ORDER OF THE COURT INTEREST WAS LEFT UNPAID,
WE DO NOT THINK THAT IMPOSITION OF INTEREST ON THAT UNPAID INTEREST CAN
BE JUSTIFIED BY "AN APPLICATION OF EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES."  SEE DAYTON
V. STANARD, 241 U.S. 588, 590.  FN9  PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE
EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP, INLAND WOULD HAVE NEVER OWED INTEREST ON INTEREST
UNLESS AND UNTIL IT HAD BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST
PROMPTLY - ON THE DATE IT WAS DUE.  BEFORE THE RECEIVERSHIP BEGAN, A
FAILURE BY INLAND TO PAY COUPONS ON THE DATE THEY WERE DUE MIGHT HAVE
BREACHED AN EXISTING OBLIGATION.  THIS BREACH WOULD HAVE IMPOSED UPON
INLAND, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COVENANT, A DUTY TO PAY INTEREST ON THE
INTEREST IT HAD FAILED TO PAY.  FN10  BUT WHEN THE EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP
INTERVENED, THESE INTERRELATED OBLIGATIONS WERE DRASTICALLY CHANGED. 
THE OBLIGATION TO MAKE PROMPT PAYMENT OF SIMPLE INTEREST COUPONS WAS
SUSPENDED.  IN FACT, BOTH INLAND AND THE RECEIVER WERE ORDERED BY THE
COURT NOT TO PAY THE COUPONS ON THE DATES THEY WERE, ON THEIR FACE,
SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PAID.  THE CONTINGENCY WHICH MIGHT HAVE CREATED A
PRESENT OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST ON INTEREST - I.E., A FREE DECISION
BY THE DEBTOR THAT IT WOULD NOT OR COULD NOT PAY SIMPLE INTEREST
PROMPTLY - WAS PROHIBITED FROM OCCURRING BY ORDER OF THE COURT.  THAT
ORDER ISSUED FOR A GOOD CAUSE, WE MAY ASSUME:  TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT
THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE PENDING A RATABLE DISTRIBUTION AMONG ALL THE
CREDITORS ACCORDING TO THEIR INTERESTS AS OF THE DATE THE RECEIVERSHIP
BEGAN.  THE EXTRA INTEREST COVENANT MAY BE DEEMED ADDED COMPENSATION
FOR THE CREDITOR OR, WHAT IS MORE LIKELY, SOMETHING LIKE A PENALTY TO
INDUCE PROMPT PAYMENT OF SIMPLE INTEREST.  IN EITHER EVENT, FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS WOULD HAVE BEEN ENRICHED AND SUBORDINATE CREDITORS
WOULD HAVE SUFFERED A CORRESPONDING LOSS, BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO PAY
WHEN PAYMENT HAD BEEN PROHIBITED BY A COURT ORDER ENTERED FOR THE JOINT
BENEFIT OF DEBTOR, CREDITORS, AND THE PUBLIC.  SUCH A RESULT IS NOT
CONSISTENT WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  FOR LEGAL SUSPENSION OF AN
OBLIGATION TO PAY IS AN ADEQUATE REASON WHY NO ADDED COMPENSATION OR
PENALTY SHOULD BE ENFORCED FOR FAILURE TO PAY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 77B WAS ENACTED JUNE 7, 1934, 48 STAT. 912.  THE SEC.
77B PETITION IN THIS CASE WAS FILED WHILE THE ESTATE CONTINUED IN THE
EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP.  SECTION 77B WAS SUPERSEDED BY CHAPTER X, 52 STAT.
883, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 501 ET SEQ. SECTION 276 OF CHAPTER X, 11 U.S.C.
676, AUTHORIZED CONTINUANCE OF THE SEC. 77B PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER
X. SEE YOUNG V. HIGBEE CO., 324 U.S. 204, 205, N. 1. 

FN2  THE CLAIMS FOR INTEREST ON INTEREST AMOUNT TO SOME $500,000. 

FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT A REFERENCE TO NEW YORK LAW
WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE FOLLOWING CASES:  CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, 96
U.S. 51; SCUDDER V. NATIONAL BANK, 91 U.S. 406, 412; LIVERPOOL STEAM
CO. V. PHENIX INS. CO., 129 U.S. 397, 453.  NONE OF THESE CASES NOR ANY
CITED BY PETITIONER HERE, E.G., SEEMAN V. PHILADELPHIA WAREHOUSE CO.,
274 U.S. 403, INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF DISTRIBUTION OF A DEBTOR'S ASSETS IN
RECEIVERSHIP, BANKRUPTCY OR REORGANIZATION TO MEET CLAIMS FOR INTEREST
ON INTEREST SAID TO HAVE ACCRUED AFTER A COURT TOOK POSSESSION OF A
DEBTOR'S ESTATE. 

FN4  OF COURSE, THERE MIGHT BE INSTANCES WHERE THE VALIDITY OF THE
OBLIGATION WOULD BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO THE LAW OF SOME FOREIGN
COUNTRY. 

FN5  HEISER V. WOODRUFF, 327 U.S. 726, 732; AMERICAN SECURITY CO. V.
SAMPSELL, 327 U.S. 269, 272; PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, 303-306. 

FN6  SEE SEC. 63A (1) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. 103A (1); CF.
SEC. 63 OF THE ACT OF 1898, 30 STAT. 562 AND SEC. 19 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT OF 1867, 14 STAT. 525.  FOR A DISCUSSION OF INTEREST CLAIMS IN
BANKRUPTCY SEE 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  281, 1835. 

FN7  ANALOGOUS PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE LIQUIDATION OF
NATIONAL BANKS.  WHITE V. KNOX, 111 U.S. 784, 786-87, RELIED ON IN
SEXTON V. DREYFUS, SUPRA, 346; TICONIC NAT'L BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S.
406, 412-13. 

FN8  SECTION 115 OF CHAPTER X; 11 U.S.C. 515 AUTHORIZES A CHAPTER X
COURT TO EXERCISE "ALL THE POWERS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CHAPTER, WHICH A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE IF IT
HAD APPOINTED A RECEIVER IN EQUITY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR  ..." 
FORMER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 48 STAT. 912, AND SEC. 77(A), 11
U.S.C. SEC. 205(A)(RAILROAD REORGANIZATION) CONTAIN SIMILAR
PROVISIONS. 

FN9  PETITIONER AND THE CIRCUIT COURT HAVE CITED NON-BANKRUPTCY CASES
WHICH AWARD INTEREST ON INTEREST TO SUPPORT THE AWARD IN THIS
REORGANIZATION.  TOWN OF GENOA V. WOODRUFF, 92 U.S. 502; EDWARDS V.
BATES COUNTY, 163 U.S. 269.  DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BROUGHT THESE
CASES TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.  NONE OF THEM PRESENTED TO THE COURTS THE
SPECIAL BANKRUPTCY PROBLEMS OF UNIFORMITY, RATABLE DISTRIBUTION AND
FAIRNESS AND EQUITY WHICH GROW OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF THE BANKRUPTCY
LAW. 

FN10  HAD A BREACH OCCURRED AND A SUIT BEEN FILED IN STATE COURT
PRIOR TO RECEIVERSHIP OR BANKRUPTCY, THAT COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS VALID UNDER THE
CONTROLLING STATE LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS,
CONCURRING; MR. JUSTICE BURTON HAVING CONCURRED IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT ALSO JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

IN 1928 THE INLAND GAS CORPORATION, CHARTERED BY DELAWARE, FLOATED A
FIRST MORTGAGE BOND ISSUE COVERING PROPERTY LOCATED IN KENTUCKY WHERE
IT HAD ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.  THE MORTGAGE INDENTURE WAS
EXECUTED IN NEW YORK, DESIGNATED A NEW YORK CORPORATION AS TRUSTEE, AND
MADE THE BONDS AND COUPONS PAYABLE IN NEW YORK, OR, AT THE OPTION OF
THE HOLDER, IN CHICAGO WHERE THE DEBTOR HAD A PAYING AGENT.  BY AN
EXPLICIT CLAUSE IN THE INDENTURE, THE DEBTOR AGREED TO PAY INTEREST ON
DEFAULTED COUPONS AT THE RATE WHICH APPLIED TO THE BONDS THEMSELVES
BEFORE MATURITY.  THE BONDS WERE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC IN MANY STATES. 

THE DEBTOR DEFAULTED ON COUPONS AND ALSO ON THE BONDS WHEN THEY
BECAME DUE.  REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT WERE BEGUN BY CREDITORS IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.  SUBSEQUENTLY CHAPTER X OF THAT ACT WAS MADE
APPLICABLE.  IN THESE PROCEEDINGS A CLAIM, BASED ON THE COVENANT IN THE
INDENTURE, WAS MADE BY MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS FOR INTEREST ON THE
DEFAULTED INTEREST COUPONS.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ALLOWED THE CLAIM,
APPARENTLY BECAUSE IT CONCLUDED THAT THE COVENANT IS VALID BY THE LAW
OF NEW YORK.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
REVERSED.  151 F.2D 470.  THAT COURT, APPARENTLY DEEMING ITSELF
ULTIMATELY CONTROLLED BY THE LOCAL LAW OF KENTUCKY WHICH, IN TURN,
LOOKED TO THE LAW OF NEW YORK, RULED THAT THE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISALLOWED BECAUSE THE CONTRACT FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON COUPONS
WAS VOID UNDER NEW YORK LAW.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, A STATUTORY PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS (SEC. 208 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. 608), URGES ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM IF THE
COVENANT WOULD, APART FROM BANKRUPTCY, BE UPHELD IN THE COURTS OF ANY
STATE HAVING "A SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRANSACTION."  THE
COMMISSION THEREFORE SUPPORTS ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM BECAUSE IT FINDS
THAT TWO OF THE STATES RELATED TO THE TRANSACTION WOULD UPHOLD THE
COVENANT:  DELAWARE, THE STATE OF THE DEBTOR'S INCORPORATION, AND
KENTUCKY, ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AND THE SITE OF THE MORTGAGE
PROPERTY.  FINALLY ANOTHER VIEW SUGGESTS THAT WHETHER INTEREST SHOULD
BE ALLOWED IN THIS CASE IS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW TO BE FASHIONED BY
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THE LIGHT OF GENERAL, UNDEFINED NOTIONS OF
EQUITY POLICY AND OF BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION. 

OF COURSE, WHERE RIGHTS ARE CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES OR
STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES AND DO NOT OWE THEIR ORIGIN TO THE LAWS
OF ANY STATE, THE GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING OF INTEREST AS PART OF THE
REMEDY IS ALSO A FUNCTION OF FEDERAL LAW.  THAT IS THE UPSHOT OF THE
DECISION IN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343.  THE
FACTORS LEGALLY DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT PROBLEM ARE THE OPPOSITE OF
THOSE WHICH CONTROLLED OUR DECISION IN THAT CASE.  THERE WE HAD A RIGHT
CREATED BY FEDERAL LAW.  IN THIS CASE, IT WAS BEYOND THE POWER OF
FEDERAL LAW TO CREATE THE RIGHT FOR WHICH CLAIM WAS MADE, ALTHOUGH, IF
BY STATE LAW SUCH A RIGHT CAME INTO BEING, IT MIGHT BECOME A QUESTION
WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD RECOGNIZE SUCH A RIGHT WHEN THEY ARE
SOUGHT TO BE UTILIZED AS INSTRUMENTS FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT. 

CONFLICT-OF-LAW PROBLEMS HAVE A BEGUILING TENDENCY TO BE MADE EVEN
MORE COMPLICATED THAN THEY ARE.  THEREFORE, THEY ARE OFTEN, AS NOW,
FITTING OCCASIONS FOR OBSERVING THE CLASSIC ADMONITION TO BEGIN AT THE
BEGINNING.  THE BUSINESS OF BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION IS TO DETERMINE
HOW EXISTING DEBTS SHOULD BE SATISFIED OUT OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE SO
AS TO DEAL FAIRLY WITH THE VARIOUS CREDITORS.  THE EXISTENCE OF A DEBT
BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO AN ALLEGED CREDITOR-DEBTOR RELATION IS
INDEPENDENT OF BANKRUPTCY AND PRECEDES IT.  PARTIES ARE IN A BANKRUPTCY
COURT WITH THEIR RIGHTS AND DUTIES ALREADY ESTABLISHED, EXCEPT INSOFAR
AS THEY SUBSEQUENTLY ARISE DURING THE COURSE OF BANKRUPTCY
ADMINISTRATION OR AS PART OF ITS CONDUCT.  OBLIGATIONS TO BE SATISFIED
OUT OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE THUS ARISE, IF AT ALL, OUT OF TORT OR
CONTRACT OR OTHER RELATIONSHIP CREATED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.  AND THE
LAW THAT FIXES LEGAL CONSEQUENCES TO TRANSACTIONS IS THE LAW OF THE
SEVERAL STATES.  EXCEPT FOR THE VERY LIMITED OBLIGATIONS CREATED BY
CONGRESS, E.G., HOLMBERG V. ARMBRECHT, 327 U.S. 392, A DEBT IS NOT
BROUGHT INTO BEING BY FEDERAL LAW.  OBLIGATIONS EXIST OR DO NOT EXIST
BY FORCE OF STATE LAW THOUGH FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION IS IN
FORCE, JUST AS STATE LAW DETERMINED WHETHER THEY CAME INTO BEING OR DID
NOT COME INTO BEING BETWEEN 1878 AND 1898 WHEN THERE WAS NO BANKRUPTCY
LAW.  THE FACT THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE CREATION OF A DEBT A PARTY COMES
INTO A BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE RULES CONCERNING THE
CREATION OF THE OBLIGATION.  OF COURSE A STATE MAY AFFIX TO A
TRANSACTION AN OBLIGATION WHICH THE COURTS OF OTHER STATES OR THE
FEDERAL COURTS NEED NOT ENFORCE BECAUSE OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OF
POLICY.  AND SO, IN THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS
AND THE DESIRE TO REHABILITATE THE DEBTOR, CONGRESS UNDER ITS
BANKRUPTCY POWER MAY AUTHORIZE ITS COURTS TO REFUSE TO ALLOW EXISTING
DEBTS TO BE PROVEN.  IT MAY DO SO, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THE RECOGNITION
OF SUCH CLAIMS WOULD UNDERMINE THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF A DEBTOR'S
ESTATE, EVEN THOUGH BEFORE BANKRUPTCY SUCH A CLAIM WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED
A VALID JUDGMENT IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE WHICH CREATED THE
OBLIGATION, OR EVEN IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE WHERE THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT IS SITTING.  BUT THE THRESHOLD QUESTION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF A
CLAIM IS WHETHER A CLAIM EXISTS.  AND CLARITY OF ANALYSIS JUSTIFIES
REPETITION THAT EXCEPT WHERE FEDERAL LAW, WHOLLY APART FROM BANKRUPTCY,
HAS CREATED OBLIGATIONS BY THE EXERCISE OF POWER GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, A CLAIM IMPLIES THE EXISTENCE OF AN OBLIGATION CREATED BY
STATE LAW.  IF THERE WAS NO VALID CLAIM BEFORE BANKRUPTCY, THERE IS NO
CLAIM FOR A BANKRUPTCY COURT EITHER TO RECOGNIZE OR TO REJECT. 

SUCH AN ANALYSIS, HOWEVER PHRASED, IS INDISPENSABLE TO THE SOLUTION
OF THE PROBLEM NOW BEFORE US.  PUTTING THE WRONG QUESTIONS IS NOT
LIKELY TO BEGET RIGHT ANSWERS EVEN IN LAW.  ONE WAY OF PUTTING OUR
PROBLEM IS TO ASK WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT EXECUTING THE POLICY OF
CONGRESS COULD RECOGNIZE A CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON COUPONS AND ALLOW IT
TO SHARE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BANKRUPT'S ASSETS.  BUT THUS TO
FRAME THE QUESTION IS TO AVOID THE CRUCIAL PRELIMINARY INQUIRY WHETHER
ANY OBLIGATION EXISTS TO BE RECOGNIZED.  FOR NOTHING COMES INTO A
BANKRUPTCY COURT TO WHICH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY CAN APPLY UNLESS IT IS
AN OBLIGATION CREATED BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW.  AND NO OBLIGATION FINDS
ITS WAY INTO A BANKRUPTCY COURT UNLESS, BY THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE
THE ACTS CONSTITUTING A TRANSACTION OCCUR, THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF
SUCH A TRANSACTION IS AN OBLIGATION TO PAY.  SEE BRYANT V. SWOFFORD
BROS., 214 U.S. 279, 290-91; BENEDICT V. RATNER, 268 U.S. 353; SECURITY
MORTGAGE CO. V. POWERS, 278 U.S. 149.  WHERE A TRANSACTION IN ITS
ENTIRETY OCCURS IN ONE STATE, IT IS CLEARLY THE LAW OF THAT STATE THAT
DETERMINES IF AN OBLIGATION IS BORN, WHETHER THE QUESTION BECOMES
RELEVANT IN A BANKRUPTCY COURT OR IN ANY OTHER COURT.  BUT THE MERE
FACT THAT AN AGREEMENT IS MADE IN ONE STATE BY CITIZENS OF A SECOND
STATE FOR PERFORMANCE IN A THIRD AND AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS IN ALL FORTY
EIGHT STATES DOES NOT CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE INHERENT IN OUR FEDERAL
SCHEME, THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A DEBT COMES ABOUT NOT BY FEDERAL LAW BUT
BY FORCE OF SOME STATE LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE DEBT,
IF IT EXISTS, MAY RAISE FEDERAL QUESTIONS IF BANKRUPTCY ENSUES. 
BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION IS SUPERIMPOSED UPON RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
CREATED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATES.  COMPARE MARSHALL V. NEW YORK, 254
U.S. 380.  WE DO NOT REACH CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY IN BANKRUPTCY
ADMINISTRATION UNTIL THERE ARE RIGHTS, CREATED BY APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW,
TO BE RECOGNIZED. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION.  THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE
DAMAGES ARE CLAIMED, IN THE FORM OF INTEREST, FOR THE DETENTION OF
MONIES DUE.  IN SUCH A SITUATION THE RIGHT TO INTEREST AND ITS MEASURE
BECOME MATTERS FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  THE CLAIM HERE ASSERTED IS
BASED SOLELY ON THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.  THE COVENANT FOR INTEREST
ON INTEREST WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES IN NEW YORK.  THE DOMINANT
PLACE OF PERFORMANCE WAS ALSO NEW YORK.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF THE
WORDS OF THE INDENTURE CREATED AN OBLIGATION, THEY DID SO ONLY IF THE
LAW OF NEW YORK SAYS THEY DID.  WILLISTON, CONTRACTS SEC. 1792.  IF NEW
YORK OUTLAWED SUCH A COVENANT, NEITHER KENTUCKY NOR DELAWARE NOR THE
STATES IN WHICH BONDS WERE SOLD OR WHERE BONDHOLDERS RESIDE COULD GIVE
EFFECT TO AN OBLIGATION WHICH NEVER CAME INTO BEING.  COMPARE JOHN
HANCOCK INS. CO. V. YATES, 299 U.S. 178.  AND THE ULTIMATE VOICE OF NEW
YORK LAW, THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, SPEAKING THROUGH JUDGE
CARDOZO, STATED IT AS SETTLED LAW THAT "A PROMISE TO PAY INTEREST UPON
INTEREST IS VOID  ..."  NEWBURGER-MORRIS CO. V. TALCOTT, 219 N.Y. 505,
510, 114 N.E. 846.  THIS VIEW OF THE NEW YORK LAW IS SUPPORTED BY THE
GREAT WEIGHT OF JUDGE MACK'S AUTHORITY.  AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY
CO. V. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., 11 F.SUPP.  418, 419-420.  BUT
SEE AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY CO. V. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT
CO., 26 F.SUPP.  954, CONTRA.  HOWEVER, IT IS NOT FOR US TO ASCERTAIN
INDEPENDENTLY WHETHER THE LAW OF NEW YORK DEEMED A NULLITY THE
AGREEMENT THAT WAS HERE SOUGHT TO BE MADE THE BASIS OF A CLAIM.  WE
WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON THAT ISSUE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS MADE SUCH AN INVESTIGATION AND CONCLUDED THAT IN NEW YORK
THE UNDERTAKING TO PAY INTEREST WAS VOID.  WE ACCEPT THIS FINDING AND
CONCLUDE THAT SINCE NO OBLIGATION WAS CREATED THERE WAS NO CLAIM
PROVABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.  AND SO WE ARE NOT NOW CALLED UPON TO DECIDE
WHETHER AS A MATTER OF BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION AN AGREEMENT TO PAY
INTEREST ON INTEREST, WHERE IT IS AN OBLIGATION ENFORCEABLE BY STATE
LAW, IS ENFORCEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.  THAT IS A QUESTION THAT CAN ARISE
ONLY WHERE SUCH AN OBLIGATION AROSE UNDER STATE LAW.  THE OPPOSITE IS
THE ASSUMPTION IN THE CASE BEFORE US. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS CONCLUSION SUBJECTS THE FATE OF A
CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY TO THE WHIM OF STATE LAW.  WE ARE TOLD THAT THIS
RESULT IS AGAINST THE POLICY OF CONGRESS IMPLIED IN MEASURES FOR THE
PROTECTION OF INVESTORS AND CONTRAVENES THE REQUIREMENT OF "UNIFORM
LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES."  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 4.  BUT THIS
MISCONCEIVES THE PURPOSE AND SETTLED UNDERSTANDING OF THE BANKRUPTCY
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF
UNIFORMITY IS A REQUIREMENT OF GEOGRAPHIC UNIFORMITY.  IT IS WHOLLY
SATISFIED WHEN EXISTING OBLIGATIONS OF A DEBTOR ARE TREATED ALIKE BY
THE BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, REGARDLESS OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SITS.  SEE HANOVER NATIONAL BANK V.
MOYSES, 186 U.S. 181, 190.  TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM LAWS OF BANKRUPTCY
DOES NOT MEAN WIPING OUT THE DIFFERENCES AMONG THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES
IN THEIR LAWS GOVERNING COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS.  THE CONSTITUTION DID
NOT INTEND THAT TRANSACTIONS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
BECAUSE THEY TOOK PLACE IN DIFFERENT STATES SHALL COME OUT WITH THE
SAME RESULT BECAUSE THEY PASSED THROUGH A BANKRUPTCY COURT.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF BANKRUPTCY SUCH DIFFERENCES ARE THE FAMILIAR RESULTS OF A
FEDERAL SYSTEM HAVING FORTY-EIGHT DIVERSE CODES OF LOCAL LAW.  THESE
DIFFERENCES INHERENT IN OUR FEDERAL SCHEME THE DAY BEFORE A BANKRUPTCY
ARE NOT WIPED OUT OR TRANSMUTED THE DAY AFTER. 
..END :






















CARTER V. ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173 


NO. 36.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  - 391
ILL. 594, 63 N.E.2D 763, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN REVIEWING ON WRIT OF ERROR A CONVICTION FOR MURDER IN WHICH IT
WAS CLAIMED THAT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL HAD BEEN DENIED CONTRARY TO THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, A STATE SUPREME COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL
PRACTICE, WHEREBY IT COULD CONSIDER ONLY THE COMMON LAW RECORD,
CONCLUDED THAT, AFTER BEING FULLY ADVISED OF HIS RIGHTS, THE ACCUSED
HAD CONSCIOUSLY CHOSEN TO DISPENSE WITH COUNSEL AND TO PLEAD GUILTY. 
FACTORS SUCH AS RACIAL HANDICAP OF THE ACCUSED, HIS MENTAL INCAPACITY,
HIS INABILITY TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT CHOICE, OR PRECIPITANCY IN THE
ACCEPTANCE OF A PLEA OF GUILTY - WHICH MIGHT SHOW FUNDAMENTAL
UNFAIRNESS IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE - WERE NOT BEFORE
THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THIS PROCEEDING.  HELD:  ON THIS RECORD, TO
WHICH REVIEW IN THIS COURT IS CONFINED, THERE IS NO SHOWING OF A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  RICE V. OLSON, 324 U.S.
786, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 177-180. 

2.  DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL TO ASSIST DEFENDANT AT TIME OF SENTENCING
DOES NOT IMPLY THAT HE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF INTELLIGENT SELF-PROTECTION
WHEN HE PLEADED GUILTY.  PP. 178-179. 

CARTER V. ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS SUSTAINED A CONVICTION FOR MURDER.  391
ILL. 594, 63 N.E.2D 763.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S.
827.  AFFIRMED, P. 180. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1928 PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY TO AN INDICTMENT FOR MURDER AND WAS
SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR 99 YEARS.  IN 1945 HE BROUGHT A PETITION
FOR HIS RELEASE ON WRIT OF ERROR IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
CLAIMING THAT THE CONVICTION ON WHICH HIS CONFINEMENT WAS BASED WAS
VITIATED BY THE DENIAL OF HIS RIGHT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO
THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AFFIRMED THE
ORIGINAL JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  391 ILL. 594, 63 N.E.2D 763.  IN VIEW
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CLAIM, IF VALID, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE. 
328 U.S. 827. 

IN A SERIES OF CASES OF WHICH MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86, WAS THE
FIRST, AND ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 327 U.S. 274, THE LATEST, WE HAVE
SUSTAINED AN APPEAL TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT FOR A FAIR ASCERTAINMENT OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE.  INHERENT IN
THE NOTION OF FAIRNESS IS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AN ACCUSATION. 
UNDER PERTINENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OPPORTUNITY IS AMPLE ONLY WHEN AN
ACCUSED HAS THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE.  AND THE NEED
FOR SUCH ASSISTANCE MAY EXIST AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROSECUTION, FROM
ARRAIGNMENT TO SENTENCING.  THIS DOES NOT, HOWEVER, MEAN THAT THE
ACCUSED MAY NOT MAKE HIS OWN DEFENSE; NOR DOES IT PREVENT HIM FROM
ACKNOWLEDGING GUILT WHEN FULLY ADVISED OF ALL ITS IMPLICATIONS AND
CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THEM.  NEITHER THE HISTORIC CONCEPTION OF DUE
PROCESS NOR THE VITALITY IT DERIVES FROM PROGRESSIVE STANDARDS OF
JUSTICE DENIES A PERSON THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF OR TO CONFESS
GUILT.  UNDER APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT
COUNSEL BE TENDERED; IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES
COUNSEL BE FORCED UPON A DEFENDANT.  UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN V.
ADAMS, 320 U.S. 220. 

THE SOLICITUDE FOR SECURING JUSTICE THUS EMBODIED IN THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE IS NOT SATISFIED BY FORMAL COMPLIANCE OR MERELY PROCEDURAL
REGULARITY.  IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN
INCARCERATION ARE UNASSAILABLE ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD.  A STATE MUST
GIVE ONE WHOM IT DEPRIVES OF HIS FREEDOM THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN AN
INQUIRY INTO THE INTRINSIC FAIRNESS OF A CRIMINAL PROCESS EVEN THOUGH
IT APPEARS PROPER ON THE SURFACE.  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103. 
QUESTIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
MAY BE RAISED, TO USE LAWYERS' LANGUAGE, DEHORS THE RECORD. 

BUT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HAS NEVER BEEN PERVERTED SO AS TO FORCE
UPON THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES A UNIFORM CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 
EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE, THE
PROSECUTION OF CRIME IS A MATTER FOR THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.  THE
CONSTITUTION COMMANDS THE STATES TO ASSURE FAIR JUDGMENT.  PROCEDURAL
DETAILS FOR SECURING FAIRNESS IT LEAVES TO THE STATES.  IT IS FOR THEM,
THEREFORE, TO CHOOSE THE METHODS AND PRACTICES BY WHICH CRIME IS
BROUGHT TO BOOK, SO LONG AS THEY OBSERVE THOSE ULTIMATE DIGNITIES OF
MAN WHICH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ASSURES.  BROWN V. NEW JERSEY,
175 U.S. 172, 175; MISSOURI V. LEWIS, 101 U.S. 22, 31.  WIDE DISCRETION
MUST BE LEFT TO THE STATES FOR THE MANNER OF ADJUDICATING A CLAIM THAT
A CONVICTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  STATES ARE FREE TO DEVISE THEIR OWN
SYSTEMS OF REVIEW IN CRIMINAL CASES.  A STATE MAY DECIDE WHETHER TO
HAVE DIRECT APPEALS IN SUCH CASES, AND IF SO UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES. 
MCKANE V. DURSTON, 153 U.S. 684, 687.  IN RESPECTING THE DUTY LAID UPON
THEM BY MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, STATES HAVE A WIDE CHOICE OF REMEDIES.  A
STATE MAY PROVIDE THAT THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION BE SOUGHT THROUGH THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR CORAM
NOBIS.  IT MAY USE EACH OF THESE ANCIENT WRITS IN ITS COMMON LAW SCOPE,
OR IT MAY PUT THEM TO NEW USES; OR IT MAY AFFORD REMEDY BY A SIMPLE
MOTION BROUGHT EITHER IN THE COURT OF ORIGINAL CONVICTION OR AT THE
PLACE OF DETENTION.  SEE, E.G., NEW YORK EX REL. WHITMAN V. WILSON, 318
U.S. 688; MATTER OF LYONS V. GOLDSTEIN, 290 N.Y. 19, 25, 47 N.E.2D 425;
MATTER OF MORHOUS V. N.Y. SUPREME COURT, 293 N.Y. 131, 56 N.E.2D 79;
PEOPLE V. GERSEWITZ, 294 N.Y. 163, 168, 61 N.E.2D 427; MATTER OF HOGAN
V. COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, 296 N.Y. 1, 9, 68 N.E.2D 849.  SO LONG AS
THE RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION MAY BE PURSUED, IT IS
FOR A STATE AND NOT FOR THIS COURT TO DEFINE THE MODE BY WHICH THEY MAY
BE VINDICATED. 

AN ACCUSED MAY HAVE BEEN DENIED THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CONSTITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.  IF THE STATE AFFORDS NO MODE FOR REDRESSING THAT WRONG,
HE MAY COME TO THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR RELIEF.  BUT WHERE A REMEDY IS
PROVIDED BY THE STATE, A DEFENDANT MUST FIRST EXHAUST IT IN THE MANNER
IN WHICH THE STATE PRESCRIBES.  EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114; HOUSE V.
MAYO, 324 U.S. 42.  FOR THE RELATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE STATES AND THE COURTS OF THE STATES
IS A VERY DELICATE MATTER.  SEE EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241, 251. 
WHEN A DEFENDANT, AS HERE, INVOKES A REMEDY PROVIDED BY THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, THE DECISION OF THE LOCAL COURT MUST BE JUDGED ON THE BASIS
OF THE SCOPE OF THE REMEDY PROVIDED AND WHAT THE COURT PROPERLY HAD
BEFORE IT IN SUCH A PROCEEDING.  WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211. 
THE ONLY THING BEFORE THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT WAS WHAT IS KNOWN
UNDER ILLINOIS PRACTICE AS THE COMMON LAW RECORD.  THAT RECORD, AS
CERTIFIED IN THIS CASE, INCLUDED ONLY THE INDICTMENT, THE JUDGMENT ON
PLEA OF GUILTY, THE MINUTE ENTRY BEARING ON SENTENCE, AND THE
SENTENCE.  AND SO THE VERY NARROW QUESTION NOW BEFORE US IS WHETHER
THIS COMMON LAW RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS
VOID BECAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS THAT LED TO IT HE WAS DENIED THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

THIS CASE IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM A CASE LIKE RICE V. OLSON, 324 U.S.
786.  IN THAT CASE THE RECORD PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT CONTAINED
SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS BEARING ON THE DISABILITIES OF THE DEFENDANT TO
STAND PROSECUTION WITHOUT THE AID OF COUNSEL.  THERE WAS NOT, AS WE
HAVE HERE, AN UNCHALLENGED FINDING BY THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE ACCUSED
WAS DULY APPRISED OF HIS RIGHTS AND, IN AWARENESS OF THEM, CHOSE TO
PLEAD GUILTY.  THE JUDGMENT AGAINST CARTER EXPLICITLY STATES: 

"AND THE SAID DEFENDANT HARICE LEROY CARTER COMMONLY KNOWN AS ROY
CARTER HAVING BEEN DULY ARRAIGNED AND BEING CALLED UPON TO PLEAD
EXPRESSES A DESIRE TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THE CRIME OF MURDER AS CHARGED IN
THE INDICTMENT.  THEREUPON THE COURT FULLY EXPLAINED TO THE DEFENDANT
HARICE LEROY CARTER COMMONLY KNOWN AS ROY CARTER THE CONSEQUENCE OF
SUCH PLEA AND OF ALL HIS RIGHTS IN THE PREMISES INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO
HAVE A LAWYER APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO DEFEND HIM AND ALSO OF HIS
RIGHT TO A TRIAL BEFORE A JURY OF TWELVE JURORS SWORN IN OPEN COURT AND
OF THE DEGREE OF PROOF THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY A VERDICT OF
GUILTY AGAINST HIM UNDER THE PLEA OF NOT GUILTY BUT THE DEFENDANT
HARICE LEROY CARTER COMMONLY KNOWN AS ROY CARTER PERSISTS IN HIS DESIRE
TO PLEAD GUILTY AND FOR A PLEA SAYS HE IS GUILTY IN MANNER AND FORM AS
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT." 

THIS, THEN, IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH INTELLIGENT WAIVER OF COUNSEL IS A
TENUOUS INFERENCE FROM THE MERE FACT OF A PLEA OF GUILTY.  RICE V.
OLSON, SUPRA, AT 788.  A FAIR READING OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST CARTER
INDICATES A JUDICIAL ATTESTATION THAT THE ACCUSED, WITH HIS RIGHTS
FULLY EXPLAINED TO HIM, CONSCIOUSLY CHOSE TO DISPENSE WITH COUNSEL. 
AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO CONTRADICT THE JUDICIAL FINDING. 
FROM THE COMMON LAW RECORD, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT MANNER OF MAN THE
DEFENDANT WAS.  FACTS BEARING ON HIS MATURITY OR CAPACITY OF
COMPREHENSION, OR ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A PLEA OF GUILTY WAS
TENDERED AND ACCEPTED, ARE WHOLLY WANTING.  WE HAVE ONLY THE FACT THAT
THE TRIAL JUDGE EXPLAINED WHAT THE PLEA OF GUILTY INVOLVED.  TO BE
SURE, THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE TRIAL COURT SPELLED OUT WITH
LABORIOUS DETAIL THE VARIOUS DEGREES OF HOMICIDE UNDER ILLINOIS LAW AND
THE VARIOUS DEFENSES OPEN TO ONE ACCUSED OF MURDER.  BUT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT REQUIRE OF A JUDGE THAT HE
RECITE WITH PARTICULARITY THAT HE PERFORMED HIS DUTY. 

THE ONLY PEG ON WHICH THE DEFENDANT SEEKS TO HANG A CLAIM THAT HIS
RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS DENIED IS THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE DID ASSIGN HIM
COUNSEL WHEN IT CAME TO SENTENCING.  FROM THIS FACT ALONE, WE ARE ASKED
TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT THE ACCUSED WAS NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING
THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED TO HIS PLEA OF GUILTY, AND WAS THEREFORE
DEPRIVED OF THE INDISPENSABLE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  WE CANNOT TAKE
SUCH A JUMP IN REASONING.  A TRIAL COURT MAY JUSTIFIABLY BE CONVINCED
THAT A DEFENDANT KNOWS WHAT HE IS ABOUT WHEN HE PLEADS GUILTY AND THAT
HE RIGHTLY BELIEVES THAT A TRIAL IS FUTILE BECAUSE A DEFENSE IS
WANTING.  BUT THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE PRESENTS QUITE DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS.  THERE A JUDGE USUALLY MOVES WITHIN A LARGE AREA OF
DISCRETION AND DOUBTS.  SUCH IS THE SITUATION UNDER ILLINOIS LAW.  THE
RANGE OF PUNISHMENT WHICH A JUDGE IN ILLINOIS MAY IMPOSE FOR MURDER IS
BETWEEN FOURTEEN YEARS AND DEATH.  IT IS A COMMONPLACE THAT NO MORE
DIFFICULT TASK CONFRONTS JUDGES THAN THE DETERMINATION OF PUNISHMENT
NOT FIXED BY STATUTE.  EVEN THE MOST SELF-ASSURED JUDGE MAY WELL WANT
TO BRING TO HIS AID EVERY CONSIDERATION THAT COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
CAN APPROPRIATELY URGE.  IN ANY EVENT, THE DESIGNATION OF COUNSEL TO
ASSIST THE ACCUSED AT THE SENTENCING STAGE OF THE PROSECUTION IN NO
WISE IMPLIES THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT CAPABLE OF INTELLIGENT SELF
PROTECTION WHEN HE PLEADED GUILTY.  CF. CANIZIO V. NEW YORK, 327 U.S.
82. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT ON THE RECORD BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT CARTER'S PLEA OF GUILTY WAS MADE UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CUT THE GROUND FROM UNDER THE RESULTING SENTENCE. 
IN RESTRICTING ITS REVIEW TO THAT RECORD THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
FOLLOWED LOCAL PRACTICE, AND THE PRACTICE CONSTITUTES ALLOWABLE STATE
APPELLATE PROCEDURE.  FACTORS THAT MIGHT SUGGEST FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS
IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE - E.G., THE RACIAL HANDICAP
OF THE DEFENDANT, HIS MENTAL INCAPACITY, HIS INABILITY TO MAKE AN
INTELLIGENT CHOICE, PRECIPITANCY IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF A PLEA OF GUILTY
ARE NOT BEFORE US BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT IN THE COMMON LAW RECORD WHICH
WAS ALL THAT WAS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.  WHETHER THE
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO PRESS SUCH CLAIMS TO SHOW A DENIAL BY THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO
CONSIDER WHEN THAT ISSUE IS PROPERLY BEFORE US AFTER BEING PRESENTED IN
A PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURTS APPROPRIATE TO THAT PURPOSE, OR, IF
NONE IS AVAILABLE, IN A FEDERAL COURT.  WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, SUPRA;
EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA. 

AFTER INDICATING THE RESTRICTED SCOPE OF REVIEW IN THIS PROCEEDING,
THE COURT BELOW OBSERVED THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW A DEFENDANT WHO
DESIRES COUNSEL MUST ASK FOR IT AND SHOW THAT HE CANNOT AFFORD ONE OF
HIS OWN CHOICE.  THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHEN JUSTICE CANNOT BE
ADMINISTERED UNLESS PERSONS CHARGED WITH CRIME ARE DEFENDED BY CAPABLE
AND RESPONSIBLE COUNSEL.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD BEFORE US
TO INDICATE THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES MADE IT NECESSARY FOR CARTER TO HAVE
PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE OTHER THAN THAT GIVEN BY THE TRIAL COURT.  THERE
IS THEREFORE NOTHING IN THE STATEMENT OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
ALONE FROM WHICH WE CAN INFER THAT THESE NORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF
ILLINOIS LAW PREJUDICED THIS DEFENDANT OR MADE THEIR OBSERVANCE IN THIS
CASE INCONGRUOUS WITH HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

IF, AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT SUGGESTS, THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
HAD RULED THAT PETITIONER COULD NOT RAISE THE QUESTION OF HIS RIGHT TO
COUNSEL BY REASON OF THE ABBREVIATED COMMON LAW RECORD, I WOULD AGREE
THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  FOR THEN PETITIONER WOULD BE
REMITTED TO OTHER STATE PROCEDURES FOR VINDICATION OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RESTED ON THAT GROUND
WHEN IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER HIS CLAIM THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW BY REASON OF THE METHOD OF HIS ARREST AND THE UNFAIRNESS
OF THE TRIAL.  BUT WHEN IT CAME TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF HIS RIGHT
TO COUNSEL, THE INADEQUACY OF THE RECORD WAS NOT THE GROUND IT GAVE FOR
BARRING HIM FROM SHOWING THAT HE WAS UNQUALIFIED TO WAIVE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT: 

"HIS FIRST CONTENTION IS THAT THE COURT ERRED IN NOT APPOINTING AN
ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT HIM DURING ARRAIGNMENT.  THE RIGHT TO BE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IS ONE WHICH THE DEFENDANT MAY WAIVE OR CLAIM,
AS HE SHALL DETERMINE.  NO DUTY RESTS UPON THE COURT TO PROVIDE LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOR AN ACCUSED, UNLESS HE STATES, UNDER HIS OATH, HIS
INABILITY TO PROCURE COUNSEL, AND EXPRESSES A DESIRE TO HAVE THE COURT
APPOINT ONE FOR HIM.  (PEOPLE V. BRANER, 389 ILL. 190; PEOPLE V.
CORRIE, 387 ILL. 587; PEOPLE V. CHILDERS, 386 ILL. 312.)  THERE BEING
NO BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, AND IT NOT APPEARING THAT PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
SOUGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED FOR HIM, THIS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  PEOPLE V. STUBBLEFIELD, POST, P. 609; PEOPLE V.
STACK, ANTE, P. 15; PEOPLE V. BRANER, 389 ILL. 190."  391 ILL. 594,
595; 63 N.E.2D 763, 764.    BY THE RULE THERE ANNOUNCED THE RECORD WAS
INADEQUATE ONLY IN ONE RESPECT - THE ABSENCE OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
SHOWING THAT PETITIONER ASKED THAT AN ATTORNEY BE APPOINTED FOR HIM. 
BUT THAT NEGLECT BY A DEFENDANT IS NOT FATAL, AT LEAST IN A CAPITAL
CASE.  IF A DEFENDANT IS NOT CAPABLE OF MAKING HIS OWN DEFENSE, IT IS
THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO APPOINT COUNSEL, WHETHER REQUESTED SO TO DO OR
NOT.  WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471, 476.  AS WE STATED IN THAT
CASE, PP. 475-476: 

"THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY IS A DECISION TO ALLOW A JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION TO BE ENTERED WITHOUT A HEARING - A DECISION WHICH IS
IRREVOCABLE AND WHICH FORECLOSES ANY POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING
INNOCENCE.  IF WE ASSUME THAT PETITIONER COMMITTED A CRIME, WE CANNOT
KNOW THE DEGREE OF PREJUDICE WHICH THE DENIAL OF COUNSEL CAUSED.  SEE
GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 75-76.  ONLY COUNSEL COULD
DISCERN FROM THE FACTS WHETHER A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY TO THE OFFENSE
CHARGED OR A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. 
A LAYMAN IS USUALLY NO MATCH FOR THE SKILLED PROSECUTOR WHOM HE
CONFRONTS IN THE COURT ROOM.  HE NEEDS THE AID OF COUNSEL LEST HE BE
THE VICTIM OF OVERZEALOUS PROSECUTORS, OF THE LAW'S COMPLEXITY, OR OF
HIS OWN IGNORANCE OR BEWILDERMENT." 

THEREFORE THE LEAST WHICH WE SHOULD DO IS TO VACATE THIS JUDGMENT AND
REMAND THE CASE TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.  FOR AS MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY POINTS OUT, THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, CERTIFIED TO
US FROM THAT COURT, TO SUPPORT PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS NOT
CAPABLE OF MAKING HIS DEFENSE.  IF THAT EVIDENCE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN
THIS PROCEEDING, PETITIONER SHOULD PREVAIL.  THOUGH THE BASIS OF THE
ACTION OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT BE DEEMED LESS CLEAR THAN I HAVE
INDICATED, A REMAND TO IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE SO THAT ANY STATE
PROCEDURAL QUESTION MAY BE UNTANGLED FROM THE QUESTION ARISING UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  SEE STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, 306
U.S. 511. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THIS CASE PLAINLY REVEAL THAT THE PETITIONER
HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO 99 YEARS IN PRISON IN
ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  RATHER HE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS
FREEDOM FOR LIFE WITHOUT THE AID OF AN ATTORNEY TO GUIDE HIM ALONG THE
COMPLICATED AND TWISTING LABYRINTHS OF THE LAW.  AND THERE IS NO
AFFIRMATIVE INDICATION THAT HE INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO
COUNSEL OR THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE INTRICATE LEGAL PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN
HIS INDICTMENT AND CONVICTION.  DUE PROCESS CANNOT THRIVE IN THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE. 

THERE IS AN INITIAL PROBLEM AS TO WHAT EVIDENCE IS BEFORE THIS COURT
AT THIS TIME.  IT IS SAID THAT WE ARE LIMITED TO THE COMMON LAW RECORD
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, A RECORD THAT INCLUDES ONLY THE
INDICTMENT, THE JUDGMENT ON THE PLEA OF GUILTY, THE MINUTE ENTRY
BEARING ON THE SENTENCE, AND THE SENTENCE ITSELF.  WE ARE ASKED TO
CLOSE OUR EYES TO A TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY IN CONNECTION WITH A
HEARING ON MITIGATION OF THE OFFENSE.  THIS TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN AFTER
THE CONVICTION.  IT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED, PRESUMABLY BY THE STENOGRAPHER
RECORDING THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING, AND NOTARIZED.  IT APPEARS IN
THE PRINTED RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT.  WE ARE ALSO ASKED TO OVERLOOK
CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITIONER GIVEN TO THE ILLINOIS STATE
PENITENTIARY BY THE STATE'S ATTORNEY AND CONCURRED IN BY THE PRESIDING
JUDGE.  THE STATE OF ILLINOIS DOES NOT DENY ANY OF THESE FACTS; IT
MERELY REQUESTS THAT WE DISREGARD THEM AS DID THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS, THAT WE BLIND OURSELVES TO WHAT IS PRINTED IN THE RECORD
BEFORE US. 

LEGAL TECHNICALITIES DOUBTLESS AFFORD JUSTIFICATION FOR OUR PRETENSE
OF IGNORING PLAIN FACTS BEFORE US, FACTS UPON WHICH A MAN'S VERY LIFE
OR LIBERTY CONCEIVABLY COULD DEPEND.  MOREOVER, THERE PROBABLY IS LEGAL
WARRANT FOR OUR NOT REMANDING THE CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
TO ALLOW THOSE FACTS TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE FORMAL RECORD BEFORE IT
AND TO RECONSIDER ITS DECISION IN LIGHT THEREOF.  BUT THE RESULT
CERTAINLY DOES NOT ENHANCE THE HIGH TRADITIONS OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS. 

IN MY VIEW, WHEN UNDISPUTED FACTS APPEAR IN THE RECORD BEFORE US IN A
CASE INVOLVING A MAN'S LIFE OR LIBERTY, THEY SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED IF
JUSTICE DEMANDS THEIR USE.  HERE THE FACTS IN QUESTION FORTUNATELY ARE
NOT CRUCIAL, SINCE THE BARE COMMON LAW RECORD ALONE REVEALS A LACK OF
DUE PROCESS.  BUT THE ADDITIONAL FACTS DO SERVE TO EMPHASIZE THE
ABSENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT WAIVER OF COUNSEL AND PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO
COMPREHEND THE LEGAL PROBLEMS PLACED IN HIS PATH.  THEY SERVE TO MAKE
ANY DECISION ON THE ISSUE IN THE CASE MORE INTELLIGENT AND MORE JUST. 
THE DISCUSSION THAT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, IS BASED ON ALL THE CERTIFIED
FACTS IN THE RECORD BEFORE US. 

PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS 30 YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE RELEVANT
EVENTS IN 1928.  HE HAD NO SCHOOLING, ALTHOUGH HE WAS ABLE TO READ AND
WRITE.  HE WAS OF AVERAGE MENTALITY AND HAD NEVER BEFORE RUN AFOUL OF
THE LAW.  DURING THE PRECEDING ELEVEN YEARS HE HAD WORKED AS A COOK AND
A MECHANIC.  BY REPUTATION HE WAS QUIET AND INDUSTRIOUS. 

WHILE DRIVING A CAR BACK FROM A FISHING TRIP, PETITIONER BECAME
INVOLVED IN A BITTER AND PROLONGED DISPUTE WITH THE DRIVER OF A HORSE
DRAWN GRAVEL WAGON OVER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A ROAD.  THIS DRIVER, A
WHITE MAN, REFUSED TO GIVE PETITIONER ENOUGH ROOM TO PASS.  A VIOLENT
ARGUMENT IN RACIAL TERMINOLOGY ENSUED; ROCKS AND GRAVEL WERE THROWN AT
PETITIONER'S CAR.  EVENTUALLY, WHEN THE DISPUTE WAS RENEWED AFTER A
SHORT INTERVAL, THE DRIVER GOT OFF HIS WAGON AND ADVANCED TOWARD
PETITIONER'S CAR.  PETITIONER CLAIMED THAT HE THOUGHT THE DRIVER WAS
REACHING INTO HIS SHIRT FOR A GUN.  PETITIONER GOT OUT OF HIS CAR AND
FIRED THREE TIMES, KILLING THE DRIVER. 

PETITIONER WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY THAT SAME EVENING AND WAS
QUESTIONED FAR INTO THE NIGHT.  HE WAS TAKEN TO AN ADJOINING TOWN,
ALLEGEDLY TO AVOID MOB VIOLENCE.  TWELVE DAYS LATER, ON JUNE 12, 1928,
HE WAS INDICTED.  IT WAS CHARGED THAT HE "DID THEN AND THERE UNLAWFULLY
AND FELONIOUSLY, WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, BY SHOOTING, KILL" THE NAMED
INDIVIDUAL.  ON JUNE 15 HE WAS ARRAIGNED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF
COUNSEL, IT BEING ALLEGED BY PETITIONER THAT HE WAS HELD INCOMMUNICADO
FROM THE TIME OF HIS ARREST.  HE WAS HANDED A COPY OF THE FIVE-PAGE
INDICTMENT, UNDER WHICH HE COULD HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF FIRSTDEGREE
MURDER, LESSER DEGREES OF HOMICIDE, VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY
MANSLAUGHTER, ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, OR LESSER DEGREES OF
ASSAULT.  VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS OF DEFENSE, INCLUDING SELF-DEFENSE,
WERE ACCORDINGLY RAISED.  UPON BEING ASKED HOW HE PLEADED, HE EXPRESSED
A DESIRE TO PLEAD GUILTY AS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  THE TRIAL
COURT'S ORDER, WHICH BEARS STRIKING RESEMBLANCE TO THE ILLINOIS STATUTE
ON THE SUBJECT (ILL. REV. STAT., 1945, CH. 38, PAR. 732), RECITED THAT
THE JUDGE "FULLY EXPLAINED" TO PETITIONER "THE CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH
PLEA" AND HIS RIGHTS TO COUNSEL AND TO JURY TRIAL, BUT THAT PETITIONER
"PERSISTS IN HIS DESIRE TO PLEAD GUILTY" AS CHARGED.  THERE IS NO
AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER UNDERSTOOD THE NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA OR THAT, FULLY APPRECIATING ALL OF HIS LEGAL
RIGHTS, HE INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHTS TO COUNSEL OR TO JURY
TRIAL.  ALL THAT APPEARS IS THAT HE "PERSISTED" IN HIS DESIRE TO PLEAD
GUILTY AND THAT THE COURT CONVICTED HIM OF MURDER, THE STATUTORY
PUNISHMENT FOR WHICH WAS DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION OR IMPRISONMENT FOR ANY
PERIOD FROM FOURTEEN YEARS TO LIFE. 

A FURTHER HEARING WAS HELD ON THE SAME DAY AND AN ATTORNEY WAS
APPOINTED, APPARENTLY NOT AT PETITIONER'S REQUEST, TO REPRESENT
PETITIONER AT A HEARING UPON THE "QUESTION OF MITIGATION OR AGGRAVATION
OF SAID CRIME OF MURDER TO WHICH SAID DEFENDANT HAS PLEADED GUILTY." 
SUCH A HEARING WAS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW (ILL. REV. STAT., 1945, CH.
38, PAR. 732) WHERE A GUILTY PLEA HAS BEEN ENTERED AND WHERE THE COURT
HAS DISCRETION AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE PUNISHMENT.  A HEARING ON THIS
MATTER WAS HELD THREE DAYS LATER, ON JUNE 18, PETITIONER'S APPOINTED
COUNSEL BEING PRESENT.  ON JUNE 29, IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL,
PETITIONER APPEARED IN COURT AND WAS SENTENCED TO SERVE 99 YEARS IN
PRISON. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THESE FACTS ADD UP TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 
PETITIONER, AN UNEDUCATED, BEWILDERED LAYMAN, WAS ALLEGEDLY HELD
INCOMMUNICADO FOR FIFTEEN DAYS AND WAS THEN CALLED UPON TO MAKE A VITAL
DECISION UPON THE BASIS OF HIS UNINTELLIGENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE
INDICTMENT - A LEGALISTIC, VERBOSE DOCUMENT OF FIVE PAGES WHICH WOULD
DOUBTLESS MEAN MANY THINGS TO MANY LEARNED LAWYERS IN LIGHT OF THE
PARTICULAR FACTS INVOLVED.  PETITIONER'S VERY LIFE AND LIBERTY DEPENDED
UPON HIS ABILITY TO COMPREHEND THE VARIETY OF CRIMES COVERED BY THE
INDICTMENT AND WHICH ONE, IF ANY, APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF HIS CASE.  HE
WAS COMPELLED TO WEIGH THE FACTORS INVOLVED IN A GUILTY PLEA AGAINST
THOSE RESULTING FROM THE SUBMISSION OF HIS CASE TO A JURY.  HE WAS
FORCED TO JUDGE THE CHANCES OF SETTING UP A SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE.  THESE
ARE ALL COMPLICATED MATTERS THAT ONLY A MAN VERSED IN THE LEGAL LORE
COULD HOPE TO COMPREHEND AND TO DECIDE INTELLIGENTLY.  PETITIONER
OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT OF THAT TYPE.  YET AT THIS CRUCIAL JUNCTURE
PETITIONER LACKED THE AID AND GUIDANCE OF SUCH A PERSON.  IN MY VIEW,
IT IS A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE TO CONDEMN A MAN TO DEATH OR TO
LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN SUCH A MANNER.  SEE POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S.
45; WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471; RICE V. OLSON, 324 U.S. 786. 

IT IS SAID, OF COURSE, THAT PETITIONER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL. 
MY ANSWER IS THAT SUCH ACTION IS IMMATERIAL IN A CAPITAL CASE OF THIS
NATURE WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT WAIVER.  SUCH
EVIDENCE IS NON-EXISTENT HERE, EVEN LOOKING SOLELY AT THE COMMON LAW
RECORD.  ITS ABSENCE BECOMES EVEN MORE EMPHASIZED WHEN WE VIEW THE
BACKGROUND OF IGNORANCE, RACIAL ANTAGONISM AND THREATS OF MOB
VIOLENCE.  WHEN THE LIFE OF A MAN HANGS IN THE BALANCE, WE SHOULD
INSIST UPON THE FULLEST MEASURE OF DUE PROCESS.  SOCIETY IS HERE
ATTEMPTING TO TAKE AWAY THE LIFE OR LIBERTY OF ONE OF ITS MEMBERS. 
THAT ATTEMPT MUST BE TESTED BY THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF JUSTICE AND
FAIRNESS THAT WE KNOW.  IT IS NO EXCUSE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS WILLING
TO FOREGO CERTAIN BASIC RIGHTS, UNLESS WE ARE CERTAIN THAT HE HAS A
FULL AND INTELLIGENT COMPREHENSION OF WHAT HE IS DOING.  OTHERWISE WE
TAKE FROM DUE PROCESS OF LAW A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS CONTENT. 

NOR IS IT SIGNIFICANT THAT COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED FOR PETITIONER TO
REPRESENT HIM AT THE HEARING AS TO THE MITIGATION OF THE OFFENSE.  THE
ERROR WAS DONE, THE DAMAGE WAS COMMITTED, WHEN PETITIONER WAS
ARRAIGNED, COMPELLED TO PLEAD AND CONVICTED WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL.  THE SPECIAL HEARING ON MITIGATION HELD THEREAFTER, FOR WHICH
COUNSEL WAS PROVIDED, AFFORDED NO OPPORTUNITY FOR UNDOING THE EFFECT OF
THE UNAIDED ARRAIGNMENT OR PLEA OF GUILTY.  CF. CANIZIO V. NEW YORK,
327 U.S. 82.  THE FAILURE TO HAVE COUNSEL IN REGARD TO THOSE MATTERS
PERMEATED THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING, WITH INDELIBLE EFFECTS THAT COULD NOT
BE REMOVED AT THE SPECIAL HEARING.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW STILL WAS
LACKING. 

INSISTENCE UPON COUNSEL AT ALL STAGES OF A CAPITAL CASE, WHERE AN
INTELLIGENT WAIVER IS LACKING, IMPOSES NO INTOLERABLE BURDEN UPON THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.  IT IS MERELY A RECOGNITION OF OUR ATTEMPT TO
BE CIVILIZED, A RECOGNITION THAT THE PROCESS OF CONDEMNING HUMAN LIFE
IS TO BE JUDGED BY STANDARDS HIGHER THAN THOSE APPLIED TO A PROSECUTION
FOR VIOLATION OF A MINOR ORDINANCE OR REGULATION. 

I WOULD THEREFORE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 
..END :







BALLARD V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 187 


NO. 37.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  - 152
F.2D 941, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A STATE WHERE WOMEN ARE ELIGIBLE FOR JURY SERVICE UNDER LOCAL
LAW, A FEDERAL JURY PANEL FROM WHICH WOMEN ARE INTENTIONALLY AND
SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED IS NOT PROPERLY CONSTITUTED AND THIS COURT WILL
EXERCISE ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CORRECT THE ERROR.  THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO., 328 U.S. 217.  PP. 190-196. 

(A)  SECTIONS 275-278 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE REFLECT A DESIGN TO MAKE
THE JURY A CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY AND TRULY REPRESENTATIVE OF
IT.  P. 191. 

(B)  THE SYSTEM OF JURY SELECTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED
CONTEMPLATES THAT JURIES IN FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN STATES WHERE
WOMEN ARE ELIGIBLE FOR JURY SERVICE UNDER LOCAL LAW WILL BE
REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SEXES.  P. 191. 

(C)  THE SYSTEMATIC AND INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION OF WOMEN, LIKE THE
EXCLUSION OF A RACIAL GROUP OR AN ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL CLASS, DEPRIVES
THE JURY SYSTEM OF THE BROAD BASE IT WAS DESIGNED BY CONGRESS TO HAVE. 
P. 195. 

2.  WHEN A JURY IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS DRAWN FROM A PANEL NOT PROPERLY
CONSTITUTED, REVERSIBLE ERROR DOES NOT DEPEND ON A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE
IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE; SINCE THE INJURY IS NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFENDANT
BUT EXTENDS TO THE JURY SYSTEM, TO THE LAW AS AN INSTITUTION, TO THE
COMMUNITY AT LARGE, AND TO THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL REFLECTED IN THE
PROCESSES OF OUR COURTS.  P. 195. 

3.  WHEN THIS COURT FINDS THAT A PETIT JURY WAS DRAWN FROM AN
IMPROPER PANEL, IT WILL REMAND THE CASE FOR A NEW TRIAL; BUT WHEN IT
FINDS THAT THE GRAND JURY WHICH RETURNED AN INDICTMENT WAS DRAWN FROM
SUCH A PANEL, THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED.  PP. 195-196. 

4.  AN ISSUE PROPERLY RAISED ON THE RECORD BY DEFENDANTS IN A
CRIMINAL CASE IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND ASSIGNED AS ERROR ON
APPEAL WAS NOT PASSED ON BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN REVERSING
THE CONVICTION.  ON PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH DID NOT RAISE THAT
ISSUE, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THAT COURT, WHICH
THEN PASSED ON THE ISSUE ADVERSELY TO DEFENDANTS AND AFFIRMED THE
CONVICTION.  DEFENDANTS THEN PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI, WHICH WAS
GRANTED.  HELD, DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT LOST THE RIGHT TO URGE THAT
QUESTION HERE.  P. 190. 

BALLARD ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED AND CONVICTED IN A DISTRICT COURT FOR
USING, AND CONSPIRING TO USE, THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN
WITHHOLDING FROM THE JURY ALL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE TRUTH OR FALSITY
OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR DOCTRINES.  138 F.2D 540.  ON PETITION OF
THE GOVERNMENT, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 733, REVERSED
THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND REMANDED THE CASE TO
THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  322 U.S. 78.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THEN AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  152 F.2D 941.  ON PETITION OF
DEFENDANTS, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW QUESTIONS RESERVED
IN ITS PREVIOUS DECISION.  327 U.S. 773.  REVERSED, P. 196. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE FOR THE SECOND TIME.  IT INVOLVES THE INDICTMENT
AND CONVICTION OF PETITIONERS FOR USING, AND CONSPIRING TO USE, THE
MAILS TO DEFRAUD.  CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 215, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 338; CRIMINAL
CODE SEC. 37, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88.  THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME CHARGED WAS THE
PROMOTION OF THE I AM MOVEMENT, WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO BE A FRAUDULENT
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, THROUGH THE USE OF THE MAILS.  THE NATURE OF
THE MOVEMENT AND THE FACTS SURROUNDING ITS ORIGIN AND GROWTH ARE
SUMMARIZED IN OUR PRIOR OPINION.  322 U.S. 78.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE
TO SAY THAT PETITIONERS WERE FOUND GUILTY ON A CHARGE BY THE TRIAL
JUDGE WHICH WITHHELD FROM THE JURY ALL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE TRUTH
OR FALSITY OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR DOCTRINES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED AND GRANTED A NEW TRIAL, HOLDING IT WAS ERROR TO
WITHHOLD THOSE QUESTIONS FROM THE JURY.  138 F.2D 540.  WE, IN TURN,
REVERSED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND SUSTAINED THE DISTRICT COURT
IN THAT RULING.  PETITIONERS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT EVEN THOUGH THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
ON THAT GROUND, ITS ACTION WAS JUSTIFIED ON OTHER DISTINCT GROUNDS. 
BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD NOT PASSED ON THOSE OTHER
QUESTIONS; AND WE DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ITS VIEWS ON THEM.  WE
ACCORDINGLY DEEMED IT MORE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THAT
COURT SO THAT IT MIGHT FIRST PASS ON THE QUESTIONS RESERVED. 

ON THE REMAND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING,
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
RAISED.  ON A PETITION FOR REHEARING, WHICH WAS DENIED, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FILED AN OPINION WHICH DISCUSSED SOME BUT NOT ALL OF
THE QUESTIONS WHICH HAD BEEN RESERVED.  152 F.2D 941.  WE GRANTED THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE WHICH WERE RAISED. 

WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH THE CONCESSION THAT WOMEN WERE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE PANEL OF GRAND AND PETIT JURORS IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WHERE THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED AND THE TRIAL
HAD; THAT THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE
PANEL.  FN1  THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED BY A MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT
AND BY A CHALLENGE TO THE ARRAY OF THE PETIT JURORS BECAUSE OF
INTENTIONAL AND SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION OF WOMEN FROM THE PANEL.  BOTH
MOTIONS WERE DENIED AND THEIR DENIAL WAS ASSIGNED AS ERROR ON APPEAL. 
THE JURY QUESTION HAS BEEN IN ISSUE AT EACH STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS,
EXCEPT THE FIRST TIME THAT THE CASE WAS BEFORE US.  AT THAT TIME THE
POINT WAS NOT ASSIGNED OR ARGUED.  BUT THE CASE WAS HERE AT THE
INSTANCE OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PRESENT
PETITIONERS.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES IN THE CASE
OBSCURED BY THE QUESTION BROUGHT HERE BY THE UNITED STATES AND WHICH
HAD NOT BEEN PASSED UPON BELOW OR ARGUED BEFORE THIS COURT. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WHEN WE REMANDED THE CASE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE
REMAINING ISSUES BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE JURY ISSUE WAS
ARGUED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT HOLD THAT IT HAD BEEN
WAIVED.  THAT COURT PASSED UPON THE ISSUE, CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS NO
ERROR IN THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN FROM THE PANEL.  152 F.2D P. 944, AND
SEE DISSENT AT P. 953.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CANNOT SAY (AND
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUGGEST) THAT PETITIONERS HAVE LOST THE RIGHT
TO URGE THE QUESTION HERE.  MOREOVER, IN THIS CASE, AS IN REYNOLDS V.
UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 168-169, THE ERROR, THOUGH NOT PRESENTED
HERE ON THE FIRST ARGUMENT, APPEARS ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD BEFORE
US.  AND SEE SIBBACH V. WILSON & CO., 312 U.S. 1, 16. 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT JURORS IN A FEDERAL COURT SHALL HAVE THE
SAME QUALIFICATIONS AS THOSE OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAW IN THE STATE. 
JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 275, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 411.  THIS PROVISION APPLIES TO
GRAND AS WELL AS PETIT JURIES.  FN2  CONGRESS ALSO HAS PROHIBITED
DISQUALIFICATION OF CITIZENS FROM JURY SERVICE "ON ACCOUNT OF RACE,
COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE."  FN3  IT HAS REQUIRED THAT
JURORS SHALL BE CHOSEN "WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PARTY AFFILIATIONS."  FN4
IT HAS PROVIDED THAT JURORS SHALL BE RETURNED FROM SUCH PARTS OF THE
DISTRICT AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT "SO AS TO BE MOST FAVORABLE TO AN
IMPARTIAL TRIAL, AND SO AS NOT TO INCUR AN UNNECESSARY EXPENSE, OR
UNDULY BURDEN THE CITIZENS OF ANY PART OF THE DISTRICT."  FN5 NONE OF
THE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS  FN6  WHICH IT HAS CREATED IS ALONG THE LINES
OF SEX. 

THESE PROVISIONS REFLECT A DESIGN TO MAKE THE JURY "A CROSS-SECTION
OF THE COMMUNITY" AND TRULY REPRESENTATIVE OF IT.  GLASSER V. UNITED
STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 86. 

IN CALIFORNIA, AS IN MOST STATES,  FN7  WOMEN ARE ELIGIBLE FOR JURY
SERVICE UNDER LOCAL LAW.  CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SEC. 198.  THE
SYSTEM OF JURY SELECTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED CONTEMPLATED,
THEREFORE, THAT JURIES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN SUCH STATES
WOULD BE REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SEXES.  IF WOMEN ARE EXCLUDED, ONLY
HALF OF THE AVAILABLE POPULATION IS DRAWN UPON FOR JURY SERVICE.  TO
PUT THE MATTER ANOTHER WAY, CONGRESS HAS REFERRED TO STATE LAW MERELY
TO DETERMINE WHO IS QUALIFIED TO ACT AS A JUROR.  WHETHER THE METHOD OF
SELECTING A JURY IN THE FEDERAL COURT FROM THOSE QUALIFIED IS OR IS NOT
PROPER IS A QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW.  FN8 GLASSER V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, PP. 85-86. 

IN THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 328 U.S. 217, WE WERE PRESENTED
WITH A SIMILAR PROBLEM.  IT WAS A CIVIL CASE WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND
INVOLVED A QUESTION OF THE LIABILITY OF A COMMON CARRIER TO A
PASSENGER.  ALL PERSONS WHO WORKED FOR A DAILY WAGE HAD BEEN
DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE JURY LISTS.  WE HELD,
IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR POWER OF SUPERVISION OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, SEE MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S.
332, THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE PANEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GRANTED.  THE GIST OF OUR RULING IS CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT FROM THE OPINION IN THE THIEL CASE: 

"THE AMERICAN TRADITION OF TRIAL BY JURY, CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION
WITH EITHER CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, NECESSARILY CONTEMPLATES AN
IMPARTIAL JURY DRAWN FROM A CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY....  THIS
DOES NOT MEAN, OF COURSE, THAT EVERY JURY MUST CONTAIN REPRESENTATIVES
OF ALL THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS, RACIAL, POLITICAL AND
GEOGRAPHICAL GROUPS OF THE COMMUNITY; FREQUENTLY SUCH COMPLETE
REPRESENTATION WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.  BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT PROSPECTIVE
JURORS SHALL BE SELECTED BY COURT OFFICIALS WITHOUT SYSTEMATIC AND
INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION OF ANY OF THESE GROUPS.  RECOGNITION MUST BE
GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR JURY SERVICE ARE TO BE FOUND
IN EVERY STRATUM OF SOCIETY.  JURY COMPETENCE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RATHER
THAN A GROUP OR CLASS MATTER.  THAT FACT LIES AT THE VERY HEART OF THE
JURY SYSTEM.  TO DISREGARD IT IS TO OPEN THE DOOR TO CLASS DISTINCTIONS
AND DISCRIMINATIONS WHICH ARE ABHORRENT TO THE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS OF
TRIAL BY JURY."  328 U.S. 220. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PURPOSEFUL AND SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION OF WOMEN
FROM THE PANEL IN THIS CASE WAS A DEPARTURE FROM THE SCHEME OF JURY
SELECTION WHICH CONGRESS ADOPTED AND THAT, AS IN THE THIEL CASE, WE
SHOULD EXERCISE OUR POWER OF SUPERVISION OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, TO
CORRECT AN ERROR WHICH PERMEATED THIS PROCEEDING. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT AN ALL MALE PANEL DRAWN FROM THE VARIOUS
GROUPS WITHIN A COMMUNITY WILL BE AS TRULY REPRESENTATIVE AS IF WOMEN
WERE INCLUDED.  THE THOUGHT IS THAT THE FACTORS WHICH TEND TO INFLUENCE
THE ACTION OF WOMEN ARE THE SAME AS THOSE WHICH INFLUENCE THE ACTION OF
MEN - PERSONALITY, BACKGROUND, ECONOMIC STATUS - AND NOT SEX.  FN9  YET
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT WOMEN WHEN SITTING AS JURORS NEITHER ACT
NOR TEND TO ACT AS A CLASS.  MEN LIKEWISE DO NOT ACT AS A CLASS.  BUT,
IF THE SHOE WERE ON THE OTHER FOOT, WHO WOULD CLAIM THAT A JURY WAS
TRULY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY IF ALL MEN WERE INTENTIONALLY AND
SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE PANEL?  THE TRUTH IS THAT THE TWO
SEXES ARE NOT FUNGIBLE; A COMMUNITY MADE UP EXCLUSIVELY OF ONE IS
DIFFERENT FROM A COMMUNITY COMPOSED OF BOTH; THE SUBTLE INTERPLAY OF
INFLUENCE ONE ON THE OTHER IS AMONG THE IMPONDERABLES.  FN10  TO
INSULATE THE COURTROOM FROM EITHER MAY NOT IN A GIVEN CASE MAKE AN IOTA
OF DIFFERENCE.  YET A FLAVOR, A DISTINCT QUALITY IS LOST IF EITHER SEX
IS EXCLUDED.  THE EXCLUSION OF ONE MAY INDEED MAKE THE JURY LESS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY THAN WOULD BE TRUE IF AN ECONOMIC OR
RACIAL GROUP WERE EXCLUDED. 

THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES A PROSECUTION OF A MOTHER AND HER SON FOR
THE PROMOTION OF AN ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT RELIGIOUS PROGRAM.  JUDGE
DENMAN IN HIS DISSENT BELOW STATED: 

"IN THE AVERAGE FAMILY FROM WHICH JURORS ARE DRAWN, THE SOULS OF
CHILDREN IN THEIR INFANT AND EARLY ADOLESCENT BODIES RECEIVE THE FIRST
AND MOST LASTING TEACHING OF RELIGIOUS TRUTHS FROM THEIR MOTHERS.  IN
THE SAME FAMILIES THE MAJOR SOCIAL FUNCTION OF MEN IS CONCERNED WITH
THE CREATION OF MATERIAL THINGS, LARGELY FOOD AND CLOTHING AND HOUSING
OF THE CHILDREN'S BODIES. 

"IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OVER NINETY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE PRIMARY AND
GRAMMAR SCHOOL TEACHERS ARE WOMEN.  IN THE CHURCHES OF ALL RELIGIONS
THE NUMBERS OF WOMEN ATTENDANTS ON DIVINE SERVICE VASTLY EXCEED MEN. 
THE ONE LARGE AND VITAL RELIGIOUS GROUP CREATED IN AMERICA SINCE JOSEPH
SMITH IS THAT OF THE CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS FOUNDED BY A WOMAN, MARY
BAKER EDDY. 

"...  IT MATTERS NOT THAT FROM MY VIEWPOINT THERE IS  ...  TESTIMONY
OF A CONSPIRACY SO MEAN AND VILE THAT IT WARRANTS SOME OF THE STRONGEST
STRICTURES OF THE PROSECUTION.  I AM NOT A WOMAN JUROR SITTING IN THE
BALLARD TRIAL, WHO IS THE MOTHER OF FIVE CHILDREN AT WHOSE KNEE HAVE
BEEN INSTILLED IN THEM THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AS INTERPRETED BY MRS.
EDDY. 

"WELL COULD A SENSITIVE WOMAN, HIGHLY SPIRITUAL IN CHARACTER,
RATIONALIZE ALL THE MONEY INCOME ACQUIRED BY MRS. BALLARD AS BEING
DEVOTED TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE SAME JESUS AS ARE THE PROFITS OF THE
TRUST CREATED BY MRS. EDDY FOR THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR."  152
F.2D PP. 951-52. 

THE POINT ILLUSTRATES THAT THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN FROM JURY PANELS
MAY AT TIMES BE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANTS.  BUT REVERSIBLE
ERROR DOES NOT DEPEND ON A SHOWING OF PREJUDICE IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE. 
FN11  THE EVIL LIES IN THE ADMITTED EXCLUSION OF AN ELIGIBLE CLASS OR
GROUP IN THE COMMUNITY IN DISREGARD OF THE PRESCRIBED STANDARDS OF JURY
SELECTION.  THE SYSTEMATIC AND INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION OF WOMEN, LIKE THE
EXCLUSION OF A RACIAL GROUP, SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128, OR AN
ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL CLASS, THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., SUPRA,
DEPRIVES THE JURY SYSTEM OF THE BROAD BASE IT WAS DESIGNED BY CONGRESS
TO HAVE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.  IT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE
STATUTORY SCHEME.  AS WELL STATED IN UNITED STATES V. ROEMIG, 52
F.SUPP.  857, 862, "SUCH ACTION IS OPERATIVE TO DESTROY THE BASIC
DEMOCRACY AND CLASSLESSNESS OF JURY PERSONNEL."  IT "DOES NOT ACCORD TO
THE DEFENDANT THE TYPE OF JURY TO WHICH THE LAW ENTITLES HIM.  IT IS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL OF A RIGHT WHICH THE LAWMAKERS HAVE NOT SEEN FIT
TO WITHHOLD FROM, BUT HAVE ACTUALLY GUARANTEED TO HIM."  CF. KOTTEAKOS
V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 750, 764-765.  THE INJURY IS NOT LIMITED TO
THE DEFENDANT - THERE IS INJURY TO THE JURY SYSTEM, TO THE LAW AS AN
INSTITUTION, TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, AND TO THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL
REFLECTED IN THE PROCESSES OF OUR COURTS. 

IF, AS IN THE THIEL CASE, WE HAD MERELY AN INSTANCE OF A PETIT JURY
DRAWN FROM AN IMPROPER PANEL, WE WOULD REMAND THE CAUSE FOR A NEW
TRIAL.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE GRAND JURY WAS LIKEWISE DRAWN FROM A
PANEL IMPROPERLY CHOSEN AND THEREFORE THE INDICTMENT WAS NOT RETURNED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE INDICTMENT MUST BE DISMISSED.  IN DISPOSING OF THE CASE ON THIS
GROUND WE DO NOT REACH ALL THE ISSUES URGED AND IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IN
SO LIMITING OUR OPINION WE PROLONG AN ALREADY LENGTHY PROCEEDING.  WE
ARE TOLD THAT THESE PETITIONERS WILL AGAIN BE BEFORE US FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS NOW LEFT UNDECIDED.  BUT WE CANNOT KNOW THAT
THIS IS SO, AND TO ASSUME IT WOULD BE SPECULATIVE.  THE UNITED STATES
MAY OR MAY NOT PRESENT NEW CHARGES FRAMED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR
EARLIER OPINION.  A PROPERLY CONSTITUTED GRAND JURY MAY OR MAY NOT
RETURN NEW INDICTMENTS.  PETITIONERS MAY OR MAY NOT BE CONVICTED A
SECOND TIME.  REVERSED.    FN1  WOMEN HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF BOTH GRAND
AND PETIT JURIES IN THAT DISTRICT SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE FEBRUARY
TERM, 1944.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CHAPLIN, 54 F.SUPP.  682. 

FN2  THUS JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 276, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 412 PROVIDES FOR THE
DRAWING OF "ALL SUCH JURORS, GRAND AND PETIT" FROM PERSONS "POSSESSING
THE QUALIFICATIONS PRESCRIBED" IN SEC. 411. 

FN3  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 278, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 415. 

FN4  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 276, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 412. 

FN5  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 277, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 413. 

FN6  NO PERSON SHALL SERVE AS A PETIT JUROR "MORE THAN ONE TERM IN A
YEAR."  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 286, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 423. 

ARTIFICERS AND WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN ARMORIES AND ARSENALS OF THE
UNITED STATES ARE EXEMPTED FROM SERVICE AS JURORS.  50 U.S.C. SEC. 57. 
CF. JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 288, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 426, DEALING WITH
DISQUALIFICATIONS OF JURORS IN PROSECUTIONS FOR BIGAMY, POLYGAMY OR
UNLAWFUL COHABITATION. 

FN7  REPORT TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON SELECTION
OF JURORS (1942), P. 23. 

FN8  AN EARLIER INDICTMENT (SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED) WAS RETURNED
AGAINST PETITIONERS WHO MOVED TO QUASH BECAUSE OF THE EXCLUSION OF
WOMEN FROM THE PANEL OF GRAND JURORS.  THE MOTION WAS DENIED.  UNITED
STATES V. BALLARD, 35 F.SUPP.  105.  THAT RULING SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN
INFLUENCED BY THE THOUGHT THAT CALIFORNIA LAW DETERMINED WHETHER THE
EXCLUSION OF WOMEN RESULTED IN A PROPER JURY.  UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW THE
INCLUSION OF WOMEN ON THE PANEL IS NOT OBLIGATORY, THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS WHICH QUALIFY THEM FOR JURY SERVICE BEING DIRECTORY ONLY. 
PEOPLE V. SHANNON, 203 CAL. 139, 263 P. 522; PEOPLE V. PARMAN, 14
CAL.2D 17,92 P.2D 387. 

FN9  SEE MILLER, THE WOMAN JUROR, 2 OREGON L. REV. 30; CF. CARSON,
WOMEN JURORS (1928), P. 15. 

FN10  THE PROBLEM IS REFLECTED IN THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE ANDROCENTRIC
THEORY AND THE GYNAECOCENTRIC THEORY IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE.  SEE
WARD, PURE SOCIOLOGY (1903), CH. XIV; DRAPER, DUPERTUIS AND CAUGHEY,
HUMAN CONSTITUTION IN CLINICAL MEDICINE (1944), CH. VI. 

FN11  CF. WUICHET V. UNITED STATES, 8 F.2D 561-63. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT, BUT FOR QUITE DIFFERENT REASONS.  I JOIN THE
OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND OF MR. JUSTICE BURTON TO THE
EFFECT THAT WE SHOULD NOT NOW DIRECT DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT UPON
THE JURY QUESTION.  IN MY OPINION, THE POINT EITHER WAS ABANDONED BY
THE PARTIES OR IF NOT, WAS IGNORED OR SILENTLY REJECTED BY THE COURT IN
ITS PRIOR DECISION, 322 U.S. 78, AND SHOULD NOT BE REVIVED NOW.  I
THEREFORE REACH THE OTHER ISSUES IN THE CASE.  I WOULD DIRECT DISMISSAL
OF THE INDICTMENT UPON THE GROUNDS STATED IN DISSENT IN UNITED STATES
V. BALLARD, 322 U.S. 78 AT 92, AND A FURTHER GROUND.  THIS COURT
PREVIOUSLY RULED THAT IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO INQUIRE
WHETHER THE RELIGIOUS PROFESSIONS AND EXPERIENCES AS REPRESENTED BY
DEFENDANTS WERE TRUE OR FALSE BUT THAT IT CAN INQUIRE ONLY AS TO
WHETHER THEY WERE REPRESENTED WITHOUT BELIEF IN THEIR TRUTH.  THIS
LEAVES NO STATUTORY BASIS FOR CONVICTION OF FRAUD AND ESPECIALLY NO
BASIS FOR CONVICTION UNDER THIS INDICTMENT.  IT REQUIRES, IN MY
OPINION, A PROVABLY FALSE REPRESENTATION IN ADDITION TO KNOWLEDGE OF
ITS FALSITY TO MAKE CRIMINAL MAIL FRAUD.  SINCE THE TRIAL COURT IS NOT
ALLOWED TO MAKE BOTH FINDINGS, THE INDICTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON, MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN. 

IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY POWER OVER THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS, THE COURT IS DIRECTING THE DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IN THIS
CASE, BECAUSE, FOLLOWING THE PRACTICE THEN PREVAILING IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IN CALIFORNIA, NO WOMEN WERE INCLUDED IN THE PANEL OF
THE GRAND JURY WHICH FOUND THE INDICTMENT.  MY BROTHER BURTON
DEMONSTRATES, I BELIEVE, THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ABSENCE OF
WOMEN FROM THE GRAND JURY PANEL DID NOT VITIATE THE INDICTMENT.  BUT,
IN ANY EVENT, THIS COURT'S AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE PRACTICE IN THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD BE EXERCISED ONLY TO VINDICATE APPROPRIATE
STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.  IN FINDING THAT THE EXCLUSION OF
WOMEN FROM THE GRAND JURY PANEL IS FATAL TO THE INDICTMENT, THE COURT
EMBRACES A CLAIM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PETITIONERS WHICH THEY
THEMSELVES ABANDONED MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AGO.  AND SINCE WOMEN HAVE
NOT BEEN EXCLUDED FROM JURY SERVICE IN THE CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS
SINCE 1944, THE COURT CANNOT JUSTIFY ITS ACTION AS A MEANS OF
EMPHASIZING TO THE LOWER COURTS THE DUTY OF ADOPTING A PROPER
PRACTICE.  THUS THE COURT DIRECTS THE DISMISSAL OF AN INDICTMENT UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE COURT'S ACTION DOES NOT ADVANCE THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. 

THE DEFENDANTS WERE FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE ISSUES
INVOLVED WHEN THEY MADE THEIR OBJECTION TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE GRAND
JURY PANEL AND WHEN THEY ABANDONED IT.  THEY OBJECTED TO THE ARRAY
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, SAVED THE POINT WHEN THEIR OBJECTION WAS
OVERRULED, AND ASSIGNED IT AS ONE OF THE ERRORS IN THEIR SPECIFICATIONS
ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IN AMPLE TIME FOR THE
DEFENDANTS TO RELY ON IT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THIS COURT
DECIDED GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, WHICH INDICATED THAT WE
DEEMED IT IMPORTANT THAT A JURY BE SELECTED ON WHAT MAY BE DESCRIBED AS
A MODERN DEMOCRATIC BASIS.  AND YET THE POINT MADE AND OVERRULED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT ARGUED IN THE BRIEFS BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS VIGOROUSLY URGED OTHER CLAIMS TO
REVERSE THEIR CONVICTIONS.  THE FACT THAT THE JURY QUESTION WAS "IN
ISSUE" BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN THE SENSE OF HAVING BEEN
ASSIGNED AS ERROR, BUT WAS NEITHER BRIEFED NOR ARGUED THERE, ONLY
SERVES TO EMPHASIZE THE ABANDONMENT OF THE ISSUE BEFORE THAT COURT. 
WHEN ON THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION THE CASE CAME BEFORE THIS COURT, THE
DEFENDANTS SURELY PRESSED EVERY CLAIM THAT SEEMED TO THEM RELEVANT TO
SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD ENTERED IN
THEIR FAVOR.  FOR IT IS TOO WELL SETTLED TO REQUIRE CITATION OF CASES
THAT THE RESPONDENT HERE MAY URGE AND SUPPORT ANY GROUND BY WHICH
JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR CAN BE SUSTAINED, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS ARGUED IN
THE COURT BELOW.  THEIR BRIEFS AND ORAL ARGUMENT VIGOROUSLY URGED OTHER
ISSUES GOING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE INDICTMENT.  THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN
WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED.  AND THIS COURT, WITH THE FULL RECORD BEFORE
IT, TOOK NO NOTICE OF THIS QUESTION WHICH NOW IS FOUND TO UNDERMINE THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS.  WHEN WE REMANDED THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WE PLAINLY DID SO TO HAVE THAT COURT DECIDE QUESTIONS ARGUED
HERE WHICH IT HAD LEFT UNDECIDED.  WE WOULD HARDLY HAVE INVITED ITS
DECISION ON QUESTIONS WHICH HAD BEEN ABANDONED AND NOT ARGUED BEFORE
IT.  IF A PROCEDURAL POINT CAN EVER BE ABANDONED, OBJECTION TO THE JURY
PANELS WAS HERE ABANDONED. 

WITH THE GLASSER OPINION BEFORE THEM AND WITH THE POINT PROPERLY
PRESERVED IN THEIR APPEAL PAPERS, THE ABANDONMENT OF THE ISSUE BY THE
PETITIONERS, WHEN THE CASE CAME BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND
LATER BEFORE US, CAN MEAN ONLY THAT THEY HAD NO CONFIDENCE IN THE
CLAIM, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THEY HAD NOT BEEN HURT BY WHAT IS NOW
DEEMED A FATAL ERROR.  IT HARDLY HELPS THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANTS TO RESURRECT A POINT WHICH
THEY HAD DROPPED FOUR YEARS EARLIER* . 

*THE TWO CASES INVOKED BY THE COURT ARE INAPPOSITE.  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 168-69, ARE SO
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE NOW BEFORE US THAT THE COURT'S ACTION IN THAT CASE
CAN AFFORD NO SUPPORT FOR WHAT IS HERE DONE.  IN AFFIRMING THE
CONVICTION THE COURT HAD NOT NOTICED THAT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER
TRIAL WAS IMPRISONMENT AT HARD LABOR, WHEREAS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE
AUTHORIZED ONLY SENTENCE TO ORDINARY IMPRISONMENT.  IT HAD NOT BEEN
CALLED TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION, AND IT WAS NOT THE KIND OF ERROR THAT
THE COURT WOULD NOTICE.  BUT THE ERROR, WHICH EVERYBODY HAD OVERLOOKED,
WOULD, IF UNCORRECTED, HAVE SUBJECTED A DEFENDANT TO PUNISHMENT FAR
MORE SEVERE THAN ANY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.  IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE
ERROR, SUCH AS IT MAY BE, GOES TO A PROCEDURAL POINT NOT BEARING ON THE
FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL, OR THE CONVICTION, OR THE SENTENCE.  AND THE
RESULT OF THIS COURT'S ACTION AS TO THIS PROCEDURAL POINT IS TO VITIATE
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING, NOT MERELY TO REMAND FOR FORMAL RESENTENCING, AS
IN THE REYNOLDS CASE.  ALSO, IN THE REYNOLDS CASE THE COURT NOTED THE
ERROR WHEN INDICATED TO IT IN A PETITION FOR REHEARING AT THE SAME TERM
OF COURT.  IT HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN INDICATED TO ANY COURT AND
EVIDENTLY HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN NOTED BY ANYONE.  IT DID NOT, AS
HERE, MAKE ITS WAY TO THE SURFACE AFTER IT HAD BEEN DULY AND VIGOROUSLY
URGED, HAD BEEN ASSIGNED AS ERROR, THEN DROPPED, BURIED FOR THREE
YEARS, ONLY TO BE RESURRECTED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND A MAKEWEIGHT TO
ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS.  AGAIN, IN SIBBACH V. WILSON & CO., 312 U.S. 1,
16, THE DISTRICT COURT SOUGHT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT ACTION WHICH WAS
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT FROM SUCH PUNISHMENT.  ERROR OF A "FUNDAMENTAL
NATURE" WAS APPARENTLY NOTICED AND PRESSED BY THE DEFENDANTS FOR THE
FIRST TIME WHEN THE CASE CAME TO THIS COURT.  AND THE COURT CONSIDERED
THE POINT WHILE THE CASE WAS BEFORE IT, NOT, AS HERE, WHEN IT REAPPEARS
AS TAIL TO ANOTHER ISSUE THREE YEARS AFTER THE RECORD CONTAINING THE
ALLEGED ERROR FIRST CAME BEFORE US. 

EVEN NOW, THIS COURT DOES NOT FIND THAT THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN
CONSTITUTES AN INROAD ON THE VITAL SAFEGUARDS FOR A CRIMINAL TRIAL SO
AS TO INVOLVE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  THE COURT ORDERS DISMISSAL OF
AN INDICTMENT BECAUSE OF A PAST PRACTICE PURSUED IN GOOD FAITH UNDER
MISAPPREHENSION OF RELEVANT LAW.  BUT THAT MISCONCEPTION HAS BEEN
CORRECTED AND THE PROPER PRACTICE HAS BEEN ENFORCED SINCE 1944.  THE
COURT'S ORDER CANNOT SERVE AS A MEANS OF ENSURING A CHANGE IN FEDERAL
PRACTICE WHEN THAT CHANGE HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. 

DISMISSAL OF THIS INDICTMENT WILL NOT PUT AN END TO PROSECUTION FOR
THE OFFENSES WHICH IT CHARGES.  AND SO IT CANNOT IN ANY EVENT RELIEVE
THE COURT FROM THE DUTY OF DECIDING THE CENTRAL ISSUE BEFORE US,
NAMELY, WHETHER THE MAILS MAY BE USED TO OBTAIN MONEY BY FRAUD WHEN THE
FRAUD CONSISTS OF A FALSE CLAIM OF BELIEF TOUCHING RELIGION.  DISMISSAL
OF THIS INDICTMENT DOES NOT TERMINATE PROSECUTION FOR THESE OFFENSES
BECAUSE CONGRESS BY THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1934(48 STAT. 772, AMENDED, JULY
10, 1940, 54 STAT. 747, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 587) HAS EXPRESSLY SAVED THIS
PROSECUTION.  BY THAT ACT, CONGRESS ALLOWED REINDICTMENT WHERE AN
INDICTMENT WAS FOUND DEFECTIVE BUT THE BASIS OF THE PROSECUTION IS LEFT
UNTOUCHED.  AS AMENDED IT PROVIDES THAT 

"WHENEVER AN INDICTMENT IS FOUND DEFECTIVE OR INSUFFICIENT FOR ANY
CAUSE, AFTER THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS HAS EXPIRED, A NEW INDICTMENT MAY BE RETURNED NOT LATER
THAN THE END OF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING REGULAR TERM OF SUCH COURT,
FOLLOWING THE TERM AT WHICH SUCH INDICTMENT WAS FOUND DEFECTIVE OR
INSUFFICIENT, DURING WHICH A GRAND JURY THEREOF SHALL BE IN SESSION." 

CONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF THIS LITIGATION, THE REASONABLE ASSUMPTION
IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL PRESS THIS PROSECUTION. 

A CONVICTION WAS HAD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND
ORDERED A NEW TRIAL.  ON PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT WE BROUGHT THE CASE
HERE.  THE GOVERNMENT URGED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BE
RESTORED, WHILE THE DEFENDANTS CHALLENGED ITS VERY FOUNDATION BY
INVOKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION.  IN APRIL
1944, WE REVERSED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND FOUND THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD PROPERLY "WITHHELD FROM THE JURY ALL QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR DOCTRINES
OF RESPONDENTS."  322 U.S. AT 88.  BUT THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT AFFORDS IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR THE
PROCUREMENT OF MONEY BY FALSE STATEMENTS AS TO ONE'S RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCES.  THREE JUSTICES CONCLUDED THAT THE VERDICT SHOULD STAND,
AND, IN AN OPINION BY THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE, DENIED THAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AFFORDED IMMUNITY FOR FRAUDULENT USE OF THE MAILS SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  A FOURTH
JUSTICE LIKEWISE THOUGHT THIS ISSUE HAD TO BE MET.  HE CONCLUDED THAT
THE INDICTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT RAISED ISSUES
INEXTRICABLY BOUND UP WITH TRADITIONAL LIBERTY AND COULD NOT BE
SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  UPON REMAND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUES WHICH IMPLIEDLY WERE
REMITTED TO IT BY THIS COURT, FOUND NO FLAW IN THE JURY'S VERDICT AND
AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  AFTER THREE YEARS THE CASE IS AGAIN HERE, AND
THE MAIN ISSUE URGED, BOTH IN ARGUMENT AND IN THE EXTENSIVE BRIEFS, IS
THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO MAINTAIN THIS PROSECUTION IN VIEW OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  A DECISION BY THIS COURT MERELY DIRECTING THE
DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE OF ERROR IN THE SELECTION OF THE
GRAND JURY WHICH FOUND IT WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO CURING OF THIS DEFECT
BY RESUBMISSION TO A PROPERLY SELECTED GRAND JURY.  IT CAN HARDLY BE
BELIEVED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT FEEL UNDER DUTY TO DO SO.  THE
WHOLE MACHINERY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE WILL AGAIN BE SET IN MOTION.  A
TRIAL WILL FOLLOW, AND THE DISTRICT COURT WILL NATURALLY DEEM ITSELF
BOUND TO ENTERTAIN THE PROSECUTION IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ITS
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, TWICE LEFT UNDISTURBED HERE, WHICH REJECTED
THE CLAIM BASED ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.    IT IS TOO MUCH LIKE PLAYING
WITH JUSTICE TO AWAIT A THIRD REVIEW, TWO OR THREE YEARS HENCE, BEFORE
FACING THIS ISSUE EXPLICITLY.  THE DOCTRINE THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM
SHOULD NOT BE PREMATURELY CONSIDERED IS A VITAL FEATURE IN THE
HARMONIOUS FUNCTIONING OF OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT.  BUT IT IS A RULE
FOUNDED IN REASON, NOT A MECHANICAL FORMULA FOR AVOIDING AN ASPECT OF A
LITIGATION WHICH CANNOT BE FAIRLY DECIDED WITHOUT MEETING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  IF THIS CONTROVERSY COULD REALLY BE DISPOSED OF
MERELY BY FINDING THAT THE GRAND JURY WAS IMPROPERLY SELECTED,
ABSTENTION FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION WOULD BE IMPERATIVE. 
SUCH WOULD BE THE CASE IF FURTHER PROSECUTION WERE BARRED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  BUT THE ACT OF 1934, AS WE HAVE SEEN, REMOVES
THE BAR AND SANCTIONS A REINDICTMENT, WHICH IS TO BE ANTICIPATED IN
VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS LITIGATION.  WE CANNOT ESCAPE OUR
RESPONSIBILITY BY DEALING MERELY WITH THE REMEDIABLE INVALIDITY OF THE
INDICTMENT, LEAVING UNTOUCHED THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THE PROSECUTION IS VALID.  OF COURSE THE DEFENDANTS MIGHT
BE ACQUITTED AT A NEW TRIAL.  BUT A COURT WHICH PURPORTS TO EXERCISE
SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE OUGHT NOT TO PERMIT THE WASTE AND UNFAIRNESS INVOLVED
IN A NEW TRIAL IF THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR IT.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS A
CLAIM ON THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A CASE WHICH HAS BEEN
IN THE COURTS FOR ALMOST SIX YEARS, AND WHICH IS NOW STARTING ON A NEW
ROUND AS A RESULT OF THE COURT'S DECISION. 

IN SHORT, THE PROSECUTION WILL CONTINUE UNLESS WE TERMINATE IT.  WE
CAN TERMINATE IT ONLY IF THIS COURT SHOULD DEEM BEYOND CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY A PROSECUTION OF THE CHARGES UPON WHICH THE JURY FOUND THE
DEFENDANTS GUILTY AND WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED.  WE
OUGHT NOT TO GIVE IMPLIED SANCTION TO THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS
PROSECUTION, IF WE DO NOT MEAN TO DO SO, BY WITHHOLDING OUR VIEW ON AN
ISSUE INESCAPABLE IN THE FULL DISPOSITION OF THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE
COURT.  CANDOR REPELS IT AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION DO NOT JUSTIFY IT. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

ALTHOUGH I CONCUR IN THIS COURT'S POLICY OF REQUIRING THE INCLUSION
IN FEDERAL JURY LISTS IN CALIFORNIA OF WOMEN QUALIFIED FOR SERVICE AS
JURORS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAW IN THAT STATE, I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE
NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE INDICTMENT RETURNED IN THIS CASE IN
1941 MERELY BECAUSE WOMEN WERE NOT INCLUDED IN SUCH LISTS AT THAT
TIME.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A BINDING STATUTORY OR COURT RULE THEN
REQUIRING SUCH INCLUSION OF WOMEN, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS COMPELLED TO
EXERCISE ITS OWN DISCRETION IN INCLUDING OR EXCLUDING THEM.  WITHOUT
DEPENDING ON THE BREADTH OF THE DISCRETION WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO A
DISTRICT COURT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, I SUBMIT THAT THE REASONS FOR
THE DISTRICT COURT ACTION STRENGTHEN THE POSITION THAT THIS COURT
SHOULD NOT NOW RETROACTIVELY DISAPPROVE THE ESTABLISHED LOCAL FEDERAL
PRACTICE WHICH CONFORMED ALMOST EXACTLY WITH THE ESTABLISHED STATE
PRACTICE. 

EVER SINCE ITS FIRST JUDICATURE ACT, CONGRESS HAS SUBORDINATED
FEDERAL PRACTICE TO STATE LAW IN DETERMINING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF
FEDERAL JURORS.  IN THAT ACT IT SAID:  "THE JURORS SHALL HAVE THE SAME
QUALIFICATIONS AS ARE REQUISITE FOR JURORS BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
WHICH THEY ARE CITIZENS, TO SERVE IN THE HIGHEST COURTS OF LAW OF SUCH
STATE,  ..."  SECTION 29, ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, 1 STAT. 73, 88. 
SIMILARLY, THE PRESENT LAW READS:  "JURORS TO SERVE IN THE COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES, IN EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY, SHALL HAVE THE SAME
QUALIFICATIONS, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS HEREINAFTER CONTAINED, AND BE
ENTITLED TO THE SAME EXEMPTIONS, AS JURORS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAW
IN SUCH STATE MAY HAVE AND BE ENTITLED TO AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH JURORS
FOR SERVICE IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE SUMMONED."  SECTION
275, JUDICIAL CODE, 36 STAT. 1087, 1164, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 411.  FN1 

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY OR COURT RULE OR POLICY
REQUIRING WOMEN TO BE PLACED ON ALL FEDERAL JURY LISTS.  CONGRESS MIGHT
HAVE REQUIRED SUCH A COURSE AND MIGHT HAVE SET UP COMPLETE FEDERAL
QUALIFICATIONS FOR FEDERAL JURORS, BUT IT NEVER HAS DONE SO.  INSTEAD,
IT HAS PROVIDED THAT STATE ACTION SHALL DETERMINE MOST OF THE
QUALIFICATIONS FOR FEDERAL JURY SERVICE.  AS A RESULT, IT WOULD BE
REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS TO INCLUDE WOMEN ON FEDERAL
JURIES IN THOSE STATES WHICH DO NOT MAKE WOMEN ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICE AS
JURORS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAW IN SUCH STATES.  CF. CROWLEY V.
UNITED STATES, 194 U.S. 461.  THIS IS AN INESCAPABLE RECOGNITION BY
CONGRESS THAT IT SEES NOTHING SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL IN THE CONTINUED
USE OF EXCLUSIVELY MALE FEDERAL JURIES IN STATES WHERE WOMEN ARE NOT
ELIGIBLE FOR STATE JURY DUTY.  THE AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATE
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE TWO SEXES HAS BEEN TREATED AS A MATERIAL FACTOR
IN DETERMINING WHETHER WOMEN AND MEN SHALL BE CALLED FOR JURY DUTY. 
ACTS AND RESOLVES OF R.I. (1939), C. 700, SEC. 37; PEOPLE V. SHANNON,
203 CAL. 139, 263 P. 522.  SEE REPORT TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE SELECTION OF JURORS (1942), P. 23.  SUBORDINATION OF
THE NEED FOR WOMEN ON FEDERAL JURIES TO THE AVAILABILITY OF PHYSICAL
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THEM IS A TACIT RECOGNITION THAT NO FUNDAMENTAL
INFRACTION OF THE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS IS INVOLVED IN THE CONTINUANCE OF
EXCLUSIVELY MALE JURIES. 

IN SOME EMPLOYMENTS, WOMEN ARE DISTINGUISHED FROM MEN, AS A MATTER OF
LAW, IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR HOURS AND CONDITIONS OF WORK.  WEST COAST
HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379.  THESE DISTINCTIONS ARE DUE TO
CONSIDERATIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO JURY SERVICE.  THE GENERAL AND
INCREASING ABSENCE OF SOUND REASONS FOR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN MEN AND
WOMEN IN MATTERS OF SUFFRAGE, OFFICE HOLDING, EDUCATION, ECONOMIC
STATUS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, CHURCH MEMBERSHIP, CULTURAL ACTIVITIES, AND
EVEN WAR SERVICE, EMPHASIZES THE LACK OF REASON FOR MAKING A POINT OF
THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF EITHER SEX, AS SUCH, ON EITHER GRAND OR
PETIT JURIES.  SEE MILLER, THE WOMAN JUROR (1922), 2 ORE.  L. REV. 30,
40. 

BY A GENERAL PRACTICE OF NOT CALLING WOMEN FOR JURY DUTY ALTHOUGH
ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH DUTY, THE STATE COURTS OF CALIFORNIA, IN EFFECT, HAVE
GRANTED WOMEN A SUBSTANTIAL EXEMPTION FROM THAT DUTY.  PEOPLE V.
PARMAN, 14 CAL.2D 17, 92 P.2D 387; PEOPLE V. SHANNON, SUPRA.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. BALLARD, 35 F.SUPP.  105, 107.  THE CALIFORNIA COURTS
THUS HAVE TREATED MEN AND WOMEN AS EQUALLY QUALIFIED AND HAVE ASSUMED
THAT LITIGANTS WILL HAVE AN ADEQUATE IMPARTIAL JURY, REGARDLESS OF THE
SEX OF THE JURORS, PROVIDED THE JURORS OTHERWISE ARE QUALIFIED TO
SERVE.  CF. HYDE V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 374; AGNEW V. UNITED
STATES, 165 U.S. 36, 44.  WHILE SUCH A STATE PRACTICE IS NOT BINDING
UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS AS A MATTER OF LAW, YET IT IS PERSUASIVE AS
INDICATING THAT LITIGANTS NEED NOT BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN PREJUDICED
WHEN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS CONFORMED ITS PRACTICE TO THAT OF THE
STATE.  FOR THE STATE RULE SEE PEOPLE V. PARMAN, SUPRA; IN RE MANA, 178
CAL. 213, 172 P. 986; PEOPLE V. MANUEL, 41 CAL. APP. 153, 182 P. 306. 

THE ERROR IN THE FEDERAL PRACTICE CANNOT BE THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN,
AS SUCH, BECAUSE SUCH EXCLUSION NOT ONLY IS PERMITTED BUT IS REQUIRED
BY FEDERAL STATUTE IN STATES WHERE THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR STATE JURY
DUTY.  THE ERROR, IF ANY, MUST CONSIST OF THE FAILURE TO REQUIRE THE
LISTING OF WOMEN, AS WELL AS MEN, FOR ALL FEDERAL JURY SERVICE IN A
STATE WHICH PERMITS SUCH LISTING FOR STATE JURY SERVICE, EVEN THOUGH
THE STATE REGARDS SUCH LISTING AS DIRECTORY TO AND NOT MANDATORY UPON
THE STATE COURTS. 

THERE ARE AMPLE GROUNDS FOR DISTINGUISHING THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO., 328 U.S. 217, FROM THIS CASE.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE THIEL CASE, THE
COURT ACTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL NOTICE THAT THE OBJECTIONABLE
PRACTICE HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED,  FN2  WHEREAS, HERE, WE HAVE NOTICE
THAT THE PRACTICE OBJECTED TO WAS CHANGED MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO TO
CONFORM, AT LEAST SUBSTANTIALLY, TO THE APPROVED PRACTICE.  ALSO, IN
THE THIEL CASE, THE PROCEDURE COMPLAINED OF CONSISTED OF THE EXCLUSION
OF AN ECONOMIC GROUP, THEREBY DETRACTING FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE
CHARACTER OF THE JURY LIST, IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO THE TRADITION AND
PURPOSE OF THE JURY SYSTEM.  HERE THE EXCLUSION OF WOMEN, AS SUCH, FROM
JURY SERVICE NOT ONLY WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRADITIONAL PRACTICE,
BUT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED FUTURE PRACTICE
IN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS OF ABOUT 40% OF THE STATES.  THIS SHOWS
THAT THE ONLY OBJECTIONABLE PRACTICE HERE WAS THAT, AFTER THE STATE HAD
ESTABLISHED A DIRECTORY SYSTEM OF ELIGIBILITY OF WOMEN FOR STATE JURY
SERVICE, THE FEDERAL COURT DID NOT AT ONCE ENLARGE THAT POLICY INTO A
MANDATORY REQUIREMENT THAT ALL QUALIFIED WOMEN BE PLACED UPON ALL
FEDERAL JURY LISTS. 

FOR THESE REASONS, I AM UNABLE TO CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT SETTING
ASIDE THE INDICTMENT AND VERDICT.  THE CONVICTIONS IN THIS CASE SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED, AND I CONCUR IN THE STATEMENT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE:
"CERTAINLY NONE OF RESPONDENTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IF
THEY ARE PROSECUTED FOR THE FRAUDULENT PROCUREMENT OF MONEY BY FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THEIR BELIEFS, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE."  UNITED
STATES V. BALLARD, 322 U.S. 78, 90. 

FN1  THE FEDERAL COURTS, THEREFORE, ARE BOUND BY STATE DEFINITIONS OF
JURORS' QUALIFICATIONS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
LIMITATIONS.  IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE THE CONTINUANCE OF THE EXCLUSIVELY MALE
COMMON LAW FEDERAL JURIES, BUT IT IS NOW GENERALLY AGREED THAT WOMEN
ARE QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON FEDERAL JURIES WHEREVER THE STATES HAVE
DECLARED THEM QUALIFIED AS JURORS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAW IN THEIR
RESPECTIVE STATES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 123, 145; TYNAN
V. UNITED STATES, 297 F. 177, 178-179, CERT. DENIED, 266 U.S. 604;
HOXIE V. UNITED STATES, 15 F.2D 762, CERT. DENIED, 273 U.S. 755. 

FN2  IT NOW APPEARS, HOWEVER, THAT, BEGINNING IN 1943, THE PRACTICE
OBJECTED TO IN THE THIEL CASE HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED.  LOUIS E. GOODMAN,
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, N.D., CALIF., FEDERAL JURY SELECTIONS AS AFFECTED
BY THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, 21 JOURNAL OF THE STATE BAR OF
CALIFORNIA 352, 357. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS
DISSENT.  MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS IN IT EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE FINAL
PARAGRAPH RELATES TO AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE CONVICTIONS. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. BRUNO, 329 U.S. 207 


NO. 67.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 22, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  - 153
F.2D 843, REVERSED. 


IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR SELLING WASTE PAPER AT A PRICE ABOVE THE
CEILING FIXED BY MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION 30 PURSUANT TO SEC. 205(B) OF
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT
SOLD AT A PRICE ABOVE THE CEILING BY FALSELY DESCRIBING THE GRADE AND
THAT HE ACCEPTED PAYMENT AT THE EXCESSIVE PRICE, HELD SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A CONVICTION, ALTHOUGH IT ALSO SHOWED THAT THE SALES WERE
SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF CUSTOMERS TO REJECT PAPER OF LOWER GRADE THAN
REPRESENTED AND THAT, IN THREE OUT OF FIVE CASES COVERED BY A FIVE
COUNT INFORMATION WHERE CUSTOMERS OBJECTED AND THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION HAD MADE AN INVESTIGATION, DEFENDANT SUBSEQUENTLY
ADJUSTED THE PRICE TO THE CEILING PRICE FOR THE GRADE ACTUALLY
DELIVERED.  PP. 210, 211. 

UNITED STATES V. BRUNO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF SELLING WASTE PAPER AT A PRICE ABOVE THE
CEILING FIXED BY MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION 30 PURSUANT TO SEC. 205(B) OF
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  153 F.2D 843.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S.
828.  REVERSED, P. 211. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A CRIMINAL INFORMATION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST BRUNO FOR HAVING WILFULLY
SOLD  FN1  WASTE PAPER AT PRICES HIGHER THAN THE CEILINGS ESTABLISHED
BY MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION 30.  FN2  THE INFORMATION CONTAINED FIVE
COUNTS, EACH COUNT CHARGING A SALE OF A CARLOAD LOT IN 1944 AT PRICES
ABOVE THE ESTABLISHED CEILINGS.  THE JURY FOUND BRUNO GUILTY ON ALL
FIVE COUNTS.  HE WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS AND FINED
$500.  THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  153 F.2D 843.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT IN
PRINCIPLE BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND UNITED STATES V. SEIDMON, 154
F.2D 228, IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

BRUNO WAS IN CHARGE OF A BUSINESS, OWNED BY A RELATIVE, WHICH BOUGHT
AND SOLD WASTE PAPER.  CARRANO WAS A MIDDLEMAN WHO BOUGHT WASTE PAPER
FROM BRUNO ON ORDERS FROM CARRANO'S CUSTOMERS.  THE PAPER WAS SHIPPED
BY BRUNO DIRECT TO THE CUSTOMERS, CARRANO PAYING BRUNO THE PRICE. 

IN EACH OF THE FIVE SALES CHALLENGED HERE, CARRANO ORDERED FROM BRUNO
A GRADE OF PAPER KNOWN AS NO. 1 ASSORTED KRAFT.  IN EACH, BRUNO
INVOICED THE SHIPMENT AS SUCH AND CHARGED THE CEILING PRICE FOR THAT
GRADE OF WASTE PAPER.  CARRANO PAID BRUNO THE INVOICE PRICE.  IT
APPEARS THAT THE ORDERS WERE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL OF THE
WASTE PAPER BY THE CUSTOMERS; THAT THEY CUSTOMARILY MADE THE
INSPECTIONS ON RECEIPT OF THE SHIPMENTS; AND THAT IF THE PAPER WAS
BELOW THE GRADE AT WHICH IT HAD BEEN INVOICED, THE CUSTOMERS WOULD PAY
CARRANO THE LOWER CEILING PRICE, CARRANO DEBITING BRUNO WITH THE
DIFFERENCE.  EACH OF THE FIVE SHIPMENTS IN QUESTION WAS INSPECTED BY
THE CUSTOMER ON ITS ARRIVAL.  IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT EACH SHIPMENT WAS
LARGELY COMPOSED OF CORRUGATED PAPER, A GRADE CARRYING A LOWER CEILING
PRICE.  IN THREE CASES, THE CUSTOMERS PAID CARRANO ONLY FOR THE QUALITY
OF WASTE PAPER RECEIVED.  CARRANO THEREUPON DEBITED BRUNO WITH THE
DIFFERENCE.  IN TWO CASES, THE CUSTOMER DID NOT COMPLAIN OF THE
UPGRADING AND BRUNO RETAINED THE OVER-CHARGES.  FN3  MOREOVER, THE
DEBITS TO BRUNO IN THE THREE INSTANCES MENTIONED FOLLOWED ON THE HEELS
OF AN INVESTIGATION BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION.  IT ALSO
APPEARS THAT THE DEBITS WERE NOT SHOWN ON BRUNO'S BOOKS.  HIS LEDGER
SHOWED SALES, NOT AT THE INVOICE PRICE, BUT AT LOWER PRICES.  THE
CONCEALED AMOUNTS WERE EXPLAINED BY BRUNO AS CONSTITUTING HIS
COMMISSIONS ON THE SALES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT "BEFORE YOU CAN FIND HIM
GUILTY, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN IN HIS MIND AN INTENTION NOT TO SET A
PRICE AND THEN HAVE IT ADJUSTED AFTERWARDS ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OF
THE SITUATION, BUT AN INTENT TO FIX THIS PRICE AND CHARGE IT AND GET
AWAY WITH IT,  - AN INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIME, THE FORMATION OF A
PURPOSE IN HIS MIND WHEN HE DID THIS THING, TO GET MORE MONEY FOR THAT
PAPER THAN THE CEILING PRICE ESTABLISHED BY LAW."  FN4  THE COURT ALSO
CHARGED THAT THERE COULD BE NO CONVICTION IF BRUNO DID NOT SELL THE
WASTE PAPER "WITH THE INTENT OF RECEIVING HIGHER THAN CEILING PRICE,
AND DID NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE HIGHER THAN CEILING PRICE." 

WE THINK IT WAS PROPER TO SUBMIT THE CASE TO THE JURY.  THE EVIDENCE
SEEMS TO US AMPLE TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION.  THERE WAS FALSE GRADING
IN EACH INVOICE.  THE SALES WERE NOT MADE AT A PRICE TO BE DETERMINED
ON THE CUSTOMERS' INSPECTION OF THE GRADE.  THEY WERE MADE AT SPECIFIC
INVOICE PRICES WHICH WERE ABOVE THE CEILING.  THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED
AT THOSE PRICES; AND THOSE WERE THE PRICES ACTUALLY PAID.  IN SOME
INSTANCES THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT ADJUSTMENT OF THE PRICE TO CONFORM TO
THE PRICE CEILING FOR THE GRADE ACTUALLY SHIPPED.  BUT IN OTHERS THERE
WAS NOT.  AND BEARING ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM WERE TWO OTHER
FACTS - (1) THE DEBITS MADE FOLLOWED THE OPA INVESTIGATION; (2) THE
INFLATED PRICES WERE NOT DISCLOSED ON BRUNO'S BOOKS.  IN A SELLER'S
MARKET UPGRADING MAY BE A CONVENIENT DEVICE FOR BLACK MARKET
OPERATIONS.  AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS NOTED, WHEN PAPER IS
SCARCE THE SELLER MAY SEND NOT WHAT IS ORDERED BUT WHAT HE HAS, ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT MANUFACTURERS WILL BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY KIND OF PAPER
THEY CAN GET.  IN VIEW OF THE INADEQUACY OF THE SUPPLY, BUYERS CANNOT
ALWAYS BE EXPECTED TO REJECT UPGRADED SHIPMENTS OR INSIST UPON PRICE
ADJUSTMENTS.  THE FACTS OF THIS CASE SUSTAIN THAT THEORY, FOR IN TWO
INSTANCES NO PRICE ADJUSTMENT WAS SOUGHT OR MADE.  IN VIEW OF ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE JURY COULD WELL CONCLUDE THAT THE SYSTEM ADOPTED BY
BRUNO WAS DESIGNED TO BRING HIM MORE FOR THE GOODS THAN WAS LAWFUL. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 205(B), EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT.
23, 33, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. III SEC. 925(B). 

FN2  SEE 7 FED. REG. 9732, 8 FED. REG. 13049, 17483. 

FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SEEMED TO PROCEED ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT IN NO INSTANCE DID THE ULTIMATE PRICE WHICH WAS PAID EXCEED THE
CEILING PRICE. 

FN4  THE PRECEDING PART OF THE CHARGE WAS: 

"IN ORDER THAT THERE MAY BE A CRIME HERE, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN AN
INTENT ON THE PART OF THIS DEFENDANT TO COMMIT THAT CRIME, WHICH WAS TO
RECEIVE A PRICE FOR THE PAPER WHICH HE SOLD WHICH WAS IN EXCESS OF THE
CEILING PRICE.  NOW, IF ACTUALLY THERE HAD BEEN PAID TO HIM MORE THAN
THE CEILING PRICE, BUT IT WAS THE INTENT AND INTENTION OF ALL PERSONS
RESPECTING IT, NOT TO ACCEPT THAT AS THE FINAL PRICE NECESSARILY, BUT
TO ACCEPT IT SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT WHICH WOULD BE MADE UPON THE
EXAMINATION OF THE PAPER ACTUALLY DELIVERED AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE PRICE SET BY LAW FOR THAT PAPER, THAT IS, IF THEY HAD THE IDEA THAT
THE ONLY PRICE TO BE RECEIVED WAS THAT WHICH THE LAW SET FOR THE PAPER
ACTUALLY DELIVERED, AND THAT ACTUALLY WAS WHAT WAS PAID, THEN THERE WAS
NO INTENT ON HIS PART TO BREAK THE LAW.  BUT IF HE SOLD THIS PAPER TO
THE DEALER, THE WHOLESALE DEALER FOR A PRICE WHICH WAS ABOVE THE
CEILING PRICE, AND THAT WAS THE PRICE THAT HE INTENDED TO GET, AND IF
YOU FIND AS A FACT THAT THE ONLY REASON HE DIDN'T GET IT WAS BECAUSE HE
DIDN'T GET IT, STILL HE WOULD HAVE HAD AN INTENT TO COMMIT HAVING
INTENT TO DO THE HONEST DECENT THING, AND THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON HE
DIDN'T GET IT, STILL HE WOULD HAVE HAD AN INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIME
AND WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY COMMITTED IT WHEN HE RECEIVED ABOVE-CEILING
PRICE WHICH HE INTENDED TO RECEIVE, IF HE DID SO INTEND, AND IF THE
ONLY REASON THAT HE DIDN'T GET THE CEILING PRICE WAS BECAUSE HE WAS
FOUND OUT." 
..END :
























FISWICK V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 211 


NO. 51.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 20, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  -
153 F.2D 176, REVERSED. 


1.  PETITIONERS AND OTHERS WERE INDICTED FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THE
INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT PETITIONERS CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER, AND WITH
OTHERS, TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES BY CONCEALING AND MISREPRESENTING
THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE NAZI PARTY.  THE LAST OVERT ACT ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED BY ANY OF THE PETITIONERS WAS THE FILING BY ONE OF THEM
OF A REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940,
IN WHICH HE FALSELY FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS CONNECTION WITH AND
ACTIVITIES IN THE NAZI PARTY.  HELD THAT THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED AND
PROVED DID NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE DATE OF THE LAST OVERT ACT, AND THAT
ADMITTANCE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL OF THE PETITIONERS OF ADMISSIONS
MADE AFTER THAT DATE BY ONE OF THE PETITIONERS WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. 
PP. 215-220. 

(A)  THOUGH THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY MAY BE CONTINUING, THE
CONSPIRACY IS NOT A CONTINUING ONE UNLESS THERE IS CONTINUOUS
COOPERATION OF THE CONSPIRATORS TO PRODUCE THE UNLAWFUL RESULT.  P.
216. 

(B)  AN OVERT ACT BEING NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE OFFENSE OF
CONSPIRACY UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, THE OVERT ACTS AVERRED
AND PROVED MAY MARK THE DURATION, AS WELL AS THE SCOPE, OF THE
CONSPIRACY.  P. 216. 

(C)  THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED AND PROVED DID NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE DATE
OF THE LAST OVERT ACT (THE FILING OF THE FALSE REGISTRATION STATEMENT)
AND THE SUBSEQUENT ADMISSIONS OF EACH DEFENDANT WERE IMPROPERLY
EMPLOYED AGAINST THE OTHERS.  P. 217. 

(D)  WHILE THE ACT OF ONE CONSPIRATOR IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE
OTHERS, IF IT IS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CRIMINAL UNDERTAKING, ALL SUCH
RESPONSIBILITY ENDS WHEN THE CONSPIRACY ENDS.  P. 217. 

(E)  CONFESSION OR ADMISSION BY ONE CO-CONSPIRATOR AFTER HE WAS
APPREHENDED WAS NOT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE THE
GOVERNMENT BUT HAD THE EFFECT OF TERMINATING THE CONSPIRACY, SO FAR AS
HE WAS CONCERNED, AND MADE HIS ADMISSIONS INADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIS
ERSTWHILE FELLOW-CONSPIRATORS.  P. 217. 

(F)  IT CANNOT BE SAID WITH FAIR ASSURANCE IN THIS CASE THAT THE JURY
WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SWAYED BY THE USE OF THESE ADMISSIONS AGAINST ALL
DEFENDANTS AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A "HARMLESS ERROR"
WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SEC. 269 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  KOTTEAKOS
V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 750.  PP. 217-220. 

2.  THE FACT THAT HIS SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT HAS BEEN SERVED DOES
NOT RENDER MOOT A REVIEW OF THE CONVICTION OF AN ALIEN UNDER SEC. 37 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE FOR CONSPIRING TO FILE A FALSE REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT AND TO CONCEAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT HIS
MEMBERSHIP IN THE NAZI PARTY, SINCE THE CONVICTION MAY WEAKEN HIS
DEFENSE TO A DEPORTATION PROCEEDING UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155, IMPAIR HIS
CHANCES OF NATURALIZATION UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 707(A)(3), AND SUBJECT
HIM TO THE LOSS OF CERTAIN CIVIL RIGHTS.  PP. 220-223. 

FISWICK ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF
CONSPIRING TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS BY FILING FALSE REGISTRATION STATEMENTS UNDER
THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 670, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 451 ET
SEQ., AND CONCEALING THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE NAZI PARTY.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  153 F.2D 176.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 776.  REVERSED, P. 223. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 670, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 451
ET SEQ., REQUIRED ALIENS, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, TO REGISTER PURSUANT
TO REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION. 
FN1  AMONG THE DISCLOSURES REQUIRED WAS WHETHER DURING THE PRECEDING
FIVE YEARS THE ALIEN HAD BEEN "AFFILIATED WITH OR ACTIVE IN (A MEMBER
OF, OFFICIAL OF, A WORKER FOR) ORGANIZATIONS, DEVOTED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART TO INFLUENCING OR FURTHERING THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, PUBLIC
RELATIONS, OR PUBLIC POLICY OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT."  FN2 

PETITIONERS ARE GERMAN NATIONALS WHO REGISTERED UNDER THE ACT, THE
LAST OF THE THREE, MAYER, REGISTERING ON DECEMBER 23, 1940.  EACH
STATED WHEN HE REGISTERED THAT HE WAS NOT AFFILIATED WITH OR ACTIVE IN
SUCH AN ORGANIZATION.  EACH FAILED TO DISCLOSE, IN ANSWER TO ANOTHER
QUESTION PERTAINING TO "MEMBERSHIPS OR ACTIVITIES IN CLUBS,
ORGANIZATIONS, OR SOCIETIES," THAT HE WAS IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE
NAZI PARTY.  THEY WERE INDICTED IN 1944 WITH 28 OTHERS FOR CONSPIRING
TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS (SEE CURLEY V. UNITED STATES, 130 F. 1, 4) IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES THAT PETITIONERS CONTINUOUSLY BETWEEN
SEPTEMBER 1, 1939, AND THE DATE THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED, SEPTEMBER
13, 1944, CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH DRAEGER, THE GERMAN CONSUL
IN NEW YORK CITY AND LEADER OF THE NAZI PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY, WITH
DRAEGER'S SECRETARY, VOGEL, AND WITH OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE THIRD
REICH, TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES BY CONCEALING AND MISREPRESENTING
THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE NAZI PARTY.  IT CHARGES THAT SINCE 1933 THE
NAZI PARTY WAS DEVOTED TO FURTHERING THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND
POLICY OF THE GERMAN REICH IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT EACH PETITIONER DURING
THE FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO HIS REGISTRATION WAS A MEMBER OF THAT PARTY,
THAT DRAEGER AND VOGEL DIRECTED PETITIONERS IN REGISTERING UNDER THE
ACT TO CONCEAL AND FALSIFY THEIR CONNECTION WITH THE NAZI PARTY, THAT
PETITIONERS FOLLOWED SUCH DIRECTIONS, THAT AFTER THEIR REGISTRATION
THEY CONTINUED FROM DAY TO DAY TO MISREPRESENT TO THE GOVERNMENT THEIR
CONNECTION WITH AND ACTIVITIES IN THE NAZI PARTY.  THE INDICTMENT
ALLEGES THAT, AS A MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING THE CONSPIRACY, THE
PETITIONERS APPEARED FOR REGISTRATION AND IN REGISTERING FALSELY FAILED
TO DISCLOSE THEIR CONNECTION WITH AND ACTIVITIES IN THE NAZI PARTY. 
THE INDICTMENT SETS FORTH FORTY OVERT ACTS.  MANY RELATED TO
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY DRAEGER AND VOGEL TO VARIOUS DEFENDANTS FROM
SEPTEMBER TO DECEMBER 1940, IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR REGISTRATION. 
OTHERS RELATED TO THE REGISTERING BY PETITIONERS IN NOVEMBER AND
DECEMBER, 1940.  THE LAST OVERT ACT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY
ANY OF PETITIONERS WAS THE FILING BY MAYER OF HIS REGISTRATION
STATEMENT ON DECEMBER 23, 1940. 

OF THE 31 INDICTED, ONLY THE THREE PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED AFTER A
JURY TRIAL.  FN3  FISWICK AND RUDOLPH WERE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT
FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS EACH.  MAYER WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A
YEAR AND A DAY.  THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION WERE AFFIRMED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  153 F.2D 176.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE THE RULINGS OF THE LOWER COURTS ON THE CONTINUING NATURE OF THE
CONSPIRACY WERE APPARENTLY IN CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. IRVINE, 98 U.S. 450; UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, 218
U.S. 601. 

FIRST.  THE NATURE AND DURATION OF THE CONSPIRACY ASSUMED GREAT
IMPORTANCE AT THE TRIAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON.  EACH PETITIONER
AFTER HE WAS APPREHENDED MADE DAMAGING STATEMENTS TO AGENTS OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.  MAYER, IN NOVEMBER, 1943, STATED THAT
HE HAD APPLIED FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE NAZI PARTY AND HAD NOT DISCLOSED
THE FACT BECAUSE VOGEL TOLD HIM NOT TO. FISWICK'S STATEMENT MADE IN
APRIL, 1944, WAS TO THE SAME EFFECT.  RUDOLPH MADE SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME ADMISSIONS IN NOVEMBER, 1943, AND THEN IN SEPTEMBER, 1944,
RETRACTED THEM INSOFAR AS HE HAD SAID THAT IN REGISTERING UNDER THE ACT
AND IN FAILING TO DISCLOSE HIS NAZI PARTY AFFILIATION HE HAD FOLLOWED
INSTRUCTIONS.  HIS LATER REASON FOR NON-DISCLOSURE WAS HIS ASSERTED
DESIRE TO PROTECT HIS FAMILY.  EACH OF THESE STATEMENTS WAS ADMITTED AT
THE TRIAL.  AT FIRST, EACH WAS ADMITTED ONLY AS AGAINST THE MAKER.  AT
THE CLOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE, HOWEVER, THE DISTRICT COURT RULED
THAT EACH OF THESE STATEMENTS WAS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST EACH OF THE OTHER
CO-CONSPIRATORS.  IT SO CHARGED THE JURY.  LATER THE JURY RETURNED TO
THE COURTROOM FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.  ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ON WHICH
THE FOREMAN STATED THAT THEY DESIRED INSTRUCTION RELATED TO THAT PART
OF THE CHARGE "WHERE YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS
WERE BOUND BY THE ACT OF ONE OR SOMETHING, SOMETHING AS A GROUP, AND
THE OTHER SAID THE INDIVIDUALS."  THE JUDGE THEN REPEATED THAT THE
ADMISSIONS OF EACH WERE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST ALL PROVIDED THERE WAS A
CONSPIRACY AND THEY WERE ALL IN IT. 

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL NOW RIGHTLY CONCEDES THAT THAT RULING WAS
ERRONEOUS.  THOUGH THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY MAY BE CONTINUING, THE
CONSPIRACY DOES NOT THEREBY BECOME A CONTINUING ONE.  SEE UNITED STATES
V. IRVINE, SUPRA.  CONTINUITY OF ACTION TO PRODUCE THE UNLAWFUL RESULT,
OR AS STATED IN UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, SUPRA, P. 607, "CONTINUOUS
COOPERATION OF THE CONSPIRATORS TO KEEP IT UP," IS NECESSARY.  A
CONSPIRACY IS A PARTNERSHIP IN CRIME.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM
OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 253.  UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, THE
BASIS OF THE PRESENT INDICTMENT, AN OVERT ACT IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
THE OFFENSE.  FN4  THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, UNLESS SUSPENDED N5,
RUNS FROM THE LAST OVERT ACT DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY. 
BROWN V. ELLIOTT, 225 U.S. 392, 401.  THE OVERT ACTS AVERRED AND PROVED
MAY THUS MARK THE DURATION, AS WELL AS THE SCOPE, OF THE CONSPIRACY. 

IN THIS CASE THE LAST OVERT ACT, AS WE HAVE NOTED, WAS THE FILING BY
MAYER OF HIS REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON DECEMBER 23, 1940.  THAT ACT WAS
ADEQUATE AS AN OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF A CONSPIRACY TO MAKE A FALSE
RETURN.  BUT THERE IS DIFFICULTY IN ALSO MAKING IT SERVE THE FUNCTION
OF AN OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL FROM 1940 TO
1944 THE FACT THAT FALSE RETURNS HAD BEEN MADE.  ALL CONTINUITY OF
ACTION ENDED WITH THE LAST OVERT ACT IN DECEMBER, 1940.  THERE WAS NO
OVERT ACT OF CONCEALMENT WHICH FOLLOWED THE ACT OF MAKING FALSE
STATEMENTS.  IF THE LATTER IS PERMITTED TO DO DOUBLE DUTY, THEN A
CONTINUING RESULT BECOMES A CONTINUING CONSPIRACY.  IF, AS WE THINK,
THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED AND PROVED DID NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE DATE OF THE
LAST OVERT ACT, THE ADMISSIONS OF EACH PETITIONER WERE IMPROPERLY
EMPLOYED AGAINST THE OTHERS.  WHILE THE ACT OF ONE PARTNER IN CRIME IS
ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE OTHERS WHERE IT IS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
CRIMINAL UNDERTAKING, PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, 646
647, AND CASES CITED, ALL SUCH RESPONSIBILITY IS AT AN END WHEN THE
CONSPIRACY ENDS.  LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263, 309; BROWN V.
UNITED STATES, 150 U.S. 93, 98.  MOREOVER, CONFESSION OR ADMISSION BY
ONE CO-CONSPIRATOR AFTER HE HAS BEEN APPREHENDED IS NOT IN ANY SENSE A
FURTHERANCE OF THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.  IT IS RATHER A FRUSTRATION OF
IT.  IF, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT, THE MAINTENANCE OF
THE PLOT TO DECEIVE THE GOVERNMENT WAS THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS
CONSPIRACY, THE ADMISSIONS MADE TO THE OFFICERS ENDED IT.  SO FAR AS
EACH CONSPIRATOR WHO CONFESSED WAS CONCERNED, THE PLOT WAS THEN
TERMINATED.  HE THEREUPON CEASED TO ACT IN THE ROLE OF A CONSPIRATOR. 
HIS ADMISSIONS WERE THEREFORE NOT ADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIS ERSTWHILE
FELLOW-CONSPIRATORS.  GAMBINO V. UNITED STATES, 108 F.2D 140, 142-143. 

IT IS EARNESTLY ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS.  THE
"HARMLESS ERROR" STATUTE (JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 269, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 391)
PROVIDES THAT "ON THE HEARING OF ANY APPEAL, CERTIORARI, OR MOTION FOR
A NEW TRIAL, IN ANY CASE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, THE COURT SHALL GIVE
JUDGMENT AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT,
WITHOUT REGARD TO TECHNICAL ERRORS, DEFECTS, OR EXCEPTIONS WHICH DO NOT
AFFECT THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES."  WE HAVE RECENTLY
REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF THIS STATUTE AND THE FUNCTION IT WAS DESIGNED
TO SERVE IN CRIMINAL CASES.  KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 750. 
THE COURT THERE STATED, PP. 764-765: 

"IF, WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THE CONVICTION IS SURE THAT THE ERROR
DID NOT INFLUENCE THE JURY, OR HAD BUT VERY SLIGHT EFFECT, THE VERDICT
AND THE JUDGMENT SHOULD STAND, EXCEPT PERHAPS WHERE THE DEPARTURE IS
FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL NORM OR A SPECIFIC COMMAND OF CONGRESS....  BUT
IF ONE CANNOT SAY, WITH FAIR ASSURANCE, AFTER PONDERING ALL THAT
HAPPENED WITHOUT STRIPPING THE ERRONEOUS ACTION FROM THE WHOLE, THAT
THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SWAYED BY THE ERROR, IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS WERE NOT AFFECTED.  THE
INQUIRY CANNOT BE MERELY WHETHER THERE WAS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE
RESULT, APART FROM THE PHASE AFFECTED BY THE ERROR.  IT IS RATHER, EVEN
SO, WHETHER THE ERROR ITSELF HAD SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE.  IF SO, OR IF
ONE IS LEFT IN GRAVE DOUBT, THE CONVICTION CANNOT STAND." 

WE CANNOT SAY WITH FAIR ASSURANCE IN THIS CASE THAT THE JURY WAS NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY SWAYED BY THE USE OF THESE ADMISSIONS AGAINST ALL
PETITIONERS.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THERE MAY BE A STRONG CASE
MADE OUT AGAINST EACH PETITIONER.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGES A CONSPIRACY,
NOT THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME OF FALSELY REGISTERING.  THE EVIDENCE THAT
PETITIONERS CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH DRAEGER, VOGEL, AND
OTHERS, IS NOT STRONG.  THOUGH WE ASSUME THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO
GO TO THE JURY ON THE EXISTENCE OF THAT CONSPIRACY, THE CASE WAS ONE
WHICH A PROSECUTOR WOULD BE ANXIOUS TO BOLSTER. 

THE PROSECUTOR'S CASE, APART FROM THE ADMISSIONS, MAY BE BRIEFLY
SUMMARIZED.  DRAEGER AND VOGEL WERE ACTIVE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE NAZI
PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY.  THEIR STENOGRAPHER, A GOVERNMENT WITNESS,
TESTIFIED THAT APPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE PARTY WERE RECEIVED
AT THEIR OFFICE.  DUES WERE PAID THERE.  A CARD FILE OF MEMBERS OF THE
PARTY AND OF APPLICANTS FOR MEMBERSHIP WAS KEPT THERE.  THE NAME OF
EACH PETITIONER WAS ON THE LIST.  A LETTER WAS SENT TO ALL ON THE LIST
IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER, 1940, OVER DRAEGER'S SIGNATURE, REQUESTING THEM
TO DISCUSS A MATTER WITH DRAEGER.  THOSE WHO APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO
THE LETTER WERE TOLD TO CONCEAL THEIR NAZI PARTY MEMBERSHIP OR
AFFILIATION WHEN THEY REGISTERED UNDER THE ACT.  ANOTHER WITNESS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT - A DEFENDANT IN THE CASE WHO WAS GRANTED A SEVERANCE -
ALSO TESTIFIED THAT VOGEL GAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTY MEMBERS NOT TO
DISCLOSE THEIR AFFILIATION WITH THE NAZI PARTY.  AND A CLERK IN
DRAEGER'S OFFICE TESTIFIED FOR THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE PARTY MEMBERS
WHO CAME TO THE CONSULATE WERE TOLD TO SAY IN THEIR REGISTRATION
STATEMENTS THAT THEY WERE MEMBERS OF AN INNOCUOUSSOUNDING ASSOCIATION
OF GERMAN NATIONALS.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONERS CAME TO
THE CONSULATE SEEKING ADVICE.  THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT
PETITIONERS HAD RECEIVED THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE CONSULATE TO CONCEAL
THEIR PARTY MEMBERSHIP.  THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONERS
CAME TO THE CONSULATE IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER WHICH WAS SENT.  THEY
WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING WITH ANY GROUP WHICH CALLED THERE.  THERE
WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY CONFERRED WITH DRAEGER OR VOGEL OR WITH EACH
OTHER. 

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL STATES WITH COMMENDABLE CANDOR THAT IN THIS
STATE OF THE PROOF IT WAS MANIFESTLY IMPORTANT FOR THE PROSECUTOR "TO
BRING INTO THE CASE AGAINST PETITIONERS EVIDENCE OF A CHARACTER THAT
MIGHT BETTER CONVINCE THE JURY THAT WHEN EACH FAILED TO REVEAL HIS
PARTY CONNECTION IN REGISTERING HE HAD DONE SO UPON PARTY INSTRUCTIONS,
AND, HENCE, THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE CONSPIRACY."  THE ADMISSIONS
SERVED THAT PURPOSE.  THEY SUPPLIED THE FIRST DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT
PETITIONERS ACTED PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CONSULATE.  IT IS
TRUE, AS RESPONDENT EMPHASIZES, THAT NONE OF THESE ADMISSIONS
IMPLICATES ANY PETITIONER EXCEPT THE MAKER.  BUT SINCE, IF THERE WAS A
CONSPIRACY, DRAEGER AND VOGEL WERE ITS HUB, EVIDENCE WHICH BROUGHT EACH
PETITIONER INTO THE CIRCLE WAS THE ONLY EVIDENCE WHICH CEMENTED THEM
TOGETHER IN THE ILLEGAL PROJECT.  AND WHEN THE JURY WAS TOLD THAT THE
ADMISSIONS OF ONE, THOUGH NOT IMPLICATING THE OTHERS, MIGHT BE USED
AGAINST ALL, THE ELEMENT OF CONCERT OF ACTION WAS STRONGLY BOLSTERED,
IF NOT ADDED.  WITHOUT THE ADMISSIONS, THE JURY MIGHT WELL HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT THERE WERE THREE SEPARATE CONSPIRACIES, NOT ONE.  CF.
KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  WITH THE ADMISSIONS, THE CHARGE OF
CONSPIRACY RECEIVED POWERFUL REINFORCEMENT.  AND THE CHARGE THAT EACH
PETITIONER CONSPIRED WITH THE OTHERS BECAME APPRECIABLY STRONGER, NOT
FROM WHAT HE SAID BUT FROM WHAT THE OTHER TWO SAID.  WE THEREFORE
CANNOT SAY WITH ANY CONFIDENCE THAT THE ERROR IN ADMITTING EACH OF
THESE STATEMENTS AGAINST THE OTHER PETITIONERS DID NOT INFLUENCE THE
JURY OR HAD ONLY A SLIGHT EFFECT.  INDEED, THE ADMISSIONS MAY WELL HAVE
BEEN CRUCIAL.  THE ADMISSIONS APPARENTLY BECAME OF CONSIDERABLE
IMPORTANCE IN THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE JURY, FOR, AS WE HAVE NOTED,
THEY ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THAT POINT.  AND
THE ADMISSIONS SO STRONGLY BOLSTERED A WEAK CASE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
FOR US TO CONCLUDE THE ERROR CAN BE DISREGARDED UNDER THE "HARMLESS
ERROR" STATUTE.  THE USE MADE OF THE ADMISSIONS AT THE TRIAL
CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

SECOND.  A FURTHER QUESTION REMAINS.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, FISWICK WAS
SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR 18 MONTHS.  NO FINE WAS IMPOSED.  IT NOW
APPEARS THAT HE HAS SERVED HIS SENTENCE.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SUGGESTED
THAT THE CAUSE IS MOOT AND THAT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD BE
DISMISSED AS TO HIM.  WE FOLLOWED THAT PROCEDURE IN ST. PIERRE V.
UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 41, 42, SAYING THAT SINCE THE SENTENCE HAD BEEN
SERVED, "THERE WAS NO LONGER A SUBJECT MATTER ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF
THIS COURT COULD OPERATE."  WE ADDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PETITIONER HAD
NOT SHOWN THAT "UNDER EITHER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW FURTHER PENALTIES OR
DISABILITIES CAN BE IMPOSED ON HIM AS A RESULT OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH
HAS NOW BEEN SATISFIED."  P. 43. 

THE SITUATION HERE IS DIFFERENT.  FISWICK IS AN ALIEN.  AN ALIEN
SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR OR MORE "BECAUSE OF CONVICTION
IN THIS COUNTRY OF A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE" IS, UNLESS
PARDONED, SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION IF THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED WITHIN FIVE
YEARS AFTER THE ALIEN'S ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.  39 STAT. 874,
889, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155.  THE CONSPIRACY WITH WHICH FISWICK IS CHARGED
WAS FORMED AND EXECUTED WITHIN THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, AS HIS LAST ENTRY
WAS IN 1937.  THE CONSPIRACY OF WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED WAS ONE TO
IMPEDE THE GOVERNMENT IN ONE OF ITS LAWFUL FUNCTIONS, TO PREVENT IT
FROM OBTAINING INFORMATION WHICH THE EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESS DEEMED
VITAL TO OUR INTERNAL SECURITY, TO CONCEAL BY FRAUD, DECEIT, AND
PERJURY  FN6  THE RAMIFICATIONS OF AN ORGANIZATION IN OUR MIDST BENT ON
OUR UNDOING.  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE IN THIS COLLATERAL WAY WHETHER
CONVICTION FOR SUCH A CRIME WOULD INVOLVE "MORAL TURPITUDE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE DEPORTATION LAWS.  FN7  BUT THE JUDGMENT, IF
UNDISTURBED, STANDS AS UNIMPEACHABLE EVIDENCE THAT FISWICK COMMITTED
THE CRIME CHARGED.  THE HAZARDS OF DEPORTATION BECAUSE OF THAT FACT ARE
REAL.  FN8  TO LEAVE HIM TO DEFEND A DEPORTATION ORDER ON THE GROUND
THAT THE CRIME OF WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED DID NOT INVOLVE "MORAL
TURPITUDE" IS TO ADD TO HIS BURDENS BY DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS BEST
DEFENSE - THAT HE WAS NOT PROPERLY CONVICTED. 

MOREOVER, OTHER DISABILITIES OR BURDENS MAY FLOW FROM THE JUDGMENT,
IMPROPERLY OBTAINED, IF WE DISMISS THIS CASE AS MOOT AND LET THE
CONVICTION STAND.  IF FISWICK SEEKS NATURALIZATION, HE MUST ESTABLISH
THAT DURING THE FIVE YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF FILING HIS
PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION HE "HAS BEEN AND STILL IS A PERSON OF GOOD
MORAL CHARACTER."  54 STAT. 1137, 1142, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 707(A)(3).  AN
OUTSTANDING JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR THIS CRIME STANDS AS OMINOUS
PROOF THAT HE DID WHAT WAS CHARGED AND PUTS BEYOND HIS REACH ANY
SHOWING OF AMELIORATING CIRCUMSTANCES OR EXPLANATORY MATTER THAT MIGHT
REMOVE PART OR ALL OF THE CURSE.  AND, EVEN THOUGH HE SUCCEEDED IN
BEING NATURALIZED, HE WOULD, UNLESS PARDONED, CARRY THROUGH LIFE THE
DISABILITY OF A FELON; FN9  AND BY REASON OF THAT FACT HE MIGHT LOSE
CERTAIN CIVIL RIGHTS.  FN10  THUS FISWICK HAS A SUBSTANTIAL STAKE IN
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH SURVIVES THE SATISFACTION OF THE
SENTENCE IMPOSED ON HIM.  IN NO PRACTICAL SENSE, THEREFORE, CAN
FISWICK'S CASE BE SAID TO BE MOOT. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT, HAVING SERVED HIS SENTENCE, FISWICK MAY
NOT BE RESENTENCED ON A NEW TRIAL AND THAT, IF HIS CONVICTION IS
REVERSED, HE THEREBY ESCAPES DEPORTATION.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HE
THWARTS THE DEPORTATION POLICY BY ELECTING TO SERVE HIS SENTENCE.  WE
CANNOT ASSUME, HOWEVER, THAT FISWICK IS GUILTY OF THE CONSPIRACY
CHARGED.  HE WAS NOT ACCORDED THE TRIAL TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER
OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  THE CONVICTION WHICH HE SUFFERED WAS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  THE ERRORS IN THE TRIAL IMPEACH THE CONVICTION;
AND HE MUST STAND IN THE POSITION OF ANY MAN WHO HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF A
CRIME BUT NOT YET SHOWN TO HAVE COMMITTED IT.  TO DISMISS HIS CASE AS
MOOT WOULD PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPOUND ITS ERROR AT FISWICK'S
EXPENSE.  THAT COURSE DOES NOT COMPORT WITH OUR STANDARDS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE 5 FED. REG. 2836 FOR THE REGULATIONS. 

FN2  REGULATIONS, SUPRA, NOTE 1, SEC. 29.4(1)(15). 

FN3  SIX ENTERED PLEAS OF GUILTY.  THERE WAS A DISMISSAL AS TO ONE, A
SEVERANCE AS TO FOURTEEN.  TEN WERE TRIED.  THE JURY ACQUITTED THREE
AND DISAGREED AS TO THE OTHER FOUR. 

FN4  AT COMMON LAW IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO AVER OR PROVE AN OVERT
ACT.  SEE HYDE V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 359.  THE SAME IS TRUE
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 378;
UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., SUPRA, P. 252.  BUT SEC. 37 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE REQUIRES NOT ONLY AN AGREEMENT TO DO THE UNLAWFUL ACT
BUT ALSO THE DOING OF "ANY ACT TO EFFECT THE OBJECT OF THE
CONSPIRACY."  SEE HYDE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 359. 

FN5  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1942, 56 STAT.
747, 18 U.S.C. SUPP. II, SEC. 590A, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 19(B) OF THE ACT
OF JULY 1, 1944, 58 STAT. 649, 667, 18 U.S.C. SUPP. IV, SEC. 590A. 

FN6  THE REGISTRATION STATEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE ACT WERE SWORN
STATEMENTS.  REGULATIONS, SUPRA NOTE 1, SEC. 29.4(G), (J). 

FN7  CONVICTIONS FOR PERJURY, KANEDA V. UNITED STATES, 278 F. 694,
FOR FRAUDS ON THE REVENUES, GUARNERI V. KESSLER, 98 F.2D 580, UNITED
STATES V. REIMER, 113 F.2D 429, FOR FRAUDS WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY,
UNITED STATES V. BURMASTER, 24 F.2D 57, HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE LOWER
COURTS TO MEET THAT TEST.  AND COUNTERFEITING WAS SO CLASSIFIED BY THE
COURT IN UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 289 U.S. 422.  AS TO DEPORTATION FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940 SEE SEC. 20(B)(4) AND
(5).  SEE ALSO ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798, REV. STAT. 4067-4070, AS
AMENDED 40 STAT. 531, 50 U.S.C. SECS. 21-24; PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION
NO. 2655, 10 FED. REG. 8947. 

FN8  ALTHOUGH DEPORTATION IS NOT TECHNICALLY A CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT,
IT MAY VISIT GREAT HARDSHIP ON THE ALIEN.  BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S.
135, 147.  AS STATED BY THE COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, IN NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 284, DEPORTATION MAY
RESULT IN THE LOSS "OF ALL THAT MAKES LIFE WORTH LIVING." 

FN9  "ALL OFFENSES WHICH MAY BE PUNISHED BY DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT FOR
A TERM EXCEEDING ONE YEAR SHALL BE DEEMED FELONIES."  CRIMINAL CODE
SEC. 335, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 541. 

FN10  THUS MO. REV. STATS. ANN. SEC. 4561 RENDERS SUCH PERSON
INCOMPETENT TO SERVE ON A JURY AND FOREVER DISQUALIFIES HIM FROM VOTING
OR HOLDING OFFICE, UNLESS PARDONED. 
..END :



COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. WOKO, 329 U.S. 223 


NO. 65.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 22, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  - 153
F.2D 623, REVERSED. 


A CORPORATION, WHICH HAD OPERATED A RADIO STATION FOR SOME YEARS AND
APPEARED TO HAVE RENDERED PUBLIC SERVICE OF ACCEPTABLE QUALITY AND TO
BE ABLE TO CONTINUE, WAS DENIED A RENEWAL OF ITS LICENSE BY THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ON THE GROUND THAT IT COULD NOT BE ENTRUSTED
WITH THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LICENSEE, BECAUSE THE COMMISSION FOUND
THAT IT HAD MISREPRESENTED THE TRUE OWNERSHIP OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK IN
APPLICATIONS AND TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION OVER A PERIOD OF
YEARS.  HELD: 

1.  THE DENIAL OF THE LICENSE WAS NOT UNLAWFUL, ARBITRARY OR
CAPRICIOUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF 47 U.S.C. SEC. 402(E), PROVIDING FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW, EVEN THOUGH THE COMMISSION FAILED TO FIND THAT THE
CONCEALMENT WAS OF MATERIAL FACTS OR HAD INFLUENCED THE COMMISSION IN
MAKING ANY DECISION OR THAT IT WOULD HAVE ACTED DIFFERENTLY HAD IT
KNOWN THE TRUE FACTS.  PP. 226, 227. 

2.  THE FACT THAT STOCKHOLDERS OWNING SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 50% OF ITS
STOCK WERE NOT FOUND TO HAVE HAD ANY PART IN OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE
DECEPTION CANNOT IMMUNIZE THE CORPORATION FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
DECEPTION, THOUGH IT MAY BE A PROPER CONSIDERATION FOR THE COMMISSION
IN DETERMINING JUST AND APPROPRIATE ACTION.  P. 227. 

3.  THAT ITS ACTION IN THIS CASE CONSTITUTES A DEPARTURE FROM THE
COURSE WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN IN DEALING WITH MISSTATEMENTS AND
APPLICATIONS IN OTHER CASES IS A CONSIDERATION APPROPRIATE FOR THE
COMMISSION IN DETERMINING WHETHER ITS ACTION IN THIS CASE IS TOO
DRASTIC; BUT THE COMMISSION IS NOT BOUND TO DEAL WITH ALL CASES AT ALL
TIMES AS IT HAS DEALT WITH SOME THAT SEEM COMPARABLE.  PP. 227-228. 

4.  A DENIAL OF A LICENSE BECAUSE OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OR DELIBERATE
FALSITY OF THE INFORMATION LAWFULLY REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED IS NOT A
PENALTY AND IS NOT ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS WITHIN THE MEANING
OF 47 U.S.C. SEC. 402(E).  P. 228. 

5.  THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED TO MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE
QUALITY OF THE STATION'S SERVICE IN THE PAST AND ITS EQUIPMENT FOR GOOD
SERVICE IN THE FUTURE DID NOT MAKE ITS ACTION ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  PP. 228-229. 

6.  THE COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED TO GRANT A LICENSE ON A
DELIBERATELY FALSE APPLICATION.  P. 229. 

7.  IT IS THE COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS, WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED
THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BE SERVED BY RENEWING A LICENSE.  P.
229. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. WOKO, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REFUSED TO RENEW THE LICENSE OF
A RADIO STATION BECAUSE OF WILFUL MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO THE OWNERSHIP OF ITS STOCK.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED.  153 F.2D 623.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 776.  REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS WITH DIRECTION TO REMAND TO THE COMMISSION.  P. 229. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WOKO, INCORPORATED, FOR SOME YEARS HAS OPERATED A RADIO STATION AT
ALBANY, NEW YORK, AND APPEARS TO HAVE RENDERED PUBLIC SERVICE OF
ACCEPTABLE QUALITY AND TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE.  THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REFUSED TO RENEW ITS LICENSE BECAUSE OF
MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COMMISSION AND ITS PREDECESSOR AS TO THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE APPLICANT'S CAPITAL STOCK.  TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY
SHARES, BEING TWENTY-FOUR PER CENT OF ITS OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK,
WAS OWNED BY ONE PICKARD AND HIS FAMILY.  FOR SOME TWELVE YEARS THEY
RECEIVED ALL DIVIDENDS PAID ON THE STOCK AND PICKARD TOOK AN ACTIVE
INTEREST IN THE COMPANY'S AFFAIRS.  HE ALSO WAS A VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING COMPANY AND HAD OBTAINED THE STOCK ON THE
ASSURANCE THAT HE WOULD HELP TO SECURE COLUMBIA AFFILIATION FOR STATION
WOKO, WOULD FURNISH, WITHOUT CHARGE, COLUMBIA ENGINEERS TO CONSTRUCT
THE STATION AT ALBANY, AND WOULD SUPPLY A GRAND PIANO AND CERTAIN
NEWSPAPER PUBLICITY. 

THE COMPANY, HOWEVER, IN REPORTING TO THE FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION
AND TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION THE NAMES OF ITS
STOCKHOLDERS AS IT WAS REQUIRED TO DO FOR MANY YEARS AND IN MANY
APPLICATIONS, CONCEALED THE FACT THAT THE PICKARDS HELD THIS STOCK
INTEREST AND REPRESENTED THAT THE SHARES WERE HELD BY OTHERS.  ITS
GENERAL MANAGER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AT VARIOUS HEARINGS
AND FURNISHED FALSE TESTIMONY TO BOTH COMMISSIONS REGARDING THE
IDENTITY OF THE CORPORATION STOCKHOLDERS AND THE SHARES HELD BY EACH SO
AS TO CONCEAL THE PICKARD HOLDINGS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE CONCEALMENT WAS
TO PREVENT THE FACTS FROM BECOMING KNOWN TO PICKARD'S COLUMBIA
COLLEAGUES. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED THE
COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING RENEWAL OF THE LICENSE, A MAJORITY FOR
THE VARIOUS REASONS THAT WE WILL CONSIDER.  THE DISSENTING CHIEF
JUSTICE NOTED THAT HE DID "VERY HEARTILY AGREE WITH THE VIEW THAT THIS
IS A HARD CASE.  THE COMMISSION'S DRASTIC ORDER, TERMINATING THE LIFE
OF THE STATION, PUNISHES THE INNOCENT EQUALLY WITH THE GUILTY, AND IN
ITS RESULTS IS CONTRARY TO THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN SEVERAL OTHER
COMPARABLE CASES.  BUT THAT THE MAKING OF THE ORDER WAS WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION, I THINK IS REASONABLY CLEAR."  153 F.2D
623, 633.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE
TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 

WE COME TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE REASONS WHICH LED THE COURT OF
APPEALS TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THE ADMONITION
THAT "REVIEW BY THE COURT SHALL BE LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF LAW AND THAT
FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE COMMISSION, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE UNLESS IT SHALL CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ARE ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS."  48 STAT.
1094, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 402(E). 

THE ACT PROVIDES AS TO APPLICATIONS SUCH AS WOKO FILED THAT "ALL SUCH
APPLICATIONS SHALL SET FORTH SUCH FACTS AS THE COMMISSION BY REGULATION
MAY PRESCRIBE AS TO THE CITIZENSHIP, CHARACTER, AND FINANCIAL,
TECHNICAL, AND OTHER QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPLICANT TO OPERATE THE
STATION; THE OWNERSHIP AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED STATION  ...  AND
SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS IT MAY REQUIRE."  IT REQUIRES SUCH STATEMENTS
TO BE UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION.  48 STAT. 1085, 47 U.S.C. SEC.
308(B).  IT PROVIDES, TOO, THAT ANY STATION LICENSE MAY BE REVOKED FOR
FALSE STATEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION.  48 STAT. 1086, 47 U.S.C. SEC.
312(A). 

IT IS SAID THAT IN THIS CASE THE COMMISSION FAILED TO FIND THAT THE
CONCEALMENT WAS OF MATERIAL FACTS OF HAD INFLUENCED THE COMMISSION IN
MAKING ANY DECISION, OR THAT IT WOULD HAVE ACTED DIFFERENTLY HAD IT
KNOWN THAT THE PICKARDS WERE THE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE STOCK.  WE
THINK THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT.  THE FACT OF CONCEALMENT MAY BE MORE
SIGNIFICANT THAN THE FACTS CONCEALED.  THE WILLINGNESS TO DECEIVE A
REGULATORY BODY MAY BE DISCLOSED BY IMMATERIAL AND USELESS DECEPTIONS
AS WELL AS BY MATERIAL AND PERSUASIVE ONES.  WE DO NOT THINK IT IS AN
ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE DECEPTION WAS UNNECESSARY AND SERVED NO
PURPOSE.  IF THE APPLICANT HAD FORTHRIGHTLY REFUSED TO SUPPLY THE
INFORMATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT MATERIAL, WE SHOULD EXPECT
THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE APPLICATION AND WOULD HAVE BEEN
SUSTAINED IN SO DOING.  IF WE WOULD HOLD IT NOT UNLAWFUL, ARBITRARY OR
CAPRICIOUS TO REQUIRE THE INFORMATION BEFORE GRANTING A RENEWAL, IT
SEEMS DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS TO
REFUSE A RENEWAL WHERE TRUE INFORMATION IS WITHHELD AND FALSE
INFORMATION IS SUBSTITUTED. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT STOCKHOLDERS OWNING SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 50 PER CENT
OF THE STOCK ARE NOT FOUND TO HAVE HAD ANY PART IN OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE
CONCEALMENT OR DECEPTION OF THE COMMISSION.  THIS MAY BE A VERY PROPER
CONSIDERATION FOR THE COMMISSION IN DETERMINING JUST AND APPROPRIATE
ACTION.  BUT AS MATTER OF LAW, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE INNOCENT
STOCKHOLDERS CAN NOT IMMUNIZE THE CORPORATION FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF
SUCH DECEPTION.  IF OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION BY SUCH MISMANAGEMENT
WASTE ITS ASSETS, PRESUMABLY THE STATE LAW AFFORDS ADEQUATE REMEDIES
AGAINST THE WRONGDOERS.  BUT IN THIS AS IN OTHER MATTERS, STOCKHOLDERS
ENTRUST THEIR INTERESTS TO THEIR CHOSEN OFFICERS AND OFTEN SUFFER FOR
THEIR DERELICTION.  CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ACTS CANNOT BE ESCAPED BY A
CORPORATION MERELY BECAUSE NOT ALL OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS PARTICIPATED. 

RESPONDENT COMPLAINS THAT THE PRESENT CASE CONSTITUTES A DEPARTURE
FROM THE COURSE WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN IN DEALING WITH
MISSTATEMENTS AND APPLICATIONS IN OTHER CASES.  MUCH IS MADE IN
ARGUMENT OF THE FACT THAT DECEPTIONS OF THIS CHARACTER HAVE NOT BEEN
UNCOMMON AND IT IS CLAIMED THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DEALT WITH SO
SEVERELY AS IN THIS CASE.  CF. NAVARRO BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION, 8
F.C.C. 198.  BUT THE VERY FACT THAT TEMPORIZING AND COMPROMISING WITH
DECEPTION SEEMED NOT TO DISCOURAGE IT, MAY HAVE LED THE COMMISSION TO
THE DRASTIC MEASURES HERE TAKEN TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF ITS OWN
SYSTEM OF REPORTS.  THE MILD MEASURES TO OTHERS AND THE APPARENTLY
UNANNOUNCED CHANGE OF POLICY ARE CONSIDERATIONS APPROPRIATE FOR THE
COMMISSION IN DETERMINING WHETHER ITS ACTION IN THIS CASE IS TOO
DRASTIC, BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION IS BOUND BY ANYTHING
THAT APPEARS BEFORE US TO DEAL WITH ALL CASES AT ALL TIMES AS IT HAS
DEALT WITH SOME THAT SEEM COMPARABLE. 

IT ALSO IS CONTENDED THAT THIS ORDER INFLICTS A PENALTY, THAT THE
MOTIVE IS PUNISHMENT AND THAT SINCE THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN NO POWERS
TO PENALIZE PERSONS, ITS ORDER MUST FALL.  WE THINK IT UNNECESSARY TO
INDULGE IN THE EXPOSITION OF WHAT A PENALTY IS.  IT IS ENOUGH TO DECIDE
THIS CASE TO KNOW WHAT A PENALTY IS NOT.  A DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION
FOR A LICENSE BECAUSE OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OR DELIBERATE FALSITY OF THE
INFORMATION LAWFULLY REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED IS NOT A PENAL MEASURE. 
IT MAY HURT AND IT MAY CAUSE LOSS, BUT IT IS NOT MADE ILLEGAL,
ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS BY THAT FACT. 

LASTLY, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE COURT OF APPEALS SUGGESTED THAT IN
ORDER TO JUSTIFY REFUSAL TO RENEW, THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE MADE
FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALITY OF THE STATION'S SERVICE IN THE
PAST AND ITS EQUIPMENT FOR GOOD SERVICE IN THE FUTURE.  EVIDENCE OF THE
STATION'S ADEQUATE SERVICE WAS INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING.  THE
COMMISSION ON THE OTHER HAND INSISTS THAT IN ADMINISTERING THE ACT IT
MUST RELY UPON THE REPORTS OF LICENSEES.  IT POINTS OUT THAT THIS
CONCEALMENT WAS NOT CAUSED BY SLIGHT INADVERTENCE NOR WAS IT AN
ISOLATED INSTANCE, BUT THAT THE STATION CARRIED ON THE COURSE OF
DECEPTION FOR APPROXIMATELY TWELVE YEARS.  IT SAYS THAT IN DECIDING
WHETHER THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS WOULD SERVE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY, CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE CHARACTER,
BACKGROUND AND TRAINING OF ALL PARTIES HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE
PROPOSED LICENSE, AND THAT IT CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO EXERCISE THE
DISCRETION VESTED IN IT TO ENTRUST THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A LICENSEE
TO AN APPLICANT GUILTY OF A SYSTEMATIC COURSE OF DECEPTION. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED AS A MATTER OF LAW TO
GRANT A LICENSE ON A DELIBERATELY FALSE APPLICATION EVEN IF THE FALSITY
WERE NOT OF THIS DURATION AND CHARACTER, NOR CAN WE SAY THAT REFUSAL TO
RENEW THE LICENSE IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT THIS STATION HAS ESTABLISHED
SUCH A STANDARD OF PUBLIC SERVICE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THAT ITS DECEPTION WAS NOT A MATTER THAT
AFFECTED ITS QUALIFICATIONS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.  BUT IT IS THE
COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS, WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WILL BE SERVED BY RENEWING THE LICENSE.  AND THE FACT THAT WE
MIGHT NOT HAVE MADE THE SAME DETERMINATION ON THE SAME FACTS DOES NOT
WARRANT A SUBSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION SINCE
CONGRESS HAS CONFIDED THE PROBLEM TO THE LATTER.  WE AGREE THAT THIS IS
A HARD CASE, BUT WE CANNOT AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE BAD
LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CASE
REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTION TO REMAND TO THE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. CARMACK, 329 U.S. 230 


NO. 40.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1946.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1946.  - 151
F.2D 881, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE CONDEMNATION ACT OF AUGUST 1, 1888,
AUTHORIZING ANY OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED TO PROCURE REAL
ESTATE FOR THE ERECTION OF A PUBLIC BUILDING TO ACQUIRE THE SAME FOR
THE UNITED STATES BY CONDEMNATION "WHENEVER IN HIS OPINION IT IS
NECESSARY OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO," AND THE PUBLIC
BUILDINGS ACT OF MAY 25, 1926, AS AMENDED, AUTHORIZING THE FEDERAL
WORKS ADMINISTRATOR TO ACQUIRE BY CONDEMNATION "SUCH SITES  ... AS HE
MAY DEEM NECESSARY" FOR POST OFFICES AND OTHER PUBLIC BUILDINGS, THE
FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACQUIRE BY CONDEMNATION
LAND HELD IN TRUST AND USED BY A CITY FOR SUCH PUBLIC PURPOSES AS THOSE
OF A LOCAL PARK, COURTHOUSE, CITY HALL AND PUBLIC LIBRARY - AFTER IT
HAD BEEN SELECTED JOINTLY BY HIM AND THE POSTMASTER GENERAL AS A SITE
FOR A POST OFFICE.  PP. 242, 247-248. 

2.  FAR REMOVED FROM THE TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THESE STATUTES IN 1888 AND 1926, THIS COURT MUST BE SLOW
TO READ INTO THEM TODAY UNEXPRESSED LIMITATIONS RESTRICTING THE
AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICIALS NAMED IN THE ACTS AS THE ONES UPON WHOM
CONGRESS CHOSE TO RELY.  P. 236. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE SITE IN QUESTION IS HELD IN TRUST INSTEAD OF IN
FEE AND IS ALREADY BEING USED BY A GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISION OF A STATE
FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES IMPRESSED UPON IT BY PRIVATE OWNERS OVER A CENTURY
AGO CANNOT PREVENT ITS CONDEMNATION BY THE UNITED STATES AS A MEANS OF
CARRYING OUT AN ADMITTEDLY FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.  KOHL V.
UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 367.  PP. 236-242. 

(A)  IF THE UNITED STATES HAS DETERMINED ITS NEED FOR CERTAIN LANDS
FOR A PUBLIC USE THAT IS WITHIN ITS FEDERAL SOVEREIGN POWERS, IT MUST
HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPROPRIATE THAT LAND.  P. 236. 

(B)  DECISIONS OF FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES AS TO THE MEANS OF CARRYING
OUT AN ADMITTEDLY FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION CANNOT BE SUBORDINATED
TO THOSE OF INDIVIDUAL GRANTORS OR LOCAL OFFICIALS.  P. 239. 

(C)  A DECREE OF CONDEMNATION WILL DISPOSE OF ANY DEFECTS IN THE
TITLE WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT EXIST BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND IS
NOW HELD IN TRUST FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAN THAT FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
ACQUIRES IT.  P. 239. 

4.  THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MADE IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONSTITUTION
TO DECLARE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF
THE LAND MAKE IT APPROPRIATE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN, WHEN EXERCISED BY CONGRESS WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, BE
EQUALLY SUPREME.  STOCKTON V. BALTIMORE & N.Y.R. CO., 32 F. 9, 19.  P.
240. 

5.  THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS TO USE THEIR BEST JUDGMENT IN SELECTING POST OFFICE SITES.  P.
242. 

6.  IF THE OFFICIALS SO DESIGNATED HAVE USED SUCH JUDGMENT, IN GOOD
FAITH, IN SELECTING THE PROPOSED PARK SITE IN SPITE OF ITS CONFLICTING
LOCAL USES, THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR HAS EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO
DIRECT THE CONDEMNATION OF THAT SITE.  P. 242. 

7.  THE JUDGMENT EXERCISED BY THE DESIGNATED OFFICIALS IN SELECTING
THIS SITE OUT OF 22 SITES SUGGESTED, AND OUT OF TWO CLOSELY BALANCED
ALTERNATIVES, CONSTITUTED AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE DECISION
NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW ON ITS MERITS.  PP. 242, 243. 

8.  THE ACTS DO NOT EXCLUDE FROM THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIGNATED
OFFICIALS THIS OR OTHER SITES, THE SELECTION OF WHICH MIGHT INTERFERE
WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  P. 243. 

9.  THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN MAKING THE SELECTION OF THE SITE IN
THIS CASE SHOWED EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT TO ARRIVE AT A FAIR AND REASONED
CONCLUSION AND THE RECORD CONTAINS NO BASIS FOR A FINDING THAT THE
DESIGNATED OFFICIALS ACTED IN BAD FAITH OR SO "CAPRICIOUSLY AND
ARBITRARILY" THAT THEIR ACTION WAS WITHOUT ADEQUATE DETERMINING
PRINCIPLE OR WAS UNREASONED, IN ANY SENSE WHICH WOULD INVALIDATE THE
SELECTION MADE UNDER ANY CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACTS HERE INVOLVED.  PP.
243-248. 

10.  THE COMPARATIVE DESIRABILITY OF AND NECESSITY FOR THE SITE WERE
MATTERS FOR LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION RATHER THAN FOR
A JUDICIAL FINDING.  PP. 247, 248. 

UNITED STATES V. CARMACK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

THE UNITED STATES PETITIONED A DISTRICT COURT TO CONDEMN AS A SITE
FOR A POST OFFICE AND CUSTOMHOUSE CERTAIN LAND IN A CITY WHICH THE CITY
HELD IN TRUST AND USED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AS A LOCAL PARK, COURTHOUSE,
CITY HALL, AND PUBLIC LIBRARY.  AN HEIR OF THE GRANTOR IN TRUST
CONTESTED THE PETITION.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT SHE HAD NO
INTEREST PERMITTING HER TO DO SO AND ENTERED A PRELIMINARY DECREE IN
FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT SHE
DID HAVE A SPECIAL INTEREST ENTITLING HER TO OBJECT TO THE PROPERTY
BEING TAKEN FOR A PURPOSE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE PUBLIC USE TO WHICH IT HAD
BEEN DEDICATED BY HER ANCESTORS, AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  135 F.2D 196.  ON RETRIAL, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
THE SELECTION OF THE SITE AMOUNTED TO AN "ARBITRARY AND UNNECESSARY
ACT" AND DISMISSED THE PETITION.  55 F.SUPP.  555.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR
AND THE POSTMASTER GENERAL LACKED AUTHORITY "TO TAKE THE PARTICULAR
LAND SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED."  151 F.2D 881.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 775.  REVERSED, P. 248. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES TO CONDEMN LAND
AS A SITE FOR A POST OFFICE AND CUSTOMHOUSE IN THE CITY OF CAPE
GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, IN RELIANCE UPON SEVERAL FEDERAL STATUTES,
INCLUDING THE GENERAL CONDEMNATION ACT OF AUGUST 1, 1888, AND THE
PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF MAY 25, 1926.  FN1  THE CITY AND SITE WERE
SELECTED BY THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR AND THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
ACTING JOINTLY UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT.  THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE IS:
WAS THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORIZED BY THE FOREGOING
STATUTES TO ACQUIRE BY CONDEMNATION LAND HELD IN TRUST AND USED BY THE
CITY FOR SUCH PUBLIC PURPOSES AS THOSE OF A LOCAL PARK, COURTHOUSE,
CITY HALL AND PUBLIC LIBRARY? 

IN 1941, THE UNITED STATES PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI TO CONDEMN AS A SITE FOR A
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE AND CUSTOMHOUSE ABOUT ONE AND ONE-HALF ACRES,
NEAR THE CENTER OF THE CITY OF CAPE GIRARDEAU, TOGETHER WITH THE
IMPROVEMENTS THEREON EXCEPT A PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING.  THIS SITE WAS
PART OF A FOUR-ACRE PUBLIC PARK AND THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONDEMNED
INCLUDED A BUILDING USED AS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE AND CITY HALL, A
MEMORIAL FOUNTAIN, A SMALL MEMORIAL MONUMENT AND A PORTION OF A
BANDSTAND.  THE LIBRARY BUILDING APPARENTLY WAS TO BE REMOVED BY ITS
OWNERS ON 30 DAYS' NOTICE FROM THE UNITED STATES. 

THE PETITION INCLUDED AS PARTIES DEFENDANT THE CITY AND COUNTY,
NUMEROUS OFFICIALS AND ALL KNOWN AND UNKNOWN HEIRS OR OTHERS WHO MIGHT
CLAIM AN INTEREST IN THIS SITE ESPECIALLY THROUGH THOSE WHO CONVEYED
IT, IN TRUST, IN 1807 TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OR, IN
TRUST, IN 1820 TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF CAPE GIRARDEAU. 
RESPONDENT WAS THE ONLY DEFENDANT TO FILE AN ANSWER.  FINDING THAT SHE
HAD NO INTEREST PERMITTING HER TO MAINTAIN THE DEFENSES SHE ASSERTED,
THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A PRELIMINARY DECREE IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED
STATES.  ON RESPONDENT'S APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REMANDED
THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH ITS OPINION HOLDING
THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD A SPECIAL INTEREST ENTITLING HER TO OBJECT TO
THE PROPERTY BEING TAKEN FOR A PURPOSE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE PUBLIC USE TO
WHICH IT HAD BEEN DEDICATED BY HER ANCESTORS.  CARMACK V. UNITED
STATES, 135 F.2D 196. 

IN 1944, ON RETRIAL BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE, THE DISTRICT COURT
RECOGNIZED THE RESPONDENT AS ENTITLED TO CONTEST THE CONDEMNATION AND,
AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HEARD EVIDENCE AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES ACTED CAPRICIOUSLY
AND ARBITRARILY IN SELECTING THIS SITE.  IT HELD THAT "THE SELECTION OF
THE SITE DESCRIBED IN THE PETITION, UNDER ALL THE FACTS REFERRED TO,
AMOUNTS IN LAW TO AN ARBITRARY AND UNNECESSARY ACT" AND DISMISSED THE
PETITION.  UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN LAND, ETC., 55 F.SUPP.  555, 564. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT
THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR AND THE POSTMASTER GENERAL DID NOT HAVE
SUFFICIENT STATUTORY AUTHORITY "TO TAKE THE PARTICULAR LAND SOUGHT TO
BE CONDEMNED."  IT THEN EXPRESSLY FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
WHETHER OR NOT THE FEDERAL OFFICIALS HAD ACTED "CAPRICIOUSLY AND
ARBITRARILY."  UNITED STATES V. CARMACK, 151 F.2D 881, 882.  BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTES AUTHORIZING THE
CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR FEDERAL USES, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S.
775.  FN2 

BOTH THE GENERAL CONDEMNATION ACT AND THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT  FN3
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE UNITED STATES BY
CONDEMNATION AS A SITE FOR A UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, CUSTOMHOUSE OR
COURTHOUSE.  NEITHER ACT EXPRESSLY NAMED THE CITY OR DESIGNATED THE
SITE TO BE CONDEMNED IN THIS CASE.  NEITHER EXPRESSLY STATED WHETHER OR
NOT SITES ALREADY IN USE FOR CONFLICTING FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL PUBLIC
PURPOSES WERE SUBJECT TO CONDEMNATION.  THE CONDEMNATION ACT
SUPPLEMENTED THE FEDERAL RIGHT "TO PROCURE REAL ESTATE FOR THE ERECTION
OF A PUBLIC BUILDING OR FOR OTHER PUBLIC USES," BY ADDING TO IT A
GENERAL FEDERAL POWER OF CONDEMNATION UNDER JUDICIAL PROCESS TO BE
EXERCISED BY AN OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT "WHENEVER IN HIS OPINION IT
IS NECESSARY OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO."  THE PUBLIC
BUILDINGS ACT, AS AN INCIDENT TO AN ORIGINAL $150,000,000 PROGRAM, GAVE
AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (LATER
SUBSTITUTING THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR) "TO ACQUIRE, BY PURCHASE,
CONDEMNATION, OR OTHERWISE, SUCH SITES  ...  AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY,
..."  IT SPECIFIED THAT AS TO "BUILDINGS TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN PART
FOR POSTOFFICE PURPOSES, THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR, UNDER
REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY HIM, SHALL ACT JOINTLY WITH THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL IN THE SELECTION OF TOWNS OR CITIES IN WHICH
BUILDINGS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE SELECTION OF SITES
THEREIN:..."  FN4  THESE ACTS WERE NATURAL MEANS FOR CONGRESS TO ADOPT
IN PUTTING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS INTO USE ON A SCALE COMMENSURATE
WITH THE SIZE OF THE NATION AND THE NEED OF THE TIME.  NEITHER ACT
IMPOSED EXPRESSLY ANY LIMITATIONS UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICIALS
DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF CONDEMNATION IN
PROCURING SITES FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS DEEMED NECESSARY BY SUCH OFFICIALS
TO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO PERFORM CERTAIN SPECIFIED FUNCTIONS.  FN5
FAR REMOVED FROM THE TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO THE ENACTMENT
OF THESE STATUTES IN 1888 AND 1926, THIS COURT MUST BE SLOW TO READ
INTO THEM TODAY UNEXPRESSED LIMITATIONS RESTRICTING THE AUTHORITY OF
THE VERY OFFICIALS NAMED IN THE ACTS AS THE ONES UPON WHOM CONGRESS
CHOSE TO RELY. 

THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS ESSENTIAL TO A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT. 
IF THE UNITED STATES HAS DETERMINED ITS NEED FOR CERTAIN LAND FOR A
PUBLIC USE THAT IS WITHIN ITS FEDERAL SOVEREIGN POWERS, IT MUST HAVE
THE RIGHT TO APPROPRIATE THAT LAND.  OTHERWISE, THE OWNER OF THE LAND,
BY REFUSING TO SELL IT OR BY CONSENTING TO DO SO ONLY AT AN
UNREASONABLY HIGH PRICE, IS ENABLED TO SUBORDINATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWERS OF CONGRESS TO HIS PERSONAL WILL.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IN TURN,
PROVIDES HIM WITH IMPORTANT PROTECTION AGAINST ABUSE OF THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN6 

WHILE IN ITS EARLY DAYS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FILED ITS CONDEMNATION
CASES IN THE STATE COURTS, THIS COURT, IN KOHL V. UNITED STATES, 91
U.S. 367, DISPOSED OF THE IDEA THAT THIS WAS NECESSARY.  IN THAT CASE,
WHICH HAS BECOME THE LEADING CASE ON THE FEDERAL POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN, MR. JUSTICE STRONG ALSO SAID: 

"IT HAS NOT BEEN SERIOUSLY CONTENDED DURING THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS WITHOUT POWER TO APPROPRIATE LANDS OR OTHER
PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATES FOR ITS OWN USES, AND TO ENABLE IT TO
PERFORM ITS PROPER FUNCTIONS.  SUCH AN AUTHORITY IS ESSENTIAL TO ITS
INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE AND PERPETUITY.  THESE CANNOT BE PRESERVED IF THE
OBSTINACY OF A PRIVATE PERSON, OR IF ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, CAN PREVENT
THE ACQUISITION OF THE MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS BY WHICH ALONE GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS CAN BE PERFORMED.  THE POWERS VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN
THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEMAND FOR THEIR EXERCISE THE ACQUISITION OF
LANDS IN ALL THE STATES.  THESE ARE NEEDED FOR FORTS, ARMORIES, AND
ARSENALS, FOR NAVY-YARDS AND LIGHTHOUSES, FOR CUSTOM-HOUSES, POST
OFFICES, AND COURTHOUSES, AND FOR OTHER PUBLIC USES.  IF THE RIGHT TO
ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR SUCH USES MAY BE MADE A BARREN RIGHT BY THE
UNWILLINGNESS OF PROPERTY-HOLDERS TO SELL, OR BY THE ACTION OF A STATE
PROHIBITING A SALE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTS
OF POWER MAY BE RENDERED NUGATORY, AND THE GOVERNMENT IS DEPENDENT FOR
ITS PRACTICAL EXISTENCE UPON THE WILL OF A STATE, OR EVEN UPON THAT OF
A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  THIS CANNOT BE.  NO ONE DOUBTS THE EXISTENCE IN THE
STATE GOVERNMENTS OF THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN,  - A RIGHT DISTINCT
FROM AND PARAMOUNT TO THE RIGHT OF ULTIMATE OWNERSHIP.  IT GROWS OUT OF
THE NECESSITIES OF THEIR BEING, NOT OUT OF THE TENURE BY WHICH LANDS
ARE HELD.  IT MAY BE EXERCISED, THOUGH THE LANDS ARE NOT HELD BY GRANT
FROM THE GOVERNMENT, EITHER MEDIATELY OR IMMEDIATELY, AND INDEPENDENT
OF THE CONSIDERATION WHETHER THEY WOULD ESCHEAT TO THE GOVERNMENT IN
CASE OF A FAILURE OF HEIRS.  THE RIGHT IS THE OFFSPRING OF POLITICAL
NECESSITY; AND IT IS INSEPARABLE FROM SOVEREIGNTY, UNLESS DENIED TO IT
BY ITS FUNDAMENTAL LAW....  BUT IT IS NO MORE NECESSARY FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF A STATE GOVERNMENT THAN IT IS FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THE CONCEDED POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THAT
GOVERNMENT IS AS SOVEREIGN WITHIN ITS SPHERE AS THE STATES ARE WITHIN
THEIRS.  TRUE, ITS SPHERE IS LIMITED.  CERTAIN SUBJECTS ONLY ARE
COMMITTED TO IT; BUT ITS POWER OVER THOSE SUBJECTS IS AS FULL AND
COMPLETE AS IS THE POWER OF THE STATES OVER THE SUBJECTS TO WHICH THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY EXTENDS.... 

     .         .         .         .        . 

"IF THE UNITED STATES HAVE THE POWER, IT MUST BE COMPLETE IN ITSELF. 
IT CAN NEITHER BE ENLARGED NOR DIMINISHED BY A STATE.  NOR CAN ANY
STATE PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH IT MUST BE EXERCISED.  THE CONSENT
OF A STATE CAN NEVER BE A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ITS ENJOYMENT."  KOHL
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 371-372, 374. 

THE KOHL CASE APPROVED THE CONDEMNATION OF PRIVATELY OWNED LAND, THEN
SUBJECT TO A PERPETUAL LEASEHOLD, FOR A POST OFFICE SITE IN CINCINNATI,
OHIO, UNDER AN ACT OF CONGRESS EXPRESSLY NAMING THAT CITY BUT NOT
EXPRESSLY NAMING THE SITE.  THE RESPONDENT HERE SEEKS, BY JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL CONDEMNATION ACT AND THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS
ACT, TO EXCLUDE FROM CONDEMNATION A PARTICULAR SITE IN CAPE GIRARDEAU
SELECTED FOR A POST OFFICE BY THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL OFFICIALS.  SHE
DEPENDS UPON THE FACT THAT THE SITE ALREADY IS BEING USED BY A
GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISION OF MISSOURI FOR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES
IMPRESSED UPON IT BY ITS PRIVATE OWNERS OVER A CENTURY AGO.  THE
PRINCIPLE OF FEDERAL SUPREMACY, SO WELL EXPRESSED IN THE KOHL CASE,
ARGUES AGAINST SUCH A SUBORDINATION OF THE DECISIONS OF FEDERAL
REPRESENTATIVES TO THOSE OF INDIVIDUAL GRANTORS OR LOCAL OFFICIALS AS
TO THE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT AN ADMITTEDLY FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION.  FN7 

IT MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE THAT THE SITE HERE SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED
IS HELD BY THE CITY IN TRUST INSTEAD OF IN FEE.  THE CITY GOVERNMENT IS
NOT RESISTING THE CONDEMNATION.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN OBTAIN, BY
VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE, WHATEVER TITLE THE CITY CAN CONVEY.  THE WEAKNESS
IN THE CITY'S RIGHT TO SELL OR EXCHANGE THIS SITE ARISES FROM
RESTRICTIONS IN THE CONVEYANCE TO IT.  THROUGH THE INCLUSION, AS
DEFENDANTS, OF ALL CLAIMANTS WHO MIGHT RELY UPON SUCH RESTRICTIONS OR
MIGHT CLAIM AN INTEREST THROUGH THE GRANTORS OF THIS SITE, A DECREE OF
CONDEMNATION WILL DISPOSE OF THE SUGGESTED DEFECTS.  BY GIVING NOTICE
TO ALL CLAIMANTS TO A DISPUTED TITLE, CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS PROVIDE
A JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR SECURING BETTER TITLE AGAINST ALL THE WORLD THAN
MAY BE OBTAINED BY VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE. 

BOTH IN THEMSELVES AND FROM THE RELATION OF THESE ACTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION, WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL REASON FOR MAKING THEIR BROAD
LANGUAGE EFFECTIVE TO ITS FULL CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT.  WHILE THE FEDERAL
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS LIMITED TO TAKING PROPERTY FOR FEDERAL
PUBLIC USES, THE QUESTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A FEDERAL PUBLIC USE
PRESENTS NO DIFFICULTY HERE BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH POST OFFICES IS EXPRESS.  FN8 

THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MADE IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONSTITUTION TO
DECLARE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF
THE LAND  FN9  MAKE IT APPROPRIATE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN, WHEN EXERCISED BY CONGRESS WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWERS, IS EQUALLY SUPREME.  MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY STATED THIS PRINCIPLE
CLEARLY, WHILE ON CIRCUIT, IN STOCKTON V. BALTIMORE & N.Y.R. CO., 32 F.
9, 19:    "THE ARGUMENT BASED UPON THE DOCTRINE THAT THE STATES HAVE
THE EMINENT DOMAIN OR HIGHEST DOMINION IN THE LANDS COMPRISED WITHIN
THEIR LIMITS, AND THAT THE UNITED STATES HAVE NO DOMINION IN SUCH
LANDS, CANNOT AVAIL TO FRUSTRATE THE SUPREMACY GIVEN BY THE
CONSTITUTION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN ALL MATTERS
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS SOVEREIGNTY.  THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF WORDS,
BUT OF THINGS.  IF IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
SHOULD HAVE AN EMINENT DOMAIN STILL HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE STATE, IN
ORDER THAT IT MAY FULLY CARRY OUT THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THEN IT HAS IT.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE NECESSITIES OR
CONCLUSIONS OF THEORETICAL LAW AS TO EMINENT DOMAIN OR ANYTHING ELSE,
IT MUST BE RECEIVED AS A POSTULATE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS INVESTED WITH FULL AND COMPLETE
POWER TO EXECUTE AND CARRY OUT ITS PURPOSES."  FN10 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION SAYS "NOR SHALL PRIVATE
PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."  THIS IS
A TACIT RECOGNITION OF A PREEXISTING POWER TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR
PUBLIC USE, RATHER THAN A GRANT OF NEW POWER.  FN11  IT IMPOSES ON THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE OBLIGATION TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION WHEN IT
TAKES ANOTHER'S PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL
SOVEREIGN POWER TO APPROPRIATE IT.  ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT THUS TAKES FOR A FEDERAL PUBLIC USE THE INDEPENDENTLY HELD
AND CONTROLLED PROPERTY OF A STATE OR OF A LOCAL SUBDIVISION, THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES ITS OBLIGATION TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION
FOR IT AND IT IS CONCEDED IN THIS CASE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST
PAY JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND CONDEMNED.  FN12 

THE FOREGOING ESTABLISHES THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SUPREMACY OF A FEDERAL
PUBLIC USE OVER ALL OTHER USES IN A CLEARLY DESIGNATED FIELD SUCH AS
THAT OF ESTABLISHING POST OFFICES.  THE GOVERNMENT HERE CONTENDS THAT
THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
TO USE THEIR BEST JUDGMENT IN SELECTING POST OFFICE SITES.  IT CONTENDS
ALSO THAT IF THE OFFICIALS SO DESIGNATED HAVE USED SUCH JUDGMENT, IN
GOOD FAITH, IN SELECTING THE PROPOSED PARK SITE IN SPITE OF ITS
CONFLICTING LOCAL PUBLIC USES, THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR HAS
EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE CONDEMNATION OF THAT SITE.  WE AGREE
WITH THOSE CONTENTIONS.  WE FIND IN THE BROAD TERMS OF THE PUBLIC
BUILDINGS ACT AUTHORITY FOR THE DESIGNATED OFFICIALS TO SELECT THE SITE
THEY DID.  WE FIND, IN BOTH ACTS, AUTHORITY FOR THEM TO ACQUIRE BY
CONDEMNATION THE SITE THUS LAWFULLY SELECTED.  THE JUDGMENT EXERCISED
BY THE DESIGNATED OFFICIALS IN SELECTING THIS SITE OUT OF 22 SITES
SUGGESTED, AND OUT OF TWO CLOSELY BALANCED ALTERNATIVES, CONSTITUTED AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE DECISION NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
ON ITS MERITS.  IT WAS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
CHOOSE OR REJECT THIS SITE BY DIRECT ACTION.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN
ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER TO EXCLUDE FROM THE CONSIDERATION OF ITS
REPRESENTATIVES THIS OR OTHER SITES, THE SELECTION OF WHICH MIGHT
INTERFERE WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  SUCH AN EXCLUSION WOULD
HAVE BEEN AN ACT OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  WE FIND NO SUCH EXPRESS OR
NECESSARILY IMPLIED EXCLUSION IN THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THESE ACTS. 
FN13 

IN THIS CASE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS
SELECTION COULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE COURTS AS UNAUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS IF THE DESIGNATED OFFICIALS HAD ACTED IN BAD FAITH OR SO
"CAPRICIOUSLY AND ARBITRARILY" THAT THEIR ACTION WAS WITHOUT ADEQUATE
DETERMINING PRINCIPLE OR WAS UNREASONED.  FN14  THE RECORD PRESENTS NO
SUCH ISSUE HERE.  THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN MAKING THE SELECTION OF THE
SITE SHOWED EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT TO ARRIVE AT A FAIR AND REASONED
CONCLUSION.  FN15  THE SITE INSPECTOR, IN HIS ORIGINAL REPORT,
RECOMMENDED THE PARK SITE AS HIS SECOND CHOICE AND DEMONSTRATED THE
REASONABLENESS OF A CHOICE, BY HIS SUPERIORS, OF EITHER OF HIS FIRST
TWO SELECTIONS.  FN16  HIS ESTIMATE OF DIVIDED COMMUNITY SENTIMENT,
WITH APPARENT COMMUNITY PREFERENCE FOR THE PARK SITE, INDICATES THE
ABSENCE OF CAPRICIOUSNESS AND ARBITRARINESS IN THE GOVERNMENT'S FINAL
SELECTION OF THE PARK SITE.  FN17  THE POPULAR REFERENDUM VOTE OF 1612
TO 1344 IN FAVOR OF THE TRANSFER OF THE PARK SITE BY THE CITY TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S TRANSFER OF ITS
PRESENT POST OFFICE SITE TO THE CITY, CONFIRMS HIS ESTIMATE.  THESE
FEDERAL OFFICIALS HAD THE RIGHT, IF NOT THE OBLIGATION, TO CONSIDER AT
THIS TIME THE NECESSITY OF DISPOSING OF THE PRESENT POST OFFICE SITE
AND OF THE SINGLE-PURPOSE GOVERNMENTAL BUILDING THEREON.  THAT ISSUE
INEVITABLY WOULD CONFRONT THE GOVERNMENT AT SOME TIME IF A NEW SITE
WERE CHOSEN.  THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXCHANGE OR SELL THE PRESENT SITE TO
THE CITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF THE PARK SITE FOR A NEW
POST OFFICE WAS, THEREFORE, A REASONABLE RATHER THAN A CAPRICIOUS
CONSIDERATION. 

ON THE PRESENT RECORD, THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY
JUDGMENT OF CONDEMNATION.  THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE
SECOND TRIAL THAT THE SELECTION OF THE PARK SITE "AMOUNTS IN LAW TO AN
ARBITRARY AND UNNECESSARY ACT" APPEARS, FROM THE CONTEXT, TO HAVE BEEN
A FINDING LARGELY OF THE COMPARATIVE UNDESIRABILITY AND LACK OF
NECESSITY FOR THE SELECTION OF THAT SITE AND NOT TO HAVE BEEN A FINDING
THAT THE SELECTION HAD BEEN MADE WITHOUT ADEQUATE DETERMINING PRINCIPLE
AND WITHOUT REASON.  FN18  THE COMPARATIVE DESIRABILITY AND NECESSITY
FOR THE SITE WERE MATTERS FOR LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION RATHER THAN FOR A JUDICIAL FINDING.  FN19  EVEN IF THE
WORD "ARBITRARY," AS USED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, WAS INTENDED BY IT TO
HAVE THE ORDINARY MEANING WHICH THAT WORD HAS WHEN USED ALONE, WE ARE
UNABLE TO CONCLUDE ON THE RECORD BEFORE US THAT THE SELECTION OF THE
PARK SITE FOR A POST OFFICE IN CAPE GIRARDEAU WAS, AS A MATTER OF LAW,
CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY IN ANY SENSE THAT, UNDER ANY CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ACTS BEFORE US, WOULD INVALIDATE THE SELECTION HERE MADE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THEREFORE, IS REVERSED
AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "...  IN EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OR
ANY OTHER OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN, OR HEREAFTER SHALL BE,
AUTHORIZED TO PROCURE REAL ESTATE FOR THE ERECTION OF A PUBLIC BUILDING
OR FOR OTHER PUBLIC USES HE SHALL BE, AND HEREBY IS, AUTHORIZED TO
ACQUIRE THE SAME FOR THE UNITED STATES BY CONDEMNATION, UNDER JUDICIAL
PROCESS, WHENEVER IN HIS OPINION IT IS NECESSARY OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO DO SO,  ..."  SEC. 1, CONDEMNATION ACT OF AUGUST 1, 1888,
25 STAT. 357, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 257. 

"TO ENABLE THE FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR TO PROVIDE SUITABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS  ...  FOR COURTHOUSES, POST OFFICES, IMMIGRATION
STATIONS, CUSTOMHOUSES, MARINE HOSPITALS, QUARANTINE STATIONS, AND
OTHER PUBLIC BUILDINGS OF THE CLASSES UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL
WORKS AGENCY IN THE STATES, TERRITORIES, AND POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES, HE IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO ACQUIRE, BY PURCHASE,
CONDEMNATION, OR OTHERWISE, SUCH SITES AND ADDITIONS TO SITES AS HE MAY
DEEM NECESSARY,  ...  PROVIDED, THAT  ...  INSOFAR AS RELATES TO
BUILDINGS TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR POST-OFFICE PURPOSES, THE
FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR, UNDER REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY HIM,
SHALL ACT JOINTLY WITH THE POSTMASTER GENERAL IN THE SELECTION OF TOWNS
OR CITIES IN WHICH BUILDINGS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE SELECTION OF
SITES THEREIN:..."  40 U.S.C. SEC. 341.  THIS IS CODIFIED FROM SEC. 1
OF THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF MAY 25, 1926, 44 STAT. 630-631, AS
MODIFIED BY REORGANIZATION PLAN I, SECS. 301-303, 53 STAT. 1426-1427, 5
U.S.C. FOLLOWING SEC. 133T.  SEE ALSO, 40 U.S.C. SECS. 342-350 AND THE
BALANCE OF THE ORIGINAL ACT. 

THE PETITION LIKEWISE RELIED UPON THE DECLARATION OF TAKING ACT OF
FEBRUARY 26, 1931, 46 STAT. 1421, 40 U.S.C. SECS. 258A-258E; THIRD
DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1937, 50 STAT. 755, 773;
FEDERAL PUBLIC BUILDINGS APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 818; AND
THE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1939, 53 STAT. 561, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 133, ET
SEQ., UNDER WHICH REORGANIZATION PLAN I WAS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS AND
MADE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1939, 53 STAT. 813, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 133S. 

FN2  THE RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT TO CONTEST THE CONDEMNATION TURNS
UPON THE EFFECT OF THE DEEDS, EXECUTED BY CERTAIN OF HER ANCESTORS IN
1807 AND 1820, PURSUANT TO WHICH THIS SITE LONG HAS BEEN PUT TO LOCAL
PUBLIC USE.  HER INTEREST, TURNING LARGELY ON MISSOURI LAW, WAS UPHELD
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FOLLOWING THE FIRST TRIAL, CARMACK V.
UNITED STATES, 135 F.2D 196, AND, AS WE DO NOT HAVE TO QUESTION THAT
INTEREST IN ORDER TO REACH OUR DECISION, WE DO NOT REEXAMINE IT.  BD.
OF REGENTS, NORMAL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 V. PAINTER, 102 MO. 464, 14 S.W.
938; MOTT V. MORRIS, 249 MO. 137, 155 S.W. 434; AND 25 STAT. 357, 40
U.S.C. SEC. 258.  THE PROCEEDING TO CONDEMN THE LAND BEING IN REM, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT DOES NOT TURN UPON HER PARTICIPATION IN THE
CASE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. DUNNINGTON, 146 U.S. 338, 352; IN RE
CONDEMNATION SUITS BY UNITED STATES, 234 F. 443, 445. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN4  FOR THE THREE FOREGOING QUOTATIONS, SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN5  NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THESE ACTS
TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE ITS AGENTS LESS THAN THE
FULLEST POSSIBLE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS IN SELECTING CITIES AND SITES. 
SEE H.R. REP. NO. 132, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ESPECIALLY MINORITY VIEWS
AT PP. 6-7, 10, AND H.R. REP. NO. 1223, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP.
NO. 197, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 67 CONG. REC. 4023-4028, 8356-8357,
8359, 8494, 8567. 

FN6  "NO PERSON SHALL  ...  BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."  U.S. CONST., AMEND.
V. 

FN7  SEE ALSO, HANSON CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 581, 587, FOR
EMPHASIS ON THE ALL-INCLUSIVENESS OF THE GENERAL CONDEMNATION ACT OF
AUGUST 1, 1888. 

FN8  U.S. CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CLS. 7 AND 18. 

FN9  U.S. CONST., ART. VI. 

FN10  AN APPEAL IN STOCKTON V. BALTIMORE & N.Y.R. CO., SUPRA, WAS
DISMISSED IN THIS COURT, 140 U.S. 699, AND, IN THE MEANTIME, MR.
JUSTICE BRADLEY'S STATEMENT WAS QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN CHEROKEE NATION
V. KANSAS RY. CO., 135 U.S. 641, 656.  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V.
GETTYSBURG ELECTRIC RY., 160 U.S. 668, 681; LUXTON V. NORTH RIVER
BRIDGE CO., 153 U.S. 525, 529-530. 

WHEN CONGRESS HAS WISHED TO SUBORDINATE ITS SELECTION OF STATE LANDS
TO STATE APPROVAL IT HAS DONE SO BY EXPRESS PROVISION.  IN THE WEEKS
FORESTRY ACT OF MARCH 1, 1911, 36 STAT. 961, 962; 43 STAT. 1215; 45
STAT. 1010; 48 STAT. 955; 16 U.S.C. SEC. 516, AND THE MIGRATORY BIRD
CONSERVATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 18, 1929, 45 STAT. 1222, 1223; 16 U.S.C.
SEC. 715F, THE CONSENT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO THE FEDERAL
ACQUISITION OF LAND IS MADE AN EXPRESS CONDITION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF
SUCH LAND.  SUCH CONSENT DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE STATE OF CIVIL OR
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE LAND.  36 STAT. 963, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 480,
AND 45 STAT. 1224, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 715G.  SEE ALSO, THE UPPER
MISSISSIPPI RIVER WILD LIFE AND FISH REFUGE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1924, 43
STAT. 650, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 724. 

THE ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION, AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM FEDERAL TITLE TO THE LAND, IS A DIFFERENT MATTER.  IF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DESIRES EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER LAND
ACQUIRED BY IT, THE CONSTITUTION INDICATES THAT THE CONSENT OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED IS NECESSARY.  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL.
17, PROVIDES THAT "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO EXERCISE
EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION  ...  OVER ALL PLACES PURCHASED BY THE CONSENT OF
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE
ERECTION OF FORTS, MAGAZINES, ARSENALS, DOCK-YARDS, AND OTHER NEEDFUL
BUILDINGS; ..."  SEE STOCKTON V. BALTIMORE & N.Y.R. CO., 32 F. 9, 18,
APPEAL DISMISSED, 140 U.S. 699.  SEE ALSO, JOINT RESOLUTION OF
SEPTEMBER 11, 1841, 5 STAT. 468, AND REV. STAT. SEC. 355, WHICH
FORMERLY REQUIRED THE CONSENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES TO FEDERAL
PURCHASES OF CERTAIN SITES AS A CONDITION OF EXPENDING FEDERAL FUNDS TO
PAY FOR THEM.  SINCE FEBRUARY 1, 1940, SUCH CONSENT HAS NOT BEEN
REQUIRED EXCEPT WHERE THE UNITED STATES HAS SOUGHT "EXCLUSIVE OR
PARTIAL" LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION.  UNLESS AND UNTIL THE UNITED STATES
ACCEPTS SUCH JURISDICTION OVER LANDS ACQUIRED SINCE FEBRUARY 1, 1940,
IT IS PRESUMED CONCLUSIVELY THAT NO SUCH JURISDICTION HAS BEEN
ACCEPTED.  54 STAT. 19; 54 STAT. 1083; 40 U.S.C. SEC. 255.  THE
EXERCISE OF EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION IS NOT AN ISSUE IN THIS
CASE AND, IN ANY EVENT, MISSOURI HAS CONSENTED TO IT.  "THE CONSENT OF
THE STATE OF MISSOURI IS HEREBY GIVEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
SEVENTEENTH CLAUSE, EIGHTH SECTION OF THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED
STATES BY PURCHASE OR GRANT OF ANY LAND IN THIS STATE WHICH HAS BEEN OR
MAY HEREAFTER BE ACQUIRED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING AND
MAINTAINING POSTOFFICES,  ..."  MO. REV. STAT. ANN. (1939), SEC.
12691. 

FN11  SEE UNITED STATES V. COOPER, 20 D.C. 104, 116, AFFIRMED SUB
NOM., SHOEMAKER V. UNITED STATES, 147 U.S. 282; IN RE RUGHEIMER, 36 F.
369, 371. 

FN12  WHEN, HOWEVER, A SOVEREIGN STATE TRANSFERS ITS OWN PUBLIC
PROPERTY FROM ONE GOVERNMENTAL USE TO ANOTHER, OR WHEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TAKES PROPERTY FROM STATE OWNERSHIP MERELY SO AS TO PUT IT
TO A FEDERAL PUBLIC USE FOR WHICH THE STATE ALREADY HOLDS IT IN TRUST,
A LIKE OBLIGATION DOES NOT ARISE TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION FOR IT.  SEE
IN RE CERTAIN LAND IN LAWRENCE, 119 F. 453; STOCKTON V. BALTIMORE &
N.Y. R. CO., 32 F. 9, 19, APPEAL DISMISSED, 140 U.S. 699.    FN13  IN
THE INSTANT CASE, WE DEAL WITH BROAD LANGUAGE EMPLOYED TO AUTHORIZE
OFFICIALS TO EXERCISE THE SOVEREIGN'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN ON BEHALF
OF THE SOVEREIGN ITSELF.  THIS IS A GENERAL AUTHORIZATION WHICH CARRIES
WITH IT THE SOVEREIGN'S FULL POWERS EXCEPT SUCH AS ARE EXCLUDED
EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION.  A DISTINCTION EXISTS, HOWEVER,
IN THE CASE OF STATUTES WHICH GRANT TO OTHERS, SUCH AS PUBLIC
UTILITIES, A RIGHT TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES.  THESE ARE, IN THEIR VERY NATURE, GRANTS OF LIMITED
POWERS.  THEY DO NOT INCLUDE SOVEREIGN POWERS GREATER THAN THOSE
EXPRESSED OR NECESSARILY IMPLIED, ESPECIALLY AGAINST OTHERS EXERCISING
EQUAL OR GREATER PUBLIC POWERS.  IN SUCH CASES THE ABSENCE OF AN
EXPRESS GRANT OF SUPERIORITY OVER CONFLICTING PUBLIC USES REFLECTS AN
ABSENCE OF SUCH SUPERIORITY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. JOTHAM BIXBY CO., 55
F.2D 317, 319, AFFIRMED SUB NOM., C.M. PATTEN & CO. V. UNITED STATES,
61 F.2D 970, DECREE VACATED AS MOOT, 289 U.S. 705; IN RE CONDEMNATIONS
FOR IMPROVEMENT OF ROUGE RIVER, 266 F. 105; UNITED STATES V. CITY OF
TIFFIN, 190 F. 279, 281. 

FN14  "ARBITRARY" IS DEFINED BY FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW STANDARD
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1944), AS "1....; WITHOUT ADEQUATE
DETERMINING PRINCIPLE; ..."  AND BY WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY, 2D ED. (1945), AS "2.  FIXED OR ARRIVED AT THROUGH AN
EXERCISE OF WILL OR BY CAPRICE, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OR ADJUSTMENT
WITH REFERENCE TO PRINCIPLES, CIRCUMSTANCES, OR SIGNIFICANCE,  ...
DECISIVE BUT UNREASONED; ..." 

"CAPRICIOUS" IS DEFINED BY WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2D
ED. (1945), AS "2....; APT TO CHANGE SUDDENLY; FREAKISH; WHIMSICAL;
HUMORSOME."  CF. FOX FILM CORP. V. TRUMBULL, 7 F.2D 715, 727; PUGET
SOUND POWER & L. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. NO. 1, 123 F.2D 286, 290,
CERT. DENIED, 315 U.S. 814; UNITED STATES V. EIGHTY ACRES OF LAND, 26
F.SUPP.  315, 319. 

SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND, 30 F.SUPP.  372,
379; UNITED STATES V. PARCEL OF LAND, 32 F.SUPP.  718, 721. 

FN15 IT APPARENTLY FOLLOWED REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY
AND POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT AS AUTHORIZED BY 5 U.S.C. SECS. 22, 369; 40
U.S.C. SECS. 341, 347.  AMONG ITS PRINCIPAL STEPS WERE THE FOLLOWING:
JUNE 12, 1940, APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PROJECT FOR CAPE GIRARDEAU BY
FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR AND ACTING POSTMASTER GENERAL BASED UPON
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND THE
FOURTH ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL; JULY 23-26, 29-31, 1940, POST
OFFICE INSPECTOR AND SITE AGENT VISITED CAPE GIRARDEAU; AUGUST 20,
1940, HE SUBMITTED HIS RECOMMENDATIONS, SHOWING THAT HE INSPECTED 22
PROPOSALS, ELIMINATED ALL BUT 6 ON GENERAL GROUNDS, CAREFULLY
CONSIDERED THE REMAINDER AND SUBMITTED FULL REPORT ON 3.  HIS FIRST
CHOICE WAS TO ENLARGE THE PRESENT POST OFFICE SITE; HIS SECOND, TO
ACQUIRE THE SITE HERE IN CONTROVERSY; HIS THIRD, TO ACQUIRE A SITE
BETWEEN THE TWO.  FURTHER STUDIES WERE MADE IN CAPE GIRARDEAU OR IN
WASHINGTON BY THE ASSOCIATE ARCHITECT FOR THE FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY, THE
FISCAL MANAGER OF THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ADMINISTRATION AND THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DIVISION OF POST OFFICE QUARTERS IN THE POST
OFFICE DEPARTMENT.  ALL WISHING TO BE HEARD WERE HEARD.  FEBRUARY 11,
1941, THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING AN EXCHANGE OF THE
PARK SITE FOR THE PRESENT POST OFFICE SITE AND SUBMITTING THIS PROPOSAL
TO A SPECIAL ELECTION.  MARCH 4, 1941, A MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING IN 8
OF THE 10 WARDS APPROVED THE EXCHANGE, THE CITY-WIDE VOTE BEING 1612 TO
1344.  MAY 26, 1941, THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
NOTIFIED THE MAYOR OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSED
EXCHANGE.  SEPTEMBER 25, 1941, THE ACTING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL
WORKS AGENCY ADVISED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT, UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE
PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT, THE AGENCY HAD CONTRACTED FOR THE EXCHANGE. 
AFTER REFERRING TO HIS FAILURE TO SECURE TITLE BY VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE
FROM THE CITY IN SPITE OF THE WILLINGNESS OF THE CITY OFFICIALS TO MAKE
THE EXCHANGE IF THEY HAD LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO, HE ASKED THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FILE THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING.  IT WAS DONE
NOVEMBER 22, 1941.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFTER THE FIRST TRIAL, THE GOVERNMENT, ON JUNE 10, 1943,
SECURED EVIDENCE OF A FORMAL JOINT ACTION, SIGNED PERSONALLY BY THE
FEDERAL WORKS ADMINISTRATOR AND THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, EXPRESSLY
SELECTING THE SITE IN SUIT.  THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECORD OF THE
SECOND TRIAL.  THE ACTIONS OF JUNE 12, 1940, AND JUNE 10, 1943, REFER
TO THE PROJECT AS ONE FOR A POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE, WHEREAS THE
PETITION FOR CONDEMNATION REFERS TO IT AS ONE FOR A POST OFFICE AND
CUSTOMHOUSE.  THIS VARIATION WAS NOT PRESSED IN THE LITIGATION AND IS
NOT MATERIAL TO THE MAIN ISSUE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. 

THE FOREGOING NARRATION OF THE STEPS TAKEN IN THIS INSTANCE IS NOT
INTENDED AS AN INDICATION THAT ALL OR ANY OF THEM ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE
EXERCISE OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO SELECT SITES IN OTHER CASES. 
THEY ARE SET FORTH TO HELP DEMONSTRATE THAT, IN THE FACE OF THEM, THE
SELECTION HERE CANNOT BE CLASSED AS "CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY," UNDER
ANY APPROPRIATE DEFINITION OF THOSE WORDS. 

FN16  "FOR FIRST CHOICE I RECOMMEND THAT THE PRESENT GOVERNMENTOWNED
SITE BE RETAINED AND THAT THE ADJOINING PROPERTY, SITE 2 OFFERED BY H.
BERMERMANN BE PURCHASED FOR $15,000, AND THAT A COUNTER OFFER BE MADE
TO THE OWNER OF SITE 3, ELLA M. DRUM TO PURCHASE THIS SITE FOR $600. 

"THIS RECOMMENDATION IS MADE BECAUSE IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE PRESENT
LOCATION IS THE MOST OUTSTANDING SITE IN THIS CITY, AND BECAUSE OF THE
NUMEROUS LIMITATIONS ON ALL OF THE OTHER COMPETING SITES WHICH WOULD
PREVENT AN ADVANTAGEOUS OR DESIRABLE TRANSACTION. 

"FOR SECOND CHOICE I HAVE SELECTED SITE NO. 1, THE CITY-OWNED PARK,
WHICH COULD BE DEVELOPED INTO AN ATTRACTIVE SETTING FOR THE NEW
BUILDING, AND WHICH COULD NO DOUBT BE SECURED IN AN EXCHANGE RESULTING
IN MUTUAL BENEFIT TO THE CITY AND GOVERNMENT.  THE BID SUBMITTED BY THE
CITY IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A FINAL OFFER, AND IT IS EXPECTED THAT AFTER
A REVIEW OF THE FACTS BY THE SITE COMMITTEE A COUNTER-OFFER COULD BE
MADE WITH RESPECT TO A DEFINITE AREA OF ABOUT 175' X 215' WITHIN THE
PARK GROUNDS AND WITH RESPECT TO IMPROVEMENTS IN SURROUNDING
APPROACHES, REMOVAL OF TREES AND FOUNTAIN, AND DEMOLITION OF PRESENT
CITY BUILDING.  THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL VERBALLY AGREED TO FAVOR ANY
REASONABLE COUNTER-OFFER TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS MY
OPINION THAT THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED SITE IS VALUED AT APPROXIMATELY $225
PER FRONT FOOT, WHEREAS THE PARK SITE HAS A VALUE OF ABOUT $100 PER
FRONT FOOT, AND THIS MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN SUBMITTING A
COUNTER-OFFER.  THE QUESTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO MAKE AN
EXCHANGE OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN DISPUTE, BUT THIS COULD NO DOUBT BE
SETTLED BY FRIENDLY CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, AS THE CITY OFFICIALS ARE
WILLING AND DESIROUS FOR THE TRADE." 

FN17  "...  THE CITY PARK PROPERTY, IS ACTIVELY FAVORED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL, AND ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY FAVORED BY THE BUSINESS MEN ON MAIN
STREET.... 

"BECAUSE OF THE DIVERGENCE OF OPINION, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN A
RECENT MEETING DECIDED NOT TO MAKE ANY OFFICIAL COMMENT AS TO A CERTAIN
LOCATION.... 

"THE POSTMASTER, WHO HAS NO FINANCIAL OR PERSONAL INTEREST IN ANY OF
THE LOCATIONS, BUT WHO IS CONSCIENTIOUSLY INTERESTED IN CIVIC
DEVELOPMENT, REGARDS THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED SITE AS AN OUTSTANDING
LOCATION BUT RECOMMENDS THE CITY PARK AS FIRST CHOICE BECAUSE THIS
TRADE WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO RETAIN A GOOD IMPROVEMENT AND ALLOW THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SECURE A SITE WITH ATTRACTIVE SURROUNDINGS." 

FN18 THE DISTRICT COURT SAID: 

"THE RIGHT OF PLAINTIFF TO CONDEMN THE LAND MUST STAND OR FALL ON THE
DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT OF THE QUESTION, DID THE ACTING
ADMINISTRATOR OF FEDERAL WORKS AGENCY AND THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENTED, ACT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY IN
SELECTING THE SITE - WAS THE ACT NECESSARY?  THE TERM 'ARBITRARILY AND
CAPRICIOUSLY' HAS BEEN DEFINED TO MEAN AN ACT DONE 'WITHOUT ADEQUATE
DETERMINING PRINCIPLE; NOT FOUNDED IN THE NATURE OF THINGS; NOT DONE OR
ACTING ACCORDING TO REASON OR JUDGMENT'; AN UNNECESSARY ACT.... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THAT THIS ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE, WITH INFORMATION
IN THEIR POSSESSION WITH RESPECT TO AVAILABILITY OF OTHER SITES WHICH
SHOWS UNQUESTIONABLY THAT THE ACTION OF THE PLAINTIFF IS UNNECESSARY
AND THE SITE SELECTED IS NOT NOW, NOR WAS IT WHEN SELECTED, THE MOST
DESIRABLE AND AVAILABLE."  UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN LAND, ETC., 55
F.SUPP.  555, 557, 563. 

FN19  UNITED STATES EX REL. T.V.A. V. WELCH, 327 U.S. 546; RINDGE CO.
V. LOS ANGELES, 262 U.S. 700, 708-710; JOSLIN CO. V. PROVIDENCE, 262
U.S. 668, 678; BRAGG V. WEAVER, 251 U.S. 57, 58; SEARS V. CITY OF
AKRON, 246 U.S. 242, 251; ADIRONDACK RY. V. NEW YORK STATE, 176 U.S.
335, 349; SHOEMAKER V. UNITED STATES, 147 U.S. 282, 298; BOOM CO. V.
PATTERSON, 98 U.S. 403, 406.  SEE ALSO: "THE FEDERAL STATUTE  ...  DOES
NOT REQUIRE PROOF OF 'NECESSITY,' BUT MAKES THAT QUESTION DEPEND SOLELY
ON THE 'OPINION' OF THE FEDERAL OFFICER.  IT IS CONTROLLING HERE." 
UNITED STATES V. MONTANA, 134 F.2D 194, 197, CERT. DENIED, 319 U.S.
772. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT AND SUBSTANTIALLY AGREES
WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  BUT HE RESERVES JUDGMENT AS TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AUTHORITY TO CONDEMN LAND OWNED BY A CITY OR
A STATE SHOULD BE INFERRED FROM A GENERAL CONDEMNATION STATUTE, IF THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHALLENGED THE TAKING. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. TILLAMOOKS, 329 U.S. 40 


NO. 26.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, FEBRUARY 1, 1946.  - REARGUED OCTOBER 25,
1946.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 25, 1946.  - 103 CT. CL. 494, 59 F.SUPP. 
934, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1935, 49 STAT. 801, CONFERRING
JURISDICTION ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO ADJUDICATE AND RENDER FINAL
JUDGMENT ON "ANY AND ALL LEGAL AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR
GROWING OUT OF THE ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE, CLAIM, OR RIGHTS IN, TO, OR
UPON THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE LANDS" PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED BY CERTAIN
INDIAN TRIBES AND BANDS IN OREGON, HELD, THAT TRIBES WHICH SUCCESSFULLY
IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS ENTITLED TO SUE UNDER THE ACT, PROVE THEIR
ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE TO DESIGNATED LANDS, AND DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR
INTEREST IN SUCH LANDS WAS TAKEN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT AND WITHOUT
COMPENSATION, ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER COMPENSATION THEREFOR FOR WITHOUT
SHOWING THAT THE ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE EVER WAS FORMALLY RECOGNIZED BY
THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 45-54. 

UNITED STATES V. ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTAIN INDIAN TRIBES SUED THE UNITED STATES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS
UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1935, 49 STAT. 801, AND RECOVERED JUDGMENT
FOR THE TAKING WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OF THEIR INTEREST UNDER ORIGINAL
INDIAN TITLE IN CERTAIN LANDS PREVIOUSLY OCCUPIED BY THEM.  103 CT. CL.
494, 59 F.SUPP.  934.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 707. 
AFFIRMED, P. 54. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND
DELIVERED AN OPINION, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINED. 

ELEVEN INDIAN TRIBES HAVE SUED THE UNITED STATES IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1935,  FN1  WHICH GIVES THAT COURT
JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND ADJUDICATE CASES INVOLVING "ANY AND ALL LEGAL
AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE ORIGINAL
INDIAN TITLE, CLAIM, OR RIGHTS IN  ...  THE LANDS  ...  OCCUPIED BY THE
INDIAN TRIBES AND BANDS DESCRIBED IN" CERTAIN UNRATIFIED TREATIES
NEGOTIATED WITH INDIAN TRIBES IN THE TERRITORY OF OREGON. 

FOUR OF THE TRIBES,  FN2  THE TILLAMOOKS, COQUILLES, TOO-TOO-TO-NEYS
AND CHETCOS, SUCCESSFULLY IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS ENTITLED TO SUE
UNDER THE ACT, PROVED THEIR ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE  FN3 TO DESIGNATED
LANDS, AND DEMONSTRATED AN INVOLUNTARY AND UNCOMPENSATED TAKING OF SUCH
LANDS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS THEREUPON HELD THAT ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE
WAS AN INTEREST THE TAKING OF WHICH WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE INDIAN
TRIBES ENTITLED THEM TO COMPENSATION.  IN ANSWER TO GOVERNMENT
CONTENTIONS THAT ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME FORM OF
OFFICIAL "RECOGNITION," COULD BE APPROPRIATED WITHOUT LIABILITY UPON
THE PART OF THE SOVEREIGN, THE ACT OF 1848,  FN4 ESTABLISHING THE
TERRITORY OF OREGON, WAS CITED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS AS AFFORDING ANY
RECOGNITION REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.  THE ISSUES
DECIDED, NOT PREVIOUSLY PASSED UPON BY THIS COURT AND BEING OF
IMPORTANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, PROMPTED THIS COURT
TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  THE CASE WAS ARGUED DURING THE 1945 TERM AND ON
APRIL 1, 1946, WAS RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL
BENCH. 

THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIMS HERE OCCURRED AS PART OF THE
OPENING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TERRITORY OF OREGON.  AFTER CREATING A
GOVERNMENT FOR THAT TERRITORY BY THE ACT OF 1848,  FN5 CONGRESS IN 1850
AUTHORIZED THE NEGOTIATION OF TREATIES WITH INDIAN TRIBES IN THE AREA. 
UNDER THE LATTER ACT,  FN6  ANSON DART, LATER SUCCEEDED BY GENERAL JOEL
PALMER, WAS APPOINTED SUPERINTENDENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FOR THE OREGON
REGION AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO NEGOTIATE TREATIES FOR THE EXTINGUISHMENT
OF INDIAN CLAIMS TO LANDS IN THAT DISTRICT.  ON AUGUST 11, 1855, PALMER
AND RESPONDENT TRIBES CONCLUDED A TREATY PROVIDING FOR THE CESSION OF
INDIAN LANDS IN RETURN FOR CERTAIN MONEY PAYMENTS AND THE CREATION OF A
RESERVATION.  THE TREATY WAS TO BE OPERATIVE ONLY UPON RATIFICATION. 
IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE SENATE UNTIL FEBRUARY, 1857, AND WAS NEVER
RATIFIED. 

PENDING EXPECTED RATIFICATION, AND FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
PALMER, THE PRESIDENT ON NOVEMBER 9, 1855, CREATED A RESERVATION,
SUBJECT TO FUTURE DIMINUTION AND ALMOST IDENTICAL WITH THAT PROVIDED
FOR IN THE TREATY.  A LARGE PART OF THIS RESERVATION, CALLED THE COAST
OR SILETZ RESERVATION, CONSISTED OF LANDS TO WHICH THE TILLAMOOK TRIBE
HELD ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE.  ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THE TILLAMOOKS WERE
CONFINED TO THAT PORTION OF THEIR LAND WITHIN THE RESERVATION, AND THE
OTHER THREE RESPONDENT TRIBES, AS WELL AS OTHER TRIBES, WERE MOVED FROM
THEIR ORIGINAL POSSESSIONS TO THE RESERVATION.  IN 1865 AN EXECUTIVE
ORDER REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE RESERVATION; IN 1875 CONGRESS BY STATUTE
APPROVED THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 1855 AND 1865, AND IN ORDER TO OPEN
MORE LAND FOR PUBLIC SETTLEMENT, REMOVED ADDITIONAL LAND FROM THE
RESERVATION.  BY AN ACT OF 1894, FN7  CONGRESS OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED AND
APPROVED THE RESERVATION AS IT THEN EXISTED, AND THENCEFORWARD DID NOT
TAKE RESERVATION LANDS WITHOUT COMPENSATION. 

THE CLAIMS OF RESPONDENT TRIBES ARE FOR THE WRONGFUL TAKING WHICH
OCCURRED WHEN THEY WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR ORIGINAL POSSESSIONS BY THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 9, 1855.  EVEN AS TO THE TILLAMOOKS, THE
COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THE TAKING COMPLETE AS OF NOVEMBER 9, 1855, SINCE
THIS TRIBE WAS FORCED TO SHARE ITS FORMER LANDS WITH OTHER INDIANS, AND
SINCE THE RESERVATION WAS, IN ANY EVENT, ONLY A CONDITIONAL ONE,
SUBJECT TO BEING OPENED FOR PUBLIC SETTLEMENT AT THE WILL OF THE
PRESIDENT.  PETITIONER DISPUTES NEITHER THIS FINDING NOR THE PROOF OF
ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE AS OF 1855. 

OTHER THAN THE BENEFITS FLOWING FROM THE ACT OF 1894,  FN8  NONE OF
THE FOUR RESPONDENT TRIBES HAS RECEIVED ANY COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS
OF ITS LANDS.  UNTIL THE PRESENT JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF 1935, THESE
TRIBES, LACKING CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE SUED, WERE FORBIDDEN
ACCESS TO THE COURTS.  THEY ALONE OF THE TRIBES WITH WHOM DART AND
PALMER NEGOTIATED SOME TWENTY-ODD TREATIES BETWEEN 1850 AND 1855 HAVE
YET TO RECEIVE RECOGNITION FOR THE LOSS OF LANDS HELD BY ORIGINAL
INDIAN TITLE.  FN9 

UNTIL NOW THIS COURT HAS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY OR OCCASION TO PASS UPON
THE PRECISE ISSUE PRESENTED HERE.  IN ONLY ONE ACT PRIOR TO 1935 HAS
CONGRESS AUTHORIZED JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR
A TAKING OF NOTHING MORE THAN ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE; AND NO CASE UNDER
THAT ACT, FN10  PASSED IN 1929, REACHED THIS COURT.  FN11  IN 1930
FN12  CONGRESS AGAIN AUTHORIZED ADJUDICATION OF INDIAN CLAIMS ARISING
OUT OF ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE, BUT EXPRESSLY DIRECTED AN AWARD OF
DAMAGES IF A TAKING OF LANDS HELD BY IMMEMORIAL POSSESSION WERE SHOWN. 
THIS ACT THUS ELIMINATED ANY JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF A RIGHT TO
RECOVER, ONCE ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE WAS ESTABLISHED. 

PRIOR TO 1929, ADJUDICATIONS OF INDIAN CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES WERE LIMITED TO ISSUES ARISING OUT OF TREATIES, STATUTES, OR
OTHER EVENTS AND TRANSACTIONS CAREFULLY DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS.  THIS
COURT HAS ALWAYS STRICTLY CONSTRUED SUCH JURISDICTIONAL ACTS AND HAS
NOT OFFERED JUDICIAL OPINION ON THE JUSTNESS OF THE HANDLING OF INDIAN
LANDS, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS CONGRESS IN SPECIFIC LANGUAGE HAS PERMITTED
ITS JUSTICIABLE RECOGNITION. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE 1935 ACT IS SPECIFIC, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ARE
CLEAR.  BY THIS ACT CONGRESS NEITHER ADMITTED NOR DENIED LIABILITY. 
THE ACT REMOVES THE IMPEDIMENTS OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND LAPSE OF TIME
AND PROVIDES FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGNATED CLAIMS.  NO
NEW RIGHT OR CAUSE OF ACTION IS CREATED.  A MERELY MORAL CLAIM IS NOT
MADE A LEGAL ONE.  THE CASES ARE TO BE HEARD ON THEIR MERITS AND
DECIDED ACCORDING TO LEGAL PRINCIPLES PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES WHICH
MIGHT BE PRESENTED UNDER THE ACT.  FN13  ACCORDINGLY THE 1935 STATUTE
PERMITS JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS
GROWING OUT OF ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE.  THAT WHICH WAS WITHIN THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO WITHHOLD FROM JUDICIAL SCRUTINY HAS NOW BEEN SUBMITTED
TO THE COURTS.  IF, AS HAS MANY TIMES BEEN SAID,  FN14  THE MANNER OF
EXTINGUISHING INDIAN TITLE IS USUALLY A POLITICAL QUESTION AND PRESENTS
A NON-JUSTICIABLE ISSUE, CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY AND EFFECTIVELY
DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY SEEKING IN THE 1935 ACT JUDICIAL DISPOSITION OF
CLAIMS ARISING FROM ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE.  "BY CONSENTING TO BE SUED,
AND SUBMITTING THE DECISION TO JUDICIAL ACTION, THEY HAVE CONSIDERED IT
AS A PURELY JUDICIAL QUESTION, WHICH WE ARE NOW BOUND TO DECIDE, AS
BETWEEN MAN AND MAN  ..."  UNITED STATES V. ARREDONDO, 6 PET. 691,
711(1832). 

IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD THAT BY VIRTUE OF DISCOVERY THE TITLE TO LANDS
OCCUPIED BY INDIAN TRIBES VESTED IN THE SOVEREIGN.  FN15  THIS TITLE
WAS DEEMED SUBJECT TO A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY IN FAVOR OF INDIAN TRIBES,
BECAUSE OF THEIR ORIGINAL AND PREVIOUS POSSESSION.  IT IS WITH THE
CONTENT OF THIS RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY, THIS ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE, THAT WE
ARE CONCERNED HERE. 

AS AGAINST ANY BUT THE SOVEREIGN, ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE WAS ACCORDED
THE PROTECTION OF COMPLETE OWNERSHIP; FN16  BUT IT WAS VULNERABLE TO
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY THE SOVEREIGN, WHICH POSSESSED EXCLUSIVE POWER TO
EXTINGUISH THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY AT WILL.  TERMINATION OF THE RIGHT BY
SOVEREIGN ACTION WAS COMPLETE AND LEFT THE LAND FREE AND CLEAR OF
INDIAN CLAIMS.  THIRD PARTIES COULD NOT QUESTION THE JUSTNESS OR
FAIRNESS OF THE METHODS USED TO EXTINGUISH THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY. 
FN17  NOR COULD THE INDIANS THEMSELVES PREVENT A TAKING OF TRIBAL LANDS
OR FORESTALL A TERMINATION OF THEIR TITLE.  HOWEVER, IT IS NOW FOR THE
FIRST TIME ASKED WHETHER THE INDIANS HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
COMPENSATION ARISING OUT OF AN INVOLUNTARY TAKING OF LANDS HELD BY
ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE. 

WE CANNOT BUT AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  ADMITTING
THE UNDOUBTED POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXTINGUISH ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE
COMPELS NO CONCLUSION THAT COMPENSATION NEED NOT BE PAID.  IN SPEAKING
OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIMS OF THE INDIANS TO THEIR LANDS, MARSHALL HAD THIS
TO SAY: "IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND THE PROPOSITION  ...  THAT THE
DISCOVERY  ...  SHOULD GIVE THE DISCOVERER RIGHTS IN THE COUNTRY
DISCOVERED, WHICH ANNULLED THE PRE-EXISTING RIGHT OF ITS ANCIENT
POSSESSORS....  IT GAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PURCHASE, BUT DID NOT
FOUND THAT RIGHT ON A DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF THE POSSESSOR TO SELL....
THE KING PURCHASED THEIR LANDS,  ...  BUT NEVER COERCED A SURRENDER OF
THEM."  WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, 543, 544, 547(1832).  IN OUR
OPINION, TAKING ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE WITHOUT COMPENSATION AND WITHOUT
CONSENT DOES NOT SATISFY THE "HIGH STANDARDS FOR FAIR DEALING" REQUIRED
OF THE UNITED STATES IN CONTROLLING INDIAN AFFAIRS.  UNITED STATES V.
SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339, 356(1941).  THE INDIANS HAVE
MORE THAN A MERELY MORAL CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.  FN18 

A CONTRARY DECISION WOULD IGNORE THE PLAIN IMPORT OF TRADITIONAL
METHODS OF EXTINGUISHING ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE.  THE EARLY ACQUISITION
OF INDIAN LANDS, IN THE MAIN, PROGRESSED BY A PROCESS OF NEGOTIATION
AND TREATY.  THE FIRST TREATIES REVEAL THE STRIKING DEFERENCE PAID TO
INDIAN CLAIMS, AS THE ANALYSIS IN WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, SUPRA, CLEARLY
DETAILS.  IT WAS USUAL POLICY NOT TO COERCE THE SURRENDER OF LANDS
WITHOUT CONSENT AND WITHOUT COMPENSATION.  FN19  THE GREAT DRIVE TO
OPEN WESTERN LANDS IN THE 19TH CENTURY, HOWEVER PRODUCTIVE OF SHARP
DEALING, DID NOT WHOLLY SUBVERT THE SETTLED PRACTICE OF NEGOTIATED
EXTINGUISHMENT OF ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE.  FN20  IN 1896, THIS COURT
NOTED THAT, "...  NEARLY EVERY TRIBE AND BAND OF INDIANS WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES WAS UNDER SOME TREATY RELATIONS
WITH THE GOVERNMENT."  MARKS V. UNITED STATES, 161 U.S. 297,
302(1896).  SOMETHING MORE THAN SOVEREIGN GRACE PROMPTED THE OBVIOUS
REGARD GIVEN TO ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE. 

LONG BEFORE THE END OF THE TREATY SYSTEM OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE
ADVENT OF LEGISLATIVE CONTROL IN 1871,  FN21  CONGRESS HAD EVINCED ITS
OWN ATTITUDE TOWARD INDIAN RELATIONS.  THE ORDINANCE OF 1787 DECLARED,
"THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH SHALL ALWAYS BE OBSERVED TOWARDS THE INDIANS;
THEIR LAND AND PROPERTY SHALL NEVER BE TAKEN FROM THEM WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT  ..."  1 STAT. 50, 52.  WHEN IN 1848 THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT
OF OREGON WAS CREATED, SEC. 14 OF THAT ACT  FN22 SECURED TO THE
INHABITANTS OF THE NEW TERRITORY ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
GUARANTEED BY THE ORDINANCE OF 1787.  NOR DID CONGRESSIONAL REGARD FOR
INDIAN LANDS CHANGE IN 1871.  IN PROVIDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF DAKOTA
TERRITORY, CONGRESS IN 1872 DIRECTED THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE
INTERESTS OF INDIANS IN CERTAIN LANDS AND THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT
"COMPENSATION OUGHT, IN JUSTICE AND EQUITY, TO BE MADE TO SAID BANDS
...  FOR THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF WHATEVER TITLE THEY MAY HAVE TO SAID
LANDS."  17 STAT. 281; BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, 119 U.S. 55,
59(1886).  THE LATEST INDICIA OF CONGRESSIONAL REGARD FOR INDIAN CLAIMS
IS THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION ACT, 60 STAT. 1049, 1050, SEC. 2(5), IN
WHICH NOT ONLY ARE CLAIMS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE CASE AT BAR TO BE
HEARD, BUT "CLAIMS BASED UPON FAIR AND HONORABLE DEALINGS THAT ARE NOT
RECOGNIZED BY ANY EXISTING RULE OF LAW OR EQUITY" MAY BE SUBMITTED TO
THE COMMISSION WITH RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

CONGRESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVAILING
IDEA OF NON-COERCIVE, COMPENSATED EXTINGUISHMENT OF INDIAN TITLE IS
CLEAR IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE.  THE ACT OF 1848 DECLARED A
POLICY OF EXTINGUISHING INDIAN CLAIMS IN OREGON ONLY BY TREATY.  THE
STATUTE OF 1850 PUT IN MOTION THE TREATY-MAKING MACHINERY.  RESPONDENT
TRIBES WERE AMONG THOSE WITH WHOM TREATIES WERE NEGOTIATED.  IN MANY
CASES, EXPECTED RATIFICATION DID NOT FOLLOW.  IN THE CASE OF RESPONDENT
TRIBES ALONE HAVE NO STEPS BEEN TAKEN TO MAKE AMENDS FOR THE TAKING OF
INDIAN LANDS PENDING TREATY RATIFICATION.  TO DETERMINE NOW THAT
COMPENSATION MUST BE PAID IS ONLY A FAIR RESULT.    PETITIONER WOULD
ADMIT LIABILITY ONLY IF, IN ADDITION TO CLEAR PROOF OF ORIGINAL INDIAN
TITLE, SOME ACT OF OFFICIAL "RECOGNITION" WERE SHOWN.  ORIGINAL INDIAN
TITLE WOULD NOT ATTAIN THE STATUS OF A COMPENSABLE INTEREST UNTIL SOME
DEFINITE ACT OF SOVEREIGN ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOLLOWED.  APPARENTLY
PETITIONER HAS SEIZED UPON LANGUAGE OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN DUWAMISH
INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 79 CT. CL. 530(1934), AND FROM IT HAS
FASHIONED A FULL-BLOWN CONCEPT OF "RECOGNIZED INDIAN TITLE."  THE
JURISDICTIONAL ACT IN THAT CASE AUTHORIZED SUITS ON "ALL CLAIMS OF
WHATSOEVER NATURE, BOTH LEGAL AND EQUITABLE."  FN23  CLAIMS BASED
SOLELY ON ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE WERE HELD TO BE OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF
THE ACT; AND UNLESS A TREATY OR ACT OF CONGRESS RECOGNIZING THE
INDIANS' TITLE BY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY WERE SHOWN, RECOVERY COULD NOT BE
HAD.  FN24  A MORE SPECIFIC JURISDICTIONAL ACT WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO
AUTHORIZE A SUIT BASED UPON ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE ALONE. 

PETITIONER READS INTO THE DUWAMISH CASE FAR TOO MUCH.  WHEN THE FIRST
JURISDICTIONAL ACT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWING SUIT ON ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE
IN LANGUAGE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF THE 1935 ACT LATER CAME BEFORE THE
COURT OF CLAIMS IN COOS BAY INDIAN TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 87 CT. CL.
143(1938), THE COURT CLEARLY RECOGNIZED THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIVES OF THE
ACT AND DENIED RECOVERY SOLELY BECAUSE ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE HAD NOT
BEEN PROVED.  "RECOGNITION" APPEARED TO COUNT ONLY AS A POSSIBLE METHOD
OF PROVING INDIAN TITLE ITSELF, NOT AS A REQUISITE IN ADDITION TO PROOF
OF THAT TITLE.  FURTHERMORE, IN THE CASE AT BAR, THE UNMISTAKABLE
LANGUAGE OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS STANDS SQUARELY AGAINST THE
SIGNIFICANCE PETITIONER WOULD ATTACH TO THE DUWAMISH DECISION: "THE
DUWAMISH CASE DID NOT HOLD OR INTEND TO HOLD THAT AN INDIAN TRIBE COULD
NOT RECOVER COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL INDIAN USE AND
OCCUPANCY TITLE AS FOR A TAKING IF THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT AUTHORIZED
THE BRINGING OF A SUIT AND RENDITION OF JUDGMENT FOR COMPENSATION ON
THE BASIS OF SUCH ORIGINAL TITLE."  ALCEA BAND OF TILLAMOOKS V. UNITED
STATES, 103 CT. CL. 494, 556, 59 F.SUPP.  934(1945). 

AUTHORITY FOR PETITIONER'S POSITION IS NOT FOUND IN SHOSHONE INDIANS
V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 335(1945).  THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT THERE
LIMITED SUITS TO THOSE CLAIMS "ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE
TREATY OF JULY 2, 1863  ..."  FN25  SUITS BASED UPON ORIGINAL INDIAN
TITLE WERE NOT AUTHORIZED, BUT WE THOUGHT A CLAIM WOULD PROPERLY ARISE
UNDER THE TREATY IF IT WERE BASED UPON A TAKING OF LAND WHICH THE
TREATY HAD IN ANY WAY "RECOGNIZED" OR ACKNOWLEDGED AS BELONGING TO THE
INDIANS.  THE COURT THRICE NOTED THAT CLAIMS BASED UPON ORIGINAL INDIAN
TITLE WERE NOT INVOLVED, AND MADE NO ATTEMPT TO SETTLE CONTROVERSIES
BROUGHT UNDER OTHER JURISDICTIONAL ACTS AUTHORIZING THE LITIGATION OF
CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE TAKING OF ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE.  FN26 

NOR DO OTHER CASES IN THIS COURT LEND SUBSTANCE TO THE DICHOTOMY OF
"RECOGNIZED" AND "UNRECOGNIZED" INDIAN TITLE WHICH PETITIONER URGES. 
MANY CASES RECITE THE PARAMOUNT POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXTINGUISH THE
INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY BY METHODS THE JUSTICE OF WHICH "IS NOT OPEN
TO INQUIRY IN THE COURTS."  UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO.,
SUPRA, AT 347.  FN27 LACKING A JURISDICTIONAL ACT PERMITTING JUDICIAL
INQUIRY, SUCH LANGUAGE CANNOT BE QUESTIONED WHERE INDIANS ARE SEEKING
PAYMENT FOR APPROPRIATED LANDS; BUT HERE IN THE 1935 STATUTE CONGRESS
HAS AUTHORIZED DECISION BY THE COURTS UPON CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF
ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE.  FURTHERMORE, SOME CASES SPEAK OF THE UNLIMITED
POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH THOSE INDIAN LANDS WHICH ARE HELD BY
WHAT PETITIONER WOULD CALL "RECOGNIZED" TITLE; FN28  YET IT CANNOT BE
DOUBTED THAT, GIVEN THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE SUED,
RECOVERY MAY BE HAD FOR AN INVOLUNTARY, UNCOMPENSATED TAKING OF
"RECOGNIZED" TITLE.  FN29  WE THINK THE SAME RULE APPLICABLE TO A
TAKING OF ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE.  "WHETHER THIS TRACT  ...  WAS
PROPERLY CALLED A RESERVATION  ...  OR UNCEDED INDIAN COUNTRY,  ...  IS
A MATTER OF LITTLE MOMENT  ...  THE INDIANS' RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY HAS
ALWAYS BEEN HELD TO BE SACRED; SOMETHING NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM HIM
EXCEPT BY HIS CONSENT, AND THEN UPON SUCH CONSIDERATION AS SHOULD BE
AGREED UPON."  MINNESOTA V. HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373, 388-89(1902). 
FN30 

REQUIRING FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE AS WELL AS
PROOF OF THAT TITLE WOULD NULLIFY THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE 1935
ACT.  THE RIGORS OF "RECOGNITION," ACCORDING TO PETITIONER'S VIEW,
WOULD APPEAR TO REQUIRE IN EVERY CASE SOME DEFINITE ACT OF THE UNITED
STATES GUARANTEEING UNDISTURBED, EXCLUSIVE AND PERPETUAL OCCUPANCY,
WHICH, FOR EXAMPLE, A TREATY OR STATUTE COULD PROVIDE.  YET IT WAS THE
VERY ABSENCE OF SUCH ACKNOWLEDGMENT WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE PRESENT
STATUTE. 

CONGRESS WAS QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THE PRECISION ADVISABLE WHEN
DRAFTING STATUTES GIVING JURISDICTION TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN INDIAN
CASES.  IN 1925 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE LITIGATION OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS
OF CERTAIN INDIAN TRIBES WAS PASSED.  IN JUNE, 1934, THAT ACT WAS HELD,
FOR LACK OF SPECIFICITY, NOT TO EXTEND TO CLAIMS BASED ON ORIGINAL
TITLE.  FN31  THE FOLLOWING YEAR CONGRESS PASSED THE PRESENT ACT,
EMPLOYING THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE USED ONCE BEFORE IN THE ACT OF 1929,
FN32  UNDER WHICH COOS BAY INDIAN TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
AROSE.  THE CONSIDERED ATTENTION GIVEN TO THE MANY RAMIFICATIONS OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS IN THE 1930'S  FN33  SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS WELL
REALIZED THE IMPORT OF THE WORDS USED IN THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF
1935, AND THAT CONGRESS DID NOT EXPECT RESPONDENT TRIBES TO BE TURNED
OUT OF COURT EITHER BECAUSE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER INDIAN TITLE WAS
DEEMED TO HAVE NO LIMITS OR BECAUSE THERE WAS, AS WAS OBVIOUS TO ALL,
NO FORMAL GUARANTEE OF PERPETUAL AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION PRIOR TO THE
TAKING OF RESPONDENTS' LANDS IN 1855. 

RESPONDENTS HAVE SATISFACTORILY PROVED THEIR CLAIM OF ORIGINAL INDIAN
TITLE AND AN INVOLUNTARY TAKING THEREOF.  THEY ARE ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION UNDER THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF 1935.  THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER INDIAN AFFAIRS MAY BE OF A PLENARY NATURE; BUT IT IS NOT
ABSOLUTE.  FN34 IT DOES NOT "ENABLE THE UNITED STATES TO GIVE THE
TRIBAL LANDS TO OTHERS, OR TO APPROPRIATE THEM TO ITS OWN PURPOSES,
WITHOUT RENDERING, OR ASSUMING AN OBLIGATION TO RENDER, JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THEM."  UNITED STATES V. CREEK NATION, 295 U.S. 103,
110(1935). 

IN VIEW OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH DECISION RESTS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY
TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATE HOLDING OF THE COURT BELOW RELATIVE TO THE
1848 ACT AFFORDING SUFFICIENT "RECOGNITION" OF RESPONDENTS' INDIAN
TITLE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 801.  THE PERTINENT SECTION IN FULL PROVIDES:  "THAT
JURISDICTION IS HEREBY CONFERRED ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS WITH THE RIGHT
OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BY EITHER PARTY, AS
IN OTHER CASES, TO HEAR, EXAMINE, ADJUDICATE, AND RENDER FINAL
JUDGMENT 

...  (B) ANY AND ALL LEGAL AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR
GROWING OUT OF THE ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE, CLAIM, OR RIGHTS IN, TO, OR
UPON THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE LANDS AND THEIR APPURTENANCES
OCCUPIED BY THE INDIAN TRIBES AND BANDS DESCRIBED IN THE UNRATIFIED
TREATIES PUBLISHED IN SENATE EXECUTIVE DOCUMENT NUMBERED 25, FIFTY
THIRD CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION (PP. 8 TO 15), AT AND LONG PRIOR TO THE
DATES THEREOF, EXCEPT THE COOS BAY, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW TRIBES,
IT BEING THE INTENTION OF THIS ACT TO INCLUDE ALL THE INDIAN TRIBES OR
BANDS AND THEIR DESCENDANTS, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS NAMED, RESIDING IN THE
THEN TERRITORY OF OREGON WEST OF THE CASCADE RANGE AT AND LONG PRIOR TO
THE DATES OF THE SAID UNRATIFIED TREATIES, SOME OF WHOM, IN 1855, OR
LATER, WERE REMOVED BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES OF THE UNITED STATES TO
THE COAST RANGE, THE GRANDE RONDE, AND THE SILETZ RESERVATIONS IN SAID
TERRITORY." 

FN2  THE REMAINING SEVEN PLAINTIFF TRIBES FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION UNDER THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT AND THE RULES OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS. 

FN3  "ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE" IS USED TO DESIGNATE THE INDIAN RIGHT OF
OCCUPANCY BASED UPON ABORIGINAL POSSESSION. 

FN4  9 STAT. 323.  THE ACT CREATED A TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT AND
DECLARED:  "THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
IMPAIR THE RIGHTS OF PERSON OR PROPERTY NOW PERTAINING TO THE INDIANS
IN SAID TERRITORY, SO LONG AS SUCH RIGHTS SHALL REMAIN UNEXTINGUISHED
BY TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND SUCH INDIANS, OR TO AFFECT THE
AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE ANY REGULATION
RESPECTING SUCH INDIANS, THEIR LANDS, PROPERTY, OR OTHER RIGHTS, BY
TREATY, LAW, OR OTHERWISE, WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPETENT TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO MAKE IF THIS ACT HAD NEVER PASSED  ..." 

FN5  9 STAT. 323. 

FN6  9 STAT. 437. 

FN7  28 STAT. 286, 323. 

FN8  28 STAT. 286, 323. 

FN9  IN 1851 DART AND PALMER NEGOTIATED TREATIES WITH NINETEEN TRIBES
OTHER THAN RESPONDENTS.  NONE OF THESE TREATIES WAS RATIFIED; BUT
TWELVE OF THE NINETEEN TRIBES WERE INCLUDED IN FURTHER TREATIES MADE IN
1853, 1854, AND 1855, AND CONGRESS IN 1897 AND 1912 PROVIDED FOR PAYING
THE REMAINING SEVEN TRIBES FOR THEIR LANDS TAKEN UNDER THE UNRATIFIED
TREATIES. 

FN10  45 STAT. 1256, AS AMENDED IN RESPECTS IMMATERIAL HERE, 47 STAT.
307. 

FN11  COOS BAY INDIAN TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 87 CT. CL. 143(1938),
DISCUSSED INFRA P. 50, AROSE UNDER THE 1929 ACT. 

FN12  46 STAT. 531, AMENDING 44 STAT. 1263.  ASSINIBOINE INDIAN TRIBE
V. UNITED STATES, 77 CT. CL. 347(1933) WAS LITIGATED UNDER THIS
JURISDICTIONAL ACT. 

FN13 UNITED STATES V. MILLE LAC CHIPPEWAS, 229 U.S. 498, 500(1913);
THE SAC AND FOX INDIANS, 220 U.S. 481, 489(1911). 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339,
347(1941), AND CASES NOTE 27 INFRA. 

FN15  JOHNSON V. MCINTOSH, 8 WHEAT.  543, 573-74(1823). 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339(1941). 

FN17  BEECHER V. WETHERBY, 95 U.S. 517(1877). 

FN18  THE "MORAL" OBLIGATION UPON CONGRESS, OF WHICH THE CASES SPEAK,
REFERS MORE TO THE OBLIGATION TO OPEN THE COURTS TO SUIT BY THE
INDIANS.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT IN THE
INDIANS.  SO IN UNITED STATES V. BLACKFEATHER, 155 U.S. 180, 194(1894)
IT WAS HELD THAT, "WHILE THERE MAY BE A MORAL OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF
THE GOVERNMENT TO REIMBURSE THE MONEY EMBEZZLED BY THE INDIAN
SUPERINTENDENT  ...," THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT IN POINT DID NOT EXTEND TO
SUCH A CLAIM.  YET, GIVEN CONSENT TO SUIT, IT WOULD HARDLY BE SAID THAT
THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR
EMBEZZLEMENT OF INDIAN FUNDS. 

FN19  "THE PRACTICAL ADMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN CONQUERORS OF THIS
COUNTRY RENDERS IT UNNECESSARY FOR US TO SPECULATE ON THE EXTENT OF
THAT RIGHT WHICH THEY MIGHT HAVE ASSERTED FROM CONQUEST  ... THE
CONQUERORS HAVE NEVER CLAIMED MORE THAN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF PURCHASE
FROM THE INDIANS  ..."  1 OP. A.G. 465, 466(1821)(WILLIAM WIRT). 

FN20  SEE THE ANALYSIS IN COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW
(1945) 51-66. 

FN21  16 STAT. 544. 

FN22  9 STAT. 323, 329, SEC. 14. 

FN23  43 STAT. 886. 

FN24  DUWAMISH INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 79 CT. CL. 530, 600(1934). 

FN25  45 STAT. 1407. 

FN26  SHOSHONE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 335, 337, 339,
354(1945). 

FN27  THE STATEMENTS IN MANY CASES ARE DIRECTED TO DISPUTES BETWEEN
THIRD PARTIES, ONE OF WHOM ATTEMPTS TO RAISE A DEFECT IN THE OTHER'S
TITLE BY TRACING IT TO A GOVERNMENT GRANT OUT OF INDIAN TERRITORY AND
ATTACKING THE POWER OR THE METHOD USED BY THE SOVEREIGN TO CONVEY
INDIAN LANDS.  BEECHER V. WETHERBY, 95 U.S. 517, 525(1877); BUTTZ V.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, 119 U.S. 55, 66(1886); MARTIN V. WADDELL, 16
PET. 367, 409(1842); CLARK V. SMITH, 13 PET. 195, 201(1839).  AND IN
OTHER CASES, THE ISSUE WAS NOT THE RIGHT OF INDIAN TRIBES TO BE
COMPENSATED FOR AN EXTINGUISHMENT OF ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE BY THE
UNITED STATES.  SHOSHONE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 335(1945);
UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339(1941); CONLEY V.
BALLINGER, 216 U.S. 84(1910); LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK, 187 U.S.
553(1903); CHEROKEE NATION V. HITCHCOCK, 187 U.S. 294(1902). 

FN28  LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK, 187 U.S. 553, 566(1903); BEECHER V.
WETHERBY, 95 U.S. 517, 525(1877).  THE LONE WOLF CASE WAS PROPERLY
ASSESSED IN SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 497(1937):
"POWER TO CONTROL AND MANAGE THE PROPERTY AND AFFAIRS OF INDIANS IN
GOOD FAITH FOR THEIR BETTERMENT AND WELFARE MAY BE EXERTED IN MANY WAYS
AND AT TIMES EVEN IN DEROGATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF A TREATY."  SEE
ALSO OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 258 U.S. 574, 592(1922). 

IN BARKER V. HARVEY, 181 U.S. 481(1901), THE INDIAN CLAIMS WERE
DEEMED EXTINGUISHED BY NON-PRESENTMENT TO THE LAND COMMISSION, AND THIS
WAS TRUE EVEN IF THE CLAIMS HAD BEEN "RECOGNIZED" BY THE MEXICAN
GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO THE CESSION OF LANDS TO THE UNITED STATES. 

FN29  UNITED STATES V. KLAMATH INDIANS, 304 U.S. 119(1938); CHIPPEWA
INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 358(1937); SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED
STATES, 299 U.S. 476(1937); UNITED STATES V. CREEK NATION, 295 U.S.
103(1935). 

FN30  OTHER CASES ALSO DRAW NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ORIGINAL INDIAN
TITLE AND "RECOGNIZED" INDIAN TITLE.  "THE INDIAN TITLE AS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES WAS MERELY A TITLE AND RIGHT TO THE PERPETUAL OCCUPANCY
OF THE LAND WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF USING IT IN SUCH MODE AS THEY SAW FIT
UNTIL SUCH RIGHT OF OCCUPATION HAD BEEN SURRENDERED TO THE GOVERNMENT. 
WHEN INDIAN RESERVATIONS WERE CREATED, EITHER BY TREATY OR EXECUTIVE
ORDER, THE INDIANS HELD THE LAND BY THE SAME CHARACTER OF TITLE, TO
WIT, THE RIGHT TO POSSESS AND OCCUPY THE LANDS FOR THE USES AND
PURPOSES DESIGNATED."  SPALDING V. CHANDLER, 160 U.S. 394, 403(1896). 
OF SIMILAR TENOR IS CONLEY V. BALLINGER, 216 U.S. 84, 90-91(1910). 
THE OLDER CASES EXPLAINING AND GIVING SUBSTANCE TO THE INDIAN RIGHT OF
OCCUPANCY CONTAIN NO SUGGESTION THAT ONLY "RECOGNIZED" INDIAN TITLE WAS
BEING CONSIDERED.  INDEED, THE INFERENCE IS QUITE OTHERWISE.  MITCHEL
V. UNITED STATES, 9 PET. 711, 746(1835); WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET.
515, 543-48(1832); JOHNSON V. MCINTOSH, 8 WHEAT.  543, 573-74(1823). 

FN31  DUWAMISH INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 79 CT. CL. 530(1934). 

FN32  45 STAT. 1256, AS AMENDED IN RESPECTS IMMATERIAL HERE, 47 STAT.
307. 

FN33  "THE DECADE FROM 1930 TO 1939 IS AS NOTABLE IN THE HISTORY OF
INDIAN LEGISLATION AS THAT OF THE 1830'S OR THE 1880'S."  COHEN,
HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW (1945) 83.    FN34  STEPHENS V. CHEROKEE
NATION, 174 U.S. 445, 478(1899). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE SPECIAL ACT UNDER WHICH THIS SUIT WAS
BROUGHT, I THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS UNDER NO MORE LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE OBLIGATION TO PAY THESE RESPONDENTS THAN IT WAS UNDER
OBLIGATION TO PAY WHATEVER DESCENDANTS ARE LEFT OF THE NUMEROUS OTHER
TRIBES WHOSE LANDS AND HOMES HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THEM SINCE THE NATION
WAS FOUNDED.  SEE NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 324
U.S. 335, 354-358, CONCURRING OPINION.  IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME,
HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS IN THE ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1935, 49 STAT. 801,
CREATED AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY THESE
INDIANS FOR ALL LANDS TO WHICH THEIR ANCESTORS HELD AN "ORIGINAL INDIAN
TITLE."  THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT IS NOT ONLY CONSISTENT WITH THE
UNUSUALLY BROAD LANGUAGE CONGRESS USED, BUT ALSO FITS INTO THE PATTERN
OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION WHICH HAS BECOME PROGRESSIVELY MORE
GENEROUS IN ITS TREATMENT OF INDIANS.  THE CAPSTONE OF THIS TYPE OF
LEGISLATION WAS AN ACT PASSED BY THE LAST CONGRESS, WHICH ESTABLISHED
AN INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION WITH SWEEPING POWERS TO PAY OLD INDIAN
CLAIMS GROWING OUT OF SEIZURE OF THEIR LANDS, AMONG OTHER THINGS.  THIS
COMMISSION IS GIVEN POWER TO MAKE AWARDS, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE
COURT OF CLAIMS, WITH AND WITHOUT REGARD TO PREVIOUS RULES OF LAW OR
EQUITY COURTS.  THE COMMISSION IS EVEN GIVEN A BLANKET POWER TO MAKE
AWARDS UPON FINDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE LAND OF INDIANS WAS TAKEN BY
THE GOVERNMENT IN A WAY THAT DID NOT COMPORT WITH "FAIR AND HONORABLE
DEALINGS."  60 STAT. 1049, 1050, SEC. 2(5).  SINCE WHATEVER OUR ACTION
HERE, THESE INDIANS COULD, I ASSUME, PURSUE THEIR CLAIMS UNDER THIS
BROAD RECENT LEGISLATION, AND SINCE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT BEFORE US
DOES NOT PRECLUDE A SIMILARLY BROAD INTERPRETATION, I SEE NO REASON WHY
IT SHOULD BE OTHERWISE INTERPRETED.  THIS LEADS ME TO CONCUR IN
AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE AND MR. JUSTICE
BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS DIRECTLY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS COURT THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER AN INDIAN BAND IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER
COMPENSATION FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR THE TAKING BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE ABORIGINAL LANDS OF THE INDIANS WHEN THERE HAS BEEN NO PRIOR
RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES THROUGH TREATY OR STATUTE OF ANY TITLE
OR LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT OF THE INDIANS IN THE LAND.  THE COURT
ALLOWS COMPENSATION.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE PERSUADES US THAT WE
SHOULD EXPRESS THE REASONS FOR OUR DISSENT.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO FORESEE
THE RESULT OF THIS RULING IN THE CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS BY INDIAN
TRIBES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  WE DO NOT KNOW THE AMOUNT OF LAND SO
TAKEN.  WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI IT MUST BE LARGE.  EVEN WHERE RELEASES
OF INDIAN TITLE HAVE BEEN OBTAINED IN RETURN FOR RECOGNITION OF INDIAN
RIGHTS TO SMALLER AREAS, CHARGES OF UNFAIR DEALINGS MAY OPEN UP TO
CONSIDERATION AGAIN LEGAL OR EQUITABLE CLAIMS FOR TAKING ABORIGINAL
LANDS.  FN1 

THE COURT RIGHTLY STATES THE EFFECT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT IN
THESE WORDS: 

"THE ACT REMOVES THE IMPEDIMENTS OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND LAPSE OF
TIME AND PROVIDES FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE DESIGNATED CLAIMS. 
NO NEW RIGHT OR CAUSE OF ACTION IS CREATED.  A MERELY MORAL CLAIM IS
NOT MADE A LEGAL ONE.  (ANTE, P. 45.) 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"LACKING A JURISDICTIONAL ACT PERMITTING JUDICIAL INQUIRY, SUCH
LANGUAGE CANNOT BE QUESTIONED WHERE INDIANS ARE SEEKING PAYMENT FOR
APPROPRIATED LANDS; BUT HERE IN THE 1935 STATUTE CONGRESS HAS
AUTHORIZED DECISION BY THE COURTS UPON CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF ORIGINAL
INDIAN TITLE."  (ANTE, P. 51.) 

THIS MEANS, AND THE COURT SO TREATS THE CLAIMS, THAT THE INDIANS HERE
GET NO MONEY BY GRACE OR CHARITY OR FOR REASONS OF HONORABLE DEALINGS
WITH HELPLESS PEOPLES.  FN2  THE RECOVERY BY THEM UNDER THIS ACT WILL
BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE HAD VALID CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON
ACCOUNT OF THEIR OUSTER FROM THESE LANDS IN 1855.  THESE INDIANS HAVE
NOT BEEN PAID THE SUMS OWING THEM, ONE DEDUCES FROM THE COURT'S
OPINION, BECAUSE THE SOVEREIGN, OUR NATION, KEPT THE COURTS CLOSED TO
THEM.  THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT, THE COURT HOLDS, REMOVES THIS BAR TO
RECOVERY.  THIS CONCLUSION CONFLICTS WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS
GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT IN THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE NATION. 

THE CHARACTER OF INDIAN OCCUPANCY OF TRIBAL LANDS IS AT LEAST OF TWO
KINDS:  FIRST, OCCUPANCY AS ABORIGINES UNTIL THAT OCCUPANCY IS
INTERRUPTED BY GOVERNMENTAL ORDER; AND, SECOND, OCCUPANCY WHEN BY AN
ACT OF CONGRESS THEY ARE GIVEN A DEFINITE AREA AS A PLACE UPON WHICH TO
LIVE.  WHEN INDIANS RECEIVE RECOGNITION OF THEIR RIGHT TO OCCUPY LANDS
BY ACT OF CONGRESS, THEY HAVE A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY WHICH CANNOT BE
TAKEN FROM THEM WITHOUT COMPENSATION.  FN3  BUT BY THE OTHER TYPE OF
OCCUPANCY, IT MAY BE CALLED INDIAN TITLE, THE INDIANS GET NO RIGHT TO
CONTINUE TO OCCUPY THE LANDS; AND ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR OCCUPANCY
BY THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT HERETOFORE GIVEN RISE TO ANY RIGHT OF
COMPENSATION, LEGAL OR EQUITABLE.  FN4 

THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHTS FROM RECOGNIZED OCCUPANCY AND FROM
INDIAN TITLE SPRINGS FROM THE THEORY UNDER WHICH THE EUROPEAN NATIONS
TOOK POSSESSION OF THE LANDS OF THE AMERICAN ABORIGINES.  THIS THEORY
WAS THAT DISCOVERY BY THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS GAVE THEM SOVEREIGNTY OVER
AND TITLE TO THE LANDS DISCOVERED.  JOHNSON V. M'INTOSH, 8 WHEAT.  543,
572-86; 1 STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION (5TH ED.)  SEC.  152.
WHILE INDIANS WERE PERMITTED TO OCCUPY THESE LANDS UNDER THEIR INDIAN
TITLE,  FN5  THE CONQUERING NATIONS ASSERTED THE RIGHT TO EXTINGUISH
THAT INDIAN TITLE WITHOUT LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPENSATE THE INDIAN
FOR HIS LOSS.  FN6  IT IS NOT FOR THE COURTS OF THE CONQUEROR TO
QUESTION THE PROPRIETY OR VALIDITY OF SUCH AN ASSERTION OF POWER. 
INDIANS WHO CONTINUED TO OCCUPY THEIR ABORIGINAL HOMES, WITHOUT
DEFINITE RECOGNITION OF THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO ARE LIKE PALEFACE
SQUATTERS ON PUBLIC LANDS WITHOUT COMPENSABLE RIGHTS IF THEY ARE
EVICTED.  TENURE FOR INDIAN TRIBES SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED BY CONGRESS
DEVELOPED ALONG DIFFERENT LINES IN THE ORIGINAL STATES, THE LOUISIANA
PURCHASE, THE MEXICAN SESSION OR THE LANDS OBTAINED BY THE NORTHWEST
BOUNDARY TREATY.  BUT THERE IS NO INSTANCE KNOWN TO US WHERE THERE HAS
BEEN INTIMATION OR HOLDING THAT CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO TAKE INDIAN
TITLE TO LANDS IS LIMITED.  WHENEVER THE LANDS TO WHICH THE INDIANS HAD
ONLY INDIAN TITLE WERE REQUIRED FOR SETTLEMENT OR PUBLIC USE, THE
SOVEREIGN WITHOUT LEGAL OBLIGATION COULD EXTINGUISH THAT TITLE BY
PURCHASE OR THE SWORD.  FN7 

IN BARKER V. HARVEY, 181 U.S. 481, MISSION INDIANS CLAIMED A RIGHT OF
PERMANENT OCCUPANCY IN FORMER MEXICAN LANDS CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES
BY THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO.  THEY MADE THIS CLAIM AGAINST A
RIGHT ARISING BY VIRTUE OF A PATENT THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE UNITED
STATES IN CONFIRMATION OF GRANTS BY THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT IN
DEROGATION OF THE INDIAN TITLE.  THIS COURT SAID AS TO THIS INDIAN
TITLE, P. 491, "THAT A CLAIM OF A RIGHT TO PERMANENT OCCUPANCY OF LAND
IS ONE OF FAR-REACHING EFFECT, AND IT COULD NOT WELL BE SAID THAT LANDS
WHICH WERE BURDENED WITH A RIGHT OF PERMANENT OCCUPANCY WERE A PART OF
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND SUBJECT TO THE FULL DISPOSAL OF THE UNITED
STATES."  FN8  THIS COURT CONFIRMED TITLE CONTRARY TO THE INDIAN
CLAIM.  RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY GIVEN TO INDIANS BY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER MAY
BE WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO THE INDIANS WHERE THEIR TITLE WAS
NOT RECOGNIZED BY CONGRESSIONAL ACT.  THE INDIANS DO NOT HOLD SUCH
LANDS BY THE SAME TENURE AS THEY DO THE LANDS BY THE TERMS OF A
RATIFIED TREATY OR STATUTE.  SIOUX TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S.
317, 326-28. 

AS WE UNDERSTAND THE PRESENT HOLDING OF THE COURT, IT IS THAT THE
MANNER OF TERMINATING THIS INDIAN TITLE BY THE UNITED STATES IS LIMITED
BY THE DUTY TO PAY COMPENSATION.  THEREIN, WE THINK, LIES THE
FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF THE COURT'S OPINION.  IT IS TRUE THAT DISTINCTIONS
HAVE BEEN MADE BETWEEN PLENARY AUTHORITY OVER TRIBAL LANDS AND ABSOLUTE
POWER, WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER INDIAN TITLE
WAS NOT UNLIMITED.  SEE COHEN, HANDBOOK OF INDIAN LAW, 94, 291, 309,
310, 311.  EXAMINATION OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED, HOWEVER, WILL SHOW, WE
THINK, IN EVERY INSTANCE, THAT WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE
PROTECTION OF INDIAN LANDS BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OR TO THE LEGAL
OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES TO COMPENSATE INDIANS FOR LANDS TAKEN,
THE LANDS UNDER DISCUSSION WERE LANDS HELD BY THE INDIANS UNDER TITLES
RECOGNIZED BY SPECIFIC ACTS OF CONGRESS.  FN9 

WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL EXPOUNDED FOR THE COURT THE POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES TO EXTINGUISH INDIAN TITLE, THIS DOCTRINE WAS LAID DOWN
FOR THE NATION'S GUIDANCE IN DEALING WITH THE INDIANS: 

"THE UNITED STATES, THEN, HAVE UNEQUIVOCALLY ACCEDED TO THAT GREAT
AND BROAD RULE BY WHICH ITS CIVILIZED INHABITANTS NOW HOLD THIS
COUNTRY.  THEY HOLD, AND ASSERT IN THEMSELVES, THE TITLE BY WHICH IT
WAS ACQUIRED.  THEY MAINTAIN, AS ALL OTHERS HAVE MAINTAINED, THAT
DISCOVERY GAVE AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO EXTINGUISH THE INDIAN TITLE OF
OCCUPANCY, EITHER BY PURCHASE OR BY CONQUEST; AND GAVE ALSO A RIGHT TO
SUCH A DEGREE OF SOVEREIGNTY, AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PEOPLE WOULD
ALLOW THEM TO EXERCISE. 

"...  ALL OUR INSTITUTIONS RECOGNISE THE ABSOLUTE TITLE OF THE CROWN,
SUBJECT ONLY TO THE INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY, AND RECOGNISED THE
ABSOLUTE TITLE OF THE CROWN TO EXTINGUISH THAT RIGHT.  THIS IS
INCOMPATIBLE WITH AN ABSOLUTE AND COMPLETE TITLE IN THE INDIANS. 

"...  CONQUEST GIVES A TITLE WHICH THE COURTS OF THE CONQUEROR CANNOT
DENY, WHATEVER THE PRIVATE AND SPECULATIVE OPINIONS OF INDIVIDUALS MAY
BE, RESPECTING THE ORIGINAL JUSTICE OF THE CLAIM WHICH HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFULLY ASSERTED.... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE TITLE BY CONQUEST IS ACQUIRED AND MAINTAINED BY FORCE.  THE
CONQUEROR PRESCRIBES ITS LIMITS....  WHERE THIS INCORPORATION IS
PRACTICABLE, HUMANITY DEMANDS, AND A WISE POLICY REQUIRES, THAT THE
RIGHTS OF THE CONQUERED TO PROPERTY SHOULD REMAIN UNIMPAIRED; THAT THE
NEW SUBJECTS SHOULD BE GOVERNED AS EQUITABLY AS THE OLD, AND THAT
CONFIDENCE IN THEIR SECURITY SHOULD GRADUALLY BANISH THE PAINFUL SENSE
OF BEING SEPARATED FROM THEIR ANCIENT CONNEXIONS, AND UNITED BY FORCE
TO STRANGERS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"...  THE TRIBES OF INDIANS INHABITING THIS COUNTRY WERE FIERCE
SAVAGES, WHOSE OCCUPATION WAS WAR, AND WHOSE SUBSISTENCE WAS DRAWN
CHIEFLY FROM THE FOREST.  TO LEAVE THEM IN POSSESSION OF THEIR COUNTRY,
WAS TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY A WILDERNESS; TO GOVERN THEM AS A DISTINCT
PEOPLE, WAS IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE THEY WERE AS BRAVE AND AS HIGH SPIRITED
AS THEY WERE FIERCE, AND WERE READY TO REPEL BY ARMS EVERY ATTEMPT ON
THEIR INDEPENDENCE. 

"WHAT WAS THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS STATE OF THINGS?  THE
EUROPEANS WERE UNDER THE NECESSITY EITHER OF ABANDONING THE COUNTRY,
AND RELINQUISHING THEIR POMPOUS CLAIMS TO IT, OR OF ENFORCING THOSE
CLAIMS BY THE SWORD, AND BY THE ADOPTION OF PRINCIPLES ADAPTED TO THE
CONDITION OF A PEOPLE WITH WHOM IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO MIX, AND WHO COULD
NOT BE GOVERNED AS A DISTINCT SOCIETY, OR OF REMAINING IN THEIR
NEIGHBOURHOOD, AND EXPOSING THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES TO THE
PERPETUAL HAZARD OF BEING MASSACRED. 

"FREQUENT AND BLOODY WARS, IN WHICH THE WHITES WERE NOT ALWAYS THE
AGGRESSORS, UNAVOIDABLY ENSUED.  EUROPEAN POLICY, NUMBERS, AND SKILL,
PREVAILED.  AS THE WHITE POPULATION ADVANCED, THAT OF THE INDIANS
NECESSARILY RECEDED.  THE COUNTRY IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF
AGRICULTURISTS BECAME UNFIT FOR THEM.  THE GAME FLED INTO THICKER AND
MORE UNBROKEN FORESTS, AND THE INDIANS FOLLOWED.  THE SOIL, TO WHICH
THE CROWN ORIGINALLY CLAIMED TITLE, BEING NO LONGER OCCUPIED BY ITS
ANCIENT INHABITANTS, WAS PARCELLED OUT ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE
SOVEREIGN POWER, AND TAKEN POSSESSION OF BY PERSONS WHO CLAIMED
IMMEDIATELY FROM THE CROWN, OR MEDIATELY, THROUGH ITS GRANTEES OR
DEPUTIES."  8 WHEAT.  587-91. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THIS CASE TO UNDERTAKE AT THIS LATE DATE TO
WEIGH THE RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF THIS TREATMENT OF ABORIGINAL OCCUPANCY. 
WHERE INJUSTICES HAVE BEEN DONE TO FRIENDLY PEOPLES, CONGRESS HAS
SOUGHT TO SOFTEN THEIR EFFECT BY ACTS OF MERCY.  NEVER HAS THERE BEEN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT BEFORE OF A LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION
THAT SPRINGS FROM THE APPROPRIATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE INDIAN
TITLE. 

"EXTINGUISHMENT OF INDIAN TITLE BASED ON ABORIGINAL POSSESSION IS OF
COURSE A DIFFERENT MATTER.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS IN THAT REGARD IS
SUPREME.  THE MANNER, METHOD AND TIME OF SUCH EXTINGUISHMENT RAISE
POLITICAL, NOT JUSTICIABLE, ISSUES.  BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD, SUPRA, P. 66.  AS STATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN JOHNSON
V. M'INTOSH, SUPRA, P. 586, 'THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO EXTINGUISH' INDIAN TITLE HAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED.  AND WHETHER IT BE
DONE BY TREATY, BY THE SWORD, BY PURCHASE, BY THE EXERCISE OF COMPLETE
DOMINION ADVERSE TO THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY, OR OTHERWISE, ITS JUSTNESS
IS NOT OPEN TO INQUIRY IN THE COURTS.  BEECHER V. WETHERBY, 95 U.S.
517, 525."  UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339,
347.    THE COLONIES, THE STATES AND THE NATION ALIKE, BY THEIR EARLY
LEGISLATION, PROVIDED THAT ONLY THE RESPECTIVE SOVEREIGNS COULD
EXTINGUISH THE INDIAN TITLE.  FN10  THE WAY IN WHICH IT WAS TO BE
EXTINGUISHED HAS BEEN HELD, CONTINUALLY, A POLITICAL MATTER.  FN11  THE
JURISDICTIONAL ACT NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION DOES NOT PURPORT TO CHANGE A
POLITICAL MATTER TO A JUSTICIABLE ONE.    WHEN THIS PRESENT
JURISDICTIONAL ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS, NOTHING IN THE REPORTS
OR THE DEBATES  FN12  INDICATES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO CREATE A NEW
LIABILITY BECAUSE INDIAN TITLE HAD BEEN TAKEN.  THIS COURT RELIES UPON
NO CHANGE OF ATTITUDE IN CONGRESS, BUT FINDS THAT THIS LIABILITY HAS
ALWAYS EXISTED AND THAT THIS ACT MERELY REMOVES THE BAR AGAINST SUIT. 
THIS WE THINK IS CONTRARY TO THE WHOLE COURSE OF OUR RELATIONS WITH THE
INDIANS. 

THE COURT FINDS A BASIS FOR THIS ACTION IN THAT THIS NATION SHOULD
NOT TAKE THE INDIAN TITLE WITHOUT COMPENSATION BECAUSE SUCH A TAKING
WOULD NOT SATISFY THE "'HIGH STANDARDS FOR FAIR DEALING' REQUIRED OF
THE UNITED STATES IN CONTROLLING INDIAN AFFAIRS."  THE LANGUAGE USED BY
THE COURT IS TAKEN FROM UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314
U.S. 339 AT 356.  IT THERE REFERRED TO AN ACT UNAUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
AND NOT TO SUCH TAKINGS AS HERE OCCURRED WHEN CONGRESS OPENED THE
ORIGINAL HOME OF THESE RESPONDENTS FOR SETTLEMENT. 

IN WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, 543, 544, 547, LANDS HAD BEEN
SPECIFICALLY SET APART FOR THE CHEROKEES.  P. 556.  THEREFORE CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL'S COMMENTS WERE DIRECTED AT A SITUATION THAT DOES NOT
EXIST HERE. 

A CONCURRING OPINION HAS BEEN FILED WHICH HOLDS THAT CONGRESS IN THE
ACT HERE INVOLVED "CREATED AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT
TO PAY THESE INDIANS" FOR THEIR INDIAN TITLE.  WE DO NOT THINK THIS
PRESENT ACT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF THAT INTERPRETATION.  WE READ THE ACT, AS
WE UNDERSTAND OUR BRETHREN DO, TO PERMIT RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION ONLY
IN CASE THERE WERE RIGHTS IN THE INDIANS PRIOR TO ITS PASSAGE "ARISING
UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE."  WE THINK NO RIGHTS
AROSE FROM THIS INDIAN TITLE.  THEREFORE NO COMPENSATION IS DUE. 

AS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT PERMITTED
JUDGMENT ONLY FOR CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE ORIGINAL
INDIAN TITLE AND ARE FURTHER OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WERE NO LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE CLAIMS THAT GREW OUT OF THE TAKING OF THIS INDIAN TITLE, WE
WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND DIRECT THAT THE
BILL OF THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  CF. SHOSHONE INDIANS V.
UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 335. 

FN1  SEE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION ACT, APPROVED AUGUST 13, 1946, 60
STAT. 1049, 1050: 

"SEC. 2.  THE COMMISSION SHALL HEAR AND DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING
CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON BEHALF OF ANY INDIAN TRIBE, BAND,
OR OTHER IDENTIFIABLE GROUP OF AMERICAN INDIANS RESIDING WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES OR ALASKA:  (1) CLAIMS IN LAW
OR EQUITY ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS, TREATIES OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT; (2) ALL OTHER CLAIMS IN
LAW OR EQUITY, INCLUDING THOSE SOUNDING IN TORT, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH
THE CLAIMANT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO SUE IN A COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES IF THE UNITED STATES WAS SUBJECT TO SUIT; (3) CLAIMS WHICH WOULD
RESULT IF THE TREATIES, CONTRACTS, AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT
AND THE UNITED STATES WERE REVISED ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD, DURESS,
UNCONSCIONABLE CONSIDERATION, MUTUAL OR UNILATERAL MISTAKE, WHETHER OF
LAW OR FACT, OR ANY OTHER GROUND COGNIZABLE BY A COURT OF EQUITY; (4)
CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE TAKING BY THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER AS THE
RESULT OF A TREATY OF CESSION OR OTHERWISE, OF LANDS OWNED OR OCCUPIED
BY THE CLAIMANT WITHOUT THE PAYMENT FOR SUCH LANDS OF COMPENSATION
AGREED TO BY THE CLAIMANT; AND (5) CLAIMS BASED UPON FAIR AND HONORABLE
DEALINGS THAT ARE NOT RECOGNIZED BY ANY EXISTING RULE OF LAW OR
EQUITY.  NO CLAIM ACCRUING AFTER THE DATE OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS ACT
SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION. 

"ALL CLAIMS HEREUNDER MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR LACHES, BUT ALL OTHER
DEFENSES SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE UNITED STATES." 

FN2  THERE ARE SOUND REASONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL GENEROSITY TOWARD THE
REMNANTS OF THE ABORIGINES.  SUCH REASONS AS LEAD THE NATION TO SUCCOR
THE VANQUISHED IN ANY CONTEST.  CF. UNITED STATES V. REALTY CO., 163
U.S. 427; POPE V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 1; AND 60 STAT. 1049, 1055,
SEC. 24. 

FN3  CHIPPEWA INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 358, 375-76; UNITED
STATES V. KLAMATH INDIANS, 304 U.S. 119; SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED
STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 497; UNITED STATES V. CREEK NATION, 295 U.S. 103,
109-10. 

FN4  SEE SHOSHONE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 335, 339. 

FN5  SEE MITCHEL V. UNITED STATES, 9 PET. 711, 745. 

FN6  THE TREATY OF PARIS, 1783, CONFIRMED THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
UNITED STATES WITHOUT RESERVATION OF INDIAN RIGHTS. 

FN7  JOHNSON V. M'INTOSH, SUPRA, AT 587-89; LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK,
187 U.S. 553, 568; MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RY. CO. V. ROBERTS, 152
U.S. 114, 117.  SEE TIGER V. WESTERN INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286,
311. 

FN8  CF. DUWAMISH INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 79 CT. CL. 530, 597-600. 

FN9  E.G. LANE V. PUEBLO OF SANTA ROSA, 249 U.S. 110, 113; UNITED
STATES V. CREEK NATION, 295 U.S. 103, 109; SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED
STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 496; CHIPPEWA INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S.
358, 375-77. 

FN10  SEE PASSIM, LAWS OF THE COLONIAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS,
RELATING TO INDIANS AND INDIAN AFFAIRS, FROM 1633 TO 1831, INCLUSIVE:
WITH AN APPENDIX CONTAINING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONGRESS OF THE
CONFEDERATION AND THE LAWS OF CONGRESS, FROM 1800 TO 1830, ON THE SAME
SUBJECT. 

FN11  LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK, 187 U.S. 553, 565; TIGER V. WESTERN
INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286, 311. 

FN12  SEE S. REPS.  NOS.  571, 795, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REPS. 
NOS.  1085, 1134, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 79 CONG. REC. 7806, 11188,
12520. 
..END :









UNITED STATES V. FOLEY CO., 329 U.S. 64 


NO. 50.  ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 1946.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 25, 1946.  - 105
CT. CL. 161, 63 F.SUPP.  209, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT HERE INVOLVED, FOR
INSTALLATION OF LIGHTING OF THE RUNWAYS OF AN AIRPORT, THE GOVERNMENT
WAS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN MAKING THE RUNWAYS AVAILABLE TO
THE CONTRACTOR, THOUGH THE DELAY PREVENTED COMPLETION WITHIN THE
SPECIFIED TIME, SINCE THE CONTRACT DID NOT OBLIGATE THE GOVERNMENT
EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY TO MAKE THE RUNWAYS AVAILABLE PROMPTLY, IT
CONTAINED PROVISIONS ANTICIPATING DELAYS CAUSED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND
PROVIDING REMEDIES OTHER THAN AN AWARD OF DAMAGES TO THE CONTRACTOR,
AND NO FAULT ACTUALLY WAS CHARGEABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT.  PP. 66-67. 

2.  THE FACT THAT NO OTHER CONTRACTOR WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE DOES
NOT REQUIRE A RESULT DIFFERENT FROM THAT REACHED IN CROOK CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 270 U.S. 4, AND UNITED STATES V. RICE, 317 U.S. 61.  P. 68. 

UNITED STATES V. HOWARD P. FOLEY CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS UPON A CONTRACT AND
WAS AWARDED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  105 CT. CL. 161, 63
F.SUPP.  209.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 777.  REVERSED,
P. 69. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS RENDERED A JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT AND
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR AN ASSERTED BREACH OF A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT.  105 CT. CL. 161, 63 F.SUPP.  209.  WE GRANTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH ALLEGED THAT THE COURT OF
CLAIMS' DECISION WAS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH CROOK CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 270 U.S. 4, AND UNITED STATES V. RICE, 317 U.S. 61.  WE HOLD
THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION IS CORRECT. 

THE RESPONDENT, AN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, AGREED FOR A FIXED FEE TO
SUPPLY THE MATERIALS FOR AND INSTALL A FIELD LIGHTING SYSTEM AT THE
NATIONAL AIRPORT, GRAVELLY POINT, VIRGINIA, THEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 
THE AGREEMENT WAS EMBODIED IN A STANDARD FORM GOVERNMENT CONTRACT. 
RESPONDENT PROMISED TO COMPLETE THE JOB WITHIN 120 DAYS AFTER NOTICE TO
PROCEED.  IN FACT THE JOB WAS NOT FINISHED UNTIL 277 DAYS AFTER NOTICE
WAS GIVEN.  THE DELAY CAME ABOUT IN THIS WAY.  THE SITE OF THE AIRPORT
WAS BEING BUILT UP FROM UNDER WATER BY A FAST BUT THEN UNIQUE METHOD OF
HYDRAULIC DREDGING.  AS PORTIONS OF THE EARTH BASE FOR THE RUNWAYS AND
TAXIWAYS SETTLED, THEY WERE TO BE PAVED AND THE SHOULDERS "ROUGH
GRADED."  AS SEGMENTS OF THIS WORK WERE FINISHED, RESPONDENT WAS TO
MOVE IN, WIRE THEM, AND INSTALL THE LIGHTING FIXTURES.  THE DREDGING
TOOK LONGER THAN GOVERNMENT ENGINEERS HAD ANTICIPATED, BECAUSE SOME OF
THE DREDGED SOIL, PROVING TO BE TOO UNSTABLE FOR RUNWAYS AND TAXIWAYS,
HAD TO BE REPLACED.  THIS IN TURN DELAYED COMPLETION OF THE RUNWAY
SEGMENT COULD NOT BE INSTALLED.  THE 157 DAYS DELAY RESULTED FROM THE
CONSEQUENTLY LONG AND IRREGULAR INTERVALS BETWEEN THE TIMES WHEN THESE
SEGMENTS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENT TO DO ITS JOB.  BUT FOR
THESE DELAYS, RESPONDENT APPARENTLY COULD HAVE FINISHED ITS WORK IN 120
DAYS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS CONSIDERED THAT THE GOVERNMENT BREACHED ITS
CONTRACT BY FAILING TO MAKE THE RUNWAYS AVAILABLE IN TIME FOR
RESPONDENT TO DO ITS WORK WITHIN 120 DAYS.  THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT WAS FOR CERTAIN OVERHEAD AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WHICH
RESPONDENT INCURRED DURING THE CONSEQUENT PERIOD OF DELAY.  FN1 

IN NO SINGLE WORD, CLAUSE, OR SENTENCE IN THE CONTRACT DOES THE
GOVERNMENT EXPRESSLY COVENANT TO MAKE THE RUNWAYS AVAILABLE TO
RESPONDENT AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME.  CF. UNITED STATES V. BLAIR, 321
U.S. 730, 733-734.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE OBLIGATION OF RESPONDENT
TO COMPLETE THE JOB IN 120 DAYS CAN BE INVERTED INTO A PROMISE BY THE
GOVERNMENT NOT TO CAUSE PERFORMANCE TO BE DELAYED BEYOND THAT TIME BY
ITS NEGLIGENCE.  BUT EVEN IF THIS PROVISION STANDING ALONE COULD BE
STRETCHED TO MEAN THAT THE GOVERNMENT OBLIGATED ITSELF TO EXERCISE THE
HIGHEST DEGREE OF DILIGENCE AND THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH IN EFFORTS TO
MAKE THE RUNWAYS PROMPTLY AVAILABLE, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WOULD SHOW
NO BREACH OF SUCH AN UNDERTAKING.  FOR THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT
THE GOVERNMENT'S REPRESENTATIVES DID THIS WORK "WITH GREAT, IF NOT
UNUSUAL, DILIGENCE," AND THAT "NO FAULT IS OR CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO
THEM."  CONSEQUENTLY, THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE UNLESS THE
CONTRACT CAN BE INTERPRETED TO IMPLY AN UNQUALIFIED WARRANTY TO MAKE
THE RUNWAYS PROMPTLY AVAILABLE. 

WE CAN FIND NO SUCH WARRANTY IF WE ARE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR
CROOK AND RICE DECISIONS, SUPRA.  THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS IN THE
INSTANT CONTRACT ARE, IN EVERY RESPECT HERE MATERIAL, SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME AS THOSE WHICH WERE HELD IN THE FORMER CASES TO IMPOSE NO
OBLIGATION ON THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY DAMAGES FOR DELAY.  HERE, AS IN THE
FORMER CASES, THERE ARE SEVERAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS WHICH SHOWED THAT
THE PARTIES NOT ONLY ANTICIPATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT NOT FINISH
ITS WORK AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED, BUT ALSO PROVIDED IN ADVANCE TO PROTECT
THE CONTRACTOR FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH GOVERNMENTAL DELAY, SHOULD
IT OCCUR.  THE CONTRACT RESERVED A GOVERNMENTAL RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES
IN THE WORK WHICH MIGHT CAUSE INTERRUPTION AND DELAY, REQUIRED
RESPONDENT TO COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH THE OTHER WORK BEING DONE ON THE
SITE, AND CLEARLY CONTEMPLATED THAT HE WOULD TAKE UP HIS WORK ON THE
RUNWAY SECTIONS AS THEY WERE INTERMITTENTLY COMPLETED AND PAVED. 
ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONTRACT, ENTITLED "DELAYS - DAMAGES," SET OUT A
PROCEDURE TO GOVERN BOTH PARTIES IN CASE OF RESPONDENT'S DELAY IN
COMPLETION, WHETHER SUCH DELAY WAS CAUSED BY RESPONDENT, THE
GOVERNMENT, OR OTHER CAUSES.  IF DELAY WERE CAUSED BY RESPONDENT, THE
GOVERNMENT COULD TERMINATE THE CONTRACT, TAKE OVER THE WORK, AND HOLD
RESPONDENT AND ITS SURETIES LIABLE.  OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE
GOVERNMENT COULD COLLECT LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND,
DELAY WERE DUE TO "ACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT" OR OTHER SPECIFIED EVENTS,
INCLUDING "UNFORESEEABLE CAUSES," PROCEDURE WAS OUTLINED FOR EXTENDING
THE TIME IN WHICH RESPONDENT WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ITS CONTRACT, AND
RELIEVING HIM FROM THE PENALTIES OF CONTRACT TERMINATION OR LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES. 

IN THE CROOK AND RICE CASES WE HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT BE
HELD LIABLE FOR DELAY IN MAKING ITS WORK AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTORS
UNLESS THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT IMPOSED SUCH LIABILITY.  THOSE
CONTRACTS, PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE ONE HERE, WERE HELD TO IMPOSE
NONE.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. BLAIR, SUPRA.  THE DISTINCTION WHICH
THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND BETWEEN THIS AND THE PRIOR CASES IS NOT IN
POINT.  IT SEEMS TO BE THIS:  IN THE CROOK AND RICE CASES THE
GOVERNMENT HAD A PRIME AND A SUBCONTRACTOR:  THE GOVERNMENT RESERVED A
RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES BY WHICH THE PRIME CONTRACTOR MUST THEREAFTER BE
GOVERNED; THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISED THIS RIGHT; THESE CHANGES MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PRIME CONTRACTOR AND ULTIMATELY THE SUBCONTRACTOR TO
DO THEIR WORK IN TIME; SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAD RESERVED THE RIGHT
AGAINST THE PRIME CONTRACTOR TO MAKE THESE CHANGES, AND THE
SUBCONTRACTOR KNEW THIS, THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT CONTRACTUALLY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELAY.  THEREFORE IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE
SUBCONTRACTOR IN THE RICE AND CROOK CASES COULD KNOW IN ADVANCE THAT
THE PERFORMANCE TIME WAS "PROVISIONAL," WHEREAS HERE THE CONTRACTOR HAD
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS CERTAIN.  BUT IN THIS CASE THERE IS AMPLE
INDICATION, BOTH IN THE EXTRINSIC FACTS AND IN THE CONTRACT TERMS, THAT
CHANGES AND DELAYS WERE ANTICIPATED AND REMEDIES THEREFOR PROVIDED. 
THE CONTRACTOR HERE ONLY LACKED THE ONE ADDITIONAL INDICATION THAT
CHANGES WERE ANTICIPATED WHICH HE COULD HAVE READ FROM THE PRIME
CONTRACT HAD THERE BEEN A PRIME CONTRACT AND IF A PRIME CONTRACT HAD
BEEN AVAILABLE FOR HIM TO READ.  IF THIS BE A DISTINCTION, IT IS A
DISTINCTION WITH NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.  THIS CONTRACT, LIKE THE
OTHERS, SHOWS THAT CHANGES AND DELAYS WERE ANTICIPATED AND PROVIDED
FOR.  THE QUESTION ON WHICH ALL THESE CASES TURN IS:  DID THE
GOVERNMENT OBLIGATE ITSELF TO PAY DAMAGES TO A CONTRACTOR SOLELY
BECAUSE OF DELAY IN MAKING THE WORK AVAILABLE?  WE HOLD AGAIN THAT IT
DID NOT FOR THE REASONS ELABORATED IN THE CROOK AND RICE DECISIONS. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE DAMAGES AWARDED WERE FOR THE WAGES RESPONDENT PAID
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WHO STOOD BY DURING THE DELAY INTERVALS, AND FOR
CERTAIN EXPENSES OF RESPONDENT INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF THESE EMPLOYEES
FOR UNEMPLOYMENT AND SIMILAR TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
DISSENT.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD GIVEN THE CONTRACTOR
"NOTICE TO PROCEED" WHICH IN OUR OPINION HAD THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES SET
FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW WHOSE JUDGMENT WE WOULD
AFFIRM. 
..END :









RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD, 329 U.S. 69 


NO. 46.  ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 1946.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 25, 1946.  - 27
CAL.2D 150, 163 P.2D 1, REVERSED. 


1.  A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA REVERSING, WITHOUT
DIRECTIONS, A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT FOR A REFUND OF A
TAX UNCONSTITUTIONALLY LEVIED ON AN EXPORT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA RETAIL
SALES TAX ACT, THE CASE HAVING BEEN TRIED ON THE PLEADINGS AND
STIPULATED FACTS AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAVING PASSED ON THE
ISSUES WHICH CONTROL THE LITIGATION, HELD REVIEWABLE HERE AS A "FINAL
JUDGMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344(A).  P. 72. 

2.  APPELLANT, WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN PRODUCING AND SELLING OIL IN
CALIFORNIA, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF OIL TO THE NEW
ZEALAND GOVERNMENT.  THE OIL WAS DELIVERED BY APPELLANT FROM DOCKSIDE
TANKS INTO A VESSEL OF THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT AT A CALIFORNIA PORT;
WAS CONSIGNED TO A NEW ZEALAND OFFICIAL AT AUCKLAND; WAS TRANSPORTED TO
NEW ZEALAND; AND NONE OF IT WAS USED OR CONSUMED IN THE UNITED STATES. 
APPELLANT FILED WITH THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS A SHIPPER'S EXPORT
DECLARATION; AND DID NOT COLLECT, NOR ATTEMPT TO COLLECT, ANY SALES TAX
FROM THE PURCHASER.  HELD THAT A TAX LEVIED UPON APPELLANT PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA RETAIL SALES TAX ACT AND MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS
FROM THE TRANSACTION WAS AN IMPOST UPON AN EXPORT, WITHIN THE MEANING
OF ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND THEREFORE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  PP. 71-72, 75. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THAT NO
STATE SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, LAY "ANY" TAX ON IMPORTS
OR EXPORTS SPECIFIES BUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION - "EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR EXECUTING IT'S INSPECTION LAWS" - INDICATES
THAT NO OTHER QUALIFICATION OF THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION WAS INTENDED. 
P. 76. 

4.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST "ANY" STATE TAX ON IMPORTS
OR EXPORTS IS NOT TO BE READ AS A PROHIBITION AGAINST ANY
"DISCRIMINATORY" STATE TAX.  P. 76. 

5.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THOUGH COMPLEMENTARY, SERVE DIFFERENT ENDS; AND THE
LIMITATIONS OF THE FORMER ARE NOT TO BE READ INTO THE LATTER.  P. 76. 

6.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION OF "ANY" STATE TAX ON EXPORTS IS
NOT TO BE READ AS CONTAINING AN IMPLIED QUALIFICATION.  PP. 76-77. 

7.  THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION COMMENCED NOT LATER THAN WHEN THE OIL
WAS DELIVERED INTO THE VESSEL OF THE FOREIGN PURCHASER.  P. 83. 

8.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE TAX LAW BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE IS BINDING HERE, BUT IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF WHETHER THE TAX
DENIES THE TAXPAYER A FEDERAL RIGHT.  P. 84. 

9.  WHETHER A STATE TAX DENIES A FEDERAL RIGHT DEPENDS NOT UPON THE
STATE'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TAX, BUT UPON ITS OPERATION AND
EFFECT.  P. 84. 

10.  THE INCIDENT WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE ACCRUAL OF THE STATE TAX IN
THIS CASE - VIZ., THE DELIVERY OF THE OIL INTO THE VESSEL OF THE
FOREIGN PURCHASER - WAS A STEP IN THE EXPORT PROCESS.  P. 84. 

11.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION OF STATE TAXES ON EXPORTS
INVOLVES MORE THAN A MERE EXEMPTION FROM TAXES LAID SPECIFICALLY UPON
THE EXPORTED GOODS THEMSELVES.  P. 85. 

RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPELLANT BROUGHT SUIT IN A STATE COURT FOR A REFUND OF AN ALLEGEDLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE TAX.  A JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLANT WAS REVERSED
BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  27 CAL.2D 150, 136 P.2D 1.  APPELLANT
APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  REVERSED, P. 86. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
WHICH SUSTAINED A CALIFORNIA TAX AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT IT WAS
REPUGNANT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 344(A), 861A. 

APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN PRODUCING AND SELLING OIL AND OIL PRODUCTS IN
CALIFORNIA.  IT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT
FOR THE SALE OF OIL.  THE PRICE WAS F.O.B. LOS ANGELES, PAYMENT IN
LONDON.  DELIVERY WAS "TO THE ORDER OF THE NAVAL SECRETARY, NAVY
OFFICE, WELLINGTON, INTO N.Z. NAVAL TANK STEAMER R.F.A. 'NUCULA' AT LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA."  THE OIL WAS TO BE CONSIGNED TO THE NAVAL-OFFICER
IN-CHARGE, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND.  APPELLANT CARRIED THE OIL BY PIPE
LINE FROM ITS REFINERY IN CALIFORNIA TO STORAGE TANKS AT THE HARBOR
WHERE THE NUCULA APPEARED TO RECEIVE THE OIL.  WHEN THE NUCULA HAD
DOCKED AND WAS READY TO RECEIVE THE OIL, APPELLANT PUMPED IT FROM THE
STORAGE TANKS INTO THE VESSEL.  CUSTOMARY SHIPPING DOCUMENTS WERE GIVEN
THE MASTER, INCLUDING A BILL OF LADING WHICH DESIGNATED APPELLANT AS
SHIPPER AND CONSIGNED THE OIL TO THE DESIGNATED NAVAL OFFICER IN
AUCKLAND.  PAYMENT OF THE PRICE WAS MADE IN LONDON.  THE OIL WAS
TRANSPORTED TO AUCKLAND, NO PORTION OF IT BEING USED OR CONSUMED IN THE
UNITED STATES.  APPELLANT FILED WITH THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS A
SHIPPER'S EXPORT DECLARATION.  IT DID NOT COLLECT, NOR ATTEMPT TO DO
SO, ANY SALES TAX FROM THE PURCHASER.  APPELLEE ASSESSED A RETAIL SALES
TAX AGAINST APPELLANT MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE
TRANSACTION.  THE TAX WAS PAID UNDER PROTEST, A CLAIM FOR REFUND WAS
FILED ASSERTING THAT THE LEVY OF THE TAX VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO OBTAIN A REFUND.  THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT, ONE JUSTICE DISSENTING, FIRST ALLOWED A RECOVERY ON THAT
GROUND.  155 P.2D 1.  AFTER A REHEARING IT REVERSED ITS POSITION AND
HELD THE TAX CONSTITUTIONAL, TWO JUSTICES DISSENTING.  27 CAL.2D 150,
163 P.2D 1. 

I. WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IS A "FINAL JUDGMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A).  THE CASE WAS
TRIED ON THE PLEADINGS AND STIPULATED FACTS, A JURY HAVING BEEN
WAIVED.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND FOR APPELLANT.  THE SUPREME COURT
ORDERED THAT THE JUDGMENT "BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY REVERSED."  THE
ARGUMENT IS THAT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW WHERE A JUDGMENT HAS BEEN
REVERSED WITHOUT DIRECTIONS, THERE IS A NEW TRIAL; THAT ON A NEW TRIAL
APPELLANT MIGHT AMEND ITS COMPLAINT AND PRODUCE OTHER EVIDENCE; AND
THAT IF A NEW TRIAL WERE HAD, NEW OR DIFFERENT FINDINGS OF FACT MIGHT
BE MADE.  SEE ERLIN V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO., 7 CAL.2D 547, 61
P.2D 756. 

THE DESIGNATION GIVEN THE JUDGMENT BY STATE PRACTICE IS NOT
CONTROLLING.  DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK, 317 U.S. 264, 268.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER IT CAN BE SAID THAT "THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO BE
DECIDED" (CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112, 118), THAT THERE HAS BEEN
"AN EFFECTIVE DETERMINATION OF THE LITIGATION."  MARKET STREET RY. CO.
V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 324 U.S. 548, 551; SEE RADIO STATION WOW V.
JOHNSON, 326 U.S. 120, 123-24.  THAT QUESTION WILL BE RESOLVED NOT ONLY
BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD (CLARK V. WILLIARD, SUPRA) BUT,
WHERE NECESSARY, BY RESORT TO THE LOCAL LAW TO DETERMINE WHAT EFFECT
THE JUDGMENT HAS UNDER THE STATE RULES OF PRACTICE.  BRADY V. TERMINAL
RAILROAD ASSN., 302 U.S. 678; BRADY V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 319 U.S. 777. 
SEE BOSKEY, FINALITY OF STATE COURT JUDGMENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
JUDICIAL CODE, 43 COL. L. REV. 1002, 1005. 

THIS SUIT IS BROUGHT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA RETAIL SALES TAX ACT, SEC.
23 AND SEC. 31, WHICH PRESCRIBES THE SOLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING THE
TAX.  THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IS PAYMENT OF THE TAX, THE FILING OF A
CLAIM FOR REFUND WHICH SETS FORTH "THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE
CLAIM IS FOUNDED," CAL. STATS. 1941, PP. 1328, 1329, AND, IN CASE THE
CLAIM IS DENIED, THE INSTITUTION OF A SUIT WITHIN NINETY DAYS "ON THE
GROUNDS SET FORTH IN SUCH CLAIM."  CAL. STATS. 1939, PP. 2184, 2185. 
THE CLAIM THUS FRAMES AND RESTRICTS THE ISSUES FOR THE LITIGATION. 
ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
WITHOUT DIRECTION, ITS DECISION CONTROLS THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 
SEE ESTATE OF BAIRD, 193 CAL. 225, 223 P. 974; BANK OF AMERICA V.
SUPERIOR COURT, 20 CAL.2D 697, 128 P.2D 357.  SINCE THE FACTS HAVE BEEN
STIPULATED FN1  AND THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAS PASSED ON THE
ISSUES WHICH CONTROL THE LITIGATION, WE TAKE IT THAT THERE IS NOTHING
MORE TO BE DECIDED.  THE JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION IS THUS WITHOUT
MERIT.  SEE GULF REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 125, 136. 

II.  WE TURN THEN TO THE MERITS.  ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2 OF
THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "NO STATE SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE CONGRESS, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, EXCEPT
WHAT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR EXECUTING IT'S INSPECTION LAWS:
AND THE NET PRODUCE OF ALL DUTIES AND IMPOSTS, LAID BY ANY STATE ON
IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, SHALL BE FOR THE USE OF THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED
STATES; AND ALL SUCH LAWS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REVISION AND CONTROUL
OF THE CONGRESS." 

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HELD THAT THIS PROVISION DID NOT BAR
THE TAX BECAUSE THE DELIVERY OF THE OIL WHICH RESULTED IN THE PASSAGE
OF TITLE OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE EXPORTATION.  THE
COURT SUGGESTED, AND THE APPELLEE CONCEDES, THAT A DIFFERENT RESULT
MIGHT FOLLOW IF THE OIL HAD BEEN DELIVERED TO A COMMON CARRIER; "FOR
THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE HANDS OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY WHOSE
SOLE PURPOSE IS TO EXPORT GOODS, THUS INDELIBLY CHARACTERIZING THE
PROCESS AS A PART OF EXPORTATION."  27 CAL.2D P. 153, 163 P.2D P. 3. 
THE COURT, IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TAX WAS CONSTITUTIONAL,
RESTED IN PART ON OUR RECENT DECISIONS (PARTICULARLY MCGOLDRICK V.
BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V.
WOOD PRESERVING CORP., 313 U.S. 62; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340) WHICH SUSTAINED THE LEVY OF
CERTAIN STATE TAXES AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT THEY VIOLATED THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT IF THIS HAD BEEN AN INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE TAX.  IT SAW NO GREATER
LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF THE STATES UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 10,
CLAUSE 2, THAN THIS COURT HAS FOUND TO EXIST UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE. 

WE DO NOT PURSUE THE INQUIRY AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  FOR WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE
RESULT OF THAT INQUIRY, THE TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER ARTICLE I,

THE TWO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, WHILE RELATED, ARE NOT
COTERMINOUS.  TO BE SURE, A STATE TAX HAS AT TIMES BEEN HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BOTH UNDER THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE AND UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419; CREW LEVICK CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292.  BUT THERE ARE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE TWO.  THE INVALIDITY OF ONE DERIVES FROM THE PROHIBITION OF
TAXATION ON THE IMPORT OR EXPORT; THE VALIDITY OF THE OTHER TURNS
NOWISE ON WHETHER THE ARTICLE WAS, OR HAD EVER BEEN, AN IMPORT OR
EXPORT.  SEE HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652, 665-66, AND
CASES CITED.  MOREOVER, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS CAST, NOT IN TERMS OF A
PROHIBITION AGAINST TAXES, BUT IN TERMS OF A POWER ON THE PART OF
CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE.  IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE IS A LIMITATION UPON THE POWER OF THE STATES, EVEN IN
ABSENCE OF ACTION BY CONGRESS.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325
U.S. 761; MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373.  BUT THE SCOPE OF THE
LIMITATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COURT IN AN EFFORT TO MAINTAIN AN
AREA OF TRADE FREE FROM STATE INTERFERENCE AND AT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE PAY ITS WAY.  AS RECENTLY STATED IN MCGOLDRICK V.
BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., SUPRA, P. 48, THE LAW UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE HAS BEEN FASHIONED BY THE COURT IN AN EFFORT "TO RECONCILE
COMPETING CONSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS, THAT COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES
SHALL NOT BE UNDULY IMPEDED BY STATE ACTION, AND THAT THE POWER TO LAY
TAXES FOR THE SUPPORT OF STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT BE UNDULY
CURTAILED."  THAT ACCOMMODATION HAS BEEN MADE BY UPHOLDING TAXES
DESIGNED TO MAKE INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEAR A FAIR SHARE OF THE COST OF
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM WHICH IT RECEIVES BENEFITS (SEE E.G. WESTERN
LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 254-55, AND CASES CITED;
MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., SUPRA) AND BY INVALIDATING
THOSE WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH IMPOSE A
LEVY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING IT, WHICH PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON IT.
ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V.
HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434; BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454; NIPPERT
V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT WE CANNOT WRITE ANY SUCH QUALIFICATIONS INTO THE
IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE.  IT PROHIBITS EVERY STATE FROM LAYING "ANY" TAX
ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS.  ONLY ONE
EXCEPTION IS CREATED - "EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR
EXECUTING IT'S INSPECTION LAWS."  THE FACT OF A SINGLE EXCEPTION
SUGGESTS THAT NO OTHER QUALIFICATION OF THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION WAS
INTENDED.  IT WOULD ENTAIL A SUBSTANTIAL REVISION OF THE IMPORT-EXPORT
CLAUSE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "ANY" TAX A
PROHIBITION AGAINST "ANY DISCRIMINATORY" TAX.  AS WE SHALL SEE, THE
QUESTION AS TO WHAT IS EXPORTATION IS SOMEWHAT ENTWINED WITH THE
QUESTION AS TO WHAT IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT THE TWO CLAUSES,
THOUGH COMPLEMENTARY, SERVE DIFFERENT ENDS.  AND THE LIMITATIONS OF ONE
CANNOT BE READ INTO THE OTHER. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE HISTORY OF THE IMPORT-EXPORT
CLAUSE SHOWS THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATORY TAXES AND
NOT TO PRECLUDE THE LEVY OF GENERAL TAXES APPLICABLE ALIKE TO ALL
GOODS.  SUPPORT FOR THAT IS FOUND IN THE FACT THAT THIS PROVISION WAS
DEFENDED IN THE CONVENTION  FN2  AND LATER IN THE DEBATES  FN3  ON THE
GROUND THAT IT PROTECTED THE INLAND STATES FROM LEVIES BY THE COASTAL
STATES THROUGH THE TAXATION OF EXPORTS.  YET THAT FUNCTION WAS ONLY A
PHASE OF A LARGER DESIGN.  THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE WAS CONSIDERED IN
CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 5, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO
TAX OR DUTY SHALL BE LAID ON ARTICLES EXPORTED FROM ANY STATE."  FN4
THE PURPOSE WAS TO WITHHOLD FROM CONGRESS THE POWER TO TAX EXPORTS,
FN5  AND TO DEPRIVE ANY STATE OF THE POWER EXCEPT WITH THE CONSENT OF
CONGRESS AND EVEN THEN, IT SEEMS, TO REQUIRE THE NET PROCEEDS TO BE
PAID INTO THE FEDERAL TREASURY.  A PROPOSAL WAS MADE TO PROHIBIT THE
STATES "FROM TAXING THE PRODUCE OF OTHER STATES EXPORTED FROM THEIR
HARBOURS."  FN6  BUT THAT SUGGESTION WAS NOT FOLLOWED.  THE LANGUAGE
ADOPTED WAS SUPPORTED BY MADISON "AS PREVENTING ALL STATE IMPOSTS." 
FN7  THE QUALIFIED INTERPRETATION URGED UPON US HAS THEREFORE NO
SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN THE HISTORY OF THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE. 
MOREOVER, TO INFER QUALIFICATIONS DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE STANDARDS
FOR EXPOUNDING THE CONSTITUTION.  AS STATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
IN STURGES V. CROWNINSHIELD, 4 WHEAT.  122, 202, "IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS
IN THE EXTREME TO INFER FROM EXTRINSIC CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT A CASE FOR
WHICH THE WORDS OF AN INSTRUMENT EXPRESSLY PROVIDE, SHALL BE EXEMPTED
FROM ITS OPERATION."  FOR, AS CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY SAID IN HOLMES V.
JENNISON, 14 PET. 540, 570-71: 

"IN EXPOUNDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, EVERY WORD MUST
HAVE ITS DUE FORCE, AND APPROPRIATE MEANING; FOR IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE
WHOLE INSTRUMENT, THAT NO WORD WAS UNNECESSARILY USED, OR NEEDLESSLY
ADDED.  THE MANY DISCUSSIONS WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE UPON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, HAVE PROVED THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS
PROPOSITION; AND SHOWN THE HIGH TALENT, THE CAUTION, AND THE FORESIGHT
OF THE ILLUSTRIOUS MEN WHO FRAMED IT.  EVERY WORD APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
WEIGHED WITH THE UTMOST DELIBERATION, AND ITS FORCE AND EFFECT TO HAVE
BEEN FULLY UNDERSTOOD.  NO WORD IN THE INSTRUMENT, THEREFORE, CAN BE
REJECTED AS SUPERFLUOUS OR UNMEANING  ..." 

WE CANNOT, THEREFORE, READ THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "ANY" TAX ON
EXPORTS AS CONTAINING AN IMPLIED QUALIFICATION. 

THE QUESTIONS REMAIN WHETHER WE HAVE HERE AN EXPORT WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND, IF SO, WHETHER THIS TAX
WAS A PROHIBITED IMPOST UPON IT. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT FOREIGN COMMERCE BE INVOLVED (WOODRUFF V.
PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123, 136) IS MET, FOR CONCEDEDLY THE OIL WAS SOLD FOR
SHIPMENT ABROAD.  THE QUESTION WHETHER AT THE TIME THE TAX ACCRUED THE
OIL WAS AN EXPORT PRESENTS A DIFFERENT PROBLEM.  THERE ARE FEW
DECISIONS OF THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2, WHICH
ILLUMINATE THE PROBLEM.  IN BROWN V. HOUSTON, 114 U.S. 622, LOUISIANA
TAXED COAL HELD IN THAT STATE FOR SALE.  AFTER THE TAX WAS ASSESSED
SOME OF THE COAL WAS SOLD FOR EXPORT.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE COAL
WHEN TAXED WAS NOT AN EXPORT, SAYING, PP. 629-30:    "WHEN TAXED IT WAS
NOT HELD WITH THE INTENT OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPORTATION, BUT WITH
THE INTENT AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE THERE, IN NEW ORLEANS.  A DUTY
ON EXPORTS MUST EITHER BE A DUTY LEVIED ON GOODS AS A CONDITION, OR BY
REASON OF THEIR EXPORTATION, OR, AT LEAST, A DIRECT TAX OR DUTY ON
GOODS WHICH ARE INTENDED FOR EXPORTATION.  WHETHER THE LAST WOULD BE A
DUTY ON EXPORTS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE.  BUT CERTAINLY,
WHERE A GENERAL TAX IS LAID ON ALL PROPERTY ALIKE, IT CANNOT BE
CONSTRUED AS A DUTY ON EXPORTS WHEN FALLING UPON GOODS NOT THEN
INTENDED FOR EXPORTATION, THOUGH THEY SHOULD HAPPEN TO BE EXPORTED
AFTERWARDS." 

IN COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517, THE COURT HAD BEFORE IT A CASE UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  LOGS, CUT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, WERE BEING HELD ON A
RIVER THERE FOR TRANSPORTATION TO MAINE.  NEW HAMPSHIRE'S NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAX ON THEM WAS SUSTAINED.  WHAT THE COURT SAID
CONCERNING COMMERCE IS WHAT WE DEEM TO BE THE CORRECT PRINCIPLE
GOVERNING EXPORTS:  "...  GOODS DO NOT CEASE TO BE PART OF THE GENERAL
MASS OF PROPERTY IN THE STATE, SUBJECT, AS SUCH, TO ITS JURISDICTION,
AND TO TAXATION IN THE USUAL WAY, UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN SHIPPED, OR
ENTERED WITH A COMMON CARRIER FOR TRANSPORTATION TO ANOTHER STATE, OR
HAVE BEEN STARTED UPON SUCH TRANSPORTATION IN A CONTINUOUS ROUTE OR
JOURNEY."  P. 527. 

THAT VIEW HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN CASES INVOLVING ARTICLE I, SECTION 9,
CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH, AS WE HAVE NOTED, PROHIBITS
CONGRESS FROM LAYING ANY TAX ON "ARTICLES EXPORTED FROM ANY STATE."  IN
TURPIN V. BURGESS, 117 U.S. 504, THE COURT SUSTAINED A FEDERAL EXCISE
TAX ON MANUFACTURED TOBACCO.  THE TAX WAS LAID UPON THE GOODS BEFORE
THEY LEFT THE FACTORY.  THE COURT SAID, P. 507, "THEY WERE NOT IN
COURSE OF EXPORTATION; THEY MIGHT NEVER BE EXPORTED; WHETHER THEY WOULD
BE OR NOT WOULD DEPEND ALTOGETHER ON THE WILL OF THE MANUFACTURER." 
THE SAME RESULT WAS REACHED IN CORNELL V. COYNE, 192 U.S. 418, WHERE A
FEDERAL MANUFACTURING TAX ON FILLED CHEESE WAS SUSTAINED AGAINST THE
CLAIM THAT IT WAS A TAX LEVIED BY CONGRESS ON EXPORTS.  THE CHEESE WAS
MANUFACTURED UNDER CONTRACT FOR EXPORT.  THE COURT SAID, "THE TRUE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS THAT NO BURDEN BY WAY
OF TAX OR DUTY CAN BE CAST UPON THE EXPORTATION OF ARTICLES, AND DOES
NOT MEAN THAT ARTICLES EXPORTED ARE RELIEVED FROM THE PRIOR ORDINARY
BURDENS OF TAXATION WHICH REST UPON ALL PROPERTY SIMILARLY SITUATED. 
THE EXEMPTION ATTACHES TO THE EXPORT AND NOT TO THE ARTICLE BEFORE ITS
EXPORTATION."  P. 427. 

THAT LINE HAS BEEN MARKED BY OTHER DECISIONS UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION
9, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THUS A FEDERAL STAMP TAX ON A FOREIGN
BILL OF LADING IS A TAX ON EXPORTS, SINCE IT IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A
DIRECT TAX ON THE ARTICLES INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF LADING.  FAIRBANK V.
UNITED STATES, 181 U.S. 283.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF FEDERAL STAMP TAXES
ON CHARTER PARTIES MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE CARRIAGE OF CARGO IN
FOREIGN COMMERCE, UNITED STATES V. HVOSLEF, 237 U.S. 1, 17, FOR A TAX
ON THOSE CHARTER PARTIES IS "IN SUBSTANCE A TAX ON THE EXPORTATION; AND
A TAX ON THE EXPORTATION IS A TAX ON THE EXPORTS."  THE SAME IS
LIKEWISE TRUE OF FEDERAL STAMP TAXES ON POLICIES INSURING EXPORTS
AGAINST MARITIME RISKS.  THAMES & MERSEY INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 237
U.S. 19.  THE COURT STATED, P. 27: 

"THE RISE IN RATES FOR INSURANCE AS IMMEDIATELY AFFECTS EXPORTING AS
AN INCREASE IN FREIGHT RATES, AND THE TAXATION OF POLICIES INSURING
CARGOES DURING THEIR TRANSIT TO FOREIGN PORTS IS AS MUCH A BURDEN ON
EXPORTING AS IF IT WERE LAID ON THE CHARTER PARTIES, THE BILLS OF
LADING, OR THE GOODS THEMSELVES.  SUCH TAXATION DOES NOT DEAL WITH
PRELIMINARIES, OR WITH DISTINCT OR SEPARABLE SUBJECTS; THE TAX FALLS
UPON THE EXPORTING PROCESS." 

CLOSER IN POINT IS SPALDING & BROS. V. EDWARDS, 262 U.S. 66.  IT
INVOLVED A FEDERAL TAX ON BASEBALL BATS AND BALLS SOLD BY THE
MANUFACTURER.  A VENEZUELAN FIRM ORDERED A NEW YORK COMMISSION HOUSE TO
BUY A QUANTITY OF BATS AND BALLS FOR THEIR ACCOUNT.  THE NEW YORK
COMMISSION HOUSE PLACED THE ORDER WITH THE MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTING IT
TO DELIVER THE PACKAGES TO AN EXPORTING CARRIER IN NEW YORK FOR
SHIPMENT TO VENEZUELA.  THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED TO THE CARRIER AND AN
EXPORT BILL OF LADING WAS ISSUED.  IN DUE COURSE THE GOODS WERE
TRANSPORTED TO VENEZUELA.  THE ISSUE, AS STATED BY THE COURT, P. 68,
WAS "WHETHER THE SALE WAS A STEP IN EXPORTATION."  THE COURT POINTED
OUT THAT THE GOODS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXEMPT FROM TAX WHILE THEY WERE
"IN PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE" THOUGH THEY WERE INTENDED FOR EXPORT BUT
THAT THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT "AFTER THEY HAD BEEN LOADED UPON THE VESSEL
FOR VENEZUELA AND THE BILL OF LADING ISSUED."  THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER
THE "EXPORT HAD BEGUN."  AFTER NOTING THAT TITLE PASSED WHEN THE GOODS
WERE DELIVERED INTO THE CARRIER'S HANDS, THE COURT STATED, PP. 69-70: 

"THE VERY ACT THAT PASSED THE TITLE AND THAT WOULD HAVE INCURRED THE
TAX HAD THE TRANSACTION BEEN DOMESTIC, COMMITTED THE GOODS TO THE
CARRIER THAT WAS TO TAKE THEM ACROSS THE SEA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPORT
AND WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE FOREIGN PORT UPON THE GOODS.  THE
EXPECTED AND ACCOMPLISHED EFFECT OF THE ACT WAS TO START THEM FOR THAT
PORT.  THE FACT THAT FURTHER ACTS WERE TO BE DONE BEFORE THE GOODS
WOULD GET TO SEA DOES NOT MATTER SO LONG AS THEY WERE ONLY THE REGULAR
STEPS TO THE CONTEMPLATED RESULT." 

THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT TITLE WAS IN THE NEW YORK COMMISSION HOUSE AND
THAT IT MIGHT CHANGE ITS MIND AND RETAIN THE GOODS FOR ITS OWN USE WAS
DISMISSED BY THE STATEMENT THAT "THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES MAY BE LEFT
OUT OF ACCOUNT."  P. 70.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT IF EXPORTATION WAS
PUT AT A LATER POINT, EXPORTS WOULD NOT RECEIVE "THE LIBERAL PROTECTION
THAT HITHERTO THEY HAVE RECEIVED."  P. 70. 

THIS LINE OF CASES WAS SUMMARIZED IN WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216,
228, AS CONSTRUING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL
TAXATION OF EXPORTS SO AS TO GIVE "IMMUNITY TO THE PROCESS OF
EXPORTATION AND TO THE TRANSACTIONS AND DOCUMENTS EMBRACED IN THAT
PROCESS....  ONLY ON THAT CONSTRUCTION CAN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD
BE MAINTAINED." 

THE FACT THAT DELIVERY TO A COMMON CARRIER FOR EXPORT GAVE THE SALE
IMMUNITY IN SPALDING & BROS. V. EDWARDS, SUPRA, IS SEIZED UPON AS
STATING A RULE THAT THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION HAS NOT STARTED UNTIL
SUCH DELIVERY HAS BEEN MADE.  AND CASES LIKE SUPERIOR OIL CO. V.
MISSISSIPPI, 280 U.S. 390, ARE RELIED UPON AS INDICATING THAT DELIVERY
TO THE PURCHASER IS NOT SUFFICIENT.  THAT CASE AROSE UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  MISSISSIPPI WAS UPHELD IN ITS EFFORT TO TAX A DISTRIBUTOR OR
WHOLESALER WHO PURCHASED GASOLINE AND LATER TOOK IT TO LOUISIANA FOR
SALE.  THE COURT SAID, P. 395, THAT ALTHOUGH THE COURSE OF BUSINESS
INDICATED THE LIKELY DESTINATION OF THE OIL, IT WAS "IN THE HANDS OF
THE PURCHASER TO DO WITH AS IT LIKED, AND THERE WAS NOTHING THAT IN ANY
WAY COMMITTED IT TO SENDING THE OIL TO LOUISIANA EXCEPT ITS OWN
WISHES."  THE COURT HELD, THEREFORE, THAT THE TAX WAS NOT ON GOODS
MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT IT ADDED, P. 396, "DRAMATIC
CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS A GREAT UNIVERSAL STREAM OF GRAIN FROM THE STATE
OF PURCHASE TO A MARKET ELSEWHERE, MAY AFFECT THE LEGAL CONCLUSION BY
SHOWING THE MANIFEST CERTAINTY OF THE DESTINATION AND EXHIBITING
GROUNDS OF POLICY THAT ARE ABSENT HERE." 

THE CERTAINTY THAT THE GOODS ARE HEADED TO SEA AND THAT THE PROCESS
OF EXPORTATION HAS STARTED FN8  MAY NORMALLY BE BEST EVIDENCED BY THE
FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO A COMMON CARRIER FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  BUT THE SAME DEGREE OF CERTAINTY MAY EXIST THOUGH NO COMMON
CARRIER IS INVOLVED.  THE PRESENT CASE IS AN EXCELLENT ILLUSTRATION. 
THE FOREIGN PURCHASER FURNISHED THE SHIP TO CARRY THE OIL ABROAD. 
DELIVERY WAS MADE INTO THE HOLD OF THE VESSEL FROM THE VENDOR'S TANKS
LOCATED AT THE DOCK.  THAT DELIVERY MARKED THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
MOVEMENT OF THE OIL ABROAD.  IT IS TRUE, AS THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA OBSERVED, THAT AT THE TIME OF THE DELIVERY THE VESSEL WAS IN
CALIFORNIA WATERS AND WAS NOT BOUND FOR ITS DESTINATION UNTIL IT
STARTED TO MOVE FROM THE PORT.  BUT WHEN THE OIL WAS PUMPED INTO THE
HOLD OF THE VESSEL, IT PASSED INTO THE CONTROL OF A FOREIGN PURCHASER
AND THERE WAS NOTHING EQUIVOCAL IN THE TRANSACTION WHICH CREATED EVEN A
PROBABILITY THAT THE OIL WOULD BE DIVERTED TO DOMESTIC USE.  IT WOULD
NOT BE CLEARER THAT THE OIL HAD STARTED UPON ITS EXPORT JOURNEY HAD IT
BEEN DELIVERED TO A COMMON CARRIER AT AN INLAND POINT.  THE MEANS OF
SHIPMENT ARE UNIMPORTANT SO LONG AS THE CERTAINTY OF THE FOREIGN
DESTINATION IS PLAIN. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR UNDER THE DECISIONS WHICH WE HAVE REVIEWED INVOLVING
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE EXPORT WOULD OCCUR NO LATER THAN THE DELIVERY OF
THE OIL INTO THE VESSEL.  AS THE MEANING OF "EXPORT" IS THE SAME UNDER
THAT CLAUSE AND THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE (SEE BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA,
P. 445; TURPIN V. BURGESS, SUPRA, P. 506), THE SAME RESULT FOLLOWS
HERE. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PRESENT TAX IS NOT AN IMPOST WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE.  THE TAX IS MEASURED BY THE
GROSS RECEIPTS OF RETAIL SALES AND IS LEVIED ON RETAILERS "FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF SELLING TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AT RETAIL."  CAL.
STATS. 1935, P. 1253.  THE RETAILERS ARE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT THE TAX
FROM THE CONSUMERS.  CAL. STATS. 1933, P. 2602.  AND A SALE IS "ANY
TRANSFER OF TITLE OR POSSESSION  ...  IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS
WHATSOEVER, OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, FOR A CONSIDERATION."  CAL.
STATS. 1935, P. 1256.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE TAX
IS AN EXCISE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING A RETAIL BUSINESS
MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALES; THAT IT IS NOT LAID UPON THE
CONSUMER AND DOES NOT BECOME A TAX ON THE SALE OR BECAUSE OF THE SALE. 
27 CAL.2D P. 152, 163 P.2D P. 2. 

THAT CONSTRUCTION, BEING A MATTER OF STATE LAW, IS BINDING ON US.
BUT IT IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TAX DEPRIVES
THE TAXPAYER OF A FEDERAL RIGHT.  THAT ISSUE TURNS NOT ON THE
CHARACTERIZATION WHICH THE STATE HAS GIVEN THE TAX, BUT ON ITS
OPERATION AND EFFECT.  SEE ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. V. ARKANSAS,
235 U.S. 350, 362; KANSAS CITY, FT. S. & M.R. CO. V. KANSAS, 240 U.S.
227, 231. 

APPELLEE CONCEDES THAT THE PROHIBITION OF THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE
WOULD BE VIOLATED IF THE GOODS WERE TAXED AS EXPORTS OR BECAUSE OF
THEIR EXPORTATION, OR IF THE PROCESS OF EXPORTATION WERE ITSELF TAXED. 
WE PERCEIVE, HOWEVER, NO DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE BETWEEN ANY TAX SO
LABELED AND THE PRESENT TAX.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CONCEDED
THAT THE DELIVERY OF THE OIL "RESULTED IN THE PASSAGE OF TITLE, AND THE
COMPLETION OF THE SALE, AND THE TAXABLE INCIDENT."  27 CAL.2D P. 153,
163 P.2D PP. 2-3.  THE INCIDENT WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE ACCRUAL OF THE
TAX WAS A STEP IN THE EXPORT PROCESS. 

MOREOVER, BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, REJECTED AN ARGUMENT THAT WHILE A
STATE COULD NOT TAX IMPORTS, IT COULD TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF SELLING
IMPORTS.  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL STATED, P. 444: 

"ALL MUST PERCEIVE, THAT A TAX ON THE SALE OF AN ARTICLE, IMPORTED
ONLY FOR SALE, IS A TAX ON THE ARTICLE ITSELF.  IT IS TRUE, THE STATE
MAY TAX OCCUPATIONS GENERALLY, BUT THIS TAX MUST BE PAID BY THOSE WHO
EMPLOY THE INDIVIDUAL, OR IS A TAX ON HIS BUSINESS.  THE LAWYER, THE
PHYSICIAN, OR THE MECHANIC, MUST EITHER CHARGE MORE ON THE ARTICLE IN
WHICH HE DEALS, OR THE THING ITSELF IS TAXED THROUGH HIS PERSON.  THIS
THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO DO, BECAUSE NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION
EXTENDS TO IT.  SO, A TAX ON THE OCCUPATION OF AN IMPORTER IS, IN LIKE
MANNER, A TAX ON IMPORTATION.  IT MUST ADD TO THE PRICE OF THE ARTICLE,
AND BE PAID BY THE CONSUMER, OR BY THE IMPORTER HIMSELF, IN LIKE MANNER
AS A DIRECT DUTY ON THE ARTICLE ITSELF WOULD BE MADE.  THIS THE STATE
HAS NOT A RIGHT TO DO, BECAUSE IT IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION." 

THE SAME REASONING WAS APPLIED TO EXPORTS, P. 445: 

"THE STATES ARE FORBIDDEN TO LAY A DUTY ON EXPORTS, AND THE UNITED
STATES ARE FORBIDDEN TO LAY A TAX OR DUTY ON ARTICLES EXPORTED FROM ANY
STATE.  THERE IS SOME DIVERSITY IN LANGUAGE, BUT NONE IS PERCEIVABLE IN
THE ACT WHICH IS PROHIBITED.  THE UNITED STATES HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO
TAX OCCUPATIONS WHICH IS POSSESSED BY THE STATES.  NOW, SUPPOSE THE
UNITED STATES SHOULD REQUIRE EVERY EXPORTER TO TAKE OUT A LICENSE, FOR
WHICH HE SHOULD PAY SUCH TAX AS CONGRESS MIGHT THINK PROPER TO IMPOSE;
WOULD GOVERNMENT BE PERMITTED TO SHIELD ITSELF FROM THE JUST CENSURE TO
WHICH THIS ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD
EXPOSE IT, BY SAYING, THAT THIS WAS A TAX ON THE PERSON, NOT ON THE
ARTICLE, AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD A RIGHT TO TAX OCCUPATIONS?" 

THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN THE IMPORT-EXPORT CLAUSE AGAINST
TAXATION ON EXPORTS CLEARLY INVOLVES MORE THAN A MERE EXEMPTION FROM
TAXES LAID SPECIFICALLY UPON THE EXPORTED GOODS THEMSELVES.  THAT IS
TRUE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL TAXES ON
EXPORTS.  UNITED STATES V. HVOSLEF, SUPRA.  WHAT WAS SAID THERE (P. 13)
IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE:  "IF IT MEANT NO MORE THAN THAT, THE
OBSTRUCTIONS TO EXPORTATION WHICH IT WAS THE PURPOSE TO PREVENT COULD
READILY BE SET UP BY LEGISLATION NOMINALLY CONFORMING TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION BUT IN EFFECT OVERRIDING IT."  AND SEE ANGLO
CHILEAN NITRATE SALES CORP. V. ALABAMA, 288 U.S. 218.    WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE TAX WHICH CALIFORNIA HAS EXACTED FROM APPELLANT IS AN IMPOST
UPON AN EXPORT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2,
AND IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN CALIFORNIA A VALID STIPULATION IS BINDING UPON THE PARTIES. 
MCGUIRE V. BAIRD, 9 CAL.2D 353, 70 P.2D 915; WEBSTER V. WEBSTER, 216
CAL. 485, 14 P.2D 522; SEE 23 CAL. JURIS.  826.  IT IS AVAILABLE AT A
SECOND TRIAL UNLESS IN TERMS OTHERWISE LIMITED, NATHAN V. DIERSSEN, 146
CAL. 63, 79 P. 739; CRENSHAW V. SMITH, 74 A.C.A. 295, 168 P.2D 752; SEE
100 A.L.R. 775, AND WILL BE CONTROLLING AT THE SECOND TRIAL UNLESS THE
TRIAL COURT RELIEVES A PARTY FROM THE STIPULATION.  FIRST NATIONAL BANK
V. STANSBURY, 118 CAL. APP. 80, 5 P.2D 13.  RELIEF FROM A STIPULATION
MAY BE GRANTED IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN CASES
WHERE THE FACTS STIPULATED HAVE CHANGED, THERE IS FRAUD, MISTAKE OF
FACT, OR OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE RENDERING IT UNJUST TO ENFORCE THE
STIPULATION.  SACRE V. CHALUPNIK, 188 CAL. 386, 205 P. 449; BACK V.
FARNSWORTH, 25 CAL. APP.2D 212, 77 P.2D 295; SINNOCK V. YOUNG, 61 CAL.
APP.2D 130, 142 P.2D 85; SEE 161 A.L.R. 1163.  IN THE PRESENT CASE
THERE IS NO INTIMATION IN THE RECORD OR BRIEFS OF FRAUD, EXCUSABLE
NEGLECT, OR OTHER GROUND FOR RELIEF.  INDEED THE PARTIES BOTH ACCEPT
THE STIPULATION AS ACCURATE AND COMPLETE. 

FN2  SEE 2 FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION (1911), PP.
307, 359-62, 442. 

FN3  SEE PARTICULARLY MADISON'S STATEMENT, 3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES (2D
ED.)  P. 483.  AND SEE THE FEDERALIST NO. 42. 

FN4  SEE 2 FARRAND, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 2, PP. 305-08, 358-63, 441
42. 

FN5  THE CONSENSUS OF OPINION WAS EXPRESSED BY GERRY - THAT "THE
LEGISLATURE COULD NOT BE TRUSTED WITH SUCH A POWER.  IT MIGHT RUIN THE
COUNTRY.  IT MIGHT BE EXERCISED PARTIALLY, RAISING ONE AND DEPRESSING
ANOTHER PART OF IT."  SEE 2 FARRAND, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 2, P. 307. 
OR AS STATED BY SHERMAN, "A POWER TO TAX EXPORTS WOULD SHIPWRECK THE
WHOLE."  ID., P. 308. 

FN6  THIS WAS SUGGESTED BY LANGDON.  SEE 2 FARRAND, OP. CIT., SUPRA,
NOTE 2, P. 361. 

FN7  SEE 2 FARRAND, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 2, P. 442. 

FN8  SEE CARSON PETROLEUM CO. V. VIAL, 279 U.S. 95. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION, WHILE DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, SOLD
OIL EXTRACTED FROM CALIFORNIA SOIL.  ITS PURCHASER BOUGHT THE OIL TO
TRANSPORT AND USE ABROAD.  CALIFORNIA, LIKE MANY OTHER STATES, RAISES A
LARGE PROPORTION OF ITS REVENUE BY A GENERALLY APPLIED TAX ON SALES. 
FN1 THE COURT HOLDS THAT APPLICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA SALES TAX TO
THIS TRANSACTION IS A "TAX ON EXPORTS" AND THEREFORE VIOLATES ARTICLE
I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  I CANNOT AGREE. 

IN SPALDING & BROS. V. EDWARDS, 262 U.S. 66, 69, A PRECEDENT UPON
WHICH TODAY'S DECISION HEAVILY RELIES, THIS COURT SAID THAT "WITH
REGARD TO ANY TRANSACTION WE HAVE TO FIX A POINT AT WHICH, IN VIEW OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE EXPORT MUST BE SAID TO BEGIN.  AS
ELSEWHERE IN THE LAW THERE WILL BE OTHER POINTS VERY NEAR TO IT ON THE
OTHER SIDE, SO THAT IF THE NECESSITY OF FIXING ONE DEFINITELY IS NOT
REMEMBERED ANY DETERMINATION MAY SEEM ARBITRARY."  THIS PRINCIPLE
ANNOUNCED IN THE SPALDING CASE SEEMS TO FOLLOW WHAT WAS SAID IN CORNELL
V. COYNE, 192 U.S. 418, 427, THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION
AGAINST A TAX ON EXPORTS WAS NOT INTENDED TO RELIEVE EXPORTED ARTICLES
"FROM THE PRIOR ORDINARY BURDENS OF TAXATION WHICH REST UPON ALL
PROPERTY SIMILARLY SITUATED."  EVERY TRANSACTION HELD BY THIS COURT TO
HAVE OCCURRED AFTER RATHER THAN BEFORE EXPORTATION BEGAN MAKES AN
ENCROACHMENT NOT ONLY ON THE POWER OF STATES TO TAX, BUT, AS THE COURT
POINTS OUT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S AREA OF TAXATION IS ALSO
NARROWED.  THE RESULT OF SUCH A HOLDING IS ALL THE MORE SERIOUS
BECAUSE, UNLIKE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HOLDING A STATE TAX INVALID UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST TAXING EXPORTS ARE, WITH
A MINOR EXCEPTION, PERMANENT, ABSOLUTE AND UNQUALIFIED.  AFTER TODAY'S
RULING, CONGRESS ITSELF CAN NEITHER TAX NOR PERMIT STATES TO TAX SALES
LIKE THE ONE HERE PROSCRIBED.  TO CLASSIFY SALES TRANSACTIONS AS HAVING
OCCURRED AFTER EXPORTATION BEGAN, THEREFORE, RESULTS IN CREATING AN
ISLAND OF CONSTITUTIONAL TAX IMMUNITY FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF
THE PROFITABLE BUSINESS OF THE NATION.  SUCH A RESULT NOT ONLY GRANTS
TAX IMMUNITY TO MANY PROFITABLE BUSINESSES WHICH SHARE GOVERNMENTAL
PROTECTIONS FROM PAYMENT OF THEIR FAIR PART OF TAXES; IT ALSO THROWS AN
UNFAIR PART OF THE TAX BURDEN ON OTHERS.  SINCE WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION LOOKED WITH FAVOR ON SUCH CONSEQUENCES,
WE SHOULD, BEFORE CLASSIFYING A TRANSACTION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO RENDER
A TAX ON IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, GIVE IT THE MOST CAREFUL FACTUAL
SCRUTINY.  WE SHOULD NOT INVALIDATE SUCH A TAX UNLESS SATISFIED BEYOND
DOUBT THAT IT FALLS SQUARELY AND WHOLLY WITHIN THE AREA MARKED BY THE
CONSTITUTION FOR TAX EXEMPTION. 

THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH SALES TAXES ARE PROBABLY ABOUT THE
SAME AS WOULD FLOW FROM A PROPERTY OR SEVERANCE TAX APPLIED TO
RICHFIELD.  FOR ALL THREE TYPES OF TAXES WOULD LIKELY BE REFLECTED IN
AN INCREASED SALES PRICE OF RICHFIELD'S OIL.  NO ONE, I SUPPOSE, WOULD
THINK OF SAYING THAT SUCH A PROPERTY OR SEVERANCE TAX WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A TAX ON EXPORTS.  THE REASON WOULD BE THAT THE
TAXABLE EVENT CLEARLY AROSE BEFORE AND NOT AFTER EXPORTATION BEGAN. 
THIS SALES TAX WAS NO MORE APPLIED AFTER EXPORT HAD ACTUALLY BEGUN THAN
A PROPERTY OR SEVERANCE TAX WOULD HAVE BEEN.  THE TAX WAS NOT EVEN
LEVIED ON AN EXPORTER OR AN EXPORTER'S AGENT OR BROKER.  RICHFIELD WAS
NEITHER.  ITS SALE OF LOCAL CALIFORNIA GOODS WAS NEGOTIATED AND
COMPLETED WHOLLY IN CALIFORNIA.  THIS PURELY INTRASTATE SALE
TRANSACTION CANNOT PROPERLY BE HELD TO HAVE LOST ITS INTRASTATE PRE
EXPORTATION STATUS BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES DID NOT
INTEND "TITLE TO PASS" UNTIL THE OIL WAS DELIVERED AT THE PURCHASER'S
SHIP.  FOR FORMAL "PASSAGE OF TITLE" IS NOT AN ADEQUATE CRITERION FOR
MEASURING A STATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO TAX SALES MADE WITHIN THE
STATE.  PRIVATE PARTIES ARE FREE TO DECIDE, SO FAR AS THEIR OWN
INTERESTS ARE CONCERNED, WHEN LEGAL TITLE SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO
"PASS."  BUT A STATE SURELY IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO
FORBEAR FROM TAXING THAT PART OF A SALES TRANSACTION WHICH PRECEDES THE
PARTICULAR MOMENT THE PARTIES HAVE ARBITRARILY SELECTED FOR A
CONCEPTUAL TRANSFER OF TITLE.  NOR NEED A STATE WITHHOLD THE EXERCISE
OF ITS POWER TO TAX SALES UNTIL AN ARTICLE IS DELIVERED OR PAID FOR. 
THAT DELIVERY, PERHAPS THE LAST STEP IN EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT TO
SELL, HAPPENED TO BORDER ON THE IMAGINARY LINE WHERE THE ACTUAL
EXPORTER TOOK POSSESSION DOES NOT JUSTIFY US IN CONCLUDING THAT
THEREFORE THE WHOLE SALES TRANSACTION OCCURRED AFTER EXPORTATION. 
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS WHICH MAKE SERIOUS INROADS INTO THE
POWER OF BOTH THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX SALES MADE
BY LOCAL BUSINESSES SHOULD NOT TURN ON FINE LEGAL CONCEPTS OF WHEN
TITLE PASSED OR DELIVERY OCCURRED IN RELATION TO THE BEGINNING OF
EXPORTATION. 

CONCEDEDLY, AS THE COURT POINTS OUT, THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS
IMPOSITION OF STATE AND FEDERAL "IMPOSTS AND DUTIES" ON "EXPORTS."  BUT
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEFINE IN WORDS WHAT IS AN IMPOST OR TAX ON
EXPORTS AND WHAT IS NOT.  IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT TAXATION OF EXPORTS WAS
PRIMARILY FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION AT THE INSISTENCE OF INLAND
STATES WHICH FEARED THAT SEABOARD STATES WOULD EXACT A TRIBUTE FROM ALL
GOODS SOLD IN THE INTERIOR WHICH WERE THEREAFTER TRANSPORTED THROUGH
PORTS EN ROUTE TO FOREIGN DESTINATIONS.  IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BESTOW
A BOUNTY OF BLANKET TAX IMMUNITY UPON ALL THOSE WHO ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, PURCHASE, OR SALE OF GOODS SHIPPED ABROAD. 
THERE WAS NO BROAD PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING FOREIGN COMMERCE BY MAKING
ALL THESE PRELIMINARY STEPS TAX FREE.  THE MOTIVATION OF THIS TAX AND
ITS ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES PLAINLY ARE NOT THOSE WHICH THE WRITERS OF
THE CONSTITUTION CONDEMNED.  THIS WAS NO TAX ON GOODS FROM AN INLAND
STATE WHICH CAME THROUGH CALIFORNIA IN TRANSIT AFTER SEVERANCE,
PROCESSING, AND SALE HAD BEEN COMPLETED.  NOR WAS IT A DISGUISED TAX ON
A PRODUCT OF CALIFORNIA SOIL OR MANUFACTURE IMPOSED SOLELY BECAUSE THE
OIL WAS INTENDED FOR A FOREIGN DESTINATION.  THE TAX WAS NOTHING MORE
THAN AN EFFORT OF CALIFORNIA TO DEFRAY A PART OF THE STATE'S EXPENSES
BY A UNIFORM SALES TAX ON ALL THOSE BUSINESSES, INCLUDING RICHFIELD,
WHICH ENJOYED CALIFORNIA'S NATURAL RESOURCES, THE LABOR OF ITS PEOPLE,
AND THE SERVICES AND PROTECTION OF ITS GOVERNMENT. 

TRUE, THE TAX WOULD IMPOSE A BURDEN ON EXPORT COMMERCE TO THE EXTENT
THAT IT INCREASED THE EXPORT PRICE OF RICHFIELD OIL.  BUT IF A TAX ON
EXPORT SALES BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR IMPOSING SUCH A BURDEN, SO IS A
PROPERTY TAX OR A SEVERANCE TAX APPLIED TO RICHFIELD'S OIL ANYWHERE
FROM WELL TO CONSUMER.  FOR ALL THESE TYPES OF TAXES WOULD LIKELY BE
REFLECTED IN THE PRICE OF RICHFIELD'S OIL.  BUT THE HISTORY AND THE
EVOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST TAXATION OF EXPORTS
MANIFEST THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO SUBSIDIZE EITHER EXPORT
BUSINESSES OR FOREIGN PURCHASERS BY ANY SUCH BROAD IMMUNITY FROM STATE
AND FEDERAL TAXATION. 

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO LET
ALL GOODS DESTINED FOR SHIPMENT ABROAD ESCAPE UNIFORMLY APPLIED STATE
AND FEDERAL TAXES, NOR THAT A STATE WHOSE RESOURCES ARE DEPLETED IS
POWERLESS TO ENFORCE ITS SALES TAX IF THE DEPLETER SELLS TO CUSTOMERS
FOR IMMEDIATE SHIPMENT FOR ULTIMATE USE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  NO
PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO INDICATE THAT THOSE WHO WROTE
THE CONSTITUTION THOUGHT IN SUCH TERMS OR THAT THEY WOULD HAVE
HANDICAPPED THE STATE AND FEDERAL TAXING POWER IN SUCH A WAY.  AND NO
OTHER SUFFICIENTLY COGENT REASONS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO REQUIRE A
PRESENT INTERPRETATION WHICH SO DISARRANGES, CONFUSES, AND HANDICAPS
THE SALES TAXES OF ALL THE STATES. 

FN1  IN 1945 CALIFORNIA'S TOTAL REVENUE WAS $676,828,000.  IT
COLLECTED $242,757,000 FROM ITS SALES TAX.  CALIFORNIA STATE FINANCES
IN 1945, 1 STATE FINANCES:  1945, DEPT. OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS (1946) 33. 
..END :























AMERICAN POWER CO. V. S.E.C., 329 U.S. 90 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 1945.  REARGUED OCTOBER 14, 15, 1946.  - DECIDED
NOVEMBER 25, 1946.  - 141 F.2D 606, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 11(B)(2) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935
DIRECTS THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE
AFTER JANUARY 1, 1938, "TO REQUIRE BY ORDER, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, THAT EACH REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY, AND EACH
SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF, SHALL TAKE SUCH STEPS AS THE COMMISSION
SHALL FIND NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR
CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ANY COMPANY IN THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM DOES
NOT UNDULY OR UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATE THE STRUCTURE, OR UNFAIRLY OR
INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE VOTING POWER AMONG SECURITY HOLDERS, OF SUCH
HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM."  IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE COMMISSION
UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2), THE COMMISSION FOUND, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING,
THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF PETITIONERS,
TWO SUBHOLDING COMPANIES IN A HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM, UNDULY AND
UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED THE STRUCTURE OF THE SYSTEM AND UNFAIRLY AND
INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED VOTING POWER AMONG THE SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE
SYSTEM, IN VIOLATION OF THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2).  THE COMMISSION
THEREUPON ENTERED ORDERS REQUIRING THE DISSOLUTION OF BOTH PETITIONERS
AND REQUIRING THEM TO SUBMIT PLANS FOR EFFECTUATING THE ORDERS.  HELD
THAT THE ORDERS WERE AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 11(B)(2) AND THAT THE SECTION
AS SO APPLIED IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  PP. 96, 121. 

2.  SECTION 11(B)(2) IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 96-104. 

(A)  SECTION 11(B)(2) APPLIES ONLY TO REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANIES
AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.  P. 97. 

(B)  THE IMPACT OF SEC. 11(B)(2) IS LIMITED, BY REFERENCE TO THE
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS, TO THOSE HOLDING COMPANIES WHICH ARE IN FACT
IN THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE ACTIVITY OR THAT AFFECT COMMERCE IN MORE
STATES THAN ONE, NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686, AND DEPEND
FOR THEIR VERY EXISTENCE UPON THE CONSTANT AND SYSTEMATIC USE OF THE
MAILS AND THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 98. 

(C)  THE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE EMBRACED
POSSESSES AN UNDENIABLE INTERSTATE CHARACTER WHICH MAKES IT PROPERLY
SUBJECT, FROM THE STATUTORY STANDPOINT, TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
11(B)(2).  P. 98. 

(D)  CONGRESS HAS POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO IMPOSE RELEVANT
CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE WHO USE THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE SO THAT THOSE CHANNELS WILL NOT BE CONDUITS FOR PROMOTING OR
PERPETUATING ECONOMIC EVILS.  P. 99. 

(E)  CONGRESS IS COMPLETELY UNINHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN
SELECTING THE MEANS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR BRINGING ABOUT THE DESIRED
CONDITIONS IN THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ANY LIMITATIONS ARE
TO BE FOUND IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 100. 

(F)  CONGRESS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
TO UNDERTAKE TO SOLVE NATIONAL PROBLEMS DIRECTLY AND REALISTICALLY,
GIVING DUE RECOGNITION TO THE SCOPE OF STATE POWER.  P. 103. 

3.  SECTION 11(B)(2) DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE LEGISLATIVE
POWER TO THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION.  PP. 104-106. 

(A)  THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE
COMMISSION SHALL ACT SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR
CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ANY COMPANY IN A PARTICULAR HOLDING COMPANY
SYSTEM DOES NOT "UNDULY OR UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATE THE STRUCTURE" OR
"UNFAIRLY OR INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE VOTING POWER AMONG SECURITY
HOLDERS," ARE NOT TOO INDEFINITE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE
ACT, ITS FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND THE STATUTORY CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY
APPEAR.  PP. 104-105. 

(B)  NECESSITY FIXES A POINT BEYOND WHICH IT IS UNREASONABLE AND
IMPRACTICABLE TO COMPEL CONGRESS TO PRESCRIBE DETAILED RULES.  IT THEN
BECOMES CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT IF CONGRESS CLEARLY DELINEATES THE
GENERAL POLICY, THE PUBLIC AGENCY WHICH IS TO APPLY IT, AND THE
BOUNDARIES OF THIS DELEGATED AUTHORITY.  PRIVATE RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED
BY ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO TEST THE APPLICATION OF THE POLICY IN THE
LIGHT OF THESE LEGISLATIVE DECLARATIONS.  P. 105. 

(C)  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS OF NO CONSTITUTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE COMMISSION, IN EXECUTING THE POLICIES OF SEC.
11(B)(2), ALSO HAS DISCRETION TO FASHION REMEDIES OF A CIVIL NATURE
NECESSARY FOR ATTAINING THE DESIRED GOALS.  P. 106. 

(D)  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSION TRANSLATE
THE LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS INTO FORMAL AND DETAILED RULES OF THUMB PRIOR
TO THEIR APPLICATION TO PARTICULAR CASES.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ACTIONS CONFORM TO THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND POLICY.  P.
106. 

4.  SECTION 11(B)(2) DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 106-108. 

(A)  IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT TO REWEIGH THE FACTORS
CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE LEGISLATION, OR TO QUESTION THE
CONCLUSION REACHED BY CONGRESS.  P. 106. 

(B)  SECTION 11(B)(2) DOES NOT ON ITS FACE AUTHORIZE OR NECESSARILY
INVOLVE ANY DESTRUCTION OF ANY VALUABLE INTERESTS WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION.  NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686.  P. 107. 

(C)  SECTION 11(B)(2) IS NOT RENDERED VOID BY THE ABSENCE OF AN
EXPRESS PROVISION FOR NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING TO SECURITY
HOLDERS REGARDING PROCEEDINGS UNDER THAT SECTION.  P. 107. 

(D)  THE MANAGEMENTS OF THE PETITIONERS, HAVING BEEN NOTIFIED AND
HAVING PARTICIPATED IN SEC. 11(B)(2) PROCEEDINGS, POSSESS NO STANDING
TO ASSERT THE INVALIDITY OF THAT SECTION FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE
SECURITY HOLDERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO NOTICE AND HEARING.  P.
107. 

(E)  THE COMMISSION IS BOUND UNDER THE STATUTE TO GIVE NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING TO CONSUMERS, INVESTORS AND OTHER PERSONS
WHENEVER CONSTITUTIONALLY NECESSARY.  P. 108. 

(F)  SECTION 11(B)(2), FAIRLY CONSTRUED, NEITHER EXPRESSLY NOR
IMPLIEDLY AUTHORIZES UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE.  P. 108. 

5.  THE RECORD AMPLY SUPPORTS THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT THE
CORPORATE STRUCTURES AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF PETITIONERS UNDULY AND
UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATE THE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM IN WHICH THEY ARE
SUBHOLDING COMPANIES, AND UNFAIRLY AND INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE VOTING
POWER AMONG THE SECURITY HOLDERS OF THAT SYSTEM.  PP. 108-112. 

6.  THE COMMISSION'S CHOICE OF THE DISSOLUTION OF PETITIONERS AS
"NECESSARY TO ENSURE" EFFECTUATION OF THE ACT WAS AUTHORIZED AND MAY
NOT BE SET ASIDE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW.  PP. 112-118. 

(A)  WHERE CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF SELECTING THE MEANS OF ACHIEVING THE STATUTORY
POLICY, THE RELATION OF REMEDY TO POLICY IS PECULIARLY A MATTER FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCE.  P. 112. 

(B)  ONLY IF THE REMEDY CHOSEN IS UNWARRANTED IN LAW OR WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION IN FACT SHOULD A COURT INTERVENE.  PP. 112-113. 

(C)  DISSOLUTION OF A HOLDING COMPANY OR A SUBHOLDING COMPANY IS
CONTEMPLATED AND AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 11(B)(2) AS A POSSIBLE REMEDY.  P.
113. 

(D)  THE PHRASE "IN THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM" DOES NOT LIMIT THE
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO ORDERS REMOVING A PARTICULAR COMPANY
FROM THE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM OF WHICH IT IS A PART BUT PERMITS AN
ORDER TERMINATING ITS CORPORATE EXISTENCE.  P. 113. 

(E)  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT
DISSOLUTION IS ONE OF THE REMEDIES CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 11(B)(2) AND
THAT ITS CHOICE FALLS WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF THE COMMISSION'S
DISCRETION.  PP. 114-115. 

(F)  THE COMMISSION'S CHOICE OF DISSOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
PETITIONERS IS NOT SO LACKING IN REASONABLENESS AS TO CONSTITUTE AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  P. 115. 

(G)  DISSOLUTION IS NOT SO DRASTIC A REMEDY AS TO BE UNREASONABLE. 
P. 116. 

(H)  SINCE THE COMMISSION'S CHOICE OF DISSOLUTION OF THE PETITIONERS
HAS A RATIONAL BASIS, THE FACT THAT OTHER SOLUTIONS MIGHT HAVE BEEN
SELECTED IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 118. 

(I)  REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF THE COMMISSION'S CHOICE OF REMEDIES IS
LIMITED SOLELY TO TESTING THE PROPRIETY OF THE REMEDY SO CHOSEN FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTE.  P. 118. 

(J)  THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF
PETITIONERS VIOLATES THE STATUTORY STANDARDS WARRANTS THE ORDER OF
THEIR DISSOLUTION, WHATEVER MAY BE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE PARENT
HOLDING COMPANY.  P. 118. 

7.  WHEN THE HEARINGS IN THE PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS BY THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) HAD BEEN IN PROGRESS
FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AND THE RECORD WAS APPROACHING COMPLETION,
PETITIONERS MOVED TO CONSOLIDATE APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS
FILED BY THEM UNDER SEC. 11(E), DESIGNED TO ADJUST THE COMPANIES TO THE
STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2) WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF DISSOLUTION.  THE
COMMISSION DEFERRED CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTIONS UNTIL IT ENTERED THE
DISSOLUTION ORDERS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2).  IT THEN DENIED THE MOTIONS AND
REFUSED TO GRANT HEARINGS ON THE PLANS IN ADVANCE OF ITS ORDERS OF
DISSOLUTION.  IT DID THIS AFTER THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE PLANS AND
AFTER FINDING THAT THEY WERE INCOMPLETE AND INADEQUATE ON THEIR FACE
AND THAT THEY FAILED TO HOLD OUT ANY REAL PROMISE OF EFFECTUATING THE
STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2).  HELD THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THIS
PROCEDURE.  PP. 118-119. 

(A)  THE FILING OF THE PLANS UNDER SEC. 11(E) DID NOT OUST THE
COMMISSION OF JURISDICTION TO ENTER ITS ORDERS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2).  P.
119. 

(B)  WHERE CONSIDERATION OF PLANS FILED UNDER SEC. 11(E) LEADS THE
COMMISSION TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ON THEIR FACE THEY ARE INCOMPLETE,
INADEQUATE AND UNLIKELY TO SATISFY THE STATUTORY STANDARDS, OR WHERE
THEY ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF DELAY, IT
WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE STATUTORY POLICY OF PROMPT ACTION TO REQUIRE
THE COMMISSION TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THEM BEFORE ENTERING AN ORDER UNDER
SEC. 11(B)(2).  P. 120. 

(C)  TO THE EXTENT THAT ENTRY OF THE SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDERS MADE THE
PLANS FILED UNDER SEC. 11(E) MOOT OR HEARINGS THEREON UNNECESSARY, THE
RESULT IS ONE THAT IS INEVITABLE IF PROPER ACCOMMODATION IS TO BE MADE
FOR THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE ACT AND FOR THE VARIOUS STATUTORY
POLICIES.  PP. 120-121. 

(D)  MOREOVER, A SEC. 11(B)(2) PROCEEDING LEADS ONLY TO THE
EXPRESSION OF THE COMMISSION'S VIEW OF WHAT MUST BE DONE TO ENSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY STANDARDS.  PETITIONERS ARE NOT YET
FORECLOSED FROM ATTACKING THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2). 
P. 121. 

AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 

NO. 4.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 5, ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CORP. V. SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT. 

IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 1935, THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION ENTERED
ORDERS REQUIRING THE DISSOLUTION OF PETITIONERS AND REQUIRING THEM TO
SUBMIT PLANS FOR THE EFFECTUATION OF THE ORDERS.  11 S.E.C. 1146.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE ORDERS.  141 F.2D 606.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  325 U.S. 846.  AFFIRMED, P. 121. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 11(B)(2) OF
THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935  FN1  AND ITS
APPLICATION TO THE PETITIONERS, THE AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND
THE ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CORPORATION. 

AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC ARE TWO OF THE SUBHOLDING COMPANIES IN THE
ELECTRIC BOND AND SHARE COMPANY HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM, CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF WHICH WERE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V.
S.E.C., 303 U.S. 419.  THIS SYSTEM IS A PYRAMID-LIKE STRUCTURE OF WHICH
BOND AND SHARE ITSELF CONSTITUTES THE APEX, FIVE SUBHOLDING COMPANIES
(INCLUDING AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC) CREATE AN INTERMEDIATE TIER,  FN2
AND APPROXIMATELY 237 DIRECT AND INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES OF THE LATTER
FORM THE BASE.  FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BOOK CAPITALIZATION AND ASSETS,
NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS AND AREAS SERVED BY THE OPERATING COMPANIES, AND
QUANTITY OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED AND GAS SOLD, THE BOND AND SHARE
SYSTEM CONSTITUTES THE LARGEST SINGLE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY
SYSTEM REGISTERED UNDER THE ACT. 

THE PROCEEDING NOW UNDER REVIEW WAS INSTITUTED BY THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) OF THE ACT.  AFTER APPROPRIATE
NOTICE AND HEARING, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE
AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC UNDULY AND
UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED THE BOND AND SHARE SYSTEM AND UNFAIRLY AND
INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED VOTING POWER AMONG THE SECURITY HOLDERS OF THAT
SYSTEM, IN VIOLATION OF THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2).  11 S.E.C.
1146.  ORDERS WERE ACCORDINGLY ENTERED REQUIRING THE DISSOLUTION OF
BOTH AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC AND REQUIRING THEM TO SUBMIT PLANS FOR THE
EFFECTUATION OF THESE ORDERS.  THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN ALL RESPECTS AND AFFIRMED ITS
ORDERS, WHILE REFUSING TO CONSIDER CERTAIN CONTENTIONS OF AMERICAN AND
ELECTRIC WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  141 F.2D
606.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF
THE ISSUES PRESENTED.  325 U.S. 846. 

                                  I. 

AT THE OUTSET, WE REJECT THE CLAIM THAT SEC. 11(B)(2), VIEWED FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

SO FAR AS HERE PERTINENT,  FN3  SEC. 11(B)(2) DIRECTS THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER JANUARY 1, 1938,
"TO REQUIRE BY ORDER, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, THAT
EACH REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY, AND EACH SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF,
SHALL TAKE SUCH STEPS AS THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND NECESSARY TO ENSURE
THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ANY COMPANY IN
THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM DOES NOT UNDULY OR UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATE
THE STRUCTURE, OR UNFAIRLY OR INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE VOTING POWER AMONG
SECURITY HOLDERS, OF SUCH HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM....  EXCEPT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTING VOTING POWER AMONG THE
SECURITY HOLDERS OF SUCH COMPANY, NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL
AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE ANY CHANGE IN THE CORPORATE
STRUCTURE OR EXISTENCE OF ANY COMPANY WHICH IS NOT A HOLDING COMPANY,
OR OF ANY COMPANY WHOSE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS THAT OF A PUBLICUTILITY
COMPANY." 

LIKE SEC. 11(B)(1), ITS STATUTORY COMPANION, SEC. 11(B)(2) APPLIES
ONLY TO REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANIES AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.  WE NOTED
IN NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686, 698, THAT BY MAKING
CERTAIN INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS UNLAWFUL UNLESS A HOLDING COMPANY
REGISTERS WITH THE COMMISSION, SEC. 4(A), AND BY EXTENDING SEC.
11(B)(1) TO REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANIES, CONGRESS HAS EFFECTIVELY
APPLIED SEC. 11(B)(1) TO THOSE HOLDING COMPANIES THAT ARE IN FACT IN
THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE ACTIVITY OR THAT AFFECT COMMERCE IN MORE
STATES THAN ONE.  THE IDENTICAL OBSERVATIONS CAN BE MADE AS TO SEC.
11(B)(2).  ITS IMPACT IS LIKEWISE LIMITED, BY REFERENCE TO THE
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS, TO THOSE HOLDING COMPANIES WHICH DEPEND FOR
THEIR VERY EXISTENCE UPON THE CONSTANT AND SYSTEMATIC USE OF THE MAILS
AND THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  EFFECT IS THEREBY
GIVEN TO THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY SET FORTH IN SEC. 1(C) OF INTERPRETING
ALL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO MEET THE PROBLEMS AND TO ELIMINATE THE
EVILS "CONNECTED WITH PUBLIC-UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES WHICH ARE
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT
OR BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

THE BOND AND SHARE SYSTEM, INCLUDING AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC, POSSESSES
AN UNDENIABLE INTERSTATE CHARACTER WHICH MAKES IT PROPERLY SUBJECT,
FROM THE STATUTORY STANDPOINT, TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11(B)(2). 
THIS VAST SYSTEM EMBRACES UTILITY PROPERTIES IN NO FEWER THAN 32
STATES, FROM NEW JERSEY TO OREGON AND FROM MINNESOTA TO FLORIDA, AS
WELL AS IN 12 FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  BOND AND SHARE DOMINATES AND CONTROLS
THIS SYSTEM FROM ITS HEADQUARTERS IN NEW YORK CITY.  FN4  AS WAS THE
SITUATION IN THE NORTH AMERICAN CASE, THE PROPER CONTROL AND
FUNCTIONING OF SUCH AN EXTENSIVE MULTI-STATE NETWORK OF CORPORATIONS
NECESSITATES CONTINUOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL USE OF THE MAILS AND THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ONLY IN THAT WAY CAN BOND
AND SHARE, OR ITS SUBHOLDING COMPANIES OR SERVICE SUBSIDIARY, MARKET
AND DISTRIBUTE SECURITIES, CONTROL AND INFLUENCE THE VARIOUS OPERATING
COMPANIES, NEGOTIATE INTER-SYSTEM LOANS, ACQUIRE OR EXCHANGE PROPERTY,
PERFORM SERVICE CONTRACTS, OR REAP THE BENEFITS OF STOCK OWNERSHIP. 
SEE SEC. 1(A).  SEE ALSO INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217 U.S.
91.  MOREOVER, MANY OF THE OPERATING COMPANIES ON THE LOWER ECHELON
SELL AND TRANSMIT ELECTRIC ENERGY OR GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO AN
EXTENT THAT CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS SPASMODIC OR INSIGNIFICANT. 
ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V. S.E.C., SUPRA, 432-33.  FN5  SUCH
ACTIVITIES SERVE TO AUGMENT THE INTERSTATE NATURE OF THE BOND AND SHARE
SYSTEM.  AND THEY MAKE EVEN PLAINER THE FACT THAT THIS SYSTEM FALLS
WITHIN THE INTENDED SCOPE OF SEC. 11(B)(2). 

CONGRESS, OF COURSE, HAS UNDOUBTED POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
IMPOSE RELEVANT CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE WHO USE THE
CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO THAT THOSE CHANNELS WILL NOT BE
CONDUITS FOR PROMOTING OR PERPETUATING ECONOMIC EVILS.  NORTH AMERICAN
CO. V. S.E.C., SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; BROOKS V.
UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432.  THUS TO THE EXTENT THAT CORPORATE
BUSINESS IS TRANSACTED THROUGH SUCH CHANNELS, AFFECTING COMMERCE IN
MORE STATES THAN ONE, CONGRESS MAY ACT DIRECTLY WITH RESPECT TO THAT
BUSINESS TO PROTECT WHAT IT CONCEIVES TO BE THE NATIONAL WELFARE.  IT
MAY PRESCRIBE APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS AND DETERMINE THE CONDITIONS
UNDER WHICH THAT BUSINESS MAY BE PURSUED.  FN6  IT MAY COMPEL CHANGES
IN THE VOTING RIGHTS AND OTHER PRIVILEGES OF STOCKHOLDERS.  FN7  IT MAY
ORDER THE DIVESTMENT OR REARRANGEMENT OF PROPERTIES.  FN8  IT MAY ORDER
THE REORGANIZATION OR DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATIONS.  FN9  IN SHORT,
CONGRESS IS COMPLETELY UNINHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN SELECTING
THE MEANS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR BRINGING ABOUT THE DESIRED
CONDITIONS IN THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ANY LIMITATIONS ARE
TO BE FOUND IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9
WHEAT.  1, 196. 

SINCE THE MANDATES OF SEC. 11(B)(2) ARE DIRECTED SOLELY TO PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS THAT USE THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE VALIDITY OF THAT SECTION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
BECOMES APPARENT.  IT IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE USE OF THOSE CHANNELS
TO PROPAGATE AND DISSEMINATE THE EVILS WHICH HAD BEEN FOUND TO FLOW
FROM UNDULY COMPLICATED SYSTEMS AND FROM INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTIONS OF
VOTING POWER AMONG SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE SYSTEMS.  SUCH EVILS ARE SO
INEXTRICABLY ENTWINED AROUND THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS OF THE HOLDING
COMPANY SYSTEMS AS TO PRESENT NO SERIOUS QUESTION AS TO THE POWER OF
CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO ERADICATE THEM. 

IN THE EXTENSIVE STUDIES WHICH PRECEDED THE PASSAGE OF THE PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT, IT HAD BEEN FOUND THAT "THE MOST
DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTIC, AND PERHAPS THE MOST SERIOUS DEFECT OF THE
PRESENT FORM OF HOLDING-COMPANY ORGANIZATION IS THE PYRAMIDED STRUCTURE
WHICH IS FOUND IN ALL OF THE IMPORTANT HOLDING-COMPANY GROUPS
EXAMINED."  FN10  THE PYRAMIDING DEVICE IN ITS MOST COMMON FORM
CONSISTED OF INTERPOSING ONE OR MORE SUBHOLDING COMPANIES BETWEEN THE
HOLDING COMPANY AND THE OPERATING COMPANIES AND ISSUING, AT EACH LEVEL
OF THE STRUCTURE, DIFFERENT CLASSES OF STOCK WITH UNEQUAL VOTING
RIGHTS.  MOST OF THE FINANCING OF THE VARIOUS COMPANIES IN THE
STRUCTURE OCCURRED THROUGH THE SALE TO THE PUBLIC OF BONDS AND
PREFERRED STOCK HAVING LOW FIXED RETURNS AND GENERALLY CARRYING NO
VOICE IN THE MANAGEMENTS.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, A RELATIVELY SMALL
BUT STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN COMMON STOCK (WITH VOTING PRIVILEGES) IN
THE HIGHER LEVELS OF A PYRAMIDED STRUCTURE OFTEN RESULTED IN ABSOLUTE
CONTROL OF UNDERLYING OPERATING COMPANIES WITH ASSETS OF HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.  FN11  A TREMENDOUS "LEVERAGE" IN RELATION TO THAT
STOCK WAS THUS PRODUCED; THE EARNINGS OF THE TOP HOLDING COMPANY WERE
GREATLY MAGNIFIED BY COMPARATIVELY SMALL CHANGES IN THE EARNINGS OF THE
OPERATING COMPANIES.  THE COMMON STOCK OF THE TOP HOLDING COMPANY MIGHT
QUICKLY RISE IN VALUE AND JUST AS QUICKLY FALL, MAKING IT A NATURAL
OBJECT FOR SPECULATION AND GAMBLING.  IN MANY INSTANCES THIS CREATED
FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENTS AND UNSOUND CAPITAL STRUCTURES. 
FN12  PUBLIC INVESTORS IN SUCH STOCK FOUND THEMSELVES THE INNOCENT
VICTIMS, WHILE THOSE WHO SUPPLIED MOST OF THE CAPITAL THROUGH THE
PURCHASE OF BONDS AND PREFERRED STOCK LIKEWISE SUFFERED IN ADDITION TO
BEING LARGELY DISFRANCHISED.  PRUDENT MANAGEMENT OF THE OPERATING
COMPANIES BECAME A MINOR CONSIDERATION, WITH PRESSURE BEING PLACED ON
THEM TO SUSTAIN THE EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION TO THE DETRIMENT OF THEIR
SERVICE TO CONSUMERS.  REDUCTION OF RATES WAS FIRMLY RESISTED.  THE
CONCLUSION WAS ACCORDINGLY REACHED BY THOSE MAKING THE STUDIES THAT THE
HIGHLY PYRAMIDED SYSTEM "IS DANGEROUS AND HAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
EXISTENCE"  FN13  AND "REPRESENTS THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM AT ITS
WORST."  FN14 

SUCH WAS THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE PROBLEM TO WHICH CONGRESS
ADDRESSED ITSELF IN SEC. 11(B)(2).  VARIOUS ABUSES TRACEABLE IN
SUBSTANTIAL MEASURE TO THE USE OF THE PYRAMIDING DEVICE WERE ENUMERATED
IN SEC. 1(B).  AND IT WAS SPECIFICALLY FOUND IN SEC. 1(B)(3) THAT THE
NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE INTERESTS OF THE INVESTORS AND
CONSUMERS ARE OR MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED "WHEN CONTROL OF SUCH
(SUBSIDIARY) COMPANIES IS EXERTED THROUGH DISPROPORTIONATELY SMALL
INVESTMENT." 

THE PROBLEM WHICH UNDERLIES SEC. 11(B)(2), THEREFORE, DEALS WITH THE
VERY ESSENCE OF HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS.  THEIR PYRAMIDED STRUCTURES
AND THE RESULTING ABUSES, LIKE THEIR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS, REST
SQUARELY UPON AN EXTENSIVE USE OF THE MAILS AND THE INSTRUMENTALITIES
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CONVERSELY, EVERY INTERSTATE TRANSACTION OF
SUCH SYSTEMS IS IMPREGNATED IN ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER WITH THE EFFECTS
OF COMPLICATED CORPORATE STRUCTURES AND INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTIONS OF
VOTING POWER.  MANY OF THESE EFFECTS MAY BE INTANGIBLE AND INDISTINCT,
BUT THEY ARE NONETHELESS REAL. 

TO DENY THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER TO ELIMINATE EVILS CONNECTED WITH
PYRAMIDED HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS, EVILS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE
PROMOTED AND TRANSMITTED BY MEANS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS TO DENY
THAT CONGRESS CAN EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE WELFARE
OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY.  WE CANNOT DENY THAT POWER.  RATHER WE
REAFFIRM ONCE MORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY RESIDENT IN CONGRESS BY
VIRTUE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO UNDERTAKE TO SOLVE NATIONAL PROBLEMS
DIRECTLY AND REALISTICALLY, GIVING DUE RECOGNITION TO THE SCOPE OF
STATE POWER.  THAT FOLLOWS FROM THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL COMMERCE
POWER IS AS BROAD AS THE ECONOMIC NEEDS OF THE NATION.  NORTH AMERICAN
CO. V. S.E.C., SUPRA.

                                 II. 

WE LIKEWISE REJECT THE CLAIM THAT SEC. 11(B)(2) CONSTITUTES AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED ABSENCE OF ANY ASCERTAINABLE
STANDARDS FOR GUIDANCE IN CARRYING OUT ITS FUNCTIONS. 

TO ENSURE THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ANY
COMPANY IN A PARTICULAR HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM DOES NOT "UNDULY OR
UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATE THE STRUCTURE" OR "UNFAIRLY OR INEQUITABLY
DISTRIBUTE VOTING POWER AMONG SECURITY HOLDERS."  IT IS ARGUED THAT
THESE PHRASES ARE UNDEFINED BY THE ACT, ARE LEGALLY MEANINGLESS IN
THEMSELVES AND CARRY WITH THEM NO HISTORICALLY DEFINED CONCEPTS.  AS A
RESULT, IT IS SAID, THE COMMISSION IS FORCED TO USE ITS UNLIMITED WHIM
TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 11(B)(2); AND IN
FRAMING ITS ORDERS, THE COMMISSION HAS UNFETTERED DISCRETION TO DECIDE
WHOSE PROPERTY SHALL BE TAKEN OR DESTROYED AND TO WHAT EXTENT. 
OBJECTION IS ALSO MADE ON THE SCORE THAT NO STANDARDS HAVE BEEN
DEVELOPED OR ANNOUNCED BY THE COMMISSION WHICH JUSTIFY ITS ACTION IN
THIS CASE.    THESE CONTENTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT.  EVEN STANDING
ALONE, STANDARDS IN TERMS OF UNDULY COMPLICATED CORPORATE STRUCTURES
AND INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTIONS OF VOTING POWER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE
UTTERLY WITHOUT MEANING, ESPECIALLY TO THOSE FAMILIAR WITH CORPORATE
REALITIES.  BUT THESE STANDARDS NEED NOT BE TESTED IN ISOLATION.  THEY
DERIVE MUCH MEANINGFUL CONTENT FROM THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, ITS FACTUAL
BACKGROUND AND THE STATUTORY CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY APPEAR.  SEE
INTERMOUNTAIN RATE CASES, 234 U.S. 476.  FROM THESE SOURCES - FROM THE
MANIFOLD EVILS REVEALED BY THE LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATIONS, THE EXPRESS
RECITAL OF EVILS IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT, THE GENERAL POLICY
DECLARATIONS OF CONGRESS IN SEC. 1(C), THE STANDARDS FOR NEW SECURITY
ISSUES SET FORTH IN SEC. 7, THE CONDITIONS FOR ACQUISITIONS OF
PROPERTIES AND SECURITIES PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 10, AND THE NATURE OF THE
INQUIRIES CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 11(A) - A VERITABLE CODE OF RULES
REVEALS ITSELF FOR THE COMMISSION TO FOLLOW IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE
STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2).  THESE STANDARDS ARE CERTAINLY NO LESS
DEFINITE IN NATURE THAN THOSE SPEAKING IN OTHER CONTEXTS IN TERMS OF
"PUBLIC INTEREST," "JUST AND REASONABLE RATES," "UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION" OR "RELEVANT FACTORS."  THE APPROVAL WHICH THIS COURT HAS
GIVEN IN THE PAST TO THOSE STANDARDS THUS COMPELS THE SANCTIONING OF
THE ONES IN ISSUE.  SEE NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 24-25; YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 419
27, AND CASES CITED. 

THE JUDICIAL APPROVAL ACCORDED THESE "BROAD" STANDARDS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS A REFLECTION OF THE NECESSITIES OF MODERN
LEGISLATION DEALING WITH COMPLEX ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS.  SEE
SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 398.  THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS WOULD FREQUENTLY BOG DOWN IF CONGRESS WERE
CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TO APPRAISE BEFOREHAND THE MYRIAD SITUATIONS
TO WHICH IT WISHES A PARTICULAR POLICY TO BE APPLIED AND TO FORMULATE
SPECIFIC RULES FOR EACH SITUATION.  NECESSITY THEREFORE FIXES A POINT
BEYOND WHICH IT IS UNREASONABLE AND IMPRACTICABLE TO COMPEL CONGRESS TO
PRESCRIBE DETAILED RULES; IT THEN BECOMES CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT
IF CONGRESS CLEARLY DELINEATES THE GENERAL POLICY, THE PUBLIC AGENCY
WHICH IS TO APPLY IT, AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS DELEGATED AUTHORITY. 
PRIVATE RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED BY ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO TEST THE
APPLICATION OF THE POLICY IN THE LIGHT OF THESE LEGISLATIVE
DECLARATIONS.  SUCH IS THE SITUATION HERE. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS OF NO CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
THAT THE COMMISSION, IN EXECUTING THE POLICIES OF SEC. 11(B)(2), ALSO
HAS DISCRETION TO FASHION REMEDIES OF A CIVIL NATURE NECESSARY FOR
ATTAINING THE DESIRED GOALS.  SEE PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD,
313 U.S. 177, 194.  THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES AND STANDARDS BEING CLEAR,
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE REMEDIES ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION SAFEGUARDS
AGAINST STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL EXCESSES. 

NOR IS THERE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE LEGISLATIVE
STANDARDS BE TRANSLATED BY THE COMMISSION INTO FORMAL AND DETAILED
RULES OF THUMB PRIOR TO THEIR APPLICATION TO A PARTICULAR CASE.  IF
THAT AGENCY WISHES TO PROCEED BY THE MORE FLEXIBLE CASE-BY-CASE METHOD,
THE CONSTITUTION OFFERS NO OBSTACLE.  ALL THAT CAN BE REQUIRED IS THAT
THE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS CONFORM TO THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND POLICY. 

                   III. 

OUR DECISION IN NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., SUPRA, LARGELY DISPOSES
OF THE OBJECTIONS TO SEC. 11(B)(2) ON THE BASIS OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

PROPERTY INTERESTS OF HOLDING COMPANIES AND THEIR INVESTORS; IT MAY
EVEN DESTROY WHATEVER RIGHT THERE IS TO CONTINUED CORPORATE EXISTENCE
ON THE PART OF A HOLDING COMPANY THAT IS FOUND TO COMPLICATE A SYSTEM
UNNECESSARILY AND TO SERVE NO USEFUL FUNCTION.  BUT CONGRESS CAREFULLY
CONSIDERED THESE VARIOUS INTERESTS AND FOUND THEM "OUTWEIGHED BY THE
POLITICAL AND GENERAL ECONOMIC DESIRABILITY OF BREAKING UP
CONCENTRATIONS OF FINANCIAL POWER IN THE UTILITY FIELD TOO BIG TO BE
EFFECTIVELY REGULATED IN THE INTEREST OF EITHER THE CONSUMER OR THE
INVESTOR AND TOO BIG TO PERMIT THE FUNCTIONING OF DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTIONS."  N15  IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO REWEIGH THESE DIVERSE
FACTORS OR TO QUESTION THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY CONGRESS.  NOR CAN WE
SAY THAT SEC. 11(B)(2) ON ITS FACE AUTHORIZES OR NECESSARILY INVOLVES
ANY DESTRUCTION OF ANY VALUABLE INTERESTS WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. 
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND THE STATUTORY SAFEGUARDS POINTED OUT IN THE
NORTH AMERICAN CASE (PP. 709-710) NEGATIVE THAT ARGUMENT. 

EQUALLY GROUNDLESS IS THE CONTENTION THAT SEC. 11(B)(2) IS VOID IN
THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION FOR NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING AS TO SECURITY HOLDERS REGARDING PROCEEDINGS UNDER THAT
PROPERLY ONLY BY A SECURITY HOLDER WHO HAS SUFFERED INJURY DUE TO LACK
OF NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING.  NO SECURITY HOLDER OF THAT TYPE
IS NOW BEFORE US.  THE MANAGEMENTS OF AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC ADMITTEDLY
WERE NOTIFIED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE HEARINGS AS REQUIRED BY SEC.
11(B)(2); AND THEY POSSESS NO STANDING TO ASSERT THE INVALIDITY OF THAT
RIGHTS TO NOTICE AND HEARING.  SEE TYLER V. JUDGES OF COURT OF
REGISTRATION, 179 U.S. 405, 410; HATCH V. REARDON, 204 U.S. 152, 160. 

HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION IN THIS INSTANCE ACTUALLY GAVE ALL SECURITY
HOLDERS OF AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE PENDENCY OF THE
SEC. 11(B)(2) PROCEEDINGS AND INVITED THEM TO FILE APPLICATIONS FOR
INTERVENTION BEFORE A STATED TIME.  THIS WAS DONE PURSUANT TO SEC. 19,
WHICH PERMITS THE COMMISSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS IT MAY PRESCRIBE, TO ADMIT ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF
INTERESTED CONSUMERS OR INVESTORS, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE PERSON, AS
A PARTY TO ANY PROCEEDING BEFORE THAT BODY.  THESE SECURITY HOLDERS
THUS RECEIVED EVERYTHING WHICH THE CONSTITUTION COULD POSSIBLY
GUARANTEE THEM IN THIS RESPECT. 

THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY INSIST UPON WHAT IN FACT HAS BEEN
GIVEN THE SECURITY HOLDERS IS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RELEVANCE UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  WHEREVER POSSIBLE, STATUTES MUST BE INTERPRETED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.  HERE, IN THE ABSENCE OF
DEFINITE CONTRARY INDICATIONS, IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS
DESIRED THAT SEC. 11(B)(2) BE LAWFULLY EXECUTED BY GIVING APPROPRIATE
NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING TO ALL THOSE CONSTITUTIONALLY
ENTITLED THERETO.  AND WHEN THAT ASSUMPTION IS ADDED TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 19, IT BECOMES QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE COMMISSION IS BOUND UNDER
THE STATUTE TO GIVE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING TO CONSUMERS,
INVESTORS AND OTHER PERSONS WHENEVER CONSTITUTIONALLY NECESSARY.  SEE
THE JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE, 189 U.S. 86, 100-101. 

BUT SHOULD THE COMMISSION NEGLECT TO FOLLOW THE NECESSARY PROCEDURE
IN A PARTICULAR CASE, SUCH FAILURE WOULD AT MOST JUSTIFY AN OBJECTION
TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION RATHER THAN TO THE STATUTE ITSELF. 
IT WOULD THEN BE NEEDLESS TO DO MORE THAN NULLIFY THE ACTION TAKEN IN
DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING.  SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE THAT SITUATION HERE, HOWEVER, WE NEED
ONLY REITERATE THAT SEC. 11(B)(2), FAIRLY CONSTRUED, NEITHER EXPRESSLY
NOR IMPLIEDLY AUTHORIZES UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE.  IT IS THUS IMMUNE
TO ATTACK ON THAT BASIS.  SEE KENTUCKY RAILROAD TAX CASES, 115 U.S.
321; BRATTON V. CHANDLER, 260 U.S. 110; TOOMBS V. CITIZENS BANK, 281
U.S. 643.  CF. COE V. ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, 237 U.S. 413; WUCHTER V.
PIZZUTTI, 276 U.S. 13. 

                                 IV. 

TURNING TO THE COMMISSION'S ACTION UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) WITH RESPECT
TO AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC, WE FIND THAT THE RECORD AMPLY SUPPORTS THE
FINDING THAT THEIR CORPORATE STRUCTURES AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE UNDULY
AND UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATE THE BOND AND SHARE SYSTEM AND UNFAIRLY AND
INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE VOTING POWER AMONG THE SECURITY HOLDERS OF THAT
SYSTEM.  WE NEED DO NO MORE HERE THAN STATE THE MAJOR FACTS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION UNDERLYING THIS CRUCIAL FINDING. 

BOND AND SHARE ORGANIZED THESE TWO SUBHOLDING COMPANIES UNDER THE
LAWS OF MAINE IN 1909 AND 1925, RESPECTIVELY.  UNTIL 1935, AMERICAN AND
ELECTRIC HAD NEITHER OFFICES NOR EMPLOYEES; THEIR BOOKS WERE KEPT BY
BOND AND SHARE EMPLOYEES IN BOND AND SHARE'S OFFICES IN NEW YORK CITY. 
THEIR OFFICERS WERE EMPLOYED BY AND PAID BY BOND AND SHARE.  THEIR
SUBSIDIARIES WERE MANAGED IN EVERY DETAIL BY BOND AND SHARE.  AND
WHENEVER THEY DEALT WITH THEIR PARENT THEY WERE REPRESENTED SOLELY BY
EMPLOYEES AND COUNSEL OF BOND AND SHARE.  FUNCTIONALLY, THE COMMISSION
FOUND, AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC WERE MERE SETS OF BOOKS IN BOND AND
SHARE'S OFFICE. 

IN 1935, SHORTLY BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT, CERTAIN SUPERFICIAL CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE
ORGANIZATIONAL SET-UP OF THE BOND AND SHARE SYSTEM.  A SEPARATE SERVICE
SUBSIDIARY, EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED, WAS CREATED TO CONTINUE
FUNCTIONS FORMERLY CARRIED OUT BY THE BOND AND SHARE SERVICE
DEPARTMENT.  EACH OF THE SUBHOLDING COMPANIES, INCLUDING AMERICAN AND
ELECTRIC, WAS GIVEN ITS OWN SET OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS A
SEPARATE SUITE OF OFFICES IN THE BOND AND SHARE OFFICE BUILDING.  OTHER
MINOR CHANGES TOOK PLACE, BUT THE SYSTEM IN EFFECT CONTINUED TO OPERATE
PRECISELY AS IT HAD PRIOR TO 1935.  BOND AND SHARE STILL HAD COMPLETE
AND UNQUESTIONED CONTROL OVER AMERICAN, ELECTRIC AND THEIR OPERATING
SUBSIDIARIES. 

THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT EITHER AMERICAN OR
ELECTRIC IS PRESENTLY ABLE TO PERFORM ANY USEFUL ROLE IN THE OPERATIONS
OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES, SUCH AS ORGANIZING THEM INTO INTEGRATED SYSTEMS OR
FURNISHING THEM WITH CAPITAL OR CASH.  BOTH COMPANIES CURRENTLY HAVE
VAST ACCUMULATIONS OF UNPAID PREFERRED DIVIDENDS IN ARREARS, NOT HAVING
BEEN ABLE TO MEET DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS IN THE TEN YEARS PRECEDING
1941.  INSTANCES OF PAST FUNCTIONS RELATING TO SUBSIDIARIES REVEAL
EITHER HARMFUL RESULTS OR THE GUIDING HAND OF BOND AND SHARE. 

THE REAL PURPOSE OF AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC, AS THE COMMISSION FOUND,
IS TO ACT AS THE LEVERAGE AND PYRAMIDING DEVICE WHEREBY BOND AND SHARE
CAN AMASS CONTROL OVER VAST SUMS CONTRIBUTED BY OTHERS AND REALIZE FOR
ITSELF LARGE EARNINGS AND PROFITS WITHOUT PROPORTIONATE INVESTMENT -
THE PRIME EVIL AT WHICH SEC. 11(B)(2) IS DIRECTED. 

BOND AND SHARE HOLDS 20.7% OF THE TOTAL VOTING STOCK OF AMERICAN,
THIS HOLDING HAVING A BOOK VALUE OF NEARLY $10,000,000 OR 3.68% OF
AMERICAN'S TOTAL CAPITALIZATION OF $270,000,000.  THROUGH THIS
INVESTMENT, BOND AND SHARE CONTROLS NOT ONLY AMERICAN BUT ALSO
AMERICAN'S 21 SUBSIDIARIES WITH A TOTAL CAPITALIZATION OF
$729,000,000.  AN INVESTMENT OF $10,000,000 THUS CONTROLS $729,000,000,
A RATIO OF 1 TO 73. 

BOND AND SHARE ALSO HOLDS 46.8% OF ELECTRIC'S TOTAL VOTING STOCK; THE
BOOK EQUITY OF THIS HOLDING AMOUNTS TO $17,500,000 OR 9.14% OF
ELECTRIC'S TOTAL CAPITALIZATION OF $192,000,000.  BOND AND SHARE IS
THEREBY ENABLED TO CONTROL NOT ONLY ELECTRIC BUT ALSO ELECTRIC'S 11
DIRECT AND 11 INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES WITH A TOTAL CAPITALIZATION OF
$654,000,000.  AN INVESTMENT OF $17,500,000 THUS CONTROLS $654,000,000,
A RATIO OF 1 TO 37. 

THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, MADE ALTERNATIVE CALCULATIONS WHICH GAVE
AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC THE BENEFIT OF A MORE FAVORABLE ASSUMPTION.  IT
ADJUSTED UPWARD THE BOOK FIGURES FOR BOND AND SHARE'S COMMON STOCK
INTERESTS IN THESE COMPANIES TO REFLECT THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE VALUES
ON THE BOOKS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES EXCEEDED CORRESPONDING VALUES AT WHICH
AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC CARRIED THEIR STOCK INTEREST IN THOSE
SUBSIDIARIES.  BUT EVEN AFTER SUCH ADJUSTMENTS, BOND AND SHARE'S
INVESTMENT EQUALS ONLY 8.2% OF AMERICAN'S CAPITALIZATION AND ONLY 3.42%
OF THE BOOK VALUES OF AMERICAN'S SUBSIDIARIES; AND ITS INVESTMENT IN
ELECTRIC IS THE EQUIVALENT OF ONLY 22.25% OF ELECTRIC'S CAPITALIZATION
AND 8.72% OF THE BOOK VALUES OF ELECTRIC'S SUBSIDIARIES.  FN16 

THIS DISPROPORTION BETWEEN BOND AND SHARE'S INVESTMENT AND THE VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY CONTROLLED IS EVEN MORE ACUTE IF FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS
ARE MADE TO REFLECT THE UNCONSCIONABLE WRITE-UPS AND INADEQUATE
DEPRECIATION WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND IN THE BOOK FIGURES OF THE
VARIOUS OPERATING COMPANIES.  AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC DISAGREE WITH MANY
OF THESE ADJUSTMENTS AND URGE THAT THE BOOK VALUES CAN BE JUSTIFIED;
AND COMPLAINT IS MADE THAT THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO CONSIDER CERTAIN
VALUATION TESTIMONY OFFERED BY AMERICAN IN THIS RESPECT.  WE DEEM IT
UNNECESSARY, HOWEVER, TO ENTER INTO THESE DISPUTED MATTERS.  EVEN WITH
THE USE OF THE BOOK VALUES, THE ATTENUATED INVESTMENT RATIO IS SUCH AS
TO JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT BOND AND SHARE'S CONTROL OF
THE OPERATING COMPANIES IS ACHIEVED "THROUGH DISPROPORTIONATELY SMALL
INVESTMENT."  ON THAT BASIS, OVER 96% OF THE INVESTMENT IN AMERICAN'S
SUBSIDIARIES IS WITHOUT EFFECTIVE VOTING REPRESENTATION, WHILE OVER 91%
OF THE BOOK VALUES OF ELECTRIC'S SUBSIDIARIES IS SIMILARLY
DISFRANCHISED.  FN17    SUCH EVIDENCE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO SUPPORT
THE FINDING THAT AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC ARE BUT PAPER COMPANIES WITHOUT
LEGITIMATE FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE.  THEY SERVE MERELY AS THE MECHANISM BY
WHICH BOND AND SHARE MAINTAINS A PYRAMIDED STRUCTURE CONTAINING THE
SEEDS OF ALL THE ATTENDANT EVILS CONDEMNED BY THE ACT.  IT WAS
REASONABLE, THEREFORE, FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONCLUDE THAT AMERICAN AND
ELECTRIC ARE UNDUE AND UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITIES IN THE BOND AND SHARE
SYSTEM AND THAT THEIR EXISTENCE UNFAIRLY AND INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTES
VOTING POWER AMONG THE SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE SYSTEM. 

                                  V. 

THE MAJOR OBJECTION RAISED BY AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC RELATES TO THE
COMMISSION'S CHOICE OF DISSOLUTION AS "NECESSARY TO ENSURE" THAT THE
EVILS WOULD BE CORRECTED AND THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2)
EFFECTUATED.  EMPHASIS IS PLACED UPON ALTERNATIVE PLANS WHICH ARE LESS
DRASTIC IN NATURE AND WHICH ALLEGEDLY WOULD MEET THE STATUTORY
STANDARDS. 

IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE CONGRESS HAS
ENTRUSTED AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SELECTING
THE MEANS OF ACHIEVING THE STATUTORY POLICY "THE RELATION OF REMEDY TO
POLICY IS PECULIARLY A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCE."  PHELPS
DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 194.  IN DEALING WITH THE COMPLEX
PROBLEM OF ADJUSTING HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS, THE COMMISSION HERE HAS ACCUMULATED EXPERIENCE
AND KNOWLEDGE WHICH NO COURT CAN HOPE TO ATTAIN.  ITS JUDGMENT IS
ENTITLED TO THE GREATEST WEIGHT.  WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THE
COMMISSION'S DISCRETION MUST SQUARE WITH ITS RESPONSIBILITY, ONLY IF
THE REMEDY CHOSEN IS UNWARRANTED IN LAW OR IS WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION IN
FACT SHOULD A COURT ATTEMPT TO INTERVENE IN THE MATTER.  NEITHER GROUND
OF INTERVENTION IS PRESENT IN THIS INSTANCE. 

DISSOLUTION OF A HOLDING COMPANY OR A SUBHOLDING COMPANY PLAINLY IS
CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 11(B)(2) AS A POSSIBLE REMEDY.  IT DIRECTS THE
COMMISSION TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS IT FINDS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT "THE
CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ANY COMPANY IN THE
HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM" DOES NOT VIOLATE THE STANDARDS SET FORTH. 
AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC ARGUE THAT THE PHRASE "IN THE HOLDING-COMPANY
SYSTEM" LIMITS THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO ORDERS REMOVING A
PARTICULAR COMPANY FROM THE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM OF WHICH IT IS A
PART AND DOES NOT PERMIT AN ORDER TERMINATING ITS CORPORATE EXISTENCE. 
GRAMMATICALLY, THIS CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT.  THE PHRASE "IN THE
HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM" NO MORE MODIFIES "CONTINUED EXISTENCE" THAN IT
DOES "CORPORATE STRUCTURE."  IT RELATES, RATHER, TO THE WORD "COMPANY,"
FN18  AS THOUGH THE PHRASE READ "THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR CONTINUED
EXISTENCE OF ANY COMPANY WHICH IS IN THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM." 

SUCH A CONSTRUCTION ACCORDS WITH THE POLICY AS WELL AS OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  SECTION 1(C) DECLARES IT TO BE ONE OF THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH ALL PROVISIONS SHALL BE
INTERPRETED, "TO PROVIDE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE FOR THE ELIMINATION OF
PUBLIC-UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED
IN THIS TITLE."  THE LAST SENTENCE OF SEC. 11(B)(2) PROVIDES THAT
"EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTING VOTING
POWER AMONG THE SECURITY HOLDERS OF SUCH COMPANY, NOTHING IN THIS
PARAGRAPH SHALL AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE ANY CHANGE IN THE
CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR EXISTENCE OF ANY COMPANY WHICH IS NOT A HOLDING
COMPANY,  ..."  MOREOVER, SECS. 11(F) AND 11(G) SPECIFICALLY REFER TO
DISSOLUTION OR PLANS FOR DISSOLUTION OF REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANIES OR
THEIR SUBSIDIARIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 11.  FN19  SUCH STATEMENTS
WOULD BE MEANINGLESS AND UNNECESSARY WERE DISSOLUTION NOT CONTEMPLATED
AS A POSSIBLE REMEDY UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2). 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUPPORTS THIS INTERPRETATION.  THE ORIGINAL
BILL WHICH PASSED THE SENATE (S. 2796, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) CONTAINED
A PROVISION QUITE SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT FIRST SENTENCE OF SEC.
11(B)(2), EXCEPT THAT IT WAS MANDATORY THAT THE COMMISSION REQUIRE EACH
REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY "TO BE REORGANIZED OR
DISSOLVED" WHEN THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT IT VIOLATED THE STANDARDS OF
THAT SECTION.  IN ADDITION, SEC. 11(E) AS THEN WRITTEN PERMITTED A
VOLUNTARY PLAN "FOR THE DIVESTMENT OF CONTROL, SECURITIES, OR OTHER
ASSETS, OR FOR THE REORGANIZATION OR DISSOLUTION, OF SUCH COMPANY OR
ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY."  THE BILL ALSO CONTAINED A SEC. 11(B)(3),
PROVIDING THAT WITHIN FIVE YEARS ALL HOLDING COMPANIES SHOULD CEASE TO
BE HOLDING COMPANIES UNLESS THE EQUIVALENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WERE OBTAINED FROM THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION.  BUT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INSISTED UPON THE
ELIMINATION OF SEC. 11(B)(3) AND THE BILL FINALLY REPORTED OUT BY THE
JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE DELETED THAT PROVISION.  A FURTHER CHANGE
WAS MADE AT THIS TIME SO THAT SEC. 11(B)(2), INSTEAD OF SPECIFYING
REORGANIZATION OR DISSOLUTION AS THE REMEDIES, GAVE THE COMMISSION
POWER TO REQUIRE "SUCH STEPS" AS IT MIGHT FIND NECESSARY TO ENSURE
COMPLIANCE.  SECTION 11(E) WAS ALSO CHANGED TO PERMIT A VOLUNTARY PLAN
"FOR THE DIVESTMENT OF CONTROL, SECURITIES, OR OTHER ASSETS, OR FOR
OTHER ACTION BY SUCH COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF." 

THUS THE COMPROMISE BILL WHICH BECAME LAW OMITTED THE UNCONDITIONAL
PROVISION OF SEC. 11(B)(3) FOR THE ELIMINATION OF ALL HOLDING COMPANIES
WITHIN FIVE YEARS, SUBSTITUTING THEREFOR THE "GREAT-GRANDFATHER CLAUSE"
OF SEC. 11(B)(2), AND GAVE THE COMMISSION DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE
NECESSARY STEPS FOR COMPLIANCE INSTEAD OF SPECIFYING REORGANIZATION OR
DISSOLUTION.  THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE
COMPROMISE BILL MEANT TO FORBID REORGANIZATION OR DISSOLUTION AS
REMEDIES WHICH THE COMMISSION MIGHT CHOOSE.  INDEED, THE FACT THAT
THESE TWO REMEDIES HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY SPECIFIED IS STRONG EVIDENCE
THAT THEY WERE IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO WROTE THE PORTION OF SEC.
11(B)(2) NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THOSE PERSONS MERELY WISHED
NOT TO RESTRICT THE COMMISSION TO THOSE TWO REMEDIES; THEY THUS GAVE
THE COMMISSION DISCRETION TO CHOOSE WHATEVER REMEDY IT FELT NECESSARY. 
THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, WHEN COMBINED WITH THE VARIOUS REFERENCES TO
DISSOLUTION IN OTHER PARTS OF SEC. 11, COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT
DISSOLUTION IS ONE OF THE REMEDIES CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 11(B)(2) AND
THAT ITS CHOICE FALLS WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF THE COMMISSION'S
DISCRETION. 

NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE COMMISSION'S CHOICE OF DISSOLUTION WITH
RESPECT TO AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC IS SO LACKING IN REASONABLENESS AS TO
CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION.  THE COMMISSION CHOSE
DISSOLUTION BECAUSE IT FELT THAT SUCH ACTION IS CALCULATED TO CORRECT
THE SITUATION "MOST EFFECTIVELY AND QUICKLY, EVER BEARING IN MIND THE
STATED POLICY OF THE ACT TO PROVIDE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL HOLDING COMPANIES EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN
THE ACT."  11 S.E.C. AT 1215.  IT STATED THAT WHILE SOME MEASURE OF
AMELIORATION IN THE STATUTORY OFFENSIVENESS OF AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC
MIGHT BE AFFORDED BY OTHER APPROACHES, "IN OUR OPINION NO APPROACH
PRESENTLY AVAILABLE HOLDS OUT THE PROMISE OF EFFECTUATING THE STATUTE'S
REQUIREMENTS FULLY OR PROMPTLY."  IBID., P. 1215.  CF. SIEGEL CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 327 U.S. 608.  THAT THIS CHOICE OF
DISSOLUTION IN PREFERENCE TO OTHER REMEDIES IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE
DISREGARDED IS SHOWN BY THE STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER SPLAWN, MUCH RELIED
UPON BY CONGRESS IN SHAPING THIS STATUTE, THAT "THE MOST EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF PREVENTING PYRAMIDING IS TO ELIMINATE THE SO-CALLED
INTERMEDIARY COMPANIES INTERPOSED BETWEEN THE OPERATING COMPANY AND THE
COMPANY AT THE TOP."  FN20 

WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO INVADE THE DOMAIN OF THE COMMISSION'S
DISCRETION, WE CAN READILY PERCEIVE A FACTUAL BASIS UNDERLYING THE
CHOICE OF DISSOLUTION IN THIS INSTANCE.  THE COMMISSION REASONABLY
COULD CONCLUDE FROM THE RECORD THAT AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC PERFORM NO
JUSTIFIABLE FUNCTION; THEY ARE UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITIES ENABLING BOND
AND SHARE TO PERPETUATE ITS PYRAMIDED SYSTEM.  THE ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL
EVILS RESULTING FROM THEIR CONTINUED EXISTENCE MAY WELL BE SAID TO
OUTWEIGH ANY OF THEIR CLAIMED ADVANTAGES, ESPECIALLY SINCE MANY OF THE
LATTER SEEM IMPOSSIBLE OF ATTAINMENT DUE TO THE UNSOUND FINANCIAL
STRUCTURES OF THE COMPANIES.  THE COMMISSION WAS THUS WARRANTED IN
FEELING THAT DISSOLUTION OF THESE COMPANIES IS NECESSARY TO THE
ATTAINMENT OF THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2). 

WE ARE UNIMPRESSED, MOREOVER, BY THE CLAIM THAT DISSOLUTION IS SO
DRASTIC A REMEDY AS TO BE UNREASONABLE.  ELIMINATION OF USELESS HOLDING
COMPANIES MAY BE CARRIED OUT BY FAIR AND EQUITABLE METHODS SO AS TO
DESTROY NOTHING OF REAL VALUE.  AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC, THE COMMISSION
FOUND, ARE LITTLE MORE THAN A SET OF BOOKS AND A PORTFOLIO OF
SECURITIES.  AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT BASIS
FOR ITS BELIEF THAT DISSOLUTION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD HARM NO
ONE.  IT MAY WELL HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT BROUGHT OUT IN THE ARGUMENT
BEFORE US THAT, SO FAR AS BOND AND SHARE AND THE PUBLIC SECURITY
HOLDERS ARE CONCERNED, DISSOLUTION WOULD MEAN LITTLE MORE THAN THE
RECEIPT OF SECURITIES OF THE OPERATING COMPANIES IN LIEU OF THEIR
PRESENT SHARES IN AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC.  ANY NUMBER OF BENEFITS MIGHT
THEREAFTER ACCRUE TO THESE SECURITY HOLDERS.  THEIR EQUITIES IN THE
BOND AND SHARE SYSTEM WOULD BE MATERIALLY STRENGTHENED BY THE REMOVAL
OF THE USELESS AND COSTLY SUBHOLDING COMPANIES AND THEIR VOTING POWER
WOULD TEND TO BE MORE IN PROPORTION TO THEIR INVESTMENT.  THE FINANCIAL
WEAKNESSES OF THE VARIOUS COMPANIES REMAINING IN THE SYSTEM WOULD BE
EASIER TO CORRECT, WITH NUMEROUS BENEFITS TO THE CONSUMERS AND THE
GENERAL PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE INVESTORS.  FN21  "IN SHORT, THE
INDIVIDUAL INVESTOR SHOULD RECEIVE THE KIND OF A SECURITY HE THOUGHT HE
WAS BUYING IN THE FIRST PLACE.  THE ACTUAL CLEARING UP, THROUGH CLEAN
REORGANIZATIONS, OF THE TANGLE IN WHICH HOLDING-COMPANY FINANCE HAS
LEFT THE INDUSTRY AND THOSE WHO HAVE INVESTED IN IT, CAN REESTABLISH A
CONFIDENT, STABLE MARKET FOR GOOD UTILITY SECURITIES."  SENATE REPORT
NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 17.  THESE FACTORS LEND SUBSTANCE TO
THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT "THE DISSOLUTION OF THESE COMPANIES
WHICH NOT ONLY HAVE NEVER SERVED ANY USEFUL PURPOSE BUT HAVE BEEN A
MEDIUM OF MUCH HARM, WILL EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS AND POLICIES OF THE
ACT AND WILL IN ALL RESPECTS BE BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS AND CONSUMERS; AND WE SO FIND."  11 S.E.C. AT
1215. 

IN VIEW OF THE RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION'S CHOICE, THE FACT
THAT OTHER SOLUTIONS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SELECTED BECOMES IMMATERIAL.  THE
COMMISSION IS THE BODY WHICH HAS THE STATUTORY DUTY OF CONSIDERING THE
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND CHOOSING THAT WHICH IT CONSIDERS MOST
APPROPRIATE TO THE EFFECTUATION OF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  OUR REVIEW
IS LIMITED SOLELY TO TESTING THE PROPRIETY OF THE REMEDY SO CHOSEN FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTE.  WE WOULD BE
IMPINGING UPON THE COMMISSION'S RIGHTFUL DISCRETION WERE WE TO CONSIDER
THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES IN THE HOPE OF FINDING ONE THAT WE CONSIDER
MORE APPROPRIATE.  SINCE THE REMEDY CHOSEN BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS
INSTANCE IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY SUSTAINABLE, IT MATTERS NOT THAT
AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC BELIEVE THAT ALTERNATIVE ORDERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ENTERED.  IT IS LIKEWISE IRRELEVANT THAT THEY FEEL THAT BOND AND SHARE
IS THE PRINCIPAL OFFENDER AGAINST THE STATUTORY STANDARDS AND THAT THE
COMMISSION SHOULD MERELY HAVE REQUIRED BOND AND SHARE TO DIVEST ITSELF
OF ITS INTERESTS IN AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC VIOLATE THE STATUTORY STANDARDS, A FINDING THAT
IS SUPPORTABLE WHATEVER MAY BE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF BOND AND SHARE. 

FINALLY, LENGTHY OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE RELATIVE TO THE
COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE IN TREATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS FILED UNDER SEC.
11(E) BY AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC.  THESE PLANS WERE DESIGNED TO ADJUST
THE COMPANIES TO THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2) WITHOUT THE NECESSITY
OF DISSOLUTION.  MOTIONS WERE MADE TO CONSOLIDATE THE APPLICATIONS FOR
APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS WITH THE PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY THE
COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2), THE HEARINGS THEN HAVING BEEN IN
PROGRESS FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AND THE RECORD APPROACHING COMPLETION. 
THE COMMISSION DEFERRED CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTIONS UNTIL IT ENTERED
THE SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDERS NOW UNDER REVIEW; IT THEN DENIED THE MOTIONS
AND REFUSED TO GRANT HEARINGS ON THE PLANS IN ADVANCE OF ITS ORDERS OF
DISSOLUTION.  IT DID THIS, HOWEVER, ONLY AFTER THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF
THE PROPOSED PLANS AND AFTER FINDING THAT THEY FAILED TO HOLD OUT ANY
REAL PROMISE OF EFFECTUATING THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(2). 

WE FAIL TO PERCEIVE ANY ERROR IN THIS PROCEDURE.  THE FILING OF THE
SEC. 11(E) PLANS, OF COURSE, DID NOT OUST THE COMMISSION OF
JURISDICTION TO ENTER ITS ORDERS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2).  THAT
JURISDICTION GROWS OUT OF THE STATUTORY COMMAND THAT THE COMMISSION
DECLARE BY ORDER, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, WHAT EACH HOLDING COMPANY
SYSTEM REQUIRES BY WAY OF INTEGRATION AND SIMPLIFICATION.  SECTION
11(E) MERELY PERMITS THE HOLDING COMPANIES TO FORMULATE THEIR OWN
PROGRAMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 11(B) OR TO SUBMIT PLANS IN
CONFORMITY WITH PRIOR COMMISSION ORDERS UNDER SEC. 11(B), APPROPRIATE
NOTICE AND HEARING BEING CONTEMPLATED.  IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY GIVE
SUCH PLANS THE EFFECT OF STAYING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) WHERE
SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PLANS.  ANY
OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD PERMIT THE FILING OF DILATORY PLANS SO AS TO
RENDER IMPOTENT THE POWER AND DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO ENTER SEC.
11(B)(2) ORDERS AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.    WE ASSUME THAT THE
COMMISSION WILL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO ANY PLANS THAT ARE FILED
UNDER SEC. 11(E) BEFORE IT ENTERS A SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDER.  IF IT FINDS
THAT SUCH PLANS MAY HAVE MERIT AND MAY EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF SEC.
11(B)(2), THE PRINCIPLES OF ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION WOULD DICTATE THAT
ENTRY OF THE SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDER BE DEFERRED UNTIL FULL HEARINGS ARE
HAD WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANS.  FN22  IT MIGHT THEN BECOME APPARENT
THAT AN INVOLUNTARY ORDER UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) WOULD BE UNNECESSARY AND
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE COULD BE WORKED OUT SOLELY UNDER SEC. 11(E).  BUT
WHERE CONSIDERATION LEADS THE COMMISSION TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
PLANS ON THEIR FACE ARE INCOMPLETE, INADEQUATE AND UNLIKELY TO SATISFY
THE STATUTORY STANDARDS, OR WHERE THE PLANS ARE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
FILED SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF DELAY, IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE
STATUTORY POLICY OF PROMPT ACTION TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO HOLD
HEARINGS ON THE PLANS BEFORE ENTERING A SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDER.  THE
COMMISSION THEN WOULD HAVE NO REASONABLE STATUTORY ALTERNATIVE BUT TO
ENTER THE SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, ESPECIALLY WHERE
THE UNSATISFACTORY PLANS ARE FILED LONG AFTER THE INSTITUTION OF THE
SEC. 11(B)(2) PROCEEDINGS.  AND IT IS PROPER FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE
AN ADVERSE DETERMINATION OF THIS NATURE IN REGARD TO THE SEC. 11(E)
PLANS AT THE TIME OF ENTRY OF THE SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDER, SUCH MATTER
LYING WITHIN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION. 

HERE THE COMMISSION GAVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE SEC. 11(E) PLANS
AND FOUND THEM TO BE INCOMPLETE AND INADEQUATE ON THEIR FACE.  IT
POINTED OUT THAT SEVEN YEARS HAD ELAPSED SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE ACT, FOUR AND A HALF YEARS SINCE THE DATE AFTER WHICH ACTION UNDER
SEC. 11 WAS TO BE REQUIRED "AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE" AND MORE THAN TWO
YEARS SINCE THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INSTITUTED.  THESE FACTORS
OF TIME AND THE LACK OF SUBSTANCE IN THE SEC. 11(E) PLANS LED THE
COMMISSION TO CONCLUDE THAT A DELAY IN THE ENTRY OF THE SEC. 11(B)(2)
ORDERS WHICH IT FELT NECESSARY TO THE EFFECTUATION OF THE STATUTORY
STANDARDS WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED.  AND OUR EXAMINATION OF THE SITUATION
REVEALS AN ADEQUATE BASIS IN FACT FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.  NOTE
SHOULD BE MADE OF THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT REFUSE BY ORDER
TO HOLD HEARINGS ON THE SEC. 11(E) PLANS.  BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
ENTRY OF THE SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDERS HAS MADE THE PLANS MOOT OR THE
HEARINGS UNNECESSARY, THE RESULT IS ONE THAT IS INEVITABLE IF PROPER
ACCOMMODATION IS TO BE MADE FOR THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE ACT AND
FOR THE VARIOUS STATUTORY POLICIES. 

MOREOVER, A SEC. 11(B)(2) PROCEEDING LEADS ONLY TO THE EXPRESSION OF
THE COMMISSION'S VIEW OF WHAT MUST BE DONE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE STATUTORY STANDARDS.  ACTUAL COMPLIANCE COMES LATER.  IN THE
MEANTIME, NOTHING PRECLUDES AMERICAN OR ELECTRIC FROM SEEKING
REVOCATION OF THE DISSOLUTION ORDERS ON A SHOWING THAT THE CONDITIONS
UPON WHICH THE ORDERS WERE PREDICATED DO NOT EXIST, THEREBY MAKING SOME
OTHER TYPE OF ORDER MORE APPROPRIATE.  SECTION 11(B) EXPRESSLY
ENVISAGES SUCH A PROCEDURE, WITH PROVISION FOR NOTICE AND HEARING. 
AMERICAN AND ELECTRIC THUS ARE NOT YET FORECLOSED FROM ATTACKING THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2). 

FROM WHAT WE HAVE SAID IT FOLLOWS THAT WE MUST AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT BELOW AND SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION.  THE OTHER
POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED EITHER DO NOT MERIT DISCUSSION OR HAVE
BEEN ADEQUATELY ANSWERED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 803, 821; 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79K (B)(2). 

FN2  THE OTHER THREE SUBHOLDING COMPANIES ARE THE AMERICAN & FOREIGN
POWER COMPANY, INC., THE NATIONAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND THE
AMERICAN GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY.  BOND AND SHARE ALSO HAS A WHOLLY
OWNED SERVICE SUBSIDIARY, EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED.  THE
ORGANIZATIONAL SET-UP IS MORE FULLY EXPLAINED IN THE COMMISSION'S
OPINION IN THIS PROCEEDING, 11 S.E.C. 1146, AND IN IN RE ELECTRIC BOND
& SHARE CO., 9 S.E.C. 978. 

FN3  THE SO-CALLED "GREAT-GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF SEC. 11(B)(2) IS NOT
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  THAT PROVIDES THAT "IN CARRYING OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH THE COMMISSION SHALL REQUIRE EACH
REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY (AND ANY COMPANY IN THE SAME HOLDING-COMPANY
SYSTEM WITH SUCH HOLDING COMPANY) TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS THE COMMISSION
SHALL FIND NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT SUCH HOLDING COMPANY SHALL CEASE TO
BE A HOLDING COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
WHICH ITSELF HAS A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH IS A HOLDING COMPANY."  SEE
OTIS & CO. V. S.E.C., 323 U.S. 624. 

FN4  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT "THIS CONTROL OF THE SUBHOLDING
COMPANIES BY BOND AND SHARE IS NOT LIMITED IN OPERATION TO THE MERE
CASTING OF A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF VOTES AT STOCKHOLDERS' MEETINGS.  IT
PERMEATES EVERY STRATUM AND UNIT OF THE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM IN THE
MOST COMPREHENSIVE MANNER....  THROUGH THE CONCENTRATED VOTING POWER OF
THE SECURITIES OWNED BY BOND AND SHARE, IT IS ABLE TO ELECT THE
DIRECTORS OF THE SUBHOLDING COMPANIES, AND THUS GOVERN SELECTION OF THE
RESPECTIVE MANAGEMENTS.  THROUGH THE MANAGEMENTS OF THE SUBHOLDING
COMPANIES IT IS ABLE TO GOVERN SELECTION OF THE DIRECTORS AND
MANAGEMENTS OF EACH OF THE OPERATING COMPANY SUBSIDIARIES OF EACH OF
THE SUBHOLDING COMPANIES.  THE LATTER ARE IN TURN RESPONSIVE TO BOND
AND SHARE'S WISHES RESPECTING ENTRY INTO SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH EBASCO
SERVICES INCORPORATED, AND THE DETAILS OF THE OPERATIONS OF THEIR
COMPANIES."  11 S.E.C. AT 1203-04. 

FN5  THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE BOND AND SHARE CASE REVEALED
THAT MORE THAN 31% OF THE TOTAL ELECTRIC ENERGY GENERATED BY BOND AND
SHARE SUBSIDIARIES IS TRANSMITTED ACROSS STATE LINES, WHILE MORE THAN
25% OF ALL THE ELECTRIC ENERGY TRANSMITTED ACROSS STATE LINES IN THE
UNITED STATES IS HANDLED BY BOND AND SHARE COMPANIES.  APPROXIMATELY
47% OF THE GAS HANDLED BY BOND AND SHARE COMPANIES IS TRANSPORTED
ACROSS STATE LINES, THIS AMOUNT CONSTITUTING MORE THAN 20% OF ALL THE
GAS TRANSPORTED ACROSS STATE LINES IN THE UNITED STATES. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO.
V. S.E.C., 303 U.S. 419. 

FN7  NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197; STANDARD
OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO
CO., 221 U.S. 106. 

FN8  NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686. 

FN9  NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; STANDARD OIL
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26;
UNITED STATES V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366.  SEE ALSO
BRECKENRIDGE, "LEGAL STUDY ON CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO
REGULATE STOCK OWNERSHIP IN RAILROADS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,"
HOUSE REPORT NO. 2789, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS., VOL. 1, P. 1. 

FN10  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REPORT TO THE SENATE, "UTILITY
CORPORATIONS," S. DOC. 92, PART 72-A, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 858. 
SEE ALSO BONBRIGHT AND MEANS, THE HOLDING COMPANY (1932), P. 147;
BARNES, THE ECONOMICS OF PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION (1942), PP. 71-81,
143-48. 

FN11  "BY THE PYRAMIDING OF HOLDINGS THROUGH NUMEROUS INTERMEDIATE
HOLDING COMPANIES AND BY THE ISSUE, AT EACH LEVEL OF THE STRUCTURE, OF
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF STOCK WITH UNEQUAL VOTING RIGHTS, IT HAS
FREQUENTLY BEEN POSSIBLE FOR RELATIVELY SMALL BUT POWERFUL GROUPS WITH
A DISPROPORTIONATELY SMALL INVESTMENT OF THEIR OWN TO CONTROL AND TO
MANAGE SOLELY IN THEIR OWN INTEREST TREMENDOUS CAPITAL INVESTMENTS OF
OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY."  REPORT OF THE NATIONAL POWER POLICY COMMITTEE
ON PUBLIC-UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES, H. DOC. 137, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 4-5. 

"THE EFFECT OF SUCH PYRAMIDING IS TO MULTIPLY GREATLY THE CONTROL
THAT CAN BE EXERCISED BY THE DOMINANT PARTIES THROUGH THEIR PERSONAL
RESOURCES.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE ILLUSTRATION JUST GIVEN, AN INVESTMENT
OF $1 IN COMMON STOCK OF CORPORATION SECURITIES CO. OF CHICAGO WOULD
EXERCISE CONTROL OVER ABOUT $2,000 INVESTED IN PROPERTIES OF SOME OF
THE OPERATING COMPANIES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PYRAMID.  IT SEEMS VERY
UNSAFE TO HAVE ANY FORM OF PYRAMIDING WHICH HAS SUCH A FINANCIAL BASIS,
NOT ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXCESSIVE CONCENTRATION OF CONTROL OVER
IMMENSE MASSES OF PROPERTY BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE OPPORTUNITY IT
OFFERS TO FINANCIAL ADVENTURERS TO HAVE TOO MUCH INFLUENCE OVER THE
GENERAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY."  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 10, P. 161. 

FN12  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 10, P. 860,
FOUND THAT THE HIGHLY PYRAMIDED HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM TENDS TO MAKE
THOSE FEW IN CONTROL AT THE TOP "(1) NEGLECT GOOD MANAGEMENT OF
OPERATING COMPANIES, ESPECIALLY BY FAILING TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE
DEPRECIATION; (2) EXAGGERATE PROFITS BY UNSOUND, DECEPTIVE ACCOUNTING;
(3) SEEK EXORBITANT PROFITS FROM SERVICE FEES EXACTED FROM
SUBSIDIARIES; (4) DISBURSE UNEARNED DIVIDENDS, BECAUSE THE APPARENT
GAINS, SO OBTAINED, GREATLY MAGNIFY THE RATE OF EARNINGS FOR THE TOP
HOLDING COMPANY; AND (5) PROMOTE EXTRAVAGANT SPECULATION IN THE PRICES
OF SUCH EQUITY STOCKS ON THE EXCHANGES." 

FN13  IBID., P. 162. 

FN14  IBID., P. 860. 

FN15  SENATE REPORT NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 12. 

FN16  BOND AND SHARE'S HOLDINGS OF VOTING STOCK OF ALL FIVE OF ITS
SUBHOLDING COMPANIES HAVE A STATED BOOK VALUE OF ONLY $53,337,600,
AFTER ADJUSTMENT FOR PREFERRED ARREARAGES, WHICH IS EQUAL TO ABOUT
1.85% OF THE COMBINED CONSOLIDATED CAPITALIZATION OF THE FIVE
SUBHOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS.  THIS RESULTS, AFTER ADJUSTMENTS, IN
RENDERING COMPLETELY INEFFECTUAL WHATEVER VOTING POWER REMAINS FOR THE
SECURITIES IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC INVESTORS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED
OVER 80% OF THE TOTAL CAPITALIZATIONS. 

FN17  WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION TO CONTEND THAT THE
PERCENTAGE OF VOTING POWER AND THE PERCENTAGE OF INVESTMENT SHOULD
NECESSARILY BE EQUAL.  ITS VIEW SIMPLY IS THAT NO PROCESS OF WEIGHTING
COULD RENDER FAIR AND EQUITABLE A DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING POWER BY WHICH
BOND AND SHARE CONTROLS ALL OF AMERICAN'S SUBSIDIARIES BY AN INVESTMENT
REPRESENTING AT BEST 3.42% OF THEIR CAPITALIZATION, OR 8.72% IN THE
CASE OF ELECTRIC'S SUBSIDIARIES.  SEE IN RE ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO.,
9 S.E.C. 978, 992. 

FN18  THE WORDS "ANY COMPANY IN THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM" WERE
SUBSTITUTED FOR THE WORDS "SUCH COMPANY" IN AN EARLIER DRAFT OF SEC.
11(B)(2).  NO CHANGE IN SUBSTANCE WAS THEREBY INDICATED. 

FN19  SECTION 11(F) REFERS TO FEES, EXPENSES AND REMUNERATION PAID IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY REORGANIZATION, DISSOLUTION, LIQUIDATION,
BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP OF A REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY OR A
SUBSIDIARY THEREOF.  SECTION 11(G) SPEAKS OF PROXIES, ETC., USED "IN
RESPECT OF ANY PLAN UNDER THIS SECTION FOR THE DIVESTMENT OF CONTROL,
SECURITIES, OR OTHER ASSETS, OR FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF ANY REGISTERED
HOLDING COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF." 

FN20  SPLAWN REPORT, H. REP. NO. 827, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PT. 2, P.
VII, MADE PURSUANT TO H.J. RES. 572, 72D CONG., 2D SESS., REFERRED TO
IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT. 

FN21  "IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THOUGH SECTION 11 IS ON OCCASIONS
STILL REFERRED TO AS A 'DEATH SENTENCE,' THE SOPHISTICATED OBSERVER NO
LONGER REGARDS EVEN THE DIRECTED REORGANIZATION OR LIQUIDATION OF A
HOLDING COMPANY AS A STEP TO BE FEARED BY INVESTORS.  THERE IS
INCREASED RECOGNITION THAT THESE STEPS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT
HAVE BEEN 'AKIN TO A SURGICAL OPERATION, THROUGH WHICH THE DEAD SKIN
(THE TOP HOLDING COMPANY) WAS BEING CUT AWAY FROM THE PORES (THE
OPERATING COMPANIES) IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE LATTER TO BREATHE.'"  BLAIR
SMITH AND HELFENSTEIN, "A DEATH SENTENCE OR A NEW LEASE ON LIFE?"  94
UNIV.  OF PA. L. REV. 148, 201. 

FN22  WITH REFERENCE TO S. 2796, IT WAS SAID:  "SUBSECTION (E)
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES A HOLDING COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURT TO WORK OUT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION TO MAKE
UNNECESSARY THE ISSUANCE OF AN INVOLUNTARY ORDER FOR ITS REORGANIZATION
BY THE COMMISSION,  ..."  SENATE REPORT NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 33. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AGREES WITH THIS OPINION EXCEPT THAT HE
BELIEVES THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE AND HEARING
UNDER SEC. 11(E) DOES NOT ARISE, IN VIEW OF THE PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDERS WERE HERE MADE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT AND IN THE COURT'S OPINION, EXCEPT THOSE
PORTIONS OF PART V DEALING WITH THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE IN TREATING
THE ALTERNATIVE PLANS FILED UNDER SEC. 11(E) OF THE ACT BY AMERICAN AND
ELECTRIC. 

ALTHOUGH, FOR REASONS TO BE STATED, I THINK THE COMMISSION'S ACTION
IN ENTERING ITS SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDER MUST BE SUSTAINED, I DO NOT THINK
ITS PROCEDURE IN RESPECT TO MAKING PROVISION FOR DEALING WITH THE
ALTERNATIVE PLANS WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 11(E) OR THE RIGHTS TO
NOTICE AND HEARING ON SUCH PLANS WHICH IT ASSURED.  BECAUSE THE MATTER
MAY BE OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE FOR THE FUTURE, I DESIRE TO STATE MY
REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE FROM THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE COURT IN THIS
RESPECT. 

PRACTICABLE AFTER JANUARY 1, 1938," TO REQUIRE BY ORDER EACH REGISTERED
HOLDING COMPANY AND EACH SUBSIDIARY THEREOF, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS THE COMMISSION SHALL
FIND NECESSARY TO ENSURE "THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR CONTINUED
EXISTENCE OF ANY COMPANY IN THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM DOES NOT UNDULY
OR UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATE THE STRUCTURE, OR UNFAIRLY OR INEQUITABLY
DISTRIBUTE VOTING POWER AMONG SECURITY HOLDERS, OF SUCH HOLDING-COMPANY
SYSTEM."  49 STAT. 803, 821.  IF THIS SECTION STOOD ALONE AND
UNQUALIFIED IN THE ACT, THE COMMISSION'S POWER WOULD BE UNQUESTIONABLE
TO REQUIRE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO ACCOMPLISH THE SECTION'S
STATED PURPOSES WITHOUT REFERENCE TO VOLUNTARY PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE
COMPANIES AFFECTED.    BUT SEC. 11(B)(2) DOES NOT STAND ALONE OR
UNQUALIFIED IN THIS RESPECT.  SECTION 11(E)  FN1 EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR
THE SUBMISSION OF PLANS TO EFFECTUATE THE OBJECTS OF SEC. 11(B)(2) BY
"ANY REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF A
REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY."  THIS IS TO BE DONE "IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS OR ORDER AS THE COMMISSION MAY DEEM
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR FOR THE PROTECTION
OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS."  MOREOVER, "IF, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND SUCH PLAN, AS
SUBMITTED OR AS MODIFIED, NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTION (B) AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED BY SUCH
PLAN, THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE AN ORDER APPROVING SUCH PLAN  ..." 

I DO NOT THINK THAT SEC. 11(E) SIMPLY PROVIDES A PROCEDURE
ALTERNATIVE TO THAT OF SEC. 11(B) WHICH THE COMMISSION IS FREE TO
FOLLOW OR DISREGARD AT ITS PLEASURE.  BOTH THE TERMS OF THE ACT AND THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOW THAT THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 11(E) WAS TO ALLOW
COMPANIES AFFECTED "TO WORK OUT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION TO MAKE
UNNECESSARY THE ISSUANCE OF AN INVOLUNTARY ORDER FOR ITS REORGANIZATION
...," WHICH COULD ONLY BE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 11(B).  S. REP. NO. 621,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 33; COMMONWEALTH & SOUTHERN CORP. V. S.E.C., 134
F.2D 747, 751.  IN MY OPINION THIS PURPOSE, TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISION
FOR VOLUNTARY PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED "IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS OR ORDER AS THE COMMISSION MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS,"
FN2  ASSURES THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT SUCH PLANS FOR THE COMMISSION'S
CONSIDERATION AND TO HAVE THEM CONSIDERED AND DETERMINED "AFTER NOTICE
AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING."  SEE CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258,
264-265. 

FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH THE SECTION GIVES THE COMMISSION BROAD
DISCRETION CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED, IT WOULD SEEM
CLEAR, BOTH FROM THE SECTION'S PURPOSE AND FROM ITS TERMS, THAT THE ACT
CONTEMPLATES THAT IT SHALL MAKE THE REQUIRED DETERMINATION, CONCERNING
SUCH A VOLUNTARY PLAN PROPERLY SUBMITTED, PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF ANY
ORDER UNDER SEC. 11(B).  CF. ASHBACKER RADIO CORP. V. F.C.C., 326 U.S.
327.  ONLY IN THIS WAY COULD THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE "TO MAKE
UNNECESSARY ISSUANCE OF AN INVOLUNTARY ORDER" BE MADE EFFECTIVE.  THIS
BEING TRUE, THE SECTION CAST UPON THE COMMISSION THE DUTY OF PROVIDING
THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING VOLUNTARY PLANS, BY RULES,
REGULATIONS OR ORDER COMPORTING WITH THE SPECIFIED STANDARDS, INCLUDING
THOSE FOR NOTICE AND HEARING. 

THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE COMMISSION AT ANY TIME COMPLIED
WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THESE CASES.  SO FAR AS APPEARS NO GENERAL
RULES OR REGULATIONS WERE ISSUED.  NOR WAS ANY ORDER MADE OR ENTERED
PROVIDING FOR SUCH A PROCEDURE.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE PROCEDURE
FOLLOWED WAS NOT, IN ITS INITIAL STAGES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AS THE FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGY DEMONSTRATES. 

ON MAY 10, 1940, NOTICE OF HEARING UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) WAS SERVED ON
THE PETITIONERS.  THE NOTICE MADE NO REFERENCE TO SEC. 11(E) OR ANY
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE PROCEEDINGS UNDER IT.  THE HEARING WAS SET FOR
JUNE 10, 1940, SCARCELY TIME FOR THE PETITIONERS TO PREPARE BOTH A
VOLUNTARY PLAN, EVEN IF OPPORTUNITY FOR FILING AND HEARING WERE TO BE
AFFORDED, AND A DEFENSE ON THE SEC. 11(B)(2) HEARING.  INDEED,
PETITIONERS RECOGNIZED THAT THE TIME WAS INADEQUATE FOR PREPARING THEIR
DEFENSE, FOR THEY APPLIED FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THE HEARING AND OTHER
RELIEF.  FN3  THE COMMISSION POSTPONED THE HEARING ONE WEEK, BUT FOUND
NO ADEQUATE GROUND FOR FURTHER EXTENSION. 

THE HEARING WAS COMMENCED ON JUNE 18, 1940.  ON JULY 23, 1941,
AMERICAN SUBMITTED ITS VOLUNTARY PLAN UNDER SEC. 11(E).  ON DECEMBER 3,
1941, ELECTRIC FILED ITS PLAN.  AND ON DECEMBER 6, 1941, BOTH COMPANIES
MOVED TO CONSOLIDATE THEIR APPLICATIONS WITH THE PENDING SEC. 11(B)(2)
PROCEEDINGS.  FN4  BY AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION
WAS DELAYED FOR THE COMMISSION TO PASS UPON AT THE END OF THE SEC.
11(B)(2) HEARING  FN5  AND ON JULY 22, 1942, THAT HEARING WAS CLOSED AS
TO PETITIONERS BY STIPULATION. 

ON AUGUST 31, 1942, THE COMMISSION FILED ITS OPINION IN SUPPORT OF
THE ORDERS WHICH ARE NOW ENFORCED.  IN THE SAME OPINION IT DENIED THE
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND ALSO DENIED PETITIONERS ANY HEARING ON THEIR
VOLUNTARY PLANS.  THE MOTION WAS DENIED ON THE STATED GROUND:  "IT
APPEARS THAT IF CONSOLIDATION WERE GRANTED, THE RESULT WOULD BE TO
INJECT INTO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW IN MANY
RESPECTS DIFFERENT FROM, AND UNRELATED TO, THOSE HERE INVOLVED.  IN
CONSEQUENCE, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY PERMITTING THE
CONSOLIDATION OF THE 11(E) PLANS WITH THE PRESENT PROCEEDING, BUT ON
THE CONTRARY, DELAY AND CONFUSION WOULD INEVITABLY RESULT."  FN6
CONSISTENTLY, SEPARATE HEARING WAS DENIED AS TO THE VOLUNTARY PLANS
APPARENTLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT CONSIDERATION OF THEM WOULD DELAY THE
SEC. 11(B) PROCEEDING, SO AS TO DEFEAT THE STATUTORY POLICY OF PROMPT
ACTION,  FN7 AND THAT THE PLANS WERE INCOMPLETE AND INEFFECTIVE. 

IT IS APPARENT FROM THIS RECITAL THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT AT ANY
TIME COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 11(E) THAT IT PROVIDE BY
RULES, REGULATIONS OR ORDER AN ORDERLY PROCEDURE TO CARRY OUT THE
VOLUNTARY PLANS.  AND IF PETITIONERS HAD STOOD UPON THEIR RIGHTS IN
THIS RESPECT, BY TIMELY ACTION TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, THE COMMISSION'S
FAILURE TO OBSERVE THEM WOULD HAVE GIVEN GROUND FOR REVERSAL. 

BUT IT IS EQUALLY OBVIOUS THAT THE PETITIONERS DID NOT ASSERT THEIR
RIGHTS IN A MANNER WHICH INVALIDATES THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN
ENTERING ITS SEC. 11(B)(2) ORDER OR MADE THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR
HEARING REVERSIBLE ERROR.  THE PETITIONERS HAD NOTICE THAT THE
COMMISSION WOULD PROCEED WITH THE SEC. 11(B)(2) HEARING FROM THE TIME
SUCH NOTICE WAS GIVEN IN MAY, 1940.  THEY APPLIED FOR A CONTINUANCE. 
BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT THEY SOUGHT IT IN ORDER TO HAVE
TIME TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A VOLUNTARY PLAN OR INDEED THAT THEY TOOK
ANY ACTION TOWARD SECURING A HEARING ON SUCH A PLAN UNTIL THEY
SUBMITTED THEIR PLANS.  IN ONE CASE THIS WAS MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE
SEC. 11(B) HEARING BEGAN, IN THE OTHER NEARLY A YEAR AND A HALF AFTER
THAT TIME.  WHEN SHORTLY AFTER THE LATTER SUBMISSION THE MOTIONS TO
CONSOLIDATE WERE MADE, CONSIDERATION WAS DEFERRED BY AGREEMENT OF
COUNSEL UNTIL THE END OF THE SEC. 11(B)(2) HEARING; AND ABOUT SEVEN
MONTHS LATER THAT HEARING WAS CLOSED AS TO THE PETITIONERS BY
STIPULATION. 

ALTHOUGH IN MY OPINION IT WAS THE COMMISSION'S DUTY INITIALLY TO MAKE
PROVISION FOR NOTICE AND HEARING ON VOLUNTARY PLANS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SEC. 11(E), THE PETITIONERS HARDLY CAN BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN
IGNORANT EITHER OF THIS DUTY OR OF THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO PERFORM
IT.  BY STANDING BY THROUGH THE LONG PERIOD OF THE SEC. 11(B)
PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF SUBMITTING THEIR PLANS WITHOUT TAKING
EARLIER ACTION TO SECURE PRESERVATION OF THEIR RIGHTS TO HEARING ON
SUCH PLANS, THE PETITIONERS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO HAVE WAIVED THEIR RIGHTS
TO SUCH HEARINGS.  THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ASSERT THEM FOR THE FIRST
TIME AT SO LATE A STAGE IN THE SEC. 11(B) PROCEEDINGS.  NOR, IN MY
OPINION, IS THE COMMISSION REQUIRED TO GIVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO
SUCH PLANS IN THESE CASES, UNLESS IN ITS OWN DISCRETION IT SEES FIT TO
DO SO. FN8 

FN1  "IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS OR ORDER AS THE
COMMISSION MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR
FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS, ANY REGISTERED HOLDING
COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF A REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY MAY,
AT ANY TIME AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936, SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE COMMISSION FOR
THE DIVESTMENT OF CONTROL, SECURITIES, OR OTHER ASSETS, OR FOR OTHER
ACTION BY SUCH COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENABLING SUCH COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF TO
COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B).  IF, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND SUCH PLAN, AS
SUBMITTED OR AS MODIFIED, NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTION (B) AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED BY SUCH
PLAN, THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE AN ORDER APPROVING SUCH PLAN; AND THE
COMMISSION, AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMPANY, MAY APPLY TO A COURT, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (F) OF SECTION 18, TO
ENFORCE AND CARRY OUT THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF SUCH PLAN  ...."  49
STAT. 803, 822. 

FN2  THE REQUIREMENT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT A PERMISSION TO THE COMMISSION
TO DISPENSE ALTOGETHER WITH SUCH RULES, REGULATIONS OR ORDER IN ITS
DISCRETION.  IT IS RATHER A STATUTORY DIRECTION TO MAKE THEM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED.  ANY OTHER VIEW WOULD
CONTRADICT THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE SECTION AND MAKE OF IT, IN EFFECT,
A DEAD LETTER. 

FN3  THE APPLICATION STATED IN PART:  "IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE NATURE
OF THE PROCEEDING ... THAT THE MATTERS TO BE DEALT WITH AT THE HEARING
ARE OF VITAL IMPORT TO THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES, AS WELL
AS TO THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INVESTORS IN SECURITIES OF COMPANIES
IN THE ELECTRIC BOND AND SHARE COMPANY SYSTEM AND THE MILLIONS OF
CONSUMERS PRESENTLY RECEIVING NECESSARY PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE FROM THE
OPERATING COMPANIES IN SAID SYSTEM.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPONDENTS
BELIEVE, FIRST, THAT THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE TIME NOT ONLY TO
CHECK AND VERIFY THE NUMEROUS FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE
ORDER, BUT ALSO TO DEVELOP AND CORRELATE FOR PRESENTATION ALL OTHER
FACTS HAVING A BEARING UPON THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE
NOTICE AND ORDER  ..." 

FN4  AT THE SAME TIME AMERICAN, WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD FILED ITS PLAN
WITH THE COMMISSION, SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE THE PLAN AS AN EXHIBIT INTO
THE SEC. 11(B)(2) HEARING.  THE COMPANY'S ATTORNEY STATED, "THIS PLAN
WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WITH THE
COMMISSION SETS FORTH A PROPOSAL FOR THE COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 11 OF
THE ACT, AND I THINK THAT IT IS MATERIAL AND RELEVANT IN THIS
PROCEEDING."  THE REPLY OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER, SUSTAINING AN OBJECTION
TO ITS ADMISSION, APPARENTLY TYPIFIES THE ATTITUDE OF THE COMMISSION
TOWARD THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 11(E):  "QUITE POSSIBLY IT RELATES TO
WANT TO CONSIDER BEFORE IT FINALLY MAKES UP ITS MIND.  IT IS QUITE
PROBABLE.  BUT, NEVERTHELESS, WE ARE HERE RESTRICTED TO THIS PARTICULAR
PROCEEDING AND NOT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION OR THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION.  THE HEARING IS RESTRICTED TO 11(B)(2)." 

THE COMMISSION AT NO TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING RECOGNIZED
THAT SEC. 11(E) PLANS NOT ONLY WERE RELEVANT TO WHETHER ACTION SHOULD
BE TAKEN UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2), BUT ALSO WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED
BY HEARING BEFORE SUCH ACTION IS TAKEN.  ITS VIEW APPARENTLY IS TO THE
CONTRARY.  SEE MATTER OF ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO., 11 S.E.C. 1146,
1217-1218, QUOTED IN NOTE 7 INFRA; MATTER OF COMMONWEALTH & SOUTHERN
CORP., 11 S.E.C. 138, 154-156.  THE EXAMINER, OF COURSE, COULD NOT HELP
HIMSELF.  THE HEARING HAD BEEN LIMITED TO SEC. 11(B)(2).  7 S.E.C.
391. 

FN5  THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE WHAT THE AGREEMENT WAS OR FOR WHAT
REASONS IT WAS MADE.  TO DELAY CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE WAS IN EFFECT TO DENY IT INSOFAR AS IT SOUGHT A JOINT
HEARING, THOUGH IT WAS ALWAYS POSSIBLE FOR THE COMMISSION TO ORDER A
HEARING ON THE VOLUNTARY PLANS BEFORE IT ISSUED ITS SEC. 11(B)(2)
ORDER. 

FN6  11 S.E.C. 1146, 1152.  THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT "THESE PLANS
WERE FILED AT A TIME WHEN THE RECORD IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WAS
NEARING COMPLETION."  IBID. 

FN7  "WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMER POINT, THAT OF PROMPTNESS, IT NEED
ONLY BE CONSIDERED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR RESPONDENTS AND THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION TO FORMULATE AND PRESENT, AND FOR US TO
EXPLORE, DETAILED AND VERY EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE ON A NUMBER OF EXTREMELY
COMPLEX SUBJECTS BEFORE IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO DETERMINE EVEN
THE PRELIMINARY QUESTION OF WHETHER THE 11(E) PLANS DO IN FACT
CONSTITUTE ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION FOR ACHIEVING THE
OBJECTIVES OF SECTION 11.  IN THE EVENT IT WERE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE
THE QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE, PRESUMABLY WE SHOULD BE FREE (EVEN UNDER
RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION) TO ENTER OUR ORDER OF DISSOLUTION HEREIN
FOLLOWING THE LENGTHY DELAY, UNLESS RESPONDENTS IN THE MEANTIME
PROPOSED A NEW 11(E) PLAN WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE A REPETITION OF THIS
PROCESS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE EVENT WE WERE ULTIMATELY ABLE TO
APPROVE THE PLANS, THEY WOULD STILL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS AND
UNTIL RATIFIED BY VOTE OF THE COMPANIES' STOCKHOLDERS. 

"CONSIDERING THAT 7 YEARS HAVE NOW GONE BY SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE ACT, THAT 4 1/2 YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE DATE AFTER WHICH
ACTION UNDER SECTION 11 WAS TO BE REQUIRED 'AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE,'
AND THAT MORE THAN 2 YEARS HAVE BEEN CONSUMED SINCE THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED, IT IS EVIDENT THAT RESPONDENTS' PROGRAM IS
TOO FRAUGHT WITH POTENTIALITIES OF DELAY TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR A DISSOLUTION ORDER TO MEET THE PROBLEMS EXISTING UNDER
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 11(B) WAS NOT INTENDED TO OUST THE COMMISSION
OF ITS JURISDICTION, OR RELIEVE IT OF ITS OBLIGATION, TO ENFORCE THE
PROVISIONS OF 11(B)."  11 S.E.C. 1146, 1217-1218.  COMPARE NOTES 4 AND
6, SUPRA.    FN8  CF. SEC. 11(B):  "THE COMMISSION MAY BY ORDER REVOKE
OR MODIFY ANY ORDER PREVIOUSLY MADE UNDER THIS SUBSECTION, IF, AFTER
NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, IT FINDS THAT THE CONDITIONS UPON
WHICH THE ORDER WAS PREDICATED DO NOT EXIST."  49 STAT. 803, 821. 
..END :












HALLIBURTON CO. V. WALKER, 329 U.S. 1 


NO. 24.  REARGUED OCTOBER 23, 24, 1946.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 18, 1946.  -
146 F.2D 817, REVERSED. 


1.  WALKER PATENT NO. 2,156,519 FOR AN IMPROVEMENT OVER A PAST PATENT
DESIGNED TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE FROM THE TOP OF AN OIL WELL TO THE
FLUID SURFACE OF THE OIL, HELD INVALID FOR FAILURE OF THE CLAIMS TO
MAKE THE "FULL, CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EXACT" DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED
INVENTION REQUIRED BY R.S. SEC. 4888, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33.  PP. 11-14. 

2.  A CLAIM WHICH DESCRIBES THE MOST CRUCIAL ELEMENT IN A "NEW"
COMBINATION IN TERMS OF WHAT IT WILL DO RATHER THAN IN TERMS OF ITS OWN
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OR ITS ARRANGEMENT IN THE NEW COMBINATION IS
INVALID AS A VIOLATION OF R.S. SEC. 4888.  HOLLAND FURNITURE CO. V.
PERKINS GLUE CO., 277 U.S. 245; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH
APPLIANCE CORP., 304 U.S. 364.  PP. 8, 9. 

3.  AS USED IN R.S. SEC. 4888, THE WORD "MACHINE" INCLUDES A
COMBINATION OF OLD ELEMENTS.  P. 9. 

4.  THE REQUIREMENT OF R.S. SEC. 4888 FOR A "FULL, CLEAR, CONCISE,
AND EXACT" DESCRIPTION IN CLAIMS APPLIES TO A COMBINATION OF OLD
DEVICES.  PP. 9-11. 

5.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 4888, A PATENTEE CANNOT OBTAIN GREATER COVERAGE
BY FAILING ACCURATELY TO DESCRIBE HIS INVENTION THAN BY DESCRIBING IT
AS THE STATUTE COMMANDS.  P. 13. 

HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. V. WALKER ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS
DEPTHOGRAPH CO. 

ON REHEARING. 

RESPONDENT SUED PETITIONER FOR INFRINGEMENT OF WALKER PATENT NO.
2,156,519.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE VALID AND
INFRINGED BY PETITIONER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 146 F.2D 817, AND DENIED A PETITION FOR REHEARING. 
149 F.2D 896.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 705.  THE CASE
WAS AFFIRMED BY AN EVENLY DIVIDED COURT.  326 U.S. 696.  A PETITION FOR
REHEARING WAS GRANTED AND THE CASE WAS RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR
REARGUMENT BEFORE A FULL BENCH.  327 U.S. 812.  REVERSED, P. 14. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CRANFORD P. WALKER, OWNER OF PATENT NO. 2,156,519, AND THE OTHER
RESPONDENTS, LICENSEES UNDER THE PATENT, BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT ALLEGING THAT PETITIONER, HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING
COMPANY, HAD INFRINGED CERTAIN OF THE CLAIMS OF THE WALKER PATENT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE VALID AND INFRINGED BY
HALLIBURTON.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 146 F.2D 817, AND
DENIED HALLIBURTON'S PETITION FOR REHEARING.  149 F.2D 896. 
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI URGED, AMONG
OTHER GROUNDS, THAT THE CLAIMS HELD VALID FAILED TO MAKE THE "FULL,
CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EXACT" DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION
REQUIRED BY REV. STAT. 4888, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33,  FN1  AS THAT STATUTE
WAS INTERPRETED BY US IN GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH APPLIANCE
CORP., 304 U.S. 364.  FN2  THIS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF DISTINCTNESS
AND CERTAINTY IN CLAIMS IS IMPORTANT IN PATENT LAW.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT WAS CORRECTLY APPLIED IN THIS CASE. 
326 U.S. 705.  FN3 

THE PATENT IN SUIT WAS SUSTAINED AS EMBODYING AN IMPROVEMENT OVER A
PAST PATENT OF LEHR AND WYATT (NO. 2,047,974) UPON AN APPARATUS
DESIGNED TO FACILITATE THE PUMPING OF OIL OUT OF WELLS WHICH DO NOT
HAVE SUFFICIENT NATURAL PRESSURES TO FORCE THE OIL TO GUSH.  AN OUTLINE
OF THE BACKGROUND AND SETTING OF THESE PATENTS IS HELPFUL TO AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBLEM PRESENTED. 

IN ORDER TO OPERATE A PUMP IN AN OIL WELL MOST EFFICIENTLY, CHEAPLY,
AND WITH THE LEAST WASTE, THE PUMP MUST BE PLACED IN AN APPROPRIATE
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FLUID SURFACE OF THE OIL.  PROPERLY TO PLACE THE
PUMP IN THIS RELATIONSHIP REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE OF THE DISTANCE FROM THE
WELL TOP TO THE FLUID SURFACE.  AT LEAST BY THE LATTER 1920'S PROBLEMS
OF WASTE AND EXPENSE IN CONNECTION WITH NON-GUSHER OIL WELLS PRESSED
UPON THE INDUSTRY.  SEE RAILROAD COMM'N OF TEXAS V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL
CO., 310 U.S. 573; BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315.  IT BECAME
APPARENT THAT INEFFICIENT PUMPING, ONE CAUSE OF WASTE, WAS IN SOME
MEASURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO LACK OF ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF DISTANCE FROM
WELL TOP TO FLUID SURFACE.  ABILITY TO MEASURE THIS DISTANCE IN EACH
SEPARATE NON-GUSHER OIL WELL BECAME AN OBVIOUS NEXT STEP IN THE
SOLUTION OF THIS MINOR ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM OF WASTE. 

THE SURFACE AND INTERNAL MACHINERY AND THE CORKSCREW CONFORMATION OF
SOME OIL WELLS MAKE IT IMPRACTICAL TO MEASURE DEPTH BY THE FAMILIAR
METHOD OF LOWERING A ROPE OR CABLE.  IN CASTING ABOUT FOR AN
ALTERNATIVE METHOD IT WAS QUITE NATURAL TO HIT UPON THE POSSIBILITY OF
UTILIZING A SOUND-ECHO-TIME METHOD.  UNKNOWN DISTANCES HAD FREQUENTLY
BEEN ASCERTAINED BY THIS METHOD.  GIVEN THE TIME ELAPSING BETWEEN THE
INJECTION OF A SOUND INTO AN OIL WELL AND THE RETURN OF ITS ECHO FROM
THE FLUID SURFACE, AND ASSUMING THE VELOCITY OF THE SOUND TO BE ABOUT
1100 FEET PER SECOND, AS IT IS IN THE OPEN AIR, IT WOULD BE EASY TO
FIND THE DISTANCE.  NOT ONLY HAD THIS SOUND-ECHO-TIME METHOD BEEN LONG
KNOWN AND GENERALLY USED TO FIND UNKNOWN DISTANCES, BUT IN 1898
BATCHELLER, IN PATENT NO. 602,422, HAD DESCRIBED AN APPARATUS TO FIND A
DISTANCE IN A TUBULAR SPACE.  OBVIOUSLY AN OIL WELL IS SUCH A SPACE. 
HE DESCRIBED A DEVICE WHEREBY THE NOISE FROM A GUN MIGHT BE INJECTED
INTO A TUBE; THE RETURNING ECHOES FROM OBSTRUCTIONS AGITATED A
DIAPHRAGM, WHICH IN TURN MOVED A STYLUS.  THE STYLUS RECORDED ON A
PIECE OF PAPER A GRAPH OR DIAGRAM SHOWING THE VARIANT MOVEMENTS OF THE
DIAPHRAGM CAUSED BY ITS RESPONSE TO ALL THE DIFFERENT ECHO WAVES. 

IN THE LATE 1920'S THE OIL INDUSTRY BEGAN TO EXPERIMENT IN THE USE OF
THIS SAME SOUND-ECHO-TIME METHOD FOR MEASURING THE DISTANCE TO THE
FLUID SURFACE IN DEEP OIL WELLS.  A PRODUCT OF THIS EXPERIMENTATION WAS
THE LEHR AND WYATT PATENT, UPON WHICH THE PRESENT PATENT CLAIMS TO BE
AN IMPROVEMENT.  IT PROPOSED TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE BY MEASURING THE
TIME OF TRAVEL OF THE ECHO OF AN "IMPULSE WAVE" GENERATED BY A "SUDDEN
CHANGE IN PRESSURE."  THE APPARATUS DESCRIBED INCLUDED A GAS CYLINDER
WITH A QUICK OPERATING VALVE BY MEANS OF WHICH A SHORT BLAST OF GAS
COULD BE INJECTED INTO A WELL.  IT WAS STATED IN THE PATENT THAT THE
TIME ELAPSING BETWEEN THE RELEASE OF THE GAS AND THE RETURN OF THE ECHO
OF THE WAVES PRODUCED BY IT COULD BE OBSERVED IN ANY DESIRED MANNER. 
BUT THE PATENTEE'S APPLICATION AND DRAWINGS NOTED THAT THE WAVE
IMPULSES COULD BE RECORDED BY USE OF A MICROPHONE WHICH MIGHT INCLUDE
AN AMPLIFIER AND AN APPROPRIATE DEVICE TO RECORD A PICTURE OF THE WAVE
IMPULSES. 

THIS LEHR AND WYATT PATENT, IT IS THEREFORE APPARENT, SIMPLY PROVIDED
AN APPARATUS COMPOSED OF OLD AND WELL-KNOWN DEVICES TO MEASURE THE TIME
REQUIRED FOR PRESSURE WAVES TO MOVE TO AND BACK FROM THE FLUID SURFACE
OF AN OIL WELL.  BUT THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOUND AND PRESSURE WAVES WOULD
TRAVEL IN OIL WELLS AT OPEN-AIR VELOCITY OF 1100 FEET PER SECOND PROVED
TO BE ERRONEOUS.  FOR THIS REASON THE TIME-VELOCITY COMPUTATION OF LEHR
AND WYATT FOR MEASURING THE DISTANCE TO THE FLUID SURFACE PRODUCED
INACCURATE RESULTS. 

AFTER CONFERENCES WITH LEHR, WALKER UNDERTOOK TO SEARCH FOR A METHOD
WHICH WOULD MORE ACCURATELY INDICATE THE SOUND AND PRESSURE WAVE
VELOCITY IN EACH WELL.  WALKER WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE STRUCTURE OF OIL
WELLS.  THE OIL FLOW PIPE IN A WELL, KNOWN AS A TUBING STRING, IS
JOINTED AND WHERE THESE JOINTS OCCUR THERE ARE COLLARS OR SHOULDERS. 
THERE ARE ALSO ONE OR MORE RELATIVELY PROMINENT PROJECTIONS ON THE OIL
FLOW PIPE KNOWN AS TUBING CATCHERS.  IN WELLS WHERE THE DISTANCE TO THE
TUBING CATCHER IS KNOWN, WALKER OBSERVED THAT THE DISTANCE TO THE FLUID
SURFACE COULD BE MEASURED BY A SIMPLE TIME-DISTANCE PROPORTION
FORMULA.  FN4  FOR THOSE WELLS IN WHICH THE DISTANCE TO THE TUBING
CATCHER WAS UNKNOWN, WALKER ALSO SUGGESTED ANOTHER IDEA.  THE SECTIONS
OF TUBING PIPE USED IN A GIVEN OIL WELL ARE GENERALLY OF EQUAL LENGTH. 
THEREFORE THE SHOULDERS IN A GIVEN WELL ORDINARILY ARE AT EQUAL
INTERVALS FROM EACH OTHER.  BUT THE SECTION LENGTH AND THEREFORE THE
INTERVAL MAY VARY FROM WELL TO WELL.  WALKER CONCLUDED THAT HE COULD
MEASURE THE UNKNOWN DISTANCE TO THE TUBING CATCHER IF HE COULD OBSERVE
AND RECORD THE SHOULDER ECHO WAVES.  THUS MULTIPLICATION OF THE NUMBER
OF SHOULDERS OBSERVED BY THE KNOWN LENGTH OF A PIPE SECTION WOULD
PRODUCE THE DISTANCE TO THE TUBING CATCHER.  WITH THIS DISTANCE, HE
COULD SOLVE THE DISTANCE TO THE FLUID SURFACE BY THE SAME PROPORTION
FORMULA USED WHEN THE DISTANCE TO THE TUBING CATCHER WAS A MATTER OF
RECORD.  THE LEHR AND WYATT INSTRUMENT COULD RECORD ALL THESE ECHO
WAVES.  BUT THE POTENTIAL USEFULNESS OF THE ECHOES FROM THE SHOULDERS
AND THE TUBING CATCHER WHICH THEIR MACHINE RECORDED HAD NOT OCCURRED TO
LEHR AND WYATT AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY HAD MADE NO EFFORT BETTER TO
OBSERVE AND RECORD THEM.  WALKER'S CONTRIBUTION WHICH HE CLAIMS TO BE
INVENTION WAS IN EFFECT TO ADD TO LEHR AND WYATT'S APPARATUS A WELL
KNOWN DEVICE WHICH WOULD MAKE THE REGULARLY APPEARING SHOULDER ECHO
WAVES MORE PROMINENT ON THE GRAPH AND EASIER TO COUNT. 

THE DEVICE ADDED WAS A MECHANICAL ACOUSTICAL RESONATOR.  THIS WAS A
SHORT PIPE WHICH WOULD RECEIVE WAVE IMPULSES AT THE MOUTH OF THE WELL. 
WALKER'S TESTIMONY WAS, AND HIS SPECIFICATIONS STATE, THAT BY MAKING
THE LENGTH OF THIS TUBAL RESONATOR ONE-THIRD THE LENGTH OF THE TUBING
JOINTS, THE RESONATOR WOULD SERVE AS A TUNER, ADJUSTED TO THE FREQUENCY
OF THE SHOULDER ECHO WAVES.  IT WOULD SIMULTANEOUSLY AMPLIFY THESE ECHO
WAVES AND ELIMINATE UNWANTED ECHOES FROM OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS THUS
PRODUCING A CLEARER PICTURE OF THE SHOULDER ECHO WAVES.  HIS
SPECIFICATIONS SHOW, ATTACHED TO THE TUBAL RESONATOR, A COUPLER, THE
MANIPULATION OF WHICH WOULD ADJUST THE LENGTH OF THE TUBE TO ONE-THIRD
OF THE INTERVAL BETWEEN SHOULDERS IN A PARTICULAR WELL.  HIS
SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS ALSO SHOW THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF A
COMPLETE APPARATUS, DESIGNED TO INJECT PRESSURE IMPULSES INTO A WELL,
AND TO RECEIVE, NOTE, RECORD AND TIME THE IMPULSE WAVES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE CLAIMS HERE IN SUIT VALID UPON ITS
FINDING THAT WALKER'S "APPARATUS DIFFERS FROM AND IS AN IMPROVEMENT
OVER THE PRIOR ART IN THE INCORPORATION IN SUCH APPARATUS OF A TUNED
ACOUSTICAL MEANS WHICH PERFORMS THE FUNCTION OF A SOUND FILTER  ..." 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THIS HOLDING, STATING THAT THE
TRIAL COURT HAD FOUND "THAT THE ONLY PART OF THIS PATENT CONSTITUTING
INVENTION OVER THE PRIOR ART IS THE 'TUNED ACOUSTICAL MEANS WHICH
PERFORMS THE FUNCTIONS OF A SOUND FILTER.'" 

FOR OUR PURPOSE IN PASSING UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE CLAIMS AGAINST
PROHIBITED INDEFINITENESS WE CAN ACCEPT WITHOUT RATIFYING THE FINDINGS
OF THE LOWER COURT THAT THE ADDITION OF "A TUNED ACOUSTICAL MEANS"
PERFORMING THE "FUNCTION OF A SOUND FILTER" BROUGHT ABOUT A NEW
PATENTABLE COMBINATION, EVEN THOUGH IT ADVANCED ONLY A NARROW STEP
BEYOND LEHR AND WYATT'S OLD COMBINATION.  FN5  WE MUST, HOWEVER,
DETERMINE WHETHER, AS PETITIONER CHARGES, THE CLAIMS HERE HELD VALID
RUN AFOUL OF REV. STAT. 4888 BECAUSE THEY DO NOT DESCRIBE THE INVENTION
BUT USE "CONVENIENTLY FUNCTIONAL LANGUAGE AT THE EXACT POINT OF
NOVELTY."  GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH APPLIANCE CORP., SUPRA, AT
371. 

WALKER, IN SOME OF HIS CLAIMS, E.G., CLAIMS 2 AND 3, DOES DESCRIBE
THE TUNED ACOUSTICAL PIPE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF HIS INVENTION, SHOWING
ITS STRUCTURE, ITS WORKING ARRANGEMENT IN THE ALLEGED NEW COMBINATION,
AND THE MANNER OF ITS CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER PARTS.  BUT NO ONE OF
THE CLAIMS ON WHICH THIS JUDGMENT RESTS HAS EVEN SUGGESTED THE PHYSICAL
STRUCTURE OF THE ACOUSTICAL RESONATOR.  FN6  NO ONE OF THESE CLAIMS
DESCRIBES THE PHYSICAL RELATION OF THE WALKER ADDITION TO THE OLD LEHR
AND WYATT MACHINE.  NO ONE OF THESE CLAIMS DESCRIBES THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE WALKER ADDITION WILL OPERATE TOGETHER WITH THE OLD LEHR AND
WYATT MACHINE SO AS TO MAKE THE "NEW" UNITARY APPARATUS PERFORM ITS
DESIGNED FUNCTION.  THUS THE CLAIMS FAILED ADEQUATELY TO DEPICT THE
STRUCTURE, MODE, AND OPERATION OF THE PARTS IN COMBINATION. 

A CLAIM TYPICAL OF ALL OF THOSE HELD VALID ONLY DESCRIBES THE
RESONATOR AND ITS RELATION WITH THE REST OF THE APPARATUS AS "MEANS
ASSOCIATED WITH SAID PRESSURE RESPONSIVE DEVICE FOR TUNING SAID
RECEIVING MEANS TO THE FREQUENCY OF ECHOES FROM THE TUBING COLLARS OF
SAID TUBING SECTIONS TO CLEARLY DISTINGUISH THE ECHOES FROM SAID
COUPLINGS FROM EACH OTHER."  FN7  THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIM THUS
DESCRIBES THIS MOST CRUCIAL ELEMENT IN THE "NEW" COMBINATION IN TERMS
OF WHAT IT WILL DO RATHER THAN IN TERMS OF ITS OWN PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OR ITS ARRANGEMENT IN THE NEW COMBINATION APPARATUS. 
WE HAVE HELD THAT A CLAIM WITH SUCH A DESCRIPTION OF A PRODUCT IS
INVALID AS A VIOLATION OF REV. STAT. 4888.  HOLLAND FURNITURE CO. V.
PERKINS GLUE CO., 277 U.S. 245, 256-57; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH
APPLIANCE CORP., SUPRA.  WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HELD THAT THE SAME RIGID STANDARDS OF DESCRIPTION REQUIRED FOR
PRODUCT CLAIMS IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A COMBINATION PATENT EMBODYING OLD
ELEMENTS ONLY.  WE HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW. 

REV. STAT. 4888 POINTEDLY PROVIDES THAT "IN CASE OF A MACHINE, HE
(THE PATENTEE) SHALL EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE THEREOF, AND THE BEST MODE
IN WHICH HE HAS CONTEMPLATED APPLYING THAT PRINCIPLE, SO AS TO
DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER INVENTIONS; AND HE SHALL PARTICULARLY POINT
OUT AND DISTINCTLY CLAIM THE PART, IMPROVEMENT, OR COMBINATION WHICH HE
CLAIMS AS HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY."  IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD THAT THE
WORD "MACHINE" INCLUDES A COMBINATION.  CORNING V. BURDEN, 15 HOW. 
252, 267.  WE ARE NOT PERSUADED THAT THE PUBLIC AND THOSE AFFECTED BY
PATENTS SHOULD LOSE THE PROTECTION OF THIS STATUTE MERELY BECAUSE THE
PATENTED DEVICE IS A COMBINATION OF OLD ELEMENTS. 

PATENTS ON MACHINES WHICH JOIN OLD AND WELL-KNOWN DEVICES WITH THE
DECLARED OBJECT OF ACHIEVING NEW RESULTS, OR PATENTS WHICH ADD AN OLD
ELEMENT TO IMPROVE A PREEXISTING COMBINATION, EASILY LEND THEMSELVES TO
ABUSE.  AND TO PREVENT EXTENSION OF A PATENT'S SCOPE BEYOND WHAT WAS
ACTUALLY INVENTED, COURTS HAVE VIEWED CLAIMS TO COMBINATIONS AND
IMPROVEMENTS OR ADDITIONS TO THEM WITH VERY CLOSE SCRUTINY.  CF.
LINCOLN ENGINEERING CO. V. STEWART-WARNER CORP., 303 U.S. 545, 549-51. 
FOR THE SAME REASON, COURTS HAVE QUALIFIED THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS MEANT
BY THE EQUIVALENT OF AN INGREDIENT OF A COMBINATION OF OLD ELEMENTS. 
GILL V. WELLS, 22 WALL.  1, 28, 29; FULLER V. YENTZER, 94 U.S. 288,
297, 298.  IT IS QUITE CONSISTENT WITH THIS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF
PATENTS FOR MACHINES WHICH COMBINE OLD ELEMENTS TO REQUIRE CLEAR
DESCRIPTION IN COMBINATION CLAIMS.  THIS VIEW, CLEARLY EXPRESSED IN
GILL V. WELLS, SUPRA, IS THAT    "WHERE THE INGREDIENTS ARE ALL OLD THE
INVENTION  ...  CONSISTS ENTIRELY IN THE COMBINATION, AND THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE PATENT ACT THAT THE INVENTION SHALL BE FULLY AND
EXACTLY DESCRIBED APPLIES WITH AS MUCH FORCE TO SUCH AN INVENTION AS TO
ANY OTHER CLASS, BECAUSE IF NOT FULFILLED ALL THREE OF THE GREAT ENDS
INTENDED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THAT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE DEFEATED....
(1.)  THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE GRANTED AND WHAT WILL
BECOME PUBLIC PROPERTY WHEN THE TERM OF THE MONOPOLY EXPIRES.  (2.) 
THAT LICENSED PERSONS DESIRING TO PRACTICE THE INVENTION MAY KNOW,
DURING THE TERM, HOW TO MAKE, CONSTRUCT, AND USE THE INVENTION.  (3.) 
THAT OTHER INVENTORS MAY KNOW WHAT PART OF THE FIELD OF INVENTION IS
UNOCCUPIED. 

"PURPOSES SUCH AS THESE ARE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN EVERY CASE, BUT
THE FULFILMENT OF THEM IS NEVER MORE NECESSARY THAN WHEN SUCH INQUIRIES
ARISE IN RESPECT TO A PATENT FOR A MACHINE WHICH CONSISTS OF A
COMBINATION OF OLD INGREDIENTS.  PATENTS OF THAT KIND ARE MUCH MORE
NUMEROUS THAN ANY OTHER, AND CONSEQUENTLY IT IS OF THE GREATEST
IMPORTANCE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMBINATION, WHICH IS THE
INVENTION, SHOULD BE FULL, CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EXACT."  GILL V. WELLS,
SUPRA, AT 25-26. 

THESE PRINCIPLES WERE AGAIN EMPHASIZED IN MERRILL V. YEOMANS, 94 U.S.
568, 570, WHERE IT WAS SAID THAT "...  IN CASES WHERE THE INVENTION IS
A NEW COMBINATION OF OLD DEVICES, HE (THE PATENTEE) IS BOUND TO
DESCRIBE WITH PARTICULARITY ALL THESE OLD DEVICES, AND THEN THE NEW
MODE OF COMBINING THEM, FOR WHICH HE DESIRES A PATENT."  THIS VIEW HAS
MOST RECENTLY BEEN REITERATED IN GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH
APPLIANCE CORP., SUPRA, AT 368, 369.  COGENT REASONS WOULD HAVE TO BE
PRESENTED TO PERSUADE US TO DEPART FROM THIS ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE.  THE
FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, FAR FROM UNDERMINING OUR CONFIDENCE IN
THESE EARLIER PRONOUNCEMENTS, REINFORCE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR A CLEAR DESCRIPTION OF CLAIMS APPLIES TO A
COMBINATION OF OLD DEVICES. 

THIS PATENT AND THE INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT UNDER IT
ILLUSTRATE THE HAZARDS OF CARVING OUT AN EXCEPTION TO THE SWEEPING
DEMAND CONGRESS MADE IN REV. STAT. 4888.  NEITHER IN THE SPECIFICATION,
THE DRAWING, NOR IN THE CLAIMS HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WAS THERE ANY
INDICATION THAT THE PATENTEE CONTEMPLATED ANY SPECIFIC STRUCTURAL
ALTERNATIVE FOR THE ACOUSTICAL RESONATOR OR FOR THE RESONATOR'S
RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE MACHINE.  PETITIONER WAS WORKING
IN A FIELD CROWDED ALMOST, IF NOT COMPLETELY, TO THE POINT OF
EXHAUSTION.  IN 1920, TUCKER, IN PATENT NO. 1,351,356, HAD SHOWN A
TUNED ACOUSTICAL RESONATOR IN A SOUND DETECTING DEVICE WHICH MEASURED
DISTANCES.  LEHR AND WYATT HAD PROVIDED FOR AMPLIFICATION OF THEIR
WAVES.  SUFFICIENT AMPLIFICATION AND EXAGGERATION OF ALL THE DIFFERENT
WAVES WHICH LEHR AND WYATT RECORDED ON THEIR MACHINE WOULD HAVE MADE IT
EASY TO DISTINGUISH THE TUBING CATCHER AND REGULAR SHOULDER WAVES FROM
ALL OTHERS.  FOR, EVEN WITHOUT THIS AMPLIFICATION, THE ECHO WAVES FROM
TUBING COLLARS COULD BY PROPER MAGNIFICATION HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND
ACCURATELY COUNTED, HAD LEHR AND WYATT RECOGNIZED THEIR IMPORTANCE IN
COMPUTING THE VELOCITY.  CF. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. JEWEL INCANDESCENT
LAMP CO., 326 U.S. 242. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE BROADNESS, AMBIGUITY, AND OVERHANGING
THREAT OF THE FUNCTIONAL CLAIM OF WALKER BECOME APPARENT.  WHAT HE
CLAIMED IN THE COURT BELOW AND WHAT HE CLAIMS HERE IS THAT HIS PATENT
BARS ANYONE FROM USING IN AN OIL WELL ANY DEVICE HERETOFORE OR
HEREAFTER INVENTED WHICH COMBINED WITH THE LEHR AND WYATT MACHINE
PERFORMS THE FUNCTION OF CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY CATCHING AND RECORDING
ECHOES FROM TUBING JOINTS WITH REGULARITY.  JUST HOW MANY DIFFERENT
DEVICES THERE ARE OF VARIOUS KINDS AND CHARACTERS WHICH WOULD SERVE TO
EMPHASIZE THESE ECHOES, WE DO NOT KNOW.  THE HALLIBURTON DEVICE,
ALLEGED TO INFRINGE, EMPLOYS AN ELECTRIC FILTER FOR THIS PURPOSE.  IN
THIS AGE OF TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT THERE MAY BE MANY OTHER DEVICES
BEYOND OUR PRESENT INFORMATION OR INDEED OUR IMAGINATION WHICH WILL
PERFORM THAT FUNCTION AND YET FIT THESE CLAIMS.  AND UNLESS FRIGHTENED
FROM THE COURSE OF EXPERIMENTATION BY BROAD FUNCTIONAL CLAIMS LIKE
THESE, INVENTIVE GENIUS MAY EVOLVE MANY MORE DEVICES TO ACCOMPLISH THE
SAME PURPOSE.  SEE UNITED CARBON CO. V. BINNEY & SMITH CO., 317 U.S.
228, 236; BURR V. DURYEE, 1 WALL.  531, 568; O'REILLY V. MORSE, 15
HOW.  62, 112-13.  YET IF WALKER'S BLANKET CLAIMS BE VALID, NO DEVICE
TO CLARIFY ECHO WAVES, NOW KNOWN OR HEREAFTER INVENTED, WHETHER THE
DEVICE BE AN ACTUAL EQUIVALENT OF WALKER'S INGREDIENT OR NOT, COULD BE
USED IN A COMBINATION SUCH AS THIS, DURING THE LIFE OF WALKER'S
PATENT. 

HAD WALKER ACCURATELY DESCRIBED THE MACHINE HE CLAIMS TO HAVE
INVENTED, HE WOULD HAVE HAD NO SUCH BROAD RIGHTS TO BAR THE USE OF ALL
DEVICES NOW OR HEREAFTER KNOWN WHICH COULD ACCENT WAVES.  FOR HAD HE
ACCURATELY DESCRIBED THE RESONATOR TOGETHER WITH THE LEHR AND WYATT
APPARATUS, AND SUED FOR INFRINGEMENT, CHARGING THE USE OF SOMETHING
ELSE USED IN COMBINATION TO ACCENT THE WAVES, THE ALLEGED INFRINGER
COULD HAVE PREVAILED IF THE SUBSTITUTED DEVICE (1) PERFORMED A
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FUNCTION; (2) WAS NOT KNOWN AT THE DATE OF
WALKER'S PATENT AS A PROPER SUBSTITUTE FOR THE RESONATOR; OR (3) HAD
BEEN ACTUALLY INVENTED AFTER THE DATE OF THE PATENT.  FULLER V.
YENTZER, SUPRA, AT 296-97; GILL V. WELLS, SUPRA, AT 29.  CERTAINLY, IF
WE ARE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH REV. STAT. 4888, A PATENTEE CANNOT OBTAIN
GREATER COVERAGE BY FAILING TO DESCRIBE HIS INVENTION THAN BY
DESCRIBING IT AS THE STATUTE COMMANDS. 

IT IS URGED THAT OUR CONCLUSION IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF
CONTINENTAL PAPER BAG CO. V. EASTERN PAPER BAG CO., 210 U.S. 405.  IN
THAT CASE, HOWEVER, THE CLAIMS STRUCTURALLY DESCRIBED THE PHYSICAL AND
OPERATING RELATIONSHIP OF ALL THE CRUCIAL PARTS OF THE NOVEL
COMBINATION.  FN8  THE COURT THERE DECIDED ONLY THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN
INFRINGEMENT OF THIS ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED INVENTION.  THAT CASE IS NOT
AUTHORITY FOR SUSTAINING THE CLAIMS BEFORE US WHICH FAIL ADEQUATELY TO
DESCRIBE THE ALLEGED INVENTION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "33.  APPLICATION FOR PATENT; DESCRIPTION; SPECIFICATION AND
CLAIM.  - BEFORE ANY INVENTOR OR DISCOVERER SHALL RECEIVE A PATENT FOR
HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY HE SHALL MAKE APPLICATION THEREFOR, IN
WRITING, TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, AND SHALL FILE IN THE PATENT
OFFICE A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THE SAME, AND OF THE MANNER AND PROCESS
OF MAKING, CONSTRUCTING, COMPOUNDING, AND USING IT, IN SUCH FULL,
CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EXACT TERMS AS TO ENABLE ANY PERSON SKILLED IN THE
ART OR SCIENCE TO WHICH IT APPERTAINS, OR WITH WHICH IT IS MOST NEARLY
CONNECTED, TO MAKE, CONSTRUCT, COMPOUND, AND USE THE SAME; AND IN CASE
OF A MACHINE, HE SHALL EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE THEREOF, AND THE BEST MODE
IN WHICH HE HAS CONTEMPLATED APPLYING THAT PRINCIPLE, SO AS TO
DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER INVENTIONS; AND HE SHALL PARTICULARLY POINT
OUT AND DISTINCTLY CLAIM THE PART, IMPROVEMENT, OR COMBINATION WHICH HE
CLAIMS AS HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY...." 

FN2  OTHER ALLEGED ERRORS WERE URGED IN THE APPLICATION FOR
CERTIORARI AND HAVE BEEN ARGUED HERE, BUT SINCE WE FIND THE QUESTION OF
DEFINITENESS OF THE CLAIM DECISIVE OF THE CONTROVERSY, WE SHALL NOT
FURTHER ADVERT TO THE OTHER CONTENTIONS. 

FN3  THIS CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED COURT, 326 U.S.
696, AND UPON PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR
REARGUMENT.  327 U.S. 812. 

FN4  THE KNOWN DISTANCE FROM WELL TOP TO THE TUBING CATCHER IS TO THE
UNKNOWN DISTANCE FROM WELL TOP TO THE FLUID SURFACE AS THE TIME AN ECHO
REQUIRES TO TRAVEL FROM THE TUBING CATCHER IS TO THE TIME REQUIRED FOR
AN ECHO TO TRAVEL FROM THE FLUID SURFACE. 

WALKER'S PATENT EMPHASIZES THAT HIS INVENTION SOLVES THE VELOCITY OF
SOUND WAVES IN WELLS OF VARIOUS PRESSURES IN WHICH SOUND DID NOT TRAVEL
AT OPEN-AIR OR A UNIFORM SPEED.  MATHEMATICALLY, OF COURSE, HIS
DETERMINATION OF THE DISTANCE BY PROPORTIONS DETERMINES THE DISTANCE TO
THE FLUID SURFACE DIRECTLY WITHOUT NECESSARILY CONSIDERING VELOCITY IN
FEET PER SECOND AS A FACTOR. 

FN5  SEE HAILES V. VAN WORMER, 20 WALL.  353; KNAPP V. MORSS, 150
U.S. 221, 227-28; TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS V. LOUIS HIRSCH TEXTILE
MACHINES, INC., 302 U.S. 490; LINCOLN ENGINEERING CO. V. STEWART-WARNER
CORP., 303 U.S. 545, 549-50. 

FN6  HALLIBURTON DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE ADEQUACY OF THE DESCRIPTION
OF ANY OTHER FEATURES OF THE "NEW COMBINATION."  THE ELEMENTS OF
WALKER'S APPARATUS OTHER THAN THE FILTER ARE SO NEARLY IDENTICAL TO
WHAT LEHR AND WYATT PATENTED THAT WE CAN SPEAK OF THESE OTHER ELEMENTS
AS THE "LEHR AND WYATT MACHINE." 

FN7  BOTH PARTIES HAVE USED CLAIM 1 AS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE FOR PURPOSES
OF ARGUMENT THROUGHOUT THE LITIGATION.  OTHER CLAIMS NEED NOT BE SET
OUT.  CLAIM 1 IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN AN APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING THE LOCATION OF AN OBSTRUCTION IN A
WELL HAVING THEREIN A STRING OF ASSEMBLED TUBING SECTIONS
INTERCONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER BY COUPLING COLLARS, MEANS COMMUNICATING
WITH SAID WELL FOR CREATING A PRESSURE IMPULSE IN SAID WELL, ECHO
RECEIVING MEANS INCLUDING A PRESSURE RESPONSIVE DEVICE EXPOSED TO SAID
WELL FOR RECEIVING PRESSURE IMPULSES FROM THE WELL AND FOR MEASURING
THE LAPSE OF TIME BETWEEN THE CREATION OF THE IMPULSE AND THE ARRIVAL
AT SAID RECEIVING MEANS OF THE ECHO FROM SAID OBSTRUCTION, AND MEANS
ASSOCIATED WITH SAID PRESSURE RESPONSIVE DEVICE FOR TUNING SAID
RECEIVING MEANS TO THE FREQUENCY OF ECHOES FROM THE TUBING COLLARS OF
SAID TUBING SECTIONS TO CLEARLY DISTINGUISH THE ECHOES FROM SAID
COUPLINGS FROM EACH OTHER." 

FN8  THE TYPICAL CLAIM THERE IN SUIT WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"2.  IN A PAPER BAG MACHINE, THE COMBINATION OF THE ROTATING CYLINDER
PROVIDED WITH ONE OR MORE PAIRS OF SIDE FOLDING FINGERS ADAPTED TO BE
MOVED TOWARD OR FROM EACH OTHER, A FORMING PLATE ALSO PROVIDED WITH
SIDE FORMING FINGERS ADAPTED TO BE MOVED TOWARD OR FROM EACH OTHER,
MEANS FOR OPERATING SAID FINGERS AT DEFINITE TIMES DURING THE FORMATIVE
ACTION UPON THE BAG TUBE, OPERATING MEANS FOR THE FORMING PLATE ADAPTED
TO CAUSE THE SAID PLATE TO OSCILLATE ABOUT ITS REAR EDGE UPON THE
SURFACE OF THE CYLINDER DURING THE ROTARY MOVEMENT OF SAID CYLINDER FOR
THE PURPOSE OF OPENING AND FORMING THE BOTTOM OF THE BAG TUBE, A FINGER
MOVING WITH THE FORMING PLATE FOR RECEIVING THE UPPER SHEET OF THE TUBE
AND LIFTING IT DURING THE FORMATIVE ACTION, POWER DEVICES FOR RETURNING
THE FORMING PLATE TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION TO RECEIVE A NEW BAG TUBE,
AND MEANS TO MOVE THE BAG TUBE WITH THE CYLINDER."  CONTINENTAL PAPER
BAG CO. V. EASTERN PAPER BAG CO., 210 U.S. 405, 417, N. 1. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS WITH THE COURT'S OPINION IN SO FAR AS
IT FINDS THIS CLAIM LACKING IN THE DEFINITENESS REQUIRED BY REV. STAT.
4888, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33, BUT RESERVES JUDGMENT AS TO CONSIDERATIONS
THAT MAY BE PECULIAR TO COMBINATION PATENTS IN SATISFYING THAT
REQUIREMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENTS. 
..END :










CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 14 


ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 1945.  REARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1946.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER
18, 1946.  - 146 F.2D 730, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE MANN ACT, 36 STAT. 825, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
398, FOR A MAN TO TRANSPORT A WOMAN ACROSS STATE LINES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF MAKING HER HIS PLURAL WIFE OR COHABITING WITH HER AS SUCH -
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE PRACTICE IS FOUNDED ON HIS RELIGIOUS
BELIEF.  PP. 16, 20. 

2.  WHILE THE ACT WAS AIMED PRIMARILY AT THE USE OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FOR THE CONDUCT OF COMMERCIALIZED PROSTITUTION, IT IS NOT
LIMITED TO THAT AND A PROFIT MOTIVE IS NOT A SINE QUA NON TO ITS
APPLICATION.  CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470.  PP. 17, 18. 

(A)  IT EXPRESSLY APPLIES TO TRANSPORTATION FOR PURPOSES OF
DEBAUCHERY, WHICH MAY BE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY LUST.  P. 17. 

(B)  UNDER THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE, THE WORDS "OR FOR ANY OTHER
IMMORAL PURPOSE" CANNOT BE GIVEN A NARROWER MEANING.  P. 18. 

3.  POLYGAMOUS PRACTICES ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE ACT, HAVE LONG
BEEN BRANDED AS IMMORAL, AND ARE OF THE SAME GENUS AS THE OTHER IMMORAL
PRACTICES COVERED BY THE ACT.  PP. 18, 19. 

4.  THE FACT THAT THE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE IS A STATE MATTER DOES
NOT MAKE THE ACT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH THE
POLICE POWERS OF THE STATES.  P. 19. 

5.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF COMMERCE IS
PLENARY; IT MAY BE USED TO DEFEAT IMMORAL PRACTICES; AND THE FACT THAT
THE MEANS USED MAY HAVE "THE QUALITY OF POLICE REGULATIONS" IS NOT
CONSEQUENTIAL.  P. 19. 

6.  TRANSPORTATION OF A WOMAN ACROSS STATE LINES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ENTERING INTO A PLURAL MARRIAGE OR COHABITING WITH HER AS A PLURAL WIFE
IS FOR A PURPOSE PROHIBITED BY THE ACT.  P. 19. 

7.  GUILT UNDER THE ACT TURNS ON THE PURPOSE WHICH MOTIVATES THE
TRANSPORTATION, NOT ON ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT.  P. 20. 

8.  THE FACT THAT THE ACCUSED WAS MOTIVATED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS
NO DEFENSE TO A PROSECUTION UNDER THE MANN ACT.  P. 20. 

9.  UNDER THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE, THE GENERAL WORDS CANNOT BE
CONFINED MORE NARROWLY THAN THE CLASS OF WHICH THEY ARE A PART.  P.
18.  OF CONVICTION IN THESE CASES. 

CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 12.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 13, CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES; NO. 14, CLEVELAND
V. UNITED STATES; NO. 15, DARGER V. UNITED STATES; NO. 16, JESSOP V.
UNITED STATES; NO. 17, DOCKSTADER V. UNITED STATES; NO. 18, STUBBS V.
UNITED STATES; AND NO. 19, PETTY V. UNITED STATES, ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SAME COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE MANN ACT, 36 STAT. 825,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 398.  56 F.SUPP.  890.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  146 F.2D 730.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  324 U.S.
835.  AFFIRMED, P. 20. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE MEMBERS OF A MORMON SECT, KNOWN AS FUNDAMENTALISTS. 
THEY NOT ONLY BELIEVE IN POLYGAMY; UNLIKE OTHER MORMONS,  FN1  THEY
PRACTICE IT.  EACH OF PETITIONERS, EXCEPT STUBBS, HAS, IN ADDITION TO
HIS LAWFUL WIFE, ONE OR MORE PLURAL WIVES.  EACH TRANSPORTED AT LEAST
ONE PLURAL WIFE ACROSS STATE LINES,  FN2  EITHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COHABITING WITH HER, OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF AIDING ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE
CULT IN SUCH A PROJECT.  THEY WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE MANN ACT
(36 STAT. 825, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 398) ON A TRIAL TO THE COURT, A JURY
HAVING BEEN WAIVED.  56 F.SUPP.  890.  THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION WERE
AFFIRMED ON APPEAL.  146 F.2D 730.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON PETITIONS FOR
CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED IN VIEW OF THE ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN
THE DECISION BELOW AND MORTENSEN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 369. 

THE ACT MAKES AN OFFENSE THE TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF
"ANY WOMAN OR GIRL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION OR DEBAUCHERY, OR
FOR ANY OTHER IMMORAL PURPOSE."  THE DECISION TURNS ON THE MEANING OF
THE LATTER PHRASE, "FOR ANY OTHER IMMORAL PURPOSE." 

UNITED STATES V. BITTY, 208 U.S. 393, INVOLVED A PROSECUTION UNDER A
FEDERAL STATUTE MAKING IT A CRIME TO IMPORT AN ALIEN WOMAN "FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION OR FOR ANY OTHER IMMORAL PURPOSE."  THE ACT WAS
CONSTRUED TO COVER A CASE WHERE A MAN IMPORTED AN ALIEN WOMAN SO THAT
SHE SHOULD LIVE WITH HIM AS HIS CONCUBINE.  TWO YEARS LATER THE MANN
ACT WAS PASSED.  BECAUSE OF THE SIMILARITY OF THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE
TWO ACTS, THE BITTY CASE BECAME A FORCEFUL PRECEDENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE MANN ACT.  THUS ONE WHO TRANSPORTED A WOMAN IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO THAT SHE SHOULD BECOME HIS MISTRESS OR CONCUBINE
WAS HELD TO HAVE TRANSPORTED HER FOR AN "IMMORAL PURPOSE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE MANN ACT.  CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CAMINETTI DECISION GAVE TOO WIDE A SWEEP TO THE
ACT; THAT THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO COVER ONLY THE WHITE SLAVE BUSINESS
AND RELATED VICES; THAT IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO COVER VOLUNTARY ACTIONS
BEREFT OF SEX COMMERCIALISM; AND THAT IN ANY EVENT IT SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO EMBRACE POLYGAMY WHICH IS A FORM OF MARRIAGE AND, UNLIKE
PROSTITUTION OR DEBAUCHERY OR THE CONCUBINAGE INVOLVED IN THE CAMINETTI
CASE, HAS AS ITS OBJECT PARENTHOOD AND THE CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
FAMILY LIFE.  IN SUPPORT OF THAT INTERPRETATION AN EXHAUSTIVE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS SUBMITTED WHICH, IT IS SAID, GIVES NO INDICATION
THAT THE ACT WAS AIMED AT POLYGAMOUS PRACTICES. 

WHILE MORTENSEN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 377, RIGHTLY INDICATED
THAT THE ACT WAS AIMED "PRIMARILY" AT THE USE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE WHITE SLAVE BUSINESS, WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT
A PROFIT MOTIVE IS A SINE QUA NON TO ITS APPLICATION.  PROSTITUTION, TO
BE SURE, NORMALLY SUGGESTS SEXUAL RELATIONS FOR HIRE.  FN3  BUT
DEBAUCHERY HAS NO SUCH IMPLIED LIMITATION.  IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING THE
INDULGENCE WHICH THAT TERM SUGGESTS MAY BE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY LUST. 
FN4  AND SO WE START WITH WORDS WHICH BY THEIR NATURAL IMPORT EMBRACE
MORE THAN COMMERCIALIZED SEX.  WHAT FOLLOWS IS "ANY OTHER IMMORAL
PURPOSE."  UNDER THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE OF CONSTRUCTION THE GENERAL
WORDS ARE CONFINED TO THE CLASS AND MAY NOT BE USED TO ENLARGE IT. BUT
WE COULD NOT GIVE THE WORDS A FAITHFUL INTERPRETATION IF WE CONFINED
THEM MORE NARROWLY THAN THE CLASS OF WHICH THEY ARE A PART. 

THAT WAS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COURT IN THE BITTY AND CAMINETTI
CASES.  WE DO NOT STOP TO REEXAMINE THE CAMINETTI CASE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE ACT WAS PROPERLY APPLIED TO THE FACTS THERE PRESENTED.  BUT
WE ADHERE TO ITS HOLDING, WHICH HAS BEEN IN FORCE FOR ALMOST THIRTY
YEARS,  FN5 THAT THE ACT, WHILE PRIMARILY AIMED AT THE USE OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMMERCIALIZED SEX, IS NOT
RESTRICTED TO THAT END. 

WE CONCLUDE, MOREOVER, THAT POLYGAMOUS PRACTICES ARE NOT EXCLUDED
FROM THE ACT.  THEY HAVE LONG BEEN OUTLAWED IN OUR SOCIETY.  AS STATED
IN REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 164: 

"POLYGAMY HAS ALWAYS BEEN ODIOUS AMONG THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN
NATIONS OF EUROPE, AND, UNTIL THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MORMON CHURCH,
WAS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY A FEATURE OF THE LIFE OF ASIATIC AND OF AFRICAN
PEOPLE.  AT COMMON LAW, THE SECOND MARRIAGE WAS ALWAYS VOID (2 KENT,
COM. 79), AND FROM THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF ENGLAND POLYGAMY HAS BEEN
TREATED AS AN OFFENCE AGAINST SOCIETY." 

AS SUBSEQUENTLY STATED IN MORMON CHURCH V. UNITED STATES, 136 U.S. 1,
49, "THE ORGANIZATION OF A COMMUNITY FOR THE SPREAD AND PRACTICE OF
POLYGAMY IS, IN A MEASURE, A RETURN TO BARBARISM.  IT IS CONTRARY TO
THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY AND OF THE CIVILIZATION WHICH CHRISTIANITY
HAS PRODUCED IN THE WESTERN WORLD."  AND SEE DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S.
333.  POLYGAMY IS A PRACTICE WITH FAR MORE PERVASIVE INFLUENCES IN
SOCIETY THAN THE CASUAL, ISOLATED TRANSGRESSIONS INVOLVED IN THE
CAMINETTI CASE.  THE ESTABLISHMENT OR MAINTENANCE OF POLYGAMOUS
HOUSEHOLDS IS A NOTORIOUS EXAMPLE OF PROMISCUITY.  THE PERMANENT
ADVERTISEMENT OF THEIR EXISTENCE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE SHARP
REPERCUSSIONS WHICH THEY HAVE IN THE COMMUNITY.  WE COULD CONCLUDE THAT
CONGRESS EXCLUDED THESE PRACTICES FROM THE ACT ONLY IF IT WERE CLEAR
THAT THE ACT IS CONFINED TO COMMERCIALIZED SEXUAL VICE.  SINCE WE
CANNOT SAY IT IS, WE SEE NO WAY BY WHICH THE PRESENT TRANSGRESSIONS CAN
BE EXCLUDED.  THESE POLYGAMOUS PRACTICES HAVE LONG BEEN BRANDED AS
IMMORAL IN THE LAW.  THOUGH THEY HAVE DIFFERENT RAMIFICATIONS, THEY ARE
IN THE SAME GENUS AS THE OTHER IMMORAL PRACTICES COVERED BY THE ACT. 

THE FACT THAT THE REGULATION OF MARRIAGE IS A STATE MATTER DOES NOT,
OF COURSE, MAKE THE MANN ACT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY
CONGRESS WITH THE POLICE POWERS OF THE STATES.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS
OVER THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS PLENARY; IT MAY BE
USED TO DEFEAT WHAT ARE DEEMED TO BE IMMORAL PRACTICES; AND THE FACT
THAT THE MEANS USED MAY HAVE "THE QUALITY OF POLICE REGULATIONS" IS NOT
CONSEQUENTIAL.  HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 308, 323; SEE ATHANASAW
V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 326; WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 563. 

PETITIONERS' SECOND LINE OF DEFENSE IS THAT THE REQUISITE PURPOSE WAS
LACKING.  IT IS SAID THAT THOSE PETITIONERS WHO ALREADY HAD PLURAL
WIVES DID NOT TRANSPORT THEM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR AN IMMORAL
PURPOSE.  THE TEST LAID DOWN IN THE MORTENSEN CASE WAS WHETHER THE
TRANSPORTATION WAS IN FACT "THE USE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS A
CALCULATED MEANS FOR EFFECTUATING SEXUAL IMMORALITY."  322 U.S. P.
375.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THIS GROUP OF PETITIONERS IN ORDER TO
COHABIT WITH THEIR PLURAL WIVES FOUND IT NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT TO
TRANSPORT THEM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSE WAS
THE DOMINANT MOTIVE.  IN ONE CASE THE WOMAN WAS TRANSPORTED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENTERING INTO A PLURAL MARRIAGE.  AFTER A NIGHT WITH THIS
PETITIONER SHE REFUSED TO CONTINUE THE PLURAL MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP. 
BUT GUILT UNDER THE MANN ACT TURNS ON THE PURPOSE WHICH MOTIVATES THE
TRANSPORTATION, NOT ON ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT.  WILSON V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, PP. 570-71. 

IT IS ALSO URGED THAT THE REQUISITE CRIMINAL INTENT WAS LACKING SINCE
PETITIONERS WERE MOTIVATED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.  THAT DEFENSE CLAIMS
TOO MUCH.  IF UPHELD, IT WOULD PLACE BEYOND THE LAW ANY ACT DONE UNDER
CLAIM OF RELIGIOUS SANCTION.  BUT IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD THAT THE FACT
THAT POLYGAMY IS SUPPORTED BY A RELIGIOUS CREED AFFORDS NO DEFENSE IN A
PROSECUTION FOR BIGAMY.  REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  WHETHER AN
ACT IS IMMORAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE IS NOT TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE ACCUSED'S CONCEPTS OF MORALITY.  CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED THE STANDARD.  THE OFFENSE IS COMPLETE IF THE ACCUSED INTENDED
TO PERFORM, AND DID IN FACT PERFORM, THE ACT WHICH THE STATUTE
CONDEMNS, VIZ., THE TRANSPORTATION OF A WOMAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING
HER HIS PLURAL WIFE OR COHABITING WITH HER AS SUCH. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE REMAINING OBJECTIONS RAISED AND FIND THEM
WITHOUT MERIT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS HAS FORBIDDEN
PLURAL MARRIAGES SINCE 1890.  SEE TONCRAY V. BUDGE, 14 IDA.  621, 654
55, 95 P. 26. 

FN2  PETITIONERS' ACTIVITIES EXTENDED INTO ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA,
COLORADO, IDAHO, UTAH AND WYOMING. 

FN3  "OF WOMEN:  THE OFFERING OF THE BODY TO INDISCRIMINATE LEWDNESS
FOR HIRE (ESP.  AS A PRACTICE OR INSTITUTION); WHOREDOM, HARLOTRY."  8
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 1497. 

FN4  "VICIOUS INDULGENCE IN SENSUAL PLEASURES."  3 OXFORD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY 79; "EXCESSIVE INDULGENCE IN SENSUAL PLEASURES OF ANY KIND;
GLUTTONY; INTEMPERANCE; SEXUAL IMMORALITY; UNLAWFUL INDULGENCE OF
LUST."  3 CENTURY DICT.  REV.  ED. 1477. 

FN5  BLACKSTOCK V. UNITED STATES, 261 F. 150; CAREY V. UNITED STATES,
265 F. 515; ELROD V. UNITED STATES, 266 F. 55; BURGESS V. UNITED
STATES, 54 APP. D.C. 71, 294 F. 1002; CORBETT V. UNITED STATES, 299 F.
27; HART V. UNITED STATES, 11 F.2D 499; GHADIALI V. UNITED STATES, 17
F.2D 236; UNITED STATES V. REGINELLI, 133 F.2D 595; POINDEXTER V.
UNITED STATES, 139 F.2D 158; SIMON V. UNITED STATES, 145 F.2D 345;
QUALLS V. UNITED STATES, 149 F.2D 891; SIPE V. UNITED STATES, 80 U.S.
APP. D.C. 194, 150 F.2D 984; UNITED STATES V. CHAPLIN, 54 F.SUPP. 
682. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON THINK THAT THE CASES SHOULD
BE REVERSED.  THEY ARE OF OPINION THAT AFFIRMANCE REQUIRES EXTENSION OF
THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN THE CAMINETTI CASE AND THAT THE CORRECTNESS OF
THAT RULE IS SO DUBIOUS THAT IT SHOULD AT LEAST BE RESTRICTED TO ITS
PARTICULAR FACTS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT.  DIFFERENCES HAVE BEEN URGED IN PETITIONERS'
BEHALF BETWEEN THESE CASES AND CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S.
470.  FN1  NOTWITHSTANDING THEM, IN MY OPINION IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE
RATIONALLY TO REVERSE THE CONVICTIONS, AT THE SAME TIME ADHERING TO
CAMINETTI AND LATER DECISIONS PERPETUATING ITS RULING.  FN2 

IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED, THOUGH NOT STRONGLY URGED, THAT CAMINETTI WAS
WRONGLY DECIDED AND SHOULD BE OVERRULED.  MUCH MAY BE SAID FOR THIS
VIEW.  IN MY OPINION THAT CASE AND SUBSEQUENT ONES FOLLOWING IT
EXTENDED THE MANN ACT'S COVERAGE BEYOND THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND
PURPOSE, AS THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA CONVINCINGLY
DEMONSTRATED.  242 U.S. AT 496.  FN3 MOREOVER, AS I ALSO THINK, THIS
LEGISLATION AND THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY THE CASES ARISING UNDER IT
ARE OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS DOES NOT ALLOW THIS COURT PROPERLY TO SHIFT
TO CONGRESS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERPETUATING THE COURT'S ERROR. 

NOTWITHSTANDING RECENT TENDENCY, THE IDEA CANNOT ALWAYS BE ACCEPTED
THAT CONGRESS, BY REMAINING SILENT AND TAKING NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN
REPUDIATION, GIVES APPROVAL TO JUDICIAL MISCONSTRUCTION OF ITS
ENACTMENTS.  SEE GIROUARD V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 61, 69.  IT IS
PERHAPS TOO LATE NOW TO DENY THAT, LEGISLATIVELY SPEAKING AS IN
ORDINARY LIFE, SILENCE IN SOME INSTANCES MAY GIVE CONSENT.  FN4  BUT IT
WOULD BE GOING EVEN FARTHER BEYOND REASON AND COMMON EXPERIENCE TO
MAINTAIN, AS THERE ARE SIGNS WE MAY BE BY WAY OF DOING, THAT IN
LEGISLATION ANY MORE THAN IN OTHER AFFAIRS SILENCE OR NONACTION ALWAYS
IS ACQUIESCENCE EQUIVALENT TO ACTION. 

THERE ARE VAST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEGISLATING BY DOING NOTHING AND
LEGISLATING BY POSITIVE ENACTMENT, BOTH IN THE PROCESSES BY WHICH THE
WILL OF CONGRESS IS DERIVED AND STATED  FN5  AND IN THE CLARITY AND
CERTAINTY OF THE EXPRESSION OF ITS WILL.  FN6  AND THERE ARE MANY
REASONS, OTHER THAN TO INDICATE APPROVAL OF WHAT THE COURTS HAVE DONE,
WHY CONGRESS MAY FAIL TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO REPUDIATE THEIR
MISCONSTRUCTION OF ITS DULY ADOPTED LAWS.  AMONG THEM MAY BE THE SHEER
PRESSURE OF OTHER AND MORE IMPORTANT BUSINESS.  SEE MOORE V. CLEVELAND
RY. CO., 108 F.2D 656, 660.  AT TIMES POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS MAY WORK
TO FORBID TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION.  AND IN SUCH CASES, AS WELL AS
OTHERS, THERE MAY BE A STRONG AND PROPER TENDENCY TO TRUST TO THE
COURTS TO CORRECT THEIR OWN ERRORS, SEE GIROUARD V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, AT 69, AS THEY OUGHT TO DO WHEN EXPERIENCE HAS CONFIRMED OR
DEMONSTRATED THE ERRORS' EXISTENCE. 

THE DANGER OF IMPUTING TO CONGRESS, AS A RESULT OF ITS FAILURE TO
TAKE POSITIVE OR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION THROUGH NORMAL LEGISLATIVE
PROCESSES, IDEAS ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT CONCERNING CONGRESS' WILL, IS
ILLUSTRATED MOST DRAMATICALLY PERHAPS BY THE VACILLATING AND
CONTRADICTORY COURSES PURSUED IN THE LONG LINE OF DECISIONS IMPUTING TO
"THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS" VARIED EFFECTS IN COMMERCE CLAUSE CASES.  FN7
THAT DANGER MAY BE AND OFTEN IS EQUALLY PRESENT IN OTHERS.  MORE OFTEN
THAN NOT, THE ONLY SAFE ASSUMPTION TO MAKE FROM CONGRESS' INACTION IS
SIMPLY THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT INTEND TO ACT AT ALL.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, 550.  AT BEST THE CONTRARY
VIEW CAN BE ONLY AN INFERENCE, ALTOGETHER LACKING IN THE NORMAL
EVIDENCES OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND OFTEN SUBJECT TO VARYING VIEWS OF
THAT INTENT.  FN8  IN SHORT, ALTHOUGH RECOGNIZING THAT BY SILENCE
CONGRESS AT TIMES MAY BE TAKEN TO ACQUIESCE AND THUS APPROVE, WE SHOULD
BE VERY SURE THAT, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A GIVEN SITUATION, IT
HAS DONE SO BEFORE WE SO RULE AND THUS AT ONCE RELIEVE OURSELVES FROM
AND SHIFT TO IT THE BURDEN OF CORRECTING WHAT WE HAVE DONE WRONGLY. 
THE MATTER IS PARTICULAR, NOT GENERAL, NOTWITHSTANDING EARLIER
EXCEPTIONAL TREATMENT AND MORE RECENT TENDENCY.  JUST AS DUBIOUS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS AT TIMES MUCH OVERRIDDEN, SO ALSO IS SILENCE OR
INACTION OFTEN MISTAKEN FOR LEGISLATION. 

I DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS IN RESPECT TO THESE
CASES, NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR MULTIPLICATION AND THE LENGTH OF TIME
DURING WHICH THE SILENCE HAS ENDURED, CAN BE TAKEN TO BE THE EQUIVALENT
OF BILLS APPROVING THEM INTRODUCED IN BOTH HOUSES, REFERRED TO AND
CONSIDERED BY COMMITTEES, DISCUSSED IN DEBATES, ENACTED BY MAJORITIES
IN BOTH PLACES, AND APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE.  I DOUBT, IN OTHER
WORDS, THAT, IN VIEW OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING THE
UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCES OF THE LEGISLATION,  FN9  SUCH MAJORITIES
COULD HAVE BEEN MUSTERED IN APPROVAL OF THE CAMINETTI DECISION AT ANY
TIME SINCE IT WAS RENDERED.  NOR IS THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION
DEMONSTRATED BY CONGRESS' REFUSAL TO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION.  FN10 

THE CAMINETTI CASE, HOWEVER, HAS NOT BEEN OVERRULED AND HAS THE FORCE
OF LAW UNTIL A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT MAY CONCUR IN THE VIEW THAT THIS
SHOULD BE DONE AND TAKE ACTION TO THAT EFFECT.  THIS NOT HAVING BEEN
DONE, I ACQUIESCE IN THE COURT'S DECISION. 

FN1  COUNSEL HAS EMPHASIZED THE RELIGIOUS ASPECT PRESENTED BY THESE
CASES AND HAS STRESSED THE FAMILIAL ASPECT AND PURPOSE OF SO-CALLED
"CELESTIAL MARRIAGE" IN THE MORMON CONCEPTION AS DISTINGUISHING THE
RELATION IN FACT AND IN CONSEQUENCE FROM SUCH AS WERE INVOLVED IN THE
CAMINETTI AND OTHER MANN ACT CASES.  THE ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS
MOTIVATION HAS BEEN FORECLOSED, SO FAR AS LEGISLATIVE POWER IS
CONCERNED, SINCE REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145.  APROPOS OF
THE MANN ACT'S APPLICATION, THE RELATIONSHIP IS NOT ONLY ILLEGAL UNDER
STATE LAW BUT ALSO AS REGULAR AND CONTINUOUS AS THAT INVOLVED IN
CAMINETTI, OR MORE SO. 

FN2  SEE E.G., GEBARDI V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 112; UNITED STATES
V. REGINELLI, 133 F.2D 595; CHRISTIAN V. UNITED STATES, 28 F.2D 114. 
COMPARE UNITED STATES V. BEACH, 324 U.S. 193; MORTENSEN V. UNITED
STATES, 322 U.S. 369. 

FN3  SEE ALSO THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MURPHY HEREIN. 
THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE CAMINETTI CASE WAS JOINED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE CLARKE.  ONLY FIVE JUSTICES ADHERED TO THE
MAJORITY OPINION, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS NOT PARTICIPATING.  CF. THE
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA IN ATHANASAW V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S.
326. 

FN4  AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR THE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION, IT
WOULD SEEM HARDLY JUSTIFIABLE TO TREAT AS HAVING LEGISLATIVE EFFECT ANY
ACTION OR NONACTION NOT TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED
PROCEDURES. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 4.  LEGISLATIVE INTENT DERIVED FROM NONACTION OR
"SILENCE" LACKS ALL THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES OF LEGISLATION ENACTED
PURSUANT TO PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES, INCLUDING REDUCTION OF BILLS TO
WRITING, COMMITTEE REPORTS, DEBATES, AND REDUCTION TO FINAL WRITTEN
FORM, AS WELL AS VOTING RECORDS AND EXECUTIVE APPROVAL.  NECESSARILY
ALSO THE INTENT MUST BE DERIVED BY A FORM OF NEGATIVE INFERENCE, A
PROCESS LENDING ITSELF TO MUCH GUESSWORK. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 5. 

FN7  SEE PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408, 424-425;
RIBBLE, STATE AND NATIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE (1937) C. X; BIKLE, THE
SILENCE OF CONGRESS (1927) 41 HARV. L. REV. 200; POWELL, THE VALIDITY
OF STATE LEGISLATION UNDER THE WEBB-KENYON LAW (1917) 2 SO. L.Q. 112. 
AN EXAMPLE OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS AS
GIVING CONSENT TO STATE LEGISLATION IS WILSON V. MCNAMEE, 102 U.S. 572,
575. 

FN8  CF. NOTE 5. 

FN9  SEE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA, 242 U.S. AT 502, DISSENTING
IN CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES; SEE ALSO THE DISSENTING OPINION IN
UNITED STATES V. BEACH, 324 U.S. 193, 199-200. 

FN10  SINCE THE CAMINETTI DECISION TWO BILLS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO
LIMIT THE EFFECT OF THAT CASE.  S. 2438, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; S. 101,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  NEITHER WAS REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE.  IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO AMEND THE ACT RAISES NO
PRESUMPTION AS TO ITS INTENT.  ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS V. SWAN, 152
F.2D 325, 329. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

TODAY ANOTHER UNFORTUNATE CHAPTER IS ADDED TO THE TROUBLED HISTORY OF
THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT.  IT IS A CHAPTER WRITTEN IN TERMS THAT
MISAPPLY THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND THAT DISREGARD THE INTENTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE FRAMERS.  IT RESULTS IN THE IMPRISONMENT OF INDIVIDUALS
WHOSE ACTIONS HAVE NONE OF THE EARMARKS OF WHITE SLAVERY, WHATEVER ELSE
MAY BE SAID OF THEIR CONDUCT.  I AM ACCORDINGLY FORCED TO DISSENT. 

THE STATUTE IN SO MANY WORDS REFERS TO TRANSPORTATION OF WOMEN AND
GIRLS ACROSS STATE LINES "FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION OR
DEBAUCHERY, OR FOR ANY OTHER IMMORAL PURPOSE."  THE ISSUE HERE IS
WHETHER THE ACT OF TAKING POLYGAMOUS OR PLURAL WIVES ACROSS STATE
LINES, OR TAKING GIRLS ACROSS STATE BORDERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING
INTO PLURAL MARRIAGE, CONSTITUTES TRANSPORTATION "FOR ANY OTHER IMMORAL
PURPOSE" SO AS TO COME WITHIN THE INTERDICT OF THE STATUTE. 

THE COURT HOLDS, AND I AGREE, THAT UNDER THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION THE PHRASE "ANY OTHER IMMORAL PURPOSE" MUST BE
CONFINED TO THE SAME CLASS OF UNLAWFUL SEXUAL IMMORALITIES AS THAT TO
WHICH PROSTITUTION AND DEBAUCHERY BELONG.  BUT I DISAGREE WITH THE
CONCLUSION THAT POLYGAMY IS "IN THE SAME GENUS" AS PROSTITUTION AND
DEBAUCHERY AND HENCE WITHIN THE PHRASE "ANY OTHER IMMORAL PURPOSE"
SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAS SEXUAL CONNOTATIONS AND HAS "LONG BEEN BRANDED AS
IMMORAL IN THE LAW" OF THIS NATION.  SUCH REASONING IGNORES REALITY AND
RESULTS IN AN UNFAIR APPLICATION OF THE STATUTORY WORDS. 

IT IS NOT MY PURPOSE TO DEFEND THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY OR TO CLAIM
THAT IT IS MORALLY THE EQUIVALENT OF MONOGAMY.  BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS, AS WELL AS WHAT IT IS NOT.  ONLY IN THAT WAY CAN
WE INTELLIGENTLY DECIDE WHETHER IT FALLS WITHIN THE SAME GENUS AS
PROSTITUTION OR DEBAUCHERY. 

THERE ARE FOUR FUNDAMENTAL FORMS OF MARRIAGE:  (1) MONOGAMY; (2)
POLYGYNY, OR ONE MAN WITH SEVERAL WIVES; (3) POLYANDRY, OR ONE WOMAN
WITH SEVERAL HUSBANDS; AND (4) GROUP MARRIAGE.  THE TERM "POLYGAMY"
COVERS BOTH POLYGYNY AND POLYANDRY.  THUS WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH
POLYGYNY, ONE OF THE BASIC FORMS OF MARRIAGE.  HISTORICALLY, ITS USE
HAS FAR EXCEEDED THAT OF ANY OTHER FORM.  IT WAS QUITE COMMON AMONG
ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS AND WAS REFERRED TO MANY TIMES BY THE WRITERS OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT; EVEN TODAY IT IS TO BE FOUND FREQUENTLY AMONG
CERTAIN PAGAN AND NON-CHRISTIAN PEOPLES OF THE WORLD.  WE MUST
RECOGNIZE, THEN, THAT POLYGYNY, LIKE OTHER FORMS OF MARRIAGE, IS
BASICALLY A CULTURAL INSTITUTION ROOTED DEEPLY IN THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
AND SOCIAL MORES OF THOSE SOCIETIES IN WHICH IT APPEARS.  IT IS EQUALLY
TRUE THAT THE BELIEFS AND MORES OF THE DOMINANT CULTURE OF THE
CONTEMPORARY WORLD CONDEMN THE PRACTICE AS IMMORAL AND SUBSTITUTE
MONOGAMY IN ITS PLACE.  TO THOSE BELIEFS AND MORES I SUBSCRIBE, BUT
THAT DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT POLYGYNY IS A FORM OF MARRIAGE BUILT
UPON A SET OF SOCIAL AND MORAL PRINCIPLES.  IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED AND
TREATED AS SUCH. 

THE COURT STATES THAT POLYGAMY IS "A NOTORIOUS EXAMPLE OF
PROMISCUITY."  THE IMPORTANT FACT, HOWEVER, IS THAT, DESPITE THE
DIFFERENCES THAT MAY EXIST BETWEEN POLYGAMY AND MONOGAMY, SUCH
DIFFERENCES DO NOT PLACE POLYGAMY IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS PROSTITUTION
OR DEBAUCHERY.  WHEN WE USE THOSE TERMS WE ARE SPEAKING OF ACTS OF AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NATURE, HAVING NO RELATION WHATEVER TO THE VARIOUS
FORMS OF MARRIAGE.  IT TAKES NO ELABORATION HERE TO POINT OUT THAT
MARRIAGE, EVEN WHEN IT OCCURS IN A FORM OF WHICH WE DISAPPROVE, IS NOT
TO BE COMPARED WITH PROSTITUTION OR DEBAUCHERY OR OTHER IMMORALITIES OF
THAT CHARACTER. 

THE COURT'S FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THIS VITAL DISTINCTION AND ITS
INSISTENCE THAT POLYGYNY IS "IN THE SAME GENUS" AS PROSTITUTION AND
DEBAUCHERY DO VIOLENCE TO THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL FACTORS INVOLVED.  EVEN
ETYMOLOGICALLY, THE WORDS "POLYGYNY" AND "POLYGAMY" ARE QUITE DISTINCT
FROM "PROSTITUTION," "DEBAUCHERY" AND WORDS OF THAT ILK.  THERE IS THUS
NO BASIS IN FACT FOR INCLUDING POLYGYNY WITHIN THE PHRASE "ANY OTHER
IMMORAL PURPOSE" AS USED IN THIS STATUTE. 

ONE WORD SHOULD BE SAID ABOUT THE COURT'S CITATION OF UNITED STATES
V. BITTY, 208 U.S. 393, AND THE STATEMENT THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF
THE STATUTE THERE INVOLVED IS A FORCEFUL PRECEDENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT.  THE THOUGHT APPARENTLY IS THAT THE
PHRASE "ANY OTHER IMMORAL PURPOSE," APPEARING IN THE WHITE SLAVE
TRAFFIC ACT, WAS DERIVED FROM THE IDENTICAL PHRASE USED IN THE STATUTE
REGULATING THE IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES, THE
STATUTE WHICH WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE BITTY CASE.  34 STAT.
898.  THAT CASE CONCERNED ITSELF WITH THE PORTION OF THE IMMIGRATION
STATUTE FORBIDDING "THE IMPORTATION INTO THE UNITED STATES OF ANY ALIEN
WOMAN OR GIRL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION, OR FOR ANY OTHER IMMORAL
PURPOSE."  SIGNIFICANTLY, HOWEVER, THE STATUTE MADE SEPARATE PROVISION
FOR THE EXCLUSION OF "POLYGAMISTS, OR PERSONS WHO ADMIT THEIR BELIEF IN
THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY."  THUS THE PHRASE "ANY OTHER IMMORAL
PURPOSE," FOLLOWING THE REFERENCE TO PROSTITUTION, CERTAINLY DID NOT
COMPREHEND POLYGAMY.  AND IF THAT STATUTE, OR THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN
IT IN THE BITTY CASE, IS TO BE ANY AUTHORITY HERE, THE CONCLUSION TO BE
DRAWN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT TODAY.  AS A
MATTER OF FACT, CONGRESS HAS ALWAYS REFERRED TO POLYGAMY BY NAME WHEN
IT DESIRED TO DEAL WITH THAT SUBJECT, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
IMMORALITIES IN THE NATURE OF PROSTITUTION.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 136(F); 18 U.S.C. SEC. 513. 

THE RESULT HERE REACHED IS BUT ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE OF THIS COURT'S
LONG-CONTINUED FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT,
AS ITS TITLE INDICATES, IS AIMED SOLELY AT THE DIABOLICAL INTERSTATE
AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN WHITE SLAVES, "THE BUSINESS OF SECURING
WHITE WOMEN AND GIRLS AND OF SELLING THEM OUTRIGHT, OR OF EXPLOITING
THEM FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES."  H. REP. NO. 47, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P.
11; S. REP. NO. 886, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 11.  THE ACT WAS
SUGGESTED AND PROPOSED TO MEET CONDITIONS WHICH HAD ARISEN IN THE YEARS
PRECEDING 1910 AND WHICH HAD REVEALED THEMSELVES IN THEIR UGLY DETAILS
THROUGH EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATIONS.  THE FRAMERS OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY
STATED THAT IT IS NOT DIRECTED AT IMMORALITY IN GENERAL; IT DOES NOT
EVEN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF VOLUNTARY PROSTITUTION,
LEAVING THAT PROBLEM TO THE VARIOUS STATES.  ITS EXCLUSIVE CONCERN IS
WITH THOSE GIRLS AND WOMEN WHO ARE "UNWILLINGLY FORCED TO PRACTICE
PROSTITUTION" AND TO ENGAGE IN OTHER SIMILAR IMMORALITIES AND "WHOSE
LIVES ARE LIVES OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE."  IBID.  A READING OF THE
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS AND DEBATES MAKES THIS NARROW PURPOSE SO CLEAR AS
TO REMOVE ALL DOUBTS ON THE MATTER.  AND IT IS A PURPOSE THAT HAS
ABSOLUTELY NO RELATION TO THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY, HOWEVER MUCH THAT
PRACTICE MAY HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IMMORAL IN 1910. 

YET THIS COURT IN CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470, OVER THE
VIGOROUS DISSENT OF JUSTICE MCKENNA IN WHICH CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE AND
JUSTICE CLARKE JOINED, CLOSED ITS EYES TO THE OBVIOUS AND INTERPRETED
THE BROAD WORDS OF THE STATUTE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE EXPRESS WISHES OF
CONGRESS.  I THINK THE CAMINETTI CASE CAN BE FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHED
FROM THE SITUATION AT HAND SINCE IT DID NOT DEAL WITH POLYGAMY.  BUT
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CAMINETTI CASE IS STILL WITH US TODAY, THE
PRINCIPLE OF INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT IN
DISREGARD OF THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM WITH WHICH CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED.  I
BELIEVE THE ISSUE SHOULD BE MET SQUARELY AND THE CAMINETTI CASE
OVERRULED.  IT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS AND ITS AGE
DOES NOT JUSTIFY ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE.  STARE DECISIS CERTAINLY DOES
NOT REQUIRE A COURT TO PERPETUATE A WRONG FOR WHICH IT WAS RESPONSIBLE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN NO RIGHTS HAVE ACCRUED IN RELIANCE ON THE ERROR.  CF.
HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 121-22.  OTHERWISE THE ERROR IS
ACCENTUATED; AND INDIVIDUALS, WHATEVER MAY BE SAID OF THEIR MORALITY,
ARE FINED AND IMPRISONED CONTRARY TO THE WISHES OF CONGRESS.  I SHALL
NOT BE A PARTY TO THAT PROCESS. 

THE CONSEQUENCE OF PROLONGING THE CAMINETTI PRINCIPLE IS TO MAKE THE
FEDERAL COURTS THE ARBITERS OF THE MORALITY OF THOSE WHO CROSS STATE
LINES IN THE COMPANY OF WOMEN AND GIRLS.  THEY MUST DECIDE WHAT IS
MEANT BY "ANY OTHER IMMORAL PURPOSE" WITHOUT REGARD TO THE STANDARDS
PLAINLY SET FORTH BY CONGRESS.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS FALLS WITHIN
THE LEGITIMATE SCOPE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  NOR DOES IT ACCORD THE
RESPECT TO WHICH CONGRESSIONAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ARE ENTITLED. 

HENCE I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS
..END :

















CHAMPLIN RFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 329 U.S. 29 


NO. 21.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 9, 1945.  - REARGUED OCTOBER 18, 21, 1946. 
DECIDED NOVEMBER 18, 1946.  - 59 F.SUPP.  978, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANT OWNS AND OPERATES A PIPE LINE FROM ITS REFINERY IN OKLAHOMA
TO VARIOUS DISTRIBUTING POINTS IN OTHER STATES.  IT CARRIES NO
COMMODITIES EXCEPT ITS OWN, PRODUCED IN ITS OWN REFINERY AND DELIVERED
INTO ITS OWN STORAGE TANKS FOR SALE TO ITS CUSTOMERS.  DELIVERY IS MADE
FROM APPELLANT'S STORAGE TANKS BY MEANS OF TRUCK RACKS OR RAILROAD TANK
CAR RACKS AND NEVER DIRECTLY FROM THE PIPE LINE.  APPELLANT HAS NEVER
TRANSPORTED, OFFERED TO TRANSPORT, OR BEEN ASKED TO TRANSPORT ANY
PRODUCTS BELONGING TO OTHERS AND HAS NEVER FILED ANY TARIFFS OF
TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OR ANY
STATE COMMISSION OR REGULATORY BODY.  HOWEVER, THE PRICE AT THE
TERMINAL POINTS, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS, INCLUDES THE F.O.B. PRICE AT THE
REFINERY, PLUS A DIFFERENTIAL BASED ON THE RAILROAD FREIGHT RATE FROM
THE REFINERY TO FINAL DESTINATION.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ORDERED APPELLANT TO FILE AN INVENTORY OF ITS PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF VALUATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 19(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
HELD: 

1.  APPELLANT IS A "COMMON CARRIER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
1(3)(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT; AND THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
REQUIRING APPELLANT TO FILE AN INVENTORY OF ITS PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES
OF VALUATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 19(A) IS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  PP. 32
34. 

(A)  SECTION 1(3)(A) OF THE ACT DEFINES THE TERM "COMMON CARRIER" AS
INCLUDING "ALL PIPE LINE COMPANIES" AND NOT MERELY THOSE ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF COMMON LAW CARRIERS FOR HIRE.  PP. 33, 34. 

(B)  APPELLANT'S OPERATION IS "TRANSPORTATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 1(1)(B), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE ACT SHALL APPLY TO "COMMON
CARRIERS" ENGAGED IN THE "TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY  ...
BY PIPE LINE  ..."  P. 34. 

2.  AS SO CONTRUED, THE ACT DOES NOT EXCEED THE COMMERCE POWER OF
CONGRESS OR VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP.
34, 35. 

(A)  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT
DEPENDENT ON A TECHNICAL COMMON CARRIER STATUS BUT IS QUITE AS
EXTENSIVE OVER A PRIVATE CARRIER.  P. 35. 

(B)  IT IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A REQUIREMENT THAT APPELLANT FURNISH
INFORMATION AS TO FACILITIES BEING USED IN INTERSTATE MARKETING OF ITS
PRODUCTS - WHETHER APPELLANT BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE CARRIER OR A
COMMON CARRIER.  P. 35. 

(C)  A MERE REQUIREMENT THAT APPELLANT PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT A
SUBJECT WITHIN THE POWER POSSESSED BY CONGRESS AND DELEGATED TO THE
COMMISSION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A TAKING OF PROPERTY.  P. 35. 

CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. 

A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST AN ORDER OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REQUIRING APPELLANT TO FILE AN
INVENTORY OF ITS PIPE LINE PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF VALUATION PURSUANT
TO SEC. 19(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  59 F.SUPP.  978. 
AFFIRMED, P. 35. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ACTING UNDER SEC. 19(A) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,  FN1 ORDERED THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH CERTAIN
INVENTORIES, SCHEDULES, MAPS AND CHARTS OF ITS PIPE LINE PROPERTY.  FN2
CHAMPLIN'S OBJECTIONS THAT THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ORDER, OR IF
IT BE CONSTRUED TO DO SO IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WERE OVERRULED BY THE
COMMISSION AND AGAIN BY THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DISMISSED THE
COMPANY'S SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION.  FN3  THESE QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE
BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 238, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

CHAMPLIN OWNS AND OPERATES A LINE OF SIX-INCH PIPE FIVE HUNDRED AND
SIXTEEN MILES IN LENGTH LYING IN FIVE STATES.  ORIGINATING AT
CHAMPLIN'S ENID, OKLAHOMA REFINERY, IT CROSSES KANSAS, NEBRASKA, A PART
OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AND ENDS IN IOWA.  IT IS USED ONLY TO CONVEY THE
COMPANY'S OWN REFINERY PRODUCTS TO ITS OWN TERMINAL STATIONS AT
HUTCHINSON, KANSAS; SUPERIOR, NEBRASKA; AND ROCK RAPIDS, IOWA, AT EACH
OF WHICH THE LINE CONNECTS WITH STORAGE FACILITIES FROM WHICH
DELIVERIES ARE MADE. 

THE STATUTE, SO FAR AS RELEVANT, SAYS THAT IT SHALL APPLY "TO COMMON
CARRIERS ENGAGED IN" "TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY" BY PIPE
LINE FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER.  IT PROVIDES ALSO THAT "COMMON CARRIER"
INCLUDES "ALL PIPELINE COMPANIES."  FN4  THIS LANGUAGE ON ITS FACE
WOULD SEEM TO COVER THE APPELLANT'S OPERATION. 

CHAMPLIN CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE "TRANSPORTATION" MENTIONED IN
THE ACT DOES NOT REFER TO THE CARRIAGE OF ONE'S OWN GOODS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS FOUND THAT CHAMPLIN IS THE SOLE OWNER OF THE
PRODUCTS TRANSPORTED THROUGH ITS PIPE LINE; IT HAS NEVER TRANSPORTED,
OFFERED TO TRANSPORT, OR BEEN ASKED TO TRANSPORT ANY PRODUCTS BELONGING
TO ANY OTHER COMPANY OR PERSON; ITS PIPE LINE DOES NOT CONNECT WITH ANY
OTHER PIPE LINE BUT ONLY WITH STORAGE TANKS AT THE THREE TERMINAL
POINTS; THERE ARE NO FACILITIES FOR PUTTING ANY PETROLEUM PRODUCT INTO
THE LINE OTHER THAN AT THE ENID REFINERY; DELIVERY OF THE PRODUCTS AT
THE THREE TERMINAL POINTS IS MADE FROM CHAMPLIN'S STORAGE TANKS BY
MEANS OF TRUCK RACKS OR RAILROAD TANK CAR RACKS AND IS NOT MADE
DIRECTLY FROM THE PIPE LINE IN ANY INSTANCE; NO TARIFFS STATING
TRANSPORTATION CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION OR WITH ANY STATE COMMISSION OR REGULATORY BODY. 

BECAUSE OF THESE FACTS THE APPELLANT SUGGESTS THAT THE LANGUAGE AND
HOLDING OF THIS COURT CONCERNING THE UNCLE SAM OIL COMPANY IN THE PIPE
LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548, APPROVED IN VALVOLINE OIL COMPANY V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 141, GOVERN THIS CASE.  THE UNCLE SAM COMPANY
OPERATION IS DESCRIBED AS "SIMPLY DRAWING OIL FROM ITS OWN WELLS ACROSS
A STATE LINE TO ITS OWN REFINERY FOR ITS OWN USE, AND THAT IS ALL
..."  THE PIPE LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548, 562.  THE COURT CONSIDERED
THIS WAS NOT "TRANSPORTATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 

BUT WE THINK IT WOULD EXPAND THE ACTUAL HOLDING OF THAT CASE TO APPLY
ITS CONCLUSION TO CHAMPLIN.  THE CONTROLLING FACT UNDER THE STATUTE IS
TRANSPORTING COMMODITIES FROM STATE TO STATE BY PIPE LINE.  ADMITTEDLY
CHAMPLIN IS NOT A COMMON CARRIER IN THE SENSE OF THE COMMON LAW CARRIER
FOR HIRE.  HOWEVER, THE ACT DOES NOT STOP AT THIS BUT GOES ON TO SAY
THAT ITS USE OF THE TERM "COMMON CARRIER" IS TO INCLUDE ALL PIPE LINE
COMPANIES - A MEANINGLESS ADDITION IF IT THEREBY INCLUDED ONLY WHAT THE
TERM WITHOUT MORE ALWAYS HAD INCLUDED.  WHILE CHAMPLIN TECHNICALLY IS
TRANSPORTING ITS OWN OIL, MANUFACTURING PROCESSES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED;
THE OIL IS NOT BEING MOVED FOR CHAMPLIN'S OWN USE.  THESE INTERSTATE
FACILITIES ARE OPERATED TO PUT ITS FINISHED PRODUCTS IN THE MARKET IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT THE GREATEST ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE. 

EXAMINATION OF CHAMPLIN'S PRICING METHODS SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT
APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION EVEN THOUGH THE PRODUCTS ARE
STILL ITS OWN WHEN MOVED.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT PRICE AT THE
TERMINAL POINTS INCLUDES F.O.B. PRICE AT THE ENID REFINERY AND AN
ADDITIONAL SUM CALLED A DIFFERENTIAL.  THE DIFFERENTIAL IS THE THROUGH
RAILROAD FREIGHT RATE FROM ENID TO THE FINAL DESTINATION (USUALLY THE
PURCHASER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS), LESS THE CARRYING CHARGES FROM THE PIPE
LINE TERMINAL TO FINAL DESTINATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, HOWEVER,
THAT COMPETITIVE AND OTHER CONDITIONS "SOMETIMES CAUSE DEPARTURES FROM
THE PRICES ARRIVED AT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMULA ABOVE DESCRIBED." 
APPELLANT STATES THAT AS TO SOME DELIVERIES "RAIL RATES WERE USED
MERELY AS A BASIS FOR CALCULATING A DELIVERED PRICE, NOT AS A CHARGE
FOR TRANSPORTATION."  EVEN SO, AND EVEN THOUGH DEPARTURES FROM THE
CALCULATED DIFFERENTIAL ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND FREQUENT, WE THINK THIS
PRACTICE POINTS UP A SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION FROM THE UNCLE SAM CASE. 

WE HOLD THAT CHAMPLIN'S OPERATION IS TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT AND THAT THE STATUTE SUPPORTS THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
TO FURNISH INFORMATION. 

APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT, AS SO CONSTRUED, THE ACT EXCEEDS THE
COMMERCE POWER OF CONGRESS AND VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE, IT IS ARGUED, THIS INTERPRETATION CONVERTS A
PRIVATE PIPE LINE INTO A PUBLIC UTILITY AND REQUIRES A PRIVATE CARRIER
TO BECOME A COMMON CARRIER.  BUT OUR CONCLUSION RESTS ON NO SUCH BASIS
AND AFFORDS NO SUCH IMPLICATION.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE TECHNICAL COMMON CARRIER
STATUS BUT IS QUITE AS EXTENSIVE OVER A PRIVATE CARRIER.  THIS POWER
HAS YET BEEN INVOKED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF REQUIRING CHAMPLIN TO
FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION AS TO FACILITIES BEING USED IN INTERSTATE
MARKETING OF ITS PRODUCTS.  THE COMMERCE POWER IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT
THIS REQUIREMENT WHETHER APPELLANT BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE CARRIER OR A
COMMON CARRIER. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE AS SO CONSTRUED VIOLATES THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE BY IMPOSING UPON A PRIVATE CARRIER THE OBLIGATIONS OF A
CONVENTIONAL COMMON CARRIER FOR HIRE IS TOO PREMATURE AND HYPOTHETICAL
TO WARRANT CONSIDERATION ON THIS RECORD.  THE APPELLANT IN ITS ENTIRE
PERIOD OF OPERATION HAS NEVER BEEN ASKED TO CARRY THE PRODUCTS OF
ANOTHER AND MAY NEVER BE.  SO FAR, THE COMMISSION HAS MADE NO ORDER
WHICH CHANGES THE APPELLANT'S OBLIGATIONS TO ANY OTHER COMPANY OR
PERSON.  IF IT DOES, IT WILL BE TIMELY TO CONSIDER CONCRETE
REQUIREMENTS AND THEIR SPECIFIC EFFECTS ON APPELLANT.  AT PRESENT,
APPELLANT IS ASKED ONLY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT A SUBJECT WITHIN
THE POWER POSSESSED BY CONGRESS AND DELEGATED TO THE COMMISSION, AND
THAT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A TAKING OF PROPERTY EVEN IF IT AROUSES
APPELLANT'S PREMONITIONS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER BEFORE US IS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AND THAT IN
THIS RESPECT THE STATUTE IS WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER AND DOES NOT
OFFEND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "...  THE COMMISSION SHALL  ...  INVESTIGATE, ASCERTAIN, AND
REPORT THE VALUE OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNED OR USED BY EVERY COMMON
CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT....  THE COMMISSION SHALL
MAKE AN INVENTORY WHICH SHALL LIST THE PROPERTY OF EVERY COMMON CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT IN DETAIL, AND SHOW THE VALUE
THEREOF AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, AND SHALL CLASSIFY THE PHYSICAL
PROPERTY, AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURES FOR ROAD AND EQUIPMENT, AS PRESCRIBED BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION."  37 STAT. 701, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
19A. 

FN2  ON MAY 15, 1941, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, BY LETTER
ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMPLIN REFINING COMPANY, REQUESTED
THAT THE COMPANY PREPARE AND FILE WITH THE COMMISSION "A COMPLETE
INVENTORY OF THE PIPE LINE PROPERTY OF THE CHAMPLIN REFINING COMPANY,
EXCEPT LAND, SHOWING THE QUANTITIES, UNITS, CLASSES, KINDS, AND
CONDITION THEREOF."  THE COMMISSION ENCLOSED WITH ITS LETTER COPIES OF
ITS VALUATION ORDERS NOS. 26 AND 27, WITH WHICH THE INVENTORY WAS TO
COMPLY.  THE CHAMPLIN COMPANY DID NOT RESPOND TO THE REQUEST IN A
MANNER SATISFACTORY TO THE COMMISSION, AND ON JUNE 12, 1944, THE
COMMISSION MADE THE ORDER OF WHICH THE COMPANY HERE COMPLAINS.  IT
DIRECTED THE COMPANY TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF VALUATION ORDERS
NOS. 26 AND 27 WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER. 

FN3  IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S LETTER OF MAY 15, 1941, THE
CHAMPLIN COMPANY FILED WITH THE COMMISSION INFORMATION AND CHARTS WHICH
IT BELIEVED WOULD SATISFY THE COMMISSION'S REQUEST.  THE COMMISSION,
HOWEVER, RETURNED THAT REPORT TO THE COMPANY, BECAUSE IN IT THE COMPANY
HAD NOT RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS A STATUTORY COMMON CARRIER AND HAD NOT
COMPILED THE REPORT FROM THAT VIEWPOINT.  THE COMPANY THEN REQUESTED A
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE ITS STATUS.  ON DECEMBER 14,
1942, AND ON REARGUMENT, JUNE 12, 1944, THE COMMISSION DECIDED THAT
APPELLANT IS A COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 
AFTER THE COMMISSION HAD ISSUED ITS SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER OF JUNE 12,
1944, APPELLANT PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
THE ORDER.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECS. 46 AND 47 OF TITLE 28, U.S.C., THE
DISTRICT JUDGE CONVENED A THREE JUDGE COURT, WHICH HEARD THE CASE AND
DISMISSED APPELLANT'S PETITION. 

FN4  SEC. 1.  "(1)  THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO
COMMON CARRIERS ENGAGED IN - 

"(B)  THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY  ...  BY PIPE LINE
...  FROM ONE STATE  ... TO ANY OTHER STATE  ... 

"(3)(A)  THE TERM 'COMMON CARRIER' AS USED IN THIS ACT SHALL INCLUDE
ALL PIPE-LINE COMPANIES; EXPRESS COMPANIES; SLEEPING-CAR COMPANIES; AND
ALL PERSONS, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL, ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION AS
AFORESAID AS COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE."  41 STAT. 474, AS AMENDED, 48
STAT. 1102, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  THE LAST WORDS OF SEC. 1(3)(A), "ENGAGED
IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION AS AFORESAID AS COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE," DO
"NOT AFFECT THE GENERALITY OF THE FIRST CLAUSE AS TO PIPE-LINE
COMPANIES."  VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 141, 146. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN, DISSENTING. 

THIS APPEAL BRINGS INTO QUESTION THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT COVERS PIPE LINES BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1
AND SEC. 19A.  FN1  ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SECTIONS, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CALLED UPON THE APPELLANT, CHAMPLIN
REFINING COMPANY, FOR REPORTS DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR IT TO MAKE, IF IT
IS A COMMON CARRIER UNDER THE ACT.  THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT COVERED BY THE

CHAMPLIN OWNS A PIPE LINE FOR THE CARRIAGE OF OIL OR OTHER SIMILAR
COMMODITY FROM ITS REFINERY IN OKLAHOMA TO VARIOUS DISTRIBUTING POINTS
IN OTHER STATES.  IT CARRIES NO COMMODITIES EXCEPT ITS OWN PRODUCED IN
ITS OWN REFINERY AND DELIVERED AT THE ENDS OF THE PIPE LINE INTO ITS
OWN STORAGE OR HOLDING TANKS FOR SALE TO ITS CUSTOMERS.  IT ALSO IS
SOLE OWNER OF THE STOCK OF THE CIMARRON VALLEY PIPE LINE COMPANY,
ADMITTEDLY AN INTRASTATE COMMON CARRIER, THAT SUPPLIES THE CHAMPLIN
REFINERY WITH ITS CRUDE OIL.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS FOR VALUATION
REPORTS DO NOT TREAT CHAMPLIN AND CIMARRON AS A UNITARY OPERATION.  THE
COMMISSION, AT THIS BAR, DISCLAIMED EXPRESSLY ANY INTENTION TO TEST THE
SUBJECTION OF CHAMPLIN'S DISTRIBUTING PIPE LINE TO COMMISSION POWER BY
CHAMPLIN'S OWNERSHIP OF THE CIMARRON STOCK.  AS THE COURT TREATS THE
SITUATION AS THOUGH CHAMPLIN'S DISTRIBUTING PIPE LINE, BETWEEN THE
REFINERY AND THE SALE TANKS ONLY, WERE INVOLVED, WE ACCEPT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THIS DISSENT THE COMMISSION'S VIEW OF THE TEST TO BE APPLIED
TO CHAMPLIN. 

ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL" OR SIMILAR COMMODITIES.  IN THE
PIPE LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548, AND VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
308 U.S. 141, THIS COURT INTERPRETED THE TERM "COMMON CARRIER" TO
INCLUDE ALL INTERSTATE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES THAT ARE ENGAGED, WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE ACT, IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL.  IN THESE CASES, PIPE
LINE COMPANIES THAT CARRIED ONLY THEIR OWN OIL, ALTHOUGH ALL OR A LARGE
PART OF IT WAS PURCHASED FROM PRODUCERS PRIOR TO ITS CARRIAGE IN THE
PIPE LINES, WERE HELD COMMON CARRIERS WITHIN THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF
THE ACT, THOUGH NOT COMMON CARRIERS IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE OF HOLDING
ONE'S SELF OUT TO CARRY INDISCRIMINATELY ALL OIL OFFERED, BECAUSE THE
ACT'S EVIDENT PURPOSE WAS TO BRING WITHIN ITS SCOPE ALL PIPE LINES THAT
WOULD CARRY ALL OIL OFFERED "IF ONLY THE OFFERERS WOULD SELL" AT THE
CARRIER'S PRICE.  IN THE VALVOLINE CASE, THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE
1906 ACT, 34 STAT. 584, WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED INTO THE ACT AS
AMENDED IN 1920, 41 STAT. 474, DESPITE CERTAIN CHANGES IN LANGUAGE. 
308 U.S. AT 145.    IT IS TO BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PIPE LINE AND
VALVOLINE CASES DID NOT BRING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT ALL PIPE LINES THAT CARRIED OIL INTERSTATE.  IF THE
COMPANIES WERE COMMON CARRIERS IN SUBSTANCE, THE ACT MADE THEM SO IN
FORM.  THOSE PIPE LINES HELD COVERED BY THE ACT IN THE PIPE LINE CASES
AND VALVOLINE WERE FOUND COMMON CARRIERS IN SUBSTANCE BECAUSE THEY
PURCHASED AND CARRIED ALL OIL OFFERED.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
CONTINUALLY HAS REQUIRED SUCH CARRIERS TO BE ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITIES.  IN THE PIPE LINE CASES, A
COMPANY, UNCLE SAM OIL COMPANY, THOUGH OPERATING A PIPE LINE CARRYING
OIL, WAS HELD BEYOND THE ACT'S REACH BECAUSE NOT ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF OIL AS A COMMON CARRIER WITHIN THE PURPOSE OF THE
ACT. 

"WHEN, AS IN THIS CASE, A COMPANY IS SIMPLY DRAWING OIL FROM ITS OWN
WELLS ACROSS A STATE LINE TO ITS OWN REFINERY FOR ITS OWN USE, AND THAT
IS ALL, WE DO NOT REGARD IT AS FALLING WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE
ACT, THE TRANSPORTATION BEING MERELY AN INCIDENT TO USE AT THE END." 
234 U.S. AT 562. 

THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE BEARING ON THIS QUESTION IN THE APPLICABLE
ACTS SINCE THE PIPE LINE CASES.  AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION,
WE SEE NO REASON TO CHANGE FROM THIS COURT'S LONG-STANDING
INTERPRETATION.  IF CONGRESS DESIRES TO UNDERTAKE REGULATION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER, IN SUBSTANCE A PRIVATE
CARRIER, IT UNDERSTANDS THE METHOD OF APPROACH.  49 U.S.C. SEC.
304(A)(3).  THERE IS NO PERTINENT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO SUPPORT SO
BROAD AN INTERPRETATION OF PIPE LINE LEGISLATION.  THE EVIL SOUGHT TO
BE REMEDIED WAS THE MASTERY OF OIL THROUGH CONTROL OF THE GATHERING
FACILITIES N2.  IF A LINE DOES NOT CARRY OIL OF OTHERS, IT IS NOT
TRANSPORTING WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE ACT. 

IN THE UNCLE SAM CASE IT WAS SAID THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL FROM
WELL TO REFINERY WAS "MERELY AN INCIDENT TO USE AT THE END."  WE SEE NO
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE USE CONTEMPLATED BY THE UNCLE SAM COMPANY AND
THIS COMPANY.  EACH CARRIES ITS OWN OIL FOR THE SAME ULTIMATE PURPOSE -
TO REACH THE MARKET. 

NOR CAN WE SEE ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION FROM THE UNCLE SAM CASE IN
THE PRACTICE OF CHAMPLIN TO USE FREQUENTLY THE FREIGHT RATE FROM ENID
TO THE FINAL DESTINATION AS A MEASURE OF THE ADDITION TO ENID REFINERY,
F.O.B. PRICE THAT IT WILL CHARGE AT ITS DISTRIBUTING TANKS.  THIS
PRACTICE IS DEPARTED FROM TO MEET COMPETITION.  NATURALLY SOME
TRANSPORTATION COST MUST BE ADDED TO THE REFINERY PRICE FOR DELIVERIES
ELSEWHERE.  HOW MUCH IT IS OR HOW IT IS CALCULATED DOES NOT SEEM TO US
TO BEAR UPON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CHAMPLIN IS "A COMMON CARRIER
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL" WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT. 

WE WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT CASE THAN THE ONE BEFORE US IF
CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED THAT ALL OWNERS OF PIPE LINES CARRYING OIL IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHOULD GIVE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THIS IS NOT WHAT SEC. 19A DOES.  IT
REQUIRES REPORTS ONLY FROM "EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS" OF THE ACT.  WHEN AN ENTERPRISE IS "SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS" OF THE ACT IS DEFINED BY SEC. 1(1)(B) AND SEC. 1(3). 
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT SEC. 19A BUT SEC. 1 THAT MUST BE CONSTRUED.  THE
DEFINITION OF SEC. 1 FLOWS NOT ONLY INTO SEC. 19A BUT ALSO INTO VARIOUS
OTHER SECTIONS.  ONCE AN ENTERPRISE IS FOUND TO BE INCLUDED IN SEC. 1,
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT SUBJECTS IT TO SEC. 19A AND OTHER
PROVISIONS DEALING WITH COMMON CARRIERS "SUBJECT TO" THE ACT.  THUS, TO
GIVE TWO INSTANCES, IT MUST PROVIDE EQUAL AND REASONABLE TRANSPORTATION
TO ALL COMERS, (SEC. 1(4)-(6)); AND IT MUST FILE A SCHEDULE OF RATES
(SEC. 6(1)).  IF, THEREFORE, ANY DOUBT IS FELT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY
OF SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE DOUBTS ARE PROPERLY TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF SEC. 1.  THE RANGE OF SERVITUDES TO
WHICH THIS PIPE LINE IS SUBJECTED BY INCLUDING IT IN SEC. 1 BEARS
VITALLY UPON WHETHER SUCH A CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO SEC. 1. 

FOR THE REASONS DETAILED ABOVE, WE DO NOT THINK THAT CHAMPLIN IS
COVERED BY THE ACT AND WE WOULD REVERSE THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

FN1  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1: 

"(1)  ...  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO COMMON
CARRIERS ENGAGED IN - 

"(B)  THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY, EXCEPT WATER AND
EXCEPT NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL GAS, BY PIPE LINE, OR PARTLY BY PIPE LINE
AND PARTLY BY RAILROAD OR BY WATER; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(3)(A)  THE TERM 'COMMON CARRIER' AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER SHALL
INCLUDE ALL PIPE-LINE COMPANIES; EXPRESS COMPANIES; SLEEPING-CAR
COMPANIES; AND ALL PERSONS, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL, ENGAGED IN SUCH
TRANSPORTATION AS AFORESAID AS COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE  ..." 

49 U.S.C. SEC. 19A: 

"...  THE COMMISSION SHALL  ...  INVESTIGATE, ASCERTAIN, AND REPORT
THE VALUE OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNED OR USED BY EVERY COMMON CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER  ...  THE COMMISSION SHALL
...  MAKE AN INVENTORY WHICH SHALL LIST THE PROPERTY OF EVERY COMMON
CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER IN DETAIL, AND SHOW
THE VALUE THEREOF AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, AND SHALL CLASSIFY THE
PHYSICAL PROPERTY, AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURES FOR ROAD AND EQUIPMENT, AS PRESCRIBED BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION." 

FN2  234 U.S. AT 558-59: 

"BY THE BEFORE MENTIONED AND SUBORDINATE LINES THE STANDARD OIL
COMPANY HAD MADE ITSELF MASTER OF THE ONLY PRACTICABLE OIL
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE OIL FIELDS EAST OF CALIFORNIA AND THE
ATLANTIC OCEAN AND CARRIED MUCH THE GREATER PART OF THE OIL BETWEEN
THOSE POINTS." 
..END :

















FISHER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 463 


NO. 122.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 80 U.S.
APP. D.C. 96, 149 F.2D 28, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, AS DEFINED IN D.C. CODE, 1940, TITLE 22, SEC. 2401, WHICH MAKES
DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME, IT WAS
NOT ERROR FOR THE COURT TO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THEY SHOULD
CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S MENTAL DEFICIENCY, CONCEDEDLY NOT
AMOUNTING TO LEGAL INSANITY, TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE WAS GUILTY OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE.  PP. 464, 470, 473. 

2.  THIS COURT MAY NOTICE MATERIAL ERROR IN THE INSTRUCTIONS IN A
CRIMINAL CASE EVEN THOUGH THE ERROR IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED; AND
THE COURT SHOULD DO SO WHEN LIFE IS AT STAKE, EVEN IN CASES FROM THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  PP. 467, 468. 

3.  MATTERS RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEING ENTRUSTED TO THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT, THE POLICY OF THIS COURT
IS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE LOCAL RULES OF LAW WHICH THEY FASHION,
SAVE IN EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS WHERE EGREGIOUS ERROR HAS BEEN
COMMITTED.  P. 476. 

FISHER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND SENTENCED
TO DEATH.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AFFIRMED.  80 U.S. APP. D.C. 96, 149 F.2D 28.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 705.  AFFIRMED, P. 477. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW THE SENTENCE OF DEATH
IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFTER A VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE FIRST COUNT
OF AN INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED PETITIONER WITH KILLING BY CHOKING AND
STRANGLING CATHERINE COOPER REARDON, WITH DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED
MALICE.  THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  80
U.S. APP. D.C. 96, 149 F.2D 28. 

THE ERRORS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND URGED AT OUR
BAR WERE, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE
JURORS THAT THEY SHOULD CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED'S
PSYCHOPATHIC AGGRESSIVE TENDENCIES, LOW EMOTIONAL RESPONSE AND
BORDERLINE MENTAL DEFICIENCY TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE WAS GUILTY OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST OR IN THE SECOND DEGREE.  THE AGGREGATE OF THESE
FACTORS ADMITTEDLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF NOT GUILTY BY
REASON OF INSANITY.  FN1  DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION ARE NECESSARY
ELEMENTS OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER. 

CONSIDERATIONS AS TO THE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY BY THIS COURT OVER THE
COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE INTERPRETATION OF LOCAL
CRIMINAL STATUTES INDUCED US TO GRANT THE WRIT IN VIEW OF THE ISSUE
PRESENTED.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 240(A). 

THE HOMICIDE TOOK PLACE IN THE LIBRARY BUILDING ON THE GROUNDS OF THE
CATHEDRAL OF SAINT PETER AND SAINT PAUL, WASHINGTON, D.C., BETWEEN
EIGHT AND NINE O'CLOCK, A.M., ON MARCH 1, 1944.  THE VICTIM WAS THE
LIBRARIAN.  SHE HAD COMPLAINED TO THE VERGER A FEW DAYS BEFORE ABOUT
PETITIONER'S CARE OF THE PREMISES.  THE PETITIONER WAS THE JANITOR. 
THE VERGER HAD TOLD HIM OF THE COMPLAINT.  MISS REARDON AND FISHER WERE
ALONE IN THE LIBRARY AT THE TIME OF THE HOMICIDE.  THE PETITIONER
TESTIFIED THAT MISS REARDON WAS KILLED BY HIM IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING
INSULTING WORDS FROM HER OVER HIS CARE OF THE PREMISES.  AFTER SLAPPING
HER IMPULSIVELY, PETITIONER RAN UP A FLIGHT OF STEPS TO REACH AN EXIT
ON A HIGHER LEVEL BUT TURNED BACK DOWN, AFTER SEIZING A CONVENIENT
STICK OF FIREWOOD, TO STOP HER SCREAMING.  HE STRUCK HER WITH THE STICK
AND WHEN IT BROKE CHOKED HER TO SILENCE.  HE THEN DRAGGED HER TO A
LAVATORY AND LEFT THE BODY TO CLEAN UP SOME SPOTS OF BLOOD ON THE FLOOR
OUTSIDE.  WHILE FISHER WAS DOING THIS CLEANING UP, THE VICTIM "STARTED
HOLLERING AGAIN."  FISHER THEN TOOK OUT HIS KNIFE AND STUCK HER IN THE
THROAT.  SHE WAS SILENT.  AFTER THAT HE DRAGGED HER BODY DOWN INTO AN
ADJOINING PUMP PIT, WHERE IT WAS FOUND THE NEXT MORNING.  THE ABOVE
FACTS MADE UP PETITIONER'S STORY TO THE JURY OF THE KILLING. 

IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS A WHOLE BY THE JURY.  OTHER
EVIDENCE FURNISHES FACTS WHICH MAY HAVE LED THE JURY TO DISBELIEVE SOME
OF THE DETAILS OF ACCUSED'S VERSION OF THE TRAGEDY.  IN HIS ORIGINAL
CONFESSION, THE ACCUSED MADE NO REFERENCE TO MISS REARDON'S USE OF
INSULTING WORDS.  IN HIS WRITTEN CONFESSION, THEY WERE MENTIONED.  IN
HIS TESTIMONY THEIR EFFECT UPON HIM WAS AMPLIFIED.  THERE ARE MINOR
VARIATIONS BETWEEN FISHER'S WRITTEN CONFESSION AND HIS TESTIMONY.  IN
THE WRITTEN CONFESSION FISHER ADMITTED THAT HIS MAIN REASON FOR
ASSAULTING MISS REARDON WAS BECAUSE SHE REPORTED HIM FOR NOT CLEANING
THE LIBRARY FLOOR.  THE DEPUTY CORONER SAID THE KNIFE WOUND WAS NOT
DEEP, "JUST WENT THROUGH THE SKIN." 

THE EFFORT OF THE DEFENSE IS TO SHOW THAT THE MURDER WAS NOT
DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED; THAT IT WAS NOT FIRST BUT SECOND DEGREE
MURDER.  A READING OF PETITIONER'S OWN TESTIMONY, SUMMARIZED ABOVE,
SHOWS CLEARLY TO US THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A
VERDICT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, IF PETITIONER WAS A NORMAL MAN
IN HIS MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS.  CF. BOSTIC V. UNITED
STATES, 68 APP. D.C. 167, 94 F.2D 636, 638.  BUT THE DEFENSE TAKES THE
POSITION THAT THE PETITIONER IS FAIRLY ENTITLED TO BE JUDGED AS TO
DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION, NOT BY A THEORETICAL NORMALITY BUT BY
HIS OWN PERSONAL TRAITS.  IN VIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE DEFENSE OF
PARTIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE DISTRICT AND THE NATION NO CONTENTION IS
OR COULD BE MADE OF THE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  IT IS THE CONTENTION OF
THE DEFENSE THAT THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL QUALITIES OF PETITIONER WERE
OF SUCH A LEVEL AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME THAT HE WAS INCAPABLE OF
DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION ALTHOUGH HE WAS THEN SANE IN THE USUAL
LEGAL SENSE.  HE KNEW RIGHT FROM WRONG.  SEE M'NAGHTEN'S CASE, 10 CL. &
FIN.  200, 210.  HIS WILL WAS CAPABLE OF CONTROLLING HIS IMPULSES. 
SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 59 APP. D.C. 144, 36 F.2D 548.  TESTIMONY OF
PSYCHIATRISTS TO SUPPORT PETITIONER'S CONTENTION WAS INTRODUCED.  AN
INSTRUCTION CHARGING THE JURY TO CONSIDER THE PERSONALITY OF THE
PETITIONER IN DETERMINING INTENT, PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION WAS
SOUGHT AND REFUSED. 

FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE PSYCHIATRISTS FOR THE DEFENSE, THE JURY
MIGHT HAVE CONCLUDED THE PETITIONER WAS MENTALLY SOMEWHAT BELOW THE
AVERAGE WITH MINOR STIGMATA OF MENTAL SUBNORMALCY.  AN EXPERT TESTIFIED
THAT HE WAS A PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY  FN2  OF A PREDOMINANTLY
AGGRESSIVE TYPE.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER WAS UNABLE BY
REASON OF A DERANGED MENTAL CONDITION TO RESIST THE IMPULSE TO KILL
MISS REARDON.  ALL EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE DEFENSE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE
TRIAL COURT.  THE PROSECUTION HAD COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER
WAS CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF HIS ACTS. 
INSTRUCTIONS IN THE USUAL FORM WERE GIVEN BY THE COURT SUBMITTING TO
THE JURY THE ISSUES OF INSANITY, IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE, MALICE,
DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION.  UNDER THESE INSTRUCTIONS, SET OUT
BELOW, THE JURY COULD HAVE DETERMINED FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE
HOMICIDE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION.  FN3 

ALTHOUGH NO OBJECTION AS TO THE FORM OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS IS URGED
HERE BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER, THIS COURT IN A CRIMINAL CASE MAY
NOTICE MATERIAL ERROR WITHIN ITS POWER TO CORRECT, EVEN THOUGH THAT
ERROR IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED, AND CERTAINLY SHOULD DO SO, EVEN
IN CASES FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHERE LIFE IS AT STAKE. 
BRASFIELD V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 448; COMPARE RULES 54(A)(1), 59,
52(B), RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  IT IS SUGGESTED BY A DISSENT THAT
THESE INSTRUCTIONS, JUST QUOTED IN NOTE 3, DID NOT BRING "SHARPLY AND
VIVIDLY TO THE JURY'S MIND" THE ISSUE OF PREMEDITATION; THAT THEY
"CONSISTED OF THREADBARE GENERALITIES, A JUMBLE OF EMPTY
ABSTRACTIONS."  WE THINK THE CONTENTION ADVANCED IS THAT THE DISTRICT
JUDGE SHOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO THE WORDS OF INSULT OR HAVE
ELABORATED UPON THE DETAILS OF THE EVIDENCE IN HIS CHARGE WITH RESPECT
TO PREMEDITATION.  WITH SUCH A REQUIREMENT FOR INSTRUCTIONS WE DO NOT
AGREE.  THE EVIDENCE FURNISHES THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR A JURY'S
CONCLUSION AS TO GUILT AND ITS DEGREE, GUIDED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF
THE COURT AS TO THE LAW.  FN4  PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION WERE
DEFINED CAREFULLY BY THE INSTRUCTIONS.  THE CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED
THAT THERE WAS NO DELIBERATION OR PREMEDITATION WAS CALLED DISTINCTLY
TO THE JURY'S ATTENTION.  THE NECESSARY TIME ELEMENT WAS EMPHASIZED AND
THE JURY WAS TOLD THAT PREMEDITATION REQUIRED A PRECONCEIVED DESIGN TO
KILL, A "SECOND THOUGHT."  WITH THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW BEFORE THEM
THE JURY REACHED ITS VERDICT.  THE INSTRUCTIONS, WE THINK, WERE CLEAR,
DEFINITE, UNDERSTANDABLE AND APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS DEVELOPED BY THE
TESTIMONY.  WE SEE NO ERROR IN THEM. 

THE ERROR CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER IS LIMITED TO THE REFUSAL OF ONE
INSTRUCTION.  THE JURY MIGHT NOT HAVE REACHED THE RESULT IT DID IF THE
THEORY OF PARTIAL RESPONSIBILITY N5 FOR HIS ACTS WHICH THE PETITIONER
URGES HAD BEEN SUBMITTED.  PETITIONER SOUGHT AN INSTRUCTION FROM THE
TRIAL COURT WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE JURY TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE OF HIS
MENTAL DEFICIENCIES, WHICH WERE SHORT OF INSANITY IN THE LEGAL SENSE,
IN DETERMINING THE FACT OF AND THE ACCUSED'S CAPACITY FOR PREMEDITATION
AND DELIBERATION.  FN6  THE APPELLATE COURT APPROVED THE REFUSAL UPON
THE ALTERNATE GROUND THAT AN ACCUSED IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN INSTRUCTION
UPON PETITIONER'S THEORY.  FN7  THIS HAS LONG BEEN THE LAW OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  FN8  THIS IS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR BY UNITED
STATES V. LEE, 4 MACKEY 489, 495.  THIS ALSO WAS A MURDER CASE IN WHICH
THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF MENTAL DEFECTS WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO INSANITY. 
AN INSTRUCTION WAS ASKED AND DENIED IN THE LANGUAGE COPIED IN THE
MARGIN.  FN9 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE LEE CASE WAS DECIDED WHEN MURDER UNDER THE
DISTRICT LAW WAS NOT DIVIDED INTO DEGREES AND THAT THEREFORE IT WAS NOT
PROPER TO INSTRUCT AS TO THE ACCUSED'S MENTAL CAPACITY TO PREMEDITATE
AND DELIBERATE WHILE NOW IT WOULD BE.  WE DO NOT AGREE.  THE SEPARATION
OF THE CRIME OF MURDER INTO THE PRESENT TWO DEGREES BY THE CODE OF LAW
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1189, 1321, IS
NOT SIGNIFICANT IN ANALYZING THE NECESSITY FOR THE PROPOSED SUBMISSION
OF THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING PETITIONER'S MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS TO THE JURY BY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION.  THE REASON FOR
THE CHANGE, DOUBTLESS, LAY IN THE WIDE RANGE OF ATROCITY WITH WHICH THE
CRIME OF MURDER MIGHT BE COMMITTED SO THAT CONGRESS DEEMED IT DESIRABLE
TO ESTABLISH GRADES OF PUNISHMENT.  CF. DAVIS V. UTAH TERRITORY, 151
U.S. 262, 267, 270.  HOMICIDE, AT COMMON LAW, THE RULES OF WHICH WERE
APPLICABLE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, HAD DEGREES.  MURDER WAS "WITH
MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED."  BLACKSTONE, BOOK IV
(LEWIS ED., 1902), P. 195; SEE HILL V. UNITED STATES, 22 APP. D.C. 395,
401; HAMILTON V. UNITED STATES, 26 APP. D.C. 382, 386-91; BURGE V.
UNITED STATES, 26 APP. D.C. 524, 527-30.  MANSLAUGHTER WAS UNLAWFUL
HOMICIDE WITHOUT MALICE.  BLACKSTONE, BOOK IV (LEWIS ED., 1902), P.
191.  AS CAPACITY OF A DEFENDANT TO HAVE MALICE WOULD DEPEND UPON THE
SAME KIND OF EVIDENCE AND INSTRUCTION WHICH IS URGED HERE,  FN10  IT
CANNOT PROPERLY BE SAID THAT THE SEPARATION OF MURDER INTO DEGREES
INTRODUCED A NEW SITUATION INTO THE LAW OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
FN11  AS SHOWN BY THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS IN THIS
CASE AND THE OTHER DISTRICT CASES CITED IN THIS AND THE PRECEDING
PARAGRAPH, WE THINK IT IS THE ESTABLISHED LAW IN THE DISTRICT THAT AN
ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN INSTRUCTION BASED
UPON EVIDENCE OF MENTAL WEAKNESS, SHORT OF LEGAL INSANITY, WHICH WOULD
REDUCE HIS CRIME FROM FIRST TO SECOND DEGREE MURDER. 

PETITIONER URGES FORCEFULLY THAT MENTAL DEFICIENCY WHICH DOES NOT
SHOW LEGAL IRRESPONSIBILITY SHOULD BE DECLARED BY THIS COURT TO BE A
RELEVANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER
IN THE FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE, UPON WHICH AN INSTRUCTION SHOULD BE
GIVEN, AS REQUESTED.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE COURTS OF CERTAIN
STATES HAVE ADOPTED THIS THEORY.  OTHERS HAVE REJECTED IT.  FN12  IT IS
URGED, ALSO, THAT SINCE EVIDENCE OF INTOXICATION TO A STATE WHERE ONE
GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER MAY NOT BE CAPABLE OF DELIBERATE
PREMEDITATION REQUIRES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AN INSTRUCTION TO
THAT EFFECT (MCAFFEE V. UNITED STATES, 72 APP. D.C. 60, 111 F.2D 199,
205 R.C.), COURTS FROM THIS MUST DEDUCE THAT DISEASE AND CONGENITAL
DEFECTS, FOR WHICH THE ACCUSED MAY NOT BE RESPONSIBLE, MAY ALSO REDUCE
THE CRIME OF MURDER FROM FIRST TO SECOND DEGREE.  THIS COURT REVERSED
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH FOR FAILURE TO GIVE A
PARTIAL RESPONSIBILITY CHARGE UPON EVIDENCE OF DRUNKENNESS IN LANGUAGE
WHICH HAS BEEN SAID TO BE BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER MENTAL DEFICIENCY. 
HOPT V. PEOPLE, 104 U.S. 631, 634.  FN13  IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER,
THAT THE TERRITORY OF UTAH HAD A STATUTE SPECIFICALLY ESTABLISHING SUCH
A RULE.  FN14 

NO ONE DOUBTS THAT THERE ARE MORE POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATIONS OF
MENTALITY THAN THE SANE AND THE INSANE.  WHITE, INSANITY AND THE
CRIMINAL LAW 89.  CRIMINOLOGISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS HAVE WEIGHED THE
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE ADOPTION OF THE THEORY OF PARTIAL
RESPONSIBILITY AS A BASIS OF THE JURY'S DETERMINATION OF THE DEGREE OF
CRIME OF WHICH A MENTALLY DEFICIENT DEFENDANT MAY BE GUILTY.  FN15
CONGRESS TOOK A FORWARD STEP IN DEFINING THE DEGREES OF MURDER SO THAT
ONLY THOSE GUILTY OF DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED MALICE COULD BE
CONVICTED OF THE FIRST DEGREE.  IT MAY BE THAT PSYCHIATRY HAS NOW
REACHED A POSITION OF CERTAINTY IN ITS DIAGNOSIS AND PROGNOSIS WHICH
WILL INDUCE CONGRESS TO ENACT THE RULE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIME FOR
WHICH PETITIONER CONTENDS.  FOR THIS COURT TO FORCE THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA TO ADOPT SUCH A REQUIREMENT FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS WOULD INVOLVE
A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN THE COMMON LAW THEORY OF RESPONSIBILITY.    WE
EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON WHETHER THE THEORY FOR WHICH PETITIONER
CONTENDS SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE LAW OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  SUCH A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM COMMON LAW CONCEPTS IS MORE
PROPERLY A SUBJECT FOR THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER OR AT LEAST
FOR THE DISCRETION OF THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT.  THE ADMINISTRATION
OF CRIMINAL LAW IN MATTERS NOT AFFECTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
OR A GENERAL FEDERAL LAW IS A MATTER PECULIARLY OF LOCAL CONCERN. 
COMPARE MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, WITH ASHCRAFT V.
TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 156.  THIS COURT HAS IN A LESS IMPORTANT
MATTER UNDERTAKEN TO ADJUST BY DECISION AN OUTMODED RULE OF THE COMMON
LAW TO MODERN CONDITIONS.  BUT WHEN THAT STEP WAS TAKEN, IT WAS
DECLARED THAT "EXPERIENCE HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THE FALLACY OR
UNWISDOM OF THE OLD RULE."  FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371, 381. 
SEE WEILER V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 606, 609. 

MATTERS RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE DISTRICT ARE ENTRUSTED TO
THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT.  OUR POLICY IS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE
LOCAL RULES OF LAW WHICH THEY FASHION, SAVE IN EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS
WHERE EGREGIOUS ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED. 

WHERE THE CHOICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN LOCAL MATTERS BETWEEN CONFLICTING LEGAL CONCLUSIONS SEEMS NICELY
BALANCED, WE DO NOT INTERFERE.  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. PACE, 320 U.S.
698, 702; BUSBY V. ELECTRIC UTILITIES UNION, 323 U.S. 72, 74-5.  THE
POLICY OF DEFERRING TO THE DISTRICT'S COURTS ON LOCAL LAW MATTERS IS
REINFORCED HERE BY THE FACT THAT THE LOCAL LAW NOW CHALLENGED IS LONG
ESTABLISHED AND DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE DISTRICT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CODE OF LAW FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1940 ED.) 
PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

TITLE 22, SEC. 2401, "WHOEVER, BEING OF SOUND MEMORY AND DISCRETION,
KILLS ANOTHER PURPOSELY, EITHER OF DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED MALICE
OR BY MEANS OF POISON, OR IN PERPETRATING OR ATTEMPTING TO PERPETRATE
ANY OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY, OR WITHOUT
PURPOSE SO TO DO KILLS ANOTHER IN PERPETRATING OR IN ATTEMPTING TO
PERPETRATE ANY ARSON, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 22-401 OR 22-402 OF THIS
CODE, RAPE, MAYHEM, ROBBERY, OR KIDNAPPING, OR IN PERPETRATING OR IN
ATTEMPTING TO PERPETRATE ANY HOUSEBREAKING WHILE ARMED WITH OR USING A
DANGEROUS WEAPON, IS GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE." 

TITLE 22, SEC. 2403, "WHOEVER WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 22-2401, 22-2402, KILLS ANOTHER, IS GUILTY OF
MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE." 

TITLE 22, SEC. 2404, "THE PUNISHMENT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE
SHALL BE DEATH BY ELECTROCUTION.  THE PUNISHMENT OF MURDER IN THE
SECOND DEGREE SHALL BE IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE, OR FOR NOT LESS THAN
TWENTY YEARS." 

FN2  "THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT SEEMS WARRANTABLE IS THAT, AT SOME
TIME OR OTHER AND BY SOME REPUTABLE AUTHORITY, THE TERM PSYCHOPATHIC
PERSONALITY HAS BEEN USED TO DESIGNATE EVERY CONCEIVABLE TYPE OF
ABNORMAL CHARACTER."  CURRAN AND MALLINSON, PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY
(1944), 90 J. MENT.  SCI.  278. 

FN3  THESE INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN: 

INSANITY.  "IN BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT, IT IS CONTENDED THAT HE WAS
INSANE, AND THEREFORE NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE, HENCE SHOULD BE
ACQUITTED BY REASON OF INSANITY. 

"IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF SANE AND RESPONSIBLE, THERE WAS
NO DELIBERATE INTENT TO KILL, NOR IN FACT ANY ACTUAL INTENT TO KILL. 
THEREFORE IF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY, THE DEFENDANT AT MOST IS
GUILTY ONLY OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER OR MANSLAUGHTER, ACCORDING AS YOU
MAY FIND HE ACTED WITH OR WITHOUT MALICE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"INSANITY, ACCORDING TO THE CRIMINAL LAW, IS A DISEASE OR DEFECT OF
THE MIND WHICH RENDERS ONE INCAPABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE AND
QUALITY OF HIS ACT, TO KNOW THAT IT IS WRONG, TO REFRAIN FROM DOING THE
WRONGFUL ACT.  THERE MUST BE ACTUAL DISEASE OR DEFECT OF THE MENTAL
FACULTIES, SO FAR IMPAIRING THE REASON OR WILL THAT THIS TEST OF SANITY
CANNOT BE MET, BEFORE ONE IS RELIEVED OF HIS CRIMINAL ACT. 

"THE FATAL ACTIONS MUST BE TRACEABLE BACK TO A DISEASED OR DERANGED
MENTALITY." 

IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE.  "HERE IT IS CONTENDED THAT ALTHOUGH THE
DEFENDANT MAY HAVE UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE WAS DOING WHEN HE ASSAULTED MISS
REARDON, AND MAY HAVE KNOWN IT WAS WRONG, YET HE WAS IMPELLED BY AN
IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TO DO THE VIOLENT ACTS WHICH CAUSED HER DEATH. 

"IF THE DEFENDANT WAS SUFFERING FROM A DISEASED CONDITION OF HIS
MENTAL FACULTIES, WHICH SO FAR DESTROYED HIS WILL, THE GOVERNING POWER
OF THE MIND, THAT HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE WILL, BUT BEYOND
ITS CONTROL, THEN IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION, HE WAS INSANE AND NOT
RESPONSIBLE, THOUGH HE MAY HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE NATURE OF THOSE ACTS,
AND HAVE BEEN CONSCIOUS OF THEIR WRONG. 

"IF, AS I HAVE SAID, THERE WAS SUCH LACK OF WILLPOWER AND CONTROL IT
MUST HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF A DISEASE OR DISORDER OF THE MENTAL
FACULTIES.  MERE LOSS OF MORAL RESTRAINTS LEADING TO A SURRENDER TO
CRIMINAL THOUGHTS AND PASSIONS IS NOT ENOUGH." 

MALICE; DELIBERATION; PREMEDITATION.  "I HAVE STATED THAT THE
INDICTMENT PRESENTS WITHIN ITS TERMS THE THREE DEGREES OF UNLAWFUL
HOMICIDE - MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE, AND
MANSLAUGHTER. 

"I SHALL EXPLAIN THEM IN THAT ORDER. 

"MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS THE KILLING OF A HUMAN BEING PURPOSELY
AND WITH DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED MALICE.  THE CRIME INVOLVES THESE
ELEMENTS: 

"FIRST, THE FATAL ACT PURPOSELY DONE.  OF THAT, NOTHING MORE NEED BE
SAID. 

"SECOND, MALICE. 

"THIRD, PREMEDITATION. 

"FOURTH, DELIBERATION. 

"ALL THESE ARE ELEMENTS WHICH GO TO CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE.  THEREFORE, EACH AND ALL MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY THE
EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 

"MALICE IS A BASIC ELEMENT OF MURDER IN BOTH THE FIRST AND THE SECOND
DEGREES. 

"IN COMMON PARLANCE, THE WORD SIGNIFIES FEELINGS OF ANGER, HATRED, OR
ILLWILL.  SUCH FEELINGS, MAY, OF COURSE, ACTUATE THE KILLING OF A HUMAN
BEING, AND OFTEN DO. 

"HOWEVER, THE LAW HAS GIVEN TO THE TERM 'MALICE' A SPECIAL MEANING. 
IT IS THE INTENTIONAL DOING OF A WRONGFUL ACT TO THE INJURY OF ANOTHER
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFY OR PALLIATE THE ACT. 

"AS APPLIED TO THE CRIME OF MURDER, MALICE IS THE INTENTIONAL
STRIKING OF A DEADLY BLOW IN EXECUTION OF AN EVIL PURPOSE SPRINGING
FROM A HEART REGARDLESS OF SOCIAL DUTY AND FATALLY BENT ON MISCHIEF. 

"THEN, THERE IS THE ELEMENT OF PREMEDITATION.  THAT IS, GIVING
THOUGHT, BEFORE ACTING, TO THE IDEA OF TAKING A HUMAN LIFE AND REACHING
A DEFINITE DECISION TO KILL.  IN SHORT, PREMEDITATION IS THE FORMATION
OF A SPECIFIC INTENT TO KILL. 

"DELIBERATION, THAT TERM OF WHICH YOU HAVE HEARD MUCH IN THE
ARGUMENTS AND ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, IS
CONSIDERATION AND REFLECTION UPON THE PRECONCEIVED DESIGN TO KILL;
TURNING IT OVER IN THE MIND; GIVING IT SECOND THOUGHT. 

"ALTHOUGH FORMATION OF A DESIGN TO KILL MAY BE INSTANTANEOUS, AS
QUICK AS THOUGHT ITSELF, THE MENTAL PROCESS OF DELIBERATING UPON SUCH A
DESIGN DOES REQUIRE THAT AN APPRECIABLE TIME ELAPSE BETWEEN FORMATION
OF THE DESIGN AND THE FATAL ACT WITHIN WHICH THERE IS, IN FACT,
DELIBERATION. 

"THE LAW PRESCRIBES NO PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME.  IT NECESSARILY
VARIES ACCORDING TO THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. 
CONSIDERATION OF A MATTER MAY CONTINUE OVER A PROLONGED PERIOD - HOURS,
DAYS, OR EVEN LONGER.  THEN AGAIN, IT MAY COVER BUT A BRIEF SPAN OF
MINUTES.  IF ONE FORMING AN INTENT TO KILL DOES NOT ACT INSTANTLY, BUT
PAUSES AND ACTUALLY GIVES SECOND THOUGHT AND CONSIDERATION TO THE
INTENDED ACT, HE HAS, IN FACT DELIBERATED.  IT IS THE FACT OF
DELIBERATION THAT IS IMPORTANT, RATHER THAN THE LENGTH OF TIME IT MAY
HAVE CONTINUED." 

FN4  STILSON V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 583, 588; STARR V. UNITED
STATES, 153 U.S. 614, 625; ARWOOD V. UNITED STATES, 134 F.2D 1007,
1011. 

FN5  THE PHRASE IS USED HEREIN TO INDICATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR A
LESSER GRADE OF OFFENSE.  SEE GLUECK, MENTAL DISORDER AND THE CRIMINAL
LAW (1925) 310, N. 1. 

FN6  THE INSTRUCTION REQUESTED READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE JURY IS INSTRUCTED THAT IN CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF INTENT OR
LACK OF INTENT TO KILL ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT, THE QUESTION OF
PREMEDITATION OR NO PREMEDITATION, DELIBERATION OR NO DELIBERATION,
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE FATAL ACTS WAS OF SOUND
MEMORY AND DISCRETION, IT SHOULD CONSIDER THE ENTIRE PERSONALITY OF THE
DEFENDANT, HIS MENTAL, NERVOUS, EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
AS DEVELOPED BY THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE." 

OUR CONCLUSION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT WE PASS UPON WHETHER THE
INSTRUCTION WAS CORRECT IF PETITIONER'S THEORY IS SOUND, OR WHETHER IF
INCORRECT, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECAST THE INSTRUCTION IN PROPER
FORM.  SEE THE CASE BELOW, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 96, 97, 149 F.2D 28, 29
R.C. COMPARE FREIHAGE V. UNITED STATES, 56 F.2D 127, 133, WITH GEORGE
V. UNITED STATES, 75 U.S. APP. D.C. 197, 125 F.2D 559, 563. 

FN7  FISHER V. UNITED STATES, 80 U.S. APP. D.C. 96, 97, 149 F.2D 28,
29 L.C. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS SPOKE OF AN ACQUITTAL UNDER THE PROPOSED
INSTRUCTION.  THE OTHER LANGUAGE OF THE OPINION AND THE REFUSAL OF THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING, WHICH POINTED OUT THE MISUSE OF THE WORD, SHOWS
CLEARLY THAT A REDUCTION IN DEGREE WAS MEANT, NOT AN ACQUITTAL. 

FN8  CF. GUITEAU'S CASE, 10 F. 161, 168, 182; BOLDEN V. UNITED
STATES, 63 APP. D.C. 45, 69 F.2D 121; OWENS V. UNITED STATES, 66 APP.
D.C. 104, 85 F.2D 270, 272. 

FN9  4 MACKEY 495-96: 

THE INSTRUCTION REQUESTED WAS:  "IF THE JURY ARE NOT SATISFIED FROM
THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME HE COMMITTED THE ACT, WAS
SO MENTALLY UNSOUND AS TO RENDER HIM INCAPABLE OF JUDGING BETWEEN RIGHT
AND WRONG; YET IF THE JURY FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS SUCH A
DEGREE OF MENTAL UNSOUNDNESS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE HOMICIDE AS TO
RENDER THE DEFENDANT INCAPABLE OF PREMEDITATION AND OF FORMING SUCH AN
INTENT AS THE JURY BELIEVE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WOULD
REASONABLY IMPUTE TO A MAN OF SOUND MIND, THEY MAY CONSIDER SUCH DEGREE
OF MENTAL UNSOUNDNESS IN DETERMINING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT WAS
MURDER OR MANSLAUGHTER." 

THE COURT SAID:  "IT RESTS UPON THE IDEA THAT THERE IS A GRADE OF
INSANITY NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIT THE PARTY OF THE CRIME OF
MANSLAUGHTER AND YET SUFFICIENT TO ACQUIT HIM OF THE CRIME OF MURDER. 

"THE LAW DOES NOT RECOGNIZE ANY SUCH DISTINCTION AS THAT IN THE FORMS
OF INSANITY.  THE RULE OF LAW IS VERY PLAIN THAT IN ORDER THAT THE PLEA
OF INSANITY SHALL PREVAIL, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN THAT MENTAL CONDITION
OF THE PARTY WHICH DISABLED HIM FROM DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN RIGHT AND
WRONG IN RESPECT OF THE ACT COMMITTED. 

"NOW IF THE PRISONER WAS SO FAR CAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN
RIGHT AND WRONG AS TO BE GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MANSLAUGHTER, HE SURELY
WAS CAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG IN RESPECT OF THE
CRIME OF MURDER OF THE IDENTICAL PARTY.  THERE CAN BE NO RECOGNITION OF
THE DOCTRINE THAT A MAN IS INCAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN RIGHT
AND WRONG SO AS TO DETERMINE THAT THE CASE IS NOT A CASE OF MURDER, AND
YET CAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG SO AS TO BE
GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER.  THERE IS NO SUCH DOCTRINE, AND NOTHING IN THE
BOOKS THAT FAVORS ANY SUCH IDEA.  THE PRAYER THEREFORE IS UNSOUND IN
ALL RESPECTS, AND EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN SOUND, NOT BEING SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, THE COURT BELOW WAS ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING IT." 

FN10  SEE HART V. UNITED STATES, 76 U.S. APP. D.C. 193, 130 F.2D 456,
458; BISHOP V. UNITED STATES, 71 APP. D.C. 132, 107 F.2D 297, 302-3;
MCHARGUE V. COMMONWEALTH, 231 KY. 82, 21 S.W.2D 115; STATE V. EATON,
154 S.W.2D 767(MO.). 

FN11  THE REFERENCE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DEGREES OF MURDER IN HOPT
V. PEOPLE, 104 U.S. 631, 634, MAY INDICATE A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW. 
THE COURT WAS THERE CONSIDERING INTOXICATION UNDER A STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT THAT THE INTOXICATION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY
THE JURY IN DETERMINING THE DEGREE OF THE OFFENSE. 

FN12  WE ARE INDEBTED TO THE RESPONDENT'S BRIEF FOR THE COLLECTION OF
CASES.  THOSE ACCEPTING THE PETITIONER'S THEORY ARE:  ANDERSEN V.
STATE, 43 CONN. 514, 526(1876); STATE V. JOHNSON, 40 CONN. 136, 143
44(1873); FISHER V. PEOPLE, 23 ILL. 283, 295(1860); DONAHUE V. STATE,
165 IND. 148, 156, 74 N.E. 996(1905); ASZMAN V. STATE, 123 IND. 347,
356, 24 N.E. 123(1890); ROGERS V. COMMONWEALTH, 96 KY. 24, 28, 27 S.W.
813(1894); MANGRUM V. COMMONWEALTH, 19 KY. LAW REP. 94, 39 S.W.
703(1897); COMMONWEALTH V. TRIPPI, 268 MASS. 227, 231, 167 N.E.
354(1929); STATE V. CLOSE, 106 N.J.L. 321, 324, 148 A. 764(1930); STATE
V. SCHILLING, 95 N.J.L. 145, 148, 112 A. 400(1920); PEOPLE V. MORAN,
249 N.Y. 179, 180, 163 N.E. 553(1928); JONES V. COMMONWEALTH, 75 PA.
403, 408, 410(1874); STATE V. GREEN, 78 UTAH 580, 602, 6 P.2D
177(1931); STATE V. ANSELMO, 46 UTAH 137, 145, 157, 148 P. 1071(1915);
DEJARNETTE V. COMMONWEALTH, 75 VA. 867, 880-81(1881); HEMPTON V. STATE,
111 WISC.  127, 135, 86 N.W. 596(1901). 

THOSE REJECTING IT ARE:  UNITED STATES V. LEE, 15 D.C. (4 MACKEY)
489, 495-96(1886); FOSTER V. STATE, 37 ARIZ. 281, 289-90, 294 P.
268(1930); BELL V. STATE, 120 ARK. 530, 557-58, 180 S.W. 186(1915);
PEOPLE V. FRENCH, 12 CAL.2D 720, 738, 87 P.2D 1014(1939); PEOPLE V.
CORDOVA, 14 CAL.2D 308, 311-12, 94 P.2D 40(1939); PEOPLE V. TROCHE, 206
CAL. 35, 47, 273 P. 767(1928); STATE V. VAN VLACK, 57 IDAHO 316, 360
67, 65 P.2D 736(1937); SAGE V. STATE, 91 IND. 141, 144-45(1883);
SPENCER V. STATE, 69 MD. 28, 41-43, 13 A. 809(1888); COMMONWEALTH V.
COOPER, 219 MASS. 1, 5, 106 N.E. 545(1914); STATE V. HOLLOWAY, 156 MO.
222, 231, 56 S.W. 734(1900); STATE V. RODIA, 132 N.J.L. 199, 39 A.2D
484(1944); STATE V. NOEL, 102 N.J.L. 659, 676-77, 133 A. 274(1926);
STATE V. JAMES, 96 N.J.L. 132, 149-51, 114 A. 553(1921); STATE V.
MAIONI, 78 N.J.L. 339, 74 A. 526(1909); SINDRAM V. PEOPLE, 88 N.Y. 196,
200-201(1882); COMMONWEALTH V. BARNER, 199 PA. 335, 342, 49 A.
60(1901); COMMONWEALTH V. HOLLINGER, 190 PA. 155, 160, 42 A. 548(1899);
COMMONWEALTH V. WIREBACK, 190 PA. 138, 151-52, 42 A. 542(1899); JACOBS
V. COMMONWEALTH, 121 PA. 586, 592-93, 15 A. 465(1888); COMMONWEALTH V.
SCOTT, 14 PA. D. & C. REP. 191(1930); WITTY V. STATE, 75 TEX. CR. REP.
440, 457, 171 S.W. 229(1914); HOGUE V. STATE, 65 TEX. CR. REP. 539,
542, 146 S.W. 905(1912); STATE V. SCHNEIDER, 158 WASH. 504, 510-11, 291
P. 1093(1930).    FN13  104 U.S. AT 634:  "BUT WHEN A STATUTE
ESTABLISHING DIFFERENT DEGREES OF MURDER REQUIRES DELIBERATE
PREMEDITATION IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS IN SUCH A CONDITION OF MIND, BY REASON
OF DRUNKENNESS OR OTHERWISE, AS TO BE CAPABLE OF DELIBERATE
PREMEDITATION, NECESSARILY BECOMES A MATERIAL SUBJECT OF CONSIDERATION
BY THE JURY." 

SEE EDWIN R. KEEDY, INSANITY AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, 30 HARV. L.
REV. 535 AT 552. 

THE CASES CITED BY THIS COURT TO SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT ARE ALL
INSTANCES OF INTOXICATION.  SINCE DRUNKENNESS ALONE IS SPECIFICALLY
MENTIONED, THE "OR OTHERWISE" MAY REFER TO VARIOUS STAGES OF
INTOXICATION. 

FN14  SEE 104 U.S. 631 AT 634. 

FN15  WHARTON, CRIMINAL LAW (12TH ED.), VOL. 1, SEC. 64; WEIHOFEN,
INSANITY AS A DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL LAW (1933), PP. 100-103; WEIHOFEN,
PARTIAL INSANITY AND CRIMINAL INTENT, 24 ILL. LAW REV. 505(1930);
KEEDY, INSANITY AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, 30 HARV. LAW REV. 535, 552
554(1917); MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND CRIME, ENGLISH STUDIES IN CRIMINAL
SCIENCE (1944), PP. 61-63; GLUECK, MENTAL DISORDER AND THE CRIMINAL LAW
(1925), PP. 199-208; HALL, MENTAL DISEASE AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY,
45 COL. LAW REV. 677(1945). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

A SHOCKING CRIME PUTS LAW TO ITS SEVEREST TEST.  LAW TRIUMPHS OVER
NATURAL IMPULSES AROUSED BY SUCH A CRIME ONLY IF GUILT BE ASCERTAINED
BY DUE REGARD FOR THOSE INDISPENSABLE SAFEGUARDS WHICH OUR CIVILIZATION
HAS EVOLVED FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF GUILT.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT A
TRIAL GOES THROUGH THE FORMS OF LAW.  ESPECIALLY WHERE LIFE IS AT STAKE
IT IS REQUISITE THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD SO GUIDE THE JURY THAT THE
JURORS MAY BE EQUIPPED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEATH SHOULD BE THE PENALTY
FOR CONDUCT.  OF COURSE SOCIETY MUST PROTECT ITSELF.  BUT SURELY IT IS
NOT SELF-PROTECTION FOR SOCIETY TO TAKE LIFE WITHOUT THE MOST CAREFUL
OBSERVANCE OF ITS OWN SAFEGUARDS AGAINST THE MISUSE OF CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT. 

THIS CASE HAS BEEN MUCH BECLOUDED BY LAYMEN'S VENTURES INTO
PSYCHIATRY.  WE ARE NOT NOW CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER THE
ANTIQUATED TESTS SET DOWN MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO REGARDING
MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIME  FN1  ARE STILL CONTROLLING OR WHETHER
COURTS SHOULD CHOOSE FROM AMONG THE CONFLICTING PROPOSALS OF SCIENTIFIC
SPECIALISTS N2.  THIS IS NOT THE OCCASION TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ONLY
ALTERNATIVE IS BETWEEN LAW WHICH REFLECTS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC
TESTS AND LAW REMAINING A LEADEN-FOOTED LAGGARD.  THE CASE TURNS ON A
MUCH SIMPLER AND WHOLLY CONVENTIONAL ISSUE.  FOR THE REAL QUESTION, AS
I SEE IT, IS WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS DEFINING MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE FOR PROSECUTIONS IN THE DISTRICT AND IN LIGHT OF THE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY SENT
THE CASE TO THE JURY.  THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION FROM WHETHER
THE COURT'S CHARGE WAS UNIMPEACHABLE AS AN ABSTRACT STATEMENT OF LAW. 
FOR FISHER IS NOT THE NAME OF A THEORETICAL PROBLEM.  WE ARE NOT HEAR
DEALING WITH AN ABSTRACT MAN WHO KILLED AN ABSTRACT WOMAN UNDER
ABSTRACT CIRCUMSTANCES AND RECEIVED AN ABSTRACT TRIAL ON ABSTRACT
ISSUES.  MURDER CASES ARE APT TO BE PECULIARLY INDIVIDUALIZED, AND THIS
CASE HAS ITS OWN DISTINCTIVE FEATURES.  IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE
THAT WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER FISHER'S DEATH SENTENCE SHOULD LEGALLY
STAND. 

ACCORDING TO THE MORE ENLIGHTENED RULE, APPELLATE COURTS MAY REVIEW
THE FACTS IN A CAPITAL CASE.  FN3  WERE SUCH THE SCOPE OF OUR REVIEW OF
DEATH SENTENCES, I SHOULD THINK IT WOULD BE HARD TO ESCAPE WHAT FOLLOWS
AS THE MOST PERSUASIVE READING OF THE RECORD. 

FISHER HAD LEARNED FROM HIS BOSS OF MISS REARDON'S COMPLAINT ABOUT
THE SLACKNESS OF HIS WORK.  ON THE FATAL MORNING, MISS REARDON TOLD
FISHER THAT HE WAS NOT DOING THE WORK FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING PAID, AND
IN THE COURSE OF HER SCOLDING CALLED HIM A "BLACK NIGGER."  THIS MADE
HIM ANGRY - NO WHITE PERSON, HE CLAIMED, HAD EVER CALLED HIM THAT - AND
HE STRUCK HER.  SHE RAN SCREAMING TOWARDS THE WINDOW IN THE BACK OF THE
ROOM.  FISHER RAN OUT OF THE ROOM AND UP THE STAIRS.  HER SCREAMING
CONTINUED.  AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS HE SAW A PILE OF WOOD LYING BY THE
FIREPLACE.  HE SEIZED A PIECE OF WOOD, RAN DOWN THE STAIRS AND STRUCK
HER ON THE HEAD.  THE STICK BROKE AND HE SEIZED HER BY THE THROAT.  SHE
CONTINUED TO SCREAM UNTIL SHE WENT LIMP.  HE THEN DRAGGED HER TO THE
LAVATORY AND LEFT HER THERE WHILE HE WENT BACK TO CLEAN UP THE SPOTS OF
BLOOD.  SHE RECOVERED SUFFICIENTLY TO SCREAM AGAIN, AND HE RETURNED TO
THE LAVATORY AND CUT HER SLIGHTLY WITH A KNIFE HE CARRIED IN HIS
POCKET.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCREAMING IS A KEY TO THE TRAGEDY.  IT
IS DIFFICULT TO DISBELIEVE FISHER'S ACCOUNT THAT HE NEVER WANTED TO
KILL MISS REARDON BUT WANTED ONLY TO STOP HER SCREAMING, WHICH UNNERVED
HIM. 

"SHE RAN OUT FROM BEHIND HER DESK, DOWN TOWARD THE BACK, SCREAMING." 

"THE SCREAMING SEEMED TO HAVE GOTTEN ON MY NERVES." 

"I WAS RUNNING ON UP THE STEPS, WITH HER ALL THE TIME SCREAMING." 

"SHE WAS STILL SCREAMING, AND I BEGAN CHOKING HER THEN." 

"I WAS JUST TRYING TO KEEP HER FROM MAKING A NOISE." 

"...  SHE STARTED HOLLERING AND I TRIED TO STOP HER FROM HOLLERING." 

"THEN I BEGAN CHOKING HER BECAUSE SHE WAS STILL HOLLERING." 

"...  I DID NOT STRIKE HER ANY MORE AFTER THE NOISE HAD CEASED." 

"...  SHE STARTED HOLLERING AGAIN." 

"SHE KEPT HOLLERING, SEEMED LIKE TO ME." 

"MY IDEA WAS JUST TRYING TO STOP HER FROM HOLLERING, IS ALL I CAN
THINK ABOUT." 

"AFTER THAT SHE STOPPED HOLLERING." 

THE NEXT DAY HE STARTED TO GO TO THE CATHEDRAL TO WORK AS USUAL.  HE
MADE TWO ATTEMPTS TO ENTER THE CATHEDRAL GROUNDS.  ABOUT THE FIRST, HE
SAID HE GOT "NERVOUS AND SHAKY, AND (HE) COULDN'T GO IN THERE."  LATER
HE "KEPT THINKING ABOUT WHAT (HE) HAD DONE TO HER.  (HE) DIDN'T KNOW
WHETHER SHE WAS DEAD OR ALIVE.  (HE) WAS AFRAID TO GO UP THERE AND TELL
THEM THAT (THEY) HAD HAD AN ARGUMENT OR A FIGHT."  WHEN APPREHENDED BY
TWO DETECTIVES, HE SAID HE "HAD SOME TROUBLE WITH THE LADY OUT AT THE
CATHEDRAL." 

THE EVIDENCE IN ITS ENTIRETY HARDLY PROVIDES A BASIS FOR A FINDING OF
PREMEDITATION.  HE STRUCK MISS REARDON WHEN SHE CALLED HIM "BLACK
NIGGER."  HE KEPT ON WHEN HER SCREAMING FRIGHTENED HIM.  HE DID NOT
KNOW HE HAD KILLED HER.  THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST BASIS FOR FINDING A
MOTIVE FOR THE KILLING PRIOR TO HER USE OF THE OFFENSIVE PHRASE. 
FISHER, TO BE SURE, HAD MISS REARDON'S RING IN HIS POSSESSION.  BUT IT
CAME OFF IN HIS HAND WHILE HE WAS DRAGGING HER, AND HE PUT IT AWAY WHEN
HE REACHED HOME TO CONCEAL ITS POSSESSION FROM HIS WIFE.  HE DID NOT
RUN AWAY AND HE CLEANED UP THE BLOOD "BECAUSE (HE) DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE
THE LIBRARY DIRTY, LEAVE AWFUL SPOTS ON THE FLOOR.  (HE) WANTED TO
CLEAN THEM UP."  HE TREATED THE SPOTS ON THE FLOOR NOT AS EVIDENCE OF
CRIME BUT AS PART OF HIS JOB TO KEEP THE LIBRARY CLEAN.  FISHER WAS
CURIOUSLY UNCONNECTED WITH THE DEED, UNAWARE OF WHAT HE HAD DONE.  HIS
WAS A VERY LOW GRADE MENTALITY, UNABLE TO REALIZE THE DIRECTION OF HIS
ACTION AND ITS MEANING.  HIS WHOLE BEHAVIOR SEEMS THAT OF A MAN OF
PRIMITIVE EMOTIONS REACTING TO THE SUDDEN STIMULUS OF INSULT AND
PROCEEDING FROM THAT POINT WITHOUT PURPOSE OR DESIGN.  PREMEDITATION
IMPLIES PURPOSE AND PURPOSE IS EXCLUDED BY INSTANTANEOUS ACTION. 
FISHER'S RESPONSE WAS AN INSTINCTIVE RESPONSE TO PROVOCATION, AND
PREMEDITATION MEANS NOTHING UNLESS IT PRECLUDES THE NOTION OF AN
INSTINCTIVE AND UNCALCULATED REACTION TO STIMULUS.  ACCORDINGLY, IF
EXISTING PRACTICE AUTHORIZED US TO REVIEW THE FACTS IN A CAPITAL CASE I
SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO FIND THAT THE INGREDIENTS OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE WERE HERE LACKING.  I WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT THE NECESSARY
PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION FOR THE INFLICTION OF A DEATH SENTENCE
WERE WANTING, AS DID THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS IN A CASE OF
SINGULARLY STRIKING SIMILARITY.  PEOPLE V. CARUSO, 246 N.Y. 437, 159
N.E. 390.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA HAS HERETOFORE DEEMED IT WITHIN ITS DUTY TO EXAMINE THE
EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER A FINDING OF PREMEDITATION AND
DELIBERATION WAS JUSTIFIED.  BULLOCK V. UNITED STATES, 74 APP. D.C.
220, 122 F.2D 213. 

BUT WHILE IT IS NOT NOW THIS COURT'S FUNCTION TO INTERPRET THE FACTS
INDEPENDENTLY,  FN4  THE JURY, UNDER GUIDANCE APPROPRIATE FOR A MURDER
CASE, MIGHT WELL HAVE SO INTERPRETED THEM BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE
PERSUASIVELY SO INTERPRETABLE.  IF, UNDER ADEQUATE INSTRUCTIONS, IT
COULD HAVE SO FOUND, THE HOMICIDE FALLS OUTSIDE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A
FINDING OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  CONGRESS IN 1901 ENACTED A CODE
FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT JOINED THE GROWING MOVEMENT OF DIVIDING
MURDER INTO DEGREES.  FN5  CONGRESS CONFINED THE DEATH SENTENCE TO
KILLING BY PREMEDITATION; IT REQUIRED DESIGNED HOMICIDE, PREVIOUS
DELIBERATION THAT LIFE WAS TO BE TAKEN, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES WOULD
TAKE LIFE IN RETRIBUTION.  FN6  THE DIVISION OF MURDER INTO DEGREES
AROSE FROM THE STEADILY WEAKENED HOLD OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ON THE
CONSCIENCE OF MANKIND.  SEE CALVERT, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY (5TH ED., 1936); REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AND MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
(1930).  THE CRIME OF MURDER WAS DIVIDED INTO TWO CLASSES, IN SOME
STATES VERY EARLY,  FN7  IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT CAN SERVE AS A DETERRENT ONLY WHEN MURDER IS THE RESULT OF
PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION.  IT IS THIS CONSIDERATION THAT HAS LED
MOST OF THE STATES TO DIVIDE COMMON LAW MURDER INTO TWO CRIMES, AND
CONGRESS FOLLOWED THIS LEGISLATION.  SEE MICHAEL AND WECHSLER, A
RATIONALE OF THE LAW OF HOMICIDE (1937) 37 COL. L. REV. 701, 703-704;
MICHAEL AND WECHSLER, CRIMINAL LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION (1940) 1269
ET SEQ. 

THE BITE OF LAW IS IN ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN
CAREFUL OR INDIFFERENT JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION HAS CONSEQUENCES SO
PROFOUND AS DOES THE APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION DIVIDING MURDER INTO
FIRST AND SECOND DEGREES - CONSEQUENCES THAT LITERALLY MAKE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH.  THIS PLACES THE GUIDING
RESPONSIBILITY UPON THE TRIAL COURT IN NO WISE RESTRICTED BY THE COURSE
PURSUED BY THE DEFENSE.  THE PREOCCUPATION AT THE TRIAL, IN THE
TREATMENT OF THE CONVICTION BY THE COURT BELOW AND BY THE ARGUMENTS AT
THE BAR OF THIS COURT, WAS WITH ALLURING PROBLEMS OF PSYCHIATRY. 
THROUGHOUT THIS MELANCHOLY AFFAIR THE INSISTENCE WAS ON CLAIMS OF
FISHER'S MENTAL DEFICIENCIES AND THE LAW'S DUTY TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE SKEPTICAL VIEWS OF MODERN PSYCHIATRY REGARDING THE
HISTORIC LEGAL TESTS FOR INSANITY.  I CANNOT BUT BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS
DIVERTED ATTENTION FROM THE MORE OBVIOUS AND CONVENTIONAL BUT
CONTROLLING INQUIRY REGARDING THE ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF THE REQUISITE
PREMEDITATION, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

THAT THE CHARGE REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT AND DENIED DID NOT GO TO
THIS ISSUE OF PREMEDITATION UNAMBIGUOUSLY BUT IN AN AWKWARD AND OBLIQUE
WAY DID NOT LESSEN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE TO BRING THIS
ISSUE - IT WAS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE - SHARPLY AND VIVIDLY TO THE JURY'S
MIND.  IF THEIR MINDS HAD BEEN SO FOCUSED, THE JURY MIGHT WELL HAVE
FOUND THAT THE SUCCESSIVE STEPS THAT CULMINATED IN MISS REARDON'S DEATH
COULD NOT PROPERLY BE JUDGED IN ISOLATION.  THEY MIGHT WELL HAVE FOUND
A SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT CONSTITUTED A SINGLE, UNBROKEN RESPONSE TO A
PROVOCATION IN WHICH NO FORETHOUGHT, NO REFLECTION WHATEVER, ENTERED. 
A DEED MAY BE GRUESOME AND NOT BE PREMEDITATED.  CONCEDEDLY THERE WAS
NO MOTIVE FOR THE KILLING PRIOR TO THE INCITING "YOU BLACK NIGGER." 
THE TONE IN WHICH THESE WORDS WERE UTTERED EVIDENTLY PULLED THE TRIGGER
OF FISHER'S EMOTIONS, AND UNDER ADEQUATE INSTRUCTIONS THE JURY MIGHT
HAVE FOUND THAT WHAT THESE WORDS CONVEYED TO FISHER'S EARS UNHINGED HIS
SELF-CONTROL.  WHILE THERE MAY WELL HAVE BEEN MURDER, DELIBERATE
PREMEDITATION, FOR WHICH ALONE CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THE DEATH
SENTENCE, MAY HAVE BEEN WANTING.  FN8  "WHILE IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE
JURY WOULD RETURN A VERDICT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE UNLESS
SATISFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME HE COMMITTED THE OFFENSE, WAS
CAPABLE OF ENTERTAINING THE MALICIOUS INTENT, WE CANNOT, IN A CASE OF
THIS KIND, SPECULATE AS TO WHAT CONSIDERATIONS ENTERED INTO THEIR
VERDICT."  SABENS V. UNITED STATES, 40 APP. D.C. 440, 444.  THE SAME
GUIDING CONSIDERATION FOR REVIEWING A DEATH SENTENCE WAS PITHILY
EXPRESSED THE OTHER DAY BY THE PRESENT LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND:
"IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY WHAT VERDICT WOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED HAD THE
CASE BEEN LEFT TO THE JURY WITH A PROPER DIRECTION."  KWAKU MENSAH V.
REX, (1946) A.C. 83, 94.  IN THAT CASE, THE PRIVY COUNCIL FOUND
INADEQUACY IN THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIAL COURT ON CONSIDERATIONS
THAT WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE COURTS BELOW NOR RAISED BY THE
APPELLANT.  NEITHER SHOULD WE PERMIT A DEATH SENTENCE TO STAND THAT
RAISES SUCH DOUBTS AS DOES FISHER'S CONVICTION ON THIS RECORD. 

AS I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE FACTS WARRANT
A FINDING OF PREMEDITATION.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR
FINDING FIRST-DEGREE MURDER PREMEDITATION WAS SO TENUOUS THAT THE JURY
OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN LEFT TO FOUNDER AND FLOUNDER WITHIN THE DARK
EMPTINESS OF LEGAL JARGON.  FN9  THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY ON THE
VITAL ISSUE OF PREMEDITATION CONSISTED OF THREADBARE GENERALITIES, A
JUMBLE OF EMPTY ABSTRACTIONS EQUALLY SUITABLE FOR ANY OTHER CHARGE OF
MURDER WITH NONE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE DISTINCTIVE ABOUT THIS CASE,
MINGLED WITH TALK ABOUT MENTAL DISEASE.  WHAT THE JURY GOT WAS DEVOID
OF CLEAR GUIDANCE AND ILLUMINATION.  INADEQUATE DIRECTION TO A JURY MAY
BE AS FATAL AS MISDIRECTION.  THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THIS COURT IN A
CIVIL CASE ARE ESPECIALLY PERTINENT TO THE DUTY OF A FEDERAL JUDGE IN A
TRIAL FOR MURDER:  "...  IT IS THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF THE COURT TO AID
(THE JURY)  ...  BY DIRECTING THEIR ATTENTION TO THE MOST IMPORTANT
FACTS,  ...  BY RESOLVING THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER COMPLICATED, INTO ITS
SIMPLEST ELEMENTS, AND BY SHOWING THE BEARING OF ITS SEVERAL PARTS AND
THEIR COMBINED EFFECT, STRIPPED OF EVERY CONSIDERATION WHICH MIGHT
OTHERWISE MISLEAD OR CONFUSE THEM....  CONSTITUTED AS JURIES ARE, IT IS
FREQUENTLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DISCHARGE THEIR FUNCTION WISELY AND
WELL WITHOUT THIS AID.  IN SUCH CASES, CHANCE, MISTAKE, OR CAPRICE, MAY
DETERMINE THE RESULT."  NUDD V. BURROWS, 91 U.S. 426, 439. 

ONLY THE OTHER DAY WE EXERCISED OUR SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY OVER
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS TO ASSURE AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF
UNFAIRNESS IN THE OPERATION OF THE JURY SYSTEM IN ORDINARY CIVIL
SUITS.  THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 328 U.S. 217.  BY HOW MUCH MORE
SHOULD WE GUARD AGAINST A FATAL MISHAP WHERE LIFE IS AT STAKE.  THIS
COURT IN REVIEWING A CONVICTION FOR MURDER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OUGHT
NOT TO BE BEHIND THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN REJECTING
STRANGLING TECHNICALITIES.  SEE MANCINI V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
PROSECUTIONS, (1942) A.C. 1, 7-8; FN10  KWAKU MENSAH V. REX, SUPRA.  IT
SHOULD BE GUIDED, AS WAS THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN THE CASE OF A LOWLY WEST
AFRICAN VILLAGER, BY BROAD CONSIDERATIONS OF JUSTICE SO AS TO AVOID THE
MISTAKE OF AFFIRMING A DEATH SENTENCE WHICH THE JURY MAY WELL NOT HAVE
RETURNED HAD THEY HAD A DIRECTION THAT WOULD HAVE INFORMED THEIR
UNDERSTANDING AND GUIDED THEIR JUDGMENT.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, FAILURE TO CHARGE THE JURY ADEQUATELY WAS TO DENY FISHER THE
SUBSTANCE OF A FAIR TRIAL. 

MEN OUGHT NOT TO GO TO THEIR DOOM BECAUSE THIS COURT THINKS THAT
CONFLICTING LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OF AN ABSTRACT NATURE SEEM TO HAVE BEEN
"NICELY BALANCED" BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THE DEFERENCE WHICH THIS COURT PAYS TO THAT COURT'S
ADJUDICATIONS IN ORDINARY CASES INVOLVING ISSUES ESSENTIALLY OF MINOR
OR MERELY LOCAL IMPORTANCE SEEMS OUT OF PLACE WHEN THE ACTION OF THIS
COURT, NO MATTER HOW PHRASED, SUSTAINS A DEATH SENTENCE AT THE SEAT OF
OUR GOVERNMENT AS A RESULT OF A TRIAL OVER WHICH THIS COURT, BY
DIRECTION OF CONGRESS, HAS THE FINAL REVIEWING POWER.  THIS COURT
CANNOT ESCAPE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEATH SENTENCE IF IT AFFIRMS THE
JUDGMENT.  ONE CAN ONLY HOPE THAT EVEN MORE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES WILL
NOT FOLLOW, WHICH WOULD BE THE CASE IF THE COURT'S DECISION WERE TO
GIVE ENCOURAGEMENT TO DOCTRINES OF CRIMINAL LAW THAT HAVE ONLY
OBSCURANTIST PRECEDENTS OF THE PAST TO RECOMMEND THEM.  MOREOVER, A
FAILURE ADEQUATELY TO GUIDE A JURY ON A BASIC ISSUE, SUCH AS THAT OF
PREMEDITATION ON A CHARGE OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, DOES NOT
REFLECT A "LONG ESTABLISHED" PRACTICE, AND ONE HOPES WILL NOT BECOME
"DEEPLY ROOTED," IN THE DISTRICT.  FN11  QUITE THE CONTRARY STANDARD IS
INDICATED BY AN EARLIER OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  SEE MCAFFEE
V. UNITED STATES, 70 APP. D.C. 142, 105 F.2D 21, 26. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND A NEW TRIAL GRANTED. 

FN1  M'NAGHTEN'S CASE, 10 CL. & FIN.  200(1843).  MORE THAN SIXTY
YEARS AGO SIR JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN BROUGHT WEIGHTY CRITICISM TO BEAR
ON THE M'NAGHTEN CASE.  2 STEPHEN A HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF
ENGLAND (1883) 153 ET SEQ.; FOR MORE RECENT CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE,
SEE GLUECK, MENTAL DISORDER AND THE CRIMINAL LAW (1925) C. 6; CARDOZO,
WHAT MEDICINE CAN DO FOR LAW (1930) 28-35. 

FN2  SEE, E.G., WHITE, INSANITY AND THE CRIMINAL LAW (1923);
ABRAHAMSEN, CRIME AND THE HUMAN MIND (1944); LINDNER, REBEL WITHOUT A
CAUSE (1944); RADZINOWICZ & TURNER, EDS., MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND CRIME
(1944); REIK, THE UNKNOWN MURDERER (1945); SEE ALSO, HALL, MENTAL
DISEASE AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY (1945) 45 COL. L. REV. 677, 680-84,
AND AUTHORITIES CITED THEREIN. 

FN3  SEE, E.G., ANNOTATED LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS, C. 278, SEC. 33E;
COMMONWEALTH V. GRICUS, 317 MASS. 403, 406, 58 N.E.2D 241;
MASSACHUSETTS JUDICIAL COUNCIL, THIRD REPORT (1927) 40-43, 131-35;
MASSACHUSETTS JUDICIAL COUNCIL, THIRTEENTH REPORT (1937) 28-30; NEW
YORK CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 6, SEC. 7; PEOPLE V. CRUM, 272 N.Y. 348, 6
N.E.2D 51; CARDOZO, JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (2D ED., 1909)
SEC. 51; AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (OFFICIAL
DRAFT, 1930) SEC. 457(2); ORFIELD, CRIMINAL APPEALS IN AMERICA (1939)
83 ET SEQ. 

THE REASONS FOR SUCH REVIEW ARE SUCCINCTLY STATED IN THE THIRTEENTH
REPORT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS JUDICIAL COUNCIL, SUPRA, AT 29:  "IN
SUBSTANCE THIS (DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO CONSIDER THE FACTS BY THE
APPELLATE COURT) MEANS THAT THERE IS NO REVIEW OF THE DISCRETION OF THE
SINGLE JUDGE.  THUS A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH, ONCE TREATED (IN
MASSACHUSETTS) WITH THE UTMOST CARE, EVEN BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE LAW, HAS NOW BEEN COMMITTED TO A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR
COURT, WITH NO REVIEW WHATEVER ON ITS MOST VITAL ASPECTS.  SUCH A
SITUATION PLACES AN UNFAIR RESPONSIBILITY UPON THE TRIAL JUDGE AND UPON
THE GOVERNOR, IS A POTENTIAL THREAT TO JUSTICE AND IS NOT REASSURING TO
THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION
SHOULD BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE A MAN IS CONDEMNED TO DEATH." 

FN4  AS TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF LITIGATION THAT COME HERE, THIS COURT
HAS, OF COURSE, ALWAYS HAD POWER TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE.  E.G.,
"(SINCE) BY AN APPEAL, EXCEPT WHEN SPECIALLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE, THE
ENTIRE CASE ON BOTH LAW AND FACTS IS TO BE RECONSIDERED, THERE SEEMS TO
BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT, SO FAR AS IT IS ESSENTIAL TO A PROPER DECISION OF
THIS CASE, THE APPEAL REQUIRES US TO EXAMINE INTO THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT
TO SUSTAIN OR DEFEAT THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER TO HIS DISCHARGE."  IN
RE NEAGLE, 135 U.S. 1, 42. 

FN5  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE (1940) SEC. 22-2401:  "WHOEVER, BEING
OF SOUND MEMORY AND DISCRETION, KILLS ANOTHER PURPOSELY, EITHER OF
DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED MALICE OR BY MEANS OF POISON, OR IN
PERPETRATING OR ATTEMPTING TO PERPETRATE ANY OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY
IMPRISONMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY, OR WITHOUT PURPOSE SO TO DO KILLS
ANOTHER IN PERPETRATING OR IN ATTEMPTING TO PERPETRATE ANY ARSON, AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 22-401 OR 22-402 OF THIS CODE, RAPE, MAYHEM,
ROBBERY, OR KIDNAPPING, OR IN PERPETRATING OR IN ATTEMPTING TO
PERPETRATE ANY HOUSEBREAKING WHILE ARMED WITH OR USING A DANGEROUS
WEAPON, IS GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE." 

SEC. 22-2402:  "WHOEVER MALICIOUSLY PLACES AN OBSTRUCTION UPON A
RAILROAD OR STREET RAILROAD, OR DISPLACES OR INJURES ANYTHING
APPERTAINING THERETO, OR DOES ANY OTHER ACT WITH INTENT TO ENDANGER THE
PASSAGE OF ANY LOCOMOTIVE OR CAR, AND THEREBY OCCASIONS THE DEATH OF
ANOTHER, IS GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE." 

SEC. 22-2403:  "WHOEVER WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
IN SECTIONS 22-2401, 22-2402, KILLS ANOTHER, IS GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE
SECOND DEGREE." 

FN6  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THESE SECTIONS IS MEAGRE.  THE
SEPARATION OF THE CRIME OF MURDER INTO TWO DEGREES SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN
FIRST PROPOSED FOR THE DISTRICT IN THE CODE OF 1857.  C. 130, SECS. 1
2.  THAT CODE WAS NEVER ENACTED BY CONGRESS.  THE PRESENT PROVISIONS
ARE THE RESULT OF A CODE PREPARED BY JUDGE COX AND ENACTED IN 1901.  31
STAT. 1189, 1321.  IN AN HISTORICAL NOTE THAT PRECEDES THE CODE, JUDGE
COX STATED THAT IT WAS TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE LAWS OF MARYLAND. 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE (1940 ED.)  XIV.  IN A LETTER TO THE
WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE, HOWEVER, JUDGE COX STATED THAT THE CODE WAS
BASED ON THE LAWS OF MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, NEW YORK, AND OHIO.  REPORT OF
THE WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE, NOVEMBER 14, 1898, PP. 23-24.  AND THE
WASHINGTON LAW REPORTER, VOL. 26, P. 801, STATES THAT THE "PORTIONS OF
THE WORK RELATING TO CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS FOLLOW THE STATUTES OF NEW
YORK IN CREATING DEGREES IN THE CRIME OF MURDER."  A COMPARISON OF THE
CODE WITH THE NEW YORK PENAL CODE OF 1898, SECS. 183, 183A, 184, BEARS
OUT THIS STATEMENT, THOUGH THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE NEW YORK STATUTE
WAS NOT ADOPTED. 

THE REPORTS OF EACH OF THE FOUR STATES, HOWEVER, UP TO THE TIME OF
THE ENACTMENT OF THE DISTRICT CODE, INDICATES UNANIMITY IN ONE
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT.  FOR A HOMICIDE TO CONSTITUTE MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, THE JURY MUST FIND IN ADDITION TO THE ELEMENT OF INTENT TO
KILL, PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION.  E.G., SPENCER V. STATE, 69 MD.
28(1888); LEIGHTON V. PEOPLE, 88 N.Y. 117(1882); PEOPLE V. MAJONE, 91
N.Y. 211(1883); PEOPLE V. CONROY, 97 N.Y. 62(1884); PEOPLE V. HAWKINS,
109 N.Y. 408, 17 N.E. 371(1888); PEOPLE V. BARBERI, 149 N.Y. 256, 43
N.E. 635(1896); OHIO V. NEIL, TAPPAN (OHIO) 120(1817); STATE V. TURNER,
WRIGHT (OHIO) 20(1831); STATE V. GARDINER, WRIGHT (OHIO) 392(1833);
STATE V. THOMPSON, WRIGHT (OHIO) 617(1834); SHOEMAKER V. STATE, 12 OHIO
43(1843); OHIO V. BROOKS, 1 OHIO DEC. 407(1851); FOUTS V. STATE, 8 OHIO
ST. 98(1857); STATE V. COOK, 2 OHIO DEC. 36(1859); BURNS V. STATE, 3
OHIO DEC. 122(1859); STATE V. MAXWELL, DAYTON (OHIO) 362(1867); ZELTNER
V. STATE, 32 OHIO C.C. 102(1899); COMMONWEALTH V. JONES, 1 LEIGH (VA.) 
598(1829); DEJARNETTE V. COMMONWEALTH, 75 VA. 867(1881); HITE V.
COMMONWEALTH, 96 VA. 489, 31 S.E. 895(1898); JACKSON V. COMMONWEALTH,
97 VA. 762, 33 S.E. 547(1899). 

FN7  PENNSYLVANIA ENACTED THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION IN 1794. 
PENNSYLVANIA LAWS, 1794, C. 257, SECS. 1-2.  THIS EARLY STATUTE HAS
SERVED AS THE PATTERN UPON WHICH MOST LEGISLATIVE ACTION WITH A SIMILAR
PURPOSE HAS BEEN BASED.  SEE MICHAEL AND WECHSLER, A RATIONALE OF THE
LAW OF HOMICIDE (1937) 37 COL. L. REV. 701, 703-704; MICHAEL AND
WECHSLER, CRIMINAL LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION (1940) 1270-73.  THE
DISTRICT CODE DOES NOT DEPART VERY FAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ORIGINAL PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE; NOR DID THE STATUTE OF THE TERRITORY OF
UTAH CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT IN HOPT V. PEOPLE, 104 U.S. 631, 632. 

FN8  FEDERAL JUDGES ARE NOT REFEREES IN SPORTING CONTESTS.  THEIR
DUTY TO KEEP A TRIAL IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE IS ESPECIALLY COMPELLING
WHERE THE PENALTY FOR CONVICTION IS DEATH.  THE KIND OF GUIDANCE THAT A
TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD GIVE A JURY IN A CASE LIKE THIS IS WELL ILLUSTRATED
BY JUDGE ANDREWS IN PEOPLE V. CARUSO, 246 N.Y. 437, 159 N.E. 390. 
E.G., "BUT WAS THERE PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION?...  TIME TO
DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATE THERE CLEARLY WAS.  CARUSO MIGHT HAVE DONE
SO.  IN FACT, HOWEVER, DID HE? 

"UNTIL THE SATURDAY EVENING CARUSO HAD NEVER MET DR. PENDOLA. 
NOTHING OCCURRED AT THAT INTERVIEW THAT FURNISHED ANY MOTIVE FOR
MURDER.  THEN CAME NERVOUS STRAIN AND ANXIETY CULMINATING IN GRIEF,
DEEP AND GENUINE, FOR THE DEATH OF HIS CHILD.  BROODING OVER HIS LOSS,
BLAMING THE DOCTOR FOR HIS DELAY IN MAKING THE PROMISED VISIT,
BELIEVING HE HAD KILLED THE BOY BY HIS TREATMENT, THE DOCTOR FINALLY
ENTERS.  AND WHEN TOLD OF THE CHILD'S DEATH HE APPEARS TO LAUGH.  THIS
ADDED TO HIS SUPPOSED INJURIES WOULD FULLY ACCOUNT FOR THE GUST OF
ANGER THAT CARUSO SAYS HE FELT.  THEN CAME THE STRUGGLE AND THE
HOMICIDE. 

"AS HAS BEEN SAID, CARUSO HAD THE TIME TO DELIBERATE, TO MAKE A
CHOICE WHETHER TO KILL OR NOT TO KILL - TO OVERCOME HESITATION AND
DOUBT - TO FORM A DEFINITE PURPOSE.  AND WHERE SUFFICIENT TIME EXISTS
VERY OFTEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE HOMICIDE JUSTIFY - INDEED
REQUIRE - THE NECESSARY INFERENCE.  NOT HERE, HOWEVER.  NO PLAN TO KILL
IS SHOWN, NO INTENTION OF VIOLENCE WHEN THE DOCTOR ARRIVED - ONLY GRIEF
AND RESENTMENT.  NOT UNTIL THE SUPPOSED LAUGH DID THE ASSAULT BEGIN....
THE ATTACK SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE INSTANT EFFECT OF IMPULSE.  NOR DOES
THE FACT THAT THE STABBING FOLLOWED THE BEGINNING OF THE ATTACK BY SOME
TIME AFFECT THIS CONCLUSION.  IT WAS ALL ONE TRANSACTION UNDER THE
PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE.  IF THE ASSAULT WAS NOT DELIBERATED OR
PREMEDITATED THEN NEITHER WAS THE INFLICTION OF THE FATAL WOUND."  246
N.Y. AT 445-46. 

FN9  "...  IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO SAY OF ANY PERIOD, IN ALL ENGLISH
HISTORY, THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE OF TRIAL BY JURY AS EXISTING
THERE IN A FORM WHICH WOULD WITHHOLD FROM THE JURY THE ASSISTANCE OF
THE COURT IN DEALING WITH THE FACTS.  TRIAL BY JURY, IN SUCH A FORM AS
THAT, IS NOT TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY HISTORIC SENSE OF THE WORDS.  IT IS
NOT THE VENERATED INSTITUTION WHICH ATTRACTED THE PRAISE OF BLACKSTONE
AND OF OUR ANCESTORS, BUT SOMETHING NOVEL, MODERN, AND MUCH LESS TO BE
RESPECTED. 

"IN THE FEDERAL COURTS THE COMMON-LAW DOCTRINE ON THIS SUBJECT HAS
ALWAYS HELD."  THAYER, PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON EVIDENCE (1898) 188, N.
2. 

FN10  "ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT'S CASE AT THE TRIAL WAS IN SUBSTANCE
THAT HE HAD BEEN COMPELLED TO USE HIS WEAPON IN NECESSARY SELF-DEFENCE
A DEFENCE WHICH, IF IT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE JURY, WOULD HAVE
RESULTED IN HIS COMPLETE ACQUITTAL - IT WAS UNDOUBTEDLY THE DUTY OF THE
JUDGE, IN SUMMING UP TO THE JURY, TO DEAL ADEQUATELY WITH ANY OTHER
VIEW OF THE FACTS WHICH MIGHT REASONABLY ARISE OUT OF THE EVIDENCE
GIVEN, AND WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE CRIME FROM MURDER TO MANSLAUGHTER. 
THE FACT THAT A DEFENDING COUNSEL DOES NOT STRESS AN ALTERNATIVE CASE
BEFORE THE JURY (WHICH HE MAY WELL FEEL IT DIFFICULT TO DO WITHOUT
PREJUDICING THE MAIN DEFENCE) DOES NOT RELIEVE THE JUDGE FROM THE DUTY
OF DIRECTING THE JURY TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE, IF THERE IS MATERIAL
BEFORE THE JURY WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A DIRECTION THAT THEY SHOULD
CONSIDER IT.  THUS, IN REX V. HOPPER ((1915) 2 K.B. 431), AT A TRIAL
FOR MURDER THE PRISONER'S COUNSEL RELIED SUBSTANTIALLY ON THE DEFENCE
THAT THE KILLING WAS ACCIDENTAL, BUT LORD READING C.J., IN DELIVERING
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, SAID (ID. AT 435):  'WE
DO NOT ASSENT TO THE SUGGESTION THAT AS THE DEFENCE THROUGHOUT THE
TRIAL WAS ACCIDENT, THE JUDGE WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT PUTTING THE QUESTION
AS TO MANSLAUGHTER.  WHATEVER THE LINE OF DEFENCE ADOPTED BY COUNSEL AT
THE TRIAL OF A PRISONER, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IT IS FOR THE JUDGE TO
PUT SUCH QUESTIONS AS APPEAR TO HIM PROPERLY TO ARISE UPON THE
EVIDENCE, EVEN ALTHOUGH COUNSEL MAY NOT HAVE RAISED SOME QUESTION
HIMSELF.  IN THIS CASE IT MAY BE THAT THE DIFFICULTY OF PRESENTING THE
ALTERNATIVE DEFENCES OF ACCIDENT AND MANSLAUGHTER MAY HAVE ACTUATED
COUNSEL IN SAYING VERY LITTLE ABOUT MANSLAUGHTER, BUT IF WE COME TO THE
CONCLUSION, AS WE DO, THAT THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE - WE SAY NO MORE
THAN THAT - UPON WHICH A QUESTION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN LEFT TO THE JURY
AS TO THE CRIME BEING MANSLAUGHTER ONLY, WE THINK THAT THIS VERDICT OF
MURDER CANNOT STAND.'" 

FN11  THE ONLY AUTHORITY ADDUCED FOR WHAT THE COURT TERMS LONG
ESTABLISHED PRACTICE IS UNITED STATES V. LEE, 4 MACKEY (D.C.) 
489(1886).  BUT THAT CASE WAS DECIDED WHILE COMMON LAW MURDER WAS THE
LAW OF THE DISTRICT.  THE ENACTMENT OF THE CODE RENDERED THAT CASE'S
DOCTRINE INVALID.  COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT, A DISTINGUISHED LAWYER,
MR. A.S. WORTHINGTON, POINTED TO THE DISTINCTION IN HIS ARGUMENT:  "IN
JURISDICTIONS WHERE MURDER IS DIVIDED INTO TWO DEGREES - MURDER IN THE
FIRST DEGREE REQUIRING DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION; IN OTHER WORDS,
ACTUAL MALICE - IT HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY HELD THAT EVIDENCE OF MENTAL
EXCITEMENT RESULTING FROM DRUNKENNESS AND, PERHAPS, ALSO OF OTHER
ABNORMAL CONDITIONS OF THE MIND NOT AMOUNTING TO INSANITY, MAY REDUCE
AN UNPROVOKED HOMICIDE TO MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE; BUT IT HAS
ALWAYS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH EVIDENCE CANNOT OF ITSELF REDUCE THE CRIME
TO MANSLAUGHTER."  ID. AT 493.  THE CHANGE WROUGHT BY CONGRESS IS
REFLECTED IN SABENS V. UNITED STATES, 40 APP. D.C. 440; BISHOP V.
UNITED STATES, 71 APP. D.C. 132, 107 F.2D 297; BULLOCK V. UNITED
STATES, 74 APP. D.C. 220, 122 F.2D 213, 214. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

AS THIS CASE REACHES US, WE ARE NOT MET WITH ANY QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER PETITIONER KILLED AN INDIVIDUAL.  THAT FACT IS ADMITTED.  OUR
SOLE CONCERN HERE IS WITH THE CHARGE GIVEN TO THE JURY CONCERNING THE
ELEMENTS ENTERING INTO THE VARIOUS DEGREES OF MURDER FOR WHICH
PETITIONER COULD BE CONVICTED. 

THE RULE THAT THIS COURT ORDINARILY WILL REFRAIN FROM REVIEWING
DECISIONS DEALING WITH MATTERS OF LOCAL LAW IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IS A SOUND AND NECESSARY ONE.  BUT IT IS NOT TO BE APPLIED WITHOUT
DISCRETION.  LIKE MOST RULES, THIS ONE HAS ITS EXCEPTIONS.  AND THOSE
EXCEPTIONS ARE GROUNDED PRIMARILY IN CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY
AND OF SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

IN THE PAST, THIS COURT HAS SEEN FIT TO DETERMINE VARIOUS COMMON LAW
ISSUES AFFECTING ONLY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  ALDRIDGE V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 308; REED V. ALLEN, 286 U.S. 191; BEST V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 291 U.S. 411.  IT HAS ALSO, ON OCCASION, SETTLED ISSUES
INVOLVING THE INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CODE.  WASHINGTON FIDELITY INS. CO. V. BURTON, 287 U.S. 97; LOUGHRAN V.
LOUGHRAN, 292 U.S. 216; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. MURPHY, 314 U.S. 441. 
IN MANY RESPECTS, HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM IN THIS INSTANCE FAR TRANSCENDS
THE ONES PRESENTED IN THOSE CASES. 

HERE WE HAVE MORE THAN AN EXERCISE IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION OR IN
LOCAL LAW.  IT IS A CAPITAL CASE INVOLVING NOT A QUESTION OF INNOCENCE
OR GUILT BUT RATHER A CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPER STANDARDS TO BE USED
IN JUDGING THE DEGREE OF GUILT.  WHAT THE COURT SAYS AND DECIDES HERE
TODAY WILL AFFECT THE LIFE OF THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE LIVES OF
COUNTLESS FUTURE CRIMINALS IN THE DISTRICT AND IN THE VARIOUS STATES. 
HOWEVER GUARDED MAY BE THE COURT'S STATEMENTS, ITS TREATMENT OF
PETITIONER'S CLAIMS WILL HAVE INEVITABLE REPERCUSSIONS IN STATE AND
FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  MOREOVER, THESE CLAIMS, WHATEVER THEIR
MERIT, AFFORD A RARE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE SOME OF THE FRONTIERS OF
CRIMINAL LAW, FRONTIERS THAT ARE SLOWLY BUT UNDENIABLY EXPANDING UNDER
THE IMPACT OF OUR INCREASING KNOWLEDGE OF PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY. 
THESE FACTORS ARE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A FULL AND CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THIS CASE. 

THE ISSUE HERE IS NARROW YET REPLETE WITH SIGNIFICANCE.  STATED
BRIEFLY, IT IS THIS:  MAY MENTAL DEFICIENCY NOT AMOUNTING TO COMPLETE
INSANITY PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY IN DETERMINING WHETHER A
HOMICIDE HAS BEEN COMMITTED WITH THE DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION
NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE FIRST DEGREE MURDER?  THE CORRECT ANSWER, IN MY
OPINION, WAS GIVEN BY THIS COURT MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS AGO IN HOPT V.
PEOPLE, 104 U.S. 631, 634, WHEN IT SAID, "BUT WHEN A STATUTE
ESTABLISHING DIFFERENT DEGREES OF MURDER REQUIRES DELIBERATE
PREMEDITATION IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS IN SUCH A CONDITION OF MIND, BY REASON
OF DRUNKENNESS OR OTHERWISE, AS TO BE CAPABLE OF DELIBERATE
PREMEDITATION, NECESSARILY BECOMES A MATERIAL SUBJECT OF CONSIDERATION
BY THE JURY." 

THE EXISTENCE OF GENERAL MENTAL IMPAIRMENT, OR PARTIAL INSANITY, IS A
SCIENTIFICALLY ESTABLISHED FACT.  THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE OR CLEAR-CUT
DICHOTOMOUS DIVISION OF THE INHABITANTS OF THIS WORLD INTO THE SANE AND
THE INSANE.  "BETWEEN THE TWO EXTREMES OF 'SANITY' AND 'INSANITY' LIES
EVERY SHADE OF DISORDERED OR DEFICIENT MENTAL CONDITION, GRADING
IMPERCEPTIBLY ONE INTO ANOTHER."  WEIHOFEN, "PARTIAL INSANITY AND
CRIMINAL INTENT," 24 ILL. L. REV. 505, 508. 

MORE PRECISELY, THERE ARE PERSONS WHO, WHILE NOT TOTALLY INSANE,
POSSESS SUCH LOW MENTAL POWERS AS TO BE INCAPABLE OF THE DELIBERATION
AND PREMEDITATION REQUISITE TO STATUTORY FIRST DEGREE MURDER.  YET
UNDER THE RULE ADOPTED BY THE COURT BELOW, THE JURY MUST EITHER CONDEMN
SUCH PERSONS TO DEATH ON THE FALSE PREMISE THAT THEY POSSESS THE MENTAL
REQUIREMENTS OF A FIRST DEGREE MURDERER OR FREE THEM COMPLETELY FROM
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND TURN THEM LOOSE AMONG SOCIETY.  THE JURY IS
FORBIDDEN TO FIND THEM GUILTY OF A LESSER DEGREE OF MURDER BY REASON OF
THEIR GENERALLY WEAKENED OR DISORDERED INTELLECT. 

COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC RECOIL AT SUCH A RULE.  AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO
MARSHAL SUPPORT FOR IT FROM CIVILIZED CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE OR FROM THE
NECESSITY OF PROTECTING SOCIETY.  WHEN A MAN'S LIFE OR LIBERTY IS AT
STAKE HE SHOULD BE ADJUDGED ACCORDING TO HIS PERSONAL CULPABILITY AS
WELL AS BY THE OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS OF HIS CRIME.  THAT ELEMENTARY
PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE IS APPLIED TO THOSE WHO KILL WHILE INTOXICATED OR
IN THE HEAT OF PASSION; IF SUCH A CONDITION DESTROYS THEIR DELIBERATION
AND PREMEDITATION THE JURY MAY PROPERLY CONSIDER THAT FACT AND CONVICT
THEM OF A LESSER DEGREE OF MURDER.  NO DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE
UTILIZED IN THE CASE OF THOSE WHOSE MENTAL DEFICIENCY IS OF A MORE
PERMANENT CHARACTER.  SOCIETY, MOREOVER, IS ILL-PROTECTED BY A RULE
WHICH ENCOURAGES A JURY TO ACQUIT A PARTIALLY INSANE PERSON WITH AN
APPEALING CASE SIMPLY BECAUSE HIS MENTAL DEFECTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
IN REDUCING THE DEGREE OF GUILT. 

IT IS UNDENIABLY DIFFICULT, AS THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT, TO
DETERMINE WITH ANY HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTY WHETHER A DEFENDANT HAS A
GENERAL MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND WHETHER SUCH A DISORDER RENDERS HIM
INCAPABLE OF THE REQUISITE DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION.  THE
DIFFICULTY SPRINGS PRIMARILY FROM THE PRESENT LIMITED SCOPE OF MEDICAL
AND PSYCHIATRIC KNOWLEDGE OF MENTAL DISEASE.  BUT THIS KNOWLEDGE IS
EVER INCREASING.  AND JURIES CONSTANTLY MUST JUDGE THE BAFFLING
PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS OF DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION, CONGRESS
HAVING ENTRUSTED THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THOSE FACTORS TO THE GOOD SENSE
OF JURIES.  IT SEEMS SENSELESS TO SHUT THE DOOR ON THE ASSISTANCE WHICH
MEDICINE AND PSYCHIATRY CAN GIVE IN REGARD TO THESE MATTERS, HOWEVER
INEXACT AND INCOMPLETE THAT ASSISTANCE MAY PRESENTLY BE.  PRECLUDING
THE CONSIDERATION OF MENTAL DEFICIENCY ONLY MAKES THE JURY'S DECISION
ON DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION LESS INTELLIGENT AND TRUSTWORTHY. 

IT IS ALSO SAID THAT THE PROPOSED RULE WOULD REQUIRE A REVOLUTIONARY
CHANGE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THAT THIS
COURT SHOULD THEREFORE LEAVE THE MATTER TO LOCAL COURTS OR TO
CONGRESS.  I CANNOT AGREE.  CONGRESS HAS ALREADY SPOKEN BY MAKING THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND DEGREE MURDER TURN UPON THE
EXISTENCE OF DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
COURTS BELOW TO FASHION RULES TO PERMIT THE JURY TO UTILIZE ALL
RELEVANT EVIDENCE DIRECTED TOWARD THOSE FACTORS.  BUT WHEN THE COURTS
BELOW ADOPT RULES WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR THE JURY'S FUNCTION IN
THIS RESPECT, THIS COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS RECOGNIZED PREROGATIVE. 

IF, AS A RESULT, NEW RULES OF EVIDENCE OR NEW MODES OF TREATMENT FOR
THE PARTLY DEFECTIVE MUST BE DEVISED, OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL
JURISPRUDENCE WILL BE THAT MUCH FURTHER ENLIGHTENED.  SUCH PROGRESS
CLEARLY OUTWEIGHS ANY TEMPORARY DISLOCATION OF SETTLED MODES OF
PROCEDURE.  ONLY BY INTEGRATING SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS WITH OUR IDEALS
OF JUSTICE CAN LAW REMAIN A PART OF THE LIVING FIBER OF OUR
CIVILIZATION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS
DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

A REVOLTING CRIME, SUCH AS WAS COMMITTED HERE, REQUIRES UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSPECTION FOR ITS TRIAL, SO THAT DISPASSIONATE JUDGMENT MAY HAVE
SWAY OVER THE INEVITABLE TENDENCY OF THE FACTS TO INTRODUCE PREJUDICE
OR PASSION INTO THE JUDGMENT.  THIS MEANS THAT THE ACCUSED MUST NOT BE
DENIED ANY SUBSTANTIAL SAFEGUARD FOR CONTROL OF THOSE INFLUENCES.  A
TRIAL FOR A CAPITAL OFFENSE WHICH FALLS SHORT OF THAT STANDARD,
ALTHOUGH UNWITTINGLY, DOES NOT GIVE HIM HIS DUE. 

CONGRESS INTRODUCED THE REQUIREMENTS OF PREMEDITATION AND
DELIBERATION INTO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE, TITLE 22, SECS. 2401,
2404, IN 1901.  31 STAT. 1321, WITH WHICH COMPARE REV. STAT. SEC.
5339.  I DO NOT THINK IT INTENDED BY DOING SO TO CHANGE THE PREEXISTING
LAW ONLY IN CASES OF INTOXICATION.  HENCE, I CANNOT ASSENT TO THE VIEW
THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE JURY WERE ADEQUATE ON THIS PHASE OF
THE CASE.  I THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE REQUESTED
INSTRUCTION WHICH WAS REFUSED OR ONE OF SIMILAR IMPORT. 

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE TRIAL COURT DECLINED TO GIVE IT BELIEVING
THAT IT WAS NOT REQUIRED, PERHAPS ALSO THAT IT WOULD BE ERRONEOUS.  FOR
THE FAIR-MINDED AND ABLE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO ARGUED THE
CASE HERE CONCEDED, WITH CHARACTERISTIC CANDOR, THAT THE COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT HAVE CONSISTENTLY LIMITED THE EFFECT OF THE CONTROLLING CODE
PROVISION, BY WAY OF CHANGING THE PREEXISTING LAW, TO CASES OF
INTOXICATION.  BUT, FOR THE REASONS IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY, I DO NOT THINK CONGRESS INTENDED THE CHANGE TO BE RESTRICTED SO
NARROWLY.  ACCORDINGLY I JOIN IN THAT OPINION. 

APART FROM THIS DEFECT, THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN WERE CORRECT AS FAR AS
THEY WENT.  THEY WERE HOWEVER IN WHOLLY ABSTRACT FORM, WHICH IN SOME
CASES MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT.  BUT THE ISSUES OF PREMEDITATION AND
DELIBERATION WERE CRUCIAL HERE ON THE QUESTION OF LIFE OR DEATH.  A
MORE ADEQUATE CHARGE, I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WOULD HAVE
POINTED UP THE EVIDENCE, AT LEAST IN BROAD OUTLINE, IN RELATION TO
THOSE ISSUES. 

BECAUSE I THINK THE CHARGE WAS DEFICIENT IN NOT INCLUDING THE
REQUESTED INSTRUCTION OR ONE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR, THUS IN MY OPINION
FAILING TO MEET THE STANDARD SET BY CONGRESS IN THE CODE, AND BECAUSE
THE EFFECT OF THIS DEFICIENCY WAS MAGNIFIED BY THE FAILURE TO POINT UP
THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN IN SOME MORE DEFINITE RELATION TO THE EVIDENCE,
I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :









R.F.C. V. DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO., 328 U.S. 495 


ARGUED MARCH 5, 6, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 150 F.2D 28,
REVERSED. 


DURING LENGTHY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF A RAILROAD UNDER
SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, IT REALIZED ABNORMALLY LARGE EARNINGS
FROM WAR BUSINESS.  MOST OF THESE EARNINGS WERE UTILIZED TO MAKE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND A LARGE AMOUNT WAS HELD AS FREE CASH. 
MEANWHILE, THE CLAIMS OF SECURED CREDITORS WERE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY
BY THE ACCUMULATION OF INTEREST AND THE POSITION OF HOLDERS OF GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS (THE MOST JUNIOR LIEN HOLDERS) DETERIORATED 90%. THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION APPROVED A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WHICH
ELIMINATED THE CLAIMS OF ALL EXISTING STOCKHOLDERS AND UNSECURED
CREDITORS, GAVE THE HOLDERS OF GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS NEW COMMON STOCK
IN FACE AMOUNT OF 10% OF THEIR CLAIMS, AND GAVE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS NEW
SECURITIES (INCLUDING ABOUT 88% OF THE NEW COMMON STOCK) HAVING AN
AGGREGATE FACE VALUE EQUAL TO 100% OF THEIR CLAIMS.  THIS WAS BASED
UPON A DETERMINATION THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE PLAN
REPRESENTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR REORGANIZATION PURPOSES AND
THAT, THROUGH PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS, THERE WAS ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR THE
CHARGES.  THE LARGE ACCUMULATION OF FREE CASH WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED.  THE
PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND ACCEPTED BY ALL CREDITORS
ENTITLED TO VOTE EXCEPT THE HOLDERS OF GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE LATTER'S REJECTION OF THE PLAN WAS NOT
"REASONABLY JUSTIFIED" AND CONFIRMED THE PLAN.  HELD: 

1.  THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE
PLAN ARE AFFIRMED.  P. 536. 

2.  UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE EXPERIENCE AND JUDGMENT
OF THE COMMISSION MUST BE RELIED UPON FOR FINAL DETERMINATIONS OF VALUE
AND OF MATTERS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS.  ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO., 318 U.S. 448; GROUP OF
INVESTORS V. MILWAUKEE R. CO., 318 U.S. 523.  P. 508. 

3.  THE COURTS ARE EMPOWERED TO REVIEW THE PLAN TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE COMMISSION HAS FOLLOWED THE STATUTORY MANDATES OF SEC. 77(E) AND
HAD MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSIONS.  ID. P. 509. 

4.  THE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COMMISSION TO ELIMINATE
VALUELESS CLAIMS FROM PARTICIPATION IN REORGANIZATION IS A VALID
EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY POWER.  ID. P. 509. 

5.  THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT THAT THE EARNING PROSPECT DID NOT
JUSTIFY A GREATER CAPITALIZATION THAN THE ONE GIVEN IS CONTROLLING.  P.
515. 

6.  IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ADD, AND WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN ADDING,
TO THE CAPITALIZED VALUE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURES FOR IMPROVEMENTS
MADE DURING THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS IF, IN THE EXERCISE OF SOUND
DISCRETION, IT FELT THAT THE REASONABLE PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF THE
ROAD, AFTER THE IMPROVEMENTS, DID NOT JUSTIFY IT.  P. 515. 

7.  THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE VALUATION MADE BY THE
COMMISSION.  PP. 512-516. 

8.  THE VALUATION HAVING BEEN BASED ON EARNINGS, THE SEGREGATION OF
THE SYSTEM EARNINGS TO EACH EXISTING LIEN AND THE ALLOCATION OF NEW
SECURITIES REPRESENTING THE SYSTEM VALUE TO EACH CLASS OF CLAIMANTS,
WAS IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT SENIOR CREDITORS ARE TO
RETAIN THEIR RELATIVE PRIORITY OF POSITION IN A REORGANIZATION.  P.
517. 

9.  JUNIOR CLAIMS CAN RECEIVE NOTHING UNTIL SENIOR CLAIMS RECEIVE
SECURITIES OF A VALUE EQUAL TO THEIR INDEBTEDNESS.  P. 517. 

10.  WHEN THE COMMISSION MADE ITS ALLOCATIONS OF SECURITIES, IT DID
NOT FIND THAT THE CASH VALUE OF THOSE AWARDED SENIOR CLAIMANTS EQUALLED
THE FACE VALUE OF THEIR CLAIMS; AND IT DEFINITELY HAD IN MIND THAT ONE
THING THAT GAVE THEM COMPENSATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF JUNIOR CLAIMANTS
TO PARTICIPATION IN SECURITIES BEFORE THE SENIORS OBTAINED FULL CASH
PAYMENT WAS THEIR CHANCE TO SHARE IN THE UNLIMITED DIVIDENDS THAT MIGHT
BE EARNED AND PAID ON THE COMMON STOCK IN THE "LUSH YEARS," THUS TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT THE ABNORMAL EARNINGS DURING THE WAR.  P. 518. 

11.  THE IMPROVED PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE ROAD THROUGH EXPENDITURES
OF THE TRUSTEES FOR PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENTS AND
NEW EQUIPMENT NECESSARILY ENTERED INTO THE COMMISSION'S VALUATION OF
THE PROPERTY.  P. 518. 

12.  THAT THE CREDITORS WHO RECEIVED COMMON STOCK TO MAKE THEM WHOLE
OBTAINED WITH IT AN INTEREST IN ALL CASH ON HAND OR THAT MIGHT BE
ACCUMULATED WAS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE ALLOCATION OF THE NEW
SECURITIES.  PP. 518, 519. 

13.  THE SENIOR CREDITORS HAVING ACCEPTED THE PLAN AS FAIR AND
EQUITABLE AS BETWEEN THEMSELVES, IF THE METHOD AND RESULT OF VALUATION
ARE SOUND, THE ALLOCATION OF 10% OF THEIR CLAIM IN COMMON STOCK TO THE
JUNIOR CREDITORS FOLLOWS AS A MATTER OF COMPUTATION.  P. 519. 

14.  THE OBJECTION OF A STOCKHOLDER TO A VOTING TRUST FOR FUTURE
CONTROL OF THE DEBTOR IS INEFFECTIVE, BECAUSE THE STOCKHOLDER WAS
ELIMINATED FROM THE REORGANIZATION BY THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND
ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES.  P. 520. 

15.  THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN FIXING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN
AS JANUARY 1, 1943, WAS WITHIN ITS POWER.  P. 521. 

16.  ASSUMING THAT THE COURTS MAY SET ASIDE A PLAN WHICH WAS FAIR AND
EQUITABLE WHEN ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF
SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, THEY SHOULD NOT DO SO WHEN
THE CHANGES ARE OF THE KIND THAT WERE ENVISAGED AND CONSIDERED BY THE
COMMISSION IN ITS DELIBERATIONS UPON, OR EXPLANATIONS OF, THE PLAN. 
PP. 521, 522. 

17.  IT WOULD BE ERRONEOUS TO ASSUME THAT THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS WERE
PAID IN FULL BY THE SECURITIES ALLOTTED TO THEM WITHOUT ALSO ACCEPTING
THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE ASSETS REPRESENTED AS OF THE
EFFECTIVE DATE AND ALL SUBSEQUENT EARNINGS WERE A PART ALSO OF THE
COMMON STOCK THAT WAS AWARDED TO THEM; SINCE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN WAR EARNINGS AND IN THE ACCUMULATIONS OF CASH BEYOND
OPERATING FUND NEEDS WAS PART OF THEIR COMPENSATION FOR THEIR LOSS OF
POSITION.  PP. 522-524. 

18.  WHEN COMMON STOCK IS ISSUED IN PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF THE
CLAIMS OF SENIOR CREDITORS AND A REDUCTION OF SENIOR CAPITAL TAKES
PLACE AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN BY THE USE OF ANTICIPATED EARNINGS
OR EXISTING CASH, THERE CAN BE NO CORRESPONDING READJUSTMENT OF JUNIOR
PARTICIPATION; BECAUSE ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT THE ADOPTION OF
THE PLAN AND SUBSEQUENT EARNINGS ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF STOCKHOLDERS IN
THE NEW COMPANY, THE SENIOR CLAIMANTS, SO THAT THEY MAY BE COMPENSATED
THROUGH THESE COMMON STOCK ADVANTAGES FOR THEIR LOSS OF PAYMENT IN FULL
IN CASH.  PP. 524, 525. 

19.  THE SETTLED RULE IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS THAT A CREDITOR
SECURED BY THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS NEED NOT DEDUCT THE VALUE OF THAT
COLLATERAL OR ITS PROCEEDS IN PROVING HIS DEBT IS APPLICABLE IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77.  P. 529. 

20.  A PROVISION IN A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION THAT THE TRUSTEE UNDER A
CERTAIN BOND ISSUE SECURED IN PART BY A LIEN ON STOCK OWNED BY A THIRD
PARTY SHALL BE PERMITTED TO OBTAIN THE RELEASE OF THE EQUITIES IN THE
STOCK AND DISTRIBUTE IT AMONG THE BONDHOLDERS OR TO ENFORCE ITS RIGHTS
AS PLEDGEE OF THE STOCK AND DISTRIBUTE THE PROCEEDS TO THE BONDHOLDERS
DID NOT CHANGE OR AFFECT EXISTING RIGHTS IN THE STOCK; AND THOSE RIGHTS
REMAINED SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT
RESULT IN THE HOLDERS OF THE BONDS SECURED THEREBY RECEIVING MORE THAN
THEY WERE ENTITLED TO NOR DEPRIVE THE HOLDERS OF A JUNIOR LIEN ON THE
STOCK OF ANY OF THEIR RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH THE COMMISSION MADE NO
DEFINITE FINDING AS TO THE VALUE OF THE STOCK AND THE HOLDERS OF THE
SENIOR LIEN ON THE STOCK MAY HAVE BEEN FULLY COMPENSATED BY OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN.  PP. 525-531. 

21.  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77(E) FOR CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION OVER THE CREDITORS' OBJECTION, IF THE REVIEWING COURT
FINDS THAT IT MAKES "ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR FAIR AND EQUITABLE
TREATMENT" OF THOSE REJECTING IT, THAT THEIR REJECTION IS NOT
"REASONABLY JUSTIFIED" AND THAT THE PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE SECTION, ARE WITHIN THE BANKRUPTCY POWERS OF CONGRESS.  P. 533. 

22.  THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE PLAN MADE "ADEQUATE
PROVISION FOR FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT" OF THE DISSENTERS, AS OF
ITS EFFECTIVE DATE, WAS JUSTIFIED.  P. 533. 

23.  IN VIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S FAMILIARITY WITH THE
REORGANIZATION, THIS FINDING HAS ESPECIAL WEIGHT WITH THIS COURT.  P.
533. 

24.  THE REJECTION OF THE PLAN BY THE HOLDERS OF GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDS WAS NOT "REASONABLY JUSTIFIED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 77(E). 
PP. 533-535. 

25.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO PLAN REORGANIZATIONS WITH AN
EYE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS THE PRIVATE WELFARE OF CREDITORS
AND STOCKHOLDERS.  P. 535. 

26.  THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN AN EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
JUSTIFIES THE COMMISSION'S REQUIREMENTS FOR REASONABLE MAINTENANCE AND
IMPROVEMENTS OF THE PROPERTIES AND FOR A CAPITALIZATION WITH FAIR
PROSPECTS FOR DIVIDENDS ON ALL CLASSES OF SECURITIES.  P. 536. 

RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION ET AL. V. DENVER & RIO GRANDE
WESTERN RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

NO. 278.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 279, RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION ET AL. V.
DENVER & SALT LAKE WESTERN RAILROAD CO. ET AL.; NO. 280, RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION ET AL. V. CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, ET
AL.; NO. 281, RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION ET AL. V. DENVER & RIO
GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD CO. ET AL.; AND NO. 282, RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION ET AL. V. THOMPSON, TRUSTEE, ET AL., ON CERTIORARI TO THE
SAME COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON THE SAME DATES. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION APPROVED A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
OF A RAILROAD UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  254 I.C.C. 349. 
THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED IT.  C.C.H. BANKRUPTCY LAW SERVICE
P54,562.  ALL CREDITORS ENTITLED TO VOTE ACCEPTED THE PLAN EXCEPT
HOLDERS OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
THE LATTER'S REJECTION OF THE PLAN WAS NOT "REASONABLY JUSTIFIED" AND
CONFIRMED THE PLAN.  62 F.SUPP.  384.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT AND REMANDED THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  150 F.2D 28.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 699.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS IS REVERSED; THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVING AND
CONFIRMING THE PLAN ARE AFFIRMED; AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  P. 536. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS IN THESE FIVE CASES ARE THE OWNERS OF CLAIMS AGAINST
THE DEBTOR, DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, OR AGAINST A
SECONDARY DEBTOR, THE DENVER & SALT LAKE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.  THE
RESPONDENTS ARE THE TWO DEBTORS JUST NAMED; CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST
COMPANY, TRUSTEE UNDER THE GENERAL MORTGAGE OF THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR;
AND THE TRUSTEE OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, A LARGE OWNER
OF COMMON STOCK OF THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR. 

THE DEBTORS SOUGHT REORGANIZATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT,  FN1  ON NOVEMBER 1, 1935.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
APPROVED THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS REVIEW
ON JUNE 14, 1943.  FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THE PLAN OCTOBER
25, 1943.  FN3  IT WAS THEN SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE
CREDITORS OF THE CLASSES DEEMED ENTITLED TO VOTE FOR ACCEPTANCE OR
REJECTION OF THE PLAN AND A CERTIFICATE OF THE RESULT FILED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT ON JULY 15, 1944.  ALL CLASSES OF VOTING CREDITORS
APPROVED THE PLAN AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 77 EXCEPT THE HOLDERS OF THE
DENVER'S GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS.  FN4  ON NOVEMBER 1, THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THE REJECTION OF THE PLAN BY THE HOLDERS OF THE GENERAL
MORTGAGE WAS NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFIED  FN5  AND THEREAFTER CONFIRMED
THE PLAN ON NOVEMBER 29, 1944.  SEC. 77(E). 

THE PLAN PROVIDED FOR A REORGANIZATION AS OF JANUARY 1, 1943, BY THE
DENVER BY ADJUSTMENT OF ITS LIABILITIES TO ITS ASSETS WITH OR WITHOUT A
CONSOLIDATION WITH THE SALT LAKE AND THE SALT LAKE WESTERN TO FORM A
SYSTEM.  THE STOCK OF THE LATTER ROAD IS HELD BY THE DENVER.  THERE ARE
NO BONDS.  AS NO RULING THAT WE ARE ASKED OR REQUIRED TO MAKE TURNS
UPON WHETHER THE REORGANIZATION IS WITH OR WITHOUT THE SUGGESTED
CONSOLIDATION, WE NEED NOT GIVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO POSSIBLE
DIFFERENCES.  IN EITHER CASE, CREDITORS WITH SECURED CLAIMS AGAINST THE
REORGANIZED ROADS OR AGAINST THEIR PROPERTY WERE LEFT UNDISTURBED OR
ALLOCATED NEW SECURITIES OF THE NEW COMPANY, CONSISTING OF FIRST
MORTGAGE AND INCOME BONDS, PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK, IN LOTS, IN FACE
AMOUNT OF THE SECURED CLAIMS EXCEPT FOR THE GENERAL MORTGAGE ISSUE,
THAT THE COMMISSION AND DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED, THROUGH ADOPTION OF
THE PLAN, WERE FAIR AND EQUITABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESPECTIVE
PRIORITIES, LIENS AND COLLATERAL OF THE VARIOUS SECURED CLAIMS.  ALL OF
THE SECURITIES WERE GIVEN A PAR VALUE.  INTEREST PARTLY FIXED AND
INTEREST PARTLY CONTINGENT ON EARNINGS WAS USED TO GAIN PLAY IN ANNUAL
CHARGES.  THE PLAN ELIMINATED UNSECURED CLAIMS AND ALLOCATED COMMON
STOCK IN FACE AMOUNT OF TEN PER CENT OF THEIR CLAIM TO GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDS OF THE DEBTOR.  ITS STOCKHOLDERS RECEIVED NOTHING.  IT WAS
DETERMINED THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE SECURITIES IN THE PLAN REPRESENTED
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES FOR REORGANIZATION PURPOSES AND THAT
THROUGH PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS THERE WAS ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR THE
CHARGES.  FN6 

THE REVERSAL CAME FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT'S HOLDING, CONTRARY TO THE
COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT FREE CASH IN EXCESS OF
OPERATING CAPITAL NEEDS AND LARGE EARNINGS FROM WAR BUSINESS AFTER THE
DATE OF THE PLAN SHOULD BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS. 
150 F.2D 35-38.  THAT COURT FURTHER HELD THAT DECREASES IN DEBT BY CASH
PAYMENTS, WITH THE CONSEQUENT REDUCTION OF SECURITIES THAT WERE
REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED UNDER THE PLAN TO COVER SUCH DEBT CLAIMS, SHOULD
INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE SAME GENERAL BONDHOLDERS.  150 F.2D 38-39. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT DISAGREED ALSO WITH THE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN
COLLATERAL DEPOSITED BEHIND THE FIRST CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE OF THE RIO
GRANDE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY AND SECONDARILY BEHIND OTHER ISSUES OF
THE DEBTOR.  THIS IS THE UTAH FUEL STOCK ISSUE HEREINAFTER DISCUSSED. 
THESE DIFFERENCES FROM THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT LED THE
CIRCUIT COURT TO HOLD THAT THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS WERE "REASONABLY
JUSTIFIED" IN REJECTING THE PLAN AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO CONFIRM THE PLAN OVER THEIR VETO.  SEC. 77(E). 

PETITIONERS ON JULY 30, 1945, SOUGHT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVERSE
THESE RULINGS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND, ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE ISSUES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
77, WE GRANTED THEIR PETITION ON OCTOBER 8, 1945.  326 U.S. 699. 

THE BRIEFS OF ALL THE PARTIES HERE RESTATE THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ACCORDING TO THE EMPHASIS THE PARTICULAR
PARTY PLACES UPON POINTS OF CONTROVERSY.  AFTER A GENERAL CONSIDERATION
OF THE BACKGROUND OF THE PLAN AND RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS TO SUPPORT
THE JUDGMENT BESIDES THE DEFENSES APPLICABLE TO PETITIONERS'
CERTIORARI, WE SHALL GIVE ATTENTION TO EACH OF THE JUST STATED
DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND APPELLATE COURT.  THIS WILL
COVER THE POINTS UNDER REVIEW. 

THE BASIC PROBLEMS OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT HAVE BEEN SO RECENTLY CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN THE
WESTERN PACIFIC AND MILWAUKEE CASES THAT ONLY A SUMMARY REFERENCE TO
THEIR CONCLUSIONS ATTACKED BY RESPONDENTS NEED BE MADE NOW.  NO NEW
ENACTMENTS HAVE CHANGED THE LAW SINCE THOSE DECISIONS ON MARCH 15,
1943.  THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE REORGANIZATION OF A RAILROAD WITH
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC AND OBLIGATIONS TO ITS SECURITY HOLDERS
WERE RECOGNIZED.  THE IMPOSSIBILITY WITHOUT DESTRUCTION OF EFFICIENCY
AND VALUES OF REVERSING THE PROCESS OF INTEGRATION TO RESTORE THE PARTS
THAT NOW MAKE UP THE WHOLE OF A SYSTEM OF THEIR ORIGINAL OPERATIONAL
FUNCTION WAS UNDERSTOOD.  THE VARIOUS BOND ISSUES WITH DIFFERENT AND
OFTEN OVERLAPPING LIENS, WITH COMPETING CLAIMS FOR ALLOCATION OF
EARNINGS PENDING REORGANIZATION, PRESENTED HARD PROBLEMS FOR
LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION.  A FAIR, ADMINISTRATIVELY PRACTICAL AND LASTING
METHOD WAS SOUGHT.  BY PROVISIONS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF CREDITORS' CLAIMS,
CONGRESS INTENDED TO AVOID THE DELAYS, COSTS AND SACRIFICES OF
LIQUIDATION.  FN9  THE AGENCIES EMPLOYED BY CONGRESS TO ACCOMPLISH
REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77 WERE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
AND THE COURTS.  THE ANSWER REACHED BY CONGRESS WAS THAT THE EXPERIENCE
AND JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION MUST BE RELIED UPON FOR FINAL
DETERMINATIONS OF VALUE AND OF MATTERS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.  THIS WAS THE INTERPRETATION OF ALL MEMBERS OF
THIS COURT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT AND THE EVIDENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IN THE HEARINGS, REPORTS AND DISCUSSION.  FN10
TO THE COURTS, CONGRESS CONFIDED THE POWER TO REVIEW THE PLAN TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS FOLLOWED THE STATUTORY MANDATES OF
SUBSECTION (E), 318 U.S. AT 477, AND WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD
MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSIONS.  318 U.S. AT 477;
CONCURRING OPINION AT 512. 

AT THIS POINT, WE RESTATE OUR CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE FORMER CASES
THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO THE COMMISSION TO ELIMINATE
VALUELESS CLAIMS FROM PARTICIPATION IN REORGANIZATION IS A VALID
EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY POWER.  SECTION 77 WAS DIRECTED AT
THE RELIEF OF DEBTOR RAILROADS.  SEC. 73, 47 STAT. 1467.  LIQUIDATION
IN DEPRESSION PERIODS MEANT THAT LARGE PORTIONS OF DEBTS, AS WELL AS
STOCK INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTIES, WOULD BE IRRETRIEVABLY LOST TO THEIR
HOLDERS, WHILE REORGANIZATION ON A CAPITALIZATION THAT ESTIMATED WHAT
NORMAL INCOME WOULD SUPPORT MEANT THE SALVAGE OF SOUND VALUES.  WE SEE
NO MORE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE ELIMINATION OF CLAIMS AGAINST
RAILROAD DEBTORS BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
OF VALUES, WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
AND COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY STANDARDS, THAN WE DO TO THEIR
ELIMINATION BY AN ACCEPTED BID IN A DEPRESSION MARKET.  FN11  THERE IS
NO OCCASION HERE TO REEXAMINE FURTHER THESE RECENT HOLDINGS OF THIS
COURT IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC AND MILWAUKEE REORGANIZATIONS. 

IN EXAMINING THE CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS AS TO THE ALLEGED ERRORS
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WE MUST APPROACH THE PROBLEMS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH OUR REVIEWING AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 77.  THAT SECTION
EMBODIES THE METHOD THAT CONGRESS SELECTED IN 1933  FN12  AND IMPROVED
IN 1935  FN13 TO PUT THE RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF THE COUNTRY
IN ORDER TO MEET ITS DEBTS AND PERFORM ITS DUTIES TO THE PUBLIC AFTER
THE HARD YEARS OF THE RECENT DEPRESSION.  OUR CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE
CHIEF PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION WERE HANDED DOWN IN MARCH, 1943. 
ALTHOUGH THE RESULTS OF REORGANIZATIONS UNDER THE SECTION, AS THUS
CONSTRUED, HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED AS UNFORTUNATE AND CHANGES HAVE BEEN
SUGGESTED, NO DIFFERENT LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ENACTED.  FN14  INDEED A
DIFFERENT METHOD FOR REORGANIZATION, ENACTED IN 1939 AND DESIGNED TO
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RAILROADS NOT IN NEED OF FINANCIAL
REORGANIZATION OF THE CHARACTER PROVIDED BY SEC. 77 BUT ONLY OF AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR VOLUNTARY ADJUSTMENTS WITH THEIR CREDITORS, TERMINATED
ON JULY 31, 1940, AND A COMPARABLE PROVISION MADE IN 1942 WAS ALLOWED
TO LAPSE ON NOVEMBER 1, 1945.  FN15  THIS SITUATION LEAVES CLEAR THE
DUTY OF THE AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT ENTRUSTED WITH THE HANDLING OF
REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77, INCLUDING THIS COURT, TO ADMINISTER ITS
PROVISIONS ACCORDING TO THEIR BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSES OF
CONGRESS AS EXPRESSED IN THE WORDS OF SEC. 77 READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CONTEMPORANEOUS DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS.  CHANGES IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
CANNOT AFFECT THE POWERS OF THE REORGANIZATION AGENCIES EVEN THOUGH
SUCH CHANGES MAY REQUIRE A REEXAMINATION INTO THE PRESENT FAIRNESS OF
THE FORMER EXERCISE OF THOSE POWERS. 

VALUATION.  THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN, THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR, IS
AN IMPORTANT LINK IN TRANSCONTINENTAL TRANSPORTATION.  FN16  THE RECENT
AVAILABILITY TO THE DEBTOR OF THE MOFFAT TUNNEL AND THE DOTSERO CUT-OFF
(1934) IMPROVES ITS STRATEGIC POSITION IN THE COMPETITION FOR
"OVERHEAD" OR "BRIDGE TRAFFIC," THAT IS, TRAFFIC THAT IS CONSIGNED FROM
AND DESTINED TO POINTS BEYOND ITS LINES.  THE TRAFFIC ORIGINATING OR
TERMINATING ON ITS LINES IS MIXED IN CHARACTER AND VARIES WITH THE
GENERAL PROSPERITY OF THE REGION. 

THE PRESENT DENVER, THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR, WAS ORGANIZED IN 1920.  IT
SUCCEEDED THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY OF 1908 WHICH HAD IN
ITS TURN ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY OF THE RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY, OWNING THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PRESENT DEBTOR'S LINES, AND
OF THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY OF 1886, OWNING THE EASTERN
PORTION OF THE PRESENT DEBTOR'S LINES.  A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO
PORTIONS, RIO GRANDE JUNCTION RAILWAY, IS UNDER LEASE TO THE DEBTOR
WHICH, AS LESSEE AND A STOCKHOLDER, GUARANTEES THE JUNCTION BONDS. 
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE CAPITAL STOCKS OF THE SALT LAKE AND SALT LAKE
WESTERN, AND VARIOUS OTHER BRANCH LINES ARE OWNED BY THE DEBTOR.  FN17
THESE CORPORATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE OPERATIONS OF THE DEBTOR HAVE
RESULTED IN THE ASSUMPTION OR CREATION BY THE DEBTOR OF THE CLAIMS OF
THE VARIOUS ISSUES, LISTED IN NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

JUST AFTER THESE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS BEGAN, DECEMBER 31, 1935,
THE DEBTOR'S REPORT SHOWED THAT ITS LONGTERM DEBT WAS $120,541,000, AND
ITS CURRENT LIABILITIES $24,990,901.63.  IT HAD CURRENT ASSETS,
INCLUDING CASH $1,257,943.43, OF $5,966,666.93.  AT THE TIME THE PLAN
BECAME EFFECTIVE, THE REPORT, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1942, SHOWED LONG-TERM
DEBT OF $130,264,826.65 AND CURRENT LIABILITIES OF $14,172,575.50, AND
IN ADDITION DEFERRED LIABILITIES, CHIEFLY MATURED INTEREST IN DEFAULT
OF $45,582,132.66.  THERE WERE CURRENT ASSETS, INCLUDING CASH
$10,850,149.96, OF $20,983,652.54.  AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1944, THESE
ITEMS WERE: LONG-TERM DEBT $129,358,337.79, CURRENT LIABILITIES
$20,539,637.83, AND DEFERRED LIABILITIES $55,310,151.80.  THE CURRENT
ASSETS WERE $32,665,501.33, INCLUDING $19,142,626.96 IN CASH.    DURING
THE PERIOD EXAMINED THE INCOME OF THE SYSTEM AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST WAS
FOUND BY THE COMMISSION AT ITS LOWEST IN 1936-1938.  AFTER ADJUSTMENT
THIS WAS $2,893,255.  233 I.C.C. AT 552.  IN 1941 THERE WAS
$5,019,436.  254 I.C.C. AT 10.  WHEN THE PRESENT PLAN WAS APPROVED BY
THE COMMISSION IN JUNE, 1943, THE 1942 INCOME AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST
WAS RECOGNIZED BUT THE CONTINUANCE OF SUCH EARNING POWER WAS THOUGHT TO
BE NEGATIVED BY ANY SOUND FORECAST.  FN18  254 I.C.C. AT 356. 

EARNINGS DURING THE TRUSTEESHIP WERE USED TO IMPROVE THE DEBTOR
RAILROAD.  WHEN THE VOTE WAS TAKEN IN 1944, THE REAL ESTATE AND
EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT SHOWED CHARGES OF $43,291,513 DURING THE
TRUSTEESHIP.  AN ESTIMATED TEN MILLION OF IT WAS BETWEEN THE
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE PLAN, JUNE, 1943, AND THE COMMISSION'S
CERTIFICATION ON JULY 15, 1944, TO THE COURT OF THE VOTE BY CLAIMANTS. 
SEE 254 I.C.C. AT 354 AND 382 FOR EXPLANATION OF NEW EQUIPMENT PROGRAM
TO MEET THE WAR SITUATION.  THE RETIREMENTS ARE SAID BY THE RESPONDENT
TRUSTEE TO HAVE BEEN ABOUT $13,000,000, LEAVING A NET ADDITION TO
CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF $30,000,000.  RESPONDENTS URGE THAT SINCE
CAPITALIZATION WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED BY THE COMMISSION
BETWEEN 1938, WHEN THE FIRST DRAFT OF A PLAN CAME FROM THE COMMISSION'S
STAFF, AND 1943, THE JUNIOR CREDITORS GOT LITTLE OR NOTHING FOR THIS
INVESTMENT.  THE IMPROVEMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN WISE OR UNWISE.  THAT
QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE US.  RAILROADS, EVEN IN REORGANIZATIONS, MUST
MAKE ADDITIONS TO TAKE CARE OF PUBLIC NEEDS OR TO LOWER OPERATING
COSTS.  SEE 62 F.SUPP.  389.  THE SENIOR BOND INTEREST CONTINUED TO
ACCUMULATE DURING THIS PERIOD.  AS THE CAPITALIZATION WAS NOT INCREASED
PARI PASSU WITH THE PURCHASES, THE HOLDERS OF JUNIOR SECURITIES
RECEIVED LESS PARTICIPATION.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER THAT THE
EARNING PROSPECT JUSTIFIED A GREATER CAPITALIZATION THAN THE ONE GIVEN
AND WE THINK ITS JUDGMENT CONTROLS THE VALUATION.  AS WAS SAID BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN IN RE DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO., 150 F.2D AT
38: 

"NEITHER WAS THE COMMISSION COMPELLED TO, NOR WOULD IT BE JUSTIFIED
IN ADDING THE AMOUNT OF THESE EXPENDITURES TO THE CAPITALIZED VALUE IF
IN THE EXERCISE OF SOUND DISCRETION IT FELT THAT THE REASONABLE
PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF THE ROAD, AFTER THE IMPROVEMENTS DID NOT
JUSTIFY IT. HOWEVER, IN THE FACE OF ALL THIS, AFTER SATISFYING IN FULL
THE CLAIMS OF THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS, THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION SHOULD
HAVE MADE SURE THAT ALL EXCESS CURRENT ASSETS, AS WELL AS ALL EXCESS
WAR PROFITS YET TO ACCRUE, WOULD GO TO THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS." 

THE LAST SENTENCE, WE THINK, HAS THE VICE OF OVERLOOKING THE REASON
THE COMMISSION GAVE COMMON STOCK TO THE SENIORS.  SEE DISCUSSION UNDER
ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES. 

WE NOTE ALSO THE CONTENTION THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF A NATIONAL INCOME
MUCH HIGHER AND INTEREST RATES MUCH LOWER THAN BEFORE WORLD WAR II
SHOULD AFFECT VALUATION BASED ON PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS.  THOSE FACTORS,
WE THINK, WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION WHEN IT MADE ITS EARNINGS
ESTIMATE. 

THE COMMISSION REACHED ITS DETERMINATION OF A SOUND CAPITAL STRUCTURE
FOR THE COMBINED PROPERTIES WITH THESE FIGURES ON EARNINGS AND
INVESTMENTS BEFORE IT.  IN ADDITION, OF COURSE, THE COMMISSION HAD
COMPLETE STATISTICAL INFORMATION TO GUIDE IT FROM ITS BUREAU OF
VALUATION AND ITS OTHER SECTIONS DEALING WITH TRAFFIC, RATES, EARNINGS,
INTEREST, ET CETERA.  THE DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION WILL BE FOUND IN
ITS PRINTED VOLUMES LISTED IN NOTE 2.  PROCEEDING UPON THE PRINCIPLE
ACCEPTED IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC AND MILWAUKEE CASES,  FN19  THAT
CAPITALIZATION BASED UPON EARNINGS IS A PERMISSIBLE METHOD OF VALUATION
IN REORGANIZATION, THE COMMISSION FIXED $155,173,127 AS THE SOUND
CAPITALIZATION.  THIS CAPITALIZATION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ISSUES,
WITH PROVISIONS FOR A CAPITAL FUND AND THE SINKING FUNDS, CARRIES
ANNUAL CHARGES AT RATES VARYING WITH THE SECURITY OF $6,211,250 BEFORE
DIVIDENDS ON COMMON.  THIS PRESENT ANNUAL CHARGE, PLUS, LET US ASSUME,
FIVE PER CENT ANNUALLY UPON THE COMMON, $1,758,379, OR A TOTAL OF
$7,969,629, IS THE BASIC FIGURE TO BE APPLIED, WITH ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE
VARIABLE FACTORS, TO EARNINGS, PAST OR PROSPECTIVE, AVAILABLE FOR
INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS, AS AN AID TO DETERMINE THE FAIRNESS OF THE
PRESENT VALUATION.  SEE NOTE 6.  THE DECISION WAS UNANIMOUS EXCEPT FOR
ONE COMMISSIONER WHO CONSIDERED THE VALUATION TOO HIGH BY TEN PER CENT.
254 I.C.C. AT 379.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT AS OF JUNE, 1943, THERE
WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE VALUATION MADE BY THE COMMISSION. 

ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES.  WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THAT VALUATION,
THE COMMISSION ALLOTTED THE AVAILABLE SECURITIES TO THE CLAIMANTS. 
SECURITIES, INCLUDING THE COMMON STOCK, WERE GIVEN A FACE VALUE.  THE
AGGREGATE WAS TOO SMALL TO ALLOW ANYTHING TO FORMER STOCKHOLDERS.  FN20
THUS THEY WERE ELIMINATED FROM THE REORGANIZATION.  FN21  FOR THE
HOLDERS OF THE GENERAL BONDS, COMMON STOCK WAS AVAILABLE TO THE AMOUNT
OF TEN PER CENT ONLY OF THEIR CLAIM.  FN22  A GLANCE AT THE PROPOSED
DISTRIBUTION IN NOTE 6 WILL SHOW THAT THE CLAIMANTS DID NOT RECEIVE ALL
THE NEW SENIOR SECURITIES IN THE STRICT ORDER OF THEIR OLD PRIORITIES. 

THE VALUE OF A LIEN ON A PART OF A RAILROAD WHEN THE VALUATION IS
MADE FROM EARNINGS CANNOT BE FIXED SOLELY ON A MILEAGE BASIS.  NOR IS
IT PRACTICABLE TO ISSUE NEW SECURITIES WITH A LIEN LIMITED TO THE
PROPERTY THAT WAS COVERED BY THE OLD LIEN.  THERE MUST BE SEGREGATION
OF THE SYSTEM EARNINGS TO EACH EXISTING LIEN AND ALLOCATION OF
SECURITIES REPRESENTING THE SYSTEM VALUE TO EACH CLASS OF CLAIMANTS. 
THIS WAS DONE HERE AS SHOWN IN THE SECOND TABLE IN NOTE 6.  FN23  SUCH
A METHOD IS IN FULL ACCORD WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT SENIOR CREDITORS ARE
TO RETAIN THEIR RELATIVE PRIORITY OF POSITION IN A REORGANIZATION. 
GROUP OF INVESTORS V. MILWAUKEE R. CO., 318 U.S. AT 561-64. 
FURTHERMORE, JUNIOR CLAIMS CAN RECEIVE NOTHING UNTIL THE SENIOR CLAIMS
RECEIVE SECURITIES OF A WORTH OR VALUE EQUAL TO THEIR INDEBTEDNESS. 
318 U.S. AT 483; 318 U.S. AT 569.  THE GENERALS ARE DEFINITELY JUNIOR. 
233 I.C.C. AT 524. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE A FINDING THAT THE CASH VALUE OF THE
SECURITIES AWARDED THE SENIOR CLAIMANTS AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
PLAN EQUALLED THE FACE OF THE CLAIMS.  IT DID, HOWEVER, CAREFULLY STATE
ITS REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE COMPENSATION "FLOWING UNDER THE
PLAN TO THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF BONDHOLDERS FOR THE RIGHTS SURRENDERED
BY THEM" WAS ADEQUATE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FULL PRIORITY RULE.  254
I.C.C. AT 360.  FOR THOSE CLASSES, OTHER THAN THE JUNIOR GENERALS, THAT
RECEIVED COMMON STOCK, THE COMMISSION SAID THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF
"UNLIMITED DIVIDENDS ON COMMON STOCK" WAS A FACTOR IN OFFSETTING LOSS
OF POSITION.  FN24  THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN THE COMMISSION MADE ITS
ALLOCATIONS IT HAD DEFINITELY IN MIND THAT ONE THING THAT GAVE THE
SENIOR CREDITORS COMPENSATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF JUNIOR CLAIMANTS TO
PARTICIPATION IN SECURITIES BEFORE THE SENIORS OBTAINED FULL CASH
PAYMENT WAS THEIR CHANCE TO SHARE IN THE UNLIMITED DIVIDENDS THAT MIGHT
BE EARNED AND PAID ON THE COMMON STOCK TO HAVE A PART IN THE "LUSH
YEARS."  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT INCOME APPLICABLE TO DIVIDENDS WAS AT
ITS HIGHEST IN 1942 PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN BY THE COMMISSION
IN JUNE, 1943.  THEREFORE THE ABNORMAL EARNINGS OF 1942 WERE IN THE
COMMISSION'S CONTEMPLATION WHEN IT SPOKE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
"UNLIMITED DIVIDENDS."  ITS DISCUSSION OF THE PLAN ASSUMED THAT 1943
AVAILABLE EARNINGS MIGHT BE AS LARGE.  254 I.C.C. AT 355. 

THE IMPROVED PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE ROAD THROUGH EXPENDITURES OF
THE TRUSTEES FOR PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENTS AND NEW
EQUIPMENT WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND NECESSARILY ENTERED INTO THEIR
VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY.  233 I.C.C. 531. 

THERE IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR, COROLLARY TO STOCK OWNERSHIP, TO
BE NOTED IN THE COMMISSION'S ALLOCATION OF THESE SECURITIES.  THIS
FACTOR IS THAT THE CREDITORS WHO RECEIVED COMMON STOCK TO MAKE THEM
WHOLE OBTAINED WITH THAT COMMON STOCK AN INTEREST IN ALL CASH ON HAND
OR ALL CASH THAT MIGHT BE ACCUMULATED.  OF COURSE, THE COMMISSION
THOROUGHLY UNDERSTOOD THIS.  IN FACT, IT REFERRED TO THE TEN MILLION
PLUS OF CASH ON HAND AS OF JANUARY 1, 1943.  254 I.C.C. 353. 
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS REFERENCE IS A FULL DISCUSSION OF THE CASH
NEEDS OF THE ROAD FOR THE YEAR 1943, INCLUDING ADDITIONS, BETTERMENTS
AND NEW EQUIPMENT, AND THE AMOUNT WHICH IT WAS ESTIMATED WOULD BE IN
THE TREASURY AT THE END OF THE YEAR.  THAT WAS $15,600,000.  THIS CASH
WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK.  THE PETITIONER
STATES THAT THE HIGHEST WHEN-ISSUED STOCK EXCHANGE PRICE IN 1945 FOR
THE COMMON STOCK WAS $31 1/2, PAR $100.  SEE COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL
CHRONICLE, MAY 13, 1946, P. 2618, WHERE THE COMMON IS QUOTED AT 29 BID,
31 ASKED.  CASH, MATERIAL AND SUPPLIES, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER ASSETS AND
ALL LIABILITIES OF THE DEBTOR, WERE REPRESENTED BY THE SECURITIES.  IF
THERE IS MORE CASH ON HAND THAN NEEDED FOR TAXES, EXPENSES AND PROPER
IMPROVEMENTS, IT IS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS.  IF
MONEY WAS USED TO PAY INDEBTEDNESS, THERE WOULD BE A CORRESPONDING
REDUCTION IN THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE.  THEREFORE, THE PLAN PROVIDED, 254
I.C.C. AT 386: 

"THE NEW COMPANY SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE COME INTO POSSESSION OF THE
PROPERTIES AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN. 

"...  THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE NEW COMPANY, AS OF JANUARY 1, 1943,
AFTER CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN  ...  SHALL CONSIST SUBSTANTIALLY OF THE
FOLLOWING SECURITIES, EXCLUDING THOSE TO BE PLEDGED, THE AMOUNTS STATED
BEING SUBJECT TO REDUCTION TO THE EXTENT, IF ANY, THAT MATURED INTEREST
PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED IN THE PLAN IS PAID, AND AS EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS
OR OTHER LIABILITIES ARE PAID OR REDUCED  ..." 

IT IS ACCEPTED BY THE SENIOR CLAIMANTS THAT THE PLAN IS FAIR AND
EQUITABLE AS BETWEEN THEMSELVES.  IF WE ARE CORRECT IN OUR CONCLUSION
THAT THE METHOD AND RESULT OF VALUATION IS SOUND, THE ALLOCATION OF TEN
PER CENT OF THEIR CLAIM IN COMMON STOCK TO THE GENERALS FOLLOWS AS A
MATTER OF COMPUTATION. 

IT WOULD ALSO FOLLOW THAT THE OBJECTION OF A STOCKHOLDER, THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE IN
REORGANIZATION, TO A VOTING TRUST FOR FUTURE CONTROL OF THE DEBTOR
WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE THIS STOCKHOLDER IS ELIMINATED FROM THE
REORGANIZATION BY THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ALLOCATION OF
SECURITIES.  FOR THE COMMISSION'S REASONS FOR CREATING A VOTING TRUST
SEE 233 I.C.C. AT 581, 254 I.C.C. AT 33, 35, 367. 

CASH AND WAR EARNINGS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE VIEW
THAT WAR EARNINGS WERE OF "VERY LITTLE VALUE IN ESTIMATING THE PROBABLE
FUTURE EARNINGS OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE PEACE ECONOMY WHICH IS TO COME"
AND THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHT IN APPRAISING THEM
LIGHTLY.  150 F.2D AT 34.  THIS WAS AFTER THE SEVENTEEN MILLION
EARNINGS OF THE TOP YEAR 1942.  THE APPELLATE COURT AGREED, TOO, THAT
EXCESS CURRENT ASSETS SHOULD NOT BE CAPITALIZED AND THAT IMPROVEMENTS
MADE DURING THE TRUSTEESHIP FOR REORGANIZATION HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY
THE COMMISSION AND DISTRICT COURT IN FIXING THEIR VALUATION BY PAST AND
PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS.  150 F.2D AT 35.  THE APPELLATE COURT THEN MADE
THE FOLLOWING RULING: 

"THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS WERE PAID IN FULL.  THEY RECEIVED ALL THE NEW
SECURITIES AND MOST OF THE COMMON STOCK.  NINETY PER CENT OF THE
GENERAL BONDHOLDERS' CLAIMS WERE WIPED OUT.  THEY RECEIVED ONLY A SMALL
AMOUNT OF COMMON STOCK, TEN PER CENT OF THEIR TOTAL CLAIM.  ADEQUATE
OPERATING FUNDS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE OPERATION OF A RAILROAD.  THE
SENIOR BONDHOLDERS WERE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IN ADDITION TO THE FULL
AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIMS, WORKING CAPITAL SUFFICIENT FOR PROPER AND
EFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE RAILROAD.  BUT ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF WHAT
WAS REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THIS PURPOSE CONSTITUTED ASSETS OF THE
INSOLVENT CORPORATION WHICH BELONGED TO THE REMAINING CREDITORS. 

"WE THINK IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THERE WERE CURRENT
ASSETS ON HAND CONSISTING OF CASH AND SECURITIES IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS
NEEDED FOR THE EFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE ROAD.  AS POINTED OUT, THE
WORKING CAPITAL OF THE DEBTOR HAD INCREASED FROM A DEFICIT OF
$9,727,230 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1935, TO A SURPLUS OF $12,125,863.50 AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 1944.  WHILE THESE INCREASED NET EARNINGS ARE DUE IN
LARGE PART TO THE WAR AND WILL NOT CONTINUE AFTER THE END OF THE WAR,
AND MAY THEREFORE BE DISREGARDED IN SETTING UP THE CAPITALIZED
STRUCTURE BASED UPON PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS, WE CANNOT DISREGARD THE FACT
THAT THESE HUGE SURPLUSES ACTUALLY EXIST.  THEIR EXISTENCE IS AN
ACCOMPLISHED FACT.  IT IS ALSO OBVIOUS THAT SURPLUSES WILL CONTINUE TO
PILE UP FOR A REASONABLE TIME YET TO COME.  WE THINK ANY PLAN WHICH
FAILS TO TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT AND WHICH GIVES THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS
THEIR CLAIMS IN FULL BY SUBSTANTIALLY DELIVERING THE ROAD TO THEM, AND
GIVES THEM THE SURPLUS CASH ACTUALLY ON HAND AND FURTHER ENABLES THEM
TO RECEIVE IN ADDITION THE EXCESS WAR PROFITS WHICH ARE REASONABLY SURE
TO COME, IS INHERENTLY INEQUITABLE AND UNFAIR, SO LONG AS THERE ARE
CLASSES OF CREDITORS WHOSE CLAIMS ARE NOT FULLY SATISFIED." 

IN OUR JUDGMENT THIS HOLDING IS ERRONEOUS. 

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN WAS FIXED BY THE COMMISSION AS JANUARY
1, 1943.  THIS WAS IN ITS POWER.  FN25  THE ALLOCATION OF THE
SECURITIES TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE INTEREST OF THE SECURED CLAIMS
TO THAT DATE.  ANY GAIN OR ANY LOSS AFTER THAT TIME WAS A BENEFIT OR AN
INJURY TO THE NEW COMMON STOCKHOLDERS AND THEN SOMETIMES TO SECURITY
HOLDERS IN POSITIONS SENIOR TO THEM.  ASSUMING THAT THE COURTS, AS
COURTS WITH EQUITY POWERS IN A BANKRUPTCY MATTER, MIGHT SET ASIDE A
PLAN, FAIR AND EQUITABLE WHEN ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION, MERELY ON
ACCOUNT OF SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE REGION OR
THE NATION N26, IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE WHEN THE CHANGES ARE OF THE KIND
THAT WERE ENVISAGED AND CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS
DELIBERATIONS UPON OR EXPLANATIONS OF THE PLAN.    WE HAVE POINTED OUT
IN THE SECTION OF THIS OPINION DEALING WITH THE ALLOCATIONS OF THE
SECURITIES THAT A PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO SENIOR CLAIMANTS FOR
THEIR LOSS OF POSITION WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN WAR
EARNINGS.  THIS WAS UNDERSTOOD BY THE DISTRICT COURT  FN27  AND THE
COMMISSION N28.  ACCUMULATIONS OF CASH BEYOND OPERATING FUND NEEDS ARE
IN THE SAME CATEGORY.  IN DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM, THE COMMISSION
NOTED THAT A FIVE PER CENT DIVIDEND ON THE AUTHORIZED COMMON WOULD
REQUIRE AN INCOME AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS OF $7,969,629. 
THE TRUSTEE FOR GENERAL BONDS CLAIMS NO SUCH EARNINGS BETWEEN 1929 AND
1942.  EVEN BEFORE THE TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES OF 1946, IT WAS
OBVIOUS THAT THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT WAS BEING CONFIRMED BY EVENTS. 
SEE NOTE 18, SUPRA.  FN29 

THE ERROR OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN ITS HOLDINGS SET OUT ABOVE LIES IN
ITS ASSUMPTION THAT THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS WERE PAID IN FULL BY THE
SECURITIES ALLOTTED TO THEM WITHOUT ALSO ACCEPTING THE DETERMINATION OF
THE COMMISSION THAT THE ASSETS REPRESENTED AS OF JANUARY 1, 1943, AND
ALL SUBSEQUENT EARNINGS WERE A PART ALSO OF THE COMMON STOCK THAT WAS
AWARDED THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS. 

DECREASES IN SENIOR DEBT.  THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR SECURITIES TO TAKE
THE PLACE OF THE RIO GRANDE JUNCTION'S FIRST 5'S IN THE FACE AMOUNT OF
$2,758,333 AND FOR THE ASSUMPTION BY THE REORGANIZED ROAD OF $5,758,000
EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS.  ALL OF THESE SECURITIES ARE SENIOR TO THE
GENERALS.  THE DENVER PURCHASED THE JUNCTIONS AND PAID $1,218,000 ON
THE EQUIPMENTS.  THIS REDUCED THE NECESSARY CAPITALIZATION BY THAT
AGGREGATE SUM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT
"THE VALUE BEHIND THESE SECURITIES IN NO WISE BELONGED TO THE SENIOR
BONDHOLDERS, BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN PAID IN FULL."  150 F.2D 39.  THIS
RULING, WE CONCLUDE, WAS ERRONEOUS FOR THE SAME BASIC REASON THAT WE
HELD THE CASH AND WAR EARNINGS BELONG TO THE OWNERS OF THE COMMON
STOCK. 

WE CALLED ATTENTION, SUPRA PAGE 519, TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE
DISTRICT COURT TO REDUCE THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE NEW COMPANY AS
INTEREST DUE ON JANUARY 1, 1943, OR EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS OR OTHER
LIABILITIES WERE PAID.  THE DISTRICT COURT ACTED ON THIS AUTHORITY AND
IN ITS APPROVAL OF THE PLAN SAID OF THE JUNCTIONS, "THEY MAY BE
CANCELLED OR THEY MAY BE UTILIZED UNDER THE PLAN IN ACQUISITION OF NEW
SECURITIES WHICH WILL BECOME AN ASSET OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY." 
C.C.H., BANKRUPTCY LAW SERVICE DECISIONS 1942-1945, P54,562 AT P.
55,635.  THE JUNCTION BONDHOLDERS DID NOT VOTE ON THE PLAN.  UNDER OUR
DETERMINATION THAT THE CREDITORS WHO RECEIVED COMMON STOCK WERE
COMPENSATED PARTLY BY THE ASSETS AND FUTURE EARNINGS, IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT THE USE OF SUCH ASSETS TO RETIRE SENIOR CLAIMS IS A PART OF THE
NORMAL AND EXPECTED INCREMENT FROM HOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK.  THE
INCREASE OF COMMON STOCK BY THE COMMISSION TO THE GENERALS FROM FIVE TO
TEN PER CENT OF THE BONDHOLDERS' CLAIMS, PRELIMINARY TO THE ADOPTION OF
THE PLAN, 254 I.C.C. AT 352, 359, IS PARTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO A REDUCTION
OF NECESSARY CAPITALIZATION.  THIS INCREASE IN JUNIOR PARTICIPATION
DIFFERS FROM THAT NOW PROPOSED.  THE FORMER REDUCTION OF SENIOR
CAPITALIZATION COULD BE CARRIED OUT BECAUSE EARNINGS PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE PLAN MADE IT UNNECESSARY TO BORROW MONEY FOR
REORGANIZATION.  WHEN PROPOSED CAPITALIZATION IS BEING PLANNED ON
EARNINGS, A REDUCTION OF SENIOR CAPITAL WITHOUT REDUCTION OF ESTIMATED
EARNINGS INCREASES POSSIBLE JUNIOR CAPITAL WITHIN THE SCHEME.  WHEN THE
REDUCTION OF SENIOR CAPITAL TAKES PLACE AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN
BY USE OF ANTICIPATED EARNINGS OR EXISTING CASH, THERE CAN BE NO SUCH
READJUSTMENT OF JUNIOR PARTICIPATION BECAUSE ASSETS IN THE BALANCE
SHEET AT THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN AND SUBSEQUENT EARNINGS ARE, AS WE
HAVE POINTED OUT, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS IN THE NEW
COMPANY SO THAT THROUGH THESE COMMON STOCK ADVANTAGES THESE NEW
STOCKHOLDERS MAY BE COMPENSATED FOR THEIR LOSS OF PAYMENT IN FULL IN
CASH.  OF COURSE, THIS SECTION OF THE OPINION IS WRITTEN AND MUST BE
READ ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ALLOCATIONS OF COMMON STOCK ARE FAIR
AND EQUITABLE, A MATTER DISCUSSED SUPRA. 

UTAH FUEL COMPANY STOCK.  THE RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD CO. IN 1899
EXECUTED ITS FIRST CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, AN INDENTURE TO SECURE ITS
ISSUE OF FIRST CONSOLIDATED BONDS, MATURING APRIL 1, 1949.  RIO GRANDE
WESTERN RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ISSUE ADDITIONAL BONDS UNDER THE
INDENTURE. 

THE UTAH FUEL COMPANY WAS ORGANIZED IN 1900, WITH A CAPITALIZATION OF
100,000 SHARES.  IN 1901 AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY RIO GRANDE
WESTERN, THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE FIRST CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, AND THE
OWNER OF THE UTAH FUEL STOCK.  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE STOCK
WOULD BE HELD BY THE TRUSTEE TO SECURE BONDS ISSUED UNDER THE FIRST
CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE AND THAT RIO GRANDE WESTERN WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT
AT ANY TIME ON PAYING THE TRUSTEE $6,000,000 IN CASH OR DELIVERING AN
EQUAL FACE AMOUNT IN FIRST CONSOLIDATED BONDS TO RECEIVE THE UTAH FUEL
STOCK, FREE OF THE MORTGAGE LIEN.  SUBJECT TO THE LIEN, THE STOCK WAS
TRANSFERRED TO RIO GRANDE WESTERN.  $6,000,000 IN ADDITIONAL FIRST
CONSOLIDATEDS WERE ISSUED TO THE OWNER OF THE STOCK. 

IN 1908, THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY WAS ORGANIZED AND
ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY OF RIO GRANDE WESTERN, ASSUMING THE OBLIGATION OF
ITS FIRST CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE BONDS OF 1899.  THE EQUITY OF
REDEMPTION OF DENVER & RIO GRANDE RAILROAD COMPANY IN THE UTAH FUEL
STOCK WAS SOLD IN 1918 UNDER EXECUTION AND TRANSFERRED TO THE WESTERN
PACIFIC RAILROAD CORPORATION. 

IN 1924 UNDER AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN
RAILROAD COMPANY, THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CORPORATION, MISSOURI
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, AND T. S. ALEXANDER, WHO BY THE AGREEMENT
BECAME TRUSTEE OF THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION IN THE UTAH FUEL STOCK,
WESTERN PACIFIC TRANSFERRED TO T. S. ALEXANDER, TRUSTEE, SUBJECT TO THE
PLEDGE UNDER THE CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, ITS UTAH FUEL STOCK AND THE
DEBTOR TRANSFERRED TO SAID TRUSTEE WHATEVER INTEREST IT HAD IN THE
STOCK, THROUGH CERTAIN RELEASES, NOT HERE IMPORTANT. 

THE AGREEMENT FIRST PROVIDED THAT THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN
THE UTAH FUEL STOCK SO HELD WAS VESTED ONE-HALF IN MISSOURI PACIFIC AND
ONE-HALF IN WESTERN PACIFIC.  EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN CONTINGENCIES NOT HERE
IMPORTANT, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE 1924 AGREEMENT
WOULD PAY ALL DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE
CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE ON UTAH FUEL STOCK TO THE DEBTOR SO LONG AS ANY
OF THE GENERAL OR REFUNDING BONDS WERE OUTSTANDING. 

THE AGREEMENT FURTHER PROVIDED THAT, IF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE OR THE
REFUNDING OR OTHER MORTGAGE OF THE DEBTOR WERE FORECLOSED, THE TRUSTEE
WOULD SELL THE INTEREST OF THESE MORTGAGES IN THE UTAH FUEL STOCK
SUBJECT TO THE CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, IF OUTSTANDING, AND APPLY THE
PROCEEDS TO THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS SECURED BY THE EQUITY OF
REDEMPTION IN THE STOCK, DIVIDING ANY SURPLUS BETWEEN WESTERN PACIFIC
AND MISSOURI PACIFIC. 

THE GENERAL MORTGAGE AND REFUNDING BONDS CREATED IN THE 1924
REORGANIZATION WERE THUS GIVEN A LIEN ON THE UTAH FUEL STOCK, JUNIOR TO
THE LIEN OF THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE FIRST CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE. 

UNDER THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT, THE
FIRST CONSOLIDATED BONDS WERE ALLOTTED 20% OF THEIR CLAIM IN NEW INCOME
BONDS, 73% IN PREFERRED STOCK, AND 7% IN COMMON STOCK.  THE PLAN
FURTHER PROVIDED, 254 I.C.C. AT 398-99, THAT: 

"THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED TO OBTAIN THE RELEASE OF THE
EQUITIES IN THE STOCK OF THE UTAH FUEL COMPANY AND DISTRIBUTE THE STOCK
AMONG THE HOLDERS OF THE AFORESAID BONDS IN ANY MANNER AGREEABLE TO
THEM, OR TO ENFORCE ITS RIGHTS AS PLEDGEE OF THE STOCK OF THE UTAH FUEL
COMPANY, THE PROCEEDS RECOVERED TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE HOLDERS OF THE
BONDS." 

THE COMMISSION TOOK THE POSITION THAT THIS AND THE OTHER FEATURES OF
THE TREATMENT OF THE FIRST CONSOLIDATED BONDS WERE JUSTIFIED AS
COMPENSATION FOR "LOSS IN EARNINGS POSITION AND SURRENDER OF OTHER
RIGHTS"  FN30  UNDER THE PLAN. 

THE COMMISSION MADE NO DEFINITE FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUE OF
THE FUEL COMPANY STOCK.  THE COMMISSION HAD BEFORE IT EVIDENCE THROUGH
1936 WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUE OF THE STOCK AS WELL AS AN APPRAISAL OF
THE VALUE OF THE FUEL COMPANY MADE FOR THE TRUSTEE OF THE FIRST
CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE, WHICH INDICATED A VALUE OF $4,653,720.  THE ONLY
DIVIDEND PAID TO THE DEBTOR BY UTAH FUEL UNDER THE 1924 AGREEMENT WAS
IN 1934 AND AMOUNTED TO $250,000; THE DEBTOR IN APPLYING ITS FORMULA
FOR ALLOCATION OF EARNINGS BY MORTGAGE DISTRICTS CREDITED THE
CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE WITH AN INCOME OF $83,333 PER ANNUM BASED ON THAT
DIVIDEND PAYMENT ALLOCATED OVER THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD, 1932 TO 1934. 
THE STATUS OF THE STOCK WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS
ORIGINAL REPORT AND ITS SEVERAL SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS, AND ITS PROPOSALS
WITH RESPECT TO THE STOCK REMAINED UNCHANGED. 

IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT IN 1943 ON OBJECTIONS TO THE
PLAN, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE FUEL COMPANY'S NET INCOME FOR 1942 WAS
$415,000 AND FOR THE FIRST SEVEN MONTHS OF 1943, $535,869.  FN31  THE
COMPANY HAS NO FUNDED DEBT. 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THE RESPONDENTS CONTENDED THAT THE HOLDERS OF
THE FIRST CONSOLIDATED BONDS SHOULD BE COMPELLED EITHER TO FORECLOSE
THIS COLLATERAL, APPLYING THE PROCEEDS TO THEIR CLAIM, OR CREDIT THEIR
CLAIM WITH THE VALUE OF THE COLLATERAL AND BE ALLOWED NEW SECURITIES
ONLY FOR THE BALANCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT DISAPPROVED THE TREATMENT BY
THE PLAN OF THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS WITH RESPECT TO THE FUEL COMPANY
STOCK, POINTING TO THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD PERMITTED "DOUBTS
AND UNCERTAINTIES" TO REMAIN WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUE OF THE
COLLATERAL, AND THAT THERE WAS A DANGER THAT, IF THE COLLATERAL HAD
SUBSTANTIAL VALUE, THE FIRST CONSOLIDATED BONDHOLDERS MIGHT RECEIVE
MORE THAN FULL PAYMENT. 

THE FACTS SET OUT ABOVE FULLY SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COMMISSION THAT THE "TITLE TO THE STOCK IS VESTED IN THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC AND WESTERN PACIFIC."  WHATEVER RIGHTS THE DEBTOR MAY HAVE
RETAINED AFTER THE SALE OF THE STOCK ON EXECUTION IN 1918 WERE RELEASED
TO THE TRUSTEE AND THE TWO RAILROADS IN 1924.  WE HAVE THEN A SITUATION
IN WHICH THE HOLDERS OF THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN STOCK WHICH
HAD BEEN PLEDGED PREVIOUSLY UNDER A MORTGAGE HAVE PERMITTED THAT
INTEREST TO BE ENCUMBERED BY A THIRD PERSON, NAMELY THE DEBTOR, AS
SECURITY FOR ITS GENERAL AND REFUNDING BONDS.  THE RULE IS SETTLED IN
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS THAT A CREDITOR SECURED BY THE PROPERTY OF
OTHERS NEED NOT DEDUCT THE VALUE OF THAT COLLATERAL OR ITS PROCEEDS IN
PROVING HIS DEBT.  IVANHOE BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. ORR, 295 U.S. 243.  WE
SEE NO REASON WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TRUE UNDER SEC. 77.  SEE NEW
YORK TRUST CO. V. PALMER, 101 F.2D 1, 3.  THEREFORE THE FIRST
CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE BONDS WERE PROPERLY PERMITTED TO PROVE THE FULL
AMOUNT OF THEIR DEBT. 

RESPONDENTS, SPEAKING ONLY FOR THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS, OBJECT THAT
THE PLAN GIVES THE FIRST CONSOLIDATED BONDHOLDERS ALL THE UTAH FUEL
STOCK OR ITS PROCEEDS IN ADDITION TO SECURITIES THE FACE VALUE OF WHICH
AMOUNTS TO ONE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THEIR CLAIMS.  THE REFUNDING
BONDHOLDERS MAKE NO OBJECTION.  IT IS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE PLAN
DEPRIVES THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS OF THEIR JUNIOR INTEREST IN THE STOCK
WITHOUT A DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF THAT STOCK, OR A FINDING OF THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE CONSOLIDATED BONDHOLDERS HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE NEW
SECURITIES TO BE GIVEN THEM.  WE DO NOT SO READ THE PLAN.  THE PLAN
PROVIDES MERELY THAT THE TRUSTEE OF THE CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE "SHALL BE
PERMITTED TO OBTAIN THE RELEASE OF THE EQUITIES IN THE STOCK OF THE
UTAH FUEL COMPANY" AND DISTRIBUTE THE STOCK OR ITS PROCEEDS TO THE
HOLDERS OF THE BONDS.  THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS AT LEAST TWO
REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET BEFORE THE CONSOLIDATED BONDS OBTAIN ANYTHING
FROM THE COLLATERAL.  THE FIRST IS THAT THE TRUSTEE OF THE FIRST
CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE BE IN EXISTENCE.  EVEN AFTER THE PLAN GOES INTO
OPERATION AND THE OLD SECURITIES ARE SURRENDERED FOR CANCELLATION,
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE TRUSTS TERMINATE SINCE THEY WILL
CONTINUE TO HOLD PROPERTY OTHER THAN THAT OF THE DEBTOR.  SECTION
77(F), WHICH DEALS WITH THE EFFECT OF A CONFIRMATION AND THE DISCHARGE
OF THE DEBTOR FROM LIABILITY, DOES NOT SO REQUIRE.  HENCE WHATEVER
ACTION THE TRUSTEE OF THE CONSOLIDATED TAKES MAY BE COMMENCED PRIOR TO
OR AFTER THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN.  THIS WILL PERMIT THE
RESPONDENT, TRUSTEE UNDER THE GENERAL MORTGAGE, WHICH WOULD CONTINUE IN
EXISTENCE FOR THE PURPOSE, TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO SAFEGUARD ITS
RIGHTS IN THE COLLATERAL ON BEHALF OF THE GENERALS.  FN32 

THE SECOND REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS EXPLICIT IN THE PLAN, IS THAT THE
TRUSTEE OBTAIN THE RELEASE OF THE EQUITIES IN THE STOCK.  THE JUNIOR
LIENORS HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE 1901 PLEDGE AND
THE 1924 AGREEMENT TO ALL THE PROCEEDS OF THE STOCK OVER $6,000,000 AND
A RIGHT ALSO TO ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDS NOT NEEDED TO MAKE THE FIRST
CONSOLIDATED BONDS WHOLE.  THE TRUSTEE OF THE CONSOLIDATED CONCEDES IN
ITS BRIEF HERE THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLEDGE CAN BE BROUGHT ABOUT ONLY
THROUGH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  IT CORRECTLY POINTS OUT THAT IN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS FULL PROTECTION CAN BE GIVEN TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE ANY
JUNIOR INTEREST IN THE STOCK.  RESPONDENTS' FEAR THAT THE GENERAL
BONDHOLDERS AND THE MORTGAGE TRUSTEES FOR THE JUNIOR INTERESTS WILL NOT
BE IN EXISTENCE AND SO UNABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES HAS BEEN ABOVE
DEMONSTRATED TO BE WITHOUT FOUNDATION IN FACT.    THE RESULT IS THAT
THIS FEATURE OF THE PLAN DID NOT IN ANY WAY CHANGE OR AFFECT EXISTING
RIGHTS IN THE COLLATERAL.  THE RESPONDENTS MAY SHOW IN THE JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS WHICH MUST BE BROUGHT BY THE TRUSTEE OF THE FIRST
CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE THAT THE FIRST CONSOLIDATED BONDS HAVE BEEN FULLY
PAID BY THE SECURITIES AWARDED THEM UNDER THE PLAN, IF SUCH BE THE
FACT, OR THE RESPONDENT, TRUSTEE OF THE GENERAL, MAY ITSELF BRING A
PROCEEDING AGAINST THE TRUSTEE OF THE FIRST CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE FOR A
DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE GENERALS.  PETITIONERS CONCEDE, AS
THEY MUST, THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MORE THAN FULL PAYMENT AND
THAT THEY ARE UNDER A DUTY TO ACCOUNT TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR ANY
SURPLUS REMAINING AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN MADE WHOLE.  FN33 

THE TREATMENT OF THE UTAH FUEL STOCK IN THE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE COMMISSION'S DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN COLLATERAL PLEDGED WITH THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AND THE RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION
BY PARTIES OTHER THAN THE DEBTOR TO SECURE NOTES OF THE DEBTOR IN THE
WESTERN PACIFIC CASE.  WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. REORGANIZATION, 233
I.C.C. 409, 432.  THE COMMISSION PERMITTED THE PLEDGEES TO RETAIN THE
COLLATERAL AND THIS COURT APPROVED THAT ACTION, SAYING, "THIS
COLLATERAL, OTHER THAN THE REFUNDING BONDS, WAS THEREFORE LEFT WITH THE
PLEDGEES WITH ITS POSITION UNAFFECTED BY ANY DIRECT ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION."  ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., SUPRA, AT 506. 

REASONABLENESS OF REJECTION.  AS THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS UPON THE ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES, THE TREATMENT BY THE
COMMISSION OF CASH, WAR EARNINGS, AND DECREASE IN DEBT WITH PRIORITY
OVER THE GENERALS DIFFERED FROM THOSE MADE BY THIS COURT, THAT COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS WERE REASONABLY JUSTIFIED IN
REJECTING THE PLAN FOLLOWED NATURALLY.  150 F.2D 40.  SECTION (E) GIVES
POWER TO A CLASS, HERE THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS, TO REJECT THE PLAN
SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER CERTIFICATION OF THE
RESULT OF THE SUBMISSION, TO "CONFIRM THE PLAN IF HE IS SATISFIED AND
FINDS, AFTER HEARING, THAT IT MAKES ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR THE INTERESTS OR CLAIMS OF THOSE REJECTING IT;
THAT SUCH REJECTION IS NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THOSE REJECTING IT AND ALL THE
RELEVANT FACTS; AND THAT THE PLAN CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CLAUSES (1) TO (3), INCLUSIVE, OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS
SUBSECTION (E)  ..."  11 U.S.C. SEC. 205; SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA.  FN34  THE
PLAN WAS CONFIRMED AFTER APPROPRIATE FINDINGS.  62 F.SUPP.  AT 390. 

THIS PROVISION FOR CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN DESPITE REJECTION BY A
CLASS APPEARED IN THE DRAFT FOR THE 1935 AMENDMENTS.  APPARENTLY IT
CAUSED NO PARTICULAR COMMENT.  FN35  WE THINK THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR
CONFIRMATION BY THE COURTS OVER THE CREDITORS' OBJECTION ARE WITHIN THE
BANKRUPTCY POWERS OF CONGRESS.  THOSE POWERS ARE ADEQUATE TO ELIMINATE
CLAIMS BY ADMINISTRATIVE VALUATIONS WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THEY ARE
ADEQUATE TO REQUIRE CREDITORS TO ACQUIESCE IN A FAIR ADJUSTMENT OF
THEIR CLAIMS, SO LONG AS THE CREDITOR GETS ALL THE VALUE OF HIS LIEN
AND HIS SHARE OF ANY FREE ASSETS.  FN36 

THE GROUNDS ACCEPTED BY US IN FORMER SECTIONS OF THIS OPINION AS
SUSTAINING, AS OF JANUARY 1, 1943, THE VALUATION OF THE ROAD, THE
ALLOCATION OF THE SECURITIES, AND THE TREATMENT OF CASH, WAR EARNINGS
AND CAPITAL REDUCTIONS ESTABLISH THAT FOR THE ACT OF CONFIRMATION ON
NOVEMBER 29, 1944, OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS, THE
FINDING OF THE JUDGE THAT THE PLAN THEN MADE "ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR
FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT" OF THE DISSENTERS WAS JUSTIFIED.  62
F.SUPP.  AT 390.  IN VIEW OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S FAMILIARITY WITH THE
REORGANIZATION, THIS FINDING HAS ESPECIAL WEIGHT WITH US.  SEE RULE 52,
F.R.C.P.  THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PLAN THEN CONFORMED TO SUBSECTION
(B) AND THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SUBSECTION
(E).  NOTE 9 SUPRA. 

THIS LEAVES FOR CONSIDERATION THE QUESTION OF WHETHER, THE PLAN BEING
FAIR AND EQUITABLE AS OF JUNE, 1943, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1943, THE
GENERALS WERE REASONABLY JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE PLAN BY BALLOTS
CAST BETWEEN APRIL 26 AND JULY 15, 1944. 

AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT UNDER ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES, SUPRA, THE
COMMISSION'S PLAN WAS ADOPTED AFTER 1942, THE YEAR OF GREATEST PROFIT,
AND WITH ANTICIPATION ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION THAT THERE MIGHT BE
OTHER "BIG" YEARS BUT WITH REALIZATION THAT THE WAR PROFITS WERE NOT A
SOUND BASIS FOR HIGHER VALUATION.  CURRENT REPORTS OF EARNINGS WERE A
PART OF THE RECORD.  NOTHING THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE CALLED TO OUR
ATTENTION INDICATES ANY IMPROVEMENT IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OR PROSPECTS
IN JULY, 1944, OR ANY DATE SINCE, OVER JUNE, 1943, THE DATE OF THE
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE PLAN, WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A TREATMENT
DIFFERENT FROM THAT ACCORDED THE CLAIMANTS IN 1943.  FN37  THE
CHALLENGE TO THE REASONABLENESS OR THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE
REJECTION OF THE PLAN IS NOT BASED ON ANY CHANGE OF CONDITIONS SINCE
ITS APPROVAL BY THE DISTRICT COURT OCTOBER 25, 1943.  UNDER SUBSECTION
(E), NOTE 9 SUPRA, THE JUDGE AUTOMATICALLY CONFIRMS A PLAN AFTER A VOTE
OF CLASSES OF CREDITORS IF SATISFIED THAT TWO-THIRDS OF EACH CLASS HAVE
ACCEPTED.  IF THERE IS A REJECTION, THERE IS A REEXAMINATION OF THE
PLAN TO ASSURE THAT THOSE WHO DISSENT HAVE HAD FAIR AND EQUITABLE
TREATMENT.  APPARENTLY THE REEXAMINATION FOR THIS TREATMENT DOES NOT
DIFFER FROM THAT FOR THE ORIGINAL COURT APPROVAL UNDER THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH OF SUBSECTION (E).  IT DOES, HOWEVER, CENTER UPON THE RIGHTS
OF THOSE WHO REJECTED THE PLAN. 

A REJECTION WOULD NOT BE REASONABLY JUSTIFIED UNLESS THE DISSENTERS
HAD A VALID REASON FOR THEIR VOTE.  AS IS SHOWN BY JUDGE SYMES'
DISCUSSION OF THEIR OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMATION N38, THEIR REASONS WERE
THE PAYMENT OF THE SENIOR OBLIGATIONS WITH CONSEQUENT CLAIMED RELEASE
OF CAPITALIZATION FOR JUNIOR SECURITIES AND THE INADEQUATE VALUATION,
PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE LARGE ADDITIONS TO PLANTS FROM EARNINGS. 
WE THINK THAT WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WAS AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR
THE VALUATION, SEE PAGE 512 ET SEQ., AND THAT THE DECREASES IN SENIOR
DEBT WERE NOT FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE JUNIOR CREDITORS.  SEE PP. 524
525, SUPRA.  RESPONDENTS OFFER NO OTHER GROUND FOR THEIR VOTES IN
REJECTION. 

CONGRESS WITH ITS PURPOSE TO STOP THE BLOCKADE OF SOUND
REORGANIZATION BY CLASSES OF CREDITORS WITH THE VETO POWER OF THE 1933
STATUTE, NOTE 35, SUPRA, CERTAINLY DID NOT INTEND TO LEAVE A CLASS WITH
THE SAME POWER OF INTERFERENCE BECAUSE IN ITS REASONABLE JUDGMENT THAT
CLASS THOUGHT THE VALUATION WAS ERRONEOUS OR THE SENIOR CREDITORS WERE
PAID IN FULL BY THE FACE VALUE OF SECURITIES.  IF A PLAN GIVES FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TREATMENT TO DISSENTERS, THE ELEMENTS WHICH MAKE THE PLAN
FAIR AND EQUITABLE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A REASONABLY JUSTIFIED
REJECTION.  IF ONLY THOSE ELEMENTS ARE RELIED UPON, AS HERE, THE
REJECTION IS NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFIED. 

OF COURSE, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IF A PLAN IS APPROVED AS FAIR AND
EQUITABLE BY THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT, THERE CANNOT BE A REASONABLE
JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS REJECTION BY A CLASS OF CLAIMANTS ON SUBMISSION. 
REASONS TO MAKE THEIR REJECTION REASONABLE MAY ARISE THEREAFTER.  FOR
EXAMPLE, UNANTICIPATED, LARGE EARNINGS MIGHT DEVELOP.  WE SEE NO
REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION HERE FOR THE ACTION OF THE GENERAL
BONDHOLDERS. 

IN CONCLUSION, WE SHALL ADD THAT THE FOREGOING OPINION HAS BEEN
WRITTEN WITHOUT HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO PLAN
REORGANIZATIONS WITH AN EYE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS THE
PRIVATE WELFARE OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS.  FN39  THE COMMISSION
HAD THIS DUTY IN MIND.  OUR FAILURE TO COMMENT MORE UPON THAT FEATURE
OF THE PLAN SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS AN INTIMATION UPON OUR PART
THAT IT IS NOT IMPORTANT.  THESE RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO
SACRIFICE THEIR PROPERTY SO THAT A DEPRESSION-PROOF RAILROAD SYSTEM
MIGHT BE CREATED.  BUT THEY INVESTED THEIR CAPITAL IN A PUBLIC UTILITY
THAT DOES OWE AN OBLIGATION TO THE PUBLIC.  THE INSURANCE GROUP
COMMITTEE, WITH FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE MYRIAD HOLDERS OF
POLICIES, AND THE OTHER INVESTORS OR SPECULATORS IN SENIOR BONDS AS
WELL AS THE HOLDERS OF GENERAL BONDS OR OTHER INVESTORS OR SPECULATORS
IN JUNIOR SECURITY ISSUES, BY THEIR ENTRY INTO A RAILROAD ENTERPRISE,
ASSUMED THE RISK THAT IN ANY DEPRESSION OR ANY REORGANIZATION THE
INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WELL AS THEIRS.  THAT
PUBLIC INTEREST IN AN EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM JUSTIFIES THE
COMMISSION'S REQUIREMENTS FOR REASONABLE MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT OF
THE PROPERTIES AND FOR A CAPITALIZATION WITH FAIR PROSPECTS FOR
DIVIDENDS ON ALL CLASSES OF SECURITIES.  FN40 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF OCTOBER 25, 1943, APPROVING THE PLAN,
AND OF NOVEMBER 29, 1944, CONFIRMING THE PLAN, ARE AFFIRMED. 

THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  11 U.S.C. SEC. 205. 

FN2  THE PLAN IS PRINTED IN DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO. REORGANIZATION, 254
I.C.C. 349, 385.  SEE FOR FORMER DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION IN THIS
REORGANIZATION, 233 I.C.C. 515; 239 I.C.C. 583; 254 I.C.C. 5. 

FN3  C.C.H. BANKRUPTCY LAW SERVICE P54,562. 

FN4  THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY IS REFERRED TO
HEREIN AS THE DEBTOR OR THE DENVER; THE DENVER & SALT LAKE WESTERN
RAILROAD COMPANY AS SALT LAKE WESTERN; THE DENVER & SALT LAKE RAILWAY
COMPANY AS THE SALT LAKE; THE RIO GRANDE JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY AS
THE JUNCTION. 

FN5  IN RE DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO., 62 F.SUPP.  384. 

FN6  254 I.C.C. AT 354 TO 357. 

FULL DETAILS APPEAR IN THE PLAN, NOTE 2, SUPRA, AS WELL AS
EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN ITEMS IN THE FOLLOWING TABLES.  THE TABLES ARE
PRINTED TO GIVE THE READER A CONVENIENT SUMMARY OF THE PLAN.  254
I.C.C. 382-83. 

               CAPITALIZATION AND ANNUAL CHARGES. 

                    (CHART OMITTED)

      DISTRIBUTION OF NEW SECURITIES PER $1,000 OF PRESENT BONDS

         WITH ACCRUED INTEREST. 

   (CHART OMITTED)

                               CLAIMS. 

                                               CLAIMS AS OF
UNDISTURBED

    JAN. 1, 1943 OR EXTENDED 

EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS............................  $5,758,000
$5,758,000 

RIO GRANDE WESTERN FIRST-TRUST 4'S...............  20,050,800 

RIO GRANDE WESTERN CONSOLIDATED 4'S..............  20,056,400 

RIO GRANDE JUNCTION FIRST 5'S....................   2,758,333 

DENVER & RIO GRANDE CONSOLIDATED 4'S.............  45,727,500 

DENVER & RIO GRANDE CONSOLIDATED 4 1/2'S.........   8,823,115 

REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT 5'S....................  16,950,000 

REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT 6'S....................   2,990,000 

GENERAL-MORTGAGE 5'S.............................  43,548,155 

CHASE NATIONAL BANK NOTE.........................  2,158,458
2,158,458 

R.R. CREDIT CORPORATION NOTE; PAID MAY 17, 1943 

R.F.C. NOTES.....................................  13,900,605 

UNSECURED CLAIMS, APPROXIMATE....................     440,000   NO
EQUITY

               --------------------------

 TOTAL, DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN............ 183,161,366
7,916,458 

RESPONDENTS SOUGHT REVIEW IN SEPARATE APPEALS FROM THE ORDER OF
APPROVAL OR THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION OR BOTH TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.  THAT COURT REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT
ON ALL APPEALS AND REMANDED THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION WITH THE
STATEMENT, 150 F.2D 28, 40, 

"NOTHING IN THIS OPINION SHALL PREJUDICE OR FORECLOSE THE RIGHTS OF
THE PARTIES TO PROPOSE A NEW PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OR THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO FORMULATE, APPROVE, AND CERTIFY A NEW PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION IN THE LIGHT OF ANY RELEVANT FACTS PRESENTED TO THE
COMMISSION IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(D)."  BY THIS
REMAND, THE COMMISSION WAS EMPOWERED TO PROCEED ANEW TO CONSIDERATION
OF THE REORGANIZATION IN ALL ITS PHASES, SEC. 77(E), INCLUDING THOSE
STEPS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN AND APPROVED BY THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS. 

THAT COURT APPROVED THE VALUATION OF THE DEBTOR REACHED MAINLY BY THE
USE OF PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS.  IT HELD THAT THE VALUATION
ADOPTED NEED NOT REFLECT NECESSARILY THE MONEY SPENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS
DURING THE TRUSTEESHIP FOR REORGANIZATION.  150 F.2D 35.  THE SOUNDNESS
OF THESE CONCLUSIONS IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE WESTERN PACIFIC AND
MILWAUKEE CASES.  FN7  THE CIRCUIT COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE
COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO REOPEN THE HEARINGS JUST BEFORE
THE ENTRY OF ITS ORDER OF JUNE 14, 1943, APPROVING THE PLAN, TO HEAR
EVIDENCE OF THE THEN EXISTING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND THE 1943 EARNINGS
OF THE DEBTOR.  FN8 

FN7  ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448, 477-83; GROUP
OF INVESTORS V. MILWAUKEE R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 539-41. 

FN8  CF. 318 U.S. AT 543. 

FN9  APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205, ARE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"(B)  A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS SECTION (1)
SHALL INCLUDE PROVISIONS MODIFYING OR ALTERING THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS
GENERALLY, OR OF ANY CLASS OF THEM, SECURED OR UNSECURED, EITHER
THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF NEW SECURITIES OF ANY CHARACTER OR OTHERWISE;
(2) MAY INCLUDE PROVISIONS MODIFYING OR ALTERING THE RIGHTS OF
STOCKHOLDERS GENERALLY, OR OF ANY CLASS OF THEM, EITHER THROUGH THE
ISSUANCE OF NEW SECURITIES OF ANY CHARACTER, OR OTHERWISE; (3) MAY
INCLUDE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING SUCH INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND
STOCKHOLDERS AS ARE NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR, PROVISIONS FOR THE
ISSUANCE TO ANY SUCH CREDITOR OR STOCKHOLDER OF OPTIONS OR WARRANTS TO
RECEIVE, OR TO SUBSCRIBE FOR, SECURITIES OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY IN
SUCH AMOUNTS AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MAY BE SET FORTH IN
THE PLAN; (4) SHALL PROVIDE FOR FIXED CHARGES (INCLUDING FIXED INTEREST
ON FUNDED DEBT, INTEREST ON UNFUNDED DEBT, AMORTIZATION OF DISCOUNT ON
FUNDED DEBT, AND RENT FOR LEASED RAILROADS) IN SUCH AN AMOUNT THAT,
AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBABLE PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF THE
PROPERTY IN LIGHT OF ITS EARNINGS EXPERIENCE AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT
FACTS, THERE SHALL BE ADEQUATE COVERAGE OF SUCH FIXED CHARGES BY THE
PROBABLE EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF; ... 

     .         .        .         .         . 

"(D)  THE DEBTOR, AFTER A PETITION IS FILED AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION
(A) OF THIS SECTION, SHALL FILE A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WITHIN SIX
MONTHS OF THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER BY THE JUDGE APPROVING THE PETITION AS
PROPERLY FILED,  ...  AFTER THE FILING OF SUCH A PLAN, THE COMMISSION,
UNLESS SUCH PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY IT TO BE PRIMA FACIE
IMPRACTICABLE, SHALL, AFTER DUE NOTICE TO ALL STOCKHOLDERS AND
CREDITORS GIVEN IN SUCH MANNER AS IT SHALL DETERMINE, HOLD PUBLIC
HEARINGS, AT WHICH OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO ANY INTERESTED PARTY
TO BE HEARD, AND FOLLOWING WHICH THE COMMISSION SHALL RENDER A REPORT
AND ORDER IN WHICH IT SHALL APPROVE A PLAN, WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM
ANY WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED, THAT WILL IN ITS OPINION MEET WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTIONS (B) AND (E) OF THIS SECTION, AND WILL BE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST; OR IT SHALL RENDER A REPORT AND
ORDER IN WHICH IT SHALL REFUSE TO APPROVE ANY PLAN.  IN SUCH REPORT THE
COMMISSION SHALL STATE FULLY THE REASONS FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS. 

     .       .         .         .         . 

"(E)  UPON THE CERTIFICATION OF A PLAN BY THE COMMISSION TO THE
COURT, THE COURT SHALL GIVE DUE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF
THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SUCH PARTIES MAY FILE WITH THE COURT THEIR
OBJECTIONS TO SUCH PLAN, AND SUCH PARTIES SHALL FILE, WITHIN SUCH TIME
AS MAY BE FIXED IN SAID NOTICE, DETAILED AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS IN
WRITING TO THE PLAN AND THEIR CLAIMS FOR EQUITABLE TREATMENT.  THE
JUDGE SHALL, AFTER NOTICE IN SUCH MANNER AS HE MAY DETERMINE TO THE
DEBTOR, ITS TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES, STOCKHOLDERS, CREDITORS, AND THE
COMMISSION, HEAR ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST IN SUPPORT OF, AND IN
OPPOSITION TO, SUCH OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN AND SUCH CLAIMS FOR
EQUITABLE TREATMENT.  AFTER SUCH HEARING, AND WITHOUT ANY HEARING IF NO
OBJECTIONS ARE FILED, THE JUDGE SHALL APPROVE THE PLAN IF SATISFIED
THAT:  (1) IT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS
OF EACH CLASS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS, DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE
UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS, AND WILL
CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW OF THE LAND REGARDING THE
PARTICIPATION OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS;
... 

"...  IF THE JUDGE SHALL APPROVE THE PLAN, HE SHALL FILE AN OPINION,
STATING HIS CONCLUSIONS AND THE REASONS THEREFOR, AND ENTER AN ORDER TO
THAT EFFECT, AND SHALL SEND A CERTIFIED COPY OF SUCH OPINION AND ORDER
TO THE COMMISSION.  THE PLAN SHALL THEN BE SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION
TO THE CREDITORS OF EACH CLASS WHOSE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN FILED AND ALLOWED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION,
AND TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF EACH CLASS, AND/OR TO THE COMMITTEES OR
OTHER REPRESENTATIVES THEREOF, FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION, WITHIN SUCH
TIME AS THE COMMISSION SHALL SPECIFY, TOGETHER WITH THE REPORT OR
REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION THEREON OR SUCH A SUMMARIZATION THEREOF AS
THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE, AND THE OPINION AND ORDER OF THE JUDGE:
PROVIDED, THAT SUBMISSION TO ANY CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS SHALL NOT BE
NECESSARY IF THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE FOUND, AND THE JUDGE SHALL HAVE
AFFIRMED THE FINDING, (A) THAT AT THE TIME OF THE FINDING THE
CORPORATION IS INSOLVENT, OR THAT AT THE TIME OF THE FINDING THE EQUITY
OF SUCH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS HAS NO VALUE, OR THAT THE PLAN PROVIDES
FOR THE PAYMENT IN CASH TO SUCH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS OF AN AMOUNT NOT
LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THEIR EQUITY, IF ANY,  ...  PROVIDED FURTHER,
THAT SUBMISSION TO ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY IF THE
COMMISSION SHALL HAVE FOUND, AND THE JUDGE SHALL HAVE AFFIRMED THE
FINDING, THAT THE INTERESTS OF SUCH CLASS OF CREDITORS WILL NOT BE
ADVERSELY AND MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PLAN, OR THAT AT THE TIME OF
THE FINDING THE INTERESTS OF SUCH CLASS OF CREDITORS HAVE NO VALUE, OR
THAT THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR THE PAYMENT IN CASH TO SUCH CLASS OF
CREDITORS OF AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THEIR INTERESTS....
THE COMMISSION SHALL CERTIFY TO THE JUDGE THE RESULTS OF SUCH
SUBMISSION. 

"UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH CERTIFICATION, THE JUDGE SHALL CONFIRM THE PLAN
IF SATISFIED THAT IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY OR ON BEHALF OF CREDITORS OF
EACH CLASS TO WHICH SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION
HOLDING MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS IN AMOUNT OF THE TOTAL OF THE ALLOWED
CLAIMS OF SUCH CLASS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN SAID SUBMISSION AS
VOTING ON SAID PLAN, AND BY OR ON BEHALF OF STOCKHOLDERS OF EACH CLASS
TO WHICH SUBMISSION IS REQUIRED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION HOLDING MORE THAN
TWO-THIRDS OF THE STOCK OF SUCH CLASS WHICH HAS BEEN REPORTED IN SAID
SUBMISSION AS VOTING ON SAID PLAN; AND THAT SUCH ACCEPTANCES HAVE NOT
BEEN MADE OR PROCURED BY ANY MEANS FORBIDDEN BY LAW: PROVIDED, THAT, IF
THE PLAN HAS NOT BEEN SO ACCEPTED BY THE CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS,
THE JUDGE MAY NEVERTHELESS CONFIRM THE PLAN IF HE IS SATISFIED AND
FINDS, AFTER HEARING, THAT IT MAKES ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR THE INTERESTS OR CLAIMS OF THOSE REJECTING IT;
THAT SUCH REJECTION IS NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THOSE REJECTING IT AND ALL THE
RELEVANT FACTS; AND THAT THE PLAN CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CLAUSES (1) TO (3), INCLUSIVE, OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS
SUBSECTION (E):... 

"IF IT SHALL BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY FOR
ANY PURPOSE UNDER THIS SECTION, THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE SUCH
VALUE AND CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE COURT IN ITS REPORT ON THE PLAN.  THE
VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY USED IN RAILROAD OPERATION SHALL BE DETERMINED ON
A BASIS WHICH WILL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE EARNING POWER OF THE
PROPERTY, PAST, PRESENT, AND PROSPECTIVE, AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT
FACTS.  IN DETERMINING SUCH VALUE ONLY SUCH EFFECT SHALL BE GIVEN TO
THE PRESENT COST OF REPRODUCTION NEW AND LESS DEPRECIATION AND ORIGINAL
COST OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT THEREIN, AS MAY BE
REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW OF THE LAND, IN LIGHT OF ITS EARNING POWER AND
ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTS." 

FN10  318 U.S. AT 472, 473, 477; CONCURRING OPINION AT 512; 318 U.S.
AT 545. 

FN11  318 U.S. AT 475-76; 318 U.S. AT 536-39.  COMPARE WRIGHT V.
UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., 311 U.S. 273, 279; JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V.
BARTELS, 308 U.S. 180, 186; GELFERT V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 313 U.S.
221. 

FN12  47 STAT. 1474. 

FN13  49 STAT. 911.  H. REP. NO. 1283, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1;
S. REP. NO. 1336, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1; CRAVEN & FULLER,
AMENDMENTS OF RAILROAD BANKRUPTCY LAW, 49 HARV. L. REV. 1254.  SEE
ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. AT 470, ET SEQ. 

FN14  H.R. 5924, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS.; HEARINGS ON H.R. 4779, 79TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., SERIAL NO. 13; H. REP. NO. 1838, 79TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 3: 

"ALTHOUGH ALL THESE LAWS WERE INTENDED BY CONGRESS FOR THE
PRESERVATION OF OUR RAILROADS AND THEIR OWNERSHIP, THE THEORY HAS
APPEARED TO PREVAIL THAT THE CAPITALIZATION OF COMPANIES IN SECTION 77
PROCEEDINGS SHOULD IN ALL CASES BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED.  THAT IS WHAT
HAS BEEN DONE CONSISTENTLY AND PERSISTENTLY.  UNDER THE PAST
ADMINISTRATION OF SECTION 77, AS THAT STATUTE WAS INTERPRETED AND
APPLIED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND AFFIRMED BY THE
SUPREME COURT, COUNTLESS THOUSANDS OF SMALL STOCKHOLDERS ALREADY HAVE
BEEN WIPED OUT, AND THEIR INVESTMENTS, WHICH WOULD NOW BE OF GREAT
VALUE, WERE USELESSLY DESTROYED.  THERE ARE MANY MORE THOUSANDS UPON
THOUSANDS OF SUCH STOCKHOLDERS WHOSE INVESTMENTS ARE IMMINENTLY
THREATENED WITH A LIKE FATE, UNLESS CONGRESS PROMPTLY ENACTS
LEGISLATION TO PREVENT SUCH NEEDLESS LOSS.  AND THAT LOSS - AGGREGATING
OVER $2,000,000,000 - WOULD BE SUFFERED LARGELY BY A WIDELY SCATTERED
CLASS OF CITIZENS (MANY THOUSANDS OF WHOM ARE EMPLOYEES OF THESE VERY
RAILROADS) WHO INVESTED THEIR LEGACIES OR THEIR SAVINGS IN ONE OF
AMERICA'S GREATEST PRIVATE ENTERPRISES, FOR EDUCATION OF THEIR
CHILDREN, THE PURCHASE OF HOMES, OR SECURITY IN OLD AGE.  IT LITERALLY
MAY BE SAID THAT THESE STOCKS WERE THE FAVORITE INVESTMENTS OF WIDOWS
AND ORPHANS AND OF TRUSTEES." 

S. RES. 192, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 925, 79TH CONG, 2D
SESS.; S. 1253, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS.; HEARINGS ON S. 1253, 79TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., VOLUNTARY MODIFICATION OF RAILROAD FINANCIAL STRUCTURES;
HEARINGS ON S. 1253, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., MODIFICATION OF RAILROAD
FINANCIAL STRUCTURES, PART 2; S. REP. NO. 1170, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
PP. 1-2: 

"THE BILL (S. 1253) ENABLES RAILROAD COMPANIES TO ADJUST THEIR
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS QUICKLY, ECONOMICALLY, AND ON A BUSINESS BASIS.  THE
PROCEDURE IT PROVIDES WILL REDUCE ANY DISTURBANCE OF THEIR AFFAIRS TO A
MINIMUM, AND WILL PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM OF PROTECTION FOR BOTH THE
RAILROADS AND THEIR INVESTORS. 

"THE EXISTING LAW, SECTION 77, WAS ENACTED IN 1933, WITHOUT HEARINGS
AND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY ANY SUBCOMMITTEE OR COMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE.  IT WAS ENACTED IN THE BELIEF THAT IT WOULD HELP RAILROADS TO
CORRECT THEIR FINANCIAL AFFAIRS.  IT WAS FOUND TO DO THE OPPOSITE.  IT
HAS PLACED IN THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS EXTRAORDINARY POWER,
WHICH THEY HAD NOT REQUESTED, OVER 25 PERCENT OF THE COUNTRY'S RAILROAD
MILEAGE - A POWER WHICH THEY HAVE EXERCISED: 

(1)  TO DEMOLISH EVERY PART OF THE FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE STRUCTURES
OF THOSE RAILROADS; 

(2)  TO PLAN IN EVERY RESPECT THE FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE FUTURE OF
THOSE RAILROADS; 

(3)  TO PICK MEN TO CONTROL THOSE RAILROADS; AND 

(4)  TO DECREE THE FORFEITURE OF $2 1/2 BILLION OF INVESTMENTS. 

"THE PRESENT BILL PUTS AN END TO EVERY ONE OF THOSE POWERS AND
RESTORES THE OPERATION OF RAILROADS TO THEIR MANAGEMENTS AND THE
ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR FINANCES TO THE COMPANIES THEMSELVES, WITH THE
ASSISTANCE OF THEIR SECURITYHOLDERS, WHERE NECESSARY." 

SEE A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF RECENT REORGANIZATION DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, F.C. NICODEMUS, JR., HEARINGS ON
H.R. 4779, SUBSEQUENTLY H.R. 5924, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 181. 

FN15  53 STAT. 1134; 56 STAT. 787.  A BILL TO EXTEND THIS ACT TO
1950, H.R. 3429, WAS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON NOVEMBER
1, 1945, 91 CONG. REC. 10276; H. REP. NO. 1128, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN16  FULL DETAILS OF THE PROPERTIES, THE ELEMENTS OF RATE-MAKING
VALUE, THE CORPORATE HISTORY, THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS, THE TRAFFIC AND EARNINGS APPEAR
THROUGHOUT THE VARIOUS REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION, PARTICULARLY THE
ORIGINAL REPORT IN 233 I.C.C. 515.  THE LOCATION AND EXTENT OF ITS
PROPERTIES ARE SUCCINCTLY DESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION AT PAGE 518, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"THE DENVER'S PRINCIPAL EASTERN TERMINI ARE DENVER AND PUEBLO, COLO.,
AT EACH OF WHICH POINTS CONNECTION IS MADE WITH THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA &
SANTA FE RAILWAY AND THE COLORADO & SOUTHERN RAILWAY.  AT DENVER
CONNECTION IS ALSO MADE WITH THE CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD,
THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY, AND THE UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD; AT PUEBLO, ALSO WITH THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD, WHICH IS
THE DENVER'S MAIN OUTLET TO THE EAST. 

"ON THE WEST THE MAIN LINE OF THE DENVER PASSES THROUGH SALT LAKE
CITY AND TERMINATES AT OGDEN, UTAH.  CONNECTION IS MADE WITH THE UNION
PACIFIC AT EACH POINT; AT SALT LAKE CITY THE DENVER ALSO CONNECTS WITH
THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD AND AT OGDEN WITH THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC. 
THE INTERCHANGE WITH THE WESTERN PACIFIC IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT
WITH ANY OTHER WESTERN CONNECTION. 

"THE ROAD OWNED BY THE DENVER CONSISTS OF 1,256.6 MILES OF MAIN LINE
AND 1,094.9 MILES OF BRANCH LINES.  OPERATED UNDER LEASE ARE THE RIO
GRANDE JUNCTION RAILWAY  ...  EXTENDING FROM RIFLE TO GRAND JUNCTION,
COLO., 62.1 MILES, THE GOSHEN VALLEY RAILROAD, A BRANCH LINE 8.8 MILES
IN LENGTH, AND THE SALT LAKE WESTERN, EXTENDING FROM DOTSERO, ON THE
DENVER, TO ORESTOD ON THE DENVER & SALT LAKE RAILWAY  ...  38.1 MILES. 
INCLUDING THESE LEASED LINES, THE DENVER OPERATES APPROXIMATELY 1,357
MILES OF MAIN LINES AND 1,104 MILES OF BRANCH LINES.  APPROXIMATELY 771
MILES OF NARROW-GAGE LINES ARE INCLUDED IN THE OPERATED MILEAGE. 

"IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE-MENTIONED MILEAGES, THE DENVER OPERATES
OVER THE SALT LAKE, BETWEEN DENVER AND ORESTOD, 128.6 MILES.  THIS
LINE, TOGETHER WITH THE SALT LAKE WESTERN, CONSTITUTES THE DOTSERO CUT
OFF ROUTE.  THE SALT LAKE'S OWNERSHIP EMBRACES THE LINE EXTENDING FROM
UTAH JUNCTION, NEAR DENVER, TO THE WESTERN TERMINUS AT CRAIG, COLO.,
220.2 MILES.  FOR ITS DENVER TERMINAL, THE SALT LAKE USES, UNDER A
LEASE, THE FACILITIES OF THE NORTHWESTERN TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY. 
THE SALT LAKE DERIVES NO REVENUES FROM THE THROUGH TRAFFIC MOVING OVER
THE CUT-OFF, SINCE ALL SUCH TRAFFIC IS HANDLED BY THE DENVER."    FN17
SEE DENVER & SALT LAKE WESTERN R. CO. CONSTRUCTION, 154 I.C.C. 51; 175
I.C.C. 535; 233 I.C.C. AT 520. 

FN18  THE REPORTS SHOW THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST AS FOLLOWS: 

1942........... $17,044,420.39 

1943...........  11,573,667.94 

1944...........   8,157,880.25 

FN19  318 U.S. AT 482 AND 483; 318 U.S. AT 539-541. 

FN20  ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. AT 475-76.    FN21
233 I.C.C. 578-81. 

FN22  254 I.C.C. AT 359. 

FN23  SEE FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FORMULAE 233 I.C.C. AT 581 ET SEQ.;
254 I.C.C. AT 16 AND 359-76. 

FN24  RIO GRANDE WESTERN CONSOLIDATED, 254 I.C.C. AT 365: "LOSS IN
EARNINGS POSITION AND SURRENDER OF OTHER RIGHTS, IN OUR OPINION, ARE
OFFSET BY THE POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED RETURN PERMITTED BY THE 4
1/2PERCENT INCOME BONDS, 5-PERCENT CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK,
UNLIMITED DIVIDENDS ON COMMON STOCK, AND THE OTHER FEATURES OF THE
PLAN." 

DENVER & RIO GRANDE CONSOLIDATED, ID. AT 364:  "THIS APPARENT CHANGE
IN EARNINGS POSITION IS OFFSET BY THE NEW SINKING FUND AND CAPITAL FUND
AND BY THE INCREASED RATE OF RETURN OBTAINABLE FROM THE NEW SECURITIES,
I.E., SLIGHTLY IN EXCESS OF 4.5 PERCENT FOR 64 PERCENT OF THE CLAIM AND
UNLIMITED STOCK DIVIDENDS FOR THE REMAINDER." 

DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT, ID. AT 366:
"THEY ALSO WILL RECEIVE WHATEVER DIVIDENDS MAY BE PAID ON 97,706 SHARES
OF COMMON STOCK." 

FN25  ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. AT 509. 

INTEREST ACCRUES ON THE SECURED CLAIMS UNTIL THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE PLAN.  GROUP OF INVESTORS V. MILWAUKEE R. CO., 318 U.S. AT 546. 
COMPARE TICONIC BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S. 406. 

FN26  318 U.S. 506-509. 

FN27  62 F.SUPP.  AT 390: 

"THE $25,000,000 OR MORE THE TRUSTEES HAVE EXPENDED IN THE
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM INURES TO THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMON STOCK.  IF THE
LATTER IS WORTH ANYTHING IT IS AS MUCH DUE TO THESE EXPENDITURES AS TO
ANY OTHER FACTOR.  THIS, WITH THE INCREASE IN CURRENT ASSETS AND
WARTIME EARNINGS WHICH COUNSEL SEEM TO BELIEVE ARE PERMANENT,
CONSTITUTE THE ONLY EQUITY BEHIND THE PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK." 

FN28  254 I.C.C. AT 356. 

FN29  MANKIND'S FORESIGHT IS LIMITED.  THE UNCERTAINTIES OF FUTURE
ESTIMATES ARE RECOGNIZED.  IT IS NOT WITHOUT INTEREST TO NOTE, HOWEVER,
THAT ON APRIL 15, 1946, THE RAILROADS OF THE UNITED STATES PETITIONED
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR INCREASED FREIGHT RATES AND
CHARGES.  THIS WAS SAID: 

"THE SITUATION OF THE RAILROADS HAS NOW BECOME CRITICAL AND THEIR
NEED FOR A SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER LEVEL OF FREIGHT RATES HAS BECOME
IMPERATIVE.  THIS IS THE RESULT OF AN EXTRAORDINARY COMBINATION OF WAR
AND POSTWAR CONDITIONS WITH WHICH THE RAILROADS ARE CONFRONTED, AND
MORE PARTICULARLY THE RESULT OF THREE FACTORS OF RECENT DEVELOPMENT:
(1) THE INCREASE IN WAGES OF RAILROAD EMPLOYES OF 16 CENTS PER HOUR
DETERMINED UNDER THE PROCEDURES OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IN APRIL,
1946, RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1, 1946; (2) LARGE INCREASES, BOTH PRESENT
AND PROSPECTIVE, IN THE PRICES OF RAILWAY MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES; AND
(3) A SHARP DECLINE IN VOLUME OF RAILWAY TRAFFIC AND AN EVEN GREATER
DECLINE IN RAILWAY REVENUE. 

     .         .         .         .      . 

"THE VOLUME OF FREIGHT AND PASSENGER TRAFFIC IS FALLING CONTINUOUSLY,
AND IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE DOWNWARD RATE WILL ACCELERATE IN THE
MONTHS TO COME.  THE REVENUES WILL BE REDUCED BY REASON BOTH OF THE
DECLINE IN VOLUME AND A RETURN TO A MORE NEARLY NORMAL COMPOSITION OF
TRAFFIC.  IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE OPERATING REVENUES OF CLASS I
RAILROADS FOR 1946, ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RATES, FARES AND
CHARGES, WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $6,800,000,000, OR 23.5 PER CENT LESS
THAN THEY WERE IN 1945. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"FREIGHT AND PASSENGER TRAFFIC REACHED THEIR PEAKS IN 1944.  BUT NET
RAILWAY OPERATING INCOME AND NET INCOME BEGAN TO DIMINISH IN 1943 ON
ACCOUNT OF RISING COSTS OF OPERATION.  IN THE FACE OF INCREASING
TRAFFIC THROUGH 1944, BOTH NET RAILWAY OPERATING INCOME AND NET INCOME
MOVED STEADILY DOWNWARD AFTER REACHING THEIR PEAK IN 1942.  WITH THE
CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN 1945 THERE BEGAN TO BE A DECLINE ALSO IN
GROSS REVENUES WHICH IS EXPECTED TO BECOME MORE PRONOUNCED AS THE
ABNORMAL WAR CONDITIONS DISAPPEAR, DISABILITIES OF HIGHWAY CARRIERS AND
OTHER AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION ARE REMOVED, AND THE PREWAR PATTERN OF
RAILWAY TRAFFIC IS RESUMED." 

THE DENVER APPARENTLY DID NOT VARY GREATLY FROM THIS OVERALL
PICTURE.  ITS NET REVENUE FOR 1945 FROM RAILWAY OPERATIONS DROPPED FROM
$20,569,809 TO $14,246,504.  ITS GROSS OPERATING REVENUE, HOWEVER,
INCREASED FOUR AND A HALF MILLION.  THE LOSS IN NET WAS DUE LARGELY TO
INCREASED AMORTIZATION OF DEFENSE PROJECTS. 

THE MONTHLY REPORT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES BY THE DENVER FOR JANUARY
AND FEBRUARY OF 1946 SHOWS A DECREASE OF OPERATING REVENUES FROM
$10,856,764 TO $8,932,983. 

FN30  SEE NOTE 24. 

FN31  ACCORDING TO MOODY'S MANUAL (1945) THE NET INCOME OF THE FUEL
COMPANY FOR 1943 WAS $865,140, 1944 $653,901, AND EARNED SURPLUS AT THE
END OF THE LATTER YEAR $4,862,980. 

FN32  OBVIOUSLY, THE FUEL STOCK OR ITS PROCEEDS COULD BE DISTRIBUTED
TO RECORD HOLDERS OF THE OLD SECURITIES AS OF THE DATE OR DATES OF
DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEW SECURITIES. 

FN33  THERE IS A CERTAIN ILLOGIC IN THE POSITION OF FIRST
CONSOLIDATED BONDS IN ASSERTING ANY RIGHTS IN THE COLLATERAL AT ALL. 
IF, AS THEY CONCEDE AND WE NOW HOLD, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BE PAID IN
FULL IN NEW SECURITIES WITHOUT REGARD TO THE COLLATERAL, IT MAY BE THAT
THEY HAVE BEEN FULLY PAID BY THE NEW SECURITIES GIVEN THEM SINCE THEY
DO NOT COMPLAIN OF THEIR TREATMENT UNDER THE PLAN.  SINCE THEY ARE
ENTITLED ONLY TO FULL PAYMENT IT WOULD THEN SEEM TO FOLLOW THAT THEY
HAVE NO RIGHTS AGAINST THE COLLATERAL.  WE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS
DECIDING THIS QUESTION, HOWEVER, SINCE WE LEAVE IT TO AN INDEPENDENT
SUIT IN WHICH THERE IS JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPER PARTIES. 

FN34  CLAUSES (2) TO (3) ARE NOT INVOLVED.  THEY RELATE TO EXPENSES,
FEES AND COSTS. 

FN35  H. REP. NO. 1283, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 18.  S. REP. NO.
1336, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3, CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:
"FURTHER, THE CONSENT OF TWO-THIRDS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS MUST
BE ACQUIRED, UNLESS, BY AN ELABORATE VALUATION PROCEEDING, IT IS PROVED
THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS SO LOW THAT THE STOCK HAS NO
INTEREST.  THIS IS AN EFFECTIVE OBSTRUCTION.... 

"IN ORDER TO REMEDY THESE DEFECTS, S. 1634, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES THAT
TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE OF EACH CLASS WHO VOTE UPON A PLAN WILL BIND THE
DISSENTERS OR THOSE FAILING TO VOTE.  BUT IT ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE
COURT MAY MAKE EFFECTIVE A FAIR PLAN WHERE THE PARTIES DO NOT AGREE....
IF TWO-THIRDS OF EACH CLASS CONSENT, THE PLAN WILL BIND THE REMAINDER
OF EACH CLASS.  BUT THE JUDGE MAY MAKE THE PLAN EFFECTIVE, EVEN IF NOT
SO ACCEPTED, IF HE FINDS THAT IT CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS JUST
STATED, PROVIDES FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR THE INTERESTS OF
THOSE REJECTING IT, AND THAT THEIR REJECTION IS NOT REASONABLY
JUSTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS.  THESE
PROVISIONS GIVE COMPLETE DUE PROCESS OF LAW FROM A PROCEDURAL
STANDPOINT, THERE BEING PROVISION FOR FULL HEARINGS BOTH BEFORE THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURT.  WITHIN THE BROAD POWERS OF CONGRESS UNDER
THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE AS RECENTLY DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN
CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS BANK & TRUST CO. V. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC
RY. CO. (55 SUP. CT. REP. 595), THE PROVISIONS ALSO AFFORD DUE PROCESS
OF LAW IN FULLY PROTECTING THE PROPERTY RIGHTS WHICH ARE INVOLVED." 

SEE ALSO HEARINGS, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
ON H.R. 6249, SERIAL 3, PP. 15 AND 22. 

FN36  WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., 311 U.S. AT 278, AND
DISCUSSION AT P. 509, SUPRA. 

FN37  CF. I.C.C. V. JERSEY CITY, 322 U.S. 503, 515. 

FN38  62 F.SUPP.  384. 

FN39  SEC. 77(D), NOTE 9 SUPRA.  318 U.S. AT 473; 318 U.S. AT 544. 

FN40  SEE CONCURRENCE OF COMMISSIONER EASTMAN, WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO.
REORGANIZATION, 233 I.C.C. AT 437. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTS, AND WILL SET FORTH THE DETAILED
GROUNDS FOR HIS DISSENT IN AN OPINION TO BE FILED HEREAFTER. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING* . 

*FILED OCTOBER 28, 1946. 

ON NOVEMBER 1, 1935, THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD
COMPANY AND THE DENVER AND SALT LAKE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
(HEREINAFTER COMPENDIOUSLY CALLED "THE DEBTOR"), INITIATED THESE
PROCEEDINGS FOR THEIR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT.  49 STAT. 911(1935), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205.  THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION HERE IN CONTROVERSY WAS APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ON JUNE 14, 1943.  254 I.C.C. 349, 385.  THE
DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THE PLAN FOR NECESSARY SUBMISSION TO THE
VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS.  C.C.H. BANKRUPTCY LAW SERVICE P54,562. 
ALL CLASSES EXCEPT THE HOLDERS OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS ACCEPTED
THE PLAN.  ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN, THE CLAIMS OF THESE
GENERAL BONDHOLDERS CONSTITUTED ABOUT ONE-FOURTH OF THE DEBTOR'S ENTIRE
DEBT.  JUST SHORT OF EIGHTY PERCENT OF THIS CLASS OF CREDITORS (79.33%)
VOTED TO REJECT THE PLAN.  CONGRESS HAS MADE THE RIGHT OF ANY CLASS TO
REJECT A PLAN SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF A DISTRICT COURT TO OVERRIDE SUCH
REJECTION, IF THE JUDGE "IS SATISFIED AND FINDS ...  THAT SUCH
REJECTION IS NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESPECTIVE
RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THOSE REJECTING IT AND ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS
..."  49 STAT. 911, 919(1935), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(E).  THE DISTRICT
COURT ON NOVEMBER 1, 1944, FOUND THAT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE HAD BEEN MET, AND CONFIRMED THE PLAN.  62 F.SUPP.  384.  BUT
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, A STRONG BENCH, ON
MAY 10, 1945, FOUND THAT "THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS WERE REASONABLY
JUSTIFIED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, IN REJECTING THE PLAN,
AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO CONFIRM THE PLAN
IN THE FACE OF THEIR ADVERSE VOTE."  150 F.2D 28, 40.  ON A FAIR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONGRESS FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF
RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS, AS APPLIED TO THE SITUATION BEFORE US, I
CANNOT ESCAPE AGREEMENT WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS ARE SO ENSHROUDED IN THE CONFUSING
INTRICACIES OF HIGH FINANCE THAT THE TRUE NATURE OF DECISIVE ISSUES IS
TOO OFTEN LOST TO VIEW.  IT MAY BE USEFUL TO AN APPRECIATION OF WHAT
APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE CRUX OF THE CASE TO PUT A SITUATION THAT IS
SUFFICIENTLY ANALOGOUS BUT MUCH MORE FAMILIAR.  IN THE EARLY DEPRESSION
YEARS THE BIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES FORECLOSED A LARGE NUMBER OF
FARMS.  THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS, WE ASSUME, INVOLVED THE CONTROL OF THE
FARM AND ALL ITS INCOME BY A JUDGE.  THE HYPOTHETICAL FARM BEGAN TO
MAKE A FAIR INCOME, ENOUGH TO PAY THE INSURANCE COMPANY A CONSIDERABLE
PART, IF NOT THE WHOLE, OF THE ANNUAL INTEREST.  BUT INSTEAD OF PAYING
THE INTEREST, THE JUDGE APPLIED THE MONEY TO REBUILD THE HOMESTEAD, TO
ADD A NEW BARN, TO PURCHASE AN ADJACENT FIELD, THE MOST MODERN
MACHINERY AND ADDITIONAL HEAD OF CATTLE.  THEREBY THE FARM BECAME FAR
MORE VALUABLE THAN AT ANY TIME SINCE THE INSURANCE COMPANY PLACED THE
MORTGAGE ON IT.  MOREOVER, THE JUDGE RETAINED AS CASH IN THE BANK A
PORTION OF THE INCOME SUFFICIENT TO PAY OFF AT LEAST TWENTY PERCENT OF
THE MORTGAGE.  THE FARMER THINKS HE OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED TO USE THE CASH
TO REDUCE THE MORTGAGE, SHOULD BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR THE INCOME WHICH THE
JUDGE USED TO MAKE THE CONSIDERABLE IMPROVEMENTS AND WHICH COULD HAVE
BEEN USED TO REDUCE THE MORTGAGE.  THIS WOULD APPEAR TO BE A NATURAL
ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF THE FARMER, AND IT WOULD HARDLY SEEM THAT HE
WAS NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFIED TO RESIST THE CLAIM OF THE INSURANCE
COMPANY TO THE FARM, WITH ALL ITS IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL AS THE CASH IN
BANK. 

THIS SIMPLE ANALOGY MAY LOOK ALMOST TRIFLING ALONGSIDE THE
COMPLICATED DETAILS INVOLVED IN A PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF A
RAILROAD SYSTEM.  BUT IS IT AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION OF THE CONTROLLING
ISSUE, NAMELY, WAS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT
THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS WERE "REASONABLY JUSTIFIED" IN REJECTING THE
PLAN?  LET THE FACTS, CLEARLY AND FAIRLY STATED IN THE OPINIONS BELOW,
SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.  JUDGE HUXMAN THUS SUMMARIZES THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS HAD "A REAL GRIEVANCE": 

"ON NOVEMBER 1, 1935, THE DEBTOR'S TOTAL DEBTS SENIOR TO THE CLAIM OF
THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS WAS SLIGHTLY OVER $101,000,000.  THE GENERAL
BONDHOLDERS' CLAIMS AT THAT TIME WERE APPROXIMATELY $30,000,000, MAKING
THE TOTAL OF THE TWO CLAIMS APPROXIMATELY $131,000,000.  ANY ONE OF THE
TEN PLANS OF REORGANIZATION PRIOR TO THE FINAL ONE FIXED THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY AT MORE THAN ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE CLAIMS OF ALL
BONDHOLDERS IN FULL, AS OF THE DATE THIS PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED. 
DURING THE TEN INTERVENING YEARS, THE CLAIM OF THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS
INCREASED TO MORE THAN $139,000,000, AND THAT OF THE GENERAL
BONDHOLDERS TO MORE THAN $43,500,000, MAKING A TOTAL OF MORE THAN
$182,000,000, REQUIRED FOR THE TWO CLASSES OF CLAIMS. 

DURING ALL OF THIS PERIOD THE DEBTOR ENJOYED SUBSTANTIAL INCOME,
AMOUNTING TO APPROXIMATELY $50,000,000.  INSTEAD OF USING THIS INCOME
IN PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE SENIOR CLAIMS, IT WAS USED IN MAKING
PERMANENT AND LASTING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ROAD.  MORE THAN $43,000,000
WAS USED IN THIS WAY.  NONE OF THESE EXPENDITURES HAS RESULTED IN A
COMPARABLE INCREASE OR IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE FINAL
VALUATION, OVER THE VALUATION PRIOR TO THE MAKING OF THE IMPROVEMENTS. 
BUT AS A RESULT OF THIS OPERATION, THE POSITION OF THE GENERAL
BONDHOLDERS HAS DETERIORATED FROM A 100 PER CENT PARTICIPATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIMS TO A MERE TEN PER CENT.  NOR DOES IT CHANGE THE
PICTURE TO SAY THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS WERE NECESSARY TO THE RAILROAD
SYSTEM.  THE FACT STILL REMAINS THAT EARNINGS IN WHICH ALL HAD A VITAL
INTEREST WERE USED IN BUILDING A NEW RAILROAD IN MANY RESPECTS, WHICH
WILL BE HANDED OVER TO THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS, AND THE GENERAL
BONDHOLDERS WILL PRACTICALLY BE ELIMINATED AS A RESULT THEREOF.    BUT
THIS ALONE DOES NOT ENTITLE THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS TO A GREATER
PARTICIPATION IN THE REORGANIZED COMPANY.  NEITHER DOES IT CONDEMN THE
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OR THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE SET UP THEREIN.  THE
OPERATION OF A RAILROAD INVOLVES THE EXPENDITURE OF LARGE SUMS FOR
OPERATION.  IT INVOLVES THE FORMULATION OF PLANS OF OPERATION AND THE
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION.  IF, IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS
DISCRETION, FUNDS ARE UNWISELY SPENT, FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE
INTEREST OF ALL CREDITORS, THEY MAY FEEL AGGRIEVED, BUT THEY HAVE NO
LEGAL CAUSE OF COMPLAINT. 

NEITHER WAS THE COMMISSION COMPELLED TO, NOR WOULD IT BE JUSTIFIED IN
ADDING THE AMOUNT OF THESE EXPENDITURES TO THE CAPITALIZED VALUE IF IN
THE EXERCISE OF SOUND DISCRETION IT FELT THAT THE REASONABLE
PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF THE ROAD, AFTER THE IMPROVEMENTS DID NOT
JUSTIFY IT.  HOWEVER, IN THE FACE OF ALL THIS, AFTER SATISFYING IN FULL
THE CLAIMS OF THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS, THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION SHOULD
HAVE MADE SURE THAT ALL EXCESS CURRENT ASSETS, AS WELL AS ALL EXCESS
WAR PROFITS YET TO ACCRUE, WOULD GO TO THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS. 

THE COMMISSION, AS POINTED OUT, ADOPTED A CONSERVATIVE, SOUND
ESTIMATE OF THE PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY.  FOR
THIS IT IS NOT TO BE CRITICIZED.  AN OVER-OPTIMISTIC VIEW WOULD AGAIN
SURELY LEAD THE DEBTOR INTO THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS, WITH WHICH IT HAS
HAD TOO MUCH ACQUAINTANCE ALREADY N7.  WE, HOWEVER, FEEL THAT THERE IS
MORE THAN A SPECULATIVE PROBABILITY THAT THESE WAR INDUSTRIES WHICH
HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE SYSTEM, AS WELL AS THE IMPROVEMENTS
WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE USE OF THESE NET EARNINGS, MIGHT PRODUCE
GREATER NET RETURNS THAN ANTICIPATED IN THE PLAN.  IF SUCH SHOULD BE
THE CASE, THEY CERTAINLY BELONG TO THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS AND NOT TO
THE SENIORS, AND THE PLAN SHOULD BRING THIS ABOUT.  IT COULD BE DONE BY
ISSUING TO THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF A
SUBORDINATE STOCK WHICH WOULD RECEIVE RETURNS ONLY FROM EXCESS
DIVIDENDS.  THIS IS A MERE SUGGESTION ON OUR PART, AND IN NO WISE
BINDING ON THE COMMISSION.  OUR DUTY IS LIMITED TO POINTING OUT DEFECTS
IN THE PLAN.  IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO CORRECT
THEM. 

                          THE JUNCTION BONDS 

WE THINK THAT THE COMPLAINT AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE JUNCTION
BONDS WERE HANDLED IS WELL TAKEN.  THE RIO GRANDE JUNCTION RAILROAD IS
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE DEBTOR.  IT HAD BONDS OUTSTANDING IN
THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC FOR THE PAYMENT OF WHICH THE DEBTOR WAS LIABLE,
TOTALING $2,758,333.  THIS CLAIM WAS SENIOR TO THAT OF THE GENERAL
BONDHOLDERS.  THE PLAN SET ASIDE SECURITIES FOR THE PAYMENT OF THIS
CLAIM.  IN AN ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 1943, THE DISTRICT COURT
DIRECTED THE TRUSTEE TO PAY THIS CLAIM WITH SOME OF THE SURPLUS CASH ON
HAND, AND RETAINED THE SECURITIES WHICH WERE TO BE USED IN THE PAYMENT
THEREOF IN THE TREASURY OF THE COMPANY.  THE COURT TREATED THE
TRANSACTION AS A PURCHASE OF SECURITIES RATHER THAN A PAYMENT OF A
DEBT.  THIS IS A PLAY UPON WORDS, AND, IN ANY EVENT, IS IMMATERIAL TO
THE ISSUE.  THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE NEW CAPITALIZATION PROVIDED
SECURITIES FOR THE PAYMENT OF THESE BONDS.  THE VALUE BEHIND THESE
SECURITIES IN NO WISE BELONGED TO THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS, BECAUSE THEY
HAD BEEN PAID IN FULL.  WHEN SURPLUS CASH WAS USED TO PAY THIS CLAIM,
THE VALUE BEHIND THE SECURITIES SET ASIDE FOR THAT PURPOSE REMAINED
UNDISTRIBUTED.  SINCE THE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS HAD BEEN SATISFIED IN
FULL, THIS UNDISTRIBUTED VALUE IN ALL EQUITY AND FAIRNESS BELONGED TO
THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS.  ANY PLAN WHICH DOES NOT GIVE IT TO THEM DOES
NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 77, SUB. E, OF THE ACT." 
150 F.2D 28, 38-39. 

INASMUCH AS THE DECISION IN THIS CASE SEEMS TO ME TO TURN ON AN
ADEQUATE APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS, I DEEM IT IMPORTANT TO QUOTE THE
ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH JUDGE PHILLIPS REACHED
HIS CONCLUSION: 

"ON NOVEMBER 1, 1935, DURING THE DEPTHS OF THE NATIONAL DEPRESSION,
THE DEBTOR CAME INTO COURT FOR REORGANIZATION.  AT THAT TIME THE
DEBTOR'S SENIOR DEBTS AHEAD OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS AGGREGATED
SLIGHTLY OVER $101,000,000 AND THE CLAIM OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDHOLDERS AGGREGATED ABOUT $30,000,000.  WITH AN IMMEDIATE
REORGANIZATION, A CAPITALIZATION OF $132,000,000 WOULD HAVE BEEN
ADEQUATE TO GIVE THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS NEW STOCK EQUAL TO
100 PER CENT OF THEIR CLAIM.  NO CAPITALIZATION OR VALUATION EVER
PROPOSED FOR THE DEBTOR, IN ANY PLAN PRESENTED, HAS BEEN THAT LOW. 
DURING THE EIGHT YEARS' DELAY IN REORGANIZATION (IN NOWISE DUE TO THE
GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS, BUT, AT LEAST IN PART, TO CONTROVERSIES
AMONG THE SENIOR SECURITY HOLDERS) AND UP TO JANUARY 1, 1943, THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN, THE CLAIMS OF THE SENIOR SECURITY HOLDERS,
DUE TO THE ACCRUAL AND NONPAYMENT OF INTEREST, INCREASED ABOUT
$38,000,000.  THE DEBTOR'S NET INCOME AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST DURING THE
TRUSTEESHIP TO THE END OF 1944 AMOUNTED TO $49,420,972.  IT EXCEEDED BY
APPROXIMATELY $9,500,000 THE INTEREST CHARGES WHICH ACCRUED ON THE
CLAIMS OF SENIOR SECURITY HOLDERS TO THE END OF THAT YEAR.  AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1935, THE DEBTOR'S CURRENT ASSETS WERE $9,727,230 LESS
THAN ITS CURRENT LIABILITIES.  AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1944, THE DEBTOR'S
CURRENT ASSETS EXCEEDED ITS CURRENT LIABILITIES BY $12,125,863.50. 
THUS, IT WILL BE SEEN THERE HAS BEEN A FAVORABLE CHANGE IN THE CURRENT
SITUATION OF $21,853,093, AND, MOREOVER, SINCE THE PLAN WAS FORMULATED,
THE JUNCTION BONDS HAVE BEEN PAID AND EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS HAVE BEEN
REDUCED FROM $5,758,000, THE AMOUNT PROVIDED FOR IN THE PLAN, TO
$4,540,000, A REDUCTION IN THAT REQUIREMENT OF $1,218,000. 

APPROXIMATELY $43,000,000 OF THE INCOME AVAILABLE, BUT NOT USED, FOR
THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST HAS BEEN EXPENDED IN PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS AND
BETTERMENTS.  WHILE THE INVESTMENT VALUE OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY THUS
WAS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED, THE COMMISSION'S VALUATION, BASED ON
ESTIMATED FUTURE EARNINGS, WAS NOT INCREASED PROPORTIONATELY.  AS A
RESULT, THE CLAIM OF THE SENIOR SECURITY HOLDERS HAS INCREASED AND THE
PARTICIPATION OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS HAS BEEN PRESSED
DOWNWARD UNTIL IT IS NOW FIXED AT 10 PER CENT OF THE NEW COMMON STOCK. 
MANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND BETTERMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE HAVE
SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THE CAPACITY OF THE RAILROAD TO HANDLE
INCREASED TRAFFIC AS IT ARISES.  CENTRAL TRAIN CONTROL INSTALLED IN
MANY SEGMENTS, WHERE THE GREATEST DENSITY OF TRAFFIC OBTAINS, GIVES TO
THOSE SEGMENTS, IN A LARGE DEGREE, THE EQUIVALENT OF A DOUBLE-TRACK
RAILROAD AND INCREASES THE NUMBER OF TRAINS THAT CAN BE OPERATED OVER
THE ROAD AND THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THAT CAN BE HANDLED BY THE ROAD. 
OTHER OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY
IN OPERATIONS.  THESE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE ENABLED THE DEBTOR TO HANDLE
THE GREAT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC RESULTING FROM THE WAR EFFORT AND HAVE
PLACED THE DEBTOR IN A POSITION TO MORE ECONOMICALLY AND EFFICIENTLY
HANDLE A VOLUME OF TRAFFIC LARGELY IN EXCESS OF ITS PREWAR TRAFFIC,
SHOULD FUTURE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS PRODUCE SUCH TRAFFIC.  UNDER THE PLAN
APPROVED AND CONFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, 90 PER CENT OF THE COMMON
STOCK GOES TO THE HOLDERS OF THE SENIOR SECURITIES AND 10 PER CENT TO
THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS.  AS A RESULT, SHOULD THERE BE A
SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE DEBTOR'S POSTWAR TRAFFIC OVER ITS PREWAR
TRAFFIC, 90 PER CENT OF THE INCREASED EARNINGS WILL INURE TO THE
BENEFIT OF THE HOLDERS OF THE SENIOR SECURITIES AND ONLY 10 PER CENT TO
THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS, WHOSE CLAIM WAS DECREASED 90 PER CENT
BY REASON OF THE FAILURE TO DISCHARGE INTEREST ACCRUALS WITH INCOME
AVAILABLE THEREFOR AND THE DIVERSION OF SUCH INCOME TO THE COST OF SUCH
PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS.  IT SEEMS TO ME, UNDER ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PLAN
FAIR AND EQUITABLE, THE COMMISSION SHOULD ENDEAVOR TO MODIFY THE PLAN
SO AS TO GIVE RELIEF FROM THE SITUATION THAT LETS THE FULL IMPACT OF
THE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FALL UPON THE CLAIM OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDHOLDERS AND ACCORDS THEM NO CORRESPONDING BENEFITS."  150 F.2D 28,
40, 41-43. 

FROM THE CONFUSING FINANCIAL DETAILS ONE STARK FACT EMERGES.  IN 1939
THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE DEBTOR WOULD BE ABLE TO EARN ENOUGH IN
THE FUTURE TO PROVIDE AN INCOME ON ONE-THIRD OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDS.  233 I.C.C. 515, 592.  IN THE REORGANIZATION PLAN IN 1943 THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE DEBTOR WOULD NOT EARN ENOUGH TO PROVIDE
INCOME ON MORE THAN ONE-TENTH OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE CLAIMS.  254
I.C.C. 349, 359, 380.  THE CAPITALIZATION PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION IN
1943 ELIMINATED AS VALUELESS MORE OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF THE GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS AND MORE OF THE FACE AMOUNT OF THESE BONDS THAN DID THE
CAPITALIZATION PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION IN 1939.  SINCE 1939 THE
DEBTOR ACHIEVED A POSITION PERMITTING IT TO MAKE LARGE DEBT REDUCTIONS
AND TO REDUCE CONSIDERABLY ITS INTEREST CHARGES.  IT ACCUMULATED A VERY
LARGE NET INCOME IN EXCESS OF ITS INTEREST SERVICE, IT EXPENDED LARGE
SUMS TO DECREASE OPERATING COSTS AND IMPROVE ITS BUSINESS PROSPECTS, SO
THAT THE FUTURE EARNING POWER OF THE RAILROAD WAS GREATLY INCREASED. 
IN THE FACE OF ALL THESE FACTORS THE SENIOR SECURITY HOLDERS WERE GIVEN
NOT ONLY SECURITIES FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIM BUT ALSO ALL
CASH ACCUMULATIONS AVAILABLE FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE ROAD'S
INDEBTEDNESS.  IMPROVEMENTS IN THE FINANCIAL AND PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF
THE ROAD PATENTLY CALCULATED TO INCREASE THE PROFITS OF THE FUTURE
OWNERS OF THIS ROAD HAVE BEEN MADE THE BASIS OF SUBSTANTIALLY WIPING
OUT ONE CLASS OF THE PRESENT OWNERS.  INEQUITABLE CONSEQUENCES SUCH AS
THESE LED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PLAN FAILED
TO SATISFY THE COMMAND OF CONGRESS THAT AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL
JUDGMENT A REORGANIZATION PLAN MUST BE FOUND "FAIR AND EQUITABLE." 

TO DEFEAT THE PLAN IT IS NOT NECESSARY, HOWEVER, TO FIND IT
INTRINSICALLY WANTING IN FAIRNESS AND EQUITY.  CONGRESS DID NOT
AUTHORIZE THE ENFORCEMENT OF A PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION ONCE IT IS
FOUND, AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL JUDGMENT, TO BE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE." 
CONGRESS WROTE INTO LAW ANOTHER AND A VITAL CONDITION TO THE VALIDITY
OF A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PLAN.  A PLAN MUST ALSO COMMEND ITSELF AS
"FAIR AND EQUITABLE" TO THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS.  AND IF ANY
CLASS REJECTS IT, THE PLAN CAN PREVAIL ONLY IF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
WARRANTED IN FINDING THAT SUCH REJECTION "IS NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFIED
IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THOSE REJECTING
IT AND ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS  ..."  49 STAT. 911, 919(1935), 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 205(E). 

CLAIMANTS WHO ARE THUS ENTITLED TO VOTE ON THEIR INTERESTS AS A CLASS
ARE SURELY NOT EXPECTED TO VOTE AS ALTRUISTS ANY MORE THAN THEY ARE TO
BE ALLOWED TO BEHAVE AS UNREASONABLE OBSTRUCTIONISTS.  IF THAT WHICH
CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN IS NOT TO BE STRICKEN OUT, WE MUST RECOGNIZE THE
REFERENDUM WHICH CONGRESS HAS LODGED IN EACH CLASS OF CREDITORS AS A
MEANS OF SELF-PROTECTION BY EACH CLASS OF CREDITORS AND NOT AS AN
OCCASION FOR EMPTY DIALECTIC.  ON A FAIR AND PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF
THE POWER WHICH CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO PLACE IN THE HANDS OF THE
VARIOUS CREDITOR CLASSES, A CLASS CAN BE DEEMED NOT "REASONABLY
JUSTIFIED" IN EXERCISING THE RIGHT WHICH CONGRESS GAVE THEM TO VOTE
THEIR INTERESTS, ONLY IF A COURT CAN SAY THAT NO INTELLIGENT CLASS OF
CREDITORS, REGARDFUL OF THEIR CLASS INTERESTS, BUT NOT OBVIOUSLY
HOSTILE TO THE COMMON INTEREST WITH WHICH THEIR CLASS INTEREST IS
INVOLVED, COULD HAVE OBJECTED TO THE PLAN.  ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION
READS "REASONABLY JUSTIFIED" OUT OF THE STATUTE.  IN EFFECT THAT IS
WHAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS DONE.  AND THIS COURT, WITH ALMOST THE
CANDOR OF SILENCE, APPEARS TO SANCTION SUCH JUDICIAL DELETION OF WHAT
CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN.  FOR IT DOES NOT FIND THAT THE GENERAL
BONDHOLDERS WERE NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFIED FROM THEIR INTRINSIC POINT OF
VIEW TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO REJECT THE PLAN.  IT DOES LITTLE MORE
THAN ASSERT THIS CONCLUSION, APPARENTLY ON THE FINDING THAT THE PLAN
WAS IN FACT "FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  IT IMPOSES ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE
PLAN WAS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" UPON THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS AND THUS IN
EFFECT DEPRIVES THEM OF THE VERY RIGHT WHICH CONGRESS GAVE THEM TO BE
JUDGES OF THEIR OWN INTERESTS SO LONG AS THE COURT CANNOT SAY THEY WERE
CAPRICIOUS OR GREEDY IN THEIR JUDGMENT.  THIS COURT SEEMS TO BE OF THE
VIEW THAT IF IN ITS JUDGMENT A PLAN IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE," IT MUST
APPEAR EQUALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO EVERY CLASS OF CREDITORS.  HERE
THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES FOUND THE PLAN NOT "FAIR AND EQUITABLE," YET THIS
COURT HOLDS THAT THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS WERE NOT "REASONABLY
JUSTIFIED" IN NOT FINDING IT "FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  THIS CAN ONLY MEAN
THAT THE COURT DEEMS REDUNDANT, AND THEREFORE ELIMINATES, THE
CONGRESSIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT BEFORE A PLAN CAN BE APPROVED, IT MUST
COMMEND ITSELF TO THE JUDGMENT OF A CLASS OF CREDITORS EXERCISING THE
KIND OF JUDGMENT THAT MEN ARE ENTITLED TO EXERCISE IN THE PURSUIT OF
THEIR LEGITIMATE SELF-INTEREST, AS WELL AS COMMEND ITSELF TO THE
JUDICIAL SENSE OF FAIRNESS.    IN ASSUMING THAT IF A PLAN SEEMS FAIR
AND EQUITABLE TO A COURT, REJECTION OF IT BY ANY CLASS MUST BE
UNREASONABLE, THE COURT NOT ONLY DISREGARDS THE CONTRARY ASSUMPTION ON
THE BASIS OF WHICH CONGRESS LEGISLATED.  SUCH AN ATTITUDE IS ALSO
OBLIVIOUS OF THE PRACTICALITIES OF THE SITUATION.  TO ASSUME THAT IF A
COURT FINDS A PLAN IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" NO CLASS OF CREDITORS CAN BE
REASONABLY JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING IT, IS TO ASSUME THAT THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF FAIRNESS CONCERNING SO COMPLICATED A SITUATION AS A
PLAN FOR A RAILROAD'S REORGANIZATION LIES IN THE REALM OF EVEN
APPROXIMATE CERTITUDE.  QUITE THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.  A COURT IN
ASCERTAINING WHETHER A PLAN IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE IS NOT ENGAGED IN
ASCERTAINING INDISPUTABLE FACTS.  IT IS FORMING A JUDGMENT, AND LARGELY
A PROPHETIC JUDGMENT, REGARDING A MAZE OF FACTORS, AND AS TO EACH
FACTOR THERE IS USUALLY ROOM FOR CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 
IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT CONGRESS MADE IT A CONDITION FOR JUDICIAL
APPROVAL OF THE PLAN THAT IT APPEAR FAIR AND EQUITABLE IN THE VOTING
SYSTEM BY THE CLASSES OF CREDITORS. 

FOR AN ADDITION IT WAS, MADE BY CONGRESS TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
LEGISLATION BY COMMISSIONER JOSEPH B. EASTMAN.  AS FEDERAL COORDINATOR,
HE PROPOSED TO CONGRESS THAT A COURT BE AUTHORIZED TO CONFIRM THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN DESPITE THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN A MAJORITY VOTE OF
ONE OR MORE OF THE AFFECTED CLASSES OF CREDITORS, PROVIDED THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS SATISFIED IN TWO RESPECTS:  (1) THAT THE PLAN "MAKES
ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR THE INTERESTS
OR CLAIMS OF THOSE REJECTING IT"; AND (2) THAT THE JUDGE WAS SATISFIED
THAT THE PLAN IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" "EVEN IF NOT SO APPROVED" BY A
CLASS OF CREDITORS.  SEE COORDINATOR'S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1934, PP. 101
102, 237, 238. 

BUT CONGRESS DEEMED IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO GIVE GREATER
PROTECTION TO THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS THAN THE COORDINATOR
SUGGESTED.  IN SEVERAL RESPECTS CONGRESS LIMITED THE POWER OF COURTS TO
DISREGARD A CLASS VOTE AGAINST A PLAN BEYOND THE SAFEGUARDS PROPOSED BY
THE COORDINATOR.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IT IS DECISIVE TO NOTE THAT
CONGRESS ADDED TO THE PROTECTION FORMULATED BY THE COORDINATOR BY
REQUIRING THAT A JUDGE, AFTER FINDING THAT A PLAN IS "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE," MUST ALSO BE SATISFIED AND FIND THAT "SUCH REJECTION IS NOT
REASONABLY JUSTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND
INTERESTS OF THOSE REJECTING IT AND ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS ..."  I
CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT TO HOLD, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, THAT THE GENERAL BONDHOLDERS WERE NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFIED IN
REJECTING THE PLAN IS TO DECIDE THAT THIS REQUIREMENT, PURPOSEFULLY
WRITTEN INTO THE LAW BY CONGRESS AS AN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT
THE JUDGE MUST FIND THE PLAN TO BE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE," IS BUT A
MEANINGLESS REPETITION OF THAT REQUIREMENT. 

THE UNDESIRABILITY OF FURTHER DELAY IN TAKING THIS ROAD OUT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, WHERE IT HAS BEEN FOR MORE THAN A DECADE, IS BOUND TO
PRESS UPON ANY COURT.  BUT IT OUGHT NOT LEAD TO CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN
WHICH FAILS TO SATISFY THE EXPLICIT PREREQUISITES FOR APPROVAL LAID
DOWN BY CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY SO WHERE THE RESULT IS AS DRASTIC AS THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE EXPERT SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE HAVE MADE MANIFEST.  SEE S. REP. 1170, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
PP. 17-18, 40, 42, 67-68, 72-73, 91-95, 105-109, 121-123. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT CURTAILED, NOR SHOWN ANY DESIRE TO RESTRICT, THE
RIGHT OF SELF-PROTECTION WHICH IT GAVE TO RAILROAD CREDITORS BY THE ACT
OF 1935 AND TO WHICH THE RESULT OF THIS CASE APPEARS INDIFFERENT.  ON
THE CONTRARY, CONGRESS HAS SINCE GIVEN DECISIVE PROOF THAT IT
DISAPPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH COURTS HAVE HERETOFORE GIVEN TO SEC.
77, RESULTING IN UNDUE HARSHNESS TO JUNIOR INTERESTS AND PROMOTING
CONCENTRATION OF RAILROAD CONTROL.  IT HAS EMPHATICALLY INDICATED THAT
THE RIGHTS OF JUNIOR INTERESTS, REFLECTING PUBLIC INTERESTS, SHOULD BE
MORE CAREFULLY SAFEGUARDED.  WHETHER CONGRESS HAS BEEN WISE OR UNWISE
IN MANIFESTING THIS VIEW IS NOT OUR BUSINESS TO DECIDE.  BUT IT IS THE
BUSINESS OF THIS COURT TO RESPECT WHAT I FIND TO BE A CLEAR ENUNCIATION
BY CONGRESS OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH ALONE AUTHORIZE COURTS TO SANCTION
A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION. 

FN7  "PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THIS RAILROAD SYSTEM HAVE PARTICIPATED
IN THE FOLLOWING REORGANIZATIONS:  THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE R. CO. WAS A
SUCCESSOR IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING IN 1886; THE RIO GRANDE &
WESTERN R. CO. WAS THE SUCCESSOR IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING IN
1889; THESE TWO COMPANIES CONSOLIDATED IN 1908 UNDER THE NAME OF THE
DENVER & RIO GRANDE R. CO.; THE PRESENT COMPANY WAS REORGANIZED IN 1920
AND AGAIN IN 1922 TO 1924." 
..END :









COLEGROVE V. GREEN, 328 U.S. 549 


NO. 804.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 8, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 64
F.SUPP.  632, AFFIRMED. 


THREE PERSONS WHO WERE QUALIFIED TO VOTE IN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF
ILLINOIS WHICH HAVE MUCH LARGER POPULATIONS THAN OTHER CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICTS OF THAT STATE, BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN
ILLINOIS, UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, TO RESTRAIN OFFICERS OF
THE STATE FROM ARRANGING FOR AN ELECTION, IN WHICH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
WERE TO BE CHOSEN, PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF AN ILLINOIS LAW OF 1901
GOVERNING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT, BY
REASON OF LATER CHANGES IN POPULATION, THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
CREATED BY THE ILLINOIS LAW LACKED COMPACTNESS OF TERRITORY AND
APPROXIMATE EQUALITY OF POPULATION; AND PRAYED A DECREE, WITH
INCIDENTAL RELIEF, DECLARING THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE LAW INVALID AS
IN VIOLATION OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND IN
CONFLICT WITH THE REAPPORTIONMENT ACT OF 1911, AS AMENDED.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  HELD, DISMISSAL OF THE
COMPLAINT IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 550-551, 556. 

COLEGROVE ET AL. V. GREEN ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, 64 F.SUPP. 
632, WHICH DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN STATE OFFICERS
FROM ACTING PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF A STATE ELECTION LAW ALLEGED TO
BE INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AFFIRMED, P. 556. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND AN
OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCUR. 

THIS CASE IS APPROPRIATELY HERE, UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 380, ON DIRECT REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES,
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT OF THE APPELLANTS.  THESE ARE THREE QUALIFIED
VOTERS IN ILLINOIS DISTRICTS WHICH HAVE MUCH LARGER POPULATIONS THAN
OTHER ILLINOIS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.  THEY BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST
THE GOVERNOR, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND THE AUDITOR OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, AS MEMBERS EX OFFICIO OF THE ILLINOIS PRIMARY CERTIFYING
BOARD, TO RESTRAIN THEM, IN EFFECT, FROM TAKING PROCEEDINGS FOR AN
ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 1946, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ILLINOIS LAW
GOVERNING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.  ILLINOIS LAWS OF 1901, P. 3. 
FORMALLY, THE APPELLANTS ASKED FOR A DECREE, WITH ITS INCIDENTAL
RELIEF, SEC. 274(D) JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400, DECLARING THESE
PROVISIONS TO BE INVALID BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND SEC. 3 OF THE REAPPORTIONMENT ACT OF
AUGUST 8, 1911, 37 STAT. 13, AS AMENDED, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 2A, IN THAT BY
REASON OF SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN POPULATION THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
FOR THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CONGRESS CREATED BY THE
ILLINOIS LAWS OF 1901(ILL.  REV.  STAT. CH. 46(1945) SECS. 154-56)
LACKED COMPACTNESS OF TERRITORY AND APPROXIMATE EQUALITY OF
POPULATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT, FEELING BOUND BY THIS COURT'S OPINION
IN WOOD V. BROOM, 287 U.S. 1, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  64 F.SUPP. 
632. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS CLEARLY RIGHT IN DEEMING ITSELF BOUND BY WOOD
V. BROOM, SUPRA, AND WE COULD ALSO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE ON THE
AUTHORITY OF WOOD V. BROOM.  THE LEGAL MERITS OF THIS CONTROVERSY WERE
SETTLED IN THAT CASE, INASMUCH AS IT HELD THAT THE REAPPORTIONMENT ACT
OF JUNE 18, 1929, 46 STAT. 21, AS AMENDED, 2 U.S.C. SEC. 2(A), HAS NO
REQUIREMENTS "AS TO THE COMPACTNESS, CONTIGUITY AND EQUALITY IN
POPULATION OF DISTRICTS."  287 U.S. AT 8.  THE ACT OF 1929 STILL
GOVERNS THE DISTRICTING FOR THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES.  IT MUST
BE REMEMBERED THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE MATTER
FULLY CONSIDERED IN WOOD V. BROOM, BUT THE QUESTION HAD BEEN
ELABORATELY BEFORE THE COURT IN SMILEY V. HOLM, 285 U.S. 355, KOENIG V.
FLYNN, 285 U.S. 375, AND CARROLL V. BECKER, 285 U.S. 380, ARGUED A FEW
MONTHS BEFORE WOOD V. BROOM WAS DECIDED.  NOTHING HAS NOW BEEN ADDUCED
TO LEAD US TO OVERRULE WHAT THIS COURT FOUND TO BE THE REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THE ACT OF 1929, THE MORE SO SINCE SEVEN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS
HAVE BEEN HELD UNDER THE ACT OF 1929 AS CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT.  NO
MANIFESTATION HAS BEEN SHOWN BY CONGRESS EVEN TO QUESTION THE
CORRECTNESS OF THAT WHICH SEEMED COMPELLING TO THIS COURT IN ENFORCING
THE WILL OF CONGRESS IN WOOD V. BROOM. 

BUT WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE FOUR JUSTICES (BRANDEIS, STONE, ROBERTS,
AND CARDOZO, JJ.)  WHO WERE OF OPINION THAT THE BILL IN WOOD V. BROOM,
SUPRA, SHOULD BE "DISMISSED FOR WANT OF EQUITY."  TO BE SURE, THE
PRESENT COMPLAINT, UNLIKE THE BILL IN WOOD V. BROOM, WAS BROUGHT UNDER
THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT WHICH, NOT HAVING BEEN ENACTED
UNTIL 1934, WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF WOOD V. BROOM.  BUT THAT
ACT MERELY GAVE THE FEDERAL COURTS COMPETENCE TO MAKE A DECLARATION OF
RIGHTS EVEN THOUGH NO DECREE OF ENFORCEMENT BE IMMEDIATELY ASKED.  IT
MERELY PERMITTED A FREER MOVEMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WITHIN THE
RECOGNIZED CONFINES OF THE SCOPE OF EQUITY.  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACT "ONLY PROVIDED A NEW FORM OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF
RIGHTS IN CONFORMITY" WITH "ESTABLISHED EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES."  GREAT
LAKES CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, 300.  AND SO, THE TEST FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO MAKE A DECLARATION
SUCH AS IS HERE ASKED, IS WHETHER THE CONTROVERSY "WOULD BE JUSTICIABLE
IN THIS COURT IF PRESENTED IN A SUIT FOR INJUNCTION  ..."  NASHVILLE,
C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 262. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE APPELLANTS ASK OF THIS COURT WHAT IS
BEYOND ITS COMPETENCE TO GRANT.  THIS IS ONE OF THOSE DEMANDS ON
JUDICIAL POWER WHICH CANNOT BE MET BY VERBAL FENCING ABOUT
"JURISDICTION."  IT MUST BE RESOLVED BY CONSIDERATIONS ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH THIS COURT, FROM TIME TO TIME, HAS REFUSED TO INTERVENE IN
CONTROVERSIES.  IT HAS REFUSED TO DO SO BECAUSE DUE REGARD FOR THE
EFFECTIVE WORKING OF OUR GOVERNMENT REVEALED THIS ISSUE TO BE OF A
PECULIARLY POLITICAL NATURE AND THEREFORE NOT MEET FOR JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION. 

THIS IS NOT AN ACTION TO RECOVER FOR DAMAGE BECAUSE OF THE
DISCRIMINATORY EXCLUSION OF A PLAINTIFF FROM RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER
CITIZENS.  THE BASIS FOR THE SUIT IS NOT A PRIVATE WRONG, BUT A WRONG
SUFFERED BY ILLINOIS AS A POLITY.  COMPARE NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S.
536 AND LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268, WITH GILES V. HARRIS, 189 U.S.
475.  IN EFFECT THIS IS AN APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL COURTS TO RECONSTRUCT
THE ELECTORAL PROCESS OF ILLINOIS IN ORDER THAT IT MAY BE ADEQUATELY
REPRESENTED IN THE COUNCILS OF THE NATION.  BECAUSE THE ILLINOIS
LEGISLATURE HAS FAILED TO REVISE ITS CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
DISTRICTS IN ORDER TO REFLECT GREAT CHANGES, DURING MORE THAN A
GENERATION, IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF ITS POPULATION, WE ARE ASKED TO DO
THIS, AS IT WERE, FOR ILLINOIS. 

OF COURSE NO COURT CAN AFFIRMATIVELY RE-MAP THE ILLINOIS DISTRICTS SO
AS TO BRING THEM MORE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS FOR
A REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM.  AT BEST WE COULD ONLY DECLARE THE EXISTING
ELECTORAL SYSTEM INVALID.  THE RESULT WOULD BE TO LEAVE ILLINOIS
UNDISTRICTED AND TO BRING INTO OPERATION, IF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE
CHOSE NOT TO ACT, THE CHOICE OF MEMBERS FOR THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ON A STATE-WIDE TICKET.  THE LAST STAGE MAY BE WORSE
THAN THE FIRST.  THE UPSHOT OF JUDICIAL ACTION MAY DEFEAT THE VITAL
POLITICAL PRINCIPLE WHICH LED CONGRESS, MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO,
TO REQUIRE DISTRICTING.  THIS REQUIREMENT, IN THE LANGUAGE OF
CHANCELLOR KENT, "WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE WISDOM AND JUSTICE OF GIVING,
AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO THE LOCAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF EACH
STATE, A DUE INFLUENCE IN THE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SO AS NOT TO
LEAVE THE AGGREGATE MINORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN A STATE, THOUGH
APPROACHING PERHAPS TO A MAJORITY, TO BE WHOLLY OVERPOWERED BY THE
COMBINED ACTION OF THE NUMERICAL MAJORITY, WITHOUT ANY VOICE WHATEVER
IN THE NATIONAL COUNCILS."  1 KENT, COMMENTARIES (12TH ED., 1873)*  230
31, N. (C).  ASSUMING ACQUIESCENCE ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES OF
ILLINOIS IN THE SELECTION OF ITS REPRESENTATIVES BY A MODE THAT DEFIES
THE DIRECTION OF CONGRESS FOR SELECTION BY DISTRICTS, THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES MAY NOT ACQUIESCE.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO
JUDGE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS OWN MEMBERS, THE HOUSE MAY REJECT A
DELEGATION OF REPRESENTATIVES-AT-LARGE.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 5, CL. 1.  FOR
THE DETAILED SYSTEM BY WHICH CONGRESS SUPERVISES THE ELECTION OF ITS
MEMBERS, SEE E.G., 2 U.S.C. SECS. 201-226; BARTLETT, CONTESTED
ELECTIONS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (2 VOLS.); ALEXANDER, HISTORY
AND PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (1916) C. XVI.  NOTHING
IS CLEARER THAN THAT THIS CONTROVERSY CONCERNS MATTERS THAT BRING
COURTS INTO IMMEDIATE AND ACTIVE RELATIONS WITH PARTY CONTESTS.  FROM
THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH ISSUES THIS COURT HAS TRADITIONALLY HELD
ALOOF.  IT IS HOSTILE TO A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM TO INVOLVE THE JUDICIARY
IN THE POLITICS OF THE PEOPLE.  AND IT IS NOT LESS PERNICIOUS IF SUCH
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN AN ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL CONTEST BE DRESSED UP
IN THE ABSTRACT PHRASES OF THE LAW. 

THE APPELLANTS URGE WITH GREAT ZEAL THAT THE CONDITIONS OF WHICH THEY
COMPLAIN ARE GRAVE EVILS AND OFFEND PUBLIC MORALITY.  THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES GIVES AMPLE POWER TO PROVIDE AGAINST THESE EVILS. 
BUT DUE REGARD FOR THE CONSTITUTION AS A VIABLE SYSTEM PRECLUDES
JUDICIAL CORRECTION.  AUTHORITY FOR DEALING WITH SUCH PROBLEMS RESIDES
ELSEWHERE.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "THE
TIMES, PLACES AND MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS FOR  ... REPRESENTATIVES,
SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN EACH STATE BY THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF; BUT THE
CONGRESS MAY AT ANY TIME BY LAW MAKE OR ALTER SUCH REGULATIONS,  ..." 
THE SHORT OF IT IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS CONFERRED UPON CONGRESS
EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO SECURE FAIR REPRESENTATION BY THE STATES IN THE
POPULAR HOUSE AND LEFT TO THAT HOUSE DETERMINATION WHETHER STATES HAVE
FULFILLED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.  IF CONGRESS FAILED IN EXERCISING ITS
POWERS, WHEREBY STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS ARE OFFENDED, THE REMEDY
ULTIMATELY LIES WITH THE PEOPLE.  WHETHER CONGRESS FAITHFULLY
DISCHARGES ITS DUTY OR NOT, THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO THE
EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF CONGRESS.  AN ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT FROM WHICH THE
JUDICIARY, IN VIEW OF WHAT IS INVOLVED, HAS BEEN EXCLUDED BY THE CLEAR
INTENTION OF THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE ENTERED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS
BECAUSE CONGRESS MAY HAVE BEEN IN DEFAULT IN EXACTING FROM STATES
OBEDIENCE TO ITS MANDATE. 

THE ONE STARK FACT THAT EMERGES FROM A STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF
CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT IS ITS EMBROILMENT IN POLITICS, IN THE
SENSE OF PARTY CONTESTS AND PARTY INTERESTS.  THE CONSTITUTION ENJOINS
UPON CONGRESS THE DUTY OF APPORTIONING REPRESENTATIVES "AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES  ... ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NUMBERS,  ..." 
ARTICLE I, SEC. 2.  YET, CONGRESS HAS AT TIMES BEEN HEEDLESS OF THIS
COMMAND AND NOT APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CENSUS.  IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ANYONE THAT THIS COURT COULD ISSUE
MANDAMUS TO COMPEL CONGRESS TO PERFORM ITS MANDATORY DUTY TO
APPORTION.  "WHAT MIGHT NOT BE DONE DIRECTLY BY MANDAMUS, COULD NOT BE
ATTAINED INDIRECTLY BY INJUNCTION."  CHAFEE, CONGRESSIONAL
REAPPORTIONMENT (1929) 42 HARV. L. REV. 1015, 1019.  UNTIL 1842 THERE
WAS THE GREATEST DIVERSITY AMONG THE STATES IN THE MANNER OF CHOOSING
REPRESENTATIVES BECAUSE CONGRESS HAD MADE NO REQUIREMENT FOR
DISTRICTING.  5 STAT. 491.  CONGRESS THEN PROVIDED FOR THE ELECTION OF
REPRESENTATIVES BY DISTRICTS.  STRANGELY ENOUGH, THE POWER TO DO SO WAS
SERIOUSLY QUESTIONED; IT WAS STILL DOUBTED BY A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS
AS LATE AS 1901.  SEE E.G., SPEECH OF MR. (AFTERWARDS MR. JUSTICE)
CLIFFORD, CONG. GLOBE, APRIL 28, 1842, 27TH CONG., 2D SESS., APP., P.
347; 1 BARTLETT, CONTESTED ELECTIONS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
(1865) 47, 276; H.R. REP. NO. 3000, 56TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1901); H.R.
DOC. NO. 2052, 64TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1917) 43; UNITED STATES V.
GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476, 482, 483.  IN 1850 CONGRESS DROPPED THE
REQUIREMENT.  9 STAT. 428, 432-33.  THE REAPPORTIONMENT ACT OF 1862
REQUIRED THAT THE DISTRICTS BE OF CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY.  12 STAT. 572. 
IN 1872 CONGRESS ADDED THE REQUIREMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL EQUALITY OF
INHABITANTS.  17 STAT. 28.  THIS WAS REINFORCED IN 1911.  37 STAT. 13,
14.  BUT THE 1929 ACT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, DROPPED THESE REQUIREMENTS.  46
STAT. 21.  THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE
CONTROLLING APPORTIONMENT ACT, THE MOST GLARING DISPARITIES HAVE
PREVAILED AS TO THE CONTROURS AND THE POPULATION OF DISTRICTS. 
APPENDIX I SUMMARIZES RECENT DISPARITIES IN THE VARIOUS CONGRESSIONAL
REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND APPENDIX II GIVES
FAIR SAMPLES OF PREVAILING GERRYMANDERS.  FOR OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF
GLARING INEQUALITIES, SEE 71 CONG. REC. 2278-79, 2480 ET SEQ.; 86 CONG.
REC. 4369, 4370-71, 76TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1940); H.R. REP. NO. 1695,
61ST CONG., 2D SESS. (1910); (1920) 24 LAW NOTES 124; (OCTOBER 30,
1902) 75 THE NATION 343; AND SEE, GENERALLY, SCHMECKEBIER,
CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT (1941); AND ON GERRYMANDERING, SEE
GRIFFITH, THE RISE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GERRYMANDER (1907). 

TO SUSTAIN THIS ACTION WOULD CUT VERY DEEP INTO THE VERY BEING OF
CONGRESS.  COURTS OUGHT NOT TO ENTER THIS POLITICAL THICKET.  THE
REMEDY FOR UNFAIRNESS IN DISTRICTING IS TO SECURE STATE LEGISLATURES
THAT WILL APPORTION PROPERLY, OR TO INVOKE THE AMPLE POWERS OF
CONGRESS.  THE CONSTITUTION HAS MANY COMMANDS THAT ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE
BY COURTS BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY FALL OUTSIDE THE CONDITIONS AND PURPOSES
THAT CIRCUMSCRIBE JUDICIAL ACTION.  THUS, "ON DEMAND OF THE EXECUTIVE
AUTHORITY," ART. IV, SEC. 2, OF A STATE IT IS THE DUTY OF A SISTER
STATE TO DELIVER UP A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE.  BUT THE FULFILMENT OF
THIS DUTY CANNOT BE JUDICIALLY ENFORCED.  KENTUCKY V. DENNISON, 24
HOW.  66.  THE DUTY TO SEE TO IT THAT THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED
CANNOT BE BROUGHT UNDER LEGAL COMPULSION, MISSISSIPPI V. JOHNSON, 4
WALL.  475.  VIOLATION OF THE GREAT GUARANTY OF A REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT IN STATES CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS.  PACIFIC
TELEPHONE CO. V. OREGON, 223 U.S. 118.  THE CONSTITUTION HAS LEFT THE
PERFORMANCE OF MANY DUTIES IN OUR GOVERNMENTAL SCHEME TO DEPEND ON THE
FIDELITY OF THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND, ULTIMATELY, ON
THE VIGILANCE OF THE PEOPLE IN EXERCISING THEIR POLITICAL RIGHTS. 
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

FOR OPINIONS OF RUTLEDGE AND BLACK, JJ., SEE POST, PAGES 564, 566. 

                             APPENDIX I.

      DISPARITIES IN APPORTIONMENT SHOWING DISTRICTS      IN EACH
STATE HAVING LARGEST AND SMALLEST POPULATIONS. 

STATE           1946               1928*               1897*

            DIST. POPULATION    DIST. POPULATION    DIST.
POPULATION 

ALA--------      9TH   459,930       9TH   310,054        2D
188,214

               6TH   251,757  6TH   170,188       7TH   130,451 

ARIZ-------  2 REPRESENTATIVES    1 REPRESENTATIVE    NOT YET
ADMITTED

          ELECTED AT LARGE. 

ARK--------      1ST   423,152       1ST  330,292       1ST   220,261

                3D   177,476        3D   180,348       4TH
147,806 

CALIF------       3D   409,404      10TH   516,283       5TH
228,717

     21ST   194,199        2D   129,357       4TH   147,642 

COLO-------      1ST   322,412        3D   281,170        2D
207,539

               4TH   172,847       4TH   140,532       1ST
204,659 

CONN-------      1ST   450,189  1ST   336,027        2D   248,582

               5TH   247,601       5TH   224,426        3D
121,792 

DEL--------  1 REPRESENTATIVE    1 REPRESENTATIVE    1
REPRESENTATIVE 

FLA--------      1ST   439,895       4TH   315,292        2D
202,792

               6TH   186,831        2D   187,474     1ST   188,630 

GA---------      5TH   487,552       5TH   308,364        2D
180,300

               9TH   235,420        3D   205,343      11TH
155,948 

IDAHO------ 2D   300,357        2D   253,542    1 REPRESENTATIVE

       1ST   224,516       1ST   178,324 

ILL--------   7TH   914,053       7TH   560,434      13TH   184,027

          5TH   112,116       5TH   158,092       22D   159,186 

IND--------     11TH   460,926       7TH   348,061   7TH   191,472

               9TH   241,323       4TH   179,737       6TH
139,359 

IOWA-------       2D   392,052     11TH   295,449      11TH   203,470

               4TH   268,900       1ST   156,594       1ST
153,712 

KANSAS-----      4TH   382,546        3D   280,045       7TH
278,208

                3D   249,574       4TH   152,378       1ST
167,314 

KY---------      9TH   413,690      11TH   289,766       4TH
192,055

               5TH   225,426       8TH   168,067       7TH
141,461 

LA---------      6TH   333,295       6TH   255,372        3D
214,785

8TH   240,166       7TH   204,909        2D   152,025 

ME---------      1ST   290,335       1ST   195,072       4TH
183,070

                2D   276,695        2D   188,563   1ST   153,778 

MD---------       2D   534,568        2D 311,413        2D   208,165

               1ST   195,427      1ST   194,568       5TH
153,912 

MASS-------     10TH   346,623       8TH   259,954       5TH
174,866

     1ST   278,459      15TH   217,307       6TH   169,418 

MICH-------     17TH   419,007       6TH   533,748        2D
191,841

              12TH   200,265      10TH   198,679       9TH
148,626 

MINN-------      6TH   334,781 5TH   275,645        2D   188,480

               9TH   283,845       9TH   112,235       6TH
184,848 

MISS-------    7TH   470,781        3D   349,662       5TH   224,618

           4TH   201,316       8TH   177,185       1ST   143,315 

MO---------     12TH   503,738      10TH   521,587   14TH   230,478

               9TH   214,787       8TH 138,807       9TH   152,442 

MONT-------       2D   323,597        2D   333,476    1
REPRESENTATIVE

               1ST   235,859       1ST   215,413 

NEB--------      1ST   369,190       6TH   288,090       4TH
195,434

2D   305,961       1ST   173,458        3D   163,674 

NEW--------   1 REPRESENTATIVE    1 REPRESENTATIVE    1
REPRESENTATIVE 

N.H--------       2D   247,033       1ST   224,842  1ST   190,532

               1ST   244,491        2D   218,241        2D
185,998 

N.J--------      1ST   370,220     8TH   290,610       7TH   256,093

                2D  226,169      11TH   228,615       8TH
125,793 

N.M--------  2 REPRESENTATIVES    1 REPRESENTATIVE    NOT YET
ADMITTED

            ELECTED AT LARGE 

N.Y.-------     25TH   365,918       23D   391,620      14TH
227,978

45TH   235,913      12TH   151,605       7TH   114,766 

N.C--------      4TH   358,573       5TH   408,139       6TH
204,686

               1ST   239,040        3D   202,760   3D   160,288 

N.D--------  2 REPRESENTATIVES        2D   220,700    1
REPRESENTATIVE

            ELECTED AT LARGE      3D   210,203 

OHIO-------      22D   698,650      14TH   439,013        2D
205,293

               5TH   163,561      11TH   167,217      12TH
158,026 

OKLA-------      1ST   416,863        3D   325,680    NOT YET
ADMITTED

       7TH   189,547       7TH   189,472 

ORE--------    3D   355,099       1ST   346,989        2D   158,205

           2D   210,991        2D   160,502       1ST   155,562 

PA---------     11TH   441,518      12TH   390,991   4TH   309,986

              14TH   212,979      15TH   136,283        3D
129,764 

RI---------       2D   374,463       3D   210,201       1ST   180,548

               1ST   338,883        2D   193,186        2D
164,958 

S.C--------       2D   361,933       7TH   266,956       4TH
200,000

               5TH   251,137        2D   203,418       5TH
141,750 

S.D--------      1ST   485,829        2D   251,405    1
REPRESENTATIVE

                2D   157,132 3D   138,031 

TENN-------       2D   388,938        3D   296,396        3D
199,972

               5TH   225,918   5TH   145,403       5TH   153,773 

TEX--------      8TH 528,961        2D   349,859       6TH   210,907

 17TH   230,010       7TH   211,032       1ST   102,827 

UTAH-------       2D   293,922       1ST   229,907    1 REPRESENTATIVE

               1ST   256,388        2D   219,489 

VT---------   1 REPRESENTATIVE        2D   176,596       1ST
169,940

                                   1ST   175,832        2D
162,482 

VA---------      9TH   360,679  2D   312,458       9TH   187,467

               4TH   243,165       7TH   167,588        2D
145,536 

WASH-------    1ST   412,689       1ST   348,474   2 REPRESENTATIVES

           4TH   244,908       4TH   200,258    ELECTED AT LARGE 

W. VA------      6TH   378,630       6TH   279,072     3D   202,289

               1ST   281,333       4TH 214,930       1ST   177,840 

WIS--------      5TH   391,467       5TH   276,503       6TH
187,001

              10TH   263,088       6TH   214,206      10TH
149,845 

WYO--------   1 REPRESENTATIVE    1 REPRESENTATIVE    1
REPRESENTATIVE 

*THESE YEARS WERE CHOSEN AT RANDOM. 

         APPENDIX II.

(1)

                                ALABAMA

                 (FORM OMITTED)

   APPENDIX II.

                                  (2)

                              CALIFORNIA

            (FORM OMITTED)

APPENDIX II.

                                  (3)

                           ILLINOIS

      (FORM OMITTED)

                             APPENDIX II.

                                 (4)

                  PENNSYLVANIS

 (FORM OMITTED) 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT.  BUT FOR THE RULING IN SMILEY V. HOLM, 285
U.S. 355, I SHOULD HAVE SUPPOSED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 4, THAT "THE TIMES, PLACES AND MANNER OF
HOLDING ELECTIONS FOR  ...  REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN
EACH STATE BY THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF; BUT THE CONGRESS MAY AT ANY TIME
BY LAW MAKE OR ALTER SUCH REGULATIONS  ..."; ART. I, SEC. 2, VESTING IN
CONGRESS THE DUTY OF APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES "ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NUMBERS"; AND ART. I, SEC. 5,
MAKING EACH HOUSE THE SOLE JUDGE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS OWN
MEMBERS, WOULD REMOVE THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE FROM JUSTICIABLE
COGNIZANCE.  BUT, IN MY JUDGMENT, THE SMILEY CASE RULES SQUARELY TO THE
CONTRARY, SAVE ONLY IN THE MATTER OF DEGREE. 

MOREOVER, WE HAVE BUT RECENTLY BEEN ADMONISHED AGAIN THAT IT IS THE
VERY ESSENCE OF OUR DUTY TO AVOID DECISION UPON GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THIS MAY BRING OUR FUNCTION INTO CLASH WITH
THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, IF ANY TENABLE ALTERNATIVE
GROUND FOR DISPOSITION OF THE CONTROVERSY IS PRESENTED.  FN1 

I WAS UNABLE TO FIND SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE IN THAT INSTANCE.  THERE IS
ONE, HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE.  AND I THINK THE GRAVITY OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED SO GREAT, TOGETHER WITH THE
POSSIBILITIES FOR COLLISION ABOVE MENTIONED, THAT THE ADMONITION IS
APPROPRIATE TO BE FOLLOWED HERE.  OTHER REASONS SUPPORT THIS VIEW,
INCLUDING THE FACT THAT, IN MY OPINION, THE BASIC RULING AND LESS
IMPORTANT ONES IN SMILEY V. HOLM, SUPRA, WOULD OTHERWISE BE BROUGHT
INTO QUESTION. 

ASSUMING THAT THAT DECISION IS TO STAND, I THINK, WITH MR. JUSTICE
BLACK, THAT ITS EFFECT IS TO RULE THAT THIS COURT HAS POWER TO AFFORD
RELIEF IN A CASE OF THIS TYPE AS AGAINST THE OBJECTION THAT THE ISSUES
ARE NOT JUSTICIABLE. 

IN THE LATER CASE OF WOOD V. BROOM, 287 U.S. 1, THE COURT DISPOSED OF
THE CAUSE ON THE GROUND THAT THE 1929 REAPPORTIONMENT ACT, 46 STAT. 21,
DID NOT CARRY FORWARD THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1911 ACT, 37 STAT. 13,
AND DECLINED TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE WAS EQUITY IN THE BILL.  287 U.S.
1, 8.  BUT, AS THE COURT'S OPINION NOTES, FOUR JUSTICES THOUGHT THE
BILL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF EQUITY.  FN2 

IN MY JUDGMENT THIS COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR THE SAME
REASON.  ASSUMING THAT THE CONTROVERSY IS JUSTICIABLE, I THINK THE
CAUSE IS OF SO DELICATE A CHARACTER, IN VIEW OF THE CONSIDERATIONS
ABOVE NOTED, THAT THE JURISDICTION SHOULD BE EXERCISED ONLY IN THE MOST
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

AS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE ATTENTION, WHETHER BY CONGRESS OR THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THE CASE MADE BY THE COMPLAINT IS STRONG.  BUT THE
RELIEF IT SEEKS PITCHES THIS COURT INTO DELICATE RELATION TO THE
FUNCTIONS OF STATE OFFICIALS AND CONGRESS, COMPELLING THEM TO TAKE
ACTION WHICH HERETOFORE THEY HAVE DECLINED TO TAKE VOLUNTARILY OR TO
ACCEPT THE ALTERNATIVE OF ELECTING REPRESENTATIVES FROM ILLINOIS AT
LARGE IN THE FORTHCOMING ELECTIONS. 

THE SHORTNESS OF THE TIME REMAINING MAKES IT DOUBTFUL WHETHER ACTION
COULD, OR WOULD, BE TAKEN IN TIME TO SECURE FOR PETITIONERS THE
EFFECTIVE RELIEF THEY SEEK.  TO FORCE THEM TO SHARE IN AN ELECTION AT
LARGE MIGHT BRING GREATER EQUALITY OF VOTING RIGHT.  IT WOULD ALSO
DEPRIVE THEM AND ALL OTHER ILLINOIS CITIZENS OF REPRESENTATION BY
DISTRICTS WHICH THE PREVAILING POLICY OF CONGRESS COMMANDS.  46 STAT.
26, AS AMENDED; 2 U.S.C. SEC. 2A. 

IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON WHICH APPELLANTS RELY GIVE THEM
THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS THEY URGE, OTHER PROVISIONS QUALIFY THOSE RIGHTS
IN IMPORTANT WAYS BY VESTING LARGE MEASURES OF CONTROL IN THE POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE.  THERE IS NOT, AND COULD
NOT BE EXCEPT ABSTRACTLY, A RIGHT OF ABSOLUTE EQUALITY IN VOTING.  AT
BEST THERE COULD BE ONLY A ROUGH APPROXIMATION.  AND THERE IS OBVIOUSLY
CONSIDERABLE LATITUDE FOR THE BODIES VESTED WITH THOSE POWERS TO
EXERCISE THEIR JUDGMENT CONCERNING HOW BEST TO ATTAIN THIS, IN FULL
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE RIGHT HERE IS NOT ABSOLUTE.  AND THE CURE SOUGHT MAY BE WORSE
THAN THE DISEASE. 

I THINK, THEREFORE, THE CASE IS ONE IN WHICH THE COURT MAY PROPERLY,
AND SHOULD, DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION N3.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AND I JOIN IN THAT DISPOSITION OF THE
CAUSE. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303, CONCURRING OPINION AT
320:  "BUT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION IS NOT TO FACE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BUT TO AVOID THEM,
IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.  AND SO THE 'COURT DEVELOPED, FOR ITS OWN
GOVERNANCE IN THE CASES CONFESSEDLY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, A SERIES
OF RULES UNDER WHICH IT HAS AVOIDED PASSING UPON A LARGE PART OF ALL
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESSED UPON IT FOR DECISION.'" 

FN2  WANT OF EQUITY JURISDICTION DOES NOT GO TO THE POWER OF A COURT
IN THE SAME MANNER AS WANT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER. 
THUS, WANT OF EQUITY JURISDICTION MAY BE WAIVED.  MATTHEWS V. RODGERS,
284 U.S. 521, 524-525 AND CASES CITED. 

FN3  "THE POWER OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO ACT IS A DISCRETIONARY
ONE....  WHERE A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY IS ASKED TO INTERFERE WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS, IT SHOULD DO SO ONLY 'TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE
INJURY WHICH IS CLEAR AND IMMINENT.'"  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V.
WATSON, 327 U.S. 582, 593, AND CASES CITED.    MR. JUSTICE BLACK,
DISSENTING. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THE FOLLOWING FACTS ESSENTIAL TO THE POSITION I
TAKE:  APPELLANTS, CITIZENS AND VOTERS OF ILLINOIS, LIVE IN
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION DISTRICTS, THE RESPECTIVE POPULATIONS OF WHICH
RANGE FROM 612,000 TO 914,000.  TWENTY OTHER CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION
DISTRICTS HAVE POPULATIONS THAT RANGE FROM 112,116 TO 385,207.  IN
SEVEN OF THESE DISTRICTS THE POPULATION IS BELOW 200,000.  THE ILLINOIS
LEGISLATURE ESTABLISHED THESE DISTRICTS IN 1901 ON THE BASIS OF THE
CENSUS OF 1900.  THE FEDERAL CENSUS OF 1910, OF 1920, OF 1930, AND OF
1940, EACH SHOWED A GROWTH OF POPULATION IN ILLINOIS AND A SUBSTANTIAL
SHIFT IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION AMONG THE DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED
IN 1901.  BUT UP TO DATE, ATTEMPTS TO HAVE THE STATE LEGISLATURE
REAPPORTION CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION DISTRICTS SO AS MORE NEARLY TO
EQUALIZE THEIR POPULATION HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL.  A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE
OF THIS SITUATION, ACCORDING TO APPELLANTS, IS THE FACT THAT THE STATE
LEGISLATURE IS CHOSEN ON THE BASIS OF STATE ELECTION DISTRICTS
INEQUITABLY APPORTIONED IN A WAY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE 1901
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION DISTRICTS.  THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THE ISSUES
OF STATE AND CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT ARE THUS SO INTERDEPENDENT
THAT IT IS TO THE INTEREST OF STATE LEGISLATORS TO PERPETUATE THE
INEQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF BOTH STATE AND CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION
DISTRICTS.  PRIOR TO THIS PROCEEDING A SERIES OF SUITS HAD BEEN BROUGHT
IN THE STATE COURTS CHALLENGING THE STATE'S LOCAL AND FEDERAL
APPORTIONMENT SYSTEM.  IN ALL THESE CASES THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE HAD DENIED EFFECTIVE RELIEF.  FN1 

IN THE PRESENT SUIT THE COMPLAINT ATTACKED THE 1901 STATE
APPORTIONMENT ACT ON THE GROUND THAT IT AMONG OTHER THINGS VIOLATES
ARTICLE I AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  APPELLANTS
CLAIM THAT SINCE THEY LIVE IN THE HEAVILY POPULATED DISTRICTS THEIR
VOTE IS MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE THAN THE VOTE OF THOSE LIVING IN A DISTRICT
WHICH UNDER THE 1901 ACT IS ALSO ALLOWED TO CHOOSE ONE CONGRESSMAN,
THOUGH ITS POPULATION IS SOMETIMES ONLY ONE-NINTH THAT OF THE HEAVILY
POPULATED DISTRICTS.  APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THIS REDUCTION OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR VOTE IS THE RESULT OF A WILFUL LEGISLATIVE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM AND THUS AMOUNTS TO A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THEY
FURTHER ASSERT THAT THIS REDUCTION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR VOTE
ALSO VIOLATES THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IN ABRIDGING THEIR PRIVILEGE AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
TO VOTE FOR CONGRESSMEN, A PRIVILEGE GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE I OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THEY FURTHER CONTEND THAT THE STATE APPORTIONMENT ACT
DIRECTLY VIOLATES ARTICLE I WHICH GUARANTEES THAT EACH CITIZEN ELIGIBLE
TO VOTE HAS A RIGHT TO VOTE FOR CONGRESSMEN AND TO HAVE HIS VOTE
COUNTED.  THE ASSERTION HERE IS THAT THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR VOTE
COUNTED IS ABRIDGED UNLESS THAT VOTE IS GIVEN APPROXIMATELY EQUAL
WEIGHT TO THAT OF OTHER CITIZENS.  IT IS MY JUDGMENT THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD JURISDICTION; FN2  THAT THE COMPLAINT PRESENTED A JUSTICIABLE
CASE AND CONTROVERSY N3; AND THAT APPELLANTS HAD STANDING TO SUE, SINCE
THE FACTS ALLEGED SHOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INJURED AS INDIVIDUALS.  FN4
UNLESS PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ARE TO BE OVERRULED, THE SUIT
IS NOT ONE AGAINST THE STATE BUT AGAINST STATE OFFICIALS AS
INDIVIDUALS.  FN5  THE COMPLAINT ATTACKED THE 1901 APPORTIONMENT ACT AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ALLEGED FACTS INDICATING THAT THE ACT DENIED
APPELLANTS THE FULL RIGHT TO VOTE AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS.  THESE ALLEGATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND SINCE THERE IS NO ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY FOR
DEPRIVING A CITIZEN OF HIS RIGHT TO VOTE, EQUITY CAN AND SHOULD GRANT
RELIEF. 

IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SEE WHY THE 1901 STATE APPORTIONMENT ACT
DOES NOT DENY APPELLANTS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  THE FAILURE OF
THE LEGISLATURE TO REAPPORTION THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION DISTRICTS FOR
FORTY YEARS, DESPITE CENSUS FIGURES INDICATING GREAT CHANGES IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION, HAS RESULTED IN ELECTION DISTRICTS THE
POPULATIONS OF WHICH RANGE FROM 112,000 TO 900,000.  ONE OF THE
APPELLANTS LIVES IN A DISTRICT OF MORE THAN 900,000 PEOPLE.  HIS VOTE
IS CONSEQUENTLY MUCH LESS EFFECTIVE THAN THAT OF EACH OF THE CITIZENS
LIVING IN THE DISTRICT OF 112,000.  AND SUCH A GROSS INEQUALITY IN THE
VOTING POWER OF CITIZENS IRREFUTABLY DEMONSTRATES A COMPLETE LACK OF
EFFORT TO MAKE AN EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT.  THE 1901 STATE
APPORTIONMENT ACT IF APPLIED TO THE NEXT ELECTION WOULD THUS RESULT IN
A WHOLLY INDEFENSIBLE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST APPELLANTS AND ALL OTHER
VOTERS IN HEAVILY POPULATED DISTRICTS.  THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS SUCH DISCRIMINATION.  IT DOES NOT
PERMIT THE STATES TO PICK OUT CERTAIN QUALIFIED CITIZENS OR GROUPS OF
CITIZENS AND DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO VOTE AT ALL.  SEE NIXON V. HERNDON,
273 U.S. 536, 541; NIXON V. CONDON, 286 U.S. 73.  NO ONE WOULD DENY
THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE WOULD ALSO PROHIBIT A LAW THAT WOULD
EXPRESSLY GIVE CERTAIN CITIZENS A HALF-VOTE AND OTHERS A FULL VOTE. 
THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF THE 1901 STATE APPORTIONMENT ACT IN THE COMING
ELECTION WILL BE THAT CERTAIN CITIZENS, AND AMONG THEM THE APPELLANTS,
WILL IN SOME INSTANCES HAVE VOTES ONLY ONE-NINTH AS EFFECTIVE IN
CHOOSING REPRESENTATIVES TO CONGRESS AS THE VOTES OF OTHER CITIZENS. 
SUCH DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION SEEMS TO ME EXACTLY THE KIND THAT THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE WAS INTENDED TO PROHIBIT. 

THE 1901 STATE APPORTIONMENT ACT IN REDUCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
APPELLANTS' VOTES ABRIDGES THEIR PRIVILEGE AS CITIZENS TO VOTE FOR
CONGRESSMEN AND VIOLATES ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ARTICLE I
PROVIDES THAT CONGRESSMEN "SHALL BE  ...  CHOSEN  ...  BY THE PEOPLE OF
THE SEVERAL STATES  ..."  IT THUS GIVES THOSE QUALIFIED A RIGHT TO VOTE
AND A RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR VOTE COUNTED.  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S.
651; UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383.  THIS COURT IN ORDER TO
PREVENT "AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE CHOICE OF THE VOTERS" HAS
HELD THAT THIS RIGHT EXTENDS TO PRIMARIES.  UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC,
313 U.S. 299, 314.  WHILE THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS NO EXPRESS
PROVISION REQUIRING THAT CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED
BY THE STATES MUST CONTAIN APPROXIMATELY EQUAL POPULATIONS, THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO VOTE AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE ONE'S
VOTE COUNTED CLEARLY IMPLY THE POLICY THAT STATE ELECTION SYSTEMS, NO
MATTER WHAT THEIR FORM, SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO GIVE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL
WEIGHT TO EACH VOTE CAST.  TO SOME EXTENT THIS IMPLICATION OF ARTICLE I
IS EXPRESSLY STATED BY SEC. 2 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH
PROVIDES THAT "REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE APPORTIONED AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NUMBERS  ..."  THE PURPOSE OF THIS
REQUIREMENT IS OBVIOUS:  IT IS TO MAKE THE VOTES OF THE CITIZENS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES EQUALLY EFFECTIVE IN THE SELECTION OF MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS.  IT WAS INTENDED TO MAKE ILLEGAL A NATION-WIDE "ROTTEN
BOROUGH" SYSTEM AS BETWEEN THE STATES.  THE POLICY BEHIND IT IS BROADER
THAN THAT.  IT PROHIBITS AS WELL CONGRESSIONAL "ROTTEN BOROUGHS" WITHIN
THE STATES, SUCH AS THE ONES HERE INVOLVED.  THE POLICY IS THAT WHICH
IS LAID DOWN BY ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS REGULATING THE
ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, INCLUDING ARTICLE
I WHICH GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND TO HAVE THAT VOTE EFFECTIVELY
COUNTED:  ALL GROUPS, CLASSES, AND INDIVIDUALS SHALL TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT IS PRACTICALLY FEASIBLE BE GIVEN EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SENATE, WRITES THE
LAWS AFFECTING THE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY OF ALL THE PEOPLE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE STATES ARE AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE I OF
THE CONSTITUTION TO LEGISLATE ON THE SUBJECT OF CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS
TO THE EXTENT THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE SO. THUS THE POWER GRANTED TO
THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON THIS SUBJECT IS PRIMARILY DERIVED FROM THE
FEDERAL AND NOT FROM THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  BUT THIS FEDERALLYGRANTED
POWER WITH RESPECT TO ELECTIONS OF CONGRESSMEN IS NOT TO FORMULATE
POLICY BUT RATHER TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY LAID DOWN IN THE
CONSTITUTION, THAT, SO FAR AS FEASIBLE, VOTES BE GIVEN EQUALLY
EFFECTIVE WEIGHT.  THUS, A STATE LEGISLATURE CANNOT DENY ELIGIBLE
VOTERS THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR CONGRESSMEN AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR
VOTE COUNTED.  IT CAN NO MORE DESTROY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR VOTE
IN PART AND NO MORE ACCOMPLISH THIS IN THE NAME OF "APPORTIONMENT" THAN
UNDER ANY OTHER NAME.  FOR LEGISLATION WHICH MUST INEVITABLY BRING
ABOUT GLARINGLY UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION IN THE CONGRESS IN FAVOR OF
SPECIAL CLASSES AND GROUPS SHOULD BE IN VALIDATED, "WHETHER
ACCOMPLISHED INGENIOUSLY OR INGENUOUSLY."  SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S.
128, 132.  SEE ALSO LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268, 272. 

HAD ILLINOIS PASSED AN ACT REQUIRING THAT ALL OF ITS TWENTY-SIX
CONGRESSMEN BE ELECTED BY THE CITIZENS OF ONE COUNTY, IT WOULD CLEARLY
HAVE AMOUNTED TO A DENIAL TO THE CITIZENS OF THE OTHER COUNTIES OF
THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO VOTE.  AND I CANNOT IMAGINE
THAT AN ACT THAT WOULD HAVE APPORTIONED TWENTY-FIVE CONGRESSMEN TO THE
STATE'S SMALLEST COUNTY AND ONE CONGRESSMAN TO ALL THE OTHERS, WOULD
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY ANY COURT.  SUCH AN ACT WOULD CLEARLY HAVE
VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION.  THE 1901
APPORTIONMENT ACT HERE INVOLVED VIOLATES THAT POLICY IN THE SAME WAY. 
THE POLICY WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS LAID DOWN BY THE
CONSTITUTION, WHILE IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COURTS CAN OR SHOULD
PRESCRIBE THE PRECISE METHODS TO BE FOLLOWED BY STATE LEGISLATURES AND
THE INVALIDATION OF ALL ACTS THAT DO NOT EMBODY THOSE PRECISE METHODS,
DOES MEAN THAT STATE LEGISLATURES MUST MAKE REAL EFFORTS TO BRING ABOUT
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL REPRESENTATION OF CITIZENS IN CONGRESS.  HERE THE
LEGISLATURE OF ILLINOIS HAS NOT DONE SO.  WHETHER THAT WAS DUE TO
NEGLIGENCE OR WAS A WILFUL EFFORT TO DEPRIVE SOME CITIZENS OF AN
EFFECTIVE VOTE, THE ADMITTED RESULT IS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY
OF EQUALITY OF REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN DEFEATED.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS THE COURT'S DUTY TO INVALIDATE THE STATE LAW. 

IT IS CONTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT A COURT OF EQUITY DOES NOT HAVE THE
POWER, OR EVEN IF IT HAS THE POWER, THAT IT SHOULD NOT EXERCISE IT IN
THIS CASE.  TO DO SO, IT IS ARGUED, WOULD MEAN THAT THE COURT IS
ENTERING THE AREA OF "POLITICAL QUESTIONS."  I CANNOT AGREE WITH THAT
ARGUMENT.  THERE HAVE BEEN CASES, SUCH AS COLEMAN V. MILLER, SUPRA, PP.
454, 457, WHERE THIS COURT DECLINED TO DECIDE A QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS
POLITICAL.  IN THE MILLER CASE, HOWEVER, THE QUESTION INVOLVED WAS
RATIFICATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, A MATTER OVER WHICH THE
COURT BELIEVED CONGRESS HAD BEEN GIVEN FINAL AUTHORITY.  TO HAVE
DECIDED THAT QUESTION WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO A TRESPASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS.  HERE WE HAVE BEFORE US A STATE LAW
WHICH ABRIDGES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO CAST VOTES IN
SUCH WAY AS TO OBTAIN THE KIND OF CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION THE
CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES TO THEM. 

IT IS TRUE THAT VOTING IS A PART OF ELECTIONS AND THAT ELECTIONS ARE
"POLITICAL."  BUT AS THIS COURT SAID IN NIXON V. HERNDON, SUPRA, IT IS
A MERE "PLAY UPON WORDS" TO REFER TO A CONTROVERSY SUCH AS THIS AS
"POLITICAL" IN THE SENSE THAT COURTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING
AND VINDICATING THE RIGHT OF A VOTER TO CAST AN EFFECTIVE BALLOT.  THE
CLASSIC CASE, AMONG MYRIADS OF OTHERS, REFUTES THE CONTENTION THAT
COURTS ARE IMPOTENT IN CONNECTION WITH EVASIONS OF ALL "POLITICAL"
RIGHTS.  WOOD V. BROOM, 287 U.S. 1, DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE GRANTING OF
EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THIS CASE.  THERE THIS COURT SIMPLY HELD THAT THE
STATE APPORTIONMENT ACT DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONGRESSIONAL
REAPPORTIONMENT ACT OF 1929, 46 STAT. 21, 26, 27, SINCE THAT ACT DID
NOT REQUIRE ELECTION DISTRICTS OF EQUAL POPULATION.  THE COURT
EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE QUESTION OF "THE RIGHT OF THE COMPLAINANT TO
RELIEF IN EQUITY."  GILES V. HARRIS, 189 U.S. 475, ALSO DID NOT HOLD
THAT A COURT OF EQUITY COULD NOT, OR SHOULD NOT, EXERCISE ITS POWER IN
A CASE LIKE THIS.  AS WE SAID WITH REFERENCE TO THAT DECISION IN LANE
V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268, 272-273, IT STANDS FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT
COURTS WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO "SUPERVISE" ELECTIONS.  FURTHERMORE, THE
AUTHOR OF THE GILES V. HARRIS OPINION ALSO WROTE THE OPINION IN NIXON
V. HERNDON, IN WHICH A VOTER'S RIGHT TO CAST A BALLOT WAS HELD TO GIVE
RISE TO A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. 

IN THIS CASE, NO SUPERVISION OVER ELECTIONS IS ASKED FOR.  WHAT IS
ASKED IS THAT THIS COURT DO EXACTLY WHAT IT DID IN SMILEY V. HOLM,
SUPRA.  IT IS ASKED TO DECLARE A STATE APPORTIONMENT BILL INVALID AND
TO ENJOIN STATE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING IT.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE SMILEY CASE IS THAT THERE THE CASE ORIGINATED
IN THE STATE COURTS WHILE HERE THE PROCEEDING ORIGINATED IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT.  THE ONLY TYPE OF CASE IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS HELD
THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT SHOULD IN ITS DISCRETION STAY ITS HAND
ANY MORE THAN A STATE COURT IS WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE WHICH STATE
COURTS OR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES HAVE SPECIAL COMPETENCE TO DECIDE. 
THIS IS NOT THAT TYPE OF QUESTION.  WHAT IS INVOLVED HERE IS THE RIGHT
TO VOTE GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE
RULE THAT WHERE A FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHT HAS BEEN INVADED THE
FEDERAL COURTS WILL PROVIDE THE REMEDY TO RECTIFY THE WRONG DONE. 
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOT HESITATED TO EXERCISE THEIR EQUITY POWER IN
CASES INVOLVING DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY AND LIBERTY.  EX PARTE YOUNG,
SUPRA; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496.  THERE IS NO REASON WHY THEY
SHOULD DO SO WHERE THE CASE INVOLVES THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
REPRESENTATIVES THAT MAKE LAWS AFFECTING LIBERTY AND PROPERTY.    NOR
IS THERE ANY MORE DIFFICULTY IN ENFORCING A DECREE IN THIS CASE THAN
THERE WAS IN THE SMILEY CASE.  IT IS TRUE THAT DECLARATION OF
INVALIDITY OF THE STATE ACT AND THE ENJOINING OF STATE OFFICIALS WOULD
RESULT IN PROHIBITING THE STATE FROM ELECTING CONGRESSMEN UNDER THE
SYSTEM OF THE OLD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.  BUT IT WOULD LEAVE THE
STATE FREE TO ELECT THEM FROM THE STATE AT LARGE, WHICH, AS WE HELD IN
THE SMILEY CASE, IS A MANNER AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  IT IS
SAID THAT IT WOULD BE INCONVENIENT FOR THE STATE TO CONDUCT THE
ELECTION IN THIS MANNER.  BUT IT HAS AN ELEMENT OF VIRTUE THAT THE MORE
CONVENIENT METHOD DOES NOT HAVE - NAMELY, IT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST SOME GROUPS TO FAVOR OTHERS, IT GIVES ALL THE PEOPLE AN EQUALLY
EFFECTIVE VOICE IN ELECTING THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AS IS ESSENTIAL UNDER
A FREE GOVERNMENT, AND IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. 

FN1  PEOPLE V. THOMPSON, 155 ILL. 451, 40 N.E. 307; FERGUS V. MARKS,
321 ILL. 510, 152 N.E. 557; FERGUS V. KINNEY, 333 ILL. 437, 164 N.E.
665; PEOPLE V. CLARDY, 334 ILL. 160, 165 N.E. 638; PEOPLE V. BLACKWELL,
342 ILL. 223, 173 N.E. 750; DALY V. MADISON COUNTY, 378 ILL. 357, 38
N.E.2D 160.  CF. MORAN V. BOWLEY, 347 ILL. 148, 179 N.E. 526. 

FN2  28 U.S.C. 41(14); BELL V. HOOD, 327 U.S. 678. 

FN3  SMILEY V. HOLM, 285 U.S. 355; KOENIG V. FLYNN, 285 U.S. 375;
CARROLL V. BECKER, 285 U.S. 380; WOOD V. BROOM, 287 U.S. 1; NIXON V.
HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536, 540; MCPHERSON V. BLACKER, 146 U.S. 1, 23-24;
SEE ALSO CASES COLLECTED IN 2 A.L.R. NOTE, 1337 ET SEQ. 

FN4  COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, 438, 467. 

FN5  EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S.
378, 393. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :


















UNIVERSAL OIL CO. V. ROOT RFG. CO., 328 U.S. 575 


NOS. 48 AND 64.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  -
147 F.2D 259, REVERSED. 


ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING CLIENTS INTERESTED IN PATENTS INVOLVED IN AN
ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT THERETOFORE RENDERED BY A FEDERAL COURT
IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER, OFFERED AND UNDERTOOK TO SERVE AS AMICI
CURIAE IN AN INVESTIGATION OF THE JUDGMENT.  A MASTER WAS APPOINTED AND
AN INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED, BUT WITHOUT THE USUAL SAFEGUARDS OF
ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS.  PETITIONER, THOUGH IT HAD CONSENTED TO A
REARGUMENT OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, OBJECTED
THROUGHOUT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE MASTER IF
RIGHTS WERE TO BE ADJUDICATED THEREIN.  THE MASTER FOUND THAT THE
JUDGMENT WAS FRAUDULENT, AND THE COURT SET THE JUDGMENT ASIDE AND
ORDERED THE CASE REARGUED.  THE MASTER'S FEES AND EXPENSES, AND FEES
AND EXPENSES OF THE ATTORNEYS AS AMICI CURIAE, WERE TAXED AGAINST
PETITIONER.  HELD: 

1.  IT WAS NOT IMPROPER TO TAX AGAINST PETITIONER THE MASTER'S FEES
AND EXPENSES, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER APPEARED AND
PARTICIPATED IN THE INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE MASTER, WITH KNOWLEDGE
THAT THE MASTER'S FEES AND EXPENSES WOULD BE ASSESSED BY THE COURT.  P.
579. 

2.  IT WAS INEQUITABLE AND IMPROPER TO TAX AGAINST PETITIONER FEES
AND EXPENSES OF THE AMICI CURIAE.  P. 580. 

(A)  PETITIONER HAVING OBJECTED THROUGHOUT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE MASTER IF RIGHTS WERE TO BE ADJUDICATED THEREIN,
IT WAS UNJUST TO TAX AGAINST PETITIONER ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES. 
P. 580. 

(B)  THE AMICI CURIAE HAVING ALREADY BEEN COMPENSATED BY THEIR
CLIENTS FOR THEIR SERVICES IN THE INVESTIGATION, IT WAS INEQUITABLE AND
INAPPROPRIATE THAT THEIR FEES AND EXPENSES BE TAXED AGAINST PETITIONER
FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CLIENTS.  P. 581. 

UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO. V. ROOT REFINING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TAXED AGAINST THE PETITIONER CERTAIN
FEES AND COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION OF AN ALLEGEDLY
FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT THERETOFORE RENDERED BY THAT COURT IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  324 U.S. 839.  IN NO. 48
THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND REMANDED; AND IN NO. 64 THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, INVOKED UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, IS DISMISSED. 
P. 581. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY, IS A PATENT-HOLDING AND
LICENSING COMPANY.  IN 1929 AND 1931, IT BROUGHT SUITS FOR INFRINGEMENT
AGAINST THE WINKLERKOCH ENGINEERING CO. AND THE ROOT REFINING COMPANY,
RESPECTIVELY.  THE SUITS WERE CONSOLIDATED, THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS
SUSTAINED, AND DECREES FOR THEIR INFRINGEMENT ENTERED.  6 F.SUPP. 
763.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, IN AN OPINION
BY JUDGE J. WARREN DAVIS, AFFIRMED THE DECREES, 78 F.2D 991, AND THIS
COURT, IN OCTOBER, 1935, DENIED CERTIORARI.  ROOT REFINING CO. V.
UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO., 296 U.S. 626.  BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
DECISION IN THE ROOT CASE, UNIVERSAL STARTED SIMILAR INFRINGEMENT SUITS
AGAINST OTHER OIL COMPANIES.  UNIVERSAL INVOKED THE ROOT DECISIONS AS
RES JUDICATA AGAINST SOME OF THESE COMPANIES.  IT MAINTAINED THAT,
ALTHOUGH THESE COMPANIES HAD NOT BEEN PARTIES OF RECORD IN THE ROOT
SUIT, THEY WERE MEMBERS OF A "PATENT CLUB," TO WHICH ROOT BELONGED AND
WHICH HAD BEEN FORMED TO POOL MONEY FOR THE DEFENSE OF ANY MEMBER OF
THE "CLUB" IN AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT AGAINST IT, AND THAT THE ROOT CASE
HAD BEEN DEFENDED BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE "PATENT CLUB."  UNIVERSAL
CONTENDED THAT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES MADE THE OTHER OIL COMPANIES
SUBSTANTIAL PARTIES TO THE ROOT LITIGATION AND AS SUCH BOUND BY ITS
OUTCOME. 

ON JUNE 2, 1941, DURING THE PENDENCY OF THESE LATTER CASES, ATTORNEYS
WHO HAD REPRESENTED ROOT AND WERE REPRESENTING THE OTHER OIL COMPANIES
ADVISED THE ATTORNEYS OF THE PETITIONER THAT ON JUNE 5, 1941, THEY
WOULD BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE JUDGES OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE APPEAL IN THE ROOT CASE,
AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, THE RELATIONS OF ONE MORGAN S. KAUFMAN TO THE
OUTCOME OF THAT APPEAL, AND INVITED PETITIONER'S ATTORNEYS TO ATTEND. 
AT THE HEARING ON JUNE 5, THE MOVING ATTORNEYS SUGGESTED, IN SUBSTANCE,
THAT TESTIMONY TAKEN AT THE TRIAL OF JUDGE DAVIS POINTED TO BRIBERY OF
JUDGE DAVIS BY KAUFMAN TO SECURE A DECISION FAVORABLE TO UNIVERSAL IN
THE ROOT APPEAL.  THEY URGED AN INVESTIGATION OF THE QUESTIONABLE
FEATURES SURROUNDING AFFIRMANCE OF THE ROOT DECREE, BUT EXPRESSED DOUBT
AS TO THE CAPACITY IN WHICH THEY COULD FORMALLY MAKE SUCH A REQUEST OF
THE COURT.  THEIR DIFFICULTY WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT AFTER THIS COURT
HAD DENIED CERTIORARI IN THE ROOT CASE, ROOT HAD SETTLED ITS
CONTROVERSY WITH UNIVERSAL AND WAS UNWILLING TO DISTURB THE AGREEMENT
BY AN ATTEMPT TO REOPEN THE LAW SUIT.  THE OTHER OIL COMPANIES WHO WERE
IN LITIGATION WITH ROOT INSISTED THAT THEY WERE NEITHER FORMAL NOR
SUBSTANTIAL PARTIES TO THE ROOT CASE.  AND SO THEIR ATTORNEYS, WHO WERE
THE ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOT LITIGATION AND THE MOVING ATTORNEYS IN THE
PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, COULD NOT MOVE ON THEIR BEHALF TO HAVE THE ROOT
DECREE VACATED.  BUT THESE OTHER OIL COMPANIES HAD AN INTEREST IN THE
ROOT DECREE SINCE IT MIGHT BE USED IN PENDING CASES TO THEIR
DISADVANTAGE.  UNIVERSAL OFFERED TO CONSENT TO A REARGUMENT OF THE ROOT
CASE AND TO PRESERVE TO THE ROOT COMPANY THE BENEFITS OF THE EXISTING
AGREEMENT, EVEN IF UNIVERSAL SHOULD PREVAIL UPON REARGUMENT. 
THROUGHOUT THESE PROCEEDINGS UNIVERSAL STOOD READY TO CARRY OUT THIS
OFFER, BUT NOTHING EVER CAME OF IT, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE ROOT WAS NOT
REPRESENTED AT THESE HEARINGS AND THE OTHER OIL COMPANIES WERE NOT
PARTIES OF RECORD IN THE ORIGINAL LITIGATION. 

THE DILEMMA OF THE ATTORNEYS WHO INITIATED THESE PROCEEDINGS TO SET
ASIDE A FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT BUT COULD NOT SPEAK FOR ANY CLIENT PREPARED
TO COME BEFORE THE COURT AS A PARTY IN INTEREST, WAS RESOLVED BY A
SUGGESTION FROM THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
THE SUGGESTION WAS THAT THE COURT WOULD ACCEPT THE SERVICES OF THESE
ATTORNEYS AS AMICI CURIAE.  ACCORDINGLY, THEY OFFERED THEMSELVES IN
THAT ROLE.  UPON THEIR ACCEPTANCE AS SUCH BY THE COURT, THEY ASKED FOR
THE APPOINTMENT OF A MASTER TO INVESTIGATE THE ROOT APPEAL.  WHILE THEY
THUS PROCEEDED AS AMICI THEY STATED QUITE CANDIDLY THAT THEY WERE ALSO
CONCERNED WITH THE INTERESTS OF THEIR CLIENTS, THE OIL COMPANIES IN
PENDING LITIGATION.  AS A MATTER OF LAW, HOWEVER, THEIR STATUS WAS ONLY
THAT OF AMICI, FOR THEIR CLIENTS DID NOT SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION.  THE RELATION OF THESE LAWYERS TO THE COURT,
AFTER IT RECOGNIZED THEM AS AMICI, REMAINED THROUGHOUT ONLY THAT OF
AMICI. 

A MASTER WAS APPOINTED AND HE CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION. 
HE EXAMINED RECORDS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, THE RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A
PHILADELPHIA GRAND JURY, BANK RECORDS, AND VARIOUS STATEMENTS OF
INTERESTED PARTIES.  FROM THIS MASS OF MATERIAL, HE SELECTED THOSE
DOCUMENTS WHICH HE DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE INSPECTION
OF THE AMICI AND OF COUNSEL FOR UNIVERSAL.  WITNESSES WERE ALSO HEARD
AND PETITIONER WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE.  BUT THE
INVESTIGATION WAS NOT GOVERNED BY THE CUSTOMARY RULES OF TRIAL
PROCEDURE.  PETITIONER'S COUNSEL DULY EXCEPTED TO THE MANNER IN WHICH
THE INVESTIGATION WAS BEING CONDUCTED, "IF IT WERE TO INVOLVE ANY
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OUR CLIENTS, INCLUDING THE VALIDITY OF ANY JUDGMENT
..."  THE MASTER EVIDENTLY DID NOT VIEW THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF
AN ADVERSARY LITIGATION.  HE RULED "THAT THE INVESTIGATION - FOR THAT
IS ALL IT IS - SHOULD (NOT) BE CONDUCTED STRICTLY ACCORDING TO THE
RULES OF EVIDENCE IN LITIGATION."  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS
INVESTIGATION, THE MASTER RENDERED A REPORT IN WHICH HE CONCLUDED "THAT
THERE WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE SUCH FRAUD AS TAINTED AND
INVALIDATED THE JUDGMENTS" IN THE ROOT APPEAL. 

ON THE BASIS OF THIS CONCLUSION, THE COURT OF APPEALS ON JUNE 15,
1944, ENTERED AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE JUDGMENTS BE VACATED AND THE
CAUSE BE REARGUED.  THE RELIEF THUS GRANTED WAS THAT TO WHICH
PETITIONER HAD CONSENTED BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION GOT UNDER WAY.  ON
JULY 24, 1944, THE AMICI APPLIED TO THE COURT BELOW FOR AN ORDER
DIRECTING THAT THE EXPENSES AND COMPENSATION OF THE MASTER BE TAXED
AGAINST UNIVERSAL.  IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT UNIVERSAL APPEARED AND
PARTICIPATED IN THE INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE MASTER, WITH ACQUIESCING
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE MASTER'S FEES AND EXPENSES WOULD BE ASSESSED BY THE
COURT, WE DO NOT DISTURB THE TAXATION OF THE MASTER'S FEES AND
EXPENSES.  THE AMICI ALSO ASKED THE COURT TO ASSESS AGAINST UNIVERSAL
THEIR EXPENSES AND REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES.  THE COURT AWARDED
$54,606.57 IN EXPENSES, PART OF WHICH WAS FOR THE AMOUNT THEY HAD
ADVANCED IN PAYMENT TO THE MASTER, AND $100,000 AS COMPENSATION FOR
THEIR SERVICES.  THESE AMOUNTS HAD IN FACT ALREADY BEEN PAID TO THE
ATTORNEYS BY THEIR OIL COMPANY CLIENTS.  THE AWARDS THUS CONSTITUTED AN
ORDER FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CLIENTS BY UNIVERSAL.  THE CASE WAS
HEARD BY THE COURT EN BANC, AND TWO OF THE JUDGES THOUGHT THAT THE
AMICI WERE ONLY ENTITLED TO A COMPENSATION OF $25,000.  147 F.2D 259. 
QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE IN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION WERE OBVIOUSLY
INVOLVED BY THE DISPOSITION BELOW, AND SO WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE. 
324 U.S. 839. 

THE INHERENT POWER OF A FEDERAL COURT TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER A
JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD, IS BEYOND QUESTION.  HAZEL-ATLAS CO. V.
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., 322 U.S. 238.  THE POWER TO UNEARTH SUCH A FRAUD
IS THE POWER TO UNEARTH IT EFFECTIVELY.  ACCORDINGLY, A FEDERAL COURT
MAY BRING BEFORE IT BY APPROPRIATE MEANS ALL THOSE WHO MAY BE AFFECTED
BY THE OUTCOME OF ITS INVESTIGATION.  BUT IF THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES ARE
TO BE ADJUDICATED IN SUCH AN INVESTIGATION, THE USUAL SAFEGUARDS OF
ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS MUST BE OBSERVED.  NO DOUBT, IF THE COURT FINDS
AFTER A PROPER HEARING THAT FRAUD HAS BEEN PRACTICED UPON IT, OR THAT
THE VERY TEMPLE OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN DEFILED, THE ENTIRE COST OF THE
PROCEEDINGS COULD JUSTLY BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE GUILTY PARTIES.  SUCH
IS PRECISELY A SITUATION WHERE "FOR DOMINATING REASONS OF JUSTICE" A
COURT MAY ASSESS COUNSEL FEES AS PART OF THE TAXABLE COSTS.  SPRAGUE V.
TICONIC NATIONAL BANK, 307 U.S. 161, 167.  BUT, OBVIOUSLY, A COURT
CANNOT DEPRIVE A SUCCESSFUL PARTY OF HIS JUDGMENT WITHOUT A PROPER
HEARING.  THIS QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE US, EXCEPT AS IT BEARS ON THE
ORDER ALLOWING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS.  BUT IF THE JUDGMENT COULD
NOT BE NULLIFIED WITHOUT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN A PROPER
CONTEST, NEITHER IS IT JUST TO ASSESS THE FEES OF ATTORNEYS AND THEIR
EXPENSES IN CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION WHERE PETITIONER THROUGHOUT
OBJECTED TO THE CHARACTER OF THE INVESTIGATION IF IT WAS TO BE USED AS
A BASIS FOR ADJUDICATING RIGHTS. 

THE CASE MAY READILY BE DISPOSED OF ON A NARROWER GROUND.  NO DOUBT,
A COURT THAT UNDERTAKES AN INVESTIGATION OF FRAUD UPON IT MAY AVAIL
ITSELF, AS DID THE COURT BELOW, OF AMICI TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  BUT COMPENSATION IS NOT THE
NORMAL REWARD OF THOSE WHO OFFER SUCH SERVICES.  AFTER ALL, A FEDERAL
COURT CAN ALWAYS CALL ON LAW OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES TO SERVE AS
AMICI.  HERE THE AMICI ALSO REPRESENTED SUBSTANTIAL PRIVATE INTERESTS. 
THEIR CLIENTS WERE INTERESTED IN VACATING THE ROOT JUDGMENT THOUGH THEY
WOULD NOT SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO THE COURT'S JURISDICTION AND THE
HAZARDS OF AN ADVERSE DETERMINATION.  WHILE THE AMICI FORMALLY SERVED
THE COURT, THEY WERE IN FACT IN THE PAY OF PRIVATE CLIENTS.  AMICI
SELECTED BY THE COURT TO VINDICATE ITS HONOR ORDINARILY OUGHT NOT BE IN
THE SERVICE OF THOSE HAVING PRIVATE INTERESTS IN THE OUTCOME. 
CERTAINLY IT IS NOT CONSONANT WITH THAT REGARD FOR FASTIDIOUSNESS WHICH
SHOULD GOVERN A COURT OF EQUITY, TO AWARD FEES AND COSTS OF AMICI
CURIAE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPENSATED BY PRIVATE CLIENTS SO THAT
THESE BE REIMBURSED FOR WHAT THEY VOLUNTARILY PAID. 

IN NO. 48, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION. 

IN NO. 64, THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI INVOKED UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 377, IS DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE NARROWER GROUND OF THE OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :












DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 582 


NO. 404.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 151 F.2D
140, AFFIRMED. 


1.  HAVING OBTAINED CLEAR EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF THE GASOLINE
RATIONING REGULATIONS THROUGH SALES WITHOUT COUPONS AND AT ABOVE
CEILING PRICES (WHICH ARE MISDEMEANORS), OFFICERS ARRESTED PETITIONER,
PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH MAINTAINED THE OFFENDING FILLING
STATION, AT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS DURING BUSINESS HOURS AND DEMANDED
RATION COUPONS COVERING THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SALES.  AFTER REFUSING
AT FIRST, PETITIONER SOON ACQUIESCED AND SURRENDERED THE COUPONS.  IN
HIS TRIAL FOR POSSESSING THEM UNLAWFULLY (A MISDEMEANOR), PETITIONER
CONTENDED THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH WHICH RESULTED IN
SEIZURE OF THE COUPONS AND THEIR USE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, IN
VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS.  THE
EVIDENCE WAS CONFLICTING; BUT THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT HE HAD
CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND THAT NO FORCE OR THREAT OF
FORCE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED TO PERSUADE HIM.  HE WAS CONVICTED.  HELD:  THE
CONVICTION IS AFFIRMED, BECAUSE THIS COURT CANNOT SAY AS A MATTER OF
LAW THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING OF FACT WAS ERRONEOUS.  PP. 593,
594. 

2.  THE GASOLINE RATION COUPONS NEVER BECAME THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF
THE HOLDER BUT REMAINED AT ALL TIMES THE PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT AND
SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND RECALL BY IT.  P. 588. 

3.  IN THE LAW OF SEARCHES AND SEIZURES A DISTINCTION IS MADE BETWEEN
PRIVATE PAPERS OR DOCUMENTS AND PUBLIC PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF A
CITIZEN.  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361.  PP. 589-591. 

4.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE LIMITS OF INSPECTION UNDER THE REGULATIONS,
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT SO IMPOTENT AS TO REQUIRE OFFICERS WHO HAVE THE
RIGHT TO INSPECT A PLACE OF BUSINESS TO STAND MUTE WHEN CLEAR EVIDENCE
OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS KNOWN TO THEM.  AMOS V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S.
313, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 592, 593. 

5.  WHERE OFFICERS SEEK TO INSPECT PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AT THE PLACE OF
BUSINESS WHERE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT, PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF
PERSUASION ARE NOT SO NARROW AS WHERE PRIVATE PAPERS ARE SOUGHT, SINCE
THE DEMAND IS ONE OF RIGHT.  P. 593. 

DAVIS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF GASOLINE RATION
COUPONS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1941, AND BY SEC. 301 OF THE SECOND WAR
POWERS ACT OF MARCH 27, 1942.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
151 F.2D 140.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 711.  AFFIRMED,
P. 594. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED UNDER AN INFORMATION CHARGING HIM WITH
UNLAWFULLY HAVING IN HIS POSSESSION ON JUNE 20, 1944, 168 GASOLINE
RATION COUPONS, REPRESENTING 504 GALLONS OF GASOLINE.  FN1  THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
(151 F.2D 140) OVER THE OBJECTION THAT THERE WAS AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH
WHICH RESULTED IN THE SEIZURE OF THE COUPONS AND THEIR USE AT THE TRIAL
IN VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383,
UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452, AND RELATED CASES.  THE CASE
IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

DAVIS WAS PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION BY THE NAME OF DAVIS AUTO
LAUNDRY CORPORATION WHICH MAINTAINED A GASOLINE FILLING STATION IN NEW
YORK CITY.  HE WAS SUSPECTED OF RUNNING A BLACK MARKET IN GASOLINE. 
SEVERAL AGENTS DROVE TO A PLACE NEAR THE GASOLINE STATION AND OBSERVED
IT FOR A FEW HOURS.  THEY HAD NO SEARCH WARRANT NOR A WARRANT FOR THE
ARREST OF PETITIONER.  TWO OF THE AGENTS DROVE THEIR CARS INTO THE
STATION AND ASKED FOR GAS.  PETITIONER WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME. 
BUT AN ATTENDANT, AN EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER, WAS PRESENT AND WAITED ON
THEM.  THROUGH HER EACH OF THE TWO AGENTS SUCCEEDED IN PURCHASING GAS
WITHOUT GASOLINE RATION STAMPS BY PAYING TWENTY CENTS A GALLON ABOVE
THE CEILING PRICE.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER THEY ARRESTED HER FOR SELLING
GASOLINE WITHOUT COUPONS AND ABOVE THE CEILING PRICE.  SHE SAID THAT IN
DOING SO SHE WAS FOLLOWING PETITIONER'S INSTRUCTIONS.  WHILE SHE WAS
BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AGENTS, PETITIONER RETURNED TO THE STATION IN
HIS CAR.  THEY IMMEDIATELY ARRESTED HIM ON THE SAME CHARGE AS THE
ATTENDANT  FN2 AND SEARCHED HIS CAR.  THEY DEMANDED AND RECEIVED FROM
HIM THE KEYS TO TIN BOXES ATTACHED TO THE GASOLINE PUMPS AND IN WHICH
GASOLINE RATION COUPONS WERE KEPT.  ONE OF THEM BEGAN TO EXAMINE AND
MEASURE THE GASOLINE STORAGE TANKS AND THEIR CONTENTS.  IT SOON
APPEARED THAT THE GASOLINE RATION COUPONS FOUND IN THE TIN BOXES WERE
NOT SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE CAPACITY OF THE STORAGE
TANKS HAD BEEN DIMINISHED BY SALES. 

WHILE THIS EXAMINATION OF THE STORAGE TANKS WAS UNDER WAY, PETITIONER
WENT WITH TWO OF THE AGENTS INTO HIS OFFICE WHICH WAS ON THE PREMISES. 
FN3  THE OFFICE CONSISTED OF A WAITING ROOM AND INNER ROOM.  HE WAS
QUESTIONED IN THE WAITING ROOM FOR ABOUT AN HOUR.  A DOOR LED FROM THE
WAITING ROOM INTO THE INNER ROOM WHERE RECORDS WERE KEPT.  THE DOOR TO
IT WAS LOCKED.  PETITIONER AT FIRST REFUSED TO OPEN IT.  WHEN TOLD THAT
THE EXAMINATION OF THE TANKS HAD REVEALED A SHORTAGE OF COUPONS,
PETITIONER ASSURED THE AGENTS THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT COUPONS TO COVER
THE SHORTAGE AND THAT THEY WERE IN THE LOCKED ROOM.  THE OFFICERS ASKED
TO SEE THE COUPONS AND BASED THEIR DEMAND ON THE FACT THAT THE COUPONS
WERE PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS ONLY THE
CUSTODIAN.  PETITIONER PERSISTED, HOWEVER, IN HIS REFUSAL TO UNLOCK THE
DOOR.  BEFORE LONG HE DID UNLOCK IT, TOOK FROM A FILING CABINET THE
COUPONS ON WHICH THE CONVICTION RESTS, AND GAVE THEM TO THE AGENTS.  HE
TESTIFIED THAT HE DID SO BECAUSE THE AGENTS THREATENED TO BREAK DOWN
THE DOOR IF HE DID NOT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT BELIEVE
PETITIONER'S VERSION OF THE EPISODE.  ONE AGENT TESTIFIED:  "Q.  DID
YOU TRY TO CONVINCE DAVIS THAT HE OUGHT TO OPEN THAT DOOR LEADING INTO
THE PRIVATE OFFICE?  A. I DIDN'T TRY TO CONVINCE HIM.  I TOLD HIM THAT
HE WOULD HAVE TO OPEN THAT DOOR.  Q. DID YOU TELL HIM IF HE DID NOT YOU
WOULD BREAK IT DOWN?  A. I DID NOT TELL HIM THAT AT ALL."  AND IT
APPEARED THAT WHILE THE TWO AGENTS WERE TALKING WITH DAVIS IN THE
WAITING ROOM, ANOTHER AGENT WAS IN THE REAR SHINING A FLASHLIGHT
THROUGH AN OUTSIDE WINDOW OF THE INNER ROOM AND APPARENTLY TRYING TO
RAISE THE WINDOW.  ACCORDING TO ONE OF THE AGENTS, WHEN PETITIONER SAW
THAT, HE SAID, "HE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT.  I WILL OPEN THE DAMNED
DOOR."  SOME SIX WEEKS LATER PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED ON A WARRANT AND
ARRAIGNED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE AND THAT HIS CONSENT WAS VOLUNTARY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DID NOT DISTURB THAT FINDING, ALTHOUGH IT EXPRESSED SOME DOUBT
CONCERNING IT.  IN ITS VIEW, THE SEIZED COUPONS WERE PROPERLY
INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, BEING
INCIDENTAL TO THE ARREST, WERE "REASONABLE" REGARDLESS OF PETITIONER'S
CONSENT. 

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES: 

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES,
PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL
NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE,
SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE
TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED." 

AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES IN PART THAT "NO PERSON  ...  SHALL
BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF
..." 

THE LAW OF SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AS REVEALED IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE INTERPLAY OF THESE TWO CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS.  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616.  IT REFLECTS A DUAL
PURPOSE - PROTECTION OF THE PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, HIS RIGHT TO BE
LET ALONE; PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST COMPULSORY PRODUCTION
OF EVIDENCE TO BE USED AGAINST HIM.  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  AND SEE OKLAHOMA PRESS PUB. CO. V.
WALLING, 327 U.S. 186. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO REVIEW ALL OF OUR DECISIONS WHICH DEFINE THE SCOPE
OF "REASONABLE" SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.  FOR THEY HAVE LARGELY DEVELOPED
OUT OF CASES INVOLVING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF PRIVATE PAPERS.  WE
ARE DEALING HERE NOT WITH PRIVATE PAPERS OR DOCUMENTS, BUT WITH
GASOLINE RATION COUPONS WHICH NEVER BECAME THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE
HOLDER BUT REMAINED AT ALL TIMES THE PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT AND
SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND RECALL BY IT. 

AT THE TIMES RELEVANT HERE, GASOLINE WAS RATIONED.  DEALERS COULD
LAWFULLY SELL IT ONLY ON RECEIPT OF RATION COUPONS.  FN4  THEY IN TURN
COULD RECEIVE THEIR SUPPLIES OF GASOLINE FROM THE DISTRIBUTORS ONLY ON
DELIVERY OF COUPONS.  FN5  IT WAS REQUIRED THAT A DEALER AT ALL TIMES
HAVE COUPONS ON HAND AT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS OR IN A BANK EQUAL TO BUT
NOT IN EXCESS OF THE GALLONAGE NECESSARY TO FILL HIS STORAGE TANKS. 
FN6  POSSESSION OF COUPONS OBTAINED IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE REGULATIONS
WAS UNLAWFUL.  FN7  THE COUPONS REMAINED THE PROPERTY OF THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION  FN8  AND WERE AT ALL TIMES SUBJECT TO RECALL BY
IT.  FN9  AND THEY WERE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AT ALL TIMES.  FN10 

WE ARE THUS DEALING NOT WITH PRIVATE PAPERS OR DOCUMENTS BUT WITH
PUBLIC PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF A CITIZEN.  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE TWO CLASSES OF PROPERTY IN THE LAW OF SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WAS
RECOGNIZED IN WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361, 380, WHERE THE
COURT STATED: 

"BUT THE PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS DOES NOT OF
ITSELF PROTECT THE CUSTODIAN AGAINST THEIR COMPULSORY PRODUCTION.  THE
QUESTION STILL REMAINS WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS AND
THE CAPACITY IN WHICH THEY ARE HELD.  IT MAY YET APPEAR THAT THEY ARE
OF A CHARACTER WHICH SUBJECTS THEM TO THE SCRUTINY DEMANDED AND THAT
THE CUSTODIAN HAS VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED A DUTY WHICH OVERRIDES HIS CLAIM
OF PRIVILEGE.  THIS WAS CLEARLY IMPLIED IN THE BOYD CASE WHERE THE FACT
THAT THE PAPERS INVOLVED WERE THE PRIVATE PAPERS OF THE CLAIMANT WAS
CONSTANTLY EMPHASIZED.  THUS, IN THE CASE OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, MADE OR KEPT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC
OFFICE, THE FACT OF ACTUAL POSSESSION OR OF LAWFUL CUSTODY WOULD NOT
JUSTIFY THE OFFICER IN RESISTING INSPECTION, EVEN THOUGH THE RECORD WAS
MADE BY HIMSELF AND WOULD SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE OF HIS CRIMINAL
DERELICTION.  IF HE HAS EMBEZZLED THE PUBLIC MONEYS AND FALSIFIED THE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS HE CANNOT SEAL HIS OFFICIAL RECORDS AND WITHHOLD THEM
FROM THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES ON A PLEA OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-CRIMINATION.  THE PRINCIPLE APPLIES NOT ONLY TO PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS IN PUBLIC OFFICES, BUT ALSO TO RECORDS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE
KEPT IN ORDER THAT THERE MAY BE SUITABLE INFORMATION OF TRANSACTIONS
WHICH ARE THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS OF GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION AND THE
ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS VALIDLY ESTABLISHED.  THERE THE PRIVILEGE,
WHICH EXISTS AS TO PRIVATE PAPERS, CANNOT BE MAINTAINED." 

THE COURT PROCEEDED TO ANALYZE THE ENGLISH AND AMERICAN AUTHORITIES
AND ADDED, PP. 381-382: 

"THE FUNDAMENTAL GROUND OF DECISION IN THIS CLASS OF CASES, IS THAT
WHERE, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CHARACTER AND THE RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO
THEM, THE BOOKS AND PAPERS ARE HELD SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION BY THE
DEMANDING AUTHORITY, THE CUSTODIAN HAS NO PRIVILEGE TO REFUSE
PRODUCTION ALTHOUGH THEIR CONTENTS TEND TO CRIMINATE HIM.  IN ASSUMING
THEIR CUSTODY HE HAS ACCEPTED THE INCIDENT OBLIGATION TO PERMIT
INSPECTION." 

THE DISTINCTION IS BETWEEN PROPERTY TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS
ENTITLED TO POSSESSION AND PROPERTY TO WHICH IT IS NOT.  FN11  SEE 8
WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SEC.  2259C.  THE DISTINCTION HAS HAD
IMPORTANT REPERCUSSIONS IN THE LAW, BEYOND THAT INDICATED BY WILSON V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  FOR AN OWNER OF PROPERTY WHO SEEKS TO TAKE IT
FROM ONE WHO IS UNLAWFULLY IN POSSESSION HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED TO
HAVE GREATER LEEWAY THAN HE WOULD HAVE BUT FOR HIS RIGHT TO
POSSESSION.  THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP WILL EVEN JUSTIFY A TRESPASS AND
WARRANT STEPS OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL.  RICHARDSON V. ANTHONY, 12 VT. 273;
MADDEN V. BROWN, 8 APP. DIV. 454, 40 N.Y.S. 714; STATE V. DOOLEY, 121
MO. 591, 26 S.W. 558. 

WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT OFFICERS SEEKING TO RECLAIM GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY MAY PROCEED LAWLESSLY AND SUBJECT TO NO RESTRAINTS.  NOR DO WE
SUGGEST THAT THE RIGHT TO INSPECT UNDER THE REGULATIONS SUBJECTS A
DEALER TO A GENERAL SEARCH OF HIS PAPERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEARNING
WHETHER HE HAS ANY COUPONS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND SEIZURE.  THE
NATURE OF THE COUPONS IS IMPORTANT HERE MERELY AS INDICATING THAT THE
OFFICERS DID NOT EXCEED THE PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF PERSUASION IN
OBTAINING THEM. 

THEY APPEARED ON THE PREMISES DURING BUSINESS HOURS.  THEY HAD OCULAR
EVIDENCE THAT A MISDEMEANOR HAD BEEN COMMITTED, A CRIME TO WHICH
PETITIONER WAS AN AIDER OR ABETTER,  FN12  SINCE, ACCORDING TO THE
ATTENDANT, SHE MADE THE ILLEGAL SALES PURSUANT TO PETITIONER'S
INSTRUCTIONS.  SINCE SALES WERE BEING MADE WITHOUT RECEIPT OF COUPONS
FROM CUSTOMERS, IT WAS FAIR TO ASSUME (UNLESS, AS WAS AT NO TIME
SUGGESTED, THE BUSINESS WAS BEING LIQUIDATED) THAT PETITIONER SOMEWHERE
HAD A SUPPLY OF COUPONS ADEQUATE TO REPLENISH HIS STORAGE TANKS.  THE
INSPECTION WHICH WAS MADE WAS AN INSPECTION OF THE TANKS ATTACHED TO
THE PUMPS.  AND THE SEARCH WAS OF THE OFFICE ADJACENT TO THE PUMPS -
THE PLACE WHERE PETITIONER TRANSACTED HIS BUSINESS.  MOREOVER, THE
OFFICERS DEMANDED THE COUPONS ON THE BASIS THAT THEY WERE PROPERTY OF
THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT PETITIONER WAS MERELY THE CUSTODIAN OF THEM. 
AND THERE WAS NO GENERAL, EXPLORATORY SEARCH.  ONLY THE CONTRABAND
COUPONS WERE DEMANDED; ONLY COUPONS WERE TAKEN. 

THESE FACTS DISTINGUISHED THIS CASE FROM SUCH CASES AS AMOS V. UNITED
STATES, 255 U.S. 313, WHERE OFFICERS WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT SWOOP
DOWN ON A PRIVATE RESIDENCE, OBTAIN ADMISSION THROUGH THE EXERTION OF
OFFICIAL PRESSURE, AND SEIZE PRIVATE PROPERTY.  THE FILLING STATION WAS
A PLACE OF BUSINESS, NOT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE.  THE OFFICERS' CLAIM TO
THE PROPERTY WAS ONE OF RIGHT.  FOR THE COUPONS WHICH THEY DEMANDED TO
SEE WERE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.  AND THE DEMAND WAS MADE DURING BUSINESS
HOURS.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE LIMITS OF INSPECTION UNDER THE REGULATIONS,
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT SO IMPOTENT AS TO REQUIRE OFFICERS, WHO HAVE THE
RIGHT TO INSPECT A PLACE OF BUSINESS, TO STAND MUTE WHEN SUCH CLEAR
EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS KNOWN TO THEM. 

WHERE THE OFFICERS SEEK TO INSPECT PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AT THE PLACE OF
BUSINESS WHERE THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT, PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF
PERSUASION ARE NOT SO NARROW AS WHERE PRIVATE PAPERS ARE SOUGHT.  THE
DEMAND IS ONE OF RIGHT.  WHEN THE CUSTODIAN IS PERSUADED BY ARGUMENT
THAT IT IS HIS DUTY TO SURRENDER THEM AND HE HANDS THEM OVER, DURESS
AND COERCION WILL NOT BE SO READILY IMPLIED AS WHERE PRIVATE PAPERS ARE
INVOLVED.  THE CUSTODIAN IN THIS SITUATION IS NOT PROTECTED AGAINST THE
PRODUCTION OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS.  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
THE STRICT TEST OF CONSENT, DESIGNED TO PROTECT AN ACCUSED AGAINST
PRODUCTION OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE, HAS NO PLACE HERE.  THE RIGHT OF
PRIVACY, OF COURSE, REMAINS.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE FILLING STATION
WAS A PLACE OF BUSINESS, NOT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE.  THE RIGHT TO INSPECT
EXISTED.  AND WHERE ONE IS SEEKING TO RECLAIM HIS PROPERTY WHICH IS
UNLAWFULLY IN THE POSSESSION OF ANOTHER, THE NORMAL RESTRAINTS AGAINST
INTRUSION ON ONE'S PRIVACY, AS WE HAVE SEEN, ARE RELAXED.  THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND, AFTER HEARING THE WITNESSES, THAT PETITIONER CONSENTED -
THAT ALTHOUGH HE AT FIRST REFUSED TO TURN THE COUPONS OVER, HE SOON WAS
PERSUADED TO DO SO AND THAT FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE WAS NOT EMPLOYED
TO PERSUADE HIM.  ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT, THE OFFICERS
"PERSUADED HIM THAT IT WOULD BE A BETTER THING FOR HIM TO PERMIT THEM
TO EXAMINE" THE COUPONS; "THEY TALKED HIM INTO IT."  WE CANNOT SAY AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT THAT FINDING WAS ERRONEOUS.  THE PUBLIC CHARACTER OF
THE PROPERTY, THE FACT THAT THE DEMAND WAS MADE DURING BUSINESS HOURS
AT THE PLACE OF BUSINESS WHERE THE COUPONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE KEPT,
THE EXISTENCE OF THE RIGHT TO INSPECT, THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST, THE
FACT THAT THE INITIAL REFUSAL TO TURN THE COUPONS OVER WAS SOON
FOLLOWED BY ACQUIESCENCE IN THE DEMAND - THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ALL
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE ACCORDINGLY AFFIRM
THE JUDGMENT BELOW WITHOUT REACHING THE QUESTION WHETHER BUT FOR THAT
CONSENT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE INCIDENTAL TO THE ARREST WERE
REASONABLE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE INFORMATION CHARGED A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 28, 1940, 54 STAT. 676, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1941, 55
STAT. 236 AND BY TITLE III, SEC. 301 OF THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT OF
MARCH 27, 1942, 56 STAT. 177, 50 U.S.C. APP., SUPP. IV SEC. 633.  SEC.
2(A) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"(2)  ...  WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT IS SATISFIED THAT THE FULFILLMENT
OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES WILL RESULT IN A
SHORTAGE IN THE SUPPLY OF ANY MATERIAL OR OF ANY FACILITIES FOR DEFENSE
OR FOR PRIVATE ACCOUNT OR FOR EXPORT, THE PRESIDENT MAY ALLOCATE SUCH
MATERIAL OR FACILITIES IN SUCH MANNER, UPON SUCH CONDITIONS AND TO SUCH
EXTENT AS HE SHALL DEEM NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AND TO PROMOTE THE NATIONAL DEFENSE. 

"(3)  THE PRESIDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO OBTAIN SUCH INFORMATION
FROM, REQUIRE SUCH REPORTS AND THE KEEPING OF SUCH RECORDS BY, MAKE
SUCH INSPECTION OF THE BOOKS, RECORDS, AND OTHER WRITINGS, PREMISES OR
PROPERTY OF, ANY PERSON  ..., AND MAKE SUCH INVESTIGATIONS, AS MAY BE
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE, IN HIS DISCRETION, TO THE ENFORCEMENT OR
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION (A). 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(5)  ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY PERFORMS ANY ACT PROHIBITED, OR
WILLFULLY FAILS TO PERFORM ANY ACT REQUIRED BY, ANY PROVISION OF THIS
SUBSECTION (A) OR ANY RULE, REGULATION, OR ORDER THEREUNDER, WHETHER
HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ISSUED, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND
SHALL, UPON CONVICTION, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR IMPRISONED
FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 

THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, TO WHICH THAT POWER HAD BEEN
DELEGATED, ISSUED RATION ORDERS FOR GASOLINE.  RATION ORDER NO. 5C, AS
IT READ ON JUNE 20, 1944(8 FED. REG. 16423), PROVIDED IN PART AS
FOLLOWS: 

SEC. 1394.8177(C):  "NO PERSON SHALL HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION ANY
GASOLINE DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE, FOLDER, OR ANY COUPON BOOK, INVENTORY OR
OTHER COUPON (WHETHER OR NOT SUCH BOOK WAS ISSUED AS A RATION BOOK AND
WHETHER OR NOT SUCH COUPON WAS ISSUED AS A RATION OR AS PART OF A
RATION BOOK) OR OTHER EVIDENCE, OR ANY IDENTIFYING FOLDER, EXCEPT THE
PERSON, OR THE AGENT OF THE PERSON, TO WHOM SUCH BOOK, COUPON,
CERTIFICATE OR FOLDER WAS ISSUED OR BY WHOM IT WAS ACQUIRED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RATION BOOK NO. 5C." 

SEC. 1394.8217(A):  "EVERY DEALER AND INTERMEDIATE DISTRIBUTOR SHALL
BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL GASOLINE, RATION CREDITS, GASOLINE DEPOSIT
CERTIFICATES, COUPONS AND OTHER EVIDENCES RECEIVED BY HIM.  GASOLINE
DEPOSIT CERTIFICATES, COUPONS AND OTHER EVIDENCES RECEIVED AT OR FOR A
PLACE OF BUSINESS SHALL BE, AT ALL TIMES WHEN THE DEALER OR DISTRIBUTOR
IS OPEN TO TRANSACT BUSINESS, RETAINED BY HIM AT THE PLACE OF BUSINESS
FOR WHICH THEY WERE RECEIVED, OR DEPOSITED IN A RATION BANK ACCOUNT
MAINTAINED FOR THAT PLACE OF BUSINESS, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY ARE
SURRENDERED TO A DEALER OR DISTRIBUTOR IN EXCHANGE FOR GASOLINE, OR
OTHERWISE SURRENDERED PURSUANT TO RATION ORDER NO. 5C.  THE AGGREGATE
GALLONAGE VALUE OF GASOLINE DEPOSIT CERTIFICATES, COUPONS AND OTHER
EVIDENCES ON HAND OR ON DEPOSIT FOR EACH PLACE OF BUSINESS OF A DEALER
OR INTERMEDIATE DISTRIBUTOR, SHALL, AT ALL TIMES, BE EQUAL TO, BUT NOT
IN EXCESS OF, THE NUMBER OF GALLONS OF GASOLINE WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO FILL THE STORAGE CAPACITY OF SUCH PLACE OF BUSINESS, AS SHOWN BY THE
CURRENT CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION,  ..."  8 FED. REG. 15981. 

FN2  SELLING GASOLINE WITHOUT RECEIPT OF RATION COUPONS, SELLING
GASOLINE IN EXCESS OF THE CEILING PRICE, OR UNLAWFULLY POSSESSING
RATION COUPONS IS A MISDEMEANOR.  SEE SEC. 2(A), SUPRA, NOTE 1.  A
FELONY IS AN OFFENSE PUNISHED BY DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM
EXCEEDING ONE YEAR.  CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 335, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 541. 

FN3  THE FILLING STATION WAS LOCATED IN A BUILDING ABOUT 250 FEET
LONG.  ONE SET OF PUMPS WAS NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO ONE STREET; THE OTHER
SET WAS AT THE OPPOSITE END NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO ANOTHER STREET.  THE
OFFICE WAS LOCATED ABOUT HALF-WAY BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF PUMPS. 

FN4  SEE RATION ORDER NO. 5C.  SUPRA, NOTE 1, SECS. 1394.8152,
1394.8153. 

FN5  ID., SEC. 1394.8207. 

FN6 ID., SEC. 1394.8217(A), SUPRA. 

FN7  ID., SEC. 1394.8177(C), SUPRA, NOTE 1. 

FN8  ID., SEC. 1394.8227(B) PROVIDED THAT ALL "GASOLINE DEPOSIT
CERTIFICATES AND ALL COUPON BOOKS, COUPONS, AND OTHER EVIDENCES ARE,
AND WHEN ISSUED SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION." 

FN9  ID., SEC. 1394.8104(A): 

"ALL COUPON BOOKS, BULK COUPONS, INVENTORY COUPONS, OTHER EVIDENCES
...  ARE, AND WHEN ISSUED SHALL REMAIN, THE PROPERTY OF THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION.  THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION MAY REFUSE TO
ISSUE, AND MAY SUSPEND, CANCEL, REVOKE, OR RECALL ANY RATION AND MAY
REQUIRE THE SURRENDER AND RETURN OF ANY COUPON BOOK, BULK COUPON,
INVENTORY COUPONS OR OTHER EVIDENCES  ...  DURING SUSPENSION OR
PURSUANT TO REVOCATION OR CANCELLATION, WHENEVER IT DEEMS IT TO BE IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO DO SO." 

FN10  ID., SEC. 1394.8227(B) PROVIDED IN PART: 

"UPON DEMAND MADE BY ANY INVESTIGATOR OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION OR BY ANY POLICE OFFICER, CONSTABLE, OR OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE, COUNTY, OR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, EVERY PERSON SHALL PRODUCE FOR INSPECTION ANY TIRE
INSPECTION RECORD AND GASOLINE DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE AND ANY GASOLINE
COUPON BOOKS, COUPONS, AND OTHER EVIDENCES IN HIS POSSESSION OR
CONTROL, WHETHER VALID, INVALID, VOID OR EXPIRED  ...  IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RATION ORDER NO. 5C.  INVESTIGATORS OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION AND ALL POLICE OFFICERS, CONSTABLES AND OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY STATE, COUNTY OR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES OF ANY PERSON AS
MAY BE PERTINENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A VIOLATION OF RATION ORDER NO.
5C HAS BEEN OR IS BEING COMMITTED, AND ARE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THE
SURRENDER OF ALL GASOLINE DEPOSIT CERTIFICATES, GASOLINE COUPON BOOKS,
COUPONS AND OTHER EVIDENCES ACQUIRED BY ANY PERSON OTHERWISE THAN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RATION ORDER NO. 5C, WHETHER VALID, INVALID, VOID OR
EXPIRED." 

AS TO THE POWER OF INSPECTION GIVEN BY THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, SEE
SEC. 2(A)(3), SUPRA, NOTE 1. 

FN11  THIS DISTINCTION WAS NOTED IN ANOTHER CONNECTION IN BOYD V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 623-624, WHERE THE COURT SAID: 

"THE SEARCH FOR AND SEIZURE OF STOLEN OR FORFEITED GOODS, OR GOODS
LIABLE TO DUTIES AND CONCEALED TO AVOID THE PAYMENT THEREOF, ARE
TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS FROM A SEARCH FOR AND SEIZURE OF A MAN'S
PRIVATE BOOKS AND PAPERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING INFORMATION
THEREIN CONTAINED, OR OF USING THEM AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.  THE TWO
THINGS DIFFER TOTO COELO.  IN THE ONE CASE, THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED
TO THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY; IN THE OTHER IT IS NOT.  THE SEIZURE
OF STOLEN GOODS IS AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMON LAW; AND THE SEIZURE OF
GOODS FORFEITED FOR A BREACH OF THE REVENUE LAWS, OR CONCEALED TO AVOID
THE DUTIES PAYABLE ON THEM, HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY ENGLISH STATUTES FOR
AT LEAST TWO CENTURIES PAST; AND THE LIKE SEIZURES HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED
BY OUR OWN REVENUE ACTS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE
FIRST STATUTE PASSED BY CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES,
THE ACT OF JULY 31, 1789, 1 STAT. 29, 43, CONTAINS PROVISIONS TO THIS
EFFECT.  AS THIS ACT WAS PASSED BY THE SAME CONGRESS WHICH PROPOSED FOR
ADOPTION THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE MEMBERS OF THAT BODY DID NOT REGARD SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF THIS
KIND AS 'UNREASONABLE,' AND THEY ARE NOT EMBRACED WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION OF THE AMENDMENT.  SO, ALSO, THE SUPERVISION AUTHORIZED TO
BE EXERCISED BY OFFICERS OF THE REVENUE OVER THE MANUFACTURE OR CUSTODY
OF EXCISABLE ARTICLES, AND THE ENTRIES THEREOF IN BOOKS REQUIRED BY LAW
TO BE KEPT FOR THEIR INSPECTION, ARE NECESSARILY EXCEPTED OUT OF THE
CATEGORY OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.  SO, ALSO, THE LAWS
WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF ARTICLES AND THINGS WHICH
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ISSUE OR DISPOSITION, SUCH AS COUNTERFEIT COIN, LOTTERY TICKETS,
IMPLEMENTS OF GAMBLING, &C., ARE NOT WITHIN THIS CATEGORY. 
COMMONWEALTH V. DANA, 2 MET.  (MASS.)  329." 

AND SEE TENNESSEE V. HALL, 164 TENN. 548, 51 S.W.2D 851; STATE V.
KNIGHT, 34 N.M. 217, 279 P. 947; STATE V. BENNETT, 315 MO. 1267, 288
S.W. 50. 

FN12  CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 332, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 550, PROVIDES: 

"WHOEVER DIRECTLY COMMITS ANY ACT CONSTITUTING AN OFFENSE DEFINED IN
ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, OR AIDS, ABETS, COUNSELS, COMMANDS,
INDUCES, OR PROCURES ITS COMMISSION, IS A PRINCIPAL." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

IN ITS SURFACE ASPECTS THIS CASE CONCERNS MERELY A SQUALID EFFORT TO
EVADE THE WARTIME SYSTEM OF GASOLINE RATIONING.  BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE
DISPOSED OF IN THAT PERSPECTIVE.  IT IS NOT THE FIRST PETTY LITTLE CASE
TO PUT TO THE TEST RESPECT FOR PRINCIPLES WHICH THE FOUNDERS OF THIS
NATION DEEMED ESSENTIAL FOR A FREE SOCIETY.  FOR THE CASE IS DIRECTLY
RELATED TO ONE OF THE GREAT CHAPTERS IN THE HISTORIC PROCESS WHEREBY
CIVIL LIBERTY WAS ACHIEVED AND CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AGAINST
FUTURE INROADS. 

THE COURT'S DECISION, AS I SEE IT, PRESENTS THIS ISSUE:  MAY PAPERS
WHICH AN ACCUSED COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE EVEN BY A JUDICIAL
PROCESS OF A SEARCH WARRANT BE TAKEN FROM HIM AGAINST HIS WILL BE
OFFICERS OF THE LAW WITHOUT SUCH JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR USE AS EVIDENCE
IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST HIM?  JUDICIAL PROCESS MAY NOT COMPEL
THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS EITHER BECAUSE OF THE PROTECTION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT AGAINST SELFCRIMINATION, OR, AS IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE
THE AUTHORIZATION BY CONGRESS OF SEARCH WARRANTS IS WITHHELD IN A
SITUATION LIKE THE PRESENT.  FN1  THE COURT APPARENTLY RULES THAT
BECAUSE THE GASOLINE BUSINESS WAS SUBJECT TO REGULATION, THE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE OF SUCH DOCUMENTS WITHOUT A WARRANT IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE CONDEMNED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  TO HOLD THAT THE
SEARCH IN THIS CASE WAS LEGAL IS TO HOLD THAT A SEARCH WHICH COULD NOT
BE JUSTIFIED UNDER A SEARCH WARRANT IS LAWFUL WITHOUT IT. I CANNOT
ESCAPE THE CONVICTION THAT SUCH A VIEW OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT MAKES A
TRAVESTY OF IT AND OF THE LONG COURSE OF LEGISLATION IN WHICH CONGRESS
APPLIED THAT AMENDMENT. 

WHERE SEARCH IS MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF A WARRANT ISSUED FROM A
JUDICIAL SOURCE, THE SCOPE OF THE SEARCH MUST BE CONFINED TO THE
SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION OF THE WARRANT.  IT CANNOT BE THAT THE
CONSTITUTION MEANT TO MAKE IT LEGALLY ADVANTAGEOUS NOT TO HAVE A
WARRANT, SO THAT THE POLICE MAY ROAM FREELY AND HAVE THE COURTS
RETROSPECTIVELY HOLD THAT THE SEARCH THAT WAS MADE WAS "REASONABLE,"
REASONABLENESS BEING JUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF OBTAINING
RELEVANT EVIDENCE.  I HAD SUPPOSED THAT THAT WAS PRECISELY WHAT THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS MEANT TO STOP.  "THE GOVERNMENT COULD DESIRE ITS
POSSESSION ONLY TO USE IT AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND TO
SEARCH FOR AND SEIZE IT FOR SUCH PURPOSE WAS UNLAWFUL."  GOULED V.
UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, 310. 

THERE IS INDEED A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE PAPERS AND PAPERS HAVING
ALSO A PUBLIC BEARING.  PRIVATE PAPERS OF AN ACCUSED CANNOT BE SEIZED
EVEN THROUGH LEGAL PROCESS BECAUSE THEIR USE WOULD VIOLATE THE
PROHIBITION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AGAINST SELF-CRIMINATION.  SO-CALLED
PUBLIC PAPERS - PAPERS IN WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS AN INTEREST OTHER THAN
THAT WHICH THEY MAY SERVE AS EVIDENCE IN A CASE - MAY BE SEIZED, BUT
LIKE ALL OTHER THINGS IN AN INDIVIDUAL'S POSSESSION THEY CAN BE SEIZED
ONLY UPON A PROPERLY SAFEGUARDED SEARCH.  THE AMENABILITY OF CORPORATE
PAPERS TO TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION MEANS THAT A CORPORATION, BECAUSE IT
IS A CORPORATION, CANNOT MAKE CLAIM TO THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF
CRIMINATION.  NOR CAN THE CUSTODIAN OF CORPORATE BOOKS IMMUNIZE THEM
AGAINST THEIR PRODUCTION IN COURT BECAUSE THEY MAY ALSO CARRY TESTIMONY
AGAINST HIM.  THE FOURTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE FREEDOM FROM
TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION.  SUBJECT TO FAMILIAR QUALIFICATIONS EVERY MAN
IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO GIVE TESTIMONY.  BUT THAT OBLIGATION CAN BE
EXACTED ONLY UNDER JUDICIAL SANCTIONS WHICH ARE DEEMED PRECIOUS TO
ANGLOAMERICAN CIVILIZATION.  MERELY BECAUSE THERE MAY BE THE DUTY TO
MAKE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR LITIGATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT POLICE
OFFICERS MAY FORCIBLY OR FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN THEM.  THIS PROTECTION OF
THE RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE EXCEPT UNDER RESPONSIBLE JUDICIAL COMPULSION
IS PRECISELY WHAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT MEANT TO EXPRESS AND TO
SAFEGUARD.    AN EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE LURKS IN THE COURT'S
OPINION IF A CASUAL BUT EXPLICIT PHRASE ABOUT THE LOCUS OF THE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE AS "A PLACE OF BUSINESS, NOT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE" IS
INTENDED TO CARRY RELEVANT LEGAL IMPLICATIONS.  IF THIS IS AN INDIRECT
WAY OF SAYING THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ONLY SECURES HOMES AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BUT NOT OFFICES - PRIVATE OFFICES OF
PHYSICIANS AND LAWYERS, OF TRADE UNIONS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, OF
BUSINESS AND SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISES - THEN INDEED IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A
SUDDEN AND DRASTIC BREAK WITH THE WHOLE HISTORY OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
AND ITS APPLICATIONS BY THIS COURT.  SEE OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277
U.S. 438, 477, AND CASES CITED IN FOOTNOTES 5, 6, AND 7.  I CANNOT
BELIEVE THAT A VAST AREA OF CIVIL LIBERTIES WAS THUS MEANT TO BE WIPED
OUT BY A FEW WORDS, WITHOUT PRIOR ARGUMENT OR CONSIDERATION. 

THE COURSE OF DECISION IN THIS COURT HAS THUS FAR JEALOUSLY ENFORCED
THE PRINCIPLE OF A FREE SOCIETY SECURED BY THE PROHIBITION OF
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.  ITS SAFEGUARDS ARE NOT TO BE WORN
AWAY BY A PROCESS OF DEVITALIZING INTERPRETATION.  THE APPROVAL GIVEN
TODAY TO WHAT WAS DONE BY ARRESTING OFFICERS IN THIS CASE INDICATES
THAT WE ARE IN DANGER OF FORGETTING THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS REFLECTS
EXPERIENCE WITH POLICE EXCESSES.  IT IS NOT ONLY UNDER NAZI RULE THAT
POLICE EXCESSES ARE INIMICAL TO FREEDOM.  IT IS EASY TO MAKE LIGHT OF
INSISTENCE ON SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR THE SAFEGUARDS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
WHEN INVOKED ON BEHALF OF THE UNWORTHY.  IT IS TOO EASY.  HISTORY BEARS
TESTIMONY THAT BY SUCH DISREGARD ARE THE RIGHTS OF LIBERTY
EXTINGUISHED, HEEDLESSLY AT FIRST, THEN STEALTHILY, AND BRAZENLY IN THE
END. 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS PART OF A LONG HISTORIC PROCESS AND PROPER
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM BEFORE US COMPELS RATHER EXTENDED
DISCUSSION.  THESE ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT GIVE RISE TO OUR
PROBLEM.  FOR SOME TIME OPERATIONS OF THE GASOLINE STATION OWNED BY
DAVIS UNDER A CORPORATE FORM HAD BEEN SUSPECT BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION.  ON THE DAY OF THE QUESTIONED SEIZURE, THREE O.P.A.
INVESTIGATORS AND TWO NEW YORK CITY DETECTIVES KEPT WATCH ON THE
STATION FOR SEVERAL HOURS.  ONE OF THE O.P.A. MEN DROVE HIS CAR TO THE
PUMPS FOR GAS.  AFTER THE ATTENDANT HAD FILLED HIS TANK, HE TOLD HER,
WHEN ASKED FOR COUPONS, THAT HE HAD NONE.  SHE THEN DEMANDED A HIGHER
PRICE FOR THE GASOLINE WHICH HE PAID WITH A MARKED FIVE DOLLAR BILL. 
LATER, ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR REPEATED THIS PERFORMANCE.  THEN ALL FIVE
OFFICERS WENT INTO THE STATION, NOTIFIED THE ATTENDANT THAT SHE WAS
UNDER ARREST, AND REQUESTED AND OBTAINED FROM HER THE TWO MARKED BILLS
AND A CARD ON WHICH SHE HAD RECORDED THE SALES.  WHILE THE GIRL'S
QUESTIONING WAS STILL PROCEEDING, DAVIS DROVE INTO THE STATION.  HIS
CAR WAS IMMEDIATELY SEARCHED AND HE WAS CHARGED WITH SELLING GAS OVER
CEILING PRICES AND WITHOUT COUPONS.  THESE WERE CHARGES OF
MISDEMEANORS.  THE OFFICERS THEN DEMANDED AND RECEIVED FROM DAVIS KEYS
FOR THE LOCKED BOXES ON THE PUMPS INTENDED FOR THE DEPOSIT OF COUPONS
RECEIVED FOR GAS SOLD.  WHILE SOME OF THE OFFICERS WERE ENGAGED IN
CHECKING THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF GAS IN STORAGE TANKS AND
THE COUPONS IN THE BOXES, DAVIS WAS TAKEN BY TWO OF THE AGENTS TO AN
OUTER ROOM IN HIS OFFICE.  THEY DEMANDED FROM HIM GAS COUPONS WHICH HE
CLAIMED TO HAVE IN SUFFICIENT NUMBERS TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCIES IN
THE LOCKED BOXES.  HE STUBBORNLY REFUSED DESPITE THE INSISTENCE OF ONE
OF THE OFFICERS THAT "HE WOULD HAVE TO OPEN THAT DOOR" TO HIS PRIVATE
OFFICE.  FINALLY, WHEN ANOTHER OFFICER FLASHED A LIGHT INTO THE OFFICE
FROM AN OUTSIDE WINDOW AND EVINCED AN INTENTION TO FORCE THE WINDOW,
DAVIS UNLOCKED THE DOOR.  THEREUPON HE TOOK SOME ENVELOPES FROM A
FILING CABINET AND HANDED THEM TO THE AGENTS.  THESE ENVELOPES
CONTAINED THE STAMPS WHICH FORMED THE BASIS OF THE PROSECUTION.  HE WAS
THEN TAKEN TO O.P.A. HEADQUARTERS AND QUESTIONED, BUT EVENTUALLY
ALLOWED TO GO.  SEVERAL WEEKS LATER HE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND THEN
CHARGED WITH THE ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF GASOLINE RATION DOCUMENTS.  THIS
CHARGE ALSO IS A MISDEMEANOR. 

THE PETITIONER MADE TIMELY MOTIONS FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE
EVIDENCE, SEE NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338, 341-42, CLAIMING
THAT THEY WERE ILLEGALLY SEIZED AND BARRED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. 
THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THESE MOTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT DAVIS HAD
VOLUNTARILY TURNED THE STAMPS OVER TO THE OFFICERS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE CONVICTION BUT IT DID NOT ACCEPT THE DISTRICT
COURT'S VIEW THAT DAVIS HAD SURRENDERED THE STAMPS OF HIS OWN FREE
WILL.  WHAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT ABOUT THE MATTER IS
BEST EXPRESSED IN ITS OWN LANGUAGE: "THE JUDGE FOUND THAT DAVIS'
CONSENT WAS 'VOLUNTARILY' GIVEN, AND FOR THAT REASON DENIED THE MOTION
TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE THAT THAT FINDING IS
WRONG, FOR WE CAN DISPOSE OF THE CASE UPON OTHER GROUNDS; BUT WE MUST
OWN TO SOME DOUBT WHETHER A CONSENT OBTAINED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
SHOULD PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS 'VOLUNTARY.'  DAVIS MUST HAVE KNOWN,
UNDER ARREST AS HE WAS, THAT THE OFFICERS WERE NOT LIKELY TO STAND VERY
LONG UPON CEREMONY, BUT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, WOULD ENTER THE
OFFICE."  151 F.2D 140, 142.  ONE MUST REJECT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
FINDING THAT DAVIS' CONSENT WENT WITH HIS SURRENDER OF THE DOCUMENTS
UNLESS ONE IS TO HOLD THAT EVERY SUBMISSION TO THE IMMINENT EXERTION OF
SUPERIOR FORCE IS CONSENSUAL IF FORCE IS NOT PHYSICALLY APPLIED.  THE
DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT DAVIS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED THE
DOCUMENTS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE FINDINGS OF FACTS WHICH APPROPRIATELY
CALLS FOR OUR ACCEPTANCE.  WHEN SUCH A FINDING INVOLVES CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE OR THE CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS, THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING SEEN
OR HEARD A WITNESS MAY BE DECISIVE.  BUT HERE THE ISSUE IS NOT AS TO
WHAT TOOK PLACE BUT AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT TOOK PLACE.  AND
WHEN A DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING OF A SO-CALLED FACT IS AS INTERWOVEN AS
IT IS HERE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES, WE CANNOT ACCEPT A FINDING
WHEREBY THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS PREDETERMINED.  WE ARE NOT BOUND BY
FINDINGS THAT OPERATE AS CRYPTIC CONSTITUTIONAL DETERMINATIONS EVEN
WHEN THEY COME HERE, UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE, SUPPORTED BY BOTH LOWER
COURTS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377,
404.  TO SAY THAT A YIELDING TO CONTINUOUS PRESSURE BY ARRESTING
OFFICERS, ACCOMPANIED BY MINATORY MANIFESTATIONS TO RESORT TO SELF
HELP, CONSTITUTES A VOLUNTARY YIELDING, IS TO DISREGARD ORDINARY
EXPERIENCE.  THIS COURT PREFERRED NOT TO DO THAT IN AMOS V. UNITED
STATES, 255 U.S. 313.  WE THERE HELD THAT WHERE OFFICERS STATED THAT
THEY WERE REVENUE OFFICERS AND REQUESTED ADMISSION TO THE PREMISES IN
ORDER TO MAKE A SEARCH, THERE WAS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, "IMPLIED
COERCION."  INASMUCH "AS CONDUCT UNDER DURESS INVOLVES A CHOICE," THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT IS HARDLY TO BE NULLIFIED BY FINDING EVERY SUBMISSION
SHORT OF OVERPOWERING FORCE "VOLUNTARY."  SEE UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 248 U.S. 67, 70. 

THIS COURT ALSO ATTRIBUTES VOLUNTARINESS TO DAVIS' SURRENDER OF THE
DOCUMENTS.  BUT IT DOES SO NOT BECAUSE IT FINDS THAT WHAT DAVIS DID WAS
AN EXERCISE OF FREE CHOICE.  IT DOES NOT QUESTION THE DOUBT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHETHER THE CONSENT OBTAINED FROM DAVIS WAS,
AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL FACT, A VOLUNTARY ACT.  THE COURT DERIVES
VOLUNTARINESS FROM THE FACT THAT WHAT THE OFFICERS COMPELLED DAVIS TO
GIVE UP WERE RATION COUPONS.  BUT, SURELY, THIS IS TO ASSIGN TO
ORDINARY WORDS A PRIVATE, ESOTERIC MEANING.  COMMON USAGE REJECTS SUCH
MEANING OF "VOLUNTARY" AND LAW HAS NOT HERETOFORE INDULGED IT.  IN
CONSIDERING WHETHER EVIDENCE WAS FREELY GIVEN OR COERCED, THE LAW HAS
ALWAYS MEANT BY "VOLUNTARY" WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE MEANS BY IT. TO MAKE
VOLUNTARINESS TURN ON THE NATURE OF THE QUEST, INSTEAD OF ON THE NATURE
OF THE RESPONSE OF THE PERSON IN CONTROL OF THE SOUGHT DOCUMENTS, IS TO
DISTORT FAMILIAR NOTIONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE LAW HAS HERETOFORE
ADJUDGED LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.  THE COURT ACCEPTS THE GOVERNMENT'S
ARGUMENT  FN2  WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED, AND
REJECTED BECAUSE GRAVELY DISTURBED BY ITS IMPLICATION.  THOUGH
DIFFERENTLY PHRASED, THE ARGUMENT WHICH HAS HERE FOUND FAVOR EVOKED
THIS COMMENT IN THE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE FRANK:  "I ADD A FEW
WORDS ONLY BECAUSE I THINK IT IMPORTANT TO UNDERSCORE OUR REJECTION OF
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT ON WHICH THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
CHIEFLY RELIED:  WHENEVER THE GOVERNMENT VALIDLY REGULATES ANY BUSINESS
AND INCLUDES IN ITS REGULATION A VALID REQUIREMENT THAT RECORDS BE KEPT
WHICH SHALL BE OPEN TO OFFICIAL INSPECTION, THEN REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE
RECORDS FOR SUCH INSPECTION AUTHORIZES THE OFFICERS TO ENTER THE
PREMISES AND SEIZE THE RECORDS.  ONE VARIANT OF THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT
REFUSAL TO PERMIT INSPECTION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTES, IN
EFFECT, THE LEGAL EQUIVALENT OF CONSENT TO ENTER; ANOTHER VARIANT WAS
THAT, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT MUST BE
INTERPRETED AS CONSENT TO ENTRY ALTHOUGH, IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
VERY SAME CONDUCT WOULD BE REGARDED AS REFUSAL.  IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER,
THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY URGED THAT OBSTRUCTION OF THE
RIGHT OF THE OFFICERS TO INSPECT DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF HIS USUAL
PRIVILEGE TO BE FREE OF UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE."  151 F.2D AT
144. 

OF COURSE THERE IS AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION AFFORDED THEIR POSSESSORS BETWEEN PAPERS EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE
AND DOCUMENTS HAVING PUBLIC ASPECTS.  CF. WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 383, 393-94; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, 308-309.  BUT
THE ESSENCE OF THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT UNDER APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES
WHOLLY PRIVATE PAPERS ARE NOT EVEN SUBJECT TO TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION
WHEREAS OTHER PAPERS, ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN LEGALLY OBTAINED, ARE
AVAILABLE AS EVIDENCE.  HAD THE COUPONS IN CONTROVERSY BEEN SECURED BY
A PROPER SEARCH THEY COULD BE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AT THE TRIAL. 
BUT THEIR CHARACTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT AND SUBJECT THE PERSON IN POSSESSION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS,
AGAINST HIS PROTEST, TO SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OTHERWISE UNWARRANTED. 

THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT OPENS AN ALARMING VISTA
OF INROADS UPON THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY.  THIS RIGHT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
SOUGHT TO PROTECT BY ITS GENERAL INTERDICTION OF POLICE INTRUSION
WITHOUT PRIOR JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION THROUGH SEARCH WARRANTS ISSUED
"UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR
THINGS TO BE SEIZED."  AMENDMENT IV.  ONLY THE OTHER DAY EVERY PERSON
NOT IN THE ARMED FORCES HAD IN HIS POSSESSION O.P.A. DOCUMENTS WHICH
TECHNICALLY WERE THE PROPERTY OF THE O.P.A., AND THE SAME SITUATION MAY
COME TO PASS TOMORROW; MOST BUSINESSES IN THE COUNTRY ARE IN POSSESSION
OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY; AND
THERE IS EVERY PROSPECT THAT THIS NETWORK OF REQUIRED RECORDS WILL BE
EXTENDED.  IT MISCONCEIVES THE ISSUES TO ASSUME THAT THE PROTECTION FOR
PRIVACY HERE URGED WOULD SERVE AS A SHIELD AGAINST SCRUTINY OF THE
RECORDS OF THE GIANT INDUSTRIES OR THE GREAT TRADE UNIONS.  THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN BIG AND SMALL ENTERPRISE. 
BUT, IN ANY EVENT, WHILE OUR ECONOMY IS EXTENSIVELY CARRIED ON THROUGH
THE CORPORATE FORM, THE LATEST AVAILABLE FIGURES SHOW THAT OF THE
MULTITUDINOUS INCOME-REPORTING CORPORATIONS ONLY ABOUT FIVE PER CENT
HAVE A NET INCOME ABOVE $100,000.  IT CANNOT BE THAT THE HIGHLY PRIZED
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM POLICE INTRUSION, AS IT AFFECTS ACTIVITIES
THAT PERMEATE OUR NATIONAL LIFE, IS NOW TO BE CURTAILED OR VIEWED WITH
LAXITY. 

THE COURT'S OPINION HAS ONLY ITS OWN REASONING TO SUPPORT IT. NOTHING
THAT THIS COURT HAS EVER DECIDED OR SANCTIONED GIVES IT STRENGTH. 
WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361, INVOKED BY THE COURT WAS A VERY
DIFFERENT STORY.  THAT CASE WAS CONCERNED WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE AMENABILITY OF A CORPORATION TO TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION AND THE
IMMUNITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL, UNDER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, TO BE FREE
FROM THE DUTY TO GIVE TESTIMONY.  THE CORE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM
HERE IS THE RIGHT TO SEIZE DOCUMENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF JUDICIAL
PROCESS.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMANDING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT LEGAL
PROCESS AND SEIZING THEM ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCESS, IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THEIR
INVASION.  THE DIFFERENCE IS THE ESSENCE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 

INDEED, SO UNHAPPY WAS THE EXPERIENCE WITH POLICE SEARCH FOR PAPERS
AND ARTICLES "IN HOME OR OFFICE," GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S.
298, 308, 309, THAT IT WAS ONCE MAINTAINED THAT NO SEARCH AND SEIZURE
IS VALID.  TO LORD COKE HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED THE PROPOSITION THAT
WARRANTS COULD NOT BE SECURED EVEN FOR STOLEN PROPERTY.  BUT SEE COKE,
FOURTH INSTITUTE, 176-77.  UNDER EARLY ENGLISH DOCTRINE EVEN SEARCH
WARRANTS BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY COULD ISSUE ONLY FOR STOLEN GOODS. 
SEE 2 HALE, PLEAS OF THE CROWN, 113-14, 149-51; 2 GABBETT, CRIMINAL LAW
(1843) 156 ET SEQ.; 1 CHITTY, CRIMINAL LAW (5TH ED., 1847) 64 ET SEQ.;
BARBOUR, CRIMINAL LAW (2D ED., 1852) 499 ET SEQ.; 1 ARCHBOLD, CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE (7TH ED., 1860) 141.  CERTAINLY WARRANTS LACKING STRICT
PARTICULARITY AS TO LOCATION TO BE SEARCHED OR ARTICLES TO BE SEIZED
WERE DEEMED OBNOXIOUS.  IBID.; SEE ALSO 2 HAWKINS, PLEAS OF THE CROWN,
130, 133.  AN ATTEMPT TO EXCEED THESE NARROW LIMITS CALLED FORTH THE
ENDURING JUDGMENT OF LORD CAMDEN, IN ENTICK V. CARRINGTON, 19 HOWELL'S
STATE TRIALS 1029, IN FAVOR OF FREEDOM AGAINST POLICE INTRUSIONS.  AND
WHEN APPEAL TO THE COLONIAL COURTS ON BEHALF OF THESE REQUISITE
SAFEGUARDS FOR THE LIBERTY OF THE PEOPLE FAILED, PAXTON'S CASE, QUINCY
(MASS.) 51, A HIGHER TRIBUNAL RESOLVED THE ISSUE.  THE FAMILIAR COMMENT
OF JOHN ADAMS ON OTIS' ARGUMENT IN PAXTON'S CASE CAN NEVER BECOME
STALE:  "AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE WAS THEN AND THERE BORN; THE SEEDS OF
PATRIOTS AND HEROES WERE THEN AND THERE SOWN, TO DEFEND THE VIGOROUS
YOUTH, THE NON SINE DIIS ANIMOSUS INFANS.  EVERY MAN OF A CROWDED
AUDIENCE APPEARED TO ME TO GO AWAY, AS I DID, READY TO TAKE ARMS
AGAINST WRITS OF ASSISTANCE.  THEN AND THERE WAS THE FIRST SCENE OF THE
FIRST ACT OF OPPOSITION TO THE ARBITRARY CLAIMS OF GREAT BRITAIN.  THEN
AND THERE THE CHILD INDEPENDENCE WAS BORN.  IN FIFTEEN YEARS, NAMELY IN
1776, HE GREW UP TO MANHOOD, AND DECLARED HIMSELF FREE."  10 ADAMS,
WORKS, 247-248; FOR A DESCRIPTION OF OTIS' SPEECH IN PAXTON'S CASE, SEE
2 ID. 523.  SO BASIC TO LIBERTY IS THE PROTECTION AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL
SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THAT EVERY STATE IN THE UNION  FN3  HAS THIS AS A
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD. 

THIS BLEAK RECITAL OF THE PAST WAS LIVING EXPERIENCE FOR MADISON AND
HIS COLLABORATORS.  THEY WROTE THAT EXPERIENCE INTO THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT, NOT MERELY ITS WORDS.  MENTION HAS BEEN MADE OF THE DOUBT IN
THE MINDS OF ENGLISH AND COLONIAL LIBERTARIANS WHETHER SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES COULD BE SANCTIONED EVEN BY SEARCH WARRANTS.  IT IS
SIGNIFICANT THAT MADISON DEEMED IT NECESSARY TO PUT INTO THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT A QUALIFYING PERMISSION FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE BY THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS OF THE SEARCH WARRANT - A SEARCH WARRANT EXACTING IN
ITS FOUNDATION AND LIMITED IN SCOPE.  THIS QUALIFICATION GIVES THE KEY
TO WHAT THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND BY PROHIBITING "UNREASONABLE" SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES.  THE PRINCIPLE WAS THAT ALL SEIZURES WITHOUT JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY WERE DEEMED "UNREASONABLE."  IF THE PURPOSE OF ITS FRAMERS IS
TO BE RESPECTED, THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT MUST BE DISTILLED
FROM CONTEMPORANEOUS HISTORY.  THE INTENTION OF THE AMENDMENT WAS
ACCURATELY ELUCIDATED IN AN EARLY MASSACHUSETTS CASE.  THE COURT THERE
HAD BEFORE IT THE TERMS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION, ON WHICH,
WITH LIKE PROVISIONS IN OTHER STATE CONSTITUTIONS, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
WAS BASED: 

"WITH THE FRESH RECOLLECTION OF THOSE STIRRING DISCUSSIONS
(RESPECTING WRITS OF ASSISTANCE), AND OF THE REVOLUTION WHICH FOLLOWED
THEM, THE ARTICLE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, RESPECTING SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES, WAS FRAMED AND ADOPTED.  THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT PROHIBIT ALL
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OF A MAN'S PERSON, HIS PAPERS, AND POSSESSIONS;
BUT SUCH ONLY AS ARE 'UNREASONABLE,' AND THE FOUNDATION OF WHICH IS
'NOT PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION.'  THE LEGISLATURE
WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE SEARCH WARRANTS FOR
PROBABLE CAUSES, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND FOR THE
PUNISHMENT OR SUPPRESSION OF ANY VIOLATION OF LAW.  THE LAW, THEREFORE,
AUTHORIZING SEARCH WARRANTS IN CERTAIN CASES, IS IN NO RESPECT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS."  COMMONWEALTH V. DANA, 2
MET.  (MASS.)  329, 336. 

SUCH WAS THE CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BY
THE CONGRESS.  IT GAVE SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION WHENEVER IT WISHED TO
PERMIT SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.  BEGINNING WITH THE FIRST CONGRESS DOWN
TO 1917, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED SEARCH BY WARRANT NOT AS A GENERALLY
AVAILABLE RESOURCE IN AID OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BUT IN THE MOST
RESTRICTED WAY, OBSERVING WITH A JEALOUS EYE THE RECURRENCE OF EVILS
WITH WHICH OUR EARLY STATESMEN WERE INTIMATELY FAMILIAR.  FOR EACH
CONCRETE SITUATION CONGRESS DEEMED IT NECESSARY TO PASS A SEPARATE
ACT.  AN INCOMPLETE EXAMINATION FINDS SCORES OF SUCH AD HOC ENACTMENTS
SCATTERED THROUGH THE STATUTES AT LARGE.  NOT UNTIL 1917, AND THEN ONLY
AFTER REPEATED DEMANDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DID CONGRESS PASS THE
PRESENT STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF SEARCH WARRANTS FOR
GENERALIZED SITUATIONS.  40 STAT. 217, 228, 18 U.S.C. SECS. 611 ET SEQ.
EVEN THEN THE SITUATIONS WERE RESTRICTED AND THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY
WAS STRICTLY DEFINED.  IN THE CASE BEFORE US NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO GET
A SEARCH WARRANT BECAUSE NONE COULD HAVE BEEN GOT.  CONGRESS DID NOT
AUTHORIZE ONE EITHER ON THE CHARGES ON WHICH DAVIS WAS ORIGINALLY
ARRESTED OR ON WHICH HE WAS ULTIMATELY TRIED.  AND EVEN SINCE THE 1917
ACT CONGRESS HAS EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF BASING THE COMPULSORY
DEMAND FOR EVIDENCE UPON JUDICIAL PROCESS RATHER THAN THE ZEAL OF
ARRESTING OFFICERS.  THE HABIT OF CONTINUAL WATCHFULNESS AGAINST THE
DANGERS OF POLICE ABUSES HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THAT CONGRESS HAS
CONTINUED TO AUTHORIZE SEARCH WARRANTS FOR PARTICULAR SITUATIONS BY
SPECIFIC LEGISLATION OR BY REFERENCE TO THE 1917 ACT.  THESE REVEALING
ENACTMENTS ARE SUMMARIZED IN AN APPENDIX. 

IN THE COURSE OF ITS DECISIONS, WITH A DEVIATION PROMPTLY RETRACED,
THIS COURT HAS LIKEWISE REFLECTED THE BROAD PURPOSE OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT.  THE HISTORIC REACH OF THE AMENDMENT AND THE DUTY TO OBSERVE
IT WAS EXPOUNDED FOR THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY IN BOYD V. UNITED
STATES, 116 U.S. 616, "A CASE THAT WILL BE REMEMBERED AS LONG AS CIVIL
LIBERTY LIVES IN THE UNITED STATES."  BRANDEIS, J., IN OLMSTEAD V.
UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 471, AT 474.  THE AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN
READ IN A NIGGARDLY SPIRIT OR WITH THE OUTLOOK OF A NARROW-MINDED
LAWYER. 

SINCE THE OPINION IN THIS CASE SEEMS TO ME OUT OF LINE WITH OUR PRIOR
DECISIONS, IT BECOMES IMPORTANT TO RECALL HOW THIS COURT HAS HERETOFORE
VIEWED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DECIDED.  I
SHALL DRAW ON A SUMMARY OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS BY MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS: 

"TIME AND AGAIN, THIS COURT IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE
UNDERLYING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, HAS REFUSED TO PLACE AN UNDULY LITERAL
CONSTRUCTION UPON IT.  THIS WAS NOTABLY ILLUSTRATED IN THE BOYD CASE
ITSELF.  TAKING LANGUAGE IN ITS ORDINARY MEANING, THERE IS NO 'SEARCH'
OR 'SEIZURE' WHEN A DEFENDANT IS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A DOCUMENT IN THE
ORDERLY PROCESS OF A COURT'S PROCEDURE.  'THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE
SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES,' WOULD NOT BE VIOLATED, UNDER ANY
ORDINARY CONSTRUCTION OF LANGUAGE, BY COMPELLING OBEDIENCE TO A
SUBPOENA.  BUT THIS COURT HOLDS THE EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ISSUE OF THE SUBPOENA HAS BEEN
UNLAWFULLY SECURED.  SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S.
385.  LITERALLY, THERE IS NO 'SEARCH' OR 'SEIZURE' WHEN A FRIENDLY
VISITOR ABSTRACTS PAPERS FROM AN OFFICE; YET WE HELD IN GOULED V.
UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, THAT EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED COULD NOT BE
USED.  NO COURT WHICH LOOKED AT THE WORDS OF THE AMENDMENT RATHER THAN
AT ITS UNDERLYING PURPOSE WOULD HOLD, AS THIS COURT DID IN EX PARTE
JACKSON, 96 U.S. 727, 733, THAT ITS PROTECTION EXTENDED TO LETTERS IN
THE MAILS.  THE PROVISION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN AN EQUALLY BROAD CONSTRUCTION.  THE LANGUAGE
IS:  'NO PERSON  ...  SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A
WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.'  YET WE HAVE HELD, NOT ONLY THAT THE
PROTECTION OF THE AMENDMENT EXTENDS TO A WITNESS BEFORE A GRAND JURY,
ALTHOUGH HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIME, COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK,
142 U.S. 547, 562, 586, BUT THAT:  'IT APPLIES ALIKE TO CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, WHEREVER THE ANSWER MIGHT TEND TO SUBJECT TO
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY HIM WHO GIVES IT.  THE PRIVILEGE PROTECTS A
MERE WITNESS AS FULLY AS IT DOES ONE WHO IS ALSO A PARTY DEFENDANT.' 
MCCARTHY V. ARNDSTEIN, 266 U.S. 34, 40.  THE NARROW LANGUAGE OF THE
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS OBJECT,
'TO INSURE THAT A PERSON SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED, WHEN ACTING AS A
WITNESS IN ANY INVESTIGATION, TO GIVE TESTIMONY WHICH MIGHT TEND TO
SHOW THAT HE HIMSELF HAD COMMITTED A CRIME.  THE PRIVILEGE IS LIMITED
TO CRIMINAL MATTERS, BUT IT IS AS BROAD AS THE MISCHIEF AGAINST WHICH
IT SEEKS TO GUARD.'  COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, SUPRA, P. 562. 

"DECISIONS OF THIS COURT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BOYD CASE HAVE
SETTLED THESE THINGS.  UNJUSTIFIED SEARCH AND SEIZURE VIOLATES THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT, WHATEVER THE CHARACTER OF THE PAPER; WHETHER THE
PAPER WHEN TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL OFFICERS WAS IN THE HOME, IN AN OFFICE
OR ELSEWHERE; WHETHER THE TAKING WAS EFFECTED BY FORCE, BY FRAUD, OR IN
THE ORDERLY PROCESS OF A COURT'S PROCEDURE.  FROM THESE DECISIONS, IT
FOLLOWS NECESSARILY THAT THE AMENDMENT IS VIOLATED BY THE OFFICER'S
READING THE PAPER WITHOUT A PHYSICAL SEIZURE, WITHOUT HIS EVEN TOUCHING
IT; AND THAT USE, IN ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, OF THE CONTENTS OF THE
PAPERS SO EXAMINED - AS WHERE THEY ARE TESTIFIED TO BY A FEDERAL
OFFICER WHO THUS SAW THE DOCUMENT OR WHERE, THROUGH KNOWLEDGE SO
OBTAINED, A COPY HAS BEEN PROCURED ELSEWHERE - ANY SUCH USE CONSTITUTES
A VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT."  OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277
U.S. 438, 471, AT 476-478. 

AND SO WE ARE FINALLY BROUGHT TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF
DOCUMENTS WHICH COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED AS THE RESULT OF
A SEARCH UNDER A WARRANT, SINCE NO SUCH WARRANT COULD HAVE BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY LAW, CAN BE JUSTIFIED AS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITHOUT A
WARRANT.  SUCH JUSTIFICATION MUST HAVE SOME HISTORIC FOUNDATION,
OTHERWISE IT IS CLEARLY OUT OF THE BOUNDS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  THE
COURT BELOW EVIDENTLY STRUGGLED IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION BECAUSE OF
SOME DECISIONS HERE WHICH IT NATURALLY FOUND "NOT ENTIRELY
HARMONIOUS."  ITS CHIEF RELIANCE WAS LANGUAGE IN MARRON V. UNITED
STATES, 275 U.S. 192.  A SHORT ANSWER WOULD BE THAT THE STING OF THE
MARRON CASE WAS TAKEN BY TWO LATER CASES.  GO-BART CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 282 U.S. 344, 358, AND UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S.
452, 465.  BUT A CLOSER ANALYSIS IS CALLED FOR. 

ONE WOULD EXPECT A HARD-HEADED SYSTEM LIKE THE COMMON LAW TO
RECOGNIZE EXCEPTIONS EVEN TO THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE PRINCIPLE FOR
SAFEGUARDING LIBERTY.  THIS IS TRUE OF THE PROHIBITION OF ALL SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES AS UNREASONABLE UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A JUDICIAL WARRANT
APPROPRIATELY SUPPORTED.  SUCH IS THE EXCEPTION, HISTORICALLY WELL
RECOGNIZED, OF THE RIGHT TO SEIZE WITHOUT WARRANT GOODS AND PAPERS ON
SHIPS OR OTHER MOVING VEHICLES.  ANOTHER EXCEPTION IS THE RIGHT OF
SEARCHING THE PERSON UPON ARREST.  WHETHER THAT RIGHT IS A SURVIVING
INCIDENT OF THE HISTORIC ROLE OF THE "HUE AND CRY" IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON
LAW, SEE PEOPLE V. CHIAGLES, 237 N.Y. 193, 196, 142 N.E. 583, OR IS
BASED ON THE NECESSITY OF DEPRIVING THE PRISONER OF POTENTIAL MEANS OF
ESCAPE, CLOSSON V. MORRISON, 47 N.H. 482, OR ON PREVENTING THE PRISONER
FROM DESTROYING EVIDENCE OTHERWISE PROPERLY SUBJECT TO SEIZURE, SEE
REIFSNYDER V. LEE, 44 IOWA 101, 103; HOLKER V. HENNESSEY, 141 MO. 527,
42 S.W. 1090, THE RIGHT TO SEARCH A PRISONER UPON LAWFUL ARREST WAS
EARLY SETTLED IN OUR LAW.  FN4  1 BISHOP, NEW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (4TH
ED., 1895) SECS. 210 ET SEQ. 

A CASUAL AND UNCRITICAL APPLICATION OF THIS RIGHT TO SEARCH THE
PERSON OF THE PRISONER HAS LED SOME DECISIONS IN THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS TO AN UNWARRANTED EXPANSION OF THIS NARROW EXCEPTION, WITH
RESULTING INROADS UPON THE OVERRIDING PRINCIPLE OF THE PROHIBITION OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  SLIGHT EXTENSIONS FROM CASE TO CASE GRADUALLY
ATTAIN A CONSIDERABLE MOMENTUM FROM "JUDICIAL SANCTION OF EQUIVOCAL
METHODS, WHICH, REGARDED SUPERFICIALLY, MAY SEEM TO ESCAPE THE
CHALLENGE OF ILLEGALITY BUT WHICH, IN REALITY, STRIKE AT THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT."  BYARS V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28, 33
34.  IN CASES DEALING WITH THE SEARCH OF THE PERSON,  FN5  IT IS
NATURAL TO SPEAK OF THE RIGHT TO SEARCH AND SEIZE THINGS "IN HIS
POSSESSION" WITHOUT STRICT REGARD TO THE AMBIGUOUS SCOPE OF A MAN'S
"POSSESSION."  FROM THAT, OPINIONS SLIDE READILY TO INCLUDING THE RIGHT
TO SEARCH AND SEIZE THINGS "WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL" OF THE
ARRESTED PERSON, LANGUAGE APPROPRIATE ENOUGH WHEN APPLIED TO GOODS
WHICH THE ARRESTED PERSON WAS TRANSPORTING AT THE TIME.  FN6  TAKEN OUT
OF THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT, THESE PHRASES ARE USED UNTIL THEY ARE MADE
TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE PREMISES  FN7  IN WHICH THE ARREST TAKES PLACE. 
ANOTHER FACTOR ENTERS.  THIS LANGUAGE IS SOMETIMES USED IN CASES
INVOLVING THE SEIZURE OF ITEMS PROPERLY SUBJECT TO SEIZURE BECAUSE IN
OPEN VIEW AT THE TIME OF ARREST.  FN8  BUT THIS LAST CONFUSION IS DUE
TO A FAILURE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE OF A SEARCH
ON ARREST AND THE VERY DIFFERENT PROBLEM AS TO THE RIGHT OF SEIZURE
WHERE NO SEARCH IS IN QUESTION. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP CLEAR THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROHIBITED
SEARCHES ON THE ONE HAND AND IMPROPER SEIZURES ON THE OTHER.  SEE MR.
JUSTICE MILLER, IN BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, 638, 641. 
THUS, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO SEIZE A PERSON'S PRIVATE PAPERS, THOUGH
THE SEARCH IN WHICH THEY WERE RECOVERED WAS PERFECTLY PROPER.  E.G.,
GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298.  IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO MAKE
AN IMPROPER SEARCH EVEN FOR ARTICLES THAT ARE APPROPRIATELY SUBJECT TO
SEIZURE, E.G., AMOS V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 313; BYARS V. UNITED
STATES, 273 U.S. 28; TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1.  AND A SEARCH
MAY BE IMPROPER BECAUSE OF THE OBJECT IT SEEKS TO UNCOVER, E.G., WEEKS
V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 393-94, OR BECAUSE ITS SCOPE EXTENDS
BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS, E.G., AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269
U.S. 20. 

THE COURSE OF DECISIONS HERE HAS OBSERVED THESE IMPORTANT
DISTINCTIONS.  THE COURT HAS NOT BEEN INDULGENT TOWARDS INROADS UPON
THE AMENDMENT.  ONLY RARELY HAVE ITS DICTA APPEARED TO GIVE UNDUE SCOPE
TO THE RIGHT OF SEARCH ON ARREST, AND MARRON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
IS THE ONLY DECISION IN WHICH THE DICTA WERE REFLECTED IN THE RESULT. 
THAT CASE HAS BEEN A SOURCE OF CONFUSION TO THE LOWER COURTS.  THUS,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT FELT THAT THE
MARRON CASE REQUIRED IT TO GIVE A MORE RESTRICTED VIEW TO THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT THAN THAT COURT HAD EXPOUNDED IN
UNITED STATES V. KIRSCHENBLATT, 16 F.2D 202, SEE GO-BART CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUB NOM., UNITED STATES V. GOWEN, 40 F.2D 593, ONLY TO FIND
ITSELF REVERSED HERE, GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PARTLY ON
THE AUTHORITY OF THE KIRSCHENBLATT DECISION WHICH, AFTER THE MARRON
CASE, IT THOUGHT IT MUST DISOWN.  THE UNCRITICAL APPLICATION OF THE
RIGHT OF SEARCH ON ARREST IN THE MARRON CASE HAS SURELY BEEN DISPLACED
BY GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND EVEN MORE DRASTICALLY BY
UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, SUPRA, UNLESS ONE IS TO INFER THAT AN
EARLIER CASE QUALIFIES LATER DECISIONS ALTHOUGH THESE LATER DECISIONS
HAVE EXPLICITLY CONFINED THE EARLIER CASE. 

IN VIEW OF THE JEALOUSY WITH WHICH THIS COURT HAS APPLIED THE
PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT EVEN WHERE THE SEARCH PURPORTED TO
TAKE PLACE UNDER A PROPER WARRANT AND THERE WAS THE SAFEGUARD OF
JUDICIAL PROCESS IN ADDITION TO THE EXPRESSED JUDGMENT OF THE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, SEE E.G., GRAU V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 124;
SGRO V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 206, IT WAS NOT TO BE EXPECTED THAT
THIS COURT SHOULD SANCTION SEARCHES ON ARREST THAT CAN BE JUSTIFIED AS
REASONABLE ONLY IF SECURING EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TRIAL IS THE
TEST OF REASONABLENESS FOR PURPOSES OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  SUCH A
VIEW PRESUPPOSES THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS OBSOLETE AND MAKES OF THE
PARTICULARITY OF REQUIREMENT FOR SEARCH WARRANTS A MOCKING REDUNDANCY. 

A FINAL POINT.  IN THIS CASE THE ARREST WAS BASED ON TWO
MISDEMEANORS, THE SALE OF GASOLINE WITHOUT THE REQUISITE COUPONS AND
THE SALE OF GASOLINE AT A PRICE OVER THE O.P.A. CEILINGS.  FOR NEITHER
OF THESE OFFENSES WERE COUPONS "INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME" IN ANY SENSE
IN WHICH THAT TERM IS PROPERLY USED.  THE EXCEPTIONAL RIGHT TO SEARCH
ON ARREST DOES NOT IN ANY EVENT EXTEND TO A SEARCH FOR ARTICLES
NECESSARY TO THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH THE
ARREST WAS MADE.  THE OFFICERS COULD NOT HAVE MADE AN ARREST OF DAVIS
FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF COUPONS, FOR WHICH HE WAS LATER TRIED, ON
MERE SUSPICION.  THAT CRIME, LIKE THE OTHERS, WAS ONLY A MISDEMEANOR,
AND NO ARREST CAN BE MADE FOR A MISDEMEANOR WITHOUT A WARRANT UNLESS IT
BE COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF OFFICERS.  PRIOR TO THE SEARCH, THE
OFFICERS HAD NO BASIS FOR STATING THAT HE WAS COMMITTING THE CRIME OF
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF THE COUPONS IN THEIR PRESENCE. 

IT IS TOO OFTEN FELT, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS AVOWED, THAT WHAT IS CALLED
NICE OBSERVANCE OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS MAKES APPREHENSION
AND CONVICTION OF VIOLATORS TOO DIFFICULT.  WANT OF ALERTNESS AND
ENTERPRISE ON THE PART OF THE LAW ENFORCERS TOO OFTEN IS THE REAL
OBSTRUCTION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.  THE PRESENT CASE AFFORDS A GOOD
INSTANCE.  FN9  THE SITUATION BEARS CLOSE RESEMBLANCE TO WHAT JUDGE
LEARNED HAND SAID ON ANOTHER OCCASION.  "WE ARE TOLD THAT UNLESS SUCH
EVIDENCE WILL SERVE, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SUPPRESS AN EVIL OF LARGE
PROPORTION IN THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF BROOKLYN.  PERHAPS SO; ANY
COMMUNITY MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN THE IMPAIRMENT OF ITS POWER TO PUNISH
CRIME AND SUCH EVILS AS ARISE FROM ITS UNCONTROLLED PROSECUTION.  BUT
THE DANGER IS NOT CERTAIN, FOR THE OFFICERS COULD HAVE APPLIED FOR A
WARRANT WHICH - AS WAS AT LEAST INTIMATED IN TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES -
MIGHT THEN HAVE BEEN VALID.  IT TAKES TIME TO BREAK UP A STILL AND TAKE
THE PARTS AWAY; IF THE ATTEMPT WERE MADE, IT WOULD DISCOVER ITSELF
IMMEDIATELY.  ONE OR MORE OFFICERS COULD HAVE WATCHED, WHILE THE OTHERS
WENT TO A JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER, WHOSE ACTION WOULD AT LEAST HAVE PUT A
DIFFERENT FACE UPON THEIR SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS."  UNITED STATES V.
KAPLAN, 89 F.2D 869, 871. 

THE COURT IN THIS CASE GIVES A NEW LABEL TO AN OLD PRACTICE AND TO AN
OLD CLAIM BY POLICE OFFICIALS.  BUT IT HAPPENS THAT THE OLD PRACTICE
AND THE OLD CLAIM NOW REFURBISHED IN A NEW VERBAL DRESS WERE THE VERY
PRACTICE AND CLAIM WHICH INFRINGED LIBERTY AS CONCEIVED BY THOSE WHO
FRAMED THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST WHICH THEY ERECTED THE BARRIERS OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  I AM CONSTRAINED TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY'S
DECISION FLOWS FROM A VIEW OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT THAT IS UNMINDFUL OF
THE HISTORY THAT BEGOT IT AND OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS INCLUDED
IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  AND THE VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT WHICH THE COURT
REJECTS IS CONFIRMED BY AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF THE LAWS OF CONGRESS AND
OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  STERN ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
IS THE HALLMARK OF A HEALTHY AND SELF-CONFIDENT SOCIETY.  BUT IN OUR
DEMOCRACY SUCH ENFORCEMENT PRESUPPOSES A MORAL ATMOSPHERE AND A
RELIANCE UPON INTELLIGENCE WHEREBY THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE CAN BE ACHIEVED WITH DUE REGARD FOR THOSE CIVILIZED STANDARDS
IN THE USE OF THE CRIMINAL LAW WHICH ARE FORMULATED IN OUR BILL OF
RIGHTS.  IF GREAT PRINCIPLES SOMETIMES APPEAR AS FINICKY OBSTRUCTIONS
IN BRINGING A CRIMINAL TO HEEL, THIS ADMONITION OF A WISE JUDGE GIVES
THE FINAL ANSWER:  "SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ARISE FROM
GRIEVANCES, REAL OR FANCIED, WHICH THEIR MAKERS HAVE SUFFERED, AND
SHOULD GO PARI PASSU WITH THE SUPPOSED EVIL.  THEY WITHSTAND THE WINDS
OF LOGIC BY THE DEPTH AND TOUGHNESS OF THEIR ROOTS IN THE PAST.  NOR
SHOULD WE FORGET THAT WHAT SEEMS FAIR ENOUGH AGAINST A SQUALID HUCKSTER
OF BAD LIQUOR MAY TAKE ON A VERY DIFFERENT FACE, IF USED BY A
GOVERNMENT DETERMINED TO SUPPRESS POLITICAL OPPOSITION UNDER THE GUISE
OF SEDITION."  LEARNED HAND, J., IN UNITED STATES V. KIRSCHENBLATT, 16
F.2D 202, 203. 

FN1  THE PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED FOR THE SALE OF GASOLINE WITHOUT
COUPONS AND AT A PRICE GREATER THAN THAT AUTHORIZED BY THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION CEILINGS; HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR THE ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF GASOLINE RATION DOCUMENTS.  THESE OFFENSES ARE
MISDEMEANORS.  56 STAT. 176, 179, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 633(5). 

THE ESPIONAGE ACT LIMITS THE ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANTS TO THOSE IN
WHICH THE PROPERTY SOUGHT WAS STOLEN OR EMBEZZLED, USED AS A MEANS OF
COMMITTING A FELONY, OR USED THE AID ILLEGALLY A FOREIGN NATION.  40
STAT. 217, 228, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 612.  THE DOCUMENTS INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE DO NOT COME WITHIN ANY OF THESE CATEGORIES. 

FN2  A FEW WORDS ONLY NEED BE SAID ABOUT THE CASES ON WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT RELIES.  MOST OF THEM DEAL WITH THE AMENABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
TO PRODUCTION UPON LEGAL PROCESS.  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S.
361; BOWLES V. INSEL, 148 F.2D 91; CUDMORE V. BOWLES, 79 U.S. APP. D.C.
255, 145 F.2D 697; RODGERS V. UNITED STATES, 138 F.2D 992; FLEMING V.
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 114 F.2D 384.  IN THE OTHERS, CONSENT WAS GIVEN
TO INSPECT THE PAPERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
GOVERNING STATUTE.  BOWLES V. BEATRICE CREAMERY CO., 146 F.2D 774;
BOWLES V. GLICK BROS. LUMBER CO., 146 F.2D 566; IN RE SANA
LABORATORIES, 115 F.2D 717(SUBSEQUENT TO THE INSPECTION THERE WAS A
WRONGFUL TAKING; THE COURT ADMITTED THE EVIDENCE PROCURED AS A RESULT
OF THE INSPECTION, BUT BARRED THE DOCUMENTS FROM EVIDENCE); C.M. SPRING
DRUG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 12 F.2D 852; UNITED STATES V. KEMPE, 59
F.SUPP.  905; BOWLES V. STITZINGER, 59 F.SUPP.  94; BOWLES V. CURTISS
CANDY CO., 55 F.SUPP.  527; UNITED STATES V. SHERRY, 294 F. 684(HERE
THE DOCUMENTS WERE TAKEN WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CUSTODIAN).  IN A.
GUCKENHEIMER & BROS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 3 F.2D 786, HOWEVER, THE
SITUATION BEARS SOME RESEMBLANCE TO THE PRESENT CASE.  THERE THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ATTRIBUTED THE CONSENT OF THE CUSTODIAN,
FOLLOWING CONTINUAL REFUSAL, TO THE COMMAND OF THE STATUTE.  WHILE
THERE WAS NO INDICATION, AS EVIDENCED BY THE OPINION, THAT THE
DOCUMENTS WERE SECURED THROUGH FEAR OF FORCE, THE INSPECTION AFFORDED
WAS PROBABLY NOT VOLUNTARY.  INSOFAR AS THERE IS SUPPORT IN THAT CASE
FOR A SEARCH THAT TRANSGRESSED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, THE OBSERVATIONS
ARE MERE DICTA, SINCE NO TIMELY OBJECTION WAS FILED. 

FN3  THIS HISTORIC SAFEGUARD AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
WAS GIVEN FORMAL CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION IN NEW YORK IN 1938.  N.Y.
CONST. OF 1938, ART. 1, SEC. 12. 

FN4  FOR PURPOSES OF PRESENT DISCUSSION, THE VALIDITY OF THE ARREST
HAS BEEN ASSUMED.  BUT ITS LEGALITY RAISES SEVERAL SERIOUS QUESTIONS. 
FIRST, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE O.P.A. INVESTIGATORS OR THE NEW YORK
CITY DETECTIVES MADE THE ARREST.  THE O.P.A. INVESTIGATORS, OF COURSE,
HAVE NO AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE AN ARREST.  WHETHER THE NEW YORK
DETECTIVES ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ARRESTS FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES IS A
DEBATABLE ISSUE.  SEE GAMBINO V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 310; MARSH V.
UNITED STATES, 29 F.2D 172; SEC. 20(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT, 56 STAT. 23, 29, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 921.  THOUGH LOCAL LAW MAKES
PROVISION FOR PUNISHMENT OF THE SAME ACTS THAT ARE FEDERAL OFFENSES IN
THIS REGARD, N.Y. LAWS, 1942, C. 544, THE ARREST WAS MADE FOR A FEDERAL
AND NOT A STATE OR LOCAL OFFENSE.  IF THE NEW YORK LAW IS CONTROLLING
AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ARREST, HOWEVER, IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF
ANY PERSON TO MAKE AN ARREST FOR A CRIME, INCLUDING A MISDEMEANOR, IN
HIS PRESENCE.  THE COMMON LAW RULE RESTRICTED ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT
FOR A MISDEMEANOR TO THOSE ACTS WHICH WERE BREACHES OF THE PEACE.  HERE
AGAIN, THERE IS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE PETITIONER COMMITTED ANY
MISDEMEANOR IN THE PRESENCE OF THOSE MAKING THE ARREST AT THE TIME THE
ARREST WAS MADE.  A RECENT DECISION BY THE ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL
FOCUSES ATTENTION ON THIS LAST QUESTION.  IN LEACHINSKY V. CHRISTIE
(1945), (1946) 1 K.B. 124, AT 135, LORD JUSTICE SCOTT MAKES CLEAR WHY
THE LEGALITY OF ARREST TURNS ON THE JUSTIFICATION WHICH THE ARRESTING
OFFICER GIVES AT THE TIME OF THE ARREST:  "THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW AN
ARREST IN VACUO, OR WITHOUT REASON ASSIGNED, AND THE REASON ASSIGNED
MUST BE THAT THE ARREST IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A PROSECUTION ON THE SELF
SAME CHARGE, AS IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ARREST.  IT FOLLOWS, AND
IT IS A PRINCIPLE LYING AT THE VERY ROOTS OF ENGLISH FREEDOM, THAT IF A
MAN IS ARRESTED ON ONE CHARGE HE IS ENTITLED TO HIS RELEASE THE MOMENT
THE PROSECUTION OF THAT CHARGE IS ABANDONED.  THE PROSECUTION CANNOT
ARREST ON ONE CHARGE, ABANDON THEIR INTENTION TO PROCEED ON THAT CHARGE
AND THEN KEEP HIM IN COLD STORAGE, STILL NOMINALLY ON THAT CHARGE,
WHILE THEY INQUIRE INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING FORWARD A DIFFERENT
CHARGE.  TO DO THAT THEY MUST FIRST RELEASE HIM:  THEN, WHEN THEY
PROPOSE TO PUT FORWARD SOME OTHER CHARGE, THEY CAN MAKE THAT NEW CHARGE
THE OCCASION OF A NEW ARREST."  SEE ALSO DUMBELL V. ROBERTS (1944), 113
L.J. (K.B.)  185; PEOPLE V. MARENDI, 213 N.Y. 600, 609 ET SEQ., 107
N.E. 1058.  THE LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW, IN COMMENTING ON THE LEACHINSKY
CASE, POINTED OUT:  "AN ACCUSED PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE
CHARGE IS AGAINST HIM SO THAT, IF HE ELECTS TO SPEAK, HE MAY HAVE A
FAIR AND OPEN CHANCE OF CLEARING HIMSELF AT THE EARLIEST MOMENT."  62
L.Q. REV. AT 4.  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267
U.S. 132, 157, ASSUMES THE FEDERAL LAW OF ARREST TO BE THE SAME AS THAT
OF THE ENGLISH. 

FN5  E.G., UNITED STATES V. WILSON, 163 F. 338, 340; UNITED STATES V.
MURPHY, 264 F. 842, 844; UNITED STATES V. SNYDER, 278 F. 650, 658;
MAYNARD V. UNITED STATES, 23 F.2D 141, 144; CF. UNITED STATES V. WELSH,
247 F. 239; LAUGHTER V. UNITED STATES, 259 F. 94; DONEGAN V. UNITED
STATES, 287 F. 641; WINKLER V. UNITED STATES, 297 F. 202. 

FN6  E.G., GREEN V. UNITED STATES, 289 F. 236, 238; BROWNE V. UNITED
STATES, 290 F. 870, 875; GARSKE V. UNITED STATES, 1 F.2D 620; KWONG HOW
V. UNITED STATES, 71 F.2D 71. 

FN7  E.G., SWAN V. UNITED STATES, 295 F. 921; SAYERS V. UNITED
STATES, 2 F.2D 146; UNITED STATES V. POLLER, 43 F.2D 911; UNITED STATES
V. 71.41 OUNCES GOLD FILLED SCRAP, 94 F.2D 17; UNITED STATES V.
FELDMAN, 104 F.2D 255; MATTHEWS V. CORREA, 135 F.2D 534; UNITED STATES
V. LINDENFELD, 142 F.2D 829. 

FN8  E.G., LANEY V. UNITED STATES, 294 F. 412, 416; UNITED STATES V.
CHIN ON, 297 F. 531, 533; UNITED STATES V. SELTZER, 5 F.2D 364; MATTUS
V. UNITED STATES, 11 F.2D 503; CHENG WAI V. UNITED STATES, 125 F.2D
915; CF. UNITED STATES V. BORKOWSKI, 268 F. 408; IN RE MOBILE, 278 F.
949; O'CONNOR V. UNITED STATES, 281 F. 396; VACHINA V. UNITED STATES,
283 F. 35; FURLONG V. UNITED STATES, 10 F.2D 492; UNITED STATES V.
FISCHER, 38 F.2D 830. 

FN9  THE PETITIONER'S GAS STATION WAS UNDER SUSPICION FOR SOME WEEKS;
YET ACTION WAS FINALLY TAKEN AS DESCRIBED IN THIS OPINION.  PETITIONER
WAS ARRESTED WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE GAS STATION FOR SALE ABOVE CEILING
PRICES AND SALES WITHOUT COUPONS.  NO ARRAIGNMENT WAS MADE FOR THESE
OFFENSES - INSTEAD THE OFFICERS ENGAGED IN A SEARCH OF THE PREMISES,
WHICH INCLUDED THE ESSENTIALLY FORCED ENTRY INTO THE PETITIONER'S
OFFICE.  HE WAS THEN TAKEN TO THE LOCAL O.P.A. HEADQUARTERS.  AFTER
SEVERAL HOURS OF QUESTIONING AT O.P.A. HEADQUARTERS, DAVIS WAS
RELEASED.  NOT UNTIL ONE MONTH LATER WAS THE PETITIONER RE-ARRESTED AND
ARRAIGNED, AND THEN ON A CHARGE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE ON WHICH
THE ORIGINAL ARREST WAS MADE.  THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, 56
STAT. 23, 50 U.S.C. APP. SECS. 901 ET SEQ., MADE ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE.  SO FAR AS SECURING DOCUMENTS AND
PAPERS ARE CONCERNED, THE ADMINISTRATOR IS EQUIPPED WITH THE SUBPOENA
POWER, SEC. 202(C), (D), (E); IN ADDITION, THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS THE
POWER TO SEEK INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ACTS WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS
ACCUSED OF COMMITTING, SEC. 205(A); AND BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS THE
ADMINISTRATOR MAY SEEK THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE LICENSE WHICH THE
PETITIONER REQUIRED TO OPERATE HIS BUSINESS, SEC. 205(F). 

                              APPENDIX. 

      SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER WARRANT.* 

*CONGRESS HAS PASSED NUMEROUS STATUTES AUTHORIZING INSPECTION OF
DEFINED PREMISES AND SEIZURES WITHOUT WARRANTS.  THESE ARE ALL VERY
PARTICULARIZED ACTS, RELATING MOSTLY TO THE INSPECTION OF VESSELS AND
VEHICLES AND THE SEIZURE OF VARIOUS TYPES OF CONTRABAND GOODS.  MOST OF
THIS LEGISLATION COMES WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS HISTORICALLY RECOGNIZED AT
THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AS TO RECAPTURE OF
STOLEN GOODS AND SEARCH OF VEHICLES AND VESSELS BECAUSE OF THEIR
FUGITIVE NATURE.  IN SUCH A MASS OF LEGISLATION, IT WOULD NOT BE
SURPRISING IF SOME OF THE SPECIFIC ACTS FELL AFOUL OF THE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH INVALIDATED THE LEGISLATION IN THE BOYD CASE.  116
U.S. 616.  WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION IS THE
RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS OF THE NECESSITY FOR SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORIZATION EVEN FOR THE SEARCH OF VESSELS AND OTHER MOVING VEHICLES
AND THE SEIZURES OF GOODS TECHNICALLY CONTRABAND. 

A. PLACE TO BE SEARCHED. 

ACT OF JULY 31, 1789, 1 STAT. 29, 43(DWELLING HOUSE, STORE, BUILDING,
OR OTHER PLACE, BY DAY); ACT OF AUGUST 4, 1790, 1 STAT. 145,
170(DWELLING HOUSE, STORE, BUILDING, OR OTHER PLACE, BY DAY); ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1791, 1 STAT. 199, 207(ANY PLACE, BY DAY); ACT OF MARCH 2,
1799, 1 STAT. 627, 677-78(DWELLING HOUSE, STORE, BUILDING, OR OTHER
PLACE, BY DAY); ACT OF APRIL 18, 1806, 2 STAT. 379, 380(DWELLING HOUSE,
STORE, BUILDING, OR OTHER PLACE, BY DAY); ACT OF MARCH 1, 1809, 2 STAT.
528, 530(DWELLING HOUSE, STORE, BUILDING, OR OTHER PLACE); ACT OF MARCH
3, 1815, 3 STAT. 231, 232(DWELLING HOUSE, STORE, OR OTHER BUILDING, BY
DAY)(NO WARRANT NECESSARY TO SEARCH A VEHICLE); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863,
12 STAT. 737, 740(ANY PLACE OR PREMISES); ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1865, 13
STAT. 441, 442(BUILDINGS NEAR BOUNDARY LINES); ACT OF JULY 13, 1866, 14
STAT. 98, 152(ANY PREMISES); ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867, 14 STAT. 546,
547(ANY PREMISES); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1873, 17 STAT. 598, 599(NO
LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT OF APRIL 25, 1882, 22 STAT. 49(DWELLING
HOUSE, STORE-BUILDING, OR OTHER PLACE, BY DAY); ACT OF FEBRUARY 10,
1891, 26 STAT. 742, 743(ANY HOUSE, STORE, BUILDING, BOAT, OR OTHER
PLACE, BY DAY); ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1894, 28 STAT. 509, 549-50(NO
LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT OF JULY 24, 1897, 30 STAT. 151, 209(NO
LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899, 30 STAT. 1253, 1326(ANY
PLACE IN ALASKA); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1189, 1337(NO
LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT OF AUGUST 5, 1909, 36 STAT. 11, 86(NO
LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1917, 39 STAT. 903, 906
907(ROOM, HOUSE, BUILDING, OR OTHER PLACE IN ALASKA); ACT OF JUNE 15,
1917, 40 STAT. 217, 228(BY DAY OR, ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, NIGHT); ACT
OF JULY 3, 1918, 40 STAT. 755, 756(ANY PLACE); ACT OF OCTOBER 28, 1919,
41 STAT. 305, 308(SEE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, SUPRA); ACT OF SEPTEMBER
21, 1922, 42 STAT. 858, 937, 983(DWELLING HOUSE BY DAY, AND ANY STORE
OR OTHER PLACE BY NIGHT OR DAY); ACT OF JUNE 7, 1924, 43 STAT. 650,
651(NO LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT OF APRIL 23, 1928, 45 STAT. 448,
449(NO LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT OF FEBRUARY 18, 1929, 45 STAT. 1222,
1225(SEE ACT OF JULY 3, 1918, SUPRA); ACT OF JUNE 17, 1930, 46 STAT.
590, 752(DWELLING HOUSE, BY DAY, STORE, OR OTHER BUILDING OR PLACE);
ACT OF JULY 2, 1930, 46 STAT. 845, 846(NO LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT OF
JUNE 15, 1935, 49 STAT. 378, 381(NO LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT OF AUGUST
27, 1935, 49 STAT. 872, 874-875(SEE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, SUPRA); ACT
OF APRIL 5, 1938, 52 STAT. 198, 199(ANY PLACE IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA);
ACT OF FEBRUARY 10, 1939, 53 STAT. 1, 436(NO LIMITATION ON SCOPE); ACT
OF JUNE 28, 1940, 54 STAT. 670, 671(BY DAY OR, ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS,
NIGHT); ACT OF JULY 1, 1943, 57 STAT. 301, 304(NO LIMITATION ON SCOPE);
ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1944, 58 STAT. 100, 102(ANY PERSON, VESSEL, OR
PLACE). 

B. OBJECTS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 

ACT OF JULY 31, 1789, 1 STAT. 29, 43(GOODS SUBJECT TO DUTY); ACT OF
AUGUST 4, 1790, 1 STAT. 145, 170(GOODS SUBJECT TO DUTY); ACT OF MARCH
3, 1791, 1 STAT. 199, 207(LIQUORS FRAUDULENTLY DEPOSITED, HID, OR
CONCEALED); ACT OF MARCH 2, 1799, 1 STAT. 627, 677-78(GOODS SUBJECT TO
DUTY); ACT OF APRIL 18, 1806, 2 STAT. 379, 380(ARTICLES IMPORTED FROM
GREAT BRITAIN); ACT OF MARCH 1, 1809, 2 STAT. 528, 530(ARTICLES
IMPORTED FROM GREAT BRITAIN OR FRANCE); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1815, 3 STAT.
231, 232(ARTICLES SUBJECT TO DUTY); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, 12 STAT. 737,
740(INVOICES, PAPERS, AND BOOKS RELATING TO CUSTOMS FRAUDS); ACT OF
FEBRUARY 28, 1865, 13 STAT. 441, 442(DUTIABLE GOODS); ACT OF JULY 13,
1866, 14 STAT. 98, 152(FRAUD ON THE REVENUE); ACT OF JULY 18, 1866, 14
STAT. 178, 187(FRAUD ON THE REVENUE); ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867, 14 STAT.
546, 547(INVOICES, BOOKS, AND PAPERS RELATING TO CUSTOMS FRAUDS); ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1873, 17 STAT. 598, 599(OBSCENE LITERATURE, LITERATURE
ABOUT CONTRACEPTIVES, CONTRACEPTIVE MATERIALS); ACT OF APRIL 25, 1882,
22 STAT. 49(MERCHANDISE ON WHICH DUTY IS UNPAID); ACT OF FEBRUARY 10,
1891, 26 STAT. 742, 743(COUNTERFEIT MONEY, COINS, ETC., AND MATERIALS
USED FOR THEIR MANUFACTURE); ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1894, 28 STAT. 509, 549
50(OBSCENE AND IMMORAL LITERATURE AND ARTICLES, LOTTERY TICKETS); ACT
OF JULY 24, 1897, 30 STAT. 151, 209(OBSCENE AND IMMORAL ARTICLES AND
LITERATURE, CONTRACEPTIVE AND ABORTIVE MATERIALS, LOTTERY TICKETS); ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1899, 30 STAT. 1253, 1327(EMBEZZLED OR STOLEN PROPERTY;
ARTICLES USED TO COMMIT A FELONY; PROPERTY TO BE USED TO COMMIT A
CRIME); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1189, 1337(STOLEN OR EMBEZZLED
GOODS, COUNTERFEIT COINS, ETC., AND MATERIALS USED TO MAKE THEM,
LITERATURE OF OBSCENE NATURE, IMMORAL ARTICLES, GAMBLING EQUIPMENT,
LOTTERY TICKETS); ACT OF AUGUST 5, 1909, 36 STAT. 11, 86(OBSCENE OR
IMMORAL LITERATURE, OR ARTICLES, DRUGS, OBJECTS FOR ABORTION, LOTTERY
TICKETS); ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1917, 39 STAT. 903, 906-907(ILLEGALLY
HELD LIQUOR); ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, 40 STAT. 217, 228(STOLEN OR
EMBEZZLED PROPERTY; PROPERTY USED IN COMMISSION OF A FELONY; PROPERTY
USED TO AID UNLAWFULLY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT); ACT OF JULY 3, 1918, 40
STAT. 755, 756(ILLEGALLY SECURED MIGRATORY BIRDS OR BIRD PRODUCTS); ACT
OF OCTOBER 28, 1919, 41 STAT. 305, 308(ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES); ACT OF
SEPTEMBER 21, 1922, 42 STAT. 858, 937, 983(OBSCENE LITERATURE, DRUGS
FOR ABORTION, CONTRACEPTIVE ITEMS, LOTTERY TICKETS; ILLEGAL IMPORTS);
ACT OF JUNE 7, 1924, 43 STAT. 650, 651(WILD LIFE AND FISH IMPROPERLY
TAKEN FROM REFUGE); ACT OF APRIL 23, 1928, 45 STAT. 448, 449(MIGRATORY
BIRDS IMPROPERLY TAKEN FROM BIRD REFUGE); ACT OF FEBRUARY 18, 1929, 45
STAT. 1222, 1225(SEE ACT OF JULY 3, 1918, SUPRA); ACT OF JUNE 17, 1930,
46 STAT. 590, 752(MERCHANDISE ON WHICH DUTIES UNPAID); ACT OF JULY 2,
1930, 46 STAT. 845, 846(ILLEGALLY CAUGHT BLACK BASS); ACT OF JUNE 15,
1935, 49 STAT. 378, 381(ILLEGALLY CAPTURED GAME AND WILD LIFE AND
PRODUCTS THEREOF SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE); ACT OF AUGUST 27,
1935, 49 STAT. 872, 874-75(ILLEGALLY POSSESSED LIQUOR); ACT OF APRIL 5,
1938, 52 STAT. 198, 199(LOTTERY TICKETS, GAMING DEVICES, BOOKS FOR
RECORDING GAMBLING TRANSACTIONS, STOLEN AND EMBEZZLED PROPERTY, FORGED
AND COUNTERFEIT MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT USED FOR COUNTERFEITING, OBSCENE
AND IMMORAL LITERATURE AND MATERIALS); ACT OF FEBRUARY 10, 1939, 53
STAT. 1, 436(FRAUDS ON THE REVENUE); ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, 54 STAT.
670, 671(SUBVERSIVE MATERIALS); ACT OF JULY 1, 1943, 57 STAT. 301,
304(ALASKAN GAME ILLEGALLY TAKEN AND EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE CAPTURES);
ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1944, 58 STAT. 100, 102(ILLEGALLY TAKEN SEAL
PRODUCTS AND EQUIPMENT USED TO AID IN THE TAKINGS). 

C. REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT. 

ACT OF JULY 31, 1789, 1 STAT. 29, 43(SUSPICION OF CONCEALMENT OF
GOODS, APPLICATION ON OATH OR AFFIRMATION BEFORE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE);
ACT OF AUGUST 4, 1790, 1 STAT. 145, 170(SUSPICION OF CONCEALMENT,
APPLICATION ON OATH OR AFFIRMATION BEFORE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE); ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1791, 1 STAT. 199, 207(OATH OR AFFIRMATION, ESTABLISHING
GROUNDS FOR REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUSPICION, BEFORE U.S. JUDGE OR
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE); ACT OF MARCH 2, 1799, 1 STAT. 627, 677
78(SUSPICION OF CONCEALMENT, APPLICATION, ON OATH, TO JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE); ACT OF APRIL 18, 1806, 2 STAT. 379, 380(SAME); ACT OF MARCH 1,
1809, 2 STAT. 528, 530(SAME); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1815, 3 STAT. 231,
232(SUSPICION OF CONCEALMENT, PROPER APPLICATION, ON OATH, TO ANY JUDGE
OR JUSTICE OF THE PEACE); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, 12 STAT. 737,
740(AFFIDAVIT ESTABLISHING FRAUD OR ATTEMPTED FRAUD TO SATISFACTION OF
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE); ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1865, 13 STAT. 441, 442(OATH
SHOWING BELIEF OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SMUGGLED GOODS ARE KEPT ON THE
PREMISES); ACT OF JULY 13, 1866, 14 STAT. 98, 152(OATH IN WRITING
BEFORE U.S. CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER, SETTING FORTH
BELIEF OR REASON TO BELIEVE FRAUD ON REVENUE COMMITTED ON PREMISES);
ACT OF JULY 18, 1866, 14 STAT. 178, 187(MAY BE ISSUED BY ANY DISTRICT
JUDGE); ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867, 14 STAT. 546, 547(COMPLAINT AND
AFFIDAVIT, TO SATISFACTION OF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, OF CUSTOMS FRAUD);
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1873, 17 STAT. 598, 599(WRITTEN COMPLAINT OF VIOLATION
OF STATUTE, BEFORE U.S. DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT JUDGE, SETTING FORTH BELIEF
OR BASIS FOR BELIEF, TO SATISFACTION OF JUDGE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR
AFFIRMATION); ACT OF APRIL 25, 1882, 22 STAT. 49(PROPER APPLICATION, ON
OATH, TO JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, DISTRICT JUDGE OF CITIES, POLICE
JUSTICE, OR U.S. DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT JUDGE); ACT OF FEBRUARY 10, 1891,
26 STAT. 742, 743(PROPER OATH OR AFFIRMATION, SHOWING PROBABLE CAUSE
FOR BELIEF THAT STATUTE IS BEING VIOLATED).  ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1894, 28
STAT. 509, 549-50(COMPLAINT IN WRITING, FOUNDED ON KNOWLEDGE OR BELIEF,
SETTING FORTH GROUNDS FOR BELIEF, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO
THE SATISFACTION OF U.S. DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT JUDGE); ACT OF JULY 24,
1897, 30 STAT. 151, 209(COMPLAINT IN WRITING OF VIOLATION OF ACT, TO
SATISFACTION OF U.S. DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT JUDGE, FOUNDED ON KNOWLEDGE OR
BELIEF, SETTING FORTH BASIS FOR BELIEF, AND SUPPORTED BY OATH OR
AFFIRMATION); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899, 30 STAT. 1253, 1327(PROBABLE CAUSE,
SHOWN BY AFFIDAVIT, NAMING OR DESCRIBING PERSON, DESCRIBING THE
PROPERTY AND THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, TO THE SATISFACTION OF AN
EXAMINING MAGISTRATE); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1189,
1337(COMPLAINT, UNDER OATH, BEFORE POLICE COURT OR JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE, SETTING FORTH BELIEF AND CAUSE FOR BELIEF OF CONCEALMENT IN ANY
PLACE OF SPECIFIED ARTICLES, DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED AND
THE PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED); ACT OF AUGUST 5, 1909, 36 STAT. 11,
86(COMPLAINT IN WRITING BEFORE U.S. CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE OF
VIOLATION OF ACT, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGE, SETTING FORTH
GROUNDS FOR BELIEF AND SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, A WARRANT MAY
ISSUE "CONFORMABLY TO THE CONSTITUTION"); ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1917, 39
STAT. 903, 906-907(CHARGE, ON OATH OR AFFIRMATION, BEFORE ALASKAN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OF VIOLATION OF PROHIBITION LAWS; PLACE WHERE
VIOLATION OCCURRED TO BE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED); ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917,
40 STAT. 217, 228-29(AFFIDAVITS OR DEPOSITIONS, SETTING FORTH FACTS
ESTABLISHING GROUNDS OR PROBABLE CAUSE FOR BELIEF THAT GROUNDS EXIST,
BEFORE U.S. OR STATE JUDGE, OR U.S. COMMISSIONER); ACT OF JULY 3, 1918,
40 STAT. 755, 756(PROPER OATH OR AFFIRMATION BEFORE U.S. JUDGE OR
COMMISSIONER, SHOWING PROBABLE CAUSE OF VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE); ACT
OF OCTOBER 28, 1919, 41 STAT. 305, 308(SEE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917,
SUPRA); ACT OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1922, 42 STAT. 858, 937, 983(COMPLAINT IN
WRITING BEFORE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLEGING VIOLATION OF STATUTE,
FOUNDED ON PROBABLE CAUSE AND SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION AND
CONFORMABLE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION; CAUSE TO SUSPECT
PRESENCE OF DUTIABLE GOODS, APPLICATION UNDER OATH BEFORE JUSTICE OF
THE PEACE, LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL JUDGES, OR U.S. COMMISSIONER); ACT
OF JUNE 7, 1924, 43 STAT. 650, 651(PROPER OATH OR AFFIRMATION BEFORE
U.S. JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER SHOWING PROBABLE CAUSE OF VIOLATION).  ACT
OF APRIL 23, 1928, 45 STAT. 448, 449(PROPER OATH OR AFFIRMATION, BEFORE
U.S. JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER, SHOWING PROBABLE CAUSE OF VIOLATION OF
STATUTE); ACT OF FEBRUARY 18, 1929, 45 STAT. 1222, 1225(SEE ACT OF JULY
3, 1918, SUPRA); ACT OF JUNE 17, 1930, 46 STAT. 590, 752(SUSPICION OF
CONCEALMENT OF DUTIABLE GOODS, APPLICATION UNDER OATH TO ANY JUSTICE OF
THE PEACE, LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL JUDGE, OR U.S. COMMISSIONER); ACT
OF JULY 2, 1930, 46 STAT. 845, 846(PROPER OATH OR AFFIRMATION BEFORE
U.S. JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER ESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE THAT STATUTE WAS
VIOLATED); ACT OF JUNE 15, 1935, 49 STAT. 378, 381(PROPER OATH OR
AFFIRMATION BEFORE U.S. JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER ESTABLISHING PROBABLE
CAUSE THAT STATUTE VIOLATED); ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1935, 49 STAT. 872, 874
75(SEE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, SUPRA); ACT OF APRIL 5, 1938, 52 STAT.
198, 199(COMPLAINT UNDER OATH, BEFORE THE POLICE COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, OR U.S. COMMISSIONER, SETTING FORTH BELIEF OR CAUSE FOR
BELIEF, PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, THE ARTICLES
TO BE SEIZED); ACT OF FEBRUARY 10, 1939, 53 STAT. 1, 436(OATH IN
WRITING BEFORE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER, SETTING FORTH
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT FRAUD ON REVENUE COMMITTED OR BEING COMMITTED);
ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, 54 STAT. 670, 671(SEE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917,
SUPRA); ACT OF JULY 1, 1943, 57 STAT. 301, 304(PROPER OATH OR
AFFIRMATION, SHOWING PROBABLE CAUSE OF VIOLATION OF ALASKAN GAME LAWS,
BEFORE U.S. JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER); ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1944, 58 STAT.
100, 102(OATH OR AFFIRMATION BEFORE U.S. JUDGE OR COMMISSIONER, SHOWING
PROBABLE CAUSE OF VIOLATION OF STATUTE). 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I AM SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORD WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER IN HIS EXHAUSTIVE OPINION AS TO THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES
WHICH SHOULD GOVERN IN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE.  PERHAPS IT SHOULD
BE ADDED THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE OFFICER WHO
FLASHED THE LIGHT INTO THE WINDOW WAS IN FACT ATTEMPTING TO OPEN IT BY
FORCE OR TO DO MORE THAN OBSERVE THE INTERIOR.  BUT THE SITUATION WAS
SUCH THAT HIS ACTION CLEARLY CREATED IN DAVIS' MIND THE IMPRESSION THAT
HE EITHER WAS ENTERING BY FORCE OR INTENDED TO DO SO.  IT THEREFORE
MUST BE TAKEN, I THINK, THAT DAVIS' SO-CALLED CONSENT WAS INDUCED BY
THIS APPARENT COMPULSION, THE VERY KIND OF THING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.  THERE WAS NO SUCH CONSENT AS WOULD LEGALIZE
THE ENTRY AND SEARCH.    MOREOVER, WHATEVER MAY BE THE SCOPE OF SEARCH
INCIDENT TO LAWFUL ARREST FOR A MISDEMEANOR, I KNOW OF NO DECISION
WHICH GOES SO FAR AS TO RULE THAT THIS RIGHT OF SEARCH EXTENDS TO
BREAKING AND ENTERING LOCKED PREMISES BY FORCE.  THAT WAS NOT DONE
HERE.  BUT THE SEARCH FOLLOWED ON CONSENT GIVEN IN THE REASONABLE
BELIEF THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO AVOID THE BREAKING AND ENTRY.  I THINK
IT WAS THEREFORE IN NO BETTER CASE LEGALLY THAN IF IN FACT THE BREAKING
AND FORCEABLE ENTRY HAD OCCURRED.  THE SEARCH WAS JUSTIFIED NEITHER BY
CONSENT NOR BY THE DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE SEARCH AS INCIDENT TO A
LAWFUL ARREST. 
..END :














ZAP V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 624 


NO. 489.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 6, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 151
F.2D 100, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PETITIONER WAS UNDER CONTRACT TO DO EXPERIMENTAL WORK FOR THE
NAVY.  PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO
THEM UNDER SEC. 10(1) OF THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, AND SEC. 1301 OF THE
SECOND WAR POWERS ACT, AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
WERE AUDITING HIS BOOKS AND RECORDS AT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS DURING
BUSINESS HOURS WITH THE CONSENT AND COOPERATION OF HIS EMPLOYEES.  ONE
OF THE AGENTS REQUESTED, AND WAS GIVEN BY PETITIONER'S BOOKKEEPER, A
CERTAIN CANCELLED CHECK, WHICH WAS LATER ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE OVER
PETITIONER'S OBJECTION IN A TRIAL WHICH RESULTED IN HIS CONVICTION FOR
DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT BY MEANS OF THAT CHECK.  HELD:  THIS DID NOT
VIOLATE HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS.  PP. 628
630. 

2.  WHEN PETITIONER, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS,
SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF HIS ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS,
HE VOLUNTARILY WAIVED SUCH CLAIMS TO PRIVACY WHICH HE OTHERWISE MIGHT
HAVE HAD AS RESPECTS BUSINESS DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THOSE CONTRACTS.  P.
628. 

3.  THE POWERS OF INSPECTION WERE NOT TRANSCENDED, SINCE THE
INSPECTION WAS MADE DURING REGULAR HOURS, AT THE PLACE OF BUSINESS,
WITH THE FULL COOPERATION OF PETITIONER'S STAFF, AND WITHOUT FORCE OR
THREAT OF FORCE.  P. 628. 

4.  AS A RESULT OF ITS CONTRACT WITH PETITIONER AND THE RELEVANT
STATUTES, THE GOVERNMENT HAD AUTHORITY TO INSPECT PETITIONER'S BOOKS
AND RECORDS AND TO UTILIZE AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION FOR THIS PURPOSE.  PP. 628, 629. 

5.  THE SEARCH BEING LAWFUL, THE AGENTS COULD TESTIFY AS TO THE FACTS
ABOUT WHICH THEY HAD OBTAINED KNOWLEDGE, INCLUDING THE FACTS DISCLOSED
BY THE CHECK.  P. 629. 

6.  TO REQUIRE REVERSAL MERELY BECAUSE THE CHECK ITSELF WAS ADMITTED
IN EVIDENCE WOULD BE TO EXALT A TECHNICALITY TO CONSTITUTIONAL LEVELS. 
P. 630. 

7.  IT WAS IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ADMIT THE
CHECK IN EVIDENCE.  P. 630. 

ZAP V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 35(A) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  151 F.2D 100.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER BOOKS AND RECORDS RELATING TO HIS CONTRACT WITH THE
NAVY DEPARTMENT WERE PROPERLY ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AT HIS TRIAL.  326
U.S. 802.  AFFIRMED, P. 630. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM A
JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER FOR VIOLATION OF SEC.
35(A) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 80.  FN1 151 F.2D 100. 

PETITIONER ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH THE NAVY DEPARTMENT UNDER
WHICH HE WAS TO DO EXPERIMENTAL WORK ON AIRPLANE WINGS AND TO CONDUCT
TEST FLIGHTS.  HE WAS TO BE PAID ON A COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE BASIS.  HE
ARRANGED WITH A PILOT TO MAKE CERTAIN TEST FLIGHTS AND PAID HIM ABOUT
$2,500.  PRIOR TO THE TEST FLIGHTS, HE HAD THE PILOT ENDORSE A BLANK
CHECK, TELLING HIM THAT IT WAS TO BE USED TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF THE
TEST.  HE THEN FILLED IN THE TEST PILOT'S NAME AS PAYEE AND $4,000 AS
THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK.  THE CHECK WAS POSTED IN PETITIONER'S BOOKS OF
ACCOUNT AS A PAYMENT TO THE TEST PILOT.  LATER PETITIONER PRESENTED TO
THE NAVY DEPARTMENT A VOUCHER FOR WORK UNDER HIS CONTRACT.  SUPPORTING
THE CLAIM WAS A DOCUMENT IN WHICH HE CERTIFIED THAT HE HAD PAID THE
TEST PILOT $4,000. 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR THE INSPECTION AND AUDIT OF BOOKS AND
RECORDS OF CONTRACTORS SUCH AS PETITIONER.  FN2  THE INSPECTION AND
AUDIT WERE AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE "BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OR OFFICER
DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT, OR BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WAR PRODUCTION
BOARD."  FN3 CERTAIN OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, WERE AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE THE POWER; AND THEY
WERE ALSO DELEGATED THE POWER TO "AUTHORIZE SUCH OFFICER OR OFFICERS OR
CIVILIAN OFFICIALS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES TO MAKE
FURTHER DELEGATIONS OF SUCH POWERS AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES."  FN4  AND PETITIONER'S CONTRACT
WITH THE NAVY DEPARTMENT PROVIDED:  "THE ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS OF THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE OPEN AT ALL TIMES TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS
REPRESENTATIVES, AND SUCH STATEMENTS AND RETURNS RELATIVE TO COSTS
SHALL BE MADE AS MAY BE DIRECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT." 

FOR SEVERAL WEEKS IN 1942, AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED AN AUDIT OF PETITIONER'S BOOKS AND RECORDS AT
HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS AND DURING BUSINESS HOURS.  THEY ACTED UNDER THE
AUSPICES AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF AN ACCOUNTANT AND A COST INSPECTOR OF
THE NAVY DEPARTMENT UNDER WHOSE JURISDICTION PETITIONER'S BOOKS AND
RECORDS HAD BEEN PLACED FOR PURPOSES OF AUDIT AND INSPECTION.  DURING
PART OF THIS PERIOD, PETITIONER WAS ABSENT.  BUT WHILE HE WAS AWAY, HIS
EMPLOYEES GRANTED THE AGENTS ADMISSION AND COOPERATED WITH THEM BY
SUPPLYING RECORDS AND FURNISHING INFORMATION.  WHEN PETITIONER RETURNED
TO THE CITY, HE MADE SOME PROTEST AGAINST THE EXAMINATION.  BUT THE
AGENTS DID NOT DESIST AND CONTINUED TO MAKE THE EXAMINATION WITH THE
ASSISTANCE OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES.  THE $4,000 CHECK WAS REQUESTED
AND IT WAS GIVEN TO ONE OF THE AGENTS BY PETITIONER'S BOOK-KEEPER.  IT
APPEARS THAT THE CHECK WAS RETAINED BY THE AGENT  FN5 AND WAS
INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL.  THE TRIAL JUDGE DENIED A MOTION TO SUPPRESS
THE EVIDENCE.  AT THE TRIAL, PETITIONER DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION
OF THE CHECK IN EVIDENCE BUT LATER MOVED TO HAVE IT STRICKEN ON THE
GROUND THAT IT HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY OBTAINED.  THE SINGLE QUESTION TO
WHICH WE LIMITED THE GRANT OF THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS
THE PROPRIETY OF THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN ALLOWING THE CHECK
TO BE ADMITTED. 

AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT IN DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 582, THE
LAW OF SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AS REVEALED IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
IS THE PRODUCT OF THE INTERPLAY OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS. 
BUT THOSE RIGHTS MAY BE WAIVED.  AND WHEN PETITIONER, IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS, SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO PERMIT
INSPECTION OF HIS ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS, HE VOLUNTARILY WAIVED SUCH
CLAIM TO PRIVACY WHICH HE OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE HAD AS RESPECTS BUSINESS
DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THOSE CONTRACTS.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE LIMITS OF
THAT POWER OF INSPECTION, THEY WERE NOT TRANSCENDED HERE.  FOR THE
INSPECTION WAS MADE DURING REGULAR HOURS AT THE PLACE OF BUSINESS.  NO
FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE WAS EMPLOYED.  INDEED, THE INSPECTION WAS MADE
WITH THE FULL COOPERATION OF PETITIONER'S STAFF.  THERE IS SOME
SUGGESTION THAT THE SEARCH WAS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE MADE BY AGENTS OF
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WHO WERE NOT PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO
CONDUCT THOSE EXAMINATIONS.  BUT THEY ACTED UNDER THE AUSPICES AND WITH
THE AUTHORITY OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT WHO WERE
AUTHORIZED TO INSPECT.  THE INSPECTION WAS NEVERTHELESS AN INSPECTION
BY THE NAVY, THOUGH ITS OFFICIALS WERE AIDED BY AGENTS OF ANOTHER
DEPARTMENT.  FN6  MOREOVER, THE RIGHT TO INSPECT GRANTED BY THE
CONTRACTS WAS NOT LIMITED TO INSPECTIONS BY THE NAVY BUT EXTENDED TO
INSPECTIONS BY ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMONG
WHOM THE AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ARE INCLUDED. 

THE AGENTS, THEREFORE, WERE LAWFULLY ON THE PREMISES.  THEY OBTAINED
BY LAWFUL MEANS ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENTS.  THAT MUCH AT LEAST WAS
GRANTED BY THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT FOR INSPECTION.  THEY WERE NOT
TRESPASSERS.  THEY DID NOT OBTAIN ACCESS BY FORCE, FRAUD, OR TRICKERY. 
THUS THE KNOWLEDGE THEY ACQUIRED CONCERNING PETITIONER'S CONDUCT UNDER
THE CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT WAS LAWFULLY OBTAINED.  NEITHER THE
FOURTH NOR FIFTH AMENDMENT WOULD PRECLUDE THE AGENTS FROM TESTIFYING AT
THE TRIAL CONCERNING THE FACTS ABOUT WHICH THEY HAD LAWFULLY OBTAINED
KNOWLEDGE.  SEE PAPER V. UNITED STATES, 53 F.2D 184, 185; IN RE SANA
LABORATORIES, INC., 115 F.2D 717, 718.  EVEN THOUGH IT BE ASSUMED IN
PASSING THAT THE TAKING OF THE CHECK WAS UNLAWFUL, THAT WOULD NOT MAKE
INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE THE KNOWLEDGE WHICH HAD BEEN LEGALLY
OBTAINED.  UNITED STATES V. LEE, 274 U.S. 559, 563.  THE AGENTS DID NOT
BECOME TRESPASSERS AB INITIO WHEN THEY TOOK THE CHECK.  SEE MCGUIRE V.
UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 95.  HAD THE CHECK BEEN RETURNED TO PETITIONER
ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS, A WARRANT FOR IT COULD HAVE BEEN IMMEDIATELY
ISSUED.  FN7  OR, DURING THE INSPECTION, THE AGENTS COULD HAVE TAKEN
PHOTOSTATS OR MADE COPIES OF THE CHECK AND OFFERED THEM IN EVIDENCE
WITHOUT PRODUCING THE ORIGINALS.  LISANSKY V. UNITED STATES, 31 F.2D
846, 850-851.  DARBY V. UNITED STATES, 132 F.2D 928, 929.  THE
AGREEMENT TO ALLOW AN INSPECTION CARRIED CONSEQUENCES AT LEAST SO
GREAT.  THE QUESTION THEREFORE IS A NARROW ONE.  IT IS WHETHER THE
CHECK ITSELF COULD BE INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL. 

WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, HELD THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY
OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE COULD NOT BE
USED AS EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF THE OWNER.  AS EXPLAINED
IN SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385, 392, THE
EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED IS SUPPRESSED ON THE THEORY THAT THE GOVERNMENT
MAY NOT PROFIT FROM ITS OWN WRONGDOING.  BUT AS STATED IN MCGUIRE V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 99, "A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS MORE THAN A
GAME IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE CHECKMATED AND THE GAME LOST MERELY
BECAUSE ITS OFFICERS HAVE NOT PLAYED ACCORDING TO RULE."  TO REQUIRE
REVERSAL HERE WOULD BE TO EXALT A TECHNICALITY TO CONSTITUTIONAL
LEVELS.  THE SEARCH AND THE DISCOVERY WERE WHOLLY LAWFUL.  A SEARCH
WARRANT WOULD BE MERELY THE MEANS OF INSURING THE PRODUCTION IN COURT
OF THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF EVIDENCE OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE.  THOUGH CONSENT
TO THE INSPECTION DID NOT INCLUDE CONSENT TO THE TAKING OF THE CHECK,
THERE WAS NO WRONGDOING IN THE METHOD BY WHICH THE INCRIMINATING
EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED.  THE WAIVER OF SUCH RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND TO
IMMUNITY AS PETITIONER HAD RESPECTING THIS BUSINESS UNDERTAKING FOR THE
GOVERNMENT MADE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE ALL THE INCRIMINATING FACTS.  WE
CANNOT EXTEND THE RULE OF THE WEEKS CASE SO FAR AS TO BAR ABSOLUTELY
THE CHECK ITSELF.  IT WAS IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
TO ADMIT IT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "WHOEVER SHALL MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE OR PRESENT OR CAUSE TO
BE PRESENTED, FOR PAYMENT OR APPROVAL, TO OR BY ANY PERSON OR OFFICER
IN THE CIVIL, MILITARY, OR NAVAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY
DEPARTMENT THEREOF, OR ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER, ANY CLAIM UPON OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF, OR ANY
CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER,
KNOWING SUCH CLAIM TO BE FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR FRAUDULENT; OR WHOEVER
SHALL KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FALSIFY OR CONCEAL OR COVER UP BY ANY
TRICK, SCHEME, OR DEVICE A MATERIAL FACT, OR MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE
ANY FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS, OR MAKE OR USE
OR CAUSE TO BE MADE OR USED ANY FALSE BILL, RECEIPT, VOUCHER, ROLL,
ACCOUNT, CLAIM, CERTIFICATE, AFFIDAVIT, OR DEPOSITION, KNOWING THE SAME
TO CONTAIN ANY FRAUDULENT OR FICTITIOUS STATEMENT OR ENTRY IN ANY
MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OF ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN2  SEC. 10(1) OF THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, 44 STAT. 787, 10 U.S.C.
SEC. 310(1) PROVIDES:  "THE MANUFACTURING PLANT, AND BOOKS, OF ANY
CONTRACTOR FOR FURNISHING OR CONSTRUCTING AIRCRAFT, AIRCRAFT PARTS, OR
AERONAUTICAL ACCESSORIES, FOR THE WAR DEPARTMENT OR THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT, OR SUCH PART OF ANY MANUFACTURING PLANT AS MAY BE SO
ENGAGED, SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND AUDIT BY ANY
PERSON DESIGNATED BY THE HEAD OF ANY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT." 

TITLE XIII, SEC. 1301 OF THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT OF MARCH 27, 1942,
56 STAT. 185, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. IV, SEC. 643 PROVIDES:  "THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(1) OF AN ACT APPROVED JULY 2, 1926(44 STAT.
787; 10 U.S.C. SEC. 310(1))(GIVING THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO INSPECT
THE PLANT AND AUDIT THE BOOKS OF CERTAIN CONTRACTORS), SHALL APPLY TO
THE PLANT, BOOKS, AND RECORDS OF ANY CONTRACTOR WITH WHOM A DEFENSE
CONTRACT HAS BEEN PLACED AT ANY TIME AFTER THE DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1939, AND BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE PRESENT WAR:
PROVIDED, THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS TITLE, THE TERM 'DEFENSE
CONTRACT' SHALL MEAN ANY CONTRACT, SUBCONTRACT, OR ORDER PLACED IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE DEFENSE OR WAR EFFORT:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT
THE INSPECTION AND AUDIT AUTHORIZED HEREIN, AND THE DETERMINATION
WHETHER A GIVEN CONTRACT IS A 'DEFENSE CONTRACT' AS DEFINED ABOVE,
SHALL BE MADE BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OR OFFICER DESIGNATED BY THE
PRESIDENT, OR BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD."  SEE H.
REP. NO. 1765, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 12-13; S. REP. NO. 989, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 9. 

FN3  SEE SEC. 1301 SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN4  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9127, ISSUED APRIL 10, 1942, 7 FED. REG.
2753. 

FN5  WE ACCEPT THAT VERSION OF THE EPISODE.  THE OTHER VERSION IS
THAT THE CHECK WAS OBTAINED UNDER A SEARCH WARRANT.  BUT THE WARRANT
WAS ADMITTEDLY DEFECTIVE.  SO WE TREAT THE CASE AS ONE WHERE THE CHECK
WAS SEIZED WITHOUT A WARRANT. 

FN6  SEE CRAVENS V. UNITED STATES, 62 F.2D 261, 265. 

FN7  THE SEARCH WARRANT ACT, 40 STAT. 228, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 612,
PERMITS THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT FOR PROPERTY USED "AS THE
MEANS OF COMMITTING A FELONY  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN MY DISSENTING OPINION IN DAVIS V. UNITED
STATES, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE, P. 594, LIKEWISE COMPEL ME TO DISSENT
IN THIS CASE. 

THE PETITIONER IS AN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER.  HE MADE A CONTRACT WITH
THE NAVY DEPARTMENT TO PERFORM EXPERIMENTAL WORK.  IN JUNE, 1942, THE
NAVY AGREED THAT ZAP SHOULD CARRY OUT TEST FLIGHTS TO DETERMINE THE
VALUE OF HIS EXPERIMENTAL WORK.  THE TESTS WERE TO BE PAID FOR BY THE
NAVY ON A COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE BASIS.  ZAP ESTIMATED THAT THE COST OF
THESE FLIGHTS WOULD BE $4,000, BUT HE MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE TESTS
AT A FEE OF $2,500.  PRIOR TO THE FLIGHTS, THE TEST PILOT INDORSED A
BLANK CHECK WHICH HE RETURNED TO THE PETITIONER.  THE PETITIONER'S
AUDITOR INSTRUCTED THE BOOKKEEPER TO MAKE THE CHECK FOR $4,000 AND
DEPOSIT IT IN THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT.  THE CHECK WAS POSTED ON THE
PETITIONER'S BOOKS FOR PAYMENT TO THE PILOT, THOUGH IN FACT THE PILOT
RECEIVED ONLY $2,500. 

IN OCTOBER, 1942, PETITIONER PRESENTED A VOUCHER TO THE NAVY FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE MONEY LAID OUT IN MAKING THE TESTS.  THE VOUCHER
WAS SUPPORTED BY A REFERENCE TO THE CHECK FOR $4,000.  FROM OCTOBER 20,
TO DECEMBER 1, 1942, TWO F.B.I. AGENTS CONDUCTED AN AUDIT OF THE
PETITIONER'S BOOKS AND PAPERS, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF AN ACCOUNTANT AND
INSPECTOR OF THE NAVY.  DURING THIS INVESTIGATION ONE OF THE F.B.I.
AGENTS DEMANDED AND RECEIVED THE CANCELLED CHECK FOR $4,000 MADE OUT TO
THE PILOT AND ENDORSED BY HIM.  THE AGENT RETAINED THE CHECK.  ON
DECEMBER 1, 1942, ONE OF THE AGENTS SWORE OUT AN AFFIDAVIT ON THE BASIS
OF WHICH A SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED FOR THE BOOKS AND PAPERS OF THE
PETITIONER, AND THESE BOOKS AND PAPERS WERE TAKEN UNDER THE WARRANT. 
THE WARRANT, IT IS CONCEDED, WAS DEFECTIVE, INASMUCH AS THE AFFIDAVIT
FAILED TO SHOW THE NECESSARY PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE BELIEF THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD COMMITTED AN OFFENSE TO WARRANT THE SEIZURE.    THE
PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT.  CRIMINAL CODE,
SEC. 35(A), 35 STAT. 1088, 1095, 40 STAT. 1015, 48 STAT. 996, 52 STAT.
197, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 80.  HE MADE A TIMELY MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE
CANCELLED CHECK AND OTHER RECORDS.  THE MOTION WAS DENIED, THE
DOCUMENTS WERE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, CONVICTION AND ITS AFFIRMANCE
FOLLOWED.  151 F.2D 100.  THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE VALIDITY
OF THE SEIZURE. 

I AGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD AUTHORITY, AS A RESULT OF ITS
CONTRACT WITH THE PETITIONER AND THE RELEVANT STATUTES, TO INSPECT THE
PETITIONER'S BOOKS AND RECORDS, 44 STAT. 780, 787, 10 U.S.C. SEC.
310(1), 56 STAT. 176, 185, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 643, AND THAT THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT COULD UTILIZE MEMBERS OF THE F.B.I. FOR THIS PURPOSE. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE SEARCH WAS LEGAL AND THE INSPECTORS COULD TESTIFY TO
WHAT THEY HAD GLEANED FROM THE INSPECTION.  BUT, AS IS POINTED OUT IN
MY DISSENT IN DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE, P. 594,
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION IS DIRECTED NOT ONLY AT ILLEGAL
SEARCHES.  IT LIKEWISE CONDEMNS INVALID SEIZURES.  AND THAT IS THE
ISSUE HERE.  THE LEGALITY OF A SEARCH DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEGALIZE
EVERY ACCOMPANYING SEIZURE. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES VERY SIMPLY THAT THE SEIZURE WAS AUTHORIZED
SINCE THE SEIZED ITEMS WERE UNCOVERED IN A LAWFUL SEARCH.  BUT THIS IS
TO OVERLOOK WHAT WE RULED IN MARRON V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192,
196:  "THE REQUIREMENT THAT WARRANTS SHALL PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE THE
THINGS TO BE SEIZED MAKES GENERAL SEARCHES UNDER THEM IMPOSSIBLE AND
PREVENTS THE SEIZURE OF ONE THING UNDER A WARRANT DESCRIBING ANOTHER. 
AS TO WHAT IS TO BE TAKEN, NOTHING IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE
OFFICER EXECUTING THE WARRANT."  IF WHERE A SEARCH INSTITUTED UNDER THE
LEGAL PROCESS OF A WARRANT, WHICH ALSO AUTHORIZES SEIZURE, DOES NOT
PERMIT SEIZURE OF ARTICLES OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED, STATUTORY AND
CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY MERELY TO SEARCH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT
TO GRANT THAT POWER.  THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON A DOCTRINE QUITE
INAPPOSITE HERE.  IF, IN THE COURSE OF A VALID SEARCH, MATERIALS ARE
UNCOVERED, THE VERY POSSESSION OR CONCEALMENT OF WHICH IS A CRIME, THEY
MAY BE SEIZED.  BUT TO SEIZE FOR EVIDENTIARY USE PAPERS THE POSSESSION
OF WHICH INVOLVES NO INFRINGEMENT OF LAW, IS A HORSE OF A DIFFERENT
COLOR. 

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO POSSESSION WAS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED BY THE AGENTS
WHEN THEY SOUGHT A WARRANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE EVIDENCE. 
THAT WARRANT WAS DEFECTIVE, HOWEVER, AND COULD NOT AUTHORIZE THE
SEIZURE.  THE GOVERNMENT DEEMS THIS A "TECHNICAL ERROR."  IT IS A
"TECHNICALITY" OF SUCH SUBSTANCE THAT THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY
ANNOUNCED THE DUTY TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY SUCH DEFECTIVE
WARRANTS.  CF. UNITED STATES V. BERKENESS, 275 U.S. 149; GRAU V. UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 124; SGRO V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 206; NATHANSON V.
UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 41.  THE FACT THAT THIS EVIDENCE MIGHT HAVE
BEEN SECURED BY A LAWFUL WARRANT SEEMS A STRANGE BASIS FOR APPROVING
SEIZURE WITHOUT A WARRANT.  THE FOURTH AMENDMENT STANDS IN THE WAY. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :





BIHN V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 633 


NO. 675.  ARGUED MARCH 26, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 152 F.2D
342, REVERSED. 


1.  PETITIONER AND ONE BENNETT WERE TRIED BEFORE A JURY FOR A
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE
RATIONING OF GASOLINE.  IT WAS CHARGED THAT PETITIONER WOULD STEAL
GASOLINE RATION COUPONS FROM THE BANK WHERE SHE WAS EMPLOYED, TRANSFER
THEM TO BENNETT AND SHARE WITH HIM THE PROCEEDS OF THEIR SALE.  THE
EVIDENCE WAS CONFLICTING AND THE CASE AGAINST PETITIONER WAS A CLOSE
ONE.  IT APPEARED THAT SHE AND THREE OTHERS HAD ACCESS TO THE BOX FROM
WHICH THE COUPONS WERE STOLEN.  OVER OBJECTION OF HER COUNSEL, THE
JUDGE CHARGED THE JURY:  "DID SHE STEAL THEM?  WHO DID IF SHE DIDN'T?
YOU ARE TO DECIDE THAT."  SHE WAS CONVICTED.  HELD THAT THE
PROBABILITIES OF CONFUSION IN THE MINDS OF THE JURORS AS TO THE BURDEN
OF PROOF WERE SO GREAT AND THE CHARGE WAS SO VITAL TO THE CRUCIAL ISSUE
IN THE CASE AS TO CONSTITUTE PREJUDICIAL ERROR, AND THE CONVICTION IS
REVERSED.  PP. 636-639. 

2.  AN ERRONEOUS RULING WHICH RELATES TO THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF A
PARTY IS GROUND FOR REVERSAL UNLESS IT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS FROM THE
WHOLE RECORD THAT IT WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL.  P. 638. 

3.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THIS COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT GUILT MAY BE
DEDUCED FROM THE WHOLE RECORD, SINCE SUCH A COURSE WOULD LEAD TO
SERIOUS INTRUSIONS ON THE HISTORIC FUNCTIONS OF THE JURY UNDER OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 607.  PP.
638, 639. 

BIHN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF A
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE
RATIONING OF GASOLINE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  152
F.2D 342.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 771.  REVERSED, P.
639. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER AND ONE BENNETT WERE CONVICTED OF A CONSPIRACY  FN1  TO
VIOLATE THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE RATIONING OF
GASOLINE.  FN2  IT WAS CHARGED THAT BETWEEN JULY 1, 1943 AND SEPTEMBER
6, 1944 PETITIONER WOULD STEAL GASOLINE RATION COUPONS FROM THE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK OF POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK, WHERE SHE WAS EMPLOYED,
TRANSFER THEM TO BENNETT, AND SHARE WITH BENNETT THE PROCEEDS OF THE
SALE.  THE CASE WAS TRIED TO A JURY.  PETITIONER ALONE APPEALED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH SUSTAINED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  152 F.2D 342.  THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BELOW
AND HERE IS WHETHER A PORTION OF THE CHARGE CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE
CHARGE GIVEN RAISED AN IMPORTATN QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS. 

THE CRUCIAL ISSUE, SO FAR AS PETITIONER'S CASE WAS CONCERNED, WAS
WHETHER SHE STOLE THE RATION COUPONS FROM THE BANK. 

BENNETT DID NOT TAKE THE STAND.  STATEMENTS MADE BY HIM OUT OF COURT
WERE INTRODUCED.  THEY IMPLICATED PETITIONER IN THE SCHEME.  BUT THEY
WERE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST BENNETT ALONE, NOT AGAINST PETITIONER.  AND THE
TRIAL JUDGE SO RULED.  TWO OF BENNETT'S RELATIVES - HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW
AND SISTER-IN-LAW - TESTIFIED CONCERNING CONVERSATIONS THEY HAD HAD
WITH PETITIONER.  THEIR VERSIONS OF THE CONVERSATIONS IMPLICATED
PETITIONER IN THE SCHEME.  PETITIONER'S VERSION WAS DIFFERENT.  THE
CONFLICT IN TESTIMONY PRESENTED A QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY FOR THE
JURY.  BEARING ON THAT WAS THE POSSIBLE BIAS OF THOSE WITNESSES,
TRACEABLE IN PART TO THEIR HOSTILITY TO PETITIONER ON ACCOUNT OF THE
FACT THAT SHE APPARENTLY HAD BEEN ON INTIMATE TERMS WITH BENNETT PRIOR
TO HIS MARRIAGE. 

THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER HAD STOLEN THE COUPONS. 
THERE WAS, HOWEVER, OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHICH SUCH AN INFERENCE COULD
BE DRAWN.  IT ASSUMED A PLACE OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE AT THE TRIAL. 
AND THE ALLEGED ERROR IN THE CHARGE RELATES TO IT. 

PETITIONER HANDLED RATION COUPONS WHICH MERCHANTS DEPOSITED WITH THE
BANK.  THE RATION COUPONS WERE RECEIVED BY TELLERS FOR DEPOSIT.  AFTER
THE COUPONS HAD BEEN RECEIVED FOR DEPOSIT BY THE TELLERS, PETITIONER
CHECKED THE DEPOSITS AGAINST THE DEPOSIT SLIPS AND KEPT THE RATIONING
RECORDS.  AFTER COUNTING THE COUPONS AND MAKING THE ENTRIES, SHE PLACED
THE COUPONS IN A STEEL FILE WHICH WAS LOCKED.  THE KEYS TO THE FILE
WERE KEPT IN HER DESK, WHICH WAS NOT LOCKED.  AT REGULAR INTERVALS
PETITIONER WOULD TAKE THE ACCUMULATED RATION COUPONS AND BOX THEM FOR
TRANSMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION.  SHE WOULD ALSO
PREPARE A FORM SHOWING THE CONTENTS OF THE BOX.  IN PREPARING THIS
FORM, SHE WOULD NOT RECOUNT THE COUPONS BUT WOULD COMPILE THE FIGURES
FROM THE DAILY RECORDS WHICH HAD BEEN PREPARED AS THE COUPONS WERE
DEPOSITED.  ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1944, PETITIONER PREPARED A BOX FOR
TRANSMISSION TO THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, SEALED IT, AND
TURNED IT OVER TO THE CASHIER OF THE BANK.  THE ACCOMPANYING FORM
REPRESENTED ON ITS FACE THAT THE BOX CONTAINED GASOLINE RATION COUPONS
FOR SOME 156,000 GALLONS.  ITS EXAMINATION SHOWED A SHORTAGE OF SOME
37,000 GALLONS.  PETITIONER HAD A GOOD RECORD AT THE BANK.  THE
ACCOUNTS WHICH SHE KEPT WERE KEPT WELL AND ACCURATELY.  SHE WAS NOT THE
ONLY ONE WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE COUPONS IN THE STEEL FILE.  AT LEAST
FOUR OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK HAD EQUAL ACCESS TO THAT FILE.  ONE OF
THESE WAS A LADY WITH WHOM, ACCORDING TO PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY,
BENNETT HAD A RATHER INTIMATE ACQUAINTANCE. 

THE CASE AGAINST PETITIONER WAS THEREFORE A CLOSE ONE.  PLAINLY THERE
WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY.  BUT
SINCE ONE OF FOUR OTHER PERSONS MIGHT HAVE PURLOINED THE COUPONS,
REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO PETITIONER'S GUILT MIGHT READILY BE INFERRED. 

IT WAS AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED THE JURY: 

"WHO WOULD HAVE A MOTIVE TO STEAL THEM?  DID SHE TAKE THESE STAMPS? 
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CONSIDER THAT.  SHE IS NOT CHARGED WITH STEALING,
BUT WITH CONSPIRACY TO DO ALL THESE THINGS, AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO
CONSIDER WHETHER SHE DID STEAL THEM, ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT.  DID
SHE STEAL THEM?  WHO DID IF SHE DIDN'T?  YOU ARE TO DECIDE THAT." 

COUNSEL EXCEPTED TO THE CHARGE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT "THE
JURY'S DUTY TO FIND OUT WHO DID STEAL THE STAMPS."  NO MODIFICATION OF
THE CHARGE WAS MADE. 

WE ASSUME THAT THE CHARGE MIGHT NOT BE MISLEADING OR CONFUSING TO
LAWYERS.  BUT THE PROBABILITIES OF CONFUSION TO A JURY ARE SO LIKELY
(CF. SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 96, 104) THAT WE CONCLUDE THAT
THE CHARGE WAS PREJUDICIALLY ERRONEOUS. 

INSTRUCTIONS TO ACQUIT, IF THERE WAS REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO
PETITIONER'S GUILT, WERE GIVEN IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CHARGE.  THOSE
WERE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.  THEY WOULD BE ADEQUATE, STANDING ALONE. 
BUT ON THE CRUCIAL ISSUE OF THE TRIAL - WHETHER PETITIONER OR ONE OF
FOUR OTHER PERSONS STOLE THE COUPONS FROM THE BANK - NO SUCH
QUALIFICATION WAS MADE; AND THE QUESTION WAS SO PUT AS TO SUGGEST A
DIFFERENT STANDARD OF GUILT.  AS STATED BY JUDGE FRANK IN HIS
DISSENTING OPINION BELOW:  "LITERALLY INTERPRETED, THE JUDGE'S CHARGE
TOLD THEM THAT THIS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY ACQUITTAL, FOR IT WAS
THEIR 'DUTY' (A) TO DECIDE THAT APPELLANT COMMITTED THE THEFT UNLESS
(B) THEY DECIDED THAT SOME OTHER SPECIFIC PERSON DID.  SO INTERPRETED,
THIS CHARGE ERRED BY PUTTING ON APPELLANT THE BURDEN OF PROVING HER
INNOCENCE BY PROVING THE IDENTITY OF SOME OTHER PERSON AS THE THIEF." 
152 F.2D, P. 348.  OR TO PUT THE MATTER ANOTHER WAY, THE INSTRUCTION
MAY BE READ AS TELLING THE JURORS THAT, IF PETITIONER BY HER TESTIMONY
HAD NOT CONVINCED THEM THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAD STOLEN THE RATION COUPONS,
SHE MUST HAVE DONE SO.  SO READ, THE INSTRUCTION SOUNDS MORE LIKE
COMMENT OF A ZEALOUS PROSECUTOR RATHER THAN AN INSTRUCTION BY A JUDGE
WHO HAS SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ASSURING FAIR TRIALS OF THOSE
ACCUSED OF CRIME.  SEE QUERCIA V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 466, 469. 

THE "HARMLESS ERROR" STATUTE  FN3  (JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 269, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 391) MEANS THAT A CRIMINAL APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE TURNED INTO A
QUEST FOR ERROR.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT PORTIONS OF THE CHARGE ARE TO
BE READ IN ISOLATION TO THE FULL CHARGE AND MAGNIFIED OUT OF ALL
PROPORTION TO THEIR LIKELY IMPORTANCE AT THE TRIAL.  BOYD V. UNITED
STATES, 271 U.S. 104, 107.  YET AS STATED IN MCCANDLESS V. UNITED
STATES, 298 U.S. 342, 347-348, "AN ERRONEOUS RULING WHICH RELATES TO
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF A PARTY IS GROUND FOR REVERSAL UNLESS IT
AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS FROM THE WHOLE RECORD THAT IT WAS NOT
PREJUDICIAL."  IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT THE INFLECTION OR TONE OF VOICE USED
IN GIVING THE CHALLENGED INSTRUCTION COULD MAKE IT HIGHLY DAMAGING. 
AND IN ANY EVENT THE PROBABILITIES OF CONFUSION IN THE MINDS OF THE
JURORS SEEM SO GREAT, AND THE CHARGE WAS SO IMPORTANT TO THE VITAL
ISSUE IN THE CASE, THAT WE CONCLUDE THAT PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS
COMMITTED.  WE CERTAINLY CANNOT SAY FROM A REVIEW OF THE WHOLE RECORD
THAT LACK OF PREJUDICE AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS.  WHILE THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR THE JURY, THE CASE AGAINST PETITIONER WAS NOT
OPEN AND SHUT.  SINCE THE SCALES WERE QUITE EVENLY BALANCED, WE FEEL
THAT THE JURY MIGHT HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE ERRONEOUS CHARGE. 
HENCE WE CANNOT SAY IT WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL AND HENCE TREAT IT AS A
MINOR ABERRATION OF TRIVIAL CONSEQUENCE.  NOR IS IT ENOUGH FOR US TO
CONCLUDE THAT GUILT MAY BE DEDUCED FROM THE WHOLE RECORD.  SUCH A
COURSE WOULD LEAD TO SERIOUS INTRUSIONS ON THE HISTORIC FUNCTIONS OF
THE JURY UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  SEE BOLLENBACH V. UNITED
STATES, 326 U.S. 607.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 37, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88. 

FN2  SEC. 2(A) OF THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, AS AMENDED, 54 STAT. 676,
55 STAT. 236, 56 STAT. 177, 50 U.S.C. APP., SUPP. IV, SEC. 633; SEC.
2.6 OF GENERAL RATION ORDER NO. 8, AS AMENDED, 8 FED. REG. 9626, 9 FED.
REG. 1325, 2746. 

FN3  "ON THE HEARING OF ANY APPEAL, CERTIORARI, OR MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL, IN ANY CASE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, THE COURT SHALL GIVE JUDGMENT
AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT, WITHOUT
REGARD TO TECHNICAL ERRORS, DEFECTS, OR EXCEPTIONS WHICH DO NOT AFFECT
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES." 

THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 1946,
PROVIDE THAT "ANY ERROR, DEFECT, IRREGULARITY OR VARIANCE WHICH DOES
NOT AFFECT SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS SHALL BE DISREGARDED."  RULE 52(A).  THIS
IS MERELY A RESTATEMENT OF EXISTING LAW AND EFFECTS NO CHANGE IN THE
"HARMLESS ERROR" RULE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE JURY FOUND THIS DEFENDANT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AFTER
THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD CHARGED THAT:  "A DEFENDANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO
ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE BUT THE GOVERNMENT MUST ESTABLISH GUILT BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT.  IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE
CASE ARE AS CONSISTENT WITH INNOCENCE AS WITH GUILT, HE IS NOT
GUILTY."  SIX OTHER TIMES THE JUDGE EXPLICITLY CHARGED THE JURY TO THE
SAME EFFECT:  THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE IS PRESUMED; SHE NEED NOT PROVE
IT; THE BURDEN IS ON THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.  YET THE COURT NOW REVERSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE
JURY MIGHT CONCEIVABLY HAVE TAKEN THREE SENTENCES IN THE TRIAL JUDGE'S
CHARGE TO MEAN THAT THE DEFENDANT MUST PROVE INNOCENCE, WHICH
CONCEIVABLY MIGHT HAVE LED THE JURY TO BELIEVE THAT THE COURT MIGHT
HAVE INTENDED TO WITHDRAW HIS SEVEN EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
CONTRARY.  THE THREE SENTENCES WERE: "DID SHE STEAL THEM?  WHO DID IF
SHE DIDN'T?  YOU ARE TO DECIDE THAT."  INSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS THESE AS TO
WHO STOLE THE COUPONS WERE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE PETITIONER'S
DEFENSE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE HAD TAKEN THEM.  THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS
OBVIOUSLY TELLING THE JURY NOT TO IGNORE THE PETITIONER'S DEFENSE.  NO
REFERENCE WAS MADE TO BURDEN OF PROOF AND NO ORDINARY JUROR, UNSKILLED
IN LEGAL DIALECTICS, WOULD HAVE SUSPECTED THE LATENT AMBIGUITY WHICH
THE COURT HAS DISCOVERED.  OF COURSE, HYPERCRITICAL SCRUTINY OF EACH
WORD AND SENTENCE IN EVERY CHARGE WHEN CONSIDERED ALONE WOULD ALWAYS
REVEAL DUAL MEANINGS.  THE SENTENCES HERE IN QUESTION, LIKE THE
SENTENCES IN EVERY CHARGE, SHOULD BE GIVEN A COMMON SENSE
INTERPRETATION IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO ALL INSTRUCTIONS AND THE ISSUES
RAISED.  WHEN SO CONSIDERED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT
THE JURY WAS CONFUSED AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF.  SEVEN CORRECT EXPLICIT
INSTRUCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED NEUTRALIZED BY LEGALISTIC
INFERENCES ESTABLISHED BY PURELY FORMAL ANALYSIS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :
























PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640 


NO. 719.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 151 F.2D 499,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE AN INDICTMENT CHARGES BOTH A CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN A
COURSE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT AND A SERIES OF SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES
COMMITTED PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY, THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES ARE NOT
MERGED INTO THE CONSPIRACY; AND, UPON CONVICTION, THE ACCUSED MAY BE
PUNISHED BOTH FOR THE CONSPIRACY AND FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES. 
BRAVERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 49, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 642, 643. 

2.  THE PLEA OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS NO DEFENSE TO A CONVICTION FOR
BOTH OFFENSES.  P. 643. 

3.  IT IS NOT MATERIAL THAT OVERT ACTS CHARGED IN THE CONSPIRACY
COUNT ARE ALSO CHARGED AND PROVED AS SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  P. 644. 

4.  A PARTY TO A CONTINUING CONSPIRACY MAY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES COMMITTED BY A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN FURTHERANCE OF
THE CONSPIRACY, EVEN THOUGH HE DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSES OR HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THEM.  UNITED STATES V. SALL, 116
F.2D 745, OVERRULED.  PP. 645-648. 

PINKERTON ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED OF A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE AND OF SEVERAL SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE AND WERE
SENTENCED BOTH FOR THE CONSPIRACY AND FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  151 F.2D 499.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 772.  AFFIRMED, P. 648. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WALTER AND DANIEL PINKERTON ARE BROTHERS WHO LIVE A SHORT DISTANCE
FROM EACH OTHER ON DANIEL'S FARM.  THEY WERE INDICTED FOR VIOLATIONS OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THE INDICTMENT CONTAINED TEN SUBSTANTIVE
COUNTS AND ONE CONSPIRACY COUNT.  THE JURY FOUND WALTER GUILTY ON NINE
OF THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS AND ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT.  IT FOUND DANIEL
GUILTY ON SIX OF THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS AND ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT. 
WALTER WAS FINED $500 AND SENTENCED GENERALLY ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS
TO IMPRISONMENT FOR THIRTY MONTHS.  ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT HE WAS
GIVEN A TWO YEAR SENTENCE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE OTHER SENTENCE. 
DANIEL WAS FINED $1,000 AND SENTENCED GENERALLY ON THE SUBSTANTIVE
COUNTS TO IMPRISONMENT FOR THIRTY MONTHS.  ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT HE
WAS FINED $500 AND GIVEN A TWO YEAR SENTENCE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH
THE OTHER SENTENCE.  THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION WERE AFFIRMED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN1  151 F.2D 499.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED INVOLVED A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND
UNITED STATES V. SALL, 116 F.2D 745, DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

A SINGLE CONSPIRACY WAS CHARGED AND PROVED.  SOME OF THE OVERT ACTS
CHARGED IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT WERE THE SAME ACTS CHARGED IN THE
SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS.  EACH OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES FOUND WAS
COMMITTED PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY.  PETITIONERS THEREFORE CONTEND
THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS BECAME MERGED IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT, AND
THAT ONLY A SINGLE SENTENCE NOT EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM TWO YEAR PENALTY
PROVIDED BY THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE (CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 37, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 88) COULD BE IMPOSED.  OR TO STATE THE MATTER DIFFERENTLY, THEY
CONTEND THAT EACH OF THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS BECAME A SEPARATE
CONSPIRACY COUNT BUT, SINCE ONLY A SINGLE CONSPIRACY WAS CHARGED AND
PROVED, ONLY A SINGLE SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY COULD BE IMPOSED.  THEY
RELY ON BRAVERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 49. 

IN THE BRAVERMAN CASE THE INDICTMENT CHARGED NO SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE. 
EACH OF THE SEVERAL COUNTS CHARGED A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE A DIFFERENT
STATUTE.  BUT ONLY ONE CONSPIRACY WAS PROVED.  WE HELD THAT A SINGLE
CONSPIRACY, CHARGED UNDER THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE, HOWEVER
DIVERSE ITS OBJECTS MAY BE, VIOLATES BUT A SINGLE STATUTE AND NO
PENALTY GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM PROVIDED FOR ONE CONSPIRACY MAY BE
IMPOSED.  THAT CASE IS NOT APPOSITE HERE.  FOR THE OFFENSES CHARGED AND
PROVED WERE NOT ONLY A CONSPIRACY BUT SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES AS WELL. 

NOR CAN WE ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES WERE
MERGED IN THE CONSPIRACY.  THERE ARE, OF COURSE, INSTANCES WHERE A
CONSPIRACY CHARGE MAY NOT BE ADDED TO THE SUBSTANTIVE CHARGE.  ONE IS
WHERE THE AGREEMENT OF TWO PERSONS IS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF
THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME AND THERE IS NO INGREDIENT IN THE CONSPIRACY
WHICH IS NOT PRESENT IN THE COMPLETED CRIME.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
KATZ, 271 U.S. 354, 355-356; GEBARDI V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 112,
121-122.  ANOTHER IS WHERE THE DEFINITION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE
EXCLUDES FROM PUNISHMENT FOR CONSPIRACY ONE WHO VOLUNTARILY
PARTICIPATES IN ANOTHER'S CRIME.  GEBARDI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  BUT
THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE OF A LIMITED CHARACTER.  THE COMMON LAW RULE THAT
THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE, IF A FELONY, WAS MERGED IN THE CONSPIRACY,
FN2 HAS LITTLE VITALITY IN THIS COUNTRY.  FN3  IT HAS BEEN LONG AND
CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE AND A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT IT ARE SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT OFFENSES.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO SEPARATE THE TWO AND TO
AFFIX TO EACH A DIFFERENT PENALTY IS WELL ESTABLISHED.  CLUNE V. UNITED
STATES, 159 U.S. 590, 594-595.  A CONVICTION FOR THE CONSPIRACY MAY BE
HAD THOUGH THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE WAS COMPLETED.  SEE HEIKE V. UNITED
STATES, 227 U.S. 131, 144.  AND THE PLEA OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS NO
DEFENSE TO A CONVICTION FOR BOTH OFFENSES.  CARTER V. MCCLAUGHRY, 183
U.S. 365, 395.  IT IS ONLY AN IDENTITY OF OFFENSES WHICH IS FATAL.  SEE
GAVIERES V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 338, 342.  CF. FREEMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 146 F.2D 978.  A CONSPIRACY IS A PARTNERSHIP IN CRIME.  UNITED
STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 253.  IT HAS
INGREDIENTS, AS WELL AS IMPLICATIONS, DISTINCT FROM THE COMPLETION OF
THE UNLAWFUL PROJECT.  AS STATED IN UNITED STATES V. RABINOWICH, 238
U.S. 78, 88: 

"FOR TWO OR MORE TO CONFEDERATE AND COMBINE TOGETHER TO COMMIT OR
CAUSE TO BE COMMITTED A BREACH OF THE CRIMINAL LAWS, IS AN OFFENSE OF
THE GRAVEST CHARACTER, SOMETIMES QUITE OUTWEIGHING, IN INJURY TO THE
PUBLIC, THE MERE COMMISSION OF THE CONTEMPLATED CRIME.  IT INVOLVES
DELIBERATE PLOTTING TO SUBVERT THE LAWS, EDUCATING AND PREPARING THE
CONSPIRATORS FOR FURTHER AND HABITUAL CRIMINAL PRACTICES.  AND IT IS
CHARACTERIZED BY SECRECY, RENDERING IT DIFFICULT OF DETECTION,
REQUIRING MORE TIME FOR ITS DISCOVERY, AND ADDING TO THE IMPORTANCE OF
PUNISHING IT WHEN DISCOVERED." 

AND SEE SNEED V. UNITED STATES, 298 F. 911, 912-913; BANGHART V.
UNITED STATES, 148 F.2D 521. 

MOREOVER, IT IS NOT MATERIAL THAT OVERT ACTS CHARGED IN THE
CONSPIRACY COUNTS WERE ALSO CHARGED AND PROVED AS SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSES.  AS STATED IN SNEED V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 913, "IF THE
OVERT ACT BE THE OFFENSE WHICH WAS THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, AND IS
ALSO PUNISHED, THERE IS NOT A DOUBLE PUNISHMENT OF IT."  THE AGREEMENT
TO DO AN UNLAWFUL ACT IS EVEN THEN DISTINCT FROM THE DOING OF THE ACT. 
FN4 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO IMPLICATE
DANIEL IN THE CONSPIRACY.  BUT WE THINK THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR
SUBMISSION OF THE ISSUE TO THE JURY. 

THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT DANIEL PARTICIPATED
DIRECTLY IN THE COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES ON WHICH HIS
CONVICTION HAS BEEN SUSTANIED,  FN5  ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO
SHOW THAT THESE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES WERE IN FACT COMMITTED BY WALTER
IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT OR CONSPIRACY EXISTING BETWEEN
THE BROTHERS.  THE QUESTION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THE THEORY
THAT EACH PETITIONER COULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES,
IF IT WAS FOUND AT THE TIME THOSE OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED PETITIONERS
WERE PARTIES TO AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY AND THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES
CHARGED WERE IN FACT COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF IT.  FN6 

DANIEL RELIES ON UNITED STATES V. SALL, SUPRA.  THAT CASE HELD THAT
PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSPIRACY WAS NOT ITSELF ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN A
CONVICTION FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS COMMITTED IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY.  THE COURT HELD THAT, IN ADDITION TO
EVIDENCE THAT THE OFFENSE WAS IN FACT COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
CONSPIRACY, EVIDENCE OF DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHICH PARTICIPATION MIGHT
FAIRLY BE INFERRED WAS NECESSARY. 

WE TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW.  WE HAVE HERE A CONTINUOUS CONSPIRACY. 
THERE IS HERE NO EVIDENCE OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF
DANIEL WHICH IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH HIS WITHDRAWAL FROM IT.  HYDE V.
UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 369.  AS STATED IN THAT CASE, "HAVING
JOINED IN AN UNLAWFUL SCHEME, HAVING CONSTITUTED AGENTS FOR ITS
PERFORMANCE, SCHEME AND AGENCY TO BE CONTINUOUS UNTIL FULL FRUITION BE
SECURED, UNTIL HE DOES SOME ACT TO DISAVOW OR DEFEAT THE PURPOSE HE IS
IN NO SITUATION TO CLAIM THE DELAY OF THE LAW.  AS THE OFFENSE HAS NOT
BEEN TERMINATED OR ACCOMPLISHED HE IS STILL OFFENDING.  AND WE THINK,
CONSCIOUSLY OFFENDING, OFFENDING AS CERTAINLY, AS WE HAVE SAID, AS AT
THE FIRST MOMENT OF HIS CONFEDERATION, AND CONSCIOUSLY THROUGH EVERY
MOMENT OF ITS EXISTENCE."  ID., P. 369.  AND SO LONG AS THE PARTNERSHIP
IN CRIME CONTINUES, THE PARTNERS ACT FOR EACH OTHER IN CARRYING IT
FORWARD.  IT IS SETTLED THAT "AN OVERT ACT OF ONE PARTNER MAY BE THE
ACT OF ALL WITHOUT ANY NEW AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO THAT
ACT."  UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, 218 U.S. 601, 608.  MOTIVE OR INTENT
MAY BE PROVED BY THE ACTS OR DECLARATIONS OF SOME OF THE CONSPIRATORS
IN FURTHERANCE OF THE COMMON OBJECTIVE.  WIBORG V. UNITED STATES, 163
U.S. 632, 657-658.  A SCHEME TO USE THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD, WHICH IS
JOINED IN BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON, IS A CONSPIRACY.  COCHRAN V. UNITED
STATES, 41 F.2D 193, 199-200.  YET ALL MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE, THOUGH
ONLY ONE DID THE MAILING.  COCHRAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; MACKETT V.
UNITED STATES, 90 F.2D 462, 464; BAKER V. UNITED STATES, 115 F.2D 533,
540; BLUE V. UNITED STATES, 138 F.2D 351, 359.  THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE
IS THE SAME WHEN THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED BY ONE OF THE
CONSPIRATORS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL PROJECT.  JOHNSON V. UNITED
STATES, 62 F.2D 32, 34.  THE CRIMINAL INTENT TO DO THE ACT IS
ESTABLISHED BY THE FORMATION OF THE CONSPIRACY.  EACH CONSPIRATOR
INSTIGATED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.  THE UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT
CONTEMPLATED PRECISELY WHAT WAS DONE.  IT WAS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE. 
THE ACT DONE WAS IN EXECUTION OF THE ENTERPRISE.  THE RULE WHICH HOLDS
RESPONSIBLE ONE WHO COUNSELS, PROCURES, OR COMMANDS ANOTHER TO COMMIT A
CRIME IS FOUNDED ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE.  THAT PRINCIPLE IS RECOGNIZED
IN THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY WHEN THE OVERT ACT OF ONE PARTNER IN CRIME IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO ALL.  AN OVERT ACT IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE
CRIME OF CONSPIRACY UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
88.  IF THAT CAN BE SUPPLIED BY THE ACT OF ONE CONSPIRATOR, WE FAIL TO
SEE WHY THE SAME OR OTHER ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY ARE
LIKEWISE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE OTHERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING THEM
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE. 

A DIFFERENT CASE WOULD ARISE IF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY
ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS WAS NOT IN FACT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
CONSPIRACY, DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE UNLAWFUL PROJECT, OR
WAS MERELY A PART OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE PLAN WHICH COULD NOT BE
REASONABLY FORESEEN AS A NECESSARY OR NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE
UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT.  BUT AS WE READ THIS RECORD, THAT IS NOT THIS
CASE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COURT HELD THAT TWO OF THE COUNTS UNDER WHICH WALTER WAS
CONVICTED AND ONE OF THE COUNTS UNDER WHICH DANIEL WAS CONVICTED WERE
BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND THAT AS TO THEM THE DEMURRER
SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.  BUT EACH OF THE REMAINING SUBSTANTIVE
COUNTS ON WHICH THE JURY HAD RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY CARRIED A
MAXIMUM PENALTY OF THREE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE OF $5,000. 
INT. REV. CODE, SEC. 3321, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 3321.  HENCE THE GENERAL
SENTENCE OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED ON EACH UNDER THE SUBSTANTIVE
COUNTS WAS VALID.  IT IS SETTLED LAW, AS STATED IN CLAASSEN V. UNITED
STATES, 142 U.S. 140, 146-147, "THAT IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE A GENERAL
VERDICT AND JUDGMENT ON AN INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION CONTAINING SEVERAL
COUNTS CANNOT BE REVERSED ON ERROR, IF ANY ONE OF THE COUNTS IS GOOD
AND WARRANTS THE JUDGMENT, BECAUSE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING IN THE
RECORD TO SHOW THE CONTRARY, THE PRESUMPTION OF LAW IS THAT THE COURT
AWARDED SENTENCE ON THE GOOD COUNT ONLY." 

THE SAME RULE OBTAINS IN THE CASE OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES. 
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 85 AND CASES CITED. 

FN2  SEE MAY'S LAW OF CRIMES (4TH ED. 1938), SEC. 126; 17 CORN.  L.Q.
(1931) 136; PEOPLE V. TAVORMINA, 257 N.Y. 84, 89-90, 177 N.E. 317. 

FN3  THE CASES ARE COLLECTED IN 37 A.L.R. 778, 75 A.L.R. 1411. 

FN4  THE ADDITION OF A CONSPIRACY COUNT MAY AT TIMES BE ABUSIVE AND
UNJUST.  THE CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES REPORTED IN 1925: 

"WE NOTE THE PREVALENT USE OF CONSPIRACY INDICTMENTS FOR CONVERTING A
JOINT MISDEMEANOR INTO A FELONY; AND WE EXPRESS OUR CONVICTION THAT
BOTH FOR THIS PURPOSE AND FOR THE PURPOSE - OR AT LEAST WITH THE EFFECT
- OF BRINGING IN MUCH IMPROPER EVIDENCE, THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE IS
BEING MUCH ABUSED. 

"ALTHOUGH IN A PARTICULAR CASE THERE MAY BE NO PRECONCERT OF PLAN,
EXCEPTING THAT NECESSARILY INHERENT IN MERE JOINT ACTION, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO EXCLUDE THAT SITUATION FROM THE ESTABLISHED DEFINITIONS OF
CONSPIRACY; YET THE THEORY WHICH PERMITS US TO CALL THE ABORTED PLAN A
GREATER OFFENSE THAN THE COMPLETED CRIME SUPPOSES A SERIOUS AND
SUBSTANTIALLY CONTINUED GROUP SCHEME FOR COOPERATIVE LAW BREAKING.  WE
OBSERVE SO MANY CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THIS
SUBSTANTIAL BASE THAT WE FEAR THE CREATION OF A GENERAL IMPRESSION,
VERY HARMFUL TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, THAT THIS METHOD OF PROSECUTION IS
USED ARBITRARILY AND HARSHLY.  FURTHER THE RULES OF EVIDENCE IN
CONSPIRACY CASES MAKE THEM MOST DIFFICULT TO TRY WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
AN INNOCENT DEFENDANT."  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
1925, PP. 5-6.    BUT WE DO NOT FIND THAT PRACTICE REFLECTED IN THIS
PRESENT CASE. 

FN5  THIS QUESTION DOES NOT ARISE AS TO WALTER.  HE WAS THE DIRECT
ACTOR IN SOME OF THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES ON WHICH HIS CONVICTION
RESTS.  SO THE GENERAL SENTENCE AND FINE ARE SUPPORTABLE UNDER ANY ONE
OF THOSE.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN6  THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED:  "...  AFTER YOU GENTLEMEN HAVE
CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, IF YOU ARE SATISFIED FROM THE
EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT AT THE TIME THESE PARTICULAR
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED, THAT IS, THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN
THE FIRST TEN COUNTS OF THIS INDICTMENT IF YOU ARE SATISFIED FROM THE
EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE TWO DEFENDANTS WERE IN AN
UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY, AS I HAVE HERETOFORE DEFINED UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY
TO YOU, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A RIGHT, IF YOU FOUND THAT TO BE TRUE TO
YOUR SATISFACTION BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, TO CONVICT EACH OF THESE
DEFENDANTS ON ALL THESE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS, PROVIDED THE ACTS REFERRED
TO IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS WERE ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY OR OBJECT OF THE UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY, WHICH YOU HAVE FOUND
FROM THE EVIDENCE EXISTED."  DANIEL WAS NOT INDICTED AS AN AIDER OR
ABETTOR (SEE CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 332, 18 U.S.C. 550), NOR WAS HIS CASE
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THAT THEORY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING IN PART. 

THE JUDGMENT CONCERNING DANIEL PINKERTON SHOULD BE REVERSED.  IN MY
OPINION IT IS WITHOUT PRECEDENT HERE AND IS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT TO
ESTABLISH. 

DANIEL AND WALTER, WHO WERE BROTHERS LIVING NEAR EACH OTHER, WERE
CHARGED IN SEVERAL COUNTS WITH SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, AND THEN A
CONSPIRACY COUNT WAS ADDED NAMING THOSE OFFENSES AS OVERT ACTS.  THE
PROOF SHOWED THAT WALTER ALONE COMMITTED THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES.  THERE
WAS NONE TO ESTABLISH THAT DANIEL PARTICIPATED IN THEM, AIDED AND
ABETTED WALTER IN COMMITTING THEM, OR KNEW THAT HE HAD DONE SO.  DANIEL
IN FACT WAS IN THE PENITENTIARY, UNDER SENTENCE FOR OTHER CRIMES, WHEN
SOME OF WALTER'S CRIMES WERE DONE. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, TO SHOW THAT OVER SEVERAL YEARS DANIEL
AND WALTER HAD CONFEDERATED TO COMMIT SIMILAR CRIMES CONCERNED WITH
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, TRANSPORTATION, AND DEALING IN WHISKEY, IN FRAUD
OF THE FEDERAL REVENUES.  ON THIS EVIDENCE BOTH WERE CONVICTED OF
CONSPIRACY.  WALTER ALSO WAS CONVICTED ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS ON THE
PROOF OF HIS COMMITTING THE CRIMES CHARGED.  THEN, ON THAT EVIDENCE
WITHOUT MORE THAN THE PROOF OF DANIEL'S CRIMINAL AGREEMENT WITH WALTER
AND THE LATTER'S OVERT ACTS, WHICH WERE ALSO THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES
CHARGED, THE COURT TOLD THE JURY THEY COULD FIND DANIEL GUILTY OF THOSE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  THEY DID SO. 

I THINK THIS RULING VIOLATES BOTH THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF WHAT
CONGRESS DID WHEN IT SEPARATELY DEFINED THE THREE CLASSES OF CRIME,
NAMELY, (1) COMPLETED SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES; FN1 (2) AIDING, ABETTING OR
COUNSELING ANOTHER TO COMMIT THEM; FN2  AND (3) CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
THEM.  FN3  NOT ONLY DOES THIS IGNORE THE DISTINCTIONS CONGRESS HAS
PRESCRIBED SHALL BE OBSERVED.  IT EITHER CONVICTS ONE MAN FOR ANOTHER'S
CRIME OR PUNISHES THE MAN CONVICTED TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE. 

THE THREE TYPES OF OFFENSE ARE NOT IDENTICAL.  BOLLENBACH V. UNITED
STATES, 326 U.S. 607, 611; UNITED STATES V. SALL, 116 F.2D 745.  NOR
ARE THEIR DIFFERENCES MERELY VERBAL.  IBID.  THE GIST OF CONSPIRACY IS
THE AGREEMENT; THAT OF AIDING, ABETTING OR COUNSELING IS IN CONSCIOUSLY
ADVISING OR ASSISTING ANOTHER TO COMMIT PARTICULAR OFFENSES, AND THUS
BECOMING A PARTY TO THEM; THAT OF SUBSTANTIVE CRIME, GOING A STEP
BEYOND MERE AIDING, ABETTING, COUNSELING TO COMPLETION OF THE OFFENSE. 

THESE GENERAL DIFFERENCES ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD.  BUT WHEN CONSPIRACY
HAS RIPENED INTO COMPLETED CRIME, OR HAS ADVANCED TO THE STAGE OF
AIDING AND ABETTING, IT BECOMES EASY TO DISREGARD THEIR DIFFERENCES AND
LOOSELY TO TREAT ONE AS IDENTICAL WITH THE OTHER, THAT IS, FOR EVERY
PURPOSE EXCEPT THE MOST VITAL ONE OF IMPOSING SENTENCE.  AND THUS THE
SUBSTANCE, IF NOT THE TECHNICAL EFFECT, OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY OR MULTIPLE
PUNISHMENT MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED.  THUS ALSO MAY ONE BE CONVICTED OF AN
OFFENSE NOT CHARGED OR PROVED AGAINST HIM, ON EVIDENCE SHOWING HE
COMMITTED ANOTHER. 

THE OLD DOCTRINE OF MERGER OF CONSPIRACY IN THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME HAS
NOT OBTAINED HERE.  BUT THE DANGERS FOR ABUSE, WHICH IN PART IT SOUGHT
TO AVOID, IN APPLYING THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY HAVE NOT ALTOGETHER
DISAPPEARED.  CF. KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, POST, P. 750.  THERE IS
SOME EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAY BE INCREASING.  THE LOOSENESS WITH WHICH
THE CHARGE MAY BE PROVED, THE ALMOST UNLIMITED SCOPE OF VICARIOUS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS' ACTS WHICH FOLLOWS ONCE AGREEMENT IS SHOWN,
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ADVANTAGES OF SUCH TRIALS FOR SECURING CONVICTIONS BY
ATTRIBUTING TO ONE PROOF AGAINST ANOTHER, THESE AND OTHER INDUCEMENTS
REQUIRE THAT THE BROAD LIMITS OF DISCRETION ALLOWED TO PROSECUTING
OFFICERS IN RELATION TO SUCH CHARGES AND TRIALS BE NOT EXPANDED INTO
NEW, WIDER AND MORE DUBIOUS AREAS OF CHOICE.  IF THE MATTER IS NOT
GENERALLY OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROPORTIONS, IT IS ONE FOR THE EXERCISE OF
THIS COURT'S SUPERVISORY POWER OVER THE MODES OF CONDUCTING FEDERAL
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS WITHIN THE RULE OF MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318
U.S. 332. 

I THINK THAT POWER SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN THIS CASE WITH RESPECT TO
DANIEL'S CONVICTION.  IF IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE LETTER OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, IT FRACTURES THE SPIRIT.  UNITED STATES V. SALL,
SUPRA.  I THINK THE RULING IN THAT CASE WAS RIGHT, AND FOR THE REASONS
STATED.  FN4  IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED HERE.  DANIEL HAS BEEN HELD GUILTY
OF THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES COMMITTED ONLY BY WALTER ON PROOF THAT HE DID
NO MORE THAN CONSPIRE WITH HIM TO COMMIT OFFENSES OF THE SAME GENERAL
CHARACTER.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE COUNSELED, ADVISED OR HAD
KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE PARTICULAR ACTS OR OFFENSES.  THERE WAS, THEREFORE,
NONE THAT HE AIDED, ABETTED OR TOOK PART IN THEM.  THERE WAS ONLY
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT HE HAD AGREED WITH WALTER AT SOME PAST
TIME TO ENGAGE IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS GENERALLY.  AS TO DANIEL THIS WAS
ONLY EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY, NOT OF SUBSTANTIVE CRIME. 

THE COURT'S THEORY SEEMS TO BE THAT DANIEL AND WALTER BECAME GENERAL
PARTNERS IN CRIME BY VIRTUE OF THEIR AGREEMENT AND BECAUSE OF THAT
AGREEMENT WITHOUT MORE ON HIS PART DANIEL BECAME CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE
AS A PRINCIPAL FOR EVERYTHING WALTER DID THEREAFTER IN THE NATURE OF A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THE GENERAL SORT THE AGREEMENT CONTEMPLATED, SO
LONG AS THERE WAS NOT CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT DANIEL HAD WITHDRAWN FROM OR
REVOKED THE AGREEMENT.  WHETHER OR NOT HIS COMMITMENT TO THE
PENITENTIARY HAD THAT EFFECT, THE RESULT IS A VICARIOUS CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY AS BROAD AS, OR BROADER THAN, THE VICARIOUS CIVIL
LIABILITY OF A PARTNER FOR ACTS DONE BY A CO-PARTNER IN THE COURSE OF
THE FIRM'S BUSINESS. 

SUCH ANALOGIES FROM PRIVATE COMMERCIAL LAW AND THE LAW OF TORTS ARE
DANGEROUS, IN MY JUDGMENT, FOR TRANSFER TO THE CRIMINAL FIELD.  SEE
SEN. REP. NO. 163, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., 20.  GUILT THERE WITH US
REMAINS PERSONAL, NOT VICARIOUS, FOR THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES.  IT
SHOULD BE KEPT SO. THE EFFECT OF DANIEL'S CONVICTION IN THIS CASE, TO
REPEAT, IS EITHER TO ATTRIBUTE TO HIM WALTER'S GUILT OR TO PUNISH HIM
TWICE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, NAMELY, AGREEING WITH WALTER TO ENGAGE IN
CRIME.  WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT DANIEL WAS GUILTY OF NO CRIME ON THIS
RECORD.  WITH IT AND NO MORE, SO FAR AS HIS OWN CONDUCT IS CONCERNED,
HE WAS GUILTY OF TWO. 

IN ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE CASE, THIS EFFECT IS THROWN INTO EVEN
CLEARER LIGHT.  THE INDICTMENT HERE WAS FILED AFTER A PRIOR ONE FOR
CONSPIRACY ALONE HAD BEEN DISMISSED.  THIS IN TURN CAME AFTER
PETITIONERS HAD BEEN TRIED, CONVICTED AND HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN
SECURING REVERSAL ON APPEAL FOR ERRORS IN THE CHARGE.  PINKERTON V.
UNITED STATES, 145 F.2D 252.  FOLLOWING THIS REVERSAL THEY WERE
REINDICTED AND TRIED IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE GOVERNMENT NOW SAYS, AS
TO THE PLEA OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY ON THIS ACCOUNT (WHICH THE TRIAL COURT
OVERRULED ON DEMURRER), THAT THE TWO INDICTMENTS WERE FOR DIFFERENT
CONSPIRACIES SINCE THE FIRST ONE CHARGED A DIFFERENT PERIOD OF TIME AS
COVERED BY THE CONSPIRACY; CHARGED 16 AS COMPARED WITH 19 OVERT ACTS IN
THE SECOND; AND AN ADDITIONAL OBJECT WAS ADDED IN THE LATTER, THAT IS,
INTENT TO VIOLATE ANOTHER SECTION OF THE REVENUE ACT.  IN OTHER WORDS,
THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT CONSPIRACIES BY VIRTUE OF THESE MINUTE
DIFFERENCES IN THE DETAIL OF THE ALLEGATIONS.  HENCE, THERE WAS NO
DOUBLE JEOPARDY BY THE SECOND INDICTMENT. 

BUT LATER, IN SUPPORT OF THE CONVICTION HERE, RELATIVE TO THE BEARING
OF THE VARIOUS STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS UPON PROOF OF THE OVERT ACTS,
CHARGED ALSO AS SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT
THE EARLIER INDICTMENT WAS FRAMED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT A THREE-YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE CONSPIRACY AS FIRST CHARGED; AND
THE CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED FOR FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THAT BASIS.  THEN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DISCOVERED
THE DECISION IN BRAVERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 49, 54-55, AND
DECIDED TO REVAMP THE INDICTMENT TO INCLUDE DETAILS MAKING THE SIX-YEAR
PERIOD APPLICABLE.  HE DID SO, AND ADDED THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS
BECAUSE, SO IT IS SAID, IN THE VIEW THAT A SIX-YEAR PERIOD APPLIED HE
FELT THERE WERE ENOUGH SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES WITHIN THAT TIME WHICH HE
COULD SUCCESSFULLY PROVE TO JUSTIFY INCLUDING THEM. 

IT WOULD SEEM, FROM THIS HISTORY, THAT TO SUSTAIN THIS CONVICTION AS
AGAINST THE PLEA OF FORMER JEOPARDY BY VIRTUE OF THE EARLIER INDICTMENT
AND WHAT FOLLOWED, THE GOVERNMENT STANDS, AND MUST STAND, UPON THE IDEA
THAT TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CONSPIRACIES WERE CHARGED, ONE BY THE
FIRST AND ONE BY THE LATER INDICTMENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
OPPENHEIMER, 242 U.S. 85, 87-88.  BUT TO SUSTAIN DANIEL'S CONVICTION
FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, VIA THE CONSPIRACY ROUTE, THERE WAS ONLY
A SINGLE CONTINUING CONSPIRACY EXTENDING OVER THE LONGER PERIOD, IN THE
COURSE OF WHICH WALTER COMMITTED CRIMES, WHICH WERE ALSO OVERT ACTS,
SOME OF THEM RUNNING BACK OF THE PERIOD CHARGED IN THE FORMER
INDICTMENT, OTHERS BEING THE SAME BUT LATER ACTS WHICH IT HAD CHARGED
AS OVERT ACTS AGAINST BOTH. 

FOR THESE NOW DANIEL IS HELD RESPONSIBLE, NOT MERELY AS A
CONSPIRATOR, AS THE PRIOR INDICTMENT CHARGED, BUT AS BOTH A CONSPIRATOR
AND A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENDER. 

WHAT THIS LACKS BY WAY OF BEING PUT TWICE IN JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME
OFFENSE, I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND.  FOR NOT ONLY HAS DANIEL BEEN
CONVICTED FOR CONSPIRACY FOR THE SAME OVERT ACTS, AND ILLEGAL ENDS, AS
THE FIRST INDICTMENT CHARGED.  HE HAS HAD THOSE ACTS CONVERTED INTO
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  I DO NOT THINK THE PROSECUTOR'S TECHNICAL, AND
IT WOULD SEEM INSUBSTANTIAL, VARIATIONS IN THE DETAILS OF THE
INDICTMENT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ACHIEVE SO MUCH.  FN5 

THIS, OF COURSE, SHOULD NOT RELIEVE WALTER OF THE CONVICTION FOR THE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  BUT HIS SENTENCE FOR CONSPIRACY SHOULD BE
ANNULLED.  SO ALSO SHOULD DANIEL'S SENTENCE ON ALL COUNTS. 

FN1  THESE OF COURSE COMPREHEND THE VAST VARIETY OF OFFENSES
PRESCRIBED BY FEDERAL LAW, CONSPIRACIES FOR ACCOMPLISHING WHICH MAY BE
CHARGED UNDER THE CATCHALL CONSPIRACY STATUTE, NOTE 3. 

FN2  "WHOEVER DIRECTLY COMMITS ANY ACT CONSTITUTING AN OFFENSE
DEFINED IN ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, OR AIDS, ABETS, COUNSELS,
COMMANDS, INDUCES, OR PROCURES ITS COMMISSION, IS A PRINCIPAL."  18
U.S.C. SEC. 550. 

FN3  "IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE EITHER TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN ANY
MANNER OR FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PARTIES DO ANY ACT
TO EFFECT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH OF THE PARTIES TO SUCH
CONSPIRACY SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE
THAN TWO YEARS, OR BOTH."  18 U.S.C. SEC. 88. 

FN4  IN THE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL SITUATION PRESENTED IN THE SALL
CASE AS TO THE INDICTMENT AND THE PROOF, THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED THAT THE
CONVICTION ON THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS SHOULD STAND BECAUSE THE PROOF
THAT THE ACCUSED HAD ENTERED THE CONSPIRACY AMOUNTED TO PROOF THAT HE
HAD "AIDED AND ABETTED" THE COMMISSION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES WITHIN
THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 550.  THE COURT REJECTED THE IDEA,
APPARENTLY NOW ACCEPTED HERE, THAT "AIDING AND ABETTING" AND
"CONSPIRING" ARE, AND ARE INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO BE, THE SAME THING,
DIFFERING ONLY IN THE FORM OF THE DESCRIPTIVE WORDS.  BUT IF THAT IS
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, THEN CONVICTION FOR BOTH "OFFENSES" ON ACCOUNT OF
THE SAME ACT IS CLEARLY DOUBLE PUNISHMENT. 

FN5  THE SITUATION IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS WHEN CRIMES ARE DEFINED
WITH SUCH MINUTE DISTINCTION AS TO MAKE THEM DIFFERENT ONLY IN THE MOST
TECHNICAL SENSE.  SEE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. BUCKLEY, 128 F.2D 17,
CONCURRING OPINION AT 21; CF. EX PARTE NIELSEN, 131 U.S. 176; IN RE
SNOW, 120 U.S. 274. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, RESERVING JUDGMENT ON THE QUESTION OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY, AGREES IN SUBSTANCE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS
DISSENT. 
..END :
















KNAUER V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 654 


NO. 510.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 29, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 149
F.2D 519, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 338 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 TO
REVOKE AN ORDER ADMITTING PETITIONER TO CITIZENSHIP AND TO CANCEL HIS
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD IN THEIR
PROCUREMENT, THERE WAS SOLID, CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT, BEFORE THE DATE
OF HIS NATURALIZATION, AT THAT TIME, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, HE WAS A
THOROUGHGOING NAZI AND A FAITHFUL FOLLOWER OF ADOLPH HITLER.  HELD. 
THE CONCLUSION IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT, WHEN PETITIONER FORSWORE
ALLEGIANCE TO THE GERMAN REICH, HE SWORE FALSELY; AND THE REVOCATION OF
THE DECREE OF NATURALIZATION IS SUSTAINED.  PP. 660-669, 674. 

2.  THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS IS STRICT. 
SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118; BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED
STATES, 322 U.S. 665.  P. 657. 

3.  IN REVIEWING SUCH A PROCEEDING, THIS COURT DOES NOT ACCEPT EVEN
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS AS CONCLUSIVE, BUT
REEXAMINES THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE UNITED STATES HAS CARRIED
THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS CASE BY "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND CONVINCING"
EVIDENCE, WHICH DOES NOT LEAVE "THE ISSUE IN DOUBT."  ID.  PP. 657,
658. 

4.  CITIZENSHIP OBTAINED THROUGH NATURALIZATION IS NOT A SECOND-CLASS
CITIZENSHIP.  P. 658. 

5.  IT CARRIES WITH IT THE PRIVILEGES OF FULL PARTICIPATION IN THE
AFFAIRS OF OUR SOCIETY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY, TO
CRITICIZE OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATORS, AND TO PROMOTE CHANGES IN OUR
LAWS, INCLUDING THE VERY CHARTER OF OUR GOVERNMENT.  P. 658. 

6.  GREAT TOLERANCE AND CAUTION ARE NECESSARY LEST GOOD FAITH
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP BE TURNED AGAINST THE NATURALIZED
CITIZEN AND USED TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THE CHERISHED STATUS.  P. 658. 

7.  ILL-TEMPERED EXPRESSIONS, EXTREME VIEWS, EVEN THE PROMOTION OF
IDEAS WHICH RUN COUNTER TO OUR AMERICAN IDEALS, ARE NOT TO BE GIVEN
DISLOYAL CONNOTATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF SOLID, CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT
THAT IS THEIR SIGNIFICANCE.  P. 658. 

8.  UTTERANCES MADE IN YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE ARE
NOT READILY TO BE CHARGED AGAINST THE STATE OF MIND EXISTING WHEN THE
OATH WAS ADMINISTERED.  P. 659. 

9.  THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE NEW CITIZEN STILL TAKES
HIS ORDERS FROM, OR OWES HIS ALLEGIANCE TO, A FOREIGN CHANCELLORY.  P.
659. 

10.  MEMBERSHIP IN THE GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND IS NOT IN ITSELF
SUFFICIENT TO PROVE FRAUD WHICH WOULD WARRANT REVOCATION OF A DECREE OF
NATURALIZATION.  P. 669. 

11.  THE ISSUE OF FRAUD IN THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TAKEN BY AN ALIEN
UPON ADMISSION TO CITIZENSHIP CANNOT BECOME RES JUDICATA IN THE ORDER
ADMITTING HIM TO CITIZENSHIP; SINCE IT WAS NOT IN ISSUE AND NEITHER WAS
ADJUDICATED NOR COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED IN THE NATURALIZATION
PROCEEDINGS.  P. 671. 

12.  WHEN AN ALIEN TAKES THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE WITH RESERVATIONS OR
DOES NOT IN GOOD FAITH FORSWEAR LOYALTY AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE OLD
COUNTRY, THE DECREE OF NATURALIZATION IS OBTAINED BY A FRAUD ON THE
NATURALIZATION COURT; AND THIS IS A PROPER GROUND FOR CANCELLATION OF
THE NATURALIZATION.  PP. 671-673. 

13.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR
THE CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF
FRAUD IN THEIR PROCUREMENT.  PP. 673, 674. 

KNAUER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT COURT CANCELLED PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION
AND REVOKED THE ORDER ADMITTING HIM TO CITIZENSHIP ON THE GROUND THAT
THEY HAD BEEN PROCURED BY FRAUD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 519.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S.
714.  AFFIRMED, P. 674. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

KNAUER IS A NATIVE OF GERMANY.  HE ARRIVED IN THIS COUNTRY IN 1925 AT
THE AGE OF 30.  HE HAD SERVED IN THE GERMAN ARMY DURING WORLD WAR I AND
WAS DECORATED.  HE HAD STUDIED LAW AND ECONOMICS IN GERMANY.  HE
SETTLED IN MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, AND CONDUCTED AN INSURANCE BUSINESS
THERE.  HE FILED HIS DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN IN
1929 AND HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION IN 1936.  HE TOOK HIS OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE AND WAS ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP ON APRIL 13, 1937.  IN 1943
THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 338(A) OF THE
NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1137, 1158, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 738(A), TO
CANCEL HIS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION  FN1  ON THE GROUND THAT IT
HAD BEEN SECURED BY FRAUD IN THAT (1) HE HAD FALSELY AND FRAUDULENTLY
REPRESENTED IN HIS PETITION THAT HE WAS ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE CONSTITUTION AND (2) HE HAD TAKEN A FALSE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT KNAUER
PRACTICED FRAUD WHEN HE OBTAINED HIS CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION.  IT
FOUND THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN AND IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THAT HE TOOK A FALSE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.  IT
ACCORDINGLY ENTERED AN ORDER CANCELLING HIS CERTIFICATE AND REVOKING
THE ORDER ADMITTING HIM TO CITIZENSHIP.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 519.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED TO EXAMINE THAT RULING IN LIGHT OF OUR
DECISIONS IN SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, AND
BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 665. 

I. IN THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE WHICH KNAUER TOOK, HE SWORE THAT HE
WOULD "ABSOLUTELY AND ENTIRELY RENOUNCE AND ABJURE ALL ALLEGIANCE AND
FIDELITY TO ANY FOREIGN PRINCE, POTENTATE, STATE, OR SOVEREIGNTY, AND
PARTICULARLY TO THE GERMAN REICH," THAT HE WOULD "SUPPORT AND DEFEND
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST ALL
ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC"; THAT HE WOULD "BEAR TRUE FAITH AND
ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME" AND THAT HE TOOK "THIS OBLIGATION FREELY
WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION."  FN2  THE FIRST
AND CRUCIAL ISSUE IN THE CASE IS WHETHER KNAUER SWORE FALSELY AND
COMMITTED A FRAUD WHEN HE PROMISED UNDER OATH TO FORSWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO
THE GERMAN REICH AND TO TRANSFER HIS ALLEGIANCE TO THIS NATION.  FRAUD
CONNOTES PERJURY, FALSIFICATION, CONCEALMENT, MISREPRESENTATION.  WHEN
DENATURALIZATION IS SOUGHT ON THIS (BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA) AS WELL AS ON OTHER GROUNDS (SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA), THE STANDARD OF PROOF REQUIRED IS STRICT.  WE DO NOT ACCEPT
EVEN CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO LOWER COURTS AS CONCLUSIVE. 
BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 670-671.  WE REEXAMINE THE
FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE UNITED STATES HAS CARRIED ITS BURDEN OF
PROVING BY "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND CONVINCING" EVIDENCE, WHICH DOES
NOT LEAVE "THE ISSUE IN DOUBT," THAT THE CITIZEN WHO IS SOUGHT TO BE
RESTORED TO THE STATUS OF AN ALIEN OBTAINED HIS NATURALIZATION
CERTIFICATE ILLEGALLY.  SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 158. 

THAT STRICT TEST IS NECESSARY FOR SEVERAL REASONS.  CITIZENSHIP
OBTAINED THROUGH NATURALIZATION IS NOT A SECONDCLASS CITIZENSHIP.  IT
HAS BEEN SAID THAT CITIZENSHIP CARRIES WITH IT ALL OF THE RIGHTS AND
PREROGATIVES OF CITIZENSHIP OBTAINED BY BIRTH IN THIS COUNTRY "SAVE
THAT OF ELIGIBILITY TO THE PRESIDENCY."  LURIA V. UNITED STATES, 231
U.S. 9, 22.  THERE ARE OTHER EXCEPTIONS OF A LIMITED CHARACTER.  FN3
BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT CITIZENSHIP OBTAINED THROUGH NATURALIZATION
CARRIES WITH IT THE PRIVILEGE OF FULL PARTICIPATION IN THE AFFAIRS OF
OUR SOCIETY, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY, TO CRITICIZE
OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATORS, AND TO PROMOTE CHANGES IN OUR LAWS
INCLUDING THE VERY CHARTER OF OUR GOVERNMENT.  GREAT TOLERANCE AND
CAUTION ARE NECESSARY LEST GOOD FAITH EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS OF
CITIZENSHIP BE TURNED AGAINST THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN AND BE USED TO
DEPRIVE HIM OF THE CHERISHED STATUS.  ILL-TEMPERED EXPRESSIONS, EXTREME
VIEWS, EVEN THE PROMOTION OF IDEAS WHICH RUN COUNTER TO OUR AMERICAN
IDEALS, ARE NOT TO BE GIVEN DISLOYAL CONNOTATIONS IN ABSENCE OF SOLID,
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THAT IS THEIR SIGNIFICANCE.  ANY OTHER COURSE
WOULD RUN COUNTER TO OUR TRADITIONS AND MAKE DENATURALIZATION
PROCEEDINGS THE READY INSTRUMENT FOR POLITICAL PERSECUTIONS.  AS STATED
IN SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 159, "WERE THE LAW
OTHERWISE, VALUABLE RIGHTS WOULD REST UPON A SLENDER REED, AND THE
SECURITY OF THE STATUS OF OUR NATURALIZED CITIZENS MIGHT DEPEND IN
CONSIDERABLE DEGREE UPON THE POLITICAL TEMPER OF MAJORITY THOUGHT AND
THE STRESSES OF THE TIMES." 

THESE ARE EXTREMELY SERIOUS PROBLEMS.  THEY INVOLVE NOT ONLY
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR THE
PROTECTION OF MINORITIES AND MAJORITIES ALIKE.  THEY ALSO INVOLVE
TREMENDOUSLY HIGH STAKES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.  FOR DENATURALIZATION,
LIKE DEPORTATION, MAY RESULT IN THE LOSS "OF ALL THAT MAKES LIFE WORTH
LIVING."  NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 284.  HENCE, WHERE THE
FATE OF A HUMAN BEING IS AT STAKE, WE MUST NOT LEAVE THE PRESENCE OF
HIS EVIL PURPOSE TO CONJECTURE.  CF. BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135,
149.  FURTHERMORE, WE ARE DEALING IN CASES OF THIS KIND WITH QUESTIONS
OF INTENT.  HERE IT IS WHETHER KNAUER SWORE FALSELY ON APRIL 13, 1937. 
INTENT IS A SUBJECTIVE STATE, ILLUSORY AND DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH IN
ABSENCE OF VOLUNTARY CONFESSION.  WHAT MAY APPEAR OBJECTIVELY TO BE
FALSE MAY STILL FALL SHORT OF ESTABLISHING AN INTENTIONAL
MISREPRESENTATION WHICH IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT THE OATH
WAS PERJURIOUS.  AND AS BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, INDICATES,
UTTERANCES MADE IN YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE OATH ARE NOT READILY TO BE
CHARGED AGAINST THE STATE OF MIND EXISTING WHEN THE OATH WAS
ADMINISTERED.  322 U.S. P. 675.  TROUBLED TIMES AND THE EMOTIONS OF THE
HOUR MAY ELICIT EXPRESSIONS OF SYMPATHY FOR OLD ACQUAINTANCES AND
RELATIVES ACROSS THE WATERS.  "FORSWEARING PAST POLITICAL ALLEGIANCE
WITHOUT RESERVATION AND FULL ASSUMPTION OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP ARE NOT AT ALL INCONSISTENT WITH CULTURAL FEELINGS IMBEDDED
IN CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH."  BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 674. 
HUMAN TIES ARE NOT EASILY BROKEN.  OLD SOCIAL OR CULTURAL LOYALTIES MAY
STILL EXIST, THOUGH BASIC ALLEGIANCE IS TRANSFERRED HERE.  THE
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE NEW CITIZEN STILL TAKES HIS ORDERS
FROM, OR OWES HIS ALLEGIANCE TO, A FOREIGN CHANCELLORY.  FAR MORE IS
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT FACT THAN A SHOWING THAT SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
TIES REMAIN.  AND EVEN POLITICAL UTTERANCES, WHICH MIGHT BE SOME
EVIDENCE OF A FALSE OATH IF THEY CLUSTERED AROUND THE DATE OF
NATURALIZATION, ARE MORE AND MORE UNRELIABLE AS EVIDENCE OF THE
PERJURIOUS FALSITY OF THE OATH THE FURTHER THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THE
DATE OF NATURALIZATION. 

WE HAVE READ WITH CARE THE VOLUMINOUS RECORD IN THIS CASE.  WE HAVE
CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE WHICH ANTEDATES KNAUER'S NATURALIZATION (APRIL
13, 1937), THE EVIDENCE WHICH CLUSTERS AROUND THAT DATE, AND THAT WHICH
FOLLOWS IT.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED KNAUER'S VERSIONS OF THE VARIOUS
EPISODES AND THE VERSIONS ADVANCED BY THE SEVERAL WITNESSES FOR THE
UNITED STATES.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE
OFFERED BY EACH IN CORROBORATION OR IMPEACHMENT OF THE OTHER'S CASE. 
WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPRAISAL OF THE VERACITY OF THE WITNESSES BY
THE JUDGE WHO SAW AND HEARD THEM AND HAVE GIVEN IT THAT "DUE REGARD"
REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  RULE 52(A).  WE CONCLUDE
WITH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THERE IS
SOLID, CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT KNAUER BEFORE THE DATE OF HIS
NATURALIZATION, AT THAT TIME, AND SUBSEQUENTLY WAS A THOROUGHGOING NAZI
AND A FAITHFUL FOLLOWER OF ADOLPH HITLER.  THE CONCLUSION IS
IRRESISTIBLE, THEREFORE, THAT WHEN HE FORSWORE ALLEGIANCE TO THE GERMAN
REICH HE SWORE FALSELY.  THE CHARACTER OF THE EVIDENCE, THE VERACITY OF
THE WITNESSES AGAINST KNAUER AS DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THE
CORROBORATION OF CHALLENGED EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE
CONSISTENT PATTERN OF KNAUER'S CONDUCT BEFORE AND AFTER NATURALIZATION
CONVINCE US THAT THE TWO LOWER COURTS WERE CORRECT IN THEIR
CONCLUSIONS.  THE STANDARD OF PROOF, NOT SATISFIED IN EITHER THE
SCHNEIDERMAN OR BAUMGARTNER CASES, IS THEREFORE PLAINLY MET HERE. 

WE WILL REVIEW BRIEFLY WHAT WE, AS WELL AS THE TWO LOWER COURTS,
ACCEPT AS THE TRUE VERSION OF THE FACTS. 

AS EARLY AS 1931, KNAUER TOLD A NEWLY ARRIVED IMMIGRANT WHO CAME FROM
THE SAME TOWN IN GERMANY THAT IN HIS OPINION THE AIM OF HITLER AND THE
NAZI PARTY WAS GOOD, THAT IT WOULD PROGRESS, AND THAT IT WAS NECESSARY
TO HAVE THE SAME PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE OF THE JEWS AND THE
COMMUNISTS.  DURING THE SAME PERIOD, HE TOLD ANOTHER FRIEND REPEATEDLY
THAT HE WAS OPPOSED TO ANY REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THAT
JEWISH CAPITAL WAS TO BLAME FOR GERMANY'S DOWNFALL.  HE VISITED GERMANY
FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS IN 1934 AND WHILE THERE READ HITLER'S MEIN KAMPF. 
ON HIS RETURN HE SAID WITH PRIDE THAT HE HAD MET HITLER, AND THAT HE
HAD BEEN OFFERED A POST WITH THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT AT 600 MARKS PER
MONTH, THAT HITLER WAS THE SAVIOR OF GERMANY, THAT HITLER WAS SOLVING
THE UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM WHILE THIS COUNTRY WAS SUFFERING FROM JEWISH
CAPITALISM, THAT THE HITLER YOUTH ORGANIZATION WAS AN EXCELLENT
INFLUENCE ON THE CHILDREN OF GERMANY.  ON OCCASIONS IN 1936 AND 1937 HE
WAS EXPLOSIVE IN HIS CRITICISM OF THOSE WHO PROTESTED AGAINST THE
PRACTICES AND POLICIES OF HITLER. 

THE GERMAN WINTER RELIEF FUND WAS AN OFFICIAL AGENCY OF THE GERMAN
GOVERNMENT FOR WHICH GERMAN CONSULATES SOLICITED MONEY IN THE UNITED
STATES.  IN THE WINTER OF 1934-1935 KNAUER WAS ACTIVE IN OBTAINING
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND AND FORWARDED THE MONEY COLLECTED TO THE
GERMAN CONSULATE IN CHICAGO. 

THE GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND HAD A BRANCH IN MILWAUKEE.  ITS LEADER WAS
GEORGE FROBOESE - MIDWESTERN GAULEITER AND LATER NATIONAL LEADER.  THE
BUND TAUGHT AND ADVOCATED THE NAZI PHILOSOPHY - THE LEADERSHIP
PRINCIPLE, RACIAL SUPERIORITY OF THE GERMANS, THE PRINCIPLE OF THE
TOTALITARIAN STATE, PAN-GERMANISM AND OF LEBENSRAUM (LIVING SPACE).  IT
LOOKED FORWARD TO THE DAY WHEN THE NAZI FORM OF GOVERNMENT WOULD
SUPPLANT OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  IT EMPHASIZED THAT ALLEGIANCE AND
DEVOTION TO HITLER WERE SUPERIOR TO ANY OBLIGATION TO THE UNITED
STATES.  FN4  KNAUER DENIED THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE BUND.  BUT THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND TO THE CONTRARY FN5  ON EVIDENCE WHICH IS SOLID
AND CONVINCING. 

KNAUER PARTICIPATED IN BUND MEETINGS IN 1936.  IN THE SUMMER OF 1936
HE AND HIS FAMILY HAD A TENT AT THE BUND CAMPS.  IN THE FALL OF 1936 HE
ENROLLED HIS YOUNG DAUGHTER IN THE YOUTH MOVEMENT OF THE BUND - A GROUP
ORGANIZED TO INSTILL THE NAZI IDEOLOGY IN THE MINDS OF CHILDREN OF
GERMAN BLOOD.  THEY WORE UNIFORMS, USED THE NAZI SALUTE, AND WERE
TAUGHT SONGS OF ALLEGIANCE TO HITLER.  KNAUER ATTENDED MEETINGS OF THIS
GROUP. 

THE FEDERATION OF GERMAN-AMERICAN SOCIETIES REPRESENTED NUMEROUS
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS CONSISTING OF AMERICANS OF GERMAN DESCENT AND
SOUGHT TO COORDINATE THEIR WORK.  IT WAS THE POLICY OF THE BUND TO
INFILTRATE OLDER GERMAN SOCIETIES.  THIS EFFORT WAS MADE AS RESPECTS
THE FEDERATION.  KNAUER ASSISTED FROBOESE AND OTHERS BETWEEN 1933 AND
1936 IN ENDEAVORING TO HAVE THE SWASTIKA DISPLAYED AT CELEBRATIONS OF
THE FEDERATION.  IN 1935 KNAUER REPRIMANDED A DELEGATE TO THE
FEDERATION FOR PASSING OUT PAMPHLETS OPPOSING THE NAZI GOVERNMENT IN
GERMANY.  AT A MEETING OF THE FEDERATION IN 1935, KNAUER MOVED TO HAVE
THE FEDERATION RECOGNIZE THE SWASTIKA AS THE FLAG OF THE GERMAN REICH. 
THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY.  IN 1936 THE SWASTIKA FLAG WAS RAISED AT A
GERMAN DAY CELEBRATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE FEDERATION.  A COMMOTION
ENSUED IN WHICH BUNDISTS IN UNIFORM PARTICIPATED, AS A RESULT OF WHICH
THE SWASTIKA FLAG WAS TORN DOWN.  AT THE NEXT MEETING OF THE
FEDERATION, KNAUER PROPOSED A VOTE INDICATING APPROVAL OF THE SHOWING
OF THE SWASTIKA FLAG.  THE MOTION FAILED AND A VOTE OF CENSURE OF THE
CHAIRMAN WAS PASSED.  THE CHAIRMAN RESIGNED.  THEREUPON FROBOESE AND
OTHERS PROPOSED THE FORMATION OF THE GERMAN-AMERICAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE
TO COMPETE WITH THE FEDERATION.  IT WAS ORGANIZED EARLY IN 1937.  THE
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF THE ALLIANCE PROVIDED
THAT ALL OF ITS ASSETS ON DISSOLUTION WERE TO BECOME THE PROPERTY OF A
GERMAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF PROPAGANDA IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES - THE DEUSCHES AUSLANDS-INSTITUT.  THE ALLIANCE WAS A FRONT
ORGANIZATION FOR THE BUND.  IT WAS DESIGNED TO BRING INTO ITS RANKS
PERSONS WHO WERE SYMPATHETIC WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE BUND BUT WHO
DID NOT WISH TO BE KNOWN AS BUND MEMBERS.    ON FEBRUARY 22, 1937 -
LESS THAN TWO MONTHS BEFORE KNAUER TOOK HIS OATH OF NATURALIZATION - HE
WAS ADMITTED TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE ALLIANCE AND BECAME A MEMBER OF ITS
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  HIS FIRST ACTION AS A MEMBER WAS TO VOLUNTEER THE
COLLECTION OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLES THAT ATTACKED THE ALLIANCE, GERMANY,
AND GERMAN-AMERICANS.  IN 1937 AND IN THE ENSUING YEARS, KNAUER WROTE
MANY LETTERS AND TELEGRAMS TO THOSE WHO CRITICIZED THE BUND OR THE
GERMAN GOVERNMENT.  IN 1938 KNAUER WAS ELECTED VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE
ALLIANCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY PRESIDED OVER MOST OF ITS MEETINGS.  HE WAS
THE DOMINANT FIGURE IN THE ALLIANCE.  IN MAY 1937 THE GERMAN CONSUL
PRESENTED TO THE ALLIANCE THE SWASTIKA FLAG WHICH HAD BEEN TORN DOWN AT
THE FEDERATION CELEBRATION THE YEAR BEFORE.  NOT LONG AFTER HIS
NATURALIZATION KNAUER URGED THAT THE ALLIANCE SPONSOR A SOLSTICE
CEREMONY, A SOLEMN RITE AT WHICH A WOODEN SWASTIKA IS BURNED TO
SYMBOLIZE THE UNITY OF GERMAN PEOPLE EVERYWHERE.  IN AUGUST 1937 THE
ALLIANCE REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN AN AFFAIR SPONSORED BY A GROUP WHICH
WOULD NOT FLY THE SWASTIKA FLAG.  IN MAY 1938 KNAUER AT A MEETING OF
THE ALLIANCE READ A LEAFLET ENTITLED "AMERICA, THE GARBAGE CAN OF THE
WORLD."  IN 1939 HE ARRANGED FOR PUBLIC SHOWINGS OF FILMS DISTRIBUTED
BY AN OFFICIAL GERMAN PROPAGANDA AGENCY AND DEPICTING THE GLORIES OF
NAZISM.  FN6 

THERE WAS AN INTIMATE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE ALLIANCE AND THE BUND. 
THE BUND CAMP WAS USED FOR ALLIANCE AFFAIRS AND IT WAS AVAILABLE TO
ALLIANCE MEMBERS.  THE ALLIANCE SUPPORTED VARIOUS BUND PROGRAMS.  IT
SUPPORTED THE YOUTH GROUP OF THE BUND AND THE BUND'S SOLSTICE
CELEBRATION.  IN 1939 THE YOUTH GROUP OF THE BUND HELD A BENEFIT
PERFORMANCE FOR THE ALLIANCE.  IN 1940 IT ADMITTED THE YOUTH GROUP OF
THE BUND AT THE REQUEST OF FROBOESE.  KNAUER CONSISTENTLY DEFENDED THE
BUND WHEN IT WAS CRITICIZED, WHEN IT WAS DENIED THE USE OF A PARK OR A
HALL, WHEN ITS MEMBERS WERE ARRESTED OR CHARGED WITH OFFENSES.  IN
SPITE OF THE FACT THAT KNAUER KNEW THE REAL AIMS AND PURPOSES OF THE
BUND AND WAS AWARE OF ITS CONNECTION AND FROBOESE'S CONNECTION WITH THE
GERMAN GOVERNMENT, HE CONSISTENTLY CAME TO ITS DEFENSE.  THUS WHEN A
WISCONSIN JUDGE FREED DISTURBERS OF A BUND MEETING, HE WROTE THE JUDGE
SAYING THAT THE JUDGE'S REMARKS AGAINST THE BUND WERE A "SLANDER OF A
PATRIOTIC AMERICAN ORGANIZATION."  HE SUBSCRIBED TO THE OFFICIAL BUND
NEWSPAPER AND TO A PROPAGANDA MAGAZINE ISSUED AND CIRCULATED BY AN
AGENCY OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT.  HE HELD SHARES IN THE HOLDING COMPANY
OF THE BUND CAMP WHICH WAS STARTED IN 1939.  A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT THE
DEDICATION OF THE NEW BUND CAMP IN 1939 SHOWS KNAUER AMONG A GROUP OF
PROMINENT BUND LEADERS WITH ARM UPRAISED IN THE NAZI SALUTE.  HE OWNED
A COTTAGE AT THE BUND CAMP.  HE USED THE NAZI SALUTE AT THE BEGINNING
AND END OF HIS SPEECHES AND AT THE BUND MEETINGS. 

IN MAY 1938 KNAUER AND FROBOESE FORMED THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE LEAGUE
WITH A SECRET LIST OF MEMBERS.  KNAUER WAS ELECTED A DIRECTOR.  A
CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS WERE ADOPTED AND COPIES MAILED BY KNAUER AND
FROBOESE TO HITLER.  ONE BUERK WAS A GERMAN AGENT OPERATING IN THIS
COUNTRY AND LATER INDICTED FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS SUCH.  IN 1939
THE GERMAN CONSULATE IN CHICAGO SUPERVISED THE RECRUITING OF SKILLED
WORKERS IN THAT REGION FOR RETURN TO GERMANY FOR WORK IN GERMAN
INDUSTRIES.  THE GERMAN CONSUL, BUERK, FROBOESE AND KNAUER CONDUCTED
THE RECRUITING.  KNAUER PARTICIPATED ACTIVELY IN INTERVIEWING
CANDIDATES.  AT INTERVALS FAREWELL PARTIES WERE GIVEN BY KNAUER AND
FROBOESE TO THE RETURNING WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES. 

IMPORTANT EVIDENCE IMPLICATING KNAUER IN PROMOTING THE CAUSE OF
HITLER IN THIS COUNTRY WAS GIVEN BY A MRS. MERTON.  SHE TESTIFIED THAT,
PROMPTED SOLELY BY PATRIOTIC MOTIVES, SHE ENTERED THE EMPLOY OF
FROBOESE IN 1938 IN ORDER TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE BUND AND ITS
MEMBERS.  THE TRUTH OF HER TESTIMONY WAS VIGOROUSLY DENIED BY KNAUER. 
BUT THE DISTRICT COURT BELIEVED HER VERSION, AS DID THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  AND WE ARE PERSUADED ON A CLOSE READING OF THE RECORD NOT
ONLY THAT HER TESTIMONY WAS STRONGLY CORROBORATED BUT ALSO THAT
KNAUER'S ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT HER TESTIMONY DO NOT RING TRUE.  FN7 

HER TESTIMONY MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:  SHE ACTED AS SECRETARY
TO FROBOESE IN 1938.  DURING THE PERIOD OF HER EMPLOY FROBOESE AND
KNAUER WORKED CLOSELY TOGETHER ON BUND MATTERS.  HE HELPED FROBOESE IN
THE PREPARATION OF ARTICLES FOR THE BUND NEWSPAPER, OF SPEECHES, AND OF
BUND CORRESPONDENCE.  HE HELPED FROBOESE PREPARE RESOLUTIONS TO BE
OFFERED AT THE 1938 BUND CONVENTION CALLING FOR A WHITE-GENTILE-RULED
AMERICA.  WHEN FROBOESE LEFT THE CITY TO ATTEND THE CONVENTION, HE TOLD
HER TO CONTACT KNAUER FOR ADVICE CONCERNING BUND MATTERS.  LETTERS
SIGNED BY FROBOESE AND KNAUER JOINTLY WERE SENT TO HITLER AND OTHER
NAZI OFFICIALS.  ONE CONTAINED A LIST OF 700 GERMAN NATIONALS.  ONE WAS
THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE LEAGUE WHICH WE
HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED.  ONE TO HESS SAID THEY HAD TO LAY LOW FOR
AWHILE, THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION ON.  A BIRTHDAY GREETING TO
HITLER FROM FROBOESE AND KNAUER CLOSED WITH THE PHRASE, "IN BLIND
OBEDIENCE WE FOLLOW YOU."  KNAUER TOLD HER NEVER TO REVEAL THAT THE
ALLIANCE AND THE BUND WERE LINKED TOGETHER.  ONE DAY SHE ASKED KNAUER
WHAT THE BUND WAS.  HIS REPLY WAS THAT THE BUND "WAS THE FUEHRER'S GRIP
ON AMERICAN DEMOCRACY."  SHE REMINDED KNAUER THAT HE WAS AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN.  HE REPLIED, "THAT IS A GOOD THING TO HIDE BEHIND." 

WE HAVE GIVEN MERELY THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE EVIDENCE.  MUCH
CORROBORATIVE DETAIL COULD BE ADDED.  BUT WHAT WE HAVE RELATED PRESENTS
THE GIST OF THE CASE AGAINST KNAUER.  IF ISOLATED PARTS OF THE EVIDENCE
AGAINST KNAUER WERE SEPARATELY CONSIDERED, THEY MIGHT WELL CARRY
DIFFERENT INFERENCES.  HIS ALERTNESS TO RISE TO THE DEFENSE OF GERMANS
OR OF AMERICANS OF GERMAN DESCENT COULD WELL REFLECT, IF STANDING AS
ISOLATED INSTANCES, ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT A MINORITY AGAINST WHAT HE
DEEMED OPPRESSIVE PRACTICES.  SOCIAL AND CULTURAL TIES MIGHT BE
COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE EXPLANATIONS.  EVEN UTTERANCES OF A POLITICAL
NATURE WHICH REFLECTED TOLERANCE OR APPROVAL OF THE NAZI PROGRAM IN
GERMANY MIGHT CARRY NO SINISTER CONNOTATION, IF THEY WERE CONSIDERED BY
THEMSELVES.  FOR MANY NATIVE-BORNS IN THIS COUNTRY DID NOT AWAKEN TO
THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF THE NAZI PROGRAM UNTIL WAR CAME TO US.  AND AS
WE STATED IN SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 139:  "WHATEVER
ATTITUDE WE MAY INDIVIDUALLY HOLD TOWARD PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT
BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE EXTENSIVE CHANGES IN OUR EXISTING ORDER, IT
SHOULD BE OUR DESIRE AND CONCERN AT ALL TIMES TO UPHOLD THE RIGHT OF
FREE DISCUSSION AND FREE THINKING TO WHICH WE AS A PEOPLE CLAIM PRIMARY
ATTACHMENT." 

BUT WE HAVE HERE MUCH MORE THAN POLITICAL UTTERANCES, MUCH MORE THAN
A CRUSADE FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORITIES.  THIS RECORD PORTRAYS A
PROGRAM OF ACTION TO FURTHER HITLER'S CAUSE IN THIS NATION - A PROGRAM
OF INFILTRATION WHICH CONFORMS TO THE PATTERN ADOPTED BY THE NAZIS IN
COUNTRY AFTER COUNTRY.  THE TIES WITH THE GERMAN REICH WERE TOO
INTIMATE, THE PATTERN OF CONDUCT TOO CONSISTENT, THE OVERT ACTS TOO
PLAIN FOR US TO CONCLUDE THAT KNAUER WAS MERELY EXERCISING HIS RIGHT OF
FREE SPEECH EITHER TO SPREAD TOLERANCE IN THIS COUNTRY OR TO ADVOCATE
CHANGES HERE. 

MOREOVER, THE CASE AGAINST KNAUER IS NOT CONSTRUCTED SOLELY FROM HIS
ACTIVITIES SUBSEQUENT TO APRIL 13, 1937 - THE DATE OF HIS
NATURALIZATION.  THE EVIDENCE PRIOR TO HIS NATURALIZATION, THAT WHICH
CLUSTERS AROUND THAT DATE, AND THAT WHICH FOLLOWS IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS
IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT.  IT CONFORMS TO THE SAME PATTERN.  WE DO NOT
HAVE TO GUESS WHETHER SUBSEQUENT TO NATURALIZATION HE HAD A CHANGE OF
HEART AND THREW HIMSELF WHOLEHEARTEDLY INTO A NEW CAUSE.  WE HAVE
CLEAR, CONVINCING, AND SOLID EVIDENCE THAT AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES HE WAS
A THOROUGHGOING NAZI BENT ON SPONSORING HITLER'S CAUSE HERE.  AND THIS
CASE, UNLIKE THE BAUMGARTNER CASE, IS NOT COMPLICATED BY THE FACT THAT
WHEN THE ALIEN TOOK HIS OATH HITLER WAS NOT IN POWER.  ON APRIL 13,
1937, HITLER WAS IN FULL COMMAND.  THE EVIDENCE IS MOST CONVINCING THAT
AT THAT TIME, AS WELL AS LATER, KNAUER'S LOYALTY RAN TO HIM, NOT TO
THIS COUNTRY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY RULED THAT MEMBERSHIP IN THE BUND WAS NOT
IN ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO PROVE FRAUD WHICH WOULD WARRANT REVOCATION OF A
DECREE OF NATURALIZATION.  OTHERWISE, GUILT WOULD REST ON IMPLICATION,
CONTRARY TO THE RULE OF THE SCHNEIDERMAN AND BAUMGARTNER CASES.  BUT WE
HAVE HERE MUCH MORE THAN THAT.  WE HAVE A CLEAR COURSE OF CONDUCT, OF
WHICH MEMBERSHIP IN THE BUND WAS A MANIFESTATION, DESIGNED TO PROMOTE
THE NAZI CAUSE IN THIS COUNTRY.  THIS IS NOT A CASE OF AN UNDERLING
CAUGHT UP IN THE ENTHUSIASM OF A MOVEMENT, DRIVEN BY TIES OF BLOOD AND
OLD ASSOCIATIONS TO EXTREME ATTITUDES, AND PERHAPS UNAWARE OF THE
CONFLICT OF ALLEGIANCE IMPLICIT IN HIS ACTIONS.  KNAUER IS AN ASTUTE
PERSON.  HE IS A LEADER - THE DOMINATING FIGURE IN THE CAUSE HE
SPONSORED, A LEADING VOICE IN THE COUNCILS OF THE BUND, THE SPOKESMAN
IN THE PROGRAM FOR SYSTEMATIC AGITATION OF NAZI VIEWS.  HIS ACTIVITIES
PORTRAY A SHREWD, CALCULATING, AND VIGILANT PROMOTION OF AN ALIEN
CAUSE.  THE CONCLUSION SEEMS TO US PLAIN THAT WHEN KNAUER FORSWORE
ALLEGIANCE TO HITLER AND THE GERMAN REICH HE SWORE FALSELY.  FN8 

II.  IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE ISSUE OF FRAUD MAY NOT BE TRIED IN
THIS CASE.  AN ANALOGY IS SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN TO THOSE CASES WHERE
RELIEF AGAINST A PRIOR JUDGMENT, ON THE GROUND THAT PERJURED TESTIMONY
WAS INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL, WAS DENIED.  UNITED STATES V.
THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61, 66.  AND SEE TOLEDO SCALE CO. V. COMPUTING
SCALE CO., 261 U.S. 399, 421.  BUT THAT RULE GOES NO FURTHER THAN TO
SAY THAT THE ISSUE OF FRAUD CAN BECOME RES JUDICATA IN THE JUDGMENT
SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE EXTENT TO WHICH A
DECREE OF NATURALIZATION MAY CONSTITUTE A FINAL DETERMINATION OF ISSUES
OF FACT, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WHICH CONGRESS HAS MADE CONDITIONS
PRECEDENT TO NATURALIZATION.  FN9  THOSE FACTS RELATE TO THE PAST - TO
BEHAVIOR AND CONDUCT.  BUT THE OATH IS IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY.  IT
RELATES TO A STATE OF MIND AND IS A PROMISE OF FUTURE CONDUCT.  IT IS
THE FINAL ACT BY WHICH AN ALIEN ACQUIRES THE STATUS OF CITIZEN.  IT
REQUIRES FORSWEARING OF ALLEGIANCE IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH NO MENTAL
RESERVATIONS.  THE OATH BEING THE FINAL STEP, NO EVIDENCE IS HEARD AT
THAT TIME.  IT COMES AFTER THE MATTERS IN ISSUE HAVE BEEN RESOLVED IN
FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT FOR CITIZENSHIP.  HENCE, NO OPPORTUNITY EXISTS
FOR THE EXAMINER OR THE JUDGE TO DETERMINE IF WHAT THE NEW CITIZEN
SWORE WAS TRUE, WAS IN FACT FALSE.  HENCE, THE ISSUE OF FRAUD IN THE
OATH CANNOT BECOME RES JUDICATA IN THE DECREE SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE. 
FOR FRAUD IN THE OATH WAS NOT IN ISSUE IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND NEITHER
WAS ADJUDICATED NOR COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED. 

MOREOVER, WHEN AN ALIEN TAKES THE OATH WITH RESERVATIONS OR DOES NOT
IN GOOD FAITH FORSWEAR LOYALTY AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE OLD COUNTRY, THE
DECREE OF NATURALIZATION IS OBTAINED BY DECEIT.  THE PROCEEDING ITSELF
IS THEN FOUNDED ON FRAUD.  A FRAUD IS PERPETRATED ON THE NATURALIZATION
COURT.  WE HAVE RECENTLY CONSIDERED THE BROAD POWERS OF EQUITY TO SET
ASIDE A DECREE FOR FRAUD PRACTICED ON THE COURT WHICH GRANTED IT.
HAZEL-ATLAS CO. V. HARTFORD CO., 322 U.S. 238.  THE PRESENT SUIT IS AN
EQUITY SUIT.  LURIA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 27-28.  BUT WE NEED
NOT CONSIDER IN THIS CASE WHAT THE HISTORIC POWERS OF EQUITY MIGHT BE
IN THIS SITUATION.  FOR CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT FRAUD IS A BASIS FOR
CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION IN PROCEEDINGS
INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES.  FN10  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THAT
ENACTMENT SHOWS THAT FALSE SWEARING WAS ONE OF THE EVILS INCLUDED IN
THE STATUTORY GROUNDS FOR DENATURALIZATION.  FN11  THAT POWER WAS
GRANTED TO GIVE ADDED PROTECTION AGAINST FRAUD COMMITTED ON THE
NATURALIZATION COURTS.  UNITED STATES V. NESS, 245 U.S. 319, 324, 327. 
CANCELLATION OF A CERTIFICATE ON THE GROUNDS OF FRAUD INCLUDES
CANCELLATION FOR FALSELY SWEARING THAT THE APPLICANT FORSWORE
ALLEGIANCE TO HIS NATIVE COUNTRY.  THOUGH THE MAKING OF A FALSE OATH BE
CALLED INTRINSIC FRAUD (SEE UNITED STATES V. THROCKMORTON, SUPRA), IT
IS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE STATUTE. 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR
DENATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD.  THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS
CONGRESS POWER "TO ESTABLISH AN UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION ..." 
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8.  THE POWER OF DENATURALIZATION COMES FROM THAT
PROVISION AND THE "NECESSARY AND PROPER" CLAUSE IN ARTICLE I, SEC. 8. 
SEE TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568, 578.  WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A
CASE WHERE, AFTER AN ALIEN HAS BEEN NATURALIZED, CONGRESS PROVIDES NEW
GROUNDS WHICH ARE INVOKED FOR CANCELLATION OF HIS CERTIFICATE.  FRAUD -
THE BASIS OF REVOCATION WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED - WAS A
STATUTORY GROUND FOR DENATURALIZATION WHEN KNAUER TOOK HIS OATH. 
MOREOVER, WE ARE NOT FACED WITH THE QUESTION OF WHAT LIMITS THERE MAY
BE TO CONDITIONS FOR DENATURALIZATION WHICH CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE.  A
CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY FRAUD IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE REACH OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  AS STATED IN JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225
U.S. 227, 241: "AN ALIEN HAS NO MORAL NOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
RETAIN THE PRIVILEGES OF CITIZENSHIP IF, BY FALSE EVIDENCE OR THE LIKE,
AN IMPOSITION HAS BEEN PRACTICED UPON THE COURT, WITHOUT WHICH THE
CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED." 
AND SEE LURIA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 23-24; UNITED STATES V.
NESS, SUPRA, P. 327.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE AN ANOMALY.  IT WOULD
IN EFFECT MEAN THAT WHERE A PERSON THROUGH CONCEALMENT,
MISREPRESENTATION OR DECEIT PERPETRATED A FRAUD ON THE NATURALIZATION
COURT, THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE REMEDILESS TO CORRECT THE WRONG. 
THAT WOULD INDEED PUT A PREMIUM ON THE SUCCESSFUL PERPETRATION OF
FRAUDS AGAINST THE NATION.  WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS, WHICH MAY
WITHHOLD THE RIGHT OF NATURALIZATION (TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P.
578), IS SO POWERLESS.  WE ADHERE TO THE PRIOR RULINGS OF THIS COURT
THAT CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE FOR THE CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES OF
NATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD IN THEIR PROCUREMENT AND THUS
PROTECT THE COURTS AND THE NATION AGAINST PRACTICES OF ALIENS WHO BY
DECEITFUL METHODS OBTAIN THE CHERISHED STATUS OF CITIZENSHIP HERE, THE
BETTER TO SERVE A FOREIGN MASTER.    SINCE FRAUD IN THE OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE WHICH KNAUER TOOK IS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT
BELOW, WE DO NOT REACH THE OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ARGUED. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 338(A) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 PROVIDES: 

"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR THE
RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UPON AFFIDAVIT SHOWING GOOD CAUSE THEREFOR, TO
INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A) OF
MAY RESIDE AT THE TIME OF BRINGING SUIT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVOKING
AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ADMITTING SUCH PERSON TO CITIZENSHIP AND
CANCELING THE CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD OR
ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ORDER AND CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION WERE
ILLEGALLY PROCURED." 

FN2  SINCE 1795 AN ALIEN SEEKING ADMISSION TO CITIZENSHIP IN THIS
COUNTRY HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO SWEAR THAT HE RENOUNCED ALLEGIANCE TO ALL
FOREIGN POWERS, INCLUDING HIS NATIVE LAND.  1 STAT. 103, 414; 2 STAT.
153, 154; R.S. 2165; 34 STAT. 596, 598; 54 STAT. 1137, 1157. 

FN3  THUS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN MUST WAIT SEVEN YEARS BEFORE HE IS
ELIGIBLE TO SIT IN THE HOUSE (ARTICLE I, SEC. 2) AND NINE YEARS BEFORE
HE CAN ENTER THE SENATE.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 3.  FURTHERMORE, A
NATURALIZED CITIZEN MAY LOSE HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BY RESIDING
ABROAD FOR STATED PERIODS.  SECS. 404-406.  NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54
STAT. 1137, 1170, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 804-806.  SEE PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S.
325, 329. 

FN4  A NUMBER OF DENATURALIZATION CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURT RAISED
THE QUESTION AS TO THE NATURE OF THE BUND.  ALL OF THEM WERE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL ON THAT SINGLE ISSUE, INCLUDING KNAUER'S CASE. 
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONSOLIDATED TRIAL ON THAT ISSUE, KNAUER'S
CASE WAS SEPARATELY TRIED.  BUT THE FINDINGS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE
BUND WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE IN THE CONSOLIDATED TRIAL.  THE
CONSOLIDATION OF THE CASES WAS CHALLENGED AND UPHELD IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  149 F.2D P. 520.  NO SUCH ERROR IS ALLEGED HERE. 

THESE FINDINGS BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS TO THE NATURE OF THE BUND ARE
LIKEWISE NOT CHALLENGED HERE.  FOR SIMILAR FINDINGS RESPECTING THE
NATURE OF THE BUND SEE UNITED STATES V. SCHUCHHARDT, 49 F.SUPP.  567,
569; UNITED STATES V. RITZEN, 50 F.SUPP.  301, 302; UNITED STATES V.
HAAS, 51 F.SUPP.  910, 911; UNITED STATES V. WOLTER, 53 F.SUPP.  417,
418-425; UNITED STATES V. SAUTTER, 54 F.SUPP.  22; UNITED STATES V.
HOLTZ, 54 F.SUPP.  63, 66-70; UNITED STATES V. BAECKER, 55 F.SUPP. 
403, 404-408; UNITED STATES V. BREGLER, 55 F.SUPP.  837, 839-840;
UNITED STATES V. WILMOVSKI, 56 F.SUPP.  63, 64; UNITED STATES V.
CLAASSEN, 56 F.SUPP.  71, 72. 

FN5  "I FIND AS A FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A MEMBER OF THE
MILWAUKEE UNIT OF THE BUND; THAT HE WAS SO CONSIDERED BY ITS OFFICERS
AND MEMBERS; THAT MOST OF HIS INTERESTS AND ACTIVITIES WERE IN BEHALF
OF THE BUND; AND THAT, THOUGH COMPLETELY AWARE OF ITS AIMS AND
PURPOSES, HE DELIBERATELY VIGOROUSLY PROMOTED THE OBJECTS OF THE
BUND." 

FN6  IN 1937 HE SAID TO ONE WITNESS, AN AMERICAN OF GERMAN ANCESTRY,
"NOW, ISN'T THAT WONDERFUL WHAT HITLER DID OVER THERE?  DON'T YOU LIKE
IT?  WHEN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT WOULD TAKE THE SAME LINE, THEN IT
GOES IN GERMANY LIKE HITLER DID, THAT WILL BE FINE." 

BEFORE AND AFTER HIS NATURALIZATION HE CONTINUOUSLY PREACHED THE NAZI
CONCEPT OF RACIAL UNITY AMONG THOSE OF GERMAN BLOOD.  IN 1937 HE
ADDRESSED MEMBERS OF THE ALLIANCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE GERMAN VOLK,
SAYING "WITH THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GERMAN NATION, WE RISE AND
FALL." 

IN 1940 HE SAID IN CONVERSATION WITH ANOTHER WITNESS, IN REPLY TO THE
WITNESS' REMARK THAT HE WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, "I AM A GERMAN
AMERICAN."  WHEN TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO HYPHEN IN THE WORD, HE REPLIED,
"I LEAN TOWARD AND FAVOR THE GERMANS."  WHEN ASKED IF HE WOULD FIGHT
FOR AMERICA IF THE GERMANS INVADED THIS COUNTRY, HE REFUSED TO ANSWER,
SAYING, "I AM A GERMAN-AMERICAN." 

IN 1941 THE WISCONSIN FEDERATION OF GERMAN-AMERICAN SOCIETIES PLEDGED
ITSELF TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, TO MAINTAIN THE
DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT, AND TO FIGHT THE TOTALITARIAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT AND EVERYTHING IT STOOD FOR.  KNAUER ISSUED AN APPEAL TO
GERMAN-AMERICANS, STATING THAT THAT DECLARATION CONSTITUTED OPEN
WARFARE AGAINST THE THEN GERMAN GOVERNMENT AND WAS A PLAN TO CREATE
DISCORD AMONG GERMANS AND TO INDUCE THOSE IN GERMANY TO REVOLT AGAINST
THE GERMAN REICH. 

FN7  THE PEOPLE WHOM MRS. MERTON AT THE TIME OF HER WORK FOR FROBOESE
TOLD OF HER MISSION CORROBORATED HER.  ONE OF THEM ON OCCASION TOOK HER
TO THE FROBOESE HOME AND SAW HER ENTER.  AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL
FROBOESE WAS DEAD.  MRS. FROBOESE DENIED THAT MRS. MERTON HAD EVER
WORKED FOR FROBOESE OR THAT SHE HAD EVER SEEN HER.  THE TESTIMONY OF
ANOTHER WITNESS, HOWEVER, RELATED A CONVERSATION WITH MRS. FROBOESE IN
WHICH SHE SAID THAT A MRS. MERTON HAD WORKED FOR FROBOESE.  KNAUER
PERSISTENTLY DENIED THAT HE EVER SAW OR KNEW MRS. MERTON.  BUT MRS.
MERTON'S HUSBAND AND A NEIGHBOR IDENTIFIED KNAUER AS THE MAN WHO CALLED
ON MRS. MERTON AT HER HOME ONE DAY. 

FN8  THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS A FAIR CONCLUSION
FROM THIS RECORD: 

"THE ATTACHMENT OF THE DEFENDANT KNAUER IN THE YEAR 1931 TO THE AIMS
AND OBJECTS OF HITLER'S NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT, HIS ALLEGIANCE AND
ATTACHMENT TO THE THIRD REICH AS MANIFESTED BY HIS STATEMENTS AND HIS
FREQUENT USE OF THE NAZI SALUTE IN PUBLIC, HIS DEVOTION TO AND
PROMOTION OF THE DISPLAY OF THE SWASTIKA FLAG AND CEREMONIES USING IT
IN SYMBOLIC PLEDGE OF FIDELITY TO THE REICH, HIS FIERCE CONCERN OVER
THE GOOD NAME AND HONOR OF THE GERMAN RACE, HIS BITTER AND ACRIMONIOUS
DENUNCIATION OF EVERYTHING WHICH INTERFERED WITH OR STOOD IN THE WAY OF
THE FORTUNES OF THE GERMAN REICH, HIS BELIEF IN AND ADVOCACY OF THE
GERMAN RACIAL CONCEPT OF DUTY AND OBLIGATION OF ALL GERMANS TO THE
FATHERLAND REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, HIS BELIEF IN AND ATTACHMENT TO
THE PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM, HIS ESPOUSAL OF THE
AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND AND HIS ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION THEREIN FOR THE PROMOTION OF ITS AIMS AND OBJECTS, HIS
PROMOTION AND DOMINATION OF THE GERMAN-AMERICAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE TO
FURTHER THE AIMS AND OBJECTS OF THE BUND, HIS UNINTERRUPTED EFFORT BY
WORD AND DEED TO POLITICALLY ACTIVATE OUR GERMAN-AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE GERMAN REICH, HIS PERSISTENT EFFORTS AMONG GERMAN
AMERICANS, BY MEANS OF CHARITABLE PROGRAMS, SPEECHES AND MOVIE FILMS,
TO REVIVE IN THEM A FEELING OF FIDELITY AND LOYALTY TO THE GERMAN
REICH, THE ASSISTANCE HE RENDERED TO THE CONSULAR REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE REICH IN THE ATTAINMENT OF MATTERS ADVANCING GERMAN INTERESTS, HIS
FERVENT DEVOTION AND BLIND ATTACHMENT TO THE FUEHRER AT A TIME WHEN THE
GERMAN REICH WAS HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES, HIS LACK OF AFFECTION
FOR OR DEVOTION TO THE UNITED STATES, HIS CYNICAL EVALUATION OF HIS OWN
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE IN ITS ENTIRETY, CAN BE
INTERPRETED ONLY AS ESTABLISHING, AND I SO FIND, THAT THE DEFENDANT AT
THE TIME HE FILED HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION DID NOT IN GOOD FAITH
INTEND TO RENOUNCE ABSOLUTELY AND FOREVER ALL ALLEGIANCE AND FIDELITY
TO THE GERMAN REICH, AND AT THE TIME OF HIS NATURALIZATION AND AT ALL
TIMES THEREAFTER THE DEFENDANT DID NOT IN FACT RENOUNCE AND ABJURE ALL
ALLEGIANCE AND FIDELITY TO THE GERMAN REICH, BUT INTENDED TO RETAIN AND
DID RETAIN ALLEGIANCE AND FIDELITY TO THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT." 

FN9  AT THE TIME OF KNAUER'S NATURALIZATION THE ACT PROVIDED: 

"NO ALIEN SHALL BE ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP UNLESS (1) IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE DATE OF HIS PETITION THE ALIEN HAS RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS AND WITHIN THE COUNTY
WHERE THE PETITIONER RESIDED AT THE TIME OF FILING HIS PETITION FOR AT
LEAST SIX MONTHS, (2) HE HAS RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES FROM THE DATE OF HIS PETITION UP TO THE TIME OF HIS ADMISSION TO
CITIZENSHIP, AND (3) DURING ALL THE PERIODS REFERRED TO IN THIS
SUBDIVISION HE HAS BEHAVED AS A PERSON OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,
ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  AT THE HEARING OF THE PETITION, RESIDENCE IN THE COUNTY WHERE
THE PETITIONER RESIDES AT THE TIME OF FILING HIS PETITION, AND THE
OTHER QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THIS SUBDIVISION DURING SUCH
RESIDENCE, SHALL BE PROVED BY THE ORAL TESTIMONY OF AT LEAST TWO
CREDIBLE WITNESSES, CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ADDITION TO THE
AFFIDAVITS REQUIRED BY THIS ACT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PETITION."  SEC.
6(B) OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, 45 STAT. 1512, 1513-1514 WHICH
REPLACED SEC. 4, SUBDIVISION FOURTH, A SIMILAR PROVISION OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 29, 1906, 34 STAT. 596, 598. 

FN10  BY SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 34 STAT. 601, IT WAS
PROVIDED: 

"THAT IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
FOR THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UPON AFFIDAVIT SHOWING GOOD CAUSE
THEREFOR, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO
NATURALIZE ALIENS IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE NATURALIZED
CITIZEN MAY RESIDE AT THE TIME OF BRINGING THE SUIT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SETTING ASIDE AND CANCELING THE CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP ON THE
GROUND OF FRAUD OR ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP
WAS ILLEGALLY PROCURED...." 

IT WAS HELD IN UNITED STATES V. NESS, 245 U.S. 319, 325, THAT THIS
STATUTORY POWER TO CANCEL CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION IS BROADER
THAN THAT AFFORDED IN EQUITY, INDEPENDENTLY OF STATUTE, TO SET ASIDE
JUDGMENTS. 

FN11  H. REP. NO. 1789, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2: 

"THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REVEALED BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS OF
THE FRAUDS COMMITTED AGAINST THE NATURALIZATION LAWS RENDER WHOLLY
UNNECESSARY ANY ARGUMENT UPON THE NECESSITY AT THIS TIME OF FULLY
EXERCISING ALL THE AUTHORITY IN NATURALIZATION MATTERS CONFERRED BY THE
CONSTITUTION UPON CONGRESS." 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE WORST AND MOST GLARING FRAUDS HAVE CONSISTED IN PERJURY, FALSE
IMPERSONATION, AND THE SALE AND USE OF FALSE AND COUNTERFEIT
CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION." 

AS STATED BY A SPONSOR OF THE MEASURE ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE: 

"THE BOON OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP MUST NOT BE CHEAPENED BY LAX AND
UNCONVENTIONAL METHODS OF COURTS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS WHO ADMINISTER THE
LAW, BUT ONCE GRANTED IT SHOULD ENDURE FOR ALL TIME.  IT IS CONFERRED
BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND BY LAWS AUTHORIZED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  WHEN CITIZENSHIP IS ONCE LEGALLY GRANTED, OF COURSE IT
CAN NOT BE INVALIDATED, AND IT OUGHT NOT TO BE, BUT NO ONE QUESTIONS
THAT IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATES OF CITIZENS THAT HAVE BEEN FRAUDULENTLY
OBTAINED.  A CERTIFICATE TAINTED WITH FRAUD IS IN THE SENSE OF THE LAW
NO CERTIFICATE AT ALL."  40 CONG. REC. P. 7040. 

THE COURT NOTED IN UNITED STATES V. NESS, 245 U.S. 319, 324, THAT
"WIDESPREAD FRAUDS IN NATURALIZATION," INCLUDING "THE PREVALENCE OF
PERJURED TESTIMONY IN CASES OF THIS CHARACTER," LED TO THE PASSAGE OF
THIS LEGISLATION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

I AM SATISFIED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, FROM THE TESTIMONY AND
ADMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER HIMSELF, MADE IN OPEN COURT, THAT HE HAD
NEVER AT ANY TIME, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER HIS NATURALIZATION, DEVIATED
FROM HIS WHOLEHEARTED ALLEGIANCE TO, AND CONSTANT SERVICE OF, THE
GERMAN NAZI GOVERNMENT. 

I REALIZE, AS THE DISSENT IN THIS CASE EMPHASIZES, THE DANGERS
INHERENT IN DENATURALIZATIONS.  HAD THIS JUDGMENT RESTED ON THE
PETITIONER'S MERE PHILOSOPHICAL OR POLITICAL BELIEFS, EXPRESSED OR
UNEXPRESSED, I SHOULD NOT CONCUR IN ITS AFFIRMANCE.  BUT PETITIONER'S
ADMISSIONS AS TO HIS OWN CONDUCT LEAVE ME IN NO DOUBT AT ALL THAT HE
WAS, EVEN IN OBTAINING NATURALIZATION, SERVING THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT
WITH THE SAME FANATICAL ZEAL WHICH MOTIVATED THE SABOTEURS SENT TO THE
UNITED STATES TO WAGE WAR.  I AM UNABLE TO SAY THAT CONGRESS IS WITHOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO AUTHORIZE COURTS, AFTER FAIR TRIALS LIKE THIS
ONE, TO CANCEL CITIZENSHIP OBTAINED BY THE METHODS AND FOR THE PURPOSES
SHOWN BY THIS RECORD. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

FOR REASONS I HAVE SUGGESTED ELSEWHERE,  FN1  BUT WHICH NOW ARE
SQUARELY INVOLVED, I CANNOT BRING MYSELF TO CONCUR IN THIS JUDGMENT. 

MY CONCERN IS NOT FOR PAUL KNAUER.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT HE HAS
NO CONCEPTION OF, MUCH LESS ATTACHMENT TO, BASIC AMERICAN PRINCIPLES OR
INSTITUTIONS.  HE WAS A THOROUGH-GOING NAZI, ADDICTED TO PHILOSOPHIES
ALTOGETHER HOSTILE TO THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK IN WHICH WE BELIEVE AND
LIVE.  FURTHER, HE WAS AN ACTIVE PROMOTER OF MOVEMENTS DIRECTED TO
SECURING ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE IDEAS HERE AND INCORPORATING THEM IN OUR
INSTITUTIONS.  AND IN THIS CASE, BY CONTRAST WITH THOSE OF SCHNEIDERMAN
AND BAUMGARTNER N2, IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT
SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT HE FALSELY TOOK THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE OR THAT
HE NEVER IN HIS HEART RENOUNCED HIS PRIME FEALTY TO ADOLPH HITLER AND
NAZI GERMANY.  NOR, IN MY OPINION, CAN IT BE THOUGHT UNEQUAL TO
SUPPORTING A CONCLUSION THAT, FROM A TIME PRIOR TO HIS ADMISSION TO
CITIZENSHIP IN 1935 UNTIL AT ANY RATE THE ASSAULT ON PEARL HARBOR,
KNAUER WAS IN THE ACTIVE SERVICE OF THE NAZI REGIME, PROMOTING ITS
CAUSE HERE, AND ALSO FOR A SHORT TIME IN GERMANY, AS THE OBJECT OF HIS
FIRST LOYALTY.    IF THEREFORE IN ANY CASE A NATURALIZED CITIZEN'S
RIGHT AND STATUS CAN BE REVOKED, BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED HERE OR
PERHAPS AT ALL, IT WOULD BE IN SUCH A CASE AS THIS.  BUT IF ONE MAN'S
CITIZENSHIP CAN THUS BE TAKEN AWAY, SO CAN THAT OF ANY OTHER.  AND EVEN
IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BE IN LARGE PART FOR HIS POLITICAL CONVICTIONS
AND ACTS DONE OPENLY IN ESPOUSAL OF THEM.  NOT MERELY KNAUER'S RIGHTS,
BUT THOSE OF MILLIONS OF NATURALIZED CITIZENS IN THEIR STATUS AND ALL
THAT IT IMPLIES OF SECURITY AND FREEDOM, ARE AFFECTED BY WHAT IS DONE
IN THIS CASE.  BY THE OUTCOME THEY ARE MADE EITHER SECOND-CLASS
CITIZENS OR CITIZENS HAVING EQUAL RIGHTS AND EQUAL SECURITY WITH
OTHERS. 

NO NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN'S BIRTHRIGHT COULD BE STRIPPED FROM HIM FOR
SUCH A CAUSE OR BY SUCH A PROCEDURE AS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED HERE.  NOR
COULD HE BE PUNISHED WITH BANISHMENT.  TO SUFFER THAT GREAT LOSS HE
MUST FORFEIT CITIZENSHIP BY SOME ACT OF TREASON OR FELONY AND BE
ADJUDGED GUILTY BY PROCESSES OF LAW CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE GREAT
PROTECTIONS THROWN AROUND SUCH TRIALS.  NOT YET HAS ATTEMPT BEEN MADE
TO DO THIS OTHERWISE.  NOR IN MY OPINION COULD IT BE DONE, EXCEPT FOR
SOME SUCH CAUSE OR BY ANY LESS CAREFULLY SAFEGUARDED PROCEDURE. 

IN NO INSTANCE THUS FAR HAS OUR SYSTEM TOLERATED DESTRUCTION OF THAT
RIGHT OF THE NATIVE-BORN, EXCEPT BY VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, ON ACCOUNT OF
CONVICTIONS HELD, VIEWS EXPRESSED, OR ACTS DONE IN PROMOTING THEIR
ACCEPTANCE FALLING SHORT OF TREASON AS DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION  FN3
OR CONVICTION FOR FELONY.  NOR HAS IT THUS FAR BROUGHT ABOUT THAT
EXTINCTION BY FORMS OF TRIAL OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR SUCH
OFFENSES.  MOREOVER, EVEN IN SUCH CASES, ALTHOUGH THE PENALTY MAY BE
DEATH OR LOSS OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP, WE HAVE NOT YET IMPOSED
THOSE PENALTIES ALTOGETHER FOREIGN TO OUR INSTITUTIONS, NAMELY,
DEPORTATION AND EXILE.  FOR ONE CAUSE AND ONE ONLY HAVE THEY BEEN
PROVIDED, NAMELY, THE LOSS OF THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN'S STATUS. 

I DO NOT FIND WARRANT IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR BELIEVING THAT IT
CONTEMPLATES TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS, EXCEPTING ONLY FOR TWO PURPOSES. 
ONE IS TO PROVIDE HOW CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE ACQUIRED, CONST., ART. I,
SEC. 8; AMEND. XIV, SEC. 1, THE OTHER TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR THE
PRESIDENCY.  CONST., ART. II, SEC. 1.  THE LATTER IS THE ONLY INSTANCE
IN WHICH THE CHARTER EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN FROM
ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE THE NATIVE-BORN POSSESSES.  FN4  LURIA V. UNITED
STATES, 231 U.S. 9, 22.  I DO NOT THINK THERE IS ANY OTHER IN WHICH HIS
STATUS IS, OR CAN BE MADE, INFERIOR. 

CONGRESS, IT IS TRUE, IS EMPOWERED TO LAY DOWN THE CONDITIONS FOR
ADMISSION OF FOREIGN-BORN PERSONS TO CITIZENSHIP.  IN THIS RESPECT IT
HAS WIDE AUTHORITY.  BUT IT IS NOT UNLIMITED.  NOR IS CONGRESS GIVEN
POWER TO TAKE AWAY CITIZENSHIP ONCE IT IS CONFERRED, OTHER THAN FOR
SOME SUFFICIENT ACT OF FORFEITURE TAKING PLACE AFTERWARD.  NATURALIZED
CITIZENS ARE NO MORE FREE TO BECOME TRAITORS OR CRIMINALS THAN OTHERS
AND MAY BE PUNISHED AS THEY ARE WHEN THEY COMMIT THE SAME OFFENSE.  BUT
ANY PROCESS WHICH TAKES AWAY THEIR CITIZENSHIP FOR CAUSES OR BY
PROCEDURES NOT APPLICABLE TO NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS PLACES THEM IN A
SEPARATE AND AN INFERIOR CLASS.  THAT DILEMMA IS INESCAPABLE, THOUGH IT
IS ONE NOT HERETOFORE FACED SQUARELY.  UNLESS IT IS THE LAW THAT THERE
ARE TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS, ONE SUPERIOR, THE OTHER INFERIOR, THE
STATUS OF NO CITIZEN CAN BE ANNULLED FOR CAUSES OR BY PROCEDURES NOT
APPLICABLE TO ALL OTHERS. 

TO SAY THAT CONGRESS CAN DISREGARD THIS FACT AND CREATE INEQUALITIES
OF STATUS AS BETWEEN NATIVE AND FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS BY ATTACHING
CONDITIONS TO THEIR ADMISSION, TO BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY AFTER THAT
EVENT, IS ONLY TO SAY IN OTHER WORDS THAT CONGRESS BY USING THAT METHOD
CAN CREATE DIFFERENT, AND INFERIOR, CLASSES OF CITIZENS.  WE HAVE
HERETOFORE POINTED OUT WHY CITIZENS WITH STRINGS ATTACHED TO THEIR
CITIZENSHIP, FOR ITS REVOCATION, CAN BE NEITHER FREE NOR SECURE IN
THEIR STATUS.  SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, AND
CONCURRING OPINION AT 165.  ALL THAT IS SAID THERE, IN THAT RESPECT,
APPLIES HERE OR TO ANY PROCEDURE BY WHICH CITIZENSHIP MAY BE ANNULLED. 
IN MY OPINION THE POWER TO NATURALIZE IS NOT THE POWER TO
DENATURALIZE.  THE ACT OF ADMISSION MUST BE TAKEN AS FINAL, FOR ANY
CAUSE WHICH MAY HAVE EXISTED AT THAT TIME.  OTHERWISE THERE CANNOT BUT
BE TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS, ONE FREE AND SECURE EXCEPT FOR ACTS
AMOUNTING TO FORFEITURE WITHIN OUR TRADITION; THE OTHER, CONDITIONAL,
TIMOROUS AND INSECURE BECAUSE BLANKETED WITH THE THREAT THAT SOME ACT
OR CONDUCT, NOT AMOUNTING TO FORFEITURE FOR OTHERS, WILL BE TAKEN
RETROACTIVELY TO SHOW THAT SOME PRESCRIBED CONDITION HAD NOT BEEN
FULFILLED AND BE SO ADJUDGED.  I DO NOT THINK SUCH A DIFFERENCE WAS
CONTEMPLATED WHEN CONGRESS WAS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR NATURALIZATION
AND THE TERMS ON WHICH IT SHOULD BE GRANTED. 

BUT IF I MAY BE WRONG IN THIS, CERTAINLY SO DRASTIC A PENALTY AS
DENATURALIZATION, WITH RESULTING DEPORTATION AND EXILE AND ALL THE
ATTENDANT CONSEQUENCES, SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED BY ANY PROCEDURE LESS
PROTECTIVE OF THE CITIZEN'S MOST FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, COMPREHENDING ALL
OTHERS, THAN MUST BE EMPLOYED TO TAKE AWAY THE NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN'S
STATUS OR THE LESSER RIGHTS OF THE FOREIGN-BORN CITIZEN.  IF STRINGS
MAY BE ATTACHED TO CITIZENSHIP AND PULLED RETROACTIVELY TO ANNUL IT, AT
THE LEAST THIS SHOULD BE DONE ONLY BY THOSE FORMS OF PROCEEDING MOST
FULLY SURROUNDED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITIES FOR TRIAL WHICH ARE
AMONG THE PRIZED INCIDENTS OF CITIZENSHIP.  IT IS ALTOGETHER ANOMALOUS
THAT THOSE SAFEGUARDS ARE THROWN ABOUT THE FOREIGN-BORN CITIZEN WHEN,
FOR SOME OFFENSE, HIS LIBERTY EVEN FOR BRIEF PERIODS IS AT STAKE, BUT
ARE WITHDRAWN FROM HIM WHEN ALL THAT GIVES SUBSTANCE TO THAT FREEDOM IS
PUT IN JEOPARDY. 

THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP IS THE MOST PRECIOUS OF ALL.  THE PENALTY OF
DENATURALIZATION IS ALWAYS HARSH.  OFTEN IT IS MORE DRASTIC THAN ANY
OTHER.  IT IS ALSO UNIQUE FOR THIS SITUATION.  FOR THE REQUIRED MEASURE
OF SECURITY, THE NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN CAN BE DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUS ONLY
BY THE RIGIDLY SAFEGUARDED TRIAL FOR TREASON OR FOR CONVICTION OF A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE WHICH BRINGS LOSS OF RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN.  TO THOSE
PROCEDURES, WITH THE SAME PENALTIES AND FOR THE SAME CAUSES, THE
FOREIGN-BORN CITIZEN IS SUBJECT; BUT ALSO BY THEM HE IS PROTECTED.  HE
SHOULD NOT BE LESS SECURE WHEN IT IS SOUGHT TO ANNUL HIS CITIZENSHIP
THAN WHEN THE EFFORT IS TO BRING ABOUT ITS FORFEITURE.  NOR, IN EITHER
EVENT, SHOULD HIS PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS BE LESS THAN WHEN THE SAME
CONSEQUENCE, IN SUBSTANCE, IS INFLICTED UPON THE CITIZEN NATIVE BORN. 

THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR AND FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE WAS NOT IN
ACCORD WITH THOSE STANDARDS.  I THINK NOTHING LESS IS ADEQUATE, OR
CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF CITIZENSHIP, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF TAKING IT AWAY. 

IF THIS MEANS THAT SOME OR EVEN MANY DISLOYAL FOREIGNBORN CITIZENS
CANNOT BE DEPORTED, IT IS BETTER SO THAN TO PLACE SO MANY LOYAL ONES IN
INFERIOR STATUS.  AND THERE ARE OTHER EFFECTIVE METHODS FOR DEALING
WITH THOSE WHO ARE DISLOYAL, JUST AS THERE ARE FOR SUCH CITIZENS BY
BIRTH. 

ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, CONCURRING OPINION
AT 165. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1; BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 665. 

FN3  CONSTITUTION, ART. III, SEC. 3.  SEE CRAMER V. UNITED STATES,
325 U.S. 1. 

FN4  CF. CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 3; ART. I, SEC. 2, PROVIDING
RESPECTIVELY THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE A SENATOR WHO SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN
NINE YEARS A CITIZEN AND, IN THE CASE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SEVEN YEARS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




















ANDERSON V. MT. CLEMENS POTTERY CO., 328 U.S. 680 


NO. 342.  ARGUED JANUARY 29, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 149 F.2D
461, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT PRODUCES POTTERY FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ITS EMPLOYEES
ENTER THE PLANT AND PUNCH TIME CLOCKS DURING A PERIOD OF 14 MINUTES
BEFORE THE REGULAR STARTING TIME FOR PRODUCTIVE WORK.  THEY WALK FROM
THE TIME CLOCKS TO THEIR PLACES OF WORK WITHIN THE PLANT AND MAKE
VARIOUS PREPARATIONS FOR THE START OF PRODUCTIVE WORK.  AFTER THE
REGULAR QUITTING TIME, THEY WERE ALLOWED A 14-MINUTE PERIOD TO PUNCH
OUT AND LEAVE THE PLANT.  THEY WERE COMPENSATED FOR THEIR TIME FROM THE
NEXT EVEN QUARTER HOUR AFTER PUNCHING IN UNTIL THE NEXT EVEN QUARTER
HOUR PRIOR TO PUNCHING OUT.  SIMILAR PROVISION WAS MADE FOR PUNCHING
OUT AND IN BEFORE AND AFTER THE LUNCH HOUR.  THUS AN EMPLOYEE MIGHT BE
CREDITED WITH AS MUCH AS 56 MINUTES PER DAY LESS THAN THE TIME RECORDED
BY THE TIME CLOCKS.  EMPLOYEES BROUGHT SUIT UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO RECOVER AMOUNTS ALLEGEDLY OWING TO THEM
UNDER THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT.  HELD: 

1.  AN EMPLOYEE WHO BRINGS SUIT UNDER SEC. 16(B) FOR UNPAID MINIMUM
WAGES OR OVERTIME COMPENSATION, TOGETHER WITH LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, HAS
THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT HE PERFORMED WORK FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT
PROPERLY COMPENSATED.  P. 686. 

2.  THIS BURDEN IS MET BY PROOF THAT HE HAS IN FACT PERFORMED WORK
FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT PROPERLY COMPENSATED AND BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
SHOW THE AMOUNT AND EXTENT OF THAT WORK AS A MATTER OF JUST AND
REASONABLE INFERENCE.  P. 687. 

3.  THE BURDEN THEN SHIFTS TO THE EMPLOYER TO COME FORWARD WITH
EVIDENCE OF THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF WORK PERFORMED OR WITH EVIDENCE TO
NEGATIVE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE
EMPLOYEE'S EVIDENCE.  P. 687. 

4.  IF THE EMPLOYER FAILS TO PRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE, THE COURT MAY
THEN AWARD DAMAGES TO THE EMPLOYEE, EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT BE ONLY
APPROXIMATE.  PP. 688, 693. 

5.  AN EMPLOYER WHO HAS NOT KEPT THE RECORDS REQUIRED BY SEC. 11(C)
CANNOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN THAT DAMAGES ASSESSED AGAINST HIM LACK THE
PRECISION OF MEASUREMENT THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE HAD HE KEPT SUCH
RECORDS.  P. 688. 

6.  THE FINDINGS OF A SPECIAL MASTER ON THE PURELY FACTUAL ISSUE OF
THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL PRODUCTIVE WORK PERFORMED, BEING SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT; AND IT ERRED IN REJECTING THESE
FINDINGS AND CREATING A FORMULA OF COMPENSATION BASED ON A CONTRARY
VIEW.  RULE 53(E)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  P. 689. 

7.  SINCE THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT AN EMPLOYEE CHECK IN OR BE ON
THE PREMISES AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME DURING THE 14-MINUTE INTERVAL, THE
TIME CLOCK RECORDS COULD NOT FORM THE SOLE BASIS OF DETERMINING THE
STATUTORY WORKWEEK.  PP. 689-690. 

8.  TIME NECESSARILY SPENT BY THE EMPLOYEES IN WALKING TO WORK ON THE
EMPLOYER'S PREMISES IS WORKING TIME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 7(A), AND
MUST BE COMPENSATED ACCORDINGLY, REGARDLESS OF CONTRARY CUSTOM OR
CONTRACT.  HOWEVER, APPLICATION OF THE DE MINIMIS RULE IS NOT PRECLUDED
WHERE THE MINIMUM WALKING TIME IS SUCH AS TO BE NEGLIGIBLE.  PP. 691
692. 

9.  TIME NECESSARILY SPENT BY EMPLOYEES IN PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES
AFTER ARRIVING AT THEIR PLACES OF WORK - SUCH AS PUTTING ON APRONS AND
OVERALLS, REMOVING SHIRTS, TAPING OR GREASING ARMS, PUTTING ON FINGER
COTS, PREPARING THE EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE WORK, TURNING ON SWITCHES
FOR LIGHTS AND MACHINERY, OPENING WINDOWS, AND ASSEMBLING AND
SHARPENING TOOLS - MUST BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE WORKWEEK AND COMPENSATED
ACCORDINGLY.  HOWEVER, APPLICATION OF THE DE MINIMIS RULE TO
INSUBSTANTIAL AND INSIGNIFICANT PERIODS OF TIME SPENT IN SUCH
ACTIVITIES IS NOT PRECLUDED.  PP. 692-693. 

10.  UNLESS THE EMPLOYER CAN PROVIDE ACCURATE ESTIMATES AS TO THE
AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT IN SUCH ACTIVITIES IN EXCESS OF THE PRODUCTIVE
WORKING TIME, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIER OF FACTS TO DRAW WHATEVER
REASONABLE INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE EMPLOYEES' EVIDENCE.  P.
693. 

11.  AS TO WAITING TIME BEFORE AND AFTER THE SHIFT PERIODS, THE
FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL MASTER, THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAD NOT PROVED THAT
THEY WERE IN FACT FORCED TO WAIT OR THAT THEY WERE NOT FREE TO SPEND
SUCH TIME ON THEIR OWN BEHALF, WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
AND MUST BE SUSTAINED.  P. 694. 

ANDERSON ET AL. V. MT. CLEMENS POTTERY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

EMPLOYEES BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYER
TO RECOVER SUMS CLAIMED TO BE DUE THEM UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEES.  60
F.SUPP.  146.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND ORDERED THE
SUIT DISMISSED.  149 F.2D 461.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326
U.S. 706.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 694. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEVERAL IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE RAISED BY THIS CASE CONCERNING THE
PROPER DETERMINATION OF WORKING TIME FOR PURPOSES OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. 

THE MT. CLEMENS POTTERY COMPANY, THE RESPONDENT, EMPLOYS
APPROXIMATELY 1,200 PERSONS AT ITS POTTERY PLANT AT MT. CLEMENS,
MICHIGAN; ABOUT 95% OF THEM ARE COMPENSATED UPON A PIECE WORK BASIS. 
THE PLANT COVERS MORE THAN EIGHT ACRES OF GROUND AND IS ABOUT A QUARTER
OF A MILE IN LENGTH.  THE EMPLOYEES' ENTRANCE IS AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER.  IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THAT ENTRANCE ARE CLOAK AND REST ROOMS
WHERE EMPLOYEES MAY CHANGE TO THEIR WORKING CLOTHES AND PLACE THEIR
STREET CLOTHES IN LOCKERS.  DIFFERENT SHIFTS BEGIN AT DIFFERENT TIMES
DURING THE DAY, WITH WHISTLES FREQUENTLY INDICATING THE STARTING TIME
FOR PRODUCTIVE WORK.  THE WHISTLES WHICH BLOW AT 6:55 AND 7:00 A.M.,
HOWEVER, ARE THE MOST COMMONLY USED.  AN INTERVAL OF 14 MINUTES PRIOR
TO THE SCHEDULED STARTING TIME FOR EACH SHIFT PERMITS THE EMPLOYEES TO
PUNCH TIME CLOCKS, WALK TO THEIR RESPECTIVE PLACES OF WORK AND PREPARE
FOR THE START OF PRODUCTIVE WORK.  APPROXIMATELY 200 EMPLOYEES USE EACH
TIME CLOCK DURING EACH 14-MINUTE PERIOD AND AN AVERAGE OF 25 EMPLOYEES
CAN PUNCH THE CLOCK PER MINUTE.  THUS A MINIMUM OF 8 MINUTES IS
NECESSARY FOR THE EMPLOYEES TO GET BY THE TIME CLOCK.  THE EMPLOYEES
THEN WALK TO THEIR WORKING PLACES ALONG CLEAN, PAINTED FLOORS OF THE
BRIGHTLY ILLUMINATED AND WELL VENTILATED BUILDING.  THEY ARE FREE TO
TAKE WHATEVER COURSE THROUGH THE PLANT THEY DESIRE AND MAY STOP OFF AT
ANY PORTION OF THE JOURNEY TO CONVERSE WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES AND TO DO
WHATEVER ELSE THEY MAY DESIRE.  THE MINIMUM DISTANCES BETWEEN TIME
CLOCKS AND WORKING PLACES, HOWEVER, VARY FROM 130 FEET TO 890 FEET, THE
ESTIMATED WALKING TIME RANGING FROM 30 SECONDS TO 3 MINUTES.  SOME OF
THE ESTIMATES AS TO WALKING TIME, HOWEVER, GO AS HIGH AS 6 TO 8
MINUTES.  UPON ARRIVING AT THEIR PLACES OF WORK, THE EMPLOYEES PERFORM
VARIOUS PRELIMINARY DUTIES, SUCH AS PUTTING ON APRONS AND OVERALLS,
REMOVING SHIRTS, TAPING OR GREASING THEIR ARMS, PUTTING ON FINGER COTS,
PREPARING THE EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE WORK, TURNING ON SWITCHES FOR
LIGHTS AND MACHINERY, OPENING WINDOWS AND ASSEMBLING AND SHARPENING
TOOLS.  SUCH ACTIVITIES, IT IS CLAIMED, CONSUME 3 OR 4 MINUTES AT THE
MOST.  THE EMPLOYEES ARE ALSO ALLOWED A 14-MINUTE PERIOD AT THE
COMPLETION OF THE ESTABLISHED WORKING PERIODS TO LEAVE THE PLANT AND
PUNCH OUT AT THE TIME CLOCKS. 

WORKING TIME IS CALCULATED BY RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE TIME
CARDS PUNCHED BY THE CLOCKS.  COMPENSABLE WORKING TIME EXTENDS FROM THE
SUCCEEDING EVEN QUARTER HOUR AFTER EMPLOYEES PUNCH IN TO THE QUARTER
HOUR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE TIME WHEN THEY PUNCH OUT.  THUS AN
EMPLOYEE WHO PUNCHES IN AT 6:46 A.M., PUNCHES OUT AT 12:14 P.M.,
PUNCHES IN AGAIN AT 12:46 P.M. AND FINALLY PUNCHES OUT AT 4:14 P.M. IS
CREDITED WITH HAVING WORKED THE 8 HOURS BETWEEN 7 A.M. AND 12 NOON AND
BETWEEN 1 P.M. AND 4 P.M. - A TOTAL OF 56 MINUTES LESS THAN THE TIME
RECORDED BY THE TIME CLOCKS. 

SEVEN EMPLOYEES AND THEIR LOCAL UNION, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, ALLEGING THAT THE FOREGOING METHOD OF
COMPUTATION DID NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT ALL THE TIME ACTUALLY WORKED AND
THAT THEY WERE THEREBY DEPRIVED OF THE PROPER OVERTIME COMPENSATION
GUARANTEED THEM BY SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT.  THEY CLAIMED INTER ALIA THAT
ALL EMPLOYEES WORKED APPROXIMATELY 56 MINUTES MORE PER DAY THAN
CREDITED BY RESPONDENT AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, ALL THE TIME BETWEEN THE
HOURS PUNCHED ON THE TIME CARDS CONSTITUTED COMPENSABLE WORKING TIME. 

THE DISTRICT COURT REFERRED THE CASE TO A SPECIAL MASTER.  AFTER
HEARING TESTIMONY AND MAKING FINDINGS, THE MASTER RECOMMENDED THAT THE
CASE BE DISMISSED SINCE THE COMPLAINING EMPLOYEES "HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED
BY A FAIR PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE" A VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY
RESPONDENT.  HE FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO, AND DID
NOT, WORK APPROXIMATELY 56 MINUTES MORE PER DAY THAN CREDITED TO THEM. 
HE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYEES "HAVE NOT SUSTAINED THEIR BURDEN TO
PROVE THAT ALL THE TIME BETWEEN THE PUNCHED ENTRIES ON THE CLOCK WAS
SPENT IN WORKING AND THAT CONVERSELY NONE OF THE TIME IN ADVANCE OF THE
STARTING TIME SPENT BY EMPLOYEES ARRIVING EARLY WAS THEIR OWN TIME." 
PRODUCTION WORK, HE CONCLUDED, "DID NOT REGULARLY COMMENCE UNTIL THE
ESTABLISHED STARTING TIME; AND, IF IN SOME INSTANCES IT WAS COMMENCED
SHORTLY PRIOR THERETO, IT WAS COUNTERBALANCED BY OCCASIONS WHEN IT WAS
STARTED AFTER THE HOUR AND BY ADMITTED OCCASIONS WHEN IT WAS STOPPED
SEVERAL MINUTES BEFORE QUITTING TIME." 

AS TO THE TIME BETWEEN THE PUNCHING OF THE CLOCKS AND THE START OF
THE PRODUCTIVE WORK, THE MASTER MADE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS: 

(1)  THE TIME SPENT IN WALKING FROM THE TIME CLOCKS TO THE PLACES OF
WORK WAS NOT COMPENSABLE WORKING TIME IN VIEW OF THE ESTABLISHED CUSTOM
IN THE INDUSTRY AND IN RESPONDENT'S PLANT TO THAT EFFECT. 

(2)  THE TIME CONSUMED IN PRELIMINARY DUTIES AFTER ARRIVING AT THE
PLACES OF WORK WAS NOT COMPENSABLE HERE SINCE THE EMPLOYEES HAD
PRODUCED NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE AMOUNT OF SUCH WORK COULD
BE DETERMINED WITH REASONABLE DEFINITENESS. 

(3)  THE TIME SPENT IN WAITING BEFORE AND AFTER THE SHIFT PERIODS WAS
NOT COMPENSABLE SINCE THE EMPLOYEES FAILED TO PROVE THAT IF THEY CAME
IN EARLY ENOUGH TO HAVE WAITING TIME THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO SO OR
WERE NOT FREE TO SPEND SUCH TIME ON THEIR OWN BEHALF. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AGREED "IN THE MAIN" WITH THE MASTER'S FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS WITH ONE EXCEPTION.  IT FELT THAT THE EVIDENCE
DEMONSTRATED THAT PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES HAD PUNCHED IN,
WALKED TO THEIR PLACES OF WORK AND WERE READY FOR PRODUCTIVE WORK AT
FROM 5 TO 7 MINUTES BEFORE THE SCHEDULED STARTING TIME, "AND IT DOES
NOT SEEM PROBABLE THAT WITH COMPENSATION SET BY PIECE WORK, AND THE
CREW READY, THAT THESE EMPLOYEES DIDN'T START TO WORK IMMEDIATELY." 
THE COURT ACCORDINGLY ESTABLISHED A FORMULA, APPLICABLE TO ALL
EMPLOYEES, FOR COMPUTING THIS ADDITIONAL TIME SPENT IN PRODUCTIVE
WORK.  UNDER THE FORMULA, 5 MINUTES WERE ALLOWED FOR PUNCHING THE CLOCK
AND 2 MINUTES FOR WALKING FROM THE CLOCK TO THE PLACE OF WORK - A TOTAL
OF 7 MINUTES WHICH WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS WORKING TIME.  ALL
MINUTES OVER THOSE 7 AS SHOWN BY THE TIME CARDS IN THE MORNING AND ALL
OVER 5 AT THE BEGINNING OF THE AFTERNOON WERE TO BE COMPUTED AS PART OF
THE HOURS WORKED.  THE COURT FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PRODUCTIVE WORK AFTER
THE SCHEDULED QUITTING TIME AT NOON OR NIGHT.  IN OTHER WORDS, WORKING
TIME UNDER THIS FORMULA EXTENDED FROM THE TIME PUNCHED IN THE MORNING,
LESS 7 MINUTES, TO THE SCHEDULED QUITTING TIME AT NOON AND FROM THE
TIME PUNCHED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE AFTERNOON, LESS 5 MINUTES, TO THE
SCHEDULED QUITTING TIME FOR THE DAY.  NO REASON WAS GIVEN FOR THE 2
MINUTE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON PUNCH-INS.  THE
USE OF THIS FORMULA LED THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER A JUDGMENT AGAINST
RESPONDENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,415.74 PLUS COSTS.  60 F.SUPP.  146. 

ONLY THE RESPONDENT APPEALED.  THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
MADE A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE MASTER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,
HOLDING THAT THEY WERE ALL SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WERE
NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  IT STATED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN
FAILING TO ACCEPT THE FINDING OF THE MASTER THAT PRODUCTIVE WORK DID
NOT ACTUALLY START UNTIL THE SCHEDULED TIME AND THAT THE FORMULA
DEVISED FOR COMPUTING ADDITIONAL PRODUCTIVE WORK WAS UNSUSTAINABLE
BECAUSE BASED UPON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FURTHER HELD THAT THE BURDEN RESTED UPON THE EMPLOYEES TO PROVE
BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE WAGES
TO WHICH THEY WERE WERE ENTITLED UNDER THE ACT AND TO SHOW BY EVIDENCE
RATHER THAN CONJECTURE THE EXTENT OF OVERTIME WORKED, IT BEING
INSUFFICIENT FOR THEM MERELY TO OFFER AN ESTIMATED AVERAGE OF OVERTIME
WORKED.  THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCORDINGLY WAS ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. 
149 F.2D 461. 

BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AS WELL AS THE
MASTER, IMPOSED UPON THE EMPLOYEES AN IMPROPER STANDARD OF PROOF, A
STANDARD THAT HAS THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF IMPAIRING MANY OF THE
BENEFITS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  AN EMPLOYEE WHO BRINGS SUIT
UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE ACT FOR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES OR UNPAID OVERTIME
COMPENSATION, TOGETHER WITH LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, HAS THE BURDEN OF
PROVING THAT HE PERFORMED WORK FOR WHICH HE WAS NOT PROPERLY
COMPENSATED.  THE REMEDIAL NATURE OF THIS STATUTE AND THE GREAT PUBLIC
POLICY WHICH IT EMBODIES, HOWEVER, MILITATE AGAINST MAKING THAT BURDEN
AN IMPOSSIBLE HURDLE FOR THE EMPLOYEE.  DUE REGARD MUST BE GIVEN TO THE
FACT THAT IT IS THE EMPLOYER WHO HAS THE DUTY UNDER SEC. 11(C) OF THE
ACT TO KEEP PROPER RECORDS OF WAGES, HOURS AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND
PRACTICES OF EMPLOYMENT AND WHO IS IN POSITION TO KNOW AND TO PRODUCE
THE MOST PROBATIVE FACTS CONCERNING THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF WORK
PERFORMED.  EMPLOYEES SELDOM KEEP SUCH RECORDS THEMSELVES; EVEN IF THEY
DO, THE RECORDS MAY BE AND FREQUENTLY ARE UNTRUSTWORTHY.  IT IS IN THIS
SETTING THAT A PROPER AND FAIR STANDARD MUST BE ERECTED FOR THE
EMPLOYEE TO MEET IN CARRYING OUT HIS BURDEN OF PROOF. 

WHEN THE EMPLOYER HAS KEPT PROPER AND ACCURATE RECORDS, THE EMPLOYEE
MAY EASILY DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN BY SECURING THE PRODUCTION OF THOSE
RECORDS.  BUT WHERE THE EMPLOYER'S RECORDS ARE INACCURATE OR INADEQUATE
AND THE EMPLOYEE CANNOT OFFER CONVINCING SUBSTITUTES, A MORE DIFFICULT
PROBLEM ARISES.  THE SOLUTION, HOWEVER, IS NOT TO PENALIZE THE EMPLOYEE
BY DENYING HIM ANY RECOVERY ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS UNABLE TO PROVE
THE PRECISE EXTENT OF UNCOMPENSATED WORK.  SUCH A RESULT WOULD PLACE A
PREMIUM ON AN EMPLOYER'S FAILURE TO KEEP PROPER RECORDS IN CONFORMITY
WITH HIS STATUTORY DUTY; IT WOULD ALLOW THE EMPLOYER TO KEEP THE
BENEFITS OF AN EMPLOYEE'S LABORS WITHOUT PAYING DUE COMPENSATION AS
CONTEMPLATED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IN SUCH A SITUATION WE
HOLD THAT AN EMPLOYEE HAS CARRIED OUT HIS BURDEN IF HE PROVES THAT HE
HAS IN FACT PERFORMED WORK FOR WHICH HE WAS IMPROPERLY COMPENSATED AND
IF HE PRODUCES SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE AMOUNT AND EXTENT OF
THAT WORK AS A MATTER OF JUST AND REASONABLE INFERENCE.  THE BURDEN
THEN SHIFTS TO THE EMPLOYER TO COME FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE OF THE
PRECISE AMOUNT OF WORK PERFORMED OR WITH EVIDENCE TO NEGATIVE THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S
EVIDENCE.  IF THE EMPLOYER FAILS TO PRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE, THE COURT
MAY THEN AWARD DAMAGES TO THE EMPLOYEE, EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT BE ONLY
APPROXIMATE.  SEE NOTE, 43 COL. L. REV. 355. 

THE EMPLOYER CANNOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN THAT THE DAMAGES LACK THE
EXACTNESS AND PRECISION OF MEASUREMENT THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE HAD HE
KEPT RECORDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 11(C) OF THE
ACT.  AND EVEN WHERE THE LACK OF ACCURATE RECORDS GROWS OUT OF A BONA
FIDE MISTAKE AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OR NON-ACTIVITIES
CONSTITUTE WORK, THE EMPLOYER, HAVING RECEIVED THE BENEFITS OF SUCH
WORK, CANNOT OBJECT TO THE PAYMENT FOR THE WORK ON THE MOST ACCURATE
BASIS POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  NOR IS SUCH A RESULT TO BE
CONDEMNED BY THE RULE THAT PRECLUDES THE RECOVERY OF UNCERTAIN AND
SPECULATIVE DAMAGES.  THAT RULE APPLIES ONLY TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE
FACT OF DAMAGE IS ITSELF UNCERTAIN.  BUT HERE WE ARE ASSUMING THAT THE
EMPLOYEE HAS PROVED THAT HE HAS PERFORMED WORK AND HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE.  THE DAMAGE IS THEREFORE CERTAIN.  THE
UNCERTAINTY LIES ONLY IN THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE
STATUTORY VIOLATION BY THE EMPLOYER.  IN SUCH A CASE "IT WOULD BE A
PERVERSION OF FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE TO DENY ALL RELIEF TO
THE INJURED PERSON, AND THEREBY RELIEVE THE WRONGDOER FROM MAKING ANY
AMEND FOR HIS ACTS."  STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO., 282 U.S.
555, 563.  IT IS ENOUGH UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IF THERE IS A BASIS
FOR A REASONABLE INFERENCE AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGES.  EASTMAN
KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359, 377-379; PALMER V.
CONNECTICUT R. CO., 311 U.S. 544, 560-561; BIGELOW V. RKO RADIO
PICTURES, 327 U.S. 251, 263-266. 

WE THEREFORE TURN TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE
PETITIONING EMPLOYEES HAVE PROVED AND ARE ENTITLED TO IN LIGHT OF THE
FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS: 

(1)  ON THE ISSUE AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE ACTUAL PRODUCTIVE WORK
PERFORMED, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO AGREE WITH THE SPECIAL MASTER THAT IT
BEGAN AND ENDED AT THE SCHEDULED HOURS.  THIS WAS PURELY A FACTUAL
ISSUE.  THE MASTER MADE HIS FINDINGS IN THIS RESPECT THROUGH THE
WEIGHING OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, THE JUDGING OF THE RELIABILITY OF
WITNESSES AND THE CONSIDERATION OF THE GENERAL CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES
TO THE SUIT.  THE MASTER THEREBY CONCLUDED THAT PRODUCTIVE WORK DID NOT
BEGIN BEFORE THE SCHEDULED HOURS EXCEPT IN A FEW INSTANCES WHICH WERE
COUNTERBALANCED BY OCCASIONS WHEN WORK BEGAN AFTER THE SCHEDULED HOURS
OR ENDED BEFORE THE SCHEDULED CESSATION OF PRODUCTIVE WORK.  OUR
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD LEADS US TO ACQUIESCE IN THESE FINDINGS SINCE
THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND ARE NOT CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS.  AND THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
ERRED IN FAILING TO ACCEPT THESE FINDINGS AND IN CREATING A FORMULA OF
COMPENSATION BASED UPON A CONTRARY VIEW.  RULE 53(E)(2) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  SEE TILGHMAN V. PROCTOR, 125 U.S. 136, 149
150; DAVIS V. SCHWARTZ, 155 U.S. 631, 636-637. 

(2)  THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT PROVE THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN WORK FROM
THE MOMENT WHEN THEY PUNCHED IN AT THE TIME CLOCKS TO THE MOMENT WHEN
THEY PUNCHED OUT.  THEY WERE REQUIRED TO BE READY FOR WORK AT THEIR
BENCHES AT THE SCHEDULED STARTING TIMES.  THEY WERE GIVEN 14-MINUTE
PERIODS IN WHICH TO PUNCH THE TIME CLOCKS, WALK TO THE PLACES OF WORK
AND PREPARE FOR PRODUCTIVE LABORS.  BUT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT
AN EMPLOYEE CHECK IN OR BE ON THE PREMISES AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME
DURING THAT 14-MINUTE INTERVAL.  AS NOTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THERE
WAS NO EVIDENCE "THAT IF THE EMPLOYEE DIDN'T GET THERE BY 14 MINUTES TO
SEVEN HE WAS FIRED AND THERE IS MUCH TESTIMONY TO PROVE THAT STRAGGLERS
CAME IN AS LATE AS ONE MINUTE TO SEVEN."  60 F.SUPP.  AT 149.  INDEED,
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE FOR ALL MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR SHIFT TO
BE CHECKED IN AT THE SAME TIME IN VIEW OF THE RATE AT WHICH THE TIME
CLOCKS WERE PUNCHED.  THE FIRST PERSON IN LINE AT THE CLOCK WOULD BE
CHECKED IN AT LEAST 8 MINUTES BEFORE THE LAST PERSON.  IT WOULD BE
MANIFESTLY UNFAIR TO CREDIT THE FIRST PERSON WITH 8 MINUTES MORE
WORKING TIME THAN CREDITED TO THE LAST PERSON DUE TO THE FORTUITOUS
CIRCUMSTANCE OF HIS POSITION IN LINE. 

MOREOVER, IT IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED THAT TIME CLOCKS DO NOT
NECESSARILY RECORD THE ACTUAL TIME WORKED BY EMPLOYEES.  WHERE THE
EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ON THE PREMISES OR ON DUTY AT A DIFFERENT
TIME, OR WHERE THE PAYROLL RECORDS OR OTHER FACTS INDICATE THAT WORK
STARTS AT AN EARLIER OR LATER PERIOD, THE TIME CLOCK RECORDS ARE NOT
CONTROLLING.  ONLY WHEN THEY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PERIOD WORKED CAN
THEY BE USED AS AN APPROPRIATE MEASUREMENT OF THE HOURS WORKED.  IN
THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE FAILS TO INDICATE THAT THE TIME CLOCK
RECORDS DID SO MIRROR THE WORKING TIME.  THEY DID NOT SHOW THE TIME
DURING WHICH THE EMPLOYEES WERE COMPELLED TO BE ON THE PREMISES OR AT
ANY PRESCRIBED PLACE OF WORK.  THEY THUS COULD NOT FORM THE SOLE BASIS
OF DETERMINING THE STATUTORY WORKWEEK.  SEE INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO.
13, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3, ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; WAGE AND HOUR MANUAL,
CUMULATIVE EDITION, 1944-1945, P. 234. 

(3)  THE EMPLOYEES DID PROVE, HOWEVER, THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THEM
TO BE ON THE PREMISES FOR SOME TIME PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE
SCHEDULED WORKING HOURS.  THE EMPLOYER REQUIRED THEM TO PUNCH IN, WALK
TO THEIR WORK BENCHES AND PERFORM PRELIMINARY DUTIES DURING THE 14
MINUTE PERIODS PRECEDING PRODUCTIVE WORK; THE SAME ACTIVITIES IN
REVERSE OCCURRED IN THE 14-MINUTE PERIODS SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION
OF PRODUCTIVE WORK.  SINCE THE STATUTORY WORKWEEK INCLUDES ALL TIME
DURING WHICH AN EMPLOYEE IS NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO BE ON THE
EMPLOYER'S PREMISES, ON DUTY OR AT A PRESCRIBED WORKPLACE, THE TIME
SPENT IN THESE ACTIVITIES MUST BE ACCORDED APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION. 

NO CLAIM IS HERE MADE, THOUGH, AS TO THE TIME SPENT IN WAITING TO
PUNCH THE TIME CLOCKS AND WE NEED NOT EXPLORE THAT ASPECT OF THE
SITUATION.  SEE CAMERON V. BENDIX AVIATION CORP., 65 F.SUPP.  510.  BUT
THE TIME NECESSARILY SPENT BY THE EMPLOYEES IN WALKING TO WORK ON THE
EMPLOYER'S PREMISES, FOLLOWING THE PUNCHING OF THE TIME CLOCKS, WAS
WORKING TIME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 7(A).  BALLARD V. CONSOLIDATED
STEEL CORP., 61 F.SUPP.  996; ULLE V. DIAMOND ALKALI CO., 8 WHR 1042. 
SUCH TIME WAS UNDER THE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER, BEING
DEPENDENT SOLELY UPON THE PHYSICAL ARRANGEMENTS WHICH THE EMPLOYER MADE
IN THE FACTORY.  THOSE ARRANGEMENTS IN THIS CASE COMPELLED THE
EMPLOYEES TO SPEND AN ESTIMATED 2 TO 12 MINUTES DAILY, IF NOT MORE, IN
WALKING ON THE PREMISES.  WITHOUT SUCH WALKING ON THE PART OF THE
EMPLOYEES, THE PRODUCTIVE AIMS OF THE EMPLOYER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ACHIEVED.  THE EMPLOYEES' CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, MOREOVER, BORE NO
RELATION WHATEVER TO THIS WALKING TIME; THEY WALKED ON THE EMPLOYER'S
PREMISES ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE COMPELLED TO DO SO BY THE NECESSITIES
OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS.  IN THAT RESPECT THE WALKING TIME DIFFERED
VITALLY FROM THE TIME SPENT IN TRAVELING FROM WORKERS' HOMES TO THE
FACTORY.  DOLLAR V. CADDO RIVER LUMBER CO., 43 F.SUPP.  822; WALLING V.
PEAVY-WILSON LUMBER CO., 49 F.SUPP.  846.  CF. COMMISSIONER V. FLOWERS,
326 U.S. 465.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE TIME SPENT IN WALKING TO WORK ON THE
EMPLOYER'S PREMISES, AFTER THE TIME CLOCKS WERE PUNCHED, INVOLVED
"PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXERTION (WHETHER BURDENSOME OR NOT) CONTROLLED OR
REQUIRED BY THE EMPLOYER AND PURSUED NECESSARILY AND PRIMARILY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYER AND HIS BUSINESS."  TENNESSEE COAL CO. V.
MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, 598; JEWELL RIDGE CORP. V. LOCAL, 325 U.S.
161, 164-166.  WORK OF THAT CHARACTER MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE STATUTORY
WORKWEEK AND COMPENSATED ACCORDINGLY, REGARDLESS OF CONTRARY CUSTOM OR
CONTRACT. 

BUT UNDER THE CONDITIONS PREVALENT IN RESPONDENT'S PLANT, COMPENSABLE
WORKING TIME WAS LIMITED TO THE MINIMUM TIME NECESSARILY SPENT IN
WALKING AT AN ORDINARY RATE ALONG THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE FROM TIME CLOCK
TO WORK BENCH.  MANY EMPLOYEES TOOK ROUNDABOUT JOURNEYS AND STOPPED OFF
EN ROUTE FOR PURELY PERSONAL REASONS.  IT WOULD BE UNFAIR AND
IMPRACTICAL TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR DOING THAT WHICH THEY WERE NOT
REQUIRED TO DO.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS SO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT PRECISE
CALCULATION OF THE MINIMUM WALKING TIME IS EASILY OBTAINABLE IN THE
ORDINARY SITUATION. 

WE DO NOT, OF COURSE, PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION OF A DE MINIMIS RULE
WHERE THE MINIMUM WALKING TIME IS SUCH AS TO BE NEGLIGIBLE.  THE
WORKWEEK CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 7(A) MUST BE COMPUTED IN LIGHT OF THE
REALITIES OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORLD.  WHEN THE MATTER IN ISSUE CONCERNS
ONLY A FEW SECONDS OR MINUTES OF WORK BEYOND THE SCHEDULED WORKING
HOURS, SUCH TRIFLES MAY BE DISREGARDED.  SPLITSECOND ABSURDITIES ARE
NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE ACTUALITIES OF WORKING CONDITIONS OR BY THE POLICY
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IT IS ONLY WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS
REQUIRED TO GIVE UP A SUBSTANTIAL MEASURE OF HIS TIME AND EFFORT THAT
COMPENSABLE WORKING TIME IS INVOLVED.  THE DE MINIMIS RULE CAN
DOUBTLESS BE APPLIED TO MUCH OF THE WALKING TIME INVOLVED IN THIS CASE,
BUT THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THAT APPLICATION CAN BE DETERMINED ONLY AFTER
THE TRIER OF FACTS MAKES MORE DEFINITE FINDINGS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF
WALKING TIME IN ISSUE. 

(4)  THE EMPLOYEES PROVED, IN ADDITION, THAT THEY PURSUED CERTAIN
PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES AFTER ARRIVING AT THEIR PLACES OF WORK, SUCH AS
PUTTING ON APRONS AND OVERALLS, REMOVING SHIRTS, TAPING OR GREASING
ARMS, PUTTING ON FINGER COTS, PREPARING THE EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE
WORK, TURNING ON SWITCHES FOR LIGHTS AND MACHINERY, OPENING WINDOWS AND
ASSEMBLING AND SHARPENING TOOLS.  THESE ACTIVITIES ARE CLEARLY WORK
FALLING WITHIN THE DEFINITION ENUNCIATED AND APPLIED IN THE TENNESSEE
COAL AND JEWELL RIDGE CASES.  THEY INVOLVE EXERTION OF A PHYSICAL
NATURE, CONTROLLED OR REQUIRED BY THE EMPLOYER AND PURSUED NECESSARILY
AND PRIMARILY FOR THE EMPLOYER'S BENEFIT.  THEY ARE PERFORMED SOLELY ON
THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES AND ARE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO PRODUCTIVE
WORK.  THERE IS NOTHING IN SUCH ACTIVITIES THAT PARTAKES ONLY OF THE
PERSONAL CONVENIENCE OR NEEDS OF THE EMPLOYEES.  HENCE THEY CONSTITUTE
WORK THAT MUST BE ACCORDED APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION UNDER THE STATUTE. 
SEE WALLING V. FRANK, 62 F.SUPP.  261; PHILPOTT V. STANDARD OIL CO., 53
F.SUPP.  833.  HERE AGAIN, HOWEVER, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO APPLY A DE
MINIMIS DOCTRINE SO THAT INSUBSTANTIAL AND INSIGNIFICANT PERIODS OF
TIME SPENT IN PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES NEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE
STATUTORY WORKWEEK. 

THE MASTER DID NOT DENY THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES MUST BE INCLUDED WITHIN
THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSABLE WORKWEEK OR THAT THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED
THAT THE EMPLOYEES DID IN FACT ENGAGE IN SUCH ACTIVITIES.  HE DENIED
RECOVERY SOLELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF TIME TAKEN UP BY THE ACTIVITIES
AND THE PROPORTION OF IT SPENT IN ADVANCE OF THE ESTABLISHED STARTING
TIME HAD NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE EMPLOYEES WITH ANY DEGREE OF
RELIABILITY OR ACCURACY.  BUT, AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THE EMPLOYEES
CANNOT BE BARRED FROM THEIR STATUTORY RIGHTS ON SUCH A BASIS.  UNLESS
THE EMPLOYER CAN PROVIDE ACCURATE ESTIMATES, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
TRIER OF FACTS TO DRAW WHATEVER REASONABLE INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN FROM
THE EMPLOYEES' EVIDENCE AS TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT IN THESE
ACTIVITIES IN EXCESS OF THE PRODUCTIVE WORKING TIME. 

(5)  AS TO WAITING TIME BEFORE AND AFTER THE SHIFT PERIODS, THE
SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAD NOT PROVED THAT THEY WERE
IN FACT FORCED TO WAIT OR THAT THEY WERE NOT FREE TO SPEND SUCH TIME ON
THEIR OWN BEHALF.  THIS WAS ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT AND THE PRESENCE OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE MASTER'S FINDING PRECLUDES ANY
DIFFERENT RESULT. 

THUS WE REMAND THE CASE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF
WALKING TIME INVOLVED AND THE AMOUNT OF PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES
PERFORMED, GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE DE MINIMIS DOCTRINE AND
CALCULATING THE RESULTING DAMAGES UNDER THE ACT.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED
THE OTHER POINTS RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS BUT FIND NO ERRORS. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER
CONCURS. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE HAS GONE FAR TOWARD AFFIRMING
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  I BELIEVE IT SHOULD GO THE REST OF THE
WAY. 

THIS COURT HAS AGREED LARGELY WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS IN HOLDING
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS IN ERROR IN NOT ACCEPTING THE MASTER'S
FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE FACE OF RULE 53(E)(2) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH REQUIRES THAT:  "IN AN ACTION TO BE TRIED WITHOUT
A JURY THE COURT SHALL ACCEPT THE MASTER'S FINDINGS OF FACT UNLESS
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS."  28 U.S.C. FOLLOWING SEC. 723(C). 

THIS COURT, ACCORDINGLY, AGREES THAT THE TRIAL COURT MUST ACCEPT AS
FINDINGS OF FACT IN THIS CASE THAT THE PRODUCTIVE WORK PERFORMED BY THE
EMPLOYEES BEGAN AND ENDED AT THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED HOURS OF WORK, ON
THE EVEN QUARTER-HOURS; THAT THE TIME CLOCKS WERE NOT CONTROLLING IN
ESTABLISHING THE EXACT MINUTE OF STARTING OR STOPPING WORK; THAT THE
TIME SPENT IN PUNCHING TIME CLOCKS DID NOT CONSTITUTE COMPENSABLE WORK;
AND THAT THE "WAITING TIME," IF ANY, BEFORE AND AFTER THE SHIFT PERIODS
WAS NOT COMPENSABLE TIME. 

THIS COURT ALSO AGREES THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS IN ERROR IN
CREATING A FORMULA OF COMPENSATION NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS
OF THE MASTER. 

THE ONLY QUESTIONS REMAINING ARE WHETHER THE MOMENTS SPENT IN WALKING
FROM THE TIME CLOCKS TO THE EMPLOYEES' RESPECTIVE PLACES OF PRODUCTIVE
WORK WITHIN THE PLANT, AND THE MINUTES SOMETIMES SPENT BY SOME OF THE
EMPLOYEES IN MISCELLANEOUS "PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES" BEFORE THE
SCHEDULED STARTING TIMES, MUST BE ADDED, AS A MATTER OF LAW "REGARDLESS
OF CONTRARY CUSTOM OR CONTRACT," TO THE COMPENSATORY TIME OF "THE
STATUTORY WEEK," AND, IF SO, HOW SUCH ADDITIONAL TIME CAN BE PROVED TO
HAVE BEEN SO USED IN ORDER TO MAKE IT THE BASIS FOR ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION. 

THE MASTER DETERMINED THAT THE TIME SPENT IN WALKING FROM THE TIME
CLOCKS TO THE PLACES OF WORK WAS NOT COMPENSABLE WORKING TIME IN VIEW
OF THE ESTABLISHED CUSTOM IN THE INDUSTRY AND IN THE PLANT.  MOREOVER,
THE EMPLOYEES WERE FREE TO TAKE WHATEVER COURSE THROUGH THE PLANT THEY
DESIRED AND TO STOP OFF AT ANY POINT TO TALK WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES OR TO
DO WHATEVER ELSE THEY LIKED.  SOME WORKERS CAME TO THE TIME CLOCKS AS
LATE AS ONE MINUTE BEFORE THE TIME TO REACH THEIR PLACE OF PRODUCTIVE
WORK.  THE SO-CALLED "PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES" ARE IDENTIFIED IN THIS
CASE AS THOSE OF "PUTTING ON APRONS AND OVERALLS, REMOVING SHIRTS,
TAPING OR GREASING THEIR ARMS, PUTTING ON FINGER COTS, PREPARING THE
EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE WORK, TURNING ON SWITCHES FOR LIGHTS AND
MACHINERY, OPENING WINDOWS AND ASSEMBLING AND SHARPENING TOOLS."  THE
MASTER FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAD NOT OFFERED PROOF OF THE TIME USED
FOR THESE PURPOSES WITH A SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF RELIABILITY OR ACCURACY
FOR IT TO BECOME THE BASIS FOR RECOVERY OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION.  THE
EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE STILL GREATER DIFFICULTY IN KEEPING AN ACCURATE
RECORD OF THE TIME SPENT BY EACH EMPLOYEE IN SUCH ACTIVITIES.  THESE
ACTIVITIES ARE OF SUCH A NATURE THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEM AND THE TIME
SPENT IN DOING THEM RESTS PARTICULARLY WITH THE EMPLOYEES THEMSELVES. 
SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE OF QUITE A DIFFERENT CHARACTER FROM THOSE MADE THE
BASIS OF COMPENSABLE TIME IN THE COAL MINE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL CASES. 
TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590; JEWELL RIDGE CORP.
V. LOCAL, 325 U.S. 161. 

SOME IDEA OF THE SHORTNESS OF THE TIME AND THE SMALLNESS OF THE
COMPENSATION INVOLVED IN THE "PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES," IN COMPARISON
WITH THE CUMBERSOMENESS OF ANY SYSTEM FOR ACCURATELY RECORDING THE TIME
SPENT IN DOING THEM, IS APPARENT FROM THE FORMULA TO WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURT RESORTED IN ATTEMPTING TO REACH ITS SOLUTION OF THE DIFFICULTY. 
UNDER THAT FORMULA, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND NO BASIS FOR
COMPENSATION FOR SUCH ACTIVITIES AFTER THE SCHEDULED QUITTING TIME. 
COMPENSABLE TIME SPENT IN SUCH ACTIVITIES WAS LIMITED TO A SHORT PERIOD
BEFORE THE SCHEDULED HOURS OF BEGINNING PRODUCTIVE WORK IN THE MORNING
AND AGAIN ON RESUMING WORK AFTER LUNCH.  EMPLOYEES WERE ALLOWED, OR
ENCOURAGED, TO COME TO THE PLANT 14 MINUTES AHEAD OF THE QUARTER HOUR
AT WHICH THEIR SCHEDULED PRODUCTIVE WORK BEGAN.  THE DISTRICT COURT
ESTIMATED THAT, ON AN AVERAGE, SEVEN MINUTES SHOULD BE ALLOWED, EACH
MORNING, FOR PUNCHING A TIME CLOCK AND WALKING FROM IT TO THE
EMPLOYEE'S PLACE OF PRODUCTIVE WORK.  AS TO THE "WALKING TIME" THE
COURT SAID, "THE PREPARATION EVEN AFTER PUNCHING THE CLOCK WOULDN'T
TAKE MORE THAN ONE OR ONE AND A HALF MINUTES AND TO THE FARTHEST POINT
IN THE PLANT FROM THE TIME CLOCK WOULDN'T TAKE MORE THAN 2 MINUTES." 
60 F.SUPP.  146, 149.  IF AN EMPLOYEE CAME TO THE PLANT 14 MINUTES
AHEAD OF TIME, THIS LEFT A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN MINUTES, PLUS "WALKING
TIME," AS THE BASIS FOR A COMPENSATORY CLAIM.  THE COMPENSATORY TIME IN
MANY CASES WOULD BE MUCH LESS.  SIMILARLY, UNDER THE DISTRICT COURT
FORMULA, EMPLOYEES RETURNING TO WORK AFTER LUNCH WERE ESTIMATED TO
CONSUME FIVE MINUTES IN PUNCHING THE CLOCK AND WALKING TO THEIR PLACES
OF PRODUCTIVE WORK.  THIS WOULD LEAVE A MAXIMUM OF NINE MINUTES, PLUS
"WALKING TIME."  AT THAT HOUR OF THE DAY THE WORKERS ALREADY WOULD BE
IN THEIR WORK CLOTHES AND THERE RARELY WOULD BE MORE THAN A MINUTE OR
TWO REQUIRED FOR THE PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS
CLAIMED. 

THE AMOUNTS AT ISSUE, THEREFORE, MIGHT NOT AVERAGE AS MUCH AS FIVE TO
TEN MINUTES A DAY A PERSON AND WOULD NOT APPLY AT ALL TO MANY OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  NONE OF THIS TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN SPENT AT PRODUCTIVE
WORK.  THE FUTILITY OF REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO RECORD THESE MINUTES
AND THE UNFAIRNESS OF PENALIZING HIM, FOR FAILURE TO DO A FUTILE THING,
BY IMPOSING ARBITRARY ALLOWANCES FOR "OVERTIME" AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
IS APPARENT. 

WHILE CONDITIONS VARY WIDELY AND THERE MAY BE CASES WHERE TIME
RECORDS OF "PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES" OR "WALKING TIME" MAY BE
APPROPRIATE, YET HERE WE HAVE A CASE WHERE THE OBVIOUS, LONG
ESTABLISHED AND SIMPLE WAY TO COMPENSATE AN EMPLOYEE FOR SUCH
ACTIVITIES IS TO RECOGNIZE THOSE ACTIVITIES IN THE RATE OF PAY FOR THE
PARTICULAR JOB.  THESE ITEMS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR CONSIDERATION IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

TO SUSTAIN THE POSITION OF THE COURT IN REQUIRING THESE ADDITIONAL
MOMENTS TO BE RECORDED AND COMPUTED AS OVERTIME, IT IS NECESSARY TO
HOLD THAT CONGRESS, IN USING THE WORD "WORKWEEK," MEANT TO GIVE THAT
WORD A STATUTORY MEANING DIFFERENT FROM ITS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD
REFERENCE TO THE WORKING HOURS BETWEEN "STARTING" AND "QUITTING" TIME -
OR FROM "WHISTLE TO WHISTLE."  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS MEANT
TO REDEFINE THIS COMMON TERM AND TO SET ASIDE LONG ESTABLISHED
CONTRACTS OR CUSTOMS WHICH HAD ABSORBED IN THE RATE OF PAY OF THE
RESPECTIVE JOBS RECOGNITION OF WHATEVER PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES MIGHT BE
REQUIRED OF THE WORKER BY THAT PARTICULAR JOB.  FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE
PLANT BE ONE LOCATED AT AN INCONVENIENT PLACE, OR IF THE WORKERS HAVE
TO CHANGE INTO WORKING CLOTHES AT THE PLANT, OR HAVE TO GREASE OR TAPE
THEIR ARMS BEFORE GOING TO WORK, THESE ARE ITEMS PECULIAR TO THE JOB,
AND COMPENSATION FOR THEM EASILY CAN BE MADE IN THE RATE OF PAY PER
HOUR, PER WEEK OR PER PIECE, AND ALL SPECIAL STOP-WATCH RECORDING OF
THEM ELIMINATED. 

IN INTERPRETING "WORKWEEK" AS APPLIED TO THE INDUSTRIES OF AMERICA,
IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE TERM AS APPLICABLE NOT MERELY TO LARGE
AND ORGANIZED INDUSTRIES WHERE ACTIVITIES MAY BE FORMALIZED AND EASILY
MEASURED ON A SPLIT-SECOND BASIS.  THE TERM MUST BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO
THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES AND SMALL PLANTS
EMPLOYING LESS THAN 200, AND OFTEN LESS THAN 50 WORKERS, WHERE THE
RECORDING OF OCCASIONAL MINUTES OF PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES AND WALKING
TIME WOULD BE HIGHLY IMPRACTICAL AND THE PENALTIES OF LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES FOR A NEGLECT TO DO SO WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.  SUCH A UNIVERSAL
REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING WOULD LEAD TO INNUMERABLE UNNECESSARY MINOR
CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.  "WORKWEEK" IS A SIMPLE
TERM USED BY CONGRESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF
IT.  FOR THIS COURT TO INCLUDE IN IT ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN CUSTOMARILY
AND GENERALLY ABSORBED IN THE RATE OF PAY BUT EXCLUDED FROM MEASURED
WORKING TIME IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF AFFIRMATIVE LEGISLATIVE
ACTION. 

FOR THESE REASONS, I BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, 328 U.S. 699 


NO. 447.  ARGUED MARCH 26, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 60
F.SUPP.  649, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT, FOR REFUSAL OF THE DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION
INTO THE ARMED FORCES, THE VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID IN THE JUDICIAL
DISTRICT WHERE THE ACT OF REFUSAL OCCURRED, RATHER THAN IN THE DISTRICT
WHERE THE DRAFT BOARD WHICH ISSUED THE ORDER IS LOCATED.  P. 704. 

2.  IN A PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT FOR REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION, A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND OF
IMPROPER VENUE IS APPEALABLE DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT.  PP. 700-702. 

UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. 

A DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT OF THE APPELLEE FOR A VIOLATION OF THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT WAS SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  60 F.SUPP.  649.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  REVERSED, P. 706. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON THE MERITS THE ISSUE IS NARROW, NAMELY, WHETHER IN A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, 54
STAT. 885, 894, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311, FOR REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO
INDUCTION, THE VENUE IS PROPERLY LAID IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHERE
THE ACT OF REFUSAL OCCURRED RATHER THAN IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE DRAFT
BOARD WHICH ISSUED THE ORDER IS LOCATED. 

THE FACTS IN THE CASE ARE SIMPLE.  A DRAFT BOARD IN THE CITY OF
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, HAD JURISDICTION OVER APPELLEE.  HE OBEYED AN
ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION ISSUED BY THIS BOARD AND, WITH OTHERS
SELECTED, WENT FROM SPOKANE TO FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON.  AT FORT LEWIS
HE REFUSED TO TAKE THE OATH OF INDUCTION UNLESS ASSURED THAT ARMY
REGULATIONS REQUIRING VACCINATION WOULD BE WAIVED.  THE ASSURANCE WAS
REFUSED.  HE WAS NOT INDUCTED AND RETURNED TO SPOKANE.  LATER HE WAS
INDICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON,
WHERE FORT LEWIS IS LOCATED, FOR HIS REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION. 

APPELLEE DEMURRED TO THE INDICTMENT.  ONE GROUND WAS THAT THE COURT
HAD "NO JURISDICTION OF THE DEFENDANT OR THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
ACTION."  THE DISTRICT COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT, ALTHOUGH FORT
LEWIS WAS WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, THE CITY OF SPOKANE WAS
LOCATED WITHIN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON.  BELIEVING THE
PROPER VENUE WAS THE DISTRICT WHERE THE DRAFT BOARD WAS LOCATED, THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER
THE OFFENSE.  ACCORDINGLY, IT SUSTAINED THE DEMURRER.  FN1  60 F.SUPP. 
649. 

THE UNITED STATES HAS APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  FN2  WE POSTPONED DETERMINATION OF OUR
JURISDICTION TO THE HEARING ON THE MERITS. 

THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT PERMITS A DIRECT APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES
FROM DISTRICT COURTS IN CRIMINAL CASES: 

"FROM A DECISION OR JUDGMENT QUASHING, SETTING ASIDE, OR SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER OR PLEA IN ABATEMENT TO ANY INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION, OR ANY
COUNT THEREOF, WHERE SUCH DECISION OR JUDGMENT IS BASED UPON THE
INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT OR
INFORMATION IS FOUNDED." 

WE THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRECT IN AVAILING ITSELF OF THE RIGHT TO
APPEAL.  ORDINARILY WHEN A DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINS A DEMURRER TO AN
INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND OF IMPROPER VENUE THE GOVERNMENT MAY APPEAL
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 53 F.SUPP. 
596, WITH UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 323 U.S. 273; UNITED STATES V.
LOMBARDO, 228 F. 980, WITH UNITED STATES V. LOMBARDO, 241 U.S. 73; SEE
UNITED STATES V. FREEMAN, 239 U.S. 117; UNITED STATES V. MIDSTATE
HORTICULTURAL CO., 306 U.S. 161.  THIS IS TRUE AT ANY RATE WHERE THE
STATUTE ITSELF CONTAINS A VENUE PROVISION.  CF., HOWEVER, UNITED STATES
V. JOHNSON, SUPRA. 

THAT OFFENSES SUCH AS THE ONE WITH WHICH APPELLEE WAS CHARGED SHALL BE
TRIED "IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING JURISDICTION
THEREOF."  FN4  THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED THAT IT DID NOT HAVE
"JURISDICTION" OF THE OFFENSE.  IN DOING SO IT NECESSARILY CONSTRUED
THE ACT.  FN5  FOR IN THIS CASE, AS IN UNITED STATES V. MIDSTATE
HORTICULTURAL CO., SUPRA, THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE INDICTMENT WAS
RETURNED "PROVIDES EXPRESSLY FOR THE JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES CREATED
BY IT  ..."  FN6 

ACCORDINGLY THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL.  WE THEREFORE
PASS TO CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS. 

THE "JURISDICTIONAL" PROVISION IN SEC. 11 IS APPARENTLY DERIVED FROM
THE SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT OF 1917, 40 STAT. 76.  FN7  SECTION 6 OF THAT
STATUTE PROVIDED THAT THOSE CHARGED WITH OFFENSES UNDER OR AGAINST THE
ACT "SHALL, IF NOT SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW, BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR,
AND UPON CONVICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING
JURISDICTION THEREOF, BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE
YEAR  ...."  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1917 ACT SHOWS THAT THE
BILLS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
READ SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY.  THE LANGUAGE WAS "UPON CONVICTION IN THE
PROPER DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  HOWEVER, THE COMMITTEE ON
MILITARY AFFAIRS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RECOMMENDED THE CHANGE
IN PHRASEOLOGY,  FN8  AND BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE ACCEPTED THE
CHANGE.  FN9 

THERE IS NOTHING IN EITHER THE STATUTE OR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO
SHOW AN INTENTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO DEPART FROM THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT'S COMMAND THAT TRIALS SHALL BE IN THE "STATE AND DISTRICT
WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED  ..."  EXACTLY THE CONTRARY
WAS THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PROVISION. 

SINCE THE STATUTE DOES NOT INDICATE WHERE CONGRESS CONSIDERED THE
PLACE OF COMMITTING THE CRIME TO BE, COMPARE ARMOUR PACKING CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56, WITH UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, THE
LOCUS DELICTI MUST BE DETERMINED FROM THE NATURE OF THE CRIME ALLEGED
AND THE LOCATION OF THE ACT OR ACTS CONSTITUTING IT.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. BOWMAN, 260 U.S. 94, 97-98. 

ALTHOUGH ANDERSON REPORTED TO FORT LEWIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT
BOARD'S ORDER AND, SO FAR AS APPEARS, OBSERVED IT IN EVERY OTHER
RESPECT EXCEPT THE FINAL STEP OF TAKING THE OATH AND THUS SUBMITTING TO
INDUCTION, CF. ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114; BILLINGS V.
TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542; FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, THE
DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE ACT, TOGETHER WITH THE REGULATIONS,
"CLEARLY FIXES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS IN REFERENCE TO
VIOLATIONS SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED, AS BEING IN THE PLACE WHERE THE LOCAL
DRAFT BOARD IS LOCATED."  IT SUPPORTED THIS CONCLUSION BY INFERENCE
FROM VARIOUS REGULATIONS.  FN10 

WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT WAS IN ERROR.  NOTHING IN THE ACT APART
FROM SEC. 11, OR IN THE REGULATIONS RELIED ON, EVEN PURPORTS TO DEAL
WITH VENUE OR JURISDICTION FOR THE TRIAL OF VIOLATIONS, OR JUSTIFIES AN
INFERENCE THAT ANY EFFORT WAS MADE TO FIX THE PLACE FOR ALL SUCH TRIALS
IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE DRAFT BOARD IS LOCATED.  FN11  WE NEED NOT
INQUIRE HOW FAR THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE, IF ATTEMPTED.  BUT
OBVIOUSLY, IN VIEW OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT'S PROVISION, NO SUCH OVER-ALL
EFFORT COULD BE EFFECTIVE AS TO ANY VIOLATION TAKING PLACE OUTSIDE THAT
DISTRICT.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL SPECIFICATION IS GEOGRAPHIC; AND THE
GEOGRAPHY PRESCRIBED IS THE DISTRICT OR DISTRICTS  FN12  WITHIN WHICH
THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED.  THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
DEFENDANT RESIDES; WHERE THE DRAFT BOARD IS LOCATED; OR WHERE THE DUTY
VIOLATED WOULD BE PERFORMED, IF PERFORMED IN FULL.  THE PLACES OF
RESIDENCE,  FN13  OF THE DRAFT BOARD'S LOCATION, OF FINAL AND COMPLETE
PERFORMANCE,  FN14  ALL MAY BE SITUATED IN DISTRICTS DIFFERENT FROM
THAT WHERE THE CRIMINAL ACT IS DONE.  WHEN THEY SO DIFFER, IT IS THE
LATTER, NOT ANY OF THE FORMER, WHICH DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION. 
FN15 

IT IS, OF COURSE, NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHERE THE CRIME IS
COMMITTED TO ASCERTAIN WHAT DUTY IT WAS, THE FAILURE TO PERFORM WHICH
CONSTITUTES THE CRIME, AND ALSO WHAT ACTS OF THE DEFENDANT CONSTITUTED
THE VIOLATION.  DIFFICULTIES AT TIMES ARISE IN THESE RESPECTS,
ESPECIALLY WHERE THE CRIME CONSISTS MERELY IN OMITTING TO DO SOMETHING
WHICH IS COMMANDED TO BE DONE.  FN16 

IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM IS NOT DIFFICULT.  FOR THE DUTY
WAS CLEAR AND PRECISE, AS WERE THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE AND THE PLACE
OF REFUSAL TO PERFORM; AND THE TWO PLACES WERE IDENTICAL. 

THE DUTY WAS TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION.  IN THE FACTS HERE, IT WAS TO
TAKE THE OATH.  THE PLACE WHERE THIS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DONE WAS FORT
LEWIS AND NOWHERE ELSE.  THE PLACE WHERE APPELLEE REFUSED, FLATLY AND
UNEQUIVOCALLY, TO TAKE IT AND THEREBY TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION WAS
LIKEWISE FORT LEWIS.  UNTIL THAT REFUSAL, AS THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, HE
HAD VIOLATED NO PROVISION OF THE LAW OR OF ANY REGULATION.  IT WAS HIS
RIGHT UNDER THE FALBO, BILLINGS AND ESTEP DECISIONS TO EXHAUST THE
ENTIRE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS UP TO THE FINAL STEP BEFORE INDUCTION, AS
HE DID.  THEN FOR THE FIRST TIME HE DECLINED TO GO FORWARD AS HE WAS
REQUIRED TO DO.  THIS REFUSAL WAS HIS CRIME.  IT TOOK PLACE AT FORT
LEWIS.  THE DISTRICT COURT ACCORDINGLY HAD JURISDICTION. 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING WHETHER APPELLEE'S CONTINUED
FAILURE, AFTER RETURNING TO SPOKANE, TO TAKE THE OATH WOULD HAVE
CONFERRED JURISDICTION WITHIN THAT DISTRICT UNDER THE IDEA OF
CONTINUING OFFENSE.  NOR NEED WE EXPRESS VIEWS CONCERNING ANY OTHER
SITUATION NOT INVOLVED IN THE FACTS, FOR EXAMPLE, SUCH AS WOULD BE
PRESENTED ON THE PRESENT INDICTMENT IF APPELLEE HAD NEVER LEFT SPOKANE
OR REPORTED AT FORT LEWIS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SUBSEQUENTLY ON REHEARING THE DISTRICT COURT AGAIN SUSTAINED THE
DEMURRER ON THE GROUND THAT "THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF THE
DEFENDANT, NOR OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION." 

FN2  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, 34 STAT. 1246, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
MAY 9, 1942, 56 STAT. 271; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682. 

FN3  SECTION 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940(54
STAT. 894, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311) PROVIDES: 

"ANY PERSON CHARGED AS HEREIN PROVIDED WITH THE DUTY OF CARRYING OUT
ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE OR
DIRECTIONS GIVEN THEREUNDER, WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO
PERFORM SUCH DUTY, AND ANY PERSON CHARGED WITH SUCH DUTY, OR HAVING AND
EXERCISING ANY AUTHORITY UNDER SAID ACT, RULES, REGULATIONS, OR
DIRECTIONS WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY MAKE, OR BE A PARTY TO THE MAKING, OF
ANY FALSE, IMPROPER, OR INCORRECT REGISTRATION, CLASSIFICATION,
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAMINATION, DEFERMENT, INDUCTION, ENROLLMENT, OR
MUSTER, AND ANY PERSON WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY MAKE, OR BE A PARTY TO THE
MAKING OF, ANY FALSE STATEMENT OR CERTIFICATE AS TO THE FITNESS OR
UNFITNESS OR LIABILITY OR NONLIABILITY OF HIMSELF OR ANY OTHER PERSON
FOR SERVICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR RULES, REGULATIONS, OR
DIRECTIONS MADE PURSUANT THERETO, OR WHO OTHERWISE EVADES REGISTRATION
OR SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS ACT, OR WHO KNOWINGLY COUNSELS, AIDS, OR ABETS ANOTHER TO EVADE
REGISTRATION OR SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR ANY OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT, OR OF SAID RULES, REGULATIONS, OR DIRECTIONS,
OR WHO IN ANY MANNER SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM ANY
DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM UNDER OR IN THE EXECUTION OF THIS ACT, OR RULES OR
REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS ACT, OR ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHO
SHALL KNOWINGLY HINDER OR INTERFERE IN ANY WAY BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT OR THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE
PURSUANT THERETO, OR CONSPIRE TO DO SO, SHALL, UPON CONVICTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF, BE
PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT
MORE THAN $10,000, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT, OR IF SUBJECT
TO MILITARY OR NAVAL LAW MAY BE TRIED BY COURT MARTIAL, AND, ON
CONVICTION, SHALL SUFFER SUCH PUNISHMENT AS A COURT MARTIAL MAY DIRECT
...." 

FN4  THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT THIS IS NOT A "MERE VENUE
PROVISION" BUT "PRESCRIBES A NON-WAIVABLE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
LIMITATION."  WE NEED NOT DECIDE THAT QUESTION IN THIS CASE. 

FN5  THIS IS TRUE, EVEN THOUGH THE DISTRICT COURT LOOKED TO THE
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER THE ACT AS AIDS IN INTERPRETATION.  TO
WHAT SOURCES A COURT MAY GO FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS IS NOT IMPORTANT, FOR
PURPOSES OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, SO LONG AS THE END RESULT IS A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. MIDSTATE HORTICULTURAL CO., 306 U.S. 161, 163,
NOTE 2.  THAT CASE TURNED ON A NOT VERY DISSIMILAR PROVISION.  ID. AT
164-165.  CF. NOTE 4. 

FN7  NO DISCUSSION OF THE PROVISION IS TO BE FOUND IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT.  THE BILLS
INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE CONTAINED THE SAME LANGUAGE
EMPLOYED IN THE ACT AS IT WAS FINALLY PASSED.  S. 4164, 76TH CONG., 3D
SESS., INTRODUCED AT 86 CONG. REC. 8680; H.R. 10132, 76TH CONG., 3D
SESS., INTRODUCED AT 86 CONG. REC. 8908. 

FN8  H.R. REP. NO. 17, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 1. 

FN9  THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PASSED THE BILL WITH THE PROVISION
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS.  THE SENATE PASSED
IT WITH THE PROVISION IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM BUT SUBSEQUENTLY A
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ADOPTED THE HOUSE VERSION.  H.R. REP. NO. 49, 65TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN10  THE REGULATIONS UPON WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT RELIED IN PART,
WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON SEC. 613.14, ARE NOT PERTINENT.  AS THE
GOVERNMENT SAYS, THEY RELATE "TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTIONS OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM AND ARE NOT DIRECTED IN ANY
SENSE TO THE QUESTION OF VENUE" OR JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS TO TRY
OFFENSES ARISING UNDER THE ACT.    THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO THOUGHT SOME
SUPPORT FOR ITS RULING COULD BE DERIVED FROM THE DECISIONS IN UNITED
STATES V. COLLURA, 139 F.2D 345, AND UNITED STATES V. VAN DEN BERG, 139
F.2D 654, ALTHOUGH NOT REGARDING EITHER AS DIRECTLY IN POINT. 

FN11 IT WAS NOTED IN THE PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, HOWEVER, THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN 1942 HAD INSTRUCTED
UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS THAT, IN CASES OF FAILURE TO REPORT FOR
INDUCTION, "VENUE IS IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE SUBJECT WAS ORDERED TO
REPORT," APPARENTLY WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER HE HAD EVER BEEN PRESENT
PHYSICALLY THERE.    FN12  WITHIN THE DOCTRINE OF CONTINUING OFFENSES,
AS TO WHICH TRIAL CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY BE HAD IN ONE OR ANOTHER OF THE
DISTRICTS IN WHICH THE OFFENSE IS CARRIED ON.  ARMOUR PACKING CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56; CF. UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 323 U.S.
273. 

FN13  CF. HAAS V. HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462; ANDRADE V. UNITED STATES, 16
F.2D 776; UNITED STATES V. JORDAN, 22 F.2D 702; UNITED STATES V. MAYER,
22 F.2D 827. 

FN14  COMPARE THE CASES HOLDING THAT WHEN AN OMISSION TO ACT IS THE
CRIME, THE VENUE IS THE JURISDICTIONAL LOCALITY WHERE THE ACT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN PERFORMED, E.G., REGINA V. MILNER, 2 CAR.  & K. 309, 175 ENG.
REP. 128; NEW YORK CENT. & H.R.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 166 F. 267,
269; STATE V. YOCUM, 182 IND. 478, 106 N.E. 705; STATE V. BREWSTER, 87
N.J.L. 75, 93 A. 189; STATE V. PEABODY, 25 R.I. 544, 56 A. 1028; 1
BISHOP, NEW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (2D ED.)  SEC.  53(5).  SEE UNITED
STATES V. LOMBARDO, 241 U.S. 73; RUMELY V. MCCARTHY, 250 U.S. 283;
UNITED STATES V. VAN DEN BERG, 139 F.2D 654, 656. 

FN15  HAAS V. HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462. 

FN16  CF. AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 14. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 328 U.S. 707 


NO. 625.  ARGUED APRIL 22, 29, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 176
ORE.  662, 158 P.2D 275, REVERSED. 


1.  A SEAMAN EMPLOYED ON A SHIP OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AND
OPERATED FOR THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION BY A PRIVATE COMPANY "AS
ITS AGENT AND NOT AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR" UNDER THE STANDARD FORM
OF GENERAL AGENT SERVICE AGREEMENT WAS INJURED A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT OF MARCH 24, 1943, DUE TO THE
NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF THE SHIP.  HELD:  HE IS ENTITLED TO SUE THE
OPERATING COMPANY FOR DAMAGES IN A STATE COURT AND TO HAVE A JURY TRIAL
UNDER SEC. 33 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920(THE JONES ACT), EVEN
IF HE WAS TECHNICALLY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 715-734. 

2.  THE PURPOSE OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT WAS TO EXPAND, NOT TO
RESTRICT, THE RIGHTS OF SEAMEN.  TO INTERPRET IT AS INTENDED TO
DISPLACE THE SETTLED SCHEME OF PRIVATE RIGHTS OF SEAMEN DURING A PERIOD
OF TEMPORARY GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE MERCHANT MARINE WOULD
BE TO PERVERT ITS WHOLE PURPOSE, CREATE NUMEROUS UNCERTAINTIES, AND
CAUSE THE LOSS OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS LONG ENJOYED BY SEAMEN.  PP. 715
723. 

3.  EVEN IF THE SEAMAN WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS DID
NOT REMIT HIM EXCLUSIVELY TO THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT FOR REMEDY TO
ENFORCE THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE JONES ACT OR DEPRIVE HIM OF
ALL REMEDIES AGAINST THE OPERATING "AGENT" FOR SUCH INJURIES AS HE
INCURRED.  PP. 723, 724. 

4.  AN APPLICATION OF THE COMMON LAW RULES OF PRIVATE AGENCY TO
DEFEAT THE JONES ACT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED IN THIS TEMPORARY SITUATION,
SINCE NEITHER CONGRESS NOR THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO TAKE AWAY THE
NORMALLY APPLICABLE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF SEAMEN WHEN THE MARITIME
INDUSTRY WAS TRANSFERRED TEMPORARILY TO GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL FOR THE
DURATION OF THE WAR EMERGENCY.  PP. 724, 725, 730, 731. 

5.  NOTHING IN THE JONES ACT, THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, THE WAR
POWERS ACT OF 1941, OR THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS BY WHICH THE MARITIME
INDUSTRY WAS TRANSFERRED TO GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL COMPELS A CONTRARY
CONCLUSION.  P. 725. 

6.  THAT THE WARTIME TRANSFER OF THE MERCHANT MARINE FROM PRIVATE TO
GOVERNMENT CONTROL WAS NOT INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THE SEAMAN OF HIS RIGHT
TO SUE UNDER THE JONES ACT IS CONFIRMED BY THE CLARIFICATION ACT.  ONE
PRIMARY OCCASION FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT WAS TO SAVE
THE SEAMAN'S RIGHTS RATHER THAN TO TAKE THEM AWAY.  PP. 725-734. 

7.  IN ITS RETROACTIVELY OPERATING PROVISIONS, HERE APPLICABLE, THE
CLARIFICATION ACT GIVES THE SEAMAN AN ELECTION BETWEEN ENFORCING HIS
RIGHTS IN THE USUAL MANNER AND ASSERTING THEM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  IT WOULD NULLIFY THIS ELECTION TO
HOLD THAT THE SEAMAN'S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURIES INCURRED BEFORE THE
CLARIFICATION ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE WAS UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY
ACT.  PP. 729, 730. 

8.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE STANDARD FORM OF GENERAL AGENT SERVICE
AGREEMENT WAS CHANGED SO AS TO OMIT THE PROVISION FOR THE OPERATING
AGENT TO MAN THE SHIP DID NOT DEPRIVE SEAMEN OF THE LONG-ESTABLISHED
SCHEME OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES PROVIDED BY LAW OR REDUCE THEM TO THE
SINGLE MODE OF ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE.  PP.
730, 731. 

HUST V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON. 

A SEAMAN INJURED ABOARD A SHIP OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT
SUIT AND OBTAINED A JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES IN AN OREGON COURT UNDER SEC.
33 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920(THE JONES ACT) AGAINST A
STEAMSHIP COMPANY WHICH WAS OPERATING THE SHIP FOR THE GOVERNMENT UNDER
THE STANDARD FORM OF GENERAL AGENT SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON REVERSED.  176
ORE.  662, 158 P.2D 275.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S.
771.  REVERSED, P. 734. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ARISES BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT DURING MOST OF THE SECOND
WORLD WAR SUBSTANTIALLY OUR ENTIRE MERCHANT MARINE BECAME PART OF A
SINGLE VAST SHIPPING POOL, SAID TO HAVE BEEN THE LARGEST IN HISTORY,
FN1  OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  FN2  SO HUGE AN ENTERPRISE NECESSARILY
COMPREHENDED MANY INTRICATE AND COMPLEX READJUSTMENTS FROM NORMAL,
PEACETIME SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS.  THESE WERE EXECUTED LARGELY THROUGH
BROAD POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE ADMINISTRATION.  FN3 

EVENTUALLY ALMOST EVERY VESSEL NOT IMMEDIATELY BELONGING TO NAVAL AND
OTHER ARMED FORCES CAME UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION'S AUTHORITY. 
OTHERWISE THAN BY DIRECT CONSTRUCTION AND OWNERSHIP, THIS WAS
ACCOMPLISHED BY TRANSFER FROM PRIVATE SHIPPING INTERESTS TO THE
ADMINISTRATION, PURSUANT TO REQUISITION OR OTHER ARRANGEMENT. 

INEVITABLY THE INDUSTRY'S TRANSFER FROM PRIVATE TO PUBLIC CONTROL WAS
ACHIEVED TO A VERY GREAT EXTENT BY MAKING USE NOT ONLY OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY BUT ALSO OF PRIVATE SHIPPING MEN, BOTH IN MANAGEMENT AND FOR
LABOR.  FN4  THIS TOO WAS BROUGHT ABOUT IN VARIOUS WAYS, BUT CHIEFLY
TWO FOR PRESENTLY PERTINENT PURPOSES.  ONE WAS BY TIME-CHARTERING OF
PRIVATELY OWNED VESSELS WITH CREW, IN WHICH CASE THE MEN REMAINED THE
PRIVATE EMPLOYEES OF THE VESSEL'S OWNER.  THE OTHER WAS BY EITHER
BAREBOAT-CHARTER OR OUTRIGHT OWNERSHIP BY THE ADMINISTRATION.  IN SUCH
INSTANCES, AS WILL APPEAR, MASTER AND SEAMEN BECAME TECHNICALLY
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN5 

THE DIFFERENCE IS IMPORTANT FOR THE ISSUES AND THE DECISION IN THIS
CASE.  THEY CONCERN THE BROAD QUESTION WHETHER SEAMEN EMPLOYED IN THE
LATTER CAPACITY, AS MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES MERCHANT MARINE,  FN6
LOST DURING THE PERIOD OF SUCH SERVICE PRIOR TO MARCH 24, 1943,  FN7
SOME OF THE AMERICAN SEAMEN'S ORDINARY AND USUAL PROTECTIONS IN RESPECT
TO PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, OR
RETAINED THOSE RIGHTS.  SPECIFICALLY, IN THIS CASE THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER PETITIONER HUST RETAINED THE SEAMAN'S USUAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL
IN A SUIT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
JONES ACT,  FN8  FOR PERSONAL INJURIES INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT AS A SEAMAN ON THE S. S. MARK HANNA.  THIS WAS A GOVERNMENT
OWNED LIBERTY SHIP OPERATED UNDER A SO-CALLED GENERAL AGENT SERVICE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION. 

THE MARK HANNA HAD BEEN TORPEDOED IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN ON MARCH 9,
1943.  EARLY ON THE MORNING OF THE 17TH, THE DAY OF HUST'S INJURY, THE
VESSEL WAS BEING TOWED TO PORT.  HE WAS ORDERED TO GO TO THE SHIP'S
LOCKER IN THE FOREPEAK OF THE SECOND DECK AND BRING OUT A MOORING LINE
TO BE USED IN TOWING.  THE ELECTRIC BULB LIGHTING THE LOCKER ROOM HAD
BURNED OUT AND THE ROOM WAS DARK.  WHILE CROSSING IT TO GET THE LINE,
HUST FELL THROUGH AN UNGUARDED HATCH ABOUT TWELVE FEET TO THE THIRD
DECK.  IN LANDING HE STRUCK A STEEL MANHOLE COVER PROJECTING SOME SIX
INCHES ABOVE THE DECK, AND INCURRED THE INJURIES FOR WHICH THIS SUIT
WAS BROUGHT ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1943, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY
OF MULTNOMAH, STATE OF OREGON. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT HUST WAS RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEE, WAS
INJURED THROUGH ITS NEGLIGENCE, AND THAT THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT PURSUANT
TO SEC. 33 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920.  TRIAL BEFORE A JURY
BROUGHT A VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR HUST.  ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF OREGON THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED AND AN ORDER WAS ENTERED FOR
THE CAUSE TO BE REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE
RESPONDENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT,
AS A MATTER OF LAW,  FN9  PETITIONER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED
STATES, NOT OF RESPONDENT, AND THEREFORE HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER
FROM IT UNDER THE JONES ACT FOR THE INJURIES ALLEGED AND PROVED.  176
ORE.  662, 158 P.2D 275.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT IN APPLICATION TO PERSONS SITUATED SIMILARLY
TO THE PETITIONER CAUSED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI IN ORDER TO REVIEW THIS
RULING.  327 U.S. 771. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON CONSIDERED THAT THE CONTROLLING QUESTION
WAS WHETHER HUST WAS RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEE WHEN THE INJURIES WERE
INCURRED; AND THAT "IT MUST BE ASSUMED  ...  THAT THE CASE IS GOVERNED
BY THE RULE OF THE COMMON LAW" TO DETERMINE THIS QUESTION AND THUS THE
OUTCOME OF THE CASE.  ACCORDINGLY IT EXAMINED WITH GREAT CARE THE
ARRANGEMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE GOVERNMENT
FOR OPERATION OF THE MARK HANNA, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL SERVICE AGREEMENT  FN10  TO WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATION AND RESPONDENT WERE PARTIES.  FROM THIS EXAMINATION THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT WAS AN AGENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR
ONLY LIMITED PURPOSES, NOT INCLUDING CONTROL, AUTHORITY OR
PRINCIPALSHIP OF THE MASTER AND CREW OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR NEGLIGENT
OCCURRENCES TAKING PLACE AT SEA AND NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MANNER OF
DISCHARGING ANY DUTY OF RESPONDENT WHILE THE VESSEL WAS IN PORT.  FN11
HENCE, APPLYING THE COMMON-LAW "CONTROL" TEST,  FN12  THE COURT CAME TO
ITS CONCLUSION THAT HUST WAS NOT RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEE AS THAT RELATION
IS CONTEMPLATED IN THE JONES ACT.  THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE SO
CALLED CLARIFICATION ACT  FN13  IN NO WAY GAVE SUPPORT TO HIS VIEW THAT
HE COULD RECOVER FROM RESPONDENT UNDER THE JONES ACT.  FN14 

IT IS AROUND THESE QUESTIONS AND THE EFFECT FOR DETERMINING THEM OF
VARIOUS AUTHORITIES, PARTICULARLY BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S.
575, THAT THE CONTROVERSY HAS REVOLVED IN THE STATE COURTS AND HERE. 
IN CONNECTION WITH THE BEARING OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT, IT IS OF SOME
IMPORTANCE TO NOTE THAT HUST'S INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED ONLY A FEW DAYS
BEFORE THAT ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 24, 1943, AND THAT IT
CONTAINED FEATURES RELATING TO INJURIES LIKE HUST'S INCURRED BETWEEN
THAT DATE AND OCTOBER 1, 1941, RETROACTIVE IN CHARACTER.  FN15  IT IS,
IN PART, CONCERNING THOSE FEATURES THAT ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MOST
INTENSE. 

I. 

AT THE OUTSET IT IS IMPORTANT TO STATE JUST WHAT THE DECISION MAY
MEAN IN CONSEQUENCES FOR INJURED SEAMEN AND THEIR DEPENDENTS AS WELL AS
FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 

THE JONES ACT WAS THE CULMINATION OF A LONG STRUGGLE BY SEAMEN TO
SECURE MORE ADEQUATE RELIEF IN CASE OF INJURY OR DEATH, INCURRED IN THE
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, THAN HAD BEEN AFFORDED BY PREEXISTING LAW.  FN16
WE DO NOT STOP TO REVIEW THAT HISTORY.  BUT THE HISTORY OF THE JONES
ACT SINCE ITS ENACTMENT HAS BEEN DISTINCTIVE IN THAT, AT ALL SUBSEQUENT
TIMES, SEAMEN HAVE OPPOSED SUBSTITUTING FOR ITS PROVISIONS OTHER FORMS
OF RELIEF WHICH HAVE BEEN TENDERED AS BEING MORE IN ACCORD WITH MODERN
TRENDS OF LEGISLATION FOR THESE MATTERS.  FN17  WISELY OR UNWISELY,
THEY HAVE STEADFASTLY PREFERRED THE TRADITIONAL REMEDY OF JURY TRIAL
FOR NEGLIGENCE TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BASED ON LIABILITY WITHOUT
FAULT.  BY 1942, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER THE MERCHANT MARINE,
THAT REMEDY HAD BECOME A THOROUGHLY ESTABLISHED INCIDENT OF THE
SEAMAN'S CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, AS MUCH SO AS THE HISTORIC RELIEF
AFFORDED BY THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE OR
MARITIME TORT.  FN18  IT WAS ONE WHICH ATTACHED TO EVERY SEAMAN'S
CONTRACT. 

MOREOVER, BY SEC. 1 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, LIKE THE JONES ACT
ENACTED IN 1920(41 STAT. 525, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 741), ARREST AND SEIZURE
UNDER JUDICIAL PROCESS WERE FORBIDDEN OF VESSELS OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES OR A GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION "OR OPERATED BY OR FOR THE UNITED
STATES OR SUCH CORPORATION"; AND BY SEC. 2, IN PLACE OF THAT RIGHT OF
SEIZURE, "A LIBEL IN PERSONAM MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
OR AGAINST SUCH (GOVERNMENTAL) CORPORATION" IN CASES WHERE "IF SUCH
VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED  ...  A PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY
COULD BE MAINTAINED  ..." 

BY THE DECISION IN JOHNSON V. FLEET CORP., 280 U.S. 320, IT WAS HELD
THAT THE REMEDIES GIVEN BY THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT "ARE EXCLUSIVE IN
ALL CASES WHERE A LIBEL MIGHT BE FILED UNDER IT," THAT IS, ON "MARITIME
CAUSES OF ACTION COVERED BY THE ACT."  ID. AT 327. 

THE JOHNSON RULING WAS MADE BROADLY TO COVER MARITIME CAUSES OF
ACTION WHICH COULD BE ASSERTED IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
OR GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATIONS AND ALSO AGAINST PRIVATE OPERATORS FOR THE
GOVERNMENT.  FN19  FLEET CORP. V. LUSTGARTEN, 280 U.S. 320, A COMPANION
CASE.  BUT IN BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., SUPRA, THE JOHNSON
(LUSTGARTEN) RULING WAS MODIFIED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBVIOUS SCOPE
AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT, TO RESTRICT THE EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE STATUTORY
REMEDY PROVIDED TO CAUSES ASSERTED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR
GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATIONS.  THE ACT, IT WAS HELD IN EFFECT, DID NOT
AFFECT OR EXCLUDE THE SEAMAN'S RIGHTS, IN ADMIRALTY OR OTHERWISE,
AGAINST THE PRIVATE OPERATOR.  IT MERELY SUBSTITUTED ONE REMEDY AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT FOR WHAT WAS, IN SUBSTANCE THOUGH NOT TECHNICALLY,
ANOTHER AGAINST IT, THAT IS, THE LIBEL IN PERSONAM PROVIDED BY SEC. 2
FOR THE LIBEL IN REM TAKEN AWAY BY SEC. 1.  FN20 

PRIOR TO 1942, THEREFORE, THE PRIVATELY EMPLOYED SEAMAN HAD NOT ONLY
HIS REMEDY UNDER THE JONES ACT, BUT ALSO HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE GENERAL
MARITIME LAW ENFORCEABLE IN ADMIRALTY OR BY VARIOUS FORMS OF
PROCEEDINGS ELSEWHERE.  BUT EVEN MORE FAVORABLY SITUATED, UNDER THE
BRADY RULING, WAS THE SEAMAN EMPLOYED ON VESSELS OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES AND OPERATED FOR IT BY PRIVATE COMPANIES UNDER ARRANGEMENTS WITH
THE FLEET CORPORATION OR THE MARITIME COMMISSION.  FN21  HE HAD HIS
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENTAL
CORPORATION, UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
WHICH COULD BE MAINTAINED IN ADMIRALTY IF THE VESSEL ON WHICH HE WAS
EMPLOYED HAD BEEN PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED; AND, MOREOVER, UNDER THE
BRADY RULING HE RETAINED HIS RIGHTS UNDER MARITIME LAW AGAINST THE
PRIVATE COMPANY OPERATING THE VESSEL AS AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  FN22
ALTHOUGH NEVER SPECIFICALLY DECIDED HERE, THIS WAS HELD IN CARROLL V.
UNITED STATES, 133 F.2D 690, TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY GENERAL MARITIME
RIGHTS SUCH AS THE BRADY CASE INVOLVED, BUT ALSO RECOVERY UNDER THE
JONES ACT.  THE CARROLL CASE WAS DECIDED FLATLY ON AUTHORITY OF THE
BRADY DECISION AND THE RESULT WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED BOTH BY ITS RULING
AND BY THE TERMS OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  FN23 

NOW IT IS ARGUED THAT THIS FAVORED POSITION WAS ALTOGETHER INVERTED
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER CONTROL OF THE ENTIRE MERCHANT MARINE
UNDER ITS WAR POWERS IN 1942.  FOR IT IS MAINTAINED AND THE OREGON
SUPREME COURT HAS HELD, IN EFFECT, THAT THIS TRANSFER STRIPPED SEAMEN
OF MANY, IF NOT ALL, OF THEIR PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING THE REMEDY UNDER
THE JONES ACT, FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR AND SIX MONTHS.  FN24  TRUE,
THE DECISION APPLIES SPECIFICALLY ONLY TO JONES ACT PROCEEDINGS.  BUT
IT IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL OTHER MARITIME RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
DEPENDENT UPON EXISTENCE OF THE "EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE" RELATION, SUCH AS
THE RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE, ETC.  WHENEVER, IN SUCH CASES, IT
MIGHT BE FOUND THAT TECHNICALLY THE GOVERNMENT IS THE EMPLOYER, THE
NECESSARY RESULT WOULD BE TO REMIT THE SEAMAN TO THE "EXCLUSIVE" RIGHT
TO SUE UNDER THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  IN
SHORT THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF THAT ACT AND OF THE TRANSFER OF AMERICAN
SHIPPING TO GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL, FOR THE TEMPORARY PERIOD OF THE WAR,
WOULD BE TO CONFINE MERCHANT SEAMEN ALTOGETHER TO SUITS UNDER THE ACT,
EXCEPT IN THE CASES OF MEN EMPLOYED ON VESSELS UNDER TIME-CHARTER  FN25
AND POSSIBLY AS TO INJURIES INCURRED BY OTHERS THROUGH THE GENERAL
OPERATING AGENT'S FAILURE TO DISCHARGE SOME SPECIFIC DUTY IMPOSED BY
THE GENERAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WHILE THE VESSEL IS IN PORT.  FN26  WITH
THOSE POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS THE VARIOUS RIGHTS OF SEAMEN, ENFORCEABLE BY
VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN ADMIRALTY AND AT LAW, IN STATE AND FEDERAL
COURTS, ARE SWEPT INTO ONE HOPPER, THE SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR
GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT. 

SUCH A RESULT QUITE OBVIOUSLY WOULD RESURRECT THE LUSTGARTEN
(JOHNSON) RULING TO OVERRIDE, IN PRACTICAL EFFECT, THAT OF THE BRADY
DECISION FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR.  NOR WOULD ONLY THE FORUM AND THE
PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BE AFFECTED.  FOR, AS THE BRADY OPINION SAID
OF THE LUSTGARTEN RULING, THE SHORTER LIMITATIONS PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
PROVIDED BY THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT WOULD APPLY,  FN27  WITH THE
UNDOUBTED EFFECT IN MANY CASES OF BARRING RECOVERY ALTOGETHER.  WITH A
VARIETY OF RIGHTS ESTABLISHED IN LAW AND CUSTOM, THE SUDDEN SHIFT OF
ALL RELIEF, EXCEPT IN THE COMPARATIVELY INFREQUENT INSTANCES MENTIONED
ABOVE, TO THE SINGLE FORUM AND REMEDY COULD NOT BUT BRING WIDESPREAD
SURPRISE AND RESULTING FAILURE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.  NOT ONLY WOULD
WRONG REMEDIES BE ASSERTED ONLY TO DISCOVER THE FACT TOO LATE, AS IN
THIS CASE AND OTHERS IN RELATION TO WHICH BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE HAVE
BEEN FILED.  FN28  BUT AT LEAST SOME CLAIMANTS, PERHAPS MANY, RELYING
UPON THE LONGER PERIOD INCORPORATED IN THE BODY OF OUR LAW, WOULD DELAY
INSTITUTING SUIT BEYOND THE SHORTER ONE ALLOWED BY THE TEMPORARY
EXPANSION OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT TO COVER WAR CONDITIONS, AND
THUS BE TRAPPED INTO LOSS OF ALL REMEDY AT A TIME WHEN BROAD RELIEF WAS
NEEDED MORE THAN EVER. 

THERE WOULD BE OTHER UNCERTAINTIES AND COMPLEXITIES.  WERE
RESPONDENT'S POSITION TO PREVAIL, A SEAMAN WOULD BE FORCED TO PREDICT,
BEFORE INSTITUTING HIS SUIT, WHETHER AT THE END OF THE LITIGATION IT
WOULD TURN OUT THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ASSERTED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR AGAINST THE PRIVATE OPERATOR.  THUS,
IT MIGHT OFTEN BE DIFFICULT TO FORETELL WHETHER THE NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED
TO HAVE CAUSED THE INJURY WOULD BE ATTRIBUTED ULTIMATELY, AS THE PROOF
SHOULD TURN OUT, TO SOME ACT OF THE MASTER OR A MEMBER OF THE CREW, IN
WHICH EVENT ONLY THE GOVERNMENT, NOT THE OPERATING AGENT, WOULD BE
LIABLE, OR TO SOME DEFAULT OF THAT AGENT IN DISCHARGING ITS SPECIALLY
LIMITED BUT VARIOUS DUTIES, IN WHICH CASE IT AND AT LEAST IN SOME
INSTANCES NOT THE GOVERNMENT  FN29  WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE.  THE ONLY
SAFE COURSE FOR A CLAIMANT IN DOUBT - AND OBVIOUSLY MANY SUCH
SITUATIONS MIGHT ARISE - WOULD BE TO FILE TWO SUITS, ONE A LIBEL IN
PERSONAM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THE OTHER AN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING
AGAINST THE AGENT; AND POSSIBLY EVEN SO THE RISK MIGHT REMAIN THAT THE
DIVISION OF REMEDIES WOULD RESULT IN LOSS OF RELIEF ALTOGETHER. 

IN ADDITION IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED THAT UNDER THE PRACTICE OF THE
INDUSTRY SEAMEN FREQUENTLY WOULD MOVE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN VESSELS OF
THE SAME OWNER MOORED SIDE BY SIDE, FROM SHIPS UNDER TIME-CHARTER TO
OTHERS UNDER BAREBOAT-CHARTER TO THE ADMINISTRATION.  WITH EACH SUCH
SHIFT, UNDER RESPONDENT'S VIEW OF THE LAW, RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
SEAMAN'S INJURIES WOULD SHIFT FROM THE AGENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OR THE
OTHER WAY AROUND, WITH CORRESPONDING SHUTTLING OF REMEDY.  THE
CONFUSION THUS RESULTING WAS ONE REASON WHICH LED TO ADOPTION OF THE
CLARIFICATION ACT.  S. REP. NO. 62, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 5; H. REP.
NO. 2572, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 9, QUOTED INFRA AT NOTE 32. 

THESE ARE AT LEAST SOME OF THE UNCERTAINTIES AND COMPLEXITIES WHICH
WOULD RESULT FROM ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONDENT'S VIEW.  IT IS HARDLY TOO
MUCH TO SAY THAT SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS WOULD BE LOST IN AN INCALCULABLE
NUMBER OF CASES BY THE DISRUPTION SUCH AN ACCEPTANCE WOULD BRING FOR
RIGHTS LONG SETTLED.  THE RESULT ALSO WOULD BE TO THROW LARGE
ADDITIONAL NUMBERS INTO CONFUSION WHICH IN THE END COULD ONLY DEFEAT
MANY OF THEM. 

   II. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT CONGRESS COULD AUTHORIZE SO VAST A DISTURBANCE TO
SETTLED RIGHTS BY CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL COMMAND.  IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE
TO FIND ONE BY IMPLICATION.  BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., SUPRA, AT
580.  HERE THE DISRUPTION, IF IT HAS OCCURRED, HAS DONE SO ONLY AS AN
IMPLIED RESULT OF THE CONJUNCTION OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT'S
PROVISIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S EMERGENCY ACTION IN TAKING OVER THE
SHIPPING INDUSTRY FOR WAR PURPOSES. 

APART FROM RESURRECTING THE LUSTGARTEN RULING IN THE FACE OF THE
BRADY REVERSAL, THIS RESULT COULD BE REACHED ONLY BY FINDING THAT
CONGRESS, OR CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT, INTENDED TO BRING IT ABOUT BY
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR POWERS TO BRING THE INDUSTRY UNDER GOVERNMENTAL
CONTROL.  NO OTHER LEGISLATION, OR EXECUTIVE ACTION, REMOTELY COULD BE
THOUGHT TO HAVE THAT EFFECT. 

CERTAINLY THIS WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  AS
WE HAVE SAID, ITS EFFECT WAS TO EXPAND, NOT TO RESTRICT, THE SEAMAN'S
RIGHTS, AS BRADY DECIDED.  MOREOVER, IT WAS NOT AN EMERGENCY MEASURE,
ADOPTED TO PROMOTE THE WAR EFFORT.  IT WAS NORMAL, PEACETIME
LEGISLATION, FITTING INTO A SETTLED SCHEME OF PRIVATE RIGHTS.  THERE
CAN BE NO INFERENCE FROM ITS TERMS OR HISTORY THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO
DISPLACE THAT SCHEME ENTIRELY OR IN LARGE PART, IN NORMAL TIMES OR IN
THE EMERGENCY OF WAR.  TO GIVE ITS LETTER THIS EFFECT, BECAUSE THE WAR
BROUGHT ABOUT THE TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF THE INDUSTRY TO GOVERNMENTAL
CONTROL, WOULD BE TO PERVERT ITS WHOLE PURPOSE. 

WE ARE TOLD, HOWEVER, THAT THE JONES ACT APPLIES BY ITS SPECIFIC
TERMS ONLY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER TO EMPLOYEE, TO
GIVE THE LATTER A REMEDY FOR THE EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE; AND, SINCE THE
EFFECT OF THE GENERAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WAS TO MAKE THE SEAMAN
TECHNICALLY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE NECESSARY RESULT WAS
TO REMIT HIM EXCLUSIVELY TO THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT FOR REMEDY TO
ENFORCE THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT GIVEN BY THE JONES ACT. 

THE PREMISE IS NOT CONTROLLING.  WE MAY ACCEPT THE OREGON COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT TECHNICALLY THE AGREEMENT MADE HUST AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF ULTIMATE CONTROL IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
HIS WORK, ALTHOUGH THE METICULOUS DIFFERENCES IN THIS RESPECT BETWEEN
ITS TERMS AND THE CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION'S
STANDARD CONTRACT MAKE IT HARDLY MORE THAN DUBIOUS THAT RESPONDENT DID
NOT STAND PRO HAC VICE AS EMPLOYER WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  FN30 BUT IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE FACT THAT HUST WAS TECHNICALLY THE
GOVERNMENT'S EMPLOYEE THAT HE LOST ALL REMEDIES AGAINST THE OPERATING
"AGENT" FOR SUCH INJURIES AS HE INCURRED.  THIS CASE, LIKE LABOR BOARD
V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, INVOLVES SOMETHING MORE THAN MERE
APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE COMMON-LAW TEST FOR ASCERTAINING THE
VICARIOUS RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PRIVATE EMPLOYER FOR TORTIOUS CONDUCT
OF AN EMPLOYEE. 

HERE INDEED IS THE RESPONDENT'S FALLACY, FOR IT ASSUMES THE CASE
WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE COMMON-LAW RULES OF PRIVATE AGENCY.  FN31
IT IS TRUE THESE ARE APPLIED IN THE NORMAL EVERYDAY APPLICATIONS OF THE
JONES ACT.  BUT IN THOSE SITUATIONS THIS IS DONE TO DETERMINE WHO COMES
WITHIN, WHO WITHOUT, THE COVERED CLASS IN THE ACT'S NORMAL OPERATION,
NOT TO EXCLUDE THAT CLASS ENTIRELY OR IN LARGE PART.  HERE THE
APPLICATION IS MADE TO DEFEAT THE ACT FOR ALL EXCEPT THE SMALLER NUMBER
OF MEN WHOM IT WAS ENACTED TO PROTECT.  NO SUCH APPLICATION OF THE
COMMON-LAW "CONTROL" TEST CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN THIS TEMPORARY SITUATION
UNLESS BY INVERSION OF THAT WISDOM WHICH TEACHES THAT "THE LETTER
KILLETH, BUT THE SPIRIT GIVETH LIFE." 

NOT ALWAYS DOES THE LAW PROCEED IN DISREGARD OF THAT TRUTH.  THERE
WAS NOTHING TO PREVENT CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENT, ACTING IN EXERCISE OF
THEIR AUTHORITY, FROM SHIFTING THE TECHNICAL RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE FROM THE GENERAL AGENT TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOR PURPOSES
RELEVANT TO ULTIMATE WARTIME CONTROL OF MARINE EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT AT
THE SAME TIME DISRUPTING THEIR NORMALLY APPLICABLE RIGHTS AND
REMEDIES.  ON THE CONTRARY, THERE WAS EVERY REASON WHY THE CHANGE
SHOULD BE MADE WITHOUT THAT CONSEQUENCE.  NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE
INDULGED THAT ANY PURPOSE EXISTED TO TAKE AWAY THOSE PROTECTIONS WHEN
THEY WERE NEEDED MORE THAN EVER, NOR ANY THAT SO GREAT A DISRUPTION
WOULD BE MADE FOR ONLY THE EMERGENCY OF THE WAR PERIOD.  NOTHING IN THE
JONES ACT, THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, OR IN THE WAR POWERS ACT OF 1941
AND THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS BY WHICH THE INDUSTRY'S TRANSFER WAS
ACCOMPLISHED COMPELS SUCH A CONCLUSION. 

                                 III. 

CONFIRMATION OF THIS IS FURNISHED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
CLARIFICATION ACT AND BY ITS RETROACTIVE PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE
SEAMAN'S RIGHTS, INCLUDING REMEDIES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL INJURY AND
DEATH.  INDEED ONE PRIMARY OCCASION FOR ENACTING THE CLARIFICATION ACT
WAS TO SAVE THE SEAMAN'S RIGHTS IN THESE RESPECTS RATHER THAN TO TAKE
THEM AWAY.  FN32 

IT IS TRUE THERE WAS GREAT CONCERN FOR FEAR THAT THOSE RIGHTS HAD
BEEN LOST OR SERIOUSLY ATTENUATED BY THE TRANSFER TO GOVERNMENTAL
CONTROL, PARTICULARLY DURING THE EARLIER STAGES OF CONGRESSIONAL
CONSIDERATION WHEN THE BRADY DECISION HAD NOT REMOVED THE LARGE CLOUD
CAST OVER THEM BY THE LUSTGARTEN RULING.  NOR DID BRADY REMOVE ALL OF
THE DOUBT IN THE MINDS OF THOSE SPONSORING THE BILL, AS THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS DURING THE LATER STAGES OF CONSIDERATION DISCLOSE.  FN33 HENCE,
TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE SEAMEN WOULD HAVE AT LEAST THE REMEDY PROVIDED
BY THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHTS, AS WELL AS TO TAKE CARE OF OTHER IMPORTANT MATTERS NOT
AFFECTING THEM,  FN34  THE BILL PROCEEDED TO ENACTMENT. 

WE NEED NOT DETERMINE IN THIS CASE WHETHER PROSPECTIVELY THE
CLARIFICATION ACT AFFECTED RIGHTS OF THE SEAMAN AGAINST THE OPERATING
AGENT AND OTHERS, OR SIMPLY MADE SURE THAT HIS RIGHTS WERE ENFORCEABLE
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  WE MAKE NO SUGGESTION IN THAT RESPECT.  FOR
THIS CASE, ON THE FACTS, IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE STATUTE'S PROSPECTIVE
OPERATION.  FN35  IT MAY BE NOTED HOWEVER THAT, IF RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION WERE THE LAW, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1, AUTHORIZING
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SEAMAN'S SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS FOR INJURY, MAINTENANCE
AND CURE, ETC., BY THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT REMEDY, WOULD DO NO MORE
THAN REAFFIRM WHAT THE LATTER ACT HAD PROVIDED ALL ALONG. 

THE CLARIFICATION ACT, HOWEVER, IS NOT WITHOUT IMPORTANT BEARING FOR
SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM THIS CASE PRESENTS.  FOR WHATEVER THE EFFECT OF
ITS PROSPECTIVELY OPERATING PROVISIONS UPON THE SEAMAN'S RIGHTS AS
AGAINST OTHERS THAN THE GOVERNMENT, THE BILL IN ITS FINAL FORM
CONTAINED A PROVISION DESIGNED AND EFFECTIVE TO PREVENT THE LOSS OF
SUCH RIGHTS AS PETITIONER NOW ASSERTS. 

TERMS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE: 

"ANY CLAIM, RIGHT, OR CAUSE OF ACTION OF OR IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH
SEAMAN ACCRUING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1941, AND PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
ENACTMENT OF THIS SECTION MAY BE ENFORCED, AND UPON THE ELECTION OF THE
SEAMAN OR HIS SURVIVING DEPENDENT OR BENEFICIARY, OR HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE TO DO SO SHALL BE GOVERNED, AS IF THIS SECTION HAD BEEN
IN EFFECT WHEN SUCH CLAIM, RIGHT, OR CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED, SUCH
ELECTION TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION."  FN36 

ONE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION WAS TO EXTEND RETROACTIVELY TO
THE SEAMAN THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSURED REMEDY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
GIVEN BY SEC. 1.  BUT EQUALLY OBVIOUS IS THE INTENT TO SAVE SUCH OTHER
RIGHTS AS THE SEAMAN MAY HAVE HAD AND TO GIVE HIM AN ELECTION BETWEEN
ENFORCING THEM IN THE USUAL MANNER AND ASSERTING THEM IN A SUIT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY SEC. 1. 

UNCERTAIN IN SCOPE AS THE EFFECTS OF THE BRADY DECISION WERE REGARDED
TO BE, THEY WERE CLEARLY RECOGNIZED AS HOLDING THAT THE SEAMAN HAD
RIGHTS AGAINST PRIVATE OPERATORS ARISING AFTER THE TRANSFER OF
GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL.  FN37  RESPONDENT'S VIEW OF THE LAW WOULD NULLIFY
THE ELECTION GIVEN.  FOR IN THAT VIEW, EVEN BEFORE THE CLARIFICATION
ACT WAS ADOPTED, THE SEAMAN'S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR INJURIES INCURRED
AFTER THE TRANSFER WAS BY SUIT UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE. 
BUT SEC. 1 EXPRESSLY GIVES ELECTION BETWEEN THAT IDENTICAL REMEDY, AS
CONFERRED BY THE CLARIFICATION ACT, AND PREEXISTING REMEDIES.  IT IS
TOO OBVIOUS TO REQUIRE STATEMENT THAT IF THE SEAMAN'S ONLY REMEDY FOR
INJURIES INCURRED BEFORE THE CLARIFICATION ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE WAS
UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, AS RESPONDENT CONTENDS, THE ELECTION
GIVEN BY SEC. 1 BECOMES NO ELECTION WHATEVER. 

IT IS TRUE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT ENUMERATE THE SPECIFIC RIGHTS WHICH
IT CONSIDERED SEAMEN TO HAVE PRIOR TO THE CLARIFICATION ACT AND AFTER
THE INDUSTRY'S TRANSFER TO GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL.  TO HAVE DONE SO, IN
VIEW OF ITS OWN UNCERTAINTY IN THIS RESPECT, INCLUDING THE EFFECTS OF
THE BRADY DECISION, WOULD HAVE BEEN HAZARDOUS.  THE INTENT IS CLEAR,
NEVERTHELESS, IN THE RETROACTIVE PROVISION TO PRESERVE ALL SUCH RIGHTS
AND REMEDIES AS MAY HAVE REMAINED IN EXISTENCE UNAFFECTED BY THE
TRANSFER.  FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE STATED WE THINK THESE INCLUDED THE
REMEDY PROVIDED BY THE JONES ACT AS WELL AS THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT. 

THE MERE FACT THAT THE TERMS OF THE STANDARD AGREEMENT WERE CHANGED
TO OMIT THE PROVISION FOR MANNING THE SHIP AND SUBSTITUTE THE
PROVISIONS RELATING TO EMPLOYEES CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL SERVICE
AGREEMENT WAS NOT, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ENOUGH TO DEPRIVE SEAMEN OF
THAT REMEDY.  WE DO NOT THINK EITHER CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENT INTENDED
TO BRING ABOUT SUCH A RESULT BY THE TRANSFER OF THE INDUSTRY TO
TEMPORARY GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL.  IF THIS MADE THEM TECHNICALLY AND
TEMPORARILY EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, IT DID NOT SEVER ALTOGETHER
THEIR RELATION TO THE OPERATING AGENT, EITHER FOR PURPOSES OF SECURING
EMPLOYMENT OR FOR OTHER IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS RELATING TO IT.  FN38 NOR
DID IT DISRUPT THE LONG-ESTABLISHED SCHEME OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES
PROVIDED BY LAW TO SECURE IN VARIOUS WAYS THE SEAMAN'S PERSONAL SAFETY,
EITHER TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THOSE RIGHTS ALTOGETHER  FN39 OR TO DILUTE OR
REDUCE THEM TO THE SINGLE MODE OF ENFORCEMENT BY THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY
ACT PROCEDURE. 

THIS RESULT IS IN ACCORD WITH THE SPIRIT AND POLICY OF OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL SERVICE AGREEMENT.  THE MANAGING AGENT
SELECTED THE MEN, AND DID SO BY THE USUAL PROCEDURE OF DEALING WITH THE
DULY DESIGNATED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT.  IT DELIVERED THEM THEIR
PAY, ALTHOUGH FROM FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT WAS AUTHORIZED
SPECIFICALLY TO PAY CLAIMS NOT ONLY FOR WAGES, BUT ALSO FOR PERSONAL
INJURY AND DEATH INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT, FOR MAINTENANCE
AND CURE, ETC.  FN40  IT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE SHIP IN REPAIR
AND FOR PROVIDING THE SEAMAN'S SUPPLIES.  FOR ALL OF THESE EXPENDITURES
NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE THE CONTRACT PURPORTED EXPRESSLY TO PROVIDE
FOR INDEMNITY FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  FN41    WITH SO MUCH OF THE FORMER
RELATION THUS RETAINED AND SO LITTLE OF ADDITIONAL RISK THROWN ON THE
OPERATING AGENT, IT WOULD BE INCONSONANT NOT ONLY WITH THE PREVAILING
LAW, BUT ALSO WITH THE AGREEMENT'S SPIRIT AND GENERAL PURPOSE TO
OBSERVE AND KEEP IN EFFECT THE SEAMAN'S ORDINARY AND USUAL RIGHTS
EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY NULLIFIED, FOR US TO RULE THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF
HIS LONG-EXISTING SCHEME OF REMEDIES AND REMITTED EITHER TO NONE OR TO
A DOUBTFUL SINGLE MODE OF RELIEF BY SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN
PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY.  OUR RESULT ALSO IS IN ACCORD WITH THE GENERAL
POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT AND OF THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION THAT
THOSE RIGHTS SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND MAINTAINED, AS COMPLETELY AS MIGHT
BE POSSIBLE UNDER EXISTING LAW, AGAINST IMPAIRMENT DUE TO THE
TRANSFER.  FN42 

A FURTHER WORD REMAINS TO BE SAID ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE CLARIFICATION ACT IN GENERAL.  BOTH PARTIES HAVE RELIED STRONGLY ON
EXCERPTED PORTIONS THOUGHT TO SUPPORT THEIR RESPECTIVE VIEWS.  AS IS
TRUE WITH RESPECT TO ALL SUCH MATERIALS, IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXTRACT
PARTICULAR SEGMENTS FROM THE IMMEDIATE AND TOTAL CONTEXT AND COME OUT
WITH ROAD SIGNS POINTING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.  WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE
TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONTRAST FROM THE HISTORY IN THIS CASE.  IT CAN BE
SAID, HOWEVER, WITH ASSURANCE THAT, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS IN CONGRESS, TOGETHER WITH APPENDED DOCUMENTS FROM VARIOUS
AFFECTED AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS, ARE AMORPHOUS IN RELATION TO THE
CRUCIAL PROBLEM PRESENTED IN THIS CASE.  ALL OF THEM GIVE EVIDENCE OF
CONCERN THAT RIGHTS MAY HAVE BEEN LOST OR RENDERED UNCERTAIN BY THE
TRANSFER, AND THAT ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN BY CONGRESS TO PRESERVE THE
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS INTACT AND REMEDIAL ONES AT THE LEAST BY EXTENSION
OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT TO COVER THEM. 

THE ENTIRE HISTORY WILL BE READ IN VAIN, HOWEVER, FOR ANY CLEAR
EXPRESSION OF INTENT OR PURPOSE TO TAKE AWAY RIGHTS, SUBSTANTIVE OR
REMEDIAL, OF WHICH THE SEAMAN HAD NOT ALREADY BEEN DEPRIVED, ACTUALLY
OR POSSIBLY, BY VIRTUE OF THE TRANSFER.  WHETHER OR NOT THIS CONSERVING
INTENT WAS MADE EFFECTIVE IN THE PROSPECTIVELY OPERATING PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT, IT IS MADE CLEAR BEYOND QUESTION IN THE RETROACTIVE ONES. 
CONGRESS WAS CONFESSEDLY IN A STATE OF UNCERTAINTY.  BUT, BEING SO, IT
NEVERTHELESS HAD NO PURPOSE TO DESTROY RIGHTS ALREADY ACCRUED AND IN
FORCE, WHETHER SUBSTANTIVE OR REMEDIAL IN CHARACTER.  ITS OBJECT, IN
THIS RESPECT AT THE LEAST, WAS TO PRESERVE THEM AND AT THE SAME TIME TO
PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL ASSURED REMEDY IN CASE WHAT HAD BEEN PRESERVED
MIGHT TURN OUT FOR SOME REASON TO BE EITHER DOUBTFUL OR LOST. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AS OF THE DATE OF JAPANESE SURRENDER THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION OPERATED OR OWNED APPROXIMATELY 4300 MERCHANT SHIPS, AS
COMPARED WITH THE 1375 SHIPS AVAILABLE FOR DEEP-SEA SERVICE IN THE
PREWAR AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE.  THE NUMBER OF MEN NEEDED FOR THE
WARTIME MERCHANT MARINE WAS APPROXIMATELY 220,000, AS COMPARED WITH THE
PREWAR REQUIREMENT OF 55,000 MEN.  FOR FURTHER FIGURES ON THE EXPANSION
OF THE MERCHANT MARINE DURING THE WAR, SEE NOTE (1946) 55 YALE L.J.
584, NOTE 1 AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN2  ON FEBRUARY 7, 1942, THE PRESIDENT, ACTING BY VIRTUE OF THE
AUTHORITY VESTED IN HIM "BY THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES OF THE UNITED
STATES, INCLUDING THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 1941" (50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
601), ESTABLISHED THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  EXEC. ORDER NO.
9054, FEB. 7, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 837, AS AMENDED BY EXEC. ORDER NO.
9244, SEPT. 16, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 7327. 

FN3  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER PROVIDED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION SHOULD "CONTROL THE OPERATION, PURCHASE,
CHARTER, REQUISITION, AND USE OF ALL OCEAN VESSELS UNDER THE FLAG OR
CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  IT ALSO TRANSFERRED TO THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION "THE FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND POWERS CONFERRED BY
LAW UPON THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE
OPERATION, PURCHASE, CHARTER, INSURANCE, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE, AND
REQUISITION OF VESSELS AND FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION
THEREOF  ..."  UNDER VARIOUS SPECIFIED STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
"AND UNDER ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW, INCLUDING EXECUTIVE ORDERS
..." 

THE PARTIES HAVE NOT QUESTIONED THE AUTHORITY OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION.  THE FOLLOWING STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATE TO
THE AUTHORITY EXERCISED.  SEC. 902(A), MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 1242(A); SEC. 902(E), MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, AS
AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1242(E); SEC. 207, MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936,
AS AMENDED, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1117; SECS. 1 AND 2, JOINT RESOLUTION OF
FEBRUARY 6, 1941, 55 STAT. 5; PUBLIC LAW 247, 77TH CONG., 55 STAT. 669,
681; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1274; EXEC. ORDER NO. 9001, DEC. 27, 1941, 6
FED. REG. 6787, AS AMENDED BY EXEC. ORDER NO. 9296, JAN. 30, 1943, 8
FED. REG. 1429. 

FN4  SEE H. REP. NO. 2572, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 8:  "THE
ADMINISTRATOR, IN THE CONDUCT OF HIS DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS, MAKES VERY
EXTENSIVE USE OF THE PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING THOSE ENGAGED IN
MERCHANT MARINE INSURANCE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES, STEAMSHIP OPERATORS,
STEVEDORE, AND TERMINAL FACILITIES, FREIGHT FORWARDERS, AND FREIGHT
BROKERS AND AGENTS.  SPECIAL SKILL, KNOWLEDGE, AND EXPERIENCE ARE MADE
AVAILABLE IN THIS MANNER FOR USE IN THE INTEGRATED WAR EFFORT.  THIS
DEVELOPMENT CONFIRMS THE WISDOM OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY IN THE
RECENT YEARS OF STIMULATING AND ASSISTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH
PRIVATE MERCHANT MARINE AND INSURANCE FACILITIES AT SUBSTANTIAL
GOVERNMENT COST.  THE POLICY HAS PERMITTED A QUICK CHANGE-OVER FROM
PEACETIME TO WARTIME OPERATIONS OF THE ENTIRE MERCHANT MARINE WITHOUT
ANY SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF EFFICIENCY OR IMPAIRMENT OF MORALE." 

FN5  SEE H. REP. NO. 2572, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 8-10. 

FN6  THE SEAMEN EMPLOYED ON GOVERNMENT-OPERATED VESSELS WERE, OF
COURSE, IN CIVILIAN, AS OPPOSED TO MILITARY OR NAVAL, SERVICE.  CF.
HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES ON
H.R. 7424, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 5-6. 

FN7  THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SO-CALLED CLARIFICATION ACT, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 1291, DISCUSSED AT VARIOUS POINTS IN THIS OPINION.  RELEVANT
PORTIONS OF THE ACT ARE SET FORTH IN THE TEXT HEREIN AT NOTE 36 AND IN
NOTE 35. 

FN8  SEC. 33, MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688. 

FN9  ON SPECIAL INTERROGATORY THE JURY HAD FOUND THAT HUST WAS
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEE ON THE DATE THE INJURIES WERE INCURRED.  THE
VERDICT WAS FOR $35,000, WHICH THE TRIAL COURT INDICATED IN ITS OPINION
WAS EXCESSIVE IN RELATION TO THE INJURIES INCURRED.  BUT BEING OF
OPINION THAT THE QUESTION OF LIABILITY SHOULD BE SETTLED BY REVIEW, IT
DECLINED TO ORDER REMITTITUR AND DENIED THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NON
OBSTANTE VEREDICTO, IN EFFECT RESERVING DECISION ON THE QUESTION OF
REMITTITUR PENDING OUTCOME OF DECISION ON APPEAL. 

FN10  ACTING WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY, CF. NOTE 3, THE ADMINISTRATION
UTILIZED THESE STANDARD CONTRACTS FOR MAKING ARRANGEMENTS WITH PRIVATE
STEAMSHIP COMPANIES FOR THE OPERATION OF MANY OF THESE VESSELS.  46
C.F.R. (CUM. SUPP.) SEC. 306.44.  THEY DID NOT COVER SPECIFIC VESSELS. 
UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE AGREEMENT, THE GENERAL AGENT AGREED TO "MANAGE
AND CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF VESSELS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE UNITED STATES
FROM TIME TO TIME." 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE GENERAL AGENT SERVICE AGREEMENT APPEARS TO
HAVE BEEN GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT.  THE AGREEMENT STATES THAT IT IS
"MADE AS OF OCTOBER 19, 1941"; BUT THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY MADE AS OF THAT
DATE IS IMPOSSIBLE, SINCE THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION DID NOT COME
INTO BEING UNTIL FEBRUARY 7, 1942.  SEE NOTE 1. 

SOME OF THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE TEXT AND
NOTES 30, 40, 41. 

FN11  CF. BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S. 575.  ON THE EVIDENCE
OF NEGLIGENCE PRESENTED HERE IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT RESPONDENT HAD
FAILED TO PERFORM ANY DUTY IN OUTFITTING THE SHIP OR OTHERWISE IN
RELATION TO THE DELINQUENCIES ALLEGED TO HAVE CONSTITUTED CAUSES OF THE
INJURIES.  THESE, SO FAR AS THE RECORD DISCLOSES, WERE ATTRIBUTABLE
ENTIRELY TO OCCURRENCES TAKING PLACE AFTER THE SHIP HAD LAST PUT TO
SEA. 

FN12  SEE LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, NOTES 27
AND 19 AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 7. 

FN14  PETITIONER RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING CASES AS SUPPORTING HIS
POSITION:  GAY V. POPE & TALBOT, 183 MISC. 162, 47 N.Y.S.2D 16;
MCCORMICK V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 54 F.SUPP.  399; MOSS V. ALASKA
PACKERS ASSN., 160 P.2D 224, 1945 A.M.C. 493; BAST V. AMERICAN-HAWAIIAN
S.S. CO., 1945 A.M.C. 503; SCHALLER V. MATSON NAVIGATION CO., 43
N.Y.S.2D 566. 

RESPONDENT RELIES UPON ALGIERE V. COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO., 185
MISC. 271, 56 N.Y.S.2D 361, 1945 A.M.C. 906; PEDERSEN V. STOCKARD S.S.
CORP., 268 APP. DIV. 992, 51 N.Y.S.2D 675, 1945 A.M.C. 23; NIELSEN V.
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, 50 N.Y.S.2D 249, 1944 A.M.C. 1169; STEELE V.
AMERICAN SOUTH AFRICAN LINE, 62 F.SUPP.  636; BAKER V. MOORE-MCCORMACK
LINES, 57 F.SUPP.  207; CONLON V. HAMMOND SHIPPING CO., 55 F.SUPP. 
635; WILLIAMS V. AMERICAN FOREIGN S.S. CORP., 1946 A.M.C. 98; FERRIS V.
AMERICAN SOUTH AFRICAN LINE, 1945 A.M.C. 1296; WALSH'S CASE, 1945
A.M.C. 747; MURRAY V. AMERICAN EXPORT LINES, 53 F.SUPP.  861; FOX V.
ALCOA S.S. CO., 143 F.2D 667.  SEE ALSO NOTE (1946) 55 YALE L.J. 584. 

FN15  SEE TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 36. 

FN16  SEE WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155; GERRADIN V. UNITED FRUIT
CO., 60 F.2D 927. 

FN17  SEE WARNER V. GOLTRA, SUPRA, AT 159-160 AND THE CITED
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  IN THE HEARINGS ON THE CLARIFICATION ACT THE
SEAMEN AGAIN OPPOSED BEING BROUGHT WITHIN A COMPENSATION ACT.  SEE
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION, HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES ON H.R. 7424, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., 30-31. 

FN18  THE JONES ACT IS "AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MARITIME LAW  ..." 
GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239, 248. 

FN19  FOUR DIFFERENT CASES WERE DISPOSED OF IN THE SINGLE OPINION,
INCLUDING IN ADDITION TO THE JOHNSON CASE FLEET CORP. V. LUSTGARTEN. 
IN THAT CASE THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE FLEET CORPORATION AND THE
CONSOLIDATED NAVIGATION COMPANY, WHICH OPERATED THE VESSEL FOR THE
UNITED STATES AS AGENT PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SHIPPING
BOARD.  THE SUIT WAS BY A SEAMAN INJURED IN THE SHIP'S SERVICE
ALLEGEDLY FOR NEGLIGENT FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANTS TO FURNISH HIM A SAFE
PLACE TO WORK AND, FURTHER, FURNISH MEDICAL TREATMENT AND CARE AFTER
THE INJURIES WERE INCURRED.  280 U.S. AT 323.  THE JUDGMENT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF WAS REVERSED AS TO BOTH DEFENDANTS, NO MENTION BEING MADE IN
THE OPINION OF ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM FOR APPLICABILITY OF THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT OR OTHERWISE. 

FN20  THE COURT HELD THE JOHNSON RULING AS TO THE NAVIGATION CO. TO
BE UNTENABLE, EXPRESSLY STATING "THAT THE LUSTGARTEN CASE SO FAR AS IT
WOULD PREVENT A PRIVATE OPERATOR FROM BEING SUED UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED AS NO LONGER
CONTROLLING."  317 U.S. AT 578.  SEE NOTES 19, 22. 

IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT, ALTHOUGH THE DECEDENT IN THE BRADY CASE FOR
WHOSE DEATH THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT WAS NOT A SEAMAN, LUSTGARTEN WAS.  IN
BOTH CASES THE CAUSE OF ACTION ASSERTED WAS NEGLIGENCE OR MARITIME
TORT. 

FN21  THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD WAS ESTABLISHED BY 39 STAT.
729 AND 41 STAT. 989.  SECTION 11 OF THE EARLIER STATUTE, 39 STAT. AT
731, AUTHORIZED THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD TO ESTABLISH
GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS, AND PURSUANT TO THIS PROVISION THE
UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD MERCHANT FLEET CORPORATION WAS SET UP.
SEE SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. MERCHANT FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549, 564. 
BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6166, JUNE 10, 1933, SEC. 12, THE FUNCTIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, INCLUDING THOSE OF THE EMERGENCY
FLEET CORPORATION, WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, BY THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1987, THE
UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION WAS CREATED AND THE FUNCTIONS AND
DUTIES OF THE FORMER SHIPPING BOARD WERE TRANSFERRED TO IT. 

FN22  UNDER THE STANDARD FORMS OF CONTRACT UTILIZED FOR THESE
ARRANGEMENTS BY THE SHIPPING BOARD AND LATER BY THE MARITIME
COMMISSION, THE PRIVATE OPERATOR, THOUGH DESIGNATED AS "AGENT" SOMEWHAT
IN THE MANNER OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S GENERAL SERVICE AGREEMENT,
UNDERTOOK TO "MAN THE SHIP" ALONG WITH OTHER DUTIES ASSUMED.  UNDER
THIS PROVISION THE SHIPPING COMPANY RATHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT WAS
REGARDED AS THE SEAMAN'S EMPLOYER.  ACCORDINGLY HE HAD ALL THE RIGHTS
INCIDENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AS AGAINST THIS OPERATING "AGENT,"
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VESSEL WAS OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO AND DID NOT TOUCH THOSE RIGHTS.  AS
STATED IN THE TEXT, ITS REMEDIES WERE ADDED TO THEM. 

BECAUSE THE GENERAL SERVICE AGREEMENT OMITS THE EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT
THAT THE "AGENT" SHALL "MAN THE SHIP," IT IS STRONGLY ARGUED AND THE
OREGON SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND
THE SEAMAN HERE IS BASICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT EXISTING UNDER THE
MARITIME COMMISSION'S STANDARD ARRANGEMENTS SINCE, IT IS SAID, THAT
OMISSION DESTROYS THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATION BETWEEN THE "AGENT"
AND THE SEAMAN, AND CREATES ANOTHER, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE SEAMAN.  CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 30. 

FN23  CF. NOTE 22.  EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF THE
BRADY RULING, BY REGARDING IT AS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE SITUATION WHERE
THE INJURY RESULTED FROM NEGLIGENCE OF THE PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY FOR
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS SPONSORING CORPORATION WOULD NOT BE LIABLE,
IN RELIANCE UPON THE OPINION'S USE OF THIS SITUATION TO ILLUSTRATE THE
FACT THAT THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT DID NOT CUT OFF GENERAL MARITIME
RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AGAINST THE OPERATING AGENT.  317 U.S. AT 581.  BUT
THE RULING WAS BROADER BOTH IN RATIONALIZATION AND IN RESULT.  THE
COURT DID NOT RESTRICT POSSIBLE RECOVERY TO SUCH A SITUATION IN
REMANDING THE CAUSE FOR DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A CAUSE OF ACTION HAD
BEEN MADE OUT.    FN24  BY WHICH TIME THE GOVERNMENTAL POOL PRESUMABLY
WILL HAVE BEEN DISSOLVED, AT ANY RATE TO THE EXTENT OF RETURNING MANY
OF THE VESSELS COMPRISING IT TO THE PRIVATE OWNERS AND OPERATORS.  SEC.
5, CLARIFICATION ACT, 57 STAT. 51, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1295; TITLE IV,
SEC. 401, FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 55 STAT. 841, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 621. 

FN25  CF. TEXT FOLLOWING NOTE 4 SUPRA.  AT THE TIME OF THE JAPANESE
SURRENDER THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHIPS OPERATED AND OWNED BY THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION WAS 4,363.  OF THESE, 537 WERE TIME-CHARTERED
FROM PRIVATE OPERATORS AND 405 WERE BAREBOAT-CHARTERED FROM PRIVATE
OPERATORS; 3,101 WERE OPERATED UNDER A GENERAL SERVICE AGREEMENT.  SEE
ALSO NOTE 1. 

FN26  SUCH AS, E.G., FAILING TO PROVIDE NEEDED REPAIRS OR SUPPLIES,
BUT NOT INCLUDING ANY ACT ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE
MASTER OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CREW.  CF. NOTE 23. 

FN27  317 U.S. AT 581, CITING SEC. 5 OF THE ACT, AND EMERGENCY FLEET
CORP. V. ROSENBERG BROS. & CO., 276 U.S. 202.  THE PERIOD PROVIDED
UNDER THE JONES ACT, FOR INSTANCE, IS THREE YEARS.  45 U.S.C. SEC. 56. 

FN28  ONE OF THE BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE STATES THAT THE SEAMAN'S WIDOW
FOR WHOM IT IS FILED HAS INSTITUTED SUIT AGAINST THE SHIPPING COMPANY
WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER HER HUSBAND'S DEATH BUT THAT, INASMUCH AS NO
SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN INSTITUTED WITHIN THAT PERIOD,
IF HER CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SHIPPING COMPANY WILL NOT LIE, SHE
WILL ALSO BE UNABLE BY VIRTUE OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT TO SUE THE UNITED STATES. 

FN29  AS IN THE CASE, SUGGESTED IN THE BRADY OPINION, IN WHICH THE
AGENT ALONE AND NOT THE PRINCIPAL WOULD BE LIABLE.  317 U.S. AT 581. 
SEE NOTE 23. 

FN30  SEE THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN THIS CASE;
ALSO NOTE 10 SUPRA. "THESE QUESTIONS ARISE BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL
STATUS OF SUCH SEAMEN AS EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION FOR SERVICE ON
SUCH VESSELS."  S. REP. NO. 62, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 5.  THE CHIEF
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE MANAGING AGENT IN THE BRADY
CASE TO THE SEAMEN AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE SEAMEN
ARE, AS SET OUT IN THE CONTRACTS, AS FOLLOWS: 

UNDER THE AGREEMENT IN THE BRADY CASE THE MANAGING AGENT AGREED TO
MAN THE VESSELS.  THE LICENSED OFFICERS AND CHIEF STEWARD, HOWEVER,
WERE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE OWNER, THE UNITED STATES, WHICH
ALSO HAD THE RIGHT TO REMOVE ANY EMPLOYEES "IF IT SHALL HAVE REASON TO
BE DISSATISFIED." 

UNDER THE GENERAL AGENT SERVICE AGREEMENT THE SHIPPING COMPANY DOES
NOT AGREE TO MAN THE VESSEL.  IT AGREES TO PROCURE THE MASTER, SUBJECT
TO THE APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE MASTER IS AN AGENT AND
EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES AND HAS COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY AND
AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE NAVIGATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL. 
THE GENERAL AGENT AGREES TO PROCURE OFFICERS AND MEN THROUGH THE USUAL
CHANNELS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICES OF COMMERCIAL
OPERATORS AND TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE MASTER.  IT IS PROVIDED
THAT OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE CREW "SHALL BE SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
ORDERS OF THE MASTER." 

FN31  SEE TEXT SUPRA PRECEDING NOTE 10.  THE OPINION STATED: "WE
THINK IT MUST BE ASSUMED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF WAS AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENDANT THAT THE CASE IS GOVERNED BY THE RULE OF THE
COMMON LAW."  176 ORE.  662, 669, 158 P.2D 275, 278. 

FN32  "THE BASIC SCOPE AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE MEASURE IS TO PRESERVE
PRIVATE RIGHTS OF SEAMEN WHILE UTILIZING THE MERCHANT MARINE TO THE
UTMOST FOR PUBLIC WARTIME BENEFIT.  EXCEPT IN RARE CASES THE SHIPS
THEMSELVES ARE BEING OPERATED AS MERCHANT VESSELS, AND ARE THEREFORE
SUBJECT TO THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT IN ALL RESPECTS.  GRANTING SEAMEN
RIGHTS TO SUE UNDER THAT ACT IS THEREFORE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE
UNDERLYING PATTERN OF THE MEASURE."  S. REP. NO. 62, 78TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., 11. 

"PRESENT-DAY OPERATING CONDITIONS OFTEN MAKE UNCERTAIN WHETHER THE
VESSEL IS A MERCHANT OR A PUBLIC VESSEL.  AS A CONSEQUENCE THE
AFOREMENTIONED RIGHTS (RIGHTS UNDER THE JONES ACT AND THE GENERAL
MARITIME LAW) OF SUCH SEAMEN ARE FREQUENTLY IN DOUBT.  IN ADDITION TO
THESE RIGHTS WHICH, AT TIMES, ARE UNCERTAIN FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED,
THE SEAMEN WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES PROBABLY HAVE RIGHTS
UNDER THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT IN THE EVENT OF
INJURY OR DEATH.  SUCH COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE NOT PRESENTLY ENJOYED
BY SEAMEN UNDER PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT.  THUS VITAL DIFFERENCES IN THESE
RIGHTS ARE MADE TO DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE SEAMAN HAPPENS TO BE
EMPLOYED ABOARD A VESSEL TIME-CHARTERED TO THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION OR OWNED BY OR BAREBOAT-CHARTERED TO THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION.  SINCE SEAMEN CONSTANTLY CHANGE FROM ONE VESSEL TO
ANOTHER, THEIR RIGHTS FOR DEATH, INJURY, OR ILLNESS ALSO CONSTANTLY
CHANGE DEPENDING UPON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION TO THE VESSEL.  THIS FLUCTUATION AND LACK OF UNIFORMITY
OF RIGHTS LEADS TO DEPENDENCY OF VITAL RIGHTS UPON CHANCE WITH A RESULT
OF CONFUSION AND INEQUITIES.  THE BILL IS DESIGNED TO REMOVE THIS
CONFUSION AND THESE INEQUITIES."  H. REP. NO. 2572, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., 9. 

FN33  SEE NOTES 36 AND 37 AND TEXT. 

FN34  SEE SECS. 3 AND 4 OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT.  THESE RELATE TO
PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION FOR VESSELS REQUISITIONED, WAR RISK
INSURANCE, LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION,
AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT PROVIDED THAT
THE SEAMEN "BECAUSE OF THE TEMPORARY WARTIME CHARACTER OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT BY THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION" SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED
AS OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSES OF
VARIOUS SPECIFIED ACTS, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES COMPENSATION ACT. 

FN35  THE PROVISION PRINCIPALLY AFFECTING RIGHTS LIKE THOSE NOW IN
QUESTION WAS SEC. 1:  "(A) OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF CREWS (HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS 'SEAMEN') EMPLOYED ON UNITED STATES OR FOREIGN FLAG
VESSELS AS EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION SHALL, WITH RESPECT TO (1) LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AS AMENDED BY
SUBSECTION (B)(2) AND (3) OF THIS SECTION; (2) DEATH, INJURIES,
ILLNESS, MAINTENANCE AND CURE, LOSS OF EFFECTS, DETENTION, OR
REPATRIATION, OR CLAIMS ARISING THEREFROM NOT COVERED BY THE FOREGOING
CLAUSE (1); AND (3) COLLECTION OF WAGES AND BONUSES AND MAKING OF
ALLOTMENTS, HAVE ALL OF THE RIGHTS, BENEFITS, EXEMPTIONS, PRIVILEGES,
AND LIABILITIES, UNDER LAW APPLICABLE TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
EMPLOYED AS SEAMEN ON PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED AMERICAN VESSELS....
ANY CLAIM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (2) OR (3) HEREOF SHALL, IF
ADMINISTRATIVELY DISALLOWED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BE ENFORCED PURSUANT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VESSEL ON WHICH THE SEAMAN IS EMPLOYED IS NOT A MERCHANT VESSEL WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SUCH ACT.  ANY CLAIM, RIGHT, OR CAUSE OF ACTION OF OR IN
RESPECT OF ANY SUCH SEAMAN ACCRUING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1941, AND
PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS SECTION MAY BE ENFORCED, AND
UPON THE ELECTION OF THE SEAMAN OR HIS SURVIVING DEPENDENT OR
BENEFICIARY, OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO DO SO SHALL BE GOVERNED, AS
IF THIS SECTION HAD BEEN IN EFFECT WHEN SUCH CLAIM, RIGHT, OR CAUSE OF
ACTION ACCRUED, SUCH ELECTION TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION.  RIGHTS OF ANY SEAMAN UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AS
AMENDED BY SUBSECTION (B)(2) AND (3), AND CLAIMS THEREFOR SHALL BE
GOVERNED SOLELY BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH ACT, SO AMENDED.  WHEN USED
IN THIS SUBSECTION THE TERM 'ADMINISTRATIVELY DISALLOWED' MEANS A
DENIAL OF A WRITTEN CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES OR REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION...."  57
STAT. 45. 

FN36  H. REP. NO. 2572, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 15, STATES:  "SPECIAL
PROVISION IS MADE WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS AND WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS AND
CAUSES INVOLVED IN SECTION 1(A)(2) AND (3) WHICH MAY HAVE ACCRUED ON OR
AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1941, AND PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE
MEASURE.  UNDER THIS PROVISION THE SEAMAN OR OTHER CLAIMANT MAY ELECT
TO ENFORCE THE CLAIM AS IF SECTION 1 HAD BEEN IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE
CLAIM ACCRUED.  IN EXERCISING THIS OPTION THE CLAIMANT WOULD, OF
COURSE, ACCEPT THE INCIDENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ELECTION, WOULD BE
PREVENTED FROM PROCEEDING TO SECURE DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER OTHER
PROCEDURE WITHOUT REGARD TO SECTION 1, AND WOULD BE BOUND BY THE
APPLICABLE STATUTES OR PRINCIPLES OF LIMITATIONS. 

"INASMUCH AS CERTAIN VESSEL OPERATIONS ON ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT
WERE UNDERTAKEN PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION BY OR THROUGH THE MARITIME COMMISSION, THE PROVISIONS OF
STATES MARITIME COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD BEGINNING OCTOBER
1, 1941, TO THE TIME OF TAKING OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION (FEBRUARY 11, 1942)." 

AND IN S. REP. NO. 1813, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 6, IT WAS STATED:
"SECTION 1 MAKES FULL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS AND CLAIMS WHICH
MAY HAVE ACCRUED DURING THE EARLY MONTHS OF THE WAR OR ITS IMMINENCE,
AND PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE BILL.  THIS PROVISION IS NECESSARY IN
VIEW OF VESSEL OPERATIONS BY OR THROUGH THE MARITIME COMMISSION IN THE
PERIOD PRIOR TO TAKING OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION (FEBRUARY 11, 1942)." 

FN37  CF. S. REP. NO. 62, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 8, 17; H. REP. NO.
107, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 5, 29.  THESE REPORTS CONSTRUE THE EFFECTS
OF THE BRADY DECISION MORE NARROWLY THAN WE HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE AND
THAN THE DECISION JUSTIFIES. 

FN38  SEE NOTES 39 AND 40. 

FN39  ON RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION IT IS ASSUMED THAT, BEFORE THE
CLARIFICATION ACT TOOK EFFECT, THE GOVERNMENT COULD BE SUED UNDER THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT FOR RECOVERY IN THIS AND SIMILAR CASES.  WHETHER
AND HOW FAR THAT ACT WOULD HAVE PERMITTED SUITS BY SEAMEN INJURED IN
THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT PRIOR TO THE CLARIFICATION ACT'S
EFFECTIVE DATE NEED NOT BE DETERMINED IN THIS CASE. 

FN40  "TO THE EXTENT NOT RECOVERED FROM INSURANCE, THE UNITED STATES
SHALL ALSO REIMBURSE THE GENERAL AGENT FOR ALL CREW EXPENDITURES,
ACCRUING DURING THE TERM HEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE VESSELS
HEREUNDER, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DISBURSEMENTS FOR OR ON
ACCOUNT OF WAGES, EXTRA COMPENSATION, OVERTIME, BONUSES, PENALTIES,
SUBSISTENCE, REPATRIATION, TRAVEL EXPENSE, LOSS OF PERSONAL EFFECTS,
MAINTENANCE, CURE, VACATION ALLOWANCES, DAMAGES OR COMPENSATION FOR
DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY OR ILLNESS, AND INSURANCE PREMIUMS, REQUIRED
TO BE PAID BY LAW, CUSTOM, OR BY THE TERMS OF THE SHIP'S ARTICLES OR
LABOR AGREEMENTS, OR BY ACTION OF THE MARITIME WAR EMERGENCY BOARD
...." 

THE GENERAL AGENT SERVICE AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT OFFICERS AND
MEMBERS OF THE CREW "SHALL BE PAID IN THE CUSTOMARY MANNER WITH FUNDS
PROVIDED BY THE UNITED STATES HEREUNDER."  THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOWED
THAT PETITIONER WAS PAID HIS WAGES BY THE SHIP'S PURSER, THE MONEY
BEING IN ENVELOPES BEARING THE NAME OF RESPONDENT. 

FN41  SEE NOTE 40.  THE GENERAL AGENT SERVICE AGREEMENT ALSO PROVIDES
THAT THE UNITED STATES SHALL PROCURE INSURANCE AGAINST ALL INSURANCE
RISKS "OF WHATSOEVER NATURE OR KIND RELATING TO THE VESSELS ASSIGNED
HEREUNDER" AND "SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND SAVE HARMLESS THE GENERAL
AGENT AGAINST AND FROM ANY AND ALL LOSS, LIABILITY, DAMAGE AND EXPENSE
...  TO THE EXTENT NOT COVERED OR NOT FULLY COVERED BY INSURANCE." 

COMPARE THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 2 AND 3 OF THE CLARIFICATION ACT WITH
RESPECT TO INSURANCE AND COMPENSATION AS THEY AFFECT SEAMEN. 

FN42  SEE NOTES 32, 40, 41. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AGREES, CONCURRING. 

WHILE I HAVE JOINED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, I ADD A FEW WORDS TO
INDICATE THAT THE RESULT WE HAVE REACHED IS CONSONANT WITH THE
TRADITIONAL RULES OF LIABILITY. 

A CHARTERER WHO OBTAINS EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE
VESSEL FROM THE OWNER IS OWNER PRO HAC VICE AND SUBJECT TO THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE DURATION OF THE CHARTER PERIOD. 
REED V. UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  591, 600-601; LEARY V. UNITED STATES,
14 WALL.  607, 610; UNITED STATES V. SHEA, 152 U.S. 178.  THE QUESTION
WHETHER EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL HAVE BEEN
TRANSFERRED TO THE CHARTERER TURNS ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE - A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND THE CONDUCT OF
THE PARTIES UNDER THE ARRANGEMENT.  UNITED STATES V. SHEA, SUPRA, PP.
189-191. 

THIS AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THE GENERAL AGENT IS APPOINTED "TO
MANAGE AND CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF VESSELS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE UNITED
STATES FROM TIME TO TIME."  ART. 1.  THE GENERAL AGENT PROMISES "TO
MANAGE AND CONDUCT THE BUSINESS FOR THE UNITED STATES" OF SUCH VESSELS
AS HAVE BEEN "ASSIGNED TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE GENERAL AGENT."  ART. 2. 
THE UNITED STATES HAS THE POWER ON SPECIFIED NOTICE TO TERMINATE THE
AGREEMENT AND "TO ASSUME CONTROL FORTHWITH" OF THE VESSELS.  ART. 11. 
ON TERMINATION "ALL VESSELS AND OTHER PROPERTY OF WHATSOEVER KIND THEN
IN THE CUSTODY OF THE GENERAL AGENT" ARE TO BE "IMMEDIATELY TURNED OVER
TO THE UNITED STATES."  ART. 12.  THE FAIR INTENDMENT OF THESE
PROVISIONS IS THAT POSSESSION OF THE VESSELS PASSES TO THE GENERAL
AGENT UNDER THE AGREEMENT.    MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSELS ALSO IS GRANTED
THE GENERAL AGENT.  IT IS TO "MAINTAIN THE VESSELS IN SUCH TRADE OR
SERVICE AS THE UNITED STATES MAY DIRECT."  ART. 3.  IT IS THE ONE TO
"EQUIP, VICTUAL, SUPPLY AND MAINTAIN THE VESSELS."  ID.  IT SHALL
"PROCURE THE MASTER OF THE VESSELS  ... SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
UNITED STATES."  ID.  IT SHALL "PROCURE AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE
MASTER FOR ENGAGEMENT BY HIM THE OFFICERS AND MEN REQUIRED BY HIM TO
FILL THE COMPLEMENT OF THE VESSEL."  ID.  THE OFFICERS AND MEN ARE TO
BE "PROCURED BY THE GENERAL AGENT THROUGH THE USUAL CHANNELS AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICES OF COMMERCIAL OPERATORS AND
UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN THE PARTICULAR SERVICE OR
SERVICES IN WHICH THE VESSELS ARE TO BE OPERATED FROM TIME TO TIME." 
ID.  THE GENERAL AGENT SHALL "ARRANGE FOR THE REPAIR OF THE VESSELS." 
ART. 14. 

ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE DONE, TO BE SURE, FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE AGREEMENT, MOREOVER, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE
MASTER IS "AN AGENT AND EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES."  ART. 3.  THE
OFFICERS AND CREW ARE SUBJECT "ONLY TO THE ORDERS OF THE MASTER."  ART.
3.  AND THE SHIPPING ARTICLES WHICH WERE ENTERED INTO WERE BETWEEN THE
MASTER AND THE CREW.  FROM THIS IT IS ARGUED THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE
CREW WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT OF THE GENERAL AGENT OR
OPERATOR. 

THE SHIPPING ARTICLES, HOWEVER, ARE BY STATUTE REQUIRED TO BE AN
ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN THE MASTER AND THE CREW.  38 STAT. 1168, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 713.  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MASTER FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
VESSEL IS, MOREOVER, TRADITIONAL.  SEE UNITED STATES V. FARNHAM, 25
FED. CAS. NO. 15,071, PP. 1042, 1045.  SO THE CASE FOR RESPONDENT COMES
DOWN ESSENTIALLY TO THE PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENT THAT THE MASTER IS
THE AGENT AND EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

IF THE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT COULD BY THE CHOICE OF A LABEL DETERMINE
THESE QUESTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY TO THIRD PERSONS THE PROBLEM WOULD BE
SIMPLE.  BUT THE CONVENTIONS OF THE PARTIES DO NOT DETERMINE IN THE
EYES OF THE LAW THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS.  BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S.
CO., 317 U.S. 575, 583.  THE COURT DEALT WITH ONE SPECIES OF THIS
PROBLEM IN KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS V. WITHERS, 177 U.S. 260, WHERE AN
INSURANCE POLICY DESIGNATED THE PERSON TO WHOM PREMIUMS WERE PAID AS
THE AGENT OF THE INSURED, NOT THE AGENT OF THE INSURER.  THE COURT
SAID, P. 268: 

"THE REPORTS ARE BY NO MEANS BARREN OF CASES TURNING UPON THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SO-CALLED 'AGENCY CLAUSE,' UNDER WHICH THE
DEFENDANT SEEKS TO SHIFT ITS RESPONSIBILITY UPON THE INSURED FOR THE
NEGLECT OF CHADWICK TO REMIT ON THE PROPER DAY.  IN SOME JURISDICTIONS
IT IS HELD TO BE PRACTICALLY VOID AND OF NO EFFECT; IN OTHERS, IT IS
LOOKED UPON AS A SPECIES OF WILD ANIMAL, LYING IN WAIT AND READY TO
SPRING UPON THE UNWARY POLICYHOLDER, AND IN ALL, IT IS EYED WITH
SUSPICION AND CONSTRUED WITH GREAT STRICTNESS.  WE THINK IT SHOULD NOT
BE GIVEN EFFECT WHEN MANIFESTLY CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, OR
OPPOSED TO THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE." 

THIS PROBLEM OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS IS RESOLVED BY DETERMINING
WHOSE ENTERPRISE THE PARTICULAR VENTURE WAS.  THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES
SAY IT IS THE ENTERPRISE OF ONE, NOT THE OTHER, IS NOT DECISIVE. 
CONTROL IN THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM GENERAL SUPERVISION, IS THE CUSTOMARY TEST.  I LOOK
IN VAIN TO FIND IN THE PRESENT ARRANGEMENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE OWNER
ACTED AS THE MANAGER OF THIS BUSINESS.  RESPONDENT, THE GENERAL AGENT,
HAD A MOST SUBSTANTIAL MEASURE OF CONTROL OVER THE OPERATIONS OF THE
VESSELS.  ITS DE FACTO CONTROL WAS NO WHIT LESS OR MORE WHETHER THE
MASTER WERE CALLED THE AGENT OF THE OWNER OR ITS OWN AGENT.  THE CASE
IS NOT ONE WHERE AN AGENT ATTENDS ONLY TO THE BUSINESS OF A VESSEL AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS MANNING OR PHYSICAL OPERATION OR CONTROL. 
RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THE VESSELS IN THE BROADEST SENSE AND PROCURES THE
MASTER AND CREW.  IN THE BRADY CASE THE OPERATOR WAS "TO MAN, EQUIP,
VICTUAL, SUPPLY AND OPERATE THE VESSELS."  317 U.S. P. 576.  THE SAME
WAS TRUE IN QUINN V. SOUTHGATE NELSON CORP., 121 F.2D 190, 191.  BUT
THE DIFFERENCE IN WORDS BETWEEN THE AGREEMENTS IN THOSE CASES AND THE
PRESENT ONE DOES NOT, ON A VIEW OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION, MARK A
DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTIONS OF THE PRIVATE OPERATOR.  IT IS, INDEED,
DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE FUNCTIONS OF THE PRIVATE OPERATOR WERE IN ANY
WAY CHANGED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FROM WHAT THEY WERE IN THOSE OTHER TWO
CASES.  RESPONDENT, OF COURSE, ACCOUNTS FOR ITS OPERATIONS TO THE
UNITED STATES.  THE UNITED STATES REIMBURSES IT FOR ALL OF ITS
EXPENDITURES, INCLUDING THE WAGES OF THE CREW.  BUT IT IS IMMATERIAL
THAT THE OWNER PROVIDES THE ENTIRE CREW AND PAYS THEIR WAGES.  A
CHARTERER WHO HAS CONTROL OF THE OPERATIONS IS OWNER PRO HAC VICE. 
HILLS V. LEEDS, 149 F. 878.  SO FAR AS THIS RECORD REVEALS, THE
OPERATOR PERFORMED ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS WHICH IT PERFORMED IN THE BRADY
AND QUINN CASES.  THERE IS HERE NO TAKING OVER OF ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS
BY THE OWNER.  THE ARRANGEMENT IS CLOTHED IN DIFFERENT GARB.  BUT IT IS
THE PRIVATE OPERATOR WHO MANAGES AND CONTROLS THE PHYSICAL OPERATION. 
THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE OWNER WERE GENERAL SUPERVISORY POWERS
ADEQUATE FOR THE EXIGENCIES OF THE WARTIME CONDITIONS WHICH PREVAILED. 
BUT THEY DID NOT DETRACT FROM THE POWERS OF PHYSICAL OPERATION GRANTED
RESPONDENT. 

THE FACT THAT WE HAVE HERE NO MORE THAN A CHANGE IN FORM NOT IN
SUBSTANCE IS BORNE OUT BY COLLATERAL PHASES OF THIS UNDERTAKING.  THE
COMPENSATION OF RESPONDENT IS NOT TO BE LESS THAN "THE AMOUNT OF
EARNINGS WHICH THE GENERAL AGENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO EARN
UNDER ANY APPLICABLE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING BAREBOAT CHARTERS, PREFERENCE
AGREEMENTS, COMMITMENTS, RULES OR REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
MARITIME COMMISSION UNTIL THE EARLIEST TERMINATION DATE PERMISSIBLE
THEREUNDER AS OF MARCH 22, 1942."  ART. 5.  THE UNITED STATES AGREES TO
REIMBURSE RESPONDENT FOR "DAMAGES OR COMPENSATION FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL
INJURY OR ILLNESS" REQUIRED TO BE PAID.  ART. 7.  IT ALSO AGREES TO
REIMBURSE RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENTS MADE BY RESPONDENT TO A PENSION FUND
FOR OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE CREW, AS WELL AS FOR "SOCIAL SECURITY
TAXES WHICH THE GENERAL AGENT IS OR MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY ON BEHALF OF
THE OFFICERS AND CREW OF SAID VESSELS AS AGENT OR OTHERWISE."  ID. 

THESE PROVISIONS ALL SUGGEST, AS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
BEARS OUT, THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS THE UNDERWRITER OF THE FINANCIAL
RISKS OF THE VENTURE,  FN1  THE OPERATOR CONTINUING, AS IT ALWAYS HAD,
TO PERFORM THE MANAGERIAL FUNCTIONS.  THESE MANAGERIAL FUNCTIONS
CONSTITUTE CONTROL, DECISIVE OF LIABILITY IN THIS CASE.  THERE WAS NO
DEMISE.  BUT THE FORM OF THE AGREEMENT IS NOT IMPORTANT IF THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE OPERATOR WERE THOSE OF AN OWNER PRO HAC VICE.  I THINK
THAT IS THE TRUE CONDITION WHICH EXISTED HERE. 

AT COMMON LAW RESPONDENT WOULD BE THE PRINCIPAL, FOR THE BUSINESS OF
MANAGING AND OPERATING THE VESSEL WAS ITS BUSINESS.  IT WAS THEREFORE
THE EMPLOYER AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PERSONAL INJURY CLAIM. 

FN1  SEE S. REP. NO. 898, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 39-40. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

PETITIONER, HUST, A FIREMAN AND WATERTENDER ON THE S. S. MARK HANNA,
BROUGHT AN ACTION IN AN OREGON CIRCUIT COURT  FN1  AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT, THE MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, INC. THE SUIT WAS UNDER THE
MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920, THE JONES ACT, SEC. 33.  FN2  IT SOUGHT
DAMAGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENT AS EMPLOYER.  AS SEC. 33 SHOWS ON ITS
FACE, A SEAMAN HAS THE ADVANTAGES OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT ONLY AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER.  FN3  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF OREGON DENYING PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO RECOVER IN THIS ACTION WOULD
THEN BE CORRECT UNLESS THE RESPONDENT IS PETITIONER'S EMPLOYER OR
UNLESS CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION SINCE THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT GRANTS
PETITIONER A RIGHT OF RECOVERY AGAINST RESPONDENT EVEN THOUGH THE
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP DOES NOT EXIST. 

THE S. S. MARK HANNA, A LIBERTY SHIP, WAS OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES.  SO FAR AS APPEARS FROM THE RECORD, IT HAD NEVER BELONGED TO
ANYONE ELSE.  ITS OPERATION WAS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION.  IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITIES, THE
ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYED RESPONDENT AS ITS GENERAL AGENT TO CONDUCT THE
BUSINESS OF CERTAIN SHIPS ASSIGNED TO RESPONDENT FOR HANDLING.  FROM
THE EXCERPTS FROM THE CONTRACT, SET OUT BELOW, WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT
THIS WAS A CONVENTIONAL AGENCY CONTRACT UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT MANAGED
CERTAIN MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE SHIP FOR THE UNITED STATES.  WE
THINK IT CLEAR, AS DID THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON, THAT SO FAR AS THE
CREW IS CONCERNED THE RESPONDENT ONLY PROCURED THE MEMBERS, SUCH AS
HUST, AND MADE THEM AVAILABLE TO THE MASTER, A UNITED STATES AGENT, FOR
EMPLOYMENT BY SAID MASTER FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN4
SUCH A CONTRACT MAKES THE UNITED STATES THE EMPLOYER UNDER THE MERCHANT
MARINE ACT, NOT THE MASTER AND NOT RESPONDENT, THE GENERAL AGENT.  THIS
IS AN ACTION UNDER THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT AND THE QUESTION OF
LIABILITY OF THE RESPONDENT FOR ANY NEGLIGENCE UNDER ANY OTHER STATUTE
OR RULE OF LAW, ADMIRALTY OR OTHERWISE, IS NOT BEFORE US. 

SINCE 1920, EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES UPON MERCHANT VESSELS OF
THE UNITED STATES HAVE HAD A RIGHT OF ACTION IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE
VESSELS IN ALL CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE HAD A RIGHT IF THE
VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED.  THIS CAME FROM SEC. 2 OF THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  FN5  THIS RIGHT OF ACTION WAS ENFORCEABLE
EXCLUSIVELY IN ADMIRALTY.  FN6 THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO A TRIAL AND
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES BY A JURY. 

WHEN THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION BECAME THE OPERATOR OF
PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE, DOUBTS SOMETIMES AROSE
AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR VESSEL WAS A "MERCHANT" VESSEL, OPERATED BY
THE UNITED STATES OR NOT.  THEREFORE TO CLARIFY THIS SITUATION AND TO
ASSURE ALL "EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION" ALL "RIGHTS" FOR "INJURIES" APPLICABLE TO SEAMEN
"EMPLOYED ON PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED AMERICAN VESSELS," CONGRESS
ENACTED AN ACT TO CLARIFY THE LAW RELATING TO FUNCTIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATION.  PROVISIONS FROM THE FIRST SECTION WHICH ARE IMPORTANT
HERE ARE SET OUT BELOW.  FN7 

AS WILL BE SEEN BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE REPORTS OF THE HOUSE AND
SENATE  FN8  IN CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF THE FIRST
PURPOSE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS TO GRANT THE POWER TO ENFORCE THESE
RIGHTS ONLY THROUGH THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  THAT IS, THE SEAMAN
COULD NOT SUBMIT HIS CLAIM TO A JURY.  FN9  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE
WORDS "RIGHT" AND "STATUS" ARE USED WITH CARE, SO THAT IT IS PLAIN
CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE ALL ADMINISTRATION SEAMEN RIGHTS UNDER THE
MERCHANT MARINE ACT AND REMEDIES UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT. 

AS THERE MIGHT BE INSTANCES WHERE A SEAMAN WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
ADMINISTRATION BUT HIS BOAT WAS NOT A MERCHANT VESSEL OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE CLARIFICATION ACT OF MARCH 24, 1943, WAS MADE RETROACTIVE
TO OCTOBER 1, 1941.  FN10  PROBABLY OTHER COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES MAY
HAVE EXISTED PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT. 

IT IS SAID BY THE COURT THAT IF A SEAMAN EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED
STATES IS LIMITED TO THE REMEDIES OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT FOR
RECOVERY IN TORT, THE HOLDING IN EMERGENCY FLEET CORP. V. LUSTGARTEN,
280 U.S. 320, IS RESTORED AS A RULE OF LAW.  THE LUSTGARTEN CASE WAS
OVERRULED BY BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S. 575, 578.  WE THINK
THAT THIS MISCONCEIVES THE EFFECT OF THE BRADY CASE.  WE DO NOT THINK
THE REQUIREMENT THAT SEAMEN, EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, MUST SEEK
THEIR REMEDY AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYER UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT
HAS ANY RELATION TO THE LUSTGARTEN OR BRADY CASES. 

LUSTGARTEN, A SEAMAN, SOUGHT RECOVERY AT LAW FOR A TORT AGAINST THE
NAVIGATION COMPANY, AN AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT WAS HELD THAT HE
COULD ONLY RECOVER UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  IN THE BRADY
CASE, UNDER A PETITION OF A VISITOR TO THE BOAT TO RECOVER AGAINST A
SIMILAR AGENT, IT WAS HELD A CAUSE OF ACTION IN TORT AT LAW WOULD LIE. 
THE LUSTGARTEN CASE WAS OVERRULED.  THE ONLY EFFECT OF THE BRADY
DECISION WAS TO HOLD THAT ACTIONS COULD BE MAINTAINED AGAINST AGENTS OF
THE UNITED STATES AT COMMON LAW FOR THE AGENT'S OWN TORTS.  THE CASE
HAD NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE RIGHT TO RECOVER AGAINST EMPLOYERS
UNDER THE JONES ACT.  THE OPINION SAID, 317 U.S. AT 577, "THE SOLE
QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT MAKES PRIVATE
OPERATORS SUCH AS RESPONDENT NON-SUABLE FOR THEIR TORTS."  "THE
LIABILITY OF AN AGENT FOR HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE HAS LONG BEEN EMBEDDED IN
THE LAW."  ID., AT 580.  "BUT IT IS A NON SEQUITUR TO SAY THAT BECAUSE
THE ACT TAKES AWAY THE REMEDY OF LIBEL IN REM IN ALL CASES INVOLVING
GOVERNMENT VESSELS AND RESTRICTS THE REMEDIES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATIONS, IT MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE
ABOLISHED ALL RIGHT TO PROCEED AGAINST ALL OTHER PARTIES."  ID., AT
582.  "THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO
DELEGATE TO RESPONDENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MANAGING AND OPERATING THE
VESSEL AS ITS AGENT.  IT IS WHETHER RESPONDENT CAN ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR
A NEGLIGENT EXERCISE OF THAT DELEGATED POWER IF WE ASSUME THAT BY
CONTRACT IT WILL BE EXONERATED OR INDEMNIFIED FOR ANY DAMAGES IT MUST
PAY."  ID., AT 583-84.  THE CASE WAS THEN SENT BACK TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE
AGENT WAS ESTABLISHED.  ALL THAT WAS MEANT OR SAID IN BRADY ABOUT
LUSTGARTEN WAS THAT THE LUSTGARTEN CASE WAS IN ERROR IN SAYING THAT A
SEAMAN COULD NOT SUE AN AGENT FOR THE AGENT'S OWN TORT.  THE BRADY
FINAL STATEMENT ON LUSTGARTEN WAS, "OUR CONCLUSION, HOWEVER, IS THAT
THAT POSITION IS UNTENABLE AND THAT THE LUSTGARTEN CASE SO FAR AS IT
WOULD PREVENT A PRIVATE OPERATOR FROM BEING SUED UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED AS NO LONGER
CONTROLLING."  ID., AT 578.  THERE IS NO REASON HERE WHY THE PETITIONER
SHOULD NOT SUE RESPONDENT FOR ITS ALLEGED TORT.  WHAT PETITIONER IS
ATTEMPTING IS TO HOLD RESPONDENT LIABLE AS EMPLOYER FOR NEGLIGENCE OF
PETITIONER'S FELLOW SERVANTS, OF PETITIONER'S SUPERIORS OR THE MASTER
UNDER THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT.  THIS IT CANNOT DO UNDER THIS RECORD. 
FN11 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY BE IN THE POSITION OF AN
EMPLOYER, AS A CHARTERER OR OWNER PRO HAC VICE.  BUT A CHARTERER OR
OWNER PRO HAC VICE, WHO IS ALSO AN EMPLOYER, IS ONE WHO TAKES OVER "THE
EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION, COMMAND, AND NAVIGATION OF THE VESSEL."  REED V.
UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  591, 600.  THAT IS A BAREBOAT CHARTER.  UNDER
THE CONTRACT IN THIS CASE, THE RESPONDENT HAD NO SUCH AUTHORITY.  AS WE
HAVE POINTED OUT ABOVE, AND AS THE CONTRACT SHOWS, HE ACTED FOR THE
UNITED STATES UNDER ITS COMMAND AND THEN ONLY IN CERTAIN MATTERS NOT
CONNECTED WITH ACTUAL NAVIGATION. 

THE COURT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE RESPONDENT'S ASSERTION THAT THE
MERCHANT MARINE ACT REQUIRES THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  IT IS
SAID, "BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE FACT THAT HUST WAS TECHNICALLY
THE GOVERNMENT'S EMPLOYEE THAT HE LOST ALL REMEDIES AGAINST THE
OPERATING 'AGENT' FOR SUCH INJURIES AS HE INCURRED."  CERTAINLY HUST
DID NOT LOSE HIS REMEDIES AGAINST THE AGENT FOR THE AGENT'S TORTS.  HE
STILL HAS THOSE REMEDIES BUT PETITIONER WISHES TO HOLD THE AGENT AS AN
EMPLOYER.  THERE IS HERE NO "DISRUPTION" OF THE NORMAL AND PAST
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEAMAN AND EMPLOYER.  THIS COURT ERRS, WE THINK,
IN SUGGESTING ANY SEAMAN HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF ANY RIGHT BY THE
CLARIFICATION ACT OF 1943 UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OREGON SUPREME
COURT.  NO SEAMAN EVER HAD A RIGHT OF RECOVERY UNDER THE MERCHANT
MARINE ACT EXCEPT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER.  THAT THE SEAMAN STILL HAS. 

WHAT THE CLARIFICATION ACT DOES AND WHAT IT OBVIOUSLY WAS INTENDED TO
DO, SEE NOTES 7 AND 9, SUPRA, WAS TO CONTINUE THE POLICY OF REQUIRING
SEAMEN WHO WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONTINUE TO VINDICATE
THOSE RIGHTS THROUGH THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  CONGRESS HAS BEEN
GENEROUS IN PERMITTING SEAMEN TO RECOVER IN COURT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES FOR TORTS.  IT FELT THAT THE TRADITIONAL PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY
OFFERED THE BEST OPPORTUNITY FOR JUSTICE TO ALL SUCH INJURED SEAMEN
WHEN THEY WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN12 

A CONVENIENT SUMMARY OF THE ATTITUDE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
TOWARD THIS PROBLEM IS FOUND IN A LETTER OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OF OCTOBER 20,
1942.  FN13  SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IS ENTITLED TO WEIGHT. 

WE THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE OREGON SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239, 245. 

FN2  41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688: 

"ANY SEAMAN WHO SHALL SUFFER PERSONAL INJURY IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT MAY, AT HIS ELECTION, MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AT LAW,
WITH THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, AND IN SUCH ACTION ALL STATUTES OF THE
UNITED STATES MODIFYING OR EXTENDING THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OR REMEDY IN
CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES SHALL APPLY; ..." 

FN3  PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375, 389; NOLAN V. GENERAL
SEAFOODS CORP., 112 F.2D 515, 517; THE NORLAND, 101 F.2D 967; BAKER V.
MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES, 57 F.SUPP.  207, 208; EGGLESTON V. REPUBLIC
STEEL CORP., 47 F.SUPP.  658, 659; GARDINER V. AGWILINES, INC., 29
F.SUPP.  348. 

COMPARE ROBINSON V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 237 U.S. 84, 94: 

"WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CONGRESS USED THE WORDS 'EMPLOYE' AND
'EMPLOYED' IN THE STATUTE IN THEIR NATURAL SENSE, AND INTENDED TO
DESCRIBE THE CONVENTIONAL RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE." 

HULL V. PHILADELPHIA & READING R. CO., 252 U.S. 475. 

FN4  "WITNESSETH: THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE RECIPROCAL
UNDERTAKINGS AND PROMISES OF THE PARTIES HEREIN EXPRESSED: 

"ARTICLE 1.  THE UNITED STATES APPOINTS THE GENERAL AGENT AS ITS
AGENT AND NOT AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, TO MANAGE AND CONDUCT THE
BUSINESS OF VESSELS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE UNITED STATES FROM TIME TO
TIME. 

"ARTICLE 2.  THE GENERAL AGENT ACCEPTS THE APPOINTMENT AND UNDERTAKES
AND PROMISES SO TO MANAGE AND CONDUCT THE BUSINESS FOR THE UNITED
STATES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS, ORDERS, OR REGULATIONS AS
THE LATTER HAS PRESCRIBED, OR FROM TIME TO TIME MAY PRESCRIBE, AND UPON
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HEREIN PROVIDED, OF SUCH VESSELS AS HAVE BEEN
OR MAY BE BY THE UNITED STATES ASSIGNED TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE GENERAL
AGENT FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

"ARTICLE 3A.  TO THE BEST OF ITS ABILITY, THE GENERAL AGENT SHALL FOR
THE ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(D)  THE GENERAL AGENT SHALL PROCURE THE MASTER OF THE VESSELS
OPERATED HEREUNDER, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
MASTER SHALL BE AN AGENT AND EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND SHALL
HAVE AND EXERCISE FULL CONTROL, RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY WITH
RESPECT TO THE NAVIGATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL.  THE GENERAL
AGENT SHALL PROCURE AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE MASTER FOR ENGAGEMENT BY
HIM THE OFFICERS AND MEN REQUIRED BY HIM TO FILL THE COMPLEMENT OF THE
VESSEL.  SUCH OFFICERS AND MEN SHALL BE PROCURED BY THE GENERAL AGENT
THROUGH THE USUAL CHANNELS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOMARY
PRACTICES OF COMMERCIAL OPERATORS AND UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PREVAILING IN THE PARTICULAR SERVICE OR SERVICES IN WHICH THE VESSELS
ARE TO BE OPERATED FROM TIME TO TIME.  THE OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE
CREW SHALL BE SUBJECT ONLY TO THE ORDERS OF THE MASTER.  ALL SUCH
PERSONS SHALL BE PAID IN THE CUSTOMARY MANNER WITH FUNDS PROVIDED BY
THE UNITED STATES HEREUNDER." 

FN5  41 STAT. 525-26: 

"SEC. 2.  THAT IN CASES WHERE IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR
OPERATED, OR IF SUCH CARGO WERE PRIVATELY OWNED AND POSSESSED, A
PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY COULD BE MAINTAINED AT THE TIME OF THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, A LIBEL IN PERSONAM MAY
BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST SUCH CORPORATION, AS
THE CASE MAY BE, PROVIDED THAT SUCH VESSEL IS EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT
VESSEL OR IS A TUG BOAT OPERATED BY SUCH CORPORATION...." 

FN6  FLEET CORP. V. ROSENBERG BROS., 276 U.S. 202; JOHNSON V. FLEET
CORP., 280 U.S. 320. 

FN7  57 STAT. 45-46: 

"THAT (A) OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF CREWS (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS
'SEAMEN') EMPLOYED ON UNITED STATES OR FOREIGN FLAG VESSELS AS
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION
SHALL, WITH RESPECT TO  ...  (2) DEATH, INJURIES, ILLNESS,  ...  HAVE
ALL OF THE RIGHTS, BENEFITS, EXEMPTIONS, PRIVILEGES, AND LIABILITIES,
UNDER LAW APPLICABLE TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYED AS
SEAMEN ON PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED AMERICAN VESSELS....  ANY CLAIM
REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (2) OR (3) HEREOF SHALL, IF ADMINISTRATIVELY
DISALLOWED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BE ENFORCED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE VESSEL ON WHICH THE
SEAMAN IS EMPLOYED IS NOT A MERCHANT VESSEL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUCH
ACT.  ANY CLAIM, RIGHT, OR CAUSE OF ACTION OF OR IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH
SEAMAN ACCRUING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1941, AND PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
ENACTMENT OF THIS SECTION MAY BE ENFORCED, AND UPON THE ELECTION OF THE
SEAMAN OR HIS SURVIVING DEPENDENT OR BENEFICIARY, OR HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE TO DO SO SHALL BE GOVERNED, AS IF THIS SECTION HAD BEEN
IN EFFECT WHEN SUCH CLAIM, RIGHT, OR CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED, SUCH
ELECTION TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION...." 

FN8 S. REP. NO. 62, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 107, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN9  THIS PURPOSE IS MADE PLAIN BY A FEW EXCERPTS FROM THE REPORTS. 
S. REP. NO. 62, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 5-6, 11, 14: 

"SEAMEN EMPLOYED AS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON VESSELS OWNED BY, OR
BAREBOAT-CHARTERED TO, THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION ARE SOMETIMES
PRECLUDED FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHTS AND
BENEFITS IN CASE OF DEATH, INJURY, ILLNESS, DETENTION, AND SO ON THAT
WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THEM IF EMPLOYED BY PRIVATE EMPLOYERS, EXCEPT
UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  IF THEY WERE PRIVATE EMPLOYEES,
RIGHTS TO REDRESS FOR DEATH, INJURY, OR ILLNESS COULD BE PROSECUTED
UNDER THE JONES ACT AND THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW.  THESE SAME RIGHTS
MAY BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AS THE EMPLOYER UNDER THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT PROVIDING THE VESSEL INVOLVED IS A MERCHANT
VESSEL.  IN CASE OF PUBLIC VESSELS THE SEAMAN MUST RELY FOR
COMPENSATION UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POLICY RECOGNIZING CONTRACTUAL
LIABILITY WHICH THIS LEGISLATION RECOGNIZES.  PRESENT-DAY OPERATING
CONDITIONS OFTEN MAKE UNCERTAIN IN SOME CASES WHETHER THE VESSEL IS A
MERCHANT OR A PUBLIC VESSEL.  AS A CONSEQUENCE, EVEN THOUGH THE VESSELS
ARE GENERALLY MERCHANT VESSELS AND NOT PUBLIC VESSELS, THERE ARE SOME
CASES IN WHICH THE AFOREMENTIONED RIGHTS OF SUCH SEAMEN ARE IN DOUBT. 
IN ADDITION TO THESE RIGHTS WHICH, AT TIMES, ARE UNCERTAIN FOR THE
REASONS MENTIONED, THE SEAMEN WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES
PROBABLY HAVE RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
ACT IN THE EVENT OF INJURY OR DEATH.  SUCH COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE
NOT PRESENTLY ENJOYED BY SEAMEN UNDER PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT.  THUS VITAL
DIFFERENCES IN THESE RIGHTS ARE MADE TO DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE SEAMAN
HAPPENS TO BE EMPLOYED ABOARD A VESSEL TIME-CHARTERED TO THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION OR OWNED BY OR BAREBOAT-CHARTERED TO THE WAR
SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  SINCE SEAMEN CONSTANTLY CHANGE FROM ONE
VESSEL TO ANOTHER, THEIR RIGHTS FOR DEATH, INJURY, OR ILLNESS ALSO
CONSTANTLY CHANGE, DEPENDING UPON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION TO THE VESSEL.  THIS FLUCTUATION AND LACK OF UNIFORMITY
OF RIGHTS LEADS TO DEPENDENCY OF VITAL RIGHTS UPON CHANCE WITH A RESULT
OF CONFUSION AND INEQUITIES.  THE BILL IS DESIGNED TO REMOVE THIS
CONFUSION AND THESE INEQUITIES.  THE BILL DOES NOT AFFECT SEAMEN
EMPLOYED ON VESSELS TIME-CHARTERED TO THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION
WHERE THE VESSELS ARE SUPPLIED WITH CREWS EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY FROM
WHICH THE VESSEL IS CHARTERED.  AS TO THEM THEIR STATUS AND THE STATUS
OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES MENTIONED WILL BE MADE UNIFORM. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"...  THEY WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO INDEMNITY THROUGH COURT
ACTION FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL OR
DEFECTS IN VESSEL APPLIANCES, AND THEY (AND THEIR DEPENDENTS) WILL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO ACTION UNDER THE JONES ACT (1920) FOR INJURY OR DEATH
RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF THE EMPLOYER.  SUCH SEAMEN WILL HAVE THE
RIGHT TO ENFORCE CLAIMS FOR THESE BENEFITS ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE
OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, EXCEPT THAT CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO
SOCIAL-SECURITY BENEFITS SHALL BE PROSECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN THE SOCIAL-SECURITY LAW.... 

     .      .         .         .         . 

"THE PROVISION OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT THAT SUIT LIES
THEREUNDER ONLY IF THE SHIP INVOLVED IS EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL
OR A TUGBOAT IS WAIVED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 1 SO THAT THE CLAIM
MAY BE ENFORCED REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE VESSEL ON WHICH THE
SEAMAN IS SERVING AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION. 
TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY OR PREMATURE LITIGATION AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, IT IS REQUIRED THAT BEFORE SUIT THERE SHALL BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME IN ACCORD WITH RULES OR
REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION." 

H. REP. NO. 107, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 3, 21: 

"THE BASIC SCOPE AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE MEASURE IS TO PRESERVE PRIVATE
RIGHTS OF SEAMEN WHILE UTILIZING THE MERCHANT MARINE TO THE UTMOST FOR
PUBLIC WARTIME BENEFIT.  EXCEPT IN RARE CASES THE SHIPS THEMSELVES ARE
BEING OPERATED AS MERCHANT VESSELS, AND ARE THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  GRANTING SEAMEN RIGHTS TO SUE UNDER THAT ACT
IS THEREFORE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERLYING PATTERN OF THE
MEASURE.  THIS SHOULD FOLLOW EVEN IN THE EXTRAORDINARY CASE WHERE
VESSELS MIGHT OTHERWISE TECHNICALLY BE CLASSED AS PUBLIC VESSELS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE VARIOUS RIGHTS AND REMEDIES UNDER STATUTE AND GENERAL MARITIME
LAW WITH RESPECT TO DEATH, INJURY, ILLNESS, AND OTHER CASUALTY TO
SEAMEN, HAVE BEEN RATHER FULLY SET FORTH HEREINABOVE.  UNDER CLAUSE 2
OF SECTION 1(A) THESE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS WOULD BE GOVERNED BY EXISTING
LAW RELATING TO PRIVATELY EMPLOYED SEAMEN.  THE ONLY MODIFICATION
THEREOF ARISES FROM THE REMEDIAL PROVISION THAT THEY SHALL BE ENFORCED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  THIS
PROCEDURE IS APPROPRIATE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SUITS WILL BE
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN SUCH A SUIT NO
PROVISION IS MADE FOR A JURY TRIAL AS MAY OTHERWISE BE HAD IN A
PROCEEDING SUCH AS ONE UNDER THE JONES ACT FOR REASONS SET FORTH IN THE
LETTER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SEPTEMBER 14, 1942).  THE PROVISION OF
THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT THAT SUIT LIES THEREUNDER ONLY IF THE SHIP
INVOLVED IS EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT VESSEL OR A TUGBOAT IS WAIVED FOR
THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 1 SO THAT THE CLAIM MAY BE ENFORCED REGARDLESS
OF THE NATURE OF THE VESSEL ON WHICH THE SEAMAN IS SERVING AS AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION.  TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY OR
PREMATURE LITIGATION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, IT IS REQUIRED THAT
BEFORE SUIT THERE SHALL BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME
IN ACCORD WITH RULES OR REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION."    THE DESIRABILITY OF A
JURY TRIAL WAS COMMENTED UPON BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NATIONAL
MARITIME UNION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN REPLY.  SEE HEARINGS ON H.R.
7424, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE & FISHERIES, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., PP. 30-33. 

FN10  S. REP. NO. 62, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 13:    "INASMUCH AS
CERTAIN VESSEL OPERATIONS ON ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT WERE UNDERTAKEN
PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION BY OR
THROUGH THE MARITIME COMMISSION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 AND ALL
AMENDMENTS THEREIN ARE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES MARITIME
COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 1941, TO THE
TIME OF TAKING OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION
(FEBRUARY 11, 1942).  TO AVOID ADMINISTRATIVE CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY
AS TO THE EXACT STATUS OF EMPLOYMENT OF SEAMEN EMPLOYED ON WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION VESSELS, IT IS PROVIDED THAT SEAMEN EMPLOYED THROUGH
THAT AGENCY SHALL BE INCLUDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 EVEN
THOUGH THE SEAMEN MAY BE EMPLOYED ON A VESSEL CHARTERED OR MADE
AVAILABLE TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
PURPOSES OF CONVENIENCE IN THE WAR EFFORT. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"WITH RESPECT TO SEAMEN ON FOREIGN-FLAG VESSELS, THE REMEDY PROVIDED
BY THIS LEGISLATION IS, OF COURSE, IN SUBSTITUTION FOR REMEDIES THAT
MIGHT EXIST UNDER THE LAWS OF A COUNTRY IN WHICH THE VESSEL MAY BE
DOCUMENTED, AND SEAMEN PROCEEDING UNDER THIS SECTION BY SUCH CHOICE OF
REMEDIES WILL HAVE WAIVED BENEFITS UNDER LAWS OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY THAT
MIGHT OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE." 

SEE ALSO H. REPORT NO. 107, SUPRA, PP. 21 AND 22. 

FN11  176 ORE.  662, 665, 668-669, 680, 695, 158 P.2D 275, 276, 277
78, 282, 287-88: 

"ON THE TRIAL THE DEFENDANT MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE
GROUNDS THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT EMPLOYED BY
IT AND THAT HIS INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY ITS NEGLIGENCE.  THE COURT
DENIED THE MOTION, AND IN ITS CHARGE LEFT IT TO THE JURY TO DETERMINE
AS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE
EXISTED BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF." 

"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT DID ANYTHING IN CONNECTION
WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE VESSEL NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE TERMS OF THE
SERVICE AGREEMENT, OR THAT IT EXERCISED OR ATTEMPTED TO EXERCISE ANY
CONTROL OVER THE MASTER OR CREW.  INDEED, THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE
IS THAT WHEN IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE DEFENDANT TO ASSIST IN THE LOADING
OF THE VESSEL IT ACTED UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE MASTER AS TO THE
TIME, PLACE AND METHOD OF LOADING." 

"AS STATED, THE TRIAL JUDGE LEFT TO THE JURY THE QUESTION OF EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP AS ONE OF FACT.  THE PROPRIETY OF THAT SUBMISSION
IS NOT DEFENDED HERE, AND IT SEEMS TO BE AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES THAT
THE QUESTION IS ONE OF LAW TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT.  OF THE
CORRECTNESS OF THIS VIEW WE THINK THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT." 

"WE FIND NO SUCH BASIS OF LIABILITY IN THIS CASE.  THE DEFENDANT WAS
NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR A NEGLIGENT ORDER OF THE BOATSWAIN WHICH SENT THE
PLAINTIFF INTO A PLACE OF DANGER.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE VESSEL
WAS NOT PROPERLY EQUIPPED WHEN IT STARTED ON ITS VOYAGE." 

FN12  SEE REMEDIES OF MERCHANT SEAMEN INJURED ON GOVERNMENT OWNED
VESSELS, 55 YALE LAW JOURNAL 584, 591. 

FN13  "THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATOR HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT UNDER THE
CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS MENTIONED ABOVE AND FOR OTHER REASONS, THE
MASTER, OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF ALL VESSELS OWNED BY OR
BAREBOAT CHARTERED TO THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION ARE EMPLOYEES OF
THE UNITED STATES AND PARTICULARLY OF THE WAR SHIPPING ADMINISTRATION,
AND ARE SO CONSIDERED AND TREATED AT THE PRESENT TIME BY OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT, THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT,
THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS, AND THE FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TAX LAWS. 
FURTHERMORE, THE WAGES OF SUCH PERSONNEL ARE EXEMPT FROM ATTACHMENT AS
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 

..END :






KOTTEAKOS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 750 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 151 F.2D 170,
REVERSED. 


1.  PETITIONER AND 31 OTHERS WERE INDICTED UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE FOR A SINGLE GENERAL CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE NATIONAL
HOUSING ACT BY INDUCING LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO MAKE LOANS WHICH WOULD
BE OFFERED TO THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FOR INSURANCE ON THE
BASIS OF FALSE AND FRAUDULENT INFORMATION.  NINETEEN DEFENDANTS WERE
BROUGHT TO TRIAL AND THE CASES OF 13 WERE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  THE
EVIDENCE PROVED EIGHT OR MORE DIFFERENT CONSPIRACIES BY SEPARATE GROUPS
OF DEFENDANTS WHICH HAD NO CONNECTION WITH EACH OTHER EXCEPT THAT ALL
UTILIZED ONE BROWN AS A BROKER TO HANDLE FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS. 
EVIDENCE OF DEALINGS BETWEEN BROWN AND DEFENDANTS OTHER THAN PETITIONER
WAS ADMITTED AGAINST PETITIONER; AND THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY,
INTER ALIA, THAT ONLY ONE CONSPIRACY WAS CHARGED AND THAT THE ACTS AND
DECLARATIONS OF ONE CONSPIRATOR BOUND ALL.  PETITIONER AND SIX OTHER
DEFENDANTS WERE CONVICTED.  HELD:  THE RIGHTS OF PETITIONER WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 269 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, AND THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED.  BERGER V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 78, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 756, 777. 

2.  IN APPLYING THE "HARMLESS ERROR" RULE OF SEC. 269, IT IS NOT THE
APPELLATE COURT'S FUNCTION TO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE NOR TO
SPECULATE UPON PROBABLE RECONVICTION AND DECIDE ACCORDING TO HOW THE
SPECULATION COMES OUT.  P. 763. 

3.  THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS RIGHT,
REGARDLESS OF THE ERROR, BUT WHAT EFFECT THE ERROR HAD OR REASONABLY
MAY HAVE HAD UPON THE JURY'S DECISION.  P. 764. 

4.  IF ONE CANNOT SAY, WITH FAIR ASSURANCE, AFTER PONDERING ALL THAT
HAPPENED WITHOUT STRIPPING THE ERRONEOUS ACTION FROM THE WHOLE, THAT
THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY SWAYED BY THE ERROR, IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS WERE NOT AFFECTED.  P.
765. 

5.  WHERE THE JURY COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE FOUND, UPON THE EVIDENCE,
THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE CONSPIRACY, IT WAS ERRONEOUS TO CHARGE THAT,
"IT IS ONE CONSPIRACY, AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT EACH OF THE
DEFENDANTS, OR WHICH OF THE DEFENDANTS, ARE MEMBERS OF THAT
CONSPIRACY."  PP. 767, 768. 

6.  WHERE THE INSTRUCTIONS OBVIOUSLY CONFUSED THE COMMON PURPOSE OF A
SINGLE ENTERPRISE WITH THE PURPOSES OF NUMEROUS SEPARATE ADVENTURES OF
LIKE CHARACTER, IT COULD NOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE JURORS WERE SO WELL
INFORMED UPON THE LAW THAT THEY DISREGARDED THE PERMISSION EXPRESSLY
GIVEN TO IGNORE THAT VITAL DIFFERENCE.  P. 769. 

7.  IN VIEW OF A CHARGE IN THIS CASE THAT THE STATEMENTS AND OVERT
ACTS OF ANY DEFENDANT FOUND TO BE A CONSPIRATOR COULD BE CONSIDERED IN
EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOUND TO BE MEMBERS OF THE CONSPIRACY,
IT COULD NOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE JURY CONSIDERED AND WAS INFLUENCED
BY NOTHING EXCEPT THE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT EACH DEFENDANT SHARED IN
THE FRAUDULENT PHASES OF THE PARTICULAR CONSPIRACY IN WHICH HE
PARTICIPATED.  PP. 770, 771. 

8.  NEITHER CONGRESS, WHEN IT ENACTED SEC. 269, NOR THIS COURT, WHEN
IT DECIDED THE BERGER CASE, INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE GOVERNMENT TO
STRING TOGETHER FOR COMMON TRIAL EIGHT OR MORE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
CONSPIRACIES, RELATED IN KIND THOUGH THEY MAY BE, WHEN THE ONLY NEXUS
AMONG THEM LIES IN THE FACT THAT ONE MAN PARTICIPATED IN ALL.  P. 773. 

9.  THE DANGERS OF TRANSFERENCE OF GUILT FROM ONE TO ANOTHER ACROSS
THE LINE SEPARATING CONSPIRACIES, SUBCONSCIOUSLY OR OTHERWISE, ARE SO
GREAT THAT NO ONE CAN SAY PREJUDICE TO SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT HAS NOT TAKEN
PLACE.  SECTION 269 WAS NOT INTENDED TO GO SO FAR.  P. 774. 

10.  EACH DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE HAD A "SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 269 NOT TO BE TRIED EN MASSE FOR A CONGLOMERATION OF
DISTINCT AND SEPARATE OFFENSES COMMITTED BY OTHERS.  P. 775. 

KOTTEAKOS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 457.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 458, REGENBOGEN V. UNITED STATES, ON CERTIORARI TO
THE SAME COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON THE SAME DATES. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  151 F.2D 170.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326
U.S. 711.  REVERSED, P. 777. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER PETITIONERS HAVE SUFFERED SUBSTANTIAL
PREJUDICE FROM BEING CONVICTED OF A SINGLE GENERAL CONSPIRACY BY
EVIDENCE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS PROVED NOT ONE CONSPIRACY BUT SOME
EIGHT OR MORE DIFFERENT ONES OF THE SAME SORT EXECUTED THROUGH A COMMON
KEY FIGURE, SIMON BROWN.  PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED UNDER THE GENERAL
CONSPIRACY SECTION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88, OF
CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, 12
U.S.C. SECS. 1702, 1703, 1715, 1731.  THE JUDGMENTS WERE AFFIRMED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  151 F.2D 170.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  326 U.S. 711. 

THE INDICTMENT NAMED THIRTY-TWO DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING THE
PETITIONERS.  FN1  THE GIST OF THE CONSPIRACY, AS ALLEGED, WAS THAT THE
DEFENDANTS HAD SOUGHT TO INDUCE VARIOUS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO GRANT
CREDIT, WITH THE INTENT THAT THE LOANS OR ADVANCES WOULD THEN BE
OFFERED TO THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FOR INSURANCE UPON
APPLICATIONS CONTAINING FALSE AND FRAUDULENT INFORMATION.  FN2 

OF THE THIRTY-TWO PERSONS NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT NINETEEN WERE
BROUGHT TO TRIAL  FN3  AND THE NAMES OF THIRTEEN WERE SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY.  FN4  TWO WERE ACQUITTED; THE JURY DISAGREED AS TO FOUR; AND THE
REMAINING SEVEN, INCLUDING PETITIONERS, WERE FOUND GUILTY. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE MAY BE SUMMARIZED BRIEFLY, FOR THE
PETITIONERS HAVE NOT CONTENDED THAT IT WAS INSUFFICIENT, IF CONSIDERED
APART FROM THE ALLEGED ERRORS RELATING TO THE PROOF AND THE
INSTRUCTIONS AT THE TRIAL. 

SIMON BROWN, WHO PLEADED GUILTY, WAS THE COMMON AND KEY FIGURE IN ALL
OF THE TRANSACTIONS PROVEN.  HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE BROWNIE LUMBER
COMPANY.  HAVING HAD EXPERIENCE IN OBTAINING LOANS UNDER THE NATIONAL
HOUSING ACT, HE UNDERTOOK TO ACT AS BROKER IN PLACING FOR OTHERS LOANS
FOR MODERNIZATION AND RENOVATION, CHARGING A FIVE PER CENT COMMISSION
FOR HIS SERVICES.  BROWN KNEW, WHEN HE OBTAINED THE LOANS, THAT THE
PROCEEDS WERE NOT TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES STATED IN THE
APPLICATIONS. 

IN MAY, 1939, PETITIONER LEKACOS TOLD BROWN THAT HE WISHED TO SECURE
A LOAN IN ORDER TO FINANCE OPENING A LAW OFFICE, TO SAY THE LEAST A
HARDLY AUSPICIOUS PROFESSIONAL LAUNCHING.  BROWN MADE OUT THE
APPLICATION, AS DIRECTED BY LEKACOS, TO STATE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
LOAN WAS TO MODERNIZE A HOUSE BELONGING TO THE ESTATE OF LEKACOS'
FATHER.  LEKACOS OBTAINED THE MONEY.  LATER IN THE SAME YEAR LEKACOS
SECURED ANOTHER LOAN THROUGH BROWN, THE APPLICATION BEING IN THE NAMES
OF HIS BROTHER AND SISTERIN-LAW.  LEKACOS ALSO RECEIVED PART OF THE
PROCEEDS OF A LOAN FOR WHICH ONE GERAKERIS, A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADED
GUILTY, HAD APPLIED. 

IN JUNE, 1939, LEKACOS SENT BROWN AN APPLICATION FOR A LOAN SIGNED BY
PETITIONER KOTTEAKOS.  IT CONTAINED FALSE STATEMENTS.  FN5  BROWN
PLACED THE LOAN, AND KOTTEAKOS THEREAFTER SENT BROWN APPLICATIONS ON
BEHALF OF OTHER PERSONS.  TWO WERE MADE OUT IN THE NAMES OF FICTITIOUS
PERSONS.  THE PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED BY KOTTEAKOS AND PETITIONER
REGENBOGEN, HIS PARTNER IN THE CIGARETTE AND PINBALL MACHINE BUSINESS. 
REGENBOGEN, TOGETHER WITH KOTTEAKOS, HAD INDORSED ONE OF THE
APPLICATIONS.  KOTTEAKOS ALSO SENT TO BROWN AN APPLICATION FOR A LOAN
IN REGENBOGEN'S NAME.  THIS WAS FOR MODERNIZATION OF PROPERTY NOT OWNED
BY REGENBOGEN.  THE LATTER, HOWEVER, REPAID THE MONEY IN ABOUT THREE
MONTHS AFTER HE RECEIVED IT. 

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY WAS SIMILAR IN CHARACTER.  THEY TOO HAD TRANSACTED BUSINESS
WITH BROWN RELATING TO NATIONAL HOUSING ACT LOANS.  BUT NO CONNECTION
WAS SHOWN BETWEEN THEM AND PETITIONERS, OTHER THAN THAT BROWN HAD BEEN
THE INSTRUMENT IN EACH INSTANCE FOR OBTAINING THE LOANS.  IN MANY CASES
THE OTHER DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE ANOTHER,
OTHER THAN BROWN'S CONNECTION WITH EACH TRANSACTION.  AS THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS SAID, THERE WERE "AT LEAST EIGHT, AND PERHAPS MORE,
SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT GROUPS, NONE OF WHICH HAD ANY CONNECTION WITH
ANY OTHER, THOUGH ALL DEALT INDEPENDENTLY WITH BROWN AS THEIR AGENT." 
151 F.2D AT 172.  AS THE GOVERNMENT PUTS IT, THE PATTERN WAS "THAT OF
SEPARATE SPOKES MEETING IN A COMMON CENTER," THOUGH, WE MAY ADD,
WITHOUT THE RIM OF THE WHEEL TO ENCLOSE THE SPOKES. 

THE PROOF THEREFORE ADMITTEDLY MADE OUT A CASE, NOT OF A SINGLE
CONSPIRACY, BUT OF SEVERAL, NOTWITHSTANDING ONLY ONE WAS CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT.  CF. UNITED STATES V. FALCONE, 311 U.S. 205; UNITED STATES
V. PEONI, 100 F.2D 401; TINSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 43 F.2D 890, 892
893.  THE COURT OF APPEALS APTLY DREW ANALOGY IN THE COMMENT, "THIEVES
WHO DISPOSE OF THEIR LOOT TO A SINGLE RECEIVER - A SINGLE 'FENCE' - DO
NOT BY THAT FACT ALONE BECOME CONFEDERATES:  THEY MAY, BUT IT TAKES
MORE THAN KNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS A 'FENCE' TO MAKE THEM SUCH."  151 F.2D
AT 173.  IT STATED THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE "WAS PLAINLY WRONG IN SUPPOSING
THAT UPON THE EVIDENCE THERE COULD BE A SINGLE CONSPIRACY; AND IN THE
VIEW WHICH HE TOOK OF THE LAW, HE SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE
INDICTMENT."  151 F.2D AT 172.  NEVERTHELESS THE APPELLATE COURT HELD
THE ERROR NOT PREJUDICIAL, SAYING AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT "ESPECIALLY
SINCE GUILT WAS SO MANIFEST, IT WAS 'PROPER' TO JOIN THE CONSPIRACIES,"
AND "TO REVERSE THE CONVICTION WOULD BE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE."  FN6
THIS IS INDEED THE GOVERNMENT'S ENTIRE POSITION.  IT DOES NOT NOW
CONTEND THAT THERE WAS NO VARIANCE IN PROOF FROM THE SINGLE CONSPIRACY
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  ADMITTING THAT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
CONSPIRACIES WERE SHOWN, IT URGES THAT THE VARIANCE WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL
TO THE PETITIONERS. 

IN BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 78, THIS COURT HELD THAT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED THE VARIANCE WAS NOT FATAL WHERE ONE CONSPIRACY
WAS CHARGED AND TWO WERE PROVED, RELATING TO CONTEMPORANEOUS
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING COUNTERFEIT MONEY.  ONE OF THE CONSPIRACIES HAD
TWO PARTICIPANTS; THE OTHER HAD THREE; AND ONE DEFENDANT, KATZ, WAS
COMMON TO EACH.  FN7  "THE TRUE INQUIRY," SAID THE COURT, "IS NOT
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VARIANCE IN PROOF, BUT WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN
SUCH A VARIANCE AS TO 'AFFECT THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS' OF THE ACCUSED." 
295 U.S. AT 82. 

THE COURT HELD THE VARIANCE NOT FATAL,  FN8  RESTING ITS RULING ON
WHAT HAS BECOME KNOWN AS "THE HARMLESS ERROR STATUTE," SEC. 269 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED (28 U.S.C. SEC. 391), WHICH IS CONTROLLING IN
THIS CASE AND PROVIDES: 

"ON THE HEARING OF ANY APPEAL, CERTIORARI, WRIT OF ERROR, OR MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL, IN ANY CASE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, THE COURT SHALL GIVE
JUDGMENT AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT,
WITHOUT REGARD TO TECHNICAL ERRORS, DEFECTS, OR EXCEPTIONS WHICH DO NOT
AFFECT THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES."  FN9 

APPLYING THAT SECTION, THE COURT LIKENED THE SITUATION TO ONE WHERE
THE FOUR PERSONS IMPLICATED IN THE TWO CONSPIRACIES HAD BEEN CHARGED AS
CONSPIRATORS IN SEPARATE COUNTS, BUT WITH A FAILURE IN THE PROOF TO
CONNECT ONE OF THEM (BERGER) WITH ONE OF THE CONSPIRACIES, AND A
RESULTING CONVICTION UNDER ONE COUNT AND ACQUITTAL UNDER THE OTHER.  IN
THAT EVENT, THE COURT SAID, "PLAINLY ENOUGH, HIS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AFFECTED."  THE SITUATION SUPPOSED AND THE ONE
ACTUALLY PRESENTED, THE OPINION STATED, THOUGH DIFFERING GREATLY IN
FORM, WERE NOT DIFFERENT IN SUBSTANCE.  THE PROOF RELATING TO THE
CONSPIRACY WITH WHICH BERGER HAD NOT BEEN CONNECTED COULD BE REGARDED
AS INCOMPETENT AS TO HIM.  BUT NOTHING IN THE FACTS, IT WAS CONCLUDED,
COULD REASONABLY BE SAID TO SHOW THAT PREJUDICE OR SURPRISE RESULTED;
AND THE COURT WENT ON TO SAY, "CERTAINLY THE FACT THAT THE PROOF
DISCLOSED TWO CONSPIRACIES INSTEAD OF ONE, EACH WITHIN THE WORDS OF THE
INDICTMENT, CANNOT PREJUDICE HIS DEFENSE OF FORMER ACQUITTAL OF THE ONE
OR FORMER CONVICTION OF THE OTHER, IF HE SHOULD AGAIN BE PROSECUTED." 
295 U.S. AT 83. 

THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO DETERMINE IS WHETHER THE SAME RULING MAY BE
EXTENDED TO A SITUATION IN WHICH ONE CONSPIRACY ONLY IS CHARGED AND AT
LEAST EIGHT HAVING SEPARATE, THOUGH SIMILAR OBJECTS, ARE MADE OUT BY
THE EVIDENCE, IF BELIEVED; AND IN WHICH THE MORE NUMEROUS PARTICIPANTS
IN THE DIFFERENT SCHEMES WERE, ON THE WHOLE, EXCEPT FOR ONE, DIFFERENT
PERSONS WHO DID NOT KNOW OR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER. 

THE SALUTARY POLICY EMBODIED IN SEC. 269 WAS ADOPTED BY THE CONGRESS
IN 1919(ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1919, C. 48, 40 STAT. 1181) AFTER LONG
AGITATION UNDER DISTINGUISHED PROFESSIONAL SPONSORSHIP, FN10  AND AFTER
THOROUGH CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS PROPOSALS DESIGNED TO ENACT THE
POLICY IN SUCCESSIVE CONGRESSES FROM THE SIXTIETH TO THE SIXTY-FIFTH. 
FN11  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REVIEW IN DETAIL THE HISTORY OF THE ABUSES
WHICH LED TO THE AGITATION OR OF THE PROGRESS OF THE LEGISLATION
THROUGH THE VARIOUS SESSIONS TO FINAL ENACTMENT WITHOUT DEBATE.  56
CONG. REC. 11586; 57 CONG. REC. 3605.  BUT ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH IT
KNOWS THAT SEC. 269 AND SIMILAR STATE LEGISLATION FN12  GREW OUT OF
WIDESPREAD AND DEEP CONVICTION OVER THE GENERAL COURSE OF APPELLATE
REVIEW IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL CAUSES.  THIS WAS SHORTLY, AS ONE TRIAL
JUDGE PUT IT AFTER SEC. 269 HAD BECOME LAW, THAT COURTS OF REVIEW
"TOWER ABOVE THE TRIALS OF CRIMINAL CASES AS IMPREGNABLE CITADELS OF
TECHNICALITY."  FN13  SO GREAT WAS THE THREAT OF REVERSAL, IN MANY
JURISDICTIONS, THAT CRIMINAL TRIAL BECAME A GAME FOR SOWING REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN THE RECORD, ONLY TO HAVE REPEATED THE SAME MATCHING OF WITS
WHEN A NEW TRIAL HAD BEEN THUS OBTAINED. 

IN THE BROAD ATTACK ON THIS SYSTEM GREAT LEGAL NAMES WERE MOBILIZED,
AMONG THEM TAFT, WIGMORE, POUND AND HADLEY, TO MENTION ONLY FOUR.  FN14
THE GENERAL OBJECT WAS SIMPLE:  TO SUBSTITUTE JUDGMENT FOR AUTOMATIC
APPLICATION OF RULES; TO PRESERVE REVIEW AS A CHECK UPON ARBITRARY
ACTION AND ESSENTIAL UNFAIRNESS IN TRIALS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO MAKE
THE PROCESS PERFORM THAT FUNCTION WITHOUT GIVING MEN FAIRLY CONVICTED
THE MULTIPLICITY OF LOOPHOLES WHICH ANY HIGHLY RIGID AND MINUTELY
DETAILED SCHEME OF ERRORS, ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO PROCEDURE, WILL
ENGENDER AND REFLECT IN A PRINTED RECORD. 

THE TASK WAS TOO BIG, TOO VARIOUS IN DETAIL, FOR PARTICULARIZED
TREATMENT.  CF. BRUNO V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 287, 293.  THE EFFORT
AT REVISION THEREFORE TOOK THE FORM OF THE ESSENTIALLY SIMPLE COMMAND
OF SEC. 269.  IT COMES DOWN ON ITS FACE TO A VERY PLAIN ADMONITION:
"DO NOT BE TECHNICAL, WHERE TECHNICALITY DOES NOT REALLY HURT THE PARTY
WHOSE RIGHTS IN THE TRIAL AND IN ITS OUTCOME THE TECHNICALITY
AFFECTS."  IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL IN
ITS FINAL FORM WAS STATED AUTHORITATIVELY TO BE "TO CAST UPON THE PARTY
SEEKING A NEW TRIAL THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT ANY TECHNICAL ERRORS
THAT HE MAY COMPLAIN OF HAVE AFFECTED HIS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, OTHERWISE
THEY ARE TO BE DISREGARDED."  H.R. REP. NO. 913, 65TH CONG., 3D SESS.,
1.  BUT THAT THIS BURDEN DOES NOT EXTEND TO ALL ERRORS APPEARS FROM THE
STATEMENT WHICH FOLLOWS IMMEDIATELY.  "THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION AFFECTS
ONLY TECHNICAL ERRORS.  IF THE ERROR IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT ITS
NATURAL EFFECT IS TO PREJUDICE A LITIGANT'S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, THE
BURDEN OF SUSTAINING A VERDICT WILL, NOTWITHSTANDING THIS LEGISLATION
REST UPON THE ONE WHO CLAIMS UNDER IT."  IBID.; BRUNO V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, AT 294; WEILER V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 606, 611. 

EASIER WAS THE COMMAND TO MAKE THAN IT HAS BEEN ALWAYS TO OBSERVE. 
THIS, IN PART BECAUSE IT IS GENERAL; BUT IN PART ALSO BECAUSE THE
DISCRIMINATION IT REQUIRES IS ONE OF JUDGMENT TRANSCENDING CONFINEMENT
BY FORMULA OR PRECISE RULE.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO.,
310 U.S. 150, 240.  THAT FACULTY CANNOT EVER BE WHOLLY IMPRISONED IN
WORDS, MUCH LESS UPON SUCH A CRITERION AS WHAT ARE ONLY TECHNICAL, WHAT
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS; AND WHAT REALLY AFFECTS THE LATTER HURTFULLY. 
JUDGMENT, THE PLAY OF IMPRESSION AND CONVICTION ALONG WITH
INTELLIGENCE, VARIES WITH JUDGES AND ALSO WITH CIRCUMSTANCE.  WHAT MAY
BE TECHNICAL FOR ONE IS SUBSTANTIAL FOR ANOTHER; WHAT MINOR AND
UNIMPORTANT IN ONE SETTING CRUCIAL IN ANOTHER. 

MOREOVER, LAWYERS KNOW, IF OTHERS DO NOT, THAT WHAT MAY SEEM
TECHNICAL MAY EMBODY A GREAT TRADITION OF JUSTICE, WEILER V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, OR A NECESSITY FOR DRAWING LINES SOMEWHERE BETWEEN GREAT
AREAS OF LAW; THAT, IN OTHER WORDS, ONE CANNOT ALWAYS SEGREGATE THE
TECHNIQUE FROM THE SUBSTANCE OR THE FORM FROM THE REALITY.  IT IS OF
COURSE HIGHLY TECHNICAL TO CONFER FULL LEGAL STATUS UPON ONE WHO HAS
JUST ATTAINED HIS MAJORITY, BUT DENY IT TO ANOTHER A DAY, A WEEK OR A
MONTH YOUNGER.  YET THAT NARROW LINE, AND MANY OTHERS LIKE IT, MUST BE
DRAWN.  THE "HEARSAY" RULE IS OFTEN GROSSLY ARTIFICIAL.  AGAIN IN A
DIFFERENT CONTEXT IT MAY BE THE VERY ESSENCE OF JUSTICE, KEEPING OUT
GOSSIP, RUMOR, UNFOUNDED REPORT, SECOND, THIRD, OR FURTHER HAND
STORIES.    ALL THIS HARDLY NEEDS TO BE SAID AGAIN.  BUT IT MUST BE
COMPREHENDED AND ADMINISTERED EVERY DAY.  THE TASK IS NOT SIMPLE,
ALTHOUGH THE ADMONITION IS.  NEITHER IS IT IMPOSSIBLE.  BY ITS VERY
NATURE NO STANDARD OF PERFECTION CAN BE ATTAINED.  BUT ONE OF FAIR
APPROXIMATION CAN BE ACHIEVED.  ESSENTIALLY THE MATTER IS ONE FOR
EXPERIENCE TO WORK OUT.  FOR, AS WITH ALL LINES WHICH MUST BE DRAWN
BETWEEN POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FIELDS OF LAW, THE PRECISE BORDER MAY BE
INDISTINCT, BUT CASE BY CASE DETERMINATION OF PARTICULAR POINTS ADDS UP
IN TIME TO DISCERNIBLE DIRECTION. 

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS JUDGMENT IN EACH CASE MUST BE INFLUENCED BY
CONVICTION RESULTING FROM EXAMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THEIR
ENTIRETY, TEMPERED BUT NOT GOVERNED IN ANY RIGID SENSE OF STARE DECISIS
BY WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., SUPRA, AT 240-242.  NECESSARILY THE CHARACTER OF
THE PROCEEDING, WHAT IS AT STAKE UPON ITS OUTCOME, AND THE RELATION OF
THE ERROR ASSERTED TO CASTING THE BALANCE FOR DECISION ON THE CASE AS A
WHOLE, ARE MATERIAL FACTORS IN JUDGMENT. 

THE STATUTE IN TERMS MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
CAUSES.  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SAME CRITERIA SHALL ALWAYS BE
APPLIED REGARDLESS OF THIS DIFFERENCE.  INDEED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION WENT THROUGH MANY REVISIONS,
LARGELY AT THE INSTANCE OF THE SENATE,  FN15  BECAUSE THERE WAS FEAR OF
TOO EASY RELAXATION OF HISTORIC SECURITIES THROWN AROUND THE CITIZEN
CHARGED WITH CRIME.  ALTHOUGH THE FINAL FORM OF THE LEGISLATION WAS
DESIGNED, AND FREQUENTLY HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE,  FN16  TO AVOID SOME OF
THE ABSURDITIES BY WHICH SKILFUL MANIPULATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES HAD
ENABLED THE GUILTY TO ESCAPE JUST PUNISHMENT, SEC. 269 DID NOT MAKE
IRRELEVANT THE FACT THAT A PERSON IS ON TRIAL FOR HIS LIFE OR HIS
LIBERTY.  IT DID NOT REQUIRE THE SAME JUDGMENT IN SUCH A CASE AS IN ONE
INVOLVING ONLY SOME QUESTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY.  THERE WAS NO PURPOSE,
FOR INSTANCE, TO ABOLISH THE HISTORIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL CAUSES RELATING TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF PLACED IN THE ONE UPON
THE PLAINTIFF AND IN THE OTHER ON THE PROSECUTION.  NOR DOES SEC. 269
MEAN THAT AN ERROR IN RECEIVING OR EXCLUDING EVIDENCE HAS IDENTICAL
EFFECTS, FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING ITS POLICY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE IN OTHER RESPECTS IS EVENLY BALANCED OR ONE-SIDED.  ERRORS OF
THIS SORT IN CRIMINAL CAUSES CONCEIVABLY MAY BE ALTOGETHER HARMLESS IN
THE FACE OF OTHER CLEAR EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH THE SAME ERROR MIGHT TURN
SCALES OTHERWISE LEVEL, AS CONSTANTLY APPEARS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
POLICY OF SEC. 269 TO QUESTIONS OF THE ADMISSION OF CUMULATIVE
EVIDENCE.  FN17 SO IT IS WITH ERRORS IN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., SUPRA, AT 239, 241. 

SOME AIDS TO RIGHT JUDGMENT MAY BE STATED MORE SAFELY IN NEGATIVE
THAN IN AFFIRMATIVE FORM.  THUS, IT IS NOT THE APPELLATE COURT'S
FUNCTION TO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE.  WEILER V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, AT 611; BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 607, 613-614.  NOR
IS IT TO SPECULATE UPON PROBABLE RECONVICTION AND DECIDE ACCORDING TO
HOW THE SPECULATION COMES OUT.  APPELLATE JUDGES CANNOT ESCAPE SUCH
IMPRESSIONS.  BUT THEY MAY NOT MAKE THEM SOLE CRITERIA FOR REVERSAL OR
AFFIRMANCE.  THOSE JUDGMENTS ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE JURY, GIVEN ALWAYS
THE NECESSARY MINIMUM EVIDENCE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE
CONVICTION UNAFFECTED BY THE ERROR.  FN18  WEILER V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APPELLATE COURT CAN ESCAPE ALTOGETHER
TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE OUTCOME.  TO WEIGH THE ERROR'S EFFECT AGAINST THE
ENTIRE SETTING OF THE RECORD WITHOUT RELATION TO THE VERDICT OR
JUDGMENT WOULD BE ALMOST TO WORK IN A VACUUM.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., SUPRA, AT 239, 242.  IN CRIMINAL CAUSES THAT
OUTCOME IS CONVICTION.  THIS IS DIFFERENT, OR MAY BE, FROM GUILT IN
FACT.  IT IS GUILT IN LAW, ESTABLISHED BY THE JUDGMENT OF LAYMEN.  AND
THE QUESTION IS, NOT WERE THEY RIGHT IN THEIR JUDGMENT, REGARDLESS OF
THE ERROR OR ITS EFFECT UPON THE VERDICT.  IT IS RATHER WHAT EFFECT THE
ERROR HAD OR REASONABLY MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE HAD UPON THE JURY'S
DECISION.  THE CRUCIAL THING IS THE IMPACT OF THE THING DONE WRONG ON
THE MINDS OF OTHER MEN, NOT ON ONE'S OWN, IN THE TOTAL SETTING.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., SUPRA, AT 239, 242; BOLLENBACH
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 614. 

THIS MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF WHAT THE ERROR MEANT TO THEM, NOT SINGLED
OUT AND STANDING ALONE, BUT IN RELATION TO ALL ELSE THAT HAPPENED.  AND
ONE MUST JUDGE OTHERS' REACTIONS NOT BY HIS OWN, BUT WITH ALLOWANCE FOR
HOW OTHERS MIGHT REACT AND NOT BE REGARDED GENERALLY AS ACTING WITHOUT
REASON.  THIS IS THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE, BUT ONE EASY TO IGNORE WHEN
THE SENSE OF GUILT COMES STRONGLY FROM THE RECORD. 

IF, WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THE CONVICTION IS SURE THAT THE ERROR
DID NOT INFLUENCE THE JURY, OR HAD BUT VERY SLIGHT EFFECT, THE VERDICT
AND THE JUDGMENT SHOULD STAND, EXCEPT PERHAPS WHERE THE DEPARTURE IS
FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL NORM  FN19  OR A SPECIFIC COMMAND OF CONGRESS. 
BRUNO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 294.  BUT IF ONE CANNOT SAY, WITH
FAIR ASSURANCE, AFTER PONDERING ALL THAT HAPPENED WITHOUT STRIPPING THE
ERRONEOUS ACTION FROM THE WHOLE, THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY SWAYED BY THE ERROR, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS WERE NOT AFFECTED.  THE INQUIRY CANNOT BE MERELY
WHETHER THERE WAS ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE RESULT, APART FROM THE PHASE
AFFECTED BY THE ERROR.  IT IS RATHER, EVEN SO, WHETHER THE ERROR ITSELF
HAD SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE.  IF SO, OR IF ONE IS LEFT IN GRAVE DOUBT,
THE CONVICTION CANNOT STAND. 

DISCUSSION, SOME OF IT RECENT,  FN20  HAS UNDERTAKEN TO FORMULATE THE
PROBLEM IN TERMS OF PRESUMPTIONS.  IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT QUOTED
ABOVE FROM THE HOUSE COMMITTEE'S REPORT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT ANY ATTEMPT
TO CREATE A GENERALIZED PRESUMPTION TO APPLY IN ALL CASES WOULD BE
CONTRARY NOT ONLY TO THE SPIRIT OF SEC. 269 BUT ALSO TO THE EXPRESSED
INTENT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE SPONSORS.  INDEED, ACCORDING TO THEIR
EXPLICIT STATEMENT, WHETHER THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE ERROR
AFFECTED SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OR, CONVERSELY, THE BURDEN OF SUSTAINING
THE VERDICT SHALL BE IMPOSED, TURNS ON WHETHER THE ERROR IS "TECHNICAL"
OR IS SUCH THAT "ITS NATURAL EFFECT IS TO PREJUDICE A LITIGANT'S
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS."  INDEED THE STATEMENT, IN ENTIRE ACCORD WITH THE
LETTER AND SPIRIT OF SEC. 269, IS AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ATTEMPTING TO
GENERALIZE BROADLY, BY PRESUMPTION OR OTHERWISE.  THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE
PRESUMPTION WOULD SEEM TO BE PARTICULAR, ARISING FROM THE NATURE OF THE
ERROR AND "ITS NATURAL EFFECT" FOR OR AGAINST PREJUDICE IN THE
PARTICULAR SETTING. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE BERGER CASE IS NOT CONTROLLING OF THIS ONE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, ABSTRACTLY CONSIDERED, THE ERRORS IN VARIANCE AND
INSTRUCTIONS  FN21  WERE IDENTICAL IN CHARACTER.  THE BERGER OPINION
INDEED EXPRESSLY DECLARED: "WE DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT A VARIANCE SUCH
AS THAT HERE DEALT WITH MIGHT NOT BE MATERIAL IN A DIFFERENT CASE.  WE
SIMPLY HOLD, FOLLOWING THE VIEW OF THE COURT BELOW, THAT APPLYING SEC.
269 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED, TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE
THE VARIANCE WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL AND HENCE NOT FATAL."  295 U.S. AT
83. 

ON THE FACE OF THINGS IT IS ONE THING TO HOLD HARMLESS THE ADMISSION
OF EVIDENCE WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE BERGER CASE, WHERE ONLY TWO
CONSPIRACIES INVOLVING FOUR PERSONS ALL TOLD WERE PROVED, AND AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING TO APPLY THE SAME RULE WHERE, AS HERE, ONLY
ONE CONSPIRACY WAS CHARGED, BUT EIGHT SEPARATE ONES WERE PROVED,
INVOLVING AT THE OUTSET THIRTY-TWO DEFENDANTS.  THE ESSENTIAL
DIFFERENCE IS NOT OVERCOME BY THE FACT THAT THE THIRTY-TWO WERE
REDUCED, BY SEVERANCE, DISMISSAL OR PLEAS OF GUILTY, TO NINETEEN WHEN
THE TRIAL BEGAN AND TO THIRTEEN BY THE TIME THE CASES WENT TO THE
JURY.  THE SHEER DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS, BOTH OF DEFENDANTS AND OF
CONSPIRACIES PROVEN, DISTINGUISHES THE SITUATION.  OBVIOUSLY THE BURDEN
OF DEFENSE TO A DEFENDANT, CONNECTED WITH ONE OR A FEW OF SO MANY
DISTINCT TRANSACTIONS, IS VASTLY DIFFERENT NOT ONLY IN PREPARATION FOR
TRIAL, BUT ALSO IN LOOKING OUT FOR AND SECURING SAFEGUARD AGAINST
EVIDENCE AFFECTING OTHER DEFENDANTS, TO PREVENT ITS TRANSFERENCE AS
"HARMLESS ERROR" OR BY PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT, IN SPITE OF INSTRUCTIONS
FOR KEEPING SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS SEPARATE. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S THEORY SEEMS TO BE, IN ULTIMATE LOGICAL REACH, THAT
THE ERROR PRESENTED BY THE VARIANCE IS INSUBSTANTIAL AND HARMLESS, IF
THE EVIDENCE OFFERED SPECIFICALLY AND PROPERLY TO CONVICT EACH
DEFENDANT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN HIS CONVICTION, IF SUBMITTED
IN A SEPARATE TRIAL.  FOR REASONS WE HAVE STATED AND IN VIEW OF THE
AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS IS NOT AND CANNOT BE THE TEST UNDER SEC. 269. 
BUT IN APPARENT SUPPORT OF ITS VIEW THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THERE
WAS NO PREJUDICE HERE BECAUSE THE RESULTS SHOW THAT THE JURY EXERCISED
DISCRIMINATION AS AMONG THE DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE SUBMITTED TO
IT.  AS IT POINTS OUT, THE JURY ACQUITTED SOME, DISAGREED AS TO OTHERS,
AND FOUND STILL OTHERS GUILTY.  FROM THIS IT CONCLUDES THAT THE JURY
WAS NOT CONFUSED AND, APPARENTLY, REACHED THE SAME RESULT AS WOULD HAVE
BEEN REACHED OR WOULD BE LIKELY, IF THE CONVICTED DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN
OR NOW SHOULD BE TRIED SEPARATELY. 

ONE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS IS THAT THE TRIAL COURT ITSELF WAS CONFUSED
IN THE CHARGE WHICH IT GAVE TO GUIDE THE JURY IN DELIBERATION.  THE
COURT INSTRUCTED: 

"THE INDICTMENT CHARGES BUT ONE CONSPIRACY, AND TO CONVICT EACH OF
THE DEFENDANTS OF A CONSPIRACY THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO PROVE, AND
YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND, THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS A MEMBER OF
THAT CONSPIRACY.  YOU CANNOT DIVIDE IT UP.  IT IS ONE CONSPIRACY, AND
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS, OR WHICH OF THE
DEFENDANTS, ARE MEMBERS OF THAT CONSPIRACY." 

ON ITS FACE, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID, THIS PORTION OF THE CHARGE
WAS PLAINLY WRONG IN APPLICATION TO THE PROOF MADE; AND THE ERROR
PERVADED THE ENTIRE CHARGE, NOT MERELY THE PORTION QUOTED.  FN22  THE
JURY COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE FOUND, UPON THE EVIDENCE, THAT THERE WAS
ONLY ONE CONSPIRACY.  THE TRIAL COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ONE
CONSPIRACY WAS MADE OUT BY SHOWING THAT EACH DEFENDANT WAS LINKED TO
BROWN IN ONE OR MORE TRANSACTIONS, AND THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE ON THE
EVIDENCE FOR THE JURY TO CONCLUDE THAT ALL WERE IN A COMMON ADVENTURE
BECAUSE OF THIS FACT AND THE SIMILARITY OF PURPOSE PRESENTED IN THE
VARIOUS APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS.  FN23 

THIS VIEW, SPECIFICALLY EMBODIED THROUGHOUT THE INSTRUCTIONS,
OBVIOUSLY CONFUSES THE COMMON PURPOSE OF A SINGLE ENTERPRISE WITH THE
SEVERAL, THOUGH SIMILAR, PURPOSES OF NUMEROUS SEPARATE ADVENTURES OF
LIKE CHARACTER.  IT MAY BE THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE MISDIRECTION, THE
JURY ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY THE PURPORT OF THE EVIDENCE, AS THE
GOVERNMENT NOW CONCEDES IT TO HAVE BEEN; AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE GUILTY ONLY OF THE SEPARATE CONSPIRACIES IN
WHICH THE PROOF SHOWS THEY RESPECTIVELY PARTICIPATED.  BUT, IN THE FACE
OF THE MISDIRECTION AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE CANNOT
ASSUME THAT THE LAY TRIERS OF FACT WERE SO WELL INFORMED UPON THE LAW
OR THAT THEY DISREGARDED THE PERMISSION EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO IGNORE THAT
VITAL DIFFERENCE.  BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 613. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE ERROR PERMEATED THE ENTIRE CHARGE, INDEED THE
ENTIRE TRIAL.  NOT ONLY DID IT PERMIT THE JURY TO FIND EACH DEFENDANT
GUILTY OF CONSPIRING WITH THIRTY-FIVE N24 OTHER POTENTIAL CO
CONSPIRATORS, OR ANY LESS NUMBER AS THE PROOF MIGHT TURN OUT FOR
ACQUITTAL OF SOME, WHEN NONE OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A
CONVICTION, AS THE PROOF DID TURN OUT IN FACT.  IT HAD OTHER EFFECTS. 
ONE WAS TO PREVENT THE COURT FROM GIVING A PRECAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION
SUCH AS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, PERHAPS REQUIRED, IN CASES WHERE RELATED
BUT SEPARATE CONSPIRACIES ARE TRIED TOGETHER UNDER SEC. 557 OF THE
CODE,  FN25  NAMELY, THAT THE JURY SHOULD TAKE CARE TO CONSIDER THE
EVIDENCE RELATING TO EACH CONSPIRACY SEPARATELY FROM THAT RELATING TO
EACH OTHER CONSPIRACY CHARGED.  FN26  THE COURT HERE WAS CAREFUL TO
CAUTION THE JURY TO CONSIDER EACH DEFENDANT'S CASE SEPARATELY, IN
DETERMINING HIS PARTICIPATION IN "THE SCHEME" CHARGED.  BUT THIS
OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT, AND COULD NOT, GO TO KEEPING DISTINCT CONSPIRACIES
DISTINCT, IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S CONCEPTION OF THE CASE. 

MOREOVER, THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S MISCONCEPTION EXTENDED ALSO TO
THE PROOF OF OVERT ACTS.  CARRYING FORWARD HIS PREMISE THAT THE JURY
COULD FIND ONE CONSPIRACY ON THE EVIDENCE, THE TRIAL JUDGE FURTHER
CHARGED THAT, IF THE JURY FOUND A CONSPIRACY, "THEN THE ACTS OR THE
STATEMENTS OF ANY OF THOSE WHOM YOU SO FIND TO BE CONSPIRATORS BETWEEN
THE TWO DATES THAT I HAVE MENTIONED, MAY BE CONSIDERED BY YOU IN
EVIDENCE AS AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS WHOM YOU SO FIND TO BE
MEMBERS OF THE CONSPIRACY."  THE INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS PHASE ALSO
DECLARED: 

"IT IS NOT NECESSARY, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT AN OVERT ACT BE
CHARGED AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT.  IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE CONSPIRACY BE
ESTABLISHED AND THE DEFENDANT BE FOUND TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CONSPIRACY
- IT IS SUFFICIENT TO ALLEGE OVERT ACTS ON THE PART OF ANY OTHERS WHO
MAY HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE CONSPIRACY, IF THOSE ACTS WERE DONE IN
FURTHERANCE OF, AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMPLISHING THE CONSPIRACY." 
FN27    ON THOSE INSTRUCTIONS IT WAS COMPETENT NOT ONLY FOR THE JURY TO
FIND THAT ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE PARTIES TO A SINGLE COMMON PLAN,
DESIGN AND SCHEME, WHERE NONE WAS SHOWN BY THE PROOF, BUT ALSO FOR THEM
TO IMPUTE TO EACH DEFENDANT THE ACTS AND STATEMENTS OF THE OTHERS
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHETHER THEY RELATED TO ONE OF THE SCHEMES PROVEN
OR ANOTHER, AND TO FIND AN OVERT ACT AFFECTING ALL IN CONDUCT WHICH
ADMITTEDLY COULD ONLY HAVE AFFECTED SOME.  TRUE, THE COURT OF APPEALS
PAINSTAKINGLY EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE DIRECTLY RELATING TO EACH
PETITIONER AND CONCLUDED HE HAD NOT BEEN PREJUDICED IN THIS MANNER. 
FN28  THAT JUDGMENT WAS FOUNDED LARGELY IN THE FACT THAT EACH WAS
CLEARLY SHOWN TO HAVE SHARED IN THE FRAUDULENT PHASE OF THE CONSPIRACY
IN WHICH HE PARTICIPATED.  EVEN SO, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW IT CAN BE
CONCLUDED, IN THE FACE OF THE INSTRUCTION, THAT THE JURY CONSIDERED AND
WAS INFLUENCED BY NOTHING ELSE. 

ALL THIS THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO JUSTIFY AS HARMLESS ERROR.  AGAIN
THE BASIS IS THAT BECAUSE THE PROOF WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE
PARTICIPATION OF EACH PETITIONER IN ONE OR MORE OF SEVERAL SMALLER
CONSPIRACIES, NONE OF THEM COULD HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED BECAUSE ALL WERE
FOUND GUILTY, UPON SUCH PROOF, OF BEING MEMBERS OF A SINGLE LARGER
CONSPIRACY OF THE SAME GENERAL CHARACTER.  AND THE COURT'S CHARGE, IN
ALL THE PHASES OF ITS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS, IS REGARDED AS "NO MORE
THAN A MISNOMER" WHICH "CANNOT IN ITSELF BE CONSIDERED PREJUDICIAL." 
STRESS IS ALSO PLACED UPON THE FACT THAT, BECAUSE THE ONLY KIND OF
EVIDENCE TO SHOW PETITIONERS'"MEMBERSHIP IN A CONSPIRACY" WAS EVIDENCE
THAT THEY THEMSELVES "HAD PERFORMED ACTS OF DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN A
CONSPIRACY," IN ITS FINDING THAT THEY HAD "JOINED A CONSPIRACY, THE
JURY AT THAT POINT MUST HAVE CREDITED EVIDENCE WHICH COMPLETELY
ESTABLISHED GUILT."  ALL THIS, IT IS SAID ALSO, THE BERGER CASE
SUSTAINS. 

WE DO NOT AGREE.  IT IS TRUE, AS WE HAVE SAID, THAT TAKEN IN
ABSTRACTION FROM THE PARTICULAR FACTS THE CASES ARE ALIKE IN THESE
RESPECTS:  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED A SINGLE CONSPIRACY ONLY; THE PROOF
SHOWED MORE THAN ONE; THE INSTRUCTIONS TOLD THE JURY ERRONEOUSLY THAT
ON THE EVIDENCE THEY COULD FIND THE DEFENDANTS GUILTY OF A SINGLE
CONFEDERATION; MUST FIND THAT EACH DEFENDANT JOINED IT, IN ORDER TO
CONVICT; MUST CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AS TO EACH SEPARATELY ON THIS
PHASE; BUT, ONCE SATISFIED CONCERNING THAT, COULD ATTRIBUTE TO EACH ONE
FOUND TO BE A MEMBER ANY ACT DONE BY ANY OTHER CO-CONSPIRATOR IN
FURTHERANCE OF "THE SCHEME" AS AN OVERT ACT, AGAIN IN OBVIOUS ERROR;
AND IN NEITHER CASE, OF COURSE, WAS THERE PRECAUTION TO KEEP SEPARATE
CONSPIRACIES SEPARATE.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT, AGAIN ABSTRACTLY TAKEN,
THE INDICTMENT HERE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED, AS WAS THE ONE IN BERGER,
LITERALLY TO COVER EACH OF THE CONSPIRACIES PROVED, IF TAKEN BY
ITSELF.  BUT OBVIOUSLY A MUCH GREATER STRETCH OF IMAGINATION IS NEEDED
TO REGARD AN INDICTMENT CHARGING THIRTY-SIX PEOPLE WITH CONSPIRING
TOGETHER AS MEANING THAT ONLY THREE OR FOUR OR EVEN FIVE DID SO, THAN
WAS NEEDED TO SAY THAT ONE CHARGING FOUR AS AGREEING WITH EACH OTHER IN
TERMS COVERED EACH OF TWO AGREEMENTS BY THREE OF THE FOUR, ONE
CONSPIRATOR BEING DIFFERENT IN EACH PROVED OFFENSE.  AND EVEN MORE
WOULD BE NEEDED TO LOOK UPON THE FORMER AS CHARGING EIGHT OR MORE
CONSPIRACIES THAN UPON THE LATTER AS INDICTING FOR TWO. 

THESE ARE THE ABSTRACT SIMILARITIES.  THEY ARE ONLY ABSTRACT.  TO
STRIP THEM FROM THE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT TOTAL CONTEXTS OF THE TWO
CASES, AND DISREGARD THE VAST DIFFERENCE IN THOSE CONTEXTS, IS TO
VIOLATE THE WHOLE SPIRIT, AND WE THINK THE LETTER ALSO, OF SEC. 269. 
NUMBERS ARE VITALLY IMPORTANT IN TRIAL, ESPECIALLY IN CRIMINAL
MATTERS.  GUILT WITH US REMAINS INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL, EVEN AS
RESPECTS CONSPIRACIES.  IT IS NOT A MATTER OF MASS APPLICATION.  THERE
ARE TIMES WHEN OF NECESSITY, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE
PARTICULAR FEDERATION, LARGE NUMBERS OF PERSONS TAKING PART MUST BE
TRIED TOGETHER OR PERHAPS NOT AT ALL, AT ANY RATE AS RESPECTS SOME. 
WHEN MANY CONSPIRE, THEY INVITE MASS TRIAL BY THEIR CONDUCT.  EVEN SO,
THE PROCEEDINGS ARE EXCEPTIONAL TO OUR TRADITION AND CALL FOR USE OF
EVERY SAFEGUARD TO INDIVIDUALIZE EACH DEFENDANT IN HIS RELATION TO THE
MASS.  WHOLLY DIFFERENT IS IT WITH THOSE WHO JOIN TOGETHER WITH ONLY A
FEW, THOUGH MANY OTHERS MAY BE DOING THE SAME AND THOUGH SOME OF THEM
MAY LINE UP WITH MORE THAN ONE GROUP. 

CRIMINAL THEY MAY BE, BUT IT IS NOT THE CRIMINALITY OF MASS
CONSPIRACY.  THEY DO NOT INVITE MASS TRIAL BY THEIR CONDUCT.  NOR DOES
OUR SYSTEM TOLERATE IT.  THAT WAY LIES THE DRIFT TOWARD TOTALITARIAN
INSTITUTIONS.  TRUE, THIS MAY BE INCONVENIENT FOR PROSECUTION.  BUT OUR
GOVERNMENT IS NOT ONE OF MERE CONVENIENCE OR EFFICIENCY.  IT TOO HAS A
STAKE, WITH EVERY CITIZEN, IN HIS BEING AFFORDED OUR HISTORIC
INDIVIDUAL PROTECTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE SURROUNDING CRIMINAL TRIALS. 
ABOUT THEM WE DARE NOT BECOME CARELESS OR COMPLACENT WHEN THAT FASHION
HAS BECOME RAMPANT OVER THE EARTH. 

HERE TOLERATION WENT TOO FAR.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT EITHER CONGRESS,
WHEN IT ENACTED SEC. 269, OR THIS COURT, WHEN DECIDING THE BERGER CASE,
INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE GOVERNMENT TO STRING TOGETHER, FOR COMMON
TRIAL, EIGHT OR MORE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CRIMES, CONSPIRACIES RELATED
IN KIND THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE, WHEN THE ONLY NEXUS AMONG THEM LIES IN
THE FACT THAT ONE MAN PARTICIPATED IN ALL.  LEEWAY THERE MUST BE FOR
SUCH CASES AS THE BERGER SITUATION AND FOR OTHERS WHERE PROOF MAY NOT
ACCORD WITH EXACT SPECIFICATIONS IN INDICTMENTS.  FN29  OTHERWISE
CRIMINAL CONSPIRATORS NEVER COULD BE BROUGHT TO HALT.  BUT IF THE
PRACTICE HERE FOLLOWED WERE TO STAND, WE SEE NOTHING TO PREVENT ITS
EXTENSION TO A DOZEN, A SCORE, OR MORE CONSPIRACIES AND AT THE SAME
TIME TO SCORES OF MEN INVOLVED, IF AT ALL, ONLY SEPARATELY IN THEM. 
THE DANGERS OF TRANSFERENCE OF GUILT FROM ONE TO ANOTHER ACROSS THE
LINE SEPARATING CONSPIRACIES, SUBCONSCIOUSLY OR OTHERWISE, ARE SO GREAT
THAT NO ONE REALLY CAN SAY PREJUDICE TO SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT HAS NOT TAKEN
PLACE.  SECTION 269 HAD NO PURPOSE TO GO SO FAR.  THE LINE MUST BE
DRAWN SOMEWHERE.  WHETHER OR NOT BERGER MARKS THE LIMIT, FOR THIS SORT
OF ERROR AND CASE, WE ARE CLEAR THAT IT MUST LIE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THAT
CASE AND THIS ONE. 

IN SO RULING WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD
MORE THAN ONCE,  FN30  THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT MERELY ONE OF VARIANCE
BETWEEN INDICTMENT AND PROOF OR OF THE RIGHT APPLICATION OF THE POLICY
OF SEC. 269 FOR FREEDOM OF JUDGMENT, BUT IS ALSO ESSENTIALLY ONE OF
PROPER JOINDER UNDER SEC. 557 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  WHEN WE LOOK AT
THAT SECTION'S REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATE STATEMENT IN DIFFERENT COUNTS
OF RELATED BUT DISTINCT "ACTS OR TRANSACTIONS OF THE SAME CLASS OF
CRIMES OR OFFENSES, WHICH MAY BE PROPERLY JOINED, INSTEAD OF HAVING
SEVERAL INDICTMENTS," OUR CONCLUSION IS REINFORCED. 

TO THIS IS ADDED THE FURTHER RELAXATION OF SEC. 269 FOR CRIMINAL
CAUSES, ALL TECHNICAL ADVANTAGE FOR THE ACCUSED DERIVING NOT ONLY FROM
DETAILED SPECIFICATION OF THE OFFENSE IN THE INDICTMENT BUT ALSO FROM
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISTINCT OFFENSES WOULD SEEM TO BE LOST.  BUT
THIS TOO MAY BE CARRIED TOO FAR.  FOR, POTENTIALLY AT ANY RATE, SEC.
269 CARRIES THE THREAT OF OVERRIDING THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 557 FOR
SUBSTITUTING SEPARATE COUNTS IN THE PLACE OF SEPARATE INDICTMENTS,
UNLESS THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 269 IS MADE WITH RESTRAINT.  THE TWO
SUBSTANTIAL HARMONY, NOT INTO SQUARE CONFLICT. 

WE NEED NOT INQUIRE WHETHER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT'S REQUIREMENT, THAT
"IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT  ...
TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION," WOULD BE
OBSERVED IN A MORE GENEROUS APPLICATION OF SEC. 269 TO A SITUATION
GOVERNED ALSO BY SEC. 557 THAN WAS MADE IN THE BERGER RULING.  NOR NEED
WE NOW EXPRESS OPINION WHETHER REVERSAL WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ALL CASES
WHERE THE INDICTMENT IS SO DEFECTIVE THAT IT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR
SUCH A FAULT, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID OF THE INDICTMENT IN THIS
CASE, TAKEN IN THE TRIAL COURT'S CONCEPTION. 

WE HAVE HAD REGARD ALSO FOR THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
PAINSTAKINGLY EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE RELATING DIRECTLY TO EACH OF THE
PETITIONERS; FOUND IT CONVINCING TO THE POINT OF MAKING GUILT MANIFEST;
COULD NOT FIND SUBSTANTIAL HARM OR UNFAIRNESS IN THE ALL-PERVADING
ERROR OR IN ANY PARTICULAR PHASE OF THE TRIAL; AND CONCLUDED THAT
REVERSAL WOULD BE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. 

WITH ALL DEFERENCE WE DISAGREE WITH THAT CONCLUSION AND WITH THE
RULING THAT THE PERMEATING ERROR DID NOT AFFECT "THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS
OF THE PARTIES."  THAT RIGHT, IN EACH INSTANCE, WAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE
TRIED EN MASSE FOR THE CONGLOMERATION OF DISTINCT AND SEPARATE OFFENSES
COMMITTED BY OTHERS AS SHOWN BY THIS RECORD. 

IT MAY BE, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND, THAT THE EVIDENCE
CONCERNING EACH PETITIONER WAS SO CLEAR THAT CONVICTION WOULD HAVE BEEN
DICTATED AND REVERSAL FORBIDDEN, IF IT HAD BEEN PRESENTED IN SEPARATE
TRIALS FOR EACH OFFENSE OR IN ONE OR MORE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE
BERGER TRIAL IN THE NUMBER OF CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRATORS INVOLVED. 
BUT WHETHER SO OR NOT IS NEITHER OUR PROBLEM NOR THAT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THIS CASE.  THAT CONVICTION WOULD, OR MIGHT PROBABLY, HAVE
RESULTED IN A PROPERLY CONDUCTED TRIAL IS NOT THE CRITERION OF SEC.
269.  WE THINK IT HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT THE ERROR HAD SUBSTANTIAL AND
INJURIOUS EFFECT OR INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THE JURY'S VERDICT. 

WE HAVE NOT RESTED OUR DECISION PARTICULARLY ON THE FACT THAT THE
OFFENSE CHARGED, AND THOSE PROVED, WERE CONSPIRACIES.  THAT OFFENSE IS
PERHAPS NOT GREATLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS WHEN THE SCHEME CHARGED IS
TIGHT AND THE NUMBER INVOLVED SMALL.  BUT AS IT IS BROADENED TO INCLUDE
MORE AND MORE, IN VARYING DEGREES OF ATTACHMENT TO THE CONFEDERATION,
THE POSSIBILITIES FOR MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE TO PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS
BECOME GREATER AND GREATER.  CF. GEBARDI V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S.
112, 122 N. 7, CITING REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1925) 5-6,
SETTING OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT
JUDGES WITH RESPECT TO CONSPIRACY PROSECUTIONS.  AT THE OUTSKIRTS THEY
ARE PERHAPS HIGHER THAN IN ANY OTHER FORM OF CRIMINAL TRIAL OUR SYSTEM
AFFORDS.  THE GREATER LOOSENESS GENERALLY ALLOWED FOR SPECIFYING THE
OFFENSE AND ITS DETAILS, FOR RECEIVING PROOF, AND GENERALLY IN THE
CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL, BECOMES MAGNIFIED AS THE NUMBERS INVOLVED
INCREASE.  HERE, IF ANYWHERE, CF. BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
EXTRAORDINARY PRECAUTION IS REQUIRED, NOT ONLY THAT INSTRUCTIONS SHALL
NOT MISLEAD, BUT THAT THEY SHALL SCRUPULOUSLY SAFEGUARD EACH DEFENDANT
INDIVIDUALLY, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, FROM LOSS OF IDENTITY IN THE MASS.
INDEED, THE INSTRUCTIONS OFTEN BECOME, IN SUCH CASES, HIS PRINCIPAL
PROTECTION AGAINST UNWARRANTED IMPUTATION OF GUILT FROM OTHERS'
CONDUCT.  HERE ALSO IT IS OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE THAT PLAIN ERROR BE NOT
TOO READILY TAKEN TO BE HARMLESS. 

ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FOUR OTHER PERSONS WERE ALLEGED TO BE CONSPIRATORS BUT WERE NOT
MADE DEFENDANTS. 

FN2  IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT AS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY THE
DEFENDANTS WOULD SOLICIT PERSONS DESIRING TO MAKE LOANS NOT IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE NATIONAL
HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH LIMITED THE MAKING OF SUCH LOANS FOR
MODERNIZING AND ALTERING EXISTING STRUCTURES, IN AMOUNTS NOT TO EXCEED
$2500; AND WOULD REPRESENT TO THOSE PERSONS THAT MONEY OBTAINED THROUGH
FALSE AND FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS COULD BE USED FOR PURPOSES NOT WITHIN
THE CONTEMPLATION OF TITLE 1 OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT.  THE
DEFENDANTS WOULD PROCURE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, E.G., CREDIT STATEMENTS AND
CERTIFICATES FALSELY STATING THAT WORK CONTRACTED FOR HAD BEEN
COMPLETED AND MATERIAL DELIVERED; AND ON THE BASIS OF THESE DOCUMENTS,
WHICH WERE PRESENTED TO THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND TO THE
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, WOULD OBTAIN LOANS, THE PROCEEDS OF
WHICH WOULD BE USED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN HOUSING RENOVATION AND
MODERNIZATION. 

FN3  AS TO FOUR A SEVERANCE WAS GRANTED.  THE INDICTMENT WAS
NOLPROSSED AS TO ONE, AND EIGHT OTHERS PLEADED GUILTY. 

FN4  ONE PLEADED GUILTY DURING TRIAL.  THE INDICTMENT WAS NOL-PROSSED
AS TO ANOTHER, AND A SEVERANCE WAS ORDERED FOR A THIRD.  VERDICTS OF
ACQUITTAL WERE DIRECTED AS TO THREE OTHERS. 

FN5  THE APPLICATION STATED THAT THE HOUSE ON WHICH THE LOAN WAS
SOUGHT WAS BOUGHT IN 1936 RATHER THAN IN 1938, THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE
WAS $8500 RATHER THAN $7200, AND THAT THE ASSESSED VALUATION WAS $9500
RATHER THAN $6500.  THE APPLICATION FURTHER STATED THAT AMONG THE
REPAIRS CONTEMPLATED WAS A REPAINTING OF THE HOUSE, WHEREAS IN FACT
ONLY THE BASEMENT HALLWAY AND GARAGE WERE REPAINTED. 

FN6  THE COURT CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO
PETITIONERS AND CONSIDERED THAT THEIR GUILT TURNED UPON THEIR INTENT IN
MAKING THE MISREPRESENTATIONS ON THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS.  THE
JURY, IT THOUGHT, MUST HAVE BELIEVED BROWN, WHO TESTIFIED THAT THEIR
MISREPRESENTATIONS HAD BEEN DELIBERATE.  THE OPINION STATED THERE WAS
SOME POSSIBILITY THAT, IN SO FAR AS BROWN'S STORY AS TO HIS
TRANSACTIONS WITH APPLICANTS NOT IN CONSPIRACY WITH PETITIONERS HAD
BEEN CONFIRMED, "THE JURY MIGHT HAVE BEEN DISPOSED TO FIND MORE
CREDIBLE THE STORY OF HIS DEALINGS" WITH PETITIONERS; BUT IT WAS HELD
THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE POSSIBILITY DID NOT WARRANT
REVERSAL, SINCE WHENEVER TWO CRIMES ARE TRIED TOGETHER THE POSSIBILITY
OF CONFUSION EXISTS "BECAUSE TESTIMONY RELEVANT TO ONE CRIME MAY GAIN
CREDIBILITY FROM TESTIMONY RELEVANT ONLY TO THE OTHER" AND CONGRESS HAS
NOT INSISTED UPON ABSOLUTE SEPARATION.    REV. STAT. SEC. 1024, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 557, PROVIDES:  "WHEN THERE ARE SEVERAL CHARGES AGAINST ANY
PERSON FOR THE SAME ACT OR TRANSACTION, OR FOR TWO OR MORE ACTS OR
TRANSACTIONS CONNECTED TOGETHER, OR FOR TWO OR MORE ACTS OR
TRANSACTIONS OF THE SAME CLASS OF CRIMES OR OFFENSES, WHICH MAY BE
PROPERLY JOINED, INSTEAD OF HAVING SEVERAL INDICTMENTS THE WHOLE MAY BE
JOINED IN ONE INDICTMENT IN SEPARATE COUNTS; AND IF TWO OR MORE
INDICTMENTS ARE FOUND IN SUCH CASES, THE COURT MAY ORDER THEM TO BE
CONSOLIDATED."    THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE, AS IN UNITED
STATES V. LISS, 137 F.2D 995; SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. COHEN, 145 F.2D
82, 89; UNITED STATES V. ROSENBERG, 150 F.2D 788, 793, TREATED THE
PROBLEM OF VARIANCE AS "STRICTLY SPEAKING RATHER ONE OF JOINDER" UNDER
SEC. 557. 

FN7  THE FACTS WERE SUCCINCTLY STATED.  "IT IS NOT NECESSARY NOW TO
REFER TO THE EVIDENCE FURTHER THAN TO SAY THAT IT TENDED TO ESTABLISH
NOT A SINGLE CONSPIRACY AS CHARGED BUT TWO CONSPIRACIES - ONE BETWEEN
RICE AND KATZ AND ANOTHER BETWEEN BERGER, JONES AND KATZ.  THE ONLY
CONNECTING LINK BETWEEN THE TWO WAS THAT KATZ WAS IN BOTH CONSPIRACIES
AND THE SAME COUNTERFEIT MONEY HAD TO DO WITH BOTH.  THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE THAT BERGER WAS A PARTY TO THE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN RICE AND
KATZ."  295 U.S. AT 80.  FOR A MORE COMPLETE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS SEE
THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE SAME CASE, 73 F.2D
278.  IN THAT OPINION THE COURT SAID: "THE MATERIALITY OF A VARIANCE
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE DEGREE OF ITS LOGICAL PERVERSITY, BUT UPON HOW
FAR IT THROWS CONFUSION INTO THE TRIAL AND MAKES IT LIKELY TO
MISCARRY."  73 F.2D AT 280. 

FN8  BUT THE COURT APPLIED SEC. 269 IN ANOTHER CONNECTION TO REVERSE
THE CONVICTION, NAMELY, FOR MISCONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY IN
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES AND IN ADDRESSING THE JURY. 

THIS COURT HAS EXPLICITLY CONSIDERED OR APPLIED SEC. 269 IN
CONNECTION WITH THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL CASES:  HORNING V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 254 U.S. 135; SINCLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
749(CONTEMPT); ALDRIDGE V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 308, DISSENTING
OPINION; BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 78; BRUNO V. UNITED STATES,
308 U.S. 287; UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150;
WEILER V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 606; BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, 326
U.S. 607. 

FN9  BOTH THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 U.S.C. FOLLOWING
SEC. 723(C), RULE 61, AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
EFFECTIVE MARCH 21, 1946, RULE 52(A), CONTAIN "HARMLESS ERROR"
RESTATEMENT OF EXISTING LAW,  ..."  WITH CITATION OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 391
AND 18 U.S.C. SEC. 556.  NOTES TO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR
THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS PREPARED UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(1945) 43.  SEE ALSO PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE (1943) 197; SECOND PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1944) 185. 

FN10  SEE POUND, THE CAUSES OF POPULAR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, 29 A.B.A. REP., PT. 1, 395; ID. 11, 55; 31
ID. 505; 33 ID. 27, 542; 34 ID. 61, 578; 35 ID. 56, 614; 36 ID. 448; 37
ID. 42, 557; 38 ID. 44, 546; 39 ID. 31, 575; 41 ID. 36, 540; 2 A.B.A.J.
603; 42 A.B.A. REP. 40, 334; 3 A.B.A.J. 507; 44 A.B.A. REP. 62; 5
A.B.A.J. 455. 

FN11  SEE, E.G., HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
H.R., ON AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION BILLS, 62D CONG., 2D SESS.; H.R. REP.
NO. 1949, 61ST CONG., 3D SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 611, 62D CONG., 2D SESS.;
SEN. REP. NO. 1066, 62D CONG., 2D SESS.; 48 CONG. REC. 11770-11777;
H.R. REP. NO. 1218, 63D CONG., 3D SESS.; SEN. REP. NO. 853, 63D CONG.,
3D SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 264, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 913,
65TH CONG., 3D SESS.; 56 CONG. REC. 11586; 57 CONG. REC. 3605. 

FN12  AS OF 1927 SOME EIGHTEEN STATES HAD ADOPTED STATUTES SIMILAR TO
SEC. 269.  SUNDERLAND, THE PROBLEM OF APPELLATE REVIEW (1927) 5 TEX. L.
REV. 126, 146.  SEE ALSO THE LIST OF STATUTES IN THE OFFICIAL DRAFT OF
THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1930) 1302
1304. 

FN13  KAVANAGH, IMPROVEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BY
EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER (1925) 11 A.B.A.J. 217, 222. 

FN14  SEE HADLEY, CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA (1925) 11 A.B.A.J. 674;
HADLEY, OUTLINE OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (1926) 12 A.B.A.J. 690;
TAFT, ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL LAW, IN PRESENT DAY PROBLEMS, A
COLLECTION OF ADDRESSES (1908) 333; AND CF. HICKS, WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT
(1945) 68-69; WIGMORE, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - "GOOD" REVERSALS AND "BAD"
REVERSALS (1909) 4 ILL. REV. 352; WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (1904) SEC. 21. 

PERHAPS THE MOST NOTABLE INSTANCE OF HYPERTECHNICALITY IN A COURT'S
ASSIGNMENT OF A REASON FOR ITS DECISION, ARISING IN THE EARLY PART OF
THE PERIOD OF AGITATION, IS TO BE FOUND IN STATE V. CAMPBELL, 210 MO.
202, 109 S.W. 706.  SEE ALSO STATE V. WARNER, 220 MO. 23, 119 S.W.
399.  THE RULING WAS REVERSED IN STATE V. ADKINS, 284 MO. 680, 695, 225
S.W. 981. 

FN15  SEE THE MATERIALS CITED IN NOTES 10 AND 11.  AT ONE TIME THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT THE "HARMLESS ERROR" BILL
BE CONFINED SOLELY TO CIVIL CASES.  S. REP. NO. 1066, 62D CONG., 2D
SESS.  SEE 38 A.B.A. REP. 546-548.  AT ANOTHER TIME THE SAME COMMITTEE
REPORTED OUT A BILL CONSIDERABLY WEAKER THAN THAT PASSED IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES.  SEE 53 CONG. REC. 2493; 41 A.B.A. REP. 540; 2
A.B.A.J. 603.  SEE ALSO 42 A.B.A. REP. 334; 3 A.B.A.J. 507. 

FN16  CF. HORNING V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 254 U.S. 135; SNEIERSON V.
UNITED STATES, 264 F. 268, 275-276, AND SEE OTHER AUTHORITIES CITED IN
UNITED STATES V. ANTONELLI FIREWORKS CO., 155 F.2D 631, DISSENTING
OPINION, NOTES 12 AND 12A.  SEE ALSO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 556. 

FN17  E.G., LUCKS V. UNITED STATES, 100 F.2D 908; UNITED STATES V.
GOLDSMITH, 91 F.2D 983, 986; BEACH V. UNITED STATES, 19 F.2D 739, 743. 

FN18  THIS OF COURSE PRESENTS A QUESTION OF LAW.  AND WHEN THE ERROR
RELATES TO THAT MINIMUM SO THAT, IF ELIMINATED, THE PROOF WOULD NOT BE
SUFFICIENT, NECESSARILY THE PREJUDICE IS SUBSTANTIAL.  CF. TOT V.
UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463. 

FN19  THUS, WHEN FORCED CONFESSIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, REVERSALS
HAVE FOLLOWED ALTHOUGH ON OTHER EVIDENCE GUILT MIGHT BE TAKEN TO BE
CLEAR.  SEE MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 404; LYONS V. OKLAHOMA,
322 U.S. 596, 597, N. 1; BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 540-542;
UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 137 F.2D 1006, DISSENTING OPINION AT 1012. 

FN20  CF. UNITED STATES V. ANTONELLI FIREWORKS CO., 155 F.2D 631,
MAJORITY AND DISSENTING OPINIONS. 

FN21  ALTHOUGH NOT NOTED IN THE BERGER OPINION, THE INSTRUCTIONS IN
THAT CASE WERE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE CHARGE GIVEN HERE,
QUOTED BELOW, TO THE EFFECT THAT ONLY A SINGLE CONSPIRACY HAD BEEN
CHARGED AND THEREFORE MORE COULD NOT BE PROVED.  THE COURT SAID:  "...
ONE MAY HAVE CONTROL OF A LARGE AMOUNT OF COUNTERFEIT MONEY, AND THERE
MAY BE AN AGREEMENT THAT THAT MONEY SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED, AND ONE MAY
GO FORTH AND ENLIST THE SERVICES OF OTHERS IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THIS
COMMON PLAN.  BUT IT MUST BE IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THE COMMON PLAN;
THERE CAN'T BE THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT PLANS.  THERE MUST BE ONE PLAN,
AND ALL OF THEM MUST BEAR THEIR PART." 

FN22  THE CHARGE FURTHER STATED IN PART: 

"THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, AND THEY HAVE OFFERED EVIDENCE TO SHOW,
THAT SIMON BROWN WAS THE PIVOT AROUND WHICH THIS WHOLE CONSPIRACY
REVOLVED.  HAVE THEY SHOWN THAT TO YOUR SATISFACTION?  IF THEY HAVE,
THEN WE ADVANCE ANOTHER STEP.  WHAT WAS THE RELATION BETWEEN THE
SEVERAL DEFENDANTS?  DID THE DEFENDANTS MICHAEL LEKACOS, LOUIS LEVINE,
GUS KOTTEAKOS, MAX J. POSNER, JAMES SECULAR, NATHAN REGENBOGEN, BRING
APPLICANTS OR APPLICATIONS FROM ANY OF THESE DEFENDANTS TO BROWN?  WERE
ANY OF THESE MEN ACQUAINTED WITH EACH OTHER?  HAD THEY OBTAINED LOANS
FOR THEMSELVES, AND AFTER THEY HAD THEM, HAD THEY OBTAINED LOANS FOR
SOMEBODY ELSE? 

"THAT IS THE QUESTION.  YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE.  IT IS CERTAINLY NOT
ALL ADMITTED.  YOU HAVE HEARD IT EXPLAINED TO YOU. 

"BUT IF THAT BE TRUE, THAT THESE MEN WERE GETTING PEOPLE TO COME IN
WITH BROWN, THEN IT IS FOR YOU TO SAY WHETHER YOU DO NOT FIND STREAMS
RUNNING THROUGH EACH OF THEM TO BROWN, AND THAT ALL OF THOSE STREAMS
LED IN A COMMON DIRECTION, AND THEY ARE CARRYING CRAFT DESTINED FOR THE
SAME PLACE.  THAT IS THE QUESTION. 

"AT LEAST ONE OF THESE APPLICATIONS WAS GIVEN TO SOMEBODY.  I THINK
THERE WAS ONE GIVEN TO BROWN HIMSELF, BUT YOU CAN REMEMBER THAT.  IN
REFERENCE TO THE OTHERS DID THEY COME TO BROWN THROUGH THE AGENCY, OR
THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION, OR THROUGH THE ACT OF SOLICITATION OF THOSE
APPLICATIONS BY ANY OF THE MEN THAT I HAVE MENTIONED? 

"THAT IS IMPORTANT.  IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION IS A
CONSPIRACY, AND THERE MUST BE A COMMON PURPOSE SHOWN.  WAS THAT A
COMMON PURPOSE THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, AND WAS THE
CONSPIRACY TO DO THESE THINGS, TO VIOLATE THE LAW AND TO PERPETRATE A
FRAUD AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, PARTICIPATED IN BY ANY OR ALL OF THESE
DEFENDANTS AND DID THEY BRING OTHERS, OR ANY OF THE OTHERS, TO BROWN? 
THAT IS THE QUESTION." 

FN23  SEE NOTE 22. 

FN24  IN ADDITION TO THE THIRTY-TWO PERSONS WHO WERE INDICTED, FOUR
WERE NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT AS CO-CONSPIRATORS.  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 6; ALSO TEXT AT NOTE 30. 

FN26  SEE UNITED STATES V. LISS, 137 F.2D 995, DISSENTING OPINION, AT
1002-1003; CF. TELMAN V. UNITED STATES, 67 F.2D 716, 718. 

FN27  A SIMILAR INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN IN THE BERGER CASE:  "LET ME
SAY TO YOU IF A CONSPIRACY EXISTED THEN THE ACTIONS OR THE STATEMENTS
OR THE DECLARATIONS OF ANY OF THE CONSPIRATORS WOULD BIND ALL THE
OTHERS, IF THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY, UP TO THE TIME OF THE ARREST, AND
THEN THE CONSPIRACY ENDED....  THE STATEMENTS OR ACTS OF ANYONE WHO WAS
A CONSPIRATOR PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OF THE CONSPIRACY BY THE ARREST
BOUND ALL THE OTHERS.  THEY ARE BOUND BY THAT JUST AS THOUGH THEY HAD
DONE IT AND SAID IT THEMSELVES."  AND FURTHER, "THERE WERE ALLEGED HERE
CERTAIN OVERT ACTS AND THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE AT LEAST ONE OF THEM
IN ORDER TO VITALIZE THE CONSPIRACY." 

FN28  SEE NOTE 6 SUPRA. 

FN29  IBID.  IT IS COMMON AND APPROVED PRACTICE, IN CHARGING A
CONSPIRACY, TO NAME ALL WHO MAY BE REACHED WITH PROCESS AND WHOM IT IS
ANTICIPATED THE PROOF WILL CONNECT WITH THE SCHEME, ALTHOUGH IN MOST
INSTANCES WHETHER IT WILL SO TURN OUT FOR EACH DEFENDANT CAN BE ONLY
PROBLEMATICAL.  IF FAILURE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CHARGE AS TO ONE OR MORE
WERE TO CHANGE THE IDENTITY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, SO AS TO REQUIRE
REINDICTMENT AND RETRIAL FOR THE OTHERS, THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY WOULD BE
A DEAD LETTER.  BUT THIS ACCEPTED PRACTICE DOES NOT COMPREHEND OR
JUSTIFY THAT ATTEMPTED HERE.  IF THIS COMES DOWN TO A DIFFERENCE OF
DEGREE, IT IS STILL ONE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE AS SUCH DIFFERENCES ALWAYS
COME TO BE WHEN DEGREES SPREAD FARTHER AND FARTHER APART. 

FN30  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 6. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AGREES, DISSENTING. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN THE CHARGE.  AN EXAMINATION OF
THE RECORD IN BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 78, SHOWS THAT THE SAME
ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTIONS WERE IN FACT GIVEN IN THAT CASE.  BUT I DO NOT
THINK THE ERROR "SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED" (ID., P. 81) THE DEFENDANTS IN
THIS CASE ANY MORE THAN IT DID IN THE BERGER CASE. 

WHETHER INJURY RESULTS FROM THE JOINDER OF SEVERAL CONSPIRACIES
DEPENDS ON THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.  SITUATIONS CAN
EASILY BE IMAGINED WHERE CONFUSION ON THE PART OF THE JURY IS LIKELY BY
REASON OF THE SHEER NUMBER OF CONSPIRATORS AND THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE
FACTS WHICH SPELL OUT THE SERIES OF CONSPIRACIES.  THE EVIDENCE
RELATING TO ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE USED TO CONVICT ANOTHER. 

THOSE POSSIBILITIES SEEM TO BE NON-EXISTENT HERE.  NOTHING IN THE
TESTIMONY OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS EVEN REMOTELY IMPLICATED PETITIONERS
IN THE OTHER FRAUDS.  NOTHING IN THE EVIDENCE CONNECTED PETITIONERS
WITH THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, EXCEPT BROWN, IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY.  ON THE
RECORD NO IMPLICATION OF GUILT BY REASON OF A MASS TRIAL CAN BE FOUND. 
THE DANGERS WHICH PETITIONERS CONJURE UP ARE ABSTRACT ONES. 

MOREOVER, THE TRUE PICTURE OF THE CASE IS NOT THIRTY-TWO DEFENDANTS
ENGAGING IN EIGHT OR MORE DIFFERENT CONSPIRACIES WHICH WERE LUMPED
TOGETHER AS ONE.  THE JURY CONVICTED ONLY FOUR PERSONS IN ADDITION TO
PETITIONERS.  FN1  THE OTHER DEFENDANTS AND THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING
THEM WERE IN EFFECT ELIMINATED FROM THE CASE.  WE HAVE THEN A CASE OF
TWO CLOSELY RELATED CONSPIRACIES INVOLVING PETITIONERS AND TWO
ADDITIONAL CONSPIRACIES IN WHICH PETITIONERS PLAYED NO PART - BUT ALL
OF THE SAME CHARACTER AND REVOLVING AROUND THE SAME CENTRAL FIGURE,
BROWN.  IF, THEN, WE LOOK AT WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED BEFORE THE JURY
RATHER THAN AT WHAT THE INDICTMENT CHARGED, WE HAVE A CASE APPROACHING
IN ITS SIMPLICITY THE BERGER CASE.  AND THE STRONG AND IRRESISTIBLE
INFERENCE THAT THE JURY WAS NOT CONFUSED IS BOLSTERED BY THEIR FAILURE
TO CONVICT SIX OF THE THIRTEEN DEFENDANTS ON TRIAL BEFORE THEM. 

AS I HAVE SAID, IT IS PLAIN THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN THE CHARGE AS TO
THE CONSPIRACY.  BUT I AGREE WITH JUDGE LEARNED HAND, SPEAKING FOR THE
COURT BELOW, WHEN HE SAID (151 F.2D P. 174): 

"THERE REMAINS ONLY THE QUESTION OF THE COURT'S ERROR IN DIRECTING
THE JURY THAT THEY MUST FIND THAT THERE WAS ONE CONSPIRACY, OR THAT
THEY SHOULD ACQUIT ALL.  THAT WAS OF COURSE AN ERROR, AS WE HAVE SAID,
BUT IT FAVORED THE ACCUSED.  TO SUPPOSE THAT THESE APPELLANTS SUFFERED
FROM IT WE SHOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT, IF THE JUDGE HAD TOLD THE JURY THAT
THEY COULD CONVICT ANY OF THE THREE FOR CONSPIRING WITH BROWN ALONE,
THEY MIGHT HAVE ACQUITTED ONE OR MORE OF THEM, IN SPITE OF THE FACT
THAT THEY CONVICTED THEM ALL OF A CONSPIRACY WITH BROWN AND THE OTHER
APPLICANTS.  THAT IS INCREDIBLE; INDEED, IT IS NONSENSE.  BROWN BEING
THE ONLY LIAISON BETWEEN THE APPELLANTS AND THE OTHER APPLICANTS, THE
JURY COULD NOT RATIONALLY HAVE DRAWN THE APPELLANTS INTO THE NET WITH
ALL THE OTHERS, UNLESS THEY HAD BELIEVED THAT THE APPELLANTS AND BROWN
HAD CONSPIRED TOGETHER.  THE REST WAS SURPLUSAGE, WHICH MAY BE
DISREGARDED."   THE TRIAL JUDGE DID IMPROPERLY CHARGE THE JURY NOT ONLY
THAT THERE WAS ONE CONSPIRACY BUT ALSO THAT THE OVERT ACTS OF ANY ONE
CONSPIRATOR WERE BINDING ON ALL.  BUT ONLY IF WE CONSIDER THE QUESTION
IN THE ABSTRACT WOULD WE HOLD THAT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.  FOR THE
CHARGE MADE CLEAR THAT BEFORE THE JURY COULD IMPUTE THE ACTS OF ONE
CONSPIRATOR TO ANOTHER, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO FIND THAT THE PARTICULAR
DEFENDANT HAD FIRST JOINED THE CONSPIRACY.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT
EACH OF PETITIONERS, ACTING THROUGH BROWN, HAD MADE A FRAUDULENT
APPLICATION FOR A LOAN.  WHEN THE JURY FOUND THAT EACH OF THE
PETITIONERS HAD ENTERED INTO A CONSPIRACY WITH BROWN, IT MADE A
COMPLETE DETERMINATION OF GUILT AS TO THAT PETITIONER.  THE ERROR IN
THE OTHER PARTS OF THE CHARGE THEREFORE DID NOT REACH THE ESSENTIAL
FACTORS BY WHICH GUILT OR INNOCENCE MUST BE DETERMINED.  THE SITUATION
WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSPIRACY WERE SHOWN BY SLIGHT
EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE AND ASSOCIATION AND THE ACTS OF OTHERS WOULD NEED
BE IMPUTED TO A DEFENDANT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH GUILT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.  AND I WOULD AGREE THAT REVERSIBLE ERROR WOULD BE
ESTABLISHED IF THE RECORD LEFT A LINGERING DOUBT ON THAT SCORE.  BUT IN
VIEW OF THE CLEAR PROOF IMPLICATING PETITIONERS, THE SIMPLICITY OF THE
TRANSACTIONS, AND THE FACT THAT THE JURY MUST HAVE CREDITED EVIDENCE
WHICH COMPLETELY ESTABLISHED GUILT IN ORDER TO FIND THAT PETITIONERS
JOINED THE CONSPIRACY, I CANNOT BELIEVE THE ERRONEOUS CHARGE WAS
PREJUDICIAL. 

THERE ARE, OF COURSE, FURTHER POSSIBILITIES OF PREJUDICE.  AS STATED
IN THE BERGER CASE, SUPRA, P. 82, "THE GENERAL RULE THAT ALLEGATIONS
AND PROOF MUST CORRESPOND IS BASED UPON THE OBVIOUS REQUIREMENTS (1)
THAT THE ACCUSED SHALL BE DEFINITELY INFORMED AS TO THE CHARGES AGAINST
HIM, SO THAT HE MAY BE ENABLED TO PRESENT HIS DEFENSE AND NOT BE TAKEN
BY SURPRISE BY THE EVIDENCE OFFERED AT THE TRIAL; AND (2) THAT HE MAY
BE PROTECTED AGAINST ANOTHER PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME OFFENSE."  BUT NO
SURPRISE IS SHOWN.  THE OVERT ACTS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT AGAINST
PETITIONERS WERE THOSE IMPLICATING THEM IN THE CONSPIRACY IN WHICH EACH
PARTICIPATED.  ALL OF THE OVERT ACTS CHARGED WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE
EVIDENCE.  AND IT WOULD SEEM EVIDENT ON THE FACE OF THE INDICTMENT THAT
PETITIONERS WOULD KNOW THAT THEY MUST BE PREPARED TO DEFEND AGAINST
PROOF THAT THEY CONSPIRED WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS. 
IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW PETITIONERS WOULD BE MORE MISLED HERE THAN
IF A SINGLE CONSPIRACY HAD BEEN CHARGED BUT SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE
NOT SHOWN TO BE CONNECTED WITH IT.  AND IT IS CLEAR THAT PETITIONERS
WERE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED AGAINST A SECOND PROSECUTION.  THE INDICTMENT
AND THE EVIDENCE ARE AVAILABLE TO DISCLOSE THE PROOF ON WHICH THE
CONVICTIONS RESTED.  PAROLE EVIDENCE IS LIKEWISE AVAILABLE TO SHOW THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE FORMER CONVICTION.  BARTELL V. UNITED STATES, 227
U.S. 427, 433. 

THE SEVERAL CONSPIRACIES COULD HAVE BEEN JOINED AS SEPARATE COUNTS IN
ONE INDICTMENT.  FOR THEY WERE PLAINLY "ACTS OR TRANSACTIONS OF THE
SAME CLASS OF CRIMES OR OFFENSES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF 18 U.S.C. SEC.
557.  THE OBJECTION THAT THEY WERE NOT SO JOINED BUT WERE LUMPED
TOGETHER AS ONE CONSPIRACY IS PURELY FORMAL, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SAID, WHERE, AS HERE, IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS NO PREJUDICE. 

FN1  BEFORE TRIAL A SEVERANCE WAS GRANTED ON MOTION OF THE PROSECUTOR
AS TO FOUR DEFENDANTS.  THE INDICTMENT WAS NOL-PROSSED AS TO ONE. 
EIGHT PLEADED GUILTY BEFORE TRIAL.  NINETEEN WERE BROUGHT TO TRIAL. 
ONE PLEADED GUILTY DURING THE TRIAL AND A NOLLE PROSEQUI WAS ENTERED AS
TO ANOTHER.  THE CASE WAS SEVERED AS TO ANOTHER WHO BECAME ILL DURING
THE TRIAL.  VERDICTS OF ACQUITTAL WERE DIRECTED AS TO THREE.  OF THE
THIRTEEN WHOSE CASES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, TWO WERE ACQUITTED. 
THE JURY DISAGREED AS TO FOUR.  THE REMAINING SEVEN, INCLUDING
PETITIONERS, WERE CONVICTED. 
..END :









AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. U.S., 328 U.S. 781 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 8, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 10, 1946.  - 147 F.2D 93,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHEN THERE IS A COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY TO CONTROL AND DOMINATE
INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE IN A COMMODITY, COUPLED WITH THE POWER
AND INTENT TO EXCLUDE COMPETITORS TO A SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT, THE CRIME OF
MONOPOLIZATION UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT IS COMPLETE;
AND THE ACTUAL EXCLUSION OF COMPETITORS IS NOT NECESSARY TO THE CRIME. 
PP. 784-787, 798, 808-815. 

2.  TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR CONSPIRING TO MONOPOLIZE CERTAIN
TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW
POWER AND INTENT TO EXCLUDE ALL COMPETITORS, NOR TO SHOW A CONSPIRACY
TO EXCLUDE ALL COMPETITORS.  P. 789. 

3.  UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IT IS THE CRIME OF MONOPOLIZING
FOR PARTIES TO COMBINE OR CONSPIRE TO ACQUIRE OR MAINTAIN THE POWER TO
EXCLUDE COMPETITORS FROM ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, PROVIDED (A) THEY ALSO HAVE
SUCH A POWER THAT THEY ARE ABLE, AS A GROUP, TO EXCLUDE ACTUAL OR
POTENTIAL COMPETITION FROM THE FIELD AND (B) THEY HAVE THE INTENT AND
PURPOSE TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.  P. 809. 

4.  IT IS NOT THE FORM OF THE COMBINATION OR THE PARTICULAR MEANS
USED BUT THE RESULT TO BE ACHIEVED THAT THE STATUTE CONDEMNS.  P. 809. 

5.  IT IS NOT IMPORTANT WHETHER THE MEANS USED TO ACCOMPLISH THE
UNLAWFUL OBJECTIVE ARE IN THEMSELVES LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL.  P. 809. 

6.  NO FORMAL AGREEMENT IS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE AN UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY.  P. 809. 

7.  THE ESSENTIAL COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT MAY BE FOUND IN A COURSE OF DEALING OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
AS WELL AS IN AN EXCHANGE OF WORDS.  PP. 809, 810. 

8.  NEITHER PROOF OF EXERTION OF THE POWER TO EXCLUDE NOR PROOF OF
ACTUAL EXCLUSION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL COMPETITORS IS ESSENTIAL TO
SUSTAIN A CHARGE OF MONOPOLIZATION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 810. 

9.  A COMBINATION MAY BE ONE IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE OR
COMMERCE OR TO MONOPOLIZE A PART OF SUCH TRADE OR COMMERCE IN VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, ALTHOUGH SUCH RESTRAINT OR MONOPOLY MAY NOT HAVE
BEEN ACTUALLY ATTAINED TO ANY HARMFUL EXTENT.  P. 811. 

10.  THE MATERIAL CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER A MONOPOLY
EXISTS IS NOT THAT PRICES ARE RAISED AND THAT COMPETITION ACTUALLY IS
EXCLUDED BUT THAT POWER EXISTS TO RAISE PRICES OR TO EXCLUDE
COMPETITION WHEN IT IS DESIRED TO DO SO.  P. 811. 

11.  UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416,
APPROVED.  PP. 811-814. 

12.  SEPARATE CONVICTIONS FOR A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE AND FOR
A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE DO NOT AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY OR TO
A MULTIPLICITY OF PUNISHMENT IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING CONTRARY TO THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, SINCE THEY ARE SEPARATE STATUTORY OFFENSES, ONE BEING
MADE CRIMINAL BY SEC. 1 AND THE OTHER BY SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
BRAVERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 49, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 787, 788. 

13.  SEPARATE CONVICTIONS FOR MONOPOLIZATION AND FOR CONSPIRING TO
MONOPOLIZE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT DO NOT RESULT IN MULTIPLE
PUNISHMENT CONTRARY TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, SINCE THEY ARE SEPARATE
OFFENSES.  UNITED STATES V. RABINOWICH, 238 U.S. 78; PINKERTON V.
UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640.  PP. 788, 789. 

AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 18.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 19, LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES, AND NO. 20, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES,
ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON THE SAME DATES. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN
ANTI-TRUST ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  147 F.2D 93. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI "LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER ACTUAL
EXCLUSION OF COMPETITORS IS NECESSARY TO THE CRIME OF MONOPOLIZATION
UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT."  324 U.S. 836.  A PETITION FOR
REHEARING AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE SCOPE OF REVIEW IN NO. 20 WAS DENIED. 
324 U.S. 891.  AFFIRMED, P. 815. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS ARE THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, LIGGETT & MYERS
TOBACCO COMPANY, R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,  FN1  AMERICAN
SUPPLIERS, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN, AND CERTAIN OFFICIALS OF THE
RESPECTIVE COMPANIES WHO WERE CONVICTED BY A JURY, IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, OF
VIOLATING SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, PURSUANT TO AN
INFORMATION FILED JULY 24, 1940, AND MODIFIED OCTOBER 31, 1940. 

EACH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED ON FOUR COUNTS:  (1) CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE, (2) MONOPOLIZATION, (3) ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE, AND
(4) CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE.  EACH COUNT RELATED TO INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE IN TOBACCO.  NO SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED UNDER
THE THIRD COUNT AS THE COURT HELD THAT THAT COUNT WAS MERGED IN THE
SECOND.  EACH PETITIONER WAS FINED $5,000 ON EACH OF THE OTHER COUNTS,
MAKING $15,000 FOR EACH PETITIONER AND A TOTAL OF $255,000.  SEVEN
OTHER DEFENDANTS WERE FOUND NOT GUILTY AND A NUMBER OF THE ORIGINAL
DEFENDANTS WERE SEVERED FROM THE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO STIPULATION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, ON DECEMBER 8,
1944, AFFIRMED EACH CONVICTION.  147 F.2D 93.  ALL THE GROUNDS URGED
FOR REVIEW OF THOSE JUDGMENTS WERE CONSIDERED HERE ON PETITIONS FOR
CERTIORARI.  ON MARCH 26, 1945, THIS COURT GRANTED THE PETITIONS BUT
EACH WAS "LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER ACTUAL EXCLUSION OF
COMPETITORS IS NECESSARY TO THE CRIME OF MONOPOLIZATION UNDER SEC. 2 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT."  324 U.S. 836.  ON APRIL 19, 1945, REYNOLDS, ET AL.,
FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE SCOPE OF REVIEW
IN THEIR CASE BUT IT WAS DENIED.  324 U.S. 891.  THIS OPINION IS
LIMITED TO THE CONVICTIONS UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT  FN2  AND
DEALS ESPECIALLY WITH THOSE FOR MONOPOLIZATION UNDER THE SECOND COUNT
OF THE INFORMATION. 

THE ISSUE THUS EMPHASIZED IN THE ORDER ALLOWING CERTIORARI AND
PRIMARILY ARGUED BY THE PARTIES HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DECIDED BY THIS
COURT.  IT IS RAISED BY THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS WHICH WERE
ESPECIALLY APPLICABLE TO THE SECOND COUNT  FN3  BUT WERE RELATED ALSO
TO THE OTHER COUNTS UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT: 

"NOW, THE TERM 'MONOPOLIZE' AS USED IN SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
AS WELL AS IN THE LAST THREE COUNTS OF THE INFORMATION, MEANS THE JOINT
ACQUISITION OR MAINTENANCE BY THE MEMBERS OF A CONSPIRACY FORMED FOR
THAT PURPOSE, OF THE POWER TO CONTROL AND DOMINATE INTERSTATE TRADE AND
COMMERCE IN A COMMODITY TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THEY ARE ABLE, AS A
GROUP, TO EXCLUDE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL COMPETITORS FROM THE FIELD,
ACCOMPANIED WITH THE INTENTION AND PURPOSE TO EXERCISE SUCH POWER. 

"THE PHRASE 'ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE' MEANS THE EMPLOYMENT OF METHODS,
MEANS AND PRACTICES WHICH WOULD, IF SUCCESSFUL, ACCOMPLISH
MONOPOLIZATION, AND WHICH, THOUGH FALLING SHORT, NEVERTHELESS APPROACH
SO CLOSE AS TO CREATE A DANGEROUS PROBABILITY OF IT, WHICH METHODS,
MEANS AND PRACTICES ARE SO EMPLOYED BY THE MEMBERS OF AND PURSUANT TO A
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH
ACCOMPLISHMENT. 

"IT IS IN NO RESPECT A VIOLATION OF THE LAW THAT A NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATIONS, EACH ACTING FOR HIMSELF OR ITSELF, MAY OWN
OR CONTROL A LARGE PART, OR EVEN ALL OF A PARTICULAR COMMODITY, OR ALL
THE BUSINESS IN A PARTICULAR COMMODITY. 

"AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE ILLEGAL MONOPOLY OR MONOPOLIZATION
CHARGED IN THIS CASE IS THE EXISTENCE OF A COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY TO
ACQUIRE AND MAINTAIN THE POWER TO EXCLUDE COMPETITORS TO A SUBSTANTIAL
EXTENT. 

"THUS YOU WILL SEE THAT AN INDISPENSABLE INGREDIENT OF EACH OF THE
OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION IS A COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY." 

WHILE THE QUESTION BEFORE US, AS BRIEFLY STATED IN THE COURT'S ORDER,
MAKES NO EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE INCLUSION, IN THE CRIME OF
"MONOPOLIZATION," OF THE ELEMENT OF "A COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY TO
ACQUIRE AND MAINTAIN THE POWER TO EXCLUDE COMPETITORS TO A SUBSTANTIAL
EXTENT," YET THE TRIAL COURT, IN ITS ABOVE QUOTED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
JURY, DESCRIBED SUCH A COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY AS AN "ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT" AND AN "INDISPENSABLE INGREDIENT" OF THAT CRIME IN THE PRESENT
CASES.  WE THEREFORE INCLUDE THAT ELEMENT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE
FOREGOING INSTRUCTIONS CORRECTLY STATED THE LAW AS APPLIED TO THESE
CASES.  IN DISCUSSING THE LEGAL ISSUE WE SHALL ASSUME THAT SUCH A
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.  BECAUSE
OF THE PRESENCE OF THAT ELEMENT, WE DO NOT HAVE HERE THE HYPOTHETICAL
CASE OF PARTIES WHO THEMSELVES HAVE NOT "ACHIEVED" MONOPOLY BUT HAVE
HAD MONOPOLY "THRUST UPON" THEM.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF
AMERICA, 148 F.2D 416, 429. 

THE PRESENT CASES ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO CASES WHERE THE PARTIES, FOR
EXAMPLE, MERELY HAVE MADE A NEW DISCOVERY OR AN ORIGINAL ENTRY INTO A
NEW FIELD AND UNEXPECTEDLY OR UNAVOIDABLY HAVE FOUND THEMSELVES
ENJOYING A MONOPOLY COUPLED WITH POWER AND INTENT TO MAINTAIN IT.  IN
THE ALUMINUM CO. CASE, DISCUSSED LATER, THERE WAS A USE OF VARIOUS
UNLAWFUL MEANS TO ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN THE MONOPOLY.  HERE WE HAVE THE
ADDITIONAL ELEMENT OF A COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY TO ACQUIRE OR
MAINTAIN THE POWER TO EXCLUDE COMPETITORS THAT IS CHARGED IN THE FOURTH
COUNT. 

THE PRESENT OPINION IS NOT A FINDING BY THIS COURT ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER ON THE MANY CLOSELY CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT.  THE PRESENT
OPINION IS AN APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS AS THEY WERE FOUND BY
THE JURY AND WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD SHOULD NOT BE SET
ASIDE.  FN4 THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTION DID NOT CALL FOR PROOF OF AN
"ACTUAL EXCLUSION" OF COMPETITORS ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONERS.  FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THIS OPINION, WE SHALL ASSUME, THEREFORE, THAT AN
ACTUAL EXCLUSION OF COMPETITORS BY THE PETITIONERS WAS NOT CLAIMED OR
ESTABLISHED BY THE PROSECUTION.  SIMPLY STATED THE ISSUE IS:  DO THE
FACTS CALLED FOR BY THE TRIAL COURT'S DEFINITION OF MONOPOLIZATION
AMOUNT TO A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT? 

BEFORE REACHING THAT ISSUE WE SHALL TOUCH UPON ANOTHER CONTENTION
WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAVE MADE AND WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS UNDERTAKEN
TO ANSWER.  THIS IS THE CONTENTION THAT THE SEPARATE CONVICTIONS
RETURNED UNDER THE CONSPIRACY COUNT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND UNDER THE
CONSPIRACY COUNT TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY, OR TO A
MULTIPLICITY OF PUNISHMENT IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING, AND THEREFORE
VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FN5 THE
PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED
TO REQUIRE PROOF OF ACTUAL EXCLUSION OF COMPETITORS IN ORDER TO SHOW
"MONOPOLIZATION," AND THEY CLAIM THAT ONLY THUS CAN A "CONSPIRACY TO
MONOPOLIZE" TRADE BE SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENTIATED FROM A "CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF" TRADE AS TO AVOID SUBJECTING THE PARTIES ACCUSED UNDER
THOSE COUNTS TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. 

PETITIONERS SEEK SUPPORT FOR THESE CONTENTIONS AS TO THE TWO
CONSPIRACY COUNTS FROM THE PRINCIPLES STATED IN BRAVERMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 317 U.S. 49, AND IN BLOCKBURGER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S.
299.  ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE BRAVERMAN CASE, PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT
THERE IS BUT ONE CONSPIRACY, NAMELY, A CONSPIRACY TO FIX PRICES.  IN
CONTRAST TO THE SINGLE CONSPIRACY DESCRIBED IN THAT CASE IN SEPARATE
COUNTS, ALL CHARGED UNDER THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE, SEC. 37,
CRIMINAL CODE, 35 STAT. 1096, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88, WE HAVE HERE SEPARATE
STATUTORY OFFENSES, ONE A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE THAT MAY
STOP SHORT OF MONOPOLY, AND THE OTHER A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE THAT
MAY NOT BE CONTENT WITH RESTRAINT SHORT OF MONOPOLY.  ONE IS MADE
CRIMINAL BY SEC. 1 AND THE OTHER BY SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

WE BELIEVE ALSO THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BLOCKBURGER CASE, SECS. 1
AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT REQUIRE PROOF OF CONSPIRACIES WHICH ARE
RECIPROCALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM AND INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER
ALTHOUGH THE OBJECTS OF THE CONSPIRACIES MAY PARTIALLY OVERLAP.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 226.  IN THE
PRESENT CASES, THE COURT BELOW HAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS MORE THAN
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE BY
PRICE FIXING AND OTHER MEANS, AND ALSO A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE
WITH THE POWER AND INTENT TO EXCLUDE ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL COMPETITORS
FROM AT LEAST A PART OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY. 

PETITIONERS FURTHER SUGGEST THAT THE SECOND COUNT (TO MONOPOLIZE),
AND THE FOURTH COUNT (TO CONSPIRE TO MONOPOLIZE), MAY LEAD TO MULTIPLE
PUNISHMENT, CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BLOCKBURGER CASE. 
PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S THEORY OF MONOPOLIZATION CALLS
FOR PROOF OF A JOINT ENTERPRISE WITH POWER AND INTENT TO EXCLUDE
COMPETITORS AND, THEREFORE, THAT THE CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE MUST BE A
PART OF THAT PROOF.  IT LONG HAS BEEN SETTLED, HOWEVER, THAT A
"CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME IS A DIFFERENT OFFENSE FROM THE CRIME
THAT IS THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY."  UNITED STATES V. RABINOWICH,
238 U.S. 78, 85; PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 640, 643. 
PETITIONERS, FOR EXAMPLE, MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED HERE OF A
CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE WITHOUT EVER HAVING ACQUIRED THE POWER TO
CARRY OUT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, I.E., TO EXCLUDE ACTUAL AND
POTENTIAL COMPETITORS FROM THE CIGARETTE FIELD.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
SHAPIRO, 103 F.2D 775, 776. 

ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO ISSUE OF FACT OR QUESTION AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE EVIDENCE TO BE DISCUSSED HERE, NEVERTHELESS, IT IS NECESSARY TO
SUMMARIZE THE PRINCIPAL FACTS OF THAT CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE CERTAIN
TRADE, WHICH WAS CHARGED IN THE FOURTH COUNT.  THESE FACTS DEMONSTRATE
ALSO THE VIGOR AND NATURE OF THE INTENT OF THE PETITIONERS TO EXCLUDE
COMPETITORS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THAT MONOPOLY IF NEED OR OCCASION
SHOULD OFFER ITSELF TO ATTEMPT SUCH AN EXCLUSION.  TO SUPPORT THE
VERDICTS IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW POWER AND INTENT TO EXCLUDE ALL
COMPETITORS, OR TO SHOW A CONSPIRACY TO EXCLUDE ALL COMPETITORS.  THE
REQUIREMENT STATED TO THE JURY AND CONTAINED IN THE STATUTE WAS ONLY
THAT THE OFFENDERS SHALL "MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS."  THIS PARTICULAR
CONSPIRACY MAY WELL HAVE DERIVED SPECIAL VITALITY, IN THE EYES OF THE
JURY, FROM THE FACT THAT ITS EXISTENCE WAS ESTABLISHED, NOT THROUGH THE
PRESENTATION OF A FORMAL WRITTEN AGREEMENT, BUT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE OF
WIDESPREAD AND EFFECTIVE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF PETITIONERS IN RELATION
TO THEIR EXISTING OR POTENTIAL COMPETITORS. 

THE THREE YEARS AT ISSUE IN THE CHARGES MADE WERE THOSE IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE FILING OF THE INFORMATIONS ON JULY 24, 1940,  FN6  BUT
FOR CONVENIENCE THE STATISTICS RELIED UPON GENERALLY HAVE BEEN THOSE
FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 1937, 1938 AND 1939.  BECAUSE OF THE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL NATURE OF MOST OF THE EVIDENCE AND BECAUSE OF THE
ESSENTIALITY OF FIGURES FOR COMPARATIVE YEARS IN ESTABLISHING ANY
RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR MONOPOLY, THE RECORD ALSO CONTAINS MUCH IMPORTANT
MATERIAL DRAWN FROM EARLIER YEARS.  SOME APPRECIATION OF THE HISTORY
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CIGARETTE INDUSTRY IS ESSENTIAL TO AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASES.  HOWEVER, IN APPLYING THE LAW TO THE
CENTRAL ISSUE IN THESE CASES, THE VARIATIONS AMONG THE SEVERAL
PETITIONERS PARTICIPATING IN EACH STEP ARE NOT MATERIAL IN REACHING THE
CONCLUSION ON THE LEGAL QUESTION BEFORE US.  THERE WERE MANY VARIATIONS
IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE SEVERAL PETITIONERS.  IT WOULD BE
CUMBERSOME AND DIFFICULT TO STATE EXACTLY WHICH PETITIONERS AND WHAT
COMBINATION OF PETITIONERS DID EACH OF THE ACTS MENTIONED.  IT IS,
HOWEVER, NOT FAIR TO REFER, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, TO ALL THE ACTS SIMPLY
AS HAVING BEEN DONE BY "THE PETITIONERS."  IN ITS USUAL SENSE, "THE
PETITIONERS" WOULD INCLUDE ALL OF THEM.  OBVIOUSLY, HOWEVER, THE
CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS DID NOT AND COULD NOT ALL ACT
PRECISELY ALIKE.  TO REFER ONLY TO "THE CORPORATE PETITIONERS" WOULD BE
UNSATISFACTORY BECAUSE, IN ADDITION TO AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS,
THERE IS THE CORPORATE PETITIONER, AMERICAN SUPPLIERS, INC.  IT
PARTICIPATED IN ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES AND THEN ONLY AS A
SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN.  FURTHERMORE, AS POINTED OUT BY REYNOLDS IN ITS
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND FOR ENLARGEMENT OF SCOPE OF REVIEW IN ITS
CASE, REYNOLDS' PARTICIPATION IN SOME PARTS OF THE COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY DIFFERS IN MANY RESPECTS FROM THAT OF AMERICAN AND LIGGETT. 
THE FACT IS THAT REYNOLDS, IN 1913, ACTUALLY BROKE INTO THE CIGARETTE
FIELD WITH ITS CAMEL CIGARETTES, AND, AS A VIGOROUS COMPETITOR OF
AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND P. LORILLARD COMPANY, REVOLUTIONIZED THE
CIGARETTE INDUSTRY.  GRADUALLY REYNOLDS GREW TO BE ONE OF THE "BIG
THREE" WITH AMERICAN AND LIGGETT.  THE LATER EVIDENCE THEN TENDS TO
SHOW THAT THOSE THREE, IN SPITE OF THE EARLIER COMPETITIVE HISTORY OF
REYNOLDS, HAVE OPERATED TOGETHER IN RECENT YEARS IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  SIMILARLY, MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE PURCHASE
OF TOBACCO AT AUCTION DOES NOT APPLY IN PRECISELY EQUAL DEGREE TO EACH
PETITIONER.  HOWEVER, TAKING THE STORY AS A WHOLE, EACH PETITIONER NOW
HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF THE SAME OFFENSE UNDER LIKE COUNTS AND THE
PROBLEM BEFORE US IS ONLY TO STATE THE RULE OF LAW TO BE APPLIED IN
DEFINING MONOPOLIZATION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AS APPLIED TO ALL OF THE
PETITIONERS ALIKE.  TO DISTINGUISH AMONG THEM AT EACH STAGE WOULD NOT
CHANGE THE LEGAL CONCLUSION ON THE ONE ISSUE HERE PRESENTED BUT WOULD
CONFUSE WHAT SHOULD BE A CLEAR SUMMARY OF THE FACTS ESSENTIAL TO AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THAT LEGAL ISSUE.  ACCORDINGLY, EACH REFERENCE TO
"PETITIONERS" IN THIS RECITAL WILL MEAN "SOME OR ALL OF THE PETITIONERS
AS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD." 

FIRST OF ALL, THE MONOPOLY FOUND BY THE JURY TO EXIST IN THE PRESENT
CASES APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY SEPARABLE FROM THE OLD AMERICAN
TOBACCO TRUST WHICH WAS DISSOLVED IN 1911.  FN7  THE CONSPIRACY TO
MONOPOLIZE AND THE MONOPOLIZATION CHARGED HERE DO NOT DEPEND UPON PROOF
RELATING TO THE OLD TOBACCO TRUST BUT UPON A DOMINANCE AND CONTROL BY
PETITIONERS IN RECENT YEARS OVER PURCHASES OF THE RAW MATERIAL AND OVER
THE SALE OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT IN THE FORM OF CIGARETTES.  THE FACT,
HOWEVER, THAT THE PURCHASES OF LEAF TOBACCO AND THE SALES OF SO MANY
PRODUCTS OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY HAVE REMAINED LARGELY WITHIN THE SAME
GENERAL GROUP OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS FOR OVER A GENERATION,
INEVITABLY HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE EASE WITH WHICH CONTROL OVER
COMPETITION WITHIN THE INDUSTRY AND THE MOBILIZATION OF POWER TO RESIST
NEW COMPETITION CAN BE EXERCISED.  A FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIP WITHIN SUCH
A LONG ESTABLISHED INDUSTRY IS, IN ITSELF, NOT ONLY NATURAL BUT
COMMENDABLE AND BENEFICIAL, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT BREED ILLEGAL
ACTIVITIES.  SUCH A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST IN ANY INDUSTRY, HOWEVER,
PROVIDES A NATURAL FOUNDATION FOR WORKING POLICIES AND UNDERSTANDINGS
FAVORABLE TO THE INSIDERS AND UNFAVORABLE TO OUTSIDERS.  THE VERDICTS
INDICATE THAT PRACTICES OF AN INFORMAL AND FLEXIBLE NATURE WERE ADOPTED
AND THAT THE RESULTS WERE SO UNIFORMLY BENEFICIAL TO THE PETITIONERS IN
PROTECTING THEIR COMMON INTERESTS AS AGAINST THOSE OF COMPETITORS THAT,
ENTIRELY FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE JURY FOUND THAT A
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY EXISTED AMONG THE PETITIONERS FROM 1937 TO
1940, WITH POWER AND INTENT TO EXCLUDE COMPETITORS TO SUCH A
SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT AS TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT AS INTERPRETED BY THE
TRIAL COURT.  FN8 

THE POSITION OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE CIGARETTE INDUSTRY FROM 1931
TO 1939 IS CLEAR FROM THE FOLLOWING TABLES:

       PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL U.S. PRODUCTION OF SMALL CIGARETTES -

          1931-1939. 

                           (CHART OMITTED)

             VOLUME OF CIGARETTE PRODUCTION - 1931-1939. 

                      (BILLIONS OF CIGARETTES.) 

                           (CHART OMITTED) 

THE FIRST TABLE SHOWS THAT, ALTHOUGH AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS
GRADUALLY DROPPED IN THEIR PERCENTAGE OF THE NATIONAL DOMESTIC
CIGARETTE PRODUCTION FROM 90.7% IN 1931 TO 73.3%, 71% AND 68%,
RESPECTIVELY, IN 1937, 1938 AND 1939, THEY HAVE ACCOUNTED AT ALL TIMES
FOR MORE THAN 68%, AND USUALLY FOR MORE THAN 75%, OF THE NATIONAL
PRODUCTION.  THE BALANCE OF THE CIGARETTE PRODUCTION HAS COME FROM SIX
OTHER COMPANIES.  NO ONE OF THOSE SIX EVER HAS PRODUCED MORE THAN THE
10.6% ONCE REACHED BY BROWN & WILLIAMSON IN 1939.  THE SECOND TABLE
SHOWS THAT, WHILE THE PERCENTAGE OF CIGARETTES PRODUCED BY AMERICAN,
LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS IN THE UNITED STATES DROPPED GRADUALLY FROM 90.7%
TO 68%, THEIR COMBINED VOLUME OF PRODUCTION ACTUALLY INCREASED FROM 106
BILLION IN 1931 TO ABOUT 125 BILLION, 122 BILLION AND 123 BILLION,
RESPECTIVELY, IN 1937, 1938 AND 1939.  THE REMAINDER OF THE PRODUCTION
WAS DIVIDED AMONG THE OTHER SIX COMPANIES.  NO ONE OF THOSE SIX EVER
HAS PRODUCED MORE THAN ABOUT 19 BILLION CIGARETTES A YEAR, WHICH WAS
THE HIGH POINT REACHED BY BROWN & WILLIAMSON IN 1939. 

THE FURTHER DOMINANCE OF AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS WITHIN THEIR
SPECIAL FIELD OF BURLEY BLEND CIGARETTES, AS COMPARED WITH THE SO
CALLED "10 CENT CIGARETTES," IS ALSO APPARENT.  IN 1939, THE 10 CENT
CIGARETTES CONSTITUTED ABOUT 14 1/2% OF THE TOTAL DOMESTIC CIGARETTE
PRODUCTION.  ACCORDINGLY, THE 68% OF THE TOTAL CIGARETTE PRODUCTION
ENJOYED BY AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS AMOUNTED TO 80% OF THAT
PRODUCTION WITHIN THEIR SPECIAL FIELD OF CIGARETTES.  THE SECOND TABLE
SHOWS A LIKE SITUATION.  IN 1939, THE 10 CENT CIGARETTES ACCOUNTED FOR
25.6 BILLION OF THE CIGARETTES PRODUCED.  DEDUCTING THIS FROM THE 57.7
BILLION CIGARETTES PRODUCED BY OTHERS THAN AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND
REYNOLDS LEFT ONLY ABOUT 32 BILLION CIGARETTES OF A COMPARABLE GRADE
PRODUCED IN THAT YEAR BY COMPETITORS OF THE "BIG THREE" AS AGAINST THE
123 BILLION PRODUCED BY THEM.  IN ADDITION TO THE COMBINED PRODUCTION
BY AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS IN 1939 OF OVER 68% OF ALL DOMESTIC
CIGARETTES, THEY ALSO PRODUCED OVER 63% OF THE SMOKING TOBACCO AND OVER
44% OF THE CHEWING TOBACCO.  THEY NEVER WERE IMPORTANT FACTORS IN THE
CIGAR OR SNUFF FIELDS OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY. 

THE FOREGOING DEMONSTRATES THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM OF AMERICAN,
LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS TO THE TITLE OF THE "BIG THREE."  THE MARKED
DOMINANCE ENJOYED BY EACH OF THESE THREE, IN ROUGHLY EQUAL PROPORTIONS,
IS EMPHASIZED BY THE FACT THAT THE SMALLEST OF THEM AT ALL TIMES SHOWED
OVER TWICE THE PRODUCTION OF THE LARGEST OUTSIDER.  WITHOUT ADVERSE
CRITICISM OF IT, COMPARATIVE SIZE ON THIS GREAT SCALE INEVITABLY
INCREASED THE POWER OF THESE THREE TO DOMINATE ALL PHASES OF THEIR
INDUSTRY.  "SIZE CARRIES WITH IT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ABUSE THAT IS NOT
TO BE IGNORED WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY IS PROVED TO HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN
THE PAST."  UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 286 U.S. 106, 116.  AN INTENT
TO USE THIS POWER TO MAINTAIN A MONOPOLY WAS FOUND BY THE JURY IN THESE
CASES. 

THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE NET WORTH OF AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND
REYNOLDS IN TERMS OF THEIR TOTAL ASSETS, LESS CURRENT LIABILITIES, ROSE
FROM $277,000,000 IN 1912 TO OVER $551,000,000 IN 1939.  THEIR NET
ANNUAL EARNINGS, BEFORE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS, ROSE FROM
ABOUT $28,000,000 IN 1912 TO OVER $75,000,000 IN 1939.  THE RECORD IS
FULL OF EVIDENCE OF THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEIR LARGE
EXPENDITURES FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING OF CIGARETTES AND RESULTING
VOLUMES OF SALES.  IN EACH OF THE YEARS 1937, 1938 AND 1939, AMERICAN,
LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS EXPENDED A TOTAL OF OVER $40,000,000 A YEAR FOR
ADVERTISING.  SUCH ADVERTISING IS NOT HERE CRITICIZED AS A BUSINESS
EXPENSE.  SUCH ADVERTISING MAY BENEFIT INDIRECTLY THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY,
INCLUDING THE COMPETITORS OF THE ADVERTISERS.  SUCH TREMENDOUS
ADVERTISING, HOWEVER, IS ALSO A WIDELY PUBLISHED WARNING THAT THESE
COMPANIES POSSESS AND KNOW HOW TO USE A POWERFUL OFFENSIVE AND
DEFENSIVE WEAPON AGAINST NEW COMPETITION.  NEW COMPETITION DARE NOT
ENTER SUCH A FIELD, UNLESS IT BE WELL SUPPORTED BY COMPARABLE NATIONAL
ADVERTISING.  LARGE INVENTORIES OF LEAF TOBACCO, AND LARGE SUMS
REQUIRED FOR PAYMENT OF FEDERAL TAXES IN ADVANCE OF ACTUAL SALES,
FURTHER EMPHASIZE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A WELL FINANCED MONOPOLY IN THIS
FIELD AGAINST POTENTIAL COMPETITORS IF THERE MERELY EXISTS AN INTENT TO
EXCLUDE SUCH COMPETITORS.  PREVENTION OF ALL POTENTIAL COMPETITION IS
THE NATURAL PROGRAM FOR MAINTAINING A MONOPOLY HERE, RATHER THAN ANY
PROGRAM OF ACTUAL EXCLUSION.  "PREVENTION" IS CHEAPER AND MORE
EFFECTIVE THAN ANY AMOUNT OF "CURE." 

WITH THIS BACKGROUND OF A SUBSTANTIAL MONOPOLY, AMOUNTING TO OVER TWO
THIRDS OF THE ENTIRE DOMESTIC FIELD OF CIGARETTES, AND TO OVER 80% OF
THE FIELD OF COMPARABLE CIGARETTES, AND WITH THE OPPOSITION CONFINED TO
SEVERAL SMALL COMPETITORS, THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND FROM THE ACTUAL
OPERATION OF THE PETITIONERS THAT THERE EXISTED A COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY AMONG THEM NOT ONLY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, BUT TO MONOPOLIZE
A PART OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY.  THE TRIAL COURT DESCRIBED THIS
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY AS AN "ESSENTIAL ELEMENT" AND "INDISPENSABLE
INGREDIENT" OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED.  IT IS THEREFORE ONLY IN
CONJUNCTION WITH SUCH A COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY THAT THESE CASES WILL
CONSTITUTE A PRECEDENT.  THE CONSPIRACY SO ESTABLISHED BY THE VERDICTS
UNDER THE SECOND COUNT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ONE TO FIX AND CONTROL
PRICES AND OTHER MATERIAL CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF RAW
MATERIAL IN THE FORM OF LEAF TOBACCO FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
CIGARETTES.  IT ALSO APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ONE TO FIX AND CONTROL PRICES
AND OTHER MATERIAL CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF
THE PRODUCT OF SUCH TOBACCO IN THE FORM OF CIGARETTES.  THE JURY FOUND
A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE THE LEAF MARKET AND
THE CIGARETTE MARKET.  THE JURY'S VERDICTS ALSO FOUND A POWER AND
INTENT ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONERS TO EXCLUDE COMPETITION TO A
SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT IN THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY. 

                  I. 

THE VERDICTS SHOW THAT THE JURY FOUND THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSPIRED
TO FIX PRICES AND TO EXCLUDE UNDESIRED COMPETITION AGAINST THEM IN THE
PURCHASE OF THE DOMESTIC TYPE OF FLUE-CURED TOBACCO AND OF BURLEY
TOBACCO.  THESE ARE RAW MATERIALS ESSENTIAL TO THE PRODUCTION OF
CIGARETTES OF THE GRADE SOLD BY THE PETITIONERS AND ALSO, TO SOME
EXTENT, OF THE 10 CENT GRADE OF CIGARETTES WHICH CONSTITUTES THE ONLY
SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION TO AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS IN THE
CIGARETTE FIELD OF THE DOMESTIC TOBACCO INDUSTRY.  THE TOBACCOS
INVOLVED IN THESE CASES ARE THE FLUE-CURED, BURLEY AND MARYLAND
TOBACCOS.  THE FLUECURED OR BRIGHT TOBACCO IS GROWN IN A NUMBER OF
AREAS CALLED "BELTS."  THESE ARE IN VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH
CAROLINA, GEORGIA AND FLORIDA.  THE TOBACCO TAKES ITS NAME OF FLUE
CURED FROM THE "CURING" PROCESS TO WHICH IT IS SUBJECTED AND WHICH
CONSISTS OF HANGING THE TOBACCO LEAVES IN BARNS HEATED BY A SYSTEM OF
FLUES.  BETWEEN 50% AND 60% OF THE TOTAL FLUE-CURED PRODUCT IS FOR
EXPORT TO ENGLAND.  THE PETITIONERS PURCHASED A COMBINED TOTAL OF
BETWEEN 50% AND 80% OF THE DOMESTIC FLUE-CURED TOBACCO.  THE BURLEY
TOBACCO IS PRODUCED LARGELY IN THE BURLEY BELT IN KENTUCKY AND
TENNESSEE.  IT IS CURED WITHOUT HEATING, BY EXPOSING THE LEAVES TO THE
AIR IN BARNS IN WHICH THEY ARE HUNG.  THE PETITIONERS PURCHASED FROM
60% TO 80% OF THE ANNUAL CROP OF BURLEY.  THE MARYLAND TOBACCO IS GROWN
IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THAT STATE.  SOME OF IT IS SOLD IN AUCTION
MARKETS, THE REST IS PACKED IN HOGSHEADS AND SOLD IN TWO BALTIMORE
WAREHOUSES BY THE MARYLAND TOBACCO GROWERS' ASSOCIATION AND BY
COMMERCIAL MERCHANTS.  THE GREATER PART OF THE MARYLAND TOBACCO WAS
PURCHASED BY PETITIONERS.  THE CROPS IN THE MORE SOUTHERLY BELTS MATURE
FIRST AND THE BURLEY CROPS ARE NOT READY FOR MARKET UNTIL LATE FALL. 
WHEN THE TOBACCO IS READY FOR MARKET THE FARMERS STRIP, SORT AND GRADE
THE LEAVES ACCORDING TO THEIR JUDGMENT AS TO QUALITY, TIE THEM INTO
BUNDLES CALLED "HANDS" (EXCEPT IN GEORGIA WHERE THE TOBACCO REMAINS
LOOSE), AND TRUCK THEM TO TOBACCO AUCTION MARKETS.  IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE FARMERS THE CROPS ARE PERISHABLE AS THEY REQUIRE A REDRYING
PROCESS.  UNDER THE MODERN SYSTEM OF MARKETING, THE TOBACCO CANNOT BE
STORED TO AWAIT ANOTHER SEASON.  THE FARMERS HAVE NO FACILITIES FOR
REDRYING THE TOBACCO AND THEREFORE MUST SELL THEIR CROPS IN THE SEASON
IN WHICH THOSE CROPS ARE RAISED OR THEY WILL LOSE THEM.  THE
PETITIONERS KEPT LARGE ENOUGH TOBACCO STOCKS ON HAND TO LAST ABOUT
THREE YEARS.  THE VALUE OF THESE STOCKS WAS OVER $100,000,000 FOR EACH
COMPANY AND THESE STOCKS ASSURED THEIR INDEPENDENCE OF THE MARKET IN
ANY ONE YEAR.  AUCTION MARKETS FOR THE SALE OF LEAF TOBACCO HAVE BEEN
IN OPERATION FOR MANY YEARS AND WERE WELL ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE THE
DISSOLUTION OF THE TOBACCO TRUST IN 1911.  FN9  SUCH MARKETS ARE
LOCATED IN 75 TOWNS IN THE FLUE-CURED REGION AND 42 TOWNS IN THE BURLEY
AREA.  THERE ARE FOUR MARYLAND MARKETS.  SINCE THE CROP IN THE GEORGIA
BELT MATURES FIRST, THE MARKETS IN THAT BELT OPEN FIRST, USUALLY ABOUT
AUGUST 1.  THE AUCTIONEERS THEN FOLLOW THE MARKETING SEASONS TO THE
NORTH, REACHING THE "OLD BELT" IN NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA IN THE
LATTER PART OF SEPTEMBER.  THE DATES FOR OPENING THE MARKETS IN THE
FLUE-CURED BELTS ARE SET BY THE TOBACCO ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED
STATES OF WHICH BUYERS, INCLUDING PETITIONERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND OTHERS
CONNECTED WITH THE INDUSTRY, BUT NOT INCLUDING FARMERS, ARE MEMBERS. 
BURLEY SALES BEGIN IN LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY, WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL
MARKET, ON THE FIRST MONDAY IN DECEMBER.  THE OTHER BURLEY MARKETS OPEN
THE NEXT DAY.  SALES CONTINUE, EXCEPTING AT CHRISTMAS TIME, FOR THE
NEXT FEW MONTHS. 

THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS
NO WRITTEN OR EXPRESS AGREEMENT DISCOVERED AMONG AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND
REYNOLDS, THEIR PRACTICES INCLUDED A CLEAR COURSE OF DEALING.  THIS
EVIDENTLY CONVINCED THE JURY OF THE EXISTENCE OF A COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY TO FIX AND CONTROL PRICES AND PRACTICES AS TO DOMESTIC LEAF
TOBACCO, BOTH IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AS SUCH, AND TO ESTABLISH A
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPREGNABLE DEFENSE AGAINST ANY ATTEMPTED INTRUSION BY
POTENTIAL COMPETITORS INTO THESE MARKETS.    IT APPEARED THAT
PETITIONERS REFUSED TO PURCHASE TOBACCO ON THESE MARKETS UNLESS THE
OTHER PETITIONERS WERE ALSO REPRESENTED THEREON.  THERE WERE ATTEMPTS
MADE BY OTHERS TO OPEN NEW TOBACCO MARKETS BUT NONE OF THE PETITIONERS
WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THEM UNLESS THE OTHER PETITIONERS WERE PRESENT. 
CONSEQUENTLY, SUCH MARKETS WERE FAILURES DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF BUYERS. 
IT APPEARED THAT THE TOBACCO FARMERS DID NOT WANT TO SELL THEIR TOBACCO
ON A MARKET IN WHICH THE ONLY PURCHASERS WERE SPECULATORS OR DEALERS. 
THE PRICES PAID UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WERE LIKELY TO BE LOW IN ORDER
THAT THE PURCHASERS EVENTUALLY MIGHT RESELL THE TOBACCO TO THE
MANUFACTURING COMPANIES.  THE FOREIGN PURCHASERS LIKEWISE WOULD NOT
PARTICIPATE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE PETITIONERS.  IN THIS WAY THE
NEW TOBACCO MARKETS AND THEIR LOCATIONS WERE DETERMINED BY THE
UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE PETITIONERS AND, IN ARRIVING AT THEIR
DETERMINATION, THE PETITIONERS CONSULTED WITH EACH OTHER AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT A COMMUNITY DESERVED A MARKET. 

THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT, BEFORE
THE MARKETS OPENED, THE PETITIONERS PLACED LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
ON THE PRICES WHICH THEIR BUYERS WERE PERMITTED TO PAY FOR TOBACCO. 
NONE OF THE BUYERS EXCEEDED THESE PRICE CEILINGS.  GRADES OF TOBACCO
WERE FORMULATED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO RESULT IN THE ABSENCE OF
COMPETITION BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS.  THERE WAS MANIPULATION OF THE
PRICE OF LOWER GRADE TOBACCOS IN ORDER TO RESTRICT COMPETITION FROM
MANUFACTURERS OF THE LOWER PRICED CIGARETTES.  METHODS USED INCLUDED
THE PRACTICE OF THE PETITIONERS OF CALLING THEIR RESPECTIVE BUYERS IN,
PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF THE ANNUAL MARKETS, AND GIVING THEM
INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE PRICES TO BE PAID FOR LEAF TOBACCO IN EACH OF
THE MARKETS.  THESE INSTRUCTIONS WERE IN TERMS OF TOP PRICES OR PRICE
RANGES.  THE PRICE CEILINGS THUS ESTABLISHED FOR THE BUYERS WERE THE
SAME FOR EACH OF THEM.  IN CASE OF TIE BIDS THE AUCTIONEER AWARDED THE
SALE CUSTOMARILY TO THE BUYER WHO BID FIRST.  UNDER THIS CUSTOM THE
BUYERS REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS OFTEN MADE BIDS ON VARIOUS BASKETS
OF TOBACCO BEFORE AN OPENING PRICE COULD BE ANNOUNCED SO THAT THEY
MIGHT HAVE THEIR CLAIM TO THE TOBACCO RECOGNIZED AT THE UNDERSTOOD
CEILING PRICE IN THE CASE OF TIE BIDS.  OFTEN A BUYER WOULD BID AHEAD
BY INDICATING THAT HE WANTED A CERTAIN BASKET FURTHER ALONG IN THE LINE
OF BASKETS AND, IN SUCH CASES, THE TOBACCO IN QUESTION WAS AWARDED TO
SUCH BUYER WITHOUT THE MENTION OF ANY PRICE, IT BEING UNDERSTOOD THAT
IT WAS SOLD AT THE TOP PRICE THERETOFORE PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED UPON. 

WHERE ONE OR TWO OF THE PETITIONERS SECURED THEIR PERCENTAGE OF THE
CROP ON A CERTAIN MARKET OR WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF
CERTAIN OFFERINGS OF TOBACCO, THEIR BUYERS, NEVERTHELESS, WOULD ENTER
THE BIDDING IN ORDER TO FORCE THE OTHER PETITIONERS TO BID UP TO THE
MAXIMUM PRICE.  THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT SO MUCH CONCERNED WITH THE
PRICES THEY PAID FOR THE LEAF TOBACCO AS THAT EACH SHOULD PAY THE SAME
PRICE FOR THE SAME GRADE AND THAT NONE WOULD SECURE ANY ADVANTAGE IN
PURCHASING TOBACCO.  THEY WERE ALL TO BE ON THE SAME BASIS AS FAR AS
THE EXPENSES OF THEIR PURCHASES WENT.  THE PRICES WHICH WERE SET AS TOP
PRICES BY PETITIONERS, OR BY THE FIRST OF THEM TO PURCHASE ON THE
MARKET, BECAME, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, THE TOP PRICES PREVAILING ON THOSE
MARKETS.  COMPETITION ALSO WAS ELIMINATED BETWEEN PETITIONERS BY THE
PURCHASE OF GRADES OF TOBACCO IN WHICH BUT ONE OF THEM WAS INTERESTED. 
TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, EACH COMPANY FORMULATED THE GRADES WHICH IT ALONE
WISHED TO PURCHASE.  THE OTHER COMPANIES RECOGNIZED THE GRADES SO
FORMULATED AS DISTINCTIVE GRADES AND DID NOT COMPETE FOR THEM.  WHILE
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GRADES SO FORMULATED WERE DISTINGUISHABLE
BY THE HIGHLY TRAINED SPECIAL BUYERS, THEY WERE IN REALITY SO MINUTE AS
TO BE INCONSEQUENTIAL.  THIS ELEMENT, HOWEVER, DID NOT MEAN THAT A
COMPANY COULD BID ANY PRICE IT WISHED FOR ITS ESPECIALLY FORMULATED
GRADES OF TOBACCO.  THE OTHER COMPANIES PREVENTED THAT BY BIDDING UP
THE TOBACCO, AT LEAST TO A POINT WHERE THEY DID NOT RISK BEING AWARDED
THE SALE TO THEMSELVES.  EACH COMPANY DETERMINED IN ADVANCE WHAT
PORTION OF THE ENTIRE CROP IT WOULD PURCHASE BEFORE THE MARKET FOR THAT
SEASON OPENED.  THE PETITIONERS THEN SEPARATELY INFORMED THEIR BUYERS
OF THE PERCENTAGE OF THE CROP WHICH THEY WISHED TO PURCHASE AND GAVE
INSTRUCTIONS THAT ONLY SUCH A PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE PURCHASED ON EACH
MARKET.  THE PURCHASES WERE SPREAD EVENLY OVER THE DIFFERENT MARKETS
THROUGHOUT THE SEASON.  NO MATTER WHAT THE SIZE OF THE CROP MIGHT BE,
THE PETITIONERS WERE ABLE TO PURCHASE THEIR PREDETERMINED PERCENTAGES
THEREOF WITHIN THE PRICE LIMITS DETERMINED UPON BY THEM, THUS
INDICATING A STABILIZED MARKET.  THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS EMPLOYED
SUPERVISORS WHOSE FUNCTIONS WERE TO SEE THAT THE PRICES WERE THE SAME
ON ONE MARKET AS ON ANOTHER.  WHERE, BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCE IN
APPRAISALS OF GRADES OR OTHER SIMILAR FACTORS, THE BIDDING WAS OUT OF
LINE WITH THE PREDETERMINED PRICE LIMITS OR THERE WAS A TENDENCY FOR
PRICES TO VARY FROM THOSE ON OTHER MARKETS, THE SUPERVISORS SOUGHT TO
MAINTAIN THE SAME PRICES AND GRADES ON DIFFERENT MARKETS.  THIS WAS
SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY INSTRUCTIONS TO BUYERS TO CHANGE THE PRICES
BID OR THE PERCENTAGES PURCHASED, AND SUCH ACTIONS PROVED TO BE
SUCCESSFUL IN MAINTAINING AND EQUALIZING THE PRICES ON THE DIFFERENT
MARKETS. 

AT A TIME WHEN THE MANUFACTURERS OF LOWER PRICED CIGARETTES WERE
BEGINNING TO MANUFACTURE THEM IN QUANTITY, THE PETITIONERS COMMENCED TO
MAKE LARGE PURCHASES OF THE CHEAPER TOBACCO LEAVES USED FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF SUCH LOWER PRICED CIGARETTES.  NO EXPLANATION WAS
OFFERED AS TO HOW OR WHERE THIS TOBACCO WAS USED BY PETITIONERS.  THE
COMPOSITIONS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE BRANDS OF CIGARETTES CALLING FOR THE
USE OF MORE EXPENSIVE TOBACCOS REMAINED UNCHANGED DURING THIS PERIOD OF
CONTROVERSY AND UP TO THE END OF THE TRIAL.  THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMED
THAT SUCH PURCHASES OF CHEAPER TOBACCO EVIDENCED A COMBINATION AND A
PURPOSE AMONG THE PETITIONERS TO DEPRIVE THE MANUFACTURERS OF CHEAPER
CIGARETTES OF THE TOBACCO NECESSARY FOR THEIR MANUFACTURE, AS WELL AS
TO RAISE THE PRICE OF SUCH TOBACCO TO SUCH A POINT THAT CIGARETTES MADE
THEREFROM COULD NOT BE SOLD AT A SUFFICIENTLY LOW PRICE TO COMPETE WITH
THE PETITIONERS' MORE HIGHLY ADVERTISED BRANDS. 

II. 

THE VERDICTS SHOW ALSO THAT THE JURY FOUND THAT THE PETITIONERS
CONSPIRED TO FIX PRICES AND TO EXCLUDE UNDESIRED COMPETITION IN THE
DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF THEIR PRINCIPAL PRODUCTS.  THE PETITIONERS
SOLD AND DISTRIBUTED THEIR PRODUCTS TO JOBBERS AND TO SELECTED DEALERS
WHO BOUGHT AT LIST PRICES, LESS DISCOUNTS.  ALMOST ALL OF THE MILLION
OR MORE DEALERS WHO HANDLED THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS' PRODUCTS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY CONSISTED OF SUCH ESTABLISHMENTS AS SMALL
STOREKEEPERS, GASOLINE STATION OPERATORS AND LUNCH ROOM PROPRIETORS WHO
PURCHASED THE CIGARETTES FROM JOBBERS.  THE JOBBERS IN TURN DERIVED
THEIR PROFITS FROM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WHOLESALE PRICE PAID BY
THEM AND THE PRICE CHARGED BY THEM TO LOCAL DEALERS.  A GREAT ADVANTAGE
THEREFORE ACCRUED TO ANY DEALER BUYING AT THE DISCOUNTED OR WHOLESALE
LIST PRICES.  SELLING TO DEALERS AT JOBBERS' PRICES WAS CALLED "DIRECT
SELLING" AND THE DEALERS AS WELL AS THE JOBBERS GETTING THOSE PRICES
WERE REFERRED TO AS BEING ON THE "DIRECT LIST."  THE LIST PRICES
CHARGED AND THE DISCOUNTS ALLOWED BY PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN PRACTICALLY
IDENTICAL SINCE 1923 AND ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL SINCE 1928.  SINCE THE
LATTER DATE, ONLY SEVEN CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE THREE COMPANIES
AND THOSE HAVE BEEN IDENTICAL IN AMOUNT.  THE INCREASES WERE FIRST
ANNOUNCED BY REYNOLDS.  AMERICAN AND LIGGETT THEREUPON INCREASED THEIR
LIST PRICES IN IDENTICAL AMOUNTS. 

THE FOLLOWING RECORD OF PRICE CHANGES IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF
THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY AND OF A POWER AND INTENT TO EXCLUDE
COMPETITION COMING FROM CHEAPER GRADE CIGARETTES.  DURING THE TWO YEARS
PRECEDING JUNE, 1931, THE PETITIONERS PRODUCED 90% OF THE TOTAL
CIGARETTE PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES.  IN THAT MONTH TOBACCO
FARMERS WERE RECEIVING THE LOWEST PRICES FOR THEIR CROPS SINCE 1905. 
THE COSTS TO THE PETITIONERS FOR TOBACCO LEAF, THEREFORE, WERE LOWER
THAN USUAL DURING THE PAST 25 YEARS, AND THEIR MANUFACTURING COSTS HAD
BEEN DECLINING.  IT WAS ONE OF THE WORST YEARS OF FINANCIAL AND
ECONOMIC DEPRESSION IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY.  ON JUNE 23, 1931,
REYNOLDS, WITHOUT PREVIOUS NOTIFICATION OR WARNING TO THE TRADE OR
PUBLIC, RAISED THE LIST PRICE OF CAMEL CIGARETTES, CONSTITUTING ITS
LEADING CIGARETTE BRAND, FROM $6.40 TO $6.85 A THOUSAND.  THE SAME DAY,
AMERICAN INCREASED THE LIST PRICE FOR LUCKY STRIKE CIGARETTES, ITS
LEADING BRAND, AND LIGGETT THE PRICE FOR CHESTERFIELD CIGARETTES, ITS
LEADING BRAND, TO THE IDENTICAL PRICE OF $6.85 A THOUSAND.  NO ECONOMIC
JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS RAISE WAS DEMONSTRATED.  THE PRESIDENT OF
REYNOLDS STATED THAT IT WAS "TO EXPRESS OUR OWN COURAGE FOR THE FUTURE
AND OUR OWN CONFIDENCE IN OUR INDUSTRY."  THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN
GAVE AS HIS REASON FOR THE INCREASE, "THE OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING SOME
MONEY."  SEE 147 F.2D 93, 103.  HE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT BECAUSE
REYNOLDS HAD RAISED ITS LIST PRICE, REYNOLDS WOULD THEREFORE HAVE
ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR ADVERTISING AND AMERICAN HAD RAISED ITS PRICE IN
ORDER TO HAVE A SIMILAR AMOUNT FOR ADVERTISING.  THE OFFICIALS OF
LIGGETT CLAIMED THAT THEY THOUGHT THE INCREASE WAS A MISTAKE AS THERE
DID NOT SEEM TO BE ANY REASON FOR MAKING A PRICE ADVANCE BUT THEY
CONTENDED THAT UNLESS THEY ALSO RAISED THEIR LIST PRICE FOR
CHESTERFIELDS, THE OTHER COMPANIES WOULD HAVE GREATER RESOURCES TO
SPEND IN ADVERTISING AND THUS WOULD PUT CHESTERFILED CIGARETTES AT A
COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.  THIS GENERAL PRICE INCREASE SOON RESULTED IN
HIGHER RETAIL PRICES AND IN A LOSS IN VOLUME OF SALES.  YET IN 1932, IN
THE MIDST OF THE NATIONAL DEPRESSION WITH THE SALES OF THE PETITIONERS'
CIGARETTES FALLING OFF GREATLY IN NUMBER, THE PETITIONERS STILL WERE
MAKING TREMENDOUS PROFITS AS A RESULT OF THE PRICE INCREASE.  THEIR NET
PROFITS IN THAT YEAR AMOUNTED TO MORE THAN $100,000,000.  THIS WAS ONE
OF THE THREE BIGGEST YEARS IN THEIR HISTORY. 

BEFORE 1931, CERTAIN SMALLER COMPANIES HAD MANUFACTURED CIGARETTES
RETAILING AT 10 CENTS A PACKAGE, WHICH WAS SEVERAL CENTS LOWER THAN THE
RETAIL PRICE FOR THE LEADING BRANDS OF THE PETITIONERS.  UP TO THAT
TIME, THE SALES OF THE 10 CENT CIGARETTES WERE NEGLIGIBLE.  HOWEVER,
AFTER THE ABOVE DESCRIBED INCREASE IN LIST PRICES OF THE PETITIONERS IN
1931, THE 10 CENT BRANDS MADE SERIOUS INROADS UPON THE SALES OF THE
PETITIONERS.  THESE CHEAPER BRANDS OF CIGARETTES WERE SOLD AT A LIST
PRICE OF $4.75 A THOUSAND AND FROM 1931 TO 1932 THE SALES OF THESE
CIGARETTES MULTIPLIED 30 TIMES, RISING FROM 0.28% OF THE TOTAL
CIGARETTE SALES OF THE COUNTRY IN JUNE, 1931, TO 22.78% IN NOVEMBER,
1932.  IN RESPONSE TO THIS THREAT OF COMPETITION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS
OF THE 10 CENT BRANDS, THE PETITIONERS, IN JANUARY, 1933, CUT THE LIST
PRICE OF THEIR THREE LEADING BRANDS FROM $6.85 TO $6 A THOUSAND.  IN
FEBRUARY, THEY CUT AGAIN TO $5.50 A THOUSAND.  THE EVIDENCE TENDS TO
SHOW THAT THIS CUT WAS DIRECTED AT THE COMPETITION OF THE 10 CENT
CIGARETTES.  REPORTS THAT PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN SENT IN BY VARIOUS
OFFICIALS AND REPRESENTATIVES TO THEIR COMPANIES TOLD OF THE
PETITIONERS' BRANDS LOSING IN COMPETITION WITH THE 10 CENT BRANDS.  THE
PETITIONERS WERE INTERESTED IN A SUFFICIENTLY LOW RETAIL PRICE FOR
THEIR PRODUCTS SO THAT THEY WOULD DEFEAT THE THREAT FROM THE LOWER
PRICED CIGARETTES AND FOUND THAT, IN ORDER TO SUCCEED IN THEIR
OBJECTIVE, IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THERE BE NOT MORE THAN A 3 CENT
DIFFERENTIAL ON EACH PACKAGE AT RETAIL BETWEEN THE CHEAPER CIGARETTES
AND THEIR OWN BRANDS.  THE PETITIONERS' CUTS IN THEIR LIST PRICES AND
THE SUBSEQUENT REDUCTIONS IN THE RETAIL PRICES OF THEIR PRODUCTS
RESULTED IN A VICTORY OVER THE 10 CENT BRANDS.  THE LETTERS OF
PETITIONERS' REPRESENTATIVES TO THEIR COMPANIES REPORTED UPON THE
PROGRESS OF THIS BATTLE, GIVING AN ACCOUNT OF THE DECLINE IN SALES OF
THE 10 CENT BRANDS BECAUSE OF THE PRICE REDUCTIONS IN THE "15-CENT
BRANDS," AND PROPHESYING THAT CERTAIN OF THE 10 CENT BRANDS WOULD "PASS
OUT OF THE PICTURE."  FOLLOWING THE FIRST PRICE CUT BY PETITIONERS, THE
SALES OF THE 10 CENT BRANDS FELL OFF CONSIDERABLY.  AFTER THE SECOND
CUT THEY FELL OFF TO A MUCH GREATER EXTENT.  WHEN THE SALE OF THE 10
CENT BRANDS HAD DROPPED FROM 22.78% OF THE TOTAL CIGARETTE SALES IN
NOVEMBER, 1932, TO 6.43% IN MAY, 1933, THE PETITIONERS, IN JANUARY,
1934, RAISED THE LIST PRICE OF THEIR LEADING BRANDS FROM $5.50 BACK UP
TO $6.10 A THOUSAND.  DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE LIST PRICE OF $5.50 A
THOUSAND WAS IN EFFECT, CAMELS AND LUCKY STRIKES WERE BEING SOLD AT A
LOSS BY REYNOLDS AND AMERICAN.  LIGGETT AT THE SAME TIME WAS FORCED TO
CURTAIL ALL OF ITS NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND CUT ITS ADVERTISING
TO THE BONE IN ORDER TO SELL AT THIS PRICE.  THE PETITIONERS, IN 1937,
AGAIN INCREASED THE LIST PRICES OF THEIR ABOVE NAMED BRANDS TO $6.25 A
THOUSAND AND IN JULY, 1940, TO $6.53 A THOUSAND. 

CERTAIN METHODS USED BY THE PETITIONERS TO SECURE A REDUCTION IN THE
RETAIL PRICES OF THEIR CIGARETTES WERE IN EVIDENCE.  REYNOLDS AND
LIGGETT REQUIRED THEIR RETAILERS TO PRICE THE 10 CENT BRANDS AT A
DIFFERENTIAL OF NOT MORE THAN 3 CENTS BELOW CAMEL AND CHESTERFIELD
CIGARETTES.  THEY INSISTED UPON THEIR DEALERS CORRECTING A GREATER
DIFFERENTIAL BY INCREASING THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE 10 CENT BRANDS TO 11
CENTS WITH PETITIONERS' BRANDS AT 14 CENTS A PACKAGE, OR BY REQUIRING
THAT PETITIONERS' BRANDS BE PRICED AT 13 CENTS WITH THE LOWER PRICED
CIGARETTES AT 10 CENTS A PACKAGE.  SALESMEN FOR LIGGETT WERE INSTRUCTED
TO NARROW THE DIFFERENTIAL TO 3 CENTS, IT BEING DEEMED OF NO
CONSEQUENCE WHETHER THE DEALER RAISED THE PRICE OF THE 10 CENT BRANDS
OR REDUCED THE PRICE OF CHESTERFIELDS.  REYNOLDS REFERRED TO A
DIFFERENTIAL OF MORE THAN 3 CENTS AS "DISCRIMINATORY" ON THE GROUND
THAT THE DEALER THEN WOULD MAKE A HIGHER GROSS PROFIT ON THE HIGHER
PRICED CIGARETTES THAN ON THE 10 CENT BRANDS.  AFTER THE LIST PRICE
REDUCTIONS WERE MADE AND AT THE HEIGHT OF THE PRICE WAR, THE
PETITIONERS COMMENCED THE DISTRIBUTION OF POSTERS ADVERTISING THEIR
BRANDS AT 10 CENTS A PACKAGE AND MADE ATTEMPTS TO HAVE DEALERS MEET
THESE PRICES.  AMONG THE EFFORTS USED TO ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES,
PETITIONERS GAVE DEALERS DIRECT LIST PRIVILEGES OF PURCHASE, TOGETHER
WITH DISCOUNTS, POSTER ADVERTISING DISPLAYS, CASH SUBSIDIES AND FREE
GOODS.  IN ADDITION TO THE USE OF THESE INDUCEMENTS, PETITIONERS ALSO
USED THREATS AND PENALTIES TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR RETAIL
PRICE PROGRAM, REMOVED DEALERS FROM THE DIRECT LISTS, CANCELLED
ARRANGEMENTS FOR WINDOW ADVERTISING, CHANGED CREDIT TERMS WITH A
RESULTING HANDICAP TO RECALCITRANT DEALERS, DISCONTINUED CASH
ALLOWANCES FOR ADVERTISING, REFUSED TO MAKE DEALS GIVING FREE GOODS,
AND MADE USE OF PRICE CUTTERS TO WHOM THEY GRANTED ADVANTAGEOUS
PRIVILEGES TO DRIVE DOWN RETAIL PRICES WHERE A PARITY, OR PRICE
EQUALIZATION, WAS NOT MAINTAINED BY DEALERS BETWEEN BRANDS OF
PETITIONERS OR WHERE THE DEALERS REFUSED TO MAINTAIN THE 3 CENT
DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE 10 CENT BRANDS AND THE LEADING BRANDS OF
PETITIONERS' CIGARETTES.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT WHEN DEALERS RECEIVED
AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PRICE INCREASE FROM ONE OF THE PETITIONERS AND
ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE SOME OF THE LEADING BRANDS OF CIGARETTES FROM THE
OTHER PETITIONERS AT THEIR UNCHANGED PRICES BEFORE ANNOUNCEMENT OF A
SIMILAR CHANGE, THE LATTER REFUSED TO FILL SUCH ORDERS UNTIL THEIR
PRICES WERE ALSO RAISED, THUS BRINGING ABOUT THE SAME RESULT AS IF THE
CHANGES HAD BEEN PRECISELY SIMULTANEOUS. 

                                 III. 

IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF SUCH EVIDENCE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOUND THAT THE VERDICTS OF THE JURY WERE SUSTAINED BY
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON EACH COUNT.  THE QUESTION SQUARELY PRESENTED
HERE BY THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN ALLOWING THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI IS
WHETHER ACTUAL EXCLUSION OF COMPETITORS IS NECESSARY TO THE CRIME OF
MONOPOLIZATION IN THESE CASES UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  WE
AGREE WITH THE LOWER COURTS THAT SUCH ACTUAL EXCLUSION OF COMPETITORS
IS NOT NECESSARY TO THAT CRIME IN THESE CASES AND THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS
GIVEN TO THE JURY, AND HEREINBEFORE QUOTED, CORRECTLY DEFINED THE
CRIME.  A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE AND OF THE AUTHORITIES
MAKES IT THE CRIME OF MONOPOLIZING, UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
FOR PARTIES, AS IN THESE CASES, TO COMBINE OR CONSPIRE TO ACQUIRE OR
MAINTAIN THE POWER TO EXCLUDE COMPETITORS FROM ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR
COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, PROVIDED
THEY ALSO HAVE SUCH A POWER THAT THEY ARE ABLE, AS A GROUP, TO EXCLUDE
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL COMPETITION FROM THE FIELD AND PROVIDED THAT THEY
HAVE THE INTENT AND PURPOSE TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.  SEE UNITED STATES
V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 226, N. 59 AND AUTHORITIES
CITED. 

IT IS NOT THE FORM OF THE COMBINATION OR THE PARTICULAR MEANS USED
BUT THE RESULT TO BE ACHIEVED THAT THE STATUTE CONDEMNS.  IT IS NOT OF
IMPORTANCE WHETHER THE MEANS USED TO ACCOMPLISH THE UNLAWFUL OBJECTIVE
ARE IN THEMSELVES LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL.  ACTS DONE TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
CONSPIRACY MAY BE IN THEMSELVES WHOLLY INNOCENT ACTS.  YET, IF THEY ARE
PART OF THE SUM OF THE ACTS WHICH ARE RELIED UPON TO EFFECTUATE THE
CONSPIRACY WHICH THE STATUTE FORBIDS, THEY COME WITHIN ITS
PROHIBITION.  NO FORMAL AGREEMENT IS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE AN
UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY.  OFTEN CRIMES ARE A MATTER OF INFERENCE DEDUCED
FROM THE ACTS OF THE PERSON ACCUSED AND DONE IN PURSUANCE OF A CRIMINAL
PURPOSE.  WHERE THE CONSPIRACY IS PROVED, AS HERE, FROM THE EVIDENCE OF
THE ACTION TAKEN IN CONCERT BY THE PARTIES TO IT, IT IS ALL THE MORE
CONVINCING PROOF OF AN INTENT TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF EXCLUSION
ACQUIRED THROUGH THAT CONSPIRACY.  THE ESSENTIAL COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT MAY BE FOUND IN A COURSE OF
DEALING OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS IN AN EXCHANGE OF WORDS. 
UNITED STATES V. SCHRADER'S SON, 252 U.S. 85.  WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ARE SUCH AS TO WARRANT A JURY IN FINDING THAT THE CONSPIRATORS HAD A
UNITY OF PURPOSE OR A COMMON DESIGN AND UNDERSTANDING, OR A MEETING OF
MINDS IN AN UNLAWFUL ARRANGEMENT, THE CONCLUSION THAT A CONSPIRACY IS
ESTABLISHED IS JUSTIFIED.  NEITHER PROOF OF EXERTION OF THE POWER TO
EXCLUDE NOR PROOF OF ACTUAL EXCLUSION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL
COMPETITORS IS ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAIN A CHARGE OF MONOPOLIZATION UNDER
THE SHERMAN ACT. 

IN APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 496, THIS COURT SAID IN
A FOOTNOTE, "ON FINDING ...  A POWER TO CONTROL THE OUTPUT, SUPPLY OF
THE MARKET AND THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF POTENTIAL COMPETITORS,
IN THE ANTHRACITE COAL MARKET, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS HELD VOID IN UNITED
STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26, 47-48."  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT
REGARDLESS OF THE USE MADE OF IT, A POWER RESULTING FROM THE
DELIBERATELY CALCULATED PURCHASE OF A CONTROL, WHICH ENABLES A HOLDING
COMPANY TO DOMINATE TWO GREAT COMPETING INTERSTATE RAILROAD CARRIERS
AND TWO GREAT COMPETING COAL COMPANIES ENGAGED EXTENSIVELY IN MINING
AND SELLING ANTHRACITE COAL WHICH MUST BE DISTRIBUTED OVER THESE
RAILROADS, IS A MENACE AND AN UNDUE RESTRAINT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT AND IS IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION
OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST MONOPOLY IN THE SECOND SECTION OF THAT ACT. 
UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26.  IN NORTHERN SECURITIES CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197, IN REFERRING TO THE HOLDING COMPANY
DEVICE THERE IN ISSUE, THIS COURT SAID THAT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF SUCH
A COMBINATION AND THE POWER ACQUIRED BY THE HOLDING COMPANY AS ITS
TRUSTEE CONSTITUTED A MENACE TO AND A DIRECT RESTRAINT UPON THAT
FREEDOM OF COMMERCE WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT
AND WHICH THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO HAVE PROTECTED.  A COMBINATION MAY
BE ONE IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE OR COMMERCE OR TO MONOPOLIZE A
PART OF SUCH TRADE OR COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
ALTHOUGH SUCH RESTRAINT OR MONOPOLY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY
ATTEMPTED TO ANY HARMFUL EXTENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO., 214 F. 987, ID., 274 U.S. 693.  THE AUTHORITIES SUPPORT
THE VIEW THAT THE MATERIAL CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER A
MONOPOLY EXISTS IS NOT THAT PRICES ARE RAISED AND THAT COMPETITION
ACTUALLY IS EXCLUDED BUT THAT POWER EXISTS TO RAISE PRICES OR TO
EXCLUDE COMPETITION WHEN IT IS DESIRED TO DO SO.  UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 164 F. 700, 721, REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, 221 U.S. 106, 188.  "IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE  ... THAT
TRADE AND COMMERCE ARE 'MONOPOLIZED' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL
STATUTE, WHEN, AS A RESULT OF EFFORTS TO THAT END, SUCH POWER IS
OBTAINED THAT A FEW PERSONS ACTING TOGETHER CAN CONTROL THE PRICES OF A
COMMODITY MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE
POWER THUS OBTAINED SHOULD BE EXERCISED.  ITS EXISTENCE IS
SUFFICIENT."  UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 187 F. 664, 672, REVERSED ON
OTHER GROUNDS, 226 U.S. 525.  CF. NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327
U.S. 686. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION BEFORE US HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED PREVIOUSLY BY
THIS COURT.  HOWEVER, ON MARCH 12, 1945, TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE GRANT OF
THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI IN THE PRESENT CASES, A DECISION RENDERED IN A
SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT UNDER SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST
ACT AGAINST THE ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA CLOSELY APPROACHED THE
ISSUE WE HAVE HERE.  THAT CASE WAS DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT UNDER UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ADD TO
ITS WEIGHT AS A PRECEDENT.  UNITED STATES V. ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA,
148 F.2D 416.  THAT COURT SAT IN THAT CASE UNDER A NEW STATUTE
AUTHORIZING IT TO RENDER A DECISION "IN LIEU OF A DECISION BY THE
SUPREME COURT" AND PROVIDING THAT SUCH DECISION "SHALL BE FINAL AND
THERE SHALL BE NO REVIEW OF SUCH DECISION BY APPEAL OR CERTIORARI OR
OTHERWISE."  FN10 

WE FIND THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN
THAT CASE TO BE ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE HERE AND WE WELCOME THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO ENDORSE THEM: 

"MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT POSSESSION OF UNCHALLENGED ECONOMIC POWER
DEADENS INITIATIVE, DISCOURAGES THRIFT AND DEPRESSES ENERGY; THAT
IMMUNITY FROM COMPETITION IS A NARCOTIC, AND RIVALRY IS A STIMULANT, TO
INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS; THAT THE SPUR OF CONSTANT STRESS IS NECESSARY TO
COUNTERACT AN INEVITABLE DISPOSITION TO LET WELL ENOUGH ALONE....
THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH WE HAVE SUGGESTED ONLY AS POSSIBLE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT, WE THINK THE DECISIONS PROVE TO HAVE BEEN IN FACT ITS
PURPOSES.  (148 F.2D AT 427.) 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"STARTING, HOWEVER, WITH THE AUTHORITATIVE PREMISE THAT ALL CONTRACTS
FIXING PRICES ARE UNCONDITIONALLY PROHIBITED, THE ONLY POSSIBLE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND A MONOPOLY IS THAT WHILE A MONOPOLY
NECESSARILY INVOLVES AN EQUAL, OR EVEN GREATER, POWER TO FIX PRICES,
ITS MERE EXISTENCE MIGHT BE THOUGHT NOT TO CONSTITUTE AN EXERCISE OF
THAT POWER.  THAT DISTINCTION IS NEVERTHELESS PURELY FORMAL; IT WOULD
BE VALID ONLY SO LONG AS THE MONOPOLY REMAINED WHOLLY INERT; IT WOULD
DISAPPEAR AS SOON AS THE MONOPOLY BEGAN TO OPERATE; FOR, WHEN IT DID -
THAT IS, AS SOON AS IT BEGAN TO SELL AT ALL - IT MUST SELL AT SOME
PRICE AND THE ONLY PRICE AT WHICH IT COULD SELL IS A PRICE WHICH IT
ITSELF FIXED.  THEREAFTER THE POWER AND ITS EXERCISE MUST NEEDS
COALESCE.  INDEED IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO CONDEMN SUCH CONTRACTS
UNCONDITIONALLY, AND NOT TO EXTEND THE CONDEMNATION TO MONOPOLIES; FOR
THE CONTRACTS ARE ONLY STEPS TOWARD THAT ENTIRE CONTROL WHICH MONOPOLY
CONFERS: THEY ARE REALLY PARTIAL MONOPOLIES.  (ID. 427-428.) 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IT DOES NOT FOLLOW BECAUSE 'ALCOA' HAD SUCH A MONOPOLY, THAT IT
'MONOPOLIZED' THE INGOT MARKET: IT MAY NOT HAVE ACHIEVED MONOPOLY;
MONOPOLY MAY HAVE BEEN THRUST UPON IT.  IF IT HAD BEEN A COMBINATION OF
EXISTING SMELTERS WHICH UNITED THE WHOLE INDUSTRY AND CONTROLLED THE
PRODUCTION OF ALL ALUMINUM INGOT, IT WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE 'MONOPOLIZED'
THE MARKET.  IN SEVERAL DECISIONS THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECREED THE
DISSOLUTION OF SUCH COMBINATIONS, ALTHOUGH THEY HAD ENGAGED IN NO
UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES....  WE MAY START THEREFORE WITH THE PREMISE
THAT TO HAVE COMBINED NINETY PER CENT OF THE PRODUCERS OF INGOT WOULD
HAVE BEEN TO 'MONOPOLIZE' THE INGOT MARKET; AND, SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, IT CAN MAKE NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER AN EXISTING
COMPETITION IS PUT AN END TO, OR WHETHER PROSPECTIVE COMPETITION IS
PREVENTED.  THE CLAYTON ACT ITSELF SPEAKS IN THAT ALTERNATIVE:  'TO
INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT COMPETITION.'  SEC. 13(A), 15 U.S.C.A. (ID.
429.) 

     .         .         .   .         . 

"IT INSISTS THAT IT NEVER EXCLUDED COMPETITORS; BUT WE CAN THINK OF
NO MORE EFFECTIVE EXCLUSION THAN PROGRESSIVELY TO EMBRACE EACH NEW
OPPORTUNITY AS IT OPENED, AND TO FACE EVERY NEWCOMER WITH NEW CAPACITY
ALREADY GEARED INTO A GREAT ORGANIZATION, HAVING THE ADVANTAGE OF
EXPERIENCE, TRADE CONNECTIONS AND THE ELITE OF PERSONNEL.  ONLY IN CASE
WE INTERPRET 'EXCLUSION' AS LIMITED TO MANOEUVRES NOT HONESTLY
INDUSTRIAL, BUT ACTUATED SOLELY BY A DESIRE TO PREVENT COMPETITION, CAN
SUCH A COURSE, INDEFATIGABLY PURSUED, BE DEEMED NOT 'EXCLUSIONARY.'  SO
TO LIMIT IT WOULD IN OUR JUDGMENT EMASCULATE THE ACT; WOULD PERMIT JUST
SUCH CONSOLIDATIONS AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.  (ID. 431.) 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IN ORDER TO FALL WITHIN SEC. 2, THE MONOPOLIST MUST HAVE BOTH THE
POWER TO MONOPOLIZE, AND THE INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE.  TO READ THE PASSAGE
AS DEMANDING ANY 'SPECIFIC' INTENT, MAKES NONSENSE OF IT, FOR NO
MONOPOLIST MONOPOLIZES UNCONSCIOUS OF WHAT HE IS DOING."  (ID. 432.) 

IN THE PRESENT CASES, THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE
CONSPIRED TO ESTABLISH A MONOPOLY AND ALSO TO HAVE THE POWER AND INTENT
TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN THE MONOPOLY.  TO HOLD THAT THEY DO NOT COME
WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE SHERMAN ACT WOULD DESTROY THE FORCE OF
THAT ACT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT UNDER SEC.
2 OF THE ACT ARE APPROVED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.  FN11 

FN1  HERE REFERRED TO AS AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS. 

FN2  "SEC.  2.  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE, OR ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO
MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND,
ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH
SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT."  26 STAT. 209, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 2. 

FN3  THE SECOND COUNT INCLUDED PARTICULARLY THE FOLLOWING: 

"BEFORE AND DURING THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS NEXT PRECEDING THE
FILING OF THIS INFORMATION, ...  DEFENDANTS,  ...  WELL KNOWING THE
FOREGOING FACTS, HAVE, ...  UNLAWFULLY MONOPOLIZED THE AFORESAID
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE IN TOBACCO, IN VIOLATION OF

     .  .         .         .         . 

"IN ADOPTING AND EXERCISING SUCH METHODS, MEANS AND PRACTICES, EACH
DEFENDANT HAS ACTED WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT UNANIMITY OF ACTION WITH
REFERENCE THERETO WAS AND WOULD BE THE POLICY, INTENT AND PRACTICE OF
THE OTHERS, THAT SUCH UNANIMITY OF ACTION WOULD NECESSARILY RESULT IN
DRAWING TO DEFENDANT MAJOR TOBACCO COMPANIES AS A GROUP THE POWER TO
DOMINATE, CONTROL, AND EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM THE AFORESAID INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE, HAS INTENDED SUCH RESULT, AND SUCH RESULT
HAS IN FACT BEEN ACHIEVED.    "SAID UNLAWFUL MONOPOLIZATION HAS HAD THE
EFFECTS, AMONG OTHERS, OF PERMITTING A FEW COMPANIES TO ATTAIN CONTROL
OF A BOTTLENECK IN A GREAT INDUSTRY, THROUGH WHICH A MAJOR FARM
COMMODITY, ON WHICH SEVERAL MILLION ARE DEPENDENT, MUST PASS, ON ITS
WAY THROUGH THE HANDS OF JOBBERS AND RETAILERS, TO THE MANY MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE WHO USE TOBACCO PRODUCTS; OF ENABLING THESE FEW COMPANIES TO
ABUSE THEIR RESULTING STRATEGIC AND DOMINANT POSITION, BY MAKING THE
INCOME OF GROWERS OF LEAF TOBACCO LOWER THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE
BEEN; BY MAKING THE INCOME OF DISTRIBUTORS AND OTHER MANUFACTURERS OF
TOBACCO PRODUCTS LOWER THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN; AND BY
KEEPING FROM ALL OTHER GROUPS IN THE INDUSTRY, AND FROM CONSUMERS, THE
BENEFITS WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD FLOW FROM FREE, VIGOROUS AND NORMAL
COMPETITION." 

FN4  THE VERDICT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS SUSTAINED ONLY WHEN THERE IS
"RELEVANT EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD PROPERLY FIND OR INFER,
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT," THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY.  MORTENSEN V.
UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 369, 374. 

FN5  "...  NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE
TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; ..." 

FN6  "NO PERSON SHALL BE PROSECUTED, TRIED, OR PUNISHED FOR ANY
OFFENSE, NOT CAPITAL,  ... UNLESS THE INDICTMENT IS FOUND, OR THE
INFORMATION IS INSTITUTED, WITHIN THREE YEARS NEXT AFTER SUCH OFFENSE
SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED."  REV. STAT. SEC. 1044, AS AMENDED BY 45
STAT. 51, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 582. 

FN7  THE HISTORY OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY IN AMERICA AND OF THE
LITIGATION WHICH RESULTED IN THE DISSOLUTION OF THE TOBACCO TRUST IN
1911 IS SET FORTH IN UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S.
106-193.  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 191 F. 371
431, CONTAINING THE DECREE OF DISSOLUTION AND SEE 164 F. 700-728, 1024,
FOR THE REPORT OF THE CASE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.  WHILE THE NAMES OF
SOME OF THE PARTIES IN THE EARLIER CASE ARE THOSE OF THE PRESENT
PETITIONERS, THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS DO NOT REFLECT A FAILURE ON THEIR
PART TO OBSERVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1911 DECREE.  ALTHOUGH THE
DECREE OF DISSOLUTION RESULTED IN THE SEPARATION OF ASSETS AMONG THE
AMERICAN, LIGGETT AND REYNOLDS COMPANIES, AS WELL AS P. LORILLARD
COMPANY AND OTHERS, THERE IS NO CONTENTION HERE THAT COMMON OWNERSHIP
OF STOCK AND THE INTERLOCKING OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS AMONG THOSE
COMPANIES HAVE CONTINUED TO EXIST.  THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY ALSO HAS
CHANGED FROM ONE DEALING PRIMARILY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SMOKING
TOBACCO, CHEWING TOBACCO, LITTLE CIGARS AND CIGARETTES TO ONE DEALING
PRIMARILY IN CIGARETTES.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN 1910 THE WEIGHT OF
THE TOBACCO USED IN THE DOMESTIC MANUFACTURE OF CIGARETTES WAS ABOUT
31,000,000 POUNDS OUT OF 522,000,000 POUNDS, OR LESS THAN 6%, WHEREAS
IN 1939, IT WAS 509,000,000 POUNDS OUT OF 885,000,000 POUNDS, OR
57.5%. 

BY THE 1911 DECREE, THE CIGARETTE BRANDS OF THE TRUST WERE
DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS:  TO AMERICAN: SWEET CAPORAL, PALL MALL, HASSAN
AND MECCA.  TO LIGGETT:  AMERICAN BEAUTY, FATIMA, PIEDMONT, IMPERIALES,
HOME RUN AND KING BEE.  TO P. LORILLARD COMPANY:  HELMAR, MURAD, MOGUL,
TURKISH TROPHIES AND EGYPTIAN DEITIES.  NEITHER THE OLD TRUST NOR THE
PETITIONERS IN THE PRESENT CASES HAVE EVER DONE MUCH GENERAL CIGAR
BUSINESS.  REYNOLDS IN 1911 HAD NO CIGARETTE BUSINESS AND IT RECEIVED
NONE BY THE DECREE.  IT THEN WAS SMALL IN COMPARISON WITH THE OTHER
COMPANIES NAMED.  IN 1913, IT PUT ITS CAMEL CIGARETTES ON THE MARKET. 
THESE WERE NEITHER TURKISH, PSEUDO-TURKISH, NOR VIRGINIA CIGARETTES. 
THEY WERE MADE LARGELY OF BURLEY TOBACCO WHICH HAD NOT BEEN USED IN ANY
SUCCESSFUL CIGARETTE UP TO THAT TIME.  THEY WERE "CASED" OR FLAVORED -
AN OLD PROCESS IN PREPARING PLUG TOBACCO BUT AN INNOVATION IN
CIGARETTES.  THAT COMPETITION WAS HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL.  REYNOLDS' SALES
ROSE TO WHERE, IN 1919, IT MADE ABOUT 40% OF ALL DOMESTIC CIGARETTE
SALES IN THE UNITED STATES.  BY 1917 ITS TOTAL PRODUCTION EXCEEDED BY
50% THE TOTAL NATIONAL PRODUCTION OF CIGARETTES IN 1911.  IN 1916,
AMERICAN LAUNCHED A NEW BRAND OF BURLEY CIGARETTES - LUCKY STRIKES. 
LIGGETT CHANGED ITS CHESTERFIELD BRAND FROM A VIRGINIA TYPE CIGARETTE
TO A BURLEY BLEND.  LORILLARD, IN 1926, LAUNCHED A NEW BRAND OF OLD
GOLD CIGARETTES.  BY THAT TIME THE "BIG THREE" WERE AMERICAN, LIGGETT
AND REYNOLDS AND THOSE COMPANIES ARE THE THREE CIGARETTE-PRODUCING
COMPANIES THAT ARE PARTIES TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. 

FN8  THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES REFERRED TO IN THE PRESENT CASES IS
MORE READILY RECOGNIZABLE WHEN THEY ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THEIR PRODUCTS
AS FOLLOWS: 

AMERICAN - LUCKY STRIKE, PALL MALL (BY A SUBSIDIARY), HERBERT
TAREYTON CIGARETTES, BULL DURHAM TOBACCO, ABOUT 50 BRANDS OF CHEWING
TOBACCO AND HUNDREDS OF BRANDS OF SMOKING TOBACCO. 

LIGGETT - CHESTERFIELD AND ABOUT 15 OTHER BRANDS OF CIGARETTES, 45
BRANDS OF SMOKING TOBACCO, INCLUDING VELVET AND DUKE'S MIXTURE AND OVER
25 BRANDS OF CHEWING TOBACCO. 

REYNOLDS - CAMEL CIGARETTES, 12 BRANDS OF SMOKING TOBACCO, INCLUDING
PRINCE ALBERT, AND 88 BRANDS OF CHEWING TOBACCO. 

P. LORILLARD COMPANY - OLD GOLD, AND SENSATION CIGARETTES, AS WELL AS
OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS. 

PHILIP MORRIS & CO., LTD., INCORPORATED - PHILIP MORRIS, AND PAUL
JONES CIGARETTES. 

BRITISH-AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, LIMITED - MANY TOBACCO PRODUCTS,
INCLUDING THOSE OF ITS SUBSIDIARY, BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO
CORPORATION. 

BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION - RALEIGH CIGARETTES. 

THE IMPERIAL TOBACCO COMPANY, LTD. - TOBACCO PRODUCTS SOLD IN GREAT
BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 

UNIVERSAL LEAF TOBACCO COMPANY, INC. - DEALERS IN LEAF TOBACCO. 

STEPHANO BROTHERS, AXTON-FISHER TOBACCO COMPANY AND LARUS BRO. CO.,
INC., ARE ALL PRODUCERS OF THE SO-CALLED "10 CENT CIGARETTES."  THEIR
CIGARETTES, LIKE CERTAIN COMPARABLE CIGARETTES PRODUCED BY P. LORILLARD
COMPANY AND BY PHILIP MORRIS & CO., LTD., INCORPORATED, GENERALLY SELL
FOR 10 CENTS A PACKAGE IN CONTRAST TO 13 OR 15 CENTS OR MORE FOR THE
LEADING BRANDS OF BURLEY BLEND CIGARETTES. 

FN9  FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE AUCTION METHODS OF SELLING IN GEORGIA,
SEE TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, 445, AND IN NORTH CAROLINA, SEE
CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 7-8.  SEE ALSO, MARKET PRACTICES
DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 5, 1935, TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 8026.  H. REP. NO.
1102, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN10  "IN EVERY SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT IN ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES UNDER ANY OF SAID ACTS (INCLUDING THE SHERMAN ANT-TRUST
ACT), WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES IS COMPLAINANT, AN APPEAL FROM THE
FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT WILL LIE ONLY TO THE SUPREME COURT
AND MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE ENTRY THEREOF:  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT IF, UPON ANY SUCH APPEAL, IT SHALL BE FOUND THAT, BY
REASON OF DISQUALIFICATION, THERE SHALL NOT BE A QUORUM OF JUSTICES OF
THE SUPREME COURT QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
CASE ON THE MERITS, THEN, IN LIEU OF A DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT,
THE CASE SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY CERTIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH IS LOCATED THE
DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT WHICH COURT SHALL THEREUPON HAVE
JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE APPEAL IN SUCH CASE, AND IT
SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE OF SAID CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE ON
THE MERITS, TO DESIGNATE IMMEDIATELY THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF SAID
COURT, ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE HIMSELF AND THE OTHER TWO OF WHOM SHALL BE
THE TWO CIRCUIT JUDGES NEXT IN ORDER OF SENIORITY TO HIMSELF, TO HEAR
AND DETERMINE THE APPEAL IN SUCH CASE AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
COURT, SO COMPRISED, TO ASSIGN THE CASE FOR ARGUMENT AT THE EARLIEST
PRACTICABLE DATE AND TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE SAME, AND THE DECISION
OF THE THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES SO DESIGNATED, OR OF A MAJORITY IN NUMBER
THEREOF, SHALL BE FINAL AND THERE SHALL BE NO REVIEW OF SUCH DECISION
BY APPEAL OR CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE...."  32 STAT. 823, AS AMENDED BY
58 STAT. 272, 15 U.S.C. SUPP. IV, SEC. 29. 

THE PROVISO IN THE ABOVE SECTION WAS ADDED BY PUBLIC LAW 332, 78TH
CONG., 2D SESS., APPROVED JUNE 9, 1944, WHICH ALSO MADE THE ACT
APPLICABLE "TO EVERY CASE PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES ON THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT."  58 STAT. 272.  THE CASE
AGAINST THE ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA WAS THEN PENDING IN THIS COURT
AND, ON JUNE 12, 1944, THIS COURT CERTIFIED IT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF A QUORUM OF
JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
CONSIDERATION OF IT ON ITS MERITS.  IT WAS TRIED BEFORE THE THREE
SENIOR JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (JUDGES LEARNED HAND,
SWAN AND AUGUSTUS N. HAND) AND IS THE ONLY CASE THAT HAS BEEN TRIED
UNDER THAT PROVISO. 

FN11  UPON SUGGESTION OF THE DEATH OF EDWARD H. THURSTON, A
PETITIONER IN CASE NO. 19, A MOTION TO DISMISS THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
AS TO HIM WAS GRANTED BY THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 11, 1946, 327 U.S. 764. 
IT REMAINS FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY TO TAKE SUCH
FURTHER ACTION AS LAW AND JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.  SEE SINGER V. UNITED
STATES, 323 U.S. 338, 346; UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 319 U.S. 503,
520. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ENTIRELY AGREES WITH THE JUDGMENT AND THE
OPINION IN THESE CASES.  HE, HOWEVER, WOULD HAVE ENLARGED THE SCOPE OF
THE ORDERS ALLOWING THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI SO AS TO PERMIT
CONSIDERATION OF THE ALLEGED ERRORS IN REGARD TO THE SELECTION OF THE
JURY. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND JUDGMENT.  IN DOING SO, HOWEVER,
I EXPRESS NO JUDGMENT CONCERNING OTHER QUESTIONS DETERMINED ON THE
APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 147 F.2D 93, AND PRESENTED IN
THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI OR THE LATER PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
ENLARGEMENT OF THE SCOPE OF REVIEW HERE, INCLUDING THE QUESTION WHETHER
UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS THE LAW HAS BEEN APPLIED IN SUCH A MANNER AS
TO BRING ABOUT, IN SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT, MULTIPLE PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME
OFFENSE.  CF. PINKERTON V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, PP. 640, 648,
DISSENTING OPINION. 

THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEFS AND THE ARGUMENT, FOR
ITS BEARING UPON THE DISPOSITION OF THE SINGLE QUESTION WHICH
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW, NAMELY, "WHETHER ACTUAL EXCLUSION OF
COMPETITORS IS NECESSARY TO THE CRIME OF MONOPOLIZATION UNDER SEC. 2 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT."  324 U.S. 836.  ON THIS ISSUE I HAVE NO DOUBT OF THE
CORRECTNESS OF THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE OFFENSE OF
MONOPOLIZATION IS COMPLETE WHEN POWER IS ACQUIRED TO EXCLUDE
COMPETITORS AND THEREFORE THAT ACTUAL EXCLUSION NEED NOT BE SHOWN, FOR
THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION.  WHETHER, IN THIS VIEW, MULTIPLE
PUNISHMENT MAY ARISE UPON APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO PARTICULAR FACTS
UNDER COUNTS CHARGING CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, MONOPOLIZATION,
AND CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE PRESENTS A DIFFERENT QUESTION WHICH CAN BE
DETERMINED ONLY BY EXAMINATION OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PARTICULAR
APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE.  SINCE, IN VIEW OF THE LIMITED CHARACTER OF
OUR ACTION IN GRANTING CERTIORARI, NEITHER THE ISSUE OF MULTIPLE
PUNISHMENT NOR THE FACTS OF RECORD UPON WHICH IT ARISES ARE BEFORE US
FOR REVIEW, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO EXPRESS OPINION ON THAT
QUESTION. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. LOVETT, 328 U.S. 303 


ARGUED MAY 3, 6, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 3, 1946.  - 104 CT. CLS. 557, 66
F.SUPP.  142, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE ISSUE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 304 OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCY
APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1943, PROVIDING THAT, AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1943, NO
SALARY OR OTHER COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE
GOVERNMENT (SPECIFIED BY NAME) OUT OF ANY MONIES THEN OR THEREAFTER
APPROPRIATED EXCEPT FOR SERVICES AS JURORS OR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES, UNLESS THEY WERE AGAIN APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT WITH THE
ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE PRIOR TO SUCH DATE, IS NOT A MERE
POLITICAL ISSUE OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS FINAL SAY; AND A CHALLENGE TO
ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE QUESTION TO THE COURTS. 
P. 313. 

(A)  IT IS NOT A MERE APPROPRIATION MEASURE OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS
COMPLETE CONTROL.  P. 313. 

(B)  ITS PURPOSE WAS NOT MERELY TO CUT OFF THE EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION THROUGH REGULAR DISBURSING CHANNELS BUT PERMANENTLY TO BAR
THEM FROM GOVERNMENT SERVICE, EXCEPT AS JURORS OR SOLDIERS - BECAUSE OF
WHAT CONGRESS THOUGHT OF THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS.  P. 313. 

(C)  THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
AIMED AT THREE INDIVIDUALS, WHICH STIGMATIZED THEIR REPUTATIONS AND
SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED THEIR CHANCES TO EARN A LIVING, COULD NEVER BE
CHALLENGED IN COURT.  P. 314. 

2.  SECTION 304 VIOLATES ARTICLE I, SEC. 3, CL. 9 OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH FORBIDS THE ENACTMENT OF ANY BILL OF ATTAINDER OR
EX POST FACTO LAW.  P. 315. 

(A)  LEGISLATIVE ACTS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR FORM, THAT APPLY EITHER
TO NAMED INDIVIDUALS OR TO EASILY ASCERTAINABLE MEMBERS OF A GROUP IN
SUCH A WAY AS TO INFLICT PUNISHMENT ON THEM WITHOUT A JUDICIAL TRIAL
ARE BILLS OF ATTAINDER PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  CUMMINGS V.
MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277; EX PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333.  P. 315. 

(B)  SECTION 304 CLEARLY ACCOMPLISHES THE PUNISHMENT OF NAMED
INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT A JUDICIAL TRIAL.  P. 316. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT THE PUNISHMENT IS INFLICTED THROUGH THE
INSTRUMENTALITY OF AN ACT SPECIFICALLY CUTTING OFF THE PAY OF CERTAIN
NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOUND BY CONGRESS TO BE GUILTY OF DISLOYALTY MAKES IT
NO LESS EFFECTIVE THAN IF IT HAD BEEN DONE BY AN ACT WHICH DESIGNATED
THE CONDUCT AS CRIMINAL.  P. 316. 

UNITED STATES V. LOVETT. 

NO. 809.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 810, UNITED STATES V. WATSON, AND NO. 811, UNITED
STATES V. DODD, ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON
THE SAME DATES. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS ENTERED JUDGMENTS IN FAVOR OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1943, TO WHOM SEC.
304 OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1943, 57 STAT. 431,
450, FORBADE PAYMENT OF ANY COMPENSATION AFTER THAT DATE FROM
APPROPRIATED FUNDS.  104 CT. CLS. 557, 66 F.SUPP.  142.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 773.  AFFIRMED, P. 318. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1943 THE RESPONDENTS, LOVETT, WATSON, AND DODD, WERE AND HAD BEEN
FOR SEVERAL YEARS WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
WHICH HAD LAWFULLY EMPLOYED THEM WERE FULLY SATISFIED WITH THE QUALITY
OF THEIR WORK AND WISHED TO KEEP THEM EMPLOYED ON THEIR JOBS.  OVER THE
PROTEST OF THOSE EMPLOYING AGENCIES, CONGRESS PROVIDED IN SEC. 304 OF
THE URGENT DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1943, BY WAY OF AN AMENDMENT
ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE BILL, THAT AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1943, NO SALARY OR
COMPENSATION SHOULD BE PAID RESPONDENTS OUT OF ANY MONIES THEN OR
THEREAFTER APPROPRIATED EXCEPT FOR SERVICES AS JURORS OR MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES, UNLESS THEY WERE PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 15, 1943 AGAIN
APPOINTED TO JOBS BY THE PRESIDENT WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE
SENATE.  FN1  57 STAT. 431, 450.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENT, AND THE FAILURE OF THE PRESIDENT TO REAPPOINT RESPONDENTS,
THE AGENCIES KEPT ALL THE RESPONDENTS AT WORK ON THEIR JOBS FOR VARYING
PERIODS AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1943; BUT THEIR COMPENSATION WAS
DISCONTINUED AFTER THAT DATE.  TO SECURE COMPENSATION FOR THIS POST
NOVEMBER 15TH WORK, RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THESE ACTIONS IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  THEY URGED THAT SEC. 304 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID ON THE
GROUNDS THAT:  (1) THE SECTION, PROPERLY INTERPRETED, SHOWS A
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO EXERCISE THE POWER TO REMOVE EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYEES, A POWER NOT ENTRUSTED TO CONGRESS BUT TO THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT UNDER ARTICLE II, SECS. 1, 2, 3, AND 4 OF THE
CONSTITUTION; (2) THE SECTION VIOLATES ARTICLE I, SEC. 9, CLAUSE 3, OF
THE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO BILL OF ATTAINDER OR EX POST
FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED"; (3) THE SECTION VIOLATES THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, IN THAT IT SINGLES OUT THESE THREE RESPONDENTS AND DEPRIVES
THEM OF THEIR LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL, APPEARING FOR THE GOVERNMENT, JOINED IN THE FIRST
TWO OF RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS BUT TOOK NO POSITION ON THE THIRD. 
HOUSE RESOLUTION 386, 89 CONG. REC. 10882, AND JOINT RESOLUTION NO.
230, 78TH CONGRESS, 58 STAT. 113, AUTHORIZED A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO
APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS.  THIS COUNSEL DENIED ALL THREE OF
RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS.  HE URGED THAT SEC. 304 WAS A VALID EXERCISE
OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER UNDER ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 1; SEC. 8,
CLAUSE 18; AND SEC. 9, CLAUSE 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH SECTIONS
EMPOWER CONGRESS "TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES  ...  TO PAY THE DEBTS AND
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED
STATES," AND "TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR
CARRYING INTO EXECUTION  ...  ALL  ...  POWERS VESTED BY THIS
CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR IN ANY
DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF," AND PROVIDE THAT "NO MONEY SHALL BE
DRAWN FROM THE TREASURY, BUT IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY
LAW  ..."  COUNSEL FOR CONGRESS ALSO URGED THAT SEC. 304 DID NOT
PURPORT TO TERMINATE RESPONDENTS' EMPLOYMENT.  ACCORDING TO HIM, IT
MERELY CUT OFF RESPONDENTS' PAY AND DEPRIVED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES OF
ANY POWER TO MAKE ENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS WITH RESPONDENTS FOR ANY
FURTHER COMPENSATION.  THE CONTENTION WAS THAT THIS INVOLVED SIMPLY AN
EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWERS OVER APPROPRIATIONS, WHICH, ACCORDING
TO THE ARGUMENT, ARE PLENARY AND NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  ON
THIS PREMISE COUNSEL FOR CONGRESS URGED THAT THE CHALLENGE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 304 RAISED NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  THE
COURT OF CLAIMS ENTERED JUDGMENTS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS.  SOME OF THE
JUDGES WERE OF THE OPINION THAT SEC. 304, PROPERLY INTERPRETED, DID NOT
TERMINATE RESPONDENTS' EMPLOYMENT, BUT ONLY PROHIBITED PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION OUT OF FUNDS GENERALLY APPROPRIATED, AND THAT,
CONSEQUENTLY, THE CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT OF RESPONDENTS WAS VALID, AND
JUSTIFIED THEIR BRINGING ACTIONS FOR PAY IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COURT THOUGHT SEC. 304 UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID, EITHER
AS A BILL OF ATTAINDER, AN ENCROACHMENT ON EXCLUSIVE EXECUTIVE
AUTHORITY, OR A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  104 CT. CLS. 557, 66 F.SUPP. 
142.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE MANIFEST IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 

IN THIS COURT THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL FOR CONGRESS HAVE URGED THE
SAME POINTS AS THEY DID IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  ACCORDING TO THE VIEW
WE TAKE WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER SEC. 304 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ENCROACHMENT ON EXECUTIVE POWER OR A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND
THE SECTION IS NOT CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT IT VIOLATES THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  OUR INQUIRY IS THUS CONFINED TO WHETHER THE ACTIONS IN THE
LIGHT OF A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT PRESENT JUSTICIABLE
CONTROVERSIES; AND, IF SO, WHETHER SEC. 304 IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER
AGAINST THESE RESPONDENTS, INVOLVING A USE OF POWER WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION UNEQUIVOCALLY DECLARES CONGRESS CAN NEVER EXERCISE.  THESE
QUESTIONS REQUIRE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE
LEADING TO ITS PASSAGE.  WE, CONSEQUENTLY, FIND IT NECESSARY TO SET OUT
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SOMEWHAT IN DETAIL. 

IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE STATUTE HERE CHALLENGED LIES THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES' FEELING IN THE LATE THIRTIES THAT MANY "SUBVERSIVES"
WERE OCCUPYING INFLUENTIAL POSITIONS IN THE GOVERNMENT AND ELSEWHERE
AND THAT THEIR INFLUENCE MUST NOT REMAIN UNCHALLENGED.  AS PART OF ITS
PROGRAM AGAINST "SUBVERSIVE" ACTIVITIES THE HOUSE IN MAY 1938 CREATED A
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES, WHICH BECAME KNOWN AS THE DIES
COMMITTEE, AFTER ITS CHAIRMAN, CONGRESSMAN MARTIN DIES.  H. RES. 282,
83 CONG. REC. 7568-7587.  THIS COMMITTEE CONDUCTED A SERIES OF
INVESTIGATIONS AND MADE LISTS OF PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS IT THOUGHT
"SUBVERSIVE."  SEE E.G.:  H. REP. NO. 1, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP.
NO. 2748, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.  THE CREATION OF THE DIES COMMITTEE WAS
FOLLOWED BY PROVISIONS SUCH AS SEC. 9A OF THE HATCH ACT, 53 STAT. 1148,
1149, AND SECS. 15(F) AND 17(B) OF THE EMERGENCY RELIEF APPROPRIATION
ACT OF 1941, 54 STAT. 611, WHICH FORBADE THE HOLDING OF A FEDERAL JOB
BY ANYONE WHO WAS A MEMBER OF A POLITICAL PARTY OR ORGANIZATION THAT
ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE
UNITED STATES.  IT BECAME THE PRACTICE TO INCLUDE A SIMILAR PROHIBITION
IN ALL APPROPRIATIONS ACTS, TOGETHER WITH CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR ITS
VIOLATION.  FN2  UNDER THESE PROVISIONS THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION BEGAN WHOLESALE INVESTIGATIONS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
WHICH INVESTIGATIONS WERE FINANCED BY SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL
APPROPRIATIONS.  55 STAT. 292, 56 STAT. 468, 482.  THOUSANDS WERE
INVESTIGATED. 

WHILE ALL THIS WAS HAPPENING, MR. DIES ON FEBRUARY 1, 1943, IN A LONG
SPEECH ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE ATTACKED THIRTY-NINE NAMED GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES AS "IRRESPONSIBLE, UNREPRESENTATIVE, CRACKPOT, RADICAL
BUREAUCRATS" AND AFFILIATES OF "COMMUNIST FRONT ORGANIZATIONS."  AMONG
THESE NAMED INDIVIDUALS WERE THE THREE RESPONDENTS.  CONGRESSMAN DIES
TOLD THE HOUSE THAT RESPONDENTS, AS WELL AS THE OTHER THIRTY-SIX
INDIVIDUALS HE NAMED, WERE BECAUSE OF THEIR BELIEFS AND PAST
ASSOCIATIONS UNFIT TO "HOLD A GOVERNMENT POSITION" AND URGED CONGRESS
TO REFUSE "TO APPROPRIATE MONEY FOR THEIR SALARIES."  IN THIS
CONNECTION HE PROPOSED THAT THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS "TAKE
IMMEDIATE AND VIGOROUS STEPS TO ELIMINATE THESE PEOPLE FROM PUBLIC
OFFICE."  89 CONG. REC. 474, 479, 486.  FOUR DAYS LATER AN AMENDMENT
WAS OFFERED TO THE TREASURY-POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION BILL WHICH
PROVIDED THAT "NO PART OF ANY APPROPRIATION CONTAINED IN THIS ACT SHALL
BE USED TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF" THE THIRTY-NINE INDIVIDUALS DIES
HAD ATTACKED.  89 CONG. REC. 645.  THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SHOWS THAT
THIS AMENDMENT PRECIPITATED A DEBATE THAT CONTINUED FOR SEVERAL DAYS. 
ID. 645-742.  ALL OF THOSE PARTICIPATING AGREED THAT THE "CHARGES"
AGAINST THE THIRTY-NINE INDIVIDUALS WERE SERIOUS.  SOME WANTED TO
ACCEPT CONGRESSMAN DIES' STATEMENTS AS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF "GUILT,"
WHILE OTHERS REFERRED TO SUCH PROPOSED ACTION AS "LEGISLATIVE
LYNCHING," ID. AT 651, SMACKING "OF THE PROCEDURE IN THE FRENCH CHAMBER
OF DEPUTIES, DURING THE REIGN OF TERROR."  ID. AT 654.  THE DIES
CHARGES WERE REFERRED TO AS "INDICTMENTS," AND MANY CLAIMED THIS MADE
IT NECESSARY THAT THE NAMED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES BE GIVEN A HEARING AND A
CHANCE TO PROVE THEMSELVES INNOCENT.  ID. AT 711.  CONGRESSMAN DIES
THEN SUGGESTED THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE "WEIGH THE EVIDENCE
AND  ...  TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO DISMISS THESE PEOPLE FROM THE FEDERAL
SERVICE."  ID. AT 651.  EVENTUALLY A RESOLUTION WAS PROPOSED TO DEFER
ACTION UNTIL THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE COULD INVESTIGATE, SO THAT
ACCUSED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WOULD GET A CHANCE TO PROVE THEMSELVES
"INNOCENT" OF COMMUNISM OR DISLOYALTY, AND SO THAT EACH "MAN WOULD HAVE
HIS DAY IN COURT," AND "THERE WOULD BE NO STAR CHAMBER PROCEEDINGS." 
ID. AT 711 AND 713; BUT SEE ID. AT 715.  THE RESOLUTION WHICH WAS
FINALLY PASSED AUTHORIZED THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE ACTING THROUGH A
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE "...  TO EXAMINE INTO ANY AND ALL ALLEGATIONS OR
CHARGES THAT CERTAIN PERSONS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE SEVERAL EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER EXECUTIVE AGENCIES ARE UNFIT TO CONTINUE IN SUCH
EMPLOYMENT BY REASON OF THEIR PRESENT ASSOCIATION OR MEMBERSHIP OR PAST
ASSOCIATION OR MEMBERSHIP IN OR WITH ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE AIMS OR
PURPOSES ARE OR HAVE BEEN SUBVERSIVE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES."  ID. AT 734, 742.  THE COMMITTEE WAS TO HAVE FULL PLENARY
POWERS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO SUMMON WITNESSES AND PAPERS, AND WAS TO
REPORT ITS "FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION" TO THE HOUSE.  IT WAS
AUTHORIZED TO ATTACH LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED BY IT TO ANY GENERAL OR
SPECIAL APPROPRIATION MEASURE, NOTWITHSTANDING GENERAL HOUSE RULES
AGAINST SUCH PRACTICE.  ID. AT 734.  THE PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION WAS
THUS DESCRIBED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS IN
HIS CLOSING REMARKS IN FAVOR OF ITS PASSAGE:  "THE THIRD AND THE REALLY
IMPORTANT EFFECT IS THAT WE WILL EXPEDITE ADJUDICATION AND DISPOSITION
OF THESE CASES AND THEREBY SERVE BOTH THE ACCUSED AND THE GOVERNMENT. 
THESE MEN AGAINST WHOM CHARGES ARE PENDING ARE FACED WITH A SERIOUS
SITUATION.  IF THEY ARE NOT GUILTY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO PROMPT
EXONERATION; ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THEY ARE GUILTY, THEN THE QUICKER
THE GOVERNMENT REMOVES THEM THE SOONER AND THE MORE CERTAINLY WILL WE
PROTECT THE NATION AGAINST SABOTAGE AND FIFTH-COLUMN ACTIVITY."  ID. AT
741. 

AFTER THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED, A SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE HELD HEARINGS IN SECRET EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
THOSE CHARGED WITH "SUBVERSIVE" BELIEFS AND "SUBVERSIVE" ASSOCIATIONS
WERE PERMITTED TO TESTIFY, BUT LAWYERS, INCLUDING THOSE REPRESENTING
THE AGENCIES BY WHICH THE ACCUSED WERE EMPLOYED, WERE NOT PERMITTED TO
BE PRESENT.  AT THE HEARINGS, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE COMMITTEE STAFF,
AND WHATEVER WITNESS WAS UNDER EXAMINATION WERE THE ONLY ONES PRESENT. 
THE EVIDENCE, ASIDE FROM THAT GIVEN BY THE ACCUSED EMPLOYEES, APPEARS
TO HAVE BEEN LARGELY THAT OF REPORTS MADE BY THE DIES COMMITTEE, ITS
INVESTIGATORS, AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPORTS, THE LATTER
BEING TREATED AS TOO CONFIDENTIAL TO BE MADE PUBLIC. 

AFTER THIS HEARING, THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WERE SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE AS PART OF THE APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE'S
REPORT.  THE SUBCOMMITTEE STATED THAT IT HAD REGARDED THE
INVESTIGATIONS "AS IN THE NATURE OF AN INQUEST OF OFFICE" WITH THE
ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF PURGING THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF ANYONE FOUND GUILTY
OF "SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY."  THE COMMITTEE, STATING THAT "SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITY" HAD NOT BEFORE BEEN DEFINED BY CONGRESS OR BY THE COURTS,
FORMULATED ITS OWN DEFINITION OF "SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY" WHICH WE SET OUT
IN THE MARGIN.  FN3  RESPONDENTS WATSON, DODD, AND LOVETT WERE,
ACCORDING TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE, GUILTY OF HAVING ENGAGED IN "SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITY WITHIN THE DEFINITION ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE."  H. REP. NO.
448, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 5-7, 9.  THE ULTIMATE FINDING AND
RECOMMENDATION AS TO RESPONDENT WATSON, WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
TO THE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO LOVETT AND DODD, READ AS FOLLOWS:
"UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, YOUR COMMITTEE FINDS THAT
THE MEMBERSHIP AND ASSOCIATION OF DR. GOODWIN B. WATSON WITH THE
ORGANIZATIONS MENTIONED, AND HIS VIEWS AND PHILOSOPHIES AS EXPRESSED IN
VARIOUS STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS CONSTITUTE SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY WITHIN
THE DEFINITION ADOPTED BY YOUR COMMITTEE, AND THAT HE IS, THEREFORE,
UNFIT FOR THE PRESENT TO CONTINUE IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT."  H. REP.
NO. 448, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 6.  AS TO LOVETT THE COMMITTEE
FURTHER REPORTED THAT IT HAD REJECTED A "STRONG APPEAL" FROM THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR PERMISSION TO RETAIN LOVETT IN GOVERNMENT
SERVICE, BECAUSE AS THE COMMITTEE STATED, IT COULD NOT "ESCAPE THE
CONVICTION THAT THIS OFFICIAL IS UNFIT TO HOLD A POSITION OF TRUST WITH
THIS GOVERNMENT BY REASON OF HIS MEMBERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, AND
AFFILIATION WITH ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE AIMS AND PURPOSES ARE SUBVERSIVE
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  ID. AT 12.    SECTION 304 WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE ALONG WITH THE COMMITTEE REPORT.  CONGRESSMAN
KERR, WHO WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, STATED THAT THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE HOUSE WAS SIMPLY:  "... WHETHER OR NOT THE PEOPLE OF THIS
COUNTRY WANT MEN WHO ARE NOT IN SYMPATHY WITH THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS
COUNTRY TO RUN IT."  HE SAID FURTHER:  "...  THESE PEOPLE UNDER
INVESTIGATION HAVE NO PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE OFFICES.  ONE CONGRESS
CAN TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS GIVEN THEM BY ANOTHER."  89 CONG. REC.
4583.  OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE DURING SEVERAL DAYS OF DEBATE
BITTERLY ATTACKED THE MEASURE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNWISE.  ID. AT
4482-4487, 4546-4556, 4581-4605.  FINALLY SEC. 304 WAS PASSED BY THE
HOUSE. 

THE SENATE APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE ELIMINATED SEC. 304 AND ITS ACTION
WAS SUSTAINED BY THE SENATE.  89 CONG. REC. 5024.  AFTER THE FIRST
CONFERENCE REPORT WHICH LEFT THE MATTER STILL IN DISAGREEMENT THE
SENATE VOTED 69 TO 0 AGAINST THE CONFERENCE REPORT WHICH LEFT SEC. 304
IN THE BILL.  THE HOUSE, HOWEVER, INSISTED ON THE AMENDMENT AND
INDICATED THAT IT WOULD NOT APPROVE ANY APPROPRIATION BILL WITHOUT SEC.
304.  FINALLY, AFTER THE FIFTH CONFERENCE REPORT SHOWED THAT THE HOUSE
WOULD NOT YIELD, THE SENATE ADOPTED SEC. 304.  WHEN THE PRESIDENT
SIGNED THE BILL HE STATED: "THE SENATE YIELDED, AS I HAVE BEEN FORCED
TO YIELD, TO AVOID DELAYING OUR CONDUCT OF THE WAR.  BUT I CANNOT SO
YIELD WITHOUT PLACING ON RECORD MY VIEW THAT THIS PROVISION IS NOT ONLY
UNWISE AND DISCRIMINATORY, BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL."  H. DOC. 264, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.

                                  I. 

IN VIEW OF THE FACTS JUST SET OUT, WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE TWO
JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS WHO HELD THAT SEC. 304 REQUIRED "A MERE
STOPPAGE OF DISBURSING ROUTINE, NOTHING MORE," AND LEFT THE EMPLOYER
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES FREE TO CONTINUE EMPLOYING RESPONDENTS AND TO
INCUR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS BY VIRTUE OF SUCH CONTINUED WORK WHICH
RESPONDENTS COULD ENFORCE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  NOR CAN WE AGREE
WITH COUNSEL FOR CONGRESS THAT THE SECTION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF RESPONDENTS BUT MERELY FORBADE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES TO
COMPENSATE RESPONDENTS FOR THEIR WORK OR TO INCUR OBLIGATIONS FOR SUCH
COMPENSATION AT ANY AND ALL TIMES.  WE THEREFORE CANNOT CONCLUDE, AS HE
URGES, THAT SEC. 304 IS A MERE APPROPRIATION MEASURE, AND THAT, SINCE
CONGRESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER
APPROPRIATIONS, A CHALLENGE TO THE MEASURE'S CONSTITUTIONALITY DOES NOT
PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE QUESTION IN THE COURTS, BUT IS MERELY A POLITICAL
ISSUE OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS FINAL SAY. 

WE HOLD THAT THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 304 WAS NOT MERELY TO CUT OFF
RESPONDENTS' COMPENSATION THROUGH REGULAR DISBURSING CHANNELS BUT
PERMANENTLY TO BAR THEM FROM GOVERNMENT SERVICE, AND THAT THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL IS JUSTICIABLE.  THE SECTION'S LANGUAGE AS
WELL AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS PASSAGE WHICH WE HAVE JUST DESCRIBED
SHOW THAT NO MERE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION PROCEDURE OR OF
APPROPRIATIONS WAS INVOLVED, BUT THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO FORCE THE
EMPLOYING AGENCIES TO DISCHARGE RESPONDENTS AND TO BAR THEIR BEING
HIRED BY ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
DICKERSON, 310 U.S. 554.  ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE SECTION WOULD
COMPLETELY FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSE OF ALL WHO SPONSORED SEC. 304, WHICH
CLEARLY WAS TO "PURGE" THE THEN EXISTING AND ALL FUTURE LISTS OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OF THOSE WHOM CONGRESS DEEMED GUILTY OF
"SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES" AND THEREFORE "UNFIT" TO HOLD A FEDERAL JOB. 
WHAT WAS CHALLENGED, THEREFORE, IS A STATUTE WHICH, BECAUSE OF WHAT
CONGRESS THOUGHT TO BE THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS, PROHIBITED RESPONDENTS
FROM EVER ENGAGING IN ANY GOVERNMENT WORK, EXCEPT AS JURORS OR
SOLDIERS.  RESPONDENTS CLAIMED THAT THEIR DISCHARGE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THAT THEY CONSEQUENTLY RIGHTFULLY CONTINUED TO WORK
FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT OWES THEM COMPENSATION FOR
SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT.  CONGRESS HAS
ESTABLISHED THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO TRY JUST SUCH CONTROVERSIES.  WHAT
IS INVOLVED HERE IS A CONGRESSIONAL PROSCRIPTION OF LOVETT, WATSON, AND
DODD, PROHIBITING THEIR EVER HOLDING A GOVERNMENT JOB.  WERE THIS CASE
TO BE NOT JUSTICIABLE, CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, AIMED AT THREE NAMED
INDIVIDUALS, WHICH STIGMATIZED THEIR REPUTATION AND SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED
THEIR CHANCE TO EARN A LIVING, COULD NEVER BE CHALLENGED IN ANY COURT. 
OUR CONSTITUTION DID NOT CONTEMPLATE SUCH A RESULT.  TO QUOTE ALEXANDER
HAMILTON, "...  A LIMITED CONSTITUTION  ...  (IS) ONE WHICH CONTAINS
CERTAIN SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY; SUCH, FOR
INSTANCE, AS THAT IT SHALL PASS NO BILLS OF ATTAINDER, NO EX POST FACTO
LAWS, AND THE LIKE.  LIMITATIONS OF THIS KIND CAN BE PRESERVED IN
PRACTICE NO OTHER WAY THAN THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE;
WHOSE DUTY IT MUST BE TO DECLARE ALL ACTS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST
TENOR OF THE CONSTITUTION VOID.  WITHOUT THIS, ALL THE RESERVATIONS OF
PARTICULAR RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES WOULD AMOUNT TO NOTHING."  FEDERALIST
PAPER NO. 78. 

                           II. 

WE HOLD THAT SEC. 304 FALLS PRECISELY WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION BARRED BY PROVIDING THAT
"NO BILL OF ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED."  IN
CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277, 323, THIS COURT SAID, "A BILL OF
ATTAINDER IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT WHICH INFLICTS PUNISHMENT WITHOUT A
JUDICIAL TRIAL.  IF THE PUNISHMENT BE LESS THAN DEATH, THE ACT IS
TERMED A BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
CONSTITUTION, BILLS OF ATTAINDER INCLUDE BILLS OF PAINS AND
PENALTIES."  THE CUMMINGS DECISION INVOLVED A PROVISION OF THE MISSOURI
RECONSTRUCTION CONSTITUTION WHICH REQUIRED PERSONS TO TAKE AN OATH OF
LOYALTY AS A PREREQUISITE TO PRACTICING A PROFESSION.  CUMMINGS, A
CATHOLIC PRIEST, WAS CONVICTED FOR TEACHING AND PREACHING AS A MINISTER
WITHOUT TAKING THE OATH.  THE OATH REQUIRED AN APPLICANT TO AFFIRM THAT
HE HAD NEVER GIVEN AID OR COMFORT TO PERSONS ENGAGED IN HOSTILITY TO
THE UNITED STATES AND HAD NEVER "BEEN A MEMBER OF, OR CONNECTED WITH,
ANY ORDER, SOCIETY, OR ORGANIZATION, INIMICAL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES  ..."  IN AN ILLUMINATING OPINION WHICH GAVE THE
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST BILLS
OF ATTAINDER, THIS COURT INVALIDATED THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION BOTH BECAUSE IT CONSTITUTED A BILL OF ATTAINDER AND BECAUSE
IT HAD AN EX POST FACTO OPERATION.  ON THE SAME DAY THE CUMMINGS CASE
WAS DECIDED, THE COURT, IN EX PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333, ALSO HELD
INVALID ON THE SAME GROUNDS AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH REQUIRED ATTORNEYS
PRACTICING BEFORE THIS COURT TO TAKE A SIMILAR OATH.  NEITHER OF THESE
CASES HAS EVER BEEN OVERRULED.  THEY STAND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
LEGISLATIVE ACTS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR FORM, THAT APPLY EITHER TO NAMED
INDIVIDUALS OR TO EASILY ASCERTAINABLE MEMBERS OF A GROUP IN SUCH A WAY
AS TO INFLICT PUNISHMENT ON THEM WITHOUT A JUDICIAL TRIAL ARE BILLS OF
ATTAINDER PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ADHERENCE TO THIS PRINCIPLE
REQUIRES INVALIDATION OF SEC. 304.  WE DO ADHERE TO IT. 

AS THE STATUTE IN THE TWO CASES MENTIONED, IT "OPERATES AS A
LEGISLATIVE DECREE OF PERPETUAL EXCLUSION" FROM A CHOSEN VOCATION.  EX
PARTE GARLAND, SUPRA, AT 377.  THIS PERMANENT PROSCRIPTION FROM ANY
OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE THE GOVERNMENT IS PUNISHMENT, AND OF A MOST SEVERE
TYPE.  IT IS A TYPE OF PUNISHMENT WHICH CONGRESS HAS ONLY INVOKED FOR
SPECIAL TYPES OF ODIOUS AND DANGEROUS CRIMES, SUCH AS TREASON, 18
U.S.C. 2; ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBES BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, 18 U.S.C. 199,
202, 203; OR BY OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, 18 U.S.C. 207; AND
INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTIONS BY ARMY AND NAVY OFFICERS, 18 U.S.C. 58. 

INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT A JUDICIAL TRIAL.  THE FACT THAT THE PUNISHMENT IS
INFLICTED THROUGH THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF AN ACT SPECIFICALLY CUTTING
OFF THE PAY OF CERTAIN NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOUND GUILTY OF DISLOYALTY,
MAKES IT NO LESS GALLING OR EFFECTIVE THAN IF IT HAD BEEN DONE BY AN
ACT WHICH DESIGNATED THE CONDUCT AS CRIMINAL.  FN5  NO ONE WOULD THINK
THAT CONGRESS COULD HAVE PASSED A VALID LAW, STATING THAT AFTER
INVESTIGATION IT HAD FOUND LOVETT, DODD, AND WATSON "GUILTY" OF THE
CRIME OF ENGAGING IN "SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES," DEFINED THAT TERM FOR THE
FIRST TIME, AND SENTENCED THEM TO PERPETUAL EXCLUSION FROM ANY
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.  SECTION 304, WHILE IT DOES NOT USE THAT
LANGUAGE, ACCOMPLISHES THAT RESULT.  THE EFFECT WAS TO INFLICT
PUNISHMENT WITHOUT THE SAFEGUARDS OF A JUDICIAL TRIAL AND "DETERMINED
BY NO PREVIOUS LAW OR FIXED RULE."  FN6  THE CONSTITUTION DECLARES THAT
THAT CANNOT BE DONE EITHER BY A STATE OR BY THE UNITED STATES. 

THOSE WHO WROTE OUR CONSTITUTION WELL KNEW THE DANGER INHERENT IN
SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE ACTS WHICH TAKE AWAY THE LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY
OF PARTICULAR NAMED PERSONS BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE THINKS THEM GUILTY
OF CONDUCT WHICH DESERVES PUNISHMENT.  THEY INTENDED TO SAFEGUARD THE
PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY FROM PUNISHMENT WITHOUT TRIAL BY DULY
CONSTITUTED COURTS.  SEE DUNCAN V. KAHANAMOKU, 327 U.S. 304.  AND EVEN
THE COURTS TO WHICH THIS IMPORTANT FUNCTION WAS ENTRUSTED WERE
COMMANDED TO STAY THEIR HANDS UNTIL AND UNLESS CERTAIN TESTED
SAFEGUARDS WERE OBSERVED.  AN ACCUSED IN COURT MUST BE TRIED BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY, HAS A RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, HE MUST BE
CLEARLY INFORMED OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM, THE LAW WHICH HE IS CHARGED
WITH VIOLATING MUST HAVE BEEN PASSED BEFORE HE COMMITTED THE ACT
CHARGED, HE MUST BE CONFRONTED BY THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, HE MUST
NOT BE COMPELLED TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF, HE CANNOT TWICE BE PUT IN
JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, AND EVEN AFTER CONVICTION NO CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CAN BE INFLICTED UPON HIM.  SEE CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA,
309 U.S. 227, 235-238.  WHEN OUR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS WERE
WRITTEN, OUR ANCESTORS HAD AMPLE REASON TO KNOW THAT LEGISLATIVE TRIALS
AND PUNISHMENTS WERE TOO DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY TO EXIST IN THE NATION OF
FREE MEN THEY ENVISIONED.  AND SO THEY PROSCRIBED BILLS OF ATTAINDER. 
CONGRESS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE HERE. 

COMPENSATION TO LOVETT, WATSON, AND DODD.  THE JUDGMENT IN THEIR FAVOR
IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 304 PROVIDES:  "NO PART OF ANY APPROPRIATION,
ALLOCATION, OR FUND (1) WHICH IS MADE AVAILABLE UNDER OR PURSUANT TO
THIS ACT, OR (2) WHICH IS NOW, OR WHICH IS HEREAFTER MADE, AVAILABLE
UNDER OR PURSUANT TO ANY OTHER ACT, TO ANY DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, OR
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE USED, AFTER NOVEMBER 15,
1943, TO PAY ANY PART OF THE SALARY, OR OTHER COMPENSATION FOR THE
PERSONAL SERVICES, OF GOODWIN B. WATSON, WILLIAM E. DODD, JUNIOR, AND
ROBERT MORSS LOVETT, UNLESS PRIOR TO SUCH DATE SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN
APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE
SENATE:  PROVIDED, THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT OPERATE TO DEPRIVE ANY
SUCH PERSON OF PAYMENT FOR LEAVES OF ABSENCE OR SALARY, OR OF ANY
REFUND OR REIMBURSEMENT, WHICH HAVE ACCRUED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 15, 1943:
PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT OPERATE TO DEPRIVE ANY
SUCH PERSON OF PAYMENT FOR SERVICES PERFORMED AS A MEMBER OF A JURY OR
AS A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY BENEFIT,
PENSION, OR EMOLUMENT RESULTING THEREFROM." 

AS WE SHALL POINT OUT, THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE BILL BECAUSE HE HAD
TO DO SO SINCE THE APPROPRIATED FUNDS WERE IMPERATIVELY NEEDED TO CARRY
ON THE WAR.  HE FELT, HOWEVER, THAT SEC. 304 OF THE BILL WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND FAILED TO REAPPOINT RESPONDENTS. 

FN2  55 STAT. 92, SEC. 5; 55 STAT. 265, SEC. 504; 55 STAT. 303, SEC.
7; 55 STAT. 366, SEC. 10; 55 STAT. 408, SEC. 3; 55 STAT. 446, SEC. 5;
55 STAT. 466, SEC. 704; 55 STAT. 499, SEC. 10; HOUSE DOC. 833, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN3  "SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITY IN THIS COUNTRY DERIVES FROM CONDUCT
INTENTIONALLY DESTRUCTIVE OF OR INIMICAL TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES - THAT WHICH SEEKS TO UNDERMINE ITS INSTITUTIONS, OR TO
DISTORT ITS FUNCTIONS, OR TO IMPEDE ITS PROJECTS, OR TO LESSEN ITS
EFFORTS, THE ULTIMATE END BEING TO OVERTURN IT ALL.  SUCH ACTIVITY MAY
BE OPEN AND DIRECT AS BY EFFORT TO OVERTHROW, OR SUBTLE AND INDIRECT AS
BY SABOTAGE."  H. REP. NO. 448, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5. 

FN4  THIS IS OF COURSE ONE OF THE USUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BILLS OF
ATTAINDER.  SEE WOODDESON, LAW LECTURES:  A SYSTEMATICAL VIEW OF THE
LAWS OF ENGLAND (1792), NO. 41, 622. 

FN5  SEE CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, 4 WALL.  AT 325, 329; SEE ALSO
FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87, 138-139; BURGESS V. SALMON, 97 U.S. 381,
385. 

FN6  SEE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE MILLER IN CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI,
SUPRA, 4 WALL.  AT 388; SEE ALSO WOODDESON, SUPRA, AT 624, 638 ET SEQ.
THEY ARE SET OUT BY JUSTICE MILLER'S DISSENT, EXCEPT THE CORRUPTION OF
BLOOD.  4 WALL.  AT 387.  THE AMERICAN PRECEDENTS DO NOT CONSIDER
CORRUPTION OF BLOOD A NECESSARY ELEMENT.  ORIGINALLY A JUDGMENT OF
DEATH WAS NECESSARY TO ATTAINT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF ATTAINDER WERE
FORFEITURE AND CORRUPTION OF BLOOD.  COKE, FIRST INSTITUTE (ON
LITTLETON)(THOMAS ED. 1818) VOL. III, 559, 563, 565.  IF THE JUDGMENT
WAS LESSER PUNISHMENT THAN DEATH, THERE WAS NO ATTAINT AND THE BILL WAS
ONE OF PAINS AND PENALTIES.  PRACTICALLY ALL THE AMERICAN PRECEDENTS
ARE BILLS OF PAINS AND PENALTIES.  SEE THOMPSON, ANTI-LOYALIST
LEGISLATION DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1908) 3 ILL. L. REV. 81,
153 ET PASSIM; JOHN C. HAMILTON, HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED
STATES (1859) VOL. III, 23-40.  THE CONSTITUTION IN PROHIBITING BILLS
OF ATTAINDER UNDOUBTEDLY INCLUDED BILLS OF PAINS AND PENALTIES, AS THE
MAJORITY IN THE CUMMINGS CASE HELD. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS, CONCURRING. 

NOTHING WOULD BE EASIER THAN PERSONAL CONDEMNATION OF THE PROVISION
OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1943 HERE CHALLENGED. 
SEC. 304, 57 STAT. 431, 450.  FN1  BUT THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION EXACTS
CONSIDERATIONS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH MAY DETERMINE A VOTE IN
CONGRESS FOR OR AGAINST A MEASURE.  AND WHAT MAY BE DECISIVE FOR A
PRESIDENTIAL DISAPPROVAL MAY NOT AT ALL SATISFY THE ESTABLISHED
CRITERIA WHICH ALONE JUSTIFY THIS COURT'S STRIKING DOWN AN ACT OF
CONGRESS. 

IT IS NOT FOR US TO FIND UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IN WHAT CONGRESS ENACTED
ALTHOUGH IT MAY IMPLY NOTIONS THAT ARE ABHORRENT TO US AS INDIVIDUALS
OR POLICIES WE DEEM HARMFUL TO THE COUNTRY'S WELL-BEING.  ALTHOUGH IT
WAS PROPOSED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO HAVE THIS COURT SHARE
IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, THE FRAMERS SAW FIT TO EXCLUDE IT.  AND SO
"IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT LEGISLATURES ARE ULTIMATE GUARDIANS OF THE
LIBERTIES AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IN QUITE AS GREAT A DEGREE AS THE
COURTS."  MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. MAY, 194 U.S. 267, 270.  THIS
ADMONITION WAS UTTERED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN ONE OF HIS EARLIEST
OPINIONS AND IT NEEDS TO BE RECALLED WHENEVER AN EXCEPTIONALLY
OFFENSIVE ENACTMENT TEMPTS THE COURT BEYOND ITS STRICT CONFINEMENTS. 

NOT TO EXERCISE BY INDIRECTION AUTHORITY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
DENIED TO THIS COURT CALLS FOR THE SEVEREST INTELLECTUAL DETACHMENT AND
THE MOST ALERT SELF-RESTRAINT.  THE SCRUPULOUS OBSERVANCE, WITH SOME
DEVIATIONS, OF THE PROFESSED LIMITS OF THIS COURT'S POWER TO STRIKE
DOWN LEGISLATION HAS BEEN, PERHAPS, THE ONE QUALITY THE GREAT JUDGES OF
THE COURT HAVE HAD IN COMMON.  PARTICULARLY WHEN CONGRESSIONAL
LEGISLATION IS UNDER SCRUTINY, EVERY RATIONAL TRAIL MUST BE PURSUED TO
PREVENT COLLISION BETWEEN CONGRESS AND COURT.  FOR CONGRESS CAN READILY
MEND ITS WAYS, OR THE PEOPLE MAY EXPRESS DISAPPROVAL BY CHOOSING
DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIVES.  BUT A DECREE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BY THIS
COURT IS FRAUGHT WITH CONSEQUENCES SO ENDURING AND FAR-REACHING AS TO
BE AVOIDED UNLESS NO CHOICE IS LEFT IN REASON. 

THE INCLUSION OF SEC. 304 IN THE APPROPRIATION BILL UNDOUBTEDLY
RAISES SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  BUT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION IS NOT TO FACE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS BUT TO AVOID THEM, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.  AND SO THE "COURT
DEVELOPED, FOR ITS OWN GOVERNANCE IN THE CASES CONFESSEDLY WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION, A SERIES OF RULES UNDER WHICH IT HAS AVOIDED PASSING UPON
A LARGE PART OF ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESSED UPON IT FOR
DECISION."  BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING, IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 341, AT 346.  THAT A PIECE OF LEGISLATION
UNDER SCRUTINY MAY BE WIDELY UNPOPULAR IS AS IRRELEVANT TO THE
OBSERVANCE OF THESE RULES FOR ABSTENTION FROM AVOIDABLE ADJUDICATIONS
AS THAT IT IS WIDELY POPULAR.  SOME OF THESE RULES MAY WELL APPEAR OVER
REFINED OR EVASIVE TO THE LAITY.  BUT THEY HAVE THE SUPPORT NOT ONLY OF
THE PROFOUNDEST WISDOM.  THEY HAVE BEEN VINDICATED, IN CONSPICUOUS
INSTANCES OF DISREGARD, BY THE MOST PAINFUL LESSONS OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. 

SUCH ARE THE GUIDING CONSIDERATIONS ENJOINED BY CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES AND THE BEST PRACTICE FOR DEALING WITH THE VARIOUS CLAIMS OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY SO ABLY PRESSED UPON US AT THE BAR. 

THE COURT READS SEC. 304 AS THOUGH IT EXPRESSLY DISCHARGED
RESPONDENTS FROM OFFICE WHICH THEY HELD AND PROHIBITED THEM FROM
HOLDING ANY OFFICE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE FUTURE.  ON THE BASIS OF
THIS READING THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE PROVISION IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER
IN THAT IT "INFLICTS PUNISHMENT WITHOUT A JUDICIAL TRIAL," CUMMINGS V.
MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277, 323, AND IS THEREFORE FORBIDDEN BY ARTICLE I,
SEC. 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  CONGRESS IS SAID TO HAVE INFLICTED THIS
PUNISHMENT UPON RESPONDENTS BECAUSE IT DISAPPROVED THE BELIEFS THEY
WERE THOUGHT TO HOLD.  SUCH A COLLOQUIAL TREATMENT OF THE STATUTE
NEGLECTS THE RELEVANT CANONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION AND
DISREGARDS THOSE FEATURES OF THE LEGISLATION WHICH CALL ITS VALIDITY
INTO QUESTION ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN INCONSISTENCY WITH THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST BILLS OF ATTAINDER.  TO CHARACTERIZE AN ACT OF CONGRESS AS A
BILL OF ATTAINDER READILY ENLISTS, HOWEVER, THE INSTINCTS OF A FREE
PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMITTED TO A FAIR JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF ISSUES AFFECTING LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY AND
NATURALLY ABHOR ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION OF
GUILT AND LEGISLATIVE PUNISHMENT.  AS I SEE IT, OUR DUTY PRECLUDES
READING SEC. 304 AS THE COURT READS IT. BUT EVEN IF IT WERE TO BE SO
READ THE PROVISION IS NOT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTION OF A
BILL OF ATTAINDER. 

BROADLY SPEAKING, TWO TYPES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS COME BEFORE THIS
COURT.  MOST CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES DERIVE FROM THE BROAD STANDARDS OF
FAIRNESS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION (E.G. "DUE PROCESS," "EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS," "JUST COMPENSATION"), AND THE DIVISION OF
POWER AS BETWEEN STATES AND NATION.  SUCH QUESTIONS, BY THEIR VERY
NATURE, ALLOW A RELATIVELY WIDE PLAY FOR INDIVIDUAL LEGAL JUDGMENT. 
THE OTHER CLASS GIVES NO SUCH SCOPE.  FOR THIS SECOND CLASS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES DERIVES FROM VERY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THESE HAD THEIR SOURCE IN DEFINITE GRIEVANCES AND LED
THE FATHERS TO PROSCRIBE AGAINST RECURRENCE OF THEIR EXPERIENCE.  THESE
SPECIFIC GRIEVANCES AND THE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST THEIR RECURRENCE WERE
NOT DEFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THEY WERE DEFINED BY HISTORY.  THEIR
MEANING WAS SO SETTLED BY HISTORY THAT DEFINITION WAS SUPERFLUOUS. 
JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION MUST RESPECT THESE HISTORIC
LIMITS. 

THE PROHIBITION OF BILLS OF ATTAINDER FALLS OF COURSE AMONG THESE
VERY SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  THE DISTINGUISHING
CHARACTERISTIC OF A BILL OF ATTAINDER IS THE SUBSTITUTION OF
LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION OF GUILT AND LEGISLATIVE IMPOSITION OF
PUNISHMENT FOR JUDICIAL FINDING AND SENTENCE.  "A BILL OF ATTAINDER, BY
THE COMMON LAW, AS OUR FATHERS IMPORTED IT FROM ENGLAND AND PRACTISED
IT THEMSELVES, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, WAS AN ACT OF
SOVEREIGN POWER, IN THE FORM OF A SPECIAL STATUTE  ...  BY WHICH A MAN
WAS PRONOUNCED GUILTY OR ATTAINTED OF SOME CRIME, AND PUNISHED BY
DEPRIVATION OF HIS VESTED RIGHTS, WITHOUT TRIAL OR JUDGMENT PER LEGEM
TERRAE."  FARRAR, MANUAL OF THE CONSTITUTION (1867) 419.  AND SEE 2
STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION (5TH ED., 1891) 216; 1 COOLEY,
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (8TH ED., 1927) 536.  IT WAS THIS VERY
SPECIAL, NARROWLY RESTRICTED, INTERVENTION BY THE LEGISLATURE, IN
MATTERS FOR WHICH A DECENT REGARD FOR MEN'S INTERESTS INDICATED A
JUDICIAL TRIAL, THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITED.  IT MUST BE RECALLED
THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS FRAMED IN AN ERA WHEN DISPENSING JUSTICE WAS
A WELL-ESTABLISHED FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATURE.  THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST BILLS OF ATTAINDER MUST BE VIEWED IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE
HISTORIC SITUATION WHEN MOVES IN SPECIFIC LITIGATION THAT ARE NOW THE
CONVENTIONAL AND, FOR THE MOST PART, THE EXCLUSIVE CONCERN OF COURTS
WERE COMMONPLACE LEGISLATIVE PRACTICES.  SEE CALDER V. BULL, 3 DALL. 
386; WILKINSON V. LELAND, 2 PET. 627, 660; BALTIMORE & SUSQUEHANNA R.
CO. V. NESBIT, 10 HOW.  395; POUND, JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAW, II (1914)
14 COL. L. REV. 1-12; WOODRUFF, CHANCERY IN MASSACHUSETTS (1889) 5 L.Q.
REV. 370.  CF. SINKING-FUND CASES, 99 U.S. 700.  BILLS OF ATTAINDER
WERE PART OF WHAT NOW ARE STAPLE JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS WHICH LEGISLATURES
THEN EXERCISED.  IT WAS THIS PART OF THEIR RECONGNIZED AUTHORITY WHICH
THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITED WHEN IT PROVIDED THAT "NO BILL OF ATTAINDER
...  SHALL BE PASSED."  SECTION 304 LACKS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
ENACTMENTS IN THE STATUTES OF THE REALM AND THE COLONIAL LAWS THAT BEAR
THE HALLMARKS OF BILLS OF ATTAINDER. 

ALL BILLS OF ATTAINDER SPECIFY THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE ATTAINTED
PERSON WAS DEEMED GUILTY AND FOR WHICH THE PUNISHMENT WAS IMPOSED. 
THERE WAS ALWAYS A DECLARATION OF GUILT EITHER OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE
CLASS TO WHICH HE BELONGED.  THE OFFENSE MIGHT BE A PRE-EXISTING CRIME
OR AN ACT MADE PUNISHABLE EX POST FACTO.  FREQUENTLY A BILL OF
ATTAINDER WAS THUS DOUBLY OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE OF ITS EX POST FACTO
FEATURES.  THIS IS THE HISTORIC EXPLANATION FOR UNITING THE TWO
MISCHIEFS IN ONE CLAUSE - "NO BILL OF ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAW
SHALL BE PASSED."  NO ONE CLAIMS THAT SEC. 304 IS AN EX POST FACTO
LAW.  IF IT IS IN SUBSTANCE A PUNISHMENT FOR ACTS DEEMED "SUBVERSIVE"
(THE STATUTE, OF COURSE, MAKES NO SUCH CHARGE) FOR WHICH NO PUNISHMENT
HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROVIDED, IT WOULD CLEARLY BE EX POST FACTO. 
THEREFORE, IF SEC. 304 IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER IT IS ALSO AN EX POST
FACTO LAW.  BUT IF IT IS NOT AN EX POST FACTO LAW, THE REASONS THAT
ESTABLISH THAT IT IS NOT ARE PERSUASIVE THAT IT CANNOT BE A BILL OF
ATTAINDER.  NO OFFENSE IS SPECIFIED AND NO DECLARATION OF GUILT IS
MADE.  WHEN THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION PROSCRIBED BILLS OF
ATTAINDER, THEY REFERRED TO A FORM OF LAW WHICH HAD BEEN PREVALENT IN
MONARCHICAL ENGLAND AND WAS EMPLOYED IN THE COLONIES.  THEY WERE
FAMILIAR WITH ITS NATURE; THEY HAD EXPERIENCED ITS USE; THEY KNEW WHAT
THEY WANTED TO PREVENT.  IT WAS NOT A LAW UNFAIR IN GENERAL, EVEN
UNFAIR BECAUSE AFFECTING MERELY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS, THAT THEY
OUTLAWED BY THE EXPLICITNESS OF THEIR PROHIBITION OF BILLS OF
ATTAINDER.  "UPON THIS POINT A PAGE OF HISTORY IS WORTH A VOLUME OF
LOGIC."  NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. EISNER, 256 U.S. 345, 349.  NOR SHOULD
RESENTMENT AGAINST AN INJUSTICE DISPLACE CONTROLLING HISTORY IN
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

NOT ONLY DOES SEC. 304 LACK THE ESSENTIAL DECLARATION OF GUILT.  IT
LIKEWISE LACKS THE IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT IN THE SENSE APPROPRIATE
FOR BILLS OF ATTAINDER.  THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED BY THE MOST DREADED
BILL OF ATTAINDER WAS OF COURSE DEATH; LESSER PUNISHMENTS WERE IMPOSED
BY SIMILAR BILLS MORE TECHNICALLY CALLED BILLS OF PAINS AND PENALTIES. 
THE CONSTITUTION OUTLAWS THIS ENTIRE CATEGORY OF PUNITIVE MEASURES. 
FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87, 138; CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL. 
277.  THE AMOUNT OF PUNISHMENT IS IMMATERIAL TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF A
CHALLENGED STATUTE.  BUT PUNISHMENT IS A PREREQUISITE. 

PUNISHMENT PRESUPPOSES AN OFFENSE, NOT NECESSARILY AN ACT PREVIOUSLY
DECLARED CRIMINAL, BUT AN ACT FOR WHICH RETRIBUTION IS EXACTED.  THE
FACT THAT HARM IS INFLICTED BY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY DOES NOT MAKE IT
PUNISHMENT.  FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING ALL DISCOMFORTING ACTION MAY BE
DEEMED PUNISHMENT BECAUSE IT DEPRIVES OF WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE
ENJOYED.  BUT THERE MAY BE REASONS OTHER THAN PUNITIVE FOR SUCH
DEPRIVATION.  A MAN MAY BE FORBIDDEN TO PRACTICE MEDICINE BECAUSE HE
HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY, HAWKER V. NEW YROK, 170 U.S. 189, OR
BECAUSE HE IS NO LONGER QUALIFIED, DENT V. WEST VIRGINIA, 129 U.S.
114.  "THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, CIVIL OR POLITICAL, PREVIOUSLY
ENJOYED, MAY BE PUNISHMENT, THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING AND THE CAUSES
OF THE DEPRIVATION DETERMINING THIS FACT."  CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4
WALL.  277, 320. 

IS IT CLEAR THEN THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, STILL
ACCEPTING THE COURT'S READING OF THE STATUTE, AS A PUNISHMENT FOR PAST
ACTS?  IS IT CLEAR, THAT IS, TO THAT DEGREE OF CERTITUDE WHICH IS
REQUIRED BEFORE THIS COURT DECLARES LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?  THE DISPUTED SECTION DOES NOT SAY SO.  SO FAR AS THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS CONCERNED, THE KERR COMMITTEE, WHICH
PROPOSED THE MEASURE, AND MANY OF THOSE WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE BILL
(ASSUMING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GO BEHIND THE TERMS OF A STATUTE TO
ASCERTAIN THE UNEXPRESSED MOTIVE OF ITS MEMBERS), NO DOUBT CONSIDERED
THE RESPONDENTS "SUBVERSIVE" AND WISHED TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM THE
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THEIR PAST ASSOCIATIONS AND THEIR PRESENT VIEWS. 
BUT THE LEGISLATION UPON WHICH WE NOW PASS JUDGMENT IS THE PRODUCT OF
BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT.  THE SENATE FIVE TIMES
REJECTED THE SUBSTANCE OF SEC. 304.  IT FINALLY PREVAILED, NOT BECAUSE
THE SENATE JOINED IN AN UNEXPRESSED DECLARATION OF GUILT AND
RETRIBUTION FOR IT, BUT BECAUSE THE PROVISION WAS INCLUDED IN AN
IMPORTANT APPROPRIATION BILL.  THE STIFFEST INTERPRETATION THAT CAN BE
PLACED UPON THE SENATE'S ACTION IS THAT IT AGREED TO REMOVE THE
RESPONDENTS FROM OFFICE (STILL ASSUMING THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. 304) WITHOUT PASSING ANY JUDGMENT ON THEIR PAST CONDUCT OR PRESENT
VIEWS. 

ALLOWING IT TO BECOME LAW IS FREE FROM DOUBT.  HE REJECTED THE NOTION
THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE "SUBVERSIVE," AND EXPLICITLY STATED THAT HE
WISHED TO RETAIN THEM IN THE SERVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  H. DOC. NO.
264, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  HISTORICALLY, PARLIAMENT PASSED BILLS OF
ATTAINDER AT THE BEHEST OF THE MONARCH.  SEE ADAMS, CONSTITUTIONAL
HISTORY OF ENGLAND (REV. ED., 1935) 228-29.  THE CONSTITUTION, OF
COURSE, PROVIDES FOR THE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION EVEN AGAINST
DISAPPROVAL BY THE EXECUTIVE.  BUT TO HOLD THAT A MEASURE WHICH DID NOT
EXPRESS A JUDGMENT OF CONDEMNATION BY THE SENATE AND CARRIED AN
AFFIRMATIVE DISAVOWAL OF SUCH CONDEMNATION BY THE PRESIDENT CONSTITUTES
A BILL OF ATTAINDER, DISREGARDS THE HISTORIC TESTS FOR DETERMINING WHAT
IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER.  AT THE LEAST, THERE ARE SUCH SERIOUS
OBJECTIONS TO FINDING SEC. 304 A BILL OF ATTAINDER THAT IT CAN BE
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONLY BY A FAILURE TO OBSERVE THAT THIS COURT
REACHES CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDATION ONLY THROUGH INESCAPABLE
NECESSITY.  "IT MUST BE EVIDENT TO ANYONE THAT THE POWER TO DECLARE A
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT VOID IS ONE WHICH THE JUDGE, CONSCIOUS OF THE
FALLIBILITY OF THE HUMAN JUDGMENT, WILL SHRINK FROM EXERCISING IN ANY
CASE WHERE HE CAN CONSCIENTIOUSLY AND WITH DUE REGARD TO DUTY AND
OFFICIAL OATH DECLINE THE RESPONSIBILITY."  1 COOLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS (8TH ED., 1927) 332. 

BUT EVEN IF IT BE AGREED, FOR PURPOSES OF CHARACTERIZING THE
DEPRIVATION OF THE STATUTE AS PUNISHMENT, THAT THE MOTIVE OF CONGRESS
WAS PAST ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS, PRESUMED MOTIVE CANNOT SUPPLANT
EXPRESSED LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  "THE EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE WHO SOUGHT
THE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION MAY NOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
AFFIXING TO LEGISLATION WHEN ENACTED A MEANING WHICH IT DOES NOT
EXPRESS."  UNITED STATES V. GOELET, 232 U.S. 293, 298.  CONGRESS
OMITTED FROM SEC. 304 ANY CONDEMNATION FOR WHICH THE PRESUMED
PUNISHMENT WAS A SANCTION.  THEREBY IT NEGATIVED THE ESSENTIAL NOTION
OF A BILL OF ATTAINDER.  IT MAY BE SAID THAT SUCH A VIEW OF A BILL OF
ATTAINDER OFFERS CONGRESS TOO EASY A MODE OF EVADING THE PROHIBITION OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  CONGRESS NEED MERELY OMIT ITS GROUND OF CONDEMNATION
AND LEGISLATE THE PENALTY.  BUT THE PROHIBITION AGAINST A "BILL OF
ATTAINDER" IS ONLY ONE OF THE SAFEGUARDS OF LIBERTY IN THE ARSENAL OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION,
SPECIFIC AND COMPREHENSIVE, EFFECTIVELY DESIGNED TO ASSURE THE
LIBERTIES OF OUR CITIZENS.  THE RESTRICTIVE FUNCTION OF THIS CLAUSE
AGAINST BILLS OF ATTAINDER WAS TO TAKE FROM THE LEGISLATURE A JUDICIAL
FUNCTION WHICH THE LEGISLATURE ONCE POSSESSED.  IF CONGRESS ADOPTED, AS
IT DID, A FORM OF STATUTE SO LACKING IN ANY PRETENSION TO THE VERY
QUALITY WHICH GAVE A BILL OF ATTAINDER ITS SIGNIFICANCE, THAT OF A
DECLARATION OF GUILT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MADE ITS DETERMINATION
GROSSLY UNFAIR, IT SIMPLY PASSED AN ACT WHICH THIS COURT OUGHT NOT TO
DENOUNCE AS A BILL OF ATTAINDER.  AND NOT THE LESS SO BECAUSE CONGRESS
MAY HAVE BEEN CONSCIOUS OF THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS
PLACED UPON IT AGAINST PASSING BILLS OF ATTAINDER.  IF CONGRESS CHOOSES
TO SAY THAT MEN SHALL NOT BE PAID, OR EVEN THAT THEY SHALL BE REMOVED
FROM THEIR JOBS, WE CANNOT DECIDE THAT CONGRESS ALSO SAID THAT THEY ARE
GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE.  AND PARTICULARLY WE CANNOT SO DECIDE AS A
NECESSARY ASSUMPTION FOR DECLARING AN ACT OF CONGRESS INVALID. 
CONGRESS HAS NOT LEGISLATED THAT WHICH IS ATTRIBUTED TO IT, FOR THE
SIMPLE FACT IS THAT CONGRESS HAS SAID NOTHING.  THE WORDS CONGRESS USED
ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING READ AS A LEGISLATIVE VERDICT OF GUILT
AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NO MATTER WHAT DICTIONARY, OR WHAT FORM OF
ARGUMENTATION, WE USE AS AIDS. 

THIS ANALYSIS ACCORDS WITH OUR PRIOR COURSE OF DECISION.  IN CUMMINGS
V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, AND EX PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333, THE COURT DEALT
WITH LEGISLATION OF VERY DIFFERENT SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE FROM THAT NOW
BEFORE US.  WHILE THE PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THOSE CASES DID NOT
CONDEMN OR PUNISH SPECIFIC PERSONS BY NAME, THEY PROSCRIBED ALL GUILTY
OF DESIGNATED OFFENSES.  REFUSAL TO TAKE A PRESCRIBED OATH OPERATED AS
AN ADMISSION OF GUILT AND AUTOMATICALLY RESULTED IN THE DISQUALIFYING
PUNISHMENT.  AVOIDANCE OF LEGISLATIVE PROSCRIPTION FOR GUILT UNDER THE
PROVISIONS IN THE CUMMINGS AND GARLAND CASES REQUIRED POSITIVE
EXCULPATION.  THAT THE PERSONS LEGISLATIVELY PUNISHED WERE NOT NAMED
WAS A MERE DETAIL OF IDENTIFICATION.  CONGRESS AND THE MISSOURI
LEGISLATURE, RESPECTIVELY, HAD PROVIDED THE MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD FOR
INSURING IDENTIFICATION.  THESE ENACTMENTS FOLLOWED THE EXAMPLE OF
ENGLISH BILLS OF ATTAINDER WHICH CONDEMNED A NAMED PERSON AND "HIS
ADHERENTS."  SECTION 304 PRESENTS A SITUATION WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE
INGREDIENTS OF THE ENACTMENTS THAT FURNISHED THE BASIS FOR THE CUMMINGS
AND GARLAND DECISIONS.  FN2 

WHILE SEC. 304 IS NOT A BILL OF ATTAINDER, AS THE GLOSS OF HISTORY
DEFINES THAT PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION, ACCEPTANCE OF THE COURT'S
READING OF SEC. 304 WOULD RAISE OTHER SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS.  THE FIRST IN MAGNITUDE AND DIFFICULTY DERIVES FROM THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF POWER OVER REMOVAL.  FOR ABOUT A CENTURY
THIS COURT ASTUTELY AVOIDED ADJUDICATION OF THE POWER OF CONTROL AS
BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE OF THOSE SERVING IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT "UNTIL IT SHOULD BE INEVITABLY PRESENTED." 
MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52, 173.  THE COURT THEN GAVE THE
FULLEST CONSIDERATION TO THE PROBLEM.  THE CASE WAS TWICE ARGUED AND
WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR NEARLY THREE YEARS.  SO FAR AS THE ISSUES
COULD BE FORESEEN THEY WERE ELABORATELY DEALT WITH IN OPINIONS
AGGREGATING NEARLY TWO HUNDRED PAGES.  WITHIN LESS THAN A DECADE AN
OPINION OF FIFTEEN PAGES LARGELY QUALIFIED WHAT THE MYERS CASE HAD
APPARENTLY SO VOLUMINOUSLY SETTLED.  HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 602.  THIS EXPERIENCE SERVES AS A POWERFUL REMINDER OF
THE COURT'S DUTY SO TO DEAL WITH CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS AS TO AVOID
THEIR INVALIDATION UNLESS A ROAD TO ANY OTHER DECISION IS BARRED. 

THE OTHER SERIOUS PROBLEM THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 304
RAISES IS THAT OF DUE PROCESS.  IN ONE ASPECT THIS IS ANOTHER PHASE OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE OF THE REMOVAL POWER.  FOR, IF SEC. 304 IS TO
BE CONSTRUED AS A REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED WHETHER
SINGLING OUT THREE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOR REMOVAL VIOLATED THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT UNTIL IT IS DECIDED WHETHER CONGRESS HAS A REMOVAL POWER AT
ALL OVER SUCH EMPLOYEES AND HOW EXTENSIVE IT IS.  EVEN IF THE STATUTE
BE READ AS A MERE STOPPAGE OF DISBURSEMENT, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER
CONGRESS CAN TREAT THREE EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT DIFFERENTLY FROM
ALL OTHERS.  BUT THAT QUESTION WE DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER.  IN ANY EVENT,
RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN THIS SUIT AND THEIR REMEDY - A
SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS - IS THE SAME WHATEVER VIEW ONE TAKES OF
THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SEC. 304.  TO BE SURE, SEC. 304 ALSO PURPORTS
TO PRESCRIBE CONDITIONS RELATING TO FUTURE EMPLOYMENT OF RESPONDENTS BY
THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS TOO IS A QUESTION NOT NOW OPEN FOR DECISION. 
REEMPLOYMENT BY ANY AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE DESIRE FOR
REEMPLOYMENT, IS NOT NOW IN CONTROVERSY, "AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SUBJECT
MAY WELL BE POSTPONED UNTIL IT ACTUALLY ARISES FOR DECISION."  WILSON
V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 354.  THE "GREAT GRAVITY AND DELICACY" OF THIS
COURT'S FUNCTION IN PASSING UPON THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS
CALLED INTO ACTION ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.  STEAMSHIP CO. V.
EMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, 113 U.S. 33, 39.  IT SHOULD NOT BE EXERCISED
ON THE BASIS OF IMAGINARY AND NON-EXISTENT FACTS.  SEE BRANDEIS, J.,
CONCURRING, IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, SUPRA, AT 338
45. 

SINCE IT IS APPARENT THAT GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBTS WILL ARISE IF
WE ADOPT THE CONSTRUCTION THE COURT PUTS ON SEC. 304, WE OUGHT TO
FOLLOW THE PRACTICE WHICH THIS COURT HAS ESTABLISHED FROM THE TIME OF
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.  THE APPROACH APPROPRIATE TO SUCH A CASE AS THE
ONE BEFORE US WAS THUS SUMMARIZED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN A SIMILAR
SITUATION:  "...  THE RULE IS SETTLED THAT AS BETWEEN TWO POSSIBLE
INTERPRETATIONS OF A STATUTE, BY ONE OF WHICH IT WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND BY THE OTHER VALID, OUR PLAIN DUTY IS TO ADOPT
THAT WHICH WILL SAVE THE ACT.  EVEN TO AVOID A SERIOUS DOUBT THE RULE
IS THE SAME.  UNITED STATES V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366,
407, 408.  UNITED STATES V. STANDARD BREWERY, 251 U.S. 210, 220.  TEXAS
V. EASTERN TEXAS R.R. CO., 258 U.S. 204, 217.  BRATTON V. CHANDLER, 260
U.S. 110, 114.  PANAMA R.R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375, 390.  WORDS
HAVE BEEN STRAINED MORE THAN THEY NEED TO BE STRAINED HERE IN ORDER TO
AVOID THAT DOUBT.  UNITED STATES V. JIN FUEY MOY, 241 U.S. 394, 401,
402."  BLODGETT V. HOLDEN, 275 U.S. 142, 148.  "'WHEN THE VALIDITY OF
AN ACT OF THE CONGRESS IS DRAWN IN QUESTION, AND EVEN IF A SERIOUS
DOUBT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS RAISED, IT IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE THAT
THIS COURT WILL FIRST ASCERTAIN WHETHER A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
IS FAIRLY POSSIBLE BY WHICH THE QUESTION MAY BE AVOIDED.'  CROWELL V.
BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 62."  BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING, IN ASHWANDER V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, SUPRA, AT 348. 

WE ARE NOT FACED INESCAPABLY WITH THE NECESSITY OF ADJUDICATING THESE
SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  THE OBVIOUS OR, AT THE LEAST, THE
ONE CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 304 IS THAT IT FORBIDS THE DISBURSING
AGENTS OF THE TREASURY TO PAY OUT OF SPECIFICALLY APPROPRIATED MONEYS
SUMS TO COMPENSATE RESPONDENTS FOR THEIR SERVICES.  WE HAVE NOTED THE
CLOUD CAST UPON THIS INTERPRETATION BY MANIFESTATIONS BY COMMITTEES AND
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS
IN THE SENATE BUT ALSO IN THE HOUSE WHICH SUPPORTS THE MERE FISCAL
SCOPE TO BE GIVEN TO THE STATUTE.  THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS TENABLE
SETTLES OUR DUTY TO ADOPT IT AND TO AVOID DETERMINATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS OF GREAT SERIOUSNESS. 

ACCORDINGLY, I FEEL COMPELLED TO CONSTRUE SEC. 304 AS DID MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE WHALEY BELOW, 104 CT. CLS. 557, 584, 66 F.SUPP.  142, 147-148,
WHEREBY IT MERELY PREVENTED THE ORDINARY DISBURSAL OF MONEY TO PAY
RESPONDENTS' SALARIES.  IT DID NOT CUT OFF THE OBLIGATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR SERVICES RENDERED AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE,
THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE JUDGMENT WHICH THEY OBTAINED FROM
THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

FN1  "SEC.  304.  NO PART OF ANY APPROPRIATION, ALLOCATION, OR FUND
(1) WHICH IS MADE AVAILABLE UNDER OR PURSUANT TO THIS ACT, OR (2) WHICH
IS NOW, OR WHICH IS HEREAFTER MADE, AVAILABLE UNDER OR PURSUANT TO ANY
OTHER ACT, TO ANY DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED
STATES, SHALL BE USED, AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1943, TO PAY ANY PART OF THE
SALARY, OR OTHER COMPENSATION FOR THE PERSONAL SERVICES, OF GOODWIN B.
WATSON, WILLIAM E. DODD, JUNIOR, AND ROBERT MORSS LOVETT, UNLESS PRIOR
TO SUCH DATE SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT, BY AND
WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE:  PROVIDED, THAT THIS SECTION
SHALL NOT OPERATE TO DEPRIVE ANY SUCH PERSON OF PAYMENT FOR LEAVES OF
ABSENCE OR SALARY, OR OF ANY REFUND OR REIMBURSEMENT, WHICH HAVE
ACCRUED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 15, 1943:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THIS
SERVICES PERFORMED AS A MEMBER OF A JURY OR AS A MEMBER OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY BENEFIT, PENSION, OR EMOLUMENT
RESULTING THEREFROM." 

FN2  EVEN AGAINST THE HOLDING THAT SUCH ENACTMENTS WERE BILLS OF
ATTAINDER, MR. JUSTICE MILLER WROTE THE POWERFUL DISSENT CONCURRED IN
BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE, MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE, AND MR. JUSTICE DAVIS. 
4 WALL.  333, 382. 
..END :






















PENNEKAMP V. FLORIDA, 328 U.S. 331 


NO. 473.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 3, 1946.  - 156 FLA.
227, 22 SO.2D 875, REVERSED. 


PETITIONERS, THE PUBLISHER AND THE ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF A NEWSPAPER,
WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLICATION OF TWO EDITORIALS AND A CARTOON
CRITICIZING CERTAIN ACTIONS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN BY A FLORIDA TRIAL COURT
OF GENERAL JURISDICTION IN CERTAIN NON-JURY PROCEEDINGS AS BEING TOO
FAVORABLE TO CRIMINALS AND GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENTS.  TWO OF THE CASES
INVOLVED HAD BEEN DISMISSED.  IN THE THIRD, A RAPE CASE, AN INDICTMENT
HAD BEEN QUASHED FOR TECHNICAL DEFECTS, BUT A NEW INDICTMENT HAD BEEN
OBTAINED AND TRIAL WAS PENDING.  PETITIONERS WERE CITED FOR CONTEMPT,
THE CITATION CHARGING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE PUBLICATIONS REFLECTED UPON
AND IMPUGNED THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT, TENDED TO CREATE A DISTRUST
FOR THE COURT, WILFULLY WITHHELD AND SUPPRESSED THE TRUTH, AND TENDED
TO OBSTRUCT THE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN PENDING
CASES.  IN THEIR ANSWER, PETITIONERS DENIED ANY INTENT TO INTERFERE
WITH FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUSTICE AND CLAIMED, INTER ALIA, THAT IT WAS
THEIR INTENT TO CONDEMN AND CRITICIZE THE SYSTEM OF PLEADING AND
PRACTICE CREATED BY THE LAWS OF FLORIDA, THAT THE PUBLICATIONS WERE
LEGITIMATE CRITICISM AND COMMENT WITHIN THE FEDERAL GUARANTIES OF A
FREE PRESS, AND THAT THEY CREATED NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  THE COURT FOUND THE FACTS RECITED AND THE
CHARGES MADE IN THE CITATION TO BE TRUE AND WELL FOUNDED, ADJUDGED
PETITIONERS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT, AND FINED THEM.  THIS JUDGMENT WAS
SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AS BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FLORIDA LAW.  HELD: 

1.  ON THIS RECORD, THE DANGER TO FAIR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION HAS
NOT THE CLEARNESS AND IMMEDIACY NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE DOOR OF
PERMISSIBLE PUBLIC COMMENT; AND THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AS VIOLATIVE
OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION IN THE PRESS UNDER THE FIRST
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252.  PP.
334, 346-350. 

2.  THIS COURT HAS FINAL AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE MEANING AND
APPLICATION OF THOSE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH REQUIRE
INTERPRETATION TO RESOLVE JUDICIAL ISSUES.  P. 335. 

3.  IN CASES OF THIS TYPE, IT MUST EXAMINE FOR ITSELF THE STATEMENTS
IN ISSUE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE MADE TO SEE
WHETHER OR NOT THEY CARRY A THREAT OF CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE
IMPARTIALITY AND GOOD ORDER OF THE COURTS OR WHETHER THEY ARE OF A
CHARACTER PROTECTED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS.  PP. 335, 336, 346. 

4.  WHEN THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE HAS REACHED A DETERMINATION
UPON SUCH AN ISSUE, THIS COURT GIVES MOST RESPECTFUL ATTENTION TO ITS
REASONING AND CONCLUSION; BUT THE STATE COURT'S AUTHORITY IS NOT
FINAL.  P. 335. 

5.  THIS COURT AGREES WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THAT THE RAPE
CASE WAS PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLICATION.  P. 344. 

6.  THIS COURT MAY ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE FLORIDA COURTS UPON
INTENT AND MOTIVE AS A DETERMINATION OF FACT; BUT IT IS FOR THIS COURT
TO DETERMINE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE SETTING OF THE
FACTS.  P. 345. 

7.  DISCUSSION THAT FOLLOWS THE TERMINATION OF A CASE MAY BE
INADEQUATE TO EMPHASIZE THE DANGER TO PUBLIC WELFARE OF SUPPOSEDLY
WRONGFUL JUDICIAL CONDUCT, BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT PUBLIC COMMENT
OF EVERY CHARACTER UPON PENDING TRIALS OR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS MAY BE AS
FREE AS SIMILAR COMMENT AFTER COMPLETE DISPOSAL OF THE LITIGATION.  P.
346. 

8.  IN BORDERLINE CASES WHERE IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY UPON WHICH SIDE
THE ALLEGED OFFENSE FALLS, THE SPECIFIC FREEDOM OF PUBLIC COMMENT
SHOULD WEIGH HEAVILY AGAINST A POSSIBLE TENDENCY TO INFLUENCE PENDING
CASES.  FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION SHOULD BE GIVEN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE RANGE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF THE FAIR AND ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  P. 347. 

9.  SINCE THE PUBLICATIONS CONCERNED THE ATTITUDE OF THE JUDGES
TOWARD THOSE CHARGED WITH CRIME, NOT COMMENTS ON EVIDENCE OR RULINGS
DURING A JURY TRIAL, THEIR EFFECT ON JURIES THAT MIGHT EVENTUALLY TRY
THE ALLEGED OFFENDERS IS TOO REMOTE TO BE CONSIDERED A CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER TO JUSTICE.  P. 348. 

10.  THIS CRITICISM OF THE JUDGE'S INCLINATIONS OR ACTIONS IN PENDING
NON-JURY PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE, ALTHOUGH THE CASES WERE STILL PENDING ON OTHER POINTS OR MIGHT
BE REVIVED BY REHEARINGS.  P. 348. 

11.  THAT A JUDGE MIGHT BE INFLUENCED BY A DESIRE TO PLACATE THE
ACCUSING NEWSPAPER TO RETAIN PUBLIC ESTEEM AND SECURE REELECTION AT THE
COST OF UNFAIR RULINGS AGAINST AN ACCUSED IS TOO REMOTE A POSSIBILITY
TO BE CONSIDERED A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO JUSTICE.  P. 349. 

PENNEKAMP ET AL. V. FLORIDA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

PETITIONERS WERE ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF A STATE COURT.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AFFIRMED.  156 FLA. 227, 22 SO.2D 875.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 709.  REVERSED, P. 350. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA, 156 FLA. 227, 22 SO.2D 875, WHICH AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT
OF GUILT IN CONTEMPT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON A
CITATION OF PETITIONERS BY THAT CIRCUIT COURT. 

THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONER WAS THE ASSOCIATE EDITOR OF THE MIAMI
HERALD, A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, PUBLISHED IN DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT.  THE CORPORATE
PETITIONER WAS THE PUBLISHER OF THE MIAMI HERALD.  TOGETHER PETITIONERS
WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLICATION OF TWO EDITORIALS CHARGED BY THE
CITATION TO BE CONTEMPTUOUS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND ITS JUDGES IN THAT
THEY WERE UNLAWFULLY CRITICAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
IN CERTAIN CASES THEN PENDING BEFORE THE COURT. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THE
EDITORIALS DID NOT PRESENT "A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF HIGH
IMMINENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY THE COURT" OR JUDGES WHO
WERE CRITICIZED AND THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT WAS INVALID AS
VIOLATIVE OF THE PETITIONERS' RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION IN THE PRESS. 
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AT THIS
TIME, IN VIEW OF THIS COURT'S DECISION IN BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314
U.S. 252, THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THIS JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT, IS APPARENT. 

BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA FIXED REASONABLY WELL-MARKED LIMITS AROUND THE
POWER OF COURTS TO PUNISH NEWSPAPERS AND OTHERS FOR COMMENTS UPON OR
CRITICISM OF PENDING LITIGATION.  THE CASE PLACED ORDERLY OPERATION OF
COURTS AS THE PRIMARY AND DOMINANT REQUIREMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  PAGES 263, 265, 266.  THIS ESSENTIAL RIGHT OF THE COURTS TO
BE FREE OF INTIMIDATION AND COERCION WAS HELD TO BE CONSONANT WITH A
RECOGNITION THAT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS MUST BE ALLOWED IN THE BROADEST
SCOPE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SUPREMACY OF ORDER.  A THEORETICAL
DETERMINANT OF THE LIMIT FOR OPEN DISCUSSION WAS ADOPTED FROM
EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION AND MAINTENANCE OF ORDER.  THIS WAS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER RULE.  THE EVIL CONSEQUENCE OF COMMENT MUST BE "EXTREMELY
SERIOUS AND THE DEGREE OF IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH BEFORE UTTERANCES
CAN BE PUNISHED."  PAGE 263.  IT WAS, OF COURSE, RECOGNIZED THAT THIS
FORMULA, AS WOULD ANY OTHER, INEVITABLY HAD THE VICE OF UNCERTAINTY,
PAGE 261, BUT IT WAS EXPECTED THAT, FROM A DECENT SELF-RESTRAINT ON THE
PART OF THE PRESS AND FROM THE FORMULA'S REPEATED APPLICATION BY THE
COURTS, STANDARDS OF PERMISSIBLE COMMENT WOULD EMERGE WHICH WOULD
GUARANTEE THE COURTS AGAINST INTERFERENCE AND ALLOW FAIR PLAY TO THE
GOOD INFLUENCES OF OPEN DISCUSSION.  AS A STEP TOWARD THE MARKING OF
THE LINE, WE HELD THAT THE PUBLICATIONS THERE INVOLVED WERE WITHIN THE
PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF FREE DISCUSSION. 

IN THE BRIDGES CASE THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE WAS APPLIED TO
THE STATED ISSUE OF WHETHER THE EXPRESSIONS THERE UNDER CONSIDERATION
PREVENTED "FAIR JUDICIAL TRIALS FREE FROM COERCION OR INTIMIDATION." 
PAGE 259.  THERE WAS, OF COURSE, NO QUESTION AS TO THE POWER TO PUNISH
FOR DISTURBANCES AND DISORDER IN THE COURT ROOM.  PAGE 266.  THE DANGER
TO BE GUARDED AGAINST IS THE "SUBSTANTIVE EVIL" SOUGHT TO BE
PREVENTED.  PAGES 261, 262, 263.  IN THE BRIDGES CASE THAT "SUBSTANTIVE
EVIL" WAS PRIMARILY THE "DISORDERLY AND UNFAIR ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE."  PAGES 270, 271, 278.  FN1 

THE CONSTITUTION HAS IMPOSED UPON THIS COURT FINAL AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THOSE WORDS OF THAT INSTRUMENT
WHICH REQUIRE INTERPRETATION TO RESOLVE JUDICIAL ISSUES.  WITH THAT
RESPONSIBILITY, WE ARE COMPELLED TO EXAMINE FOR OURSELVES THE
STATEMENTS IN ISSUE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE MADE TO
SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY DO CARRY A THREAT OF CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
TO THE IMPARTIALITY AND GOOD ORDER OF THE COURTS OR WHETHER THEY ARE OF
A CHARACTER WHICH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AS ADOPTED BY
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, PROTECT N2.  WHEN
THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE HAS REACHED A DETERMINATION UPON SUCH AN
ISSUE, WE GIVE MOST RESPECTFUL ATTENTION TO ITS REASONING AND
CONCLUSION BUT ITS AUTHORITY IS NOT FINAL.  WERE IT OTHERWISE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF FREE EXPRESSION IN THE NATION WOULD VARY WITH
STATE LINES.  FN3 

WHILE THERE WAS A DIVISION OF THE COURT IN THE BRIDGES CASE AS TO
WHETHER SOME OF THE PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS BY EDITORIAL COMMENT
TRANSGRESSED THE BOUNDARIES OF A FREE PRESS AND AS TO THE PHRASING OF
THE TEST, THERE WAS UNANIMOUS RECOGNITION THAT CALIFORNIA'S POWER TO
PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT WAS LIMITED BY THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE
EXTENT OF PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, AT 297.  WHETHER THE THREAT TO THE IMPARTIAL AND
ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE MUST BE A CLEAR AND PRESENT OR A
GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER, A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL THREAT, ONE WHICH IS
CLOSE AND DIRECT OR ONE WHICH DISTURBS THE COURT'S SENSE OF FAIRNESS
DEPENDS UPON A CHOICE OF WORDS.  UNDER ANY ONE OF THE PHRASES,
REVIEWING COURTS ARE BROUGHT IN CASES OF THIS TYPE TO APPRAISE THE
COMMENT ON A BALANCE BETWEEN THE DESIRABILITY OF FREE DISCUSSION AND
THE NECESSITY FOR FAIR ADJUDICATION, FREE FROM INTERRUPTION OF ITS
PROCESSES. 

THE EDITORIALS OF NOVEMBER 2D AND 7TH, 1944, WHICH CAUSED THE COURT
TO ISSUE THE CITATION ARE SET OUT BELOW.  FN4  ACCOMPANYING THE FIRST
EDITORIAL WAS A CARTOON WHICH HELD UP THE LAW TO PUBLIC OBLOQUY.  IT
CARICATURED A COURT BY A ROBED COMPLIANT FIGURE AS A JUDGE ON THE BENCH
TOSSING ASIDE FORMAL CHARGES TO HAND A DOCUMENT, MARKED "DEFENDANT
DISMISSED," TO A POWERFUL FIGURE CLOSE AT HIS LEFT ARM AND OF AN
INTENTIONALLY DRAWN CRIMINAL TYPE.  AT THE RIGHT OF THE BENCH, A FUTILE
INDIVIDUAL, LABELED "PUBLIC INTEREST" VAINLY PROTESTS. 

THE CITATION CHARGES THAT THE EDITORIALS 

"DID REFLECT UPON AND IMPUGN THE INTEGRITY OF SAID COURT AND THE
JUDGES THEREOF IN IMPUTING THAT THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT 'DO RECOGNIZE
AND ACCEPT, EVEN GO OUT TO FIND, EVERY POSSIBLE TECHNICALITY OF THE LAW
TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT, TO BLOCK, THWART, HINDER, EMBARRASS AND
NULLIFY PROSECUTION,' WHICH SAID ACTS BY YOU TEND TO CREATE A DISTRUST
FOR SAID COURT AND THE JUDGES THEREOF IN THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE OF
THIS COUNTY AND STATE AND TEND TO PREVENT AND PREJUDICE A FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL ACTION OF THE SAID COURT AND THE JUDGES THEREOF IN RESPECT TO
THE SAID PENDING (CASES)." 

AFTER SETTING OUT DETAILS OF ALLEGED WILLFUL WITHHOLDING AND
SUPPRESSION OF THE WHOLE TRUTH IN THE PUBLICATIONS, THE CITATION
FURTHER CHARGES THAT 

"YOU, BY SAID CARTOON AND EDITORIAL, HAVE CAUSED TO BE REPRESENTED
UNTO THE PUBLIC THAT CONCERNING THE CASES OF (A) THE EIGHT INDICTMENTS
FOR RAPE, (B) THE SAID BROOK CLUB CASE, AND (C) THE TEEPEE CLUB CASE,
THAT THE JUDGES OF THIS COURT (HAD NOT) FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY HEARD
AND DECIDED THE MATTERS IN SAID EDITORIAL MENTIONED AND HAVE THEREBY
REPRESENTED UNTO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE GREAT
PUBLIC TRUST VESTED IN THE JUDGES OF THIS COURT THAT THEY HAVE NOT
DISCHARGED THEIR DUTIES HONORABLY AND FAIRLY IN RESPECT TO SAID PENDING
CASES AS HEREINBEFORE SET FORTH, ALL OF WHICH TENDS TO OBSTRUCT AND
INTERFERE WITH THE SAID JUDGES AS SUCH IN FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY
ADMINISTERING JUSTICE AND IN THE DISCHARGING OF THEIR DUTIES IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE TRUE PRINCIPLES WHICH YOU HAVE SO PROPERLY
RECOGNIZED IN THE FOREPART OF SAID EDITORIAL ABOVE QUOTED AS BEING
INCUMBENT UPON THEM AND EACH OF THEM; ..." 

PETITIONERS WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD
IN CONTEMPT. 

PETITIONERS ANSWERED THAT THE PUBLICATIONS WERE LEGITIMATE CRITICISM
AND COMMENT WITHIN THE FEDERAL GUARANTIES OF FREE PRESS AND CREATED NO
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  THEY SOUGHT
TO JUSTIFY THE PUBLICATIONS BY STATING IN THEIR RETURN TO THE RULE THAT
THE FACTS STATED IN THE EDITORIALS WERE CORRECT, THAT TWO OF THE CASES
USED AS EXAMPLES WERE NOT PENDING WHEN THE COMMENTS WERE MADE, SINCE
ORDERS OF DISMISSAL HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ENTERED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT,
AND THAT THEY AS EDITORS 

"HAD THE RIGHT IF NOT THE DUTY OPENLY AND FORCEFULLY TO DISCUSS THESE
CONDITIONS TO THE END THAT THESE EVILS THAT ARE PROFOUNDLY DISTURBING
TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY, MIGHT BE REMEDIED.  THE PUBLICATIONS
COMPLAINED OF DID NOTHING MORE THAN DISCUSS THE GENERALLY RECOGNIZED
WEAKNESS AND BREAKDOWN IN THE SYSTEM OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CALL FOR
ITS IMPROVEMENT." 

IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE TO COMMENT AT LENGTH ON EACH OF THE CHALLENGED
ITEMS.  TO MAKE OUR DECISION AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE, WE SHALL REFER IN
DETAIL ONLY TO THE COMMENTS CONCERNING THE "RAPE CASES."  THESE WE
THINK FAIRLY ILLUSTRATE THE ISSUES AND ARE THE MOST DIFFICULT COMMENTS
FOR THE PETITIONERS TO DEFEND. 

AS TO THESE CASES, THE EDITORIAL SAID: 

"THIS WEEK THE PEOPLE, THROUGH THEIR GRAND JURY, BROUGHT INTO COURT
EIGHT INDICTMENTS FOR RAPE.  JUDGE PAUL D. BARNS AGREED WITH THE
DEFENSE THAT THE INDICTMENTS WERE NOT PROPERLY DRAWN.  BACK THEY WENT
TO THE GRAND JURY FOR RE-PRESENTATION TO THE COURT." 

WE SHALL ASSUME THAT THE STATEMENT, "JUDICIAL INSTANCE AND
INTERPRETATIVE PROCEDURE  ...  EVEN GO OUT TO FIND, EVERY POSSIBLE
TECHNICALITY OF THE LAW TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT  ...  AND NULLIFY
PROSECUTION," REFERS TO THE QUASHING OF THE RAPE INDICTMENTS AS WELL AS
OTHER CONDEMNED STEPS.  THE COMMENT OF THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS
EVIDENTLY INCLUDES THESE DISMISSALS AS SO-CALLED LEGAL TECHNICALITIES. 
SEE NOTE 4. 

THE CITATION CHARGED THAT THE PROSECUTING OFFICER IN OPEN COURT
AGREED THAT THE INDICTMENTS WERE SO DEFECTIVE AS TO MAKE REINDICTMENT
ADVISABLE.  REINDICTMENTS WERE RETURNED THE NEXT DAY AND BEFORE THE
EDITORIAL.  IT WAS CHARGED THAT THESE OMISSIONS WERE A WANTON
WITHHOLDING OF THE FULL TRUTH. 

AS TO THIS CHARGE, THE PETITIONERS MADE THIS RETURN: 

"THAT AS AVERRED IN THE CITATION, A MOTION WAS MADE TO QUASH THE
INDICTMENT IN CASE 856, THE RULING UPON WHICH WOULD CONTROL IN THE
OTHER CASES MENTIONED.  WHEREUPON THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STATED IN EFFECT THAT HE BELIEVED THE ORIGINAL
INDICTMENT WAS IN PROPER FORM, BUT TO ELIMINATE ANY QUESTION HE WOULD
HAVE THESE DEFENDANTS IMMEDIATELY RE-INDICTED BY THE GRAND JURY WHICH
WAS STILL THEN IN SESSION.  AND THEREUPON, THE JUDGE OF SAID COURT DID
SUSTAIN THE MOTION TO QUASH WITH RESPECT TO CASE NO. 856." 

THE RECORD OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, SET OUT IN
THE FINDINGS OF FACT AT THE HEARING ON THE CITATION IN CONTEMPT, SHOWS
THAT IN CASE NO. 856 THE COURT UPHELD THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH
"WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY" AND QUASHED THE
REMAINING INDICTMENTS ON HIS RECOMMENDATION.  REINDICTMENT OF THE
ACCUSED ON THE NEXT DAY, PROMPT ARRAIGNMENT AND SETTING FOR TRIAL ALSO
APPEARS.  WE ACCEPT THE RECORD AS CONCLUSIVE OF THE FACTS. 

WE READ THE CIRCUIT COURT'S JUDGMENT TO FIND THAT THE COMMENT ON THE
RAPE CASES CONTAINED ONLY "HALF-TRUTHS," THAT IT DID NOT "FAIRLY REPORT
THE PROCEEDINGS" OF THE COURT, THAT IT CONTAINED "MISINFORMATION."  THE
JUDGMENT SAID: 

"TO REPORT ON COURT PROCEEDINGS IS A VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING BUT WHEN
UNDERTAKEN THE PUBLISHER WHO FAILS TO FAIRLY REPORT DOES SO AT HIS OWN
PERIL. 

"WE FIND THE FACTS RECITED AND THE CHARGES MADE IN THE CITATION TO BE
TRUE AND WELL FOUNDED; ..." 

THIS FINDING INCLUDED THE FACT THAT REINDICTMENTS WERE THEN PENDING
IN THE RAPE CASES.  DEFENDANTS' ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR CHALLENGED THE
RULING THAT THE MATTERS REFERRED TO IN THE EDITORIALS WERE PENDING AND
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RULED THAT THE CASES WERE PENDING.  156
FLA. AT 241, 22 SO.2D AT 883: 

"WE ALSO AGREE THAT PUBLICATIONS ABOUT A CASE THAT IS CLOSED NO
MATTER HOW SCANDALOUS, ARE NOT PUNISHABLE AS CONTEMPT.  THIS IS THE
GENERAL RULE BUT THE FLORIDA STATUTE IS MORE LIBERAL THAN THE RULE." 

CF. FLORIDA STATUTES 1941, SEC. 38.23 AND SEC. 932.03; SEE ALSO 156
FLA. AT 248, 249, 22 SO.2D AT 886. 

IN BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 271-78, DISSENT 297-302, THIS
COURT LOOKED UPON CASES AS PENDING FOLLOWING COMPLETED INTERLOCUTORY
ACTIONS OF THE COURTS BUT AWAITING OTHER STEPS.  IN ONE INSTANCE IT WAS
SENTENCE AFTER VERDICT.  IN ANOTHER, A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. 

PENNEKAMP WAS FINED $250 AND THE CORPORATION, $1,000.00. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RESTATED THE FACTS AS TO THE RAPE CASES
FROM THE RECORD.  156 FLA. AT 238, 22 SO.2D AT 881.  IT THEN REACHED A
CONCLUSION AS TO ALL OF THE CHARGES AND SO AS TO THE RAPE CASES IN THE
WORDS SET OUT BELOW.  FN5  AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE FACTS, THE
COURT SAID, 156 FLA. AT 241, 22 SO.2D AT 883:    "IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
FACTUAL RECITATION, IT IS UTTER FOLLY TO SUGGEST THAT THE OBJECT OF
THESE PUBLICATIONS WAS OTHER THAN TO ABASE AND DESTROY THE EFFICIENCY
OF THE COURT." 

TO FOCUS ATTENTION ON THE CRITICAL ISSUE, WE QUOTE BELOW FROM THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CERTAIN EXCERPTS WHICH WE
BELIEVE FAIRLY ILLUSTRATE ITS POSITION AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW.  FN6 

FROM THE EDITORIALS, THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS AND THE
RECORDS OF THE COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FULL TRUTH IN REGARD TO THE
QUASHING OF THE INDICTMENTS WAS NOT PUBLISHED.  WE AGREE WITH THE
SUPREME COURT THAT THE RAPE CASES WERE PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE
EDITORIALS.  WE AGREE THAT THE EDITORIALS DID NOT STATE OBJECTIVELY THE
ATTITUDE OF THE JUDGES.  WE ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
THAT UNDER FLORIDA LAW, "THERE WAS NO JUDGMENT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
ENTERED IN ANY OF THEM EXCEPT THE ONE THAT WAS ENTERED."  156 FLA. AT
240, 22 SO.2D AT 882.  AND, ALTHOUGH WE MAY FEEL THAT THIS RECORD
SCARCELY JUSTIFIES THE HARSH INFERENCE THAT THE TRUTH WAS WILLFULLY OR
WANTONLY OR RECKLESSLY WITHHELD FROM THE PUBLIC OR THAT THE MOTIVE
BEHIND THE PUBLICATION WAS TO ABASE AND DESTROY THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
COURTS, WE MAY ACCEPT IN THIS CASE THAT CONCLUSION OF THE FLORIDA
COURTS UPON INTENT AND MOTIVE AS A DETERMINATION OF FACT.  FN7  WHILE
THE ULTIMATE POWER IS HERE TO RANSACK THE RECORD FOR FACTS IN
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSIES, WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO ADOPT THE RESULT OF
THE STATE COURT'S EXAMINATION.  FN8  IT IS THE FINDINGS OF THE STATE
COURTS ON UNDISPUTED FACTS OR THE UNDISPUTED FACTS THEMSELVES WHICH
ORDINARILY FURNISH THE BASIS FOR OUR APPRAISAL OF CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  FN9 

THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONCLUSION OF A STATE COURT AS TO THE FACTS OF
A SITUATION LEAVES OPEN TO THIS COURT THE DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE SETTING OF THOSE FACTS.  FN10 WHEN THE
BRIDGES CASE WAS HERE, THERE WAS NECESSARILY INVOLVED A DETERMINATION
BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE COURT THAT ALL OF THE EDITORIALS HAD, AT LEAST,
A TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE IN PENDING CASES IN A COURT OF THAT STATE.  YET THIS COURT WAS
UNANIMOUS IN SAYING THAT TWO OF THOSE EDITORIALS HAD NO SUCH IMPACT
UPON A COURT AS TO JUSTIFY A CONVICTION OF CONTEMPT IN THE FACE OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  WE MUST, THEREFORE, WEIGH THE RIGHT
OF FREE SPEECH WHICH IS CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST THE DANGER
OF THE COERCION AND INTIMIDATION OF COURTS IN THE FACTUAL SITUATION
PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD. 

FREE DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEMS OF SOCIETY IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF
AMERICANISM - A PRINCIPLE WHICH ALL ARE ZEALOUS TO PRESERVE.  FN11
DISCUSSION THAT FOLLOWS THE TERMINATION OF A CASE MAY BE INADEQUATE TO
EMPHASIZE THE DANGER TO PUBLIC WELFARE OF SUPPOSEDLY WRONGFUL JUDICIAL
CONDUCT.  FN12  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT PUBLIC COMMENT OF EVERY
CHARACTER UPON PENDING TRIALS OR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS MAY BE AS FREE AS A
SIMILAR COMMENT AFTER COMPLETE DISPOSAL OF THE LITIGATION.  BETWEEN THE
EXTREMES THERE ARE AREAS OF DISCUSSION WHICH AN UNDERSTANDING WRITER
WILL APPRAISE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EFFECT ON HIMSELF AND ON THE PUBLIC
OF CREATING A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO FAIR AND ORDERLY JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.  COURTS MUST HAVE POWER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF
PRISONERS AND LITIGANTS BEFORE THEM FROM UNSEEMLY EFFORTS TO PERVERT
JUDICIAL ACTION.  IN THE BORDERLINE INSTANCES WHERE IT IS DIFFICULT TO
SAY UPON WHICH SIDE THE ALLEGED OFFENSE FALLS, WE THINK THE SPECIFIC
FREEDOM OF PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD WEIGH HEAVILY AGAINST A POSSIBLE
TENDENCY TO INFLUENCE PENDING CASES.  FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION SHOULD BE
GIVEN THE WIDEST RANGE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF THE
FAIR AND ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 

WHILE A DISCLAIMER OF INTENTION DOES NOT PURGE A CONTEMPT, WE MAY AT
THIS POINT CALL ATTENTION TO THE SWORN ANSWER OF PETITIONERS THAT THEIR
PURPOSE WAS NOT TO INFLUENCE THE COURT.  AN EXCERPT APPEARS BELOW. 
FN13  FOR CIRCUMSTANCES TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, A SOLIDITY OF EVIDENCE SHOULD BE REQUIRED
WHICH IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND IN THIS RECORD.  COMPARE
BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 665, 670; SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 118. 

THE COMMENTS WERE MADE ABOUT JUDGES OF COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION
- JUDGES SELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF A POPULOUS AND EDUCATED COMMUNITY. 
THEY CONCERNED THE ATTITUDE OF THE JUDGES TOWARD THOSE WHO WERE CHARGED
WITH CRIME, NOT COMMENTS ON EVIDENCE OR RULINGS DURING A JURY TRIAL. 
THEIR EFFECT ON JURIES THAT MIGHT EVENTUALLY TRY THE ALLEGED OFFENDERS
AGAINST THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF FLORIDA IS TOO REMOTE FOR DISCUSSION. 
COMMENT ON PENDING CASES MAY AFFECT JUDGES DIFFERENTLY.  IT MAY
INFLUENCE SOME JUDGES MORE THAN OTHERS.  SOME ARE OF A MORE SENSITIVE
FIBER THAN THEIR COLLEAGUES.  THE LAW DEALS IN GENERALITIES AND
EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND CANNOT DEPEND ON THE VARYING DEGREES OF MORAL
COURAGE OR STABILITY IN THE FACE OF CRITICISM WHICH INDIVIDUAL JUDGES
MAY POSSESS ANY MORE THAN IT GENERALLY CAN DEPEND ON THE PERSONAL
EQUATIONS OR INDIVIDUAL IDIOSYNCRASIES OF THE TORT-FEASOR.  THE
GERMANIC, 196 U.S. 589, 596; ARIZONA EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 250
U.S. 400, 422, 432.  WE ARE NOT WILLING TO SAY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE THAT THESE EDITORIALS ARE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO
THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN FLORIDA.  CF. NEAR V. MINNESOTA,
283 U.S. 697, 714-15. 

WHAT IS MEANT BY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO A FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE?  NO DEFINITION COULD GIVE AN ANSWER.  CERTAINLY THIS CRITICISM
OF THE JUDGES' INCLINATIONS OR ACTIONS IN THESE PENDING NON-JURY
PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT SUCH ADMINISTRATION.  THIS
CRITICISM OF THEIR ACTIONS COULD NOT AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO DECIDE THE
ISSUES.  HERE THERE IS ONLY CRITICISM OF JUDICIAL ACTION ALREADY TAKEN,
ALTHOUGH THE CASES WERE STILL PENDING ON OTHER POINTS OR MIGHT BE
REVIVED BY REHEARINGS.  FOR SUCH INJURIES, WHEN THE STATEMENTS AMOUNT
TO DEFAMATION, A JUDGE HAS SUCH REMEDY IN DAMAGES FOR LIBEL AS DO OTHER
PUBLIC SERVANTS. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT EVEN THOUGH HIS INTELLECTUAL PROCESSES
CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY REFLECTIONS ON HIS PURPOSES, A JUDGE MAY BE
INFLUENCED BY A DESIRE TO PLACATE THE ACCUSING NEWSPAPER TO RETAIN
PUBLIC ESTEEM AND SECURE REELECTION PRESUMABLY AT THE COST OF UNFAIR
RULINGS AGAINST AN ACCUSED.  IN THIS CASE TOO MANY FINE-DRAWN
ASSUMPTIONS AGAINST THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIAL ACTION MUST BE MADE TO
CALL SUCH A POSSIBILITY A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO JUSTICE.  FOR
THIS TO FOLLOW, THERE MUST BE A JUDGE OF LESS THAN ORDINARY FORTITUDE
WITHOUT FRIENDS OR SUPPORT OR A POWERFUL AND VINDICTIVE NEWSPAPER BENT
UPON A RULE OR RUIN POLICY, AND A PUBLIC UNCONCERNED WITH OR
UNINTERESTED IN THE TRUTH OR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR JUDICIAL
INSTITUTIONS.  IF, AS THE FLORIDA COURTS HAVE HELD AND AS WE HAVE
ASSUMED, THE PETITIONERS DELIBERATELY DISTORTED THE FACTS TO ABASE AND
DESTROY THE EFFICIENCY OF THE COURT, THOSE MISREPRESENTATIONS WITH THE
INDICATED MOTIVES MANIFESTED THEMSELVES IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY
PETITIONERS IN THEIR EDITORIALS.  THE FLORIDA COURTS SEE IN THIS
OBJECTIONABLE LANGUAGE AN OPEN EFFORT TO USE PURPOSELY THE POWER OF THE
PRESS TO DESTROY WITHOUT REASON THE REPUTATION OF JUDGES AND THE
COMPETENCE OF COURTS.  THIS IS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THEY FEAR
TO JUSTICE.  ALTHOUGH WE REALIZE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE SAME CLOSE
RELATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT ARE ENJOYED BY THE FLORIDA
COURTS, WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT FLORIDIANS IN GENERAL WOULD REACT TO
THESE EDITORIALS IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WAY AS CITIZENS OF OTHER
PARTS OF OUR COMMON COUNTRY. 

AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, WE MUST WEIGH THE IMPACT OF THE WORDS AGAINST
THE PROTECTION GIVEN BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AS
ADOPTED BY THE FOURTEENTH, TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON PENDING COURT CASES. 
WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DANGER UNDER THIS RECORD TO FAIR JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT THE CLEARNESS AND IMMEDIACY NECESSARY TO CLOSE
THE DOOR OF PERMISSIBLE PUBLIC COMMENT.  WHEN THAT DOOR IS CLOSED, IT
CLOSES ALL DOORS BEHIND IT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52; THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 105; CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106, 113;
BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 633. 

FN2  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283
U.S. 697, 707. 

FN3  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 267.  COMPARE CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 228; HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S.
652, 659. 

FN4  NOVEMBER 2, 1944: 

"COURTS ARE ESTABLISHED -

                FOR THE PEOPLE 

"THE COURTS BELONG TO THE PEOPLE.  THE PEOPLE HAVE ESTABLISHED THEM
TO PROMOTE JUSTICE, INSURE OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW AND TO PUNISH THOSE WHO
WILLFULLY VIOLATE IT. 

"THE PEOPLE MAINTAIN THE COURTS BY PROVIDING THE SALARIES OF
OFFICIALS AND SETTING UP COSTLY CHAMBERS AND COURTROOMS FOR THE ORDERLY
AND DIGNIFIED PROCEDURE OF THE TRIBUNALS. 

"UPON THE JUDGES THE PEOPLE MUST DEPEND FOR THE DECISIONS AND THE
JUDICIAL CONDUCT THAT WILL INSURE SOCIETY - AS A WHOLE AND IN ITS
INDIVIDUALS - AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD UNDERMINE OR DESTROY THE PEACE,
THE MORALITY AND THE ORDERLY LIVING OF THE COMMUNITY. 

"IN ORDER THAT THE COURTS SHOULD NOT BE AMENABLE TO POLITICAL OR
OTHER PRESSURES IN THEIR DETERMINATION OF MATTERS PLACED BEFORE THEM,
FLORIDA CIRCUIT JUDGES ARE CALLED UPON TO FACE THE ELECTORATE LESS
OFTEN THAN ARE OTHER ELECTIVE OFFICE HOLDERS. 

"SO LONG ARE THEIR TERMS, IN FACT, THAT IN DADE COUNTY NO CIRCUIT
JUDGE, AND ONLY ONE JUDGE OF ANOTHER COURT, HAS COME TO THE BENCH BY
PUBLIC CHOICE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  ALL THE OTHERS HAVE BEEN NAMED BY
A GOVERNOR TO FILL A VACANCY CAUSED BY DEATH OR RESIGNATION, OR SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCE. 

"JUDICIAL TERMS IN DADE COUNTY RUN: 

1 - SIX YEARS EACH FOR SIX CIRCUIT JUDGES. 

2 - FOUR YEARS EACH FOR TWO CIVIL COURT OF RECORD JUDGES. 

3 - FOUR YEARS FOR THE JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF RECORD. 

4 - FOUR YEARS FOR THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF CRIMES. 

5 - FOUR YEARS FOR COUNTY JUDGE. 

6 - FOUR YEARS FOR JUVENILE COURT JUDGE. 

"THESE TWELVE JUDGES REPRESENT THE MAJESTY AND THE SANCTITY OF THE
LAW.  THEY ARE THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE LOCALLY OF ORGANIZED SOCIETY
AGAINST VICE, CORRUPTION AND CRIME, AND THE SINISTER MACHINATIONS OF
THE UNDERWORLD. 

"IT IS BEYOND QUESTION THAT AMERICAN COURTS ARE OF, BY AND FOR THE
PEOPLE. 

"EVERY ACCUSED PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO HIS DAY IN COURT.  BUT WHEN
JUDICIAL INSTANCE AND INTERPRETATIVE PROCEDURE RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT,
EVEN GO OUT TO FIND, EVERY POSSIBLE TECHNICALITY OF THE LAW TO PROTECT
THE DEFENDANT, TO BLOCK, THWART, HINDER, EMBARRASS AND NULLIFY
PROSECUTION, THEN THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS ARE JEOPARDIZED AND THE BASIC
REASON FOR COURTS STULTIFIED. 

"THE SEEMING EASE AND PAT FACILITY WITH WHICH THE CRIMINALLY CHARGED
HAVE BEEN GIVEN TECHNICAL SAFEGUARD HAVE SET PEOPLE TO WONDERING
WHETHER THEIR COURTS ARE BEING SUBVERTED INTO REFUGES FOR LAWBREAKERS. 

"THIS WEEK THE PEOPLE, THROUGH THEIR GRAND JURY, BROUGHT INTO COURT
EIGHT INDICTMENTS FOR RAPE.  JUDGE PAUL D. BARNS AGREED WITH THE
DEFENSE THAT THE INDICTMENTS WERE NOT PROPERLY DRAWN.  BACK THEY WENT
TO THE GRAND JURY FOR RE-PRESENTATION TO THE COURT. 

"ONLY IN THE GRAVEST EMERGENCY DOES A JUDGE TAKE OVER A CASE FROM
ANOTHER COURT OF EQUAL JURISDICTION.  A PADLOCK ACTION AGAINST THE
BROOK CLUB WAS INITIATED LAST SPRING BEFORE JUDGE GEORGE E. HOLT, WHO
GRANTED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. 

"AFTER FIVE MONTHS, THE CASE APPEARED TUESDAY OUT OF BLUE SKY BEFORE
JUDGE MARSHALL C. WISEHEART AT THE TIME STATE ATTORNEY STANLEY MILLEDGE
WAS ENGAGED WITH THE GRAND JURY. 

"SPEEDY DECISION WAS ASKED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL DESPITE MONTHS OF
STALLING.  THE STATE ATTORNEY HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE GRAND JURY AND
JUDGE WISEHEART'S COURT. 

"THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE CLUB AND ITS
OPERATORS.  THE DEFENSE GOT DELAY WHEN IT WANTED AND PROMPT DECISION
FROM THE COURT WHEN IT PROFITED IT. 

"ON OCT. 10 JUDGE HOLT HAD BEFORE HIM A SUIT BY THE STATE TO ABATE A
NUISANCE (BOOKMAKING) AT THE TEPEE CLUB. 

"FIVE AFFIDAVITS OF PERSONS WHO ALLEGEDLY VISITED THE PREMISES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PLACING BETS WERE INTRODUCED BY THE STATE OVER THE
OBJECTION OF THE DEFENDANTS. 

"JUDGE HOLT RULED THEM OUT, EXPLAINING IN DENYING THE INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE TEPEE CLUB: 

"'THE DEFENDANT CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE AN AFFIDAVIT.  THE COURT CANNOT
DETERMINE WHO IS TESTIFYING AND WHETHER BELIEF CAN BE PLACED UPON SUCH
TESTIMONY  ... THE FACT THAT SUCH AFFIDAVITS WERE TAKEN BEFORE THE
STATE ATTORNEY DOES NOT GIVE THEM ANY ADDITIONAL WEIGHT OR VALUE.' 

"THIS MAY BE GOOD LAW, EXACT JUDICIAL EVALUATION OF THE STATUTES.  IT
IS, HOWEVER, THE CHARACTER OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION WHICH CAUSES PEOPLE
TO RAISE QUESTIONING EYEBROWS AND SHAKE CONFUSED HEADS IN FUTILE
WONDERMENT. 

"IF TECHNICALITIES ARE TO BE THE ORDER AND THE WAY FOR THE CRIMINALLY
CHARGED EITHER TO AVOID JUSTICE ALTOGETHER OR SO TO DELAY PROSECUTION
AS TO CRIPPLE IT, THEN IT BEHOOVES OUR COURTS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
TO CUT AWAY THE DEADWOOD AND THE ENTANGLEMENTS. 

"MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE STATE'S CASE, THE PEOPLE'S CASE, TO BE SEEN
WITH EQUAL CLARITY OF JUDICIAL VISION AS THAT ACCORDED ACCUSED
LAWBREAKERS.  OTHERWISE TECHNICALITIES AND THE COURTS MAKE THE LAW, NO
MATTER WHAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND OF THEIR LEGISLATORS." 

NOVEMBER 7, 1944: 

"WHY PEOPLE WONDER 

"HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY PEOPLE WONDER ABOUT THE LAW'S DELAYS AND
OBSTRUCTING TECHNICALITIES OPERATING TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE STATE -
WHICH IS THE PEOPLE - IN PROSECUTIONS.    "AFTER STALLING ALONG FOR
MONTHS, THE DEFENSE IN THE PADLOCK CASE AGAINST THE BROOK CLUB APPEARED
BEFORE JUDGE MARSHALL C. WISEHEART FOR A DECISION.  THE STATE ATTORNEY
WAS WORKING WITH THE GRAND JURY.  THE COURT KNOCKED OUT THE
INJUNCTION.  THERE WAS SPEED, DISPATCH, IMMEDIATE ATTENTION AND ACTION
FOR THOSE CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF THE LAW.  SO FAST THAT THE PEOPLE
DIDN'T GET IN A PEEP. 

"THAT'S ONE WAY OF GUMMING UP PROSECUTION.  ANOTHER IS TO DELAY
ACTION.  ON MARCH 29, COY L. JAGGEARS, BUS DRIVER, WAS SENTENCED TO
FIFTEEN DAYS IN CITY JAIL BY JUDGE CECIL C. CURRY ON CONVICTION OF
BEATING UP A TAXICAB OPERATOR.   "THE ARREST PRECIPITATED THE NOTORIOUS
BUS STRIKE.  AS A RESULT, JAGGEARS WALKED OUT OF JAIL AFTER POSTING A
$200 APPEAL BOND.  THE APPEAL NEVER GOT FURTHER. 

"THERE YOU HAVE THE LEGAL PARADOX, WORKING TWO WAYS, BUT TO THE SAME
PURPOSE AGAINST PROSECUTION.  SPEED WHEN NEEDED.  MONTH AFTER MONTH OF
DELAY WHEN THAT SERVES THE BETTER." 

FN5  156 FLA. 227, 239, 240, 22 SO.2D 875, 882: 

"SO THE VICE IN BOTH THE EDITORIALS WAS THE DISTORTED, INACCURATE
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND WITH THAT STATEMENT WERE SCRAMBLED FALSE
INSINUATIONS THAT AMOUNTED TO UNWARRANTED CHARGES OF PARTISANSHIP AND
UNFAIRNESS ON THE PART OF THE JUDGES. 

"THE RECORD WAS AVAILABLE IN ALL THESE CASES AND IT DOES NOT REVEAL A
BREATH OF SUSPICION ON WHICH TO PREDICATE PARTISANSHIP AND UNFAIRNESS
ON THE PART OF THE JUDGES.  IT IS SHOWN RATHER THAT THEY ACTED IN GOOD
FAITH AND HANDLED EACH CASE TO THE VERY BEST ADVANTAGE POSSIBLE.  THERE
WAS NO JUDGMENT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN ANY OF THEM EXCEPT THE
ONE THAT WAS ENTERED.  IF THE EDITORIALS HAD STATED THE FACTS
CORRECTLY, NOTHING BUT A CORRECT CONCLUSION COULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCED AND
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BASIS FOR CONTEMPT BUT HERE THEY ELECTED TO
PUBLISH AS TRUTH A MIXTURE OF FACTUAL MISSTATEMENT AND OMISSION AND
IMPOSE ON THAT FALSE INSINUATION, DISTORTION, AND DECEPTION AND THEN
CONTEND THAT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IMMUNIZES THEM FROM PUNISHMENT." 

FN6  156 FLA. 227, 244-249, 22 SO.2D 875, 884-886: 

"A NEWSPAPER MAY CRITICIZE, HARASS, IRRITATE, OR VENT ITS SPLEEN
AGAINST A PERSON WHO HOLDS THE OFFICE OF JUDGE IN THE SAME MANNER THAT
IT DOES A MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE AND OTHER ELECTIVE OFFICERS, BUT IT
MAY NOT PUBLISH SCURRILOUS OR LIBELOUS CRITICISMS OF A PRESIDING JUDGE
AS SUCH OR HIS JUDGMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THE COURT IN
THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC.  RESPECT FOR COURTS IS NOT INSPIRED BY
SHIELDING THEM FROM CRITICISM.  THIS IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGE,
ACQUIRED OVER THE YEARS BY THE SPIRIT IN WHICH HE APPROACHES THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS, HIS ABILITY TO HUMANIZE THE LAW AND SQUARE IT WITH
REASON, THE LEVEL OF HIS THINKING, THE CONSISTENCY OF HIS ADHERENCE TO
RIGHT AND JUSTICE, AND THE DEGREE TO WHICH HE HOLDS HIMSELF ALOOF FROM
BLOCS, GROUPS, AND TECHNIQUES THAT WOULD SACRIFICE JUSTICE FOR
EXPEDIENCY." 

"COURTS CANNOT FUNCTION IN A FREE COUNTRY WHEN THE ATMOSPHERE IS
CHARGED WITH THE EFFUSIONS OF A PRESS DESIGNED TO POISON THE MIND OF
THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE PRESIDING JUDGES RATHER THAN TO CLARIFY THE
ISSUES AND PROPAGATE THE TRUTH ABOUT THEM.  THE LATTER WAS THE PRESS
THAT MR. JEFFERSON VISIONED WHEN HE PROMULGATED THE THESIS, 'OUR
LIBERTY DEPENDS ON THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THAT CANNOT BE LIMITED
WITHOUT BEING LOST.'" 

"FREEDOM TO PUBLISH ONE'S VIEWS IS A PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL PRACTICE,
BUT WHEN THE PRESS DELIBERATELY ABANDONS THE PROPRIETIES AND SETS OUT
TO POISON ITS PABULUM OR TO SOW DRAGONS' TEETH AND DISPENSE CANARDS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DOING ANOTHER A WRONG, IT IS NO DIFFERENT CATEGORY FROM
A FREE MAN THAT DOES LIKEWISE.  THE MOST RIGID SAFEGUARD THROWN AROUND
A FREE PRESS WOULD NOT PROTECT APPELLANTS FROM FALSELY PUBLISHING OR
ANNOUNCING TO THE WORLD THAT THE CLERGY OF MIAMI WERE IN SYMPATHY WITH
THE PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY OR WERE FOSTERING OTHER DOCTRINES EQUALLY
OBNOXIOUS TO APPROVED MORAL STANDARDS." 

"THE THEORY OF OUR SYSTEM OF FAIR TRIAL IS THAT THE DETERMINATION OF
EVERY CASE SHOULD BE INDUCED SOLELY BY EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT IN OPEN
COURT AND THE LAW APPLICABLE THERETO AND NOT BY ANY OUTSIDE INFLUENCE,
WHETHER OF PRIVATE TALK OR PUBLIC PRINT." 

"THE STATE COURTS TOUCH THE PUBLIC MUCH MORE FREQUENTLY THAN THE
FEDERAL COURTS AND THEY HAVE MANY REASONS TO ENFORCE ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION THAT WOULD NOT ARISE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IF THAT
POWER IS TO BE CONSTRUED BY WHAT APPELLANTS CONTEND TO BE THE PATTERN
IN THE BRIDGES AND NYE CASES, THEN MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF STATE
LAW AND DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT ARE TURNED INTO CONFUSION OR SET AT
NAUGHT.... 

"WE DO NOT THINK THIS CAN BE THE LAW.  THE BRIDGES CASE WAS DISPOSED
OF ON AUTHORITY OF THE '"CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" CASES,' WHICH ARE
NOT ANALOGOUS TO MOST OF THE STATE CASES BECAUSE THEY ARISE FROM A
DIFFERENT STATE OF THE LAW.  THE ULTIMATE TEST IN THE BRIDGES CASE
REQUIRES THAT THE 'SUBSTANTIVE EVIL MUST BE EXTREMELY SERIOUS AND THE
DEGREE OF IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH BEFORE UTTERANCES CAN BE PUNISHED.' 
EVEN IF THIS TEST IS TO (BE) THE RULE IN THE STATE COURTS, THEY ARE
AUTHORIZED TO APPLY IT BY THEIR OWN LAW AND STANDARDS AND UNLESS THE
APPLICATION IS SHOWN TO BE ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE, THEIR JUDGMENT
SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED.  THE LAW IN FLORIDA PERMITS THE MOST LIBERAL
EXERCISE POSSIBLE OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BUT HOLDS TO ACCOUNT THOSE
WHO ABUSE IT. 

"WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE CARTOON AND THE EDITORIALS AFFORD AMPLE
SUPPORT FOR THE JUDGMENT IMPOSED AND THAT THE ISSUES WERE PROPERLY
ADJUDICATED UNDER FLORIDA LAW." 

FN7  SEE IX WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SEC.  2557.  CRAWFORD V.
UNITED STATES, 212 U.S. 183, 203. 

FN8  DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR CO., 312 U.S. 287, 293-94; LISENBA
V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 238. 

FN9  CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 239; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE,
322 U.S. 143, 152, 153, 154; MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 404. 

FN10  SEE THE CASES IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, NOTE 8. 

FN11  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 115; BOARD OF EDUCATION
V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 639; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 527,
530. 

FN12  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. AT 269: 

"NO SUGGESTION CAN BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE FREEDOM
THERE GUARANTEED FOR SPEECH AND THE PRESS BEARS AN INVERSE RATIO TO THE
TIMELINESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEAS SEEKING EXPRESSION.  YET, IT
WOULD FOLLOW AS A PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE DECISIONS BELOW THAT ANYONE
WHO MIGHT WISH TO GIVE PUBLIC EXPRESSION TO HIS VIEWS ON A PENDING CASE
INVOLVING NO MATTER WHAT PROBLEM OF PUBLIC INTEREST, JUST AT THE TIME
HIS AUDIENCE WOULD BE MOST RECEPTIVE, WOULD BE AS EFFECTIVELY
DISCOURAGED AS IF A DELIBERATE STATUTORY SCHEME OF CENSORSHIP HAD BEEN
ADOPTED." 

FN13  "THESE RESPONDENTS DENY ANY INTENT BY EITHER SAID EDITORIAL OR
SAID CARTOON EITHER IN WORDS OR OTHERWISE TO INTERFERE WITH FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL JUSTICE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND DENY THAT THE LARGE
CHARACTER IN THE CARTOON WAS BESIDE THE JUDGE AND ON THE BENCH AND
BEING HEARD, RECOGNIZED AND FAVORED, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, THESE
RESPONDENTS RESPECTFULLY SHOW THAT IT WAS THE INTENTION OF SAID
EDITORIAL AND SAID CARTOON TO CONDEMN AND CRITICISE THE SYSTEM OF
PLEADING AND PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CREATED BY THE LAWS OF FLORIDA,
WHEREBY SUCH CASES COULD LONG BE DELAYED AND THEN COULD BE DISMISSED
UPON TECHNICAL GROUNDS IN THE MANNER HEREIN SHOWN." 

WE ADD MR. PENNEKAMP'S STATEMENT OF THE EDITORIAL POLICY OF THE MIAMI
HERALD: 

"'WE ARE OURSELVES FREE - FREE AS THE CONSTITUTION WE ENJOY - FREE TO
TRUTH, GOOD MANNERS AND GOOD SENSE.  WE SHALL BE FOR WHATEVER MEASURE
IS BEST ADAPTED TO DEFENDING THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE AND
ADVANCING USEFUL KNOWLEDGE.  WE SHALL LABOR AT ALL TIMES TO INSPIRE THE
PEOPLE WITH A JUST AND PROPER SENSE OF THEIR CONDITION, TO POINT OUT TO
THEM THEIR TRUE INTEREST AND ROUSE THEM TO PURSUE IT.'" 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

ON THE BASIS OF TWO EDITORIALS AND A CARTOON, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
FLORIDA FOR THE COUNTY OF DADE FOUND THE PUBLISHER OF THE MIAMI HERALD
AND ONE OF ITS EDITORS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT.  FN1  THE EDITOR,
PENNEKAMP, WAS FINED $250 AND THE PUBLISHING COMPANY, $1,000.  DEEMING
BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, NOT CONTROLLING, THE SUPREME COURT
OF FLORIDA, WITH TWO JUDGES DISSENTING, SUSTAINED THE CONVICTIONS.  156
FLA. 227, 22 SO.2D 875. 

IN THE BRIDGES CASE THIS COURT RECENTLY CANVASSED CONSTITUTIONAL
ASPECTS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT BY PUBLICATION.  BUT IT WAS HARDLY TO BE
EXPECTED THAT OTHER PROBLEMS IN THE LARGE FIELD WITHIN WHICH THE
BRIDGES CASE MOVED WOULD NOT RECUR.  THIS COURT SITS TO INTERPRET, IN
APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL CONTROVERSIES, A CONSTITUTION WHICH IN ITS BILL OF
RIGHTS FORMULATES THE CONDITIONS OF A DEMOCRACY.  BUT DEMOCRACY IS THE
LEAST STATIC FORM OF SOCIETY.  ITS BASIS IS REASON NOT AUTHORITY. 
FORMULAS EMBODYING VAGUE AND UNCRITICAL GENERALIZATIONS OFFER TEMPTING
OPPORTUNITIES TO EVADE THE NEED FOR CONTINUOUS THOUGHT.  BUT SO LONG AS
MEN WANT FREEDOM THEY RESIST THIS TEMPTATION.  SUCH FORMULAS ARE MOST
BEGUILING AND MOST MISCHIEVOUS WHEN CONTENDING CLAIMS ARE THOSE NOT OF
RIGHT AND WRONG BUT OF TWO RIGHTS, EACH HIGHLY IMPORTANT TO THE WELL
BEING OF SOCIETY.  SELDOM IS THERE AVAILABLE A PAT FORMULA THAT
ADEQUATELY ANALYZES SUCH A PROBLEM, LEAST OF ALL SOLVES IT.  CERTAINLY
NO SUCH FORMULA FURNISHES A READY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NOW HERE FOR
DECISION OR EVEN EXPOSES ITS TRUE ELEMENTS.  THE PRECISE ISSUE IS
WHETHER, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, A STATE CAN PROTECT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE BY AUTHORIZING PROMPT PUNISHMENT, WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF A
JURY, OF PUBLICATIONS OUT OF COURT THAT MAY INTERFERE WITH A COURT'S
DISPOSITION OF PENDING LITIGATION. 

THE DECISION IN THE BRIDGES CASE DID NOT EXPLICITLY DENY TO THE
STATES THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS FROM INTERFERENCE BY
MEANS OF A PUBLICATION BEARING ON A PENDING LITIGATION.  THE ATMOSPHERE
AND EMANATIONS OF THE COURT'S OPINION, HOWEVER, WERE CALCULATED TO
SANCTION ANYTHING TO BE SAID OR WRITTEN OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM EVEN
THOUGH IT MAY HURT OR EMBARRASS THE JUST OUTCOME OF A PROCEEDING.  BUT
IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS WHICH PRESENTED MOST SHARPLY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL EXTENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THIS COURT HAD HELD THAT
THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT ALLOW ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - A
FREEDOM UNRESTRICTED BY THE DUTY TO RESPECT OTHER NEEDS FULFILLMENT OF
WHICH MAKES FOR THE DIGNITY AND SECURITY OF MAN.  SCHENCK V. UNITED
STATES, 249 U.S. 47; FROHWERK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 204; DEBS V.
UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 211. 

NO JUSTICE THOUGHT MORE DEEPLY ABOUT THE NATURE OF A FREE SOCIETY OR
WAS MORE ZEALOUS TO SAFEGUARD ITS CONDITIONS BY THE MOST ABUNDANT
REGARD FOR CIVIL LIBERTY THAN MR. JUSTICE HOLMES.  HE LEFT NO DOUBT
THAT JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF UTTERANCE IS NECESSARILY
QUALIFIED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS AN ENTIRETY FOR
THE MAINTENANCE OF A FREE SOCIETY.  IT DOES AN ILL-SERVICE TO THE
AUTHOR OF THE MOST QUOTED JUDICIAL PHRASES REGARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
TO MAKE HIM THE VICTIM OF A TENDENCY WHICH HE FOUGHT ALL HIS LIFE,
WHEREBY PHRASES ARE MADE TO DO SERVICE FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS BY BEING
TURNED INTO DOGMA.  "IT IS ONE OF THE MISFORTUNES OF THE LAW THAT IDEAS
BECOME ENCYSTED IN PHRASES AND THEREAFTER FOR A LONG TIME CEASE TO
PROVOKE FURTHER ANALYSIS."  HOLMES, J., DISSENTING, IN HYDE V. UNITED
STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 384, AT 391.  WORDS WHICH "ARE USED IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER THAT THEY WILL BRING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS THAT CONGRESS
HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT," SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52,
SPEAK THEIR OWN CONDEMNATION.  BUT IT DOES VIOLENCE TO THE JURISTIC
PHILOSOPHY AND THE JUDICIAL PRACTICE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES TO ASSUME
THAT IN USING THE PHRASE "A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" HE WAS EXPRESSING
EVEN REMOTELY AN ABSOLUTIST TEST OR HAD IN MIND A DANGER IN THE
ABSTRACT.  HE FOLLOWED THE OBSERVATION JUST QUOTED BY THE EMPHATIC
STATEMENT THAT THE QUESTION IS ONE "OF PROXIMITY AND DEGREE," AS HE
CONCEIVED TO BE MOST QUESTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE LARGE, UNDEFINED
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, CO
ARCHITECT OF THE GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES,
ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT "THE PERMISSIBLE CURTAILMENT OF FREE SPEECH IS
...  ONE OF DEGREE.  AND BECAUSE IT IS A QUESTION OF DEGREE THE FIELD
IN WHICH THE JURY MAY EXERCISE ITS JUDGMENT IS, NECESSARILY, A WIDE
ONE."  SCHAEFER V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 466, 482, AT
483(DISSENTING).  IF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS' CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY
MEANS ANYTHING, IT IS CLEAR BEYOND PERADVENTURE THAT HE WOULD NOT DENY
TO A STATE, EXERCISING ITS JUDGMENT AS TO THE MODE BY WHICH SPEECH MAY
BE CURTAILED BY PUNISHMENT SUBSEQUENT TO ITS UTTERANCE, A FIELD LESS
WIDE THAN THAT WHICH HE PERMITTED A JURY IN A FEDERAL COURT. 

"CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" WAS NEVER USED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES TO
EXPRESS A TECHNICAL LEGAL DOCTRINE OR TO CONVEY A FORMULA FOR
ADJUDICATING CASES.  IT WAS A LITERARY PHRASE NOT TO BE DISTORTED BY
BEING TAKEN FROM ITS CONTEXT.  IN ITS SETTING IT SERVED TO INDICATE THE
IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO A FREE SOCIETY BUT ALSO TO EMPHASIZE
THAT ITS EXERCISE MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF OTHER
FREEDOMS ESSENTIAL TO A DEMOCRACY AND GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION. 
WHEN THOSE OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF A DEMOCRACY ARE THREATENED BY SPEECH,
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DENY POWER TO THE STATES TO CURB IT.  "THE
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TO BE ARRESTED MAY BE DANGER SHORT OF A
THREAT AS COMPREHENSIVE AND VAGUE AS A THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF THE
REPUBLIC OR "THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE."  NEITHER MR. JUSTICE HOLMES NOR
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS NOR THIS COURT EVER SUGGESTED IN ALL THE CASES
THAT AROSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST WORLD WAR, THAT ONLY IMMINENT
THREATS TO THE IMMEDIATE SECURITY OF THE COUNTRY WOULD AUTHORIZE COURTS
TO SUSTAIN LEGISLATION CURTAILING UTTERANCE.  SUCH FORCES OF
DESTRUCTION ARE OF AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE WHICH COURTS ARE HARDLY
DESIGNED TO COUNTER.  "THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" WITH WHICH ITS TWO
GREAT JUDICIAL EXPONENTS WERE CONCERNED WAS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
THAT UTTERANCE "WOULD BRING ABOUT THE EVIL WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT AND
HAD A RIGHT TO PREVENT."  SCHAEFER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  AMONG "THE
SUBSTANTIVE EVILS" WITH WHICH LEGISLATION MAY DEAL IS THE HAMPERING OF
A COURT IN A PENDING CONTROVERSY, BECAUSE THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE IS ONE OF THE CHIEF TESTS OF A TRUE DEMOCRACY.  AND SINCE MEN
EQUALLY DEVOTED TO THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH MAY FAIRLY
DIFFER IN AN ESTIMATE OF THIS DANGER IN A PARTICULAR CASE, THE FIELD IN
WHICH A STATE "MAY EXERCISE ITS JUDGMENT IS, NECESSARILY, A WIDE ONE." 
THEREFORE, EVERY TIME A SITUATION LIKE THE PRESENT ONE COMES HERE THE
PRECISE PROBLEM BEFORE US IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATE COURT WENT
BEYOND THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS OF JUDGMENT IN HOLDING THAT CONDUCT WHICH
HAS BEEN PUNISHED AS A CONTEMPT WAS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO ENDANGER A
STATE'S DUTY TO ADMINISTER IMPARTIAL JUSTICE IN A PENDING CONTROVERSY. 

WITHOUT A FREE PRESS THERE CAN BE NO FREE SOCIETY.  FN2  FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS, HOWEVER, IS NOT AN END IN ITSELF BUT A MEANS TO THE END OF A
FREE SOCIETY.  THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH MUST BE VIEWED IN THAT LIGHT AND IN THAT LIGHT
APPLIED.  THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY IS NO LESS A MEANS TO THE
END OF A FREE SOCIETY, AND THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF AN INDEPENDENT
JUDICIARY PUTS THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE.  FOR
THE JUDICIARY CANNOT FUNCTION PROPERLY IF WHAT THE PRESS DOES IS
REASONABLY CALCULATED TO DISTURB THE JUDICIAL JUDGMENT IN ITS DUTY AND
CAPACITY TO ACT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS BEFORE THE COURT.  A
JUDICIARY IS NOT INDEPENDENT UNLESS COURTS OF JUSTICE ARE ENABLED TO
ADMINISTER LAW BY ABSENCE OF PRESSURE FROM WITHOUT, WHETHER EXERTED
THROUGH THE BLANDISHMENTS OF REWARD OR THE MENACE OF DISFAVOR.  IN THE
NOBLE WORDS, PENNED BY JOHN ADAMS, OF THE FIRST CONSTITUTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS:  "IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE RIGHTS OF
EVERY INDIVIDUAL, HIS LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND CHARACTER, THAT
THERE BE AN IMPARTIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS, AND ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  IT IS THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO BE TRIED BY JUDGES AS
FREE, IMPARTIAL, AND INDEPENDENT AS THE LOT OF HUMANITY WILL ADMIT." 
FN3  A FREE PRESS IS NOT TO BE PREFERRED TO AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY,
NOR AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY TO A FREE PRESS.  NEITHER HAS PRIMACY OVER
THE OTHER; BOTH ARE INDISPENSABLE TO A FREE SOCIETY.  THE FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS IN ITSELF PRESUPPOSES AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY THROUGH WHICH
THAT FREEDOM MAY, IF NECESSARY, BE VINDICATED.  AND ONE OF THE POTENT
MEANS FOR ASSURING JUDGES THEIR INDEPENDENCE IS A FREE PRESS. 

A FREE PRESS IS VITAL TO A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BECAUSE ITS FREEDOM
GIVES IT POWER.  POWER IN A DEMOCRACY IMPLIES RESPONSIBILITY IN ITS
EXERCISE.  NO INSTITUTION IN A DEMOCRACY, EITHER GOVERNMENTAL OR
PRIVATE, CAN HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER.  FN4 NOR CAN THE LIMITS OF POWER
WHICH ENFORCE RESPONSIBILITY BE FINALLY DETERMINED BY THE LIMITED POWER
ITSELF.  SEE CARL L. BECKER, FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE AMERICAN
WAY OF LIFE (1945).  IN PLAIN ENGLISH, FREEDOM CARRIES WITH IT
RESPONSIBILITY EVEN FOR THE PRESS; FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT A
FREEDOM FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS EXERCISE.  MOST STATE CONSTITUTIONS
EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR LIABILITY FOR ABUSE OF THE PRESS'S FREEDOM.  THAT
THERE WAS SUCH LEGAL LIABILITY WAS SO TAKEN FOR GRANTED BY THE FRAMERS
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT IT WAS NOT SPELLED OUT.  RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ITS ABUSE WAS IMBEDDED IN THE LAW.  FN5 THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAFEGUARDED
THE RIGHT. 

THESE ARE GENERALITIES.  BUT THEY ARE GENERALITIES OF THE MOST
PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE IN ACHIEVING A PROPER ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN A FREE
PRESS AND AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY. 

ESPECIALLY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW - THAT MOST
AWESOME ASPECT OF GOVERNMENT - SOCIETY NEEDS INDEPENDENT COURTS OF
JUSTICE.  THIS MEANS JUDGES FREE FROM CONTROL BY THE EXECUTIVE, FREE
FROM ALL TIES WITH POLITICAL INTERESTS, FREE FROM ALL FEARS OF REPRISAL
OR HOPES OF REWARD.  THE SAFETY OF SOCIETY AND THE SECURITY OF THE
INNOCENT ALIKE DEPEND UPON WISE AND IMPARTIAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  MISUSE
OF ITS MACHINERY MAY UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF THE STATE; ITS MISUSE MAY
DEPRIVE THE INDIVIDUAL OF ALL THAT MAKES A FREE MAN'S LIFE DEAR.  FN6 

CRITICISM THEREFORE MUST NOT FEEL CRAMPED, EVEN CRITICISM OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  WEAK CHARACTERS OUGHT NOT TO BE
JUDGES, AND THE SCOPE ALLOWED TO THE PRESS FOR SOCIETY'S SAKE MAY
ASSUME THAT THEY ARE NOT.  NO JUDGE FIT TO BE ONE IS LIKELY TO BE
INFLUENCED CONSCIOUSLY EXCEPT BY WHAT HE SEES AND HEARS IN COURT AND BY
WHAT IS JUDICIALLY APPROPRIATE FOR HIS DELIBERATIONS.  HOWEVER, JUDGES
ARE ALSO HUMAN, AND WE KNOW BETTER THAN DID OUR FORBEARS HOW POWERFUL
IS THE PULL OF THE UNCONSCIOUS AND HOW TREACHEROUS THE RATIONAL
PROCESS.  WHILE THE RAMPARTS OF REASON HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE MORE
FRAGILE THAN THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT HAD SUPPOSED, THE MEANS FOR
AROUSING PASSION AND CONFUSING JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN REINFORCED.  AND
SINCE JUDGES, HOWEVER STALWART, ARE HUMAN, THE DELICATE TASK OF
ADMINISTERING JUSTICE OUGHT NOT TO BE MADE UNDULY DIFFICULT BY
IRRESPONSIBLE PRINT. 

THE ENGLISH BENCH IS JUSTLY NOTED FOR ITS STURDINESS, AND IT WAS NO
WEAK-KNEED JUDGE WHO RECENTLY ANALYZED THE MISCHIEF OF EXPOSING EVEN
THE HARDIEST NATURE TO EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCE: "...  I THINK IT IS A
FALLACY TO SAY OR TO ASSUME THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE IS A PERSON WHO
CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY OUTSIDE INFORMATION.  HE IS A HUMAN BEING, AND
WHILE I DO NOT SUGGEST THAT IT IS LIKELY THAT ANY JUDGE, AS THE RESULT
OF INFORMATION WHICH HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY CONVEYED TO HIM, WOULD GIVE A
DECISION WHICH OTHERWISE HE WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN, IT IS EMBARRASSING TO
A JUDGE THAT HE SHOULD BE INFORMED OF MATTERS WHICH HE WOULD MUCH
RATHER NOT HEAR AND WHICH MAKE IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO DO HIS
DUTY.  TO REPEAT THE WORDS I HAVE ALREADY READ FROM THE JUDGMENT OF
WILLS J. IN REX V. PARKE ((1903) 2 K.B. 432).  'THE REASON WHY THE
PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES LIKE THOSE WITH WHICH WE HAVE TO DEAL IS
TREATED AS A CONTEMPT OF COURT IS BECAUSE THEIR TENDENCY AND SOMETIMES
THEIR OBJECT IS TO DEPRIVE THE COURT OF THE POWER OF DOING THAT WHICH
IS THE END FOR WHICH IT EXISTS - NAMELY, TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE DULY,
IMPARTIALLY, AND WITH REFERENCE SOLELY TO THE FACTS JUDICIALLY BROUGHT
BEFORE IT.'...  I VENTURE TO THINK THAT NO JUDGE WITH LONG CRIMINAL
EXPERIENCE WILL FAIL TO BE ABLE TO RECALL INSTANCES IN WHICH THE
PUBLICATION OF MATTERS SUCH AS THAT TO WHICH I HAVE REFERRED HAS HAD
THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE TASK OF A JUDGE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, AND NO
ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH MATTER WHICH WILL HAVE THAT EFFECT." 
HUMPHREYS, J., IN REX V. DAVIES, (1945) 1 K.B. 435, 442-43.  THE
OBSERVATIONS OF ANOTHER JUDGE IN THE SAME CASE BEAR QUOTING:  "...
JURORS ARE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHOSE MINDS CAN BE AFFECTED BY
PREJUDICE.  ONE OF THE EVILS OF INADMISSIBLE MATTER BEING DISSEMINATED
IS THAT NO ONE CAN TELL WHAT EFFECT A PARTICULAR PIECE OF INFORMATION
MAY HAVE ON HIS MIND.  WHY, AS MY LORD HAS ASKED, AND I CAN THINK OF NO
BETTER WORD, SHOULD A JUDGE BE 'EMBARRASSED' BY HAVING MATTERS PUT INTO
HIS MIND, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTIMATE OR ASSESS? 
AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THIS PROPOSITION, THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
HAS EXPRESSED, NOT ONCE BUT MANY TIMES, ITS THOROUGH DISAPPROVAL OF
EVIDENCE WHICH IS SOMETIMES GIVEN BY POLICE OFFICERS AT THE END OF A
CASE WHEN A MAN HAS BEEN CONVICTED.  ON SUCH OCCASIONS ALL SORTS OF
ALLEGATIONS ARE FREQUENTLY MADE AGAINST A MAN'S CHARACTER, SOMETIMES IN
THE NATURE OF HEARSAY AND SOMETIMES NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AT ALL. 
WHAT IS THE GROUND FOR THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
REGARDING SUCH STATEMENTS?  IT CAN ONLY BE THAT THE JUDGE WHO, AFTER
HEARING THE STATEMENTS, HAS TO PRONOUNCE SENTENCE, MAY, QUITE
UNCONSCIOUSLY, HAVE HIS JUDGMENT INFLUENCED BY MATTERS WHICH HE HAS NO
RIGHT TO CONSIDER....  NOT ALL DEFAMATORY MATTER CAN AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT
OF COURT....  WHETHER DEFAMATORY MATTER AMOUNTS TO CONTEMPT IN ANY
PARTICULAR CASE IS A QUESTION IN EACH CASE OF FACT, OF DEGREE AND OF
CIRCUMSTANCES."  OLIVER, J., IN REX V. DAVIES, SUPRA, AT 445-46.  CF.
PARASHURAM DETARAM SHAMDASANI V. KING-EMPEROR, (1945) A.C. 264.  TO
DENY THAT BLUDGEONING OR POISONOUS COMMENT HAS POWER TO INFLUENCE, OR
AT LEAST TO DISTURB, THE TASK OF JUDGING IS TO PLAY MAKEBELIEVE AND TO
ASSUME THAT MEN IN GOWNS ARE ANGELS.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THIS
PROBLEM BECOME PARTICULARLY PERTINENT IN THE CASE OF ELECTED JUDGES
WITH SHORT TENURE. 

"TRIAL BY NEWSPAPER," LIKE ALL CATCH PHRASES, MAY BE LOOSELY USED BUT
IT SUMMARIZES AN EVIL INFLUENCE UPON THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY.  ITS ABSENCE IN ENGLAND, AT LEAST ITS NARROW
CONFINEMENT THERE, FURNISHES AN ILLUMINATING COMMENTARY.  IT WILL
HARDLY BE CLAIMED THAT THE PRESS IS LESS FREE IN ENGLAND THAN IN THE
UNITED STATES.  NOR WILL ANY INFORMED PERSON DENY THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS MORE EFFECTIVE THERE THAN HERE. 
THIS IS SO DESPITE THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED VIEW THAT ENGLISH STANDARDS OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ARE MORE CIVILIZED, OR, AT THE LEAST, THAT RECOGNIZED
STANDARDS OF FAIR CONDUCT IN THE PROSECUTION OF CRIME ARE BETTER
OBSERVED.  THUS, "THE THIRD DEGREE" IS NOT UNJUSTLY CALLED "THE
AMERICAN METHOD."  FN7 THIS IS NOT THE OCCASION TO ENLARGE UPON THE
REASONS FOR THE GREATER EFFECTIVENESS OF ENGLISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE BUT
IT MAY BE CONFIDENTLY ASSERTED THAT IT IS MORE EFFECTIVE PARTLY BECAUSE
ITS STANDARDS ARE SO CIVILIZED.  FN8  THERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL RESENT
SUCH A STATEMENT AS PRAISE OF ANOTHER COUNTRY AND DISPRAISE OF ONE'S
OWN.  WHAT IT REALLY MEANS IS THAT ONE COVETS FOR HIS OWN COUNTRY A
QUALITY OF PUBLIC CONDUCT NOT SURPASSED ELSEWHERE. 

CERTAIN FEATURES OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE HAVE LONG BEEN
DIAGNOSED BY THOSE BEST QUALIFIED TO JUDGE AS SERIOUS AND REMEDIABLE
DEFECTS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME MISCHIEVOUS ACCOMPANIMENTS OF OUR
SYSTEM HAVE BEEN SO PERVASIVE THAT THEY ARE TOO OFTEN REGARDED AS PART
OF THE EXUBERANT AMERICAN SPIRIT.  THUS, "TRIAL BY NEWSPAPERS" HAS
SOMETIMES BEEN EXPLAINED AS A CONCESSION TO OUR PECULIAR INTEREST IN
CRIMINAL TRIALS.  SUCH INTEREST MIGHT BE AN INNOCENT ENOUGH PASTIME
WERE IT NOT FOR THE FACT THAT THE STIMULATION OF SUCH CURIOSITY BY THE
PRESS AND THE RESPONSE TO SUCH STIMULATED INTEREST HAVE NOT FAILED TO
CAUSE GRIEVOUS TRAGEDIES COMMITTED UNDER THE FORMS OF LAW.  OF COURSE
TRIALS MUST BE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC HAVE A DEEP INTEREST IN TRIALS. 
THE PUBLIC'S LEGITIMATE INTEREST, HOWEVER, PRECLUDES DISTORTION OF WHAT
GOES ON INSIDE THE COURTROOM, DISSEMINATION OF MATTERS THAT DO NOT COME
BEFORE THE COURT, OR OTHER TRAFFICKING WITH TRUTH INTENDED TO INFLUENCE
PROCEEDINGS OR INEVITABLY CALCULATED TO DISTURB THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. 
THE ATMOSPHERE IN A COURTROOM MAY BE SUBTLY INFLUENCED FROM WITHOUT. 
FN9  SEE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, IN FRANK V. MANGUM,
237 U.S. 309, 345, AT 349.  CASES ARE TOO OFTEN TRIED IN NEWSPAPERS
BEFORE THEY ARE TRIED IN COURT, AND THE CAST OF CHARACTERS IN THE
NEWSPAPER TRIAL TOO OFTEN DIFFERS GREATLY FROM THE REAL PERSONS WHO
APPEAR AT THE TRIAL IN COURT AND WHO MAY HAVE TO SUFFER ITS DISTORTED
CONSEQUENCES.  FN10 

NEWSPAPERS AND NEWSPAPER MEN THEMSELVES HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THESE
PRACTICES, DEPLORED THEIR EVILS, AND URGED REFORM.  FN11  SEE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONFERENCE ON CRIME (1934) 82-111.  ONE OF THE MOST
ZEALOUS CLAIMANTS OF THE PREROGATIVES OF THE PRESS, THE CHICAGO
TRIBUNE, HAS EVEN PROPOSED LEGAL MEANS FOR THE CORRECTION OF THESE
INROADS UPON THE PROVINCE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE:  "'THE TRIBUNE ADVOCATES
AND WILL ACCEPT DRASTIC RESTRICTION OF THIS PRELIMINARY PUBLICITY.  THE
PENETRATION OF THE POLICE SYSTEM AND THE COURTS BY JOURNALISTS MUST
STOP.  WITH SUCH A LAW THERE WOULD BE NO MOTIVATION FOR IT.  THOUGH
SUCH A LAW WILL BE REVOLUTIONARY IN AMERICAN JOURNALISM, THOUGH IT IS
NOT FINANCIALLY ADVISABLE FOR NEWSPAPERS, IT STILL IS NECESSARY. 
RESTRICTIONS MUST COME.'"  FN12 

IT IS NOT FOR ME TO EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THESE VIEWS, STILL LESS,
JUDGMENT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT WOULD ARISE IF THEY WERE
TRANSLATED INTO LEGISLATION.  BUT THEY ARE RELEVANT TO AN UNDERSTANDING
OF THE NATURE OF OUR PROBLEM.  THEY SERVE ALSO TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT TO ERECT THE PRESS INTO A
PRIVILEGED INSTITUTION BUT TO PROTECT ALL PERSONS IN THEIR RIGHT TO
PRINT WHAT THEY WILL AS WELL AS TO UTTER IT.  "...  THE LIBERTY OF THE
PRESS IS NO GREATER AND NO LESS THAN THE LIBERTY OF EVERY SUBJECT OF
THE QUEEN," REGINA V. GRAY, (1900) 2 Q.B. 36, 40, AND, IN THE UNITED
STATES, IT IS NO GREATER THAN THE LIBERTY OF EVERY CITIZEN OF THE
REPUBLIC.  THE RIGHT TO UNDERMINE PROCEEDINGS IN COURT IS NOT A SPECIAL
PREROGATIVE OF THE PRESS. 

THE PRESS DOES HAVE THE RIGHT, WHICH IS ITS PROFESSIONAL FUNCTION, TO
CRITICIZE AND TO ADVOCATE.  THE WHOLE GAMUT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS IS THE
DOMAIN FOR FEARLESS AND CRITICAL COMMENT, AND NOT LEAST THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  BUT THE PUBLIC FUNCTION WHICH BELONGS TO
THE PRESS MAKES IT AN OBLIGATION OF HONOR TO EXERCISE THIS FUNCTION
ONLY WITH THE FULLEST SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY.  WITHOUT SUCH A LIVELY
SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY A FREE PRESS MAY READILY BECOME A POWERFUL
INSTRUMENT OF INJUSTICE.  FN13  IT SHOULD NOT AND MAY NOT ATTEMPT TO
INFLUENCE JUDGES OR JURIES BEFORE THEY HAVE MADE UP THEIR MINDS ON
PENDING CONTROVERSIES.  SUCH A RESTRICTION, WHICH MERELY BARS THE
OPERATION OF EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO A CONCRETE
CASE, IN NO WISE CURTAILS THE FULLEST DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC ISSUES
GENERALLY.  IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT GENERALIZED DISCUSSION OF A
PARTICULAR TOPIC SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN, OR RUN THE HAZARD OF CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS, MERELY BECAUSE SOME PHASES OF SUCH A GENERAL TOPIC MAY BE
INVOLVED IN A PENDING LITIGATION.  IT IS THE FOCUSED ATTEMPT TO
INFLUENCE A PARTICULAR DECISION THAT MAY HAVE A CORRODING EFFECT ON THE
PROCESS OF JUSTICE, AND IT IS SUCH COMMENT THAT JUSTIFIES THE
CORRECTIVE PROCESS. 

THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW, PARTICULARLY THAT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW,
NORMALLY OPERATES IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS NOT UNIVERSAL OR EVEN
GENERAL BUT INDIVIDUAL.  THE DISTINCTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR
CASE DETERMINE WHETHER LAW IS FAIRLY ADMINISTERED IN THAT CASE, THROUGH
A DISINTERESTED JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HAS BEEN FORMALLY
PRESENTED INSIDE THE COURTROOM ON EXPLICIT CONSIDERATIONS, INSTEAD OF
BEING SUBJECTED TO EXTRANEOUS FACTORS PSYCHOLOGICALLY CALCULATED TO
DISTURB THE EXERCISE OF AN IMPARTIAL AND EQUITABLE JUDGMENT. 

IF MEN, INCLUDING JUDGES AND JOURNALISTS, WERE ANGELS, THERE WOULD BE
NO PROBLEMS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT.  ANGELIC JUDGES WOULD BE UNDISTURBED
BY EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCES AND ANGELIC JOURNALISTS WOULD NOT SEEK TO
INFLUENCE THEM.  THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT, AS A MEANS OF
SAFEGUARDING JUDGES IN DECIDING ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY AS
IMPARTIALLY AS IS GIVEN TO THE LOT OF MEN TO DECIDE, IS NOT A PRIVILEGE
ACCORDED TO JUDGES.  THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT IS A
SAFEGUARD NOT FOR JUDGES AS PERSONS BUT FOR THE FUNCTION WHICH THEY
EXERCISE.  IT IS A CONDITION OF THAT FUNCTION - INDISPENSABLE FOR A
FREE SOCIETY - THAT IN A PARTICULAR CONTROVERSY PENDING BEFORE A COURT
AND AWAITING JUDGMENT, HUMAN BEINGS, HOWEVER STRONG, SHOULD NOT BE TORN
FROM THEIR MOORINGS OF IMPARTIALITY BY THE UNDERTOW OF EXTRANEOUS
INFLUENCE.  IN SECURING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE CONSTITUTION HARDLY
MEANT TO CREATE THE RIGHT TO INFLUENCE JUDGES OR JURIES.  THAT IS NO
MORE FREEDOM OF SPEECH THAN STUFFING A BALLOT BOX IS AN EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHT TO VOTE. 

DUE REGARD FOR THESE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS MUST DISPOSE OF THE
PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  SINCE AT THE CORE OF OUR PROBLEM IS A PROPER
BALANCE BETWEEN TWO BASIC CONDITIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY -
FREEDOM OF UTTERANCE AND IMPARTIAL JUSTICE - WE CANNOT ESCAPE THE
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT ON THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR
CASE.  AND WE MUST ALWAYS BEAR IN MIND THAT SINCE A JUDGMENT FROM A
STATE COURT COMES HERE AS THE VOICE OF THE STATE, IT MUST BE ACCORDED
EVERY FAIR INTENDMENT THAT IN REASON BELONGS TO ACTION BY A STATE. 

ACCORDING TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, THE CHARGE AGAINST
PETITIONERS WAS THAT "BOTH THE EDITORIALS AND THE CARTOON WERE
PREDICATED ON INACCURATE, DISTORTED, INCOMPLETE AND BIASED REPORTS OF
PENDING LITIGATION, THAT THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE EDITORIALS AND
THE CARTOON WERE TO IMPUTE PARTISANSHIP AND FAVOR ON THE PART OF THE
CIRCUIT JUDGES TO THOSE CHARGED WITH CRIME AND THAT SUCH PARTISANSHIP
WAS SO PRONOUNCED THAT THEY REFUSED TO HEED THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE'S
REPRESENTATIVES....  SO THE VICE IN BOTH THE EDITORIALS WAS THE
DISTORTED, INACCURATE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND WITH THAT STATEMENT
WERE SCRAMBLED FALSE INSINUATIONS THAT AMOUNTED TO UNWARRANTED CHARGES
OF PARTISANSHIP AND UNFAIRNESS ON THE PART OF THE JUDGES."  FN14  THE
TENOR OF THE FIRST EDITORIAL WAS COMPLAINT OF THE TECHNICALITIES AND
DELAYS OF THE LAW WHICH SEEM TO GIVE EXCESSIVE PROTECTION TO
DEFENDANTS.  IT MAKES NO SUGGESTION WHICH COULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN
ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE COURT'S DECISION IN A MATTER ACTUALLY PENDING
BEFORE IT.  ALL THE QUESTIONS DISCUSSED IN THE EDITORIAL HAD BEEN ACTED
ON BY THE TRIAL JUDGES.  THE EDITOR MERELY INDULGED IN GENERAL
CRITICISM OF THOSE ACTS AS EXEMPLIFYING AN OVERSOLICITOUS CONCERN FOR
DEFENDANTS BY THE LAW AND BY THE JUDGES WHO INTERPRETED IT.  NOR WAS
THE CARTOON DIRECTED TOWARD A PARTICULAR PENDING CASE.  INDEED, IT
PARTLY SERVES TO INTERPRET THE EDITORIAL AS ONE CONCERNED WITH A
GENERAL SITUATION.  ONE SUSPECTS THAT ONLY JUDICIAL HYPERSENSITIVENESS
WOULD FIND IN IT AN ANIMUS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED.  THE OPINION OF THE
COURT ILLUSTRATES THE DANGER OF CONFUSING CORRECTION OF INTERFERENCE
WITH JUDICIAL ACTION WITH CONCERN OVER A COURT'S DIGNITY.  INSTEAD OF
TREATING LIGHTLY A CARTOON INDISTINGUISHABLE IN TYPE FROM SCORES OF
SUCH EPHEMERAL PRODUCTS, THE COURT SAW IN IT WHOLLY UNDESERVED
SIGNIFICANCE. 

AGAIN, THE SECOND EDITORIAL REFERRED TO A PARTICULAR CASE ONLY AS AN
EXAMPLE.  IN THAT CASE, TOO, THE COURT HAD MADE ITS DECISION.  WHAT THE
EDITOR CRITICIZED WAS THE SPEED OF DISPOSITION AND OTHER FEATURES OF
PROCEDURE WHICH ATTENDED THE CASE.  HIS ALLOWABLE CONCERN WAS THAT THE
PEOPLE HAVE A CHANCE TO GIVE THEIR ARGUMENT, THAT THE PROSECUTION IN
CRIMINAL CASES BE TREATED AS FAIRLY AS THE DEFENSE.  INACCURATE AND
EVEN FALSE COMMENT ON LITIGATION NO LONGER PENDING MAY NOT BE DEALT
WITH BY PUNISHING FOR CONTEMPT AS A MEANS OF ASSURING THE JUST EXERCISE
OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. 

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO THE CASES CRITICIZED AS
"PENDING."  BUT IT DID NOT DEFINE THE SCOPE OF "PENDING" NOR DID THE
GROUNDS OF ITS DECISION HAVE ANY PARTICULAR DEPENDENCE ON THE
REQUIREMENT THAT A CASE BE PENDING.  THE FINDING BY A STATE COURT THAT
A CASE IS "PENDING" IN THE SENSE RELEVANT TO THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT DOES NOT, OF COURSE, BAR ITS REVIEW HERE.  OTHERWISE A STATE
COURT COULD FORECLOSE OUR PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF
FREE SPEECH BY PUTTING FORTH AS A NON-FEDERAL GROUND OF DECISION THAT
WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION.  UNION PACIFIC R.
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 248 U.S. 67, 69-70; WARD V. LOVE COUNTY,
253 U.S. 17, 22; DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22. 

IF IT IS CONTEMPTUOUS TO BRING THE COURTS OF A STATE INTO DISREPUTE
AND GENERALLY TO IMPAIR THEIR EFFICIENCY, THEN IT CAN MAKE NO
DIFFERENCE ON WHAT OCCASION OR WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT EVENT THAT EFFECT
IS ACHIEVED OR ATTEMPTED.  BUT WHEN IT IS UNDERSTOOD WHAT IS MEANT BY A
"PENDING" CASE, IT BECOMES PLAIN THAT FOR PURPOSES OF PUNISHING FOR
CONTEMPT AS INTERFERENCE, THE CASES WERE NOT ACTIVELY PENDING. 
"PENDING" IS NOT USED WITH THE TECHNICAL INCLUSIVENESS THAT IT HAS IN
THE PHRASE LIS PENDENS.  IN THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THAT PHRASE HAS
MEANING AND APPLICABILITY, THE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS ARE WHETHER ANY
PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO PUT THE ISSUE INTO COURT AND WHETHER IT
IS STILL THERE.  WHERE THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT IS ASSERTED, IT
IS NOT IMPORTANT THAT THE CASE IS TECHNICALLY IN COURT OR THAT FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, SUCH AS THE POSSIBILITY OF A REHEARING, ARE AVAILABLE. 
"WHEN A CASE IS PENDING IS NOT A TECHNICAL, LAWYER'S PROBLEM, BUT IS TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE SUBSTANTIAL REALITIES OF THE SPECIFIC SITUATION." 
BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 279, AT 303-304(DISSENT).  THE
DECISIVE CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE JUDGE OR THE JURY IS, OR
PRESENTLY WILL BE, PONDERING A DECISION THAT COMMENT SEEKS TO AFFECT. 
FORBIDDEN COMMENT IS SUCH AS WILL OR MAY THROW PSYCHOLOGICAL WEIGHT
INTO SCALES WHICH THE COURT IS IMMEDIATELY BALANCING.  CF. L. HAND, J.,
IN EX PARTE CRAIG, 282 F. 138, 159-60.  IN THE SITUATION BEFORE US, THE
SCALES HAD COME TO REST.  THE PETITIONERS OFFENDED THE TRIAL COURT BY
CRITICIZING WHAT THE COURT HAD ALREADY PUT IN THE SCALES, NOT BY
ATTEMPTING THEMSELVES TO INSERT WEIGHTS. 

THE PETITIONERS HERE COULD NOT HAVE DISTURBED THE TRIAL COURT IN ITS
SENSE OF FAIRNESS BUT ONLY IN ITS SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE.  THE JUDGMENT
MUST, I AGREE, BE REVERSED. 

FN1  THE JUDGES WHO TRIED THE CONTEMPT CASES WERE THE SAME JUDGES WHO
WERE CRITICIZED BY THE EDITORIALS.  THE WORDS OF CAUTION OF MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE TAFT BECOME RELEVANT:  "THE DELICACY THERE IS IN THE JUDGE'S
DECIDING WHETHER AN ATTACK UPON HIS OWN JUDICIAL ACTION IS MERE
CRITICISM OR REAL OBSTRUCTION, AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT IMPULSE MAY
INCLINE HIS VIEW TO PERSONAL VINDICATION, ARE MANIFEST."  CRAIG V.
HECHT, 263 U.S. 255, 279(CONCURRING).  BUT THE JUDGES WHO TRIED
PETITIONERS WERE SENSIBLE OF THE DELICACY OF THEIR POSITION, AND
OFFERED TO RETIRE FROM THE CASE IF PETITIONERS FELT THEY WOULD PREFER
TO BE TRIED BY ANOTHER JUDGE. 

FN2  "...  THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME MORE COMPLEX,
THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MALFEASANCE AND CORRUPTION HAVE MULTIPLIED, CRIME
HAS GROWN TO MOST SERIOUS PROPORTIONS, AND THE DANGER OF ITS PROTECTION
BY UNFAITHFUL OFFICIALS AND OF THE IMPAIRMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
SECURITY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY BY CRIMINAL ALLIANCES AND OFFICIAL
NEGLECT, EMPHASIZES THE PRIMARY NEED OF A VIGILANT AND COURAGEOUS
PRESS, ESPECIALLY IN GREAT CITIES.  THE FACT THAT THE LIBERTY OF THE
PRESS MAY BE ABUSED BY MISCREANT PURVEYORS OF SCANDAL DOES NOT MAKE ANY
THE LESS NECESSARY THE IMMUNITY OF THE PRESS FROM PREVIOUS RESTRAINT IN
DEALING WITH OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT.  SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT FOR SUCH
ABUSES AS MAY EXIST IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY, CONSISTENT WITH
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE."  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 719-20. 

NOT UNRELATED TO THIS WHOLE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, ARE THE TECHNOLOGICAL
AND ECONOMIC INFLUENCES THAT HAVE VASTLY TRANSFORMED THE ACTUAL
OPERATION OF THE RIGHT TO A FREE, IN THE SENSE OF A GOVERNMENTALLY
UNCENSORED, PRESS.  BIGNESS AND CONCENTRATION OF INTEREST HAVE PUT
THEIR IMPRESS ALSO ON THIS INDUSTRY.  "TODAY IDEAS ARE STILL FLOWING
FREELY, BUT THE SOURCES FROM WHICH THEY RISE HAVE SHOWN A TENDENCY TO
EVAPORATE....  THE CONTROLLING FACT IN THE FREE FLOW OF THOUGHT IS NOT
DIVERSITY OF OPINION, IT IS DIVERSITY OF THE SOURCES OF OPINION - THAT
IS, DIVERSITY OF OWNERSHIP....  THERE ARE PROBABLY A LOT MORE WORDS
WRITTEN AND SPOKEN IN AMERICA TODAY THAN EVER BEFORE, AND ON MORE
SUBJECTS; BUT IF IT IS TRUE, AS THIS BOOK SUGGESTS, THAT THESE WORDS
AND IDEAS ARE FLOWING THROUGH FEWER CHANNELS, THEN OUR FIRST FREEDOM
HAS BEEN DIMINISHED, NOT ENLARGED."  E.B. WHITE, IN THE NEW YORKER,
MARCH 16, 1946, P. 97, REVIEWING ERNST, THE FIRST FREEDOM (1946). 
THERE ARE TODAY INCOMPARABLY MORE EFFECTIVE AND MORE WIDESPREAD MEANS
FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS AND INFORMATION THAN IN THE PAST.  BUT A
STEADY SHRINKAGE OF A DIFFUSED OWNERSHIP RAISES FAR REACHING QUESTIONS
REGARDING THE MEANING OF THE "FREEDOM" OF A FREE PRESS. 

FN3  ARTICLE XXIX OF THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS, 1780. 

FN4  THAT THIS INDISPENSABLE CONDITION FOR A FREE SOCIETY WAS WELL
KNOWN TO THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS THE THEME OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S.
52, 240, AT 293:  "THE DOCTRINE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS WAS ADOPTED
BY THE CONVENTION OF 1787, NOT TO PROMOTE EFFICIENCY BUT TO PRECLUDE
THE EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY POWER.  THE PURPOSE WAS, NOT TO AVOID
FRICTION, BUT, BY MEANS OF THE INEVITABLE FRICTION INCIDENT TO THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AMONG THREE DEPARTMENTS, TO
SAVE THE PEOPLE FROM AUTOCRACY."  AND SEE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, IN EX
PARTE GROSSMAN, 267 U.S. 87, 119-22. 

FN5  THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND PRESS THEY GUARANTEE IS NOT ABSOLUTE.  ALL, WITH THE EXCEPTION ONLY
OF MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, SOUTH CAROLINA, VERMONT, AND WEST
VIRGINIA, EXPLICITLY PROVIDE IN PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL LANGUAGE FOR THE
RIGHT TO SPEAK, WRITE AND PUBLISH FREELY, EVERY ONE, HOWEVER, "BEING
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABUSE OF THAT RIGHT." 

FN6  SEE, E.G., THE DISTURBING RECORD IN THE CASE OF CAMPBELL, NEW
YORK COUNTY CRIMINAL COURTS BAR ASSOCIATION, IN THE MATTER OF THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE CONVICTION OF BERTRAM M. CAMPBELL (FEB. 22, 1946),
AND THE DECISION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF CLAIMS, ON JUNE 17, 1946,
AWARDING CAMPBELL $115,000 FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION, INCLUDING DAMAGES
FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS, AFTER HIS PARDON BY GOVERNOR DEWEY FOLLOWING THE
CONFESSION BY ANOTHER OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH CAMPBELL HAD BEEN
CONVICTED.  "HE WAS THE VICTIM OF A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE BUT
FORTUNATELY FOR HIM THE STATE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE AS
FAR AS POSSIBLE....  SEVEN YEARS, SIX MONTHS AND FIVE DAYS ELAPSED FROM
CLAIMANT'S ARREST UNTIL HE WAS PARDONED."  CAMPBELL V. NEW YORK, 186
MISC. 586, 591. 

FN7  COMPARE INQUIRY IN REGARD TO THE INTERROGATION BY THE POLICE OF
MISS SAVIDGE, CMD.  3147(1928); REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON
POLICE POWERS AND PROCEDURE, CMD.  3297(1929), WITH REPORT ON
LAWLESSNESS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, IN 4 NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW
OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT REPORTS (1931).  SEE ALSO WAN V. UNITED
STATES, 266 U.S. 1; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278; CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227. 

FN8  THE RECENT RULING BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
REGARDING THE LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT TO COMMENT EVEN IN PARLIAMENT ON
THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NAZIS BEFORE THE NUREMBERG
TRIBUNAL BEARS SIGNIFICANTLY ON THE ATTITUDE AND CONTROLLING STANDARDS
DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN ENGLAND IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
FROM EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCES: 

"THE RULE TO WHICH THE NOBLE LORD HAS DRAWN MY ATTENTION THAT
REFLECTIONS CANNOT BE MADE ON JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT AND CERTAIN
OTHER COURTS, EXCEPT BY WAY OF A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION, APPLIES ONLY TO
THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY.  IN TERMS, THEREFORE, IT ONLY COVERS THE
TWO BRITISH MEMBERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL.  I FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE WORSE
THAN INVIDIOUS - INDEED IMPROPER - NOT TO EXTEND THE SAME PROTECTION TO
THEIR COLLEAGUES ON THIS TRIBUNAL WHO REPRESENT THE THREE OTHER ALLIED
NATIONS.    "THERE IS, HOWEVER, ANOTHER OF OUR RULES OF DEBATE WHICH IS
RELEVANT TO THIS CASE, THE RULE THAT MATTERS WHICH ARE SUB JUDICE
SHOULD NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION IN THIS HOUSE.  THIS RULE
AGAIN, IN TERMS, APPLIES ONLY TO BRITISH COURTS.  THE COURT IN
NUREMBERG IS A COURT IN WHICH BRITISH JUDGES PARTICIPATE, AND WE HAVE
THE SAME INTEREST IN SEEING THAT NOTHING IS DONE HERE TO DISTURB ITS
JUDICIAL ATMOSPHERE AS WE HAVE IN THE CASE OF BRITISH COURTS - INDEED,
PERHAPS A GREATER INTEREST, SINCE THE EYES OF THE WORLD ARE UPON THIS
NEW AND DIFFICULT PROCEDURE OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, AND THE
CONSEQUENCES OF ILL-ADVISED INTERFERENCE MIGHT BE INCALCULABLY
MISCHIEVOUS.    "I THINK THAT THE INTENTION OF BOTH THE RULES TO WHICH
I HAVE REFERRED, IS TO PRESERVE THE HOUSE FROM EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF
INTERFERING IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF BRITISH JUSTICE - AND THIS SHOULD
INCLUDE TRIALS FOR WHICH THIS COUNTRY HAS SOME RESPONSIBILITY; AND I
RULE, THEREFORE, THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF THIS INTERNATIONAL COURT ARE
PROTECTED TO THE SAME EXTENT AS BRITISH JUDGES, AND THAT DISCUSSION OF
ITS PROCEEDINGS IS OUT OF ORDER, IN THE SAME WAY AS MATTERS UNDER
ADJUDICATION IN A BRITISH COURT OF LAW."  416 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
(HANSARD) 599-600, NOV. 22, 1945. 

FN9  THE MANNER IN WHICH THE HAUPTMANN TRIAL WAS REPORTED LED TO A
SEARCHING INQUIRY BY A SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION AND IT REPORTED THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS: 

"IN THE FOREGOING REPORT WE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE A FAIR PRESENTATION OF
SALIENT FACTS.  WE HAVE BEEN MOVED LESS BY SPIRIT OF CENSURE THAN BY
HOPE OF REMEDIAL ACTION.  THE EXCESSES WE HAVE DESCRIBED DIFFER FROM
PRACTICES IN MANY OTHER CASES MAINLY IN DEGREE. 

"THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE IS A BUSINESS THAT HAS FOR ITS SOLE
PURPOSE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND IT SHOULD BE CARRIED ON
WITHOUT DISTRACTING INFLUENCES. 

"PASSING FROM THE GENERAL TO THE SPECIFIC WE RECOMMEND: 

"THAT ATTENDANCE IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE PROGRESS OF A CRIMINAL
TRIAL BE LIMITED TO THE SEATING CAPACITY OF THE ROOM. 

"THAT THE PROCESS OF SUBPOENA OR ANY OTHER PROCESS OF THE COURT
SHOULD NEVER BE USED TO SECURE PREFERENTIAL ADMISSION OF ANY PERSON OR
SPECTATOR; THAT SUCH ABUSE OF PROCESS BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT. 

"THAT APPROACHES TO THE COURTROOM BE KEPT CLEAR, TO THE END THAT FREE
ACCESS TO THE COURTROOM BE MAINTAINED. 

"THAT NO USE OF CAMERAS OR PHOTOGRAPHIC APPLIANCES BE PERMITTED IN
THE COURTROOM, EITHER DURING THE SESSION OF THE COURT OR OTHERWISE. 

"THAT NO SOUND REGISTERING DEVICES FOR PUBLICITY USE BE PERMITTED TO
OPERATE IN THE COURTROOM AT ANY TIME. 

"THAT THE SURREPTITIOUS PROCUREMENT OF PICTURES OR SOUND RECORDS BE
CONSIDERED CONTEMPT OF COURT AND BE PUNISHED AS SUCH. 

"THAT THE COURTROOM AND THE COURT HOUSE BE KEPT FREE FROM NEWS
DISTRIBUTING DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT. 

"THAT NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BE LIMITED TO
ACCOUNTS OF OCCURRENCES IN COURT WITHOUT ARGUMENT OF THE CASE TO THE
PUBLIC. 

"THAT NO POPULAR REFERENDUM BE TAKEN DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE
LITIGATION AS TO THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED. 

"THAT BROADCASTING OF ARGUMENTS, GIVING OUT OF ARGUMENTIVE PRESS
BULLETINS, AND EVERY OTHER FORM OF ARGUMENT OR DISCUSSION ADDRESSED TO
THE PUBLIC, BY LAWYERS IN THE CASE DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE
LITIGATION BE DEFINITELY FORBIDDEN. 

"THAT BULLETINS BY THE DEFENDANT ISSUED TO THE PUBLIC DURING THE
PROGRESS OF THE TRIAL BE DEFINITELY FORBIDDEN. 

"THAT PUBLIC CRITICISM OF THE COURT OR JURY BY LAWYERS IN THE CASE
DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE LITIGATION BE NOT TOLERATED. 

"THAT FEATURING IN VAUDEVILLE OF JURORS OR OTHER COURT OFFICERS,
EITHER DURING OR AFTER THE TRIAL, BE FORBIDDEN. 

"THAT THE GIVING OF PAID INTERVIEWS OR THE WRITING OF PAID ARTICLES
BY JURORS, EITHER DURING OR AFTER THE TRIAL, BE FORBIDDEN. 

"THAT THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE COURTROOM AND ADJACENT PREMISES BE
MAINTAINED AS ONE OF DIGNITY AND CALM."  (1936) 22 A.B.A. JOURNAL 79
80. 

FN10  SEE, E.G., GILMAN, THE TRUTH BEHIND THE NEWS (JUNE, 1933) 29
AMERICAN MERCURY 139.  "IT IS IDLE FOR SUCH NEWSPAPERS TO CLAIM THAT
THEY ADOPT SUCH PRACTICES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THEIR MOTIVE IS THE
SORDID ONE OF INCREASING THEIR PROFITS, UNMINDFUL OF THE RESULT TO THE
UNFORTUNATE WRETCH WHO MAY ULTIMATELY HAVE TO STAND HIS TRIAL FOR
MURDER."  MR. JUSTICE BLAIR, IN ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. TONKS (1934)
N.Z.L.R. 141, 148, AT 150.  CF. PRATT, HOW THE CENSORS RIGGED THE NEWS
(FEB., 1946) 192 HARPER'S MAGAZINE, 97, 105. 

FN11  A PROFESSIONAL DEFENSE OF CRIME REPORTING HAS THIS BIT OF
REFRESHING CANDOR:  "I WILL CONCEDE, HOWEVER, THAT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR
POPULAR FEELING DEVELOPED TO FEVER HEAT BY THE NEWSPAPERS, HICKMAN
MIGHT BE LIVING TODAY BEHIND THE WALLS OF SOME MADHOUSE INSTEAD OF
HAVING MET DEATH IN THE ELECTRIC CHAIR."  DEWEY, CRIME AND THE PRESS
(DEC. 30, 1931) 15 COMMONWEAL 231, 233.  COMPARE THE STATEMENT BY ONE
OF THE MOST EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL LAWYERS, CLARENCE DARROW: 

"TRIAL BY JURY IS RAPIDLY BEING DESTROYED IN AMERICA BY THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE NEWSPAPERS HANDLE ALL SENSATIONAL CASES.  I DON'T KNOW WHAT
SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT IT.  THE TRUTH IS THAT THE COURTS AND THE LAWYERS
DON'T LIKE TO PROCEED AGAINST NEWSPAPERS.  THEY ARE TOO POWERFUL.  AS
THE LAW STANDS TODAY THERE IS NO IMPORTANT CRIMINAL CASE WHERE THE
NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT DAY AFTER DAY.  ALL
LAWYERS KNOW IT, ALL JUDGES KNOW IT, AND ALL NEWSPAPERS KNOW IT.  BUT
NOTHING IS DONE ABOUT IT.  NO NEW LAWS ARE NECESSARY.  THE COURT HAS
FULL JURISDICTION TO SEE THAT NO ONE INFLUENCES A VERDICT OR A
DECISION.  BUT EVERYONE IS AFRAID TO ACT."  QUOTED BY PERRY, IN THE
COURTS, THE PRESS, AND THE PUBLIC (TRIAL BY NEWSPAPER)(1931) 30 MICH.
L. REV. 228, 234; (1932) 66 U.S. LAW REV. 374, 379; (1932) 11 PHIL. 
L.J. 277, 282. 

FN12  30 MICH. L. REV. AT 232; 66 U.S. LAW REV. AT 377; 11 PHIL. 
L.J. AT 280.  IN AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE 1936 MEETING OF THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION DELEGATES, SIR WILLMOTT LEWIS, THE VETERAN WASHINGTON
CORRESPONDENT OF THE TIMES (LONDON) EXPRESSED THESE VIEWS: 

"THE POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT NEITHER THE TRADITION OF ORDERLY
LEGAL PROCEDURE, NOR THE OBLIGATION WHICH THE PRESS SHOULD RECOGNIZE TO
THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT TRADITION, CAN, IN THEMSELVES, BE ENOUGH AMID
THE PRESSURE AND VULGARITY OF THE MODERN WORLD. 

"TRADITION AND OBLIGATION MUST BE BUTTRESSED BY RULES, AND THOSE
RULES MUST BE ENFORCED IN THE DOMAIN OF THEIR IMMEDIATE APPLICATION, BY
THE COURT ITSELF.... 

"I THINK IT INTOLERABLE, AND I CANNOT THINK THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE
PUNISHABLE, THAT A CHARGE LYING AGAINST ANY CITIZEN SHOULD BE
IRRESPONSIBLY TRIED IN THE PUBLIC PRINTS, WHOSE PLAIN DUTY IS THE
REPORTING, AND NOT THE HEARING, OF CAUSES...."  (1936) 20 J. AM. JUD. 
SOC.  84, 86. 

FN13  SEE THE SKEPTICAL REMARKS OF H.L. MENCKEN, A STOUT LIBERTARIAN,
ON THE EFFICACY OF JOURNALISTIC SELF-RESTRAINT: 

"JOURNALISTIC CODES OF ETHICS ARE ALL MOONSHINE.  ESSENTIALLY, THEY
ARE AS ABSURD AS WOULD BE CODES OF STREET-CAR CONDUCTORS, BARBERS OR
PUBLIC JOBHOLDERS.  IF AMERICAN JOURNALISM IS TO BE PURGED OF ITS
PRESENT SWINISHNESS AND BROUGHT UP TO A DECENT LEVEL OF REPUTE - AND
GOD KNOWS THAT SUCH AN IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED - IT MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED
BY THE DEVICES OF MORALS, NOT BY THOSE OF HONOR.  THAT IS TO SAY, IT
MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY EXTERNAL FORCES, AND THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF
PENALTIES EXTERIORLY INFLICTED."  QUOTED BY LEVINESS, IN LAW AND THE
PRESS, THE DAILY RECORD, BALTIMORE, MARCH 11, 1932, P. 3, COL. 1, 4. 

THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE, MR. LEVINESS, A BALTIMORE SUN REPORTER
TURNED LAWYER, FOLLOWED THE QUOTATION FROM MR. MENCKEN WITH THIS
COMMENT: 

"THIS PUTS THE PROBLEM, AS FAR AS COURT AND POLICE NEWS GOES,
SQUARELY BACK WHERE IT BELONGS: IN THE LAP OF THE JUDICIARY.  THE
COURTS MUST SET THE STANDARDS; THE BETTER JOURNALS WILL FOLLOW JOYOUSLY
AND THE GUMCHEWERS' SHEETS MUST BE WHIPPED INTO LINE.  THE SOLUTION IS
FEARLESS JURISTS, NOT AFRAID OF THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD OF CONTEMPT
PROCESS; INTELLIGENT JURISTS, ABLE TO EXERCISE THIS POWER IN THE BEST,
ENLIGHTENED PUBLIC INTEREST."  IBID. 

FN14  PENNEKAMP V. STATE, 156 FLA. 227, 239, 240, 22 SO.2D 875, 881,
882. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. 

WERE WE TO SANCTION THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE COURT BELOW WE WOULD
BE APPROVING, IN EFFECT, AN UNWARRANTED RESTRICTION UPON THE FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS.  THAT FREEDOM COVERS SOMETHING MORE THAN THE RIGHT TO
APPROVE AND CONDONE INSOFAR AS THE JUDICIARY AND THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
ARE CONCERNED.  IT ALSO INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE AND DISPARAGE,
EVEN THOUGH THE TERMS BE VITRIOLIC, SCURRILOUS OR ERRONEOUS.  TO TALK
OF A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER ARISING OUT OF SUCH CRITICISM IS IDLE
UNLESS THE CRITICISM MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE IN A VERY REAL SENSE FOR A
COURT TO CARRY ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  THAT SITUATION IS NOT
EVEN REMOTELY PRESENT IN THIS CASE. 

JUDGES SHOULD BE FOREMOST IN THEIR VIGILANCE TO PROTECT THE FREEDOM
OF OTHERS TO REBUKE AND CASTIGATE THE BENCH AND IN THEIR REFUSAL TO BE
INFLUENCED BY UNFAIR OR MISINFORMED CENSURE.  OTHERWISE FREEDOM MAY
REST UPON THE PRECARIOUS BASE OF JUDICIAL SENSITIVENESS AND CAPRICE. 
AND A CHAIN REACTION MAY BE SET UP, RESULTING IN COUNTLESS RESTRICTIONS
AND LIMITATIONS UPON LIBERTY. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

ONE CAN HAVE NO RESPECT FOR A NEWSPAPER WHICH IS CARELESS WITH FACTS
AND WITH INSINUATIONS FOUNDED IN ITS CARELESSNESS.  SUCH A DISREGARD
FOR THE TRUTH NOT ONLY FLOUTS STANDARDS OF JOURNALISTIC ACTIVITY  FN1
OBSERVED TOO OFTEN BY BREACH, BUT IN FACT TENDS TO BRING THE COURTS AND
THOSE WHO ADMINISTER THEM INTO UNDESERVED PUBLIC OBLOQUY. 

BUT IF EVERY NEWSPAPER WHICH PRINTS CRITICAL COMMENT ABOUT COURTS
WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE BASIS IN FACT, OR WITHHOLDS THE FULL TRUTH IN
REPORTING THEIR PROCEEDINGS OR DECISIONS, OR GOES EVEN FURTHER AND
MISSTATES WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, WERE SUBJECT ON THESE ACCOUNTS TO
PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT, THERE WOULD BE FEW NOT FREQUENTLY INVOLVED IN
SUCH PROCEEDINGS.  THERE IS PERHAPS NO AREA OF NEWS MORE INACCURATELY
REPORTED FACTUALLY, ON THE WHOLE, THOUGH WITH SOME NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS,
THAN LEGAL NEWS. 

SOME PART OF THIS IS DUE TO CARELESSNESS, OFTEN INDUCED BY THE HASTE
WITH WHICH NEWS IS GATHERED AND PUBLISHED, A SMALLER PORTION TO BIAS OR
MORE BLAMEWORTHY CAUSES.  BUT A GREAT DEAL OF IT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED, IN
CANDOR, TO IGNORANCE WHICH FREQUENTLY IS NOT AT ALL BLAMEWORTHY.  FOR
NEWSPAPERS ARE CONDUCTED BY MEN WHO ARE LAYMEN TO THE LAW.  WITH TOO
RARE EXCEPTIONS THEIR CAPACITY FOR MISUNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
LEGAL EVENTS AND PROCEDURES, NOT TO SPEAK OF OPINIONS, IS GREAT.  BUT
THIS IS NEITHER REMARKABLE NOR PECULIAR TO NEWSMEN.  FOR THE LAW, AS
LAWYERS BEST KNOW, IS FULL OF PERPLEXITIES. 

IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS ANY STANDARD WHICH WOULD REQUIRE STRICT
ACCURACY IN REPORTING LEGAL EVENTS FACTUALLY OR IN COMMENTING UPON THEM
IN THE PRESS WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBLE ONE.  UNLESS THE COURTS AND JUDGES
ARE TO BE PUT ABOVE CRITICISM, NO SUCH RULE CAN OBTAIN.  THERE MUST BE
SOME ROOM FOR MISSTATEMENT OF FACT, AS WELL AS FOR MISJUDGMENT, IF THE
PRESS AND OTHERS ARE TO FUNCTION AS CRITICAL AGENCIES IN OUR DEMOCRACY
CONCERNING COURTS AS FOR ALL OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT. 

COURTS AND JUDGES THEREFORE CANNOT BE PUT ALTOGETHER BEYOND THE REACH
OF MISREPRESENTATION AND MISSTATEMENT.  THAT IS TRUE IN ANY CASE, BUT
PERHAPS MORE OBVIOUSLY WHERE THE JUDICIARY IS ELECTIVE, AS IT IS IN
MOST OF OUR STATES, INCLUDING FLORIDA.  SEE STOREY V. ILLINOIS, 79 ILL.
45, 52; (1927) 41 HARV. L. REV. 254, 255.  THE QUESTION, AND THE
STANDARD, MUST BE ONE OF DEGREE AND EFFECTS.  IT CANNOT BE PLACED AT
MERE FALSITY, EITHER IN REPRESENTATION OR IN JUDGMENT.  THE STATEMENT,
WHETHER OF FACT OR OF OPINION, MUST BE OF SUCH A CHARACTER, WHETHER
TRUE OR FALSE, AS TO OBSTRUCT IN SOME CLEAR AND SUBSTANTIAL WAY THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN PENDING MATTERS.  BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252.  FN2  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE JUDGE'S
SENSIBILITIES ARE AFFECTED OR THAT IN SOME WAY HE IS BROUGHT GENERALLY
INTO OBLOQUY.  AFTER ALL, IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT IT IS JUDGES WHO
APPLY THE LAW OF CONTEMPT, AND THE OFFENDER IS THEIR CRITIC. 

THE STATEMENTS IN QUESTION ARE CLEARLY FAIR COMMENT IN LARGE PART. 
PORTIONS EXCEED THAT BOUNDARY.  BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT
THEY TENDED IN ANY WAY TO BLOCK OR OBSTRUCT THE FUNCTIONING OF THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS.  ACCORDINGLY I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND
JUDGMENT. 

FN1  SEE THE FOLLOWING CODES OF ETHICS PUBLISHED IN CRAWFORD, THE
ETHICS OF JOURNALISM (1924) APP. A.:  CANONS OF JOURNALISM, ADOPTED BY
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS IN 1923, ART. IV; THE OREGON
CODE OF ETHICS, ADOPTED BY THE OREGON STATE EDITORIAL ASSOCIATION IN
1922, ART. I; SOUTH DAKOTA CODE OF ETHICS, ADOPTED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA
PRESS ASSOCIATION IN 1922, "TRUTH AND HONESTY"; MISSOURI DECLARATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND CODE OF PRACTICE, ADOPTED BY THE MISSOURI PRESS
ASSOCIATION IN 1921, "EDITORIAL."  AND SEE IN THE SAME VOLUME THE
EXTRACTS FROM RULES AND SUGGESTIONS PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING
NEWSPAPERS FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THEIR STAFFS:  THE BROOKLYN EAGLE, THE
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, THE SPRINGFIELD UNION, THE DETROIT NEWS, THE
HEARST NEWSPAPERS (PERSONAL INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY WILLIAM RANDOLPH
HEARST TO HIS NEWSPAPERS), THE SACRAMENTO BEE, THE KANSAS CITY JOURNAL
POST, THE MARION STAR (WRITTEN BY PRESIDENT HARDING WHEN EDITING THE
STAR).  SEE ALSO SHARKEY, THE ETHICS OF JOURNALISM, AN ADDRESS
DELIVERED BEFORE THE PRESS CONFERENCE OF THE WORLD, GENEVA,
SWITZERLAND, SEPTEMBER 15, 1926, P. 10; WICKS, IDEALS AND METHODS OF
ENGLISH NEWSPAPERS, PUBLISHED IN JOURNALISTIC ETHICS AND WORLD AFFAIRS,
ADDRESSES DELIVERED AT THE FIFTEENTH ANNUAL JOURNALISM WEEK AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, 1924, 25 U. OF MO. BULL.  (NO. 32) 25, 26;
GIBBONS, NEWSPAPER ETHICS (1926) 16 ET SEQ.    FN2  "NOR DOES THE FACT
THAT THE LETTER WAS FALSE, WHILE IT GREATLY AFFECTS THE MORAL QUALITY
OF THE ACT, DETERMINE ITS CRIMINALITY.  IT IS PUNISHABLE ONLY IF IT
INTERFERES WITH JUSTICE, AND IN THAT RESPECT TRUTH IS HARDER TO MEET
THAN FALSEHOOD."  L. HAND, DISSENTING IN EX PARTE CRAIG, 282 F. 138,
161, AFF'D SUB NOM. CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255.  SEE ALSO THE
DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, 263 U.S. AT 281.  BUT CF. IN
RE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO., 28 R.I. 489, 68 A. 428; IN RE SAN FRANCISCO
CHRONICLE, 1 CAL.2D 630, 36 P.2D 369. 
..END :

















MORGAN V. VIRGINIA, 328 U.S. 373 


NO. 704.  ARGUED MARCH 27, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 3, 1946.  - 184 VA. 24,
34 S.E.2D 491, REVERSED. 


1.  PROVISIONS OF THE VIRGINIA CODE, 1942, SECS. 4097Z TO 4097DD,
WHICH REQUIRE THE SEPARATION OF WHITE AND COLORED PASSENGERS ON BOTH
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE MOTOR CARRIERS ARE INVALID AS APPLIED TO
INTERSTATE PASSENGERS IN VEHICLES MOVING INTERSTATE, BECAUSE THEY
BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONTRARY TO ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS HAS ENACTED NO
LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT.  PP. 374, 380, 386. 

2.  IF A STATE STATUTE UNLAWFULLY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE
POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATE BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT WILL NOT VALIDATE
IT.  P. 376. 

3.  AN INTERSTATE PASSENGER, CHARGED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING WITH
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, IS A PROPER PERSON TO CHALLENGE ITS VALIDITY
AS A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 376. 

4.  STATE LEGISLATION IS INVALID IF IT UNDULY BURDENS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHERE UNIFORMITY IS NECESSARY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE OF
USEFUL IN ACCOMPLISHING A PERMITTED PURPOSE.  PP. 377, 380. 

5.  A STATE CANNOT IMPOSE UNDUE BURDENS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY
SIMPLY INVOKING THE CONVENIENT APOLOGETICS OF THE POLICE POWER.  P.
380. 

6.  SEATING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DIFFERENT RACES IN INTERSTATE MOTOR
TRAVEL REQUIRE A SINGLE, UNIFORM RULE TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT NATIONAL
TRAVEL.  P. 386. 

MORGAN V. VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

APPELLANT, AN INTERSTATE PASSENGER, WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF
VIRGINIA CODE, 1942, SEC. 4097DD, RELATING TO THE SEGREGATION OF WHITE
AND COLORED PASSENGERS ON MOTOR BUSES.  THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
VIRGINIA AFFIRMED.  184 VA. 24, 34 S.E.2D 491.  ON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, REVERSED, P. 386. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL BRINGS TO THIS COURT THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF AN ACT OF VIRGINIA, FN1  WHICH REQUIRES ALL PASSENGER MOTOR VEHICLE
CARRIERS, BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE N2, TO SEPARATE WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION  FN3  THE WHITE AND COLORED PASSENGERS IN THEIR MOTOR
BUSES SO THAT CONTIGUOUS SEATS WILL NOT BE OCCUPIED BY PERSONS OF
DIFFERENT RACES AT THE SAME TIME.  A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF
SEPARATION BY THE CARRIER IS A MISDEMEANOR.  FN4  THE DRIVER OR OTHER
PERSON IN CHARGE IS DIRECTED AND REQUIRED TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE
SPACE ALLOTTED TO THE RESPECTIVE RACES AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR PROPER
AND MAY REQUIRE PASSENGERS TO CHANGE THEIR SEATS TO COMPLY WITH THE
ALLOCATION.  THE OPERATOR'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS IS MADE A
MISDEMEANOR.  FN5 

THESE REGULATIONS WERE APPLIED TO AN INTERSTATE PASSENGER, THIS
APPELLANT, ON A MOTOR VEHICLE THEN MAKING AN INTERSTATE RUN OR TRIP. 
ACCORDING TO THE STATEMENT OF FACT BY THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
VIRGINIA, APPELLANT, WHO IS A NEGRO, WAS TRAVELING ON A MOTOR COMMON
CARRIER, OPERATING UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED STATUTE, FROM GLOUCESTER
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THROUGH THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BALTIMORE,
MARYLAND, THE DESTINATION OF THE BUS.  THERE WERE OTHER PASSENGERS,
BOTH WHITE AND COLORED.  ON HER REFUSAL TO ACCEDE TO A REQUEST OF THE
DRIVER TO MOVE TO A BACK SEAT, WHICH WAS PARTLY OCCUPIED BY OTHER
COLORED PASSENGERS, SO AS TO PERMIT THE SEAT THAT SHE VACATED TO BE
USED BY WHITE PASSENGERS, A WARRANT WAS OBTAINED AND APPELLANT WAS
ARRESTED, TRIED AND CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF SEC. 4097DD OF THE
VIRGINIA CODE.  FN6  ON A WRIT OF ERROR THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.  184 VA. 24.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS INTERPRETED THE VIRGINIA STATUTE AS APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT
SINCE THE STATUTE "EMBRACES ALL MOTOR VEHICLES AND ALL PASSENGERS, BOTH
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE."  FN7  THE COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO
ACCEPT APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE APPLIED WAS INVALID AS A
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE CARRIER BY A CONCURRENT HOLDING
"THAT NO POWER IS DELEGATED TO THE CARRIER TO LEGISLATE  ...  THE
STATUTE ITSELF CONDEMNS THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT AS A VIOLATION OF LAW
AND NOT THE RULE OF THE CARRIER."  ID., AT 38.  NO COMPLAINT IS MADE AS
TO THESE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA STATUTE BY THE VIRGINIA
COURT.  FN8 

THE ERRORS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT ARE ASSIGNED AND RELIED UPON
BY APPELLANT ARE IN FORM ONLY TWO.  THE FIRST IS THAT THE DECISION IS
REPUGNANT TO CLAUSE 3, SEC. 8, ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES,  FN9  AND THE SECOND THE HOLDING THAT POWERS RESERVED TO
THE STATES BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT INCLUDE THE POWER TO REQUIRE AN
INTERSTATE MOTOR PASSENGER TO OCCUPY A SEAT RESTRICTED FOR THE USE OF
HIS RACE.  ACTUALLY, THE FIRST QUESTION ALONE NEEDS CONSIDERATION FOR,
IF THE STATUTE UNLAWFULLY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE RESERVED
POWERS OF THE STATE WILL NOT VALIDATE IT.  FN10 

WE THINK, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS APPARENTLY DID, THAT THE APPELLANT
IS A PROPER PERSON TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THIS STATUTE AS A
BURDEN ON COMMERCE.  FN11  IF IT IS AN INVALID BURDEN, THE CONVICTION
UNDER IT WOULD FAIL.  THE STATUTE AFFECTS APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.  CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST BURDENS ON
COMMERCE IS FOR HER BENEFIT ON A CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR VIOLATION OF THE
CHALLENGED STATUTE.  HATCH V. REARDON, 204 U.S. 152, 160; FEDERATION OF
LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, 463. 

THIS COURT FREQUENTLY MUST DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF STATE STATUTES
THAT ARE ATTACKED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCES WITH THE NATIONAL
POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS APPEAL PRESENTS THAT QUESTION AS
TO A STATUTE THAT COMPELS RACIAL SEGREGATION OF INTERSTATE PASSENGERS
IN VEHICLES MOVING INTERSTATE.  FN12 

THE PRECISE DEGREE OF A PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTION ON STATE POWER CANNOT
BE FIXED GENERALLY OR INDEED NOT EVEN FOR ONE KIND OF STATE
LEGISLATION, SUCH AS TAXATION OR HEALTH OR SAFETY.  FN13 THERE IS A
RECOGNIZED ABSTRACT PRINCIPLE, HOWEVER, THAT MAY BE TAKEN AS A
POSTULATE FOR TESTING WHETHER PARTICULAR STATE LEGISLATION IN THE
ABSENCE OF ACTION BY CONGRESS IS BEYOND STATE POWER.  THIS IS THAT THE
STATE LEGISLATION IS INVALID IF IT UNDULY BURDENS THAT COMMERCE IN
MATTERS WHERE UNIFORMITY IS NECESSARY - NECESSARY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SENSE OF USEFUL IN ACCOMPLISHING A PERMITTED PURPOSE.  FN14  WHERE
UNIFORMITY IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF COMMERCE, A STATE MAY
NOT INTERPOSE ITS LOCAL REGULATION.  FN15  TOO TRUE IT IS THAT THE
PRINCIPLE LACKS IN PRECISION.  ALTHOUGH THE QUALITY OF SUCH A PRINCIPLE
IS ABSTRACT, ITS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF A SITUATION CREATED BY THE
ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE BRINGS ABOUT A SPECIFIC
DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE STATUTE IN QUESTION IS A BURDEN
ON COMMERCE.  WITHIN THE BROAD LIMITS OF THE PRINCIPLE, THE CASES TURN
ON THEIR OWN FACTS. 

IN THE FIELD OF TRANSPORTATION, THERE HAS BEEN A SERIES OF DECISIONS
WHICH HOLD THAT WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED AND ALTHOUGH THE STATE
STATUTE AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, A STATE MAY VALIDLY ENACT
LEGISLATION WHICH HAS PREDOMINANTLY ONLY A LOCAL INFLUENCE ON THE
COURSE OF COMMERCE N16.  IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT, EVEN WHERE
CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED, STATE LEGISLATION OR A FINAL COURT ORDER IS
INVALID WHICH MATERIALLY AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN17  BECAUSE
THE CONSTITUTION PUTS THE ULTIMATE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE IN
CONGRESS, RATHER THAN THE STATES, THE DEGREE OF STATE LEGISLATION'S
INTERFERENCE WITH THAT COMMERCE MAY BE WEIGHED BY FEDERAL COURTS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE BURDEN MAKES THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FN18
THE COURTS COULD NOT INVALIDATE FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOR THE SAME REASON
BECAUSE CONGRESS, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, HAS
AUTHORITY TO BURDEN COMMERCE IF THAT SEEMS TO IT A DESIRABLE MEANS OF
ACCOMPLISHING A PERMITTED END.  FN19 

THIS STATUTE IS ATTACKED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IMPOSES UNDUE BURDENS
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS SAID BY THE COURT OF APPEALS TO HAVE
BEEN PASSED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POLICE POWER TO AVOID
FRICTION BETWEEN THE RACES.  BUT THIS COURT POINTED OUT YEARS AGO "THAT
A STATE CANNOT AVOID THE OPERATION OF THIS RULE BY SIMPLY INVOKING THE
CONVENIENT APOLOGETICS OF THE POLICE POWER."  FN20  BURDENS UPON
COMMERCE ARE THOSE ACTIONS OF A STATE WHICH DIRECTLY "IMPAIR THE
USEFULNESS OF ITS FACILITIES FOR SUCH TRAFFIC."  FN21  THAT IMPAIRMENT,
WE THINK, MAY ARISE FROM OTHER CAUSES THAN COSTS OR LONG DELAYS.  A
BURDEN MAY ARISE FROM A STATE STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES INTERSTATE
PASSENGERS TO ORDER THEIR MOVEMENTS ON THE VEHICLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LOCAL RATHER THAN NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 

ON APPELLANT'S JOURNEY, THIS STATUTE REQUIRED THAT SHE SIT IN
DESIGNATED SEATS IN VIRGINIA.  FN22  CHANGES IN SEAT DESIGNATION MIGHT
BE MADE "AT ANY TIME" DURING THE JOURNEY WHEN "NECESSARY OR PROPER FOR
THE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF PASSENGERS."  THIS OCCURRED IN THIS
INSTANCE.  UPON SUCH CHANGE OF DESIGNATION, THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES THE
OPERATOR OF THE VEHICLE TO REQUIRE, AS HE DID HERE, "ANY PASSENGER TO
CHANGE HIS OR HER SEAT AS IT MAY BE NECESSARY OR PROPER."  FN23  AN
INTERSTATE PASSENGER MUST IF NECESSARY REPEATEDLY SHIFT SEATS WHILE
MOVING IN VIRGINIA TO MEET THE SEATING REQUIREMENTS OF THE CHANGING
PASSENGER GROUP.  ON ARRIVAL AT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LINE, THE
APPELLANT WOULD HAVE HAD FREEDOM TO OCCUPY ANY AVAILABLE SEAT AND SO TO
THE END OF HER JOURNEY. 

INTERSTATE PASSENGERS TRAVELING VIA MOTOR BUSES BETWEEN THE NORTH AND
SOUTH OR THE EAST AND WEST MAY PASS THROUGH VIRGINIA ON THROUGH LINES
IN THE DAY OR IN THE NIGHT.  THE LARGE BUSES APPROACH THE COMFORT OF
PULLMANS AND HAVE SEATS CONVENIENT FOR REST.  ON SUCH INTERSTATE
JOURNEYS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESEATING WOULD BE
DISTURBING. 

APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT, PROPERLY WE THINK, INCLUDES FACTS BEARING ON
INTERSTATE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION BEYOND THOSE IMMEDIATELY INVOLVED IN
THIS JOURNEY UNDER THE VIRGINIA STATUTORY REGULATIONS.  TO APPRAISE THE
WEIGHT OF THE BURDEN OF THE VIRGINIA STATUTE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
RELATED STATUTES OF OTHER STATES ARE IMPORTANT TO SHOW WHETHER THERE
ARE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS WHICH MAY MAKE LOCAL REGULATION IMPRACTICABLE. 
EIGHTEEN STATES, IT APPEARS, PROHIBIT RACIAL SEPARATION ON PUBLIC
CARRIERS.  FN24  TEN REQUIRE SEPARATION ON MOTOR CARRIERS.  FN25  OF
THESE, ALABAMA APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO INTERSTATE PASSENGERS WITH AN
EXCEPTION FOR INTERSTATE PASSENGERS WITH THROUGH TICKETS FROM STATES
WITHOUT LAWS ON SEPARATION OF PASSENGERS.  FN26  THE LANGUAGE OF THE
OTHER ACTS, LIKE THIS VIRGINIA STATUTE BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS'
DECISION IN THIS CASE, MAY BE SAID TO BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO AN
INTERPRETATION THAT THEY DO OR DO NOT APPLY TO INTERSTATE PASSENGERS. 

IN STATES WHERE SEPARATION OF RACES IS REQUIRED IN MOTOR VEHICLES, A
METHOD OF IDENTIFICATION AS WHITE OR COLORED MUST BE EMPLOYED.  THIS
MAY BE DONE BY DEFINITION.  ANY ASCERTAINABLE NEGRO BLOOD IDENTIFIES A
PERSON AS COLORED FOR PURPOSES OF SEPARATION IN SOME STATES.  FN27  IN
THE OTHER STATES WHICH REQUIRE THE SEPARATION OF THE RACES IN MOTOR
CARRIERS, APPARENTLY NO DEFINITION GENERALLY APPLICABLE OR MADE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE IS GIVEN.  COURT DEFINITION OR FURTHER
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CLARIFY THE LINE BETWEEN
THE RACES.  OBVIOUSLY THERE MAY BE CHANGES BY LEGISLATION IN THE
DEFINITION.  FN28 

THE INTERFERENCES TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH ARISE FROM STATE
REGULATION OF RACIAL ASSOCIATION ON INTERSTATE VEHICLES HAS LONG BEEN
RECOGNIZED.  SUCH REGULATION HAMPERS FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN SELECTING
ACCOMMODATIONS.  THE RECENT CHANGES IN TRANSPORTATION BROUGHT ABOUT BY
THE COMING OF AUTOMOBILES DOES NOT SEEM OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE IN THE
PROBLEM.  PEOPLE OF ALL RACES TRAVEL TODAY MORE EXTENSIVELY THAN IN
1878 WHEN THIS COURT FIRST PASSED UPON STATE REGULATION OF RACIAL
SEGREGATION IN COMMERCE.  THE FACTUAL SITUATION SET OUT IN PRECEDING
PARAGRAPHS EMPHASIZES THE SOUNDNESS OF THIS COURT'S EARLY CONCLUSION IN
HALL V. DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485. 

THE DECUIR CASE AROSE UNDER A STATUTE OF LOUISIANA INTERPRETED BY THE
COURTS OF THAT STATE AND THIS COURT TO REQUIRE PUBLIC CARRIERS "TO GIVE
ALL PERSONS TRAVELLING IN THAT STATE, UPON THE PUBLIC CONVEYANCES
EMPLOYED IN SUCH BUSINESS, EQUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES IN ALL PARTS OF
THE CONVEYANCE, WITHOUT DISTINCTION OR DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF
RACE OR COLOR."  PAGE 487.  DAMAGES WERE AWARDED AGAINST HALL, THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OPERATOR OF A MISSISSIPPI RIVER STEAMBOAT THAT
TRAVERSED THAT RIVER INTERSTATE FROM NEW ORLEANS TO VICKSBURG, FOR
EXCLUDING IN LOUISIANA THE DEFENDANT IN ERROR, A COLORED PERSON, FROM A
CABIN RESERVED FOR WHITES.  THIS COURT REVERSED FOR REASONS WELL STATED
IN THE WORDS OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE.  FN29  AS OUR PREVIOUS
DISCUSSION DEMONSTRATES, THE TRANSPORTATION DIFFICULTIES ARISING FROM A
STATUTE THAT REQUIRES COMMINGLING OF THE RACES, AS IN THE DECUIR CASE,
ARE INCREASED BY ONE THAT REQUIRES SEPARATION, AS HERE.  FN30  OTHER
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE LOOKED UPON RACIAL SEPARATION STATUTES AS APPLIED
TO INTERSTATE PASSENGERS AS BURDENS UPON COMMERCE.  FN31 

IN WEIGHING THE FACTORS THAT ENTER INTO OUR CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER
THIS STATUTE SO BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR SO INFRINGES THE
REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL UNIFORMITY AS TO BE INVALID, WE ARE MINDFUL OF
THE FACT THAT CONDITIONS VARY BETWEEN NORTHERN OR WESTERN STATES SUCH
AS MAINE OR MONTANA, WITH PRACTICALLY NO COLORED POPULATION; INDUSTRIAL
STATES SUCH AS ILLINOIS, OHIO, NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA WITH A
SMALL, ALTHOUGH APPRECIABLE, PERCENTAGE OF COLORED CITIZENS; AND THE
STATES OF THE DEEP SOUTH WITH PERCENTAGES OF FROM TWENTY-FIVE TO NEARLY
FIFTY PER CENT COLORED, ALL WITH VARYING DENSITIES OF THE WHITE AND
COLORED RACES IN CERTAIN LOCALITIES.  LOCAL EFFORTS TO PROMOTE AMICABLE
RELATIONS IN DIFFICULT AREAS BY LEGISLATIVE SEGREGATION IN INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION EMERGE FROM THE LATTER RACIAL DISTRIBUTION.  AS NO STATE
LAW CAN REACH BEYOND ITS OWN BORDER NOR BAR TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS ACROSS ITS BOUNDARIES, DIVERSE SEATING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
RACES IN INTERSTATE JOURNEYS RESULT.  AS THERE IS NO FEDERAL ACT
DEALING WITH THE SEPARATION OF RACES IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, WE
MUST DECIDE THE VALIDITY OF THIS VIRGINIA STATUTE ON THE CHALLENGE THAT
IT INTERFERES WITH COMMERCE, AS A MATTER OF BALANCE BETWEEN THE
EXERCISE OF THE LOCAL POLICE POWER AND THE NEED FOR NATIONAL UNIFORMITY
IN THE REGULATIONS FOR INTERSTATE TRAVEL.  IT SEEMS CLEAR TO US THAT
SEATING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DIFFERENT RACES IN INTERSTATE MOTOR TRAVEL
REQUIRE A SINGLE, UNIFORM RULE TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT NATIONAL TRAVEL. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WE HOLD THE VIRGINIA STATUTE IN CONTROVERSY INVALID. 
REVERSED.    FN1  VIRGINIA CODE OF 1942, SECS. 4097Z TO 4097DD
INCLUSIVE.  THE SECTIONS ARE DERIVED FROM AN ACT OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
VIRGINIA OF 1930.  ACTS OF ASSEMBLY, VA. 1930, P. 343. 

FN2  ID., SECS. 4097Z, 4097M, 4097S; MORGAN V. COMMONWEALTH, 184 VA.
24, 39, 34 S.E.2D 491. 

FN3  ID., SEC. 4097AA. 

FN4  ID., SEC. 4097Z; SEC. 4097BB. 

FN5  ID., SEC. 4097BB.    FN6  "4097DD.  VIOLATION BY PASSENGERS;
MISDEMEANOR; EJECTION.  - ALL PERSONS WHO FAIL WHILE ON ANY MOTOR
VEHICLE CARRIER, TO TAKE AND OCCUPY THE SEAT OR SEATS OR OTHER SPACE
ASSIGNED TO THEM BY THE DRIVER, OPERATOR OR OTHER PERSON IN CHARGE OF
SUCH VEHICLE, OR BY THE PERSON WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO TAKE UP TICKETS OR
COLLECT FARES FROM PASSENGERS THEREIN, OR WHO FAIL TO OBEY THE
DIRECTIONS OF ANY SUCH DRIVER, OPERATOR OR OTHER PERSON IN CHARGE, AS
AFORESAID, TO CHANGE THEIR SEATS FROM TIME TO TIME AS OCCASIONS
REQUIRE, PURSUANT TO ANY LAWFUL RULE, REGULATION OR CUSTOM IN FORCE BY
SUCH LINES AS TO ASSIGNING SEPARATE SEATS OR OTHER SPACE TO WHITE AND
COLORED PERSONS, RESPECTIVELY, HAVING BEEN FIRST ADVISED OF THE FACT OF
SUCH REGULATION AND REQUESTED TO CONFORM THERETO, SHALL BE DEEMED
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE FINED NOT
LESS THAN FIVE DOLLARS NOR MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS FOR EACH
OFFENSE.  FURTHERMORE, SUCH PERSONS MAY BE EJECTED FROM SUCH VEHICLE BY
ANY DRIVER, OPERATOR OR PERSON IN CHARGE OF SAID VEHICLE, OR BY ANY
POLICE OFFICER OR OTHER CONSERVATOR OF THE PEACE; AND IN CASE SUCH
PERSONS EJECTED SHALL HAVE PAID THEIR FARES UPON SAID VEHICLE, THEY
SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE RETURN OF ANY PART OF SAME.  FOR THE
REFUSAL OF ANY SUCH PASSENGER TO ABIDE BY THE REQUEST OF THE PERSON IN
CHARGE OF SAID VEHICLE AS AFORESAID, AND HIS CONSEQUENT EJECTION FROM
SAID VEHICLE, NEITHER THE DRIVER, OPERATOR, PERSON IN CHARGE, OWNER,
MANAGER NOR BUS COMPANY OPERATING SAID VEHICLE SHALL BE LIABLE FOR
DAMAGES IN ANY COURT." 

FN7  MORGAN V. COMMONWEALTH, SUPRA, 37.  CF. SMITH V. STATE, 100
TENN. 494, 46 S.W. 566; ALABAMA & VICKSBURG R. CO. V. MORRIS, 103
MISS.  511, 60 SO. 11; SOUTHERN R. CO. V. NORTON, 112 MISS.  302, 73
SO. 1. 

FN8  COMPARE HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 317; GENERAL TRADING
CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 322 U.S. 335, 337. 

FN9  "SECTION 8.  THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO REGULATE
COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, AND WITH
THE INDIAN TRIBES; ..." 

FN10  CASE V. BOWLES, 327 U.S. 92, 101-102. 

FN11  CF. EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160, 172, N. 1. 

FN12  WHEN PASSING UPON A RULE OF A CARRIER THAT REQUIRED SEGREGATION
OF AN INTERSTATE PASSENGER, THIS COURT SAID, "AND WE MUST KEEP IN MIND
THAT WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH THE LAW OF A STATE ATTEMPTING A REGULATION
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEYOND ITS POWER TO MAKE."  CHILES V. CHESAPEAKE
& OHIO R. CO., 218 U.S. 71, 75. 

FN13  CF. GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 439; MINTZ
V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346, 352; WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79,
84. 

FN14  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 766-71. 

FN15  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, 319; MINNESOTA RATE
CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 402; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10. 

FN16  STATUTES OR ORDERS DEALING WITH SAFETY OF OPERATIONS:  SMITH V.
ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465(ALABAMA STATUTE REQUIRING AN EXAMINATION AND
LICENSE OF TRAIN ENGINEERS BEFORE OPERATING IN THE STATE); NASHVILLE,
C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. ALABAMA, 128 U.S. 96(STATUTE REQUIRING EXAMINATION
OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AS TO VISION AND COLOR BLINDNESS); NEW YORK, N.H.
& H.R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 165 U.S. 628(NEW YORK STATUTE FORBIDDING THE
USE OF FURNACES OR STOVES IN PASSENGER CARS AND REQUIRING GUARD-POSTS
ON RAILROAD BRIDGES); ERB V. MORASCH, 177 U.S. 584(MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
LIMITING SPEED OF TRAINS IN CITY TO 6 MILES AN HOUR); ATLANTIC COAST
LINE R. CO. V. GEORGIA, 234 U.S. 280(GEORGIA STATUTE REQUIRING ELECTRIC
HEADLIGHTS ON LOCOMOTIVES); MORRIS V. DUBY, 274 U.S. 135(WEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS ON MOTOR CARRIERS IMPOSED BY ORDER OF OREGON HIGHWAY
COMMISSION); SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374(SIZE AND WEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS ON TRUCKS IMPOSED BY TEXAS STATUTE); SOUTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177(STATUTE RESTRICTING
WEIGHT AND SIZE OF MOTOR CARRIERS); MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S.
598(PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE FORBIDDING THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS TO ANY
VEHICLE CARRYING ANY OTHER VEHICLE OVER THE HEAD OF THE OPERATOR OF THE
VEHICLE); TERMINAL ASSN. V. TRAINMEN, 318 U.S. 1(ILLINOIS STATUTE
REQUIRING CABOOSES ON FREIGHT TRAINS). 

STATUTES OR ORDERS REQUIRING LOCAL TRAIN SERVICE:  GLADSON V.
MINNESOTA, 166 U.S. 427(STATE STATUTE REQUIRING INTRASTATE TRAIN TO
STOP AT COUNTY SEAT TO TAKE ON AND DISCHARGE PASSENGERS); LAKE SHORE &
MICHIGAN SOUTHERN R. CO. V. OHIO, 173 U.S. 285(STATUTE REQUIRING THREE
TRAINS DAILY, IF SO MANY ARE RUN, TO STOP AT EACH CITY CONTAINING OVER
3,000 INHABITANTS AS APPLIED TO INTERSTATE TRAINS); ATLANTIC COAST LINE
R. CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION COMM'N, 206 U.S. 1(ORDER
REGULATING TRAIN SERVICE, PARTICULARLY REQUIRING TRAIN TO PERMIT
CONNECTION WITH THROUGH TRAINS AT JUNCTION POINT); MISSOURI PACIFIC R.
CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 262(ORDER DIRECTING THE OPERATION OF INTRASTATE
PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE OVER SPECIFIED ROUTE). 

STATUTES DEALING WITH EMPLOYMENT OF LABOR - FULL CREW LAWS:  CHICAGO,
R.I. & P.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 219 U.S. 453(ARKANSAS FULL CREW LAW
APPLIED TO INTERSTATE TRAINS); ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS,
240 U.S. 518(ARKANSAS FULL CREW LAWS APPLIED TO SWITCHING CREWS);
MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORWOOD, 283 U.S. 249(ARKANSAS FULL CREW
LAWS APPLIED TO FREIGHT AND SWITCHING CREWS). 

FN17  STATUTES OR ORDERS DEALING WITH SAFETY OF OPERATIONS:  KANSAS
CITY SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KAW VALLEY DIST., 233 U.S. 75(ORDER REQUIRING
RAILROAD TO REMOVE ITS BRIDGES OVER RIVER FOR FLOOD CONTROL PURPOSES);
SOUTH COVINGTON & CINCINNATI R. CO. V. COVINGTON, 235 U.S.
537(ORDINANCES REGULATING THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS TO BE CARRIED IN,
THE NUMBER OF CARS TO BE RUN AND THE TEMPERATURE OF AN INTERSTATE
STREET RAILWAY CAR INVALID; THOSE REQUIRING RAILS ON FRONT AND REAR
PLATFORM, VENTILATION AND CLEANING VALID); SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V.
BLACKWELL, 244 U.S. 310(GEORGIA BLOW POST LAW REQUIRING TRAIN TO BLOW
WHISTLE AND SLOW DOWN ALMOST TO A STOP AT EACH GRADE CROSSING WHERE
NUMEROUS GRADE CROSSINGS WERE INVOLVED.  CF. SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KING,
217 U.S. 524, WHERE ANSWER HELD INSUFFICIENT TO PERMIT PROOF OF BURDEN
OF THE STATUTE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE); SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761(STATUTE LIMITING NUMBER OF CARS IN FREIGHT TRAIN
TO 70 AND PASSENGER CARS TO 14). 

STATUTES OR ORDERS REQUIRING LOCAL TRAIN SERVICE:  ILLINOIS CENTRAL
R. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 163 U.S. 142(STATUTE APPLIED TO REQUIRE FAST MAIL
TRAIN TO DETOUR FROM MAIN LINE IN ORDER TO STOP AT STATION FOR THE
TAKING ON AND DISCHARGE OF PASSENGERS); CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L.R.
CO. V. ILLINOIS, 177 U.S. 514(ILLINOIS STATUTE REQUIRING INTERSTATE
     AT EACH STATION); MISSISSIPPI RAILROAD COMM'N V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 203 U.S. 335(ORDER OF COMMISSION REQUIRING INTERSTATE
TRAIN TO STOP AT SMALL TOWN); ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. WHARTON, 207 U.S.
328(SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE AND RAILROAD COMMISSION ORDER REQUIRING
INTERSTATE TRAIN TO STOP AT SMALL TOWN); ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN R. CO.
V. ARKANSAS, 217 U.S. 136(STATUTE AND ORDER REQUIRING DELIVERY OF
FREIGHT CARS TO LOCAL SHIPPERS); HERNDON V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO.,
218 U.S. 135(STATUTE REQUIRING INTERSTATE TRAIN TO STOP AT JUNCTION
POINT); CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N, 237 U.S.
220(WISCONSIN STATUTE REQUIRING INTERSTATE TRAIN TO STOP AT VILLAGES
CONTAINING 200 OR MORE INHABITANTS); MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. TEXAS,
245 U.S. 484(ORDER REQUIRING TRAINS TO START ON TIME AND FIXING TIME
ALLOWED FOR STOPS AT JUNCTIONS EN ROUTE); ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 254 U.S. 535(ORDER REQUIRING THROUGH TRAINS TO
DETOUR THROUGH A SMALL TOWN); ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO R. CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, 261 U.S. 369(ORDER REQUIRING THAT INTERSTATE TRAINS BE
STOPPED AT SMALL TOWN). 

FN18  SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. AT 770. 

FN19  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144,
146. 

FN20  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KAW VALLEY DIST., 233 U.S. 75,
79. 

FN21  ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 163 U.S. 142, 154. 

FN22 THE VIRGINIA CODE OF 1942, SEC. 67, DEFINES A COLORED PERSON,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CODE, AS FOLLOWS:  "EVERY PERSON IN WHOM THERE
IS ASCERTAINABLE ANY NEGRO BLOOD SHALL BE DEEMED AND TAKEN TO BE A
COLORED PERSON  ..."  PROVISIONS FOR VITAL STATISTICS MAKE A RECORD OF
THE RACIAL LINES OF VIRGINIA INHABITANTS.  SECS. 1574 AND 5099A. 

FN23  SEC. 4097BB. 

FN24  CAL. CIV. CODE (DEERING), 1941, SECS. 51-54; COLO. STAT. ANN.,
1935, CH. 35, SECS. 1-10; CONN. GEN. STAT. (SUPP. 1933), SEC. 1160B;
ILL. REV. STAT., 1945, CH. 38, SECS. 125-128G; IND. STAT. (BURNS),
1933, SECS. 10-901, 10-902; IOWA CODE, 1939, SECS. 13251-13252; KAN.
GEN. STAT., 1935, SEC. 21-2424; MASS. LAWS (MICHIE), 1933, CH. 272,
SEC. 98, AS AMENDED 1934; MICH. STAT. ANN., 1938, SECS. 28.343, 28.344;
MINN. STAT. (MASON), 1927, SEC. 7321; NEB. COMP. STAT., 1929, SEC. 23
101; N.J. REV. STAT., 1937, SECS. 10:1-2 TO 10:1-7; N.Y. CIVIL RIGHTS
LAW (MCKINNEY), SECS. 40-41; OHIO CODE (THROCKMORTON), 1940, SECS.
12940-12942; PA. STAT. (PURDON), TIT. 18, SECS. 4654 TO 4655; R.I. GEN.
LAWS, 1938, CH. 606, SECS. 28-29; WASH. REV. STAT. (REMINGTON), 1932,
SEC. 2686(SEMBLE); WIS. STAT., 1943, SEC. 340.75. 

FN25  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 48, SEC. 268; ARK. STAT., 1937(POPE),
SECS. 6921-6927, ACTS 1943, P. 379; GA. CODE, 1933, SEC. 68-616; LA.
GEN. STAT. (DART), 1939, SECS. 5307-5309; MISS.  CODE, 1942, SEC. 7785;
N.C. GEN. STAT., 1943, SEC. 62-109; OKLA. STAT. ANN., 1941, TIT. 47,
SECS. 201-210; S.C. CODE, 1942, SEC. 8530-1; TEX. PEN.  CODE (VERNON),
1936, ART. 1659; VA. CODE, 1942, SECS. 4097Z-4097DD. 

FN26  ALA. CODE 1940, TIT. 48, SEC. 268. 

FN27  ALA. CODE, 1940, TIT. 1, SEC. 2; ARK. STAT. (POPE), 1937, SEC.
1200(SEPARATE COACH LAW); GA. CODE (MICHIE SUPP.), 1928, SEC. 2177;
OKLA. CONST., ART. XXIII, SEC. 11; VA. CODE (MICHIE), 1942, SEC. 67. 

FN28  COMPARE VA. CODE, 1887, SEC. 49, PROVIDING THAT THOSE WHO HAD
ONE-FOURTH OR MORE NEGRO BLOOD WERE TO BE CONSIDERED COLORED.  THIS WAS
CHANGED IN 1910(ACTS, 1910, P. 581) TO READ ONE-SIXTEENTH OR MORE.  IT
WAS AGAIN CHANGED IN 1930 BY ACTS, 1930, P. 97, TO ITS PRESENT FORM,
I.E., ANY ASCERTAINABLE NEGRO BLOOD.  SEE NOTE 22, SUPRA. 

FN29  95 U.S. AT 489: 

"IT WAS TO MEET JUST SUCH A CASE THAT THE COMMERCIAL CLAUSE IN THE
CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED.  THE RIVER MISSISSIPPI PASSES THROUGH OR
ALONG THE BORDERS OF TEN DIFFERENT STATES, AND ITS TRIBUTARIES REACH
MANY MORE.  THE COMMERCE UPON THESE WATERS IS IMMENSE, AND ITS
REGULATION CLEARLY A MATTER OF NATIONAL CONCERN.  IF EACH STATE WAS AT
LIBERTY TO REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF CARRIERS WHILE WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION, THE CONFUSION LIKELY TO FOLLOW COULD NOT BUT BE
PRODUCTIVE OF GREAT INCONVENIENCE AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP.  EACH STATE
COULD PROVIDE FOR ITS OWN PASSENGERS AND REGULATE THE TRANSPORTATION OF
ITS OWN FREIGHT, REGARDLESS OF THE INTERESTS OF OTHERS.  NAY MORE, IT
COULD PRESCRIBE RULES BY WHICH THE CARRIER MUST BE GOVERNED WITHIN THE
STATE IN RESPECT TO PASSENGERS AND PROPERTY BROUGHT FROM WITHOUT.  ON
ONE SIDE OF THE RIVER OR ITS TRIBUTARIES HE MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO
OBSERVE ONE SET OF RULES, AND ON THE OTHER ANOTHER.  COMMERCE CANNOT
FLOURISH IN THE MIDST OF SUCH EMBARRASSMENTS.  NO CARRIER OF PASSENGERS
CAN CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS WITH SATISFACTION TO HIMSELF, OR COMFORT TO
THOSE EMPLOYING HIM, IF ON ONE SIDE OF A STATE LINE HIS PASSENGERS,
BOTH WHITE AND COLORED, MUST BE PERMITTED TO OCCUPY THE SAME CABIN, AND
ON THE OTHER BE KEPT SEPARATE.  UNIFORMITY IN THE REGULATIONS BY WHICH
HE IS TO BE GOVERNED FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER OF HIS ROUTE IS A
NECESSITY IN HIS BUSINESS, AND TO SECURE IT CONGRESS, WHICH IS
UNTRAMMELLED BY STATE LINES, HAS BEEN INVESTED WITH THE EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATIVE POWER OF DETERMINING WHAT SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL BE.  IF
THIS STATUTE CAN BE ENFORCED AGAINST THOSE ENGAGED IN INTER-STATE
COMMERCE, IT MAY BE AS WELL AGAINST THOSE ENGAGED IN FOREIGN; AND THE
MASTER OF A SHIP CLEARING FROM NEW ORLEANS FOR LIVERPOOL, HAVING
PASSENGERS ON BOARD, WOULD BE COMPELLED TO CARRY ALL, WHITE AND
COLORED, IN THE SAME CABIN DURING HIS PASSAGE DOWN THE RIVER, OR BE
SUBJECT TO AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES, 'EXEMPLARY AS WELL AS ACTUAL,' BY ANY
ONE WHO FELT HIMSELF AGGRIEVED BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN EXCLUDED ON ACCOUNT
OF HIS COLOR." 

SEE LOUISVILLE, N.O. & T.R. CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 133 U.S. 587, 590
91. 

A REGULATION OF THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS ON INTERSTATE STREET CARS
WAS HELD INVALID IN SOUTH COVINGTON & CINCINNATI R. CO. V. COVINGTON,
235 U.S. 537, 547.  THIS COURT SAID AT 547-48: 

"IF COVINGTON CAN REGULATE THESE MATTERS, CERTAINLY CINCINNATI CAN,
AND INTERSTATE BUSINESS MIGHT BE IMPEDED BY CONFLICTING AND VARYING
REGULATIONS IN THIS RESPECT, WITH WHICH IT MIGHT BE IMPOSSIBLE TO
COMPLY.  ON ONE SIDE OF THE RIVER ONE SET OF REGULATIONS MIGHT BE
ENFORCED, AND ON THE OTHER SIDE QUITE A DIFFERENT SET, AND BOTH SEEKING
TO CONTROL A PRACTICALLY CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT OF CARS.  AS WAS SAID IN
HALL V. DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485, 489, 'COMMERCE CANNOT FLOURISH IN THE
MIDST OF SUCH EMBARRASSMENTS.'"    FN30  SOUTH COVINGTON & CINCINNATI
R. CO. V. KENTUCKY, 252 U.S. 399, RELIED UPON BY APPELLEE, DOES NOT
DECIDE TO THE CONTRARY OF THE HOLDING IN HALL V. DECUIR.  IN THAT CASE
A CARRIER CORPORATION WAS CONVICTED IN THE KENTUCKY COURTS OF VIOLATION
OF A STATE STATUTE THAT REQUIRED IT TO FURNISH CARS WITH SEPARATE
COMPARTMENTS FOR WHITE AND COLORED.  IT OPERATED STREET CARS INTERSTATE
OVER THE LINES OF ANOTHER CORPORATION THAT OWNED TRACKS THAT WERE
WHOLLY INTRASTATE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY HELD THE
CONVICTION GOOD ON THE GROUND THAT THE OFFENDING ACT WAS THE OPERATION
OF THE INTRASTATE RAILROAD IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE STATUTE.  IT WAS
SAID THAT THE STATUTE DID NOT APPLY TO AN INTERSTATE PASSENGER.  SOUTH
COVINGTON & CINCINNATI STREET R. CO. V. COMMONWEALTH, 181 KY. 449, 454,
205 S.W. 603.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REFERRED, WITH CONTINUAL APPROVAL,
AT THAT POINT TO CHILES V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO., 125 KY. 299, 304:
"IT IS ADMITTED THAT SECTIONS 795-801 OF THE KENTUCKY STATUTES,
REQUIRING ALL RAILROAD COMPANIES TO FURNISH SEPARATE COACHES FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF WHITE AND COLORED PASSENGERS, AND IMPOSING UPON THE
COMPANY AND CONDUCTORS A PENALTY FOR REFUSING OR FAILING TO CARRY OUT
THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW, DOES NOT APPLY TO APPELLANT, WHO WAS AN
INTERSTATE PASSENGER; IT BEING CONCEDED THAT THE STATUTE IS ONLY
OPERATIVE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THIS STATE, AND EFFECTIVE AS
TO PASSENGERS WHO TRAVEL FROM ONE POINT WITHIN THE STATE TO ANOTHER
PLACE WITHIN ITS BORDER."  THIS COURT ACCEPTED THIS APPLICATION OF THE
STATE STATUTE AND SAID IT "IS NOT A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  PAGE 403.  PROBABLY WHAT WAS MEANT BY THE OPINIONS WAS THAT
UNDER THE KENTUCKY ACT THE COMPANY WITH WHOLLY INTRASTATE MILEAGE MUST
OPERATE CARS WITH SEPARATE COMPARTMENTS FOR INTRASTATE PASSENGERS. 

FN31  ANDERSON V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 62 F. 46, 48; WASHINGTON, B.
& A.R. CO. V. WALLER, 53 APP. D.C. 200, 289 F. 598.  SEE ALSO HART V.
STATE, 100 MD. 595, 60 A. 457; CARREY V. SPENCER, 36 N.Y. SUPP. 886. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "CONGRESS SHALL
HAVE POWER  ...  TO REGULATE COMMERCE  ...  AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES." 
I HAVE BELIEVED, AND STILL BELIEVE, THAT THIS PROVISION MEANS THAT
CONGRESS CAN REGULATE COMMERCE AND THAT THE COURTS CANNOT.  BUT IN A
SERIES OF CASES DECIDED IN RECENT YEARS THIS COURT OVER MY PROTEST HAS
HELD THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE JUSTIFIES THIS COURT IN NULLIFYING STATE
LEGISLATION WHICH THIS COURT CONCLUDES IMPOSES AN "UNDUE BURDEN" ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE N1.  I THINK THAT WHETHER STATE LEGISLATION IMPOSES
AN "UNDUE BURDEN" ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE RAISES PURE QUESTIONS OF
POLICY, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY THE
CONGRESS. 

VERY RECENTLY A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT REASSERTED ITS POWER TO
INVALIDATE STATE LAWS ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH LEGISLATION PUT AN UNDUE
BURDEN ON COMMERCE.  NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, SUPRA; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
V. ARIZONA, SUPRA.  I THOUGHT THEN, AND STILL BELIEVE, THAT IN THESE
CASES THE COURT WAS ASSUMING THE ROLE OF A "SUPER-LEGISLATURE" IN
DETERMINING MATTERS OF GOVERNMENTAL POLICY.  ID., AT 788, N. 4. 

BUT THE COURT, AT LEAST FOR THE PRESENT, SEEMS COMMITTED TO THIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  IN THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
CASE, THE COURT, AS I UNDERSTAND ITS OPINION, FOUND AN "UNDUE BURDEN"
BECAUSE A STATE'S REQUIREMENT FOR SHORTER TRAINS INCREASED THE COST OF
RAILROAD OPERATIONS AND THEREBY DELAYED INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
IMPAIRED ITS EFFICIENCY.  IN THE NIPPERT CASE A SMALL TAX IMPOSED ON A
SALES SOLICITOR EMPLOYED BY CONCERNS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF VIRGINIA WAS
FOUND TO BE AN "UNDUE BURDEN" EVEN THOUGH A SOLICITOR FOR VIRGINIA
CONCERNS ENGAGED IN THE SAME BUSINESS WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY
THE SAME TAX. 

SO LONG AS THE COURT REMAINS COMMITTED TO THE "UNDUE BURDEN ON
COMMERCE FORMULA," I MUST MAKE DECISIONS UNDER IT.  THE "BURDEN ON
COMMERCE" IMPOSED BY THE VIRGINIA LAW HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION SEEMS TO
ME TO BE OF A FAR MORE SERIOUS NATURE THAN THOSE OF THE NIPPERT OR
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY CASES.  THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY OPINION,
MOREOVER, RELIED IN PART ON THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN HALL V. DECUIR, 95
U.S. 485, WHICH CASE HELD THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PROHIBITS A STATE
FROM PASSING LAWS WHICH REQUIRE THAT "ON ONE SIDE OF A STATE LINE  ...
PASSENGERS, BOTH WHITE AND COLORED, MUST BE PERMITTED TO OCCUPY THE
SAME CABIN, AND ON THE OTHER BE KEPT SEPARATE."  THE COURT FURTHER SAID
THAT "UNIFORMITY IN THE REGULATIONS BY WHICH  ...  (A CARRIER) IS TO BE
GOVERNED FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER OF HIS ROUTE IS A NECESSITY IN HIS
BUSINESS" AND THAT IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS, NOT THE
STATES, TO DETERMINE "WHAT SUCH REGULATIONS SHALL BE."  THE "UNDUE
BURDEN ON COMMERCE FORMULA" CONSEQUENTLY REQUIRES THE MAJORITY'S
DECISION.  IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S PRESENT DISPOSITION TO APPLY THAT
FORMULA, I ACQUIESCE. 

FN1  NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761; MCCARROLL V. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES, 309 U.S.
176; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434; ADAMS MFG. CO. V.
STOREN, 304 U.S. 307. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

MY BROTHER BURTON HAS STATED WITH GREAT FORCE REASONS FOR NOT
INVALIDATING THE VIRGINIA STATUTE.  BUT FOR ME HALL V. DECUIR, 95 U.S.
485, IS CONTROLLING.  SINCE IT WAS DECIDED NEARLY SEVENTY YEARS AGO,
THAT CASE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS HAS BEEN APPROVINGLY CITED AND HAS NEVER
BEEN QUESTIONED.  CHIEFLY FOR THIS REASON I CONCUR IN THE OPINION OF
THE COURT. 

THE IMPOSITION UPON NATIONAL SYSTEMS OF TRANSPORTATION OF A CRAZY
QUILT OF STATE LAWS WOULD OPERATE TO BURDEN COMMERCE UNREASONABLY,
WHETHER SUCH CONTRADICTORY AND CONFUSING STATE LAWS CONCERN RACIAL
COMMINGLING OR RACIAL SEGREGATION.  THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THE NECESSITY
FOR A NATIONALLY UNIFORM REGULATION OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR PASSENGERS ON
INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  UNLIKE OTHER POWERS OF CONGRESS (SEE ART. I, SEC.
8, CL. 1, CONCERNING "DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES"; ART. I, SEC. 8, CL.
4, CONCERNING "NATURALIZATION"; ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 4, CONCERNING
"BANKRUPTCIES"), THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE DOES NOT REQUIRE
GEOGRAPHIC UNIFORMITY.  CONGRESS MAY DEVISE A NATIONAL POLICY WITH DUE
REGARD TO VARYING INTERESTS OF DIFFERENT REGIONS.  E.G., 37 STAT. 699,
27 U.S.C. SEC. 122; CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO.,
242 U.S. 311; 45 STAT. 1084, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 60; WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297
U.S. 431.  THE STATES CANNOT IMPOSE DIVERSITY OF TREATMENT WHEN SUCH
DIVERSE TREATMENT WOULD RESULT IN UNREASONABLE BURDENS ON COMMERCE. 
BUT CONGRESS MAY EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE ITS POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF A BLANKET RULE FOR THE COUNTRY. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

ON THE APPLICATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION TO THIS CASE, I FIND MYSELF OBLIGED TO DIFFER FROM THE
MAJORITY OF THE COURT.  I WOULD SUSTAIN THE VIRGINIA STATUTE AGAINST
THAT CLAUSE.  THE ISSUE IS NEITHER THE DESIRABILITY OF THE STATUTE NOR
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RACIAL SEGREGATION AS SUCH.  THE OPINION OF
THE COURT DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE VIRGINIA STATUTE, REGULATING SEATING
ARRANGEMENTS FOR INTERSTATE PASSENGERS IN MOTOR VEHICLES, VIOLATES THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR IS IN CONFLICT WITH A FEDERAL STATUTE.  THE
COURT HOLDS THIS STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR BUT ONE REASON.  IT HOLDS
THAT THE BURDEN IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE UPON THE NATION'S INTEREST IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO GREATLY OUTWEIGHS THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE
STATUTE TO THE STATE'S INTEREST IN ITS PUBLIC WELFARE AS TO MAKE IT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

THE UNDUE BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE THUS RELIED UPON BY THE
COURT IS NOT COMPLAINED OF BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BY ANY STATE, OR
BY ANY CARRIER.  THIS STATUTE HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 1930.  THE
CARRIER CONCERNED IS OPERATING UNDER REGULATIONS OF ITS OWN WHICH
CONFORM TO THE STATUTE.  THE STATUTE CONFORMS TO THE POLICY ADOPTED BY
VIRGINIA AS TO STEAMBOATS (1900), ELECTRIC OR STREET CARS AND RAILROADS
(1902-1904).  FN1  ITS VALIDITY HAS BEEN UNANIMOUSLY UPHELD BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.  THE ARGUMENT RELIED UPON BY THE
MAJORITY OF THIS COURT TO ESTABLISH THE UNDUE BURDEN OF THIS STATUTE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS THE LACK OF UNIFORMITY BETWEEN ITS PROVISIONS
AND THOSE OF THE LAWS OF OTHER STATES ON THE SUBJECT OF THE RACIAL
SEPARATION OF INTERSTATE PASSENGERS ON MOTOR VEHICLES. 

IF THE MERE DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE VIRGINIA STATUTE AND COMPARABLE
STATUTES OF OTHER STATES IS SO SERIOUS AS TO RENDER THE VIRGINIA
STATUTE INVALID, IT PROBABLY MEANS THAT THE COMPARABLE STATUTES OF
THOSE OTHER STATES, BEING DIVERSE FROM IT AND FROM EACH OTHER, ARE
EQUALLY INVALID.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION OF THE
MAJORITY WHICH DISREGARDS SECTIONAL INTERSTATE TRAVEL BETWEEN
NEIGHBORING STATES HAVING SIMILAR LAWS, TO HOLD "THAT SEATING
ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DIFFERENT RACES IN INTERSTATE MOTOR TRAVEL REQUIRE
A SINGLE, UNIFORM RULE TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT NATIONAL TRAVEL."  MORE
SPECIFICALLY, THE OPINION OF THE COURT INDICATES THAT THE LAWS OF THE
10 CONTIGUOUS STATES OF VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA,
GEORGIA, ALABAMA, MISSISSIPPI, LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS, TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA
REQUIRE RACIAL SEPARATION OF PASSENGERS ON MOTOR CARRIERS, WHILE THOSE
OF 18 OTHER STATES PROHIBIT RACIAL SEPARATION OF PASSENGERS ON PUBLIC
CARRIERS.  ON THE PRECEDENT OF THIS CASE, THE LAWS OF THE 10 STATES
REQUIRING RACIAL SEPARATION APPARENTLY CAN BE INVALIDATED BECAUSE OF
THEIR SHARP DIVERSITY FROM THE LAWS IN THE REST OF THE UNION, OR, IN A
LESSER DEGREE, BECAUSE OF THEIR DIVERSITY FROM ONE ANOTHER.  SUCH
INVALIDATION, ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF NATION-WIDE UNIFORMITY, MAY LEAD
TO QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE LAWS OF THE 18 STATES NOW
PROHIBITING RACIAL SEPARATION OF PASSENGERS, FOR THOSE LAWS LIKEWISE
DIFFER SHARPLY FROM LAWS ON THE SAME SUBJECT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE
UNION AND, IN A LESSER DEGREE, FROM ONE ANOTHER.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
FEDERAL LAW, THIS MAY ELIMINATE STATE REGULATION OF RACIAL SEPARATION
IN THE SEATING OF INTERSTATE PASSENGERS ON MOTOR VEHICLES AND LEAVE THE
REGULATION OF THE SUBJECT TO THE RESPECTIVE CARRIERS. 

THE PRESENT DECISION WILL LEAD TO THE QUESTIONING OF THE VALIDITY OF
STATUTORY REGULATION OF THE SEATING OF INTRASTATE PASSENGERS IN THE
SAME MOTOR VEHICLES WITH INTERSTATE PASSENGERS.  THE DECISION MAY ALSO
RESULT IN INCREASED LACK OF UNIFORMITY BETWEEN REGULATIONS AS TO
SEATING ARRANGEMENTS ON MOTOR VEHICLES LIMITED TO INTRASTATE PASSENGERS
IN A GIVEN STATE AND THOSE ON MOTOR VEHICLES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
BUSINESS IN THE SAME STATE OR ON CONNECTING ROUTES. 

THE BASIC WEAKNESS IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS THE LACK OF FACTS AND
FINDINGS ESSENTIAL TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A SERIOUS AND
MAJOR BURDEN UPON THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO
OUTWEIGH WHATEVER STATE OR LOCAL BENEFITS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
STATUTE AND WHICH WOULD BE LOST BY ITS INVALIDATION.  THE COURT
RECOGNIZES THAT IT SERVES AS "THE FINAL ARBITER OF THE COMPETING
DEMANDS OF STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS"  FN2  AND THAT IT MUST FAIRLY
DETERMINE, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, WHETHER THE STATE
STATUTE ACTUALLY IMPOSES SUCH AN UNDUE BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AS TO INVALIDATE THAT STATUTE.  IN WEIGHING THESE COMPETING DEMANDS, IF
THIS COURT IS TO JUSTIFY THE INVALIDATION OF THIS STATUTE, IT MUST,
FIRST OF ALL, BE SATISFIED THAT THE MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF THE
STATE AND THE CARRIER THAT ARE REFLECTED IN THIS STATE LAW SHOULD BE
SET ASIDE.  IT REPRESENTS THE TESTED PUBLIC POLICY OF VIRGINIA
REGULARLY ENACTED, LONG MAINTAINED AND CURRENTLY OBSERVED.  THE
OFFICIALLY DECLARED STATE INTERESTS, EVEN WHEN AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SHOULD NOT BE LAID ASIDE SUMMARILY BY THIS COURT IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  IT IS ONLY CONGRESS THAT CAN SUPPLY
AFFIRMATIVE NATIONAL UNIFORMITY OF ACTION. 

IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 768-769, 770, THIS
COURT SPEAKING THROUGH THE LATE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID: 

"IN THE APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES SOME ENACTMENTS MAY BE FOUND
TO BE PLAINLY WITHIN AND OTHERS PLAINLY WITHOUT STATE POWER.  BUT
BETWEEN THESE EXTREMES LIES THE INFINITE VARIETY OF CASES, IN WHICH
REGULATION OF LOCAL MATTERS MAY ALSO OPERATE AS A REGULATION OF
COMMERCE, IN WHICH RECONCILIATION OF THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF STATE
AND NATIONAL POWER IS TO BE ATTAINED ONLY BY SOME APPRAISAL AND
ACCOMMODATION OF THE COMPETING DEMANDS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL
INTERESTS INVOLVED.  FN3 

     .         .        .         .         . 

"BUT IN GENERAL CONGRESS HAS LEFT IT TO THE COURTS TO FORMULATE THE
RULES THUS INTERPRETING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN ITS APPLICATION,
DOUBTLESS BECAUSE IT HAS APPRECIATED THE DESTRUCTIVE CONSEQUENCES TO
THE COMMERCE OF THE NATION IF THEIR (I.E. THE COURTS') PROTECTION WERE
WITHDRAWN, ...  AND HAS BEEN AWARE THAT IN THEIR APPLICATION STATE LAWS
WILL NOT BE INVALIDATED WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF RELEVANT FACTUAL
MATERIAL WHICH WILL 'AFFORD A SURE BASIS' FOR AN INFORMED JUDGMENT
N4....  MEANWHILE, CONGRESS HAS ACCOMMODATED ITS LEGISLATION, AS HAVE
THE STATES, TO THESE RULES AS AN ESTABLISHED FEATURE OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  THERE HAS THUS BEEN LEFT TO THE STATES WIDE
SCOPE FOR THE REGULATION OF MATTERS OF LOCAL STATE CONCERN, EVEN THOUGH
IT IN SOME MEASURE AFFECTS THE COMMERCE, PROVIDED IT DOES NOT
MATERIALLY RESTRICT THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE ACROSS STATE LINES, OR
INTERFERE WITH IT IN MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH UNIFORMITY OF
REGULATION IS OF PREDOMINANT NATIONAL CONCERN." 

THE ABOVE-QUOTED REQUIREMENT OF A FACTUAL ESTABLISHMENT OF "A SURE
BASIS" FOR AN INFORMED JUDGMENT BY THIS COURT CALLS FOR A FIRM AND
DEMONSTRABLE BASIS OF ACTION ON THE PART OF THIS COURT.  IN THE RECORD
OF THIS CASE THERE ARE NO FINDINGS OF FACT THAT DEMONSTRATE ADEQUATELY
THE EXCESSIVENESS OF THE BURDEN, IF ANY, WHICH THE VIRGINIA STATUTE HAS
IMPOSED UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DURING THE MANY YEARS SINCE ITS
ENACTMENT, IN COMPARISON WITH THE RESULTING EFFECT IN VIRGINIA OF THE
INVALIDATION OF THIS STATUTE N5.  THE COURT RELIES LARGELY UPON THE
RECITAL OF A NATION-WIDE DIVERSITY AMONG STATE STATUTES ON THIS SUBJECT
WITHOUT A DEMONSTRATION OF THE FACTUAL SITUATION IN THOSE STATES, AND
ESPECIALLY IN VIRGINIA.  THE COURT THEREFORE IS NOT ABLE IN THIS CASE
TO MAKE THAT NECESSARY "APPRAISAL AND ACCOMMODATION OF THE COMPETING
DEMANDS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED" WHICH SHOULD BE
THE FOUNDATION FOR PASSING UPON THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE OF LONG
STANDING AND OF IMPORTANT LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
STATE POLICE POWER. 

THE COURT MAKES ITS OWN FURTHER ASSUMPTION THAT THE QUESTION OF
RACIAL SEPARATION OF INTERSTATE PASSENGERS IN MOTOR VEHICLE CARRIERS
REQUIRES NATIONAL UNIFORMITY OF TREATMENT RATHER THAN DIVERSITY OF
TREATMENT AT THIS TIME.  THE INACTION OF CONGRESS IS AN IMPORTANT
INDICATION THAT, IN THE OPINION OF CONGRESS, THIS ISSUE IS BETTER MET
WITHOUT NATIONALLY UNIFORM AFFIRMATIVE REGULATION THAN WITH IT.
LEGISLATION RAISING THE ISSUE LONG HAS BEEN, AND IS NOW, PENDING BEFORE
CONGRESS BUT HAS NOT REACHED THE FLOOR OF EITHER HOUSE.  FN6  THE FACT
THAT 18 STATES HAVE PROHIBITED IN SOME DEGREE RACIAL SEPARATION IN
PUBLIC CARRIERS IS IMPORTANT PROGRESS IN THE DIRECTION OF UNIFORMITY. 
THE FACT, HOWEVER, THAT 10 CONTIGUOUS STATES IN SOME DEGREE REQUIRE, BY
STATE LAW, SOME RACIAL SEPARATION OF PASSENGERS ON MOTOR CARRIERS
INDICATES A DIFFERENT APPRAISAL BY THEM OF THE NEEDS AND CONDITIONS IN
THOSE AREAS THAN IN OTHERS.  THE REMAINING 20 STATES HAVE NOT GONE
EQUALLY FAR IN EITHER DIRECTION.  THIS RECITAL OF EXISTING LEGISLATIVE
DIVERSITY IS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSUMPTION BY THIS
COURT THAT THERE EXISTS TODAY A REQUIREMENT OF A SINGLE UNIFORM
NATIONAL RULE ON THE SUBJECT. 

IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF OUR CONSTITUTION THAT WHERE CONDITIONS
ARE DIVERSE THE SOLUTION OF PROBLEMS ARISING OUT OF THEM MAY WELL COME
THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF DIVERSIFIED TREATMENT MATCHING THE
DIVERSIFIED NEEDS AS DETERMINED BY OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.  UNIFORMITY
OF TREATMENT IS APPROPRIATE WHERE A SUBSTANTIAL UNIFORMITY OF
CONDITIONS EXISTS. 

FN1  STEAMBOATS:  ACTS OF 1900, P. 340; ELECTRIC OR STREET CARS:
ACTS OF 1902-1904, P. 990; RAILROADS:  ACTS OF 1902-1904, P. 987.  VA.
CODE ANN., 1942, SECS. 4022-4025; 3978-3983; 3962-3969. 

FN2  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 769. 

FN3  SEE PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 362; DI SANTO V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, 44. 

FN4  TERMINAL ASSN. V. TRAINMEN, 318 U.S. 1, 8. 

FN5  HALL V. DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485, DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION
REACHED BY THE COURT IN THIS CASE.  THE LOUISIANA STATUTE IN THE DECUIR
CASE COULD HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, AT THAT TIME AND PLACE, AS AN UNDUE
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE RULES CLEARLY STATED BY CHIEF
JUSTICE STONE IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, SUPRA, AND AS APPLIED
IN THIS DISSENTING OPINION.  IF THE DECUIR CASE IS FOLLOWED WITHOUT
WEIGHING THE SURROUNDING FACTS, IT WOULD INVALIDATE TODAY STATUTES IN
NEW ENGLAND STATES PROHIBITING RACIAL SEPARATION IN SEATING
ARRANGEMENTS ON CARRIERS, WHICH WOULD NOT BE INVALIDATED UNDER THE
DOCTRINE STATED IN THE ARIZONA CASE. 

FN6  SEE H.R. 8821, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., 83 CONG. REC. 74; H.R. 182,
76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 84 CONG. REC. 27; H.R. 112, 77TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., 87 CONG. REC. 13. 
..END :






















PORTER V. WARNER CO., 328 U.S. 395 


NO. 793.  ARGUED MAY 2, 3, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 3, 1946.  - 151 F.2D
529, REVERSED. 


1.  IN AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS POWER TO ORDER
RESTITUTION OF RENTS COLLECTED BY A LANDLORD IN EXCESS OF MAXIMUMS
ESTABLISHED BY REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE ACT.  PP. 398-399. 

2.  UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 205(A) AUTHORIZING THE DISTRICT
COURT, UPON A PROPER SHOWING, TO GRANT "A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING ORDER, OR OTHER ORDER," AN ORDER FOR THE
RECOVERY AND RESTITUTION OF ILLEGAL RENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED A PROPER
"OTHER ORDER" EITHER (1) AS AN EQUITABLE ADJUNCT TO AN INJUNCTION
DECREE, OR (2) AS AN ORDER APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO ENFORCE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT.  PP. 399, 400. 

3.  THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND OF SEC. 205(A) SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE TRADITIONAL EQUITY POWERS OF A COURT REMAIN UNIMPAIRED IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER THAT SECTION SO THAT AN ORDER OF RESTITUTION MAY BE
MADE.  P. 400. 

4.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 205(E) AUTHORIZING AN AGGRIEVED TENANT, AND
IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, TO SUE FOR DAMAGES
DOES NOT CONFLICT, EXCEPT AS TO AN AWARD OF DAMAGES, WITH THE
JURISDICTION OF EQUITY COURTS UNDER SEC. 205(A) TO ISSUE WHATEVER
"OTHER ORDER" MAY BE NECESSARY TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, TO
COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT, AND TO PREVENT AND UNDO INFLATIONARY
TENDENCIES.  PP. 401-402. 

5.  IN CONSIDERING A RESTITUTION ORDER WHERE THERE ARE CONFLICTING
CLAIMS BETWEEN TENANTS AND LANDLORD AS TO THE AMOUNTS DUE, THE DISTRICT
COURT HAS INHERENT POWER TO BRING IN ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND SETTLE
THE CONTROVERSIES OR TO RETAIN THE CASE UNTIL THE MATTERS ARE OTHERWISE
LITIGATED.  P. 403. 

PORTER, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, V. WARNER HOLDING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR BROUGHT SUIT UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 TO ENJOIN RESPONDENT FROM VIOLATING
THE ACT AND TO REQUIRE RESPONDENT TO MAKE RESTITUTION OF RENTS
COLLECTED IN EXCESS OF MAXIMUMS ESTABLISHED BY REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER
THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED RESPONDENT FROM VIOLATING THE ACT
BUT DENIED A RESTITUTION ORDER.  60 F.SUPP.  513.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  151 F.2D 529.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327
U.S. 773.  REVERSED, P. 403. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE POWER OF A FEDERAL COURT, IN
AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT OF 1942,  FN1  TO ORDER RESTITUTION OF RENTS COLLECTED BY A
LANDLORD IN EXCESS OF THE PERMISSIBLE MAXIMUMS. 

THE WARNER HOLDING COMPANY, THE RESPONDENT, OWNS EIGHT APARTMENT
HOUSES IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 280 DWELLING
UNITS.  BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1, 1942, AND JUNE 29, 1943, IT DEMANDED AND
RECEIVED RENTS IN EXCESS OF THOSE PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE MAXIMUM
RENT REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE ACT.  THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE
OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION THEN BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT FROM CONTINUING TO EXCEED THE RENT
CEILINGS.  THE COMPLAINT WAS LATER AMENDED TO SEEK, IN ADDITION, A
DECREE REQUIRING THE RESPONDENT "TO TENDER TO SUCH PERSONS AS ARE
ENTITLED THERETO A REFUND OF ALL AMOUNTS COLLECTED BY DEFENDANT FROM
TENANTS AS RENT FOR THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN
EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM RENTS ESTABLISHED BY SAID REGULATION, PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT DEFENDANT SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH TENDER TO
ANY PERSON WHO HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT UNDER SECTION
205(E) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 ALLEGING THE
COLLECTION BY DEFENDANT OF RENT IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM RENTS
ESTABLISHED BY SAID REGULATION." 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED RESPONDENT FROM CONTINUING TO COLLECT
RENTS IN EXCESS OF THE LEGAL MAXIMUMS BUT DECLINED TO ORDER
RESTITUTION.  60 F.SUPP.  513.  THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  151 F.2D 529.  BOTH COURTS HELD THAT THERE WAS
NO JURISDICTION UNDER THE STATUTE TO ORDER RESTITUTION.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE RESULT WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THAT REACHED BY THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN BOWLES V. SKAGGS, 151 F.2D 817, AND
BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN THE ADMINISTRATION
AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT. 

THIS PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 205(A)
OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES:  "WHENEVER IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR ANY PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTS
OR PRACTICES WHICH CONSTITUTE OR WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF ANY
PROVISION OF SECTION 4 OF THIS ACT, HE MAY MAKE APPLICATION TO THE
APPROPRIATE COURT FOR AN ORDER ENJOINING SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES, OR FOR
AN ORDER ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH PROVISION, AND UPON A SHOWING
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR THAT SUCH PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE
IN ANY SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION,
RESTRAINING ORDER, OR OTHER ORDER SHALL BE GRANTED WITHOUT BOND." 

THUS THE ADMINISTRATOR INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
TO ENJOIN ACTS AND PRACTICES MADE ILLEGAL BY THE ACT AND TO ENFORCE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT.  SUCH A JURISDICTION IS AN EQUITABLE ONE. 
UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATUTE, ALL THE INHERENT EQUITABLE POWERS
OF THE DISTRICT COURT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE PROPER AND COMPLETE
EXERCISE OF THAT JURISDICTION.  AND SINCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS
INVOLVED IN A PROCEEDING OF THIS NATURE, THOSE EQUITABLE POWERS ASSUME
AN EVEN BROADER AND MORE FLEXIBLE CHARACTER THAN WHEN ONLY A PRIVATE
CONTROVERSY IS AT STAKE.  VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300
U.S. 515, 552.  POWER IS THEREBY RESIDENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, IN
EXERCISING THIS JURISDICTION, "TO DO EQUITY AND TO MOULD EACH DECREE TO
THE NECESSITIES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE."  HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S.
321, 329.  IT MAY ACT SO AS TO ADJUST AND RECONCILE COMPETING CLAIMS
AND SO AS TO ACCORD FULL JUSTICE TO ALL THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST;
IF NECESSARY, PERSONS NOT ORIGINALLY CONNECTED WITH THE LITIGATION MAY
BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT SO THAT THEIR RIGHTS IN THE SUBJECT MATTER
MAY BE DETERMINED AND ENFORCED.  IN ADDITION, THE COURT MAY GO BEYOND
THE MATTERS IMMEDIATELY UNDERLYING ITS EQUITABLE JURISDICTION AND
DECIDE WHATEVER OTHER ISSUES AND GIVE WHATEVER OTHER RELIEF MAY BE
NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  ONLY IN THAT WAY CAN EQUITY DO
COMPLETE RATHER THAN TRUNCATED JUSTICE.  CAMP V. BOYD, 229 U.S. 530,
551-552. 

MOREOVER, THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THIS EQUITABLE JURISDICTION IS NOT
TO BE DENIED OR LIMITED IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR AND VALID LEGISLATIVE
COMMAND.  UNLESS A STATUTE IN SO MANY WORDS, OR BY A NECESSARY AND
INESCAPABLE INFERENCE, RESTRICTS THE COURT'S JURISDICTION IN EQUITY,
THE FULL SCOPE OF THAT JURISDICTION IS TO BE RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED. 
"THE GREAT PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, SECURING COMPLETE JUSTICE, SHOULD NOT
BE YIELDED TO LIGHT INFERENCES, OR DOUBTFUL CONSTRUCTION."  BROWN V.
SWANN, 10 PET. 497, 503.  SEE ALSO HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, SUPRA, 330. 

IT IS READILY APPARENT FROM THE FOREGOING THAT A DECREE COMPELLING
ONE TO DISGORGE PROFITS, RENTS OR PROPERTY ACQUIRED IN VIOLATION OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT MAY PROPERLY BE ENTERED BY A DISTRICT COURT
ONCE ITS EQUITY JURISDICTION HAS BEEN INVOKED UNDER SEC. 205(A). 
INDEED, THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 205(A) ADMITS OF NO OTHER CONCLUSION.  IT
EXPRESSLY ENVISAGES APPLICATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ORDERS
ENJOINING VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND FOR ORDERS ENFORCING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE ACT; AND IT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES THE DISTRICT COURT, UPON A
PROPER SHOWING, TO GRANT "A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION,
RESTRAINING ORDER, OR OTHER ORDER."  AS RECOGNIZED IN HECHT CO. V.
BOWLES, SUPRA, 328, THE TERM "OTHER ORDER" CONTEMPLATES A REMEDY OTHER
THAN THAT OF AN INJUNCTION OR RESTRAINING ORDER, A REMEDY ENTERED IN
THE EXERCISE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S EQUITABLE DISCRETION.  AN ORDER
FOR THE RECOVERY AND RESTITUTION OF ILLEGAL RENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED A
PROPER "OTHER ORDER" ON EITHER OF TWO THEORIES: 

(1)  IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN EQUITABLE ADJUNCT TO AN INJUNCTION
DECREE.  NOTHING IS MORE CLEARLY A PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A SUIT
FOR AN INJUNCTION THAN THE RECOVERY OF THAT WHICH HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY
ACQUIRED AND WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE NECESSITY FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF.  TO BE SURE, SUCH A RECOVERY COULD NOT BE OBTAINED THROUGH AN
INDEPENDENT SUIT IN EQUITY IF AN ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY WERE AVAILABLE. 
FN2  WHITE V. SPARKILL REALTY CORP., 280 U.S. 500; LACASSAGNE V.
CHAPUIS, 144 U.S. 119.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE EQUITABLE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT HAS PROPERLY BEEN INVOKED FOR INJUNCTIVE PURPOSES, THE
COURT HAS THE POWER TO DECIDE ALL RELEVANT MATTERS IN DISPUTE AND TO
AWARD COMPLETE RELIEF EVEN THOUGH THE DECREE INCLUDES THAT WHICH MIGHT
BE CONFERRED BY A COURT OF LAW.  ALEXANDER V. HILLMAN, 296 U.S. 222,
241-242. 

(2)  IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN ORDER APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO
ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT.  SECTION 205(A) ANTICIPATES ORDERS OF
THAT CHARACTER, ALTHOUGH IT MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO CATALOGUE THE INFINITE
FORMS AND VARIATIONS WHICH SUCH ORDERS MIGHT TAKE.  THE PROBLEM OF
FORMULATING THESE ORDERS HAS BEEN LEFT TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS OF
ADAPTING APPROPRIATE EQUITABLE REMEDIES TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.  CF.
PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194.  IN FRAMING SUCH
REMEDIES UNDER SEC. 205(A), COURTS MUST ACT PRIMARILY TO EFFECTUATE THE
POLICY OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT AND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WHILE GIVING NECESSARY RESPECT TO THE PRIVATE INTERESTS
INVOLVED.  THE INHERENT EQUITABLE JURISDICTION WHICH IS THUS CALLED
INTO PLAY CLEARLY AUTHORIZES A COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION, TO DECREE
RESTITUTION OF EXCESSIVE CHARGES IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE POLICY
OF CONGRESS.  CLARK V. SMITH, 13 PET. 195, 203.  AND IT IS NOT
UNREASONABLE FOR A COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH A RESTITUTION ORDER IS
APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT AND TO
GIVE EFFECT TO ITS PURPOSES.  FUTURE COMPLIANCE MAY BE MORE DEFINITELY
ASSURED IF ONE IS COMPELLED TO RESTORE ONE'S ILLEGAL GAINS; AND THE
STATUTORY POLICY OF PREVENTING INFLATION IS PLAINLY ADVANCED IF PRICES
OR RENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN COLLECTED IN THE PAST ARE REDUCED TO THEIR
LEGAL MAXIMUMS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND OF SEC. 205(A) CONFIRMS OUR CONCLUSION
THAT THE TRADITIONAL EQUITY POWERS OF A COURT REMAIN UNIMPAIRED IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER THAT SECTION SO THAT AN ORDER OF RESTITUTION MAY BE
MADE.  THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, IN REPORTING UPON
THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, STATED IN REGARD
TO SEC. 205(A):  "IN COMMON WITH SUBSTANTIALLY ALL REGULATORY STATUTES,
THE BILL AUTHORIZES THE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ADMINISTERING
THE ACT TO APPLY TO ANY APPROPRIATE COURT, STATE OR FEDERAL, FOR AN
ORDER ENJOINING ANY PERSON WHO HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY
ACTS OR PRACTICES WHICH CONSTITUTE OR WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF
ANY PROVISION OF THE BILL.  SUCH COURTS ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION TO ISSUE
WHATEVER ORDER TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE IS PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
EACH PARTICULAR CASE."  S. REP. NO. 931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 10. 
FN3  THE LAST SENTENCE IS AN UNMISTAKABLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT COURTS
OF EQUITY ARE FREE TO ACT UNDER SEC. 205(A) IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BE MOST
RESPONSIVE TO THE STATUTORY POLICY OF PREVENTING INFLATION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 205(E) AUTHORIZES AN AGGRIEVED PURCHASER OR
TENANT TO SUE FOR DAMAGES ON HIS OWN BEHALF; AND IF THAT PERSON HAS NOT
SUED WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD, OR FOR ANY REASON IS NOT ENTITLED TO
SUE, THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY INSTITUTE AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED STATES.  FN4  TO THE EXTENT THAT DAMAGES MIGHT PROPERLY BE
AWARDED BY A COURT OF EQUITY IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION UNDER
SEC. 205(A), SEE VEAZIE V. WILLIAMS, 8 HOW.  134, 160, SEC. 205(E)
SUPERSEDES THAT POSSIBILITY AND PROVIDES AN EXCLUSIVE REMEDY RELATIVE
TO DAMAGES.  IT ESTABLISHES THE SOLE MEANS WHEREBY INDIVIDUALS MAY
ASSERT THEIR PRIVATE RIGHT TO DAMAGES AND WHEREBY THE ADMINISTRATOR ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES MAY SEEK DAMAGES IN THE NATURE OF
PENALTIES.  FN5  MOREOVER, A COURT GIVING RELIEF UNDER SEC. 205(E) ACTS
AS A COURT OF LAW RATHER THAN AS A COURT OF EQUITY.  BUT WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF DAMAGES, SEC. 205(E) IN NO WAY CONFLICTS WITH THE
JURISDICTION OF EQUITY COURTS UNDER SEC. 205(A) TO ISSUE WHATEVER
"OTHER ORDER" MAY BE NECESSARY TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, TO
COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT AND TO PREVENT AND UNDO INFLATIONARY
TENDENCIES. 

RESTITUTION, WHICH LIES WITHIN THAT EQUITABLE JURISDICTION, IS
CONSISTENT WITH AND DIFFERS GREATLY FROM THE DAMAGES AND PENALTIES
WHICH MAY BE AWARDED UNDER SEC. 205(E).  BOWLES V. SKAGGS, SUPRA, 821. 
WHEN THE ADMINISTRATOR SEEKS RESTITUTION UNDER SEC. 205(A), HE DOES NOT
REQUEST THE COURT TO AWARD STATUTORY DAMAGES TO THE PURCHASER OR TENANT
OR TO PAY TO SUCH PERSON PART OF THE PENALTIES WHICH GO TO THE UNITED
STATES TREASURY IN A SUIT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 205(E). 
RATHER HE ASKS THE COURT TO ACT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY RESTORING THE
STATUS QUO AND ORDERING THE RETURN OF THAT WHICH RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO
THE PURCHASER OR TENANT.  SUCH ACTION IS WITHIN THE RECOGNIZED POWER
AND WITHIN THE HIGHEST TRADITION OF A COURT OF EQUITY.  THUS IT IS
PLAINLY UNAFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 205(E). 

NOR DO WE FIND ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT THAT EXPRESSLY OR
IMPLIEDLY PRECLUDES A COURT FROM ORDERING RESTITUTION IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS EQUITY JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 205(A).  THIS IS NOT A SITUATION
WHERE A STATUTE HAS CREATED A RIGHT AND HAS PROVIDED A SPECIAL AND
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY, THEREBY NEGATIVING ANY JURISDICTION THAT MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE ASSERTED.  UNITED STATES V. BABCOCK, 250 U.S. 328.  AND IT
CLEARLY IS NOT AN INSTANCE WHERE EQUITY JURISDICTION IS LACKING BECAUSE
OF A FAILURE TO EXHAUST PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  MYERS V.
BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41.  RATHER IT IS AN OCCASION WHERE CONGRESS
HAS UTILIZED, SAVE IN ONE ASPECT, THE BROAD EQUITABLE JURISDICTION THAT
INHERES IN COURTS AND WHERE THE PROPOSED EXERCISE OF THAT JURISDICTION
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND POLICY, THE LEGISLATIVE
BACKGROUND AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DECLINING, FOR
JURISDICTIONAL REASONS, TO CONSIDER WHETHER A RESTITUTION ORDER WAS
NECESSARY OR PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENT.  THE CASE
MUST THEREFORE BE REMANDED TO THAT COURT SO THAT IT MAY EXERCISE THE
DISCRETION THAT BELONGS TO IT.  SHOULD THE COURT DECIDE TO ISSUE A
RESTITUTION ORDER AND SHOULD THERE APPEAR TO BE CONFLICTING CLAIMS AND
COUNTERCLAIMS BETWEEN TENANTS AND LANDLORD AS TO THE AMOUNTS DUE, THE
COURT HAS INHERENT POWER TO BRING IN ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND
SETTLE THE CONTROVERSIES OR TO RETAIN THE CASE UNTIL THE MATTERS ARE
OTHERWISE LITIGATED.  MALLOW V. HINDE, 12 WHEAT.  193.  REVERSED. 
FN1  56 STAT. 23, 33; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 925(A). 

FN2  BUT IF A DEFENDANT WITH NOTICE OF A PENDING INJUNCTION
PROCEEDING COMPLETES THE ACTS SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED, THE COURT OF
EQUITY MAY RESTORE THE STATUS QUO BY MEANS OF A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. 
TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. NORTHSIDE BELT R. CO., 276 U.S. 475; PORTER V.
LEE, 328 U.S. 246.    FN3  THE SAME REPORT, AT P. 25, ALSO STATES:
"SECTION 205(A) AUTHORIZES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 OF THE BILL, WHENEVER IN HIS JUDGMENT, ANY
PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTS OR PRACTICES WHICH
CONSTITUTE OR WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF SECTION
4, BY MAKING APPLICATION TO THE APPROPRIATE COURT FOR AN ORDER
ENJOINING SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES, OR FOR AN ORDER ENFORCING COMPLIANCE
WITH SUCH PROVISION.  UPON A SHOWING BY THE ADMINISTRATOR THAT SUCH
PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES,
A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER ORDER
IS TO BE GRANTED WITHOUT BOND." 

FN4  SEC. 205(E) AS AMENDED BY THE STABILIZATION EXTENSION ACT OF
1944, 58 STAT. 632, 640-641; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 925(E). 

FN5  CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THIS PROVISION FOR DAMAGE ACTIONS
AFFORDS "A REMEDY AT LAW TO PERSONS DAMAGED BY HAVING HAD TO PAY
UNLAWFULLY HIGH PRICES."  S. REP. NO. 931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 9. 
IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT "THIS ACTION IS THE PEOPLE'S REMEDY
AGAINST INFLATION.  IT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE STATUTE BECAUSE THE
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE PRACTICAL NEED OF THIS AID TO ENFORCEMENT."  S.
REP. NO. 922, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 14.  THE AMENDMENT TO SEC.
205(E), WHEREBY THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS ALLOWED TO SUE FOR DAMAGES UNDER
PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS, WAS SAID TO "CLOSE AN IMPORTANT GAP IN THE
PRESENT SYSTEM OF ENFORCEMENT SANCTIONS."  ID.  NOWHERE, HOWEVER, WAS
THERE ANY INDICATION THAT SEC. 205(E) WAS INTENDED TO WHITTLE DOWN THE
EQUITABLE JURISDICTION RECOGNIZED BY SEC. 205(A) SO AS TO PRECLUDE A
SUIT FOR RESTITUTION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

IN THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL LEGISLATION CONGRESS WAS AS MUCH
CONCERNED WITH REMEDIES AS WITH SUBSTANTIVE PROHIBITIONS.  FN1  IT KNEW
THAT EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LATTER DEPENDED ALTOGETHER UPON THE SCHEME
FOR ENFORCEMENT.  ACCORDINGLY, BOTH IN THE ORIGINAL ACT  FN2  AND IN
LATER AMENDMENTS, FN3  IT COVERED THE MATTER OF REMEDIES IN THE
GREATEST DETAIL AND PRECISION.  THOSE PROVISIONS WERE BOTH
JURISDICTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL.  THE GENERAL SCHEME WAS TO CONFINE AS
NARROWLY AS THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS THE RIGHTS OF REGULATED PERSONS TO
CHALLENGE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND REGULATIONS; AND AT THE SAME TIME
TO CREATE BROAD POWERS FOR ENFORCEMENT, BY VARIOUS CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS.  YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, DISSENTING OPINION,
463.  CONGRESS DID NOT TAKE CHANCES, IN EITHER RESPECT, WITH INFERENCE
OR CONSTRUCTION.  IT IS NOT EXCESSIVE TO SAY THAT PERHAPS NO OTHER
LEGISLATION IN OUR HISTORY HAS EQUALLED THE PRICE CONTROL ACT IN THE
WEALTH, DETAIL, PRECISION AND COMPLETENESS OF ITS JURISDICTIONAL,
PROCEDURAL AND REMEDIAL PROVISIONS.  YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE SCHEME OF ENFORCEMENT WAS HIGHLY INTEGRATED, WITH THE PARTS
PRECISELY TOOLED AND MINUTELY GEARED.  LEGAL, EQUITABLE AND CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS WERE INCLUDED.  INJURED PERSONS' REMEDIES WERE DOVETAILED
WITH AND GUARDED AGAINST OVERLAPPING THOSE GIVEN THE ADMINISTRATOR.  HE
CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES AND PENALTIES, AFTER THE INJURED PARTY HAS FAILED
TO DO SO IN THE TIME ALLOWED; FN4  TO ENJOIN VIOLATION OR SECURE AN
ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE, WITH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT RELIEF; FN5 CAUSE
INSTITUTION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS N6; AND REQUIRE LICENSING OF
DEALERS WITH POWER TO SUSPEND THE LICENSE AND THUS DRIVE OUT OF
BUSINESS.  FN7  THIS POWERFUL BATTERY OF WEAPONS DOES NOT CALL FOR
REINFORCEMENT WITH ARMOR NOT PROVIDED IN THE ACT.  IT WAS EQUAL TO ALL
TASKS OF ENFORCEMENT WHICH CONCEIVABLY COULD ARISE. 

CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORANT OF THE REMEDY OF RESTITUTION. 
IT KNEW HOW TO GIVE REMEDIES IT WISHED TO CONFER.  THERE WAS NO NEED TO
ADD THIS ONE.  NOR DO I THINK IT DID SO.  IT DID NOT GIVE IT
EXPRESSLY.  I DO NOT THINK "OTHER ORDER" IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 205(A)
INCLUDES IT.  FOR TO HAVE CONFERRED IT WOULD HAVE PUT THE STATUTORY
SECHEME OUT OF JOINT. 

WITH PENALTY, FOR A LIMITED TIME.  THEREAFTER THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
SUE IS THE ADMINISTRATOR'S, AND WHAT HE RECOVERS GOES INTO THE FEDERAL
TREASURY, NOT TO THE OVERCHARGED PERSON.  THIS INCLUDES THE AMOUNT OF
THE OVERCHARGE, WHICH IS SUED FOR HERE.  THESE PROVISIONS TAKEN
TOGETHER ARE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF
RECOVERY.  ONCE THE TIME GOES BY, IT IS CUT OFF AND THE GOVERNMENT'S
RIGHT TAKES ITS PLACE, IN VINDICATION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  FN8 

RESTITUTION, AS HERE SOUGHT, IS INCONSISTENT WITH BOTH RIGHTS.  IT
CONTEMPLATES RETURN OF THE UNJUSTLY TAKEN ENRICHMENT TO HIM FROM WHOM
IT WAS TAKEN.  IT IS THAT RIGHT THE ADMINISTRATOR NOW SEEKS TO ASSERT. 
BUT HE DOES SO, I THINK, IN THE TEETH OF THE STATUTE.  WHAT HE RECOVERS
IS WHAT THE ACT MAKES PART OF A SUM IT SAYS SHALL BE PAID INTO THE
TREASURY WHENEVER RECOVERED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR; OR INTO THE
OVERCHARGED PERSON'S POCKET WHEN RECOVERED BY HIM.  AND THESE ARE
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, NOT ALTERNATIVE, RIGHTS OF RECOVERY.  IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR PAYS OVER TO THE TENANTS WHAT HE RECOVERS IN THIS SUIT,
HE WILL BE PAYING THEM MONEY WHICH THE ACT SAYS SHALL GO INTO THE
TREASURY N9.  THEIR TIME FOR SUIT HAS PASSED AND WITH IT THEIR RIGHT TO
RECOVER THESE AMOUNTS.  WHETHER OR NOT THE ADMINISTRATOR CAN SUE FOR
THESE AMOUNTS, ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT, FOREGOING THE PENALTIES, WE
ARE NOT ASKED TO DECIDE.  BUT WE ARE ASKED, IN EFFECT, TO DECIDE THAT
HE CAN TAKE MONEY THE ACT SAYS SHALL GO INTO THE TREASURY AND GIVE IT
TO PERSONS WHOSE RIGHT TO RECOVER IT THE ACT HAS CUT OFF. 

I THINK THE REMEDY NOW SOUGHT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE REMEDIES
EXPRESSLY GIVEN BY THE STATUTE AND CONTRARY TO THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS
IT CREATES.  I THINK TOO THIS IS WHY CONGRESS FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR
RESTITUTION, INDEED CUT OFF THAT REMEDY. 

THIS DOES NOT IMPLY ANY RESTRICTION UPON THE CREATIVE RESOURCES OF A
COURT OF EQUITY.  WHEN CONGRESS IS SILENT IN FORMULATING REMEDIES FOR
RIGHTS WHICH IT HAS CREATED, COURTS OF EQUITY ARE FREE TO USE THESE
CREATIVE RESOURCES.  BUT WHERE CONGRESS IS EXPLICIT IN THE REMEDIES IT
AFFORDS, AND ESPECIALLY WHERE CONGRESS AFTER IT HAS GIVEN LIMITED
REMEDIES ENLARGES THE SCOPE OF SUCH REMEDIES BUT PARTICULARIZES THEM SO
FAR AS REMEDIES FOR OVERCHARGES ARE AFFORDED, EVEN COURTS OF EQUITY MAY
NOT GRANT RELIEF IN DISREGARD OF THE REMEDIES SPECIFICALLY DEFINED BY
CONGRESS. 

FN1  SEE H. REP. NO. 1409, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 12-13; S. REP. NO.
931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., 8-9, 25-28; H. REP. NO. 1658, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., 26-27.  "PRICE CONTROL WHICH CANNOT BE MADE EFFECTIVE IS AT
LEAST AS BAD AS NO PRICE CONTROL AT ALL.  IT WILL NOT STOP INFLATION,
AND ENABLES THOSE WHO DEFY REGULATION TO PROFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
BUYERS AND SELLERS WHO UNSELFISHLY COOPERATE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE
EMERGENCY."  S. REP. NO. 931, SUPRA, P. 8. 

FN2  SEC. 205, 56 STAT. 23, 33-35. 

FN3  58 STAT. 632, 640-641, AMENDING SUBSECTIONS (C), (E), AND (F) OF
SEC. 205 AS IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL ACT AND ADDING SUBSECTION (G). 

FN4  SEC. 205(E), 50 U.S.C. SEC. 925(E).  SEE NOTE 9. 

FN5  SEC. 205(A):  "WHENEVER IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ANY
PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTS OR PRACTICES WHICH
CONSTITUTE OR WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF SECTION 4
OF THIS ACT, HE MAY MAKE APPLICATION TO THE APPROPRIATE COURT FOR AN
ORDER ENJOINING SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES, OR FOR AN ORDER ENFORCING
COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH PROVISION, AND UPON A SHOWING BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
THAT SUCH PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY SUCH ACTS OR
PRACTICES A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING ORDER, OR
OTHER ORDER SHALL BE GRANTED WITHOUT BOND."  50 U.S.C. SEC. 925(A). 

FN6  SEC. 205(B):  "ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION
OF SECTION 4 OF THIS ACT, AND ANY PERSON WHO MAKES ANY STATEMENT OR
ENTRY FALSE IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT IN ANY DOCUMENT OR REPORT REQUIRED
TO BE KEPT OR FILED UNDER SECTION 2 OR SECTION 202, SHALL, UPON
CONVICTION THEREOF, BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN THE CASE OF A VIOLATION OF
BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  WHENEVER THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS REASON
TO BELIEVE THAT ANY PERSON IS LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT UNDER THIS
SUBSECTION, HE MAY CERTIFY THE FACTS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO MAY,
IN HIS DISCRETION, CAUSE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS TO BE BROUGHT."  50
U.S.C. SEC. 925(B).  SEC. 205(C), 50 U.S.C. SEC. 925(C).  SEE KRAUS &
BROS. V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 614, 620, NOTE 4. 

FN7  SEC. 205(F), 50 U.S.C. SEC. 925(F). 

FN8  UNDER SEC. 205(E) IN THE ORIGINAL ACT, 56 STAT. 34, THE
ADMINISTRATOR WAS ENTITLED TO BRING A SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND PENALTIES
ONLY WHEN THE BUYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BRING SUCH AN ACTION.  SEE,
E.G., BOWLES V. GLICK BROS. LUMBER CO., 146 F.2D 566.  THE ACT WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED TO PROVIDE, AS SET OUT IN THE TEXT, THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR COULD BRING A SUIT FOR DAMAGES AND PENALTIES ALSO WHEN
THE INJURED PARTY HAD NOT BROUGHT SUCH AN ACTION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION.  58 STAT. 640.  SEE
NOTE 9.  THE SUIT AT BAR WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE
AMENDMENT, BUT THAT FACT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE, SINCE SEC. 205(E),
WHETHER TAKEN IN ITS ORIGINAL OR AMENDED FORM, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
REMEDY OF RESTITUTION SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

FN9  SEC. 205(E):  "IF ANY PERSON SELLING A COMMODITY VIOLATES A
REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PRICE OR
MAXIMUM PRICES, THE PERSON WHO BUYS SUCH COMMODITY FOR USE OR
CONSUMPTION OTHER THAN IN THE COURSE OF TRADE OR BUSINESS MAY, WITHIN
ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION, EXCEPT AS
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, BRING AN ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER ON ACCOUNT OF
THE OVERCHARGE.  IN SUCH ACTION, THE SELLER SHALL BE LIABLE FOR
REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT, PLUS
WHICHEVER OF THE FOLLOWING SUMS IS THE GREATER:  (1) SUCH AMOUNT NOT
MORE THAN THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE OVERCHARGE, OR THE OVERCHARGES,
UPON WHICH THE ACTION IS BASED AS THE COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY
DETERMINE, OR (2) AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN $25 NOR MORE THAN $50, AS THE
COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY DETERMINE: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
AMOUNT SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF THE OVERCHARGE OR OVERCHARGES OR $25,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER, IF THE DEFENDANT PROVES THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE
REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE IN QUESTION WAS NEITHER WILFULL
NOR THE RESULT OF FAILURE TO TAKE PRACTICABLE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST THE
OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION THE
PAYMENT OR RECEIPT OF RENT FOR DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS
SHALL BE DEEMED THE BUYING OR SELLING OF A COMMODITY, AS THE CASE MAY
BE; AND THE WORD 'OVERCHARGE' SHALL MEAN THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE
CONSIDERATION EXCEEDS THE APPLICABLE MAXIMUM PRICE.  IF ANY PERSON
SELLING A COMMODITY VIOLATES A REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE
PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PRICE OR MAXIMUM PRICES, AND THE BUYER EITHER
FAILS TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE VIOLATION OR IS NOT ENTITLED FOR
ANY REASON TO BRING THE ACTION, THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY INSTITUTE SUCH
ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN SUCH ONE-YEAR PERIOD.  IF
SUCH ACTION IS INSTITUTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE BUYER SHALL
THEREAFTER BE BARRED FROM BRINGING AN ACTION FOR THE SAME VIOLATION OR
VIOLATIONS.  ANY ACTION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION BY EITHER THE BUYER OR
THE ADMINISTRATOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAY BE BROUGHT IN ANY COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION.  A JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES UNDER THIS
SUBSECTION SHALL BE A BAR TO THE RECOVERY UNDER THIS SUBSECTION OF ANY
DAMAGES IN ANY OTHER ACTION AGAINST THE SAME SELLER ON ACCOUNT OF SALES
MADE TO THE SAME PURCHASER PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE ACTION IN
WHICH SUCH JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED."  50 U.S.C. SEC. 925(E). 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. BENJAMIN, 328 U.S. 408 


NO. 707.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 11, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 3, 1946.  - 207 S.C.
324, 35 S.E.2D 586, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATUTE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IMPOSED ON FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES
AS A CONDITION ON THEIR DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE AN ANNUAL TAX
OF THREE PERCENT OF PREMIUMS FROM BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE STATE,
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS INTERSTATE OR
LOCAL.  NO SIMILAR TAX WAS IMPOSED ON SOUTH CAROLINA CORPORATIONS. 
HELD, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 9,
1945, 59 STAT. 33, AUTHORIZING STATE REGULATION AND TAXATION OF THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE, THAT THE TAX WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THIS
COURT'S RULING IN UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN.,
322 U.S. 533(1944).  PP. 410-411, 422. 

2.  A STATE TAX OR REGULATION DISCRIMINATING AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, WHICH WOULD BE INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN ABSENCE
OF ACTION BY CONGRESS, MAY BE VALIDATED BY THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OF
CONGRESS CONSENTING THERETO.  PP. 421-427. 

3.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS NOT A LIMITATION UPON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE BUT A GRANT TO CONGRESS
OF PLENARY AND SUPREME AUTHORITY OVER THOSE SUBJECTS.  P. 423. 

4.  THE STATE TAX HERE INVOLVED IS CLEARLY SUSTAINED BY THE ACT OF
MARCH 9, 1945, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS BROADLY TO GIVE SUPPORT TO THE
EXISTING AND FUTURE STATE SYSTEMS FOR REGULATING AND TAXING THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE.  PP. 427-433. 

5.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER COMMERCE IS NOT RESTRICTED, EXCEPT AS
THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY PROVIDES, BY ANY LIMITATION WHICH FORBIDS IT
TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN FAVOR OF LOCAL
TRADE.  P. 434. 

6.  IF AUTHORITY OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS EXERCISED BY CONGRESS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATES, THEIR JOINT ACTION IS LIMITED ONLY BY
THOSE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH FORBID ACTION ALTOGETHER BY
ANY POWER OR COMBINATION OF POWERS IN OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM.  P.
434. 

7.  IN VALIDATING THE STATE TAX HERE INVOLVED, THE ACT OF MARCH 9,
1945, IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT; NOR OF THE FIRST CLAUSE OF ART. I, SEC. 8, REQUIRING THAT
"ALL DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES"; NOR OF ART. I, SEC. 1, CONFERRING THE LEGISLATIVE POWER ON
CONGRESS; NOR OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 437-439. 

8.  AS HERE CONSTRUED, THE ACT OF MARCH 9, 1945, DOES NOT INVOLVE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION BY CONGRESS OF ITS POWER TO THE STATES.  P.
439. 

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. BENJAMIN, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

BY AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF A
STATE STATUTE WHICH IMPOSED A TAX UPON FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES. 
THE STATE COURT UPHELD THE TAX, 207 S.C. 324, 35 S.E.2D 586, AND AN
APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT.  AFFIRMED, P. 440. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE AND ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, POST, P. 440, BRING NOT
UNEXPECTED SEQUELS TO UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS
ASSN., 322 U.S. 533.  IN CYCLE REMINISCENT CONVERSELY OF VIEWS ADVANCED
THERE AND IN PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, CLAIMS ARE PUT FORWARD ON
THE BASIS OF THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION TO SUSTAIN IMMUNITY FROM STATE
TAXATION AND, IN THE ROBERTSON CASE, FROM STATE REGULATION OF THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE. 

THE SPECIFIC EFFECT ASSERTED IN THIS CASE IS THAT SOUTH CAROLINA NO
LONGER CAN COLLECT TAXES FROM PRUDENTIAL, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION,
WHICH FOR YEARS PRIOR TO 1945 THE STATE HAD LEVIED AND THE COMPANY HAD
PAID.  THE TAX IS LAID ON FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES AND MUST BE PAID
ANNUALLY AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO
CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE WITHIN THE STATE.  THE EXACTION
AMOUNTS TO THREE PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE OF PREMIUMS RECEIVED FROM
BUSINESS DONE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS INTERSTATE OR
LOCAL CHARACTER.  FN1  NO SIMILAR TAX IS REQUIRED OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CORPORATIONS.  FN2 

PRUDENTIAL INSISTS THAT THE TAX DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND IN FAVOR OF LOCAL BUSINESS, SINCE IT IS LAID ONLY ON
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND IS MEASURED BY THEIR GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
PREMIUMS DERIVED FROM BUSINESS DONE IN THE STATE, REGARDLESS OF ITS
INTERSTATE OR LOCAL CHARACTER.  ACCORDINGLY IT SAYS THE TAX CANNOT
STAND CONSISTENTLY WITH MANY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT OUTLAWING STATE
TAXES WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN3  SOUTH
CAROLINA DENIES THAT THE TAX IS DISCRIMINATORY  FN4  OR HAS BEEN
AFFECTED BY THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION.  BUT IN ANY EVENT IT MAINTAINS
THAT THE TAX IS VALID, MORE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE MCCARRAN ACT,
FN5  BY WHICH IT IS CLAIMED CONGRESS HAS CONSENTED TO CONTINUANCE OF
THIS FORM OF TAXATION AND THUS HAS REMOVED ANY POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTION WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT EXIST.  THIS PRUDENTIAL ASSERTS
CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE AND COULD NOT DO. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THE CONTINUED EXACTION OF THE TAX
NOT TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR AFFECTED BY THE RULING
MADE IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN CASE.  207 S.C. 324, 35 S.E.2D 586.  THAT
HOLDING PRESENTS THE PRINCIPAL BASIS FOR THIS APPEAL. 

                                  I. 

THE VERSATILITY WITH WHICH ARGUMENT INVERTS STATE AND NATIONAL POWER,
EACH IN ALTERNATION TO WARD OFF THE OTHER'S INCIDENCE,  FN6  IS NOT
SIMPLY A PRODUCT OF PROTECTIVE SELF-INTEREST.  IT IS A RECURRING
MANIFESTATION OF THE CONTINUING NECESSITY IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM FOR
ACCOMMODATING THE TWO GREAT BASIC POWERS IT COMPREHENDS.  FOR THIS
COURT'S PART, FROM GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, NO PHASE OF THAT
PROCESS HAS BEEN MORE CONTINUOUS OR AT TIMES PERPLEXING THAN
RECONCILING THE PARAMOUNT NATIONAL AUTHORITY OVER COMMERCE, CREATED BY
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WITH APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE
STATES' RESERVED POWERS TOUCHING THE SAME OR RELATED SUBJECT MATTER. 
FN7 

THE CONTINUING ADJUSTMENT HAS FILLED MANY OF THE GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL
GAPS OF MARSHALL'S TIME AND LATER.  FN8  BUT NOT ALL OF THE FILLING HAS
BEEN LASTING.  GREAT EMPHASES OF NATIONAL POLICY SWINGING BETWEEN
NATION AND STATES IN HISTORIC CONFLICTS HAVE BEEN REFLECTED, VARIOUSLY
AND FROM TIME TO TIME, IN PREMISE AND THEREFORE IN CONCLUSION OF
PARTICULAR DISPOSITIONS.  FN9  IN TURN, THEIR SUM HAS SHIFTED AND
RESHIFTED THE GENERAL BALANCE OF AUTHORITY, INEVITABLY PRODUCING SOME
ANOMALY OF LOGIC AND OF RESULT IN THE DECISIONS. 

NO PHASE HAS HAD A MORE ATYPICAL HISTORY THAN REGULATION OF THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE.  THIS FACT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE PROBLEMS NOW
PRESENTED.  THEY HAVE ORIGIN IN THAT HISTORY.  THEIR SOLUTION CANNOT
ESCAPE ITS INFLUENCE.  MOREOVER, IN LAW AS IN OTHER PHASES OF LIVING,
RECONCILIATION OF ANOMALOUS BEHAVIOR, LONG CONTINUED, WITH MORE NORMAL
ATTITUDES IS NOT ALWAYS EASY, WHEN THE TIME FOR THAT ADJUSTMENT COMES. 

ESSENTIALLY THE PROBLEMS THESE CASES TENDER ARE OF THAT CHARACTER. 
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RENEW THE CONTROVERSY PRESENTED IN SOUTH
EASTERN.  WHETHER OR NOT THAT DECISION PROPERLY HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED
AS "PRECEDENT-SMASHING," N10 THERE WAS A REORIENTATION OF ATTITUDES
TOWARD FEDERAL POWER IN ITS RELATION TO THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE
CONDUCTED ACROSS STATE LINES.  NECESSARILY THIS WORKED IN TWO
DIRECTIONS.  AS THE OPINION WAS AT PAINS TO NOTE, 322 U.S. 533, 545
FF., NO DECISION PREVIOUSLY HAD HELD INVALID AN ACT OF CONGRESS ON THE
GROUND THAT SUCH BUSINESS WAS BEYOND REACH OF ITS POWER, BECAUSE
PREVIOUSLY NO ATTEMPTED EXERCISE OF THAT AUTHORITY HAD BEEN BROUGHT
HERE IN LITIGATION.  BUT FROM PAUL V. VIRGINIA TO NEW YORK LIFE INS.
CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495, NEGATIVE IMPLICATION FROM THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS HELD NOT TO PLACE ANY LIMITATION UPON STATE POWER
OVER THE BUSINESS, HOWEVER CONDUCTED WITH REFERENCE TO STATE LINES. 
AND CORRELATIVELY THIS WAS TAKEN WIDELY, ALTHOUGH NOT UNIVERSALLY, TO
NULLIFY FEDERAL AUTHORITY UNTIL THE QUESTION WAS SQUARELY PRESENTED AND
ANSWERED OTHERWISE IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN CASE. 

WHETHER PAUL V. VIRGINIA REPRESENTED IN ITS DAY AN ACCOMMODATION WITH
OR A DEPARTURE FROM THE PREEXISTING EVOLUTION OF COMMERCE CLAUSE LAW
AND WHETHER ITS RULING, TOGETHER WITH LATER ONES ADHERING TO IT,
REMAINED CONSONANT WITH THE SUBSEQUENT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THAT LAW,
MAY STILL BE DEBATED.  BUT ALL MAY CONCEDE THAT THE PAUL CASE CREATED
FOR THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE A SPECIAL, IF NOT A WHOLLY UNIQUE, WAY OF
THINKING AND ACTING IN THE REGULATION OF BUSINESS DONE ACROSS STATE
LINES.  SEE RIBBLE, STATE AND NATIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE (1937) 89,
186-187.  THE AEGIS OF FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER CONTINUED TO SPREAD OVER
AND ENFOLD OTHER BUSINESS SO CONDUCTED, IN BOTH GENERAL AND SPECIFIC
LEGISLATIVE EXERTIONS.  USUALLY THIS WAS WITH JUDICIAL APPROVAL; AND,
DESPITE NOTABLE INSTANCES OF INITIAL HOSTILITY, THE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL
LIMITATION OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE, WHEN EXERCISED
AFFIRMATIVELY, HAS BEEN MORE LARGELY ONE OF RETREAT THAN OF ULTIMATE
VICTORY.  FN11  THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE GRANT HAVE MADE COURTS CAUTIOUS,
EXCEPT POSSIBLY IN SOME OF THE INSTANCES NOTED, ABOUT NULLIFYING
POSITIVE EXERTIONS OF CONGRESS' POWER OVER THIS BROAD AND HARD TO
DEFINE FIELD.  AT THE SAME TIME, PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE IN THE
WAY COMMERCE IS CARRIED ON HAS CALLED FORTH A CONSTANTLY INCREASING
VOLUME OF LEGISLATION EXERCISING THAT POWER.  FN12 

CONCURRENTLY WITH THIS GENERAL EXPANSION, HOWEVER, FROM PAUL TO SOUTH
EASTERN THE STATES TOOK OVER EXCLUSIVELY THE FUNCTION OF REGULATING THE
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN ITS SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE MANIFESTATIONS. 
CONGRESS LEGISLATED ONLY IN TERMS APPLICABLE TO COMMERCE GENERALLY,
WITHOUT PARTICULARIZED REFERENCE TO INSURANCE.  AT THE SAME TIME, ON
THE RATIONALIZATION THAT INSURANCE WAS NOT COMMERCE, YET WAS BUSINESS
AFFECTED WITH A VAST PUBLIC INTEREST,  FN13  THE STATES DEVELOPED
COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY AND TAXING SYSTEMS.  AND LITIGATION OF THEIR
VALIDITY CAME TO BE FREED OF COMMERCE CLAUSE OBJECTIONS, AT ANY RATE
FROM DEER LODGE ON TO SOUTH-EASTERN.  DUE PROCESS IN ITS JURISDICTIONAL
ASPECTS REMAINED TO CONFINE THE REACH OF STATE POWER IN RELATION TO
BUSINESS AFFECTING OTHER STATES.  FN14  BUT THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS
OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAME IRRELEVANT, AS SUCH, FOR THE VALID
EXERCISE OF STATE REGULATORY AND TAXING AUTHORITY. 

MEANWHILE THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE EXPERIENCED A NATION-WIDE
EXPANSION GRAPHICALLY DEPICTED NOT ONLY IN THE FACTS OF THE SITUATION
PRESENTED IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN CASE BUT ALSO IN THE OPERATIONS OF
PRUDENTIAL AS DESCRIBED BY ITS ADVOCATES IN THIS CAUSE.  FN15  THESE
DIVERGENT FACTS, LEGAL AND ECONOMIC, NECESSARILY WERE REFLECTED IN
STATE LEGISLATION.  STATES GRAPPLING WITH NATION-WIDE, BUT NATIONALLY
UNREGULATED, BUSINESS INEVITABLY EXERTED THEIR POWERS TO LIMITS AND IN
WAYS NOT SOUGHT GENERALLY TO BE APPLIED TO OTHER BUSINESS HELD TO BE
WITHIN THE REACH OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE'S IMPLIED PROHIBITION.  OBVIOUS
AND WIDESPREAD EXAMPLES ARE FURNISHED IN BROAD AND DETAILED LICENSING
PROVISIONS, FOR THE DOING OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATES, AND IN
CONNECTED OR DISTINCT TAXING MEASURES DRAWN IN APPARENT RELIANCE UPON
FREEDOM FROM COMMERCE CLAUSE LIMITATIONS.  FN16 

NOW WE ARE TOLD MANY OF THESE STATUTES NO LONGER CAN STAND.  THE
PROCESS OF READJUSTMENT BEGAN AFFIRMATIVELY WITH SOUTH-EASTERN.  SINCE
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS A TWOEDGED INSTRUMENT, THE INDICATED NEXT STEP,
INDEED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED ONE, AS THE ARGUMENT RUNS, IS TO
APPLY ITS NEGATIVELY CUTTING EDGE.  CONCEPTIONS SO DEVELOPED WITH
REFERENCE TO OTHER COMMERCE MUST NOW BE EXTENDED TO THE COMMERCE OF
INSURANCE IN COMPLETION OF THE READJUSTMENT.  THIS, IT IS CONFIDENTLY
ASSERTED, WILL REQUIRE STRIKING DOWN MUCH OF THE STATE LEGISLATION
ENACTED AND EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION. 
PARTICULARLY WILL THIS BE TRUE OF ALL DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXES, OF
WHICH IT IS SAID SOUTH CAROLINA'S IS ONE.  MOREOVER, THOSE RESULTS MUST
FOLLOW REGARDLESS OF THE MCCARRAN ACT'S PROVISIONS.  FOR BY THAT ACT,
IN PRUDENTIAL'S ASSESSMENT, CONGRESS NEITHER INTENDED TO, NOR COULD,
VALIDATE SUCH TAXES. 

IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THE ATTACK IS THUS BROAD.  WHEN A DECISION
IS CONCEIVED AS PRECEDENT-SMASHING, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, THE
CONCEPTION'S INVITATION MAY BE TO GREATER BACKTRACKING THAN IS
JUSTIFIED, IN SPITE OF WARNING TO PROCEED WITH CARE.  322 U.S. 533, 547
FF. 

PRUDENTIAL'S MISCONCEPTION RELATES NOT TO THE NECESSITY FOR APPLYING,
BUT TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE NEGATIVE FUNCTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  IT IS NOT THE SIMPLE, CLEAN-CUTTING TOOL SUPPOSED.  NOR IS ITS
SWATH ALWAYS CORRELATIVE WITH THAT CUT BY THE AFFIRMATIVE EDGE, AS
SEEMS TO BE ASSUMED.  FOR CLEANLY AS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS WORKED
AFFIRMATIVELY ON THE WHOLE, ITS IMPLIED NEGATIVE OPERATION ON STATE
POWER HAS BEEN UNEVEN, AT TIMES HIGHLY VARIABLE.  MORE OFTEN THAN NOT,
IN MATTERS MORE GOVERNABLE BY LOGIC AND LESS BY EXPERIENCE, THE
BUSINESS OF NEGATIVE IMPLICATION IS SLIPPERY.  INTO WHAT IS THUS LEFT
OPEN FOR INFERENCE TO FILL, DIVERGENT IDEAS OF MEANING MAY BE READ MUCH
MORE READILY THAN INTO WHAT HAS BEEN MADE EXPLICIT BY AFFIRMATION. 
THAT POSSIBILITY IS BROADENED IMMEASURABLY WHEN NOT LOGIC ALONE, BUT
LARGE CHOICES OF POLICY, AFFECTED IN THIS INSTANCE BY EVOLVING
EXPERIENCE OF FEDERALISM, CONTROL IN GIVING CONTENT TO THE IMPLIED
NEGATION.  IN ALL OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY THIS HAS BECOME NO MORE
APPARENT THAN IN COMMERCE CLAUSE DISPOSITIONS. 

THAT THE CLAUSE IMPOSES SOME RESTRAINT UPON STATE POWER HAS NEVER
BEEN DOUBTED.  FOR OTHERWISE THE GRANT OF POWER TO CONGRESS WOULD BE
WHOLLY INEFFECTIVE.  BUT THE LIMITATION NOT ONLY IS IMPLIED.  IT IS
OPEN TO DIFFERENT IMPLICATIONS OF MEANING.  AND THIS ACCOUNTS LARGELY
FOR VARIATIONS IN THIS FIELD CONTINUING ALMOST FROM THE BEGINNING UNTIL
NOW.  FN17  THEY STARTED WITH MARSHALL AND TANEY, WENT FORWARD FROM
WAITE TO FULLER, AND HAVE BEEN PROJECTED IN LATER DIFFERENCES PERHAPS
LESS BROAD, BUT HARDLY LESS CONTROVERSIAL.  FN18  CONSEQUENTLY IN ITS
PROHIBITIVE, AS IN ITS AFFIRMATIVE OR ENABLING, EFFECTS THE HISTORY OF
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS BEEN ONE OF VERY CONSIDERABLE JUDICIAL
OSCILLATION. 

MOREOVER, THE PARALLEL ENCOMPASSES THE LATEST TURN IN THE LONG-RUN
TREND.  FOR, CONCURRENTLY WITH THE BROADENING OF THE SCOPE FOR
PERMISSIBLE APPLICATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY,  FN19  THE TENDENCY ALSO
HAS RUN TOWARD SUSTAINING STATE REGULATORY AND TAXING MEASURES FORMERLY
REGARDED AS INCONSONANT WITH CONGRESS' UNEXERCISED POWER OVER COMMERCE
N20, AND TO DOING SO BY A NEW, OR RENEWED, EMPHASIS ON FACTS AND
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS RATHER THAN DOGMATIC LOGISTIC.  FN21 THESE
FACTS ARE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE FOR DISPOSING OF SUCH CONTROVERSIES.  FOR
IN EFFECT THEY HAVE TRANSFERRED THE GENERAL PROBLEM OF ADJUSTMENT TO A
LEVEL MORE TOLERANT OF BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION. 

II. 

WE ARE NOT REQUIRED HOWEVER TO CONSIDER WHETHER, ON THAT LEVEL, THE
AUTHORITIES ON WHICH PRUDENTIAL CHIEFLY RELIES WOULD REQUIRE
INVALIDATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S TAX.  FOR THEY ARE NOT IN POINT. 

AS HAS BEEN STATED, THEY ARE THE CASES WHICH FROM WELTON V. MISSOURI,
91 U.S. 275, UNTIL NOW HAVE OUTLAWED STATE TAXES FOUND TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE N22.  NO ONE OF THEM INVOLVED A SITUATION
LIKE THAT NOW HERE.  IN EACH THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF THE STATE
TAXING STATUTE AROSE WHEN CONGRESS' POWER LAY DORMANT.  IN NONE HAD
CONGRESS ACTED OR PURPORTED TO ACT, EITHER BY WAY OF CONSENTING TO THE
STATE'S TAX OR OTHERWISE.  THOSE CASES THEREFORE PRESENTED NO QUESTION
OF THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A TAX WHERE CONGRESS HAD TAKEN AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION CONSENTING TO IT OR PURPORTING TO GIVE IT VALIDITY.  NOR,
CONSEQUENTLY, COULD THEY STAND AS CONTROLLING PRECEDENTS FOR SUCH A
CASE.    THIS WOULD SEEM SO OBVIOUS AS HARDLY TO REQUIRE FURTHER
COMMENT, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT PRUDENTIAL HAS ARGUED SO EARNESTLY TO
THE CONTRARY.  ITS POSITION PUTS THE MCCARRAN ACT TO ONE SIDE, EITHER
AS NOT INTENDED TO HAVE EFFECT TOWARD VALIDATING THIS SORT OF TAX OR,
IF CONSTRUED OTHERWISE, AS CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE TO DO SO.
THOSE QUESTIONS PRESENT THE CONTROLLING ISSUES IN THIS CASE.  BUT
BEFORE WE TURN TO THEM IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO NOTE THE EXACT EFFECTS OF
PRUDENTIAL'S ARGUMENT. 

FUNDAMENTALLY IT MAINTAINS THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE "OF ITS OWN
FORCE" AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY ACTION BY CONGRESS, WHETHER THROUGH
ITS SILENCE  FN23  OR OTHERWISE, FORBIDS DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXATION
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS IS TO SAY, IN EFFECT, THAT NEITHER
CONGRESS ACTING AFFIRMATIVELY NOR CONGRESS AND THE STATES THUS ACTING
COORDINATELY CAN VALIDLY IMPOSE ANY REGULATION WHICH THE COURT HAS
FOUND OR WOULD FIND TO BE FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IF LAID
ONLY BY STATE ACTION TAKEN WHILE CONGRESS' POWER LIES DORMANT.  IN THIS
VIEW THE LIMITS OF STATE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE IN THE ABSENCE OF
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY CONGRESS ARE ALSO THE LIMITS OF CONGRESS'
PERMISSIBLE ACTION IN THIS RESPECT, WHETHER TAKEN ALONE OR IN
COORDINATION WITH STATE LEGISLATION. 

MERELY TO STATE THE POSITION IN THIS WAY COMPELS ITS REJECTION.  SO
CONCEIVED, CONGRESS' POWER OVER COMMERCE WOULD BE NULLIFIED TO A VERY
LARGE EXTENT.  FN24  FOR IN ALL THE VARIATIONS OF COMMERCE CLAUSE
THEORY IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE LAW THAT WHAT THE STATES MAY DO IN THE
REGULATION OF COMMERCE, CONGRESS BEING SILENT, IS THE FULL MEASURE OF
ITS POWER.  MUCH LESS HAS THIS BOUNDARY BEEN THOUGHT TO CONFINE WHAT
CONGRESS AND THE STATES ACTING TOGETHER MAY ACCOMPLISH.  SO TO REGARD
THE MATTER WOULD INVERT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT INTO A LIMITATION UPON
THE VERY POWER IT CONFERS. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS IN NO SENSE A LIMITATION UPON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS,
AS MARSHALL DECLARED IN GIBBONS V. OGDEN, A GRANT TO CONGRESS OF
PLENARY AND SUPREME AUTHORITY OVER THOSE SUBJECTS.  THE ONLY LIMITATION
IT PLACES UPON CONGRESS' POWER IS IN RESPECT TO WHAT CONSTITUTES
COMMERCE, INCLUDING WHATEVER RIGHTLY MAY BE FOUND TO AFFECT IT
SUFFICIENTLY TO MAKE CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE.  FN25 THIS LIMITATION, OF COURSE, IS ENTIRELY DISTINCT
FROM THE IMPLIED PROHIBITION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE ONE IS
CONCERNED WITH DEFINING COMMERCE, WITH FIXING THE OUTER BOUNDARY OF THE
FIELD OVER WHICH THE AUTHORITY GRANTED SHALL GOVERN.  THE OTHER RELATES
ONLY TO MATTERS WITHIN THE FIELD OF COMMERCE, ONCE THIS IS DEFINED,
INCLUDING WHATEVER MAY FALL WITHIN THE "AFFECTATION" DOCTRINE.  THE ONE
LIMITATION BOUNDS THE POWER OF CONGRESS.  THE OTHER CONFINES ONLY THE
POWERS OF THE STATES.  AND THE TWO AREAS ARE NOT COEXTENSIVE.  THE
DISTINCTION IS NOT ALWAYS CLEARLY OBSERVED, FOR BOTH QUESTIONS MAY AND
INDEED AT TIMES DO ARISE IN THE SAME CASE AND IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIP. 
FN26  BUT TO BLUR THEM AND THEREBY EQUATE THE IMPLIED PROHIBITION WITH
THE AFFIRMATIVE ENDOWMENT IS ALTOGETHER FALLACIOUS.  THERE IS NO SUCH
EQUIVALENCE. 

THIS APPEARS MOST OBVIOUSLY PERHAPS IN THE CASES MOST IMPORTANT FOR
THE DECISION IN THIS CAUSE.  THEY ARE THE ONES INVOLVING SITUATIONS
WHERE THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS OR THE DORMANCY OF ITS POWER HAS BEEN
TAKEN JUDICIALLY, ON ONE VIEW OR ANOTHER OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECTS,
FN27  AS FORBIDDING STATE ACTION, ONLY TO HAVE CONGRESS LATER DISCLAIM
THE PROHIBITION OR UNDERTAKE TO NULLIFY IT.  FN28  NOT YET HAS THIS
COURT HELD SUCH A DISCLAIMER INVALID OR THAT STATE ACTION SUPPORTED BY
IT COULD NOT STAND.  ON THE CONTRARY, IN EACH INSTANCE IT HAS GIVEN
EFFECT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL JUDGMENT CONTRADICTING ITS OWN PREVIOUS
ONE.  FN29 

IT IS TRUE THAT RATIONALIZATIONS HAVE DIFFERED CONCERNING THOSE
DECISIONS,  FN30 INDEED ALSO THAT THE JUDGES PARTICIPATING IN THEM
DIFFERED IN THIS RESPECT.  FN31  BUT THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN LASTING AND
ARE AT LEAST AS IMPORTANT, FOR THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE PROCESS OF
ACCOMMODATING FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY, AS THE REASONS STATED FOR
REACHING THEM.  NONE OF THE DECISIONS CONCEDED, BECAUSE NONE INVOLVED
ANY QUESTION OF, THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO MAKE CONCLUSIVE ITS OWN
MANDATE CONCERNING WHAT IS COMMERCE.  BUT APART FROM THAT FUNCTION OF
DEFINING THE OUTER BOUNDARY OF ITS POWER, WHENEVER CONGRESS' JUDGMENT
HAS BEEN UTTERED AFFIRMATIVELY TO CONTRADICT THE COURT'S PREVIOUSLY
EXPRESSED VIEW THAT SPECIFIC ACTION TAKEN BY THE STATES IN CONGRESS'
SILENCE WAS FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THIS BODY HAS
ACCOMMODATED ITS PREVIOUS JUDGMENT TO CONGRESS' EXPRESSED APPROVAL. 

SOME PART OF THIS READJUSTMENT MAY BE EXPLAINED IN WAYS ACCEPTABLE ON
ANY THEORY OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE RELATIONS OF CONGRESS AND THE
COURTS TOWARD ITS FUNCTIONING.  FN32  SUCH EXPLANATIONS, HOWEVER,
HARDLY GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER.  FOR THE FACT REMAINS THAT, IN
THESE INSTANCES, THE SUSTAINING OF CONGRESS' OVERRIDING ACTION HAS
INVOLVED SOMETHING BEYOND CORRECTION OF ERRONEOUS FACTUAL JUDGMENT IN
DEFERENCE TO CONGRESS' PRESUMABLY BETTERINFORMED VIEW OF THE FACTS,
FN33  AND ALSO BEYOND GIVING DUE DEFERENCE TO ITS CONCEPTION OF THE
SCOPE OF ITS POWERS, WHEN IT REPUDIATES, JUST AS WHEN ITS SILENCE IS
THOUGHT TO SUPPORT, THE INFERENCE THAT IT HAS FORBIDDEN STATE ACTION. 
FN34 

PRUDENTIAL HAS NOT SQUARELY MET THIS FACT.  FIXED WITH THE SENSE OF
APPLICABILITY OF THE WELTON OR SHELBY COUNTY LINE OF CASES, IT RATHER
HAS POSED AN ENIGMA FOR THE BEARING OF THE BRIDGE AND LIQUOR CASES UPON
THE DECISION TO BE MADE.  IT IS, IF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE "BY ITS OWN
FORCE" FORBIDS DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXATION, OR OTHER MEASURES, HOW IS
IT THAT CONGRESS BY EXPRESSLY CONSENTING CAN GIVE THAT ACTION
VALIDITY? 

THE ANSWER NEED NOT BE LABORED.  PRUDENTIAL IN THIS CASE MAKES NO
CONTENTION THAT COMMERCE IS NOT INVOLVED.  ITS ARGUMENT IS EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE.  ITS CONTENTION FOUNDED ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS ONE WHOLLY
OF IMPLIED PROHIBITION WITHIN THE FIELD OF COMMERCE. 

THIS IT REGARDS AS OPERATIVE NOT ONLY IN CONGRESS' SILENCE, BUT IN
THE FACE OF ITS POSITIVE EXPRESSION BY THE MCCARRAN ACT THAT THE
CONTINUED REGULATION AND TAXATION BY THE STATES OF THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE IS IN ACCORD WITH CONGRESS' POLICY.  THAT EXPRESSION RAISES
QUESTIONS CONCERNING ITS OWN VALIDITY AND ALSO CONCERNING WHETHER THE
POLICY STATED EXTENDS TO THE KIND OF STATE LEGISLATION WHICH IS
IMMEDIATELY IN ISSUE.  BUT THOSE QUESTIONS ARE NOT ANSWERED, AS
PRUDENTIAL SEEKS TO HAVE THEM ANSWERED, BY ANY CONCEPTION THAT
CONGRESS' DECLARATION OF POLICY ADDS NOTHING TO THE VALIDITY OF WHAT
THE STATES HAVE DONE WITHIN THE AREA COVERED BY THE DECLARATION OR, IN
OTHER WORDS, THAT IT IS MERE BRUTUM FULMEN.  FOR TO DO THIS NOT ONLY
WOULD PRODUCE INTOLERABLE CONSEQUENCES FOR RESTRICTING CONGRESS'
POWER.  IT WOULD IGNORE THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH THE SECOND WHEELING
BRIDGE CASE AND INDEED THE CLARK DISTILLING CASE HAVE SET THE PATTERN
OF THE LAW FOR GOVERNING SITUATIONS LIKE THAT NOW PRESENTED.  FN35
ACCORDINGLY WE TURN TO THE ISSUES WHICH ARE MORE ALIVE AND SIGNIFICANT
FOR THE FUTURE. 

                                 III. 

IN CONSIDERING THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE MCCARRAN ACT AND THE QUESTION
OF ITS APPLICABILITY, GROUND MAY BE CLEARED BY PUTTING ASIDE SOME
MATTERS STRENUOUSLY ARGUED IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND HERE.  FIRST,
IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID THAT WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
DETERMINE WHETHER SOUTH CAROLINA'S TAX WOULD BE VALID IN THE DORMANCY
OF CONGRESS' POWER.  FOR CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY STATED ITS INTENT AND
POLICY IN THE ACT.  AND, FOR REASONS TO BE STATED, WE THINK THAT THE
DECLARATION'S EFFECT IS CLEARLY TO SUSTAIN THE EXACTION AND THAT THIS
CAN BE DONE WITHOUT VIOLATING ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 

BY THE SAME TOKEN, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE TAX, IF OPERATIVE
IN CONGRESS' UNILLUMINATED SILENCE, WOULD BE DISCRIMINATORY IN THE
SENSE OF AN EXACTION FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AS PRUDENTIAL
CATEGORICALLY ASSERTS, OR NOT SO, AS SOUTH CAROLINA MAINTAINS WITH
EQUAL CERTITUDE.  MUCH ATTENTION HAS BEEN GIVEN BOTH HERE AND IN THE
STATE COURT TO THESE QUESTIONS.  BUT IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE
THE CONTROLLING ISSUES UNDERCUT THEM.  NOR DO WE DETERMINE, AS
PRUDENTIAL'S ARGUMENT SEEMS TO SUBSUME, WHETHER ALL OF ITS BUSINESS
DONE IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND AFFECTED BY THE TAX SHOULD BE REGARDED AS
CONSTITUTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO AS TO FALL WITHIN THE "IN COMMERCE"
CLASSIFICATION OR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME OF IT MAY PROPERLY BE
CONSIDERED AS BEING ONLY LOCAL OR INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  FN36  THESE
QUESTIONS WE PUT TO ONE SIDE.  AND FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE ASSUME THAT
THE TAX WOULD BE DISCRIMINATORY IN THE SENSE OF PRUDENTIAL'S CONTENTION
AND THAT ALL OF ITS BUSINESS DONE IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND AFFECTED BY THE
TAX IS DONE "IN" OR AS A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SPEND MUCH TIME WITH INTERPRETING THE MCCARRAN
ACT.  PERTINENTLY IT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"...  THE CONGRESS HEREBY DECLARES THAT THE CONTINUED REGULATION AND
TAXATION BY THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THAT SILENCE ON THE PART OF THE CONGRESS SHALL NOT
BE CONSTRUED TO IMPOSE ANY BARRIER TO THE REGULATION OR TAXATION OF
SUCH BUSINESS BY THE SEVERAL STATES. 

"SEC. 2.  (A)  THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE, AND EVERY PERSON ENGAGED
THEREIN, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES WHICH
RELATE TO THE REGULATION OR TAXATION OF SUCH BUSINESS. 

"(B) NO ACT OF CONGRESS SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO INVALIDATE, IMPAIR, OR
SUPERSEDE ANY LAW ENACTED BY ANY STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING
THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE, OR WHICH IMPOSES A FEE OR TAX UPON SUCH
BUSINESS, UNLESS SUCH ACT SPECIFICALLY RELATES TO THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE  ..."  59 STAT. 33, 34; 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1011-1015.  FN37 

OBVIOUSLY CONGRESS' PURPOSE WAS BROADLY TO GIVE SUPPORT TO THE
EXISTING AND FUTURE STATE SYSTEMS FOR REGULATING AND TAXING THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE.  THIS WAS DONE IN TWO WAYS.  ONE WAS BY REMOVING
OBSTRUCTIONS WHICH MIGHT BE THOUGHT TO FLOW FROM ITS OWN POWER, WHETHER
DORMANT OR EXERCISED, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THE ACT
ITSELF OR IN FUTURE LEGISLATION.  FN38  THE OTHER WAS BY DECLARING
EXPRESSLY AND AFFIRMATIVELY THAT CONTINUED STATE REGULATION AND
TAXATION OF THIS BUSINESS IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT THE
BUSINESS AND ALL WHO ENGAGE IN IT "SHALL BE SUBJECT TO" THE LAWS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES IN THESE RESPECTS. 

MOREOVER, IN TAKING THIS ACTION CONGRESS MUST HAVE HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE
OF THE NATION-WIDE EXISTENCE OF STATE SYSTEMS OF REGULATION AND
TAXATION; OF THE FACT THAT THEY DIFFER GREATLY IN THE SCOPE AND
CHARACTER OF THE REGULATIONS IMPOSED AND OF THE TAXES EXACTED; AND OF
THE FURTHER FACT THAT MANY, IF NOT ALL, INCLUDE FEATURES WHICH, TO SOME
EXTENT, HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED GENERALLY TO OTHER INTERSTATE BUSINESS. 
CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNACQUAINTED WITH THESE FACTS AND ITS
PURPOSE WAS EVIDENTLY TO THROW THE WHOLE WEIGHT OF ITS POWER BEHIND THE
STATE SYSTEMS, NOTWITHSTANDING THESE VARIATIONS. 

IT WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE NOW TO INQUIRE WHETHER OR HOW FAR
THIS EFFORT WAS NECESSARY, IN VIEW OF THE EXPLICIT RESERVATIONS MADE IN
THE MAJORITY OPINION IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN CASE.  NOR IS IT NECESSARY TO
CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS, BY ENACTING THE MCCARRAN ACT, SOUGHT TO
VALIDATE EVERY EXISTING STATE REGULATION OR TAX.  FOR IN ALL THAT MASS
OF LEGISLATION MUST HAVE LAIN SOME PROVISIONS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
SUBJECT TO SERIOUS QUESTION ON THE SCORE OF OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS IN ADDITION TO COMMERCE CLAUSE OBJECTIONS ARISING IN THE
DORMANCY OF CONGRESS' POWER.  AND WE AGREE WITH PRUDENTIAL THAT THERE
CAN BE NO INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO CIRCUMVENT CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS UPON ITS OWN POWER. 

BUT, THOUGH CONGRESS HAD NO PURPOSE TO VALIDATE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS OF STATE LAWS, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF
GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO DO THIS BY REMOVING OBSTACLES TO STATE
ACTION ARISING FROM ITS OWN ACTION OR BY CONSENTING TO SUCH LAWS, H.
REP. NO. 143, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3, IT CLEARLY PUT THE FULL
WEIGHT OF ITS POWER BEHIND EXISTING AND FUTURE STATE LEGISLATION TO
SUSTAIN IT FROM ANY ATTACK UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO WHATEVER EXTENT
THIS MAY BE DONE WITH THE FORCE OF THAT POWER BEHIND IT, SUBJECT ONLY
TO THE EXCEPTIONS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR. 

TWO CONCLUSIONS, COROLLARY IN CHARACTER AND IMPORTANT FOR THIS CASE,
MUST BE DRAWN FROM CONGRESS' ACTION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT
WAS TAKEN.  ONE IS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO DECLARE, AND IN EFFECT
DECLARED, THAT UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION, AND OF STATE TAXATION,  FN39
ARE NOT REQUIRED IN REFERENCE TO THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE BY THE
NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST, EXCEPT IN THE SPECIFIC RESPECTS OTHERWISE
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR.  THIS NECESSARILY WAS A DETERMINATION BY
CONGRESS THAT STATE TAXES, WHICH IN ITS SILENCE MIGHT BE HELD INVALID
AS DISCRIMINATORY, DO NOT PLACE ON INTERSTATE INSURANCE BUSINESS A
BURDEN WHICH IT IS UNABLE GENERALLY TO BEAR OR SHOULD NOT BEAR IN THE
COMPETITION WITH LOCAL BUSINESS.  SUCH TAXES WERE NOT UNCOMMON AMONG
THE STATES,  FN40 AND THE STATUTE CLEARLY INCLUDED SOUTH CAROLINA'S TAX
NOW IN ISSUE. 

THAT JUDGMENT WAS ONE OF POLICY AND REFLECTED LONG AND CLEAR
EXPERIENCE.  FOR, NOTWITHSTANDING THE LONG INCIDENCE OF THE TAX AND ITS
PAYMENT BY PRUDENTIAL WITHOUT QUESTION PRIOR TO THE SOUTH-EASTERN
DECISION, THE RECORD OF PRUDENTIAL'S CONTINUOUS SUCCESS IN SOUTH
CAROLINA OVER DECADES  FN41  REFUTES ANY IDEA THAT PAYMENT OF THE TAX
HANDICAPPED IT IN ANY WAY TENDING TO EXCLUDE IT FROM COMPETITION WITH
LOCAL BUSINESS OR WITH DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANIES.  INDEED PRUDENTIAL
MAKES NO CONTRARY CONTENTION ON ANY FACTUAL BASIS, NOR COULD IT WELL DO
SO.  FOR THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION DID NOT, AND COULD NOT, WIPE OUT
ALL THIS EXPERIENCE OR ITS WEIGHT FOR BEARING, AS A MATTER OF THE
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM OPERATION OF THE TAX, UPON THAT
QUESTION.  ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, POST, P. 440.    CONSEQUENTLY
PRUDENTIAL'S CASE FOR DISCRIMINATION MUST REST UPON THE IDEA EITHER
THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBIDS THE STATE TO EXACT MORE FROM IT IN
TAXES THAN FROM PURELY LOCAL BUSINESS; OR THAT THE TAX IS SOMEHOW
TECHNICALLY OF AN INHERENTLY DISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER OR POSSIBLY OF A
TYPE WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE OR SERIOUSLY HANDICAP NEW ENTRANTS SEEKING TO
ESTABLISH THEMSELVES IN SOUTH CAROLINA.  AS TO EACH OF THESE GROUNDS,
MOREOVER, THE ARGUMENT SUBSUMES THAT CONGRESS' CONTRARY JUDGMENT, AS A
MATTER OF POLICY RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE, EITHER "OF ITS OWN FORCE" ALONE OR AS OPERATIVE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH AND TO SUSTAIN THE STATE'S POLICY. 

                                 IV. 

IN VIEW OF ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WE WOULD BE GOING VERY FAR TO
RULE THAT SOUTH CAROLINA NO LONGER MAY COLLECT HER TAX.  TO DO SO WOULD
FLOUT THE EXPRESSLY DECLARED POLICIES OF BOTH CONGRESS AND THE STATE. 
MOREOVER IT WOULD ESTABLISH A RULING NEVER HERETOFORE MADE AND IN DOING
THIS WOULD DEPART FROM THE WHOLE TREND OF DECISION IN A GREAT VARIETY
OF SITUATIONS MOST ANALOGOUS TO THE ONE NOW PRESENTED.  FOR, AS WE HAVE
ALREADY EMPHASIZED, THE AUTHORITIES MOST CLOSELY IN POINT UPON THE
PROBLEM ARE NOT, AS APPELLANT INSISTS, THOSE RELATING TO DISCRIMINATORY
STATE TAXES LAID IN THE DORMANCY OF CONGRESS' POWER.  THEY ARE RATHER
THE DECISIONS WHICH, IN EVERY INSTANCE THUS FAR NOT LATER OVERTURNED,
FN42 HAVE SUSTAINED COORDINATED ACTION TAKEN BY CONGRESS AND THE STATES
IN THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE.  FN43 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER COMMERCE EXERCISED ENTIRELY WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO COORDINATED ACTION OF THE STATES IS NOT RESTRICTED, EXCEPT
AS THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY PROVIDES,  FN44  BY ANY LIMITATION WHICH
FORBIDS IT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN FAVOR OF
LOCAL TRADE.  ITS PLENARY SCOPE ENABLES CONGRESS NOT ONLY TO PROMOTE
BUT ALSO TO PROHIBIT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS IT HAS DONE FREQUENTLY AND
FOR A GREAT VARIETY OF REASONS.  FN45  THAT POWER DOES NOT RUN DOWN A
ONE-WAY STREET OR ONE OF NARROWLY FIXED DIMENSIONS.  CONGRESS MAY KEEP
THE WAY OPEN, CONFINE IT BROADLY OR CLOSELY, OR CLOSE IT ENTIRELY,
SUBJECT ONLY TO THE RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON ITS AUTHORITY BY OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT SHALL NOT INVADE
THE DOMAINS OF ACTION RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE STATES. 

THIS BROAD AUTHORITY CONGRESS MAY EXERCISE ALONE, SUBJECT TO THOSE
LIMITATIONS, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH COORDINATED ACTION BY THE STATES,
FN46  IN WHICH CASE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THEIR
POWERS BECOME INOPERATIVE AND ONLY THOSE DESIGNED TO FORBID ACTION
ALTOGETHER BY ANY POWER OR COMBINATION OF POWERS IN OUR GOVERNMENTAL
SYSTEM REMAIN EFFECTIVE.  FN47  HERE BOTH CONGRESS AND SOUTH CAROLINA
HAVE ACTED, AND IN COMPLETE COORDINATION, TO SUSTAIN THE TAX.  IT IS
THEREFORE REINFORCED BY THE EXERCISE OF ALL THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT
RESIDING IN OUR SCHEME.  FN48  CLEAR AND GROSS MUST BE THE EVIL WHICH
WOULD NULLIFY SUCH AN EXERTION, ONE WHICH COULD ARISE ONLY BY EXCEEDING
BEYOND CAVIL SOME EXPLICIT AND COMPELLING LIMITATION IMPOSED BY A
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OR PROVISIONS DESIGNED AND INTENDED TO OUTLAW
THE ACTION TAKEN ENTIRELY FROM OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK. 

IN THIS LIGHT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DEGREE OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH
SOUTH CAROLINA'S TAX HAS INVOLVED, IF ANY, PUTS IT BEYOND THE POWER OF
GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE MUST FALL OF ITS OWN WEIGHT.  NO CONCEIVABLE
VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IN LETTER OR SPIRIT, IS PRESENTED. 
NOR IS CONTRAVENTION OF ANY OTHER LIMITATION. 

A WORD SHOULD BE ADDED IN THE LATTER RESPECT.  PRUDENTIAL HAS NOT
URGED GROUNDS FOUNDED UPON OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAN THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO THE MCCARRAN ACT AND THEN ONLY
IN THE EVENT IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING EFFECT TO VALIDATE
CONTINUED EXACTION OF THE TAX.  AS HAS BEEN SAID, IT REGARDS THE
STATUTE AS NEITHER INTENDED NOR EFFECTIVE TO "VALIDATE, AUTHORIZE, OR
SANCTION STATE STATUTES WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  BUT, AGAINST THE EVENT THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS
INTENDED TO HAVE SUCH AN EFFECT, IT PUTS FORWARD THE SOMEWHAT NOVEL
CONTENTIONS THAT THE STATUTE WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; OF THE FIRST CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I, SEC.
8, REQUIRING THAT "ALL DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES"; OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 1, "WHICH REQUIRES
LEGISLATION TO BE ENACTED BY CONGRESS"; AND, APPARENTLY, OF THE TENTH
AMENDMENT, "AS A VIOLATION OF THE STATES' POWER TO TAX FOR PURPOSES OF
RAISING REVENUE FOR THEIR OWN USE, WHICH POWER IS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN
THE STATES."  FN49 

THESE ARGUMENTS MAY BE SUMMARILY DISPOSED OF.  AS FOR THE DUE PROCESS
CONTENTION, IT WAS SETTLED BY A LONG LINE OF AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO THE
SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION, THAT THE SIMILAR PROVISION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS THAT REQUIRING EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, DOES
NOT FORBID THE STATES TO LAY AND COLLECT SUCH A TAX AS SOUTH
CAROLINA'S.  FN50  CERTAINLY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT MORE NARROWLY
CONFINE THE POWER OF CONGRESS; NOR DO IT AND THE FOURTEENTH TAKEN
TOGETHER ACCOMPLISH SUCH A RESTRICTION UPON THE COORDINATED EXERCISE OF
POWER BY THE CONGRESS AND THE STATES. 

THE ARGUMENT GROUNDED UPON THE FIRST CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8,
REQUIRING THAT EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES,
IDENTIFIES THE STATE EXACTION WITH THE LAYING OF AN EXCISE BY CONGRESS,
TO WHICH ALONE THE LIMITATION APPLIES.  THIS IS DONE ON THE THEORY THAT
NO MORE HAS OCCURRED THAN THAT CONGRESS HAS "ADOPTED" THE TAX AS ITS
OWN, A CONCEPTION WHICH OBVIOUSLY IGNORES THE STATE'S EXERTION OF ITS
OWN POWER AND, FURTHERMORE, SEEKS TO RESTRICT THE COORDINATED EXERCISE
OF FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY BY A LIMITATION APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE
FEDERAL TAXING POWER WHEN IT IS EXERTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY STATE
ACTION.  FN51  THE SAME OBSERVATION APPLIES ALSO TO THE CONTENTION
BASED ON ARTICLE I, SEC. 1. 

THE FINAL CONTENTION THAT TO SUSTAIN THE ACT, AND THUS THE TAX, WOULD
BE AN INVASION OF THE STATE'S OWN POWER OF TAXATION IS SO CLEARLY
LACKING IN MERIT AS TO CALL FOR NO COMMENT OTHER THAN TO POINT OUT
THAT, BY JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE CONTENTIONS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING
PARAGRAPH, THE EFFECT WOULD BE AT ONE STROKE TO BRING THE ACT INTO
COLLISION WITH LIMITATIONS OPERATIVE ONLY UPON THE FEDERAL POWER AND AT
THE SAME TIME TO NULLIFY STATE AUTHORITY. 

NO SUCH ANOMALOUS CONSEQUENCE FOLLOWS FROM THE DIVISION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER INTO THE RESPECTIVE SPHERES OF FEDERAL AND STATE
AUTHORITY.  THERE ARE LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO EACH OF THESE
SEPARATELY AND SOME TO THEIR COORDINATED EXERCISE.  BUT NEITHER THE
FORMER NOR THE LATTER ARE TO BE FOUND MERELY IN THE FACT THAT THE
AUTHORITY IS THUS DIVIDED.  SUCH A CONCEPTION WOULD REDUCE THE JOINT
EXERCISE OF POWER BY CONGRESS AND THE STATES TO ACHIEVE COMMON ENDS IN
THE REGULATION OF OUR SOCIETY BELOW THE EFFECTIVE RANGE OF EITHER POWER
SEPARATELY EXERTED, WITHOUT BASIS IN SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION
OR OTHERWISE THAN IN THE DIVISION ITSELF.  FN52  WE KNOW OF NO
GROUNDING, IN EITHER CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE OR SPIRIT, FOR SUCH A
RESTRICTION.  FOR GREAT REASONS OF POLICY AND HISTORY NOT NOW NECESSARY
TO RESTATE, THESE GREAT POWERS WERE SEPARATED.  THEY WERE NOT FORBIDDEN
TO COOPERATE OR BY DOING SO TO ACHIEVE LEGISLATIVE CONSEQUENCES,
PARTICULARLY IN THE GREAT FIELDS OF REGULATING COMMERCE AND TAXATION,
WHICH, TO SOME EXTENT AT LEAST, NEITHER COULD ACCOMPLISH IN ISOLATED
EXERTION.  FN53 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED APPELLANT'S OTHER CONTENTIONS, INCLUDING THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE MCCARRAN ACT, CONSTRUED AS WE HAVE INTERPRETED IT
AND THUS GIVEN EFFECT, WOULD INVOLVE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION BY
CONGRESS OF ITS POWER TO THE STATES.  FOR REASONS ALREADY SET FORTH AND
OTHERS, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT NO INSTANCE OF DELEGATION IS INVOLVED
ON THE FACTS, WE FIND THEM WITHOUT MERIT. 

THE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE STATUTES IMPOSING THE TAX ARE SECS. 7948 AND 7949, SOUTH
CAROLINA CODE OF 1942.  EACH SECTION IN FACT IMPOSES A SEPARATE TAX,
THE FORMER OF TWO PER CENT, THE LATTER OF ONE PER CENT, ON GROSS
PREMIUM RETURNS "FROM THE STATE," WITH PROVISIONS UNDER SEC. 7948 FOR
REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX SCALED TO SPECIFIED INVESTMENTS IN
SOUTH CAROLINA SECURITIES OR PROPERTY.  BOTH TAXES ARE LAID "IN
ADDITION TO THE ANNUAL LICENSE FEES NOW PROVIDED BY LAW," AND ARE
STATED IN TERMS TO BE REQUIRED "AS AN ADDITIONAL AND GRADED LICENSE
FEE" (SEC. 7948) OR AS "A GRADUATED LICENSE FEE."  SEC. 7949.  THE TWO
TAXES HAVE BEEN TREATED IN COMBINATION, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
LITIGATION, AS BEING IN EFFECT A SINGLE TAX OF THREE PER CENT. 

FN2  SECTIONS 7948 AND 7949 EXPRESSLY EXEMPT SOUTH CAROLINA
CORPORATIONS FROM PAYMENT OF THE TAX.  THEY HOWEVER ARE SUBJECT TO
OTHER TAXES, WHICH PRUDENTIAL MAINTAINS HAVE NO BEARING UPON THE
ISSUES, OTHER THAN POSSIBLY TO DEMONSTRATE THE DISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER
AND EFFECTS OF THE EXACTION IN ISSUE.  SEE NOTE 36.  THESE ARE CHIEFLY
TAXES ON REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, INCIDENCE OF WHICH PRUDENTIAL
LARGELY ESCAPES BY THE LOCATION OF ITS PROPERTY IN OTHER STATES. 

FN3  EXTENDING FROM WELTON V. MISSOURI, 91 U.S. 275, TO NIPPERT V.
RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416.  SEE THE COLLECTION OF AUTHORITIES IN
MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, 56, N. 11. 

FN4  IN APPARENT RELIANCE NOT ONLY UPON DECISIONS RENDERED PRIOR TO
THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION OR MADE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS RULING,
E.G., LINCOLN NATIONAL INS. CO. V. READ, 325 U.S. 673; BETHLEHEM MOTORS
CORP. V. FLYNT, 256 U.S. 421; BUT INDEED ALSO PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8
WALL.  168; HOOPER V. CALIFORNIA, 155 U.S. 648; AND LIKE AUTHORITIES. 

THE STATE ALSO MAINTAINS THAT PRUDENTIAL'S SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS IS
NOT ALTOGETHER INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT CONSISTS, IN SUBSTANTIAL PART,
OF LOCAL TRANSACTIONS, THE AGGREGATE OF WHICH MEASURES THE TAX, FOR
WHICH VIEW IT RELIES UPON SUCH DIVERSE DECISIONS AS MCGOLDRICK V.
BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. SHARTEL, 279
U.S. 429; WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250; AND
POLISH NATIONAL ALLIANCE V. LABOR BOARD, 322 U.S. 643.  SEE NOTE 36 AND
TEXT. 

FN5  THE PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE ACT ARE SET FORTH IN THE TEXT,
PART III AT NOTE 37. 

FN6  CF. UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S.
533, AT NOTES 9 AND 23; BUT SEE ALSO NOTE 33 FOR AN EARLY AND HIGHLY
AUTHORITATIVE BUT LESS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE VIEW OF THE POSSIBLE
ALTERNATIVES. 

FN7  AMONG THE VOLUMES WHICH HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, SPECIAL REFERENCE MAY
BE MADE TO FRANKFURTER, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE (1937); RIBBLE, STATE AND
NATIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE (1937); GAVIT, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE (1932);
AND SEE DOWLING, INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND STATE POWER (1940) 27 VA. L.
REV. 1.  FOR THOUGHTFUL COMMENT SINCE THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION, SEE
PATTERSON, THE FUTURE OF STATE SUPERVISION OF INSURANCE (1944) 23 TEX.
L. REV. 18; NOTE, CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO DISCRIMINATORY STATE
LEGISLATION (1945) 45 COL. L. REV. 927. 

FN8  "JUDGES LEGISLATE INTERSTITIALLY AND THE INTERSTICES WERE GREAT
IN MARSHALL'S TIME."  RIBBLE, STATE AND NATIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE
(1937) 47. 

FN9  "LINES OF DEMARCATION ARE DRAWN LARGELY ACCORDING TO THE PULL OF
THE COURT AT ONE PERIOD TOWARDS THE INTERESTS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT,
AND AT ANOTHER IN THE DIRECTION OF A NATION-WIDE RULE."  FRANKFURTER,
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE (1937) 97. 

FN10  S. REP. NO. 1112, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 2. 

FN11  E.G., HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, OVERRULED BY UNITED
STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; COMPARE UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT
CO., 156 U.S. 1, WITH UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S.
106; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, WITH LABOR BOARD
V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1.  SEE ALSO DISCUSSION IN
WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111, 118 FF. 

SEE RIBBLE, STATE AND NATIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE (1937) 63, N. 39,
FOR LISTING OF THE DECISIONS INVALIDATING ACTS OF CONGRESS PRIOR TO
1879, NOTING THAT MR. JUSTICE MILLER WAS "BUT SLIGHTLY IN ERROR" IN THE
STATEMENT, IN TRADE-MARK CASES, 100 U.S. 82, 96, THAT ONE THEN MIGHT
COUNT "ON HIS FINGERS" THOSE DECISIONS. 

FN12  BEGINNING IN MODERN PHASE WITH ENACTMENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AND ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENT
CENTURY.  THE CATALOGUE IS NOW TOO LONG TO REPEAT HERE. 

FN13  SEE GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. KANSAS, 233 U.S. 389, 414, 415;
LA TOURETTE V. MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465, 467; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS.
CO. V. WANBERG, 260 U.S. 71, 74; CF. OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 65:
"GOVERNMENT HAS ALWAYS HAD A SPECIAL RELATION TO INSURANCE."  SEE ALSO
UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533,
DISSENTING OPINION AT 585. 

FN14  SEE ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.
V. HEAD, 234 U.S. 149; FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. TAFOYA, 270 U.S. 426;
ST. LOUIS COMPRESS CO. V. ARKANSAS, 260 U.S. 346; HOOPESTON CO. V.
CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313; POWELL, THE SUPREME COURT AND STATE POLICE POWER,
1922-1930(1932) 18 VA. L. REV. 1, 140 ET SEQ.; ALSO ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN R. CO. V. ALEXANDER, 227 U.S. 218, WITH WHICH COMPARE
HENDERSON, THE POSITION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1918) C. V. CF. HARVESTER CO. V. DEPT. OF TREASURY,
322 U.S. 340, CONCURRING OPINION, 349, AT 353 FF.; AND SEE
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310.    FN15  ACCORDING
TO PRUDENTIAL'S BRIEF, IT TRANSACTS BUSINESS IN ALL FORTYEIGHT STATES
AND ON DECEMBER 31, 1944, "HAD IN FORCE 33,933,077 POLICIES, INSURING
APPROXIMATELY 22,900,000 PERSONS, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$22,741,134,075; AND 36,733 ANNUITY CONTRACTS OPERATIVE DURING THE
LIVES OF APPROXIMATELY 300,000 PERSONS AND PROVIDING FOR AN ANNUAL
INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY $63,200,000 ON SUCH LIVES.  DURING THE YEAR
1944 THE APPELLANT ISSUED 2,412,150 POLICIES, INSURING THE LIVES OF
APPROXIMATELY 2,170,000 PERSONS, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,668,714,022;
AND ENTERED INTO 451 ANNUITY CONTRACTS OPERATIVE DURING THE LIVES OF
APPROXIMATELY 600 PERSONS AND PROVIDING FOR AN ANNUAL INCOME OF
APPROXIMATELY $150,000 ON SUCH LIVES.  DURING THE YEAR 1944 THE
APPELLANT COLLECTED AS PREMIUMS ON INSURANCE POLICIES $681,052,095.07,
AND PAID OUT AS CLAIMS ON POLICIES $246,776,197.45; AND IT PAID OUT
$13,690,781.93 ON ANNUITY CONTRACTS." 

FOR SOUTH CAROLINA, THE COMPANY "HAD IN FORCE 26,373 POLICIES
INSURING THE LIVES OF APPROXIMATELY 20,000 PERSONS RESIDENT IN SAID
STATE FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $30,827,184.00.  DURING THE YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 1944, 1,439 POLICIES INSURING THE LIVES OF APPROXIMATELY
1,000 PERSONS RESIDENT IN SAID STATE FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$1,475,062.00 WERE ISSUED, AND $457,602.28 IN CLAIMS WERE PAID ON
POLICIES COVERING THE LIVES OF RESIDENTS."  THE SOUTH CAROLINA PREMIUM
TAX FOR 1943 AMOUNTED TO $18,496.87; FOR 1944, $19,676.94.  ALL OTHER
STATE OR LOCAL TAXES PAID IN 1944 AMOUNTED TO $3,103.92, MAKING A TOTAL
FOR THE YEAR FOR ALL TAXES OF $22,780.86. 

FN16  322 U.S. 533, DISSENTING OPINION AT 590; SEE NOTE 40, INFRA;
CF. ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, POST, P. 440. 

FN17  THAT THE QUESTION WAS DISCUSSED BUT NOT SETTLED IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ITSELF, APPEARS FROM DEBATE ON SEPTEMBER 15,
1787, TWO DAYS BEFORE SUBMISSION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO
CONGRESS, A PORTION OF WHICH BEARS QUOTATION: 

"MR. MCHENRY & MR. CARROL MOVED THAT 'NO STATE SHALL BE RESTRAINED
FROM LAYING DUTIES OF TONNAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLEARING HARBOURS AND
ERECTING LIGHT-HOUSES.' 

"COL. MASON IN SUPPORT OF THIS EXPLAINED AND URGED THE SITUATION OF
THE CHESAPEAK WHICH PECULIARLY REQUIRED EXPENCES OF THIS SORT. 

"MR. GOVR.  MORRIS.  THE STATES ARE NOT RESTRAINED FROM LAYING
TONNAGE AS THE CONSTITUTION NOW STANDS.  THE EXCEPTION PROPOSED WILL
IMPLY THE CONTRARY, AND WILL PUT THE STATES IN A WORSE CONDITION THAN
THE GENTLEMAN (COL MASON) WISHES. 

"MR. MADISON.  WHETHER THE STATES ARE NOW RESTRAINED FROM LAYING
TONNAGE DUTIES DEPENDS ON THE EXTENT OF THE POWER 'TO REGULATE
COMMERCE.'  THESE TERMS ARE VAGUE BUT SEEM TO EXCLUDE THIS POWER OF THE
STATES - THEY MAY CERTAINLY BE RESTRAINED BY TREATY.  HE OBSERVED THAT
THERE WERE OTHER OBJECTS FOR TONNAGE DUTIES AS THE SUPPORT OF SEAMEN
&C.  HE WAS MORE & MORE CONVINCED THAT THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE WAS
IN ITS NATURE INDIVISIBLE AND OUGHT TO BE WHOLLY UNDER ONE AUTHORITY. 

"MR. SHERMAN.  THE POWER OF THE U. STATES TO REGULATE TRADE BEING
SUPREME CAN CONTROUL INTERFERENCES OF THE STATE REGULATIONS (WHEN) SUCH
INTERFERENCES HAPPEN; SO THAT THERE IS NO DANGER TO BE APPREHENDED FROM
A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION. 

"MR. LANGDON INSISTED THAT THE REGULATION OF TONNAGE WAS AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF THE REGULATION OF TRADE, AND THAT THE STATES OUGHT TO HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  ON MOTION 'THAT NO STATE SHALL LAY ANY DUTY ON
TONNAGE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS' 

"N.H - AY - MAS.  AY. CT. DIVD.  N.J. AY. PA. NO. DEL. AY. MD. AY.
VA. NO. N - C. NO S - C. AY. GEO. NO. (AYES - 6; NOES - 4; DIVIDED -
1.)"  FARRAND, RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF
1787(1937), VOL. II, 625-626. 

SEE NOTE, CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO DISCRIMINATORY STATE LEGISLATION
(1945) 45 COL. L. REV. 927, 946 FF., FOR A SHORT SUMMARY OF VIEWS
EXPRESSED IN THE DEBATES AND LATER BY MEMBERS OF THE CONVENTION.  SEE
ALSO ABEL, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND IN
CONTEMPORARY COMMENT (1941) 25 MINN. L. REV. 432; HAMILTON AND ADAIR,
THE POWER TO GOVERN (1937). 

FN18  "THE CATEGORIES OF 'BURDENS' ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OF STATE
LAWS 'DIRECTLY AFFECTING' INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ETC., ARE NATURAL
CONCOMITANTS OF MARSHALL'S DOCTRINE.  THE THEORIES AS TO THE SILENCE OF
CONGRESS ARE THE OUTGROWTH OF TANEY'S.  WHEN DIVERSE THEORIES COHABIT,
THE MISCEGENATION MAY PRODUCE STRANGE PROGENY."  RIBBLE, 204.  FOR
TRACINGS OF ALL BUT THE LATEST OF THE VARIOUS TRENDS, SEE THE SUMMARIES
CITED IN NOTE 7; SEE ALSO BIKLE, THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS (1927) 41
HARV. L. REV. 200.  MORE RECENT DIVERSITIES ARE DISCUSSED IN DOWLING,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND STATE POWER, 27 VA. L. REV. 1, 8 FF.  SEE ALSO
E.G., THE DIFFERENT VIEWS EXPRESSED IN NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S.
416; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761; MCLEOD V. DILWORTH
CO., 322 U.S. 327; NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292; AND
THE OPINIONS IN HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652.  AND
COMPARE AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, WITH ADAMS MFG.
CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307. 

FN19  SEE NOTE 11 AND TEXT. 

FN20  CF., E.G., SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303
U.S. 177; WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250;
MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33; NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK
& CO., 312 U.S. 359; CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109; DUCKWORTH V.
ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390; UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202,
209 FF. 

FN21  CF. NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416, 424, 431, NOTES 9 AND
23, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN22  SEE NOTE 3, AND COMPARE:  "...  STATE LAWS ARE NOT INVALID
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE UNLESS THEY ACTUALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR CONFLICT WITH A REGULATION ENACTED BY
CONGRESS."  GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, DISSENTING
OPINION AT 446. 

"...  EXCEPT FOR STATE ACTS DESIGNED TO IMPOSE DISCRIMINATORY BURDENS
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE IT IS INTERSTATE - CONGRESS ALONE MUST
'DETERMINE HOW FAR (INTERSTATE COMMERCE)  ... SHALL BE FREE AND
UNTRAMMELLED, HOW FAR IT SHALL BE BURDENED BY DUTIES AND IMPOSTS, AND
HOW FAR IT SHALL BE PROHIBITED.'"  ID. AT 455. 

SEE ALSO, FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME POSITION, ADAMS MFG. CO. V.
STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, DISSENTING OPINION; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, DISSENTING OPINION AT 795. 

FN23  SEE NOTE 18. 

FN24  THUS, FOR INSTANCE, THE LIMITATIONS UPON THE LENGTH OF TRAINS
IMPOSED BY THE ARIZONA TRAIN LIMIT LAW, AND HELD TO BE IN VIOLATION OF
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761,
WOULD BE BEYOND THE POWER OF CONGRESS, PERHAPS ALSO OF CONGRESS AND THE
STATES ACTING TOGETHER, TO IMPOSE; AND ON COMMERCE CLAUSE GROUNDS, THUS
NULLIFYING THE VERY POWER CONFERRED IN ORDER TO REGULATE SUCH MATTERS. 
THE ARGUMENT IS REMINISCENT OF THAT OF MR. JUSTICE MCLEAN IN THE SECOND
WHEELING BRIDGE CASE, CF. NOTE 34. 

FN25  CF. NOTE 11 AND TEXT. 

FN26  SEE THE ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR IN PAUL V.
VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, 172, 173, AS A CLASSIC INSTANCE. 

FN27  CF. NOTE 18.  SEE ALSO THE DISCUSSIONS CITED IN NOTE 7. 

FN28  LEGISLATION WHICH, TYPICALLY, HAS PRESENTED THE PROBLEM IS
FOUND IN A VARIETY OF MEASURES, OF WHICH THE WILSON ACT, 26 STAT. 313,
IS THE PROTOTYPE.  EARLIER LEGISLATION PRESENTING THE DIFFICULTY WAS
THAT INVOLVED IN THE SECOND OF THE WHEELING BRIDGE CASES, PENNSYLVANIA
V. WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 18 HOW.  421.  SEE NOTE 43 FOR
FURTHER CITATIONS. 

FN29  PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 13 HOW.  518,
WITH WHICH COMPARE PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 18
HOW.  421, AND THE CLINTON BRIDGE, 10 WALL.  454; LEISY V. HARDIN, 135
U.S. 100, WITH WHICH COMPARE IN RE RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545; BOWMAN V.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN R. CO., 125 U.S. 465, WITH WHICH COMPARE CLARK
DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S. 311. 

FN30  SEE, E.G., RIBBLE, AT 62, 106, AND OTHER MATERIALS CITED ABOVE
IN NOTE 7. 

FN31  FOR THE MODERN RECORD IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN THE
FIRST BRIDGE CASE JUSTICE MCLEAN SPOKE FOR THE COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE
TANEY AND JUSTICE DANIEL DISSENTING IN SEPARATE OPINIONS, AND THE SAME
DIVISION PREVAILED IN THE FURTHER OPINIONS FILED UPON CONSIDERATION OF
THE MASTER'S REPORT AND ENTRY OF THE DECREE.  IN THE SECOND BRIDGE CASE
JUSTICE NELSON SPOKE FOR THE COURT, WITH JUSTICES MCLEAN, GRIER, WAYNE
AND DANIEL EACH FILING SEPARATE OPINIONS DISSENTING ON ONE OR MORE OF
THE ISSUES PRESENTED. 

FN32  THUS, IN SOME INSTANCES CONCEIVABLY THE REVERSAL MIGHT BE
RATIONALIZED AS ONLY ONE OF FACTUAL JUDGMENT, MADE IN DEFERENCE TO THE
CONTRARY FINDING OF LIKE CHARACTER MADE BY A BODY BETTER ABLE TO MAKE
SUCH A DETERMINATION.  MOREOVER, CONGRESS' SUPPORTING ACTION DEPRIVES
THE COURT'S ADVERSE VIEW CONCERNING STATE LEGISLATION OF ANY STRENGTH
WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS, BY ITS
SILENCE, HAD IMPLIEDLY FORBIDDEN IT.  HENCE INSOFAR AS ITS JUDGMENT MAY
BE TAKEN, NOT AS CONCLUSIVE, BUT AS BEING ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE HERE ON
QUESTIONS RELATING TO ITS POWER (AND HISTORICALLY THE SCOPE OF THAT
DEFERENCE HAS BEEN GREAT, CF. NOTE 11), CONGRESS' EXPLICIT REPUDIATION
OF THE ATTITUDE INFERENTIALLY ATTRIBUTED TO IT FROM ITS SILENCE,
COMPELS REVERSAL OF THE COURT'S EARLIER PRONOUNCED VIEW. 

FN33  IN THE FIRST WHEELING BRIDGE CASE THE COURT ITSELF MADE THE
FINDING, UPON EVIDENCE TAKEN BY A MASTER, THAT THE BRIDGE IN FACT
OBSTRUCTED NAVIGATION, TO WHICH IT ADDED THE LEGAL CONCLUSION THAT IT
WAS A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND WENT ON TO SPECIFY THE HEIGHT TO WHICH IT
MUST BE RAISED TO AVOID THIS EFFECT.  NOT ONLY THIS FINDING OF FACT,
THEREFORE, BUT ALSO THE LEGAL CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM IT WAS, IN EFFECT,
OVERTURNED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS.  SEE NOTE 34.  THE FINDING OF
OBSTRUCTION IN FACT DEPENDED IN NO SENSE UPON PREVIOUS DETERMINATION BY
CONGRESS.  BUT THE COURT FOUND IN CONGRESS' PRIOR LEGISLATION A POLICY
OF FREEDOM FOR NAVIGATION WHICH IT APPLIED TO OUTLAW THE BRIDGE. 

FN34  SEE NOTE 33.  "SO FAR, THEREFORE, AS THIS BRIDGE CREATED AN
OBSTRUCTION TO THE FREE NAVIGATION OF THE RIVER, IN VIEW OF THE
PREVIOUS ACTS OF CONGRESS, THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS MODIFIED BY THIS
SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION; AND, ALTHOUGH IT STILL MAY BE AN OBSTRUCTION IN
FACT, IS NOT SO IN THE CONTEMPLATION OF LAW....  THE REGULATION OF
COMMERCE INCLUDES INTERCOURSE AND NAVIGATION, AND, OF COURSE, THE POWER
TO DETERMINE WHAT SHALL OR SHALL NOT BE DEEMED IN JUDGMENT OF LAW AN
OBSTRUCTION TO NAVIGATION  ..."  MR. JUSTICE NELSON, SPEAKING FOR THE
COURT, IN THE SECOND WHEELING BRIDGE CASE, 18 HOW.  421, 430, 431. 

COMPARE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCLEAN, WHO WROTE FOR
THE MAJORITY IN THE FIRST WHEELING BRIDGE CASE, GOING NOT ONLY ON THE
GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS INVADED THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION, BUT ALSO THAT THE ACT, APART FROM THIS EFFECT, WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL:  "IT (CONGRESS) MAY, UNDER THIS POWER, DECLARE THAT
NO BRIDGE SHALL BE BUILT WHICH SHALL BE AN OBSTRUCTION TO THE USE OF A
NAVIGABLE WATER.  AND THIS, IT WOULD SEEM, IS AS FAR AS THE COMMERCIAL
POWER BY CONGRESS CAN BE EXERCISED."  18 HOW.  AT 442.  THUS WAS THE
GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO CONGRESS UPON WHICH HE RELIED IN THE FIRST
DECISION, IN PART, TO OUTLAW THE BRIDGE, CONVERTED INTO A LIMITATION. 
CF. TEXT PART II, AT NOTE 24 FF. 

FN35  CF. NOTE 29 AND TEXT.  AND SEE PART IV. 

FN36  WHETHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE "AFFECTATION" DOCTRINE.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533, 548,
AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

IN MAKING THESE ASSUMPTIONS, HOWEVER, IT IS NOT IMPROPER TO NOTE THAT
THE RECORD, AS MADE IN THE STATE COURT, DOES NOT PURPORT TO DEAL
FACTUALLY WITH THE LATTER QUESTION AS A MATTER OF PROOF.  IT IS SIMPLY
ALLEGED THAT ALL OF PRUDENTIAL'S SOUTH CAROLINA BUSINESS IS DONE
INTERSTATE, AN ALLEGATION WHICH IS DENIED; AND THERE ARE SUPPORTING
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE EXTENT OF THE BUSINESS AND MANNER OF
CONDUCTING IT. 

NOR IS THE CASE IN MUCH BETTER SHAPE FACTUALLY ON THE QUESTION OF
DISCRIMINATION.  WHILE THE BRIEFS INCLUDE TABLES OF FIGURES DESIGNED TO
SHOW THAT PRUDENTIAL PAYS MORE PROPORTIONATELY UNDER THE TAX THAN SOUTH
CAROLINA CORPORATIONS PAY UNDER OTHER TAXES LEVIED AGAINST THEM, CF.
NOTE 2, THESE FIGURES WERE NOT MADE PART OF THE RECORD IN THE STATE
COURT UNTIL THE PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS FILED, AND PRUDENTIAL HAS
INSISTED BOTH THERE AND HERE THAT THEY HAVE NO PROPER PLACE IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  ITS POSITION IS THAT THE TAX
IS DISCRIMINATORY ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
OTHER TAXES SOUTH CAROLINA CORPORATIONS MAY PAY.  CF. NOTE 4. 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING WHETHER SUCH A SHOWING, IN EITHER
RESPECT, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES TO
WHICH IT IS DIRECTED, TENDERED IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTION BY CONGRESS. 

FN37  THE REMAINDER OF THE STATUTE, INCLUDING A PROVISO TO SEC. 2(B),
RELATES TO APPLICABILITY OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND OTHER RELATED FEDERAL
STATUTES TO THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE BEFORE AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1948;
PROVIDES THAT THE MCCARRAN ACT SHALL NOT AFFECT IN ANY MANNER THE
APPLICATION TO THAT BUSINESS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OR THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920; EXTENDS
THE TERM "STATE" AS USED IN THE ACT TO INCLUDE SPECIFIED TERRITORIES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND PROVIDES FOR SEVERABILITY. 

FN38  SEE NOTE 37. 

FN39  THERE IS, OF COURSE, NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT STATE
TAXES MUST BE UNIFORM, IN THE SENSE OF THAT REQUIREMENT AS LAID UPON
THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER BY THE FIRST CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8.  NOR
HAS IT EVER BEEN HELD THAT SUCH A REQUIREMENT IS MADE BY THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OR ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  THIS IS A DIFFERENT
THING ENTIRELY FROM THE STRICTURES AGAINST DISCRIMINATION WITHIN OR BY
A STATE LAID UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND COMMERCE CLAUSES.    THE
MCCARRAN ACT IS, IN EFFECT, A DETERMINATION BY CONGRESS THAT THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE, THOUGH DONE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS NOT OF
SUCH A CHARACTER AS TO REQUIRE UNIFORMITY OF TREATMENT WITHIN THE
DISTINCTION TAKEN IN THE DOCTRINE OF COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12
HOW.  299, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY DECLARED. 

FN40  AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MCCARRAN ACT, SIXTEEN STATES
HAD IMPOSED ON "FOREIGN" LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES TAXES SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX IN ISSUE.  ALA. CODE (1940) TIT. 51,
SECS. 816, 819; FLA. STAT. (1941) SEC. 205.43(1), (6); ILL. REV. STAT.
(1943) C. 73, SEC. 1021; IND. STAT. ANN. (BURNS, 1940) SEC. 39-4802;
KAN. GEN. STAT. ANN. (CORRICK, 1935) SEC. 40-252; KY. REV. STAT. (1944)
SEC. 136.330; LA. GEN. STAT. (DART, 1939) SEC. 8369; MICH. COMP. LAWS
(1929) SEC. 12387; MO. REV. STAT. (1939) SEC. 6094; NEB. REV. STAT.
(1943) SEC. 77-902; N.M. STAT. ANN. (1941) SEC. 60-401; N.D. COMP. LAWS
(1913) SEC. 4924; OHIO CODE ANN. (THROCKMORTON, 1940) SEC. 5433; PA.
STAT. ANN. (PURDON, 1930) TIT. 72, SEC. 2261; S.C. CODE (1942) SECS.
7948, 7949; TEX. CIV. STAT. (VERNON, 1925) ART. 4769. 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF ANY FEATURE OF THESE
STATUTES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THOSE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA
TAX DEALT WITH HEREIN. 

FN41  PRUDENTIAL WAS FIRST AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN SOUTH
CAROLINA IN 1897 AND SINCE THAT TIME IT HAS RECEIVED ANNUAL RENEWALS OF
ITS LICENSE.  AS TO THE PRESENT SCOPE OF ITS BUSINESS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
AND IN ALL THE STATES, SEE NOTE 15. 

FN42  CF. ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY DISTRICT, 298 U.S. 513, WHICH MAY
BE SAID IN EFFECT TO HAVE BEEN OVERRULED BY UNITED STATES V. BEKINS,
304 U.S. 27.  SEE JACKSON, THE STRUGGLE FOR JUDICIAL SUPREMACY (1941)
240-241. 

FN43  SEE CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495; STEWARD
MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548; KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334; CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN
MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S. 311; WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297 U.S. 431; IN RE
RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545; PERKINS V. PENNSYLVANIA, 314 U.S. 586; STANDARD
DREDGING CO. V. MURPHY, 319 U.S. 306, 308; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, 315; CF. PARKER V. RICHARD, 250 U.S. 235, 238
239.  SEE GENERALLY KOENIG, FEDERAL AND STATE COOPERATION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION (1938) 36 MICH. L. REV. 752. 

FN44  NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 327
U.S. 686, 704-705; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 114-115;
GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 196.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE I, SEC. 9, FORBIDDING THE GIVING OF PREFERENCES "BY ANY
REGULATION OF COMMERCE OR REVENUE TO THE PORTS OF ONE STATE OVER THOSE
OF ANOTHER"; AND COMMANDING THAT "NO TAX OR DUTY SHALL BE LAID ON
ARTICLES EXPORTED FROM ANY STATE," HELD APPLICABLE ONLY TO FOREIGN
COMMERCE IN DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 183 U.S. 151. 

BUT COMPARE THE FURTHER PROVISION OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, EMPOWERING
CONGRESS TO CONSENT TO LAYING OF DUTIES OR IMPOSTS ON EXPORTS BY THE
STATES.  SEE ALSO NOTE 47. 

FN45  E.G., REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137; CHAMPION V. AMES, 188
U.S. 321; HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 45; HOKE V.
UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 308; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100,
OVERRULING HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251. 

FN46  SEE CASES CITED IN NOTES 29 AND 43. 

FN47  IT IS PERHAPS IMPOSSIBLE TO POINT WITH CERTAINTY TO ANY SUCH
EXPLICIT LIMITATION AMONG THE VARIOUS COMMERCE CLAUSES OF THE
CONSTITUTION, FOR DECISION IN THE APPLICATION OF SUCH PROVISIONS TO
SUCH A COMBINED EXERCISE OF POWERS IS SPARSE.  SEE, HOWEVER, THE
DISCUSSION IN PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 18 HOW. 
421, 433 ET SEQ., RELATING TO THE CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 9,
PROVIDING:  "NO PREFERENCE SHALL BE GIVEN BY ANY REGULATION OF COMMERCE
OR REVENUE TO THE PORTS OF ONE STATE OVER THOSE OF ANOTHER:  NOR SHALL
VESSELS BOUND TO, OR FROM, ONE STATE, BE OBLIGED TO ENTER, CLEAR OR PAY
DUTIES IN ANOTHER." 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE COMBINED EXERCISE OF STATE AND FEDERAL
AUTHORITY IS LIMITED, TO SOME BUT LARGELY UNDEFINED EXTENT, BY OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OR THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF MORE THAN ONE. 
CF. TEXT HEREIN AT NOTE 49 ET SEQ. BUT APART FROM THE PROVISION OF
ARTICLE I, SEC. 9, ABOVE QUOTED AS A POSSIBLE EXCEPTION, THE SPECIFIC
LIMITATIONS PLACED UPON THE COMMERCE POWER OR STATE POWER IN RELATION
TO COMMERCE EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR JOINT ACTION TO BE EFFECTIVE.  THUS,
THIS IS TRUE WITH REFERENCE TO LAYING OF DUTIES ON EXPORTS BY THE
STATES WITH THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, ART. I, SEC. 10, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE PROHIBITION OF SUCH ACTION BY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ALONE, ART. I,
SEC. 9, AND OF COURSE BY STATE ACTION ALONE.  ART. I, SEC. 10.  AND
NOTE THE FURTHER PROVISION THAT:  "NO STATE SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF CONGRESS, LAY ANY DUTY OF TONNAGE," AS TO WHICH SEE ALSO NOTE 17
ABOVE. 

IT WAS THUS EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATED, IN SOME INSTANCES, THAT THE
COMBINED EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS AND THE STATES SHOULD BE
FREE FROM RESTRICTIONS EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE TO EACH WHEN EXERTED IN
ISOLATION.  IT IS TRUE THAT SOME OF THESE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN HELD
APPLICABLE ONLY TO FOREIGN COMMERCE, E.G., THE PROHIBITION OF ARTICLE
I, SEC. 10, AGAINST LEVY OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS WITHOUT
CONGRESS' CONSENT.  WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123; AMERICAN STEEL &
WIRE CO. V. SPEED, 192 U.S. 500, 519, ET SEQ.; BUT SEE BROWN V.
MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419.  BUT OTHERS APPLY TO COASTWISE TRADE, INDEED
TO TRADE BETWEEN TOWNS IN THE SAME STATE, IN OTHER WORDS TO INTRASTATE
COMMERCE.  STATE TONNAGE TAX CASES, 12 WALL.  204, 219; AND SEE
PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO., SUPRA; LOUISIANA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N V. TEXAS & N.O.R. CO., 284 U.S. 125; CF. WILLIAMS V.
UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 336; AND SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. THE WILLIAM,
28 FED. CAS. NO. 16,700. 

ALL THESE PROVISIONS ARE INTIMATELY AND EXPRESSLY RELATED TO THE
COMMERCE POWER.  NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR DIVERSITIES, IN APPLICATION TO
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OR BOTH, AND ALSO TO FEDERAL AND STATE
POWER OR THEIR COMBINED OPERATION, NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN FROM THEM
THAT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY WAS, OR IS, TO GIVE CONGRESS AND THE
STATES ACTING TOGETHER BROAD POWERS, IN SOME INSTANCES DENIED TO EACH
ACTING ALONE, IN RELATION TO FOREIGN COMMERCE, BUT TO DENY SUCH
AUTHORITY ALTOGETHER IN REFERENCE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  INDEED THE
OPPOSITE CONCLUSION IS CLEARLY INDICATED, BOTH BY VIRTUE OF EXPRESS
PROVISION WHERE APPLICABLE AND BY STRONG INFERENCE WHERE NOT EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN. 

FN48  THE RULING IS NOT NEW OR ONLY RECENT.  "WE HAVE ALREADY SAID,
AND THE PRINCIPLE IS UNDOUBTED, THAT THE ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF
VIRGINIA CONFERRED FULL AUTHORITY TO ERECT AND MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE,
SUBJECT TO THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE
NAVIGATION OF THE RIVER.  THAT BODY HAVING IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS
POWER, REGULATED THE NAVIGATION CONSISTENT WITH ITS PRESERVATION AND
CONTINUATION, THE AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN IT WOULD SEEM TO BE COMPLETE. 
THAT AUTHORITY COMBINES THE CONCURRENT POWERS OF BOTH GOVERNMENTS,
STATE AND FEDERAL, WHICH, IF NOT SUFFICIENT, CERTAINLY NONE CAN BE
FOUND IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT."  PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING & BELMONT
BRIDGE CO., 18 HOW.  421, 430.  COMPARE THIS WITH MR. JUSTICE MCLEAN'S
DISSENTING VIEW, NOTE 34 ABOVE. 

FN49  THE CONTENTIONS ARE STATED IN APPELLANT'S BRIEF AS FOLLOWS:
"IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE MCCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT IS AN ADOPTION BY
CONGRESS OF LEGISLATION OF THE STATES, THEN THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
(1) AS A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, (2) AS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1 OF
THE CONSTITUTION WHICH REQUIRES THAT EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES IN THE EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS TAXING
POWER, (3) AS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION
WHICH REQUIRES LEGISLATION TO BE ENACTED BY CONGRESS, AND (4) AS A
VIOLATION OF THE STATES' POWER TO TAX FOR PURPOSES OF RAISING REVENUE
FOR THEIR OWN USE, WHICH POWER IS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE STATES." 

FN50  "...  IT HAS NEVER BEEN HELD THAT A STATE MAY NOT EXACT FROM A
FOREIGN CORPORATION AS A CONDITION TO ADMISSION TO DO BUSINESS THE
PAYMENT OF A TAX MEASURED BY THE BUSINESS DONE WITHIN ITS BORDERS." 
LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. READ, 325 U.S. 673, 677.  SEE DUCAT
V. CHICAGO, 10 WALL.  410; PHILADELPHIA FIRE ASSN. V. NEW YORK, 119
U.S. 110; HANOVER FIRE INS. CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494; CONTINENTAL
ASSURANCE CO. V. TENNESSEE, 311 U.S. 5.  SEE DISCUSSION IN HENDERSON,
THE POSITION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
(1918) 101 FF. 

FN51  THE RELATED CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS'"ADOPTION" OF SOUTH
CAROLINA'S STATUTE AMOUNTS TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF
CONGRESS' LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE STATES OBVIOUSLY CONFUSES CONGRESS'
POWER TO LEGISLATE WITH ITS POWER TO CONSENT TO STATE LEGISLATION. 
THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL, THOUGH EXERCISED IN THE SAME FORMAL MANNER. 
SEE CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S. 311,
327. 

FN52  "IT WOULD BE A SHOCKING THING, IF STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS
ACTING TOGETHER WERE PREVENTED FROM ACHIEVING THE END DESIRED BY BOTH,
SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE DIVISION OF POWER BETWEEN THEM."  RIBBLE, 211. 
AND SEE NOTE 48. 

FN53  CF. NOTE 47. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :















ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA, 328 U.S. 440 


NO. 274.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 9, 1946.  - DECIDED JUNE 3, 1946.  -
AFFIRMED 


FOR ANY PERSON, EXCEPT ONE LICENSED AS A "SURPLUS LINE BROKER," TO ACT
"AS AGENT FOR A NONADMITTED INSURER IN THE TRANSACTION OF INSURANCE
BUSINESS" WITHIN THE STATE.  SECTION 1642 PROVIDES THAT "A PERSON SHALL
NOT ACT AS AN INSURANCE AGENT, BROKER, OR SOLICITOR UNTIL A LICENSE IS
OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER, AUTHORIZING SUCH PERSON SO TO ACT." 
APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 703(A)
AND 1642 COMMITTED SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN UNITED
STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533(HOLDING THAT
THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE CONDUCTED ACROSS STATE LINES IS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE), BUT PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH
9, 1945, 59 STAT. 33(AUTHORIZING STATE TAXATION AND REGULATION OF THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE).  THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT APPELLANT, WITHOUT A
LICENSE OF ANY KIND, HAD ACTED WITHIN THE STATE AS AGENT OF A
NONADMITTED FOREIGN INSURER CONDUCTING A MUTUAL BENEFIT TYPE OF
INSURANCE BUSINESS.  HELD: 

1.  SECTION 1642, CONSIDERED WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE
LAW, BEING DESIGNED AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND
APPLICABLE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION TO AGENTS OF LOCAL AND FOREIGN
COMPANIES ACTING IN CALIFORNIA, WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, SINCE IT NEITHER DISCRIMINATES
AGAINST NOR SUBSTANTIALLY OBSTRUCTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109.  P. 447. 

2.  CONSIDERED APART FROM OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CODE, THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A SURPLUS LINE BROKER'S LICENSE - THAT THE
COMMISSIONER SHALL FIND THE APPLICANT TO BE TRUSTWORTHY AND COMPETENT
TO TRANSACT AN INSURANCE BROKERAGE BUSINESS IN SUCH MANNER AS TO
SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE INSURED; PAYMENT OF A $50 FILING FEE; AND
POSTING OF A $5,000 FIDELITY BOND - WERE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 450. 

3.  EVEN THOUGH THE CODE PROVISIONS REGULATING THE ADMISSION OF
FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, TOGETHER
WITH PROVISIONS REGULATING ACTIVITIES OF SURPLUS LINE BROKERS, OPERATED
TO FORBID EITHER FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC COMPANIES TO DO WITHIN THE STATE A
LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS ON OTHER THAN A LEGAL RESERVE BASIS, EXCEPT AS
TO COMPANIES ENGAGED IN DOING SUCH BUSINESS THERE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,
1940, NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WAS INVOLVED, AND THE RESULT IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE SOUTH-EASTERN
DECISION.  P. 455. 

(A)  THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED APPLY ALIKE TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS.  P. 456. 

(B)  THE PROVISION DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN COMPANIES ORGANIZED OR
ADMITTED TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1940, AND
OTHERS, DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY DISCRIMINATION AS BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND
FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE INSURERS.  P. 456. 

(C)  THE DISTINCTION DOES NOT BECOME DISCRIMINATORY, IN ANY SENSE NOW
PERTINENT, MERELY BECAUSE THE PREEXISTING COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE THEIR BUSINESS UNDER SOMEWHAT LESS BURDENSOME RESERVE
REQUIREMENTS THAN THOSE UNDER WHICH NEW COMPANIES ARE PERMITTED TO
ENTER.  P. 456. 

4.  FOR FAILURE TO MEET ITS RESERVE REQUIREMENTS, A STATE MAY EXCLUDE
FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES, OR THEIR AGENTS, FROM DOING BUSINESS
WITHIN THE STATE.  P. 458. 

(A)  STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE STATE'S
BORDERS IS NOT RENDERED INVALID BY THE MERE FACT THAT THE REGULATION IS
IN FORM A "LICENSE."  P. 458. 

(B)  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS NOT A GUARANTY OF THE RIGHT TO IMPORT
INTO A STATE WHATEVER ONE MAY PLEASE, ABSENT A PROHIBITION BY CONGRESS,
REGARDLESS OF THE EFFECTS OF THE IMPORTATION UPON THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. 
P. 458. 

(C)  THE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE CAN NOT BE DEEMED, EITHER
ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE OR BY ANY SHOWING THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS
CASE, TO BE EXCESSIVE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LOCAL INTEREST
AFFECTED; NOR DESIGNED OR EFFECTIVE EITHER TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE INSURERS OR TO FORBID OR EXCLUDE THEIR
ACTIVITIES.  P. 459. 

5.  APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
PLACING OF SURPLUS LINE INSURANCE WITH NONADMITTED INSURERS LACK MERIT,
IN VIEW OF THE POWER OF THE STATE, THROUGH ITS RESERVE REQUIREMENTS FOR
ADMISSION AND RELATED PROHIBITIONS, TO FORBID ENTIRELY THE PLACING OF
INSURANCE OF THE SORT HERE INVOLVED, WHETHER WITH DOMESTIC, ADMITTED OR
NONADMITTED COMPANIES.  P. 460. 

6.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE LAW DO NOT OPERATE TO REGULATE
ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT OR THE FOREIGN INSURER BEYOND THE BORDERS
OF THE STATE, AND DO NOT ON THIS SCORE VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 461. 

7.  THE RESULT IN THIS CASE IS REACHED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ACT OF
MARCH 9, 1945; WHEREFORE NO QUESTION AS TO POSSIBLE EX POST FACTO
OPERATION OF THAT ACT IS INVOLVED.  P. 461. 

ROBERTSON V. CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT OF VIOLATING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CODE, WHICH HE CHALLENGED AS
BEING CONTRARY TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY AN INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT, WHICH WAS
THE HIGHEST STATE COURT TO WHICH AN APPEAL COULD BE TAKEN.  INS. L.J.,
MAY, 1945, P. 273.  APPELLANT APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  AFFIRMED, P.
462. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE DIFFERS FROM PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. BENJAMIN, ANTE, P.
408, IN THREE RESPECTS.  IT IS A CRIMINAL CAUSE; THE STATUTES INVOLVED
REGULATE, RATHER THAN SIMPLY TAX, THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE; AND
APPELLANT'S ACTS HELD TO VIOLATE THEM WERE DONE BEFORE THE MCCARRAN
ACT'S  FN1 EFFECTIVE DATE. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT FOR VIOLATING SECS. 703(A)
AND 1642 OF THE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CODE AND THE CONVICTION WAS
SUSTAINED ON APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY.  FN2
APPELLANT NOW URGES HERE PRIMARILY THAT THE APPLICATION WHICH HAS BEEN
MADE OF THOSE SECTIONS IS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FORBIDDEN
BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, IN VIEW
OF UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533.  HE
ALSO PUTS FORWARD DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENTS, RESTING
ON HIS CONCEPTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN3 

THE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CODE PROVISIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"703.  EXCEPT WHEN PERFORMED BY A SURPLUS LINE BROKER, THE FOLLOWING
ACTS ARE MISDEMEANORS WHEN DONE IN THIS STATE: 

"(A)  ACTING AS AGENT FOR A NONADMITTED INSURER IN THE TRANSACTION OF
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THIS STATE." 

"1642.  A PERSON SHALL NOT ACT AS AN INSURANCE AGENT, BROKER, OR
SOLICITOR UNTIL A LICENSE IS OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER,
AUTHORIZING SUCH PERSON SO TO ACT."  FN4 

THE COMPLAINT CHARGED IN TWO COUNTS THAT APPELLANT HAD (1) ACTED
WITHOUT A LICENSE AS AN AGENT FOR A NON-ADMITTED INSURER IN SOLICITING
AND SELLING A POLICY CONTRARY TO SEC. 703(A), AND (2) SOLICITED AND
SOLD A POLICY OF INSURANCE WITHOUT BEING LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY SEC.
1642. 

THE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS UNDISPUTED, DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING FACTS. 
THE FIRST NATIONAL BENEFIT SOCIETY IS AN ARIZONA CORPORATION,
CONDUCTING FROM PHOENIX A MUTUAL BENEFIT TYPE OF INSURANCE BUSINESS. 
ITS METHOD OF OPERATION MUST BE INFERRED FROM THE FACTS OF RECORD, IN
THE ABSENCE OF OTHER EVIDENCE.  ONE O'LEIN, THEN AN ELDERLY RESIDENT OF
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA, HAD DIFFICULTY IN SECURING INSURANCE ON ACCOUNT OF
HIS AGE.  PRIOR TO AUGUST 28, 1944, HE HAD LEARNED OF THE SOCIETY'S
"GOLD SEAL" POLICY, BY RADIO AND THROUGH "LITERATURE."  THIS APPARENTLY
WAS MAILED FROM THE HOME OFFICE AND INCLUDED A PRINTED FORM OF RETURN
POSTAL CARD MARKED, PRESUMABLY PURSUANT TO POSTAL PERMIT, "POSTAGE WILL
BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE," THE SOCIETY.  O'LEIN FILLED IN AND RETURNED THE
CARD TO THE SOCIETY IN PHOENIX, ASKING IT TO "SEND ME, WITHOUT
OBLIGATION, DETAILS OF 'GOLD SEAL' POLICIES."  A FEW DAYS LATER, ON
AUGUST 28, 1944, APPELLANT CALLED AT O'LEIN'S HOME WITH THE CARD,
STATING HE REPRESENTED THE FIRST NATIONAL BENEFIT SOCIETY.  THEREUPON
HE EXPLAINED TO O'LEIN THE TERMS OF THE POLICY, ITS BENEFITS, AND
COSTS, SOLICITING AND PERSUADING THE PROSPECT TO TAKE OUT A POLICY FOR
HIMSELF AND ONE ALSO FOR HIS WIFE.  NO MEDICAL EXAMINATION WAS
REQUIRED.  APPELLANT FILLED IN THE APPLICATION FORMS, PROCURED THE
SIGNATURES, ACCEPTED FROM O'LEIN A CHECK MADE OUT IN APPELLANT'S NAME
IN PAYMENT OF THE FIRST QUARTERLY PREMIUMS, GAVE RECEIPTS, LATER CASHED
THE CHECK AT A LOCAL BANK, AND RECEIVED THE PROCEEDS.  A FEW DAYS LATER
THE O'LEINS RECEIVED POLICIES BY MAIL FROM THE SOCIETY'S OFFICE IN
PHOENIX. 

THE EVIDENCE FURTHER SHOWED THAT THE SOCIETY WAS NOT ADMITTED TO DO
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AND THAT APPELLANT HAD NO LICENSE OF ANY KIND TO
ACT AS AN INSURANCE AGENT, BROKER OR SOLICITOR THERE. 

WE MAY DEAL FIRST EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, SINCE EACH OF THE OTHERS WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT
MERIT BUT FOR THE SUPPOSED EFFECTS OF THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION  FN5
NOT ONLY IN RELATION TO THE PROHIBITORY CONSEQUENCES OF THAT CLAUSE BUT
ALSO, APPARENTLY, TO RESURRECT OTHER LIMITATIONS UPON STATE POWER LONG
SINCE SETTLED ADVERSELY TO SUCH CLAIMS IN REFERENCE TO THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE.  FN6

     I. 

LITTLE NEED BE SAID IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENT OF
SEC. 1642, EXCEPT TO STATE MORE FULLY ITS EFFECTS BY VIRTUE OF ITS
RELATION TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CODE, WHICH
PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS FOR SECURING THE LICENSE.  THOSE REQUIREMENTS,
IN SUMMARY, ARE THAT AN APPLICATION MUST BE MADE UPON A PRESCRIBED FORM
SETTING FORTH THE KINDS OF INSURANCE THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO TRANSACT
(SEC. 1643); HE MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR ONE WHO HAS
APPLIED FOR CITIZENSHIP; AND MUST HAVE ATTAINED HIS MAJORITY (SEC.
1648.5); HE MUST PASS A WRITTEN EXAMINATION AS TO HIS QUALIFICATIONS
(SEC. 1674) AND PAY TWO FEES, ONE A FILING FEE OF $4, THE OTHER AN
EXAMINATION FEE OF $5(SEC.  1678).  ON HIS FULFILLING THESE CONDITIONS
THE LICENSE IS ISSUED IF THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE IS
SATISFIED THAT HE IS QUALIFIED AND INTENDS IN GOOD FAITH TO CARRY ON
THE BUSINESS (SEC. 1649). 

OF THE CODE IS "TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC BY REQUIRING AND MAINTAINING
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ON THE PART OF ALL INSURANCE AGENTS
AND INSURANCE BROKERS ACTING AS SUCH WITHIN THIS STATE."  THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO ALL AGENTS, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, WHETHER THEY
REPRESENT CALIFORNIA OR OUT-OF-STATE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND WHETHER
THE BUSINESS DONE IS INTERSTATE OR LOCAL IN CHARACTER.  THEY APPLY ONLY
TO AGENTS ACTING IN CALIFORNIA, NOT TO ACTS DONE OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

APPELLANT HAS NOT SOUGHT TO OBTAIN A LICENSE UNDER THE CODE
PROVISIONS, HAS NOT BEEN DENIED ONE, AND HAS NOT ATTACKED ANY
PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT.  HIS CHARGE IS WHOLESALE, NOT PARTICULAR.  IT
IS, IN EFFECT, THAT SINCE THE ENTIRE SERIES OF ACTS DONE BY HIM WAS
DIRECTED TO THE CONCLUSION OF AN INTERSTATE TRANSACTION, WITHIN THE
SOUTH-EASTERN RULING, THOSE ACTS THOUGH TAKING PLACE ALTOGETHER WITHIN
CALIFORNIA WERE INSEPARABLY A PART OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION AND
THEREFORE BEYOND REACH OF THE STATE'S LICENSING OR REGULATORY POWER. 
THE CONTENTION APPEARS TO CONTEMPLATE NOT ONLY THAT APPELLANT'S ACTS
WERE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT ALSO THAT THE STATE CANNOT IMPOSE ANY
LICENSING REQUIREMENT UPON THEM OR, IT WOULD SEEM, UPON ANY PHASE OF
CONDUCTING AN INTERSTATE INSURANCE BUSINESS THROUGH AGENTS ACTING IN
PERSON. 

TO STATE THE ARGUMENT IN THIS WAY IS IN EFFECT TO ANSWER IT.  WE
ACCEPT THE REGULATION FOR WHAT IT PURPORTS TO BE ON ITS FACE AND BY THE
STATUTE'S EXPRESS DECLARATION, NAMELY, A SERIES OF REGULATIONS DESIGNED
AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM FRAUD,
MISREPRESENTATION, INCOMPETENCE AND SHARP PRACTICE WHICH FALLS SHORT OF
MINIMUM STANDARDS OF DECENCY IN THE SELLING OF INSURANCE BY PERSONAL
SOLICITATION AND SALESMANSHIP.  THAT SUCH DANGERS MAY EXIST, MAY EVEN
BE WIDELY PREVALENT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CONTROLS, IS A MATTER OF
COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE.  AND NO ARGUMENT IS NEEDED TO SHOW
THAT THESE EVILS ARE MOST APT TO ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE LESS RELIABLE AND RESPONSIBLE INSURERS, AS WELL AS
INSURANCE BROKERS OR SALESMEN, AND VITALLY AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
FN7 

SUCH BEING THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF SEC. 1642, THERE CAN BE NO
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION CONCERNING ITS VALIDITY ON COMMERCE CLAUSE
GROUNDS.  THAT IS TRUE WHETHER APPELLANT'S ACTS ARE TAKEN, IN THEIR
SETTING, AS BEING "IN" COMMERCE OR ONLY AS "AFFECTING" IT.  FOR THE
CASE IS RULED, SO FAR AS SEC. 1642 IS CONCERNED, BY DECISIONS SUCH AS
CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109; HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V.
ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155; SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465; NASHVILLE, C. &
ST. L.R. CO. V. ALABAMA, 128 U.S. 96; AND UNION BROKERAGE CO. V.
JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202.  FN8 

IF, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY ACTION BY CONGRESS, A STATE MAY
LICENSE AGENTS OR BROKERS FOR THE SALE OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IN
ORDER TO PREVENT FRAUD, CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, SUPRA; TRAINMEN ENGAGED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO SECURE THEIR COMPETENCE, SMITH V. ALABAMA,
SUPRA; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. ALABAMA, SUPRA; THE SALE ON
COMMISSION OF INTERSTATE CONSIGNMENTS OF FARM PRODUCE TO SECURE HONEST
DEALING AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V.
ILLINOIS, SUPRA; AND THE ACTIVITIES OF CUSTOMS BROKERS TO SECURE
RESPONSIBILITY IN THE STATE COURTS ON CLAIMS ARISING LOCALLY, UNION
BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, SUPRA, BY THE SORTS OF CONDITIONS IMPOSED
THROUGH THE RESPECTIVE LICENSING PROVISIONS, THERE CAN BE NO VALID
REASON FOR OUTLAWING SEC. 1642 HERE. 

THAT APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES WERE OF A KIND WHICH VITALLY AFFECT THE
WELFARE AND SECURITY OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, THE STATE AND THEIR
RESIDENTS COULD NOT BE DENIED.  CF. HOOPESTON CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S.
313, 316 FF.  THEY HAD IN FACT A HIGHLY "SPECIAL INTEREST" IN HIS
LOCALIZED PURSUIT OF THIS PHASE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS OF
CONDUCTING AN INTERSTATE INSURANCE BUSINESS.  CF. UNION BROKERAGE CO.
V. JENSEN, SUPRA, AT 212.  HERE, AS IN EACH OF THE INSTANCES CITED,
APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES CALLED IN QUESTION WERE CONCENTRATED IN THE
REGULATING STATE, ALTHOUGH AFFECTING OR CONSTITUTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  MOREOVER THE LICENSING PROVISION OF SEC. 1642 IS REGULATORY,
NOT EXCLUSORY IN CHARACTER; IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY; IS NOT IN CONFLICT
WITH ANY POLICY OR ACTION OF CONGRESS BUT RATHER ACCORDS WITH ITS
EXPRESSED VIEWS IN SO FAR AS THE MCCARRAN ACT MAY BE TAKEN TO BE
APPLICABLE; FN9  AND IS DESIGNED APPROPRIATELY TO SECURE THE PUBLIC
FROM THOSE EVILS OF UNCONTROLLED INSURANCE SOLICITATION TO WHICH IT IS
DIRECTED.  IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE REGULATION "NEITHER DISCRIMINATES
AGAINST NOR SUBSTANTIALLY OBSTRUCTS THE COMMERCE."  CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, SUPRA, AT 114. 

FURTHERMORE, HERE AS IN THE CITED CASES, "UNLESS SOME MEASURE OF
LOCAL CONTROL IS PERMISSIBLE," THE ACTIVITIES AND THEIR ATTENDANT EVILS
"MUST GO LARGELY UNREGULATED," UNLESS OR UNTIL CONGRESS UNDERTAKES THAT
FUNCTION.  CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, AT 115.  AND IN VIEW OF THE
WELL-KNOWN CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THIS FIELD, SUCH A RESULT NOT
ONLY WOULD FREE OUT-OF-STATE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REGULATION'S EFFECT, THUS GIVING THEM ADVANTAGE
OVER LOCAL COMPETITORS, BUT BY SO DOING WOULD TEND TO BREAK DOWN THE
SYSTEM OF REGULATION IN ITS PURELY LOCAL OPERATION. 

                      II. 

HAS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT EFFECTS THAN DOES SEC. 1642.  UNLIKE THE LATTER,
WHICH APPLIES TO ACTING AS AGENT FOR ALL INSURERS, IT FORBIDS ACTING AS
AGENT FOR NONADMITTED INSURERS ALONE, UNLESS THE PERSON SO ACTING IS A
"SURPLUS LINE BROKER."  FN10  TO BECOME A SURPLUS LINE BROKER ONE MUST
PROCURE A SPECIAL LICENSE PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 1765. 
THIS LICENSE ALSO IS ISSUED UPON APPLICATION, IF THE COMMISSIONER OF
INSURANCE FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT IS "TRUSTWORTHY AND COMPETENT TO
TRANSACT AN INSURANCE BROKERAGE BUSINESS IN SUCH MANNER AS TO SAFEGUARD
THE INTEREST OF THE INSURED  ..."  THE APPLICANT ALSO MUST FILE WITH
THE COMMISSIONER A FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $5000 AND
PAY A FILING FEE OF $50. 

SO FAR AS CONCERNS THESE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 1765 FOR PROCURING THE
SURPLUS LINE BROKER'S LICENSE, IF THEY ARE CONSIDERED WITHOUT REFERENCE
TO ANY OF THE OTHER CODE PROVISIONS, THE SAME CONCLUSION IS REQUIRED
CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 703(A) AS FOR THAT OF SEC. 1642, BY THE
AUTHORITIES ABOVE CITED AND DISCUSSED.  INDEED THE FILING FEE OF $50 IS
LARGER THAN THE COMBINED FEES REQUIRED BY SEC. 1642, BUT NOT MORE THAN
THE FEE INVOLVED IN THE UNION BROKERAGE CASE, SUPRA.  AND THE BOND
PROVISION IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT SUSTAINED IN CALIFORNIA
V. THOMPSON, SUPRA.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT IT IS
ADMINISTERED ARBITRARILY, THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LICENSE SHALL ISSUE
ONLY AFTER A FINDING OF TRUSTWORTHINESS AND COMPETENCE BY THE
COMMISSIONER CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE OTHER THAN AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF
SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE OBVIOUS EVILS ARISING FROM THE LACK
OF THOSE QUALIFICATIONS.  CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, SUPRA.  CONSIDERED
SEPARATELY FROM ANY RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE,
THEREFORE, THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS FOR SECURING THE SURPLUS LINE
BROKER'S LICENSE ARE NO MORE INVALID THAN THOSE WHICH MUST BE FULFILLED
TO SECURE THE GENERAL AGENT'S LICENSE UNDER SEC. 1642.  FN11 

THIS, THE STATE CONTENDS, IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED, SINCE
APPELLANT NEITHER POSSESSED NOR, SO FAR AS APPEARS, HAD APPLIED FOR OR
BEEN DENIED A SURPLUS LINE BROKER'S LICENSE.  CONSEQUENTLY, IN ITS
VIEW, THE VALIDITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CODE IS NOT INVOLVED,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP TO SEC. 703(A).  FN12
                           III. 

APPELLANT INSISTS, HOWEVER, THAT SEC. 703(A), TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION
WITH SEC. 1765, IS MORE THAN A LICENSING REQUIREMENT FOR REGULATING THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF AGENTS ACTING IN CALIFORNIA IN THE TRANSACTION OF THE
BUSINESS COVERED BY ITS TERMS.  IT IS RATHER, HE MAINTAINS, A
PROHIBITION OF THE WRITING OF SUCH INSURANCE THERE BY NONADMITTED
INSURERS AND THEIR AGENTS.  AND THIS, HE SAYS, THE STATE CANNOT DO,
BOTH BECAUSE IT CANNOT EXCLUDE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN CALIFORNIA AND
BECAUSE IT CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OUT-OF-STATE INSURERS IN SUCH A
MANNER. 

THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE BASED ON THE VIEW THAT SEC. 703(A) IS RELATED
INSEPARABLY BY ITS TERMS AND IN FACT TO OTHER CODE PROVISIONS IN
ADDITION TO SEC. 1765, NAMELY, THOSE REGULATING THE ADMISSION OF
FOREIGN INSURANCE CORPORATIONS TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA  FN13  AND
THE INTERWOVEN PROVISIONS REGULATING ACTIVITIES OF SURPLUS LINE
BROKERS.  FN14  SECTION 703(A) ON ITS FACE FORBIDS ACTING AS AGENT FOR
NONADMITTED INSURERS, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A SURPLUS LINE BROKER.  AND
THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO SUCH BROKERS AND OF
THOSE GOVERNING THE ADMISSION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ARE SAID TO BE TO
"ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT" THE WRITING OF OR AIDING IN PROCURING THE TYPE OF
INSURANCE ISSUED HERE OR INDEED OF ANY INSURANCE ISSUED BY THE
SOCIETY.  FN15 

CALIFORNIA IN EFFECT CONCEDES THIS, ALTERNATIVELY TO MAINTAINING THAT
NO QUESTION CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF THOSE PROVISIONS IS PRESENTED. 
THE SHORT EFFECT OF THE ADMISSION PROVISIONS, FOR PURPOSES NOW
PERTINENT, THE STATE ADMITS, IS TO FORBID EITHER FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC
COMPANIES TO DO A LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA OTHER THAN ON A
LEGAL RESERVE BASIS,  FN16  EXCEPT AS TO COMPANIES ENGAGED IN DOING
SUCH BUSINESS THERE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1940.  FN17  THE POLICY
UNDERLYING THIS EXCLUSION IS SAID TO BE FOUNDED IN THE STATE'S
EXPERIENCE SHOWING THAT A MUTUAL COMPANY DOING BUSINESS "ON THE
STIPULATED PREMIUM PLAN WITH RIGHT OF ASSESSMENT,  FN18  WITHOUT A
SUFFICIENT SURPLUS AND FULL RESERVES, IS NOT ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED TO
INSURE THAT MONEY WILL BE AVAILABLE TO PAY DEATH BENEFITS."  IN SUPPORT
OF THIS STATEMENT OF CALIFORNIA'S POLICY AND THE EXPERIENCE ON WHICH IT
IS FOUNDED, COUNSEL POINT TO THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER COVERING A PERIOD OF SOME SIX YEARS, FROM 1934 TO 1940,
FN19  WHICH RESULTED IN SOME OF THE LEGISLATION NOW CALLED IN
QUESTION.  SEE ALSO X REPORT OF JOINT INSURANCE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE
(N.Y.)  364-365(1906); HOOPESTON CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313, 321. 

FURTHERMORE, THE STATE APPARENTLY CONCEDES, AS APPELLANT CONTENDS,
NOT ONLY THAT THE SOCIETY IS EXCLUDED FROM TRANSACTING INSURANCE
BUSINESS BY THE ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THEM, BUT ALSO THAT APPELLANT WOULD BE FORBIDDEN TO PLACE INSURANCE
WITH IT BY THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO SURPLUS LINE INSURANCE, EVEN IF
HE HAD SECURED THE SURPLUS LINE BROKER'S LICENSE.  FN20 

AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THEREFORE, APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT IN THIS PHASE
COMES IN SUBSTANCE TO TWO THINGS:  (1) THAT THE ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS
AND THE SURPLUS LINE BROKER PROVISIONS, AS THEY RELATE TO NONADMITTED
INSURERS AND THEIR AGENTS, ARE INVALID FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OUT
OF-STATE INSURERS AND IN FAVOR OF DOMESTIC ONES; (2) THAT CALIFORNIA,
AS A RESULT OF THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION, NO LONGER CAN REQUIRE
FOREIGN INSURANCE CORPORATIONS SEEKING TO DO BUSINESS THERE TO MAINTAIN
MINIMUM RESERVES FOR PROTECTION OF POLICYHOLDERS IN THE STATE OR COMPEL
AGENTS OR BROKERS TO REFRAIN FROM REPRESENTING THEM THERE
NOTWITHSTANDING SUCH NONCOMPLIANCE. 

THE DISCRIMINATION ARGUMENT IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE IN SO FAR AS IT
MAINTAINS THAT THE STATUTES PERMIT DOMESTIC COMPANIES TO OPERATE
WITHOUT MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS, BUT FORBID OUT-OF-STATE INSURERS TO
DO LIKEWISE.  FOR, AS HAS BEEN NOTED,  FN21 THE CONDITIONS APPLY ALIKE
TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, EXCEPTING ONLY THOSE ORGANIZED OR
ADMITTED TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1940.  AS TO
THEM DIFFERENT STANDARDS ARE APPLICABLE, BUT THEY TOO APPLY EQUALLY AND
ALIKE TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN INSURERS.  FN22 

THAT THE STATE HAS SEEN FIT TO DRAW A LINE AS OF THAT DATE BETWEEN
NEW COMPANIES SEEKING TO ENTER THE FIELD AND ESTABLISHED COMPANIES,
DIFFERENTIATING THE TWO CLASSES BY DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN THE MINIMUM
RESERVE REQUIREMENTS, IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE LATTER TO CONTINUE IN
BUSINESS AND BUILD UP RESERVES,  FN23  DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY
DISCRIMINATION AS BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE INSURERS.  FOR EACH MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER, AND EACH TO
CONTINUE, ON IDENTICAL TERMS.  SUCH A DISTINCTION DOES NOT BECOME
DISCRIMINATORY, IN ANY SENSE NOW PERTINENT, MERELY BECAUSE THE
PREEXISTING COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THEIR BUSINESS UNDER
SOMEWHAT LESS BURDENSOME RESERVE REQUIREMENTS THAN THOSE UNDER WHICH
NEW COMPANIES ARE PERMITTED TO ENTER.  SEE X REPORT OF JOINT INSURANCE
INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE (N.Y.)  P. 365(1906).  OTHERWISE THE STATE,
HAVING AUTHORIZED EITHER DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN COMPANIES TO ENGAGE IN THE
BUSINESS, WOULD BE GREATLY RESTRICTED, PERHAPS FORECLOSED, IN RAISING
THE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS AS EXPERIENCE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST MIGHT
MAKE NECESSARY.  FN24 

APART FROM THIS CLASSIFICATION, WHICH IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE STATE'S
POWER, THE DISCRIMINATION ARGUMENT BECOMES IDENTICAL WITH THE
CONTENTION THAT THE STATE CANNOT EXCLUDE FOREIGN COMPANIES, SUCH AS THE
FIRST NATIONAL BENEFIT SOCIETY, OR THEIR AGENTS, FROM CARRYING ON THEIR
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA FOR FAILURE TO MEET HER RESERVE REQUIREMENTS. 

THIS IS THE CRUCIAL CONTENTION.  IT TOO IS WITHOUT MERIT.  THE EVILS
FLOWING FROM IRRESPONSIBLE INSURERS AND INSURANCE CERTAINLY ARE NOT
LESS THAN THOSE ARISING FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF IRRESPONSIBLE,
INCOMPETENT OR DISHONEST INSURANCE AGENTS.  THE TWO THINGS ARE
CONCOMITANT, BEING MERELY DIFFERENT FACADES OF THE SAME SEPULCHRE FOR
THE INVESTMENTS AND SECURITY OF THE PUBLIC.  CF. STUDY OF LEGAL RESERVE
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES, T.N.E.C. MONOGRAPH NO. 28, SEC. XV.  IT WOULD
BE IDLE TO REQUIRE LICENSING OF INSURANCE AGENTS, IN ORDER TO SECURE
HONESTY AND COMPETENCE, YET TO PLACE NO RESTRAINT UPON THE KIND OF
INSURANCE TO BE SOLD OR THE KINDS OF COMPANIES ALLOWED TO SELL IT, AND
THEN TO COVER THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WITH THEIR IMMUNITY.  THIS COULD
ONLY RESULT IN PLACING DOMESTIC AND COMPLYING FOREIGN INSURERS AT GREAT
DISADVANTAGE AND EVENTUALLY IN NULLIFYING ALL CONTROLS UNLESS OR UNTIL
CONGRESS SHOULD TAKE OVER THE REGULATION. 

NO SUCH CONSEQUENCE HAS FOLLOWED FROM THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION.  IT
DID NOT WIPE OUT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE STATES IN THE REGULATION OF THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE OR ITS EFFECTS FOR THE CONTINUED VALIDITY OF THAT
REGULATION.  MUCH OF THIS WAS CONCERNED WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF SO
CALLED FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES AND, IN PARTICULAR, WITH
REQUIREMENTS DESIGNED TO SECURE MINIMUM GUARANTIES OF SOLVENCY AND
ABILITY TO PAY CLAIMS AS THEY MATURE.  ESSENTIALLY THE PROTECTION
SOUGHT WAS AGAINST FLY-BY-NIGHT OPERATORS AND THE GROSSER FORMS OF
PROFITEERING AND FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT ALL TOO COMMON IN UNREGULATED
INSURANCE ACTIVITY.  SEE GENERALLY PATTERSON, THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER IN THE UNITED STATES (1927). 

IT IS TRUE THAT CALIFORNIA IMPOSES HER RESERVE STANDARDS, FOR BOTH
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN INSURERS, BY REQUIRING THEM TO SECURE A
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS ISSUED UPON COMPLIANCE WITH
THOSE CONDITIONS, IN OTHER WORDS, BY A FORM OF LICENSING.  BUT WE ARE
FAR BEYOND THE TIME WHEN, IF EVER, THE WORD "LICENSE" PER SE WAS A
CONDEMNATION OF STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE
STATE'S BORDERS.  FN25  THE COMMERCE INVOLVED HERE IS NOT
TRANSPORTATION.  NOR IS IT OF A SORT WHICH TOUCHES THE STATE AND ITS
PEOPLE SO LIGHTLY THAT LOCAL REGULATION IS INAPPROPRIATE OR INTERFERES
UNREASONABLY WITH THE COMMERCE OF OTHER STATES.  FN26 NOT THE MERE FACT
OR FORM OF LICENSING, BUT WHAT THE LICENSE STANDS FOR BY WAY OF
REGULATION IS IMPORTANT.  FN27  SO ALSO, IT IS NOT SIMPLY THE FACT OF
PROHIBITION, BUT WHAT IS FORBIDDEN AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF WHAT
INTEREST, THAT IS DETERMINATIVE.  FOR THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS NOT A
GUARANTY OF THE RIGHT TO IMPORT INTO A STATE WHATEVER ONE MAY PLEASE,
ABSENT A PROHIBITION BY CONGRESS, REGARDLESS OF THE EFFECTS OF THE
IMPORTATION UPON THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.  THAT IS TRUE WHETHER WHAT IS
BROUGHT IN CONSISTS OF DISEASED CATTLE  FN28  OR FRAUDULENT OR UNSOUND
INSURANCE. 

HERE CALIFORNIA'S RESERVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURING AUTHORITY TO DO
BUSINESS CANNOT BE HELD, EITHER ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE OR BY ANY
SHOWING THAT HAS BEEN MADE, TO BE EXCESSIVE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
LOCAL INTEREST AFFECTED; OR DESIGNED OR EFFECTIVE EITHER TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE INSURERS OR TO FORBID OR
EXCLUDE THEIR ACTIVITIES, BY ALL WHO ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO MAINTAIN
REASONABLE MINIMUM RESERVE STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF
POLICYHOLDERS.  EXCLUSION THERE IS, BUT IT IS EXCLUSION OF WHAT THE
STATE HAS THE POWER TO KEEP OUT, UNTIL CONGRESS SPEAKS OTHERWISE. 
EVERY CONSIDERATION WHICH SUPPORTS THE LICENSING OF AGENTS AND BROKERS,
AND THE AUTHORITIES WE HAVE CITED GIVING EFFECT TO THOSE
CONSIDERATIONS,  FN29  SUSTAIN THE STATE'S REQUIREMENTS IN THIS
RESPECT, AS DO ALSO THE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE SUSTAINED VARIOUS MEASURES
OF EXCLUSION IN PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND SECURITY
NOT ONLY FROM PHYSICAL HARM BUT FROM VARIOUS FORMS OF FRAUD AND
IMPOSITION.  FN30 

IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS, TO REPEAT ONLY ONE OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THAT
IF APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS WERE ACCEPTED AND FOREIGN INSURERS WERE TO
BE HELD FREE TO DISREGARD CALIFORNIA'S RESERVE REQUIREMENTS AND THEN TO
CLOTHE THEIR AGENTS OR OTHERS ACTING FOR THEM WITH THEIR IMMUNITY, NOT
ONLY WOULD THE STATE BE MADE HELPLESS TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AGAINST THE
GROSSEST FORMS OF UNREGULATED OR LOOSELY REGULATED FOREIGN INSURANCE,
BUT THE RESULT WOULD BE INEVITABLY TO BREAK DOWN ALSO THE SYSTEM FOR
CONTROL OF PURELY LOCAL INSURANCE BUSINESS.  IN SHORT, THE RESULT WOULD
BE ULTIMATELY TO FORCE ALL OF THE STATES TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST STANDARD
FOR CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS PERMITTED BY ONE OF THEM OR, PERHAPS, BY
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  INEVITABLY THIS WOULD MEAN THAT CONGRESS WOULD BE
FORCED TO INTERVENE AND DISPLACE THE STATES IN REGULATING THE BUSINESS
OF INSURANCE.  NEITHER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE NOR THE SOUTH-EASTERN
DECISION DICTATES SUCH A RESULT. 

WE DO NOT INTIMATE THAT THIS PARTICULAR SOCIETY'S INSURANCE IS
UNSOUND OR FRAUDULENT.  AS TO THAT NO SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE.  WE ONLY
SAY THAT CALIFORNIA HAS IMPOSED ITS RESERVE REQUIREMENTS AS ALLOWABLE
STANDARDS FOR SECURING MINIMUM ASSURANCE TO THE STATE'S POLICYHOLDERS
IN RESPECT TO PERFORMANCE OF THEIR POLICIES BY THE INSURER, NOT AS A
MERE EXCLUSIONARY MEASURE IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO BAR FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS ALTOGETHER; AND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLIANCE THE
STATE CAN EXCLUDE THE COMPANY AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES AS IT DID, UNTIL
CONGRESS MAKES CONTRARY COMMAND.  THEIR REMEDY IS NOT TO DESTROY THE
REGULATORY RESERVE CONDITIONS, BUT TO COMPLY WITH THEM. 

IT FOLLOWS ALSO THAT APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS FOUNDED ON THE PROVISIONS
RELATING TO THE PLACING OF SURPLUS LINE INSURANCE WITH NONADMITTED
INSURERS ARE WITHOUT MERIT.  APART FROM THE PHASE RELATING TO THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR OBTAINING THE SURPLUS LINE BROKER'S LICENSE, THE
OBJECTION IS TWO-FOLD.  ONE IS THAT, EVEN IF LICENSED, APPELLANT WOULD
BE FORBIDDEN TO PLACE THE INSURANCE WITH A NONADMITTED INSURER, UNLESS
THERE WERE NO ADMITTED ONE WITH WHICH THE RISK COULD BE WRITTEN.  THE
OTHER, THAT IN ANY EVENT THE RISK COULD NOT BE PLACED WITH THE
NONADMITTED INSURER FOR A LESS PREMIUM THAN WOULD BE ACCEPTED BY ANY
ADMITTED INSURER.  THE SHORT ANSWER WOULD SEEM TO BE THAT, BY THE
RESERVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION AND RELATED PROHIBITIONS, THE STATE
FORBIDS ENTIRELY THE PLACING OF INSURANCE OF THE SORT ISSUED HERE,
WHETHER WITH DOMESTIC, ADMITTED OR NONADMITTED COMPANIES.  FN31 

IT REMAINS TO SAY A WORD CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF THE MCCARRAN ACT
FOR THIS CASE AND THE CONTENTIONS FOUNDED ON THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

AS FOR THE LATTER, WITH RESPECT TO DUE PROCESS, THE ONLY OBJECTION
ADVANCED WHICH IS INDEPENDENT OF COMMERCE CLAUSE CONSIDERATIONS IS THAT
TO SUSTAIN THE STATE'S REQUIREMENTS, PARTICULARLY IN SO FAR AS THEY
EXCLUDE THE SOCIETY FROM INTERSTATE OPERATIONS IN CALIFORNIA AND THUS
ALSO APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES IN AID OF ITS BUSINESS, WILL BE IN EFFECT
TO PROJECT CALIFORNIA'S LAWS INTO OTHER STATES, HERE PRESUMABLY
ARIZONA, AND REGULATE THE SOCIETY'S ACTIVITIES THERE.  THE CONTENTION
IS OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT MERIT.  NOTHING WHICH CALIFORNIA REQUIRES TOUCHES
OR AFFECTS ANYTHING THE SOCIETY OR APPELLANT MAY DO OR WISH TO DO IN
ARIZONA OR ELSEWHERE THAN IN CALIFORNIA.  HOOPESTON CO. V. CULLEN,
SUPRA. 

LIKEWISE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CONTENTION IS WHOLLY WITHOUT
SUBSTANCE.  FN32 

OUR DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT SPECIFIC RELIANCE UPON THE
MCCARRAN ACT FOR TWO REASONS.  ONE IS THAT THIS WAS NOT NECESSARY.  THE
OTHER ARISES FROM THE FACTS THAT THIS IS A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE
APPELLANT'S ACTS HELD TO VIOLATE THE CALIFORNIA STATUTES WERE COMMITTED
IN AUGUST FOLLOWING RENDITION OF THE SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION IN JUNE OF
1944, AND THE MCCARRAN ACT WAS NOT APPROVED UNTIL MARCH 9, 1945.  THE
EFFECT OF THAT STATUTE WE HAVE CONSIDERED IN THE PRUDENTIAL CASE, ANTE,
P. 408.  BUT THAT CASE INVOLVED NO CRIMINAL OR PENAL PHASE AND
THEREFORE NO CONCEIVABLE EX POST FACTO EFFECT.  IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT
MORE THAN THE SEMBLANCE OF SUCH AN EFFECT WOULD BE INVOLVED BY RELIANCE
UPON THE ACT IN THIS CASE.  FOR IT HARDLY COULD BE MAINTAINED THAT THE
SOUTH-EASTERN DECISION HAD THE EFFECT TO CONVERT CONGRESS' PREEXISTING
SILENCE CONCERNING A MATTER WHICH PRIOR TO THE DECISION HAD BEEN HELD
NOT TO BE COMMERCE INTO AN EXPRESSION BY CONGRESS OF DISAPPROVAL OF
THESE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE DURING THE SHORT PERIOD
INTERVENING BETWEEN THE DECISION AND THE DATE ON WHICH APPELLANT
ACTED.  THE INDICATED INFERENCE, IF ANY, WOULD BE TO THE CONTRARY,
WHOLLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE MCCARRAN ACT.  ITS EFFECT MIGHT REASONABLY
BE TAKEN AS MERELY DECLARING OR CONFIRMING EXPRESSLY THE INFERENCE
WHICH WOULD BE INDICATED FROM CONGRESS' SILENCE ENTIRELY WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THE ACT'S PROVISIONS.  BUT THE DECLARATION WAS MADE, AS WE
HAVE SAID, AFTER APPELLANT'S ACTS WERE DONE.  AND TO AVOID ANY
SEMBLANCE OF RETROACTIVE EFFECT IN A CRIMINAL MATTER, WE HAVE REFRAINED
FROM EXPLICIT RELIANCE UPON THE ACT IN THIS CASE.  IT DOES NOT DETRACT
FROM OUR DECISION ON OTHER GROUNDS THAT THE MCCARRAN ACT, IF APPLIED,
WOULD DICTATE THE SAME RESULT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 9, 1945, 59 STAT. 33; 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1011-1015. 
SEE TEXT INFRA, FOLLOWING NOTE 32. 

FN2  THE CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED IN THE JUSTICE'S COURT OF VENTURA
TOWNSHIP, CALIFORNIA.  THE SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY WAS THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE TO WHICH APPEAL COULD BE TAKEN.  ITS OPINION
IS NOT REPORTED.  THE PENALTY WAS A FINE OF $100 IMPOSED FOR VIOLATING
EACH COUNT. 

FN3  IN THE STATEMENT OF APPEAL FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT THE
GROUNDS RELIED UPON, APART FROM COMMERCE CLAUSE AND LOCAL LAW
OBJECTIONS, WERE ONLY THAT APPELLANT'S ACTS "WERE, IF TRUE, DONE BY HIM
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  AND THAT SECS. 703(A) AND 1642
"ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IN VIOLATION OF  ... THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
..." 

FN4  DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES, INSURANCE CODE OF CALIFORNIA, SECS.
703, 1642.  THESE SECTIONS ARE PART OF CALIFORNIA'S COMPREHENSIVE
REGULATORY SCHEME FOR THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE; AND ARE DIRECTLY
RELATED, IN THE CASE OF SEC. 703, TO THE REQUIREMENTS LAID BY OTHER
OF SEC. 1642 TO SUCH REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURING A LICENSE TO ACT IN THE
SPECIFIED REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITIES, SEE TEXT INFRA. 

FN5  BUT SEE 322 U.S. 533, 547 FF. 

FN6 THUS, IT WAS LONG SETTLED, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PAUL V.
VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, THAT NEITHER DUE PROCESS NOR EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS FORBIDS THE KIND OF STATE REGULATION OF THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE IMPOSED BY SECS. 703(A) AND 1642.  HOOPER V. CALIFORNIA, 155
U.S. 648; NUTTING V. MASSACHUSETTS, 183 U.S. 553.  SEE ALSO HOOPESTON
CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313, AND TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 32. 

AS TO THE DANGERS OF BLURRING THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
LIMITATIONS WITH COMMERCE CLAUSE IDEAS, AND THE CONSEQUENT NECESSITY
FOR SEPARATE TREATMENT IN DISPOSING OF THESE PROBLEMS, SEE RIBBLE,
STATE AND NATIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE (1937) 98; NIPPERT V. RICHMOND,
327 U.S. 416, 423-425; MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327, DISSENTING
OPINION AT 357.  CF. ALSO BETHLEHEM MOTORS CORP. V. FLYNT, 256 U.S.
421; HENDERSON, THE POSITION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1918) 122; AND SEE C. IX. 

FN7  SEE HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. NELSON CO., 291 U.S.
352, 360; GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. LEWIS, 233 U.S. 389, 412-415;
OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 65, 66; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. V.
WANBERG, 260 U.S. 71, 76-77.  AND SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. SOUTH
EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533, 539 FF.; PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
CO. V. BENJAMIN, ANTE, P. 408. 

FN8  IN SOME OF THESE CASES, E.G., HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V.
ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155, AND UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S.
202, THERE WERE ALSO FEDERAL LICENSING STATUTES WHICH THE COURT FOUND
NEITHER INCONSISTENT WITH NOR, THEREFORE, EFFECTIVE TO EXCLUDE THE
STATE LICENSING REGULATION.  THE UNION BROKERAGE CASE INVOLVED AN
INSTANCE OF STATE REGULATION OF FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

IN ADDITION TO THE CITED AUTHORITIES, SEE ALSO THE DECISIONS CITED
AND RELIED UPON IN EACH OF THE OPINIONS. 

FN9  SEE TEXT INFRA FOLLOWING NOTE 32. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 14, AS TO "SURPLUS LINE INSURANCE."  IN GENERAL THIS
IS INSURANCE INVOLVING SPECIAL RISKS OR FOR SOME OTHER REASON NOT
FALLING WITHIN THE USUAL LINES OF AUTHORIZED BUSINESS. 

FN11  APPELLANT ALSO POINTS OUT THAT BY SEC. 1775.5 AN ANNUAL TAX
EQUAL TO THREE PER CENT OF THE GROSS PREMIUMS UPON BUSINESS DONE DURING
EACH CALENDAR YEAR IS IMPOSED UPON EACH SURPLUS LINE BROKER.  APART
FROM THE FACTS THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT APPLIED FOR SUCH A LICENSE AND
THAT NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO COLLECT THIS TAX FROM APPELLANT, SO FAR
AS APPEARS, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE TAX APPLIES ALIKE TO ALL SURPLUS
LINE BROKERS, WHETHER ACTING FOR DOMESTIC OR ADMITTED FOREIGN INSURERS
OR FOR NONADMITTED ONES.  NO QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THIS TAX IS
PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD. 

FN12  INDEED THE STATE ARGUES THAT NO QUESTION IS RAISED CONCERNING
THE VALIDITY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 1765 FOR PROCURING THE SURPLUS
LINE BROKER'S LICENSE SINCE, "SO FAR AS THIS RECORD SHOWS, THE LIFE
INSURANCE SOUGHT TO BE EFFECTED IN THIS CASE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE
BEEN PROCURABLE FROM ADMITTED INSURERS." 

HOWEVER, ON THE ALTERNATIVE BASIS OF ACCEPTING APPELLANT'S VIEW THAT
THE INSURANCE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO OBTAINABLE, CALIFORNIA CONCEDES
THE INSURANCE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE SURPLUS LINE EXCEPTION, BUT ASSERTS
THAT APPELLANT, IF HE HAD OBTAINED THE LICENSE, COULD HAVE ACTED AS
AGENT IN THE TRANSACTION.  HENCE, SINCE HE DID NOT APPLY FOR THE
LICENSE, THE STATE ARGUES THAT SEC. 1765 HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED TO HIM
AND ITS VALIDITY IS NOT INVOLVED. 

APPELLANT, HOWEVER, MAINTAINS THAT EVEN IF HE HAD SECURED THE
LICENSE, THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF SEC. 703(A) AND OTHER SECTIONS
RELATING TO SURPLUS LINE INSURANCE WOULD HAVE FORBIDDEN HIM TO ACT IN
THIS TRANSACTION.  SEE TEXT INFRA, PART III.  CALIFORNIA MAINTAINS THAT
THE VALIDITY OF OTHER CODE SECTIONS, APART FROM SECS. 703(A) AND 1642,
WAS NOT IN ISSUE IN THE STATE COURTS AND, THOUGH RAISED HERE IN THE
BRIEFS, IS NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVED. 

FN13  SEE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CODE SECS. 1560-1607, 10818. 
APPELLANT RELIES PARTICULARLY UPON SEC. 10818, PROHIBITING THE
ORGANIZATION OR ADMISSION OF NEW INSURERS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1940, TO
OPERATE AS SO-CALLED "CHAPTER 9" COMPANIES, THAT IS, AMONG OTHERS, AS
MUTUAL COMPANIES HAVING LESS THAN THE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED
FOR SUCH INSURERS OPERATING ON THE ASSESSMENT PLAN, BUT PERMITTING
PREVIOUSLY ORGANIZED OR ADMITTED COMPANIES TO CONTINUE UNDER SPECIALLY
IMPOSED REQUIREMENTS.  SEE TEXT INFRA AT NOTES 16, 21. 

PERTINENT ALSO IS SEC. 700 OF THE CODE PROVIDING:  "A PERSON SHALL
NOT TRANSACT ANY CLASS OF INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THIS STATE WITHOUT
FIRST BEING ADMITTED FOR SUCH CLASS," THROUGH SECURING A CERTIFICATE OF
AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMISSIONER ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE'S
REQUIREMENTS. 

FN14  CALIFORNIA INSURANCE CODE, CHAPTER 6.  SURPLUS LINE BROKERS. 
SECS. 1760-1779. 

A PERSON WITHIN THIS STATE SHALL NOT TRANSACT ANY INSURANCE ON PROPERTY
LOCATED  ...  WITHIN, OR ON THE LIVES OR PERSONS OF RESIDENTS OF THIS
STATE WITH NONADMITTED INSURERS, EXCEPT BY AND THROUGH A SURPLUS LINE
BROKER LICENSED UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER." 

EFFECT INSURANCE ON HIS OWN PROPERTY WITH ANY NONADMITTED INSURER," CF.
NOTE 20, AND SEC. 1760.5 REQUIRES SPECIFIED KINDS OF INSURANCE, E.G.,
MARINE AND AIRCRAFT RISKS, TO BE PLACED WITH NONADMITTED INSURERS ONLY
THROUGH A "SPECIAL LINES' SURPLUS LINE BROKER." 

BY SEC. 1763 A SURPLUS LINE BROKER "MAY SOLICIT AND PLACE INSURANCE,
OTHER THAN AS EXCEPTED IN SECTION 1761, WITH NONADMITTED INSURERS ONLY
IF SUCH INSURANCE CAN NOT BE PROCURED FROM A MAJORITY OF THE INSURERS
ADMITTED FOR THE PARTICULAR CLASS OR CLASSES OF INSURANCE.  SUCH PART
OF THE INSURANCE AS CAN NOT BE SO PROCURED MAY BE PROCURED FROM
NONADMITTED INSURERS," IF IT IS NOT SO PLACED TO SECURE A LOWER RATE
THAN THE LOWEST ANY ADMITTED INSURER WILL ACCEPT.  STRINGENT PROVISIONS
FOR SUPERVISING THE SECTION'S REQUIREMENTS BY THE COMMISSIONER ARE
INCLUDED. 

OTHER SECTIONS REQUIRE MAINTAINING AN OFFICE IN THE STATE (SEC.
1767), KEEPING RECORDS AND MAKING REPORTS (SECS. 1768, 1769, 1774), AND
PROVIDE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATING THE CHAPTER'S PROVISIONS, SEC.
1776. 

SEE AS TO SURPLUS LINE BROKERS, PATTERSON, THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
IN THE UNITED STATES (1927) 188-190. 

FN15  THE ARGUMENT IS NOT ONLY VARIOUS BUT SOMEWHAT DEVIOUS. 
APPELLANT DISCLAIMS INTENTION TO MAINTAIN THAT THE STATE CANNOT
"REGULATE (THE) INSURANCE BUSINESS" AND GOES ON TO REST ON THE GENERAL
PROPOSITION THAT IT CANNOT PROHIBIT INTERSTATE COMMERCE ENTIRELY AND
THAT THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, PARTICULARLY SEC. 10818,
SEE NOTE 13 SUPRA, IS TO DO THIS.  AS WILL APPEAR, THE ARGUMENT REALLY
COMES DOWN TO MAINTAINING THAT CALIFORNIA CANNOT REQUIRE FOREIGN
COMPANIES OR THEIR AGENTS TO COMPLY WITH HER MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR
ISSUING THE TYPE OF INSURANCE ISSUED HERE. 

FN16  BY SEC. 10510 OF THE CODE, "AN INCORPORATED LIFE INSURER
ISSUING POLICIES ON THE RESERVE BASIS SHALL NOT TRANSACT LIFE INSURANCE
IN THIS STATE UNLESS IT HAS A PAID-IN CAPITAL OF AT LEAST $200,000." 
MUTUAL INSURER.  THE EFFECT OF THE TWO SECTIONS, IT IS CONCEDED IN THE
STATE'S BRIEF, "IS TO REQUIRE THAT A STOCK COMPANY HAVE A CAPITAL STOCK
AGGREGATING AT LEAST $200,000 AND THAT A MUTUAL COMPANY HAVE A SURPLUS
OF AT LEAST $200,000 IN ORDER TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA."  BOTH
REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN COMPANIES ALIKE, WITH THE
EXCEPTIONS NOTED BELOW IN NOTE 17. 

FN17  THE EXCEPTION WAS THE RESULT OF A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS TO THE
CODE, MADE FROM 1935 TO 1939, DESIGNED GRADUALLY TO RESTRICT THE
OPERATIONS IN THE STATE OF COMPANIES OPERATING WITHOUT RESERVES, TO
ENABLE SUCH COMPANIES ALREADY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS TO BUILD UP RESERVES,
AND TO FORBID THE ORGANIZATION OR ADMISSION OF NEW COMPANIES OPERATING
WITHOUT THEM OR WITH RESERVES BELOW THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.  SEE
CALIF. STAT. 1935, CS. 282, 283, PP. 1002, 657, 667, 678; STAT. 1937,
C. 726, P. 2024; STAT. 1939, C. 321, P. 1609.  AND SEE ALSO THE ANNUAL
REPORTS OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
SIXTY-SIXTH, 10-11; SIXTY-EIGHTH, XX; SIXTY-NINTH, XVII; SEVENTIETH,
XVIII; SEVENTY-FIRST, XXIX; SEVENTY-THIRD, XVII, XXII-XXIII. 

FN18  THE POLICY ISSUED IN THIS CASE CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING
PROVISION IN SMALL TYPE ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE SHEET:  "THE
LAWFULLY REQUIRED PORTION OF PREMIUMS PAID ON THIS CERTIFICATE SHALL BE
SET ASIDE INTO THE MORTUARY FUND.  PREMIUMS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THIS
CERTIFICATE IN FORCE ARE NOT FIXED AMOUNTS AND IN EVENT OF PREMIUM
INSUFFICIENCY MAY BE ADJUSTED, WITH THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE
CORPORATION COMMISSION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS AND
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES.  IN THE EVENT OF ANY EMERGENCY CAUSED BY
EXCESSIVE MORTALITY THE CORPORATION MAY, WITH THE WRITTEN CONSENT OR AT
THE DIRECTION OF THE CORPORATION COMMISSION, LEVY ASSESSMENTS ON
MEMBERS TO BE PLACED IN THE MORTUARY FUND." 

FN19  SEE NOTE 17. 

FN20  SEE SEC. 1763, QUOTED IN PART IN NOTE 14, SUPRA, AND TEXT INFRA
AT NOTE 30.  THE TYPE OF INSURANCE ISSUED HERE IS NOT WITHIN THE
EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 1763, WHICH IN TURN RELATE TO SECS. 1760
AND 1760.5.  THE FORMER, IT IS TO BE NOTED, RELATES ON ITS FACE ONLY TO
PROPERTY INSURANCE; THE LATTER TO VARIOUS SPECIAL RISKS, NOT INCLUDING
MUTUAL ASSESSMENT INSURANCE, WHICH CAN BE PLACED ONLY BY A "SPECIAL
LINES' SURPLUS LINE BROKER."  SEE NOTE 14. 

FN21  SEE NOTE 13. 

FN22  IBID. 

FN23  SEE THE REPORTS OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, CITED IN NOTE
17. 

FN24  CF. QUEENSIDE HILLS REALTY CO. V. SAXL, 328 U.S. 80; CHICAGO &
ALTON R. CO. V. TRANBARGER, 238 U.S. 67; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V.
NEBRASKA EX REL. OMAHA, 170 U.S. 57. 

FN25  SEE UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202; CLARK V. PAUL
GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583; BRADLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 289 U.S.
92; HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610; CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554;
NEW MEXICO EX REL. MCLEAN V. DENVER & RIO GRANDE R. CO., 203 U.S. 38. 

FN26  CF. HALE V. BIMCO TRADING CO., 306 U.S. 375; BALDWIN V. SEELIG,
294 U.S. 511; HOOPESTON CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313. 

FN27  CF. AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 25. 

FN28  SEE, AS TO STATE EXCLUSIONS OF AND PROHIBITIONS ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, RASMUSSEN V. IDAHO, 181 U.S. 198; SMITH V. ST. LOUIS & S.W.R.
CO., 181 U.S. 248; COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE V. STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, 186
U.S. 380; REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137; OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & N. CO.
V. WASHINGTON, 270 U.S. 87; MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346; CROSSMAN V.
LURMAN, 192 U.S. 189; PLUMLEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 155 U.S. 461;
HENNINGTON V. GEORGIA, 163 U.S. 299.  SEE ALSO KIMMISH V. BALL, 129
U.S. 217; MISSOURI-K.-T.R. CO. V. HABER, 169 U.S. 613; CARTER V.
VIRGINIA, 321 U.S. 131. 

FN29  SEE PART I, TEXT. 

FN30  SEE NOTE 28. 

FN31  SEE NOTE 20 AND TEXT. 

FN32  SEE NOTE 6 AND TEXT INFRA. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THE GENERAL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS WHICH
CALIFORNIA PROVIDES FOR THE INSURANCE AGENTS WERE CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER
THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT, EVEN PRIOR TO THE MCCARRAN ACT.  BUT PRIOR
TO THAT ACT CALIFORNIA COULD NOT UNDER OUR DECISIONS UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE EXCLUDE AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS, AT LEAST IN ABSENCE OF A SHOWING
THAT IT WAS A FRAUDULENT ENTERPRISE OR IN AN UNSOUND CONDITION.  NO
SUCH SHOWING IS MADE HERE.  THE MCCARRAN ACT CHANGES THAT RULE; BUT IT
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE UNLAWFUL WHAT WAS LAWFUL WHEN DONE. 
..END :














PORTER V. LEE, 328 U.S. 246 


NOS. 1116 AND 1117.  ARGUED MAY 13, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1946.  -
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


WHILE AN EVICTION SUIT BY A LANDLORD AGAINST A TENANT WAS PENDING IN A
STATE COURT, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR SUED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
UNDER SEC. 205 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT TO ENJOIN THE
LANDLORD FROM EVICTING THAT TENANT "OR ANY OTHER TENANT" AND FROM
VIOLATING THE RENT REGULATION FOR HOUSING (PROMULGATED UNDER THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT), WHICH FORBIDS THE EVICTION OF TENANTS SO
LONG AS THEY PAY THE RENT TO WHICH THE LANDLORD IS ENTITLED.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.  WHILE AN APPEAL WAS PENDING, THE TENANT WAS EVICTED. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS MOOT.  HELD: 

1.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 205(C) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "THE DISTRICT COURTS
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATIONS OF
COURTS, OF ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 205 OF THIS ACT."  P.
249. 

(A)  THE LANDLORD'S EVICTION PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURT WAS NOT AN
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, NOT WITHIN
THE "CONCURRENT" JURISDICTION CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 205.  P. 250. 

(B)  OVER THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 205, NOT
ONLY DID THE DISTRICT COURT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION FIRST, BUT THE STATE
COURT NEVER ACQUIRED ANY JURISDICTION AT ALL.  P. 250. 

2.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CASE WAS
MOOT.  P. 251. 

(A)  THE MERE FACT THAT THE TENANT VACATED THE PREMISES IN COMPLIANCE
WITH A WRIT OF POSSESSION DID NOT END THE CONTROVERSY, SINCE THE COURT
COULD HAVE RESTORED THE STATUS QUO BY A MANDATORY INJUNCTION.  P. 251. 

(B)  MOREOVER, THE ADMINISTRATOR SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE EVICTION OF
ANY OTHER TENANT OF THE LANDLORD AS WELL AS OTHER ACTS IN VIOLATION OF
THE REGULATION; AND SEC. 205(A) AUTHORIZES SUCH A BROAD INJUNCTION UPON
A FINDING THAT THE LANDLORD HAS ENGAGED IN VIOLATIONS.  P. 251. 

PORTER, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, V. LEE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR SUED TO ENJOIN THE EVICTION OF A TENANT AND
OTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE RENT REGULATION FOR HOUSING PROMULGATED UNDER
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  59 F.SUPP.  639.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DISMISSED AN APPEAL AS MOOT.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
328 U.S. 826.  REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR TRIAL ON
THE MERITS, P. 252. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OCTOBER 24, 1944, DR. LEE BROUGHT A FORCIBLE DETAINER SUIT IN THE
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT OF KENTON COUNTY, KENTUCKY, TO RECOVER
POSSESSION OF AN APARTMENT HE HAD RENTED TO R.C. AND SARAH BEEVER BY
REASON OF AN ALLEGED NONPAYMENT OF RENT DUE ON OCTOBER 18, 1944.  ON
DECEMBER 4, 1944, BEFORE ANY JUDGMENT HAD BEEN RENDERED, THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR, UNDER SEC. 205 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, 56
STAT. 23, SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ORDER
RESPONDENTS, DR. AND MRS. LEE, NOT TO PROSECUTE EVICTION PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST "BEEVER OR ANY OTHER TENANT" AND TO RESTRAIN THEM FROM
VIOLATING THE RENT REGULATION FOR HOUSING, 10 F.R. 3436, 13528,
PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  FN1  THAT
REGULATION PROVIDES AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT SO LONG AS THE TENANT
CONTINUES TO PAY THE RENT TO WHICH THE LANDLORD IS ENTITLED NO TENANT
SHALL BE REMOVED OR EVICTED BY ANY LANDLORD.  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
COMPLAINT IN THE INJUNCTION PROCEEDING ALLEGED THAT BEEVER OWED NO
RENT; THAT TENDER OF THE RENT DUE HAD BEEN REFUSED BY DR. LEE; THAT
THIS HAD BEEN DONE NOT BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN A DEFAULT IN PAYMENT BUT
RATHER BECAUSE DR. LEE DID NOT WANT FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, SUCH AS THE
BEEVERS, LIVING ON THE PREMISES; AND THAT THE EVICTION PROCEEDING,
THUS, VIOLATED THE RENT REGULATION FOR HOUSING.  THE DISTRICT COURT
ISSUED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, BUT LATER, WITHOUT PASSING ON THE
DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUE OF WHETHER BEEVER HAD ACTUALLY BEEN DELINQUENT
IN PAYING HIS RENT AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE JUSTICE OF
THE PEACE COURT PROCEEDINGS, DISMISSED THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR'S
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT IT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN THE LEES
FROM PROSECUTING AN EVICTION PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURT.  BOWLES V.
LEE, 59 F.SUPP.  639.  FN2  THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT ON THE
LANDLORD'S MOTION THEN DISMISSED THE FORCIBLE DETAINER ACTION AND ON
JUNE 25, 1945, A NEW ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN THE SAME JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE COURT ASKING FOR A WRIT OF RESTITUTION TO REMOVE THE BEEVERS ON
THE GROUND OF NONPAYMENT OF RENT.  THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT THEN
ENTERED A JUDGMENT DIRECTING THE EVICTION OF THE BEEVERS.  THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR THIS TIME ASKED THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO RESTRAIN
ENFORCEMENT AND EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF EVICTION.  THIS ACTION BY
THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR WAS AGAIN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF
JURISDICTION. 

THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR APPEALED FROM BOTH DISTRICT COURT ORDERS
DISMISSING HIS COMPLAINTS AND MADE PROMPT APPLICATION TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL IN THE FIRST CASE. 
THIS MOTION WAS DENIED.  THE LANDLORD MOVED TO HAVE THE CASE DISMISSED
AS MOOT AND IN SUPPORT OF THAT MOTION FILED AN AFFIDAVIT SETTING FORTH
THAT THE PREMISES HAD BEEN VACATED BY THE BEEVERS.  IN RESPONSE THE
PRICE ADMINISTRATOR SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT BY R. C. BEEVER STATING THAT
HE HAD NOT VACATED THE APARTMENT AS A MATTER OF CHOICE, BUT HAD MOVED
TO SEVERAL BASEMENTS AND INTO THE HOME OF HIS WIFE'S PARENTS BECAUSE HE
WAS COMPELLED TO DO SO BY A WRIT OF POSSESSION WHICH HAD BEEN SERVED ON
HIM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED BOTH CASES AS MOOT.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
RAISED BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSALS FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION AND THE HOLDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
PROCEEDINGS HAD BECOME MOOT. 

FIRST.  AS TO JURISDICTION, THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT
AND THE RENT REGULATION FOR HOUSING, PROMULGATED PURSUANT THERETO AND
NOT CHALLENGED HERE, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR'S
ALLEGATIONS IN HIS COMPLAINT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT STATED AN
ENJOINABLE VIOLATION OVER WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT AS AN ENFORCEMENT
COURT ORDINARILY WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 205(A) AND (C) OF
THE ACT.  BUT THE LANDLORD CLAIMS THAT HERE THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO ACT BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 205(C) PERMIT
ACTIONS IN STATE COURTS ALONE UNDER THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES HERE. 
HE RELIES ON THAT PART OF SUBSECTION (C) WHICH PROVIDES THAT "THE
DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 4 OF THIS ACT, AND, CONCURRENTLY WITH STATE AND
TERRITORIAL COURTS, OF ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 205 OF THIS
ACT."  THE LANDLORD'S ARGUMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
PROCEEDING IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WAS A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC.
205 OVER WHICH THE STATE COURTS HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.  THE ONLY
ISSUE IN THE FEDERAL PROCEEDING WOULD HAVE BEEN WHETHER THE LANDLORD
HAD LEGALLY SOUGHT TO EVICT THE BEEVERS BECAUSE OF NONPAYMENT OF RENT
OR WHETHER EVICTION WAS SOUGHT FOR OTHER REASONS IN VIOLATION OF THE
APPLICABLE REGULATION.  THAT QUESTION COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT IN VIEW OF ITS "CONCURRENT" JURISDICTION
UNDER SEC. 205(C).  SINCE THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT ACTION BY THE
LANDLORD WAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INJUNCTION
PROCEEDING IN THE FEDERAL COURT, THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURT HAD
ACQUIRED SOLE POWER TO DECIDE THE CRUCIAL ISSUE AND THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT THEREFORE LACKED JURISDICTION. 

WE THINK THIS CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT.  SECTION 205(C) GIVES THE
STATE COURTS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION ONLY OVER NON-CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT
"PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 205."  BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503,
511-512.  HERE THE LANDLORD'S EVICTION PROCEEDING IN THE JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE COURT CLEARLY WAS NOT AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AUTHORIZED BY THE
ACT.  IT WAS, RATHER, IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR PROVED TO
BE TRUE, A VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  THE STATE COURT'S JURISDICTION WAS
BASED ON STATE LAW AND NOT ON SEC. 205 OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT.  IT
WAS THEREFORE NOT PART OF THE "CONCURRENT" JURISDICTION CONTEMPLATED BY
SEC. 205.  OVER THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPLATED BY THAT
THE STATE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED ANY JURISDICTION AT ALL.  IT WAS
CONSEQUENTLY WITHIN THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT
THE INJUNCTION, PROVIDED THE GOVERNMENT SUCCEEDED IN PROVING THE MERITS
OF ITS CASE. 

TO RULE OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO BRING
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN SITUATIONS SUCH AS THE ONE BEFORE US,
ALWAYS IN THE STATE COURTS.  SUCH A REQUIREMENT WOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE
IN ACCORD WITH THE "CONCURRENT" JURISDICTION PROVISION OF SEC. 205(C). 
OR THE ADMINISTRATOR IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD
ALWAYS BE FORCED TO INTERVENE IN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY THE
LANDLORD.  THIS PROCEDURE WOULD BE INADEQUATE, BECAUSE THE SPEEDY
MANNER IN WHICH EVICTION SUITS ARE HANDLED WILL FREQUENTLY MAKE IT TOO
LATE TO INTERVENE WHEN THE ADMINISTRATOR BECOMES AWARE OF A VIOLATION. 
FURTHERMORE, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTS DO NOT, AT LEAST ORDINARILY,
HAVE JURISDICTION TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS TO PREVENT FUTURE VIOLATIONS OF
THE ACT.  SINCE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT THAT LIMITS THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION TO INTERVENTION IN THE STATE COURTS, WE SEE NO
REASON, NOR ARE WE AUTHORIZED, TO SO RESTRICT HIM.  FN3 

SECOND.  WE ALSO THINK THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE CASE WAS MOOT.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE BEEVERS, IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THE WRIT OF POSSESSION, VACATED THE APARTMENT WAS NOT
ENOUGH TO END THE CONTROVERSY.  IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT WHERE
A DEFENDANT WITH NOTICE IN AN INJUNCTION PROCEEDING COMPLETES THE ACTS
SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED THE COURT MAY BY MANDATORY INJUNCTION RESTORE THE
STATUS QUO.  TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. NORTHSIDE BELT R. CO., 276
U.S. 475, 479.  THE ADMINISTRATOR, THEREFORE, WAS ENTITLED TO SEEK A
RESTORATION OF THE STATUS QUO IN THIS CASE.  SEE HENDERSON V.
FLECKINGER, 136 F.2D 381-382.  MOREOVER, HERE THE ADMINISTRATOR SOUGHT
TO RESTRAIN NOT MERELY THE EVICTION OF BEEVER BUT ALSO THAT OF ANY
OTHER TENANT OF THE LANDLORD AS WELL AS OTHER ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE
REGULATION.  SECTION 205(A) AUTHORIZES THE DISTRICT COURT IN ITS
DISCRETION TO GRANT SUCH A BROAD INJUNCTION UPON A FINDING THAT THE
LANDLORD HAS ENGAGED IN VIOLATIONS.  SEE HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S.
321.  IF THE EVICTION PROCEEDING ACTUALLY WAS A VIOLATION OF THE
REGULATION, THEN BEEVER'S VACATING THE PREMISES WAS MERELY THE
COMPLETION OF ONE VIOLATION.  THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER FUTURE VIOLATIONS
SHOULD BE ENJOINED WAS STILL BEFORE THE COURT AND WAS BY NO MEANS
MOOT. 

THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ARE REVERSED AND THE
CASES ARE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR TRIAL OF THE ISSUES ON THE
MERITS.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE PART OF THE REGULATION HERE IN QUESTION (SEC. 6) WAS
PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO SEC. 2(D) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT,
56 STAT. 23, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHENEVER SUCH ACTION
IS NECESSARY OR PROPER IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT,
TO "REGULATE OR PROHIBIT  ...  RENTING OR LEASING PRACTICES (INCLUDING
PRACTICES RELATING TO RECOVERY OF THE POSSESSION) IN CONNECTION WITH
ANY DEFENSEAREA HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, WHICH IN HIS JUDGMENT ARE
EQUIVALENT TO OR ARE LIKELY TO RESULT IN  ...  RENT INCREASES  ...
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." 

FN2  THE ORIGINAL PETITION FOR INJUNCTION WAS FILED BY CHESTER BOWLES
AS PRICE ADMINISTRATOR.  PETITIONER PORTER IS HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE,
AND UPON MOTION HE HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS PETITIONER IN THIS COURT. 

FN3  AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PORTER V. DICKEN, POST, P. 252,
SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :















PORTER V. DICKEN, 328 U.S. 252 


NO. 1118.  ARGUED MAY 13, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1946.  - REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 


UNDER SEC. 205 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, AUTHORIZING THE
PRICE ADMINISTRATOR TO BRING INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE ACT
IN EITHER STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS
JURISDICTION TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION SOUGHT BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
TO RESTRAIN EVICTION OF A TENANT UNDER AN ORDER OF A STATE COURT WHERE
THE ADMINISTRATOR ALLEGES THAT EVICTION WOULD VIOLATE THE ACT AND
REGULATIONS PURSUANT THERETO - NOTWITHSTANDING SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, WHICH FORBIDS FEDERAL COURTS TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS EXCEPT IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 254,
255. 

PORTER, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, V. DICKEN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

A WRIT OF POSSESSION TO EVICT A TENANT HAVING BEEN ISSUED BY A STATE
COURT, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR SUED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR AN
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE EVICTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
SUIT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED AN
APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE EVICTION PENDING AN
APPEAL TO THAT COURT.  BEFORE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ON THE MERITS, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  328 U.S. 827.  REVERSED
AND REMANDED, P. 255. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, LIKE PORTER V. LEE, ANTE, P. 246, INVOLVES THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION,
SOUGHT BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT, TO RESTRAIN EVICTION OF A TENANT UNDER AN ORDER OF A
STATE COURT WHERE THE ADMINISTRATOR ALLEGES THAT EVICTION WOULD VIOLATE
THE ACT AND VALID REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO IT.  BRIEFLY
STATED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CONTROVERSY ARE THESE:  B. M. MURRAY,
AS EXECUTOR OF AN ESTATE, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED HIM BY THE
PROBATE COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, SOLD A HOUSE LOCATED WITHIN THE
COLUMBUS DEFENSE RENTAL AREA.  A WRIT OF POSSESSION DIRECTING THE
SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY TO EVICT THE TENANT AND TO PLACE THE RESPONDENT
PURCHASERS IN POSSESSION WAS OBTAINED IN THE PROBATE COURT.  NO
CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING THE EVICTION WAS SOUGHT OR OBTAINED FROM THE
PRICE ADMINISTRATOR AS IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 6 OF THE RENT REGULATION FOR
HOUSING.  10 F.R. 3436, 13528.  BEFORE THE SHERIFF EXECUTED THE WRIT
THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR AN INJUNCTION IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER BUT LATER DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT
SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. 379, DEPRIVED THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT OF JURISDICTION TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE
COURT.  THIS SECTION PROVIDES THAT:  "THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION SHALL NOT
BE GRANTED BY ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY
COURT OF A STATE, EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE SUCH INJUNCTION MAY BE
AUTHORIZED BY ANY LAW RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY."  THE
DISTRICT COURT IN DISMISSING THE CAUSE ENTERED AN ORDER RESTRAINING
RESPONDENTS FROM EVICTING THE TENANT PENDING DETERMINATION BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR AN APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION
PROHIBITING THE EVICTION PENDING AN APPEAL TO THAT COURT.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR MADE THIS APPLICATION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
BUT IT WAS DENIED, THUS REMOVING ALL OBSTACLES TO EVICTION OF THE
TENANT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS NOT HEARD THIS CASE.  IN
ORDER TO PREVENT EVICTION OF THE TENANT, THE ADMINISTRATOR SOUGHT AND
OBTAINED FROM MR. JUSTICE REED AN INJUNCTION PENDING FINAL DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE IN THIS COURT AND APPLIED FOR CERTIORARI DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT UNDER SEC. 240(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, WHICH AUTHORIZES US TO
GRANT CERTIORARI "EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER A JUDGMENT OR DECREE BY SUCH
LOWER COURT  ..."  WE WERE PROMPTED TO BRING THE DISTRICT COURT'S
JUDGMENT DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW BY REASON OF THE CLOSE
RELATIONSHIP OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTION RAISED TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED
IN PORTER V. LEE, ANTE, P. 246. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE SEC. 205(C) OF THE
ACT GAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO STATE COURTS TO GRANT RELIEF BY
INJUNCTION, THE POLICY OF SEC. 265 AGAINST FEDERAL INJUNCTIONS OF STATE
PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IMPAIRED BY THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION WAS THAT IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR WANTED AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN EVICTION UNDER STATE
COURT PROCEDURE HE SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO SOME STATE COURT THAT HAD
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE.  THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
THE POLICY OF SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED
IMPAIRED BY THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  WHILE WE REALIZE THAT
SEC. 265 EMBODIES A LONG-STANDING GOVERNMENTAL POLICY TO PREVENT
UNNECESSARY FRICTION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, TOUCEY V. NEW
YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., 314 U.S. 118, WE STILL HOLD AS WE HELD IN
BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, THAT SEC. 205 OF THE PRICE CONTROL
ACT WHICH AUTHORIZES THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
IN APPROPRIATE COURTS, INCLUDING FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, IS AN IMPLIED
LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 265, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO ITS BROAD
PROHIBITION.  FN1  THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE SEC. 205 AUTHORIZES THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR TO BRING INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE ACT IN
EITHER STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS, AND THIS AUTHORITY IS BROAD ENOUGH TO
JUSTIFY AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN STATE COURT EVICTIONS.  BUT IF SEC.
265 CONTROLS, AS THE DISTRICT COURT HELD, THE ADMINISTRATOR HERE COULD
NOT PROCEED IN THE FEDERAL COURT, SINCE THERE IS A PROCEEDING PENDING
IN A STATE COURT.  SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT,
ENACTED LONG AFTER SEC. 265, DO NOT COMPEL THE ADMINISTRATOR TO GO INTO
THE STATE COURTS BUT LEAVE HIM FREE TO SEEK RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS, HE WAS NOT BARRED BY SEC. 265 FROM SEEKING AN INJUNCTION TO
RESTRAIN AN UNLAWFUL EVICTION.  CF. HALE V. BIMCO TRADING, INC., 306
U.S. 375. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE IS
REMANDED TO THAT COURT TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON IT
BY SEC. 205 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED. 

FN1  AN ALTERNATIVE REASON GIVEN FOR THE DECISION IN THE WILLINGHAM
CASE WAS THAT, SINCE THE STATE COURT THERE WAS ATTEMPTING TO ENJOIN THE
ADMINISTRATOR FROM PERFORMING HIS DUTIES UNDER THE ACT, THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD POWER BOTH UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE ACT AND SEC. 24(1) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE TO PROTECT THE EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION WHICH
CONGRESS HAD GRANTED.  BUT OUR OPINION DID NOT, AS THE DISTRICT COURT
THOUGHT, DEPEND ENTIRELY ON THIS ALTERNATIVE GROUND. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328 U.S. 256 


NO. 630.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1946.  - 104 CT. CLS.
342, 60 F.SUPP.  751, REVERSED AND REMANDED. 


RESPONDENTS OWNED A DWELLING AND A CHICKEN FARM NEAR A MUNICIPAL
AIRPORT.  THE SAFE PATH OF GLIDE TO ONE OF THE RUNWAYS OF THE AIRPORT
PASSED DIRECTLY OVER RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY AT 83 FEET, WHICH WAS 67
FEET ABOVE THE HOUSE, 63 FEET ABOVE THE BARN AND 18 FEET ABOVE THE
HIGHEST TREE.  IT WAS USED 4% OF THE TIME IN TAKING OFF AND 7% OF THE
TIME IN LANDING.  THE GOVERNMENT LEASED THE USE OF THE AIRPORT FOR A
TERM OF ONE MONTH COMMENCING JUNE 1, 1942, WITH A PROVISION FOR
RENEWALS UNTIL JUNE 30, 1967, OR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE END OF THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY, WHICHEVER WAS EARLIER.  VARIOUS MILITARY AIRCRAFT
OF THE UNITED STATES USED THE AIRPORT.  THEY FREQUENTLY CAME SO CLOSE
TO RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY THAT THEY BARELY MISSED THE TOPS OF TREES, THE
NOISE WAS STARTLING, AND THE GLARE FROM THEIR LANDING LIGHTS LIGHTED
THE PLACE UP BRIGHTLY AT NIGHT.  THIS DESTROYED THE USE OF THE PROPERTY
AS A CHICKEN FARM AND CAUSED LOSS OF SLEEP, NERVOUSNESS AND FRIGHT ON
THE PART OF RESPONDENTS.  THEY SUED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER
FOR AN ALLEGED TAKING OF THEIR PROPERTY AND FOR DAMAGES TO THEIR
POULTRY BUSINESS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD
TAKEN AN EASEMENT OVER RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY AND THAT THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY DESTROYED AND THE EASEMENT TAKEN WAS $2,000; BUT IT MADE NO
FINDING AS TO THE PRECISE NATURE OR DURATION OF THE EASEMENT.  HELD: 

1.  A SERVITUDE HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE LAND FOR WHICH RESPONDENTS
ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 260-267. 

(A)  THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINE THAT OWNERSHIP OF LAND EXTENDS TO THE
PERIPHERY OF THE UNIVERSE HAS NO PLACE IN THE MODERN WORLD.  PP. 260,
261. 

(B)  THE AIR ABOVE THE MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE OF FLIGHT PRESCRIBED BY
THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY IS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND PART OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN, AS DECLARED BY CONGRESS IN THE AIR COMMERCE ACT OF 1926,
AS AMENDED BY THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938.  PP. 260, 261, 266. 

(C)  FLIGHTS BELOW THAT ALTITUDE ARE NOT WITHIN THE NAVIGABLE AIR
SPACE WHICH CONGRESS PLACED WITHIN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, EVEN THOUGH THEY
ARE WITHIN THE PATH OF GLIDE APPROVED BY THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS
AUTHORITY.  PP. 263, 264. 

(D)  FLIGHTS OF AIRCRAFT OVER PRIVATE LAND WHICH ARE SO LOW AND
FREQUENT AS TO BE A DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE INTERFERENCE WITH THE
ENJOYMENT AND USE OF THE LAND ARE AS MUCH AN APPROPRIATION OF THE USE
OF THE LAND AS A MORE CONVENTIONAL ENTRY UPON IT.  PP. 261, 262, 264
267. 

2.  SINCE THERE WAS A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE, THE
CLAIM WAS "FOUNDED UPON THE CONSTITUTION," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
141(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD JURISDICTION
TO HEAR AND DETERMINE IT.  P. 267. 

3.  SINCE THE COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT CONTAIN NO PRECISE DESCRIPTION
OF THE NATURE OR DURATION OF THE EASEMENT TAKEN, THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS, SO THAT IT
MAY MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS.  PP. 267, 268. 

(A)  AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE EASEMENT TAKEN IS ESSENTIAL, SINCE
THAT INTEREST VESTS IN THE UNITED STATES.  P. 267. 

(B)  FINDINGS OF FACT ON EVERY "MATERIAL ISSUE" ARE A STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT, AND A DEFICIENCY IN THE FINDINGS CAN NOT BE RECTIFIED BY
STATEMENTS IN THE OPINION.  PP. 267, 268. 

(C)  A CONJECTURE IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION FROM EVIDENCE WOULD NOT BE
A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 268. 

UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY ET UX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS GRANTED RESPONDENTS A JUDGMENT FOR THE VALUE OF
PROPERTY DESTROYED AND DAMAGE TO THEIR PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE
TAKING OF AN EASEMENT OVER THEIR PROPERTY BY LOW-FLYING MILITARY
AIRCRAFT OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT FAILED TO INCLUDE IN ITS FINDINGS OF
FACT A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OR DURATION OF THE EASEMENT. 
104 CT. CLS. 342, 60 F.SUPP.  751.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327
U.S. 775.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 268. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.  THE PROBLEM PRESENTED IS WHETHER
RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY WAS TAKEN, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, BY FREQUENT AND REGULAR FLIGHTS OF ARMY AND NAVY AIRCRAFT
OVER RESPONDENTS' LAND AT LOW ALTITUDES.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT
THERE WAS A TAKING AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING.  104 CT. CLS. 342, 60 F.SUPP.  751.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

RESPONDENTS OWN 2.8 ACRES NEAR AN AIRPORT OUTSIDE OF GREENSBORO,
NORTH CAROLINA.  IT HAS ON IT A DWELLING HOUSE, AND ALSO VARIOUS
OUTBUILDINGS WHICH WERE MAINLY USED FOR RAISING CHICKENS.  THE END OF
THE AIRPORT'S NORTHWEST-SOUTHEAST RUNWAY IS 2,220 FEET FROM
RESPONDENTS' BARN AND 2,275 FEET FROM THEIR HOUSE.  THE PATH OF GLIDE
TO THIS RUNWAY PASSES DIRECTLY OVER THE PROPERTY - WHICH IS 100 FEET
WIDE AND 1,200 FEET LONG.  THE 30 TO 1 SAFE GLIDE ANGLE  FN1  APPROVED
BY THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY N2 PASSES OVER THIS PROPERTY AT 83
FEET, WHICH IS 67 FEET ABOVE THE HOUSE, 63 FEET ABOVE THE BARN AND 18
FEET ABOVE THE HIGHEST TREE.  FN3  THE USE BY THE UNITED STATES OF THIS
AIRPORT IS PURSUANT TO A LEASE EXECUTED IN MAY, 1942, FOR A TERM
COMMENCING JUNE 1, 1942 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1942, WITH A PROVISION FOR
RENEWALS UNTIL JUNE 30, 1967, OR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE END OF THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY, WHICHEVER IS THE EARLIER. 

VARIOUS AIRCRAFT OF THE UNITED STATES USE THIS AIRPORT - BOMBERS,
TRANSPORTS AND FIGHTERS.  THE DIRECTION OF THE PREVAILING WIND
DETERMINES WHEN A PARTICULAR RUNWAY IS USED.  THE NORTHWEST-SOUTHEAST
RUNWAY IN QUESTION IS USED ABOUT FOUR PER CENT OF THE TIME IN TAKING
OFF AND ABOUT SEVEN PER CENT OF THE TIME IN LANDING.  SINCE THE UNITED
STATES BEGAN OPERATIONS IN MAY, 1942, ITS FOUR-MOTORED HEAVY BOMBERS,
OTHER PLANES OF THE HEAVIER TYPE, AND ITS FIGHTER PLANES HAVE
FREQUENTLY PASSED OVER RESPONDENTS' LAND AND BUILDINGS IN CONSIDERABLE
NUMBERS AND RATHER CLOSE TOGETHER.  THEY COME CLOSE ENOUGH AT TIMES TO
APPEAR BARELY TO MISS THE TOPS OF THE TREES AND AT TIMES SO CLOSE TO
THE TOPS OF THE TREES AS TO BLOW THE OLD LEAVES OFF.  THE NOISE IS
STARTLING.  AND AT NIGHT THE GLARE FROM THE PLANES BRIGHTLY LIGHTS UP
THE PLACE.  AS A RESULT OF THE NOISE, RESPONDENTS HAD TO GIVE UP THEIR
CHICKEN BUSINESS.  AS MANY AS SIX TO TEN OF THEIR CHICKENS WERE KILLED
IN ONE DAY BY FLYING INTO THE WALLS FROM FRIGHT.  THE TOTAL CHICKENS
LOST IN THAT MANNER WAS ABOUT 150.  PRODUCTION ALSO FELL OFF.  THE
RESULT WAS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A COMMERCIAL
CHICKEN FARM.  RESPONDENTS ARE FREQUENTLY DEPRIVED OF THEIR SLEEP AND
THE FAMILY HAS BECOME NERVOUS AND FRIGHTENED.  ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN
NO AIRPLANE ACCIDENTS ON RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL
ACCIDENTS NEAR THE AIRPORT AND CLOSE TO RESPONDENTS' PLACE.  THESE ARE
THE ESSENTIAL FACTS FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  ON THE BASIS OF
THESE FACTS, IT FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY HAD DEPRECIATED IN
VALUE.  IT HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD TAKEN AN EASEMENT OVER THE
PROPERTY ON JUNE 1, 1942, AND THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DESTROYED
AND THE EASEMENT TAKEN WAS $2,000. 

I. THE UNITED STATES RELIES ON THE AIR COMMERCE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT.
568, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 171, AS AMENDED BY THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF
1938, 52 STAT. 973, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 401.  UNDER THOSE STATUTES THE
UNITED STATES HAS "COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY IN THE
AIR SPACE" OVER THIS COUNTRY.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 176(A).  THEY GRANT ANY
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES "A PUBLIC RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF TRANSIT IN
AIR COMMERCE  FN4  THROUGH THE NAVIGABLE AIR SPACE OF THE UNITED
STATES."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 403.  AND "NAVIGABLE AIR SPACE" IS DEFINED AS
"AIRSPACE ABOVE THE MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES OF FLIGHT PRESCRIBED BY THE
CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 180.  AND IT IS PROVIDED
THAT "SUCH NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF
FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN AIR NAVIGATION."  ID.  IT IS,
THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT SINCE THESE FLIGHTS WERE WITHIN THE MINIMUM SAFE
ALTITUDES OF FLIGHT WHICH HAD BEEN PRESCRIBED, THEY WERE AN EXERCISE OF
THE DECLARED RIGHT OF TRAVEL THROUGH THE AIRSPACE.  THE UNITED STATES
CONCLUDES THAT WHEN FLIGHTS ARE MADE WITHIN THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE
WITHOUT ANY PHYSICAL INVASION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE LANDOWNERS, THERE
HAS BEEN NO TAKING OF PROPERTY.  IT SAYS THAT AT MOST THERE WAS MERELY
INCIDENTAL DAMAGE OCCURRING AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AUTHORIZED AIR
NAVIGATION.  IT ALSO ARGUES THAT THE LANDOWNER DOES NOT OWN
SUPERADJACENT AIRSPACE WHICH HE HAS NOT SUBJECTED TO POSSESSION BY THE
ERECTION OF STRUCTURES OR OTHER OCCUPANCY.  MOREOVER, IT IS ARGUED THAT
EVEN IF THE UNITED STATES TOOK AIRSPACE OWNED BY RESPONDENTS, NO
COMPENSABLE DAMAGE WAS SHOWN.  ANY DAMAGES ARE SAID TO BE MERELY
CONSEQUENTIAL FOR WHICH NO COMPENSATION MAY BE OBTAINED UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

IT IS ANCIENT DOCTRINE THAT AT COMMON LAW OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND
EXTENDED TO THE PERIPHERY OF THE UNIVERSE - CUJUS EST SOLUM EJUS EST
USQUE AD COELUM.  FN5  BUT THAT DOCTRINE HAS NO PLACE IN THE MODERN
WORLD.  THE AIR IS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY, AS CONGRESS HAS DECLARED.  WERE
THAT NOT TRUE, EVERY TRANSCONTINENTAL FLIGHT WOULD SUBJECT THE OPERATOR
TO COUNTLESS TRESPASS SUITS.  COMMON SENSE REVOLTS AT THE IDEA.  TO
RECOGNIZE SUCH PRIVATE CLAIMS TO THE AIRSPACE WOULD CLOG THESE
HIGHWAYS, SERIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH THEIR CONTROL AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, AND TRANSFER INTO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP THAT TO WHICH ONLY
THE PUBLIC HAS A JUST CLAIM. 

BUT THAT GENERAL PRINCIPLE DOES NOT CONTROL THE PRESENT CASE.  FOR
THE UNITED STATES CONCEDED ON ORAL ARGUMENT THAT IF THE FLIGHTS OVER
RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY RENDERED IT UNINHABITABLE, THERE WOULD BE A
TAKING COMPENSABLE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IT IS THE OWNER'S LOSS,
NOT THE TAKER'S GAIN, WHICH IS THE MEASURE OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
TAKEN.  UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 369.  MARKET VALUE FAIRLY
DETERMINED IS THE NORMAL MEASURE OF THE RECOVERY.  ID.  AND THAT VALUE
MAY REFLECT THE USE TO WHICH THE LAND COULD READILY BE CONVERTED, AS
WELL AS THE EXISTING USE.  UNITED STATES V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266,
275, AND CASES CITED.  IF, BY REASON OF THE FREQUENCY AND ALTITUDE OF
THE FLIGHTS, RESPONDENTS COULD NOT USE THIS LAND FOR ANY PURPOSE, THEIR
LOSS WOULD BE COMPLETE.  FN6 IT WOULD BE AS COMPLETE AS IF THE UNITED
STATES HAD ENTERED UPON THE SURFACE OF THE LAND AND TAKEN EXCLUSIVE
POSSESSION OF IT. 

WE AGREE THAT IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WOULD BE A TAKING.  THOUGH
IT WOULD BE ONLY AN EASEMENT OF FLIGHT WHICH WAS TAKEN, THAT EASEMENT,
IF PERMANENT AND NOT MERELY TEMPORARY, NORMALLY WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT
OF A FEE INTEREST.  IT WOULD BE A DEFINITE EXERCISE OF COMPLETE
DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE SURFACE OF THE LAND.  THE FACT THAT THE
PLANES NEVER TOUCHED THE SURFACE WOULD BE AS IRRELEVANT AS THE ABSENCE
IN THIS DAY OF THE FEUDAL LIVERY OF SEISIN ON THE TRANSFER OF REAL
ESTATE.  THE OWNER'S RIGHT TO POSSESS AND EXPLOIT THE LAND - THAT IS TO
SAY, HIS BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF IT - WOULD BE DESTROYED.  IT WOULD NOT
BE A CASE OF INCIDENTAL DAMAGES ARISING FROM A LEGALIZED NUISANCE SUCH
AS WAS INVOLVED IN RICHARDS V. WASHINGTON TERMINAL CO., 233 U.S. 546. 
IN THAT CASE, PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE LANDS ADJOINED A RAILROAD LINE WERE
DENIED RECOVERY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE NOISE, VIBRATIONS, SMOKE
AND THE LIKE, INCIDENTAL TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE TRAINS.  IN THE
SUPPOSED CASE, THE LINE OF FLIGHT IS OVER THE LAND.  AND THE LAND IS
APPROPRIATED AS DIRECTLY AND COMPLETELY AS IF IT WERE USED FOR THE
RUNWAYS THEMSELVES. 

THERE IS NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUPPOSED CASE AND THE
PRESENT ONE, EXCEPT THAT HERE ENJOYMENT AND USE OF THE LAND ARE NOT
COMPLETELY DESTROYED.  BUT THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO US TO BE CONTROLLING. 
THE PATH OF GLIDE FOR AIRPLANES MIGHT REDUCE A VALUABLE FACTORY SITE TO
GRAZING LAND, AN ORCHARD TO A VEGETABLE PATCH, A RESIDENTIAL SECTION TO
A WHEAT FIELD.  SOME VALUE WOULD REMAIN.  BUT THE USE OF THE AIRSPACE
IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THE LAND WOULD LIMIT THE UTILITY OF THE LAND AND
CAUSE A DIMINUTION IN ITS VALUE.  FN7  THAT WAS THE PHILOSOPHY OF
PORTSMOUTH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 327.  IN THAT CASE THE
PETITION ALLEGED THAT THE UNITED STATES ERECTED A FORT ON NEARBY LAND,
ESTABLISHED A BATTERY AND A FIRE CONTROL STATION THERE, AND FIRED GUNS
OVER PETITIONER'S LAND.  THE COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES, REVERSED THE COURT OF CLAIMS, WHICH DISMISSED THE PETITION ON A
DEMURRER, HOLDING THAT "THE SPECIFIC FACTS SET FORTH WOULD WARRANT A
FINDING THAT A SERVITUDE HAS BEEN IMPOSED."  FN8  260 U.S. P. 330.  AND
SEE DELTA AIR CORP. V. KERSEY, 193 GA. 862, 20 S.E.2D 245.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. 357.25 ACRES OF LAND, 55 F.SUPP.  461. 

THE FACT THAT THE PATH OF GLIDE TAKEN BY THE PLANES WAS THAT APPROVED
BY THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY DOES NOT CHANGE THE RESULT.  THE
NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE WHICH CONGRESS HAS PLACED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS
"AIRSPACE ABOVE THE MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES OF FLIGHT PRESCRIBED BY THE
CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 180.  IF THAT AGENCY
PRESCRIBED 83 FEET AS THE MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE, THEN WE WOULD HAVE
PRESENTED THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION.  BUT NOTHING
OF THE SORT HAS BEEN DONE.  THE PATH OF GLIDE GOVERNS THE METHOD OF
OPERATING - OF LANDING OR TAKING OFF.  THE ALTITUDE REQUIRED FOR THAT
OPERATION IS NOT THE MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE OF FLIGHT WHICH IS THE
DOWNWARD REACH OF THE NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE.  THE MINIMUM PRESCRIBED BY
THE AUTHORITY IS 500 FEET DURING THE DAY AND 1,000 FEET AT NIGHT FOR
AIR CARRIERS (CIVIL AIR REGULATIONS, PT. 61, SECS. 61.7400, 61.7401,
CODE FED. REG. CUM. SUPP., TIT. 14, CH. 1), AND FROM 300 FEET TO 1,000
FEET FOR OTHER AIRCRAFT, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF PLANE AND THE
CHARACTER OF THE TERRAIN.  ID., PT. 60, SECS. 60.350-60.3505, FED. REG.
CUM. SUPP., SUPRA.  HENCE, THE FLIGHTS IN QUESTION WERE NOT WITHIN THE
NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE WHICH CONGRESS PLACED WITHIN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  IF
ANY AIRSPACE NEEDED FOR LANDING OR TAKING OFF WERE INCLUDED, FLIGHTS
WHICH WERE SO CLOSE TO THE LAND AS TO RENDER IT UNINHABITABLE WOULD BE
IMMUNE.  BUT THE UNITED STATES CONCEDES, AS WE HAVE SAID, THAT IN THAT
EVENT THERE WOULD BE A TAKING.  THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PATH OF
GLIDE IS NOT THE MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE OF FLIGHT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE STATUTE.  THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY HAS, OF COURSE, THE POWER
TO PRESCRIBE AIR TRAFFIC RULES.  BUT CONGRESS HAS DEFINED NAVIGABLE
AIRSPACE ONLY IN TERMS OF ONE OF THEM - THE MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES OF
FLIGHT. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT THE AIRSPACE IS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY.  YET IT IS
OBVIOUS THAT IF THE LANDOWNER IS TO HAVE FULL ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND, HE
MUST HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE IMMEDIATE REACHES OF THE ENVELOPING
ATMOSPHERE.  OTHERWISE BUILDINGS COULD NOT BE ERECTED, TREES COULD NOT
BE PLANTED, AND EVEN FENCES COULD NOT BE RUN.  THE PRINCIPLE IS
RECOGNIZED WHEN THE LAW GIVES A REMEDY IN CASE OVERHANGING STRUCTURES
ARE ERECTED ON ADJOINING LAND.  FN9  THE LANDOWNER OWNS AT LEAST AS
MUCH OF THE SPACE ABOVE THE GROUND AS HE CAN OCCUPY OR USE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE LAND.  SEE HINMAN V. PACIFIC AIR TRANSPORT, 84 F.2D
755.  THE FACT THAT HE DOES NOT OCCUPY IT IN A PHYSICAL SENSE - BY THE
ERECTION OF BUILDINGS AND THE LIKE - IS NOT MATERIAL.  AS WE HAVE SAID,
THE FLIGHT OF AIRPLANES, WHICH SKIM THE SURFACE BUT DO NOT TOUCH IT, IS
AS MUCH AN APPROPRIATION OF THE USE OF THE LAND AS A MORE CONVENTIONAL
ENTRY UPON IT.  WE WOULD NOT DOUBT THAT, IF THE UNITED STATES ERECTED
AN ELEVATED RAILWAY OVER RESPONDENTS' LAND AT THE PRECISE ALTITUDE
WHERE ITS PLANES NOW FLY, THERE WOULD BE A PARTIAL TAKING, EVEN THOUGH
NONE OF THE SUPPORTS OF THE STRUCTURE RESTED ON THE LAND.  FN10  THE
REASON IS THAT THERE WOULD BE AN INTRUSION SO IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT AS
TO SUBTRACT FROM THE OWNER'S FULL ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND TO
LIMIT HIS EXPLOITATION OF IT. WHILE THE OWNER DOES NOT IN ANY PHYSICAL
MANNER OCCUPY THAT STRATUM OF AIRSPACE OR MAKE USE OF IT IN THE
CONVENTIONAL SENSE, HE DOES USE IT IN SOMEWHAT THE SAME SENSE THAT
SPACE LEFT BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIGHT AND AIR IS USED. 
THE SUPERADJACENT AIRSPACE AT THIS LOW ALTITUDE IS SO CLOSE TO THE LAND
THAT CONTINUOUS INVASIONS OF IT AFFECT THE USE OF THE SURFACE OF THE
LAND ITSELF.  WE THINK THAT THE LANDOWNER, AS AN INCIDENT TO HIS
OWNERSHIP, HAS A CLAIM TO IT AND THAT INVASIONS OF IT ARE IN THE SAME
CATEGORY AS INVASIONS OF THE SURFACE.  FN11    IN THIS CASE, AS IN
PORTSMOUTH CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE DAMAGES WERE NOT MERELY
CONSEQUENTIAL.  THEY WERE THE PRODUCT OF A DIRECT INVASION OF
RESPONDENTS' DOMAIN.  AS STATED IN UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S.
316, 328, "...  IT IS THE CHARACTER OF THE INVASION, NOT THE AMOUNT OF
DAMAGE RESULTING FROM IT, SO LONG AS THE DAMAGE IS SUBSTANTIAL, THAT
DETERMINES THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS A TAKING." 

WE SAID IN UNITED STATES V. POWELSON, SUPRA, P. 279, THAT WHILE THE
MEANING OF "PROPERTY" AS USED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WAS A FEDERAL
QUESTION, "IT WILL NORMALLY OBTAIN ITS CONTENT BY REFERENCE TO LOCAL
LAW."  IF WE LOOK TO NORTH CAROLINA LAW, WE REACH THE SAME RESULT. 
SOVEREIGNTY IN THE AIRSPACE RESTS IN THE STATE "EXCEPT WHERE GRANTED TO
AND ASSUMED BY THE UNITED STATES."  GEN. STATS. 1943, SEC. 63-11.  THE
FLIGHT OF AIRCRAFT IS LAWFUL "UNLESS AT SUCH A LOW ALTITUDE AS TO
INTERFERE WITH THE THEN EXISTING USE TO WHICH THE LAND OR WATER, OR THE
SPACE OVER THE LAND OR WATER, IS PUT BY THE OWNER, OR UNLESS SO
CONDUCTED AS TO BE IMMINENTLY DANGEROUS TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY LAWFULLY
ON THE LAND OR WATER BENEATH."  ID., SEC. 63-13.  SUBJECT TO THAT RIGHT
OF FLIGHT, "OWNERSHIP OF THE SPACE ABOVE THE LANDS AND WATERS OF THIS
STATE IS DECLARED TO BE VESTED IN THE SEVERAL OWNERS OF THE SURFACE
BENEATH  ..."  ID., SEC. 63-12.  OUR HOLDING THAT THERE WAS AN INVASION
OF RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY IS THUS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL LAW
GOVERNING A LANDOWNER'S CLAIM TO THE IMMEDIATE REACHES OF THE
SUPERADJACENT AIRSPACE. 

THE AIRPLANE IS PART OF THE MODERN ENVIRONMENT OF LIFE, AND THE
INCONVENIENCES WHICH IT CAUSES ARE NORMALLY NOT COMPENSABLE UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE AIRSPACE, APART FROM THE IMMEDIATE REACHES ABOVE
THE LAND, IS PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE AT THIS
TIME WHAT THOSE PRECISE LIMITS ARE.  FLIGHTS OVER PRIVATE LAND ARE NOT
A TAKING, UNLESS THEY ARE SO LOW AND SO FREQUENT AS TO BE A DIRECT AND
IMMEDIATE INTERFERENCE WITH THE ENJOYMENT AND USE OF THE LAND.  WE NEED
NOT SPECULATE ON THAT PHASE OF THE PRESENT CASE.  FOR THE FINDINGS OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS PLAINLY ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS A DIMINUTION IN
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE FREQUENT, LOW-LEVEL FLIGHTS WERE THE
DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CAUSE.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT A
SERVITUDE HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE LAND. 

II.  BY SEC. 145(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 250(1), THE
COURT OF CLAIMS HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE "ALL CLAIMS
(EXCEPT FOR PENSIONS) FOUNDED UPON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES OR  ...  UPON ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES  ..." 

WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER REPEATED TRESPASSES MIGHT GIVE RISE TO AN
IMPLIED CONTRACT.  CF. PORTSMOUTH CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IF
THERE IS A TAKING, THE CLAIM IS "FOUNDED UPON THE CONSTITUTION" AND
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO HEAR AND DETERMINE. 
SEE HOLLISTER V. BENEDICT MFG. CO., 113 U.S. 59, 67; HURLEY V. KINCAID,
285 U.S. 95, 104; YEARSLEY V. ROSS CONSTRUCTION CO., 309 U.S. 18, 21. 
THUS, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THIS CASE IS CLEAR. 

III.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THAT AN EASEMENT
WAS TAKEN.  BUT THE FINDINGS OF FACT CONTAIN NO PRECISE DESCRIPTION AS
TO ITS NATURE.  IT IS NOT DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF FREQUENCY OF FLIGHT,
PERMISSIBLE ALTITUDE, OR TYPE OF AIRPLANE.  NOR IS THERE A FINDING AS
TO WHETHER THE EASEMENT TAKEN WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT.  YET AN
ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN IS ESSENTIAL, SINCE THAT
INTEREST VESTS IN THE UNITED STATES.  UNITED STATES V. CRESS, SUPRA,
328-329 AND CASES CITED.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS STATED IN
ITS OPINION THAT THE EASEMENT TAKEN WAS PERMANENT.  BUT THE DEFICIENCY
IN FINDINGS CANNOT BE RECTIFIED BY STATEMENTS IN THE OPINION.  UNITED
STATES V. ESNAULT-PELTERIE, 299 U.S. 201, 205-206; UNITED STATES V.
SEMINOLE NATION, 299 U.S. 417, 422.  FINDINGS OF FACT ON EVERY
"MATERIAL ISSUE" ARE A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.  53 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 288.  THE IMPORTANCE OF FINDINGS OF FACT BASED ON EVIDENCE IS
EMPHASIZED HERE BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS' TREATMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE
EASEMENT.  IT STATED IN ITS OPINION THAT THE EASEMENT WAS PERMANENT
BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES "NO DOUBT INTENDED TO MAKE SOME SORT OF
ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY IT COULD USE THE AIRPORT FOR ITS MILITARY PLANES
WHENEVER IT HAD OCCASION TO DO SO."  THAT SOUNDS MORE LIKE CONJECTURE
RATHER THAN A CONCLUSION FROM EVIDENCE; AND IF SO, IT WOULD NOT BE A
PROPER FOUNDATION FOR LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE DO NOT STOP
TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WOULD SUPPORT SUCH A
FINDING, IF MADE.  FOR THAT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION.  UNITED STATES V.
ESNAULT-PELTERIE, SUPRA, P. 206. 

SINCE ON THIS RECORD IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE EASEMENT TAKEN IS A
PERMANENT OR A TEMPORARY ONE, IT WOULD BE PREMATURE FOR US TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD MADE BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS
PROPER. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS SO THAT IT MAY MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  A 30 TO 1 GLIDE ANGLE MEANS ONE FOOT OF ELEVATION OR DESCENT FOR
EVERY 30 FEET OF HORIZONTAL DISTANCE. 

FN2  MILITARY PLANES ARE SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF THE CIVIL
AERONAUTICS BOARD WHERE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE ARE NO ARMY OR
NAVY REGULATIONS TO THE CONTRARY.  CAMERON V. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,
140 F.2D 482. 

FN3  THE HOUSE IS APPROXIMATELY 16 FEET HIGH, THE BARN 20 FEET, AND
THE TALLEST TREE 65 FEET. 

FN4  "AIR COMMERCE" IS DEFINED AS INCLUDING "ANY OPERATION OR
NAVIGATION OF AIRCRAFT WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS, OR WHICH MAY ENDANGER
SAFETY IN, INTERSTATE, OVERSEAS, OR FOREIGN AIR COMMERCE."  49 U.S.C.
SEC. 401(3). 

FN5  1 COKE, INSTITUTES (19TH ED. 1832) CH. 1, SEC. 1(4A); 2
BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES (LEWIS ED. 1902) P. 18; 3 KENT, COMMENTARIES
(GOULD ED. 1896) P. 621. 

FN6  THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL USES OF THE PROPERTY BY FLOODING HAS BEEN
HELD TO CONSTITUTE A TAKING.  PUMPELLY V. GREEN BAY CO., 13 WALL.  166;
UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, 188 U.S. 445; UNITED STATES V. WELCH, 217 U.S.
333. 

FN7  IT WAS STATED IN UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S.
373, 378, "THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE DEPRIVATION OF THE FORMER
OWNER RATHER THAN THE ACCRETION OF A RIGHT OR INTEREST TO THE SOVEREIGN
CONSTITUTES THE TAKING.  GOVERNMENTAL ACTION SHORT OF ACQUISITION OF
TITLE OR OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN HELD, IF ITS EFFECTS ARE SO COMPLETE AS TO
DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF ALL OR MOST OF HIS INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER,
TO AMOUNT TO A TAKING."  THE PRESENT CASE FALLS SHORT OF THE GENERAL
MOTORS CASE.  THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE UNITED STATES HAS MERELY
DESTROYED PROPERTY.  IT IS USING A PART OF IT FOR THE FLIGHT OF ITS
PLANES. 

CF. WARREN TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DIST. V. DETROIT, 308 MICH. 460, 14 N.W.2D
134; SMITH V. NEW ENGLAND AIRCRAFT CO., 270 MASS. 511, 170 N.E. 385;
BURNHAM V. BEVERLY AIRWAYS, INC., 311 MASS. 628, 42 N.E.2D 575. 

FN8  ON REMAND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION WERE FOUND NOT TO BE
SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS.  64 CT. CLS. 572. 

FN9  BATEN'S CASE, 9 COKE R. 53B; MEYER V. METZLER, 51 CAL. 142;
CODMAN V. EVANS, 89 MASS. 431; HARRINGTON V. MCCARTHY, 169 MASS. 492,
48 N.E. 278.  SEE BALL, THE VERTICAL EXTENT OF OWNERSHIP IN LAND, 76 U.
PA. L. REV. 631, 658-671. 

FN10  IT WAS HELD IN BUTLER V. FRONTIER TELEPHONE CO., 186 N.Y. 486,
79 N.E. 716, THAT EJECTMENT WOULD LIE WHERE A TELEPHONE WIRE WAS STRUNG
ACROSS THE PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT TOUCH THE
SOIL.  THE COURT STATED, PP. 491-492:  "...  AN OWNER IS ENTITLED TO
THE ABSOLUTE AND UNDISTURBED POSSESSION OF EVERY PART OF HIS PREMISES,
INCLUDING THE SPACE ABOVE, AS MUCH AS A MINE BENEATH.  IF THE WIRE HAD
BEEN A HUGE CABLE, SEVERAL INCHES THICK AND BUT A FOOT ABOVE THE
GROUND, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENCE IN DEGREE, BUT NOT IN
PRINCIPLE.  EXPAND THE WIRE INTO A BEAM SUPPORTED BY POSTS STANDING
UPON ABUTTING LOTS WITHOUT TOUCHING THE SURFACE OF PLAINTIFF'S LAND,
AND THE DIFFERENCE WOULD STILL BE ONE OF DEGREE ONLY.  ENLARGE THE BEAM
INTO A BRIDGE, AND YET SPACE ONLY WOULD BE OCCUPIED.  ERECT A HOUSE
UPON THE BRIDGE, AND THE AIR ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE LAND WOULD ALONE
BE DISTURBED." 

FN11  SEE BOUVE, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, 21 AMER.  BAR ASSOC. JOURN.  416, 421-422; HISE,
OWNERSHIP AND SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AIR, 16 IA. L. REV. 169; EUBANK, THE
DOCTRINE OF THE AIRSPACE ZONE OF EFFECTIVE POSSESSION, 12 BOSTON UNIV. 
L. REV. 414. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT "PRIVATE PROPERTY" SHALL NOT "BE
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."  THE COURT HOLDS TODAY
THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS "TAKEN" RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY BY REPEATEDLY
FLYING ARMY BOMBERS DIRECTLY ABOVE RESPONDENTS' LAND AT A HEIGHT OF
EIGHTY-THREE FEET WHERE THE LIGHT AND NOISE FROM THESE PLANES CAUSED
RESPONDENTS TO LOSE SLEEP AND THEIR CHICKENS TO BE KILLED.  SINCE THE
EFFECT OF THE COURT'S DECISION IS TO LIMIT, BY THE IMPOSITION OF
RELATIVELY ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS, POSSIBLE FUTURE
ADJUSTMENTS THROUGH LEGISLATION AND REGULATION WHICH MIGHT BECOME
NECESSARY WITH THE GROWTH OF AIR TRANSPORTATION, AND SINCE IN MY VIEW
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT CONTAIN SUCH BARRIERS, I DISSENT. 

THE FOLLOWING IS A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE BACKGROUND AND OF THE
EVENTS THAT THE COURT'S OPINION TERMS A "TAKING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT:  SINCE 1928 THERE HAS BEEN AN AIRFIELD SOME EIGHT
MILES FROM GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA.  IN APRIL, 1942, THIS AIRPORT
WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE GREENSBORO-HIGH POINT MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
AND IT HAS SINCE THEN OPERATED AS A MUNICIPAL AIRPORT.  IN 1942 THE
GOVERNMENT, BY CONTRACT, OBTAINED THE RIGHT TO USE THE FIELD
"CONCURRENTLY, JOINTLY, AND IN COMMON" WITH OTHER USERS.  YEARS BEFORE,
IN 1934, RESPONDENTS HAD BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTY, LOCATED MORE THAN ONE
THIRD OF A MILE FROM THE AIRPORT.  PRIVATE PLANES FROM THE AIRPORT FLEW
OVER THEIR LAND AND FARM BUILDINGS FROM 1934 TO 1942 AND ARE STILL
DOING SO.  BUT THOUGH THESE PLANES DISTURBED RESPONDENTS TO SOME
EXTENT, ARMY BOMBERS, WHICH STARTED TO FLY OVER THE LAND IN 1942 AT A
HEIGHT OF EIGHTY-THREE FEET, DISTURBED THEM MORE BECAUSE THEY WERE
LARGER, CAME OVER MORE FREQUENTLY, MADE A LOUDER NOISE, AND AT NIGHT A
GREATER GLARE WAS CAUSED BY THEIR LIGHTS.  THIS NOISE AND GLARE
DISTURBED RESPONDENTS' SLEEP, FRIGHTENED THEM, AND MADE THEM NERVOUS. 
THE NOISE AND LIGHT ALSO FRIGHTENED RESPONDENTS' CHICKENS SO MUCH THAT
MANY OF THEM FLEW AGAINST BUILDINGS AND WERE KILLED. 

THE COURT'S OPINION SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE MERE FLYING OF PLANES
THROUGH THE COLUMN OF AIR DIRECTLY ABOVE RESPONDENTS' LAND DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A "TAKING."  CONSEQUENTLY, IT APPEARS TO BE NOISE AND GLARE,
TO THE EXTENT AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN HERE, WHICH MAKE THE
GOVERNMENT A SEIZER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.  BUT THE ALLEGATION OF NOISE
AND GLARE RESULTING IN DAMAGES, CONSTITUTES AT BEST AN ACTION IN TORT
WHERE THERE MIGHT BE RECOVERY IF THE NOISE AND LIGHT CONSTITUTED A
NUISANCE, A VIOLATION OF A STATUTE,  FN1  OR WERE THE RESULT OF
NEGLIGENCE.  FN2 BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS EXCEPT IN ACTIONS BASED ON EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
CONTRACT.  AND THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONTRACT HERE, UNLESS BY REASON OF
THE NOISE AND GLARE CAUSED BY THE BOMBERS THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE SAID TO
HAVE "TAKEN" RESPONDENTS' PROPERTY IN A CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  THE
CONCEPT OF TAKING PROPERTY AS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION HAS HERETOFORE
NEVER BEEN GIVEN SO SWEEPING A MEANING.  THE COURT'S OPINION PRESENTS
NO CASE WHERE A MAN WHO MAKES NOISE OR SHINES LIGHT ONTO HIS NEIGHBOR'S
PROPERTY HAS BEEN EJECTED FROM THAT PROPERTY FOR WRONGFULLY TAKING
POSSESSION OF IT.  NOR WOULD ANYONE TAKE SERIOUSLY A CLAIM THAT NOISY
AUTOMOBILES PASSING ON A HIGHWAY ARE TAKING WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF THE
HOMES LOCATED THEREON, OR THAT A CITY ELEVATED TRAIN WHICH GREATLY
INTERFERES WITH THE SLEEP OF THOSE WHO LIVE NEXT TO IT WRONGFULLY TAKES
THEIR PROPERTY.  EVEN THE ONE CASE IN THIS COURT WHICH IN CONSIDERING
THE SUFFICIENCY OF A COMPLAINT GAVE THE MOST ELASTIC MEANING TO THE
PHRASE "PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN" AS USED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, DID
NOT GO SO FAR.  PORTSMOUTH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 327.  I AM
NOT WILLING, NOR DO I THINK THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DECISIONS
AUTHORIZE ME, TO EXTEND THAT PHRASE SO AS TO GUARANTEE AN ABSOLUTE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO RELIEF NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE CHANGE, WHICH
IS BASED ON AVERMENTS THAT AT BEST SHOW MERE TORTS COMMITTED BY
GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHILE FLYING OVER LAND.  THE FUTURE ADJUSTMENT OF THE
RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF PROPERTY OWNERS, WHICH MIGHT BE FOUND NECESSARY
BECAUSE OF THE FLIGHT OF PLANES AT SAFE ALTITUDES, SHOULD, ESPECIALLY
IN VIEW OF THE IMMINENT EXPANSION OF AIR NAVIGATION, BE LEFT WHERE I
THINK THE CONSTITUTION LEFT IT, WITH CONGRESS. 

NOR DO I REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH UNDER THE COURT'S OPINION MAKES THE TORT
HERE ABSOLUTELY ACTIONABLE, IS THE PASSING OF PLANES THROUGH A COLUMN
OF AIR AT AN ELEVATION OF EIGHTY-THREE FEET DIRECTLY OVER RESPONDENTS'
PROPERTY.  IT IS INCONCEIVABLE TO ME THAT THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES
THAT THE AIRSPACE OF THIS NATION NEEDED FOR AIR NAVIGATION IS OWNED BY
THE PARTICULAR PERSONS WHO HAPPEN TO OWN THE LAND BENEATH TO THE SAME
DEGREE AS THEY OWN THE SURFACE BELOW.  FN1  NO RIGID CONSTITUTIONAL
RULE, IN MY JUDGMENT, COMMANDS THAT THE AIR MUST BE CONSIDERED AS
MARKED OFF INTO SEPARATE COMPARTMENTS BY IMAGINARY METES AND BOUNDS IN
ORDER TO SYNCHRONIZE AIR OWNERSHIP WITH LAND OWNERSHIP.  I THINK THAT
THE CONSTITUTION ENTRUSTS CONGRESS WITH FULL POWER TO CONTROL ALL
NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE.  CONGRESS HAS ALREADY ACTED UNDER THAT POWER.  IT
HAS BY STATUTE, 44 STAT. 568, 52 STAT. 973, PROVIDED THAT "THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA IS  ...  TO POSSESS AND EXERCISE COMPLETE AND
EXCLUSIVE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY IN THE AIR SPACE ABOVE THE UNITED STATES
..."  THIS WAS DONE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION GAVE CONGRESS THE SAME PLENARY POWER TO CONTROL
NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE AS ITS PLENARY POWER OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS.  H. REP.
NO. 572, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 10; H. REP. NO. 1162, 69TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 14; SEE UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK, 324 U.S. 386. 
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AIRSPACE USED FOR AIR NAVIGATION WOULD REMAIN
FREE, CONGRESS FURTHER DECLARED THAT "NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN AIR
NAVIGATION," AND FINALLY STATED EMPHATICALLY THAT THERE EXISTS "A
PUBLIC RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF TRANSIT  ...  THROUGH THE NAVIGABLE AIR
SPACE OF THE UNITED STATES."  CONGRESS THUS DECLARED THAT THE AIR IS
FREE, NOT SUBJECT TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, AND NOT SUBJECT TO DELIMITATION
BY THE COURTS.  CONGRESS AND THOSE ACTING UNDER ITS AUTHORITY WERE THE
ONLY ONES WHO HAD POWER TO CONTROL AND REGULATE THE FLIGHT OF PLANES. 
"NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE" WAS DEFINED AS "AIRSPACE ABOVE THE MINIMUM SAFE
ALTITUDES OF FLIGHT PRESCRIBED BY THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY ..." 
49 U.S.C. SEC. 180.  THUS, CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS
AUTHORITY EXCLUSIVE POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT IS NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE
SUBJECT TO ITS EXCLUSIVE CONTROL.  THIS POWER DERIVES SPECIFICALLY FROM
THE SECTION WHICH AUTHORIZES THE AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE "AIR TRAFFIC
RULES GOVERNING THE FLIGHT OF, AND FOR THE NAVIGATION, PROTECTION, AND
IDENTIFICATION OF, AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING RULES AS TO SAFE ALTITUDES OF
FLIGHT AND RULES FOR THE PREVENTION OF COLLISIONS BETWEEN AIRCRAFT, AND
BETWEEN AIRCRAFT AND LAND OR WATER VEHICLES."  HERE THERE WAS NO
SHOWING THAT THE BOMBERS FLYING OVER RESPONDENTS' LAND VIOLATED ANY
RULE OR REGULATION OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY.  YET, UNLESS WE
HOLD THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AT LEAST SUCH A SHOWING WOULD BE
NECESSARY BEFORE THE COURTS COULD ACT WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE
EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY WHICH CONGRESS GAVE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. 
NOT EVEN A SHOWING THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS NOT ACTED WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT.  FOR IN THAT EVENT, WERE THE COURTS TO HAVE ANY AUTHORITY
TO ACT IN THIS CASE AT ALL, THEY SHOULD STAY THEIR HAND TILL THE
AUTHORITY HAS ACTED. 

THE BROAD PROVISIONS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE CANNOT PROPERLY BE
CIRCUMSCRIBED BY MAKING A DISTINCTION, AS THE COURT'S OPINION DOES,
BETWEEN RULES OF SAFE ALTITUDE OF FLIGHT WHILE ON THE LEVEL OF CROSS
COUNTRY FLIGHT AND RULES OF SAFE ALTITUDE DURING LANDING AND TAKING
OFF.  FIRST, SUCH A DISTINCTION CANNOT BE MAINTAINED FROM THE PRACTICAL
STANDPOINT.  IT IS UNLIKELY THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE AUTHORITY
PRESCRIBE SAFE ALTITUDES FOR PLANES MAKING CROSS-COUNTRY FLIGHTS, WHILE
AT THE SAME TIME IT LEFT THE MORE HAZARDOUS LANDING AND TAKE-OFF
OPERATIONS UNREGULATED.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, MOREOVER, CLEARLY
SHOWS THAT THE AUTHORITY'S POWER TO PRESCRIBE AIR TRAFFIC RULES
INCLUDES THE POWER TO MAKE RULES GOVERNING LANDING AND TAKE-OFF.  NOR
IS THE COURT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THAT HISTORY BY LABELING RULES OF
SAFE ALTITUDE WHILE ON THE LEVEL OF CROSS-COUNTRY FLIGHT AS RULES
PRESCRIBING THE SAFE ALTITUDE PROPER AND RULES GOVERNING TAKE-OFF AND
LANDING AS RULES OF OPERATION.  FOR THE CONFERENCE REPORT EXPLICITLY
STATES THAT SUCH DISTINCTIONS WERE PURPOSELY ELIMINATED FROM THE
ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL IN ORDER THAT THE SECTION ON AIR TRAFFIC RULES
"MIGHT BE GIVEN THE BROADEST POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION BY THE  ...  (CIVIL
AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY) AND THE COURTS."  FN2  IN CONSTRUING THE STATUTE
NARROWLY, THE COURT THWARTS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS.  A PROPER BROAD
CONSTRUCTION, SUCH AS CONGRESS COMMANDED, WOULD NOT PERMIT THE COURT TO
DECIDE WHAT IT HAS TODAY WITHOUT DECLARING THE ACT OF CONGRESS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  I THINK THE ACT GIVEN THE BROAD CONSTRUCTION
INTENDED IS CONSTITUTIONAL. 

NO GREATER CONFUSION COULD BE BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE COMING AGE OF AIR
TRANSPORTATION THAN THAT WHICH WOULD RESULT WERE COURTS BY
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION TO HAMPER CONGRESS IN ITS EFFORTS TO KEEP
THE AIR FREE.  OLD CONCEPTS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND SHOULD NOT BE
INTRODUCED INTO THE FIELD OF AIR REGULATION.  I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT
CONGRESS WILL, IF NOT HANDICAPPED BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, PRESERVE THE FREEDOM OF THE AIR, AND AT THE SAME TIME,
SATISFY THE JUST CLAIMS OF AGGRIEVED PERSONS.  THE NOISE OF NEWER,
LARGER, AND MORE POWERFUL PLANES MAY GROW LOUDER AND LOUDER AND DISTURB
PEOPLE MORE AND MORE.  BUT THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS PRECIPITATED BY
THESE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES AND NEW WAYS OF LIVING CANNOT COME ABOUT
THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF RIGID CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS FORMULATED
AND ENFORCED BY THE COURTS.  WHAT ADJUSTMENTS MAY HAVE TO BE MADE, ONLY
THE FUTURE CAN REVEAL.  IT SEEMS CERTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT COURTS DO NOT
POSSESS THE TECHNIQUES OR THE PERSONNEL TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE
COMPLEX COMBINATIONS OF FACTORS ENTERING INTO THE PROBLEMS.  THE
CONTRIBUTION OF COURTS MUST BE MADE THROUGH THE AWARDING OF DAMAGES FOR
INJURIES SUFFERED FROM THE FLYING OF PLANES, OR BY THE GRANTING OF
INJUNCTIONS TO PROHIBIT THEIR FLYING.  WHEN THESE TWO SIMPLE REMEDIAL
DEVICES ARE ELEVATED TO A CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, AS THE COURT TODAY SEEMS TO HAVE DONE, THEY CAN STAND AS
OBSTACLES TO BETTER ADAPTED TECHNIQUES THAT MIGHT BE OFFERED BY
EXPERIENCED EXPERTS AND ACCEPTED BY CONGRESS.  TODAY'S OPINION IS, I
FEAR, AN OPENING WEDGE FOR AN UNWARRANTED JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEVELOP SOLUTIONS FOR NEW AND VITAL NATIONAL
PROBLEMS.  IN MY OPINION THIS CASE SHOULD BE REVERSED ON THE GROUND
THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO "TAKING" IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE. 

FN1  NEISWONGER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., 35 F.2D 761. 

FN2  AS TO THE DAMAGE TO CHICKENS, JUDGE MADDEN, DISSENTING FROM THIS
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, SAID, "WHEN RAILROADS WERE NEW, CATTLE
IN FIELDS IN SIGHT AND HEARING OF THE TRAINS WERE ALARMED, THINKING
THAT THE GREAT MOVING OBJECTS WOULD TURN ASIDE AND HARM THEM.  HORSES
RAN AWAY AT THE SIGHT AND SOUND OF A TRAIN OR A THRESHING MACHINE
ENGINE.  THE FARMER'S CHICKENS HAVE TO GET OVER BEING ALARMED AT THE
INCREDIBLE RACKET OF THE TRACTOR STARTING UP SUDDENLY IN THE SHED
ADJOINING THE CHICKEN HOUSE.  THESE SIGHTS AND NOISES ARE A PART OF OUR
WORLD, AND AIRPLANES ARE NOW AND WILL BE TO A GREATER DEGREE, LIKEWISE
A PART OF IT.  THESE DISTURBANCES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS TORTS, IN
THE CASE OF THE AIRPLANE, ANY MORE THAN THEY ARE SO TREATED IN THE CASE
OF THE RAILROAD OR PUBLIC HIGHWAY."  104 CT. CLS. 342, 358. 

FN1  THE HOUSE IN ITS REPORT ON THE AIR COMMERCE ACT OF 1926 STATED: 

"THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF FLIGHT IN THE NAVIGABLE AIR SPACE OWES ITS
SOURCE TO THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS WHICH, UNDER DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT, HAS GIVEN RISE TO A PUBLIC EASEMENT OF NAVIGATION IN THE
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, REGARDLESS OF THE OWNERSHIP OF
THE ADJACENT OR SUBJACENT SOIL."  H. REP. NO. 572, 69TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 10. 

FN2  THE FULL STATEMENT READS: 

"THE SUBSTITUTE PROVIDES THAT THE SECRETARY SHALL BY REGULATION
ESTABLISH AIR TRAFFIC RULES FOR THE NAVIGATION, PROTECTION, AND
IDENTIFICATION OF ALL AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING RULES AS TO SAFE ALTITUDES OF
FLIGHT AND RULES FOR THE PREVENTION OF COLLISIONS BETWEEN VESSELS AND
AIRCRAFT.  THE PROVISION AS TO RULES FOR TAKING OFF AND ALIGHTING, FOR
INSTANCE, WAS ELIMINATED AS UNNECESSARY SPECIFICATION, FOR THE REASON
THAT SUCH RULES ARE BUT ONE CLASS OF AIR TRAFFIC RULES FOR THE
NAVIGATION AND PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT.  RULES AS TO MARKING WERE
ELIMINATED FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH RULES WERE FAIRLY INCLUDED WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF AIR RULES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT.  NO ATTEMPT
IS MADE BY EITHER THE SENATE BILL OR THE HOUSE AMENDMENT TO FULLY
DEFINE THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF RULES THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
AIR TRAFFIC RULES, AS, FOR INSTANCE, LIGHTS AND SIGNALS ALONG AIRWAYS
AND AT AIR-PORTS AND UPON EMERGENCY LANDING FIELDS.  IN GENERAL, THESE
RULES WOULD RELATE TO THE SAME SUBJECTS AS THOSE COVERED BY NAVIGATION
LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND BY THE VARIOUS STATE MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC
CODES.  AS NOTED ABOVE, SURPLUSAGE WAS ELIMINATED IN SPECIFYING
PARTICULAR AIR TRAFFIC RULES IN ORDER THAT THE TERM MIGHT BE GIVEN THE
BROADEST POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND THE
COURTS."  H. REP. NO. 1162, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 12. 

THAT THE RULES FOR LANDING AND TAKE-OFF ARE RULES PRESCRIBING
"MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES OF FLIGHT" IS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING FURTHER
STATEMENT IN THE HOUSE REPORT:  "...  THE MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES OF
FLIGHT  ...  WOULD VARY WITH THE TERRENE (TERRAIN) AND LOCATION OF
CITIES AND WOULD COINCIDE WITH THE SURFACE OF THE LAND OR WATER AT
AIRPORTS."  ID. AT P. 14. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN CORP., 328 U.S. 275 


NO. 970.  ARGUED MAY 6, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1946.  - 154 F.2D 785,
AFFIRMED. 


AFTER SERVING IN THE ARMY AND RECEIVING AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE,
PETITIONER WAS REINSTATED IN HIS FORMER POSITION PURSUANT TO SEC. 8(A)
OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN
THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH WORK TO KEEP ALL EMPLOYEES BUSY, HE WAS LAID OFF
TEMPORARILY ON NINE DAYS WHILE NON-VETERANS WITH HIGHER SHOP
SENIORITIES WERE PERMITTED TO WORK; BUT HE WAS GIVEN WORK WHEN ENOUGH
BECAME AVAILABLE.  HE SUED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO HIS RIGHTS
UNDER THE ACT AND TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION FOR THE DAYS THAT HE WAS LAID
OFF.  THE UNION INTERVENED AND ALLEGED IN ITS ANSWER THAT THE
EMPLOYER'S ACTION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THAT PETITIONER WAS LAID OFF IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT AND
GAVE HIM A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR THE LOSS OF WAGES.  ONLY THE UNION
APPEALED.  HELD: 

1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL,
SINCE THE UNION'S ANSWER PUT IN ISSUE THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND THE ACT AND,
IF SO, WHICH ONE PREVAILED.  THAT ISSUE BEING ADJUDICATED WITH THE
UNION AND THE EMPLOYER AS PARTIES, WOULD HAVE BEEN RES JUDICATA AS TO
THE UNION HAD IT NOT APPEALED.  PP. 281-284. 

2.  THE TEMPORARY "LAY-OFF" OF PETITIONER WHILE OTHER EMPLOYEES WITH
HIGHER SHOP SENIORITIES WERE PERMITTED TO WORK DID NOT VIOLATE SEC. 8
OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  PP. 284-291. 

(A)  SECTIONS 8(B) AND (C) DO NOT GRANT A VETERAN AN INCREASE IN
SENIORITY OVER WHAT HE WOULD HAVE HAD IF HE HAD NEVER ENTERED THE ARMED
SERVICES.  P. 285. 

(B)  AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS BEEN LAID OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SENIORITY
SYSTEM AND PUT ON A WAITING LIST FOR REASSIGNMENT HAS NOT BEEN
"DISCHARGED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(C), WHICH FORBIDS THE
DISCHARGE OF A REEMPLOYED VETERAN WITHOUT CAUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR.  PP.
286, 287. 

(C)  NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT INDICATES A
PURPOSE TO ACCORD A VETERAN THE RIGHT TO WORK WHEN BY OPERATION OF THE
SENIORITY SYSTEM THERE IS NONE AVAILABLE FOR HIM.  P. 289. 

(D)  THE FACT THAT, WHEN CONGRESS AMENDED SEC. 8 OF THE ACT IN 1944
AND EXTENDED THE ACT IN 1945 WITHOUT ANY CHANGE IN SEC. 8, IT WAS
APPRISED OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF
SELECTIVE SERVICE THAT A VETERAN WAS ENTITLED TO HIS JOB REGARDLESS OF
SENIORITY IS NOT CONTROLLING - ESPECIALLY WHEN THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR
BOARD HAS GIVEN SEC. 8(C) A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION IN HANDLING DISPUTES
ARISING OUT OF THE NEGOTIATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. 
PP. 289-291. 

3.  ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ACT BY THE DIRECTOR OF
SELECTIVE SERVICE MAY BE RESORTED TO FOR GUIDANCE; BUT, NOT BEING MADE
IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS, THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE WEIGHT WHICH IS
ACCORDED ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS BY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
ENTRUSTED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING INTER PARTES DECISIONS.  P.
290. 

FISHGOLD V. SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR CORP. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER SUED UNDER SEC. 8(E) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT TO OBTAIN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT AND
COMPENSATION FOR THE DAYS HE WAS LAID OFF FROM WORK.  THE DISTRICT
COURT REFUSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BUT GAVE PETITIONER A MONEY
JUDGMENT FOR THE LOSS OF WAGES.  62 F.SUPP.  25.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  154 F.2D 785.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327
U.S. 775.  AFFIRMED, P. 291. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SULLIVAN DRYDOCK & REPAIR
CORPORATION.  HE ENTERED ITS EMPLOY IN 1942 AND WORKED FOR IT AT A
SHIPYARD UNTIL HE WAS INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY IN 1943.  HE SERVED IN THE
ARMY A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AND WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED AND RECEIVED A
CERTIFICATE TO THAT EFFECT.  HE HAD WORKED FOR THE CORPORATION AS A
WELDER AND, AFTER HIS TOUR OF DUTY IN THE ARMY ENDED, HE WAS STILL
QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF A WELDER.  WITHIN FORTY DAYS OF HIS
DISCHARGE, HE APPLIED TO THE CORPORATION, AS WAS HIS RIGHT UNDER THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 301, FOR RESTORATION TO HIS FORMER POSITION.  FN1  HE WAS
REEMPLOYED AS A WELDER ON AUGUST 25, 1944. 

THE CORPORATION AND LOCAL 13 OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND
SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA HAD A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
WHICH PROVIDED:  FN2 

"PROMOTIONS AND RECLASSIFICATIONS AND INCREASES OR DECREASES IN THE
WORKING FORCE SHALL BE BASED UPON LENGTH OF SERVICE AND ABILITY TO DO
THE JOB.  WHEREVER BETWEEN TWO OR MORE MEN, ABILITY IS FAIRLY EQUAL,
LENGTH OF SERVICE SHALL BE THE CONTROLLING FACTOR." 

AS WORK AT THE SHIPYARD DECREASED, MEN WOULD BE LAID OFF.  THE MEN
SELECTED BY THE FOREMEN, ON THE BASIS OF ABILITY AND SENIORITY, TO BE
LAID OFF WOULD REPORT TO A DEPARTMENT HEAD FOR REASSIGNMENT ON THE
BASIS OF THEIR RELATIVE SENIORITY WHEN WORK BECAME AVAILABLE.  ON EACH
OF NINE DAYS IN THE SPRING OF 1945 PETITIONER WAS LAID OFF ALTHOUGH
OTHER WELDERS, NOT VETERANS OF THE RECENT WAR, POSSESSING THE SAME OR
SIMILAR SKILL AS PETITIONER, WERE GIVEN WORK ON THOSE DAYS.  THESE MEN
WERE PREFERRED BECAUSE THEY HAD A HIGHER SHOP SENIORITY THAN
PETITIONER.  THE DECISION TO LAY OFF PETITIONER FOLLOWED A DECISION OF
AN ARBITRATOR WHO RULED THAT THE SENIORITY PROVISIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WHICH WE HAVE QUOTED, REQUIRED IT AND THAT THEY
WERE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940. 

THEREUPON PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT, PURSUANT TO SEC. 8(E) OF THE
ACT,  FN3  TO OBTAIN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE
ACT AND TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION FOR THE DAYS HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO
WORK.  THE CORPORATION ANSWERED, JUSTIFYING ITS ACTION BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND THE DECISION OF
THE ARBITRATOR.  THE UNION WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE.  FN4  IT ALLEGED
IN ITS ANSWER THAT THE ACTION OF THE CORPORATION WAS WARRANTED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND WAS NOT IN
VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT REQUESTED, BUT ENTERED A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER FOR THE
LOSS OF WAGES DURING THE NINE DAYS IN QUESTION.  62 F.SUPP.  25.  IT
HELD THAT PETITIONER WAS LAID OFF IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  IT WAS ALSO
OF THE VIEW THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT.  ONLY THE UNION APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  154 F.2D 785.  IT HELD THAT
THE ACT DID NOT GIVE PETITIONER THE PREFERENCE WHICH HE CLAIMED AND
THAT THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT JUSTIFIED THE
CORPORATION'S ACTION.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION
PRESENTED. 

I. WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH THE CLAIM THAT THE UNION HAD NO
APPEALABLE INTEREST IN THE JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND
ACCORDINGLY THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS LACKED JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN IT.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT A MONEY JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ONLY
AGAINST THE CORPORATION AND THAT NO RELIEF WAS GRANTED AGAINST THE
UNION.  IT IS THEREFORE ARGUED THAT THE JUDGMENT DID NOT AFFECT ANY
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OF THE UNION AND THAT AT MOST THE UNION HAD MERELY AN
INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF LITIGATION WHICH MIGHT ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT
ADVERSE TO IT.  BOSTON TOW BOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 632.  IT
IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE STATUTORY GUARANTEE AGAINST DISCHARGE
WITHOUT CAUSE FOR ONE YEAR  FN5  HAD EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT, THAT THEREFORE NO DECLARATORY RELIEF WAS
GRANTED, AND THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHTS FOR THE FUTURE WERE NOT
ADJUDICATED.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE DISPUTE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND
THE UNION HAS THUS BECOME MOOT. 

BUT THAT ARGUMENT MISSES THE POINT.  THE ANSWER OF THE CORPORATION
AND THE UNION PUT IN ISSUE THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS A CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND THE ACT AND, IF SO,
WHICH ONE PREVAILED.  THE PARTIES TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT - THE UNION AND THE CORPORATION - WERE BEFORE THE COURT.  A
DECISION ON THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM NECESSARILY INVOLVED A
RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE ACT AND THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
OR, IF IT APPEARED THAT THEY CONFLICTED, AN ADJUDICATION THAT ONE
SUPERSEDED THE OTHER.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE
VIEW THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THE ACT.  BUT, HOWEVER THE RESULT MIGHT BE RATIONALIZED, A DECISION FOR
OR AGAINST PETITIONER NECESSARILY INVOLVED A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  THAT ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED, WITH THE
UNION AS A PARTY.  HENCE, IF THE UNION HAD THEREAFTER INSTITUTED A
SEPARATE SUIT FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT, IT WOULD BE MET
WITH THE PLEA OF RES JUDICATA.  AND THAT PLEA WOULD BE SUSTAINED, FOR
THE PRIOR DECISION WAS ON THE PRECISE POINT WHICH THE UNION SOUGHT TO
RELITIGATE AND WAS ADVERSE TO THE UNION.  AND BOTH PARTIES TO THE
AGREEMENT - THE UNION AND THE CORPORATION - WERE PARTIES TO THE PRIOR
SUIT.  THIS ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLE HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED.  BLACK, THE
LAW OF JUDGMENTS (2D ED.), PP. 764, 821, 936.  AS STATED IN CROMWELL V.
COUNTY OF SAC, 94 U.S. 351, 352, A PRIOR JUDGMENT "IS A FINALITY AS TO
THE CLAIM OR DEMAND IN CONTROVERSY, CONCLUDING PARTIES AND THOSE IN
PRIVITY WITH THEM, NOT ONLY AS TO EVERY MATTER WHICH WAS OFFERED AND
RECEIVED TO SUSTAIN OR DEFEAT THE CLAIM OR DEMAND, BUT AS TO ANY OTHER
ADMISSIBLE MATTER WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR THAT PURPOSE."  AND
SEE ROOKER V. FIDELITY TRUST CO., 263 U.S. 413, 415; GRUBB V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, 281 U.S. 470, 479; STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S.
165; CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DIST. V. BAXTER STATE BANK, 308 U.S. 371,
375, 378.  THE CASE OF BOSTON TOW BOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
WOULD BE RELEVANT IF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IN ISSUE WAS
ONE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PARTIES.  FN6  THEN THE UNION'S INTEREST WOULD BE
MERELY THE INTEREST OF ONE SEEKING REVERSAL OF AN ADVERSE PRECEDENT. 
AND ITS "INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO RELIEF" WOULD NOT BE INCREASED BY REASON
OF ITS INTERVENTION IN THE CAUSE.  ALEXANDER SPRUNT & SON V. UNITED
STATES, 281 U.S. 249, 255.  BUT HERE THE RIGHTS OF THE UNION AND ITS
MEMBERS UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE CORPORATION WERE ADJUDICATED IN A
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE UNION WAS A PARTY.  THE CONTRACT WAS STILL IN
EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL.  HENCE THE CASE WAS NOT MOOT.  AND
THE ONLY WAY THE UNION COULD PROTECT ITSELF AGAINST THAT BINDING
INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT WAS BY AN APPEAL.  FOR THEN THE UNION
FOUND ITSELF IN THE POSITION WHERE A RIGHT OF ITS OWN (ALEXANDER SPRUNT
& SON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 255) WAS ADJUDICATED.  FN7 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RESULT OF WHAT WE DO IS TO FREE
THE UNION AND THE EMPLOYER FROM COSTS AND BURDEN FISHGOLD WITH THEM. 
THERE ARE SEVERAL ANSWERS TO THAT.  THE ALLOWANCE OF COSTS HAS NO
BEARING ON WHAT IS OR WHAT IS NOT RES JUDICATA.  THEIR ALLOWANCE TO THE
PREVAILING PARTY IS NOT, MOREOVER, A RIGID RULE.  UNDER THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE THE COURT CAN DIRECT OTHERWISE.  RULE 54(D).  AND
FINALLY, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN SEC. 8(E) OF THIS ACT THAT WHEN A
VETERAN APPLIES TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT "NO
FEES OR COURT COSTS SHALL BE TAXED" AGAINST HIM. 

II.  WE TURN THEN TO THE MERITS.  THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE
VETERAN IN SEVERAL WAYS.  HE WHO WAS CALLED TO THE COLORS WAS NOT TO BE
PENALIZED ON HIS RETURN BY REASON OF HIS ABSENCE FROM HIS CIVILIAN
JOB.  HE WAS, MOREOVER, TO GAIN BY HIS SERVICE FOR HIS COUNTRY AN
ADVANTAGE WHICH THE LAW WITHHELD FROM THOSE WHO STAYED BEHIND. 

THESE GUARANTEES ARE CONTAINED IN SEC. 8 OF THE ACT  FN8  AND EXTEND
TO A VETERAN, HONORABLY DISCHARGED AND STILL QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE
DUTIES OF HIS OLD POSITION.  (1) HE HAS A STATED PERIOD OF TIME IN
WHICH TO APPLY FOR REEMPLOYMENT N9.  SEC. 8(B).  HE IS NOT PRESSED FOR
A DECISION IMMEDIATELY ON HIS DISCHARGE BUT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
PLANS FOR THE FUTURE AND READJUST HIMSELF TO CIVILIAN LIFE.  (2) HE
MUST BE RESTORED TO HIS FORMER POSITION "OR TO A POSITION OF LIKE
SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY."  SEC. 8(B)(A), (B).  HE IS THUS PROTECTED
AGAINST RECEIVING A JOB INFERIOR TO THAT WHICH HE HAD BEFORE ENTERING
THE ARMED SERVICES.  (3) HE SHALL BE "RESTORED WITHOUT LOSS OF
SENIORITY" AND BE CONSIDERED "AS HAVING BEEN ON FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF
ABSENCE" DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS SERVICE FOR HIS COUNTRY, WITH ALL OF
THE INSURANCE AND OTHER BENEFITS ACCRUING TO EMPLOYEES ON FURLOUGH OR
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.  SEC. 8(C).  THUS HE DOES NOT STEP BACK ON THE
SENIORITY ESCALATOR AT THE POINT HE STEPPED OFF.  HE STEPS BACK ON AT
THE PRECISE POINT HE WOULD HAVE OCCUPIED HAD HE KEPT HIS POSITION
CONTINUOUSLY DURING THE WAR.  (4) HE "SHALL NOT BE DISCHARGED FROM SUCH
POSITION WITHOUT CAUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER SUCH RESTORATION."  SEC.
8(C). 

PETITIONER'S CASE COMES DOWN TO THE MEANING OF THIS GUARANTEE AGAINST
"DISCHARGE."  "DISCHARGE" IS CONSTRUED BY HIM TO INCLUDE "LAY-OFF." 
AND IT IS EARNESTLY ARGUED THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO
RESTORE THE VETERAN TO HIS POSITION, PREVENT HIS DISCHARGE WITHOUT
CAUSE FOR ONE YEAR, AND YET NOT INTEND THAT HE PERFORM ACTUAL WORK IF
IT WAS AVAILABLE. 

THIS LEGISLATION IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THOSE WHO LEFT PRIVATE LIFE TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY IN ITS HOUR OF GREAT
NEED.  SEE BOONE V. LIGHTNER, 319 U.S. 561, 575.  AND NO PRACTICE OF
EMPLOYERS OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND UNIONS CAN CUT DOWN THE
SERVICE ADJUSTMENT BENEFITS WHICH CONGRESS HAS SECURED THE VETERAN
UNDER THE ACT.  OUR PROBLEM IS TO CONSTRUE THE SEPARATE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT AS PARTS OF AN ORGANIC WHOLE AND GIVE EACH AS LIBERAL A
CONSTRUCTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE VETERAN AS A HARMONIOUS INTERPLAY
OF THE SEPARATE PROVISIONS PERMITS. 

WE CAN FIND NO SUPPORT FOR PETITIONER'S POSITION IN THE PROVISION OF
SEC. 8(B) WHICH RESTORES HIM TO HIS FORMER POSITION OR TO A "POSITION
OF LIKE SENIORITY."  NOR CAN WE FIND IT IN SEC. 8(C) WHICH DIRECTS THAT
HE "SHALL BE SO RESTORED WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY."  AS WE HAVE SAID,
THESE PROVISIONS GUARANTEE THE VETERAN AGAINST LOSS OF POSITION OR LOSS
OF SENIORITY BY REASON OF HIS ABSENCE.  HE ACQUIRES NOT ONLY THE SAME
SENIORITY HE HAD; HIS SERVICE IN THE ARMED SERVICES IS COUNTED AS
SERVICE IN THE PLANT SO THAT HE DOES NOT LOSE GROUND BY REASON OF HIS
ABSENCE.  BUT WE WOULD DISTORT THE LANGUAGE OF THESE PROVISIONS IF WE
READ IT AS GRANTING THE VETERAN AN INCREASE IN SENIORITY OVER WHAT HE
WOULD HAVE HAD IF HE HAD NEVER ENTERED THE ARMED SERVICES.  WE AGREE
WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT BY THESE PROVISIONS CONGRESS
MADE THE RESTORATION AS NEARLY A COMPLETE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ORIGINAL
JOB AS WAS POSSIBLE.  NO STEP-UP OR GAIN IN PRIORITY CAN BE FAIRLY
IMPLIED.  CONGRESS PROTECTED THE VETERAN AGAINST LOSS OF GROUND OR
DEMOTION ON HIS RETURN.  THE PROVISIONS FOR RESTORATION WITHOUT LOSS OF
SENIORITY TO HIS OLD POSITION OR TO A POSITION OF LIKE SENIORITY MEAN
NO MORE. 

NOR CAN WE READ INTO THE GUARANTEE AGAINST DISCHARGE "FROM SUCH
POSITION" A GAIN OR STEP-UP IN SENIORITY.  THAT GUARANTEE DOES NOT IN
TERMS DEAL WITH THE SENIORITY PROBLEM.  THE PROBLEM OF SENIORITY IS
COVERED BY THE PRECEDING PROVISIONS.  THE GUARANTEE AGAINST DISCHARGE
"FROM SUCH POSITION" IS BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER DEMOTIONS.  THE VETERAN
IS ENTITLED TO BE RESTORED TO HIS OLD POSITION OR TO A "POSITION OF
LIKE SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY."  IF WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD HE IS
DEMOTED, HIS STATUS, WHICH THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT, HAS BEEN
AFFECTED AND THE OLD EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN CHANGED.  HE
WOULD THEN LOSE HIS OLD POSITION AND ACQUIRE AN INFERIOR ONE.  HE WOULD
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(C) BE "DISCHARGED FROM SUCH POSITION." 
BUT THE GUARANTEE AGAINST DISCHARGE DOES NOT ON ITS FACE SUGGEST THE
GRANT OF A PREFERENCE TO THE VETERAN OVER AND ABOVE THAT WHICH WAS
ACCORDED BY THE SENIORITY OF "SUCH POSITION."    DISCHARGE NORMALLY
MEANS TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP OR LOSS OF A
POSITION.  FN10 IN COMMON PARLANCE AND IN INDUSTRIAL PARLANCE A PERSON
WHO HAS BEEN LAID OFF BY OPERATION OF A SENIORITY SYSTEM AND PUT ON A
WAITING LIST FOR REASSIGNMENT WOULD HARDLY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN
"DISCHARGED."  FN11  THERE ARE THREE TERMS USED IN SEC. 8(C) WHICH
RELATE TO VARIOUS TYPES OF CESSATION OF WORK - A "FURLOUGH," A "LEAVE
OF ABSENCE" AND A DISCHARGE.  A FURLOUGH IS NOT CONSIDERED A
DISCHARGE.  IT IS A FORM OF LAY-OFF.  SO IS A LEAVE OF ABSENCE.  AND
WHETHER EITHER RESULTS FROM UNILATERAL ACTION BY THE EMPLOYER OR
OTHERWISE, CONSEQUENCES ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM TERMINATION OF THE
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP.  SECTION 8(C) OF THE ACT RECOGNIZES THAT
INSURANCE AND OTHER BENEFITS MAY CONTINUE TO ACCRUE TO AN EMPLOYEE ON
FURLOUGH OR ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE.  AN EMPLOYEE ON FURLOUGH OR ON LEAVE
OF ABSENCE HAS A CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EMPLOYER; HE RETAINS
A RIGHT TO BE RESTORED TO WORK UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.  FN12  THUS
WHEN CONGRESS DESIRED TO COVER THE CONTINGENCY OF A LAY-OFF, IT USED
APT WORDS TO DESCRIBE IT.  IF IT HAD DESIRED TO ENACT THAT, SO LONG AS
THERE WAS WORK, NO RESTORED VETERAN, REGARDLESS OF SENIORITY, COULD BE
TEMPORARILY LAID OFF DURING THE YEAR FOLLOWING HIS RESTORATION, WHEN
THE SLACKENING OF WORK REQUIRED A REDUCTION IN FORCES, WE ARE BOUND TO
BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD HAVE USED A WORD OF THE KIND WHICH IT HAD ITSELF
RECOGNIZED AS BEING DESCRIPTIVE OF THAT SITUATION. 

THE "POSITION" TO WHICH THE VETERAN IS RESTORED IS THE "POSITION"
WHICH HE LEFT PLUS CUMULATED SENIORITY.  CERTAINLY HE WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN DISCHARGED FROM SUCH POSITION AND UNABLE TO GET IT BACK, IF AT THE
TIME OF HIS INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED SERVICES HE HAD BEEN LAID OFF BY
OPERATION OF A SENIORITY SYSTEM.  PLAINLY HE STILL HAD HIS "POSITION"
WHEN HE WAS INDUCTED.  AND IN THE SAME SENSE HE RETAINS IT THOUGH A LAY
OFF INTERRUPTS THE CONTINUITY OF WORK IN THE STATUTORY PERIOD. 
MOREOVER, A VETERAN ON HIS RETURN IS ENTITLED TO HIS OLD "POSITION" OR
ITS EQUIVALENT EVEN THOUGH AT THE TIME OF HIS APPLICATION THE PLANT IS
CLOSED DOWN, SAY FOR RETOOLING, AND NO WORK IS AVAILABLE, UNLESS OF
COURSE THE PRIVATE EMPLOYER'S "CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO MAKE
IT IMPOSSIBLE OR UNREASONABLE" TO RESTORE HIM.  SEC. 8(B)(B).  HE IS
ENTITLED TO BE RECALLED TO WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS SENIORITY.  HIS
"POSITION" EXISTS THOUGH NO WORK IS THEN AVAILABLE.  THE SLACKENING OF
WORK WHICH CAUSES HIM TO BE LAID OFF BY OPERATION OF A SENIORITY SYSTEM
IS NEITHER A REMOVAL OR DISMISSAL OR DISCHARGE FROM THE "POSITION" IN
ANY NORMAL SENSE.  CONGRESS RECOGNIZED IN THE ACT THE EXISTENCE OF
SENIORITY SYSTEMS AND SENIORITY RIGHTS.  IT SOUGHT TO PRESERVE THE
VETERAN'S RIGHTS UNDER THOSE SYSTEMS AND TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST LOSS
UNDER THEM BY REASON OF HIS ABSENCE.  THERE IS INDEED NO SUGGESTION
THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT TO SWEEP ASIDE THE SENIORITY SYSTEM.  WHAT IT
UNDERTOOK TO DO WAS TO GIVE THE VETERAN PROTECTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
OF THE SENIORITY SYSTEM PLUS A GUARANTEE AGAINST DEMOTION OR
TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT CAUSE FOR A YEAR. 

THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE HAVE GIVEN "DISCHARGED" DOES NOT ROB THAT
GUARANTEE OF VITALITY.  AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED, WHERE
THERE IS A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT THE UNION WOULD NORMALLY AFFORD ITS
MEMBERS PROTECTION AGAINST TERMINATION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT STATUS
WITHOUT CAUSE.  BUT IN MANY SITUATIONS THE GUARANTEE AGAINST DISMISSAL
WITHOUT CAUSE FOR ONE YEAR IS OF GREAT PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE AND IS A
PROTECTION GRANTED VETERANS ONLY. 

OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT FINDS SUPPORT IN ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.  REPRESENTATIVE MAY HAD CHARGE OF THE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE.  HE EXPLAINED AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 8(C), WHICH ADDED THE WORDS
"SHALL BE CONSIDERED DURING THE PERIOD OF SERVICE IN SUCH FORCES AS ON
FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE" AND ALSO ELABORATED THE CLAUSE DEALING
WITH "INSURANCE OR OTHER BENEFITS."  HE SAID: 

"I MAY SAY THAT THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO PRESERVE THE
SENIORITY RIGHTS OF THE THOUSANDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THAT CHARACTER WHO HAVE CERTAIN
SENIORITY PRIVILEGES ON THE RAILROADS.  IN OTHER WORDS, WE PUT THEM ON
FURLOUGH DURING THE TIME THEY ARE IN THE SERVICE AND THEY WILL EVEN BE
PERMITTED TO COUNT THIS TIME ON THE QUESTION OF THEIR RETIREMENT."  86
CONG. REC. 11702. 

AND BEFORE THAT AMENDMENT THE COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE SENATE STATED: 

"THE CONGRESS, IN THIS BILL, HAS DECLARED AS ITS PURPOSE AND INTENT
THAT EVERY MAN WHO LEAVES HIS JOB TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS TRAINING AND
SERVICE SHOULD BE REEMPLOYED WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY OR OTHER
BENEFITS UPON HIS RETURN TO CIVIL LIFE."  S. REP. NO. 2002, 76TH CONG.,
3D SESS., P. 8. 

WE HAVE SEARCHED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN VAIN FOR ANY STATEMENT OF
PURPOSE THAT THE PROTECTION ACCORDED THE VETERAN WAS THE RIGHT TO WORK
WHEN BY OPERATION OF THE SENIORITY SYSTEM THERE WAS NONE THEN AVAILABLE
FOR HIM. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN CONGRESS AMENDED SEC. 8 OF THE ACT IN
1944  FN13  (58 STAT. 798) AND EXTENDED THE ACT IN 1945 WITHOUT ANY
CHANGE IN SEC. 8(C)(59 STAT. 166), IT WAS APPRISED OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 8(C) THAT A VETERAN WAS ENTITLED TO HIS FORMER
JOB REGARDLESS OF SENIORITY; AND THAT THEREFORE CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL
OF OR ACQUIESCENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE
INFERRED.  SEE MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288
U.S. 269, 273, AND CASES CITED.  AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION WAS
RENDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE WHO WAS AUTHORIZED TO
ADMINISTER THE ACT.  FN14  HE HAD RULED THAT THE ACT REQUIRED
REINSTATEMENT OF A VETERAN TO "HIS FORMER POSITION OR ONE OF LIKE
SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY EVEN THOUGH SUCH REINSTATEMENT NECESSITATES
THE DISCHARGE OF A NONVETERAN WITH A GREATER SENIORITY."  FN15  BUT A
DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN TO SEC. 8(C) BY THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR
BOARD IN ITS HANDLING OF DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE NEGOTIATION OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  FN16  THE BOARD READ THE ACT AS WE
READ IT.  THE RULING OF THE DIRECTOR MAY BE RESORTED TO FOR GUIDANCE. 
SEE SKIDMORE V. SWIFT & CO., 323 U.S. 134, 140; MABEE V. WHITE PLAINS
PUB. CO., 327 U.S. 178.  BUT HIS RULINGS ARE NOT MADE IN ADVERSARY
PROCEEDINGS AND ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE WEIGHT WHICH IS ACCORDED
INTERPRETATIONS BY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ENTRUSTED WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING INTER PARTES DECISIONS.  SKIDMORE V. SWIFT &
CO., SUPRA, P. 139.  THE HISTORY AND LANGUAGE OF THE ACT WOULD NEED BE
FAR LESS CLEAR FOR US TO GIVE HIS RULINGS PERSUASIVE WEIGHT.  MOREOVER,
AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT, THE CONTRARIETY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS  FN17  LENDS LESS CREDENCE TO THE CONTENTION
THAT CONGRESS BY THE AMENDMENT IN 1944 AND THE EXTENSION IN 1945 SHOWED
A PREFERENCE FOR ONE OVER THE OTHER.  IN VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ACT AND THE NATURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS, WE WOULD WANT
EXPLICIT INDICATION BY CONGRESS THAT IT CHOSE THE DIRECTOR'S
INTERPRETATION BEFORE WE CONCLUDED THAT CONGRESS HAD ADOPTED IT.
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ACT PROVIDES IN PART: 

"SEC. 8(A)  ANY PERSON INDUCTED INTO THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES UNDER
THIS ACT FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE, WHO, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THOSE IN
AUTHORITY OVER HIM, SATISFACTORILY COMPLETES HIS PERIOD OF TRAINING AND
SERVICE UNDER SECTION 3(B) SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE TO THAT
EFFECT UPON THE COMPLETION OF SUCH PERIOD OF TRAINING AND SERVICE,
WHICH SHALL INCLUDE A RECORD OF ANY SPECIAL PROFICIENCY OR MERIT
ATTAINED.... 

"(B)  IN THE CASE OF ANY SUCH PERSON WHO, IN ORDER TO PERFORM SUCH
TRAINING AND SERVICE, HAS LEFT OR LEAVES A POSITION, OTHER THAN A
TEMPORARY POSITION, IN THE EMPLOY OF ANY EMPLOYER AND WHO (1) RECEIVES
SUCH CERTIFICATE, (2) IS STILL QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF SUCH
POSITION, AND (3) MAKES APPLICATION FOR REEMPLOYMENT WITHIN FORTY DAYS
AFTER HE IS RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE - 

"(A) IF SUCH POSITION WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT, ITS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS, OR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, SUCH PERSON SHALL BE RESTORED TO SUCH POSITION OR TO A
POSITION OF LIKE SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY; 

"(B)  IF SUCH POSITION WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF A PRIVATE EMPLOYER, SUCH
EMPLOYER SHALL RESTORE SUCH PERSON TO SUCH POSITION OR TO A POSITION OF
LIKE SENIORITY, STATUS, AND PAY UNLESS THE EMPLOYER'S CIRCUMSTANCES
HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE OR UNREASONABLE TO DO SO;
..." 

THE FORTY-DAY PERIOD HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO NINETY DAYS.  SECTION 8(B)
AS AMENDED IN 1944, 58 STAT. 798, GIVES THE VETERAN A RIGHT TO BE
REEMPLOYED IF HE MAKES APPLICATION "WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER HE IS
RELIEVED FROM SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE OR FROM HOSPITALIZATION
CONTINUING AFTER DISCHARGE FOR A PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR." 

FN2  THE AGREEMENT ALSO PROVIDED: 

"ANY EMPLOYEE OTHER THAN A PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE WHO IS DRAFTED OR
VOLUNTEERS FOR THE NAVAL, MILITARY OR MERCHANT MARINE SERVICE OF THE
UNITED STATES, SHALL RETAIN HIS SENIORITY STANDING.  IN ANY FURTHER
DETERMINATION OF SAID EMPLOYEE'S SENIORITY STATUS, THE LENGTH OF TIME
SPENT BY THE EMPLOYEE IN SUCH SERVICE SHALL COUNT TOWARD HIS SENIORITY
AS IF HE WERE ACTUALLY AND CONTINUOUSLY EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY.  ANY
SUCH EMPLOYEE WHO VOLUNTEERS OR IS DRAFTED MUST GIVE THE COMPANY NOTICE
OF HIS INTENTION TO SO LEAVE HIS EMPLOYMENT.  ANY SUCH EMPLOYEE WHO,
WITHIN FORTY (40) DAYS AFTER HIS RELEASE OR DISCHARGE FROM SAID SERVICE
APPLIES FOR RE-EMPLOYMENT, SHALL BE REHIRED BY THE COMPANY, PROVIDED
WORK IS AVAILABLE AND THE EMPLOYEE IS REASONABLY FIT FOR DUTY. 
AVAILABILITY FOR WORK WILL BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO ACCUMULATED
SENIORITY AND ABILITY.  IF RE-EMPLOYED, SAID EMPLOYEE SHALL THEN
RECEIVE THE THEN CURRENT RATE OF PAY FOR THE JOB FOR WHICH HE IS RE
EMPLOYED." 

FN3  SECTION 8(E) PROVIDES: 

"IN CASE ANY PRIVATE EMPLOYER FAILS OR REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) OR SUBSECTION (C), THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PRIVATE EMPLOYER
MAINTAINS A PLACE OF BUSINESS SHALL HAVE POWER, UPON THE FILING OF A
MOTION, PETITION, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE PLEADING BY THE PERSON ENTITLED
TO THE BENEFITS OF SUCH PROVISIONS, TO SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE SUCH
EMPLOYER TO COMPLY WITH SUCH PROVISIONS, AND, AS AN INCIDENT THERETO,
TO COMPENSATE SUCH PERSON FOR ANY LOSS OF WAGES OR BENEFITS SUFFERED BY
REASON OF SUCH EMPLOYER'S UNLAWFUL ACTION.  THE COURT SHALL ORDER A
SPEEDY HEARING IN ANY SUCH CASE AND SHALL ADVANCE IT ON THE CALENDAR. 
UPON APPLICATION TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR COMPARABLE
OFFICIAL FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PRIVATE EMPLOYER MAINTAINS A
PLACE OF BUSINESS, BY ANY PERSON CLAIMING TO BE ENTITLED TO THE
BENEFITS OF SUCH PROVISIONS, SUCH UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR
OFFICIAL, IF REASONABLY SATISFIED THAT THE PERSON SO APPLYING IS
ENTITLED TO SUCH BENEFITS, SHALL APPEAR AND ACT AS ATTORNEY FOR SUCH
PERSON IN THE AMICABLE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CLAIM OR IN THE FILING OF ANY
MOTION, PETITION, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE PLEADING AND THE PROSECUTION
THEREOF TO SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE SUCH EMPLOYER TO COMPLY WITH SUCH
PROVISIONS: PROVIDED, THAT NO FEES OR COURT COSTS SHALL BE TAXED
AGAINST THE PERSON SO APPLYING FOR SUCH BENEFITS." 

THE UNITED STATES APPEARED AS AMICUS CURIAE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  IT APPEARS IN THIS COURT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER BY
REASON OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8(E). 

FN4  PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION IS GOVERNED BY RULE 24(B) OF THE RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH ALLOWS IT ON TIMELY APPLICATION "WHEN AN
APPLICANT'S CLAIM OR DEFENSE AND THE MAIN ACTION HAVE A QUESTION OF LAW
OR FACT IN COMMON." 

FN5  SECTION 8(C) OF THE ACT PROVIDES: 

"ANY PERSON WHO IS RESTORED TO A POSITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (A) OR (B) OF SUBSECTION (B) SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN ON FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE DURING HIS
PERIOD OF TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, SHALL BE SO
RESTORED WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY, SHALL BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN
INSURANCE OR OTHER BENEFITS OFFERED BY THE EMPLOYER PURSUANT TO
ESTABLISHED RULES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO EMPLOYEES ON FURLOUGH OR
LEAVE OF ABSENCE IN EFFECT WITH THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME SUCH PERSON
WAS INDUCTED INTO SUCH FORCES, AND SHALL NOT BE DISCHARGED FROM SUCH
POSITION WITHOUT CAUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER SUCH RESTORATION." 

PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF SUBSECTION (B) OF SEC. 8 ARE SET FORTH IN
NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN6  IN THAT CASE BOSTON TOW BOAT CO. INTERVENED IN A PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION INVOLVING THE STATUS OF
ANOTHER CARRIER.  IT SOUGHT TO APPEAL FROM THE ADVERSE DECISION AGAINST
THE OTHER CARRIER.  THAT RIGHT WAS DENIED.  THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS
NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE STATUS OF BOSTON TOW BOAT CO. THAT QUESTION
WAS INVOLVED IN ANOTHER ORDER OF THE COMMISSION FROM WHICH BOSTON TOW
BOAT CO. HAD AN APPEAL PENDING. 

FN7  THE CASE IS THEREFORE CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO ONE WHERE THE
INTEREST OF AN INTERVENOR IN PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION WAS
ADJUDICATED.  DEXTER HORTON NATIONAL BANK V. HAWKINS, 190 F. 924;
UNITED STATES V. NORTHWESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO., 203 F. 960. 

FN8  SECTION 8(B) IS SET FORTH IN NOTE 1, SUPRA, AND SEC. 8(C) IN
NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN9  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE ORIGINAL FORTY-DAY PERIOD HAS BEEN
EXTENDED TO NINETY DAYS.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN10  "RELEASE OR DISMISSAL FROM AN OFFICE, EMPLOYMENT, ETC.; AS, THE
DISCHARGE OF A WORKMAN."  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (2D
ED.). 

"TO RELIEVE OF A CHARGE OR OFFICE; (MORE USUALLY) TO DISMISS FROM
OFFICE, SERVICE, OR EMPLOYMENT; TO CASHIER."  OXFORD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY.   FN11  TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S WORK COMMONLY
DOES NOT AFFECT THE CONTINUANCE OF HIS STATUS.  SEE LABOR BOARD V.
WATERMAN S.S. CO., 309 U.S. 206; NORTH WHITTIER HEIGHTS CITRUS ASSN. V.
LABOR BOARD, 109 F.2D 76, 82. 

"LAY-OFF" IS DEFINED AS "A PERIOD DURING WHICH A WORKMAN IS
TEMPORARILY DISMISSED OR ALLOWED TO LEAVE HIS WORK; THAT PART OR SEASON
OF THE YEAR DURING WHICH ACTIVITY IN A PARTICULAR BUSINESS OR GAME IS
PARTLY OR COMPLETELY SUSPENDED; AN OFF-SEASON."  OXFORD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY, SUPP. 

FN12  SEE UNION AGREEMENT PROVISIONS, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, H. DOC. NO. 723, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., CHS.  8,
14.    FN13  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN14  EXECUTIVE ORDER 8545, SEPTEMBER 23, 1940, 5 FED. REG. 3779. 

FN15  LOCAL BOARD MEMORANDUM 190-A, MAY 20, 1944, PART IV, SEC.
1(C). 

FN16  SEE SCOVILL MFG. CO., 21 WAR LABOR REP. 200, 201, 202. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 54 YALE L. JOURN.  417. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

I BELIEVE WE SHOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO IT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE
APPEAL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE UNION WAS NOT A PROPER
PARTY TO APPEAL.  THE MONEY JUDGMENT WAS IN FAVOR OF FISHGOLD AND
AGAINST THE SULLIVAN DRY DOCK AND REPAIR COMPANY.  HAD THE COMPANY PAID
THE JUDGMENT, I SEE NO WAY IN WHICH THE UNION WOULD HAVE BEEN
"AGGRIEVED."  THE ONLY REASON ADVANCED BY THE COURT FOR HOLDING THAT
THE UNION WAS "AGGRIEVED" IS THAT, HAD THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT
REMAINED ON THE BOOKS, THE JUDICIALLY FORMULATED DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA WOULD HAVE BARRED THE UNION IN ANY FUTURE PROCEEDINGS FROM
CHALLENGING THE DISTRICT COURT'S APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE TO
THE PARTICULAR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT.  A FAIR APPLICATION OF
RES JUDICATA BARS A PARTY IN A SECOND LITIGATION ONLY IF THAT
PROCEEDING INVOLVES THE SAME ISSUES AS THE FIRST LITIGATION BETWEEN THE
SAME ADVERSE PARTIES OR PRIVIES.  THIS MEANS THAT RES JUDICATA COULD
BAR THE UNION ONLY IN A NEW PROCEEDING BETWEEN IT AND FISHGOLD OR HIS
PRIVIES.  BUT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LITIGATION SINCE THE
SENIORITY RIGHT WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HELD FISHGOLD HAD UNDER THE
STATUTE HAD UNDER ITS PROVISIONS EXPIRED BY THE TIME THE UNION
APPEALED.  RES JUDICATA WOULD NOT HAVE BARRED THE UNION IN A PROCEEDING
BETWEEN IT AND ANY OTHER PARTY, SINCE NO OTHER PARTY WAS A PARTY
ADVERSE TO THE UNION IN THE PRESENT SUIT.  AND THIS INCLUDES ANY
POSSIBLE PROCEEDING BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE SULLIVAN DRY DOCK COMPANY
SINCE THAT COMPANY, THOUGH A PARTY, WAS NOT AN ADVERSE PARTY IN THE
TRIAL COURT.  NONE OF THE CASES CITED BY THE COURT'S OPINION SUPPORT
THE PROPOSITION THAT A PARTY IS BOUND IN A FUTURE LITIGATION AGAINST A
PARTY THAT WAS NOT AN ADVERSE PARTY, BUT ON THE SAME SIDE, IN THE
EARLIER LITIGATION.  NOR DO THESE CASES, OR ANY OTHER DECISION OF THIS
COURT OF WHICH I AM AWARE, FORMULATE AS THE RULE OF THIS COURT THE
HARSH DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, ADOPTED IN A FEW STATE
JURISDICTIONS, WHICH ALWAYS BARS A LOSING PARTY, SO LONG AS THE ISSUE
IS THE SAME, EVEN THOUGH THE LATER LITIGATION INVOLVES DIFFERENT
ADVERSE PARTIES.  IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THIS HARSH DOCTRINE, NEVER
ADOPTED BY THIS COURT, WOULD IN THE FUTURE HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO BAR THE
UNION IN ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE
OF ITS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FEDERAL
STATUTE.  IN MY OPINION THE UNION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BARRED BY THE
TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT.  IT WAS THEREFORE NOT AN AGGRIEVED PARTY AND
NOT ENTITLED TO APPEAL. 

THE RESULT OF PERMITTING PARTIES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED TO APPEAL A
JUDGMENT IS TO IMPOSE BURDENS UPON LITIGANTS ACTUALLY INTERESTED WHEN
THOSE LITIGANTS MAY THEMSELVES BE FULLY SATISFIED WITH THE JUDGMENT. 
THE SCOPE OF RES JUDICATA SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO PRODUCE SUCH A
RESULT.  THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES THE WISDOM OF THE PRACTICE WHICH PERMITS
PARTIES TO SETTLE THEIR OWN LAWSUITS WITHOUT INTERVENTION BY OTHERS
INTERESTED ONLY IN PRECEDENTS.  BOSTON TOW BOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES,
321 U.S. 632. 
..END :




S.E.C. V. HOWEY CO., 328 U.S. 293 


NO. 843.  ARGUED MAY 2, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1946.  - 151 F.2D 714,
REVERSED. 


1.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AN OFFERING OF UNITS OF A CITRUS
GROVE DEVELOPMENT COUPLED WITH A CONTRACT FOR CULTIVATING, MARKETING
AND REMITTING THE NET PROCEEDS TO THE INVESTOR, WAS AN OFFERING OF AN
"INVESTMENT CONTRACT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM AS USED IN THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 2(1) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 DEFINING
"SECURITY" AS INCLUDING ANY "INVESTMENT CONTRACT," AND WAS THEREFORE
SUBJECT TO THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  PP. 294-297,
299. 

2.  FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES ACT, AN INVESTMENT CONTRACT
(UNDEFINED BY THE ACT) MEANS A CONTRACT, TRANSACTION OR SCHEME WHEREBY
A PERSON INVESTS HIS MONEY IN A COMMON ENTERPRISE AND IS LED TO EXPECT
PROFITS SOLELY FROM THE EFFORTS OF THE PROMOTER OR A THIRD PARTY, IT
BEING IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE SHARES IN THE ENTERPRISE ARE EVIDENCED BY
FORMAL CERTIFICATES OR BY NOMINAL INTERESTS IN THE PHYSICAL ASSETS
EMPLOYED IN THE ENTERPRISE.  PP. 298-299. 

3. THE FACT THAT SOME PURCHASERS, BY DECLINING TO ENTER INTO THE
SERVICE CONTRACT, CHOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THE OFFER OF THE INVESTMENT
CONTRACT IN ITS ENTIRETY, DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT, SINCE
THE SECURITIES ACT PROHIBITS THE OFFER AS WELL AS THE SALE OF
UNREGISTERED, NONEXEMPT SECURITIES.  P. 300. 

4.  THE TEST OF WHETHER THERE IS AN "INVESTMENT CONTRACT" UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT IS WHETHER THE SCHEME INVOLVES AN INVESTMENT OF MONEY IN
A COMMON ENTERPRISE WITH PROFITS TO COME SOLELY FROM THE EFFORTS OF
OTHERS; AND, IF THAT TEST BE SATISFIED, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE
ENTERPRISE IS SPECULATIVE OR NON-SPECULATIVE OR WHETHER THERE IS A SALE
OF PROPERTY WITH OR WITHOUT INTRINSIC VALUE.  P. 301. 

5.  THE POLICY OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF AFFORDING BROAD PROTECTION TO
INVESTORS IS NOT TO BE THWARTED BY UNREALISTIC AND IRRELEVANT
FORMULAE.  P. 301. 

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. W.J. HOWEY CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
ENJOIN RESPONDENTS FROM USING THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE OFFER AND SALE OF UNREGISTERED AND NON
EXEMPT SECURITIES IN VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE INJUNCTION.  60 F.SUPP.  440.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  151 F.2D 714.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 773.  REVERSED, P. 301. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 2(1) OF THE SECURITIES ACT
OF 1933  FN1  TO AN OFFERING OF UNITS OF A CITRUS GROVE DEVELOPMENT
COUPLED WITH A CONTRACT FOR CULTIVATING, MARKETING AND REMITTING THE
NET PROCEEDS TO THE INVESTOR. 

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION INSTITUTED THIS ACTION TO
RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENTS FROM USING THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE OFFER AND SALE OF UNREGISTERED AND NON
EXEMPT SECURITIES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 5(A) OF THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DENIED THE INJUNCTION, 60 F.SUPP.  440, AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT, 151 F.2D 714.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI ON A PETITION ALLEGING THAT THE RULING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS CONFLICTED WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS AND THAT
IT INTRODUCED A NOVEL AND UNWARRANTED TEST UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH THE
COMMISSION REGARDED AS ADMINISTRATIVELY IMPRACTICAL. 

MOST OF THE FACTS ARE STIPULATED.  THE RESPONDENTS, W.J. HOWEY
COMPANY AND HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS SERVICE, INC., ARE FLORIDA CORPORATIONS
UNDER DIRECT COMMON CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT.  THE HOWEY COMPANY OWNS
LARGE TRACTS OF CITRUS ACREAGE IN LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA.  DURING THE
PAST SEVERAL YEARS IT HAS PLANTED ABOUT 500 ACRES ANNUALLY, KEEPING
HALF OF THE GROVES ITSELF AND OFFERING THE OTHER HALF TO THE PUBLIC "TO
HELP US FINANCE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT."  HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS SERVICE,
INC., IS A SERVICE COMPANY ENGAGED IN CULTIVATING AND DEVELOPING MANY
OF THESE GROVES, INCLUDING THE HARVESTING AND MARKETING OF THE CROPS. 

EACH PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMER IS OFFERED BOTH A LAND SALES CONTRACT AND A
SERVICE CONTRACT, AFTER HAVING BEEN TOLD THAT IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO
INVEST IN A GROVE UNLESS SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE.  WHILE THE
PURCHASER IS FREE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER SERVICE COMPANIES,
THE SUPERIORITY OF HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS SERVICE, INC., IS STRESSED. 
INDEED, 85% OF THE ACREAGE SOLD DURING THE 3-YEAR PERIOD ENDING MAY 31,
1943, WAS COVERED BY SERVICE CONTRACTS WITH HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS SERVICE,
INC. 

THE LAND SALES CONTRACT WITH THE HOWEY COMPANY PROVIDES FOR A UNIFORM
PURCHASE PRICE PER ACRE OR FRACTION THEREOF, VARYING IN AMOUNT ONLY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE NUMBER OF YEARS THE PARTICULAR PLOT HAS BEEN
PLANTED WITH CITRUS TREES.  UPON FULL PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE THE
LAND IS CONVEYED TO THE PURCHASER BY WARRANTY DEED.  PURCHASES ARE
USUALLY MADE IN NARROW STRIPS OF LAND ARRANGED SO THAT AN ACRE CONSISTS
OF A ROW OF 48 TREES.  DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1, 1941, AND
MAY 31, 1943, 31 OF THE 42 PERSONS MAKING PURCHASES BOUGHT LESS THAN 5
ACRES EACH.  THE AVERAGE HOLDING OF THESE 31 PERSONS WAS 1.33 ACRES AND
SALES OF AS LITTLE AS 0.65, 0.7 AND 0.73 OF AN ACRE WERE MADE.  THESE
TRACTS ARE NOT SEPARATELY FENCED AND THE SOLE INDICATION OF SEVERAL
OWNERSHIP IS FOUND IN SMALL LAND MARKS INTELLIGIBLE ONLY THROUGH A PLAT
BOOK RECORD. 

THE SERVICE CONTRACT, GENERALLY OF A 10-YEAR DURATION WITHOUT OPTION
OF CANCELLATION, GIVES HOWEY-IN-THE-HILLS SERVICE, INC., A LEASEHOLD
INTEREST AND "FULL AND COMPLETE" POSSESSION OF THE ACREAGE.  FOR A
SPECIFIED FEE PLUS THE COST OF LABOR AND MATERIALS, THE COMPANY IS
GIVEN FULL DISCRETION AND AUTHORITY OVER THE CULTIVATION OF THE GROVES
AND THE HARVEST AND MARKETING OF THE CROPS.  THE COMPANY IS WELL
ESTABLISHED IN THE CITRUS BUSINESS AND MAINTAINS A LARGE FORCE OF
SKILLED PERSONNEL AND A GREAT DEAL OF EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING 75 TRACTORS,
SPRAYER WAGONS, FERTILIZER TRUCKS AND THE LIKE.  WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE COMPANY, THE LAND OWNER OR PURCHASER HAS NO RIGHT OF ENTRY TO
MARKET THE CROP; FN2  THUS THERE IS ORDINARILY NO RIGHT TO SPECIFIC
FRUIT.  THE COMPANY IS ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR AN ALLOCATION OF THE NET
PROFITS BASED UPON A CHECK MADE AT THE TIME OF PICKING.  ALL THE
PRODUCE IS POOLED BY THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES, WHICH DO BUSINESS UNDER
THEIR OWN NAMES. 

THE PURCHASERS FOR THE MOST PART ARE NON-RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA.  THEY
ARE PREDOMINANTLY BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE WHO LACK THE
KNOWLEDGE, SKILL AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR THE CARE AND CULTIVATION
OF CITRUS TREES.  THEY ARE ATTRACTED BY THE EXPECTATION OF SUBSTANTIAL
PROFITS.  IT WAS REPRESENTED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT PROFITS DURING THE 1943
1944 SEASON AMOUNTED TO 20% AND THAT EVEN GREATER PROFITS MIGHT BE
EXPECTED DURING THE 1944-1945 SEASON, ALTHOUGH ONLY A 10% ANNUAL RETURN
WAS TO BE EXPECTED OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD.  MANY OF THESE PURCHASERS ARE
PATRONS OF A RESORT HOTEL OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE HOWEY COMPANY IN A
SCENIC SECTION ADJACENT TO THE GROVES.  THE HOTEL'S ADVERTISING
MENTIONS THE FINE GROVES IN THE VICINITY AND THE ATTENTION OF THE
PATRONS IS DRAWN TO THE GROVES AS THEY ARE BEING ESCORTED ABOUT THE
SURROUNDING COUNTRYSIDE.  THEY ARE TOLD THAT THE GROVES ARE FOR SALE;
IF THEY INDICATE AN INTEREST IN THE MATTER THEY ARE THEN GIVEN A SALES
TALK. 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ARE USED IN THE SALE OF THE LAND AND SERVICE CONTRACTS AND
THAT NO REGISTRATION STATEMENT OR LETTER OF NOTIFICATION HAS EVER BEEN
FILED WITH THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER. 

COMMONLY KNOWN DOCUMENTS TRADED FOR SPECULATION OR INVESTMENT.  FN3
THIS DEFINITION ALSO INCLUDES "SECURITIES" OF A MORE VARIABLE
CHARACTER, DESIGNATED BY SUCH DESCRIPTIVE TERMS AS "CERTIFICATE OF
INTEREST OR PARTICIPATION IN ANY PROFIT-SHARING AGREEMENT," "INVESTMENT
CONTRACT" AND "IN GENERAL, ANY INTEREST OR INSTRUMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS
A 'SECURITY.'"  THE LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE TURNS UPON A DETERMINATION
OF WHETHER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LAND SALES CONTRACT, THE
WARRANTY DEED AND THE SERVICE CONTRACT TOGETHER CONSTITUTE AN
"INVESTMENT CONTRACT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(1).  AN AFFIRMATIVE
ANSWER BRINGS INTO OPERATION THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
5(A), UNLESS THE SECURITY IS GRANTED AN EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 3(B).  THE
LOWER COURTS, IN REACHING A NEGATIVE ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM, TREATED
THE CONTRACTS AND DEEDS AS SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING NO MORE THAN
AN ORDINARY REAL ESTATE SALE AND AN AGREEMENT BY THE SELLER TO MANAGE
THE PROPERTY FOR THE BUYER. 

THE TERM "INVESTMENT CONTRACT" IS UNDEFINED BY THE SECURITIES ACT OR
BY RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.  BUT THE TERM WAS COMMON IN MANY STATE
"BLUE SKY" LAWS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL
STATUTE AND, ALTHOUGH THE TERM WAS ALSO UNDEFINED BY THE STATE LAWS, IT
HAD BEEN BROADLY CONSTRUED BY STATE COURTS SO AS TO AFFORD THE
INVESTING PUBLIC A FULL MEASURE OF PROTECTION.  FORM WAS DISREGARDED
FOR SUBSTANCE AND EMPHASIS WAS PLACED UPON ECONOMIC REALITY.  AN
INVESTMENT CONTRACT THUS CAME TO MEAN A CONTRACT OR SCHEME FOR "THE
PLACING OF CAPITAL OR LAYING OUT OF MONEY IN A WAY INTENDED TO SECURE
INCOME OR PROFIT FROM ITS EMPLOYMENT."  STATE V. GOPHER TIRE & RUBBER
CO., 146 MINN. 52, 56, 177 N.W. 937, 938.  THIS DEFINITION WAS
UNIFORMLY APPLIED BY STATE COURTS TO A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS WHERE
INDIVIDUALS WERE LED TO INVEST MONEY IN A COMMON ENTERPRISE WITH THE
EXPECTATION THAT THEY WOULD EARN A PROFIT SOLELY THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF
THE PROMOTER OR OF SOME ONE OTHER THAN THEMSELVES.  FN4 

BY INCLUDING AN INVESTMENT CONTRACT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 2(1) OF
THE SECURITIES ACT, CONGRESS WAS USING A TERM THE MEANING OF WHICH HAD
BEEN CRYSTALLIZED BY THIS PRIOR JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION.  IT IS
THEREFORE REASONABLE TO ATTACH THAT MEANING TO THE TERM AS USED BY
CONGRESS, ESPECIALLY SINCE SUCH A DEFINITION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
STATUTORY AIMS.  IN OTHER WORDS, AN INVESTMENT CONTRACT FOR PURPOSES OF
THE SECURITIES ACT MEANS A CONTRACT, TRANSACTION OR SCHEME WHEREBY A
PERSON INVESTS HIS MONEY IN A COMMON ENTERPRISE AND IS LED TO EXPECT
PROFITS SOLELY FROM THE EFFORTS OF THE PROMOTER OR A THIRD PARTY, IT
BEING IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE SHARES IN THE ENTERPRISE ARE EVIDENCED BY
FORMAL CERTIFICATES OR BY NOMINAL INTERESTS IN THE PHYSICAL ASSETS
EMPLOYED IN THE ENTERPRISE.  SUCH A DEFINITION NECESSARILY UNDERLIES
THIS COURT'S DECISION IN S.E.C. V. JOINER CORP., 320 U.S. 344, AND HAS
BEEN ENUNCIATED AND APPLIED MANY TIMES BY LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  FN5
IT PERMITS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE STATUTORY PURPOSE OF COMPELLING FULL
AND FAIR DISCLOSURE RELATIVE TO THE ISSUANCE OF "THE MANY TYPES OF
INSTRUMENTS THAT IN OUR COMMERCIAL WORLD FALL WITHIN THE ORDINARY
CONCEPT OF A SECURITY."  H. REP. NO. 85, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11. 
IT EMBODIES A FLEXIBLE RATHER THAN A STATIC PRINCIPLE, ONE THAT IS
CAPABLE OF ADAPTATION TO MEET THE COUNTLESS AND VARIABLE SCHEMES
DEVISED BY THOSE WHO SEEK THE USE OF THE MONEY OF OTHERS ON THE PROMISE
OF PROFITS. 

THE TRANSACTIONS IN THIS CASE CLEARLY INVOLVE INVESTMENT CONTRACTS AS
SO DEFINED.  THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES ARE OFFERING SOMETHING MORE THAN
FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS IN LAND, SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM A FARM OR
ORCHARD COUPLED WITH MANAGEMENT SERVICES.  THEY ARE OFFERING AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE MONEY AND TO SHARE IN THE PROFITS OF A LARGE
CITRUS FRUIT ENTERPRISE MANAGED AND PARTLY OWNED BY RESPONDENTS.  THEY
ARE OFFERING THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PERSONS WHO RESIDE IN DISTANT
LOCALITIES AND WHO LACK THE EQUIPMENT AND EXPERIENCE REQUISITE TO THE
CULTIVATION, HARVESTING AND MARKETING OF THE CITRUS PRODUCTS.  SUCH
PERSONS HAVE NO DESIRE TO OCCUPY THE LAND OR TO DEVELOP IT THEMSELVES;
THEY ARE ATTRACTED SOLELY BY THE PROSPECTS OF A RETURN ON THEIR
INVESTMENT.  INDEED, INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLOTS OF LAND THAT
ARE OFFERED AND SOLD WOULD SELDOM BE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE DUE TO THEIR
SMALL SIZE.  SUCH TRACTS GAIN UTILITY AS CITRUS GROVES ONLY WHEN
CULTIVATED AND DEVELOPED AS COMPONENT PARTS OF A LARGER AREA.  A COMMON
ENTERPRISE MANAGED BY RESPONDENTS OR THIRD PARTIES WITH ADEQUATE
PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT IS THEREFORE ESSENTIAL IF THE INVESTORS ARE TO
ACHIEVE THEIR PARAMOUNT AIM OF A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENTS.  THEIR
RESPECTIVE SHARES IN THIS ENTERPRISE ARE EVIDENCED BY LAND SALES
CONTRACTS AND WARRANTY DEEDS, WHICH SERVE AS A CONVENIENT METHOD OF
DETERMINING THE INVESTORS' ALLOCABLE SHARES OF THE PROFITS.  THE
RESULTING TRANSFER OF RIGHTS IN LAND IS PURELY INCIDENTAL. 

THUS ALL THE ELEMENTS OF A PROFIT-SEEKING BUSINESS VENTURE ARE
PRESENT HERE.  THE INVESTORS PROVIDE THE CAPITAL AND SHARE IN THE
EARNINGS AND PROFITS; THE PROMOTERS MANAGE, CONTROL AND OPERATE THE
ENTERPRISE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS WHEREBY THE INVESTORS'
INTERESTS ARE MADE MANIFEST INVOLVE INVESTMENT CONTRACTS, REGARDLESS OF
THE LEGAL TERMINOLOGY IN WHICH SUCH CONTRACTS ARE CLOTHED.  THE
INVESTMENT CONTRACTS IN THIS INSTANCE TAKE THE FORM OF LAND SALES
CONTRACTS, WARRANTY DEEDS AND SERVICE CONTRACTS WHICH RESPONDENTS OFFER
TO PROSPECTIVE INVESTORS.  AND RESPONDENTS' FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE
STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES IN MAKING SUCH OFFERINGS, EVEN
THOUGH THE FAILURE RESULT FROM A BONA FIDE MISTAKE AS TO THE LAW,
CANNOT BE SANCTIONED UNDER THE ACT. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT SOME PURCHASERS CHOOSE
NOT TO ACCEPT THE FULL OFFER OF AN INVESTMENT CONTRACT BY DECLINING TO
ENTER INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE RESPONDENTS.  THE SECURITIES ACT
PROHIBITS THE OFFER AS WELL AS THE SALE OF UNREGISTERED, NON-EXEMPT
SECURITIES.  FN6  HENCE IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE RESPONDENTS MERELY OFFER
THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF AN INVESTMENT CONTRACT. 

WE REJECT THE SUGGESTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 151 F.2D AT
717, THAT AN INVESTMENT CONTRACT IS NECESSARILY MISSING WHERE THE
ENTERPRISE IS NOT SPECULATIVE OR PROMOTIONAL IN CHARACTER AND WHERE THE
TANGIBLE INTEREST WHICH IS SOLD HAS INTRINSIC VALUE INDEPENDENT OF THE
SUCCESS OF THE ENTERPRISE AS A WHOLE.  THE TEST IS WHETHER THE SCHEME
INVOLVES AN INVESTMENT OF MONEY IN A COMMON ENTERPRISE WITH PROFITS TO
COME SOLELY FROM THE EFFORTS OF OTHERS.  IF THAT TEST BE SATISFIED, IT
IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE ENTERPRISE IS SPECULATIVE OR NON-SPECULATIVE
OR WHETHER THERE IS A SALE OF PROPERTY WITH OR WITHOUT INTRINSIC
VALUE.  SEE S.E.C. V. JOINER CORP., SUPRA, 352.  THE STATUTORY POLICY
OF AFFORDING BROAD PROTECTION TO INVESTORS IS NOT TO BE THWARTED BY
UNREALISTIC AND IRRELEVANT FORMULAE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 74, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77B (1). 

FN2  SOME INVESTORS VISITED THEIR PARTICULAR PLOTS ANNUALLY, MAKING
SUGGESTIONS AS TO CARE AND CULTIVATION, BUT WITHOUT ANY LEGAL RIGHTS IN
THE MATTERS. 

FN3  "THE TERM 'SECURITY' MEANS ANY NOTE, STOCK, TREASURY STOCK,
BOND, DEBENTURE, EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS, CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST OR
PARTICIPATION IN ANY PROFIT-SHARING AGREEMENT, COLLATERAL-TRUST
CERTIFICATE, PREORGANIZATION CERTIFICATE OR SUBSCRIPTION, TRANSFERABLE
SHARE, INVESTMENT CONTRACT, VOTING-TRUST CERTIFICATE, CERTIFICATE OF
DEPOSIT FOR A SECURITY, FRACTIONAL UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN OIL, GAS, OR
OTHER MINERAL RIGHTS, OR, IN GENERAL, ANY INTEREST OR INSTRUMENT
COMMONLY KNOWN AS A 'SECURITY,' OR ANY CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST OR
PARTICIPATION IN, TEMPORARY OR INTERIM CERTIFICATE FOR, RECEIPT FOR,
GUARANTEE OF, OR WARRANT OR RIGHT TO SUBSCRIBE TO OR PURCHASE, ANY OF
THE FOREGOING."    FN4  STATE V. EVANS, 154 MINN. 95, 191 N.W. 425;
KLATT V. GUARANTEED BOND CO., 213 WIS. 12, 250 N.W. 825; STATE V.
HEATH, 199 NC. 135, 153 S.E. 855; PROHASKA V. HEMMER-MILLER DEVELOPMENT
CO., 256 ILL. APP. 331; PEOPLE V. WHITE, 124 CAL. APP. 548, 12 P.2D
1078; STEVENS V. LIBERTY PACKING CORP., 111 N.J. EQ. 61, 161 A. 193. 
SEE ALSO MOORE V. STELLA, 52 CAL. APP.2D 766, 127 P.2D 300. 

FN5  ATHERTON V. UNITED STATES, 128 F.2D 463; PENFIELD CO. V. S.E.C.,
143 F.2D 746; S.E.C. V. UNIVERSAL SERVICE ASSN., 106 F.2D 232; S.E.C.
V. CRUDE OIL CORP., 93 F.2D 844; S.E.C. V. BAILEY, 41 F.SUPP.  647;
S.E.C. V. PAYNE, 35 F.SUPP.  873; S.E.C. V. BOURBON SALES CORP., 47
F.SUPP.  70; S.E.C. V. WICKHAM, 12 F.SUPP.  245; S.E.C. V. TIMETRUST,
INC., 28 F.SUPP.  34; S.E.C. V. PYNE, 33 F.SUPP.  988.  THE COMMISSION
HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME DEFINITION IN ITS OWN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS.  IN RE NATURAL RESOURCES CORP., 8 S.E.C. 635. 

FN6  THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 5 REFER TO SALES OF
SECURITIES.  SECTION 2(3) DEFINES "SALE" TO INCLUDE EVERY "ATTEMPT OR
OFFER TO DISPOSE OF, OR SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY," A SECURITY
FOR VALUE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

"INVESTMENT CONTRACT" IS NOT A TERM OF ART; IT IS A CONCEPTION
DEPENDENT UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR SITUATION.  IF THIS
CASE CAME BEFORE US ON A FINDING AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS THAT THE FACTS
DISCLOSED AN "INVESTMENT CONTRACT" WITHIN THE GENERAL SCOPE OF SEC.
2(1) OF THE SECURITIES ACT, 48 STAT. 74, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77B (1), THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S FINDING WOULD GOVERN, UNLESS, ON
THE RECORD, IT WAS WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE
US.  HERE THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN "INVESTMENT
CONTRACT" HAD TO BE MADE INDEPENDENTLY BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND IT
FOUND AGAINST ITS EXISTENCE.  60 F.SUPP.  440.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSTAINED THAT FINDING.  151 F.2D 714. 
IF RESPECT IS TO BE PAID TO THE WISE RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
UNDER WHICH THIS COURT DOES NOT UPSET CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO LOWER
COURTS IN THE ASCERTAINMENT OF FACTS AND THE RELEVANT INFERENCES TO BE
DRAWN FROM THEM, THIS CASE CLEARLY CALLS FOR ITS APPLICATION.  SEE
ALLEN V. TRUST COMPANY OF GEORGIA, 326 U.S. 630.  FOR THE CRUCIAL ISSUE
IN THIS CASE TURNS ON WHETHER THE CONTRACTS FOR THE LAND AND THE
CONTRACTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY WERE IN REALITY SEPARATE
AGREEMENTS OR MERELY PARTS OF A SINGLE TRANSACTION.  IT IS CLEAR FROM
ITS OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WARRANTED IN ITS CONCLUSION
THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF AN INVESTMENT
CONTRACT: 

"...  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE SHOWS THAT NOT A SINGLE SALE OF CITRUS
GROVE PROPERTY WAS MADE BY THE HOWEY COMPANY DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED
IN THIS SUIT, EXCEPT TO PURCHASERS WHO ACTUALLY INSPECTED THE PROPERTY
BEFORE PURCHASING THE SAME.  THE RECORD FURTHER DISCLOSES THAT NO
PURCHASER IS REQUIRED TO ENGAGE THE SERVICE COMPANY TO CARE FOR HIS
PROPERTY AND THAT OF THE FIFTY-ONE PURCHASERS ACQUIRING PROPERTY DURING
THIS PERIOD, ONLY FORTY-TWO ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH THE SERVICE
COMPANY FOR THE CARE OF THE PROPERTY."  60 F.SUPP.  AT 442. 

SIMPLY BECAUSE OTHER ARRANGEMENTS MAY HAVE THE APPEARANCES OF THIS
TRANSACTION BUT ARE EMPLOYED AS AN EVASION OF THE SECURITIES ACT DOES
NOT MEAN THAT THE PRESENT CONTRACTS WERE EVASIVE.  I FIND NOTHING IN
THE SECURITIES ACT TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO BRING EVERY
INNOCENT TRANSACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT SIMPLY BECAUSE A
PERVERSION OF THEM IS COVERED BY THE ACT. 
..END :





WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, 328 U.S. 211 


ARGUED MAY 2, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1946.  - DISMISSED. 


MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS CONVICTION FOR MURDER ON AN ALLEGED
PLEA OF GUILTY, PETITIONER PETITIONED TWO ILLINOIS COURTS FOR WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS, ALLEGING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH, IF TRUE, WERE SUFFICIENT
TO SHOW THAT HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  EACH COURT DENIED THE PETITION
WITHOUT AN OPINION, ON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION.  THESE ORDERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE TO A HIGHER STATE COURT.  IT
APPEARED THAT THE PROPER REMEDY UNDER ILLINOIS LAW WAS NOT A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS BUT A STATUTORY SUBSTITUTE FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM
NOBIS, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE WAS A FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION.  HELD: 

1.  SINCE THE ORDERS DENYING WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS WERE NOT
APPEALABLE TO A HIGHER STATE COURT, THIS COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW
THEM IF THEY ARE BASED ON DECISIONS OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS.  P. 213. 

2.  SINCE IT APPEARS THAT THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS
PROBABLY WERE DENIED BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT THE PROPER REMEDY UNDER
ILLINOIS LAW, THE JUDGMENTS DO NOT CLEARLY PRESENT FEDERAL QUESTIONS. 
P. 216. 

3.  THE SITUATION IS NOT ALTERED BY THE FACT THAT THE FIVE-YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE PROPER REMEDY HAS EXPIRED, SINCE IT IS
NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE STATE COURTS WILL CONSTRUE THE STATUTE AS
DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE A JUDGMENT RENDERED IN
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES.  P. 216. 

4.  WHETHER PETITIONER WILL BE DENIED ANY REMEDY IN THE STATE COURTS
WILL NOT BE KNOWN UNTIL THEY HAVE PASSED ON A PETITION FOR THE PROPER
REMEDY UNDER STATE LAW.  P. 216. 

5.  IF THE STATE SHOULD AT ALL TIMES DENY ALL REMEDIES TO PERSONS
IMPRISONED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE FEDERAL COURTS WOULD
BE AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE A REMEDY TO CORRECT SUCH WRONGS.  P. 217. 

WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, WARDEN. 

NO. 631.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANDOLPH COUNTY,
ILLINOIS* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 671, WOODS V. NIERSTHEIMER, WARDEN, ON CERTIORARI
TO THE CRIMINAL COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON
THE SAME DATES. 

PETITIONER WAS DENIED WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS BY STATE COURTS FROM
WHICH THERE WAS NO APPEAL.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S.
772.  DISMISSED, P. 217. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1940 THE PETITIONER WAS INDICTED FOR MURDER IN THE CRIMINAL COURT
OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.  ADJUDGED TO BE GUILTY ON AN ALLEGED PLEA OF
GUILTY, HE WAS SENTENCED TO SERVE NINETY-NINE YEARS IN THE STATE
PENITENTIARY.  IN 1945 HE FILED TWO IDENTICAL PETITIONS FOR HABEAS
CORPUS, ONE IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF COOK COUNTY AND THE OTHER IN THE
RANDOLPH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT.  IN SUMMARY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THESE
PETITIONS WERE: 

ON MARCH 8TH OR 9TH, 1940, CHICAGO POLICEMEN CAME TO PETITIONER'S
HOME, ACCUSED HIM OF MURDER, AND ARRESTED HIM.  FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR
DAYS THESE POLICEMEN SUBJECTED HIM TO MISTREATMENT IN AN EFFORT TO
FORCE HIM TO CONFESS TO THE CRIME OF MURDER.  THE POLICEMEN ALLEGEDLY
ABUSED HIM, BEAT HIM WITH THEIR HANDS, WITH BLACKJACKS, AND WITH
CLUBS.  AT THE END OF FOUR DAYS, UNDER THREAT OF INSTANT DEATH IF HE
FAILED TO DO SO, PETITIONER SIGNED A PAPER WHICH HE LATER DISCOVERED TO
BE A CONFESSION.  PETITIONER AVERRED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO EMPLOY
COUNSEL, THAT HE HAD NO COUNSEL, AND THAT HE DID NOT CONSULT WITH
COUNSEL DURING THE NEXT TWO MONTHS WHILE HE WAS CONFINED TO JAIL. 
ACCORDING TO THE ALLEGATIONS, PETITIONER WAS BROUGHT INTO COURT AT THE
END OF THAT PERIOD, AND A PUBLIC DEFENDER APPEARED AS HIS COUNSEL; BUT
THE PUBLIC DEFENDER DECLINED TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO EXPLAIN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CONFESSION.  MOREOVER, DESPITE
PETITIONER'S REPEATED ASSERTION OF HIS INNOCENCE, THE DEFENDER
ALLEGEDLY ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.  THE
ALLEGATIONS FURTHER ASSERT THAT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AND THE STATE'S
ATTORNEY THREATENED PETITIONER BY TELLING HIM THAT HE WOULD BURN IN THE
ELECTRIC CHAIR IF HE DID NOT KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT, AND THAT DESPITE
THESE THREATS PETITIONER PLEADED NOT GUILTY AND NEVER DID AT ANY TIME
CONSENT TO THE GUILTY PLEA WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR HIS NINETY-NINE YEAR
SENTENCE. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION BEFORE THE TWO TRIAL COURTS WAS THAT A
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTED TO A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  THE RANDOLPH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENIED
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS "FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
AND FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION."  THE COOK COUNTY CRIMINAL
COURT GRANTED THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS, MADE ON THE GROUND THAT
THE PETITION ON ITS FACE FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  IN NEITHER
COURT WAS PETITIONER AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER EVIDENCE TO PROVE
HIS ALLEGATIONS.  NEITHER COURT WROTE AN OPINION EXPLAINING ITS ORDER. 
SINCE ILLINOIS DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR APPELLATE REVIEW OF AN ORDER
DENYING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE ORDERS HERE
INVOLVED WERE ENTERED BY THE HIGHEST COURTS OF THE STATE THAT COULD
HAVE ENTERED THEM.  SEE WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760.  THIS COURT IS
CONSEQUENTLY AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW THESE ORDERS IF THEY ARE BASED ON
DECISIONS OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS.  TUCKER V. TEXAS, 326 U.S. 517. 
BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ALLEGED
BY THE PETITIONER, AND BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHETHER DENIAL OF
HIS PETITIONS RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

THE STATE, THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL, CONCEDES THAT THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS, IF TRUE, WOULD SHOW
THAT CONVICTION AND SENTENCING OF THE PETITIONER VIOLATED THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE STATE CONTENDS,
HOWEVER, THAT THE APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS WERE NOT DENIED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ALLEGATIONS, IF PROVED, WOULD FAIL TO SHOW A VIOLATION
OF DUE PROCESS.  ACCORDING TO THE STATE, THE DENIALS OF PETITIONER'S
APPLICATIONS RESTED ON THE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT GROUND THAT IN THE
ILLINOIS STATE COURTS HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT THE PROPER REMEDY FOR RELIEF
FROM JUDGMENTS VIOLATING DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THE MANNER HERE
ALLEGED.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE EXCLUSIVE RELIEF AGAINST SUCH
JUDGMENTS IS PROVIDED BY A STATUTORY SUBSTITUTE FOR THE COMMON LAW WRIT
OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, CH. 110, PAR. 196, ILLINOIS REVISED STATUTES,
1945.  THE PETITIONER COUNTERS BY CALLING ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT
THE STATUTORY REMEDY IS NOT AVAILABLE UNLESS BROUGHT WITHIN FIVE YEARS
AFTER THE RENDITION OF A JUDGMENT; THAT THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
AGAINST PETITIONER WAS RENDERED MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AGO; THAT
CONSEQUENTLY, IF PETITIONER HAS NO REMEDY FOR HABEAS CORPUS, HE HAS NO
REMEDY AT ALL; THAT WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT ILLINOIS GRANTS NO RELIEF
TO ONE WHOSE IMPRISONMENT VIOLATES RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION, CF. SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329; AND THAT WE
SHOULD THEREFORE HOLD THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE TO THE
PETITIONER. 

FROM OUR INVESTIGATION OF THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE DENIALS OF THE APPLICATIONS IN THIS CASE COULD HAVE
RESTED, AND PROBABLY DID REST, ON THE GROUND THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT
THE PROPER REMEDY IN CASES SUCH AS THE ONE BEFORE US.  FOR THIS REASON
WE ARE WITHOUT POWER TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENTS, SEE WILLIAMS V. KAISER,
323 U.S. 471, 477, AND THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI MUST BE DISMISSED.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT A COURT OF THE STATE
HAS JURISDICTION OF A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING ONLY WHERE THE ORIGINAL
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS VOID OR WHERE SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED SINCE
ITS RENDITION TO ENTITLE THE PETITIONER TO HIS RELEASE.  ACCORDING TO
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, THIS MEANS THAT IF THE PETITION AND
RETURN IN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING SHOW THAT THE COURT WHICH
RENDERED THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON AND
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER, AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE CONVICTION
TO ENTITLE THE APPLICANT TO HIS RELEASE, THE COURT TO WHICH THE
PETITION IS ADDRESSED LACKS POWER TO DISCHARGE THE PRISONER.  FN1  THE
PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS HERE INVOLVED DID NOT CHALLENGE THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON, NOR DID THEY ALLEGE THAT ANYTHING HAD
HAPPENED SINCE THE RENDITION OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH WOULD ENTITLE THE
PETITIONER TO HIS RELEASE.  THE ALLEGATIONS THAT PETITIONER DID NOT
CONSENT TO THE GUILTY PLEA AND THAT HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY PROPER
COUNSEL, MOREOVER, DID NOT CHALLENGE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM AS USED IN DEFINING THE POWER
OF ILLINOIS COURTS TO RELEASE PRISONERS ON HABEAS CORPUS.  FN2
CONSEQUENTLY, IT SEEMS HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT UNDER THE ILLINOIS
DECISIONS THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT THE PROPER REMEDY IN THIS
CASE.  THAT THIS IS SO IS FURTHER BORNE OUT BY THE FACT THAT IN
ILLINOIS ORDERS DENYING PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
APPELLATE REVIEW.  PEOPLE V. MCANALLY, 221 ILL. 66, 68, 77 N.E. 544. 
WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT ILLINOIS WOULD SO FAR DEPART FROM ITS GENERAL
APPELLATE PROCEDURE AS TO DENY APPELLATE REVIEW OF ORDERS DENYING
APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS, IF SUCH APPLICATIONS WERE THE PROPER
PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGING VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO LIFE AND
LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

SINCE THE RECORD THUS SHOWS THAT PETITIONER'S APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS WERE PROBABLY DENIED BECAUSE HE DID NOT SEEK THE
PROPER REMEDY UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE JUDGMENTS
WE ARE ASKED TO REVIEW DO NOT REST ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND. 
NOR DO THE DENIALS OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS
PRESENT A FEDERAL QUESTION MERELY BECAUSE THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ON THE STATUTORY SUBSTITUTE FOR THE WRIT OF ERROR CORAM
NOBIS HAS EXPIRED.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THIS LEAVES HIM WITHOUT ANY
REMEDY IN THE STATE COURTS.  BUT WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE STATE
COURTS WILL CONSTRUE THE STATUTE SO AS TO DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF HIS
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE A JUDGMENT RENDERED IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEES WHERE HIS ACTION IS BROUGHT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER
RENDITION OF THE JUDGMENT.  NOR CAN WE AT THIS TIME PASS UPON THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE ILLINOIS STATUTE SO CONSTRUED WOULD ITSELF VIOLATE
DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THAT A DENIAL OF THAT REMEDY, TOGETHER WITH A
DENIAL OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WOULD, TAKEN TOGETHER, AMOUNT TO A
COMPLETE DEPRIVATION OF A STATE REMEDY WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE
BEEN DENIED.  WE WOULD REACH THAT QUESTION ONLY AFTER A DENIAL OF THE
STATUTORY SUBSTITUTE FOR THE WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS BASED ON THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE.  FN3  FURTHERMORE, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT IF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS SHOULD AT ALL TIMES DENY ALL REMEDIES TO INDIVIDUALS
IMPRISONED WITHIN THE STATE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE FEDERAL COURTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE A
REMEDY TO CORRECT SUCH WRONGS.  EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114. 
DISMISSED. 

FN1  SEE E.G. PEOPLE V. ZIMMER, 252 ILL. 9, 96 N.E. 529, AND CASES
DISCUSSED; PEOPLE V. SIMAN, 284 ILL. 28, 32, 119 N.E. 940; PEOPLE V.
SHURTLEFF, 355 ILL. 210, 189 N.E. 291; PEOPLE V. THOMPSON, 358 ILL. 81,
192 N.E. 693; PEOPLE V. BRADLEY, 391 ILL. 169, 62 N.E.2D 788. 

FN2  SEE PEOPLE V. FISHER, 340 ILL. 250, 172 N.E. 722, WHERE THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ON P. 260: 

"IF THE JURY IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT WHICH THE
COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER, IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE
HOW, UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY IN A CRIMINAL CASE, A VALID JUDGMENT CAN BE
RENDERED.  YET THE POWER OF THE COURT, WITHOUT A JURY, UPON SUCH A
PLEA, TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY AND RENDER JUDGMENT IS
UNQUESTIONED.  A COURT'S JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER IS NOT
DETERMINED BY THE PLEA WHICH A PERSON CHARGED WITH CRIME MAY
INTERPOSE.  BEFORE HE APPEARED AT THE BAR OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT EITHER
WAS OR WAS NOT VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF HIS
CAUSE.  IF THE COURT POSSESSED SUCH JURISDICTION, IT WAS CONFERRED BY
OR PURSUANT TO SOME PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND NOT BY THE ACT
OR CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT." 

FN3  A JUDGMENT IN A CORAM NOBIS PROCEEDING IS FINAL AND APPEALABLE
IN ILLINOIS.  SEE PEOPLE V. GREEN, 355 ILL. 468, 189 N.E. 500. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :










THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 328 U.S. 217 


NO. 349.  ARGUED MARCH 25, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1946.  - 149 F.2D
783, REVERSED. 


1.  A FEDERAL COURT JURY PANEL FROM WHICH PERSONS WHO WORK FOR A DAILY
WAGE WERE INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED HELD UNLAWFULLY
CONSTITUTED.  PP. 221, 225. 

2.  SUCH DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DAILY WAGE EARNERS AS A CLASS WAS NOT
JUSTIFIED BY EITHER FEDERAL OR CALIFORNIA LAW.  P. 222. 

3.  THE CHOICE OF THE MEANS BY WHICH UNLAWFUL DISTINCTIONS AND
DISCRIMINATIONS IN THE SELECTION OF JURY PANELS ARE TO BE AVOIDED RESTS
LARGELY IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURTS AND THEIR
OFFICERS.  P. 220. 

4.  THE PAY PERIOD OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS IRRELEVANT TO HIS ELIGIBILITY
AND CAPACITY TO SERVE AS A JUROR.  P. 223. 

5.  ALTHOUGH A FEDERAL JUDGE MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN EXCUSING A DAILY
WAGE EARNER FOR WHOM JURY SERVICE WOULD ENTAIL AN UNDUE FINANCIAL
HARDSHIP, THAT FACT CAN NOT SUPPORT THE COMPLETE EXCLUSION OF ALL DAILY
WAGE EARNERS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS ACTUAL HARDSHIP INVOLVED. 
P. 224. 

6.  JURY SERVICE IS A DUTY AS WELL AS A PRIVILEGE OF CITIZENSHIP.  A
CLAIM OF FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT WILL EXCUSE ONLY WHEN A REAL BURDEN OR
HARDSHIP WOULD BE IMPOSED.  P. 224. 

7.  A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN A CASE IN WHICH THAT COURT
DENIED A MOTION TO STRIKE A JURY PANEL FROM WHICH PERSONS WHO WORK FOR
A DAILY WAGE WERE INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED IS HERE
REVERSED BY THIS COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION OVER
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 225. 

8.  IT IS UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGANT WAS IN ANY WAY PREJUDICED BY THE WRONGFUL
EXCLUSION OR WHETHER HE WAS ONE OF THE EXCLUDED CLASS.  P. 225. 

9.  NOR IS IT MATERIAL THAT THE JURY WHICH ACTUALLY DECIDED THE
FACTUAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS FOUND TO INCLUDE AT LEAST FIVE PERSONS
WHO WERE OF THE LABORING CLASS THOUGH NOT PER DIEM WORKERS.  P. 225. 

THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT SUIT IN A STATE COURT AGAINST THE RAILROAD COMPANY
TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN ITS TREATMENT OF HIM WHILE
A PASSENGER ON ONE OF ITS TRAINS.  ON APPLICATION OF THE RAILROAD
COMPANY, THE SUIT WAS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON THE
GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, UPON A TRIAL BY JURY, WAS IN FAVOR OF THE RAILROAD COMPANY.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 783.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER'S MOTION TO
STRIKE THE JURY PANEL WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  326
U.S. 716.  REVERSED, P. 225. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A PASSENGER, JUMPED OUT OF THE WINDOW OF A MOVING TRAIN
OPERATED BY THE RESPONDENT, THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY.  HE FILED A
COMPLAINT IN A CALIFORNIA STATE COURT TO RECOVER DAMAGES, ALLEGING THAT
THE RESPONDENT'S AGENTS KNEW THAT HE WAS "OUT OF HIS NORMAL MIND" AND
SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS A PASSENGER OR ELSE SHOULD BE GUARDED AND
THAT, HAVING ACCEPTED HIM AS A PASSENGER, THEY LEFT HIM UNGUARDED AND
FAILED TO STOP THE TRAIN BEFORE HE FINALLY FELL TO THE GROUND.  AT
RESPONDENT'S REQUEST THE CASE WAS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
AT SAN FRANCISCO ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, RESPONDENT
BEING A KENTUCKY CORPORATION.  SEVERAL VAIN ATTEMPTS WERE THEN MADE BY
THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN A REMAND OF THE CASE TO THE STATE COURT;
PETITIONER WAS ALSO RESTRAINED FROM ATTEMPTING TO PROCEED FURTHER IN
THE STATE COURT.  FN1 

AFTER DEMANDING A JURY TRIAL, PETITIONER MOVED TO STRIKE OUT THE
ENTIRE JURY PANEL, ALLEGING INTER ALIA THAT "MOSTLY BUSINESS EXECUTIVES
OR THOSE HAVING THE EMPLOYER'S VIEWPOINT ARE PURPOSELY SELECTED ON SAID
PANEL, THUS GIVING A MAJORITY REPRESENTATION TO ONE CLASS OR OCCUPATION
AND DISCRIMINATING AGAINST OTHER OCCUPATIONS AND CLASSES, PARTICULARLY
THE EMPLOYEES AND THOSE IN THE POORER CLASSES WHO CONSTITUTE, BY FAR,
THE GREAT MAJORITY OF CITIZENS ELIGIBLE FOR JURY SERVICE ..." 
FOLLOWING A HEARING AT WHICH TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN, THE MOTION WAS
DENIED.  PETITIONER THEN ATTEMPTED TO WITHDRAW HIS DEMAND FOR A JURY
TRIAL BUT THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO CONSENT.  A JURY OF TWELVE WAS
CHOSEN.  PETITIONER THEREUPON CHALLENGED THESE JURORS UPON THE SAME
GROUNDS PREVIOUSLY URGED IN RELATION TO THE ENTIRE JURY PANEL AND UPON
THE FURTHER GROUND THAT SIX OF THE TWELVE JURORS WERE CLOSELY
AFFILIATED AND CONNECTED WITH THE RESPONDENT.  THE COURT DENIED THIS
CHALLENGE.  THE TRIAL PROCEEDED AND THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR THE
RESPONDENT. 

PETITIONER RENEWED HIS OBJECTIONS IN HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE
VERDICT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL.  IN DENYING THIS
MOTION THE COURT ORALLY FOUND THAT FIVE OF THE TWELVE JURORS "BELONG
MORE CLOSELY AND INTIMATELY WITH THE WORKING MAN AND EMPLOYEE CLASS
THAN THEY DO WITH ANY OTHER CLASS" AND THAT THEY MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO
BE "SYMPATHETIC WITH THE EXPERIENCES IN LIFE, THE AFFAIRS OF LIFE, AND
WITH THE ECONOMIC VIEWS, OF PEOPLE WHO BELONG TO THE WORKING OR
EMPLOYEE CLASS."  THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY, 149 F.2D 783, AND WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON
CERTIORARI "LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER'S MOTION TO
STRIKE THE JURY PANEL WAS PROPERLY DENIED." 

THE AMERICAN TRADITION OF TRIAL BY JURY, CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION
WITH EITHER CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, NECESSARILY CONTEMPLATES AN
IMPARTIAL JURY DRAWN FROM A CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY.  SMITH V.
TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128, 130; GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 85. 
THIS DOES NOT MEAN, OF COURSE, THAT EVERY JURY MUST CONTAIN
REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS, RACIAL,
POLITICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL GROUPS OF THE COMMUNITY; FREQUENTLY SUCH
COMPLETE REPRESENTATION WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.  BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT
PROSPECTIVE JURORS SHALL BE SELECTED BY COURT OFFICIALS WITHOUT
SYSTEMATIC AND INTENTIONAL EXCLUSION OF ANY OF THESE GROUPS. 
RECOGNITION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR JURY
SERVICE ARE TO BE FOUND IN EVERY STRATUM OF SOCIETY.  JURY COMPETENCE
IS AN INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN A GROUP OR CLASS MATTER.  THAT FACT LIES
AT THE VERY HEART OF THE JURY SYSTEM.  TO DISREGARD IT IS TO OPEN THE
DOOR TO CLASS DISTINCTIONS AND DISCRIMINATIONS WHICH ARE ABHORRENT TO
THE DEMOCRATIC IDEALS OF TRIAL BY JURY. 

THE CHOICE OF THE MEANS BY WHICH UNLAWFUL DISTINCTIONS AND
DISCRIMINATIONS ARE TO BE AVOIDED RESTS LARGELY IN THE SOUND DISCRETION
OF THE TRIAL COURTS AND THEIR OFFICERS.  THIS DISCRETION, OF COURSE,
MUST BE GUIDED BY PERTINENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  SO FAR AS FEDERAL
JURORS ARE CONCERNED, THEY MUST BE CHOSEN "WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PARTY
AFFILIATIONS," 28 U.S.C. SEC. 412; AND CITIZENS CANNOT BE DISQUALIFIED
"ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE," 28
U.S.C. SEC. 415.  IN ADDITION, JURORS MUST BE RETURNED FROM SUCH PARTS
OF THE DISTRICT AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT "SO AS TO BE MOST FAVORABLE TO
AN IMPARTIAL TRIAL, AND SO AS NOT TO INCUR AN UNNECESSARY EXPENSE, OR
UNDULY BURDEN THE CITIZENS OF ANY PART OF THE DISTRICT WITH SUCH
SERVICE," 28 U.S.C. SEC. 413.  FOR THE MOST PART, OF COURSE, THE
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS IN REGARD TO FEDERAL JURORS ARE TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT IS LOCATED,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 411.  FN2  POINTER V. UNITED STATES, 151 U.S. 396.  A
STATE LAW CREATING AN UNLAWFUL QUALIFICATION, HOWEVER, IS NOT BINDING
AND SHOULD NOT BE UTILIZED IN SELECTING FEDERAL JURORS.  SEE KIE V.
UNITED STATES, 27 F. 351, 357. 

THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE DEMONSTRATES A FAILURE TO ABIDE
BY THE PROPER RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF JURY SELECTION.  BOTH THE CLERK
OF THE COURT AND THE JURY COMMISSIONER TESTIFIED THAT THEY DELIBERATELY
AND INTENTIONALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE JURY LISTS ALL PERSONS WHO WORK FOR
A DAILY WAGE.  THEY GENERALLY USED THE CITY DIRECTORY AS THE SOURCE OF
NAMES OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS.  IN THE WORDS OF THE CLERK, "IF I SEE IN
THE DIRECTORY THE NAME OF JOHN JONES AND IT SAYS HE IS A LONGSHOREMAN,
I DO NOT PUT HIS NAME IN, BECAUSE I HAVE FOUND BY EXPERIENCE THAT THAT
MAN WILL NOT SERVE AS A JUROR, AND I WILL NOT GET PEOPLE WHO WILL
QUALIFY.  THE MINUTE THAT A JUROR IS CALLED INTO COURT ON A VENIRE AND
SAYS HE IS WORKING FOR $10 A DAY AND CANNOT AFFORD TO WORK FOR FOUR,
THE JUDGE HAS NEVER MADE ONE OF THOSE MEN SERVE, AND SO IN ORDER TO
AVOID PUTTING NAMES OF PEOPLE IN WHO I KNOW WON'T BECOME JURORS IN THE
COURT, WON'T QUALIFY AS JURORS IN THIS COURT, I DO LEAVE THEM OUT....
WHERE I THOUGHT THE DESIGNATION INDICATED THAT THEY WERE DAY LABORERS,
I MEAN THEY WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE COMPENSATED SOLELY WHEN THEY WERE
WORKING BY THE DAY, I LEAVE THEM OUT."  THE JURY COMMISSIONER
CORROBORATED THIS TESTIMONY, ADDING THAT HE PURPOSELY EXCLUDED "ALL THE
IRON CRAFT, BRICKLAYERS, CARPENTERS, AND MACHINISTS" BECAUSE IN THE
PAST "THOSE MEN CAME INTO COURT AND OFFERED THAT (FINANCIAL HARDSHIP)
AS AN EXCUSE, AND THE JUDGE USUALLY LET THEM GO."  THE EVIDENCE
INDICATED, HOWEVER, THAT LABORERS WHO WERE PAID WEEKLY OR MONTHLY WAGES
WERE PLACED ON THE JURY LISTS, AS WELL AS THE WIVES OF DAILY WAGE
EARNERS. 

IT WAS FURTHER ADMITTED THAT BUSINESS MEN AND THEIR WIVES CONSTITUTED
AT LEAST 50% OF THE JURY LISTS, ALTHOUGH BOTH THE CLERK AND THE
COMMISSIONER DENIED THAT THEY CONSCIOUSLY CHOSE ACCORDING TO WEALTH OR
OCCUPATION.  THUS THE ADMITTED DISCRIMINATION WAS LIMITED TO THOSE WHO
WORKED FOR A DAILY WAGE, MANY OF WHOM MIGHT SUFFER FINANCIAL LOSS BY
SERVING ON JURIES AT THE RATE OF $4 A DAY AND WOULD BE EXCUSED FOR THAT
REASON. 

THIS EXCLUSION OF ALL THOSE WHO EARN A DAILY WAGE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED
BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW.  CERTAINLY NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL STATUTES
WARRANTS SUCH AN EXCLUSION.  AND THE CALIFORNIA STATUTES ARE EQUALLY
DEVOID OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PRACTICE.  UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW A DAILY
WAGE EARNER MAY BE FULLY COMPETENT AS A JUROR.  A JUROR, TO BE
COMPETENT, NEED ONLY BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OVER THE AGE OF
21, A RESIDENT OF THE STATE AND COUNTY FOR ONE YEAR PRECEDING
SELECTION, POSSESSED OF HIS NATURAL FACULTIES AND OF ORDINARY
INTELLIGENCE AND NOT DECREPIT, AND POSSESSED OF SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE OF
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.  CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SEC. 198. 
CF. SEC. 199.  NOR IS A DAILY WAGE EARNER LISTED AMONG THOSE EXEMPT
FROM JURY SERVICE.  SEC. 200.  AND UNDER THE STATE LAW, "A JUROR SHALL
NOT BE EXCUSED BY A COURT FOR SLIGHT OR TRIVIAL CAUSES, OR FOR
HARDSHIP, OR FOR INCONVENIENCE TO SAID JUROR'S BUSINESS, BUT ONLY WHEN
MATERIAL INJURY OR DESTRUCTION TO SAID JUROR'S PROPERTY OR OF PROPERTY
ENTRUSTED TO SAID JUROR IS THREATENED  ..."  SEC. 201. 

MOREOVER, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PROPER JURY SELECTION
CLEARLY OUTLAW THE EXCLUSION PRACTICED IN THIS INSTANCE.  JURY
COMPETENCE IS NOT LIMITED TO THOSE WHO EARN THEIR LIVELIHOOD ON OTHER
THAN A DAILY BASIS.  ONE WHO IS PAID $3 A DAY MAY BE AS FULLY COMPETENT
AS ONE WHO IS PAID $30 A WEEK OR $300 A MONTH.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE PAY
PERIOD OF A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO HIS
ELIGIBILITY AND CAPACITY TO SERVE AS A JUROR.  WAGE EARNERS, INCLUDING
THOSE WHO ARE PAID BY THE DAY, CONSTITUTE A VERY SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF
THE COMMUNITY, FN3  A PORTION THAT CANNOT BE INTENTIONALLY AND
SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO
THE DEMOCRATIC NATURE OF THE JURY SYSTEM.  WERE WE TO SANCTION AN
EXCLUSION OF THIS NATURE WE WOULD ENCOURAGE WHATEVER DESIRES THOSE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELECTION OF JURY PANELS MAY HAVE TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST PERSONS OF LOW ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STATUS.  WE WOULD BREATHE
LIFE INTO ANY LATENT TENDENCIES TO ESTABLISH THE JURY AS THE INSTRUMENT
OF THE ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY PRIVILEGED.  THAT WE REFUSE TO DO. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT A FEDERAL JUDGE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN EXCUSING A
DAILY WAGE EARNER FOR WHOM JURY SERVICE WOULD ENTAIL AN UNDUE FINANCIAL
HARDSHIP.  FN4  BUT THAT FACT CANNOT SUPPORT THE COMPLETE EXCLUSION OF
ALL DAILY WAGE EARNERS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS ACTUAL HARDSHIP
INVOLVED.  HERE THERE WAS NO EFFORT, NO INTENTION, TO DETERMINE IN
ADVANCE WHICH INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE DAILY WAGE EARNING CLASS WOULD
SUFFER AN UNDUE HARDSHIP BY SERVING ON A JURY AT THE RATE OF $4 A DAY. 
ALL WERE SYSTEMATICALLY AND AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED.  IN THIS CONNECTION
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE MERE FACT THAT A PERSON EARNS MORE THAN $4
A DAY WOULD NOT SERVE AS AN EXCUSE.  JURY SERVICE IS A DUTY AS WELL AS
A PRIVILEGE OF CITIZENSHIP; IT IS A DUTY THAT CANNOT BE SHIRKED ON A
PLEA OF INCONVENIENCE OR DECREASED EARNING POWER.  ONLY WHEN THE
FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT IS SUCH AS TO IMPOSE A REAL BURDEN AND HARDSHIP
DOES A VALID EXCUSE OF THIS NATURE APPEAR.  THUS A BLANKET EXCLUSION OF
ALL DAILY WAGE EARNERS, HOWEVER WELL-INTENTIONED AND HOWEVER JUSTIFIED
BY PRIOR ACTIONS OF TRIAL JUDGES, MUST BE COUNTED AMONG THOSE
TENDENCIES WHICH UNDERMINE AND WEAKEN THE INSTITUTION OF JURY TRIAL. 
"THAT THE MOTIVES INFLUENCING SUCH TENDENCIES MAY BE OF THE BEST MUST
NOT BLIND US TO THE DANGERS OF ALLOWING ANY ENCROACHMENT WHATSOEVER ON
THIS ESSENTIAL RIGHT.  STEPS INNOCENTLY TAKEN MAY, ONE BY ONE, LEAD TO
THE IRRETRIEVABLE IMPAIRMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL LIBERTIES."  GLASSER V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 86. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT WE CANNOT SANCTION THE METHOD BY WHICH THE JURY PANEL
WAS FORMED IN THIS CASE.  THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE PANEL.  THAT CONCLUSION REQUIRES US
TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR POWER OF
SUPERVISION OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 
SEE MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 340.  ON THAT BASIS IT
BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PETITIONER WAS IN ANY WAY
PREJUDICED BY THE WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OR WHETHER HE WAS ONE OF THE
EXCLUDED CLASS.  SEE GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; WALTER V. STATE,
208 IND. 231, 195 N.E. 268; STATE EX REL. PASSER V. COUNTY BOARD, 171
MINN. 177, 213 N.W. 545.  IT IS LIKEWISE IMMATERIAL THAT THE JURY WHICH
ACTUALLY DECIDED THE FACTUAL ISSUE IN THE CASE WAS FOUND TO CONTAIN AT
LEAST FIVE MEMBERS OF THE LABORING CLASS.  THE EVIL LIES IN THE
ADMITTED WHOLESALE EXCLUSION OF A LARGE CLASS OF WAGE EARNERS IN
DISREGARD OF THE HIGH STANDARDS OF JURY SELECTION.  TO REASSERT THOSE
STANDARDS, TO GUARD AGAINST THE SUBTLE UNDERMINING OF THE JURY SYSTEM,
REQUIRES A NEW TRIAL BY A JURY DRAWN FROM A PANEL PROPERLY AND FAIRLY
CHOSEN.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE INJUNCTION AGAINST PETITIONER PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURT
WAS AFFIRMED UPON APPEAL.  THIEL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 126 F.2D 710;
CERTIORARI DENIED, 316 U.S. 698. 

FN2 FEDERAL STATUTES PROHIBIT THE SERVICE BY ANY PERSON AS A PETIT
JUROR "MORE THAN ONE TERM IN A YEAR," 28 U.S.C. SEC. 423, EXEMPT FROM
JURY SERVICE ARTIFICERS AND WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN THE ARMORIES AND
ARSENALS OF THE UNITED STATES, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 57, AND SET UP
DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR SERVICE AS A JURYMAN OR TALESMAN "IN ANY
PROSECUTION FOR BIGAMY, POLYGAMY, OR UNLAWFUL COHABITATION, UNDER ANY
STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES," 28 U.S.C. SEC. 426.    SEE, IN GENERAL,
BLUME, "JURY SELECTION ANALYZED:  PROPOSED REVISION OF FEDERAL SYSTEM,"
42 MICH. L. REV. 831; REPORT TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR
CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE COMMITTEE ON SELECTION OF
JURORS (1942); REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE IN NEW YORK (1934). 

FN3  IN THE SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND INDUSTRIAL AREA IN 1939 THERE WERE
76,374 WAGE EARNERS EMPLOYED BY MANUFACTURERS OUT OF A TOTAL POPULATION
(AS OF 1940) OF 1,412,686.  SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES:
1940, MANUFACTURES 1939, VOL. III, P. 80.    FN4  SEE STATEMENT OF
JUDGE JOHN C. KNOX IN HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 3379, H.R. 3380 AND H.R.
3381, SERIAL NO. 3, JUNE 12 AND 13, 1945, P. 4.  "...  WHEN JURORS'
COMPENSATION IS LIMITED TO $4 PER DAY, AND WHEN THEIR PERIODS OF
SERVICE ARE OFTEN PROTRACTED, THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PERSONS
SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO SERVE.  TO REQUIRE THEM TO DO SO IS NOTHING
LESS THAN THE IMPOSITION UPON THEM OF EXTREME HARDSHIP."  ID., P. 8. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THIS WAS A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONER, A SALESMAN, AGAINST THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY FOR INJURIES SUFFERED BY HIM WHILE A PASSENGER
ON ONE OF THE RAILROAD'S TRAINS, AND ATTRIBUTED TO THE COMPANY'S
NEGLIGENCE.  THE TRIAL WAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SITTING
IN SAN FRANCISCO.  THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT AGAINST THE PETITIONER. 
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND NO GROUND FOR SETTING IT ASIDE AND ENTERED
JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT.  UPON FULL REVIEW OF THE TRIAL, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  149 F.2D
783.  THUS, A VERDICT ARRIVED AT BY A JURY WHOSE JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS
THE DISTRICT COURT HAS FOUND UNASSAILABLE, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HAS AFFIRMED ON THE MERITS, AND WHICH THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO
REVIEW ON THE MERITS, 326 U.S. 716, IS HERE NULLIFIED BECAUSE OF AN
ABSTRACT OBJECTION TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HAVE HERETOFORE GENERALLY DISCHARGED
THEIR DUTY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE REVIEWING JUDGES OF THE NINTH
CIRCUIT, TO SECURE APPROPRIATE JURY PANELS. 

THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE MUST OF COURSE NOT BE TAINTED BY PROPERTY
PREJUDICE ANY MORE THAN BY RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE.  THE TASK OF
GUARDING AGAINST SUCH PREJUDICE DEVOLVES UPON THE DISTRICT JUDGES, WHO
HAVE THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SELECTION OF JURORS, AND THE
CIRCUIT JUDGES, WHOSE REVIEW OF VERDICTS IS NORMALLY FINAL.  IT IS
EMBRACED IN THE DUTY, FORMULATED BY THE JUDICIAL OATH, TO "ADMINISTER
JUSTICE WITHOUT RESPECT TO PERSONS, AND DO EQUAL RIGHT TO THE POOR AND
TO THE RICH  ..."  1 STAT. 73, 76, 36 STAT. 1087, 1161; 28 U.S.C. SEC.
372.  BUT IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT THE JURY WAS SELECTED SO AS TO BRING
PROPERTY PREJUDICE INTO PLAY IN RELATION TO THIS SPECIFIC CASE OR TYPE
OF CASE, NOR IS THERE THE BASIS FOR CONTENDING THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE
ALLOWED THE SELECTIVE PROCESS TO BE MANIPULATED IN FAVOR OF THE
PARTICULAR DEFENDANT.  NO SUCH CLAIM IS NOW SUSTAINED.  NEITHER IS IT
CLAIMED THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES, DESIGNED RACIAL,
RELIGIOUS, SOCIAL, OR ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION TO INFLUENCE THE MAKEUP
OF JURY PANELS, OR THAT SUCH UNFAIR INFLUENCE INFUSED THE SELECTION OF
THE PANEL, OR WAS REFLECTED IN THOSE WHO WERE CHOSEN AS JURORS IN THIS
CASE.  NOR IS THERE ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE METHOD OF SELECTING THE
JURY IN THIS CASE WAS AN INNOVATION.  WHAT IS CHALLENGED IS A LONG
STANDING PRACTICE ADOPTED IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THE SPECIAL HARDSHIP
WHICH JURY SERVICE ENTAILS FOR WORKERS PAID BY THE DAY.  WHAT IS
CHALLENGED, IN SHORT, IS NOT A COVERT ATTEMPT TO BENEFIT THE PROPERTIED
BUT A PRACTICE DESIGNED, WISELY OR UNWISELY, TO RELIEVE THE
ECONOMICALLY LEAST SECURE FROM THE FINANCIAL BURDEN WHICH JURY SERVICE
INVOLVES UNDER EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS AT STAKE.  THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.  THE SOLE QUESTION OVER WHICH THE COURT DIVIDES IS
WHETHER THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NOT TO CALL FOR JURY DUTY THOSE OTHERWISE QUALIFIED BUT DEPENDENT ON A
DAILY WAGE FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD REQUIRES REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT WHICH
IS INHERENTLY WITHOUT FLAW. 

TRIAL BY JURY PRESUPPOSES A JURY DRAWN FROM A POOL BROADLY
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS IMPARTIAL IN A SPECIFIC
CASE.  SINCE THE COLOR OF A MAN'S SKIN IS UNRELATED TO HIS FITNESS AS A
JUROR, NEGROES CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM JURY SERVICE BECAUSE THEY ARE
NEGROES.  E.G., CARTER V. TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442.  A GROUP MAY BE EXCLUDED
FOR REASONS THAT ARE RELEVANT NOT TO THEIR FITNESS BUT TO COMPETING
CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, AS IS TRUE OF THE EXCLUSION OF
DOCTORS, MINISTERS, LAWYERS, AND THE LIKE.  RAWLINS V. GEORGIA, 201
U.S. 638.  BUT THE BROAD REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OF THE JURY SHOULD BE
MAINTAINED, PARTLY AS ASSURANCE OF A DIFFUSED IMPARTIALITY AND PARTLY
BECAUSE SHARING IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS A PHASE OF CIVIC
RESPONSIBILITY.  SEE SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128, 130. 

OBVIOUSLY THESE ACCEPTED GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS MUST HAVE MUCH LEEWAY
IN APPLICATION.  IN THE ABSTRACT THE COURT ACKNOWLEDGES THIS.  "THE
CHOICE OF THE MEANS BY WHICH UNLAWFUL DISTINCTIONS AND DISCRIMINATIONS
ARE TO BE AVOIDED RESTS LARGELY IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL
COURTS AND THEIR OFFICERS."  CONGRESS HAS MADE FEW INROADS UPON THIS
DISCRETION.  ITS CHIEF ENACTMENT UNDERLINES THE IMPORTANCE OF AVOIDING
RIGIDITIES IN THE JURY SYSTEM AND RECOGNIZES THAT AMPLE PLAY MUST BE
ALLOWED THE JOINTS OF THE MACHINERY.  THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT ADOPTED
FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS THE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS, WITH ALL
THEIR DIVERSITIES, PREVAILING IN THE STATES WHERE THE FEDERAL COURTS
SIT.  1 STAT. 73, 88.  THAT HAS REMAINED THE LAW.  36 STAT. 1087, 1164;
28 U.S.C. SEC. 411.  (FOR A COLLECTION OF FEDERAL STATUTES REGULATING
THE COMPOSITION AND SELECTION OF JURORS, SEE 37 HARV. L. REV. 1010,
1098-1100.)  WE WOULD HARDLY HAVE TAKEN THIS CASE TO CONSIDER WHETHER
THE FEDERAL COURT IN SAN FRANCISCO DEVIATED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CALIFORNIA LAW, AND NOTHING TURNS ON THAT HERE.  BUT IT IS NOT WITHOUT
ILLUMINATION THAT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW ALL THOSE BELONGING TO THIS LONG
STRING OF OCCUPATIONS ARE EXEMPTED FROM JURY SERVICE:  JUDICIAL, CIVIL,
NAVAL, AND MILITARY OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES OR CALIFORNIA; LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS; ATTORNEYS, THEIR CLERKS, SECRETARIES, AND
STENOGRAPHERS; MINISTERS; TEACHERS; PHYSICIANS, DENTISTS, CHIROPODISTS,
OPTOMETRISTS, AND DRUGGISTS; OFFICERS, KEEPERS, AND ATTENDANTS AT
HOSPITALS OR OTHER CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS; OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE AT
PRISONS AND JAILS; EMPLOYEES ON BOATS AND SHIPS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS;
EXPRESS AGENTS, MAIL CARRIERS, EMPLOYEES OF TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
COMPANIES; KEEPERS OF FERRIES OR TOLLGATES; NATIONAL GUARDSMEN AND
FIREMEN; SUPERINTENDENTS, ENGINEERS, FIREMEN, BRAKEMEN, MOTORMEN, OR
CONDUCTORS OF RAILROADS; PRACTITIONERS TREATING THE SICK BY PRAYER. 
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SEC. 200. 

PLACED IN ITS PROPER FRAMEWORK THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US COMES TO
THIS:  HAVE THE DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTED BY THE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION IN SANCTIONING A PRACTICE OF NOT CALLING FOR
JURY DUTY THOSE WHO ARE DEPENDENT UPON A DAILY WAGE FOR THEIR
LIVELIHOOD? 

THE PRECISE ISSUE MUST BE FREED FROM ALL ATMOSPHERIC INNUENDOES.  NOT
TO DO SO IS UNFAIR TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, WHICH SHOULD BE
THE TOUCHSTONE FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE, AND
NO LESS UNFAIR TO A GROUP OF JUDGES OF LONG EXPERIENCE AND TESTED
FIDELITY.  IF WORKMEN WERE SYSTEMATICALLY NOT DRAWN FOR THE JURY, THE
PRACTICE WOULD BE INDEFENSIBLE.  BUT CONCERN OVER DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST WAGE EARNERS MUST BE PUT OUT OF THE RECKONING.  CONCEDEDLY
THOSE WHO ARE PAID WEEKLY OR MONTHLY WAGES WERE PLACED ON THE JURY
LISTS.  AND THAT NO LINE WAS DRAWN AGAINST THE WAGE EARNERS BECAUSE
THEY WERE WAGE EARNERS, AND THAT THERE WAS MERELY ANTICIPATORY EXCUSE
OF DAILY WAGE EARNERS, IS CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED BY THE FACT THAT THE
WIVES OF SUCH DAILY WAGE EARNERS WERE INCLUDED IN THE JURY LISTS.  AS
TO ANY CLAIM OF THE OPERATION OF A DESIGNED ECONOMIC BIAS IN THE METHOD
OF SELECTING THE JURIES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RIGHTLY FOUND "NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES WERE IN THE BOX, OR THE PERSONS
WHOSE NAMES WERE DRAWN THEREFROM AND WHO THUS BECAME MEMBERS OF THE
PANEL, WERE 'MOSTLY BUSINESS EXECUTIVES OR THOSE HAVING THE EMPLOYER'S
VIEWPOINT.'"  149 F.2D 783, 786. 

"WHEN THE QUESTION IS NARROWED TO ITS PROPER FORM THE ANSWER DOES NOT
NEED MUCH DISCUSSION.  THE NATURE OF THE CLASSES EXCLUDED WAS NOT SUCH
AS WAS LIKELY TO AFFECT THE CONDUCT OF THE MEMBERS AS JURYMEN, OR TO
MAKE THEM ACT OTHERWISE THAN THOSE WHO WERE DRAWN WOULD ACT.  THE
EXCLUSION WAS NOT THE RESULT OF RACE OR CLASS PREJUDICE.  IT DOES NOT
EVEN APPEAR THAT ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS BELONGED TO ANY OF THE EXCLUDED
CLASSES.  THE GROUND OF OMISSION NO DOUBT WAS THAT POINTED OUT BY THE
STATE COURT, THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE PERSONS OMITTED WAS SUCH THAT
EITHER THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION OR THAT
PROBABLY THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED."  SO THIS COURT SPEAKING THROUGH
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES ANSWERED A RELATED QUESTION IN RAWLINS V. GEORGIA,
201 U.S. 638, 640.  AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ANSWER APPLIES TO THE
PRESENT SITUATION. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THIS JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
REVERSED IF THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD EXCUSED, ONE BY ONE, ALL THOSE WAGE
EARNERS WHOM THE JURY COMMISSIONER, ACTING ON THE PRACTICE OF TRIAL
JUDGES OF SAN FRANCISCO, EXCLUDED.  FOR IT WILL HARDLY BE CONTENDED
THAT THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DAILY WAGE EARNERS FROM THE JURY PANEL REMOVED
A GROUP WHO WOULD ACT OTHERWISE THAN WORKERS PAID BY THE WEEK OR THE
WIVES OF THE DAILY WAGE EARNERS THEMSELVES.  THE EXCLUSION OF THE DAILY
WAGE EARNERS DOES NOT REMOVE A GROUP WHO WOULD, IN THE LANGUAGE OF MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES, "ACT OTHERWISE THAN THOSE WHO ARE DRAWN WOULD ACT." 
JUDGED BY THE TREND OF CENSUS STATISTICS, LABORERS PAID BY THE DAY ARE
NOT A PREDOMINANT PORTION OF THE WORKERS OF THE COUNTRY.  SEE SIXTEENTH
CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1940, POPULATION, VOL. III, THE LABOR
FORCE, PART 2, PP. 290 ET SEQ. IT CERTAINLY IS TOO LARGE AN ASSUMPTION
ON WHICH TO BASE JUDICIAL ACTION THAT THOSE WORKERS WHO ARE PAID BY THE
DAY HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTLOOK PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY THAN
THOSE WHO EARN WEEKLY WAGES.  IN THE LANGUAGE OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE
HUGHES, "IMPARTIALITY IS NOT A TECHNICAL CONCEPTION.  IT IS A STATE OF
MIND."  UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 123, 145.  AND AMERICAN SOCIETY
IS HAPPILY NOT SO FRAGMENTIZED THAT THOSE WHO GET PAID BY THE DAY ADOPT
A DIFFERENT SOCIAL OUTLOOK, HAVE A DIFFERENT SENSE OF JUSTICE, AND A
DIFFERENT CONCEPTION OF A JUROR'S RESPONSIBILITY THAN THEIR FELLOW
WORKERS PAID BY THE WEEK.  NO DOUBT THE INSECURITIES OF A SYSTEM OF
DAILY EARNINGS, OR GENERALLY OF WAGES ON LESS THAN AN ANNUAL BASIS,
RAISE SERIOUS PROBLEMS AS DOES, OF COURSE, ALSO THE QUESTION OF
GUARANTEED WAGE PLANS.  SEE THE LETTER OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT TO THE
DIRECTOR OF WAR MOBILIZATION, JAMES F. BYRNES, ON THE DATE OF MARCH 20,
1945, CARRYING OUT THE SUGGESTION OF A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE
WAR LABOR BOARD FOR THE CREATION OF A COMMISSION TO STUDY THE QUESTION
OF GUARANTEED WAGE PLANS.  AND SEE BASIC STEEL CASE, 19 W.L.B. 568, 653
ET SEQ.; N.W.L.B. RESEARCH AND STATISTICS REPORT NO. 25, GUARANTEED
EMPLOYMENT AND ANNUAL WAGE PLANS (1944).  BUT THESE ARE MATTERS QUITE
IRRELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM CONFRONTING DISTRICT JUDGES IN DEALING WITH
THE PRESENT PLIGHT OF DAILY WAGE EARNERS WHEN CALLED TO SERVE AS JURORS
AND THE POWER OF THE JUDGES, AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION, TO EXCUSE SUCH
DAILY WAGE EARNERS FROM DUTY. 

FOR IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT JURY SERVICE BY PERSONS DEPENDENT UPON A
DAILY WAGE IMPOSES A VERY REAL BURDEN.  JUDGE JOHN C. KNOX, SENIOR
DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, THUS DESCRIBED THE
PROBLEM: 

"...  WHEN JURORS' COMPENSATION IS LIMITED TO $4 PER DAY, AND WHEN
THEIR PERIODS OF SERVICE ARE OFTEN PROTRACTED, THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS
OF PERSONS SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO SERVE.  TO REQUIRE THEM TO DO SO IS
NOTHING LESS THAN THE IMPOSITION UPON THEM OF EXTREME HARDSHIP. 

"WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEM LAST-MENTIONED, IT IS EASY TO SAY THAT JURY
DUTY SHOULD BE REGARDED AS A PATRIOTIC SERVICE, AND THAT ALL PUBLIC
SPIRITED PERSONS SHOULD WILLINGLY SACRIFICE PECUNIARY REWARDS IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF AN OBLIGATION OF CITIZENSHIP.  WITH THAT STATEMENT I AM
IN FULL ACCORD, BUT IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE DIFFICULTY.  ADEQUATE
PROVISION FOR ONE'S FAMILY IS THE FIRST CONSIDERATION OF MOST MEN.  AND
IF, WITH THIS THOUGHT PREDOMINANT IN A MAN'S MIND, HE IS REQUIRED TO
PERFORM A PUBLIC SERVICE THAT MEANS A DEFAULT OF AN INSURANCE PREMIUM,
THE SACRIFICE OF A SUIT OF CLOTHES, OR THE LOSS OF THIS (HIS) JOB, HE
WILL ENTERTAIN FEELINGS OF RESENTMENT THAT WILL BE ANYTHING BUT
CONDUCIVE TO THE RENDITION OF JUSTICE.  IN OTHER WORDS, PERSONS WITH A
GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR WHO SERVE UNDER CONDITIONS THAT
EXPOSE THEM TO SELF-DENIAL ARE NOT LIKELY TO HAVE THE SPIRITUAL
CONTENTMENT AND MENTAL DETACHMENT THAT GOOD JURORS REQUIRE."  HEARINGS
BEFORE H.R. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 3379, H.R. 3380, H.R.
3381, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945) 8.    NO DOUBT, IN VIEW OF THE
CHANGES IN THE COMPOSITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF OUR POPULATION AND THE
GROWTH OF METROPOLITAN AREAS, A REEXAMINATION IS DUE OF THE OPERATION
OF THE JURY SYSTEM IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  JUST AS THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL
SYSTEM HAS BEEN REORGANIZED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY MODIFIED THROUGH A
SERIES OF RECENT ENACTMENTS (SEE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1922, 42 STAT.
837, 838, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 218 ET SEQ.; ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43
STAT. 936, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 41 ET SEQ.; ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1939, 53 STAT.
1223, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 444 ET SEQ.), THE JURY SYSTEM, THAT INDISPENSABLE
ADJUNCT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, CALLS FOR REVIEW TO MEET MODERN
CONDITIONS.  THE OBJECT IS TO DEVISE A SYSTEM THAT IS FAIRLY
REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR VARIEGATED POPULATION, EXACTS THE OBLIGATION OF
CITIZENSHIP TO SHARE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WITHOUT OPERATING
TOO HARSHLY UPON ANY SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY, AND IS DULY REGARDFUL OF
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN MATTERS OUTSIDE THE JURY SYSTEM.  THIS MEANS
THAT THE MANY FACTORS ENTERING INTO THE MANNER OF SELECTION, WITH
APPROPRIATE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF SERVICE AND
THE BASIS OF COMPENSATION MUST BE PROPERLY BALANCED.  THESE ARE
ESSENTIALLY PROBLEMS IN ADMINISTRATION CALLING FOR APPROPRIATE
STANDARDS FLEXIBLY ADJUSTED. 

WISE ANSWERS PRECLUDE TREATMENT BY RIGID LEGISLATION OR RIGID
ADMINISTRATION.  CONGRESS HAS DEVISED THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE AND
INSTRUMENT FOR MAKING THESE DIFFICULT AND DELICATE ADJUSTMENTS BY ITS
CREATION, IN 1922, OF THE CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES.  THE
CONFERENCE, UNDER THE PRESIDENCY OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED
STATES, IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT OF THE ACTUAL
WORKINGS OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND OF MEETING DISCLOSED NEEDS,
EITHER THROUGH PRACTICES FORMULATED BY THE CONFERENCE, OR, WHEN
LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY OR MORE APPROPRIATE, THROUGH PROPOSALS
SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS.  SEE 40 HARV. L. REV. 431.  THAT IS PRECISELY
THE COURSE THAT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO THE INADEQUACIES IN THE
OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL JURY SYSTEM.  IN SEPTEMBER, 1941, THE LATE
CHIEF JUSTICE BROUGHT THE MATTER BEFORE THE CONFERENCE.  AS A RESULT,
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE APPOINTED A COMMITTEE OF EXPERIENCED DISTRICT
JUDGES, SEE REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE (1941) 16, UNDER THE
CHAIRMANSHIP OF JUDGE KNOX WHO, BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH AND RICHNESS OF
HIS EXPERIENCE IN THE BUSIEST DISTRICT OF THE COUNTRY, BROUGHT UNUSUAL
EQUIPMENT FOR DEVISING APPROPRIATE REFORMS.  IN SEPTEMBER, 1942, THE
COMMITTEE REPORTED, REPORT TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE
ON SELECTION OF JURORS (1942) 1, AND SUBMITTED PROPOSALS FOR
LEGISLATION.  ID. AT 44, 62, 107.  BILLS TO CARRY OUT THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE ON JANUARY 11, 1944, S.
1623, 1624, 1625, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., AND IN THE HOUSE ON JUNE 5,
1945, H.R. 3379, 3380, 3381, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  HEARINGS WERE HAD
UPON THE HOUSE BILLS ON JUNE 12 AND 13, 1945, AND ACTION ON THEM IS NOW
PENDING. 

THE COURT NOW DEALS BY ADJUDICATION WITH ONE PHASE OF AN ORGANIC
PROBLEM AND DOES SO BY NULLIFYING A JUDGMENT WHICH, ON THE RECORD, WAS
WHOLLY UNAFFECTED BY DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN A SITUATION THAT CALLS
FOR COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT, BOTH LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE.  IF
IT BE SUGGESTED THAT UNTIL THERE IS LEGISLATION THIS DECISION WILL BE
THE MEANS OF ENCOURAGING THE DISTRICT JUDGES TO UNCOVER A BETTER ANSWER
THAN THEY HAVE THUS FAR GIVEN TO A LIVELY PROBLEM, AN APPROPRIATE
ADMONITION FROM THE COURT WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME RESULT, OR COMMON
ACTION REGARDING THE PRACTICE NOW UNDER REVIEW MAY BE SECURED FROM THE
CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES.  TO REVERSE A JUDGMENT FREE FROM
INTRINSIC INFIRMITY AND PERHAPS TO PUT IN QUESTION OTHER JUDGMENTS
BASED ON VERDICTS THAT RESULTED FROM THE SAME METHOD OF SELECTING
JURIES, REMINDS TOO MUCH OF BURNING THE BARN IN ORDER TO ROAST THE
PIG. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :














UNITED STATES V. HOLPUCH CO., 328 U.S. 234 


NOS. 696 AND 697.  ARGUED MAY 3, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1946.  - 104
CT. CLS. 254, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT HAD TWO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES, EACH
OF WHICH PROVIDED THAT "DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER
THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER  ...  SUBJECT
TO WRITTEN APPEAL  ...  TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT."  HELD: 

1.  DISPUTES AS TO EXTRA PAY FOR FOOTING EXCAVATIONS AND FOR
INCREASED WAGES PAID TO BRICKLAYERS WERE "QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THIS
CONTRACT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE QUOTED PROVISION.  PP. 238-239. 

2.  RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACTS BARRED RECOVERY IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN
RESPECT OF SUCH DISPUTES.  P. 239. 

3.  IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
PRESCRIBED IS INADEQUATE OR UNAVAILABLE, THAT PROCEDURE MUST BE PURSUED
AND EXHAUSTED BEFORE RESPONDENT MAY BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN IN A COURT. 
P. 240. 

4.  THE DESIGNATION ON THE COVERS OF THE CONTRACTS OF THE DISBURSING
OFFICER WHO WOULD MAKE PAYMENT ON THE CONTRACTS WAS NOT A PART OF THE
CONTRACTS AND CAN NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY ACTUAL
PROVISIONS THEREOF.  P. 240. 

5.  EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE DISPUTE AS TO EXTRA PAY FOR
FOOTING EXCAVATIONS CONCERNED ONLY THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENT UNDER THE
CONTRACT, SUCH AN ISSUE IS A QUESTION "ARISING UNDER" THE CONTRACT AND
THEREFORE EXPRESSLY SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROVISION.  P.
241. 

6.  THERE BEING NO EVIDENCE THAT THE WAGE INCREASE TO BRICKLAYERS WAS
ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS,
WHICH UNDER THE CONTRACTS WAS THE ONLY AGENCY THAT HAD AUTHORITY TO DO
SO, A PROVISION FOR AN AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE THE
CONTRACTOR IN THAT EVENT DID NOT BECOME OPERATIVE.  P. 242. 

UNITED STATES V. JOSEPH A. HOLPUCH CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE RESPONDENT BROUGHT TWO SUITS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON TWO
CONTRACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES, AND WAS ADJUDGED ENTITLED TO RECOVER
ON BOTH.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  327 U.S. 772.  REVERSED, P.
243. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NARROW QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER A CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO EXHAUST
THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROVISIONS OF A GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT BARS HIM FROM BRINGING SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER
DAMAGES. 

RESPONDENT, A BUILDING CONTRACTOR, ENTERED INTO TWO CONTRACTS  FN1
WITH THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1933 TO CONSTRUCT
OFFICERS' QUARTERS AT FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS, WHICH WERE BEING BUILT
AS A FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT. 
DISPUTES AROSE AS TO EXCAVATIONS FOR FOOTINGS AND AS TO INCREASED WAGES
ORDERED TO BE PAID TO RESPONDENT'S BRICKLAYERS.  RESPONDENT BROUGHT
SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ON THESE MATTERS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS,
WHICH ENTERED JUDGMENTS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT ON BOTH ITEMS.  FN2 

ARTICLE 15, WHICH APPEARED IN BOTH CONTRACTS, PROVIDED:  "ALL LABOR
ISSUES ARISING UNDER THIS CONTRACT WHICH CANNOT BE SATISFACTORILY
ADJUSTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF
LABOR REVIEW.  EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS
CONTRACT, ALL OTHER DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THIS
CONTRACT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR HIS DULY
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO WRITTEN APPEAL BY THE CONTRACTOR,
WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED OR HIS DULY
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE
UPON THE PARTIES THERETO AS TO SUCH QUESTIONS.  IN THE MEANTIME THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL DILIGENTLY PROCEED WITH THE WORK AS DIRECTED." 

THE DISPUTE CONCERNING THE FOOTING EXCAVATIONS AROSE OUT OF AN
APPARENT INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN CERTAIN FIGURES USED IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS AND IN THE DRAWINGS.  THE SPECIFICATIONS ESTIMATED THAT
RESPONDENT WAS TO EXCAVATE TO A DEPTH OF 37 1/2 FEET BELOW THE FIRST
FLOOR LEVEL OF THE BUILDINGS.  THE DRAWINGS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WERE
FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO CALL FOR EXCAVATIONS TO THE DEPTH OF 33
FEET.  ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS WERE TO BE MADE TO RESPONDENT FOR
EXCAVATIONS DEEPER THAN INDICATED "ON THE DRAWINGS," WHILE THE
GOVERNMENT WAS TO RECEIVE A CREDIT FOR EXCAVATIONS OF A LESSER DEPTH. 
RESPONDENT MADE VARIOUS EXCAVATIONS RANGING IN DEPTH FROM 27.58 FEET TO
42.42 FEET.  THE PROBLEM THUS PRESENTED ITSELF AS TO WHETHER THE 37 1/2
FOOT FIGURE IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OR THE 33-FOOT FIGURE IN THE DRAWINGS
SHOULD SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR EXTRA COMPENSATION TO THE RESPONDENT AND
FOR CREDIT TO THE GOVERNMENT. 

ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONTRACTS PROVIDED:  "IN CASE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL GOVERN.  IN ANY
CASE OF DISCREPANCY IN THE FIGURES OR DRAWINGS, THE MATTER SHALL BE
IMMEDIATELY SUBMITTED TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER  ..."  THE
SPECIFICATIONS CONTAINED A SIMILAR PROVISION AND ADDED THAT THE
CONSTRUCTING QUARTERMASTER WAS TO BE THE INTERPRETER OF THE "INTENT AND
MEANING OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS."  THE CONSTRUCTING
QUARTERMASTER DULY RESOLVED THE DISCREPANCY IN THIS INSTANCE BY
INTERPRETING THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS TO MEAN THAT THE FOOTING
EXCAVATIONS WERE TO BE PAID FOR ON THE BASIS OF THE 37 1/2 FEET
ESTIMATED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.  RESPONDENT MADE NO ATTEMPT TO APPEAL
FROM THIS DECISION TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR TO THE DEPARTMENTAL
HEAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 15. 

THE OTHER DISPUTE CONCERNED A REQUIRED INCREASE IN WAGES FOR
RESPONDENT'S BRICKLAYERS.  THE CONTRACTS ESTABLISHED $1.00 PER HOUR AS
THE MINIMUM WAGE RATE FOR SKILLED LABOR UNLESS, AS OF APRIL 30, 1933,
THERE SHOULD BE A HIGHER PREVAILING HOURLY RATE PRESCRIBED BY
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.  ARTICLE 18(E)
PROVIDED THAT THIS MINIMUM WAGE RATE "SHALL BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS ON RECOMMENDATION OF
THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW," IN WHICH CASE "THE CONTRACT PRICE SHALL BE
ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY."  ON MARCH 3, 1934, THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW
RULED THAT BRICKLAYERS ON ANOTHER ARMY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT SAN
ANTONIO, TEXAS, WITH WHICH RESPONDENT WAS UNCONNECTED, SHOULD BE PAID
AT THE RATE OF $1.25 PER HOUR RETROACTIVE TO FEBRUARY 2, 1934. 
RESPONDENT WAS INFORMED OF THIS DECISION AND ON MARCH 23, 1934, THE
CONSTRUCTING QUARTERMASTER ADVISED RESPONDENT THAT ALL BRICKLAYERS
EMPLOYED ON THE INSTANT PROJECT "WILL BE PAID AT THE RATE OF $1.25 PER
HOUR."  RESPONDENT STATED THAT IT "WOULD BE GOVERNED ACCORDINGLY BUT
UNDER PROTEST, AND (THAT IT) EXPECTED REIMBURSEMENT OF THE DIFFERENCE
OF 25 CENTS PER HOUR."  ON MAY 12, 1934, THE CONSTRUCTING QUARTERMASTER
ADVISED RESPONDENT "THAT IT WAS THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER
THAT BRICKLAYERS EMPLOYED ON WAR DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, AND VICINITY (FORT SAM HOUSTON IS IN THIS VICINITY)
SHOULD BE PAID $1.25 PER HOUR, RETROACTIVE TO FEBRUARY 2, 1934," AND
THAT RESPONDENT WOULD BE WITHIN ITS RIGHTS "TO FILE APPEAL WITH THE
BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW FROM THE DECISION OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER." 
FN3  NO SUCH APPEAL WAS TAKEN; RESPONDENT MERELY PAID ITS BRICKLAYERS
$1.25 PER HOUR AND THEN FILED A CLAIM IN THE COURT BELOW FOR THE 25
CENT DIFFERENTIAL.  HERE AGAIN THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15 WERE
IGNORED. 

WE CANNOT SANCTION RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE APPEAL
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONTRACTS WHICH IT MADE WITH THE UNITED
STATES.  BOTH THE DISPUTE OVER THE FOOTING EXCAVATIONS AND THE DISPUTE
OVER THE BRICKLAYERS' WAGES WERE "QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THIS
CONTRACT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 15.  THE FIRST WAS A QUESTION
ARISING UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONTRACTS AS WELL AS UNDER THE
SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATED THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS
WOULD RESOLVE ALL DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS. 
THEIR DECISIONS IN SUCH MATTERS WERE CLEARLY APPEALABLE UNDER ARTICLE
15.  THE SECOND DISPUTE WAS A QUESTION ARISING UNDER THE WAGE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONTRACTS; THAT QUESTION INVOLVED A
CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTUAL SITUATION SURROUNDING THE REQUIRED WAGE
INCREASE AND A DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF THE INCREASE
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  ANY DECISION OR ORDER OF A SUBORDINATE
GOVERNMENT OFFICER IN THIS RESPECT WAS ALSO APPEALABLE UNDER ARTICLE
15.  YET RESPONDENT DID NOT EVEN SEEK THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S OPINION
AS TO THE FOOTING EXCAVATION DECISION OF THE CONSTRUCTING
QUARTERMASTER.  AND AS TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S ORDER REQUIRING AN
INCREASE IN THE BRICKLAYERS' WAGES, RESPONDENT NEGLECTED TO FILE A
WRITTEN APPEAL TO THE DEPARTMENTAL HEAD OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. 

BUT ARTICLE 15 IS SOMETHING MORE THAN A DEAD LETTER TO BE REVIVED
ONLY AT THE CONVENIENCE OR DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR.  IT IS A
CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS PROVISION APPLICABLE AT ALL TIMES AND BINDING ON ALL
PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT.  NO COURT IS JUSTIFIED IN DISREGARDING ITS
LETTER OR SPIRIT.  ARTICLE 15 IS CONTROLLING AS TO ALL DISPUTES
"CONCERNING QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THIS CONTRACT" UNLESS OTHERWISE
SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT.  IT CREATES A MECHANISM WHEREBY ADJUSTMENTS
MAY BE MADE AND ERRORS CORRECTED ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL, THEREBY
PERMITTING THE GOVERNMENT TO MITIGATE OR AVOID LARGE DAMAGE CLAIMS THAT
MIGHT OTHERWISE BE CREATED.  UNITED STATES V. BLAIR, 321 U.S. 730,
735.  THIS MECHANISM, MOREOVER, IS EXCLUSIVE IN NATURE.  SOLELY THROUGH
ITS OPERATION MAY CLAIMS BE MADE AND ADJUDICATED AS TO MATTERS ARISING
UNDER THE CONTRACT.  UNITED STATES V. BLAIR, SUPRA, 735; UNITED STATES
V. CALLAHAN WALKER CO., 317 U.S. 56, 61.  AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME
CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE APPEAL PROCEDURE IS INADEQUATE OR UNAVAILABLE,
THAT PROCEDURE MUST BE PURSUED AND EXHAUSTED BEFORE A CONTRACTOR CAN BE
HEARD TO COMPLAIN IN A COURT. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT WHEN A CONTRACTOR CHOOSES WITHOUT DUE CAUSE TO IGNORE
THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15 HE DESTROYS HIS RIGHT TO SUE FOR DAMAGES
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THAT COURT IS THEN OBLIGED TO OUTLAW HIS
CLAIMS, WHATEVER MAY BE THEIR EQUITY.  TO DO OTHERWISE IS TO REWRITE
THE CONTRACT. 

IN THIS INSTANCE NO JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE IS APPARENT FOR RESPONDENT'S
FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE APPEAL PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15.  CERTAINLY THE
REASONS RELIED UPON BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE LACKING IN MERIT.  THE
COURT FELT THAT THE DISPUTE OVER THE FOOTING EXCAVATION FIGURES
INVOLVED ONLY A MATTER OF CONTRACT PRICE COMPUTATION AND THAT THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH A COMPUTATION RESTED SOLELY WITH THE ARMY
FINANCE OFFICER AT FORT SAM HOUSTON, ANY DECISION BY THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER ON THE MATTER BEING NO MORE THAN ADVISORY.  SINCE THE CONTRACTS
MADE NO PROVISION FOR AN APPEAL OF THE FINANCE OFFICER'S COMPUTATION,
THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO APPEALABLE DECISION
CONFRONTING RESPONDENT AND THAT RESPONDENT'S CLAIM COULD BE HEARD AND
DETERMINED BY THAT COURT.  SUPPORT FOR THIS NOVEL INTERPRETATION WAS
SOUGHT IN THE STATEMENT ON THE COVERS OF THE CONTRACTS THAT PAYMENT ON
THE CONTRACTS WAS TO BE MADE "BY THE FINANCE OFFICER, U.S. ARMY, FORT
SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS."  THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT THIS DESIGNATION OF A
DISBURSING OFFICER IS NOT A PART OF THE CONTRACTS AND CANNOT BE USED IN
ANY WAY TO ALTER OR AMEND ANY ACTUAL PROVISIONS THEREOF.  THE
DESIGNATION ONLY IDENTIFIES THE PERSON WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO PERFORM THE
MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OF DISBURSEMENT AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY
TIME BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE CONTRACTOR N4. 
MOREOVER, EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE ISSUE DID CONCERN ONLY THE
AMOUNT OF PAYMENT UNDER THE CONTRACTS N5, SUCH AN ISSUE IS A QUESTION
ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACTS AND HENCE EXPRESSLY SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO APPEAL
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION TO INCREASE THE BRICKLAYERS' WAGES
BY HOLDING THAT THIS DECISION AUTOMATICALLY INCREASED THE CONTRACT
PRICE UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 18(E).  IT STATED THAT THE
CONSTRUCTING QUARTERMASTER REASONABLY CONSTRUED THE RULING OF THE BOARD
OF LABOR REVIEW IN REGARD TO THE SAN ANTONIO PROJECT AS APPLICABLE TO
THE VICINITY OF SAN ANTONIO AS WELL, THE WAGES PREVAILING IN THE
VICINITY BEING THE WAGES TO APPLY TO A CONTRACT WITHIN THAT VICINITY. 
THUS IT WAS SAID THAT IT WAS PLAINLY OF NO SPECIAL INTEREST TO
RESPONDENT TO APPEAL THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION.  BUT THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THIS DECISION AUTOMATICALLY RESULTED IN A CONTRACT
PRICE INCREASE IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE FACTS OR WITH THE CONTRACT
PROVISIONS.  UNDER ARTICLE 18(E) NO AUTOMATIC PRICE INCREASE RESULTS
UNLESS THE WAGE CHANGE IS ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS ON RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF LABOR
REVIEW.  FN6  THE BOARD ALONE CANNOT EFFECT A CHANGE; IT CAN ONLY MAKE
A RECOMMENDATION.  HERE, HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE WAGE
INCREASE EITHER AS TO RESPONDENT OR AS TO THE SAN ANTONIO PROJECT WAS
ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS,
THE ONLY AGENCY THAT HAD AUTHORITY TO DO SO. ACCORDINGLY THE PROVISION
OF ARTICLE 18(E) FOR AN AUTOMATIC PRICE INCREASE DID NOT COME INTO
OPERATION, AS WAS RECOGNIZED BY RESPONDENT IN ITS PROTEST.  SERIOUS
QUESTIONS WERE THUS RAISED AS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER TO DIRECT A WAGE INCREASE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND AS TO
THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF THE RULING OF THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW. 
RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE SECURED A DETERMINATION OF THOSE QUESTIONS BY
CHALLENGING THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15. 

RESPONDENT HAVING FAILED TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE PROCEDURE CREATED BY
ARTICLE 15 FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACTS,
IT WAS PRECLUDED FROM BRINGING SUIT ON SUCH MATTERS IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRED IN ENTERTAINING AND DECIDING THE
CLAIMS INVOLVING THOSE DISPUTES.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE CONTRACTS HERE INVOLVED WERE BOTH EXECUTED ON U.S.
GOVERNMENT FORM NO. P.W.A. 51. 

FN2  THE COURT OF CLAIMS ENTERED SEPARATE JUDGMENTS AND OPINIONS IN
RELATION TO EACH OF THE TWO CONTRACTS, ALTHOUGH BOTH OF THEM WERE
IDENTICAL AND INVOLVED THE SAME ISSUES.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE CONTRACTS CONCERNED THE PARTICULAR BUILDINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. 

FN3  THE CONSTRUCTING QUARTERMASTER WAS IN ERROR IN STATING THAT
RESPONDENT COULD HAVE APPEALED THE WAGE INCREASE DECISION TO THE BOARD
OF LABOR REVIEW.  UNDER ARTICLE 15, THE BOARD IS CHARGED WITH HANDLING
APPEALS ONLY ON MATTERS INVOLVING "LABOR ISSUES."  THIS PLAINLY MEANS
LABOR ISSUES BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.  SEE BLAIR V. UNITED
STATES, 99 CT. CLS. 71, 149-150, REVERSED IN OTHER RESPECTS, 321 U.S.
730.  HERE, HOWEVER, THE ONLY CONTROVERSY LAY BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT
AND THE GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND ITS BRICKLAYERS. 
HENCE THE ORDINARY REVIEW PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 15 WERE APPLICABLE,
ENABLING RESPONDENT TO APPEAL THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION TO THE
DEPARTMENTAL HEAD OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS MADE A
LIKE ERROR IN THIS RESPECT.    FN4  THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT IN
1933 AND 1934 THERE WERE 18 ARMY FINANCE OFFICERS LOCATED AT VARIOUS
PLACES IN THE UNITED STATES AND THAT ALL THE NOTATION ON THE COVER
COULD MEAN WAS THAT PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE BY THE FINANCE OFFICER AT
FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS, AND NOT BY A FINANCE OFFICER LOCATED
ELSEWHERE. 

MOREOVER, AN AFFIDAVIT BY THE CHIEF, RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE FISCAL DIRECTOR, ARMY SERVICE FORCES, APPEARING
AS AN APPENDIX TO THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF, STATES IN REGARD TO THE
NOTATION:  "THIS IS MERELY AN INDICATION TO THE CONSTRUCTING
QUARTERMASTER TO WHICH DISBURSING OFFICER THE CONSTRUCTING
QUARTERMASTER SHOULD CERTIFY VOUCHERS.  THE DESIGNATION OF THE FINANCE
OFFICER IS NOT A TERM OF THE CONTRACT.  IT IS PART OF AN OUTLINE
SHOWING THE PARTIES, THE AMOUNT, THE SITE OF THE WORK, THE SERVICES TO
BE PERFORMED, AND THE AUTHORIZED ACCOUNTS TO WHICH PAYMENTS WILL BE
CHARGED....  ON A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONTAINING THE ABOVE TERMS THE
DISBURSING OFFICER WOULD NOT IN PRACTICE ALTER OR MODIFY AND WOULD NOT
BE AUTHORIZED TO ALTER OR MODIFY THE DECISION OF A CERTIFYING
CONSTRUCTION QUARTERMASTER AS TO THE BASIS ON WHICH PAYMENTS CAN BE
MADE UNDER THE CONTRACT WHEN SUCH BASIS, AS HERE, IS DEPENDENT UPON AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIFICATIONS OR HAS BEEN COVERED BY A DECISION
ON A DISPUTE BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.... ANOTHER REASON WHY THE
FINANCE OFFICER WOULD NOT UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION PRESENTED
IN THIS CASE IS THAT FINANCE OFFICERS AS A RULE HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND WOULD NOT BE QUALIFIED TO MAKE SUCH DECISIONS." 

FN5  SUCH AN ASSUMPTION IS FAULTY IN THAT NEARLY EVERY DISPUTE
BETWEEN A CONTRACTOR AND THE GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY INVOLVES THE AMOUNT
OF PAYMENT UNDER THE CONTRACT.  HENCE, UNDER THE VIEW OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS, ALL SUCH DISPUTES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE FINANCE OFFICER'S
REVIEW, THEREBY NULLIFYING ARTICLE 15 AS WELL AS OTHER PORTIONS OF THE
CONTRACT CONTEMPLATING FINAL DECISION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR THE
DEPARTMENTAL HEAD ON THESE MATTERS. 

FN6  THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW, ALTHOUGH A PART OF THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS, IS A DISTINCT ENTITY.  AND
ARTICLE 18(E) OF THE CONTRACTS MADE A CLEAR FUNCTIONAL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE TWO IN REGARD TO WAGE RATE INCREASES.  WE ARE NOT FREE TO
DISREGARD THAT DISTINCTION AND REWRITE THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY
ARTICLE 18(E). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING IN PART. 

THE COURT REQUIRES THIS CONTRACTOR TO PAY OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET THE
WAGE INCREASE WHICH HE WAS DIRECTED TO MAKE.  WHATEVER SUPPORT THAT
CONCLUSION MAY HAVE IN A LITERAL READING OF THE CONTRACT, IT IS SO
HARSH AND UNFAIR AS TO BE AVOIDED IF THE CONTRACT DOES NOT COMPEL THE
RESULT.  I DO NOT THINK IT DOES. 

THE CONTRACT SET A MINIMUM WAGE RATE OF $1 AN HOUR FOR BRICKLAYERS. 
BUT IT ALSO PROVIDED THAT IF THE "PREVAILING" HOURLY RATES UNDER
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN ORGANIZED LABOR AND EMPLOYERS ON APRIL 30, 1933,
WERE ABOVE THAT MINIMUM RATE, THE HIGHER RATE WOULD BECOME THE MINIMUM
AND BE PAID.  FN1 THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS
ON RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW COULD CHANGE THE
CONTRACT RATE OF $1 AN HOUR; IT COULD ALSO CHANGE THE "PREVAILING"
HOURLY RATE.  IF IT DID EITHER, IT WOULD ESTABLISH A "DIFFERENT"
MINIMUM WAGE RATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT.  FN2  AND THE
CONTRACT PRICE WOULD BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. 

THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW, ACTING FOR THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS,  FN3 RULED THAT BRICKLAYERS ON ANOTHER
GOVERNMENT PROJECT AT SAN ANTONIO SHOULD BE PAID AT THE RATE OF $1.25
AN HOUR.  SAN ANTONIO, AS HELD BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, IS IN THE SAME
VICINITY AS FORT SAM HOUSTON WHERE THE PRESENT PROJECTS WERE UNDER
WAY.  AND PLAINLY THE "PREVAILING" HOURLY RATE REFERS TO THE RATE WHICH
OBTAINS IN THE VICINITY. 

SO THE RESPONDENT PAID THE EXTRA WAGES UNDER A RULING WHICH, AS I
READ THE CONTRACT, WAS BINDING ON HIM.  IT SEEMS, THEREFORE, MANIFESTLY
UNFAIR TO HOLD THAT HE MUST PAY THE WAGE INCREASE OUT OF HIS OWN
POCKET. 

A CONTRACTOR CONFRONTED WITH AN ORDER OF THE QUARTERMASTER TO RAISE
THE WAGES OF HIS EMPLOYEES IS IN AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT POSITION.  IF
HE DISOBEYS THE ORDER, HE RISKS A STRIKE AND INDUSTRIAL TURMOIL.  YET
THE COURT HOLDS THAT HE MUST TAKE THAT RISK OR ELSE PAY THE WAGE
INCREASE FROM HIS OWN POCKET.  SUCH A LITERAL READING OF THE CONTRACT
IS NOT A FAIR ONE.  AND IT IS NOT A NECESSARY ONE, AS I HAVE SHOWN. 
HENCE I WOULD CHOOSE A CONSTRUCTION WHICH AVOIDED THAT HARSH AND UNFAIR
RESULT AND DID NOT VICTIMIZE THE CONTRACTOR.  IF HE HAD NOT PROTESTED
THE ORDER OF THE QUARTERMASTER BUT HAD ACQUIESCED, I SUPPOSE NO ONE
WOULD SAY THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DISPUTE "CONCERNING QUESTIONS ARISING
UNDER" THE CONTRACT,  FN4  WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN OR COULD HAVE BEEN
APPEALED.  IT IS NOT DOUBTED THAT THEN THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE ENTITLED
TO REIMBURSEMENT.  I SEE NO DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE IF THE CONTRACTOR,
AFTER AN INITIAL PROTEST, ACQUIESCES IN THE RULING AND ACCEPTS THE NEW
"PREVAILING" RATE AND THUS AVOIDS DISSENSION WITH HIS EMPLOYEES. 

THERE IS JUSTICE IN WHAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS RULED AND I WOULD
SUSTAIN IT. 

FN1  "IN THE EVENT THAT THE PREVAILING HOURLY RATES PRESCRIBED UNDER
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS OR UNDERSTANDINGS BETWEEN ORGANIZED LABOR AND
EMPLOYERS ON APRIL 30, 1933, SHALL BE ABOVE THE MINIMUM RATES SPECIFIED
ABOVE, SUCH AGREED WAGE RATES SHALL APPLY:  PROVIDED, THAT SUCH AGREED
WAGE RATES SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE PERIOD OF THIS CONTRACT, BUT NOT
TO EXCEED 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT." 

FN2  "THE MINIMUM WAGE RATES HEREIN ESTABLISHED SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
CHANGE BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS ON
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW.  IN EVENT THAT THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS ACTING ON SUCH RECOMMENDATION
ESTABLISHES DIFFERENT MINIMUM WAGE RATES, THE CONTRACT PRICE SHALL BE
ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY ON THE BASIS OF ALL ACTUAL LABOR COSTS ON THE
PROJECT TO THE CONTRACTOR, WHETHER UNDER THIS CONTRACT OR ANY
SUBCONTRACT." 

FN3  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE WAGE INCREASE AT SAN ANTONIO WAS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS IS
NOT WARRANTED BY THE RECORD.  THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW IS A PART OF
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS.  IT DID NOT
"RECOMMEND" AN INCREASE AT SAN ANTONIO.  IT "FORMALLY RULED" THAT THE
BRICKLAYERS ON THAT PROJECT "SHOULD BE PAID AT THE RATE OF $1.25 PER
HOUR."  THE COURT OF CLAIMS TREATED THAT AS ACTION BY THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS.  THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE
FAIR CONSTRUCTION; AND IT WAS SO TREATED BOTH BY THE QUARTERMASTER AND
THE CONTRACTOR. 

FN4  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE QUARTERMASTER'S ADVICE TO
RESPONDENT THAT HE COULD FILE AN APPEAL WITH THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW
WAS ERRONEOUS.  IT POINTS OUT THAT THE BOARD OF LABOR REVIEW WAS
CHARGED WITH THE DECISION ONLY OF "LABOR ISSUES," WHICH EMBRACE
CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.  THE CONFUSION EXISTING
IN THE MIND OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN REPRESENTATIVE EMPHASIZES THE TRAP
SET FOR THIS CONTRACTOR WHETHER HE FOLLOWED THE QUARTERMASTER'S
SUGGESTION OR ACQUIESCED IN HIS RULING. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS
DISSENT. 
..END :










R.F.C. V. BEAVER COUNTY, 328 U.S. 204 


NO. 40.  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 13, 1946.  - 350 PA. 520,
39 A.2D 713, AFFIRMED. 


BY SEC. 10 OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION ACT, CONGRESS
FORBADE STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO TAX PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE
R.F.C. OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES, BUT PROVIDED THAT THEIR "REAL PROPERTY"
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION "TO THE SAME EXTENT
ACCORDING TO ITS VALUE AS OTHER REAL PROPERTY IS TAXED."  AN R.F.C.
SUBSIDIARY ACQUIRED CERTAIN LAND IN PENNSYLVANIA, ERECTED BUILDINGS
THEREON, AND EQUIPPED THEM WITH MACHINERY AND ATTACHMENTS NECESSARY FOR
A MANUFACTURING PLANT.  MOST OF THE MACHINERY WAS HEAVY, NOT ATTACHED
TO THE BUILDINGS, AND WAS HELD IN PLACE BY ITS OWN WEIGHT.  OTHER
PORTIONS WERE ATTACHED BY EASILY REMOVABLE SCREWS AND BOLTS.  SOME OF
THE EQUIPMENT COULD BE MOVED FROM PLACE TO PLACE IN THE PLANT.  THE
PLANT WAS LEASED TO A MANUFACTURER OF WAR EQUIPMENT UNDER A CONTRACT
PROVIDING THAT THE MACHINERY SHOULD "REMAIN PERSONALTY NOTWITHSTANDING
THE FACT IT MAY BE AFFIXED OR ATTACHED TO REALTY."  THE SUPREME COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA SUSTAINED THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX BY A COUNTY ON THE
MACHINERY, HOLDING THAT IT WAS REAL ESTATE UNDER A LONG-ESTABLISHED
RULE IN PENNSYLVANIA APPLYING TO ALL ESSENTIAL MACHINERY OF A
MANUFACTURING PLANT.  HELD: 

1.  THE TAX IS SUSTAINED.  P. 210. 

2.  THE INTERPRETATION OF PENNSYLVANIA'S TAX LAW BY ITS SUPREME COURT
IS BINDING ON THIS COURT.  P. 208. 

3.  PENNSYLVANIA'S DEFINITION OF "REAL PROPERTY" CANNOT GOVERN IF IT
CONFLICTS WITH THE SCOPE OF THAT TERM AS USED IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE. 
P. 208. 

4.  BY PERMITTING LOCAL TAXATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY, CONGRESS MADE
IT IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION WITH UNIFORM
CONSEQUENCES IN EACH STATE AND LOCALITY.  P. 209. 

5.  THE APPLICATION OF A LOCAL RULE AS TO WHAT IS "REAL PROPERTY" FOR
TAX PURPOSES WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF WAR MATERIALS ANY MORE THAN THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN
LEAVING THE FIXING OF RATES OF TAXATION TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES.  PP. 209,
210. 

6.  THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE CAN BEST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE
APPLICATION OF SETTLED STATE RULES AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES "REAL
PROPERTY," SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT EFFECT A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT OR RUN COUNTER TO THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  P. 210. 

7.  ANY OTHER COURSE WOULD CREATE THE KIND OF CONFUSION AND RESULTING
HAMPERING OF LOCAL TAX MACHINERY WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND WHEN IT
SOUGHT TO INTEGRATE ITS PERMISSION TO TAX WITH LOCAL TAX ASSESSMENT AND
COLLECTION MACHINERY.  P. 210. 

RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION V. BEAVER COUNTY. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 350 PA.
520, 39 A.2D 713, SUSTAINING A TAX ON MACHINERY OF A MANUFACTURING
PLANT OWNED BY THE DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE
R.F.C.  AFFIRMED, P. 210. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY SEC. 10 OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION ACT, AS AMENDED,
47 STAT. 5, 9; 55 STAT. 248, CONGRESS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT DID NOT
PERMIT STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO IMPOSE TAXES OF ANY KIND ON THE
FRANCHISE, CAPITAL, RESERVES, SURPLUS, INCOME, LOANS, AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION OR ANY OF ITS
SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS.  FN1 CONGRESS PROVIDED IN THE SAME SECTION
THAT "ANY REAL PROPERTY" OF THESE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES "SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO STATE, TERRITORIAL, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, OR LOCAL TAXATION TO
THE SAME EXTENT ACCORDING TO ITS VALUE AS OTHER REAL PROPERTY IS
TAXED."  THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUSTAINED THE IMPOSITION OF
A TAX ON CERTAIN MACHINERY OWNED AND USED IN BEAVER COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA, BY THE DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION, AN RFC SUBSIDIARY.  FN2
THE QUESTION PRESENTED ON THIS APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
IS WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING THAT THIS MACHINERY IS "SUBJECT
TO" A LOCAL "REAL PROPERTY" TAX MEANS THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA TAX
STATUTE, 72 PURDON'S PENNSYLVANIA STAT. (1936) 5020-201, AS APPLIED,
CONFLICTS WITH SEC. 10 OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION ACT. 
THIS APPEAL, THUS, CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE SUSTAINED
BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE AND RAISES A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
QUESTION.  WE HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A) AND
APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. 

IN 1941 DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION  FN3  ACQUIRED CERTAIN LAND IN
BEAVER COUNTY.  IT ERECTED BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY AND EQUIPPED THEM
WITH MACHINERY AND ATTACHMENTS NECESSARY AND ESSENTIAL TO THE EXISTENCE
AND OPERATION OF A MANUFACTURING PLANT FOR AIRCRAFT PROPELLERS.  THE
PLANT, THUS FULLY EQUIPPED, WAS LEASED TO CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION,
TO CARRY OUT ITS WAR CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE MANUFACTURE
OF PROPELLERS.  MOST OF THE MACHINERY WAS HEAVY, NOT ATTACHED TO THE
BUILDINGS, AND WAS HELD IN PLACE BY ITS OWN WEIGHT.  OTHER PORTIONS OF
THE MACHINERY WERE ATTACHED BY EASILY REMOVABLE SCREWS AND BOLTS, AND
SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT AND FIXTURES COULD BE MOVED FROM PLACE TO PLACE
WITHIN THE PLANT.  THE LEASE CONTRACT WITH CURTISS-WRIGHT AUTHORIZED
THE GOVERNMENT TO RECEIVE AND TO REPLACE EXISTING EQUIPMENT, AND PARTS
OF THE MACHINERY APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN FREQUENTLY INTERCHANGED AND
REPLACED AS THE CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRED.  THE LEASE
CONTRACT ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE MACHINERY SHOULD "REMAIN PERSONALTY
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT IT MAY BE AFFIXED OR ATTACHED TO REALTY." 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MACHINERY
WAS NOT "REAL" BUT WAS "PERSONAL" PROPERTY, AND THAT THEREFORE ITS
TAXATION WAS FORBIDDEN BY CONGRESS.  THE "REAL PROPERTY" WHICH CONGRESS
MADE "SUBJECT" TO STATE TAXATION SHOULD IN THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW BE
LIMITED TO "LAND AND BUILDINGS AND THOSE FIXTURES WHICH ARE SO
INTEGRATED WITH THE BUILDINGS AS TO BE UNIFORMLY, OR, AT MOST,
GENERALLY, REGARDED AS REAL PROPERTY."  "REAL PROPERTY," WITHIN THIS
DEFINITION, WOULD INCLUDE BUILDINGS AND "FIXTURES AS ARE ESSENTIAL TO A
BUILDING'S OPERATIONS" BUT WOULD NOT INCLUDE FIXTURES, MOVABLE
MACHINERY, OR EQUIPMENT, WHICH, THOUGH ESSENTIAL TO APPLICANT'S
OPERATIONS AS A PLANT, ARE NOT ESSENTIAL TO A BUILDING'S OPERATION AS A
BUILDING. 

THE COUNTY WOULD, FOR TAX PURPOSES, DEFINE REAL PROPERTY SO AS TO
TREAT MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, AND THE LAND ON WHICH A
MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENT IS LOCATED AS AN INTEGRAL REAL PROPERTY
UNIT.  THIS IS IN ACCORD WITH THE VIEW OF THE STATE'S SUPREME COURT
WHICH MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IN SUSTAINING THE TAX HERE INVOLVED:
"IT HAS LONG BEEN THE RULE IN PENNSYLVANIA THAT 'WHETHER FAST OR
LOOSE, THEREFORE, ALL THE MACHINERY OF A MANUFACTORY WHICH IS NECESSARY
TO CONSTITUTE IT, AND WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD NOT BE A MANUFACTORY AT
ALL, MUST PASS FOR A PART OF THE FREEHOLD.'...  APPELLANT'S MACHINERY,
BEING AN INTEGRATED PART OF THE MANUFACTORY, AND SO, OF THE FREEHOLD,
WAS THEREFORE TAXABLE" UNDER PENNSYLVANIA'S DEFINITION OF REAL
PROPERTY.  THIS INTERPRETATION OF PENNSYLVANIA'S TAX LAW IS OF COURSE
BINDING ON US.  BUT PENNSYLVANIA'S DEFINITION OF "REAL PROPERTY" CANNOT
GOVERN IF IT CONFLICTS WITH THE SCOPE OF THAT TERM AS USED IN THE
FEDERAL STATUTE.  WHAT MEANING CONGRESS INTENDED IS A FEDERAL QUESTION
WHICH WE MUST DETERMINE. 

THE 1941 ACT DOES NOT ITSELF DEFINE REAL PROPERTY.  NOR DO THE
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS OR OTHER RELEVANT DATA PROVIDE ANY SINGLE DECISIVE
PIECE OF EVIDENCE AS TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  FN4 OBVIOUSLY, IT COULD
HAVE INTENDED EITHER, AS THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, THAT CONTENT BE GIVEN
TO THE TERM "REAL PROPERTY" AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, UNDER
AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, OR, AS THE COUNTY CONTENDS, THAT
THE MEANING OF THE TERM SHOULD BE ITS MEANING UNDER LOCAL TAX LAWS SO
LONG AS THOSE TAX LAWS WERE NOT DESIGNED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT. 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT A FEDERAL DEFINITION OF REAL
PROPERTY SHOULD BE APPLIED, THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON THE GENERALLY
ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE THAT CONGRESS NORMALLY INTENDS THAT ITS LAWS SHALL
OPERATE UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT THE NATION SO THAT THE FEDERAL PROGRAM
WILL REMAIN UNIMPAIRED.  JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 101, 104;
COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, 327 U.S. 280.  BUT CONGRESS, IN PERMITTING LOCAL
TAXATION OF THE REAL PROPERTY, MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY THE LAW WITH
UNIFORM TAX CONSEQUENCES IN EACH STATE AND LOCALITY.  FOR THE SEVERAL
STATES, AND EVEN THE LOCALITIES WITHIN THEM, HAVE DIVERSE METHODS OF
ASSESSMENT, COLLECTION, AND REFUNDING.  TAX RATES VARY WIDELY.  TO ALL
OF THESE VARIABLE TAX CONSEQUENCES, CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY SUBJECTED
THE "REAL PROPERTY" OF THE DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION.  IN VIEW OF THIS
EXPRESS PROVISION, THE NORMAL ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDS ITS LAW
TO HAVE THE SAME CONSEQUENCES THROUGHOUT THE NATION CANNOT BE MADE. 
FURTHERMORE, CONGRESS, HAD IT DESIRED COMPLETE NATIONWIDE UNIFORMITY AS
TO TAX CONSEQUENCES, COULD HAVE STIPULATED FOR FIXED PAYMENTS IN LIEU
OF TAXES, AS IT HAS DONE IN OTHER STATUTES.  FN5  NOR CAN WE SEE HOW
APPLICATION OF A LOCAL RULE GOVERNING WHAT IS "REAL PROPERTY" FOR TAX
PURPOSES WOULD IMPAIR THE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
WAR MATERIALS ANY MORE THAN THE PROGRAM WOULD BE IMPAIRED BY THE ACTION
OF CONGRESS IN LEAVING THE FIXING OF RATES OF TAXATION TO LOCAL
COMMUNITIES. 

WE THINK THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE CAN BEST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
APPLICATION OF SETTLED STATE RULES AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES "REAL
PROPERTY," SO LONG AS IT IS PLAIN, AS IT IS HERE, THAT THE STATE RULES
DO NOT EFFECT A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, OR PATENTLY RUN
COUNTER TO THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  CONCEPTS OF REAL PROPERTY ARE DEEPLY
ROOTED IN STATE TRADITIONS, CUSTOMS, HABITS, AND LAWS.  LOCAL TAX
ADMINISTRATION IS GEARED TO THOSE CONCEPTS.  TO PERMIT THE STATES TO
TAX, AND YET TO REQUIRE THEM TO ALTER THEIR LONG-STANDING PRACTICE OF
ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIONS, WOULD CREATE THE KIND OF CONFUSION AND
RESULTANT HAMPERING OF LOCAL TAX MACHINERY WHICH WE ARE CERTAIN
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS SUBJECTED DEFENSE
PLANT CORPORATION'S PROPERTIES TO LOCAL TAXES "TO THE SAME EXTENT
ACCORDING TO ITS VALUE AS OTHER REAL PROPERTY IS TAXED" INDICATED AN
INTENT TO INTEGRATE CONGRESSIONAL PERMISSION TO TAX WITH ESTABLISHED
LOCAL TAX ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION MACHINERY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL TAX IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENTAL PROPERTIES
SEE UNITED STATES V. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, 322 U.S. 174.  SEE ALSO
PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, 308 U.S. 21; MARICOPA COUNTY
V. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, 318 U.S. 357. 

FN2  350 PA. 520, 39 A.2D 713. 

FN3  BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS, 59 STAT. 310, DEFENSE PLANT
CORPORATION WAS DISSOLVED AND ALL OF ITS FUNCTIONS, POWERS, DUTIES AND
LIABILITIES WERE TRANSFERRED TO RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION. 
PURSUANT TO THIS JOINT RESOLUTION THIS COURT GRANTED A MOTION TO
SUBSTITUTE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AS PARTY APPELLANT IN
SUCCESSION TO DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION. 

FN4  THE 1941 AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 10 ADDED AMONG OTHERS THE FOLLOWING
PROVISION:  "...  SUCH EXEMPTIONS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE
APPLICABLE IN ANY STATE TO ANY BUILDINGS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED BY THE
LAWS OF SUCH STATE TO BE PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR TAXATION PURPOSES."  THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THIS INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO
ESTABLISH A UNIFORM MEANING OF THE TERM "REAL PROPERTY" REGARDLESS OF
LOCAL RULES.  BUT THE ADDITION ALSO MIGHT BE TAKEN TO INDICATE THAT
CONGRESS UNDERSTOOD THAT WITHOUT IT UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 10 THE
LOCAL RULE WOULD BE FOLLOWED WITH RESPECT TO TAXING BUILDINGS.  IN OUR
OPINION THE ADDITION OF THE ABOVE-QUOTED LANGUAGE DOES NOT TEND TO LEAD
TO ONE CONCLUSION OR THE OTHER. 

FN5  SEE, E.G., 42 U.S.C. 1546.  SEE ALSO LIST OF ACTS IN FEDERAL
CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WITH RESPECT TO
FEDERALLY OWNED REAL ESTATE, HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 216, PP. 39-41. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













HOWITT V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 189 


NO. 354.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 6, 1946.  - 150 F.2D
82, AFFIRMED. 


1.  TICKET SELLERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES OF A RAILROAD WHO USE THE POWER
OF THEIR POSITIONS TO DISCRIMINATE AMONG PASSENGERS BY EXACTING SUMS IN
EXCESS OF ESTABLISHED RATES, APPROPRIATING THE EXCESS FOR THEMSELVES,
ARE PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 10(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, EVEN
THOUGH THE RAILROAD IS NOT A PARTY TO THEIR CONDUCT.  PP. 190-193. 

2.  ONE OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IS TO
ESTABLISH UNIFORM TREATMENT OF USERS OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.  P.
192. 

3.  SECTION 10 SHOWS THE CLEAREST POSSIBLE PURPOSE TO BAR RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES FROM OVERCHARGING FOR THEIR OWN OR FOR THE RAILROAD'S
ILLEGITIMATE GAIN.  P. 193. 

4.  THE ACT IMPOSES THE SAME DUTY ON TICKET SELLERS AND CLERKS OF
COMMON CARRIERS AS THAT IMPOSED ON RAILROAD OFFICERS OR OTHER
EMPLOYEES, TO TREAT ALL THE PUBLIC ALIKE AS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
TRANSPORTATION.  P. 193. 

HOWITT ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT AND DEMURRED TO THE INDICTMENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE
DEMURRERS, 55 F.SUPP.  372, AND THEY WERE CONVICTED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 82.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326
U.S. 706.  AFFIRMED, P. 193. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE WARTIME TRANSPORTATION SHORTAGE DURING THE WINTER OF 1943 MADE IT
EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN TICKETS FOR TRAINS GOING NORTH FROM
MIAMI, FLORIDA.  PETITIONERS ARE THREE TICKET SELLERS AND ONE DIAGRAM
CLERK WHO WERE EMPLOYED AT THAT TIME BY A RAILROAD AT MIAMI. 
PETITIONERS HOWITT, LEE, AND DEWHURST WERE CHARGED WITH, AND CONVICTED
FOR, CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
1 ET SEQ., IN THAT THEY CONSPIRED TO COLLECT AND RECEIVE UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE CHARGES FOR PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION, IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
1(5)(A); TO RECEIVE AND COLLECT GREATER COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE FROM
CERTAIN PERSONS THAN THAT WHICH WOULD BE COLLECTED FROM OTHERS, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2; TO PREFER PARTICULAR PERSONS TO THE DISADVANTAGE
OF OTHERS, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(1); AND TO COLLECT AND RECEIVE
COMPENSATION IN EXCESS OF THAT FIXED BY TARIFF SCHEDULES, IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 6(7).  THESE VIOLATIONS ARE MADE A CRIME BY SEC. 10.  FN1
PETITIONER O'ROURKE WAS CHARGED WITH AND CONVICTED FOR COMMITTING
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES OF THE SAME NATURE.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 82.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THIS
CASE RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THE ACT. 

THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED THAT THERE WAS A WORKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PETITIONERS AND CERTAIN LOCAL HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNDER WHICH PERSONS
ANXIOUS TO PURCHASE RAILROAD TICKETS WOULD, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THEM,
PAY AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF PUBLISHED RATES EITHER TO PETITIONERS
DIRECTLY, OR TO THE HOTEL EMPLOYEES WHO IN TURN WOULD DIVIDE THE EXCESS
PAYMENTS BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND PETITIONERS.  FN3 THE RAILROAD PLAYED
NO PART IN THESE TRANSACTIONS.  THE GOVERNMENT PRODUCED A GREAT DEAL OF
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE CHARGES.  FN4  PETITIONERS OFFERED NO
TESTIMONY OR OTHER KIND OF EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THAT PRODUCED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  THEIR ONLY CONTENTION WAS RAISED ON DEMURRER, MOTION FOR
DIRECTED VERDICT AND EXCEPTION TO THE CHARGE OF THE JURY.  THIS
CONTENTION, URGED ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT GROUNDS, WAS THAT THE INDICTMENT
FAILED TO CHARGE, AND THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH A CRIME, SINCE
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND SEC. 10 IN PARTICULAR ARE PRIMARILY
AIMED AT RAILROADS AND DO NOT MAKE DISCRIMINATORY AND ILLEGAL CHARGES
BY RAILROAD EMPLOYEES FOR PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION CRIMINALLY
PUNISHABLE, UNLESS THE RAILROAD IS ITSELF A PARTY TO THE CONDUCT.  THIS
IS STILL THE BASIS OF PETITIONERS' ARGUMENTS. 

IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT ONE OF THE PRIMARY AIMS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AND THE AMENDMENTS TO IT WAS TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM
TREATMENT OF USERS OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.  SEE MITCHELL V.
UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 80, 94, 95.  THE ACT AGAIN AND AGAIN EXPRESSLY
CONDEMNS ALL KINDS OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES.  RAILROAD EMPLOYEES CAN
ACCOMPLISH INVIDIOUS TRANSPORTATION DISCRIMINATION, WHETHER OR NOT
THEIR CONDUCT IS APPROVED OR PARTICIPATED IN BY THEIR SUPERIORS.  NOT
ONLY DO THE ACT'S PROVISIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AND SPECIAL FAVORS
FAIL TO EXEMPT EMPLOYEES SUCH AS PETITIONERS; BUT SEC. 10 STANDING
ALONE SHOWS THE CLEAREST POSSIBLE PURPOSE TO BAR ALL RAILROAD EMPLOYEES
FROM OVERCHARGING FOR THEIR OWN OR FOR THE RAILROAD'S ILLEGITIMATE
GAIN.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IMPOSES THE SAME DUTY ON TICKET
SELLERS AND CLERKS OF COMMON CARRIERS AS THAT IMPOSED ON RAILROAD
OFFICERS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES:  TO TREAT ALL THE PUBLIC ALIKE AS TO THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORTATION.  RAILROAD ACCOMMODATIONS ARE
THUS NOT TO DEPEND UPON WHO WILL OR CAN PAY MORE BECAUSE OF GREATER
NEED OR A LONGER PURSE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ESTES, 6 F.2D 902, 905. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 10 READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, OR,
WHENEVER SUCH COMMON CARRIER IS A CORPORATION, ANY DIRECTOR OR OFFICER
THEREOF, OR ANY RECEIVER, TRUSTEE, LESSEE, AGENT, OR PERSON ACTING FOR
OR EMPLOYED BY SUCH CORPORATION, WHO, ALONE OR WITH ANY OTHER
CORPORATION, COMPANY, PERSON, OR PARTY, SHALL WILLFULLY DO OR CAUSE TO
BE DONE, OR SHALL WILLINGLY SUFFER OR PERMIT TO BE DONE, ANY ACT,
MATTER, OR THING IN THIS PART PROHIBITED OR DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL, OR
WHO SHALL AID OR ABET THEREIN, OR SHALL WILLFULLY OMIT OR FAIL TO DO
ANY ACT, MATTER, OR THING IN THIS PART REQUIRED TO BE DONE, OR SHALL
CAUSE OR WILLINGLY SUFFER OR PERMIT ANY ACT, MATTER, OR THING SO
DIRECTED OR REQUIRED BY THIS PART TO BE DONE NOT TO BE SO DONE, OR
SHALL AID OR ABET ANY SUCH OMISSION OR FAILURE, OR SHALL BE GUILTY OF
ANY INFRACTION OF THIS PART FOR WHICH NO PENALTY IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED,
OR WHO SHALL AID OR ABET THEREIN, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR ..." 

FN2  ORDINARY VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT ARE UNDER SEC. 10 PUNISHED ONLY
BY IMPOSITION OF A FINE.  BUT A PROVISO IMPOSES A PRISON TERM IF THE
VIOLATION CONSISTS OF AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION.  PETITIONER O'ROURKE
CONTENDS THAT HE WAS CHARGED ONLY WITH VIOLATING SEC. 6(7) RATHER THAN
SEC. 2, WHICH IS THE UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION SECTION, AND THAT HE
THEREFORE COULD NOT BE IMPRISONED UNDER SEC. 10.  THIS CONTENTION IS
FRIVOLOUS.  THE O'ROURKE INDICTMENT CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY ALSO CHARGES
A VIOLATION OF SEC. 2. 

FN3  AN AMICUS BRIEF FILED WITH US CONTAINS THE SUGGESTION THAT A
RATHER EXTENSIVE PARAGRAPH OF THE COURT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY, TO WHICH
EXCEPTION WAS NOTED, CONTAINS LANGUAGE SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE CONSTRUCTION
THAT ACCEPTANCE OF A "BONA FIDE TIP" MIGHT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  WE THINK THAT THAT LANGUAGE READ IN ITS
CONTEXT DOES NOT RELATE TO BONA FIDE TIPS BUT RATHER TO EXCESS CHARGES
WHICH THE PROSPECTIVE PASSENGER WAS FORCED TO PAY AND WHICH WERE MADE
TO LOOK LIKE TIPS.  MOREOVER, THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE CHARGE ALSO
CONTAINS INSTRUCTIONS THAT EMPLOYEES ACTING ALONE WITHOUT PARTICIPATION
BY THE RAILROAD MIGHT BE FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE ACT.  THE
EXCEPTION TO THE PARAGRAPH WAS A GENERAL ONE.  IN VIEW OF WHAT
PETITIONERS ARGUE HERE, WHAT THEY ARGUED ON DEMURRER, AND ON THE MOTION
FOR DIRECTED VERDICT, IT IS LIKELY THAT THE EXCEPTION WAS DIRECTED TO
THESE LAST-MENTIONED INSTRUCTIONS AND NOT TO THE LANGUAGE CHALLENGED BY
THE AMICUS BRIEF.  INDEED, PETITIONERS INTRODUCED NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW
THAT THEY WERE RECEIVING BONA FIDE TIPS, NOR DID THEY REQUEST ANY
CHARGE ON THE BASIS OF THIS THEORY.  IF PETITIONERS IN EXCEPTING TO THE
CHALLENGED PARAGRAPH OF THE CHARGE HAD THE "BONA FIDE" TIP QUESTION IN
MIND THEY SHOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY POINTED THIS OUT TO THE TRIAL
COURT.  SEE ALLIS V. UNITED STATES, 155 U.S. 117, 121-123.  THE ISSUE
RAISED BY THE AMICUS BRIEF AS TO WHETHER THE ACT COVERS BONA FIDE TIPS
IS THEREFORE NOT BEFORE US. 

FN4  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID THAT THIS EVIDENCE "PROVED
BEYOND QUESTION THAT THE DEFENDANTS REPEATEDLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY TOOK
ADVANTAGE OF THE PREVAILING WAR-TIME CONGESTION IN TRANSPORTATION TO
EXACT FROM APPLICANTS FOR ACCOMMODATIONS MORE MONEY THAN THE REGULAR
RATE PRESCRIBED, AND APPROPRIATED THE DIFFERENCE TO THEMSELVES." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










TRADE COMM'N V. A.P.W. PAPER CO., 328 U.S. 193 


NO. 320.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  - DECIDED MAY 6, 1946.  - 149 F.2D
424, AFFIRMED. 


PRIOR TO 1905 RESPONDENT USED "RED CROSS" AS A TRADE NAME AND
DISPLAYED THE RED CROSS SYMBOL ON ITS PRODUCTS.  SECTION 4 OF THE
AMERICAN RED CROSS ACT OF JANUARY 5, 1905, FORBADE "ANY PERSON OR
CORPORATION, OTHER THAN THE RED CROSS OF AMERICA, NOT NOW LAWFULLY
ENTITLED TO USE THE SIGN OF THE RED CROSS, HEREAFTER TO USE SUCH SIGN
...  FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRADE OR AS AN ADVERTISEMENT TO INDUCE THE
SALE OF ANY ARTICLE WHATSOEVER."  THAT SECTION WAS AMENDED IN 1910 SO
AS TO FORBID THE USE OF THE SYMBOL OR THE WORDS "RED CROSS" FOR THE
PURPOSE OF TRADE OR AS AN ADVERTISEMENT "TO INDUCE THE SALE OF ANY
ARTICLE" OR "FOR ANY BUSINESS OR CHARITABLE PURPOSE" BY ANY PERSON
OTHER THAN THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS OR THE SANITARY AND HOSPITAL
AUTHORITIES OF THE ARMY AND NAVY, EXCEPT THAT "NO PERSON, CORPORATION,
OR ASSOCIATION THAT ACTUALLY USED  ...  THE SAID EMBLEM ...  OR WORDS
FOR ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE PRIOR TO" JANUARY 5, 1905 "SHALL BE DEEMED
FORBIDDEN BY THIS ACT TO CONTINUE THE USE THEREOF  ..."  THE GENEVA
CONVENTION OF 1929, RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1932, BOUND THE
CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE OR RECOMMEND TO THEIR LEGISLATURES SUCH
MEASURES AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY "TO PREVENT THE USE BY PRIVATE PERSONS
...  OF THE EMBLEM OR THE NAME OF THE RED CROSS," FROM THE TIME SET IN
THE LEGISLATION AND NOT LATER THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE CONVENTION.  CONGRESS ENACTED NO LEGISLATION TO EFFECTUATE THIS
UNDERTAKING.  IN 1942 THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CHARGED PETITIONER
WITH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 5(A) OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1938, WHICH MAKES UNLAWFUL "UNFAIR
METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE, AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR
PRACTICES IN COMMERCE."  AFTER APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS,
THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT RESPONDENT'S USE OF THE WORDS AND SYMBOL WERE
MISLEADING TO THE PURCHASING PUBLIC AND ORDERED RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM USING THE WORDS "RED CROSS" TO DESCRIBE ITS PRODUCTS AND
FROM DISPLAYING THE SYMBOL ON THEM.  HELD: 

1.  UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE COMMISSION MAY NOT ABSOLUTELY
FORBID THE USE OF THE WORDS AND SYMBOL BY RESPONDENT.  PP. 198, 200,
204. 

(A)  THE 1910 ACT GRANTED, OR AT LEAST RECOGNIZED, THE RIGHT OF PRE
1905 USERS TO CONTINUE THEIR USE.  P. 200. 

(B)  THIS SPECIFIC RIGHT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE SWEPT AWAY BY THE
1938 AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  P. 202. 

(C)  SINCE CONGRESS HAS TAKEN NO ACTION TO EFFECTUATE THE UNDERTAKING
IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1929 TO PREVENT THEIR USE BY PRIVATE
PERSONS, IT DOES NOT IMPAIR THE RIGHTS OF GOOD FAITH PRE-1905 USERS
GRANTED OR RECOGNIZED BY THE 1910 ACT.  P. 203. 

2.  READING THE 1910 AND 1938 ACTS IN PARI MATERIA, THE GOOD FAITH
USE OF THE WORDS AND SYMBOLS BY PRE-1905 USERS IS PERMISSIBLE; BUT THE
COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE WHICH REMOVES ANY
MISLEADING INFERENCE THAT THE PRODUCTS ARE IN FACT SPONSORED, APPROVED,
OR IN ANY MANNER ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS.  P.
202. 

3.  THE FASHIONING OF THE ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE ENTERED IS ENTRUSTED
TO THE COMMISSION, WHICH HAS WIDE LATITUDE FOR JUDGMENT.  P. 203. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. A.P.W. PAPER CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ORDERED RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM USING THE WORDS "RED CROSS" TO DESCRIBE ITS PRODUCTS AND FROM
DISPLAYING THE GREEK RED CROSS ON THEM.  38 F.T.C. 1.  ON PETITION FOR
REVIEW, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE FORMULATION OF A NEW
ORDER WHICH, THOUGH NOT FORBIDDING THE USE OF THE WORDS AND SYMBOL,
MIGHT REQUIRE STATEMENTS WHICH WOULD AVOID ANY INFERENCE THAT THE GOODS
WERE SPONSORED OR APPROVED OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE AMERICAN
NATIONAL RED CROSS.  149 F.2D 424.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326
U.S. 704.  AFFIRMED, P. 204. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT MANUFACTURES AND SELLS TOILET TISSUES AND PAPER TOWELS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ON EACH PACKAGE OR ROLL OF ONE BRAND ARE A GREEK
RED CROSS AND THE WORDS "RED CROSS".  RESPONDENT REGISTERED THE WORDS
"RED CROSS" AND THE RED CROSS SYMBOL AS A TRADE MARK; AND IT FEATURES
THEM IN ITS ADVERTISEMENTS AND ON ITS LETTERHEADS. 

BY SEC. 4 OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS ACT OF JANUARY 5, 1905, 33 STAT.
600, 36 U.S.C. SEC. 4, IT WAS MADE UNLAWFUL "FOR ANY PERSON OR
CORPORATION, OTHER THAN THE RED CROSS OF AMERICA, NOT NOW LAWFULLY
ENTITLED TO USE THE SIGN OF THE RED CROSS, HEREAFTER TO USE SUCH SIGN
OR ANY INSIGNIA COLORED IN IMITATION THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRADE
OR AS AN ADVERTISEMENT TO INDUCE THE SALE OF ANY ARTICLE WHATSOEVER." 
THAT SECTION WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 23, 1910, 36 STAT. 604, 36
U.S.C. SEC. 4.  SEC. 4 OF THAT ACT MADE UNLAWFUL THE USE OF THE GREEK
RED CROSS ON A WHITE GROUND OR THE WORDS "RED CROSS" FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TRADE OR AS AN ADVERTISEMENT "TO INDUCE THE SALE OF ANY ARTICLE" OR
"FOR ANY BUSINESS OR CHARITABLE PURPOSE" BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE
AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS  FN1  OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEES AND
AGENTS OR THE SANITARY AND HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES OF THE ARMY AND NAVY. 
IT CONTAINED, HOWEVER, A PROVISO WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:  "THAT NO
PERSON, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION THAT ACTUALLY USED OR WHOSE
ASSIGNOR ACTUALLY USED THE SAID EMBLEM, SIGN, INSIGNIA, OR WORDS FOR
ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE PRIOR TO JANUARY FIFTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FIVE,
SHALL BE DEEMED FORBIDDEN BY THIS ACT TO CONTINUE THE USE THEREOF FOR
THE SAME PURPOSE AND FOR THE SAME CLASS OF GOODS." 

PETITIONER'S USE OF THE TRADE NAME AND EMBLEM ANTEDATE JANUARY 5,
1905.  FN2  BUT IN 1942 THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CHARGED PETITIONER
WITH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 5(A) OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, 38
STAT. 719, AS AMENDED 52 STAT. 111, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45, WHICH MAKES
UNLAWFUL "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE, AND UNFAIR OR
DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN COMMERCE." 

A HEARING WAS HAD, FINDINGS WERE MADE AND A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
WAS ISSUED.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT "THE USE BY RESPONDENT OF THE
WORDS 'RED CROSS' AND OF THE MARK OF THE GREEK RED CROSS TO DESIGNATE
ITS PRODUCTS HAS THE TENDENCY AND CAPACITY TO MISLEAD AND DECEIVE A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE PURCHASING PUBLIC, IN THAT SUCH NAME AND
MARK REPRESENT OR IMPLY THAT RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS ARE SPONSORED,
ENDORSED, OR APPROVED BY THE RED CROSS; THAT THE RED CROSS IS
FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN THE SALE OF THE PRODUCTS; THAT THE PRODUCTS
ARE USED BY THE RED CROSS; THAT THE PRODUCTS ARE MANUFACTURED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SANITARY STANDARDS SET UP BY THE RED CROSS; OR THAT
THERE IS SOME OTHER CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PRODUCTS AND THE RED CROSS. 
NOT ONLY ARE THESE, IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION, REASONABLE
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THE USE OF THE NAME AND MARK, BUT THE
RECORD AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS THAT THE NAME AND MARK ARE IN FACT SO
UNDERSTOOD AND INTERPRETED BY MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC."  THE
COMMISSION ALSO FOUND THAT STATEMENTS ON RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS THAT
THEY ARE MADE BY RESPONDENT AND THAT THE NAME AND MARK ARE REGISTERED
"DO NOT SERVE TO CORRECT THE ERRONEOUS AND MISLEADING IMPRESSION
CREATED THROUGH THE USE OF THE TRADE NAME AND MARK."  THE COMMISSION
ENTERED AN ORDER WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FORBADE RESPONDENT FROM
USING THE WORDS "RED CROSS" TO DESCRIBE ITS PRODUCTS AND FROM
DISPLAYING THE GREEK RED CROSS ON THEM.  FN3  38 F.T.C. 1. 

ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BY A DIVIDED
VOTE, REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  149 F.2D 424.  IT HELD
THAT THE ORDER WENT BEYOND PERMISSIBLE LIMITS IN FORBIDDING ANY USE OF
THE WORDS AND THE MARK.  IT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE
FORMULATION OF A NEW ORDER WHICH, THOUGH NOT FORBIDDING THE USE OF THE
WORDS AND THE SYMBOL, MIGHT REQUIRE STATEMENTS WHICH WOULD AVOID ANY
INFERENCE THAT THE GOODS WERE SPONSORED OR APPROVED OR IN ANY WAY
CONNECTED WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS.  THE CASE IS HERE ON
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT. 

THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE PRE-1905 USE OF THE WORDS AND THE
SYMBOL WAS AN UNLAWFUL ONE WITHIN THE MEANING OF EITHER THE 1905 OR THE
1910 ACT.  NOR HAS THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN
ANY FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY OR MADE ANY UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION
WITH ITS USE OF THE WORDS AND THE SYMBOL.  THEREFORE THIS IS NOT A CASE
WHERE THE WORDS AND SYMBOLS WERE EITHER ADOPTED OR USED PURSUANT TO A
FRAUDULENT DESIGN, AIMED AT CREATING THE IMPRESSION THAT THESE PRODUCTS
WERE SPONSORED BY OR OTHERWISE CARRIED THE IMPRIMATUR OF THE RED
CROSS.  HENCE, HERE, AS IN JACOB SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 327 U.S. 608, WE HAVE NO PROBLEM INVOLVING THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO UPROOT A FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN ITS ENTIRETY.  BUT IT IS
ARGUED THAT HOWEVER LAWFUL THE EARLIER USE MAY HAVE BEEN, IT CANNOT
SURVIVE A FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE USE CONSTITUTES AN UNFAIR
OR DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE IN COMMERCE.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE
1938 AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT GAVE THE COMMISSION
POWER TO PROTECT CONSUMERS, AS WELL AS COMPETITORS, AGAINST UNFAIR OR
DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.  FN4  IT IS SAID THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO
THAT BROAD POWER AND NONE SHOULD BE IMPLIED FROM THE RED CROSS ACT OF
1910.  THE LATTER ACT, IT IS SAID, CONFERS NO GENERAL RIGHTS BUT ONLY A
LIMITED IMMUNITY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS EXEMPTING PRE-1905
USERS OF THE NAME AND EMBLEM FROM REGULATORY LEGISLATION OF GENERAL
APPLICATION WHICH CONGRESS MAY FROM TIME TO TIME ENACT FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC.  IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT BY THE GENEVA
CONVENTION OF 1929, WHICH WAS RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES  FN5  IN
1932, THE UNITED STATES AGREED TO PROHIBIT THE USE BY PRIVATE PERSONS
OF THE NAME AND THE SYMBOL AND THAT THE RED CROSS ACT AND THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF CONDUCT WHICH
THIS NATION IS UNDER INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION TO TERMINATE. 

WE AGREE, HOWEVER, WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT IS CLEAR
THAT THE 1910 ACT GRANTED, OR AT LEAST RECOGNIZED, THE RIGHT OF PRE
1905 USERS TO CONTINUE THE USE OF THE WORDS AND THE SYMBOL.  FN6  THE
HOUSE REPORT STATED THAT THE ACT AS AMENDED "WILL PERMIT THE USE OF THE
SYMBOL BY  ... SUCH PERSONS, CORPORATIONS, AND ASSOCIATIONS AS ACTUALLY
USED THE EMBLEM PRIOR TO JANUARY 5, 1905, FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH
THEY WERE SO ENTITLED TO USE IT AND FOR THE SAME CLASS OF GOODS.  THE
FULLEST PROTECTION IT IS POSSIBLE TO AFFORD IT BY CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENT AND AT THE SAME TIME AMPLY PROTECTS THE CONCERNS POSSESSING
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE EMBLEM."  H. REP. NO. 1256, 61ST CONG.,
2D SESS., PP. 2-3.  IT IS APPARENT FROM THE TERMS OF THE 1905 ACT AND
THE 1910 ACT  FN7  THAT CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED NOT ONLY WITH PROTECTING
THE RED CROSS AGAINST PRETENDERS BUT ALSO WITH PROTECTING THE PUBLIC
AGAINST THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT GOODS PURCHASED WERE THE PRODUCTS OF
THE RED CROSS OR WERE SPONSORED BY IT.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, DID NOT GO
THE FULL DISTANCE.  IT PRESERVED THE RIGHT OF EARLIER, GOOD FAITH USERS
TO CONTINUE THE USE OF THE WORDS AND THE SYMBOL.  IT MAY HAVE CONCLUDED
THAT THE MARK WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED WAS A VALUABLE BUSINESS ASSET
WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DESTROYED.  OR IT MAY HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE EXTENT
AND MANNER OF THE USE BY THE ESTABLISHED CONCERNS WERE NOT LIKELY TO
INJURE THE PUBLIC.  FN8  BUT WHATEVER THE PURPOSE, THE FACT REMAINS
THAT THE GOOD FAITH USE OF THE MARK BY THE PRE-1905 USERS WAS INTENDED
TO BE PRESERVED UNIMPAIRED. 

WE CANNOT LIGHTLY INFER THAT THIS SPECIFIC RIGHT WAS INTENDED TO BE
SWEPT AWAY UNDER THE 1938 AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT.  REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED.  YET IF THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION STANDS, THE RIGHT GRANTED OR RECOGNIZED BY THE 1910 ACT
BECOMES A NULLITY.  FOR THE USE OF THE WORDS AND THE SYMBOL BY GOOD
FAITH PRE-1905 USERS BECOMES PER SE UNLAWFUL.  AS THE 1910 ACT, LIKE
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, WAS IN PART DIRECTED TOWARDS
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC AGAINST DECEPTIVE PRACTICES, WE THINK THE TWO
ACTS MUST BE READ IN PARI MATERIA.  THE PROBLEM IS TO RECONCILE THE
TWO, IF POSSIBLE, AND TO GIVE EFFECT TO EACH.  WE THINK THAT MAY BE
DONE BY RECOGNIZING THAT WHILE THE GOOD FAITH USE OF THE WORDS AND
SYMBOLS BY PRE-1905 USERS IS PERMISSIBLE, THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE
THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE WHICH REMOVES ANY MISLEADING INFERENCE THAT
THE PRODUCTS ARE IN FACT SPONSORED, APPROVED, OR IN ANY MANNER
ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS. 

WE NEED COMMENT ONLY BRIEFLY ON THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1929, WHICH
WAS RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1932.  FN9  THE UNDERTAKING "TO
PREVENT THE USE BY PRIVATE PERSONS" OF THE WORDS OR SYMBOL IS A MATTER
FOR THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENTS.  THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN
BEFORE THE CONGRESS IN RECENT YEARS.  FN10  NO ACTION HAS YET BEEN
TAKEN.  BUT WE CAN FIND IN THAT INACTION NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT
THE RIGHTS OF GOOD FAITH, PRE-1905 USERS GRANTED OR RECOGNIZED BY THE
1910 ACT ARE TODAY IN ANY WAY IMPAIRED.  INDEED, THE EXISTENCE OF THAT
RIGHT WAS RECOGNIZED AS GIVING RISE TO THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
LEGISLATION.  FN11  THAT ASSUMPTION CAN HARDLY BE RECONCILED WITH THE
CONCLUSION THAT COMPLETE RELIEF IS ALREADY ACCORDED UNDER THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT. 

WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO PRESCRIBE THE ORDER WHICH THE COMMISSION
SHOULD ENTER.  THE FASHIONING OF THE REMEDY IS A MATTER ENTRUSTED TO
THE COMMISSION, WHICH HAS WIDE LATITUDE FOR JUDGMENT.  JACOB SIEGEL CO.
V. TRADE COMMISSION, SUPRA.  WE ONLY HOLD THAT UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE THE COMMISSION MAY NOT ABSOLUTELY FORBID THE USE OF THE WORDS AND
THE SYMBOL BY RESPONDENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE RED CROSS ORGANIZATION HAD ITS ORIGIN IN A TREATY DRAFTED AT
THE GENEVA CONVENTION IN 1864 AND ACCEDED TO BY THE UNITED STATES IN
1882.  22 STAT. 940.  THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF THE RED CROSS WAS
INCORPORATED IN 1881 UNDER THE LAWS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IT
WAS REINCORPORATED IN 1893 UNDER THE LAWS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AS THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS.  ON JUNE 6, 1900, IT WAS
INCORPORATED UNDER THE SAME NAME BY ACT OF CONGRESS (31 STAT. 277) AND
WAS REINCORPORATED JANUARY 5, 1905.  33 STAT. 599.  FROM THE TIME OF
ITS FIRST INCORPORATION IN 1881 DOWN TO THE PRESENT, IT HAS USED THE
WORDS "RED CROSS" AS A PART OF ITS NAME AND HAS ALSO USED THE EMBLEM
ADOPTED BY THE 1864 GENEVA CONVENTION, THE GREEK RED CROSS ON A WHITE
GROUND. 

FN2  TOILET TISSUES WERE MARKETED BY PETITIONER UNDER THAT TRADE NAME
AND EMBLEM SINCE 1897 AND PAPER TOWELS SINCE 1933.  THE TRADE-MARK WAS
FIRST REGISTERED IN THE PATENT OFFICE IN 1911 AND WAS EXTENDED TO COVER
PAPER TOWELS IN 1934. 

THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE PAPER TOWELS WERE OF
THE SAME CLASS OF GOODS AS THE TOILET TISSUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
PROVISO TO SEC. 4 OF THE 1910 ACT. 

FN3  IT ORDERED RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM 

"1.  USING THE WORDS 'RED CROSS' OR ANY ABBREVIATION OR SIMULATION
THEREOF, EITHER ALONE OR IN COMBINATION OR CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER
WORD OR WORDS, TO DESIGNATE, DESCRIBE, OR REFER TO RESPONDENT'S
PRODUCTS. 

"2.  USING OR DISPLAYING ON RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS OR IN ANY
ADVERTISEMENT OF SUCH PRODUCTS THE MARK OF A GREEK RED CROSS, OR ANY
OTHER MARK, EMBLEM, SIGN, OR INSIGNIA SIMULATING OR RESEMBLING SUCH
CROSS. 

"3.  REPRESENTING IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS, DIRECTLY OR BY
IMPLICATION, THAT RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS ARE SPONSORED, ENDORSED, OR
APPROVED BY THE RED CROSS; THAT THE RED CROSS IS FINANCIALLY INTERESTED
IN THE SALE OF SAID PRODUCTS; THAT SAID PRODUCTS ARE USED BY THE RED
CROSS; THAT SAID PRODUCTS ARE MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SANITARY
STANDARDS SET UP BY THE RED CROSS; OR THAT THERE IS ANY OTHER
CONNECTION BETWEEN SAID PRODUCTS AND THE RED CROSS." 

FN4  IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643, 647
648, THE COURT HAD RULED THAT, "THE PARAMOUNT AIM OF THE ACT IS THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE EVILS LIKELY TO RESULT FROM THE
DESTRUCTION OF COMPETITION OR THE RESTRICTION OF IT IN A SUBSTANTIAL
DEGREE, AND THIS PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF SOME SUBSTANTIAL
COMPETITION TO BE AFFECTED, SINCE THE PUBLIC IS NOT CONCERNED IN THE
MAINTENANCE OF COMPETITION WHICH ITSELF IS WITHOUT REAL SUBSTANCE." 
THE 1938 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT WAS
DESIGNED TO MAKE "THE CONSUMER, WHO MAY BE INJURED BY AN UNFAIR TRADE
PRACTICE, OF EQUAL CONCERN, BEFORE THE LAW, WITH THE MERCHANT OR
MANUFACTURER INJURED BY THE UNFAIR METHODS OF A DISHONEST COMPETITOR." 
H. REP. NO. 1613, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3.  AND SEE S. REP. NO.
221, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3.    FN5  47 STAT. 2074.  ARTICLE 28
PROVIDES IN PART (47 STAT. 2092):    "THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE HIGH
CONTRACTING PARTIES WHOSE LEGISLATION MAY NOT NOW BE ADEQUATE SHALL
TAKE OR SHALL RECOMMEND TO THEIR LEGISLATURES SUCH MEASURES AS MAY BE
NECESSARY AT ALL TIMES: 

"A)  TO PREVENT THE USE BY PRIVATE PERSONS OR BY SOCIETIES OTHER THAN
THOSE UPON WHICH THIS CONVENTION CONFERS THE RIGHT THERETO, OF THE
EMBLEM OR OF THE NAME OF THE RED CROSS OR GENEVA CROSS, AS WELL AS ANY
OTHER SIGN OR DESIGNATION CONSTITUTING AN IMITATION THEREOF, WHETHER
FOR COMMERCIAL OR OTHER PURPOSES; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE PROHIBITION MENTIONED IN SUBPARAGRAPH A) OF THE USE OF SIGNS OR
DESIGNATIONS CONSTITUTING AN IMITATION OF THE EMBLEM OR DESIGNATION OF
THE RED CROSS OR GENEVA CROSS,  ...  SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM THE TIME
SET IN EACH ACT OF LEGISLATION AND AT THE LATEST FIVE YEARS AFTER THIS
CONVENTION GOES INTO EFFECT.  AFTER SUCH GOING INTO EFFECT IT SHALL BE
UNLAWFUL TO TAKE OUT A TRADEMARK OR COMMERCIAL LABEL CONTRARY TO SUCH
PROHIBITIONS." 

FN6  THE MANAGER OF THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE 1905 ACT STATED ON THE
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE DURING THE DEBATE THAT IT WOULD NOT "INTERFERE WITH
ANY LAWFUL RIGHT NOW EXISTING."  39 CONG. REC. 406. 

JUDGE LEARNED HAND, SPEAKING OF THE 1910 ACT IN LOONEN V. DEITSCH,
189 F. 487, 492, STATED: "WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE POLICY BEFORE,
CONGRESS HAS NOW DEFINITELY DECLARED IN THE PROVISO OF THE LATTER ACT
THAT IT WOULD PERMIT SUCH MARKS IF THEY ANTEDATED 1905.  CONGRESS HAD
POWER SO TO LEGALIZE THE USE OF IT; THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC POLICY WAS
FOR IT AND FOR IT ALONE, AND IT IS NOW FINALLY CLOSED." 

FN7  AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, THE 1905 ACT MADE IT UNLAWFUL "FOR ANY
PERSON OR CORPORATION, OTHER THAN THE RED CROSS OF AMERICA, NOT NOW
LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO USE THE SIGN OF THE RED CROSS, HEREAFTER TO USE
SUCH SIGN OR ANY INSIGNIA COLORED IN IMITATION THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSES
OF TRADE OR AS AN ADVERTISEMENT TO INDUCE THE SALE OF ANY ARTICLE
WHATSOEVER." 

AND SEC. 4 OF THE 1910 ACT, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY SUMMARIZED,
PROVIDED: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION
OTHER THAN THE AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS AND ITS DULY AUTHORIZED
EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS AND THE ARMY AND NAVY SANITARY AND HOSPITAL
AUTHORITIES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRADE OR AS AN
ADVERTISEMENT TO INDUCE THE SALE OF ANY ARTICLE WHATSOEVER OR FOR ANY
BUSINESS OR CHARITABLE PURPOSE TO USE WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS EXTERIOR POSSESSIONS THE EMBLEM OF THE
GREEK RED CROSS ON A WHITE GROUND, OR ANY SIGN OR INSIGNIA MADE OR
COLORED IN IMITATION THEREOF, OR OF THE WORDS 'RED CROSS' OR 'GENEVA
CROSS' OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE WORDS:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO
PERSON, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION THAT ACTUALLY USED OR WHOSE
ASSIGNOR ACTUALLY USED THE SAID EMBLEM, SIGN, INSIGNIA, OR WORDS FOR
ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE PRIOR TO JANUARY FIFTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FIVE,
SHALL BE DEEMED FORBIDDEN BY THIS ACT TO CONTINUE THE USE THEREOF FOR
THE SAME PURPOSE AND FOR THE SAME CLASS OF GOODS." 

FN8  JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN LOONEN V. DEITSCH, SUPRA, NOTE 6, P. 489,
STATED: 

"DOES THE MARK ACTUALLY MEAN THAT THE SOCIETY IS IN ANY WAY CONCERNED
WITH THE MANUFACTURE OF THE GOODS?  I THINK NOT.  WE HAVE BECOME
FAMILIAR WITH IT IN THE PAST FOR MANY OTHER USES THAN THAT OF THE
SOCIETY, THOUGH HAPPILY SUCH USES WILL NOW SLOWLY DISAPPEAR.  IT HAD
BEEN USED ON HOSPITAL AMBULANCES, UPON MEDICAMENTS, UPON DOCTORS' MOTOR
CARS, UPON BARBER SHOPS, UPON LAUNDRIES, AND FOR MILITARY FIELD SERVICE
NOT CONNECTED WITH THE RED CROSS SOCIETY.  IN SHORT, UNTIL THE
LEGISLATION OF 1905(ACT JAN. 5, 1905, C. 23, 33 STAT. 599(U.S. COMP.
ST. SUPP. 1909, P. 1038)), IT HAD BEEN QUITE INSTINCTIVELY ADOPTED FOR
MANY USES WHICH WERE CONGRUOUS WITH THE CHIEF OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY,
BUT WHICH DID NOT INDICATE THAT THE SOCIETY HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH
THEM, OR CERTAINLY WITH THE FREQUENCY OF THE USE CEASED TO DO SO.
FINALLY, CONGRESS HAS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED THAT FACT BY PERMITTING ALL
THOSE WHO PRIOR TO 1905 HAD USED THE MARK LAWFULLY, TO CONTINUE." 

FN9  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN10  IN THE 77TH CONGRESS A BILL TO ELIMINATE OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS
THE EXEMPTION GIVEN TO PRE-1905 USERS WAS FAVORABLY REPORTED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE HOUSE.  H. REP. 2387, 77TH CONG.,
2D SESS.  THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION WAS DESIGNED TO DISCHARGE THE
OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1929. 
ID., PP. 1, 2, 4. 

IN THE 78TH CONGRESS A BILL PASSED THE SENATE WITH SIMILAR
PROVISIONS.  90 CONG. REC. 398, 401, 3656.  IT WAS REPORTED FAVORABLY,
WITH AMENDMENTS, BY THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE HOUSE.  H.
REP. NO. 2054, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS.  THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION WAS
LIKEWISE DESIGNED TO DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES
UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1929.  ID., PP. 4-6.  AND SEE 90 CONG.
REC. 399. 

FN11  SEE H. REP. NO. 2387, SUPRA, NOTE 10, PP. 2, 3; H. REP. NO.
2054, SUPRA, NOTE 10, PP. 4-6.  IN THE LATTER REPORT IT WAS, INDEED,
RECOGNIZED "THAT UNDER EXISTING LAW, THERE ARE LEGAL USES OF THE SYMBOL
BY COMMERCIAL USERS."  P. 4. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :












SCHULTE CO. V. GANGI, 328 U.S. 108 


NO. 517.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 29, 1946.  - 150 F.2D
694, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN EMPLOYER CAN NOT BE RELIEVED FROM LIABILITY FOR LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BY A
COMPROMISE OR SETTLEMENT OF A BONA FIDE DISPUTE AS TO THE COVERAGE OF
THE ACT.  P. 114. 

2.  THE PURPOSE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT - TO SECURE A
SUBSISTENCE WAGE FOR LOW-INCOME WORKERS - REQUIRES THAT NEITHER WAGES
NOR THE DAMAGES FOR WITHHOLDING THEM BE REDUCIBLE BY COMPROMISE OF
CONTROVERSIES OVER COVERAGE.  PP. 116-118, 121. 

3.  MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES OF A BUILDING THE OCCUPANTS OF WHICH
RECEIVE, WORK ON AND RETURN IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE GOODS BELONGING TO
NON-OCCUPANTS WHO SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THEIR BUSINESS
SHIP SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTIONS OF THE OCCUPANTS' PRODUCTS TO OTHER
STATES, HELD COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P. 120. 

4.  THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT RESTS UPON EMPLOYEES TO ESTABLISH THAT
THEY ARE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, MUST BE MET BY EVIDENCE IN
THE RECORD.  P. 120. 

5.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED IN THE "PRODUCTION
OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT, IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT, FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRODUCTION, A
TRIER OF FACT MAY REASONABLY INFER THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS REASONABLE
GROUNDS TO ANTICIPATE THAT HIS PRODUCTS WILL MOVE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 119, 121. 

6.  MERE SEPARATION OF THE ECONOMIC PROCESSES OF PRODUCTION FOR
COMMERCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL UNITS, EVEN WITHOUT ANY DEGREE OF
COMMON OWNERSHIP, DOES NOT DESTROY THE CONTINUITY OF PRODUCTION FOR
COMMERCE.  P. 121. 

D.A. SCHULTE, INC. V. GANGI ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT, SUING ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY
SITUATED, BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER HAD BEEN VALIDLY
RELEASED.  53 F.SUPP.  844.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
150 F.2D 694.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 712.  AFFIRMED,
P. 121. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUES BROUGHT TO THIS COURT BY THIS PROCEEDING ARISE FROM A
CONTROVERSY CONCERNING OVERTIME PAY AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.  UNDER SEC. 7(A), THE EMPLOYER IS
REQUIRED TO PAY FOR EXCESS HOURS OF WORK NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF
TIMES THE REGULAR RATE.  FN1  AN EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THIS SUBSECTION
IS LIABLE TO HIS INJURED EMPLOYEES IN THE AMOUNT DUE AND UNPAID AND IN
AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  FN2 

THE PRIMARY ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS WHETHER
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT PRECLUDES A BONA FIDE SETTLEMENT OF A BONA
FIDE DISPUTE OVER THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT ON A CLAIM FOR OVERTIME
COMPENSATION AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WHERE THE EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THE
OVERTIME COMPENSATION IN FULL.  AS THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS ON THIS ISSUE IN THIS CASE  FN3  CONFLICTS WITH THAT OF THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT IN GUESS V. MONTAGUE, 140 F.2D 500, 504-505, AND THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT IN ATLANTIC CO. V. BROUGHTON, 146 F.2D 480, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT PASSED UPON IN
BROOKLYN BANK V. O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697, 702-704, 708, NOTE 21.  326 U.S.
712.  FN4 

RESPONDENTS WERE EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER AS BUILDING SERVICE AND
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES IN ITS TWENTY-THREE STORY LOFT BUILDING IN THE
GARMENT MANUFACTURING DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CITY DURING THE PERIOD
OCTOBER 24, 1938, TO FEBRUARY 5, 1942.  EACH PUT IN VARYING HOURS OF
OVERTIME FOR WHICH NO PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE PRIOR TO OUR DECISION IN
KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, ON JUNE 1, 1942, BY WHICH
SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES IN BUILDINGS TENANTED BY
MANUFACTURERS PRODUCING FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE HELD TO BE COVERED
BY THE WAGEHOUR ACT.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER RESPONDENTS MADE CLAIMS FOR
OVERTIME PAY AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WHICH WERE REFUSED BY PETITIONER ON
THE GROUND, ADMITTEDLY TRUE, THAT ITS TENANTS DID NOT SHIP THE PRODUCTS
THEY PRODUCED DIRECTLY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT DELIVERED THEM TO
DISTRIBUTORS OR PRODUCERS IN THE SAME STATE WHO THEREAFTER USED THE
PRODUCTS OF PETITIONER'S TENANTS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR THAT COMMERCE.  UNDER THREAT OF SUIT,
PETITIONER PAID THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND OBTAINED A RELEASE UNDER
SEAL SIGNED BY THE SEVERAL RESPONDENTS.  IT IS SET OUT BELOW.  FN5
PETITIONER COMPUTED THE AMOUNT OF OVERTIME AND RESPONDENTS RAISE NO
QUESTION AS TO ITS ACCURACY.  RESPONDENTS THEN BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES DUE THEM UNDER SEC. 16(B)
OF THE ACT.  IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, DUE IF
RECOVERABLE, WERE CERTAIN STATED AMOUNTS WHICH CORRESPONDED TO THE
OVERTIME COMPENSATION ALREADY PAID.  PETITIONER DENIED THAT IT WAS
COVERED BY THE ACT AND PLEADED AFFIRMATIVELY, AS A DEFENSE, THE
RELEASES WHICH IT ASSERTED WERE OBTAINED IN SETTLEMENT OF A BONA FIDE
DISPUTE AS TO COVERAGE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS A GOOD ACCORD AND SATISFACTION
AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES BECAUSE THERE WAS A
BONA FIDE SETTLEMENT OF A BONA FIDE DISPUTE.  IT SPECIFICALLY REFUSED
TO PASS UPON THE DEFENSE THAT THE ACT DID NOT COVER THE RESPONDENTS
EXCEPT TO INDICATE THAT IT PRESENTED A DIFFICULT ISSUE.  53 F.SUPP. 
844.  THIS JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED PRIOR TO OUR DECISION IN THE O'NEIL
CASE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  THAT COURT THOUGHT THE
O'NEIL CASE SUBSTANTIALLY DETERMINED THAT A BONA FIDE COMPROMISE OF A
DISPUTE AS TO COVERAGE WAS INVALID.  ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE
INVALIDITY OF SUCH COMPROMISES WAS IN ACCORD WITH ITS PRIOR COMMENTS
THAT THE LIABILITY OF UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES IS SINGLE AND "IS NOT DISCHARGED IN TOTO BY PAYING ONE-HALF OF
IT."  RIGOPOULOS V. KERVAN, 140 F.2D 506, 507; FLEMING V. POST, 146
F.2D 441, 443. 

PETITIONER URGES THAT THE THEORY OF A SINGLE LIABILITY OF THE
EMPLOYER TO THE EMPLOYEE UNDER SEC. 16(B) IS UNSOUND AND THAT THIS
COURT SHOULD NOT FIND A LACK OF POWER IN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES TO
SETTLE AMICABLY CONTROVERSIES OVER COVERAGE AND AMOUNTS DUE FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE UNPAID MINIMUM WAGE OR UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION
UNDER SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE ACT.  PETITIONER REASONS ON ITS FIRST
CONTENTION THAT THERE WERE TWO CLAIMS - ONE FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION
AND THE OTHER FOR AN EQUAL AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - AND THAT THE
PAYMENT FOR THE FIRST IN FULL WAS SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION FOR THE
RELEASE OF THE SECOND.  ON ITS SECOND CONTENTION, PETITIONER ADVANCES
THE ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO FORBID COMPROMISES
OF SUCH CLAIMS IS NOT CLEAR, SUCH A SHARP DEPARTURE FROM THE
TRADITIONAL POLICY OF ENCOURAGING THE ADJUSTMENT INSTEAD OF THE
LITIGATION OF DISPUTES CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT.  PETITIONER POINTS OUT THAT A SEAMAN MAY RELEASE HIS CLAIMS UNDER
STATUTES ENACTED FOR HIS PROTECTION IN A BONA FIDE SETTLEMENT  FN6  AND
THAT SETTLEMENT OF ACCRUED CLAIMS IS PERMITTED UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FN7  PETITIONER ADDS THAT IN DOUBTFUL CASES
IT MAY BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE EMPLOYEE TO COMPROMISE, THAT TO FORCE
LITIGATION MAY DISRUPT EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS, AND THAT
NUMEROUS COMPROMISE SETTLEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR LESS THAN FULL
LIABILITY.  FN8 

WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LIABILITY FOR
UNPAID WAGES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES THAT SEC. 16(B) CREATES IS UNITARY
OR DIVISIBLE.  FN9  WHETHER THE LIABILITY IS SINGLE OR DUAL, WE THINK
THE REMEDY OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CANNOT BE BARGAINED AWAY BY BONA FIDE
SETTLEMENTS OF DISPUTES OVER COVERAGE.  NOR DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER HERE
THE POSSIBILITY OF COMPROMISES IN OTHER SITUATIONS WHICH MAY ARISE,
SUCH AS A DISPUTE OVER THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED OR THE REGULAR RATE
OF EMPLOYMENT.  FN10 

THE REASONS WHICH LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT COMPROMISES OF REAL
DISPUTES OVER COVERAGE WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE THE PAYMENT IN FULL OF
UNPAID WAGES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES DO NOT DIFFER GREATLY FROM THOSE
WHICH LED US TO CONDEMN THE WAIVERS OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN THE O'NEIL
CASE.  WE SAID THERE, 324 U.S. AT 708: 

"THE SAME POLICY WHICH FORBIDS WAIVER OF THE STATUTORY MINIMUM AS
NECESSARY TO THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE REQUIRES THAT REPARATIONS TO
RESTORE DAMAGE DONE BY SUCH FAILURE TO PAY ON TIME MUST BE MADE TO
ACCOMPLISH CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSES.  MOREOVER, THE SAME POLICY WHICH
FORBIDS EMPLOYEE WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM STATUTORY RATE BECAUSE OF
INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER, PROHIBITS THESE SAME EMPLOYEES FROM
BARGAINING WITH THEIR EMPLOYER IN DETERMINING WHETHER SO LITTLE DAMAGE
WAS SUFFERED THAT WAIVER OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGE IS CALLED FOR." 

IN A BONA FIDE ADJUSTMENT ON COVERAGE, THERE ARE THE SAME THREATS TO
THE PUBLIC PURPOSES OF THE WAGE-HOUR ACT THAT EXIST WHEN THE LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES ARE WAIVED.  THE DAMAGES ARE AT THE SAME TIME COMPENSATORY AND
AN AID TO ENFORCEMENT.  IT IS QUITE TRUE THAT THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE
PROVISION ACTS HARSHLY UPON EMPLOYERS WHOSE VIOLATIONS ARE NOT
DELIBERATE BUT ARISE FROM UNCERTAINTIES OR MISTAKES AS TO COVERAGE. 
SINCE THE POSSIBILITY OF VIOLATIONS INHERES IN EVERY INSTANCE OF
EMPLOYMENT THAT IS COVERED BY THE ACT, CONGRESS EVIDENTLY FELT IT
SHOULD NOT PROVIDE FOR VARIABLE COMPENSATION TO FIT THE DEGREE OF BLAME
IN EACH INFRACTION.  FN11  INSTEAD CONGRESS ADOPTED A MANDATORY
REQUIREMENT THAT THE EMPLOYER PAY A SUM IN LIQUIDATED DAMAGES EQUAL TO
THE UNPAID WAGES SO AS TO COMPENSATE THE INJURED EMPLOYEE FOR THE
RETENTION OF HIS PAY.  FN12 

IT IS REALIZED THAT THIS CONCLUSION PUTS THE EMPLOYER AND HIS
EMPLOYEES TO AN "ALL OR NOTHING GAMBLE," AS JUDGE CHASE PHRASED THE
RESULT IN HIS DISSENT BELOW.  THEORETICALLY THIS MEANS EACH PARTY GETS
HIS JUST DESERTS, NO MORE, NO LESS.  THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO FIND IN THE
ACT AN INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO LEAVE THE ADJUSTMENTS TO BARGAINING AT
THE WORST BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OR AT BEST BETWEEN
EMPLOYERS AND THE EMPLOYEES' CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES, BARGAINING AGENT
OR SOME OTHER.  WE THINK THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, WHICH WE REPEAT FROM
THE O'NEIL CASE WAS TO SECURE FOR THE LOWEST PAID SEGMENT OF THE
NATION'S WORKERS A SUBSISTENCE WAGE, LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
NEITHER WAGES NOR THE DAMAGES FOR WITHHOLDING THEM ARE CAPABLE OF
REDUCTION BY COMPROMISE OF CONTROVERSIES OVER COVERAGE.  FN13  SUCH A
COMPROMISE THWARTS THE PUBLIC POLICY OF MINIMUM WAGES, PROMPTLY PAID,
EMBODIED IN THE WAGE-HOUR ACT, BY REDUCING THE SUM SELECTED BY CONGRESS
AS PROPER COMPENSATION FOR WITHHOLDING WAGES.  FN14 

THE ONLY OTHER MATERIAL QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CERTIORARI  FN15
IS WHETHER THE WAGE-HOUR ACT COVERS SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
OF A BUILDING THAT IS TENANTED BY OCCUPANTS WHO RECEIVE, WORK ON AND
RETURN IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE GOODS BELONGING TO NON-OCCUPANTS WHO
SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THEIR BUSINESS SHIP SUBSTANTIAL
PROPORTIONS OF THE OCCUPANTS' PRODUCTS TO OTHER STATES.  FN16  IT IS
AGREED BY PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS THAT IF CERTAIN TENANTS ARE
INCLUDED AS PRODUCERS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE THE OCCUPANTS OF THE
BUILDING WHO ARE ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE
SUFFICIENTLY NUMEROUS AND PRODUCTIVE TO BRING THE MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
OF THE BUILDING WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT.  GANGI V. D.A. SCHULTE,
150 F.2D 694, NOTE 5.  THAT IS, PETITIONER'S BUILDING THEN WOULD BE IN
THE SAME CLASSIFICATION, SO FAR AS THE COVERAGE OF ITS MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES BY THE WAGE-HOUR ACT IS CONCERNED, AS WERE THE BUILDINGS IN
KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, AND BORDEN CO. V. BORELLA, 325
U.S. 679.  WE THEN WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM AS TO THE BUSINESS OF THE
TENANTS, THAT IS, WHETHER THEY WERE PRODUCERS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
SUCH AS WAS INVOLVED IN 10 EAST 40TH STREET CO. V. CALLUS, 325 U.S.
578.  WHILE THE WAGE-HOUR ACT COVERS EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, A MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE WORKING FOR A
BUILDING CORPORATION WHICH FURNISHES LOFT SPACE TO TENANTS CAN HARDLY
BE SO ENGAGED UNLESS AN ADEQUATE PROPORTION OF THE TENANTS OF THAT
BUILDING ARE SO ENGAGED.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. AT 524;
WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564, 572. 

OUR INQUIRY, THEREFORE, IS NARROWED TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR
NOT THESE CERTAIN TENANTS OF PETITIONER, TWELVE IN NUMBER, ARE
PRODUCING GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THESE TENANTS MANUFACTURED
ARTICLES FOR NON-TENANT NEW YORK CITY BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH
ORGANIZATIONS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD THE ARTICLES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD AS TO THEM, 150 F.2D 697:  FN17 

"AND THE TESTIMONY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION THESE
TENANTS HAD AT THE VERY LEAST REASONABLE GROUNDS TO ANTICIPATE THAT
THEIR PRODUCTS WOULD MOVE IN OTHER STATES.  THIS IS ALL THAT HAD TO BE
SHOWN TO CONSTITUTE THEM INTERSTATE PRODUCERS.  WARRENBRADSHAW DRILLING
CO. V. HALL, 317 U.S. 88, 92; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100,
118...." 

PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT FOR FOUR OF THE TWELVE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
THAT ANY OF THEM KNEW AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION OR LATER THAT THEIR
PRODUCTS WERE TO BE SHIPPED INTERSTATE AND THAT THE PROPER
CHARACTERIZATION OF THESE FOUR TENANTS, AS PRODUCERS OR NON-PRODUCERS
FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS DECISIVE OF THE LIABILITY OF PETITIONER. 
WITHOUT DETAILING THE FACTUAL SITUATION WHICH MAKES THE POSITION OF
THESE FOUR TENANTS DECISIVE OF LIABILITY, WE ASSUME PETITIONER'S
CONCLUSION THAT ITS LIABILITY DEPENDS UPON THE PROPER CHARACTERIZATION
OF THE FOUR TENANTS IN RESPECT TO THEIR POSITION AS PRODUCERS FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE ASSUME THAT THE OTHER EIGHT ARE IN THE SAME
CATEGORY OF TENANTS. 

PETITIONER RELIES UPON WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S.
564, 569, AS INDICATING THAT EVIDENCE OF A PREEXISTING UNDERSTANDING BY
A MANUFACTURER OF THE INTERSTATE DESTINATION OF HIS PRODUCTS IS
ESSENTIAL.  BUT THAT CASE WAS CONCERNED WITH WHETHER A WHOLESALER'S
EMPLOYEES WHO HANDLED STOCK WERE IN COMMERCE, NOT WHETHER THEY WERE
ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  FN18  ON THAT BASIS
DISTINCTIONS WERE MADE, AS TO EMPLOYEES HANDLING GOODS LOCALLY, BETWEEN
A WHOLESALER'S STOCK PURCHASED ON PRIOR ORDER EXTRA-STATE FOR DELIVERY
INTRASTATE AND OTHER STOCK PURCHASED EXTRA-STATE AND WAREHOUSED FOR
SUBSEQUENT SALE AND LOCAL HANDLING.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE CASE THAT
LENDS ANY SUPPORT TO THE SUGGESTION THAT A MANUFACTURER'S INTRASTATE
DELIVERY TO A WHOLESALER OR DISTRIBUTOR OR OTHER MANUFACTURER FOR
FURTHER PROCESSING FOR ULTIMATE INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION INTERRUPTS
PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.    THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT RESTS
UPON EMPLOYEES TO ESTABLISH THAT THEY ARE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE MUST BE MET BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD. 
WARRENBRADSHAW DRILLING CO. V. HALL, 317 U.S. 88, 90.  THE RECORD SHOWS
THIS BUILDING IS AT 571-583 EIGHTH AVENUE, BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, CITY
OF NEW YORK.  THE TESTIMONY OF MANY WITNESSES SHOWS THAT THE TENANTS
WERE PREDOMINANTLY, IF NOT ENTIRELY, ENGAGED IN WORK FOR THE GARMENT
TRADES.  WE WILL TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, AS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE,
THAT NEW YORK CITY PRODUCES MORE GARMENTS FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT THAN
ANY OTHER CITY IN THE NATION.  ELEVEN OF THE TWELVE TENANTS WERE
CONTRACTORS WHO FURNISHED LABOR ON GOODS SENT IN TO THEM SO AS TO
PRODUCE CLOTHING ARTICLES EVENTUALLY DISTRIBUTED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE TWELFTH WAS A MANUFACTURER WITH OFFICES, SALESROOM AND
SHIPPING ROOMS ELSEWHERE IN NEW YORK.  THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
THAT THE FOUR CONTRACTORS, UPON WHOSE STATUS PETITIONER BASES HIS
ARGUMENT, EVER KNEW THAT THEIR GOODS WERE INTENDED TO BE OR EVENTUALLY
WERE SHIPPED INTERSTATE.  THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT EACH BUSINESS
ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH THESE FOUR TENANTS DID PRODUCE THESE CLOTHING
ARTICLES SHIPPED A MAJOR PROPORTION OF THE ARTICLES SO PRODUCED BY
THESE TENANTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THEIR
BUSINESS.  THE PRODUCTION OF THESE ARTICLES BY THE TENANTS FOR NON
TENANTS WAS THE REGULAR BUSINESS OF THE TENANTS.  THE SHORTEST
OCCUPANCY OF SPACE BY ANY OF THE FOUR WAS FIVE YEARS AND ELEVEN
MONTHS. 

FROM THESE FACTS, WE THINK THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THESE TENANTS HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO ANTICIPATE THAT
MATERIAL QUANTITIES OF THEIR PRODUCTION WOULD MOVE INTERSTATE IS WELL
SUPPORTED.  IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT INDIVIDUAL PRODUCTS SHOULD BE
TRACED.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT, FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRODUCTION, A
TRIER OF FACT MAY REASONABLY INFER THAT A PRODUCER HAS GROUNDS TO
ANTICIPATE THAT HIS PRODUCTS WILL MOVE INTERSTATE N19.  CERTAINLY IF
THESE TENANTS HAD NOT ONLY MANUFACTURED BUT HAD ALSO SHIPPED THEIR
PRODUCTS INTERSTATE, NO ONE WOULD DOUBT THAT THEY WERE PRODUCERS FOR
COMMERCE.  MERE SEPARATION OF THE ECONOMIC PROCESSES OF PRODUCTION FOR
COMMERCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL UNITS, EVEN WITHOUT ANY DEGREE OF
COMMON OWNERSHIP, DOES NOT DESTROY THE CONTINUITY OF PRODUCTION FOR
COMMERCE.  PRODUCERS MAY BE HELD TO KNOW THE USUAL ROUTES FOR
DISTRIBUTION OF THEIR PRODUCTS.  ALL THIS IS MADE PLAIN BY THE
CITATIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO THE DARBY AND BRADSHAW CASES. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1063: 

"SEC. 7.  (A)  NO EMPLOYER SHALL  ...  EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES
WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE -
(LONGER THAN THE MAXIMUM WORKWEEK) 

   .         .         .         .         . UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE
RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE
SPECIFIED AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR
RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED." 

FN2  52 STAT. 1069: 

"SEC. 16.  (B)  ANY EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6
OR SECTION 7 OF THIS ACT SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES
AFFECTED IN THE AMOUNT OF THEIR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OR THEIR UNPAID
OVERTIME COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IN AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL
AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ACTION TO RECOVER SUCH LIABILITY MAY BE
MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BY ANY ONE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AND OTHER
EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, OR SUCH EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES MAY
DESIGNATE AN AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE TO MAINTAIN SUCH ACTION FOR AND IN
BEHALF OF ALL EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE COURT IN SUCH ACTION
SHALL, IN ADDITION TO ANY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR
PLAINTIFFS, ALLOW A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE TO BE PAID BY THE
DEFENDANT, AND COSTS OF THE ACTION." 

FN3  GANGI V. D.A. SCHULTE, 150 F.2D 694.  SEE ALSO FLEMING V.
WARSHAWSKY & CO., 123 F.2D 622, 626. 

FN4  IN VIEW OF THE NUMBER OF SETTLEMENTS FOR VIOLATIONS, THE ISSUE
IS OF IMPORTANCE.  SEE ANNUAL REPORT, WAGE AND HOUR AND PUBLIC
CONTRACTS DIVISIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE
30, 1945, P. 2: 

"IN THE SIX YEARS AND NINE MONTHS THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
HAD BEEN IN FORCE THROUGH THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, ABOUT $85,000,000
IN RESTITUTION OF ILLEGALLY WITHHELD WAGES HAD BEEN AGREED TO OR
ORDERED PAID TO ALMOST TWO AND A HALF MILLION WORKERS IN MORE THAN
110,000 ESTABLISHMENTS, WITH MORE THAN TWO-FIFTHS OF THE CASES
INVOLVING FAILURE TO PAY THE MINIMUM WAGE OF 40 CENTS AN HOUR OR
LESS." 

FN5  "THE UNDERSIGNED, AN EMPLOYEE OF D.A. SCHULTE, INC., IN PREMISES
575 EIGHTH AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY, DOES HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF
THE SUM OF $  ...  AS PAYMENT IN FULL OF ALL SUMS, IF ANY, WHICH MAY BE
DUE TO THE UNDERSIGNED BY SAID D.A. SCHULTE, INC. BY REASON OF THE
FEDERAL WAGE & HOUR ACT, AND THE UNDERSIGNED DOES HEREBY RELEASE SAID
D.A. SCHULTE, INC. OF AND FROM ANY OTHER OR FURTHER OBLIGATIONS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH." 

FN6  GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239. 

FN7  MELLON V. GOODYEAR, 277 U.S. 335. 

FN8  ATTENTION IS CALLED BY PETITIONER TO THE FAILURE IN THIS CASE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AS AMICUS CURIAE, TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT
COMPROMISE PAYMENTS IN CASES OF DISPUTED COVERAGE ARE INVALID.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ACT.  PETITIONER CITES FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR'S BRIEF (P. 20) IN
THE O'NEIL CASE TO SHOW THE GOVERNMENT POSITION THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT:
"THE FACTORS WHICH WE HAVE MENTIONED SUGGEST, TO US, THE DIFFICULTY AND
PERHAPS THE INADVISABILITY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE POLICY OF THE ACT
OF FRAMING A SWEEPING GENERALIZATION THAT ALL RELEASES OF LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES ARE EITHER VALID OR INVALID."  THAT BRIEF CALLED ATTENTION ALSO
(PP. 19-20) TO GOVERNMENT PRACTICE UPON VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT BY
CONTRACTORS WITH COST-PLUS CONTRACTS WITH THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS: 

"IF IT IS DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING AGENCY, THE ADMINISTRATOR, OR ON
APPEAL BY THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD
PREVAIL, THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY HANDLING THE CASE IS DIRECTED TO
NEGOTIATE A TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S COUNSEL FOR
SUBMISSION TO THE CONTRACTING AGENCY FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION.  THE
WAGES DUE ARE OF COURSE ALWAYS PAID, BUT THE CLAIM FOR LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES IS THE SUBJECT OF BARGAINING, AND ALMOST INVARIABLY THE
EMPLOYEE'S COUNSEL IS WILLING TO ACCEPT CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  AFTER PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT AGREED
ON, A JUDGMENT IS ENTERED DISMISSING THE SUIT WITH PREJUDICE, THEREBY
PREVENTING THE EMPLOYEE FROM SEEKING TO RECOVER MORE ON THE SAME
CLAIM." 

SETTLEMENTS OF CONTROVERSIES UNDER THE ACT BY STIPULATED JUDGMENTS IN
THIS COURT ARE ALSO REFERRED TO BY PETITIONER.  NORTH SHORE CORP. V.
BARNETT, 323 U.S. 679. 

PETITIONER DRAWS THE INFERENCE THAT BONA FIDE STIPULATED JUDGMENTS ON
ALLEGED WAGE-HOUR VIOLATIONS FOR LESS THAN THE AMOUNTS ACTUALLY DUE
STAND IN NO BETTER POSITION THAN BONA FIDE SETTLEMENTS.  EVEN THOUGH
STIPULATED JUDGMENTS MAY BE OBTAINED, WHERE SETTLEMENTS ARE PROPOSED IN
CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES OVER VIOLATIONS OF THE
ACT, BY THE SIMPLE DEVICE OF FILING SUITS AND ENTERING AGREED
JUDGMENTS, WE THINK THE REQUIREMENT OF PLEADING THE ISSUES AND
SUBMITTING THE JUDGMENT TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY MAY DIFFERENTIATE
STIPULATED JUDGMENTS FROM COMPROMISES BY THE PARTIES.  AT ANY RATE, THE
SUGGESTION OF PETITIONER IS ARGUMENTATIVE ONLY AS NO JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED IN THIS CASE. 

FN9  SEE DIZE V. MADDRIX, 324 U.S. 697, 701-2, 713. 

FN10  SEE STRAND V. GARDEN VALLEY TELEPHONE CO., 51 F.SUPP.  898, 904
5. 

FN11  BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V. O'NEIL, SUPRA, 713; WEST COAST HOTEL
CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379, 397; ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261
U.S. 525, 563. 

FN12  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 583-84; BIRBALAS
V. CUNEO PRINTING INDUSTRIES, 140 F.2D 826, 828-29. 

FN13  DISCUSSIONS OF COMPROMISE OF LIABILITY UNDER THE WAGE-HOUR ACT
WILL BE FOUND IN 45 COL. L. REV. 798; 14 GEORGE WASHINGTON L. REV. 385
AND 57 HARV. L. REV. 257. 

FN14  BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V. O'NEIL, SUPRA, 704-5, NOTE 14. 

FN15  THE PRECISE LANGUAGE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHETHER BUILDING MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES ARE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF
THE ACT IF THE FACTS RELIED ON TO ESTABLISH COVERAGE OF THE EMPLOYEES
SHOW ONLY THAT SOME OF THE TENANTS IN THE BUILDING RECEIVE, WORK ON AND
RETURN IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE GOODS BELONGING TO LOCAL OWNERS WHO ARE
NOT TENANTS OF THE BUILDING AND THAT SUBSEQUENTLY SOME OF THE SAID
GOODS ARE SOLD AND SHIPPED BY SUCH NON-TENANT OWNERS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THERE BEING NO PROOF EITHER THAT AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION
SUCH TENANTS HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ULTIMATE DESTINATION OF THE GOODS
WORKED ON BY THEM OR THAT AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION THE NON-TENANT
OWNERS HAD ANY PRIOR ORDERS OR AGREEMENTS TO SELL AND SHIP ANY PART OF
THE COMPLETED GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

FN16  NO PROBLEM INVOLVING THE SOUNDNESS OF THE WAGE-HOUR STANDARDS
TO GUIDE ITS ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT IS INVOLVED.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION
ON THAT QUESTION.  AS A WORKING HYPOTHESIS THE WAGE-HOUR ADMINISTRATION
ASSUMES THAT WHEN AS MUCH AS TWENTY PER CENT OF A BUILDING IS OCCUPIED
BY FIRMS SUBSTANTIALLY ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE, THEN IT IS
LIKELY THAT MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES WILL BE COVERED.  RELEASE PR
19(REV.), NOV. 19, 1943, WAGE-HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED THIS RULE WITH THE RESULT THAT IT
DECIDED NONE OF THE RESPONDENTS WAS COVERED BY THE ACT PRIOR TO JANUARY
1, 1940.  150 F.2D 694, 696-97.  IT DECIDED THAT ALL THE RESPONDENTS
WERE COVERED BY THE ACT BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1940, BECAUSE MORE THAN
TWENTY PER CENT OF THE TENANTS THEN WERE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  NO REVIEW OF THE FIRST RULING IS SOUGHT BY
RESPONDENTS.  PETITIONER DID NOT QUESTION THE SOUNDNESS OF THE TWENTY
PER CENT STANDARD IN ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OR BRIEF. 

AS NO QUESTION IS MADE IN PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OR BRIEF AS TO THE
PROPRIETY OF THE ACTION OR THE POWER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
DETERMINING THE KIND OF ACTIVITY, STATE OR INTERSTATE, THAT THE
PETITIONER'S TENANTS CARRIED ON, RATHER THAN RETURNING THE CASE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR A FINDING OF FACT, WE PASS THE QUESTION WITHOUT
INQUIRY AND WITHOUT INTIMATION OF OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPER
PROCEDURE.  COMPARE THE MAJORITY AND DISSENTING OPINIONS IN 150 F.2D
694. 

FN17  PETITIONER SAYS AS TO THIS FINDING:  "THE SOLE BASIS IN THE
RECORD FOR THIS FINDING IS THAT THE MANUFACTURERS FOR WHOM THE SAID
TWELVE TENANT-CONTRACTORS WORKED EVENTUALLY DISPOSED OF SOME OF THEIR
GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED AND NO ATTEMPT
WAS MADE TO PROVE THAT AT THE TIME WHEN ANY OF THE ADDITIONAL TWELVE
TENANTS WORKED ON GOODS BELONGING TO THE MANUFACTURERS, SUCH
MANUFACTURERS HAD AN ORDER OR AN AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT FOR THE SHIPMENT
OF THE GOODS, WHEN COMPLETED, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THERE WAS NO
TESTIMONY BY ANY OF THE TWELVE TENANTS THAT THEY KNEW OR HAD REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT THE GOODS WORKED ON BY THEM WOULD BE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IN FACT, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, IN THE CASE OF FOUR OF THE
TWELVE TENANTS, THAT ANY OF THEM KNEW, EITHER AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION
OR AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, OR EVEN UPON THE TRIAL, THAT THE GOODS
WORKED ON BY THEM WERE EVENTUALLY SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

FN18  COMPARE MCLEOD V. THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491. 

FN19  COMPARE DIZE V. MADDRIX, 144 F.2D 584; CULVER V. BELL &
LOFFLAND, 146 F.2D 29; ST. JOHN V. BROWN, 38 F.SUPP.  385, 388; FLEMING
V. ENTERPRISE BOX CO., 37 F.SUPP.  331, AFF'D 125 F.2D 897; BRACEY V.
LURAY, 138 F.2D 8. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY JUDGE RIFKIND, 53 F.SUPP. 
844, I WOULD RESTORE HIS JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND REVERSE
THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FOR PURPOSES OF JUDICIAL
ENFORCEMENT, THE "POLICY" OF A STATUTE SHOULD BE DRAWN OUT OF ITS
TERMS, AS NOURISHED BY THEIR PROPER ENVIRONMENT, AND NOT, LIKE
NITROGEN, OUT OF THE AIR.  BEFORE A HITHERTO FAMILIAR AND SOCIALLY
DESIRABLE PRACTICE IS OUTLAWED, WHERE OVERREACHING OR EXPLOITATION IS
NOT INHERENT IN THE SITUATION, THE OUTLAWRY SHOULD COME FROM CONGRESS. 
TO THAT END, SOME RESPONSIBILITY AT LEAST FOR A BROAD HINT TO THE
COURTS, IF NOT FOR EXPLICITNESS, SHOULD BE LEFT WITH CONGRESS. 

WHEN ON OTHER OCCASIONS CONGRESS HAS DESIRED TO FORBID ARRANGEMENTS
MADE IN GOOD FAITH, IT HAS KNOWN HOW TO EXPRESS ITS WILL.  WHEN IT HAS
NOT SAID SO IN WORDS, IT HAS SAID SO IN EFFECT BY THE VERY THING IT HAS
REQUIRED, AS, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN IT MADE TARIFFS FILED WITH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THE FIXED MEASURE OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARGES AND FORBADE DISCRIMINATION.  24 STAT. 379, 380, AS AMENDED; 49
U.S.C. SEC. 6(7).  OF COURSE THAT PRECLUDES DISCRIMINATION BY
CONTRACT.  E.G., PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. FINK, 250 U.S.
577.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AFFORDS NO COMPARABLE BASIS FOR THE
COURT'S DECISION IN THIS CASE.  NOTHING IS DISCERNIBLE IN ANYTHING THAT
CONGRESS HAS SAID OR DONE TO IMPLY THE PROHIBITION OF A SETTLEMENT MADE
BY PARTIES IN GOOD FAITH, NOT FOR THE MINIMUM WAGES BUT A SETTLEMENT
AFFECTING THE PENALIZING DOUBLE LIABILITY WHERE ANY LIABILITY WAS
FAIRLY IN CONTROVERSY WHEN THE SETTLEMENT WAS MADE.  THE SEVERITY OF
THE PENALTIES IMPOSED AND THE LEGITIMATE DIFFERENCES REGARDING THE
SCOPE OF THE ACT, INHERENT IN ITS TERMS, CF. KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING,
316 U.S. 517, 520, 523, ONLY SERVE TO UNDERLINE THE IMPOLICY OF
ATTRIBUTING TO CONGRESS A PURPOSE REFLECTED NEITHER IN ANY SPECIFIC
PROVISION OF THE STATUTE NOR IN THE SCHEME OF THE LEGISLATION.  STRICT
ENFORCEMENT OF THE POLICY WHICH PUTS BEYOND THE PALE OF PRIVATE
ARRANGEMENT MINIMUM STANDARDS OF WAGES AND HOURS FIXED BY LAW DOES NOT
CALL FOR DISREGARD OF ANOTHER POLICY, THAT OF ENCOURAGING AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT OF HONEST DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN DEALING AT ARM'S LENGTH
WITH ONE ANOTHER. 
..END :


















SMITH V. HOBOKEN R. CO., 328 U.S. 123 


NO. 384.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 29, 1946.  - 150
F.2D 921, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 70(B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT THAT "AN EXPRESS
COVENANT THAT AN ASSIGNMENT BY OPERATION OF LAW OR THE BANKRUPTCY OF A
SPECIFIED PARTY THERETO OR OF EITHER PARTY SHALL TERMINATE THE LEASE OR
GIVE THE OTHER PARTY AN ELECTION TO TERMINATE THE SAME SHALL BE
ENFORCEABLE" IS APPLICABLE TO RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  PP. 126-128. 

2.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 70(B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AUTHORIZING
ENFORCEMENT AGAINST A BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF AN EXPRESS COVENANT OF
FORFEITURE, EMBRACES A COVENANT APPLICABLE TO ANY "TRANSFER" OF THE
PREMISES "IN ANY PROCEEDING, WHETHER AT LAW OR IN EQUITY OR OTHERWISE,"
TO WHICH THE LESSEE IS A PARTY, AND "WHEREBY ANY OF THE RIGHTS, DUTIES
AND OBLIGATIONS" OF THE LESSEE ARE "TRANSFERRED, ENCUMBERED, ABROGATED
OR IN ANY MANNER ALTERED" WITHOUT THE LESSOR'S CONSENT.  P. 128. 

3.  WHETHER, IN A PROCEEDING FOR REORGANIZATION OF AN INTERSTATE
RAILROAD UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THE
TRUSTEE OF A COVENANT OF FORFEITURE IN A LEASE OF RAILROAD TRACKS AND
FACILITIES WOULD BE "CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS" OF SEC. 77, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 77(1), PRESENTS PROBLEMS PRIMARILY FOR
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; AND
THE REORGANIZATION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED A FORFEITURE OF THE
LEASE UNTIL THE QUESTIONS HAD BEEN PASSED UPON BY THE COMMISSION.  PP.
128-129. 

(A)  WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES THAT THE LINE BE OPERATED
BY THE LESSEE RATHER THAN THE LESSOR PRESENTS A QUESTION FOR THE
COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 1(18) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 130. 

(B)  IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT TO PREPARE THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF THE DEBTOR
COMPANY; AND, IF THE REORGANIZATION COURT DECREES A FORFEITURE IN
ADVANCE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM BY THE COMMISSION, IT WOULD
INTERFERE WITH THE FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC.
77.  PP. 130, 132. 

SMITH, TRUSTEE, ET AL. V. HOBOKEN RAILROAD, WAREHOUSE AND STEAMSHIP
CONNECTING CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF A RAILROAD UNDER SEC. 77 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE REORGANIZATION COURT GRANTED RESPONDENT'S
MOTION TO TERMINATE A LEASE IN WHICH THE DEBTOR COMPANY WAS LESSEE.  56
F.SUPP.  187.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 921. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 707.  REVERSED, P. 133. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HOBOKEN MANUFACTURERS RAILROAD CO. (THE DEBTOR) OPERATES A TERMINAL
SWITCHING RAILROAD ALONG THE WATERFRONT AT HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY.  IT IS
A COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  24 STAT. 379, 41 STAT. 474, 49 STAT. 543, 54 STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 1.  THE MAJOR PART OF ITS RIGHT-OF-WAY AND LINE OF RAILROAD IS
HELD BY IT UNDER A 99-YEAR LEASE FROM RESPONDENT DATED JUNE 19, 1906. 
FN1  IN 1943 THE DEBTOR FILED A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (49 STAT. 1969, 53 STAT. 1406, 11 U.S.C. SEC.
205) IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.  THE
PETITION WAS APPROVED AND PETITIONER SMITH WAS APPOINTED TRUSTEE. 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER RESPONDENT NOTIFIED THE TRUSTEE THAT IT WOULD
PETITION THE REORGANIZATION COURT FOR TERMINATION OF THE LEASE.  A
HEARING WAS HELD AND DECISION RESERVED.  WHILE THE MATTER WAS UNDER
ADVISEMENT THE TRUSTEE ON ORDER OF THE COURT ADOPTED THE LEASE. 
THEREAFTER THE REORGANIZATION COURT GRANTED RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
TERMINATE THE LEASE, HOLDING THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE TRUSTEE WAS A
BREACH OF THE TERMS OF THE LEASE ENTITLING THE LESSOR TO REENTER.  FN2
56 F.SUPP.  187.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D
921.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

THE PROVISION OF THE LEASE UPON WHICH THE FORFEITURE WAS DECREED
READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE LESSEE SHALL NOT AND WILL NOT SELL, ASSIGN OR TRANSFER THIS
LEASE OR UNDERLET THE DEMISED PREMISES, OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR THE
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, OR ANY OF THEM, HEREBY GRANTED, WITHOUT THE
PREVIOUS CONSENT OF THE LESSOR EXPRESSED BY ENDORSEMENT ON THIS LEASE
MADE IN PURSUANCE OF AUTHORITY GRANTED BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE LESSOR  ...  THIS COVENANT SHALL ALSO APPLY TO ANY
UNAUTHORIZED SALE OR TRANSFER THEREOF OR UNDERLETTING OF THE DEMISED
PREMISES, OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR OF THE SAID RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, OR
ANY OF THEM, WHETHER MADE BY THE LESSEE OR IN ANY PROCEEDING, WHETHER
AT LAW OR IN EQUITY OR OTHERWISE, TO WHICH THE LESSEE MAY BE A PARTY,
WHEREBY ANY OF THE RIGHTS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE LESSEE SHALL
OR MAY BE TRANSFERRED, ENCUMBERED, ABROGATED OR IN ANY MANNER ALTERED,
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LESSOR FIRST HAD AND OBTAINED IN THE MANNER
HEREINBEFORE PROVIDED." 

BY A FURTHER PROVISION OF THE LEASE, VIOLATION OF THAT COVENANT
ENTITLED THE LESSOR TO TERMINATE THE LEASE AND TO REENTER ON SPECIFIED
NOTICE. 

SEC. 77(1), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(1) PROVIDES: 

"IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF, THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE COURT, THE DUTIES OF THE
DEBTOR AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY, SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A
VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF
ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE DEBTOR'S PETITION WAS
FILED." 

SEC. 70(B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 110(B) PROVIDES IN
PART: 

"A GENERAL COVENANT OR CONDITION IN A LEASE THAT IT SHALL NOT BE
ASSIGNED SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT THE TRUSTEE FROM ASSUMING
THE SAME AT HIS ELECTION AND SUBSEQUENTLY ASSIGNING THE SAME; BUT AN
EXPRESS COVENANT THAT AN ASSIGNMENT BY OPERATION OF LAW OR THE
BANKRUPTCY OF A SPECIFIED PARTY THERETO OR OF EITHER PARTY SHALL
TERMINATE THE LEASE OR GIVE THE OTHER PARTY AN ELECTION TO TERMINATE
THE SAME SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE." 

WE HAVE RECENTLY HELD THAT THOSE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 70(B) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO REORGANIZATIONS UNDER CH. X. 52 STAT.
885, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 526.  FINN V. MEIGHAN, 325 U.S. 300.  IT IS ARGUED
HERE, AS IT WAS THERE, THAT SEC. 70(B) SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS SINCE REORGANIZATION PLANS MIGHT BE
SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED IF FORFEITURE CLAUSES IN LEASES WERE ALLOWED TO BE
ENFORCED.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT FORFEITURE OF RAILROAD LEASES RUNS
COUNTER TO THE DESIGN AND PURPOSE OF SEC. 77, WHICH IS AIMED AT KEEPING
RAILROAD PROPERTIES INTACT SO THAT REORGANIZATION PLANS MAY BE WORKED
OUT AND DISINTEGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PREVENTED.  IT IS
ARGUED THAT THE POLICY OF SEC. 77 WHICH PREVENTS PLEDGEES AND
MORTGAGEES FROM FORECLOSING THEIR LIENS (CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL
BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 648; GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523) IS EQUALLY
APPLICABLE TO PREVENT LESSORS FROM CAUSING FORFEITURE OF LEASES.  IT IS
POINTED OUT THAT SEC. 77(A) GIVES THE REORGANIZATION COURT EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED.  IT IS
NOTED THAT LESSORS ARE CREDITORS AS DEFINED BY SEC. 77(B) AND THAT A
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION CAN MODIFY OR ALTER THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS
EITHER THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES OR OTHERWISE.  SEC.
77(B)(1).  IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION MAY
CURE OR WAIVE DEFAULTS AND MAY DEAL WITH ALL OR ANY PART OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR, SEC. 77(B)(5), AND MAY PROVIDE FOR THE
REJECTION OR ADOPTION OF LEASES.  SEC. 77(B).  FROM THESE PROVISIONS
AND THE POLICY THEY REFLECT, IT IS ARGUED THAT SEC. 77 SHOULD NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS INCORPORATING WITHIN IT SEC. 70(B). 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, SEC. 77(1) PROVIDES THAT, SO FAR AS "CONSISTENT
WITH THE PROVISIONS" OF SEC. 77, THE "DUTIES OF THE DEBTOR" AND THE
"RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS" SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A
VOLUNTARY ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN MADE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
FORFEITURE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 70(B) ON THEIR FACE ARE INCONSISTENT WITH
SEC. 77.  THEY EMBRACE LEASES OF ALL KINDS AND SORTS.  THEY INCLUDE
LEASES OF RAILROAD TRACKS AND FACILITIES BUT THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO
THEM.  BUT IF SEC. 70(B) IS APPLICABLE TO SOME LEASES UNDER SEC. 77, IT
WOULD SEEM TO BE APPLICABLE TO ALL.  AND TERMINATION OF LEASES WOULD,
IN MANY CASES AT LEAST, BE AS CONSISTENT WITH REORGANIZATIONS OF
RAILROADS UNDER SEC. 77 AS IT WOULD WITH REORGANIZATIONS OF OTHER
ENTERPRISES UNDER CH. X. SEC. 70(B) IS APPLICABLE TO REORGANIZATIONS
UNDER CH. X AS WE HELD IN FINN V. MEIGHAN, SUPRA.  AS WE POINTED OUT IN
THAT CASE, AN EXPRESS COVENANT OF FORFEITURE HAS LONG BEEN HELD TO BE
ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE.  THAT REPRESENTS THE
BANKRUPTCY RULE.  AND WE FIND NO PROVISION IN SEC. 77 WHICH SUGGESTS
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE THAT RULE INAPPLICABLE IN CASE OF
RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE COVENANT IN THE PRESENT LEASE IS NOT
OF THE KIND WHICH IS ENFORCEABLE UNDER SEC. 70(B).  IN OTHER WORDS, IT
IS SAID NOT TO BE "AN EXPRESS COVENANT THAT AN ASSIGNMENT BY OPERATION
OF LAW OR THE BANKRUPTCY" OF THE LESSEE SHALL "TERMINATE" OR GIVE THE
LESSOR "AN ELECTION TO TERMINATE" THE LEASE. 

THESE FORFEITURE CLAUSES ARE TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF
THE BANKRUPTCY LESSEE.  FINN V. MEIGHAN, SUPRA.  YET THE COVENANT IN
QUESTION, SO CONSTRUED, SEEMS TO US TO FALL WITHIN SEC. 70(B).  IT
APPLIES TO ANY "TRANSFER" OF THE PREMISES "IN ANY PROCEEDING, WHETHER
AT LAW OR IN EQUITY OR OTHERWISE," TO WHICH THE LESSEE IS A PARTY,
"WHEREBY ANY OF THE RIGHTS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS" OF THE LESSEE ARE
"TRANSFERRED, ENCUMBERED, ABROGATED OR IN ANY MANNER ALTERED" WITHOUT
THE LESSOR'S CONSENT.  WHEN THE TRUSTEE ADOPTED THE LEASE, THE LESSEE'S
INTEREST WAS TRANSFERRED TO HIM.  PALMER V. PALMER, 104 F.2D 161.  THAT
TRANSFER, BEING IN A SEC. 77 PROCEEDING, WAS MADE IN A "PROCEEDING,
WHETHER AT LAW OR IN EQUITY OR OTHERWISE."  THE LESSEE WAS A PARTY TO
THE PROCEEDING.  AND BY THE ADOPTION THE TRUSTEE ACQUIRED SUCH RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LEASE AS THE LESSEE HAD. 

BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF THE FORFEITURE CLAUSE
WOULD BE "CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS" OF SEC. 77 WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 77(1).  THAT QUESTION DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY
THE LOWER COURTS.  OUR VIEW IS THAT IT PRESENTS PROBLEMS PRIMARILY FOR
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND
THAT THE REORGANIZATION COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED A FORFEITURE OF
THE LEASE UNTIL THE QUESTIONS HAD BEEN PASSED UPON BY THE COMMISSION. 
THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS OF THAT PROBLEM.  THE FIRST RELATES TO
ABANDONMENT OF OPERATIONS BY THE TRUSTEE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT TERMINATED THE LEASE AND AUTHORIZED THE LESSOR TO
REENTER UPON THE PREMISES AND TO OUST THE DEBTOR AND THE TRUSTEE.  THIS
ORDER FOLLOWED AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
DISMISSING AN APPLICATION MADE BY RESPONDENT TO RESUME OPERATIONS OF
THE PROPERTIES.  THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE COMMISSION
WAS OF THE VIEW THAT NO CERTIFICATE FROM IT WAS NEEDED.  IT RULED THAT
THE LESSOR'S "OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES TO THE PUBLIC HAVE NEVER CEASED
BUT HAVE MERELY BEEN PERFORMED BY THE LESSEE FOR ITS BENEFIT, AND WHEN
THE LATTER FOR ANY REASON NO LONGER CAN PERFORM SUCH OBLIGATIONS, THE
DUTIES MUST BE PERFORMED BY THE LESSOR ON ITS OWN BEHALF."  257 I.C.C.
739, 744.  AND THE COMMISSION ADDED, "IF AND WHEN THE LEASE IS
TERMINATED AND THE PROPERTY REVERTS TO THE APPLICANT, IT WILL HAVE NO
ALTERNATIVE BUT TO RESUME OPERATION THEREOF."  ID., P. 744. 

BUT THAT CASE ONLY HELD THAT THE LESSOR NEEDED NO CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY UNDER SEC. 1(18) TO OPERATE THE ROAD,
AS, IF, AND WHEN THE LESSEE OR ITS TRUSTEE CEASED OPERATIONS.  IT DID
NOT PRESENT THE QUESTION WHETHER OPERATIONS BY THE LESSEE OR ITS
TRUSTEE MIGHT BE ABANDONED.  NO APPLICATION FOR ABANDONMENT OF
OPERATIONS BY THE LESSEE OR ITS TRUSTEE WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 
AUTHORITY OF A LESSOR TO RESUME OPERATIONS IF THE LESSEE OR ITS TRUSTEE
ABANDONS IS ONE THING; AUTHORITY OF THE LESSEE OR ITS TRUSTEE TO
ABANDON IS QUITE DIFFERENT. 

SEC. 1(18) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PROVIDES IN PART: 

"...  NO CARRIER BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER SHALL ABANDON
ALL OR ANY PORTION OF A LINE OF RAILROAD, OR THE OPERATION THEREOF,
UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE
COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY PERMIT OF SUCH ABANDONMENT." 

IN THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN R. CO., POST, P. 134, WE HELD THAT A
COMPANY HAVING TRACKAGE RIGHTS OVER THE LINES OF ANOTHER MUST RECEIVE
AUTHORIZATION TO ABANDON THE OPERATIONS.  THAT CASE IS, OF COURSE,
DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT ONE BECAUSE IT ENTAILED COMPLETE ABANDONMENT
OF OPERATIONS BY ONE COMPANY OVER ANOTHER'S LINES.  HERE THE QUESTION
IS WHETHER THE LESSEE OR THE LESSOR SHALL PERFORM THE SERVICE.  BUT
SEC. 1(18) PROVIDES THAT "NO CARRIER BY RAILROAD" SHALL ABANDON "THE
OPERATION" OF ALL OR ANY PORTION OF A LINE WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE FROM
THE COMMISSION.  DISCONTINUANCE OF OPERATIONS BY THE TRUSTEE IS
ABANDONMENT OF OPERATIONS BY A CARRIER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
1(18).  AND A CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 1(18) WHETHER THE
LESSEE OR THE LESSOR IS ABANDONING OPERATIONS.  SEE LEHIGH VALLEY R.
CO. PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF OPERATION, 202 I.C.C. 659; NORFOLK SOUTHERN
R. CO. RECEIVERS' ABANDONMENT, 221 I.C.C. 258.  WHETHER THE PUBLIC
INTEREST REQUIRES THAT THE LINE BE OPERATED BY THE LESSEE RATHER THAN
THE LESSOR PRESENTS A QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 1(18) OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THE LESSOR IS NOT AT THE MERCY OF THE
LESSEE IN THIS SITUATION.  FOR THE LESSOR, AS WELL AS THE LESSEE, HAS
THE STANDING NECESSARY TO INVOKE SEC. 1(18) ON THE QUESTION OF
ABANDONMENT.  THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN R. CO., SUPRA. 

THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM IS RELATED TO THE FIRST.  IT IS THE
FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 77 TO PREPARE THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION OF THE DEBTOR COMPANY.  SEC. 77(D).  AS WE STATED IN
ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448, 468: 

"THESE REORGANIZATIONS REQUIRE SOMETHING MORE THAN CONTESTS BETWEEN
ADVERSARY INTERESTS TO PRODUCE PLANS WHICH ARE FAIR AND IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  WHEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE,
BULKS LARGE IN THE PROBLEM, THE SOLUTION IS LARGELY A FUNCTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT WITH THEIR
FACILITIES AND EXPERIENCE IN INVESTIGATING ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM
AND APPRAISING THE GENERAL INTEREST.  CONGRESS OUTLINED THE COURSE
REORGANIZATION IS TO FOLLOW.  IT ESTABLISHED STANDARDS FOR
ADMINISTRATION AND PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION THE PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUITABLE PLAN.  WHEN EXAMINED
TO LEARN THE PURPOSE OF ITS ENACTMENT, SEC. 77 MANIFESTS THE INTENTION
OF CONGRESS TO PLACE REORGANIZATION UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO A DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION BY THE COURT."    THE
COMMISSION IN PREPARATION OF THE PLAN IS GUIDED NOT ONLY BY THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT THE PLAN BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND FEASIBLE.  IT IS
ALSO CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF PREPARING A PLAN THAT "WILL BE COMPATIBLE
WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  SEC. 77(D).  WHETHER A LEASED LINE SHOULD
CONTINUE TO BE OPERATED BY THE LESSEE OR SHOULD REVERT TO THE SYSTEM OF
THE LESSOR MAY PRESENT LARGE QUESTIONS BEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT BY
THE COMMISSION OF AN ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT SEC. 1.  MOREOVER, IT APPEARS IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT
FORFEITURE OF THE LEASE WILL DEPRIVE THE DEBTOR OF ALL OF ITS RAILROAD
PROPERTIES N3.  WHETHER A PARTICULAR CARRIER SHOULD GO OUT OF BUSINESS
PRESENTS PROBLEMS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO ITS SECURITY HOLDERS AND
PERHAPS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL.  IF FORFEITURE OF THE LEASE IS
NOW DECLARED, NO PLAN OF REORGANIZATION MAY BE POSSIBLE.  THE PROBLEM
OF PREPARING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WILL OFTEN PRESENT TO THE
COMMISSION DECISIONS CONCERNING THE ADOPTION OR REJECTION OF LEASES. 
THE ADOPTION OF A LEASE BY THE TRUSTEE DOES NOT PRECLUDE REJECTION OF
IT IN THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  SEC. 77(B).  THE SCHEME OF THE ACT
IS, INDEED, TO SETTLE IN THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION THE VARIOUS CLAIMS
TO THE PROPERTY.  THE COMMISSION MAY DECIDE THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AS WELL AS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRIVATE CLAIMANTS THAT A
LEASE BE ADOPTED.  IF IT IS ADOPTED, THEN ANY DEFAULTS UNDER IT CAN BE
CURED.  FN4  SEC. 77(B)(5).  OR IT MAY CONCLUDE, AS IT DID IN GROUP OF
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., SUPRA, PP.
546-555, THAT A LEASE SHOULD BE REJECTED UNLESS THE LESSOR CONSENTED TO
A REVISION OF ITS TERMS.  OR IT MAY CONCLUDE THAT FORFEITURE OF A LEASE
ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 70(B) WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  AS WE STATED IN PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79,
87, "THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 IS,
AS IT WERE, BRIGADED WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF THE
COMMISSION."  AND SEE WARREN V. PALMER, 310 U.S. 132.  THE POINT IS
THAT IF THE REORGANIZATION COURT DECREES A FORFEITURE IN ADVANCE OF
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM BY THE COMMISSION, IT INTERFERES WITH THE
FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 77.  FORFEITURE OF A
LEASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 70(B) MAY BE WHOLLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE PREPARATION OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
77.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE NATURE OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION TO
BE SUBMITTED IS ENTRUSTED PRIMARILY TO THE COMMISSION.  IF FORFEITURE
OF LEASES CAN BE DECREED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE OF THE MATTER TO THE
COMMISSION, IT MAY BE SERIOUSLY EMBARRASSED IN PREPARING THE PLAN WHICH
IT DEEMS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DEBTOR. 
FN5  THE FEDERAL POLICY EMBODIED IN SEC. 77 CAN PREVENT ENFORCEMENT OF
THE ENGAGEMENTS OF THE DEBTOR PURSUANT TO THEIR TERMS.  CONTINENTAL
ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., SUPRA.  CF. OTIS &
CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 323 U.S. 624. 

WE HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THE LEASE
FORFEITED AND THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED.  THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD STAY ITS HAND PENDING A DECISION
BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ON THE QUESTIONS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE DEBTOR HAS TWO ADDITIONAL PIECES OF LAND UNDER 99-YEAR
LEASES, DATED JUNE 19, 1906, FROM THE PARENT COMPANY OF THE
RESPONDENT.  BY A TIE-IN INDENTURE THE DEBTOR AGREED THAT THESE LEASES
SHOULD TERMINATE ON THE EXPIRATION OR EARLIER TERMINATION OF THE MAIN
LEASE MENTIONED IN THE OPINION.  WHAT WE SAY IN THE OPINION ALSO
GOVERNS THESE TIE-IN LEASES. 

FN2  NOTICE WAS ALSO GIVEN BY RESPONDENT'S PARENT COMPANY FOR
TERMINATION OF THE TIE-IN LEASES MENTIONED IN NOTE 1, SUPRA.  THE ORDER
OF THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO TERMINATED THESE LEASES. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THE TRUSTEE TO TURN OVER TO THE
RESPONDENT ALL OF THE PROPERTY HELD OR USED FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES
EXCEPT BANK ACCOUNTS, CASH, ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND THE LIKE.  AMONG
THE PROPERTY WERE SMALL LENGTHS OF LINE WHICH THE DEBTOR CLAIMED TO OWN
IN FEE BUT WHICH THE RESPONDENT ASSERTED SHOULD REVERT TO IT.  THE
ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT PROVIDED THAT THE TRUSTEE MIGHT FILE A
CLAIM FOR THAT PROPERTY OR ITS VALUE AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR
ITS USE. 

FN4  SEC. 77(B)(5) PROVIDES IN PART, "A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THIS SECTION  ...  SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEANS FOR  ...
THE CURING OR WAIVER OF DEFAULTS  ..." 

FN5  FINN V. MEIGHAN, SUPRA, INVOLVED THE FORFEITURE OF A LEASE IN
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER CH. X. BUT THE PROBLEM THERE WAS NOT
COMPLICATED BY ANY PROVISIONS OF CH. X GIVING TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY THE FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
UNDER SEC. 77.  AS WE STATED IN PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79,
87, "...  THE WHOLE SCHEME OF SEC. 77 LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS DID
NOT MEAN TO GRANT TO THE DISTRICT COURTS THE SAME SCOPE AS TO BANKRUPT
ROADS THAT THEY MAY HAVE IN DEALING WITH OTHER BANKRUPT ESTATES." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :








THOMPSON V. TEXAS MEXICAN R. CO., 328 U.S. 134 


NO. 42.  ARGUED OCTOBER 9, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 29, 1946.  - 181
S.W.2D 895, REVERSED. 


1.  BY CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO INTERSTATE RAILROADS, BOTH OF WHICH WERE
SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ONE
OBTAINED TRACKAGE RIGHTS OVER THE LINES OF THE OTHER, AT A SPECIFIED
RENTAL.  THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINABLE BY EITHER PARTY UPON TWELVE
MONTHS' NOTICE.  THE GRANTEE RAILROAD SUBSEQUENTLY PETITIONED FOR
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, A TRUSTEE WAS
APPOINTED, AND STAY ORDERS PURSUANT TO SEC. 77(J) WERE ENTERED. 
THEREAFTER THE GRANTOR GAVE NOTICE THAT IT WAS EXERCISING ITS RIGHT TO
TERMINATE THE CONTRACT.  AFTER THE DATE WHEN BY ITS TERMS THE CONTRACT
WOULD THUS HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, THE TRUSTEE CONTINUED TO OPERATE
TRAINS OVER THE LINES OF THE GRANTOR, AND REFUSED TO PAY MORE THAN THE
RENTAL SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT.  THEREUPON THE GRANTOR BROUGHT SUIT
IN A STATE COURT TO ENJOIN THE GRANTEE AND ITS TRUSTEE FROM USING THE
TRACKS OF THE GRANTOR WITHOUT THE GRANTOR'S CONSENT, AND TO RECOVER
$500 A DAY DAMAGES FOR SUCH USE OR ALTERNATIVELY THE REASONABLE VALUE
OF THE USE.  THE STATE COURT DENIED AN INJUNCTION; ADJUDGED THAT THE
CONTRACT HAD BEEN TERMINATED; AND AWARDED DAMAGES.  HELD THAT
MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT IN THE STATE COURT WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE
STAY ORDERS ISSUED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT NOR BY SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, BUT THAT THE STATE COURT SHOULD HAVE STAYED ITS HAND
AND REMITTED THE PARTIES TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR
DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PHASES OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 
PP. 138, 151. 

(A)  SO FAR AS THE SUIT INVOLVED A MONEY CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE FOR
ACTS OF THE TRUSTEE IN OPERATING TRAINS OVER THE GRANTOR'S TRACKS, IT
WAS MAINTAINABLE IN THE STATE COURT UNDER SEC. 66 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
WHICH AUTHORIZES SUITS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE, WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, "IN RESPECT OF ANY ACT OR TRANSACTION OF HIS IN
CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS."  P. 138. 

(B)  MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT IN THE STATE COURT IS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77 GRANTING THE REORGANIZATION COURT
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY.  P. 139. 

(C)  THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS DETERMINED
BY THE "MAIN PURPOSE" OF THE SUIT, WHICH IN THIS CASE EVIDENTLY WAS AN
ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE GRANTOR TO OBTAIN A MORE FAVORABLE RENTAL. 
P. 139. 

(D) THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT EXTENDS TO THE ADJUDICATION OF QUESTIONS AFFECTING TITLE IS
INAPPLICABLE HERE, SINCE THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT CREATED ONLY A PERSONAL
OBLIGATION AND DID NOT PURPORT TO GRANT ANY ESTATE IN THE PROPERTY OF
THE GRANTOR.  P. 140. 

(E)  THE GENERAL RULE IN BANKRUPTCY THAT THE TRUSTEE TAKES THE
CONTRACTS OF THE DEBTOR SUBJECT TO THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS IS
APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 77(1).  P. 141. 

(F)  THE QUALIFICATION IN SEC. 77(1) THAT THE RULE OF BANKRUPTCY BE
"CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS" OF SEC. 77 MADE PREMATURE AN
ADJUDICATION BY THE COURT THAT THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED, PRIOR TO A
DETERMINATION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THAT THAT STEP WAS
CONSISTENT WITH THE REORGANIZATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEBTOR.  P.
141. 

2.  PRIOR TO RENDITION OF JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS THE DECISION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS NECESSARY ON CERTAIN PHASES OF THE
CONTROVERSY: 

(1)  WHETHER TERMINATION OF THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT WOULD INTERFERE
WITH THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION TO BE FORMULATED BY THE COMMISSION
UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 142. 

(2)  WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD ISSUE A CERTIFICATE UNDER SEC.
1(18) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT THAT "THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" WOULD PERMIT ABANDONMENT OF OPERATIONS UNDER
THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT.  P. 144. 

(3)  WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE RENTAL TO BE ALLOWED, UNDER SEC.
5(2)(A) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, IF THE COMMISSION DECIDED
THAT THE TRACKAGE ARRANGEMENT SHOULD BE CONTINUED.  P. 149. 

3.  UNTIL DETERMINATION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PHASES OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED IS HAD, IT CAN NOT BE
KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY WHAT ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL DECISION WILL EMERGE;
AND, UNTIL THAT TIME, JUDICIAL ACTION IS PREMATURE.  P. 151. 

THOMPSON, TRUSTEE, ET AL. V. TEXAS MEXICAN RAILWAY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH SUPREME
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD COMPANY BROUGHT SUIT IN A STATE COURT AGAINST
THE PETITIONER RAILROAD COMPANY (WHICH WAS A DEBTOR IN A REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT) AND ITS TRUSTEE, AND
WAS AWARDED DAMAGES.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS AFFIRMED.  181 S.W.2D
895.  THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS REFUSED AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF
ERROR.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  324 U.S. 838.  REVERSED, P.
151. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BROWNSVILLE (THE ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE AND MEXICO RAILWAY CO.)  AND
TEX-MEX (THE TEXAS MEXICAN RAILWAY CO.)  ARE INTERSTATE CARRIERS BY
RAILROAD AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
24 STAT. 379, 41 STAT. 474, 49 STAT. 543, 54 STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
1.  ON NOVEMBER 1, 1904, THEY ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN CONTRACT WHEREBY,
FOR PAYMENT OF SPECIFIED RENTALS, TEX-MEX GRANTED BROWNSVILLE THE RIGHT
TO OPERATE ITS TRAINS OVER THE TRACKS OF TEX-MEX BETWEEN ROBSTOWN AND
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, AND TO MAKE USE OF TERMINAL FACILITIES OF TEX
MEX AT CORPUS CHRISTI.  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT IT WAS TO CONTINUE
FOR A TERM OF 50 YEARS FROM ITS DATE UNLESS SOONER TERMINATED BY THE
PARTIES.  AND IT CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING PROVISION, "IT IS FURTHER
AGREED THAT THIS CONTRACT MAY BE TERMINATED WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON
THEREFOR, BY EITHER PARTY, UPON GIVING TWELVE MONTHS NOTICE OF SUCH
INTENT TO TERMINATE THE LEASE." 

IN 1933 BROWNSVILLE FILED ITS PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN1  THE PETITION WAS APPROVED AND
PETITIONER THOMPSON WAS APPOINTED AS TRUSTEE IN THE PROCEEDING. 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ENTERED STAY ORDERS TO WHICH WE
WILL LATER REFER.  IN OCTOBER 1940 TEX-MEX NOTIFIED PETITIONERS THAT IT
WAS EXERCISING ITS RIGHT TO TERMINATE AND CANCEL THE TRACKAGE CONTRACT,
EFFECTIVE TWELVE MONTHS AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 1940.  THE TRUSTEE, HOWEVER,
CONTINUED TO OPERATE OVER THE TEX-MEX AND TO USE THE TEX-MEX FACILITIES
AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 1941.  TEX-MEX INFORMED HIM THAT A CHARGE OF $500 PER
DAY WOULD BE MADE FOR THE USE OF THESE FACILITIES - AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS
OF THE RENTAL UNDER THE CONTRACT.  THE TRUSTEE REFUSED TO PAY ANY
RENTAL OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT. 

THEREUPON THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED BY TEX-MEX IN THE TEXAS COURTS TO
ENJOIN BROWNSVILLE AND ITS TRUSTEE FROM USING THE TRACKS OR OTHER
FACILITIES WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF TEX-MEX AND TO RECOVER $500 A DAY
DAMAGES FOR SUCH USE OR ALTERNATIVELY THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE USE
OF THE PROPERTY.  THE TRIAL COURT OVERRULED PLEAS TO ITS JURISDICTION
AND TRIED THE CASE ON THE MERITS.  IT DENIED AN INJUNCTION.  IT HELD
THAT THE 1904 CONTRACT HAD BEEN TERMINATED AND AWARDED TEX-MEX DAMAGES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,929.85.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
FN2  181 S.W.2D 895.  THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS REFUSED AN APPLICATION
FOR A WRIT OF ERROR.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEMS
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

FIRST.  IT IS CONTENDED HERE, AS IT WAS IN THE STATE COURT, THAT THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE PRESENT SUIT IS PRECLUDED BY THE STAY ORDERS ISSUED
BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AND BY SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

SEC. 66 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 125, AUTHORIZES SUITS
AGAINST THE TRUSTEE, WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, "IN RESPECT
OF ANY ACT OR TRANSACTION OF HIS IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS."  FN3  IN
MCNULTA V. LOCHRIDGE, 141 U.S. 327, 332, THIS STATUTE WAS SAID TO GRANT
AN "UNLIMITED" RIGHT "TO SUE FOR THE ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS" OF THE
ESTATE.  OPERATION OF THE TRAINS IS PLAINLY A PART OF THE TRUSTEE'S
FUNCTIONS.  CLAIMS WHICH ARISE FROM THEIR OPERATION - WHETHER GRADE
CROSSING CLAIMS AS IN MCNULTA V. LOCHRIDGE, SUPRA, OR CLAIMS FOR THE
USE OF THE TRACKS OF ANOTHER AS IN THE PRESENT CASE - ARE CLAIMS BASED
ON ACTS OF THE TRUSTEE IN CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS.  HENCE THIS SUIT, SO
FAR AS IT INVOLVES ONLY A MONEY CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE FOR ACTS OF
THE TRUSTEE IN OPERATING TRAINS OVER RESPONDENT'S TRACKS, COULD BE
MAINTAINED IN THE STATE COURTS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE.  FN4  AND THE STAY
ORDERS ENTERED WERE WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH THIS COURSE.  FN5 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SUIT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77 WHICH GRANT THE
REORGANIZATION COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE DEBTOR AND ITS
PROPERTY.  FN6  THE THEORY IS THAT THE SUIT INTERFERES WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, ADJUDICATES THE TRUSTEE'S INTEREST IN
PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION, AND INDEED SEEKS TO DISRUPT THE OPERATING
SCHEDULE OF TRAINS.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST OPERATION OF THE TRAINS OVER RESPONDENT'S TRACKS WOULD HAVE
BEEN AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
REORGANIZATION COURT.  THE FACT THAT NO INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED IS NOT A
DECISIVE ANSWER.  IN EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610, 618, THE COURT
HELD THAT THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS
DETERMINED BY THE "MAIN PURPOSE" OF THE SUIT.  IN THAT CASE SUIT HAD
BEEN BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURTS TO HAVE A RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY
DECLARED FORFEITED AND IN ADDITION TO RECOVER DAMAGES.  THE CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES WAS HELD TO BE "MERELY AN INCIDENT" TO THE SUIT FOR A
FORFEITURE AND DID NOT SAVE THE SUIT FROM THE DEFENSE THAT IT WAS OF
THE TYPE WHICH SOUGHT TO INTERFERE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  WE DO NOT CONSTRUE THE PRESENT BILL AS HAVING AS
ITS MAIN OBJECT THE STOPPAGE OF THE MOVEMENT OF PETITIONER'S TRAINS
OVER RESPONDENT'S TRACKS.  THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE SUIT SEEMS TO BE AN
ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT TO OBTAIN A MORE FAVORABLE RENTAL. 

THE FACT, HOWEVER, THAT RESPONDENT'S SUIT DOES NOT HAVE AS ITS MAIN
PURPOSE THE OUSTER OF PETITIONERS FROM POSSESSION IS NOT A COMPLETE
ANSWER TO THE PLEA TO THE STATE COURT'S JURISDICTION.  AS EX PARTE
BALDWIN, SUPRA, P. 616, HELD, THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT IS NOT LIMITED TO PROTECTING THE POSSESSION OF THE
TRUSTEE; IT "EXTENDS ALSO TO THE ADJUDICATION OF QUESTIONS RESPECTING
THE TITLE."  SEE WHITE V. SCHLOERB, 178 U.S. 542; WHITNEY V. WENMAN,
198 U.S. 539.  PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE PRESENT CASE COMES WITHIN
THAT PRINCIPLE.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THIS SUIT SEEKS THE
CANCELLATION OF THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE RIGHTS
GRANTED BROWNSVILLE UNDER THAT AGREEMENT ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS; AND THAT
A SUIT TO CANCEL THE AGREEMENT AND COLLECT AMOUNTS OTHER THAN THE
SPECIFIED RENTALS IS A SUIT WHICH INTERFERES WITH AND ADJUDICATES TITLE
TO THE PROPERTY.  IF WE WERE DEALING HERE WITH A LEASE, A SUIT TO
EFFECT ITS FORFEITURE COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN ANOTHER COURT WITHOUT
CONSENT OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT.  BUT THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT
CREATED ONLY A PERSONAL OBLIGATION AND DID NOT PURPORT TO GRANT
BROWNSVILLE ANY ESTATE IN THE PROPERTY OF TEX-MEX.  SEE DES MOINES &
FT. DODGE R. CO. V. WABASH, ST. L. & P.R. CO., 135 U.S. 576, 583; UNION
PACIFIC R. CO. V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO., 163 U.S. 564, 582-583. 
IT WAS AN EXECUTORY CONTRACT SUBJECT TO TERMINATION ON A SPECIFIED
NOTICE.  THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT WAS A
BARRIER TO ANY ACTION BY ANY OTHER COURT WHICH WOULD DISTURB THE
POSSESSION OF THE TRUSTEE OR INTERFERE IN ANY WAY WITH HIS OPERATION OF
THE BUSINESS.  BUT, APART FROM THE QUALIFICATION TO WHICH WE WILL LATER
REFER, LITIGATION RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER A CONTRACT,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR THE USE BY THE TRUSTEE OF ANOTHER'S PROPERTY NO
MORE INTERFERES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE THAN SUITS TO
DETERMINE HIS LIABILITY UNDER CONTRACTS CALLING FOR THE DELIVERY OF
COAL OR OTHER SUPPLIES.  IN EACH THE CLAIM IS REDUCED TO JUDGMENT AND
MAY THEN BE PRESENTED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR PROOF AND ALLOWANCE. 
CANCELLATION OF A CONTRACT PURSUANT TO ITS TERMS ALTERS, OF COURSE,
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE TRUSTEE.  BUT THE BANKRUPTCY RULE IS THAT HE
TAKES THE CONTRACTS OF THE DEBTOR SUBJECT TO THEIR TERMS AND
CONDITIONS.  CONTRACTS ADOPTED BY HIM ARE ASSUMED CUM ONERE.  FN7  THE
GENERAL RULE IS (1) THAT IF THE OTHER PARTY HAD A RIGHT TO TERMINATE
THE ARRANGEMENT, THAT RIGHT SURVIVES ADOPTION OF THE CONTRACT BY THE
TRUSTEE; AND (2) THAT THE INCIDENCE OF TERMINATION, EXCEPT AS IT
INTERFERES WITH THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, MAY
BE LITIGATED IN ANY COURT WHERE THE TRUSTEE MAY BE SUED.  THAT RULE OF
BANKRUPTCY IS APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 BY REASON OF SEC.
77(1) WHICH PROVIDES: 

"IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF, THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE COURT, THE DUTIES OF THE
DEBTOR AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY, SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A
VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF
ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE DEBTOR'S PETITION WAS
FILED." 

BUT, AS WE SHALL SEE, THE QUALIFICATION IN SEC. 77(1) THAT THE RULE
OF BANKRUPTCY BE "CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS" OF SEC. 77 MADE
PREMATURE AN ADJUDICATION BY THE COURT THAT THE CONTRACT WAS
TERMINATED, PRIOR TO A DETERMINATION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION THAT THAT STEP WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE REORGANIZATION
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEBTOR. 

SECOND.  PRIOR TO THE RENDITION OF JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS, THE
DECISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS NECESSARY ON TWO
PHASES OF THE CONTROVERSY - ONE UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
THE OTHER UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

(1)  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE A CONTRACT PURSUANT TO
ITS TERMS SURVIVES THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE OTHER CONTRACTING PARTY.  AND
THAT GENERAL BANKRUPTCY RULE IS APPLICABLE IN SEC. 77 PROCEEDINGS BY
REASON OF SEC. 77(1), WHICH, AS WE HAVE SAID, INCORPORATES INTO SEC. 77
THE RULES GOVERNING THE DUTIES OF DEBTORS AND THE RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS SO FAR AS THEY ARE "CONSISTENT WITH THE
PROVISIONS" OF SEC. 77.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MEANING OF THAT
QUALIFICATION IN SMITH V. HOBOKEN RAILROAD, W. & S.C. CO., ANTE, P.
123.  WE THERE HELD THAT A COVENANT OF FORFEITURE IN A LEASE OF
RAILROAD TRACKS AND FACILITIES SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT PRIOR TO A DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION THAT SUCH STEP WOULD
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REORGANIZATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEBTOR.  THE
COMMISSION HAS THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR FORMULATING PLANS OF
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77.  SEE SEC. 77(D).  FORFEITURE OF LEASES BY
THE COURT IN ADVANCE OF A DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE NATURE
OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WHICH IS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE
DEBTOR MAY SERIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE BY THE COMMISSION
OF THE FUNCTIONS ENTRUSTED TO IT. 

WE THINK THAT THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO A
DETERMINATION THAT THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE SHOULD BE
TERMINATED PENDING FORMULATION OF A REORGANIZATION PLAN.  BY SEC. 77(B)
THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION MAY ADOPT OR REJECT EXECUTORY CONTRACTS OF
THE DEBTOR AS WELL AS UNEXPIRED LEASES.  AND THE ADOPTION OF EITHER AN
EXECUTORY CONTRACT OR OF A LEASE BY THE TRUSTEE DOES NOT PRECLUDE A
REJECTION OF IT IN THE PLAN.  MOREOVER, TRACKAGE AGREEMENTS, LIKE
LEASES OF RAILROAD TRACKS AND FACILITIES, ARE MEANS BY WHICH RAILROAD
SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN ASSEMBLED.  THE RETENTION OR THE SLOUGHING OFF OF
TRACKAGE AGREEMENTS MAY ASSUME IMPORTANCE IN THE FASHIONING OF A PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION BY THE COMMISSION.  THE PROBLEM IS KIN TO THAT
INVOLVED IN CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R.
CO., 294 U.S. 648.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT SUSTAINED THE POWER OF THE
REORGANIZATION COURT TO ENJOIN UNDER SEC. 77 CREDITORS, WHO HELD
COLLATERAL NOTES OF THE DEBTOR RAILROAD SECURED BY ITS BONDS AND BONDS
OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES, FROM SELLING THE COLLATERAL UNDER A POWER OF SALE
IN THE NOTES, WHERE THE SALE WOULD SO HINDER, OBSTRUCT OR DELAY THE
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AS WOULD LIKELY DEFEAT IT.  THE COURT STATED (P.
676) THAT A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 IS A "SPECIAL PROCEEDING WHICH
SEEKS ONLY TO BRING ABOUT A REORGANIZATION, IF A SATISFACTORY PLAN TO
THAT END CAN BE DEVISED.  AND TO PREVENT THE ATTAINMENT OF THAT OBJECT
IS TO DEFEAT THE VERY END THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF WHICH WAS THE SOLE AIM
OF THE SECTION, AND THEREBY TO RENDER ITS PROVISIONS FUTILE."  THE
COURT CONCLUDED, IN VIEW OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN
THE REORGANIZATION, "THAT WITHOUT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE STATUS QUO FOR
A REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME NO SATISFACTORY PLAN COULD BE WORKED OUT." 
P. 679. 

THAT DECISION PREVENTED IN THE INTERESTS OF A REORGANIZATION THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACTS OF THE DEBTOR ACCORDING
TO THEIR TERMS.  WE THINK LIKE REASONS MAKE IT IMPORTANT THAT THE
STATUS QUO OF THIS TRACKAGE AGREEMENT BE MAINTAINED PENDING DECISION BY
THE COMMISSION AS TO THE PROPER TREATMENT OF IT IN THE REORGANIZATION
PLAN.  THE COMMISSION MAY DECIDE THAT IT SHOULD BE ADOPTED.  OR THE
COMMISSION MAY CONCLUDE THAT THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT SHOULD BE REJECTED
OR THAT ITS TERMINATION PURSUANT TO ITS TERMS SHOULD BE ALLOWED.  THESE
MATTERS INVOLVE NOT ONLY THE INTERESTS OF THE TWO PARTIES TO THE
TRACKAGE AGREEMENT BUT PHASES OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL.  A COURT
WHICH ENFORCED THE TERMINATION CLAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO ITS
TERMS WOULD BE NARROWING THE CHOICE OF THE COMMISSION AND PERHAPS
EMBARRASSING IT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS WITH WHICH IT HAS
BEEN ENTRUSTED.  FOR THESE AND LIKE REASONS WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN
SMITH V. HOBOKEN RAILROAD, W. & S.C. CO., ANTE, P. 123, WE THINK THE
COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT HAD BEEN OR SHOULD
BE TERMINATED.    (2)  THE COMMISSION HAS FURTHER FUNCTIONS TO PERFORM
APART FROM DETERMINING UNDER SEC. 77 WHETHER IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE REORGANIZATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEBTOR TO TERMINATE THE
TRACKAGE AGREEMENT. 

BY SEC. 1(18) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IT IS PROVIDED THAT "NO
CARRIER BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER SHALL ABANDON ALL OR ANY
PORTION OF A LINE OF RAILROAD, OR THE OPERATION THEREOF, UNLESS AND
UNTIL THERE SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSION A
CERTIFICATE THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
PERMIT OF SUCH ABANDONMENT."  CARRIERS BEING REORGANIZED UNDER SEC. 77
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THAT PROVISION.  SEC. 77(O),
11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(O); WARREN V. PALMER, 310 U.S. 132, 137-138. 
WHATEVER MAY BE THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, RATHER THAN SEC. 77, OVER THE TERMS OF THE TRACKAGE
AGREEMENT (ABANDONMENT OF CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 131 I.C.C. 421;
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL R. CO., 211 I.C.C.
291), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
OPERATIONS.  SEC. 1(18) EMBRACES OPERATIONS UNDER TRACKAGE CONTRACTS,
AS WELL AS OTHER TYPES OF OPERATIONS.  SEE CHICAGO & ALTON R. CO. V.
TOLEDO, P. & W.R. CO., 146 I.C.C. 171, 179-181.  AND THE FACT THAT THE
TRACKAGE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO IN 1904 PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE
ACT IS IMMATERIAL; THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, INCLUDING SEC. 1(18), ARE
APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS MADE BEFORE AS WELL AS AFTER ITS ENACTMENT. 
SEE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 219 U.S. 467, 482. 
THOUGH THE CONTRACT WERE TERMINATED PURSUANT TO ITS TERMS, A
CERTIFICATE WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 1(18).  BROWNSVILLE OR
ITS TRUSTEE COULD, OF COURSE, MAKE THE APPLICATION FOR ABANDONMENT OF
OPERATIONS.  BUT THE FACT THAT THEY MIGHT BE CONTENT WITH THE EXISTING
ARRANGEMENT AND FAIL OR REFUSE TO MOVE DOES NOT MEAN THAT TEX-MEX WOULD
BE BURDENED WITH A TRACKAGE ARRANGEMENT IN PERPETUITY.  TEX-MEX MIGHT
INVOKE THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 1(18) AND MAKE
APPLICATION FOR ABANDONMENT OF OPERATIONS BY BROWNSVILLE OR ITS
TRUSTEE.  THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN SEC. 1(18) THAT THE APPLICATION BE
MADE BY THE CARRIER WHOSE OPERATIONS ARE SOUGHT TO BE ABANDONED.  IT
HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT PERSONS OTHER THAN CARRIERS "WHO HAVE A PROPER
INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER" MAY TAKE THE INITIATIVE.  FN8  SEE
ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 380, 393
394.  AN APPLICATION BY A CITY AND COUNTY FOR ABANDONMENT OF A PART OF
THE COLORADO & SOUTHERN LINE WAS INDEED ENTERTAINED.  COLORADO &
SOUTHERN R. CO. ABANDONMENT, 166 I.C.C. 470.  TEX-MEX HAS EVEN A MORE
IMMEDIATE INTEREST IN THE OPERATIONS OVER THIS LINE.  ITS PROPERTY IS
INVOLVED; AND THE AMOUNT BEING PAID FOR THE USE OF ITS PROPERTY IS
DEEMED BY IT INSUFFICIENT.  THE COMMISSION IS AS MUCH CONCERNED WITH
ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION AS IT IS WITH THAT OF BROWNSVILLE.  TEX-MEX
THEREFORE HAS THE STANDING NECESSARY TO INVOKE SEC. 1(18). 

TEX-MEX, HOWEVER, POINTS OUT THAT IN 1941 IT MADE APPLICATION TO THE
COMMISSION "FOR AUTHORITY TO CANCEL TRACKAGE AGREEMENTS" WITH
BROWNSVILLE AND THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION RETURNED THE
APPLICATION SAYING "THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER AN
APPLICATION OF THE NATURE SUBMITTED BY YOU.  ITS JURISDICTION UNDER
ABANDONMENT OF OPERATION BY THE ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE & MEXICO RAILWAY
COMPANY."  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPLICATION WAS IN PROPER
FORM FOR ONE AUTHORIZING AND REQUIRING ABANDONMENT OF OPERATIONS BY
BROWNSVILLE.  IN ANY EVENT, THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO BIND THE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER.  CF. MINNEAPOLIS & ST.
LOUIS R. CO. V. PEORIA & P.U.R. CO., 270 U.S. 580, 585. 

(3)  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION IS NOT RESTRICTED, HOWEVER,
TO DETERMINING WHETHER OR NO OPERATIONS OF BROWNSVILLE OVER THE TRACKS
OF TEX-MEX SHOULD BE ABANDONED.  PRIOR TO THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1940 THE COMMISSION HAD SOME JURISDICTION OVER TRACKAGE AGREEMENTS OF
THE CHARACTER INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  TRANSIT COMMISSION V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 121.  BUT BY THAT ACT THE COMMISSION RECEIVED NEW,
EXPLICIT POWERS OVER TRACKAGE RIGHTS.  SEC. 5(2)(A)(II) PROVIDES: "IT
SHALL BE LAWFUL, WITH THE APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMISSION,
AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (B)  ...  FOR A CARRIER BY RAILROAD TO
ACQUIRE TRACKAGE RIGHTS OVER, OR JOINT OWNERSHIP IN OR JOINT USE OF,
ANY RAILROAD LINE OR LINES OWNED OR OPERATED BY ANY OTHER SUCH CARRIER,
AND TERMINALS INCIDENTAL THERETO."  TRACKAGE RIGHTS ACQUIRED WITHOUT
THE CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION ARE UNLAWFUL.  SEC. 5(4). 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 5(2)(A) EXTENDS TO FIXING
TERMS AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDING RENTALS, FOR ANY TRACKAGE AGREEMENTS
ENTERED INTO SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT
OF 1940.  IF, THEREFORE, THE TWO CARRIERS HAD VOLUNTARILY TERMINATED
THE 1904 TRACKAGE CONTRACT AND HAD ENTERED INTO A NEW ONE WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION, THEY WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE ACT.  THERE
WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE IN RESULT MERELY BECAUSE THE TRACKAGE CONTRACT
EXPIRED BY ITS TERMS OR WAS TERMINATED BY OPERATION OF AN ESCAPE
CLAUSE.  UNTIL ABANDONMENT IS AUTHORIZED, OPERATIONS MUST CONTINUE. 
WHILE THEY CONTINUE, TRACKAGE RIGHTS ARE BEING ENJOYED.  IN ABSENCE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL, THE LAW WOULD UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IMPLY A
CONTRACT FOR THE USE OF ANOTHER'S PROPERTY AND AWARD REASONABLE
COMPENSATION.  THUS TRACKAGE RIGHTS WOULD BE ACQUIRED ON SUCH TERMS AS
THE COURT AND JURY DETERMINED.  BUT SEC. 5(2)(A) VESTS IN THE
COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS, THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TRACKAGE RIGHTS MAY BE ACQUIRED.  THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION IS EXCLUSIVE.  TRANSIT COMMISSION V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IN THAT CASE THE COMMISSION HAD APPROVED A
TRACKAGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO CARRIERS AND THE COURT HELD THAT THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION BEING EXCLUSIVE, APPROVAL BY A STATE
COMMISSION WAS NOT NECESSARY.  THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT CASE WAS
NOT CONTROLLING HERE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAD NOT ACTED.  BUT IN A LONG LINE OF CASES BEGINNING WITH
TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426, IT HAS
BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE REASONABLENESS OR LEGALITY OF THE PRACTICES OF
THE PARTIES WAS SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE COURT SHOULD STAY ITS HAND UNTIL
THE COMMISSION HAD PASSED ON THE MATTER.  SEE GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR
CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422, AND CASES CITED.  THAT
COURSE IS SINGULARLY APPROPRIATE HERE.  IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TRACKAGE
RIGHTS ARE ACQUIRED.  IF THE PARTIES WERE ALLOWED TO BY-PASS THE
COMMISSION AND LITIGATE THE QUESTION IN THE COURTS, THE POWER TO FIX
THE RENTAL UNDER TRACKAGE AGREEMENTS WOULD BE SHIFTED FROM THE
COMMISSION TO THE COURTS AND JURIES.  MOREOVER, ONE JURY WOULD
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION DUE FOR THE PERIOD HERE IN
QUESTION AND ANOTHER JURY THE AMOUNT DUE FOR A SUBSEQUENT PERIOD.  BUT
A MAJOR CONCERN OF CONGRESS IN DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM WAS THAT
NEITHER INADEQUATE RENTALS NOR EXTORTIONATE NOR UNREASONABLE EXACTIONS
WOULD BE MADE FOR TRACKAGE RIGHTS.  TRANSIT COMMISSION V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, P. 128.  THOSE QUESTIONS INTIMATELY RELATE TO THE
FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF CARRIERS.  AND IT IS ONE OF THE COMMISSION'S HIGH
FUNCTIONS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AGAINST UNFAIR OR OPPRESSIVE
FINANCIAL PRACTICES WHICH IN THE PAST LED TO SUCH GREAT HAVOC AND
DISASTER.  THAT POLICY WOULD BE UNDERMINED IF THE CARRIERS COULD REPAIR
TO COURTS FOR DETERMINATION OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TRACKAGE
RIGHTS COULD BE SECURED.  THEN JURY VERDICTS OR SETTLEMENTS WOULD TAKE
THE PLACE OF THE EXPERT AND INFORMED JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO FIX THE
RENTAL ONLY FOR THE FUTURE AND THAT IT HAS NO POWER TO MAKE AN AWARD
WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT.  BUT ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE WE ARE NOT
DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF REPARATIONS.  IN ANY CASE WHERE APPLICATION
IS MADE FOR TRACKAGE RIGHTS THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION ARE APPLICABLE WHEN THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY TAKES EFFECT.  IF OPERATIONS DO NOT START UNTIL THAT
TIME, NO PROBLEM IS PRESENTED.  BUT FREQUENTLY THERE WILL BE
APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL OF TRACKAGE AGREEMENTS WHICH HAVE EXPIRED. 
OPERATIONS MAY NOT BE DISCONTINUED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF ABANDONMENT
IS OBTAINED.  IF NEW TRACKAGE RIGHTS ARE GRANTED, THEY RUN FROM THE
EXPIRATION OF THE OLD AND THEIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO
THE FULL TERM.  FN9  ONCE THE COMMISSION HAS ACTED, THE COURT MAY THEN
PROCEED TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
SPECIFIED BY THE COMMISSION.  SEE EL DORADO OIL WORKS V. UNITED STATES,
328 U.S. 12. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE TRACKAGE RIGHTS ENVISIONED BY SEC.
5(2)(A) OF THE ACT ARE CONSENSUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES; AND
THAT THE COMMISSION IS NOT GRANTED AUTHORITY TO FORCE A TRACKAGE
AGREEMENT ON A CARRIER.  WE DO NOT DECIDE WHAT MAY BE THE FULL REACH OF
THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 5(2)(A).  WE ARE DEALING HERE
WITH AN EXISTING OPERATION, NOT WITH A CASE WHERE ONE CARRIER SEEKS TO
INITIATE A NEW ONE BY ACQUIRING THE RIGHT TO RUN ITS TRAINS OVER THE
TRACKS OF ANOTHER.  THE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER UNDER SEC. 1(18) TO
REFUSE TO ALLOW ABANDONMENT OF THE OPERATIONS.  IF IT SO REFUSES,
TRACKAGE RIGHTS CONTINUE TO BE ENJOYED BY BROWNSVILLE.  THE QUESTION OF
WHAT WOULD BE THE AMOUNT OF A FAIR RENTAL TO BE PAID BY BROWNSVILLE
WOULD BE HIGHLY RELEVANT TO A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION ON THE ISSUE
OF ABANDONMENT.  WE CONCLUDE THAT AT LEAST IN THAT SITUATION THE
COMMISSION HAS THE POWER UNDER SEC. 5(2) TO FIX A REASONABLE RENTAL FOR
THE USE OF THE FACILITY BY BROWNSVILLE REGARDLESS OF THE CONSENT OF TEX
MEX.  FN10 DENIAL OF THAT POWER TO THE COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED BY
THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 5(2)(A).  AND THIS CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 5(2)(A) IS
IN HARMONY WITH THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 1(18) TO REFUSE
TO AUTHORIZE THE ABANDONMENT OF OPERATIONS.  IF OPERATIONS MUST
CONTINUE, IT IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THIS SCHEME OF REGULATION FOR THE
COMMISSION RATHER THAN COURTS OR JURIES TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE
RENTAL.  ANY LEGAL, INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL, RIGHTS OF TEX-MEX ARE
PROTECTED BY THE REVIEW WHICH CONGRESS HAS GRANTED THE ORDERS OF THE
COMMISSION. 

THIRD.  IF THE COMMISSION GRANTED TRACKAGE RIGHTS, TEX-MEX COULD THEN
RECOVER JUDGMENT, AS WE HAVE SAID, FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE RENTAL FIXED
BY THE COMMISSION.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZES
THE OPERATIONS TO BE ABANDONED, IT "MAY ATTACH TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
CERTIFICATE SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS IN ITS JUDGMENT THE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY MAY REQUIRE."  SEC. 1(20).  THE COMMISSION
COULD PERMIT ABANDONMENT UNLESS BROWNSVILLE PAID SUCH REASONABLE
COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF TEX-MEX'S PROPERTY AS THE COMMISSION SHOULD
FIX.  IN THAT CASE, TOO, THE COURT WOULD HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING
AS A GUIDE TO THE JUDGMENT IT WOULD ENTER.  IN CASE ABANDONMENT WERE
AUTHORIZED WITHOUT MORE, RESPONDENT WOULD THEN BE FREE TO MOVE IN THIS
PROCEEDING FOR JUDGMENT AND TO APPLY TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  IN ALL THOSE SITUATIONS SUITS
TO RECOVER THE AMOUNTS DUE FOR USE OF THE TRACKS OF TEX-MEX COULD BE
MAINTAINED IN THE STATE COURT  FN11  UNDER THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN
CENTRAL NEW ENGLAND R. CO. V. BOSTON & ALBANY R. CO., 279 U.S. 415,
420.  IF, HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION DECIDED THAT THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT
SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN THE PLAN, THE STATE COURT WOULD NOT HAVE POWER
TO PROCEED FURTHER.  FOR RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS WOULD BE PROTECTED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN WHICH MAY BE REVIEWED ONLY BY THE REORGANIZATION
COURT.  SEC. 77(E). 

THUS, HOWEVER THE CASE MAY BE VIEWED, THE COURT BELOW SHOULD HAVE
STAYED ITS HAND AND REMITTED THE PARTIES TO THE COMMISSION FOR A
DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PHASES OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 
UNTIL THAT DETERMINATION IS HAD, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY WHAT
ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL DECISION WILL EMERGE.  UNTIL THAT TIME, JUDICIAL
ACTION IS PREMATURE.  THE JUDGMENT WILL BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED SO THAT THE CASE MAY BE HELD PENDING THE CONCLUSION OF
APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS PETITION WAS FILED IN THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. WHICH OWNED ABOUT 94 PER CENT OF THE VOTING
STOCK OF THE NEW ORLEANS, TEXAS AND MEXICO RY. CO., WHICH IN TURN OWNED
ALL OF THE VOTING STOCK OF BROWNSVILLE. 

FN2  NO COMPLAINT WAS MADE ON APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF AN INJUNCTION. 

FN3  "EVERY RECEIVER OR MANAGER OF ANY PROPERTY APPOINTED BY ANY
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MAY BE SUED IN RESPECT OF ANY ACT OR
TRANSACTION OF HIS IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS CONNECTED WITH SUCH
PROPERTY, WITHOUT THE PREVIOUS LEAVE OF THE COURT IN WHICH SUCH
RECEIVER OR MANAGER WAS APPOINTED; BUT SUCH SUIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
THE GENERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN WHICH SUCH MANAGER OR
RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED SO FAR AS THE SAME MAY BE NECESSARY TO THE ENDS
OF JUSTICE."    FN4  JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES WAS GRANTED ONLY AGAINST
PETITIONER TRUSTEE; JUDGMENT FOR COSTS WAS GRANTED AGAINST THE TRUSTEE
AND BROWNSVILLE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY. 

FN5  THE STAY ORDERS AUTHORIZED THE TRUSTEE TO DEFEND ANY SUITS WHICH
MIGHT BE BROUGHT. 

IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE AT
THIS TIME WHETHER OR NOT THE SUIT MAY ALSO BE MAINTAINED AGAINST
BROWNSVILLE.  THE STAY ORDER, ENTERED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DEBTOR,
FOLLOWED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77(J) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 49 STAT.
911, 922, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(J) AND PROVIDED:  "THAT COMMENCEMENT OR
CONTINUATION OF SUITS AGAINST ANY OF THE DEBTOR COMPANIES IS HEREBY
STAYED AND ENJOINED UNTIL AFTER FINAL DECREE ENTERED IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUITS OR CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES CAUSED
BY THE OPERATION OF TRAINS, BUSES, OR OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION MAY
BE FILED AND PROSECUTED TO JUDGMENT IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, AND ANY ORDER HERETOFORE STAYING THE PROSECUTION OF ANY
SUCH CAUSES OF ACTION OR APPEAL IS HEREBY VACATED." 

FN6  SEC. 77(A) PROVIDES IN PART:  "IF THE PETITION IS SO APPROVED,
THE COURT IN WHICH SUCH ORDER IS ENTERED SHALL, DURING THE PENDENCY OF
THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND FOR THE PURPOSES THEREOF, HAVE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED
..." 

FN7  SEE GREIF BROS. COOPERAGE CO. V. MULLINIX, 264 F. 391, 397; 4
COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  SEC.  70.43. 

FN8  CF. TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F.R. CO., 270 U.S.
266, 273, WHICH HOLDS THAT A PARTY IN INTEREST WHO IS OPPOSED TO
CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION MAY NOT "INITIATE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
ANY PROCEEDING CONCERNING THE PROJECT," HIS REMEDY BEING TO APPEAR IN
OPPOSITION IF APPLICATION IS MADE OR TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION UNDER SEC.
1(20) IF NO APPLICATION IS MADE.  AND SEE POWELL V. UNITED STATES, 300
U.S. 276. 

FN9  THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION IN LONG
ISLAND R. CO. TRACKAGE, 180 I.C.C. 439, AFFIRMED TRANSIT COMMISSION V.
UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 121, WERE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT IN THAT
SENSE. 

FN10  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THAT AUTHORITY ONLY
UNDER SEC. 3(5) WHICH GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE USE
OF TERMINAL FACILITIES INCLUDING MAIN-LINE TRACKS FOR A REASONABLE
DISTANCE OUTSIDE OF THE TERMINAL. 

SEC. 3(5) PROVIDES:  "IF THE COMMISSION FINDS IT TO BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND TO BE PRACTICABLE, WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRING THE
ABILITY OF A COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD OWNING OR ENTITLED TO THE
ENJOYMENT OF TERMINAL FACILITIES TO HANDLE ITS OWN BUSINESS, IT SHALL
HAVE POWER BY ORDER TO REQUIRE THE USE OF ANY SUCH TERMINAL FACILITIES,
INCLUDING MAIN-LINE TRACK OR TRACKS FOR A REASONABLE DISTANCE OUTSIDE
OF SUCH TERMINAL, OF ANY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD, BY ANOTHER SUCH
CARRIER OR OTHER SUCH CARRIERS, ON SUCH TERMS AND FOR SUCH COMPENSATION
AS THE CARRIERS AFFECTED MAY AGREE UPON, OR, IN THE EVENT OF A FAILURE
TO AGREE, AS THE COMMISSION MAY FIX AS JUST AND REASONABLE FOR THE USE
SO REQUIRED, TO BE ASCERTAINED ON THE PRINCIPLE CONTROLLING
COMPENSATION IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.  SUCH COMPENSATION SHALL BE
PAID OR ADEQUATELY SECURED BEFORE THE ENJOYMENT OF THE USE MAY BE
COMMENCED.  IF UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH THE USE OF SUCH TERMINAL FACILITIES
OF ANY CARRIER IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO ANOTHER CARRIER OR OTHER
CARRIERS, AND THE CARRIER WHOSE TERMINAL FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED TO BE
SO USED IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE TERMS FIXED FOR SUCH USE, OR IF THE
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION SO FIXED IS NOT DULY AND PROMPTLY PAID, THE
CARRIER WHOSE TERMINAL FACILITIES HAVE THUS BEEN REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN
TO ANOTHER CARRIER OR OTHER CARRIERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER, BY
SUIT OR ACTION AGAINST SUCH OTHER CARRIER OR CARRIERS, PROPER DAMAGES
FOR ANY INJURIES SUSTAINED BY IT AS THE RESULT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH
REQUIREMENT, OR JUST COMPENSATION FOR SUCH USE, OR BOTH, AS THE CASE
MAY BE." 

FN11  IF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WERE CHALLENGED, ITS REVIEW
COULD OF COURSE BE HAD ONLY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY STATUTE.  SEE EL
DORADO OIL WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 12. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



FIRST IOWA COOP. V. POWER COMM'N, 328 U.S. 152 


NO. 603.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 29, 1946.  - 151 F.2D
20, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOR A LICENSE FOR A
POWER PROJECT IN IOWA INVOLVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM ON A
NAVIGABLE STREAM AND THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM TWO NAVIGABLE STREAMS
INTO ANOTHER.  SECTION 9(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT REQUIRES AN
APPLICANT TO SUBMIT SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH
REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAWS "WITH RESPECT TO BED AND BANKS AND TO THE
APPROPRIATION, DIVERSION, AND USE OF WATER FOR POWER PURPOSES AND WITH
RESPECT TO THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING,
TRANSMITTING, AND DISTRIBUTING POWER, AND IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS
NECESSARY TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF A LICENSE UNDER THIS ACT." 
PETITIONER SHOWED NO ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH IOWA CODE, 1939, CH. 363,
WHICH FORBIDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS AND THE DIVERSION OF WATER FOR
INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
AND AUTHORIZES THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH A PERMIT UPON A FINDING, INTER
ALIA, THAT "ANY WATER TAKEN FROM THE STREAM  ...  IS RETURNED THERETO
AT THE NEAREST PRACTICABLE PLACE."  THE STATE INTERVENED AND URGED THAT
THE APPLICATION BE DENIED BECAUSE PETITIONER DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF
ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IOWA CODE FOR A PERMIT FROM
THE STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT A FEDERAL
LICENSE FOR THE PROJECT WAS REQUIRED UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT AND
THAT THE PROJECT CALLED FOR A PRACTICAL AND REASONABLY ADEQUATE WATER
POWER DEVELOPMENT, WITH CERTAIN RECREATIONAL ADVANTAGES, ALL AT A COST
NOT APPEARING TO BE UNREASONABLE; BUT IT DISMISSED THE APPLICATION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON THE GROUND OF PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO PRESENT
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(B), OF COMPLIANCE WITH
REQUIREMENTS OF LAWS OF IOWA REQUIRING A STATE PERMIT.  HELD: 

1.  COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE PERMIT UNDER IOWA CODE,
1939, CH. 363, IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO, OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE THAT MUST BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE, SECURING A FEDERAL LICENSE. 
PP. 163, 170, 182. 

(A)  TO REQUIRE PETITIONER TO SECURE A STATE PERMIT AS A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO SECURING A FEDERAL LICENSE WOULD VEST IN THE STATE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL A VETO POWER OVER THE FEDERAL PROJECT WHICH EASILY
COULD DESTROY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FEDERAL ACT AND SUBORDINATE TO
STATE CONTROL THE "COMPREHENSIVE" PLANNING WHICH THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
ENTRUSTS TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  P. 164. 

(B)  THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN REQUIRING PETITIONER TO PRESENT
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE
PERMIT, WHILE NOT REQUIRING IT ACTUALLY TO SECURE A STATE PERMIT,
AVOIDED VESTING A VETO POWER IN THE STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL; BUT IT DID
NOT MEET THE SUBSTANCE OF PETITIONER'S OBJECTION, BECAUSE IT SUBJECTED
TO STATE CONTROL THE VERY REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROJECT WHICH CONGRESS
HAS PLACED IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION.  P. 165. 

(C)  THE ACT LEAVES TO THE STATES THEIR TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION OVER
PROPERTY RIGHTS TO THE BEDS AND BANKS OF STREAMS AND THE USE OF WATER,
SUBJECT TO THE SUPERIOR RIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, ADMINISTER PUBLIC LANDS AND
RESERVATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND EXERCISE AUTHORITY UNDER
TREATIES.  PP. 171-176. 

(D)  THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS WAS TO SECURE A COMPREHENSIVE
DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL RESOURCES AND NOT MERELY TO PREVENT
OBSTRUCTIONS TO NAVIGATION.  PP. 180-181. 

(E)  THE ACT ESTABLISHES A DUAL SYSTEM OF CONTROL BY SEPARATING THOSE
SUBJECTS WHICH REMAIN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATES FROM THOSE
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DELEGATES TO THE UNITED STATES AND OVER WHICH
CONGRESS VESTS THE COMMISSION WITH AUTHORITY TO ACT.  P. 167. 

(F)  WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUPERSEDES THE STATE GOVERNMENT,
THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT BOTH AGENCIES SHALL HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY. 
P. 168. 

(G)  A CONTRARY POLICY IS INDICATED IN SECS. 4(E), 10(A), (B) AND (C)
AND 23(B), WHICH SECTIONS PLACE RESPONSIBILITY SQUARELY UPON FEDERAL
OFFICIALS AND USUALLY UPON THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  P. 168. 

(H)  THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF SEC. 27 REQUIRING THAT THE ACT BE NOT
CONSTRUED AS AFFECTING THE LAWS OF THE STATES RELATING TO THE CONTROL,
APPROPRIATION, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF WATER USED IN IRRIGATION OR FOR
MUNICIPAL OR OTHER USES, OR ANY VESTED RIGHT ACQUIRED THEREIN,
INDICATES THAT SEC. 9(B) SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN A LIKE EFFECT IN THE
ABSENCE OF A SIMILAR PROVISION.  PP. 175-178. 

(I)  SECTION 27, PROTECTING STATE LAWS FROM SUPERSEDURE, IS LIMITED
TO LAWS AS TO THE CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF WATER
IN IRRIGATION OR FOR MUNICIPAL OR OTHER USES OF THE SAME NATURE AND HAS
PRIMARY, IF NOT EXCLUSIVE, REFERENCE TO SUCH PROPRIETARY RIGHTS.  PP.
175, 176. 

(J)  SECTION 9 IS DEVOTED TO SECURING ADEQUATE INFORMATION FOR THE
COMMISSION AS TO PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES AND DOES NOT ITSELF
REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH ANY STATE LAWS.  PP. 168, 177, 178. 

(K)  THE DETAILED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT PROVIDING A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION OF THE WATER RESOURCES OF THE
NATION LEAVE NO ROOM OR NEED FOR CONFLICTING STATE CONTROLS.  P. 181. 

(L)  IT IS THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION RATHER THAN THE IOWA
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL THAT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT MUST PASS
UPON ISSUES AFFECTING THE USE OF NAVIGABLE WATERS - ON BEHALF OF THE
PEOPLE OF IOWA AS WELL AS ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS.  P. 182. 

2.  THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION WAS ERRONEOUS IN DISMISSING THE
APPLICATION ON THE GROUND OF PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO PRESENT
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(B), OF COMPLIANCE WITH
REQUIREMENTS OF LAWS OF IOWA REQUIRING A STATE PERMIT.  PP. 161-167. 

(A)  THE PROJECT IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION
UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  P. 163. 

(B)  BELIEVING THE IOWA LAW TO BE INAPPLICABLE OR TO HAVE BEEN
SUPERSEDED BY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE BEEN
JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING ITS OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
AND PROCEEDING WITH THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION THEREUNDER, WITHOUT
REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH LAWS OF
IOWA.  PP. 160-162. 

(C)  THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN DISMISSING THE APPLICATION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DID NOT AVOID PASSING ON THE ISSUE AS TO THE NEED FOR
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW, BUT CONSTITUTED
A RULING THAT SUCH EVIDENCE WAS ESSENTIAL.  PP. 161-162. 

(D)  A STATE PERMIT NOT BEING REQUIRED, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION
FOR REQUIRING PETITIONER, AS A CONDITION OF SECURING A FEDERAL PERMIT,
TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATE LAW FOR THAT STATE PERMIT.  P. 166. 

(E)  THERE IS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COMMISSION TO
REQUIRE BY REGULATION THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO IT
OF PETITIONER'S COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE
PERMIT THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES
OF A FEDERAL LICENSE.  P. 167. 

3.  UPON THE REMAND OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION, IT WILL
NOT ACT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION
OVER SUCH QUESTIONS AS THE SUFFICIENCY OF APPLICANT'S LEGAL TITLE TO
RIPARIAN RIGHTS OR THE VALIDITY OF ITS LOCAL FRANCHISES RELATING TO
PROPOSED INTRASTATE PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE.  P. 178. 

(A)  THE REFERENCES IN SEC. 9(B) TO BEDS AND BANKS OF STREAMS, TO
PROPRIETARY RIGHTS TO DIVERT OR USE WATER, OR TO LEGAL RIGHTS TO ENGAGE
LOCALLY IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING
POWER NEITHER ADD ANYTHING TO NOR DETRACT ANYTHING FROM THE FORCE OF
LOCAL LAWS, IF ANY, ON THOSE SUBJECTS.  P. 178. 

(B)  IN SO FAR AS THOSE LAWS HAVE NOT BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT, THEY REMAIN AS APPLICABLE AND EFFECTIVE AS THEY WERE BEFORE
ITS PASSAGE.  P. 178. 

FIRST IOWA HYDRO-ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 
STATE OF IOWA, INTERVENOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOR A LICENSE TO
CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A POWER PROJECT ON NAVIGABLE WATERS IN
IOWA.  THE STATE INTERVENED AND URGED THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED
BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD NOT PRESENTED SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF ITS
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF IOWA CODE, 1939, CH. 363, AS TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.  THE COMMISSION
DISMISSED THE APPLICATION "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL WITHIN ONE YEAR
UPON SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 9(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT."  52 P.U.R. (N.S.)  82.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AFFIRMED.  151 F.2D 20.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326
U.S. 715.  REVERSED, P. 183. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES THE INTEGRATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE
JURISDICTIONS IN LICENSING WATER POWER PROJECTS UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT.  FN1  THE PETITIONER IS THE FIRST IOWA HYDRO-ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF IOWA WITH POWER
TO GENERATE, DISTRIBUTE AND SELL ELECTRIC ENERGY.  ON JANUARY 29, 1940,
PURSUANT TO SEC. 23(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT,  FN2  IT FILED WITH
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION A DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT
AND OPERATE A DAM, RESERVOIR AND HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER PLANT ON THE
CEDAR RIVER, NEAR MOSCOW, IOWA.  FN3 

ON APRIL 2, 1941, IT ALSO FILED WITH THE COMMISSION AN APPLICATION
FOR A LICENSE, UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, TO CONSTRUCT AN ENLARGED
PROJECT ESSENTIALLY LIKE THE ONE IT NOW WISHES TO BUILD.  THE COST OF
THE ENLARGED PROJECT IS ESTIMATED AT $14,600,000.  IT CALLS FOR AN
8,300 FOOT EARTHEN DAM ON THE CEDAR RIVER NEAR MOSCOW, AN 11,000 ACRE
RESERVOIR AT THAT POINT AND AN EIGHT-MILE DIVERSION CANAL TO A POWER
PLANT TO BE BUILT NEAR MUSCATINE ON THE MISSISSIPPI.  THE CANAL WILL
CREATE TWO OTHER RESERVOIRS TOTALING 2,000 ACRES.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT
THE THREE RESERVOIRS INCIDENTALLY WILL PROVIDE NEEDED RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES.  THE POWER PLANT WILL HAVE FOUR TURBO-GENERATING UNITS WITH
A TOTAL CAPACITY OF 50,000 KW., OPERATING WITH AN AVERAGE HEAD OF 101
FEET OF WATER PROVIDED BY THE FALL FROM THE CANAL TO THE MISSISSIPPI. 
WATER WILL BE PUMPED FROM THE MISSISSIPPI UP TO THE HEAD BAYS OF THE
POWER INTAKE DAM AT THE PLANT TO MEET POSSIBLE SHORTAGES IN SUPPLY. 
THE TAILRACE WILL EXTEND FOR A MILE ALONG THE SHORE OF THE MISSISSIPPI
TO A POINT BELOW DAM 16 ON THAT RIVER.  TRANSMISSION LINES WILL CONNECT
THE PROJECT WITH A SOURCE OF STEAM STANDBY ELECTRIC CURRENT AT
DAVENPORT, IOWA, 24 MILES UP THE MISSISSIPPI.  THE PLANT IS EXPECTED TO
PRODUCE 200,000,000 KWH.  OF MARKETABLE POWER PER YEAR, OF WHICH
151,000,000 KWH.  WILL BE FIRM ENERGY IN AN AVERAGE YEAR.  INTERCHANGE
OF ENERGY IS PROPOSED WITH THE MOLINE-ROCK ISLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY
NEAR DAVENPORT AND THE PROJECT IS SUGGESTED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE
ADDITION OF A 50,000 KW. UNIT TO THE PLANT OF THAT COMPANY.  THE POWER
WILL BE AVAILABLE ESPECIALLY TO NON-PROFIT RURAL ELECTRIFICATION
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS AND TO CITIES AND TOWNS IN 35 OR MORE NEARBY
COUNTIES. 

THE CEDAR RIVER RISES IN MINNESOTA AND FLOWS 270 MILES SOUTHEASTERLY
THROUGH IOWA TO MOSCOW, WHICH IS 10 MILES WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI. 
FROM THERE IT FLOWS SOUTHWESTERLY 29 MILES TO COLUMBUS JUNCTION WHERE
IT JOINS THE IOWA RIVER AND RETURNS SOUTHEASTERLY 28 MILES TO THE
MISSISSIPPI.  THE PROPOSED DIVERSION WILL TAKE ALL BUT ABOUT 25 C.F.S.
OF WATER FROM THE CEDAR RIVER AT MOSCOW.  THIS WILL CORRESPONDINGLY
REDUCE THE FLOW IN THE IOWA RIVER WHILE THE DIVERTED WATER WILL ENTER
THE MISSISSIPPI AT MUCATINE, ABOUT 20 MILES ABOVE ITS PRESENT POINT OF
ENTRY AT THE MOUTH OF THE IOWA RIVER.  THERE ARE NO CITIES OR TOWNS ON
THE CEDAR RIVER BETWEEN MOSCOW AND COLUMBUS JUNCTION AND THE RECORD
INDICATES THAT THE PETITIONER HAS OPTIONS UPON 98% OF THE RIPARIAN
RIGHTS ON THE CEDAR RIVER IN THAT AREA.  AT PETITIONER'S REQUEST, THIS
APPLICATION WAS TREATED AS A SUPPLEMENT TO ITS THEN PENDING DECLARATION
OF INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT THE SMALLER PROJECT. 

ON JUNE 3, 1941, THE COMMISSION MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 

"(1)  THAT THE CEDAR AND IOWA RIVERS ARE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES; 

(2)  THAT THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM THE CEDAR RIVER BY MEANS OF THE
DIVERSION CANAL AS SET FORTH ABOVE WOULD HAVE A DIRECT AND SUBSTANTIAL
EFFECT UPON THE FLOW AND STAGE OF THE IOWA RIVER AND HENCE WOULD AFFECT
THE NAVIGABLE CAPACITY OF THAT RIVER; 

(3)  THAT THE ALTERNATE WITHHOLDING OF WATER IN THE RESERVOIR AND
CANAL DURING PERIODS OF SHUT-DOWN OF THE POWER PLANT AND THE RELEASE OF
WATER AT SUBSTANTIAL RATES OF FLOW DURING PERIODS OF OPERATION OF THE
POWER PLANT, AS SET FORTH ABOVE, WOULD CAUSE EXTREME FLUCTUATIONS IN
THE FLOW OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT MUSCATINE, IOWA, AND WOULD
SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE NAVIGABLE CAPACITY OF THAT RIVER; 

(4)  THAT THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AS DESCRIBED IN THE DECLARATION OF
INTENTION AS SUPPLEMENTED; 

(5)  THAT THE TWO SMALL ISLANDS  ...  (IN THE CEDAR RIVER) ARE PUBLIC
LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES AND WILL BE PARTLY OR WHOLLY FLOODED BY THE
RESERVOIR OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND WILL BE OCCUPIED BY THE PROJECT; 

(6)  THAT A LICENSE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED ABOVE IS REQUIRED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT."  2 FED. POWER COMM.
REP., 958.  FN4 

ON AUGUST 11, 1941, THE PETITIONER, PURSUANT TO THAT FINDING, FILED
WITH THE COMMISSION AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO CONSTRUCT THE
PROJECT ABOVE DESCRIBED.  ON NOVEMBER 4, 1941, THE COMMISSION GRANTED
THE STATE OF IOWA'S PETITION TO INTERVENE AND, SINCE THEN, THE STATE
HAS OPPOSED ACTIVELY THE GRANTING OF THE FEDERAL LICENSE. 

ON JANUARY 29, 1944, AFTER EXTENDED HEARINGS, THE COMMISSION RENDERED
AN OPINION INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: 

"AS FIRST PRESENTED, THE PLANS OF THE APPLICANT FOR DEVELOPING THE
WATER RESOURCES OF THE CEDAR RIVER WERE NEITHER DESIRABLE NOR ADEQUATE,
BUT MANY IMPORTANT CHANGES IN DESIGN HAVE BEEN MADE.  (THE OPINION HERE
QUOTED IN A FOOTNOTE SEC. 10(A) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.)  FN5  THE
APPLICANT HAS ALSO AGREED TO CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED BY THE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT.  THE PRESENT PLANS CALL FOR A
PRACTICAL AND REASONABLY ADEQUATE DEVELOPMENT TO UTILIZE THE HEAD AND
WATER AVAILABLE, CREATE A LARGE STORAGE RESERVOIR, AND MAKE AVAILABLE
FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES A CONSIDERABLE AREA NOW UNSUITABLE FOR SUCH
USE, ALL AT A COST WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE UNREASONABLE. 

"FURTHER CHANGES IN DESIGN MAY BE DESIRABLE, BUT THEY ARE MINOR IN
CHARACTER AND CAN BE EFFECTED IF THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO MEET THE
OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT."  RE FIRST IOWA HYDRO-ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, 52 PUR (NS) 82, 84. 

WE BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN
PROCEEDING FURTHER AT THAT TIME WITH ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION UPON ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS.  SUCH
CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE INCLUDED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT  FN6  AS TO THE
PETITIONER'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAWS OF IOWA WITH
RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY RIGHTS TO MAKE ITS PROPOSED USE OF
THE AFFECTED RIVER BEDS AND BANKS AND TO DIVERT AND USE RIVER WATER FOR
THE PROPOSED POWER PURPOSES, AS WELL AS THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT, WITHIN
THE STATE OF IOWA, TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING,
TRANSMITTING, AND DISTRIBUTING POWER, AND IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS
NECESSARY TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF THE LICENSE.  THE COMMISSION,
HOWEVER, WAS CONFRONTED AT THAT POINT WITH A CLAIM BY THE STATE OF IOWA
THAT THE PETITIONER MUST NOT ONLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A FEDERAL
LICENSE FOR THE PROJECT UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, BUT SHOULD ALSO
PRESENT SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF CHAPTER 363 OF THE CODE OF IOWA, 1939, HEREINAFTER DISCUSSED, FOR A
PERMIT FROM THE STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF IOWA FOR THE SAME PROJECT. 

WHILE IT NOW APPEARS, FROM ITS BRIEF AND THE ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT,
THAT IT IS THE OPINION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 363 OF THE CODE OF IOWA AS TO THIS PROJECT HAVE
BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THOSE OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, YET, AT THE TIME OF
THE ORIGINAL HEARING, THE COMMISSION FELT THAT THE COURTS WERE THE
APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THE DECISION ON IOWA'S CONTENTION AS TO THE
APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF CHAPTER 363 OF ITS CODE IN RELATION
TO THIS PROJECT.  THE COMMISSION DECIDED, THEREFORE, TO PROCEED NO
FURTHER UNTIL THAT QUESTION HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE COURTS, AND
DISMISSED THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION STATED IN ITS OPINION: 

"THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF SUCH
STATE LAWS IS IN THE COURTS AND, IF WE DISMISS THE APPLICATION FOR
LICENSE ON THE BASIS OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
9(B), APPLICANT MAY SEEK REVIEW OF OUR ACTION AND ITS CONTENTIONS UNDER
SEC. 313(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT."  52 PUR (NS) 82, 85. 

THE COMMISSION ALSO EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT - 

"THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PRESENTED SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, PURSUANT TO
SEC. 9(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IOWA REQUIRING A PERMIT FROM THE
STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF A LICENSE UNDER THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT, AND THE PENDING APPLICATION, AS SUPPLEMENTED, SHOULD
BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ..."  ID. AT 85. 

THIS ACTION, AFTER ALL, DID NOT SAVE THE COMMISSION FROM PASSING ON
THE ISSUE, FOR THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS A RULING UPON IT, ADVERSE
BOTH TO THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS AND TO ITS OWN VIEWS ON THE LAW. 
THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING ITS OWN
INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT AND PROCEEDING WITH THE MERITS
OF THE APPLICATION WITHOUT REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE
OF ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF CHAPTER 363, OR OF ANY OTHER LAWS
OF THE STATE OF IOWA, WHICH THE COMMISSION HELD TO BE INAPPLICABLE OR
TO HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

ON THE APPLICANT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE DISMISSAL, IT WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  151 F.2D 20.  WE THEN GRANTED CERTIORARI UNDER SEC. 240(A)
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 347, AND SEC. 313(B) OF THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT, 49 STAT. 860, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 825L, BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE IN APPLYING THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE COMMISSION ON JUNE 3, 1941, IN RESPONSE TO
THE PETITIONER'S DECLARATION OF INTENTION ARE NOT IN QUESTION.  FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS APPLICATION IT IS SETTLED THAT THE PROJECT WILL AFFECT
THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE CEDAR, IOWA AND MISSISSIPPI RIVERS, EACH OF
WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A PART OF THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES; WILL AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE; WILL
FLOOD CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND WILL REQUIRE FOR
ITS CONSTRUCTION A LICENSE FROM THE COMMISSION.  FN7  THE PROJECT IS
CLEARLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT.  THE QUESTION AT ISSUE IS THE NEED, IF ANY, FOR THE
PRESENTATION OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLIANCE
WITH THE TERMS OF CHAPTER 363 OF THE CODE OF IOWA.  THIS QUESTION IS
PUT IN ISSUE BY THE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
WHICH DISMISSED THE APPLICATION SOLELY ON THE GROUND OF THE FAILURE OF
THE PETITIONER TO PRESENT SUCH EVIDENCE.  THE LAWS OF IOWA WHICH THAT
STATE CONTENDS ARE APPLICABLE AND REQUIRE A PERMIT FROM ITS EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL LICENSE ARE ALL IN SECS.
7767-7796.1 OF THE CODE OF IOWA, 1939, CONSTITUTING CHAPTER 363,
ENTITLED "MILL DAMS AND RACES."  SECTION 7767 OF THAT CHAPTER IS
ALLEGED TO REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BY THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF
THE STATE AND IS THE ONE ON WHICH THE COMMISSION'S ORDER MUST DEPEND. 
IT PROVIDES: 

"7767 PROHIBITION - PERMIT.  NO DAM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED, MAINTAINED,
OR OPERATED IN THIS STATE IN ANY NAVIGABLE OR MEANDERED STREAM FOR ANY
PURPOSE, OR IN ANY OTHER STREAM FOR MANUFACTURING OR POWER PURPOSES,
NOR SHALL ANY WATER BE TAKEN FROM SUCH STREAMS FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES,
UNLESS A PERMIT HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL TO THE
PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION, OR MUNICIPALITY CONSTRUCTING, MAINTAINING,
OR OPERATING THE SAME."  FN8 

TO REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO SECURE THE ACTUAL GRANT TO IT OF A STATE
PERMIT UNDER SEC. 7767 AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SECURING A FEDERAL
LICENSE FOR THE SAME PROJECT UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT WOULD VEST IN
THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF IOWA A VETO POWER OVER THE FEDERAL PROJECT. 
SUCH A VETO POWER EASILY COULD DESTROY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FEDERAL
ACT.  IT WOULD SUBORDINATE TO THE CONTROL OF THE STATE THE
"COMPREHENSIVE" PLANNING WHICH THE ACT PROVIDES SHALL DEPEND UPON THE
JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN9    THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL
AVOIDS THIS EXTREME RESULT BECAUSE, INSTEAD OF CHARGING THE PETITIONER
WITH FAILURE TO PRESENT SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF THE ACTUAL GRANT TO IT
OF A STATE PERMIT, THE ORDER CHARGES THE PETITIONER WITH FAILURE TO
PRESENT SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE MERELY OF ITS "COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IOWA REQUIRING A PERMIT
FROM THE STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL."  WHILE THIS AVOIDS SUBJECTING THE
PETITIONER TO AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS REFUSAL OF THE PERMIT IT DOES
NOT MEET THE SUBSTANCE OF THE OBJECTION TO THE ORDER.  FOR EXAMPLE,
SEC. 7776 OF THE STATE CODE REQUIRES THAT "THE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION,
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND EQUIPMENT OF ANY AND ALL DAMS IN SUCH
WATERS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL." 
THIS WOULD SUBJECT TO STATE CONTROL THE VERY REQUIREMENTS OF THE
PROJECT THAT CONGRESS HAS PLACED IN THE DISCRETION OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION.  FN10  A STILL GREATER DIFFICULTY IS ILLUSTRATED BY SEC.
7771.  THIS STATES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE PERMIT AS FOLLOWS: 

"7771 WHEN PERMIT GRANTED.  IF IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COUNCIL THAT
THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, OR MAINTENANCE OF THE DAM WILL NOT
MATERIALLY OBSTRUCT EXISTING NAVIGATION, OR MATERIALLY AFFECT OTHER
PUBLIC RIGHTS, WILL NOT ENDANGER LIFE OR PUBLIC HEALTH, AND ANY WATER
TAKEN FROM THE STREAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT IS RETURNED
THERETO AT THE NEAREST PRACTICABLE PLACE WITHOUT BEING MATERIALLY
DIMINISHED IN QUANTITY OR POLLUTED OR RENDERED DELETERIOUS TO FISH
LIFE, IT SHALL GRANT THE PERMIT, UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS IT
MAY PRESCRIBE." 

THIS STRIKES AT THE HEART OF THE PRESENT PROJECT.  THE FEATURE OF THE
PROJECT WHICH ESPECIALLY COMMENDED IT TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
WAS ITS DIVERSION OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE WATERS OF THE CEDAR RIVER
NEAR MOSCOW, TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR MUSCATINE.  SUCH A DIVERSION
LONG HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN ENGINEERING POSSIBILITY AND AS
CONSTITUTING THE LARGEST POWER DEVELOPMENT FORESEEABLE ON EITHER THE
CEDAR OR IOWA RIVERS.  FN11  IT IS THIS DIVERSION THAT MAKES POSSIBLE
THE INCREASE IN THE HEAD OF WATER FOR POWER DEVELOPMENT FROM A MAXIMUM
OF 35 FEET TO AN AVERAGE OF 101 FEET, THE INCREASE IN THE CAPACITY OF
THE PLANT FROM 15,000 KW. TO 50,000 KW. AND ITS OUTPUT FROM 47,000,000
KWH.  TO 200,000,000 KWH.  PER YEAR.  IT IS THIS DIVERSION THAT LED THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, ON JANUARY 29, 1944, TO MAKE ITS FAVORABLE
APPRAISAL OF THE ENLARGED PROJECT IN CONTRAST TO ITS UNFAVORABLE
APPRAISAL, AND TO THE STATE'S REJECTION, OF THE SMALLER PROJECT.  IT IS
THIS FEATURE THAT BRINGS THIS PROJECT SQUARELY UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT AND AT THE SAME TIME GIVES THE PROJECT ITS GREATEST ECONOMIC
JUSTIFICATION. 

IF A STATE PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
REQUIRING THE PETITIONER, AS A CONDITION OF SECURING ITS FEDERAL
PERMIT, TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE CODE FOR A STATE PERMIT.  COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS MAY
WELL BLOCK THE FEDERAL LICENSE.  FOR EXAMPLE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE
REQUIREMENT, DISCUSSED ABOVE, THAT THE WATER OF THE CEDAR RIVER ALL BE
RETURNED TO IT AT THE NEAREST PRACTICABLE PLACE WOULD REDUCE THE
PROJECT TO THE SMALL ONE WHICH IS CLASSIFIED BY THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION AS "NEITHER DESIRABLE NOR ADEQUATE."  SIMILARLY, COMPLIANCE
WITH THE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, IF
ADDITIONAL TO OR DIFFERENT FROM THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, MAY WELL
RESULT IN DUPLICATIONS OF EXPENDITURES THAT WOULD HANDICAP THE
FINANCIAL SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT.  COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR A
PERMIT THAT IS NOT TO BE ISSUED IS A PROCEDURE SO FUTILE THAT IT CANNOT
BE IMPUTED TO CONGRESS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION FOR IT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, UNDER THE AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO IT BY CONGRESS, TO
REQUIRE BY REGULATION THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO IT
OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A STATE
PERMIT ON THE STATE WATERS OF IOWA THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS
APPROPRIATE TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF A FEDERAL LICENSE ON THE
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THIS EVIDENCE CAN BE REQUIRED
OF THE PETITIONER UPON THE REMANDING OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE
COMMISSION. 

IN THE FEDERAL POWER ACT THERE IS A SEPARATION OF THOSE SUBJECTS
WHICH REMAIN UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATES FROM THOSE SUBJECTS
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DELEGATES TO THE UNITED STATES AND OVER WHICH
CONGRESS VESTS THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WITH AUTHORITY TO ACT.  TO
THE EXTENT OF THIS SEPARATION, THE ACT ESTABLISHES A DUAL SYSTEM OF
CONTROL.  THE DUALITY OF CONTROL CONSISTS MERELY OF THE DIVISION OF THE
COMMON ENTERPRISE BETWEEN TWO COOPERATING AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT, EACH
WITH FINAL AUTHORITY IN ITS OWN JURISDICTION.  THE DUALITY DOES NOT
REQUIRE TWO AGENCIES TO SHARE IN THE FINAL DECISION OF THE SAME ISSUE. 
WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUPERSEDES THE STATE GOVERNMENT THERE IS
NO SUGGESTION THAT THE TWO AGENCIES BOTH SHALL HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY. 
IN FACT A CONTRARY POLICY IS INDICATED IN SECS. 4(E), 10(A), (B) AND
(C), AND 23(B).  FN12  IN THOSE SECTIONS THE ACT PLACES THE
RESPONSIBILITY SQUARELY UPON FEDERAL OFFICIALS AND USUALLY UPON THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  A DUAL FINAL AUTHORITY, WITH A DUPLICATE
SYSTEM OF STATE PERMITS AND FEDERAL LICENSES REQUIRED FOR EACH PROJECT,
WOULD BE UNWORKABLE.  "COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS" OF SUCH A
DUPLICATED SYSTEM OF LICENSING WOULD BE NEARLY AS BAD.  CONFORMITY TO
BOTH STANDARDS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IN SOME CASES AND PROBABLY DIFFICULT
IN MOST OF THEM.  FN13  THE SOLUTION ADOPTED BY CONGRESS, AS TO WHAT
EVIDENCE AN APPLICANT FOR A FEDERAL LICENSE SHOULD SUBMIT TO THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, APPEARS IN SEC. 9 OF ITS ACT.  IT CONTAINS
NOT ONLY SUBSECTION (B)  FN14  BUT ALSO SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (C).  FN15
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE."  THIS ENABLES IT
TO SECURE, IN SO FAR AS IT DEEMS IT MATERIAL, SUCH PARTS OR ALL OF THE
INFORMATION THAT THE RESPECTIVE STATES MAY HAVE PRESCRIBED IN STATE
STATUTES AS A BASIS FOR STATE ACTION.  THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE REQUIRED AS TO THE PRESENT APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE IS
DESCRIBED IN SEC. 9 AND IN THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND REGULATIONS OF THE
COMMISSION.  FN16 

THE SECURING OF AN IOWA STATE PERMIT IS NOT IN ANY SENSE A CONDITION
PRECEDENT OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE THAT MUST BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE
SECURING A FEDERAL LICENSE.  IT IS A PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF
IOWA IN DEALING WITH ITS LOCAL STREAMS AND ALSO WITH THE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES WITHIN THAT STATE IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES OVER THE NAVIGABILITY OF ITS WATERS. 
NOW THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN JURISDICTION OF SUCH WATERS
UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, IT HAS NOT BY STATUTE OR REGULATION ADDED
THE STATE REQUIREMENTS TO ITS FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. 

THE STATE OF IOWA, IN ITS PETITION TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION, STATED IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED DIVERSION OF
WATER FROM THE CEDAR RIVER TO THE MISSISSIPPI:  "SAID DIVERSION WOULD
BE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7771, CODE OF IOWA
1939."  ALSO, IN THE STATE'S MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, IT ALLEGED THAT "BY REASON OF SAID
PROVISIONS OF LAW (SECS. 7767 AND 7771, CODE OF IOWA, 1939) AND THE
DIVERSION OF WATER INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT OF PETITIONER, THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF IOWA COULD NOT LAWFULLY GRANT A
PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF THE DAM PROPOSED."  FURTHERMORE, THE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, WHICH INCLUDES THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE, ON JULY 5,
1944, ADOPTED A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IOWA TO
INTERVENE IN THIS CASE BEFORE THAT COURT AND "THEREBY TAKE STEPS TO
SUSTAIN THE SAID ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION (DISMISSING THE
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A FEDERAL LICENSE)" BECAUSE "IT IS VITAL
TO THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE OF IOWA THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION BE SUSTAINED."  THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE STATE OF IOWA NOT
ONLY IS OPPOSED TO THE GRANTING OF A STATE PERMIT BUT IS OPPOSED ALSO
TO THE GRANTING OF A FEDERAL LICENSE FOR THE PROJECT.  THIS OPPOSITION
IS BASED AT LEAST IN PART ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE STATUTE, AS
INTERPRETED BY THE STATE OFFICIALS, EXPRESSES A POLICY OPPOSED TO THE
DIVERSION OF WATER FROM ONE STREAM TO ANOTHER IN IOWA UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE PRESENT. 

ACCEPTING THIS AS THE MEANING OF SEC. 7771 OF THE IOWA CODE BRINGS US
TO CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT UPON IT AND THE
RELATED STATE STATUTES.  WE FIND THAT WHEN THAT ACT IS READ IN THE
LIGHT OF ITS LONG AND COLORFUL LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IT DISCLOSES BOTH A
VIGOROUS DETERMINATION OF CONGRESS TO MAKE PROGRESS WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONG IDLE WATER POWER RESOURCES OF THE NATION AND A
DETERMINATION TO AVOID UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF THE JURISDICTION OF
THE STATES.  THE SOLUTION REACHED IS TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLE OF THE
DIVISION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENTS.  THIS HAS RESULTED IN A DUAL SYSTEM INVOLVING THE CLOSE
INTEGRATION OF THESE POWERS RATHER THAN A DUAL SYSTEM OF FUTILE
DUPLICATION OF TWO AUTHORITIES OVER THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER. 

THE ACT LEAVES TO THE STATES THEIR TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION SUBJECT
TO THE ADMITTEDLY SUPERIOR RIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THROUGH
CONGRESS, TO REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, ADMINISTER THE
PUBLIC LANDS AND RESERVATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND, IN CERTAIN
CASES, EXERCISE AUTHORITY UNDER THE TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THESE SOURCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ARE ALL APPLIED IN THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  FN17 

THE CLOSENESS OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THESE
PROJECTS AND ITS OBVIOUS CONCERN IN MAINTAINING CONTROL OVER THEIR
ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS IS EMPHASIZED BY SUCH
PROVISIONS AS THOSE OF SEC. 14 AUTHORIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AT
THE EXPIRATION OF A LICENSE, TO TAKE OVER THE LICENSED PROJECT BY
PAYMENT OF "THE NET INVESTMENT OF THE LICENSEE IN THE PROJECT OR
PROJECTS TAKEN, NOT TO EXCEED THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN,"
PLUS AN ALLOWANCE FOR SEVERANCE DAMAGES.  THE SCOPE OF THE WHOLE
PROGRAM HAS BEEN FURTHER AIDED, IN 1940, BY THE DEFINITION GIVEN TO
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES IN UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN
POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377.  "STUDENTS OF OUR LEGAL EVOLUTION KNOW HOW
THIS COURT INTERPRETED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO LIFT
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF LOCAL CONTROLS AND INTO
THE DOMAIN OF FEDERAL CONTROL.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, TO
UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377."  NORTHWEST
AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292, 303. 

IT WAS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT THIS PETITIONER, IN
APRIL, 1941, MADE APPLICATION FOR A FEDERAL LICENSE FOR THIS ENLARGED
PROJECT.  THIS PROJECT THUS ILLUSTRATES THE KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT, IN
RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES, THAT IS BROUGHT FORTH BY THE NEW RECOGNITION OF ITS
VALUE WHEN VIEWED FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE VIEWPOINT OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION.  UNTIL 1941, THIS ENLARGED PROJECT HAD REMAINED DORMANT AT
LEAST FROM THE TIME WHEN ITS VALUE WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE REPORT TO
CONGRESS FILED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1929.  FN18 

FURTHER LIGHT IS THROWN UPON THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT BY
THE STATEMENT, MADE BY REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM L. LAFOLLETTE OF
WASHINGTON, A MEMBER OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WATER POWER, WHICH
REPORTED THE BILL WHICH LATER BECAME THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT OF
1920.  IN THE DEBATE WHICH LED TO THE INSERTION IN SEC. 9(B) OF THE
REFERENCE TO STATE LAWS AS TO THE BED AND BANKS OF STREAMS, HE SAID: 

"THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WITHIN THE STATE.  IT CAN DISPOSE OF THE
BEDS, OR PARTS OF THEM, REGARDLESS OF THE RIPARIAN OWNERSHIP OF THE
BANKS, IF IT DESIRES TO, AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN SOME STATES.  IF WE
PUT IN THIS LANGUAGE, WHICH IS PRACTICALLY TAKEN FROM THAT SUPREME
COURT DECISION (UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316), AS TO THE
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE STATES AS TO THE BED AND THE BANKS AND TO THE
DIVERSION OF THE WATER, THEN IT IS SURE THAT WE HAVE NOT INFRINGED ANY
OF THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES IN THAT RESPECT, OR ANY OF THEIR RULES OF
PROPERTY, AND WE ARE TRYING IN THIS BILL ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE TO
OVERCOME A DIVIDED AUTHORITY AND PASS A BILL THAT WILL MAKE IT POSSIBLE
TO GET DEVELOPMENT.  WE ARE EARNESTLY TRYING NOT TO INFRINGE THE RIGHTS
OF THE STATES.  IF POSSIBLE WE WANT A BILL THAT CAN NOT BE DEFEATED IN
THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS, BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SOME
PROVISION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE PUT IN THE BILL TO SAFEGUARD THE
STATES."  56 CONG. REC. 9810. 

AS INDICATED BY REPRESENTATIVE LAFOLLETTE, CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED
WITH OVERCOMING THE DANGER OF DIVIDED AUTHORITY SO AS TO BRING ABOUT
THE NEEDED DEVELOPMENT OF WATER POWER AND ALSO WITH THE RECOGNITION OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE STATES SO AS TO SUSTAIN THE VALIDITY
OF THE ACT.  THE RESULTING INTEGRATION OF THE RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS
OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE CAREFUL
PRESERVATION OF THE SEPARATE INTERESTS OF THE STATES THROUGHOUT THE
ACT, WITHOUT SETTING UP A DIVIDED AUTHORITY OVER ANY ONE SUBJECT. 
FN19 

27 EXPRESSLY "SAVES" CERTAIN STATE LAWS RELATING TO PROPERTY RIGHTS AS
TO THE USE OF WATER, SO THAT THESE ARE NOT SUPERSEDED BY THE TERMS OF
THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  IT PROVIDES:    "SEC. 27.  THAT NOTHING HEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AFFECTING OR INTENDING TO AFFECT OR IN
ANY WAY TO INTERFERE WITH THE LAWS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES RELATING TO
THE CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF WATER USED IN
IRRIGATION OR FOR MUNICIPAL OR OTHER USES, OR ANY VESTED RIGHT ACQUIRED
THEREIN."  41 STAT. 1077, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 821. 

AN EXPRESS "SAVING" CLAUSE IN THE FEDERAL POWER ACT IF THE USUAL RULES
OF SUPERSEDURE ARE TO BE OVERCOME.  SECTIONS 27 AND 9(B) WERE BOTH
INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT OF 1920 IN THEIR
PRESENT FORM.  THE DIRECTNESS AND CLARITY OF SEC. 27 AS A "SAVING"
CLAUSE AND ITS LOCATION NEAR THE END OF THE ACT EMPHASIZES THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ITS PURPOSE AND THAT OF SEC. 9(B) WHICH IS INCLUDED
IN SEC. 9, IN THE EARLY PART OF THE ACT, WHICH DEALS WITH THE
MARSHALLING OF INFORMATION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A NEW FEDERAL
LICENSE.  IN VIEW OF THE USE BY CONGRESS OF SUCH AN ADEQUATE "SAVING"
CLAUSE IN SEC. 27, ITS FAILURE TO USE SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN SEC. 9(B) IS
PERSUASIVE THAT SEC. 9(B) SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE SAME EFFECT AS IS
GIVEN TO SEC. 27. 

THE EFFECT OF SEC. 27, IN PROTECTING STATE LAWS FROM SUPERSEDURE, IS
LIMITED TO LAWS AS TO THE CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE OR DISTRIBUTION
OF WATER IN IRRIGATION OR FOR MUNICIPAL OR OTHER USES OF THE SAME
NATURE.  IT THEREFORE HAS PRIMARY, IF NOT EXCLUSIVE, REFERENCE TO SUCH
PROPRIETARY RIGHTS.  THE PHRASE "ANY VESTED RIGHT ACQUIRED THEREIN"
FURTHER EMPHASIZES THE APPLICATION OF THE SECTION TO PROPERTY RIGHTS. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PARAGRAPH TO SUGGEST A BROADER SCOPE UNLESS IT
BE THE WORDS "OTHER USES."  THOSE WORDS, HOWEVER, ARE CONFINED TO
RIGHTS OF THE SAME NATURE AS THOSE RELATING TO THE USE OF WATER IN
IRRIGATION OR FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES.  THIS WAS SO HELD IN AN EARLY
DECISION BY A DISTRICT COURT, RELATING TO SEC. 27 AND UPHOLDING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT, WHERE IT WAS STATED THAT "A PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE WORDS 'OTHER USES' SHALL BE
CONSTRUED EJUSDEM GENERIS WITH THE WORDS 'IRRIGATION' AND
'MUNICIPAL.'"  ALABAMA POWER CO. V. GULF POWER CO., 283 F. 606, 619. 

THIS SECTION THEREFORE IS THOROUGHLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INTEGRATION
RATHER THAN THE DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS UNDER
THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  IT STRENGTHENS THE ARGUMENT THAT, IN THOSE
FIELDS WHERE RIGHTS ARE NOT THUS "SAVED" TO THE STATES, CONGRESS IS
WILLING TO LET THE SUPERSEDURE OF THE STATE LAWS BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION
TAKE ITS NATURAL COURSE.  FN20 

SEC. 9(A) AND (C).  FN22 THE ENTIRE SECTION IS DEVOTED TO SECURING
ADEQUATE INFORMATION FOR THE COMMISSION AS TO PENDING APPLICATIONS FOR
LICENSES.  WHERE SEC. 9(A) CALLS FOR ENGINEERING AND FINANCIAL
INFORMATION, SEC. 9(B) CALLS FOR LEGAL INFORMATION.  THIS MAKES SEC.
9(B) A NATURAL PLACE IN WHICH TO DESCRIBE THE EVIDENCE WHICH THE
COMMISSION SHALL REQUIRE IN ORDER TO PASS UPON APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL
LICENSES.  THIS MAKES IT A CORRESPONDINGLY UNNATURAL PLACE TO ESTABLISH
BY IMPLICATION SUCH A SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AS THAT CONTAINED IN SEC. 27
AND WHICH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE OF IOWA,
WOULD ENABLE CHAPTER 363 OF THE CODE OF IOWA, 1939, TO REMAIN IN EFFECT
ALTHOUGH IN CONFLICT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF SEC. 9(B) THAT REQUIRES
SUCH A CONCLUSION. 

IT DOES NOT ITSELF REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH ANY STATE LAWS.  ITS
REFERENCE TO STATE LAWS IS BY WAY OF SUGGESTION TO THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION OF SUBJECTS AS TO WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY WISH SOME PROOF
SUBMITTED TO IT OF THE APPLICANT'S PROGRESS.  THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED IS
DESCRIBED MERELY AS THAT WHICH SHALL BE "SATISFACTORY" TO THE
COMMISSION.  THE NEED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATE LAWS, IF
ANY, ARISES NOT FROM THIS FEDERAL STATUTE BUT FROM THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE STATE STATUTES THEMSELVES. 

WHEN THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION, THAT
COMMISSION WILL NOT ACT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES
HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH QUESTIONS AS THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE LEGAL
TITLE OF THE APPLICANT TO ITS RIPARIAN RIGHTS, OR AS TO THE VALIDITY OF
ITS LOCAL FRANCHISES, IF ANY, RELATING TO PROPOSED INTRASTATE PUBLIC
UTILITY SERVICE.  SECTION 9(B) SAYS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY WISH TO
HAVE "SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE" OF THE PROGRESS MADE BY THE APPLICANT
TOWARD MEETING LOCAL REQUIREMENTS BUT IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE
COMMISSION IS TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE
STEPS TAKEN.  THE REFERENCES MADE IN SEC. 9(B) TO BEDS AND BANKS OF
STREAMS, TO PROPRIETARY RIGHTS TO DIVERT OR USE WATER, OR TO LEGAL
RIGHTS TO ENGAGE LOCALLY IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, TRANSMITTING
AND DISTRIBUTING POWER NEITHER ADD ANYTHING TO NOR DETRACT ANYTHING
FROM THE FORCE OF THE LOCAL LAWS, IF ANY, ON THOSE SUBJECTS.  IN SO FAR
AS THOSE LAWS HAVE NOT BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, THEY
REMAIN AS APPLICABLE AND EFFECTIVE AS THEY WERE BEFORE ITS PASSAGE. 
THE STATE OF IOWA, HOWEVER, HAS SOUGHT TO SUSTAIN THE APPLICABILITY AND
VALIDITY OF CHAPTER 363 OF THE CODE OF IOWA IN THIS CONNECTION, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, BY THE IMPLICATIONS OF SEC. 9(B),
HAS RECOGNIZED THIS CHAPTER OF IOWA LAW AS PART OF A SYSTEM OF DUAL
CONTROL OF POWER PROJECT PERMITS, CUMBERSOME AND COMPLICATED THOUGH IT
BE.  IF IT HAD BEEN THE WISH OF CONGRESS TO MAKE THE APPLICANT OBTAIN
CONSENT OF STATE AS WELL AS FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO EACH PROJECT, THE
SIMPLE THING WOULD HAVE BEEN TO SO PROVIDE.  IN THE COURSE OF THE LONG
DEBATE ON THE LEGISLATION IT WAS PROPOSED AT ONE TIME TO PROVIDE FOR
SOME SUCH CONSENT IN SEC. 9(B). 

FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE SHIELDS BILL, S. NO. 1419, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
IN 1917, A PROVISO WAS PROPOSED: 

"THAT BEFORE THE PERMIT SHALL BE GRANTED UNDER THIS ACT, THE
PERMITTEE MUST FIRST OBTAIN, IN SUCH MANNER AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE
LAWS OF THE STATES, THE CONSENT OF THE STATE OR STATES IN WHICH THE DAM
OR OTHER STRUCTURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER POWER IS PROPOSED
TO BE CONSTRUCTED." 

THIS PROVISO WAS NOT ENACTED INTO LAW BUT IT ILLUSTRATES THE
CONCRETENESS WITH WHICH THE PROPOSAL WAS BEFORE CONGRESS.  IN 1918,
WHEN REPRESENTATIVE MONDELL, OF WYOMING, SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED THE
PRESENT LANGUAGE AGAINST AMENDMENT, HE STATED THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 9(B)
AS FOLLOWS: 

"THERE ARE TWO CONTROLLING REASONS FOR THE INSERTION OF THIS
PARAGRAPH.  THE FIRST, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WATER-POWER LEGISLATION,
IS THAT THE WATER-POWER COMMISSION SHALL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF THE
INFORMATION WHICH THE STATES POSSESS RELATIVE TO THE CONDITION OF WATER
SUPPLY AT THE POINT OF PROPOSED DIVERSION.  THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT
REASON FOR A PROVISION OF THIS KIND....  THE SECOND REASON IS SO THAT
THE BILL SHALL CARRY WITH IT NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION THAT THEY MUST
PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE LAWS, WHICH THEY MUST DO IN ANY
EVENT, WHETHER THE PROVISION WERE IN THE BILL OR NOT."  56 CONG. REC.
9813-9814. 

THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION AS THUS EXPLAINED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONTENTION OF THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE.  IT PROVIDES FOR
PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION TO THE FEDERAL COMMISSION AND PROTECTS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE STATES.  THIS EXPLANATION DOES NOT SUPPORT
THE CONTENTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA THAT SEC. 9(B) AMOUNTS TO THE
SUBJECTION OF THE FEDERAL LICENSE TO REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE LAW ON
THE SAME SUBJECT.  THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS
APPARENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CULMINATED IN THE
PASSAGE OF THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT IN 1920.  THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT WERE THEN SO GENERALLY KNOWN AS TO HAVE MADE SUCH A RESTRICTIVE
INTERPRETATION IMPOSSIBLE AND A DENIAL OF IT UNNECESSARY.  IT WAS THE
OUTGROWTH OF A WIDELY SUPPORTED EFFORT OF THE CONSERVATIONISTS TO
SECURE ENACTMENT OF A COMPLETE SCHEME OF NATIONAL REGULATION WHICH
WOULD PROMOTE THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER RESOURCES OF
THE NATION, IN SO FAR AS IT WAS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE FEDERAL POWER
TO DO SO, INSTEAD OF THE PIECEMEAL, RESTRICTIVE, NEGATIVE APPROACH OF
THE RIVER AND HARBOR ACTS AND OTHER FEDERAL LAWS PREVIOUSLY ENACTED. 

IT WAS A MAJOR UNDERTAKING INVOLVING A MAJOR CHANGE OF NATIONAL
POLICY.  FN23  THAT IT WAS THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO SECURE A
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL RESOURCES AND NOT MERELY TO
PREVENT OBSTRUCTIONS TO NAVIGATION IS APPARENT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT, THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF WHICH HAS BEEN SEVERAL TIMES REVIEWED
AND APPROVED BY THE COURTS.  FN24 

THE DETAILED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FEDERAL PLAN OF
REGULATION LEAVE NO ROOM OR NEED FOR CONFLICTING STATE CONTROLS.  FN25
THE CONTENTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA IS COMPARABLE TO THAT WHICH WAS
PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF 41 STATES AND REJECTED BY THIS COURT IN UNITED
STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377, 404-405, 426-427, WHERE
THIS COURT SAID: 

"THE STATES POSSESS CONTROL OF THE WATERS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS,
'SUBJECT TO THE ACKNOWLEDGED JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION IN REGARD TO COMMERCE AND THE NAVIGATION OF THE WATERS
OF RIVERS.'  IT IS THIS SUBORDINATE LOCAL CONTROL THAT, EVEN AS TO
NAVIGABLE RIVERS, CREATES BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS A
CONTRARIETY OF INTERESTS RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND PROTECTION OF
WATERS THROUGH LICENSES, THE OPERATION OF STRUCTURES AND THE
ACQUISITION OF PROJECTS AT THE END OF THE LICENSE TERM.  BUT THERE IS
NO DOUBT THAT THE UNITED STATES POSSESSES THE POWER TO CONTROL THE
ERECTION OF STRUCTURES IN NAVIGABLE WATERS. 

     .         .       .         .         . 

"THE POINT IS THAT NAVIGABLE WATERS ARE SUBJECT TO NATIONAL PLANNING
AND CONTROL IN THE BROAD REGULATION OF COMMERCE GRANTED THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  THE LICENSE CONDITIONS TO WHICH OBJECTION IS MADE HAVE AN
OBVIOUS RELATIONSHIP TO THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  EVEN IF
THERE WERE NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP THE PLENARY POWER OF CONGRESS OVER
NAVIGABLE WATERS WOULD EMPOWER IT TO DENY THE PRIVILEGE OF CONSTRUCTING
AN OBSTRUCTION IN THOSE WATERS.  IT MAY LIKEWISE GRANT THE PRIVILEGE ON
TERMS.  IT IS NO OBJECTION TO THE TERMS AND TO THE EXERTION OF THE
POWER THAT 'ITS EXERCISE IS ATTENDED BY THE SAME INCIDENTS WHICH ATTEND
THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATES.'  THE CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS COMPLETE UNLESS LIMITED BY THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT." 

IT IS THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION RATHER THAN THE IOWA EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL THAT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT MUST PASS UPON THESE
ISSUES ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF IOWA AS WELL AS ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS. 

WE ACCORDINGLY REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW WITH
DIRECTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  41 STAT. 1063, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 838, 16 U.S.C. SECS. 791A
825R. 

FN2  "SEC.  23  ....  (B)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON,
STATE, OR MUNICIPALITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING ELECTRIC POWER,
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, OR MAINTAIN ANY DAM, WATER CONDUIT, RESERVOIR,
POWER HOUSE, OR OTHER WORKS INCIDENTAL THERETO ACROSS, ALONG, OR IN ANY
OF THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR UPON ANY PART OF THE
PUBLIC LANDS  ...  OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  EXCEPT UNDER AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF  ...  A LICENSE GRANTED PURSUANT TO THIS
ACT.  ANY PERSON, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, STATE, OR MUNICIPALITY
INTENDING TO CONSTRUCT A DAM OR OTHER PROJECT WORKS ACROSS, ALONG,
OVER, OR IN ANY STREAM OR PART THEREOF, OTHER THAN THOSE DEFINED HEREIN
AS NAVIGABLE WATERS, AND OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS JURISDICTION UNDER ITS
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES SHALL BEFORE SUCH CONSTRUCTION FILE DECLARATION OF SUCH
INTENTION WITH THE COMMISSION, WHEREUPON THE COMMISSION SHALL CAUSE
IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION OF SUCH PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TO BE MADE, AND
IF UPON INVESTIGATION IT SHALL FIND THAT THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY SUCH PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, SUCH
PERSON, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, STATE, OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL NOT
CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, OR OPERATE SUCH DAM OR OTHER PROJECT WORKS UNTIL
IT SHALL HAVE APPLIED FOR AND SHALL HAVE RECEIVED A LICENSE UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  IF THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT SO FIND, AND IF NO
PUBLIC LANDS  ...  ARE AFFECTED, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
CONSTRUCT SUCH DAM OR OTHER PROJECT WORKS IN SUCH STREAM UPON
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAWS."  49 STAT. 846, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 817. 

FN3  THIS DESCRIBED A PROJECT INCLUDING AN 8,500 FOOT EARTHEN DAM,
AND A POWER PLANT OF THREE 5,000 KW. HYDRAULIC TURBINE GENERATORS
OPERATING UNDER A MAXIMUM HEAD OF 35 FEET, WITH AN ESTIMATED OUTPUT OF
47,000,000 KWH.  PER YEAR.  THE WATER WAS TO BE RETURNED TO THE CEDAR
RIVER IMMEDIATELY BELOW THE DAM. 

FN4  ON FEBRUARY 7, 1940, THE COMMISSION HAD SENT NOTICE TO THE
GOVERNOR OF IOWA OF THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF INTENTION
AND INVITED HIM TO PRESENT INFORMATION AND COMMENTS RELATIVE THERETO. 
THE STATE, HOWEVER, TOOK NO PART IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE RECORD ALSO
INDICATES THAT TWICE IN THE THREE YEARS BEFORE THE PRESENT PROCEEDING,
THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE STATE OF IOWA REJECTED APPLICATIONS OF THE
PETITIONER REQUESTING STATE PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT A DAM NEAR MOSCOW
COMPARABLE TO THAT PROPOSED IN ALL OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, BUT NOT
INCLUDING A DIVERSION OF WATER FROM THE CEDAR TO THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER.  THE LAST APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE COUNCIL FOR SUCH
A PERMIT WAS FILED AUGUST 12, 1940, AND REJECTED JUNE 25, 1941.  NO
APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
FOR A STATE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING THE CANAL
DIVERTING MOST OF THE FLOW OF THE CEDAR RIVER TO THE MISSISSIPPI AND
PROVIDING FOR A PLANT AND TAILRACE ON THE BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI.  IN
ITS PETITION TO INTERVENE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING FOR A FEDERAL
LICENSE, THE STATE ALLEGED THAT SUCH A DIVERSION WOULD VIOLATE SEC.
7771(IN CHAPTER 363) OF THE CODE OF IOWA, 1939.  THAT ALLEGATION
TOUCHES THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE.    FN5  "SEC.  10.  ALL
LICENSES ISSUED UNDER THIS PART SHALL BE ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 

"(A)  THAT THE PROJECT ADOPTED, INCLUDING THE MAPS, PLANS, AND
SPECIFICATIONS, SHALL BE SUCH AS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION WILL
BE BEST ADAPTED TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR IMPROVING OR DEVELOPING A
WATERWAY OR WATERWAYS FOR THE USE OR BENEFIT OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND UTILIZATION OF WATERPOWER
DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER BENEFICIAL PUBLIC USES, INCLUDING
RECREATIONAL PURPOSES; AND IF NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SECURE SUCH PLAN
THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE MODIFICATION OF ANY
PROJECT AND OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROJECT WORKS BEFORE
APPROVAL."  49 STAT. 842, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 803(A). 

FN6  "SEC.  9.  THAT EACH APPLICANT FOR A LICENSE HEREUNDER SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION - 

     .         . .         .         . 

"(B)  SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR STATES WITHIN WHICH THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED WITH RESPECT TO BED AND BANKS AND TO
THE APPROPRIATION, DIVERSION, AND USE OF WATER FOR POWER PURPOSES AND
WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING,
TRANSMITTING, AND DISTRIBUTING POWER, AND IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS
NECESSARY TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF A LICENSE UNDER THIS ACT."  41
STAT. 1068, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 802(B). 

FN7  "SEC.  4.  THE COMMISSION IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED - 

     .         .        .         .         . 

"(E)  TO ISSUE LICENSES  ... TO ANY CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE THEREOF,  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE
OF CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING, AND MAINTAINING DAMS, WATER CONDUITS,
RESERVOIRS, POWER HOUSES, TRANSMISSION LINES, OR OTHER PROJECT WORKS
NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF
NAVIGATION AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, TRANSMISSION, AND UTILIZATION OF
POWER ACROSS, ALONG, FROM, OR IN ANY OF THE STREAMS OR OTHER BODIES OF
WATER OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS JURISDICTION UNDER ITS AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR
UPON ANY PART OF THE PUBLIC LANDS  ...  OF THE UNITED STATES  ...:
PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NO LICENSE AFFECTING THE NAVIGABLE CAPACITY OF
ANY NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL THE
PLANS OF THE DAM OR OTHER STRUCTURES AFFECTING NAVIGATION HAVE BEEN
APPROVED BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND THE SECRETARY OF WAR.  WHENEVER
THE CONTEMPLATED IMPROVEMENT IS, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION,
DESIRABLE AND JUSTIFIED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPROVING OR DEVELOPING A WATERWAY OR WATERWAYS FOR THE USE OR BENEFIT
OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, A FINDING TO THAT EFFECT SHALL BE
MADE BY THE COMMISSION AND SHALL BECOME A PART OF THE RECORDS OF THE
COMMISSION:..."  49 STAT. 840, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 797(E).  SEE ALSO, SEC.
23(B), NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN8  SECTIONS 7771, 7776, 7792 AND 7796 OF CHAPTER 363 HAVE A LESS
DIRECT RELATION TO THE ISSUE BUT WOULD BE SUPERSEDED BY THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT IF SEC. 7767 IS SUPERSEDED BY IT. 

FN9  SEE SEC. 10(A), NOTE 5, SUPRA; SEC. 23(B), NOTE 2, SUPRA; AND
SEC. 4(E), NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN10  SEE SEC. 10(A), NOTE 5, SUPRA; AND ALSO: 

"SEC. 10.  ALL LICENSES ISSUED UNDER THIS PART SHALL BE ON THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:... 

"(B)  THAT EXCEPT WHEN EMERGENCY SHALL REQUIRE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
NAVIGATION, LIFE, HEALTH, OR PROPERTY, NO SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OR
ADDITION NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE MADE TO ANY
DAM OR OTHER PROJECT WORKS CONSTRUCTED HEREUNDER  ...  WITHOUT THE
PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION; AND ANY EMERGENCY ALTERATION OR
ADDITION SO MADE SHALL THEREAFTER BE SUBJECT TO SUCH MODIFICATION AND
CHANGE AS THE COMMISSION MAY DIRECT. 

"(C)  THAT THE LICENSEE SHALL MAINTAIN THE PROJECT WORKS IN A
CONDITION OF REPAIR ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION AND FOR THE
EFFICIENT OPERATION OF SAID WORKS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSMISSION
OF POWER, SHALL MAKE ALL NECESSARY RENEWALS AND REPLACEMENTS, SHALL
ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE DEPRECIATION RESERVES FOR SUCH
PURPOSES, SHALL SO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE SAID WORKS AS NOT TO IMPAIR
NAVIGATION, AND SHALL CONFORM TO SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE
COMMISSION MAY FROM TIME TO TIME PRESCRIBE FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIFE,
HEALTH, AND PROPERTY...."  49 STAT. 842, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 803(B) AND
(C). 

FN11  REPORT FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS ON THE IOWA RIVER AND ITS
TRIBUTARIES MADE IN 1929 COVERING NAVIGATION, FLOOD CONTROL, POWER
DEVELOPMENT AND IRRIGATION.  H.R. DOC. NO. 134, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS.,
86, 87, 90. 

FN12  SEE NOTES 7, 5, 10 AND 2, SUPRA. 

FN13  IN ADDITION TO THOSE GIVEN IN THE TEXT, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROJECT REQUIREMENTS OF THE IOWA STATUTES AND
THOSE OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT APPEARS IN SEC. 7792 OF THE IOWA CODE. 
THAT SECTION REQUIRES THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT DAM
OR RACEWAY WITHIN ONE YEAR AND THE COMPLETION OF THE PLANT WITHIN THREE
YEARS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE PERMIT.  THIS CONFLICTS WITH SEC. 13 OF
THE FEDERAL POWER ACT WHICH MAKES THIS LARGELY DISCRETIONARY WITH THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION BUT GENERALLY CONTEMPLATES THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION BE COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE
LICENSE.  SO IN SEC. 7793 OF THE IOWA CODE, THE LIFE OF A PERMIT
CONFLICTS WITH THE TERM OF A LICENSE UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN15  "SEC.  9.  THAT EACH APPLICANT FOR A LICENSE HEREUNDER SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION - 

"(A)  SUCH MAPS, PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES OF COST AS MAY
BE REQUIRED FOR A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.  SUCH
MAPS, PLANS, AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION SHALL
BE MADE A PART OF THE LICENSE; AND THEREAFTER NO CHANGE SHALL BE MADE
IN SAID MAPS, PLANS, OR SPECIFICATIONS UNTIL SUCH CHANGES SHALL HAVE
BEEN APPROVED AND MADE A PART OF SUCH LICENSE BY THE COMMISSION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  SUCH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE."  41
STAT. 1068, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 802(A) AND (C). 

FN16  THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECS. 303,
308 AND 309, 49 STAT. 855, 858, 16 U.S.C. SECS. 825B, 825G AND 825H,
INTERPRETING SECS. 4 AND 9 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE AND REGULATIONS, 1938, SECS. 4.40-4.51, 18
C.F.R. SECS. 4.40-4.51.  THEY COVER THE FIELD SO FULLY AS TO LEAVE NO
PURPOSE TO BE SERVED BY FILING COMPARABLE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN SOME
ALTERNATIVE FORM UNDER STATE LAWS AS A BASIS FOR A STATE PERMIT. 
EXHIBITS D AND E, REQUIRED BY SEC. 4.41 OF THE REGULATIONS, ARE TO
SATISFY SEC. 9(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT AND HAVE TO DO ESPECIALLY
WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE USE OF WATER UNDER THE STATE LAWS AND DO
NOT ALTER THE LEGAL SITUATION PRESENTED BY THE ACT ITSELF.  THESE
EXHIBITS ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 

"EXHIBIT D. - EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR STATES WITHIN WHICH THE
PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED WITH RESPECT TO BED AND BANKS AND TO THE
APPROPRIATION, DIVERSION, AND USE OF WATER FOR POWER PURPOSES AND WITH
RESPECT TO THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING,
TRANSMITTING, AND DISTRIBUTING POWER, AND IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS,
NECESSARY TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF THE LICENSE APPLIED FOR, INCLUDING
A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, IF REQUIRED.  THIS EVIDENCE
SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A STATEMENT OF THE STEPS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN
AND THE STEPS THAT REMAIN TO BE TAKEN TO ACQUIRE FRANCHISE OR OTHER
RIGHTS FROM STATES, COUNTIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES BEFORE THE PROJECT CAN
BE COMPLETED AND PUT INTO OPERATION. 

"EXHIBIT E. - THE NATURE, EXTENT, AND OWNERSHIP OF WATER RIGHTS WHICH
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT COVERED
BY APPLICATION, TOGETHER WITH SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT
HAS PROCEEDED AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE IN PERFECTING ITS RIGHTS TO USE
SUFFICIENT WATER FOR PROPER OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WORKS.  A
CERTIFICATE FROM THE PROPER STATE AGENCY SETTING FORTH THE EXTENT AND
VALIDITY OF THE APPLICANT'S WATER RIGHTS SHALL BE APPENDED IF
PRACTICABLE.  IN CASE THE APPROVAL OR PERMISSION OF ONE OR MORE STATE
AGENCIES IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE
APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO TAKE OR USE WATER FOR THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT
WORKS, DULY CERTIFIED EVIDENCE OF SUCH APPROVAL OR PERMISSION, OR A
SHOWING OF CAUSE WHY SUCH EVIDENCE CANNOT BE REASONABLY SUBMITTED SHALL
ALSO BE FILED.  WHEN A STATE CERTIFICATE IS INVOLVED, ONE CERTIFIED
COPY AND THREE UNCERTIFIED COPIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED."  FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION RULES OF PRACTICE AND REGULATIONS, EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 1938,
PP. 21-22. 

FN17  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOOK ITS GREATEST STEP TOWARD EXERCISING
ITS JURISDICTION IN THIS FIELD BY AUTHORIZING FEDERAL LICENSES, UNDER
THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT OF 1920(41 STAT. 1063), FOR TERMS OF 50
YEARS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER POWER IN THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THAT ACT WAS LIMITED IN 1921 BY THE EXCLUSION FROM IT
OF WATER POWER PROJECTS IN NATIONAL PARKS OR NATIONAL MONUMENTS.  41
STAT. 1353.  THE COMMISSION WAS REORGANIZED SO AS TO IMPROVE ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY IN 1930.  46 STAT. 797.  THE ACT WAS GENERALLY
REVISED AND PERFECTED ON AUGUST 26, 1935, 49 STAT. 803, WHEN IT
RECEIVED THE NAME OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  IT WAS THEN MADE PART I OF
TITLE II OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY ACT OF 1935. 

THIS LAST STEP WAS SHORTLY AFTER THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN UNITED
STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463, AND IT HAS SERVED TO CLARIFY THE
LAW AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO THAT DECISION.  AMONG OTHER THINGS, THIS
LAST STEP AMENDED SEC. 23 SO AS EXPRESSLY TO REQUIRE A FEDERAL LICENSE
FOR EVERY WATER POWER PROJECT IN THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  IT ALSO MADE MANDATORY, INSTEAD OF DISCRETIONARY, THE FILING
WITH THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION OF A DECLARATION OF INTENTION BY
ANYONE INTENDING TO CONSTRUCT A PROJECT IN NON-NAVIGABLE WATERS OVER
WHICH CONGRESS HAD JURISDICTION UNDER ITS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
COMMERCE.  IT CONTINUED ITS RECITAL OF PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT SUCH
PROJECTS UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAWS, RATHER THAN WITH THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT, PROVIDED THE PROJECTS WERE NOT IN NAVIGABLE WATERS
OF THE UNITED STATES, DID NOT AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE AND DID NOT AFFECT THE PUBLIC LANDS OR RESERVATIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES.  THESE AMENDMENTS SHARPENED THE LINE BETWEEN THE
STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS AND HELPED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION FOR THE GRANTING OF APPROPRIATE LICENSES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF WATER POWER RESOURCES IN THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  SEE ALSO THE RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL PROJECTS
SHOWN IN THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION 1921-1945. 

FN18  H.R. DOC. NO. 134, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS., REFLECTING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISTRICT ENGINEER, PP. 8-90; DIVISION ENGINEER,
P. 90; MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION, PP. 90-93; BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR
RIVERS AND HARBORS, PP. 3-8; AND THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, PP. 1-3.  SEE
ESPECIALLY PP. 86, 87, 90. 

FN19  INSTANCES OF SUCH PROVISIONS ARE THE FOLLOWING:  SEC. 4(A) AND
(C), COOPERATION OF THE COMMISSION WITH THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND
OTHER AGENCIES OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS IS REQUIRED IN THE
INVESTIGATION OF SUCH SUBJECTS AS THE UTILIZATION OF WATER RESOURCES,
WATER-POWER INDUSTRY, LOCATION, CAPACITY, DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND THE
RELATION TO MARKETS OF POWER SITES, AND THE FAIR VALUE OF POWER.  SEC.
4(F), NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PERMIT IS TO GO TO ANY
STATE OR MUNICIPALITY LIKELY TO BE INTERESTED.  SEC. 7(A), IN ISSUING
PERMITS AND LICENSES PREFERENCE IS TO BE GIVEN TO STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES.  SEC. 10(E), LICENSES TO STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL BE ISSUED AND ENJOYED WITHOUT
CHARGE.  SEC. 14, A RIGHT IS RESERVED NOT ONLY TO THE UNITED STATES BUT
TO ANY STATE OR MUNICIPALITY TO TAKE OVER ANY LICENSED PROJECT AT ANY
TIME BY CONDEMNATION AND PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION.  SECS. 19 AND
20, REGULATION OF SERVICE AND RATES IS PRESERVED TO THE STATES. 

FN20  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 27 CONFIRMS THESE CONCLUSIONS. 
THE LANGUAGE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF SEC. 8 OF THE RECLAMATION ACT OF
1902, 32 STAT. 390, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 383, WHICH PROVIDES, "NOTHING IN
SEVERAL LISTED SECTIONS) IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AFFECTING OR
INTENDED TO AFFECT OR TO IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH THE LAWS OF ANY
STATE OR TERRITORY RELATING TO THE CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE, OR
DISTRIBUTION OF WATER USED IN IRRIGATION, OR ANY VESTED RIGHT ACQUIRED
THEREUNDER,  ..." 

THIS RESTRICTED CLAUSE APPEARED IN A MODIFIED AND BROADER FORM IN THE
FERRIS PUBLIC LANDS BILL OF 1916, H.R. NO. 408, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.: 

"SEC. 13.  THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AFFECTING
OR INTENDED TO AFFECT OR TO IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH THE LAWS OF ANY
STATE RELATING TO THE CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER." 

IT ALSO HAD APPEARED AS SEC. 14 OF THE FERRIS BILL OF 1914, H.R. NO.
16673, 63D CONG., 2D SESS., AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 14.  THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AFFECTING
OR INTENDED TO AFFECT OR TO IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH THE LAWS OF ANY
STATE RELATING TO THE CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER USED IN IRRIGATION OR FOR MUNICIPAL OR OTHER USES, OR ANY VESTED
RIGHT ACQUIRED THEREUNDER."    DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS FURTHER
EMPHASIZED THE PURELY PROPRIETARY SENSE IN WHICH THIS LANGUAGE WAS
USED.  51 CONG. REC. 13630-13631. 

THE CLAUSE REAPPEARED IN THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE FEDERAL WATER
POWER ACT AND WAS THERE ENACTED INTO THE LAW IN ITS PRESENT FORM.  THE
USE, IN SEC. 27 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, OF LANGUAGE HAVING A LIMITED
MEANING IN RELATION TO PROPRIETARY RIGHTS UNDER THE RECLAMATION LAW AND
IN PUBLIC LAND BILLS, CARRIES THAT ESTABLISHED MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE
INTO THE FEDERAL POWER ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING IN THE ACT
CALLING FOR A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE. 

FN21  SEE NOTE 6. 

FN22  SEE NOTE 15. 

FN23  THE NATION-WIDE DRIVE FOR THE PASSAGE OF THIS LEGISLATION DATES
BACK AT LEAST TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT AND TO THE
ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT OF "THE CONSERVATIONISTS" LED BY GIFFORD PINCHOT,
AS CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF FORESTRY. 

"WITH ALL ITS FAULTS THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT OF 1920, MARKED A
GREAT ADVANCE.  IT ESTABLISHED FIRMLY THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERAL
REGULATION OF WATER POWER PROJECTS, LIMITED LICENSES TO NOT MORE THAN
FIFTY YEARS, AND PROVIDED FOR GOVERNMENT RECAPTURE OF THE POWER AT THE
END OF THE FRANCHISE. 

"FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE ACT OF 1920 ESTABLISHED A NATIONAL POLICY IN
THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF WATER POWER ON PUBLIC LANDS AND NAVIGABLE
STREAMS."  PINCHOT, THE LONG STRUGGLE FOR EFFECTIVE FEDERAL WATER POWER
LEGISLATION (1945), 14 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 9, 19.  SEE ALSO, KERWIN,
FEDERAL WATER-POWER LEGISLATION, C. VI. 

THE PRESENT ACT WAS DISTINCTLY AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE FEDERAL CONTROL
OVER AND GIVE FEDERAL ENCOURAGEMENT TO WATER POWER DEVELOPMENT.  IT
GREW OUT OF A BILL PREPARED BY THE SECRETARIES OF WAR, INTERIOR AND
AGRICULTURE.  IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY A SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WATER POWER
CREATED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT THE SUGGESTION OF PRESIDENT
WILSON.  SEE STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE SIMS, CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE ON WATER POWER, 56 CONG. REC. 9797-9798.  THE BILL WAS TO
PROVIDE "A METHOD BY WHICH THE WATER POWERS OF THE COUNTRY, WHEREVER
LOCATED, CAN BE DEVELOPED BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES UNDER
CONDITIONS WHICH WILL GIVE THE NECESSARY SECURITY TO THE CAPITAL
INVESTED AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT AND PRESERVE EVERY LEGITIMATE
PUBLIC INTEREST....  THE PROBLEMS ARE NATIONAL, RATHER THAN LOCAL; THEY
TRANSCEND STATE LINES AND CANNOT BE HANDLED ADEQUATELY EXCEPT BY OR IN
CONJUNCTION WITH NATIONAL AGENCIES."  STATEMENT BY DAVID F. HOUSTON,
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, QUOTED IN H.R. REP. NO. 61, 66TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 5. 

FN24  NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328; UNITED STATES V.
APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377; CLARION RIVER POWER CO. V. SMITH,
59 F.2D 861, CERTIORARI DENIED, 287 U.S. 639; ALABAMA POWER CO. V.
MCNINCH, 94 F.2D 601; PENNSYLVANIA WATER & POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, 74 APP. D.C. 351, 123 F.2D 155, CERTIORARI DENIED, 315 U.S.
806; ALABAMA POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 75 U.S. APP. D.C.
315, 128 F.2D 280, CERTIORARI DENIED, 317 U.S. 652; PUGET SOUND POWER &
LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 78 U.S. APP. D.C. 143, 137 F.2D
701; WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORP. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 147
F.2D 743, CERTIORARI DENIED, 325 U.S. 880; GEORGIA POWER CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, 152 F.2D 908. 

FN25  SECTIONS 4(E) AND 10(A), COMPREHENSIVE PLANS REQUIRED; SECS.
4(F) AND 5, PRELIMINARY PERMITS; SEC. 4(G), INVESTIGATION OF POWER
RESOURCES; SEC. 6, LICENSE TERM OF 50 YEARS; SEC. 7(A) DEVELOPMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES ON A NATIONAL BASIS; SEC. 7(B), DEVELOPMENTS BY THE
UNITED STATES ITSELF; SEC. 13, PROMPT CONSTRUCTION REQUIRED; SEC. 14,
RECAPTURE OF PROJECTS AND PAYMENT FOR THEM BY THE GOVERNMENT UPON
EXPIRATION OF LICENSES, THUS GIVING THE GOVERNMENT A DIRECT INTEREST IN
AND REASON FOR CONTROL OF EVERY FEATURE OF EACH LICENSED PROJECT; SEC.
21, FEDERAL POWERS OF CONDEMNATION VESTED IN LICENSEE; AND SEC. 28,
PROHIBITION OF AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF LICENSES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE DOES NOT PRESENT ONE OF THOSE LARGE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
WHICH, BECAUSE THEY ARE SO LARGELY ABSTRACT, HAVE THROUGHOUT ITS
HISTORY SO OFTEN DIVIDED THE COURT.  THE CONTROVERSY, AS I UNDERSTAND
IT, IS CONCERNED WITH THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF A LAW IN WHICH
CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THE INTERESTS OF THE STATES AS WELL AS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND HAS ENTRUSTED THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF THESE NATION
STATE RELATIONS TO THE INTERRELATED FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION AND THE COURTS. 

WE ARE ALL AGREED THAT CONGRESS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
PROMOTE A COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION'S WATER RESOURCES AND
THAT IT HAS EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY BY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  41 STAT.
1063, 49 STAT. 838; 16 U.S.C. SECS. 791(A) ET SEQ. SEE UNITED STATES V.
CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53; NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328;
UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377.  AND IN VIEW OF
CONGRESS' POWER, OF COURSE THIS ENACTMENT OVERRIDES ALL STATE
LEGISLATION IN CONFLICT WITH IT.  BUT THE NATIONAL POLICY FOR WATER
POWER DEVELOPMENT FORMULATED BY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT EXPLICITLY
RECOGNIZES REGARD FOR CERTAIN INTERESTS OF THE STATES AS PART OF THAT
NATIONAL POLICY.  THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT GENERAL, UNCRITICAL NOTIONS
ABOUT SO-CALLED "STATES' RIGHTS" ARE TO BE READ INTO WHAT CONGRESS HAS
WRITTEN.  IT DOES MEAN THAT WE MUST ADHERE TO THE EXPRESS CONGRESSIONAL
MANDATE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH UNDERLIES THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
INVOLVES THE PROTECTION OF PARTICULAR MATTERS OF INTIMATE CONCERN TO
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES IN WHICH PROPOSED PROJECTS REQUIRING THE
SANCTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ARE TO BE LOCATED.  BY SEC.
9(B) OF THE ACT, 41 STAT. 1063, 1068; 16 U.S.C. SEC. 802(B),  FN1
CONGRESS EXPLICITLY REQUIRED THAT BEFORE THE COMMISSION CAN ISSUE A
LICENSE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT, SUCH AS
THE PROPOSED PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER, THE COMMISSION MUST HAVE
"SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE" IN REFERENCE TO THE MATTERS
ENUMERATED. 

WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS SUCH "SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE" NECESSARILY
DEPENDS UPON WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW ARE.  IN TURN, WHAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW ARE OFTEN DEPENDS UPON THE APPROPRIATE BUT
UNSETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF STATE LAW.  AND SO, THE COMMISSION MAY WELL
BE CONFRONTED, AS IT WAS IN THIS CASE, WITH THE NECESSITY OF
DETERMINING WHAT THE STATE LAW REQUIRES BEFORE IT CAN DETERMINE WHETHER
THE APPLICANT HAS SATISFIED IT, AND, THEREFORE, WHETHER THE CONDITION
FOR EXERCISING THE COMMISSION'S POWER HAS BEEN FULFILLED. 

TO SAFEGUARD THE INTERESTS OF THE STATES THUS PROTECTED BY SEC. 9(B),
CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED THAT NOTICE BE GIVEN TO THE STATE WHEN AN
APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED FOR A LICENSE, THE GRANTING OF WHICH MAY
ESPECIALLY AFFECT A STATE.  SEC. 4(F), 49 STAT. 838, 841; 16 U.S.C.
SEC. 797(F).  IF A STATE DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE CLAIM OF AN APPLICANT,
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, IF FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY BY
THE COMMISSION, HAS MET THE DEMANDS OF SEC. 9(B), AND A STATE CANNOT
THEREAFTER CHALLENGE THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION.  BUT A REAL
PROBLEM IN ADMINISTRATION IS PRESENTED TO THE POWER COMMISSION WHEN A
STATE DOES INTERVENE AND CLAIMS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT COMPLIED
WITH ITS LAWFUL REQUIREMENTS.  FOR, BEFORE THE COMMISSION CAN MEET THE
DUTY PLACED ON IT BY SEC. 9(B), IT MUST ASCERTAIN THE SCOPE AND MEANING
OF THE STATE LAW.  SUPPOSE THE STATE LAW IS NOT CLEAR OR IS SUSCEPTIBLE
OF DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTIONS AND HAS RECEIVED NO CONSTRUCTION BY THE ONLY
AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF STATE LAWS, NAMELY, THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  MUST THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION GIVE AN
INDEPENDENT INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE?  THIS IS NOT TO
SUGGEST AN UNREAL OR HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.  THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION SUBMITTED HERE A COMPILATION OF LAWS RELATING TO STATE
REQUIREMENTS RELEVANT UNDER SEC. 9(B) FOR NOT LESS THAN THIRTY STATES. 
ARE THE LAWYERS OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THEMSELVES THE ORIGINATING
INTERPRETERS OF THE LAWS OF THESE STATES?  ARE THEY TO CONSTRUE, FOR
INSTANCE, THE LAWS OF NEW JERSEY AND OKLAHOMA AND ARIZONA AND ILLINOIS
WHEN THE COURTS OF THOSE STATES HAVE NOT SPOKEN?  AND IF THEY DO AND
THE STATE APPEALS FROM THE DECISION, MUST THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BECOME THE INTERPRETER OF THESE VARIOUS LAWS? 
FINALLY, IN THE EVENT OF A FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW IS THIS COURT TO
CONSTRUE STATE LEGISLATION WITHOUT GUIDANCE BY THE STATE COURTS?  TIME
OUT OF MIND, AND IN A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS, THIS COURT HAS ADMONISHED
AGAINST THE AVOIDABLE ASSUMPTION BY THIS COURT OF THE INDEPENDENT
CONSTRUCTION OF STATE LEGISLATION.  SEE, E.G., GILCHRIST V.
INTERBOROUGH CO., 279 U.S. 159, 207-209; BRANDEIS, J., DISSENTING, IN
RAILROAD COMM'N V. LOS ANGELES R. CO., 280 U.S. 145, 158, 164-66.  IT
IS PERTINENT TO RECALL THE CLASSIC STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR LEAVING
TO THE CONTROLLING INTERPRETATION OF LOCAL COURTS THE MEANING OF LOCAL
LAW:  "TO ONE BROUGHT UP WITHIN IT, VARYING EMPHASIS, TACIT
ASSUMPTIONS, UNWRITTEN PRACTICES, A THOUSAND INFLUENCES GAINED ONLY
FROM LIFE, MAY GIVE TO THE DIFFERENT PARTS WHOLLY NEW VALUES THAT LOGIC
AND GRAMMAR NEVER COULD HAVE GOT FROM THE BOOKS."  DIAZ V. GONZALEZ,
261 U.S. 102, 106.  IF IT HAS BEEN DEEMED UNWISE TO THROW UPON THIS
COURT THE BURDEN OF CONSTRUING LOCAL LEGISLATION WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION
COULD BY APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE BE HAD FROM THE STATES, IT SEEMS ODD
THAT WE SHOULD REJECT THIS AS A RULE OF ADMINISTRATION ADOPTED BY THE
POWER COMMISSION. 

THAT IS ALL THAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE IN THIS CASE.  IT HAS SAID,
IN EFFECT:  "WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE IOWA LAW DEMANDS OF THE
APPLICANT.  IOWA HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE CERTAIN DEMANDS UNDER SEC. 9(B)
AND UNTIL THEY ARE MET WE ARE NOT EMPOWERED TO GRANT A LICENSE TO THE
APPLICANT.  BUT WE CANNOT TELL WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN MET, BECAUSE THE
MEANING OF THE IOWA STATUTES HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED, AS IT EASILY CAN
BE DETERMINED, BY AN APPROPRIATE ACTION IN THE IOWA COURTS.  ONLY AFTER
SUCH AN AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT CAN WE KNOW WHAT OUR OBLIGATION
UNDER THE STATUTE MAY BE."  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA THOUGHT THAT SUCH PROCEDURE MADE SENSE.  IT SEEMS TO HAVE
SAID:  "THE COMMISSION DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE IOWA LAW REQUIRES, AND
NEITHER DO WE.  FOR WE CANNOT TELL WHAT IT REQUIRES UNTIL THE IOWA
SUPREME COURT TELLS US WHAT IT REQUIRES.  AND AN ADJUDICATION OF THAT
ISSUE CAN BE READILY SECURED IF THE APPLICANT WILL PROCEED ALONG THE
EASY PATH PROVIDED BY IOWA FOR OBTAINING SUCH AN ADJUDICATION."  151
F.2D 20.  SEE IOWA LAWS, 1943, C. 278, SEC. 306 AND LLOYD V. RAMSAY,
192 IOWA 103, 116-17, 183 N.W. 333.  EVEN WE CANNOT CONSTRUE THE
REQUIREMENTS OF IOWA LAW IN THE ABSENCE OF A DETERMINATION BY THE IOWA
SUPREME COURT.  AND IN MUCH MORE CONVENTIONAL TYPES OF LITIGATION WE
HAVE EVOLVED THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY FEDERAL LITIGATION IS STAYED UNTIL
THE STATE LAW IS AUTHORITATIVELY DETERMINED BY A STATE COURT.  E.G.,
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496; SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V.
MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101; A.F. OF L. V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582. 

WHAT REASON OF POLICY IS THERE FOR NOT APPROVING THIS MODE OF
ADJUSTING INTERESTS THAT INVOLVE A REGARD FOR BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE
ENACTMENTS?  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WHICH DEVISED THIS PROCEDURE
HAS NOT BEEN AN UNZEALOUS GUARDIAN OF THE NATIONAL INTERESTS.  E.G.,
FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575; FEDERAL
POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO SUGGEST THAT THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF IOWA AT THE
BAR OF THIS COURT EXPRESSED A VIEW OF THE IOWA STATUTE WHICH WOULD MAKE
OBEDIENCE TO IT NEEDLESS BECAUSE OF CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT.  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IS NOT THE JUDICIAL ORGAN OF
THE STATE OF IOWA.  THIS COURT DOES NOT ALWAYS TAKE THE INTERPRETATION
BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF A FEDERAL STATUTE.  IT
SHOULD NOT TAKE THE VIEW OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF IOWA AS
AUTHORITATIVE ON A STATUTE NOT CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
WHEN WE ARE CALLED UPON TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT IN FEDERAL-STATE
RELATIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENJOINED IN SEC. 9(B).  AFTER ALL,
ADVOCATES, INCLUDING ADVOCATES FOR STATES, ARE LIKE MANAGERS OF
PUGILISTIC AND ELECTION CONTESTANTS IN THAT THEY HAVE A PROPENSITY FOR
CLAIMING EVERYTHING.  BEFORE CONFLICT CAN BE FOUND BETWEEN FEDERAL AND
STATE LEGISLATION, CONSTRUCTION MUST BE GIVEN THE STATE LEGISLATION. 
AVOIDANCE OF CONFLICT IS ITSELF AN IMPORTANT FACTOR RELEVANT TO
CONSTRUCTION.  AND SO, CONSTRUCTION OF STATE LEGISLATION RELATING TO
THE MATTERS DEALT WITH IN THE FEDERAL POWER ACT IS SUBTLE BUSINESS AND
A SUBTLETY PECULIARLY WITHIN THE DUTY, SKILL, AND UNDERSTANDING OF
STATE JUDGES. 

IF IT BE SAID THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION CONTENDS MAY TAKE TIME, THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT A
CONTESTED CASE LIKE THIS WILL NOT TAKE JUST AS MUCH TIME HEREAFTER. 
THE COMMISSION MUST PASS INDEPENDENTLY ON AN UNCONSTRUED STATE STATUTE;
ITS CONSTRUCTION MAY THEN COME BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT AND EVENTUALLY BEFORE THIS COURT.  EVEN THEN THE POSSIBILITY
REMAINS THAT THIS COURT'S DECISION WILL BE FOLLOWED BY ONE IN THE STATE
COURT RULING, AS HAS NOT BEEN UNKNOWN, THAT THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION
WAS IN ERROR.  IN ANY EVENT, MERE SPEED IS NOT A TEST OF JUSTICE. 
DELIBERATE SPEED IS.  DELIBERATE SPEED TAKES TIME.  BUT IT IS TIME WELL
SPENT.    WITH DUE RESPECT, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCOVER AN
ADEQUATE ANSWER TO THE POSITION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, THUS
SUMMARIZED IN THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL'S BRIEF: 

"UNLESS SECTION 9(B) IS TO BE GIVEN NO EFFECT WHATEVER, SOME EVIDENCE
OF COMPLIANCE WITH AT LEAST SOME STATE LAWS IS A PREREQUISITE TO THE
ISSUANCE OF A FEDERAL LICENSE, AND THE VIEW OF THE COURT BELOW, THAT
THERE IS NO OCCASION, IN THIS CASE, TO ANTICIPATE CONFLICTS BETWEEN
STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND THE CONSEQUENT INVALIDITY OF THE STATE
LAW, IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE ONE.  "TO PREDETERMINE, EVEN IN THE LIMITED
FIELD OF WATER POWER, THE RIGHTS OF DIFFERENT SOVEREIGNTIES, PREGNANT
WITH FUTURE CONTROVERSIES, IS BEYOND THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.'  UNITED
STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377, 423.  HERE
PETITIONER, SINCE THE MODIFICATION OF ITS PLANS, HAS GIVEN THE STATE
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AND THE IOWA COURTS NO OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR
VIEWS ON ITS PROPOSED PROJECT WITH REFERENCE TO MATTERS WHICH MAY BE
PECULIARLY OF LOCAL CONCERN; WITHOUT SUCH AN EXPRESSION, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO ASSESS THE PROPRIETY OF WHAT IS ONLY AN ANTICIPATED
EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POWER." 

ACCORDINGLY, I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  9.  THAT EACH APPLICANT FOR A LICENSE HEREUNDER SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION  ... 

(B)  SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR STATES WITHIN WHICH THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO BE LOCATED WITH RESPECT TO BED AND BANKS AND TO
THE APPROPRIATION, DIVERSION, AND USE OF WATER FOR POWER PURPOSES AND
WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING,
TRANSMITTING, AND DISTRIBUTING POWER, AND IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS
NECESSARY TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF A LICENSE UNDER THIS ACT." 
..END :





HEISER V. WOODRUFF, 327 U.S. 726 


NO. 496.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946.  - 150 F.2D
869, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE, IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, ALLOWANCE OF A CLAIM BASED UPON
A MONEY JUDGMENT ACQUIRED AGAINST THE BANKRUPT BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY IS
OBJECTED TO ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD, BUT
THE ISSUE OF FRAUD HAS BEEN LITIGATED AND DECIDED BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT
AND THE BANKRUPT BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY AND HAS SINCE BEEN LITIGATED AND
DECIDED BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, THAT ISSUE
IS RES JUDICATA AND MAY NOT BE LITIGATED FURTHER IN THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING, EVEN THOUGH, IN THE PREVIOUS LITIGATION, THE ALLEGATIONS OF
FRAUD WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY TENDER OF EVIDENCE OR OTHER PROOF.  PEPPER
V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, DIFFERENTIATED.  PP. 731, 736. 

2.  WHILE A BANKRUPTCY COURT IS ALSO A COURT OF EQUITY AND MAY
EXERCISE EQUITY POWERS IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS TO SET ASIDE
FRAUDULENT CLAIMS - INCLUDING A FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT WHERE THE ISSUE OF
FRAUD HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED PREVIOUSLY - AND MAY SUBORDINATE THE
CLAIM OF ONE CREDITOR TO THOSE OF OTHERS IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE
CONSUMMATION OF A FRAUDULENT OR OTHERWISE INEQUITABLE COURSE OF
CONDUCT, NO PRINCIPLE OF LAW OR EQUITY SANCTIONS THE REJECTION BY A
FEDERAL COURT OF THE SALUTARY PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA.  P. 732. 

3.  SINCE THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AUTHORIZES A PROOF OF CLAIM BASED ON A
JUDGMENT, SUCH A PROOF MAY BE ASSAILED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ON THE
GROUND THAT THE PURPORTED JUDGMENT IS NOT A JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF WANT OF
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHICH RENDERED IT OVER THE PERSONS OF THE
PARTIES OR THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT, OR BECAUSE IT WAS PROCURED
BY FRAUD OF A PARTY.  P. 736. 

4.  IN PASSING UPON A PROOF OF CLAIM BASED ON A JUDGMENT, HOWEVER, A
BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY NOT REEXAMINE THE ISSUES DETERMINED BY THE
JUDGMENT ITSELF.  P. 736. 

5.  IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT, WHERE A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
UNSUCCESSFULLY LITIGATES AN ISSUE OUTSIDE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, THE
DECISION AGAINST HIM IS BINDING IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  P. 733. 

6.  IN GENERAL, A JUDGMENT IS RES JUDICATA, NOT ONLY AS TO ALL
MATTERS LITIGATED AND DECIDED BY IT BUT ALSO AS TO ALL RELEVANT ISSUES
WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WERE NOT, RAISED AND LITIGATED IN THE SUIT. 
P. 735. 

7.  NOTHING DECIDED IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, REQUIRES
A BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN APPLYING THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNING THE LIQUIDATION OF BANKRUPTS' ESTATES, TO ADOPT LOCAL RULES
OF LAW IN DETERMINING WHAT CLAIMS ARE PROVABLE, OR TO BE ALLOWED, OR
HOW THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE IS TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG CLAIMANTS.  P.
732. 

8.  IN PASSING UPON A PROOF OF CLAIM BASED ON A JUDGMENT, A
BANKRUPTCY COURT PROCEEDS - NOT WITHOUT APPROPRIATE REGARD FOR RIGHTS
ACQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW - UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES WHICH GOVERN THE
PROOF AND ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS BASED ON JUDGMENTS.  P. 732. 

9.  IN DETERMINING WHAT JUDGMENTS ARE PROVABLE AND WHAT OBJECTIONS
MAY BE MADE TO THEIR PROOF, AND IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
INEQUITABLE CONDUCT OF A CLAIMANT IN ACQUIRING OR ASSERTING HIS CLAIM
IN BANKRUPTCY REQUIRES ITS REJECTION OR ITS SUBORDINATION TO OTHER
CLAIMS WHICH IN OTHER RESPECTS ARE OF THE SAME CLASS, THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT IS DEFINING AND APPLYING FEDERAL, NOT STATE, LAW.  P. 732. 

HEISER V. WOODRUFF ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER FILED A CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY BASED UPON A MONEY JUDGMENT
ACQUIRED AGAINST THE BANKRUPT BEFORE BANKRUPTCY.  RESPONDENTS OBJECTED
ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD.  THE REFEREE
DISALLOWED THE CLAIM.  THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED THE CLAIM, SUSTAINING
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE ISSUE OF FRAUD HAD BEEN LITIGATED
PREVIOUSLY AND DECIDED IN PETITIONER'S FAVOR IN PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH
PETITIONER AND THE BANKRUPT OR HIS TRUSTEE, OR BOTH, HAD BEEN PARTIES,
AND WAS THEREFORE RES JUDICATA.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  150 F.2D 869.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S.
715.  REVERSED, P. 740. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, ANNOUNCED BY MR.
JUSTICE BLACK. 

THIS IS A PROCEEDING IN BANKRUPTCY ON OBJECTIONS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF
PETITIONER'S CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY BASED UPON A MONEY JUDGMENT ACQUIRED
AGAINST THE BANKRUPT BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY.  RESPONDENTS OBJECTED TO
ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT, SO FAR AS HERE RELEVANT, THE
JUDGMENT WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD, THAT IS, BY PERJURED ALLEGATIONS IN THE
COMPLAINT IN THE SUIT IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, AND BY
PERJURED TESTIMONY AS TO THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
CONVERTED BY THE DEFENDANT. 

THE REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM.  ON THE REFEREE'S
CERTIFICATE THE DISTRICT COURT, SITTING IN BANKRUPTCY, ALLOWED THE
CLAIM, SUSTAINING PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE ISSUE OF FRAUD IN
PROCUREMENT OF THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED AND DECIDED
IN PETITIONER'S FAVOR IN PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE PETITIONER AND THE
BANKRUPT OR HIS TRUSTEE, OR BOTH, HAD BEEN PARTIES, AND WAS THEREFORE
RES JUDICATA. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  150 F.2D 869. 
RELYING UPON OUR DECISIONS IN PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, AND
PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORP. V. GEIST, 316 U.S. 89, IT HELD THAT THE
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY COULD GO BEHIND THE PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECIDE FOR ITSELF THE QUESTIONS PREVIOUSLY
LITIGATED AND DECIDED, WHETHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH THE
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED WAS MERITORIOUS, AND WHETHER THE CLAIM IN
BANKRUPTCY SHOULD BE REJECTED BECAUSE BASED ON A JUDGMENT PROCURED BY
CLAIMANT'S FRAUD.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY REMANDED THE CAUSE
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE OBJECTIONS TO
ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 326 U.S. 715, UPON A
PETITION WHICH RAISES THE QUESTIONS WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY RE
ADJUDICATE THE MERITS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH A JUDGMENT AGAINST
THE BANKRUPT, PROVED AS A CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY, WAS ENTERED AND MAY
DISREGARD A PREVIOUS ADJUDICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE JUDGMENT
WAS NOT PROCURED BY FRAUD. 

WOODRUFF, THE BANKRUPT, WAS ADJUDICATED AS SUCH ON HIS VOLUNTARY
PETITION ON JULY 5, 1939.  PETITIONER, PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 63(A)(1)
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. 103(A), WHICH PROVIDES THAT A FIXED
LIABILITY, EVIDENCED BY A JUDGMENT, IS A PROVABLE CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY,
FILED HIS PROOF OF CLAIM IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT UPON A DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AGAINST WOODRUFF FOR THE SUM, INCLUDING ACCRUED INTEREST AND
COSTS, OF MORE THAN $278,000.  THE SUIT IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS
PROCURED WAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN JULY, 1935.  JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR
PETITIONER ON MARCH 20, 1939, ON PROOF TAKEN OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON
JANUARY 31, 1939, AND OF WOODRUFF'S DEFAULT AND ON EVIDENCE GIVEN BY
THE PETITIONER. 

THE SUIT WAS BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THE CAUSE OF
ACTION ALLEGED WAS IN SUBSTANCE THAT WOODRUFF HAD PROCURED PROPERTY OF
PETITIONER, CONSISTING OF ROUGH SAPPHIRES, OPALS AND ZIRCONS, OF A
STATED VALUE OF $164,000, BY FALSE PRETENSES AND FALSE REPRESENTATIONS,
THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE NOT NOW MATERIAL, AND HAD THEREAFTER CONVERTED
THEM TO HIS OWN USE. 

ON MARCH 29, 1939, SHORTLY AFTER THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, WOODRUFF
FILED A MOTION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO SET IT ASIDE.  THE MOTION, SO FAR
AS IT WAS BASED UPON THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT
WOODRUFF WITH PROCESS, WAS DENIED ON JUNE 8, 1939.  BUT THE COURT, ON
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, DIRECTED THAT A HEARING BE HELD TO
DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE CONVERTED GEMS AND PROVIDED THAT AT THE
HEARING "SUCH COMPETENT EVIDENCE AS EITHER PARTY DESIRE TO PRESENT BE
RECEIVED" AND CONSIDERED BY THE COURT "IN DETERMINING THE ACTUAL VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY" WHICH THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED WAS CONVERTED BY
DEFENDANTS.  THE COURT'S ORDER FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE REDUCED IN THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE ADJUDGED VALUE OF THE GEMS
EXCEEDED THE ACTUAL VALUE AS FOUND AT THE HEARING.  AFTER A CONTESTED
HEARING AT WHICH EVIDENCE, ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY, WAS RECEIVED, THE
TRIAL COURT MADE A MINUTE ORDER STATING THAT THE COURT FOUND THAT THE
VALUES OF THE CONVERTED PROPERTY WERE THOSE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT,
AND DECLINED TO GIVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE JUDGMENT, AND NO REVIEW WAS
HAD OF THE MINUTE ORDER OR OF THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO SET THE
JUDGMENT ASIDE. 

ON AUGUST 23, 1939, ON APPLICATION OF JACKSON, THE TRUSTEE OF THE
BANKRUPT'S ESTATE, WHICH CERTAIN CREDITORS SUPPORTED, THE REFEREE IN
BANKRUPTCY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED THE TRUSTEE "TO TAKE SUCH LEGAL
STEPS AS MAY BE PROPER AND NECESSARY UNDER THE LAW TO VACATE, SET ASIDE
AND TO AVOID" THE JUDGMENT, AND AUTHORIZED HIM TO RETAIN COUNSEL IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY
A MOTION ON BEHALF OF THE BANKRUPT'S TRUSTEE, AND THE BANKRUPT, IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THAT DISTRICT, TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ON THE
GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT NO PROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS HAD BEEN MADE
ON THE DEFENDANT, THAT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION,
THAT "A FRAUD WAS PRACTICED UPON THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT WITH RESPECT
TO THE ENTRY OF SAID JUDGMENT", AND THAT THE TRUSTEE AND THE BANKRUPT
"HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM PRESENTING SAID DEFENSE UPON ANY TRIAL OF THE
MERITS BY REASON OF FRAUD, ACCIDENT, SURPRISE AND EXCUSABLE NEGLECT AS
IS MORE PARTICULARLY SHOWN BY THE AFFIDAVITS" UPON WHICH THE MOTION WAS
MADE.  THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE TRUSTEE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION STATED
THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS "BASED UPON FICTITIOUS VALUES AND WAS OBTAINED BY
METHODS WHICH AMOUNT TO A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD UPON THE OTHER CREDITORS
AND YOUR AFFIANT, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF SAID CREDITORS".  COUNTER
AFFIDAVITS BY PETITIONER AND HIS ATTORNEY IN THE SUIT IN WHICH THE
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTION, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  111 F.2D 310.  IT OVERRULED ALL THE
ALLEGED GROUNDS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT, HOLDING THAT THE
SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS VALID AND THAT IN ANY CASE THE DEFENDANT HAD
APPEARED IN THE SUIT BY ENTERING INTO THE STIPULATION FOR TRIAL OF THE
ISSUE OF VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CONVERTED AND
PARTICIPATING IN THE HEARING ON THAT ISSUE.  IT ALSO HELD THAT THE
CHARGE OF FRAUD WAS DENIED AND UNSUPPORTED BY PROOF, ADDING "THAT
GROUND OF APPELLANTS' MOTION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED."  THERE
WAS NO REVIEW OF THIS DECISION. 

THE COURT BELOW, IN REJECTING PETITIONER'S PLEA OF RES JUDICATA, AND
IN DIRECTING INQUIRY INTO THE MERITS OF THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION
AND INTO THE ALLEGATION OF FRAUD IN PROCUREMENT OF THE JUDGMENT, RESTED
ITS DECISION UPON THE GROUND THAT THE BANKRUPT'S TRUSTEE HAD FAILED TO
PLACE BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT ANY CONTENTION OR PROOF THAT
PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY, PARTICULARLY AS TO THE VALUE OF THE CONVERTED
PROPERTY, WAS PERJURED, THAT THE BANKRUPT WAS NOT INDEBTED TO
PETITIONER, OR THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT WERE UNTRUE.  THE
COURT, RELYING ON PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA, ALSO HELD THAT THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, BEING A COURT HAVING EQUITY POWERS, WAS NOT BOUND BY
THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA AS TO ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT PRESSED
BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT, AND THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT AS A COURT OF EQUITY INCLUDED THE POWER TO INQUIRE
INTO THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIM UPON WHICH THE JUDGMENT, PRESENTED AS A
CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE, WAS BASED. 

WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER, APART FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA
APPLIED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, IN DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP CASES, UNDER
THE DOCTRINE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64; CF. GUARANTY
TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99; HOLMBERG V. ARMBRECHT, 327 U.S. 392,
CAN BE OTHER THAN THAT OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT SITS. 
FOR NOTHING DECIDED IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, REQUIRES A COURT
OF BANKRUPTCY, IN APPLYING THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNING
THE LIQUIDATION OF BANKRUPTS' ESTATES, TO ADOPT LOCAL RULES OF LAW IN
DETERMINING WHAT CLAIMS ARE PROVABLE, OR TO BE ALLOWED, OR HOW THE
BANKRUPT'S ESTATE IS TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG CLAIMANTS.  CF. BOARD OF
COMM'RS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343; DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S.
190; D'OENCH, DUHME & CO. V. F.D.I.C., 315 U.S. 447; HELVERING V.
STUART, 317 U.S. 154, 161-2; SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON CO., 317
U.S. 173, 176; WRAGG V. FEDERAL LAND BANK, 317 U.S. 325, 328;
CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363.  IN PASSING UPON
AND REJECTING OR ALLOWING THE PROOF OF CLAIM IN THIS CASE THE COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDS - NOT WITHOUT APPROPRIATE REGARD FOR RIGHTS
ACQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW - UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES WHICH GOVERN THE
PROOF AND ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS BASED ON JUDGMENTS.  IN DETERMINING WHAT
JUDGMENTS ARE PROVABLE AND WHAT OBJECTIONS MAY BE MADE TO THEIR PROOF,
AND IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INEQUITABLE CONDUCT OF A
CLAIMANT IN ACQUIRING OR ASSERTING HIS CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY, REQUIRES
ITS REJECTION OR ITS SUBORDINATION TO OTHER CLAIMS WHICH, IN OTHER
RESPECTS ARE OF THE SAME CLASS, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS DEFINING AND
APPLYING FEDERAL, NOT STATE, LAW.  SEE PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORP. V.
GEIST, SUPRA, 95, 96 AND CASES CITED; CF. UNITED STATES V. PELZER, 312
U.S. 399, 402-03. 

IT IS TRUE THAT A BANKRUPTCY COURT IS ALSO A COURT OF EQUITY, LOCAL
LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S. 234, 240, AND MAY EXERCISE EQUITY POWERS IN
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS TO SET ASIDE FRAUDULENT CLAIMS, INCLUDING A
FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT WHERE THE ISSUE OF FRAUD HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY
ADJUDICATED.  PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA, 306.  IN APPROPRIATE CASES,
ACTING UPON EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, IT MAY ALSO SUBORDINATE THE CLAIM OF
ONE CREDITOR TO THOSE OF OTHERS IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE CONSUMMATION OF
A COURSE OF CONDUCT BY THE CLAIMANT WHICH, AS TO THEM, WOULD BE
FRAUDULENT OR OTHERWISE INEQUITABLE.  TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS CO., 306
U.S. 307; PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA; PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORP. V. GEIST,
SUPRA; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. SAMPSELL, 327 U.S. 269.  BUT WE ARE AWARE
OF NO PRINCIPLE OF LAW OR EQUITY WHICH SANCTIONS THE REJECTION BY A
FEDERAL COURT OF THE SALUTARY PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA, WHICH IS
FOUNDED UPON THE GENERALLY RECOGNIZED PUBLIC POLICY THAT THERE MUST BE
SOME END TO LITIGATION AND THAT WHEN ONE APPEARS IN COURT TO PRESENT
HIS CASE, IS FULLY HEARD, AND THE CONTESTED ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST
HIM, HE MAY NOT LATER RENEW THE LITIGATION IN ANOTHER COURT.  BALDWIN
V. TRAVELING MEN'S ASSN., 283 U.S. 522, 525-6. 

BEFORE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS IT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT THAT,
APART FROM THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, A JUDGMENT DULY RENDERED
IN ONE COURT WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS RES JUDICATA IN A SUIT BETWEEN THE
SAME PARTIES IN A FEDERAL COURT.  CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, 94 U.S.
351; CASE V. BEAUREGARD, 101 U.S. 688; BALTIMORE S.S. CO. V. PHILLIPS,
274 U.S. 316; GRUBB V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 281 U.S. 470.  SEE
BALDWIN V. TRAVELING MEN'S ASSN., SUPRA, AND CASES CITED; CF. CHICAGO,
R.I. & P.R. CO. V. SCHENDEL, 270 U.S. 611; MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE
CO., 296 U.S. 268, 272-3.  IT HAS BEEN HELD IN NON-DIVERSITY CASES,
SINCE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL APPLY THEIR
OWN RULE OF RES JUDICATA.  SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381,
403; JACKSON V. IRVING TRUST CO., 311 U.S. 494, 503.  THIS COURT HAS
ALSO REQUIRED THAT EFFECT BE GIVEN IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS TO
A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA ARISING FROM DECREES OF A BANKRUPTCY COURT. 
STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165; CHICOT COUNTY DIST. V. BANK, 308 U.S.
371.  AND IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHERE THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
UNSUCCESSFULLY LITIGATES AN ISSUE OUTSIDE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT THE
DECISION AGAINST HIM IS BINDING IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  DAVIS V.
FRIEDLANDER, 104 U.S. 570; FISCHER V. PAULINE OIL CO., 309 U.S. 294,
302-03.  AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ISSUE OF FRAUD RAISED BY THE
OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER'S CLAIM AS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE BANKRUPT
HAS BEEN LITIGATED AND DECIDED BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY AND HAS SINCE BEEN
LITIGATED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, WHO
REPRESENTS THE BANKRUPT AND HIS CREDITORS, THAT ISSUE IS NOW RES
JUDICATA AND MAY NOT FURTHER BE LITIGATED IN THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING.  HENCE WE TURN TO THE QUESTION, WHAT ISSUES ESSENTIAL TO
THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD HAVE BEEN SO
LITIGATED.    EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD IN THIS PROCEEDING, INCLUDING
THE OBJECTIONS FILED TO PETITIONER'S CLAIM, THE APPLICATIONS OF THE
BANKRUPT, THE TRUSTEE, AND THE CREDITORS, FOR AUTHORITY TO ATTACK THE
JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AND THE
PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED IN THAT COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE, MAKE PLAIN THE
NATURE OF THE FRAUD CHARGED AGAINST PETITIONER.  SHORTLY STATED IT IS
THAT IN THE COURSE OF TRANSACTIONS WITH PETITIONER THE BANKRUPT
ACQUIRED POSSESSION OF AND CONVERTED TO HIS OWN USE A QUANTITY OF
WORTHLESS MINERALS, OWNED OR PREVIOUSLY OWNED OR POSSESSED BY
PETITIONER, WHO, BY MEANS OF PERJURED ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND
PERJURED TESTIMONY AS TO THEIR AMOUNT AND VALUE, PROCURED A DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE BANKRUPT FOR AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THEIR VALUE. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CLAIM OF FRAUD IS THAT
THE ALLEGED CONVERTED MINERALS WERE WORTH SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE
$164,000 ALLEGED TO BE THEIR VALUE IN THE COMPLAINT, FOR WHICH THE
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED.  BUT BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY THIS ISSUE OF VALUE
HAD BEEN LITIGATED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE BANKRUPT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.  IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS HAD ON
THE BANKRUPT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT
DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE BANKRUPT AND DECLINED TO DISTURB THE
JUDGMENT.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE JUDGMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE
WAS NO REVIEW OF THE DENIAL OF THE BANKRUPT'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE OR
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT, OR OF THE COURT'S MINUTE ORDER FINDING THAT THE
CONVERTED GEMS WERE OF THE VALUE ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT. 

THE SAME ISSUE AS TO VALUE AND ALSO THE ISSUE WHETHER THERE WAS
PERJURED TESTIMONY OF VALUE WERE RAISED IN THE PROCEEDING LATER BROUGHT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BY THE TRUSTEE IN BEHALF
OF THE BANKRUPT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT.  IN HIS APPLICATION TO THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT TO DIRECT THE TRUSTEE TO BRING THE PROCEEDING, THE
BANKRUPT HAD REPRESENTED THAT "THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT FILED IN SAID CASE (IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA) ARE UNTRUE"; THAT "THE RAW GEMS DESCRIBED IN PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT WERE AT NO TIME OF THE VALUE OF $164,000.00 OR ANY COMPARABLE
VALUE".  AS ALREADY NOTED THE PAPERS ON THE MOTION IN BEHALF OF THE
TRUSTEE AND THE BANKRUPT TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT, SET UP THAT THE
JUDGMENT WAS BASED ON "FICTITIOUS VALUES" AND WAS FRAUDULENTLY
PROCURED.  IN THAT PROCEEDING THE CHARGE OF FRAUD THUS ALLEGED WAS PUT
IN ISSUE BY THE ANSWERING AFFIDAVITS.  THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION BY THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICANTS HAD NOT SUSTAINED THEIR
ALLEGATIONS OF FICTITIOUS VALUE AND FRAUD BY ANY TENDER OF EVIDENCE OR
OTHER PROOF.  THIS WAS A FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES THUS RAISED,
BINDING ON THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING.  IT IS NOT ANY THE LESS SO,
AS THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT, BECAUSE THE MOVING PARTIES FAILED TO
SUPPORT THEIR ALLEGATIONS BY EVIDENCE. 

IN GENERAL A JUDGMENT IS RES JUDICATA NOT ONLY AS TO ALL MATTERS
LITIGATED AND DECIDED BY IT, BUT AS TO ALL RELEVANT ISSUES WHICH COULD
HAVE BEEN BUT WERE NOT RAISED AND LITIGATED IN THE SUIT.  CROMWELL V.
COUNTY OF SAC, SUPRA, 352; GRUBB V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, SUPRA,
479; CHICOT COUNTY DIST. V. BANK, SUPRA, 375.  BUT HERE THE ALLEGED
FRAUD WAS PUT IN ISSUE AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE TRUSTEE,
THE BANKRUPT AND THOSE WHOM THEY REPRESENT OR WHO CLAIM UNDER THEM, FOR
FAILURE OF PROOF.  AFTER TWO PROCEEDINGS, IN ONE OF WHICH THE BANKRUPT
AND IN THE OTHER OF WHICH THE BANKRUPT AND HIS TRUSTEE, SOUGHT, AND
WERE FREE, TO PROVE THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS BASED ON FRAUDULENTLY
ALLEGED, FICTITIOUS VALUES, AND IN BOTH OF WHICH THE DECISION WAS
AGAINST THEM, THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA PRECLUDE THE REVIVAL OF
THE LITIGATION IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA, LENDS NO SUPPORT TO A DIFFERENT VIEW. 
UNDOUBTEDLY, SINCE THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AUTHORIZES A PROOF OF CLAIM BASED
ON A JUDGMENT, SUCH A PROOF MAY BE ASSAILED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE PURPORTED JUDGMENT IS NOT A JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF
WANT OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHICH RENDERED IT OVER THE PERSONS OF
THE PARTIES OR THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT, OR BECAUSE IT WAS
PROCURED BY FRAUD OF A PARTY.  PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA, 306; CHANDLER
V. THOMPSON, 120 F. 940; IN RE CONTINENTAL ENGINE CO., 234 F. 58; IN RE
STUCKY TRUCKING & RIGGING CO., 243 F. 287; IN RE RUBIN, 24 F.2D 289. 
BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER TO SAY THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY
REEXAMINE THE ISSUES DETERMINED BY THE JUDGMENT ITSELF.  IT HAS, FROM
AN EARLY DATE, BEEN HELD TO THE CONTRARY.  MCKINSEY V. HARDING, FED.
CAS. NO. 8,866; EX PARTE O'NEIL, FED. CAS. NO. 10,527; IN RE ULFELDER
CO., 98 F. 409; PETERS V. UNITED STATES, 177 F. 885; HANDLAN V. WALKER,
200 F. 566; IN RE GANET REALTY CORP., 83 F.2D 945; LYDERS V. PETERSEN,
88 F.2D 9.  NOR CAN AN ATTACK BE SUSTAINED ON A JUDGMENT ALLEGEDLY
PROCURED BY FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF, WHEN THE
CHARGE OF FRAUD HAS BEEN REJECTED IN PREVIOUS LITIGATIONS BY THE
PARTIES TO THE SUIT IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, OR THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES.  PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA, 306, N. 13; CF. MAYS V.
FRITTON, 20 WALL.  414; JEROME V. MCCARTER, 94 U.S. 734, 737; MCHENRY
V. LA SOCIETE FRANCAISE, 95 U.S. 58; DAVIS V. FRIEDLANDER, SUPRA;
WINCHESTER V. HEISKELL, 119 U.S. 450, 453; GRANT V. BUCKNER, 172 U.S.
232, 238. 

NEITHER PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA, ON WHICH RESPONDENTS CHIEFLY RELY,
NOR THE OTHER CASES WHICH THEY CITE, SUSTAIN THE CONTENTION THAT THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN PASSING ON THE VALIDITY OF CREDITORS' CLAIMS, MAY
DISREGARD THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA.  IN THAT CASE THE JUDGMENT
CREDITOR SOUGHT BY PROOF OF CLAIM ON HIS JUDGMENT TO SHARE IN THE
ASSETS OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE, WHICH WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE
RIVAL CLAIM OF ANOTHER JUDGMENT CREDITOR.  WE ASSUMED, FOR PURPOSES OF
DECISION, THAT THE CLAIM ON WHICH THE DISPUTED JUDGMENT WAS BASED WAS
FOUNDED ON A VALID DEBT.  BUT THE COURT HELD THAT AS THE JUDGMENT
CREDITOR WAS ALSO A CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER OF THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION
HE WAS A FIDUCIARY FOR THE OTHER CREDITORS OF THE CORPORATION AND, AS
SUCH, COULD NOT PROVE HIS CLAIM IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER CREDITORS OR
GAIN FROM THE ESTATE ANY PERSONAL ADVANTAGE, SECURITY, OR PRIORITY OVER
THEM.  AFTER REFERRING TO CERTAIN CASES IN WHICH CREDITORS' CLAIMS HAD
BEEN DISALLOWED AND SAYING:  "THESE CASES DO NOT TURN ON THE EXISTENCE
OR NON-EXISTENCE OF THE DEBT.  RATHER THEY INVOLVE SIMPLY THE QUESTION
OF ORDER OF PAYMENT," 308 U.S. 310, THE COURT CONCLUDED:  "WHERE THERE
IS A VIOLATION OF THOSE PRINCIPLES, EQUITY WILL UNDO THE WRONG OR
INTERVENE TO PREVENT ITS CONSUMMATION.  ON SUCH A TEST THE ACTION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IN DISALLOWING OR SUBORDINATING LITTON'S CLAIM WAS
CLEARLY CORRECT."  308 U.S. 311.  CF. TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS CO.,
SUPRA. 

ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY IN PEPPER V. LITTON HAD
UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTACKED THE JUDGMENT IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING IN THE STATE
COURTS, THIS COURT POINTED OUT THAT IN THAT PROCEEDING NO QUESTION WAS
PRESENTED "WHETHER OR NOT THE  ...  JUDGMENT MIGHT BE SUBORDINATED TO
THE CLAIMS OF OTHER CREDITORS UPON EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES," 308 U.S. 302
03, AND THAT "THE ONLY DECREE WHICH WAS ASKED OR COULD BE GIVEN IN THE
PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR" UNDER THE PLEADINGS "WAS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE
JUDGMENT AS A RECORD OBLIGATION OF THE BANKRUPT."  308 U.S. 303.  IT
WAS THUS MADE PLAIN THAT THE THEORY RELIED UPON AS REQUIRING
DISALLOWANCE OR SUBORDINATION OF THE CONTESTED CLAIM RESTED UPON
GROUNDS NOT PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED, AND WE EXPLICITLY NOTED THAT THE
STATE COURT DID NOT ADJUDICATE IT. 308 U.S. 302-03* . 

*IN PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, THE COURT FOUND THAT LITTON, A
"DOMINANT AND CONTROLLING" STOCKHOLDER OF THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION
ENTERED INTO A "PLANNED AND FRAUDULENT SCHEME" WHICH WAS "PLAINLY FOR
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING PAYMENT OF THE PEPPER DEBT," WHICH WAS
THEN OWED BY THE CORPORATION.  THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME, WHICH WAS
INITIATED SHORTLY BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY, INVOLVED SEVERAL SUCCESSIVE
STEPS, AS FOLLOWS:  LITTON PROCURED A JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR AGAINST THE
CORPORATION, UPON AN ALLEGED FICTITIOUS CLAIM FOR SALARY, WHICH WAS
ENTERED ON CONFESSION IN ITS BEHALF BY ONE OF ITS OFFICERS, WHO WAS
ALSO AN EMPLOYEE OF LITTON AND SUBSERVIENT TO HIS WILL.  A SECOND
JUDGMENT HAVING BEEN ENTERED AGAINST THE CORPORATION UPON THE DEBT TO
PEPPER, AND, EXECUTION UPON THE PEPPER JUDGMENT HAVING BEEN STAYED
PENDING AN APPEAL BY THE CORPORATION, LITTON THEN BECAME THE PURCHASER
OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION ON EXECUTION SALE UNDER HIS
JUDGMENT, AND TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO A NEWLY ORGANIZED CORPORATION
IN EXCHANGE FOR ALL ITS STOCK.  HE THEN CAUSED THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR TO
BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT ON ITS VOLUNTARY PETITION AND FILED IN THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING PROOF OF CLAIM UPON THE CONFESSED JUDGMENT. 

IN THE MEANTIME PEPPER HAD BROUGHT SUIT IN THE VIRGINIA STATE COURTS
TO HAVE THE LITTON JUDGMENT SET ASIDE AS VOID.  FOLLOWING THE SALE OF
THE CORPORATION'S PROPERTY UNDER THE LITTON EXECUTION, THE SHERIFF
INSTITUTED AN INTERPLEADER SUIT JOINING LITTON AND PEPPER AS CLAIMANTS
TO THE PROCEEDS OF THE EXECUTION SALE IN THE SHERIFF'S HANDS.  LITTON
AND PEPPER BOTH ANSWERED, ASSERTING CLAIMS TO THE PROCEEDS SUBJECT TO
AN EXISTING PRIOR LIEN.  THEREAFTER THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, WITH THE
AUTHORITY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, MOVED IN THE STATE COURT TO SET
ASIDE THE LITTON JUDGMENT AND TO QUASH THE EXECUTION ON THE GROUND THAT
THE JUDGMENT WAS VOID, SINCE THE CONFESSION DID NOT CONFORM TO THE
VIRGINIA STATUTES.  THAT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE LITTON JUDGMENT WAS
VOID, BUT DENIED THE MOTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUSTEE WAS ESTOPPED
TO CHALLENGE IT. 

IT HELD THAT PEPPER, IN ASSERTING A CLAIM TO THE PROCEEDS OF THE
SHERIFF'S SALE IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT, HAD TREATED THEM AS VALIDLY
DERIVED FROM THE EXECUTION SALE ON THE LITTON JUDGMENT, AND THAT IN
CONSEQUENCE HE HAD ELECTED TO RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT. 
AS AT THAT TIME LITTON HAD ACQUIRED OR CAUSED TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS ALL THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE, OTHER THAN
THE PEPPER JUDGMENT, THE COURT HELD THAT THE TRUSTEE WAS REPRESENTING
ONLY PEPPER IN THE STATE COURT SUIT AND THAT THE TRUSTEE, AS WELL AS
PEPPER, WAS ESTOPPED TO MAINTAIN IT.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED ON
THESE GROUNDS BY THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT.  SMITH V. LITTON, 167 VA.
263, 188 S.E. 214.  ON OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM ON THE LITTON JUDGMENT
THE DISTRICT COURT, SITTING IN BANKRUPTCY, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM.  ON
APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE DECISION
AND JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT IN SMITH V. LITTON, SUPRA, WERE RES
JUDICATA IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  100 F.2D 830. 

THIS COURT, IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
POINTED OUT THAT THE CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE LITTON JUDGMENT
IN THE STATE COURT WAS ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS IRREGULAR OR
VOID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE THE CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT DID NOT CONFORM TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW.  WE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT UNDER THE
PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE IN THE SUIT ATTACKING THE JUDGMENT THE VALIDITY
OF THE ALLEGED DEBT FOR SALARY WAS NOT IN ISSUE AND NO QUESTION WAS IN
ISSUE OR PRESENTED WHETHER THE LITTON JUDGMENT MIGHT, ON EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES, BE SUBORDINATED TO THE CLAIMS OF OTHER CREDITORS.  WE SAID,
PAGE 303:  "THE ONLY DECREE WHICH WAS ASKED OR COULD BE GIVEN IN THE
PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR" UNDER THE PLEADINGS "WAS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE
JUDGMENT AS A RECORD OBLIGATION OF THE BANKRUPT.  IT IS THEREFORE PLAIN
THAT THE ISSUE WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT LATER CONSIDERED WAS NOT AN
ISSUE IN THE TRIAL OF THE CAUSE IN THE STATE COURT AND COULD NOT BE
ADJUDICATED THERE." 

THUS THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT IN
SMITH V. LITTON, SUPRA, WAS NOT RES JUDICATA AS TO MATTERS LATER RULED
UPON BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AND BY THIS COURT.  UPON THIS ASSUMPTION,
AND ASSUMING ALSO THE VALIDITY OF THE ALLEGED SALARY DEBT UNDERLYING
THE LITTON JUDGMENT, THIS COURT HELD, ON EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, THAT
LITTON WAS NOT FREE TO ASSERT HIS JUDGMENT IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER
CREDITORS BECAUSE HE HAD ACQUIRED THE JUDGMENT IN BREACH OF THE
FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION WHICH A CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER OF THE BANKRUPT
OWES TO THE OTHER CREDITORS, NOT TO SECURE FOR HIMSELF A PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE BY WAY OF SECURITY OR PRIORITY OVER THEM.  CF. TAYLOR V.
STANDARD GAS CO., 306 U.S. 307. 

THE DECISION IN PEPPER V. LITTON THUS AFFORDS NO SUPPORT FOR
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IS
INAPPLICABLE IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  CASES ON WHICH RESPONDENTS
RELY, CITED IN PEPPER V. LITTON, AS ILLUSTRATING THE EXTENT TO WHICH A
COURT MAY LOOK BEHIND A JUDGMENT PROVED IN BANKRUPTCY TO ASCERTAIN THE
NATURE OF A CLAIM UPON WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS BASED, ARE CONCERNED
EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE QUESTION OF THE NATURE OF THE LIABILITY
REPRESENTED BY THE JUDGMENT, THAT IS, WHETHER IT REPRESENTS A "DEBT"
PROVABLE AND DISCHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY UNDER SECS. 17 AND 63 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THUS A DECREE FOR ALIMONY WAS HELD TO BE NOT A "DEBT"
BUT IN THE NATURE OF A PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A DUTY, AND NOT
PROVABLE OR DISCHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.  WETMORE V. MARKOE, 196 U.S.
68.  THOSE CASES DO NOT SUPPORT THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
BELOW THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF A
PROVABLE CLAIM UPON A JUDGMENT, MAY REEXAMINE THE ISSUES WHICH WERE
LITIGATED BY THE BANKRUPT OR HIS TRUSTEE IN THE SUIT IN WHICH THE
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED OR IN ANY OTHER.  SEE BOYNTON V. BALL, 121 U.S.
457.    HERE WHEN THE PETITIONER BROUGHT HIS SUIT FOR CONVERSION HE WAS
NOT A FIDUCIARY FOR THE DEFENDANT, WOODRUFF, OR HIS CREDITORS.  THERE
WAS NO EQUITABLE GROUND UPON WHICH HIS CLAIM OR THE JUDGMENT UPON IT
COULD BE SET ASIDE OR SUBORDINATED TO THOSE OF OTHER CREDITORS IN THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, EXCEPT THAT ASSERTED BY RESPONDENTS THAT THE
JUDGMENT HAD BEEN PROCURED BY A FRAUD PERPETRATED ON THE JUDGMENT
DEBTOR.  THAT ISSUE, HAVING BEEN TWICE LITIGATED AND DECIDED IN THE
COURT IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY THE
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AND THE BANKRUPT, AND BY THE BANKRUPT ALONE, MAY
NOT NOW BE RELITIGATED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  REVERSED.    MR.
JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTING. 

WE WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT FOR THE REASONS STATED BY JUDGE BRATTON
WRITING FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  150 F.2D 869. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT.  IN MY JUDGMENT IT IS NECESSARY, IN THIS
CASE, TO DO NO MORE THAN TO RULE THAT EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, APPLICABLE
IN BANKRUPTCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, AND
PRIOR DECISIONS, DO NOT REQUIRE REEXAMINATION BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT,
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NOW PRESENTED, OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE JUDGMENT
WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM IN ISSUE.  IF, AS THE COURT DECLARED IN
PEPPER V. LITTON, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS POWER TO REJECT CLAIMS, EVEN
WHEN PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED, "IN WHOLE OR IN PART 'ACCORDING TO THE
EQUITIES OF THE CASE,'" 308 U.S. AT 304,  FN1  SEE 11 U.S.C. SEC.
93(K), I FIND NO REASON FOR QUALIFYING THAT RULE IN THIS CASE.  IT
NECESSARILY COMPREHENDS THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THE ALLOWANCE OR
REJECTION AND ORDERING OF CLAIMS SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY BROAD OR
RIGID RULE OF RES JUDICATA.  THAT, I THINK, IS THE ESSENTIAL RULING OF
THE PEPPER CASE.  FN2 

ON THE OTHER HAND, PRIOR ADJUDICATION OF THE VERY GROUNDS ALLEGED FOR
DISALLOWING OR SUBORDINATING A JUDGMENT CLAIM, CANNOT BE IRRELEVANT TO
WHAT EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES MAY REQUIRE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO DO IN
DISPOSING OF THE CLAIM.  AND THE SAME MAY BE TRUE ALSO OF PRIOR FAILURE
TO SECURE SUCH AN ADJUDICATION WHEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY IS AFFORDED BY
PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED TO SET ASIDE OR MODIFY THE JUDGMENT.  CF.
HANDLAN V. WALKER, 200 F. 566.  SOUND POLICIES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION, AFFECTING BOTH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AND THE COURT
RENDERING THE JUDGMENT, MAY HAVE A SIMILAR BEARING. 

IN THIS CASE THE TWO SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS HAD IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AFFORDED PERHAPS MORE THAN
ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES NOW RAISED IN THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, ONCE TO THE BANKRUPT, ONCE TO HIS TRUSTEE.  THESE
PROCEEDINGS WERE ALLOWED TO BE TERMINATED ADVERSELY IN THE ONE CASE
WITHOUT APPEAL, IN THE OTHER AFTER ADVERSE DECISION ON APPEAL AND
WITHOUT APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI.  JACKSON V. HEISER, 111 F.2D 310. 
I DO NOT THINK EQUITY REQUIRES A THIRD OPPORTUNITY TO BE AFFORDED BY
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  ON THIS GROUND I AGREE THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE REVERSED. 

FN1  "ALLOWANCE AND DISALLOWANCE ARE JUDICIAL ACTS....  IN PASSING ON
AN ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS THE COURT SITS AS A COURT OF EQUITY, WHICH GIVES
IT FAR-REACHING POWERS 'TO SIFT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ANY CLAIM
TO SEE THAT INJUSTICE OR UNFAIRNESS IS NOT DONE IN ADMINISTRATION OF
THE BANKRUPT ESTATE.'  (PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, 308.)  MERE
REASONS OF EQUITY MAY SOMETIMES REQUIRE THAT A CREDITOR'S CLAIM BE
EITHER TOTALLY DISALLOWED OR SUBORDINATED TO THE CLAIMS OF ALL OR OF
CERTAIN OTHER GENERAL CREDITORS  ...  EQUITIES TO BE WEIGHED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ALLOWANCE OF A CLAIM MAY VARY IN IMPORTANCE.  THEY
MAY IN EXTREME CASES BE STRONG ENOUGH TO WARRANT DISALLOWANCE
ABSOLUTELY AND ENTIRELY.  IN OTHER CASES EQUITY MAY BE SATISFIED WITH A
MERE 'SUBORDINATION' OR POSTPONEMENT OF A CLAIM, AND ITS RELEGATION TO
A RANK INFERIOR TO THAT OF ALL GENERAL CREDITORS OR OF A PARTICULAR
GROUP."  3 COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  185-186.  SEE ALSO 3 ID. AT
1800-1801. 

11 U.S.C. SEC. 93(A) PROVIDES:  "A PROOF OF CLAIM SHALL CONSIST OF A
STATEMENT UNDER OATH, IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY A CREDITOR, SETTING
FORTH THE CLAIM; THE CONSIDERATION THEREFOR; WHETHER ANY AND, IF SO,
WHAT SECURITIES ARE HELD THEREFOR; AND WHETHER ANY AND, IF SO, WHAT
PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THEREON; AND THAT THE CLAIM IS JUSTLY OWING
FROM THE BANKRUPT TO THE CREDITOR." 

FN2  THE CASE HAS BEEN SO READ.  CITING IT, 3 COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY
(14TH ED.)  1800, SAYS:  "THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA, AS APPLIED TO
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN DECIDING WHETHER A CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED,
DISALLOWED OR SUBORDINATED, IS SUBJECT TO THE PARAMOUNT EQUITABLE
POWERS OF BANKRUPTCY COURTS TO PREVENT THE PERPETRATION OF FRAUD AND
COLLUSION." 
..END :



















UNITED STATES V. RICE, 327 U.S. 742 


NO. 411.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946. 


1.  A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY NOT, BY MANDAMUS, REVIEW A JUDGMENT
OF A DISTRICT COURT ORDERING REMAND TO A STATE COURT OF A PROCEEDING
WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED TO THE DISTRICT COURT UPON PETITION OF THE
UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926, RELATING
TO SUITS INVOLVING TITLE TO LANDS ALLOTTED TO MEMBERS OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.  PP. 744, 753. 

(A)  THE UNITED STATES CAN NOT ASSERT, BY VIRTUE OF ITS SOVEREIGNTY,
A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHICH NO STATUTE CONFERS.  P. 749. 

(B)  SECTION 3 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926, DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE
GOVERNMENT ANY RIGHT OF REVIEW OF AN ORDER REMANDING A CAUSE REMOVED
UNDER THAT ACT; AND SEC. 2 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1887 INTENDED TO
WITHHOLD IT IN ALL CASES OF REMOVAL FROM STATE COURTS.  PP. 749, 751. 

2.  STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND OBJECTIVE APPEARING WITH REASONABLE
CLARITY ARE NOT TO BE OVERCOME BY RESORT TO A MECHANICAL RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION, WHOSE FUNCTION IS NOT TO CREATE DOUBTS BUT TO RESOLVE
THEM WHEN THE REAL ISSUE OR STATUTORY PURPOSE IS OTHERWISE OBSCURE.  P.
753. 

UNITED STATES V. RICE, DISTRICT JUDGE. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGUN IN A COUNTY COURT FOR ADMINISTRATION ON THE
ESTATE OF A RESTRICTED INDIAN MEMBER OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN
OKLAHOMA.  THE COUNTY COURT APPOINTED ADMINISTRATORS.  THE UNITED
STATES PETITIONED FOR AN ORDER OF REMOVAL PURSUANT TO SEC. 3 OF THE ACT
OF APRIL 12, 1926, 44 STAT. 239.  THE COUNTY COURT MADE ITS ORDER OF
REMOVAL AND A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE UNITED STATES PETITIONED FOR INTERVENTION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT AND PRAYED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE DECEDENT'S HEIRS AND OF THE
SPECIFIC PARTS OF HIS PROPERTY WHICH ARE RESTRICTED AND SUBJECT TO THE
SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  ON MOTION OF THE
ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED BY THE COUNTY COURT, THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE PETITION IN INTERVENTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REMANDED
THE PROCEEDING TO THE COUNTY COURT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT.  IN RE MICCO'S ESTATE, 59 F.SUPP.  434. 

THE UNITED STATES APPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE DISTRICT COURT
TO VACATE ITS JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR INTERVENTION AND
REMANDING THE PROCEEDING. 

BEING EQUALLY DIVIDED ON TWO QUESTIONS, (1) WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF
REMAND IS REVIEWABLE BY MANDAMUS, AND (2) WHETHER THE PROCEEDING WAS
REMOVABLE UNDER THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
CERTIFIED A SINGLE QUESTION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT:  "MAY
THIS COURT, BY MANDAMUS, REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ORDERING THE REMAND
OF THE PROCEEDING TO THE COUNTY COURT OF OKFUSKEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA?" 
IT FURTHER REQUESTED THIS COURT TO EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC.
239 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, "TO REQUIRE THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE CAUSE TO
BE SENT UP FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AND TO DECIDE THE WHOLE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY."  THE GOVERNMENT MADE A MOTION TO LIKE EFFECT. 

THE CERTIFIED QUESTION IS ANSWERED "NO" AND THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION
THAT THIS COURT ORDER UP THE ENTIRE RECORD IS DENIED.  P. 753. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, ANNOUNCED BY MR.
JUSTICE BLACK. 

IN THIS CASE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, ACTING UNDER
SEC. 239 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346, HAS CERTIFIED A
QUESTION OF LAW UPON WHICH IT DESIRES THE INSTRUCTION OF THIS COURT FOR
THE PROPER DECISION OF THE CAUSE.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT COURT
MAY, BY MANDAMUS, REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN
OKLAHOMA ORDERING THE REMAND OF A PROCEEDING TO THE COUNTY COURT OF
OKFUSKEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, FROM WHICH IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY REMOVED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT PURSUANT TO SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926, C.
115, 44 STAT. 239. 

THE CERTIFICATE SHOWS THAT PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGUN IN THE COUNTY COURT
BY A PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATION ON THE ESTATE OF PETER MICCO, A
RESTRICTED INDIAN MEMBER OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA.  THE
COUNTY COURT GRANTED THE PETITION, AND APPOINTED ADMINISTRATORS. 
"IN THE STATE COURTS OF OKLAHOMA TO WHICH A RESTRICTED MEMBER OF THE
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA, OR THE RESTRICTED HEIRS OR GRANTEES
OF SUCH INDIAN ARE PARTIES,  ...  AND CLAIMING OR ENTITLED TO CLAIM
TITLE TO OR AN INTEREST IN LANDS ALLOTTED TO A CITIZEN OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES OR THE PROCEEDS, ISSUES, RENTS, AND PROFITS DERIVED
FROM THE SAME, MAY SERVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE PENDENCY OF SUCH SUIT
UPON THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES".  THE UNITED
STATES IS AFFORDED A SPECIFIED TIME AFTER NOTICE IS GIVEN TO APPEAR IN
THE SUIT, AND AFTER SUCH APPEARANCE, OR THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME
SPECIFIED, IT IS PROVIDED THAT "THE PROCEEDINGS AND JUDGMENT IN SAID
CAUSE SHALL BIND THE UNITED STATES AND THE PARTIES THERETO TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS THOUGH NO INDIAN LAND OR QUESTION WERE INVOLVED."  THE ACT
FURTHER PROVIDES THAT 

"THE UNITED STATES MAY BE, AND HEREBY IS, GIVEN THE RIGHT TO REMOVE
ANY SUCH SUIT PENDING IN A STATE COURT TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT BY FILING IN SUCH SUIT IN THE STATE COURT A PETITION FOR THE
REMOVAL OF SUCH SUIT INTO THE SAID UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, TO BE
HELD IN THE DISTRICT WHERE SUCH SUIT IS PENDING, TOGETHER WITH THE
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PLEADINGS IN SUCH SUIT  ...  IT SHALL THEN BE THE
DUTY OF THE STATE COURT TO ACCEPT SUCH PETITION AND PROCEED NO FURTHER
IN SAID SUIT.  THE SAID COPY SHALL BE ENTERED IN THE SAID DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  AND THE DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS IN
SAID SUIT SHALL WITHIN TWENTY DAYS THEREAFTER PLEAD, ANSWER, OR DEMUR
TO THE DECLARATION OR COMPLAINT IN SAID CAUSE, AND THE CAUSE SHALL THEN
PROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IF IT HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY COMMENCED IN
SAID DISTRICT COURT, AND SUCH COURT IS HEREBY GIVEN JURISDICTION TO
HEAR AND DETERMINE SAID SUIT, AND ITS JUDGMENT MAY BE REVIEWED BY
CERTIORARI, APPEAL, OR WRIT OF ERROR IN LIKE MANNER AS IF THE SUIT HAD
BEEN ORIGINALLY BROUGHT IN SAID DISTRICT COURT." 

FOLLOWING THE SERVICE UPON THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED
TRIBES OF NOTICE OF THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT IN THE COUNTY COURT, THE
UNITED STATES TIMELY FILED ITS PETITION IN THAT COURT FOR AN ORDER OF
REMOVAL, ALLEGING THAT THE PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED TO OBTAIN THE
APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF A THREE-FOURTHS BLOOD
SEMINOLE INDIAN; THAT A PORTION OF SAID ESTATE, COMPRISING REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY, IS RESTRICTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES;
THAT TITLE TO AND INTERESTS IN RESTRICTED LAND ARE INVOLVED; THAT THE
HEIRS AT LAW OF MICCO ARE RESTRICTED INDIANS AND WARDS OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

THEREUPON THE COUNTY COURT MADE ITS ORDER OF REMOVAL, AND A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE
UNITED STATES THEN FILED ITS COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, PRAYING A DETERMINATION OF THE HEIRS OF PETER MICCO, AND OF THE
SPECIFIC PARTS OF DECEDENT'S PROPERTY WHICH ARE RESTRICTED AND SUBJECT
TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  ON MOTION OF THE
ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED BY THE COUNTY COURT, THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED AN ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, AND REMANDING THE PROCEEDING TO THE COUNTY COURT FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  IN RE MICCO'S ESTATE, 59 F.SUPP. 
434.  THE UNITED STATES THEREUPON INSTITUTED THIS PROCEEDING IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BY A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, TO DIRECT
THE DISTRICT COURT TO VACATE ITS JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE GOVERNMENT'S
PETITION FOR INTERVENTION AND REMANDING THE PROCEEDING. 

THE CERTIFICATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AFTER STATING THAT
THE COURT IS EQUALLY DIVIDED ON TWO QUESTIONS, FIRST, WHETHER THE
JUDGMENT OF REMAND IS REVIEWABLE BY MANDAMUS, AND, SECOND, WHETHER THE
PROCEEDING WAS REMOVABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1926,
CERTIFIED A SINGLE QUESTION FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, AS FOLLOWS:  "MAY
THIS COURT, BY MANDAMUS, REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ORDERING THE REMAND
OF THE PROCEEDING TO THE COUNTY COURT OF OKFUSKEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA?" 
THE CERTIFICATE FURTHER REQUESTED THIS COURT TO EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY
UNDER SEC. 239 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, "TO REQUIRE THE ENTIRE RECORD IN
THE CAUSE TO BE SENT UP FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AND THAT IT DECIDE THE
WHOLE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY."  THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE A MOTION TO LIKE
EFFECT. 

IN CONSIDERING THESE REQUESTS, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ONLY MATTER
PENDING IN THE COURT BELOW TO WHICH THE CERTIFIED QUESTION RELATES IS
THE APPLICATION FILED IN THAT COURT FOR MANDAMUS, ON WHICH THE COURT
HAS NOT ACTED.  THERE IS CONSEQUENTLY NO ORDER OR JUDGMENT IN THE CASE
WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT BY APPEAL.  THE PRACTICE
ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346, OF ANSWERING QUESTIONS
CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT, OR IN SOME SUCH CASES, OF DECIDING THE ENTIRE
CONTROVERSY ON THE WHOLE RECORD, IS PLAINLY NOT WITHIN OUR ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION.  AS FAR AS IT IS WITHIN OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION, OUR
AUTHORITY IS DEFINED WHOLLY BY THE STATUTE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT, UPON
THE PRESENTATION OF THE CERTIFICATE, THIS COURT "MAY REQUIRE THAT THE
ENTIRE RECORD IN THE CAUSE BE SENT UP FOR ITS CONSIDERATION, AND
THEREUPON SHALL DECIDE THE WHOLE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IN THE SAME
MANNER AS IF IT HAD BEEN BROUGHT (HERE) BY WRIT OF ERROR OR APPEAL." 
BUT THE ONLY MANNER IN WHICH WE, AS AN APPELLATE COURT, CAN DECIDE A
CONTROVERSY BROUGHT HERE BY WRIT OF ERROR OR APPEAL IS BY AFFIRMING,
REVERSING OR MODIFYING THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT BEFORE US FOR REVIEW.  IT
MAY BE DOUBTED WHETHER THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES OUR GOING BEYOND THE
CERTIFIED QUESTION, TO DECIDE A CASE OR CONTROVERSY NOT WITHIN OUR
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, AND WHICH, SINCE NO INFERIOR COURT HAS DECIDED
IT, COULD NOT BE BROUGHT HERE ON APPEAL.  BUT WE NEED NOT RESOLVE THE
DOUBT AS TO OUR POWER HERE, FOR AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR, THE ANSWER
WHICH WE GIVE TO THE QUESTION CERTIFIED IS DISPOSITIVE OF THE WHOLE
CASE BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, MAKING IT UNNECESSARY TO
EXPRESS AN OPINION ON ANY OTHER ISSUE WHICH THE RECORD MIGHT PRESENT,
OR TO ORDER THE RECORD TO BE FILED HERE. 

THE ACT OF 1926, UNDER WHICH THE CAUSE, IN RE MICCO'S ESTATE, WAS
REMOVED FROM THE OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURT, CONTAINS NO PROVISIONS
RESPECTING REMAND OR ANY MODE OF REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF REMAND.  BUT ITS
PROVISIONS MUST BE READ WITH THOSE PROVISIONS GOVERNING REMOVAL OF
SUITS FROM STATE COURTS TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, AND THEIR REMAND,
APPEARING IN SEC. 2 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887(24 STAT. 552,
REENACTED TO CORRECT ERRORS IN ENROLLMENT, AUGUST 13, 1888, 25 STAT.
433, AND AGAIN REENACTED AND AMENDED MARCH 3, 1911, 36 STAT. 1094, AS
SEC. 28 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 71), AND IN SEC. 37 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 80.  SECTION 80 AUTHORIZES REMAND OF "ANY
SUIT" REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT TO A DISTRICT COURT WHERE THE LATTER
FINDS THAT IT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF 1887
PROVIDED FOR THE REMOVAL OF DIVERSITY SUITS FROM STATE COURTS TO
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS, NOW DISTRICT COURTS, AND, AS CORRECTED IN 1888,
CONTAINED A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH, IN TERMS RELATING TO "ANY CAUSE"
REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT INTO A CIRCUIT COURT.  THIS PARAGRAPH READ: 

"WHENEVER ANY CAUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ANY STATE COURT INTO ANY
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT SHALL DECIDE
THAT THE CAUSE WAS IMPROPERLY REMOVED, AND ORDER THE SAME TO BE
REMANDED TO THE STATE COURT FROM WHENCE IT CAME, SUCH REMAND SHALL BE
IMMEDIATELY CARRIED INTO EXECUTION, AND NO APPEAL OR WRIT OF ERROR FROM
THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT SO REMANDING SUCH CAUSE SHALL BE
ALLOWED." 

BEFORE THE JUDICIARY ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, 18 STAT. 470, 472, AN
ORDER OF REMAND WAS DEEMED TO BE NOT REVIEWABLE BY APPEAL OR WRIT OF
ERROR BECAUSE THE ORDER WAS NOT FINAL.  RAILROAD CO. V. WISWALL, 23
WALL.  507; IN RE PENNSYLVANIA CO., 137 U.S. 451.  BUT SEC. 5 OF THE
ACT OF 1875 EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED THE REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF REMAND BY
APPEAL OR WRIT OF ERROR "IN ANY SUIT" REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT.  THIS
PROVISION WAS REPEALED BY SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF 1887, SUPRA, AND TO MAKE
DOUBLY CERTAIN, SEC. 2, SUPRA, SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED APPEALS, WITH
THE ADDED DIRECTION THAT THE ORDER OF REMAND SHOULD "BE IMMEDIATELY
CARRIED INTO EXECUTION".  IT THUS APPEARS THAT WHEN THE ACT OF 1926 WAS
PASSED, THE PRACTICE IN REMOVAL CASES WAS, AS IT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED
FROM THE BEGINNING, SAVE FOR A BRIEF INTERVAL UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE ACT
OF 1875, THAT AN ORDER OF REMAND WAS NOT APPEALABLE, AND IT IS ALSO
CLEAR THAT IN 1926, AS FOR FORTY YEARS BEFORE, SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF
1887 REQUIRED THE REMAND OF "ANY" REMOVED CAUSE TO "BE IMMEDIATELY
CARRIED INTO EXECUTION". 

THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 3 OF THE 1926 ACT, WITHOUT MORE, DID NOT CONFER
UPON THE GOVERNMENT ANY RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM AN ORDER REMANDING A CAUSE
REMOVED UNDER THAT ACT.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT UNDER THE ACT OF 1926,
STANDING ALONE, THE RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF REMAND STANDS ON
ANY DIFFERENT FOOTING THAN IT DID UNDER ANY OTHER STATUTE AUTHORIZING
REMOVAL BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1875 ACT, OR THAT THE ORDER OF
REMAND IS ANY LESS FINAL IN THE CASE OF THE GOVERNMENT THAN IN THE CASE
OF AN INDIVIDUAL.  EACH LOSES, BY THE ORDER, SUCH RIGHT AS THERE MAY BE
TO LITIGATE THE CASE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ON REMOVAL, BUT BOTH RETAIN
SUCH RIGHTS AS THEY MAY HAVE TO CONTINUE THE LITIGATION IN THE STATE
COURT OR TO BRING AN INDEPENDENT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  TO
WHATEVER EXTENT THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM THE OPERATION OF A
STATUTE IN WHICH IT IS NOT NAMED, CF. UNITED STATES V. STEVENSON, 215
U.S. 190, 197 WITH UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 186, IT
IS CLEAR THAT THE UNITED STATES CAN NOT ASSERT, BY VIRTUE OF ITS
SOVEREIGNTY, A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHICH NO STATUTE HAS CONFERRED, OR
WHICH, IF CONFERRED, HAS BEEN ABOLISHED.  NOT ONLY WAS NO SUCH RIGHT OF
APPEAL CONFERRED BY THE ACT OF 1926, BUT, WE THINK, AS WILL PRESENTLY
APPEAR, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1887, DENYING AN
APPEAL FROM AN ORDER REMANDING A CASE REMOVED UNDER THE ACT OF 1926,
DENIED THE RIGHT TO REVIEW BY MANDAMUS AS WELL.    BEFORE THE ENACTMENT
OF THE ACT OF 1875 IT HAD BEEN SUGGESTED THAT ALTHOUGH ORDERS OF REMAND
WERE NOT APPEALABLE, BECAUSE NON-FINAL, THEY MIGHT BE REVIEWED BY
MANDAMUS.  RAILROAD CO. V. WISWALL, 23 WALL.  507; SEE ALSO IN RE
PENNSYLVANIA CO., 137 U.S. 451, 453; EMPLOYERS CORP. V. BRYANT, 299
U.S. 374, 378.  AFTER THE RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM SUCH AN ORDER WAS
CONFERRED IN ALL REMOVAL CASES BY SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF 1875, THE
QUESTION AROSE WHETHER THERE COULD BE REVIEW BY MANDAMUS OF AN ORDER
DENYING A MOTION TO REMAND.  THIS WAS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE ON THE
GROUND THAT THE RIGHT TO APPEAL GIVEN BY THE 1875 ACT WAS LIMITED TO
ORDERS OF REMAND.  HENCE RESORT COULD NOT BE HAD TO MANDAMUS TO PERFORM
THE OFFICE OF A WRIT OF ERROR WHICH CONGRESS HAD WITHHELD IN THE CASE
OF AN ORDER DENYING REMAND.  EX PARTE HOARD, 105 U.S. 578; EX PARTE
HARDING, 219 U.S. 363; EX PARTE ROE, 234 U.S. 70.  IN ALL THESE CASES
IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE MODE OF REVIEW OF AN ORDER DENYING REMAND
IS BY APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE SUIT IN WHICH THE REMAND IS
DENIED. 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT THE MERE FAILURE OF THE 1926 ACT TO CONFER ON
THE GOVERNMENT A RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF REMAND SHOULD NOT
PRECLUDE REVIEW BY MANDAMUS, SINCE, UNLIKE THE CASE WHERE THE DISTRICT
COURT REFUSES TO REMAND, AN ORDER DENYING THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE REMOVED
CAUSE TRIED IN THE DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE REVIEWED IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS.  BUT THIS ARGUMENT PRESUPPOSES THAT THE PROVISIONS
OF THE 1887 ACT, PROHIBITING APPEALS FROM ORDERS OF REMAND, AND
DIRECTING THE IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OF SUCH ORDERS, DO NOT APPLY TO
CAUSES REMOVED FROM THE STATE COURTS UNDER THE ACT OF 1926, A
SUPPOSITION WHICH DISREGARDS THE PLAIN PURPORT OF THE WORDS OF THE 1887
STATUTE, AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

AUTHORIZED REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF REMAND BY WRIT OF ERROR OR APPEAL,
WAS, BY ITS TERMS, MADE APPLICABLE GENERALLY TO "ANY SUIT" REMOVED FROM
A STATE COURT TO A FEDERAL CIRCUIT (NOW DISTRICT) COURT.  IT AUTHORIZED
THE CIRCUIT COURT TO REMAND THE CAUSE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, AND
PROVIDED THAT THE ORDER OF REMAND SHOULD BE REVIEWABLE BY APPEAL.  THIS
SUBSTITUTED FOR THE REPEALED PROVISION GOVERNING APPEALS, A NEW
PROVISION, WHICH WAS IN TERMS LIKEWISE EXTENDED TO ORDERS OF REMAND
"WHENEVER ANY CAUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ANY STATE COURT".  SECTION 6,
TOGETHER WITH THIS SUBSTITUTED PROVISION, EXPLICITLY WITHDREW THE RIGHT
OF APPEAL AND WRIT OF ERROR IN ALL CASES IN WHICH IT HAD BEEN
PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED BY SEC. 5, THAT IS, IN ALL CASES REMOVED FROM STATE
COURTS UNDER ANY STATUTE AUTHORIZING REMOVAL.  SEE EMPLOYERS CORP. V.
BRYANT, SUPRA, 380-1. 

OR WRIT OF ERROR FROM ORDERS OF REMAND WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN
ALLOWED BY SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF 1875 IN ALL CASES REMOVED FROM STATE
COURTS, BUT WHICH BEFORE THAT ACT HAD BEEN DEEMED NOT TO BE APPEALABLE
BECAUSE NOT FINAL ORDERS.  BUT SEC. 2 ALSO COUPLED WITH THIS
PROHIBITION THE DIRECTION, MADE APPLICABLE IN EVERY CASE REMOVED FROM A
STATE COURT, THAT "SUCH REMAND SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY CARRIED INTO
EXECUTION".  READING AND CONSTRUING THESE PROVISIONS TOGETHER, THIS
COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD, AND IT IS NO LONGER OPEN TO DOUBT, THAT AN
ORDER REMANDING A CAUSE WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
APPEALS OF SEC. 2 CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY MANDAMUS.  IN RE PENNSYLVANIA
CO., SUPRA; EMPLOYERS CORP. V. BRYANT, SUPRA. 

CONGRESS, BY THE ADOPTION OF THESE PROVISIONS, AS THUS CONSTRUED,
ESTABLISHED THE POLICY OF NOT PERMITTING INTERRUPTION OF THE LITIGATION
OF THE MERITS OF A REMOVED CAUSE BY PROLONGED LITIGATION OF QUESTIONS
OF JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO WHICH THE CAUSE IS REMOVED. 
THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY DENYING ANY FORM OF REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
REMAND, AND, BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT, OF AN ORDER DENYING REMAND.  IN THE
FORMER CASE, CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED THAT UPON THE REMAND THE LITIGATION
SHOULD PROCEED IN THE STATE COURT FROM WHICH THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED.  IT
MAY BE ARGUABLE, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, THAT IN GIVING THE GOVERNMENT
THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE AND REMOVE A CAUSE FROM A STATE COURT, IT SHOULD
ALSO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE RIGHT, NOT ALLOWED TO PRIVATE LITIGANTS, TO
HAVE ORDERS OF REMAND REVIEWED IN THE APPELLATE COURTS.  BUT THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF AVOIDING INTERRUPTION OF THE LITIGATION OF THE
MERITS OF REMOVED CAUSES, PROPERLY BEGUN IN STATE COURTS, IS AS
PERTINENT TO THOSE REMOVED BY THE UNITED STATES AS BY ANY OTHER SUITOR,
SEE UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 186, AND WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT
THE ACT OF 1926 DID NOT CONFER ANY SUCH RIGHT OF REVIEW, AND THAT THE
ACT OF 1887 INTENDED TO WITHHOLD IT IN ALL CASES OF REMOVAL FROM STATE
COURTS. 

AS WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, AND AS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS,
THESE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1887 WERE INTENDED TO BE APPLICABLE NOT
ONLY TO REMAND ORDERS MADE IN SUITS REMOVED UNDER THE ACT OF 1887, BUT
TO ORDERS OF REMAND MADE IN CASES REMOVED UNDER ANY OTHER STATUTES, AS
WELL.  COLE V. GARLAND, 107 F. 759, DISMISSED ON APPEAL 183 U.S. 693,
APPROVED IN GAY V. RUFF, 292 U.S. 25, 29, N. 5; SEE ALSO EMPLOYERS
CORP. V. BRYANT, SUPRA, 380-1.  IT WAS SO HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE ACT
OF 1926 IN UNITED STATES V. FIXICO, 115 F.2D 389. 

NOTHING IN THE ACT OF 1926 PURPORTS TO IMPAIR OR RESTRICT THE
APPLICATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE 1887 ACT, THUS CONSTRUED, TO ORDERS OF
REMAND MADE UNDER 28 U.S.C., SEC. 80, IN CASES REMOVED UNDER THE 1926
ACT.  CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE 1926 ACT, NOT ONLY FAILED TO INCLUDE IN
IT ANY PROVISION MODIFYING WHAT HAD BEEN FOR FORTY YEARS THE
ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF DENYING REVIEW OF ORDERS REMANDING CAUSES
REMOVED FROM STATE COURTS, BUT IT MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF
THE UNIVERSALITY OF THAT PRACTICE, AND TO HAVE BEEN CONTENT THAT, AS
ESTABLISHED BY THE 1887 ACT, IT SHOULD APPLY TO CASES REMOVED UNDER THE
1926 ACT.  STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND OBJECTIVE, THUS APPEARING WITH
REASONABLE CLARITY, ARE NOT TO BE OVERCOME BY RESORT TO A MECHANICAL
RULE OF CONSTRUCTION, WHOSE FUNCTION IS NOT TO CREATE DOUBTS, BUT TO
RESOLVE THEM WHEN THE REAL ISSUE OR STATUTORY PURPOSE IS OTHERWISE
OBSCURE.  UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 186. 

THE CERTIFIED QUESTION WILL BE ANSWERED "NO", AND THE GOVERNMENT'S
MOTION THAT WE ORDER UP THE ENTIRE RECORD MAY ACCORDINGLY BE DENIED. 
SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926, 44 STAT. 239, HAS TWO MAIN PURPOSES.  IT
PROVIDES THE MACHINERY FOR BRINGING IN THE UNITED STATES WHERE THE
PROPERTY INTERESTS OF A RESTRICTED INDIAN OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES
ARE BEING LITIGATED IN EITHER THE FEDERAL OR THE STATE COURTS.  THIS
WAS DONE SO THAT ALL INTERESTED PARTIES MIGHT BE CONCLUDED BY ONE
PROCEEDING AND TITLES TO THESE INDIAN LANDS STABILIZED.  FN1  H. REP.
NO. 322, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.  IN CASE THE PROCEEDING IS
BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT, THE UNITED STATES IS GIVEN "THE RIGHT TO
REMOVE" THE SUIT TO THE FEDERAL COURT BY FILING IN THE STATE COURT A
PETITION FOR REMOVAL.  THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHEN SUCH PETITION IS
FILED IT SHALL BE "THE DUTY OF THE STATE COURT TO ACCEPT SUCH PETITION
AND PROCEED NO FURTHER IN SAID SUIT."  THE RIGHT TO REMOVE IS
UNQUALIFIED.  IT RESTS IN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE UNITED STATES,
WHICH IS GIVEN THE CHOICE OF THE FORUM.  AS STATED IN THE HOUSE REPORT,
SUPRA, P. 2: 

"SECTION 3 PROVIDES ONLY WHERE THE INTEREST OF A RESTRICTED INDIAN OF
THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IS BEING LITIGATED IN THE STATE COURTS THAT
SERVICE MAY BE HAD UPON THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVEN THE
RIGHT TO CHOSE THE FORUM IN WHICH THE SUIT MAY BE TRIED AND MAY
TRANSFER SUCH CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UPON MOTION IN
THE EVENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO DO SO." 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THIS SPECIAL ACT, PASSED IN 1926, IS GOVERNED BY
THE GENERAL REMOVAL ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, 24 STAT. 552, JUDICIAL CODE
SEC. 28, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 71, WHICH DISALLOWS APPEALS FROM ORDERS
REMANDING CAUSES REMOVED FROM STATE COURTS.  I DO NOT AGREE. 

(1)  THE 1926 ACT CONTAINS NONE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS WRITTEN INTO
THE GENERAL REMOVAL ACTS. 

(2)  THE 1926 ACT IS AN INDEPENDENT STATUTE DEALING WITH A HIGHLY
SPECIALIZED PROBLEM AND LIMITED AS TO PARTIES AND SUBJECT MATTER.  THE
MISCHIEF AT WHICH THE GENERAL REMOVAL ACTS WERE AIMED IS NOT PRESENT
HERE.  THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH ELIMINATING LITIGIOUS INTERRUPTIONS OF
PRIVATE LITIGATION BY PROLONGED DISPUTES OVER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT TO WHICH THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED.  BUT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT IN
A POSITION OF A PRIVATE LITIGANT.  THE UNITED STATES HAS A SPECIAL
FUNCTION TO PERFORM IN THESE INDIAN CASES.  IT REPRESENTS THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  HECKMAN V. UNITED STATES, 224 U.S. 413, 437-444.  IT ALONE
IS GIVEN THE "RIGHT TO REMOVE".  IF THE CAUSE IS REMANDED, IT ALONE CAN
SEEK REVIEW.  IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT THE 1926 ACT PROVIDES A
PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE UNITED STATES CAN BE BOUND BY A SUIT INSTITUTED
BY ANOTHER.  IT IS FAIR TO INFER THAT WHEN THE UNITED STATES WAS
SUBJECTED TO THAT RISK, CONGRESS INTENDED THAT IT SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT,
IF IT SO ELECTED, TO HAVE THE CAUSE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY ITS OWN
COURTS.  THE "RIGHT CHOSE THE FORUM IN WHICH THE SUIT MAY BE TRIED" (H.
REP., SUPRA) CAN HARDLY HAVE ANY OTHER MEANING. 

(3)  THE 1887 ACT IN ITS OPERATION WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED
STATES.  IT PROVIDED FOR REMOVAL BY DEFENDANTS.  THEY ALONE COULD
REMOVE.  THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL WAS THEREFORE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE UNITED
STATES.  IT COULD NOT BE A DEFENDANT IN A STATE COURT, SINCE IT HAD NOT
CONSENTED TO BE SUED THERE.  THAT WAS WELL SETTLED AT THE TIME.  FOR IN
1896 THE COURT STATED, "THE UNITED STATES, BY VARIOUS ACTS OF CONGRESS,
HAVE CONSENTED TO BE SUED IN THEIR OWN COURTS IN CERTAIN CLASSES OF
CASES; BUT THEY HAVE NEVER CONSENTED TO BE SUED IN THE COURTS OF A
STATE IN ANY CASE."  STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255, 270.  IT SEEMS
CLEAR THEN THAT THE PROHIBITION AGAINST REVIEW OF ORDERS OF REMAND
CONTAINED IN THE 1887 ACT WAS NOT AIMED AT THE UNITED STATES.  I THINK,
THEREFORE, THAT IT SHOULD REQUIRE AN EXPLICIT PROVISION IN THE 1926 ACT
TO CONCLUDE THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS NOW TO BE BOUND BY AN ACT
HERETOFORE INAPPLICABLE TO IT.  IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD THAT IF THE
UNITED STATES IS TO BE DEPRIVED OF A RIGHT OR A REMEDY BY THE GENERAL
TERMS OF A STATUTE, "THE LANGUAGE MUST BE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC TO THAT
EFFECT."  UNITED STATES V. STEVENSON, 215 U.S. 190, 197; UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN BELL TEL. CO., 159 U.S. 548, 554; UNITED STATES V. HERRON,
20 WALL.  251, 263; DOLLAR SAVINGS BANK V. UNITED STATES, 19 WALL. 
227, 239.  THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE A CLEAR CASE FOR THE APPLICATION OF
THAT RULE. 

IF CONGRESS HAD SAID THAT ORDERS OF REMAND UNDER THE 1926 ACT SHOULD
NOT BE REVIEWED, MANDAMUS OF COURSE WOULD NOT LIE.  BUT SINCE THERE IS
NO SUCH PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS IS AVAILABLE TO COMPEL THE DISTRICT COURT
TO PERFORM ITS DUTY.  RAILROAD CO. V. WISWALL, 23 WALL.  507; IN RE
PENNSYLVANIA CO., 137 U.S. 451, 453. 

FN1  PRIOR TO THE 1926 ACT THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT BE BOUND BY A
PROCEEDING AFFECTING RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS.  AFTER THE MATTER HAD
BEEN LITIGATED, THE UNITED STATES COULD STILL INSTITUTE AN INDEPENDENT
SUIT AND ANNUL THE PRIOR DECREE ENTERED IN THE SUIT TO WHICH IT WAS NOT
A PARTY.  SUNDERLAND V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 226. 
..END :










SWANSON V. MARRA BROS., 328 U.S. 1 


NO. 405.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946.  - 149
F.2D 646, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A LONGSHOREMAN IN THE EMPLOY OF A STEVEDORING COMPANY, WHILE ON A
PIER AND ENGAGED IN LOADING CARGO ON A SHIP LYING ALONGSIDE IN A
HARBOR, WAS STRUCK BY A LIFE RAFT WHICH FELL FROM THE VESSEL AND
INJURED HIM.  HELD, HE HAS NO RIGHT OF RECOVERY AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER
UNDER THE JONES ACT, 41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688.  INTERNATIONAL
STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY, 272 U.S. 50; O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES
DREDGE & DOCK CO., 318 U.S. 36, DIFFERENTIATED.  PP. 2, 7. 

2.  BY LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO THE JONES ACT AND THE DECISION IN
THE HAVERTY CASE, CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSED ITS PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE
LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES TO INJURIES TO HIS
EMPLOYEES OCCURRING ON NAVIGABLE WATERS OR INFLICTED UPON AN EMPLOYEE
WHO IS EITHER A MASTER OR A MEMBER OF A CREW OF THE VESSEL, INJURED IN
THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AS SUCH.  P. 5. 

3.  THE EFFECT OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT OF MARCH 4, 1927, 33 U.S.C. 901 ET SEQ., IS TO CONFINE THE BENEFITS
OF THE JONES ACT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A VESSEL PLYING IN
NAVIGABLE WATERS AND TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY RECOGNIZED
BY THE HAVERTY CASE ONLY SUCH RIGHTS TO COMPENSATION AS ARE GIVEN BY
THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT.  P. 7. 

4.  SINCE THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT IS RESTRICTED TO COMPENSATION FOR
INJURIES OCCURRING ON NAVIGABLE WATERS, IT EXCLUDES FROM ITS OWN TERMS
AND FROM THE JONES ACT ANY REMEDIES AGAINST THE EMPLOYER FOR INJURIES
INFLICTED ON SHORE.  P. 7. 

5.  IT LEAVES THE INJURED EMPLOYEES IN SUCH CASES TO PURSUE THE
REMEDIES AFFORDED BY THE LOCAL LAW, WHICH THIS COURT HAS OFTEN HELD
PERMITS RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER FOR INJURIES INFLICTED BY LAND
TORTS ON HIS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A VESSEL.  P.
7. 

6.  IT LEAVES UNAFFECTED THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A
VESSEL TO RECOVER UNDER THE JONES ACT WHEN INJURED WHILE PURSUING THEIR
MARITIME EMPLOYMENT WHETHER ON BOARD OR ON SHORE.  PP. 7-8. 

SWANSON V. MARRA BROTHERS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER, A LONGSHOREMAN IN THE EMPLOY OF RESPONDENT STEVEDORING
COMPANY, SUED TO RECOVER UNDER THE JONES ACT, 41 STAT. 1007, FOR
INJURIES SUFFERED WHILE ON A PIER AND ENGAGED IN LOADING CARGO ON A
VESSEL LYING ALONGSIDE IN THE HARBOR.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT.  57 F.SUPP.  456.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
149 F.2D 646.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 710.  AFFIRMED,
P. 8. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, ANNOUNCED BY MR.
JUSTICE BLACK. 

PETITIONER, A LONGSHOREMAN IN THE EMPLOY OF RESPONDENT STEVEDORING
COMPANY, WHILE ON A PIER AND ENGAGED IN LOADING CARGO ON A VESSEL LYING
ALONGSIDE IN THE HARBOR OF PHILADELPHIA, WAS STRUCK BY A LIFE RAFT
WHICH FELL FROM THE VESSEL AND INJURED HIM.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION,
WHICH WAS RESERVED IN O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., 318
U.S. 36, 43, 44, IS WHETHER PETITIONER MAY MAINTAIN A SUIT AGAINST HIS
EMPLOYER TO RECOVER FOR THE INJURY, UNDER THE JONES ACT, 41 STAT. 1007,
46 U.S.C. SEC. 688. 

PETITIONER, AFTER HAVING SOUGHT AND RECEIVED COMPENSATION FOR HIS
INJURY UNDER THE STATE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT OF PENNSYLVANIA, BROUGHT
THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
"PURSUANT TO THE MARITIME LAW AS MODIFIED BY SECTION 33 OF THE MERCHANT
MARINE ACT OF 1920" (THE JONES ACT).  HE ALLEGED AS THE CAUSE OF THE
INJURY RESPONDENT'S BREACH OF DUTY IN FAILING TO PROVIDE A SAFE AND
SEAWORTHY VESSEL AND APPLIANCES AND A SAFE PLACE FOR PETITIONER TO
WORK, AND IN FAILING TO MAKE THE LIFE RAFT SECURE AND TO MAKE ADEQUATE
INSPECTION OF IT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, HOLDING
THAT THERE COULD BE NO RECOVERY UNDER THE JONES ACT BY ONE NOT A SEAMAN
FOR AN INJURY SUFFERED BY HIM WHILE ON SHORE.  57 F.SUPP.  456.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 646.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 326 U.S. 710, BECAUSE OF THE NOVELTY AND IMPORTANCE
OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

THE JONES ACT PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART: 

"ANY SEAMAN WHO SHALL SUFFER PERSONAL INJURY IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT MAY, AT HIS ELECTION, MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AT LAW,
WITH THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, AND IN SUCH ACTION ALL STATUTES OF THE
UNITED STATES MODIFYING OR EXTENDING THE COMMONLAW RIGHT OR REMEDY IN
CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES SHALL APPLY  ..." 

THE ACT THUS MADE APPLICABLE TO SEAMEN, INJURED IN THE COURSE OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ., WHICH GIVE TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES A
RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR
EMPLOYER, ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES.  PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S.
375; THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110, 118. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT A STEVEDORE WHO WAS INJURED WHILE STORING CARGO,
AND WHILE ON BUT NOT EMPLOYED BY A VESSEL LYING IN NAVIGABLE WATERS,
WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE JONES ACT TO BRING SUIT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER TO
RECOVER FOR INJURY CAUSED BY THE EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE.  INTERNATIONAL
STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY, 272 U.S. 50; URAVIC V. JARKA CO., 282 U.S.
234.  IT WAS THOUGHT THAT BOTH THE LANGUAGE AND THE POLICY OF THE ACT
INDICATED THAT BY TAKING OVER PRINCIPLES OF RECOVERY ALREADY
ESTABLISHED FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE RAILROADS AND IN MAKING
THEM APPLICABLE IN THE ADMIRALTY SETTING, CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXTEND
THEM TO STEVEDORES, THE EMPLOYEES OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, WHILE
WORKING ON A VESSEL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS AND WHILE RENDERING SERVICES
CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED BY SEAMEN.  INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. V.
HAVERTY, SUPRA, 52; SEE O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO.,
SUPRA, 38, 39. 

PETITIONER, IN URGING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE HAVERTY CASE BE
EXTENDED SO AS TO ALLOW HIM TO RECOVER FOR HIS INJURIES SUSTAINED ON
SHORE, PLACES HIS RELIANCE ON O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK
CO., SUPRA.  WE THERE HELD THE SHIP OWNER LIABLE, UNDER THE JONES ACT,
FOR INJURIES CAUSED TO A SEAMAN BY A FELLOW SERVANT WHILE THE FORMER
WAS ON SHORE ENGAGED IN REPAIRING A CONDUIT WHICH WAS A PART OF THE
VESSEL AND USED FOR DISCHARGING ITS CARGO.  BUT IN THAT CASE WE
SUSTAINED THE RECOVERY BECAUSE THE INJURED PERSON WAS A SEAMAN AND AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE VESSEL, ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AS
SUCH.  AN INCIDENT TO HIS EMPLOYMENT BY THE VESSEL AS A SEAMAN WAS HIS
RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR INJURIES RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF
HIS EMPLOYMENT, A CAUSE OF ACTION TRADITIONALLY COGNIZABLE IN
ADMIRALTY.  THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158, 175; CALMAR S.S. CORP. V.
TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525, 527-528.  THE JURISDICTION OF ADMIRALTY OVER SUCH
A CAUSE OF ACTION DEPENDS, NOT ON THE PLACE WHERE THE INJURY IS
INFLICTED, COMPARE THE PLYMOUTH, 3 WALL.  20; CLEVELAND TERMINAL R. CO.
V. STEAMSHIP CO., 208 U.S. 316; SEE MINNIE V. PORT HURON CO., 295 U.S.
647; THE ADMIRAL PEOPLES, 295 U.S. 649, BUT ON THE NATURE OF THE
SEAMAN'S SERVICE, HIS STATUS AS A MEMBER OF THE VESSEL, AND HIS
RELATIONSHIP AS SUCH TO THE VESSEL AND ITS OPERATION IN NAVIGABLE
WATERS.  O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., SUPRA, 42-43; CF.
CALMAR S.S. CORP. V. TAYLOR, SUPRA. 

CONGRESS, IN THUS ENLARGING AN ADMIRALTY REMEDY, WAS EXERCISING ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE, AND TO MAKE LAWS WHICH SHALL
BE NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY INTO EXECUTION POWERS VESTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY DEPARTMENT OF IT, ART. I, SEC. 8,
CL. 18, INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL POWER WHICH, BY ART. III, SEC. 2,
EXTENDS "TO ALL CASES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION."  BY SEC.
9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 76, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 371,
(THIRD), CONGRESS CONFERRED ON THE DISTRICT COURTS "EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
COGNIZANCE OF ALL CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION
...  SAVING TO SUITORS, IN ALL CASES, THE RIGHT OF A COMMON LAW REMEDY,
WHERE THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE IT  ..."  BY THE GRANT OF
ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION IN THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE, AND BY
SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT, THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER THE
TRADITIONAL BODY OF RULES, PRECEPTS AND PRACTICES KNOWN TO LAWYERS AND
LEGISLATORS AS THE MARITIME LAW, SO FAR AS THE COURTS INVESTED WITH
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION SHOULD ACCEPT AND APPLY THEM.  SEE O'DONNELL V.
GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO., SUPRA, 40, AND CASES CITED. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER HERE WHETHER CONGRESS, BY THE JONES
ACT, UNDERTOOK TO OR COULD GIVE A REMEDY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER FOR
INJURIES CAUSED BY A VESSEL TO HIS EMPLOYEES, NOT MEMBERS OF THE CREW
OF THE VESSEL, WHILE WORKING ON SHORE.  FOR CONGRESS, BY LATER
LEGISLATION, HAS EXPRESSED ITS PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE LIABILITY OF THE
EMPLOYER UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES TO INJURIES TO HIS EMPLOYEES OCCURRING
ON NAVIGABLE WATERS OR INFLICTED UPON AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS EITHER A
MASTER OR A MEMBER OF A CREW OF THE VESSEL, INJURED IN THE COURSE OF
HIS EMPLOYMENT AS SUCH. 

WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DECISION IN THE HAVERTY CASE AND NEARLY
SIXTEEN YEARS BEFORE OUR DECISION IN THE O'DONNELL CASE, CONGRESS
ENACTED THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT OF
MARCH 4, 1927, 44 STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET SEQ., WHICH GAVE A
REMEDY AGAINST EMPLOYERS BY WAY OF COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY OR DEATH
SUFFERED ON NAVIGABLE WATERS BY ANY EMPLOYEE NOT A "MASTER OR MEMBER OF
A CREW OF ANY VESSEL."  SEC. 903.  THE LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO PAY
THE PRESCRIBED COMPENSATION IS, BY SEC. 905, MADE "EXCLUSIVE AND IN
PLACE OF ALL OTHER LIABILITY OF SUCH EMPLOYER TO THE EMPLOYEE," HIS
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ANY OTHER PERSON ENTITLED TO RECOVER DAMAGES
"AT LAW OR IN ADMIRALTY" FROM THE EMPLOYER FOR THE INJURY OR DEATH.  BY
SEC. 903(A)(1) RECOVERY MAY BE HAD UNDER THE ACT ONLY "IF RECOVERY FOR
THE DISABILITY OR DEATH THROUGH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS MAY
NOT VALIDLY BE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW." 

THE ACT BOTH IMPOSES LIABILITY ON THE EMPLOYER FOR INJURIES ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS TO EMPLOYEES NOT INCLUDING THE MASTER OR MEMBERS OF A
CREW OF A VESSEL, AND MAKES THE PRESCRIBED LIABILITY TO EMPLOYEES
WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT EXCLUSIVE.  THE ACT THUS EXCLUDES FROM
ITS BENEFITS STEVEDORES NOT MEMBERS OF THE CREW WHO ARE INJURED ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS FROM RECOVERING UNDER THE JONES ACT AS INTERPRETED BY
THE HAVERTY CASE.  THOSE PROVISIONS MAKE IT PLAIN THAT CONGRESS' OWN
INTERPRETATION OF THE JONES ACT IS SUCH AS TO PRECLUDE THE EXTENSION OF
THE DOCTRINE OF THAT CASE TO THE SPECIFIED EMPLOYEES INJURED ON LAND. 

WE CAN HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS, WHILE EXPLICITLY DENYING A RIGHT
OF RECOVERY UNDER THE JONES ACT TO MARITIME WORKERS NOT MEMBERS OF A
CREW WHO ARE INJURED ON BOARD A VESSEL, EITHER THOUGHT THAT THE JONES
ACT EXTENDED TO INJURIES INFLICTED ON SHORE TO EMPLOYEES NOT MEMBERS OF
A CREW, SEE STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION V. NORDENHOLT CORP., 259 U.S.
263, 273; SMITH & SON V. TAYLOR, 276 U.S. 179, OR INTENDED THAT THERE
SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED FOR SUCH WORKERS INJURED ON SHORE, BY EXTENSION
OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE HAVERTY CASE, A RIGHT OF RECOVERY WHICH IT AT
THE SAME TIME WITHDREW FROM SUCH WORKERS WHEN INJURED ON NAVIGABLE
WATERS.  THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IN RECOMMENDING THE
LEGISLATION WHICH BECAME THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT, EXPRESSED DOUBT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF
CONGRESS TO GIVE RECOVERY TO SUCH EMPLOYEES INJURED ON SHORE, SAYING
"THESE MEN ARE MAINLY EMPLOYED IN LOADING, UNLOADING, REFITTING, AND
REPAIRING SHIPS; BUT IT SHOULD BE REMARKED THAT INJURIES OCCURRING IN
LOADING OR UNLOADING ARE NOT COVERED UNLESS THEY OCCUR ON THE SHIP OR
BETWEEN THE WHARF AND THE SHIP SO AS TO BRING THEM WITHIN THE MARITIME
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  SEN. REP. NO. 973, 69TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 16.  CF. CLEVELAND TERMINAL R. CO. V. STEAMSHIP CO., SUPRA;
THE ADMIRAL PEOPLES, SUPRA. 

WE MUST TAKE IT THAT THE EFFECT OF THESE PROVISIONS OF THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT IS TO CONFINE THE BENEFITS OF THE JONES ACT TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A VESSEL PLYING IN NAVIGABLE WATERS AND TO
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY RECOGNIZED BY THE HAVERTY CASE
ONLY SUCH RIGHTS TO COMPENSATION AS ARE GIVEN BY THE LONGSHOREMEN'S
ACT.  BUT SINCE THIS ACT IS RESTRICTED TO COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES
OCCURRING ON NAVIGABLE WATERS, IT EXCLUDES FROM ITS OWN TERMS AND FROM
THE JONES ACT ANY REMEDIES AGAINST THE EMPLOYER FOR INJURIES INFLICTED
ON SHORE.  THE ACT LEAVES THE INJURED EMPLOYEES IN SUCH CASES TO PURSUE
THE REMEDIES AFFORDED BY THE LOCAL LAW, WHICH THIS COURT HAS OFTEN HELD
PERMITS RECOVERY AGAINST THE EMPLOYER FOR INJURIES INFLICTED BY LAND
TORTS ON HIS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A VESSEL. 
STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION V. NORDENHOLT CORP., SUPRA; SMITH & SON V.
TAYLOR, SUPRA; CF. MINNIE V. PORT HURON CO., SUPRA. AND IT LEAVES
UNAFFECTED THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A VESSEL TO RECOVER
UNDER THE JONES ACT WHEN INJURED WHILE PURSUING THEIR MARITIME
EMPLOYMENT WHETHER ON BOARD, WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155; NORTON V.
WARNER CO., 321 U.S. 565; SEE SOUTH CHICAGO CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S.
251, 255-6, OR ON SHORE.  O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO.,
SUPRA.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 8 


NO. 749.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946.  - 391 ILL.
29, 62 N.E.2D 537, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466, WHICH PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN INSOLVENT
DEBTOR MAKES A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT OF HIS PROPERTY "THE DEBTS DUE TO
THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE FIRST SATISFIED," A CLAIM OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR TAXES UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY
OVER THE CLAIM OF A STATE FOR TAXES UNDER THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT.  PP. 9, 11. 

2. PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466 IN SUCH CASE IS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH EITHER THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OR THE PURPOSE OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  P. 11. 

ILLINOIS EX REL. GORDON, DIRECTOR OF LABOR, V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES TO
PRIORITY OVER THE CLAIM OF THE STATE IN THE PROPERTY OF AN INSOLVENT
DEBTOR.  391 ILL. 29, 62 N.E.2D 537.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
327 U.S. 771.  AFFIRMED, P. 12. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HELD THAT CERTAIN TAX
CLAIMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGAINST AN INSOLVENT TAXPAYER MUST BE
SATISFIED IN FULL BEFORE THE STATE OF ILLINOIS CAN RECOVER AMOUNTS DUE
AS TAXES UNDER ITS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT.  391 ILL. 29, 62
N.E.2D 537.  THIS DECISION IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFLICT WITH THAT OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND IN RIVARD V. BIJOU FURNITURE CO., 67
R.I. 251, 21 A.2D 563, 68 R.I. 358, 27 A.2D 853, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT. 

THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES IS FOR FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION TAXES UNDER TITLE 9 AND FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
TAXES UNDER TITLE 8 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT. 620.  FN1 THE
PRIORITY CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES RESTS ON R.S. 3466, WHICH
PROVIDES IN PART THAT "WHENEVER ANY PERSON INDEBTED TO THE UNITED
STATES  ..., NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT PROPERTY TO PAY ALL HIS DEBTS, MAKES
A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT" OF HIS PROPERTY, "THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED
STATES SHALL BE FIRST SATISFIED." 

THE STATE CONCEDES THAT THE FACTS HERE BRING THE UNITED STATES' TAX
CLAIMS WITHIN THE GENERAL PRIORITY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3466.  THE
TAXPAYER WHILE INSOLVENT HAD MADE A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT OF ALL HIS
PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.  AND IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT
TAXES ARE DEBTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3466.  UNITED STATES V.
WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. 353, 355.  THE STATE'S ONLY CONTENTION IS THAT
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT EVINCES A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO FREE STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT TAX CLAIMS FROM THE GENERAL PRIORITY PROVISIONS OF SEC.
3466. 

THE STATE DRAWS ITS INFERENCE NOT FROM AN EXPRESS DECLARATION OF
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, BUT FROM WHAT IT DEEMS TO BE BROAD IMPLICATIONS
BEHIND THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  THE CONTENTION
IS THAT ENFORCEMENT OF PRIORITIES OVER STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
TAX CLAIMS WOULD WEAKEN STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUNDS AND THUS
TEND TO FRUSTRATE THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO FOSTER, IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST, SOUND FINANCIAL AND STABLE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION SYSTEMS.  THE STATE POINTS TO THE FOLLOWING AS SHOWING
CONGRESS' INTEREST IN STATE SYSTEMS.  TITLE 9 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT CONTAINS PROVISIONS INTENDED TO INDUCE STATES TO SET UP SOUND
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONGRESSIONALLY PRESCRIBED
STANDARDS.  TO THIS END STATE SYSTEMS THAT MEET THESE STANDARDS ARE
PERMITTED TO BUILD UP THEIR OWN FUNDS BY COLLECTION FROM EMPLOYERS
WITHIN THE STATE OF 90% OF THE TAX THOSE EMPLOYERS WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE
TO PAY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  STATE FUNDS MUST BE PAID INTO THE
UNITED STATES TREASURY, TO BE CREDITED TO A SPECIAL FUND, AND CAN BE
WITHDRAWN ONLY FOR PAYING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.  FURTHERMORE, THE
FEDERAL PORTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAXES CAN BE USED TO HELP
STATES PAY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.  AND CONGRESS, SINCE PASSAGE OF THE
ORIGINAL ACT, HAS ENACTED LEGISLATION GUARANTEEING THE SOLVENCY OF
STATE FUNDS.  58 STAT. 790.  ALL OF THESE FACTS, AND SOME OTHERS TO
WHICH THE STATE REFERS, ARE SAID TO SHOW THAT THE PARAMOUNT PURPOSE OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION WAS TO TREAT UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF AS A
PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY ITS ASSUMPTION OF THE
PRIMARY BURDEN OF MAKING STATE SYSTEMS A SUCCESS. 

WE AGREE THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION PROVIDES A METHOD FOR
ACCOMPLISHING STATE AND FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF SYSTEMS, INTEGRATED
IN PLAN, FUNCTION, AND PURPOSE, AND THAT SOUND STATE SYSTEMS ARE
ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE SUCCESS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN.  BUT WE CANNOT
AGREE THAT CONGRESS THEREBY INTENDED IN EFFECT TO AMEND SEC. 3466, BY
MAKING ITS PRIORITY PROVISIONS INAPPLICABLE TO STATE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX
CLAIMS.  FOR WHILE THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS WERE TO COOPERATE,
THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF THE FEDERAL ACT WAS TO KEEP THE STATE AND
FEDERAL SYSTEMS SEPARATELY ADMINISTERED.  THE ACT NOWHERE INDICATES A
PURPOSE TO TREAT A STATE UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM AS THE STATE HERE URGES US
TO TREAT ITS CLAIM - "TANTAMOUNT TO A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FURTHERMORE, SECS. 807(C) AND 905(B) OF THE FEDERAL ACT, AND THE
PROVISIONS THEY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, MADE APPLICABLE TO SOCIAL
SECURITY TAXES ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT
AND COLLECTION OF OTHER TAXES UNLESS SUCH OTHER REMEDIES ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  WHILE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
THAT CONGRESS IN THESE SECTIONS HAD SEC. 3466 SPECIFICALLY IN MIND,
THESE PROVISIONS INDICATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED, SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE, TO APPLY TO SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES ALL OF THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN COLLECTING OTHER TAXES.  SECTION
3466 PROVIDES ONE OF THESE REMEDIES.  SINCE, AS HAS BEEN INDICATED, IT
IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH EITHER THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OR PURPOSE OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, IT MUST BE APPLIED HERE. 

PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT RELIED ON BY THE STATE DO NOT
SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION.  THOSE CASES, INSOFAR AS THEY HELD THAT SEC.
3466 DID NOT GIVE THE UNITED STATES PRIORITY OVER CERTAIN OTHER TYPES
OF CLAIMS, DID SO BECAUSE LATER ACTS WERE FOUND TO CONTAIN PROVISIONS
PLAINLY INCONSISTENT WITH UNITED STATES PRIORITY.  COOK COUNTY NATIONAL
BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445; UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST
CO., 280 U.S. 478.  CF. UNITED STATES V. EMORY, 314 U.S. 423, 431-432. 
WE FIND NO SUCH INCONSISTENCY HERE.  AND "ONLY THE PLAINEST
INCONSISTENCY WOULD WARRANT OUR FINDING AN IMPLIED EXCEPTION TO THE
OPERATION OF SO CLEAR A COMMAND AS THAT OF SEC. 3466."  UNITED STATES
V. EMORY, SUPRA, 433.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  A SMALL PART OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM WAS FOR CAPITAL STOCK
TAXES, BUT THIS FACT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















EL DORADO OIL WORKS V. U.S., 328 U.S. 12 


NO. 428.  ARGUED JANUARY 30 AND MARCH 26, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22,
1946.  - 59 F.SUPP.  738, AFFIRMED. 


A SHIPPER WHO RENTED TANK CARS FOR TRANSPORTING ITS PRODUCTS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE CAR
COMPANY FOR THE AMOUNT BY WHICH ALLOWANCES RECEIVED BY THE CAR COMPANY
FROM CARRIERS FOR USE OF THE CARS EXCEEDED THE RENTAL.  THIS COURT, IN
GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S.
422, ORDERED THE DISTRICT COURT TO STAY ITS HAND UNTIL THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION COULD DETERMINE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS
INVOLVED.  IN RESPONSE TO A PETITION OF THE SHIPPER, THE COMMISSION
FOUND THAT AN ALLOWANCE TO THE SHIPPER IN EXCESS OF THE RENTAL WOULD BE
UNJUST, UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL, AND ORDERED THE PROCEEDING BEFORE IT
DISCONTINUED.  HELD: 

1.  THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION WAS A REVIEWABLE "ORDER," AND A SUIT
TO ENJOIN OR SET IT ASIDE WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A DISTRICT
COURT OF THREE JUDGES.  28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(28), 47.  P. 18. 

2.  THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTED A JUST AND
REASONABLE ALLOWANCE TO THE SHIPPER WAS VALID ALTHOUGH IT RELATED TO
PAST TRANSACTIONS.  P. 19. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION MADE ITS DETERMINATION, AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF
THE PAST PRACTICES, UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE SHIPPER.  P. 19. 

(B)  THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE TANK CAR CASE, AS WELL AS BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 19. 

(C)  THE COMMISSION WAS NOT REQUIRED IN THIS PROCEEDING TO ESTABLISH
UNIFORM RATES FOR THE FUTURE FOR ALL SHIPPERS.  P. 20. 

3.  THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE ALLOWANCES TO THIS SHIPPER
WERE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE WAS BASED ON UNIFORM TREATMENT OF ALL
SHIPPER-LESSEES, WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING AS A
CLASS APART.  P. 20. 

4.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO ABOLISH ALL PRACTICES WHICH
RESULT IN REBATES OR PREFERENCES.  P. 21. 

5.  THE FACT THAT THE FREIGHT WAS PAID BY THE CONSIGNEES AT THE
REGULAR RATE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE FINDING THAT THE PRACTICES HERE IN
QUESTION INVOLVED REBATES OR PREFERENCES TO THE SHIPPER WHICH ARE
PROHIBITED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE ELKINS ACT.  P. 22. 

EL DORADO OIL WORKS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPELLANTS' SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, 258 I.C.C. 371, WAS DISMISSED BY A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, 59 F.SUPP.  738, AND APPELLANTS
APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS, P. 22. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C.
41(28), CHALLENGING ACTION TAKEN BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ALLEGEDLY PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN AN EARLIER OPINION
RENDERED BY THIS COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THESE PROCEEDINGS.  308 U.S.
422.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION DID NOT AMOUNT
TO A REVIEWABLE "ORDER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28 U.S.C. 41(28).  THE
CASE IS BEFORE US ON DIRECT APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. 345. 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS CONSTITUTE THE BACKGROUND OF THIS PROCEEDING: 

EL DORADO OIL WORKS, ONE OF THE APPELLANTS, PROCESSES, SELLS, AND
SHIPS COCONUT OIL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SPECIAL KINDS OF TANK CARS
ARE NECESSARY FOR THAT DISTRIBUTION.  THE APPELLEE, GENERAL AMERICAN
TANK CAR CORPORATION,  FN1  OWNS TANK CARS WHICH IT RENTS AND LEASES TO
VARIOUS SHIPPERS.  IN 1933, OIL WORKS MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE CAR
COMPANY TO RENT, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, FIFTY TANK CARS AT $27.50
PER CAR PER MONTH, AND SUCH ADDITIONAL CARS AS IT MIGHT NEED AT $30 PER
CAR PER MONTH.  THE OUTSTANDING RAILROAD TARIFFS, PRESCRIBING PAYMENT
BY THE RAILROAD OF 1 1/2[ PER MILE FOR THE USE OF TANK CARS, CONTAINED
RULES WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE MILEAGE WOULD BE PAID ONLY TO THE "PARTY"
WHOSE "REPORTING MARKS" APPEARED ON THE CARS.  DURING PART OF THE
RENTAL PERIOD HERE IN QUESTION THE RULES PROVIDED THAT "MILEAGE FOR THE
USE OF CARS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WILL BE PAID  ...  ONLY TO THE CAR
OWNER - NOT TO A LESSEE."  SINCE UNDER THE AGREEMENT THE CARS WERE TO
BEAR THE "REPORTING MARKS" OF THE CAR COMPANY AND NOT THE OIL WORKS,
AND SINCE OIL WORKS WAS A LESSEE, NO TARIFFS AUTHORIZED RAILROAD
MILEAGE PAYMENTS TO OIL WORKS.  NEVERTHELESS, UNDER THE AGREEMENT OIL
WORKS WAS TO RECEIVE THE FULL MILEAGE ALLOWANCE PRESCRIBED BY THE
TARIFFS.  THE RENT OIL WORKS WAS TO PAY TO CAR COMPANY WAS TO BE TAKEN
OUT BY CAR COMPANY FROM THE MILEAGE ALLOWANCES IT RECEIVED FROM THE
RAILROADS AND THE BALANCE WAS TO BE PAID BY IT TO OIL WORKS.  THE
RAILROAD PAYMENTS PROVED TO BE GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE RENTAL
OBLIGATIONS, AND CAR COMPANY REGULARLY PAID THE DIFFERENCE TO OIL
WORKS, UNTIL JULY 1, 1934. 

JULY 2, 1934, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AFTER AN EXHAUSTIVE
INVESTIGATION, HANDED DOWN ITS FINDINGS, OPINION, AND CONCLUSION IN USE
OF PRIVATELY OWNED REFRIGERATOR CARS, 201 I.C.C. 323.  IT THERE DREW A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CAR OWNERS AS A CLASS AND CAR RENTERS AS A CLASS. 
IT FOUND THAT CAR OWNERS MUST HAVE SUFFICIENT RENTAL ALLOWANCES,
WHETHER THEY RENTED TO RAILROADS OR TO SHIPPERS, TO PAY A REASONABLE
RETURN ON INVESTMENT, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION COST OF MAINTENANCE,
IDLE CARS, ETC.  ON THE OTHER HAND THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT CAR
RENTERS HAD NO SUCH FIXED COSTS.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION WAS THAT
COSTS OF RENTED CARS TO A SHIPPER, INCLUDING RENT AND INCIDENTALS, WAS
THE ONLY ALLOWANCE THE SHIPPER-LESSEE SHOULD RECEIVE FROM A RAILROAD,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND THAT IF HE RECEIVES MORE, THE COST OF
TRANSPORTATION TO HIM WOULD BE LESS THAN THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION TO
SHIPPERS GENERALLY, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO USE CARS FURNISHED BY THE
CARRIERS.  TO MAKE THE RAILROAD PAY MORE FOR USE OF A CAR RENTED BY A
SHIPPER THAN THE RENT HE HAD TO PAY, WAS, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION,
A VIOLATION OF SEC. 15(13) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C.
15(13), IN THAT IT REQUIRED THE RAILROAD TO PAY MORE FOR THE CAR THAN
WAS "JUST AND REASONABLE."  THE COMMISSION WAS OF THE OPINION THAT
REFUNDS OF CAR MILEAGE IN EXCESS OF THE RENT CHARGED THE SHIPPER-LESSEE
WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN UNLAWFUL CONCESSION OR REBATE, PROHIBITED BY
THE ELKINS ACT.  WHILE THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS WERE LIMITED TO
REFRIGERATOR CARS, IT STATED THAT "THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED
APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL OTHER TYPES OF PRIVATE CARS."  ID. AT 382. 

AFTER THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN THE REFRIGERATOR CASE, THE CAR
COMPANY DECLINED TO PAY OVER TO OIL WORKS ANY PART OF THE EXCESS
MILEAGE.  IN 1935 EL DORADO TERMINAL COMPANY, ONE OF THE APPELLANTS
ACTING AS ASSIGNEE OF OIL WORKS, BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE CAR COMPANY
TO RECOVER ACCRUED EXCESS MILEAGE EARNINGS.  CAR COMPANY DEFENDED ON
THE GROUND THAT FURTHER REFUNDS WOULD VIOLATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
LEGISLATION, PARTICULARLY THE ELKINS ACT.  49 U.S.C. 41.  THE DISTRICT
JUDGE FOUND THAT THE CONTRACT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE ELKINS ACT, AND
RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THE CAR COMPANY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  104 F.2D 903.  THE CAR COMPANY FILED A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI WHICH WAS SUPPORTED HERE BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THEIR CLAIM THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED RESTED ON THE FOLLOWING MAJOR GROUNDS:  (1) THE
RAILROAD'S PAYMENTS TO CAR COMPANY, WHICH PROVIDED NO FACILITIES TO THE
RAILROAD, WERE UNAUTHORIZED; (2) SINCE NO PUBLISHED TARIFF AUTHORIZED
PAYMENTS TO A SHIPPER-LESSEE SUCH AS OIL WORKS, ITS ONLY RECOURSE TO
COLLECT ALLOWANCES FOR THE CARS IT HAD FURNISHED WAS TO INSTITUTE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR RECOVERY OF A REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE; (3) PAYMENT TO OIL WORKS OF EXCESS MILEAGE EARNINGS RECEIVED
BY CAR COMPANY WOULD VIOLATE THE ELKINS ACT.  IN REPLY TO THE
COMMISSION'S BRIEF URGING CERTIORARI, OIL WORKS CONTENDED THAT THE CASE
DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION "WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OR PRIMARY CONTROL
OF THE COMMISSION." 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI AND REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  308 U.S. 422.  WHILE WE REJECTED THE COMMISSION'S
CONTENTION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE
CASE, WE ACCEPTED ITS CONTENTION THAT DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE CHALLENGED PAST PRACTICES WAS FOR THE COMMISSION.  WE POINTED OUT
THAT THE TARIFFS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION FIXED NO UNIFORM RATE TO BE
PAID BY RAILROADS TO THE SHIPPER DIRECTLY FOR THE USE OF CARS
ORIGINALLY RENTED BY THE SHIPPER.  WE POINTED OUT FURTHER THAT OIL
WORKS HAD NEVER "APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION FOR ITS DECISION AS TO WHAT
WAS A PROPER ALLOWANCE FOR THE CARS FURNISHED BY IT."  WE SAID THAT THE
OIL WORKS WAS "ENTITLED, UNDER THE PLAIN TERMS OF SEC. 15(13)(OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT), TO BE PAID BY THE CARRIER A JUST AND
REASONABLE ALLOWANCE" FOR PROVIDING THE CARS.  THE OPINION STATED THAT
QUESTIONS SUCH AS WHETHER THE SHIPPER WAS "REAPING A SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT
FROM THE USE OF THE CARS," AND WHETHER, ON THE ONE HAND, THE
"ALLOWANCES AND PRACTICES" WERE LAWFUL AND REASONABLE OR, ON THE OTHER
HAND, VIOLATED THE ELKINS ACT, WERE ALL ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS CALLING
FOR INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO STAY ITS HAND SO THAT THE COMMISSION
COULD RENDER ITS DECISION. 

ON REMAND OIL WORKS AND TERMINAL COMPANY FILED A PETITION WITH THE
COMMISSION PRAYING THAT IT HOLD HEARINGS AND ENTER AN ORDER TO THE
EFFECT THAT CAR COMPANY COULD PAY THE MILEAGE EARNINGS TO OIL WORKS
WITHOUT VIOLATING THE ELKINS ACT AND THAT SUCH PAYMENT WOULD NOT
CONSTITUTE A REBATE OR CONCESSION.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT A JUST
AND REASONABLE ALLOWANCE TO OIL WORKS WOULD BE THE COST INCURRED BY IT
IN FURNISHING THE CARS, NAMELY THE MONTHLY RENTAL TO THE CAR COMPANY,
THAT ANY AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THAT WOULD BE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 15(13) AND WOULD "CONSTITUTE A REBATE AND
DISCRIMINATION AND INVOLVE A DEPARTURE FROM THE TARIFF RULES
APPLICABLE, PROHIBITED BY SECTION 1 OF THE ELKINS ACT, AND SECTION 6(7)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT  ..."  FN2  THE COMMISSION FURTHER
ORDERED THAT THE PROCEEDING BEFORE IT BE DISCONTINUED.  ON THIS APPEAL
BOTH SIDES ARGUED THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION AS WELL AS QUESTIONS
GOING TO THE MERITS. 

BEFORE WE REACH THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY WE MUST AT THE OUTSET
BRIEFLY DISPOSE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION.  AS THE FACTS ALREADY
STATED REVEAL, THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION IF UPHELD
CONSTITUTE FAR MORE THAN AN "ABSTRACT DECLARATION."  ROCHESTER
TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 143.  "LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES" (ID. AT 132) WOULD FOLLOW WHICH WOULD FINALLY FIX A
"RIGHT OR OBLIGATION" (ID. AT 131) ON APPELLANTS' PART.  THRSE FINDINGS
ARE MORE THAN A MERE "STAGE IN AN INCOMPLETE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATION," FOR THE COMMISSION HERE HAS DISCONTINUED FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  ID. AT 143.  WE, THEREFORE, THINK THAT THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION FALLS WITHIN THE CLASS OF "ORDERS" WHICH ROCHESTER TELEPHONE
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, HELD TO BE REVIEWABLE BY A DISTRICT
COURT OF THREE JUDGES.  THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

ON THE MERITS, APPELLANTS' MAJOR CONTENTION IS THAT THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AND OUR EARLIER OPINION IN THIS CASE DO NOT AUTHORIZE THE
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE, AS IT HERE HAS DONE, THE JUSTICE AND
REASONABLENESS OF MILEAGE ALLOWANCES WHICH APPELLANTS WERE TO RECEIVE
ON PAST TRANSACTIONS.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT BOTH OUR OPINION AND THE
ACT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO DO NO MORE THAN DETERMINE WHAT UNIFORM
ALLOWANCE SHIPPERS AS A CLASS WOULD BE PERMITTED TO CHARGE IN THE
FUTURE.  IN PART THE ARGUMENT IS THAT INSOFAR AS THE ORDER IS BASED ON
A TREATMENT OF SHIPPER-LESSEES AS A CLASS APART, AND ON A LIMITATION OF
THEIR ALLOWANCE TO THE COST TO THEM OF THE CARS THEY FURNISH, THE ORDER
IS INVALID, IN THAT IT NEITHER RESTS ON, NOR BRINGS ABOUT, A UNIFORM
RATE TO ALL SHIPPERS, OR EVEN ALL SHIPPERLESSEES.  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH
THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS. 

FIRST, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE COMMISSION MADE ITS DETERMINATION AS
TO THE LAWFULNESS OF THESE PAST PRACTICES ON THE BASIS OF APPELLANTS'
OWN APPLICATION, ASKING THE COMMISSION TO DO SO. SECOND, OUR PREVIOUS
OPINION, AS WELL AS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AUTHORIZED THE
COMMISSION TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION.  THE QUESTION BEFORE US WHEN
THIS CASE WAS FIRST HERE DID NOT RELATE TO FUTURE BUT TO PAST
ALLOWANCES.  RELYING ON PAST DECISIONS, WE HELD THAT THE
"REASONABLENESS AND LEGALITY" OF THE PAST DEALINGS HERE INVOLVED WERE
MATTERS WHICH CONGRESS HAD ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION.  SEE E.G. GREAT
NORTHERN R. CO. V. MERCHANTS ELEVATOR CO., 259 U.S. 285, 291, AND OTHER
CASES CITED IN OUR PREVIOUS OPINION.  AND WE REJECTED APPELLANTS'
PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH PRESENTED SUBSTANTIALLY THE ARGUMENT NOW
REPEATED, NAMELY THAT ANY ORDER THE COMMISSION MIGHT MAKE "COULD ONLY
BE EFFECTIVE AS TO THE FUTURE," THAT THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
"COULD NOT AFFECT THE CONTRACT  ...  IN THIS CASE," THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION WOULD BE "FUTILE," AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY OUR
JUDGMENT AND OPINION WOULD PROVIDE NO "GUIDANCE" FOR THE DISTRICT
COURT.  OUR FIRST OPINION, BUTTRESSED BY OUR REJECTION OF THE MOTION
FOR REHEARING, WAS A PLAIN AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE THE JUSTICE AND REASONABLENESS OF THE PAST ALLOWANCES TO THIS
SHIPPER.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE TO ESTABLISH FUTURE UNIFORM RATES
TO DETERMINE THE QUESTIONS WE SENT TO IT.  CONSEQUENTLY, INSOFAR AS
APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT IS THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED TO TREAT ALL
SHIPPERS OR ALL SHIPPER-LESSEES UNIFORMLY BECAUSE IT DID NOT FIX FUTURE
UNIFORM RATES, THE ANSWER IS THAT IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO. 

INSOFAR AS APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT AS TO LACK OF UNIFORM TREATMENT OF
SHIPPERS AND SHIPPER-LESSEES SEEKS TO ATTACK THE BASIS OF THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE PAST ALLOWANCES HERE WERE UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE, IT ALSO LACKS MERIT.  WE THINK THE COMMISSION'S FINDING
WAS BASED ON A UNIFORM TREATMENT OF ALL SHIPPER-LESSEES.  WHILE IT IS
TRUE, AS APPELLANTS CONTEND, THAT UNDER THE COMMISSION'S RULE DIFFERENT
SHIPPER-LESSEES MIGHT RECEIVE DIFFERENT ALLOWANCES, THE RULE IS UNIFORM
IN THAT IT PERMITS NO SHIPPERLESSEE TO RECEIVE ALLOWANCES EXCEEDING THE
RENTAL HE PAYS.  ALL SHIPPER-LESSEES ARE PROHIBITED FROM MAKING PROFITS
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RAILROADS ON CARS RENTED TO TRANSPORT GOODS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SINCE THE FACTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION WERE ENOUGH
TO ENABLE IT TO FIND THAT SUCH PROFITS AMOUNT TO REBATES TO SHIPPER
LESSEES WHICH RESULT IN A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SHIPPERS THAT OWN CARS
OR USE CARS FURNISHED BY THE RAILROAD, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN
TREATING SHIPPER-LESSEES AS A CLASS APART.  AS THE COMMISSION POINTED
OUT IN ITS REFRIGERATOR OPINION, THE HISTORY OF RAILROAD PRACTICES
SHOWS THAT REBATES, CONCESSIONS, AND FAVORITISM HAVE FREQUENTLY GROWN
OUT OF THE PRIVATE CAR SYSTEM.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERY GREAT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE SUPPLIED BY PRIVATE CARS, DESIGNED AND EQUIPPED
TO MEET SPECIAL NEEDS, THE COMMISSION ACTS WITHIN ITS POWER WHEN IT
ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE THEIR USE SO AS TO PUT A STOP TO EXISTING
PROHIBITED EVILS.  IT MUST TEST VIOLATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT BY RESULTS.  UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 450,
462.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO NULLIFY PRACTICES THAT RESULT
IN REBATES OR PREFERENCES, "WHATEVER FORM THEY TAKE AND IN WHATSOEVER
GUISE THEY MAY APPEAR," O'KEEFE V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 294, 297. 
FN3    THE APPELLANTS' REMAINING CONTENTIONS CHALLENGE THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE EVIDENCE.  THEY REST PRIMARILY ON THE PREMISE THAT THE
COMMISSION LACKED AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT WE HAD DIRECTED IT TO
FIND.  INSOFAR AS THESE CONTENTIONS REST ON THAT PREMISE, THEY HAVE
BEEN DISPOSED OF BY WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID.  THE ONLY CONTENTION AS
TO ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRES FURTHER ATTENTION IS
THAT THERE COULD BE NO FINDING THAT THE PRACTICES HERE INVOLVED
RESULTED IN REBATES OR CONCESSIONS TO OIL WORKS, SINCE THE FREIGHT ON
THE OILS TRANSPORTED WAS NOT PAID BY IT, BUT WAS ALLEGEDLY ALWAYS PAID
BY THE CONSIGNEES AND AT THE REGULAR RATE.  OIL WORKS, HOWEVER, WAS A
SHIPPER WHO SUPPLIED CARS TO BE USED AS FACILITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION. 
FOR SUPPLYING THESE CARS, IT COULD NOT CONSISTENTLY WITH SEC. 15(13)
RECEIVE FROM THE RAILROAD, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, MORE THAN A "JUST
AND REASONABLE" ALLOWANCE.  THIS ALLOWANCE WAS "IN RESPECT TO
TRANSPORTATION."  SEE UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
462.  PAYMENT BY THE RAILROAD OF MORE THAN THE JUST VALUE OF THE
SERVICES INEVITABLY RESULTED IN ITS CARRYING OIL WORKS' PRODUCT AT LESS
THAN THE REGULAR FREIGHT RATE, EVEN THOUGH IT COLLECTED THE FULL RATE
FROM THE CONSIGNEES.  THE REDUCED RATE AT WHICH OIL WORKS COULD THUS
HAVE ITS PRODUCTS TRANSPORTED JUSTIFIED THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT
OIL WORKS GOT A CONCESSION AND AN ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER SHIPPERS WHO
MADE NO SUCH PROFITS ON TANK CARS.  WHETHER OIL WORKS OR ITS CONSIGNEES
PAID THE FREIGHT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.  CF. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 253 F. 907, 911.  A PRACTICE WHICH ACCOMPLISHES THIS
RESULT IS PROHIBITED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE ELKINS
ACT. 

THE JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IS AFFIRMED, BUT ON THE GROUND
THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS VALID, AND THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE
CONSEQUENTLY NOT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION HAS BECOME THE
SUCCESSOR OF THE GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORPORATION. 

FN2  THE COMMISSION DID NOT RULE THAT A SHIPPER-LESSEE WOULD ALWAYS
BE ENTITLED TO ALLOWANCES EQUAL TO THE COST TO HIM OF THE CARS HE
RENTED.  THE COMMISSION'S OPINION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT A SHIPPER-LESSEE
IS ONLY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A JUST AND REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR CARS
WHILE THEY ARE ACTUALLY USED BY THE RAILROAD, EVEN THOUGH THIS
ALLOWANCE MIGHT BE LESS THAN THE CAR RENT PAID BY THE SHIPPER.  ON THAT
SUBJECT THE COMMISSION SAID: 

"IN ADMINISTERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15(13) WE HAVE
CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO TWO PRINCIPLES, BEARING IN MIND THAT WE WERE TO
PRESCRIBE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH THE CARRIER MIGHT PAY:  (1) THE
AMOUNT PAID SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN WAS JUST AND REASONABLE FOR THE
SERVICE OR INSTRUMENTALITY FURNISHED, AND (2) THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH
MIGHT BE PAID SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE REASONABLE COST TO THE OWNER OF THE
GOODS OF PERFORMING THE SERVICE OR FURNISHING THE INSTRUMENTALITY
USED.  WHICHEVER OF THESE SUMS WAS THE LOWER MARKED THE MAXIMUM THE
CARRIER MIGHT PAY." 

HERE THE COMMISSION HAS APPLIED THESE UNIFORM CRITERIA IN SUCH A WAY
AS TO PERMIT THE SHIPPER-LESSEE TO RECEIVE AS MUCH AS THE FULL RENTAL
HE PAID.  WERE IT NOT FOR THESE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING FROM THE CAR
COMPANY'S REFUSAL TO CONTINUE PAYMENTS TO THE SHIPPER, THE RAILROAD
WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY AS IT DID PAY 1 1/2[ PER MILE, WHICH PROVED FAR
IN EXCESS OF THE RENTAL.  IT MAY BE THAT IN OTHER CASES A JUST AND
REASONABLE RATE WOULD FALL BELOW THE RENTAL.  IT MAY BE THAT IN THIS
CASE THE RENTAL EXCEEDED WHAT WOULD BE A JUST AND REASONABLE ALLOWANCE
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF THE CARS BY THE RAILROAD.  BUT THIS WOULD
SERVE TO FURTHER REDUCE THE RATE TO WHICH APPELLANTS WERE ACTUALLY
ENTITLED; APPELLANTS, THEREFORE, HAVE NO INTEREST IN CHALLENGING THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THIS POINT. 

FN3  APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT IF THE CAR RENTAL COST IS THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE PAYMENT, THE MILEAGE PAYMENTS TO THE CAR COMPANY WERE
UNLAWFUL.  THAT THESE PAYMENTS BY THE RAILROAD TO OIL WORKS WERE
"APPARENTLY" UNLAWFUL AND RECOVERABLE BY THE RAILROAD, WAS THE POSITION
TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS BRIEF FILED WHEN THIS CASE WAS FIRST
BEFORE US.  AND IN OUR OPINION WE STATED THAT SINCE THE SHIPPER, NOT
THE CAR COMPANY, HAD FURNISHED THE CARS TO THE RAILROAD, "IT SEEMS
CLEAR THAT NO RULE OR REGULATION OF THE CARRIER MAY PROVIDE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF SUCH ALLOWANCE TO ANY OTHER PERSON" EXCEPT OIL WORKS.  BUT
APPELLANTS CAN NOT BENEFIT FROM THE UNLAWFULNESS OF PAYMENTS TO THE CAR
COMPANY.  ON THE CONTRARY, SUCH A CONCLUSION WOULD STRENGTHEN THE
POSITION OF THE COMMISSION, NAMELY THAT A "JUST AND REASONABLE"
ALLOWANCE TO OIL WORKS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE MILEAGE PAYMENTS TO CAR COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE SHIPPER AND THE CAR OWNER TO
DETERMINE WHAT PORTION OF THE TARIFF PAID BY THE RAILROAD SHOULD BE
PAID TO THE SHIPPER.  BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE COURT PERMITS WHEN
IT MEASURES THE SHIPPER'S ALLOWANCE BY THE AMOUNT OF RENTAL HE HAS
AGREED TO PAY THE CAR OWNER. 

AS COMMISSIONER SPLAWN POINTED OUT IN HIS DISSENT FROM THE OPINION OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (258 I.C.C. 371, 382-383), THE
COMMISSION IN FOLLOWING THIS COURSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH OUR OPINION
IN GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S.
422.  WE THERE SAID (PP. 429-430): 

"AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS POINTED OUT, DIFFERENT SHIPPERS
MAY HAVE DIFFERING COSTS IN RESPECT OF PRIVATELY OWNED CARS FURNISHED
THE CARRIERS.  NEVERTHELESS, AS THE ALLOWANCES TO BE MADE THEM BY THE
CARRIERS FOR THE USE OF SUCH CARS MUST BE THE SUBJECT OF PUBLISHED
SCHEDULES, AND MUST BE JUST AND REASONABLE, THE COMMISSION IS COMPELLED
TO ASCERTAIN IN THE LIGHT OF PAST AND PRESENT EXPERIENCE A FAIR AND
REASONABLE COMPENSATION TO COVER SUCH COSTS AND PRESCRIBE A UNIFORM
RATE WHICH WILL REFLECT SUCH EXPERIENCE.  IT IS INEVITABLE THAT SOME
SHIPPERS MAY BE ABLE TO FURNISH FACILITIES AT LESS THAN THE PUBLISHED
ALLOWANCE WHILE OTHERS MAY FIND THEIR COSTS IN EXCESS OF IT.  THIS
FACT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MILITATE AGAINST THE FIXING OF A UNIFORM RATE
APPLICABLE TO SHIPPERS PROPERLY CLASSIFIED BY THE COMMISSION."  FN1 

UNLESS THAT COURSE IS FOLLOWED, A SITUATION IS SANCTIONED IN WHICH
CONCESSIONS AND DISCRIMINATIONS CONDEMNED BY SEC. 1 OF THE ELKINS ACT,
32 STAT. 847, 34 STAT. 587, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 41, ARE LIKELY TO THRIVE. 

THERE IS A FURTHER OBJECTION TO THE COURSE WHICH THE COURT
SANCTIONS.  AS STATED BY COMMISSIONER SPLAWN IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION
(258 I.C.C. AT 384): 

"IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT THE FORM OF AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE USE OF CARS
MUST BE SUCH AS TO REFLECT THE EXTENT OF THE USE BY THE RAILROADS OF
THE FACILITIES FURNISHED.  WHENEVER WE HAVE HAD OCCASION TO DETERMINE
SUCH ALLOWANCES, WE HAVE PRESCRIBED EITHER PER DIEM OR MILEAGE
ALLOWANCES.  THE RAILROADS CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE AMOUNT OF
RENT RESERVED BY THE CAR CORPORATION IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SHIPPER
AS THE CAR MAY BE LEFT IDLE DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD.  THE CAR HAS
VALUE TO THE RAILROAD ONLY WHEN IT IS USED IN TRANSPORTING LADING AND
RESULTS IN THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES." 

ANY ALLOWANCE BASED ON COST TO THE SHIPPER RATHER THAN ON THE USE OF
THE FACILITY FURNISHED VIOLATES THAT PRINCIPLE. 

ONLY AN APPROPRIATE UNIFORM RATE WOULD OBVIATE BOTH OF THE OBJECTIONS
I HAVE MENTIONED.  FN2  I WOULD REMAND THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION SO
THAT IT COULD NOW DO WHAT, ACCORDING TO MY UNDERSTANDING, WE ORIGINALLY
INTENDED IT TO DO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 15(13) OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN3 

FN1  SEC. 15(13) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
15(13), PROVIDES: 

"IF THE OWNER OF PROPERTY TRANSPORTED UNDER THIS CHAPTER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY RENDERS ANY SERVICE CONNECTED WITH SUCH TRANSPORTATION, OR
FURNISHES ANY INSTRUMENTALITY USED THEREIN, THE CHARGE AND ALLOWANCE
THEREFOR SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN TARIFFS OR SCHEDULES FILED IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER AND SHALL BE NO MORE THAN IS JUST AND
REASONABLE, AND THE COMMISSION MAY, AFTER HEARING ON A COMPLAINT OR ON
ITS OWN INITIATIVE, DETERMINE WHAT IS A REASONABLE CHARGE AS THE
MAXIMUM TO BE PAID BY THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS FOR THE SERVICES SO
RENDERED OR FOR THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENTALITY SO FURNISHED, AND FIX
THE SAME BY APPROPRIATE ORDER, WHICH ORDER SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE
AND EFFECT AND BE ENFORCED IN LIKE MANNER AS THE ORDERS ABOVE PROVIDED
FOR UNDER THIS SECTION." 

FN2  THE COMMISSION'S FINDING WAS "THAT THE RENTAL PAID OR TO BE PAID
BY EL DORADO OIL WORKS TO GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORPORATION UNDER
THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THOSE PARTIES, DATED SEPTEMBER
28, 1933, WAS THE ONLY COST INCURRED BY THE FORMER IN FURNISHING THE
TANK CARS IN WHICH ITS SHIPMENTS MOVED.  A JUST AND REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE AS A MAXIMUM TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE RESPONDENTS, RAIL
CARRIER OR CARRIERS, TO THE OIL WORKS FOR THE FURNISHING OF SUCH CARS
WOULD HAVE BEEN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED SUCH RENTAL.  SUCH AN AMOUNT
AND ALLOWANCE HAS BEEN PAID TO THE OIL WORKS THROUGH CREDITS MADE TO
THE ACCOUNT OF THE OIL WORKS BY THE TANK CAR CORPORATION." 

THERE ARE NO FACTS OF RECORD WHICH SHOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
RENTAL PAID AND THE EXTENT OF THE USE BY THE RAILROADS OF THE
FACILITIES FURNISHED.  THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDINGS IN THAT REGARD. 

WHETHER A UNIFORM RATE WHICH IS JUST AND REASONABLE WOULD BE GREATER
OR LESS THAN THE RENTAL IS WHOLLY CONJECTURAL ON THE PRESENT RECORD. 

FN3  NOTE 1, SUPRA.
..END :












BURTON-SUTTON OIL CO. V. COMM'R, 328 U.S. 25 


NO. 361.  ARGUED MARCH 25, 28, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946.  - 150
F.2D 621, REVERSED. 


1.  THE TAXPAYER, AN OPERATING COMPANY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF OIL, WAS
ASSIGNEE OF A CONTRACT RELATING TO OIL LAND, WHEREBY THE GRANTEE AGREED
TO PAY TO THE GRANTOR 50% OF NET PROFITS FROM OPERATIONS.  THE CONTRACT
REQUIRED THE GRANTEE TO DRILL PROMPTLY, TO ACCOUNT FOR PRODUCTION, AND
TO SELL THE PRODUCTION TO THE GRANTOR ON SPECIFIED TERMS, IF THE
GRANTOR DESIRED TO PURCHASE.  THE LAND OWNER AND THE GRANTOR'S
TRANSFEROR RETAINED UNDERLYING AND OVERRIDING ROYALTIES.  HELD, UNDER
THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936, THAT THE 50% PAYMENTS MADE BY THE
TAXPAYER TO THE GRANTOR WERE DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE TAXPAYER'S GROSS
INCOME.  PP. 26, 32. 

2.  THE CONTRACT HERE INVOLVED COULD NOT PROPERLY BE CONSTRUED AS A
SALE; IT WAS, RATHER, AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THE
PROPERTY, WITH A RESERVATION IN THE ASSIGNOR OF AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN
THE OIL.  P. 37. 

3.  OWNERSHIP OF A ROYALTY OR OTHER ECONOMIC INTEREST IN ADDITION TO
THE RIGHT TO NET PROFITS IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MAKE THE POSSESSOR OF A
RIGHT TO A SHARE OF THE NET PROFIT THE OWNER OF AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN
THE OIL IN PLACE.  P. 32. 

4.  HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND CO., 303 U.S. 372, DISTINGUISHED.  P.
36. 

BURTON-SUTTON OIL CO., INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY IN PETITIONER'S INCOME TAX.  3 T.C. 1187.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 621.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
326 U.S. 755.  REVERSED, P. 37. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE TAXPAYER, THE PETITIONER HERE, IS THE OPERATING COMPANY FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF OIL FROM LOUISIANA LANDS.  THE TAXPAYER ACQUIRED A
CONTRACT FROM J. G. SUTTON, GRANTEE IN THE CONTRACT, THAT IMPOSED UPON
THE GRANTEE THE OBLIGATION TO DEVELOP THE OIL LAND.  FOR THAT PURPOSE
THE CONTRACT TRANSFERRED TO THE GRANTEE ALL OIL RIGHTS PREVIOUSLY
OBTAINED BY S. W. SWEENEY BY A LEASE FROM THE OWNERS OF THE LAND, THE
CAMERON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.  THROUGH ANOTHER TRANSACTION THE GRANTOR
IN THE SUTTON CONTRACT, THE GULF REFINING COMPANY OF LOUISIANA,
ACQUIRED THESE RIGHTS FROM SWEENEY.  AN UNDERLYING OIL ROYALTY WAS
RETAINED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD AND AN OVERRIDING OIL ROYALTY BY SWEENEY. 
THE CONTRACT BETWEEN GULF AND SUTTON REQUIRED THE GRANTEE-OPERATOR, WHO
IS NOW THIS TAXPAYER, TO PAY TO THE GRANTOR, GULF, 50% OF THE PROCEEDS
OF THE OIL PRODUCED AND SOLD FROM THE LAND, DEDUCTING FROM THE PROCEEDS
CERTAIN ITEMIZED EXPENSES OF THE PRODUCER.  THOSE EXPENSES ARE SO
GENERAL IN CHARACTER THAT IT MAY BE SAID FAIRLY THAT GULF WAS TO
RECEIVE 50% OF THE NET FROM OPERATIONS. 

THE ISSUE HERE IS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TAXPAYER'S MANNER OF
HANDLING THIS 50% NET FROM OPERATIONS, PAID TO GULF, IN ITS RETURN FOR
FEDERAL INCOME TAX FOR ITS FISCAL YEARS ENDING DURING 1936, 1937 AND
1938 UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936.  THE TAXPAYER DEDUCTED
THESE PAYMENTS OF 50% OF NET INCOME FROM ITS INCOME FOR EACH OF THE
YEARS FROM THE OIL SOLD FROM THE PROPERTY.  IT CLAIMED THAT GULF
RETAINED AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL IN PLACE TO THE EXTENT OF THIS
50% PAYMENT.  THE TAX COURT UPHELD THE COMMISSIONER'S INCLUSION OF AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THESE 50% PAYMENTS IN THE TAXPAYER'S GROSS INCOME. 
THEY WERE INCLUDED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN THE INCOME ON THE THEORY THAT
THE 50% PAYMENTS REPRESENTED CAPITAL INVESTMENT BY THE TAXPAYER.  THAT
IS, THEY WERE A PART OF THE COST OF THE LEASE.  3 T.C. 1187.  IF THIS
THEORY IS CORRECT, IT IS PROPER TO ADD AN EQUIVALENT SUM, AS THE
COMMISSIONER DID, TO THE TAXPAYER'S GROSS INCOME.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE TAX COURT.  BURTON-SUTTON OIL CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 150 F.2D 621. 

A DECISION ON THE CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURES TO WHICH THESE 50%
DISBURSEMENTS BELONG AFFECTS BOTH THE OPERATORS WHO MAKE THEM AND THE
OWNERS, LESSORS, VENDORS, GRANTORS, HOWEVER THEY MAY BE CLASSED, WHO
RECEIVE THEM.  IF THEY ARE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS TO ONE, THEY ARE CAPITAL
SALES TO THE OTHER.  IF THEY ARE RENTS OR ROYALTIES PAID OUT TO ONE,
THEY ARE RENTS OR ROYALTIES RECEIVED BY THE OTHER.  FN2  THE DECISION
BELOW CONFLICTS IN PRINCIPLE WITH COMMISSIONER V. FELIX OIL CO., 144
F.2D 276.  KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 326 U.S. 599, INVOLVED
PAYMENTS OF A SHARE OF NET INCOME BY A PRODUCER BUT DIFFERS FROM THIS
CASE BECAUSE THE LESSOR THERE WAS A LANDOWNER WHO RESERVED A ROYALTY AS
WELL AS A SHARE IN THE NET PROFITS.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 327 U.S. 771. 

THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS IN THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936 AND
THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FOR THE TWO
ACTS.  WE INSERT BELOW THOSE THAT SEEM PERTINENT.  FN3  THE ISSUE OF
THE CHARACTER OF THESE 50% PAYMENTS IS NOT SETTLED, HOWEVER, BY THE
STATUTES OR REGULATIONS.  THESE PRESCRIBE THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX
ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE AFTER A DETERMINATION THAT AN EXPENDITURE OF AN
OPERATOR IS OR IS NOT A RENT, A ROYALTY OR AN ORDINARY BUSINESS
EXPENSE, BUT THROW LITTLE LIGHT ON WHAT IS A RENT OR ROYALTY. 

IN THE KIRBY CASE, WE HELD THAT A PAYMENT OF A SHARE OF THE NET
PROFITS FROM OIL PRODUCTION BY THE OPERATOR TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND
WAS A RENT OR ROYALTY AND TAXABLE TO THE LANDOWNER AS INCOME FROM THE
OIL PROPERTY.  THEREFORE THE OWNER COULD TAKE FROM THE PAYMENT THE 27
1/2 PER CENTUM ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION PROVIDED BY SEC. 114(B)(3).  THE
REASON GIVEN IN THE KIRBY CASE FOR HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF A PART
OF THE NET RETURN FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE LANDOWNER WAS A ROYALTY OR
RENT,  FN4  WAS THAT THE OWNER HAD A CAPITAL INVESTMENT - AN ECONOMIC
INTEREST - IN THE OIL WITH A POSSIBILITY OF PROFIT FROM THAT INTEREST
OR INVESTMENT SOLELY FROM THE EXTRACTION OF THE OIL.  AS HEREINBEFORE
INDICATED, THE LANDOWNER IN THE KIRBY CASE HAD RETAINED ALSO A ONE
SIXTH OIL ROYALTY AND HAD RECEIVED A BONUS.  IT WAS CONCEDED THAT AS
BOTH THE BONUS AND THE ROYALTY REPRESENTED A RETURN FOR THE SALE IN
PART OF THE LESSOR'S INVESTMENT IN THE OIL IN PLACE, THE LESSOR WAS
ENTITLED TO DEPLETION ON BOTH.  FN5 

THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT IN THE KIRBY CASE IT WAS THE LESSOR'S
ECONOMIC INTEREST IN SOME OF THE OIL ITSELF, OR ITS PROCEEDS, BECAUSE
OF THE BONUS AND ROYALTY RIGHTS, WHICH MADE THE NET PROFIT PAYMENTS
SUBJECT TO DEPLETION IN THE LESSOR'S HANDS; THAT NET PROFITS RECEIVED
ARE NOT DEPLETABLE UNLESS THE RECIPIENT IS ENTITLED ALSO TO OIL
ROYALTIES.  FN6  CONSEQUENTLY, THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT IN THIS
CASE WHERE THERE IS ONLY A SHARE IN PROFITS DUE TO THE ASSIGNOR, GULF,
THE KIRBY CASE CONCLUSION ON THE RIGHT TO DEPLETION SHOULD NOT BE
EXTENDED BUT THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND
THAT THE PROFIT PAYMENT WAS A PART OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.  IN DEALING
WITH THE OPERATOR'S EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF AGREED PAYMENTS TO
LESSORS OR ASSIGNORS OF LEASES OUT OF NET PROFITS AND WITH THE LESSOR'S
OR ASSIGNOR'S RIGHTS TO DEPLETION, THE TAX COURT HAS NOT FOLLOWED
CONSISTENTLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT A RESERVED ROYALTY IS NECESSARY TO MAKE
A NET PROFIT PAYMENT DEPLETABLE TO THE LESSOR AND DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS
INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY BY THE OPERATOR.  FN7  A NUMBER OF THE TAX
COURT CASES ON DEPLETION AND DEDUCTION CITED IN THE PRECEDING NOTE DID
INVOLVE RESERVED ROYALTIES AS WELL AS PAYMENTS OF NET PROFITS.  THE
FELIX OIL COMPANY AND A.B. INNIS DID NOT.  WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE
GOVERNMENT THAT OWNERSHIP OF A ROYALTY OR OTHER ECONOMIC INTEREST IN
ADDITION TO THE RIGHT TO NET PROFITS IS ESSENTIAL TO MAKE THE POSSESSOR
OF A RIGHT TO A SHARE OF THE NET PROFIT THE OWNER OF AN ECONOMIC
INTEREST IN THE OIL IN PLACE.  THE DECISION IN KIRBY DID NOT REST ON
THAT POINT. 

TO LET THE CHARACTER OF THE NET PROFIT PAYMENTS TURN WHOLLY ON THE
OWNERSHIP OF A ROYALTY OF SOME SORT BY THE ONE WHO RECEIVED THE NET
PROFIT WOULD MAKR THE RIGHT TO DEPLETION A FORM OF WORDS.  NO SUCH
MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF A NATIONAL TAX ACT IS DESIRABLE.  COMPARE
BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110-11.  THIS TAXPAYER'S ACQUISITION OF
SUTTON'S CONTRACT WITH GULF PLACES THE TAXPAYER IN SUTTON'S SITUATION
AS OPERATOR OF THE SCHOOL BOARD LEASE.  THE SCHOOL BOARD AND SWEENEY,
THE ORIGINAL PARTIES TO THE LEASE, UNQUESTIONABLY HAVE ROYALTIES WHICH
WOULD COMPEL A DETERMINATION THAT NET INCOME PAYMENTS WOULD BE SUBJECT
TO DEPLETION IF PAID TO THEM IN ADDITION TO THEIR ROYALTIES.  IT DOES
NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW, IT SEEMS TO US, THAT THE MERE RECEIPT OF THE NET
INCOME PAYMENTS BY DIFFERENT LESSORS OR ASSIGNORS CAN CHANGE THE
CHARACTER OF THE TAXPAYER'S ARRANGEMENTS FROM LEASES TO PURCHASES. 

IT SEEMS GENERALLY ACCEPTED THAT IT IS THE OWNER OF A CAPITAL
INVESTMENT OR ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL IN PLACE WHO IS ENTITLED TO
THE DEPLETION.  ANDERSON V. HELVERING, 310 U.S. 404, 407; EULEON JOCK
GRACEY, 5 T.C. 296, 302; KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.
WHETHER THE INSTRUMENT CREATING THE RIGHTS IS A LEASE, A SUBLEASE OR AN
ASSIGNMENT HAS NOT BEEN DEEMED SIGNIFICANT FROM THE FEDERAL TAX
VIEWPOINT IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE TAXPAYER HAD AN ECONOMIC
INTEREST IN THE OIL IN PLACE.  PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 557,
558.  NOR HAS THE TITLE TO THE OIL IN PLACE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS
COURT AS DECISIVE OF THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF THE TAXPAYER IN THE
OIL.  FN8  TECHNICAL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY DEPLETED WOULD ORDINARILY BE
REQUIRED FOR THE APPLICATION OF DEPLETION OR DEPRECIATION.  IT IS NOT
MATERIAL WHETHER THE PAYMENT TO THE ASSIGNOR IS IN OIL OR IN CASH WHICH
IS THE PROCEEDS OF THE OIL, HELVERING V. TWIN BELL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S.
312, 321, NOR THAT SOME OF THE PAYMENTS WERE IN THE FORM OF A BONUS FOR
THE CONTRACT.  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 111; MURPHY OIL CO. V.
BURNET, 287 U.S. 299, 302.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, HAS RECOGNIZED THE
PECULIAR CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS OF EXTRACTING NATURAL RESOURCES. 
FN9  LEASES ARE A METHOD OF EXPLOITATION OF THE LAND FOR OIL AND
PAYMENTS UNDER LEASES ARE "INCOME TO THE LESSOR, LIKE PAYMENTS OF
RENT."  FN10  RECEIPTS FROM OIL SALES ARE GROSS INCOME TO THE OPERATOR
AND SUBJECT TO STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS.  SINCE LESSORS AS WELL AS LESSEES
AND OTHER TRANSFEREES OF THE RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THE LAND FOR OIL MAY
RETAIN FOR THEMSELVES THROUGH THEIR CONTROL OVER THE EXPLOITATION OF
THE LAND VALUABLE BENEFITS ARISING FROM AND DEPENDENT UPON THE
EXTRACTION OF THE OIL, FN11  CONGRESS PROVIDED AS EARLY AS THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1918  FN12  FOR EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE DEPLETION
ALLOWANCE BETWEEN THEM TO CORRECT WHAT WAS SAID TO BE AN EXISTING
INEQUALITY IN THE LAW OR ITS ADMINISTRATION.  FN13 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSIGNOR OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE ASSIGNMENT
HAD AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL IN PLACE THROUGH ITS CONTROL OVER
EXTRACTION.  UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH PETITIONER, ITS ASSIGNOR RETAINED
A PART OF THIS INTEREST - FIFTY PER CENT OF NET.  LIKE THE OTHER
HOLDERS OF SUCH ECONOMIC INTEREST THROUGH ROYALTIES, THE PETITIONER
LOOKED TO THE SPECIAL DEPLETION ALLOWANCES OF SEC. 114(B)(3) TO RETURN
WHATEVER CAPITAL INVESTMENT IT HAD.  THE COST OF THAT INVESTMENT TO THE
BENEFICIARY OF THE DEPLETION UNDER SEC. 114(B)(3) IS UNIMPORTANT. 
DEPLETION DEPENDS ONLY UPON PRODUCTION.  IT IS THE LESSOR'S, LESSEE'S
OR TRANSFEREE'S "POSSIBILITY OF PROFIT" FROM THE USE OF HIS RIGHTS OVER
PRODUCTION, "DEPENDENT SOLELY UPON THE EXTRACTION AND SALE OF THE OIL,"
WHICH MARKS AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL.  SEE KIRBY PETROLEUM CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, PAGE 604.  THROUGH RETENTION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS
TO PAYMENTS FROM OIL OR ITS PROCEEDS IN HIMSELF, EACH OF THESE
ASSIGNORS OF PARTIAL EXPLOITATION RIGHTS IN OIL LANDS HAS MAINTAINED A
CAPITAL INVESTMENT OR ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL OR ITS PROCEEDS. 
FN14  AS THE OIL IS EXTRACTED AND SOLD, THAT ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE
OIL IN PLACE IS REDUCED AND THE HOLDER OR OWNER OF THE INTEREST IS
ENTITLED TO HIS EQUITABLE PROPORTION OF THE DEPLETION AS RENT OR
ROYALTY.  THE OPERATOR, OF COURSE, MAY DEDUCT SUCH PAYMENTS FROM THE
GROSS RECEIPTS. 

OF COURSE, SUCH A TRANSFEROR, WHETHER THE LANDOWNER OR ANY
INTERMEDIATE ASSIGNOR, MAY COMPLETELY DIVEST HIMSELF OF ANY INTEREST,
ECONOMIC OR OTHERWISE, IN THE EXTRACTION OF THE OIL.  AS THE RECORD
SHOWS NO RESERVATION OF AN ECONOMIC INTEREST BY SUTTON, THE ASSIGNEE OF
GULF AND THE ASSIGNOR OF PETITIONER, HE APPEARS TO HAVE DONE SO IN THIS
CASE.  SEE HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND CO., 303 U.S. 372.  WHILE, AS
POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE PAYMENT OF PROCEEDS IN CASH, THE FORM OF THE
INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER AND ITS EFFECT ON THE TITLE TO THE OIL UNDER
LOCAL LAW ARE NOT DECISIVE OF THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATION IN DEPLETION
UNDER SECS. 23(M) AND 114(B)(3), THERE MUST BE A DETERMINATION UNDER
FEDERAL TAX LAW AS TO "WHETHER THE TRANSFEROR HAS MADE AN ABSOLUTE SALE
OR HAS RETAINED" SUCH ECONOMIC INTEREST AS WE HAVE JUST DESCRIBED IN
THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.  KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA,
PAGE 606.  WE HAVE SAID THAT THE INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A
SALE WHEN A LARGE CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE WITH A RESERVED PAYMENT THAT
COULD BE SATISFIED BY FUTURE SALES OF THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY WITHOUT
EXTRACTION OF THE OIL.  OBVIOUSLY THERE COULD BE NO DEPLETION WITHOUT
EXTRACTION.  ANDERSON V. HELVERING, 310 U.S. 404, 412.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, WE HAVE CONSTRUED AN ASSIGNMENT OF OIL LEASES FOR CASH AND A
DEFERRED PAYMENT, "PAYABLE OUT OF OIL ONLY, IF, AS AND WHEN PRODUCED,"
AS THE RESERVATION OF AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL - NOT A SALE. 
THOMAS V. PERKINS, 301 U.S. 655. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND CO., 303 U.S.
372, CONTROLS THIS CASE.  THE TRANSFER OF THE LEASES IN ELBE WAS HELD
AN ABSOLUTE SALE.  THERE THE TRANSFER WAS FOR CASH, DEFERRED PAYMENTS
IN CASH, IF THE ASSIGNEE DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A STIPULATION FOR
ABANDONMENT, AND A ONE-THIRD INTEREST IN THE NET PROFITS OF THE
ASSIGNEE.  IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT ELBE, THE ASSIGNOR AFTER THE
TRANSFER, SHOULD HAVE "NO INTEREST IN OR TO SAID PROPERTIES," EXCEPT IN
THE CASE OF AN ABANDONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSIGNEE.  THIS
PROVISION FOR THE TRANSFER OF ALL INTEREST OF THE ASSIGNOR WAS
EMPHASIZED AS A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER.  THE
ISSUE UPON WHICH THIS COURT PASSED WAS THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE
DEFERRED PAYMENTS.  WERE THEY GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY OR
RECEIPTS FROM A SALE OF THE LEASES?  THESE DEFERRED PAYMENTS WERE NOT
PAYABLE OUT OF OIL SALES BUT WERE PAYABLE ABSOLUTELY, UNLESS THERE WAS
AN ABANDONMENT.  THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDITION OF A PROVISION
FOR THE PAYMENT OF A SHARE OF NET PROFITS DID NOT QUALIFY "IN ANY WAY
THE EFFECT OF THE TRANSACTION AS AN ABSOLUTE SALE."  PAGE 375.  IN VIEW
OF WHAT WE HAVE SAID IN THIS AND IN THE KIRBY PETROLEUM CASE AS TO THE
ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL OF A RECIPIENT OF A SHARE OF NET PROFITS,
THE HOLDING OF ELBE SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO THE FACTS OF THIS
AGREEMENT.    THE ASSIGNOR, GULF, IN THE ASSIGNMENT HERE INVOLVED,
REQUIRED THE GRANTEE TO DRILL PROMPTLY, TO ACCOUNT FOR PRODUCTION, TO
PAY OVER FIFTY PER CENT OF RECEIPTS, LESS AGREED COSTS AND EXPENSES,
AND TO SELL THE PRODUCTION ON DEFINED TERMS TO GRANTOR, IF GRANTOR
DESIRED TO PURCHASE.  THIS LAST CLAUSE DID NOT APPEAR IN THE ELBE
CONTRACT.  SUCH A TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO EXPLOIT COULD NOT, WE THINK,
PROPERLY BE CONSTRUED AS A SALE.  IT IS RATHER AN ASSIGNMENT TO THE
OPERATOR, PETITIONER HERE, OF THE RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THE PROPERTY  FN15
WITH A RESERVATION IN THE ASSIGNOR OF AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COMMISSIONER AND THE TAX COURT ALLOWED THE TAXPAYER
DEPLETION UPON ITS ENTIRE INCOME, SO ADJUSTED, UNDER SEC. 114(B). 

FN2  KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 326 U.S. 599, 603-605;
ANDERSON V. HELVERING, 310 U.S. 404, 407. 

FN3  REVENUE ACT OF 1936, CH. 690, 49 STAT. 1648, 1660, 1686: 

"SEC. 23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

     .         .         .       .         . 

(M)  DEPLETION.  - IN THE CASE OF MINES, OIL AND GAS ELLS, OTHER
NATURAL DEPOSITS, AND TIMBER, A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION AND
FOR DEPRECIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS
IN EACH CASE; SUCH REASONABLE ALLOWANCE IN ALL CASES TO BE MADE UNDER
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY  ....  IN THE CASE OF LEASES THE DEDUCTIONS
SHALL BE EQUITABLY APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE LESSOR AND LESSEE  ...." 

"SEC. 114.  BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION. 

(B)  BASIS FOR DEPLETION.  - 

(3)  PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR OIL AND GAS WELLS.  - IN THE CASE OF
OIL AND GAS WELLS THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION UNDER SECTION 23(M) SHALL
BE 27 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR, EXCLUDING FROM SUCH GROSS INCOME AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ANY
RENTS OR ROYALTIES PAID OR INCURRED BY THE TAXPAYER IN RESPECT OF THE
PROPERTY  ...." 

TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936: 

"ART. 23(M)-1(AS AMENDED BY T.D. 5413, 1944 CUM. BULL.  124). 
DEPLETION OF MINES, OIL AND GAS WELLS, OTHER NATURAL DEPOSITS, AND
TIMBER; DEPRECIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS.  - 

     .         .         .         . . 

(G)  THE TERM 'GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY,' AS USED IN SECTIONS
114(B)(3) AND 114(B)(4) AND ...  ARTICLES 23(M)-1 TO 23(M)-28 OF
REGULATIONS  ...  94  ...  MEANS THE FOLLOWING: 

IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS, 'GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY' AS
USED IN SECTION 114(B)(3) MEANS THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE TAXPAYER SELLS
THE OIL AND GAS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE WELL  .... 

IN ALL CASES THERE SHALL BE EXCLUDED IN DETERMINING THE 'GROSS INCOME
FROM THE PROPERTY' AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ANY RENTS OR ROYALTIES WHICH WERE
PAID OR INCURRED BY THE TAXPAYER IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT
OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM THE 'GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY.'..." 

FN4  A READING OF SEC. 114(B)(3) SHOWS THAT THE "GROSS INCOME FROM
THE PROPERTY" MEANS INCOME FROM THE OIL AND GAS WELLS ON THE PROPERTY. 
HELVERING V. TWIN BELL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312; HELVERING V. PRODUCERS
CORP., 303 U.S. 376, 382.  OTHER INCOME WOULD NOT BE DEPLETABLE UNDER
THAT SECTION.  "RENTS OR ROYALTIES" IN THE SECTION ARE THOSE PAYABLE
FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF EXTRACTION. 

FN5  KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, PP. 601-602; BURNET
V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 111; MURPHY OIL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 299,
302. 

FN6  THE PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH THE TAX COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DECIDED THIS CASE FOR RESPONDENT DIFFERS FROM RESPONDENT'S
PRESENT CONTENTION.  THIS PRINCIPLE WAS THAT AN OBLIGATION TO PAY A
PART OF NET PROCEEDS IS A PERSONAL COVENANT OF THE OBLIGOR AND WAS THE
PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE ASSIGNMENT.  BURTON-SUTTON OIL CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 150 F.2D 621, 622; 3 T.C. 1187, 1194, RELYING UPON
QUINTANA PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 143 F.2D 588, 590-91; 44 B.T.A.
624, 627; HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND CO., 303 U.S. 372. 

FN7  IN W. S. GREEN, 26 B.T.A. 1017, THE LESSOR WAS ALLOWED DEPLETION
ON A NET INCOME PAYMENT IN ADDITION TO HIS ROYALTY ON THE GROUND THAT
THE NET INCOME PAYMENT WAS LIKE A BONUS. 

IN MARRS MCLEAN, 41 B.T.A. 565, 573, WHICH WAS DECIDED AFTER THE ELBE
CASE, THE TAX COURT SAID A TRANSFER OF LEASES FOR CASH AND A SHARE OF
THE PROFITS WAS A SALE.  WHERE ONLY A THREE-FOURTHS INTEREST IN THE
LEASE WAS TRANSFERRED AND THE TRANSFEROR WAS TO HAVE ONE-FOURTH OF THE
NET PROFITS, DEPLETION WAS ALLOWED THE ASSIGNOR. 

IN FELIX OIL CO., T.C. DOCKET NO. 107148, DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1942,
A LESSOR CORPORATION THAT HAD LEASED ITS OIL LANDS FOR A CASH PAYMENT
PLUS 50% OF THE NET PROFITS AS DEFINED IN THE LEASE AND NO ROYALTY, WAS
HELD TO HAVE "RETAINED AN INTEREST IN THE OIL IN PLACE" THROUGH ITS
OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND.  "CLEARLY, PETITIONER RETAINED AN INTEREST IN
THE OIL PRODUCED BECAUSE IT COULD COMPEL THE LESSEE TO SELL 50 PERCENT
OF THE PRODUCTION ELSEWHERE IF IT BECAME DISSATISFIED WITH AMOUNTS
REALIZED BY THE LESSEE."  MEMORANDUM OP., P. 13.  SEE COMMISSIONER V.
FELIX OIL CO., 144 F.2D 277, AFFIRMING.  COMPARE A.B. INNIS, T.C.
DOCKET NOS. 2735-2736, JUNE 29, 1945. 

IN KIRBY PETROLEUM CO., 2 T.C. 1258, 1261, THE TAX COURT RELIED ON
THE LATTER RULING IN MARRS MCLEAN AND HELD THAT THE LESSOR COULD
DEPLETE ITS NET PROFITS PAYMENT, AS WELL AS ITS ROYALTY.  IT LATER
EXPLAINED THIS RULING AS BASED ON THE KIRBY COMPANY'S RETENTION OF A
"ONE-SIXTH OIL ROYALTY, THUS RESERVING TO ITSELF AN INTEREST IN THE OIL
IN PLACE."  ESTATE OF DAN A. JAPHET, 3 T.C. 86, 93. 

IN THE JAPHET CASE, DEPLETION ON NET PROFITS FROM AN ASSIGNEE'S
OPERATION WAS DENIED AN ASSIGNOR OF A LEASE WHO HAD RECEIVED A CASH
PAYMENT BUT HAD NOT RESERVED A ROYALTY.  IT WAS SAID NO "ECONOMIC
INTEREST" WAS RESERVED. 

IN A.B. INNIS, T.C. DOCKET NOS. 2735-2736, JUNE 29, 1945, A SIMILAR
PROBLEM AROSE AS TO DEDUCTIBILITY BY GOLD LEASE OPERATORS FROM THEIR
GROSS INCOME OF A SHARE IN NET PROFITS PAID TO THE SUB-LESSOR OF THE
LEASE.  THE TAX COURT FOUND NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUCH A PAYMENT TO A
SUB-LESSOR AND ONE TO A LESSOR.  BOTH WERE SAID TO HAVE ECONOMIC
INTERESTS AND THEREFORE DEPLETABLE RIGHTS.  FELIX OIL CO., SUPRA, WAS
FOLLOWED AND QUINTANA, SUPRA, DISTINGUISHED AS A SALE BY ASSIGNMENT
RATHER THAN SUBLEASE.  WILLIAMS BAR DREDGING CO. IS IN ACCORD.  T.C.
DOCKET NOS. 3284, 4074, JUNE 30, 1945. 

IN QUINTANA PETROLEUM CO., 44 B.T.A. 624, AN OPERATOR-ASSIGNEE
ACQUIRED AN OIL LEASE BY AN AGREEMENT THAT CALLED FOR PAYMENT BY THE
ASSIGNEE TO THE ASSIGNOR OF ONE-FOURTH OF THE NET PROCEEDS FROM THE
LEASED PROPERTY WITH NO RESERVATION OF ROYALTY.  THE BOARD CONCLUDED
THAT THE ASSIGNMENT WAS A PURCHASE AND NO DEDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF
NET PROFITS PAID WAS ALLOWABLE.  SEE ALSO QUINTANA PETROLEUM CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 143 F.2D 588. 

IN EULEON JOCK GRACEY, 5 T.C. 296, 302, DECIDED JUNE 21, 1945, THE
TAX COURT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWED QUINTANA AND HELD AN
OPERATOR-ASSIGNEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPLETION ON GROSS PRODUCTION BUT
COULD NOT EXCLUDE THE NET PROFIT PAYMENT TO HIS ASSIGNEE FROM HIS
GROSS, AS THE TRANSFER OF THE LEASE, IN CONSIDERATION OF A NET PROFIT
PAYMENT ONLY, WAS A SALE. 

FN8  287 U.S. AT 557:  "THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS BROAD ENOUGH
TO PROVIDE, AT LEAST, FOR EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS
ACQUIRED, BY INVESTMENT, ANY INTEREST IN THE OIL IN PLACE, AND SECURES,
BY ANY FORM OF LEGAL RELATIONSHIP, INCOME DERIVED FROM THE EXTRACTION
OF THE OIL, TO WHICH HE MUST LOOK FOR A RETURN OF HIS CAPITAL." 

287 U.S. AT 558:  "EVEN THOUGH LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF IT, IN A TECHNICAL
SENSE, REMAINED IN THEIR LESSOR, THEY, AS LESSEES, NEVERTHELESS
ACQUIRED AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN IT WHICH REPRESENTED THEIR CAPITAL
INVESTMENT AND WAS SUBJECT TO DEPLETION UNDER THE STATUTE."  LYNCH V.
ALWORTH-STEPHENS CO., 267 U.S. 364; BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 109
10; BANKERS COAL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 308; KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, P. 603. 

FN9  STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE V. HOWBERT, 231 U.S. 399, 413-14. 

FN10  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 107-8. 

FN11  SEE LYNCH V. ALWORTH-STEPHENS CO., 267 U.S. 364, 370; PALMER V.
BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 556. 

FN12  40 STAT. 1057, 1067, 1078, SECS. 214(A)(10), 234(A)(9). 

FN13  H. REP. NO. 767, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS., SEPTEMBER 3, 1918,
DEDUCTIONS (5) AND FOR CORPORATIONS, DEDUCTIONS (4). 

THE INEQUALITY REFERRED TO UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916, 39 STAT.
759, SEC. 5, EIGHTH (A), AROSE FROM THE PREFERRED TREATMENT GIVEN THE
OWNER OVER THE LESSEE.  SEE HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 455, 516-17, 523-28, 530-31. 
REGULATIONS 33, INCOME TAX, PROMULGATED JANUARY 2, 1918, ART. 170;
REGULATIONS 45, 1920 ED., INCOME TAX, PROMULGATED JANUARY 28, 1921,
ART. 201. 

THE APPLICABLE LAW FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEPLETION IN OIL AND GAS WELLS
APPEARS IN SEC. 114(B)(3).  IT IS IDENTICAL WITH I.R.C. SEC.
114(B)(3).  THIS SECTION IS THE RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE
WITH OIL AND GAS DEPLETION.  HEARINGS, SEN. COM. ON FINANCE, 69TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 177-78; HEARINGS, HOUSE COM. ON WAYS AND MEANS,
69TH CONG., P. 1006.  SEE H. REP. NO. 1, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
DECEMBER 7, 1925, DISCOVERY VALUE; SEC. 204(C)(2), 44 STAT. 16.  FOR
DISCUSSION SEE HELVERING V. TWIN BELL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, AND
KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, PP. 602, 603.  DEPLETION IS
NOW AN ARBITRARY PERCENTAGE ALLOWANCE BASED ON PRODUCTION FROM THE
WELLS WITHOUT REGARD TO COST OR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 

FN14  A PARTICIPATION IN NET PROFITS DISASSOCIATED FROM AN ECONOMIC
INTEREST DOES NOT ENABLE A RECIPIENT OF SUCH PROFITS TO BENEFIT FROM
DEPLETION.  HELVERING V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 370. 

FN15  SEE THE DISCUSSION OF FELIX OIL CO. IN NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

THE TORTUOUS PROCESS BY WHICH THE RESULT IN THIS CASE HAS EVIDENTLY
TO BE REACHED BY THE COURT JUSTIFIES CALLING ATTENTION AGAIN TO THE
PRESENT UNSATISFACTORY STATE OF TAX LITIGATION.  IT IS OF COURSE IDLE
TO EXPECT THAT THE COMPLEXITIES OF OUR ECONOMIC LIFE PERMIT REVENUE
MEASURES TO BE DRAWN WITH SUCH SIMPLICITY AND PARTICULARITY AS TO AVOID
MUCH LITIGATION.  BUT IT IS NOT A COUNSEL OF PERFECTION TO ASSUME THAT
A SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT OF FISCAL ADMINISTRATION CAN BE DEVISED
SUFFICIENTLY RATIONAL TO AVOID THE UNEDIFYING SERIES OF CASES RELATING
TO INCOME FROM OIL OPERATIONS CULMINATING, FOR THE PRESENT AT LEAST, IN
THIS CASE.  THE COURT MADE A BRAVE EFFORT IN DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER,
320 U.S. 489, TO MEET SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE PRESENT
DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN TAX CASES BY LODGING PRACTICAL
FINALITY IN A TAX COURT DECISION UNLESS IT INVOKES A "CLEAR-CUT MISTAKE
OF LAW."  ID. AT 502.  AN ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADEQUATE SCOPE TO SUCH A
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ABSTENTION BY DEALING WITH THE PRACTICALITIES OF
TAX MATTERS INSTEAD OF RELYING ON THE GRAB-BAG CONCEPTS OF "LAW" AND
"FACT" AS A BASIS OF REVIEW HAS NOT, HOWEVER, COMMENDED ITSELF TO THE
COURT.  SEE TRUST OF BINGHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 325 U.S. 365. 

TO BE SURE, EVEN THE ADOPTION OF THIS VIEW WOULD NOT MAKE THE TAX
COURT THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF THE COUNTRY INASMUCH AS TAX LITIGATION CAN
GO THROUGH THE DISTRICT COURTS AS WELL AS THROUGH THE TAX COURT.  IT
WOULD, HOWEVER, LARGELY CENTRALIZE REVIEW IN THE TAX COURT OF TREASURY
DETERMINATIONS, ASSUMING THAT THE BULK OF TAX LITIGATION WILL CONTINUE
TO FIND ITS WAY TO THE TAX COURT. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE TAX COURT MAKES DIFFERENTIATIONS FROM CASE
TO CASE WHICH TO THE UNINITIATED LOOK SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE CONFLICTING
OPINIONS.  BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESCAPE NICE DISTINCTIONS IN THE
APPLICATION OF COMPLICATED TAX LEGISLATION.  AND SO FAR AS OVER-NICE
DISTINCTIONS ARE TO BE MADE, I DO NOT SEE THAT IT HELPS THE
ADMINISTRATION OF LAW FOR THIS COURT RATHER THAN THE TAX COURT TO MAKE
THEM. 

NOTHING BETTER ILLUSTRATES THE GOSSAMER LINES THAT HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY
THIS COURT IN TAX CASES THAN THE DISTINCTION MADE IN THE COURT'S
OPINION BETWEEN HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND CO., 303 U.S. 372, AND THIS
CASE.  TO DRAW SUCH DISTINCTIONS, WHICH HARDLY CAN BE HELD IN THE MIND
LONGER THAN IT TAKES TO STATE THEM, DOES NOT ACHIEVE THE ATTAINABLE
CERTAINTY THAT IS SUCH A DESIDERATUM IN TAX MATTERS, NOR DOES IT MAKE
GENERALLY FOR RESPECT OF LAW.  PERHAPS IT IS INHERENT IN THE SCHEME
WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW OF TAX LITIGATION THAT WE HAVE
SUCH AN UNSATISFACTORY SERIES OF DECISIONS AS THOSE WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO
BE RECONCILED BY THE PRESENT OPINION.  IF SO, THEN THE CALL FOR
LEGISLATION VOICED IN RESPONSIBLE QUARTERS TO REFORM THE SITUATION MAY
WELL BE HEEDED.  SEE E.G., GRISWOLD, THE NEED FOR A COURT OF TAX
APPEALS (1944) 57 HARV. L. REV. 1153. 
..END :


















UTAH JUNK CO. V. PORTER, 328 U.S. 39 


NO. 400.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946.  - 150
F.2D 963, REVERSED. 


1.  THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 203(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF
1942 BY SEC. 106 OF THE STABILIZATION ACT OF 1944 AUTHORIZED ANY PERSON
SUBJECT TO A PRICE SCHEDULE TO FILE A PROTEST "AT ANY TIME."  HELD
THAT, ALTHOUGH THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A PROTEST COULD BE FILED UNDER THE
ORIGINAL ACT HAD EXPIRED, A PERSON WHOSE RIGHTS WERE AFFECTED WAS
ENTITLED TO FILE A PROTEST UNDER THE AMENDATORY ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING
THAT THE BASIS OF HIS OBJECTION TO THE PRICE SCHEDULE HAD BEEN REMOVED
PROSPECTIVELY BY MODIFICATION OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE PRIOR TO THE FILING
OF THE PROTEST.  P. 43. 

2.  THE CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS WHICH LED CONGRESS TO LIBERALIZE
THE RIGHT OF PROTEST UNDER THE PRICE CONTROL LEGISLATION APPLY EQUALLY
TO A REGULATION THAT HAS BEEN REVISED AND TO A NEW REGULATION, WHERE
THE SUPERSEDED REGULATION CONTINUES TO GOVERN THE VALIDITY OF
TRANSACTIONS THAT OCCURRED UNDER ITS RULE.  P. 44. 

3.  THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OUGHT NOT TO BE BURDENED
WITH ISSUES ARISING UNDER SUPERSEDED REGULATIONS, AND THAT THE
PROTESTANT HERE COULD TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE BY OTHER
PROCEDURES, DO NOT WARRANT THE CONSTRUCTION URGED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  PP. 44-45. 

UTAH JUNK CO. V. PORTER, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR DENIED A PROTEST FILED WITH HIM BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE EMERGENCY COURT
OF APPEALS DISMISSED PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT.  150 F.2D 963.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 710.  REVERSED, P. 45. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF CASES CALLING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942. 

CONFINED WITHIN NARROW LIMITS THE RIGHT TO PROTEST TO THE ADMINISTRATOR
AGAINST A PRICE SCHEDULE PROMULGATED BY HIM.  THE STABILIZATION ACT OF
1944, 58 STAT. 632, 638; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 923, GREATLY LIBERALIZED
THIS RIGHT TO PROTEST.  THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES EMERGENCY
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SCOPE OF THIS LIBERALIZATION, 150 F.2D 963,
BASED ON ITS PRIOR RULING IN THOMAS PAPER STOCK CO. V. BOWLES, 148 F.2D
831, LED US TO BRING THE CASE HERE.  326 U.S. 710. 

THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE CAN BE QUICKLY STATED.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR ESTABLISHED MAXIMUM PRICES FOR IRON AND STEEL SCRAP. 
REVISED PRICE SCHEDULE NO. 4, 7 FED. REG. 1207(FEBRUARY 21, 1942). 
THIS SCHEDULE, SEC. 1304.13(F), ID. AT 1212, MADE NO SPECIAL PROVISION
FOR SMELTER FLUXING SCRAP, SCRAP PREPARED FOR USE IN LEAD BLAST
FURNACES.  PETITIONER, A SCRAP DEALER, OPERATING IN UTAH, WAS ENGAGED
IN THE PREPARATION AND SALE OF FLUXING SCRAP.  BETWEEN APRIL 25, 1942,
AND FEBRUARY 10, 1943, IT SOLD A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF FLUXING SCRAP
TO ONE OF ITS CUSTOMERS, FOR WHICH IT WAS TO BE PAID, IN ADDITION TO
THE CEILING PRICE FOR THE SCRAP, $1.50 PER TON FOR PREPARING THE
SCRAP.  INASMUCH AS THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION THAT SUCH A CHARGE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE PRICE
SCHEDULE, IT MERELY BILLED ITS CUSTOMER FOR THE ADDITIONAL $1.50 PER
TON BUT ABSTAINED FROM COLLECTING IT, SO AS TO AVOID THE PENAL
PROVISIONS OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT. 

THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNS PETITIONER'S LAWFUL RIGHT TO COLLECT THIS
PROCESSING CHARGE AS PREVIOUSLY AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE
CONTRACT.  CLAIMING THAT THE PRICE SCHEDULE GOVERNING THE SALES IN
QUESTION WAS INVALID INSOFAR AS IT FAILED TO PERMIT AN ALLOWANCE FOR
PROCESSING, PETITIONERS FILED A PROTEST WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT THE PROTEST
CAME TOO LATE.  IT WAS TIMELY, IN ANY EVENT, ONLY IF THE AMENDMENT TO
SEC. 203(A) OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 MADE BY SEC. 106 OF THE
STABILIZATION ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 632, 638, CAN BE INVOKED AFTER THE
GROUND OF OBJECTION TO A PRICE SCHEDULE HAD BEEN PROSPECTIVELY REMOVED
N1.  FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD COMPLETELY MET PETITIONER'S OBJECTION BY
THE TIME THAT THE PETITIONER COULD AVAIL ITSELF OF WHATEVER ENLARGED
RIGHT OF PROTEST THE 1944 AMENDMENTS CONFERRED.  THE ADMINISTRATOR DID
SO, IN PART, ON DECEMBER 21, 1943, BY AUTHORIZING A REGIONAL OFFICE OF
THE PRICE ADMINISTRATION TO GRANT UPON APPLICATION AN ALLOWANCE OF UP
TO $1.50 PER TON FOR PROCESSING SCRAP; AND ON JUNE 30, 1944, THE VERY
DAY THAT THE ACT OF 1944 BECAME EFFECTIVE, THE SCHEDULE WAS REVISED TO
PERMIT SUCH A CHARGE ON ALL FUTURE SALES OF SCRAP.  9 FED. REG. 7330. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE CONTROLLING LEGISLATION.  THE PROCEDURE
ESTABLISHED BY THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 AUTHORIZED "ANY
PERSON SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISION" OF A PRICE SCHEDULE ISSUED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO "FILE A PROTEST SPECIFICALLY SETTING FORTH OBJECTIONS
TO ANY SUCH PROVISION," WITH A RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE EMERGENCY COURT
OF APPEALS FROM DENIAL OF SUCH PROTEST BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  SECS.
203(A) AND 204(A), 56 STAT. 23, 31.  BUT SUCH PROTEST HAD TO BE MADE
"WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE" OF A PRICE
SCHEDULE.  BY THE STABILIZATION ACT OF JUNE 30, 1944, 58 STAT. 632,
638, CONGRESS AMENDED THE PROCEDURE SO THAT A PROTEST AGAINST ANY
PROVISION OF A PRICE SCHEDULE COULD BE FILED "AT ANY TIME" AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE. 

IF ONE HAD ONLY THE WORDS OF THE 1944 AMENDMENT TO GO ON, IT WOULD BE
DUBIOUS TO INFER THAT CONGRESS HAD NOT ONLY REMOVED THE BAR OF SIXTY
DAYS FOR PROTESTS TO WHICH THE FUTURE MAY GIVE RISE BUT HAD ALSO
REVIVED A RIGHT OF PROTEST WHICH HAD EXPIRED THROUGH NON-USER UNDER THE
ACT OF 1942.  BUT SUCH, IT APPEARS, IS THE MEANING OF THE AMENDMENT. 
ON THIS POINT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS DECISIVE.  A SENATE REPORT
FURNISHES AN AUTHORITATIVE GLOSS:  "THE COMMITTEE WAS CONCERNED  ... BY
THE FACT THAT IN THE EARLY DAYS OF PRICE CONTROL MANY PEOPLE UNFAMILIAR
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT MIGHT HAVE LOST THEIR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE
THE BASIC VALIDITY OF A REGULATION BY EXCUSABLE FAILURES TO FILE A
PROTEST WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD.  THE COMMITTEE THEREFORE
RECOMMENDS THAT WITH RESPECT TO ALL REGULATIONS ISSUED BEFORE JULY 1,
1944, A NEW PERIOD OF 60 DAYS FROM THAT DATE BE PROVIDED FOR THE FILING
OF PROTESTS...."  S. REP. NO. 922, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1944) 10.  IT
WILL BE NOTED THAT THE SENATE PROPOSED A REVIVER OF BARRED CLAIMS FOR
ONLY SIXTY DAYS.  EVEN THIS LIMITATION WAS REMOVED WHEN THE MEASURE WAS
AMENDED BY THE HOUSE AND SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME LAW.  SEE H.R. REP. NO.
1593, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1944) 5; H.R. REP. 1698, 78TH CONG., 2D
SESS. (1944) 21. 

CONGRESS WAS EVIDENTLY IMPRESSED BY THE NEED FOR RELIEF OF RIGHTS
LOST THROUGH WHAT IT DEEMED EXCUSABLE FAILURE TO ENFORCE THEM UNDER THE
ORIGINAL PRICE CONTROL ACT.  SINCE, THEN, CONGRESS LIFTED THE SIXTY-DAY
LIMITATION RETROSPECTIVELY, WE ARE RELIEVED FROM CONSIDERING WHETHER,
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PETITIONER'S RIGHT OF PROTEST WOULD
HAVE BEEN BARRED EVEN UNDER THE 1942 ACT SO LONG AS THE CONTROVERTED
PRICE SCHEDULE REMAINED UNMODIFIED.  FN2  BUT THIS TAKES US ONLY PART
OF THE WAY.  WE NEED STILL ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE 1944 AMENDMENT
AUTHORIZES A PROTEST WITHOUT A TIME LIMIT ONLY AGAINST A PRICE SCHEDULE
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY ACTIVE.  DOES IT, THAT IS, PRECLUDE A RIGHT OF
PROTEST LIKE PETITIONER'S AGAINST A SCHEDULE THAT HAD BEEN SUPERSEDED,
ALTHOUGH IT CONTINUES TO GOVERN THE VALIDITY OF TRANSACTIONS THAT
OCCURRED UNDER ITS RULE? 

THE ADMINISTRATOR ARGUES THAT THIS RESTRICTION UPON THE ENLARGEMENT
OF THE RIGHT OF PROTEST MADE BY THE ACT OF 1944 IS IMMANENT IN WHAT
CONGRESS SAID.  THIS IS WHAT CONGRESS SAID:  "AT ANY TIME AFTER THE
ISSUANCE OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER  ..., OR IN THE CASE OF A PRICE
SCHEDULE, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF  ...  ANY PERSON
SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISION OF SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE
MAY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR, FILE A PROTEST  ..."  WE FIND NOTHING IN THIS LANGUAGE
OF THE 1944 AMENDMENT OF SEC. 203(A), OR IN ITS HISTORY, OR IN ANY
ILLUMINATION OTHERWISE SHED UPON THE TERMS OF THIS LEGISLATION, TO
JUSTIFY READING IN A QUALIFICATION THAT CONGRESS HAS LEFT OUT. 

ALL CONSTRUCTION IS THE ASCERTAINMENT OF MEANING.  AND LITERALNESS
MAY STRANGLE MEANING.  BUT IN CONSTRUING A DEFINITE PROCEDURAL
PROVISION WE DO WELL TO STICK CLOSE TO THE TEXT AND NOT IMPORT
ARGUMENTATIVE QUALIFICATIONS FROM BROAD, UNEXPRESSED CLAIMS OF POLICY. 
INSOFAR AS SUCH CONSIDERATIONS ARE RELEVANT HERE, HOWEVER, THEY TELL
AGAINST CUTTING DOWN THE NATURAL MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS
CHOSE. 

CONGRESS LIBERALIZED THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF PRICE
REGULATIONS SO EXTENSIVELY AS IT DID, EVEN REVIVING RIGHTS THERETOFORE
LAPSED, BECAUSE IT FELT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THAT RIGHTS WERE UNFAIRLY
LOST THROUGH UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF EMERGENCY
LEGISLATION.  PRICE-FIXING IS NOT STATIC; IT IS A CONTINUING PROCESS. 
THE CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS THAT LED CONGRESS TO GIVE RELIEF ARE THE
SAME WHETHER A REGULATION WAS REVISED OR REMAINED UNCHANGED.  THERE IS
NOT A HINT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO DRAW A LINE SO ARTIFICIAL AS THE
ONE THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD HAVE US DRAW. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS LEFT UNDISTURBED BY THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON
BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  IT IS URGED THAT HE OUGHT NOT TO BE
BURDENED WITH ISSUES ARISING UNDER SUPERSEDED REGULATIONS.  BUT AS A
MATTER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT A REGULATION CONTINUES TO SURVIVE ITS
SUPERSESSION AS A CONTEMPORANEOUS PRICE SCHEDULE.  UNITED STATES V.
HARK, 320 U.S. 531.  THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS THE DUTY OF ENFORCING THE
ACT, AND IN A PROCEEDING FOR SUSPENSION OF A LICENSE OR FOR TREBLE
DAMAGES OR PENALTIES, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE BASIS OF THE SUIT IS
VIOLATION OF A SUPERSEDED PRICE REGULATION.  IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT
THE PROTEST PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 203(A) AS AMENDED ARE NOT AVAILABLE
TO A PROTESTANT IN PETITIONER'S PLIGHT BECAUSE THE VALIDITY OF THE OLD
SCHEDULE MAY BE OTHERWISE TESTED.  THE ONLY OTHER WAY IMPLIES THE
READINESS OF THE CUSTOMER TO PAY THE CONTRACT PRICE FOR THE PROCESSING
CHARGE AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE PETITIONER, SUBJECTING BOTH TO CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE TRIAL COURT, THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS COULD THEN PASS ON THE
SCHEDULE.  SEC. 204(E), 58 STAT. 632, 639; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 924(E). 
IT SURELY DOES NOT COMMEND ITSELF TO GOOD SENSE TO BAR A DIRECT PROTEST
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR SO EASILY JUSTIFIED BY AN UNSTRAINED READING OF
THE ACT, BECAUSE LEAVE MIGHT BE OBTAINED TO LITIGATE THE ISSUE IN A
ROUNDABOUT WAY, INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF A PRESUMPTIVELY VALID
REGULATION.  AND IN THE EVENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INSISTENCE ON
THE VALIDITY OF THE OLD MAXIMUM SCRAP PRICE SCHEDULE IS NOT CHALLENGED
BY VIOLATION, IT COULD NOT BE TESTED BY BRINGING A SUIT ON THE CONTRACT
FOR THE ADDITIONAL PRICE.  YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414. 

FINALLY, APART FROM A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH WE ARE BOUND
TO REJECT, THE ADMINISTRATOR SEEKS TO INVOKE "THE GENERAL DOCTRINE OF
LACHES" AGAINST THE PETITIONER, UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THIS
CASE.  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS MAY CONSIDER THAT ISSUE WHEN,
UPON REMAND, IT DISPOSES OF THIS CASE IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 203(A) READS AS FOLLOWS; THE BRACKETED MATERIAL WAS DELETED
BY THE 1944 AMENDMENT, THE ITALICIZED MATERIAL ADDED BY THAT AMENDMENT:
"(WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS) AT ANY TIME AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF ANY
REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER SECTION 2, OR IN THE CASE OF A PRICE
SCHEDULE, (WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS) AT ANY TIME AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF SPECIFIED IN SECTION 206, ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO
ANY PROVISION OF SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE MAY, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, FILE
A PROTEST SPECIFICALLY SETTING FORTH OBJECTIONS TO ANY SUCH PROVISION
AND AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER WRITTEN EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH
OBJECTIONS.  (AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH SIXTY DAYS ANY
PERSON SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISION OF SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE
SCHEDULE MAY FILE SUCH A PROTEST BASED SOLELY ON GROUNDS ARISING AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH SIXTY DAYS.)"  56 STAT. 23, 31; 58 STAT. 632,
638; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 923(A). 

FN2  THE PRICE SCHEDULE IN CONTROVERSY WAS REISSUED ON FEBRUARY 21,
1942, 7 FED. REG. 1207, AND THE SIXTY DAYS FOR PROTEST, UNDER THE 1942
ACT, EXPIRED ON APRIL 21, 1942.  BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 25, 1942,
THAT PETITIONER WAS NOTIFIED BY THE O.P.A. THAT THE SCHEDULE APPLIED TO
ITS SALES OF FLUXING SCRAP.  UNDER THE ORIGINAL ACT, THE SIXTY-DAY
LIMITATION DID NOT APPLY TO "A PROTEST BASED SOLELY ON GROUNDS ARISING
AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH SIXTY DAYS."  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER
PETITIONER COULD HAVE BROUGHT ITSELF UNDER THIS ESCAPE CLAUSE.  SEE
GALBAN LOBO CO. V. HENDERSON, 132 F.2D 150; UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO. V.
BROWN, 137 F.2D 803; R.E. SCHANZER, INC. V. BOWLES, 141 F.2D 262;
MARLENE LINENS V. BOWLES, 144 F.2D 874. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
























COLLINS V. PORTER, 328 U.S. 46 


NO. 393.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  THE DECISION OF THIS CASE ON THE MERITS IS GOVERNED BY UTAH JUNK
CO. V. PORTER, ANTE, P. 39.  P. 49. 

2.  WHILE A SUIT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 205(E) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT WAS PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST
PETITIONERS, THEY FILED WITH THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR A PROTEST UNDER
SEC. 203(A) SEEKING TO HAVE THE REGULATION ON WHICH THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDING WAS BASED DECLARED INVALID OR INAPPLICABLE.  THE PROTEST WAS
DISMISSED BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, AND PETITIONERS' ENSUING
COMPLAINT IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS WAS DISMISSED BY THAT COURT
WITHOUT OPINION.  UPON A COMPLAINT FILED BY LEAVE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
UNDER SEC. 204(E) OF THE ACT, THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED
THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION BUT REFUSED TO PASS ON ITS APPLICABILITY
TO PETITIONERS.  HELD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN THE PROTEST PROCEEDING UNDER SEC.
203(A) WAS NOT RENDERED MOOT BY ITS JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF
THE REGULATION IN THE PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 204(E).  P. 48. 

3.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS BY THE 1944 AMENDMENT OF THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT GRANTED A LIMITED OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW OF A
REGULATION BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS BY LEAVE OF A DISTRICT
COURT IN WHICH AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING IS PENDING, NEITHER REPEALED
NOR QUALIFIED THE PROTEST PROCEEDING ORIGINALLY AUTHORIZED BY SEC.
203(A).  THE TWO METHODS OF SECURING A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY AND
APPLICABILITY OF A PRICE REGULATION ARE CUMULATIVE AND NOT
ALTERNATIVE.  P. 49. 

4.  A PERSON AGAINST WHOM A TREBLE DAMAGE SUIT FOR VIOLATION OF A
REGULATION UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT IS PENDING, IS A
"PERSON SUBJECT TO  ...  SUCH REGULATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
203(A) OF THE ACT, ALTHOUGH THE REGULATION HAS SINCE BEEN REVOKED OR
SUPERSEDED.  UNITED STATES V. HARK, 320 U.S. 531.  P. 49. 

COLLINS ET AL. V. PORTER, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS. 

PETITIONERS FILED WITH THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR A PROTEST UNDER THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR DENIED THE
PROTEST.  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE PETITIONERS'
COMPLAINT.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 710.  REVERSED, P.
49. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE STOCKHOLDERS IN A DISTILLING CORPORATION ON THE
DISSOLUTION OF WHICH IN DECEMBER, 1942, THEY RECEIVED AS THEIR SHARE OF
THE ASSETS WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS COVERING THE BULK WHISKEY OWNED BY THE
CORPORATION.  EARLY IN JANUARY, 1943, THEY SOLD THESE RECEIPTS AT A
PRICE ABOVE THAT FIXED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR BULK WHISKEY, MAXIMUM
PRICE REGULATION 193, 7 FED. REG. 6006(AUGUST 4, 1942), ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE RECEIPTS CONSTITUTED "SECURITIES" EXPRESSLY EXEMPT
FROM THE PRICING PROVISIONS. 

ON THE BASIS OF THE SALE OF THESE CERTIFICATES THE ADMINISTRATOR,
UNDER SEC. 205(E) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, 56 STAT. 23, 34;
50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 925(E), BROUGHT A SUIT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS TO RECOVER APPROXIMATELY $6,800,000.  THAT SUIT IS
STILL PENDING.  IN MAY, 1945, PETITIONERS, INVOKING THE AUTHORITY OF
SEC. 203(A), 56 STAT. 23, 31, 58 STAT. 632, 638; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
923(A), SOUGHT TO HAVE THE REGULATION ON WHICH THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM WERE BASED DECLARED INVALID OR INAPPLICABLE BY
A PROTEST FILED WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR.  HE DISMISSED IT ON THE
AUTHORITY OF THOMAS PAPER STOCK CO. V. BOWLES, 148 F.2D 831, THE RULING
OF WHICH WE HAVE REVERSED IN UTAH JUNK CO. V. PORTER, DECIDED THIS DAY,
ANTE, P. 39.  PETITIONERS THEN WENT TO THE EMERGENCY COURT, WHICH
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT OPINION, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
326 U.S. 710.  PRIOR TO THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PETITIONERS
OBTAINED LEAVE OF THE TRIAL COURT IN THE TREBLE DAMAGE ACTION TO FILE A
COMPLAINT WITH THE EMERGENCY COURT UNDER SEC. 204(E) OF THE ACT, 58
STAT. 632, 639, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 925(E), AND ON JANUARY 10, 1946,
THAT COURT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION.  COLLINS V.
BOWLES, 152 F.2D 760. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE LATTER DECISION OF THE EMERGENCY
COURT RENDERS MOOT THE JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT,
WHICH IS THE ONLY JUDGMENT NOW BEFORE US. THIS COURT IS POWERLESS TO
DECIDE A CASE IF ITS DECISION "CANNOT AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
LITIGANTS IN THE CASE BEFORE IT."  ST. PIERRE V. UNITED STATES, 319
U.S. 41, 42.  THE DECISION OF THIS CASE MAY AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
LITIGANTS.  THE EMERGENCY COURT SUSTAINED THE CHALLENGED REGULATION. 
IT REFUSED TO PASS ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE REGULATION TO THE
PETITIONERS.  IT LEFT THAT QUESTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT BEFORE WHICH
THE TREBLE DAMAGE SUIT IS PENDING.  HAD PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS COME
BEFORE THE EMERGENCY COURT THROUGH THE PROTEST PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.
203(A) THAT COURT WOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED BOTH ISSUES.  CONKLIN PEN CO.
V. BOWLES, 152 F.2D 764; COLLINS V. BOWLES, SUPRA.  AND IN THE EVENT
THAT THE EMERGENCY COURT HAD FOUND THE REGULATION INAPPLICABLE AND SUCH
DECISION HAD BEEN MADE BEFORE A JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, ITS RULING WOULD BE BINDING UPON THE DISTRICT COURT.  UNDER SEC.
204(E)(2)(II), CONSIDERATION OF A PROTEST UNDER SEC. 203(A) IS NOT A
GROUND FOR STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, SINCE THE
PROTEST PROCEEDING DID NOT PRECEDE THE SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT; AND
UNDER THE SAME PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DETERMINATION OF THE PROTEST
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 203(A) CAN HAVE NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT ONCE THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS ENTERED ITS JUDGMENT.  BUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
SECURING A DECISION FROM THE EMERGENCY COURT THROUGH THE PROTEST
PROCEEDING BEFORE A JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT IS ENTERED, HAS
PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND MAKES THIS A LIVING AND NOT A HYPOTHETICAL
CONTROVERSY. 

ON THE MERITS THE CASE IS GOVERNED BY OUR DECISION IN UTAH JUNK CO.
V. PORTER.  THE PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE HAD A RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR
PROTESTS CONSIDERED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AND, IN CASE OF DENIAL, TO
RESORT TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS IN
1944 GAVE A LIMITED OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE EMERGENCY COURT BY LEAVE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT BEFORE WHICH AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING IS
PENDING, SEC. 204(E), NEITHER REPEALED NOR QUALIFIED THE PROTEST
PROCEEDING ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BY SEC. 203(A).  THE TWO MODES OF
SECURING A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY AND APPLICABILITY OF THE PRICE
REGULATION ARE CUMULATIVE AND NOT ALTERNATIVE.  THE ADMINISTRATOR
ADVANCES NO ARGUMENT TO DISTINGUISH THE CASE FROM THAT OF UTAH JUNK CO.
V. PORTER.  HIS CONTENTION THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT PERSONS
"SUBJECT TO  ...  (THE) REGULATION," SEC. 203(A), IS AMPLY REFUTED BY
THE CONTINUING LIABILITY OF THE PETITIONERS, UNITED STATES V. HARK, 320
U.S. 531, FOR SOME $6,800,000, SHOULD THEIR ARGUMENTS AS TO THE
INVALIDITY AND INAPPLICABILITY OF THE REGULATION BE REJECTED WHEN THE
CASE IS CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS. 

IT IS SUPERFLUOUS TO DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THIS CASE. 
JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










THOMAS PAPER STOCK CO. V. PORTER, 328 U.S. 50 


NOS. 67 AND 578.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 25, 26, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22,
1946.  - 151 F.2D 345, REVERSED. 


1.  THE TAFT AMENDMENT TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT NULLIFIED
PRICE SCHEDULES BASED ON STANDARDS, AND NO SUCH SCHEDULES COULD BE
VALID AFTER THAT AMENDMENT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
"DETERMINED" THAT NO OTHER METHOD OF PRICE CONTROL WAS PRACTICABLE.  P.
53. 

2.  SALES OF WASTEPAPER BETWEEN JULY 16, 1943, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE TAFT AMENDMENT, AND SEPTEMBER 11, 1943, THE DATE WHEN THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINED THAT OTHER THAN BY STANDARDIZATION NO METHOD
OF EFFECTIVE PRICE CONTROL OF SUCH COMMODITY WAS PRACTICABLE, DID NOT
SUBJECT THE SELLERS TO THE PENALTIES OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT, EVEN THOUGH SUCH SALES WERE AT PRICES IN EXCESS OF A PRE-TAFT
AMENDMENT MAXIMUM PRICE BASED ON A STANDARD.  PP. 51-52, 56. 

3.  THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE VARIOUS INTERESTS INVOLVED IN A SYSTEM
OF PRICE CONTROL IS FOR CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS; AND THE LEGISLATION
IS TO BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE WILL OF CONGRESS.  P.
55. 

THOMAS PAPER STOCK CO. ET AL. V. PORTER, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS. 

NO. 578.  BY LEAVE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN WHICH A PROSECUTION OF
THE PETITIONERS FOR VIOLATION OF A REGULATION UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT WAS PENDING, PETITIONERS SOUGHT IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS A DECLARATION OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE REGULATION.  THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION. 
151 F.2D 345.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 715.  REVERSED,
P. 56. 

NO. 67.  PETITIONERS FILED A PROTEST WITH THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR DENIED
THE PROTEST.  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR.  148 F.2D 831.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  325 U.S.
847.  WRIT OF CERTIORARI DISMISSED, P. 56. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HAVING BEEN CHARGED WITH VIOLATIONS OF A PRICE REGULATION,
PETITIONERS CHALLENGED ITS VALIDITY BEFORE THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS BY TWO DIFFERENT MODES IN TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS.  THE CLAIM OF
INVALIDITY IN BOTH PROCEEDINGS WAS BASED ON THE TAFT AMENDMENT TO THE
PRICE CONTROL ACT.  ADJUDICATION OF THIS CLAIM WILL DISPOSE OF BOTH
CASES WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF PROCEDURAL ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE
EMERGENCY COURT. 

THOMAS PAPER STOCK COMPANY, A DEALER IN PAPER SCRAP, AND ITS
PRESIDENT WERE INDICTED UNDER SEC. 205(B) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT, 56 STAT. 23, 33; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 925(B), FOR THE SALE
OF WASTEPAPER IN VIOLATION OF MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 30, 7 FED.
REG. 9732(NOV.  24, 1942).  SECTION 1347.14(D) OF THAT REGULATION FIXED
THE MAXIMUM PRICE FOR UNSORTED WASTEPAPER IN TERMS OF A SPECIFICATION
OR STANDARD.  ID. AT 9735.  ON SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS, THE ADMINISTRATOR
LATER BEGAN AN ACTION AGAINST PETITIONERS FOR TREBLE DAMAGES.  SEC.
205(E), 56 STAT. 23, 34; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 925(E).  BOTH PROCEEDINGS
INVOLVED SALES OF WASTEPAPER BETWEEN JULY 16, 1943 AND SEPTEMBER 11,
1943.  THE DATES ARE CRUCIAL.  JULY 16, 1943 IS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE TAFT AMENDMENT, THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH IS THE CONTROLLING
ISSUE.  ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1943, THE ADMINISTRATOR, BY AN AMENDMENT TO
THE MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 30, "DETERMINED" THAT "NO PRACTICABLE
ALTERNATIVE EXISTS FOR SECURING EFFECTIVE PRICE CONTROL" WITH RESPECT
TO SUCH WASTEPAPER EXCEPT THROUGH THE STANDARDIZATION DEFINED IN THE
PRE-TAFT AMENDMENT MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 30.  8 FED. REG.
12554(SEPT.  14, 1943).  THE PROBLEM BEFORE US IS WHETHER, AFTER THE
TAFT AMENDMENT, SALES OF WASTEPAPER WERE GOVERNED BY A MAXIMUM PRICE
BASED ON A STANDARD, PRIOR TO THE DETERMINATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR ON
SEPTEMBER 11, 1943 THAT THERE WAS NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE TO SUCH
STANDARDIZATION. 

AND SO WE TURN TO THE TAFT AMENDMENT.  IT ADDED SUBSECTION (J) TO
SEC. 2 OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF
THE TAFT AMENDMENT ARE THESE: 

"(J)  NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED  ...  (3) AS AUTHORIZING
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO STANDARDIZE ANY COMMODITY, UNLESS THE
ADMINISTRATOR SHALL DETERMINE, WITH RESPECT TO SUCH STANDARDIZATION,
THAT NO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE EXISTS FOR SECURING EFFECTIVE PRICE
CONTROL WITH RESPECT TO SUCH COMMODITY; OR (4) AS AUTHORIZING ANY ORDER
OF THE ADMINISTRATOR FIXING MAXIMUM PRICES FOR DIFFERENT KINDS,
CLASSES, OR TYPES OF A COMMODITY WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF
SPECIFICATIONS OR STANDARDS, UNLESS SUCH SPECIFICATIONS OR STANDARDS
WERE, PRIOR TO SUCH ORDER, IN GENERAL USE IN THE TRADE OR INDUSTRY
AFFECTED, OR HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROMULGATED AND THEIR USE LAWFULLY
REQUIRED BY ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY."  57 STAT. 566; 50 U.S.C. APP.
SEC. 902(J). 

WE AGREE WITH THE EMERGENCY COURT THAT CONGRESS THUS PROVIDED "THREE
ALTERNATIVE SITUATIONS IN ANY ONE OF WHICH (THE ADMINISTRATOR) IS
AUTHORIZED TO EMPLOY SPECIFICATIONS OR STANDARDS IN CONNECTION WITH
PRICE CONTROL."  THOMAS PAPER STOCK CO. V. BOWLES, 148 F.2D 831, 835. 
THUS, IN THE CASE OF WASTEPAPER, STANDARDIZATION IS PERMITTED UNDER
CLAUSE (3) OF THE AMENDMENT ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY DEFINE A
STANDARD WHICH "HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED BY THE WASTEPAPER INDUSTRY
OR REQUIRED BY ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY."  ID. AT 837.  BUT WE ARE
ALSO OF OPINION THAT BEGINNING WITH JULY 16, 1943, THE DAY THE TAFT
AMENDMENT CAME INTO FORCE, IT PRECLUDED STANDARDIZED COMMODITY PRICES
UNLESS AND UNTIL THE ADMINISTRATOR "DETERMINED" THAT NO OTHER METHOD OF
PRICE CONTROL WAS PRACTICABLE.  THE TERMS OF THE AMENDMENT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS SETTING, SEE, E.G., H.R. REP. NO. 697, 78TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. (1943), BRING US TO THIS CONCLUSION, BUT WE NEED ADD LITTLE
TO THE FULL DISCUSSION THE TAFT AMENDMENT RECEIVED IN THE OPINION OF
THE COURT AND THAT OF THE DISSENT BELOW.  THOMAS PAPER STOCK CO. V.
BOWLES, 151 F.2D 345.  FOR US THE DECISIVE CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE
AMENDMENT WAS A RIGOROUS LIMITATION UPON THE POWERS OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR BASED UPON THE CONGRESSIONAL VIEW THAT STANDARDIZATIONS
OUTSTANDING AT THE TIME THE TAFT AMENDMENT WAS PASSED HAD NOT BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY THE MORE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL ACT.  SEC.
2(H), 56 STAT. 23, 27; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 902(H).  FN1  ACCORDINGLY,
CONGRESS LAID DOWN A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR THE VALIDITY OF PRICES
BASED ON STANDARDS, AND A FAIR READING OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE LIGHT OF
ITS HISTORY REQUIRES THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST INDICATE THAT HE HAS
FULFILLED THIS REQUIREMENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., 293
U.S. 454.  IT WOULD HARDLY SATISFY THE RESTRICTION WHICH THE TAFT
AMENDMENT PLACED UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POWER TO STANDARDIZE TO ALLOW
HIM TO CONTINUE SITUATIONS WHICH, AS CONGRESS THOUGHT, NEEDED
CORRECTION. 

IN SIGNING THE JOINT RESOLUTION CONTAINING THE TAFT AMENDMENT, THE
PRESIDENT DID SO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT "PRESERVED POWER IN THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO 'STANDARDIZE' A COMMODITY IN ANY CASE ON WHICH THIS
WAS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO AN EFFECTIVE SYSTEM OF FIXING PRICES."  SEE
STATEMENT OF PRICE ADMINISTRATOR'S REASONS INVOLVED IN THE ISSUANCE OF
SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER NO. 64(SEPT.  11, 1943).  CONGRESS THUS GAVE POWER
TO STANDARDIZE; IT DID NOT STEREOTYPE PAST STANDARDIZATIONS.  WITH
ENTIRE CANDOR THE ADMINISTRATOR CONCEDED HERE THAT HE "HAD MANY
REGULATIONS OUTSTANDING WHICH REQUIRED RE-EXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF
THE TERMS OF THE TAFT AMENDMENT."  BUT ALTHOUGH THE AMENDMENT
APPARENTLY HAD THE ACQUIESCENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, IT CONTAINS NO
SAVING CLAUSE THAT ALL OUTSTANDING STANDARDIZING REGULATIONS WERE TO BE
DEEMED CONTINUINGLY VALID, NOR IS THERE ANY INTIMATION WARRANTING SUCH
AN IMPLIED LIMITATION.  THE COURT BELOW SEEMED TO RECOGNIZE THE DUTY OF
A MANIFESTED DETERMINATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEED FOR A
STANDARDIZED PRICE BY SUGGESTING THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOWED
"REASONABLE PROMPTNESS" IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION APPLICABLE TO
WASTEPAPER WITHIN TWO MONTHS AFTER THE TAFT AMENDMENT.  BUT CONGRESS
DID NOT SANCTION STANDARDIZATION FOR WHAT WE MAY DEEM A REASONABLE
PERIOD AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAFT AMENDMENT WITHOUT THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION OF ITS NEED. 

THIS IS TOO SUBSTANTIAL A QUALIFICATION TO BE MADE BY JUDICIAL
INTERPOLATION.  NOR CAN WE DRAW ON BROAD ARGUMENTS ABOUT INFLATIONARY
PRESSURES ON PRICE CONTROL IN CONSTRUING LEGISLATION DEALING WITH SO
TECHNICALLY CONFINING A PROVISION AS THAT OF THE TAFT AMENDMENT.  THE
LEGISLATION WAS TOO SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AGAINST PRIOR UNAUTHORIZED
REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED NO DOUBT WITH THE BEST OF MOTIVES IN THE GREAT
EFFORT AGAINST INFLATION, FOR US TO GIVE IT A MEANING OTHER THAN THAT
WHICH THE LANGUAGE IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS HISTORY YIELDS.  OF COURSE,
ALL PROVISIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT ARE INFUSED BY ITS
FARREACHING AIMS.  BUT THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE VARIOUS INTERESTS
INVOLVED IN A SYSTEM OF PRICE CONTROL IS FOR CONGRESS AND NOT FOR US,
AND WE MUST CONSTRUE ITS LEGISLATION AS FAIRLY AS WE CAN TO CATCH THE
WILL BEHIND THE WORDS.  THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WE HAVE PLACED UPON THE
TAFT AMENDMENT DOES NOT TOUCH THE VITAL FORCES IN PRICE CONTROL IS
INDICATED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO A REVIEW OF THIS LITIGATION
ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS DEVOID OF MUCH PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE. 

IT ONLY REMAINS TO UNSNARL THE COMPLICATED PROCEDURES BY WHICH THE
PETITIONERS SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH THE INVALIDITY OF THE REGULATION WHICH
THEY WERE CHARGED WITH VIOLATING.  ON JUNE 15, 1944, PETITIONERS FILED
A PROTEST AGAINST SEC. 1347.14(D) UNDER SEC. 203(A) OF THE ACT.  56
STAT. 23, 31, 58 STAT. 632, 638; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 923(A).  BY THIS
TIME, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD AMENDED THE REGULATION
TO CONFORM IN TERMS WITH THE TAFT AMENDMENT.  THE ADMINISTRATOR DENIED
THE PROTEST ON THE MERITS AND ALSO EXPRESSED DOUBT AS TO HIS POWER TO
CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF A REGULATION OF WHICH THE ALLEGED DEFECTS HAD
BEEN CURED.  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE ADMINISTRATOR
ON THE GROUND THAT A CORRECTED REGULATION BARS PROTEST.  THOMAS PAPER
STOCK CO. V. BOWLES, 148 F.2D 831.  WE THEN BROUGHT THE CASE HERE AS
ONE OF A SERIES OF CASES RAISING IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  326 U.S. 715. 

IN THE MEANTIME PETITIONERS INVOKED SEC. 204(E) OF THE ACT, 58 STAT.
632, 639; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 924(E), WHEREBY THEY SOUGHT LEAVE TO FILE
A COMPLAINT DIRECTLY WITH THE EMERGENCY COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURT,
BEFORE WHICH THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WAS PENDING, GRANTED SUCH LEAVE
PURSUANT TO SEC. 204(E).  THE EMERGENCY COURT THEN PASSED ON THE MERITS
OF THE CLAIM OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE REGULATION IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
THE DATE OF THE TAFT AMENDMENT AND SEPTEMBER 11, 1943, WHEN IN SUPP.
ORDER 64, 8 FED. REG. 12554, THE ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINED THE NECESSITY
FOR STANDARDS.  THAT COURT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, HELD THAT THE OLD
REGULATION SURVIVED THE TAFT AMENDMENT, THOMAS PAPER STOCK CO. V.
BOWLES, 151 F.2D 345, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 715. 

IT IS THIS LATTER JUDGMENT, IN NO. 578, THAT WE NOW REVERSE WITH THE
RESULT THAT DISREGARD OF THE REGULATION BASED ON STANDARDIZED PRICES
FOR WASTEPAPER NOT "DETERMINED" BY THE ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER
11, 1943, DOES NOT SUBJECT PETITIONERS TO THE PENALTIES OF THE PRICE
CONTROL ACT.  IN VIEW OF DISPOSITION IN NO. 578 OF THE MERITS OF
PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF INVALIDITY UNDER THE TAFT AMENDMENT IT WOULD BE
FUTILE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON WHICH JUDGMENT WENT IN NO. 67. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED IN NO. 67 WILL BE
DISMISSED. 

FN1  "THE POWERS GRANTED IN THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE USED OR MADE TO
OPERATE TO COMPEL CHANGES IN THE BUSINESS PRACTICES, COST PRACTICES OR
METHODS, OR MEANS OR AIDS TO DISTRIBUTION, ESTABLISHED IN ANY INDUSTRY,
EXCEPT TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION OF ANY REGULATION, ORDER,
PRICE SCHEDULE, OR REQUIREMENT UNDER THIS ACT." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE JUDGMENT WHICH THE COURT JUST RENDERED PERMITS THESE PETITIONERS
AND OTHERS TO KEEP PROFITS OBTAINED FROM SALES MADE AT INFLATIONARY
PRICES EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 30.  THAT
REGULATION ESTABLISHES DOLLAR AND CENT CEILING PRICES FOR THIRTY-TWO
GRADES OF WASTEPAPER DEFINED BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR.  IT IS THE
TYPE OF REGULATION, OF WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN MANY, WHICH CONTROLS
PRICES BY FIRST STANDARDIZING OR GROUPING SIMILAR COMMODITIES, AND THEN
FIXING ONE AND THE SAME MAXIMUM PRICE FOR EACH OF THE COMMODITIES IN A
PARTICULAR CLASSIFICATION.  ON JULY 16, 1943, LONG AFTER REGULATION NO.
30 WAS PROMULGATED AND FULLY IN FORCE, CONGRESS ADDED THE TAFT
AMENDMENT (SEC. 2(J)) TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942.  THE
COURT HOLDS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY THIS AMENDMENT TO INVALIDATE
AUTOMATICALLY PRICE REGULATION NO. 30, AND ALL THE NUMEROUS REGULATIONS
LIKE IT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD FIND IT
POSSIBLE, AMIDST ALL HIS PRESSING DUTIES, TO INVESTIGATE AND MAKE
DETERMINATIONS, FORMALLY EXPRESSED IN WRITING, THAT ONLY BY
STANDARDIZING OR GROUPING CERTAIN COMMODITIES COULD PRICE CONTROL OVER
THEM BE SUCCESSFULLY ENFORCED.  SINCE THE TASK OF RECHECKING ALL PAST
REGULATIONS WHICH CONTAINED STANDARDIZATION PROVISIONS WAS VERY GREAT,
THE ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT FIND TIME TO REACH THE REGULATION HERE
INVOLVED UNTIL TWO MONTHS AFTER THE AMENDMENT'S ENACTMENT.  THE COURT
HOLDS THAT DURING THIS INTERVAL THE PUBLIC HAD NO PROTECTION WHATEVER
FROM INFLATIONARY PRICES PROHIBITED BY THIS REGULATION.  IN MY OPINION
THIS HOLDING FINDS SUPPORT NEITHER IN THE SECTION'S LANGUAGE NOR ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

WHEN THE SPONSOR OF THE TAFT AMENDMENT OFFERED IT ON THE SENATE FLOOR
HIS STATEMENT CLEARLY INDICATED THAT IT GREW OUT OF COOPERATIVE EFFORT
BETWEEN THE LEGISLATORS AND THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, WHO CERTAINLY
WOULD NOT BE INTERESTED IN THROWING A MONKEY WRENCH INTO O.P.A.'S
ENFORCEMENT OF THE EXISTING REGULATIONS.  REFERRING TO PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT WHICH HIS AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO CLARIFY, SENATOR TAFT SAID:
"PRICE ADMINISTRATOR BROWN CAME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND URGED THAT IT
WOULD SERIOUSLY HAMPER HIS PRICE REGULATIONS IN A NUMBER OF TRADES,
REGULATIONS FOR WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED, TO MANY OF WHICH THERE
WAS NO OBJECTION.  HE SUBMITTED ANOTHER FORM OF AMENDMENT, CARRYING OUT
THE SAME PURPOSE, BUT MAKING IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT IT WOULD NOT
INTERFERE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE PROPER."  CONG. REC. JULY
6, 1943, VOL. 89, P. 7251.    IN SPITE OF THIS CLEAR DECLARATION ON THE
PART OF SENATOR TAFT OF HIS INTENTION TO SAVE "PROPER" EXISTING
REGULATIONS, THE COURT NOW GIVES THE TAFT PRICE ADMINISTRATOR AMENDMENT
A MEANING WHICH DOES "INTERFERE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS."  IT NOT ONLY
INTERFERES WITH THEM; IT COMPLETELY DESTROYS THEIR EFFECTIVENESS FOR AN
INDEFINITE INTERVAL OF TIME.  THESE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS ARE WHOLLY
FREED FROM ANY POSSIBLE PENALTY FOR DELIBERATE INFLATIONARY
OVERCHARGES, FORBIDDEN BY CONGRESS, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE
PASSAGE OF THE AMENDMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PUBLICATION OF HIS
DETERMINATIONS.  THAT THE REGULATION HERE INVOLVED WAS A "PROPER"
REGULATION ON THE DAY THE TAFT AMENDMENT WAS PASSED IS CONCEDED.  THAT
ITS STANDARDIZATION PROVISIONS WERE AT ALL TIMES NECESSARY TO THE
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT IS SHOWN BOTH BY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
LATER FINDINGS AND BY HIS ORIGINAL PROMULGATION.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS
THIS COURT, AND NOT THE CONGRESS, WHICH MUST TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR PERMITTING PETITIONERS TO VIOLATE THE PRICE REGULATION WITH
IMPUNITY. 

FURTHERMORE, THE TAFT AMENDMENT'S LANGUAGE OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR THE
COURT'S DECISION.  FOR BY ITS TERMS IT NEITHER REPEALS NOR RENDERS
UNENFORCEABLE OR INEFFECTIVE VALID OUTSTANDING REGULATIONS WHICH
STANDARDIZE COMMODITIES.  AND IN ADDITION TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
POINTED OUT, THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE TIME OF ITS ENACTMENT
MAKE IT HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SUCH A RESULT.  AT THE
TIME THE AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED THE THREAT OF INFLATION WAS THE GREATEST
SINCE THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR.  JUST IN APRIL THE PRESIDENT HAD THOUGHT
IT NECESSARY TO ISSUE HIS WELL-KNOWN "HOLD-THE-LINE ORDER" IN ORDER TO
TIGHTEN CONTROLS DESIGNED TO STEM THE INFLATIONARY TREND.  PURCHASING
POWER WAS VERY GREAT AND CONSUMER GOODS HAD BECOME EXTREMELY SCARCE. 
HAD CONGRESS REALLY INTENDED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AGAINST INFLATION,
AS ITS LEGISLATION SHOWS IT DID, IT WOULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN THIS TIME FOR
RELAXING GOVERNMENT CONTROLS.  THE GIVING OF FREE REIGN TO INFLATIONARY
PRESSURE WAS LIKELY TO ENDANGER SERIOUSLY OUR ECONOMY AND TO BRING
GREAT HARDSHIP TO MANY INDIVIDUALS.  I CANNOT, WITHOUT A CLEAR
DECLARATION TO THAT EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO ANY PART OF OUR ECONOMY,
IMPUTE TO CONGRESS AN INTENT TO LET INFLATION RUN RIOT DURING SUCH
CRITICAL TIMES.  I CANNOT CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, AS THE OPINION OF THE
COURT NECESSARILY DOES, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO SUSPEND ALL MAXIMUM
PRICE REGULATIONS CONTAINING STANDARDIZATION PROVISIONS UNTIL THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWED THEM. 

WHAT THEN WAS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE TAFT
AMENDMENT?  THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE THUS STATED THE
MEET THE OBJECTION THAT THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR HAS EXCEEDED THE
LIMITATIONS EXPRESSED IN SECTION 2(H) OF  ...  (THE 1942 PRICE CONTROL
ACT) IN ISSUING CERTAIN REGULATIONS ALREADY PROMULGATED."  SECTION 2(H)
PROVIDES:  "THE POWERS GRANTED  ...  SHALL NOT BE USED OR MADE TO
OPERATE TO COMPEL CHANGES IN THE BUSINESS PRACTICES, COST PRACTICES OR
METHODS, OR MEANS OR AIDS TO DISTRIBUTION, ESTABLISHED IN ANY INDUSTRY,
EXCEPT TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION OF ANY REGULATION, ORDER,
PRICE SCHEDULE, OR REQUIREMENT UNDER THIS ACT."  AS THE CONFERENCE
REPORT INDICATES, THE TAFT AMENDMENT ACTUALLY ADDED LITTLE NEW, IF
ANYTHING AT ALL, TO THE REQUIREMENTS ALREADY CONTAINED IN SEC. 2(H). 
IT WAS MERELY AN EXPLANATION AND ELABORATION OF ONE PHASE OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 2(H).  ANY REGULATION, INCLUDING THE ONE HERE HELD
INVALID, THAT WAS PROMULGATED WHEN SEC. 2(H) WAS IN EFFECT HAD TO MEET
ITS REQUIREMENTS.  AS LATER EXPLAINED BY THE TAFT AMENDMENT, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 2(H) WHICH PERMITTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO REQUIRE
CHANGED BUSINESS PRACTICES TO PREVENT "CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION"
INCLUDED, IN THE CASE OF REGULATIONS CONTAINING NEW STANDARDIZATION
PROVISIONS, A DETERMINATION THAT THERE WAS NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO
EFFECTIVE PRICE CONTROL.  ALL STANDARDIZATION PROVISIONS, INCLUDING THE
ONE HERE HELD INVALID, IN ORDER TO BE VALID UNDER THE OLD SEC. 2(H) HAD
TO BE BASED ON SUCH A DETERMINATION.  THE TAFT AMENDMENT WAS NOT, AS
THE COURT NOW HOLDS, A DECLARATION BY CONGRESS THAT ALL PAST
STANDARDIZATION PROVISIONS HAD NOT BEEN BASED ON SUCH A DETERMINATION
AND THAT THEY WERE THEREFORE INVALID.  HERE THE REGULATION IN QUESTION
WAS PROMULGATED WHILE SEC. 2(H) WAS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.  NOT ONLY
DID PETITIONERS FAIL TO SHOW THAT THE REGULATION WAS NOT BASED ON THE
DETERMINATION REQUIRED BY SEC. 2(H) AS EXPLAINED BY THE TAFT AMENDMENT,
BUT THE ADMINISTRATOR, AFTER THE AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED, AND BEFORE ANY
PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST PETITIONERS, DOUBLE CHECKED THE
REGULATION TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS BASED ON THE DETERMINATION
REQUIRED.  IT IS NOT DENIED, AND APPARENTLY CANNOT BE DENIED, THAT IT
WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ORDER THESE CHANGED
STANDARDIZATION PRACTICES IN ORDER TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OR
EVASION.  IN MY OPINION, THEREFORE, THE WASTEPAPER PROVISIONS OF
MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 30 WERE VALID AT ALL TIMES, SINCE THEY MET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 2(H) AS EXPLAINED BY SEC. 2(J).  I WOULD
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW, WHICH DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






GIROUARD V. UNITED STATES, 328 U.S. 61 


NO. 572.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946.  - 149 F.2D
760, REVERSED. 


AN ALIEN WHO IS WILLING TO TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AND TO SERVE IN
THE ARMY AS A NON-COMBATANT BUT WHO, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES, IS
UNWILLING TO BEAR ARMS IN DEFENSE OF THIS COUNTRY MAY BE ADMITTED TO
CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
MARCH 27, 1942.  UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644; UNITED
STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S. 605; AND UNITED STATES V. BLAND, 283 U.S.
636, OVERRULED.  PP. 64-70. 

GIROUARD V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

A DISTRICT COURT ADMITTED PETITIONER TO CITIZENSHIP.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  149 F.2D 760.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 714.  REVERSED, P. 70. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1943 PETITIONER, A NATIVE OF CANADA, FILED HIS PETITION FOR
NATURALIZATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS.  HE STATED IN
HIS APPLICATION THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, BELIEVED IN ITS FORM OF GOVERNMENT, AND WAS WILLING
TO TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE (54 STAT. 1157, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 735(B))
WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"I HEREBY DECLARE, ON OATH, THAT I ABSOLUTELY AND ENTIRELY RENOUNCE
AND ABJURE ALL ALLEGIANCE AND FIDELITY TO ANY FOREIGN PRINCE,
POTENTATE, STATE, OR SOVEREIGNTY OF WHOM OR WHICH I HAVE HERETOFORE
BEEN A SUBJECT OR CITIZEN; THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST ALL
ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND
ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY WITHOUT
ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION:  SO HELP ME GOD." 

TO THE QUESTION IN THE APPLICATION "IF NECESSARY, ARE YOU WILLING TO
TAKE UP ARMS IN DEFENSE OF THIS COUNTRY?"  HE REPLIED, "NO (NON
COMBATANT) SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST."  HE EXPLAINED THAT ANSWER BEFORE THE
EXAMINER BY SAYING "IT IS A PURELY RELIGIOUS MATTER WITH ME, I HAVE NO
POLITICAL OR PERSONAL REASONS OTHER THAN THAT."  HE DID NOT CLAIM
BEFORE HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE BOARD EXEMPTION FROM ALL MILITARY SERVICE,
BUT ONLY FROM COMBATANT MILITARY DUTY.  AT THE HEARING IN THE DISTRICT
COURT PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE SEVENTH DAY
ADVENTIST DENOMINATION, OF WHOM APPROXIMATELY 10,000 WERE THEN SERVING
IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AS NON-COMBATANTS, ESPECIALLY
IN THE MEDICAL CORPS; AND THAT HE WAS WILLING TO SERVE IN THE ARMY BUT
WOULD NOT BEAR ARMS.  THE DISTRICT COURT ADMITTED HIM TO CITIZENSHIP. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  149 F.2D
760.  IT TOOK THAT ACTION ON THE AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES V.
SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644; UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S. 605, AND
UNITED STATES V. BLAND, 283 U.S. 636, SAYING THAT THE FACTS OF THE
PRESENT CASE BROUGHT IT SQUARELY WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THOSE CASES. 
THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED SO THAT THOSE AUTHORITIES MIGHT BE RE-EXAMINED. 

THE SCHWIMMER, MACINTOSH AND BLAND CASES INVOLVED, AS DOES THE
PRESENT ONE, A QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  AT THE TIME OF
THOSE CASES, CONGRESS REQUIRED AN ALIEN, BEFORE ADMISSION TO
CITIZENSHIP, TO DECLARE ON OATH IN OPEN COURT THAT "HE WILL SUPPORT AND
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL
ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO
THE SAME."  FN1  IT ALSO REQUIRED THE COURT TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE
ALIEN HAD DURING THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF
HIS APPLICATION "BEHAVED AS A MAN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHED TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WELL
DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME."  FN2  THOSE
PROVISIONS WERE REENACTED INTO THE PRESENT LAW IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME FORM.  FN3 

WHILE THERE ARE SOME FACTUAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE
SCHWIMMER AND MACINTOSH CASES, THE BLAND CASE ON ITS FACTS IS
INDISTINGUISHABLE.  BUT THE PRINCIPLE EMERGING FROM THE THREE CASES
OBLITERATES ANY FACTUAL DISTINCTION AMONG THEM.  AS WE RECOGNIZED IN IN
RE SUMMERS, 325 U.S. 561, 572, 577, THEY STAND FOR THE SAME GENERAL
RULE - THAT AN ALIEN WHO REFUSES TO BEAR ARMS WILL NOT BE ADMITTED TO
CITIZENSHIP.  AS AN ORIGINAL PROPOSITION, WE COULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT
RULE.  THE FALLACIES UNDERLYING IT WERE, WE THINK, DEMONSTRATED IN THE
DISSENTS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN THE SCHWIMMER CASE AND OF MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE HUGHES IN THE MACINTOSH CASE. 

THE OATH REQUIRED OF ALIENS DOES NOT IN TERMS REQUIRE THAT THEY
PROMISE TO BEAR ARMS.  NOR HAS CONGRESS EXPRESSLY MADE ANY SUCH FINDING
A PREREQUISITE TO CITIZENSHIP.  TO HOLD THAT IT IS REQUIRED IS TO READ
IT INTO THE ACT BY IMPLICATION.  BUT WE COULD NOT ASSUME THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO MAKE SUCH AN ABRUPT AND RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM OUR
TRADITIONS UNLESS IT SPOKE IN UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS. 

THE BEARING OF ARMS, IMPORTANT AS IT IS, IS NOT THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH
OUR INSTITUTIONS MAY BE SUPPORTED AND DEFENDED, EVEN IN TIMES OF GREAT
PERIL.  TOTAL WAR IN ITS MODERN FORM DRAMATIZES AS NEVER BEFORE THE
GREAT COOPERATIVE EFFORT NECESSARY FOR VICTORY.  THE NUCLEAR PHYSICISTS
WHO DEVELOPED THE ATOMIC BOMB, THE WORKER AT HIS LATHE, THE SEAMEN ON
CARGO VESSELS, CONSTRUCTION BATTALIONS, NURSES, ENGINEERS, LITTER
BEARERS, DOCTORS, CHAPLAINS - THESE, TOO, MADE ESSENTIAL
CONTRIBUTIONS.  AND MANY OF THEM MADE THE SUPREME SACRIFICE.  MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES STATED IN THE SCHWIMMER CASE (279 U.S. P. 655) THAT "THE
QUAKERS HAVE DONE THEIR SHARE TO MAKE THE COUNTRY WHAT IT IS."  AND THE
ANNALS OF THE RECENT WAR SHOW THAT MANY WHOSE RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES
PREVENTED THEM FROM BEARING ARMS, NEVERTHELESS WERE UNSELFISH
PARTICIPANTS IN THE WAR EFFORT.  REFUSAL TO BEAR ARMS IS NOT
NECESSARILY A SIGN OF DISLOYALTY OR A LACK OF ATTACHMENT TO OUR
INSTITUTIONS.  ONE MAY SERVE HIS COUNTRY FAITHFULLY AND DEVOTEDLY,
THOUGH HIS RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SHOULDER A
RIFLE.  DEVOTION TO ONE'S COUNTRY CAN BE AS REAL AND AS ENDURING AMONG
NON-COMBATANTS AS AMONG COMBATANTS.  ONE MAY ADHERE TO WHAT HE DEEMS TO
BE HIS OBLIGATION TO GOD AND YET ASSUME ALL MILITARY RISKS TO SECURE
VICTORY.  THE EFFORT OF WAR IS INDIVISIBLE; AND THOSE WHOSE RELIGIOUS
SCRUPLES PREVENT THEM FROM KILLING ARE NO LESS PATRIOTS THAN THOSE
WHOSE SPECIAL TRAITS OR HANDICAPS RESULT IN THEIR ASSIGNMENT TO DUTIES
FAR BEHIND THE FIGHTING FRONT.  EACH IS MAKING THE UTMOST CONTRIBUTION
ACCORDING TO HIS CAPACITY.  THE FACT THAT HIS ROLE MAY BE LIMITED BY
RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS RATHER THAN BY PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS HAS NO
NECESSARY BEARING ON HIS ATTACHMENT TO HIS COUNTRY OR ON HIS
WILLINGNESS TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND IT TO HIS UTMOST. 

PETITIONER'S RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES WOULD NOT DISQUALIFY HIM FROM
BECOMING A MEMBER OF CONGRESS OR HOLDING OTHER PUBLIC OFFICES.  WHILE
ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT SUCH OFFICIALS,
BOTH OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SEVERAL STATES, "SHALL BE BOUND BY
OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION," IT SIGNIFICANTLY
ADDS THAT "NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION
TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES."  THE OATH
REQUIRED IS IN NO MATERIAL RESPECT DIFFERENT FROM THAT PRESCRIBED FOR
ALIENS UNDER THE NATIONALITY ACT.  IT HAS LONG CONTAINED THE PROVISION
"THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH
AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT
ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION  ..."  R.S. SEC. 1757, 5
U.S.C. SEC. 16.  AS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES STATED IN HIS DISSENT IN
THE MACINTOSH CASE (283 U.S. P. 631), "THE HISTORY OF THE STRUGGLE FOR
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, THE LARGE NUMBER OF CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTRY, FROM
THE VERY BEGINNING, WHO HAVE BEEN UNWILLING TO SACRIFICE THEIR
RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, AND IN PARTICULAR, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO WAR AND WHO WOULD NOT YIELD WHAT THEY
SINCERELY BELIEVED TO BE THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO THE WILL OF GOD" - THESE
CONSIDERATIONS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE "THAT SUCH PERSONS ARE TO
BE DEEMED DISQUALIFIED FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE OF THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE OATH WHICH MUST BE TAKEN BEFORE THEY ENTER UPON
THEIR DUTIES." 

THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESS SET A STRICTER
STANDARD FOR ALIENS SEEKING ADMISSION TO CITIZENSHIP THAN IT DID FOR
OFFICIALS WHO MAKE AND ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THE NATION AND ADMINISTER
ITS AFFAIRS.  IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT ONE NEED FORSAKE HIS RELIGIOUS
SCRUPLES TO BECOME A CITIZEN BUT NOT TO SIT IN THE HIGH COUNCILS OF
STATE. 

AS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES POINTED OUT (UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH,
SUPRA, P. 633), RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES AGAINST BEARING ARMS HAVE BEEN
RECOGNIZED BY CONGRESS IN THE VARIOUS DRAFT LAWS.  THIS IS TRUE OF THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940(54 STAT. 889, 50 U.S.C. APP.
SEC. 305(G)) FN4  AS IT WAS OF EARLIER ACTS.  HE WHO IS INDUCTED INTO
THE ARMED SERVICES TAKES AN OATH WHICH INCLUDES THE PROVISION "THAT I
WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
THAT I WILL SERVE THEM HONESTLY AND FAITHFULLY AGAINST ALL THEIR
ENEMIES WHOMSOEVER  ..."  FN5  41 STAT. 809, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1581. 
CONGRESS HAS THUS RECOGNIZED THAT ONE MAY ADEQUATELY DISCHARGE HIS
OBLIGATIONS AS A CITIZEN BY RENDERING NON-COMBATANT AS WELL AS
COMBATANT SERVICES.  THIS RESPECT BY CONGRESS OVER THE YEARS FOR THE
CONSCIENCE OF THOSE HAVING RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES AGAINST BEARING ARMS IS
COGENT EVIDENCE OF THE MEANING OF THE OATH.  IT IS RECOGNITION BY
CONGRESS THAT EVEN IN TIME OF WAR ONE MAY TRULY SUPPORT AND DEFEND OUR
INSTITUTIONS THOUGH HE STOPS SHORT OF USING WEAPONS OF WAR. 

THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE NATURALIZATION OATH RECEIVED NEW SUPPORT IN
1942.  IN THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT, 56 STAT. 176, 182, 8 U.S.C., SUPP.
IV, SEC. 1001, CONGRESS RELAXED CERTAIN OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALIENS
WHO SERVED HONORABLY IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES DURING
WORLD WAR II AND PROVIDED MACHINERY TO EXPEDITE THEIR NATURALIZATION. 
FN6  RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS WERE RELAXED, EDUCATIONAL TESTS WERE
ELIMINATED, AND NO FEES WERE REQUIRED.  BUT NO CHANGE IN THE OATH WAS
MADE; NOR WAS ANY CHANGE MADE IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ALIEN BE
ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  YET IT IS CLEAR THAT
THESE NEW PROVISIONS COVER NON-COMBATANTS AS WELL AS COMBATANTS.  FN7
IF PETITIONER HAD SERVED AS A NONCOMBATANT (AS HE WAS WILLING TO DO),
HE COULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP BY TAKING THE IDENTICAL OATH
WHICH HE IS WILLING TO TAKE.  CAN IT BE THAT THE OATH MEANS ONE THING
TO ONE WHO HAS SERVED TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY HIS RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES
AND ANOTHER THING TO ONE EQUALLY WILLING TO SERVE BUT WHO HAS NOT HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY?  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT PETITIONER IS NOT
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE NEW ACT SINCE HE DID NOT SERVE IN THE
ARMED FORCES.  HE IS NOT SEEKING THE BENEFITS OF THE EXPEDITED
PROCEDURE AND THE RELAXED REQUIREMENTS.  THE OATH WHICH HE MUST TAKE IS
IDENTICAL WITH THE OATH WHICH BOTH NON-COMBATANTS AND COMBATANTS MUST
TAKE.  IT WOULD, INDEED, BE A STRANGE CONSTRUCTION TO SAY THAT "SUPPORT
AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC" DEMANDS SOMETHING MORE FROM
SOME THAN IT DOES FROM OTHERS.  THAT OATH CAN HARDLY BE ADEQUATE FOR
ONE WHO IS UNWILLING TO BEAR ARMS BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES AND YET
EXACT FROM ANOTHER A PROMISE TO BEAR ARMS DESPITE RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES. 

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES STATED IN THE SCHWIMMER CASE (279 U.S. PP. 654
55):  "IF THERE IS ANY PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT MORE
IMPERATIVELY CALLS FOR ATTACHMENT THAN ANY OTHER IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF
FREE THOUGHT - NOT FREE THOUGHT FOR THOSE WHO AGREE WITH US BUT FREEDOM
FOR THE THOUGHT THAT WE HATE.  I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ADHERE TO THAT
PRINCIPLE WITH REGARD TO ADMISSION INTO, AS WELL AS TO LIFE WITHIN THIS
COUNTRY."  THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY HAS THROUGH THE CENTURIES
BEEN AN EFFORT TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEMANDS OF THE STATE TO THE
CONSCIENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  THE VICTORY FOR FREEDOM OF THOUGHT
RECORDED IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS RECOGNIZES THAT IN THE DOMAIN OF
CONSCIENCE THERE IS A MORAL POWER HIGHER THAN THE STATE.  THROUGHOUT
THE AGES, MEN HAVE SUFFERED DEATH RATHER THAN SUBORDINATE THEIR
ALLEGIANCE TO GOD TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE.  FREEDOM OF RELIGION
GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS THE PRODUCT OF THAT STRUGGLE.  AS
WE RECENTLY STATED IN UNITED STATES V. BALLARD, 322 U.S. 78, 86,
"FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, WHICH INCLUDES FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF, IS
BASIC IN A SOCIETY OF FREE MEN.  BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319
U.S. 624."  THE TEST OATH IS ABHORRENT TO OUR TRADITION.  OVER THE
YEARS, CONGRESS HAS METICULOUSLY RESPECTED THAT TRADITION AND EVEN IN
TIME OF WAR HAS SOUGHT TO ACCOMMODATE THE MILITARY REQUIREMENTS TO THE
RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO REVERSE THAT POLICY WHEN IT CAME TO DRAFT THE
NATURALIZATION OATH.  SUCH AN ABRUPT AND RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM OUR
TRADITIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPLIED.  SEE SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES,
320 U.S. 118, 132.  COGENT EVIDENCE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CONVINCE US
THAT CONGRESS TOOK THAT COURSE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE SCHWIMMER, MACINTOSH AND BLAND CASES DO NOT
STATE THE CORRECT RULE OF LAW. 

WE ARE MET, HOWEVER, WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT, EVEN THOUGH THOSE CASES
WERE WRONGLY DECIDED, CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED THE RULE WHICH THEY
ANNOUNCED.  THE ARGUMENT RUNS AS FOLLOWS:  MANY EFFORTS WERE MADE TO
AMEND THE LAW SO AS TO CHANGE THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY THOSE CASES; BUT IN
EVERY INSTANCE THE BILL DIED IN COMMITTEE.  MOREOVER, WHEN THE
NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 WAS PASSED, CONGRESS REENACTED THE OATH IN ITS
PRE-EXISTING FORM, THOUGH AT THE SAME TIME IT MADE EXTENSIVE CHANGES IN
THE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURE FOR NATURALIZATION.  FROM THIS IT IS
ARGUED THAT CONGRESS ADOPTED AND REENACTED THE RULE OF THE SCHWIMMER,
MACINTOSH AND BLAND CASES.  CF. APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S.
469, 488-489.    WE STATED IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 119,
THAT "IT WOULD REQUIRE VERY PERSUASIVE CIRCUMSTANCES ENVELOPING
CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE TO DEBAR THIS COURT FROM REEXAMINING ITS OWN
DOCTRINES."  IT IS AT BEST TREACHEROUS TO FIND IN CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE
ALONE THE ADOPTION OF A CONTROLLING RULE OF LAW.  WE DO NOT THINK UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT WE CAN PROPERLY
PLACE ON THE SHOULDERS OF CONGRESS THE BURDEN OF THE COURT'S OWN
ERROR.  THE HISTORY OF THE 1940 ACT IS AT MOST EQUIVOCAL.  IT CONTAINS
NO AFFIRMATIVE RECOGNITION OF THE RULE OF THE SCHWIMMER, MACINTOSH AND
BLAND CASES.  THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS AND ITS INACTION ARE AS
CONSISTENT WITH A DESIRE TO LEAVE THE PROBLEM FLUID AS THEY ARE WITH AN
ADOPTION BY SILENCE OF THE RULE OF THOSE CASES.  BUT, FOR US, IT IS
ENOUGH TO SAY THAT SINCE THE DATE OF THOSE CASES CONGRESS NEVER ACTED
AFFIRMATIVELY ON THIS QUESTION BUT ONCE AND THAT WAS IN 1942.  AT THAT
TIME, AS WE HAVE NOTED, CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED NATURALIZATION
PRIVILEGES TO NON-COMBATANTS WHO LIKE PETITIONER WERE PREVENTED FROM
BEARING ARMS BY THEIR RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES.  THAT WAS AFFIRMATIVE
RECOGNITION THAT ONE COULD BE ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR
GOVERNMENT AND COULD SUPPORT AND DEFEND IT EVEN THOUGH HIS RELIGIOUS
CONVICTIONS PREVENTED HIM FROM BEARING ARMS.  AND, AS WE HAVE SAID, WE
CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE OATH WAS DESIGNED TO EXACT SOMETHING MORE FROM
ONE PERSON THAN FROM ANOTHER.  THUS THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TAKEN BY
CONGRESS IN 1942 NEGATIVES ANY INFERENCE THAT OTHERWISE MIGHT BE DRAWN
FROM ITS SILENCE WHEN IT REENACTED THE OATH IN 1940.  REVERSED. 

FN1  NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1906, SEC. 4, 34 STAT. 596. 

FN2  ID. 

FN3  WE HAVE ALREADY SET FORTH IN THE OPINION THE PRESENT FORM OF THE
OATH WHICH IS REQUIRED.  IT IS TO BE FOUND IN THE NATIONALITY ACT OF
1940, 54 STAT. 1137, 1157, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 735(B).  SEC. 307(A) OF THAT
ACT, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 707(A), PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE NATURALIZED
UNLESS HE HAS BEEN FOR STATED PERIODS AND STILL IS "A PERSON OF GOOD
MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE
UNITED STATES." 

FN4  SEC. 305(G) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE ANY
PERSON TO BE SUBJECT TO COMBATANT TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE LAND OR
NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES WHO, BY REASON OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING
AND BELIEF, IS CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO PARTICIPATION IN WAR IN ANY
FORM.  ANY SUCH PERSON CLAIMING SUCH EXEMPTION FROM COMBATANT TRAINING
AND SERVICE BECAUSE OF SUCH CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS WHOSE CLAIM IS
SUSTAINED BY THE LOCAL BOARD SHALL, IF HE IS INDUCTED INTO THE LAND OR
NAVAL FORCES UNDER THIS ACT, BE ASSIGNED TO NONCOMBATANT SERVICE AS
DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT, OR SHALL, IF HE IS FOUND TO BE
CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO PARTICIPATION IN SUCH NONCOMBATANT SERVICE,
IN LIEU OF SUCH INDUCTION, BE ASSIGNED TO WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE
UNDER CIVILIAN DIRECTION." 

FOR EARLIER ACTS SEE ACT OF FEBRUARY 24, 1864, 13 STAT. 6, 9; ACT OF
JANUARY 21, 1903, 32 STAT. 775; ACT OF JUNE 3, 1916, 39 STAT. 166, 197;
ACT OF MAY 18, 1917, 40 STAT. 76, 78. 

FN5  AND SEE BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542, 549-550; ARMY
REGULATIONS NO. 615-500, AUGUST 10, 1944, SEC. II, 15(F)(2). 

FN6  COMPARABLE PROVISION WAS MADE IN THE ACT OF DECEMBER 7, 1942, 56
STAT. 1041, 8 U.S.C., SUPP. IV, SEC. 723A, FOR THOSE WHO SERVED
HONORABLY IN WORLD WAR I, IN THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR, OR ON THE
MEXICAN BORDER. 

FN7  IN RE KINLOCH, 53 F.SUPP.  521, INVOLVED NATURALIZATION
PROCEEDINGS OF ALIENS, ONE OF WHOM, LIKE PETITIONER IN THE PRESENT
CASE, AS A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST.  HE HAD BEEN INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY
AS A NON-COMBATANT.  HIS NATURALIZATION WAS OPPOSED BY THE IMMIGRATION
SERVICE ON THE GROUND THAT HE COULD NOT PROMISE TO BEAR ARMS.  THE
COURT OVERRULED THE OBJECTION, STATING, P. 523: 

"IF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, WHO ARE ALIENS, PERFORMING MILITARY
DUTY, AND WEARING THE UNIFORM, ARE NOT GRANTED THE PRIVILEGES OF
CITIZENSHIP UNDER THIS ACT, THEN THE ACT WOULD BE MEANINGLESS.  IT
WOULD BE SO MADE IF AN APPLICANT, BEING A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR, WHO
HAS ATTAINED THE STATUS OF A SOLDIER, PERFORMS MILITARY DUTY, AND
HONORABLY WEARS THE UNIFORM (AS IS ADMITTED IN THE INSTANT CASES), IS
DENIED CITIZENSHIP.  IF THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS
REQUIRING SUCH APPLICANT TO AGREE, WITHOUT MENTAL RESERVATION, TO BEAR
ARMS, THEN THE RESULT WOULD BE A DENIAL OF CITIZENSHIP, EVEN THOUGH
CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED SUCH PRIVILEGE UPON HIM." 

AND SEE IN RE SAWYER, 59 F.SUPP.  428. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED, FOR THE REASON THAT THE
COURT BELOW, IN APPLYING THE CONTROLLING PROVISIONS OF THE
NATURALIZATION STATUTES, CORRECTLY APPLIED THEM AS EARLIER CONSTRUED BY
THIS COURT, WHOSE CONSTRUCTION CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED AND CONFIRMED. 

IN THREE CASES DECIDED MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, THIS COURT DENIED
CITIZENSHIP TO APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION WHO HAD ANNOUNCED THAT
THEY PROPOSED TO TAKE THE PRESCRIBED OATH OF ALLEGIANCE WITH THE
RESERVATION OR QUALIFICATION THAT THEY WOULD NOT, AS NATURALIZED
CITIZENS, ASSIST IN THE DEFENSE OF THIS COUNTRY BY FORCE OF ARMS OR
GIVE THEIR MORAL SUPPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAR WHICH THEY DID
NOT BELIEVE TO BE MORALLY JUSTIFIED OR IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
COUNTRY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644; UNITED STATES
V. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S. 605; UNITED STATES V. BLAND, 283 U.S. 636. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THIS COURT HELD THAT THE APPLICANT HAD FAILED
TO MEET THE CONDITIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAD MADE PREREQUISITE TO
NATURALIZATION BY SEC. 4 OF THE NATURALIZATION ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, C.
3592, 34 STAT. 596, THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH, HERE RELEVANT, WERE
ENACTED IN THE NATIONALITY ACT OF OCTOBER 14, 1940.  SEE C. 876, 54
STAT. 1137, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 27, 1942, C. 199, 56 STAT.
176, 182-183, AND BY THE ACT OF DECEMBER 7, 1942, C. 690, 56 STAT.
1041, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 707, 735.  SECTION 4 OF THE NATURALIZATION ACT OF
1906, PARAGRAPH "THIRD," PROVIDED THAT BEFORE THE ADMISSION TO
CITIZENSHIP THE APPLICANT SHOULD DECLARE ON OATH IN OPEN COURT THAT "HE
WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND BEAR TRUE FAITH AND
ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME."  AND PARAGRAPH "FOURTH" REQUIRED THAT BEFORE
ADMISSION IT BE MADE TO APPEAR "TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
ADMITTING ANY ALIEN TO CITIZENSHIP" THAT AT LEAST FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE
YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING HIS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT "HAS BEHAVED
AS A MAN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER
AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME  ..."  IN APPLYING THESE PROVISIONS IN THE
CASES MENTIONED, THIS COURT HELD ONLY THAT AN APPLICANT WHO IS UNABLE
TO TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE WITHOUT THE RESERVATIONS OR
QUALIFICATIONS INSISTED UPON BY THE APPLICANTS IN THOSE CASES MANIFESTS
HIS WANT OF ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND HIS
UNWILLINGNESS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OATH, THAT HE WILL
SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND BEAR TRUE
FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME, AND SO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
STATUTORY CONDITIONS OF HIS NATURALIZATION.  NO QUESTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO WITHHOLD CITIZENSHIP ON THESE
GROUNDS WAS INVOLVED.  THAT POWER WAS NOT DOUBTED.  SEE SELECTIVE DRAFT
LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366; HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245.  THE ONLY
QUESTION WAS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH CONGRESS AT ALL TIMES
HAS BEEN FREE TO AMEND IF DISSATISFIED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY
THE COURT. 

WITH THREE OTHER JUSTICES OF THE COURT I DISSENTED IN THE MACINTOSH
AND BLAND CASES, FOR REASONS WHICH THE COURT NOW ADOPTS AS GROUND FOR
OVERRULING THEM.  FN1  SINCE THIS COURT IN THREE CONSIDERED EARLIER
OPINIONS HAS REJECTED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE FOR WHICH THE
DISSENTING JUSTICES CONTENDED, THE QUESTION, WHICH FOR ME IS DECISIVE
OF THE PRESENT CASE, IS WHETHER CONGRESS HAS LIKEWISE REJECTED THAT
CONSTRUCTION BY ITS SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION, AND HAS ADOPTED AND
CONFIRMED THE COURT'S EARLIER CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTES IN
QUESTION.  A STUDY OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO
PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENT OF THE NATURALIZATION LAWS SINCE THE DECISION
IN THE SCHWIMMER CASE, LEADS ME TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED
AND CONFIRMED THIS COURT'S EARLIER CONSTRUCTION OF THE NATURALIZATION
LAWS.  FOR THAT REASON ALONE I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NATURALIZATION STATUTES, ADOPTED BY THIS
COURT IN THE THREE CASES MENTIONED, IMMEDIATELY BECAME THE TARGET OF AN
ACTIVE, PUBLICIZED LEGISLATIVE ATTACK IN CONGRESS WHICH PERSISTED FOR A
PERIOD OF ELEVEN YEARS, UNTIL THE ADOPTION OF THE NATIONALITY ACT IN
1940.  TWO DAYS AFTER THE SCHWIMMER CASE WAS DECIDED, A BILL WAS
INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE, H.R. 3547, 71ST CONG., 1ST SESS., TO GIVE THE
NATURALIZATION ACT A CONSTRUCTION CONTRARY TO THAT WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN
TO IT BY THIS COURT AND WHICH, IF ADOPTED, WOULD HAVE MADE THE
APPLICANTS REJECTED BY THIS COURT IN THE SCHWIMMER, MACINTOSH AND BLAND
CASES ELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP.  THIS EFFORT TO ESTABLISH BY
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THIS COURT HAD PLACED
ON THE NATURALIZATION ACT WAS NOT ONE WHICH CONGRESS HAD ADOPTED OR
INTENDED, WAS RENEWED WITHOUT SUCCESS AFTER THE DECISION IN THE
MACINTOSH AND BLAND CASES, AND WAS CONTINUED FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT TEN
YEARS.  FN2  ALL OF THESE MEASURES WERE OF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
PATTERN AS H.R. 297, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., INTRODUCED DECEMBER 8, 1931,
AT THE FIRST SESSION OF CONGRESS, AFTER THE DECISION IN THE MACINTOSH
CASE.  IT PROVIDED THAT NO PERSON OTHERWISE QUALIFIED "SHALL BE
DEBARRED FROM CITIZENSHIP BY REASON OF HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS VIEWS OR
PHILOSOPHICAL OPINIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWFULNESS OF WAR AS A MEANS
OF SETTLING INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES, BUT EVERY ALIEN ADMITTED TO
CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME OBLIGATIONS AS THE NATIVE-BORN
CITIZEN."  H.R. 3547, 71ST CONG., 1ST SESS., INTRODUCED IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE DECISION IN THE SCHWIMMER CASE, HAD CONTAINED A LIKE
PROVISION, BUT WITH THE OMISSION OF THE LAST CLAUSE BEGINNING "BUT
EVERY ALIEN."  HEARINGS WERE HAD BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ON BOTH BILLS AT WHICH THEIR PROPONENTS
HAD STATED CLEARLY THEIR PURPOSE TO SET ASIDE THE INTERPRETATION PLACED
ON THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE BY THE SCHWIMMER AND MACINTOSH CASES.  FN3
THERE WAS OPPOSITION ON EACH OCCASION.  FN4 BILLS IDENTICAL WITH H.R.
297 WERE INTRODUCED IN THREE LATER CONGRESSES.  FN5  NONE OF THESE
BILLS WERE REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE.  THE OTHER PROPOSALS, ALL OF
WHICH FAILED OF PASSAGE (SEE FOOTNOTE 2, ANTE), HAD THE SAME PURPOSE
AND DIFFERED ONLY IN PHRASEOLOGY. 

THUS, FOR SIX SUCCESSIVE CONGRESSES, OVER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN A
DECADE, THERE WERE CONTINUOUSLY PENDING BEFORE CONGRESS IN ONE FORM OR
ANOTHER PROPOSALS TO OVERTURN THE RULINGS IN THE THREE SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS IN QUESTION.  CONGRESS DECLINED TO ADOPT THESE PROPOSALS
AFTER FULL HEARINGS AND AFTER SPEECHES ON THE FLOOR ADVOCATING THE
CHANGE.  72 CONG. REC. 6966-7; 75 CONG. REC. 15354-7.  IN THE MEANTIME
THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAD BEEN FOLLOWED IN CLARKE'S CASE, 301 PA.
321, 152 A. 92; BEALE V. UNITED STATES, 71 F.2D 737; IN RE WARKENTIN,
93 F.2D 42.  IN BEALE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE COURT POINTED OUT
THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AFFECTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES
RELATING TO ADMISSION TO CITIZENSHIP HAD FAILED, SAYING:  "WE MUST
CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THESE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS CONSTRUED BY
THE SUPREME COURT HAVE CONGRESSIONAL SANCTION AND APPROVAL." 

ANY DOUBTS THAT SUCH WERE THE PURPOSE AND WILL OF CONGRESS WOULD SEEM
TO HAVE BEEN DISSIPATED BY THE REENACTMENT BY CONGRESS IN 1940 OF
PARAGRAPHS "THIRD" AND "FOURTH" OF SEC. 4 OF THE NATURALIZATION ACT OF
1906, AND BY THE INCORPORATION IN THE ACT OF 1940 OF THE VERY FORM OF
OATH WHICH HAD BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY PRESCRIBED FOR THE APPLICANTS IN
THE SCHWIMMER, MACINTOSH AND BLAND CASES.  SEE RULE 8(C),
NATURALIZATION REGULATIONS OF JULY 1, 1929.  FN6 

THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 WAS A COMPREHENSIVE, SLOWLY MATURED AND
CAREFULLY CONSIDERED REVISION OF THE NATURALIZATION LAWS.  THE
PREPARATION OF THIS MEASURE WAS NOT ONLY DELEGATED TO A CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE, BUT WAS CONSIDERED BY A COMMITTEE OF CABINET MEMBERS, ONE OF
WHOM WAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  BOTH WERE AWARE OF OUR DECISIONS IN THE
SCHWIMMER AND RELATED CASES AND THAT NO OTHER QUESTION PERTINENT TO THE
NATURALIZATION LAWS HAD BEEN AS PERSISTENTLY AND CONTINUOUSLY BEFORE
CONGRESS IN THE TEN YEARS FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE SCHWIMMER
CASE.  THE MODIFICATIONS IN THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS "THIRD" AND
"FOURTH" OF SEC. 4 OF THE 1906 ACT SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THE CAREFUL
ATTENTION WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THEM. 

IN THE FACE OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THE "FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO
ALTER THE ACT AFTER IT HAD BEEN JUDICIALLY CONSTRUED, AND THE ENACTMENT
BY CONGRESS OF LEGISLATION WHICH IMPLICITLY RECOGNIZES THE JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION AS EFFECTIVE, IS PERSUASIVE OF LEGISLATIVE RECOGNITION
THAT THE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION IS THE CORRECT ONE.  THIS IS THE MORE SO
WHERE, AS HERE, THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE  ...  HAS BROUGHT FORTH
SHARPLY CONFLICTING VIEWS BOTH ON THE COURT AND IN CONGRESS, AND WHERE
AFTER THE MATTER HAS BEEN FULLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC
AND THE CONGRESS, THE LATTER HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO CHANGE THE STATUTE." 
APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 488-9.  AND SEE TO LIKE
EFFECT UNITED STATES V. RYAN, 284 U.S. 167-175; UNITED STATES V. ELGIN,
J. & E.R. CO., 298 U.S. 492, 500; MISSOURI V. ROSS, 299 U.S. 72, 75;
CF. HELVERING V. WINMILL, 305 U.S. 79, 82, 83.  IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS, IN REENACTING A STATUTE, TO MAKE KNOWN ITS
PURPOSE IN A CONTROVERSIAL MATTER OF INTERPRETATION OF ITS FORMER
LANGUAGE, AT LEAST WHEN THE MATTER HAS, FOR OVER A DECADE, BEEN
PERSISTENTLY BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT CONGRESS HAS PERFORMED
THAT DUTY.  IN ANY CASE IT IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE IMPLIED THAT CONGRESS
HAS FAILED TO PERFORM IT AND HAS DELEGATED TO THIS COURT THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF GIVING NEW CONTENT TO LANGUAGE DELIBERATELY READOPTED
AFTER THIS COURT HAS CONSTRUED IT.  FOR US TO MAKE SUCH AN ASSUMPTION
IS TO DISCOURAGE, IF NOT TO DENY, LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY.  BY THUS
ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING THIS COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF WHAT CONGRESS HAD
ENACTED IN THE NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1906 CONGRESS GAVE THAT
CONSTRUCTION THE SAME LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE AS THOUGH IT HAD WRITTEN THE
VERY WORDS INTO THE ACT OF 1940. 

THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER CONGRESS REPEALED THIS
CONSTRUCTION BY ENACTMENT OF THE 1942 ADMENDMENTS OF THE NATIONALITY
ACT.  THAT ACT EXTENDED SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO APPLICANTS FOR
NATURALIZATION WHO WERE ALIENS AND WHO HAVE SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES
OF THE UNITED STATES IN TIME OF WAR, BY DISPENSING WITH OR MODIFYING
EXISTING REQUIREMENTS, RELATING TO DECLARATIONS OF INTENTION, PERIOD OF
RESIDENCE, EDUCATION, AND FEES.  IT LEFT UNCHANGED THE REQUIREMENTS
THAT THE APPLICANT'S BEHAVIOR SHOW HIS ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT HE TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.  IN ADOPTING
THE 1942 AMENDMENTS CONGRESS DID NOT HAVE BEFORE IT ANY QUESTION OF THE
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE WITH WHICH IT HAD BEEN CONCERNED WHEN IT ADOPTED THE
1940 ACT.  IN 1942 IT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE GRANT OF SPECIAL FAVORS TO
THOSE SEEKING NATURALIZATION WHO HAD WORN THE UNIFORM AND RENDERED
MILITARY SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR AND WHO COULD SATISFY SUCH
NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS AS HAD NOT BEEN DISPENSED WITH BY THE
AMENDMENTS.  IN THE CASE OF THOSE ENTITLED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THESE
PRIVILEGES, CONGRESS LEFT IT TO THE NATURALIZATION AUTHORITIES, AS IN
OTHER CASES, TO DETERMINE WHETHER, BY THEIR APPLICATIONS AND THEIR
CONDUCT IN THE MILITARY SERVICE, THEY SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
NATURALIZATION WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN WAIVED. 

IT IS POINTED OUT THAT ONE OF THE 1942 AMENDMENTS, 8 U.S.C., SUPP.
IV, SEC. 1004, PROVIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT
APPLY TO "ANY CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR WHO PERFORMED NO MILITARY DUTY
WHATEVER OR REFUSED TO WEAR THE UNIFORM."  IT IS SAID THAT THE
IMPLICATION OF THIS PROVISION IS THAT CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS WHO
RENDERED NONCOMBATANT SERVICE AND WORE THE UNIFORM WERE, UNDER THE 1942
AMENDMENTS, TO BE ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP.  FROM THIS IT IS ARGUED THAT
SINCE THE 1942 AMENDMENTS APPLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN NONCOMBATANT,
AS WELL AS COMBATANT, MILITARY SERVICE, THE AMENDMENT MUST BE TAKEN TO
INCLUDE SOME WHO HAVE RENDERED NONCOMBATANT SERVICE WHO ARE ALSO
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS AND WHO WOULD BE ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP UNDER
THE 1942 AMENDMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY MADE THE SAME RESERVATIONS AS TO
THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AS DID THE APPLICANTS IN THE SCHWIMMER,
MACINTOSH AND BLAND CASES.  AND IT IS SAID THAT ALTHOUGH THE 1942
AMENDMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER, WHO HAS NOT BEEN IN
MILITARY SERVICE, THE OATH CANNOT MEAN ONE THING AS TO HIM AND ANOTHER
AS TO THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE NONCOMBATANT SERVICE. 

TO THESE SUGGESTIONS THERE ARE TWO ANSWERS.  ONE IS THAT IF THE 1942
AMENDMENT BE CONSTRUED AS INCLUDING NONCOMBATANTS WHO ARE ALSO
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, WHO ARE UNWILLING TO TAKE THE OATH WITHOUT THE
RESERVATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS IN THE SCHWIMMER, MACINTOSH AND
BLAND CASES, THE ONLY EFFECT WOULD BE TO EXEMPT NONCOMBATANT
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OATH, WHICH HAD
CLEARLY BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO ALL OBJECTORS, INCLUDING PETITIONER, BY
THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, AND FROM WHICH PETITIONER WAS NOT EXEMPTED
BY THE 1942 AMENDMENTS.  IF SUCH IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1942 ACT,
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY OBSTACLE TO CONGRESS' TAKING
SUCH ACTION.  CONGRESS IF IT SAW FIT COULD HAVE ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP
THOSE WHO HAD RENDERED NONCOMBATANT SERVICE, WITH A MODIFIED OATH OR
WITHOUT ANY OATH AT ALL.  PETITIONER HAS NOT BEEN SO EXEMPTED. 

SINCE PETITIONER WAS NEVER IN THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES, WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE 1942 AMENDMENTS
AUTHORIZED ANY DIFFERENT OATH FOR THOSE WHO HAD BEEN IN NONCOMBATANT
SERVICE THAN FOR OTHERS.  THE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED AS
REQUIRING THE SAME OATH, WITHOUT RESERVATIONS, FROM CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTORS, AS FROM OTHERS.  IN RE NIELSEN, 60 F.SUPP.  240.  NOT ALL OF
THOSE WHO RENDERED NONCOMBATANT SERVICE WERE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS. 
FEW WERE.  THERE WERE OTHERS IN THE NONCOMBATANT SERVICE WHO HAD
ANNOUNCED THEIR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS TO COMBATANT SERVICE, WHO MAY
HAVE WAIVED OR ABANDONED THEIR OBJECTIONS.  SUCH WAS THE EXPERIENCE IN
THE FIRST WORLD WAR.  SEE "STATEMENT CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS IN THE ARMY," PREPARED AND PUBLISHED BY
DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR, JUNE 18, 1919.  ALL SUCH COULD HAVE
TAKEN THE OATH WITHOUT THE RESERVATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS IN THE
SCHWIMMER, MACINTOSH AND BLAND CASES AND WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO
THE BENEFITS OF THE 1942 AMENDMENTS, PROVIDED THEY HAD PERFORMED
MILITARY DUTY AND HAD NOT REFUSED TO WEAR THE UNIFORM.  THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED BY INDIRECTION, IN 8 U.S.C., SUPP. IV, SEC. 1004,
THAT THOSE WHO HAD APPEARED IN THE ROLE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS,
MIGHT BECOME CITIZENS BY TAKING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AND ESTABLISHING
THEIR ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, DOES NOT SHOW
THAT CONGRESS DISPENSED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OATH AS CONSTRUED
BY THIS COURT AND PLAINLY CONFIRMED BY CONGRESS IN THE NATIONALITY ACT
OF 1940.  THERE IS NO NECESSARY INCONSISTENCY IN THIS RESPECT BETWEEN
THE 1940 ACT AND THE 1942 AMENDMENTS.  WITHOUT IT REPEAL BY IMPLICATION
IS NOT FAVORED.  UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 198-9, 203
6; GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S. 439, 457; UNITED STATES
ALKALI ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 196, 209.  THE AMENDMENTS AND
THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY GIVE NO HINT OF ANY PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO
RELAX, AT LEAST FOR PERSONS WHO HAD RENDERED NO MILITARY SERVICE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AND PROOF OF ATTACHMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION AS THIS COURT HAD INTERPRETED THEM AND AS THE NATIONALITY
ACT OF 1940 PLAINLY REQUIRED THEM TO BE INTERPRETED.  IT IS NOT THE
FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO DISREGARD THE WILL OF CONGRESS IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER. 

FN1  IN THE OPINION OF THE WRITER THERE WAS EVIDENCE IN UNITED STATES
V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644, FROM WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT COULD AND
PRESUMABLY DID INFER THAT APPLICANT'S BEHAVIOR EVIDENCED A DISPOSITION,
PRESENT AND FUTURE, ACTIVELY TO RESIST ALL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND LAWFUL COMMANDS OF ITS OFFICERS FOR THE FURTHERING OF ANY MILITARY
ENTERPRISE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ACTIVELY TO AID AND ENCOURAGE SUCH
RESISTANCE IN OTHERS, AND THIS THE DISTRICT COURT PRESUMABLY CONCLUDED
EVIDENCED A WANT OF ATTACHMENT OF THE APPLICANT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE CONSTITUTION WHICH THE NATURALIZATION LAW REQUIRES TO BE EXHIBITED
BY THE BEHAVIOR OF THE APPLICANT, PRECEDING THE APPLICATION FOR
CITIZENSHIP. 

FN2  H.R. 3547, 71ST CONG., 1ST SESS., 71 CONG. REC. 2184; H.R. 297,
72D CONG., 1ST SESS., 75 CONG. REC. 95; H.R. 298, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.,
75 CONG. REC. 95; S. 3275, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., 75 CONG. REC. 2600;
H.R. 1528, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., 77 CONG. REC. 90; H.R. 5170, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., 79 CONG. REC. 1356; H.R. 8259, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
81 CONG. REC. 9193; S. 165, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 84 CONG. REC. 67. 

FN3  HEARINGS ON H.R. 3547, PP. 12, 22, 29-57, 73-109, 169-180;
HEARINGS ON H.R. 297, PP. 4-7, 10, 12, 15-19, 41-48, 53-56, 66-81, 147,
148. 

FN4  HEARINGS ON H.R. 3547, PP. 57-65, 73, 146-169, 181-212; HEARINGS
ON H.R. 297, PP. 85-140. 

FN5  H.R. 1528, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 5170, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; H.R. 8259, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN6  SECTION 307(A) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 707(A),
PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE NATURALIZED UNLESS FOR A PERIOD OF
FIVE YEARS PRECEDING THE FILING OF HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION HE
"HAS BEEN AND STILL IS A PERSON  ...  ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER
AND HAPPINESS OF THE UNITED STATES."  SECTION 335(A) OF THE NATIONALITY
ACT, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 735(A), PROVIDES THAT BEFORE AN APPLICANT FOR
NATURALIZATION SHALL BE ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP, HE SHALL TAKE AN OATH
IN OPEN COURT THAT INTER ALIA HE WILL "SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST ALL
ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; ...  AND  ...  BEAR TRUE FAITH AND
ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





QUEENSIDE HILLS CO. V. SAXL, 328 U.S. 80 


NO. 769.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946.  - 294 N.Y.
917, 63 N.E.2D 116, AFFIRMED. 


IN 1940 APPELLANT CONSTRUCTED A LODGING HOUSE IN NEW YORK, COMPLYING
WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS THEN IN FORCE.  IN 1944 NEW YORK AMENDED ITS
MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT LODGING HOUSES OF "NON
FIREPROOF CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT" OF THE
AMENDMENT SHOULD COMPLY WITH CERTAIN NEW REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE
INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEM.  APPELLANT
ASSERTED THAT ITS BUILDING DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FIRE HAZARD OR A DANGER
TO ITS OCCUPANTS; THAT IT HAD A MARKET VALUE OF $25,000; THAT THE COST
OF COMPLYING WITH THE 1944 LAW WOULD BE $7,500; AND THAT THE BENEFITS
TO BE OBTAINED BY THE CHANGES WERE NEGLIGIBLE.  HELD: 

1.  THE LAW DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, SINCE IT IS WITHIN THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE AND THE
OWNER OF PROPERTY DOES NOT ACQUIRE IMMUNITY AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF THE
POLICE POWER BY CONSTRUCTING IT IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING LAWS. 
P. 82. 

2.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT THERE ARE IN EXISTENCE OTHER
LODGING HOUSES OF THE SAME CATEGORY WHICH WILL ESCAPE ITS REQUIREMENTS,
THE LAW CAN NOT BE HELD TO VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO APPLY TO LODGING HOUSES
WHICH MIGHT BE ERECTED SUBSEQUENTLY; SINCE LACK OF EQUAL PROTECTION IS
FOUND IN THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF AN INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND NOT IN
THE MERE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WILL BE LIKE OR SIMILAR CASES WHICH
WILL BE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY.  PP. 83-85. 

3.  THE WISDOM OF THE LEGISLATION AND THE NEED FOR IT ARE QUESTIONS
FOR THE LEGISLATURE.  P. 82. 

QUEENSIDE HILLS REALTY CO., INC. V. SAXL, COMMISSIONER OF HOUSING AND
BUILDINGS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

APPELLANT SUED IN THE NEW YORK COURTS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
HOLDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NEW YORK MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW (L.
1929, C. 713) AS AMENDED IN 1944(L. 1944, C. 553) UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
RESTRAINING THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  THE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. 
THE APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMED.  269 APP. DIV. 691, 54 N.Y.S.2D 394. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 294 N.Y. 917, 63 N.E.2D 116, CERTIFYING
BY ITS REMITTITUR THAT QUESTIONS INVOLVING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
WERE PRESENTED AND NECESSARILY PASSED UPON.  295 N.Y. 567, 64 N.E.2D
278.  AFFIRMED, P. 85. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1940 APPELLANT CONSTRUCTED A FOUR-STORY BUILDING ON THE BOWERY IN
NEW YORK CITY AND SINCE THAT TIME HAS OPERATED IT AS A LODGING HOUSE. 
IT WAS CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO SUCH
LODGING HOUSES AND IN FORCE AT THAT TIME.  NEW YORK AMENDED ITS
MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW  FN1  IN 1944,  FN2  PROVIDING, INTER ALIA, THAT
LODGING HOUSES "OF NON-FIREPROOF CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS SUBDIVISION"  FN3  SHOULD COMPLY WITH CERTAIN NEW
REQUIREMENTS.  FN4  AMONG THESE WAS THE INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMATIC
WET PIPE SPRINKLER SYSTEM.  APPELLANT RECEIVED NOTICE TO COMPLY WITH
THE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND THEREUPON INSTITUTED THIS SUIT IN THE NEW YORK
COURTS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT HOLDING THESE PROVISIONS OF THE 1944
LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND RESTRAINING THEIR ENFORCEMENT. 

THE BILL ALLEGED THAT THE BUILDING WAS SAFE FOR OCCUPANCY AS A
LODGING HOUSE AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FIRE HAZARD OR A DANGER TO THE
OCCUPANTS; THAT IT COMPLIED WITH ALL BUILDING LAWS AND REGULATIONS AT
THE TIME OF ITS CONSTRUCTION; THAT PART OF IT WAS FIREPROOF AND THAT
THE REST WAS SO CONSTRUCTED AS NOT TO BE DANGEROUS TO OCCUPANTS; THAT
THE REGULATIONS EXISTING PRIOR TO 1944 WERE ADEQUATE AND SUFFICIENT TO
PREVENT LOSS OF LIFE IN LODGING HOUSES OF THIS PARTICULAR TYPE.  IT WAS
FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THIS LODGING HOUSE HAS A MARKET VALUE OF ABOUT
$25,000, THAT THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH THE 1944 LAW WOULD BE ABOUT
$7,500; AND THAT THE BENEFITS TO BE OBTAINED BY THE CHANGES WERE
NEGLIGIBLE.  BY REASON OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE 1944 LAW WAS ALLEGED
TO VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT WAS
ALSO ALLEGED TO VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT SINCE IT WAS APPLICABLE TO LODGING HOUSES "EXISTING" PRIOR TO
THE 1944 LAW BUT NOT TO IDENTICAL STRUCTURES ERECTED THEREAFTER. 
APPELLEE ANSWERED, DENYING THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL, AND
MOVED TO DISMISS.  THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED THE MOTION.  THE APPELLATE
DIVISION AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION.  269 APP. DIV. 691, 54 N.Y.S.2D
394.  ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS THE JUDGMENT WAS LIKEWISE
AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION.  294 N.Y. 917, 63 N.E.2D 116.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVING CERTIFIED BY ITS REMITTITUR
THAT QUESTIONS INVOLVING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE PRESENTED AND
NECESSARILY PASSED UPON.  295 N.Y. 567, 64 N.E.2D 278. 

LITTLE NEED BE SAID ON THE DUE PROCESS QUESTION.  WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE WISDOM OF THIS LEGISLATION OR THE NEED FOR IT.
OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313 U.S. 236, 246.  PROTECTION OF THE SAFETY OF
PERSONS IS ONE OF THE TRADITIONAL USES OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE
STATES.  EXPERTS MAY DIFFER AS TO THE MOST APPROPRIATE WAY OF DEALING
WITH FIRE HAZARDS IN LODGING HOUSES.  APPELLANT, INDEED, SAYS THAT ITS
BUILDING, FAR FROM BEING A FIRE-TRAP, IS LARGELY FIREPROOF; AND TO THE
EXTENT THAT ANY FIRE HAZARDS EXIST, THEY ARE ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED BY
A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, CONSTANT WATCHMAN SERVICE, AND OTHER SAFETY
ARRANGEMENTS.  BUT THE LEGISLATURE MAY CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE THE CHANCE
THAT HUMAN LIFE WILL BE LOST IN LODGING HOUSE FIRES AND ADOPT THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE COURSE WHICH SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING OFFER.  IT IS FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO DECIDE WHAT REGULATIONS ARE NEEDED TO REDUCE FIRE
HAZARDS TO THE MINIMUM.  MANY TYPES OF SOCIAL LEGISLATION DIMINISH THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS REGULATED.  THE EXTREME CASES ARE THOSE
WHERE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR WELFARE THE OWNER IS
PROHIBITED FROM USING HIS PROPERTY.  REINMAN V. LITTLE ROCK, 237 U.S.
171; HADACHECK V. SEBASTIAN, 239 U.S. 394; PIERCE OIL CORP. V. HOPE,
248 U.S. 498.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A LESS DRASTIC MEASURE.  BUT IN
NO CASE DOES THE OWNER OF PROPERTY ACQUIRE IMMUNITY AGAINST EXERCISE OF
THE POLICE POWER BECAUSE HE CONSTRUCTED IT IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE
EXISTING LAWS.  HADACHECK V. SEBASTIAN, SUPRA, P. 410.  AND SEE
CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. NEBRASKA, 170 U.S. 57; HUTCHINSON V.
VALDOSTA, 227 U.S. 303.  THE POLICE POWER IS ONE OF THE LEAST LIMITABLE
OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, AND IN ITS OPERATION OFTEN CUTS DOWN PROPERTY
RIGHTS.  BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135, 155.  AND SEE PLYMOUTH COAL CO.
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 531.  APPELLANT MAY HAVE A LODGING HOUSE FAR
LESS HAZARDOUS THAN THE OTHER EXISTING STRUCTURES REGULATED BY THE 1944
LAW.  YET A STATUTE MAY BE SUSTAINED THOUGH SOME OF THE OBJECTS
AFFECTED BY IT MAY BE WHOLLY INNOCENT.  PURITY EXTRACT CO. V. LYNCH,
226 U.S. 192, 204.  THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY TURNS ON THE POWER OF THE
LEGISLATURE TO DEAL WITH THE PRESCRIBED CLASS.  THAT POWER PLAINLY
EXISTS HERE. 

APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF LACK OF EQUAL PROTECTION IS BASED ON THE
FOLLOWING ARGUMENT:  THE 1944 LAW APPLIES ONLY TO EXISTING LODGING
HOUSES; IF A NEW LODGING HOUSE WERE ERECTED OR IF AN EXISTING BUILDING
WERE CONVERTED INTO A LODGING HOUSE, THE 1944 LAW WOULD BE
INAPPLICABLE.  AN EXACT DUPLICATE OF APPELLANT'S BUILDING, IF
CONSTRUCTED TODAY, WOULD NOT BE UNDER THE 1944 LAW AND HENCE COULD BE
LAWFULLY OPERATED WITHOUT THE INSTALLATION OF A WET PIPE SPRINKLER
SYSTEM.  THAT IS SAID TO BE A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THERE ARE IN
EXISTENCE LODGING HOUSES OF THAT CATEGORY WHICH WILL ESCAPE THE LAW. 
THE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON AN ANTICIPATION THAT THERE MAY COME INTO
EXISTENCE A LIKE OR IDENTICAL CLASS OF LODGING HOUSES WHICH WILL BE
TREATED LESS HARSHLY.  BUT SO LONG AS THAT CLASS IS NOT IN EXISTENCE,
NO SHOWING OF LACK OF EQUAL PROTECTION CAN POSSIBLY BE MADE.  FOR UNDER
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE BURDEN WHICH IS ON ONE WHO CHALLENGES THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW COULD NOT BE SATISFIED.  METROPOLITAN
CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. V. BROWNELL, 294 U.S. 580, 584.  THE LEGISLATURE
IS ENTITLED TO HIT THE EVIL THAT EXISTS.  PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232
U.S. 138, 144; BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63; BAIN PEANUT CO. V.
PINSON, 282 U.S. 499.  IT NEED NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF NEW AND HYPOTHETICAL
INEQUALITIES THAT MAY COME INTO EXISTENCE AS TIME PASSES OR AS
CONDITIONS CHANGE.  SO FAR AS WE KNOW, THE 1944 LAW MAY HAVE BEEN
DESIGNED AS A STOP-GAP MEASURE TO TAKE CARE OF A PRESSING NEED UNTIL
MORE COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATION COULD BE PREPARED.  IT IS COMMON
KNOWLEDGE THAT DUE TO WAR CONDITIONS THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE CONSTRUCTION
IN THIS FIELD IN RECENT YEARS.  BY THE TIME NEW LODGING HOUSES APPEAR
THEY, TOO, MAY BE PLACED UNDER THE 1944 LAW; OR DIFFERENT LEGISLATION
MAY BE ADOPTED TO TAKE CARE BOTH OF THE OLD AND THE NEW ON THE BASIS OF
PARITY.  OR STRICTER STANDARDS FOR NEW LODGING HOUSES MAY BE ADOPTED. 
IN ANY SUCH CASE THE ASSERTED DISCRIMINATION WOULD HAVE TURNED OUT TO
BE FANCIFUL, NOT REAL.  THE POINT IS THAT LACK OF EQUAL PROTECTION IS
FOUND IN THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF AN INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION (TRUAX V.
RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535), NOT IN THE MERE
POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WILL BE LIKE OR SIMILAR CASES WHICH WILL BE
TREATED MORE LENIENTLY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  L. 1929, CH. 713; CONS.  L. CH. 61A. 

FN2  L. 1944, CH. 553. 

FN3  ID., SEC. 4. 

FN4  THIS FOLLOWED A DISASTROUS FIRE IN AN OLD LODGING HOUSE IN NEW
YORK CITY IN WHICH THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE LOSS OF LIFE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











SEAS SHIPPING CO. V. SIERACKI, 328 U.S. 85 


NO. 365.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1946.  - 149 F.2D
98, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SHIPOWNER'S OBLIGATION OF SEAWORTHINESS, TRADITIONALLY OWED BY
SHIPOWNERS TO SEAMEN, EXTENDS TO A STEVEDORE WHO WAS INJURED WHILE
ABOARD AND LOADING THE SHIP, ALTHOUGH EMPLOYED BY AN INDEPENDENT
STEVEDORING CONTRACTOR ENGAGED BY THE OWNER TO LOAD THE SHIP.  PP. 89
100. 

(A)  THE OBLIGATION IS ESSENTIALLY A SPECIES OF LIABILITY WITHOUT
FAULT AND IS NEITHER LIMITED BY CONCEPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE NOR
CONTRACTUAL IN CHARACTER.  PP. 90-94. 

(B)  IT IS NOT CONFINED TO SEAMEN WHO PERFORM THE SHIP'S SERVICE
UNDER IMMEDIATE HIRE OF THE OWNER, BUT EXTENDS TO THOSE WHO RENDER IT
WITH HIS CONSENT OR BY HIS ARRANGEMENT.  PP. 95-97. 

(C)  FOR PURPOSES OF THE LIABILITY, A STEVEDORE IS A SEAMAN, BECAUSE
HE IS DOING A SEAMAN'S WORK AND INCURRING A SEAMAN'S HAZARDS, AND HE IS
ENTITLED TO A SEAMAN'S TRADITIONAL PROTECTION.  P. 99. 

2.  BY GIVING LONGSHOREMEN THE RIGHTS OF COMPENSATION AFFORDED BY THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT AND MAKING THEM
EXCLUSIVE AS AGAINST THE EMPLOYER, CONGRESS HAS NOT WITHDRAWN FROM
LONGSHOREMEN THE PROTECTIONS GAINED UNDER THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF
1920 OR OTHER PROTECTIONS RELATING TO PERSONAL INJURY AVAILABLE TO THEM
UNDER GENERAL MARITIME LAW.  P. 100. 

(A)  THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT DID NOT
PURPORT TO MAKE THE STEVEDORE'S REMEDY FOR COMPENSATION AGAINST HIS
EMPLOYER EXCLUSIVE OF REMEDIES AGAINST OTHERS AND IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED
TO THE STEVEDORE A RIGHT OF ELECTION TO PROCEED AGAINST THIRD PARTIES
RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS INJURY.  P. 101. 

(B)  IT DID NOT NULLIFY ANY RIGHT OF A STEVEDORE AGAINST THE OWNER OF
THE SHIP, EXCEPT POSSIBLY WHEN HE IS HIRED BY THE OWNER.  P. 102. 

3.  A RIGHT PECULIAR TO THE LAW OF ADMIRALTY MAY BE ENFORCED EITHER
BY A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY OR BY ONE ON THE LAW SIDE OF THE COURT.  P. 88. 

4.  THE LIABILITY OF A SHIPOWNER FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A SEAWORTHY
VESSEL RESTS UPON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BASIS FROM THE LIABILITY OF
CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS WHO BUILT THE SHIP.  THEREFORE, THE
SHIPOWNER WOULD NOT BE JOINTLY LIABLE WITH THE BUILDERS BUT WOULD BE
LIABLE SEVERALLY.  P. 89. 

5.  WHEN ONE OF SEVERAL DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT BRINGS THE CAUSE HERE ON
CERTIORARI AND THE OTHERS ARE NOT NAMED AS RESPONDENTS OR SERVED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 38(3), THIS COURT IS PRECLUDED FROM MAKING ANY
DETERMINATION CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES OF THE OTHER
DEFENDANTS.  P. 89. 

SEAS SHIPPING CO., INC. V. SIERACKI. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

A STEVEDORE EMPLOYED BY AN INDEPENDENT STEVEDORING COMPANY SUED A
SHIPOWNER, THE CONTRACTOR WHO BUILT THE SHIP AND A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR
INJURIES SUSTAINED WHILE WORKING ABOARD THE SHIP AS A RESULT OF A
LATENT DEFECT IN A PART OF THE SHIP.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTOR BUT IN FAVOR OF THE
SHIPOWNER.  57 F.SUPP.  724.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AS
TO THE SHIPOWNER.  149 F.2D 98.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326
U.S. 700.  AFFIRMED, P. 103. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE OBLIGATION OF SEAWORTHINESS,
TRADITIONALLY OWED BY AN OWNER OF A SHIP TO SEAMEN, EXTENDS TO A
STEVEDORE INJURED WHILE WORKING ABOARD THE SHIP. 

SIERACKI WAS EMPLOYED BY AN INDEPENDENT STEVEDORING COMPANY WHICH WAS
UNDER CONTRACT TO PETITIONER TO LOAD ITS SHIP, THE S. S. ROBIN
SHERWOOD.  ON DECEMBER 23, 1942, HE WAS ON THE VESSEL LOADING CARGO. 
THE WINCH HE OPERATED WAS CONTROLLED BY A TEN-TON BOOM AT NUMBER FIVE
HATCH.  ONE PART OF A FREIGHT CAR HAD BEEN LOWERED INTO THE HOLD.  THE
SECOND PART WEIGHED ABOUT EIGHT TONS.  WHILE IT WAS BEING PUT DOWN THE
SHACKLE SUPPORTING THE BOOM BROKE AT ITS CROWN, CAUSING THE BOOM AND
TACKLE TO FALL AND INJURE RESPONDENT. 

HE SUED PETITIONER AND TWO OTHER COMPANIES.  THESE WERE THE BETHLEHEM
STEEL COMPANY, TO WHICH THE MARITIME COMMISSION HAD AWARDED THE
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTING THE SHIP, AND BETHLEHEM SPARROW'S POINT,
INC., WHICH HAD BUILT PART OF THE SHIP UNDER AGREEMENT WITH THE STEEL
COMPANY.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE SHACKLE HAD BROKEN AS THE
RESULT OF A DEFECT WHICH HAD OCCURRED IN ITS FORGING.  THE BETHLEHEM
COMPANIES HAD PURCHASED THIS EQUIPMENT FROM ANOTHER CONCERN. 
NEVERTHELESS THE COURT HELD THEY WERE NEGLIGENT IN NOT HAVING TESTED IT
ADEQUATELY BEFORE INSTALLING IT.  BUT THE COURT CONSIDERED PETITIONER
TO BE UNDER NO SUCH OBLIGATION TO TEST  FN1 AND THEREFORE NOT
NEGLIGENT.  ACCORDINGLY, IT GAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TWO BETHLEHEM
COMPANIES BUT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER.  57 F.SUPP.  724. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AS TO PETITIONER.  149 F.2D
98.  ACCEPTING THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS NOT
NEGLIGENT, THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT RESPONDENT
SHOULD RECOVER FOR THE SHIP'S LACK OF SEAWORTHINESS.  FN2  THE OPINION
EMPHASIZED THAT THE DECISION WAS NOVEL, NOTING "STATEMENTS AND
ASSUMPTIONS EACH WAY."  FN3  BECAUSE OF THE NOVELTY AND IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTION WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN4  326 U.S. 700. 

THE FINDING THAT THE SHIP WAS UNSEAWORTHY IS NOT DISPUTED. 
PETITIONER SAYS, FIRST, THAT THE DOCTRINE OF UNSEAWORTHINESS IS
PECULIAR TO ADMIRALTY AND CANNOT BE APPLIED IN A SUIT BROUGHT ON THE
LAW SIDE OF THE COURT.  IT ALSO URGES THAT IN ANY EVENT THE LIABILITY
MAY NOT BE EXTENDED PROPERLY TO THE BENEFIT OF STEVEDORES AND
LONGSHOREMEN.  AND FINALLY PETITIONER ARGUES THAT, IF THE DOCTRINE IS
PROPERLY SO APPLICABLE, ITS LIABILITY IS ONLY SECONDARY TO THAT OF THE
BETHLEHEM COMPANIES, WHICH BOTH COURTS FOUND TO BE NEGLIGENT; AND
THEREFORE PETITIONER, THE NONNEGLIGENT DEFENDANT, SHOULD NOT BE HELD
"JOINTLY" LIABLE WITH THE NEGLIGENT ONES. 

AT THE OUTSET WE MAY DISMISS THE FIRST CONTENTION.  IT IS NOW WELL
SETTLED THAT A RIGHT PECULIAR TO THE LAW OF ADMIRALTY MAY BE ENFORCED
EITHER BY A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY OR BY ONE ON THE LAW SIDE OF THE COURT. 
CARLISLE PACKING CO. V. SANDANGER, 259 U.S. 255, 259; GARRETT V. MOORE
MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239, 243-244; THORNES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO.,
37 F.SUPP.  616.  FN5 

EQUALLY UNAVAILABLE IS THE CONTENTION CONCERNING THE SECONDARY
CHARACTER OF PETITIONER'S LIABILITY.  THAT LIABILITY, IF IT EXISTS, NOT
ONLY SOUNDS IN TORT,  FN6  BUT RESTS UPON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BASIS
FROM THAT UPON WHICH RECOVERY HAS BEEN HAD AGAINST THE BETHLEHEM
COMPANIES.  SUCH A LIABILITY THEREFORE WOULD BE NOT JOINT BUT SEVERAL
AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OBVIOUSLY WENT ON THIS VIEW. 
MOREOVER THE CONTENTION NECESSARILY AFFECTS THE BETHLEHEM COMPANIES, AT
ANY RATE IN RELATION TO POSSIBLE CLAIM OF INDEMNITY BY PETITIONER. 
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN NAMED AS RESPONDENTS HERE OR SERVED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULE 38(3).  CONSEQUENTLY WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM MAKING ANY
DETERMINATION CONCERNING THEIR RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES, WITH RELATION
EITHER TO PETITIONER OR TO RESPONDENT. 

THE NUB OF REAL CONTROVERSY LIES IN THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
SHIPOWNER'S OBLIGATION OF SEAWORTHINESS EXTENDS TO LONGSHOREMEN INJURED
WHILE DOING THE SHIP'S WORK ABOARD BUT EMPLOYED BY AN INDEPENDENT
STEVEDORING CONTRACTOR WHOM THE OWNER HAS HIRED TO LOAD OR UNLOAD THE
SHIP. 

THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION OF PETITIONER'S LIABILITY FOR RESPONDENT'S
INJURIES, INCURRED AS THEY WERE HERE, IF HE HAD BEEN IN PETITIONER'S
EMPLOY RATHER THAN HIRED BY THE STEVEDORING COMPANY.  THAT AN OWNER IS
LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY A SEAMAN FOR AN INJURY CAUSED BY THE
UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL OR ITS APPURTENANT APPLIANCES AND
EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN SETTLED LAW IN THIS COUNTRY EVER SINCE THE OSCEOLA,
189 U.S. 158.  MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., 321 U.S. 96, 99, AND
AUTHORITIES CITED.  AND THE LIABILITY APPLIES AS WELL WHEN THE SHIP IS
MOORED AT A DOCK AS WHEN IT IS AT SEA.  SEE, E.G., THE EDITH GODDEN, 23
F. 43; WM. JOHNSON & CO. V. JOHANSEN, 86 F. 886; THE WACO, 3 F.2D 476. 

PETITIONER INSISTS, HOWEVER, THAT THE OBLIGATION FLOWS FROM, AND IS
CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE EXISTENCE OF, THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE OWNER OF
THE VESSEL AND THE SEAMAN.  ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THERE WAS NO SUCH
CONTRACT HERE, IT SAYS RESPONDENT CANNOT RECOVER.  RESPONDENT IS
EQUALLY INSISTENT THAT THE OWNER CANNOT SLOUGH OFF LIABILITY TO THOSE
WHO DO THE VESSEL'S WORK BY BRINGING AN INTERMEDIARY CONTRACTING
EMPLOYER BETWEEN HIMSELF AND THOSE WORKERS.  IN RESPONDENT'S VIEW THE
LIABILITY IS AN INCIDENT OF THE MARITIME SERVICE RENDERED, NOT MERELY
OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTRACTUAL RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT, AND HAS ITS ROOTS
IN THE RISKS THAT SERVICE PLACES UPON MARITIME WORKERS AND IN THE
POLICY OF THE LAW TO SECURE THEM INDEMNITY AGAINST SUCH HAZARDS. 

OBVIOUSLY THE NORM OF THE LIABILITY HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY AND STILL
IS THE CASE OF THE SEAMAN UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE VESSEL'S OWNER.  THIS
IS BECAUSE THE WORK OF MARITIME SERVICE HAS BEEN DONE LARGELY BY SUCH
PERSONS.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW NECESSARILY FROM THIS FACT THAT THE
LIABILITY EITHER AROSE EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACTUAL
RELATION OR IS CONFINED TO SITUATIONS IN WHICH ONE EXISTS. 

THE ORIGINS ARE PERHAPS UNASCERTAINABLE.  FN7  BUT THAT FACT IN
ITSELF MAY BE SOME EVIDENCE THAT CONTRACT ALONE IS NEITHER THE SOLE
SOURCE OF THE LIABILITY NOR ITS ULTIMATE BOUNDARY.  FOR TO ASSUME THIS
WOULD BE AT ONCE TO PROJECT IDEAS OF CONTRACT BACKWARD INTO CENTURIES
GOVERNED MORE LARGELY THAN OUR OWN BY NOTIONS OF STATUS,  FN8  AND TO
EXCLUDE FROM THE PROTECTION ALL WHO DO THE WORK OF THE SEA WITHOUT
BENEFIT OF CONTRACT WITH THE OWNER.  IT MAY BE DOUBTED, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT HE HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO ESCAPE LIABILITY TO IMPRESSED SEAMEN, IN
WHOSE CASES TO SPEAK OF "CONTRACT" WOULD ONLY RATIONALIZE A
RESPONSIBILITY IMPOSED REGARDLESS OF CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP.  AND IT
WOULD HARDLY SEEM CONSISTENT WITH THE OBLIGATION'S BENEVOLENT PURPOSES
FN9  THAT THE OWNER MIGHT NULLIFY IT BY THE DEVICE OF HAVING ALL WHO
MAN THE SHIP HIRED BY OTHERS WILLING TO FURNISH MEN FOR SUCH SERVICE AT
SEA OR ASHORE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE LIABILITY FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS IS OFTEN SAID TO BE
AN INCIDENT OF THE SEAMAN'S CONTRACT.  BUT IN ALL INSTANCES WHICH HAVE
COME TO OUR ATTENTION THIS HAS BEEN IN SITUATIONS WHERE SUCH A CONTRACT
EXISTED.  FN10  NECESSARILY IN SUCH A SETTING THE STATEMENT COULD HAVE
NO REFERENCE TO ANY ISSUE OVER LIABILITY IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A
CONTRACTUAL RELATION.  ITS FUNCTION RATHER HAS BEEN TO REFUTE OTHER
SUGGESTED RESTRICTIONS WHICH MIGHT BE HELD TO APPLY ON THE FACTS.  MOST
OFTEN PERHAPS THESE HAVE BEEN LIMITATIONS ARISING FROM THE ERRONEOUS
IDEA THAT THE LIABILITY IS FOUNDED IN NEGLIGENCE AND THEREFORE MAY BE
DEFEATED BY THE COMMON-LAW DEFENSES OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE,
ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND THE FELLOW-SERVANT RULE.  MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN
S.S. CO., SUPRA; CF. CARLISLE PACKING CO. V. SANDANGER, 259 U.S. 255. 

BECAUSE RATIONALIZING THE LIABILITY AS ONE ATTACHED BY LAW TO THE
RELATION OF SHIPOWNER AND SEAMAN, WHERE THIS RESULTS FROM CONTRACT, MAY
HAVE BEEN THOUGHT USEFUL TO NEGATIVE THE IMPORTATION OF THOSE COMMON
LAW TORT LIMITATIONS DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT THE LIABILITY IS
ITSELF CONTRACTUAL OR THAT IT MAY NOT EXTEND TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE
SHIP'S WORK IS DONE BY OTHERS NOT IN SUCH AN IMMEDIATE RELATION OF
EMPLOYMENT TO THE OWNER.  THAT THE LIABILITY MAY NOT BE EITHER SO
FOUNDED OR SO LIMITED WOULD SEEM INDICATED BY THE STRESS THE CASES
UNIFORMLY PLACE UPON ITS RELATION, BOTH IN CHARACTER AND IN SCOPE, TO
THE HAZARDS OF MARINE SERVICE WHICH UNSEAWORTHINESS PLACES ON THE MEN
WHO PERFORM IT.  THESE, TOGETHER WITH THEIR HELPLESSNESS TO WARD OFF
SUCH PERILS AND THE HARSHNESS OF FORCING THEM TO SHOULDER ALONE THE
RESULTING PERSONAL DISABILITY AND LOSS, HAVE BEEN THOUGHT TO JUSTIFY
AND TO REQUIRE PUTTING THEIR BURDEN, IN SO FAR AS IT IS MEASURABLE IN
MONEY, UPON THE OWNER REGARDLESS OF HIS FAULT.  FN11  THOSE RISKS ARE
AVOIDABLE BY THE OWNER TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY MAY RESULT FROM
NEGLIGENCE.  AND BEYOND THIS HE IS IN POSITION, AS THE WORKER IS NOT,
TO DISTRIBUTE THE LOSS IN THE SHIPPING COMMUNITY WHICH RECEIVES THE
SERVICE AND SHOULD BEAR ITS COST. 

THESE AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARISING FROM THE HAZARDS WHICH
MARITIME SERVICE PLACES UPON MEN WHO PERFORM IT, RATHER THAN ANY
CONSENSUAL BASIS OF RESPONSIBILITY, HAVE BEEN THE PARAMOUNT INFLUENCES
DICTATING THE SHIPOWNER'S LIABILITY FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS AS WELL AS ITS
ABSOLUTE CHARACTER.  IT IS ESSENTIALLY A SPECIES OF LIABILITY WITHOUT
FAULT, ANALOGOUS TO OTHER WELL KNOWN INSTANCES IN OUR LAW.  DERIVED
FROM AND SHAPED TO MEET THE HAZARDS WHICH PERFORMING THE SERVICE
IMPOSES, THE LIABILITY IS NEITHER LIMITED BY CONCEPTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE
NOR CONTRACTUAL IN CHARACTER.  MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., SUPRA;
ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO. V. IMBROVEK, 234 U.S. 52; CARLISLE PACKING CO.
V. SANDANGER, SUPRA.  IT IS A FORM OF ABSOLUTE DUTY OWING TO ALL WITHIN
THE RANGE OF ITS HUMANITARIAN POLICY. 

ON PRINCIPLE WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THIS POLICY IS
NOT CONFINED TO SEAMEN WHO PERFORM THE SHIP'S SERVICE UNDER IMMEDIATE
HIRE TO THE OWNER, BUT EXTENDS TO THOSE WHO RENDER IT WITH HIS CONSENT
OR BY HIS ARRANGEMENT.  ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH GAVE BIRTH TO THE
LIABILITY AND HAVE SHAPED ITS ABSOLUTE CHARACTER DICTATE THAT THE OWNER
SHOULD NOT BE FREE TO NULLIFY IT BY PARCELLING OUT HIS OPERATIONS TO
INTERMEDIARY EMPLOYERS WHOSE SOLE BUSINESS IS TO TAKE OVER PORTIONS OF
THE SHIP'S WORK OR BY OTHER DEVICES WHICH WOULD STRIP THE MEN
PERFORMING ITS SERVICE OF THEIR HISTORIC PROTECTION.  THE RISKS
THEMSELVES ARISE FROM AND ARE INCIDENT IN FACT TO THE SERVICE, NOT
MERELY TO THE CONTRACT PURSUANT TO WHICH IT IS DONE.  THE BRUNT OF LOSS
CAST UPON THE WORKER AND HIS DEPENDENTS IS THE SAME, AND IS AS
INEVITABLE, WHETHER HIS PAY COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE SHIPOWNER OR ONLY
INDIRECTLY THROUGH ANOTHER WITH WHOM HE ARRANGES TO HAVE IT DONE.  THE
LATTER ORDINARILY HAS NEITHER RIGHT NOR OPPORTUNITY TO DISCOVER OR
REMOVE THE CAUSE OF THE PERIL AND IT IS DOUBTFUL, THEREFORE, THAT HE
OWES TO HIS EMPLOYEES, WITH RESPECT TO THESE HAZARDS, THE EMPLOYER'S
ORDINARY DUTY TO FURNISH A SAFE PLACE TO WORK, UNLESS PERHAPS IN CASES
WHERE THE PERILS ARE OBVIOUS OR HIS OWN ACTION CREATES THEM.  FN12  IF
NOT, NO SUCH OBLIGATION EXISTS UNLESS IT RESTS UPON THE OWNER OF THE
SHIP.  MOREOVER, HIS ABILITY TO DISTRIBUTE THE LOSS OVER THE INDUSTRY
IS NOT LESSENED BY THE FACT THAT THE MEN WHO DO THE WORK ARE EMPLOYED
AND FURNISHED BY ANOTHER.  HISTORICALLY THE WORK OF LOADING AND
UNLOADING IS THE WORK OF THE SHIP'S SERVICE, PERFORMED UNTIL RECENT
TIMES BY MEMBERS OF THE CREW.  FLOREZ V. THE SCOTIA, 35 F. 916; THE
GILBERT KNAPP, 37 F. 209, 210; THE SEGURANCA, 58 F. 908, 909.  THAT THE
OWNER SEEKS TO HAVE IT DONE WITH THE ADVANTAGES OF MORE MODERN
DIVISIONS OF LABOR DOES NOT MINIMIZE THE WORKER'S HAZARD AND SHOULD NOT
NULLIFY HIS PROTECTION. 

EVERY CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, GIVING RISE TO THE LIABILITY AND
SHAPING ITS CHARACTER BESPEAKS INCLUSION OF MEN INTERMEDIATELY EMPLOYED
TO DO THIS WORK, SAVE ONLY THAT WHICH IS RELEVANT TO CONSENT AS A BASIS
FOR RESPONSIBILITY.  WE DO NOT THINK THIS IS THE ULTIMATE BASIS OF THE
LIABILITY WHERE THE SEAMAN HIRED BY THE VESSEL DOES THE WORK.  IT IS
ONLY THE SOURCE OF THE RELATION WHICH FURNISHES THE OCCASION FOR THE
LIABILITY, ATTACHED BY LAW TO PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE, TO COME INTO
PLAY.  NOT THE OWNER'S CONSENT TO LIABILITY, BUT HIS CONSENT TO
PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE DEFINES ITS BOUNDARY.  THAT THIS IS GIVEN BY
CONTRACT WITH THE WORKER'S EMPLOYER RATHER THAN WITH THE WORKER HIMSELF
DOES NOT DEFEAT THE RESPONSIBILITY.    ACCORDINGLY WE THINK THE COURT
OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE LIABILITY ARISES AS AN INCIDENT, NOT
MERELY OF THE SEAMAN'S CONTRACT, BUT OF PERFORMING THE SHIP'S SERVICE
WITH THE OWNER'S CONSENT.  FOR THIS VIEW, IN ADDITION TO THE STATED
CONSIDERATIONS OF PRINCIPLE, THE COURT RIGHTLY FOUND SUPPORT IN THE
TREND AND POLICY OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY IN INTERNATIONAL
STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY, 272 U.S. 50; ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO. V.
IMBROVEK, 234 U.S. 52; AND URAVIC V. JARKA CO., 282 U.S. 234. 

THE HAVERTY CASE IS OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
SAID, WITH REFERENCE TO ITS BEARING AND THAT OF THE IMBROVEK DECISION:
"AND SO AN INJURY TO A STEVEDORE COMES WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION OF A
MARINE TORT.  ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO. V. IMBROVEK, 234 U.S. 52.  IT
SEEMS, THEREFORE, THAT WHEN A MAN IS PERFORMING A FUNCTION ESSENTIAL TO
MARITIME SERVICE ON BOARD A SHIP THE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT BY THE SHIPOWNER OR A STEVEDORING CONTRACTOR SHOULD NOT
DETERMINE THE MEASURE OF HIS RIGHTS.  THIS IS THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH
THE JONES ACT  FN13  WAS HELD APPLICABLE TO GIVE REDRESS TO AN INJURED
STEVEDORE IN INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY  ..."  149 F.2D
98, 101. 

THE CONCLUSIONS ARE SOUND, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CASES ARE
DISTINGUISHABLE IN THEIR SPECIFIC RULINGS.  FROM THAT FACT IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT EITHER THOSE RULINGS OR THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THEY WENT
ARE IRRELEVANT OR WITHOUT FORCE FOR OUR PROBLEM.  IT IS TRUE THAT
NEGLIGENCE WAS THE BASIS OF RECOVERY IN BOTH CASES AND THAT IN EACH THE
STEVEDORING CONTRACTOR WAS HELD RESPONSIBLE.  BUT IT WAS OF THE GIST OF
THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE LIBEL IN IMBROVEK  FN14
THAT STEVEDORES INJURED WHILE WORKING ABOARD THE SHIP, THOUGH NOT
EMPLOYED BY ITS OWNER, ARE WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL PROTECTIONS AFFORDED
TO SEAMEN BY ADMIRALTY AND THAT "THE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE" OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT BY ONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER TO DO THE SHIP'S WORK NOT ONLY
DID NOT REMOVE THEM FROM THOSE PROTECTIONS, BUT BROUGHT THEIR EMPLOYERS
WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE LIABILITY TO SUPPLY THEM.  FN15 

THE SAME UNDERLYING CONSIDERATIONS WERE CONTROLLING IN THE HAVERTY
DECISION, ALTHOUGH THE LIABILITY ASSERTED AROSE UNDER AN ACT OF
CONGRESS AND THE COURT CAST ITS RULING IN TERMS OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT. 
THE ONLY FULCRUM FOR ITS ACTION WAS THE STATUTE'S UNDEFINED USE OF THE
TERM "SEAMEN" IN CONFERRING THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT FOR THE EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE.  41 STAT. 988,
1007.  RECOGNIZING THAT FOR MOST PURPOSES "STEVEDORES ARE NOT
'SEAMEN,'"  FN16  AND RELYING UPON IMBROVEK, THE COURT AGAIN STRESSED
THAT "THE WORK UPON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED WAS A MARITIME
SERVICE FORMERLY RENDERED BY THE SHIP'S CREW," AND THAT THE STATUTE'S
POLICY WAS TO AFFORD COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES "AS PROPERLY PART OF THE
COST OF THE BUSINESS," THAT IS, OF THE MARITIME SERVICE RENDERED,
RATHER THAN BY THE CAPRICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE OF EMPLOYMENT "BY A
STEVEDORE RATHER THAN BY THE SHIP."  AND THE URAVIC DECISION REJECTED
AN EQUALLY CAPRICIOUS DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON THE NATIONALITY OF THE
VESSEL'S FLAG. 

RUNNING THROUGH ALL OF THESE CASES, THEREFORE, TO SUSTAIN THE
STEVEDORE'S RECOVERY IS A COMMON CORE OF POLICY WHICH HAS BEEN
CONTROLLING, ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC ISSUE HAS VARIED FROM A QUESTION OF
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION TO ONE OF COVERAGE UNDER STATUTORY LIABILITY
WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY FIELD.  IT IS THAT FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE
WORKING ON BOARD THE SHIP IN NAVIGABLE WATERS THE STEVEDORE IS ENTITLED
TO THE SEAMAN'S TRADITIONAL AND STATUTORY PROTECTIONS, REGARDLESS OF
THE FACT THAT HE IS EMPLOYED IMMEDIATELY BY ANOTHER THAN THE OWNER. 
FN17  FOR THESE PURPOSES HE IS, IN SHORT, A SEAMAN BECAUSE HE IS DOING
A SEAMAN'S WORK AND INCURRING A SEAMAN'S HAZARDS.  MOREOVER, TO MAKE
THE POLICY EFFECTIVE, HIS EMPLOYER IS BROUGHT WITHIN THE LIABILITY
WHICH IS PECULIAR TO THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION TO THE EXTENT THAT AND
BECAUSE HE ALSO UNDERTAKES THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP. 

IT WOULD BE ANOMALOUS IF SUCH A POLICY, EFFECTIVE TO CONTROL SUCH
ISSUES, WERE LESS EFFECTIVE WHEN THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY WHETHER THE
STEVEDORE IS ENTITLED TO THE TRADITIONAL SECURITIES AFFORDED BY THE LAW
OF THE SEA TO MEN WHO DO THE SHIP'S WORK.  NOR DOES IT FOLLOW FROM THE
FACT THAT THE STEVEDORE GAINS PROTECTIONS AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER
APPROPRIATE TO THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION AS SUCH, THAT HE LOSES OR NEVER
ACQUIRES AGAINST THE SHIPOWNER THE PROTECTIONS, NOT PECULIAR TO THAT
RELATION, WHICH THE LAW IMPOSES AS INCIDENTAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF
THAT SERVICE.  AMONG THESE IS THE OBLIGATION OF SEAWORTHINESS.  IT IS
PECULIARLY AND EXCLUSIVELY THE OBLIGATION OF THE OWNER.  IT IS ONE HE
CANNOT DELEGATE.  FN18  BY THE SAME TOKEN IT IS ONE HE CANNOT CONTRACT
AWAY AS TO ANY WORKMAN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS POLICY.  AS WE HAVE
SAID, HE IS AT LIBERTY TO CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS BY SECURING THE
ADVANTAGES OF SPECIALIZATION IN LABOR AND SKILL BROUGHT ABOUT BY MODERN
DIVISIONS OF LABOR.  HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY BY DOING THIS TO DISCARD HIS
TRADITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.  THAT THE LAW PERMITS HIM TO SUBSTITUTE
OTHERS FOR RESPONSIBILITIES PECULIAR TO THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION DOES
NOT MEAN THAT HE CAN THUS ESCAPE THE DUTY IT IMPOSES OF MORE GENERAL
SCOPE.  TO ALLOW THIS WOULD BE, IN SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT, TO CONVERT THE
ANCIENT LIABILITY FOR MARITIME TORT INTO A PURELY CONTRACTUAL
RESPONSIBILITY.  THIS WE ARE NOT FREE TO DO. 

IT REMAINS TO CONSIDER ONE OTHER ARGUMENT, NAMELY, THAT THE HAVERTY
DECISION HAS BEEN OVERRULED, IN EFFECT, BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT OF MARCH 4, 1927,
44 STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901 FF., AND THEREFORE THE EFFECT OF THAT
DECISION AS FURNISHING ANY SUPPORT FOR INCLUDING LONGSHOREMEN WITHIN
THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION OF SEAWORTHINESS HAS BEEN NULLIFIED.  THE
ARGUMENT IS THAT BY GIVING LONGSHOREMEN THE RIGHTS OF COMPENSATION
AFFORDED BY THAT ACT AGAINST THE EMPLOYER AND MAKING THEM EXCLUSIVE,
CONGRESS HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THEM NOT ONLY THE PROTECTIONS GAINED BY
VIRTUE OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920 UNDER THE HAVERTY DECISION,
BUT ALSO ALL OTHER PROTECTIONS RELATING TO PERSONAL INJURY WHICH
OTHERWISE MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO THEM UNDER THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW. 
IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE REMEDIES AFFORDED BY THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S LEGISLATION ARE EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHER REMEDIES FOR
INJURIES INCURRED ABOARD SHIP, WHETHER AGAINST THE EMPLOYER OR OTHERS. 

THIS VIEW CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.  APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE URAVIC
DECISION WAS RENDERED BY A UNANIMOUS COURT SOME THREE YEARS AFTER THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT WAS ADOPTED, WITH A LIKE RESULT
IN JAMISON V. ENCARNACION, 281 U.S. 635,  FN19  THE COMPELLING ANSWER
IS THAT CONGRESS BY THAT ACT NOT ONLY DID NOT PURPORT TO MAKE THE
STEVEDORE'S REMEDY FOR COMPENSATION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER EXCLUSIVE OF
REMEDIES AGAINST OTHERS.  IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED TO THE STEVEDORE A
RIGHT OF ELECTION TO PROCEED AGAINST THIRD PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS
INJURY  FN20  AND, IN CASE OF HIS ELECTION TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION, IT
PROVIDED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF HIS RIGHTS AGAINST THIRD PERSONS TO HIS
EMPLOYER, BINDING THE LATTER TO REMIT TO HIM ANY EXCESS OF THE RECOVERY
OVER THE COMPENSATION, EXPENSES OF RECOVERY, ETC.  FN21 

WE MAY TAKE IT THEREFORE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE REMEDY OF
COMPENSATION TO BE EXCLUSIVE AS AGAINST THE EMPLOYER.  SEE SWANSON V.
MARRA BROTHERS, INC., ANTE, P. 1; 33 U.S.C. SEC. 905.  BUT WE CANNOT
ASSUME, IN FACE OF THE ACT'S EXPLICIT PROVISIONS, THAT IT INTENDED THIS
REMEDY TO NULLIFY OR AFFECT OTHERS AGAINST THIRD PERSONS.  EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE IS TRUE.  THE LEGISLATION THEREFORE DID NOT NULLIFY ANY RIGHT
OF THE LONGSHOREMAN AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE SHIP, EXCEPT POSSIBLY IN
THE INSTANCE, PRESUMABLY RARE, WHERE HE MAY BE HIRED BY THE OWNER.  THE
STATUTE HAD NO PURPOSE OR EFFECT TO ALTER THE STEVEDORE'S RIGHTS AS
AGAINST ANY BUT HIS EMPLOYER ALONE.  BEYOND THAT CONSEQUENCE, MOREOVER,
WE THINK IT HAD NONE TO ALTER EITHER THE BASIC POLICY OR THE
RATIONALIZATION OF THE HAVERTY DECISION.  BECAUSE THE RECOVERY UNDER
THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920 WAS LIMITED TO THE EMPLOYER, THE
NECESSARY EFFECT OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT,
LIKEWISE SO LIMITED, WAS TO SUBSTITUTE ITS REMEDY FOR THAT PROVIDED
UNDER THE PREEXISTING LEGISLATION AND THE HAVERTY DECISION'S
CONSTRUCTION OF IT.  THERE WAS NONE TO NULLIFY THE BASIC AND GENERALLY
APPLICABLE POLICY OF THAT DECISION OR TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF ITS
FOUNDATIONS IN OTHER APPLICATIONS. 

IT MAY BE ADDED THAT, BEYOND THE APPLICABILITY OF THOSE
CONSIDERATIONS TO SUSTAIN THE STEVEDORE'S RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR BREACH
OF THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION OF SEAWORTHINESS, ARE OTHERS TO SUPPORT THE
STATUTORY POLICY OF GIVING HIS EMPLOYER RECOVERY OVER AGAINST THE OWNER
WHEN THE LATTER'S BREACH OF DUTY CASTS UPON THE EMPLOYER THE BURDEN OF
PAYING COMPENSATION.  THESE MAY FURNISH ADDITIONAL REASON FOR OUR
CONCLUSION.  WITH THEM HOWEVER WE ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  VISUAL INSPECTION WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED THE DEFECT. 

FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND "THAT THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED BY REASON
OF UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL."  57 F.SUPP.  724, 726. 

FN3  THE REFERENCES WERE TO W.J. MCCAHAN CO. V. STOFFEL, 41 F.2D 651,
654(C.C.A. 3); CASSIL V. UNITED STATES EMERGENCY FLEET CORP., 289 F.
774(C.C.A. 9), SUGGESTING LIABILITY; AND, TO THE CONTRARY, PANAMA MAIL
S.S. CO. V. DAVIS, 79 F.2D 430(C.C.A. 3); BRYANT V. VESTLAND, 52 F.2D
1078(C.C.A. 5); LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V. BUZYNSKI, 19 F.2D 871(C.C.A. 5),
REV'D ON ANOTHER GROUND, 277 U.S. 226; THE HOWELL, 273 F. 513(C.C.A.
2); THE STUDENT, 243 F. 807(C.C.A. 4); JEFFRIES V. DEHART, 102 F.
765(C.C.A. 3); THE MERCIER, 5 F.SUPP.  511, AFFIRMED, 72 F.2D
1008(C.C.A. 9). 

FN4  SEE IN ADDITION TO THE AUTHORITIES CITED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, 149 F.2D AT 102; DECISION (1945) 45 COL. L. REV. 957; (1945)
59 HARV. L. REV. 127; (1946) 19 TEMP.  L.Q. 336, 339. 

FN5  NOTHING IN 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(3) IS TO THE CONTRARY.  THE SECTION
PROVIDES THAT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION "OF ALL
CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, SAVING TO SUITORS
IN ALL CASES THE RIGHT OF A COMMON-LAW REMEDY WHERE THE COMMON LAW IS
COMPETENT TO GIVE IT  ..."  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHERE SUIT IS
BROUGHT AT LAW THE COURT IS RESTRICTED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMMONLAW
RIGHTS.  CHELENTIS V. LUCKENBACH S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372, 384; PANAMA R.
CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375, 387-388; PANAMA R. CO. V. VASQUEZ, 271
U.S. 557, 560-561.  "WHEN A CAUSE OF ACTION IN ADMIRALTY IS ASSERTED IN
A COURT OF LAW ITS SUBSTANCE IS UNCHANGED."  PANAMA AGENCIES CO. V.
FRANCO, 111 F.2D 263, 266. 

FN6  CF. TEXT INFRA; CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367;
ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO. V. IMBROVEK, 234 U.S. 52. 

FN7  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT "THE SEAMAN'S RIGHT OF INDEMNITY FOR
INJURIES CAUSED BY DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES OR UNSEAWORTHINESS SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN A DEVELOPMENT FROM HIS PRIVILEGE TO ABANDON A VESSEL
IMPROPERLY FITTED OUT."  THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110, 121,
NOTE 2; MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., 321 U.S. 96, 99; CF. THE OSCEOLA,
189 U.S. 158. 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE RIGHT OF ABANDONMENT WOULD NOT EXIST IF
THE SEAMAN WERE HIRED BY ANOTHER AT THE INSTANCE OF THE VESSEL'S OWNER,
AND NO DECISION TO WHICH WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED SO HOLDS. 

FN8  SEE MAINE, ANCIENT LAW (1861).  FOR A MODERN CRITICISM, SEE
POUND, INTERPRETATIONS OF LEGAL HISTORY (1930) 53 ET SEQ. 

FN9  AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY IS GIVEN BY PARKER, J., IN THE STATE OF
MARYLAND, 85 F.2D 944, 945: 

"SEAMEN ARE THE WARDS OF ADMIRALTY, AND THE POLICY OF THE MARITIME
LAW HAS EVER BEEN TO SEE THAT THEY ARE ACCORDED PROPER PROTECTION BY
THE VESSELS ON WHICH THEY SERVE.  IN EARLY DAYS, THIS PROTECTION WAS
SUFFICIENTLY ACCORDED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RIGHT OF 'MAINTENANCE
AND CURE.'  VESSELS AND THEIR APPLIANCES WERE OF COMPARATIVELY SIMPLE
CONSTRUCTION, AND SEAMEN WERE IN QUITE AS GOOD POSITION ORDINARILY TO
JUDGE OF THE SEAWORTHINESS OF A VESSEL AS WERE HER OWNERS  ... 

"WITH THE ADVENT OF STEAM NAVIGATION, HOWEVER, IT WAS REALIZED, AT
LEAST IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT 'MAINTENANCE AND CURE' DID NOT AFFORD TO
INJURED SEAMEN ADEQUATE COMPENSATION IN ALL CASES FOR INJURIES
SUSTAINED.  VESSELS WERE NO LONGER THE SIMPLE SAILING SHIPS, OF WHOSE
SEAWORTHINESS THE SAILOR WAS AN ADEQUATE JUDGE, BUT WERE FULL OF
COMPLICATED AND DANGEROUS MACHINERY, THE OPERATION OF WHICH REQUIRED
THE USE OF MANY AND VARIED APPLIANCES AND A HIGH DEGREE OF TECHNICAL
KNOWLEDGE.  THE SEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL COULD BE ASCERTAINED ONLY
UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THIS MACHINERY AND APPLIANCES BY SKILLED
EXPERTS.  IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE DUTY OF THE VESSEL AND HER
OWNERS TO THE SEAMAN, IN THIS NEW AGE OF NAVIGATION, EXTENDED BEYOND
MERE 'MAINTENANCE AND CURE,' WHICH HAD BEEN SUFFICIENT IN THE SIMPLE
AGE OF SAILING SHIPS; THAT THE OWNERS OWED TO THE SEAMEN THE DUTY OF
FURNISHING A SEAWORTHY VESSEL AND SAFE AND PROPER APPLIANCES IN GOOD
ORDER AND CONDITION; AND THAT FOR FAILURE TO DISCHARGE SUCH DUTY THERE
WAS LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE VESSEL AND HER OWNERS TO A SEAMAN
SUFFERING INJURY AS A RESULT THEREOF.  THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158, 175
...  IN THE EDITH GODDEN (D.C.)  23 F. 43, 46, WHICH DEALT WITH THE
CASE OF A SEAMAN INJURED BY A DEFECTIVE DERRICK, JUDGE ADDISON BROWN
POINTED OUT THAT IN DEALING WITH INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE USE OF
MODERN APPLIANCES 'IT IS MORE REASONABLE AND EQUITABLE TO APPLY THE
ANALOGIES OF THE MUNICIPAL LAW IN REGARD TO THE OBLIGATION OF OWNERS
AND MASTERS, RATHER THAN TO EXTEND THE LIMITED RULE OF RESPONSIBILITY
UNDER THE ANCIENT MARITIME LAW TO THESE NEW, MODERN CONDITIONS, FOR
WHICH THOSE LIMITATIONS WERE NEVER DESIGNED.'"    SEE, IN ADDITION TO
THE CITED OPINION OF JUDGE BROWN, HIS OPINION IN THE CITY OF
ALEXANDRIA, 17 F. 390.  SEE ALSO STORGARD V. FRANCE & CANADA S.S.
CORP., 263 F. 545, 547-548; THE H.A. SCANDRETT, 87 F.2D 708, 711. 

FN10  IN ALL OF THE CASES CITED OR FOUND, EXCEPT PERHAPS THE
STEVEDORE CASES CITED IN NOTE 3, WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS BEEN
BASED UPON UNSEAWORTHINESS, THERE WAS A CONTRACT.  THE "IMPLIED
WARRANTY" ON THE PART OF A SHIPOWNER THAT A SHIP IS SEAWORTHY HAS BEEN
READ NOT ONLY INTO CONTRACTS MADE WITH SEAMEN, HAMILTON V. UNITED
STATES, 268 F. 15, 21, BUT ALSO INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE CARRIAGE OF
GOODS BY SEA, BRADLEY FERTILIZER CO. V. THE EDWIN I. MORRISON, 153 U.S.
199, 210-211, ALTHOUGH THIS LIABILITY HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY THE HARTER
ACT, 27 STAT. 445, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 189-195; AND IN RARE INSTANCES
PERHAPS ALSO INTO CONTRACTS WITH PASSENGERS, CF. MUISE V. GORTON-PEW
VESSELS CO., 1938 A.M.C. 714, 718; RAINEY V. NEW YORK & P.S.S. CO., 216
F. 449, 453; ROBINSON, ADMIRALTY (1939) 306, NOTE 109. 

FN11  CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE HAS NEVER BEEN A DEFENSE IN SUITS
BROUGHT BY SEAMEN TO RECOVER FOR INJURIES DUE TO A SHIP'S
UNSEAWORTHINESS BUT HAS BEEN APPLIED MERELY IN MITIGATION OF DAMAGES. 
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO. V. SMITH, 305 U.S. 424, 429; THE ARIZONA V.
ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110, 122, AND CASES CITED.  AND IN THE MAX MORRIS,
137 U.S. 1, THE COURT HELD THAT IN A SUIT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES BROUGHT
IN ADMIRALTY BY A STEVEDORE THE ADMIRALTY RULE OF DIVIDED DAMAGES WAS
APPLICABLE.  IT WAS SAID IN THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, AT 122-123, WITH
RESPECT TO THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK:  "THE SEAMAN ASSUMES THE
RISK NORMALLY INCIDENT TO HIS PERILOUS CALLING  ..., BUT IT HAS OFTEN
BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE NATURE OF HIS CALLING, THE RIGID DISCIPLINE
TO WHICH HE IS SUBJECT, AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF HIS AVOIDING
EXPOSURE TO RISKS OF UNSEAWORTHINESS AND DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES, MAKE
SUCH A DEFENSE  ...  PECULIARLY INAPPLICABLE TO SUITS BY SEAMEN TO
RECOVER FOR THE NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SEAWORTHY SHIP AND SAFE
APPLIANCES."  AS TO THE FELLOW-SERVANT RULE, SEE MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN
S.S. CO., 321 U.S. 96, 100-103; THE FRANK AND WILLIE, 45 F. 494, 495
496. 

IN THIS CONNECTION IS PERTINENT ALSO THE FREQUENTLY STATED RULE THAT
THE OBLIGATION OF A SHIPOWNER TO PROVIDE A SEAWORTHY SHIP IS
NONDELEGABLE.  SEE, E.G., LORD AND SPRAGUE, CASES ON THE LAW OF
ADMIRALTY (1926) 237, NOTE 4; THE ROLPH, 299 F. 52, 55; GLOBE S.S. CO.
V. MOSS, 245 F. 54, 55. 

FN12  IN ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO. V. IMBROVEK, 234 U.S. 52, THE
STEVEDORING COMPANY WAS HELD LIABLE TO ITS EMPLOYEE FOR NEGLIGENCE IN
FAILING TO FURNISH A SAFE PLACE TO WORK.  THIS CONSISTED IN ITS FAILURE
TO SECURE PROPERLY A BEAM WHICH SUPPORTED HATCH COVERS REMOVED BY IT IN
THE LOADING PROCESS.  THE LIBELANT JOINED THE SHIPOWNER WITH THE
STEVEDORING CONTRACTOR, BOTH BEING REPRESENTED BY THE SAME PROCTORS AND
ADVOCATES.  THE STEVEDORING COMPANY ACQUITTED THE SHIPOWNER AND THE
LIBEL WAS DISMISSED AS TO IT.  THE CASE, IN VIEW OF THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, IS NOT AUTHORITY FOR THE VIEW THAT THE STEVEDORING
COMPANY IS LIABLE TO THE STEVEDORE, UNDER THE EMPLOYER'S OBLIGATION TO
FURNISH A SAFE WORKING PLACE, FOR THE HAZARDS SECURED AGAINST BY THE
SHIPOWNER'S OBLIGATION OF SEAWORTHINESS.  IT HOLDS ONLY THAT THE
STEVEDORING COMPANY IS LIABLE FOR ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE. 

IT HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN SAID THAT A SHIPOWNER OWES TO STEVEDORES THE
DUTY OF PROVIDING A SAFE PLACE TO WORK, SEE, E.G., THE JOSEPH B.
THOMAS, 86 F. 658, 660; THE NO. 34, 25 F.2D 602, 604, BUT CF. WILLIS V.
LYKES BROS. S.S. CO., 23 F.2D 488, 489, ALTHOUGH THE DUTY HAS AT TIMES
BEEN QUALIFIED BY STATEMENTS THAT IT DOES NOT EXTEND TO LATENT DEFECTS
THAT "A REASONABLE INSPECTION BY THE SHIPOWNER OR HIS AGENTS WOULD NOT
SHOW."  WHOLEY V. BRITISH & FOREIGN S.S. CO., 158 F. 379, 380,
AFFIRMED, 171 F. 399. 

FN13  MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688,
EXTENDING TO "SEAMEN" THE BENEFITS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ. 

FN14  IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE WRONG, ALTHOUGH TAKING PLACE ABOARD SHIP
IN NAVIGABLE WATERS, WAS NOT OF MARITIME CHARACTER AND HENCE NOT WITHIN
THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN15  IN ANSWER TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE SERVICE WAS NOT MARITIME
AND HENCE THE INDEPENDENTLY EMPLOYED STEVEDORE'S CLAIM WAS NOT WITHIN
THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, THE COURT SAID:  "UPON ITS PROPER
PERFORMANCE DEPEND IN LARGE MEASURE THE SAFE CARRYING OF THE CARGO AND
THE SAFETY OF THE SHIP ITSELF; AND IT IS A SERVICE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
TO ENABLE THE SHIP TO DISCHARGE ITS MARITIME DUTY.  FORMERLY THE WORK
WAS DONE BY THE SHIP'S CREW; BUT, OWING TO THE EXIGENCIES OF INCREASING
COMMERCE AND THE DEMAND FOR RAPIDITY AND SPECIAL SKILL, IT HAS BECOME A
SPECIALIZED SERVICE DEVOLVING UPON A CLASS 'AS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WITH
MARITIME AFFAIRS AS ARE THE MARINERS'."  234 U.S. 52, 61-62. 

FN16  THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE LIKEWISE CAREFULLY LIMITED
ITS RULING IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT STEVEDORES ARE NOT ENTITLED
TO ALL THE PROTECTIONS A SEAMAN MAY CLAIM. 

IT IS IN RELATION TO LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH ARISING
IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT ABOARD THE SHIP THAT THE POLICY OF OUR
LAW HAS BEEN MOST FAVORABLE TO THE STEVEDORE'S CLAIMS.  WHETHER OR NOT
THAT POLICY HAS BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE VICISSITUDES EXPERIENCED IN
FINDING PROTECTION FOR HIM AS A RESULT OF THE JENSEN DECISION, 244 U.S.
205; DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S. 249, 252-253, THE REASONS
UNDERLYING THE POLICY ARE PERHAPS MORE NEARLY IDENTICAL IN THIS
APPLICATION, AS BETWEEN SEAMEN AND LONGSHOREMEN, THAN THOSE SUPPORTING
OTHER RIGHTS OF THE SEAMAN, SUCH AS THAT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE. 

FN17  IN THIS CASE WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
SAME POLICY EXTENDS TO INJURIES INCURRED ASHORE BY A STEVEDORE ENGAGED
IN THE SAME WORK, A MATTER WHICH IS RELEVANT HOWEVER IN SWANSON V.
MARRA BROTHERS, INC., ANTE, P. 1.  CF. O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES CO.,
318 U.S. 36. 

FN18  SEE NOTE 11. 

FN19  BOTH CASES WERE DETERMINED ON FACTS WHICH AROSE PRIOR TO
ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE. 

FN20  SECTION 33(A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES:  "IF ON ACCOUNT OF A
DISABILITY OR DEATH FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE UNDER THIS ACT
THE PERSON ENTITLED TO SUCH COMPENSATION DETERMINES THAT SOME PERSON
OTHER THAN THE EMPLOYER IS LIABLE IN DAMAGES, HE MAY ELECT, BY GIVING
NOTICE TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN SUCH MANNER AS THE COMMISSION MAY
PROVIDE, TO RECEIVE SUCH COMPENSATION OR TO RECOVER DAMAGES AGAINST
SUCH THIRD PERSON."  44 STAT. 1440, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 933(A). 

FN21  SEE 33 U.S.C. SECS. 933(B) TO (G) INCLUSIVE.  AS TO THE RIGHT
OF ELECTION AND THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION OR THE AMOUNT OF THE
RECOVERY AGAINST THIRD PERSONS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, SEE CHAPMAN V.
HOAGE, 296 U.S. 526, 529; MARLIN V. CARDILLO, 95 F.2D 112; GRASSO V.
LORENTZEN, 149 F.2D 127; THE PACIFIC PINE, 31 F.2D 152; CUPO V.
ISTHMIAN S.S. CO., 56 F.SUPP.  45. 

THE STATUTE DID NOT COVER MEMBERS OF A CREW OF A VESSEL, THEREBY
SAVING TO THEM THEIR PREEXISTING RIGHTS UNDER THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT
OF 1920.  33 U.S.C. SEC. 902(3).  SEE SOUTH CHICAGO COAL & DOCK CO. V.
BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251, 256-257. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND I THINK THE JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

RESPONDENT, THE EMPLOYEE OF A STEVEDORING COMPANY, WHICH HAD
CONTRACTED WITH PETITIONER TO LOAD ITS VESSEL LYING IN NAVIGABLE
WATERS, WAS INJURED WHILE SO EMPLOYED, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE FAILURE OF
A SHACKLE, A PART OF THE SHIP'S TACKLE, DUE TO ITS HIDDEN DEFECTS.  THE
COURTS BELOW HAVE FOUND THAT TWO OTHER DEFENDANTS WERE LIABLE FOR
NEGLIGENCE IN FURNISHING THE DEFECTIVE SHACKLE.  THE COURTS WERE UNABLE
TO FIND THAT THE INJURY WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY NEGLIGENT ACT OR
OMISSION OF THE VESSEL OR ITS OWNER.  BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW
AND THIS COURT HAVE SUSTAINED A RECOVERY AGAINST PETITIONER ON THE
NOVEL GROUND THAT THE OWNER IS AN INSURER AGAINST INJURY CAUSED BY THE
UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL OR ITS APPLIANCES TO A MARITIME WORKER ON
BOARD, ALTHOUGH NOT A MEMBER OF THE CREW OR THE SHIP'S COMPANY, AND NOT
EMPLOYED BY THE VESSEL. 

THE COURT HAS THUS CREATED A NEW RIGHT IN MARITIME WORKERS, NOT
MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A VESSEL, WHICH HAS NOT HITHERTO BEEN RECOGNIZED
BY THE MARITIME LAW OR BY ANY STATUTE.  FOR THIS I CAN FIND NO WARRANT
IN HISTORY OR PRECEDENT, NOR ANY SUPPORT IN POLICY OR IN PRACTICAL
NEEDS.  THE LIABILITY OF A VESSEL OR ITS OWNER TO MEMBERS OF THE CREW,
AS AN INSURER OF SEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL AND ITS TACKLE, WAS NOT
RECOGNIZED BY THE MARITIME LAW OF ENGLAND UNTIL ESTABLISHED BY
STATUTE.  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 39 & 40 VICT.  C. 80, SEC. 5; 57 & 58
VICT.  C. 60, SEC. 458.  IN THIS COUNTRY THE RIGHT OF THE SEAMAN TO
DEMAND, IN ADDITION TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE, INDEMNITY FOR INJURIES
RESULTING FROM UNSEAWORTHINESS, WAS FIRST RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT IN
THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158.  IN LATER CASES IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT
DUE DILIGENCE OF THE OWNER DOES NOT RELIEVE HIM FROM THIS OBLIGATION. 
SEE THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110, 121; SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V.
SMITH, 305 U.S. 424, 429, 432; MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., 321 U.S.
96, 100, AND CASES CITED; THE NEPTUNO, 30 F. 925; THE FRANK & WILLIE,
45 F. 494; THE JULIA FOWLER, 49 F. 277; CF. THE EDWIN I. MORRISON, 153
U.S. 199, 210. 

THE LIABILITY OF THE VESSEL OR OWNER FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE, WAS ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE OUR MODERN
CONCEPTION OF CONTRACT.  BUT IT, LIKE THE LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY THE
SEAMAN FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM UNSEAWORTHINESS, HAS BEEN
UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED AS AN OBLIGATION GROWING OUT OF THE STATUS OF
THE SEAMAN AND HIS PECULIAR RELATIONSHIP TO THE VESSEL, AND AS A
FEATURE OF THE MARITIME LAW COMPENSATING OR OFFSETTING THE SPECIAL
HAZARDS AND DISADVANTAGES TO WHICH THEY WHO GO DOWN TO SEA IN SHIPS ARE
SUBJECTED.  THEY ARE EXPOSED TO THE PERILS OF THE SEA AND ALL THE RISKS
OF UNSEAWORTHINESS, WITH LITTLE OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID THOSE DANGERS OR
TO DISCOVER AND PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THEM OR TO PROVE WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNSEAWORTHINESS CAUSING THE INJURY. 

FOR THESE REASONS THE SEAMAN HAS BEEN GIVEN A SPECIAL STATUS IN THE
MARITIME LAW AS THE WARD OF THE ADMIRALTY, ENTITLED TO SPECIAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAW NOT EXTENDED TO LAND EMPLOYEES.  ROBERTSON V.
BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 282-3; THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, SUPRA, 122, 123;
CALMAR S.S. CORP. V. TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525; SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V. SMITH,
SUPRA, 430; AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724.  SEE ALSO JUDGE
ADDISON BROWN IN THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, 17 F. 390, 394, ET SEQ.
JUSTICE STORY SAID IN REED V. CANFIELD, FED. CAS. NO. 11,641, 1 SUMN. 
195, 199:  "SEAMEN ARE IN SOME SORT CO-ADVENTURERS UPON THE VOYAGE; AND
LOSE THEIR WAGES UPON CASUALTIES, WHICH DO NOT AFFECT ARTISANS AT
HOME.  THEY SHARE THE FATE OF THE SHIP IN CASES OF SHIPWRECK AND
CAPTURE.  THEY ARE LIABLE TO DIFFERENT RULES OF DISCIPLINE AND
SUFFERINGS FROM LANDSMEN.  THE POLICY OF THE MARITIME LAW, FOR GREAT,
AND WISE, AND BENEVOLENT PURPOSES, HAS BUILT UP PECULIAR RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES, DUTIES, AND LIABILITIES IN THE SEA-SERVICE, WHICH DO NOT
BELONG TO HOME PURSUITS." 

IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT THROUGHOUT THE LONG HISTORY OF THE
MARITIME LAW THE RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE, AND LATER THE RIGHT TO
INDEMNITY FOR INJURIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO UNSEAWORTHINESS, HAVE BEEN
CONFINED TO SEAMEN.  LONGSHOREMEN AND HARBOR WORKERS ARE IN A CLASS
VERY DIFFERENT FROM SEAMEN, AND ONE NOT CALLING FOR THE CREATION OF
EXTRAORDINARY OBLIGATIONS OF THE VESSEL OR ITS OWNER IN THEIR FAVOR,
MORE THAN OTHER CLASSES OF ESSENTIALLY LAND WORKERS.  UNLIKE MEMBERS OF
THE CREW OF A VESSEL THEY DO NOT GO TO SEA; THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
RIGID DISCIPLINE OF THE SEA; THEY ARE NOT PREVENTED BY LAW OR SHIP'S
DISCIPLINE FROM LEAVING THE VESSEL ON WHICH THEY MAY BE EMPLOYED; THEY
HAVE THE SAME RECOURSE AS LAND WORKERS TO AVOID THE HAZARDS TO WHICH
THEY ARE EXPOSED, TO ASCERTAIN THE CAUSE OF THEIR INJURY AND TO PROVE
IT IN COURT. 

CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THIS DIFFERENCE IN THEIR STATUS FROM THAT OF
SEAMEN.  ALTHOUGH IT HAS GIVEN EXTENSIVE CONSIDERATION TO IT IN
ENACTING THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 33
U.S.C. SEC. 901 FF., IN 1927, AND AGAIN, UPON ITS REVISION IN 1934 AND
1938, IN NO INSTANCE DID CONGRESS EXTEND TO LONGSHOREMEN AND HARBOR
WORKERS ANY OF THE SPECIAL RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES CONFERRED ON SEAMEN BY
THE MARITIME LAW.  IN FACT CONGRESS, BY THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT, CUT OFF
FROM LONGSHOREMEN AND HARBOR WORKERS THE RIGHT EXTENDED TO THEM BY
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE JONES ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688,
INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY, 272 U.S. 50; URAVIC V. JARKA
CO., 282 U.S. 234, TO ENJOY THE SAME RIGHT OF RECOVERY FROM THE VESSEL
OR OWNER AS SEAMEN FOR NEGLIGENT INJURIES SUSTAINED WHILE WORKING ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS.  SWANSON V. MARRA BROTHERS, ANTE, P. 1.  WHILE THE
ACT GAVE TO LONGSHOREMEN AND STEVEDORES A RIGHT TO COMPENSATION AGAINST
THEIR EMPLOYER, IT NEITHER CONFERRED UPON NOR WITHHELD FROM THEM ANY
RIGHTS OF RECOVERY FOR SUCH INJURIES AGAINST THIRD PERSONS.  IT CAN
HARDLY BE SAID THAT THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS THUS TO ENLARGE THE RIGHTS
OF LONGSHOREMEN, SO AS TO MAKE THEM COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF SEAMEN, IS A
RECOGNITION OF EXISTING RIGHTS AGAINST THIRD PERSONS ARISING FROM THE
WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS WHICH NO COURT HAS EVER RECOGNIZED* AND WHICH
GROWS OUT OF A STATUS WHICH LONGSHOREMEN HAVE NEVER OCCUPIED. 

*THE TWO CASES RELIED UPON BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DO NOT
LEND SUPPORT TO ITS DECISION.  IN CASSIL V. UNITED STATES EMERGENCY
FLEET CORP., 289 F. 774, RECOVERY WAS SOUGHT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
VESSEL WAS NEGLIGENT, AND THE COURT MERELY SAID THAT THERE COULD BE NO
CLAIM AGAINST THE VESSEL UNLESS IT WAS UNSEAWORTHY.  THE COURT SEEMS TO
HAVE ASSUMED THAT A RECOVERY FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS COULD BE HAD ONLY IF
NEGLIGENCE WAS SHOWN.  SEE CASES CITED IN MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO.,
321 U.S. 96, 100.  IN W.J. MCCAHAN CO. V. STOFFEL, 41 F.2D 651, A
LONGSHOREMAN WAS ALLOWED RECOVERY ON THE GROUND OF NEGLIGENCE OF ONE OF
THE SHIP'S EMPLOYEES.    THERE ARE NO CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OR
PRACTICAL NEED WHICH SHOULD LEAD US, BY JUDICIAL FIAT, TO DO THAT WHICH
CONGRESS, AFTER A FULL STUDY OF THE SUBJECT, HAS FAILED TO DO.
WHEREVER THE INJURY OCCURS ON NAVIGABLE WATERS, CONGRESS HAS GIVEN TO
LONGSHOREMEN AND HARBOR WORKERS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS TO COMPENSATION
AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYER FOR INJURIES INFLICTED WITHOUT HIS FAULT.  SOUTH
CHICAGO CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251.  IT HAS LEFT THEM FREE TO PURSUE
THEIR REMEDY FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF THIRD PARTIES,
INCLUDING IN THIS CASE THE VESSEL AND THE FURNISHERS OF THE DEFECTIVE
SHACKLE.  WHERE THE INJURY OCCURS ON LAND THEY ARE FREE TO PURSUE THE
REMEDY AFFORDED BY LOCAL LAW.  STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION V.
NORDENHOLT CORP., 259 U.S. 263; SMITH & SON V. TAYLOR, 276 U.S. 179;
SWANSON V. MARRA BROTHERS, ANTE, P. 1.  THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO
OCCASION FOR US TO BE MORE GENEROUS THAN CONGRESS HAS BEEN BY
PRESENTING TO THEM PAID-UP ACCIDENT INSURANCE POLICIES AT THE EXPENSE
OF A VESSEL BY WHICH THEY HAVE NOT BEEN EMPLOYED, AND WHICH HAS NOT
FAILED IN ANY DUTY OF DUE CARE TOWARD THEM.  APPARENTLY UNDER THE
DECISION NOW RENDERED THE MARITIME WORKER EMPLOYED BY A VESSEL ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS, BUT NOT A MEMBER OF THE CREW, WOULD ENJOY RIGHTS OF
RECOVERY NOT ACCORDED TO MEMBERS OF THE CREW.  FOR HE WOULD BE ENTITLED
TO INDEMNITY UPON THE WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS AS ARE MEMBERS OF THE
CREW AND ALSO TO THE BENEFITS OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
ACT FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE CREW ARE EXCLUDED.  SEE SOUTH CHICAGO CO.
V. BASSETT, SUPRA, 255-6. 

NOR IS THE RULE NOW ANNOUNCED TO BE JUSTIFIED AS A MODERN AND
PREFERRED MODE OF DISTRIBUTING LOSSES INFLICTED WITHOUT FAULT. 
CONGRESS, IN ADOPTING THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT, HAS CHOSEN THE MODE OF
DISTRIBUTION IN THE CASE OF LONGSHOREMEN AND HARBOR WORKERS.  BY 33
U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET SEQ. IT HAS GIVEN TO THEM COMPENSATION FOR THEIR
INJURIES, IRRESPECTIVE OF FAULT.  SECTION 933 PROVIDES THAT IF A
STEVEDORE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION ELECTS TO RECOVER DAMAGES AGAINST A
THIRD PERSON, THE EMPLOYER MUST PAY AS COMPENSATION A SUM EQUAL TO THE
EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT WHICH THE COMMISSION DETERMINES IS PAYABLE ON
ACCOUNT OF THE INJURY OVER THE AMOUNT RECOVERED AGAINST THE THIRD
PERSON.  THE WHOLE PHILOSOPHY OF LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT IS THAT LOSSES
WHICH ARE INCIDENTAL TO SOCIALLY DESIRABLE CONDUCT SHOULD BE PLACED ON
THOSE BEST ABLE TO BEAR THEM.  CONGRESS HAS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT
THE EMPLOYER IS BEST ABLE TO BEAR THE LOSS WHICH, IN THIS INSTANCE,
COULD NOT BE AVOIDED BY THE EXERCISE OF DUE CARE.  THIS IS AN IMPLIED
DETERMINATION WHICH SHOULD PRECLUDE US FROM SAYING THAT THE SHIP OWNER
IS IN A MORE FAVORABLE POSITION TO ABSORB THE LOSS OR TO PASS IT ON TO
SOCIETY AT LARGE, THAN THE EMPLOYER. 
..END :









BELL V. HOOD, 327 U.S. 678 


NO. 344.  ARGUED JANUARY 29, 1946.  - DECIDED APRIL 1, 1946.  - 150 F.2D
96, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE THE COMPLAINT SEEKS RECOVERY SQUARELY ON THE GROUND OF
VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFFS' RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS,
A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF A SUIT AGAINST AGENTS OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $3,000 ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AS A RESULT OF SUCH VIOLATIONS
EVEN THOUGH NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR
THE RECOVERY OF MONEY DAMAGES FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS AND THE COMPLAINT IS
SO FRAMED AS POSSIBLY TO STATE A COMMON LAW ACTION IN TORT OR
TRESPASS.  PP. 680-685. 

2.  WHERE A COMPLAINT IN A FEDERAL COURT IS SO DRAWN AS TO SEEK
RECOVERY DIRECTLY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE COURT MUST ENTERTAIN THE SUIT, EXCEPT:  (A) WHERE THE ALLEGED CLAIM
APPEARS TO BE IMMATERIAL AND MADE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING
JURISDICTION, OR (B) WHERE IT IS WHOLLY INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS. 
P. 682. 

3.  WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH RELIEF
COULD BE GRANTED IS A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH MUST BE DECIDED AFTER, AND
NOT BEFORE, THE COURT ASSUMES JURISDICTION.  P. 682. 

4.  THE ISSUE WHETHER FEDERAL COURTS CAN GRANT MONEY RECOVERY FOR
DAMAGES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF FEDERAL AGENTS
VIOLATING THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS HAS SUFFICIENT MERIT TO
WARRANT EXERCISE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR PURPOSES OF ADJUDICATING
IT.  P. 684. 

BELL ET AL. V. HOOD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AGAINST AGENTS
OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF
$3,000 ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED AS A RESULT OF VIOLATIONS OF
THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE SUIT FOR WANT OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 96.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326
U.S. 706.  REVERSED, P. 685. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER
DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $3,000 FROM THE RESPONDENTS WHO ARE AGENTS OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED UPON FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER
THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE DAMAGES WERE
SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE RESPONDENTS IMPRISONING THE PETITIONERS IN
VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM DEPRIVATION OF
THEIR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND SUBJECTING THEIR PREMISES
TO SEARCH AND THEIR POSSESSIONS TO SEIZURE, IN VIOLATION OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES.  FN1  RESPONDENTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED AND FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE FEDERAL AGENTS ACTED WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AS OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT
THE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WERE INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARRESTS AND WERE
THEREFORE VALID.  RESPONDENTS FILED AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTIONS AND PETITIONERS FILED COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS.  AFTER HEARING THE
MOTIONS THE DISTRICT JUDGE DID NOT PASS ON THEM BUT, ON HIS OWN MOTION,
DISMISSED THE SUIT FOR WANT OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT
THIS ACTION WAS NOT ONE THAT "...  ARISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  AS REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1). 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE SAME GROUND.  150 F.2D
96.  AT THE SAME TIME IT DENIED A MOTION MADE BY PETITIONERS ASKING IT
TO DIRECT THE DISTRICT COURT TO GIVE PETITIONERS LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR
COMPLAINT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT STILL MORE CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE ACTION
WAS DIRECTLY GROUNDED ON VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS ALLEGED TO STEM FROM THE
FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE INVOLVED. 

RESPONDENTS MAKE THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 
FIRST, THEY URGE THAT THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR THE
COMMON LAW TORT OF TRESPASS MADE ACTIONABLE BY STATE LAW AND THAT IT
THEREFORE DOES NOT RAISE QUESTIONS ARISING "UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  SECOND, TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION,
RESPONDENTS MAINTAIN THAT PETITIONERS COULD NOT RECOVER UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, SINCE THE CONSTITUTION DOES
NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR RECOVERY IN MONEY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF
THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS AND CONGRESS HAS NOT ENACTED A STATUTE
THAT DOES SO PROVIDE.  A MERE READING OF THE COMPLAINT REFUTES THE
FIRST CONTENTION AND, AS WILL BE SEEN, THE SECOND ONE IS NOT DECISIVE
ON THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT AS DRAFTED STATES A COMMON LAW ACTION IN
TRESPASS MADE ACTIONABLE BY STATE LAW, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE WAY IT WAS
DRAWN THAT PETITIONERS SEEK RECOVERY SQUARELY ON THE GROUND THAT
RESPONDENTS VIOLATED THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS.  IT CHARGES THAT
THE RESPONDENTS CONSPIRED TO DO ACTS PROHIBITED BY THESE AMENDMENTS AND
ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENTS' CONDUCT PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY RESULTED
IN DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $3,000.  IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THEREFORE THAT IT
WAS THE PLEADERS' PURPOSE TO MAKE VIOLATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS THE BASIS OF THIS SUIT.  BEFORE DECIDING THAT THERE IS NO
JURISDICTION, THE DISTRICT COURT MUST LOOK TO THE WAY THE COMPLAINT IS
DRAWN TO SEE IF IT IS DRAWN SO AS TO CLAIM A RIGHT TO RECOVER UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  FOR TO THAT EXTENT "THE
PARTY WHO BRINGS A SUIT IS MASTER TO DECIDE WHAT LAW HE WILL RELY UPON
AND  ...  DOES DETERMINE WHETHER HE WILL BRING A 'SUIT ARISING UNDER'
THE  ...  (CONSTITUTION OR LAWS) OF THE UNITED STATES BY HIS
DECLARATION OR BILL."  THE FAIR V. KOHLER DIE CO., 228 U.S. 22, 25. 
THOUGH THE MERE FAILURE TO SET OUT THE FEDERAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS
AS SPECIFICALLY AS PETITIONERS HAVE DONE WOULD NOT ALWAYS BE CONCLUSIVE
AGAINST THE PARTY BRINGING THE SUIT, WHERE THE COMPLAINT, AS HERE, IS
SO DRAWN AS TO SEEK RECOVERY DIRECTLY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES, THE FEDERAL COURT, BUT FOR TWO POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS
LATER NOTED, MUST ENTERTAIN THE SUIT.  THUS ALLEGATIONS FAR LESS
SPECIFIC THAN THE ONES IN THE COMPLAINT BEFORE US HAVE BEEN HELD
ADEQUATE TO SHOW THAT THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY AROSE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  WILEY V. SINKLER, 179 U.S. 58, 64
65; SWAFFORD V. TEMPLETON, 185 U.S. 487, 491-492.  THE REASON FOR THIS
IS THAT THE COURT MUST ASSUME JURISDICTION TO DECIDE WHETHER THE
ALLEGATIONS STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH THE COURT CAN GRANT RELIEF
AS WELL AS TO DETERMINE ISSUES OF FACT ARISING IN THE CONTROVERSY. 

JURISDICTION, THEREFORE, IS NOT DEFEATED AS RESPONDENTS SEEM TO
CONTEND, BY THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE AVERMENTS MIGHT FAIL TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH PETITIONERS COULD ACTUALLY RECOVER.  FOR IT IS
WELL SETTLED THAT THE FAILURE TO STATE A PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION CALLS
FOR A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS AND NOT FOR A DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.  WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH
RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED IS A QUESTION OF LAW AND JUST AS ISSUES OF FACT
IT MUST BE DECIDED AFTER AND NOT BEFORE THE COURT HAS ASSUMED
JURISDICTION OVER THE CONTROVERSY.  IF THE COURT DOES LATER EXERCISE
ITS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT DO
NOT STATE A GROUND FOR RELIEF, THEN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE WOULD BE ON
THE MERITS, NOT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  SWAFFORD V. TEMPLETON, 185
U.S. 487, 493, 494; BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291, 305-308. 
FN2  THE PREVIOUSLY CARVED OUT EXCEPTIONS ARE THAT A SUIT MAY SOMETIMES
BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION WHERE THE ALLEGED CLAIM UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL STATUTES CLEARLY APPEARS TO BE IMMATERIAL AND
MADE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING JURISDICTION OR WHERE SUCH A
CLAIM IS WHOLLY INSUBSTANTIAL AND FRIVOLOUS.  THE ACCURACY OF CALLING
THESE DISMISSALS JURISDICTIONAL HAS BEEN QUESTIONED.  THE FAIR V.
KOHLER DIE CO., SUPRA, 228 U.S. AT 25.  BUT CF. SWAFFORD V. TEMPLETON,
SUPRA. 

BUT AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION HERE ARE NOT IMMATERIAL BUT FORM RATHER THE SOLE BASIS OF
THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED IS
SO PATENTLY WITHOUT MERIT AS TO JUSTIFY, EVEN UNDER THE QUALIFICATIONS
NOTED, THE COURT'S DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY STATED THAT "THE COMPLAINT STATES STRONG
CASES, AND IF THE ALLEGATIONS HAVE ANY FOUNDATION IN TRUTH, THE
PLAINTIFFS' LEGAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RUTHLESSLY VIOLATED."  PETITIONERS'
COMPLAINT ASSERTS THAT THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS GUARANTEE THEIR
RIGHTS TO BE FREE FROM UNAUTHORIZED AND UNJUSTIFIED IMPRISONMENT AND
FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.  THEY CLAIM THAT RESPONDENTS'
INVASION OF THESE RIGHTS CAUSED THE DAMAGES FOR WHICH THEY SEEK TO
RECOVER AND POINT FURTHER TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1) WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO TRY "SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE" WHERE THE
MATTER IN CONTROVERSY "ARISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES," WHETHER THESE ARE SUITS IN "EQUITY" OR AT "LAW." 
PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THIS STATUTE AUTHORIZES THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN
THIS ACTION AT LAW AND TO GRANT RECOVERY FOR THE DAMAGES ALLEGEDLY
SUSTAINED.  RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS HERE
INVOLVED ARE AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS A GOVERNMENT AND THAT 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(1) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE RECOVERY IN MONEY DAMAGES IN SUITS
AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED OFFICIALS WHO ACCORDING TO RESPONDENTS ARE IN THE
SAME POSITION AS INDIVIDUAL TRESPASSERS. 

RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION DOES NOT SHOW THAT PETITIONERS' CAUSE IS
INSUBSTANTIAL OR FRIVOLOUS, AND THE COMPLAINT DOES IN FACT RAISE
SERIOUS QUESTIONS, BOTH OF LAW AND FACT, WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT CAN
DECIDE ONLY AFTER IT HAS ASSUMED JURISDICTION OVER THE CONTROVERSY. 
THE ISSUE OF LAW IS WHETHER FEDERAL COURTS CAN GRANT MONEY RECOVERY FOR
DAMAGES SAID TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF FEDERAL OFFICERS
VIOLATING THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS.  THAT QUESTION HAS NEVER
BEEN SPECIFICALLY DECIDED BY THIS COURT.  THAT THE ISSUE THUS RAISED
HAS SUFFICIENT MERIT TO WARRANT EXERCISE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR
PURPOSES OF ADJUDICATING IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE CASES WHERE THIS COURT
HAS SUSTAINED THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IN SUITS BROUGHT
TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR DEPRIVING A CITIZEN OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN3  AND IT IS ESTABLISHED PRACTICE FOR
THIS COURT TO SUSTAIN THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS TO ISSUE
INJUNCTIONS TO PROTECT RIGHTS SAFEGUARDED BY THE CONSTITUTION  FN4  AND
TO RESTRAIN INDIVIDUAL STATE OFFICERS FROM DOING WHAT THE 14TH
AMENDMENT FORBIDS THE STATE TO DO.  FN5  MOREOVER, WHERE FEDERALLY
PROTECTED RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INVADED, IT HAS BEEN THE RULE FROM THE
BEGINNING THAT COURTS WILL BE ALERT TO ADJUST THEIR REMEDIES SO AS TO
GRANT THE NECESSARY RELIEF.  FN6  AND IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT
WHERE LEGAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INVADED, AND A FEDERAL STATUTE PROVIDES
FOR A GENERAL RIGHT TO SUE FOR SUCH INVASION, FEDERAL COURTS MAY USE
ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY TO MAKE GOOD THE WRONG DONE.  FN7  WHETHER THE
PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER DEPENDS UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF
28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1) AND ON A DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE FOURTH
AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS' PROTECTION FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
DEPRIVATIONS OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THUS, THE RIGHT OF
THE PETITIONERS TO RECOVER UNDER THEIR COMPLAINT WILL BE SUSTAINED IF
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE GIVEN ONE
CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE DEFEATED IF THEY ARE GIVEN ANOTHER.  FOR THIS
REASON THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION.  GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL
BANK, 299 U.S. 109, 112-113; SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE CO., 255 U.S.
180, 199-200.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COMPLAINT STATED IN PART: 

"THAT ON OR ABOUT THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1942, DEFENDANT R. B.
HOOD AND EACH OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, UNLAWFULLY CONSPIRED WITH EACH
OTHER TO ACT BEYOND THEIR AUTHORITY AS SAID FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AGENTS AND POLICE OFFICER RESPECTIVELY, AND AGREED THAT
THEY WOULD ABRIDGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES TO BE FREE FROM THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, AND AGREED UNLAWFULLY TO SIMULTANEOUSLY, IN THE
EARLY MORNING OF DECEMBER 18TH, 1942, SEARCH THE HOMES OF THE
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS HEREIN WITHOUT ANY WARRANTS OF SEARCH OR SEIZURE,
AND UNLAWFULLY TO SEIZE THE PAPERS, DOCUMENTS AND EFFECTS OF SAID
PLAINTIFFS AND OF 'MANKIND UNITED,' AND FALSELY TO IMPRISON THE
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS BY UNLAWFULLY ARRESTING SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL
PLAINTIFFS WITHOUT A WARRANT OF ARREST AND UNREASONABLY TO DELAY THE
TAKING OF ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS BEFORE A COMMITTING OFFICER,
IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE UNLAWFUL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AFORESAID. 

"THAT THEREAFTER, AND ON THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1942,  ...  THE
DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM, IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY AFORESAID, AND SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT SAID TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DID ARREST AND
IMPRISON THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS HEREIN, AND DID SEARCH THE HOMES OF
SAID PLAINTIFFS, AND SEIZE AND CARRY AWAY BOOKS, PAPERS AND EFFECTS OF
SAID INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS AND OF SAID 'MANKIND UNITED.'" 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"...  BY REASON OF THE DEPRIVATION OF  ...  (THEIR) CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS  ...  (PLAINTIFFS HAD) SUFFERED DAMAGES." 

FN2  FOR OTHER CASES DISCUSSING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN QUESTIONS
GOING TO THE MERITS AND THOSE GOING TO THE JURISDICTION, SEE THE
FOLLOWING:  ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. ADAMS, 180 U.S. 28; GENEVA
FURNITURE CO. V. KARPEN, 238 U.S. 254; AND SEE NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R.
CO. V. TAYLOR, 86 F. 168. 

FN3  WILEY V. SINKLER, SUPRA; SWAFFORD V. TEMPLETON, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO
BRICKHOUSE V. BROOKS, 165 F. 534, 543, IN WHICH A SIMILAR SUIT WAS HELD
TO BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT. 

FN4  PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605; HAYS V. SEATTLE, 251
U.S. 233; PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY, 140 U.S. 1; CITY RAILWAY CO. V.
CITIZENS' RAILROAD CO., 166 U.S. 557; CITY OF MITCHELL V. DAKOTA
TELEPHONE CO., 246 U.S. 396, 407.    FN5  CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V.
CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226; SEE ALSO EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, 346,
347. 

FN6  MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137, 162, 163; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO.
V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 569, 570. 

FN7  SEE E.G. DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 222, AND CASES CITED
AND DISCUSSED AT 228-230; BOARD OF COMM'RS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S.
343, 349-350. 

MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS IN THE OPINION AND THE RESULT.  HE DESIRES TO
ADD TO THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 7, BARRON V. BALTIMORE, 7 PET. 243, AND
BURDEAU V. MCDOWELL, 256 U.S. 465, 475. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENTING. 

THE DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS A FEDERAL COURT UNLESS
THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATES SUCH A
CAUSE OF ACTION IS FOR THE COURT, NOT THE PLEADER, TO SAY.  WHEN THE
PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL STATUTE AFFORDS A REMEDY WHICH
MAY IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES BE AVAILED OF BY A PLAINTIFF, THE FACT THAT
HIS PLEADING DOES NOT BRING HIM WITHIN THAT CLASS AS ONE ENTITLED TO
THE REMEDY, GOES TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADING AND NOT TO THE
JURISDICTION.  THE FAIR V. KOHLER DIE CO., 228 U.S. 22, 25; BINDERUP V.
PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291, 306-308, AND CASES CITED.  BUT WHERE, AS
HERE, NEITHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION NOR ANY ACT OF CONGRESS
AFFORDS A REMEDY TO ANY PERSON, THE MERE ASSERTION BY A PLAINTIFF THAT
HE IS ENTITLED TO SUCH A REMEDY CANNOT BE SAID TO SATISFY
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  HENCE WE THINK THAT THE COURTS BELOW
RIGHTLY DECIDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
BECAUSE NO CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES WAS STATED. 

THE ONLY EFFECT OF HOLDING, AS THE COURT DOES, THAT JURISDICTION IS
CONFERRED BY THE PLEADER'S UNFOUNDED ASSERTION THAT HE IS ONE WHO CAN
HAVE A REMEDY FOR DAMAGES ARISING UNDER THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS
IS TO TRANSFER TO THE FEDERAL COURT THE TRIAL OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF
TRESPASS TO PERSON AND PROPERTY, WHICH IS A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING
WHOLLY UNDER STATE LAW.  FOR EVEN THOUGH IT BE DECIDED THAT PETITIONERS
HAVE NO RIGHT TO DAMAGES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE DISTRICT COURT
WILL BE REQUIRED TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FACTS STATED BY
PETITIONERS GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TRESPASS UNDER STATE
LAW.  SEE HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238. 
..END :






















NORTH AMERICAN CO. V. S.E.C., 327 U.S. 686 


NO. 1.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 1, 1946.  - 133 F.2D
148, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 11(B)(1) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 1935, AUTHORIZING THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
TO REQUIRE EACH PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO LIMIT ITS OPERATIONS TO A SINGLE INTEGRATED PUBLIC UTILITY
SYSTEM, WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 700-707. 

(A)  WHILE THE OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES, CONSIDERED SEPARATELY AND
ABSTACTLY, MAY NOT BE COMMERCE, THE OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES OF
OPERATING COMPANIES HAS A REAL AND INTIMATE RELATION TO THE INTERSTATE
ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES AND CANNOT BE
EFFECTIVELY DIVORCED THEREFROM; SUCH OWNERSHIP IS THE GENERATING FORCE
OF THE CONSTANT INTERSTATE FLOW OF REPORTS, LETTERS, EQUIPMENT,
SECURITIES, ACCOUNTS, INSTRUCTIONS AND MONEY WHICH CONSTITUTE THE LIFE
BLOOD OF HOLDING COMPANIES AND ALLOW ABUSES TO BE EFFECTUATED.  P.
702. 

(B)  CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE RELEVANT CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON
THOSE WHO USE THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN ORDER THAT THOSE
CHANNELS WILL NOT BECOME THE MEANS OF PROMOTING OR SPREADING EVIL,
WHETHER OF A PHYSICAL, MORAL OR ECONOMIC NATURE.  P. 705. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT AN EVIL MAY INVOLVE A CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL
PRACTICES, ITS BUSINESS STRUCTURE OR ITS SECURITY PORTFOLIO DOES NOT
DETRACT FROM THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
PROMULGATE RULES IN ORDER TO DESTROY THAT EVIL - ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED
THAT THE EVIL CONCERNS OR AFFECTS COMMERCE IN MORE STATES THAN ONE.  P.
706. 

(D)  CONGRESS HAVING FOUND THAT ECONOMIC EVILS RESULTING FROM
UNINTEGRATED PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS WERE POLLUTING THE
CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TOOK THE FORM OF TRANSACTIONS
OCCURRING IN AND CONCERNING MORE STATES THAN ONE, IT HAD POWER UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THOSE EVILS BY ORDERING THE
HOLDING COMPANIES TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF THE SECURITIES THAT MADE SUCH
EVILS POSSIBLE.  P. 706. 

2.  AN ORDER OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION REQUIRING A
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY TO DIVEST ITSELF OF ITS SCATTERED
SUBSIDIARIES AND TO CONFINE ITS OPERATIONS TO A SINGLE INTEGRATED
PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM, PURSUANT TO SEC. 11(B)(1) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, DOES NOT TAKE PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 707-710. 

(A)  CONGRESS HAVING DETERMINED THAT THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF A
HOLDING COMPANY AT THE TOP OF AN UNINTEGRATED PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM ARE
NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE RESULTING ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES, THE FACT
THAT VALUABLE INTERESTS MAY BE AFFECTED DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, RENDER
THAT DETERMINATION INVALID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  P. 708. 

(B)  SINCE THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE OR REQUIRE THE DUMPING OR
FORCED LIQUIDATION OF SECURITIES ON THE MARKET FOR CASH, BUT REQUIRES
ANY DIVESTMENT OR REORGANIZATION PLAN TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND TO
BE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED BY BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE ENFORCING COURT
- THUS ENABLING THE ASSERTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL SHAREHOLDERS'
RIGHTS - IT CANNOT BE SAID, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ALLEGED UNFAIR PLAN
OF DIVESTMENT, THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED FROM A
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT BY THE OPERATION OF SEC. 11(B)(1).  P. 709. 

3.  CONGRESS HAVING DECIDED, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER AND DISCRETION, THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO REORGANIZE EXISTING
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS, THIS COURT CANNOT QUESTION THE
APPROPRIATENESS OR PROPRIETY OF ITS DECISION, EVEN THOUGH OTHER
OF THE KINDS THAT WERE FOUND TO GIVE BIRTH TO MANY OF THE EVILS ABOUT
WHICH CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED.  P. 710. 

4.  EVEN THOUGH A PARTICULAR HOLDING COMPANY MAY NOT HAVE ENGAGED IN
ANY OF THE EVILS ENUMERATED IN SEC. 1(B) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 1935, THIS DOES NOT MAKE THE APPLICATION OF SEC.
11(B)(1) TO IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SINCE THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
LEGISLATE GENERALLY IN ORDER TO PREVENT POTENTIAL INJURY TO THE
NATIONAL ECONOMY FROM BECOMING A REALITY IS NOT LIMITED BY PROOF OF THE
EXISTENCE OF EVILS IN EACH PARTICULAR SITUATION.  P. 710. 

5.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE OPINION AND PARTICULARLY
PETITIONER'S EXTENSIVE HOLDINGS OF THE SECURITIES OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES
AND THE PENETRATION OF LOCAL MANAGEMENTS WITH MEN SELECTED BY OR
HISTORICALLY RELATED TO PETITIONER, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN
TREATING PETITIONER NOT AS ENGAGED SOLELY IN THE BUSINESS OF ACQUIRING
AND HOLDING STOCKS AND OTHER SECURITIES OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES FOR
INVESTMENT BUT AS A "HOLDING COMPANY" POSSESSING DOMINATION OVER ITS
SUBSIDIARIES OR THE POWER TO DOMINATE THEM WHEN AND IF NECESSARY, EVEN
THOUGH PETITIONER'S ACTIVE INTERVENTION IN THE AFFAIRS OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES HAS BEEN OF A LIMITED CHARACTER AND OPERATIONAL POLICIES
HAVE BEEN LEFT ENTIRELY TO LOCAL MANAGEMENT.  PP. 692, 693. 

6.  PETITIONER CLEARLY IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SINCE IT IS
THE NUCLEUS OF AN EMPIRE OF CORPORATIONS COVERING 17 STATES AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ITS INFLUENCE AND DOMINATION PERMEATE THE ENTIRE
SYSTEM, THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE
VITAL TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THIS SYSTEM, AND SEVERAL OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES ADMITTEDLY ARE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 694. 

7.  THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO DENY EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 3(A)(1)
TO A PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL HOLDING COMPANY DOES NOT MEAN THAT A HOLDING
COMPANY HAVING NO RELATION WHATEVER TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE
SUBJECTED TO SEC. 11(B)(1) OR TO ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  P.
699. 

NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

AFTER APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 11(B)(1) OF
THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION ENTERED ORDERS LIMITING PETITIONER'S PROPERTIES TO
THOSE WHICH, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION, COMPLIED WITH THE
STANDARDS OF THAT SECTION AND REQUIRING IT TO SEVER RELATIONSHIP WITH
ALL OF ITS OTHER PROPERTIES.  11 S.E.C. 194; 11 S.E.C. 715.  ON
PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  133 F.2D 148.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  318
U.S. 750.  SEE ALSO 320 U.S. 708.  AFFIRMED, P. 711. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CONGRESS ENACTED THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, 49
STAT. 803, IN ORDER TO CORRECT GRAVE ABUSES WHICH IT HAD FOUND IN THE
USE OF THE HOLDING COMPANY DEVICE IN THE NATION'S ELECTRIC AND GAS
UTILITY INDUSTRIES.  THIS COURT IN ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 419, HELD CONSTITUTIONAL THE
VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION OF HOLDING
COMPANIES AS THEREIN DEFINED.  IN THIS CASE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO
DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 11(B)(1) OF THE ACT,
AUTHORIZING THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION TO ACT TO BRING
ABOUT THE GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF HOLDING COMPANY
SYSTEMS.  SPECIFICALLY, WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER THIS REQUIREMENT FALLS
WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES AND WHETHER IT VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY, THE PETITIONER, IS A HOLDING COMPANY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, SEC. 2(A)(7), AND IS REGISTERED AS SUCH
WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.  FN1  THE COMMISSION
INSTITUTED APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST NORTH
AMERICAN UNDER SEC. 11(B)(1), THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH APPLY TO
REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANIES.  AS A RESULT, THE COMMISSION ENTERED
ORDERS LIMITING NORTH AMERICAN'S PROPERTIES TO THOSE WHICH, IN THE
COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT, COMPLIED WITH THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(1) AND
COMPELLING IT TO SEVER RELATIONSHIPS WITH ALL ITS OTHER PROPERTIES. 
FN2  THE COURT BELOW, AFTER AFFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ON A
STATUTORY LEVEL, REJECTED NORTH AMERICAN'S CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS. 
133 F.2D 148.  ONLY THESE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ARE NOW BEFORE US. 

AS WAS THE SITUATION IN THE ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. CASE, NORTH
AMERICAN IS CLEARLY ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES WHICH BRING IT WITHIN THE
AMBIT OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.  NORTH AMERICAN IS A TYPICAL UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY.  IT IS THE PINNACLE OF A GREAT PYRAMID OF
CORPORATIONS, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH OPERATE ELECTRIC AND GAS UTILITY
PROPERTIES.  THESE PROPERTIES ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES, MANY OF THEM SERVING LARGE CITIES AND CONTIGUOUS TERRITORIES. 
FN3 ELECTRIC ENERGY IS TRANSMITTED ACROSS STATE LINES BY NUMEROUS
COMPANIES IN THE PYRAMID OR SYSTEM.  FN4  AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1940,
THERE WERE SOME EIGHTY CORPORATIONS IN THE SYSTEM, WITH AN AGGREGATE
CAPITALIZED VALUE IN EXCESS OF $2,300,000,000.  ORGANIZED IN NEW JERSEY
IN 1890 AND MAINTAINING BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS IN NEW YORK CITY, NORTH
AMERICAN MAINTAINS DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTERESTS IN THESE CORPORATIONS
THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF STOCK OWNERSHIP.  IT IS THAT MEDIUM THAT BINDS
THE SYSTEM TOGETHER. 

NORTH AMERICAN OWNS STOCK DIRECTLY IN TEN OF THE CORPORATIONS,
HOLDING 79% OR MORE OF THE COMMON STOCK OF EIGHT OF THEM AND 17.71% AND
19.2%, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE VOTING SECURITIES OF THE OTHER TWO.  THREE
OF THESE DIRECT SUBSIDIARIES ARE REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANIES:  (1)
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY OF MISSOURI, OPERATING IN AND AROUND ST. LOUIS,
MO., AND WITH SUBSIDIARIES OPERATING IN ILLINOIS AND IOWA AS WELL; (2)
WASHINGTON RAILWAY AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, WITH SUBSIDIARIES OPERATING IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ADJACENT TERRITORY IN VIRGINIA AND
MARYLAND; AND (3) NORTH AMERICAN LIGHT & POWER COMPANY, OPERATING
EXTENSIVE SYSTEMS IN KANSAS, MISSOURI, ILLINOIS AND IOWA IN ADDITION TO
BEING THE PARENT OF SEVERAL REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANIES. 

FOUR OF THE DIRECT SUBSIDIARIES OF NORTH AMERICAN ARE OPERATING
COMPANIES:  (1) CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, SERVING
CLEVELAND, OHIO, AND SURROUNDING TERRITORY; (2) PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY, SERVING LARGE AREAS IN CALIFORNIA; (3) THE DETROIT EDISON
COMPANY, SERVING DETROIT AND VICINITY; AND (4) WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY, A HOLDING COMPANY WITH SUBSIDIARIES OPERATING AN INTEGRATED
ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEM IN WISCONSIN AND MICHIGAN. 

THE OTHER THREE DIRECT SUBSIDIARIES ARE (1) NORTH AMERICAN UTILITIES
SECURITIES CORPORATION, AN INVESTMENT TRUST; (2) WEST KENTUCKY COAL
COMPANY, WHICH OWNS AND OPERATES A COAL MINE IN KENTUCKY AND SELLS COAL
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND (3) 60 BROADWAY BUILDING CORPORATION, WHICH
OWNS THE OFFICE BUILDING IN NEW YORK CITY WHERE PETITIONER HAS ITS
OFFICES. 

THE VARIOUS COMPANIES IN THE NORTH AMERICAN SYSTEM PERFORM A VARIETY
OF FUNCTIONS FROM ELECTRIC AND GAS SERVICE TO RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION,
WAREHOUSING AND AMUSEMENT PARK OPERATIONS.  ALL TOLD, THEY CONDUCT
BUSINESS IN SEVENTEEN STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  ELECTRIC
SERVICE ALONE IS PROVIDED FOR MORE THAN 3,000,000 CUSTOMERS IN AN AREA
OF ROUGHLY 165,000 SQUARE MILES. 

NORTH AMERICAN CLAIMS THAT ITS SOLE AND CONTINUOUS BUSINESS HAS BEEN
THAT OF ACQUIRING AND HOLDING FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES STOCKS AND OTHER
SECURITIES OF THE SUBSIDIARIES, ITS RELATIONSHIP BEING ESSENTIALLY THAT
OF "A LARGE INVESTOR SEEKING TO PROMOTE THE SOUND DEVELOPMENT OF HIS
INVESTMENT."  ACTIVE INTERVENTION ON NORTH AMERICAN'S PART IN THE
ACTIVITIES OF THESE COMPANIES, IT IS TRUE, HAS BEEN OF A LIMITED
CHARACTER.  OPERATIONS AND OPERATIONAL POLICIES, THE COMMISSION FOUND,
HAVE BEEN LEFT ENTIRELY TO THE LOCAL MANAGEMENTS.  NOR HAS NORTH
AMERICAN SOLD THESE SUBSIDIARIES ANY SUPPLIES OR ENGINEERING SERVICE. 
THIS LACK OF ACTIVE INTERVENTION, HOWEVER, IS INDECISIVE.  IT APPEARS
TO HAVE RESULTED IN LARGE PART FROM NORTH AMERICAN'S SATISFACTION WITH
THE LOCAL MANAGEMENTS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES AND FROM THE FACT THAT THE
LOCAL MANAGEMENTS HAVE OFTEN INCLUDED MEN SELECTED BY OR HISTORICALLY
RELATED TO NORTH AMERICAN.  SEE DETROIT EDISON CO. V. SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 119 F.2D 730, 734-735; PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 127 F.2D 378, 383-384.  THE
COMMISSION WAS THUS WARRANTED IN CONSIDERING THE HARMONIZATION OF LOCAL
POLICIES WITH THOSE OF NORTH AMERICAN AS A FACT, THE ABSENCE OF
CONFLICTS MAKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY NORTH AMERICAN UNNECESSARY.  BUT
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT NORTH AMERICAN'S DOMINATION OF ITS SYSTEM WAS
ANY LESS REAL OR EFFECTIVE.  HISTORICAL TIES AND ASSOCIATIONS, COMBINED
WITH STRATEGIC HOLDINGS OF STOCK, CAN ON OCCASION SERVE AS A POTENT
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MORE OBVIOUS MODES OF CONTROL.  SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO. V. BOGERT, 250 U.S. 483, 491-492; NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302
U.S. 300, 307-308.  DOMINATION MAY SPRING AS READILY FROM SUBTLE OR
UNEXERCISED POWER AS FROM ARBITRARY IMPOSITION OF COMMAND.  TO CONCLUDE
OTHERWISE IS TO IGNORE THE REALITIES OF INTERCORPORATE RELATIONSHIPS. 
ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 145-146.  IN
LIGHT OF THE EXTENSIVENESS OF NORTH AMERICAN'S HOLDINGS OF THE
SECURITIES OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND THE PENETRATION OF LOCAL MANAGEMENTS
WITH MEN OF NORTH AMERICAN BACKGROUND, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN
TREATING NORTH AMERICAN AS POSSESSING DOMINATION OVER ITS SUBSIDIARIES
OR THE POWER TO DOMINATE THEM WHEN AND IF NECESSARY.  FN5 

BUT NORTH AMERICAN IN SOME RESPECTS HAS ACTUALLY INTERVENED IN THE
ACTIVITIES OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  IT HAS AFFIRMATIVELY PARTICIPATED IN
AND DOMINATED THEIR FINANCING OPERATIONS.  FN6 SO COMPLETELY HAS IT
TAKEN OVER THE PLANNING AND HANDLING OF THE VARIOUS FLOTATIONS OF
SECURITIES THAT NORTH AMERICAN URGED BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THOUGH IN
VAIN, THAT THE SUBSIDIARIES WERE INCOMPETENT TO HANDLE SUCH MATTERS AND
THAT IT WOULD BE HIGHLY UNECONOMICAL FOR THEM TO ATTEMPT TO DO SO.  AS
THE COMMISSION NOTED, THE ABILITY TO DOMINATE THIS FINANCING AND TO
CONTROL THE FLOW, THROUGH UNDERWRITING CHANNELS, OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
OF SECURITIES HAS BEEN OF GREAT VALUE AND BENEFIT TO NORTH AMERICAN, IN
ADDITION TO BEING OF AID TO THE SUBSIDIARIES.  NORTH AMERICAN HAS ALSO
PROVIDED THE SUBSIDIARIES WITH ADVISORY AND CONSULTATIVE FACILITIES IN
RELATION TO MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS; AND INTERCOMPANY COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN
CREATED TO SERVE AS CLEARING HOUSES FOR TECHNICAL AND ACCOUNTING
INFORMATION. 

THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF NORTH AMERICAN AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES IS
READILY APPARENT FROM THE COMMISSION'S SURVEY OF THEIR ACTIVITIES. 
NORTH AMERICAN IS MORE THAN A MERE INVESTOR IN ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  SEE
NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197, 353-354.  IT IS
THE NUCLEUS OF A FAR-FLUNG EMPIRE OF CORPORATIONS EXTENDING FROM NEW
YORK TO CALIFORNIA AND COVERING SEVENTEEN STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  ITS INFLUENCE AND DOMINATION PERMEATE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AND
FREQUENTLY EVIDENCE THEMSELVES IN AFFIRMATIVE WAYS.  THE MAILS AND THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE VITAL TO THE FUNCTIONING
OF THIS SYSTEM.  THEY HAVE MORE THAN A CASUAL OR INCIDENTAL
RELATIONSHIP.  CF. WARE & LELAND V. MOBILE COUNTY, 209 U.S. 405;
BLUMENSTOCK BROS. V. CURTIS PUB. CO., 252 U.S. 436; FEDERAL BASEBALL
CLUB V. NATIONAL LEAGUE, 259 U.S. 200.  WITHOUT THEM, NORTH AMERICAN
WOULD BE UNABLE TO FLOAT THE VARIOUS SECURITY ISSUES OF ITS OWN OR OF
ITS SUBSIDIARIES, THEREBY SELLING SECURITIES TO RESIDENTS OF EVERY
STATE IN THE NATION.  WITHOUT THEM, NORTH AMERICAN WOULD BE UNABLE TO
EXERCISE AND MAINTAIN THE INFLUENCE ARISING FROM ITS LARGE STOCK
HOLDINGS, RECEIVING NOTICES AND REPORTS, SENDING PROXIES TO
STOCKHOLDERS' MEETINGS, COLLECTING DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST, AND
TRANSMITTING WHATEVER INSTRUCTIONS AND ADVICE MAY BE NECESSARY.  NOR
COULD NORTH AMERICAN MAINTAIN ITS OTHER RELATIONSHIPS AND CONTACTS WITH
ITS OWN SUBSIDIARIES WITHOUT THE USE OF THE MAILS AND FACILITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SUCH INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS INVOLVE
THE VERY ESSENCE OF NORTH AMERICAN'S BUSINESS.  SEE INTERNATIONAL
TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217 U.S. 91.  THEY ENABLE IT "TO PROMOTE THE
SOUND DEVELOPMENT" OF ITS INVESTMENTS FROM ITS HEADQUARTERS IN NEW YORK
CITY.  IN SHORT, THEY ARE COMMERCE WHICH CONCERNS MORE STATES THAN
ONE.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 194; SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 46; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 398.  AS
STATED BY THIS COURT IN ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103,
128, "INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION OF A BUSINESS NATURE, WHATEVER THE MEANS
OF SUCH COMMUNICATION, IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE REGULABLE BY CONGRESS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION." 

MOREOVER, NORTH AMERICAN CONCEDES THAT FOUR OF ITS DIRECT UTILITY
SUBSIDIARIES, UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY OF MISSOURI, WASHINGTON RAILWAY
AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, NORTH AMERICAN LIGHT & POWER COMPANY AND
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, TRANSMIT ENERGY ACROSS STATE LINES
AND HENCE ARE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT FURTHER CONCEDES THAT
ITS SUBSIDIARY WEST KENTUCKY COAL COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH CONTENDING THAT THE REMAINING FIVE DIRECT
SUBSIDIARIES ARE NOT SO ENGAGED.  IN VIEW OF NORTH AMERICAN'S VERY
SUBSTANTIAL STOCK INTEREST AND ITS DOMINATION AS TO THE AFFAIRS OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES, AS WELL AS ITS LATENT POWER TO EXERCISE EVEN MORE
AFFIRMATIVE INFLUENCE, IT CANNOT HIDE BEHIND THE FACADE OF A MERE
INVESTOR.  THEIR ACTS ARE ITS ACTS IN THE SENSE THAT WHAT IS INTERSTATE
AS TO THEM IS INTERSTATE AS TO NORTH AMERICAN.  THESE SUBSIDIARIES THUS
ACCENTUATE AND ADD MATERIALLY TO THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF NORTH
AMERICAN.  ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, SUPRA, 440.  THEY MAKE EVEN MORE INESCAPABLE THE CONCLUSION
THAT NORTH AMERICAN BEARS NOT ONLY A "HIGHLY IMPORTANT RELATION TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE NATIONAL ECONOMY," ID., P. 441, BUT IS
ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS THUS SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATE REGULATORY MEASURES ADOPTED BY CONGRESS UNDER ITS COMMERCE
POWER. 

TURNING TO SEC. 11(B)(1)  FN7  AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL IMPACT UPON
NORTH AMERICAN, WE FIND THAT IT DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO APPLY ITS
PROVISIONS TO HOLDING COMPANIES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN
ESSENCE, IT CONFINES THE OPERATIONS OF EACH HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM TO A
SINGLE INTEGRATED PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM WITH PROVISION FOR THE
RETENTION OF ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS ONLY IF THEY ARE RELATIVELY SMALL,
LOCATED CLOSE TO THE SINGLE SYSTEM AND UNABLE TO OPERATE ECONOMICALLY
UNDER SEPARATE MANAGEMENT WITHOUT THE LOSS OF SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIES; IN
ADDITION, OTHER HOLDINGS MAY BE RETAINED ONLY IF THEIR RETENTION IS
RELATED TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE RETAINED UTILITY PROPERTIES. 

THESE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 11(B)(1) APPLY ONLY TO REGISTERED HOLDING
COMPANIES.  A HOLDING COMPANY, BY STATUTORY DEFINITION, IS A COMPANY
THAT CONTROLS OR POSSESSES A CONTROLLING INFLUENCE OVER AN ELECTRIC OR
GAS UTILITY COMPANY.  SEC. 2(A)(7).  A HOLDING OF 10% OR MORE OF THE
OUTSTANDING VOTING SECURITIES OF SUCH A UTILITY COMPANY IS PRESUMED TO
BE SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE SUCH A RELATIONSHIP, BUT THIS PRESUMPTION
MAY BE REBUTTED BY PROOF BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF A LACK OF CONTROL OR
CONTROLLING INFLUENCE.  ACCORDINGLY, A COMPANY THAT IS A MERE INVESTOR
IN UTILITY SECURITIES AND THAT DOES NOT CONTROL OR POSSESS A
CONTROLLING INFLUENCE OVER THE UTILITY COMPANIES NEED NOT COMPLY WITH
SEC. 11(B)(1).    A HOLDING COMPANY AS SO DEFINED MUST REGISTER AND
HENCE MUST OBEY THE COMMANDS OF SEC. 11(B)(1) IF IT USES THE MAILS OR
THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE DIRECTLY OR THROUGH ITS
SUBSIDIARIES IN THE OPERATION OF ITS BUSINESS.  FN8  THUS A HOLDING
COMPANY MAY SELL, TRANSPORT OR DISTRIBUTE GAS OR ELECTRIC ENERGY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEC. 4(A)(1).  IT MAY USE THE MAILS OR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO NEGOTIATE OR PERFORM SERVICE, SALES OR CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS WITH OTHER COMPANIES IN THE SYSTEM.  SEC. 4(A)(2).  IT MAY
USE THE MAILS OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO DISTRIBUTE OR MAKE PUBLIC
OFFERINGS FOR THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF SECURITIES OF ITS OWN OR OF OTHER
SYSTEM COMPANIES.  SEC. 4(A)(3).  IT MAY USE THE MAILS OR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO ACQUIRE SECURITIES OR UTILITY ASSETS OF OTHER COMPANIES. 
SEC. 4(A)(4).  IT MAY ENGAGE IN A BUSINESS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
SEC. 4(A)(5).  OR IT MAY OWN OR CONTROL SECURITIES OF SUBSIDIARIES THAT
DO ANY OF THE FOREGOING ACTS.  SEC. 4(A)(6).  MOREOVER, SEC. 2(A)(28)
DEFINES "INTERSTATE COMMERCE," AS USED IN THESE AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT, TO MEAN "TRADE, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION, OR
COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR BETWEEN ANY STATE AND ANY
PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF." 

BY MAKING THESE ENUMERATED INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS UNLAWFUL UNLESS
THE HOLDING COMPANY REGISTERS WITH THE COMMISSION AND BY EXTENDING SEC.
11(B)(1) TO REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANIES, CONGRESS HAS EFFECTIVELY
APPLIED SEC. 11(B)(1) TO THOSE HOLDING COMPANIES THAT ARE IN FACT IN
THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE ACTIVITY AND THAT AFFECT COMMERCE IN MORE
STATES THAN ONE.  CONGRESS HAS FURTHER DECLARED IN SEC. 1(C) THAT ALL
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THUS INCLUDING SEC. 11(B)(1), SHALL BE
INTERPRETED TO MEET THE PROBLEMS AND REMOVE THE EVILS CONNECTED WITH
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES "WHICH ARE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR IN ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT OR BURDEN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE  ..."  SECTION 11(B)(1) IS THUS CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY
APPLICABLE TO HOLDING COMPANIES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

NOT ALL HOLDING COMPANIES THAT ARE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES,
HOWEVER, MUST NECESSARILY COMPLY WITH SEC. 11(B)(1).  BY THE TERMS OF
SEC. 3(A)(1), IF A HOLDING COMPANY AND ALL OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES ARE
PREDOMINANTLY INTRASTATE IN CHARACTER AND CARRY ON THEIR BUSINESS
SUBSTANTIALLY IN A SINGLE STATE IN WHICH SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AND EVERY
SUBSIDIARY THEREOF ARE ORGANIZED, THE COMMISSION MAY GRANT AN EXEMPTION
FROM ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT "UNLESS AND EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT FINDS
THE EXEMPTION DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF
INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS ..." 

THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THE "UNLESS AND EXCEPT" CLAUSE OF
SEC. 3(A) TO DENY AN EXEMPTION TO A PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL HOLDING COMPANY
DOES NOT MEAN, AS NORTH AMERICAN URGES, THAT A HOLDING COMPANY HAVING
NO RELATION WHATEVER TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE SUBJECTED TO SEC.
11(B)(1) OR TO ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT.  THE COMMISSION, IN
DENYING AN EXEMPTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE, IS BOUND BY THE POLICY SET
FORTH IN SEC. 1(C) TO ACT SO AS TO ELIMINATE EVILS CONNECTED WITH
HOLDING COMPANIES "ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN ACTIVITIES
WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT OR BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ..."  A HOLDING
COMPANY PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL IN CHARACTER MAY NEVERTHELESS ENGAGE IN
ACTIVITIES AFFECTING OR BURDENING INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE DETRIMENT
OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTERESTS OF INVESTORS AND CONSUMERS. 
ONLY IN SUCH A CASE COULD THE COMMISSION PROPERLY DENY AN EXEMPTION
UNDER THE "UNLESS AND EXCEPT" CLAUSE.  FN9 THIS PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS
ACADEMIC SO FAR AS NORTH AMERICAN IS CONCERNED.  LIKE MOST PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES, NORTH AMERICAN IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE DIRECTLY AND THROUGH ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  IT CAN LAY NO CLAIM TO
A PREDOMINANTLY INTRASTATE CHARACTER; AS TO IT, SEC. 3(A)(1) IS WHOLLY
INAPPLICABLE.  THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT ERRONEOUSLY
FAIL TO EXEMPT SOME TRULY LOCAL HOLDING COMPANY FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 11(B)(1) CANNOT NEGATIVE THE PLAIN FACT THAT SEC. 11(B)(1) WAS
DESIGNED TO APPLY AND DOES APPLY TO HOLDING COMPANIES ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NORTH AMERICAN IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO ITS
TERMS. 

THE CRUCIAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, SO FAR AS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS
CONCERNED, RESOLVES ITSELF INTO THE QUERY WHETHER CONGRESS MAY VALIDLY
REQUIRE HOLDING COMPANIES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO DISPOSE OF
THEIR SECURITY HOLDINGS AND TO CONFINE THEIR ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 11(B)(1).  IN URGING THE NEGATIVE ANSWER TO
THIS QUERY, NORTH AMERICAN RELIES UPON THE SETTLED DOCTRINE THAT THE
FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER EXTENDS TO INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES ONLY WHERE
THOSE ACTIVITIES "SO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR THE EXERTION OF THE
POWER OF CONGRESS OVER IT, AS TO MAKE REGULATION OF THEM APPROPRIATE
MEANS TO THE ATTAINMENT OF A LEGITIMATE END, THE EFFECTIVE EXECUTION OF
THE GRANTED POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  UNITED STATES V.
WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315 U.S. 110, 119.  SEE ALSO SANTA CRUZ FRUIT
PACKING CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 466; UNITED STATES V. DARBY,
312 U.S. 100, 118-123; WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111, 122-124.  IT
IS SAID THAT THE OWNERSHIP BY NORTH AMERICAN OF SECURITIES OF OTHER
SYSTEM COMPANIES IS NOT IN ITSELF COMMERCE, INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE,
AND THAT THE RIGHT TO OWN OR RETAIN PROPERTY IS CHARACTERISTICALLY
GOVERNED BY STATE LAWS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVING NO CONCERN WITH
SUCH MATTERS EXCEPT AS AN INCIDENT TO THE DUE EXERCISE OF ONE OF ITS
GRANTED POWERS.  NORTH AMERICAN DENIES THAT THE NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SELF
EVIDENT OR THAT IT HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT BY CONGRESS, THE COMMISSION
OR ANY COURT.  THE ABSENCE OF THIS RELATIONSHIP, IT IS CONCLUDED,
CAUSES SEC. 11(B)(1) TO FALL. 

THIS ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, MISCONCEIVES NOT ONLY THE POWER OF CONGRESS
OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT ALSO THE BASIC NATURE OF PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANIES AND THE EFFECT THAT STOCK OWNERSHIP HAS UPON THEIR
ACTIVITIES.  THE DOMINANT CHARACTERISTIC OF A HOLDING COMPANY IS THE
OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES BY WHICH IT IS POSSIBLE TO CONTROL OR
SUBSTANTIALLY TO INFLUENCE THE POLICIES AND MANAGEMENT OF ONE OR MORE
OPERATING COMPANIES IN A PARTICULAR FIELD OF ENTERPRISE.  FN10  TO BE
SURE, OTHER DEVICES MAY BE UTILIZED TO EFFECTUATE CONTROL, SUCH AS
VOTING TRUSTS, INTERLOCKING DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, THE CONTROL OF
PROXIES, MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS AND THE LIKE.  BUT THE CONCENTRATED
OWNERSHIP OF VOTING SECURITIES IS THE PRIME METHOD OF ACHIEVING
CONTROL, CONSTITUTING A MORE FUNDAMENTAL PART OF HOLDING COMPANIES THAN
OF OTHER TYPES OF BUSINESS.  PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES ARE
THEREBY ABLE TO BUILD THEIR GAS AND ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEMS, OFTEN
GERRYMANDERED IN SUCH WAYS AS TO BEAR NO RELATION TO ECONOMY OF
OPERATION OR TO EFFECTIVE REGULATION.  THE CONTROL ARISING FROM THIS
OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES ALSO ALLOWS SUCH HOLDING COMPANIES TO EXACT
UNREASONABLE FEES, COMMISSIONS AND OTHER CHARGES FROM THEIR
SUBSIDIARIES, TO MAKE UNDUE PROFITS FROM THE HANDLING OF THE ISSUE,
SALE AND EXCHANGE OF SECURITIES FOR THEIR SUBSIDIARIES, TO ISSUE
UNSOUND SECURITIES OF THEIR OWN BASED UPON THE INFLATED VALUE OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES, AND TO AFFECT ADVERSELY THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND THE
RATE AND DIVIDEND POLICIES OF THE SUBSIDIARIES.  SEE SEC. 1(B).  FN11
CONGRESS HAS FOUND THAT ALL OF THESE VARIOUS ABUSES AND EVILS OCCUR AND
ARE SPREAD AND PERPETUATED THROUGH THE MAILS AND THE CHANNELS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AND CONGRESS HAS FURTHER FOUND THAT SUCH
INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES, WHICH GROW OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES OF
OPERATING COMPANIES, HAVE CAUSED PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES TO BE
"AFFECTED WITH A NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST."  SEC. 1(A).  FN12 

THE OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES OF OPERATING COMPANIES, THEN, HAS A REAL
AND INTIMATE RELATION TO THE INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES OF HOLDING COMPANIES
AND CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY DIVORCED THEREFROM.  THAT OWNERSHIP IS THE
GENERATING FORCE OF THE CONSTANT INTERSTATE FLOW OF REPORTS, LETTERS,
EQUIPMENT, SECURITIES, ACCOUNTS, INSTRUCTIONS AND MONEY - ALL OF WHICH
CONSTITUTE THE LIFE BLOOD OF HOLDING COMPANIES AND ALLOW THE NUMEROUS
ABUSES TO BE EFFECTUATED.  IT ALSO MAKES THE INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION OF
GAS AND ELECTRICITY BY THE SUBSIDIARIES, AS WELL AS THEIR OTHER
INTERSTATE ACTIONS, REFLECT UPON AND MAGNIFY THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER
OF THE HOLDING COMPANIES.  WITHOUT THE FACTOR OF STOCK OWNERSHIP THE
VERY FOUNDATION AND FRAMEWORK OF HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS WOULD BE GONE
AND THE AMOUNT OF THEIR INTERSTATE ACTIVITY WOULD BE AT A MINIMUM;
CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF WIDELY SCATTERED UTILITY
PROPERTIES WOULD BE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE. 

WE MAY ASSUME WITHOUT DECIDING THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES,
CONSIDERED SEPARATELY AND ABSTRACTLY, IS NOT COMMERCE.  BUT WHEN IT IS
CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES AND THEIR
SUBSIDIARIES, ITS RELATIONSHIP TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SO CLEAR AND
DEFINITE AS TO MAKE ANY OTHER CONCLUSION UNREASONABLE.  AND CONGRESS
HAS PLAINLY RECOGNIZED THAT RELATIONSHIP IN ITS DECLARATIONS OF POLICY
IN SEC. 1(A), IN ITS ENUMERATION OF ABUSES IN SEC. 1(B) AND IN ITS
DESCRIPTION OF INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES OF HOLDING COMPANIES IN SEC.
4(A).  SUCH STATEMENTS WOULD BE UTTERLY MEANINGLESS IN THE LIGHT OF
REALITY WERE THEY NOT PREMISED UPON THE OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES BY
HOLDING COMPANIES AND THE USE OF THAT OWNERSHIP TO BURDEN AND AFFECT
THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES.  IN SEC. 1(B)(4) CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY FOUND
THAT THE NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST, THE INTEREST OF UTILITY INVESTORS
AND THE INTEREST OF UTILITY CONSUMERS ARE OR MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED
"WHEN THE GROWTH AND EXTENSION OF HOLDING COMPANIES BEARS NO RELATION
TO ECONOMY OF MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OR THE INTEGRATION AND
COORDINATION OF RELATED OPERATING PROPERTIES  ..."  FN13  THE "GROWTH
AND EXTENSION OF HOLDING COMPANIES" OBVIOUSLY REST UPON THEIR SECURITY
HOLDINGS.  CONGRESS EXPRESSED IN SEC. 1(C) ITS DETERMINATION "TO COMPEL
THE SIMPLIFICATION OF PUBLIC-UTILITY HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEMS AND THE
ELIMINATION THEREFROM OF PROPERTIES DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROPER
FUNCTIONING OF SUCH SYSTEMS," THUS ELIMINATING THE EVIL COMPLAINED OF
IN SEC. 1(B)(4) AND AMELIORATING THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE OTHER
SUBSECTIONS OF SEC. 1(B).  IT ACCORDINGLY ADOPTED SEC. 11(B)(1),
WHEREBY HOLDING COMPANIES ARE COMPELLED TO INTEGRATE AND COORDINATE
THEIR SYSTEMS AND TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF SECURITY HOLDINGS OF
GEOGRAPHICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY UNRELATED PROPERTIES.  IN THIS WAY
CONGRESS HOPED TO REJUVENATE LOCAL UTILITY MANAGEMENT AND TO RESTORE
EFFECTIVE STATE REGULATION, BOTH OF WHICH HAD BEEN SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED
BY THE EXISTENCE AND PRACTICES OF NATION-WIDE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS. 
FN14 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 11(B)(1) UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THUS
BECOMES APPARENT.  FOR NEARLY ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, THIS
COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS "THE POWER TO REGULATE; THAT IS, TO PRESCRIBE THE RULE BY
WHICH COMMERCE IS TO BE GOVERNED.  THIS POWER, LIKE ALL OTHERS VESTED
IN CONGRESS, IS COMPLETE IN ITSELF, MAY BE EXERCISED TO ITS UTMOST
EXTENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGES NO LIMITATIONS, OTHER THAN ARE PRESCRIBED IN
THE CONSTITUTION."  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, SUPRA, 196.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY,
OF COURSE, THAT CONGRESS IS AN ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN.  IT IS LIMITED BY
EXPRESS PROVISIONS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH AS SEC. 9
OF ARTICLE I AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  BUT SO FAR AS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
ALONE IS CONCERNED CONGRESS HAS PLENARY POWER, A POWER WHICH "EXTENDS
TO EVERY PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND TO EVERY INSTRUMENTALITY OR
AGENCY BY WHICH IT IS CARRIED ON; AND THE FULL CONTROL BY CONGRESS OF
THE SUBJECTS COMMITTED TO ITS REGULATION IS NOT TO BE DENIED OR
THWARTED BY THE COMMINGLING OF INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE OPERATIONS." 
MINNESOTA RATE CASES, SUPRA, 399. 

THIS BROAD COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT OPERATE SO AS TO RENDER THE
NATION POWERLESS TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST ECONOMIC FORCES THAT CONGRESS
DECREES INIMICAL OR DESTRUCTIVE OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY.  RATHER IT IS
AN AFFIRMATIVE POWER COMMENSURATE WITH THE NATIONAL NEEDS.  IT IS
UNRESTRICTED BY CONTRARY STATE LAWS OR PRIVATE CONTRACTS.  AND IN USING
THIS GREAT POWER, CONGRESS IS NOT BOUND BY TECHNICAL LEGAL
CONCEPTIONS.  COMMERCE ITSELF IS AN INTENSELY PRACTICAL MATTER.  SWIFT
& CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 398.  TO DEAL WITH IT
EFFECTIVELY, CONGRESS MUST BE ABLE TO ACT IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC AND
FINANCIAL REALITIES.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE GIVES IT AUTHORITY SO TO
ACT. 

WE NEED NOT ATTEMPT HERE TO DRAW THE OUTER LIMITS OF THIS PLENARY
POWER.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO REITERATE THE WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT
CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE RELEVANT CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE WHO
USE THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER THAT THOSE CHANNELS
WILL NOT BECOME THE MEANS OF PROMOTING OR SPREADING EVIL, WHETHER OF A
PHYSICAL, MORAL OR ECONOMIC NATURE.  BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S.
432, 436-437.  THIS POWER PERMITS CONGRESS TO ATTACK AN EVIL DIRECTLY
AT ITS SOURCE, PROVIDED THAT THE EVIL BEARS A SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CONGRESS THUS HAS POWER TO MAKE DIRECT ASSAULT
UPON SUCH ECONOMIC EVILS AS THOSE RELATING TO LABOR RELATIONS, LABOR
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1; POLISH ALLIANCE V. LABOR
BOARD, 322 U.S. 643; TO WAGES AND HOURS, UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA;
TO MARKET TRANSACTIONS, STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495; CHICAGO
BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1; AND TO MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES,
NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE FACT THAT AN EVIL
MAY INVOLVE A CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL PRACTICES, ITS BUSINESS STRUCTURE
OR ITS SECURITY PORTFOLIO DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE POWER OF CONGRESS
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO PROMULGATE RULES IN ORDER TO DESTROY THAT
EVIL.  ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE EVIL CONCERNS OR AFFECTS
COMMERCE IN MORE STATES THAN ONE, CONGRESS MAY ACT.  "THE FRAMERS OF
THE CONSTITUTION NEVER INTENDED THAT THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE
NATION SHOULD FIND ITSELF INCAPABLE OF DISPOSING OF A SUBJECT MATTER
SPECIFICALLY COMMITTED TO ITS CHARGE."  IN RE RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545,
562. 

CONGRESS IN SEC. 11(B)(1) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT
WAS CONCERNED WITH THE ECONOMIC EVILS RESULTING FROM UNCOORDINATED AND
UNINTEGRATED PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS.  THESE EVILS WERE
FOUND TO BE POLLUTING THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO TAKE
THE FORM OF TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING IN AND CONCERNING MORE STATES THAN
ONE.  CONGRESS ALSO FOUND THAT THE NATIONAL WELFARE WAS THEREBY HARMED,
AS WELL AS THE INTERESTS OF INVESTORS AND CONSUMERS.  THESE EVILS,
MOREOVER, WERE TRACEABLE IN LARGE PART TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE
SECURITIES OWNED BY THE HOLDING COMPANIES.  CONGRESS THEREFORE HAD
POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THOSE EVILS BY
ORDERING THE HOLDING COMPANIES TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF THE SECURITIES
THAT MADE SUCH EVILS POSSIBLE. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT NORTH AMERICAN'S CONTENTION THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF
SECURITIES IS NOT IN ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND HENCE MAY NOT BE
MADE THE BASIS OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION MISCONCEIVES THE ISSUE IN THIS
CASE.  PRECISELY THE SAME MISCONCEPTION WAS MADE MORE THAN FORTY YEARS
AGO BY THE APPELLANTS IN NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 334-335, AND WAS REJECTED BY THIS COURT.  INASMUCH AS CONGRESS
MAY PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY ANY MEANS THAT ARE
APPROPRIATE AND THAT ARE LAWFUL AND NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
THIS COURT IN THE NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. CASE RECOGNIZED THAT CONGRESS
MAY DEAL WITH AND AFFECT THE OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES IN ORDER TO
PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF COMMERCE.  CONGRESS LIKEWISE HAS THE POWER IN
THIS CASE. 

IN FASHIONING THE REMEDY DECREED BY SEC. 11(B)(1), CONGRESS WAS
FOLLOWING A PATTERN SET MANY YEARS AGO BY DECISIONS APPLYING THE
SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; CONTINENTAL INS. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 156, AND THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE OF THE HEPBURN
ACT, UNITED STATES V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 220 U.S. 257; UNITED STATES
V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 238 U.S. 516.  IN SO AFFECTING THE
CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF HOLDING COMPANIES, IT WAS EXERCISING ITS POWER
"TO FOSTER, PROTECT AND CONTROL THE COMMERCE WITH APPROPRIATE REGARD TO
THE WELFARE OF THOSE WHO ARE IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED, AS WELL AS THE
PUBLIC AT LARGE, AND TO PROMOTE ITS GROWTH AND INSURE ITS SAFETY." 
DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456, 478.  IT IS
CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT SEC. 11(B)(1) IS INVULNERABLE TO ATTACK UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 11(B)(1) IS ALSO QUESTIONED FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  NORTH
AMERICAN ARGUES THAT THIS SECTION, BY COMPELLING IT TO DIVEST ITSELF OF
ITS SCATTERED SUBSIDIARIES AND TO CONFINE ITS OPERATIONS TO A SINGLE
INTEGRATED SYSTEM, INVOLVES A TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION.  IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT SUCH EVILS AS WERE FOUND TO
EXIST IN PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES FIND AN ADEQUATE REMEDY IN
OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT AND THAT SEC. 11(B)(1) IS THEREFORE
INAPPROPRIATE.  NEITHER CONTENTION IS MERITORIOUS.  FN15 

THE TAKING OF PROPERTY IS SAID TO INVOLVE "A VAST DESTRUCTION OF
VALUES."  REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS RESPECT TO THE VALUABLE RIGHT OF
NORTH AMERICAN'S SHAREHOLDERS TO POOL THEIR INVESTMENTS AND THEREBY
OBTAIN THE BENEFIT ALLEGED TO FLOW FROM EFFICIENT, COMMON MANAGEMENT OF
DIVERSIFIED INTERESTS.  BUT CONGRESS BALANCED THE VARIOUS
CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUDED THAT THIS RIGHT IS CLEARLY OUTWEIGHED BY
THE ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO THE PUBLIC, THE INVESTORS AND THE
CONSUMERS RESULTING FROM THE USE MADE OF POOLED INVESTMENTS.  UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHATEVER VALUE THIS RIGHT MAY HAVE DOES NOT
FORECLOSE THE PROTECTION OF THE VARIOUS INTERESTS WHICH CONGRESS FOUND
TO BE PARAMOUNT.  SEE NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
NOR DOES THE VALUE OF NORTH AMERICAN'S CONTRIBUTIONS AS A HOLDING
COMPANY TO THE EARNING POWER AND INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE ASSETS DIVESTED
PURSUANT TO SEC. 11(B)(1) BAR CONGRESS FROM REQUIRING SUCH DIVESTMENT. 
CONGRESS HAS CONCLUDED FROM THE EXTENSIVE STUDIES MADE PRIOR TO THE
PASSAGE OF THE ACT THAT THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF A HOLDING COMPANY AT
THE TOP OF AN UNINTEGRATED, SPRAWLING SYSTEM ARE NOT COMMENSURATE WITH
THE RESULTING ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES.  THE REASONABLENESS OF THAT
CONCLUSION IS ONE FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE.  THE FACT THAT VALUABLE
INTERESTS MAY BE AFFECTED DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, RENDER INVALID UNDER THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE THE DETERMINATION MADE BY CONGRESS. 

MOREOVER, THERE IS NO BASIS HERE FOR ASSUMING THAT IN LIMITING THE
SCOPE OF NORTH AMERICAN'S OPERATIONS THERE WILL BE DISPOSITIONS OF
SECURITIES FOR INADEQUATE CONSIDERATIONS, THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION AS
TO WHETHER THERE IS A DESTRUCTION OF THESE VALUES WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION.  THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE OR REQUIRE THE DUMPING OR
FORCED LIQUIDATION OF SECURITIES ON THE MARKET FOR CASH.  FN16  UNDER
SECS. 11(D) AND 11(E) OF THE ACT, ANY DIVESTMENT OR REORGANIZATION PLAN
MUST MEET THE STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS AND EQUITABLENESS.  IN MANY
INSTANCES THIS MAY INVOLVE NO MORE THAN A DISTRIBUTION OF THE
SECURITIES AMONG THE EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY. 
FN17  BUT SHOULD SECURITIES BE SOLD FOR CASH, SPECULATION AS TO
UNFAVORABLE MARKET CONDITIONS CANNOT UNDERMINE THE VALIDITY OF SEC.
11(B)(1).  ANY PLAN OF DIVESTMENT OR REORGANIZATION, MOREOVER, MUST BE
CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED BY BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE ENFORCING COURT,
THUS ENABLING THE ASSERTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL SHAREHOLDERS'
RIGHTS.  SEE OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 323 U.S.
624.  AND THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE ACT GUARDING AGAINST UNDULY RAPID
DIVESTMENT OR LIQUIDATION.  FN18  IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH STATUTORY AND
JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ALLEGED UNFAIR PLAN OF
DIVESTMENT, WE CANNOT SAY THAT NORTH AMERICAN'S SHAREHOLDERS ARE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED, FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT, BY THE OPERATION
OF SEC. 11(B)(1).  NORTH AMERICAN'S RELIANCE ON SUCH CASES AS
LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, IS THEREFORE
MISPLACED. 

IT IS TRUE, AS NORTH AMERICAN POINTS OUT, THAT OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
ACT PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF MANY ACTIVITIES OF HOLDING COMPANIES
AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES, ACTIVITIES THAT WERE FOUND TO GIVE BIRTH TO
MANY OF THE EVILS ABOUT WHICH CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED.  BUT SUCH
CONCERNED WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURES OF HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS. 
THESE STRUCTURES IN AND OF THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN FOUND BY CONGRESS TO
CONSTITUTE AN EVIL THAT CANNOT BE MET BY SIMPLY REGULATING FUTURE
TRANSACTIONS.  CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, HAS DECIDED
THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO REORGANIZE THE HOLDING COMPANY STRUCTURES.  AND
INASMUCH AS IT HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DO SO, WE CANNOT
QUESTION THE APPROPRIATENESS OR PROPRIETY OF ITS DECISION.  SUNSHINE
ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 394. 

FINALLY, NORTH AMERICAN CLAIMS THAT IT HAS ENGAGED IN NONE OF THE
EVILS ENUMERATED IN SEC. 1(B) AND THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PROVE
THAT FACT.  THE CONTENTION APPARENTLY IS THAT SEC. 11(B)(1), AS APPLIED
TO NORTH AMERICAN, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE NONE OF THE EVILS THAT LED
CONGRESS TO ENACT THE STATUTE IS PRESENT IN THIS INSTANCE.  BUT IF
EVILS DISCLOSED THEMSELVES WHICH ENTITLED CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE AS IT
DID, CONGRESS HAD POWER TO LEGISLATE GENERALLY, UNLIMITED BY PROOF OF
THE EXISTENCE OF THE EVILS IN EACH PARTICULAR SITUATION.  SECTION
11(B)(1) IS NOT DESIGNED TO PUNISH PAST OFFENDERS BUT TO REMOVE WHAT
CONGRESS CONSIDERED TO BE POTENTIAL IF NOT ACTUAL SOURCES OF EVIL.  AND
NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS CONGRESS FROM ACTING IN TIME TO
PREVENT POTENTIAL INJURY TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY FROM BECOMING A
REALITY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

FN1  NORTH AMERICAN REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 25,
1937, RESERVING ITS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC.
11(B)(1) AND OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ACT.  SEE LANDIS V. NORTH AMERICAN
CO., 299 U.S. 248, 251-252; ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V. SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 419, 435. 

FN2  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASES NOS. 3405 AND 3629.  (SEE 11 S.E.C.
194; 11 S.E.C. 715.) 

FN3  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REPORT TO THE SENATE, "UTILITY
CORPORATIONS," SEN. DOC. 92, PART 72-A, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 107
110, 706-716. 

FN4  IN 1929 AND 1930, COMPANIES IN THE NORTH AMERICAN SYSTEM
TRANSMITTED 9.3% AND 7.7%, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY TRANSMITTED ACROSS STATE BOUNDARIES IN THE UNITED
STATES.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 3, P. 43, TABLE
13. 

FN5  AS TO ONLY TWO OF THE SUBSIDIARIES, THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
AND THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, HAS A CLAIM BEEN RAISED THAT
THEY WERE NOT CONTROLLED BY OR SUBJECT TO A CONTROLLING INFLUENCE OF
NORTH AMERICAN.  THE COMMISSION REJECTED BOTH CLAIMS AFTER HEARINGS AND
ITS DETERMINATIONS WERE SUSTAINED UPON APPEAL.  DETROIT EDISON CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 119 F.2D 730, CERT. DENIED, 314 U.S.
618; PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
127 F.2D 378, AFFIRMED ON REHEARING BY EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 139 F.2D
298, AFFIRMED BY EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 324 U.S. 826. 

FN6  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 3, P. 347. 

FN7  "SEC.  11.  (A)  ... 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE
AFTER JANUARY 1, 1938: 

"(1)  TO REQUIRE BY ORDER, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING,
THAT EACH REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY, AND EACH SUBSIDIARY COMPANY
THEREOF, SHALL TAKE SUCH ACTION AS THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND NECESSARY
TO LIMIT THE OPERATIONS OF THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM OF WHICH SUCH
COMPANY IS A PART TO A SINGLE INTEGRATED PUBLIC-UTILITY SYSTEM, AND TO
SUCH OTHER BUSINESSES AS ARE REASONABLY INCIDENTAL, OR ECONOMICALLY
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO THE OPERATIONS OF SUCH INTEGRATED PUBLIC
UTILITY SYSTEM:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL PERMIT A
REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY TO CONTINUE TO CONTROL ONE OR MORE
ADDITIONAL INTEGRATED PUBLIC-UTILITY SYSTEMS, IF, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, IT FINDS THAT - 

"(A)  EACH OF SUCH ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS CANNOT BE OPERATED AS AN
INDEPENDENT SYSTEM WITHOUT THE LOSS OF SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIES WHICH CAN
BE SECURED BY THE RETENTION OF CONTROL BY SUCH HOLDING COMPANY OF SUCH
SYSTEM; 

"(B)  ALL OF SUCH ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS ARE LOCATED IN ONE STATE, OR IN
ADJOINING STATES, OR IN A CONTIGUOUS FOREIGN COUNTRY; AND 

"(C)  THE CONTINUED COMBINATION OF SUCH SYSTEMS UNDER THE CONTROL OF
SUCH HOLDING COMPANY IS NOT SO LARGE (CONSIDERING THE STATE OF THE ART
AND THE AREA OR REGION AFFECTED) AS TO IMPAIR THE ADVANTAGES OF
LOCALIZED MANAGEMENT, EFFICIENT OPERATION, OR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
REGULATION. 

THE COMMISSION MAY PERMIT AS REASONABLY INCIDENTAL, OR ECONOMICALLY
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO THE OPERATIONS OF ONE OR MORE INTEGRATED
PUBLIC-UTILITY SYSTEMS THE RETENTION OF AN INTEREST IN ANY BUSINESS
(OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS OF A PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANY AS SUCH) WHICH THE
COMMISSION SHALL FIND NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
OR FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO
THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF SUCH SYSTEM OR SYSTEMS." 

FN8  SECTION 4(B) COMPELS HOLDING COMPANIES TO REGISTER IF THEY HAVE
OUTSTANDING ANY SECURITY WHICH HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED BY THE USE OF THE
MAILS OR COMMERCE, OR OFFERED FOR SALE BY LIKE MEANS, SUBSEQUENT TO
JANUARY 1, 1925, AND IF THAT SECURITY IS HELD ON OCTOBER 1, 1935, BY
ANY PERSON NOT A RESIDENT OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE HOLDING COMPANY IS
ORGANIZED.  WE NEED NOT HERE CONSIDER THE FORCE OF THIS SECTION,
HOWEVER, SINCE NORTH AMERICAN AND OTHER INTERSTATE HOLDING COMPANIES
ARE FORCED TO REGISTER BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4(A). 

FN9  THE COMMISSION HAS RECOGNIZED THE FACT THAT THE DECLARATION OF
POLICY IN SEC. 1(C) MUST BE CONSIDERED IN GRANTING OR DENYING
EXEMPTIONS UNDER SEC. 3(A) TO PREDOMINANTLY INTRASTATE HOLDING
COMPANIES.  SEE IN RE NIAGARA HUDSON POWER CORPORATION, HOLDING COMPANY
ACT RELEASE NO. 5115; IN RE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, HOLDING
COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 5746. 

FN10  BONBRIGHT AND MEANS, THE HOLDING COMPANY (1932), P. 10; JONES
AND BIGHAM, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES (1931), P. 589; HEARINGS
BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., ON H.R. 5423, PART 1, PP. 76-77. 

FN11  THE CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AS TO ABUSES LISTED IN SEC. 1(B)
WERE BASED UPON SOME OF THE MOST EXHAUSTIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE STUDIES
EVER TO UNDERLIE A FEDERAL STATUTE.  CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY REFERRED IN
SEC. 1(B) TO THE STUDIES MADE BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PURSUANT
TO S. RES. 83, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., THE REPORTS OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE MADE PURSUANT TO H. RES.
59, 72ND CONG., 1ST SESS., AND H.J. RES. 572, 72ND CONG., 2D SESS.  A
SUMMARY OF THE MANIFOLD AND COMPLEX ABUSES REVEALED BY THESE STUDIES IS
CONTAINED IN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 3.  SEE
BARNES, THE ECONOMICS OF PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION (1942), P. 71. 
FN12  THE FACT THAT SEC. 1(A) REFERS TO CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF HOLDING
COMPANIES AS "OFTEN" OCCURRING IN OR AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THAT SEC. 1(B) REFERS TO ADVERSE EFFECTS "WHEN" CERTAIN ABUSES AND
EVILS OCCUR IS BUT AN INSTANCE OF CAREFUL DRAFTSMANSHIP.  CONTRARY TO
NORTH AMERICAN'S CONTENTIONS, THE USE OF THE WORDS "OFTEN" AND "WHEN"
DOES NOT IMPLY THAT CONGRESS FELT THAT THE RELATIONSHIPS OF SOME
HOLDING COMPANIES TO COMMERCE WERE NEGLIGIBLE OR THAT THE ABUSES WERE
OTHER THAN GENERAL IN NATURE.  THOSE WORDS MERELY RECOGNIZE THAT
INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT NECESSARILY CONSTANT AND THAT THE ABUSES
MAY ARISE FROM TIME TO TIME.  THAT IS ENOUGH, HOWEVER, TO SUPPORT
LEGISLATIVE ACTION.  SEE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1,
40. 

FN13  "THE GROWTH OF THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEMS HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN
PRIMARILY DICTATED BY PROMOTERS' DREAMS OF FAR-FLUNG POWER AND BANKERS'
SCHEMES FOR SECURITY PROFITS, AND HAS OFTEN BEEN ATTAINED WITH THE
GREAT WASTE AND DISREGARD OF PUBLIC BENEFIT WHICH MIGHT BE EXPECTED
FROM SUCH MOTIVES.  WHOLE STRINGS OF COMPANIES WITH NO PARTICULAR
RELATION TO, AND OFTEN ESSENTIALLY UNCONNECTED WITH, UNITS IN AN
EXISTING SYSTEM HAVE BEEN ABSORBED FROM TIME TO TIME.  THE PRICES PAID
FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS NOT ONLY HAVE BEEN BASED UPON INFLATED VALUES BUT
FREQUENTLY HAVE BEEN RUN UP OUT OF REASON BY THE RIVALRY OF CONTENDING
SYSTEMS.  BECAUSE THIS GROWTH HAS BEEN ACTUATED PRIMARILY BY A DESIRE
FOR SIZE AND THE POWER INHERENT IN SIZE, THE CONTROLLING GROUPS HAVE IN
MANY INSTANCES DONE NO MORE THAN PAY LIP SERVICE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF
BUILDING UP A SYSTEM AS AN INTEGRATED AND ECONOMIC WHOLE, WHICH MIGHT
BRING ACTUAL BENEFITS TO ITS COMPONENT PARTS FROM RELATED OPERATIONS
AND UNIFIED MANAGEMENT.  INSTEAD, THEY HAVE TOO FREQUENTLY GIVEN US
MASSIVE, OVERCAPITALIZED ORGANIZATIONS OF EVER INCREASING COMPLEXITY
AND STEADILY DIMINISHING COORDINATION AND EFFICIENCY."  REPORT OF THE
NATIONAL POWER POLICY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC-UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES, H.
DOC. 137, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5. 

FN14  "AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11 IS
SIMPLY TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM TO CREATE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
EFFECTIVE FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATION WILL BE POSSIBLE.  IT IS
THEREFORE THE VERY HEART OF THE TITLE, THE SECTION MOST ESSENTIAL TO
THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN THE PRESIDENT'S
MESSAGE."  S. REP. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11. 

FN15  THE CONTENTION ALSO IS MADE THAT THE FACT THAT SEC. 11(B)(1)
REQUIRES DISPOSITION OF SECURITY HOLDINGS AND THE TERMINATION OF
RELATIONSHIPS WHICH ANTEDATE THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT IS FATAL TO ITS
VALIDITY.  BUT IT MERELY REQUIRES THAT SUCH HOLDINGS AND RELATIONSHIPS
SHALL NOT CONTINUE IN THE FUTURE.  THERE IS NO PUNISHMENT FOR PAST
EVENTS.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE
STATUS QUO BE MAINTAINED.  SEE UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT
ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 342. 

FN16  "AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED ABOVE, THE TITLE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
DUMPING OR FORCED LIQUIDATION OF SECURITIES.  SUCH DISPOSITION AS MAY
BE NECESSARY CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY REORGANIZATION WHICH WILL EQUITABLY
REDISTRIBUTE SECURITIES AMONG EXISTING SECURITY HOLDERS.  INSOFAR AS
THERE MAY BE SOME REDISTRIBUTION OF THE SECURITIES OF OPERATING
COMPANIES THROUGH INVESTMENT BANKING CHANNELS, THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN
A SUBSTANTIAL NET INCREASE IN THE SUPPLY OF UTILITY SECURITIES ON THE
MARKET BECAUSE FOR EVERY BLOCK OF OPERATING SECURITIES DISTRIBUTED
THERE WILL BE A CORRESPONDING BLOCK OF HOLDING-COMPANY SECURITIES
RETIRED.  THE NET EFFECT OF SUCH CHANGES WILL BE TO STRENGTHEN THE
MARKET FOR UTILITY SECURITIES GENERALLY BY REPLACING HOLDING-COMPANY
SECURITIES WITH SOUND OPERATING-COMPANY SECURITIES.  SUCH OPERATIONS,
PRIMARILY OF A REFUNDING NATURE, SHOULD STRENGTHEN RATHER THAN WEAKEN
THE CREDIT OF OPERATING COMPANIES."  S. REP. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 16. 

FN17  NORTH AMERICAN HAS ALREADY DISPOSED OF ITS HOLDINGS OF DETROIT
EDISON COMPANY COMMON STOCK UNDER A PLAN DISTRIBUTING THE STOCK TO
NORTH AMERICAN'S STOCKHOLDERS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.  IN RE THE NORTH
AMERICAN COMPANY, HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 4056. 

FN18  UNDER SEC. 11(C), HOLDING COMPANIES ARE GIVEN AT LEAST A YEAR
TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 11(B).  THE
COMMISSION IS ALSO AUTHORIZED TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR
UPON A PROPER SHOWING. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 711 


NO. 123.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 1, 1946.  - 148
F.2D 960, REVERSED. 


1.  THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT PENALIZES, WHEN COMMITTED WITHIN A
FEDERAL ENCLAVE, ANY ACT "WHICH IS NOT MADE PENAL BY ANY LAWS OF
CONGRESS," BUT WHICH IS AN OFFENSE UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH
SUCH ENCLAVE IS LOCATED.  THE ARIZONA "STATUTORY RAPE" LAW FIXES 18 AS
THE AGE OF CONSENT.  SECTION 279 OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE, DEFINING
THE CRIME OF CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, FIXES 16 AS THE AGE OF CONSENT.  HELD
THAT THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT DID NOT MAKE THE ARIZONA LAW
APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF A MARRIED WHITE MAN WHO, WITHIN THE COLORADO
RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION IN ARIZONA, HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH AN
UNMARRIED INDIAN GIRL THEN OVER 16 BUT UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.  P. 716. 

2.  SO HELD BECAUSE (1) THE VERY ACTS UPON WHICH CONVICTION WOULD
DEPEND HAVE BEEN MADE PENAL BY THE LAWS OF CONGRESS DEFINING ADULTERY,
AND (2) THE OFFENSE KNOWN TO ARIZONA AS "STATUTORY RAPE" HAS BEEN
DEFINED AND PROHIBITED BY SEC. 279 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, WHICH SECTION
IS NOT TO BE REDEFINED AND ENLARGED BY APPLICATION TO IT OF THE
ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT.  P. 717. 

WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF AN ALLEGED
OFFENSE COMMITTED WITHIN THE COLORADO RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION IN
ARIZONA.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION.  148 F.2D 960.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S.
701.  REVERSED, P. 725. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE TURNS UPON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES
ACT, SEC. 289 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 54 STAT. 234, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 468,
WHICH READS: 

"WHOEVER, WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF ANY STATE, ORGANIZED
TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT, BUT WITHIN OR UPON ANY OF THE PLACES NOW
EXISTING OR HEREAFTER RESERVED OR ACQUIRED, DESCRIBED IN SECTION 272 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE (U.S.C., TITLE 18, SEC. 451),  FN1  SHALL DO OR OMIT
THE DOING OF ANY ACT OR THING WHICH IS NOT MADE PENAL BY ANY LAWS OF
CONGRESS, BUT WHICH IF COMMITTED OR OMITTED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THE STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PLACE IS SITUATED, BY
THE LAWS THEREOF IN FORCE ON FEBRUARY 1, 1940, AND REMAINING IN FORCE
AT THE TIME OF THE DOING OR OMITTING THE DOING OF SUCH ACT OR THING,
WOULD BE PENAL, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A LIKE OFFENSE AND BE SUBJECT
TO A LIKE PUNISHMENT." 

THE PETITIONER, A MARRIED WHITE MAN, WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, OF HAVING HAD
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN 1943, WITHIN THE COLORADO RIVER INDIAN
RESERVATION IN ARIZONA, WITH AN UNMARRIED INDIAN GIRL WHO WAS THEN OVER
16, BUT UNDER 18, YEARS OF AGE.  THERE WAS NO CHARGE OR EVIDENCE OF USE
OF FORCE BY THE PETITIONER OR OF LACK OF CONSENT BY THE GIRL.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT BY A DIVIDED COURT.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI UNDER SEC. 240(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE IN INTERPRETING THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES
ACT. 

IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THIS INDIAN RESERVATION IS "RESERVED OR
ACQUIRED FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE OR
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION THEREOF,"  FN2  OR THAT IT IS "INDIAN COUNTRY"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF REV. STAT. SEC. 2145.  FN3  THIS MEANS THAT MANY
INCLUDING NOT ONLY THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT, BUT ALSO THOSE MAKING
PENAL THE OFFENSES OF RAPE,  FN4  ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE,
FN5  HAVING CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF A GIRL,  FN6  ADULTERY N7 AND
FORNICATION.  FN8 

WHILE THE LAWS AND COURTS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA MAY HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES COMMITTED ON THIS RESERVATION BETWEEN
PERSONS WHO ARE NOT INDIANS,  FN9  THE LAWS AND COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES, RATHER THAN THOSE OF ARIZONA, HAVE JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES
COMMITTED THERE, AS IN THIS CASE, BY ONE WHO IS NOT AN INDIAN AGAINST
ONE WHO IS AN INDIAN.  FN10 

THE CONVICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED UNDER THE FEDERAL DEFINITIONS OF
RAPE OR ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO RAPE, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL CRIME OF RAPE
CARRIES WITH IT THE REQUIREMENT OF PROOF OF THE USE OF FORCE BY THE
OFFENDER AND OF AN ABSENCE OF CONSENT BY THE VICTIM.  OLIVER V. UNITED
STATES, 230 F. 971.  NEITHER OF THESE ELEMENTS WAS CHARGED OR PROVED
HERE.  THE FEDERAL CRIME OF HAVING CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF A GIRL REQUIRES
PROOF THAT SHE WAS UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE,
WHEREAS HERE THE INDICTMENT CHARGED MERELY THAT SHE WAS UNDER 18 AND
THE PROOF SHOWED THAT SHE WAS BETWEEN 16 AND 18.  WHILE THE INDICTMENT
DID NOT STATE WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS AN INDIAN OR WHETHER OR
NOT HE WAS MARRIED, THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT HE WAS A
MARRIED WHITE MAN. 

HOWEVER, THE OFFENSE CHARGED COMES WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF
"RAPE" IN SEC. 43-4901 OF THE ARIZONA CODE.  FN11  THAT SECTION EXPANDS
THE CRIME OF "STATUTORY RAPE" SO AS TO INCLUDE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH
A GIRL UNDER 18 INSTEAD OF MERELY WITH A GIRL UNDER 16.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT MAKES
THIS SECTION APPLICABLE TO INDIAN RESERVATIONS IN ARIZONA.  THE
QUESTION EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO THE DEFINITION OF THE OFFENSE BUT ALSO TO
THE PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED.  THE ARIZONA CODE FIXES THE PUNISHMENT FOR
ITS VIOLATION IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE VIOLATIONS WOULD NOT COME WITHIN
SEC. 279 OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE.  UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, ON
AN INDIAN RESERVATION IN ARIZONA, THE STATUTORY PUNISHMENT, FIXED BY
SEC. 279 OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE, FOR A MAN, NOT AN INDIAN, WHO
HAD CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF AN INDIAN GIRL UNDER 16, WOULD BE IMPRISONMENT
FOR NOT MORE THAN 15 YEARS FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE AND NOT MORE THAN 30
YEARS FOR A SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, WITH NO MINIMUM SENTENCE SPECIFIED.  ON
THE SAME FACTS, EXCEPT THAT THE GIRL BE BETWEEN 16 AND 18, THE
PUNISHMENT, FIXED BY THE ARIZONA CODE, WOULD BE IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE
OR FOR ANY TERM NOT LESS THAN FIVE YEARS.  THIS WOULD IMPOSE A MORE
STRINGENT RANGE OF PUNISHMENT, INCLUDING THE MINIMUM SENTENCE OF FIVE
YEARS IMPOSED IN THIS CASE, UPON WHAT CONGRESS IN ITS CRIMINAL CODE
EVIDENTLY HAD TREATED AS A LESSER OFFENSE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT DOES NOT MAKE THE ARIZONA
STATUTE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE (1) THE PRECISE ACTS
UPON WHICH THE CONVICTION DEPENDS HAVE BEEN MADE PENAL BY THE LAWS OF
CONGRESS DEFINING ADULTERY  FN12  AND (2) THE OFFENSE KNOWN TO ARIZONA
AS THAT OF "STATUTORY RAPE"  FN13  HAS BEEN DEFINED AND PROHIBITED BY
THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE,  FN14  AND IS NOT TO BE REDEFINED AND
ENLARGED BY APPLICATION TO IT OF THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT.  THE FACT
THAT THE DEFINITION OF THIS OFFENSE AS ENACTED BY CONGRESS RESULTS IN A
NARROWER SCOPE FOR THE OFFENSE THAN THAT GIVEN TO IT BY THE STATE, DOES
NOT MEAN THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL DEFINITION MUST GIVE WAY TO THE STATE
DEFINITION.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY CLEAR IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE
SPECIFIED ACTS WHICH WOULD COME WITHIN THE ADDITIONAL SCOPE GIVEN TO
THE OFFENSE BY THE STATE THROUGH ITS POSTPONEMENT OF THE AGE OF CONSENT
OF THE VICTIM FROM 16 TO 18 YEARS OF AGE, ARE COMPLETELY COVERED BY THE
FEDERAL CRIMES OF ADULTERY OR FORNICATION.  FN15  THE INTERESTING
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT  FN16  DISCLOSES
NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT, AFTER CONGRESS HAS ONCE DEFINED A PENAL
OFFENSE, IT HAS AUTHORIZED SUCH DEFINITION TO BE ENLARGED BY THE
APPLICATION TO IT OF A STATE'S DEFINITION OF IT.  IT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN
SUGGESTED THAT A CONFLICTING STATE DEFINITION COULD GIVE A NARROWER
SCOPE TO THE OFFENSE THAN THAT GIVEN TO IT BY CONGRESS.  WE BELIEVE
THAT, SIMILARLY, A CONFLICTING STATE DEFINITION DOES NOT ENLARGE THE
SCOPE OF THE OFFENSE DEFINED BY CONGRESS.  THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT
HAS A NATURAL PLACE TO FILL THROUGH ITS SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL CODE, WITHOUT GIVING IT THE ADDED EFFECT OF MODIFYING OR
REPEALING EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CODE. 

WHERE OFFENSES HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY DEFINED BY CONGRESS AND THE
PUBLIC HAS BEEN GUIDED BY SUCH DEFINITIONS FOR MANY YEARS, IT IS NOT
NATURAL FOR CONGRESS BY GENERAL LEGISLATION TO AMEND SUCH DEFINITIONS
OR THE PUNISHMENTS PRESCRIBED FOR SUCH OFFENSES, WITHOUT MAKING CLEAR
ITS INTENT TO DO SO.  FN17  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS NATURAL FOR
CONGRESS FROM TIME TO TIME, THROUGH RENEWALS OF THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES
ACT, TO USE LOCAL STATUTES TO FILL IN GAPS IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE
WHERE NO ACTION OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN TAKEN TO DEFINE THE MISSING
OFFENSES. 

THAT THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE GOVERNMENT HAVE RECOGNIZED THE FORCE OF
SOME OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS IS APPARENT FROM THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
AT THE CLOSE OF THEIR BRIEF: 

"CONGRESS, OF COURSE, WAS FREE TO FIX POLICY FOR AREAS OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT CONFLICT WITH LOCAL POLICY, AND WE
THINK IT HAS DONE SO IN RESPECT OF THE INSTANT SITUATION.  THESE
CONSIDERATIONS, WE THINK, OUTWEIGH THE CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW." 

THE FIRST FEDERAL CRIMES ACT, APPROVED APRIL 30, 1790, 1 STAT. 112,
DEALT PRIMARILY WITH SUBJECTS OVER WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAD EXPRESSLY
GIVEN JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT DEALT
WITH TREASON, CRIMES UPON THE HIGH SEAS AND COUNTERFEITING OF
SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO FEDERAL
ENCLAVES, IT RECOGNIZED AND PROVIDED PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENSES OF
"WILFUL MURDER" AND MANSLAUGHTER IF COMMITTED "WITHIN ANY FORT,
ARSENAL, DOCK-YARD, MAGAZINE, OR IN ANY OTHER PLACE OR DISTRICT OF
COUNTRY, UNDER THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES
..."  SEC. 3, 1 STAT. 113.  IT CONTAINED NOTHING CORRESPONDING
DIRECTLY TO THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT.  FN18 

ON FEBRUARY 10, 1823, JAMES BUCHANAN, THEN SERVING HIS FIRST TERM IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CLEARLY STATED THE NEED FOR THE
RECOGNITION OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL CRIMES.  HE SECURED THE ADOPTION OF A
RESOLUTION "THAT THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY BE INSTRUCTED TO
INQUIRE WHETHER THERE BE ANY, AND, IF ANY, WHAT, CRIMES NOT NOW
PUNISHABLE BY LAW, TO WHICH PUNISHMENTS OUGHT TO BE AFFIXED."  ANNALS
OF CONGRESS, 17TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1822-1823) 929.  FN19 

IN THE SECOND SESSION OF THE NEXT CONGRESS,  FN20  DANIEL WEBSTER,
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, SPONSORED THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE FEDERAL CRIMES ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1825.  AFTER EXTENDED DEBATE,  FN21  CONGRESS EXPANDED THE
LIST OF ENUMERATED FEDERAL CRIMES.  IT ALSO ADDED THE SEC. 3 WHICH
BECAME THE BASIS OF THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT OF TODAY: 

"...  IF ANY OFFENCE SHALL BE COMMITTED IN ANY OF THE PLACES
AFORESAID,  FN22  THE PUNISHMENT OF WHICH OFFENCE IS NOT SPECIALLY
PROVIDED FOR BY ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, SUCH OFFENCE SHALL, UPON
A CONVICTION IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING COGNISANCE
THEREOF, BE LIABLE TO, AND RECEIVE THE SAME PUNISHMENT AS THE LAWS OF
THE STATE IN WHICH SUCH FORT, DOCK-YARD, NAVY-YARD, ARSENAL, ARMORY, OR
MAGAZINE, OR OTHER PLACE, CEDED AS AFORESAID, IS SITUATED, PROVIDE FOR
THE LIKE OFFENCE WHEN COMMITTED WITHIN THE BODY OF ANY COUNTY OF SUCH
STATE."  4 STAT. 115. 

THIS WAS AMENDED IN 1866, 14 STAT. 13, AND IN 1874 IT WAS
INCORPORATED IN THE REVISED STATUTES AS SEC. 5391 IN SUBSTANTIALLY ITS
THEN EXISTING FORM.  FOR MANY YEARS IT THUS REFERRED TO AN "OFFENSE"
WHICH IS NOT PROHIBITED OR THE PUNISHMENT OF WHICH "IS NOT SPECIALLY
PROVIDED FOR, BY ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  FN23  A SIMILAR
PROVISION WAS ENACTED IN 1898 IN 30 STAT. 717.  IN 1909, HOWEVER, IN
CODIFYING THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE, THIS SECTION WAS SLIGHTLY CHANGED
WHEN IT WAS INCORPORATED IN THAT CODE AS SEC. 289 IN SUBSTANTIALLY ITS
PRESENT FORM.  THE WORD "OFFENSE" WAS CHANGED SO AS TO AVOID THE USE OF
IT AS REFERRING TO AN ACTION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PROHIBITED AND,
THEREFORE, TECHNICALLY COULD NOT BE AN "OFFENSE."  POSSIBLY THIS CHANGE
OF THE OLD PHRASE INTO THE PHRASE "ANY ACT OR THING WHICH IS NOT MADE
PENAL BY ANY LAWS OF CONGRESS" LED TO THE PRESENT ATTEMPT TO INTERPRET
IT IN A SPECIFIC SENSE AS REFERRING TO INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF THE PARTIES
RATHER THAN IN A GENERIC SENSE REFERRING TO ACTS OF A GENERAL TYPE OR
KIND.  THE NEW WORDS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE'S
EXPLANATION OF THEM,  FN24  CANNOT, HOWEVER, BE REGARDED AS CHANGING
THE SCOPE OF THE ACT SO SUBSTANTIALLY AS TO MAKE IT AMEND AND ENLARGE
THE DEFINITION OF AN EXISTING FEDERAL OFFENSE AS WELL AS TO COVER THE
CASE WHERE AN "OFFENSE" HAD NOT BEEN PROHIBITED.  TO DO SO WOULD BE
CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE, RATHER
THAN TO CHANGE, ITS ORIGINAL MEANING.  IN THE INSTANT CASE NOT ONLY HAS
THE GENERIC ACT BEEN COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF HAVING CARNAL
KNOWLEDGE, BUT THE SPECIFIC ACTS HAVE BEEN MADE "PENAL" BY THE
DEFINITION OF ADULTERY.  THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS  FN25  HAVE BEEN
MADE MERELY TO ADVANCE THE DATES AS OF WHICH THE ASSIMILATED LOCAL
STATUTES MUST HAVE BEEN IN FORCE.  THE LAST AMENDMENT, IN 1940,
FOLLOWED AN EXPLANATION OF THE BILL IN IDENTICAL LETTERS FROM THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND TO
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.  THESE LETTERS
ADOPTED THE VIEW THAT THE ACT WAS TO COVER CRIMES ON WHICH CONGRESS HAD
NOT LEGISLATED AND DID NOT SUGGEST THAT THE ACT WAS TO ENLARGE OR
OTHERWISE AMEND DEFINITIONS OF CRIMES ALREADY CONTAINED IN THE FEDERAL
CODE.  FN26 

AS TO THE PARTICULAR OFFENSE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY SHOWS AN INCREASING PURPOSE BY CONGRESS TO COVER RAPE AND ALL
RELATED OFFENSES FULLY WITH PENAL LEGISLATION.  IN THE FEDERAL CRIMES
ACT OF 1825, 4 STAT. 115, RAPE WAS PROHIBITED AND MADE PUNISHABLE ONLY
WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS UNDER THE ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION OF
THE UNITED STATES.  IN THE SAME ACT, THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES SECTION
WAS APPLIED TO FEDERAL ENCLAVES.  FN27  IT THUS PROVIDED THE ORIGINAL
FEDERAL PROHIBITION OF SUCH CONDUCT IN THOSE AREAS.  IF CONGRESS HAD
BEEN SATISFIED TO CONTINUE TO APPLY LOCAL LAW TO THIS AND RELATED
OFFENSES IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLE FOR IT TO HAVE LEFT THE OFFENSE TO
THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT.  A CONTRARY INTENT OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN
MADE OBVIOUS.  CONGRESS REPEATEDLY HAS INCREASED ITS LIST OF SPECIFIC
PROHIBITIONS OF RELATED OFFENSES AND HAS ENLARGED THE AREAS WITHIN
WHICH THOSE PROHIBITIONS ARE APPLICABLE.  IT HAS COVERED THE FIELD WITH
UNIFORM FEDERAL LEGISLATION AFFECTING AREAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
CONGRESS.  FN28    WHEN CONGRESS THUS ENACTED THE STATUTE AS TO CARNAL
KNOWLEDGE IN 1889 IT GAVE SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE AGE OF CONSENT.  THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIXED THE AGE AT 14 AND THE SENATE CHANGED IT
TO 16.  20 CONG. REC. 997.  FN29 

FOR THESE REASONS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT DOES
NOT MAKE THE ARIZONA CODE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY IS REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  272.  THE CRIMES AND OFFENSES DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER
(SECS. 272-289, 18 U.S.C. SECS. 451-468) SHALL BE PUNISHED AS HEREIN
PRESCRIBED: 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"THIRD.  WHEN COMMITTED WITHIN OR ON ANY LANDS RESERVED OR ACQUIRED
FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE OR CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION THEREOF, OR ANY PLACE PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED BY
THE UNITED STATES BY CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN WHICH
THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE ERECTION OF A FORT, MAGAZINE, ARSENAL,
DOCKYARD, OR OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDING."  35 STAT. 1142, AS AMENDED BY 54
STAT. 304, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 451. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN3  "EXCEPT AS TO  ...  (CERTAIN CRIMES NOT MATERIAL HERE) THE
GENERAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AS TO THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIMES
COMMITTED IN ANY PLACE WITHIN THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF
THE UNITED STATES,  ...  SHALL EXTEND TO THE INDIAN COUNTRY."  REV.
STAT. SEC. 2145, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 217.  DONNELLY V. UNITED STATES, 228
U.S. 243, 269; EX PARTE CROW DOG, 109 U.S. 556; UNITED STATES V.
CHAVEZ, 290 U.S. 357; UNITED STATES V. MCGOWAN, 302 U.S. 535; COHEN,
HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, PP. 5, ET SEQ., AND 358, ET SEQ. 

FN4  "WHOEVER SHALL COMMIT THE CRIME OF RAPE SHALL SUFFER DEATH." 
CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 278, 35 STAT. 1143, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 457. 

FN5  "WHOEVER SHALL ASSAULT ANOTHER WITH INTENT TO COMMIT  ...  RAPE,
SHALL BE IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS...."  CRIMINAL CODE,
SEC. 276, 35 STAT. 1143, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 455. 

FN6  "WHOEVER SHALL CARNALLY AND UNLAWFULLY KNOW ANY FEMALE UNDER THE
AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS, OR SHALL BE ACCESSORY TO SUCH CARNAL AND UNLAWFUL
KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THE FACT, SHALL, FOR A FIRST OFFENSE, BE IMPRISONED
NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS, AND FOR A SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE BE IMPRISONED
NOT MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS."  CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 279, 35 STAT. 1143,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 458. 

FN7  "...  THE OFFENSES DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER (SECS. 311-322) SHALL
BE PUNISHED AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, WHEN COMMITTED WITHIN ANY
TERRITORY OR DISTRICT, OR WITHIN OR UPON ANY PLACE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 311, 35 STAT.
1148, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 511. 

"WHOEVER SHALL COMMIT ADULTERY SHALL BE IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN
THREE YEARS; ...  AND WHEN SUCH ACT IS COMMITTED BETWEEN A MARRIED MAN
AND A WOMAN WHO IS UNMARRIED, THE MAN SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF
ADULTERY."  CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 316, 35 STAT. 1149, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
516. 

FN8  "IF ANY UNMARRIED MAN OR WOMAN COMMITS FORNICATION, EACH SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN
SIX MONTHS."  CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 318, 35 STAT. 1149, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
518. 

FN9  NEW YORK EX REL. RAY V. MARTIN, 326 U.S. 496; UNITED STATES V.
MCBRATNEY, 104 U.S. 621; DRAPER V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 240. 

FN10  DONNELLY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. PELICAN, 232
U.S. 442; UNITED STATES V. RAMSEY, 271 U.S. 467; UNITED STATES V.
CHAVEZ, SUPRA.  COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, PP. 364-365, 146
148.  THIS HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN AS CLEAR AS IT IS NOW.  IN 1896, THIS
COURT, FOLLOWING UNITED STATES V. MCBRATNEY, SUPRA, HELD, IN DRAPER V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THAT THE STATE COURTS, AND NOT THE FEDERAL
COURTS, HAD JURISDICTION OVER A MURDER ON AN INDIAN RESERVATION IN THE
STATE OF MONTANA, BY ONE PERSON NOT AN INDIAN OF ANOTHER NOT AN
INDIAN.  THE EFFECT OF THIS WENT SO FAR THAT, IN 1902, THE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTED THAT, "AS THE
LAW NOW STANDS  ...  OFFENSES COMMITTED BY HALF-BREEDS OR WHITE
PERSONS, WHETHER UPON AN INDIAN OR OTHER PERSON, ARE NOT COGNIZABLE BY
THE FEDERAL COURTS AND GENERALLY GO UNPUNISHED.  THIS STATE OF THE LAW
IS CAUSING SERIOUS CONDITIONS OF DISORDER WITHIN THESE INDIAN
RESERVATIONS."  H.R. REP. NO. 2704, 57TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1.  AFTER
A CESSION OF JURISDICTION BY THE STATE AND AFTER BEING MEMORIALIZED TO
DO SO BY THE LEGISLATURE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, CONGRESS, IN 1903, GRANTED
JURISDICTION SPECIFICALLY TO THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA OVER ACTIONS CHARGING ANY PERSON WITH CERTAIN
MAJOR CRIMES COMMITTED WITHIN ANY INDIAN RESERVATION IN THAT STATE.  32
STAT. 793; 35 STAT. 1151; 36 STAT. 1167; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 549.  THIS
COURT, HOWEVER, IN 1913, IN DONNELLY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT PP.
271-272, SAID:  "UPON FULL CONSIDERATION WE ARE SATISFIED THAT OFFENSES
COMMITTED BY OR AGAINST INDIANS ARE NOT WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE
MCBRATNEY AND DRAPER CASES.  THIS WAS IN EFFECT HELD, AS TO CRIMES
COMMITTED BY THE INDIANS, IN THE KAGAMA CASE, 118 U.S. 375, 383,  ...
THIS SAME REASON APPLIES - PERHAPS A FORTIORI - WITH RESPECT TO CRIMES
COMMITTED BY WHITE MEN AGAINST THE PERSONS OR PROPERTY OF THE INDIAN
TRIBES WHILE OCCUPYING RESERVATIONS SET APART FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF
SEGREGATING THEM FROM THE WHITES AND OTHERS NOT OF INDIAN BLOOD."  WE
FIND NO MATERIAL SPECIAL LEGISLATION ON THIS SUBJECT AFFECTING ARIZONA
EXCEPT ITS ENABLING ACT.  36 STAT. 568, 572.  THAT ACT CONTAINS
PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE APPLICABLE TO MONTANA, CONSIDERED IN DRAPER
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND TO THOSE APPLICABLE TO NEW MEXICO,
CONSIDERED IN UNITED STATES V. CHAVEZ, SUPRA. 

FN11  ARIZONA'S DEFINITION OF RAPE AND THE PUNISHMENT THAT ARIZONA
PRESCRIBES FOR ITS COMMISSION DIFFER FROM THOSE RELATING EITHER TO RAPE
OR CARNAL KNOWLEDGE UNDER THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE.  THESE DIFFERENCES
WELL ILLUSTRATE THE CONFUSING VARIATIONS FROM THE DEFINITION OF A
FEDERAL CRIME AND FROM PROVISIONS FOR ITS PUNISHMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE
TO BE CONSIDERED IF INDICTMENTS WERE PERMITTED UNDER THE ASSIMILATIVE
CRIMES ACT FOR EVERY ACT COMMITTED WITHIN A FEDERAL ENCLAVE AND WHICH
MIGHT COME WITHIN A STATE'S ENLARGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF
THE SAME OFFENSE.  SECTION 43-4901 OF THE ARIZONA CODE OF 1939
PROVIDES: 

"RAPE IS AN ACT OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ACCOMPLISHED WITH A FEMALE, NOT
THE WIFE OF THE PERPETRATOR, UNDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: 

"WHERE THE FEMALE IS UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS; 

"WHERE SHE IS INCAPABLE, THROUGH LUNACY OR ANY OTHER UNSOUNDNESS OF
MIND, WHETHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, OF GIVING LEGAL CONSENT; 

"WHERE SHE RESISTS, BUT HER RESISTANCE IS OVERCOME BY FORCE OR
VIOLENCE; 

"WHERE SHE IS PREVENTED FROM RESISTING BY THREATS OF IMMEDIATE AND
GREAT BODILY HARM, ACCOMPANIED BY APPARENT POWER OF EXECUTION, OR BY
ANY INTOXICATING, NARCOTIC, OR ANAESTHETIC SUBSTANCE, ADMINISTERED BY
OR WITH THE PRIVITY OF THE ACCUSED; 

"WHERE SHE IS AT THE TIME UNCONSCIOUS OF THE NATURE OF THE ACT, AND
THIS IS KNOWN TO THE ACCUSED; 

"WHERE SHE SUBMITS, UNDER A BELIEF THAT THE PERSON COMMITTING THE ACT
IS HER HUSBAND, AND THIS BELIEF IS INDUCED BY ANY ARTIFICE, PRETENSE OR
CONCEALMENT PRACTICED BY THE ACCUSED, WITH INTENT TO INDUCE SUCH BELIEF
... 

"RAPE IS PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE STATE PRISON FOR LIFE OR
FOR ANY TERM OF YEARS NOT LESS THAN FIVE (5)." 

FN12  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA, AND FOR THE USE OF THIS DESIGNATION OF THE
CRIME IN ARIZONA SEE SAGE V. STATE, 22 ARIZ. 151, 195 P. 533, AND
TAYLOR V. ARIZONA, 55 ARIZ. 29, 97 P.2D 927. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN15  SEE NOTES 7 AND 8, SUPRA. 

FN16  SEE UNITED STATES V. PRESS PUBLISHING CO., 219 U.S. 1, 10-13,
AND JOHNSON V. YELLOW CAB CO., 321 U.S. 383, 398-401. 

FN17  IN EX PARTE CROW DOG, 109 U.S. 556, 570-571, MR. JUSTICE
MATTHEWS, WRITING FOR THE COURT, SAID: 

"THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXCEPTION IS SPECIAL AND EXPRESS; THE WORDS
RELIED ON AS A REPEAL ARE GENERAL AND INCONCLUSIVE.  THE RULE IS,
GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT.  'THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE TO BE
APPLIED,' SAID BOVILL, C. J., IN THORPE V. ADAMS, L.R. 6 C.P. 135, 'TO
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT IS THAT A GENERAL ACT IS NOT TO
BE CONSTRUED TO REPEAL A PREVIOUS PARTICULAR ACT, UNLESS THERE IS SOME
EXPRESS REFERENCE TO THE PREVIOUS LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT, OR UNLESS
THERE IS A NECESSARY INCONSISTENCY IN THE TWO ACTS STANDING TOGETHER.' 
'AND THE REASON IS,' SAID WOOD, V.C., IN FITZGERALD V. CHAMPENYS, 30
L.J.N.S. EQ. 782; 2 JOHNS.  AND HEM.  31-54, 'THAT THE LEGISLATURE
HAVING HAD ITS ATTENTION DIRECTED TO A SPECIAL SUBJECT, AND HAVING
OBSERVED ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PROVIDED FOR THEM, DOES
NOT INTEND BY A GENERAL ENACTMENT AFTERWARDS TO DEROGATE FROM ITS OWN
ACT WHEN IT MAKES NO SPECIAL MENTION OF ITS INTENTION SO TO DO.'" 

IN FRANKLIN V. UNITED STATES, 216 U.S. 559, 568, IN REFERRING TO THE
ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT, IT WAS SAID, "BY THIS ACT CONGRESS ADOPTED FOR
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DESIGNATED PLACES,  ...  THE CRIMINAL LAWS THEN
EXISTING IN THE SEVERAL STATES WITHIN WHICH SUCH PLACES WERE SITUATED,
IN SO FAR AS SAID LAWS WERE NOT DISPLACED BY SPECIFIC LAWS ENACTED BY
CONGRESS." 

FN18  ITS NEAREST APPROACH TO AN ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT WAS IN ITS
DEFINITION OF PIRACIES.  IT PROVIDED IN SEC. 8 THAT "IF ANY PERSON OR
PERSONS SHALL COMMIT UPON THE HIGH SEAS, OR IN ANY RIVER, HAVEN, BASIN
OR BAY, OUT OF THE JURISDICTION OF ANY PARTICULAR STATE, MURDER OR
ROBBERY, OR ANY OTHER OFFENCE WHICH IF COMMITTED WITHIN THE BODY OF A
COUNTY, WOULD BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES BE PUNISHABLE WITH
DEATH; ...  EVERY SUCH OFFENDER SHALL BE DEEMED, TAKEN AND ADJUDGED TO
BE A PIRATE AND FELON, AND BEING THEREOF CONVICTED, SHALL SUFFER DEATH;
..."  1 STAT. 113.  THIS CORRESPONDS TO THE PLAN IN CERTAIN ENGLISH
STATUTES (E.G. 28 HENRY VIII, C. 15(1536); 39 GEORGE III, C. 37(1799))
FOR SUPPLEMENTING THEIR MARITIME LAW WITH "OTHER OFFENSES" KNOWN TO THE
COMMON LAW.  THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO ENLARGE THE DEFINITIONS OF
EXISTING CRIMES UNDER THE MARITIME LAW BY CROSS REFERENCE TO BROADER
DEFINITIONS UNDER THE COMMON LAW.  WHEN THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES ACT
LATER APPEARED IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE, IT FOLLOWED THIS GENERAL
FORM OF STATEMENT. 

FN19  "IN OFFERING THIS RESOLUTION, MR. B. SAID, IT HAD BEEN DECIDED
THAT THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES HAD NO POWER TO PUNISH ANY ACT, NO
MATTER HOW CRIMINAL IN ITS NATURE, UNLESS CONGRESS HAVE DECLARED IT TO
BE A CRIME, AND ANNEXED A PUNISHMENT TO ITS PERPETRATION.  OFFENCES AT
THE COMMON LAW, NOT DECLARED SUCH BY ACTS OF CONGRESS, ARE THEREFORE
NOT WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. 
CONGRESS HAVE ANNEXED PUNISHMENTS BUT TO A VERY FEW CRIMES, AND THOSE
ALL OF AN AGGRAVATED NATURE.  THE CONSEQUENCE IS, THAT A GREAT VARIETY
OF ACTIONS, TO WHICH A HIGH DEGREE OF MORAL GUILT IS ATTACHED, AND
WHICH ARE PUNISHED AS CRIMES AT THE COMMON LAW, AND BY EVERY STATE IN
THE UNION, MAY BE COMMITTED WITH IMPUNITY ON THE HIGH SEAS, AND IN ANY
PLACE WHERE CONGRESS HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  TO AFFORD AN EXAMPLE:
AN ASSAULT AND BATTERY, WITH INTENT TO COMMIT MURDER, MAY BE
PERPETRATED, EITHER ON THE HIGH SEAS, OR IN A FORT, MAGAZINE, ARSENAL,
OR DOCKYARD, BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES, AND THERE EXISTS NO LAW TO
PUNISH SUCH AN OFFENCE. 

"THIS IS A PALPABLE DEFECT IN OUR SYSTEM, WHICH REQUIRES A REMEDY;
AND IT IS ASTONISHING THAT NONE HAS EVER YET BEEN SUPPLIED."  ANNALS OF
CONGRESS, 17TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1822-1823) 929. 

FN20  IN ITS FIRST SESSION, A BILL FOR SOME ASSIMILATION OF THE
CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE STATES PASSED THE SENATE, BUT APPARENTLY WAS NOT
ACTED UPON BY THE HOUSE.  ANNALS OF CONGRESS, 18TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1823-1824) 528, 592, 762.  SEE ALSO, 1 GALES & SEATON, REGISTER OF
DEBATES IN CONGRESS, 338. 

FN21  1 GALES & SEATON, REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS, 152-158, 335
341, 348-355, 363-365. 

FN22  "...  ANY FORT, DOCK-YARD, NAVY-YARD, ARSENAL, ARMORY, OR
MAGAZINE, THE SITE WHEREOF IS CEDED TO, AND UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF,
THE UNITED STATES, OR ON THE SITE OF ANY LIGHTHOUSE, OR OTHER NEEDFUL
BUILDING BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES  ..."  4 STAT. 115, SEC. 1. 

FN23  "IF ANY OFFENSE BE COMMITTED IN ANY PLACE WHICH HAS BEEN OR MAY
HEREAFTER BE, CEDED TO AND UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
WHICH OFFENSE IS NOT PROHIBITED, OR THE PUNISHMENT THEREOF IS NOT
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR, BY ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, SUCH
OFFENSE SHALL BE LIABLE TO, AND RECEIVE, THE SAME PUNISHMENT AS THE
LAWS OF THE STATE IN WHICH SUCH PLACE IS SITUATED, NOW IN FORCE,
PROVIDE FOR THE LIKE OFFENSE WHEN COMMITTED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
SUCH STATE; AND NO SUBSEQUENT REPEAL OF ANY SUCH STATE LAW SHALL AFFECT
ANY PROSECUTION FOR SUCH OFFENSE IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES." 
REV. STAT. SEC. 5391. 

FN24  THE COMMITTEE'S STATEMENT AS TO THE NEW SECTION WAS: 

"SECTION 5391, REVISED STATUTES, PROVIDES THAT IF ANY 'OFFENSE' BE
COMMITTED, ETC., WHICH 'OFFENSE' IS NOT PROHIBITED OR PUNISHED BY ANY
LAW OF CONGRESS, SUCH 'OFFENSE' SHALL RECEIVE THE SAME PUNISHMENT AS IS
ATTACHED THERETO BY THE LAW OF THE STATE WITHIN WHICH THE PLACE UPON
WHICH IT IS COMMITTED IS SITUATED. 

"AN ACT WHICH IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY LAW AND TO THE COMMISSION OF WHICH
NO PENALTY IS ATTACHED IN NO LEGAL SENSE CAN BE DENOMINATED AN
'OFFENSE.'  THE SECTION HAS THEREFORE BEEN REWRITTEN SO AS TO CORRECTLY
EXPRESS WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED WHEN IT ENACTED THE SECTION REFERRED
TO."  H.R. REP. NO. 2, 60TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 25.  SEE ALSO, NOTES
ON THE DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE BELOW.  59 HARV. L. REV. 131; 45
COL. L. REV. 972; AND SEE UNITED STATES V. FRANKLIN, 174 F. 163, WRIT
OF ERROR DISMISSED, 216 U.S. 559, 568.    FN25  48 STAT. 152; 49 STAT.
394; 54 STAT. 234. 

FN26  "CERTAIN CRIMES COMMITTED ON FEDERAL RESERVATIONS ARE EXPRESSLY
DEFINED IN THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THIS IS TRUE OF GRAVE OFFENSES, SUCH AS
MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, RAPE, ASSAULT, MAYHEM, ROBBERY, ARSON, AND
LARCENY (U.S.C., TITLE 18, SECS. 451-467).  THE CONGRESS HAS NOT,
HOWEVER, LEGISLATED AS TO OTHER CRIMES COMMITTED ON FEDERAL
RESERVATIONS, BUT HAS PROVIDED GENERALLY THAT AS TO THEM, THE LAW OF
THE STATE WITHIN WHICH THE RESERVATION IS SITUATED, SHALL BE APPLICABLE
(CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 289; U.S.C., TITLE 18, SEC. 468)."  QUOTED IN H.
REP. NO. 1584, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2 AND S. REP. NO. 1699, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS., P. 1. 

FN27  SEE NOTE 22, SUPRA. 

FN28  RAPE:  (1825) 4 STAT. 115, APPLIED TO THE HIGH SEAS BUT NOT TO
FEDERAL ENCLAVES; (1874) REV. STAT. SEC. 5345 APPLIED TO FEDERAL
ENCLAVES; (1909) 35 STAT. 1143.  ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE:
(1825) 4 STAT. 121, ON HIGH SEAS BUT NOT WITHIN FEDERAL ENCLAVES:
(1874) REV. STAT. SEC. 5346; (1909) 35 STAT. 1143.  CARNAL KNOWLEDGE:
(1889) 25 STAT. 658, AGE OF CONSENT FIXED AT 16; (1909) 35 STAT. 1143. 
ADULTERY:  (1887) 24 STAT. 635, IN CONNECTION WITH THE AMENDMENT OF
BIGAMY STATUTES; (1909) 35 STAT. 1149.  FORNICATION:  (1887) 24 STAT.
636, IN CONNECTION WITH REVISION OF BIGAMY STATUTES; (1909) 35 STAT.
1149.  SEE ALSO, CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 312, OBSCENE LITERATURE (1873);
SEC. 313, POLYGAMY (1862); SEC. 314, UNLAWFUL COHABITATION (1882); SEC.
317, INCEST (1887).  18 U.S.C. SECS. 512-517. 

FN29  SENATOR FAULKNER, IN CHARGE OF THE BILL, SAID:  "...  THE AGE
WAS FIXED BY THE COMMITTEE AFTER CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION AND AN
EXAMINATION OF THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  SOME OF THE STATES HAVE
CHANGED THEIR LAWS.  A NUMBER OF THE STATES HAVE FIXED THE AGE OF
SIXTEEN.  SOME OF THEM HAVE FIXED AS HIGH AS EIGHTEEN.  MISSISSIPPI,
COLORADO, AND ALABAMA HAVE FIXED AS HIGH AS EIGHTEEN."  19 CONG. REC.
6501. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










CHERRY COTTON MILLS V. U.S., 327 U.S. 536 


NO. 187.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  103 CT.
CLS. 243, 59 F.SUPP.  122, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER 28 U.S.C. 250(2) GIVING THE COURT OF CLAIMS JURISDICTION TO
HEAR AND DETERMINE "ALL SET-OFFS, COUNTERCLAIMS  ... OR OTHER DEMANDS
WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT  ... AGAINST ANY CLAIMANT
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN SAID COURT," IT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, IN A SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REFUND OF
TAXES, TO HEAR AND DETERMINE A COUNTERCLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT BASED
UPON A DEBT OWED BY CLAIMANT TO THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION.  P. 539. 

2.  THAT CONGRESS CHOSE TO CALL THE R.F.C. A CORPORATION DOES NOT
ALTER ITS CHARACTERISTICS SO AS TO MAKE IT SOMETHING OTHER THAN IT
ACTUALLY IS, AN AGENCY SELECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ACCOMPLISH PURELY
GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT, IN OTHER
SITUATIONS AND WITH RELATION TO OTHER STATUTES, THIS COURT HAS APPLIED
THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR PRIORITY RATHER STRICTLY.  P.
539. 

3.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO HEAR AND DETERMINE
COUNTERCLAIMS IS IN NO WAY DEPENDENT UPON THE PRELIMINARY
INTRAGOVERNMENTAL STEPS WHICH PRECEDE COURT ACTION - SUCH AS DIRECTIONS
ISSUED BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO THE TREASURY.  P. 538. 

CHERRY COTTON MILLS, INC. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

PETITIONER SUED THE GOVERNMENT FOR A TAX REFUND IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  THE GOVERNMENT FILED A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DEBT OWED BY
PETITIONER TO THE R.F.C.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS OVERRULED A CHALLENGE OF
ITS JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 250(2) AND RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THE
UNITED STATES AND AGAINST PETITIONER FOR THE AMOUNT IT OWED THE R.F.C.
LESS THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX REFUND.  103 CT. CLS. 243, 59 F.SUPP.  122. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 705.  AFFIRMED, P. 540. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1942 THE GOVERNMENT OWED THE PETITIONER A $3,104.87 REFUND OF
PROCESSING AND FLOOR TAXES PAID BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.  THE PETITIONER OWED THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION $5,963.51, BALANCE ON A NOTE FOR BORROWED MONEY. 
THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE DIRECTED THE TREASURY NOT TO PAY THE TAX
REFUND TO THE PETITIONER, BUT TO ISSUE A CHECK FOR THE REFUND PAYABLE
TO THE R.F.C. "TO PARTIALLY LIQUIDATE" PETITIONER'S INDEBTEDNESS TO
THAT GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.  AS AUTHORIZED BY 28 U.S.C. 250(1), THE
PETITIONER THEN BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE TAX REFUND
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE GOVERNMENT FILED A COUNTERCLAIM FOR THE
$5,963.51, ASSERTING THE RIGHT TO DO SO UNDER 28 U.S.C. 205(2), WHICH
GIVES THE COURT OF CLAIMS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE "ALL SET
OFFS, COUNTERCLAIMS,  ...  OR OTHER DEMANDS WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ANY CLAIMANT AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT IN SAID COURT  ..."  THE PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE
COUNTERCLAIM ON THESE TWO GROUNDS:  (1) THE COMPTROLLER EXCEEDED HIS
AUTHORITY IN DIRECTING THE TREASURY TO PAY THE TAX REFUND TO THE R.F.C.
INSTEAD OF TO THE PETITIONER; (2) THE R.F.C. SHOULD BE TREATED IN THE
SAME WAY AS A PRIVATELY OWNED CORPORATION AND WHEN SO TREATED THE
PETITIONER'S ADMITTEDLY VALID INDEBTEDNESS TO R.F.C. IS NOT A CLAIM "ON
THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT" ENTITLING IT TO SET UP A COUNTERCLAIM UNDER
28 U.S.C. 250(2).  THE COURT OF CLAIMS, REJECTING BOTH THESE
CONTENTIONS, RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES AND AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR THE AMOUNT IT OWED THE R.F.C. LESS THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX
REFUND.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

LITTLE NEED BE SAID AS TO THE CONTENTION CONCERNING THE ALLEGED LACK
OF AUTHORITY OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO DIRECT THE TREASURY
NOT TO PAY THE PETITIONER, SINCE WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT
ITS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE COUNTERCLAIMS IS IN NO WAY
DEPENDENT UPON THE PRELIMINARY INTRAGOVERNMENTAL STEPS WHICH PRECEDE
COURT ACTION.  FOR THIS REASON THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT BASED ON OUR
DECISION IN SKINNER & EDDY CORP. V. MCCARL, 275 U.S. 1, WHERE WE
CONSIDERED THE POWER OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL IN RELATION TO WHOLLY
DIFFERENT LEGISLATION, HAS NO BEARING ON THE POWER OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 250(2). 

NOR DO WE FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR GIVING TO 250(2) THE NARROW
INTERPRETATION URGED.  ITS PURPOSE WAS TO PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT, WHEN
SUED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, TO HAVE DETERMINED IN A SINGLE SUIT ALL
QUESTIONS WHICH INVOLVED MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND
A CLAIMANT AGAINST IT.  LEGISLATION OF THIS KIND HAS LONG BEEN FAVORED
AND ENCOURAGED BECAUSE OF A BELIEF THAT IT ACCOMPLISHES AMONG OTHER
THINGS SUCH USEFUL PURPOSES AS AVOIDANCE OF "CIRCUITY OF ACTION,
INCONVENIENCE, EXPENSE, CONSUMPTION OF THE COURTS' TIME, AND
INJUSTICE."  CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO. V. LINDELL, 281 U.S. 14, 17 AND CASES
CITED. 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT BUT THAT THE SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS INTENDED TO PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE
ADJUDICATED IN ONE SUIT ALL CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN IT AND THOSE GRANTED
PERMISSION TO SUE IT, WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST HAD BEEN
ENTRUSTED TO ITS AGENCIES OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER.  EVERY REASON THAT
COULD HAVE PROMPTED CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE THE GOVERNMENT TO PLEAD
COUNTERCLAIMS FOR DEBTS OWED TO ANY OF ITS OTHER AGENCIES APPLIES WITH
EQUAL FORCE TO DEBTS OWED TO THE R.F.C.  ITS DIRECTORS ARE APPOINTED BY
THE PRESIDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE; ITS ACTIVITIES ARE ALL AIMED
AT ACCOMPLISHING A PUBLIC PURPOSE; ALL OF ITS MONEY COMES FROM THE
GOVERNMENT; ITS PROFITS, IF ANY, GO TO THE GOVERNMENT; ITS LOSSES THE
GOVERNMENT MUST BEAR.  THAT THE CONGRESS CHOSE TO CALL IT A CORPORATION
DOES NOT ALTER ITS CHARACTERISTICS SO AS TO MAKE IT SOMETHING OTHER
THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS, AN AGENCY SELECTED BY GOVERNMENT TO
ACCOMPLISH PURELY GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES.  INLAND WATERWAYS CORP. V.
YOUNG, 309 U.S. 517, 524.  NOR IS THIS CONGRESSIONALLY GRANTED POWER TO
PLEAD A COUNTERCLAIM TO BE REDUCED BECAUSE IN OTHER SITUATIONS, AND
WITH RELATION TO OTHER STATUTES, WE HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY OR PRIORITY RATHER STRICTLY.  FN1  THE GOVERNMENT
HERE SOUGHT NEITHER IMMUNITY NOR PRIORITY.  ITS RIGHT TO COUNTERCLAIM
RESTS ON DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES, ONE OF WHICH WAS GRAPHICALLY EXPRESSED
BY THE SPONSORS OF THE ACT OF WHICH SEC. 250(2) IS A PART:  IT IS "AS
MUCH THE DUTY OF THE CITIZEN TO PAY THE GOVERNMENT AS IT IS THE DUTY OF
THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY THE CITIZEN."  58 CONG. GLOBE 1674, APRIL 15,
1862, 37TH CONG., 2D SESS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. U.S. FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549; KEIFER
& KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306 U.S. 381; RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORP. V. J.G. MENIHAN CORP., 312 U.S. 81. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :

















MACAULEY V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 327 U.S. 540 


NO. 435.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 28, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  -
151 F.2D 292, REVERSED. 


THE MARITIME COMMISSION PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD NOTIFIED RESPONDENT
THAT IT HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO RENEGOTIATE RESPONDENT'S WAR CONTRACTS
WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE RENEGOTIATION ACT AND REQUESTED
RESPONDENT TO ATTEND AN INITIAL CONFERENCE AND TO SUPPLY INFORMATION. 
RESPONDENT DENIED THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY ON THE GROUND THAT ITS
CONTRACTS WERE WITH A BRITISH MINISTRY AND NOT WITH THE MARITIME
COMMISSION.  THE BOARD REPLIED THAT, ALTHOUGH SIGNED BY A BRITISH
MINISTRY, THEY HAD BEEN NEGOTIATED BY THE MARITIME COMMISSION ON BEHALF
OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OBLIGATIONS
INCURRED, AND THAT, THEREFORE, THEY WERE SUBJECT TO RENEGOTIATION. 
RESPONDENT REFUSED TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED AND BROUGHT
SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE CONTRACTS
WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE RENEGOTIATION ACT AND AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
FURTHER RENEGOTIATION PROCEEDINGS.  HELD: 

1.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BECAUSE RESPONDENT
HAD NOT EXHAUSTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROVIDED IN THE
RENEGOTIATION ACT.  MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S.
41.  P. 543. 

2.  UNDER SEC. 403(E)(1) OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT, WHICH PERMITS
CONTRACTORS AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF AN ADJUSTMENT BOARD TO PETITION
THE TAX COURT FOR A REDETERMINATION AND GIVES THAT COURT EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION "TO FINALLY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, OF SUCH
EXCESSIVE PROFITS," THE TAX COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF
COVERAGE.  P. 544. 

3.  THE FACTS THAT WILFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WOULD SUBJECT THE CONTRACTOR TO
PENALTIES UNDER THE ACT, THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION AND THE
TAX COURT CAN ENFORCE THEIR ORDERS WITHOUT COURT PROCEEDINGS, THAT THE
ACT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE TAX COURT'S DETERMINATION IS NOT
SUBJECT TO COURT REVIEW, AND THAT, EVEN IF THE CONTRACTOR COULD HAVE
RESORT TO THE COURTS AFTER A TAX COURT DETERMINATION, IT WOULD BE
SUBJECTED TO A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS TO RECOVER ON THE CONTRACTS, DO
NOT AFFECT THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE REQUIRING EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  P. 545. 

MACAULEY, ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, ET
AL. V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

RESPONDENT SUED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT CERTAIN CONTRACTS
WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE RENEGOTIATION ACT AND AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING
FURTHER RENEGOTIATION PROCEEDINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD FAILED TO EXHAUST ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  151 F.2D
292.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 709.  REVERSED, P. 545. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RENEGOTIATION ACT  FN1 AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MARITIME
COMMISSION UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT TO
RENEGOTIATE WAR CONTRACTS MADE WITH THE COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF
ELIMINATING EXCESSIVE PROFITS.  RESPONDENT WATERMAN STEAMSHIP
CORPORATION BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MARITIME
COMMISSION AND THE MARITIME COMMISSION PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SEEKING A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT CERTAIN CONTRACTS TO WHICH IT WAS A PARTY
WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE RENEGOTIATION ACT AND AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING
FURTHER RENEGOTIATION PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THESE CONTRACTS.  THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FOLLOWING FACTS HERE RELEVANT:  THE MARITIME
COMMISSION PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD NOTIFIED WATERMAN THAT IT HAD BEEN
ASSIGNED TO RENEGOTIATE WATERMAN'S CONTRACTS WITH THE COMMISSION AND TO
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS, IF ANY, REALIZED BY
WATERMAN.  WATERMAN WAS REQUESTED TO ATTEND AN INITIAL CONFERENCE AND
TO SUPPLY INFORMATION CONCERNING THESE CONTRACTS, WHICH INCLUDED
CERTAIN RED SEA CHARTERS.  WATERMAN IN HIS REPLY TO THE BOARD DENIED
ITS AUTHORITY TO RENEGOTIATE THE RED SEA CHARTERS ON THE GROUND THAT
THESE HAD BEEN MADE WITH THE BRITISH MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT AND NOT
WITH THE MARITIME COMMISSION.  THE PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD IN ITS ANSWER
TO WATERMAN INSISTED THAT WHILE THE RED SEA CHARTERS WERE SIGNED BY THE
BRITISH MINISTRY FOR "TECHNICAL REASONS," THEY HAD BEEN NEGOTIATED WITH
WATERMAN BY THE MARITIME COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING THE OBLIGATIONS
INCURRED, AND THAT THEY WERE THEREFORE RENEGOTIABLE CONTRACTS WITH THE
COMMISSION N2.  RESPONDENT REFUSED TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
AND BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT COURT, RELYING ON
MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT WATERMAN HAD FAILED TO EXHAUST THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROVIDED BY CONGRESS IN THE RENEGOTIATION ACT. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  151 F.2D 292.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION INVOLVED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY HELD THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED
ON THE AUTHORITY OF MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S.
41.  IN THAT CASE THE EMPLOYER SOUGHT TO ENJOIN OFFICIALS OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FROM HOLDING HEARINGS ON THE GROUND THAT
THE BUSINESS WAS NOT COVERED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THIS
COURT HELD THAT THE INJUNCTION COULD NOT BE ISSUED.  IT POINTED OUT
THAT THE EXCLUSIVE "POWER 'TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY
UNFAIR PRACTICE AFFECTING COMMERCE'...  (HAD) BEEN VESTED BY CONGRESS
IN THE BOARD," 303 U.S. AT 48, AND CONCLUDED THAT TO GRANT THE
INJUNCTION WOULD VIOLATE THE "LONG SETTLED RULE OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION THAT NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL RELIEF FOR A
SUPPOSED OR THREATENED INJURY UNTIL THE PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED."  UNDER THIS RULE THE DISTRICT COURT HERE
TOO LACKED POWER TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION. 

JUST AS IN THE MYERS CASE, THE CLAIM HERE IS THAT THE CONTRACTS ARE
NOT COVERED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE.  AND THE APPLICABLE STATUTE, THE
RENEGOTIATION ACT, LIKE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN THE MYERS
CASE, EMPOWERS ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES TO RULE ON THE QUESTION OF
COVERAGE.  THE RENEGOTIATION ACT AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
MARITIME COMMISSION TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO
DETERMINE WHETHER EXCESSIVE PROFITS HAD BEEN MADE ON CONTRACTS WITH THE
COMMISSION.  A CONTRACTOR AGGRIEVED BY THE CHAIRMAN'S DETERMINATION OF
EXCESSIVE PROFITS MAY HAVE THEM REDETERMINED IN A "DENOVO" PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE TAX COURT.  SECTION 403(E)(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE
TAX COURT "SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, BY ORDER, TO FINALLY
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS  ..."  CONTRARY
TO RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THIS LANGUAGE LIMITS THE TAX COURT'S
JURISDICTION SO AS NOT TO INCLUDE THE POWER TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF
COVERAGE, WE THINK THE LANGUAGE SHOWS THAT THE TAX COURT HAS SUCH
POWER.  FOR A DECISION AS TO WHAT ARE AND ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE CONTRACTS
IS AN ESSENTIAL PART IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF A CONTRACTOR'S
EXCESSIVE PROFITS.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT,
MOREOVER, SHOWS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE TAX COURT TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW,  FN3  WHICH LATTER
INCLUDE THE ISSUE RAISED HERE OF WHETHER THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION ARE
SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  IN ORDER TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT THE
DISTRICT COURT WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. 
WHETHER IT EVER CAN DO SO OR NOT, IT CANNOT NOW DECIDE QUESTIONS OF
COVERAGE WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AUTHORIZED TO DO SO HAVE NOT
YET MADE THEIR DETERMINATION.  HERE, JUST AS IN THE MYERS CASE, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, FAR FROM BEING EXHAUSTED, HAD HARDLY BEGUN. 
THE DISTRICT COURT CONSEQUENTLY WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT IT LACKED
JURISDICTION TO ACT.  FN4 

RESPONDENT URGES SEVERAL GROUNDS FOR NOT APPLYING THE RULE OF THE
MYERS CASE HERE.  IT POINTS OUT THAT WILFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WOULD SUBJECT IT TO
PENALTIES UNDER THE ACT; THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION AND THE
TAX COURT CAN ENFORCE THEIR ORDERS WITHOUT COURT ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDINGS; THAT THE ACT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE TAX COURT'S
DETERMINATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO COURT REVIEW; AND THAT, EVEN IF
RESPONDENT COULD, SUBSEQUENT TO A TAX COURT DETERMINATION, HAVE RESORT
TO THE COURTS, IT WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS IN
ORDER TO RECOVER THE MONEY DUE ON THE CONTRACTS.  EVEN IF ONE OR ALL OF
THESE THINGS MIGHT POSSIBLY OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, THAT POSSIBILITY DOES
NOT AFFECT THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE REQUIRING EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO POWER TO DETERMINE
IN THIS PROCEEDING AND AT THIS TIME ISSUES THAT MIGHT ARISE BECAUSE OF
THESE FUTURE CONTINGENCIES.  ITS JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WAS
CORRECT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 

FN1  56 STAT. 226, 245; 56 STAT. 798, 982; 57 STAT. 347; 57 STAT.
564; 58 STAT. 21, 78. 

FN2  PART OF THE PRICE ADJUSTMENT BOARD LETTER READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"ON APRIL 30, 1941 THE PRESIDENT WROTE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MARITIME
COMMISSION AND DIRECTED HIM 'AS PART OF THE DEFENSE EFFORT TO WHICH
THIS COUNTRY IS COMMITTED' TO SECURE THE SERVICE OF AT LEAST 2,000,000
TONS OF MERCHANT SHIPPING.  PURSUANT TO THIS DIRECTION, THE COMMISSION
NEGOTIATED WITH THE VESSEL OWNERS.  THE VESSELS WERE MADE AVAILABLE, A
CHARTER PARTY WAS SIGNED WITH THE BRITISH MINISTRY OF WAR TRANSPORT FOR
TECHNICAL REASONS BUT THE COMMISSION AGREED TO PAY THE VESSEL OWNER THE
AGREED COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF THE VESSEL.  THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS
EVIDENCED BY CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE VESSEL
OWNER. 

"THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MUTUALITY OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG ALL THE
PARTIES INTERESTED, LEGALITY OF CONSIDERATION AND DEFINIT'NESS AS TO
TERMS, TIME OF PERFORMANCE AND ACCEPTANCE.  PAYMENT WAS MADE IN DUE
COURSE AS AGREED AND THIS PAYMENT CONSTITUTES A PART OF THE COST OF THE
WAR TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN3  ONE OF THE SPONSORS OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT IN THE HOUSE
EXPLAINED THE BILL AS PROVIDING THAT THE TAX COURT COULD MAKE DECISIONS
ON ALL "QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW  ..."  90 CONG. REC. 1355. 

FN4  THE SAME PRINCIPLES WHICH JUSTIFIED DISMISSAL OF THE CAUSE
INSOFAR AS IT SOUGHT INJUNCTION JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF THE PRAYER FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319
U.S. 293, 299; COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, 323 U.S. 316; ALABAMA
STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450; BRILLHART V. EXCESS
INS. CO., 316 U.S. 491, 494, 499. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















U.S. EX REL. T.V.A. V. WELCH, 327 U.S. 546 


ARGUED MARCH 7, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  - 150 F.2D 613,
REVERSED. 


TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BUILT A POWER DAM CREATING A LARGE
RESERVOIR, THUS FLOODING A HIGHWAY WHICH AFFORDED THE ONLY REASONABLE
MEANS OF ACCESS TO A LARGE AREA OF MOUNTAINOUS LAND CONSTITUTING PART
OF THE WATERSHED AND LYING BETWEEN THE RESERVOIR AND A NATIONAL PARK. 
A NEW ROAD COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT AT A COST DISPROPORTIONATE TO ITS
VALUE TO THE PUBLIC.  AFTER LENGTHY CONSIDERATION OF ALL PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE INTERESTS, IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE NATIONAL, STATE AND COUNTY
AUTHORITIES THAT THE BEST SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM WAS FOR T.V.A. TO
ACQUIRE ALL LAND IN THE ISOLATED AREA AND ADD IT TO THE NATIONAL PARK,
MAKING SATISFACTORY FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS WITH ALL INTERESTS, PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE, AND RESERVING ALL RIGHTS REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT THE T.V.A.
PROGRAM.  T.V.A. ADOPTED A RESOLUTION THAT IT DEEMED THE ACQUISITION OF
THE LAND NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE T.V.A. ACT.  ALL
LANDOWNERS IN THE AREA SOLD THEIR PROPERTY VOLUNTARILY, EXCEPT THE SIX
RESPONDENTS HERE.  THEY CONTESTED CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE TAKING WAS BEYOND THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY SECS. 4
AND 25 OF THE T.V.A. ACT TO CONDEMN ALL PROPERTY THAT T.V.A. "DEEMS
NECESSARY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES" OF THE ACT, WHICH PLACES BROAD
RESPONSIBILITIES ON T.V.A. RELATING TO NAVIGABILITY, FLOOD CONTROL,
REFORESTATION, MARGINAL LANDS, AND AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE TENNESSEE VALLEY AND SPECIFICALLY ADMONISHES
IT TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, FEDERAL, STATE AND
LOCAL, IN RELATION TO THE PROBLEM OF "READJUSTMENT OF THE POPULATION
DISPLACED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS, THE ACQUISITION OF RESERVOIR
AREAS, THE PROTECTION OF WATERSHEDS," ETC.  HELD: 

1.  THE CONDEMNATION IS SUSTAINED, SINCE IT WAS FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE
AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT AND T.V.A. PROCEEDED IN COMPLETE ACCORD WITH THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY EMBODIED IN THE ACT.  P. 552. 

2.  THE COMMON LAW RULE REQUIRING A STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF POWERS TO
CONDEMN IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE, BECAUSE OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF
SEC. 31 THAT THE ACT SHALL BE "LIBERALLY CONSTRUED" TO CARRY OUT ITS
BROAD PURPOSES.  P. 551. 

3.  IN CONSTRUING THE ACT, A COURT SHOULD NOT BREAK ONE INSEPARABLE
TRANSACTION INTO SEPARATE UNITS BUT SHOULD VIEW THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION
AS A SINGLE INTEGRATED EFFORT ON THE PART OF T.V.A. TO PERFORM ITS
FUNCTIONS.  PP. 552, 553. 

4.  IT IS THE FUNCTION OF CONGRESS TO DECIDE WHAT TYPE OF TAKING IS
FOR PUBLIC USE AND THE AGENCY AUTHORIZED TO DO THE TAKING MAY DO SO TO
THE FULL EXTENT OF ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  P. 551. 

5.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHOW A CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO
GRANT T.V.A. ALL POWER NEEDED TO ACQUIRE BY PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION
LANDS WHICH IT DEEMS NECESSARY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT.  P. 554. 

6.  NEITHER THE FACT THAT T.V.A. WANTED TO PREVENT A WASTE OF PUBLIC
FUNDS NOR THAT IT INTENDED TO COOPERATE WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
DETRACTED FROM ITS POWER TO CONDEMN.  P. 554. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY V. WELCH. 

NO. 528.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 529, UNITED STATES EX REL. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY V. BURNS ET AL.; NO. 530, UNITED STATES EX REL. TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY V. LOLLIS ET AL.; NO. 531, UNITED STATES EX REL.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY V. BRADSHAW ET AL.; NO. 532, UNITED STATES
EX REL. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY V. RUST ET AL.; AND NO. 533, UNITED
STATES EX REL. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY V. HYATT ET AL., ON
CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON THE SAME DATES. 

THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY ACT TO CONDEMN CERTAIN LAND.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED
THE PETITION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 613. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 714.  REVERSED, P. 555. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES, ON BEHALF OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, FILED
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONDEMN SIX TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED
IN NORTH CAROLINA AND OWNED BY THE SEVERAL RESPONDENTS.  IT ASSERTED
THAT THE POWER TO CONDEMN THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS CONFERRED UPON THE
AUTHORITY BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT AS
AMENDED.  48 STAT. 58 AS AMENDED, 16 U.S.C. 831-831DD.  THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THAT THE ACT DID NOT AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATIONS UNDER THE FACTS
SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE AND DISMISSED THE PETITIONS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 613.  SINCE THE GRANT OF POWER TO
CONDEMN NEEDED PROPERTIES IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE ACT, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

THE FOLLOWING BASIC FACTS FORM THE BACKGROUND OF THIS PROCEEDING:
CONGRESS IN 1942, IN ORDER TO MEET PRESSING POWER NEEDS FOR WAR
PRODUCTION, EMPOWERED THE AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT FONTANA DAM, ON THE
LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER IN NORTH CAROLINA.  H. REP. 1470, 77TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., 25.  THE DAM IS ONE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST AND CREATES A
RESERVOIR TWENTY-NINE MILES LONG.  BETWEEN THIS RESERVOIR AND THE GREAT
SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK LIE FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND ACRES OF
MOUNTAINOUS LAND, INCLUDING THE TRACTS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO
CONDEMN HERE.  WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM, TWO
HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN FAMILIES OCCUPIED THIS AREA.  THEIR ONLY CONVENIENT
MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS, EXCEPT FOR FOOT TRAILS, WAS NORTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY NO. 288, A ROAD APPROXIMATELY FIFTY MILES IN LENGTH.  WHEN THE
DAM WAS BUILT THE RESERVOIR FLOODED MOST OF THE HIGHWAY, RENDERING IT
USELESS FOR TRAVEL.  AS A RESULT THE AREA REMAINED PRACTICALLY
ISOLATED. 

AS EVENTS HAVE SHOWN, THE PROBLEM THIS SITUATION CREATED COULD NOT BE
EASILY SOLVED.  ANY SOLUTION HAD TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, OF NORTH CAROLINA, AND OF SWAIN COUNTY,
N.C., AS WELL AS THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED.  THE UNITED
STATES' INTEREST WAS THAT OF THE T.V.A. AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. 
THE T.V.A. HAD A DUAL INTEREST.  FIRST, THE ISOLATED AREA, WHILE NOT
ACTUALLY SUBMERGED BY THE RESERVOIR, WAS A PART OF THE WATERSHED.  LEFT
IN PRIVATE HANDS IT COULD BE USED TO FRUSTRATE SOME OF THE OBJECTIVES
OF T.V.A. LEGISLATION.  SECOND, THE FACT THAT THE DAM HAD CAUSED THE
HIGHWAY TO BE FLOODED CREATED A SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR THE INHABITANTS AND
LANDOWNERS IN THE AREA WHO HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY THE PROJECT.  IT WAS THE
STATUTORY DUTY OF THE T.V.A. TO ATTEMPT TO BRING ABOUT PROPER
ADJUSTMENTS IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE RESULTING HARDSHIP AND
INCONVENIENCE.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE T.V.A. WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO WASTE
THE MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE UNITED STATES' INTEREST IN THE
LAND THROUGH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS
PARTICULAR AREA HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS PARK
PROJECT.  HAD THIS LAND BEEN ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR
PARK PURPOSES IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO SUBJECT IT TO SERVITUDES IN
THE INTEREST OF THE T.V.A. DEVELOPMENT.  NORTH CAROLINA WAS INTERESTED
IN THE LAND BECAUSE IT WAS ITS DUTY TO CONTINUE TO HOLD AND MAINTAIN A
HIGHWAY SO LONG AS ITS CITIZENS CONTINUED TO LIVE WITHIN THE AREA. 
SWAIN COUNTY HAD A SIMILAR INTEREST.  IT HAD ISSUED BONDS TO FINANCE
BUILDING THE HIGHWAY.  PART OF THE BOND ISSUE WAS STILL OUTSTANDING. 

CONFERENCES BETWEEN THE INTERESTED GROUPS BROUGHT TO LIGHT FACTS
WHICH LED TO THE SOLUTION ULTIMATELY ADOPTED.  IT WAS AGREED ON ALL
SIDES THAT THE OLD ROAD WAS NARROW, DANGEROUS, AND FAR BELOW MODERN
STANDARDS FOR USEFUL HIGHWAYS.  INVESTIGATION SHOWED THAT REPLACEMENT
OF THE OLD ROAD WITH THE SAME UNDESIRABLE TYPE OF HIGHWAY WOULD COST
ABOUT $1,400,000.00, WHILE THE COST OF BUILDING AN IMPROVED HIGHWAY
WOULD GREATLY EXCEED THAT AMOUNT.  ALL PARTIES FELT THAT THE UNITED
STATES HAD NEITHER A LEGAL NOR MORAL DUTY TO BUILD A NEW ROAD OF THE
SUPERIOR TYPE AND QUALITY NEEDED.  THIS MEANT THAT TYPE OF ROAD COULD
ONLY BE BUILT IF NORTH CAROLINA WOULD BEAR THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. 
SINCE THE HIGHWAY CARRIED NO THROUGH TRAFFIC AND SERVICED SO FEW
PEOPLE, THE STATE WAS NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR THE ADDED COST AND ALL
PARTIES AGREED THAT SUCH AN EXPENDITURE WOULD BE WASTEFUL AND
UNJUSTIFIABLE.  THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD PRESENTED FURTHER OBSTACLES. 
IT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ROAD WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ESSENTIAL TO
WARRANT USE OF THE MATERIALS AND MANPOWER ITS CONSTRUCTION WOULD
REQUIRE.  FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS NORTH CAROLINA OBJECTED TO THE
T.V.A.'S SETTLING THE CONTROVERSY BY A MERE PAYMENT OF DAMAGES TO IT
FOR INJURY TO THE ROAD AND BY THE PAYMENT OF DAMAGES TO INDIVIDUAL
OWNERS FOR DESTROYING THEIR ACCESS TO THE AREA.  THE STATE CONTENDED
THAT THIS WOULD LEAVE THE AREA IN PRIVATE HANDS WITH NO ADEQUATE ROADS
TO SERVE THE PEOPLE AND WOULD IMPOSE UNWISE, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE BURDENS,
ON THE STATE AND COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING SCHOOLS, POLICE
PROTECTION, HEALTH SERVICES, AND OTHER NECESSARY FACILITIES. 

AFTER A YEAR AND A HALF OF NEGOTIATIONS A SOLUTION WAS WORKED OUT. 
AFTER THE PROPOSED SOLUTION WAS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE COUNCIL
OF THE STATE, AND THE LEGISLATURE OF NORTH CAROLINA, IT WAS EMBODIED IN
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE, THE COUNTY, THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, AND THE T.V.A.  UNDER THAT AGREEMENT THE T.V.A. WITH THE AID
OF A $100,000 CONTRIBUTION BY THE STATE WAS TO ACQUIRE ALL THE LAND IN
THE ISOLATED AREA, EITHER BY PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION, SO AS TO RELIEVE
THE STATE FROM FURTHER RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING A HIGHWAY TO THAT
RETIRE ITS OUTSTANDING ROAD BONDS; AND THE AUTHORITY WAS TO TRANSFER
ALL THE AREA LANDS TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FOR INCLUSION WITHIN
THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK BUT RESERVING TO THE T.V.A. ALL
RIGHTS REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT THE T.V.A. PROGRAM.  THE AGREEMENT, THUS,
SATISFIED THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE, THE COUNTY, THE T.V.A., AND THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.  THE COST TO THE UNITED STATES WAS SEVERAL
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS THAN THE COST OF REBUILDING THE OLD
ROAD.  AND ALL THE LANDOWNERS IN THE AREA, EXCEPT THESE SIX RESPONDENTS
WHO REFUSED TO SELL, HAVE RECEIVED FULL COMPENSATION FOR THEIR
PROPERTY. 

THE COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD THAT T.V.A. HAD NO POWER UNDER THE ACT TO
CONDEMN THE TRACTS OF THESE RESPONDENTS AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE
AGREEMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT REACHED THIS CONCLUSION BY LIMITING THE
AUTHORITY'S POWER SO THAT IT CAN CONDEMN ONLY THOSE LANDS WHICH ARE
NEEDED FOR THE DAM AND RESERVOIR PROPER.  IT REASONED THAT THE COMMON
LAW RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES THAT STATUTORY POWERS TO CONDEMN BE
GIVEN A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION.  BUT SEC. 31 OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY
PROVIDES THAT THE ACT SHALL BE "LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE  ...  FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, IMPROVE
NAVIGATION, CONTROL DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS AND PROMOTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND THE GENERAL WELFARE."  IN THE FACE OF THIS DECLARATION, THE
DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE ASSERTED COMMON LAW RULE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT EXPRESSLY RELYING ON A
COMPELLING RULE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD GIVE THE RESTRICTIVE SCOPE
TO THE T.V.A. ACT GIVEN IT BY THE DISTRICT COURT, ALSO INTERPRETED THE
STATUTE NARROWLY.  IT FIRST ANALYZED THE FACTS BY SEGREGATING THE TOTAL
PROBLEM INTO DISTINCT PARTS AND, THUS, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
T.V.A.'S PURPOSE IN CONDEMNING THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ONLY ONE TO
REDUCE ITS LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY.  THE
COURT HELD THAT USE OF THE LANDS FOR THAT PURPOSE IS A "PRIVATE" AND
NOT A "PUBLIC USE" OR, AT BEST, A "PUBLIC USE" NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE
STATUTE.  WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE REASONING AND CONCLUSION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

WE THINK THAT IT IS THE FUNCTION OF CONGRESS TO DECIDE WHAT TYPE OF
TAKING IS FOR A PUBLIC USE AND THAT THE AGENCY AUTHORIZED TO DO THE
TAKING MAY DO SO TO THE FULL EXTENT OF ITS STATUTORY.  UNITED STATES V.
GETTYSBURG ELECTRIC R. CO., 160 U.S. 668, 679.  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS
COURT DID SAY IN CINCINNATI V. VESTER, 281 U.S. 439, 446, THAT "IT IS
WELL ESTABLISHED THAT IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO CASES OF EXPROPRIATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, THE QUESTION
WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE IS A JUDICIAL ONE."  BUT THE COURT'S JUDGMENT IN
THAT CASE DENIED THE POWER TO CONDEMN "EXCESS" PROPERTY ON THE GROUND
THAT THE STATE LAW HAD NOT AUTHORIZED IT. AND IN HAIRSTON V. DANVILLE &
WESTERN R. CO., 208 U.S. 598, 607, THIS COURT, REFERRING TO THE "RULE"
LATER STATED IN THE VESTER CASE, SAID THAT "NO CASE IS RECALLED WHERE
THIS COURT HAS CONDEMNED AS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A
TAKING UPHELD BY THE STATE COURT AS A TAKING FOR PUBLIC USES IN
CONFORMITY WITH ITS LAWS."  AND SEE MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V. MINING
CO., 196 U.S. 239, 257, 260-261.  BUT WHATEVER MAY BE THE SCOPE OF THE
JUDICIAL POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT IS A "PUBLIC USE" IN FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT CONTROVERSIES, THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT WHEN CONGRESS HAS
SPOKEN ON THIS SUBJECT "ITS DECISION IS ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE UNTIL IT
IS SHOWN TO INVOLVE AN IMPOSSIBILITY."  OLD DOMINION CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 269 U.S. 55, 66.  ANY DEPARTURE FROM THIS JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
WOULD RESULT IN COURTS DECIDING ON WHAT IS AND IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION AND IN THEIR INVALIDATING LEGISLATION ON THE BASIS OF THEIR
VIEW ON THAT QUESTION AT THE MOMENT OF DECISION, A PRACTICE WHICH HAS
PROVED IMPRACTICABLE IN OTHER FIELDS.  SEE CASE V. BOWLES, 327 U.S. 92,
101; UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK, 326 U.S. 572.  WE HOLD THAT THE T.V.A.
TOOK THE TRACTS HERE INVOLVED FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE, IF, AS WE THINK IS
THE CASE, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE, HOLD, AND USE
THE LANDS TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE T.V.A. ACT. 

IN PASSING UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE T.V.A. WE WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO
FACT WERE WE TO BREAK ONE INSEPARABLE TRANSACTION INTO SEPARATE UNITS. 
WE VIEW THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION AS A SINGLE INTEGRATED EFFORT ON THE
PART OF T.V.A. TO CARRY ON ITS CONGRESSIONALLY AUTHORIZED FUNCTIONS. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK, 324 U.S. 386, 392.  AND WE FIND
NOT ONLY THAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE AUTHORITY'S ACTION, BUT ALSO THAT
THE T.V.A. HAS PROCEEDED IN COMPLETE ACCORD WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY EMBODIED IN THE ACT.  THAT ACT DOES FAR MORE THAN AUTHORIZE THE
T.V.A. TO BUILD ISOLATED DAMS.  THE BROAD RESPONSIBILITIES PLACED ON
THE AUTHORITY RELATE TO NAVIGABILITY, FLOOD CONTROL, REFORESTATION,
MARGINAL LANDS, AND AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE
WHOLE TENNESSEE VALLEY.  THE T.V.A. WAS EMPOWERED TO MAKE CONTRACTS,
PURCHASE AND SELL PROPERTY DEEMED NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT IN THE
TRANSACTION OF ITS BUSINESS, AND TO BUILD DAMS, RESERVOIRS,
TRANSMISSION LINES, POWER HOUSES, AND OTHER STRUCTURES.  IT WAS
PARTICULARLY ADMONISHED TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES -
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL - SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO THE PROBLEM OF
"READJUSTMENT OF THE POPULATION DISPLACED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS,
THE ACQUISITION OF RESERVOIR AREAS, THE PROTECTION OF WATERSHEDS, THE
ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND OTHER NECESSARY ACQUISITIONS OF LAND,
IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT."  ALL OF THE
AUTHORITY'S ACTIONS IN THESE RESPECTS WERE TO BE DIRECTED TOWARDS
"DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER DRAINAGE
BASIN AND OF SUCH ADJOINING TERRITORY AS MAY BE RELATED TO OR
MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONSEQUENT TO THIS ACT  ...  ALL
FOR THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF FOSTERING AN ORDERLY AND PROPER PHYSICAL,
ECONOMIC, AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SAID AREAS  ..."  TO DISCHARGE ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES THE T.V.A. WAS GRANTED "SUCH POWERS AS MAY BE
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE" FOR THEIR EXERCISE.  SECTION 4(H) OF THE ACT
GIVES THE T.V.A. THE VERY BROAD POWER TO "EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF EMINENT
DOMAIN  ..."  SECTION 4(I) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE AUTHORITY TO CONDEMN
CERTAIN SPECIFIED TYPES OF PROPERTY AND CONCLUDES BY REFERRING TO "ALL
PROPERTY THAT IT (THE AUTHORITY) DEEMS NECESSARY FOR CARRYING OUT THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT  ..."  TO MAKE CLEAR BEYOND ANY DOUBT THE T.V.A.'S
BROAD POWER, CONGRESS IN SEC. 25 AUTHORIZED THE AUTHORITY TO FILE
PROCEEDINGS, SUCH AS THE ONES BEFORE US, "FOR THE ACQUISITION BY
CONDEMNATION OF ANY LANDS, EASEMENTS, OR RIGHTS OF WAY WHICH, IN THE
OPINION OF THE CORPORATION, ARE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT."    ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS SHOW A CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE TO GRANT THE AUTHORITY ALL THE POWER NEEDED TO ACQUIRE LANDS BY
PURCHASE OR BY CONDEMNATION WHICH IT DEEMS NECESSARY FOR CARRYING OUT
THE ACT'S PURPOSES.  THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE PRECEDED BY A T.V.A.
RESOLUTION THAT IT DID DEEM THESE ACQUISITIONS NECESSARY FOR SUCH
PURPOSES.  DESPITE CONGRESS' CLEAR EXPRESSION OF ITS PURPOSE TO GRANT
BROAD CONDEMNATION POWER TO T.V.A. WE ARE ASKED TO HOLD THAT THE
AUTHORITY'S POWER IS LESS THAN THE POWERS TO CONDEMN GRANTED OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, WHICH UNDER 40 U.S.C. 257 HAVE BEEN HELD TO HAVE
A POWER TO CONDEMN COEXTENSIVE WITH THEIR POWER TO PURCHASE.  HANSON
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 581, 587.  NEITHER THE FACT THAT THE
AUTHORITY WANTED TO PREVENT A WASTE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS, NOR THAT IT
INTENDED TO COOPERATE WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE DETRACTED FROM ITS
POWER TO CONDEMN GRANTED BY THE ACT.  THE COST OF PUBLIC PROJECTS IS A
RELEVANT ELEMENT IN ALL OF THEM, AND THE GOVERNMENT, JUST AS ANYONE
ELSE, IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROCEED OBLIVIOUS TO ELEMENTS OF COST.  CF.
OLD DOMINION CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  AND WHEN SERIOUS PROBLEMS
ARE CREATED BY ITS PUBLIC PROJECTS, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT BARRED FROM
MAKING A COMMON SENSE ADJUSTMENT IN THE INTEREST OF ALL THE PUBLIC. 
BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 78.  WHERE PUBLIC NEED REQUIRES
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY, THAT NEED IS NOT TO BE DENIED BECAUSE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL'S UNWILLINGNESS TO SELL.  KOHL V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S.
367, 371.  WHEN THE NEED ARISES INDIVIDUALS MAY BE REQUIRED TO
RELINQUISH OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY SO LONG AS THEY ARE GIVEN THAT JUST
COMPENSATION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES.  STRICKLEY V. HIGHLAND
BOY MINING CO., 200 U.S. 527, 531.  SUCH COMPENSATION CAN BE AWARDED
THESE RESPONDENTS BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE THAT THE TVA HAS AUTHORITY TO CONDEMN THE TRACTS OF LAND
WHICH THE AUTHORITY SEEKS TO ACQUIRE BY THESE PROCEEDINGS. 

THIS AUTHORITY FLOWS FROM THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN GRANTED BY
SECS. 4 AND 25 OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT, 48 STAT. 58, AS
AMENDED.  THE GRANT WHICH ALLOWS CONDEMNATION OF ALL PROPERTY THAT THE
AUTHORITY "DEEMS NECESSARY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT,"
IS IN SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TERMS, IT SEEMS TO ME, TO JUSTIFY THESE
CONDEMNATIONS.  WHEN THE AUTHORITY WAS FACED WITH THE PROBLEM OF JUSTLY
COMPENSATING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND ACRE AREA BETWEEN
THE FONTANA DAM LAKE AND THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, NORTH
CAROLINA AND SWAIN COUNTY FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY NO. 288, IT
COULD WITHIN ITS DELEGATED POWERS PURCHASE OR CONDEMN THE LANDS
AFFECTED OR BUILD A SUBSTITUTE HIGHWAY WHICHEVER APPEARED CHEAPER.  THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT BARRED FROM THE EXERCISE OF GOOD BUSINESS JUDGMENT
IN ITS CONSTRUCTION WORK.  BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 78.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. MEYER, 113 F.2D 387; OLD DOMINION LAND CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 296 F. 20, 269 U.S. 55, 66.  SUCH ACTION IS NOT "OUTSIDE LAND
SPECULATION."  263 U.S. AT 84.  IT FOLLOWS THAT HAVING THIS POWER, THE
AUTHORITY COULD CONTRACT, AS IT DID, TO REDUCE ITS EXPENDITURES BY THE
CONTRACT ARRANGEMENTS OF JULY 30, 1943, WITH SWAIN COUNTY AND NORTH
CAROLINA.  WITH THE AUTHORITY'S POWER TO TURN OVER ITS LANDS TO THE
NATIONAL PARK, WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED.  UNDER THE CONTRACT THE
PUBLIC RIGHTS IN HIGHWAY NO. 288 WERE ACQUIRED BY THE AUTHORITY AND IT
AGREED TO ACQUIRE THE LANDS HERE IN CONTROVERSY.  THE ACQUISITION OF
THE WHOLE AREA WAS A FACTOR IN THESE ARRANGEMENTS AND THE CONDEMNATION
OF THESE SMALLER TRACTS IS A PART OF THE TRANSACTION. 

I DO NOT JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT BECAUSE OF CERTAIN
LANGUAGE, ANTE, PP. 551-554, WHICH IMPLIES TO ME THAT THERE IS NO
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITY'S DETERMINATION THAT ACQUISITION OF
THESE ISOLATED PIECES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE PURPOSES OF THE
TVA ACT.  THE COURT SEEMS TO ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENT THAT A
GOOD FAITH DETERMINATION BY IT THAT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT BARS JUDICIAL REVIEW AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSED USE
WILL BE WITHIN THE STATUTORY LIMITS.  THIS ARGUMENT OF LACK OF JUDICIAL
POWER PROPERLY WAS REJECTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ALTHOUGH,
AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, I THINK THAT COURT ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE TVA
ACT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THESE CONDEMNATIONS.  150 F.2D 613, 616.  IT IS
MY OPINION THAT THE TVA IS A CREATURE OF ITS STATUTE AND BOUND BY THE
TERMS OF THAT STATUTE, AND THAT ITS EVERY ACT MAY BE TESTED JUDICIALLY,
BY ANY PARTY WITH STANDING TO DO SO, TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT MOVES
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO IT BY CONGRESS.  SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC
HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94; SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD V. NIEROTKO,
327 U.S. 358, 369. 

THIS TAKING IS FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE BUT WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT IS A
JUDICIAL QUESTION.  OF COURSE, THE LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION HAS GREAT WEIGHT BUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE OF THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS WOULD BE UNDULY RESTRICTED IF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY COULD INVOKE A SO-CALLED POLITICAL POWER SO AS TO IMMUNIZE ITS
ACTION AGAINST JUDICIAL EXAMINATION IN CONTESTS BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND
THE CITIZEN.  THE FORMER CASES GO NO FURTHER THAN THIS.  UNITED STATES
V. GETTYSBURG ELECTRIC R. CO., 160 U.S. 668, 680; RINDGE CO. V. LOS
ANGELES, 262 U.S. 700, 709; OLD DOMINION LAND CO. V. UNITED STATES, 269
U.S. 55, 66; CINCINNATI V. VESTER, 281 U.S. 439, 446. 

ONCE IT IS ADMITTED OR JUDICIALLY DETERMINED THAT A PROPOSED
CONDEMNATION IS FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND WITHIN THE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY, A POLITICAL OR JUDICIALLY NON-REVIEWABLE QUESTION MAY
EMERGE, TO WIT, THE NECESSITY OR EXPEDIENCY OF THE CONDEMNATION OF THE
PARTICULAR PROPERTY.  THESE ARE THE CASES THAT LED THE TVA, ERRONEOUSLY
IN MY VIEW, TO ASSERT THE ACTION OF ITS BOARD COULD "NOT BE SET ASIDE
BY A COURT."  ADIRONDACK R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 176 U.S. 335, 349; BRAGG
V. WEAVER, 251 U.S. 57, 58; JOSLIN CO. V. PROVIDENCE, 262 U.S. 668,
678; RINDGE CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 262 U.S. 700, 708. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT FOR I DO NOT READ IT AS DOES MY
BROTHER REED.  THE BILL OF RIGHTS PROVIDES THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL
NOT "BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION."  U.S. CONST.,
AMEND. V. THIS COURT HAS NEVER DEVIATED FROM THE VIEW THAT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION A CLAIM THAT A TAKING IS NOT "FOR PUBLIC USE" IS OPEN FOR
JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION, ULTIMATELY BY THIS COURT.  IT IS EQUALLY TRUE
THAT IN THE NUMEROUS CASES IN WHICH THE ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED, THIS
COURT NEVER FOUND THAT THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE USE WAS
"PUBLIC" EXCEEDED CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS.  BUT THE FACT THAT THE NATURE
OF THE SUBJECT MATTER GIVES THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION NEARLY
IMMUNITY FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE POWER TO REVIEW IS
WANTING.  ALL THE CASES CITED IN THE COURT'S OPINION SUSTAINING A
TAKING RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  I ASSUME
THAT IN CITING THESE CASES THE COURT AGAIN RECOGNIZES THE DOCTRINE THAT
WHETHER A TAKING IS FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE IS NOT A QUESTION BEYOND
JUDICIAL COMPETENCE. 
..END :














S.R.A., INC. V. MINNESOTA, 327 U.S. 558 


NOS. 254 AND 255.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  -
219 MINN. 493, 517 - 18 N.W.2D 442, 455, AFFIRMED. 


REAL ESTATE, WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSES WITH THE CONSENT OF A STATE AND OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES
HAD EXERCISED EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO ART. I,
SEC. 8, CL. 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WAS SOLD TO A PRIVATE PARTY UNDER A
CONTRACT OF SALE GIVING THE PURCHASER POSSESSION BUT RETAINING LEGAL
TITLE IN THE UNITED STATES UNTIL PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE OF THE PURCHASE
PRICE IN INSTALLMENTS.  THE CONTRACT CONTAINED NO EXPRESS PROVISION
RETAINING SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES; THERE WAS NO EXPRESS
RETROCESSION BY CONGRESS TO THE STATE; AND THE ORIGINAL ACT OF CESSION
CONTAINED NO REQUIREMENT FOR RETURN OF SOVEREIGNTY TO THE STATE WHEN
THE PROPERTY WAS NO LONGER USED FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES.  WHILE MUCH OF
THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS STILL NOT DUE AND UNPAID, THE STATE LEVIED TAXES
ON THE PROPERTY "SUBJECT TO FEE TITLE REMAINING IN THE UNITED STATES." 
UNDER THE STATE LAW, AS CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE,
THE EQUITABLE INTEREST ALONE COULD BE SOLD FOR TAXES, LEAVING THE FEE
OF THE UNITED STATES IN ITS POSITION OF PRIORITY OVER ANY INTERESTS
WHICH MIGHT BE TRANSFERRED BY THE TAX SALE.  HELD: 

1.  THE CONTRACT TRANSFERRED THE EQUITY IN THE LAND TO THE PURCHASER,
LEAVING IN THE UNITED STATES ONLY A LEGAL TITLE AS SECURITY - THE
EQUIVALENT OF A MORTGAGE.  PP. 565, 569. 

2.  WHEN THE PURCHASER TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, IT BECAME
SUBJECT TO THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE STATE.  P. 565. 

3.  THE CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT OF THE LAW OF THE
STATE AS TO THE EFFECT OF A TAX SALE OF THE PURCHASER'S INTEREST ON THE
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IS BINDING ON THIS COURT.  P. 565. 

4.  THE PROPERTY IS NOT IMMUNE FROM TAXATION BY THE STATE.  VAN
BROCKLIN V. TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151, DISTINGUISHED; NEW BRUNSWICK V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 547, FOLLOWED.  PP. 566-569. 

5.  THE TAX IS NOT INVALIDATED BY THE INCLUSION OF THE INTEREST OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE VALUATION OF THE LAND, SINCE ITS INTEREST IS
FOR SECURITY PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT BENEFICIAL IN NATURE.  P. 570. 

S.R.A., INC. V. MINNESOTA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. 

MINNESOTA LEVIED TAXES ON CERTAIN REAL ESTATE UNDER CONTRACT OF SALE
FROM THE UNITED STATES TO A PRIVATE PARTY, THE LEGAL TITLE BEING IN THE
UNITED STATES; BUT THE ASSESSMENT WAS EXPRESSLY MADE "SUBJECT TO FEE
TITLE REMAINING IN THE UNITED STATES."  A STATE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT
THE PROPERTY WAS EXEMPT FROM STATE TAXATION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  IN RE S.R.A., INC., 213 MINN. 487, 7
N.W.2D 484.  ON RETRIAL, THE LOWER COURT HELD THE PROPERTY LIABLE FOR
THE TAX AND DECLARED A LIEN "UPON SUCH PARCEL OF LAND AS AGAINST THE
ESTATE, RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST, CLAIM, OR LIEN, OF WHATEVER NATURE, IN
LAW OR EQUITY, OF EVERY PERSON, COMPANY, OR CORPORATION, SUBJECT
HOWEVER, TO THE PRIOR RIGHTS, LIENS AND INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA."  THIS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL.  IN RE S.R.A.,
INC., 219 MINN. 493, 517, 18 N.W.2D 442, 455.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 703.  AFFIRMED, P. 570. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A QUESTION AS TO THE POWER OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO TAX REALTY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THAT STATE, WHEN THE LEGAL TITLE REMAINS IN
THE UNITED STATES, IS PRESENTED BY THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  FN1  THE
STATE CEDED JURISDICTION OVER THE REALTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE
I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 17. 

THE REALTY IN QUESTION WAS CONVEYED TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1867 AS A
SITE FOR A BUILDING TO HOUSE A POST OFFICE, A CUSTOMS OFFICE AND
OFFICES FOR VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
BUILDING WAS EVENTUALLY VACATED AND THE PROPERTY SOLD IN 1939 BY THE
DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF AN ACT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS FEDERAL REAL ESTATE. 
49 STAT. 885. 

IT WAS PURCHASED ON PUBLIC SALE AND IMPROVED BY PETITIONER WHO WAS IN
FULL POSSESSION WITH RIGHT OF USER UNDER AN EXECUTORY CONTRACT OF SALE
BETWEEN IT AND THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE LEVY OF THE TAX. 
THAT CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR A CASH PAYMENT AND ANNUAL INSTALMENTS,
POSSESSION BY PETITIONER SO LONG AS IT MET THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT,
AND FOR REPOSSESSION BY THE UNITED STATES, WITH RETENTION OF PRIOR
INSTALMENTS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE, UPON THE PURCHASER'S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF THE CONTRACT.  UPON REPOSSESSION,
THE UNITED STATES WAS AUTHORIZED TO RESELL THE REALTY AND RECOVER ANY
RESULTING DEFICIENCY FROM THE PETITIONER.  ALL OBLIGATIONS DUE UNDER
THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN MET.  THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE CONTRACT PRICE HAD
NOT FALLEN DUE AND WAS UNPAID.  THE CONTRACT PERMITTED LEASES TO OTHERS
IN SUBORDINATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE CONTRACT
REQUIRED THE UNITED STATES TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR
THE REALTY TO THE PETITIONER UPON ITS COMPLETION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE CONTRACT. 

WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY IN THE SITUATION JUST DESCRIBED,
TAXES FOR GENERAL AND SPECIAL PURPOSES WERE LEVIED ON THE PROPERTY FOR
1940 UNDER THE USUAL MINNESOTA PROCEDURE.  THE TAX WAS STATED IN THE
ASSESSMENT TO BE ON THE REALTY "SUBJECT TO FEE TITLE REMAINING IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."  PETITIONER DULY FILED ITS OBJECTIONS IN THE
PROPER STATE DISTRICT COURT, PURSUANT TO STATUTE.  1 MINN. STAT. (1941)
CH. 278.  SO FAR AS CONCERNS THIS REVIEW, THE OBJECTION TO THE TAX WAS
BASED ON A CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF THE REALTY FROM STATE TAXATION BECAUSE
TITLE TO ALL OF THE PREMISES WAS IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE EXEMPTION
WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TRIAL COURT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT AND DENIED EXEMPTION.  IN RE S.R.A., INC., 213
MINN. 487, 7 N.W.2D 484.  ON RETRIAL, THE LOWER COURT HELD THE REALTY
LIABLE FOR THE TAX AND DECLARED A LIEN "UPON SUCH PARCEL OF LAND AS
AGAINST THE ESTATE, RIGHT, TITLE, INTEREST, CLAIM, OR LIEN, OF WHATEVER
NATURE, IN LAW OR EQUITY, OF EVERY PERSON, COMPANY, OR CORPORATION,
SUBJECT HOWEVER, TO THE PRIOR RIGHTS, LIENS AND INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA  ..."  THIS SECOND JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL. 
IN RE S.R.A., INC., 219 MINN. 493, 18 N.W.2D 442. 

CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT UNDER SEC. 237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  IT WAS
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE AND UNCERTAINTY OF THE QUESTION OF
THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO TAX REALTY SOLD BY THE UNITED STATES IN
POSSESSION OF A BUYER FROM THE GOVERNMENT UNDER A CONTRACT OF SALE WITH
UNCOMPLETED CONDITIONS FOR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE MUNIMENTS OF
TITLE.  326 U.S. 703.  FN2 

THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN OUR UNION FORBIDS THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE POWER OF ANY STATE TO TAX PROPERTY OF THE UNITED
STATES AGAINST ITS WILL.  UNDER AN IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, ITS
PROPERTY AND OPERATIONS MUST BE EXEMPT FROM STATE CONTROL IN TAX, AS IN
OTHER MATTERS.  M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 425, ET SEQ.; VAN
BROCKLIN V. TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151, 177; UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY
COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174, 176-77.  THIS POSTULATE, AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL
LAW, FORCES FINAL DECISION OF THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMED EXEMPTIONS UNDER
THIS IMMUNITY UPON THIS COURT.  UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
SUPRA, 183, AND CASES CITED.  THE IMPACT OF STATE TAXATION ON FEDERAL
OPERATIONS MAY BE SO CLOSE AND THREATENING AS TO COMPEL JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION TO DECLARE THE STATE TAX INVALID, AS IN THE M'CULLOCH
CASE, OR SO REMOTE AND INCIDENTAL AS TO JUSTIFY A FEDERAL COURT IN
REFUSING TO RELIEVE A TAXPAYER FROM A STATE TAX.  ALABAMA V. KING &
BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1.  THE LINE OF TAXABILITY IS SOMEWHAT IRREGULAR AND
HAS VARIED THROUGH THE YEARS.  FN3 

THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO TAX REALTY DIRECTLY DEPENDS PRIMARILY UPON
ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA.  THE REALTY OF PETITIONER
HAD BEEN CONVEYED TO AND USED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES WHICH AUTHORIZED THE EXERCISE OF ITS EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION.  FN4  EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE POWER IS IN
ESSENCE COMPLETE SOVEREIGNTY.  FN5  THAT IS, NOT ONLY IS THE FEDERAL
PROPERTY IMMUNE FROM TAXATION BECAUSE OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BUT STATE LAWS, NOT ADOPTED DIRECTLY OR IMPLIEDLY BY THE
UNITED STATES, ARE INEFFECTIVE TO TAX OR REGULATE OTHER PROPERTY OR
PERSONS UPON THAT ENCLAVE.  FN6  IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE UNITED STATES
OBTAINED THIS PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH CESSION BY MINNESOTA OF
EXCLUSIVE SOVEREIGNTY.  ACT OF FEBRUARY 9, 1867, MINN. LAWS 1867 JAN.,
CH. LXXIX.  THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE UNITED STATES AT THAT TIME OF THE
POWER CEDED IS PRESUMED.  FN7  THIS COURT APPARENTLY HAS NEVER DIRECTLY
PASSED UPON THE EFFECT ON FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PROPERTY'S
TRANSFER BY THE UNITED STATES TO PRIVATE HANDS. 

IN THIS INSTANCE THERE WERE NO SPECIFIC WORDS IN THE CONTRACT WITH
PETITIONER WHICH WERE INTENDED TO RETAIN SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED
STATES.  THERE WAS NO EXPRESS RETROCESSION BY CONGRESS TO MINNESOTA,
SUCH AS SOMETIMES OCCURS.  FN8  THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT IN THE ACT OF
CESSION FOR RETURN OF SOVEREIGNTY TO THE STATE WHEN THE CEDED TERRITORY
WAS NO LONGER USED FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES.  FN9  IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME
SUCH PROVISIONS, A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY HELD BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER
STATE CESSIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 17, OF THE
CONSTITUTION WOULD LEAVE NUMEROUS ISOLATED ISLANDS OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION, UNLESS THE UNRESTRICTED TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO
PRIVATE HANDS IS THOUGHT WITHOUT MORE TO REVEST SOVEREIGNTY IN THE
STATES.  AS THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE 17 WAS TO GIVE CONTROL OVER THE SITES
OF GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES, WHEN SUCH CONTROL WAS
DEEMED ESSENTIAL FOR FEDERAL ACTIVITIES, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD END WITH THE REASON FOR ITS
EXISTENCE AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY.  WE SHALL TREAT THIS
CASE AS THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT'S UNRESTRICTED TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO
NONFEDERAL HANDS IS A RELINQUISHMENT OF THE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE
POWER.  FN10 RECOGNITION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THIS RESULT AS A RULE OF
NECESSITY.  FN11  IF SUCH A STEP IS NECESSARY, MINNESOTA SHOWED ITS
ACCEPTANCE OF A SUPPOSED RETROCESSION BY ITS LEVY OF A TAX ON THE
PROPERTY.  UNDER THESE ASSUMPTIONS THE EXISTENCE OF TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION IN MINNESOTA SO AS TO PERMIT STATE TAXATION DEPENDS UPON
WHETHER THERE WAS A TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY BY THE CONTRACT OF SALE. 

IN DETERMINING THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE
UNITED STATES IS A PARTY, THE GOVERNING RULES OF LAW MUST BE FINALLY
DECLARED BY THIS COURT.  UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, SUPRA,
183.  TURNING TO THE CONTRACT, WE FIND IN IT NO CHARACTERISTICS WHICH
DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM THE NORMAL EXECUTORY CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF
LAND WITH PARTIAL PAYMENTS.  NORMALLY, CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND OTHERS ARE CONSTRUED AS CONTRACTS BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES. 
LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571, 579.  THIS COURT HAS BEEN OF THE
OPINION THAT CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF LAND TRANSFER TO THE PURCHASER
THE EQUITY IN THE LAND.  WE THINK THIS CONTRACT DID SO. THAT EQUITY IS
REALTY.  IT WAS OWNED BY THE VENDEE.  THE UNITED STATES RETAINS ONLY A
LEGAL TITLE AS SECURITY.  IN SUBSTANCE IT IS IN THE POSITION OF A
MORTGAGEE.  FN12  MINNESOTA HAS THE SAME RULE.  IN RE S.R.A., INC., 219
MINN. 493, 507; 213 MINN. 487, 495, 499.  THEREFORE WHEN PETITIONER
ENTERED INTO POSSESSION OF THIS REAL ESTATE UNDER ITS CONTRACT OF
PURCHASE, THE TAXED PROPERTY BY THE TRANSFER BECAME SUBJECT TO THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF MINNESOTA.  FN13 

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN MINNESOTA DOES NOT DISPOSE OF THIS TAX
PROBLEM.  THE NUB OF THIS CASE, THAT IS THE IMMUNITY FROM STATE
TAXATION OF PROPERTY TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HOLDS LEGAL TITLE,
REMAINS.  MINNESOTA TOOK CARE TO LEAVE UNASSESSED WHATEVER INTEREST THE
UNITED STATES HOLDS.  THE LEVY AND JUDGMENT WAS "SUBJECT TO FEE TITLE
REMAINING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."  219 MINN. AT 496. 
ALTHOUGH MINNESOTA REAL ESTATE TAXES ARE ASSESSED ON THE PARCEL OF LAND
AS A "UNITARY ITEM" INCLUDING "ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES," THE STATE
DOES NOT CLAIM THAT A TAX SALE WILL DIVEST THE FEE TITLE OF THE UNITED
STATES.  213 MINN. AT 493, 499.  APPARENTLY THE STATE IS OF THE VIEW
THAT THE EQUITABLE INTEREST ALONE MAY BE SOLD UNDER ITS LAWS, LEAVING
THE FEE OF THE UNITED STATES IN ITS POSITION OF PRIORITY OVER ANY
INTERESTS WHICH MAY BE TRANSFERRED BY THE TAX SALE.  219 MINN. AT 513. 
SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE LAW IS BINDING UPON THIS COURT.  IT
DOES NOT IMPINGE UPON FEDERAL RIGHTS.  SO LONG AS THAT SITUATION
EXISTS, THE DETERMINATION OF THE STATE CANNOT BE CHALLENGED HERE.  THE
POSSIBILITY OF REPOSSESSION BY THE UNITED STATES IS NOT ENOUGH TO BLOCK
A TAX SALE IN WHICH THE PARAMOUNT RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
PROTECTED.  BALTIMORE SHIPBUILDING CO. V. BALTIMORE, 195 U.S. 375, 381
82; NEW BRUNSWICK V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 547, 556; UNITED STATES V.
ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 274, 282.  FN14 

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT GOES BEYOND THE QUESTION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE ASSESSED TAX.  IT IS BOTTOMED ON THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES
HOLDS TITLE SUBJECT TO UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS.  IN VAN BROCKLIN V.
TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151, THAT STATE SOUGHT TO TAX REALTY OF THE UNITED
STATES WHICH WAS NOT HELD FOR THE PURPOSES OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
THE CESSION CLAUSE.  CERTAIN LOTS HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY AND CONVEYED TO
THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO A FEDERAL TAX SALE.  12 STAT. 423, SEC.
7.  THESE LOTS WERE LATER TRANSFERRED BY DEED OR CERTIFICATE OF RELEASE
TO PRIVATE OWNERS.  17 STAT. 330; 18 STAT. 313.  TENNESSEE ASSESSED ITS
OWN TAXES UPON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY FOR THE YEARS DURING WHICH TITLE TO
THE LOTS WAS IN THE UNITED STATES AND ATTEMPTED TO COLLECT THEM FROM
THE PRIVATE OWNERS AFTER THE TRANSFER.  TENNESSEE'S CLAIM WAS FOUNDED
ON THE ABSENCE OF STATE CESSION.  THIS COURT REFUSED TO PERMIT THE
STATE'S ACTION, SAYING AT PAGE 179: 

"WHILE THE UNITED STATES OWNED THE LAND STRUCK OFF TO THEM FOR THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAXES BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD PAY MORE FOR IT, AND UNTIL IT
WAS SOLD BY THE UNITED STATES FOR A GREATER PRICE, OR WAS REDEEMED BY
THE FORMER OWNER, THE UNITED STATES HELD THE ENTIRE TITLE AS SECURITY
FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES; AND IT COULD NOT BE KNOWN HOW MUCH, IF
ANYTHING, BEYOND THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES THE LAND WAS WORTH.  TO ALLOW
LAND, LAWFULLY HELD BY THE UNITED STATES AS SECURITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF
TAXES ASSESSED BY AND DUE TO THEM, TO BE ASSESSED AND SOLD FOR STATE
TAXES WOULD TEND TO CREATE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE OFFICERS OF THE TWO
GOVERNMENTS, TO DEPRIVE THE UNITED STATES OF A TITLE LAWFULLY ACQUIRED
UNDER EXPRESS ACTS OF CONGRESS, AND TO DEFEAT THE EXERCISE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, TO PAY THE DEBTS AND
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

THE POSTURE OF THE LAND SOUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE VAN BROCKLIN CASE
DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THAT PRESENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION.  THE UNITED
STATES THERE HELD COMPLETE TITLE UPON THE ASSESSMENT DATES AS A
PURCHASER AT A TAX SALE.  THE ENTIRE BUNDLE OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY
WAS ASSESSED BY TENNESSEE.  AS A MATTER OF GRACE, THE UNITED STATES HAD
GRANTED A RIGHT TO THE TAXPAYER TO REDEEM.  IT WAS LIKE AN OPTION TO
PURCHASE.  THE STATUTE MIGHT HAVE AUTHORIZED THE SALE OF THE LAND TO
ANY PURCHASER WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE FORMER OWNER.  THE UNITED
STATES, HERE, AS WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED ABOVE, HAD TRANSFERRED AT THE
TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP TO THE PURCHASER AND HAS
ONLY A LEGAL TITLE AS SECURITY FOR THE UNPAID PURCHASE PRICE.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174, 188.    PETITIONER
PRESSES VARIOUS LAND GRANT CASES UPON US AS ANNOUNCING THE CONTROLLING
RULE.  FN15 THE PRINCIPLE WHICH PETITIONER EXTRACTS FROM THESE CASES IS
THAT ALIENATION OF UNITED STATES PROPERTY DOES NOT PASS AN INTEREST TO
THE VENDEE TAXABLE BY A STATE UNTIL ALL CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR THE
DELIVERY OF THE DEED HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.  IN THE PRESENT CASE,
PETITIONER ASSERTS, THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE MUST BE PAID
BEFORE THE STATE CAN TAX.  SUCH A RULE CAN BE EXTRACTED BY THE LITERAL
READING OF CERTAIN PHRASES IN THE LAND GRANT CASES.  FN16  THE REASON
FOR THE RULE WAS SAID, IN THE EARLIER CASES, TO BE THAT A STATE TAX
SALE WOULD DEFEAT THE GOVERNMENT LIEN FOR SURVEYING OR OTHER COSTS
BECAUSE THE STATE SALE WOULD PASS A TITLE FREE FROM LIEN OF THE UNITED
STATES.  FN17  AS HERETOFORE SHOWN, ANTE, P. 565, THIS GROUND FOR
REFUSING POWER TO MINNESOTA TO TAX IS NOT PRESENT IN THIS CASE, SINCE
MINNESOTA HOLDS THAT THE LIEN OF THE UNITED STATES WILL REMAIN
PARAMOUNT. 

IRWIN V. WRIGHT INVOLVED THE TAXABILITY BY A STATE OF PROPERTY
OCCUPIED BY AN ENTRYMAN UNDER THE RECLAMATION AND HOMESTEAD ACTS WHO
HAD NOT RECEIVED HIS REQUIRED FINAL CERTIFICATE OF LAND CLEARANCE,
PAGES 227, 228, 232.  THE REASON FOR THE RULE AGAINST STATE TAXATION
UNTIL THE EQUITABLE TITLE PASSES FROM THE UNITED STATES TO THE ENTRYMAN
WAS THERE PLACED UPON THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO REQUIRE THOSE WHO
SOUGHT GOVERNMENT LAND TO PERFORM THE REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF RESIDENCE
OR IMPROVEMENT BEFORE BENEFICIAL TITLE, SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION,
PASSES FROM THE UNITED STATES TO THE LOCATOR.  THIS TRANSFER WAS SAID
NOT TO TAKE PLACE UNTIL THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED.  PAGE 232.  THE
PROHIBITION OF STATE TAXATION UNTIL THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED WAS ONE
OF THE MEANS BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT FURTHERED ITS PUBLIC POLICY OF
LAND SETTLEMENT.  AFTER COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION AND BEFORE
PATENT, THE STATE COULD TAX.  FN18 

WE THINK THE PUBLIC POLICY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND FEDERAL TAX
COLLECTION JUSTIFY THE LIMITATION ON STATE TAXING POWER ANNOUNCED BY
THE FOREGOING DECISIONS.  WE DO NOT, HOWEVER, CONCLUDE THAT THEIR
RATIONALE LEADS TO AN EXEMPTION FROM STATE TAXATION OF ALL LANDS IN
WHICH THE UNITED STATES HOLDS LEGAL TITLE AS SECURITY FOR THE PURCHASE
PRICE.  TO SAY THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE IS A NECESSARY
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE LOSS OF FEDERAL IMMUNITY IS TO MAKE THE RULE
TOO MECHANICAL.  IT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY FLEXIBLE TO SUBJECT REAL
PRIVATE RIGHTS, DISENTANGLED FROM FEDERAL POLICIES, TO STATE TAXATION. 
THIS HAS BEEN THE HOLDING IN MINING CLAIMS.  FN19  WHERE BENEFICIAL
INTEREST HAS PASSED TO A VENDEE, THE RETENTION OF LEGAL TITLE DOES NOT
GIVE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FROM THE SITUATION OF A DEED WITH A LIEN
RETAINED OR A MORTGAGE BACK TO SECURE THE PURCHASE MONEY. 

THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN THE FACTS IN NEW BRUNSWICK V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 547.  FN20  THE CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK, UNDER
AUTHORITY OF NEW JERSEY, SOUGHT TO TAX LOTS IN THE POSSESSION OF
PURCHASERS FROM THE HOUSING CORPORATION, A CORPORATION WHOLLY OWNED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND THEREFORE TREATED AS THE UNITED STATES.  THESE
PURCHASERS HAD PAID ENOUGH OF THE PURCHASE PRICE - TEN PER CENT - TO
ENTITLE THEM TO DEEDS UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS BUT HAD NOT PAID THE ENTIRE
PURCHASE PRICE.  THE DEEDS HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED NOR THE MORTGAGES
EXECUTED FOR THE BALANCE AS REQUIRED BY THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT.  THIS
COURT SAID:  "IN EQUITY THE SITUATION WAS THEN THE SAME AS IF THE
CORPORATION HAD CONVEYED TITLE TO THE PURCHASERS, AS OWNERS, AND THEY
HAD MORTGAGED THE LOTS TO THE CORPORATION TO SECURE THE UNPAID PURCHASE
MONEY."  PAGE 555.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE TAX SUBJECT TO THE
PARAMOUNT LIEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE THINK THE PETITIONER'S
MINNESOTA PROPERTY IS IN A SIMILAR POSITION.  OWNERSHIP OF THE
BENEFICIAL INTEREST HAS PASSED TO THE PETITIONER WITH LEGAL TITLE
RETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR SECURITY PURPOSES.  THIS SHOULD NOT
PUT THIS PRIVATE PROPERTY IN AN EXEMPT CLASS. 

THERE IS A SUGGESTION THAT TO HOLD UNITED STATES PROPERTY SUBJECT TO
STATE TAXATION PENDING THE COMPLETION OF PAYMENT WILL INJURIOUSLY
AFFECT ITS SALABILITY AND THEREFORE INTERFERE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S
HANDLING OF ITS AFFAIRS.  OUR RECENT CASES HAVE DISPOSED OF THIS
ECONOMIC ARGUMENT IN A WAY WHICH IS CONTRARY TO PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION.  ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1, AND CASES CITED. 

THE ONLY OTHER CONTENTION OF PETITIONER WHICH WE NEED MENTION IS THAT
THE STATE HAS INCLUDED THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE
VALUATION OF THE LAND, AND HAS THEREFORE SUBJECTED THAT INTEREST TO
TAXATION.  BUT NO DEDUCTION NEED BE MADE FOR THE INTEREST OF THE
GOVERNMENT SINCE THAT INTEREST IS FOR SECURITY PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT
BENEFICIAL IN NATURE.  THE WHOLE EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP IS IN THE
PETITIONER AND THE VALUE OF THAT OWNERSHIP MAY BE ASCERTAINED ON THE
BASIS OF THE FULL VALUE OF THE LAND.  NEW BRUNSWICK V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, AT 555-56.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  NO. 255, S.R.A., INC. V. MINNESOTA, IS IN ALL RESPECTS LIKE NO.
254, EXCEPT THAT THE STATE TAX WAS LAID FOR THE YEAR 1941.  THIS
OPINION IN NO. 254 GOVERNS THE RESULT AND THE SAME JUDGMENT OF
AFFIRMANCE IS DIRECTED.  SEE 219 MINN. 517, 18 N.W.2D 455; CERTIORARI
GRANTED, 326 U.S. 703. 

FN2  VARYING RESULTS HAVE BEEN REACHED BY OTHER COURTS IN SIMILAR
SITUATIONS.  LINCOLN COUNTY V. PACIFIC SPRUCE CORP., 26 F.2D 435; KEN
REALTY CO. V. JOHNSON, 138 F.2D 809; MINT REALTY CO. V. PHILADELPHIA,
218 PA. 104, 66 A. 1130; COPP V. STATE, 69 W. VA. 439, 71 S.E. 580; ABR
CORP. V. NEWARK, 133 N.J.L. 34, 42 A.2D 296.  SEE ALSO BANCROFT
INVESTMENT CORP. V. JACKSONVILLE, 157 FLA. 546, 27 SO.2D 162. 

FN3  COMPARE MAYO V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 441, WITH ALABAMA V.
KING & BOOZER, SUPRA, AND UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, SUPRA, P.
176, NOTES 1 AND 2, AND CASES CITED.  SEE WILSON V. COOK, 327 U.S.
474. 

FN4  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17: 

"THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ... 

"TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER, OVER SUCH
DISTRICT (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) AS MAY, BY CESSION OF
PARTICULAR STATES, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF CONGRESS, BECOME THE SEAT OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO EXERCISE LIKE AUTHORITY
OVER ALL PLACES PURCHASED BY THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE ERECTION OF FORTS, MAGAZINES,
ARSENALS, DOCK-YARDS, AND OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS; ..." 

FN5  FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, 114 U.S. 525, 532-33; UNITED
STATES V. UNZEUTA, 281 U.S. 138; SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S.
647, 652-56; BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19. 

FN6  STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S. 94; SURPLUS TRADING CO. V.
COOK, SUPRA, NOTE 5. 

FN7  FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, SUPRA, P. 528; BENSON V. UNITED
STATES, 146 U.S. 325, 330; MASON CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S. 186, 207. 

AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE, 5 STAT. 468, LATER INCORPORATED IN R.S.
SEC. 355, WAS IN FORCE.  AS IT REQUIRED CONSENT OF THE STATE OF THE
SITUS BEFORE EXPENDITURES OF PUBLIC MONEY BY THE UNITED STATES ON
LOCATIONS PURCHASED FOR NEEDFUL BUILDINGS, IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT
ALL REQUIREMENTS WERE SATISFIED.  R.S. SEC. 355 HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY
CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE FULL SOVEREIGNTY IN THE UNITED STATES.  8 OP. A.G.
102; 10 OP. A.G. 34; 20 OP. A.G. 611; 31 OP. A.G. 265; 38 OP. A.G. 341;
39 OP. A.G. 285.  R.S. SEC. 355 HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED.  40 U.S.C. SEC.
255; ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 312. 

FN8  30 STAT. 668; 9 STAT. 35. 

FN9  COMPARE PALMER V. BARRETT, 162 U.S. 399; JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 144. 

FN10  COMPARE PALMER V. BARRETT, SUPRA, WITH ARLINGTON HOTEL V. FANT,
278 U.S. 439. 

FN11  FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, 114 U.S. 525, 542:  "IT IS
NECESSARILY TEMPORARY, TO BE EXERCISED ONLY SO LONG AS THE PLACES
CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS
ACQUIRED OR RESERVED FROM SALE.  WHEN THEY CEASE TO BE THUS USED, THE
JURISDICTION REVERTS TO THE STATE." 

THE REFERENCE TO FEDERAL CONTROL OF "RESERVED" LAND PROBABLY RELATES
TO THE SUPREMACY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS IN THE ABSENCE OF EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE POWER. 
SEE PAGE 539. 

FN12  LENMAN V. JONES, 222 U.S. 51; GUNTON V. CARROLL, 101 U.S. 426,
430-31; BISSELL V. HEYWARD, 96 U.S. 580; SECOMBE V. STEELE, 20 HOW. 
94, 103-104.  COMPARE 8 THOMPSON, REAL PROPERTY, SEC. 4579; 2 SUGDEN,
VENDORS (14TH ED.), 375.  SEE LOWERY V. PETERSON, 75 ALA. 109.  COMPARE
RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 209. 

FN13 WE INTIMATE NO VIEW AS TO THE LEGISLATIVE STATUS OF THIS
PROPERTY, IF IT IS REPOSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES.  SEE THE CASES
CITED IN NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN14  AS THE CASE WAS TRIED BELOW ON THE THEORY OF DIRECT OR IMPLIED
IMMUNITY BECAUSE THE FEE WAS IN THE UNITED STATES, WE NEITHER CONSIDER
NOR DECIDE THE EFFECT OF A TAX SALE OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS ON ITS
CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES.  SEE WILSON V. COOK, 327 U.S. 474,
483.  COMPARE 41 U.S.C. SEC. 15 WITH FREEDMAN'S SAVING CO. V. SHEPHERD,
127 U.S. 494. 

FN15  RAILWAY CO. V. PRESCOTT, 16 WALL.  603; RAILWAY CO. V. MCSHANE,
22 WALL.  444; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. TRAILL COUNTY, 115 U.S. 600;
IRWIN V. WRIGHT, 258 U.S. 219. 

FN16  IRWIN V. WRIGHT, SUPRA, 228, 229, 232, 233; NORTHERN PACIFIC R.
CO. V. TRAILL COUNTY, SUPRA, AT 609; RAILWAY CO. V. MCSHANE, SUPRA, AT
462. 

FN17  16 WALL.  AT 608; 22 WALL.  AT 462; 115 U.S. AT 610.  SEE ALSO
COLORADO CO. V. COMMISSIONERS, 95 U.S. 259.  IN THE MCSHANE CASE,
ITSELF, WHICH CLEARLY SET OUT THE ABOVE REASON FOR NON-TAXABILITY, IT
WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE FEDERAL RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF
SETTLERS WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY A STATE TAX SALE.  THIS COURT
THEREFORE REVERSED ITS FORMER JUDGMENT IN THE PRESCOTT CASE THAT LAND
HELD BY THE RAILROADS SUBJECT TO THIS PRE-EMPTION COULD NOT BE TAXED BY
A STATE.  22 WALL.  AT 461.  CONGRESS PROMPTLY TERMINATED THE LAND TAX
EXEMPTION AFTER THE TRAILL COUNTY DECISION BY SUBJECTING RAILROAD LAND
GRANTS TO STATE TAXATION BEFORE PAYMENT OF CONVEYANCING COSTS.  43
U.S.C. SEC. 882. 

FN18  BOTHWELL V. BINGHAM COUNTY, 237 U.S. 642, 647. 

FN19  ELDER V. WOOD, 208 U.S. 226. 

FN20  BUT SEE ABR CORP. V. NEWARK, 133 N.J.L. 34. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS,
CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT, BUT I DO NOT JOIN IN SO MUCH OF THE OPINION
OF THE COURT AS UNDERTAKES TO DISCUSS THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA OVER THE LAND IN QUESTION.  THE TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE TO LAY THE TAX, SAID TO BE A NOVEL QUESTION,
WAS NOT RAISED IN THE STATE COURTS, BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, OR
IN ARGUMENT OR BRIEFS IN THIS COURT.  UNDER OUR DECISIONS WE ARE
THEREFORE NOT FREE TO DECIDE IT.  MCGOLDRICK V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE, 309
U.S. 430, 434-5; WILSON V. COOK, 327 U.S. 474, 483-484, AND CASES
CITED; SEE ALSO RULE 38, PAR. 2 OF THE RULES OF THIS COURT; FLOURNOY V.
WIENER, 321 U.S. 253, 259.  SINCE THE OPINION OF THE COURT EXPRESSES NO
DISAPPROVAL OF THESE AUTHORITIES, I TAKE IT THAT EVERYTHING SAID ON THE
QUESTION OF MINNESOTA'S TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TAX IS DICTUM.  OUR
OPINION SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE SINGLE QUESTION WHICH THE PETITIONER
PRESENTS FOR OUR DECISION, WHETHER THE RETENTION BY THE UNITED STATES
OF THE LEGAL TITLE TO THE TAXED LAND PRECLUDES ITS TAXATION TO
PETITIONER, WHICH, UNDER ITS CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT, HAS ACQUIRED
POSSESSION AND RIGHT TO POSSESSION.  AS I HAVE NO DOUBT ON THIS
QUESTION, I AGREE THE JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE GOVERNMENT SOLD A PIECE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY LOCATED IN ST. PAUL,
MINNESOTA.  IT PUT THE VENDEE IN POSSESSION BUT RETAINED THE LEGAL
TITLE, WITH THE RIGHT OF RE-ENTRY, AS SECURITY FOR PORTIONS OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE REMAINING DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT OF SALE.  THE DECISIVE
QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE INTEREST THUS RETAINED BY THE UNITED
STATES BARS MINNESOTA, UNDER A GENERAL NON-DISCRIMINATORY LAW, FROM
TAXING THE VENDEE'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.  THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF
FURNISHES NO ANSWER IN TERMS.  BUT THE CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING THE
APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN NATIONAL AND STATE POWERS OF TAXATION,
WHERE THE INCIDENCE OF TAXATION MAY AFFECT THE PROPERTY OR FUNCTIONS OF
ONE ANOTHER, DO NOT REQUIRE THAT ENTIRE IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION BE
AFFORDED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST WHICH THE
UNITED STATES RETAINED TO SECURE THE UNPAID PURCHASE PRICE.  SINCE THE
GOVERNMENT'S SECURITY IS LEFT UNTOUCHED BY MINNESOTA, WHAT REMAINS OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S RELATION TO THE PROPERTY IS TOO ATTENUATED TO WITHDRAW
IT ENTIRELY FROM MINNESOTA'S TAXING POWER. 

THE MATTER WOULD HARDLY BE OPEN TO QUESTION BUT FOR A SERIES OF CASES
ARISING UNDER LAND GRANT LEGISLATION.  AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT
PERSUASIVELY SHOWS, THESE DECISIONS REST UPON CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY
NOT RELEVANT TO THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION. 

I AGREE WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE THAT OUR DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE
SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE ONLY QUESTION RAISED BY THE RECORD, THAT OF
THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX, UNEMBARRASSED BY ANY ISSUE AS TO TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE GIVES CONCLUSIVE GROUND FOR SUCH
ABSTENTION.  MOREOVER, EVEN AS TO PROPERTY INDISPUTABLY OWNED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, THERE MAY BE "UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION" WHETHER
JURISDICTION BELONGS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR TO A STATE.  SEE
BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 27; AND PACIFIC COAST DAIRY V. DEPT.,
318 U.S. 285, 299.  TAXABILITY AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ARE NOT
CORRELATIVE.  WE OUGHT NOT TO BORROW TROUBLE. 
..END :




















KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. V. TAX COMM'N, 327 U.S. 573 


ARGUED JANUARY 30, 31, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  - 150 F.2D 905,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SUIT BY A TAXPAYER AGAINST THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH AND
INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING THE COMMISSION TO RECOVER TAXES PAID UNDER
PROTEST, THE MONEY BEING SEGREGATED UNDER SEC. 80-11-13 OF THE UTAH
CODE ANNO.  1943, AND HELD FOR DETERMINATION OF THE TAXPAYER'S RIGHTS
WITH PROVISION FOR ANY DEFICIENCY FOR INTEREST OR COSTS TO BE PAID BY
THE STATE, IS A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE.  P. 576. 

2.  SECTION 80-11-11, UTAH CODE ANNO.  1943, AUTHORIZING ANY TAXPAYER
WHO HAS PAID TAXES UNDER PROTEST TO BRING SUIT "IN ANY COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION" AGAINST THE OFFICER TO WHOM THE TAX WAS PAID
"OR AGAINST THE STATE" TO RECOVER THE TAX, DOES NOT GRANT CONSENT TO
SUITS AGAINST THE STATE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  GREAT NORTHERN INS. CO.
V. READ, 322 U.S. 47; FORD CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 323 U.S. 459,
FOLLOWED.  PP. 577-579. 

KENNECOTT COPPER CORP. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION ET AL. 

NO. 424.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 425, SILVER KING COALITION MINES CO. V. STATE TAX
COMMISSION ET AL., ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED
ON THE SAME DATES. 

A NONRESIDENT TAXPAYER BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
AGAINST THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH AND INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING
THE COMMISSION TO RECOVER TAXES PAID UNDER PROTEST.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  60 F.SUPP.  181.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON
THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. 
150 F.2D 905.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 711.  AFFIRMED,
P. 580. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WHETHER UTAH HAS SUBMITTED ITSELF TO SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH FOR THE RECOVERY OF TAXES
ALLEGED TO BE WRONGFULLY EXACTED BY THAT STATE IS THE ULTIMATE ISSUE
BROUGHT HERE BY THESE WRITS OF CERTIORARI.  PRELIMINARILY, WE MUST
DECIDE IF THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS A SUIT AGAINST UTAH. 

PETITIONERS, CORPORATIONS AND CITIZENS OF NEW YORK AND NEVADA
RESPECTIVELY, CARRY ON MINING BUSINESSES IN UTAH.  THAT STATE IMPOSES
ON THOSE THERE ENGAGED IN THE MINING BUSINESS AN OCCUPATION TAX EQUAL
TO ONE PER CENT OF THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR OR THE GROSS VALUE OF
METALLIFEROUS ORE SOLD DURING THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR.  THE STATE
TAX COMMISSION ADMINISTERS THE ACT.  UTAH CODE ANNOTATED (1943) SECS.
80-5-65 TO 80-5-82, INCLUSIVE.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS OPINION, IT
NEED ONLY BE SAID AS TO THE FACTS WHICH GIVE RISE TO THIS LITIGATION,
THAT PETITIONERS SEEK RECOVERY OF THAT PORTION OF THEIR OCCUPATION
TAXES FOR 1944 WHICH WAS CALCULATED BY THE TAX COMMISSION BY INCLUDING
IN THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS FOR THEIR ORE CERTAIN
SUBSIDIES FOR WAR PRODUCTION PAID TO PETITIONERS BY THE UNITED STATES
PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, DATED
FEBRUARY 9, 1942, NO. P.M. 2458.  PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THIS SUBSIDY
SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THEIR OCCUPATIONAL TAX BASE.  AS THE TAX
COMMISSION DID INCLUDE THE SUBSIDIES IN THE BASE AFTER ADMINISTRATIVE
RULINGS WHICH DENIED PETITIONERS' CLAIMS, PETITIONERS EACH PAID THE
TOTAL TAX LEVIED, PROTESTED THAT PORTION THEREOF WHICH WAS BASED UPON
THE SUBSIDY AND BROUGHT SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF UTAH AGAINST THE STATE TAX COMMISSION, AND THE
INDIVIDUALS "CONSTITUTING" IT AS "MEMBERS," FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE
PROTESTED AMOUNT UNDER SECTIONS OF THE UTAH CODE (1943), SET OUT BELOW,
WHICH PETITIONERS CLAIM AUTHORIZE THESE PROCEEDINGS.  FN1 

THE CAUSES PRESENT IDENTICAL QUESTIONS.  THEY WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR
TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND SEPARATE JUDGMENTS WERE ENTERED FOR
PLAINTIFFS AGAINST THE "STATE TAX COMMISSION, ET AL."  FOR THE AMOUNTS
CLAIMED.  60 F.SUPP.  181.  SEPARATE APPEALS WERE PERFECTED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE CASES WERE THERE BRIEFED, ARGUED AND
DECIDED TOGETHER BUT WITH SEPARATE JUDGMENTS REVERSING THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE SINCE IT WAS A SUIT
AGAINST THE STATE WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  STATE TAX COMMISSION V.
KENNECOTT COPPER CORP., 150 F.2D 905.  ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE ISSUES, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BASIS OF THE
DECISIONS IN GREAT NORTHERN INS. CO. V. READ, 322 U.S. 47, AND FORD CO.
V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 323 U.S. 459, ENCOMPASSED THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THESE CASES.  A SINGLE OPINION SUFFICES HERE ALSO. 

FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS CLAIMED UNDER DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND
BECAUSE THE CONTROVERSY ARISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE CLAIM IS THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE SUBSIDY IN THE
TAX BASE INTERFERES WITH THE WAR POWER OF CONGRESS AND THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, 50 U.S.C. SECS. 901, 902(E), BY TAXING THE
SUBSIDY ON SURPLUS PRODUCTION OVER FIXED QUOTAS WITH THE RESULT THAT A
PART OF THE SUBSIDY WAS DIVERTED FROM ITS SOLE PURPOSE OF INSURING THE
MAXIMUM NECESSARY PRODUCTION.  SEE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, SECS. 209, 735,
56 STAT. 904, 907. 

AS WE CONCLUDE THAT THESE SUITS ARE SUITS AGAINST UTAH AND THAT UTAH
HAS NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED FOR THESE ALLEGED WRONGFUL TAX EXACTIONS
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON THE MERITS OF THE
CONTROVERSY. 

THIS IS A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE.  UTAH HAS ESTABLISHED AN ADEQUATE
PROCEDURE FOR THE RECOVERY OF TAXES ILLEGALLY COLLECTED.  WHEN THE
STATE COLLECTS A TAX UNDER PROTEST, THE MONEY IS SEGREGATED AND HELD
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE TAXPAYERS' RIGHTS WITH PROVISION FOR ANY
DEFICIENCY FOR INTEREST OR COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE STATE.  FN2  THE
MINING OCCUPATION TAX MAKES THE STATE TAX COMMISSION THE STATE AGENCY
FOR ADMINISTRATION AND COLLECTION OF THE UTAH TAX.  THE PETITIONERS
PAID THEIR TAXES TO THE COMMISSION UNDER PROTEST AND BROUGHT THESE
ACTIONS TO RECOVER THE CONTESTED PORTION. 

PETITIONERS ALLEGED COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT'S REQUIREMENTS FOR
REPORTS, ASSESSMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES WITH PAYMENT UNDER
PROTEST OF THE CONTROVERTED SUMS FOR UTAH TO THE "STATE TAX COMMISSION"
ONLY.  THE COMMISSION, ALONE, IS CHARGED TO HAVE "EXACTED FINAL
PAYMENT" AND TO HAVE ACQUIESCED IN PLAINTIFFS' DEMAND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TO SHOW PAYMENT AND PROTEST ON THE
COMMISSION'S BOOKS WITH RESULTANT SEGREGATION OF THE FUNDS COLLECTED
FROM UTAH'S GENERAL FUNDS. 

AS THE SUITS WERE AGAINST THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBERS AS
"CONSTITUTING" SUCH COMMISSION, WERE BASED UPON THE PAYMENT TO THE
COMMISSION AS COLLECTOR FOR UTAH AND SOUGHT RECOVERY OF THE FUND,
SEQUESTERED BY SEC. 80-11-13, TOGETHER WITH THE INTEREST AND COSTS
THEREIN PROVIDED FOR, WE ARE SATISFIED THESE ARE SUITS AGAINST UTAH. 
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO. V. FORRESTAL, 326 U.S. 371; GREAT NORTHERN
INS. CO. V. READ, 322 U.S. 47, 51; FORD CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
323 U.S. 459, 462. 

UPON THE QUESTION OF THE CONSENT OF UTAH TO SUIT AGAINST ITSELF IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR CONTROVERSIES ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, LITTLE NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO OUR DISCUSSION IN THE READ
AND FORD CASES.  THESE CASES DECLARE THE RULE THAT CLEAR DECLARATION OF
A STATE'S CONSENT TO SUIT AGAINST ITSELF IN THE FEDERAL COURT ON FISCAL
CLAIMS IS REQUIRED.  THE REASON UNDERLYING THE RULE, WHICH IS DISCUSSED
AT LENGTH IN THE READ AND FORD CASES, IS THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO
RESERVE FOR ITS COURTS THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF ITS
OWN TAX LITIGATION BECAUSE OF THE DIRECT IMPACT OF SUCH LITIGATION UPON
ITS FINANCES. 

PETITIONERS POINT TO DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE PRESENT CASES AND THOSE
TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS JUST BEEN MADE.  THEY CALL ATTENTION TO THE
HISTORY OF THE SECTION AUTHORIZING RECOVERY OF TAXES UNLAWFULLY
COLLECTED.  SECTION 80-11-11 WAS ENACTED IN 1896 WITHOUT THE INCLUSION
OF THE STATE AS A POSSIBLE DEFENDANT.  LAWS OF UTAH 1896, CH. CXXIX,
SEC. 180, P. 466.  IT WAS AMENDED IN 1933 WHEN THE WORDS "STATE" AND
"OR OTHER TAXING UNIT" WERE ADDED.  PETITIONERS URGE THAT SINCE THE
PHRASE "IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION" HAD BEEN ASSUMED TO
PERMIT SUITS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS THAT PRACTICE SHOULD BE READ INTO
THE WORD "STATE" WHEN THAT ENTITY WAS MADE SUBJECT TO TAX SUITS.  FN3 

IT IS ALSO URGED THAT "ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION" HAS LONG
BEEN CONSTRUED IN THE FEDERAL STATUTES AS INCLUDING BOTH STATE AND
FEDERAL COURTS.  FN4  OUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO SEC. 80-5-76
LIMITING STATUTORY REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS OF THE MINING
OCCUPATION TAX TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE WHILE ALLOWING SUITS
FOR RECOVERY OF UNLAWFUL TAXES PAID UNDER PROTEST TO "ANY COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION." 

FOR THESE REASONS PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE UTAH STATUTES INDICATE
AN INTENTION TO PERMIT SUITS AGAINST THE STATE IN FEDERAL COURTS. 
FURTHERMORE, PETITIONERS FIND SIGNIFICANCE IN VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE
STATE STATUTES IN THE READ CASE AND THE FORD CASE ON ONE HAND AND THE
UTAH STATUTES ON THE OTHER.  PETITIONERS SHOW THAT WE PLACE RELIANCE IN
BOTH CASES ON THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATUTES OF
OKLAHOMA AND INDIANA.  FN5  WE SAID IN THOSE CASES THAT SINCE STATE
LAWS COULD NOT AFFECT PROCEDURE IN FEDERAL COURTS, IT WAS TO BE
INFERRED THAT ONLY STATE COURTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE STATES' CONSENT TO
SUIT. 

THE BASES FOR INFERENCE ADVANCED BY PETITIONERS MIGHT LOGICALLY LEAD
TO A CONCLUSION THAT UTAH INTENDED TO SUBMIT THE INTERPRETATION OF ITS
TAX STATUTES TO FEDERAL TRIAL COURTS WHERE THE CONTROVERSIES ARISE
UNDER FEDERAL LAW.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MAY BE COGENTLY ARGUED THAT
THE PRACTICE OF TREATING THE FEDERAL COURTS AS COURTS OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 80-11-11 BEFORE THE ADDITION OF THE STATE AS A
POSSIBLE DEFENDANT RESULTED FROM THE FACT THAT CONSENT WAS NOT
NECESSARY FOR SUITS AGAINST COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES N6.  IT COULD
BE URGED THAT GRANTS OF JURISDICTION TO COURTS OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF LITIGANTS OTHER
THAN THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT PERSUASIVE AS TO THE INTENT OF A STATE
TO CONSENT TO SUITS IN FEDERAL COURTS.  FN7  WE ARE INFORMED THAT UTAH
EMPLOYS EXPLICIT LANGUAGE TO INDICATE, IN OTHER LITIGATION, ITS CONSENT
TO SUITS IN FEDERAL COURTS.  FN8  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE CASES
UNDER CONSIDERATION ILLUSTRATE THE DISADVANTAGE OF DEDUCING FROM
EQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE A STATE'S CONSENT TO SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ON
CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING UNDER STATE TAX STATUTES.  THE DISADVANTAGE
REFERRED TO IS THAT, IF THE MERITS WERE TO BE PASSED UPON, THE INITIAL
INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF A STATE STATUTE WOULD
HAVE TO BE MADE BY A FEDERAL COURT WITHOUT A PREVIOUS AUTHORITATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  SEE
SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101, 103-105. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE UTAH STATUTES FALL SHORT OF THE CLEAR
DECLARATION BY A STATE OF ITS CONSENT TO BE SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
WHICH WE THINK IS REQUIRED BEFORE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD UNDERTAKE
ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIMS OF TAXPAYERS AGAINST A STATE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  UTAH CODE ANNO.  1943, 80-5-76: 

"NO COURT OF THIS STATE EXCEPT THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW, ALTER, OR ANNUL ANY DECISION OF THE TAX
COMMISSION OR TO SUSPEND OR DELAY THE OPERATION OR EXECUTION THEREOF;
PROVIDED, ANY TAXPAYER MAY PAY HIS OCCUPATION TAX UNDER PROTEST AND
THEREAFTER BRING AN ACTION IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION FOR
THE RETURN THEREOF AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 80-11-11, REVISED STATUTES OF
UTAH, 1933." 

ID., 80-11-11(THIS IS IDENTICAL WITH REVISED STATUTES OF UTAH,
1933): 

"IN ALL CASES OF LEVY OF TAXES, LICENSES, OR OTHER DEMANDS FOR PUBLIC
REVENUE WHICH IS DEEMED UNLAWFUL BY THE PARTY WHOSE PROPERTY IS THUS
TAXED, OR FROM WHOM SUCH TAX OR LICENSE IS DEMANDED OR ENFORCED, SUCH
PARTY MAY PAY UNDER PROTEST SUCH TAX OR LICENSE, OR ANY PART THEREOF
DEEMED UNLAWFUL, TO THE OFFICERS DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO
COLLECT THE SAME; AND THEREUPON THE PARTY SO PAYING OR HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION AGAINST THE OFFICER TO WHOM SAID TAX OR LICENSE WAS PAID,
OR AGAINST THE STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY OR OTHER TAXING UNIT ON
WHOSE BEHALF THE SAME WAS COLLECTED, TO RECOVER SAID TAX OR LICENSE OR
ANY PORTION THEREOF PAID UNDER PROTEST." 

FN2  UTAH CODE ANNO.  1943, 80-11-13: 

"IN CASE ANY TAX OR LICENSE SHALL BE PAID TO THE STATE UNDER PROTEST,
SAID TAX OR LICENSE SO PAID SHALL NOT BE COVERED INTO THE GENERAL FUND
BUT SHALL BE HELD AND RETAINED BY THE STATE TREASURER AND SHALL NOT BE
EXPENDED UNTIL THE TIME FOR THE FILING OF AN ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF
SAID TAX OR LICENSE SHALL HAVE EXPIRED, AND IN CASE AN ACTION HAS BEEN
FILED, UNTIL IT SHALL HAVE BEEN FINALLY DETERMINED THAT SAID TAX OR
LICENSE WAS LAWFULLY OR WAS UNLAWFULLY COLLECTED.  IF IN ANY SUCH
ACTION IT SHALL BE FINALLY DETERMINED THAT SAID TAX OR LICENSE WAS
UNLAWFULLY COLLECTED, THE OFFICER COLLECTING SAID TAX OR LICENSE SHALL
FORTHWITH APPROVE A CLAIM FOR THE AMOUNT OF SAID TAX OR LICENSE
ADJUDGED TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY COLLECTED, TOGETHER WITH COSTS AND
INTEREST AS PROVIDED BY LAW, AND ANY EXCESS AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF SAID
TAX REQUIRED TO PAY SAID CLAIM, INCLUDING INTEREST AND COSTS, SHALL BE
REPAID OUT OF ANY UNAPPROPRIATED FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE
TREASURER, OR, IN CASE IT IS NECESSARY, A DEFICIT FOR SAID AMOUNT SHALL
BE AUTHORIZED." 

FN3  THESE EXAMPLES OF SUITS IN FEDERAL COURTS WERE CITED:  BASSETT
V. UTAH COPPER CO., 219 F. 811(SEC.  80-11-11 WAS THEN SEC. 2684);
SOUTH UTAH MINES V. BEAVER COUNTY, 262 U.S. 325(SEC.  2684); SALT LAKE
COUNTY V. UTAH COPPER CO., 294 F. 199; BEAVER COUNTY V. SOUTH UTAH
MINES & SMELTERS, 17 F.2D 577. 

FN4  SHOSHONE MINING CO. V. RUTTER, 177 U.S. 505, 506. 

FN5  322 U.S. AT 55; 323 U.S. AT 465-66. 

FN6  LINCOLN COUNTY V. LUNING, 133 U.S. 529; CHICOT COUNTY V.
SHERWOOD, 148 U.S. 529.  SEE HOPKINS V. CLEMSON COLLEGE, 221 U.S. 636. 
FN7  COMPARE MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 389. 

FN8  UTAH CODE ANNO.  1943, 104-3-27: 

"UPON THE CONDITIONS HEREIN PRESCRIBED THE CONSENT OF THE STATE OF
UTAH IS GIVEN TO BE NAMED A PARTY IN ANY SUIT WHICH IS NOW PENDING OR
WHICH MAY HEREAFTER BE BROUGHT IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE OR OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE RECOVERY OF ANY PROPERTY REAL OR PERSONAL ..." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND
MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCUR. 

EVEN WHILE THE CIVIL WAR WAS RAGING LINCOLN DEEMED IT IMPORTANT TO
ASK CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RENDER JUDGMENTS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  HE DID SO ON THE SCORE OF PUBLIC MORALITY. 
"IT IS," WROTE LINCOLN IN HIS FIRST ANNUAL MESSAGE, "AS MUCH THE DUTY
OF GOVERNMENT TO RENDER PROMPT JUSTICE AGAINST ITSELF IN FAVOR OF
CITIZENS AS IT IS TO ADMINISTER THE SAME BETWEEN PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. 
THE INVESTIGATION AND ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS IN THEIR NATURE BELONG TO
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT."  7 RICHARDSON, MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, 3245, 3252.  BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATES ARE
IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNLESS THEY AGREE TO BE SUED.  THOUGH THIS IMMUNITY
FROM SUIT WITHOUT CONSENT IS EMBODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS AN
ANACHRONISTIC SURVIVAL OF MONARCHICAL PRIVILEGE, AND RUNS COUNTER TO
DEMOCRATIC NOTIONS OF THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE. 

NOT SO LONG AGO THIS COURT ACTED ON THE REALIZATION THAT "THE PRESENT
CLIMATE OF OPINION  ... HAS BROUGHT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
INTO DISFAVOR."  KEIFER & KEIFER V. R.F.C., 306 U.S. 381, 391.  TODAY
THE COURT TREATS GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT AS THOUGH IT WERE A
PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE WHICH MUST BE SAFEGUARDED EVEN TO THE POINT OF
GIVING A STATE'S AUTHORIZATION TO BE SUED THE MOST STRAINED
CONSTRUCTION, WHEREBY A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN UTAH IS MADE TO APPEAR
NOT A "COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION."  THUS, WHILE DURING THE LAST
SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, AS A DOCTRINE
WITHOUT MORAL VALIDITY, HAS BEEN PROGRESSIVELY CONTRACTED, THE COURT
NOW TAKES A BACKWARD STEP BY ENHANCING A DISCREDITED DOCTRINE THROUGH
ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTION. 

IN DOING SO THE COURT ALSO DISREGARDS THE HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE COURTS.  IT TREATS A FEDERAL COURT
SITTING IN A STATE AS THOUGH IT WERE THE COURT OF AN ALIEN POWER.  THE
FACT IS THAT THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY THE COURTS OF A STATE AND THE
FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN THAT STATE WERE DEEMED TO BE "COURTS OF A
COMMON COUNTRY."  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V. BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S.
211, 222.  AS A RESULT, FEDERAL RIGHTS WERE ENFORCED IN STATE COURTS
AND A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN A STATE WAS DEEMED TO BE "A COURT OF
THAT STATE," EVEN AS TO A LITIGATION LIKE THAT OF A CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDING WHICH WOULD APPEAR TO BE PECULIARLY CONFINED TO A STATE
COURT.  MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V. ST. BERNARD MINING CO., 196 U.S.
239, 255-56; EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369, 377; NEIRBO CO. V.
BETHLEHEM CORP., 308 U.S. 165, 171. 

A STATE MAY OF COURSE LIMIT ITS CONSENT TO SUIT IN ITS OWN COURTS. 
IT MAY DO SO BY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE OR BY IMPLICATION THROUGH PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS WHICH COULD NOT BE SATISFIED BY A FEDERAL
COURT SITTING IN THE STATE.  SUCH WERE THE GROUNDS OF THE RECENT
DECISIONS IN GREAT NORTHERN LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. READ, 322 U.S. 47,
AND FORD MOTOR CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 323 U.S. 459.  THESE
DECISIONS, AS THE COURT CONCEDES, RELIED ON PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF
THE RESPECTIVE STATUTES OF OKLAHOMA AND INDIANA WHICH THE FEDERAL
COURTS IN THESE STATES COULD NOT MEET.  THEREFORE, THOSE STATUTES
IMPLIEDLY GRANTED THE STATE'S CONSENT TO BE SUED ONLY IN THE STATE
COURTS, FOR ONLY THESE COULD MEET THE STATE'S PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. 

UTAH MADE NO RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO SUE.  THE STATUTE GIVING
CONSENT TO SUIT MERELY REQUIRES THE COURT IN WHICH SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT
TO BE A "COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION."  THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF UTAH IS OTHERWISE A "COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION"
IS NOT GAINSAID.  HOW COULD THE STATE INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT IN ITS CONSENT TO BE SUED IN A "COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION" SHORT OF STATING EXPLICITLY THAT A "COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION" SHALL INCLUDE THE FEDERAL COURTS?  THE OPINION DOES NOT
SAY THAT NOTHING SHORT OF SUCH SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION TO SUE IN THE
FEDERAL COURT GIVES THE STATE'S CONSENT TO BE SUED THERE.  BUT IF SUCH
A FORMAL REQUIREMENT BE THE MEANING OF THE PRESENT DECISION, IT RUNS
COUNTER TO A LONG COURSE OF ADJUDICATION AND PAYS UNDUE OBEISANCE TO A
DOCTRINE, THAT OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, WHICH, WHATEVER
CLAIMS IT MAY HAVE, DOES NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF ANY PRINCIPLE OF
JUSTICE. 
..END :
























A.F. OF L. V. WATSON, 327 U.S. 582 


NO. 448.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  - 60
F.SUPP.  1010, REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED. 


1.  SECTION 24(8) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, GRANTING FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS JURISDICTION OF ALL "SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER ANY LAW
REGULATING COMMERCE," APPLIES TO A SUIT SEEKING TO PROTECT RIGHTS
ASSERTED UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  P. 589. 

2.  SECTION 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, PROVIDING THAT ONLY A THREE
JUDGE COURT MAY ISSUE AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SUSPENDING OR
RESTRAINING "THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF ANY STATUTE OF
A STATE," APPLIES TO A SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A PROVISION OF A STATE CONSTITUTION.  P. 591. 

(A)  THE POLICY UNDERLYING SEC. 266 ADMITS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN
STATE ACTION TO ENFORCE A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND STATE ACTION TO
ENFORCE AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE.  P. 592. 

(B)  THE WORD "STATUTE" IN SEC. 266 IS A COMPENDIOUS SUMMARY OF
VARIOUS ENACTMENTS, BY WHATEVER METHOD THEY MAY BE ADOPTED, TO WHICH A
STATE GIVES HER SANCTION AND IS AT LEAST SUFFICIENTLY INCLUSIVE TO
EMBRACE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  P. 592. 

3.  WHERE A STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS CONSTRUED A PROVISION OF THE
STATE CONSTITUTION AS OUTLAWING ALL CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS WITH LABOR
UNIONS, HAS ORDERED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO ENFORCE IT BY CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION OF LABOR UNIONS, THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS, AND OF
EMPLOYERS HAVING CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS, AND HAS THREATENED AND
ACTUALLY INSTITUTED QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL FRANCHISES OF
CORPORATIONS HAVING AND OBSERVING CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS WITH LABOR
UNIONS, THE SITUATION INVOLVES A THREAT OF "IRREPARABLE INJURY WHICH IS
CLEAR AND IMMINENT," SO AS TO JUSTIFY A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY IN
INTERFERING WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE LAW, NOTWITHSTANDING SEC.
267 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE FORBIDDING THE MAINTENANCE OF SUITS IN EQUITY
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS "IN ANY CASE WHERE A PLAIN, ADEQUATE, AND
COMPLETE REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW."  P. 593. 

(A)  THE DISRUPTION IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH WOULD BE
OCCASIONED BY HOLDING CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS ILLEGAL WOULD BE SO
SERIOUS AS TO MAKE IT FUTILE TO ATTEMPT TO MEASURE THE LOSS IN MONEY
DAMAGES AND ANY REMEDY AT LAW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WOULD BE
INADEQUATE.  P. 594. 

(B)  THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF A POLICY TO
PROSECUTE CRIMINALLY ALL VIOLATORS OF THE LAW INVOLVED AND THE ACTUAL
INSTITUTION OF QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SEVERAL CORPORATIONS
HAVING CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS MAKE THE THREAT REAL AND IMMINENT.  P.
594. 

(C)  THE ALLEGATION THAT THERE IS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO AN ENTIRE
SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH, IF CARRIED THROUGH, WILL HAVE
SUCH REPERCUSSIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR AS TO
CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY.  P. 595. 

4.  HOWEVER, IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT SHOULD
NOT PASS ON THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY UNTIL THE STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION HAS BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY CONSTRUED BY THE
STATE COURTS.  PP. 595-599. 

(A)  IF IT IS CONSTRUED SO AS TO ELIMINATE ANY CONFLICT WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, ONE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
ALLEGED TO EXIST IN THIS CASE WILL DISAPPEAR.  P. 598. 

(B)  IF IT IS CONSTRUED AS DOING NO MORE THAN TO GRANT AN INDIVIDUAL
WORKING MAN A CAUSE OF ACTION IF HE IS DENIED EMPLOYMENT UNLESS HE
JOINS A UNION OR TO MAKE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS UNENFORCEABLE BETWEEN
THE PARTIES, NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY RAISING THE DUE PROCESS QUESTION
WOULD BE PRESENTED BY THIS SUIT, IN WHICH NO INDIVIDUAL WORKING MAN IS
ASSERTING RIGHTS AGAINST UNIONS OR EMPLOYERS AND NO UNION IS SEEKING TO
ENFORCE A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT AGAINST AN EMPLOYER.  P. 598. 

(C)  IF IT IS CONSTRUED NOT TO BE SELF-EXECUTING, SUITS SEEKING TO
RAISE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WOULD BE PREMATURE UNTIL THE STATE
SUPPLIES SANCTIONS FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  P. 598. 

5.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD RETAIN THE BILL
UNTIL A DEFINITE DETERMINATION OF THE LOCAL LAW QUESTIONS CAN BE MADE
BY THE STATE COURTS.  P. 599. 

6.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL GROUNDS
ASSERTED FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF IS THE CONTINUANCE OF LITIGATION IN THE
STATE COURTS, THE PURPOSE OF A SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE
LAW WILL NOT BE DEFEATED BY RETAINING THE BILL PENDING DETERMINATION OF
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS, SINCE THE RESOURCES OF EQUITY ARE NOT
INADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM SO AS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY FRICTION
WITH STATE POLICIES WHILE SELECTIVE CASES GO FORWARD IN THE STATE
COURTS FOR AN ORDERLY AND EXPEDITIOUS ADJUDICATION OF THE STATE LAW
QUESTIONS.  P. 599. 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR ET AL. V. WATSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPELLANTS SUED TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF A PROVISION OF THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION (QUOTED IN THE OPINION) ON THE GROUND THAT IT VIOLATED THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF
ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND WAS IN CONFLICT WITH
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT. 

A DISTRICT JUDGE GRANTED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND CAUSED A
THREE-JUDGE COURT TO BE CONVENED PURSUANT TO SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE
CONTROVERSY; BUT, WITHOUT DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS EQUITY IN THE
BILL OR WHETHER THE CASE SHOULD BE HELD UNTIL AN AUTHORITATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE FLORIDA LAW BY THE COURTS COULD FIRST BE
OBTAINED, PROCEEDED AT ONCE TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS.  IT HELD THAT THE FLORIDA LAW DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST OR
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THAT IT WOULD BE TIME TO CONSIDER ANY
CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IF AND WHEN IT AROSE,
SINCE THAT ACT AND THE FLORIDA LAW DID NOT ON THEIR FACE APPEAR TO BE
IN CONFLICT.  IT ACCORDINGLY VACATED THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND DISMISSED THE BILL.  60 F.SUPP.  1010. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO RETAIN THE BILL PENDING
DETERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
OPINION OF THIS COURT.  P. 599. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1944 FLORIDA ADOPTED AN AMENDMENT TO HER CONSTITUTION N1 WHICH
READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE RIGHT OF PERSONS TO WORK SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED ON
ACCOUNT OF MEMBERSHIP OR NON-MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR UNION, OR LABOR
ORGANIZATION; PROVIDED, THAT THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY
OR ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES BY AND THROUGH A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR LABOR UNION TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR EMPLOYER." 

SHORTLY THEREAFTER THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THAT PROVISION ON THE GROUND THAT IT VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT (49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151) AND THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT.  47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 101. 

THE APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS BELOW) ARE VARIOUS NATIONAL AND LOCAL
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING IN FLORIDA, INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE MEMBERS
OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THREE
EMPLOYERS DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA.  FN2  APPELLEES ARE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF FLORIDA CHARGED WITH DUTIES OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND VARIOUS EMPLOYERS.  FN3 THE THEORY OF THE BILL IS THAT
THE LAW IN QUESTION OUTLAWS ANY AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRES MEMBERSHIP IN
A LABOR ORGANIZATION AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, ALL OF WHICH WE
REFER TO HEREIN AS THE CLOSED SHOP.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE APPELLANT
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OR THEIR AFFILIATES HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES OF NUMEROUS
EMPLOYERS IN FLORIDA AND THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF THOSE LOCAL AND
NATIONAL UNIONS EITHER HAVE,  FN4  OR DESIRE OR ARE ABOUT TO BECOME
PARTIES TO, CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS WITH FLORIDA EMPLOYERS.  IT IS
ALLEGED THAT THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES THE MOST EFFECTIVE
MEANS POSSESSED BY ORGANIZED LABOR TO ATTAIN ECONOMIC SECURITY, TO
DETER PRACTICES DESTRUCTIVE OF PUBLIC POLICY AND THE INTERESTS OF WAGE
EARNERS, AND EFFECTIVELY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT
ALL OF THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYERS AND TWO OF THE THREE PLAINTIFF EMPLOYERS
ARE PARTIES TO CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS WITH SOME OF THE APPELLANT UNIONS
WHICH EXPIRE AT VARIOUS DATES IN THE YEAR 1945 AND THEREAFTER CONTINUE
IN EFFECT ON A YEAR-TO-YEAR BASIS.  THESE CONTRACTS ARE ALLEGED TO BE
VALUABLE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS.  IT
IS ALLEGED THAT ONE APPELLANT EMPLOYER (R.J. GOULD) AND SOME OF THE
APPELLANT UNIONS ARE DESIROUS OF ENTERING INTO CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS
BUT ARE PREVENTED FROM DOING SO BY THE FLORIDA LAW.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT
THE SAME PROBLEM OBTAINS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER EMPLOYERS IN FLORIDA. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT APPELLEE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS HAVE TAKEN
THE POSITION THAT CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS VIOLATE THE FLORIDA LAW AND
THAT THEY INTEND TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH IT BY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS.  THE BILL ALLEGES THAT APPELLEE WATSON THREATENS TO
INSTITUTE QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VARIOUS COMPANIES WITH WHOM
APPELLANT UNIONS HAVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS CONTAINING
CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS, WHEREBY IT WILL BE SOUGHT TO CANCEL THEIR
CORPORATE FRANCHISES UNLESS THE CLOSED-SHOP PROVISIONS OF THE
AGREEMENTS ARE NOT OBSERVED.  AND APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR A RESTRAINING
ORDER ALLEGES THAT QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED FOR
THAT PURPOSE AGAINST A NUMBER OF SUCH COMPANIES, INCLUDING THREE OF THE
CORPORATE APPELLEES.  THE BILL FURTHER ALLEGES THAT APPELLEE WATSON HAS
THREATENED APPELLANT UNIONS AND THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS AND THE
INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WITH CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS UNLESS THEY GIVE UP
THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS AND REFRAIN FROM RENEWING OR ENTERING INTO
ANY SUCH AGREEMENTS.  IT ALLEGES THAT HE HAS ORDERED LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES TO INSTITUTE SUCH PROSECUTIONS IMMEDIATELY AND THAT THEY ARE
IN PROCESS OF BEING PREPARED. 

IRREPARABLE INJURY IS ALLEGED AS FOLLOWS:  THE THREATENED ACTIONS (A)
WILL RESULT IN INTERMINABLE LITIGATION AND MULTIPLICITY OF PROSECUTIONS
AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS; (B) WILL CAUSE WIDESPREAD DISRUPTION OF
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AND PRODUCTION; (C) WILL DEPRIVE APPELLANTS OF THE
BENEFITS OF EXISTING CONTRACTS; (D) WILL CAUSE APPELLANT UNIONS TO LOSE
PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS AND IMPERIL THE SECURITY OF THE UNIONS
AND THEIR MEMBERS; (E) WILL MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ONE OF THE APPELLANT
EMPLOYERS (R.J. GOULD) TO OBTAIN SUFFICIENT SKILLED LABOR TO CONDUCT
HIS BUSINESS; AND (F) WILL CAUSE A CESSATION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS AND WILL RESULT IN
THE DISORGANIZATION AND DISINTEGRATION OF THE UNIONS. 

THE PRAYER WAS FOR A TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  A MOTION TO
DISMISS WAS MADE WHICH, THOUGH DENYING A SHOWING OF IRREPARABLE DAMAGE,
RAISED NO ISSUE OF FACT, OTHER THAN THE QUESTION WHETHER THE AMOUNT
INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $3,000. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE GRANTED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PURSUANT
TO A PRAYER OF THE BILL CAUSED A THREE-JUDGE COURT TO BE CONVENED. 
SEC. 266 JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380.  THE DISTRICT COURT
CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE CONTROVERSY.  BUT WITHOUT
DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS EQUITY IN THE BILL (DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE,
319 U.S. 157, 162-163) OR WHETHER, PURSUANT TO THE RULE OF RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496; CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES,
316 U.S. 168; SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101, THE CASE
SHOULD BE HELD UNTIL AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE FLORIDA LAW
BY THE FLORIDA COURTS COULD FIRST BE OBTAINED, IT PROCEEDED AT ONCE TO
A CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  IT HELD THAT THIS
FLORIDA LAW DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST OR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NOR THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  IT
HELD THAT IT WOULD BE TIME TO CONSIDER ANY CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT IF AND WHEN IT AROSE, SINCE THAT ACT AND THE
FLORIDA LAW DID NOT ON THEIR FACES APPEAR TO BE IN CONFLICT.  IT
ACCORDINGLY VACATED THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT.  60 F.SUPP.  1010.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL. 

THE INITIAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION
AS A FEDERAL COURT TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE MERITS.  FN5  THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OF ALL SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE, AT
COMMON LAW OR IN EQUITY WHERE THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS,
EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS, $3,000 AND "ARISES UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
24(1), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1).  THE ALLEGATIONS ARE THAT IF THE FLORIDA
LAW BECOMES EFFECTIVE THERE WILL BE AN IMMEDIATE DECREASE IN THE
MEMBERSHIP OF APPELLANT UNIONS AND THE DUES COLLECTED BY THEM WILL
DECREASE FAR IN EXCESS OF $3,000.  SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE TO THE
EFFECT THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE FLORIDA LAW WILL RESULT IN SUCH
DECIMATION OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THESE UNIONS, BOTH LOCAL AND NATIONAL,
AS TO CAUSE REDUCTION IN INCOME GREATLY IN EXCESS OF $3,000
JEOPARDIZING THE ABILITY OF THE UNIONS TO FUNCTION.  SUPPORTING
AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED BY A UNION OFFICIAL SHOWING THAT APPELLANT UNIONS
HAVE ABOUT 500 CONTRACTS WITH FLORIDA EMPLOYERS CONTAINING CLOSED-SHOP
AGREEMENTS AND AFFECTING ABOUT 100,000 EMPLOYEES; AND AVERRING THAT IF
THOSE CONTRACTS ARE NULLIFIED THE LOSS IN DUES WILL GREATLY EXCEED
$3,000, WITH RESULTING INJURY TO THE UNIONS FAR IN EXCESS OF THAT
AMOUNT.  THE ANSWER OF ONE OF THE APPELLEES, THE SHERIFF OF
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, ADMITTED THAT THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDED
$3,000.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY APPELLEE
WATSON CHALLENGED THE SHOWING OF THE NECESSARY JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT. 
NO COUNTER AFFIDAVITS, HOWEVER, WERE FILED.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD IT
HAD JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  NONE OF THE
PARTIES CHALLENGES THAT FINDING HERE.  THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO HELD
THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 24(14) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(14).  THAT PROVISION  FN6  GIVES THE DISTRICT COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES JURISDICTION OVER SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT  FN7  WITHOUT ALLEGATION OF ANY JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  SEE
HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, SUPRA, PP. 161
162.  WE DO NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 24(1) OR SEC. 24(14) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  FOR
IT IS THE VIEW OF A MAJORITY OF THE COURT THAT JURISDICTION IS FOUND IN
SEC. 24(8) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(8), WHICH GRANTS THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION OF ALL "SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS
ARISING UNDER ANY LAW REGULATING COMMERCE."  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE BILL
ALLEGES A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA LAW AND THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  THE THEORY OF THE BILL IS THAT LABOR UNIONS, CERTIFIED
AS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES UNDER THAT ACT,
ARE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW THE RIGHT TO USE THE CLOSED-SHOP
AGREEMENT N8 OR, ALTERNATIVELY, THAT THE RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
GRANTED BY THAT ACT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY FOR A
CLOSED SHOP.  WHETHER THAT CLAIM IS CORRECT IS A QUESTION WHICH GOES TO
THE MERITS.  IT IS, HOWEVER, A SUBSTANTIAL ONE.  AND SINCE THE RIGHT
ASSERTED IS DERIVED FROM OR RECOGNIZED BY A FEDERAL LAW REGULATING
COMMERCE, A MAJORITY OF THE COURT CONCLUDE THAT A SUIT TO PROTECT IT
AGAINST IMPAIRMENT BY STATE ACTION IS A SUIT "ARISING UNDER" A FEDERAL
LAW "REGULATING COMMERCE."  CF. MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38, 46;
PEYTON V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 316 U.S. 350; PARKER V. BROWN, 317
U.S. 341, 349; TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210, 213. 

ANOTHER PRELIMINARY QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS IS A PROPER CASE FOR A
THREE-JUDGE COURT.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT ONLY A THREE-JUDGE COURT
MAY ISSUE AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SUSPENDING OR RESTRAINING "THE
ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF ANY STATUTE OF A STATE BY
RESTRAINING THE ACTION OF ANY OFFICER OF SUCH STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OR EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE  ..."  SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 380.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT
PROVISIONS OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS WELL.  IT IS SOMETIMES USED TO
EMBRACE ALL ENACTMENTS, HOWEVER ADOPTED, TO WHICH A STATE GIVES THE
FORCE OF LAW.  SEE STEVENS V. GRIFFITH, 111 U.S. 48, 50.  IN SPEAKING
OF SEC. 266 WE RECENTLY SAID, 

"TO BRING THIS PROCEDURAL DEVICE INTO PLAY - TO DISLOCATE THE NORMAL
OPERATIONS OF THE SYSTEM OF LOWER FEDERAL COURTS AND THEREAFTER TO COME
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT - REQUIRES A SUIT WHICH SEEKS TO INTERPOSE THE
CONSTITUTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE POLICY, WHETHER SUCH POLICY
IS DEFINED IN A STATE CONSTITUTION OR IN AN ORDINARY STATUTE OR THROUGH
THE DELEGATED LEGISLATION OF AN 'ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR COMMISSION.' 
THE CRUX OF THE BUSINESS IS PROCEDURAL PROTECTION AGAINST AN
IMPROVIDENT STATE-WIDE DOOM BY A FEDERAL COURT OF A STATE'S LEGISLATIVE
POLICY.  THIS WAS THE AIM OR CONGRESS AND THIS IS THE RECONCILING
PRINCIPLE OF THE CASES." 

PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 251.  AND SEE STERLING V.
CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 393.  IT WOULD, AS THE COURT BELOW STATED, BE
SOMEWHAT INCONGRUOUS TO HOLD THAT A SINGLE JUDGE, WHILE PROHIBITED FROM
ENJOINING ACTION UNDER AN ACT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, WOULD BE FREE
TO ACT IF THE STATE CONSTITUTION ALONE WERE INVOLVED.  THE POLICY
UNDERLYING SEC. 266 ADMITS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN STATE ACTION TO
ENFORCE A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND STATE ACTION TO ENFORCE AN ACT
OF THE LEGISLATURE.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE HISTORY OF SEC. 266
THAT CONGRESS WAS WILLING TO GIVE THE FEDERAL COURTS A FREER HAND WHEN
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WERE INVOLVED.  IN OUR VIEW THE WORD
"STATUTE" IN SEC. 266 IS A COMPENDIOUS SUMMARY OF VARIOUS ENACTMENTS,
BY WHATEVER METHOD THEY MAY BE ADOPTED, TO WHICH A STATE GIVES HER
SANCTION AND IS AT LEAST SUFFICIENTLY INCLUSIVE TO EMBRACE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.    BUT EVEN THOUGH A DISTRICT COURT HAS
AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE CASE ON THE MERITS, IT SHOULD NOT
INVOKE ITS POWERS UNLESS THOSE WHO SEEK ITS AID HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION
IN EQUITY.  DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, SUPRA, PP. 162-163.  THE POWER OF A
COURT OF EQUITY TO ACT IS A DISCRETIONARY ONE.  PENNSYLVANIA V.
WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185.  WHERE A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY IS ASKED
TO INTERFERE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS, IT SHOULD DO SO ONLY
"TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY WHICH IS CLEAR AND IMMINENT  ..." 
DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, SUPRA, P. 163; SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295
U.S. 89; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INS. ASSN., 296 U.S. 64; WATSON V.
BUCK, 313 U.S. 387. 

THAT IS A STRICT TEST.  BUT WE THINK APPELLANTS SATISFY IT.  WE REACH
THAT CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE
DISRUPTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESSES AND THE INJURY TO THE
UNIONS AND TO THE EMPLOYERS ALIKE, IF THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT IS
OUTLAWED.  AS WE HAVE SAID, IT IS AVERRED THAT THERE ARE ABOUT 500
CONTRACTS WITH FLORIDA EMPLOYERS CONTAINING CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS AND
AFFECTING ABOUT 100,000 EMPLOYEES.  EACH CONTRACT IS AFFECTED IF THE
CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT IS HELD UNLAWFUL.  SOME OF THOSE CONTRACTS HAVE
EXPIRED AND IT IS DESIRED TO RENEW THEM.  OTHERS ARE SOUGHT TO BE
NEGOTIATED.  THUS, IN CASE OF PLAINTIFF, R. J. GOULD, IT IS ALLEGED
THAT ALTHOUGH HE IS ANXIOUS AND WILLING TO ENTER INTO SUCH A CONTRACT,
HE IS PREVENTED FROM DOING SO BY THE THREATS OF APPELLEES.  AS A
RESULT, IT IS ALLEGED, HE IS AND HAS BEEN UNABLE TO SECURE SUFFICIENT
SKILLED LABOR TO CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT THERE ARE
NUMEROUS OTHER SITUATIONS OF THE SAME CHARACTER.  AND IT IS SHOWN THAT
ONE EMPLOYER, AGAINST WHOM QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN
INSTITUTED, ALREADY HAS GIVEN NOTICE OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE CLOSED
SHOP AGREEMENT WHICH IT HAD WITH ONE OF THE APPELLANT UNIONS. 
ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE THAT OUTLAWRY OF CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS WILL CAUSE
A DISRUPTION IN PRODUCTION AND THE DECIMATION OF UNION MEMBERSHIP.  IT
IS FAIR TO SAY ON A READING OF THE BILL THAT FROM THE VIEWPOINT BOTH OF
THE APPELLANT UNIONS AND THE APPELLANT EMPLOYERS THE DISRUPTION IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH WOULD BE OCCASIONED BY HOLDING CLOSED-SHOP
AGREEMENTS ILLEGAL WOULD BE SO SERIOUS AS TO MAKE IT FUTILE TO ATTEMPT
TO MEASURE THE LOSS IN MONEY DAMAGES.  THE ALLEGATIONS CERTAINLY STATE
A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY NO LESS CLEAR THAN THAT SUSTAINED IN UTAH
FUEL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMM'N, 306 U.S. 56.  THE LOSS IN
BARGAINING POSITION BY THE UNIONS, THE DISRUPTION OF HARMONIOUS
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE EMPLOYERS, THE ALMOST CERTAIN
DECREASE IN UNION MEMBERSHIP - THESE ARE MATTERS INVOLVING INTANGIBLE
VALUES.  SEC. 267 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 384, FORBIDS THE
MAINTENANCE OF SUITS IN EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES "IN
ANY CASE WHERE A PLAIN, ADEQUATE, AND COMPLETE REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT
LAW."  BUT IN VIEW OF THE CHARACTER OF THE INTANGIBLE INTERESTS AT
STAKE, WE CANNOT SEE HOW ANY REMEDY AT LAW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS  FN9
WOULD BE ADEQUATE A LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHICH
INVOLVES THE POINT, MAY BE SLOW IN DEVELOPING.  MEANWHILE, COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING OF THE KIND ALLEGED TO BE PERMITTED OR SECURED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT MAY BE DISASTROUSLY AFFECTED.  WE, OF
COURSE, DO NOT INTIMATE AN OPINION ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ALLEGED
CONFLICT EXISTS.  WHETHER THE BILL MAKES OUT A CASE TO DETERMINE THE
ISSUE IS THE ONLY QUESTION NOW BEFORE US. 

MOREOVER, THE THREAT TO ENFORCE THE FLORIDA LAW IS REAL AND
IMMINENT.  QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED AGAINST
SEVERAL OF THE CORPORATIONS WHO ARE PARTIES TO THE SUIT ON THE BASIS
THAT THEY HAVE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS WITH THE UNIONS.  AND APPELLEE
WATSON HAS ANNOUNCED A POLICY TO PROSECUTE CRIMINALLY ALL VIOLATORS OF
THE FLORIDA LAW.  THE THREAT OF MULTIPLICITY OF PROSECUTIONS WHICH IS
HERE ALLEGED WOULD NOT ALONE BE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF
ACTION IN EQUITY.  MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 529-530; SPIELMAN
MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, SUPRA; BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 312 U.S.
45, 49-50; DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, SUPRA, PP. 163-165.  BUT WE MENTION
THE MATTER HERE TO SHOW THAT THE THREAT OF IRREPARABLE INJURY IS REAL
NOT FANCIFUL, IMMEDIATE NOT REMOTE.  THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS THE
ALLEGATION THAT THERE IS AN IMMINENT THREAT TO AN ENTIRE SYSTEM OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, A THREAT WHICH, IF CARRIED THROUGH, WILL HAVE
SUCH REPERCUSSIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR AS TO
CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE.  WE CONCLUDE FOR THAT REASON THAT THE BILL
STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY.  FN10 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE DISTRICT COURT PASSED ON THE MERITS OF THE
CONTROVERSY.  IN DOING SO AT THIS STAGE OF THE LITIGATION, WE THINK IT
DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROPER COURSE.  THE MERITS INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES CONCERNING THE MEANING OF A NEW PROVISION OF THE
FLORIDA CONSTITUTION WHICH, SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED, HAS NEVER BEEN
CONSTRUED BY THE FLORIDA COURTS.  THOSE COURTS HAVE THE FINAL SAY AS TO
ITS MEANING.  WHEN AUTHORITATIVELY CONSTRUED, IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE
THE MEANING OR FORCE WHICH APPELLEES NOW ASSUME THAT IT HAS.  IN
ABSENCE OF AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW
WITH CERTAINTY WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WILL FINALLY EMERGE.  WHAT
WOULD NOW BE WRITTEN ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS MIGHT THEREFORE
TURN OUT TO BE AN ACADEMIC AND NEEDLESS DISSERTATION. 

THERE IS, IN THE FIRST PLACE, SOME QUESTION WHETHER THIS NEW
PROVISION OF FLORIDA'S CONSTITUTION IS SELF-EXECUTING  FN11  OR
REQUIRES LEGISLATION FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  FN12  THE DISTRICT COURT
ITSELF TOOK THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT SELF-EXECUTING AND NOTED THAT NO
ENFORCING LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ENACTED.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT BE
ASSUMED, AS FLORIDA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL ASSERTS, THAT THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS SELF-EXECUTING, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT
SANCTIONS FLORIDA WILL AFFORD FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  IT PROVIDES THAT
"THE RIGHT OF PERSONS TO WORK SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED ON
ACCOUNT OF MEMBERSHIP OR NON-MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR UNION, OR LABOR
ORGANIZATION ..."  IT IS ASSERTED THAT THIS PROVISION OUTLAWS THE
CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT AND MAKES THOSE WHO ENTER INTO ONE CRIMINALLY
LIABLE,  FN13  OR, IN CASE OF CORPORATIONS, SUBJECTS THEM TO QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS.  FN14  SO FAR AS WE KNOW, HOWEVER, IT MAY NOT
HAVE THAT EFFECT BUT DO NO MORE THAN GIVE TO AN INDIVIDUAL WORKING MAN
A CAUSE OF ACTION IN CASE THE RIGHTS GRANTED HIM ARE DENIED OR
ABRIDGED.  OR AS IN THE CASE OF CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AT
COMMON LAW, IT MAY MAKE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS UNLAWFUL ONLY IN THE
SENSE THAT COURTS WILL NOT ENFORCE THEM.  FN15 THE PROVISO ITSELF
RAISES QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION WHICH WHEN AUTHORITATIVELY SETTLED
MAY PUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES NOW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED IN QUITE A
DIFFERENT LIGHT OR EVEN ELIMINATE SOME OF THEM.  THE PROVISO STATES THE
"THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF
EMPLOYEES BY AND THROUGH A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR LABOR UNION TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR EMPLOYER."  THE BILL ALLEGES THAT THE RIGHT TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY GRANTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT.  FN16  CONCEIVABLY THE
PROVISO MAY BE CONSTRUED TO MAKE THIS FLORIDA LAW APPLICABLE ONLY TO
ENTERPRISES NOT SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  OR THE
RIGHT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, RECOGNIZED BY THE PROVISO, MAY BE
CONSTRUED TO MEAN THE RIGHT WHICH IS GRANTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

WE GIVE THESE ILLUSTRATIONS TO INDICATE HOW UNCERTAIN IT IS WHAT
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WILL EMERGE ONCE THE FLORIDA LAW RECEIVES AN
AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION.  A DECISION TODAY ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS FLORIDA LAW WOULD BE BASED ON A PRELIMINARY
GUESS CONCERNING ITS MEANING, NOT ON AN AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
IT.  WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT THIS LAW MAY BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO
ELIMINATE ANY CONFLICT ALLEGED TO EXIST BETWEEN IT AND THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IF SO, ONE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
PRESENTED BY THIS CASE WOULD DISAPPEAR.  IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT
THE DUE PROCESS QUESTION IS RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION NO MATTER HOW THE
FLORIDA LAW IS CONSTRUED.  BUT IF THE LAW DOES NO MORE THAN TO GRANT AN
INDIVIDUAL WORKING MAN A CAUSE OF ACTION IN CASE HE IS DENIED
EMPLOYMENT UNLESS HE JOINS A UNION, OR IF IT GOES NO FURTHER THAN TO
MAKE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS UNENFORCEABLE BETWEEN THE PARTIES, NO CASE
OR CONTROVERSY RAISING THE DUE PROCESS QUESTION WOULD BE PRESENTED FOR
DECISION BY THE PRESENT BILL.  FOR INDIVIDUAL WORKING MEN ARE NOT HERE
ASSERTING RIGHTS AGAINST UNIONS OR EMPLOYERS.  NOR DOES THE PRESENT
CASE INVOLVE LITIGATION BY UNIONS TO ENFORCE CLOSEDSHOP AGREEMENTS
AGAINST EMPLOYERS.  FURTHERMORE, IF, AS THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT,
THIS FLORIDA LAW IS NOT SELF-EXECUTING, SUITS SEEKING TO RAISE THE DUE
PROCESS QUESTION OR ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WOULD BE
PREMATURE UNTIL FLORIDA SUPPLIED SANCTIONS FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  A
DECISION TODAY ON THE MERITS MIGHT, THEREFORE, AMOUNT TO NO MORE THAN
AN ADVISORY OPINION.  IN RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., SUPRA;
CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES, SUPRA; AND SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V.
MCLAUGHLIN, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROPER
COURSE WAS FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO RETAIN THE BILL UNTIL A DEFINITE
DETERMINATION OF THE LOCAL LAW QUESTIONS COULD BE MADE BY THE STATE
COURTS.  THE DOUBTS CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THE FLORIDA LAW INDICATE
THAT SUCH A PROCEDURE IS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE HERE.  QUO WARRANTO
PROCEEDINGS PRESENTLY PENDING IN THE FLORIDA COURTS MAY RESOLVE THE
DOUBTS.  AND OTHER ACTIONS, SUCH AS SUITS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
FN17  WOULD SEEM TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS. 

IT IS SAID THAT SINCE THE CONTINUANCE OF LITIGATION IN THE STATE
COURTS IS THE ONLY GROUND ASSERTED FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, THE ENTIRE
PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT SUIT WILL BE DEFEATED BY RETAINING THE BILL
PENDING DETERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS.  BUT THE
PROBLEM IS NOT UNIQUE.  IT WAS IMPLICIT IN RAILROAD COMMISSION V.
PULLMAN CO., SUPRA.  MOREOVER, THE CASE FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF RESTS NOT
MERELY ON THE PRESENCE OF A FEW CASES IN THE STATE COURTS BUT ALSO ON
THE THREAT OF WHOLESALE PROSECUTIONS UNDER A STATE LAW WHICH THE CHIEF
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OF THE STATE MAINTAINS OUTLAWS CONTRACTS FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH LABOR AND MANAGEMENT HAVE WIDELY MADE.  THE
RESOURCES OF EQUITY ARE NOT INADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM SO AS
TO AVOID UNNECESSARY FRICTION WITH STATE POLICIES, WHILE SELECTIVE
CASES GO FORWARD IN THE STATE COURTS FOR AN ORDERLY AND EXPEDITIOUS
ADJUDICATION OF THE STATE LAW QUESTIONS. 

WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO
IT WITH DIRECTIONS TO RETAIN THE BILL PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES THE CIGAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF
TAMPA WAS DISMISSED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 
ACCORDINGLY, ITS MOTION TO DISMISS THIS APPEAL AS AGAINST IT IS
GRANTED.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE AMENDMENT, DESIGNATED AS HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 13, WAS
PASSED BY THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN 1943(L. 1943, P.
1134) AND WAS RATIFIED BY THE PEOPLE AT THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD ON
NOVEMBER 7, 1944. 

FN2  MCCLOSKEY & CO., A DELAWARE CORPORATION IN THE BUSINESS OF
BUILDING SHIPS AT TAMPA, FLORIDA; R.J. GOULD, ENGAGED IN GENERAL
WELDING AND STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDING WORK IN TAMPA, FLORIDA, AND DOING
BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF GOULD WELDING & ERECTING CO.; TAMPA FLORIDA
BREWERY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ENGAGED IN THE BREWERY BUSINESS
AT TAMPA, FLORIDA. 

FN3  TAMPA SHIPBUILDING CO. AND ST. JOHNS RIVER SHIPBUILDING CO.,
FLORIDA CORPORATIONS, ENGAGED IN THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS
AT FLORIDA PORTS; WEIR'S DRY CLEANERS & LAUNDRY, INC., A FLORIDA
CORPORATION, ENGAGED IN THE DRY CLEANING AND LAUNDRY BUSINESS IN TAMPA,
FLORIDA; NATIONAL CONTAINER CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, MANUFACTURING
PAPER CONTAINERS IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA; CIGAR MANUFACTURERS ASSOC.
OF TAMPA, A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION OF TAMPA CIGAR MANUFACTURERS. 

THESE PARTIES WERE JOINED AS DEFENDANTS BECAUSE THEY HAD COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS OF APPELLANT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. 
THEY ARE CALLED NOMINAL DEFENDANTS SINCE NO RELIEF WAS SOUGHT AGAINST
THEM. 

FN4  IT IS ALLEGED THAT SOME OF THESE AGREEMENTS ARE FOR PERIODS OF
ONE YEAR WITH AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSES FOR ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR
PERIODS, OTHERS FOR PERIODS OF YEARS UP TO FIVE, SOME FOR THE DURATION
OF THE WAR, AND OTHERS FOR PERIODS ABOUT TO EXPIRE. 

THE CONSTITUTIONS OF SOME OF THE APPELLANT UNIONS REQUIRE THAT ALL
PERSONS WHO DESIRE TO OBTAIN OR RETAIN MEMBERSHIPS IN THE UNIONS SHALL
WORK ONLY WITH UNION MEMBERS. 

IT IS ALLEGED THAT MEMBERSHIP IN APPELLANT UNIONS IS OPEN TO ALL WHO
CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SKILL PRESCRIBED FOR THE WORK, WHO WILL
SUBMIT TO THE DISCIPLINE AND BY-LAWS OF THE UNIONS, AND WHO ARE OF GOOD
CHARACTER. 

FN5  THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN ARGUED ON THE MERITS HERE, AS WE LIMITED
THE ARGUMENT, WHEN WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION, TO JURISDICTIONAL
QUESTIONS.    FN6  IT PROVIDES THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION "OF ALL SUITS AT LAW OR IN EQUITY AUTHORIZED BY
LAW TO BE BROUGHT BY ANY PERSON TO REDRESS THE DEPRIVATION, UNDER COLOR
OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY
STATE, OF ANY RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, OR IMMUNITY, SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY RIGHT SECURED BY ANY LAW
OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR OF ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

FN7  SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF APRIL 20, 1871, 17 STAT. 13,
HAS BEEN CONTINUED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AS R.S. SEC. 1979, 8
U.S.C. SEC. 43, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:  "EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR
OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE
OR TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OTHER PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE
DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN
ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR
REDRESS." 

FN8  SEC. 8(3) OF THAT ACT PROVIDES THAT "NOTHING IN THIS ACT  ...
OR IN ANY OTHER STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL PRECLUDE AN
EMPLOYER FROM MAKING AN AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION (NOT
ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THIS ACT
AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE) TO REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT
MEMBERSHIP THEREIN, IF SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 9(A), IN THE APPROPRIATE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT COVERED BY SUCH AGREEMENT WHEN MADE." 

FN9  THE INADEQUACY OF THE RELIEF AT LAW IS MEASURED BY THE CHARACTER
OF THE RELIEF AFFORDED BY THE FEDERAL NOT THE STATE COURTS.  DI
GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INS. ASSN., SUPRA, P. 69. 

FN10  WE DO NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION SHOULD ISSUE.  THAT WILL BE OPEN ON OUR REMAND OF THE
CAUSE.  SEC. 266 PROVIDES IN PART:  "IF OF OPINION THAT IRREPARABLE
LOSS OR DAMAGE WOULD RESULT TO THE COMPLAINANT UNLESS A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER IS GRANTED, ANY JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, OR ANY
CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE, MAY GRANT SUCH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AT ANY TIME BEFORE SUCH HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION
FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, BUT SUCH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE ONLY UNTIL THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE
APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION UPON NOTICE AS AFORESAID. 
THE HEARING UPON SUCH APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SHALL
BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE AND SHALL BE IN EVERY WAY EXPEDITED AND BE ASSIGNED
FOR A HEARING AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE DAY AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE NOTICE HEREINBEFORE PROVIDED FOR.  AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN DIRECT TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE ORDER GRANTING OR
DENYING, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IN SUCH
CASE."  AS TO THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT SUCH RELIEF, SEE
LAWRENCE V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO R. CO., 274 U.S. 588, 595-596; MAYO
V. LAKELAND HIGHLANDS CANNING CO., 309 U.S. 310. 

FN11  TAMPA V. TAMPA WATERWORKS CO., 45 FLA. 600, 628-629, 34 SO.
631; COLEMAN V. STATE, 118 FLA. 201, 159 SO. 504; LUMMUS V. MIAMI BEACH
CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, 142 FLA. 657, 195 SO. 607. 

FN12  SEE PORTER V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 96 FLA. 740, 119 SO. 130,
519; STATE V. ALSOP, 120 FLA. 628, 163 SO. 80; STATE V. JONES, 121 FLA.
216, 163 SO. 590; DRAUGHON V. HEITMAN, 124 FLA. 24, 168 SO. 838; STATE
V. EMERSON, 126 FLA. 576, 171 SO. 663; AMERICAN BAKERIES CO. V. HAINES
CITY, 131 FLA. 790, 180 SO. 524; MIAMI V. STATE, 139 FLA. 598, 190 SO.
774; BRYAN V. MIAMI, 139 FLA. 650, 190 SO. 772. 

FN13  HERE, TOO, THERE IS DOUBT WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
IS SELF-EXECUTING.  APPELLEE WATSON APPARENTLY TAKES THE POSITION THAT
THOSE WHO ENTER INTO CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS VIOLATE AN OLD FLORIDA
STATUTE (22 FLA. STATS. ANN. SEC. 833.02) WHICH PROVIDES:  "IF TWO OR
MORE PERSONS SHALL AGREE, CONSPIRE, COMBINE OR CONFEDERATE TOGETHER FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING ANY PERSON FROM PROCURING WORK IN ANY FIRM OR
CORPORATION, OR TO CAUSE THE DISCHARGE OF ANY PERSON FROM WORK IN SUCH
FIRM OR CORPORATION; OR IF ANY PERSON SHALL VERBALLY OR BY WRITTEN OR
PRINTED COMMUNICATION, THREATEN ANY INJURY TO LIFE, PROPERTY OR
BUSINESS OF ANY PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING THE DISCHARGE OF
ANY WORKMAN IN ANY FIRM OR CORPORATION, OR TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM
PROCURING WORK IN SUCH FIRM OR CORPORATION, SUCH PERSONS SO COMBINING
SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF,
SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS EACH, OR
BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR."  BUT IN JETTON-DEKLE LUMBER
CO. V. MATHER, 53 FLA. 969, 43 SO. 590, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SAID THAT THAT STATUTE "WILL NOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASE OF UNION
LABORERS WHO STRIKE IN ORDER TO SECURE ALL THE LABOR FOR THEMSELVES." 

FN14  ON QUO WARRANTO UNDER FLORIDA LAW SEE STATE V. TAMPA WATER
WORKS CO., 57 FLA. 533, 48 SO. 639; STATE V. DUVAL COUNTY, 105 FLA.
174, 141 SO. 173; STATE V. PREVATT, 110 FLA. 29, 148 SO. 578; STATE V.
S.H. KRESS & CO., 115 FLA. 189, 155 SO. 823. 

FN15  SEE MOGUL STEAMSHIP CO. V. MCGREGOR, GOW & CO., (1892) A.C. 25,
39; ATTORNEY GENERAL V. ADELAIDE STEAMSHIP CO., (1913) A.C. 781, 797. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN17  SEE 5 FLA. STATS. ANN., SEC. 62.09; SHELDON V. POWELL, 99 FLA.
782, 128 SO. 258. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE SUIT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION IN
EQUITY. 

A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR OTHER LITIGATION CONDUCTED IN STATE COURTS
BY A STATE OFFICIAL, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY AS SUCH, MAY, IT
IS TRUE, CAUSE APPREHENSION ON THE PART OF THOSE WHO ARE ALLEGED TO BE
LAWBREAKERS.  SUCH APPREHENSIONS AND THOSE OF OTHERS MAY LEAD TO
CHANGES IN BUSINESS PRACTICES TO THE INJURY OF THE ALLEGED
LAWBREAKERS.  BUT THE CONDUCT OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, IN GOOD FAITH AND IN
CONFORMITY TO LAW, IS NOT ACTIONABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY.  DAMAGE OR
LOSS TO ONE'S BUSINESS OR POCKETBOOK, RESULTING FROM SUCH PROCEEDINGS,
IS BUT AN INCIDENT TO THE NECESSARY PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC FUNCTION OF
STATE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA.  SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V.
DODGE, 295 U.S. 89, 95, AND CASES CITED; BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R.
CO., 312 U.S. 45, 49, 50, AND CASES CITED.  AND EVEN WHEN THE
THREATENED INJURY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING TO
ENFORCE A STATE STATUTE WHICH IS ASSERTED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT EQUITY WILL OR SHOULD EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION TO
RESTRAIN THE PROSECUTION. 

CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED THE POLICY OF LEAVING TO THE COURTS OF THE
STATES THE TRIALS FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAW AND OF QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEIR OWN CORPORATIONS.  FEDERAL COURTS OF
EQUITY, IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR SOUND DISCRETION, CONFORM TO THAT
POLICY BY REFUSING TO INTERFERE WITH PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS
EXCEPT WHERE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY CALL FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF. 
HENCE IT IS WELL RECOGNIZED THAT MEASURES TAKEN BY STATE OFFICIALS TO
ENFORCE STATE LAWS SAID TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL MAY BE ENJOINED BY
FEDERAL COURTS ONLY TO PREVENT "IRREPARABLE INJURY," AND NOT MERELY TO
AVOID THAT HARM WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM THE LITIGATION OF THE MOOTED
ISSUES WHETHER IN A STATE OR A FEDERAL COURT.  EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S.
123, 155, 156, 166; CAVANAUGH V. LOONEY, 248 U.S. 453, 456; HYGRADE
PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497, 500; FENNER V. BOYKIN, 271 U.S.
240, 243; MASSACHUSETTS STATE GRANGE V. BENTON, 272 U.S. 525, 527;
SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, SUPRA; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INS.
ASSN., 296 U.S. 64; DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, 319 U.S. 157, AND CASES
CITED.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE INJURY TO APPELLANTS IS ONLY
THAT WHICH IS A NORMAL INCIDENT OF THE STATE'S ASSERTION OF ITS
AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE ITS LAWS.  NO PERSON IS IMMUNE FROM ANY GOOD FAITH
PROSECUTION BY THE STATE FOR HIS UNLAWFUL ACTS.  NEITHER THE IMMINENCE
OF THE PROSECUTION NOR THE INCIDENTAL INJURY WHICH MAY FLOW FROM IT IS
A GROUND FOR EQUITY RELIEF, SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE
MAY BE ASCERTAINED BY THE PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURTS WITH APPELLATE
REVIEW BY THIS COURT, AS READILY AS BY A SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 
SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, SUPRA, 95, AND CASES CITED; BEAL V.
MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA, 49, AND CASES CITED; WATSON V. BUCK,
313 U.S. 387; WILLIAMS V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 599; DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE,
SUPRA. 

UNTIL THE STATE QUESTIONS HERE MOOTED ARE AUTHORITATIVELY SETTLED BY
THE STATE COURTS, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH IT IS ASSERTED
THEY RAISE ARE SETTLED BY THIS COURT, THE THREAT TO THE CLOSED SHOP
WILL CONTINUE TO EMBARRASS LABOR UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE OR SEEK
TO HAVE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACTS.  THAT EMBARRASSMENT CAN BE REMOVED ONLY
BY THE PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION WHICH THE STATE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
ENTITLED TO PURSUE, SO LONG AS THE STATE AND ITS OFFICIALS PROCEED
ACCORDING TO LAW.  DAVIS & FARNUM MFG. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 189 U.S.
207; FENNER V. BOYKIN, SUPRA; SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, SUPRA, 95. 
HENCE THE ARREST BY FEDERAL COURTS OF THE PROCESSES OF THE CIVIL OR
CRIMINAL LAW OF THE STATE, AND THE DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS OF CIVIL
OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW, MUST BE PREDICATED NOT ONLY UPON
A SHOWING OF UNLAWFUL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION ON THE PART OF THE
STATE, BUT UPON SOME SHOWING OF A RESULTING IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE
INJURY WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED OR PREVENTED ONLY BY THE FEDERAL COURT'S
TRANSFERRING THE TRIAL OF THE STATE QUESTIONS FROM THE STATE COURTS TO
ITSELF.  DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, SUPRA, 164. 

THERE IS NO CONTENTION HERE THAT THE STATE OFFICIALS ARE ACTING
OUTSIDE THEIR AUTHORITY AS SUCH, THAT THEY ARE NOT ACTING IN GOOD
FAITH, BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA, 49; DOUGLAS V.
JEANNETTE, SUPRA, 164, OR THAT THEY THREATEN TO MAKE OPPRESSIVE OR
MALICIOUS USE OF THE LEGAL PROCESSES OF THE STATE.  CF. GUMBEL V.
PITKIN, 124 U.S. 131.  NOR IS THERE ANY SHOWING THAT THE LITIGATION OF
PENDING QUESTIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL BE ANY LESS EMBARRASSING
OR INJURIOUS TO APPELLANTS THAN THE LITIGATION OF SUITS ALREADY PENDING
IN THE STATE COURTS WITH REVIEW BY THIS COURT.  DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE,
SUPRA, 164. 

THERE ARE NO ALLEGATIONS WHICH WOULD TAKE THIS CASE OUT OF THE RULE
THAT IN GENERAL A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY WILL NOT EXERCISE ITS POWER
TO STAY LITIGATION LAWFULLY PROCEEDING IN STATE COURTS, OR AT ALL
EXCEPT WHERE IT IS PLAIN THAT BY THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION AND
ITS DECISION OF THE ISSUE PENDING IN THE STATE COURTS IT WILL AVOID
SOME IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO A PLAINTIFF.  THE CASE IS TO
BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE SUSTAINING FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION
WHERE THE ACTS SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED, WHICH ARE ASSERTED TO BE
UNLAWFUL, DO NOT INVOLVE ANY RESORT BY AN ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO THE
COURTS, WHERE THEIR LAWFULNESS WOULD, AS HERE, BE DETERMINED.  UTAH
FUEL CO. V. COAL COMM'N, 306 U.S. 56; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496. 

IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT APPELLANTS WILL BE FORCED TO COMPLY WITH THE
ACT BECAUSE THE PENALTIES ATTENDING ITS VIOLATION ARE CUMULATIVE OR SO
GREAT THAT APPELLANTS MAY NOT, WITHOUT RISK OF IRREPARABLE LOSS,
CONTINUE THEIR CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO TEST THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT.  CF. EX PARTE YOUNG, SUPRA, 144; MISSOURI
PACIFIC R. CO. V. TUCKER, 230 U.S. 340, 349; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263
U.S. 197, 212, 214-216; BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA, 51. 
NOR DOES THE COMPLAINT ALLEGE THAT ANY OF THE PERSONS, OTHER THAN
APPELLANTS, WITH WHOM APPELLANTS DEAL, EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYEES, HAVE,
BECAUSE OF THE THREATS OF APPELLEES, BROKEN OR THREATENED TO BREAK
THEIR EXISTING CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS OR HAVE REFUSED TO ENTER INTO
SUCH AGREEMENTS* . CF. KESSLER V. ELDRED, 206 U.S. 285.  SO FAR AS THE
COMPLAINT SHOWS SUCH PERSONS HAVE REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE
APPLICABILITY OR VALIDITY OF THE FLORIDA AMENDMENT AND ARE PREPARED TO
CONTEST IT. THUS THERE IS NO SHOWING OF THREATENED INJURY TO APPLICANTS
WHICH WOULD AFFORD ANY BASIS FOR AN INJUNCTION.  TRUE, IT IS ALLEGED
THAT APPELLANT GOULD, AN EMPLOYER, TO HIS IRREPARABLE DAMAGE, HAS NOT
BEEN ABLE TO ENTER INTO CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS ALTHOUGH ANXIOUS TO DO
SO.  BUT IT IS NOT SAID THAT ANY OF THE OTHER APPELLANTS ARE, OR HAVE
BEEN, DAMAGED BY HIS FAILURE TO ENTER INTO SUCH AGREEMENTS, AND GOULD
HIMSELF MAY TEST THE LAW IN FLORIDA PROCEEDINGS BY REFUSING TO COMPLY
WITH THE ALLEGED THREATS OF APPELLEES.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HIS
DAMAGE WILL BE ANY DIFFERENT OR GREATER IF THE LITIGATION PROCEEDS IN
THE STATE INSTEAD OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, OR THAT IT IS MORE THAN AN
UNAVOIDABLE INCIDENT TO LITIGATION WHEREVER CONDUCTED WHERE THE
LAWFULNESS OF A BUSINESS PRACTICE IS DRAWN IN QUESTION.  THERE IS NO
SHOWING THAT APPELLANTS HAVE SOUGHT OR BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO
INTERVENE IN PENDING QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS, COMPARE FLORIDA STATS.
SEC. 63.09; SWITOW V. SHER, 136 FLA. 284, 186 SO. 519; DAUGHERTY V.
LATHAM, 139 FLA. 477, 190 SO. 742; RIVIERA CLUB V. BELLE MEAD DEVELOP. 
CORP., 141 FLA. 538, 194 SO. 783; CARR V. CARLISLE, 146 FLA. 201, 200
SO. 529; TALLENTIRE V. BURKHART, 150 FLA. 137, 7 SO.2D 326, ALTHOUGH
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE HAS TAKEN THE POSITION IN THE PENDING
PROCEEDINGS, AS HE DOES HERE, THAT HE DOES NOT OPPOSE THE GRANTING OF
APPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION BY THE APPELLANT LABOR UNIONS. 

*IT IS STATED IN THE PAPERS ON APPELLANTS' MOTION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER, WHICH NOW STANDS DENIED, THAT ONE
EMPLOYER, AGAINST WHOM QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, HAS
SUSPENDED THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT WHICH IT HAD WITH ONE OF
APPELLANTS' UNIONS, AND FURTHER, THAT APPELLEES HAVE FILED QUO WARRANTO
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SEVERAL CORPORATIONS HAVING CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS
WITH APPELLANTS, THAT "THERE WILL NOT BE ANY BONA FIDE DEFENSE MADE IN
SAID SUITS, OR MOST OF THEM," AND THAT THE "PRAYERS CONTAINED IN THE
PETITIONS" FILED BY APPELLEES FOR A DECLARATION "TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HERE UNDER ATTACK IS LEGAL AND VALID AND THE
CLOSED SHOP PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACTS INVALIDATED" WILL BE GRANTED. 
NO SUCH AVERMENTS APPEAR IN THE COMPLAINT, THE ALLEGATIONS OF WHICH
ALONE SUPPLY THE TEST OF THE EQUITY JURISDICTION.  MASSACHUSETTS STATE
GRANGE V. BENTON, 272 U.S. 525, 528; WILLIAMS V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 599. 
FURTHER, ASSUMING THAT STATEMENTS IN THE MOTION PAPERS MAY SUPPLY
ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS LACKING IN THE COMPLAINT, NO REASON APPEARS WHY
THE EMPLOYEE APPELLANTS CANNOT TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE FLORIDA LAWS
AND CONSTITUTION BY SUITS AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE BROKEN THEIR
CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACTS.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION ON THE MOTION THAT ANY
EMPLOYER HAS REFUSED TO ENTER INTO A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT BECAUSE OF
THE THREATS OF APPELLEES. 

WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE PENDING SUITS IN QUO WARRANTO, WITH REVIEW
BY THIS COURT OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED, WILL NOT SETTLE ALL
PENDING LEGAL QUESTIONS, STATE AND FEDERAL, AS READILY AS A SUIT IN THE
FEDERAL COURT, OR THAT THE PARTIES WILL NOT ABIDE BY THE RESULT.  THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT IS NOT FRAMED ON THE THEORY OF A BILL OF PEACE.  CF.
CLEVELAND V. CLEVELAND CITY R. CO., 194 U.S. 517; BOISE ARTESIAN WATER
CO. V. BOISE CITY, 213 U.S. 276; BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO.,
SUPRA, 50.  IT DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT REPEATED, GROUNDLESS OR OTHERWISE
VEXATIOUS SUITS WILL BE BROUGHT.  MCDANIEL V. TRAYLOR, 212 U.S. 428; DI
GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INS. ASSN., SUPRA, 68.  IT DOES NOT SEEK TO
JOIN ALL PARTIES THREATENED BY THE PROSECUTION OF SUITS OR SHOW SUCH
SINGLENESS OF ISSUE OF DECISIVE QUESTIONS AS WILL PERMIT THE
ADJUDICATION OF ALL IN A SINGLE SUIT.  FRANCIS V. FLINN, 118 U.S. 385;
SCOTT V. DONALD, 165 U.S. 107, 115; HALE V. ALLINSON, 188 U.S. 56, 77
ET SEQ.; ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO. V. MCKNIGHT, 244 U.S. 368, 375;
KELLEY V. GILL, 245 U.S. 116, 120; MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521,
530. 

AND, FINALLY, THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS,
WHICH IS THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE SUIT, MUST TURN ON THE AUTHORITATIVE
DECISION OF THE NUMEROUS AND NOVEL STATE QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  CF.
HYGRADE PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, SUPRA; CLINE V. FRINK DAIRY CO., 274
U.S. 445; SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, SUPRA; BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC
R. CO., SUPRA, 50.  THE PRESENCE OF SUCH STATE QUESTIONS IN THE SUIT IS
ITSELF A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR OUR DECLINING TO DECIDE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE OF AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION OF
THE STATE QUESTIONS BY THE STATE COURTS.  CF. ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION
V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450; C.I.O. V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 472; SEE SPECTOR
MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101. 

FURTHER, SINCE THE WHOLE AIM OF APPELLANTS' SUIT IS TO ENJOIN THE
APPELLEES FROM PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURTS, THIS COURT'S DIRECTION
TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO RETAIN THE BILL PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS DEFEATS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE
PRESENT SUIT AND PERMITS THE CONTINUANCE OF STATE LITIGATION WHICH IS
THE ONLY GROUND ASSERTED FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF.  IF APPELLEES SHOULD AT
ANY TIME MAKE OPPRESSIVE USE OF LEGAL PROCESSES OF THE STATE, BRING
REPEATED, GROUNDLESS SUITS, OR OTHERWISE THREATEN IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO
APPELLANTS, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE OPEN TO THEM UPON THEIR MAKING
ALLEGATIONS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INTERVENTION BY EQUITY.  BUT THE MERE
CHANCE THAT SUCH IRREPARABLE DAMAGE MAY BE THREATENED AT SOME
INDEFINITE TIME IN THE FUTURE, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT NOW, IS NO REASON FOR
THE DISTRICT COURT TO RETAIN THE BILL WHICH WHOLLY FAILS TO SHOW ANY
GROUND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF.  THERE BEING NO SHOWING OF DAMAGE TO THE
APPELLANTS, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL, SAVE THAT WHICH IS A NECESSARY
INCIDENT TO THE STATE'S EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ENFORCE
ITS CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, WHICH THIS COURT NOW PERMITS, IT IS OUR
PLAIN DUTY TO DISMISS THE SUIT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I DISSENT FROM THAT PART OF THE COURT'S OPINION THAT HOLDS THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN PASSING UPON THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY
PRESENTED BY THIS CASE. 

IT MAY WELL BE THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS QUESTIONS AS TO HOW AND AGAINST
WHOM FLORIDA'S NEW CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WILL BE ENFORCED.  AND THE
PROVISION MAY BE CONSTRUED SO AS NOT TO CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  SUCH MATTERS MUST WAIT FOR AUTHORITATIVE ACTION
BY THE FLORIDA COURTS.  BUT THERE ARE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
INHERENT ON THE FACE OF THIS PROVISION THAT DO NOT DEPEND UPON ANY
INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION MADE BY FLORIDA COURTS.  THOSE ISSUES
WERE RAISED AND DECIDED IN THE COURT BELOW.  AND THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN
APPROPRIATE ATTENTION BY THIS COURT. 

THE COURT TODAY HOLDS THAT THERE IS A VERY REAL AND IMMINENT THREAT
TO THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN FLORIDA GROWING OUT OF
THE CURRENT ATTEMPTS TO ENFORCE THE FLORIDA LAW.  IT SHOULD NOT BE AND
IS NOT DIFFICULT TO DISCOVER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT ARE
INVOLVED IN THAT THREAT.  TRUE, WE CANNOT SAY WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES MAY ARISE OUT OF THE LAW AS SUBSEQUENTLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED
BY THE FLORIDA COURTS.  BUT WE CAN SAY WHAT ISSUES ARE APPARENT ON THE
FACE OF THE LAW ITSELF, THE LAW THAT HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE GRAVE THREAT
TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN FLORIDA.  EITHER THE PROVISION DOES OR DOES
NOT VIOLATE DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT;
EITHER IT FALLS OUTSIDE OR INSIDE THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF THE POLICE
POWER OF THE STATE; EITHER IT IS IN ACCORD OR IN CONFLICT ON ITS FACE
WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THE
PARTIES HAVE RAISED AND THE COURT BELOW HAS DECIDED.  THOSE ARE THE
ISSUES THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY INVOLVED IN RELATION TO THE FLORIDA LAW.  I
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A FEDERAL COURT IS INCAPABLE OF RECOGNIZING OR
DECIDING THOSE ISSUES.  NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD CLOSE ITS EYES
TO THOSE ISSUES MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFICULT OR HIGHLY
CONTROVERSIAL.  IN SHORT, APPELLANTS' CLAIMS ARE RIPE FOR
ADJUDICATION. 

MOREOVER, THE COURT REMANDS THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
DIRECTIONS TO RETAIN THE CASE UNTIL THE FLORIDA COURTS INTERPRET THE
PROVISION IN THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.  THE EFFICACY OF THIS
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE IS LESS REAL THAN APPARENT.  IT AFFORDS LITTLE
IF ANY PROTECTION TO THE APPELLANTS SO FAR AS THE ISSUES NOW IN DISPUTE
ARE CONCERNED.  THEY ARE LEFT UNPROTECTED AGAINST THE VERY THREAT WHICH
THIS COURT STATES IS REAL AND IMMINENT.  AND SHOULD THE FLORIDA COURTS
ULTIMATELY DECIDE THESE ISSUES ADVERSELY TO APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
THEY WILL HAVE NO EFFECTIVE RECOURSE IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH
ALREADY HAS EXPRESSED ITSELF FULLY AND ADVERSELY RELATIVE TO THOSE
CONTENTIONS. 

I DISSENT, THEREFORE, FROM A PROCEDURE DEPRIVING APPELLANTS OF A FULL
HEARING AND A DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES THEY HAVE PROPERLY RAISED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT AND DENYING THEM THE RIGHT TO SECURE THE PROTECTION
THE FEDERAL EQUITABLE POWER MIGHT GIVE THEM. 
..END :



SIEGEL CO. V. TRADE COMM'N, 327 U.S. 608 


NO. 605.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  - 150 F.2D
751, REVERSED. 


IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE USE BY PETITIONER OF THE TRADE NAME
"ALPACUNA" IN THE MARKETING OF ITS COATS WAS DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING
AND ORDERED PETITIONER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM USING IT, APPARENTLY
WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER QUALIFYING LANGUAGE WOULD ELIMINATE THE
DECEPTION AND SATISFY THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT WITHOUT DESTROYING THE
TRADE NAME.  ON REVIEW THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND
AFFIRMED THE ORDER; BUT STATED THAT THE PROHIBITION WAS "FAR TOO HARSH"
AND THAT IT WOULD MODIFY THE ORDER TO PERMIT USE OF THE TRADE NAME WITH
QUALIFYING LANGUAGE, IF IT HAD AUTHORITY TO DO SO.  HELD: 

1.  SECTION 5(C) OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT DOES NOT LIMIT
THE REVIEWING COURT TO AFFIRMANCE OR REVERSAL OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER, BUT AUTHORIZES IT TO MODIFY THE ORDER AS WELL.  P. 611. 

2.  THE POWER TO MODIFY EXTENDS TO THE REMEDY.  FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. ROYAL MILLING CO., 288 U.S. 212.  P. 611. 

3.  WHILE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUCH ORDERS IS LIMITED, IT EXTENDS TO
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSION ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN CONCLUDING
THAT NO CHANGE SHORT OF EXCISION OF THE TRADE NAME WOULD GIVE ADEQUATE
PROTECTION.  PP. 611, 612. 

4.  SINCE TRADE NAMES ARE VALUABLE BUSINESS ASSETS, THEIR DESTRUCTION
SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED IF LESS DRASTIC MEANS WILL ACCOMPLISH THE SAME
RESULT.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. ROYAL MILLING CO., SUPRA.  P.
612. 

5.  THE TEST IS WHETHER SOME CHANGE OTHER THAN THE EXCISION OF THE
TRADE NAME WOULD BE ADEQUATE IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION.  P.
613. 

6.  SINCE THE COMMISSION SEEMS NOT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THIS POINT, THE
COURTS ARE NOT READY TO PASS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LIMITS OF ITS
DISCRETION HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED IN THE CHOICE OF THE REMEDY UNTIL AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IS MADE.  P. 614. 

7.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  P. 614. 

JACOB SIEGEL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ORDERED PETITIONER TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM USING A TRADE NAME WHICH IT FOUND DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING.  36
F.T.C. 563.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 751. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 715.  REVERSED, P. 614. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ALPACA AND THE VICUNA ARE ANIMALS WHOSE FLEECE IS USED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF FABRICS.  THE FLEECE OF THE VICUNA IS, INDEED, ONE OF
THE FINEST AND IS EXTREMELY RARE; AND FABRICS MADE OF IT COMMAND A HIGH
PRICE.  PETITIONER MANUFACTURES OVERCOATS AND TOPCOATS AND MARKETS THEM
UNDER THE NAME ALPACUNA.  THEY CONTAIN ALPACA, MOHAIR, WOOL, AND COTTON
BUT NO VICUNA. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT (52 STAT. 111, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45) FOUND
THAT PETITIONER HAD MADE CERTAIN MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE MARKETING OF
ITS COATS.  IT FOUND, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE
COATS CONTAINED IMPORTED ANGORA AND GUANACO WERE FALSE.  IT ALSO FOUND
THAT THE NAME ALPACUNA IS DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING TO A SUBSTANTIAL
PORTION OF THE PURCHASING PUBLIC, BECAUSE IT INDUCES THE ERRONEOUS
BELIEF THAT THE COATS CONTAIN VICUNA.  BUT THERE WAS NO FINDING THAT
PETITIONER HAD MADE REPRESENTATIONS THAT ALPACUNA IN FACT CONTAINED
VICUNA.  IT ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER  FN1  WHICH,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, BANNED THE USE OF THE WORD ALPACUNA TO DESCRIBE
PETITIONER'S COATS.  36 F.T.C. 563.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 751.  IT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
RESPECTING THE USE OF THE NAME ALPACUNA WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  IT WAS OF THE VIEW, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE
OF THE NAME WAS FAR TOO HARSH; AND IT STATED THAT IT WOULD HAVE
MODIFIED THE ORDER TO PERMIT ALPACUNA TO BE USED WITH QUALIFYING
LANGUAGE HAD IT THOUGHT THAT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. ROYAL MILLING
CO., 288 U.S. 212, WAS STILL A CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.  BUT IT CONCLUDED
THAT THAT CASE HAD BEEN SO LIMITED BY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THE
COURT, INVOLVING OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, THAT CONTROL OF THE
REMEDY LAY EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE COMMISSION.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT CONGRESS MADE UNLAWFUL "UNFAIR
METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE, AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR
PRACTICES IN COMMERCE  ..."  SEC. 5(A).  IT PROVIDED THAT WHEN THE
COMMISSION'S CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS WERE CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS, THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION "AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE,
SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  SEC. 5(C).  BUT IT DID NOT LIMIT THE REVIEWING
COURT TO AN AFFIRMANCE OR REVERSAL OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  IT GAVE
THE COURT POWER TO MODIFY THE ORDER AS WELL.  FN2 

THE POWER TO MODIFY EXTENDS TO THE REMEDY AS FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
V. ROYAL MILLING CO., SUPRA, INDICATES.  IN THAT CASE, THE COMMISSION
BARRED THE USE OF THE WORDS "MILLING COMPANY" SINCE THE COMPANY, THOUGH
BLENDING AND MIXING FLOUR, DID NOT MANUFACTURE IT.  THE COURT CONCLUDED
THAT A LESS DRASTIC ORDER WAS ADEQUATE FOR THE EVIL AT HAND AND
REMANDED THE CASE SO THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT ADD APPROPRIATE
QUALIFYING WORDS WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE ANY DECEPTION LURKING IN THE
TRADE NAME.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EXCISION OF A PART OF THE TRADE
NAME WAS SUSTAINED IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO.,
291 U.S. 67.  IN THAT CASE, "CALIFORNIA WHITE PINE" WAS BEING USED TO
DESCRIBE WHAT WAS BOTANICALLY A YELLOW PINE.  THE COMMISSION PROHIBITED
THE USE OF THE WORD "WHITE" IN CONJUNCTION WITH "PINE" TO DESCRIBE THE
PRODUCT.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE ORDER. 

THE COMMISSION HAS WIDE DISCRETION IN ITS CHOICE OF A REMEDY DEEMED
ADEQUATE TO COPE WITH THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES IN THIS AREA OF TRADE AND
COMMERCE.  HERE, AS IN THE CASE OF ORDERS OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES UNDER COMPARABLE STATUTES,  FN3 JUDICIAL REVIEW IS LIMITED. 
IT EXTENDS NO FURTHER THAN TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE COMMISSION MADE AN
ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT IN ITS CHOICE OF THE REMEDY.  AS APPLIED TO THIS
PARTICULAR TYPE OF CASE, IT IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN CONCLUDING THAT NO CHANGE "SHORT OF THE EXCISION" OF THE
TRADE NAME WOULD GIVE ADEQUATE PROTECTION.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
ALGOMA LUMBER CO., SUPRA, PP. 81-82.  THE ISSUE IS STATED THAT WAY FOR
THE REASON THAT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH TRADE NAMES WHICH, AS FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. ROYAL MILLING CO., SUPRA, P. 217, EMPHASIZES, ARE
VALUABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.  THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ADOPTED WITHOUT
FRAUDULENT DESIGN OR WERE REGISTERED AS TRADE-MARKS DOES NOT STAY THE
COMMISSION'S HAND.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO.,
SUPRA, P. 79; CHARLES OF THE RITZ DISTRIBUTORS CORP. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 143 F.2D 676, 679.  BUT THE POLICY OF THE LAW TO PROTECT
THEM AS ASSETS OF A BUSINESS INDICATES THAT THEIR DESTRUCTION "SHOULD
NOT BE ORDERED IF LESS DRASTIC MEANS WILL ACCOMPLISH THE SAME RESULT." 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. ROYAL MILLING CO., SUPRA, P. 217.  THE
PROBLEM IS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THAT POLICY AND THE OTHER POLICY OF
PREVENTING UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES CAN BE ACCOMMODATED. 
THAT IS A QUESTION INITIALLY AND PRIMARILY FOR THE COMMISSION. 
CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED IT WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT AND HAS
LEFT THE COURTS WITH ONLY LIMITED POWERS OF REVIEW.  THE COMMISSION IS
THE EXPERT BODY TO DETERMINE WHAT REMEDY IS NECESSARY TO ELIMINATE THE
UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED.  IT HAS
WIDE LATITUDE FOR JUDGMENT AND THE COURTS WILL NOT INTERFERE EXCEPT
WHERE THE REMEDY SELECTED HAS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE UNLAWFUL
PRACTICES FOUND TO EXIST. 

BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
COMMISSION WOULD BE WARRANTED IN HOLDING THAT NO QUALIFYING LANGUAGE
FN4  WOULD ELIMINATE THE DECEPTION WHICH IT FOUND LURKING IN THE WORD
ALPACUNA.  FOR THE COMMISSION SEEMS NOT TO HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER IN
THAT WAY THE ENDS OF THE ACT COULD BE SATISFIED AND THE TRADE NAME AT
THE SAME TIME SAVED.  FN5  WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT THE COMMISSION
CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH AN ACCOMMODATION.  IT INDICATED THAT
PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF THE NAME WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST SINCE THE
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER PROHIBITED THE FURTHER USE OF THE NAME.  FN6
BUT WE ARE LEFT IN THE DARK WHETHER SOME CHANGE OF NAME SHORT OF
EXCISION WOULD IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION BE ADEQUATE.  YET THAT
IS THE TEST, AS THE ALGOMA LUMBER CO. AND THE ROYAL MILLING CO. CASES
INDICATE.  ITS APPLICATION INVOLVES THE EXERCISE OF AN INFORMED, EXPERT
JUDGMENT.  THE COMMISSION IS ENTITLED NOT ONLY TO APPRAISE THE FACTS OF
THE PARTICULAR CASE AND THE DANGERS OF THE MARKETING METHODS EMPLOYED
(FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. WINSTED HOSIERY CO., 258 U.S. 483, 494)
BUT TO DRAW FROM ITS GENERALIZED EXPERIENCE.  SEE REPUBLIC AVIATION
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 324 U.S. 793, 801-805.  ITS EXPERT OPINION IS
ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT IN THE REVIEWING COURTS.  BUT THE COURTS ARE
NOT READY TO PASS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LIMITS OF DISCRETION HAVE
BEEN EXCEEDED IN THE CHOICE OF THE REMEDY UNTIL THE ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION IS FIRST MADE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IT ORDERED PETITIONER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM 

"1.  REPRESENTING THAT RESPONDENT'S COATS CONTAIN GUANACO HAIR. 

"2.  REPRESENTING THAT THE ANGORA GOAT HAIR OR MOHAIR USED IN
RESPONDENT'S COATS IS IMPORTED FROM TURKESTAN OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN
COUNTRY. 

"3.  REPRESENTING THROUGH THE USE OF DRAWINGS OR PICTORIAL
REPRESENTATIONS, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER, THAT RESPONDENT'S COATS
CONTAIN FIBERS OR MATERIALS WHICH THEY DO NOT IN FACT CONTAIN. 

"4.  REPRESENTING THAT COATS MADE OF FABRICS WHICH HAVE A COTTON
BACKING ARE COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF WOOL OR OF WOOL AND HAIR. 

"5.  USING ANY ADVERTISING MATTER OR CAUSING, AIDING, ENCOURAGING, OR
PROMOTING THE USE BY DEALERS OF ANY ADVERTISING MATTER WHICH PURPORTS
TO DISCLOSE THE CONSTITUENT FIBERS OR MATERIALS OF COATS COMPOSED IN
PART OF COTTON, UNLESS SUCH ADVERTISING MATTER CLEARLY DISCLOSES SUCH
COTTON CONTENT ALONG WITH SUCH OTHER FIBERS OR MATERIALS. 

"6.  USING THE WORD 'ALPACUNA,' OR ANY OTHER WORD WHICH IN WHOLE OR
IN PART IS INDICATIVE OF THE WORD 'VICUNA,' TO DESIGNATE OR DESCRIBE
RESPONDENT'S COATS; OR OTHERWISE REPRESENTING, DIRECTLY OR BY
IMPLICATION, THAT RESPONDENT'S COATS CONTAIN VICUNA FIBER." 

FN2  SEC. 5(C) PROVIDES THAT THE COURT "SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE AND
ENTER UPON THE PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE, AND PROCEEDINGS SET FORTH IN SUCH
TRANSCRIPT A DECREE AFFIRMING, MODIFYING, OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION, AND ENFORCING THE SAME TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH ORDER IS
AFFIRMED  ..." 

FN3  SEE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. LABOR BOARD, 311
U.S. 72, 82; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194;
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 319 U.S. 533, 543; FRANKS BROS.
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 702, 704-705; BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED
STATES, 314 U.S. 534, 548; FEDERAL SECURITY ADM'R V. QUAKER OATS CO.,
318 U.S. 218, 227-229; NORTHWESTERN ELECTRIC CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, 321 U.S. 119, 123-124. 

FN4  PETITIONER NOW USES LABELS READING "ALPACUNA COAT - CONTAINS NO
VICUNA" AND SPECIFIES THE FIBRE CONTENT OF THE CLOTH.  SEE 54 STAT.
1128, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 68. 

FN5  THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION GOES NO FURTHER THAN TO FIND THAT
"THE NAME 'ALPACUNA' IS MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE TO A SUBSTANTIAL
PORTION OF THE PURCHASING PUBLIC IN THAT IT REPRESENTS OR IMPLIES" THAT
THE COATS CONTAIN VICUNA; AND THAT AS A RESULT SUBSTANTIAL TRADE IS
DIVERTED TO RESPONDENT FROM ITS COMPETITORS. 

FN6  THIS APPEARS NOT FROM THE OPINION BUT FROM THE PARAGRAPH
FOLLOWING THE ORDER ENTERED BY THE COMMISSION: 

"COMMISSIONER FREER DISSENTS FROM SO MUCH OF THE ORDER AS WHOLLY
PROHIBITS THE CONTINUED USE OF THE TRADE NAME 'ALPACUNA' FOR THE REASON
THAT THIS TRADE NAME, WHICH HAS BEEN IN USE FOR MORE THAN THIRTEEN
YEARS, IS A VALUABLE BUSINESS ASSET, AND IS NEITHER DECEPTIVE PER SE,
NOR IS THE TESTIMONY CONCERNING ITS TENDENCY OR CAPACITY TO DECEIVE
SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND CONVINCING AS TO RENDER SUCH PROHIBITION OF ITS
USE NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

"A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION DO NOT AGREE WITH EITHER COMMISSIONER
FREER'S STATEMENTS OF FACT OR HIS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :












KRAUS & BROS. V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 614 


NO. 198.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  - 


1.  SECTION 1429.5 OF REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 269(ISSUED
DECEMBER 18, 1942, UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT) - WHICH
PROVIDES THAT THE PRICE LIMITATIONS ON POULTRY PRESCRIBED BY THE
REGULATION SHALL NOT BE EVADED BY ANY METHOD, DIRECT OR INDIRECT,
WHETHER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OFFER OR SALE OF A PRICEREGULATED
COMMODITY ALONE "OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OTHER COMMODITY," OR BY WAY
OF ANY TRADE UNDERSTANDING "OR OTHERWISE" - HELD NOT TO FORBID ALL TIE
IN SALES BUT ONLY THOSE WHICH INVOLVE SECONDARY PRODUCTS THAT ARE
WORTHLESS OR THAT ARE SOLD AT ARTIFICIAL PRICES.  PP. 622-626. 

2.  WHERE THE INFORMATION IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF
REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 269 CHARGED THAT THE ACCUSED
"UNLAWFULLY, WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY EVADED THE PROVISIONS OF" THE
REGULATION "BY DEMANDING, COMPELLING AND REQUIRING" THE RETAIL BUYER TO
PURCHASE CHICKEN FEET OR CHICKEN SKINS AT A SPECIFIED PRICE AS A
CONDITION OF THE SALE OF POULTRY AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE
CHICKEN SKINS AND FEET SOLD HAD VALUE AND WERE SOLD AT THEIR MARKET
PRICE, A CHARGE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT THE "ONE" QUESTION IN THE CASE
WAS WHETHER THE SALE OF CHICKEN PARTS WAS A NECESSARY CONDITION TO THE
PURCHASE OF THE POULTRY WAS A REVERSIBLE ERROR; SINCE THE JURY MAY WELL
HAVE DISREGARDED AS IRRELEVANT THE EVIDENCE OF VALUE AS TO THE
SECONDARY PRODUCT AND CONVICTED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A
TIE-IN SALE.  P. 626. 

3.  IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN A CRIMINAL CONVICTION, REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED
BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 2(G) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION OF PRICE LIMITATIONS
MUST BE EXPLICIT AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND MUST ADEQUATELY INFORM THOSE WHO
ARE SUBJECT TO THEIR TERMS WHAT CONDUCT WILL BE CONSIDERED EVASIVE -
THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN UNLAWFUL EVASION AND LAWFUL ACTION CAN NOT BE
LEFT TO CONJECTURE.  P. 621. 

4.  A PROSECUTOR IN FRAMING AN INDICTMENT, A COURT IN INTERPRETING
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATIONS, OR A JURY IN JUDGING GUILT CAN NOT
SUPPLY THAT WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR FAILED TO DO BY EXPRESS WORD OR
FAIR IMPLICATION.  P. 622. 

5. NOR CAN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATIONS OF HIS OWN REGULATIONS
CURE AN OMISSION OR ADD CERTAINTY AND DEFINITENESS TO OTHERWISE VAGUE
LANGUAGE OF A REGULATION.  P. 622. 

6.  A CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION OUGHT NOT TO REST UPON AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
REACHED BY THE USE OF POLICY JUDGMENT RATHER THAN BY THE INEXORABLE
COMMAND OF RELEVANT LANGUAGE OF THE REGULATION ITSELF.  P. 626. 

7.  WHERE CORRECT STATEMENTS IN A CHARGE TO A JURY ARE SO INTERTWINED
WITH INCORRECT STATEMENTS AS TO NEGATIVE THE EFFECT OF THE CORRECT
STATEMENTS, THE CHARGE IS A REVERSIBLE ERROR; SINCE A CONVICTION OUGHT
NOT TO REST ON AN EQUIVOCAL DIRECTION TO THE JURY ON A BASIC ISSUE. 
BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 607.  PP. 626, 627. 

M. KRAUS & BROS., INC. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 269, PROMULGATED BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR PURSUANT TO
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 773.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S.
699.  REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.  P. 627. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY ANNOUNCED THE CONCLUSION AND JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT. 

THE PROBLEM HERE IS WHETHER THE PETITIONER CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY
CONVICTED OF A CRIME UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942. 
FN1 

THE PETITIONER IS ENGAGED IN THE WHOLESALE MEAT AND POULTRY BUSINESS
IN NEW YORK CITY.  POULTRY IS A COMMODITY SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 269,  FN2 PROMULGATED BY THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR PURSUANT TO SEC. 2(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT
OF 1942.  TWO INFORMATIONS, EACH CONTAINING SIX COUNTS, WERE FILED
AGAINST PETITIONER.  EACH COUNT ALLEGED THAT, AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A
SPECIFIED SALE OF POULTRY ON A DAY DURING THE THANKSGIVING SEASON IN
NOVEMBER, 1943, THE PETITIONER "UNLAWFULLY, WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY
EVADED THE PROVISIONS OF SAID REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 269,
SEC. 1429.5, BY DEMANDING, COMPELLING AND REQUIRING" THE RETAIL BUYER
TO PURCHASE CHICKEN FEET OR CHICKEN SKIN AT A SPECIFIED PRICE AS A
CONDITION OF THE SALE OF THE POULTRY.  PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT WAS NAMED
AS A CO-DEFENDANT IN THE FIRST INFORMATION AND THE TWO INFORMATIONS
WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL PURPOSES. 

THE THEORY OF THE GOVERNMENT IS THAT THE PETITIONER WAS GUILTY OF AN
EVASION OF THE PRICE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN THIS PARTICULAR
REGULATION IF IT REQUIRED THE PURCHASE OF CHICKEN FEET AND SKIN AS A
NECESSARY CONDITION TO OBTAINING THE PRIMARY COMMODITY, THE POULTRY. 
THIS PRACTICE IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS A "COMBINATION SALE" OR A "TYING
AGREEMENT."  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE PETITIONER THEREBY RECEIVED FOR THE
POULTRY THE CEILING PRICE PLUS THE PRICE OF THE SECONDARY COMMODITIES,
THE CHICKEN PARTS. 

THE EVIDENCE WAS UNDISPUTED THAT THE POULTRY WAS BILLED BY PETITIONER
AT CEILING PRICES FIXED BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR AND THAT NO CEILING
PRICES HAD BEEN SET FOR CHICKEN FEET OR CHICKEN SKIN.  IT WAS ALSO
UNDISPUTED THAT THE DEMAND FOR POULTRY DURING THE THANKSGIVING SEASON
FAR EXCEEDED THE SUPPLY AND THAT PETITIONER VOLUNTARILY IMPOSED A
RATIONING SYSTEM AMONG ITS CUSTOMERS. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE RESTED PRIMARILY UPON THE TESTIMONY OF SEVEN
RETAIL BUTCHERS WHO HAD PURCHASED POULTRY AND POULTRY PARTS FROM
PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION.  ONLY ONE OF THEM TESTIFIED
EXPLICITLY THAT THE SALE OF POULTRY TO HIM HAD BEEN CONDITIONED UPON
THE SALE OF POULTRY PARTS WHICH HE DID NOT WANT AND FOR WHICH THERE WAS
NO CONSUMER DEMAND.  HIS TESTIMONY, HOWEVER, WAS DISBELIEVED BY THE
JURY SINCE IT ACQUITTED THE PETITIONER ON THE TWO COUNTS INVOLVING
SALES TO HIM.  WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS, THE OTHER BUTCHERS TESTIFIED EITHER
THAT THE FEET AND SKINS WERE LOADED ON THEIR TRUCKS WITHOUT PREVIOUS
ORDER OR SOLICITATION ALONG WITH THE POULTRY OR THAT THEY WERE BILLED
FOR BOTH THE POULTRY AND THE PARTS WITHOUT COMMENT.  FIVE OF THEM
STATED THAT THEY SOLD A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE CHICKEN PARTS AND GAVE AWAY
THE BALANCE; ONE REMARKED THAT HE COULD NOT SELL ANY PARTS AND WAS
FORCED TO DUMP THEM.  THERE WAS NO EXPLICIT EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE
BUTCHERS PROTESTED, SOUGHT TO RETURN THE CHICKEN PARTS OR ASKED TO BUY
THE POULTRY SEPARATELY.  IT WAS REASONABLE, HOWEVER, FOR THE JURY TO
FIND THAT THE SALE OF POULTRY WAS CONDITIONED UPON THE SIMULTANEOUS
SALE OF THE CHICKEN PARTS AND NO CONTRARY CLAIM IS MADE BEFORE US. 

SEVERAL TIMES THE PETITIONER TRIED TO INTRODUCE TESTIMONY
ESTABLISHING THAT THERE WAS A DEMAND FOR CHICKEN PARTS AND THAT THEY
WERE OF VALUE.  PETITIONER'S COUNSEL STATED THAT "THE GOVERNMENT HAS
INFERRED THROUGH ALL OF ITS TESTIMONY THAT CHICKEN SKIN AND CHICKEN
FEET ARE SO MUCH WASTE, THAT THEY ARE DUMPED; THAT THEY ARE NOT USED
AND THEY HAVE OPENED UP THE DOOR TO THIS TYPE OF TESTIMONY."  BUT THE
TRIAL JUDGE RULED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT PUT THAT MATTER IN ISSUE
AND THAT THE "ONLY THING WE ARE CONCERNED WITH IS WHETHER OR NOT THE
WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED PURCHASED CHICKEN FEET TO MEET A DEMAND IN
THEIR STORES."  HE ACCORDINGLY REFUSED TO ADMIT THE PROFFERED TESTIMONY
FROM PETITIONER'S WITNESSES, STATING TO PETITIONER'S COUNSEL THAT "I
DIRECT YOU NOT TO PUT THEM ON THE STAND  ..." 

ON CROSS EXAMINATION, HOWEVER, PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT WAS QUESTIONED
AS TO THE RESALE VALUE OF CHICKEN SKINS FROM THE RETAILER TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC.  HE STATED THAT THE VALUE WAS FROM 25 TO 30 CENTS A
POUND AND THAT THE SKIN WAS USED TO MAKE CHICKEN FAT.  HE ALSO
TESTIFIED THAT CHICKEN FEET HAD A RESALE VALUE OF FROM 12 TO 16 CENTS A
POUND AND WERE USED IN MAKING SOUP AND GELATIN.  HE FURTHER STATED THAT
THE DEMAND FOR CHICKEN FEET CAME FROM RETAIL BUTCHERS SUCH AS HAD BEEN
ON THE STAND.  PETITIONER'S COUNSEL THEN RECALLED ONE OF THE RETAIL
BUTCHERS WHOSE TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN EXCLUDED BY THE COURT.  HE
TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD BOUGHT CHICKEN FEET FROM THE PETITIONER, HAD
"CREATED A DEMAND" FOR THEM IN HIS STORE, AND HAD SOLD THEM FOR FROM 15
TO 20 CENTS A POUND.  NO FURTHER WITNESSES WERE CALLED IN REGARD TO THE
RETAIL VALUE OF CHICKEN FEET AND SKINS. 

IN SUBMITTING THE CASE TO THE JURY, THE JUDGE STATED THAT "WHAT THESE
DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED WITH HAVING DONE IS IMPOSING AS A NECESSARY
CONDITION TO THE PURCHASE OF TURKEYS THE SIMULTANEOUS PURCHASE OF
GIZZARDS, CHICKEN FEET OR CHICKEN SKIN, THAT WERE UTTERLY USELESS AND
VALUELESS TO THE PURCHASERS.  IN ORDER TO VIOLATE THE LAW THESE
DEFENDANTS MUST HAVE MADE MORE THAN THE FIXED PRICE OF 37 1/2 CENTS ON
THE CHICKENS, OR THE TURKEY PRICE OF 40 TO 45 CENTS.  AND THE TESTIMONY
ABOUT THE USE OF THESE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES SOLD, THE USE THAT CAN BE
MADE OF THEM, WILL ENABLE YOU TO DETERMINE THAT THEY WERE SOLD AT
PRICES - AND THE PRICES ARE ON ALL THESE SLIPS THAT ARE IN EVIDENCE -
ENTIRELY OUT OF LINE WITH ANY VALUE THAT ATTACHES TO THEM, SO THAT IT
IS ALMOST ENTIRELY PROFIT TO THESE DEFENDANTS, AND IN DOING THAT, BY
MAKING THE PURCHASE OF THESE THINGS AT THE PRICES FIXED, THE DEFENDANTS
BOTH REALIZED A GREATER CONSIDERATION THAN THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION ALLOWS FOR THE COMMODITY SOLD."  HE ALSO TOLD THE JURY
THAT THE "ONE QUESTION IN THE CASE IS WHETHER THE SALE OF THE CHICKEN
SKIN AND FEET WAS A NECESSARY CONDITION TO THE PURCHASE OF THE OTHER
(POULTRY)." 

THE JURY ACQUITTED PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT BUT CONVICTED THE
PETITIONER ON NINE COUNTS.  PETITIONER WAS FINED $2,500 ON EACH COUNT,
A TOTAL OF $22,500.  THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT BELOW,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING BECAUSE OF THE EXCLUSION OF PETITIONER'S PROFFERED
TESTIMONY.  149 F.2D 773.  IN OUR OPINION, HOWEVER, THE CONVICTION MUST
BE SET ASIDE. 

CRIMINAL SANCTIONS ON "ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION
OF SECTION 4 OF THIS ACT  ..."  SECTION 4(A) OF THE ACT IN TURN
PROVIDES THAT "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL  ...  FOR ANY PERSON TO SELL OR
DELIVER ANY COMMODITY,  ...  IN VIOLATION OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER
UNDER SECTION 2  ..."  SECTION 2(A) AUTHORIZES THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
UNDER PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS TO ESTABLISH BY REGULATION OR ORDER SUCH
MAXIMUM PRICES "AS IN HIS JUDGMENT WILL BE GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE
AND WILL EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."  SECTION 2(G) FURTHER
STATES THAT "REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THIS ACT MAY
CONTAIN SUCH PROVISIONS AS THE ADMINISTRATOR DEEMS NECESSARY TO PREVENT
THE CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION THEREOF." 

THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, PURSUANT TO SEC. 2(A), ISSUED REVISED
MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 269 ON DECEMBER 18, 1942,  FN3  WHICH
REGULATION WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE POULTRY SALES IN QUESTION WERE
MADE.  SECTION 1429.5 OF THIS REGULATION, REFERRED TO IN THE
INFORMATIONS, STEMS FROM SEC. 2(G) OF THE ACT.  IT IS ENTITLED
"EVASION" AND READS AS FOLLOWS:  "PRICE LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN THIS
REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 269 SHALL NOT BE EVADED WHETHER BY
DIRECT OR INDIRECT METHODS, IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OFFER, SOLICITATION,
AGREEMENT, SALE, DELIVERY, PURCHASE OR RECEIPT OF, OR RELATING TO, THE
COMMODITIES PRICES OF WHICH ARE HEREIN REGULATED, ALONE OR IN
CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OTHER COMMODITY, OR BY WAY OF COMMISSION, SERVICE,
TRANSPORTATION, OR OTHER CHARGE, OR DISCOUNT, PREMIUM, OR OTHER
PRIVILEGE OR OTHER TRADE UNDERSTANDING OR OTHERWISE." 

THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING THIS STATUTE WAS TO
PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE ECONOMIC BALANCE OF THE NATION DURING A PERIOD
OF GRAVE EMERGENCY, THEREBY ACHIEVING THE PREVENTION OF INFLATION AND
ITS CONSEQUENCES ENUMERATED IN SEC. 1.  YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321
U.S. 414, 423.  THAT AIM WAS IMPLEMENTED BY CRIMINAL SANCTIONS TO BE
IMPOSED ON THOSE WHO DELIBERATELY CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE NATIONAL WELFARE
IN THIS RESPECT BY SELLING COMMODITIES AT PRICES ABOVE ESTABLISHED
LEVELS.  AS APPEARS FROM A COMBINED READING OF SECS. 205(B), 4(A) AND
2(A), CRIMINAL LIABILITY ATTACHES TO ANY ONE WHO WILLFULLY SELLS
COMMODITIES IN VIOLATION OF A REGULATION OR ORDER OF THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM PRICES.  FN4  CF. UNITED STATES V.
EATON, 144 U.S. 677.  RECOGNIZING THAT SALES AT ABOVE-CEILING PRICES
MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DEVIOUS AS WELL AS BY DIRECT MEANS, CONGRESS IN
SEC. 2(G) AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE PROVISIONS AGAINST
CIRCUMVENTION AND EVASION OF MAXIMUM PRICES.  HENCE ONE WHO WILLFULLY
SELLS COMMODITIES AT PRICES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM IN AN EVASIVE MANNER
SPECIFIED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECTS ONESELF TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY. 
THESE STATUTORY WARNINGS ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS.  WHEN INCORPORATED
WITH SUCH DEFINITE AND CLEAR REGULATIONS AND ORDERS AS THE
ADMINISTRATOR MAY PROMULGATE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT LEAVE NO DOUBT
AS TO THE CONDUCT THAT WILL RENDER ONE LIABLE TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES. 

THIS DELEGATION TO THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE POWER TO PROVIDE IN
DETAIL AGAINST CIRCUMVENTION AND EVASION, AS TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS
IMPOSED CRIMINAL SANCTIONS, CREATES A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY.  IN A VERY
LITERAL SENSE THE LIBERTIES AND FORTUNES OF OTHERS MAY DEPEND UPON HIS
DEFINITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING EVASION.  HENCE TO THESE
PROVISIONS MUST BE APPLIED THE SAME STRICT RULE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT IS
APPLIED TO STATUTES DEFINING CRIMINAL ACTION.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S PROVISIONS MUST BE EXPLICIT AND UNAMBIGUOUS IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION; THEY MUST ADEQUATELY INFORM THOSE WHO
ARE SUBJECT TO THEIR TERMS WHAT CONDUCT WILL BE CONSIDERED EVASIVE SO
AS TO BRING THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES OF THE ACT INTO OPERATION.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. WILTBERGER, 5 WHEAT.  76, 94-96.  THE DIVIDING LINE
BETWEEN UNLAWFUL EVASION AND LAWFUL ACTION CANNOT BE LEFT TO
CONJECTURE.  THE ELEMENTS OF EVASIVE CONDUCT SHOULD BE SO CLEARLY
EXPRESSED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR THAT THE ORDINARY PERSON CAN KNOW IN
ADVANCE HOW TO AVOID AN UNLAWFUL COURSE OF ACTION. 

IN APPLYING THIS STRICT RULE OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE PROVISIONS
ADOPTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, COURTS MUST TAKE CARE NOT TO CONSTRUE SO
STRICTLY AS TO DEFEAT THE OBVIOUS INTENTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. 
WORDS USED BY HIM TO DESCRIBE EVASIVE ACTION ARE TO BE GIVEN THEIR
NATURAL AND PLAIN MEANING, SUPPLEMENTED BY CONTEMPORANEOUS OR LONG
STANDING INTERPRETATIONS PUBLICLY MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  BUT
PATENT OMISSIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES CANNOT BE DISREGARDED WHEN DEALING
WITH A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  A PROSECUTOR IN FRAMING AN INDICTMENT, A
COURT IN INTERPRETING THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATIONS OR A JURY IN
JUDGING GUILT CANNOT SUPPLY THAT WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR FAILED TO DO
BY EXPRESS WORD OR FAIR IMPLICATION.  NOT EVEN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
INTERPRETATIONS OF HIS OWN REGULATIONS CAN CURE AN OMISSION OR ADD
CERTAINTY AND DEFINITENESS TO OTHERWISE VAGUE LANGUAGE.  THE PROHIBITED
CONDUCT MUST, FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES, BE SET FORTH WITH CLARITY IN THE
REGULATIONS AND ORDERS WHICH HE IS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS TO PROMULGATE
UNDER THE ACT.  CONGRESS HAS WARNED THE PUBLIC TO LOOK TO THAT SOURCE
ALONE TO DISCOVER WHAT CONDUCT IS EVASIVE AND HENCE LIKELY TO CREATE
CRIMINAL LIABILITY.  UNITED STATES V. RESNICK, 299 U.S. 207. 

IN LIGHT OF THESE PRINCIPLES WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THIS CONVICTION
OF THE PETITIONER BASED UPON SEC. 1429.5 OF REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 269.  FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR LEGALLY COULD INCLUDE TYING AGREEMENTS AND COMBINATION
SALES INVOLVING THE SALE OF VALUABLE SECONDARY COMMODITIES AT THEIR
MARKET VALUE AMONG THE PROHIBITED EVASION DEVICES.  ANY PROBLEM AS TO
HIS POWER SO TO PROVIDE WOULD HAVE TO BE RAISED INITIALLY IN A
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  LOCKERTY V.
PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182; YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 427-431;
BOWLES V. SEMINOLE ROCK CO., 325 U.S. 410, 418-419; CASE V. BOWLES, 327
U.S. 92, 98.  THE ONLY ISSUE BEARING UPON THE REGULATION WHICH IS OPEN
IN THIS CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATOR DID IN FACT
CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY PROHIBIT TYING AGREEMENTS OF THIS NATURE BY
VIRTUE OF THE LANGUAGE HE USED IN SEC. 1429.5.  THAT ISSUE WE ANSWER IN
THE NEGATIVE.  FN5    SECTION 1429.5, SO FAR AS HERE PERTINENT,
PROVIDES THAT PRICE LIMITATIONS SHALL NOT BE EVADED BY ANY METHOD,
DIRECT OR INDIRECT, WHETHER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OFFER OR SALE OF A
PRICE-REGULATED COMMODITY ALONE "OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OTHER
COMMODITY," OR BY WAY OF ANY TRADE UNDERSTANDING "OR OTHERWISE."  NO
SPECIFIC MENTION IS MADE OF TYING AGREEMENTS OR COMBINATION SALES. 

IT IS URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THIS LANGUAGE FITS THE TYPE OF
TYING AGREEMENT ALLEGEDLY USED BY PETITIONER.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT
PETITIONER RECEIVED FOR THE PRIMARY COMMODITY NOT ONLY THE CEILING
PRICE BUT ALSO THE PRICE OF THE SECONDARY COMMODITIES WHICH THE
RETAILERS WERE REQUIRED TO BUY.  CONVERSELY, THE RETAILERS WERE
COMPELLED TO PAY NOT ONLY THE CEILING PRICE BUT ALSO THE PRICE OF THE
SECONDARY COMMODITIES IN ORDER TO SECURE THE PRIMARY COMMODITY, THE
POULTRY.  UNDER THIS THEORY IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE SECONDARY
PRODUCTS, THE CHICKEN PARTS, HAD ANY VALUE TO THE RETAILERS OR WHETHER
THEIR PRICE WAS A REASONABLE ONE.  REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS RESPECT TO
SEC. 302(B) OF THE ACT, DEFINING PRICE AS "THE CONSIDERATION DEMANDED
OR RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF A COMMODITY."  HENCE IT IS
CONCLUDED THAT THE PRICE LIMITATION ON THE PRIMARY COMMODITY WAS EVADED
"IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OTHER COMMODITY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
1429.5.  THIS ARGUMENT, MOREOVER, REPRESENTS THE CONSISTENT
INTERPRETATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  FN6 

BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, UNDER THE STRICT RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, SUCH AN INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 1429.5 IS DICTATED
BY ITS PLAIN LANGUAGE.  IT PROHIBITS EVASIONS THROUGH SALES OF PRICE
REGULATED COMMODITIES "IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OTHER COMMODITY."  THAT
CLEARLY AND UNDENIABLY PROHIBITS EVASIONS THROUGH THE USE OF TYING
AGREEMENTS WHERE THE TIED-IN COMMODITY IS WORTHLESS OR IS SOLD AT AN
ARTIFICIAL PRICE, THEREBY HIDING AN ABOVE-CEILING PRICE FOR THE PRIMARY
COMMODITY.  BUT TO SAY THAT THE LANGUAGE COVERS MORE, THAT IT ALSO
APPLIES TO A CASE WHERE THE SECONDARY PRODUCT HAS VALUE AND IS SOLD AT
ITS CEILING OR MARKET PRICE, IS TO INTRODUCE AN ELEMENT OF CONJECTURE
AND TO GIVE EFFECT TO AN UNSTATED JUDGMENT OF POLICY. 

THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1429.5 IS APPROPRIATE TO AND CONSISTENT WITH A
DESIRE ON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PART TO PROHIBIT ONLY THOSE TYING
AGREEMENTS INVOLVING TIED-IN COMMODITIES THAT ARE WORTHLESS OR THAT ARE
SOLD AT ARTIFICIAL PRICES.  THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY HAVE THOUGHT THAT
OTHER TIED-IN SALES DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT THREAT TO THE PRICE
ECONOMY OF THE NATION TO WARRANT THEIR OUTLAWRY, OR THAT THEY WERE SUCH
AN ESTABLISHED TRADE CUSTOM THAT THEY SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED.  BUT WE ARE
TOLD THAT HE HAD NO SUCH THOUGHT, THAT PROHIBITION OF ALL TYING
AGREEMENTS IS ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT PROFITEERING, AND THAT THIS BLANKET
PROHIBITION IS THE ONLY POLICY CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT.  ALL OF THIS MAY WELL BE TRUE.  BUT THESE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE
JUDGMENTS WITH WHICH THE COURTS HAVE NO CONCERN IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.  WE MUST LOOK SOLELY TO THE LANGUAGE ACTUALLY USED IN SEC.
1429.5.  AND WHEN WE DO WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS
MADE HIS POSITION IN THIS RESPECT SELF-EVIDENT FROM THE LANGUAGE USED. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FAILURE TO EXPRESS ADEQUATELY HIS INTENTIONS IN
SEC. 1429.5 IS EMPHASIZED BY THE COMPLETE AND UNMISTAKABLE LANGUAGE HE
HAS USED IN OTHER PRICE REGULATIONS TO PROHIBIT ALL TYING AGREEMENTS,
INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING THE SALE OF VALUABLE SECONDARY PRODUCTS. 
THUS HE HAS INSERTED IN THE MEAT REGULATION A PROVISION PROHIBITING
EVASION OF PRICE LIMITATIONS BY "OFFERING, SELLING OR DELIVERING BEEF,
VEAL OR ANY PROCESSED PRODUCT ON CONDITION THAT THE PURCHASER IS
REQUIRED TO PURCHASE SOME OTHER COMMODITY."  SEC. 1364.406, REVISED
MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 169, AS AMENDED MARCH 30, 1943, 8 FED.
REG. 4099.  AND IN THE CLOTHING REGULATION, THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS
PROVIDED THAT "NO MANUFACTURER SHALL MAKE A SALE OF GARMENTS WHICH IS
CONDITIONED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ON THE PURCHASE OF ANY OTHER
COMMODITY OR SERVICE."  SEC. 15, REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO.
287, ISSUED JUNE 29, 1943, 8 FED. REG. 9126.  SEE ALSO SEC. 1389.555,
MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 330, AS AMENDED AUGUST 7, 1943, 8 FED.
REG. 11041. 

THE VERY DEFINITENESS WITH WHICH TYING AGREEMENTS OF ALL TYPES WERE
PROHIBITED IN REGARD TO MANY OTHER COMMODITIES AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY
SUCH PROHIBITION IN SEC. 1429.5 OF REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO.
269 MIGHT WELL HAVE LED A REASONABLE MAN TO BELIEVE THAT TYING
AGREEMENTS INVOLVING THE SALE OF A VALUABLE SECONDARY COMMODITY AT ITS
MARKET PRICE WERE PERMISSIBLE IN THE POULTRY BUSINESS WHEN THE
TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION TOOK PLACE.  CERTAINLY THE LANGUAGE USED BY
THE ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT COMPEL THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.  AND
CERTAINLY A CRIMINAL CONVICTION OUGHT NOT TO REST UPON AN
INTERPRETATION REACHED BY THE USE OF POLICY JUDGMENTS RATHER THAN BY
THE INEXORABLE COMMAND OF RELEVANT LANGUAGE. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS WE INTERPRET SEC. 1429.5 AS
PROHIBITING ONLY THOSE TYING AGREEMENTS INVOLVING SECONDARY PRODUCTS
THAT ARE WORTHLESS OR THAT ARE SOLD AT ARTIFICIAL PRICES.  IT FOLLOWS
THAT THE CONVICTION BELOW CANNOT STAND.  WHILE THE INFORMATIONS CAN BE
INTERPRETED AS CHARGING A CRIME UNDER SEC. 1429.5 AS WE HAVE READ IT,
THE TRIAL JUDGE'S CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  THERE WAS
EVIDENCE, AT FIRST EXCLUDED BUT LATER ADMITTED, THAT THE CHICKEN PARTS
WHICH THE PETITIONER SOLD DID HAVE VALUE AND WERE SOLD AT THEIR MARKET
PRICE.  IF THE JURY BELIEVED SUCH EVIDENCE IT WAS ENTITLED TO ACQUIT
THE PETITIONER.  BUT THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED THAT THE "ONE" QUESTION IN
THE CASE WAS WHETHER THE SALE OF THE CHICKEN PARTS WAS A NECESSARY
CONDITION TO THE PURCHASE OF THE POULTRY.  ON THE BASIS OF THAT CHARGE
THE JURY MAY WELL HAVE DISREGARDED AS IRRELEVANT THE EVIDENCE OF VALUE
AS TO THE SECONDARY PRODUCTS AND CONVICTED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT
THERE WAS A TIE-IN SALE.  SUCH A CHARGE IS THUS REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

THERE WERE ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS IN THE CHARGE TO THE JURY, TO BE
SURE, THAT THE PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH HAVING COMPELLED, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF POULTRY, THE SIMULTANEOUS PURCHASE OF
CHICKEN PARTS "THAT WERE UTTERLY USELESS AND VALUELESS TO THE
PURCHASERS" AND AT PRICES "ENTIRELY OUT OF LINE WITH ANY VALUE THAT
ATTACHES TO THEM."  WHILE SUCH STATEMENTS TENDED TO CHARGE A VIOLATION
OF SEC. 1429.5, AS PROPERLY INTERPRETED, THEY WERE SO INTERTWINED WITH
THE INCORRECT CHARGE AS TO NEGATIVE THEIR EFFECT.  "A CONVICTION OUGHT
NOT TO REST ON AN EQUIVOCAL DIRECTION TO THE JURY ON A BASIC ISSUE." 
BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 607, 613. 

THE CASE MUST THEREFORE BE REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL, ALLOWING FULL
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AS TO THE VALUE OF THE
CHICKEN PARTS AND CHARGING THE JURY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPER
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 1429.5.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  56 STAT. 23; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 901 ET SEQ. 

FN2  7 FED. REG. 10708; REISSUED WITH AMENDMENTS, 8 FED. REG. 13813. 

FN3  REISSUED WITH AMENDMENTS ON OCTOBER 8, 1943.  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN4  SECTION 205(B) IS SOMEWHAT INARTISTICALLY DRAWN.  IT DOES NOT
SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE CRIMINAL LIABILITY ON THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE
REGULATIONS AND ORDERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  BUT THE HURDLE OF UNITED
STATES V. EATON, 144 U.S. 677, IS CLEARED BY THE REFERENCE IN SEC.
205(B) TO SEC. 4, WHICH MAKES IT UNLAWFUL, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO SELL
OR DELIVER ANY COMMODITY IN VIOLATION OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER.  SEE
IN RE KOLLOCK, 165 U.S. 526; UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506;
UNITED STATES V. GEORGE, 228 U.S. 14; SINGER V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S.
338.  CONGRESS HAS SUBSEQUENTLY EMPHASIZED THIS REFERENCE EVEN MORE
CLEARLY WHEN, IN ADDING SEC. 204(E)(1) TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT, IT SPOKE OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING "BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 205
INVOLVING ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER
ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2 ..."  SEC. 107(B), STABILIZATION EXTENSION ACT
OF 1944, 58 STAT. 639.  SEE ALSO SEC. 6, ACT OF JUNE 30, 1945, C. 214,
59 STAT. 306, 308, AMENDING SEC. 204(E)(1) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT. 

FN5  CF. UNITED STATES V. GEORGE F. FISH, INC., 154 F.2D 798. 

FN6  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR HAS CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED THE POSITION
THAT COMPULSION TO PURCHASE A SECONDARY PRODUCT IS AN EVASION OF THE
MAXIMUM PRICES FIXED FOR THE PRIMARY PRODUCT.  THUS, IN AN
INTERPRETATION ISSUED NOVEMBER 5, 1943, APPLICABLE TO ALL MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATIONS, THE ADMINISTRATOR, IN DISCUSSING VIOLATIONS AND EVASIONS,
MADE THE FOLLOWING INTERPRETATION AS TO TYING AGREEMENTS: 

"(A)  AS TO FREEZE REGULATIONS:  A PURCHASER MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO
BUY A COMBINATION OF COMMODITIES IF HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO DURING
THE BASE PERIOD, BECAUSE SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT IS A TYING AGREEMENT WHICH
RESULTS IN THE SELLER RECEIVING A LARGER CONSIDERATION FOR HIS
COMMODITY THAN HE CHARGED DURING THE BASE PERIOD. 

"(B)  AS TO REGULATIONS OTHER THAN BASE PERIOD FREEZE REGULATIONS:
OPA HAS ALSO CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT ANY ARRANGEMENT BY WHICH A SELLER
CONDITIONS THE SALE OF A COMMODITY IN ANY MANNER UPON THE PURCHASE BY
THE BUYER OF ANY OTHER COMMODITY IS A TYING AGREEMENT, AND CONSTITUTES
A VIOLATION. 

"FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS A VIOLATION FOR A SELLER TO COMPEL A PURCHASER OF
A LOAD OF CORN TO ALSO PURCHASE A LOAD OF ALFALFA, EVEN THOUGH THE
TOTAL PRICE FOR THE CORN, PLUS THE ALFALFA, DOES NOT EXCEED THE
AGGREGATE OF THE CEILING PRICE FOR EACH ITEM, OR ANOTHER EXAMPLE:  IT
IS A VIOLATION FOR A SELLER TO COMPEL A PURCHASER OF NYLON HOSE TO ALSO
PURCHASE A WAR BOND." 

O.P.A. SERVICE (PIKE & FISCHER) VOL. I, P. 2:  812. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

IF A RETAILER SOLD MEAT OR ANY OTHER COMMODITY TO A CONSUMER ONLY ON
CONDITION THAT HE PURCHASE AND PAY FOR A WHOLLY WORTHLESS ARTICLE, IT
WOULD BE CLEAR THAT PRICE CEILINGS HAD BEEN VIOLATED.  FOR THE
ATTRIBUTION OF VALUE TO THE WORTHLESS ARTICLE WOULD BE NOTHING MORE
THAN AN EVASIVE METHOD OF INCREASING THE CEILING PRICE ON THE OTHER
COMMODITY.  I CAN SEE NO DIFFERENCE WHERE THE ADDITIONAL COMMODITY,
ALTHOUGH IT HAS VALUE, HAS NO VALUE TO THE PURCHASER. 

BUT THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT IN BOTH RESPECTS OR SO THE JURY MIGHT
FIND.  FIRST, CHICKEN GIZZARDS, CHICKEN SKIN, OR CHICKEN FEET ARE NOT
WHOLLY WORTHLESS ARTICLES.  THERE IS DEMAND FOR THEM AND THEY HAVE A
VALUE.  SECOND, THEY WERE TIED-IN WITH SALES TO RETAILERS WHO
CONSTITUTE THE MARKET FOR CHICKEN GIZZARDS, CHICKEN SKIN, AND CHICKEN
FEET.  IF IN FACT THEY HAD NO VALUE ON THAT MARKET, EVASION OF PRICE
CEILINGS WOULD BE ESTABLISHED.  BUT SINCE THEY APPARENTLY HAD SOME
VALUE ON THE RETAIL MARKET, NO VIOLATION OF PRICE CEILINGS OCCURRED
UNLESS THE PRICE CHARGED FOR THEM IN FACT EXCEEDED THAT MARKET VALUE. 
THAT MIGHT BE SHOWN EITHER BY PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE MARKET VALUE
WAS LOWER OR BY SHOWING THAT THE QUANTITY FORCED ON THE RETAILERS WAS
IN EXCESS OF THE QUANTITY WHICH THE MARKET COULD ABSORB. 

THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THAT BASIS.  FOR THE
TRIAL COURT RULED THAT THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES SOLD WERE VALUELESS AND
THAT THE "ONE QUESTION IN THE CASE IS WHETHER THE SALE OF THE CHICKEN
SKIN AND FEET WAS A NECESSARY CONDITION TO THE PURCHASE OF THE OTHER." 
THAT RULING TOOK FROM THE JURY THE BASIC ISSUE IN THE CASE. 

I THINK THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THESE CHICKEN GIZZARDS, CHICKEN SKIN,
AND CHICKEN FEET WERE VALUELESS TO SOME OF THE RETAILERS AND THAT A
CONVICTION WOULD BE WARRANTED.  BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT WE CONCLUDE
ON THE WHOLE RECORD THAT A DEFENDANT IS GUILTY.  BOLLENBACH V. UNITED
STATES, 326 U.S. 607.  THE JURY UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IS THE
TRIBUNAL SELECTED FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF GUILT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE RESULT AND SUBSTANTIALLY SO WITH MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY'S OPINION.  I DO NOT THINK THAT ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS, GIVEN BY STATUTE THE FUNCTION OF DEFINING THE SUBSTANCE OF
CRIMINAL CONDUCT, SHOULD HAVE BROADER OR MORE INCLUSIVE CONSTRUCTION
THAN STATUTES PERFORMING THE SAME FUNCTION.  IF THE REGULATIONS
INVOLVED HERE HAD BEEN ENACTED SPECIFICALLY BY CONGRESS IN STATUTORY
FORM, I DO NOT THINK THEY COULD PROPERLY BE CONSTRUED TO FORBID TIE-IN
SALES OF THESE COMMODITIES PER SE. 

AS THE OPINION POINTS OUT, THE REGULATIONS, WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER
COMMODITIES, EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED TIE-IN SALES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
THE TIED-IN COMMODITY HAD VALUE.  PERSONS DEALING IN THOSE COMMODITIES
WERE SPECIFICALLY INFORMED BY THE REGULATIONS, THEREFORE, THAT SUCH
SALES WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  THERE WAS NO SUCH SPECIFIC
PROHIBITION APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF THE SALES IN QUESTION TO SALES OF
POULTRY.  HOWEVER THE GENERAL PROHIBITION AGAINST EVASION CONTAINED IN
SEC. 1429.5 OF REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 269 MIGHT BE
INTERPRETED, IF THERE HAD BEEN NO REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDING
TIE-IN SALES OF OTHER COMMODITIES, IN VIEW OF THEIR EXISTENCE AND THE
ABSENCE OF ANY SIMILAR PROVISION RELATING TO POULTRY, I DO NOT THINK IT
PERMISSIBLE TO CONSTRUE SEC. 1429.5 AS COVERING THE SAME GROUND. 
PERSONS READING THE REGULATIONS TO DETERMINE WHAT CONDUCT HAD BEEN
FORBIDDEN WERE ENTITLED IN MY OPINION TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR, WHENEVER HE THOUGHT TIE-IN SALES WERE PER SE EVASIVE OR
IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT'S POLICY, HAD EXPRESSLY SO STATED AND
CONVERSELY THAT WHERE HE HAD NOT EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN THE PRACTICE, IT
WAS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS PROHIBITED BY GENERAL LANGUAGE APPLICABLE
TO MANY OTHER TYPES OF SITUATION BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY TO THIS ONE. 
THIS VIEW, I THINK, WOULD BE REQUIRED IF THE REGULATIONS HAD BEEN
ENACTED IN STATUTORY FORM.  AS REGULATIONS THEY CANNOT BE GIVEN BROADER
CONTENT.    ACCORDINGLY I AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT TIE-IN SALES
WERE NOT FORBIDDEN AT THE TIME OF THESE SALES, AS TO POULTRY.  I ALSO
AGREE THAT THE TRIAL COURT, BOTH IN ITS INSTRUCTIONS AND IN SOME OF ITS
RULINGS UPON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, WENT ON A CONCEPTION OF THE
LAW INCONSISTENT WITH THIS VIEW.  I THEREFORE CONCUR IN THE COURT'S
DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, ALTHOUGH AGREEING WITH THE OPINION OF MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY, ALSO JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

WE WERE AT WAR IN 1943.  SCARCITY OF FOOD HAD BECOME AN ACUTE PROBLEM
THROUGHOUT THE NATION.  TO KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM BEING GOUGED THE
GOVERNMENT HAD SET CEILING PRICES ON FOOD ITEMS.  CONGRESS HAD MADE IT
A CRIME TO SELL FOOD ABOVE THESE CEILING PRICES.  WHEN THANKSGIVING DAY
APPROACHED THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH TURKEYS TO SUPPLY THE DEMAND OF THE
MANY AMERICAN FAMILIES WHO WANTED TO CELEBRATE IN THE CUSTOMARY STYLE. 

THE INFORMATION FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT CHARGED THAT THE
PETITIONER "UNLAWFULLY, WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY EVADED THE PROVISIONS OF
..."  REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 269, SEC. 1429.5, BY
COMPELLING AND REQUIRING THE BUYER TO PURCHASE CHICKEN FEET, CHICKEN
SKIN, OR GIZZARDS AT A SPECIFIED PRICE, AS A CONDITION OF THE SALE OF
POULTRY TO THEM.  DURING PEACE TIMES THE PETITIONER HAD ORDINARILY DONE
A GROSS BUSINESS OF SEVEN-AND-A-HALF MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.  IN 1943,
PRESUMABLY DUE TO THE MEAT SHORTAGE INCIDENT TO THE WAR, THE
PETITIONER'S GROSS BUSINESS WAS NOT QUITE FOUR MILLION DOLLARS.  THIS
MEAT SHORTAGE WAS FELT ACUTELY DURING THE THANKSGIVING SEASON, WHEN
PETITIONER INSTEAD OF HIS USUAL 100 TO 150 CARS OF TURKEYS RECEIVED
ONLY ONE CAR.  WHEN THE RETAIL BUTCHERS AND POULTRY MARKET PROPRIETORS
CAME CLAMORING FOR THEIR SHARE OF THE SMALL SUPPLY (WHICH THE DEFENDANT
RATIONED AMONG THEM) THEY FOUND THAT ALONG WITH THE TURKEYS WHICH THEY
WANTED SO BADLY PETITIONER GAVE AND CHARGED THEM FOR LARGE AMOUNTS OF
CHICKEN FEET, SKINS AND GIZZARDS WHICH THEY HAD NOT ASKED FOR AT ALL
AND WHICH FOR THE MOST PART THEY HAD NEVER BEFORE SOLD AS SEPARATE
ITEMS.  WHILE THE BUTCHERS PAID IN ADDITION TO THE CEILING PRICE
CHARGED FOR THE TURKEYS THE PRICE CHARGED FOR THE CHICKEN SKINS AND
FEET, THEY DID SO ONLY BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT UNLESS THEY BOUGHT
THESE UNWANTED ITEMS THEY COULD GET NO TURKEYS.  ONLY ONE OF THE
BUTCHERS SOLD ALL THE CHICKEN SKINS TO HIS CUSTOMERS.  HE EXPLAINED
THAT HE OPERATED HIS STORE IN A POOR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE FOOD
SHORTAGE HAD BECOME SO ACUTE THAT PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO BUY ANYTHING
THEY COULD GET.  AS TO THE REST OF THE BUTCHERS, SOME SIMPLY DUMPED THE
CHICKEN SKINS AND FEET WHILE OTHERS, AFTER DILIGENT EFFORTS, SOLD A FEW
POUNDS AND THEN GAVE THE REST AWAY EITHER TO THEIR CUSTOMERS, OR TO
CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS.  CERTAINLY THESE PARTICULAR BUTCHERS FORCED TO
BUY THESE UNWANTED ITEMS FOR THE FIRST TIME WERE NOT THE REGULAR RETAIL
OUTLET FOR DISJOINTED CHICKEN FEET AND PEELED CHICKEN SKINS, IF THERE
EVER WAS SUCH AN OUTLET ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS.  IT IS CLEAR THEREFORE
THAT AS A RESULT OF PETITIONER'S FORCING HIS CUSTOMERS TO BUY THE FEET
AND SKINS ALONG WITH THE TURKEYS, THE RETAILERS' COST PRICE OF THE
TURKEYS WAS IN EFFECT INCREASED BEYOND THE CEILING. 

IN MY OPINION PETITIONER'S PRACTICE IN FORCING THE BUTCHERS TO BUY
UNWANTED CHICKEN FEET IN ORDER TO GET WANTED TURKEYS AMOUNTED TO A
DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT.  IT CERTAINLY WAS NO LESS A
VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATION AGAINST EVASION.  IN
PROMULGATING THIS REGULATION THE ADMINISTRATOR COULD NOT POSSIBLY
FORESEE EVERY INGENIOUS SCHEME OR ARTIFICE THE BUSINESS MIND MIGHT
CONTRIVE TO SHROUD VIOLATIONS OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT.  THE REGULATION
DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE ALL MANNER OF EVASIVE DEVICE.  THE TERM
"TYING AGREEMENT" NOWHERE APPEARS IN IT AND A DISCUSSION OF SUCH
AGREEMENTS IS IRRELEVANT.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER WHAT PETITIONER
DID WOULD HAVE VIOLATED EVERY POSSIBLE HYPOTHETICAL REGULATION THE
ADMINISTRATOR MIGHT HAVE PROMULGATED.  THE REGULATION HERE INVOLVED
PROHIBITS EVERY EVASION OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT.  IT THUS CONDEMNS ALL
ACTIONS THAT ARE "ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LINE INDICATED BY THE POLICY
IF NOT BY THE MERE LETTER OF THE LAW."  BULLEN V. WISCONSIN, 240 U.S.
625, 631.  WHAT PETITIONER DID HERE IS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF BOTH LETTER
AND POLICY.  THE COURT DOES NOT DENY THAT THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE JURY'S FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID WHAT THE INFORMATION
CHARGED IT WITH DOING.  IN MY OPINION THAT WAS A CRIME. 

HAD BUTCHERS BEEN REQUIRED TO BUY BAGS OF STONES AS A CONDITION TO
BUYING TURKEYS, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HARD TO PERSUADE THEM, OR
ANYBODY ELSE, THAT THE SELLER WHO FORCED THEM TO DO SO WAS NOT GUILTY
OF VIOLATING AND EVADING THE LAW.  HAD PEOPLE WHO WANTED AND NEEDED
BACON, AT THE TIME WHEN BACON WAS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO PURCHASE, BEEN
REQUIRED TO BUY HOG HOOFS AND HOG SKINS WITH EACH PURCHASE OF A POUND
OF BACON, I THINK THE SELLERS WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW.  IF THE
WHOLESALER CAN REQUIRE THE RETAILER TO PURCHASE UNWANTED ITEMS THE
RETAILER CAN FORCE THE ORDINARY CONSUMER TO DO THE SAME THING.  A
RESTAURANT COULD THEN FORCE ITS CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE USED KITCHEN FATS
ALONG WITH THEIR MEALS.  IT WOULD BE LITTLE CONSOLATION TO A CUSTOMER
FORCED TO DO SO TO LEARN THAT SOAP FACTORIES CAN USE THESE FATS AND
WOULD BE WILLING TO PURCHASE THEM.  HE WOULD PAY THE PRICE, AND EITHER
DUMP THE FAT INTO THE NEAREST ASH CAN OR TELL THE WAITER TO TAKE THE
SMELLY SUBSTANCE AWAY.  THE RESULT WOULD BE INCREASED COST OF MEALS IN
THAT RESTAURANT.  THINLY DISGUISED SUBTERFUGES LIKE THE ONE HERE
ADOPTED SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED BY COURTS.  ONCE THEY ARE SANCTIONED,
LAWS ENACTED BY CONGRESS FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE ARE NO LONGER
RESPECTED. 

WHEN FOOD IS SCARCE AND PEOPLE ARE HUNGRY IT IS A VIOLATION, BOTH OF
THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE PRICE CONTROL LAWS, TO REQUIRE CONSUMERS
OR RETAIL STORES WHERE THEY MAKE THEIR PURCHASES, TO BUY THINGS THAT
THEY NEITHER NEED NOR WANT AS A CONDITION TO OBTAINING ARTICLES WHICH
THEY MUST HAVE.  I DISSENT FROM THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. CARBONE, 327 U.S. 633 


NO. 474.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 27, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  - 61
F.SUPP.  882, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE KICKBACK ACT OF JUNE 13, 1934 PROVIDES THAT "WHOEVER" SHALL
INDUCE ANY PERSON EMPLOYED ON ANY FEDERALLY FINANCED WORK "TO GIVE UP
ANY PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER HIS CONTRACT
OF EMPLOYMENT, BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT OF PROCURING DISMISSAL
FROM SUCH EMPLOYMENT, OR BY ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER," SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY THEREIN PRESCRIBED.  APPELLEES, UNION OFFICIALS,
WERE INDICTED FOR CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE THE ACT.  THE INDICTMENT
CHARGED INTER ALIA THAT, BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN APPELLEES AND CONTRACTORS
ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS, THE CONTRACTORS AGREED TO
EMPLOY AS LABORERS ONLY SUCH PERSONS AS WERE APPROVED BY APPELLEES AND
TO DISCHARGE ANY SUCH EMPLOYEES AT APPELLEES' REQUEST.  APPELLEES
APPROVED FOR EMPLOYMENT, BESIDES UNION MEMBERS, ONLY SUCH PERSONS AS
PAID APPELLEES THE SUM OF $5, WHICH WAS TO BE REGARDED AS AN
INSTALLMENT UPON THE UNION INITIATION FEE.  PAYMENT TO APPELLEES OF $5
PER WEEK THEREAFTER WAS REQUIRED UNTIL THE FULL INITIATION FEE HAD BEEN
PAID, "OR THE PERSON WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO CONTINUE WORK UPON THE
SAID CONSTRUCTION."  APPELLEES, CONTRARY TO UNION RULES, DID NOT
ACCOUNT TO THE UNION FOR MONEYS RECEIVED FROM LABORERS WHO QUIT THE
EMPLOYMENT BEFORE PAYING THE INITIATION FEE IN FULL.  HELD THAT THE
INDICTMENT DID NOT CHARGE AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE KICKBACK
ACT.  P. 637. 

2.  THE KICKBACK ACT MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVILS
WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED TO REMEDY.  P. 637. 

3.  THE KICKBACK ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO AFFECT LEGITIMATE UNION
ACTIVITY; NOR TO PUNISH UNLAWFUL ACTS, THOUGH COMMITTED BY UNION
OFFICIALS IN VIOLATION OF UNION RULES, WHICH ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF
KICKBACKS.  P. 639. 

4.  ON APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, THIS COURT IS BOUND BY
THE DISTRICT COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE INDICTMENT AS DEALING WITH
ORDINARY UNION INITIATION FEES RATHER THAN WITH KICKBACKS.  P. 641. 

UNITED STATES V. CARBONE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT DISMISSING AN
INDICTMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS FOR CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE THE KICKBACK
ACT.  AFFIRMED, P. 642. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE COMES TO US UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT  FN1  DIRECTLY
FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS.  IT RAISES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO THE MEANING AND
SCOPE OF SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 13, 1934,  FN2  COMMONLY KNOWN AS
THE KICKBACK ACT, MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO PREVENT ANYONE EMPLOYED IN
CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIR WORK OF A PUBLIC NATURE OR FINANCED IN WHOLE OR
IN PART BY THE UNITED STATES FROM RECEIVING THE FULL COMPENSATION TO
WHICH HE IS ENTITLED. 

THREE OF THE APPELLEES ARE OFFICERS OF LOCAL 39 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
HOD CARRIERS' BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA; THE
FOURTH APPELLEE IS PRESIDENT OF THE EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS LABORERS
DISTRICT COUNCIL AND IS ALSO EMPLOYED BY LOCAL 39.  THEY WERE INDICTED
FOR CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE SEC. 1 OF THE KICKBACK ACT.  IT WAS CHARGED
THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, OCTOBER 1, 1940, TO
MARCH 30, 1941, TWO CONTRACTORS WERE ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
VARIOUS PUBLIC BUILDINGS FOR THE UNITED STATES AT FORT DEVENS,
MASSACHUSETTS.  THE APPELLEES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR POSITIONS WITH LOCAL
39, MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRACTORS WHEREBY THE LATTER UNDERTOOK
TO EMPLOY AS LABORERS ONLY SUCH PERSONS AS WERE APPROVED BY APPELLEES
AND TO DISCHARGE ANY SUCH EMPLOYEES AT APPELLEES' REQUEST.  THE
CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREED TO EMPLOY FORTY PERSONS NAMED BY THE APPELLEES,
KNOWN AS STEWARDS, TO PERFORM SUCH DUTIES AS THE APPELLEES MIGHT
DIRECT, AND TO PROVIDE AN OFFICE FOR THE APPELLEES ON THE SITE OF THE
CONSTRUCTION.  ABOUT 7,500 LABORERS WERE EMPLOYED DURING THE COURSE OF
THE CONSTRUCTION. 

PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE APPELLEES APPROVED TO THE CONTRACTORS
FOR EMPLOYMENT AS LABORERS MEMBERS OF LOCAL 39 OR OF OTHER LOCALS OF
THE INTERNATIONAL UNION AND ONLY SUCH OTHER PERSONS AS PAID THE
APPELLEES THE SUM OF $5.00.  THE APPELLEES REPRESENTED TO THE LATTER
PERSONS THAT THIS PAYMENT WOULD BE REGARDED AS AN INSTALLMENT UPON THE
INITIATION FEE OF LOCAL 39 AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION AND THAT EACH
SUCH EMPLOYEE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE APPELLEES $5.00 PER WEEK
UNTIL THE TOTAL INITIATION FEE WAS PAID "OR THE PERSON WOULD NOT BE
PERMITTED TO CONTINUE WORK UPON THE SAID CONSTRUCTION."  RECEIPTS WERE
GIVEN FOR EACH WEEKLY PAYMENT.  THE INITIATION FEE WAS ORIGINALLY
$50.00, BUT IT WAS LATER REDUCED TO $40.00 AND THEN TO $20.00. 

IT WAS FURTHER CHARGED THAT THE APPELLEES DIRECTED THE STEWARDS EACH
WEEK TO GO AMONG THE LABORERS AND DEMAND OF EACH NONMEMBER OF THE UNION
EITHER THAT HE DISPLAY A RECEIPT SHOWING THAT HE HAD PAID THE $5.00 FOR
THE CURRENT WEEK OR THAT HE IMMEDIATELY PAY THAT SUM TO THE STEWARDS OR
TO THE APPELLEES "UNDER THREAT OF PROCURING HIS DISMISSAL FROM HIS
EMPLOYMENT" IF HE DID NOT DO SO.  THE APPELLEES ALLEGEDLY WERE ABLE TO
CARRY OUT THIS THREAT BY REASON OF THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE
CONTRACTORS, THE APPELLEES "WELL KNOWING, AND INTENDING, THAT THE
LABORERS WOULD PAY THE SAID FIVE DOLLARS OUT OF THE COMPENSATION TO
WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE
SAID CONTRACTORS." 

THE INDICTMENT ALSO STATED THAT THE APPELLEES KEPT NO RECORDS OF
THOSE WHO MADE PAYMENTS TO THEM.  BUT IF A LABORER SHOULD PRESENT
RECEIPTS SHOWING PAYMENT OF THE INITIATION FEE IN FULL, HIS NAME WAS
RECORDED AND SENT TO THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION WITH
THE SUM OF $5.35, REPRESENTING THE SHARE OF THE FEE TO WHICH THE
INTERNATIONAL WAS ENTITLED UNDER ITS RULES.  AND THE APPELLEES "MADE NO
REPORT TO THE LOCAL 39, OR TO ANYONE, OF THE AMOUNT THEY HAD RECEIVED
FROM LABORERS PAYING LESS THAN THE FULL INITIATION FEE AS AFORESAID, OR
THE TOTAL SUMS THEY HAD COLLECTED IN THIS WAY, NOR DID THEY CAUSE ANY
OF THE SUMS COLLECTED IN THIS WAY AND RECEIVED BY THEM TO BE RECORDED
IN THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY'S BOOK AS THE RULES OF THE SAID
INTERNATIONAL UNION REQUIRE:  THE DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) WELL KNOWING
THAT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO PAID THE INITIAL FIVE DOLLARS WOULD NOT
AND DID NOT COMPLETE PAYMENT OF THE FULL INITIATION FEE." 

THE INDICTMENT CONCLUDED BY CHARGING THAT THE APPELLEES ACTED IN
CONCERT IN THESE MATTERS, THAT THEY INDUCED THE LABORERS TO GIVE UP
PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED UNDER THEIR
CONTRACTS, THAT THEY REPRESENTED THAT THEY WERE ACTING FOR LOCAL 39 AND
THE INTERNATIONAL, AND THAT THEY CONCEALED FROM THESE ORGANIZATIONS THE
SUMS THEY THUS COLLECTED FROM LABORERS WHO DID NOT PAY THE INITIATION
FEE IN FULL. 

THE APPELLEES MOVED TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT, ALLEGING AS ONE GROUND
THAT IT DID NOT STATE AN OFFENSE COGNIZABLE IN LAW.  RELYING UPON THIS
COURT'S DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. LAUDANI, 320 U.S. 543, THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTIONS.  61 F.SUPP.  882.  IT PLAINLY WAS
OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT FELL OUTSIDE
THE SCOPE OF THE KICKBACK ACT.  IT STATED THAT IT DID NOT BELIEVE THAT
"EITHER THE HISTORY OR THE PURPOSE OF THE KICKBACK LEGISLATION WARRANTS
AN EXTENSION OF ITS SCOPE TO INCLUDE THESE DEFENDANTS....  THE CLOSED
SHOP IS WITHIN THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVES OF TRADE UNIONISM. 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS OBJECTIVE BY THE MEANS USED BY THESE DEFENDANTS
SHOULD NOT EXPOSE THEM TO THE RISK OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION."  FROM THIS
JUDGMENT THE UNITED STATES APPEALS. 

WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT.  SECTION 1 OF THE KICKBACK ACT
PUNISHES "WHOEVER" INDUCES ANOTHER PERSON EMPLOYED ON A FEDERALLY
FINANCED PROJECT "TO GIVE UP ANY PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH HE
IS ENTITLED UNDER HIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION,
THREAT OF PROCURING DISMISSAL FROM SUCH EMPLOYMENT, OR BY ANY OTHER
MANNER WHATSOEVER  ..."  THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT THIS PROVISION
APPLIES TO THE INSTANT SITUATION INASMUCH AS THE APPELLEES INDUCED
CERTAIN WORKERS ON A FEDERAL PROJECT TO GIVE UP PART OF THE
COMPENSATION TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED BY THREATENING TO PROCURE
DISMISSAL FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  EMPHASIS IS PLACED UPON THE
ALLEGATION IN THE INDICTMENT THAT THE APPELLEES HAD POWER TO ENFORCE
THIS THREAT BY REASON OF THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRACTORS
AND UPON THE FURTHER ALLEGATION THAT THE APPELLEES NEGLECTED TO REPORT
OR TO TURN OVER TO LOCAL 39 OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION ALL OF THE MONEY
COLLECTED, AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. 

BUT AS IS APPARENT FROM OUR DISCUSSION IN THE LAUDANI CASE, NOT EVERY
PERSON OR ACT FALLING WITHIN THE LITERAL SWEEP OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE
KICKBACK ACT NECESSARILY COMES WITHIN ITS INTENT AND PURPOSE.  THAT
LANGUAGE MUST BE READ AND APPLIED IN LIGHT OF THE EVILS WHICH GAVE RISE
TO THE STATUTE AND THE AIMS WHICH THE PROPONENTS SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE. 
WHEN THAT IS DONE THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE ACT TO THE FACTS SET FORTH
IN THE INDICTMENT BECOMES CLEAR. 

THE STATUTE GREW OUT OF AN INVESTIGATION OF SO-CALLED RACKETS BY A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE PURSUANT TO S. RES.
74, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.  THIS INVESTIGATION "REVEALED THAT LARGE SUMS
OF MONEY HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED FROM THE POCKETS OF AMERICAN LABOR, TO
ENRICH CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND THEIR OFFICIALS."  S. REP. NO.
803, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.  IT WAS FOUND THAT LABORERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE
PURSUING THE BUILDING TRADES, OFTEN WERE PAID THE PREVAILING RATE OF
WAGES BUT WERE COMPELLED BY THEIR EMPLOYERS TO GIVE BACK OR KICK BACK A
PERCENTAGE OF THE PAY WHICH THEY HAD LAWFULLY EARNED AND RECEIVED. 
DISCHARGE WAS THREATENED UNLESS THEY COMPLIED WITH THE DEMANDS FOR
KICKBACKS.  THE EMPLOYERS WERE THEREBY ENABLED TO EVADE THE SCALE OF
WAGES IMPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, TO THE
DETRIMENT OF THE WORKERS.  SUCH WAS THE EVIL AT WHICH THE ACT WAS
DIRECTED.  AS STATED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE IN REPORTING THE BILL THAT
BECAME THE LAW, "THIS BILL IS AIMED AT THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SO-CALLED
'KICK-BACK RACKET' BY WHICH A CONTRACTOR ON A GOVERNMENT PROJECT PAYS
HIS LABORERS WAGES AT THE RATE THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES HIM TO PAY THEM,
BUT THEREAFTER FORCES THEM TO GIVE BACK TO HIM A PART OF THE WAGES THEY
HAVE RECEIVED."  H. REP. NO. 1750, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.  FN3 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO INSURE THAT
WORKERS ON FEDERAL PROJECTS SHALL RECEIVE THE FULL WAGES TO WHICH THEY
ARE ENTITLED FROM THEIR EMPLOYERS, MANY OF WHOM HAD BEEN FOUND TO BE
DEPRIVING THE WORKERS OF THEIR RIGHTS IN THIS RESPECT.  AND THE
SANCTIONS OF THE ACT ARE DIRECTED TOWARD THAT PROBLEM.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO SUPPORT THE THESIS THAT THE
STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO AFFECT LEGITIMATE UNION ACTIVITIES.  NOR WAS IT
INTENDED TO BE USED TO PUNISH UNLAWFUL ACTS, INCLUDING THOSE COMMITTED
BY UNION OFFICIALS IN VIOLATION OF UNION RULES, THAT ARE NOT IN THE
NATURE OF KICKBACKS.  FN4  WE NEED NOT HERE ATTEMPT TO DELINEATE THE
DEGREE, IF ANY, TO WHICH THE ACT APPLIES TO THE ACTIVITIES OF TRADE
UNIONS AND THEIR OFFICERS.  NOR NEED WE QUESTION THE FACT THAT SUCH
OFFICERS ON OCCASION MAY MAKE UNWARRANTED USE OF THEIR POWERS, THEREBY
REFLECTING ADVERSELY UPON THE REPUTATION OF UNIONISM.  IT IS ENOUGH TO
NOTE THAT THIS ACT WAS DESIGNED SOLELY TO PREVENT WORKERS FROM
WRONGFULLY BEING DEPRIVED OF THEIR FULL WAGES AND THAT EVILS RELATING
TO THE INTERNAL MANAGEMENT OF UNIONS WERE MATTERS WITH WHICH CONGRESS
DID NOT CONCERN ITSELF IN ENACTING THE KICKBACK ACT.  ACCORDINGLY THE
BROAD LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT
BACKGROUND IN MIND. 

FROM A SUPERFICIAL STANDPOINT, THE FACTS IN THE INDICTMENT WOULD
INDICATE THAT THE APPELLEES DID INDUCE THE LABORERS TO GIVE UP PART OF
THEIR LAWFUL WAGES BY THREATENING TO PROCURE THEIR DISMISSAL.  BUT THE
FACTS AS CHARGED MUST BE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE CLOSED-SHOP
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLEES AND THE CONTRACTORS.  THAT AGREEMENT,
SO FAR AS APPEARS, WAS A LAWFUL ONE, GIVING THE APPELLEES THE POWER AS
UNION REPRESENTATIVES TO INSIST THAT ALL LABORERS BE OR BECOME MEMBERS
OF LOCAL 39 AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION.  THE INITIATION FEE WHICH WAS
ASSESSED IS A NORMAL AND USUAL ASSESSMENT BY A UNION ON A PERSON
SEEKING A UNION JOB OR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION.  THERE IS NO CLAIM IN
THIS INSTANCE THAT THE FEE WAS UNAUTHORIZED, EXCESSIVE OR OTHERWISE
IMPROPER; IN FACT, IT IS ADMITTED THAT WHEN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE
INITIATION FEE WAS PAID THE LABORER BECAME ENROLLED AS A MEMBER OF BOTH
LOCAL 39 AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION.  THE INDICTMENT IS DIRECTED ONLY
TO THOSE PAYMENTS MADE BY LABORERS WHO DISCONTINUED WORKING BEFORE THEY
PAID THE LAST INSTALLMENT.  AS TO SUCH INSTALLMENTS, THERE IS NO
ALLEGATION THAT THE FAILURE TO RETURN THEM WAS UNAUTHORIZED BY UNION
RULES OR WAS IN ANY OTHER WAY UNLAWFUL.  MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT THE
ASSESSMENTS WERE ACCOMPANIED BY A THREAT AND A POWER TO PROCURE
DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PAY IS BUT AN ORDINARY INCIDENT OF THE
APPARENTLY LEGAL CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT.  THE SUM OF THESE FACTS,
THEREFORE, FAILS TO REVEAL ANY OF THE EVILS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE
KICKBACK ACT.  ALL THAT APPEARS ARE THE NORMAL METHODS USED TO
IMPLEMENT THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVE OF A CLOSED SHOP.  THE DISTRICT
COURT SO VIEWED THE FACTS.  IT INTERPRETED THE INDICTMENT AS DEALING
ONLY WITH ORDINARY UNION INITIATION FEES RATHER THAN WITH KICKBACKS, AS
THAT WORD IS USED IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS STATUTE.  WE ARE BOUND BY THAT
INTERPRETATION ON THIS APPEAL.  UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S.
188. 

THE CRUCIAL FACT RELIED UPON BY THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, IS THE
ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE APPELLEES TO REPORT OR TO ACCOUNT TO THE UNIONS
AS TO THOSE PAYMENTS MADE BY LABORERS WHO QUIT BEFORE MAKING THE LAST
INSTALLMENT.  BUT IF THAT FACT BE TRUE IT CANNOT OPERATE RETROACTIVELY
TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENTS ILLEGAL OR TO GIVE THEM THE CHARACTER OF
KICKBACKS.  IT MUST BE ASSUMED FROM THE INDICTMENT AS CONSTRUED BELOW
THAT THE ASSESSMENTS WERE LAWFUL WHEN MADE AND THAT THE APPELLEES HAD
THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEM ON BEHALF OF THE UNIONS.  IF THE APPELLEES
THEREAFTER CONVERTED THE MONEY TO THEIR OWN USE IN VIOLATION OF UNION
RULES, THE EVIL FALLS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE KICKBACK ACT. 
EMBEZZLEMENT AND FAILURE TO OBEY UNION RULES ARE MATTERS VASTLY
DIFFERENT FROM AN UNLAWFUL DEMAND UPON AN EMPLOYEE TO RETURN PART OF
THE WAGES HE HAS EARNED.  CONGRESS HAS GIVEN NO INDICATION IN THIS ACT
THAT IT DESIRED TO DEAL WITH SUCH MATTERS. 

THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS WOULD BE ABUSED AND THE LEGISLATIVE WILL
SUBVERTED WERE WE TO DEAL WITH THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THIS STATUTE IN
DISREGARD OF THE NARROW PROBLEM OF KICKBACKS WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT TO
REMEDY.  SEE HOLY TRINITY CHURCH V. UNITED STATES, 143 U.S. 457;
CHATWIN V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 455.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT MUST THEREFORE BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, 34 STAT. 1246, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
MAY 9, 1942, 56 STAT. 271; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682.    FN2  SECTION 1 OF THE
ACT PROVIDES:  "WHOEVER SHALL INDUCE ANY PERSON EMPLOYED IN THE
CONSTRUCTION, PROSECUTION, OR COMPLETION OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING, PUBLIC
WORK, OR BUILDING OR WORK FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY LOANS OR
GRANTS FROM THE UNITED STATES, OR IN THE REPAIR THEREOF TO GIVE UP ANY
PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER HIS CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT, BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT OF PROCURING DISMISSAL FROM
SUCH EMPLOYMENT, OR BY ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER, SHALL BE FINED NOT
MORE THAN $5,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH."  48
STAT. 948; 40 U.S.C. SEC. 276B. 

FN3  SENATOR COPELAND, IN CHARGE OF THE BILL IN THE SENATE, EXPLAINED
ITS PURPOSES AS FOLLOWS: "I SHOULD BE UNWILLING TO HAVE THE BILL PASSED
WITHOUT THE SENATE UNDERSTANDING ITS PURPOSE.  MUCH HAS BEEN SAID ON
THE FLOOR RECENTLY ABOUT WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE 'KICK-BACK' WHERE
EMPLOYERS OR SUB-EMPLOYERS HAVE INDECENTLY AND IMMORALLY TAKEN FROM
EMPLOYEES A PART OF THE WAGE WHICH IT WAS SUPPOSED THEY WERE BEING
PAID.  THE TESTIMONY BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING CRIME IS SO
STARTLING AS TO INDICATE THAT AS MUCH AS 25 PERCENT OF THE MONEY
SUPPOSED TO BE PAID OUT OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR EMPLOYMENT IS ACTUALLY
REPAID TO EMPLOYERS IN THIS IMPROPER MANNER.  THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL
IS TO ATTEMPT TO PUT SOME CHECK UPON THAT PRACTICE."  78 CONG. REC.
7401.  SENATOR COPELAND ALSO QUOTED FROM A LETTER FROM MR. WILLIAM
GREEN, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, STATING, "IT HAS
BEEN A COMMON PRACTICE FOR CONTRACTORS CONSTRUCTING FEDERAL BUILDINGS
TO PAY THE EMPLOYEES THE PREVAILING RATE AS DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY
OF LABOR, AND THEN HAVE THEM RETURN A CERTAIN AMOUNT TO THE
CONTRACTOR.  THAT IS A MOST VICIOUS PRACTICE."  ID. 

REPRESENTATIVE SUMNERS, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE IN CHARGE
OF THE BILL, REFERRED TO THE BILL AS FOLLOWS:  "MAY I SUGGEST TO
GENTLEMEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO
CALL UP ON THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY S. 3041, WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE
'KICKBACK' BILL, PREVENTING CONTRACTORS FROM COMPELLING WORKMEN TO
RETURN A PART OF THEIR SALARIES."  78 CONG. REC. 10521. 

FN4  THE UNITED STATES POINTS TO CERTAIN ISOLATED REFERENCES IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS CONCERNING DISHONEST UNION PRACTICES.  HEARINGS,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, S. RES. 74, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., VOL. 1, PP. 35, 82, 808, 814, 826.  BUT THESE RELATE TO GENERAL
"RACKETEERING" IN LABOR UNIONS OR TO CONNIVANCE BETWEEN UNION OFFICIALS
AND CONTRACTORS ON THE MATTER OF KICKBACKS, NEITHER OF WHICH IS
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  THUS ADOLPH DZIK, ATTORNEY FOR THE
ANTIRACKETEERING COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR BUILDING
TRADE UNIONS IN NEW YORK, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS (ID., PP. 808, 814): 

MR. DARU (COUNSEL FOR SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE).  DO YOU THINK IT IS
USUALLY A DISHONEST CONTRACTOR OR AN EMPLOYEE, SUPERINTENDENT, OR
OTHERWISE, WHO IS SANDWICHING IN BETWEEN THERE AND GETTING THE
"KICKBACK"? 

MR. DZIK.  I THINK IT IS THE CONTRACTOR AND SOME OF THE OFFICIALS OF
THE UNIONS. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THERE IS CONNIVANCE BETWEEN
THE CONTRACTOR OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND CERTAIN OFFICIALS? 

MR. DZIK.  I THINK SO. 

     .         .         .         .   . 

THE CHAIRMAN.  I TAKE IT FROM WHAT YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE PLACING
RESPONSIBILITY LARGELY UPON THE CONTRACTORS, OR DO YOU ALSO INCLUDE IN
YOUR CRITICISM, COLLUSION BETWEEN THE CONTRACTORS AND THE OFFICERS OF
VARIOUS UNIONS? 

MR. DZIK.  I WILL SAY THAT PRIMARILY THE CONTRACTORS THEMSELVES ARE
RESPONSIBLE, AND THAT THEY CORRUPT THE OFFICIALS OF THE UNIONS AND IN
THAT MANNER ARE ABLE TO DO IT WITHOUT BEING EXPOSED.  I WILL TELL YOU
WHY I SAY THAT, SENATOR.  I SAY THAT IF THE OFFICIALS AND LABOR UNIONS
WERE REALLY INTERESTED IN THIS RACKET, THEY WOULD IMMEDIATELY PASS A
RESOLUTION SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THE RULE OF THE UNION PUNISHING
THE LABORERS THAT EXPOSED IT. 

SEE 46 COL. L. REV. 326. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE
AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCUR. 

UNTIL 1907 NO REVIEW COULD BE HAD FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT - OR
THE PREDECESSOR, CIRCUIT - COURT SETTING ASIDE AN INDICTMENT.  BY THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT OF THAT YEAR, 34 STAT. 1246, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682,
THIS COURT WAS GIVEN JURISDICTION TO REVIEW SUCH A JUDGMENT, BUT ONLY
IF THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS BASED EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE
INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE
INDICTMENT.  IF THE DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUED AN INDICTMENT AS WELL AS A
STATUTE, THIS COURT COULD NOT ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL.  UNITED STATES V.
HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188.  ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THE DISMISSAL OF AN
INDICTMENT INVOLVED AN ERRONEOUS RULING IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT AS A MATTER OF PLEADING, THE UNITED
STATES WAS WITHOUT REMEDY.  THE UPSHOT WAS THAT JUSTICE MIGHT BE
THWARTED THROUGH A MISCONCEPTION BY A DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CRIMINAL PLEADING BECAUSE TIME MIGHT BAR A NEW
INDICTMENT. 

IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1942, 56 STAT. 271, 18
U.S.C., SUPP. IV, SEC. 682, TO MEET THIS SITUATION.  THIS ACT
AUTHORIZED THE GOVERNMENT TO APPEAL TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM
THE DECISION OF A DISTRICT COURT IN THOSE CASES WHERE DIRECT APPEALS TO
THIS COURT DO NOT LIE.  IT ALSO REQUIRED THIS COURT TO REMAND TO A
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS A CASE WRONGLY BROUGHT HERE.  ACCORDINGLY,
WHEN THE TERMS OF THE DISMISSAL OF AN INDICTMENT BY A DISTRICT COURT
RAISE DOUBTS AS TO THE GROUND ON WHICH THE DISMISSAL WAS MADE, OR IS A
BLEND OF A FINDING OF BAD PLEADING AND OF A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
ON WHICH THE INDICTMENT WAS BASED, THIS COURT SINCE THE 1942 ACT, IS
UNDER DUTY NOT TO AFFIRM THE DISTRICT COURT BUT TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THAT COURT'S DISPOSAL OF BOTH ISSUES -
INTERPRETATION OF THE INDICTMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 

THE COURT APPLIED THIS PROCEDURE IN UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 318
U.S. 442, ALTHOUGH, OR PERHAPS BECAUSE, THERE WAS A DIVISION HERE AS TO
THE MEANING OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION.  THIS COURSE, IN MY
JUDGMENT, SHOULD NOW BE FOLLOWED.  THE SCOPE OF THE OPINION BELOW IS
CERTAINLY NOT UNEQUIVOCAL.  DID THE DISTRICT COURT MEAN THAT THE
INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTED EXCLUSIVELY AS AUTHORIZED
AGENTS OF THE UNION IN COLLECTING FEES, BUT CONVERTED THOSE FEES TO
THEIR OWN PURPOSES?  THAT MAY WELL BE EMBEZZLEMENT UNDER THE
MASSACHUSETTS LAW; BUT NO ONE WOULD CONTEND THAT IT COMES WITHIN THE
TERMS OF THE "KICK-BACK" STATUTE.  OR, DID THE DISTRICT COURT READ THE
INDICTMENT TO MEAN THAT THAT WHICH THE DEFENDANTS DID WAS OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AS UNION OFFICIALS AND WAS NOT DONE ON BEHALF
OF THE UNION, AND HOLD THAT THE "KICK-BACK" STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO
PERSONS BECAUSE THEY ARE OFFICERS OF A UNION?  OR, DID THE DISTRICT
COURT READ THE INDICTMENT TO MEAN THAT THE UNION OFFICIALS ACTED ON
THEIR OWN AND NOT FOR UNION PURPOSES, BUT HOLD THAT SUCH CONDUCT IS NOT
COVERED BY THE "KICK-BACK" STATUTE BECAUSE IT APPLIES EXCLUSIVELY TO
PERSONS WHO WORK FOR THE EMPLOYER AND WHO LINE THEIR POCKETS BY VIRTUE
OF THEIR POWER TO ASSURE OR WITHHOLD EMPLOYMENT?  INSTEAD OF STARTING
WITH AN UNEQUIVOCAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICTMENT BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, THIS COURT IS ITSELF IN EFFECT CONSTRUING THE INDICTMENT WHEN
CONGRESS HAS WITHHELD FROM THIS COURT THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUE
INDICTMENTS. 

IN VIEW OF SUCH DOUBTS CONCERNING THE REAL MEANING OF WHAT THE
DISTRICT COURT DID, FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW WOULD SEEM
TO PRECLUDE AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT READ THE INDICTMENT SO AS TO BRING INTO APPLICATION A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE "KICK-BACK" STATUTE FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DOES
NOT CONTEND.  I WOULD DISMISS THE APPEAL AND REMAND THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THAT COURT TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT IN VIEW OF THE POWER OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, NOT POSSESSED BY US, TO CONSTRUE THE
INDICTMENT AS A PRELIMINARY TO CONSTRUING THE STATUTE. 

BUT UNDER THE COMPULSION OF THE COURT'S DECISION THE CASE IS BEFORE
US ON THE MERITS.  SEE HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619, 640.  THE
STATUTE SEEMS TO BE CLEAR:  "WHOEVER SHALL INDUCE ANY PERSON EMPLOYED
IN THE CONSTRUCTION,  ...  OF ANY  ...  WORK FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART BY LOANS OR GRANTS FROM THE UNITED STATES,  ...  TO GIVE UP ANY
PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER HIS CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT, BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT OF PROCURING DISMISSAL FROM
SUCH EMPLOYMENT, OR BY ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER, SHALL BE FINED  ...
OR IMPRISONED  ... OR BOTH."  48 STAT. 948, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 276B.  NO
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS INVOKED TO UNDO THE SCOPE OF THIS LANGUAGE AND
TO IMMUNIZE WHAT CONGRESS HAS PLAINLY CONDEMNED.  WHAT CONGRESS HAS
ENACTED SHOULD BE ENFORCED.  THE STATUTORY PHRASE IS "BY ANY OTHER
MANNER WHATSOEVER."  THE INDICTMENT DOES NOT DESCRIBE A CHECK-OFF OR
COLLECTION OF UNION DUES OR INITIATION FEES IN A LABOR UNION.  THAT, AS
THE GOVERNMENT AGREES, IS NOT PROHIBITED.  THE STATUTE SEEKS TO PROTECT
FORAYS AGAINST WAGES DERIVED FROM FEDERAL FUNDS AND DOES NOT TOUCH
DIMINUTION OF SUCH WAGES IN CONNECTION WITH UNION MEMBERSHIP.  THE
STATUTE IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LABORING MAN AND THE TAXPAYER.  IT
SHOULD BE SO INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED.  IT SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED SO
AS TO PROTECT THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENTS AS COLLECTING FUNDS BY
COERCION, THROUGH THEIR CONTROL OVER JOBS, FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WAGE EARNER, THE LABOR UNION, AND THE
TAXPAYER. 
..END :






















LAVENDER V. KURN, 327 U.S. 645 


NO. 550.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 7, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  - 354 MO.
196, 189 S.W.2D 253, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS' NEGLIGENCE (DETAILED IN THE OPINION) WAS
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY; AND THE
JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT SETTING ASIDE THE VERDICT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED.  P. 652. 

2.  THERE BEING A REASONABLE BASIS IN THE RECORD FOR AN INFERENCE BY
THE JURY THAT THE INJURY RESULTED FROM THE DEFENDANTS' NEGLIGENCE, IT
IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO WEIGH THE
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, AND ARRIVE AT
A CONCLUSION OPPOSITE FROM THAT REACHED BY THE JURY.  P. 652. 

3.  IN SUITS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE
APPELLATE COURT'S FUNCTION IS EXHAUSTED WHEN THE EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR
THE JURY'S VERDICT BECOMES APPARENT, IT BEING IMMATERIAL THAT THE COURT
MIGHT DRAW A CONTRARY INFERENCE OR CONSIDER ANOTHER CONCLUSION MORE
REASONABLE.  P. 653. 

4.  ONLY WHEN THERE IS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF PROBATIVE FACTS TO
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE JURY DOES REVERSIBLE ERROR
APPEAR.  P. 653. 

5.  THE JURY COULD REASONABLY HAVE INFERRED FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THIS
CASE THAT THE PLACE AT WHICH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE CARRIER WAS WORKING,
THOUGH TECHNICALLY A PUBLIC STREET, WAS UNSAFE AND THAT THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE CONTRIBUTED IN PART TO THE EMPLOYEE'S DEATH.  P. 653. 

6.  IN ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, RULINGS ON
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE MUST NORMALLY BE LEFT TO THE SOUND
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.  P. 654. 

LAVENDER, ADMINISTRATOR, V. KURN ET AL., TRUSTEES, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT BY PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS, A JUDGMENT FOR THE
PETITIONER WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 713.  REVERSED, P. 654. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT PERMITS RECOVERY FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A RAILROAD ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IF
SUCH INJURIES RESULT "IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF
THE OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES OF SUCH CARRIER, OR BY REASON OF ANY
DEFECT OR INSUFFICIENCY, DUE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS CARS, ENGINES,
APPLIANCES, MACHINERY, TRACK, ROADBED, WORKS, BOATS, WHARVES, OR OTHER
EQUIPMENT."  45 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

PETITIONER, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF L. E. HANEY, BROUGHT
THIS SUIT UNDER THE ACT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT TRUSTEES OF THE ST.
LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY (FRISCO) AND THE RESPONDENT
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.  IT WAS CHARGED THAT HANEY, WHILE
EMPLOYED AS A SWITCH-TENDER BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE SWITCHYARD OF THE
GRAND CENTRAL STATION IN MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, WAS KILLED AS A RESULT OF
RESPONDENTS' NEGLIGENCE.  FOLLOWING A TRIAL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONER AND AWARDED DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000.  JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.  ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT, HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
OF NEGLIGENCE TO SUPPORT THE SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY.  354
MO. 196, 189 S.W.2D 253.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE PROPRIETY
OF THE SUPREME COURT'S ACTION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

IT WAS ADMITTED THAT HANEY WAS EMPLOYED BY THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL, OR A
SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION THEREOF, AS A SWITCH-TENDER IN THE RAILROAD
YARDS NEAR THE GRAND CENTRAL STATION, WHICH WAS OWNED BY THE ILLINOIS
CENTRAL.  HIS DUTIES INCLUDED THE THROWING OF SWITCHES FOR THE ILLINOIS
CENTRAL AS WELL AS FOR THE FRISCO AND OTHER RAILROADS USING THAT
STATION.  FOR THESE SERVICES, THE TRUSTEES OF FRISCO PAID THE ILLINOIS
CENTRAL TWO-TWELFTHS OF HANEY'S WAGES; THEY ALSO PAID TWO-TWELFTHS OF
THE WAGES OF TWO OTHER SWITCH-TENDERS WHO WORKED AT THE SAME SWITCHES. 
IN ADDITION, THE TRUSTEES PAID ILLINOIS CENTRAL $1.87 1/2 FOR EACH
PASSENGER CAR SWITCHED INTO GRAND CENTRAL STATION, WHICH INCLUDED ALL
THE CARS IN THE FRISCO TRAIN BEING SWITCHED INTO THE STATION AT THE
TIME HANEY WAS KILLED. 

THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL TRACKS RUN NORTH AND SOUTH DIRECTLY PAST AND
INTO THE GRAND CENTRAL STATION.  ABOUT 2,700 FEET SOUTH OF THE STATION
THE FRISCO TRACKS CROSS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL
TRACKS.  A WEST-BOUND FRISCO TRAIN WISHING TO USE THE STATION MUST STOP
SOME 250 FEET OR MORE WEST OF THIS CROSSING AND BACK INTO THE STATION
OVER A SWITCH LINE CURVING EAST AND NORTH.  THE EVENTS IN ISSUE CENTER
ABOUT THE SWITCH SEVERAL FEET NORTH OF THE MAIN FRISCO TRACKS AT THE
POINT WHERE THE SWITCH LINE BRANCHES OFF.  THIS SWITCH CONTROLS THE
TRACKS AT THIS POINT. 

IT WAS VERY DARK ON THE EVENING OF DECEMBER 21, 1939.  AT ABOUT 7:30
P.M. A WEST-BOUND INTERSTATE FRISCO PASSENGER TRAIN STOPPED ON THE
FRISCO MAIN LINE, ITS REAR SOME 20 OR 30 FEET WEST OF THE SWITCH. 
HANEY, IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, THREW OR OPENED THE SWITCH TO
PERMIT THE TRAIN TO BACK INTO THE STATION.  THE RESPONDENTS CLAIMED
THAT HANEY WAS THEN REQUIRED TO CROSS TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TRACK
BEFORE THE TRAIN PASSED THE SWITCH; AND THE CONDUCTOR OF THE TRAIN
TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW HANEY SO CROSS.  BUT THERE WAS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT
HANEY'S DUTIES REQUIRED HIM TO WAIT AT THE SWITCH NORTH OF THE TRACK
UNTIL THE TRAIN HAD CLEARED, CLOSE THE SWITCH, RETURN TO HIS SHANTY
NEAR THE CROSSING AND CHANGE THE SIGNALS FROM RED TO GREEN TO PERMIT
TRAINS ON THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL TRACKS TO USE THE CROSSING.  THE FRISCO
TRAIN CLEARED THE SWITCH, BACKING AT THE RATE OF 8 OR 10 MILES PER
HOUR.  BUT THE SWITCH REMAINED OPEN AND THE SIGNALS STILL WERE RED. 
UPON INVESTIGATION HANEY WAS FOUND NORTH OF THE TRACK NEAR THE SWITCH
LYING FACE DOWN ON THE GROUND, UNCONSCIOUS.  AN AMBULANCE WAS CALLED,
BUT HE WAS DEAD UPON ARRIVAL AT THE HOSPITAL. 

HANEY HAD BEEN STRUCK IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD, CAUSING A FRACTURED
SKULL FROM WHICH HE DIED.  THERE WERE NO KNOWN EYEWITNESSES TO THE
FATAL BLOW.  ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT CLEAR, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT HIS BODY
WAS EXTENDED NORTH AND SOUTH, THE HEAD TO THE SOUTH.  APPARENTLY HE HAD
FALLEN FORWARD TO THE SOUTH; HIS FACE WAS BRUISED ON THE LEFT SIDE FROM
HITTING THE GROUND AND THERE WERE MARKS INDICATING THAT HIS TOES HAD
DRAGGED A FEW INCHES SOUTHWARD AS HE FELL.  HIS HEAD WAS ABOUT 5 1/2
FEET NORTH OF THE FRISCO TRACKS.  ESTIMATES RANGED FROM 2 FEET TO 14
FEET AS TO HOW FAR WEST OF THE SWITCH HE LAY. 

THE INJURY TO HANEY'S HEAD WAS EVIDENCED BY A GASH ABOUT TWO INCHES
LONG FROM WHICH BLOOD FLOWED.  THE BACK OF HANEY'S WHITE CAP HAD A
CORRESPONDING BLACK MARK ABOUT AN INCH AND A HALF LONG AND AN INCH
WIDE, RUNNING AT AN ANGLE DOWNWARD TO THE RIGHT OF THE CENTER OF THE
BACK OF THE HEAD.  A SPOT OF BLOOD WAS LATER FOUND AT A POINT 3 OR 4
FEET NORTH OF THE TRACKS.  THE CONCLUSION FOLLOWING AN AUTOPSY WAS THAT
HANEY'S SKULL WAS FRACTURED BY "SOME FAST MOVING SMALL ROUND OBJECT." 
ONE OF THE EXAMINING DOCTORS TESTIFIED THAT SUCH AN OBJECT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN ATTACHED TO A TRAIN BACKING AT THE RATE OF 8 OR 10 MILES PER
HOUR.  BUT HE ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE FRACTURE MIGHT HAVE RESULTED FROM
A BLOW FROM A PIPE OR CLUB OR SOME SIMILAR ROUND OBJECT IN THE HANDS OF
AN INDIVIDUAL. 

PETITIONER'S THEORY IS THAT HANEY WAS STRUCK BY THE CURLED END OR TIP
OF A MAIL HOOK HANGING DOWN LOOSELY ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE MAIL CAR OF
THE BACKING TRAIN.  THIS CURLED END WAS 73 INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE
RAIL, WHICH WAS 7 INCHES HIGH.  THE OVERHANG OF THE MAIL CAR IN
RELATION TO THE RAILS WAS ABOUT 2 TO 2 1/2 FEET.  THE EVIDENCE
INDICATED THAT WHEN THE MAIL CAR SWAYED OR MOVED AROUND A CURVE THE
MAIL HOOK MIGHT PIVOT, ITS CURLED END SWINGING OUT AS MUCH AS 12 TO 14
INCHES.  THE CURLED END COULD THUS BE SWUNG OUT TO A POINT 3 TO 3 1/2
FEET FROM THE RAIL AND ABOUT 73 INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE RAIL.  BOTH
EAST AND WEST OF THE SWITCH, HOWEVER, WAS AN UNEVEN MOUND OF CINDERS
AND DIRT RISING AT ITS HIGHEST POINTS 18 TO 24 INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF
THE RAILS.  WITNESSES DIFFERED AS TO HOW CLOSE THE MOUND APPROACHED THE
RAILS, THE ESTIMATES VARYING FROM 3 TO 15 FEET.  BUT TAKING THE FIGURES
MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER, THE MOUND EXTENDED TO A POINT 6 TO 12
INCHES NORTH OF THE OVERHANGING SIDE OF THE MAIL CAR.  IF THE MAIL HOOK
END SWUNG OUT 12 TO 14 INCHES IT WOULD BE 49 TO 55 INCHES ABOVE THE
HIGHEST PARTS OF THE MOUND.  HANEY WAS 67 1/2 INCHES TALL.  IF HE HAD
BEEN STANDING ON THE MOUND ABOUT A FOOT FROM THE SIDE OF THE MAIL CAR
HE COULD HAVE BEEN HIT BY THE END OF THE MAIL HOOK, THE EXACT POINT OF
CONTACT DEPENDING UPON THE HEIGHT OF THE MOUND AT THE PARTICULAR
POINT.  HIS WOUND WAS ABOUT 4 INCHES BELOW THE TOP OF HIS HEAD, OR 63
1/2 INCHES ABOVE THE POINT WHERE HE STOOD ON THE MOUND - WELL WITHIN
THE POSSIBLE RANGE OF THE MAIL HOOK END. 

RESPONDENTS' THEORY IS THAT HANEY WAS MURDERED.  THEY POINT TO THE
ESTIMATES THAT THE MOUND WAS 10 TO 15 FEET NORTH OF THE RAIL, MAKING IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE MAIL HOOK END TO REACH A POINT OF CONTACT WITH
HANEY'S HEAD.  PHOTOGRAPHS WERE PLACED IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE
CLAIM THAT THE GROUND WAS LEVEL NORTH OF THE RAIL FOR AT LEAST 10
FEET.  MOREOVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE AREA IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE
SWITCH WAS QUITE DARK.  WITNESSES STATED THAT IT WAS SO DARK THAT IT
WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE A 3-INCH PIPE 25 FEET AWAY.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT
MANY HOBOES AND TRAMPS FREQUENTED THE AREA AT NIGHT IN ORDER TO GET
RIDES ON FREIGHT TRAINS.  HANEY CARRIED A PISTOL TO PROTECT HIMSELF. 
THIS PISTOL WAS FOUND LOOSE UNDER HIS BODY BY THOSE WHO CAME TO HIS
RESCUE.  IT WAS TESTIFIED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PISTOL HAD APPARENTLY
SLIPPED OUT OF HIS POCKET OR SCABBARD AS HE FELL.  HANEY'S CLOTHES WERE
NOT DISARRANGED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A STRUGGLE OR FIGHT.  NO
RODS, PIPES OR WEAPONS OF ANY KIND, EXCEPT HANEY'S OWN PISTOL, WERE
FOUND NEAR THE SCENE.  MOREOVER, HIS GOLD WATCH AND DIAMOND RING WERE
STILL ON HIM AFTER HE WAS STRUCK.  SIX DAYS LATER HIS UNSOILED BILLFOLD
WAS FOUND ON A HIGH BOARD FENCE ABOUT A BLOCK FROM THE PLACE WHERE
HANEY WAS STRUCK AND NEAR THE POINT WHERE HE HAD BEEN PLACED IN AN
AMBULANCE.  IT CONTAINED HIS SOCIAL SECURITY CARD AND OTHER EFFECTS,
BUT NO MONEY.  HIS WIFE TESTIFIED THAT HE "NEVER CARRIED VERY MUCH
MONEY, NOT VERY MUCH MORE THAN $10."  SUCH WERE THE FACTS IN RELATION
TO RESPONDENTS' THEORY OF MURDER. 

FINALLY, ONE OF THE FRISCO FOREMEN TESTIFIED THAT HE ARRIVED AT THE
SCENE SHORTLY AFTER HANEY WAS FOUND INJURED.  HE LATER EXAMINED THE
FIREMAN'S SIDE OF THE TRAIN VERY CAREFULLY AND FOUND NOTHING STICKING
OUT OR IN DISORDER.  IN EXPLAINING WHY HE EXAMINED THIS SIDE OF THE
TRAIN SO CAREFULLY HE STATED THAT WHILE HE WAS AT THE SCENE OF THE
ACCIDENT "SOMEONE SAID THEY THOUGHT THAT TRAIN NO. 106 BACKING INTO
GRAND CENTRAL STATION IS WHAT STRUCK THIS MAN" AND THAT HANEY "WAS
SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN STRUCK BY SOMETHING PROTRUDING ON THE SIDE OF
THIS TRAIN."  THE FOREMAN TESTIFIED THAT THESE STATEMENTS WERE MADE BY
AN UNKNOWN ILLINOIS CENTRAL SWITCHMAN STANDING NEAR THE FALLEN BODY OF
HANEY.  THE FOREMAN ADMITTED THAT THE SWITCHMAN "DIDN'T SEE THE
ACCIDENT  ..."  THIS TESTIMONY WAS ADMITTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OVER THE
STRENUOUS OBJECTIONS OF RESPONDENTS' COUNSEL THAT IT WAS MERE HEARSAY
FALLING OUTSIDE THE RES GESTAE RULE. 

THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED THAT FRISCO'S TRUSTEES WERE LIABLE IF IT WAS
FOUND THAT THEY NEGLIGENTLY PERMITTED A ROD OR OTHER OBJECT TO EXTEND
OUT FROM THE SIDE OF THE TRAIN AS IT BACKED PAST HANEY AND THAT HANEY
WAS KILLED AS THE DIRECT RESULT OF SUCH NEGLIGENCE, IF ANY.  THE JURY
WAS FURTHER TOLD THAT ILLINOIS CENTRAL WAS LIABLE IF IT WAS FOUND THAT
THE COMPANY NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED AN UNSAFE AND DANGEROUS PLACE FOR
HANEY TO WORK, IN THAT THE GROUND WAS HIGH AND UNEVEN AND THE LIGHT
INSUFFICIENT AND INADEQUATE, AND THAT HANEY WAS INJURED AND KILLED AS A
DIRECT RESULT OF THE SAID PLACE BEING UNSAFE AND DANGEROUS.  THIS
LATTER INSTRUCTION AS TO ILLINOIS CENTRAL DID NOT REQUIRE THE JURY TO
FIND THAT HANEY WAS KILLED BY SOMETHING PROTRUDING FROM THE TRAIN. 

THE SUPREME COURT, IN UPSETTING THE JURY'S VERDICT AGAINST BOTH THE
FRISCO TRUSTEES AND THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL, ADMITTED THAT "IT COULD BE
INFERRED FROM THE FACTS THAT HANEY COULD HAVE BEEN STRUCK BY THE MAIL
HOOK KNOB IF HE WERE STANDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE MOUND AND THE
MAIL HOOK EXTENDED OUT AS FAR AS 12 OR 14 INCHES."  BUT IT HELD THAT
"ALL REASONABLE MINDS WOULD AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE MERE SPECULATION AND
CONJECTURE TO SAY THAT HANEY WAS STRUCK BY THE MAIL HOOK" AND THAT
"PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A SUBMISSIBLE CASE ON THAT QUESTION."  IT
ALSO RULED THAT THERE "WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE UNEVEN
GROUND AND INSUFFICIENT LIGHT WERE CAUSES OR CONTRIBUTING CAUSES OF THE
DEATH OF HANEY."  FINALLY, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE TESTIMONY OF
THE FOREMAN AS TO THE STATEMENT MADE TO HIM BY THE UNKNOWN SWITCHMAN
WAS INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE RES GESTAE RULE SINCE THE SWITCHMAN SPOKE
FROM WHAT HE HAD HEARD RATHER THAN FROM HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE. 

WE HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ON
THE PART OF BOTH THE FRISCO TRUSTEES AND THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL TO
JUSTIFY THE SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY AND TO REQUIRE APPELLATE
COURTS TO ABIDE BY THE VERDICT RENDERED BY THE JURY. 

THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE ALREADY DETAILED DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE WAS
EVIDENCE FROM WHICH IT MIGHT BE INFERRED THAT THE END OF THE MAIL HOOK
STRUCK HANEY IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD, AN INFERENCE THAT THE SUPREME
COURT ADMITTED COULD BE DRAWN.  THAT INFERENCE IS NOT RENDERED
UNREASONABLE BY THE FACT THAT HANEY APPARENTLY FELL FORWARD TOWARD THE
MAIN FRISCO TRACK SO THAT HIS HEAD WAS 5 1/2 FEET NORTH OF THE RAIL. 
HE MAY WELL HAVE BEEN STRUCK AND THEN WANDERED IN A DAZE TO THE POINT
WHERE HE FELL FORWARD.  THE TESTIMONY AS TO BLOOD MARKS SOME DISTANCE
AWAY FROM HIS HEAD LENDS CREDENCE TO THAT POSSIBILITY, INDICATING THAT
HE DID NOT FALL IMMEDIATELY UPON BEING HIT.  WHEN THAT IS ADDED TO THE
EVIDENCE MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PETITIONER AS TO THE HEIGHT AND SWING
OUT OF THE HOOK, THE HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF THE MOUND AND THE NATURE OF
HANEY'S DUTIES, THE INFERENCE THAT HANEY WAS KILLED BY THE HOOK CANNOT
BE SAID TO BE UNSUPPORTED BY PROBATIVE FACTS OR TO BE SO UNREASONABLE
AS TO WARRANT TAKING THE CASE FROM THE JURY. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT IT WAS
PHYSICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE HOOK TO STRIKE HANEY. 
AND THERE ARE FACTS FROM WHICH IT MIGHT REASONABLY BE INFERRED THAT
HANEY WAS MURDERED.  BUT SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BECOME IRRELEVANT UPON
APPEAL, THERE BEING A REASONABLE BASIS IN THE RECORD FOR INFERRING THAT
THE HOOK STRUCK HANEY.  THE JURY HAVING MADE THAT INFERENCE, THE
RESPONDENTS WERE NOT FREE TO RELITIGATE THE FACTUAL DISPUTE IN A
REVIEWING COURT.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD BE AN UNDUE
INVASION OF THE JURY'S HISTORIC FUNCTION FOR AN APPELLATE COURT TO
WEIGH THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES AND
ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION OPPOSITE FROM THE ONE REACHED BY THE JURY.  SEE
TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, 67-68; BAILEY V.
CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO., 319 U.S. 350, 353-354; TENNANT V. PEORIA &
P.U.R. CO., 321 U.S. 29, 35.  SEE ALSO MOORE, "RECENT TRENDS IN
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION IN RAILROAD CASES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT," 29 MARQUETTE L. REV. 73. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE JURY'S VERDICT INVOLVED SPECULATION
AND CONJECTURE.  WHENEVER FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE OR THE EVIDENCE IS SUCH
THAT FAIR-MINDED MEN MAY DRAW DIFFERENT INFERENCES, A MEASURE OF
SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE IS REQUIRED ON THE PART OF THOSE WHOSE DUTY
IT IS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE BY CHOOSING WHAT SEEMS TO THEM TO BE THE
MOST REASONABLE INFERENCE.  ONLY WHEN THERE IS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF
PROBATIVE FACTS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION REACHED DOES A REVERSIBLE
ERROR APPEAR.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS AN EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR
THE JURY'S VERDICT, THE JURY IS FREE TO DISCARD OR DISBELIEVE WHATEVER
FACTS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH ITS CONCLUSION.  AND THE APPELLATE COURT'S
FUNCTION IS EXHAUSTED WHEN THAT EVIDENTIARY BASIS BECOMES APPARENT, IT
BEING IMMATERIAL THAT THE COURT MIGHT DRAW A CONTRARY INFERENCE OR FEEL
THAT ANOTHER CONCLUSION IS MORE REASONABLE. 

WE ARE UNABLE, THEREFORE, TO SANCTION A REVERSAL OF THE JURY'S
VERDICT AGAINST FRISCO'S TRUSTEES.  NOR CAN WE APPROVE ANY DISTURBANCE
IN THE VERDICT AS TO ILLINOIS CENTRAL.  THE EVIDENCE WAS UNCONTRADICTED
THAT IT WAS VERY DARK AT THE PLACE WHERE HANEY WAS WORKING AND THE
SURROUNDING GROUND WAS HIGH AND UNEVEN.  THE EVIDENCE ALSO SHOWED THAT
THIS AREA WAS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE DOMINATION AND CONTROL OF ILLINOIS
CENTRAL DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AREA WAS TECHNICALLY LOCATED IN A
PUBLIC STREET OF THE CITY OF MEMPHIS.  IT WAS NOT UNREASONABLE TO
CONCLUDE THAT THESE CONDITIONS CONSTITUTED AN UNSAFE AND DANGEROUS
WORKING PLACE AND THAT SUCH CONDITIONS CONTRIBUTED IN PART TO HANEY'S
DEATH, ASSUMING THAT IT RESULTED PRIMARILY FROM THE MAIL HOOK STRIKING
HIS HEAD. 

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, IT IS UNNECESSARY
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ALLEGEDLY HEARSAY TESTIMONY WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER
THE RES GESTAE RULE.  RULINGS ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE MUST
NORMALLY BE LEFT TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE IN ACTIONS
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  BUT INASMUCH AS THERE IS
ADEQUATE SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE JURY'S VERDICT APART FROM THE
HEARSAY TESTIMONY, WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THAT DISCRETION WAS
ABUSED IN THIS INSTANCE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI IS REVERSED AND THE
CASE IS REMANDED FOR WHATEVER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS MAY BE NECESSARY NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







MCALLISTER LINE V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 655 


NO. 616.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1946.  - AFFIRMED. 


THE CONCLUSION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, UPON AN
APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER UNDER THE
"GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE OF SEC. 309(A) OF PART III OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, THAT THE INTERRUPTION OF BONA FIDE OPERATIONS SINCE
JANUARY 1, 1940, WAS NOT AN INTERRUPTION OVER WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD
NO CONTROL - THE APPLICANT'S RESTRICTION OF ITS ACTIVITIES TO EXEMPT
OPERATIONS IN NEW YORK HARBOR IN WARTIME NOT BEING SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN
OTHER THAN VOLUNTARY - WAS SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE,
AND JUSTIFIED THE COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION.  P. 659. 

MCALLISTER LIGHTERAGE LINE, INC. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

DIRECT APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES
DISMISSING A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION WHICH DENIED APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE AS A
COMMON CARRIER BY WATER UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE OF SEC. 309(A)
OF PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  AFFIRMED, P. 661. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT APPLIED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR A
CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE
OF SEC. 309(A) OF PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN1  THE
AUTHORITY SOUGHT WAS TO CONTINUE A TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BY TUG AND
BARGE WHICH APPELLANT HAD PERFORMED AT ONE TIME OVER ROUTES ALONG THE
ATLANTIC SEABOARD AND CERTAIN INLAND WATERWAYS.  THE APPLICATION WAS
DENIED BY THE COMMISSION.  A SPECIALLY-CONSTITUTED DISTRICT COURT
UPHELD THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, DISMISSING APPELLANT'S SUIT TO SET THE
ORDER ASIDE.  THE CASE COMES TO US BY DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

UNDER SEC. 309(A) APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE WITHOUT
PROOF OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY IF IT COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT
IT OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST "WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A
COMMON CARRIER BY WATER ON JANUARY 1, 1940, OVER THE ROUTE OR ROUTES OR
BETWEEN THE PORTS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE AND HAS SO
OPERATED SINCE THAT TIME (OR, IF ENGAGED IN FURNISHING SEASONAL SERVICE
ONLY, WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION DURING THE SEASONAL PERIOD, PRIOR TO
OR INCLUDING SUCH DATE, FOR OPERATIONS OF THE CHARACTER IN QUESTION)
EXCEPT, IN EITHER EVENT, AS TO INTERRUPTIONS OF SERVICE OVER WHICH THE
APPLICANT OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST HAD NO CONTROL  ..." 

THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION REVEALED THAT
APPELLANT OR ITS PREDECESSORS HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN MARINE
TRANSPORTATION SINCE 1864 AND THAT THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY
OWNED BY ITS FOUNDER OR HIS DESCENDANTS THROUGH FOUR GENERATIONS.  PAST
ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVE AND VARIED AND HAVE INCLUDED THE FREIGHT
SERVICES FORMING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPLICATION IN ISSUE. 

APPELLANT CONCEDED BEFORE THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, THAT FROM 1933
THROUGH 1939 ITS FREIGHT OPERATIONS VIRTUALLY CEASED  FN2  AND THAT ITS
ACTIVITIES WERE CONFINED PRIMARILY TO OPERATIONS IN THE NEW YORK HARBOR
AREA WHICH WERE OF A TYPE EXEMPT FROM REGULATION UNDER THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  FN3  APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT IT HAD BENT EVERY EFFORT
DURING THESE YEARS TO OBTAIN FREIGHT CUSTOMERS AND THAT THE PAUCITY OF
ITS OPERATIONS RESULTED SOLELY FROM THE SEVERE ECONOMIC DEPRESSION
WHICH PREVAILED DURING THAT PERIOD.  IT WAS ARGUED THAT THIS
INTERRUPTION IN FREIGHT SERVICE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1940, WAS DUE TO
FACTORS BEYOND APPELLANT'S CONTROL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISO OF
SEC. 309(A), PREVENTING A FORFEITURE OF ITS "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS. 

SINCE JANUARY 1, 1940, APPELLANT'S FLEET HAS BEEN ENGAGED ALMOST
EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE NEW YORK HARBOR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF LIGHTERAGE
AND OTHER WORK ESSENTIAL TO THE WAR EFFORT.  SO GREAT WERE ITS
COMMITMENTS FOR SERVICE WITHIN THE HARBOR THAT IT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO
ACCEPT OTHER TRAFFIC WHEN OFFERED.  APPELLANT'S CLAIM WAS THAT THIS
DIVERSION OF ITS VESSELS TO WAR WORK AFTER JANUARY 1, 1940, WAS ALSO AN
INTERRUPTION IN REGULAR SERVICE BEYOND ITS CONTROL, FURTHER PREVENTING
A FORFEITURE OF "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 309(A). 

APPELLANT THUS ADMITTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT IT WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE UNLESS THE
BUSINESS DEPRESSION AND THE WAR SERVICE CONSTITUTED COMPLETE AND
INVOLUNTARY INTERRUPTIONS IN ITS REGULAR FREIGHT SERVICE, THEREBY
BRINGING THE PROVISO OF SEC. 309(A) INTO OPERATION.  AFTER REVIEWING
THE EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION MADE THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS:  "THE
EVIDENCE OF RECORD ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT APPLICANT FOR A PERIOD OF
OVER 10 YEARS HAS PERFORMED ONLY AN INCONSEQUENTIAL AMOUNT OF
TRANSPORTATION OF A KIND THAT IS NOW SUBJECT TO THE ACT, AND THAT IT IS
NOT HOLDING ITSELF OUT AT THE PRESENT TIME TO PERFORM SUCH
TRANSPORTATION.  OBVIOUSLY, THE REMOTE OPERATIONS HERETOFORE DESCRIBED
DO NOT ESTABLISH BONA FIDE OPERATIONS ON JANUARY 1, 1940, AND SINCE. 
FURTHERMORE, APPLICANT HAS CONSIDERABLE FACILITIES AVAILABLE AT THE
PRESENT TIME, THE USE OF WHICH IT VOLUNTARILY HAS CONFINED TO EXEMPT
TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF NEW YORK HARBOR.  WE AFFIRM THE
CONCLUSION OF THE PRIOR REPORT THAT APPLICANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT
IT IS ENTITLED TO 'GRANDFATHER' RIGHTS." 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED TO MAKE
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE FINDINGS THAT THE INTERRUPTION IN SERVICE ON OR
PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1940, EITHER WAS OR WAS NOT BEYOND THE CONTROL OF
APPELLANT AND ITS PREDECESSORS.  THE COMMISSION MERELY FOUND THE
ADMITTED FACT THAT APPELLANT DID NOT PERFORM A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF
BONA FIDE OPERATIONS ON OR PRIOR TO THE CRUCIAL DATE.  THE DISTRICT
COURT FELT THAT IF THAT FINDING WERE THE SOLE BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION, THERE WOULD BE MERIT TO APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE CASE
SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION FOR A CLARIFICATION OF ITS
FINDINGS.  BUT THIS ASSUMES THAT THE PROVISO OF SEC. 309(A) REGARDING
INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE OVER WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD NO CONTROL RELATES
TO THE SERVICE "ON JANUARY 1, 1940," AS WELL AS TO THE SERVICE
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE
PROVISO REFERS ONLY TO THE LATTER SERVICE AND THAT IF THERE IS NO PROOF
OF SERVICE ON THE "GRANDFATHER" DATE THE APPLICANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A
CERTIFICATE UPON PROOF THAT SUCH LACK OF SERVICE WAS DUE TO
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL.  UNDER THIS VIEW THE
COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO MAKE ADEQUATE FINDINGS AS TO INTERRUPTION OF
SERVICE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1940, BECOMES IMMATERIAL. 

WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY AT THIS TIME, HOWEVER, TO SETTLE THIS PROBLEM
OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, IT BEING CLEAR IN ANY EVENT THAT THE PROVISO
IS APPLICABLE TO INTERRUPTIONS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1940.  FAILURE TO PROVE
THAT SUCH AN INTERRUPTION WAS BEYOND THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL LEADS TO A
FORFEITURE OF "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS.  AS TO THAT ISSUE WE AGREE WITH THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT THE COMMISSION MADE ADEQUATE FINDINGS THAT
APPELLANT FAILED TO SHOW CONTINUITY OF SERVICE SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY 1,
1940, AND THAT THERE WAS NO RECOGNIZABLE EXCUSE FOR THE LACK OF
SERVICE.  THE COMMISSION EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT APPELLANT "IS NOT HOLDING
ITSELF OUT AT THE PRESENT TIME TO PERFORM SUCH TRANSPORTATION" AND THAT
IT "HAS CONSIDERABLE FACILITIES AVAILABLE AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE USE
OF WHICH IT VOLUNTARILY HAS CONFINED TO EXEMPT TRANSPORTATION WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF NEW YORK HARBOR."  THIS CLEARLY MEANS THAT, IN THE
COMMISSION'S VIEW, THE WAR EMERGENCY DID NOT COMPEL APPELLANT TO
RESTRICT ITS ACTIVITIES TO EXEMPT OPERATIONS IN THE HARBOR AREA,
THEREBY MAKING THE PROVISO OF SEC. 309(A) INAPPLICABLE.  THAT
CONCLUSION, WE BELIEVE, IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND
CONTRAVENES NO STATUTORY RULE. 

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT APPELLANT'S WAR WORK
WAS OTHER THAN VOLUNTARY IN CHARACTER.  APPELLANT CONCEDED THE LACK OF
ANY GOVERNMENTAL ORDER RESTRICTING ITS ACTIVITIES SOLELY TO THE NEW
YORK HARBOR AREA OR PROHIBITING IT FROM OPERATING OVER THE ROUTES IT
NOW SEEKS TO PLY.  FN4  THE MAJOR CLAIM, WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE,
WAS THAT THE TRAFFIC IN THE NEW YORK HARBOR WAS SO GREAT DURING THE WAR
AS TO NECESSITATE INTENSIVE UTILIZATION OF EVERY AVAILABLE TUG, BARGE,
LIGHTER AND SCOW IN THE MOVEMENT OF WAR CARGOES.  IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED,
WITHOUT PROOF, THAT THE OFFICE OF DEFENSE TRANSPORTATION BEYOND "THE
SLIGHTEST DOUBT" WOULD HAVE FRUSTRATED ANY ATTEMPT BY APPELLANT TO
UTILIZE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF ITS FLEET IN FREIGHT SERVICE ALONG THE
ATLANTIC COAST AND, IF NECESSARY, WOULD HAVE REQUESTED THE WAR SHIPPING
ADMINISTRATION TO REQUISITION APPELLANT'S VESSELS.  FN5  THE
SPECULATIVE AND INSUBSTANTIAL NATURE OF THESE UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS IS
OBVIOUS.  THEY REST UPON THE QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTION THAT ESSENTIAL WAR
WORK COULD BE DONE ONLY IN THE NEW YORK HARBOR AND THAT THERE WAS NO
ESSENTIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ALONG THE ATLANTIC COAST OR INLAND
WATERWAYS IN WHICH APPELLANT COULD HAVE PARTICIPATED.  THEY REQUIRE ONE
TO GUESS WHAT ACTION GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WOULD HAVE TAKEN UNDER
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS.  WE DO NOT IMPLY, OF COURSE, THAT SUCH CLAIMS
ARE UNTRUE OR THAT, IF PROVED, THEY MIGHT NOT ADEQUATELY SUPPORT
APPELLANT'S POSITION.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS RECORD TO
SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS.  CERTAINLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER SHOULD BE
GROUNDED UPON SOMETHING MORE DEFINITE AND SUBSTANTIAL THAN THE SURMISES
OFFERED BY APPELLANT. 

APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES HAD BEEN CONFINED TO THE NEW YORK HARBOR AREA
SINCE 1933, LONG BEFORE THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
ATTEMPT TO EXPAND THE ACTIVITIES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF ANY
GOVERNMENTAL RESTRICTION, IT WAS REASONABLE TO FIND THAT APPELLANT
VOLUNTARILY CHOSE TO CONTINUE ITS ACTIVITIES ON A LIMITED SCALE.  SUCH
A CHOICE MAY WELL HAVE BEEN DICTATED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF PROFIT AND
CONVENIENCE.  THAT THESE LIMITED ACTIVITIES COINCIDED WITH WARTIME
NEEDS DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROVE THAT THEY WERE OTHER THAN VOLUNTARY IN
NATURE.  MUCH ACTIVITY IN RECENT YEARS FURTHERED THE WAR EFFORT
ALTHOUGH IT WAS PROFITABLE AND ALTHOUGH IT WAS DONE WITHOUT COMPULSION
BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY. 

THE COMMISSION WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT'S
FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN BONA FIDE OPERATIONS SINCE JANUARY 1, 1940, WAS
DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN THOSE OVER WHICH APPELLANT HAD NO
CONTROL.  APPELLANT ACCORDINGLY FORFEITED WHATEVER "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS
IT MIGHT HAVE HAD.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 U.S.C. SEC. 909(A). 

FN2  IN 1937 MACHINERY, AIRPLANES, GUNS AND PARTS WERE CARRIED
BETWEEN NEW YORK HARBOR, HUDSON RIVER AND LONG ISLAND SOUND POINTS BUT
THIS SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN REPEATED. 

FN3  UNDER SEC. 303(G) OF THE ACT, TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BY WATER SOLELY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A SINGLE HARBOR IS EXEMPT
FROM REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT, UNLESS THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY REQUIRES REGULATION. 

FN4  CF. AMERICAN-HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY COMMON CARRIER
APPLICATION, 250 I.C.C. 219, 222; BULL STEAMSHIP LINE COMMON CARRIER
APPLICATION, 250 I.C.C. 317, 319; ISTHMIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY COMMON
CARRIER APPLICATION, 250 I.C.C. 359, 362; SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 250 I.C.C. 457, 462; COAST TRANSPORTATION
CO., INC., COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION, 250 I.C.C. 469,
472; WEYERHAEUSER STEAMSHIP CO. COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 250 I.C.C.
477, 479; AMERICAN RANGE LINES, INC., CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION, 250
I.C.C. 510, 511; GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORPORATION APPLICATIONS, 260
I.C.C. 9, 10; PROVIDENCE STEAMBOAT COMPANY CONTRACT CARRIER
APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 23, 24; ST. JOHNS RIVER LINE CO. COMMON CARRIER
APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 74, 77; NICHOLSON TRANSIT CO. CONTRACT CARRIER
APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 232, 233. 

FN5  APPELLANT POINTED OUT THAT THE GOVERNMENT EXERTED CONTROL OVER
ALL DOMESTIC SHIPPING DURING THE WAR.  THE OFFICE OF DEFENSE
TRANSPORTATION, FOR EXAMPLE, CONFINED BARGE MOVEMENTS ALONG THE
ATLANTIC COAST LARGELY TO THE MOVEMENT OF COAL. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :














ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 327 U.S. 661 


NO. 160, OCTOBER TERM, 1944.  REARGUED DECEMBER 3, 4, 1945.  - DECIDED
MARCH 25, 1946. 


1.  ON REHEARING, THE COURT ADHERES TO ITS PREVIOUS DECISION IN THIS
CASE.  ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711.  P. 662. 

2.  AS IN ITS PREVIOUS OPINION, THE COURT EXPRESSLY REFRAINS FROM
MAKING ANY DEFINITIVE STATEMENT AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
OF A COLLECTIVE AGENT'S AUTHORITY EITHER TO SETTLE FINALLY AN AGGRIEVED
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE'S CLAIMS OR TO REPRESENT HIM EXCLUSIVELY BEFORE THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  P. 663. 

3.  WHEN AN AWARD OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD INVOLVING AN EMPLOYEE'S
INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCE IS CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS, ONE WHO WOULD UPSET
IT CARRIES THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT IT WAS WRONG.  P. 664. 

4.  THE PREVIOUS DECISION IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT AN
EMPLOYEE MAY STAND BY WITH KNOWLEDGE OR NOTICE OF WHAT IS GOING ON WITH
REFERENCE TO HIS CLAIM, EITHER BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE UNION ON THE
PROPERTY, OR BEFORE THE BOARD ON THEIR SUBMISSION, ALLOW MATTERS TO
PROCEED TO A DETERMINATION BY ONE METHOD OR THE OTHER, AND THEN COME IN
FOR THE FIRST TIME TO ASSERT HIS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.  P. 666. 

ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY CO. V. BURLEY ET AL. 

ON REHEARING. 

UPON REHEARING, 326 U.S. 801, OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT AT THE
1944 TERM IN ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711.  AFFIRMED,
P. 667. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ADHERE TO OUR DECISION RENDERED IN THE OPINION FILED AFTER THE
FIRST ARGUMENT.  325 U.S. 711.  FN1  THAT OPINION EXPRESSLY REFRAINED
FROM UNDERTAKING TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT OF WHAT MIGHT BE
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE COLLECTIVE AGENT'S AUTHORITY EITHER TO
SETTLE FINALLY THE AGGRIEVED INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE'S CLAIMS OR TO
REPRESENT HIM EXCLUSIVELY BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  WE DO NOT
ATTEMPT TO DO SO NOW.  FOR WHETHER THE COLLECTIVE AGENT HAS SUCH
AUTHORITY IS A QUESTION WHICH MAY ARISE IN MANY TYPES OF SITUATIONS
INVOLVING THE GRIEVANCES EITHER OF MEMBERS OF THE UNION OR OF
NONMEMBERS, OR BOTH, AND NECESSARILY THEREFORE NO ALL-INCLUSIVE RULE
CAN BE FORMULATED FOR ALL SUCH SITUATIONS.  BUT NEITHER DOES THIS MEAN
THAT AN EQUALLY ALL-EXCLUSIVE RULE MUST BE FOLLOWED, NAMELY, THAT
AUTHORITY CAN BE GIVEN OR SHOWN ONLY IN SOME PARTICULAR WAY. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COLLECTIVE AGENT HAS AUTHORITY, IN THE TWO
PERTINENT RESPECTS, DOES NOT TURN ON TECHNICAL AGENCY RULES SUCH AS
APPLY IN THE SIMPLE, INDIVIDUALISTIC SITUATION WHERE P DEALS WITH T
THROUGH A ABOUT THE SALE OF BLACKACRE.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH
PROBLEMS IN A SPECIALIZED FIELD, WITH A LONG BACKGROUND OF CUSTOM AND
PRACTICE IN THE RAILROAD WORLD.  AND THE FACT THAT SEC. 3 FIRST (I)
PROVIDES THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN CARRIERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES ARISING OUT
OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS
CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES OR WORKING CONDITIONS "SHALL BE HANDLED
IN THE USUAL MANNER" UP TO AND INCLUDING THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF
THE CARRIER, INDICATES THAT CUSTOM AND USAGE MAY BE AS ADEQUATE A BASIS
OF AUTHORITY AS A MORE FORMAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE UNION, WHICH
RECEIVES A GRIEVANCE FROM AN EMPLOYEE FOR HANDLING, TO REPRESENT HIM IN
SETTLING IT OR IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD FOR ITS DETERMINATION. 
FN2 

MOREOVER, WHEN AN AWARD OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD INVOLVING AN
EMPLOYEE'S INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCE IS CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS, ONE WHO
WOULD UPSET IT CARRIES THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT IT WAS WRONG.  FN3
ITS ACTION IN ADJUSTING AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE'S GRIEVANCE AT THE
INSTANCE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT IS ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTIVE
WEIGHT.  FOR, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE CAN BE NO PRESUMPTION EITHER
THAT THE UNION SUBMITTING THE DISPUTE WOULD UNDERTAKE TO USURP THE
AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BY OTHER
REPRESENTATION OF HIS OWN CHOICE, OR THAT THE BOARD KNOWINGLY WOULD ACT
IN DISREGARD OR VIOLATION OF THAT RIGHT.  ITS DUTY, AND THE UNION'S,
ARE TO THE CONTRARY UNDER THE ACT.  FN4 

FURTHERMORE, THE BOARD IS ACQUAINTED WITH ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES,
CUSTOMS AND USAGES IN THE RAILWAY LABOR WORLD.  IT IS THE SPECIALIZED
AGENCY SELECTED TO ADJUST THESE CONTROVERSIES.  ITS EXPERTISE IS
ADAPTED NOT ONLY TO INTERPRETING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT,
FN5  BUT ALSO TO ASCERTAINING THE SCOPE OF THE COLLECTIVE AGENT'S
AUTHORITY BEYOND WHAT THE ACT ITSELF CONFERS, IN VIEW OF THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THIS ALSO MAY BE AFFECTED BY CUSTOM AND USAGE. 

WE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ACT IMPOSES CORRELATIVE AFFIRMATIVE
DUTIES UPON THE CARRIER, THE COLLECTIVE AGENT AND THE AGGRIEVED
EMPLOYEE TO MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE.  FN6
IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT FOR THE ACT TO REQUIRE THE CARRIER
AND THE UNION TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF THE GRIEVANCE
AND, WHILE WITHHOLDING POWER FROM THEM TO MAKE THAT SETTLEMENT
EFFECTIVE FINALLY AS AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE, TO RELIEVE HIM ALTOGETHER OF
OBLIGATION IN THE MATTER.  NOT ONLY IS HE REQUIRED TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE
STEPS.  HIS FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN LOSS OF HIS RIGHTS.  FN7 

IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT WORKINGMEN HAVING GRIEVANCES WILL BE IGNORANT
IN MANY CASES EITHER OF NEGOTIATIONS CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE COLLECTIVE
AGENT AND THE CARRIER FOR THEIR SETTLEMENT OR OF THE FACT THAT THE
DISPUTE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY ONE OR THE OTHER TO THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
FOR DETERMINATION.  THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, AS THE ACT REQUIRES, ARE
CONDUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.  SEC. 2 SIXTH.  ORDINARILY SUBMISSIONS ARE
NOT, AND THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES THAT THEY SHALL NOT BE, MADE TO THE
BOARD UNTIL AFTER ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REACH AN AGREEMENT HAVE
BEEN EXHAUSTED IN GOOD FAITH.  FN8 

IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THERE CANNOT BE MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH AN
AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE WILL NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OR NOTICE THAT NEGOTIATIONS
AFFECTING HIS CLAIM ARE BEING CONDUCTED OR, IF THEY FAIL, THAT
PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD TO DISPOSE OF IT.  FN9
ALTHOUGH UNDER OUR RULING HIS RIGHTS TO HAVE VOICE IN THE SETTLEMENT
ARE PRESERVED, WHETHER BY CONFERRING WITH THE CARRIER AND, HAVING
SEASONABLY DONE SO, REFUSING TO BE BOUND BY A SETTLEMENT REACHED OVER
HIS PROTEST, OR BY HAVING REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE BOARD ACCORDING TO
HIS OWN CHOICE, WE DID NOT RULE, AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ASSUMING WE
DID, THAT AN EMPLOYEE CAN STAND BY WITH KNOWLEDGE OR NOTICE OF WHAT IS
GOING ON WITH REFERENCE TO HIS CLAIM, EITHER BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND
THE UNION ON THE PROPERTY, OR BEFORE THE BOARD ON THEIR SUBMISSION,
ALLOW MATTERS TO BE THRASHED OUT TO A CONCLUSION BY ONE METHOD OR THE
OTHER, AND THEN COME IN FOR THE FIRST TIME TO ASSERT HIS INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS.  NO SUCH RULING WAS NECESSARY FOR THEIR PRESERVATION AND NONE
WAS INTENDED. 

IT MAY BE, AS WE SAID PREVIOUSLY, THAT RESPONDENTS UPON THE FURTHER
HEARING WILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN THEIR ALLEGATIONS, WHETHER
WITH REFERENCE TO KNOWLEDGE OR NOTICE IN THE MATERIAL RESPECTS
CONCERNING WHICH THEY HAVE DENIED HAVING IT OR OTHERWISE.  BUT WHETHER
THIS BURDEN WILL BE EASY OR IMPOSSIBLE TO CARRY, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO
UNDERTAKE IT IN THE FORUM WHERE SUCH ISSUES PROPERLY ARE TRIABLE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION AND THE PREVIOUS OPINION FILED
IN THIS CAUSE. 

FN1  THE PETITION FOR REHEARING, WHICH RESULTED IN SETTING THE CASE
FOR REARGUMENT, WAS SUPPORTED BY MOTIONS FILED AMICUS CURIAE BY VARIOUS
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL.  UPON
GRANTING OF THE MOTIONS, THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
FILED BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE AND THE LATTER PARTICIPATED IN THE
ARGUMENT.  VARIOUS POSITIONS WERE TAKEN UPON THE MERITS WHICH WE HAVE
CONSIDERED BUT DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO SET FORTH. 

FN2  FURTHERMORE, SO FAR AS UNION MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED, AND THEY ARE
THE ONLY PERSONS INVOLVED AS RESPONDENTS IN THIS CAUSE, IT IS
ALTOGETHER POSSIBLE FOR THE UNION TO SECURE AUTHORITY IN THESE RESPECTS
WITHIN WELL ESTABLISHED RULES RELATING TO UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS
AND THEIR RELATIONS WITH THEIR MEMBERS, BY APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN
THEIR BY-LAWS, CONSTITUTION OR OTHER GOVERNING REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS
BY USAGE OR CUSTOM.  THERE WAS NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN OUR FORMER
OPINION.  WE ONLY RULED THAT ON THE SHOWING MADE IN THIS RESPECT, WHICH
INCLUDED CONTROVERTED ISSUES CONCERNING THE MEANING AND APPLICABILITY
OF THE UNION'S REGULATIONS, AND THE EFFECTS OF CUSTOM AND USAGE, WE
COULD NOT SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE DISPUTED AUTHORITY HAD BEEN
GIVEN. 

FN3  IN A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT CONNECTION, WHICH HOWEVER WE THINK NOT
WITHOUT WEIGHT HERE, SEC. 3 FIRST (P) PROVIDES THAT THE BOARD'S AWARD
"SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS THEREIN STATED" IN THE
STATUTORY SUIT PROVIDED FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS. 

FN4  THE CONTRARY PRACTICE NOTED IN OUR FORMER OPINION, 325 U.S. 732
733, HAS BEEN DUE WITHOUT QUESTION, WE THINK, TO THE BOARD'S ERRONEOUS
CONCEPTION, ACCEPTED GENERALLY ALSO BY THE UNIONS AND STRONGLY URGED IN
THIS CASE ESPECIALLY UPON THE REARGUMENT, THAT THE ACT ITSELF,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS PARTICULARLY OF SEC. 3 FIRST (J) AND THE
PROVISO TO SEC. 2 FOURTH, CONFERS EXCLUSIVE STATUTORY POWER UPON THE
COLLECTIVE AGENT TO DEAL WITH THE CARRIER CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL
GRIEVANCES AND TO REPRESENT THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE IN BOARD
PROCEEDINGS. 

FN5  WE RECENTLY EMPHASIZED THIS IN ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS V.
PITNEY, 326 U.S. 561, 567, IN WHICH WE SAID:  "SINCE ALL PARTIES SEEK
TO SUPPORT THEIR PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF THESE AGREEMENTS BY
EVIDENCE AS TO USAGE, PRACTICE AND CUSTOM, THAT TOO MUST BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT AND PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD.  THE FACTUAL QUESTION IS INTRICATE AND
TECHNICAL.  AN AGENCY ESPECIALLY COMPETENT AND SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED
TO DEAL WITH IT HAS BEEN CREATED BY CONGRESS." 

FN6  SEE 325 U.S. 711 AT NOTES 12, 18 AND TEXT.  WE SAID:  "THE
OBLIGATION (TO NEGOTIATE) IS NOT PARTIAL.  IN PLAIN TERMS THE DUTY IS
LAID ON CARRIER AND EMPLOYEES ALIKE, TOGETHER WITH THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES; AND IN EQUALLY PLAIN TERMS IT APPLIES TO ALL DISPUTES
COVERED BY THE ACT, WHETHER MAJOR OR MINOR."  NOTE 18.  CF. VIRGINIAN
R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 548; RAILROAD TRAINMEN V.
TOLEDO, P. & W. R. CO., 321 U.S. 50, 56 FF. 

FN7  EVEN THE ORDINARY LAW OF AGENCY ATTRIBUTES AUTHORITY TO A
REPRESENTATIVE TO ACT WHEN THE PRINCIPAL STANDS BY WITH KNOWLEDGE OR
NOTICE OF HIS ASSUMPTION OF THAT AUTHORITY AND PERMITS THE THIRD PERSON
TO ACT TO HIS INJURY UPON THE SAME ASSUMPTION.  CF. SEAVEY, THE
RATIONAL OF AGENCY (1920) 29 YALE L.J. 859, 873 ET SEQ.; AND OTHER
AUTHORITIES CITED IN MECHEM, CASES ON THE LAW OF AGENCY (3D ED.)  186,
NOTE.  AND OF COURSE THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVEN SO-CALLED COMMON LAW
RULES OF AGENCY ALLOW NO ROOM FOR THE PLAY OF USAGE AND CUSTOM IS, TO
SAY THE LEAST, NAIVE. 

FN8  CF. NOTE 6 AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN9  WE POINTED OUT IN THE FORMER OPINION THAT SEC. 3 FIRST (J)
EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT "THE SEVERAL DIVISIONS OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SHALL GIVE DUE NOTICE OF ALL HEARINGS TO THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES AND
THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS INVOLVED IN ANY DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO THEM," 325
U.S. AT 731, 734, AND THIS PROVISION, WITH THE EMPHASIS WE PLACED UPON
THE PHRASE "TO THE EMPLOYEE" AND THE CONJUNCTION OF THE PROVISION FOR
"DUE NOTICE" WITH THE PROVISION FOR REPRESENTATION "IN PERSON, BY
COUNSEL, OR BY OTHER REPRESENTATIVES," WAS ONE OF THE STATUTORY
MAINSTAYS FOR OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE ACT DID NOT GIVE THE COLLECTIVE
AGENT THE EXCLUSIVE POWERS OVER THE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES CLAIMED
FOR IT. 

BUT WE DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO DEFINE WHAT WAS MEANT BY "DUE NOTICE,"
NOR DO WE NOW.  "DUE NOTICE" CONCEIVABLY COULD BE GIVEN OR HAD IN A
VARIETY OF FORMS, MORE ESPECIALLY WHEN ACCOUNT IS TAKEN OF THE
GENERALLY INFORMAL PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD.  IT WOULD REQUIRE AT THE
LEAST, WE THINK, KNOWLEDGE ON THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE'S PART OF THE
PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OR KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH FACTS AS WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT TO PUT HIM ON NOTICE OF THEIR PENDENCY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE ON THE REARGUMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BURTON, AND I ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED.  LAST TERM A DIVIDED COURT HELD THAT A
DETERMINATION BY THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF A DISPUTE BROUGHT BEFORE IT BY
A UNION RECOGNIZED AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT ON BEHALF OF ITS
MEMBERS IS NOT BINDING, AND MAY BE UPSET IN A DISTRICT COURT IN AN
INDEPENDENT SUIT INVOLVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT, BUT BROUGHT BY AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER ON HIS OWN BEHALF.  325
U.S. 711.  THE DISSENT EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT "TO ALLOW SUCH
SETTLEMENTS TO BE THUS SET ASIDE IS TO OBSTRUCT THE SMOOTH WORKING OF
THE ACT.  IT UNDERMINES THE CONFIDENCE SO INDISPENSABLE TO ADJUSTMENT
BY NEGOTIATION, WHICH IS THE VITAL OBJECT OF THE ACT."  ID. AT 755-56. 

THE COURT NOW ANNOUNCES THAT IT "ADHERES" TO ITS DECISION.  BUT AS WE
READ THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF ITS ORIGINAL OPINION, IT "ADHERES"
TO IT BY EXTRACTING FROM IT ALMOST ALL OF ITS VITALITY.  WE SAY
"ALMOST" BECAUSE THE ONE THING THAT REMAINS IS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
DETERMINATION BY THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD THAT THE RECOGNIZED UNION
REPRESENTED ITS MEMBERS IS ALLOWED TO BE REOPENED NOT BEFORE THE BOARD
BUT ANEW IN THE COURTS, STATE OR FEDERAL, IN AN INDEPENDENT SUIT BY A
MEMBER OF THE UNION AGAINST THE CARRIER.  TO BE SURE, THE PROSPECTS FOR
REDETERMINATION ARE LARGELY ILLUSORY BECAUSE THE COURT NOW ERECTS A
SERIES OF HURDLES WHICH WILL BE, AND WE ASSUME WERE INTENDED TO BE,
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO CLEAR.  BUT SINCE LITIGATION IS
AUTHORIZED AND HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL IN A LITIGANT'S BREAST, THE FAR
REACHING MISCHIEF OF UNSETTLING NONLITIGIOUS MODES OF ADJUSTMENT UNDER
THE MACHINERY OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT LARGELY REMAINS.  WHEN PEACEFUL
SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN CARRIERS AND THE BROTHERHOODS ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH
HAZARDS, THE CARRIER CAN HARDLY BE EXPECTED TO NEGOTIATE WITH A UNION
WHOSE AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO CONSTANT CHALLENGE.  IT WAS THIS
DISLOCATION OF SETTLED HABITS IN ADJUSTING RAILROAD LABOR RELATIONS
WHICH EVOKED A SERIES OF PETITIONS FOR REHEARING FROM THE UNITED
STATES, THE BROTHERHOODS, THE RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION,
AND THE ORGANIZATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL AND CRAFT UNIONS.  ALL THE
INTERESTS PRIMARILY CONCERNED AND BEST INFORMED ON THESE MATTERS WERE
AROUSED BECAUSE FOR THEM THE OPINION DESTROYED THE CAPACITY OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT TO FULFILL ITS FUNCTION, IGNORED THE NORMAL PRACTICES
OF THE INDUSTRY, AND IMPAIRED THE RIGHTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
GENERALLY.  BECAUSE OF THIS UNSETTLING EFFECT, NOT ABATED BY THE
PRESENT DECISION'S ADHERENCE TO THE PRIOR BY ADDING NEW COMPLEXITIES -
COMPLEXITIES SO INIMICAL TO HEALTHY RELATIONS ON THE RAILROADS - WE
DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD TO WHAT WAS SAID IN THE ORIGINAL DISSENT. 
325 U.S. 711, 749.    THAT THESE MISCHIEFS ARE REAL AND POTENT IS
ATTESTED BY THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE AMICI CURIAE.  THE UNITED
STATES POINTS OUT: 

"THE RESULT OF LAST TERM'S DECISION HAS BEEN AND WILL BE THAT A
UNION'S AUTHORITY TO SETTLE A GRIEVANCE INVOLVING A CLAIM FOR ACCRUED
DAMAGES WILL ALWAYS BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES
NOT GET ALL HE WANTS, UNLESS THE UNION HAS PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED AN
EXCEEDINGLY EXPLICIT POWER OF ATTORNEY TO ACT ON HIS BEHALF.  THIS
MEANS THAT THE CARRIERS WILL BE LIKELY TO DEMAND PROOF OF SUCH
AUTHORIZATION FROM EVERY INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED BEFORE UNDERTAKING TO
NEGOTIATE A GRIEVANCE CASE, SINCE THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE BE LIABLE TO ANY
EMPLOYEE DISSATISFIED WITH THE SETTLEMENT.  AS WE SHALL SEE, THIS HAS
BEEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED ON THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD. 

IN MANY SIMPLE CASES, OF COURSE, IT WILL NOT BE DIFFICULT FOR THE
ORGANIZATION TO SECURE AN AUTHORIZATION.  IN OTHER TYPES OF CASES,
ALTHOUGH MANY AUTHORIZATIONS COULD PROBABLY BE OBTAINED, IT MIGHT BE
IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN AUTHORITY FROM EVERY INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED.  AND
WHETHER OR NOT IMPOSSIBLE, THE PROCESS OF SECURING NECESSARY
AUTHORIZATIONS MIGHT BE SO PROLONGED AS TO PREVENT PROMPT DISPOSITION
EVEN OF THE MANY CASES WHICH WOULD IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN SPEEDILY
SETTLED ON THE PROPERTIES." 

THE BROTHERHOODS OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN
THUS SUMMARIZE THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S DECISION: 

"THE IMPACT OF THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE PROCESSES OF GRIEVANCE
ADJUSTMENT HAS ALREADY APPEARED IN THE SUSPENSION OF THE FUNCTIONING OF
THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD AND IN INDICATED DIFFICULTIES ON
VARIOUS RAILROAD PROPERTIES.  IT IS OUR CONVICTION THAT UNLESS THIS
DECISION BE REVERSED OR SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED, THE PROMPT AND ORDERLY
SETTLEMENT OF SUCH DISPUTES WILL BE IMPEDED TO A SERIOUS DEGREE.  THE
HOLDING UPSETS LONG ESTABLISHED TECHNIQUES OF GRIEVANCE HANDLING BY
EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES AND ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS. 

WE POINT OUT, FIRST, THAT THE COURT'S DECISION CONSTRUES THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT IN A WAY WHICH FRUSTRATES THE PURPOSES WHICH CONGRESS HAD IN
MIND IN PROVIDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCE DISPUTES." 

"THE SHUTTING DOWN OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY
OR THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF SECURING AUTHORIZATIONS IS ONLY ONE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE DECISION.  WE ARE ADVISED THAT SOME MANAGEMENTS ARE INSISTING
THAT LOCAL CHAIRMEN FURNISH POWERS OF ATTORNEY IN DAY TO DAY
ADJUSTMENTS.  CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS FACTORS INVOLVED, SUCH AS THE
VOLUME OF THE GRIEVANCES, THE EXTRA BURDEN PLACED ON THE COMMITTEES,
AND THE ADDITIONAL DELAYS WHICH WOULD BE ENCOUNTERED, THE TASK OF
COMPLIANCE WITH THE TECHNIQUE REQUIRED BY THE COURT'S DECISION SEEMS
CALCULATED TO CAUSE A BREAKDOWN OF GRIEVANCE HANDLING BY EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATIVES.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HANDLING BY INDIVIDUALS OR ON AN
INDIVIDUAL BASIS WILL NOT WORK.  SUCH A BREAKDOWN, OR EVEN THE
IMPAIRMENT OF COLLECTIVE HANDLING AS TRADITIONALLY PRACTICED, WILL BE
SERIOUS, AS PRIOR HISTORY SHOWS." 

"SECOND, THE DECISION IMPAIRS THE FUNCTIONING OF EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATIVES UNDER THE ACT, AND HAS AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE
MAINTENANCE OF CRAFT AGREEMENTS.  REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES HAVE THE
STATUTORY RIGHT AND DUTY (1) TO CONFER WITH MANAGEMENT RESPECTING ALL
DISPUTES (SEC. 2 SECOND) AND SPECIFICALLY THOSE ARISING OUT OF
GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS
(SEC. 2 SIXTH); AND (2) TO REPRESENT A CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT (SEC. 2 FOURTH).  THE LATTER, OF COURSE, INCLUDES THE RIGHT
TO NEGOTIATE CRAFT AGREEMENTS.  EMPLOYEES, ACTING THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES, HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN AGREEMENTS AND TO
SETTLE ALL DISPUTES (SEC. 2 FOURTH, SEC. 1 FIRST).  THESE PROVISIONS,
WE BELIEVE, SPELL OUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS WITH WHICH THE
COURT'S DECISION INTERFERES." 

THE RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR MAKE THIS ANALYSIS: 

"IN SUMMARY, THEREFORE, WE SUBMIT THAT THE REGULATORY SCHEME OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT REQUIRES FOR ITS EFFECTIVE OPERATION A RECOGNIZED
AUTHORITY IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO PROCEED IN ITS
OWN RIGHT TO ADJUST DISPUTES REGARDING THE INTERPRETATION OR
APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS.  A DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT WILL PRODUCE NO REAL
BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, WILL IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
REPRESENTATIVES AS STABILIZING INFLUENCES IN THIS FIELD, WILL DEPRIVE
THE CARRIERS OF ANY AGENCY TO WHICH THEY MAY GO TO SECURE A FINAL
SETTLEMENT OF MANY VEXATIOUS LABOR CONTROVERSIES, AND WILL BRING ABOUT
A GENERAL DETERIORATION OF RELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND MANAGEMENT
WHICH WILL NECESSARILY IMPAIR THE PARAMOUNT INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC IN
UNINTERRUPTED TRANSPORTATION. 

WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THESE RESULTS ALREADY EXPERIENCED OR
REASONABLY TO BE ANTICIPATED FROM THE INTERPRETATION WHICH HAS BEEN
GIVEN TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT ARE INIMICAL TO THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTE AND SHOULD NOT BE MAINTAINED." 

"THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN EFFECT OUTLAWS A METHOD WHICH HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFULLY FOLLOWED FOR A QUARTER OF A CENTURY IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF
DISPUTES OF THE KIND UNDER CONSIDERATION.  THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUAL
CASES HAVE BEEN SETTLED DURING THIS PERIOD AND UP TO THE TIME OF THE
DECISION IN THIS CASE, NO ONE HAD QUESTIONED THE AUTHORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVES TO ACT IN THIS CONNECTION.  THE EXISTENCE OF
SUCH AUTHORITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN INTEGRAL AND ESSENTIAL
PART OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS AS IT HAS DEVELOPED UNDER
FEDERAL REGULATION.  WE HAVE NO HESITANCY IN SAYING TO THE COURT THAT
WE BELIEVE THAT ITS DECISION DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH AUTHORITY
REDUCES THE POTENCY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF
PEACE IN THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY TO A LOWER LEVEL THAN THAT PREVAILING IN
1920.  WE FEEL THAT THE COURT SHOULD BE ADVISED THAT SINCE THE
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ITS DECISION THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAS
VIRTUALLY CEASED TO FUNCTION....  THIS BRIEF IS FILED WITH THE DEEP
CONVICTION THAT THE WHOLE PROCESS OF THE ORDERLY ADJUSTMENT OF
CONTROVERSIES, WHICH IS THE FRUIT OF RAILROAD LABOR LEGISLATION
OBTAINED AFTER LONG EFFORT ON THE PART OF ALL CONCERNED, IS NOW IN
SERIOUS JEOPARDY.  THE POTENTIALITIES OF THIS CASE WERE NOT FULLY
RECOGNIZED BY US WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY BEFORE THE COURT." 

THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, THE ORDER OF
RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA, AND SWITCHMEN'S UNION OF NORTH AMERICA
UNITED IN THIS STATEMENT: 

"WE ARE COMPELLED TO CONCLUDE FROM THIS TREATMENT OF THE PROBLEM THAT
THE COURT PROPOSES TO APPLY A COMMON-LAW STANDARD, DESIGNEDLY SUITABLE
TO THE RELATIVELY SIMPLE RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, AS THE
TEST OF THE AUTHORITY OF A RAILWAY LABOR ORGANIZATION TO HANDLE AND
SETTLE THE HOST OF GRIEVANCES WHICH MUST BE EXPEDITIOUSLY AND
EFFECTIVELY DISPOSED OF IF THE CONGRESSIONAL ENJOINMENT 'TO AVOID ANY
INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE OR TO THE OPERATION OF ANY CARRIER ENGAGED
THEREIN' IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. 

WE WISH TO RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THE ENTERTAINMENT
OF THIS PROPOSED VIEW COULD BE COMMENDED AS REASONABLE ONLY IF THE
PROBLEM UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE WEIGHED WHOLLY DETACHED FROM THE
REALITIES OF ITS ENVIRONMENT.  IF A STRAIT-JACKET OF LEGAL RESTRICTIONS
IS NOT TO SHACKLE THE RAILWAY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
THE SERVICES EXPECTED OF THEM BY THE CONGRESS AND THE COUNTRY AT LARGE
AS OUTLINED IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, THE MIND OF THE COURT MUST BE
ACCURATELY ATTUNED TO THE PRACTICALITIES OF THE PROBLEMS FACED BY THESE
REPRESENTATIVES." 

TO THESE THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS ON ITS OWN BEHALF
AND FOR ITS CONSTITUENT UNIONS  FN1  ADDS: 

"THE COURT HOLDS THAT SUCH UNION SETTLEMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED, THAT
THERE MUST BE SETTLEMENT WITH THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED.  IT LEAVES OPEN
THE QUESTION WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE SETTLEMENT ALONE IS SUFFICIENT OR
WHETHER A JOINT SETTLEMENT WITH EMPLOYEE AND UNION IS NECESSARY
(SLIPSHEET 20-21).  IT CONCEDES THAT IF EMPLOYEE SETTLEMENTS ARE
PERMITTED, THEN, AS TO MOST GRIEVANCES AT LEAST, THE UNION MUST BE
ALLOWED TO EXPRESS ITS VIEWS (SLIPSHEET 20-21 AND PARTICULARLY NOTE
35).  WE SUBMIT THAT THE ACT REQUIRES UNION SETTLEMENTS, WITH THE RIGHT
ACCORDED TO THE EMPLOYEE TO PRESENT GRIEVANCES BUT NOT TO PARTICIPATE
IN THEIR DISPOSITION. 

THE DISPOSITION OF GRIEVANCES BY EMPLOYEE SETTLEMENTS IS PRECLUDED BY
THE FACT THAT SUCH DISPOSITION, WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE UNION, WHETHER
OF RETROSPECTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE MATTERS, INTRODUCES THE VERY INDIVIDUAL
BARGAINING WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO ELIMINATE (SUPRA).  THAT
SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES IS 'BARGAINING' WAS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED BY THE
COURT WHEN IT REFERRED TO THE 'POWER TO BARGAIN CONCERNING GRIEVANCES,
THAT IS, TO CONCLUDE AGREEMENTS FOR THEIR SETTLEMENTS' (SLIPSHEET 14). 
BUT IF THIS 'BARGAINING' IS TO BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND
THE EMPLOYEE ALONE, IT WILL BE NO MORE THAN A MOCKERY.  AS THE COURT
ITSELF POINTS OUT (SLIPSHEET 21, NOTE 35), THE 'CARRIER WOULD BE FREE
...  TO BARGAIN WITH EACH EMPLOYEE FOR WHATEVER TERMS ITS ECONOMIC
POWER, PITTED AGAINST HIS OWN, MIGHT INDUCE HIM TO ACCEPT.'" 

"WE EARNESTLY URGE UPON THE COURT  ...  THAT THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PROCESS HAS ALWAYS BEEN VIEWED BY THE PARTICIPANTS THERETO
AS INCLUDING THE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, THAT
EMPLOYERS AND UNIONS HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED THAT THEY HAD THE POWER TO
DISPOSE OF GRIEVANCES ON A LARGE SCALE.  WE CALL TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE COURT THE AGREEMENT INVOLVED IN THIS VERY CASE, REFERRED TO BY THE
COURT IN ITS OPINION (SLIPSHEET 4, NOTE 5), BY WHICH THE UNION AND THE
RAILROAD TRIED TO SETTLE ALL SIMILAR CLAIMS THEN EXISTING.  WE CANNOT
OVERESTIMATE THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING SUCH AGREEMENTS
INEFFECTIVE.  THEY ARE COMMONLY MADE WHEREVER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS
ESTABLISHED.  IT WILL BE EXTREMELY DISTURBING TO EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES ALIKE WHEN EMPLOYERS DISCOVER THAT THERE IS NO WAY, SHORT OF
SETTLEMENT WITH EACH EMPLOYEE, WHEREBY PENDING DISPUTES AND THE
POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE LEGAL ACTION CAN BE ELIMINATED." 

SELDOM IF EVER HAVE THE CLAIMS OF POLICY BEEN SO MARSHALLED ON A
SINGLE SIDE OF AN ISSUE REQUIRING THE INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE
WHICH, AT BEST, IS SUFFICIENTLY AMBIGUOUS TO PERMIT THESE
CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY TO CARRY THE DAY.  THE DANGER IN "ADHERING" TO
THE ORIGINAL DECISION IS ONLY TOO CLEAR; IT CAN HARDLY BE LESSENED BY
AN EXPLANATION THAT EXTRACTS MEANING FROM THE FIRST OPINION. 

THE RESULTS OF THE OPINION OF LAST TERM, ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL,
THREATENED NOT ONLY THE EFFICACY OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, BUT
GENERALLY UNDERMINED THE BASIS FOR ALL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN REGARD
TO GRIEVANCES.  IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE DECISION CREATED HAVOC IN
THE RAILROAD WORLD, FOR A PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ON
THE RAILROADS, AS THE WHOLE COURSE OF RAILROAD HISTORY SHOWS, IS
ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT ON APPROPRIATE MACHINERY AND PROCESS OF
ADJUSTMENT.  THE MACHINERY SET IN MOTION BY THE ACT WAS STOPPED BY THE
OPINION.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE COURT'S DECISION OF LAST TERM, THE TWO
DIVISIONS OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD DEALING WITH 94% OF THE CASES UNDER
NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN.  AND WHEN THEY WERE
REOPENED, THEY FUNCTIONED AT ONLY A FRACTION OF THEIR NORMAL ACTIVITY. 
THESE BOARDS ARE NOT OPERATING IN A VACUUM.  THEIR FUNCTION IS TO
SETTLE BY PEACEFUL MEANS EMPLOYEE-EMPLOYER DISPUTES THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE SETTLED BY A SHOW OF POWER ON EACH SIDE.  THE BROTHERHOODS
POINT TO THE DANGERS CUMULATING IN THE UNADJUSTED GRIEVANCES.  THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT BECOMES AS INEFFECTIVE AS IT WAS PRIOR TO THE 1934
AMENDMENTS; AND SUCH A RESULT MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED FROM THE
DESTRUCTION OF A SYSTEM THAT HAD BECOME CUSTOMARY. 

THE COURT SAYS THAT IT ADHERES TO ITS PREVIOUS OPINION.  LAST TERM IT
FOUND THAT IT COULD NOT SAY THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD AUTHORIZED THE
UNION TO SETTLE THEIR GRIEVANCES, AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR JUDICIAL
REDETERMINATION OF THE BOARD'S DECISION.  WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS THE
COURT MEANT TO INDICATE AS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AUTHORIZATION FROM
MEMBERS OF THE UNION TO THE UNION, THE OPINION SURELY CONVEYED DOUBT
WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS HAD GIVEN AUTHORITY IN A "LEGALLY SUFFICIENT"
WAY, AND ENCOURAGED THE RESPONDENTS' CLAIM THAT THEY HAD NOT AUTHORIZED
THEIR COLLECTIVE AGENT TO SETTLE THEIR GRIEVANCES.  THE COURT NOW SAYS
THAT ON THE RECORD IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR RESPONDENTS TO PROVE THAT
THEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE UNION TO REPRESENT THEM.  THE DIFFICULTY
BECOMES APPARENT AS THE COURT'S OPINION PROCEEDS.  IT DISCLAIMS THAT
COMMON LAW AGENCY TESTS OF AUTHORITY ARE TO BE DETERMINATIVE,
SUBSTITUTES "CUSTOM AND USAGE," AND PUTS THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION ON
THE RESPONDENTS, HAVING AGAINST THEM THE WEIGHT OF THE BOARD'S
"EXPERTISE," THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY, AND THEIR OWN FAILURE TO
DISAVOW THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE HYPOTHETICAL FACTORS
WHICH THE COURT INTIMATES WOULD DEFEAT RESPONDENTS' RIGHT TO SUSTAIN
THIS SUIT ARE THE NORMAL FACTORS IN THESE DISPUTES AND ARE REVEALED BY
THE RECORD IN THIS CASE.  THE WAY IN WHICH THESE GRIEVANCES WERE
HANDLED WAS "THE USUAL MANNER"; THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD EXERCISING ITS
EXPERTNESS DID DETERMINE THAT THE UNION HAD AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT
RESPONDENTS; THE RESPONDENTS DID STAND BY DOING NOTHING WHILE THEIR
CLAIMS WERE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AND DETERMINED BY IT.  IF THE CUSTOM
OF THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY RATHER THAN THE CONVENTIONAL LAW OF AGENCY IS
TO GOVERN, CLEARLY THE EXPERT, CENTRALIZED BOARD IS THE APPROPRIATE
TRIBUNAL FOR ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE AUTHORIZED BARGAINING AGENCY IS
AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE GRIEVANCES OF ITS MEMBERS BEFORE THE BOARD,
AND NOT THE MULTITUDINOUS COURTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY WITH THEIR
VARYING UNDERSTANDING AND VARYING JUDGMENTS.  THE GLOSS WHICH THE COURT
NOW PUTS ON ITS PREVIOUS OPINION IN EFFECT RECOGNIZES THAT THIS IS SO
BY THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT HOBBLES THE RIGHT TO SECURE THE REVISION OF
THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION WHICH IT ABSTRACTLY BESTOWS.  THEREBY IT
UNDERMINES ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NOTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
OPEN THE COURTS FOR A REDETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF AUTHORIZATION. 
WHEN CONGRESS WAS SO MISERLY IN GRANTING ANY JURISDICTION TO THE COURTS
UNDER THE ACT, IT WOULD BE SURPRISING IF IT HAD AUTHORIZED REVIEW IN A
FIELD WHERE, AS THE COURT'S NEW OPINION MAKES CLEAR, THERE WAS LIKELY
TO BE SO LITTLE DISPUTE.  YET IT IS SUGGESTED THAT RESPONDENTS ARE
ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL HEARING TO DETERMINE AMONG OTHER THINGS WHETHER
THEY RECEIVED INDIVIDUAL NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD. 
BUT THE WHOLE COURSE AND CURRENT OF THE RAILWAY TRADE UNION
RELATIONSHIPS IMPLY THAT THE INTEREST OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER AS TO
ISSUES ARISING UNDER THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT IS ENTRUSTED TO HIS
CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVE.  TO REQUIRE NOTICE TO THE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS
AFFECTED BY THE SPECIFIC CONTROVERSIES IS TO DISREGARD THE
PRESUPPOSITION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNION MEMBERS AND THEIR
OFFICIALS AND THE ACTUALITIES OF PRACTICE UPON WHICH THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT WAS BASED. 

IF THE CONTEXT OF HISTORY INTO WHICH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT MUST BE
PLACED FOR A PROPER INTERPRETATION REVEALS THAT CONGRESS WAS BENT ON
CREATING A SYSTEM COMPLETE IN ITSELF FOR SECURING PEACEFUL INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS IN THE RAILROAD WORLD, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT IMPORT INTO THAT
SYSTEM TRADITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS AND RULES DERIVED FROM A SCHEME OF
JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS.  THE NEW SYSTEM WAS DEVISED PRECISELY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPLACING THE ORDINARY JUDICIAL PROCESSES IN
RESOLVING RAILWAY LABOR CONTROVERSIES, EXCEPT IN THE VERY LIMITED
INSTANCES WHERE CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY RETAINED JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION. 
THE WHOLE STATUTE REVEALS THE RESTRICTED OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESORT TO
THE COURTS WHICH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO RESERVE,
EVEN THOUGH SUCH RESTRICTIONS WERE NOT FORMULATED WITH EXQUISITE OR
EXPLICIT PRECISION.  BY SECS. 3 FIRST (P) AND 9, 44 STAT. 577, 578,
585, 48 STAT. 1189, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 153 AND 159, CONGRESS GAVE COURTS
JURISDICTION, THUS SHOWING THAT THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES WAS
PRESENT IN THE MIND OF CONGRESS AND INDICATING THE STRICTLY DEFINED
LIMITS WITHIN WHICH THEY WERE AVAILABLE.  IN SHORT, THE POLICY OF THE
LEGISLATION, DERIVED FROM A LONG AND PAINFUL EXPERIENCE, IS TO KEEP
LABOR CONTROVERSIES ON THE RAILROADS OUT OF THE COURTS EXCEPT IN THE
FEW SPECIFICALLY DEFINED SITUATIONS WHERE CONGRESS HAS PUT THEM INTO
THE COURTS.  CONGRESS HAS MADE A DEPARTURE IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT
FROM THE NORMAL AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES, AND WE OUGHT NOT TO
READ THE NEW LAW THROUGH THE SPECTACLES OF THE OLD REMEDIES. 

A COURT WHICH HAS HELD THAT UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT A BOARD'S
INTERPRETATION OF ITS AUTHORITY GIVEN BY A PROVISION OF THE ACT IS
FINAL AND NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW DENIES THAT ANOTHER BOARD
UNDER THE ACT MAY DETERMINE FINALLY WHETHER THOSE WHO SUBMIT
CONTROVERSIES ON BEHALF OF THEIR MEMBERS HAVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH
SUBMISSION SO THAT THE BOARD MAY SETTLE SUCH DISPUTES, ALTHOUGH THE
DETERMINATION OF THE CONTROVERSY ITSELF IS NOT REVIEWABLE UNLESS IT
INVOLVES A MONEY AWARD.  SEE SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD, 320 U.S. 297.  RAILWAY LABOR ACT, SEC. 9 THIRD, 44 STAT. 577,
585, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 159.  THE ANSWER TO SUCH A MUTILATING CONSTRUCTION
OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WAS GIVEN BY THIS COURT IN GENERAL COMMITTEE
OF ADJUSTMENT V. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO., 320 U.S. 323, 333:  "THE
INFERENCE IS STRONG THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO GO NO FURTHER IN ITS USE
OF THE PROCESSES OF ADJUDICATION AND LITIGATION THAN THE EXPRESS
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INDICATE." 

FN1  UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, UNITED RAILROAD WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, UNITED OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN
NEWSPAPER GUILD, INDUSTRIAL UNION MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UNITED FARM EQUIPMENT & METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL & SMELTER WORKERS, NATIONAL MARITIME
UNION OF AMERICA, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS
OF AMERICA, UNITED TRANSPORT SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, STATE,
COUNTY & MUNICIPAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, FUR & LEATHER WORKERS UNION. 
..END :










COMMISSIONER V. FISHER, 327 U.S. 512 


NO. 452.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 11, 1946.  - 150
F.2D 198, REVERSED. 


1.  IN COMPUTING UNDER SEC. 115(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 THE
AMOUNT OF "EARNINGS OR PROFITS" DISTRIBUTED BY A FAMILY INVESTMENT
CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO SECURITIES WHICH IT HAD ACQUIRED BY TAX
FREE EXCHANGES FOR ITS OWN STOCK, THE BASIS IS THE TRANSFEROR'S COST
RATHER THAN THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THEIR
ACQUISITION BY THE CORPORATION.  COMMISSIONER V. WHEELER, 324 U.S.
542.  P. 514. 

2.  WHERE A DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS BY A FAMILY INVESTMENT CORPORATION
TO ONE OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS IN 1934 IMPOSED A TAX LIABILITY ON HIM UNDER
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, AS INTERPRETED IN COMMISSIONER V. WHEELER, 324
U.S. 542, THE TAXPAYER (WHOSE LIABILITY WAS PENDING BEFORE THE TAX
COURT ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1940) WAS NOT EXEMPTED FROM LIABILITY BY THE
PROVISO OF SEC. 501(C) OF THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF 1940 TO THE EFFECT
THAT NOTHING THEREIN "SHALL AFFECT THE TAX LIABILITY OF ANY TAXPAYER
FOR ANY YEAR WHICH, ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1940, WAS PENDING BEFORE  ...  THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, OR ANY COURT."  P. 514. 

(A)  THAT PROVISO DOES NOT GRANT A SPECIAL TAX EXEMPTION TO TAXPAYERS
WHO HAPPENED TO HAVE TAX LITIGATION PENDING IN SEPTEMBER 1940.  P.
514. 

(B)  IT MEANS THAT THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1940 ACT WAS NOT TO AFFECT
THE TAX LIABILITY OF THOSE WHO HAD CASES PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD OR
COURTS, WHATEVER THAT TAX LIABILITY MAY HAVE BEEN UNDER THE EARLIER
REVENUE LAWS.  P. 515. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.  V. FISHER ET AL., EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ASSESSED AN INCOME TAX
DEFICIENCY AGAINST RESPONDENTS.  THE TAX COURT OVERRULED THE
COMMISSIONER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 198. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 710.  REVERSED, P. 515. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1934 THE SENIOR INVESTMENT CORPORATION, ORGANIZED IN 1929 BY ONE
FISHER AND HIS WIFE FOR FAMILY INVESTMENT PURPOSES, DISTRIBUTED TO
FISHER 43,300 SHARES OF GENERAL MOTORS STOCK VALUED AT $1,723,881.25. 
FISHER AND HIS WIFE MADE A JOINT TAX RETURN BUT DID NOT REPORT THIS
AMOUNT AS INCOME.  THE TAXPAYERS CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE SENIOR
INVESTMENT CORPORATION SHOWED A BOOK DEFICIT FOR 1934, THE DISTRIBUTION
IN QUESTION WAS A "CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION" AND NOT A CORPORATE DEVIDEND
FROM "EARNINGS OR PROFITS," WHICH LATTER WAS THE TYPE OF DISTRIBUTION
TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 115(A) OF THE THEN CONTROLLING TAX LAW.  48 STAT.
680, 711.  THE COMMISSIONER DECIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES
JUSTIFIED A FINDING THAT THE DISTRIBUTION WAS TAXABLE AS A DIVIDEND
FROM "EARNINGS OR PROFITS":  WHEN THE SENIOR INVESTMENT CORPORATION WAS
ORGANIZED FISHER AND HIS WIFE PAID FOR THEIR SHARES OF STOCK WITH
SECURITIES WHICH HAD COST THEM $14,500,000 BUT HAD BY THE DATE OF
ORGANIZATION ACQUIRED A MARKET VALUE OF $88,000,000.  TO SHOW THAT THE
CORPORATION HAD A DEFICIT AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE DISTRIBUTION OF
GENERAL MOTORS STOCK WAS NOT FROM "EARNINGS OR PROFITS," THE TAXPAYERS
USED THE CORPORATION'S COMPUTATION BASED ON THE $88,000,000 RATHER THAN
THE $14,500,000 FIGURE.  THE COMMISSIONER DECIDED THAT THE $14,500,000
COST TO FISHER AND HIS WIFE OF THE SECURITIES THEY TRANSFERRED TO THE
CORPORATION IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARES OF ITS STOCK WAS THE PROPER BASE FOR
ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE CORPORATION COULD MAKE A DISTRIBUTION FROM
PROFITS; THAT THE USE OF THAT FIGURE WOULD SHOW A SURPLUS IN 1934; AND
THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL MOTORS STOCK WAS THEREFORE A
TAXABLE DIVIDEND FROM "EARNINGS OR PROFITS."  ON REVIEW THE TAX COURT
FOLLOWING ITS PRIOR HOLDINGS REJECTED THE COMMISSIONER'S ARGUMENT AND
DECIDED FOR THE RESPONDENTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
150 F.2D 198. 

SINCE SEC. 112 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 DID NOT TAX THE GAIN
RESULTING FROM TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY TO A CORPORATION IN EXCHANGE FOR
STOCK IN THAT CORPORATION, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT REJECTION OF THE
COMMISSIONER'S CONTENTION WOULD RESULT IN PERMITTING THE SEC. 112
EXEMPTION TO BE USED AS A DEVICE FOR EVADING TAXES CONGRESS INTENDED TO
IMPOSE ON MANY GAINS ACTUALLY REALIZED FROM SALES OF PROPERTY.  BUT WE
UPHELD THE VIEWS URGED BY THE COMMISSIONER HERE, IN COMMISSIONER V.
WHEELER, 324 U.S. 542, DECIDED ON THE SAME DAY THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS HANDED DOWN ITS DECISION IN THIS CASE.  IN THAT CASE WE HELD
THAT IN THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 974, 1004-1005,
CONGRESS CLARIFIED ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE IN ENACTING THE 1934 ACT AND
OTHERS TO REQUIRE THAT CORPORATE EARNINGS BE COMPUTED ON A BASIS OF
COST OF THE PROPERTY TO TRANSFERORS LIKE FISHER.  THAT DECISION WOULD
HAVE CONTROLLED THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE WERE IT NOT FOR THE FACT
THAT ON REHEARING THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A PROVISO IN
THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF 1940 EXCEPTED TAXPAYERS LIKE FISHER FROM
LIABILITY UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  THAT PROVISO STATED THAT THE
1940 ACT SHOULD NOT "AFFECT THE TAX LIABILITY OF ANY TAXPAYER FOR ANY
YEAR WHICH, ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1940, WAS PENDING BEFORE, OR WAS
THERETOFORE DETERMINED BY, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, OR ANY COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES."  THIS CASE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE TAX COURT ON
SEPTEMBER 20, 1940, AND RESPONDENTS HERE CONTEND THAT THE PROVISO WAS
INTENDED TO EXEMPT FISHER FROM THE TAX LIABILITY TO WHICH HE WOULD
OTHERWISE BE SUBJECT. 

IN OTHER WORDS, RESPONDENTS ASSERT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE
PROVISO TO PICK OUT A SMALL GROUP OF TAXPAYERS AND AWARD THEM SPECIAL
TAX EXEMPTIONS WHICH THE WHOLE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO DENY ALL OTHER
TAXPAYERS WHO DID NOT HAPPEN TO HAVE TAX LITIGATION PENDING IN
SEPTEMBER 1940.  THE PROVISO INDICATES NO SUCH PURPOSE.  THE PROVISO
MEANS WHAT IT SAYS, THAT THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1940 ACT WAS NOT TO
AFFECT THE TAX LIABILITY OF THOSE WHO HAD CASES BEFORE THE BOARD OR
COURTS, WHATEVER THAT TAX LIABILITY UNDER THE EARLIER REVENUE LAWS. 
UNDER THOSE EARLIER LAWS AS INTERPRETED BY US IN THE WHEELER CASE, THE
DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL MOTORS STOCK TO FISHER IMPOSED ON HIM A TAX
LIABILITY WHICH REMAINED UNAFFECTED BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1940
STATUTE.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





U.S. V. PIERCE AUTO LINES, 327 U.S. 515 


NO. 74.  ARGUED JANUARY 28, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 11, 1946.  - 57
F.SUPP.  192, REVERSED. 


1.  EACH OF TWO MOTOR CARRIERS MADE APPLICATION TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT FOR A
PERMIT TO OPERATE BETWEEN POINTS A AND C. ONE WAS THEN OPERATING
BETWEEN A AND B; THE OTHER BETWEEN B AND C; AND THEY OPERATED JOINT
SERVICE BETWEEN A AND C BY FREIGHT INTERCHANGE.  EACH APPLICANT OPPOSED
THE OTHER'S APPLICATION, AND COMPETING CARRIERS OPPOSED BOTH.  THE
APPLICATIONS WERE HEARD SEPARATELY BY DIFFERENT JOINT BOARDS BUT WERE
DEALT WITH BY THE COMMISSION IN A SINGLE REPORT.  HELD THAT AN ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION GRANTING BOTH APPLICATIONS WAS VALID.  PP. 517, 523. 

2.  NEITHER THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION DEALT WITH BOTH APPLICATIONS
IN ONE REPORT NOR THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION GRANTED BOTH
APPLICATIONS INVALIDATED ITS ORDER.  P. 523. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S DISPOSITION OF THE APPLICATIONS DID NOT INJECT
INTO THE PROCEEDINGS AS A "NEW ISSUE" THE QUESTION WHETHER BOTH
APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED.  P. 526. 

4.  THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT DETERMINE EACH CASE EXCLUSIVELY ON
THE RECORD THEREIN BUT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE IN BOTH PROCEEDINGS DOES
NOT WARRANT INVALIDATING ITS ORDER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING OF
SPECIFIC PREJUDICE.  P. 528. 

5.  WHERE THE COMMISSION'S REPORT CONTAINS ALL THE REQUIRED FINDINGS,
IT IS NOT OBLIGED TO ANNOTATE TO EACH FINDING THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING
IT.  P. 529. 

6.  THE FACT THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HAS CONSIDERED MATTERS
DEHORS THE RECORD DOES NOT INVALIDATE ITS ACTION UNLESS SUBSTANTIAL
PREJUDICE IS SHOWN.  P. 530. 

7.  THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION GRANTING BOTH APPLICATIONS WAS
SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE.  P. 530. 

8.  THE COMMISSION'S ULTIMATE FINDING AS TO THE FITNESS AND ABILITY
OF ONE OF THE APPLICANTS IN THIS CASE WAS SUPPORTED BY A SUFFICIENT
BASIC FINDING AND BY EVIDENCE.  P. 533. 

9.  REHEARINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ARE WITHIN THEIR OWN
DISCRETION, AND ONLY THE CLEAREST ABUSE, NOT SHOWN UPON THE RECORD IN
THIS CASE, WILL SUSTAIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.  ATCHISON, T. &
S.F.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 248, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 534. 

10.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND NOT THE REVIEWING COURT
IS THE ARBITER OF THE PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION
IS LIMITED TO ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE ORDER HAS SUPPORT IN THE LAW AND
IN THE RECORD.  P. 535. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. PIERCE AUTO FREIGHT LINES, INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF OREGON. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
SUSPENDED AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND REMANDED
THE CAUSE TO THE COMMISSION FOR A REHEARING.  57 F.SUPP.  192. 
REVERSED, P. 536. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS IN
QUESTION.  THE ORDER GRANTED TO APPELLANTS, CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS,
INC., AND OREGON-NEVADA-CALIFORNIA FAST FREIGHT, INC., CERTIFICATES OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AUTHORIZING EXTENSIONS OF THEIR
OPERATIONS AS MOTOR CARRIERS.  APPELLEES, COMPETING CARRIERS, SOME OF
WHOM ARE RAILWAY AFFILIATES, WERE PROTESTANTS IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE COMMISSION.  THEY SUCCESSFULLY ATTACKED THE ORDER IN A SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED DISTRICT COURT, ON GROUNDS QUESTIONING THE SUFFICIENCY OF
THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS THE PROPRIETY AND FAIRNESS OF
THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE, 57 F.SUPP. 
192, "SUSPENDED" THE ORDER AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE COMMISSION FOR
REHEARING ALTHOUGH A STAY PENDING APPEAL WAS DENIED. 

THE SHORTENED STATEMENT OF THE MAJOR THING IN CONTROVERSY IS WHETHER
THE APPELLANTS, CONSOLIDATED AND O.N.C., PROPERLY WERE ALLOWED BY THE
COMMISSION TO SUBSTITUTE WHOLLY INDEPENDENT AND COMPETING THROUGH
SERVICES BETWEEN PORTLAND, OREGON, AND SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, FOR
THE SERVICE WHICH THEY JOINTLY RENDERED BETWEEN THOSE CITIES, PRIOR TO
THE FILING OF THESE APPLICATIONS, BY INTERCHANGING FREIGHT AT
INTERMEDIATE POINTS.  THE PROTESTING APPELLEES WERE CARRIERS COMPETING
WITH THE JOINT SERVICE OF CONSOLIDATED AND O.N.C. AND WILL BE
COMPETITORS OF EACH, AS THOSE COMPANIES WILL BE WITH EACH OTHER, IF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IS SUSTAINED.  THIS FACT IS THE SOURCE OF THE
CONTROVERSY AND IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND FOR FULL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE DETAILED FACTS AND ISSUES AS WELL AS OF WHAT IS ULTIMATELY AT
STAKE.  ALTHOUGH EACH APPELLANT ORIGINALLY SOUGHT EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY
TO CONDUCT THE PROPOSED THROUGH OPERATION IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE
FORMER JOINT SERVICE, AND THUS OPPOSED THE OTHER'S APPLICATION, BOTH
NOW SEEK TO SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, AS OF COURSE DOES THE
COMMISSION ITSELF. 

AT THE TIME OF CONSOLIDATED'S APPLICATION IN DECEMBER, 1939, IT
OPERATED VARIOUS ROUTES IN THE NORTHWEST, SOME EXTENDING EASTWARD FROM
THE PORTLAND AND SEATTLE AREAS, IN ADDITION TO THE JOINT SERVICE BY
INTERCHANGE WITH O.N.C. SOUTHWARD FROM PORTLAND TO SAN FRANCISCO.  FN1
TWO OF THESE ROUTES, COMPRISING PART OF THE LATTER SERVICE, EXTENDED
FROM PORTLAND SOUTHERLY TO MEDFORD AND KLAMATH FALLS, BOTH OF WHICH LIE
JUST NORTH OF THE OREGON-CALIFORNIA BOUNDARY AND WERE POINTS OF
INTERCHANGE WITH O.N.C.  FN2  IN SO FAR AS IT IS NOW PERTINENT,
CONSOLIDATED'S APPLICATION SOUGHT PERMISSION TO EXTEND ITS OPERATIONS
FROM MEDFORD AND KLAMATH FALLS SOUTHWARD TO SAN FRANCISCO, FN3  IN
OTHER WORDS, OVER THE PORTION OF THE ROUTE PREVIOUSLY USED IN THE JOINT
SERVICE FOR O.N.C.'S OPERATIONS. 

CONVERSELY, AT THE TIME OF O.N.C.'S APPLICATION IN JANUARY, 1940, IT
WAS OPERATING FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO MEDFORD AND KLAMATH FALLS.  FN4  IT
SOUGHT TO EXTEND ITS OPERATIONS FROM MEDFORD TO PORTLAND AND, AS AN
ALTERNATIVE SLIGHTLY LONGER ROUTE, FROM KLAMATH FALLS TO PORTLAND
THROUGH GOSHEN, OREGON.  FN5 

THUS, IN EFFECT, CONSOLIDATED AND O.N.C. EACH SOUGHT TO CONDUCT
OPERATIONS INDEPENDENTLY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DISTANCE BETWEEN
PORTLAND AND SAN FRANCISCO.  FN6  THE OCCASION FOR THE SEPARATE
APPLICATIONS WAS O.N.C.'S REFUSAL TO JOIN AN ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTING
CARRIERS WHICH CONSOLIDATED WAS SPONSORING.  FN7 

THE APPLICATIONS WERE HEARD SEPARATELY, AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES,
BEFORE DIFFERENT JOINT BOARDS.  FN8  HOWEVER, BECAUSE THEY WERE SO
CLOSELY RELATED IN THEIR COMMON FEATURES, THE HEARINGS WERE HELD AT THE
SAME PLACES AND ONE APPLICATION WAS HEARD IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE OTHER. 
EACH APPLICANT INTERVENED IN THE PROCEEDING ON THE OTHER'S APPLICATION,
AND VARIOUS PARTIES, INCLUDING THE APPELLEES,  FN9  APPEARED IN
OPPOSITION IN BOTH PROCEEDINGS.  THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT MUCH OF
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE O.N.C. HEARING SHOULD BE INTRODUCED BY
REFERENCE INTO THE CONSOLIDATED RECORD.  THIS INCLUDED ALL OF THE
APPELLEES' AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO THE TWO APPLICATIONS. 
THE HEARINGS THUS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY COORDINATED, THOUGH NOT
TECHNICALLY CONSOLIDATED, FOR THE COMMON FEATURES OF THE APPLICATIONS. 

AS NEITHER JOINT BOARD COULD AGREE UPON THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE
MADE, BOTH MATTERS WERE REFERRED TO AN EXAMINER.  FN10  IN SEPARATE
REPORTS HE RECOMMENDED THE DENIAL OF BOTH APPLICATIONS.  DIVISION 5,
WITH ONE COMMISSIONER DISSENTING, DEALT WITH BOTH IN A SINGLE REPORT. 
IT REVERSED THE EXAMINER IN BOTH CASES AND ORDERED THAT EACH
APPLICATION BE GRANTED.  FN11 APPELLEES' PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS
DENIED.  THEY THEREUPON BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN12 

THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE COURT'S OPINION, 57 F.SUPP.  192,
DISCLOSE THAT IT HELD THE COMMISSION'S ORDER INVALID ON SEVERAL
GROUNDS.  ONE WAS THAT "THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE SEPARATE RECORDS
AS THOUGH THE CASE WAS A CONSOLIDATED ONE.  EVIDENCE WHICH APPEARED
ONLY IN ONE RECORD WAS USED BY THE COMMISSION TO SUPPORT GENERAL
FINDINGS IN THE REPORT CONCERNING BOTH CONSOLIDATED AND O.N.C. IN EACH
PROCEEDING EMBRACED WITHIN THE REPORT AND THE COMMISSION'S ORDER,
EVIDENCE NOT OFFERED OR RECEIVED IN SUCH PROCEEDING AND NOT A PART OF
THE RECORD THEREIN WAS DRAWN UPON AND CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION." 
THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN EITHER RECORD TO
SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT "THE PRESENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE BOTH THE OPERATIONS" BY CONSOLIDATED
AND THOSE BY O.N.C.  AND IT FURTHER FOUND THAT AT NO TIME IN THE
PROCEEDING HAD THERE BEEN NOTICE TO THE PARTIES, THE WITNESSES, OR THE
GENERAL PUBLIC THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS MIGHT BE GRANTED; THAT INDEED
"THE WHOLE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE JOINT BOARDS
WAS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ANY THROUGH-LINE OPERATION BETWEEN SAN
FRANCISCO AND PORTLAND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND, IF SO, WHICH ONE OF THE
TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS"; AND THAT "NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO
PLAINTIFFS TO MAINTAIN THEIR RIGHTS OR TO PRESENT APPROPRIATE PROTESTS
AND DEFENSES TO THE INSTITUTION OF TWO COMPETING THROUGH-LINE
OPERATIONS BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND PORTLAND."  FINALLY THE COURT HELD
THAT IN GRANTING BOTH APPLICATIONS THE COMMISSION HAD NOT CONSIDERED
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND SUGGESTED THAT ITS DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING WAS IMPROPER.  FN13 

FOR ALL THESE SUPPOSED ERRORS THE DISTRICT COURT SUSPENDED THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER AND REMANDED THE CAUSE "FOR REHEARING."  IN DOING SO
IT SAID:  "THIS ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN ORDER THAT ALL PARTIES MAY BE
PLACED ON NOTICE AS TO WHAT TYPE HEARING WILL BE HELD, WHETHER JOINT OR
SEVERAL, AND IN ORDER THAT APPROPRIATE FINDINGS BE MADE AS TO THE
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WHICH REQUIRES THE AUTHORIZATION OF
TWO NEW THROUGH-LINES IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER AND IN COMPETITION
WITH THE OTHER FACILITIES, AND ALSO AS TO THE ABILITY OF CONSOLIDATED
TO INITIATE AND MAINTAIN ONE OF SUCH LINES IN VIEW OF PRESENT
CONDITIONS."  57 F.SUPP.  AT 198. 

OBVIOUSLY THE COURT'S OBJECTION WAS NOT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE
PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN THE HEARINGS ENDED
AND THE COMMISSION TOOK THE CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION.  UP TO THIS
POINT NO FAULT IS FOUND WITH WHAT WAS DONE.  THE DIFFICULTY LAY
ALTOGETHER, IN THE COURT'S VIEW, WITH THE WAY IN WHICH IT THOUGHT THE
COMMISSION HAD CONSIDERED THE CASES AND REACHED ITS CONCLUSIONS.  AND
THIS AROSE ENTIRELY FROM THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION DISPOSED OF THEM
IN A SINGLE REPORT, RATHER THAN IN SEPARATE ONES FOR EACH CASE; AND
FROM THE FURTHER FACT THAT IT CONCLUDED THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS SHOULD
BE GRANTED RATHER THAN THAT BOTH SHOULD BE DENIED OR ONE DENIED AND ONE
GRANTED. 

WE ARE NOT INFORMED, OF COURSE, WHETHER THE COURT WOULD HAVE REACHED
THE SAME RESULT IF THE COMMISSION HAD WRITTEN SEPARATE REPORTS IN EACH
CASE, ARRIVING AT THE SAME CONCLUSIONS, ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS SUGGESTED
THAT ANY OF THE OTHER POSSIBLE RESULTS WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPECCABLE,
WHETHER STATED IN SEPARATE REPORTS OR A SINGLE ONE.  OBVIOUSLY IT WAS
NO SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR SUSPENDING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER THAT IT
CHOSE TO WRITE ONE REPORT RATHER THAN TWO, ESPECIALLY IN MATTERS AS
CLOSELY RELATED AS THESE, IF THE SINGLE REPORT TOGETHER WITH THE
FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE ACTION TAKEN IN
EACH CASE.  IT IS NOT UNCOMMON JUDICIAL PRACTICE TO FOLLOW THIS
COURSE. 

NOR, WITH THOSE CONDITIONS SATISFIED, COULD THE MERE FACT THAT THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED TO GRANT RATHER THAN TO DENY BOTH APPLICATIONS, OR
TO GRANT ONE AND DENY THE OTHER, INVALIDATE ITS JUDGMENT.  FOR EACH
APPLICATION WHEN IT WAS FILED SOUGHT TO CONDUCT THE EXTENDED OPERATION
WHICH IT SPECIFIED; FN14  NOTHING IN EITHER FORECLOSED THE POSSIBILITY
THAT BOTH MIGHT BE GRANTED, ALTHOUGH FOR OBVIOUS REASONS EACH APPLICANT
OPPOSED THE GRANTING OF THE OTHER'S EXTENSION; AND FROM THE BEGINNING
IT WAS AS MUCH A POSSIBLE OUTCOME THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS WOULD BE
GRANTED AS THAT BOTH WOULD BE DENIED OR ONE BE GRANTED AND ONE DENIED. 
IF THEREFORE THE COMMISSION HAD WRITTEN SEPARATE REPORTS IN EACH CASE,
REACHING THE SAME RESULT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SQUARELY WITHIN THE ISSUES
AND WITHIN THE OUTCOMES COMPREHENDED FROM THE BEGINNING; AND THE ONLY
QUESTIONS FOR JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION, ABSENT SOME PROCEDURAL DEVIATION
NOT NOW PRESENTED, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE FINDINGS AND
THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN ITS ACTION IN EACH CASE.  WE THINK THOSE ARE
THE ONLY QUESTIONS OF ANY SUBSTANCE ARISING UPON THIS APPEAL. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, REGARDED THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO
WRITE SEPARATE REPORTS AS INDICATING THAT IT DID NOT CONSIDER EACH CASE
SEPARATELY AND EXCLUSIVELY ON ITS OWN RECORD, BUT LOOKED TO THE
EVIDENCE IN BOTH IN FORMING ITS JUDGMENT.  THIS "APPROACH" THE COURT
THOUGHT WRONG, NOT ONLY AS SHOWING THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED
EVIDENCE IN EACH CASE WHICH IT HAD NO RIGHT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, BUT
ALSO AS INJECTING A NEW AND IMPORTANT ISSUE IN BOTH PROCEEDINGS NOT
PREVIOUSLY REGARDED BY THE PARTIES AS COMPREHENDED WITHIN THE
APPLICATIONS AND THE HEARINGS.  THE "NEW ISSUE" THOUGHT TO BE THUS
INJECTED WAS THE POSSIBILITY THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS MIGHT BE GRANTED. 
FROM THIS BASIC IDEA OTHER ERRORS WERE PYRAMIDED, AMONG THEM THAT THE
PROTESTING APPELLEES HAD BEEN GIVEN NO NOTICE OF THE KIND OF PROCEEDING
WHICH WOULD BE HELD AND HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF ANY OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
PROPER PROTESTS AND EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE ALLEGEDLY NEWLY INJECTED
ISSUE. 

THE CASE HAS TAKEN LONGER TO STATE THAN THE MERITS SHOULD REQUIRE FOR
ITS DISPOSITION.  APPELLEES PLANT THEMSELVES HERE SQUARELY ON THE
DISTRICT COURT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION'S "APPROACH" AND
PROCEDURE.  TWO PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS THUS ARE PRESENTED:  (1) WAS
EVIDENCE IMPROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION, SO AS TO REQUIRE
REVERSAL OF ITS ORDER; AND (2) WERE NEW ISSUES INJECTED BY ITS ACTION
IN DISPOSING OF THE CASES WITH A SINGLE REPORT?  OTHER ISSUES MORE OR
LESS RELATED MAY BE SHORTLY DISPOSED OF. 

WE PUT TO ONE SIDE, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE IDEA THAT THE COMMISSION,
BY THE MANNER IN WHICH IT DISPOSED OF THE CAUSES, INJECTED AS A "NEW
ISSUE" THE QUESTION WHETHER BOTH APPLICATIONS MIGHT BE GRANTED AND WITH
IT THE CORRELATIVE NOTIONS THAT THE APPELLEES HAD NO NOTICE THAT THIS
ISSUE WOULD BE INVOLVED AND NO OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE APPROPRIATE PROTESTS
OR TO PRESENT EVIDENCE UPON IT.  IN A STRICT VIEW NEITHER THE APPELLEES
NOR THE COURT WERE ENTITLED TO RAISE THESE QUESTIONS.  FOR IT WAS NOT
AT ANY TIME SUGGESTED TO THE COMMISSION, AS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN UPON
PETITION FOR REHEARING, THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN CONDUCTED ON THE
THEORY THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS WOULD NOT BE GRANTED.  APPELLEES STATED
IN THEIR PETITION FOR REHEARING ONLY THAT "DIVISION 5 HAS ERRONEOUSLY
AND IMPROPERLY ASSUMED THAT IN GRANTING ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS IT IS
BY FORCE OF NECESSITY REQUIRED TO GRANT THE OTHER  ..."  THIS IS VERY
DIFFERENT FROM SUGGESTING THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ENTITLED AT ALL
TO CONSIDER GRANTING BOTH APPLICATIONS.  IT IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE
THEREFORE WHETHER THE APPELLEES HAVE NOT WAIVED THIS QUESTION.  BUT THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN RAISING IT, HAS SAID THAT IT WAS ACTING IN
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WE PASS THEREFORE TO
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE ON ITS MERITS. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT, BY THE MANNER IN WHICH IT DISPOSED OF THE
CAUSE, INJECT AS A "NEW ISSUE" THE QUESTION WHETHER BOTH APPLICATIONS
MIGHT BE GRANTED.  IF THE APPELLEES ACTUALLY ASSUMED IN THE BEGINNING
THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS COULD NOT BE GRANTED, THEIR ASSUMPTION WAS IN
THE TEETH OF THE APPLICATIONS AND THE PERMISSIBLE OUTCOMES PRESENTED
FOR THE COMMISSION'S DECISION. 

AS HAS BEEN SAID, THE TWO APPLICATIONS WERE SEPARATELY INSTITUTED AND
HEARD.  IN THE NATURAL COURSE OF EVENTS EACH JOINT BOARD WAS TO DECIDE
WHETHER TO GRANT OR TO DENY THE PARTICULAR APPLICATION BEFORE IT.  THE
POSSIBILITIES THEREFORE WERE THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS MIGHT BE DENIED,
THAT ONE MIGHT BE GRANTED AND THE OTHER DENIED, OR THAT BOTH MIGHT BE
GRANTED.  MOREOVER, THE RECORD CONTAINS EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE
POSSIBILITY OF GRANTING BOTH APPLICATIONS WAS IN THE MINDS OF COUNSEL
AND WITNESSES.  FN15  AND THIS POSSIBILITY MUST HAVE BEEN APPARENT FROM
THE BEGINNING, NOT ONLY FROM THE HISTORY OF THE PRIOR OPERATIONS AND
THE PRIMARY CAUSE FOR THEIR IMPENDING DISRUPTION, BUT ALSO FROM THE
OBVIOUS RELATIONS OF THE APPLICATIONS TO EACH OTHER, THE EQUALLY
OBVIOUS CONSEQUENCES TO THE APPLICANTS OF GRANTING ONE AND DENYING THE
OTHER, AND THE COMMISSION'S RECOGNITION OF THESE FACTS BY THE MANNER IN
WHICH IT SCHEDULED THE HEARINGS FOR SUBSTANTIALLY CONCURRENT
TREATMENT.  THE PARTIES TOO APPARENTLY GAVE SIMILAR RECOGNITION TO THE
QUESTIONED POSSIBLE OUTCOME BY THEIR STIPULATION FOR THE USE OF
EVIDENCE IN BOTH PROCEEDINGS. 

THE ISSUE CONCERNING WHETHER BOTH APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED WAS
INJECTED, NOT BY THE COMMISSION'S REPORT OR ANY OTHER ACTION TAKEN BY
IT, BUT BY THE FILING OF THE APPLICATIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE.  IF
APPELLEES MISCONCEIVED THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS RESPECT,
AS WE DO NOT THINK WAS THE CASE, THEY WERE NOT MISLED INTO DOING SO BY
ANY ACTION OF THE COMMISSION OR THE OTHER APPELLANTS. 

WE TURN THEREFORE TO THE OBJECTIONS MADE ON THE SCORE OF THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND ITS TREATMENT OF THE EVIDENCE.  IN OUR
OPINION THEY ARE EQUALLY UNTENABLE.  THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE OF COMPLAINT
IN THESE RESPECTS IS THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER EACH CASE
EXCLUSIVELY ON ITS OWN RECORD BUT LOOKED TO THE EVIDENCE IN BOTH
PROCEEDINGS IN FORMING ITS JUDGMENT.  IF THIS IS TRUE AND IF IT HAS
RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLEES, AS MIGHT OCCUR, FOR
EXAMPLE, IF THE COMMISSION WERE SHOWN PREJUDICIALLY TO HAVE CONSIDERED
EVIDENCE BEARING ON ONE CASE WHICH DID NOT AFFECT IT AND WAS PRESENTED
IN THE OTHER, AND WHICH APPELLEES WERE GIVEN NO OPPORTUNITY TO MEET,
THE ORDERS, OR ONE OF THEM, WOULD BE IMPROPERLY GROUNDED. 

BUT NO SHOWING OF THIS SORT HAS BEEN MADE.  IT IS TO BE RECALLED THAT
ALL OF THE APPELLEES, AS WELL AS BOTH OF THE APPLICANTS, WERE PARTIES
TO BOTH PROCEEDINGS; WERE REPRESENTED AT ALL OF THE HEARINGS, WHICH
WERE CONDUCTED AT SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TIMES AND PLACES; AND WERE
GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE THEY CONSIDERED
PERTINENT, TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND OTHERWISE TO PROTECT THEIR
INTERESTS.  MOREOVER, LARGE PORTIONS OF THE EVIDENCE APPLIED AS MUCH TO
ONE APPLICATION AS TO ANOTHER.  THIS WAS TRUE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE
PROOFS RELATING TO TRAFFIC CONDITIONS, SHIPPER DEMANDS, THE NEED FOR
FASTER SERVICE AND MECHANICAL REFRIGERATION, AND OTHER ITEMS.  IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW APPELLEES COULD HAVE SUSTAINED
SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE FROM THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THE
EVIDENCE UPON MATTERS AS CLOSELY RELATED AS THOSE IN ISSUE IN THESE TWO
PROCEEDINGS. 

NOR INDEED DO THEY SUCCEED IN SHOWING SUCH PREJUDICE.  AS WE
UNDERSTAND THEM, THE MOST THAT THEY ASSERT IS THAT THE COMMISSION'S
REPORT SO COMMINGLES THE TWO CASES THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE
WHICH STATEMENTS ARE SUPPORTED BY WHICH RECORD.  BUT NEITHER IN THE
BRIEFS, NOR UPON SPECIFIC INQUIRY AT THE ARGUMENT, WERE THEY ABLE TO
POINT TO ANY PARTICULAR INSTANCE OF PREJUDICE.  NOR IN FACT DOES THE
OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ALTHOUGH IT ASSERTS THAT THE REPORT IS
FILLED WITH NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF THIS SORT.  THE ASSERTION, WE THINK,
IS COLORED BY THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS IDEA THAT THE REPORT FIRST INJECTED
THE QUESTION WHETHER BOTH APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED; AND TO THE
SAME CAUSE, IT WOULD SEEM, MAY BE ATTRIBUTED THE COURT'S UNDUE
DISCOUNTING OF THE FACT THAT UPON THIS ISSUE, AS ON THE ALTERNATIVE
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES, MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE WAS IDENTICAL, MADE SO BY THE
PARTIES' OWN STIPULATION.  IN ANY EVENT THE APPELLEES HAVE NOT POINTED
TO ANY SPECIFIC STATEMENT IN THE REPORT WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY APPLICABLE
TO BOTH CASES OR WHICH IS REQUIRED AS A BASIC FINDING TO SUPPORT THE
ORDER IN ONE, WHICH IS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN BOTH RECORDS OR IN THE ONE
WHICH IS APPROPRIATE. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING OF SPECIFIC PREJUDICE, THE CLAIM COMES
DOWN TO THE HIGHLY TECHNICAL OBJECTION THAT THE COMMISSION, IN THE
FINAL STAGE OF FORMING ITS JUDGMENT, COULD NOT IN EITHER CASE TAKE
ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN THE OTHER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CLOSELY
RELATED CHARACTER AND OBJECTS OF THE APPLICATIONS AND THE PRIOR
PROCEEDINGS.  THE CONTENTION IN ITS FARTHEST REACH AMOUNTS TO A LEGAL
VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURAL INJUNCTION AGAINST LETTING ONE'S RIGHT HAND
KNOW WHAT ONE'S LEFT HAND MAY BE DOING. 

OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT NEITHER WITH GOOD SENSE NOR, WE
THINK, WITH THE TYPE OF HEARING ASSURED BY THE STATUTE TO FORCE THE
COMMISSION TO PUT ON SUCH COMPLETE BLINDERS.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE
LIMITS OUTSIDE WHICH IT CANNOT GO IN LOOKING BEYOND THE RECORD IN THE
PARTICULAR PROCEEDING AT THE STAGE OF FORMULATING ITS JUDGMENT, NONE
CERTAINLY WOULD GO SO FAR.  AND, GIVEN THAT THE REPORT CONTAINS ALL THE
ESSENTIAL FINDINGS REQUIRED, CF. FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S.
194, THE COMMISSION IS NOT COMPELLED TO ANNOTATE TO EACH FINDING THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT. 

IT IS TRUE THAT ORDINARILY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WILL ACT
APPROPRIATELY, IN A PROCEEDING OF THIS SORT, UPON THE RECORD PRESENTED
AND SUCH MATTERS AS PROPERLY MAY RECEIVE ITS ATTENTION THROUGH
"OFFICIAL NOTICE."  FN16  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THIS COURT, IN
APPROPRIATE INSTANCES, HAS LIMITED THE USE OF THE LATTER IMPLEMENT IN
ORDER TO ASSURE THAT THE PARTIES WILL NOT BE DEPRIVED OF A FAIR
HEARING.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN R. CO., 265 U.S. 274,
286-290; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R.
CO., 227 U.S. 88, 93-94.  BUT IN DOING SO IT HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO MAKE
A FETISH OF STICKING SQUARELY WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE SPECIFIC
RECORD IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OR OF PINNING DOWN SUCH AGENCIES,
WITH REFERENCE TO FACT DETERMINATIONS, EVEN MORE RIGIDLY THAN THE
COURTS IN STRICTLY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  ON THE CONTRARY, IN THE ONE
CASE AS IN THE OTHER, THE MERE FACT THAT THE DETERMINING BODY HAS
LOOKED BEYOND THE RECORD PROPER DOES NOT INVALIDATE ITS ACTION UNLESS
SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE IS SHOWN TO RESULT.  MARKET STREET R. CO. V.
RAILROAD COMM'N, 324 U.S. 548, 561-562; CF. OPP COTTON MILLS V.
ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 154-155.  IN THESE CASES NO MORE IS
NECESSARY THAN TO APPLY THAT RULE. 

THE REMAINING OBJECTIONS ARE DIRECTED MORE APPROPRIATELY TO THE
FINDINGS AND THEIR SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  APPELLEES SAY THAT THE
ORDER GRANTING BOTH APPLICATIONS IS DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT IS NOT FOUNDED
UPON AN EXPRESS FINDING OR INDEED UPON ANY FINDING THAT THERE WAS A
NEED FOR TWO THROUGH-LINE OPERATIONS WHICH WOULD BE IN COMPETITION WITH
ONE ANOTHER.  THEY URGE THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE COMMISSION
TO FIND, AS IT DID ON ADEQUATE EVIDENCE, THAT THE EXISTING SERVICE
BETWEEN PORTLAND AND SAN FRANCISCO WAS INADEQUATE; AND TO CONCLUDE, AS
THE REPORT EXPRESSLY STATED, THAT IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, AMONG OTHERS,
"PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE OPERATIONS SET FORTH IN
OUR FINDINGS HEREIN."  FN17  THIS STATEMENT WAS ADDITIONAL TO THE
EXPLICIT CONCLUSION ALREADY NOTED  FN18  THAT THE SITUATION PRESENTED
BY THE APPLICATIONS WAS ONE WHICH REQUIRED EITHER GRANTING BOTH OR
DENYING BOTH.  AND THE FINDINGS EXPRESSLY STATED, CONCERNING EACH
APPLICATION, THAT THE "PRESENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY REQUIRE" THE EXTENDED OPERATIONS.  FN19 

APART FROM THE FACT THAT THIS WAS ALL THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRED, CF.
UNITED STATES V. DETROIT & CLEVELAND NAVIGATION CO., 326 U.S. 236, AND
THE FURTHER FACT THAT THERE CAN BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE COMMISSION
DISREGARDED THE PUBLIC OR ANY OTHER INTEREST, THERE ARE TWO OBVIOUS
ANSWERS.  ONE IS THAT THE COMMISSION, IN MAKING THE SEPARATELY STATED
FINDINGS, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBLIVIOUS TO THE COMPETITIVE CONSEQUENCES
OF ITS ORDER OR THE RELATION OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  FN20  THE OTHER IS THAT THOSE FINDINGS, READ IN THE LIGHT OF
THE REPORT, ADEQUATELY AND EXPRESSLY COVER THE ELEMENT OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, INCLUDING THE COMPETITIVE FACTORS WHICH THE
COMMISSION INESCAPABLY HAD IN MIND.  ONLY THE MOST HYPERCRITICAL
READING OF THE FINDINGS, AND ONE WHICH IGNORES THE REPORT'S EXPLICIT
STATEMENTS IN MANY RESPECTS, COULD CONSTRUE THEM AS MEANING ONLY THAT
EACH OPERATION WAS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WITHOUT
ANY REGARD TO THE COMPETITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF GRANTING BOTH.  THE
COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO REWRITE ITS REPORT SIMPLY TO SAY,
REDUNDANTLY WE THINK, THAT BOTH OPERATIONS, AS WELL AS EACH, ARE
REQUIRED BY PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. 

APPELLEES FURTHER SAY THAT, EVEN IF THE COMMISSION WAS CORRECT IN
GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO O.N.C.,
IT IMPROPERLY GRANTED SUCH A CERTIFICATE TO CONSOLIDATED.  SECTION
207(A) REQUIRES THAT THE COMMISSION FIND "THAT THE APPLICANT IS FIT,
WILLING, AND ABLE PROPERLY TO PERFORM THE SERVICE PROPOSED" AND THE
DISTRICT COURT MADE A FINDING OF FACT THAT "THE COMMISSION FAILED TO
FIND, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN EITHER RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH A
FINDING, THAT CONSOLIDATED IS ADEQUATELY EQUIPPED  ...  UNDER ANY
CONDITIONS." 

THE COURT UNDOUBTEDLY DID NOT MEAN THAT THERE WAS NO FINDING WHATEVER
AS TO FITNESS, WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY, FOR THE COMMISSION DID MAKE
SUCH A FINDING IN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  WHAT WAS OBVIOUSLY MEANT WAS
THAT SUCH AN ULTIMATE FINDING WAS NOT ENOUGH, AS OF COURSE IT WAS NOT,
SEE FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, IN THE ABSENCE OF A BASIC FINDING
TO SUPPORT IT; AND THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH BASIC FINDING. 

WE DO NOT AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH BASIC FINDING.  THE
PARAGRAPH OF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT SET OUT IN THE MARGIN  FN21  WAS A
SUFFICIENT FINDING, THOUGH INARTISTICALLY DRAWN, CONCERNING
CONSOLIDATED'S FINANCIAL FITNESS AND ABILITY.  NOR WAS THERE A LACK OF
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS.  FN22 

FINALLY, THE DISTRICT COURT REMANDED THE CASES FOR REHEARING IN ORDER
FOR THE COMMISSION, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO DETERMINE CONSOLIDATED'S
FITNESS "TO INITIATE AND MAINTAIN ONE OF SUCH LINES IN VIEW OF PRESENT
CONDITIONS."  THIS ACTION WAS UNWARRANTED.  THE RECORDS IN THE TWO
PROCEEDINGS WERE CLOSED IN OCTOBER, 1940.  THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS
REPORT AND ORDER ON MARCH 1, 1943.  A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS FILED
BY THE APPELLEES AND OTHER PROTESTANTS ON APRIL 30, 1943, AND WAS
DENIED BY THE COMMISSION ON AUGUST 2, 1943.  FN23  THE CERTIFICATES
WERE ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 7 AND 15, 1943.  SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT ON JANUARY 13, 1944.  THE COURT RENDERED ITS DECISION ON
SEPTEMBER 20, 1944, SUGGESTING THAT THE COMMISSION HAD IMPROPERLY
DENIED THE PETITION FOR REHEARING.  ITS VIEW WAS THAT THE RECORD WAS SO
STALE, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE WAR UPON
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, THAT APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 248, WAS PROPER. 

THAT CASE, AS HAS BEEN INDICATED MORE THAN ONCE, WAS "PROMPTLY
RESTRICTED  ...  TO ITS SPECIAL FACTS, UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY. CO., 288 U.S. 490, AND IT STANDS VIRTUALLY ALONE." 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. JERSEY CITY, 322 U.S. 503, 515; SEE
ALSO BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 349, 389. 
EXCEPT IN THE SINGLE INSTANCE, IT HAS BEEN HELD CONSISTENTLY THAT
REHEARINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ARE ADDRESSED TO THEIR OWN
DISCRETION.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. JERSEY CITY, SUPRA.
ONLY A SHOWING OF THE CLEAREST ABUSE OF DISCRETION COULD SUSTAIN AN
EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE.  THE COMMISSION WAS WELL ACQUAINTED WITH THE
IMPACT OF THE WAR UPON FACILITIES FOR TRANSPORT AND UPON THE
TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS IN GENERAL.  IN ADDITION TO ITS OWN EXPERT
KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS, IT HAD BEFORE IT NOT ONLY THE FACTS
SET FORTH IN THE PETITION FOR REHEARING  FN24  BUT ALSO THOSE ALLEGED
IN THE EXTENDED REPLIES FILED BY THE APPLICANTS. 

WE THINK THE COURT MISCONCEIVED NOT ONLY THE EFFECTS OF THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION IN THESE CASES BUT ALSO ITS OWN FUNCTION.  IT IS
NOT TRUE, AS THE OPINION STATED, THAT "...  THE COURTS MUST IN A
LITIGATED CASE, BE THE ARBITERS OF THE PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST." 
FN25  THIS IS RATHER THE BUSINESS OF THE COMMISSION, MADE SUCH BY THE
VERY TERMS OF THE STATUTE.  THE FUNCTION OF THE REVIEWING COURT IS MUCH
MORE RESTRICTED.  IT IS LIMITED TO ASCERTAINING WHETHER THERE IS
WARRANT IN THE LAW AND THE FACTS FOR WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE. 
UNLESS IN SOME SPECIFIC RESPECT THERE HAS BEEN PREJUDICIAL DEPARTURE
FROM REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW OR ABUSE OF THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION,
THE REVIEWING COURT IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE.  IT CANNOT
SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN VIEW CONCERNING WHAT SHOULD BE DONE, WHETHER WITH
REFERENCE TO COMPETITIVE CONSIDERATIONS OR OTHERS, FOR THE COMMISSION'S
JUDGMENT UPON MATTERS COMMITTED TO ITS DETERMINATION, IF THAT HAS
SUPPORT IN THE RECORD AND THE APPLICABLE LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THERE ARE TWO MAIN NORTH-SOUTH HIGHWAYS BETWEEN THE SAN
FRANCISCO AND PORTLAND AREAS, U.S. 101, THE SO-CALLED COAST ROUTE, AND
U.S. 99, ROUGHLY PARALLEL BUT SOME MILES INLAND, CALLED THE VALLEY
ROUTE.  THE JOINT SERVICE WAS CONDUCTED OVER THE LATTER AND THE
APPLICATIONS OF CONSOLIDATED AND O.N.C. EACH SOUGHT TO EXTEND
OPERATIONS OVER THIS ROUTE. 

FN2  THE JOINT SERVICE FOLLOWED HIGHWAY 99 FROM SAN FRANCISCO NEARLY
TO THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF CALIFORNIA, FROM WHERE PART CONTINUED ON
NO. 99 TO MEDFORD AND THE REMAINDER FOLLOWED A SEPARATE HIGHWAY TO
KLAMATH FALLS, THIS LEG OF THE JOURNEY BEING MADE WITH O.N.C.'S
EQUIPMENT IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  CONSOLIDATED'S "LEG" BETWEEN PORTLAND AT
THE NORTH AND MEDFORD AND KLAMATH FALLS AT THE SOUTH FOLLOWED
DIFFERENT, BUT SUBSTANTIALLY PARALLEL, HIGHWAYS, THE WESTERLY ROUTE
BEING NO. 99.    FN3  CONSOLIDATED ALSO SOUGHT AUTHORITY TO EXTEND ITS
SERVICE FROM MARSHFIELD, OREGON, TO SAN FRANCISCO OVER THE COAST ROUTE,
SEE NOTE 1, AND FROM LAKEVIEW, OREGON, TO REDDING, CALIFORNIA, THROUGH
ALTURAS, CALIFORNIA. 

FN4  O.N.C. ALSO OPERATED A ROUTE FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO ELKO,
NEVADA. 

FN5  O.N.C. ALSO SOUGHT AUTHORITY TO SERVE MARSHFIELD, OREGON, AND
OTHER POINTS IN THE COOS BAY AREA. 

FN6  THE COMMISSION STATED IN ITS REPORT:  "...  O.N.C. AND
CONSOLIDATED HAVE INTERCHANGED FREIGHT AT MEDFORD FOR OVER 11 YEARS AND
AT KLAMATH FALLS FOR OVER 6 YEARS TO GIVE JOINT THROUGH SERVICE BETWEEN
POINTS SERVED BY EACH.  SINCE JULY 1939 ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THE TONNAGE
HAS BEEN HANDLED THROUGH INTERCHANGE OF TRAILERS.  AT FIRST, THE AMOUNT
OF INTERCHANGED TRAFFIC WAS SMALL AND CONSOLIDATED'S PRINCIPAL BUSINESS
WAS OF A LOCAL NATURE TO AND FROM MEDFORD.  APPARENTLY, O.N.C.'S
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ALSO WAS LOCAL.  THE INTERCHANGE BUSINESS HAS SINCE
INCREASED UNTIL IT FAR EXCEEDS THAT OF THE LOCAL BUSINESS." 

FN7  ALTHOUGH THE PRESIDENT OF CONSOLIDATED ADMITTED AT THE HEARING
THAT O.N.C.'S REFUSAL TO JOIN THE ASSOCIATION HAD A SUBSTANTIAL
INFLUENCE IN CAUSING THE FILING OF CONSOLIDATED'S APPLICATION, HE COULD
NOT SAY WHETHER OR NOT THAT APPLICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN FILED IF O.N.C.
HAD JOINED. 

FN8  SECTION 205(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
305(A).  APPARENTLY THE REASON THAT THE TWO PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT
CONSOLIDATED AND HEARD BEFORE ONE JOINT BOARD AROSE FROM THE FACT THAT,
ALTHOUGH THE MAJOR ISSUE, WHETHER OR NOT A THROUGH ROUTE BETWEEN SAN
FRANCISCO AND PORTLAND SHOULD BE ALLOWED, WAS COMMON TO BOTH CASES,
CERTAIN OTHER ISSUES WERE NOT AND, SINCE SOME OF THE LATTER RELATING TO
O.N.C. AFFECTED OPERATIONS IN WASHINGTON AS WELL AS IN OREGON AND
CALIFORNIA, A DIFFERENTLY CONSTITUTED BOARD WAS REQUIRED FOR MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THEM.  CF. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS V.
UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 77, 81-83. 

FN9  THERE ARE FIVE APPELLEES.  PIERCE AUTO FREIGHT LINES, INC., LOS
ANGELES-SEATTLE MOTOR EXPRESS, AND ANGELO COLLETTI (DOING BUSINESS AS
COLLETTI FAST FREIGHT), ARE COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH
OPERATE BETWEEN PORTLAND AND SAN FRANCISCO.  PACIFIC MOTOR TRUCKING
COMPANY IS A SUBSIDIARY OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY AND PERFORMS
CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATIONS WHICH ARE AUXILIARY TO THE RAIL
SERVICES OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY.  PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RAILROAD
ASSOCIATION IS AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF RAILROADS SERVING THE
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST TERRITORY, ORGANIZED TO PROTECT RAIL INTERESTS AS
THEY MAY BE AFFECTED BY MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS IN THAT TERRITORY. 

FN10  SECTION 205(B) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
305(B). 

FN11  THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY GRANTED TO
CONSOLIDATED AUTHORIZES EXTENSIONS OF ITS ROUTES FROM MEDFORD AND
KLAMATH FALLS TO SAN FRANCISCO AND ALSO FROM LAKEVIEW, OREGON, TO
REDDING, CALIFORNIA.  THE CERTIFICATE GRANTED TO O.N.C. AUTHORIZES
EXTENSIONS FROM MEDFORD TO PORTLAND AND FROM KLAMATH FALLS TO GOSHEN,
OREGON.  IN BOTH CASES, OPERATION WAS THUS AUTHORIZED OVER ALTERNATE
HIGHWAYS.  CF. NOTES 3 AND 5. 

FN12  THE DISTRICT COURT PERMITTED CONSOLIDATED TO INTERVENE AND FILE
AN ANSWER "WITH ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS TO THE PETITION," BUT REFUSED TO
CONSIDER AND ORDERED STRICKEN THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WHICH
CONSOLIDATED SET UP.  ONE OF THESE WAS THAT THE APPELLEES WERE GUILTY
OF LACHES IN BRINGING THE SUIT, SINCE THE CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WERE ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER, 1943, AND THE
COMPLAINT WAS NOT FILED UNTIL JANUARY, 1944.  CONSOLIDATED CONTENDS
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN STRIKING THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.  IN
THE VIEW THAT WE TAKE OF THE CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THIS
QUESTION. 

FN13  THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO FOUND THAT "THE COMMISSION FAILED TO
FIND, AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN EITHER RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH A
FINDING, THAT EACH APPLICANT WAS SEPARATELY CAPABLE OF EQUIPPING,
MAINTAINING, AND CONDUCTING THE PROPOSED OPERATION IN THE FACE OF
COMPETITION FROM THE OTHER"; THAT "THE COMMISSION'S REPORT FAILS TO
DISCLOSE THAT IT GAVE ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE POSSIBILITY OF ADVERSE
EFFECT UPON ANY PLAINTIFF OF THE INSTITUTION OF TWO THROUGH-LINE
COMPETITIVE OPERATIONS BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND PORTLAND"; AND THAT
"THE COMMISSION FAILED TO FIND, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN EITHER
RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING, THAT CONSOLIDATED IS ADEQUATELY
EQUIPPED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN THE PROPOSED THROUGH-LINE OPERATIONS
UNDER ANY CONDITIONS."  THESE FINDINGS ARE CONSIDERED BELOW. 

FN14  THEY WERE NOT THE SAME, SINCE THE EXTENSION SOUGHT IN EACH CASE
COVERED THE PORTION OF THE JOINT ROUTE OVER WHICH THE OTHER APPLICANT
THEN WAS OPERATING.  BUT, OF COURSE, IF ONE APPLICATION HAD BEEN
GRANTED AND ONE DENIED, THE PRACTICAL EFFECT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO AWARD
TO THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICANT THE ENTIRE ROUTE OF THE PRIOR JOINT
SERVICE, AND THUS TO EXCLUDE THE UNSUCCESSFUL ONE AT LEAST FROM ANY
SHARE IN THE JOINT OPERATION; PROBABLY ALSO FROM ANY PRACTICAL
OPPORTUNITY OF SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OVER ITS REMAINING "LEG" OF THE
PREVIOUS JOINT SERVICE.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS NO DOUBT WERE INFLUENTIAL
IN LEADING THE COMMISSION TO CONCLUDE THAT EITHER BOTH APPLICATIONS
SHOULD BE GRANTED OR BOTH DENIED, SINCE TO GRANT ONE AND DENY THE
OTHER, ENTIRELY APART FROM CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO SO-CALLED
"GRANDFATHER RIGHTS," WOULD WORK OBVIOUS HARDSHIP ON ONE.  CF. NOTE
15. 

FN15  ONE EXAMPLE IS SUFFICIENT.  THE PRESIDENT OF CONSOLIDATED WAS
ASKED: 

"FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE IN WATCHING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS JOINT
SERVICE, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THE EFFECT TO BE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS
APPLICATION UPON THE EXISTING CARRIERS BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND
MEDFORD, AND SAN FRANCISCO AND KLAMATH FALLS?"  HE REPLIED: 

"TREATING THEM SEPARATELY, SOUTH OF MEDFORD, WE HAVE IN OUR OPERATION
THE OREGON-NEVADA-CALIFORNIA FAST FREIGHT AND THE PACIFIC TRUCK EXPRESS
AND THE PIERCE AUTO LINES. 

"THE CALIFORNIA FAST FREIGHT ARE CONCURRENTLY APPLYING FOR THE RIGHT
TO EXTEND THEIR SERVICES NORTH OF MEDFORD TO PORTLAND.  THE NET RESULT
OF THE GRANTING OF THEIR APPLICATION AND OUR APPLICATION WOULD BE THE
SPLITTING OF THE TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES.  WE WOULD EACH TAKE
PART OF THE PRESENT BUSINESS WE ARE NOW JOINTLY HANDLING, AND OPERATE
OUR EQUIPMENT STRAIGHT THROUGH. 

"IN MY OPINION, THIS WILL RESULT IN BOTH OF US OPERATING ABOUT THE
SAME NUMBER OF VEHICLES, ABOUT THE SAME NUMBER OF MILES; AND IF OUR
DIVISIONS OF REVENUES OF THE PAST HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ARRANGED, WE
CONTINUE TO GROSS ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE.  IT SHOULD RESULT
IN OUR BOTH HAVING A MORE PROFITABLE OPERATION, AS IT WILL ELIMINATE
THE PRESENT WASTE OF CHECKING, WEIGHING, AND TRANSFERRING FREIGHT AT AN
INTERMEDIATE POINT. 

"THE SERVICE WOULD BE IMPROVED AND NO DOUBT IT WOULD ATTRACT MORE
VOLUME.  THAT IS A CONJECTURE.  AT THE PRESENT TIME, BOTH COMPANIES ARE
MAINTAINING TERMINAL FACILITIES IN SAN FRANCISCO SO ON OUR PART IT
WOULD MEAN VERY LITTLE INCREASE IN OUR TERMINAL COSTS. 

"IT WILL MEAN AN INCREASE IN TERMINAL COSTS FOR THE OREGON-NEVADA
CALIFORNIA FAST FREIGHT, BUT THE COST OF IT WOULD BE OFFSET, IN MY
OPINION, BY ELIMINATING THE COST OF TRANSFERRING THE THROUGH FREIGHT AT
MEDFORD." 

IN ITS REPORT, THE COMMISSION STATED, "FOR REASONS WHICH ARE OBVIOUS
(SEE NOTE 14), AUTHORITY SHOULD BE EITHER GRANTED OR DENIED TO BOTH
APPLICANTS TO OPERATE OVER THE VALLEY ROUTE." 

FN16  CF. JUDICIAL NOTICE BY ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS (1934) 44 YALE
L.J. 355; FARIS, JUDICIAL NOTICE BY ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES (1928) 4 IND.
L.J. 167. 

FN17  THE COMMISSION'S REPORT STATED:  "OF THE MOTOR-CARRIER
PROTESTANTS, THERE IS ONLY ONE - PIERCE - WHICH IS AUTHORIZED TO
TRANSPORT GENERAL COMMODITIES TO AND FROM ALL INTERMEDIATE POINTS ALONG
THE VALLEY ROUTE.  PIERCE DID NOT REINSTITUTE DAILY OPERATION TO AND
FROM SAN FRANCISCO, HOWEVER, UNTIL AFTER THE FILING OF THESE
APPLICATIONS AND BUT A FEW WEEKS PRIOR TO THE HEARINGS HEREIN.  SHIPPER
WITNESSES GENERALLY WERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT PIERCE'S
OPERATION WAS DAILY.  THERE ARE, OF COURSE, CERTAIN OTHER MOTOR
CARRIERS OPERATING OVER THIS ROUTE BUT THEIR AUTHORITY IS EITHER (1)
RESTRICTED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PRECLUDE A FINDING THAT THEIR SERVICE IS
ADEQUATE ESPECIALLY AS TO INTERMEDIATE POINTS, OR (2) THE RECORD
DEFINITELY ESTABLISHES THAT THEIR SERVICE TO INTERMEDIATE POINTS, AND
IN SOME INSTANCES TO AND FROM SAN FRANCISCO, IS AT BEST NEGLIGIBLE.  IN
VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE OPERATIONS SET FORTH IN OUR FINDINGS
HEREIN." 

FN18  SEE NOTE 14. 

FN19  THE COMMISSION RESTED THIS ULTIMATE FINDING IN PART UPON THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT AS TO THE NEED FOR EXTENDED OPERATIONS:  "THERE IS
NO DOUBT BUT THAT A NUMBER OF SHIPPERS DESIRE SUCH PROPOSED SERVICES. 
EACH APPLICANT ALSO OPERATES UNITS EQUIPPED WITH MECHANICAL
REFRIGERATION, WHICH SERVICE CERTAIN OF THE SHIPPERS DESIRE FOR THE
PROPER TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR SHIPMENTS.  THE PROPOSED SERVICE WILL
ENABLE SHIPPERS TO OBTAIN GOODS MORE RAPIDLY, RESULTING IN AN INCREASE
IN THEIR BUSINESSES.  SOME OF THE SHIPPERS ESTIMATE AN INCREASE IN
BUSINESS AMOUNTING TO SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS.  PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE
WITNESSES PREFER A SINGLE-LINE THROUGH SERVICE.  SOME OF THEM HAVE USED
THE SERVICES OF EXISTING CARRIERS AND HAVE NOT FOUND THEM SATISFACTORY
PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE OF IMPROPER REFRIGERATION OR LACK OF SERVICE TO
INTERMEDIATE POINTS."  SEE ALSO NOTE 17.  THE COMMISSION NOTED IN ITS
REPORT THAT THE TRAFFIC BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND PORTLAND WAS
INCREASING. 

FN20  THE COMMISSION HAS RECOGNIZED THE VALUE OF REASONABLE
COMPETITION, CF. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S.
35; UNITED STATES V. DETROIT & CLEVELAND NAVIGATION CO., 326 U.S. 236;
INLAND MOTOR FREIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 36 F.SUPP.  885; 44 M.C.C. 535,
548, IN NO CASE PERHAPS MORE CLEARLY THAN IN THOSE PRESENTED ON THIS
APPEAL.  SEE ALSO NOTE 15. 

FN21  "FITNESS.  - THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO O.N.C.'S FITNESS,
FINANCIAL OR OTHERWISE, TO CONDUCT THE OPERATIONS HEREIN AUTHORIZED,
ALTHOUGH PROTESTANTS QUESTION CONSOLIDATED'S FINANCIAL ABILITY TO
CONDUCT THE PROPOSED OPERATION.  PROTESTANTS CONTEND THAT IF THESE
APPLICATIONS ARE GRANTED EACH APPLICANT WILL OPERATE AT A LOSS.  EACH
APPLICANT OF COURSE CLAIMS THAT IT WILL BE BETTER OFF IF ALLOWED TO
OPERATE STRAIGHT THROUGH WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF INTERCHANGING AT
MEDFORD.  ELIMINATION OF THE COST OF TRANSFER AT MEDFORD WOULD SAVE
APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN OR SIXTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH.  CONSIDERING
THE FACT HERETOFORE DISCUSSED IN SOME DETAIL, WE ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT WE SHOULD GIVE APPLICANTS THE BENEFIT OF ANY DOUBTS THAT MAY EXIST
AS TO WHETHER THEY COULD OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY OVER THE ROUTES
AUTHORIZED HEREIN."  SEE ALSO NOTE 22. 

FN22  IT IS TRUE THAT IN 1939 CONSOLIDATED HAD APPROXIMATELY $215,000
OF CURRENT LIABILITIES IN EXCESS OF CURRENT ASSETS AND HAD HYPOTHECATED
A GREAT DEAL OF EQUIPMENT AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING CAPITAL. 
NEVERTHELESS, FROM ITS INCEPTION THE COMPANY HAD BEEN FINANCED LARGELY
OUT OF EARNINGS AND IN EVERY YEAR BUT 1932 HAD BEEN ABLE TO EARN
PROFITS.  MOREOVER, THERE WAS AMPLE TESTIMONY THAT ITS SERVICE WAS
SATISFACTORY AND RELIABLE.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE ALSO FROM WHICH THE
COMMISSION COULD FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDEN WHICH WOULD
BE IMPOSED BY GRANTING CONSOLIDATED'S APPLICATION COULD BE MET BY THAT
COMPANY.  THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR
TERMINALS AND EQUIPMENT WAS DOUBTFUL.  BUT THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT THE
INTERMEDIATE CASH OUTLAY NECESSARY FOR NEW TERMINALS AT OAKLAND AND
SACRAMENTO WOULD NOT BE MORE THAN $12,000 AND THAT, IF ADDITIONAL
EQUIPMENT WERE NEEDED, CONSOLIDATED WAS IN A POSITION TO FURNISH IT AND
HAVE IT FINANCED.  IN ADDITION, BECAUSE OF THE CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE
COVERED BY THE NEW THROUGH ROUTE, CONSOLIDATED WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE "A
PROFITABLE LOAD FACTOR." 

ON THIS AND OTHER EVIDENCE WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING AS TO THE FINANCIAL ABILITY OF CONSOLIDATED TO UNDERTAKE THE
NEW SERVICE LACKED SUPPORT IN THE RECORD.  FOR US OR THE DISTRICT COURT
TO DO SO WOULD BE TO INVADE THE COMMISSION'S PROPER FUNCTION. 

FN23  IN ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXAMINER'S REPORT, O.N.C. ASKED THAT
THE PROCEEDING BE REOPENED BECAUSE OF MANY CHANGES THAT HAD OCCURRED
SINCE THE CLOSING OF THE RECORD.  IN ITS REPORT, THE COMMISSION STATED:
"IN ITS EXCEPTIONS, O.N.C. ALSO REQUESTS A FURTHER HEARING, BUT IN
VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSIONS HEREIN IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER IT WOULD STILL
DESIRE SUCH FURTHER HEARING.  ITS REQUEST FOR FURTHER HEARING IS HEREBY
DENIED." 

FN24  THE PETITION ALLEGED, IN PART, THAT "NEW MOTOR VEHICLE COMMON
CARRIER OPERATIONS SUCH AS ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE ORDER AND WHICH
DUPLICATE ADEQUATE EXISTING OPERATIONS ARE FORBIDDEN BY ORDERS OF THE
OFFICE OF DEFENSE TRANSPORTATION"; THAT "SINCE ORDERS OF THE OFFICE OF
DEFENSE TRANSPORTATION PROHIBIT SPEEDS IN EXCESS OF 35 MILES PER HOUR,
AND THE PROMISED SERVICE WOULD REQUIRE CONSISTENT HIGHWAY SPEEDS
AVERAGING 52 1/2 MILES PER HOUR OUTSIDE OF CITIES AND OTHER RESTRICTED
AREAS, IT IS CERTAIN THE SERVICE PROPOSED AND AUTHORIZED CANNOT AND
WILL NOT BE GIVEN, NOR CAN ANY SERVICE FASTER THAN THAT OF EXISTING
OPERATORS BE RENDERED"; AND THAT "ALL CONTROLLING STATEMENTS OF FACT
RELIED UPON BY THE DIVISION TO SUSTAIN ITS CONCLUSIONS WERE AS OF THE
DATE OF THE REPORT AND ARE NOW ENTIRELY AND COMPLETELY UNTRUE  ..." 
FN25  THE FULL SENTENCE IS AS FOLLOWS:  "WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT PROBLEMS
SUCH AS THESE CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT TO THE COURTS WHEN PRIVATE INTERESTS
CONCEIVE THERE HAS BEEN INJURY OF RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, AND ALTHOUGH THE
FIELD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION HAS BEEN
NARROWLY CONFINED, THE COURTS MUST IN A LITIGATED CASE, BE THE ARBITERS
OF THE PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST."  57 F.SUPP.  192, 196. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















WILSON V. COOK, 327 U.S. 474 


ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 4, 1946.  - 208 ARK. 459, 187
S.W.2D 7, REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART. 


AN ARKANSAS STATUTE, ACT 118 OF 1923, POPE'S DIGEST, ARKANSAS STATUTES
(1937), SECS. 13371-13375, IMPOSES A TAX ON THE SEVERANCE OF TIMBER
FROM THE SOIL; REQUIRES PAYMENT OF THE TAX IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE
PERSON ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN SEVERING THE TIMBER FROM THE SOIL, BUT, IN
GENERAL TERMS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTING THE UNITED STATES, REQUIRES THE
SEVERER TO COLLECT OR WITHHOLD THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX FROM THE PRICE
PAID TO THE OWNER OF THE TIMBER AT THE TIME OF THE SEVERANCE; AND GIVES
THE STATE A LIEN UPON ALL TIMBER SEVERED FROM THE SOIL.  A CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTED WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURCHASE AND SEVERANCE OF
TIMBER ON NATIONAL FOREST RESERVES LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE, SOME OF
WHICH WERE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN ARKANSAS WAS ADMITTED
TO STATEHOOD AND SOME OF WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY
PURCHASE WITH CONSENT OF THE STATE.  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT "TITLE
TO ALL TIMBER  ...  SHALL REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES UNTIL IT IS PAID
FOR, AND SCALED, MEASURED OR COUNTED."  THE CONTRACTOR SEVERED TIMBER
FROM THE FOREST RESERVES IN QUESTION; EXECUTION WAS ISSUED FOR
COLLECTION OF THE TAX; AND THE CONTRACTOR SUED TO ENJOIN COLLECTION. 
HELD: 

1.  SINCE THE RECORD IN NO. 328 DOES NOT SHOW THAT APPELLANTS
PRESENTED FOR DECISION TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT ANY FEDERAL QUESTION,
AND SINCE THAT COURT, IN HOLDING THE TAX CONSTITUTIONAL, DID NOT
NECESSARILY PASS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE, THIS
COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE; BUT THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 237(C), AND CERTIORARI IS GRANTED.  PP. 480-482. 

2.  HAVING TREATED THE APPEAL IN NO. 328 AS A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 237(C) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND HAVING
GRANTED CERTIORARI, THIS COURT CAN PASS ONLY ON THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS
PASSED UPON BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  P. 482. 

3.  THE CONTRACTOR, BEING TAXED BY THE STATE ON HIS ACTIVITIES IN
SEVERING TIMBER FROM GOVERNMENT LANDS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE
GOVERNMENT, CAN NOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM TAXATION BY THE STATE.  PP.
482, 483. 

4.  SINCE THE POINT IS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME HERE, THIS COURT IS
NOT FREE TO CONSIDER AN ATTACK ON THE STATE STATUTE ON THE GROUND THAT
IT REQUIRES THE SEVERER TO COLLECT THE TAX FROM THE OWNER OF THE TIMBER
AT THE TIME OF SEVERANCE AND GIVES THE STATE A LIEN ON THE LAND FROM
WHICH THE TIMBER IS SEVERED AND A LIEN UPON THE SEVERED TIMBER, EVEN
THOUGH TITLE TO THE SEVERED PRODUCT HAS NOT PASSED TO THE TAXPAYER, AND
THAT THE STATUTE THUS PURPORTS TO PLACE A FORBIDDEN TAX DIRECTLY ON THE
UNITED STATES.  P. 483. 

5.  THIS COURT IS NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY
TO THE STATUTORY LIEN OR FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX, SINCE IT WILL BE
TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THOSE QUESTIONS WHEN SOME EFFORT IS MADE TO
ENFORCE THE LIEN OR COLLECT THE TAX FROM THE UNITED STATES.  P. 484. 

6.  THE STATE HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO LAY THE TAX UPON
ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON WITHIN THE FOREST RESERVE PURCHASED BY THE UNITED
STATES.  P. 486. 

(A)  THE ARKANSAS STATUTE CONSENTING TO THE PURCHASE OF FOREST LANDS
BY THE UNITED STATES (POPE'S DIGEST, ARKANSAS STATUTES, SEC. 5646) MADE
NO EXPRESS GRANT OR RESERVATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE AREAS
PURCHASED AND CAN NOT BE TAKEN AS HAVING YIELDED OR INTENDED TO
SURRENDER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE STATE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION
OVER THE AREA IN QUESTION, SO FAR AS EXERCISE OF THAT JURISDICTION IS
CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL FUNCTIONS.  P. 486. 

(B)  BY SEC. 12 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1911, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 516,
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF FOREST RESERVES, CONGRESS IN EFFECT HAS
DECLINED TO ACCEPT EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER FOREST
RESERVE LANDS, AND EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THE STATE SHALL NOT LOSE ITS
JURISDICTION IN THIS RESPECT NOR THE INHABITANTS "BE ABSOLVED FROM
THEIR DUTIES AS CITIZENS OF THE STATE."  P. 486. 

7.  THE STATE HAS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE FEDERAL FOREST
RESERVE LANDS LOCATED WITHIN IT WHICH WERE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED
STATES WHEN ARKANSAS WAS ADMITTED TO STATEHOOD.  P. 487. 

(A)  UPON ADMISSION OF ARKANSAS TO STATEHOOD UPON AN EQUAL FOOTING
WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES, THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
EXTENDED OVER THE FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS WITHIN THE STATE, TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS OVER SIMILAR PROPERTY HELD BY PRIVATE OWNERS, EXCEPT THAT THE
STATE COULD ENACT NO LAW WHICH WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE POWERS RESERVED
TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 487. 

(B)  SUCH AUTHORITY DID NOT PASS TO THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF
THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH
AUTHORIZES IT "TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION  ... OVER ALL PLACES
PURCHASED BY THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE
SAME SHALL BE."  P. 488. 

(C)  SINCE THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE THE LANDS WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE STATE, IT DID NOT ACQUIRE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION UNDER
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO CESSION OF
JURISDICTION BY THE STATE.  P. 488. 

(D)  ALTHOUGH ARKANSAS HAS CONFERRED ON CONGRESS POWER TO PASS LAWS
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED
STATES IN ARKANSAS, IT HAS NOT CEDED EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION
EITHER OVER LANDS RESERVED BY THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
OR OVER LANDS ACQUIRED IN THE STATE.  P. 488. 

WILSON ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS WILSON LUMBER CO., V. COOK,
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES. 

NO. 328.  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 329, COOK, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, V. WILSON ET
AL., DOING BUSINESS AS WILSON LUMBER CO., ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME
COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON THE SAME DATES. 

A CONTRACTOR WHO HAD CONTRACTED WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
PURCHASE AND SEVERANCE OF TIMBER ON NATIONAL FOREST RESERVES IN THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS SUED TO ENJOIN COLLECTION OF A TAX LEVIED BY THE
STATE ON THE SEVERANCE OF TIMBER FROM THE SOIL.  THE STATE CHANCERY
COURT ENJOINED COLLECTION OF THE TAX.  ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT, HOLDING THAT THE STATE WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO LAY A TAX ON THE SEVERANCE OF TIMBER FROM LANDS WHICH WERE
PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN ARKANSAS WAS ADMITTED TO
STATEHOOD; THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO LAY THE TAX EXTENDED TO
TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING ON THE FOREST RESERVE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED
STATES BY PURCHASE; AND THAT THE TAX ASSESSED AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR
FOR THE SEVERANCE OF TIMBER ON FOREST RESERVES OF THE LATTER CLASS DID
NOT LAY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE UNITED STATES.  208 ARK. 459;
187 S.W.2D 7.  EACH PARTY APPEALED FROM THAT PART OF THE DECISION WHICH
WAS ADVERSE TO HIM.  ON SUBMISSION OF JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTS, THIS
COURT POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF ITS JURISDICTION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S
APPEAL (NO. 328), BUT DISMISSED THE TAX COMMISSIONER'S APPEAL (NO.
329), FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, TREATED THE PAPERS AS A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, AND GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 685.  REVERSED IN PART
AND AFFIRMED IN PART, P. 489. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN ARKANSAS STATUTE, ACT 118 OF 1923, POPE'S DIGEST, ARKANSAS
STATUTES (1937), SEC. 13371, IMPOSES "A PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE TAX  ...
UPON EACH PERSON  ...  ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF  ... SEVERING FROM
THE SOIL  ...  FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES NATURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING
...  TIMBER ..."  BY SEC. 13372, AS A CONDITION OF THE LICENSE, THERE
IS IMPOSED ON THE SEVERER AN OBLIGATION TO PAY THE TAX AND CONSENT THAT
THE TAX "SHALL  ...  REMAIN A LIEN ON EACH UNIT OF PRODUCTION UNTIL
PAID INTO THE STATE TREASURY  ..."  SECTION 13375 FIXES THE TAX AT 7
CENTS PER THOUSAND FEET OF THE TIMBER SEVERED.  SECTION 13376 PROVIDES
THAT THE STATE "SHALL HAVE A LIEN UPON ANY AND ALL NATURAL RESOURCES
SEVERED FROM THE SOIL  ..."  IN SEC. 13382 IT IS PROVIDED THAT "THE
PAYMENT OF SAID PRIVILEGE TAXES SHALL BE REQUIRED OF THE SEVERER  ...
ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF SEVERING NATURAL PRODUCTS WHETHER
AS OWNER, LESSEE, CONCESSIONAIRE OR CONTRACTOR.  THE REPORTING TAXPAYER
SHALL COLLECT OR WITHHOLD OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE
PRODUCTS SEVERED THE PROPORTIONATE PARTS OF THE TOTAL TAX DUE BY THE
RESPECTIVE OWNERS OF SUCH NATURAL RESOURCES AT THE TIME OF SEVERANCE." 

APPELLANTS IN NO. 328, A COPARTNERSHIP, ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURCHASE AND SEVERANCE OF TIMBER ON NATIONAL
FOREST RESERVES LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE, SOME OF WHICH WERE PUBLIC
LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN ARKANSAS WAS ADMITTED TO STATEHOOD AND
SOME OF WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY PURCHASE WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE STATE.  THE CONTRACTS OF SEVERANCE AND PURCHASE PROVIDED
THAT "TITLE TO ALL TIMBER INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN
THE UNITED STATES UNTIL IT HAS BEEN PAID FOR, AND SCALED, MEASURED OR
COUNTED."  BY THE CONTRACTS THE APPELLANTS WERE REQUIRED IN ADVANCE OF
SEVERANCE TO PLACE WITH THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE ADVANCE
INSTALLMENTS OF THE ESTIMATED PURCHASE PRICE. 

IN THE YEARS 1937 TO 1942, APPELLANTS, PROCEEDING UNDER THEIR
CONTRACT, SEVERED TIMBER FROM THE FOREST RESERVES IN QUESTION.  AN
EXECUTION HAVING BEEN ISSUED AND DELIVERED TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF,
APPELLEE IN NO. 328, AND ALSO APPELLANT IN NO. 329, FOR COLLECTION OF
THE TAX ASSESSED AGAINST APPELLANTS IN NO. 328 FOR THE YEARS IN
QUESTION, THEY BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE STATE CHANCERY COURT TO
ENJOIN THE COLLECTION.  THE QUESTIONS ON WHICH THE PARTIES ASK DECISION
ARE (A) WHETHER THE FOREST RESERVES WHICH WERE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE
UNITED STATES BEFORE ARKANSAS WAS ADMITTED TO STATEHOOD ARE SUBJECT TO
THE TAXING JURISDICTION OF THE STATE; (B) WHETHER THE FOREST RESERVES
ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY PURCHASE REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE TAXING
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE; AND (C) WHETHER THE TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
A TAX LAID UPON THE PROPERTY OR ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES, OR
BECAUSE THE TAX LAID ON PLAINTIFFS IMPOSED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN
ON THE UNITED STATES. 

THE CHANCERY COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS, ENJOINING COLLECTION
OF THE TAX.  IT HELD THAT IF THE TAX "BE APPLIED" TO PLAINTIFFS, IT
"WOULD BE A TAX UPON THE OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES," AND THAT THE TAX "DOES NOT APPLY TO THE TIMBER SEVERED BY THE
PLAINTIFFS FROM THE NATIONAL FOREST."  ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT, HOLDING THAT THE STATE WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO LAY A TAX ON THE SEVERANCE OF TIMBER FROM LANDS WHICH WERE
PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN ARKANSAS WAS ADMITTED TO
STATEHOOD; THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO LAY THE TAX EXTENDED TO
TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING ON THE FOREST RESERVE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED
STATES BY PURCHASE; AND THAT THE PRESENT TAX ASSESSED AGAINST
PLAINTIFFS FOR THE SEVERANCE OF TIMBER ON FOREST RESERVES OF THIS CLASS
DID NOT LAY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE UNITED STATES.  208 ARK.
459, 187 S.W.2D 7. 

PLAINTIFFS HAVE APPEALED, IN NO. 328, FROM SO MUCH OF THE JUDGMENT AS
SUSTAINED THE TAX WITH RESPECT TO LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES
BY PURCHASE, URGING IN THEIR ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF ARKANSAS ERRED IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHANCERY
COURT, "WHICH HELD TO BE VOID THE SEVERANCE TAX STATUTE," AND IN
HOLDING THAT THE SEVERANCE TAX LAW IS NOT REPUGNANT TO THE SUPREMACY
CLAUSE, ART. VI, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, OR TO ART. IV, SEC. 3, CL.
2, CONFERRING ON CONGRESS POWER TO DISPOSE OF "AND MAKE ALL NEEDFUL
RULES AND REGULATIONS RESPECTING  ...  PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED
STATES  ..."  DEFENDANT, APPELLANT IN NO. 329, SEEKS BY HIS APPEAL TO
REVERSE SO MUCH OF THE JUDGMENT AS DENIED THE RIGHT TO LEVY THE TAX FOR
SEVERANCE OF TIMBER FROM FOREST LANDS RESERVED FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 
ON SUBMISSION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENTS IN THIS COURT WE
POSTPONED TO THE HEARING ON THE MERITS CONSIDERATION OF OUR
JURISDICTION IN NO. 328.  IN NO. 329 WE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT
OF JURISDICTION.  SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 344(A).  TREATING THE PAPERS ON WHICH THE APPEAL WAS
ALLOWED AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AS REQUIRED BY SEC.
237(C) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF
THE APPEAL IN NO. 328, UNLESS THERE WAS "DRAWN IN QUESTION" BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS "THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE" OF THE STATE, "ON
THE GROUND OF ITS BEING REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION,  ...  OR LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES."  THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS TO RESTRICT OUR
MANDATORY JURISDICTION ON APPEAL, MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. BEELER, 315 U.S.
649, 651, AND TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT NO JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT WILL BE
REVIEWED ON APPEAL BY THIS COURT UNLESS THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE
HAS FIRST BEEN APPRISED THAT A STATE STATUTE IS BEING ASSAILED AS
INVALID ON FEDERAL GROUNDS, CHARLESTON ASSN. V. ALDERSON, 324 U.S. 182,
185-6 AND CASES CITED, OR, WHEN THE STATUTE, AS APPLIED, IS SO
ASSAILED, UNTIL IT HAS OPPORTUNITY AUTHORITATIVELY TO CONSTRUE IT.
FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380, 385 AND CASES CITED.  THIS
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED ONLY IF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY UNDER FEDERAL LAW OF THE STATE STATUTE, AS
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, HAS EITHER BEEN PRESENTED FOR DECISION TO THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, WALL V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO., 256 U.S.
125, 126; CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. DURR, 257 U.S. 99, 106, OR HAS IN
FACT BEEN DECIDED BY IT, NICKEY V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 393, 394;
WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297 U.S. 431, 435-6, AND THAT ITS DECISION WAS
NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENT.  CUYAHOGA POWER CO. V. NORTHERN REALTY CO.,
244 U.S. 300, 304 AND CASES CITED.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT
DISCLOSE THAT AT ANY TIME IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE
COURTS PLAINTIFFS ASSERTED THE INVALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE ON ANY
FEDERAL GROUND.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THE CHANCERY COURT SET UP
ONLY THAT THE DEMAND OF THE STATE FOR THE TAX "IS AN ILLEGAL AND VOID
EXACTION" AND "IS IN VIOLATION OF" ART. IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2 AND OF ART.
VI, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THERE WERE NO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

AS THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED FOR
DECISION TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT ANY FEDERAL QUESTION, THEY HAVE NO
APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNLESS THE OPINION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT
SHOWS THAT THAT COURT RULED ON THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE UNDER
THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  CHARLESTON ASSN. V.
ALDERSON, SUPRA, 185-6 AND CASES CITED.  THAT COURT'S OPINION, WHILE
HOLDING THAT THE "TAX LAW" WAS APPLICABLE TO "PERSONS SEVERING TIMBER
FROM LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES IN A NATIONAL FOREST," DOES NOT
INDICATE THAT PLAINTIFFS RAISED THERE, OR THAT THE COURT PASSED UPON,
THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED.  THE COURT CONSIDERED ONLY THE
VALIDITY OF "THE TAX," NOT THAT OF THE STATUTE. 

WITH REFERENCE TO PLAINTIFFS' LIABILITY FOR THE TAX, IT DECIDED ONLY
THAT THE STATE "HAS THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE SEVERANCE TAX, SO FAR AS
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IS CONCERNED," FOR SEVERANCE OF TIMBER FROM
LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY PURCHASE, AND THAT PLAINTIFFS
COULD NOT CLAIM THE BENEFITS OF THE IMMUNITY, IF ANY, OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FROM "THE TAX," SINCE IT WAS IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFFS, NOT THE
GOVERNMENT OR ITS PROPERTY.  IT SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM SUCH ECONOMIC BURDEN AS MIGHT BE PASSED ON
FROM THE TAXPAYER TO THE GOVERNMENT BY REASON OF THE EFFECT OF THE TAX
PAID BY THE SEVERERS, CITING JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S.
134 AND ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1.  BEING ASKED TO ENJOIN
THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX, THE STATE COURT CONTENTED ITSELF WITH
HOLDING THAT THE TAX, WHICH WAS ASSESSED ON PLAINTIFFS AND NOT THE
GOVERNMENT, IMPOSED NO BURDEN ON THE GOVERNMENT WHICH INFRINGED ITS
IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL TAX IMMUNITY.  SINCE THE COLLECTION OF A TAX BY
A STATE OFFICER, AS HERE, MAY OR MAY NOT OFFEND AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTION, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE, SEE
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, 369, THE STATE
COURT, IN HOLDING THE TAX CONSTITUTIONAL, DID NOT NECESSARILY PASS ON
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE. 

IN ORDER TO SUPPORT AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE TAXING STATUTE BE EITHER
PRESENTED TO THE STATE COURT OR DECIDED BY IT.  IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT
MERELY TO ATTACK, AS HERE, THE TAX LEVIED UNDER THE STATUTE, OR "THE
RIGHT TO COLLECT THE TAX" WHICH HAS BEEN LEVIED, OR TO SHOW THAT THE
VALIDITY OF THE TAX ALONE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED.  CHARLESTON ASSN. V.
ALDERSON, SUPRA, 185, AND CASES CITED.  FOR "THE MERE OBJECTION TO AN
EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY UNDER A STATUTE, WHOSE VALIDITY IS NOT ATTACKED,
CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS" OF AN APPEAL.  JETT BROS. CO. V. CITY OF
CARROLLTON, 252 U.S. 1, 6.  IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT WE HAVE HELD
THAT AN APPEAL WILL NOT BE SUSTAINED WHERE THERE HAS BEEN ONLY AN
ATTACK UPON A TAX ASSESSMENT, JETT BROS. CO. V. CITY OF CARROLLTON,
SUPRA; MILLER V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS, 290 U.S. 586; MEMPHIS GAS CO.
V. BEELER, SUPRA, 650; COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO. V. O'BRIEN, 323 U.S. 665;
CHARLESTON ASSN. V. ALDERSON, SUPRA, 185, OR, AS HERE, UPON A "TAX,"
CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. DURR, SUPRA, 106; INDIAN TERRITORY
ILLUMINATING CO. V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS, 287 U.S. 573; BALTIMORE
NATIONAL BANK V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 296 U.S. 538; IRVINE V. SPAETH, 314
U.S. 575, OR UPON THE ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A TAX, JETT BROS. CO. V. CITY
OF CARROLLTON, SUPRA. 

SINCE PLAINTIFFS' ATTACK IS DIRECTED TO THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX AS
LAID, AND NOT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE, AS APPLIED, WE ARE
WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THEIR APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE.  TREATING THE APPEAL AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 237(C) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, WE GRANT CERTIORARI, AS
WE DID IN NO. 329.  WE CAN CONSIDER ONLY THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS PASSED
UPON BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT. 

OUR DECISION IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA, AND IN ALABAMA
V. KING & BOOZER, SUPRA, AND THE CASES CITED IN THOSE OPINIONS, CAN
LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS CORRECTLY HELD THAT
PLAINTIFFS, WHO ARE TAXED BY THE STATE ON THEIR ACTIVITIES IN SEVERING
LUMBER FROM GOVERNMENT LANDS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT, CANNOT
CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FROM TAXATION BY THE STATE.    PLAINTIFFS NOW, FOR THE FIRST
TIME, ASSAIL THE TAX AND THE STATUTE IMPOSING IT, ON THE GROUND THAT
THE ACT REQUIRES THE SEVERER TO COLLECT THE TAX FROM THE OWNER OF THE
TIMBER AT THE TIME OF SEVERANCE, POPE'S DIGEST, SEC. 13382, AND GIVES
TO THE STATE A LIEN ON THE LAND FROM WHICH THE LUMBER IS SEVERED, ID.,
SEC. 13374, AND A LIEN UPON THE SEVERED TIMBER, ID., SEC. 13376, EVEN
THOUGH TITLE TO THE SEVERED PRODUCT HAS NOT PASSED TO THE TAXPAYER. 
THEY CONTEND THAT THE ACT THUS PURPORTS TO PLACE A FORBIDDEN TAX
DIRECTLY ON THE UNITED STATES.  CF. MAYO V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S.
441. 

BUT WE ARE NOT FREE TO CONSIDER THESE GROUNDS OF ATTACK FOR THE
REASON THAT THEY WERE NOT PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS OR
CONSIDERED OR DECIDED BY IT.  WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION NOW
SOUGHT TO BE PRESENTED IS IN SOME MEASURE RELATED TO THAT DECIDED BY
THE STATE COURT, AND, LIKE IT, ARISES UNDER THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM STATE TAXATION, IT IS NOT
MERELY "AN ENLARGEMENT" OF AN ARGUMENT MADE BEFORE THE STATE COURT, BUT
IS SO DISTINCT FROM THE QUESTION DECIDED BY THE STATE COURT THAT OUR
DECISION OF THE ISSUE RAISED THERE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY DECIDE THAT
NOW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED.  COMPARE DEWEY V. DES MOINES, 173 U.S. 193,
197, 198.  WE ARE THEREFORE NOT FREE TO CONSIDER IT. 

"IN REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, THIS COURT WILL NOT PASS
UPON ANY FEDERAL QUESTION NOT SHOWN BY THE RECORD TO HAVE BEEN RAISED
IN THE STATE COURT OR CONSIDERED THERE, WHETHER IT BE ONE ARISING UNDER
A DIFFERENT OR THE SAME CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT TO
WHICH OTHER QUESTIONS ARE PROPERLY PRESENTED."  NEW YORK EX REL. COHN
V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 317, AND CASES CITED.  FOR, AS WE SAID IN
MCGOLDRICK V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE, 309 U.S. 430, 434-435, "IN CASES
COMING HERE FROM STATE COURTS IN WHICH A STATE STATUTE IS ASSAILED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THERE ARE REASONS OF PECULIAR FORCE WHICH SHOULD LEAD
US TO REFRAIN FROM DECIDING QUESTIONS NOT PRESENTED OR DECIDED IN THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE WHOSE JUDICIAL ACTION WE ARE CALLED UPON TO
REVIEW.  APART FROM THE RELUCTANCE WITH WHICH EVERY COURT SHOULD
PROCEED TO SET ASIDE LEGISLATION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON GROUNDS NOT
PROPERLY PRESENTED, DUE REGARD FOR THE APPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP OF THIS
COURT TO STATE COURTS REQUIRES US TO DECLINE TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE
QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE VALIDITY OF STATE STATUTES NOT URGED OR
CONSIDERED THERE.  IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT THIS COURT, WHERE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE HAS BEEN UPHELD IN THE STATE COURT,
CONSISTENTLY REFUSES TO CONSIDER ANY GROUNDS OF ATTACK NOT RAISED OR
DECIDED IN THAT COURT."  SEE ALSO KEOKUK & HAMILTON BRIDGE CO. V.
ILLINOIS, 175 U.S. 626, 633; BOLLN V. NEBRASKA, 176 U.S. 83, 89-92; NEW
YORK V. KLEINERT, 268 U.S. 646, 650-1; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S.
357, 362, 363; SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, 276 U.S. 260, 267-8. 

IN VIEW OF THE LIEN PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AND ITS PROVISIONS
WHICH PURPORT TO AUTHORIZE THE TAXPAYER TO COLLECT THE TAX FROM THE
OWNER OF THE SEVERED TIMBER, HERE THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT
WE CANNOT RIGHTLY ADJUDGE THAT THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE TAX
ON THE TRANSACTIONS OF SEVERANCE INVOLVED, WITHOUT DETERMINING THE
APPLICABILITY OF THESE PROVISIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR VALIDITY
IF SO APPLIED.  WE ARE NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S
LIABILITY TO THE STATUTORY LIEN OR FOR PAYMENT OF THE TAX.  IT WILL BE
TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER ITS INTERESTS WHEN SOME EFFORT IS MADE TO
ENFORCE THE LIEN OR COLLECT THE TAX FROM THE UNITED STATES.  WE
OBVIOUSLY DO NOT BY OUR JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS IMPOSE THE TAX
ON THE GOVERNMENT.  THEIR PROPERTY ALONE IS SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF THE
PRESENT JUDGMENT AND TO EXECUTION ISSUED UNDER IT.  THEY CANNOT RECOVER
THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION
PERMITS.  AND IF IT FORBIDS THEY OBVIOUSLY WILL NOT COLLECT THE TAX. 
IN NEITHER CASE DOES OUR JUDGMENT IMPOSE ANY BURDEN ON THE UNITED
STATES.  WE ARE NOT CALLED ON TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFFS COULD
HAVE SUCCESSFULLY CONTESTED THEIR LIABILITY IN THE STATE COURTS OR
HERE, IF THE CONTENTIONS WERE PROPERLY RAISED, UPON THE GROUND THAT
THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO COLLECT THE TAX FROM THE GOVERNMENT, EITHER
BECAUSE THE PROVISION PURPORTING TO ALLOW SUCH COLLECTION IS
INAPPLICABLE WHERE THE OWNER IS THE GOVERNMENT OR, IF APPLICABLE,
INVALID, OR ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX, APPLIED TO THEM WITHOUT
RECOURSE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, WOULD DENY TO THEM THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

THE STATE, CONSTRUING ITS OWN LAW, HAS RENDERED AN UNCONDITIONAL
JUDGMENT HOLDING PLAINTIFFS LIABLE FOR THE TAX.  FOR PURPOSES OF OUR
REVIEW WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE JUDGMENT CONFORMS TO STATE LAW.  HENCE
WE ARE CALLED ON TO DETERMINE ONLY FEDERAL QUESTIONS PROPERLY RAISED ON
THE RECORD.  CONSIDERING THE ONLY QUESTION OF THE TAX IMMUNITY OF THE
UNITED STATES WHICH IS SO RAISED, WE DECIDE FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED
THAT THE TAX NOW LAID AND SUSTAINED IMPOSES NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN
ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  NO QUESTION ARISING UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS RAISED BY THE RECORD EITHER IN THE STATE COURTS OR HERE,
AND WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON IT* . 

*EVEN IF THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HAD PROCEEDED
ON A GROUND SO UNEXPECTED AS TO MAKE TIMELY, BY PETITION FOR REHEARING,
THE RAISING OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME ADVANCED,
COMPARE SAUNDERS V. SHAW, 244 U.S. 317; OHIO V. AKRON PARK DISTRICT,
281 U.S. 74, 79, PLAINTIFFS IN THEIR PETITION FOR REHEARING DID NOT
SUGGEST THEM. 

A FURTHER QUESTION IS WHETHER THE LANDS IN THE FOREST RESERVE, WHICH
WERE PURCHASED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL TAXING JURISDICTION OF THE STATE.  THE ANSWER TURNS ON THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF THE LANDS, SECS. 7 AND 12 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1911,
C. 186, 36 STAT. 961, 16 U.S.C. SECS. 480, 516, AND OF THE STATE
STATUTE OF ARKANSAS AUTHORIZING THE SALE.  POPE'S DIGEST, SEC. 5646. 
THE MEANING OF BOTH STATUTES, AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, IS A FEDERAL
QUESTION, SINCE UPON THEIR CONSTRUCTION DEPEND RIGHTS, POWERS AND
DUTIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  MASON CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S. 186,
197, AND CASES CITED. 

THE STATUTE OF ARKANSAS CONSENTING TO THE PURCHASE OF FOREST LANDS BY
THE UNITED STATES, PROVIDED THAT THE STATE SHOULD "RETAIN A CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION WITH THE UNITED STATES IN AND OVER LANDS SO ACQUIRED
...," TO ISSUE AND EXECUTE "CIVIL PROCESS IN ALL CASES, AND SUCH
CRIMINAL PROCESS AS MAY ISSUE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE  ..." 
IT MADE NO EXPRESS GRANT OR RESERVATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER THE
AREAS PURCHASED.  HENCE THE STATUTE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS HAVING YIELDED
OR INTENDED TO SURRENDER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE STATE
LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA IN QUESTION, SO FAR AS EXERCISE
OF THAT JURISDICTION IS CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL FUNCTIONS.  ANY DOUBT
AS TO THE EFFECT OF SUCH A GRANT BY THE STATE IN CONFERRING EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE TERRITORY WHICH IS ACQUIRED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS REMOVED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL
STATUTE. 

PROVIDED: 

"THAT THE JURISDICTION, BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, OVER PERSONS UPON THE
LANDS ACQUIRED UNDER THIS ACT SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED OR CHANGED BY THEIR
PERMANENT RESERVATION  ...  AS NATIONAL FOREST LANDS, EXCEPT SO FAR AS
THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED, THE
INTENT AND MEANING OF THIS SECTION BEING THAT THE STATE WHEREIN SUCH
LAND IS SITUATED SHALL NOT, BY REASON OF SUCH RESERVATION AND
ADMINISTRATION, LOSE ITS JURISDICTION NOR THE INHABITANTS THEREOF THEIR
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AS CITIZENS OR BE ABSOLVED FROM THEIR DUTIES AS
CITIZENS OF THE STATE." 

BY THIS ENACTMENT CONGRESS IN EFFECT HAS DECLINED TO ACCEPT EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER FOREST RESERVE LANDS, AND EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED THAT THE STATE SHALL NOT LOSE ITS JURISDICTION IN THIS RESPECT
NOR THE INHABITANTS "BE ABSOLVED FROM THEIR DUTIES AS CITIZENS OF THE
STATE."  COMPARE MASON CO. V. TAX COMM'N, SUPRA; ATKINSON V. TAX
COMM'N, 303 U.S. 20; COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518, 528;
STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S. 94, 99. 

OUR CONCLUSION, BASED ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERRELATED STATE
AND FEDERAL STATUTES, IS THAT THE STATE HAS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO
LAY THE TAX UPON ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON WITHIN THE FOREST RESERVE
PURCHASED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE TAX ASSESSED ON PLAINTIFFS
IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE GOVERNMENT, IS APPLICABLE TO THE
TAX ASSESSED FOR SEVERANCE OF TIMBER FROM FOREST RESERVE LANDS WHICH,
FROM THE BEGINNING, HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  THAT TAX IS
LIKEWISE VALID IF THE STATE HAS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER SUCH
LANDS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES. 

UPON ADMISSION OF ARKANSAS TO STATEHOOD IN 1836 UPON AN EQUAL FOOTING
WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES (ACT OF JUNE 15, 1836, C. 100, 5 STAT. 50),
THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE EXTENDED OVER THE FEDERALLY
OWNED LANDS WITHIN THE STATE, TO THE SAME EXTENT AS OVER SIMILAR
PROPERTY HELD BY PRIVATE OWNERS, SAVE THAT THE STATE COULD ENACT NO LAW
WHICH WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE UNITED STATES BY
THE CONSTITUTION.  FT. LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, 114 U.S. 525, 539;
UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 389, 404.  SUCH
AUTHORITY DID NOT PASS TO THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH AUTHORIZE IT
"TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION  ...  OVER ALL PLACES PURCHASED BY
THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL
BE." 

SINCE THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE THE LANDS WITH THE CONSENT
OF THE STATE, IT DID NOT ACQUIRE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO CESSION OF JURISDICTION
BY THE STATE.  SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S. 647, 651; MASON
CO. V. TAX COMM'N, SUPRA, 210.  ALTHOUGH ARKANSAS HAS, BY SEC. 5647,
POPE'S DIGEST, CONFERRED ON CONGRESS POWER TO PASS LAWS, CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL, FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE
UNITED STATES IN ARKANSAS, IT HAS CEDED EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE
JURISDICTION NEITHER OVER LANDS RESERVED BY THE UNITED STATES FROM THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN NOR OVER LANDS ACQUIRED IN THE STATE.  FT. LEAVENWORTH R.
CO. V. LOWE, SUPRA, 530, 531.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE STATE HAS RETAINED
ITS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION, WHICH IT ACQUIRED BY STATEHOOD, OVER
PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN THE STATE, WHICH HAVE BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN THE
FOREST RESERVE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE STATE HAS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE
FEDERAL FOREST RESERVE LANDS LOCATED WITHIN IT, WHETHER THEY WERE
ORIGINALLY A PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE UNITED STATES, OR WERE
ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY PURCHASE, AND THAT THE TAX ASSESSED
AGAINST PLAINTIFFS IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY, OR
TO ANY WANT OF TAXING JURISDICTION OF THE STATE TO LAY IT WITH RESPECT
TO TRANSACTIONS ON THE FEDERAL FOREST RESERVE LOCATED WITHIN THE
STATE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED INSOFAR AS IT ADJUDGED PLAINTIFFS NOT LIABLE
FOR THE TAX ON SEVERANCE OF TIMBER FROM LANDS HELD BY THE UNITED STATES
AS ORIGINAL OWNER, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  ON THE REMAND THE
STATE COURTS WILL BE FREE, SO FAR AS THEIR OWN PRACTICE ALLOWS, TO
DETERMINE ANY STATE QUESTIONS HERE INVOLVED AND ANY FEDERAL QUESTIONS
NOT ALREADY DECIDED BY THIS OPINION.  COMPARE SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 302 U.S. 506, WITH SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
296 U.S. 113.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING, ANNOUNCED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE. 

IN NO. 328 THE COURT SUSTAINS THE APPLICATION OF THE ARKANSAS
SEVERANCE TAX TO THE APPELLANTS.  FN1  IN MY JUDGMENT THE CAUSE SHOULD
BE REMANDED TO THE STATE COURT FOR IT TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF
THE LIEN AND COLLECTION PROVISIONS TO THE UNITED STATES, OR THEIR
SEVERABILITY, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT DETERMINATION TO ASCERTAIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE TAX AS APPLIED TO APPELLANTS.  THOSE
ISSUES ARE INESCAPABLE ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE.  FOR UNTIL THEY ARE
DETERMINED ANY DECISION HERE CAN AFFECT ONLY A TAX OF UNCERTAIN
INCIDENCE, UNLESS THE COURT IN SUSTAINING IT MEANS TO RULE, AS I THINK
THE ARKANSAS COURT RULED, THAT THE TAX IS VALID WHETHER OR NOT THE
STATUTE'S LIEN AND COLLECTION PROVISIONS  FN2  APPLY TO THE UNITED
STATES AS OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE SEVERED TIMBER. 

NEITHER COURSE IS PROPERLY OPEN TO US.  SINCE THE ARKANSAS COURT, AS
THIS COURT'S OPINION DOES NOT DISPUTE, HAS SUSTAINED THE TAX WITHOUT
DECIDING WHETHER THE LIEN AND COLLECTION PROVISIONS ARE SEVERABLE AND
INAPPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES, WE ARE COMPLETELY AT LOSS TO KNOW
WHETHER THE TAX RESTS ULTIMATELY UPON THE GOVERNMENT, AS IT DOES UNDER
ARKANSAS LAW ON ALL OTHER OWNERS NOT EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED.  CONSEQUENTLY
WE HAVE NO DETERMINABLE ISSUE, BUT ONLY A SPECULATIVE INQUIRY OF A SORT
BEYOND THE TRADITION AND, IN MY OPINION, THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
TO DECIDE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION HERE, AS
IN THE ARKANSAS COURT, IS TO SUSTAIN THE TAX REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
LIEN AND COLLECTION PROVISIONS APPLY IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO THE UNITED
STATES, THE RESULT IS SUBSTANTIALLY TO SUSTAIN A TAX LAID BY THE STATE
DIRECTLY ON THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS RESULT IS AS UNACCEPTABLE AS TO
RENDER AN ADVISORY OPINION UPON THE VALIDITY OF A TAX OF UNCERTAIN AND
SPECULATIVE APPLICATION.    FROM MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316,
TO NOW THE RULE HAS REMAINED THAT THE STATES ARE WITHOUT POWER, ABSENT
THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, TO TAX THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER WITH
REFERENCE TO ITS PROPERTY OR ITS FUNCTIONS.  UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY
COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174, 177.  THAT RULE IS OF THE ESSENCE OF FEDERAL
SUPREMACY.  IT IS NOT TO BE CHIPPED AWAY BY AMBIGUOUS DECISIONS OF
STATE COURTS OR EASY ASSUMPTIONS RELATING TO THEIR EFFECTS WHICH IGNORE
THE DIRECT IMPACT OF STATE TAXES WHERE THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO STRIKE. 

THIS IS TRUE REGARDLESS OF THE VAGARIES OF DECISION, AT DIFFERENT
PERIODS, IN ALLOWING EXPANSION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY TO INCLUDE
OTHERS.  RECENT RECESSIONS FROM FORMER BROAD EXTENSIONS OF THIS KIND
HAVE SETTLED THAT ULTIMATE ECONOMIC INCIDENCE UPON THE GOVERNMENT OF A
STATE TAX LAID UPON OTHERS IS NOT ALONE ENOUGH TO INVALIDATE THE TAX. 
JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134; ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER,
314 U.S. 1; SEE PENN DAIRIES V. MILK CONTROL COMM'N, 318 U.S. 261,
269.  FN3  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN EITHER THAT SUCH INCIDENCE OF THE TAX
IS IRRELEVANT TO ITS VALIDITY OR THAT ALL STATE TAXES PURPORTING TO BE
LAID UPON OTHERS BUT IN FACT REACHING THE GOVERNMENT ARE VALID. 

IT IS STILL TRUE THAT "THE TAXPAYER IS THE PERSON ULTIMATELY LIABLE
FOR THE TAX ITSELF."  COLORADO BANK V. BEDFORD, 310 U.S. 41, 52;
FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK, 314 U.S. 95.  IF THE PERSON WHO MUST PAY
THE TAX IN THE FIRST PLACE IS REQUIRED BY THE TAXING STATUTE TO COLLECT
THE TAX OR AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT FROM THE UNITED STATES, THE TAX IS UPON
THE UNITED STATES.  "STATE LAW COULD NOT OBLIGATE THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT TO REIMBURSE FOR A VALID TAX, MUCH LESS FOR AN INVALID
ONE."  UNITED STATES V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174, 189.  ALTHOUGH
THE COURT HAS GONE FAR IN PERMITTING THE STATES TO FORCE ONE PRIVATE
PERSON TO ACT AS TAX COLLECTOR FOR ANOTHER, CF. MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V.
JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86; FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S.
62; GENERAL TRADING CO. V. IOWA TAX COMM'N, 322 U.S. 335, AND
DISSENTING OPINION AT 339, THAT DEVICE CANNOT BE UTILIZED BY THE STATES
TO LAY TAXES ON THE UNITED STATES.  NOR HAS IT BEEN HELD HERETOFORE, IF
IT IS NOW, THAT A TAX PURPORTING TO BE LAID UPON A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
OR CONCERN IS VALID REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE
TAXING STATUTE FOR PASSING ON THE TAX TO ANOTHER ARE APPLICABLE TO THE
UNITED STATES OR ARE VALID IF SO APPLIED. 

I AM UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  IF IT
IS RULING SUB SILENTIO OR EX HYPOTHESI THAT THE LIEN AND COLLECTION
PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS STATUTE, FOR ANY APPLICATION TO THE
GOVERNMENT, ARE INAPPLICABLE OR SEVERABLE, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO MAKE
SUCH A DECISION.  THAT IS THE BUSINESS OF THE ARKANSAS COURTS.  IF THE
RULING IS THAT THE TAX IS VALID EVEN THOUGH THOSE PROVISIONS ARE
APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES, THEN FOR THE FIRST TIME THE COURT IS
OVERRULING THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND.  IF THE
DECISION IS, FINALLY, THAT THE TAX IS VALID WHETHER OR NOT THE LIEN AND
COLLECTION PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE OR SEVERABLE, THEN IT EMBODIES
BOTH FAULTS. 

I DO NOT THINK THE COURT MEANS TO OVERRULE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND. 
NOR DOES IT PURPORT TO INTERPRET OR DETERMINE THE ARKANSAS LAW
CONCERNING EITHER APPLICABILITY OR SEVERABILITY OF THE STATUTE'S
PROVISIONS.  BUT UNLESS IT IS DOING THIS, WITHOUT SO STATING, I SEE NO
ESCAPE FROM THE OTHER HORN OF THE DILEMMA.  EITHER THE TAX AS APPLIED
IS VALID OR IT IS INVALID.  WHETHER IT IS VALID OR NOT DEPENDS ON
WHETHER THE LIEN AND COLLECTION PROVISIONS APPLY TO THE UNITED STATES,
FOR THEY PLACE THE TAX DIRECTLY UPON THE OWNER.  THAT ISSUE IS
INESCAPABLE IN THIS CASE, WHETHER IN THE ARKANSAS COURT OR HERE. 

I DO NOT THINK THE ARKANSAS COURT DECIDED EITHER THAT THE LIEN AND
COLLECTION PROVISIONS ARE INAPPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES OR THAT
THEY ARE SEVERABLE FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE STATUTE, NOTWITHSTANDING
IT HAD THOSE PROVISIONS BEFORE IT, CITED THEM THOUGH WITHOUT RULING
UPON THEM, AND PROCEEDED TO SUSTAIN THE APPLICATION OF THE TAX TO
APPELLANTS.  I THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE COURT AVOIDED MAKING SUCH A
RULING.  IN MY OPINION THE ARKANSAS DECISION IN EFFECT, THOUGH NOT IN
WORDS, WAS THAT THE TAX IS VALID REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ENFORCEMENT
PROVISIONS APPLY TO THE UNITED STATES; WHICH IN EFFECT WAS TO RULE THAT
THE TAX HAD BEEN CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED EVEN THOUGH THE COLLECTION
PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES, TO THE EXTENT AT LEAST
OF THE WITHHOLDING PROVISIONS. 

MY REASONS FOR THIS VIEW ARE SEVERAL.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE
COURT'S OPINION, THOUGH NOTING THE COLLECTION AND LIEN PROVISIONS AND
THE CONTRACT'S TERM THAT TITLE TO THE SEVERED TIMBER SHOULD REMAIN IN
THE GOVERNMENT "UNTIL IT HAS BEEN PAID FOR, AND SCALED, MEASURED OR
COUNTED," DOES THIS IN THE INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THEN
PROCEEDS THROUGH A LENGTHY DISCUSSION WITHOUT AGAIN REFERRING TO THOSE
PROVISIONS. 

MOREOVER THEY PROVIDE PLAINLY THAT WHERE THE SEVERER IS DIFFERENT
FROM THE OWNER, THE FORMER MUST PAY THE TAX BUT HE IS REQUIRED TO PASS
IT ON TO THE OWNER.  FN4  A FURTHER PROVISION REQUIRES HIM TO WITHHOLD
THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX FROM ANY MONEY OR SEVERED PROPERTY IN KIND DUE
THE OWNER UNDER THEIR CONTRACT.  FN5  ANOTHER SECTION GIVES THE STATE A
LIEN ON THE SEVERED RESOURCES FOR THE TAX AND PENALTIES.  FN6  THE
CLEAR EFFECT OF THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING "THE REPORTING TAXPAYER" TO
"COLLECT OR WITHHOLD" THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX FROM THE OWNER IS TO GIVE
HIM A DEFENSE TO THE OWNER'S ACTION TO RECOVER THE FULL CONTRACT PRICE
FOR THE SEVERED RESOURCES AND AN EQUALLY CLEAR RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST
THE OWNER FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX. 

THUS THE SCHEME OF THE TAX IS TO PLACE BOTH ITS ULTIMATE LEGAL AND
ITS ULTIMATE ECONOMIC INCIDENCE ON THE OWNER.  THE TAX IN TERMS IS "DUE
BY THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS OF SUCH NATURAL RESOURCES."  FN7  IT IS "A
PRIVILEGE TAX OR LICENSE TAX; AND IS LEVIED ON THE BUSINESS OF
SEVERING," AS THE ARKANSAS COURT DECLARED IN THIS CASE.  208 ARK. 459,
468, 187 S.W.2D 7, 12.  BUT IT IS ULTIMATELY, AS THAT COURT HAS ALSO
DECLARED, THOUGH NOT EXPRESSLY IN THIS CASE, A PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE TAX
LEVIED UPON THE OWNER'S BUSINESS OF SEVERING, FOR IT APPLIES TO HIM
WHENEVER HE SEVERS OR PERMITS SEVERANCE FOR SALE; AND "SALE" INCLUDES
TURNING OVER THE TIMBER TO ONE WHO CLEARS THE LAND AS PAYMENT FOR THE
CLEARING, ALTHOUGH HIS PURPOSE IN DOING THIS IS ONLY TO MAKE THE SOIL
AVAILABLE FOR TILLING.  FN8 

MOREOVER, AS THE ARKANSAS COURT DID HOLD SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CASE,
THE ACT CONTAINS ONLY TWO EXEMPTIONS, NEITHER OF WHICH APPLIES TO THE
UNITED STATES.  FN9  AND ON THIS GROUND, TOGETHER WITH THE MAXIM
EXPRESSIO UNIUS, IT RULED THE ACT APPLICABLE TO THE SEVERANCE OF TIMBER
"IN ALL INSTANCES EXCEPT THE TWO EXEMPTIONS MENTIONED."  FN10 

THAT RULING, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT WHEN IT IS
CONSIDERED NOT ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE COURT'S FAILURE TO MAKE FURTHER
REFERENCE TO OR RULING UPON THE COLLECTION PROVISIONS, BUT ALSO IN VIEW
OF THE ARKANSAS COURT'S PREVIOUS DECISIONS.  THUS, IN MILLER LUMBER CO.
V. FLOYD, 169 ARK. 473, 480, 275 S.W. 741, THE COURT HELD:  "WHERE A
LANDOWNER MAKES A CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER PERSON TO CUT AND REMOVE THE
TIMBER FROM HIS LAND FOR SALE OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, THE OWNER MUST
PAY THE SEVERANCE TAX; FOR SUCH CONTRACTOR AND HIS SERVANTS WHO
ACTUALLY SEVER THE TIMBER ACT FOR THE OWNER IN THE PREMISES, AND THEIR
ACT OF SEVERING THE TIMBER IS THE ACT OF THE OWNER."  FN11 

NO REFERENCE WAS MADE IN THIS CASE TO THE MILLER CASE.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF ONE WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE COURT INTENDED TO OVERRULE
THAT DECISION OR TO DESTROY ITS RATIONALIZATION OR UNIVERSAL
APPLICABILITY, EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS.  NOT ONLY THE
OPINION IN THIS CASE, AS MUCH BY ITS OMISSIONS AS BY WHAT IT EXPRESSLY
RULES, BUT ALSO THE ARKANSAS COURT'S PRIOR DECISIONS, GIVE EVERY GROUND
FOR BELIEVING THAT IT DID NOT INTEND EITHER TO APPLY THE TAX
DIFFERENTLY IN THIS CASE THAN IN ANY OTHER OR TO OVERRULE ITS PRIOR
DETERMINATIONS OF THE ULTIMATE NATURE, CHARACTER AND INCIDENCE OF THE
TAX.  FN12 

THE MAJORITY SEEM TO IMPLY HOWEVER THAT THIS MAY BE EXACTLY WHAT WAS
DONE; THAT PERHAPS THE ARKANSAS COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE TAX WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF, AS THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES, IT WERE DIRECTLY
PLACED UPON THE GOVERNMENT AS OWNER, IT WOULD TREAT THE TAX AS FALLING
NOT ON THE GOVERNMENT BUT ON THE SEVERER ALONE.  AS HAS BEEN STATED,
NOTHING IN THAT COURT'S OPINION SUGGESTS SUCH A RULING.  AND IF THERE
WERE EITHER A RULING OR A SUFFICIENT SUGGESTION OF THIS SORT, IT WOULD
RAISE OTHER SERIOUS QUESTIONS, NOT CONSIDERED BY THAT COURT OR HERE,
CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX.  THE EFFECT OF SUCH A HOLDING WOULD
SEEM TO BE TO SINGLE OUT CONTRACTORS WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE
IMPOSITION OF A TAX NOT PLACED ON OTHER SEVERERS.  ALL OTHER
CONTRACTORS, BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE AND THE ARKANSAS DECISIONS,
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE TAX ALONG TO OWNERS.  ONLY CONTRACTORS
WITH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OR REQUIRED TO DO THIS.  THUS
TO TREAT THE TAX AS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE SEVERER IN THIS CASE, AND
THE COLLECTION PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE OWNER AS SEVERABLE AND
INAPPLICABLE, WOULD RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION, WHICH
NEITHER THE ARKANSAS COURT NOR THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED AND WHICH
APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE DETERMINED. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THEY HAVE NOT RAISED HERE ANY QUESTION OF
DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT.  BUT THIS IS BECAUSE THEY HAD NO REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT THE ARKANSAS COURT HAD APPLIED, OR WOULD APPLY, THE
STATUTE DIFFERENTLY TO THEM THAN TO OTHERS OR TO ANTICIPATE THE
CHARACTER OF THE RULING NOW MADE.  IT IS DOUBTFUL, TO SAY THE LEAST,
THAT THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE COULD PLACE A SEVERANCE TAX EXCLUSIVELY
UPON PERSONS WHO SEVER RESOURCES FROM GOVERNMENTALLY OWNED LAND.  THE
SAME DOUBT WOULD APPLY TO THE STATE COURT'S EFFORT TO MAKE THE STATUTE
SO EFFECTIVE, WERE IT TO UNDERTAKE DOING THIS.  IN MY JUDGMENT IT HAS
NOT DONE SO.  WHETHER OR NOT SUCH AN EFFORT ULTIMATELY WOULD BE
SUCCESSFUL, APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED TO BE HEARD UPON THE QUESTION
BEFORE THAT RESULT IS ACHIEVED.  THEY SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THIS
OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THIS COURT'S UPHOLDING OF AN AMBIGUOUSLY APPLICABLE
STATUTE OR IN ADVANCE OF A DECISION BY THE ONLY COURT WHICH CAN REMOVE
THE AMBIGUITY.  BECAUSE THE ARKANSAS COURT HAS NOT PASSED UPON
APPLICABILITY OR SEVERABILITY OF THE COLLECTION PROVISIONS AS THEY
AFFECT THE OWNER, AND BECAUSE IT HAS NOT DETERMINED THE VALIDITY OF THE
TAX AS APPLIED IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH A DETERMINATION, I THINK THE CAUSE
SHOULD BE REMANDED TO IT, SO THAT THE FORMER QUESTIONS MAY BE
AUTHORITATIVELY DETERMINED BEFORE WE UNDERTAKE TO DECIDE, UPON THE
WHOLLY SPECULATIVE BASIS NOW PRESENTED, WHETHER THE TAX AS APPLIED IS
VALID. 

FN1  ON THE JURISDICTIONAL DISCUSSION OF THE COURT THE APPELLANTS
ARE, OF COURSE, PETITIONERS ON CERTIORARI. 

FN2  POPE'S DIGEST ARK. (1937) SECS. 13371-13395.  THE STATUTE WAS
FIRST ENACTED IN 1923.  ACTS OF ARKANSAS, 1923, ACT 118.  IT WAS
MATERIALLY AMENDED IN 1929, BUT ITS ESSENTIAL SCHEME REMAINED THE
SAME.  ACTS OF ARKANSAS, 1929, ACT 283.  SEE NOTES 4-6, 9-12, AND TEXT,
FOR THE SUBSTANCE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROVISIONS. 

ALTHOUGH, AS I READ ITS OPINION, THE ARKANSAS COURT CAREFULLY
REFRAINED FROM RULING UPON THEIR SEVERABILITY AND THEREFORE ALSO THEIR
APPLICABILITY TO THE GOVERNMENT (SEE TEXT INFRA), THE LIEN AND
COLLECTION PROVISIONS WERE BEFORE IT, WERE CITED IN THE OPINION, AND
WERE NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN THE ISSUES PRESENTED.  THE COURT APPEARS
TO HAVE RULED THAT THE TAX IS VALID AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANTS
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THESE PROVISIONS ARE SEVERABLE OR ARE APPLICABLE
TO THE UNITED STATES.  THAT IT DID SO FURNISHES NO GROUND FOR BELIEVING
THAT THE ISSUES RELATING TO THEM WERE NOT PRESENTED OR WERE WAIVED. 
THE PETITION FOR REHEARING, AS WELL AS THE OPINION ITSELF, DEMONSTRATES
THE CONTRARY.  THE FIRST GROUND SET FORTH WAS:  "THE COURT ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE TAX WAS NOT A DIRECT TAX ON THE UNITED STATES." 

FN3  SEE POWELL, THE WANING OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX IMMUNITIES
(1945) 58 HARV. L. REV. 633; POWELL, THE REMNANT OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL
TAX IMMUNITIES (1945) 58 HARV. L. REV. 757. 

FN4  POPE'S DIGEST ARK. SEC. 13382 PROVIDES:  "THE REPORTING TAXPAYER
SHALL COLLECT OR WITHHOLD OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE
PRODUCTS SEVERED THE PROPORTIONATE PARTS OF THE TOTAL TAX DUE BY THE
RESPECTIVE OWNERS OF SUCH NATURAL RESOURCES AT THE TIME OF SEVERANCE." 

FN5  THE PROVISION READS:  "EVERY PRODUCER ACTUALLY OPERATING ANY OIL
OR GAS WELL, QUARRY OR OTHER PROPERTY FROM WHICH NATURAL RESOURCES ARE
SEVERED, UNDER CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT REQUIRING PAYMENT DIRECT TO THE
OWNER OF ANY ROYALTY, EXCESS ROYALTY OR WORKING INTEREST, EITHER IN
MONEY OR IN KIND, IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED, EMPOWERED AND REQUIRED TO
DEDUCT FROM ANY SUCH ROYALTY OR OTHER INTEREST THE AMOUNT OF THE
SEVERANCE TAX HEREIN LEVIED BEFORE MAKING SUCH PAYMENT."  POPE'S DIGEST
ARK. SEC. 13382. 

"PRODUCER" IS DEFINED AS EVERY PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR
ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS "ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING, CUTTING OR
OTHERWISE SEVERING FROM THE SOIL OR WATER FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
NATURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING MINERALS AND ORES, PEARLS, DIAMONDS, AND
OTHER PRECIOUS STONES, BAUXITE, FULLER'S EARTH, PHOSPHATES, SHELLS,
CHALK, CEMENT, CLAY, SAND, GRAVEL, ASPHALT, OCHRE, OIL, GAS, SALT,
SULPHUR, LIGNITE, COAL, MARBLE, STONES AND STONE PRODUCTS, TIMBER,
TURPENTINE AND ALL OTHER FOREST PRODUCTS AND ALL OTHER NATURAL PRODUCTS
OF THE SOIL OR WATER OF ARKANSAS."  POPE'S DIGEST ARK. SEC. 13371. 
FN6  POPE'S DIGEST ARK. SEC. 13376:  "THE STATE OF ARKANSAS SHALL HAVE
A LIEN UPON ANY AND ALL NATURAL RESOURCES SEVERED FROM THE SOIL OR
WATER FOR THE TAX AND PENALTIES HEREIN IMPOSED AND, IN ADDITION
THERETO, SAID LIEN SHALL ATTACH TO THE WELL, MACHINERY, TOOLS AND
IMPLEMENTS USED IN SEVERING OF SUCH RESOURCES." 

AS THE SECTION WAS ENACTED ORIGINALLY IN 1923 THE PROVISION FOR
ATTACHMENT OF THE LIEN TO MACHINERY, ETC., USED IN SEVERING WAS NOT
INCLUDED.  THIS WAS ADDED BY AMENDMENT IN 1929.  CF. NOTE 2. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 4.    FN8  SEE NOTE 11. 

FN9  ONE WAS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OWNER WHO OCCASIONALLY SEVERS IN
ORDER TO BUILD OR REPAIR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PREMISES OR FOR HIS OWN
USE AND ANOTHER FOR THE "PRODUCER OF SWITCH TIES" WHO HEWS THEM OUT
ENTIRELY BY HAND.  208 ARK. 459, 463, 187 S.W.2D 7, 10. 

FN10  THE DECISION HELD THE TAX INVALID AS APPLIED TO THE SEVERANCE
FROM LANDS HELD BY THE UNITED STATES AS ORIGINAL OWNER, THOUGH NOT AS
TO THOSE PURCHASED WITH THE STATE'S CONSENT. 

FN11  THE EFFECT OF THE QUOTED STATEMENT IS EMPHASIZED BY ITS
CONTEXT, IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "IT IS APPARENT THEN THAT THE OWNER OF
LANDS, WHO CUTS DOWN TREES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING FENCES OR
REPAIRING AND CONSTRUCTING HOUSES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND
FROM THE TIMBER THUS SEVERED FROM THE SOIL IS EXEMPTED FROM PAYING THE
TAX.  IT IS EQUALLY EVIDENT THAT WHEN THE TIMBER SEVERED FROM THE SOIL
IS SOLD, IT FALLS WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE ACT, AND THE TAX MUST BE PAID
BY SOMEONE.  TO ILLUSTRATE:  IF THE OWNER OF TIMBER LANDS DESIRED TO
SEVER IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLEARING THE LAND AND PUTTING IT IN
CULTIVATION AND HIRED OTHER PERSONS TO SEVER THE TIMBER FOR HIM, HE
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE SEVERANCE TAX.  IF THE OWNER SHOULD LEASE
HIS LAND TO ANOTHER PERSON FOR A DESIGNATED NUMBER OF YEARS IN ORDER TO
HAVE HIS LESSEE CLEAR THE LAND AND PUT IT IN CULTIVATION, AND IF THE
CONSIDERATION FOR THE LEASE IN WHOLE OR IN PART WAS THAT THE LESSEE
SHOULD HAVE THE TIMBER SO REMOVED FROM THE LAND, THE SEVERANCE TAX
WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID BY SUCH LESSEE.  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT IS SPECIFIC ON THIS SUBJECT AND PROVIDES THAT THE
SEVERER OR PRODUCER AS HE IS CALLED SHALL PAY THE TAX.  THE ACT IS VERY
BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE, AND IS LEVIED UPON ALL PERSONS ENGAGED IN
SEVERING THE TIMBER FROM THE SOIL FOR SALE OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES,
REGARDLESS OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS DONE.  THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS
THAT THE TAX SHALL NOT BE PAID WHERE THE TIMBER SEVERED IS ACTUALLY
USED IN ERECTING OR REPAIRING STRUCTURES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE
LAND.  THE APPLICATION OF THE TIMBER IN PART PAYMENT FOR CLEARING THE
LAND IS A SEVERING OF IT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, ALTHOUGH THE PRIMARY
PURPOSE OF SEVERING IT IS TO ENABLE THE LAND TO BE PUT IN CULTIVATION. 
WHERE A LANDOWNER MAKES A CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER PERSON TO CUT AND
REMOVE THE TIMBER FROM HIS LAND FOR SALE OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, THE
OWNER MUST PAY THE SEVERANCE TAX; FOR SUCH CONTRACTOR AND HIS SERVANTS
WHO ACTUALLY SEVER THE TIMBER ACT FOR THE OWNER IN THE PREMISES, AND
THEIR ACT OF SEVERING THE TIMBER IS THE ACT OF THE OWNER." 

IN A PREVIOUS APPEAL IN THE SAME CASE, 160 ARK. 17, 254 S.W. 450, THE
COURT HAD SUSTAINED THE ACT AS CONSTITUTIONAL ON THE THEORY THAT IT WAS
A PRIVILEGE TAX AND NOT A PROPERTY TAX. 

FN12  THIS VIEW IS SUSTAINED ALSO BY THE COURT'S EXPRESSED VIEW THAT
"IMPOSITION OF THE TAX HERE DOES NOT IN ANY SENSE INTERFERE WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS."  208 ARK. 459, 468, 187 S.W.2D 7, 12.  THE
STATEMENT COULD MEAN THAT THE TAX WOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE
GOVERNMENT AS TO OTHER OWNERS, IN WHICH EVENT A SEVERANCE OF THE
COLLECTION PROVISIONS WOULD BE IMPLIED.  THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE THIS
MEANING IS EVIDENCED, I THINK, BY THE COURT'S RELIANCE ON JAMES V.
DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA, WHERE QUITE DIFFERENT STATUTORY
PROVISIONS WERE IN QUESTION.  THE COURT'S MISAPPLICATION OF THE DRAVO
CASE WAS, I THINK, BUT A REFLECTION OF ITS IMPLICIT IDEA THAT THE TAX
WOULD BE VALID SINCE IT WAS COLLECTED IMMEDIATELY FROM THE APPELLANTS,
EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT PASS ON ITS ECONOMIC BURDEN TO THE GOVERNMENT,
WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW THAT MIGHT BE DONE. 
..END :


















DUGGAN V. SANSBERRY, 327 U.S. 499 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1946.  - DECIDED MARCH 4, 1946.  - 149 F.2D 548,
REVERSED. 


1.  IN A FEDERAL COURT IN WHICH A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION OF A
CORPORATION UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT HAD BEEN APPROVED AND
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING, A PETITION WAS FILED FOR
REORGANIZATION UNDER CHAPTER X OF AN ALLEGED SUBSIDIARY AGAINST WHICH A
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS THEN PENDING IN ANOTHER FEDERAL COURT.  THE
REORGANIZATION COURT ORDERED A STAY OF A SCHEDULED SALE OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE ALLEGED SUBSIDIARY IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  HELD THAT THE
ORDER OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT WAS BINDING UPON THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
AND WAS NOT THERE SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  PP. 501, 504. 

2.  IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO OBEY THE STAY ORDER OF
THE REORGANIZATION COURT, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION OF THE ALLEGED SUBSIDIARY HAD BEEN PROPERLY FILED.  P.
504. 

3.  SINCE THE INTERESTED PARTIES HAD AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING TO SECURE A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION
WHETHER A PARENT-SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN THE
CORPORATIONS, THE SAME ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE TRIED COLLATERALLY IN THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  P. 507. 

4.  SECTION 149 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "AN ORDER,
WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL, APPROVING A PETITION FILED UNDER THIS CHAPTER
SHALL BE A CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT,"
CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ALLOWING A COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT UPON THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE REORGANIZATION COURT.  P. 508. 

5.  UNDER ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES,
CONGRESS MAY PROSCRIBE COLLATERAL ATTACK IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS ON
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN A REORGANIZATION COURT.  P. 510. 

DUGGAN, TRUSTEE, V. SANSBERRY, TRUSTEE. 

NO. 418.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 419, NATIONAL AIRCRAFT CORP. V. SANSBERRY,
TRUSTEE, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON
THE SAME DATES. 

CHRISTOPHER ENGINEERING COMPANY PETITIONED FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER
CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, WHICH APPOINTED DUGGAN AS TRUSTEE.  SUBSEQUENTLY,
AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED BY ITS CREDITORS
AGAINST NATIONAL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, WHICH APPOINTED SANSBERRY AS TRUSTEE. 
LATER AN ORDER WAS ENTERED DIRECTING THAT NATIONAL'S PROPERTY BE
OFFERED FOR PUBLIC SALE.  ON THE DAY BEFORE THE SALE, A PETITION WAS
FILED ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL IN THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS OF
CHRISTOPHER IN THE MISSOURI DISTRICT COURT, WHICH ISSUED A DECREE
FINDING THAT NATIONAL WAS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF CHRISTOPHER AND
ENJOINING THE SALE OF NATIONAL'S PROPERTY.  THE SALE NEVERTHELESS WAS
MADE, APPROVED AND CONFIRMED.  UPON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW FILED BY
DUGGAN AND THE NATIONAL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, THE DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED THE REFEREE'S ORDER.  ITS DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  149 F.2D 548.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326
U.S. 709.  REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, P. 511. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, ANNOUNCED BY MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY. 

THESE CASES INVOLVE, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID, 149 F.2D
548, "A CLASH OF JURISDICTION" BETWEEN TWO DISTRICT COURTS.  THEY RAISE
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF
CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 501 ET SEQ. TWO
CORPORATIONS, CHRISTOPHER ENGINEERING COMPANY AND NATIONAL AIRCRAFT
CORPORATION, ARE CONCERNED, AS IS THE QUESTION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP AS
PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS. 

ON DECEMBER 27, 1943, CHRISTOPHER ENGINEERING COMPANY FILED A
PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER CHAPTER X IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.  ON
THE SAME DAY THE PETITION WAS APPROVED AS PROPERLY FILED AND PETITIONER
DUGGAN WAS APPOINTED TRUSTEE.  APPROXIMATELY A MONTH LATER, JANUARY 21,
1944, AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED BY ITS
CREDITORS AGAINST NATIONAL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, WHICH PETITIONER
DUGGAN CLAIMS WAS A SUBSIDIARY OF CHRISTOPHER, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA.  FN1  A PETITION FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY FOR NATIONAL WAS FILED AND
REFERRED TO A REFEREE WHO TOOK THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT AFTER
HOLDING A HEARING AT WHICH DUGGAN, AS TRUSTEE OF CHRISTOPHER, APPEARED
BY HIS ATTORNEY.  ON FEBRUARY 7, 1944, THE INVOLUNTARY PETITION BEING
UNOPPOSED, THE REFEREE ENTERED AN ORDER OF ADJUDICATION, AND THE
FOLLOWING DAY APPOINTED RESPONDENT SANSBERRY AS RECEIVER.  ON MARCH 7,
1944, THE FIRST MEETING OF NATIONAL'S CREDITORS WAS HELD.  AT THAT
MEETING BROWN, ITS SECRETARY-TREASURER, TESTIFIED THAT IN DECEMBER,
1942, HE AND A.B. CHRISTOPHER  FN2  HAD PURCHASED ALL THE CAPITAL STOCK
OF NATIONAL AND THAT, ALTHOUGH THE CERTIFICATES HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO
DUGGAN, "THERE IS NO REASON THAT HE (BROWN) KNOWS OF WHY SUCH CAPITAL
STOCK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS THE PROPERTY OF CHRISTOPHER ENGINEERING
COMPANY INSTEAD OF THE PROPERTY OF HIMSELF AND CHRISTOPHER,
INDIVIDUALLY."  AT THIS MEETING ALSO THE RECEIVER SANSBERRY WAS
SELECTED AS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR NATIONAL. 

ON MARCH 21, 1944, SANSBERRY, ACTING AS TRUSTEE, FILED A PETITION FOR
AN ORDER AUTHORIZING HIM TO OFFER FOR SALE AND TO SELL THE TANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THE REAL ESTATE BELONGING TO NATIONAL.  THE
REFEREE ORDERED THAT A MEETING OF CREDITORS BE HELD TO CONSIDER THIS
PETITION.  NOTICE OF THE MEETING WAS SENT TO DUGGAN AND ALSO TO THE
ATTORNEYS FOR BROWN.  THE MEETING WAS HELD ON APRIL 4, 1944.  NEITHER
DUGGAN NOR BROWN APPEARED.  NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED SALE WAS MADE
EXCEPT BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY AIR FORCE, WHICH CLAIMED CERTAIN
PERSONAL PROPERTY.  BUT IT WAS EXPRESSLY STATED ON ITS BEHALF THAT
THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO THE ENTERING OF AN ORDER FOR THE SALE
COVERING ANY OTHER PROPERTY OF NATIONAL.  ON APRIL 6 THE REFEREE
ENTERED AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OF
NATIONAL, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, BE OFFERED FOR PUBLIC SALE ON APRIL
20, 1944.  NOTICE OF THE SALE WAS SENT TO DUGGAN AND BROWN AMONG
OTHERS. 

ON APRIL 19, THE DAY PRIOR TO THE SALE, A PETITION WAS FILED ON
BEHALF OF NATIONAL IN THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS OF CHRISTOPHER IN
THE MISSOURI DISTRICT COURT.  FN3  ON THE SAME DAY THAT COURT ISSUED AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST HOLDING THE SALE OF NATIONAL'S PROPERTY.  THE DECREE
CONTAINED A FINDING THAT NATIONAL IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE
CHRISTOPHER ENGINEERING COMPANY. 

IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE SALE ON APRIL 20, COPIES OF THE INJUNCTION
ORDER WERE SERVED UPON SANSBERRY AND THE AUCTIONEER; BUT THEY PROCEEDED
WITH THE SALE.  ON MAY 3, AFTER THE TRUSTEE HAD FILED HIS REPORT TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE SALE HAD BEEN ADVANTAGEOUS AND AFTER A HEARING HAD BEEN
HELD, THE REFEREE APPROVED AND CONFIRMED THE SALE.  HE THEN GRANTED
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF THIS ORDER WHICH WERE FILED BY DUGGAN AND BY
THE NATIONAL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION PER BROWN.  FN4  THE DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED THE REFEREE'S ORDER, AS DID THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE
JUDGE CONCURRING SPECIALLY AND ONE DISSENTING.  149 F.2D 548.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 709. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT FOR THE
DISTRICT COURT IN MISSOURI TO OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER NATIONAL AND ITS
ASSETS, IT HAD TO BE ESTABLISHED AS A "JURISDICTIONAL FACT" THAT
"NATIONAL WAS A SUBSIDIARY OF CHRISTOPHER, NOT ONLY ON APRIL 19, 1944,
BUT ON DECEMBER 27, 1943, WHEN CHRISTOPHER FILED ITS PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION, AND ALSO ON JANUARY 21, 1944, WHEN THE INVOLUNTARY
PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY AGAINST NATIONAL WAS FILED (IN THE DISTRICT
COURT) IN INDIANA."  THIS FACT, THE COURT FOUND, HAD NOT BEEN
ESTABLISHED; FOR THE ORDER OF THE MISSOURI COURT DID NOT STATE THAT
CHRISTOPHER OWNED ANY STOCK OF NATIONAL PRIOR TO APRIL 19, 1944; AND,
AS APRIL 19 WAS THE DATE AS OF WHICH THE MISSOURI COURT'S DETERMINATION
WAS EFFECTIVE, "WE MUST PRESUME THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE IT
THAT THE RELATIONSHIP EXISTED EARLIER."  149 F.2D AT 550. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT UNDER CHAPTER X,
WHEN A SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT IN ONE
DISTRICT COURT AND ITS PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED TO A TRUSTEE, IT MAY NOT
FILE A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IN ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT WHERE THE
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING OF ITS PARENT IS PENDING.  FN5  AND FINALLY
THE COURT HELD THAT THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION WAS IMPROPERLY
FILED IN ANY CASE, SINCE IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT BROWN WAS AUTHORIZED TO
FILE IT. 

WE COME TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS.  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER NATIONAL'S
PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IN THE MISSOURI PROCEEDINGS WAS PROPERLY
FILED ON APRIL 19, THE INDIANA COURT, ON BEING NOTIFIED THAT THE
PETITION HAD BEEN FILED AND APPROVED  FN6  AND THAT AN INJUNCTION HAD
ISSUED, SHOULD HAVE STAYED IMMEDIATELY THE SALE OF NATIONAL'S ASSETS. 
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS:  "PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF A PETITION, THE
JUDGE MAY UPON CAUSE SHOWN GRANT A TEMPORARY STAY, UNTIL THE PETITION
IS APPROVED OR DISMISSED, OF A PRIOR PENDING BANKRUPTCY, MORTGAGE
FORECLOSURE OR EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDING AND OF ANY ACT OR OTHER
PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE A LIEN AGAINST A DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, AND MAY UPON
CAUSE SHOWN ENJOIN OR STAY UNTIL THE PETITION IS APPROVED OR DISMISSED
THE COMMENCEMENT OR CONTINUATION OF A SUIT AGAINST A DEBTOR."  IT WAS
ON THE AUTHORITY OF THIS SECTION, WE MAY ASSUME,  FN7  THAT THE
INJUNCTION STAYING THE SALE OF NATIONAL'S PROPERTY WAS ISSUED.  AS
INTERPRETED  FN8  THE SECTION DECLARES THAT WHEN A PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION HAS BEEN FILED BY A CORPORATION, THE JUDGE MAY STAY
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.  IT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PETITIONS FILED
BY PARENT CORPORATIONS AND PETITIONS FILED BY SUBSIDIARIES, NOR DOES IT
DISTINGUISH PETITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED CORRECTLY FROM THOSE WHICH
HAVE BEEN FILED ERRONEOUSLY WITH THE REORGANIZATION COURT.  IT THUS
APPLIES TO NATIONAL, WHOSE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION HAD BEEN FILED
AND AGAINST WHICH A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS PENDING. 

OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO INTERESTED PARTIES TO COME INTO THE
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT NATIONAL'S PETITION
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.  SEE SEC. 137, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 537, WHICH
PROVIDES:  "PRIOR TO THE FIRST DATE SET FOR THE HEARING PROVIDED IN
ALLEGATIONS OF A PETITION BY OR AGAINST A DEBTOR MAY BE FILED BY ANY
CREDITOR OR INDENTURE TRUSTEE OR, IF THE DEBTOR IS NOT INSOLVENT,  FN10
BY ANY STOCKHOLDER OF THE DEBTOR."  AND SEC. 144, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 544,
PROVIDES, "IF AN ANSWER FILED BY ANY CREDITOR, INDENTURE TRUSTEE, OR
STOCKHOLDER SHALL CONTROVERT ANY OF THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE
PETITION, THE JUDGE SHALL, AS SOON AS MAY BE, DETERMINE, WITHOUT THE
INTERVENTION OF A JURY, THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PLEADINGS AND ENTER
AN ORDER APPROVING THE PETITION, IF SATISFIED THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER AND HAS BEEN FILED IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT
THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS ARE SUSTAINED BY THE PROOFS, OR DISMISSING IT
IF NOT SO SATISFIED."  FN11  THUS, UNDER SECS. 137 AND 144, AN ANSWER
COULD BE FILED TO NATIONAL'S PETITION, DENYING THAT NATIONAL WAS A
SUBSIDIARY OF CHRISTOPHER, AND ASKING THAT THE PETITION BE DISMISSED. 
THE JUDGE WOULD THEN BE OBLIGED TO HOLD AT LEAST A SUMMARY HEARING, SEE
IN RE CHENEY BROS., 12 F.SUPP.  609, 611,  FN12  A MATERIAL ALLEGATION
BEING CONTROVERTED, AND TO DECIDE THE DISPUTED ISSUE ON ITS MERITS. 

IN AS MUCH AS THE INTERESTED PARTIES THUS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING TO DISPUTE THE ALLEGATION OF NATIONAL'S
PETITION THAT A PARENT-SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN IT AND
CHRISTOPHER AND BY DOING SO TO HAVE THAT ISSUE DETERMINED ON THE FACTS,
WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE SAME ISSUE SHOULD NOT
BE TRIED COLLATERALLY IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  FN13 

BUT RESPONDENT RELIES ESPECIALLY UPON SEC. 149, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 549,
AS ALLOWING A COLLATERAL ATTACK IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT UPON THE
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY NATIONAL.  THIS SECTION READS:
"AN ORDER, WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL, APPROVING A PETITION FILED UNDER
THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE A CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT."  RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS THAT THE MISSOURI DISTRICT
COURT'S APPROVAL OF THE PETITION UPON ITS FILING WAS NOT AN ORDER WHICH
HAD BECOME FINAL AND THAT AS A RESULT THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
THEREBY INITIATED BY NATIONAL WERE SUBJECT TO QUESTION IN THE
BANKRUPTCY FORUM. 

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE EX PARTE ORDER OF APPROVAL, MADE UPON THE
DAY THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION WAS FILED, WAS NOT A FINAL ORDER
FN14  AND ASSUMING ALSO THAT, AS RESPONDENT ARGUES, "JURISDICTION"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT HAVE THE LIMITED MEANING OF
"VENUE," THE SECTION NEVERTHELESS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE POSITION TAKEN. 
CONGRESS IN SEC. 113, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 513, EXPLICITLY PROVIDED THAT A
REORGANIZATION COURT, UPON THE FILING OF A PETITION, COULD STAY PENDING
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  FN15  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS PROVISION IT IS
SCARCELY POSSIBLE THAT CONGRESS ALSO INTENDED THAT A COLLATERAL ATTACK
COULD BE MADE IN THE BANKRUPTCY FORUM, THE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH HAD
BEEN STAYED,  FN16  UPON THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE REORGANIZATION FORUM. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT IF THIS BE THE CASE, THEN SEC. 149 HAS NO MEANING
AT ALL.  WE DO NOT THINK THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS.  ALTHOUGH, AS WE
CONSTRUE THE ACT, NO COLLATERAL ATTACK MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS, AT LEAST IN A BANKRUPTCY FORUM THE
PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE REORGANIZATION COURT HAS STAYED, THIS DOES NOT
MEAN THAT UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE AN ORDER OF APPROVAL IS NOT
FINAL, SEC. 149 WOULD NOT ALLOW THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING TO BE
ATTACKED COLLATERALLY IN SOME OTHER FORUM, IN PARTICULAR WHERE "A PRIOR
...  BANKRUPTCY, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE OR EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP
PROCEEDING (OR)  ...  ANY ACT OR OTHER PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE A LIEN
AGAINST A DEBTOR'S PROPERTY," SEC. 113, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 513, IS NOT
PENDING.  MOREOVER, HAD THE MISSOURI DISTRICT COURT NOT ENJOINED THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, WE MAY ASSUME  FN17  THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECT IN NOT ORDERING THE SALE OF THE ASSETS OF
NATIONAL HALTED. 

THE PROBLEM INVOLVES, OF COURSE, NOT THE ORDINARY POWER OF ONE COURT
OF GENERAL JURISDICTION TO QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER COURT
OF GENERAL JURISDICTION.  THE JURISDICTION OF BOTH THE BANKRUPTCY FORUM
AND THE REORGANIZATION FORUM IS DERIVED FROM AND IS LIMITED BY THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, ENACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER "TO
ESTABLISH  ...  UNIFORM LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES  ..."  CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SEC. 8.  IT WAS
WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE THAT A BANKRUPTCY COURT COULD
NOT PERMIT AN ATTACK, EVEN ON THE USUAL GROUNDS, TO BE MADE UPON
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN A REORGANIZATION COURT.  FN18 THIS POWER
CONGRESS EXERCISED BY PERMITTING THE REORGANIZATION COURT TO STAY, AS
IT DID,  FN19 THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.    THE EXERCISE OF THIS
POWER, TAKEN IN RELATION TO THE FACTS AT BAR, WAS IN PURSUANCE OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION ORDINARILY TO ALLOW PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY TO BE
REORGANIZED IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING,  FN20  THEREBY EFFECTUATING ITS
GENERAL POLICY THAT THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION OF AN ESTATE SHOULD BE
CENTRALIZED IN A SINGLE REORGANIZATION COURT.  FN21  IF THE
REORGANIZATION FORUM LACKED THE POWER TO STAY THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING
AND THEREBY TO PREVENT A COLLATERAL INQUIRY INTO ITS OWN JURISDICTION,
THIS POLICY OF CONGRESS WOULD BE FRUSTRATED; FOR INSTEAD OF ONE COURT'S
HAVING "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY, WHEREVER
LOCATED,"  FN22  THERE WOULD BE TWO COURTS EACH WITH A CLAIM TO
JURISDICTION AND EACH DENYING THE OTHER'S JURISDICTION.  WE MAY NOT
CONSTRUE THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS PERMITTING SUCH A STATE OF AFFAIRS. 

IN VIEW OF THE DISPOSITION WE MAKE OF THE CAUSE IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION CONCERNING PETITIONERS' MOTION, SUBMITTED IN THEIR
REPLY BRIEF, RELATING TO CERTAIN MATTERS AFFECTING THE STATE OF THE
RECORD. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  ON JANUARY 19, 1944, AN INDIANA STATE COURT APPOINTED A RECEIVER
FOR NATIONAL.  THE RECEIVER NEVER QUALIFIED, HOWEVER, THE QUALIFICATION
HAVING BEEN DELAYED BECAUSE OF A RESTRAINING ORDER ENTERED BY THE
DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE CHRISTOPHER REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS. 

FN2  A.B. CHRISTOPHER WAS PRESIDENT OF THE CHRISTOPHER ENGINEERING
COMPANY AND BROWN WAS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SAME COMPANY. 

FN3  THE PETITION WAS SIGNED "NATIONAL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, A
CORPORATION, BY J. M. BROWN, PETITIONER."  IT RECITED THAT "THE
MAJORITY OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THIS SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION HAVING
POWER TO VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS IS OWNED DIRECTLY BY THE
DEBTOR OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH NOMINEES." 

FN4  IN GRANTING THE PETITIONS FOR REVIEW, THE REFEREE NOTED THAT
"NEITHER PETITION WAS IN DUPLICATE AS REQUIRED BY RULE 19 OF THE RULES
OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
INDIANA, AND NEITHER PETITION WAS ACCOMPANIED BY BRIEF AS REQUIRED BY
SAID RULE."  HE ALSO NOTED THAT COPIES OF THE PETITIONS HAD NOT BEEN
SERVED UPON THE TRUSTEE, AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 39(C) OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 67(C).  HE STATED: "IT SEEMS OBVIOUS
THAT THE FAILURE OF THE PETITIONERS FOR REVIEW TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES
OF COURT AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IN RESPECT TO THE
FILING OF SUCH PETITIONS WOULD JUSTIFY THE DENIAL THEREOF.  IN ORDER,
HOWEVER, TO RESOLVE ALL DOUBTS IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS AND SO THAT
THE MATTER MAY BE PRESENTED TO THE JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, THE REFEREE FINDS THAT SAID
PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED."  THE REFEREE'S GRANTING OF THE PETITIONS,
DESPITE PETITIONERS' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 39(C), APPEARS TO BE
JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE TRUSTEE WAIVED
SERVICE.  IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SERVICE IS NOT
JURISDICTIONAL.  2 COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  SEC.  39.24, N. 15. 

THE REFEREE DENIED PETITIONS FOR A STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER
APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE SALE.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE ORDER
OF DENIAL. 

FN5  SEE 149 F.2D AT 551-552 FOR THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE WHICH LED IT TO THIS CONCLUSION, AND COMPARE THE DISSENTING
OPINION, 149 F.2D AT 553, FOR A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION. 

FN6  THE PETITION WAS APPROVED ON THE SAME DAY THAT IT WAS FILED. 
SEE NOTES 7 AND 11. 

FN7  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE
WHETHER THE APPLICABLE SECTION IS SEC. 113 OR SEC. 148, AND WE
THEREFORE EXPRESSLY RESERVE THAT QUESTION. 

ORDER APPROVING A PETITION SHALL OPERATE AS A STAY OF A PRIOR PENDING
BANKRUPTCY, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, OR EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDING,
AND OF ANY ACT OR OTHER PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE A LIEN AGAINST THE
DEBTOR'S PROPERTY."  IT MIGHT BE URGED THAT THIS SECTION WOULD APPLY
SINCE THE PETITION HAD BEEN "APPROVED" IN THE SENSE OF SEC. 141, 11
U.S.C. SEC. 541, WHICH PROVIDES:  "UPON THE FILING OF A PETITION BY A
DEBTOR, THE JUDGE SHALL ENTER AN ORDER APPROVING THE PETITION, IF
SATISFIED THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER AND
HAS BEEN FILED IN GOOD FAITH, OR DISMISSING IT IF NOT SO SATISFIED";
AND THAT THEREFORE, UNDER SEC. 148, THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS
AUTOMATICALLY STAYED AND IT WAS UNNECESSARY FOR THE INJUNCTION TO
ISSUE. 

THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW WOULD BE THAT THE MEANING OF "APPROVE" AS USED
IN SECS. 113 AND 148 IS NOT THE EX PARTE APPROVAL GIVEN IMMEDIATELY
UPON THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER SEC. 141 BUT THE APPROVAL GIVEN
AFTER ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 144, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 544.  SEE
NOTE 11 AND TEXT. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 7. 

FN9  SECTION 161, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 561, READS:  "THE JUDGE SHALL FIX A
TIME OF HEARING, TO BE HELD NOT LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS AND NOT MORE THAN
SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE PETITION, OF WHICH HEARING AT
LEAST THIRTY DAYS' NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN BY MAIL TO THE CREDITORS,
STOCKHOLDERS, INDENTURE TRUSTEES, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION AND SUCH OTHER PERSONS AS THE JUDGE MAY DESIGNATE, AND, IF
DIRECTED BY THE JUDGE, BY PUBLICATION IN SUCH NEWSPAPER OR NEWSPAPERS
OF GENERAL CIRCULATION AS THE JUDGE MAY DESIGNATE." 

IN CONNECTION WITH SEC. 161, SEE SEC. 162, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 562. 

FN10  NATIONAL'S PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION ALLEGED:  "THIS
SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION IS UNABLE TO MEET ITS DEBTS AS THEY MATURE
..." 

FN11  UNDER THIS SECTION THE DISTRICT COURT, IF SATISFIED THAT THE
PETITION COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER X AND HAS BEEN FILED
IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS ARE SUSTAINED BY THE
PROOFS, MAY BE APPROVING THE PETITION FOR THE SECOND TIME; FOR, AS IN
THE PRESENT CASE, HE MAY HAVE APPROVED IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 141,
11 U.S.C. SEC. 541, FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE TIME THE PETITION WAS
FILED.  SEE 10 REMINGTON, BANKRUPTCY (1939) SEC. 4466.  CF. NOTE 7. 

THE ORDER OF APPROVAL UNDER SEC. 141, WHICH CONSISTS OF "FIRST, A
CONCLUSION OF LAW TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PETITION IS SUFFICIENT IN
RESPECT OF ITS ALLEGATIONS, SECOND, A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE PETITION
IS FILED IN GOOD FAITH," 10 REMINGTON SEC. 4453, HAVING BEEN MADE EX
PARTE, IS OF COURSE NOT CONCLUSIVE.  SEE NOTE 7.  SEE ALSO THE
TESTIMONY OF MR. HAROLD REMINGTON IN HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 6439,
SUBSEQUENTLY REPORTED AS H.R. 8046, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 226-227. 
AND SEE GERDES, CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS: CHANGES EFFECTED BY CHAPTER
X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (1938) 52 HARV. L. REV. 1, 7, N. 38, FOR A
SUGGESTION THAT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANSWERS TO THE PETITION MAY BE
FILED CANNOT BE FIXED UNTIL AN ORDER APPROVING THE PETITION, UNDER SEC.
141, HAS BEEN ENTERED.  IF THIS BE THE CASE, IT WOULD SEEM THAT A JUDGE
COULD NOT AVOID THIS PROBLEM OF DOUBLE APPROVAL BY NOT APPROVING THE
PETITION UNTIL AN ANSWER HAD BEEN RECEIVED. 

FN12  CF. GERDES, CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS:  CHANGES EFFECTED BY
CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (1938) 52 HARV. L. REV. 1, 7:  "THE
STATUTE CONTAINS NO MANDATORY PROVISION REQUIRING NOTICE OF THE HEARING
ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY AN ANSWER TO BE GIVEN TO ALL CREDITORS AND
STOCKHOLDERS ENTITLED TO CONTROVERT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION. 
IF SUCH NOTICE IS GIVEN, A DETERMINATION OF ANY ISSUE TRIED AT THE
HEARING BECOMES CONCLUSIVE (CITING SEC. 145, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 545).  IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH NOTICE, RECURRENT TRIALS OF THE SAME ISSUES MAY BE
NECESSARY.  ONCE AN ORDER APPROVING THE PETITION HAS BEEN ENTERED,
HOWEVER, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO AVOID THE EXPENSE OF GIVING NOTICE TO
ALL CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS AND ALSO AVOID REPEATED TRIALS BY
POSTPONING THE HEARINGS UNTIL AFTER THE TIME TO FILE ANSWERS HAS
EXPIRED, AND THEN TRYING ALL OF SUCH ISSUES AT THE SAME TIME."  CF.
ALSO 10 REMINGTON, BANKRUPTCY (1939) SEC. 4466:  "THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCCESSIVE ORDERS OF APPROVAL IS PROBABLY MORE FORMAL AND THEORETICAL
THAN SUBSTANTIAL AND REAL, SINCE THE HEARING UPON ALL ANSWERS FILED BY
CREDITORS, INDENTURE TRUSTEES AND STOCKHOLDERS WOULD PROBABLY BE
CONSOLIDATED." 

FN13  IT MIGHT BE ARGUED THAT IF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT FOR THE MISSOURI DISTRICT COURT TO OBTAIN
JURISDICTION OVER NATIONAL IT WAS NECESSARY THAT NATIONAL BE A
SUBSIDIARY OF CHRISTOPHER, NOT ONLY ON THE DATE WHEN NATIONAL FILED ITS
PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION, BUT ALSO WHEN CHRISTOPHER FILED ITS
PETITION AND WHEN THE INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED
AGAINST NATIONAL, THEN INTERESTED PARTIES WOULD NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO CONTROVERT A MATERIAL ALLEGATION OF THE PETITION, NAMELY, THAT SUCH
A PARENT-SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIP DID EXIST ON THOSE DATES, SINCE THE
PETITION CONTAINED NO SUCH EXPLICIT STATEMENT.  THE ANSWER WOULD BE,
HOWEVER, THAT THE INTERESTED PARTIES, FIRST, COULD CONTEND THAT SUCH AN
ALLEGATION WAS REQUIRED AS A JURISDICTIONAL FACT, SEE SEC. 130(2), 11
U.S.C. SEC. 530(2), AND, SECOND, IF THE MERE GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE
PARENT-SUBSIDIARY RELATIONSHIP WERE TO BE TAKEN TO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENT, IF ANY, THAT IT ALSO EXISTED ON THE PRIOR DATES, THEY
COULD RAISE IN ANSWER TO THE PETITION THAT IT DID NOT EXIST ON THOSE
DATES.  IT WOULD THEN BE FOR THE REORGANIZATION COURT TO DETERMINE THE
CORRECTNESS OF EITHER CONTENTION OR BOTH. 

FN14  S. REP. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., 27, SAYS THAT SEC. 149 "IS
DESIGNED TO FORECLOSE ALL DIRECT OR COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON JURISDICTION
OR VENUE, ONCE THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL FROM AN ORDER APPROVING A PETITION
HAS EXPIRED."  SEE FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE MEANING OF "FINAL," GERDES,
CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS:  CHANGES EFFECTED BY CHAPTER X OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (1938) 52 HARV. L. REV. 1, 7-8. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 7 AND TEXT. 

FN16  ALTHOUGH THE MISSOURI DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED ONLY THE SALE,
THIS WAS IN EFFECT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENTIRE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS. 

SEE IN RE LONG ISLAND PROPERTIES, 42 F.SUPP.  323, TO THE EFFECT THAT
A JUDGMENT RENDERED BY A STATE COURT IN VIOLATION OF A STAY ORDER THAT
HAD BEEN ISSUED BY A REORGANIZATION COURT WAS WITHOUT EFFECT IN THE
REORGANIZATION. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 14 AND TEXT; ALSO NOTE 7. 

FN18  IN KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433, 438-439, WHAT IS ALMOST
THE CONVERSE WAS STATED:  "IT IS GENERALLY TRUE THAT A JUDGMENT BY A
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BEARS A PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND
IS NOT THEREAFTER SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  BUT CONGRESS, BECAUSE
ITS POWER OVER THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCY IS PLENARY, MAY BY SPECIFIC
BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION CREATE AN EXCEPTION TO THAT PRINCIPLE AND RENDER
JUDICIAL ACTS TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF A DEBTOR
WHOM THE BANKRUPTCY LAW PROTECTS NULLITIES AND VULNERABLE
COLLATERALLY." 

FN19  SEE NOTE 16. 

FN20  AT THE HEARINGS ON THE CHANDLER ACT MR. WEINSTEIN STATED:  "IT
IS ADVISABLE THAT THE COURT WHICH IS CONSIDERING THE PROCEEDING OF A
PARENT CORPORATION SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEFORE IT THE PROCEEDING OF THE
SUBSIDIARY, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE THESE INTERRELATIONS AND THESE
CONNECTED INTERESTS, AND THE PLANS OF REORGANIZATION OFFERED BY THEM,
RESPECTIVELY, MAY BE CARRIED FORWARD CONCURRENTLY."  HEARINGS BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 6439,
SUBSEQUENTLY REPORTED AS H.R. 8046, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 136.  SEE H.
REP. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 41; S. REP. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D
SESS., 25.  CF. IN RE ASSOCIATED GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 11 F.SUPP.  359,
373-374, A SEC. 77B CASE, HOLDING THAT ALTHOUGH SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS
HAD NOT FILED PETITIONS IN THE PARENT'S REORGANIZATION, "IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW, HOWEVER, THAT THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN
SUBSIDIARIES OVER WHOSE ACTION THE DEBTOR COMPANY HAS CONTROL, FROM SO
DEALING WITH THEIR ASSETS AS TO DILUTE THE EQUITY OF THE DEBTOR COMPANY
AND THUS TO ENDANGER THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS ON WHOSE BEHALF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WAS INVOKED." 

FN21  SEE MAR-TEX REALIZATION CORP. V. WOLFSON, 145 F.2D 360, 362
363. 

FN22  SEC. 111, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 511.  THIS SECTION READS IN FULL:
"WHERE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, THE COURT
IN WHICH A PETITION IS FILED SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER,
HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY, WHEREVER
LOCATED." 

TRANSFER A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IN
ANY OTHER DISTRICT, REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSETS
OF THE DEBTOR OR ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, IF THE INTERESTS OF
THE PARTIES WILL BE BEST SERVED BY SUCH TRANSFER." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :


















GRIFFIN V. GRIFFIN, 327 U.S. 220 


NO. 86.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 148
F.2D 17, REVERSED. 


IN 1924 A NEW YORK COURT ENTERED AN INTERLOCUTORY DECREE DIVORCING
RESPONDENT FROM PETITIONER.  THE DECREE WAS MODIFIED IN 1926 TO PROVIDE
THAT PETITIONER SHOULD PAY TO RESPONDENT ALIMONY IN A SPECIFIED AMOUNT
ANNUALLY.  BOTH PARTIES WERE THEN RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK, AND THE
PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTESTED.  IN 1936 THE COURT, ALSO IN CONTESTED
PROCEEDINGS, ENTERED AN ORDER DECLARING THAT THERE WAS DUE FROM
PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT, FOR THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 25, 1935,
ALIMONY ARREARS AND ACCRUED INTEREST IN A SPECIFIED AMOUNT.  IN 1938,
WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER, A JUDGMENT WAS BY ORDER OF THE COURT
DOCKETED IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER, AND EXECUTION
ORDERED TO ISSUE THEREON, IN AN AMOUNT EMBRACING WHAT WAS DUE UPON THE
1936 ORDER PLUS ALIMONY ARREARS AND INTEREST FROM OCTOBER 25, 1935, TO
THE DATE OF THE 1938 ORDER.  RESPONDENT SUED PETITIONER IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UPON THE 1938 JUDGMENT, AND WAS
AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE 1938 JUDGMENT PLUS
INTEREST.  HELD: 

1.  TO THE EXTENT THAT IT ADJUDGED AS DUE AND OWING ARREARS OF
ALIMONY ACCRUED SINCE OCTOBER 25, 1935, THE 1938 JUDGMENT WAS WANTING
IN PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND UNENFORCEABLE.  PP. 223, 233. 

(A)  BECAUSE OF THE WANT OF NOTICE TO PETITIONER OF THE PROCEEDING TO
DOCKET JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM FOR ACCRUED ALIMONY, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT
PETITIONER WAS THUS DEPRIVED OF AN OPPORTUNITY WHICH UNDER THE LAW OF
NEW YORK WAS OPEN TO HIM TO RAISE DEFENSES IN SUCH A PROCEEDING, THERE
WAS WANT OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND HENCE WANT OF THAT JURISDICTION
OVER THE PERSON OF PETITIONER PREREQUISITE TO THE RENDITION OF A
JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM AGAINST HIM.  P. 228. 

THE LAW OF NEW YORK IS EXAMINED AND FOUND TO DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY
FROM THAT INVOLVED IN SISTARE V. SISTARE, 218 U.S. 1.  P. 233. 

(B)  IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF THE 1938
PROCEEDING WAS A DOMICILED RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, EITHER WITHIN OR
TEMPORARILY WITHOUT THE STATE, OR A RESIDENT OF SOME OTHER
JURISDICTION.  IN ANY EVENT, A JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM DIRECTING EXECUTION
TO ISSUE AGAINST PETITIONER, AND THUS PURPORTING TO CUT OFF ALL
AVAILABLE DEFENSES, COULD NOT BE RENDERED ON ANY THEORY OF THE STATE'S
POWER OVER HIM, WITHOUT SOME FORM OF NOTICE BY PERSONAL OR SUBSTITUTED
SERVICE.  P. 228. 

(C)  ALTHOUGH THE 1926 DECREE, IN LIGHT OF THE NEW YORK PRACTICE,
GAVE PETITIONER NOTICE AT THE TIME OF ITS ENTRY THAT FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS MIGHT BE TAKEN TO DOCKET IN JUDGMENT FORM THE OBLIGATION TO
PAY INSTALLMENTS ACCRUING UNDER THE DECREE, DUE PROCESS NEVERTHELESS
REQUIRED FURTHER NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF SUCH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, INASMUCH AS THEY UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIALLY TO AFFECT HIS
RIGHTS IN WAYS IN WHICH THE 1926 DECREE DID NOT.  P. 229. 

(D)  THE ASSERTION FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE 1938 JUDGMENT OF POWER
TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER'S LIABILITY FOR ACCRUED ALIMONY AND TO DIRECT
ITS ENFORCEMENT BY EXECUTION, DOES NOT DIFFER IN ITS NATURE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECT FROM THE LIKE ASSERTION OF POWER TO ISSUE
EXECUTION BY ANY OTHER JUDGMENT RENDERED WITHOUT NOTICE.  P. 231. 

(E)  THE CONTENTION THAT THE 1938 JUDGMENT IS NOT A FINAL
ADJUDICATION OF THE DEFENSES WHICH THE PETITIONER MIGHT HAVE HAD, AND
THAT NOTICE WAS THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED, IS IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE FACT
THAT THE JUDGMENT AUTHORIZES IMMEDIATE EXECUTION THEREON.  P. 232. 

(F)  EVEN THOUGH PETITIONER COULD, IF HE KNEW OF THE JUDGMENT BEFORE
EXECUTION IS ACTUALLY LEVIED, MOVE TO SET THE JUDGMENT ASIDE, THAT
COULD NOT SAVE THE JUDGMENT FROM ITS DUE PROCESS INFIRMITY, SINCE IT
AND THE NEW YORK PRACTICE PURPORT TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF EXECUTION
BEFORE PETITIONER IS NOTIFIED OF THE PROCEEDING OR THE JUDGMENT.  P.
232. 

2.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE 1938 JUDGMENT INFRINGES DUE PROCESS, IT
CANNOT BE MADE THE INSTRUMENT FOR ENFORCING IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION THE
RIGHTS PURPORTEDLY ADJUDICATED BY IT.  P. 232. 

(A)  A JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS
NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WHEN SUED UPON IN ANOTHER
JURISDICTION.  P. 228. 

(B)  DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT NO OTHER JURISDICTION SHALL GIVE
EFFECT, EVEN AS A MATTER OF COMITY, TO A JUDGMENT ELSEWHERE ACQUIRED
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  P. 232. 

3.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE 1938 JUDGMENT CONFIRMED THE 1936
ADJUDICATION OF THE AMOUNT OF ALIMONY AND INTEREST DUE AS OF OCTOBER
25, 1935, RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN SUIT UPON IT.  P. 233. 

(A)  THE 1936 ORDER WAS A FINAL ADJUDICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT
ARREARS OF ALIMONY WERE THEN DUE AND OWING BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT
IN THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT.  P. 233. 

(B)  EXISTENCE OF A POWER TO MODIFY OR REVOKE INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY
ALREADY ACCRUED IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE IMPLIED.  P. 233. 

(C)  THE 1938 JUDGMENT, SO FAR AS IT CONFIRMED THE 1936 ORDER BY
WHICH PETITIONER WAS ALREADY BOUND, IMPAIRED NO RIGHTS OF PETITIONER
AND FORECLOSED NO DEFENSE WHICH HE HAD NOT HAD OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER. 
P. 233. 

(D)  DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT NOTICE BE GIVEN BEFORE
CONFIRMATION OF RIGHTS THERETOFORE ESTABLISHED IN A PROCEEDING OF WHICH
ADEQUATE NOTICE WAS GIVEN.  PP. 233-234. 

(E)  UPON REMAND OF THE CAUSE, RESPONDENT WILL BE TAKEN AS HAVING
ESTABLISHED THE AMOUNT OF ALIMONY ACCRUED TO OCTOBER 25, 1935,
REMAINING DUE AND UNPAID AS OF FEBRUARY 25, 1936, SUBJECT TO ANY
SUBSEQUENT DEFENSE GOING TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE OBLIGATION SO
ESTABLISHED, WHICH PETITIONER SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO RAISE, IF ANY HE
HAS.  P. 234. 

4.  UPON REMAND THE DISTRICT COURT WILL BE FREE TO CONSIDER WHETHER
RESPONDENT, UPON ISSUES APPROPRIATELY FRAMED IN CONFORMITY TO THE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE, OR BY AMENDED PLEADINGS, MAY RECOVER ON THE
BASIS OF THE 1926 DECREE ARREARS OF ALIMONY ACCRUING SINCE OCTOBER 25,
1935.  P. 235. 

5.  PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE NEW YORK COURT WAS
PROCURED OR AFFECTED BY FRAUD, AND THAT PARTS OF HIS ANSWER AND
RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE IMPROPERLY STRICKEN BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, IS UNSUPPORTED.  P. 236. 

GRIFFIN V. GRIFFIN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

IN A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO ENFORCE A NEW YORK DECREE
FOR ALIMONY, THE PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFFIRMED.  148
F.2D 17.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 705.  REVERSED AND
REMANDED, P. 236. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, IN WHICH RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF A
JUDGMENT WHICH SHE HAD SECURED AGAINST PETITIONER IN 1938 IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK FOR ARREARS OF ALIMONY.  THE QUESTION FOR
DECISION IS THE EXTENT TO WHICH DUE PROCESS PERMITS THE NEW YORK
ADJUDICATION TO BE MADE THE BASIS FOR RECOVERY IN ANOTHER
JURISDICTION. 

THE RECORD ABOUNDS IN CONFUSING AND IRRELEVANT MATTER, BUT THE
FOLLOWING FACTS MAY BE GLEANED FROM THE PAPERS IN THE NEW YORK COURT
PROCEEDINGS WHICH IT CONTAINS.  ON JUNE 24, 1924, THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK ENTERED ITS INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT DIVORCING
RESPONDENT FROM PETITIONER, WHICH JUDGMENT WAS, IN 1926, MODIFIED TO
PROVIDE THAT PETITIONER SHOULD PAY TO RESPONDENT ALIMONY IN THE SUM OF
$3,000 ANNUALLY IN EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS.  BOTH PARTIES WERE THEN
RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK, AND THE DIVORCE ACTION WAS CONTESTED. 
PETITIONER LEFT NEW YORK IN 1929, AND THOUGH HE HAS RETURNED TO THE
JURISDICTION INTERMITTENTLY SINCE THAT TIME, THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW
WHETHER HE EVER AGAIN TOOK UP RESIDENCE THERE.  PETITIONER WAS A
RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AT THE TIME THIS SUIT WAS BEGUN. 

IN 1935 RESPONDENT MOVED IN THE ORIGINAL DIVORCE PROCEEDING TO PUNISH
PETITIONER FOR CONTEMPT FOR HIS FAILURE TO PAY INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY
AS DIRECTED BY THE DECREE OF DIVORCE, AND PETITIONER, IN CONFORMITY TO
NEW YORK PROCEDURE, MADE A CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT
BY REDUCING PAST DUE AND FUTURE INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY.  THEREUPON THE
NEW YORK COURT ENTERED AN ORDER REFERRING TO A REFEREE FOR
DETERMINATION TWO OF THE ISSUES OF FACT RAISED BY THE MOTIONS, (A) THE
AMOUNT OF UNPAID INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY DUE FROM PETITIONER TO
RESPONDENT, AND (B) PETITIONER'S THEN ABILITY TO PAY THEM.  THESE
QUESTIONS WERE LITIGATED BY THE PARTIES IN CONTESTED HEARINGS BEFORE
THE REFEREE, WHOSE REPORT OF JANUARY 7, 1936, FOUND THE AMOUNT THEN DUE
FROM PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT AS ARREARS OF ALIMONY, AND THAT
PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO PRESENT ANY CREDIBLE TESTIMONY SHOWING HIS
INABILITY TO PAY.  THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT THEN ENTERED ITS ORDER OF
FEBRUARY 25, 1936, DECLARING THAT THERE WAS DUE FROM PETITIONER TO
RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 25, 1935 ALIMONY ARREARS AND
ACCRUED INTEREST IN THE SUM OF $18,493.64.  PETITIONER'S APPEAL FROM
THIS ORDER TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT WAS
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 

SOME TIME LATER, RESPONDENT MADE A FURTHER MOTION IN THE SUPREME
COURT FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE COUNTY CLERK TO ENTER AS A MONEY
JUDGMENT THE ARREARS OF ALIMONY DUE AND UNPAID UNDER THE JUDGMENT OF
DIVORCE.  THIS MOTION WAS GRANTED, AND AN ORDER WAS ENTERED FEBRUARY
19, 1938 DIRECTING THE CLERK TO DOCKET A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
RESPONDENT AGAINST PETITIONER IN THE SUM OF $25,382.75.  AS INDICATED
IN THE ORDER THIS AMOUNT WAS MADE UP OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: 

INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY ACCRUED TO OC-

TOBER 25, 1935, FOUND DUE BY THE ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FEBRUARY 25,

1936........................................... $18,493.64 

INTEREST ON THIS AMOUNT TO DATE OF ENTRY

OF THE 1938 ORDER..............................   2,589.11 

INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY DUE FROM OC-

TOBER 25, 1935, TO THE DATE OF THE 1938

ORDER..........................................   3,750.00 

INTEREST ON THESE INSTALLMENTS...................     550.00

                        -------------

                            $25,382.75 

A JUDGMENT THAT RESPONDENT RECOVER THIS AMOUNT FROM PETITIONER AND
HAVE EXECUTION UPON IT WAS ENTERED BY THE CLERK ON FEBRUARY 23, 1938. 
BOTH THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 19, 1938 AND THE JUDGMENT UPON IT WERE
ENTERED EX PARTE, WITHOUT NOTICE TO PETITIONER, AS THEN SEEMS TO HAVE
BEEN PERMITTED UNDER SEC. 538 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT. 
THAYER V. THAYER, 145 APP. DIV. 268, 129 N.Y.S. 1035(1ST DEPT.).  FN1
PETITIONER, BY HIS ANSWER IN THE PRESENT SUIT ON THIS JUDGMENT, SET UP
AS DEFENSES THAT THE JUDGMENT OF FEBRUARY 1938 WAS ENTERED WITHOUT
NOTICE TO HIM, AND WAS FOR THAT REASON NULL AND VOID FOR WANT OF DUE
PROCESS, AND ALSO "BECAUSE OF GROSS FRAUD IN ITS INCIDENTS, AND IN ITS
PROCUREMENT, AND IN ITS MAKING AND ENTRY, AND IN ITS MONETARY CONTENTS,
AND IN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE DUE AND OWING UNDER IT," AND SO WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO ANY RECOGNITION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPPORTED BY PLEADINGS, AFFIDAVIT AND
ADMISSIONS ESTABLISHING THE SEVERAL JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND RECORDS OF
THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED, THE DISTRICT
COURT ORDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE SUM OF $25,382.75, WITH INTEREST
FROM FEBRUARY 23, 1938.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT AFFIRMED
WITHOUT OPINION.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 326 U.S. 705, ON A PETITION
WHICH URGES THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DEFENSES RAISED BELOW. 

BY RULE 56(D) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE COURT, ON A MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IS REQUIRED TO ASCERTAIN BY EXAMINATION OF THE
PLEADINGS AND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT WHAT MATERIAL FACTS EXIST WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY AND WHAT MATERIAL FACTS ARE ACTUALLY AND IN
GOOD FAITH CONTROVERTED, AND THEREUPON TO MAKE AN ORDER SPECIFYING THE
FACTS THAT APPEAR WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, AND DIRECTING SUCH
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE ACTION AS ARE JUST.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
TRIAL IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE FACTS SO SPECIFIED SHALL BE DEEMED
ESTABLISHED AND THE TRIAL CONDUCTED ACCORDINGLY.  IN THE PRESENT STATE
OF THE RECORD, AND IN ORDER THAT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE MAY BE
PROPERLY FOLLOWED, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHAT FACTS APPEAR
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE FACTS TO
DIRECT SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE ACTION AS ARE JUST. 

OF CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CASE ARE THE FOLLOWING
UNCONTROVERTED FACTS OF RECORD:  THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE RENDERED BY THE
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT IN 1926 DIRECTING ANNUAL PAYMENTS OF ALIMONY IN
THE SUM OF $3,000; THE ORDER OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT IN THE SAME
PROCEEDING DETERMINING AS A RESULT OF AN ACTIVE LITIGATION BETWEEN THE
PARTIES THAT AS OF FEBRUARY 25, 1936, THERE WAS DUE AND PAYABLE FROM
PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT ARREARS OF ALIMONY IN THE SUM OF $18,493.64,
REPRESENTING INSTALLMENTS ACCRUED TO OCTOBER 25, 1935, WITH INTEREST TO
THAT DATE, AND THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY REDUCTION IN THE
AMOUNT DUE; AND FINALLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT OF
1938, WHICH INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT ADJUDGED TO BE DUE THE ARREARS
OF ALIMONY WITH INTEREST FOUND BY THE 1936 ORDER TO HAVE ACCRUED TO
OCTOBER 25, 1935. 

WE HAVE EXAMINED THE NEW YORK LAW, AND CONCLUDE THAT THE 1926 NEW
YORK ALIMONY DECREE WAS, UNDER THE NEW YORK PRACTICE, SUBJECT TO SOME
POWER OF MODIFICATION NUNC PRO TUNC AS TO ALIMONY ACCRUED BUT UNPAID UP
TO THE TIME OF MODIFICATION.  SEE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC.
1170; LAWS 1925, CH. 240.  FN2  UNDER THE LOCAL PRACTICE, ALIMONY WHICH
HAS ACCRUED UNDER A DECREE OF DIVORCE MAY NOT BE COLLECTED BY EXECUTION
UNLESS AND UNTIL A JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT OF ALIMONY ACCRUED BUT
UNPAID IS DOCKETED BY ORDER OF THE COURT WHICH ISSUED THE DECREE. 
THAYER V. THAYER, SUPRA; OSTRIN V. POSNER, 127 MISC. 313, 215 N.Y.S.
259.  AND UPON A MOTION TO DOCKET AS A JUDGMENT, ARREARS OF ALIMONY
AWARDED UNDER A PRIOR DECREE, THE HUSBAND MAY DEFEND ON THE GROUNDS
THAT THE ALIMONY OR SOME PART OF IT IS NOT DUE BECAUSE OF THE DEATH OR
REMARRIAGE OF THE WIFE, KIRKBRIDE V. VAN NOTE, 275 N.Y. 244, 9 N.E.2D
852; OR THAT THE OBLIGATION HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY PAYMENT OR
OTHERWISE, KARLIN V. KARLIN, 280 N.Y. 32, 19 N.E.2D 669; OR THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO JUSTIFY A REDUCTION OF ALIMONY
ALREADY ACCRUED BY MODIFICATION OF THE ALIMONY DECREE, VAN DUSEN V. VAN
DUSEN, 258 APP. DIV. 1020, 17 N.Y.S.2D 96(3D DEPT.); CUNNINGHAM V.
CUNNINGHAM, 261 APP. DIV. 973, 25 N.Y.S.2D 933, 934(2D DEPT.); EISINGER
V. EISINGER, 261 APP. DIV. 1031, 26 N.Y.S.2D 22(3D DEPT.). 

CONCEDEDLY THE 1938 JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED WITHOUT ACTUAL NOTICE TO OR
APPEARANCE BY PETITIONER, AND WITHOUT ANY FORM OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
CALCULATED TO GIVE HIM NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  COMPARE
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, 320-321.  BECAUSE
OF THE OMISSION, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT PETITIONER WAS THUS DEPRIVED OF
AN OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE DEFENSES OTHERWISE OPEN TO HIM UNDER THE LAW OF
NEW YORK AGAINST THE DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT FOR ACCRUED ALIMONY, THERE
WAS A WANT OF JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS, AND HENCE WANT OF THAT JURISDICTION
OVER THE PERSON OF PETITIONER PREREQUISITE TO THE RENDITION OF A
JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM AGAINST HIM.  MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243 U.S. 90; CF.
WEBSTER V. REID, 11 HOW.  437, 459.  THE ONLY INDICATION IN THE RECORD
AS TO PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE AT THE TIME OF THE ENTRY OF THE 1938
JUDGMENT IS A RECITATION IN THE JUDGMENT ITSELF THAT HE WAS THEN A
RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  BUT IT IS IMMATERIAL FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS A DOMICILED RESIDENT OF NEW YORK
AT THE TIME, EITHER WITHIN OR TEMPORARILY WITHOUT THE STATE, OR A
RESIDENT OF SOME OTHER JURISDICTION.  IT IS PLAIN IN ANY CASE THAT A
JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM DIRECTING EXECUTION TO ISSUE AGAINST PETITIONER,
AND THUS PURPORTING TO CUT OFF ALL AVAILABLE DEFENSES, COULD NOT BE
RENDERED ON ANY THEORY OF THE STATE'S POWER OVER HIM, WITHOUT SOME FORM
OF NOTICE BY PERSONAL OR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE.  WUCHTER V. PIZZUTTI, 276
U.S. 13, 18-20; RESTATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 75; AND COMPARE
MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S. 457.  SUCH NOTICE CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH
EVEN IN THE CASE OF JUDGMENTS IN REM WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT RENDERING THE JUDGMENT.  ROLLER V. HOLLY,
176 U.S. 398, 409. 

A JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS NOT
ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WHEN SUED UPON IN ANOTHER
JURISDICTION.  NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK V. WILEY, 195 U.S. 257; OLD WAYNE
LIFE ASSN. V. MC-DONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8, 23; BAKER V. BAKER, ECCLES & CO.,
242 U.S. 394, 401.  MOREOVER, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT NO OTHER
JURISDICTION SHALL GIVE EFFECT, EVEN AS A MATTER OF COMITY, TO A
JUDGMENT ELSEWHERE ACQUIRED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  RESTATEMENT OF
JUDGMENTS, SEC. 11, COMMENT C. 

WHILE IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE THAT THE 1926 DECREE, TAKEN WITH THE NEW
YORK PRACTICE ON THE SUBJECT, GAVE PETITIONER NOTICE AT THE TIME OF ITS
ENTRY THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS MIGHT BE TAKEN TO DOCKET IN JUDGMENT
FORM THE OBLIGATION TO PAY INSTALLMENTS ACCRUING UNDER THE DECREE, WE
FIND IN THIS NO GROUND FOR SAYING THAT DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE
FURTHER NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS,
INASMUCH AS THEY UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIALLY TO AFFECT HIS RIGHTS IN WAYS
IN WHICH THE 1926 DECREE DID NOT.  FN3  BY SEC. 1170 OF THE NEW YORK
CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO
MODIFY THE ALIMONY DECREE NUNC PRO TUNC.  THE RIGHT AFFORDED BY THAT
EXERCISED BY HIM, IN EFFECT BY WAY OF DEFENSE, IN ADDITION TO THE
DEFENSE OF PAYMENT, IN A PROCEEDING BEGUN BY HIS WIFE TO DOCKET A
JUDGMENT FOR ACCRUED ALIMONY.  SEE VAN DUSEN V. VAN DUSEN, SUPRA;
CUNNINGHAM V. CUNNINGHAM, SUPRA; EISINGER V. EISINGER, SUPRA.  AS WE
READ THE 1938 JUDGMENT, WHICH RECITED THAT THE ALIMONY WAS "DUE AND
UNPAID," AND DIRECTED THE ISSUANCE OF EXECUTION FOR ITS COLLECTION, IT
PURPORTED TO CUT OFF ANY DEFENSE OF PAYMENT OR CLAIM UNDER SEC. 1170,
WHICH PETITIONER MIGHT HAVE BEEN PROMPTED TO ASSERT, AND WHICH HE HAD
THE RIGHT TO ASSERT IN THE VERY PROCEEDING WHICH CULMINATED IN THE
JUDGMENT SUED UPON.  FN4  THAT RIGHT COULD NOT BE RENDERED NUGATORY BY
FAILURE TO GIVE HIM NOTICE OF THAT PROCEEDING. 

IT IS SAID THAT WE MUST PRESUME THAT THE NEW YORK PRACTICE REQUIRES
THAT A JUDGMENT FOR ACCRUED ALIMONY WHICH HAS BEEN DOCKETED WITHOUT
NOTICE MUST, QUITE APART FROM DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, BE SET ASIDE ON
THE DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION SHOWING TO THE COURT THAT HE HAD A DEFENSE
TO THE CLAIM FOR ACCRUED ALIMONY.  FN5  FROM THIS IT IS SAID TO FOLLOW
THAT THE 1938 JUDGMENT DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF ANY RIGHT WHICH HE
PREVIOUSLY HAD, OR OF ANY DEFENSE WHICH HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO
MAKE, AND THAT THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT IS NOT WANTING IN DUE PROCESS. 
THE ARGUMENT THEN RUNS THAT SINCE SUCH A JUDGMENT SATISFIES DUE PROCESS
IT IS ENTITLED TO AS MUCH FAITH AND CREDIT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS AS IT
HAS IN NEW YORK.  THIS, IT IS SUGGESTED, MEANS THAT THE JUDGMENT MAY BE
MADE THE BASIS OF SUIT IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION, BUT SUBJECT THERE TO
ALL THOSE DEFENSES WHICH WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR SETTING IT ASIDE IN NEW
YORK.    BUT IF WANT OF NOTICE WERE, WITHOUT MORE, A SUFFICIENT GROUND
FOR SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT UNDER THE NEW YORK PRACTICE, THIS COULD
HARDLY BE HELD TO AMOUNT TO ANYTHING MORE THAN RECOGNITION BY NEW YORK
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRECEPT THAT A COURT MAY NOT ACT TO GIVE A
PERSONAL JUDGMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF NOTICE.  IF NEW YORK, BY ITS
PRACTICE, RECOGNIZES THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH A JUDGMENT, THAT COULD
NOT BE MADE A GROUND FOR GIVING THE JUDGMENT EFFECT ELSEWHERE MORE THAN
ANY OTHER JUDGMENT RENDERED WITHOUT NOTICE.  IT MIGHT AS WELL BE SAID
THAT ANY JUDGMENT WHICH DOES NOT VALIDLY CUT OFF DEFENSES BECAUSE
RENDERED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS MAY BE MADE THE BASIS OF SUIT ELSEWHERE
SUBJECT TO THOSE DEFENSES.  TO THE EXTENT THAT NEW YORK REFUSES, IF IT
DOES REFUSE, TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF 1938 UNLESS THERE BE SOME
AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING THAT THERE WAS A MERITORIOUS SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSE TO
ITS ENTRY, THERE IS AN ASSERTION OF POWER IN THE COURT TO ENTER A MONEY
JUDGMENT AND ISSUE EXECUTION UPON IT WITHOUT NOTICE.  THE ASSERTION FOR
THE FIRST TIME BY THE 1938 JUDGMENT OF POWER TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER'S
LIABILITY FOR ACCRUED ALIMONY AND TO DIRECT ITS ENFORCEMENT BY
EXECUTION, SEE THAYER V. THAYER, SUPRA, DOES NOT DIFFER IN ITS NATURE
AND CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECT FROM THE LIKE ASSERTION OF POWER TO ISSUE
EXECUTION BY ANY OTHER JUDGMENT RENDERED WITHOUT NOTICE. 

DUE PROCESS FORBIDS ANY EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER WHICH, BUT FOR THE
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY, WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT A DEFENDANT'S
RIGHTS.  TO THE SUGGESTION THAT UNDER THE PRESUMED NEW YORK PRACTICE
THE POWER ASSERTED BY THE JUDGMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FINAL
ADJUDICATION OF ANY OF THE DEFENSES WHICH PETITIONER MIGHT HAVE HAD,
AND THAT NOTICE IS THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED, THE ANSWER MUST BE THAT THE
JUDGMENT AUTHORIZES THE IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE OF EXECUTION.  WE ARE UNABLE
TO RECONCILE THE DIRECTION THAT PETITIONER'S PROPERTY BE SEIZED ON
EXECUTION TO SATISFY AN OBLIGATION FOR THE FIRST TIME FOUND BY THE
JUDGMENT TO BE "DUE AND UNPAID" WITH THE THEORY THAT THE OBLIGATION IS,
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, THUS ONLY TENTATIVELY ADJUDICATED.  THERE
CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT A LEVY UPON ANY PROPERTY PETITIONER MIGHT HAVE IN
NEW YORK WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY, AND IN AT LEAST SOME INSTANCES,
PERMANENTLY AFFECT HIS RIGHTS.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THIS COULD BE DONE
WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDING SAID TO JUSTIFY THE LEVY.  EVEN THOUGH
PETITIONER COULD, IF HE KNEW OF THE JUDGMENT BEFORE EXECUTION IS
ACTUALLY LEVIED, MOVE TO SET THE JUDGMENT ASIDE, THAT COULD NOT SAVE
THE JUDGMENT FROM ITS DUE PROCESS INFIRMITY, SINCE IT AND THE NEW YORK
PRACTICE PURPORT TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF EXECUTION BEFORE PETITIONER
IS NOTIFIED OF THE PROCEEDING OR THE JUDGMENT. 

SINCE BY VIRTUE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE THE JUDGMENT IS INEFFECTIVE
IN NEW YORK TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER'S RIGHTS FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES,
IT CANNOT BE MADE THE INSTRUMENT FOR ENFORCING ELSEWHERE THE OBLIGATION
PURPORTEDLY ADJUDICATED BY IT.  AND EVEN IF WE WERE TO SAY THAT BY
VIRTUE OF THE NEW YORK PRACTICE, AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO DUE PROCESS,
THE 1938 JUDGMENT IS NOT AN ASSERTION OF JUDICIAL POWER TO BIND
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY FOR THE OBLIGATION WHICH THE JUDGMENT PURPORTS TO
ESTABLISH, SUCH A JUDGMENT WOULD OBVIOUSLY ADD NOTHING TO THE 1926
DECREE AS A BASIS FOR ENFORCING THE OBLIGATION IN ANOTHER
JURISDICTION.  NEITHER THE JUDGMENT NOR THE EARLIER DECREE WOULD DO
MORE THAN ESTABLISH THE ORIGINAL OBLIGATION TO PAY ALIMONY SUBJECT TO
DEFENSES WHICH THE SUPPOSED NEW YORK PRACTICE WOULD PRESERVE IF DUE
PROCESS DID NOT. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE 1938 JUDGMENT PURPORTS TO
ADJUDGE AS DUE AND OWING ARREARS OF ALIMONY ACCRUED SINCE OCTOBER 25,
1935, THE END OF THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE 1936 ORDER, IT IS
INEFFECTIVE TO ESTABLISH PETITIONER'S PERSONAL LIABILITY, OR TO DEPRIVE
HIM OF DEFENSES TO HIS ASSERTED LIABILITY FOR THOSE ARREARS. 

BUT THE 1938 JUDGMENT, SO FAR AS IT CONFIRMED THE ADJUDICATION OF THE
AMOUNT OF ALIMONY AND INTEREST DUE AS OF OCTOBER 25, 1935, STANDS ON A
DIFFERENT FOOTING.  IT HAS NOT BEEN SUGGESTED, AND WE HAVE NOT FOUND
ANY NEW YORK AUTHORITY HOLDING, THAT ANY OF THE QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT
TO PAYMENT OR TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE ALIMONY DECREE NUNC PRO TUNC
WHICH PETITIONER RAISED OR MIGHT HAVE RAISED IN THE 1936 PROCEEDINGS
WERE THEREAFTER OPEN TO HIM AS TO THE ACCRUED INSTALLMENTS WHICH WERE
THE SUBJECT OF HIS MOTION TO MODIFY THE DECREE.  THE 1936 ORDER BECAME
FINAL UPON THE DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER'S APPEAL FROM IT, AND WAS AN
ADJUDICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT ARREARS OF ALIMONY WERE THEN DUE
AND OWING BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT IN THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT.  AS WE
SAID IN BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S. 77, 82, PARAPHRASING SISTARE V.
SISTARE, 218 U.S. 1, WHERE A DECREE FOR ALIMONY IS MADE THE BASIS OF AN
ACTION IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION, "'EVERY REASONABLE IMPLICATION MUST BE
RESORTED TO AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF' A POWER TO MODIFY OR REVOKE
INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY ALREADY ACCRUED 'IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR
LANGUAGE MANIFESTING AN INTENTION TO CONFER IT.'" 

DEFENSES WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN OPEN TO PETITIONER IN THE
1938 PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ALIMONY ACCRUED TO OCTOBER 25, 1935
MUST THUS BE TAKEN AS HAVING BEEN FORECLOSED BY THE 1936 PROCEEDINGS,
OF WHICH PETITIONER HAD ACTUAL NOTICE, AND IN WHICH HE ACTIVELY
PARTICIPATED.  THE 1938 JUDGMENT, SO FAR AS IT CONFIRMED THE 1936 ORDER
BY WHICH PETITIONER WAS ALREADY BOUND, IMPAIRED NO RIGHTS OF
PETITIONER, AND FORECLOSED NO DEFENSE WHICH HE HAD NOT HAD OPPORTUNITY
TO OFFER.  DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT NOTICE BE GIVEN BEFORE
CONFIRMATION OF RIGHTS THERETOFORE ESTABLISHED IN A PROCEEDING OF WHICH
ADEQUATE NOTICE WAS GIVEN. 

UPON THE FACTS SHOWN, RESPONDENT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN
THE PRESENT SUIT ON THE 1938 JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT, WITH INTEREST,
THUS ADJUDICATED TO BE DUE BY THE ORDER OF 1936, AND AS SO ADJUDICATED,
CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT OF 1938.  FOR IN SISTARE V. SISTARE, SUPRA,
WE HELD THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRED A CONNECTICUT COURT TO RENDER JUDGMENT FOR PAST DUE
INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY WHICH HAD ACCRUED UNDER A NEW YORK DECREE FOR
FUTURE ALIMONY, THE RIGHT TO WHICH WE HELD HAD BECOME VESTED UNDER THE
THEN EXISTING NEW YORK LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE DECREE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO
MODIFICATION PROSPECTIVELY AS TO FUTURE INSTALLMENTS BY FURTHER ORDERS
OF THE NEW YORK COURT. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT THE FAILURE TO GIVE PETITIONER NOTICE OF THE 1938
PROCEEDING DID NOT PREJUDICE HIM AS TO ANY OF THE DEFENSES WHICH HE
MIGHT HAVE RAISED IN THE 1936 PROCEEDING.  BUT ALTHOUGH IT PURPORTED TO
DO SO, THE 1938 JUDGMENT, BECAUSE RENDERED WITHOUT NOTICE, COULD NOT
FORECLOSE DEFENSES GOING TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE OBLIGATION ESTABLISHED
BY THE ORDER OF 1936, AND ARISING SINCE ITS DATE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT,
UPON FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UPON THE REMAND OF THIS CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT
COURT, RESPONDENT WILL BE TAKEN AS HAVING ESTABLISHED THE AMOUNT OF
ALIMONY ACCRUED TO OCTOBER 25, 1935 REMAINING DUE AND UNPAID AS OF
FEBRUARY 25, 1936, SUBJECT TO ANY SUBSEQUENT DEFENSE GOING TO THE
DISCHARGE OF THE OBLIGATION SO ESTABLISHED, WHICH PETITIONER SHOULD BE
PERMITTED TO RAISE, IF ANY HE HAS. 

IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD, AND BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED NATURE
OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND ARGUED HERE, WE DO NOT DETERMINE THE
EXTENT TO WHICH RESPONDENT MAY, UPON SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS ARE
APPROPRIATE ON THE RETURN OF THIS CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT, RECOVER,
UPON THE 1926 DECREE, INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY WHICH HAVE ACCRUED SINCE
OCTOBER 25, 1935.  WHILE THE 1926 DECREE IS IN THE RECORD AND MUST BE
THE FOUNDATION OF ANY RIGHT RESPONDENT HAS TO RECOVER ARREARS OF
ALIMONY ACCRUING SINCE OCTOBER 25, 1935, HER PLEADINGS MAKE IT
SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR THAT THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BASED UPON THE 1938
JUDGMENT RATHER THAN UPON THE DECREE.  IF RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO
BASE A SUIT FOR INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY ACCRUING AFTER OCTOBER 25, 1935
ON THE 1926 DECREE, SHE HAS MISCONCEIVED HER CAUSE OF ACTION AS TO
THOSE INSTALLMENTS BY SEEKING TO RECOVER THEM BY VIRTUE OF THE 1938
JUDGMENT, WHICH IS INVALID AS TO THEM BECAUSE OBTAINED WITHOUT NOTICE. 
BUT PETITIONER IS NOT TO BE PREJUDICED BY RESPONDENT'S MISTAKE, FOR
SINCE HE WAS ENTITLED TO REGARD THE SUIT AS ONE UPON THE JUDGMENT, HE
WAS NOT REQUIRED TO INTERPOSE DEFENSES WHICH WOULD BE APT IF THE SUIT
WERE UPON THE 1926 DECREE.  THE SUIT ON THE 1938 JUDGMENT, IN ITS
PRESENT FORM, IS NOT TO BE VIEWED AS IF IT WERE ON THE 1926 DECREE, A
NEW AND DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION, AND PETITIONER IS NOT TO BE
PENALIZED FOR NOT HAVING ALREADY RAISED HIS DEFENSES TO A CLAIM NOT
PRESENTED BY RESPONDENT'S PLEADINGS.  IN REMANDING WE LEAVE THE
DISTRICT COURT FREE TO CONSIDER WHETHER RESPONDENT, UPON ISSUES
APPROPRIATELY FRAMED IN CONFORMITY TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE,
OR BY AMENDED PLEADINGS, MAY RECOVER ON THE BASIS OF THE 1926 DECREE,
ARREARS OF ALIMONY ACCRUING SINCE OCTOBER 25, 1935.  FN6 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID AS TO PETITIONER'S DEFENSE THAT THE JUDGMENT
WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD.  ALTHOUGH HIS ANSWER PLEADS HIS LEGAL CONCLUSION
THAT THE JUDGMENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION BECAUSE "OF GROSS
FRAUD IN ITS INCIDENTS, AND IN ITS PROCUREMENT," ETC., ETC., HIS ANSWER
SETS UP NO FACTS SHOWING THE ALLEGED FRAUD.  A PART OF HIS ANSWER AND
AN UNVERIFIED STATEMENT FILED BY PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE ORDERED STRICKEN BY THE TRIAL COURT,
EVIDENTLY BECAUSE IRRELEVANT AND SCANDALOUS.  IN THESE THE CHARGE OF
FRAUD IS ELABORATED BY GENERAL STATEMENTS THAT THE MACHINATIONS OF THE
NEW YORK COUNSEL OF THE PARTIES, AND THEIR RACIAL, RELIGIOUS AND
POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS WITH THE JUDGES WHO HAVE PRESIDED OVER THE
VARIOUS PHASES OF THE NEW YORK LITIGATION, HAVE RESULTED IN THE FAILURE
OF JUSTICE EXEMPLIFIED BY THE SEVERAL DECISIONS ADVERSE TO PETITIONER. 
WE HAVE EXAMINED THESE ASSERTIONS AND FIND THAT THE ONLY SUPPORT FOR
THEM, SO FAR AS APPEARS, IS PETITIONER'S UNSUPPORTED SUSPICIONS.  WE
THUS FIND NO BASIS FOR THE ALLEGATION THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS PROCURED OR
IN SOME WAY AFFECTED BY FRAUD, OR FOR THE CONTENTION THAT THE OFFENSIVE
MATTER WAS IMPROPERLY STRICKEN.  WE HAVE EXAMINED, BUT FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS VARIOUS OTHER OF PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS, WHICH
ARE LIKEWISE WITHOUT MERIT. 

THE JUDGMENT WILL BE REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE 1938 JUDGMENT, SEC. 1171-B OF THE NEW
YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT HAS BEEN ADDED BY LAWS OF 1939, CH. 431,
AMENDED, LAWS OF 1940, CH. 226, SO AS TO PROVIDE: 

"SEC. 1171-B.  ENFORCEMENT BY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER IN
ACTION FOR DIVORCE, SEPARATION OR ANNULMENT.  WHERE THE HUSBAND, IN AN
ACTION FOR DIVORCE, SEPARATION, ANNULMENT, OR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF
A VOID MARRIAGE, MAKES DEFAULT IN PAYING ANY SUM OF MONEY AS REQUIRED
BY THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE PAYMENT THEREOF, THE COURT MAY
MAKE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT OF SUCH
ARREARS, TOGETHER WITH TEN DOLLARS COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS.  THE
APPLICATION FOR SUCH ORDER SHALL BE UPON SUCH NOTICE TO THE HUSBAND AS
THE COURT MAY DIRECT.  SUCH JUDGMENT MAY BE ENFORCED BY EXECUTION OR IN
ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW FOR THE COLLECTION OF MONEY
JUDGMENTS.  THE RELIEF HEREIN PROVIDED FOR IS IN ADDITION TO ANY AND
EVERY OTHER REMEDY TO WHICH THE WIFE MAY BE ENTITLED UNDER THE LAW." 

FN2  THE NEW YORK LAW DESCRIBED IN SISTARE V. SISTARE, 218 U.S. 1,
DECIDED IN 1910, DIFFERS SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE MORE RECENT NEW YORK
LAW WHICH GOVERNS THIS CASE, AS WILL BE SEEN FROM THE AUTHORITIES
CITED.  CH. 240 OF THE LAWS OF 1925 AMENDED SEC. 1170 OF THE CIVIL
PRACTICE ACT SO AS TO PROVIDE IN PART:  "WHERE AN ACTION FOR DIVORCE OR
SEPARATION IS BROUGHT BY EITHER HUSBAND OR WIFE, THE COURT, EXCEPT AS
OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, MUST GIVE, EITHER IN THE
FINAL JUDGMENT, OR BY ONE OR MORE ORDERS, MADE FROM TIME TO TIME BEFORE
FINAL JUDGMENT, SUCH DIRECTIONS AS JUSTICE REQUIRES, BETWEEN THE
PARTIES,  ...  WHERE THE ACTION IS BROUGHT BY THE WIFE, FOR THE SUPPORT
OF THE PLAINTIFF.  THE COURT, BY ORDER, UPON THE APPLICATION OF EITHER
PARTY TO THE ACTION,  ...  AFTER DUE NOTICE TO THE OTHER, TO BE GIVEN
IN SUCH MANNER AS THE COURT SHALL PRESCRIBE, AT ANY TIME AFTER FINAL
JUDGMENT, MAY ANNUL, VARY OR MODIFY SUCH DIRECTIONS, OR IN CASE NO SUCH
DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE, AMEND IT BY INSERTING
SUCH DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS AS JUSTICE REQUIRES  ...  FOR THE SUPPORT
OF THE PLAINTIFF IN SUCH FINAL JUDGMENT OR ORDER OR ORDERS...." 

FN3  WE DO NOT SHARE IN THE APPREHENSION THAT THE COST OF PROVIDING
SUCH NOTICE AS WILL SATISFY DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS EACH TIME A
PROCEEDING IS BEGUN TO DOCKET A JUDGMENT FOR AN ACCRUED INSTALLMENT OF
ALIMONY WILL BE INCOMMENSURATELY HIGH.  IN VARIOUS STATUTES NEW YORK
HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE BY MAIL, WHICH IS REASONABLY
ADAPTED TO PROVIDE ACTUAL NOTICE AND INEXPENSIVE IN ITS OPERATION.  NEW
YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 229-B; NEW YORK REAL PROPERTY LAW, SEC.
442-G; NEW YORK VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, SECS. 52, 52-A; SEE ALSO
DURLACHER V. DURLACHER, 173 MISC. 329, 17 N.Y.S.2D 643. 

FN4  A JUDGMENT PROCURED BY FRAUD MAY BE VACATED ON THAT GROUND IN
THE STATE OF ITS RENDITION, AND THE FRAUD MAY PERHAPS BE URGED AS A
DEFENSE AGAINST ITS ENFORCEMENT ELSEWHERE.  BUT A DEMONSTRATION THAT
THE ALIMONY HAS BEEN PAID WOULD NOT NECESSARILY ESTABLISH THAT A
JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY PROCURED BY THE WIFE'S FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN PAID.  THERE ARE
MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH A FINDING OF PAYMENT WILL HAVE TURNED ON
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF FACT OR LAW UPON WHICH A DEFENDANT WAS
ENTITLED TO BE HEARD, BUT AS TO WHICH IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT HIS
ANTAGONIST HAD PRACTICED FRAUD ON THE COURT.  MOREOVER, SOME AVAILABLE
DEFENSES OTHER THAN PAYMENT, AS FOR EXAMPLE, CHANGE OF THE HUSBAND'S
CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE OF SUCH NATURE AS TO AFFORD NO BASIS FOR ATTACKING
THE JUDGMENT AS FRAUDULENT.    FN5  IN THAYER V. THAYER, 145 APP. DIV.
268, 270-271, 129 N.Y.S. 1035, IT WAS SAID BY WAY OF DICTUM, "IF THE
COURT IS MISLED AND AN INSTALLMENT IMPROPERLY DOCKETED, THE DEFENDANT
WILL FIND NO DIFFICULTY IN HAVING THE MISTAKE CORRECTED."  BUT THAT
CASE WAS DECIDED BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 1170 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL
PRACTICE ACT PERMITTING THE MODIFICATION OF ANY ALIMONY DECREE NUNC PRO
TUNC BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ACCRUED ALIMONY.  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA.  WE
CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE "MISTAKE" CONTEMPLATED BY THAT OPINION WAS ONE
NOT RELATING TO PAYMENT OR DISCHARGE.  WHETHER UNDER NEW YORK PRACTICE
A JUDGMENT FOR ACCRUED ALIMONY, DOCKETED WITHOUT NOTICE, COULD BE
OPENED AND THE AMOUNT OF ACCRUED ALIMONY REDUCED NUNC PRO TUNC, REMAINS
A MATTER FOR SPECULATION.  IN ANY CASE, SEC. 1170 ITSELF DOES NOT
APPEAR TO AUTHORIZE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT DOCKETED FOR
ALIMONY ACCRUED UNDER AN EARLIER DECREE DIRECTING PAYMENT OF
INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY. 

FN6  SEE BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S. AT 81; JACOBS, THE ENFORCEMENT OF
FOREIGN DECREES FOR ALIMONY (1939), 6 LAW & CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, 250,
263-4. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I CONCUR IN THE OPINION EXCEPT AS IT HOLDS OR IMPLIES THAT THE 1938
NEW YORK JUDGMENT IS INVALID AND THEREFORE IS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT IN SO FAR AS IT INCLUDES INSTALMENTS OF ALIMONY
ACCRUING AFTER OCTOBER 25, 1935, AND INTEREST UPON THEM. 

THE COURT APPARENTLY REGARDS THE JUDGMENT AS INVALID TO THIS EXTENT
BECAUSE, UNDER THE NEW YORK PROCEDURE, IT WAS DOCKETED WITHOUT NOTICE
TO THE PETITIONER ADDITIONAL TO THE NOTICE HE HAD RECEIVED IN THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR DIVORCE WHICH RESULTED IN THE 1924 DECREE
MODIFIED IN 1926 TO PROVIDE FOR THE MONTHLY ACCRUAL AND PAYMENT OF
THESE INSTALMENTS. 

THE BASES FOR THIS VIEW SEEM TO REST IN TWO ASSUMPTIONS.  ONE IS THAT
THE 1938 JUDGMENT, EXCEPT AS TO THE ARREARS ACCUMULATED TO OCTOBER 25,
1935, IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS ANY OTHER MONEY JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE
FALLS WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714.  IN THIS
VIEW THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER NOTICE IS EQUIVALENT TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY;
AND THE JUDGMENT BECOMES INVALID FOR WANT OF DUE PROCESS FOR PURPOSES
OF LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AS WELL AS FOR RECEIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN
OTHER JURISDICTIONS.  FN1  THE SECOND ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE DOCKETING
OF THE JUDGMENT CUT OFF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO MAKE ANY OF THE DEFENSES,
RELATING TO MATTERS ARISING AFTER ENTRY OF THE 1924 DECREE, WHICH BY
THE LAW OF NEW YORK HE WAS ENTITLED TO MAKE (AND WHICH HE DID MAKE IN
1935 CONCERNING ARREARS THEN ACCRUED) AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO DOCKETING OF
THE JUDGMENT.  I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT EITHER OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS. 

                                  I. 

IF IT WERE CLEAR, AS THE COURT SEEMS TO HOLD, THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHT
TO MAKE THE ALLOWABLE DEFENSES WAS EXTINGUISHED UNDER THE NEW YORK LAW
BY THE DOCKETING OF THE JUDGMENT, WE WOULD BE CONFRONTED WITH THE
NECESSITY OF DETERMINING WHETHER THAT FACT WOULD BRING THE CASE WITHIN
THE RULE AND THE REASON OF PENNOYER V. NEFF, SUPRA, AND LATER CASES
FOLLOWING THAT DECISION.  FN2  IN THAT EVENT, THE QUESTION TO BE
DECIDED WOULD BE WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF A STATE TO PROVIDE
THAT, AFTER FULL NOTICE AND HEARING IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING RESULTING
IN A DECREE FOR ALIMONY TO BE PAID IN MONTHLY INSTALMENTS INDEFINITELY,
THOSE INSTALMENTS SHOULD OR MIGHT BE DOCKETED IN THE FORM OF JUDGMENTS
FOR SPECIFIC AMOUNTS AS THEY ACCRUE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO THE
DEFENDANT; BUT WITH THE QUALIFICATION THAT HE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO
COME IN AT ANY TIME BEFORE AN INSTALMENT IS DOCKETED AND SHOW THAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES COMPREHENDED BY THE ORIGINAL DECREE HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO
ENTITLE HIM TO REDUCE OR TERMINATE THE PAYMENTS.  THE EFFECT OF SUCH A
PROVISION WOULD BE SIMPLY TO PUT UPON THE DEFENDANT, AGAINST WHOM THE
DECREE HAD BEEN RENDERED, THE BURDEN OF BRINGING TO THE COURT'S
ATTENTION AND PROVING THE CHANGED SITUATION. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW SUCH A PROVISION COULD CONSTITUTE A WANT
OF DUE PROCESS OR OF NOTICE IN THE JURISDICTIONAL SENSE CONTEMPLATED BY
THE PENNOYER V. NEFF LINE OF DECISIONS.  NOR HAS THIS COURT SO HELD
HERETOFORE.  BY THE VERY TERMS OF THE ALIMONY DECREE IT IS ADJUDICATED
THAT THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE TO PAY THE INSTALMENTS AS THEY ACCRUE. 
AND ALSO BY ITS TERMS, TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICABLE STATUTES, HE IS
NOTIFIED THAT THE INSTALMENTS WILL BE, OR MAY BE, DOCKETED AS JUDGMENTS
ENFORCEABLE BY EXECUTION, UNLESS HE TAKES THE INITIATIVE IN SHOWING TO
THE COURT BEFORE THE ACCRUAL DATE, OR ANY LATER TIME WHEN THE PLAINTIFF
MAY MOVE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, THAT NEW CONDITIONS HAVE ARISEN
REQUIRING OR JUSTIFYING CHANGE OR TERMINATION.  MOREOVER, IN ADDITION
TO THE NOTICE PETITIONER HAD RECEIVED FROM THE ORIGINAL DECREE AND THE
APPLICABLE STATUTES, HE RECEIVED FURTHER NOTICE FROM THE 1936 ORDER,
ENTERED AFTER CONTEST, BY VIRTUE OF THE COURT'S FINDING THAT HE THEN
HAD NO SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR SECURING A REDUCTION, ALTHOUGH HE HAD
CONTENDED THAT HE WAS FINANCIALLY UNABLE TO MEET THESE PAYMENTS. 

I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY SUCH NOTICE, CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY GIVEN
IN ADVANCE, IS NOT SUFFICIENT BOTH TO INFORM THE DEFENDANT FULLY OF HIS
PERIL AND TO AFFORD FULL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR HIS RIGHTS.  FN3
ON THE OTHER HAND, TO COMPEL THE WIFE TO GIVE ADDITIONAL NOTICE BEFORE
DOCKETING OF EACH INSTALMENT IS TO SHIFT TO HER THE BURDEN WHICH THE
ORIGINAL DECREE PLACES SQUARELY ON THE HUSBAND.  MOREOVER, IN MANY
CASES WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE MONTHLY OR WEEKLY INSTALMENT IS SMALL,
THE EFFECT WILL BE PRACTICALLY TO NULLIFY THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF
ALIMONY, BECAUSE THE COST OF PUBLISHING OR OTHERWISE GIVING NOTICE WILL
EQUAL OR EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE INSTALMENT.  FN4  A MORE PERFECT TOOL
HARDLY COULD BE GIVEN TO AN ABSENT OR ABSCONDING HUSBAND FOR DEFEATING
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AWARD. 

DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF SUIT BE GIVEN MORE THAN
ONCE OR, WHEN THIS HAS BEEN DONE AND A VALID JUDGMENT ENTERED, THAT
ADDITIONAL NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN BEFORE EXECUTION, ORIGINAL OR ALIAS. 
FN5  JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON HAVING BEEN OBTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL
PROCEEDING ON ADEQUATE NOTICE, FURTHER STEPS IN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE
LARGELY WITHIN THE COURT'S DISCRETION, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE
CONTROLLED BY STATUTE, INCLUDING PROCEEDINGS AFTER JUDGMENT AND ON
EXECUTION.  TRUE, THESE LATER STEPS MAY NOT BE TAKEN ARBITRARILY.  FN6
BUT THAT LIMITATION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE GIVING OF NOTICE AT EACH
SUCCESSIVE STAGE AS UPON THE ORIGINAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS.  NOR DOES IT
FORBID THE COURT OR THE LEGISLATURE TO PLACE UPON THE DEFENDANT OR
OTHER PARTIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR KEEPING THEMSELVES INFORMED CONCERNING
THE PROGRESS OF THE CAUSE.  JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE
THAN A STATUTORY WARNING TO TAKE STEPS TO WARD IT OFF, IS AN EVERYDAY
OCCURRENCE.  AFTER JUDGMENT THE BURDEN OF TAKING THE INITIATIVE TO
AVOID THE ADJUDICATION'S EFFECT FALLS EVEN MORE HEAVILY UPON THE
DEFENDANT.  UNLESS HE ASSUMES AND DISCHARGES IT, HE CANNOT HOLD UP
EXECUTION FOR WANT OF SPECIAL NOTICE THAT AUTHORIZED STEPS TO REACH HIS
PROPERTY ARE ABOUT TO BE TAKEN.  GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE STAGE OF
EXECUTION IS COMMITTED LARGELY TO THE PLAINTIFF'S CONTROL; AND THAT
NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT AT THAT STAGE BEFORE HIS PROPERTY
WITHIN THE COURT'S JURISDICTION CAN BE TAKEN TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT IS
FOREIGN BOTH TO ACCEPTED CONCEPTIONS OF DUE PROCESS AND TO GENERALLY
PREVAILING STATUTORY SCHEMES FOR SECURING SATISFACTION. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PRINCIPLES, IF AN ORDINARY MONEY JUDGMENT
WERE ENTERED FOR A FIXED SUM, BUT WITH AUTHORIZED PROVISION FOR PAYMENT
IN INSTALMENTS OVER A DEFINITE PERIOD, TO BE COLLECTED BY LEVY UPON
FAILURE TO PAY ANY INSTALMENT WHEN DUE, I FAIL TO SEE WHAT CONCEIVABLE
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION COULD BE RAISED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OR ANY
SUCH LEVY BY REASON OF FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE INTENDED LEVY. 
NOR DO I SEE HOW SUCH A SCHEME COULD BE VITIATED WERE THE STATE
ADDITIONALLY TO REQUIRE THAT THE LEVY, INSTEAD OF BEING MADE
AUTOMATICALLY OR MINISTERIALLY AT THE PLAINTIFF'S INSTANCE, SHOULD BE
MADE ONLY AFTER FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, ENTERED EITHER OF ITS OWN
MOTION OR ON APPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF.  WHETHER JUDGMENTS SHALL BE
PAID IN A LUMP SUM OR BY INSTALMENTS AND IN EITHER EVENT WHETHER
EXECUTION SHALL ISSUE AND BE LEVIED BY ONE FORM OF PROCEDURE OR
ANOTHER, WITH OR WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, ARE MATTERS WHOLLY OF POLICY
WITHIN STATE POWER TO DETERMINE, RAISING NO QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPORT. 

THESE PRINCIPLES ARE NOT ALTERED FUNDAMENTALLY MERELY BECAUSE, IN
PROCEEDINGS FOR DIVORCE, THE DECREE PROVIDES THAT MONTHLY INSTALMENTS
SHALL CONTINUE FOR THE PERIOD OF NEED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DUTY TO
SUPPORT IMPOSED BY MARRIAGE AND THE BIRTH OF CHILDREN,  FN7  AND TAKE
THE PLACE OF A LUMP SUM PAYMENT FIXED IN AMOUNT.  FN8  NOR DO THEY
BECOME INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE STATE SEES FIT, AS A MATTER OF POLICY,
TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT TO SHOW THAT THE NEED, OR THE DUTY CREATED BY
THE DECREE, HAS ENDED; AT THE SAME TIME MAKING IT A CONDITION OF
SECURING SUCH RELIEF THAT HE SHALL TAKE THE INITIATIVE IN SHOWING THE
CHANGED SITUATION AND SHALL DO SO BEFORE LEVY IS MADE UNDER INSTALMENTS
AS THEY ACCRUE.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NOTHING UNREASONABLE, HARSH OR
ARBITRARY WHEN A STATE, AFTER FULL NOTICE AND HEARING, DETERMINES THAT
THE BASIC FAMILIAL OBLIGATION SHALL BE ENFORCED BY JUDICIAL DECREE
FORMULATED TO EMBODY THE OBLIGATION IN CLOSE ANALOGY, IF NOT EXACT
IDENTITY, WITH THE OBLIGATION'S SUBSTANTIVE CHARACTER, PARTICULARLY
WHEN IT AFFORDS THE HUSBAND OPPORTUNITY FOR SHOWING A CHANGE AFFECTING
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE OBLIGATION. 

THE FALLACY OF THE COURT'S ASSUMPTION, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS THAT THE
OPPORTUNITY IS INADEQUATE IF IT IS LIMITED TO THE PERIOD BEFORE THE DUE
DATE OF THE INSTALMENT ARRIVES OR SUCH LATER DATE AS THE WIFE MAY
SELECT TO ASK FOR ENTRY OF THE ORDER.  THE COURT HAS HELD A MUCH LESS
EXTENDED PERIOD ADEQUATE, AS AGAINST CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS, FOR
PURPOSES OF MAKING DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  YAKUS V. UNITED
STATES, 321 U.S. 414.  A FORTIORI, IN VIEW OF THE CHARACTER OF THE
OBLIGATION AND THE PREVIOUS ADJUDICATION UPON FULL NOTICE AND HEARING,
THE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE NEW YORK LAW FOR MAKING FURTHER DEFENSE
SHOULD BE REGARDED AS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT, EVEN IF THAT LAW IS
THOUGHT TO CUT OFF THAT RIGHT OF DEFENSE WHEN THE ORDER FOR JUDGMENT IS
ENTERED. 

NO MORE IS INVOLVED THAN THAT THE HUSBAND IS COMMANDED TO MAKE
PAYMENT, UNLESS CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED SO AS TO JUSTIFY NONPAYMENT
WHEN THE DUE DATE ARRIVES; AND, IF SUCH CHANGES HAVE TAKEN PLACE, HE IS
ADEQUATELY WARNED THAT HE WILL BE PRECLUDED FROM PROVING OR RELYING
UPON THEM TO AVOID PAYMENT OF THE PREEXISTING JUDGMENT, UNLESS HE MAKES
THE SHOWING ON OR BEFORE THAT DATE.  IF THE HUSBAND'S DEFENSE IS
PAYMENT, HE WILL BE ABLE SUBSEQUENTLY TO VACATE OR ATTACK COLLATERALLY
THE JUDGMENT, SINCE ORDINARILY IT WOULD BE FRAUDULENT FOR THE WIFE TO
DOCKET A JUDGMENT FOR BACK ALIMONY NO LONGER OWED TO HER, AS THE
COURT'S OPINION SUGGESTS.  EVEN IF THERE WERE A LEGAL OR FACTUAL
DISPUTE RELATING TO PAYMENT AND THE WIFE HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN
DOCKETING THE JUDGMENT, AS IN A CASE WHERE SHE HAD ACTED IN IGNORANCE
OF PRIOR PAYMENT TO HER AGENT, IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT A COURT, UPON A
SHOWING OF PAYMENT, WOULD REFUSE TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OR THAT EQUITY
WOULD NOT COME TO THE HUSBAND'S AID.  HER ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THE
JUDGMENT OR RETAIN ITS PROCEEDS AFTER LEARNING OF THE SATISFACTION
WOULD BE FRAUDULENT. 

I KNOW OF NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH FORBIDS A STATE THUS TO
LIMIT THE HUSBAND'S RIGHT TO UPSET THE TERMS OF THE GENERAL DECREE OR
WHICH IMPOSES UPON THE WIFE THE DUTY OF KEEPING HIM INFORMED OF MATTERS
CONCERNING WHICH THE LAW OF THE STATE BINDS HIM TO INFORM HIMSELF. 
ACCORDINGLY, IF IT WERE CLEAR, AS THE COURT ASSUMES, THAT THE NEW YORK
LAW FORBIDS THE HUSBAND TO BRING FORWARD HIS NEW DEFENSES, IF ANY,
AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT, I SHOULD SEE NO VALID CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTION TO THE JUDGMENT, OR A LEVY MADE PURSUANT TO IT, ON THE SCORE
OF WANT OF NOTICE ESSENTIAL TO DUE PROCESS.  FN9

                                 II. 

BUT I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT NEW YORK LAW HAS THE EFFECT OF CUTTING
OFF ALL RIGHT OF DEFENSE UPON THE DOCKETING OF AN INSTALMENT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF EXECUTION.  ALTHOUGH THIS COURT HELD IN SISTARE V. SISTARE,
218 U.S. 1, THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW ACCRUED INSTALMENTS OF ALIMONY
COULD NOT BE MODIFIED, THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE IN NEW YORK.  N.Y.
CIV. PRAC.  ACT SEC. 1170; VAN DUSEN V. VAN DUSEN, 258 APP. DIV. 1020,
17 N.Y.S.2D 96; EISINGER V. EISINGER, 261 APP. DIV. 1031, 26 N.Y.S.2D
22.  SEE ALSO KARLIN V. KARLIN, 280 N.Y. 32, 19 N.E.2D 669. 

IT IS SCARCELY PROBABLE THAT, ALTHOUGH SUCH MODIFICATION MAY BE MADE
AFTER ACCRUAL BUT BEFORE DOCKETING OF JUDGMENT, THE NEW YORK COURTS
WOULD HOLD THAT IT COULD NOT BE MADE AFTER THE FORMAL ACT OF
DOCKETING.  THE COURT POINTS TO NO DECISION WHICH SO RULES AND NONE HAS
BEEN CITED OR FOUND.  INDEED THE COURT'S OPINION INDICATES THAT THE
HUSBAND COULD SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT UPON SHOWING HE HAD PAID THE
INSTALMENT WHICH IT INCLUDED.  AND IN THAYER V. THAYER, 145 APP. DIV.
268, 270-271, 129 N.Y.S. 1035, WHICH IS CONCEDEDLY LEADING AUTHORITY
UPON THIS GENERAL PHASE OF NEW YORK LAW, THE COURT SAID WITH REFERENCE
TO THE PRACTICE OF DOCKETING JUDGMENTS FOR BACK ALIMONY WITHOUT FURTHER
NOTICE THAN THAT GIVEN AS FOUNDATION FOR THE ORIGINAL DECREE:    "IT IS
SUFFICIENT THAT THE COURT IS SATISFIED FROM THE PROOF PRESENTED TO IT
THAT BOTH PARTIES ARE STILL ALIVE, AND THAT THE ALIMONY REMAINS
UNPAID.  IF THE COURT IS MISLED AND AN INSTALLMENT IMPROPERLY DOCKETED,
THE DEFENDANT WILL FIND NO DIFFICULTY IN HAVING THE MISTAKE
CORRECTED." 

AND IN CAPRIO V. CAPRIO, 169 MISC. 568, 572, 8 N.Y.S.2D 205, IT WAS
STATED: 

"THE DOCKETING OF A JUDGMENT FOR BACK ALIMONY IS A RECOGNIZED
PRACTICE  ...  AND THE JUDGMENT IS GOOD IF SUPPORTED BY FACTS, BUT,
LIKE ANY OTHER JUDGMENT, IT CAN BE SET ASIDE OR MODIFIED." 

THESE STATEMENTS MADE BY COURTS FAMILIAR WITH THE NEW YORK PRACTICE
PLAINLY INDICATE THAT IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SUCH
ACTION THE COURTS OF NEW YORK NOT ONLY WILL HEAR THE DEFENDANT'S
OBJECTIONS AFTER THE JUDGMENT IS DOCKETED BUT, AS IN OTHER CASES WHEN
THE SHOWING IS SUFFICIENT, WILL SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OR MODIFY IT AS
THE FACTS MAY REQUIRE.  THIS, OF COURSE, MAY NOT MEAN THAT HE WILL BE
HEARD TO RAISE THE IDENTICAL OBJECTIONS WHICH HE MIGHT HAVE PRESENTED
BEFORE DOCKETING, SINCE IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE FOR THE COURT TO FIND
THAT HE WAS LACKING IN APPROPRIATE DILIGENCE IN PRESENTING THEM AND
SHOULD NOT HAVE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO IN VIEW OF THAT FACT. 
BUT, WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS TRUE, THE QUOTED STATEMENTS OF NEW YORK
PRACTICE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT IN ANY CASE OF SERIOUS HARDSHIP THE
DEFENDANT WILL NOT BE FORECLOSED, MERELY BY THE DOCKETING OF THE
JUDGMENT, FROM ADVANCING HIS OBJECTIONS BY APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE AND
HAVING THEM DETERMINED.  IN THE FACE OF SUCH AUTHORITATIVE EXPRESSIONS
CONCERNING THE LOCAL LAW AND PRACTICE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
CONTRARY EXPRESSION FROM A SOURCE OF SIMILAR AUTHORITY, THIS COURT
SHOULD NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN LONG-DISTANCE JUDGMENT OR ASSUMPTION TO
THE OPPOSITE EFFECT, ESPECIALLY SINCE ON ITS OWN THEORY THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NEW YORK STATUTE IN QUESTION FALLS ON SUCH AN
ASSUMPTION.  FN10

                      III. 

IF THIS VIEW OF THE NEW YORK LAW IS CORRECT, THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT IS
NOT WHOLLY VOID FOR WANT OF DUE PROCESS; FOR THE PETITIONER IS NOT
DEPRIVED OF ANY RIGHT OF DEFENSE WHICH HE MAY BE ENTITLED TO MAKE.  IT
IS NOT APPARENT, NOR HAS HE SHOWN, THAT EVEN NOW HE COULD NOT MAKE FULL
DEFENSE UPON ANY SUBSTANTIALLY MERITORIOUS GROUND IN THE NEW YORK
COURTS AND SUCCEED IN HAVING THE JUDGMENT SET ASIDE. 

NOR, AS PETITIONER HAS MADE HIS CASE, IS THE QUESTION PRESENTED
WHETHER THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT IS SO LACKING IN FINALITY THAT IT IS NOT
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.  FN11
BUT IF THAT QUESTION IS TAKEN TO LURK INESCAPABLY IN THE RECORD, IN
THE VIEW WHICH I HAVE TAKEN OF THE STATE OF THE NEW YORK LAW, IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT THE OBJECTION IS VALID. 

THE JUDGMENT UNDER NEW YORK LAW IS PRIMA FACIE VALID, IF IT IS NOT
CONCLUSIVELY SO.  IT AFFORDS FOUNDATION FOR THE ISSUANCE AND LEVY OF
EXECUTION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF TIMELY ASSERTION OF GROUNDS REQUIRING IT
TO BE SET ASIDE, IT BECOMES CONCLUSIVE. 

THIS COURT HAS NOT HERETOFORE HELD THAT SUCH A JUDGMENT IS NOT
ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  CONTRARY DICTA REFLECTING THE
BELIEF THAT IT WOULD BE LACKING IN NECESSARY FINALITY ARE, IN MY
OPINION, NEITHER CONCLUSIVE NOR SOUND.  CERTAINLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
SUGGESTION THAT THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN QUESTIONED IN THE FORUM WHERE
RENDERED, ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BEING THERE AFFORDED, NOTHING BUT THE
MOST TECHNICAL AND ABSOLUTE CONCEPTION OF "FINALITY" COULD BE THOUGHT
TO DEPRIVE IT OF CREDIT.  BEYOND THIS, IT IS NOT APPARENT WHY ALL
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT WOULD NOT BE FULLY SECURED, IF THE
SAME EFFECT WERE GIVEN TO THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT IN THE SUIT BROUGHT
UPON IT ELSEWHERE AS IT HAS IN NEW YORK. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE JUDGMENT WOULD BE
ENFORCED IN THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNLESS AFTER
SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN THE SUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT THERE THE DEFENDANT
COULD SHOW TO THE COURT'S SATISFACTION A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OR
OTHER DEFENSE SUFFICIENT UNDER NEW YORK LAW TO REQUIRE MODIFICATION OR
SETTING ASIDE OF THE AWARD.  INDEED THE COURT DOES NOT ALTOGETHER
FORECLOSE THIS POSSIBILITY, SINCE IT RESERVES THE QUESTION WHETHER,
UPON FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE WIFE MAY AMEND HER
CLAIM SO AS TO REST UPON THE 1924 DECREE, AS MODIFIED IN 1926; AND THE
HUSBAND THEN MAY MAKE HIS DEFENSES ALLOWED BY NEW YORK LAW.  IF THAT
CAN BE DONE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL DECREE, I SEE NO REASON WHY
THE SAME THING SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN AS TO THE 1938 JUDGMENT.  AND I
THINK THE QUESTION SHOULD BE DETERMINED NOW, NOT IN STILL ANOTHER
CHAPTER OF THIS LONG DRAWN OUT LITIGATION. 

THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT IN ANY CASE REQUIRE THAT A
JUDGMENT, TO BE CREDITED, MUST BE ENDOWED WITH ABSOLUTE FINALITY.  IT
IS ENOUGH, IN MY OPINION, IF THE JUDGMENT IS ENDOWED BY THE LAW OF ITS
ORIGIN WITH FINALITY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE ISSUANCE AND LEVY OF
EXECUTION, ALTHOUGH THE SAME LAW MAY AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SETTING
ASIDE OR MODIFYING IT UPON THE MAKING OF A SPECIFIED SHOWING.  THIS IS
TRUE, IN MY OPINION, WHETHER THE SUIT IS ON THE 1938 JUDGMENT OR ON THE
ORIGINAL DECREE.  THERE IS NO SOUND GROUND FOR DISTINGUISHING THEM SO
AS TO PERMIT SUIT, WITH THE RIGHT DEFENSE, UPON THE ONE AND NOT UPON
THE OTHER.  THE CONSIDERATIONS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON IN HIS
CONCURRING OPINION IN BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S. 77, 86, SUFFICIENTLY
STATE THE REASONS SUPPORTING THE VIEWS SET FORTH IN THIS PARAGRAPH. 
FN12 

ACCORDINGLY, WHETHER ONE VIEW OR THE OTHER OF THE NEW YORK LAW IS
TAKEN, I THINK THE 1938 NEW YORK JUDGMENT IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA N13, ACCORDING TO THE EXACT EFFECT
IT HAD IN NEW YORK.  SINCE, IN MY OPINION, THE LAW OF THAT STATE
ALLOWED THE DEFENDANT ON PROPER SHOWING TO MAKE THE DEFENSE OF CHANGE
IN SITUATION, WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE DOCKETING OF THE JUDGMENT,
THE SAME EFFECT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  AS NO ADEQUATE BASIS FOR MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT WAS TENDERED
OR PROVED BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROCEEDING, I
THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED IN ITS
ENTIRETY. 

FN1  "...  THE DULY ATTESTED RECORD OF THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE IS
ENTITLED TO SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES AS IT HAS BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE STATE FROM WHICH IT IS TAKEN." 
ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59, 62; HANLEY V. DONOGHUE, 116 U.S. 1, 5;
HAMPTON V. M'CONNEL, 3 WHEAT.  234; MILLS V. DURYEE, 7 CRANCH 481; 28
U.S.C. SEC. 687. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION TO THE
GENERAL RULE IMPLICIT IN THE SITUATION PRESENTED BY WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226, THAT A DECREE FOR DIVORCE, ALTHOUGH NOT
ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN OTHER STATES, STILL MAY BE VALID
AS A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS IN THE STATE WHERE RENDERED. 

FN2  SEE MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243 U.S. 90; MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S.
457.  SEE ALSO RESTATEMENT, JUDGMENTS, SEC. 6, COMMENT B; SEC. 16,
COMMENT B; BURDICK, SERVICE AS A REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS IN ACTIONS
IN PERSONAM (1922) 20 MICH. L. REV. 422. 

FN3  CF. NOTES 9 AND 13. 

FN4  IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE WIFE MAY REDUCE THE COST OF
PUBLICATION OR GIVING OTHER FORM OF NOTICE BY ALLOWING THE INSTALMENTS
TO ACCRUE OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME AND THEN MOVING FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT IN THE AGGREGATE SUM, AS THE WIFE WAS FORCED TO DO IN THIS
CASE.  THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT BY INSTALMENTS,
RATHER THAN IN A LUMP SUM, IS TO ASSURE THAT THE WIFE SHALL HAVE THEM
AS THEY ACCRUE, AS MUCH AS IT IS THAT THE HUSBAND SHALL BE ALLOWED TO
EARN THEM AS TIME GOES ALONG.  SHE MAY BE DEPENDENT FOR SUPPORT OF
HERSELF AND CHILDREN MORE UPON THE PROMPTNESS OF THE PAYMENTS THAN UPON
THEIR ULTIMATE CERTAINTY.  AND ANY TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE
ADDITIONAL TO THAT GIVEN BY THE ORIGINAL DECREE CAN ONLY RESULT IN
DEPRIVING THE WIFE OF HER RIGHT TO PROMPT PAYMENT, IF THE HUSBAND CAN
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE REQUIREMENT AND THE SMALL AMOUNT OF THE
INSTALMENTS TO COMPEL HER TO LET THEM ACCUMULATE.  BECAUSE DELAY SO
OFTEN RESULTS IN LOSS OF SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, THE EFFECT FREQUENTLY WILL
BE ALSO TO MAKE IMPOSSIBLE THE ULTIMATE AS WELL AS THE IMMEDIATE
COLLECTION OF WHAT IS DUE; AND TO SUBSTITUTE A RIGHT OF LIFELONG
LITIGATION FOR ONE OF CERTAIN MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE.  THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE AFFORD ABUNDANT ILLUSTRATION OF BOTH POSSIBILITIES. 

FN5  SEE ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. ENCYCLOPEDIA PRESS, 266 U.S. 285;
TAYLOR V. STOWE, 218 MASS. 248, 105 N.E. 890. 

FN6  SEE BROWN V. BROWN, 62 R.I. 375, 6 A.2D 144; STATE EX REL. LANE
V. MONTGOMERY, 221 MO. APP. 1043, 295 S.W. 824. 

FN7  THERE ARE TWO PRINCIPAL THEORIES AS TO THE NATURE OF ALIMONY. 
THE MODERN VIEW IS THAT ALIMONY "IS A RIGHT OF THE SAME CHARACTER AS
THE RIGHT OF SUPPORT LOST BY THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MARRIAGE."  THE
HISTORICAL VIEW IS THAT ALIMONY "IS A SETTLEMENT OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS
OF THE PARTIES AND A DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS OF THE QUASI
PARTNERSHIP HITHERTO EXISTING."  KELSO, THE CHANGING SOCIAL SETTING OF
ALIMONY LAW (1939) 6 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  186, 194-195; WILSON V.
HINMAN, 182 N.Y. 408, 410-412, 75 N.E. 236. 

FN8  THE DUTY OF SUPPORT, INCURRED UPON MARRIAGE, IS NOT MERELY THE
DUTY OF A DEBTOR ARISING UPON A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION FOR THE PAYMENT
OF A FIXED SUM WITH INTEREST.  BARBER V. BARBER, 217 N.C. 422, 428, 8
S.E.2D 204.  NOR IS A JUDGMENT WHICH ENFORCES THAT DUTY TO BE TREATED
IN ALL RESPECTS AS ONE UPON A COMMERCIAL OBLIGATION IN ORDER TO BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID. 

FN9  SEE JONES V. JONES, 204 ARK. 654, 163 S.W.2D 528; ALSO THE
AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 13.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN
ALIMONY DECREES ARE ENFORCED BY OTHER MEANS, FOR EXAMPLE THROUGH
EXERCISE OF THE CONTEMPT POWER, NOTICE MAY NOT BE REQUIRED.  CF. MILLER
V. MILLER, 79 COLO. 118, 244 P. 66. 

FN10  THE DECLARATION IN SISTARE V. SISTARE, 218 U.S. 1, 22, QUOTED
IN BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S. 77, 82, THAT "EVERY REASONABLE
IMPLICATION MUST BE RESORTED TO AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF" A POWER TO
MODIFY OR REVOKE INSTALMENTS OF ALIMONY ALREADY ACCRUED "IN THE ABSENCE
OF CLEAR LANGUAGE MANIFESTING AN INTENTION TO CONFER IT" WAS ADDRESSED
TO A DIFFERENT QUESTION, FINALITY FOR PURPOSES OF FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT, CF. PART III OF THIS OPINION, AND, IF APPLIED IN THIS CASE,
WOULD BE IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THE RULE THAT LEGISLATION IS
PRESUMPTIVELY CONSTITUTIONAL. 

UNDER THE DECISION OF THE COURT, SEC. 1171-B OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL
PRACTICE ACT MAY ALSO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS THAT SECTION, ENACTED
SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE 1938 JUDGMENT, PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS IN ALIMONY "SHALL
BE UPON SUCH NOTICE TO THE HUSBAND AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT."  IT MAY BE
THAT UNDER THIS WORDING THE NEW YORK COURTS NEED NOT DIRECT ANY NOTICE
AT ALL. 

FN11  TO HAVE OBJECTED THAT THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT WAS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY FINAL TO BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
WOULD HAVE BEEN IN CONTRADICTION OF PETITIONER'S OBJECTION THAT IT
DEPRIVED HIM OF DUE PROCESS, SINCE HIS DUE PROCESS ARGUMENT IS FOUNDED
IN THE VIEW THAT HIS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN CONCLUSIVELY ADJUDICATED. 

FN12  IT WAS JUST SUCH RIGID NOTIONS OF FINALITY WHICH LONG PREVENTED
RECOGNITION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS AS A JUDICIAL BODY.  SEE GORDON V.
UNITED STATES, 2 WALL.  561, 117 U.S. 697; UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 13
WALL.  128, 144-145.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE GOVERNING STATUTE OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS WAS AMENDED, AND SINCE THAT TIME IT HAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED
THAT CONGRESS MAY AUTHORIZE AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A FINAL
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, SUPRA;
WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 553, 563-564. 

EVEN IF THE JUDGMENT WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY FINAL FOR FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT PURPOSES, IT NEVERTHELESS WOULD BE WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO GIVE IT EFFECT ON GROUNDS OF COMITY.  THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE COMMANDS STATES IN CERTAIN INSTANCES TO
RECOGNIZE THE JUDGMENTS OF SISTER STATES; IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THEM
FROM DOING SO IN OTHER INSTANCES.  SEE JACOBS, THE ENFORCEMENT OF
FOREIGN DECREES FOR ALIMONY (1939) 6 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB.  250, 263
264.  SEE GENERALLY NOTE, THE FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS IN THE CONFLICT OF
LAWS (1941) 41 COL. L. REV. 878, 884-887. 

UPON THE COURT'S TREATMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA LAW IN BARBER V.
BARBER, THE RESERVATIONS MADE BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON WERE PERHAPS NOT
REQUIRED, SINCE ON THAT TREATMENT THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED WAS NOT
INVOLVED. 

FN13  SEE DADMUN V. DADMUN, 279 MASS. 217, 181 N.E. 264, WHERE THE
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS GAVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A
NEW YORK JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS IN ALIMONY WHICH HAD BEEN ENTERED WITHOUT
NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT; NELSON, DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT (2D ED.)  SEC. 
33.45; CF. BARNS V. BARNS, 9 CAL. APP.2D 427, 50 P.2D 463; DEFOE V.
DEFOE, 116 W. VA. 197, 179 S.E. 74. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

MY BROTHER RUTLEDGE HAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN
THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE AND I SHALL STATE BRIEFLY THE
GROUNDS FOR MY SUPPORT OF HIS CONCLUSION. 

THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEAT A CLAIM - THE RIGHT TO NOTICE BEFORE A
COURT CAN DETERMINE LIABILITY - IS A SAFEGUARD GUARANTEED BY THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  BUT MONEY JUDGMENTS ARE NOT LIKE PEAS IN A POD. 
BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCES IN THE SOURCE AND FUNCTION OF LIABILITY, THE
DEMAND OF FAIRNESS WHICH UNDERLIES THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE MAY WELL
BE SATISFIED BY DIFFERENT PROCEDURES.  A JUDGMENT FOR FUTURE ALIMONY,
AS ONE OF THE INCIDENTS OF JURISDICTION TO DECREE A DIVORCE, IS VERY
UNLIKE A JUDGMENT FOR THE ORDINARY LUMP SUM INDEBTEDNESS.  IT IS IN
EFFECT AN AMBULATORY JUDGMENT FOR EACH INSTALMENT AS IT BECOMES DUE. 
THE OBLIGATION TO PAY ARREARS FLOWS FROM THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT AND MAY
BE PURSUED UPON THAT JUDGMENT ELSEWHERE THAN IN THE RENDERING STATE. 
BARBER V. BARBER, 21 HOW.  582; SISTARE V. SISTARE, 218 U.S. 1.  FOR
PURPOSES OF SUABILITY AS A JUDGMENT ELSEWHERE, THE ACCRUED INSTALMENTS
NEED NOT BE REDUCED TO JUDGMENT ANEW IN THE STATE OF THE ORIGINAL
DECREE, WHATEVER MAY BE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THAT
JUDGMENT IN THE RENDERING STATE.    BUT IT IS SAID THAT THE STATE
RENDERING THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT FOR ALIMONY MAY ALLOW, AS NEW YORK HAS
DONE HERE, MITIGATION OF SUCH JUDGMENT EVEN AS TO ACCRUED INSTALMENTS. 
IF SO, SUCH MITIGATING DEFENSES MAY BE SET UP WHEN THE DECREE FOR
ALIMONY IS SUED ON IN A SISTER STATE AS WELL AS WHEN ENFORCED IN THE
RENDERING STATE.  A JUDGMENT MAY HAVE BEEN PAID AND YET A SUIT THEREON
MAY BE BROUGHT IN ANOTHER STATE.  WHILE SUCH A DEFENSE, IF WELL
FOUNDED, PRECLUDES A SECOND RECOVERY ON THAT JUDGMENT ANYWHERE, THE
AVAILABILITY OF SUCH A DEFENSE DOES NOT BAR SUIT ON SUCH A JUDGMENT IN
A SISTER STATE.  IT RUNS COUNTER TO NO REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS TO
MAKE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR DEFEND A SUIT ON THAT JUDGMENT BY CLAIMING
DISCHARGE OF ITS LIABILITY, WHETHER THROUGH PAYMENT OR OTHERWISE.  SUCH
A PROCEDURE IS ENTIRELY CONSONANT WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WHICH
"SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE  ...  JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF
EVERY OTHER STATE."  ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION; SEE THE
CONCURRING OPINION IN BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S. 77, 86, AT 87. 
MOREOVER, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AS IS TRUE OF A STATE, SEE THOMPSON
V. THOMPSON, 226 U.S. 551, MAY AS A MATTER OF CONFLICT OF LAWS GO
BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  IF,
PERCHANCE, RELIEF FROM ACCRUED INSTALMENTS IS BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS
OF POLICY PECULIARLY WITHIN THE LOCAL UNDERSTANDING AND DISCRETIONARY
DETERMINATION OF JUDGES OF THE ORIGINATING JURISDICTION, SISTER STATE
TRIBUNALS HAVE AMPLE POWER OF ABSTENTION TO RESPECT SUCH LOCAL
QUALIFICATIONS.  IN ANY EVENT, ACCESS TO THIS COURT IS ALWAYS OPEN ON
SUCH A FEDERAL ISSUE. 

I AGREE THEREFORE WITH MY BROTHER RUTLEDGE THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED IN ITS ENTIRETY.  WHILE FORMALLY THE SUIT WAS ON THE
NEW YORK JUDGMENT OF 1938, THIS IN TURN WAS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL
JUDGMENT FOR ALIMONY.  THAT JUDGMENT IS IN THE RECORD AND IS THE REAL
SOURCE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.  IF A MISDESCRIPTION OF A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION IS DEEMED A FORMAL IRRELEVANCE SO LONG AS AN OFFENSE IS
INTRINSICALLY CHARGED, WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 382, A
MISDESCRIPTION BY THE PLEADER OF THE BASIS OF A SUIT FOR ACCRUED
INSTALMENTS ON A JUDGMENT FOR ALIMONY CAN HARDLY BE TOO TIGHT A KNOT
FOR COURTS TO UNTIE. 

PLEADINGS, PARTICULARLY IN A CASE OF THIS SORT, ARE NO LONGER TO BE
DEALT WITH IN THE SPIRIT OF BARON PARKE.  SEE L. HAND, THE DEFICIENCIES
OF TRIALS TO REACH THE HEART OF THE MATTER (1921), IN 3 LECTURES ON
LEGAL TOPICS, ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK (1926)
89.  A SUITOR IS ENTITLED TO HAVE RELIEF JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTS HE HAS
PLEADED, WHETHER HE HAS ACCURATELY DESCRIBED HIS PLEADING OR HAS ASKED
FOR RELIEF APPROPRIATE TO THE PLEADED FACTS.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288 U.S. 62, 68-69; BEMIS BRO. BAG CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 28, 34.  THE PURPOSE OF A COMPLAINT IS TO GIVE
THE DEFENDANT FAIR NOTICE OF THE CLAIM AGAINST HIM.  IF IT DOES THAT,
THE COMPLAINT IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.  GRIFFIN COULD HAVE HAD NO DOUBT
THAT HIS WIFE WAS SUING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR UNPAID
INSTALMENTS OF ALIMONY WHICH NEW YORK, AS PART OF THE DIVORCE
PROCEEDINGS, HAD DECREED IN HER FAVOR.  UPON THE RECORD BEFORE US THE
PETITIONER DISCLAIMED LIABILITY FOR THESE ARREARS ON GROUNDS WHICH DO
NOT SAVE HIM.  WE OUGHT NOT TO DENY LIABILITY FLOWING FROM A LIVE
JUDGMENT BY ASSUMING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS BETTER GROUNDS FOR
AVOIDING LIABILITY THAN THOSE THAT HE HAS ALREADY ASSERTED.  IF,
PERCHANCE, HE COULD SATISFY THE DISTRICT COURT THAT HE HAS FAILED TO
SET UP A VALID DEFENSE THROUGH A REASONABLE MISCONCEPTION OF WHAT WAS
THE ESSENCE OF HIS WIFE'S SUIT, NAMELY A SUIT FOR ARREARS OF ALIMONY
WHICH WERE HER DUE, IT WOULD NOT BE CASTING AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON
THE PETITIONER TO REQUIRE HIM TO MOVE TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ON
APPROPRIATE GROUNDS. 
..END :













BIGELOW V. RKO RADIO PICTURES, 327 U.S. 251 


NO. 444.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 150
F.2D 877, REVERSED. 


1.  PETITIONERS OWNED A MOTION PICTURE THEATRE IN CHICAGO.  SOME OF
THE RESPONDENTS WERE DISTRIBUTORS OF MOTION PICTURE FILMS; OTHERS OWNED
OR CONTROLLED MOTION PICTURE THEATRES IN CHICAGO.  PETITIONERS SUED
RESPONDENTS UNDER THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS TO RECOVER TREBLE
DAMAGES.  THE GIST OF THE COMPLAINT WAS THAT, BY REASON OF AN UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY OF THE RESPONDENTS, PETITIONERS WERE PREVENTED FROM SECURING
PICTURES FOR EXHIBITION IN THEIR THEATRE UNTIL AFTER THE PREFERRED
EXHIBITORS HAD BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THEM IN EARLIER AND MORE DESIRABLE
RUNS, AND THAT PETITIONERS WERE THUS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF FEATURE FILMS IN FAVOR OF COMPETING THEATRES OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS.  IT APPEARED THAT, AFTER THE
INTRODUCTION IN 1937 OF THE PRACTICE OF SHOWING DOUBLE FEATURES,
PETITIONERS WERE NO LONGER ABLE TO SECURE FILMS WHICH HAD NOT HAD A
PRIOR SHOWING.  PETITIONERS CHARGED THAT IN CONSEQUENCE OF RESPONDENTS'
UNLAWFUL ACTS THEY HAD SUFFERED A LOSS OF EARNINGS IN EXCESS OF
$120,000 DURING THE 5-YEAR PERIOD FROM 1937 TO 1942.  TWO CLASSES OF
EVIDENCE WERE INTRODUCED BY PETITIONERS TO ESTABLISH THEIR DAMAGE.  ONE
WAS A COMPARISON OF EARNINGS DURING THE 5-YEAR PERIOD OF PETITIONERS'
THEATRE WITH THOSE OF A COMPARABLE THEATRE OF THE RESPONDENTS, WHICH
SHOWED A DIFFERENCE OF NEARLY $116,000 IN FAVOR OF THE LATTER.  THE
SECOND WAS A COMPARISON OF THE RECEIPTS OF PETITIONERS' THEATRE FOR THE
FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING JULY 1937 WITH THE RECEIPTS FOR THE FOUR YEARS
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING, WHICH SHOWED A DECLINE AGGREGATING MORE THAN
$125,000.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONERS IN THE SUM OF
$120,000, AND THE TRIAL COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR TREBLE THAT AMOUNT. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE
EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR SUBMISSION TO THE JURY, AND
DIRECTED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO. 
HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT FOR THE
PETITIONERS.  PP. 253-254, 266. 

(A)  THE EVIDENCE WAS AMPLE TO SUPPORT A JUST AND REASONABLE
INFERENCE THAT PETITIONERS WERE DAMAGED BY RESPONDENTS' ACTS.  P. 266. 

(B)  WHATEVER RESTRAINTS RESPONDENTS' DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAY HAVE
IMPOSED, AND WHETHER THE POLICY LATER ADOPTED OF SHOWING DOUBLE
FEATURES WAS OR WAS NOT ITSELF A PRODUCT OF AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY,
PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED, AS OF RIGHT, TO CONTINUE TO PURCHASE AND
SHOW FILMS WHICH HAD NOT HAD PRIOR SHOWING, FREE OF RESTRAINTS OF THE
UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  P. 262. 

(C)  A FAIR MEASURE OF THE DAMAGE TO THAT RIGHT OF THE PETITIONERS
WAS THE LOSS OF PETITIONERS' ADMISSION RECEIPTS RESULTING FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTING SYSTEM.  PP. 262-263. 

(D)  THE FACT THAT, BY REASON OF RESPONDENT'S TORTIOUS ACTS IN
MAINTAINING THE DISCRIMINATORY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, THE PETITIONERS
WERE UNABLE TO PROVE WHAT THEIR EARNINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER FREELY
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, DID NOT PRECLUDE A VERDICT FOR THE
PETITIONERS.  P. 263. 

(E)  THE COMPARISON OF PETITIONERS' RECEIPTS BEFORE AND AFTER
RESPONDENTS' UNLAWFUL ACTION IMPINGED ON PETITIONERS' BUSINESS AFFORDED
A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE JURY'S COMPUTATION OF THE DAMAGE, WHERE
RESPONDENTS' WRONGFUL ACTION HAD PREVENTED PETITIONERS FROM MAKING ANY
MORE PRECISE PROOF OF THE AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGES.  P. 266. 

2.  A JURY MAY NOT RENDER A VERDICT BASED ON SPECULATION OR
GUESSWORK, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENDANT BY HIS OWN WRONG HAS PRECLUDED A
MORE PRECISE COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES.  BUT THE JURY MAY MAKE A JUST AND
REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE DAMAGE BASED ON RELEVANT DATA AND RENDER ITS
VERDICT ACCORDINGLY.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES JURIES ARE ALLOWED TO ACT
ON PROBABLE AND INFERENTIAL AS WELL AS UPON DIRECT AND POSITIVE PROOF. 
STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO., 282 U.S. 555; EASTMAN KODAK CO. V.
SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359.  P. 264. 

3.  ELEMENTARY CONCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE AND PUBLIC POLICY REQUIRE THAT
THE WRONGDOER SHALL BEAR THE RISK OF THE UNCERTAINTY IN COMPUTING
DAMAGES WHICH HIS WRONG HAS CREATED.  P. 265. 

BIGELOW ET AL. V. RKO RADIO PICTURES, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

FROM A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN A SUIT FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE
ANTITRUST ACTS, THE DEFENDANTS APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  150 F.2D 877.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S.
709.  REVERSED, P. 266. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN
ILLINOIS UNDER SECS. 1, 2 AND 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT (26 STAT. 209), AND
SECS. 4 AND 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT (38 STAT. 731), 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2,
15, AND 26, FOR AN INJUNCTION AND TO RECOVER TREBLE DAMAGES. 
PETITIONERS, WHO ARE OWNERS OF THE JACKSON PARK MOTION PICTURE THEATRE
IN CHICAGO, ALLEGED BY THEIR BILL OF COMPLAINT THAT RESPONDENTS, SOME
OF WHOM ARE DISTRIBUTORS OF MOVING PICTURE FILMS AND SOME OF WHOM OWN
OR CONTROL MOVING PICTURE THEATRES IN CHICAGO, ENTERED INTO A
CONSPIRACY WHICH CONTINUED FROM SOME DATE PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1, 1936 TO
THE DATE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT, JULY 28, 1942, PURSUANT TO WHICH FILM
WAS DISTRIBUTED AMONG MOVING PICTURE THEATRES IN THE CHICAGO DISTRICT
IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THEATRES OWNED BY SOME OF THE CONSPIRATORS WERE
ENABLED TO SECURE AND SHOW FEATURE PICTURES IN ADVANCE OF INDEPENDENT
EXHIBITORS, NOT AFFILIATED WITH RESPONDENTS, SUCH AS PETITIONERS. 

THE GIST OF THE COMPLAINT IS THAT, BY REASON OF THE CONSPIRACY,
PETITIONERS WERE PREVENTED FROM SECURING PICTURES FOR EXHIBITION IN
THEIR THEATRE UNTIL AFTER THE PREFERRED EXHIBITORS HAD BEEN ABLE TO
SHOW THEM IN THE EARLIER AND MORE DESIRABLE RUNS, AND THAT PETITIONERS
HAVE THUS BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF FEATURE
FILMS IN FAVOR OF COMPETING THEATRES OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY SOME OF THE
RESPONDENTS.  PETITIONERS CHARGED THAT IN CONSEQUENCE THEY HAD BEEN
SUBJECTED TO LOSS OF EARNINGS IN EXCESS OF $120,000 DURING THE FIVE
YEAR PERIOD FROM JULY 27, 1937 TO JULY 27, 1942.  THE MATTER OF THE
INJUNCTION WAS RESERVED AND THE CASE WENT TO TRIAL SOLELY ON THE
QUESTION OF DAMAGES.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR $120,000 IN
PETITIONERS' FAVOR.  THE TRIAL COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR TREBLE THAT
AMOUNT, AS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE
EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUBMISSION TO THE JURY, AND
DIRECTED THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS NON OBSTANTE
VEREDICTO.  150 F.2D 877.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 326 U.S. 709, BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM PRESENTED. 

RESPONDENTS DO NOT NOW ASSAIL THE JURY'S VERDICT, SO FAR AS IT FOUND
AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY TO MAINTAIN A DISCRIMINATORY SYSTEM OF
DISTRIBUTION.  THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DECISION HERE IS WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT.  AS THE JURY
RETURNED A GENERAL VERDICT, THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY MUST BE ASCERTAINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN
TO THE JURY, TAKING THAT VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE MOST FAVORABLE TO
PETITIONERS.  PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN SINCE NOVEMBER 1, 1936 THE OWNERS
IN PARTNERSHIP OF THE JACKSON PARK THEATRE, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF CHICAGO.  RESPONDENTS RKO RADIO PICTURES, INC., LOEW'S, INC.,
TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORPORATION, PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., AND
VITAGRAPH, INC., ARE DISTRIBUTORS OF MOTION PICTURE FILMS.  RESPONDENT
RKO ALSO OWNS TWO LARGE FIRST-RUN THEATRES IN THE CHICAGO LOOP. 
RESPONDENT BALABAN & KATZ CORPORATION IS A MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR,
WHICH OPERATES A CHAIN OF SOME FIFTY THEATRES IN CHICAGO AND ITS
SUBURBS, INCLUDING THE MARYLAND THEATRE AND OTHERS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
CHICAGO WHICH COMPETE WITH THE PETITIONERS' JACKSON PARK THEATRE. 
BALABAN & KATZ IS A SUBSIDIARY OF PARAMOUNT.  RESPONDENT WARNER BROS.
CIRCUIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION IS AN EXHIBITOR WHICH OPERATES MORE THAN
TWENTY THEATRES IN CHICAGO, INCLUDING SEVERAL ON CHICAGO'S SOUTH SIDE
WHICH ALSO COMPETE WITH PETITIONERS' THEATRE.  WARNER BROS. CIRCUIT
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND VITAGRAPH ARE SUBSIDIARIES OF WARNER BROS.
PICTURES, INC. RESPONDENT WARNER BROS. THEATRES, INC., IS ALSO
AFFILIATED WITH WARNER BROS. PICTURES, INC. AND HOLDS TITLE TO CERTAIN
OF THE WARNER THEATRES. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT
RESPONDENTS MAINTAINED IN THE CHICAGO DISTRICT, BY A CONSPIRACY AMONG
THEMSELVES, A DISCRIMINATORY SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTING MOTION PICTURES FOR
SHOWING IN SUCCESSIVE WEEKS OF RELEASE.  THE RELEASE SYSTEM, AS
DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND SHOWN BY THE PROOF, OPERATED
SUBSTANTIALLY AS FOLLOWS:  RESPONDENT DISTRIBUTORS RENT THEIR
COPYRIGHTED PRODUCT TO MOTION PICTURE THEATRES FOR EXHIBITION TO THE
PUBLIC.  RENTAL CONTRACTS BETWEEN DISTRIBUTORS AND EXHIBITORS UNDERTAKE
TO FURNISH FILMS TO THE EXHIBITORS FOR STIPULATED RENTALS, AND PROVIDE
FOR THE "PLAYING POSITION" IN WHICH THE MOTION PICTURE THEATRE IS TO
EXHIBIT THE FILMS RELATIVE TO THE "PLAYING POSITION" OF OTHER THEATRES
IN THE COMPETITIVE AREA.  IN CHICAGO, THESE CONTRACTS UNIFORMLY PROVIDE
THAT THE LARGER THEATRES IN THE CHICAGO LOOP, ALL OWNED, LEASED, OR
OPERATED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE RESPONDENTS, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE
"FIRST RUN" OF THE MOTION PICTURES DISTRIBUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS, FOR
ONE WEEK OR SUCH LONGER PERIOD AS THEY MAY DESIRE TO EXHIBIT THEM. 
FOLLOWING THE "FIRST RUN," THE MOTION PICTURE MAY NOT BE SHOWN IN ANY
CHICAGO THEATRE OUTSIDE THE LOOP FOR THREE WEEKS, A PERIOD KNOWN AS
"CLEARANCE."  IN THE FOURTH WEEK FOLLOWING THE END OF THE LOOP RUN, THE
FILM IS RELEASED FOR EXHIBITION IN THEATRES OUTSIDE THE LOOP FOR
SUCCESSIVE RUNS IN VARIOUS THEATRES, FOR PERIODS KNOWN AS THE "A", "B"
AND "C" "PRE-RELEASE WEEKS," FOLLOWED BY WEEKS OF "GENERAL RELEASE." 

THE EARLIER A PLAYING POSITION, THE MORE DESIRABLE IT IS, SINCE IT IS
PREFERABLE TO EXHIBIT PICTURES BEFORE THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO THE
PUBLIC IN OTHER THEATRES IN THE COMPETITIVE AREA.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE
THAT RESPONDENT DISTRIBUTORS AND EXHIBITORS CONSPIRED TO GIVE TO THE
DISTRIBUTOR-CONTROLLED OR AFFILIATED THEATRES PREFERENTIAL PLAYING
POSITIONS IN THE RELEASE SYSTEM OVER THE POSITIONS ALLOTTED TO
INDEPENDENT COMPETING THEATRES, INCLUDING THAT OF PETITIONERS, WITH THE
RESULT THAT PETITIONERS' THEATRE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN FEATURE FILMS
UNTIL THE FIRST WEEK OF "GENERAL RELEASE," OR TEN WEEKS AFTER THE END
OF THE LOOP RUN.  BY THAT TIME MOST OF RESPONDENT EXHIBITORS' THEATRES,
WITH SEVERAL OF WHICH PETITIONERS' THEATRE COMPETES, AND WHICH ENJOYED
THE PRIOR "A", "B" OR "C" PRE-RELEASE RUNS, HAD FINISHED THEIR
SHOWINGS.  REGARDLESS OF THE PRICE OFFERED FOR RENTAL OF FILM, THE
RESPONDENT EXHIBITORS, IN EXECUTION OF THE CONSPIRACY, REFUSED TO
RELEASE FILMS TO PETITIONERS' THEATRE EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST WEEK OF
"GENERAL RELEASE." 

ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS' GROUND FOR RECOVERY, AS STATED BY THEIR BILL OF
COMPLAINT, WAS THE DISCRIMINATORY OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM OF RELEASING
PICTURES FOR SHOWING IN ALLOTTED PLAYING POSITIONS, WHEREBY THE
PETITIONERS WERE PREVENTED FROM ACQUIRING FILMS FOR EXHIBITION UNTIL
THEY HAD BEEN SHOWN IN RESPONDENT DISTRIBUTORS' THEATRES COMPETING WITH
THE JACKSON PARK, EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL
TENDING TO SHOW THAT RESPONDENTS CONSPIRED TO MAINTAIN THE RELEASE
SYSTEM AS PART OF A CONSPIRACY TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICES TO
BE CHARGED BY EXHIBITORS GENERALLY.  THIS PROOF INDICATED THAT THE
OBJECT OF THIS CONSPIRACY WAS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN HIGH
ADMISSION PRICES IN THE LOOP THEATRES BY RESTRICTING THE PRICE
COMPETITION OF THE SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES.  THE DISTRIBUTORS'
CONTRACTS WITH THE LOOP THEATRES PROVIDED FOR FILM RENTALS BASED ON A
PERCENTAGE OF THE ADMISSION FEES COLLECTED.  IT APPEARED THAT THE
RENTAL CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN RESPONDENT DISTRIBUTORS AND THE
CHICAGO EXHIBITORS, INCLUDING RESPONDENT EXHIBITORS AND PETITIONERS,
UNIFORMLY CONTAINED SCHEDULES OF MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICES FIXED ON THE
BASIS OF THE PLAYING POSITION ASSIGNED.  THERE WAS THUS EVIDENCE
TENDING TO SHOW THAT THE RELEASE SYSTEM AND THE PRICE-FIXING SYSTEM
WERE EACH AN INTEGRAL PART OF AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY TO GIVE TO THE
LOOP THEATRES THE ADVANTAGES OF A FIRST-RUN PROTECTED FROM LOW-PRICE
COMPETITION. 

RESPONDENTS' EVIDENCE, ON THE OTHER HAND, TENDED TO SHOW THAT THE
RELEASE SYSTEM WAS A NATURAL GROWTH IN THE INDUSTRY, AND THAT THE FIXED
PRICE SYSTEM HAD RESULTED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL ACTION OF DISTRIBUTORS,
NOT ACTING IN CONCERT, TO MARKET THEIR COPYRIGHTED PRODUCT IN SUCH A
MANNER AS TO SECURE THE BEST POSSIBLE FINANCIAL RETURN FROM THE FILM
DISTRIBUTED.  SEE INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208;
CONSENT DECREE IN UNITED STATES V. BALABAN & KATZ CORP., C.C.H. FED.
TRADE REG. SERV., 7TH ED., COURT DECISIONS SUPPLEMENT, P. 5025. 

TWO CLASSES OF EVIDENCE WERE INTRODUCED BY PETITIONERS TO ESTABLISH
THEIR DAMAGE.  ONE WAS A COMPARISON OF EARNINGS DURING THE FIVE YEAR
PERIOD OF PETITIONERS' JACKSON PARK THEATRE WITH THE EARNINGS OF ITS
COMPETITOR, THE MARYLAND THEATRE, THE TWO BEING COMPARABLE IN SIZE, THE
JACKSON PARK BEING SUPERIOR IN LOCATION, EQUIPMENT, AND ATTRACTIVENESS
TO PATRONS.  UNDER THE DISCRIMINATORY RELEASE SYSTEM, THE MARYLAND HAD
BEEN ALLOWED TO EXHIBIT PICTURES IN THE C PRE-RELEASE RUN, ONE WEEK
AHEAD OF PETITIONERS' FIRST WEEK OF GENERAL RELEASE.  THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED THAT DURING THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD, THE MARYLAND'S NET RECEIPTS
AFTER DEDUCTING FILM RENTALS PAID TO DISTRIBUTORS EXCEEDED PETITIONERS'
LIKE RECEIPTS BY $115,982.34. 

THE SECOND WAS A COMPARISON OF PETITIONERS' RECEIPTS FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE JACKSON PARK THEATRE LESS COST OF FILM FOR THE FIVE
YEAR PERIOD FOLLOWING JULY 1937, WITH THE CORRESPONDING RECEIPTS FOR
THE FOUR YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING, AFTER MAKING AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF "BANK NIGHT" RECEIPTS.  THE COMPARISON SHOWS A FALLING
OFF OF PETITIONERS' RECEIPTS DURING THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD AGGREGATING
$125,659.00, WHICH WAS MORE THAN $5,000 IN EXCESS OF THE $120,000
DAMAGE DEMANDED BY PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
COMPARISON LIES IN THE FACT THAT DURING MOST OF THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD,
AND DESPITE THE OPERATION OF THE RELEASE SYSTEM AS DESCRIBED,
PETITIONERS' THEATRE HAD BEEN ABLE TO PROCURE SOME FILMS WHICH HAD NOT
ALREADY BEEN SHOWN IN RESPONDENTS' THEATRES, WHEREAS PETITIONERS WERE
NOT ABLE TO PROCURE SUCH FILMS DURING THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD WHICH
FOLLOWED, ALTHOUGH THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THEY MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO
DO SO.  THE CHANGE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PRACTICE
OF "DOUBLE FEATURES" (THE SHOWING OF TWO FILMS AT A SINGLE PERFORMANCE)
IN THEATRES IN THE CHICAGO DISTRICT.  THE EVIDENCE TENDED TO SHOW THAT
WHEN SINGLE FEATURES WERE BEING SHOWN, EXHIBITORS WHO HAD PLAYING
POSITIONS AHEAD OF PETITIONERS', IN SELECTING FILMS OUT OF THOSE WHICH
THEIR RENTAL CONTRACTS ALLOWED THEM TO SHOW, DID NOT EXHIBIT ALL OF THE
FILMS DISTRIBUTED, SO THAT, DESPITE THEIR INFERIOR PLAYING POSITION,
PETITIONERS WERE ABLE TO EXHIBIT PICTURES WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN
ELSEWHERE.  WITH THE ADVENT OF DOUBLE FEATURING, THEATRES WITH PLAYING
POSITIONS AHEAD OF PETITIONERS' USED NEARLY ALL OF THE FILMS
DISTRIBUTED, AND THE PICTURES WHICH PETITIONERS WERE ABLE TO EXHIBIT IN
THE FIRST WEEK OF GENERAL RELEASE, BY REASON OF THE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM, HAD HAD PRIOR SHOWING IN NEARLY EVERY CASE. 

THE TRIAL COURT LEFT IT TO THE JURY TO SAY WHETHER DOUBLE FEATURING
WAS INTRODUCED AS A PART OF A CONSPIRACY AMONG RESPONDENTS, OR AS A
SPONTANEOUS MANIFESTATION IN THE INDUSTRY.  ASSUMING THE LATTER, WE
AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH, IN SUSTAINING THE
JURY'S FINDING OF AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY TO MAINTAIN THE DESCRIBED
SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION, HELD THAT WHEN THE DOUBLE FEATURING WAS
ESTABLISHED, ALL FILM WHICH HAD NOT ALREADY BEEN SHOWN "WAS TAKEN AWAY
BY DEFENDANTS' PRIOR CONTRACTS, MADE PURSUANT TO AND AS A PART OF THE
CONSPIRACY, AND PLACED UNDER THE RESTRICTION OF THE ILLEGAL SYSTEM, AND
THEREAFTER WAS NOT OBTAINABLE BY PLAINTIFFS, EXCEPT BY USE OF THE
ILLEGAL SYSTEM." 

IN SUBMITTING THE TWO CLASSES OF EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE WHICH WE HAVE
DETAILED, THE TRIAL COURT STATED TO THE JURY:  "PLAINTIFFS SEEK TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE ALLEGED ACTS OF DEFENDANTS ON ONE OF TWO
THEORIES  ..."  IT FURTHER CHARGED THAT "IF  ...  PLAINTIFFS HAVE BEEN
INJURED BY THE ALLEGED ACTS OF DEFENDANTS, THEY MUST CHOOSE ONE OR THE
OTHER OF SAID TWO THEORIES OF DETERMINING DAMAGE OR THE AMOUNT OF
DAMAGES."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE JURY
ACCEPTED THE COMPARISON OF PLAINTIFFS' EARNINGS BEFORE AND AFTER THE
ADOPTION OF DOUBLE BILLING AS ESTABLISHING THE MEASURE OF PETITIONERS'
DAMAGE.  BUT IT HELD THAT THIS PROOF DID NOT FURNISH A PROPER MEASURE
OF DAMAGE FOR THE REASON THAT, WHILE PETITIONERS' EARNINGS WERE KNOWN
AND PROVED FOR BOTH THE FOUR AND FIVE YEAR PERIODS IN QUESTION, IT
COULD NOT BE PROVED WHAT THEIR EARNINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN DURING THE FIVE
YEAR PERIOD IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION OF FILMS.  IT
THOUGHT THAT THE MERE FACT THAT EARNINGS OF THE JACKSON PARK THEATRE
WERE GREATER BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF DOUBLE BILLING DID NOT SERVE TO
SHOW WHAT PETITIONERS' EARNINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTERWARDS, IN THE
ABSENCE OF THE RELEASE SYSTEM.    SIMILARLY, THE COURT OF APPEALS
REJECTED THE COMPARISON BETWEEN PETITIONERS' RECEIPTS AND THOSE OF THE
MARYLAND THEATRE DURING THE FIVE YEARS IN QUESTION, SINCE, AS IT
THOUGHT, THE COMPARISON WOULD NOT TEND TO PROVE WHAT THE EARNINGS OF
EITHER THEATRE WOULD HAVE BEEN DURING THE CRITICAL PERIOD UNDER ANY
SYSTEM OTHER THAN THAT WHICH WAS THE PRODUCT OF THE UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY. 

UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT THE JURY COULD
HAVE FOUND THAT DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION A FIRST OR PRIOR RUN
THEATRE POSSESSED COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OVER LATER RUN THEATRES,
BECAUSE OF ITS GREATER CAPACITY TO ATTRACT PATRONAGE TO PICTURES WHICH
HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN ELSEWHERE, AND ITS ABILITY TO CHARGE HIGHER
ADMISSION PRICES THAN SUBSEQUENT RUN THEATRES, AND THAT, OTHER THINGS
BEING EQUAL, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DISCRIMINATORY RELEASE SYSTEM WAS
DAMAGING TO THE PETITIONERS, WHO WERE RELEGATED BY IT TO A PLAYING
POSITION INFERIOR TO THAT OF THEIR COMPETITORS. 

EACH OF THE TWO CLASSES OF EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY PETITIONERS TENDED
TO SHOW DAMAGE.  THEY WERE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, AS THE COURTS BELOW
SEEM TO HAVE THOUGHT, SINCE EACH, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, TENDED TO
SHOW THAT PETITIONERS' INABILITY TO OBTAIN FILMS FOR EXHIBITION BEFORE
THEY HAD BEEN SHOWN ELSEWHERE ADVERSELY AFFECTED THEIR RECEIPTS, IN THE
ONE CASE BY SHOWING THAT THOSE RECEIPTS DECREASED WHEN PETITIONERS
COULD NO LONGER PURCHASE SUCH FILMS FOLLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF
DOUBLE FEATURES, AND IN THE OTHER, THAT PETITIONERS' RECEIPTS FROM ITS
THEATRE WERE LESS BY SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AMOUNT THAN RECEIPTS OF ITS
COMPETITOR, THE PRIOR-RUN MARYLAND THEATRE, OPERATED UNDER CONDITIONS
IN OTHER RESPECTS LESS FAVORABLE THAN THOSE AFFECTING PETITIONERS. 

RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT IS, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FORCE OF THIS
EVIDENCE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH ANY MEASURE OF DAMAGE, BECAUSE
THE UNLAWFUL SYSTEM WHICH RESPONDENTS HAVE CREATED HAS PRECLUDED
PETITIONERS FROM SHOWING THAT OTHER CONDITIONS AFFECTING PROFITS WOULD
HAVE CONTINUED WITHOUT CHANGE UNFAVORABLE TO THEM DURING THE CRITICAL
PERIOD IF THAT SYSTEM HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND PETITIONERS HAD
CONDUCTED THEIR BUSINESS IN A FREE COMPETITIVE MARKET.  RESPONDENTS
ALSO CONTEND THAT THE JURY'S VERDICT ESTABLISHES THAT THE RELEASE
SYSTEM WAS PART OF A PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACY, AND ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT PRICE-FIXING AND THE DISCRIMINATORY SYSTEM OF RELEASE WERE
INSEPARABLE PARTS OF A SINGLE SCHEME, ARGUE THAT AS THE CONSPIRACY AS A
WHOLE PROBABLY ENABLED PETITIONERS ARTIFICIALLY TO RAISE THEIR PRICES
TO AN UNDETERMINED EXTENT, THE OVERALL EFFECT OF THE CONSPIRACY MAY
WELL HAVE BEEN TO BENEFIT PETITIONERS, EVEN THOUGH THE PLAN OF
DISTRIBUTION, ONE OF ITS FEATURES, MAY HAVE INJURED THEM.  BUT WE THINK
THESE ARGUMENTS ARE BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF THE PRECISE
CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE JURY WAS PERMITTED TO AND DID APPLY THE
TENDERED MEASURE OF DAMAGES, AND THAT IT ALSO IGNORES CONTROLLING
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF DAMAGES. 

WE HAVE ALREADY ADVERTED TO THE FACTS THAT PETITIONERS' CAUSE OF
ACTION, AS STATED IN THEIR COMPLAINT, WAS FOUNDED ON THE UNLAWFUL
SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTING FILMS; THAT THE CONTENTIONS PRO AND CON AS TO
THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY TO FIX PRICES OF THEATRE ADMISSIONS FIRST
EMERGED IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL; AND THAT THE JURY WAS ALLOWED TO
FIX THE MEASURE OF THE DAMAGE WITH REFERENCE TO THE REDUCTION OF
PETITIONERS' RECEIPTS AFTER JULY 1937 WHEN PETITIONERS WERE NO LONGER
ABLE TO SHOW SOME FILMS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY EXHIBITED.  UNDER
THE COMPLAINT AND THE INSTRUCTIONS, THE JURY COULD, AND WE CAN ASSUME
THAT IT DID, FIND THAT THE FIXING OF MINIMUM PRICES WAS EFFECTUATED BY
THE INDIVIDUAL ACTION OF DISTRIBUTORS, AS RESPONDENTS CONTENDED AT THE
TRIAL, AND NOT AS A PART OR RESULT OF THE CONSPIRACY TO CONTROL
DISTRIBUTION.  THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE ONLY UNLAWFUL ACTION
TAKEN BY RESPONDENTS WAS IN CONSPIRING TO PREVENT PETITIONERS' THEATRE
FROM BIDDING IN OPEN COMPETITION AGAINST OTHER EXHIBITORS FOR A
PREFERRED PLACE IN AN OTHERWISE LAWFUL SYSTEM OF RELEASE.  THIS IS
APPARENT FROM THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE CHARGE: "ONLY IN THE EVENT
THAT YOU FIND THAT THERE EXISTS NO CONSPIRACY OR COMBINATION TO FIX
MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICES, OR NO UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE, BY THE
DEFENDANTS BY VIRTUE OF THE CHICAGO SYSTEM OF RELEASE, WILL YOU HAVE
OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFFS DEMANDED AND SOUGHT
TO OBTAIN A PLAYING POSITION IN 'C' WEEK." 

THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, BASED ON THE DAMAGE
SUFFERED BY PETITIONERS IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DEPRIVATION, BY THE
DISCRIMINATORY OPERATION OF THE RELEASE SYSTEM, OF THEIR DEMONSTRATED
FREEDOM TO RENT AND EXHIBIT SOME FILMS WHICH HAD NOT HAD PRIOR
SHOWING.  HENCE WE TAKE IT THAT THE VERDICT DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE
FIXED MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICES WERE THE RESULT OF THE UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACY, OR THAT THE PETITIONERS' PURCHASES OF SUCH FILMS, AND THE
OPERATION OF THEIR THEATRE, BEFORE THE DOUBLE FEATURE PRACTICE WAS
INAUGURATED, WERE, FOR PURPOSES MATERIAL HERE, AFFECTED BY THE
CONSPIRACY. 

THE RECORD THUS ESTABLISHES THAT WHEN PETITIONERS ACQUIRED THEIR
THEATRE, IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THEM UNDER THE CONDITIONS THEN PREVAILING
TO SECURE FILMS WHICH HAD NOT HAD PRIOR SHOWING AND TO EXHIBIT THEM IN
COMPETITION WITH THEATRES HAVING PREFERRED PLAYING POSITIONS.  WHATEVER
RESTRAINTS RESPONDENTS' DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MAY THEN HAVE IMPOSED, AND
WHETHER THE LATER ADOPTED PRACTICE OF SHOWING DOUBLE FEATURES WAS OR
WAS NOT ITSELF A PRODUCT OF AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY, PETITIONERS WERE
ENTITLED, AS OF RIGHT, TO CONTINUE TO PURCHASE AND SHOW FILMS WHICH HAD
NOT HAD PRIOR SHOWING FREE OF THE RESTRAINTS OF THE UNLAWFUL
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  THE FAIR VALUE OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT THUS TO
CONTINUE THEIR BUSINESS DEPENDED ON ITS CAPACITY TO MAKE PROFITS.  AND
A FAIR MEASURE OF THE DAMAGE TO THAT RIGHT BY RESPONDENTS' UNLAWFUL
DISTRIBUTING SYSTEM WAS THE LOSS OF PETITIONERS' ADMISSION RECEIPTS
RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THAT SYSTEM TO PETITIONERS. 

RESPONDENTS ONLY ANSWER IS THAT, WITHOUT THE CONSPIRACY, THE
CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE OF FILMS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THE SAME AFTER AS
THEY WERE BEFORE JULY, 1937; THAT IN ANY CASE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY
WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE RESTRAINTS HAD NOT BEEN
IMPOSED, AND THAT THOSE CONDITIONS CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED, BECAUSE
RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT REMOVED THE RESTRAINT.  HENCE, IT IS SAID,
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE FACT OF DAMAGE, AND THAT
FURTHER, THE STANDARD OF COMPARISON WHICH THE EVIDENCE SETS UP IS TOO
SPECULATIVE AND UNCERTAIN TO AFFORD AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF THE AMOUNT
OF THE DAMAGE. 

THE CASE IN THESE RESPECTS IS COMPARABLE TO EASTMAN KODAK CO. V.
SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359, AND STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON
CO., 282 U.S. 555, IN WHICH PRECISELY THE SAME ARGUMENTS NOW ADDRESSED
TO US WERE REJECTED.  THERE, AS HERE, THE SUITS WERE FOR DAMAGES CAUSED
BY RESTRAINTS IMPOSED BY DEFENDANTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ANTITRUST ACT, ON THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPLAINANT IN
EACH CASE.  IN THE ONE CASE, THE DEFENDANT, IN AN EFFORT TO EXTEND ITS
MONOPOLY, REFUSED TO SELL TO THE PLAINTIFF GOODS WHICH HAD REGULARLY
BEEN A PART OF HIS STOCK IN TRADE.  IN THE OTHER, THE DEFENDANTS,
COMPETING SELLERS, ENGAGED IN DESTRUCTIVE PRICE COMPETITION WITH THE
PLAINTIFF IN EXECUTION OF AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY.  IN THE FIRST CASE,
THE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH HIS DAMAGE BY COMPARING HIS PROFITS
BEFORE AND AFTER THE UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH HIS BUSINESS.  IN THE
OTHER, THE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SHOW HIS DAMAGE BY PROOF OF THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS ACTUALLY REALIZED FROM HIS BUSINESS
AFTER THE CONSPIRACY BECAME EFFECTIVE, AND WHAT, BUT FOR THE
CONSPIRACY, WOULD HAVE BEEN REALIZED BY IT FROM SALES AT REASONABLE
PRICES, THE EVIDENCE OF WHICH WAS THE AMOUNT BY WHICH HIS CURRENT
PRICES WERE HIGHER BEFORE THE CONSPIRACY THAN AFTER, AND BY THE EXTENT
TO WHICH THE VALUE OF PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS PROPERTY HAD DECLINED AFTER
THE CONSPIRACY HAD BEGUN TO OPERATE. 

IN EACH CASE WE HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE SUSTAINED VERDICTS FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS, AND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MORE PRECISE PROOF, THE JURY
COULD CONCLUDE AS A MATTER OF JUST AND REASONABLE INFERENCE FROM THE
PROOF OF DEFENDANTS' WRONGFUL ACTS AND THEIR TENDENCY TO INJURE
PLAINTIFFS' BUSINESS, AND FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE DECLINE IN PRICES,
PROFITS AND VALUES, NOT SHOWN TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO OTHER CAUSES, THAT
DEFENDANTS' WRONGFUL ACTS HAD CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFFS.  IN THIS
WE BUT FOLLOWED A WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE.  SEE HETZEL V. BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO., 169 U.S. 26, 38-9.  THE TORTIOUS ACTS HAD IN EACH CASE
PRECLUDED ASCERTAINMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES MORE PRECISELY, BY
COMPARISON OF PROFITS, PRICES AND VALUES AS AFFECTED BY THE CONSPIRACY,
WITH WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN ITS ABSENCE UNDER FREELY COMPETITIVE
CONDITIONS.  NEVERTHELESS, WE HELD THAT THE JURY COULD RETURN A VERDICT
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, EVEN THOUGH DAMAGES COULD NOT BE MEASURED WITH THE
EXACTNESS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. 

IN SUCH A CASE, EVEN WHERE THE DEFENDANT BY HIS OWN WRONG HAS
PREVENTED A MORE PRECISE COMPUTATION, THE JURY MAY NOT RENDER A VERDICT
BASED ON SPECULATION OR GUESSWORK.  BUT THE JURY MAY MAKE A JUST AND
REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE DAMAGE BASED ON RELEVANT DATA, AND RENDER
ITS VERDICT ACCORDINGLY.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES "JURIES ARE ALLOWED TO
ACT UPON PROBABLE AND INFERENTIAL, AS WELL AS DIRECT AND POSITIVE
PROOF."  STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO., SUPRA, 561-4; EASTMAN
KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., SUPRA, 377-9.  ANY OTHER RULE WOULD
ENABLE THE WRONGDOER TO PROFIT BY HIS WRONGDOING AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS
VICTIM.  IT WOULD BE AN INDUCEMENT TO MAKE WRONGDOING SO EFFECTIVE AND
COMPLETE IN EVERY CASE AS TO PRECLUDE ANY RECOVERY, BY RENDERING THE
MEASURE OF DAMAGES UNCERTAIN.  FAILURE TO APPLY IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE
MORE GRIEVOUS THE WRONG DONE, THE LESS LIKELIHOOD THERE WOULD BE OF A
RECOVERY. 

THE MOST ELEMENTARY CONCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE AND PUBLIC POLICY REQUIRE
THAT THE WRONGDOER SHALL BEAR THE RISK OF THE UNCERTAINTY WHICH HIS OWN
WRONG HAS CREATED.  SEE PACKAGE CLOSURE CORP. V. SEALRIGHT CO., 141
F.2D 972, 979.  THAT PRINCIPLE IS AN ANCIENT ONE, ARMORY V. DELAMIRIE,
1 STRANGE 505, AND IS NOT RESTRICTED TO PROOF OF DAMAGE IN ANTITRUST
SUITS, ALTHOUGH THEIR CHARACTER IS SUCH AS FREQUENTLY TO CALL FOR ITS
APPLICATION.  IN CASES OF COLLISION WHERE THE OFFENDING VESSEL HAS
VIOLATED REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, SEE THE PENNSYLVANIA, 19
WALL.  125, 136, AND IN CASES OF CONFUSION OF GOODS, GREAT SOUTHERN GAS
& OIL CO. V. LOGAN NATURAL GAS & FUEL CO., 155 F. 114, 115; CF. F.W.
WOOLWORTH CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 121 F.2D 658, 663, THE WRONGDOER MAY NOT
OBJECT TO THE PLAINTIFF'S REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE CAUSE OF INJURY
AND OF ITS AMOUNT, SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, BECAUSE NOT BASED ON MORE
ACCURATE DATA WHICH THE WRONGDOER'S MISCONDUCT HAS RENDERED
UNAVAILABLE.  AND IN CASES WHERE A WRONGDOER HAS INCORPORATED THE
SUBJECT OF A PLAINTIFF'S PATENT OR TRADE-MARK IN A SINGLE PRODUCT TO
WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAS CONTRIBUTED OTHER ELEMENTS OF VALUE OR UTILITY,
AND HAS DERIVED PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF THE PRODUCT, THIS COURT HAS
SUSTAINED RECOVERY OF THE FULL AMOUNT OF DEFENDANT'S PROFITS WHERE HIS
OWN WRONGFUL ACTION HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO SHOW IN
WHAT PROPORTIONS HE AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROFITS. 
WESTINGHOUSE CO. V. WAGNER MFG. CO., 225 U.S. 604; HAMILTON SHOE CO. V.
WOLF BROTHERS, 240 U.S. 251; SEE ALSO SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN CORP.,
309 U.S. 390, 406. 

"THE CONSTANT TENDENCY OF THE COURTS IS TO FIND SOME WAY IN WHICH
DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED WHERE A WRONG HAS BEEN DONE.  DIFFICULTY OF
ASCERTAINMENT IS NO LONGER CONFUSED WITH RIGHT OF RECOVERY" FOR A
PROVEN INVASION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS.  STORY PARCHMENT CO. V.
PATERSON CO., SUPRA, 565; AND SEE ALSO PALMER V. CONNECTICUT R. CO.,
311 U.S. 544, 559, AND CASES CITED. 

THE EVIDENCE HERE WAS AMPLE TO SUPPORT A JUST AND REASONABLE
INFERENCE THAT PETITIONERS WERE DAMAGED BY RESPONDENTS' ACTION, WHOSE
UNLAWFULNESS THE JURY HAS FOUND, AND RESPONDENTS DO NOT CHALLENGE.  THE
COMPARISON OF PETITIONERS' RECEIPTS BEFORE AND AFTER RESPONDENTS'
UNLAWFUL ACTION IMPINGED ON PETITIONERS' BUSINESS AFFORDED A SUFFICIENT
BASIS FOR THE JURY'S COMPUTATION OF THE DAMAGE, WHERE THE RESPONDENTS'
WRONGFUL ACTION HAD PREVENTED PETITIONERS FROM MAKING ANY MORE PRECISE
PROOF OF THE AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGE. 

WE DO NOT MEAN TO INDICATE BY WHAT WE HAVE SAID THAT THE JURY COULD
NOT, ON THIS RECORD, HAVE FOUND A CONSPIRACY FOR FIXING MINIMUM PRICES
OR THAT THE CHICAGO SYSTEM OF RELEASE WAS NOT AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT
OF TRADE IN OTHER RESPECTS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT A VERDICT FOR DAMAGES ON AT LEAST ONE THEORY ON WHICH THE CASE
WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  WE DO NOT IMPLY THAT THE VERDICT COULD NOT
BE SUPPORTED ON SOME OTHER THEORY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT BELOW WILL BE AFFIRMED AND THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS IS PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST BY PROHIBITING UNJUSTIFIABLE RESTRICTIONS UPON
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE.  FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST
THUS TO BE SAFEGUARDED AND BY REASON OF THE COMPLEX AND COSTLY
CHARACTER OF THE LITIGATION TO WHICH IT NORMALLY GIVES RISE, CONGRESS
MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES APPROPRIATE
PREVENTIVE AND PUNITIVE REMEDIES:  THE INJUNCTION, TO PUT A PROMPT STOP
TO ILLEGAL RESTRAINTS, AND THE STERN SANCTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW, TO
DETER SUCH RESTRAINTS.  A RIGHT OF ACTION IS ALSO GIVEN TO ANY
INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN "INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS" BY SUCH ILLEGALITY. 
BUT WHILE ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS
MERELY REQUIRES PROOF OF ILLEGALITY, AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT OF RECOVERY
IS DEPENDENT ON PROOF OF LEGAL INJURY TO HIM, AND LEGAL INJURY IS NOT
AUTOMATICALLY ESTABLISHED BY PROOF OF A RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  SEE KEOGH V. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN R. CO., 260
U.S. 156, 162-63.    THEREFORE OUR REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
RESPONDENTS' VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW ILLEGALLY INJURED THE
PETITIONERS.  THIS NECESSARILY INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL PROOF THAT THE
PETITIONERS' BUSINESS WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PROFITABLE IF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF MOVIE FILMS IN CHICAGO HAD BEEN A FREE-FOR-ALL AND IF
NO FACTOR OF THE SCHEME THAT CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY HAD BEEN
IN OPERATION, THAN IT WAS UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT ACTUALLY
PREVAILED.  SPECIFICALLY, ONE FEATURE OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS STIPULATED
RENTALS BY DISTRIBUTORS IN FURNISHING FILMS TO EXHIBITORS.  THE RECORD
APPEARS DEVOID OF PROOF THAT, IF COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS HAD PREVAILED,
DISTRIBUTORS WOULD NOT HAVE MADE RENTAL CONTRACTS WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE
EXHIBITING AFFILIATES TO THE SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE OF INDEPENDENTS LIKE
THE PETITIONERS.  THEY MIGHT INDIVIDUALLY HAVE DONE SO AND NOT HAVE
OFFENDED THE SHERMAN LAW. 

I AGREE THAT EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359,
AND STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO., 282 U.S. 555, SHOULD GUIDE THE
DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE.  BUT I DO NOT FIND THAT THE DECISIVE
DISTINCTION MADE IN THOSE CASES HAS BEEN OBSERVED IN DECIDING THIS
CASE.  THE DISTINCTION IS BETWEEN PROVING THAT SOME DAMAGES WERE "THE
CERTAIN RESULT OF THE WRONG" AND UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE DOLLARS AND
CENTS VALUE OF SUCH INJURING WRONG.  SUCH DIFFICULTY IN ASCERTAINING
THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DAMAGE IS A RISK PROPERLY CAST UPON THE WRONG-DOING
DEFENDANT.  BUT PROOF OF THE LEGAL INJURY, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF HIS
SUIT, IS PLAINTIFF'S BURDEN.  HE DOES NOT ESTABLISH IT MERELY BY
PROVING THAT THERE WAS A WRONG TO THE PUBLIC NOR BY SHOWING THAT IF HE
HAD BEEN INJURED ASCERTAINMENT OF THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DAMAGES WOULD
HAVE HAD AN INEVITABLE SPECULATIVE ELEMENT TO BE LEFT FOR A JURY'S
CONSCIENTIOUS GUESS.  THIS BASIC DISTINCTION WAS THUS FORMULATED IN
STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO.: 

"THE RULE WHICH PRECLUDES THE RECOVERY OF UNCERTAIN DAMAGES APPLIES
TO SUCH AS ARE NOT THE CERTAIN RESULT OF THE WRONG, NOT TO THOSE
DAMAGES WHICH ARE DEFINITELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WRONG AND ONLY
UNCERTAIN IN RESPECT OF THEIR AMOUNT."  282 U.S. AT 562. 

IN THE EASTMAN AND STORY CASES THE PLAINTIFFS ESTABLISHED WHAT THEIR
PROFIT WAS WHEN COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS PREVAILED AND THAT THE
SUBSEQUENT LOSS PROPERLY BECAME EXCLUSIVELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO RESTRAINT
OF SUCH CONDITIONS.  SUCH A COMPARISON IS NOT REVEALED BY THIS RECORD. 
IT WAS WHOLLY SPECULATIVE, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY
HELD IN APPLYING THE RULE IN THE STORY PARCHMENT CO. CASE, WHETHER THE
INTAKE OF PETITIONERS WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PROFITABLE IF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF FILMS IN CHICAGO HAD BEEN LEFT WHOLLY TO THE HAGGLING
OF A FREE MARKET, 150 F.2D 877.  AS TO THE SUBTLETIES INVOLVED IN SUCH
SPECULATION, COMPARE INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S.
216, 223-24. 

WHERE THERE IS CONCEDED LEGAL INJURY, AS FOR INSTANCE WHERE ONE MAN'S
CHATTEL IS TAKEN BY ANOTHER, AS IN THE OLD CASE OF ARMORY V. DELAMIRIE,
1 STRANGE 505, WE START WITH THE LEGAL INJURY AND THE PROBLEM IS MERELY
ONE OF ASCERTAINING DAMAGES "UNCERTAIN IN RESPECT OF THEIR AMOUNT." 
SUCH CASES ARE NOT HELPFUL WHERE THE CRUCIAL ISSUE, AS HERE, IS WHETHER
THERE IS SOLID PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LEGAL INJURY. 
..END :



AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. SAMPSELL, 327 U.S. 269 


NO. 142.  ARGUED JANUARY 28, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 148
F.2D 986, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS EQUITABLE POWER TO SUBORDINATE THE CLAIM OF
A SURETY FOR SUBROGATION AND INDEMNITY FOR PAYMENTS UNDER A STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION BOND TO THE CLAIMS OF LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN FOR WHOSE
BENEFIT THE BOND WAS EXECUTED BUT WHO FAILED TO FILE LIEN CLAIMS OR
NOTIFY THE SURETY OF THEIR UNPAID CLAIMS WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED BY
THE BOND AND THE APPLICABLE STATE STATUTE.  P. 271. 

2.  FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAW, NOT STATE LAW, GOVERNS THE DISTRIBUTION
OF A BANKRUPT'S ASSETS TO HIS CREDITORS.  PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORP. V.
GEIST, 316 U.S. 89.  P. 272. 

3.  CONTROLLING EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES FORBID A SURETY FROM SHARING A
BANKRUPT'S ASSETS ON EQUAL TERMS WITH CREDITORS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE
CLASS ITS BOND WAS GIVEN TO PROTECT.  AMERICAN SURETY CO. V.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO., 296 U.S. 133.  P. 272. 

4.  FAILURE TO GIVE THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW DOES NOT DEPRIVE
MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS OF THE PROTECTION OF THIS RULE.  P. 273. 

AMERICAN SURETY CO. OF NEW YORK V. SAMPSELL, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

A BANKRUPTCY COURT SUBORDINATED THE CLAIM OF A SURETY FOR SUBROGATION
AND INDEMNITY FOR AMOUNTS PAID UNDER A STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BOND TO
THE CLAIMS OF LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WHO HAD NOT FILED LIENS OR
NOTIFIED THE SURETY OF THEIR UNPAID CLAIMS WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED BY
THE BOND AND THE APPLICABLE STATE STATUTE.  53 F.SUPP.  131.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  148 F.2D 986.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 699.  AFFIRMED, P. 274. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE EQUITABLE POWER OF A
FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT TO SUBORDINATE CLAIMS OF SOME CREDITORS TO
THOSE OF OTHERS.  THE CREDITORS ARE A SURETY ENTITLED TO SUBROGATION
FOR PAYMENTS UPON ITS SURETY BOND AND LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN FOR
WHOSE BENEFIT THE BOND WAS EXECUTED. 

STRATTON, NOW IN BANKRUPTCY, MADE CERTAIN ALTERATIONS IN FACTORY
BUILDINGS LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA.  IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT
STRATTON AS PRINCIPAL, AND THE PETITIONER, AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF
NEW YORK, AS SURETY, EXECUTED A JOINT STATUTORY BOND FOR $39,500, BY
WHICH THEY BOUND THEMSELVES TO PAY ALL PERSONS FURNISHING MATERIALS
FOR, OR PERFORMING WORK ON, THE JOB.  THE BOND STRICTLY CONFORMED IN
ALL RESPECTS WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW GOVERNING
LABORERS' AND MATERIALMEN'S LIENS AND WAS FILED AND RECORDED AS
PROVIDED BY SEC. 1183 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  PARTS
OF THE BOND'S LANGUAGE INCORPORATED PORTIONS OF SECS. 1183 AND 1187 OF
THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH PROVIDE THAT "NO ACTION"
ON A RECORDED BOND MAY BE MAINTAINED UNLESS WITHIN A SPECIFIED
STATUTORY PERIOD A MECHANIC'S LIEN CLAIM SHALL HAVE BEEN FILED OR THE
SURETY SHALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN NOTICE OF THE UNPAID CLAIM. 

BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES STRATTON WAS UNABLE TO PAY ALL THE
LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN.  SOME OF THEM, WITH CLAIMS AGGREGATING
$6,724.78, FILED LIEN CLAIMS AND GAVE NOTICE WITHIN THE STATUTORY
PERIOD AND THE SURETY PAID THEIR CLAIMS IN FULL.  OTHERS FAILED TO FILE
CLAIMS OR GIVE THE REQUIRED NOTICE AND THE SURETY DID NOT PAY THEM. 

STRATTON WAS LATER ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT.  THE PETITIONER SURETY
COMPANY FILED A CLAIM FOR THE MONEY IT HAD BEEN COMPELLED TO EXPEND IN
PAYMENT OF THE MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS WHO HAD GIVEN THE STATUTORY
NOTICE.  ITS CLAIM RESTED ON AN AGREEMENT BY STRATTON TO INDEMNIFY IT
AND ON THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF SUBROGATION.  THREE OF THE MATERIALMEN
AND LABORERS WHO HAD FAILED TO GIVE NOTICE ALSO FILED CLAIMS TOTALLING
$1,336.11 OWED THEM FOR MATERIALS FURNISHED AND WORK PERFORMED.  THE
REFEREE ALLOWED ALL OF THESE CLAIMS INCLUDING THAT OF THE SURETY
COMPANY AS GENERAL CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY.  UPON MOTION OF THE RESPONDENT
TRUSTEE, THE REFEREE SUBORDINATED THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM TO THAT OF THE
UNPAID LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN, HOLDING THAT AS LONG AS THERE ARE
"CREDITORS OF THE CLASS FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE ORIGINAL SURETY BOND WAS
WRITTEN  ...  THE SURETY COMPANY CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN DIVIDENDS FROM
THE ESTATE UNTIL THESE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL."  THUS UNDER
THE ORDER THE THREE UNPAID LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WERE TO RECEIVE IN
ADDITION TO DIVIDENDS ON THEIR OWN CLAIMS A PRO-RATA SHARE OF DIVIDENDS
OTHERWISE DUE THE PETITIONER UNTIL THEY HAD BEEN PAID IN FULL OR THE
PETITIONER'S DIVIDEND HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED
THE REFEREE'S ORDER, 53 F.SUPP.  131, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, 148 F.2D 986.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER SUBORDINATING ITS CLAIMS FAILED TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OF THE SURETY UNDER STATE LAW. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT BECAUSE THE STATE STATUTE INCORPORATED INTO
THE BOND REQUIRES LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN EITHER TO FILE A LIEN CLAIM
OR NOTIFY THE SURETY WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD AFTER COMPLETION OF THE
JOB, THE REFEREE ERRED IN SUBORDINATING THE SURETY'S CLAIM TO THOSE OF
THE LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WHO HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTORY
NOTICE PROVISION.  THE RIGHTS OF THOSE CREDITORS, IT IS ARGUED, HAD
NEVER, UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, BEEN MORE THAN INCHOATE, AND EVEN AS SUCH
HAD BEEN COMPLETELY EXTINGUISHED PRIOR TO THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO GIVE THE STATUTORY NOTICE.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE
PETITIONER URGES, THESE CLAIMS OUGHT NOT TO BE PREFERRED IN A FEDERAL
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  WE THINK THIS CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT AND
THAT THE ORDER OF THE REFEREE WAS CORRECT. 

WE RECENTLY HAD OCCASION TO REITERATE THAT FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAW,
NOT STATE LAW, GOVERNS THE DISTRIBUTION OF A BANKRUPT'S ASSETS TO HIS
CREDITORS.  PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORP. V. GEIST, 316 U.S. 89, 95.  SEE
ALSO PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, 303-306; PRUDENCE REALIZATION
CORP. V. FERRIS, 323 U.S. 650, 653.  TRUE, WE STATED IN BOTH PRUDENCE
OPINIONS THAT THE FEDERAL LAW GOVERNING DISTRIBUTION OF A BANKRUPT'S
ESTATE SHOULD BE APPLIED WITH "APPROPRIATE REGARD FOR RIGHTS ACQUIRED
UNDER RULES OF STATE LAW  ..."  BUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH STATE LAW IS TO
BE SO CONSIDERED IS IN THE LAST ANALYSIS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW.  HERE
THE REFEREE'S SUBORDINATION OF THE SURETY COMPANY'S CLAIM DID NOT ONLY
FOLLOW THE WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE UNDER FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAW, BUT ALSO
ACHIEVED A RESULT IN COMPLETE HARMONY WITH CALIFORNIA'S AIM, EXPRESSED
BY BOTH ITS CONSTITUTION N1 AND STATUTES, OF PROVIDING MATERIALMEN'S
AND WORKERS' CLAIMS WITH EXTRAORDINARY SECURITY. 

THE ESTABLISHED FEDERAL RULE OF DISTRIBUTION IN A SITUATION SUCH AS
THE ONE BEFORE US WAS CLEARLY SET FORTH IN AMERICAN SURETY CO. V.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO., 296 U.S. 133.  IN THAT CASE THE SURETY
COMPANY HAD PAID OUT TO VARIOUS CREDITORS THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE
STATUTORY SURETY BOND AND FILED A CLAIM IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING
BASED ON THOSE PAYMENTS.  THE SURETY COMPANY ARGUED THAT SINCE ITS FULL
LIABILITY HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED, IT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO SHARE
RATABLY WITH ALL THE BANKRUPT'S GENERAL CREDITORS.  THAT CONTENTION WAS
REJECTED.  THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT WHILE LIABILITY OF THE SURETY
COMPANY HAD ENDED, CONTROLLING EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES FORBADE THE SURETY
FROM SHARING THE BANKRUPT'S ASSETS ON EQUAL TERMS WITH ANY CREDITORS
WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS ITS BOND HAD BEEN GIVEN TO PROTECT.  THE
RULE STATED BY THE COURT WAS THAT WHERE INSOLVENCY SUPERVENES, A
SURETY'S CLAIM IS POSTPONED UNTIL PAYMENTS IN FULL ARE MADE TO ALL
"CLAIMANTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS OF CREDITORS COVERED BY THE
BOND." 

THE PETITIONER ATTEMPTS TO DISTINGUISH THIS CASE BY ARGUING THAT THE
MATERIALMEN AND WORKERS TO WHOSE CLAIMS ITS CLAIM HAS BEEN SUBORDINATED
WERE NOT "COVERED BY THE BOND."  THIS CONTENTION RESTS ON THE CLAIM
THAT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPLICABLE STATE STATUTES BY
THE CALIFORNIA COURTS THE BOND DOES NOT PROTECT MATERIALMEN AND WORKERS
WHO, AS THE ONES HERE INVOLVED, HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH STATUTORY FILING
AND NOTICE PROVISIONS.  WHILE THIS CLAIM AS TO CALIFORNIA LAW IS DENIED
BY THE RESPONDENT, WE NEED NOT RESOLVE THE DISPUTE.  FOR EVEN IF
PETITIONER'S CLAIM AS TO CALIFORNIA LAW IS CORRECT, THE CREDITORS IN
THE WESTINGHOUSE CASE WERE CERTAINLY NO MORE PROTECTED BY THAT BOND
AFTER THE SURETY HAD PAID OUT THE FULL AMOUNT, THAN THE MATERIALMEN AND
LABORERS ARE SAID TO BE PROTECTED HERE AFTER THE TIME FOR NOTIFYING THE
SURETY HAD EXPIRED.  THE PHRASE "COVERED BY THE BOND" AS USED IN THE
WESTINGHOUSE CASE DID NOT HAVE THE MEANING PETITIONER ASCRIBES TO IT
BUT HAD REFERENCE RATHER TO THE CLASS OF CREDITORS FOR WHOSE BENEFIT
THE STATUTORY BOND WAS EXECUTED.  ALL MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS WHO
CONTRIBUTED TO STRATTON'S JOB CLEARLY COME WITHIN THAT CLASS.  THE
BASIC REASON FOR THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN THE WESTINGHOUSE CASE APPLIES
WITH EQUAL FORCE HERE.  THE BOND WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT MATERIALMEN
AND LABORERS WHO WORKED ON THE JOB SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO BEAR
THE RISK OF STRATTON'S INSOLVENCY.  BUT FOR HIS INSOLVENCY AND
BANKRUPTCY THESE LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
RECOVER FROM HIM THE MONEY DUE THEM, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR RIGHTS
AGAINST THE SURETY MIGHT HAVE BEEN.  CONSEQUENTLY THE SURETY SHOULD
NOT, BY CLAIMING UNDER SUBROGATION OR INDEMNITY FOR MONEY PAID TO SOME
OF THE CREDITORS FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE BOND WAS INTENDED, BE ALLOWED TO
REDUCE THE SHARE OF THE BANKRUPT'S ASSETS DUE TO OTHER CREDITORS WHOM
THE BOND ALSO WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT FROM INSOLVENCY.  FOR THIS WOULD
TEND TO DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE BOND WAS GIVEN AND
THEREFORE CANNOT BE PERMITTED UNDER THE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING
DISTRIBUTION OF A BANKRUPT'S ASSETS.  PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORP. V.
GEIST, SUPRA, AT P. 96.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ARTICLE XX, SEC. 15, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"MECHANICS, MATERIALMEN, ARTISANS, AND LABORERS OF EVERY CLASS, SHALL
HAVE A LIEN UPON THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH THEY HAVE BESTOWED LABOR OR
FURNISHED MATERIAL FOR THE VALUE OF SUCH LABOR DONE AND MATERIAL
FURNISHED; AND THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE, BY LAW, FOR THE SPEEDY
AND EFFICIENT ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH LIENS." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 327 U.S. 274 


NO. 381.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 7, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  ON RETRIAL OF PETITIONER, WHOSE CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL CASE IN A
STATE COURT HAD BEEN REVERSED BY THIS COURT ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD
BEEN OBTAINED BY USE OF A COERCED CONFESSION, ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE,
322 U.S. 143, THE JURY WAS PERMITTED TO HEAR TESTIMONY NARRATING
EVERYTHING (EXCEPT THE CONFESSION) THAT TOOK PLACE DURING THE
INQUISITION AT WHICH THE CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED.  THIS RESULTED IN
ANOTHER CONVICTION.  HELD:  THERE WAS NO RELEVANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE USE OF THIS EVIDENCE AND THE USE OF THE CONFESSION; AND THE
CONVICTION IS REVERSED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 278. 

2.  IN ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDING, THE
STATE'S ATTORNEY ADMITTED THAT THE CONFESSION WAS THE ONLY EVIDENCE
AGAINST PETITIONER AND THIS WAS MENTIONED IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT,
WHICH REVERSED THE CONVICTION AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF THIS
COURT.  HELD:  THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT DID NOT FORBID A NEW TRIAL OF
PETITIONER.  P. 279, N. 1. 

3.  A STATE SUPREME COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF ITS OWN MANDATE IS
FINAL.  P. 279, N. 1. 

ASHCRAFT ET AL. V. TENNESSEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED AS AN ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT OF THE
MURDER OF HIS WIFE.  ON APPEAL, THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT.  ON CERTIORARI, THIS COURT REVERSED THE CONVICTION
ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY USE OF A COERCED CONFESSION,
CONTRARY TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  322
U.S. 143.  ON RETRIAL, THE JURY WAS PERMITTED TO HEAR TESTIMONY
NARRATING EVERYTHING (EXCEPT THE CONFESSION) WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING
THE INQUISITION AT WHICH THE CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED.  THE SECOND
CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 713.  REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  P. 279. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MRS. ZELMA ASHCRAFT WAS MURDERED IN SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE.  THE
PETITIONER WARE WAS CONVICTED FOR THE MURDER.  THE PETITIONER ASHCRAFT,
HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED, WAS CONVICTED FOR BEING AN ACCESSORY BEFORE
THE FACT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS.  WE
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AS TO ASHCRAFT, VACATED IT AS TO WARE, AND
REMANDED THE CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OUR OPINION.  ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE,
322 U.S. 143.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT THEN ORDERED THE CASE REMANDED
TO THE CRIMINAL COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS TO
FURTHER PROCEDURE.  THE PETITIONERS WERE AGAIN CONVICTED AND THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED. 

OUR REVERSAL OF ASHCRAFT'S FIRST CONVICTION WAS ON THE GROUND THAT
HIS CONVICTION RESULTED FROM A TRIAL SO CONDUCTED AS TO DEPRIVE
ASHCRAFT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  AT THAT TRIAL THE STATE HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO INTRODUCE IN
EVIDENCE AN ALLEGED CONFESSION WHICH HAD BEEN OBTAINED FROM ASHCRAFT
AFTER THIRTY-SIX HOURS CONTINUOUS GRILLING BY INVESTIGATING OFFICERS,
WHO WERE HOLDING HIM INCOMMUNICADO IN THE COUNTY JAIL.  THIS ALLEGED
CONFESSION WAS IN LARGE PART WRITTEN BUT ASHCRAFT HAD NEITHER WRITTEN
NOR SIGNED IT.  WARE'S CONVICTION HAD ALSO RESTED ON A CONFESSION, THE
ADMISSION OF WHICH AS EVIDENCE HE HAD CHALLENGED AS A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  WITHOUT PASSING ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RAISED BY
WARE, WE VACATED THE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM FOR OTHER REASONS STATED IN
OUR OPINION.  IN THE JOINT TRIAL OF BOTH PETITIONERS WHICH RESULTED IN
THE JUDGMENT NOW BEFORE US, THE STATE AGAIN INTRODUCED WARE'S
CONFESSION.  HIS OBJECTION TO IT BASED ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WAS
OVERRULED.  BEFORE REACHING THE ISSUES RAISED BY WARE, WE SHALL DISPOSE
OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH ASHCRAFT NOW RAISES. 

IN OUR FIRST OPINION WE POINTED OUT IN DETAIL ALLEGED INCRIMINATORY
ADMISSIONS USED TO CONVICT ASHCRAFT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
HE HAD MADE THEM.  IN SUMMARY THOSE STATEMENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WERE
THESE.  ON A SATURDAY AT 7:00 P.M., NINE DAYS AFTER HIS WIFE WAS FOUND
DEAD, OFFICERS WENT TO ASHCRAFT'S HOME AND TOOK HIM TO A FIFTH-FLOOR
COUNTY JAIL ROOM.  THERE HE WAS HELD WITHOUT REST OR SLEEP UNTIL 7:00
O'CLOCK MONDAY MORNING, OR 36 HOURS.  DURING THE ENTIRE TIME ASHCRAFT
WAS SUBJECTED TO A CONSTANT BARRAGE OF QUESTIONS AND CHARGES. 
ACCORDING TO THE OFFICERS' TESTIMONY HE, FOR ABOUT 28 HOURS,
CONSISTENTLY DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT, OR COMPLICITY IN, THE CRIME. 
THE OFFICERS SWORE, HOWEVER, THAT AFTER 11:00 P.M.  SUNDAY NIGHT
ASHCRAFT FINALLY CONFESSED THAT HE KNEW WHO KILLED HIS WIFE, BUT AT THE
SAME TIME DENIED THAT HE HAD DONE IT. ACCORDING TO THIS TESTIMONY
ASHCRAFT SAID THAT WARE HAD COME TO HIS HOME BEFORE DAYLIGHT, JUST AS
MRS. ASHCRAFT WAS GETTING IN AN AUTOMOBILE TO TAKE A JOURNEY; THAT HE
WATCHED WARE FORCE MRS. ASHCRAFT TO DRIVE THE AUTOMOBILE AWAY FROM HOME
WITH WARE ACCOMPANYING HER; THAT ASHCRAFT, AFTER MAKING SLIGHT BUT
INEFFECTIVE PROTESTS WENT BACK TO HIS ROOM, LATER WENT TO WORK, AND
THAT HE MADE NO REPORT TO THE OFFICERS BUT KEPT HIS KNOWLEDGE SECRET
BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID OF WARE.  LATER ON THE SUNDAY NIGHT THAT ASHCRAFT
WAS BEING INTERROGATED IN THE JAIL, A COURT REPORTER WAS SUMMONED AND
HE, ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE, TOOK DOWN COMPLETE CONFESSIONS OF GUILT
GIVEN BOTH BY WARE AND ASHCRAFT.  THE REPORTER COMPLETED TRANSCRIPTION
OF HIS NOTES ABOUT 7:00 O'CLOCK MONDAY MORNING.  THESE TRANSCRIBED
NOTES WERE OFFERED AS TO BOTH THE PETITIONERS IN THE FIRST TRIAL. 
WITNESSES AT THAT TRIAL, INCLUDING ASHCRAFT'S DOCTOR, ALSO SWORE THAT
BOTH ASHCRAFT AND WARE HAD BEEN CAUSED TO STRIP FOR COMPLETE PHYSICAL
EXAMINATIONS.  THE ONLY APPARENT PURPOSE OF THIS WAS TO COUNTERACT ANY
LATER CLAIM BY WARE OR ASHCRAFT THAT THEIR ALLEGED CONFESSIONS WERE THE
PRODUCT OF PHYSICAL MISTREATMENT. 

AT AN EARLY STAGE IN THE NEW TRIAL, RESULTING IN THE CONVICTION WE
ARE NOW REVIEWING, THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ANNOUNCED THAT HE INTENDED
TO USE THIS JAIL EVIDENCE AGAIN, "ABOUT EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE
CONFESSION."  AND THAT WAS DONE.  THE WITNESSES FOR THE STATE IN THE
FIRST AND THE SECOND TRIALS WERE THE SAME.  CONSTRUING OUR MANDATE AS
PROHIBITING ONLY THE ADMISSION OF THE WRITTEN UNSIGNED CONFESSION, THE
TRIAL JUDGE ALLOWED THE JURY TO LISTEN TO TESTIMONY NARRATING
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT TOOK PLACE DURING THE ENTIRE 36 HOURS ASHCRAFT WAS
QUESTIONED WITH NO ONE PRESENT BUT HIS INQUISITORS AND THOSE SUMMONED
BY THEM TO BUTTRESS THEIR FUTURE EVIDENCE. 

AN INSPECTION OF THE RECORD SHOWS BEYOND ANY PERADVENTURE OF DOUBT
THAT THE TESTIMONY USED IN THE LAST TRIAL SHOWING WHAT TOOK PLACE
DURING ASHCRAFT'S EXAMINATION MIGHT WELL HAVE HAD THE SAME PRACTICAL
EFFECT ON THE JURY THE WRITTEN UNSIGNED CONFESSION MIGHT HAVE HAD, HAD
IT BEEN INTRODUCED.  FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO IT WERE
NARRATED IN DETAIL BOTH WITH REFERENCE TO WARE AND ASHCRAFT.  EVEN THE
DOCTOR WHO EXAMINED WARE REPORTED NOT ONLY ON WARE'S PHYSICAL CONDITION
BUT ALSO TESTIFIED IN THE SAME BREATH ABOUT HIS EXAMINATION OF
ASHCRAFT. 

RESPONDENT CLAIMS THAT THIS TESTIMONY DID NOT HARM ASHCRAFT AND THAT
ASHCRAFT'S SUPPOSED STATEMENT THAT HE KNEW WHO KILLED HIS WIFE WAS
EXCULPATORY.  IN FACT, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE, THAT STATEMENT WAS
THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE EVIDENCE AGAINST ASHCRAFT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH
HAVING BEEN AN ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT.  FOR TEN DAYS FOLLOWING HIS
WIFE'S DEATH, ASHCRAFT HAD PURPORTED TO HELP THE OFFICERS IN THEIR
EFFORTS TO SOLVE THE CRIME, AND FOR THE FIRST TWENTY-EIGHT HOURS OF HIS
JAIL INTERROGATION HE HAD NOT ONLY STOUTLY MAINTAINED HIS OWN INNOCENCE
WHENEVER IT WAS QUESTIONED, BUT HAD ALSO DENIED ANY KNOWLEDGE WHATEVER
AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE MURDERER.  TO ADMIT KNOWLEDGE OF THE MURDER
AND OF WHO COMMITTED IT AFTER THESE PROTESTATIONS BY HIM WOULD FOR MOST
PEOPLE BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A CONFESSION OF GUILTY PARTICIPATION IN
ADVANCE OF THE CRIME.  WILFUL CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS HAS ALWAYS
BEEN CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT.  AND STATEMENTS DENYING GUILT
FOLLOWED BY A CONFESSION OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHO THE GUILTY PERSON WAS MAY
CARRY THE STRONGEST IMPLICATIONS OF A GUILTY KNOWLEDGE.  CF. BRAM V.
UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 562.  THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE WHERE A
HUSBAND ADMITS THAT HE HAS, AGAINST THE STRONGEST PRESSURES,
DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE IDENTITY OF HIS WIFE'S MURDERER FOR TEN
DAYS. 

WE SEE NO RELEVANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTRODUCTION OF THIS STATEMENT
AND THE UNSIGNED ALLEGED CONFESSION, EXCEPT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE
ADMISSION OF THIS LONG-CONCEALED KNOWLEDGE WAS PERHAPS A MORE EFFECTIVE
CONFESSION OF GUILT THAN THE WRITTEN UNSIGNED ALLEGED CONFESSION WOULD
HAVE BEEN.  ALL THE REASONS GIVEN FOR REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST
ASHCRAFT IN THE FIRST CASE, WHICH WE NEED NOT REPEAT, APPLY WITH EQUAL
FORCE HERE. 

THE STATE HAS ASKED THAT IF ASHCRAFT'S CASE IS REVERSED WE FOLLOW THE
SAME COURSE AS TO WARE THAT WE DID IN THE FIRST CASE, AND VACATE THE
JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.  FOR THIS REASON, AS WELL AS THE REASONS GIVEN IN
OUR FORMER OPINION, WE DO NOT PASS ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
RAISED BY WARE CONCERNING HIS ALLEGED CONFESSION, BUT VACATE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AFFIRMING WARE'S
CONVICTION. 

WE NEED NOT NOW DECIDE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ARGUED EXCEPT
ONE CONTENTION MENTIONED BELOW.  FN1 

THE JUDGMENT AGAINST PETITIONER ASHCRAFT IS REVERSED AND THAT AGAINST
PETITIONER WARE IS VACATED.  BOTH CASES ARE REMANDED TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE PETITIONER ASHCRAFT CONTENDS THAT IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT
BEFORE THIS COURT, WHEN THE FIRST CONVICTION WAS BEING CHALLENGED, THE
STATE'S ATTORNEY ADMITTED THAT THE CONFESSION WAS THE ONLY EVIDENCE
AGAINST ASHCRAFT, AND SINCE WE MENTIONED THIS FACT IN OUR OPINION, OUR
MANDATE AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S MANDATE, WHICH ADOPTED OUR
MANDATE, IN EFFECT FORBADE A NEW TRIAL OF PETITIONER.  WE DO NOT THINK
OUR MANDATE LENDS ITSELF TO SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.  AS TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT'S MANDATE, THAT COURT HAS CONSTRUED IT BY AFFIRMING
PETITIONERS' SECOND CONVICTIONS.  THE STATE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF ITS
OWN MANDATE IS FINAL. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION ON THE BASIS OF THE
DECISION IN ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :

















COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, 327 U.S. 280 


NO. 317.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 11, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  -
148 F.2D 388, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT HAD MANAGED AND CONTROLLED A MANUFACTURING BUSINESS SINCE
1927.  FROM 1933 TO 1937 IT WAS OPERATED AS A CORPORATION.  HE WAS
PRESIDENT, OWNING 445 OUT OF 500 SHARES; HIS WIFE WAS NOMINAL VICE
PRESIDENT, OWNING FIVE SHARES; AND ONE AMIDON WAS SECRETARY, OWNING 25
SHARES.  RESPONDENT TRANSFERRED 190 SHARES TO HIS WIFE, PAYING A GIFT
TAX; AND, THREE DAYS LATER, IN ORDER TO SAVE TAXES, THE CORPORATION WAS
DISSOLVED AND A PARTNERSHIP WAS ORGANIZED CONSISTING OF RESPONDENT AND
AMIDON AS GENERAL PARTNERS AND RESPONDENT'S WIFE AS A LIMITED PARTNER
WITH NO AUTHORITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS.  EACH
CONTRIBUTED THE VALUE OF HIS STOCK AND NO NEW CAPITAL WAS CONTRIBUTED. 
RESPONDENT CONTINUED TO MANAGE AND CONTROL THE BUSINESS, WHICH WAS
CONDUCTED AS BEFORE EXCEPT THAT RESPONDENT AND AMIDON CEASED TO DRAW
SALARIES.  THE WIFE CONTRIBUTED NO SERVICES TO THE BUSINESS AND USED
HER SHARE OF THE INCOME TO BUY THE SAME TYPE OF THINGS SHE HAD BOUGHT
FOR HERSELF, HOME AND FAMILY BEFORE THE PARTNERSHIP WAS FORMED.  HELD: 

1.  THESE FACTS WERE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY THE TAX COURT
THAT, AS BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE, NO GENUINE "PARTNERSHIP"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF 26 U.S.C. SECS. 181, 182 EXISTED, THAT RESPONDENT
EARNED THE INCOME, AND THAT HE SHOULD BE TAXED ON IT UNDER 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 22(A).  PP. 286, 291, 292. 

2.  A FINDING OF FACT BY THE TAX COURT, BEING SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE,
IS FINAL.  P. 287. 

3.  IN PASSING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER AN ALLEGED PARTNERSHIP IS A
REAL PARTNERSHIP WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL TAX LAWS, THE TAX
COURT IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE TREATMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP BY STATE LAW
AND DECISIONS FOR PURPOSES OF STATE LAW.  P. 287. 

4.  WHILE THE LEGAL RIGHT OF A TAXPAYER TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF
WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE HIS TAXES OR ALTOGETHER AVOID THEM BY MEANS
WHICH THE LAW PERMITS CAN NOT BE DOUBTED, GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293
U.S. 465, THIS COURT CAN NOT ORDER THE TAX COURT TO SHUT ITS EYES TO
THE REALITIES OF TAX AVOIDANCE SCHEMES.  P. 288. 

5.  IN PASSING ON THE APPLICABILITY OF 26 U.S.C. SECS. 181, 182 TO
INCOME FROM A "FAMILY PARTNERSHIP" - 

(A)  THE QUESTION IS NOT SIMPLY WHO ACTUALLY OWNED A SHARE OF THE
CAPITAL ATTRIBUTED TO THE WIFE ON THE PARTNERSHIP BOOKS BUT WHO EARNED
THE INCOME.  P. 289. 

(B)  IN THIS CASE, THAT ISSUE DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE HUSBAND AND WIFE
REALLY INTENDED TO CARRY ON BUSINESS AS A PARTNERSHIP.  P. 289. 

(C)  THESE ISSUES CAN NOT BE DECIDED SIMPLY BY LOOKING AT A SINGLE
STEP IN A COMPLICATED TRANSACTION.  PP. 289, 290. 

(D)  TO DECIDE WHO WORKED FOR, OTHERWISE CREATED OR CONTROLLED THE
INCOME, ALL STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF EARNING THE PROFITS MUST BE TAKEN
INTO CONSIDERATION.  PP. 290. 

6.  A WIFE MAY BECOME A GENERAL OR LIMITED PARTNER WITH HER HUSBAND
FOR TAX, AS FOR OTHER, PURPOSES; BUT, WHEN THE HUSBAND PURPORTS TO HAVE
GIVEN HER A PARTNERSHIP INTEREST, SHE DOES NOT SHARE IN THE MANAGEMENT
AND CONTROL OF THE BUSINESS, AND SHE CONTRIBUTES NO VITAL ADDITIONAL
SERVICE, THE TAX COURT MAY PROPERLY TAKE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES INTO
CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PARTNERSHIP IS REAL WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FEDERAL TAX LAWS.  P. 290. 

7.  IF, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE END RESULT OF THE
CREATION OF A HUSBAND-WIFE PARTNERSHIP, THOUGH VALID UNDER STATE LAWS,
IS THAT INCOME PRODUCED BY THE HUSBAND'S EFFORTS CONTINUES TO BE USED
FOR THE SAME BUSINESS AND FAMILY PURPOSES AS BEFORE THE PARTNERSHIP,
FAILURE TO TAX IT AS THE HUSBAND'S INCOME WOULD FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSE
OF 26 U.S.C. SEC. 22(A), DEFINING GROSS INCOME AS INCLUDING ALL
EARNINGS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL FROM "ANY SOURCE WHATEVER."  P. 291. 

8.  SINGLE TAX EARNINGS CAN NOT BE DIVIDED INTO TWO TAX UNITS AND
SURTAXES AVOIDED BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF DRAWING UP PAPERS CREATING
A HUSBAND-WIFE PARTNERSHIP.  P. 291. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. TOWER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE LEVIED A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT
AGAINST RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PART OF THE EARNINGS OF A
"FAMILY PARTNERSHIP" WHICH HAD BEEN PAID TO, AND REPORTED BY, HIS WIFE
ACTUALLY HAD BEEN EARNED BY RESPONDENT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED AS
HIS INCOME.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE LEVY.  3 T.C. 396.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  148 F.2D 388.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 703.  REVERSED, P. 292. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT'S
WIFE HAD IN HER INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1940 AND 1941 REPORTED AS HER
EARNINGS INCOME THAT ACTUALLY HAD BEEN EARNED BY HER HUSBAND BUT HAD
NOT BEEN REPORTED IN HIS RETURNS.  A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT WAS
CONSEQUENTLY LEVIED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT BY THE COMMISSIONER.  THE
PARTICULAR EARNINGS INVOLVED WERE A PORTION OF NET INCOME ATTRIBUTED TO
A PARTNERSHIP, TO WHICH, ACCORDING TO ITS RECORDS, 90 PER CENT OF THE
CAPITAL HAD BEEN CONTRIBUTED BY RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE; OF THIS, 51
PERCENT HAD BEEN CONTRIBUTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND 39 PER CENT BY HIS
WIFE.  IF, AS RESPONDENT ASSERTS, THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE
FORMATION AND OPERATION OF THIS PARTNERSHIP WERE SUCH AS TO BRING IT
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 181 AND 182 OF TITLE 26 OF THE U.S.C.  THEN
THE RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE ARE LIABLE ONLY FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE
INDIVIDUAL SHARE OF THE BUSINESS' INCOME.  THESE SECTIONS PROVIDE THAT
PARTNERS ARE LIABLE FOR TAXES ON PARTNERSHIP INCOME ONLY IN THEIR
"INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY" AND THAT EACH PARTNER SHALL REPORT "HIS
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE ORDINARY NET INCOME  ...  OF THE PARTNERSHIP
..."  BUT SEC. 11 OF TITLE 26 OF THE U.S.C. LEVIES A TAX ON THE "NET
INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL," AND THE "NET INCOME" IS REQUIRED TO BE
COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF "GROSS INCOME" AS DEFINED IN SEC. 22(A), WHICH
BROADLY INCLUDES ALL EARNINGS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL FROM "ANY SOURCE
WHATEVER."  AND WE HAVE HELD THAT THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF ALL SECTIONS
OF THE REVENUE LAWS, INCLUDING THESE, IS "THE TAXATION OF INCOME TO
THOSE WHO EARN OR OTHERWISE CREATE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT AND ENJOY
THE BENEFIT OF IT WHEN PAID."  HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112, 119. 
THE BASIC QUESTION IN DECIDING WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER'S DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT WAS PROPER, IS:  WAS THE INCOME ATTRIBUTED TO THE WIFE AS A
PARTNER INCOME FROM A PARTNERSHIP FOR WHICH SHE ALONE WAS LIABLE IN HER
"INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY," AS PROVIDED BY 26 U.S.C. SECS. 181 AND 182, OR
DID THE HUSBAND, DESPITE THE CLAIMED PARTNERSHIP, ACTUALLY CREATE THE
RIGHT TO RECEIVE AND ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF THE INCOME, SO AS TO MAKE IT
TAXABLE TO HIM UNDER SECS. 11 AND 22(A)? 

THE RESPONDENT ASKED THE TAX COURT TO REVIEW AND REDETERMINE THE
COMMISSIONER'S DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT, INSISTING THAT THE INCOME IN
QUESTION WAS NOT THE RESPONDENT'S BUT HIS WIFE'S SHARE IN A
PARTNERSHIP.  THE COMMISSIONER URGED IN THE TAX COURT THAT THE WIFE HAD
CONTRIBUTED NEITHER SERVICES NOR CAPITAL TO THE PARTNERSHIP AND THAT
HER ALLEGED MEMBERSHIP IN THE PARTNERSHIP WAS A SHAM.  RESPONDENT
ADMITTED THAT SHE HAD NOT CONTRIBUTED HER SERVICES, BUT CONTENDED THAT
SHE HAD MADE A CONTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL AS SHOWN BY THE AMOUNT
ATTRIBUTED TO HER ON THE PARTNERSHIP BOOKS AND THAT SHE WAS A BONA FIDE
PARTNER.  HER ALLEGED CONTRIBUTION CONSISTED OF ASSETS WHICH THE
HUSBAND CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN TO HER THREE DAYS BEFORE THE FORMATION OF
THE PARTNERSHIP. 

THE TAX COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NEVER EXECUTED A
COMPLETE GIFT OF THE ASSETS WHICH HIS WIFE LATER PURPORTEDLY
CONTRIBUTED TO THE PARTNERSHIP; THAT AFTER THE PARTNERSHIP WAS FORMED
RESPONDENT CONTINUED TO MANAGE AND CONTROL THE BUSINESS AS HE HAD DONE
FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE; THAT HIS ECONOMIC RELATION TO THE PORTION OF THE
PARTNERSHIP INCOME WHICH WAS ATTRIBUTED TO HIS WIFE WAS SUCH THAT IT
CONTINUED TO BE AVAILABLE TO BE USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSES AS BEFORE,
INCLUDING ORDINARY FAMILY PURPOSES; THAT THE EFFECT OF THE WHOLE
PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT, SO FAR AS IT INVOLVED RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE,
WAS A MERE REALLOCATION OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS INCOME WITHIN THE
FAMILY GROUP; AND THAT THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CORPORATION AND THE
SUBSEQUENT FORMATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP FULFILLED NO BUSINESS PURPOSE
OTHER THAN A REDUCTION OF THE HUSBAND'S INCOME TAX.  THE TAX COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THIS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP INCOME WAS IN FACT EARNED BY THE
HUSBAND; THAT THERE WAS NO REAL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND HIS
WIFE FOR PURPOSES OF CARRYING ON A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE; THAT THE WIFE
RECEIVED A PORTION OF THE INCOME "ONLY BY REASON OF HER MARITAL
RELATIONSHIP," AND HELD THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS, THEREFORE, TAXABLE
TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER 26 U.S.C. SEC. 22(A).  3 T.C. 396.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  148 F.2D 388.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT SUSTAINED A HOLDING BY
THE TAX COURT, BASED ON FACTS IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS SIMILAR TO THE
ONES IN THIS CASE, THAT ALL THE INCOME FROM A HUSBAND-WIFE PARTNERSHIP
WAS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE HUSBAND UNDER 26 U.S.C. SEC. 22(A).  LUSTHAUS
V. COMMISSIONER, 149 F.2D 232.  OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE
ALSO SUSTAINED SIMILAR HOLDINGS BY THE TAX COURT.  FN1  AS IS INDICATED
BY NUMEROUS TAX COURT DECISIONS, ATTEMPTS TO ESCAPE SURTAXES BY
DIVIDING ONE EARNED INCOME INTO TWO OR MORE THROUGH THE DEVICE OF
FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS HAVE RECENTLY CREATED AN ACUTE PROBLEM.  FN2
BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS VIEWS EXPRESSED AS TO CONTROLLING LEGAL
PRINCIPLES IN THE DECISIONS DISCUSSING SUCH ARRANGEMENTS, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BOTH IN THIS AND THE LUSTHAUS CASE, POST, P. 293. 

A STATEMENT OF SOME OF THE PERTINENT FACTS SHOWN BY THE RECORD AND ON
WHICH THE TAX COURT BASED ITS CONCLUSION WILL CAST SOME LIGHT ON THE
PROBLEM.  BROADLY SPEAKING, THESE FACTS FOLLOW A GENERAL PATTERN FOUND
IN MANY OF THE "FAMILY PARTNERSHIP" CASES.  THE BUSINESS HERE INVOLVED,
R.J. TOWER IRON WORKS, IS LOCATED IN GREENVILLE, MICHIGAN AND HAS
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD SAWMILL MACHINERY AND WOOD AND METAL STAMPINGS. 
RESPONDENT'S PARTICIPATION IN THE BUSINESS DATES BACK TWENTY-EIGHT
YEARS.  HE HAS MANAGED AND CONTROLED THE COMPANY SINCE THE DEATH OF HIS
FATHER IN 1927.  DURING THE TAX YEARS IN QUESTION THE BUSINESS HAD
FORTY TO SIXTY EMPLOYEES ON ITS PAY ROLL.  FROM 1933 TO 1937 THE
BUSINESS WAS OPERATED AS A CORPORATION.  THE RESPONDENT WAS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE CORPORATION AND OWNED 445 OUT OF THE 500 SHARES
OUTSTANDING,  FN3 HIS WIFE WAS VICE PRESIDENT AND OWNED FIVE SHARES,
AND ONE MR. AMIDON WAS THE SECRETARY, OWNING TWENTY-FIVE SHARES.  THESE
THREE ALSO CONSTITUTED THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND WHILE TOWER MANAGED
THE CORPORATE AFFAIRS, AMIDON ACTED AS BOOKKEEPER.  MRS. TOWER
PERFORMED NO BUSINESS SERVICES. 

IN 1937 SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS POINTED TO INCREASED TAXES.  RESPONDENT'S
ATTORNEY AND HIS TAX ACCOUNTANT ADVISED HIM THAT DISSOLUTION OF THE
CORPORATION AND FORMATION OF A PARTNERSHIP WITH HIS WIFE AS A PRINCIPAL
PARTNER WOULD RESULT IN TAX SAVINGS AND ELIMINATE THE NECESSITY OF
FILING VARIOUS CORPORATE RETURNS.  THE SUGGESTED CHANGE WAS PUT INTO
EFFECT.  AUGUST 25, 1937, RESPONDENT TRANSFERRED 190 SHARES OF THE
CORPORATION'S STOCK TO HIS WIFE ON THE CONDITION THAT SHE PLACE THE
CORPORATE ASSETS REPRESENTED BY THESE SHARES INTO THE NEW PARTNERSHIP. 
RESPONDENT, TREATING THE STOCK TRANSFER TO HIS WIFE AS A GIFT VALUED AT
$57,000.00, LATER PAID A GIFT TAX OF $213.44.  THREE DAYS AFTER THE
STOCK TRANSFER THE CORPORATION WAS LIQUIDATED, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
WAS FORMED AND A CERTIFICATE OF PARTNERSHIP WAS DULY FILED FOR RECORD
AS REQUIRED BY MICHIGAN LAW.  ACCORDING TO THE BOOKS, THE VALUE OF THE
DONATED STOCK BECAME THE WIFE'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARTNERSHIP.  THE
FORMATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP DID NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE CONDUCT OF
THE BUSINESS, EXCEPT THAT BOTH AMIDON AND TOWER CEASED TO DRAW
SALARIES.  BY AN AGREEMENT MADE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, A READJUSTMENT WAS
MADE IN THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS EACH PARTNER WAS TO RECEIVE, UNDER WHICH
AMIDON'S SHARE BECAME THE EQUIVALENT OF, IF NOT MORE THAN, THE AMOUNT
OF THE SALARY HE HAD PREVIOUSLY DRAWN.  UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
THE RESPONDENT CONTINUED TO HAVE THE CONTROLLING VOICE IN THE BUSINESS,
AS TO PURCHASES, SALES, SALARIES, THE TIME OF DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME,
AND ALL OTHER ESSENTIALS.  RESPONDENT'S WIFE, AS A LIMITED PARTNER, WAS
PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS.  SO FAR
AS APPEARS, THE PART OF HER PURPORTED SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS
SHE ACTUALLY EXPENDED WAS USED TO BUY WHAT A HUSBAND USUALLY BUYS FOR
HIS WIFE SUCH AS CLOTHES AND THINGS FOR THE FAMILY OR TO CARRY ON
ACTIVITIES ORDINARILY OF INTEREST TO THE FAMILY AS A GROUP. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FOREGOING FACTS WERE SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT THE TAX COURT'S FINDING THAT THE WIFE WAS NOT A PARTNER IN THE
BUSINESS.  FN4  A PARTNERSHIP IS GENERALLY SAID TO BE CREATED WHEN
PERSONS JOIN TOGETHER THEIR MONEY, GOODS, LABOR, OR SKILL FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON A TRADE, PROFESSION, OR BUSINESS AND WHEN THERE
IS COMMUNITY OF INTEREST IN THE PROFITS AND LOSSES.  FN5  WHEN THE
EXISTENCE OF AN ALLEGED PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT IS CHALLENGED BY
OUTSIDERS, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE PARTNERS REALLY AND TRULY
INTENDED TO JOIN TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND
SHARING IN THE PROFITS OR LOSSES OR BOTH.  AND THEIR INTENTION IN THIS
RESPECT IS A QUESTION OF FACT, TO BE DETERMINED FROM TESTIMONY
DISCLOSED BY THEIR "AGREEMENT, CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, AND BY THEIR
CONDUCT IN EXECUTION OF ITS PROVISIONS."  DRENNEN V. LONDON ASSURANCE
CO., 113 U.S. 51, 56; COX V. HICKMAN, 8 H.L. CAS. 268.  WE SEE NO
REASON WHY THIS GENERAL RULE SHOULD NOT APPLY IN TAX CASES WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTNERSHIP FOR TAX PURPOSES. 
FN6  HERE THE TAX COURT, ACTING PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS, HAS FOUND FROM TESTIMONY BEFORE
IT THAT RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE DID NOT INTEND TO CARRY ON BUSINESS AS
A PARTNERSHIP.  THIS FINDING OF FACT, SINCE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, IS
FINAL.  COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467, 475; DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489.  THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT WAS
THEREFORE CORRECT UNLESS, AS RESPONDENT CONTENDS, THE TAX COURT
ERRONEOUSLY DISREGARDED OR IMPROPERLY APPLIED CERTAIN LEGAL
PRINCIPLES. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT HERE IN QUESTION
WOULD HAVE BEEN VALID UNDER MICHIGAN LAW AND ARGUES THAT THE TAX COURT
SHOULD CONSEQUENTLY HAVE HELD IT VALID FOR TAX PURPOSES ALSO.  BUT THE
TAX COURT IN MAKING A FINAL AUTHORITATIVE FINDING ON THE QUESTION
WHETHER THIS WAS A REAL PARTNERSHIP IS NOT GOVERNED BY HOW MICHIGAN LAW
MIGHT TREAT THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES FOR PURPOSES OF STATE LAW.  THUS,
MICHIGAN COULD AND MIGHT DECIDE THAT THE STOCK-TRANSFER HERE WAS
SUFFICIENT UNDER STATE LAW TO PASS TITLE TO THE WIFE, SO THAT IN THE
EVENT OF HER DEATH IT WOULD PASS TO WHATEVER MEMBERS OF HER FAMILY
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT UNDER MICHIGAN'S LAW OF DESCENT AND
DISTRIBUTION.  BUT MICHIGAN CANNOT, BY ITS DECISIONS AND LAWS GOVERNING
QUESTIONS OVER WHICH IT HAS FINAL SAY, ALSO DECIDE ISSUES OF FEDERAL
TAX LAW AND THUS HAMPER THE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF A VALID FEDERAL
TAX LEVIED AGAINST EARNED INCOME.  THE CONTENTION WAS REJECTED IN LUCAS
V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111.  THERE HUSBAND AND WIFE MADE AN AGREEMENT FOR
JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THE HUSBAND'S FUTURE INCOME.  ASSUMING THAT THE
HUSBAND'S FUTURE EARNINGS WERE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW CONSIDERED AS
PARTLY OWNED BY THE WIFE, THIS COURT REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE STATE'S
CONCEPT OF THE EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE
FEDERAL TAX ON INCOME ACTUALLY EARNED BY THE HUSBAND.  AND IN HELVERING
V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 334-335, WE HELD THAT THE PURPOSE OF 26
U.S.C. SEC. 22(A) TO TAX ALL INCOME AGAINST THE PERSON WHO CONTROLLED
ITS DISTRIBUTION COULD NOT BE FRUSTRATED BY FAMILY GROUP ARRANGEMENTS,
EVEN THOUGH THE DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS WERE VALID FOR STATE LAW
PURPOSES.  THE STATUTES OF CONGRESS DESIGNED TO TAX INCOME ACTUALLY
EARNED BECAUSE OF THE CAPITAL AND EFFORTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF
A JOINT ENTERPRISE ARE NOT TO BE FRUSTRATED BY STATE LAWS WHICH FOR
STATE PURPOSES PRESCRIBE THE RELATIONS OF THE MEMBERS TO EACH OTHER AND
TO OUTSIDERS.  CF. BURK-WAGGONER ASSN. V. HOPKINS, 269 U.S. 110, 114. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE TAX COURT'S HOLDING THAT HE IS TAXABLE
FOR THE PROFITS FROM THE PARTNERSHIP IS CONTRARY TO A PRINCIPLE LONG
RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT THAT "THE LEGAL RIGHT OF A TAXPAYER TO
DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE HIS TAXES, OR ALTOGETHER
AVOID THEM, BY MEANS WHICH THE LAW PERMITS, CANNOT BE DOUBTED." 
GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465, 469.  WE DO NOT REJECT THAT
PRINCIPLE.  IT WOULD CLEARLY APPLY, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A SITUATION WHERE A
MEMBER OF A PARTNERSHIP, IN ORDER TO KEEP FROM PAYING FUTURE TAXES ON
PARTNERSHIP PROFITS AND IN ORDER TO GET INTO A LOWER INCOME TAX
BRACKET, SELLS HIS INTEREST TO A STRANGER, RELINQUISHING ALL CONTROL OF
THE BUSINESS.  BUT THE SITUATION IS DIFFERENT WHERE THE TAXPAYER DRAWS
A PAPER PURPORTING TO SELL HIS PARTNERSHIP INTEREST EVEN TO A STRANGER,
THOUGH ACTUALLY HE CONTINUES TO CONTROL THE BUSINESS TO THE EXTENT HE
HAD BEFORE THE "SALE" AND CHANNELS THE INCOME TO HIS WIFE.  THEN A
SHOWING THAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF
REDUCING TAXES SIMPLY LENDS FURTHER SUPPORT TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE
HUSBAND STILL CONTROLS THE INCOME FROM HIS PARTNERSHIP INTEREST, THAT
NO PARTNERSHIP REALLY EXISTS AND THAT EARNINGS ARE REALLY HIS AND ARE
THEREFORE TAXABLE TO HIM AND NOT TO HIS WIFE.  THE ARRANGEMENT WE ARE
HERE CONSIDERING WAS OF THE TYPE WHERE PROOF OF A MOTIVE TO REDUCE
INCOME TAXES SIMPLY LENT FURTHER STRENGTH TO THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE
TAX COURT THAT THE WIFE WAS NOT REALLY A PARTNER.  SEE PAUL, SELECTED
STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION, 2D SERIES, PP. 293-300.  TO RULE OTHERWISE
WOULD MEAN ORDERING THE TAX COURT TO SHUT ITS EYES TO THE REALITIES OF
TAX AVOIDANCE SCHEMES. 

RESPONDENT URGES FURTHER THAT THE TAX COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED
THAT THE GIFT WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR TAX PURPOSES BECAUSE IT WAS
CONDITIONAL AND THEREFORE INCOMPLETE.  THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDS THE TAX
COURT'S CONCLUSION.  WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE. 
THE QUESTION HERE IS NOT SIMPLY WHO ACTUALLY OWNED A SHARE OF THE
CAPITAL ATTRIBUTED TO THE WIFE ON THE PARTNERSHIP BOOKS.  A PERSON MAY
BE TAXED ON PROFITS EARNED FROM PROPERTY, WHERE HE NEITHER OWNS NOR
CONTROLS IT.  LUCAS V. EARL, SUPRA.  FN7  THE ISSUE IS WHO EARNED THE
INCOME AND THAT ISSUE DEPENDS ON WHETHER THIS HUSBAND AND WIFE REALLY
INTENDED TO CARRY ON BUSINESS AS A PARTNERSHIP.  THOSE ISSUES CANNOT BE
DECIDED SIMPLY BY LOOKING AT A SINGLE STEP IN A COMPLICATED
TRANSACTION.  TO DECIDE WHO WORKED FOR, OTHERWISE CREATED OR CONTROLLED
THE INCOME, ALL STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF EARNING THE PROFITS MUST BE
TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.  SEE COMMISSIONER V. COURT HOLDING CO., 324
U.S. 331, 334.  OF COURSE, THE QUESTION OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE
CAPITAL PURPORTEDLY CONTRIBUTED BY A WIFE WILL FREQUENTLY THROW LIGHT
ON THE BROADER QUESTION OF WHETHER AN ALLEGED PARTNERSHIP IS REAL OR
PRETENDED.  BUT HERE THE TAX COURT'S FINDINGS WERE SUPPORTED BY A
SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF OTHER FACTORS IN THE TRANSACTION, SO THAT WE NEED
NOT DECIDE WHETHER ITS HOLDING AS TO THE COMPLETENESS OF THE GIFT WAS
CORRECT.  CF. HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 117, 118; BURNET V.
WELLS, 289 U.S. 670, 677. 

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT A WIFE AND A HUSBAND MAY, UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES, BECOME PARTNERS FOR TAX, AS FOR OTHER, PURPOSES.  IF SHE
EITHER INVESTS CAPITAL ORIGINATING WITH HER OR SUBSTANTIALLY
CONTRIBUTES TO THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, OR OTHERWISE
PERFORMS VITAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES, OR DOES ALL OF THESE THINGS SHE MAY
BE A PARTNER AS CONTEMPLATED BY 26 U.S.C. SECS. 181, 182.  THE TAX
COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE INCOME BELONGS
TO THE WIFE.  FN8 A WIFE MAY BECOME A GENERAL OR A LIMITED PARTNER WITH
HER HUSBAND.  BUT WHEN SHE DOES NOT SHARE IN THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
OF THE BUSINESS, CONTRIBUTES NO VITAL ADDITIONAL SERVICE, AND WHERE THE
HUSBAND PURPORTS IN SOME WAY TO HAVE GIVEN HER A PARTNERSHIP INTEREST,
THE TAX COURT MAY PROPERLY TAKE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES INTO CONSIDERATION
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PARTNERSHIP IS REAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE FEDERAL REVENUE LAWS. 

IT IS THE COMMAND OF THE TAXPAYER OVER THE INCOME WHICH IS THE
CONCERN OF THE TAX LAWS.  HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, 312 U.S. 579, 581,
582.  AND INCOME EARNED BY ONE PERSON IS TAXABLE AS HIS, IF GIVEN TO
ANOTHER FOR THE DONOR'S SATISFACTION.  HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S.
112, 119.  IT IS FOR THIS REASON, AMONG OTHERS, THAT WE SAID IN
HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA, 335, THAT TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND
AND WIFE CALCULATED TO REDUCE FAMILY TAXES SHOULD ALWAYS BE SUBJECTED
TO SPECIAL SCRUTINY.  FOR IF UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE NOW
BEFORE US, THE END RESULT OF THE CREATION OF A HUSBAND-WIFE
PARTNERSHIP, THOUGH VALID UNDER STATE LAWS, IS THAT INCOME PRODUCED BY
THE HUSBAND'S EFFORTS CONTINUES TO BE USED FOR THE SAME BUSINESS AND
FAMILY PURPOSES AS BEFORE THE PARTNERSHIP, FAILURE TO TAX IT AS THE
HUSBAND'S INCOME WOULD FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSE OF 26 U.S.C. SEC. 22(A). 
BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF DRAWING UP PAPERS, SINGLE TAX EARNINGS
CANNOT BE DIVIDED INTO TWO TAX UNITS AND SURTAXES CANNOT BE THUS
AVOIDED. 

JUDGED BY THE ACTUAL RESULT ACHIEVED, THE TAX COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN
FINDING THAT THE PARTNERSHIP HERE BROUGHT ABOUT NO REAL CHANGE IN THE
ECONOMIC RELATION OF THE HUSBAND AND HIS WIFE TO THE INCOME IN
QUESTION.  BEFORE THE PARTNERSHIP THE HUSBAND MANAGED, CONTROLLED, AND
DID A GOOD DEAL OF THE WORK INVOLVED IN RUNNING THE BUSINESS, AND HE
HAD FUNDS AT HIS DISPOSAL WHICH HE EITHER USED IN THE BUSINESS OR
EXPENDED FOR FAMILY PURPOSES.  THE WIFE DID NOT CONTRIBUTE HER SERVICES
TO THE BUSINESS AND RECEIVED MONEY FROM HER HUSBAND FOR HER OWN AND
FAMILY EXPENSES.  AFTER THE PARTNERSHIP WAS FORMED THE HUSBAND
CONTINUED TO CONTROL AND MANAGE THE BUSINESS EXACTLY AS HE HAD BEFORE. 
THE WIFE AGAIN TOOK NO PART IN THE MANAGEMENT OR OPERATION OF THE
BUSINESS.  IF IT BE SAID THAT AS A LIMITED PARTNER SHE COULD NOT SHARE
IN THE MANAGEMENT WITHOUT BECOMING A GENERAL PARTNER THE RESULT IS THE
SAME.  NO CAPITAL NOT AVAILABLE FOR USE IN THE BUSINESS BEFORE WAS
BROUGHT INTO THE BUSINESS AS A RESULT OF THE FORMATION OF THE
PARTNERSHIP.  AND THE WIFE DREW ON INCOME WHICH THE PARTNERSHIP BOOKS
ATTRIBUTED TO HER ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF BUYING AND PAYING FOR THE TYPE
OF THINGS SHE HAD BOUGHT FOR HERSELF, HOME AND FAMILY BEFORE THE
PARTNERSHIP WAS FORMED.  CONSEQUENTLY THE RESULT OF THE PARTNERSHIP WAS
A MERE PAPER REALLOCATION OF INCOME AMONG THE FAMILY MEMBERS.  THE
ACTUALITIES OF THEIR RELATION TO THE INCOME DID NOT CHANGE.  THERE WAS,
THUS, MORE THAN AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TAX COURT'S FINDING THAT
NO GENUINE UNION FOR PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS PURPOSES WAS EVER INTENDED
AND THAT THE HUSBAND EARNED THE INCOME.  WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WOULD
HAVE SUPPORTED A DIFFERENT FINDING BY THE TAX COURT IS A QUESTION NOT
HERE PRESENTED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  EARP V. JONES, 131 F.2D 292(C.C.A.10TH); MEAD V. COMMISSIONER,
131 F.2D 323(C.C.A.5TH); ARGO V. COMMISSIONER, 150 F.2D 67(C.C.A.5TH);
LORENZ V. COMMISSIONER, 148 F.2D 527(C.C.A.6TH). 

FN2 SEE CASES COLLECTED IN PAUL, PARTNERSHIPS IN TAX AVOIDANCE, 13
GEO. WASH. L. REV. 121. 

FN3  FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING INCORPORATION THE
RESPONDENT OWNED ONLY 425 SHARES. 

FN4  SINCE THE COMMISSIONER HAD DETERMINED THAT THE WIFE WAS NOT
REALLY A PARTNER, THE BURDEN RESTED UPON THE RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE THE TAX COURT THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION WAS WRONG.  WELCH V. HELVERING, 290 U.S. 111;
COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467, 475. 

FN5  WARD V. THOMPSON, 22 HOW.  330, 333, 334; MEEHAN V. VALENTINE,
145 U.S. 611, 618. 

FN6  WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT FOR TAX PURPOSES SHOULD TAXPAYERS AFTER
HOLDING THEMSELVES OUT AS A PARTNERSHIP LATER CHALLENGE THE EXISTENCE
OF THE PARTNERSHIP, IS A QUESTION NOT HERE PRESENTED.  SEE HIGGINS V.
SMITH, 308 U.S. 473, 477. 

FN7  UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES INCOME HAS BEEN HELD TAXABLE TO A
PERSON EVEN WHEN HE DOES NOT OWN OR CONTROL IT.  UNITED STATES V.
JOLIET & CHICAGO R. CO., 315 U.S. 44, 46. 

FN8  SEE E.G. CROFT V. COMMISSIONER, (1944 P-H T.C. MEM. DEC.
P44,330) T.C. NO. 1432, DECIDED OCTOBER 11, 1944. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENT FOR THE REASONS STATED
IN THEIR DISSENTING OPINION IN LUSTHAUS V. COMMISSIONER, POST, P. 297. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE RESULT AND WITH THE COURT'S VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCE
WAS AMPLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE TAX COURT'S FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS IN THIS CASE AND IN LUSTHAUS V. COMMISSIONER, POST, P.
293.  CANDOR FORCES ME TO ADD, HOWEVER, THAT IN MY JUDGMENT THE
DECISIONS' EFFECT IS TO RULE THAT IN SITUATIONS OF THIS CHARACTER THE
FORMATION OF A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNDER STATE LAW BETWEEN HUSBAND AND
WIFE, WITH THE LATTER AS THE LIMITED PARTNER, FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY
UPON THE HUSBAND'S DONATION TO THE WIFE OF A SHARE IN THE ASSETS OF THE
BUSINESS PREVIOUSLY AND AFTERWARDS CONDUCTED BY HIM AND CONDITIONED
UPON HER LEAVING THE ASSETS IN THE BUSINESS, AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL TAX
LAW DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THE FORMATION OF A PARTNERSHIP SUFFICIENT TO
RELIEVE THE HUSBAND OF TAX LIABILITY FOR THE INCOME DERIVED AFTER THE
TRANSFER FROM USE IN THE BUSINESS OF THE SHARE THUS DONATED TO THE
WIFE.  IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW THE TAXPAYERS IN
THESE CASES WERE LIABLE FOR THE TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST THEM, INCLUDING
THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS; AND, THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION THE TAX COURT
IS NOT FREE IN THESE OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES TO DRAW
EITHER THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION OR OPPOSING ONES.  WHILE IT IS NOT
STRICTLY NECESSARY TO EXPRESS THIS OPINION IN THESE CASES IN VIEW OF
THE TAX COURT'S CONSISTENT CONCLUSIONS OF LIABILITY, IT IS
INCONCEIVABLE TO ME THAT THE TWO CASES, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FEDERAL
TAX LAW, COULD BE DECIDED THE OTHER WAY OR WITH DIFFERENT OUTCOMES ON
THE FACTS PRESENTED.  BEING OF THIS OPINION, I CONSIDER THE FAILURE TO
STATE IT COULD ONLY TEND TO PERPETUATE A SOURCE OF POSSIBLE CONFUSION
FOR THE FUTURE. 
..END :























LUSTHAUS V. COMMISSIONER, 327 U.S. 293 


NO. 263.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 149
F.2D 232, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER OWNED AND OPERATED A RETAIL FURNITURE BUSINESS WITH TWO
STORES.  HIS WIFE HELPED IN THE STORES, WHEN NEEDED, WITHOUT
COMPENSATION.  SHE OWNED PROPERTY VALUED AT $50,000 OR MORE.  FINDING
HIMSELF CONFRONTED WITH PROSPECTS OF LARGE PROFITS AND CORRESPONDINGLY
LARGE INCOME TAXES, PETITIONER, IN CONSULTATION WITH HIS ACCOUNTANT AND
ATTORNEY, WORKED OUT A PLAN FOR A HUSBAND-WIFE PARTNERSHIP.  THE WIFE
HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH THE TRANSACTION AND TESTIFIED THAT "ON THE ADVICE
OF COUNSEL I DID WHAT HE TOLD ME TO DO."  PETITIONER EXECUTED A BILL OF
SALE BY WHICH HE PURPORTED TO SELL HIS WIFE A HALF INTEREST IN THE
BUSINESS FOR $105,253.81, RECEIVING IN RETURN A CHECK FOR $50,253.81
AND ELEVEN NOTES OF $5,000 EACH.  PETITIONER BORROWED $25,000 FROM A
BANK; GAVE HIS WIFE A CHECK FOR $50,000, ON WHICH HE PAID A GIFT TAX;
AND, UPON RECEIPT OF HER CHECK, REPAID THE $25,000 BANK LOAN.  THE WIFE
EXECUTED A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT UNDERTAKING TO SHARE PROFITS AND
LOSSES WITH HER HUSBAND.  A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING THE CONDUCT OF THE
BUSINESS AS A PARTNERSHIP WAS OBTAINED FROM THE STATE.  THE WIFE
CONTINUED TO HELP OUT IN THE STORES WHEN SHE WAS NEEDED; BUT PETITIONER
RETAINED FULL CONTROL OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, THE WIFE WAS
NOT PERMITTED TO DRAW CHECKS ON THE BUSINESS BANK ACCOUNT, AND NEITHER
PARTNER WAS PERMITTED TO SELL OR ASSIGN HIS INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP
WITHOUT THE OTHER'S CONSENT.  AT THE CLOSE OF EACH YEAR, THE PROFITS
WERE CREDITED ON THE BOOKS TO PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE EQUALLY; BUT NO
WITHDRAWALS WERE PERMITTED UNLESS BOTH PARTNERS AGREED.  THE HUSBAND
DREW NO SALARY.  DURING THE TAX YEAR INVOLVED, THE NET PROFITS EXCEEDED
$80,000, FROM WHICH RESPONDENT WITHDREW ABOUT $4,500 AND HIS WIFE ONLY
$59.61.  THE FOLLOWING YEAR THEY WITHDREW APPROXIMATELY $16,000 AND
$19,000, RESPECTIVELY, THE WIFE'S WITHDRAWAL BEING USED LARGELY TO PAY
OFF SOME OF THE $5,000 NOTES GIVEN AS PART OF HER CONTRIBUTION TO THE
PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL.  HELD:  THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A
FINDING BY THE TAX COURT THAT THERE WAS NO GENUINE PARTNERSHIP WITHIN
THE MEANING OF 26 U.S.C. SECS. 181, 182; AND A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT
AGAINST PETITIONER FOR EARNINGS REPORTED AS HIS WIFE'S INCOME IS
SUSTAINED, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, ANTE, P.
280.  P. 297. 

LUSTHAUS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE MADE A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT
AGAINST PETITIONER FOR PURPORTED PARTNERSHIP EARNINGS OF A HUSBAND-WIFE
PARTNERSHIP REPORTED IN HIS WIFE'S RETURN AND NOT REPORTED BY
PETITIONER.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER ON THE GROUND
THAT THE WIFE WAS NOT A GENUINE PARTNER.  3 T.C. 540.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 232.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 702.  AFFIRMED, P. 297. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS THE SAME AS IN COMMISSIONER V. TOWER,
ANTE, P. 280.  HERE, TOO, THE COMMISSIONER MADE A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT
AGAINST THE HUSBAND, PETITIONER, FOR PURPORTED PARTNERSHIP EARNINGS
REPORTED IN HIS WIFE'S RETURN FOR 1940 AND NOT REPORTED BY THE
PETITIONER.  THE COMMISSIONER'S ACTION WAS BASED ON A DETERMINATION,
MADE AFTER AN INVESTIGATION, THAT FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES NO
PARTNERSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE.  THE FOLLOWING
ARE THE CONTROLLING FACTS:  PETITIONER HAS OPERATED A FURNITURE
BUSINESS SINCE 1918 AND SINCE 1933 HE HAS CONDUCTED A RETAIL FURNITURE
BUSINESS AT TWO STORES LOCATED IN UNIONTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA.  HIS WIFE
HELPED OUT AT THE STORES WHENEVER SHE WAS NEEDED WITHOUT RECEIVING
COMPENSATION.  IN 1939 THE PETITIONER FOUND HIMSELF CONFRONTED WITH THE
PROSPECT OF LARGE PROFITS AND CORRESPONDINGLY LARGE INCOME TAXES.  THIS
CAUSED HIM CONCERN AND HE CALLED IN HIS ACCOUNTANT AND ATTORNEY. 
TOGETHER THEY WORKED OUT A PLAN FOR THE SUPPOSED HUSBAND-WIFE
PARTNERSHIP HERE INVOLVED.  THE WIFE HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH THE WHOLE
TRANSACTION, AND TESTIFIED WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE DETAILS THAT "ON THE
ADVICE OF COUNSEL I DID WHAT HE TOLD ME TO DO."  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PLAN THE PETITIONER EXECUTED A BILL OF SALE TO HIS WIFE BY WHICH HE
PURPORTED TO SELL HER AN UNDIVIDED HALF INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS FOR
$105,253.81.  AT THE SAME TIME THE WIFE EXECUTED A PARTNERSHIP
AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH SHE UNDERTOOK TO SHARE PROFITS AND LOSSES WITH
HER HUSBAND.  THE WIFE PAID FOR HER UNDIVIDED HALF INTEREST IN THE
FOLLOWING WAY.  PETITIONER BORROWED $25,000 FROM A BANK AND GAVE HIS
WIFE A CHECK FOR $50,000 DRAWN AGAINST THE AMOUNT BORROWED AND FURTHER
FUNDS WHICH HE HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THE BUSINESS AND DEPOSITED WITH THE
BANK FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE WIFE THEN GAVE PETITIONER HER CHECK FOR
$50,253.81 AND THE PETITIONER REPAID THE $25,000 TO THE BANK. 
PETITIONER'S WIFE ALSO GAVE HIM ELEVEN NOTES IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000
EACH, WHICH ACCORDING TO AN UNDERSTANDING WERE TO BE PAID FROM THE
PROFITS TO BE ASCRIBED TO THE WIFE UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. 
FN1  PETITIONER REPORTED IN A 1940 GIFT TAX RETURN THAT HE HAD MADE A
GIFT OF $50,000 TO HIS WIFE.  PENNSYLVANIA ISSUED PETITIONER AND HIS
WIFE A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING THEM TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS AS A
PARTNERSHIP.  WHEN THE PARTNERSHIP WAS FORMED PETITIONER'S WIFE OWNED
HER HOME, VALUED AT TWENTY-FIVE TO THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND
SECURITIES WORTH UP TO TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS. 

AFTER THE PARTNERSHIP WAS FORMED THE WIFE CONTINUED TO HELP OUT IN
THE STORES WHENEVER SHE WAS NEEDED JUST AS SHE HAD ALWAYS DONE.  BUT
PETITIONER RETAINED FULL CONTROL OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS. 
HIS WIFE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO DRAW CHECKS ON THE BUSINESS BANK
ACCOUNT.  DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR HERE INVOLVED THE HUSBAND FILED
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RETURNS AS OWNER OF THE BUSINESS.  NEITHER PARTNER
COULD SELL OR ASSIGN THE INTEREST ASCRIBED BY THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
WITHOUT THE OTHER'S WRITTEN CONSENT.  THOUGH, AT THE CLOSE OF EACH YEAR
THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS WERE CREDITED ON THE BOOKS TO PETITIONER
AND HIS WIFE EQUALLY, NO WITHDRAWALS WERE TO BE MADE UNDER THE
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT UNLESS BOTH PARTNERS AGREED.  THE HUSBAND DREW NO
SALARY.  DURING 1940, WHICH IS THE TAX YEAR HERE INVOLVED, THE BUSINESS
NET PROFITS WERE IN EXCESS OF $80,000, FROM WHICH THE RESPONDENT
WITHDREW ABOUT $4,500 AND HIS WIFE WITHDREW ONLY $59.61.  THE FOLLOWING
YEAR THEY WITHDREW APPROXIMATELY $16,000 AND $19,900 RESPECTIVELY, THE
WIFE'S WITHDRAWAL BEING USED LARGELY TO PAY BACK SOME OF THE $5,000
NOTES GIVEN AS PART OF HER ALLEGED CONTRIBUTION TO THE PARTNERSHIP
CAPITAL.  ON THIS EVIDENCE THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT THE WIFE ACQUIRED
NO SEPARATE INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP BY TURNING BACK TO HER HUSBAND
THE $50,000 WHICH HE HAD GIVEN HER CONDITIONED UPON HER TURNING IT BACK
TO HIM; AND THAT THE PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS WERE MERELY SUPERFICIAL,
AND DID NOT RESULT IN CHANGING THE HUSBAND'S ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE
BUSINESS.  IT CONCLUDED THAT WHILE THE PARTNERSHIP WAS "CLOTHED IN THE
OUTER GARMENT OF LEGAL RESPECTABILITY" ITS EXISTENCE COULD NOT BE
RECOGNIZED FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES.  3 T.C. 540.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 232.  THE PETITIONER CHALLENGES THE TAX
COURT'S FINDING THAT THE WIFE WAS NOT A GENUINE PARTNER ON THE GROUND
THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT IT.  WE HOLD THAT IT DID. 

FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN OUR OPINION IN COMMISSIONER V. TOWER,
ANTE, P. 280, THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
AFFIRMED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TAX COURT FOUND AS FOLLOWS ON THIS PHASE: 

"HE (THE HUSBAND) WOULD MAKE HER A 'GIFT' OF A PART OF THE PURCHASE
PRICE AND TAKE HER PROMISSORY NOTES FOR THE BALANCE.  SHE COULD PAY OFF
THE NOTES FROM HER SHARE OF HER PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS." 

A PART OF THE TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THIS FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THE
HUSBAND AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  AND WHAT WERE THE TERMS OF THAT ORAL AGREEMENT? 

"A.  JUST AS I STATED, THAT SHE (THE WIFE) WOULD PAY ME $50,000 IN
CASH AND THE BALANCE TO BE PAID IN NOTES. 

"Q.  PAYABLE YEARLY? 

"A.  PAYABLE YEARLY IN NOTES. 

"Q.  IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 EACH FOR 11 YEARS? 

"A.  YES. 

"Q. WHERE WAS SHE TO GET THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID OFF YEARLY? 

"A.  FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

AS THE COURT CONSIDERS, AND AS WE DO, THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS
THE SAME AS THAT IN COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, ANTE, P. 280, AND AS THE
COURT RELIES TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION UPON THE REASONS SET OUT IN THE
TOWER OPINION, WE SHALL STATE THE GROUNDS FOR OUR DISSENT IN THIS CASE
RATHER THAN THE TOWER CASE.  WE CHOOSE THIS CERTIORARI FOR OUR
EXPLANATION BECAUSE THE ISSUE STANDS OUT MORE BOLDLY IN THE LIGHT OF
THE FACTS BEFORE AND FINDINGS OF THE TAX COURT. 

A.L. LUSTHAUS, AS AN INDIVIDUAL PROPRIETOR, HAD OPERATED A FURNITURE
BUSINESS IN UNIONTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA, FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.  IN 1939 A
REALIZATION OF EXISTING AND PROSPECTIVE FEDERAL INCOME TAX BURDENS
CAUSED HIM TO CAST ABOUT FOR A LEGAL MEANS OF LESSENING THE TAX.  SUCH
METHOD OF TAX AVOIDANCE HAS NOT HERETOFORE BEEN CONSIDERED ILLEGAL;
AND, APROPOS OF THIS RULE, THIS COURT SAYS TODAY IN THE TOWER OPINION,
"WE DO NOT REJECT THAT PRINCIPLE."  SEE GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S.
465, 469, AND CASES CITED; BULLEN V. WISCONSIN, 240 U.S. 625, 630-31. 

THE STATEMENT IN THE COURT'S OPINION ADEQUATELY COVERS THE FACTS. 
BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE INFERRED FROM THE COURT'S STATEMENT THAT THE NOTES
GIVEN WERE "ACCORDING TO AN UNDERSTANDING  ...  TO BE PAID FROM THE
PROFITS TO BE ASCRIBED TO THE WIFE UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT,"
THAT PAYMENT OF THE NOTES WAS SO LIMITED.  THE NOTES WERE UNCONDITIONAL
PROMISES TO PAY.  THE PAYMENT OF THEM FROM PROFITS WAS ONLY A HOPE. 

IT IS ESSENTIAL, TOO, WE THINK, TO NOTE THAT IN THESE PARTNERSHIP
CASES THE TAX DOCTRINE OF LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111, 115, AS TO THE
ATTRIBUTION OF INCOME FRUIT TO A DIFFERENT TREE FROM THAT ON WHICH IT
GREW IS INAPPLICABLE.  HERE, SO FAR AS THE INCOME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE PROPERTY GIVEN, THE GIFT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A GIFT OF INCOME BEFORE
IT WAS EARNED OR PAYABLE, AS IN LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111; HELVERING
V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112; HELVERING V. EUBANK, 311 U.S. 122, WHERE THE
INCOME WAS HELD TAXABLE TO THE DONOR.  IT WAS A GIFT OF PROPERTY WHICH
THEREAFTER PRODUCED INCOME WHICH WAS TAXABLE TO THE DONEE, AS IN BLAIR
V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5; CF. HELVERING V. HORST, SUPRA, 119. 

FROM FIRST TO LAST, THE RECORD SHOWS A CONTROVERSY AS TO WHETHER THE
BUSINESS IS A VALID PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE TAX LAWS.  THE ISSUE NEVER
HAS BEEN WHETHER MR. LUSTHAUS FAILED TO RETURN HIS PERSONAL EARNINGS
FOR TAXATION.  THERE WAS NO EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSIONER TO
TAX HIM UPON A PART OR ALL OF THE PARTNERSHIP EARNINGS AS PERSONAL
COMPENSATION WHICH HE HAD EARNED INDIVIDUALLY BUT ASSIGNED TO THE
PARTNERSHIP FOR COLLECTION OR WHICH HE HAD EARNED INDIVIDUALLY BUT
CAUSED TO BE PAID TO A FICTITIOUS PARTNERSHIP.  WHILE THE TAX COURT
POINTED OUT THAT THE INCOME RESULTED IN PART FROM PETITIONER'S
MANAGERIAL ABILITY, IT ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED TO
THE EARNINGS.  3 T.C. AT 543.  THE TAX COURT THOUGHT THAT THE WIFE
ACQUIRED "NO SEPARATE INTEREST OF HER OWN BY TURNING BACK TO PETITIONER
THE $50,000" WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN HER CONDITIONALLY AND FOR THAT
SPECIFIC PURPOSE.  WHY IT THOUGHT THE WIFE DID NOT BECOME AN OWNER IN
THE PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS, THE TAX COURT DOES NOT EXPLAIN.  THE COURT'S
OPINION DOES NOT TURN UPON ANY ISSUE WHICH IS CONNECTED WITH THE VALUE
OF MR. LUSTHAUS' SERVICES AND WE MENTION IT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FOCUSING ATTENTION UPON WHAT SEEMS TO US THE COURT'S ERROR.  IF THE
CASE WAS IN THE POSTURE OF A TAX CLAIM AGAINST MR. LUSTHAUS BASED UPON
HIS FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR INCOME ACTUALLY EARNED BY HIM BUT PAID TO
HIS WIFE, AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE WOULD BE PRESENTED. 

SINCE THE QUESTIONS OF TAXABILITY IN THIS CASE TURN ON THE WIFE'S
BONA FIDE OWNERSHIP OF A SHARE IN THE PARTNERSHIP, WE CANNOT SAY THAT
FEDERAL LAW IS CONTROLLING.  EVEN IF IT WERE, WE ARE POINTED TO NO
FEDERAL LAW OF PARTNERSHIP WHICH PRECLUDES THE WIFE'S BECOMING A
PARTNER WITH HER HUSBAND AND MAKING HER CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL FROM
MONEY OR PROPERTY GIVEN TO HER BY HER HUSBAND, AS WELL AS FROM ANY
OTHER SOURCE.  FN1 

THE COURT'S OPINION DOES NOT HOLD THAT INCOME OF HUSBAND AND WIFE
MUST BE TAXED AS ONE.  CONGRESS HAS REFUSED TO DO THIS ALTHOUGH URGED
TO DO SO.  FN2  IT DOES NOT HOLD THAT A WIFE MAY NOT BE A PARTNER OF
HER HUSBAND UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT IS SAID SHE MAY BE "IF SHE
EITHER INVESTS CAPITAL ORIGINATING WITH HER OR SUBSTANTIALLY
CONTRIBUTES TO THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, OR OTHERWISE
PERFORMS VITAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES, OR DOES ALL OF THESE THINGS  ... 26
U.S.C. SECS. 181, 182."  COMMISSIONER V. TOWER, ANTE, P. 290.  BUT AS
WE READ THE COURT'S OPINION, IT DECIDES THAT A WIFE MAY NOT BECOME A
PARTNER OF HER HUSBAND FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, IF THE HUSBAND
GIVES TO HER, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE CAPITAL TO FINANCE HER PART
OF THE PARTNERSHIP INVESTMENT UNLESS SHE ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY
PARTICIPATES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS OR OTHERWISE PERFORMS
VITAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES.  THIS CONCLUSION WE THINK IS ERRONEOUS. 
THERE IS NO PROVISION OR PRINCIPLE OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS WHICH
PREVENTS A HUSBAND FROM MAKING A GIFT OF PROPERTY TO HIS WIFE, EVEN
THOUGH HIS MOTIVE IS TO REDUCE HIS TAXES, OR WHICH REQUIRES THE INCOME
THEREAFTER TO BE TAXED TO THE HUSBAND IF THE GIFT IS GENUINE AND NOT
PRETENDED AND HE HAS RETAINED NO POWER TO DEPRIVE THE WIFE OF THE
PROPERTY OR ITS INCOME. 

WE HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF EARNINGS TO BE ALLOCATED TO
PETITIONER'S MANAGERIAL ABILITIES IS NOT IN ISSUE.  THERE IS NO
QUESTION BUT THAT THE GIFT OF $50,000 WAS COMPLETE, EITHER IN ITSELF OR
JOINED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF A HALF INTEREST IN THE
PARTNERSHIP ASSETS BY PAYMENT OF THAT $50,000 PLUS THE ADDITIONAL CASH
AND NOTES.  ON TERMINATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP, HALF OF THE ASSETS WOULD
GO TO HER.  ON HER DEATH, HER INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP WOULD GO TO
HER HEIRS OR LEGATEES.  THE VALUE OF HER INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY - $45,000
TO $55,000 - WOULD INCREASE THE FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF THE PARTNERSHIP
AS IT WOULD BECOME SUBJECT TO CLAIMS AGAINST THE PARTNERSHIP.  UNIFORM
PARTNERSHIP ACT (PENNA.), TITLE 59, SEC. 37, PURDON'S PENNA.  STAT.;
CF. AITON V. SLATER, 298 MICH. 469, 474, 299 N.W. 149.  HER HUSBAND
PAID HIS FEDERAL GIFT TAX ON THE $50,000.  THE FACT THAT THE
PARTNERSHIP "BROUGHT ABOUT NO REAL CHANGE IN THE ECONOMIC RELATION OF
THE HUSBAND AND HIS WIFE TO THE INCOME IN QUESTION" CANNOT AFFECT
TAXABILITY ANY MORE IN THE PRESENT THAN IN ANY OTHER MARITAL SITUATION
WHERE INDIVIDUAL INCOMES EXIST WITHIN THE INTIMATE FAMILY CIRCLE.  WHEN
A STOCKHOLDER IN A CORPORATION GIVES STOCK TO HIS WIFE, THE FAMILY'S
GROSS INCOME REMAINS THE SAME.  IT IS ONLY SURTAXES WHICH ARE REDUCED. 

CONGRESS TAXES PARTNERSHIP INCOME TO THE PARTNERS DISTRIBUTIVELY. 
FN3  IT HAS DEFINED PARTNERSHIP TO THE EXTENT SHOWN BELOW.  FN4 THE
TERM "PARTNERSHIP" AS USED IN SEC. 182, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, MEANS
ORDINARY PARTNERSHIPS.  BURK-WAGGONER ASSN. V. HOPKINS, 269 U.S. 110,
113.  WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE CONTRIBUTE PROPERTY OR SERVICES TO AN
ENTERPRISE AND AGREE TO SHARE THE PROCEEDS, THEY ARE PARTNERS.  FN5
THE COURT SAYS, TOWER OPINION, ANTE, PP. 286-287, THAT "WHEN THE
EXISTENCE OF AN ALLEGED PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT IS CHALLENGED BY
OUTSIDERS, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE PARTNERS REALLY AND TRULY
INTENDED TO JOIN TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS AND
SHARING IN THE PROFITS OR LOSSES OR BOTH."  THE SUGGESTION SEEMS TO BE
THAT AN INFERENCE OF INTENTION ENTIRELY CONTRARY TO ALL THE PRIMARY
FACTS MAY BE DEDUCED AT WILL AND WITHOUT CHALLENGE BY THE TAX COURT. 
PEOPLE INTEND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTS.  WHEN ALL THE NECESSARY
ELEMENTS OF A VALID PARTNERSHIP EXIST AND NO EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED WHICH
POINTS THE OTHER WAY, AN INTENTION TO BE PARTNERS MUST FOLLOW. 
LINDLEY, PARTNERSHIP (10TH ED.), 44.  THIS SITUATION EXISTS IN THIS AND
THE TOWER CASE.  THE PURPOSE TO REDUCE TAXES ON FAMILY INCOME CERTAINLY
IS NOT EVIDENCE OF INTENTION NOT TO FORM A PARTNERSHIP. 

THE WIVES CONTRIBUTED PROPERTY IF THE GIFTS OF MONEY FOR INVESTMENT
IN THE PARTNERSHIPS WERE VALID.  THE COURT TREATS THE VALIDITY OF THE
GIFT IN THE TOWER OPINION, ANTE, P. 289, AS IMMATERIAL.  IN THIS, THE
LUSTHAUS CASE, THERE IS NO QUESTION MADE BY THE TAX COURT AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE GIFT.  SINCE THE REVENUE CODE RECOGNIZES THE POWER OF A
TAXPAYER TO MAKE GIFTS OF HIS PROPERTY ON PAYMENT OF A GIFT TAX WHERE
DUE, I.R.C., 1000 ET SEQ., SUCH A TRANSFER IS VALID IF REAL AND
COMPLETE.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN EITHER THE TOWER OR THIS CASE THAT
THE FACT CONDITIONS FOR A COMPLETED GIFT WERE NOT SATISFIED OR THAT A
GENUINE GIFT WAS NOT INTENDED, OR THAT THE HUSBAND IN FACT OR IN LAW
RETAINED ANY RIGHT OR POWER TO DEPRIVE THE WIFE OF THE PROPERTY GIVEN
TO HER OR THE INCOME FROM IT.  PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED ABSOLUTELY AND
BEYOND RECALL WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FROM THE HUSBAND TO THE WIFE.  THAT
IS A GIFT AS EFFECTIVE BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE AS BETWEEN STRANGERS. 
FN6  SHE DID NOT HOLD IN TRUST FOR HER HUSBAND. 

THE HUSBAND WAS THE MANAGING PARTNER BUT HAD NO CONTROL OTHERWISE
OVER THE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS ON DISSOLUTION OR OF WITHHOLDING HER
SHARE OF THE EARNINGS WHEN DISTRIBUTED.  BEFORE DISTRIBUTION THEY WERE
HER EARNINGS HELD SUBJECT TO HER RIGHT TO AN ACCOUNTING AND TAXABLE TO
HER UNDER THE REVENUE LAWS.  THIS DISTINGUISHES THE CASE FROM THE SHORT
TERM TRUST OF HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331.  MANAGEMENT OF A
BUSINESS WHICH INVOLVES ONLY THE RISK OF THE CAPITAL OF ANOTHER IS NOT
THE CONTROL TO WHICH THE CLIFFORD CASE REFERS. 

TO US THE EVIDENCE SHOWS, WITHOUT ANY CONTRADICTION, THAT IN
CONSUMMATION OF THE HUSBAND'S GIFT TO THE WIFE A VALID PARTNERSHIP WAS
CREATED TO WHICH THE FEDERAL TAX ACTS ARE APPLICABLE.  THERE IS NO
FINDING AND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS PRETENDED OR A SHAM,
OR THAT THE HUSBAND IN FACT OR IN LAW RETAINED ANY POWER TO DEPRIVE THE
WIFE OF ANY PART OF HER CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAPITAL OR HER SHARE OF
INCOME DERIVED FROM IT.  TWO RIGHT STEPS DO NOT MAKE A WRONG ONE.  FROM
THESE FACTS THE INTENTION TO FORM A PARTNERSHIP MUST BE INFERRED.  UPON
THIS RECORD THE TAX ADVANTAGE TO THE HUSBAND RESULTING FROM HIS GIFT OF
INCOME-PRODUCING PROPERTY IS LAWFUL BECAUSE THE GIFT WAS LAWFUL AND
THEREFORE EFFECTIVE TO BESTOW ON THE WIFE THE INCOME THEREAFTER DERIVED
FROM PROPERTY WHICH WAS HER OWN. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  OF COURSE, FEDERAL TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO STATE LAW. 
UNITED STATES V. PELZER, 312 U.S. 399, 402-3.  AS RIGHTS UNDER
PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS ARE SO ESSENTIALLY LOCAL, CONGRESS BY
SELECTING THE RECEIPT OF INCOME AS THE TAXABLE INCIDENT MAY HAVE
INTENDED TO LEAVE THE DETERMINATION OF ITS CHARACTER AS PARTNERSHIP OR
INDIVIDUAL TO STATE LAW.  "STATE LAW CREATES LEGAL INTERESTS AND
RIGHTS.  THE FEDERAL REVENUE ACTS DESIGNATE WHAT INTERESTS OR RIGHTS,
SO CREATED, SHALL BE TAXED."  MORGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78, 80;
HEINER V. MELLON, 304 U.S. 271, 279.  SEE BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300
U.S. 5, 9; CROOKS V. HARRELSON, 282 U.S. 55; UTERHART V. UNITED STATES,
240 U.S. 598, 603. 

IN LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111, THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT TO
TRANSFER SUMS EARNED WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT TO THE INQUIRY AS TO WHO
EARNED THE COMPENSATION. 

FN2  REVENUE BILL OF 1941, H.R. 5417, AS INTRODUCED, 77TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., SEC. 111; H. REP. NO. 1040, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 10; 87
CONG. REC. 6731-32.  SEE MANDATORY JOINT RETURNS, JOINT COMMITTEE ON
INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION, U.S. GOV. PRINTING OFFICE, 1941.  IT IS AN
OLD PROBLEM.  STATEMENT, SECY.  OF TREAS., TAX AVOIDANCE, 1933, WAYS &
MEANS COMMITTEE. 

FN3  26 U.S.C. SEC. 182.  "TAX OF PARTNERS.  IN COMPUTING THE NET
INCOME OF EACH PARTNER, HE SHALL INCLUDE, WHETHER OR NOT DISTRIBUTION
IS MADE TO HIM - 

"(A)  AS PART OF HIS GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR NOT MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE
OF THE GAINS AND LOSSES OF THE PARTNERSHIP FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR NOT MORE THAN 6 MONTHS. 

"(B)  AS PART OF HIS GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF
THE GAINS AND LOSSES OF THE PARTNERSHIP FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS. 

"(C)  HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE ORDINARY NET INCOME OR THE
ORDINARY NET LOSS OF THE PARTNERSHIP, COMPUTED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION
183(B)." 

FN4  26 U.S.C. SEC. 3797.  "DEFINITIONS.  (A) WHEN USED IN THIS
TITLE, WHERE NOT OTHERWISE DISTINCTLY EXPRESSED OR MANIFESTLY
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE INTENT THEREOF - 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"(2)  PARTNERSHIP AND PARTNER.  THE TERM 'PARTNERSHIP' INCLUDES A
SYNDICATE, GROUP, POOL, JOINT VENTURE, OR OTHER UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATION, THROUGH OR BY MEANS OF WHICH ANY BUSINESS, FINANCIAL
OPERATION, OR VENTURE IS CARRIED ON, AND WHICH IS NOT, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THIS TITLE, A TRUST OR ESTATE OR A CORPORATION; AND THE TERM
'PARTNER' INCLUDES A MEMBER IN SUCH A SYNDICATE, GROUP, POOL, JOINT
VENTURE, OR ORGANIZATION." 

FN5  CAMPBELL V. NORTHWEST ECKINGTON CO., 229 U.S. 561, 580; KARRICK
V. HANNAMAN, 168 U.S. 328, 334; MEEHAN V. VALENTINE, 145 U.S. 611, 618;
BERTHOLD V. GOLDSMITH, 24 HOW.  536, 541; WARD V. THOMPSON, 22 HOW. 
330, 334. 

MICH. STAT. ANNO.  (1937), CHAP. 191, TITLE 20, SEC. 20.6.  "SEC. 
6.  (1)  A PARTNERSHIP IS AN ASSOCIATION OF TWO (2) OR MORE PERSONS TO
CARRY ON AS CO-OWNERS A BUSINESS FOR PROFIT; ..." 

FN6  BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, 286; HELVERING V. NEW YORK
TRUST CO., 292 U.S. 455, 462; BOGARDUS V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 34,
MAJORITY'S AND MINORITY'S DEFINITION; SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY, 318 U.S.
176; HELVERING V. AMERICAN DENTAL CO., 318 U.S. 322, 330. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :











DUNCAN V. KAHANAMOKU, 327 U.S. 304 


ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 146 F.2D 576,
REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 67 OF THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT, 31 STAT. 141, 153,
AUTHORIZING THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNOR, IN CASE OF REBELLION OR INVASION,
OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF, WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT, TO
SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR "PLACE THE
TERRITORY  ... UNDER MARTIAL LAW," DID NOT GIVE THE ARMED FORCES,
DURING A PERIOD OF MARTIAL LAW, POWER TO SUPPLANT ALL CIVILIAN LAWS AND
TO SUBSTITUTE MILITARY FOR JUDICIAL TRIALS OF CIVILIANS NOT CHARGED
WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR, IN TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES
NOT RECENTLY REGAINED FROM AN ENEMY, AT A TIME WHEN THE DANGERS
APPREHENDED BY THE MILITARY ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE THEM TO REQUIRE
CIVILIANS TO EVACUATE THE AREA AND IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE COURTS TO FUNCTION.  PP. 313, 324. 

(A)  ALTHOUGH PART OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 67 OF THE ORGANIC ACT IS
IDENTICAL WITH A PART OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OF
HAWAII, CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO ADOPT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF HAWAII IN IN RE KALANIANAOLE, 10 HAWAII 29, SUSTAINING
MILITARY TRIALS OF CIVILIANS IN HAWAII WITHOUT ADEQUATE COURT REVIEW
DURING PERIODS OF INSURRECTION.  P. 316. 

(B)  WHEN THE ORGANIC ACT IS READ AS A WHOLE AND IN THE LIGHT OF ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT CIVILIANS
IN HAWAII SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, INCLUDING
THE GUARANTEE OF A FAIR TRIAL, TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOSE WHO LIVE IN
ANY OTHER PART OF OUR COUNTRY.  PP. 316-319. 

(C)  OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS THE ANTITHESIS OF TOTAL MILITARY
RULE AND ITS FOUNDERS ARE NOT LIKELY TO HAVE CONTEMPLATED COMPLETE
MILITARY DOMINANCE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A TERRITORY MADE A PART OF THIS
COUNTRY AND NOT RECENTLY TAKEN FROM AN ENEMY.  P. 322. 

(D)  WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE ORGANIC ACT AND AUTHORIZED THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF "MARTIAL LAW" IT HAD IN MIND, AND DID NOT WISH TO
EXCEED, THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MILITARY AND CIVILIAN POWER, IN WHICH
OUR PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED, WHICH RESPONSIBLE MILITARY AND
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS HAD HEEDED, AND WHICH HAD BECOME PART OF OUR
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND INSTITUTIONS.  PP. 319-324. 

(E)  THE PHRASE "MARTIAL LAW," AS EMPLOYED IN THAT ACT, WHILE
INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE MILITARY TO ACT VIGOROUSLY FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF AN ORDERLY CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE
ISLANDS AGAINST ACTUAL OR THREATENED REBELLION OR INVASION, WAS NOT
INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE SUPPLANTING OF COURTS BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS. 
PP. 319-324. 

2.  PETITIONERS, TWO CIVILIANS WHO WERE UNLAWFULLY TRIED, CONVICTED
AND IMPRISONED BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS IN HAWAII DURING A PERIOD OF
MARTIAL LAW WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS HAD BEEN
SUSPENDED, ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR FREEDOM ON WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS - AT
LEAST AFTER THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT HAD BEEN RESTORED.  PP. 312, N.
5, 324. 

DUNCAN V. KAHANAMOKU, SHERIFF. 

NO. 14.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 15, WHITE V. STEER, PROVOST MARSHAL, ON CERTIORARI
TO THE SAME COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON THE SAME DATES. 

NO. 14.  PETITIONER, A CIVILIAN SHIPFITTER EMPLOYED IN THE NAVY YARD
AT HONOLULU, WAS ARRESTED BY MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND TRIED AND
SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT BY A MILITARY TRIBUNAL FOR ASSAULTING TWO
MARINE SENTRIES ON DUTY AT THE NAVY YARD IN VIOLATION OF A MILITARY
ORDER MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR.  AT THAT
TIME, SCHOOLS, BARS AND MOTION PICTURE THEATRES HAD BEEN REOPENED AND
THE COURTS HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE THEIR NORMAL FUNCTIONS, WITH
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, ONE BEING THAT ONLY MILITARY TRIBUNALS WERE
PERMITTED TO TRY CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF MILITARY
ORDERS. 

NO. 15.  PETITIONER, A CIVILIAN STOCKBROKER IN HONOLULU HAVING NO
CONNECTION WITH THE ARMED FORCES, WAS ARRESTED BY MILITARY POLICE MORE
THAN EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR ON A CHARGE OF
EMBEZZLING STOCK BELONGING TO ANOTHER CIVILIAN IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS
OF HAWAII.  HE WAS TRIED, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT BY A
MILITARY TRIBUNAL AT A TIME WHEN THE COURTS WERE OPEN AND FUNCTIONING
TO A LIMITED EXTENT "AS AGENTS OF THE MILITARY GOVERNOR." 

BOTH PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS,
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THEIR TRIALS AND CONVICTIONS BY MILITARY
TRIBUNALS UNDER A STATE OF "MARTIAL LAW" WHICH HAD BEEN DECLARED ON THE
DAY OF THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR.  AFTER SEPARATE TRIALS, THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND THAT THE COURTS HAD ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO FUNCTION, BUT FOR
MILITARY ORDERS CLOSING THEM, AND THAT THERE WAS NO MILITARY NECESSITY
FOR THE TRIAL OF PETITIONERS BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS RATHER THAN BY
REGULAR COURTS.  IT HELD THE TRIALS VOID AND ORDERED THE RELEASE OF
PETITIONERS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  146 F.2D 476. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  324 U.S. 833.  REVERSED, P. 324. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS IN THESE CASES WERE SENTENCED TO PRISON BY MILITARY
TRIBUNALS IN HAWAII.  BOTH ARE CIVILIANS.  THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS
WHETHER THE MILITARY TRIBUNALS HAD POWER TO DO THIS.  THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR HAWAII IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS HELD THAT THE
MILITARY TRIBUNALS HAD NO SUCH POWER AND ORDERED THAT THEY BE SET
FREE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, AND ORDERED THAT THE
PETITIONERS BE RETURNED TO PRISON.  146 F.2D 576.  BOTH CASES THUS
INVOLVE THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS CHARGED WITH CRIME AND NOT CONNECTED
WITH THE ARMED FORCES TO HAVE THEIR GUILT OR INNOCENCE DETERMINED IN
COURTS OF LAW WHICH PROVIDE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS, RATHER
THAN BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS WHICH FAIL TO AFFORD MANY OF THESE
SAFEGUARDS.  SINCE THESE JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS ARE PRIZED PRIVILEGES OF
OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE FOLLOWING EVENTS LED TO THE MILITARY TRIBUNALS' EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITIONERS.  ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING THE SURPRISE AIR ATTACK BY THE JAPANESE ON PEARL HARBOR, THE
GOVERNOR OF HAWAII BY PROCLAMATION UNDERTOOK TO SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE
OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO PLACE THE TERRITORY UNDER "MARTIAL
LAW."  SECTION 67 OF THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT, 31 STAT. 141, 153,  FN1
AUTHORIZES THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNOR TO TAKE THIS ACTION "IN CASE OF
REBELLION OR INVASION, OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF, WHEN THE PUBLIC
SAFETY REQUIRES IT ..."  HIS ACTION WAS TO REMAIN IN EFFECT ONLY "UNTIL
COMMUNICATION CAN BE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HIS DECISION THEREON
MADE KNOWN."  THE PRESIDENT APPROVED THE GOVERNOR'S ACTION ON DECEMBER
9TH.  FN2  THE GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION ALSO AUTHORIZED AND REQUESTED
THE COMMANDING GENERAL, "DURING THE  ... EMERGENCY AND UNTIL DANGER OF
INVASION IS REMOVED, TO EXERCISE ALL THE POWERS NORMALLY EXERCISE" BY
THE GOVERNOR AND BY THE "JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THIS
TERRITORY." 

PURSUANT TO THIS AUTHORIZATION THE COMMANDING GENERAL IMMEDIATELY
PROCLAIMED HIMSELF MILITARY GOVERNOR AND UNDERTOOK THE DEFENSE OF THE
TERRITORY AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER.  ON DECEMBER 8TH, BOTH CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL COURTS WERE FORBIDDEN TO SUMMON JURORS AND WITNESSES AND
TO TRY CASES.  THE COMMANDING GENERAL ESTABLISHED MILITARY TRIBUNALS TO
TAKE THE PLACE OF THE COURTS.  THESE WERE TO TRY CIVILIANS CHARGED WITH
VIOLATING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE TERRITORY, AND
RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS OR POLICIES OF THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT. 
RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE OF COURTS OF LAW WERE NOT TO CONTROL
THE MILITARY TRIALS.  IN IMPOSING PENALTIES THE MILITARY TRIBUNALS WERE
TO BE "GUIDED BY, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE PENALTIES AUTHORIZED BY THE
COURTS MARTIAL MANUAL, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND THE CUSTOMS OF WAR IN LIKE
CASES."  THE RULE ANNOUNCED WAS SIMPLY THAT PUNISHMENT WAS TO BE
"COMMENSURATE WITH THE OFFENSE COMMITTED" AND THAT THE DEATH PENALTY
MIGHT BE IMPOSED "IN APPROPRIATE CASES."  THUS THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES
TOOK OVER THE GOVERNMENT OF HAWAII.  THEY COULD AND DID, BY SIMPLY
PROMULGATING ORDERS, GOVERN THE DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES OF CIVILIANS WHO
LIVED, WORKED, OR WERE MERELY PASSING THROUGH THERE.  THE MILITARY
TRIBUNALS INTERPRETED THE VERY ORDERS PROMULGATED BY THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES AND PROCEEDED TO PUNISH VIOLATORS.  THE SENTENCES IMPOSED
WERE NOT SUBJECT TO DIRECT APPELLATE COURT REVIEW, SINCE IT HAD LONG
BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT MILITARY TRIBUNALS ARE NOT PART OF OUR JUDICIAL
SYSTEM.  EX PARTE VALLANDIGHAM, 1 WALL.  243.  THE MILITARY UNDOUBTEDLY
ASSUMED THAT ITS RULE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY JUDICIAL CONTROL WHATEVER,
FOR BY ORDERS ISSUED ON AUGUST 25, 1943, IT PROHIBITED EVEN ACCEPTING
OF A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A JUDGE OR JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE
OR THE FILING OF SUCH A PETITION BY A PRISONER OR HIS ATTORNEY. 
MILITARY TRIBUNALS COULD PUNISH VIOLATORS OF THESE ORDERS BY FINE,
IMPRISONMENT OR DEATH. 

WHITE, THE PETITIONER IN NO. 15, WAS A STOCKBROKER IN HONOLULU. 
NEITHER HE NOR HIS BUSINESS WAS CONNECTED WITH THE ARMED FORCES.  ON
AUGUST 20, 1942, MORE THAN EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK,
THE MILITARY POLICE ARRESTED HIM.  THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM WAS
EMBEZZLING STOCK BELONGING TO ANOTHER CIVILIAN IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER
183 OF THE REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII.  THOUGH BY THE TIME OF WHITE'S
ARREST THE COURTS WERE PERMITTED "AS AGENTS OF THE MILITARY GOVERNOR"
TO DISPOSE OF SOME NON-JURY CIVIL CASES, THEY WERE STILL FORBIDDEN TO
SUMMON JURORS AND TO EXERCISE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.  ON AUGUST 22ND,
WHITE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A MILITARY TRIBUNAL DESIGNATED AS A "PROVOST
COURT."  THE "COURT" ORALLY INFORMED HIM OF THE CHARGE.  HE OBJECTED TO
THE TRIBUNAL'S JURISDICTION BUT THE OBJECTION WAS OVERRULED.  HE
DEMANDED TO BE TRIED BY A JURY.  THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED.  HIS ATTORNEY
ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO PREPARE THE CASE.  THIS WAS REFUSED.  ON
AUGUST 25TH HE WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED.  THE TRIBUNAL SENTENCED HIM TO
FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT.  LATER THE SENTENCE WAS REDUCED TO FOUR
YEARS. 

DUNCAN, THE PETITIONER IN NO. 14, WAS A CIVILIAN SHIPFITTER EMPLOYED
IN THE NAVY YARD AT HONOLULU.  ON FEBRUARY 24, 1944, MORE THAN TWO
YEARS AND TWO MONTHS AFTER THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK, HE ENGAGED IN A
BRAWL WITH TWO ARMED MARINE SENTRIES AT THE YARD.  HE WAS ARRESTED BY
THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES.  BY THE TIME OF HIS ARREST THE MILITARY HAD
TO SOME EXTENT EASED THE STRINGENCY OF MILITARY RULE.  SCHOOLS, BARS
AND MOTION PICTURE THEATRES HAD BEEN REOPENED.  COURTS HAD BEEN
AUTHORIZED TO "EXERCISE THEIR NORMAL JURISDICTION."  THEY WERE ONCE
MORE SUMMONING JURORS AND WITNESSES AND CONDUCTING CRIMINAL TRIALS. 
THERE WERE IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS, HOWEVER.  ONE OF THESE WAS THAT ONLY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS WERE TO TRY "CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF
MILITARY ORDERS."  FN3  AS THE RECORD SHOWS, THESE MILITARY ORDERS
STILL COVERED A WIDE RANGE OF DAY TO DAY CIVILIAN CONDUCT.  DUNCAN WAS
CHARGED WITH VIOLATING ONE OF THESE ORDERS, PARAGRAPH 8.01, TITLE 8, OF
GENERAL ORDER NO. 2, WHICH PROHIBITED ASSAULT ON MILITARY OR NAVAL
PERSONNEL WITH INTENT TO RESIST OR HINDER THEM IN THE DISCHARGE OF
THEIR DUTY.  HE WAS, THEREFORE, TRIED BY A MILITARY TRIBUNAL RATHER
THAN THE TERRITORIAL COURT, ALTHOUGH THE GENERAL LAWS OF HAWAII MADE
ASSAULT A CRIME.  REVISED L.H. 1935, CH. 166.  A CONVICTION FOLLOWED
AND DUNCAN WAS SENTENCED TO SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 

BOTH WHITE AND DUNCAN CHALLENGED THE POWER OF THE MILITARY TRIBUNALS
TO TRY THEM BY PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR HAWAII ON MARCH 14 AND APRIL 14, 1944,
RESPECTIVELY.  THEIR PETITIONS URGED BOTH STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS.  THE COURT ISSUED ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE.  RETURNS TO THESE
ORDERS CONTENDED THAT HAWAII HAD BECOME PART OF AN ACTIVE THEATRE OF
WAR CONSTANTLY THREATENED BY INVASION FROM WITHOUT; THAT THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS HAD THEREFORE PROPERLY BEEN SUSPENDED AND MARTIAL LAW HAD
VALIDLY BEEN ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ORGANIC ACT; THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WRIT; AND THAT THE TRIALS OF PETITIONERS BY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS PURSUANT TO ORDERS BY THE MILITARY GOVERNOR ISSUED
BECAUSE OF MILITARY NECESSITY WERE VALID.  EACH PETITIONER FILED A
TRAVERSE TO THE RETURNS, WHICH TRAVERSE CHALLENGED AMONG OTHER THINGS
THE SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MARTIAL LAW AND
THE VALIDITY OF THE MILITARY GOVERNOR'S ORDERS, ASSERTING THAT SUCH
ACTION COULD NOT BE TAKEN EXCEPT WHEN REQUIRED BY MILITARY NECESSITY
DUE TO ACTUAL OR THREATENED INVASION, WHICH EVEN IF IT DID EXIST ON
DECEMBER 7, 1941, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE PETITIONERS WERE TRIED; AND
THAT, WHATEVER THE NECESSITY FOR MARTIAL LAW, THERE WAS NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR TRYING THEM IN MILITARY TRIBUNALS RATHER THAN THE
REGULAR COURTS OF LAW.  THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER SEPARATE TRIALS,
FOUND IN EACH CASE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE COURTS HAD ALWAYS BEEN
ABLE TO FUNCTION BUT FOR THE MILITARY ORDERS CLOSING THEM, AND THAT
CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS NO MILITARY NECESSITY FOR THE TRIAL OF
PETITIONERS BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS RATHER THAN REGULAR COURTS.  FN4  IT
ACCORDINGLY HELD THE TRIALS VOID AND ORDERED THE RELEASE OF THE
PETITIONERS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ASSUMING WITHOUT DECIDING THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITIONS, HELD THE
MILITARY TRIALS VALID AND REVERSED THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
146 F.2D 576.  IT HELD THAT THE MILITARY ORDERS PROVIDING FOR MILITARY
TRIALS WERE FULLY AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 67 OF THE ORGANIC ACT AND THE
GOVERNOR'S ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER IT.  THE COURT RELIED ON THAT PART OF
THE SECTION WHICH, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, AUTHORIZES THE GOVERNOR WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT TO PROCLAIM "MARTIAL LAW" WHENEVER THE
PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT THOUGHT THAT THE TERM
"MARTIAL LAW" AS USED IN THE ACT DENOTES AMONG OTHER THINGS THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A "TOTAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT" COMPLETELY DISPLACING OR
SUBORDINATING THE REGULAR COURTS, THAT THE DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE AS
TO WHAT THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES MUST BE SUSTAINED SO LONG AS THAT
DECISION IS BASED ON REASONABLE GROUNDS AND THAT SUCH REASONABLE
GROUNDS DID EXIST. 

IN PRESENTING ITS ARGUMENT BEFORE THIS COURT THE GOVERNMENT FOR
REASONS SET OUT IN THE MARGIN FN5  ABANDONS ITS CONTENTION AS TO THE
SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ADVANCES THE ARGUMENT
EMPLOYED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR SUSTAINING THE TRIALS AND CONVICTIONS
OF THE PETITIONERS BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT
"MARTIAL LAW" AS PROVIDED FOR BY SEC. 67 DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE MILITARY
TO TRY AND PUNISH CIVILIANS SUCH AS PETITIONERS AND URGE FURTHER THAT
IF SUCH AUTHORITY SHOULD BE INFERRED FROM THE ORGANIC ACT, IT WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  WE NEED DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ONLY IF
WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT CONGRESS DID AUTHORIZE WHAT WAS DONE
HERE. 

DID THE ORGANIC ACT DURING THE PERIOD OF MARTIAL LAW GIVE THE ARMED
FORCES POWER TO SUPPLANT ALL CIVILIAN LAWS AND TO SUBSTITUTE MILITARY
FOR JUDICIAL TRIALS UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED IN HAWAII AT THE
TIME THESE PETITIONERS WERE TRIED?  THE RELEVANT CONDITIONS, FOR OUR
PURPOSES, WERE THE SAME WHEN BOTH PETITIONERS WERE TRIED.  THE ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION DEPENDS ON A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT.  BUT WE
NEED NOT CONSTRUE THE ACT, INSOFAR AS THE POWER OF THE MILITARY MIGHT
BE USED TO MEET OTHER AND DIFFERENT CONDITIONS AND SITUATIONS.  THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE SITUATION WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH WE DO INTERPRET THE
SCOPE OF THE ACT CAN BE MORE SHARPLY DEFINED BY STATING AT THIS POINT
SOME DIFFERENT CONDITIONS WHICH EITHER WOULD OR MIGHT CONCEIVABLY HAVE
AFFECTED TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORIZED
MILITARY POWER.  WE NOTE FIRST THAT AT THE TIME THE ALLEGED OFFENSES
WERE COMMITTED THE DANGERS APPREHENDED BY THE MILITARY WERE NOT
SUFFICIENTLY IMMINENT TO CAUSE THEM TO REQUIRE CIVILIANS TO EVACUATE
THE AREA OR EVEN TO EVACUATE ANY OF THE BUILDINGS NECESSARY TO CARRY ON
THE BUSINESS OF THE COURTS.  IN FACT, THE BUILDINGS HAD LONG BEEN OPEN
AND ACTUALLY IN USE FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF TRIALS.  OUR QUESTION DOES NOT
INVOLVE THE WELL-ESTABLISHED POWER OF THE MILITARY TO EXERCISE
JURISDICTION OVER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES,  FN6  THOSE DIRECTLY
CONNECTED WITH SUCH FORCES,  FN7  OR ENEMY BELLIGERENTS, PRISONERS OF
WAR, OR OTHERS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE LAWS OF WAR.  FN8  WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE RECOGNIZED POWER OF THE MILITARY TO TRY CIVILIANS IN
TRIBUNALS ESTABLISHED AS A PART OF A TEMPORARY MILITARY GOVERNMENT OVER
OCCUPIED ENEMY TERRITORY OR TERRITORY REGAINED FROM AN ENEMY WHERE
CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT CANNOT AND DOES NOT FUNCTION.  FN9  FOR HAWAII
SINCE ANNEXATION HAS BEEN HELD BY AND LOYAL TO THE UNITED STATES.  NOR
NEED WE HERE CONSIDER THE POWER OF THE MILITARY SIMPLY TO ARREST AND
DETAIN CIVILIANS INTERFERING WITH A NECESSARY MILITARY FUNCTION AT A
TIME OF TURBULENCE AND DANGER FROM INSURRECTION OR WAR.  FN10  AND
FINALLY, THERE WAS NO SPECIALIZED EFFORT OF THE MILITARY, HERE, TO
ENFORCE ORDERS WHICH RELATED ONLY TO MILITARY FUNCTIONS, SUCH AS, FOR
ILLUSTRATION, CURFEW RULES OR BLACKOUTS.  FOR THESE PETITIONERS WERE
TRIED BEFORE TRIBUNALS SET UP UNDER A MILITARY PROGRAM WHICH TOOK OVER
ALL GOVERNMENT AND SUPERSEDED ALL CIVIL LAWS AND COURTS.  IF THE
ORGANIC ACT, PROPERLY INTERPRETED, DID NOT GIVE THE ARMED FORCES THIS
AWESOME POWER, BOTH PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR FREEDOM. 

    I. 

IN INTERPRETING THE ACT WE MUST FIRST LOOK TO ITS LANGUAGE.  SECTION
67 MAKES IT PLAIN THAT CONGRESS DID INTEND THE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII, WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, TO INVOKE MILITARY AID UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES.  BUT CONGRESS DID NOT SPECIFICALLY STATE TO WHAT EXTENT
THE ARMY COULD BE USED OR WHAT POWER IT COULD EXERCISE.  IT CERTAINLY
DID NOT EXPLICITLY DECLARE THAT THE GOVERNOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
MILITARY COULD FOR DAYS, MONTHS OR YEARS CLOSE ALL THE COURTS AND
SUPPLANT THEM WITH MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  CF. COLEMAN V. TENNESSEE, 97
U.S. 509, 514.  IF A POWER THUS TO OBLITERATE THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF
HAWAII CAN BE FOUND AT ALL IN THE ORGANIC ACT, IT MUST BE INFERRED FROM
SEC. 67'S PROVISION FOR PLACING THE TERRITORY UNDER "MARTIAL LAW."  BUT
THE TERM "MARTIAL LAW" CARRIES NO PRECISE MEANING.  THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT REFER TO "MARTIAL LAW" AT ALL AND NO ACT OF CONGRESS HAS
DEFINED THE TERM.  IT HAS BEEN EMPLOYED IN VARIOUS WAYS BY DIFFERENT
PEOPLE AND AT DIFFERENT TIMES.  BY SOME IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS
"MILITARY LAW" LIMITED TO MEMBERS OF, AND THOSE CONNECTED WITH, THE
ARMED FORCES.  OTHERS HAVE SAID THAT THE TERM DOES NOT IMPLY A SYSTEM
OF ESTABLISHED RULES BUT DENOTES SIMPLY SOME KIND OF DAY TO DAY
EXPRESSION OF A GENERAL'S WILL DICTATED BY WHAT HE CONSIDERS THE
IMPERIOUS NECESSITY OF THE MOMENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. DIEKELMAN, 92
U.S. 520, 526.  IN 1857 THE CONFUSION AS TO THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE
WAS SO GREAT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AN OFFICIAL OPINION HAD THIS
TO SAY ABOUT IT:  "THE COMMON LAW AUTHORITIES AND COMMENTATORS AFFORD
NO CLUE TO WHAT MARTIAL LAW, AS UNDERSTOOD IN ENGLAND, REALLY IS  ...
IN THIS COUNTRY IT IS STILL WORSE."  8 OP. ATTY. GEN. 365, 367, 368. 
WHAT WAS TRUE IN 1857 REMAINS TRUE TODAY.  FN11  THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.
67 THUS FAILS TO DEFINE ADEQUATELY THE SCOPE OF THE POWER GIVEN TO THE
MILITARY AND TO SHOW WHETHER THE ORGANIC ACT PROVIDES THAT COURTS OF
LAW BE SUPPLANTED BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS. 

            II. 

SINCE THE ACT'S LANGUAGE DOES NOT PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY ANSWER, WE
LOOK TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FOR POSSIBLE FURTHER AID IN
INTERPRETING THE TERM "MARTIAL LAW" AS USED IN THE STATUTE.  THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO GIVE THE ARMED FORCES EXTRAORDINARILY BROAD POWERS TO TRY
CIVILIANS BEFORE MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  ITS ARGUMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:  THAT
PORTION OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 67 WHICH PRESCRIBES THE PREREQUISITES
TO DECLARING MARTIAL LAW IS IDENTICAL WITH A PART OF THE LANGUAGE OF
THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OF HAWAII.  BEFORE CONGRESS ENACTED THE
ORGANIC ACT THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII HAD CONSTRUED THAT LANGUAGE AS
GIVING THE HAWAIIAN PRESIDENT POWER TO AUTHORIZE MILITARY TRIBUNALS TO
TRY CIVILIANS CHARGED WITH CRIME WHENEVER THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRED
IT.  IN RE KALANIANAOLE, 10 HAWAII 29.  WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE
ORGANIC ACT IT SIMPLY ENACTED THE APPLICABLE LANGUAGE OF THE HAWAIIAN
CONSTITUTION AND WITH IT THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT LANGUAGE BY THE
HAWAIIAN SUPREME COURT. 

IN DISPOSING OF THIS ARGUMENT WE WISH TO POINT OUT AT THE OUTSET THAT
EVEN HAD CONGRESS INTENDED THE DECISION IN THE KALANIANAOLE CASE TO
BECOME PART OF THE ORGANIC ACT, THAT CASE DID NOT GO SO FAR AS TO
AUTHORIZE MILITARY TRIALS OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THESE REASONS.  THERE
THE DEFENDANTS WERE INSURRECTIONISTS TAKING PART IN THE VERY UPRISING
WHICH THE MILITARY WERE TO SUPPRESS, WHILE HERE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO
CONNECTION WITH ANY ORGANIZED RESISTANCE TO THE ARMED FORCES OR THE
ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE SHOULD TAKE THE
KALANIANAOLE CASE TO AUTHORIZE THE COMPLETE SUPPLANTING OF COURTS BY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS, WE ARE CERTAIN THAT CONGRESS DID NOT WISH TO MAKE
THAT CASE PART OF THE ORGANIC ACT.  FOR THAT CASE DID NOT MERELY UPHOLD
MILITARY TRIALS OF CIVILIANS BUT ALSO HELD THAT COURTS WERE TO
INTERFERE ONLY WHEN THERE WAS AN OBVIOUS ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHICH
RESULTED IN CRUEL AND INHUMAN PRACTICES OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
MILITARY RULE FOR THE PERSONAL GAIN OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE ARMED
FORCES.  BUT COURTS WERE NOT TO REVIEW WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION,
NO MATTER HOW UNJUSTIFIABLE, WAS NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY.  AS
WE SHALL INDICATE LATER, MILITARY TRIALS OF CIVILIANS CHARGED WITH
CRIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN NOT MADE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, ARE SO
OBVIOUSLY CONTRARY TO OUR POLITICAL TRADITIONS AND OUR INSTITUTION OF
JURY TRIALS IN COURTS OF LAW, THAT THE TENUOUS CIRCUMSTANCE OFFERED BY
THE GOVERNMENT CAN HARDLY SUFFICE TO PERSUADE US THAT CONGRESS WAS
WILLING TO ENACT A HAWAIIAN SUPREME COURT DECISION PERMITTING SUCH A
RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM OUR STEADFAST BELIEFS.  FN12 

PARTLY IN ORDER TO MEET THIS OBJECTION THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER
CONTENDS THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE KALANIANAOLE CASE, NOT ONLY
AUTHORIZED MILITARY TRIALS OF CIVILIANS IN HAWAII, BUT ALSO COULD AND
INTENDED TO PROVIDE THAT "MARTIAL LAW" IN HAWAII SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED
BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR BY ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL
PRACTICE.  BUT WHEN THE ORGANIC ACT IS READ AS A WHOLE AND IN THE LIGHT
OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND THE CONSTITUTION TO HAVE A LIMITED APPLICATION TO HAWAII.  ALONG
WITH SEC. 67 CONGRESS ENACTED SEC. 5 OF THE ORGANIC ACT WHICH PROVIDES
"THAT THE CONSTITUTION  ...  SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT
WITHIN THE SAID TERRITORY AS ELSEWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES  ..."  31
STAT. 141.  EVEN WHEN HAWAII WAS FIRST ANNEXED CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED
THAT THE TERRITORY'S EXISTING LAWS SHOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT UNLESS
CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION.  30 STAT. 750.  AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
REPORT IN EXPLAINING SEC. 5 OF THE ORGANIC ACT STATED:  "PROBABLY THE
SAME RESULT WOULD OBTAIN WITHOUT THIS PROVISION UNDER SECTION 1891,
CHAPTER 1, TITLE XXIII, OF THE REVISED STATUTES, BUT TO PREVENT
POSSIBLE QUESTION, THE SECTION IS INSERTED IN THE BILL."  FN13
CONGRESS THUS EXPRESSED A STRONG DESIRE TO APPLY THE CONSTITUTION
WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT CIVILIANS IN HAWAII ARE ENTITLED TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF A FAIR TRIAL TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOSE
WHO LIVE IN ANY OTHER PART OF OUR COUNTRY.  WE ARE AWARE THAT
CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO HAWAII MIGHT IMPERATIVELY DEMAND EXTRAORDINARILY
SPEEDY AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES IN THE EVENT OF ACTUAL OR THREATENED
INVASION.  BUT THIS ALSO HOLDS TRUE FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES IN HAWAII, HOWEVER NECESSARY, ARE NOT
SUPPORTABLE ON THE MISTAKEN PREMISE THAT HAWAIIAN INHABITANTS ARE LESS
ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION THAN OTHERS.  FOR HERE CONGRESS
DID NOT IN THE ORGANIC ACT EXERCISE WHATEVER POWER IT MIGHT HAVE HAD TO
LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  CF. HAWAII V. MANKICHI, 190
U.S. 197.  THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII ARE THEREFORE ENTITLED TO
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THE INHABITANTS OF THE
48 STATES.  AND CONGRESS DID NOT ENACT THE HAWAIIAN SUPREME COURT'S
DECISION IN THE KALANIANAOLE CASE AND THUS AUTHORIZE THE MILITARY
TRIALS OF PETITIONERS.  WHATEVER POWER THE ORGANIC ACT GAVE THE
HAWAIIAN MILITARY AUTHORITIES, SUCH POWER MUST THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED
IN THE SAME WAY AS A GRANT OF POWER TO TROOPS STATIONED IN ANY ONE OF
THE STATES. 

                                 III. 

SINCE BOTH THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORGANIC ACT AND ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY FAIL TO INDICATE THAT THE SCOPE OF "MARTIAL LAW" IN HAWAII
INCLUDES THE SUPPLANTING OF COURTS BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS, WE MUST LOOK
TO OTHER SOURCES IN ORDER TO INTERPRET THAT TERM.  WE THINK THE ANSWER
MAY BE FOUND IN THE BIRTH, DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL
INSTITUTIONS UP TO THE TIME CONGRESS PASSED THE ORGANIC ACT.  HAVE THE
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES DEVELOPED DURING THE BIRTH AND GROWTH OF OUR
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS BEEN SUCH AS TO PERSUADE US THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT LOYAL CIVILIANS IN LOYAL TERRITORY SHOULD HAVE THEIR
DAILY CONDUCT GOVERNED BY MILITARY ORDERS SUBSTITUTED FOR CRIMINAL
LAWS, AND THAT SUCH CIVILIANS SHOULD BE TRIED AND PUNISHED BY MILITARY
TRIBUNALS?  LET US EXAMINE WHAT THOSE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES HAVE
BEEN, WITH RESPECT TO THE POSITION OF CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE
COURTS AND COMPARE THAT WITH THE STANDING OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS
THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY. 

PEOPLE OF MANY AGES AND COUNTRIES HAVE FEARED AND UNFLINCHINGLY
OPPOSED THE KIND OF SUBORDINATION OF EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE AND
JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES TO COMPLETE MILITARY RULE WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE
GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED HERE.  IN THIS COUNTRY THAT FEAR
HAS BECOME PART OF OUR CULTURAL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS.  THE STORY
OF THAT DEVELOPMENT IS WELL KNOWN AND WE SEE NO NEED TO RETELL IT ALL. 
BUT WE MIGHT MENTION A FEW PERTINENT INCIDENTS.  AS EARLY AS THE 17TH
CENTURY OUR BRITISH ANCESTORS TOOK POLITICAL ACTION AGAINST AGGRESSIVE
MILITARY RULE.  WHEN JAMES I AND CHARLES I AUTHORIZED MARTIAL LAW FOR
PURPOSES OF SPEEDILY PUNISHING ALL TYPES OF CRIMES COMMITTED BY
CIVILIANS THE PROTEST LED TO THE HISTORIC PETITION OF RIGHT  FN14
WHICH IN UNCOMPROMISING TERMS OBJECTED TO THIS ARBITRARY PROCEDURE AND
PRAYED THAT IT BE STOPPED AND NEVER REPEATED.  FN15  WHEN LATER THE
AMERICAN COLONIES DECLARED THEIR INDEPENDENCE ONE OF THE GRIEVANCES
LISTED BY JEFFERSON WAS THAT THE KING HAD ENDEAVORED TO RENDER THE
MILITARY SUPERIOR TO THE CIVIL POWER.  THE EXECUTIVE AND MILITARY
OFFICIALS WHO LATER FOUND IT NECESSARY TO UTILIZE THE ARMED FORCES TO
KEEP ORDER IN A YOUNG AND TURBULENT NATION, DID NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE
PHILOSOPHY EMBODIED IN THE PETITION OF RIGHT AND THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE, THAT EXISTING CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT AND ESPECIALLY THE
COURTS WERE NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE EXERCISE OF MILITARY
POWER.  IN 1787, THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTION WAS FORMULATED, THE
GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS COLONY USED THE MILITIA TO COPE WITH SHAY'S
REBELLION.  IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE COMMANDER OF THE TROOPS THE
GOVERNOR LISTED THE "GREAT OBJECTS" OF THE MISSION.  THE TROOPS WERE TO
"PROTECT THE JUDICIAL COURTS  ...," "TO ASSIST THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES IN
EXECUTING THE LAWS  ...," AND TO "AID THEM IN APPREHENDING THE
DISTURBERS OF THE PUBLIC PEACE  ..."  THE COMMANDER WAS TO CONSIDER
HIMSELF "CONSTANTLY AS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CIVIL OFFICER, SAVING
WHERE ANY ARMED FORCE SHALL APPEAR AND OPPOSE  ...  (HIS) MARCHING TO
EXECUTE THESE ORDERS."  FN16  PRESIDENT WASHINGTON'S INSTRUCTIONS TO
THE COMMANDER OF THE TROOPS SENT INTO PENNSYLVANIA TO SUPPRESS THE
WHISKEY REBELLION OF 1794 WERE TO THE SAME EFFECT.  THE TROOPS WERE TO
SEE TO IT THAT THE LAWS WERE ENFORCED AND WERE TO DELIVER THE LEADERS
OF ARMED INSURGENTS TO THE REGULAR COURTS FOR TRIAL.  THE PRESIDENT
ADMONISHED THE COMMANDING GENERAL "THAT THE JUDGE CAN NOT BE CONTROLLED
IN HIS FUNCTIONS  ..."  FN17  IN THE MANY INSTANCES OF THE USE OF
TROOPS TO CONTROL THE ACTIVITIES OF CIVILIANS THAT FOLLOWED, THE TROOPS
WERE GENERALLY AGAIN EMPLOYED MERELY TO AID AND NOT TO SUPPLANT THE
CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES.  FN18  THE LAST NOTEWORTHY INCIDENT BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE ORGANIC ACT WAS THE RIOTING THAT OCCURRED IN THE
SPRING OF 1899 AT THE COEUR D'ALENE MINES OF SHOSHONE COUNTY, IDAHO. 
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED THE REGULAR TROOPS TO REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR FOR
INSTRUCTIONS AND TO SUPPORT THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES IN PRESERVING THE
PEACE.  LATER THE STATE AUDITOR AS AGENT OF THE GOVERNOR, AND NOT THE
COMMANDING GENERAL, ORDERED THE TROOPS TO DETAIN CITIZENS WITHOUT TRIAL
AND TO AID THE AUDITOR IN DOING ALL HE THOUGHT NECESSARY TO STOP THE
RIOT.  FN19  ONCE MORE, THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO
SUPPLANT THE COURTS AND TO ESTABLISH MILITARY TRIBUNALS TO TRY AND
PUNISH ORDINARY CIVILIAN OFFENDERS.  FN20 

COURTS AND THEIR PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS ARE INDISPENSABLE TO OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  THEY WERE SET UP BY OUR FOUNDERS TO PROTECT THE
LIBERTIES THEY VALUED.  EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, 19.  OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT CLEARLY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF TOTAL MILITARY RULE AND THE
FOUNDERS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT LIKELY TO HAVE CONTEMPLATED COMPLETE
MILITARY DOMINANCE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A TERRITORY MADE PART OF THIS
COUNTRY AND NOT RECENTLY TAKEN FROM AN ENEMY.  THEY WERE OPPOSED TO
GOVERNMENTS THAT PLACED IN THE HANDS OF ONE MAN THE POWER TO MAKE,
INTERPRET AND ENFORCE THE LAWS.  THEIR PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN THE PEOPLE'S
THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY.  FOR THAT REASON WE HAVE MAINTAINED
LEGISLATURES CHOSEN BY CITIZENS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND COURTS AND
JURIES TO TRY THOSE WHO VIOLATE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS.  WE HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL EVILS OF SUMMARY CRIMINAL
TRIALS AND HAVE GUARDED AGAINST THEM BY PROVISIONS EMBODIED IN THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF.  SEE EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2; CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227.  LEGISLATURES AND COURTS ARE NOT MERELY
CHERISHED AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS; THEY ARE INDISPENSABLE TO OUR
GOVERNMENT.    MILITARY TRIBUNALS HAVE NO SUCH STANDING.  FOR AS THIS
COURT HAS SAID BEFORE:  "...  THE MILITARY SHOULD ALWAYS BE KEPT IN
SUBJECTION TO THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY TO WHICH IT BELONGS, AND THAT HE
IS NO FRIEND TO THE REPUBLIC WHO ADVOCATES THE CONTRARY.  THE
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF EVERY FREE PEOPLE IS, THAT THE LAW SHALL ALONE
GOVERN; AND TO IT THE MILITARY MUST ALWAYS YIELD."  DOW V. JOHNSON, 100
U.S. 158, 169.  CONGRESS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE
ORGANIC ACT HAD ONLY ONCE AUTHORIZED THE SUPPLANTING OF THE COURTS BY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  LEGISLATION TO THAT EFFECT WAS ENACTED IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE SOUTH'S UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO SECEDE FROM THE UNION. 
INSOFAR AS THAT LEGISLATION APPLIED TO THE SOUTHERN STATES AFTER THE
WAR WAS AT AN END IT WAS CHALLENGED BY A SERIES OF PRESIDENTIAL VETOES
AS VIGOROUS AS ANY IN THE COUNTRY'S HISTORY.  FN21 AND IN ORDER TO
PREVENT THIS COURT FROM PASSING ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS
LEGISLATION CONGRESS FOUND IT NECESSARY TO CURTAIL OUR APPELLATE
JURISDICTION.  FN22  INDEED, PRIOR TO THE ORGANIC ACT, THE ONLY TIME
THIS COURT HAD EVER DISCUSSED THE SUPPLANTING OF COURTS BY MILITARY
TRIBUNALS IN A SITUATION OTHER THAN THAT INVOLVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A MILITARY GOVERNMENT OVER RECENTLY OCCUPIED ENEMY TERRITORY, IT HAD
EMPHATICALLY DECLARED THAT "CIVIL LIBERTY AND THIS KIND OF MARTIAL LAW
CANNOT ENDURE TOGETHER; THE ANTAGONISM IS IRRECONCILABLE; AND, IN THE
CONFLICT, ONE OR THE OTHER MUST PERISH."  EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL. 
2, 124-125. 

WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT AND
AUTHORIZED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF "MARTIAL LAW" IT HAD IN MIND AND DID
NOT WISH TO EXCEED THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MILITARY AND CIVILIAN POWER,
IN WHICH OUR PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED, WHICH RESPONSIBLE MILITARY
AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS HAD HEEDED, AND WHICH HAD BECOME PART OF OUR
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND INSTITUTIONS PRIOR TO THE TIME CONGRESS PASSED
THE ORGANIC ACT.  THE PHRASE "MARTIAL LAW" AS EMPLOYED IN THAT ACT,
THEREFORE, WHILE INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE MILITARY TO ACT VIGOROUSLY
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ORDERLY CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND FOR THE DEFENSE
OF THE ISLANDS AGAINST ACTUAL OR THREATENED REBELLION OR INVASION, WAS
NOT INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE SUPPLANTING OF COURTS BY MILITARY
TRIBUNALS.  YET THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO JUSTIFY THE PUNISHMENT OF BOTH
WHITE AND DUNCAN ON THE GROUND OF SUCH SUPPOSED CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORIZATION.  WE HOLD THAT BOTH PETITIONERS ARE NOW ENTITLED TO BE
RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "THAT THE GOVERNOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAITHFUL
EXECUTION OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII WITHIN THE SAID TERRITORY, AND WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY HE
MAY CALL UPON THE COMMANDERS OF THE MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES IN THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, OR SUMMON THE POSSE
COMITATUS, OR CALL OUT THE MILITIA OF THE TERRITORY TO PREVENT OR
SUPPRESS LAWLESS VIOLENCE, INVASION, INSURRECTION, OR REBELLION IN SAID
TERRITORY, AND HE MAY, IN CASE OF REBELLION OR INVASION, OR IMMINENT
DANGER THEREOF, WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT, SUSPEND THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, OR PLACE THE TERRITORY, OR ANY
PART THEREOF, UNDER MARTIAL LAW UNTIL COMMUNICATION CAN BE HAD WITH THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS DECISION THEREON MADE KNOWN." 

FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD MUCH EVIDENCE AND FROM IT FOUND AS
FOLLOWS ON THIS SUBJECT:  "BY RADIO THE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII ON DECEMBER
7, 1941, NOTIFIED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SIMPLY THAT HE HAD
PLACED THE TERRITORY UNDER MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENDED THE WRIT.  THE
PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL WAS REQUESTED AND IT WAS GRANTED BY RADIO ON
DECEMBER 8, 1941.  NOT UNTIL 1943 WAS THE TEXT OF THE GOVERNOR'S
DECEMBER 7 PROCLAMATION FURNISHED WASHINGTON OFFICIALS, AND IT IS STILL
DOUBTFUL IF IT HAS YET BEEN SEEN BY THE PRESIDENT." 

FN3  IN ADDITION, SEC. 3 OF A PROCLAMATION OF FEBRUARY 8, 1943, WHICH
RETURNED SOME POWER TO THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES, HAD RESERVED A RIGHT IN
THE MILITARY GOVERNOR TO RESUME ANY OR ALL OF THE POWERS RETURNED TO
THE CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT.  IN APPROVING THIS PROCLAMATION THE PRESIDENT
HAD EXPRESSED HIS CONFIDENCE THAT THE MILITARY WOULD "REFRAIN FROM
EXERCISING  ...  AUTHORITY OVER ...  NORMALLY CIVIL FUNCTIONS" AND HIS
HOPE THAT THERE WOULD "BE A FURTHER RESTORATION OF CIVIL AUTHORITY AS
AND WHEN THE SITUATION PERMITS." 

FN4  WE DO NOT SET OUT THE OTHER GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE SINCE UNDER THE
VIEW WE TAKE WE DO NOT REACH THEM. 

FN5  THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT SINCE THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT
WAS RESTORED AND MARTIAL LAW TERMINATED BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION ON
OCTOBER 24, 1944, PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR LIBERTY IF THE
MILITARY TRIBUNALS WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO TRY THEM.  WE THEREFORE
DO NOT PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE OF
HABEAS CORPUS OR THE POWER OF THE MILITARY TO DETAIN PERSONS UNDER
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS. 

FN6  WILKES V. DINSMAN, 7 HOW.  89; EX PARTE REED, 100 U.S. 13;
MARTIN V. MOTT, 12 WHEAT.  19; IN RE GRIMLEY, 137 U.S. 147; JOHNSON V.
SAYRE, 158 U.S. 109; CARTER V. MCCLAUGHRY, 183 U.S. 365. 

FN7  EX PARTE GERLACH, 247 F. 616; EX PARTE FALLS, 251 F. 415; EX
PARTE JOCHEN, 257 F. 200; HINES V. MIKELL, 259 F. 28.  SEE CASES AND
STATUTES COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IN UNDERHILL, INFRA, NOTE 11, 12 CAL.
L. REV. 81-98. 

FN8  EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1; IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1.  SEE
10 U.S.C. SECS. 1553, 1554.  SEE ALSO CASES AND STATUTES COLLECTED AND
DISCUSSED IN UNDERHILL, INFRA, NOTE 11, 12 CAL. L. REV. 81-98. 

FN9  CROSS V. HARRISON, 16 HOW.  164; LEITENSDORFER V. WEBB, 20 HOW. 
176; THE PRIZE CASES, 2 BLACK 635; MRS. ALEXANDER'S COTTON, 2 WALL. 
404; FORD V. SURGET, 97 U.S. 594, 604; NEW ORLEANS V. STEAMSHIP CO., 20
WALL.  387, 393; DOW V. JOHNSON, 100 U.S. 158, 166; THE GRAPESHOT, 9
WALL.  129; MECHANICS' & TRADERS' BANK V. UNION BANK, 22 WALL.  276. 
NOR IS THIS A CASE WHERE VIOLATORS OF MILITARY ORDERS ARE TO BE TRIED
BY REGULAR COURTS.  CF. HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81. 

FN10  MOYER V. PEABODY, 212 U.S. 78; EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2,
125, 126; LUTHER V. BORDEN, 7 HOW.  1, 45, 46; SEE STERLING V.
CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 400; FAIRMAN, THE LAW OF MARTIAL RULE,
CHICAGO 1943, 209-218. 

FN11  FOR DISCUSSIONS OF THE GREAT CONTRAST OF VIEWS SEE THE
FOLLOWING WRITINGS:  FAIRMAN, SUPRA, CH. II; WIENER, A PRACTICAL MANUAL
OF MARTIAL LAW, HARRISBURG 1940, CH. 1; MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL
POWER, FORT LEAVENWORTH 1925, PP. 230-232; UNDERHILL, JURISDICTION OF
MILITARY TRIBUNALS IN THE UNITED STATES OVER CIVILIANS (1924) 12 CAL.
L. REV. 75, 163-178; BALLENTINE, QUALIFIED MARTIAL LAW (1915) 14 MICH.
L. REV. 102, 203, 204; MAX RADIN, MARTIAL LAW AND THE STATE OF SIEGE
(1942) 30 CAL. L. REV. 634. 

FN12  WE POINT OUT IN THIS CONNECTION THAT BY SEC. 83 OF THE ORGANIC
ACT CONGRESS PROVIDED HOW JURIES SHOULD BE CONSTITUTED AND PROVIDED FOR
THE DRAWING OF GRAND JURIES AND FOR UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICTS IN CRIMINAL
CASES.  31 STAT. 141, 157. 

FN13  GOVERNMENT FOR THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, H. REP. NO. 305, 56TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 10.  IN THE HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVE KNOX, THE
REPUBLICAN LEADER FOR THE BILL, STATED:  "THIS BILL, IN SO MANY WORDS,
EXTENDS THE CONSTITUTION TO HAWAII; SO THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN
PRACTICALLY A MOMENT OF TIME SINCE THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS WERE ANNEXED TO
THE UNITED STATES THAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT BEEN THE STANDARD BY
WHICH ALL THE LAWS OF THAT COUNTRY MUST BE MEASURED  ...  THE DECISIONS
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE EQUALLY OPERATIVE IN
HAWAII AS IN ANY PORTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS TO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT WHICH HE POSSESSES."  33 CONG. REC. 3704, 3709(1900).  SEE THE
FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
CONSTITUTION TO UNITED STATES TERRITORIES.  HAWAII V. MANKICHI, 190
U.S. 197; RASSMUSSEN V. UNITED STATES, 197 U.S. 516; FARRINGTON V.
TOKUSHIGE, 273 U.S. 284.  SEE ALSO FRANK, EX PARTE MILLIGAN V. THE FIVE
COMPANIES:  MARTIAL LAW IN HAWAII (1944) 44 COL. L. REV. 639, 658-660. 

FN14  3 CHAS. I, C. 1. 

FN15  HALLAM, CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, (2D ED.)  VOL.  I, C. VII, PP.
531, 532, 533.  SEE ALSO DISCUSSIONS IN DISSENT IN LUTHER V. BORDEN,  7
HOW.  1, 48, 63; IN RE MCDONALD, 49 MONT. 454, 468, 143 P. 947. 

FN16  FEDERAL AID IN DOMESTIC DISTURBANCES, SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 263,
67TH CONG., 2D SESS., 10. 

FN17  ID. PP. 31, 32.  SEE ALSO ON THE SAME SUBJECT THE DISSENT IN
LUTHER V. BORDEN, SUPRA, 7 HOW.  AT 77-81. 

FN18  THIS APPEARS FROM THE FACTS RELATED THROUGHOUT SENATE DOCUMENT
NO. 263, 67TH CONG., 2D SESS., SUPRA. 

AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORGANIC ACT DISTURBANCES IN THE COAL FIELDS
OF WEST VIRGINIA, A LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE IN GALVESTON AND A PACKERS'
STRIKE IN NEBRASKA CITY, ALL LED TO CRIMINAL TRIALS OF CIVILIANS BY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS WHICH WERE UPHELD BY DECISIONS OF STATE AND LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS.  STATE EX REL. MAYS V. BROWN, 71 W. VA. 519, 77 S.E.
243; EX PARTE JONES, 71 W. VA. 567, 77 S.E. 1029; UNITED STATES EX REL.
MCMASTER V. WOLTERS, 268 F. 69; UNITED STATES EX REL. SEYMOUR V.
FISCHER, 280 F. 208.  BUT CF. IN RE MCDONALD, 49 MONT. 454.  ALL THESE
CASES RESTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOVERNOR'S DETERMINATION OF THE
EXISTENCE OF INSURRECTION CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT ALL THE
GOVERNOR HAD DONE WAS LEGAL.  THE BASIS OF THESE DECISIONS WAS
DEFINITELY HELD ERRONEOUS IN STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378,
WHERE THIS COURT SAID: "WHAT ARE THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS OF MILITARY
DISCRETION, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN OVERSTEPPED IN A
PARTICULAR CASE, ARE JUDICIAL QUESTIONS."  287 U.S. AT 401.  AS ONE
COMMENTATOR PUTS IT, THIS COURT "HAS KNOCKED OUT THE PROP" ON WHICH
THESE AFOREMENTIONED CASES RESTED.  WIENER, A PRACTICAL MANUAL OF
MARTIAL LAW, 1940, P. 116. 

FN19  SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 263, 67TH CONG., 2D SESS., 190 FF., 210
FF. 

FN20  EVEN AS LATE AS 1937 WHEN THE WAR DEPARTMENT PROMULGATED
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS IN AID OF CIVIL
AUTHORITIES, IT WAS AWARE OF THIS TRADITION.  A.R. 500-50, P7E STATED:
"...  PERSONS NOT NORMALLY SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW, TAKEN INTO CUSTODY
BY THE MILITARY FORCES INCIDENT TO THE USE OF TROOPS CONTEMPLATED BY
THESE REGULATIONS, SHOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES. 
PUNISHMENT IN SUCH CASES BELONGS TO THE COURTS OF JUSTICE AND NOT TO
THE ARMED FORCES."  BUT CF. AR. 500-50, P8(1945). 

FN21  IN ONE OF THESE VETOES PRESIDENT JOHNSON SAID:  "THE TRIALS
HAVING THEIR ORIGIN UNDER THIS BILL ARE TO TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE
INTERVENTION OF A JURY AND WITHOUT ANY FIXED RULES OF LAW OR EVIDENCE. 
THE RULES ON WHICH OFFENSES ARE TO BE 'HEARD AND DETERMINED' BY THE
NUMEROUS AGENTS ARE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT,
THROUGH THE WAR DEPARTMENT, SHALL PRESCRIBE.  NO PREVIOUS PRESENTMENT
IS REQUIRED NOR ANY INDICTMENT CHARGING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME
AGAINST THE LAWS; BUT THE TRIAL MUST PROCEED ON CHARGES AND
SPECIFICATIONS.  THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE, NOT WHAT THE LAW DECLARES, BUT
SUCH AS A COURT-MARTIAL MAY THINK PROPER; AND FROM THESE ARBITRARY
TRIBUNALS THERE LIES NO APPEAL, NO WRIT OF ERROR TO ANY OF THE COURTS
IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES VESTS EXCLUSIVELY THE
JUDICIAL POWER OF THE COUNTRY."  MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS,
RICHARDSON, VOL. VI, 399.  IN ANOTHER HE SAID:  "IT IS PLAIN THAT THE
AUTHORITY HERE GIVEN TO THE MILITARY OFFICER AMOUNTS TO ABSOLUTE
DESPOTISM.  BUT TO MAKE IT STILL MORE UNENDURABLE, THE BILL PROVIDES
THAT IT MAY BE DELEGATED TO AS MANY SUBORDINATES AS HE CHOOSES TO
APPOINT, FOR IT DECLARES THAT HE SHALL 'PUNISH OR CAUSE TO BE
PUNISHED.'  SUCH A POWER HAS NOT BEEN WIELDED BY ANY MONARCH IN ENGLAND
FOR MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED YEARS....  THIS BROAD PRINCIPLE LIMITS ALL
OUR FUNCTIONS AND APPLIES TO ALL SUBJECTS.  IT PROTECTS NOT ONLY THE
CITIZENS OF STATES WHICH ARE WITHIN THE UNION, BUT IT SHIELDS EVERY
HUMAN BEING WHO COMES OR IS BROUGHT UNDER OUR JURISDICTION.  WE HAVE NO
RIGHT TO DO IN ONE PLACE MORE THAN IN ANOTHER THAT WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION SAYS WE SHALL NOT DO AT ALL."  ID., PP. 502-503. 

FN22  EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 6 WALL.  318.  SEE ALSO WARREN, THE SUPREME
COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY, VOL. 2, 464, 484. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. 

THE COURT'S OPINION, IN WHICH I JOIN, MAKES CLEAR THAT THE MILITARY
TRIALS IN THESE CASES WERE UNJUSTIFIED BY THE MARTIAL LAW PROVISIONS OF
THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT.  EQUALLY OBVIOUS, AS I SEE IT, IS THE FACT
THAT THESE TRIALS WERE FORBIDDEN BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH APPLIES IN BOTH SPIRIT AND
LETTER TO HAWAII.  INDEED, THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE USURPATION OF
CIVIL POWER BY THE MILITARY IS SO GREAT IN THIS INSTANCE AS TO WARRANT
THIS COURT'S COMPLETE AND OUTRIGHT REPUDIATION OF THE ACTION. 

ABHORRENCE OF MILITARY RULE IS INGRAINED IN OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 
THOSE WHO FOUNDED THIS NATION KNEW FULL WELL THAT THE ARBITRARY POWER
OF CONVICTION AND PUNISHMENT FOR PRETENDED OFFENSES IS THE HALLMARK OF
DESPOTISM.  SEE THE FEDERALIST, NO. 83.  HISTORY HAD DEMONSTRATED THAT
FACT TO THEM TIME AND AGAIN.  THEY SHED THEIR BLOOD TO WIN INDEPENDENCE
FROM A RULER WHO THEY ALLEGED WAS ATTEMPTING TO RENDER THE "MILITARY
INDEPENDENT OF AND SUPERIOR TO THE CIVIL POWER" AND WHO WAS "DEPRIVING
US  ...  OF THE BENEFITS OF TRIAL BY JURY."  IN THE EARLIEST STATE
CONSTITUTIONS THEY INSERTED DEFINITE PROVISIONS PLACING THE MILITARY
UNDER "STRICT SUBORDINATION" TO THE CIVIL POWER AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL
CASES.  AND IN FRAMING THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
THEY WERE CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT THE POWER TO PUNISH WOULD REST
PRIMARILY WITH THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES AT ALL TIMES.  THEY BELIEVED THAT
A TRIAL BY AN ESTABLISHED COURT, WITH AN IMPARTIAL JURY, WAS THE ONLY
CERTAIN WAY TO PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL AGAINST OPPRESSION.  THE BILL OF
RIGHTS TRANSLATED THAT BELIEF INTO REALITY BY GUARANTEEING THE
OBSERVANCE OF JURY TRIALS AND OTHER BASIC PROCEDURAL RIGHTS FOREIGN TO
MILITARY PROCEEDINGS.  THIS SUPREMACY OF THE CIVIL OVER THE MILITARY IS
ONE OF OUR GREAT HERITAGES.  IT HAS MADE POSSIBLE THE ATTAINMENT OF A
HIGH DEGREE OF LIBERTY REGULATED BY LAW RATHER THAN BY CAPRICE.  OUR
DUTY IS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THAT HERITAGE AT ALL TIMES, THAT IT MAY BE
HANDED DOWN UNTARNISHED TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. 

SUCH CONSIDERATIONS LED THIS COURT IN EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2,
TO LAY DOWN THE RULE THAT THE MILITARY LACKS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL POWER
IN WAR OR IN PEACE TO SUBSTITUTE ITS TRIBUNALS FOR CIVIL COURTS THAT
ARE OPEN AND OPERATING IN THE PROPER AND UNOBSTRUCTED EXERCISE OF THEIR
JURISDICTION.  ONLY WHEN A FOREIGN INVASION OR CIVIL WAR ACTUALLY
CLOSES THE COURTS AND RENDERS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO ADMINISTER
CRIMINAL JUSTICE CAN MARTIAL LAW VALIDLY BE INVOKED TO SUSPEND THEIR
FUNCTIONS.  EVEN THE SUSPENSION OF POWER UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS IS OF A
MOST TEMPORARY CHARACTER.  "AS NECESSITY CREATES THE RULE, SO IT LIMITS
ITS DURATION; FOR, IF THIS GOVERNMENT IS CONTINUED AFTER THE COURTS ARE
REINSTATED, IT IS A GROSS USURPATION OF POWER."  ID., 127. 

TESTED BY THE MILLIGAN RULE, THE MILITARY PROCEEDINGS IN ISSUE
PLAINLY LACKED CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION.  PETITIONER WHITE WAS ARRESTED
FOR EMBEZZLEMENT ON AUGUST 20, 1942, BY THE PROVOST MARSHAL.  TWO DAYS
LATER HE WAS ORALLY INFORMED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM.  VARIOUS
MOTIONS, INCLUDING A REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL AND FOR TIME TO PREPARE A
DEFENSE, WERE OVERRULED.  ON AUGUST 25 HE WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED
TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.  PETITIONER DUNCAN WAS ACCORDED SIMILAR
STREAMLINED TREATMENT BY THE MILITARY.  ON FEBRUARY 24, 1944, HE
ENGAGED IN A FIGHT WITH TWO ARMED SENTRIES AT THE NAVY YARD AT
HONOLULU.  HE WAS PROMPTLY TRIED WITHOUT A JURY IN THE PROVOST COURT ON
MARCH 2 AND SENTENCED TO SIX MONTHS AT HARD LABOR, DESPITE HIS PLEA OF
SELF-DEFENSE.  BOTH THE PETITIONERS WERE CIVILIANS ENTITLED TO THE FULL
PROTECTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL. 

IT IS UNDENIED THAT THE TERRITORIAL COURTS OF HAWAII WERE OPEN AND
FUNCTIONING DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE FOREGOING EVENTS TOOK PLACE. 
MARTIAL LAW WAS PROCLAIMED ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR; PROVOST COURTS AND MILITARY COMMISSIONS WERE
IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED FOR THE TRIAL OF CIVILIANS ACCUSED OF CRIME. 
GENERAL ORDERS NO. 4.  ON THE NEXT DAY, DECEMBER 8, THE TERRITORIAL
COURTS WERE CLOSED BY MILITARY ORDER.  THEREAFTER CRIMINAL CASES OF ALL
DESCRIPTION, WHETHER INVOLVING OFFENSES AGAINST FEDERAL OR TERRITORIAL
LAW OR VIOLATIONS OF MILITARY ORDERS, WERE HANDLED IN THE PROVOST
COURTS AND MILITARY COMMISSIONS.  EIGHT DAYS LATER, HOWEVER, THE
MILITARY PERMITTED THE REOPENING OF THE COURTS FOR THE TRIAL OF LIMITED
CLASSES OF CASES NOT REQUIRING JURIES OR THE SUBPOENAING OF WITNESSES. 
GENERAL ORDERS NO. 29.  ON JANUARY 27, 1942, FURTHER POWER WAS RESTORED
TO THE COURTS BY DESIGNATING THEM "AS AGENTS OF THE MILITARY GOVERNOR"
TO DISPOSE OF CIVIL CASES EXCEPT THOSE INVOLVING JURY TRIALS, HABEAS
CORPUS AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATTERS AND TO EXERCISE CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION IN LIMITED TYPES OF ALREADY PENDING CASES.  GENERAL ORDERS
NO. 57.  PROTESTS LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL ORDERS NO. 133 ON
AUGUST 31, 1942, EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS TO COVER
CERTAIN TYPES OF JURY TRIALS.  BUT GENERAL ORDERS NO. 135, ISSUED ON
SEPTEMBER 4, 1942, CONTINUED MILITARY JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES
DIRECTED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR RELATED TO THE WAR EFFORT. 
PROCLAMATIONS ON FEBRUARY 8, 1943, PROVIDED THAT THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURTS WAS TO BE REESTABLISHED IN FULL EXCEPT IN CASES OF CRIMINAL
AND CIVIL SUITS AGAINST PERSONS IN THE ARMED FORCES AND EXCEPT FOR
"CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF MILITARY ORDERS."  THESE
PROCLAMATIONS BECAME EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 10, TOGETHER WITH A REVISED
CODE OF MILITARY ORDERS.  MARTIAL LAW WAS FINALLY LIFTED FROM HAWAII ON
OCTOBER 24, 1944. 

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT WHEN PETITIONERS WHITE AND DUNCAN
WERE SUBJECTED TO MILITARY TRIALS ON AUGUST 25, 1942, AND MARCH 2,
1944, RESPECTIVELY, THE TERRITORIAL COURTS OF HAWAII WERE PERFECTLY
CAPABLE OF EXERCISING THEIR NORMAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION HAD THE
MILITARY ALLOWED THEM TO DO SO.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF HAWAII STATED THAT AFTER THE MONTH OF APRIL, 1942, HE KNEW OF "NO
SOUND REASON FOR DENIAL OF TRIAL BY JURY TO CIVILIANS CHARGED WITH
CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE TERRITORY."  THE GOVERNOR OF THE
TERRITORY ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE TRIAL OF CIVILIANS BEFORE MILITARY
COURTS FOR OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE TERRITORY WAS UNNECESSARY
AND UNJUSTIFIED BY THE CONDITIONS IN THE TERRITORY WHEN PETITIONER
WHITE WAS CHARGED WITH EMBEZZLEMENT IN AUGUST, 1942.  IN SHORT, THE
BILL OF RIGHTS DISAPPEARED BY MILITARY FIAT RATHER THAN BY MILITARY
NECESSITY. 

MOREOVER, THERE IS NO QUESTION HERE AS TO THE LOYALTY OF THE HAWAIIAN
JUDICIARY OR AS TO THE DESIRE AND ABILITY OF THE JUDGES TO COOPERATE
FULLY WITH MILITARY REQUIREMENTS.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF DISORDER IN
THE COMMUNITY WHICH MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THE COURTS FROM CONDUCTING
JURY TRIALS.  AS WAS SAID IN THE MILLIGAN CASE, P. 127, "IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE SAFETY OF THE COUNTRY REQUIRED MARTIAL LAW IN
INDIANA (HAWAII).  IF ANY OF HER CITIZENS WERE PLOTTING TREASON, THE
POWER OF ARREST COULD SECURE THEM, UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT WAS PREPARED
FOR THEIR TRIAL, WHEN THE COURTS WERE OPEN AND READY TO TRY THEM.  IT
WAS AS EASY TO PROTECT WITNESSES BEFORE A CIVIL AS A MILITARY TRIBUNAL;
AND AS THERE COULD BE NO WISH TO CONVICT, EXCEPT ON SUFFICIENT LEGAL
EVIDENCE, SURELY AN ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED COURT WAS BETTER ABLE TO
JUDGE OF THIS THAN A MILITARY TRIBUNAL COMPOSED OF GENTLEMEN NOT
TRAINED TO THE PROFESSION OF THE LAW."  THUS, SINCE THE COURTS WERE
OPEN AND ABLE TO FUNCTION, THE MILITARY TRIALS OF THE PETITIONERS WERE
IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  WHETHER, IF THE COURTS HAD BEEN
CLOSED BY NECESSITY, THE MILITARY COULD HAVE TRIED THE PETITIONERS OR
MERELY COULD HAVE HELD THEM UNTIL THE COURTS REOPENED IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE ABSENT FROM THESE CASES. 

THE SO-CALLED "OPEN COURT" RULE OF THE MILLIGAN CASE, TO BE SURE, HAS
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF SEVERE CRITICISM, ESPECIALLY BY MILITARY
COMMENTATORS.  THAT CRITICISM IS REPEATED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THESE
CASES.  IT IS SAID THAT THE FACT THAT COURTS ARE OPEN IS BUT ONE OF
MANY FACTORS RELEVANT TO DETERMINING THE NECESSITY AND HENCE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MILITARY TRIALS OF CIVILIANS.  THE ARGUMENT IS
MADE THAT HOWEVER ADEQUATE THE "OPEN COURT" RULE MAY HAVE BEEN IN 1628
OR 1864 IT IS DISTINCTLY UNSUITED TO MODERN WARFARE CONDITIONS WHERE
ALL OF THE TERRITORIES OF A WARRING NATION MAY BE IN COMBAT ZONES OR
IMMINENTLY THREATENED WITH LONG-RANGE ATTACK EVEN WHILE CIVIL COURTS
ARE OPERATING.  HENCE IF A MILITARY COMMANDER, ON THE BASIS OF HIS
CONCEPTION OF MILITARY NECESSITY, REQUIRES ALL CIVILIANS ACCUSED OF
CRIME TO BE TRIED SUMMARILY BEFORE MARTIAL LAW TRIBUNALS, THE BILL OF
RIGHTS MUST BOW HUMBLY TO HIS JUDGMENT DESPITE THE UNQUESTIONED ABILITY
OF THE CIVIL COURTS TO EXERCISE THEIR CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. 

THE ARGUMENT THUS ADVANCED IS AS UNTENABLE TODAY AS IT WAS WHEN CAST
IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PLANTAGENETS, THE TUDORS AND THE STUARTS.  IT IS
A RANK APPEAL TO ABANDON THE FATE OF ALL OUR LIBERTIES TO THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THOSE WHO ARE TRAINED PRIMARILY FOR
WAR.  IT SEEKS TO JUSTIFY MILITARY USURPATION OF CIVILIAN AUTHORITY TO
PUNISH CRIME WITHOUT REGARD TO THE POTENCY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  IT
DESERVES REPUDIATION. 

THE UNTENABLE BASIS OF THIS PROPOSED REVERSION BACK TO UNLIMITED
MILITARY RULE IS REVEALED BY THE REASONS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE MILITARY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY, EVEN
THOUGH THE CIVIL COURTS WERE OPEN AND FULLY ABLE TO PERFORM THEIR
FUNCTIONS, TO IMPOSE MILITARY TRIALS ON ALL PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIME IN
HAWAII AT THE TIME WHEN THE PETITIONERS WERE TRIED AND CONVICTED: 

FIRST.  ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF ADMIRAL NIMITZ AND GENERAL
RICHARDSON, HAWAII WAS IN THE ACTUAL THEATRE OF WAR FROM DECEMBER 7,
1941, THROUGH THE PERIOD IN QUESTION.  THEY STATED THAT THERE WAS AT
ALL TIMES A DANGER OF INVASION, AT LEAST IN THE NATURE OF COMMANDO
RAIDS OR SUBMARINE ATTACKS, AND THAT PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRED THE
IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
DISPUTE ANY OF SUCH TESTIMONY.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE THREAT TO HAWAII
WAS A REAL ONE; WE MAY ALSO TAKE IT FOR GRANTED THAT THE GENERAL
DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW WAS JUSTIFIED.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM
THESE ASSUMPTIONS THAT THE MILITARY WAS FREE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO
CLOSE THE CIVIL COURTS OR TO STRIP THEM OF THEIR CRIMINAL JURISDICTION,
ESPECIALLY AFTER THE INITIAL SHOCK OF THE SUDDEN JAPANESE ATTACK HAD
BEEN DISSIPATED. 

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL DESPOTS HAVE USED REAL OR IMAGINED THREATS TO THE
PUBLIC WELFARE AS AN EXCUSE FOR NEEDLESSLY ABROGATING HUMAN RIGHTS. 
THAT EXCUSE IS NO LESS UNWORTHY OF OUR TRADITIONS WHEN USED IN THIS DAY
OF ATOMIC WARFARE OR AT A FUTURE TIME WHEN SOME OTHER TYPE OF WARFARE
MAY BE DEVISED.  THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL AND THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED INDIVIDUAL ARE TOO FUNDAMENTAL TO BE SACRIFICED
MERELY THROUGH A REASONABLE FEAR OF MILITARY ASSAULT.  THERE MUST BE
SOME OVERPOWERING FACTOR THAT MAKES A RECOGNITION OF THOSE RIGHTS
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY BEFORE WE SHOULD CONSENT TO THEIR
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION.  IF THOSE RIGHTS MAY SAFELY BE RESPECTED IN THE
FACE OF A THREATENED INVASION, NO VALID REASON EXISTS FOR DISREGARDING
THEM.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE CIVIL COURTS MUST BE UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF
TRYING CRIMINALS OR OF DISPENSING JUSTICE IN THEIR USUAL MANNER BEFORE
THE BILL OF RIGHTS MAY BE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED.  "MARTIAL LAW (IN
RELATION TO CLOSING THE COURTS) CANNOT ARISE FROM A THREATENED
INVASION.  THE NECESSITY MUST BE ACTUAL AND PRESENT; THE INVASION REAL,
SUCH AS EFFECTUALLY CLOSES THE COURTS AND DEPOSES THE CIVIL
ADMINISTRATION."  EX PARTE MILLIGAN, SUPRA, 127. 

SECOND.  DELAYS IN THE CIVIL COURTS AND SLOWNESS IN THEIR PROCEDURE
ARE ALSO CITED AS AN EXCUSE FOR SHEARING AWAY THEIR CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF ANY UNDUE DELAYS IN THE
HAWAIIAN COURTS IS ADMITTED.  IT IS SAID THAT THE MILITARY "CANNOT
BROOK A DELAY" AND THAT "THE PUNISHMENT MUST BE SWIFT; THERE IS AN
ELEMENT OF TIME IN IT, AND WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LET THE TRIAL LINGER AND
BE PROTRACTED."  THIS MILITARY ATTITUDE TOWARD CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES
IS NOT NOVEL.  CIVIL LIBERTIES AND MILITARY EXPEDIENCY ARE OFTEN
IRRECONCILABLE.  IT DOES TAKE TIME TO SECURE A GRAND JURY INDICTMENT,
TO ALLOW THE ACCUSED TO PROCURE AND CONFER WITH COUNSEL, TO PERMIT THE
PREPARATION OF A DEFENSE, TO FORM A PETIT JURY, TO RESPECT THE
ELEMENTARY RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE AND TO JUDGE GUILT OR
INNOCENCE ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED RULES OF LAW.  BUT EXPERIENCE HAS
DEMONSTRATED THAT SUCH TIME IS WELL SPENT.  IT IS THE ONLY METHOD WE
HAVE OF INSURING THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND OF
GUARDING AGAINST OPPRESSION.  THE SWIFT TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT WHICH THE
MILITARY DESIRES IS PRECISELY WHAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS OUTLAWS.  WE
WOULD BE FALSE TO OUR TRUST IF WE ALLOWED THE TIME IT TAKES TO GIVE
EFFECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BE USED AS THE VERY REASON FOR
TAKING AWAY THOSE RIGHTS.  IT IS OUR DUTY, AS WELL AS THAT OF THE
MILITARY, TO MAKE SURE THAT SUCH RIGHTS ARE RESPECTED WHENEVER
POSSIBLE, EVEN THOUGH TIME MAY BE CONSUMED. 

THIRD.  IT IS FURTHER SAID THAT THE ISSUANCE OF MILITARY ORDERS
RELATING TO CIVILIANS REQUIRED THAT THE MILITARY HAVE AT ITS DISPOSAL
SOME SORT OF TRIBUNAL TO ENFORCE THOSE REGULATIONS.  ANY FAILURE OF
CIVIL COURTS TO CONVICT VIOLATORS OF SUCH REGULATIONS WOULD DIMINISH
THE AUTHORITY AND ABILITY TO DISCHARGE MILITARY RESPONSIBILITIES.  THIS
IS THE ULTIMATE AND MOST VICIOUS OF THE ARGUMENTS USED TO JUSTIFY
MILITARY TRIALS.  IT ASSUMES WITHOUT PROOF THAT CIVIL COURTS ARE
INCOMPETENT AND ARE PRONE TO FREE THOSE WHO ARE PLAINLY GUILTY.  IT
ASSUMES FURTHER THAT BECAUSE THE MILITARY MAY HAVE THE VALID POWER TO
ISSUE REGULATIONS THERE MUST BE AN ACCOMPANYING POWER TO PUNISH THE
VIOLATIONS OF THOSE REGULATIONS; THE IMPLICIT AND FINAL ASSUMPTION IS
THEN MADE THAT THE MILITARY MUST HAVE POWER TO PUNISH VIOLATIONS OF ALL
OTHER STATUTES AND REGULATIONS.  NOTHING IS MORE INCONSISTENT WITH OUR
FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WITH ITS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO
PROMULGATE LAW AND THE POWER TO PUNISH VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW. 
APPLICATION OF THIS DOCTRINE COULD SOON LEAD TO THE COMPLETE
ELIMINATION OF CIVIL JURISDICTION OVER CRIME. 

MOREOVER, THE MERE FACT THAT IT MAY BE MORE EXPEDIENT AND CONVENIENT
FOR THE MILITARY TO TRY VIOLATORS OF ITS OWN ORDERS BEFORE ITS OWN
TRIBUNALS DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT FURNISH A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR
THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH TRIBUNALS WHEN CIVIL COURTS ARE IN FACT
FUNCTIONING OR ARE CAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING.  CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE
ROOTED DEEPER THAN THE WISHES AND DESIRES OF THE MILITARY.    FOURTH.
MUCH IS MADE OF THE ASSERTION THAT THE CIVIL COURTS IN HAWAII HAD NO
JURISDICTION OVER VIOLATIONS OF MILITARY ORDERS BY CIVILIANS AND THAT
MILITARY COURTS WERE THEREFORE NECESSARY.  ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THE
CIVIL COURTS WERE ORDERED NOT TO ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE SUCH JURISDICTION,
IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT CONGRESS ON MARCH 21, 1942, VESTED IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE MILITARY ORDERS WITH CRIMINAL
PENALTIES.  56 STAT. 173.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE FEDERAL COURT IN
HAWAII WAS OPEN AT ALL TIMES IN ISSUE AND WAS CAPABLE OF EXERCISING
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION.  THAT THE MILITARY REFRAINED FROM USING THE
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK WHICH CONGRESS ERECTED AFFORDS NO CONSTITUTIONAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CREATION OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS TO TRY SUCH
VIOLATORS. 

FIFTH.  OBJECTION IS MADE TO THE ENFORCEMENT IN CIVIL COURTS OF
MILITARY ORDERS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD SUBJECT THE MILITARY TO
"ALL SORTS OF INFLUENCES, POLITICAL AND OTHERWISE, AS HAPPENED IN THE
CASES ON THE EAST COAST IN BOTH PHILADELPHIA AND BOSTON" AND THAT "IT
IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE MILITARY COMMANDER SHOULD BE SUBJECTED FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF HIS ORDERS TO THE CONTROL OF OTHER AGENTS."  THIS IS
MERELY A MILITARY CRITICISM OF THE PROPOSITION THAT IN THIS NATION THE
MILITARY IS SUBORDINATE TO THE CIVIL AUTHORITY.  IT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS
A RECOGNIZABLE REASON FOR CLOSING THE CIVIL COURTS TO CRIMINAL CASES. 

SIXTH.  FURTHER OBJECTION IS MADE THAT THE HOLDING OF CIVIL TRIALS
MIGHT INTERRUPT VITAL WORK THROUGH THE ATTENDANCE AS JURORS OF WAR
WORKERS.  THIS ALSO IS TOO UNMERITORIOUS TO WARRANT SERIOUS OR LENGTHY
DISCUSSION.  WAR WORKERS COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FROM JURY DUTY
BY MILITARY ORDER IF NECESSARY. 

SEVENTH.  THE FINAL REASON ADVANCED RELATES TO THE TESTIMONY OF
MILITARY LEADERS THAT HAWAII IS SAID TO HAVE A "HETEROGENEOUS
POPULATION WITH ALL SORTS OF AFFINITIES AND LOYALTIES WHICH ARE ALIEN
IN MANY CASES TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT,"
ONE-THIRD OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION BEING OF JAPANESE DESCENT.  THE
COURT BELOW OBSERVED, 146 F.2D 576, 580, THAT "GOVERNMENTAL AND
MILITARY PROBLEMS ALIKE WERE COMPLICATED BY THE PRESENCE IN THE
TERRITORY OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY BESIDES
LARGE NUMBERS OF ALIENS OF THE SAME RACE.  OBVIOUSLY THE PRESENCE OF SO
MANY INHABITANTS OF DOUBTFUL LOYALTY POSED A CONTINUING THREAT TO THE
PUBLIC SECURITY.  AMONG THESE PEOPLE THE PERSONNEL OF CLANDESTINE
LANDING PARTIES MIGHT MINGLE FREELY, WITHOUT DETECTION.  THUS WAS
AFFORDED IDEAL COVER FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SABOTEUR AND THE SPY....
TO FUNCTION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS THE CIVILIAN COURTS MUST ASSEMBLE
JURIES; AND CITIZENS OF JAPANESE EXTRACTION COULD NOT LAWFULLY BE
EXCLUDED FROM JURY PANELS ON THE SCORE OF RACE - EVEN IN CASES OF
OFFENSES INVOLVING THE MILITARY SECURITY OF THE TERRITORY.  INDEED THE
MERE ASSEMBLING OF JURIES AND THE CARRYING ON OF PROTRACTED CRIMINAL
TRIALS MIGHT WELL CONSTITUTE AN INVITATION TO DISORDER AS WELL AS AN
INTERFERENCE WITH THE VITAL BUSINESS OF THE MOMENT."  THE GOVERNMENT
ADDS THAT MANY OF THE MILITARY PERSONNEL STATIONED IN HAWAII WERE
UNACCUSTOMED TO LIVING IN SUCH A COMMUNITY AND THAT "POTENTIAL
PROBLEMS" CREATED IN HAWAII BY RACIALLY MIXED JURIES IN CRIMINAL CASES
HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN RECOGNIZED "ALTHOUGH, ON THE WHOLE, IT HAS BEEN
FOUND THAT MEMBERS OF SUCH MIXED JURIES HAVE NOT ACTED ON A RACIAL
BASIS." 

THE IMPLICATION APPARENTLY IS THAT PERSONS OF JAPANESE DESCENT,
INCLUDING THOSE OF AMERICAN BACKGROUND AND TRAINING, ARE OF SUCH
DOUBTFUL LOYALTY AS A GROUP AS TO CONSTITUTE A MENACE JUSTIFYING THE
DENIAL OF THE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF ALL ACCUSED PERSONS IN HAWAII.  IT
IS ALSO IMPLIED THAT PERSONS OF JAPANESE DESCENT ARE UNFIT FOR JURY
DUTY IN HAWAII AND THAT THE PROBLEMS ARISING WHEN THEY SERVE ON JURIES
ARE SO GREAT AS TO WARRANT DISPENSING WITH THE ENTIRE JURY SYSTEM IN
HAWAII IF THE MILITARY SO DESIRES.  THE LACK OF ANY FACTUAL OR LOGICAL
BASIS FOR SUCH IMPLICATIONS IS CLEAR.  IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT THERE
HAVE BEEN NO RECORDED ACTS OF SABOTAGE, ESPIONAGE OR FIFTH COLUMN
ACTIVITIES BY PERSONS OF JAPANESE DESCENT IN HAWAII EITHER ON OR
SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 7, 1941.  THERE WAS THUS NO SECURITY REASON FOR
EXCLUDING THEM FROM JURIES, EVEN MAKING THE FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT IT
WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THE LOYAL FROM THE DISLOYAL.  AND IF THERE
WERE PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE USE OF RACIALLY MIXED JURIES,
ELIMINATION OF ALL JURY TRIALS WAS HARDLY A REASONABLE OR SENSIBLE
ANSWER TO THOSE PROBLEMS.  ESPECIALLY DEPLORABLE, HOWEVER, IS THIS USE
OF THE INIQUITOUS DOCTRINE OF RACISM TO JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF
MILITARY TRIALS.  RACISM HAS NO PLACE WHATEVER IN OUR CIVILIZATION. 
THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE CONSCIENCE OF MANKIND DISCLAIMS ITS USE
FOR ANY PURPOSE, MILITARY OR OTHERWISE.  IT CAN ONLY RESULT, AS IT DOES
IN THIS INSTANCE, IN STRIKING DOWN INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND IN AGGRAVATING
RATHER THAN SOLVING THE PROBLEMS TOWARD WHICH IT IS DIRECTED.  IT
RENDERS IMPOTENT THE IDEAL OF THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSONALITY,
DESTROYING SOMETHING OF WHAT IS NOBLE IN OUR WAY OF LIFE.  WE MUST
THEREFORE REJECT IT COMPLETELY WHENEVER IT ARISES IN THE COURSE OF A
LEGAL PROCEEDING. 

THE REASONS HERE ADVANCED FOR ABANDONING THE "OPEN COURT" RULE OF THE
MILLIGAN CASE ARE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  TO RETREAT FROM THAT RULE IS TO
OPEN THE DOOR TO RAMPANT MILITARISM AND THE GLORIFICATION OF WAR, WHICH
HAVE DESTROYED SO MANY NATIONS IN HISTORY.  THERE IS A VERY NECESSARY
PART IN OUR NATIONAL LIFE FOR THE MILITARY; IT HAS DEFENDED THIS
COUNTRY WELL IN ITS DARKEST HOURS OF TRIAL.  BUT MILITARISM IS NOT OUR
WAY OF LIFE.  IT IS TO BE USED ONLY IN THE MOST EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES. 
MOREOVER, WE MUST BE ON CONSTANT GUARD AGAINST AN EXCESSIVE USE OF ANY
POWER, MILITARY OR OTHERWISE, THAT RESULTS IN THE NEEDLESS DESTRUCTION
OF OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.  THERE MUST BE A CAREFUL BALANCING OF
INTERESTS.  AND WE MUST EVER KEEP IN MIND THAT "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES IS A LAW FOR RULERS AND PEOPLE, EQUALLY IN WAR AND IN
PEACE, AND COVERS WITH THE SHIELD OF ITS PROTECTION ALL CLASSES OF MEN,
AT ALL TIMES, AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES."  EX PARTE MILLIGAN, SUPRA,
120-121. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

I DO NOT THINK THAT "MARTIAL LAW," AS USED IN SEC. 67 OF THE HAWAIIAN
ORGANIC ACT, IS DEVOID OF MEANING.  THIS COURT HAS HAD OCCASION TO
CONSIDER ITS SCOPE AND HAS POINTED OUT THAT MARTIAL LAW IS THE EXERCISE
OF THE POWER WHICH RESIDES IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
PRESERVE ORDER AND INSURE THE PUBLIC SAFETY IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY, WHEN
OTHER BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE UNABLE TO FUNCTION, OR THEIR
FUNCTIONING WOULD ITSELF THREATEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY.  LUTHER V. BORDEN,
7 HOW.  1, 45.  IT IS A LAW OF NECESSITY TO BE PRESCRIBED AND
ADMINISTERED BY THE EXECUTIVE POWER.  ITS OBJECT, THE PRESERVATION OF
THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND GOOD ORDER, DEFINES ITS SCOPE, WHICH WILL VARY
WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NECESSITIES OF THE CASE.  THE EXERCISE OF
THE POWER MAY NOT EXTEND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE EXIGENCY WHICH
CALLS IT FORTH.  MITCHELL V. HARMONY, 13 HOW.  115, 133; UNITED STATES
V. RUSSELL, 13 WALL.  623, 628; RAYMOND V. THOMAS, 91 U.S. 712, 716;
STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 400, 401.  ANY DOUBTS THAT MIGHT
BE ENTERTAINED THAT SUCH IS THE TRUE LIMIT OF MARTIAL LAW IN THIS CASE
ARE PUT AT REST BY SEC. 67 OF THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT, WHICH, "IN CASE
OF REBELLION OR INVASION, OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF," AUTHORIZES
MARTIAL LAW ONLY "WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT  ..." 

THE EXECUTIVE HAS BROAD DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHEN THE PUBLIC
EMERGENCY IS SUCH AS TO GIVE RISE TO THE NECESSITY OF MARTIAL LAW, AND
IN ADAPTING IT TO THE NEED.  CF. HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S.
81.  BUT EXECUTIVE ACTION IS NOT PROOF OF ITS OWN NECESSITY, AND THE
MILITARY'S JUDGMENT HERE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE THAT EVERY ACTION TAKEN
PURSUANT TO THE DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE
EXIGENCY.  IN THE SUBSTITUTION OF MARTIAL LAW CONTROLS FOR THE ORDINARY
CIVIL PROCESSES, "WHAT ARE THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS OF MILITARY DISCRETION,
AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN OVERSTEPPED IN A PARTICULAR CASE, ARE
JUDICIAL QUESTIONS."  STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, SUPRA, 401. 

I TAKE IT THAT THE JAPANESE ATTACK ON HAWAII ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, WAS
AN "INVASION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 67.  BUT IT BEGAN AND ENDED
LONG BEFORE THESE PETITIONERS WERE TRIED BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS IN
AUGUST 1942 AND FEBRUARY 1944.  I ASSUME THAT THERE WAS DANGER OF
FURTHER INVASION OF HAWAII AT THE TIMES OF THOSE TRIALS.  I ASSUME ALSO
THAT THERE COULD BE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES,
AND THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS, SUBSTITUTION OF TRIALS BY MILITARY
TRIBUNALS FOR TRIALS IN THE CIVIL COURTS.  BUT THE RECORD HERE
DISCLOSES NO SUCH CONDITIONS IN HAWAII, AT LEAST DURING THE PERIOD
AFTER FEBRUARY, 1942, AND THE TRIAL COURT SO FOUND.  AFTER CLOSING
PLACES OF AMUSEMENT, AND AFTER CLOSING THE CIVIL COURTS ON DECEMBER 8,
1941, THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES, ON DECEMBER 24, 1941, ORDERED PLACES OF
AMUSEMENT TO BE OPENED.  ON JANUARY 27, 1942, THEY PERMITTED THE COURTS
TO EXERCISE THEIR NORMAL FUNCTIONS EXCEPT AS TO JURY TRIALS AND THE
ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS.  ON FEBRUARY 4, 1942, THEY
AUTHORIZED THE SALE OF LIQUOR AT BARS. 

THE FULL RECORD IN THIS CASE SHOWS THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN
HAWAII THROUGHOUT 1942 AND 1943.  IT DEMONSTRATES THAT FROM FEBRUARY
1942 ON, THE CIVIL COURTS WERE CAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING, AND THAT TRIALS
OF PETITIONERS IN THE CIVIL COURTS NO MORE ENDANGERED THE PUBLIC SAFETY
THAN THE GATHERING OF THE POPULACE IN SALOONS AND PLACES OF AMUSEMENT,
WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED BY MILITARY ORDER.  I FIND NOTHING IN THE ENTIRE
RECORD WHICH WOULD FAIRLY SUGGEST THAT THE CIVIL COURTS WERE UNABLE TO
FUNCTION WITH THEIR USUAL EFFICIENCY AT THE TIMES THESE PETITIONERS
WERE TRIED, OR THAT THEIR TRIAL BY JURY IN A CIVIL COURT WOULD HAVE
ENDANGERED GOOD ORDER OR THE PUBLIC SAFETY.  THE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII AND
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HAWAIIAN SUPREME COURT TESTIFIED TO THE
CONTRARY.  THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES TESTIFIED AND ADVANCED
NO REASON WHICH HAS ANY BEARING ON PUBLIC SAFETY OR GOOD ORDER FOR
CLOSING THE CIVIL COURTS TO THE TRIAL OF THESE PETITIONERS, OR FOR
TRYING THEM IN MILITARY COURTS.  I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE TRIALS
AND THE CONVICTIONS UPON WHICH PETITIONERS ARE NOW DETAINED, WERE
UNAUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE, AND WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF
PETITIONERS BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES, PENDING THEIR DELIVERY TO THE
CIVIL AUTHORITIES FOR TRIAL, WOULD HAVE BEEN LAWFUL.  THE JUDGMENT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE PETITIONERS
DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY FORTHWITH. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

WITH THE REST OF THIS COURT I SUBSCRIBE UNRESERVEDLY TO THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.  I RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CIVIL COURTS IN PROTECTING
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  I PREFER CIVIL TO
MILITARY CONTROL OF CIVILIAN LIFE AND I AGREE THAT IN WAR OUR
CONSTITUTION CONTEMPLATES THE PRESERVATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF
ALL OF OUR PEOPLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PLAN OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE
FITTED TO THE NEEDS OF A SELF-GOVERNING REPUBLIC AT WAR. 

OUR CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR WAGING WAR, AND IT IS WITH
THE CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENTS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL CONDUCT OF WAR THAT I
AM CONCERNED.  I RECOGNIZE HERE, AS ELSEWHERE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DIRECTION THAT OUR RESPECTIVE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT DO NOT EXCEED
THEIR ALLOTTED SHARES OF AUTHORITY.  THE COURTS, AS WELL AS OUR OTHER
AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT, ACCORDINGLY OWE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION
NOT TO INVADE THE FIELDS RESERVED EITHER TO THE PEOPLE, THE STATES, OR
THE OTHER COORDINATE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE COURTS HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO HELP DEFINE AND PROTECT THE DISCRETION WITH WHICH THE
PEOPLE HAVE INVESTED THEIR LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE REPRESENTATIVES. 
WITHIN THEIR PROPER SPHERES, THE ROBUST STRENGTH AND FREEDOM OF ACTION
ALLOWED TO THE POLICY MAKING AND POLICY EXECUTING AGENCIES OF OUR
GOVERNMENT ARE AS VITAL TO THE SUCCESS OF OUR GREAT EXPERIMENT IN
SECURING "THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY" AS
ARE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON OUR
REPRESENTATIVES.  IT IS IN THE APPLICATION OF THESE VIEWS TO THE CASES
BEFORE US THAT I AM OBLIGED TO DISSENT FROM THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT
AND TO SOUND A NOTE OF WARNING AGAINST THE DANGERS OF OVER-EXPANSION OF
JUDICIAL CONTROL INTO THE FIELDS ALLOTTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO
AGENCIES OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ACTION. 

THE CONTROLLING FACTS IN THE CASES BEFORE US ARE THE EXTRAORDINARY
CONDITIONS CREATED BY THE SURPRISE JAPANESE INVASION BY AIR OF PEARL
HARBOR ON DECEMBER 7, 1941.  VISUALIZING THE DEVASTATING SUCCESS OF
THAT ATTACK AND THE DESPERATE CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM IT, THE PRIMARY
QUESTION IS WHAT DISCRETIONARY ACTION BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF OUR
GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE ARMY AND NAVY, WAS PERMISSIBLE ON THAT DAY
AND IN THE PERIOD FOLLOWING IT.  PEARL HARBOR AND THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
WERE THE KEY TO AMERICA'S DEFENSES IN THE PACIFIC.  THE ATTACK OF
DECEMBER 7TH DESTROYED MORE OF AMERICA'S NAVAL FORCES THAN OUR
GOVERNMENT FELT IT SAFE TO ANNOUNCE.  AMERICA'S FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE
WAS PIERCED.  THE ATTACK DEMONSTRATED THAT IT WAS PART OF A CAREFULLY
PLANNED MAJOR MILITARY OPERATION AGAINST NOT ONLY HAWAII BUT THE UNITED
STATES.  PRESUMABLY IT WOULD BE PRESSED FURTHER.  IT MIGHT WELL BE
FOLLOWED BY A LAND INVASION OF THE ISLANDS AND BY AERIAL ATTACKS UPON
THEIR CENTERS OF POPULATION.  FN1 

HANDICAPPED BY MAJOR LOSSES OF AIR AND SEA POWER, THE COMMANDER OF
THIS ISOLATED OUTPOST WAS FACED WITH IMMINENT DANGER OF FURTHER
INVASIONS UNDER CONDITIONS CALLING FOR A DESPERATE DEFENSE OF THE
ISLANDS.  THE ISLANDS SUDDENLY HAD BECOME THE FOCAL POINT OF A MAJOR
ACTION WHICH CONVERTED THEM INTO AN OUTPOST OF CRITICAL MILITARY
IMPORTANCE TO THE WORLD IN GENERAL AND TO THE UNITED STATES IN
PARTICULAR.  THEIR INVASION AND POSSIBLE CAPTURE OVERSHADOWED EVERY
OTHER CONSIDERATION.  THE ISLANDS WERE A WHITE-HOT CENTER OF WAR READY
TO BURST INTO FLAMES.    MILITARY ATTACK BY AIR, SEA AND LAND WAS TO BE
EXPECTED.  THE COMPLETE DISREGARD OF INTERNATIONAL LAW EVIDENCED BY THE
FIRST ATTACK AND THE POSSIBLE PRESENCE ON THE ISLANDS OF MANY JAPANESE
COLLABORATORS GAVE WARNING THAT THE ENEMY'S NEXT MOVE MIGHT TAKE THE
FORM OF DISASTROUS SABOTAGE AND TERRORISM AMONG CIVILIANS.  THE
EXTRAORDINARY BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW EVIDENCED BY THE ATTACK MADE
IT ESSENTIAL TO TAKE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TO PROTECT THE ISLANDS AGAINST
SUBVERSIVE ACTION THAT MIGHT SPRING FROM DEEPLY LAID PLANS AS SECRET,
WELL AIMED, AND DESTRUCTIVE AS THE ORIGINAL ATTACK. 

ON DECEMBER 7 AND IN THE PERIOD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, EVERY INCH OF
THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII WAS LIKE A FRONTIER STOCKADE UNDER SAVAGE
ATTACK WITH NOTICE THAT SUCH ATTACK WOULD NOT BE RESTRAINED BY THE LAWS
OF CIVILIZED NATIONS.  FN2  MEASURES OF DEFENSE HAD TO BE TAKEN ON THE
BASIS THAT ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN.  THE RELATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES TO SUCH A SITUATION IS IMPORTANT.  OF COURSE, THE
CONSTITUTION IS NOT PUT ASIDE.  IT WAS WRITTEN BY A GENERATION FRESH
FROM WAR.  THE PEOPLE ESTABLISHED A MORE PERFECT UNION, IN PART, SO
THAT THEY MIGHT THE BETTER DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM MILITARY ATTACK.  IN
DOING SO THEY CENTRALIZED FAR MORE MILITARY POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY IN
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE THAN PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN DONE.  THE CONSTITUTION
WAS BUILT FOR ROUGH AS WELL AS SMOOTH ROADS.  IN TIME OF WAR THE NATION
SIMPLY CHANGES GEARS AND TAKES THE HARDER GOING UNDER THE SAME POWER. 

THE CONDUCT OF WAR UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS LARGELY AN EXECUTIVE
FUNCTION.  WITHIN THE FIELD OF MILITARY ACTION IN TIME OF WAR, THE
EXECUTIVE IS ALLOWED WIDE DISCRETION.  WHILE, EVEN IN THE CONDUCT OF
WAR, THERE ARE MANY LINES OF JURISDICTION TO DRAW BETWEEN THE PROPER
SPHERES OF LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTION, IT SEEMS CLEAR
THAT AT LEAST ON AN ACTIVE BATTLE FIELD, THE EXECUTIVE DISCRETION TO
DETERMINE POLICY IS THERE INTENDED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO BE SUPREME. 
THE QUESTION THEN ARISES:  WHAT IS A BATTLE FIELD AND HOW LONG DOES IT
REMAIN ONE AFTER THE FIRST BARRAGE? 

IT IS WELL THAT THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE JURISDICTION OF OUR MILITARY
AUTHORITIES IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY OUR COURTS EVEN UNDER SUCH EXTREME
CIRCUMSTANCES AS THOSE OF THE BATTLE FIELD.  THIS, HOWEVER, REQUIRES
THE COURTS TO PUT THEMSELVES AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE PLACE OF
THOSE WHO HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMMEDIATE EXECUTIVE
ACTION.  FOR A COURT TO RECREATE A COMPLETE PICTURE OF THE EMERGENCY IS
IMPOSSIBLE.  THAT IMPOSSIBILITY DEMONSTRATES THE NEED FOR A ZONE OF
EXECUTIVE DISCRETION WITHIN WHICH COURTS MUST GUARD THEMSELVES WITH
SPECIAL CARE AGAINST JUDGING PAST MILITARY ACTION TOO CLOSELY BY THE
INAPPLICABLE STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL, OR EVEN MILITARY, HINDSIGHT.  THE
NATURE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IS LARGELY NEGATIVE AS CONTRASTED WITH THE
GENERALLY POSITIVE NATURE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, AND IT IS ESSENTIAL
THAT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR WELL DIRECTED POSITIVE ACTION BE PRESERVED AND
VIGOROUSLY USED IF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
PEOPLE. 

FOR THIS COURT TO INTRUDE ITS JUDGMENT INTO SPHERES OF CONSTITUTIONAL
DISCRETION THAT ARE RESERVED EITHER TO THE CONGRESS OR TO THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE, IS TO INVITE DISREGARD OF THAT JUDGMENT BY THE CONGRESS OR
BY EXECUTIVE AGENCIES UNDER A CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS COURT CAN CONTRIBUTE MUCH TO THE ORDERLY
CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT, IF IT WILL OUTLINE REASONABLE BOUNDARIES FOR THE
DISCRETION OF THE RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, WITH FULL
REGARD FOR THE LIMITATIONS AND ALSO FOR THE RESPONSIBILITIES IMPOSED
UPON THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO APPROACH THE PRESENT CASES WITH A FULL
APPRECIATION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN HAWAII UNDER THE INVASION WHICH OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 7,
1941.  THE QUESTION IS NOT SHALL THE CONSTITUTION APPLY UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES?  THE QUESTION IS WITH WHAT AUTHORITY HAS THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY VESTED THE OFFICIAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE UPON WHOM ARE PLACED THE RESPONSIBILITIES
OF LEADERSHIP UNDER THOSE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES? 

THE VITAL DISTINCTION IS BETWEEN CONDITIONS IN "THE THEATRE OF ACTUAL
MILITARY OPERATIONS" AND OUTSIDE OF THAT THEATRE.  FN3  IN THIS CASE
HAWAII WAS NOT ONLY IN THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS, IT WAS UNDER FIRE. 
IF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, ON THAT DATE AND DURING THE IMMEDIATELY
SUCCEEDING PERIOD, IS RECOGNIZED AS THE BATTLE FIELD IT WAS, THEN UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES OF INVASION AND THREAT OF IMMEDIATE FURTHER
INVASION, THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII AND BY THE
COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT, SUPPORTED BY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN SUSPENDING THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DECLARING MARTIAL LAW AND VESTING IN SUCH COMMANDING GENERAL
FOR THOSE FIRST SEVERAL DAYS THE POWERS NORMALLY EXERCISED BY THE
GOVERNOR AND BY THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE TERRITORY
(AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASES IF
THEY HAD ARISEN AT THAT TIME), WERE WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE DISCRETION OF
THE OFFICIALS WHO AUTHORIZED THE ACTION.  THE ACTUAL PRESENCE OF BATTLE
IN A COMMUNITY CREATES A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT CONDITION FROM THAT
WHICH EXISTS IN OTHER PARTS OF A NATION AT WAR.  THAT CONDITIONS OF WAR
AND THE MEANS OF MEETING ITS EMERGENCIES WERE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS SHOWN BY THE BROAD
AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS CHIEF
EXECUTIVE AND AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY AND IN THE WAR
POWERS OF THE CONGRESS AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY
OF THE NATION IN TIME OF WAR.  THE PRESENT CASES AROSE IN A TERRITORY
OF THE UNITED STATES, DIRECTLY UNDER THE CARE AND JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THAT CONDITIONS OF ACTUAL INVASION WERE
CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS IN THE ORGANIC ACT OF HAWAII IS SEEN FROM THE
PROVISION QUOTED IN THE MAJORITY OPINION TO THE EFFECT THAT 

"WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY  ...  (THE GOVERNOR) MAY CALL UPON THE
COMMANDERS OF THE MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE
TERRITORY OF HAWAII, OR SUMMON THE POSSE COMITATUS, OR CALL OUT THE
MILITIA OF THE TERRITORY TO PREVENT OR SUPPRESS LAWLESS VIOLENCE,
INVASION, INSURRECTION, OR REBELLION IN SAID TERRITORY, AND HE MAY, IN
CASE OF REBELLION OR INVASION, OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF, WHEN THE
PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT, SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, OR PLACE THE TERRITORY, OR ANY PART THEREOF, UNDER MARTIAL LAW
UNTIL COMMUNICATION CAN BE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HIS DECISION
THEREON MADE KNOWN."  SEC. 67 OF THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT, 31 STAT.
153, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 532. 

THE GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION DEMONSTRATES THAT, IN SO FAR AS THE
DISCRETION LAY IN HIM, HE RECOGNIZED IN THOSE DAYS THAT A CONDITION HAD
ARISEN CALLING FOR THE EXERCISE OF THESE POWERS.  THE PROCLAMATION OF
DECEMBER 7, 1941, IN ITS EVERY WORD IS THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THE
EXERCISE OF THIS DISCRETION AND SPEAKS FOR ITSELF: 

"WHEREAS, IT IS PROVIDED BY SECTION 67 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF THE
TERRITORY OF HAWAII, APPROVED APRIL 30, 1900, THAT, WHENEVER IT BECOMES
NECESSARY, THE GOVERNOR OF THAT TERRITORY MAY CALL UPON THE COMMANDER
OF THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THAT TERRITORY TO
PREVENT INVASION; AND 

"WHEREAS, IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED BY THE SAID SECTION THAT THE
GOVERNOR MAY IN CASE OF INVASION OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF, WHEN THE
PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT, SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND PLACE THE TERRITORY UNDER MARTIAL LAW; AND 

"WHEREAS, THE ARMED FORCES OF THE EMPIRE OF JAPAN HAVE THIS DAY
ATTACKED AND INVADED THE SHORES OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS; AND 

"WHEREAS, IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY TO REPEL SUCH ATTACK AND INVASION;
AND 

"WHEREAS, THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES; 

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, J.B. POINDEXTER, GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII, DO HEREBY ANNOUNCE THAT, PURSUANT TO SAID SECTION, I HAVE
CALLED UPON THE COMMANDING GENERAL, HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT, TO PREVENT
SUCH INVASION; 

"AND, PURSUANT TO THE SAME SECTION, I DO HEREBY SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE
OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE; 

"AND, PURSUANT TO THE SAME SECTION, I DO HEREBY PLACE THE SAID
TERRITORY UNDER MARTIAL LAW; 

"AND, I DO HEREBY AUTHORIZE AND REQUEST THE COMMANDING GENERAL,
HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT, DURING THE PRESENT EMERGENCY AND UNTIL THE DANGER
OF INVASION IS REMOVED, TO EXERCISE ALL THE POWERS NORMALLY EXERCISED
BY ME AS GOVERNOR; 

"AND I DO FURTHER AUTHORIZE AND REQUEST THE SAID COMMANDING GENERAL,
HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT, AND THOSE SUBORDINATE MILITARY PERSONNEL TO WHOM
HE MAY DELEGATE SUCH AUTHORITY, DURING THE PRESENT EMERGENCY AND UNTIL
THE DANGER OF INVASION IS REMOVED, TO EXERCISE THE POWERS NORMALLY
EXERCISED BY JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THIS TERRITORY AND OF
THE COUNTIES AND CITIES THEREIN, AND SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER POWERS AS
THE EMERGENCY MAY REQUIRE; 

"AND I DO REQUIRE ALL GOOD CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ALL
OTHER PERSONS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII TO OBEY PROMPTLY AND
FULLY, IN LETTER AND IN SPIRIT, SUCH PROCLAMATIONS, RULES, REGULATIONS
AND ORDERS, AS THE COMMANDING GENERAL, HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT, OR HIS
SUBORDINATES, MAY ISSUE DURING THE PRESENT EMERGENCY." 

THIS ACTION WAS COMMUNICATED BY HIM TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE
PRESIDENT'S DECISION UPON HIS ACTION WAS MADE KNOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE ORGANIC ACT OF HAWAII IN THE FOLLOWING MESSAGES:

                                      "DEC.  7, 1941 

"THE PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE

 WASHINGTON D C 

I HAVE TODAY DECLARED MARTIAL LAW THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII
AND HAVE SUSPENDED THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PERIOD
YOUR ATTENTION IS CALLED TO SECTION SIXTY SEVEN OF THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC
ACT FOR YOUR DECISION ON MY ACTION

                          POINDEXTER"

             "DECEMBER 9, 1941 

"HONORABLE JOSEPH B. POINDEXTER, 

GOVERNOR, TERRITORY OF HAWAII, 

HONOLULU, HAWAII. 

YOUR TELEGRAM OF DECEMBER SEVENTH RECEIVED AND YOUR ACTION IN
SUSPENDING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND PLACING THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII UNDER MARTIAL LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S.C., TITLE 48, SECTION
532 HAS MY APPROVAL. 

    FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT" 

THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS THE EXISTENCE OF
THE EMERGENCY OF WAR CONTEMPLATED BY THE ORGANIC ACT MUST BE AN
EXECUTIVE DISCRETION.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES NOW GENERALLY KNOWN AS
TO WHAT TOOK PLACE AT PEARL HARBOR ON DECEMBER 7 AND THE SERIOUSNESS OF
THE THREAT WHICH THAT ATTACK CARRIED WITH IT, NOT ONLY TO THE PEOPLE IN
THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII BUT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I AM
UNABLE TO FIND THAT ON THAT DAY THE PRESIDENT AND THE GOVERNOR EXCEEDED
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IN TAKING THE STEPS EVIDENCED BY THE
FOREGOING DECLARATION OF POLICY OR THAT THE COMMANDING GENERAL EXCEEDED
HIS AUTHORITY IN CARRYING OUT THOSE INSTRUCTIONS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE
OF HIS PROCLAMATION PURSUANT THERETO ON DECEMBER 7, 1941.  FN4 

THE FINDINGS OF FACT, EXPRESS AND IMPLICIT IN THESE PROMPT AND
FORTHRIGHT EXPRESSIONS OF EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP, LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT
AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE EMERGENCY AND OF THE CONSCIENTIOUS
DETERMINATION OF THESE OFFICIALS TO ACT SO AS TO MEET IT.  AT THE SAME
TIME, THE APPRECIATION FELT BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF HIS
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CIVILIANS ON THE ISLANDS IS SHOWN IN HIS THREE
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS.  STARTING WITH THE PROPRIETY OF THAT BATTLE
FIELD REGULATION IN THE PRESENCE OF DISASTROUS INVASION, THE QUESTION
RESOLVES ITSELF SOLELY TO ONE OF WHEN AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL EXECUTIVE DISCRETION TO CONTINUE THESE ORDERS CAN OR
SHOULD BE HELD BY THIS COURT TO HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED.  ONCE THE ISLANDS
ARE VISUALIZED AS A BATTLE FIELD UNDER ACTUAL INVASION, THREATENED WITH
FURTHER INVASION, AND INVALUABLE TO THE ENEMY AS A BASE FROM WHICH TO
ATTACK THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, THE SITUATION IS COMPLETELY
CHANGED FROM THAT OF AN ORDINARY CIVILIAN COMMUNITY.  UNDER CONDITIONS
LIKELY TO DISREGARD EVEN THE LAWS OF CIVILIZED WARFARE, THE ISLAND
POPULATION WAS THREATENED WITH IMMEDIATE DESTRUCTION.  IT THUS BECAME
NECESSARY TO ORGANIZE AND PROTECT THAT POPULATION AGAINST IMMINENT
DANGER FROM BOMBING, FIRE, DISRUPTION OF WATER AND FOOD SUPPLY, DISEASE
AND ALL THE OTHER INCIDENTS OF MODERN WARFARE.  THE LIMITED AREA,
LIMITED GARRISON AND GREAT ISOLATION OF THE ISLANDS PUT A PREMIUM ON
THE EFFICIENCY OF ITS CIVILIAN DEFENSE AND ON THE INTEGRATION OF IT
WITH THE MILITARY DEFENSE.  ALL ACTIVITY WAS SUBORDINATED TO EXECUTIVE
CONTROL AS THE BEST CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD OF THE CIVILIAN AS WELL AS
THE MILITARY LIFE. 

THAT IN SUCH A CASE THERE MUST BE RESTORATION OF CIVILIAN CONTROL IS
CLEAR.  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THERE MUST BE LIMITS TO THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THE EXECUTIVE DISCRETION CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY DELAY SUCH
RESTORATION.  IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, HOWEVER, THERE IS A PERIOD,
BEARING A REASONABLE RELATION TO THE ORIGINAL EMERGENCY, DURING WHICH
IT MUST BE WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHEN AND HOW TO RESTORE THE BATTLE FIELD TO ITS
PEACE TIME CONTROLS.    IN VIEW OF THE RESPONSIBILITY PLACED UPON THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ESPECIALLY UPON ITS ARMED FORCES
IN TIME OF INVASION AND THREATENED INVASION, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THAT
BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT HAVE FREEDOM OF ACTION EQUAL TO ITS NEEDS.  AT
THE CENTER OF INVASION, MILITARY CONTROL IS THE PROPER CONTROL TO BE
APPLIED, SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES AND LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES APPLICABLE TO A BATTLE FIELD.  ON DECEMBER 7,
1941, I BELIEVE THAT THE FACTS OF THE INVASION AND THREATENED FURTHER
INVASION AMPLY ESTABLISHED SUCH A CONDITION AND JUSTIFIED AT THE TIME
THE MILITARY CONTROL ESTABLISHED ON THAT BASIS THROUGHOUT THE ISLANDS. 

WHETHER OR NOT FROM THE VANTAGE POST OF THE PRESENT THIS COURT MAY
DISAGREE WITH THE JUDGMENT EXERCISED BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES IN
THEIR SCHEDULE OF RELAXATION OF CONTROL IS NOT MATERIAL UNLESS THIS
COURT FINDS THAT THE SCHEDULE WAS SO DELAYED AS TO EXCEED THE RANGE OF
DISCRETION WHICH SUCH CONDITIONS PROPERLY VEST IN THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES. 

IT IS ALL TOO EASY IN THIS POSTWAR PERIOD TO ASSUME THAT THE SUCCESS
WHICH OUR FORCES ATTAINED WAS INEVITABLE AND THAT MILITARY CONTROL
SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELAXED ON A SCHEDULE BASED UPON SUCH ACTUAL
DEVELOPMENTS.  IN FACT, HOWEVER, EVEN NOW OUR CHIEF OF STAFF IN HIS
REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR AS OF JUNE 30, 1945, REMINDS US THAT IN
"THE BLACK DAYS OF 1942 WHEN THE JAPANESE CONQUERED ALL OF MALAYSIA,
OCCUPIED BURMA, AND THREATENED INDIA WHILE THE GERMAN ARMIES APPROACHED
THE VOLGA AND THE SUEZ....  GERMANY AND JAPAN CAME SO CLOSE TO COMPLETE
DOMINATION OF THE WORLD THAT WE DO NOT YET REALIZE HOW THIN THE THREAD
OF ALLIED SURVIVAL HAD BEEN STRETCHED."  BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF
OF STAFF OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY (1945) 1.  FN5  THOSE WERE CRITICAL
DAYS WHEN THE UNITED STATES COULD AFFORD NO MILITARY MISTAKES AND WHEN
THE SAFETY AND CONTROL OF THE HAWAIIAN KEY TO THE PACIFIC WAS
ESSENTIAL.  IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR MILITARY COMMANDERS NOT
ONLY TO DO THE RIGHT THING IN THE INTERESTS OF SAFETY BUT TO TAKE NO
CHANCES OF ERROR OR SURPRISE.  IT WAS THE OBLIGATION OF OUR MILITARY
COMMANDERS TO INSURE SAFETY RATHER THAN TO RISK IT.  ACTING AS THEY
WERE IN THE "FOG OF WAR," THEY WERE ENTITLED TO A WIDE RANGE OF
DISCRETION IF THEY WERE TO MEET THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED UPON THEM.  IT
IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE TO TEAR HAWAII OUT FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE WAR AS A
WHOLE.  OUR MILITARY POLICY THERE, AS ELSEWHERE, HAD TO BE GUIDED BY
ITS RELATION TO THE GLOBAL WAR. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES MIGHT HAVE TRIED TO CONTINUE COMPLETE MILITARY CONTROL IN
EFFECT FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD WITH A VIEW TO LATER RELAXATION OF ALL
SUCH CONTROL WHEN CONDITIONS MADE IT OBVIOUS THAT THERE WAS NO LONGER A
NEED FOR ANY CONTROL.  SUCH A COURSE WAS NOT ATTEMPTED HERE.  THE
COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT FOLLOWED FROM THE
BEGINNING THE POLICY FORESHADOWED IN HIS ORIGINAL PROCLAMATION.  HE
RESTORED CIVILIAN CONTROL OF CIVILIAN ACTIVITIES WHEREVER AND WHENEVER
HE FELT THAT A PARTIAL RESTORATION OF IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
IN THE MEANTIME HE HAD THE PRIMARY DUTY OF MAINTAINING LAW AND ORDER
AND OF FOSTERING CIVILIAN ACTIVITIES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.  PERHAPS HE
COULD HAVE ARRESTED AND DETAINED INDIVIDUALS CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF
LAWS OR REGULATIONS AND HELD THEM FOR LATER TRIAL BY CIVILIAN COURTS. 
HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE SIZE OF THE POPULATION AND THE NECESSARILY
LIMITED FACILITIES FOR LARGE SCALE DETENTIONS, HE OWED AN EQUAL DUTY TO
DISPOSE PROMPTLY OF VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.  TO THIS END, LAW AND ORDER
WAS ENFORCED AND JUSTICE WAS ADMINISTERED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THROUGH
MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  WITH EVIDENT CARE AND WITH SUBSTANTIAL RAPIDITY
THE MILITARY CONTROL WAS RELAXED GRADUALLY, IN INSTANCE AFTER INSTANCE,
UNTIL THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OVER CIVILIANS WAS RESTORED
COMPLETELY TO CIVILIAN ADMINISTRATION WHEN, ON OCTOBER 19, 1944, THE
PRESIDENT ISSUED A PROCLAMATION EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 24, TERMINATING
MARTIAL LAW AND DIRECTING THE GOVERNOR TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION
ACCORDINGLY. 

THERE IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN  FN6  A SUMMARY OF THE STEPS BY
WHICH THIS RELAXATION WAS ACCOMPLISHED.  AS EARLY AS DECEMBER 16, 1941,
THE COURTS WERE REOPENED IN SO FAR AS THEY APPLIED TO CIVIL MATTERS NOT
INVOLVING JURY TRIALS.  ON JANUARY 27, 1942, THE RESTRICTIONS ON COURT
PROCEDURE WERE FURTHER MODIFIED.  ON AUGUST 31, 1942, A GENERAL ORDER
EXTENDED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS TO JURY TRIALS.  FURTHER
RELAXATION OCCURRED FROM TIME TO TIME IN 1942 AND 1943. 

IT WAS ON AUGUST 20, 1942, THAT THE PETITIONER WHITE WAS ARRESTED FOR
EMBEZZLEMENT IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 183 OF THE REVISED LAWS OF
HAWAII.  ON AUGUST 25 HE WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED BEFORE A PROVOST
COURT, AND SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT, LATER REDUCED TO
FOUR.  IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATES TO HIS CASE, AND IN THE LIGHT OF
THE EVIDENT CONSIDERATION THAT THE COMMANDING GENERAL WAS GIVING TO THE
RESTORATION OF CIVIL CONTROL TO THE COURTS, I AM UNABLE TO HOLD AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT, THROUGH NOT ACTING MORE QUICKLY AND LESS
CAUTIOUSLY, HE VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRETION WHEN ON DECEMBER
16, 1941, HE AUTHORIZED THE CIVIL COURTS TO OPEN TO A LIMITED EXTENT
FOR THE TRIAL OF LIMITED CLASSES OF CASES NOT REQUIRING JURY TRIALS OR
THE SUBPOENAING OF WITNESSES, OR WHEN ON JANUARY 27, 1942, HE
AUTHORIZED THE CIVIL COURTS, AS AGENTS OF THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT, TO
EXERCISE THEIR NORMAL FUNCTIONS EXCEPT FOR JURY TRIALS, WRITS OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND OTHER SPECIFIED CLASSES OF CASES, AND WHEN, ON AUGUST 31,
1942, HE EXTENDED THEIR JURISDICTION TO JURY TRIALS SUCH AS WOULD HAVE
APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER WHITE.  EVEN ON THAT DATE, IN GENERAL ORDERS
NO. 133,  FN7  HE FOUND EXPRESSLY THAT "MARTIAL LAW HAS BEEN DECLARED
AND THE EMERGENCY WHICH CALLED IT FORTH STILL PREVAILS." 

THE PETITIONER DUNCAN WAS CONVICTED ON MARCH 2, 1944, OF MALICIOUSLY
ASSAULTING AND BEATING TWO MARINES ON FEBRUARY 24, 1944, WITH INTENT TO
PREVENT THEIR PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES AS SENTRIES AT THE MAIN GATE
OF THE PEARL HARBOR NAVY YARD.  FOR THIS OFFENSE HE WAS SENTENCED TO
SIX MONTHS IN JAIL.  AT THIS TIME CIVILIAN AGENCIES HAD RESUMED MOST OF
THEIR PEACE TIME JURISDICTION, INCLUDING CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS, EXCEPT FOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES, CIVIL SUITS AGAINST THEM FOR ACTS OR OMISSIONS IN LINE OF
DUTY AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF MILITARY ORDERS.  THE
CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE ITEMS TO THE MILITARY FUNCTIONS OF THE
ARMED FORCES ON THE ISLANDS INDICATES THE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR
EXCEPTION.  EVEN THESE EXCEPTIONS WERE REMOVED IN OCTOBER, 1944, WHEN
MARTIAL LAW WAS TERMINATED.  I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES TO HOLD THAT THE PRESIDENT AND THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES
VIOLATED THE DISCRETION VESTED IN THEM TO INSURE THE SAFETY OF THE
ISLANDS IN TIME OF WAR, INVASION AND THREATENED INVASION, IN THAT THEY
FAILED TO TERMINATE MARTIAL LAW SO COMPLETELY BEFORE MARCH 2, 1944,
THAT A CIVILIAN, WHO ATTACKED MARINES ON DUTY AS SENTRIES AT THE MAIN
GATE OF THE PEARL HARBOR NAVY YARD, COULD INSIST UPON A TRIAL IN THE
LOCAL CRIMINAL COURTS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE LOCAL PROVOST COURT
WHICH HAD EXERCISED JURISDICTION OVER SUCH CASES THROUGHOUT THE
JAPANESE WAR WHICH WAS STILL ACTIVELY IN PROGRESS. 

NOW THAT THE WAR HAS BEEN WON AND THE SAFETY OF THE ISLANDS HAS BEEN
AGAIN ASSURED, THERE IS OPPORTUNITY, IN THE CALM LIGHT OF PEACE, FOR
THE READJUSTMENT OF SENTENCES IMPOSED UPON CIVILIANS AND MILITARY
PERSONNEL DURING THE EMERGENCY OF WAR AND WHICH HAVE NOT YET EXPIRED. 
IT IS IMPORTANT, HOWEVER, THAT IN REVIEWING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE CONDUCT OF OUR AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT IN TIME OF WAR, INVASION AND
THREATENED INVASION, WE DO NOT NOW MAKE PRECEDENTS WHICH IN OTHER
EMERGENCIES MAY HANDICAP THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES ALLOTTED TO IT BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BY THE
EXERCISE OF WHICH IT SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED THE NATION AGAINST THE
GREATEST ATTACK EVER MADE UPON IT. 

ONE WAY TO TEST THE SOUNDNESS OF A DECISION TODAY THAT THE TRIAL OF
PETITIONER WHITE ON AUGUST 25, 1942, BEFORE A PROVOST COURT ON A CHARGE
OF EMBEZZLEMENT AND THE TRIAL OF PETITIONER DUNCAN ON MARCH 2, 1944,
BEFORE A SIMILAR COURT ON A CHARGE OF MALICIOUSLY ASSAULTING MARINE
SENTRIES WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES, IS TO ASK OURSELVES WHETHER
OR NOT ON THOSE DATES, WITH THE WAR AGAINST JAPAN IN FULL SWING, THIS
COURT WOULD HAVE, OR SHOULD HAVE, GRANTED A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AN
INJUNCTION OR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS OR
OTHERWISE TO OUST THE PROVOST COURTS OF THEIR CLAIMED JURISDICTION. 
SUCH A TEST EMPHASIZES THE ISSUE.  I BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE RELIEF SUGGESTED AT SUCH TIMES. 
ALSO I BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT MIGHT WELL HAVE FOUND ITSELF EMBARRASSED
HAD IT ORDERED SUCH RELIEF AND THEN HAD ATTEMPTED TO ENFORCE ITS ORDER
IN THE THEATRE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS, AT A TIME WHEN THE AREA WAS
UNDER MARTIAL LAW AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS STILL SUSPENDED,
ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII ISSUED UNDER THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE
DISCRETION AND RESPONSIBILITY VESTED IN THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES AND BY THE ORGANIC ACT OF HAWAII ENACTED BY CONGRESS. 

IN ORDER TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE FULL STRENGTH OF OUR
CONSTITUTION, BOTH IN TIME OF PEACE AND IN TIME OF WAR, IT IS NECESSARY
TO PROTECT THE AUTHORITY OF OUR LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS, AS
WELL AS THAT OF OUR COURTS, IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
OBLIGATIONS TO HELP TO "ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY,
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE
THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY." 

FN1  ADMIRAL CHESTER W. NIMITZ, COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE PACIFIC
FLEET, WHO ASSUMED NAVAL COMMAND IN THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII DECEMBER
18, 1941, TESTIFIED THAT THE HAWAIIAN AREA CONSTITUTED THE ONLY BASE
FOR THE NAVY IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN AT THAT TIME AND THAT THROUGHOUT THE
WAR UNTIL THE LAST JAPANESE CARRIER WAS DESTROYED, A JAPANESE SURPRISE
CARRIER ATTACK ON THE ISLANDS WAS WITHIN THE ENEMY'S CAPABILITIES. 
WHILE INVASION BY SEA-BORNE TROOPS IN SUFFICIENT NUMBER TO SEIZE A
BEACH HEAD WAS NOT PROBABLE, INVASION BY SUBMARINE COMMANDO RAIDERS AND
ESPIONAGE PARTIES WAS IMMINENT AND CONSTANTLY IMPENDING.  LIEUTENANT
GENERAL ROBERT C. RICHARDSON, JR., COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE CENTRAL
PACIFIC AREA, WHO ASSUMED COMMAND OF THE HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT ON JUNE 1,
1943, TESTIFIED THAT THE ISLANDS WERE WITHIN THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS
OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN AREA AND THAT THE ISLANDS WERE THE KEYSTONE OF THE
DEFENSE OF THE WESTERN COAST OF OUR COUNTRY.  HE TESTIFIED THAT THE
JAPANESE FLEET IN APRIL, 1944, WAS STILL CAPABLE OF MAKING A SURPRISE
ATTACK UPON OAHU BY THE USE OF AIR OR UNDERSEA CRAFT AND THAT PEARL
HARBOR WAS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE TARGET FOR THE ENEMY BECAUSE IT WAS THE
BASE OF THE PACIFIC FLEET.  HE SAID THAT IT WAS LIKELY THAT JAPAN WOULD
TAKE THE RISK OF LAUNCHING AN ATTACK BECAUSE OF THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF
THE TARGET AND THE CONSIDERABLE DAMAGE THAT MIGHT BE INFLICTED.  HE
POINTED OUT THAT THE PROBABILITY OF NIGHT ATTACKS THROUGH THE USE OF
SUBMARINES AND PARTIES SENT ASHORE TO ATTACK IMPORTANT INSTALLATIONS
WAS INCREASED BY THE PRESENCE OF DISLOYAL INDIVIDUALS AMONG THE
POPULATION OF THE ISLANDS.  THE SUCCESSES OF OUR FLEET HAD NOT REMOVED
THE IMMINENT DANGER OF INVASION BECAUSE THESE SUCCESSES MADE IT MORE
IMPERATIVE FOR THE ENEMY TO REPEAT ITS FORMER INVASION OF THE ISLANDS. 
HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT THE DISCHARGE OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MILITARY SECURITY REQUIRED A METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT OF MILITARY SECURITY
REGULATIONS WHICH WAS PROMPT AND SUBJECT TO HIS IMMEDIATE CONTROL AND
AUTHORITY AND THAT UNDER MARTIAL LAW THE PROVOST COURTS PROVIDED SUCH A
METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT.  HE TESTIFIED THAT A MILITARY TRIAL FOR SUCH AN
OFFENSE AS THAT OF DUNCAN IN ATTACKING THE PEARL HARBOR NAVY YARD
SENTRIES WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO UPHOLD THE AUTHORITY OF MILITARY
SENTRIES CHARGED WITH IMPORTANT MILITARY DUTIES.  HE ALSO GAVE AS HIS
OPINION THAT MILITARY NECESSITY REQUIRED TRIAL OF WHITE'S OFFENSE IN A
MILITARY TRIBUNAL IN AUGUST OF 1942 AT WHICH TIME THE JAPANESE
SUCCESSFUL MILITARY OFFENSIVE STILL CONTINUED.  IN ADDITION TO THE
OCCUPATION OF HONG KONG, THE MALAY PENINSULA, SINGAPORE, THE DUTCH EAST
INDIES, AND BASES IN NEW GUINEA, THE JAPANESE HAD SUCCESSFULLY OCCUPIED
OUR OWN TERRITORIES OF GUAM AND WAKE WHICH, WITH MIDWAY, CONSTITUTED
THE ISLAND CHAIN CONNECTING HAWAII WITH THE PHILIPPINES WHICH
THEMSELVES WERE SOON OCCUPIED.  THE ENEMY'S OCCUPATION OF THE SOLOMON
ISLANDS, INCLUDING TULAGI AND GUADALCANAL, GAVE THE ENEMY ADVANCE AIR
AND NAVAL BASES FOR OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS AGAINST OUR SOUTH PACIFIC
SUPPLY LINE AND THE NORTH COAST OF AUSTRALIA.  BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE
CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR (1943)
14(HOUSE DOC. 288, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.); MCINNIS, THE WAR, THIRD YEAR
(1942) 238.    EARLY IN MAY, 1942, ONE JAPANESE ATTEMPT TO EXTEND ENEMY
CONTROL SOUTHEASTWARD ALONG THE BORDERS OF THE CORAL SEA WITH THE
ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF AN ATTACK ON AUSTRALIA, WAS REPULSED IN THE
BATTLE OF THE CORAL SEA.  THE JAPANESE OFFENSIVE, HOWEVER, CONTINUED. 
IN EARLY JUNE THE JAPANESE ATTEMPT TO OCCUPY MIDWAY ISLAND PRELIMINARY
TO AN INVASION OF HAWAII WAS THWARTED IN THE BATTLE OF MIDWAY.  AT THE
SAME TIME, HOWEVER, JAPANESE FORCES OCCUPIED OUR TERRITORY OF ATTU,
AGATTU AND KISKA IN THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS.  BIENNIAL REPORT, SUPRA, P.
30.  (THESE ISLANDS WERE NOT RECOVERED UNTIL MAY, 1943.  BIENNIAL
REPORT, SUPRA, P. 31.)  JAPANESE ADVANCES IN NEW GUINEA CONTINUED
DURING THE SUMMER OF 1942 AND BY SEPTEMBER, 1942, HAD FORCED ALLIED
GROUND FORCES BACK TO WITHIN 30 MILES OF PORT MORESBY, A GATEWAY TO
AUSTRALIA.  BIENNIAL REPORT, SUPRA, P. 14.  ON AUGUST 7 A LANDING WAS
MADE ON GUADALCANAL BY UNITED STATES FORCES.  FOR A TIME IT DID NOT
APPEAR THAT THE EFFORT TO WREST THIS CRUCIAL ISLAND FROM THE JAPANESE
COULD SUCCEED.  A STRONG JAPANESE ATTEMPT TO RECAPTURE GUADALCANAL WAS
BEATEN OFF AS LATE AS NOVEMBER 16, 1942.  NOT UNTIL EARLY IN 1943 WAS
ENEMY RESISTANCE ON GUADALCANAL OVERCOME.  IBID.  EVEN THEN OUR FORCES
HAD ONLY SUCCEEDED IN CHECKING THE ENEMY'S OFFENSIVE AND HAD NOT
LAUNCHED THEIR OWN OFFENSIVES OR OUSTED THE ENEMY FROM ANY AMERICAN
TERRITORY.  THE AMERICAN OFFENSIVE IN THE CENTRAL PACIFIC DID NOT BEGIN
UNTIL A YEAR LATER WITH THE INVASION OF THE GILBERT ISLANDS IN
NOVEMBER, 1943, FOLLOWED BY INVASION OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS IN
JANUARY, 1944, AND THE INVASION OF THE MARIANA ISLANDS IN JULY, 1944. 
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY TO THE
SECRETARY OF WAR (1945) 69.  OUR FORCES LANDED ON GUAM ON JULY 21 AND
RESISTANCE CEASED ON AUGUST 10.  BY THAT TIME OUR FORCES IN THE
SOUTHWEST PACIFIC UNDER GENERAL MACARTHUR HAD REDUCED OR BY-PASSED THE
ENEMY'S FOOTHOLDS IN NEW GUINEA AND THE WAY WAS PREPARED FOR THE BATTLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES WHICH BEGAN WITH THE LANDING ON LEYTE ON OCTOBER 20,
1944.  ID., P. 75 ET SEQ. THE "BATTLE OF THE BULGE," IN THE ARDENNES,
WAS FOUGHT AND WON AT HIGH COST IN DECEMBER AND JANUARY, 1944-45.  ID.,
P. 44. 

FN2  "HAWAII CONSTITUTES THE MAIN PACIFIC OUTPOST OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND ACCORDINGLY MUST BE REGARDED AS A FORTRESS TO WHOSE DEFENSE
THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE ISLANDS IS COMMITTED.  ITS MANPOWER AND
ITS ECONOMIC RESOURCES MUST BE SUBJECT TO A SINGLE ULTIMATE CONTROL." 
GENERAL ORDERS NO. 133, BY ORDER OF THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE
TERRITORY OF HAWAII, AUGUST 31, 1942. 

FN3  "AGAIN, IN THE PLACE WHERE ACTUAL MILITARY OPERATIONS ARE BEING
CONDUCTED, THE ORDINARY RIGHTS OF CITIZENS MUST YIELD TO PARAMOUNT
MILITARY NECESSITY.  THIS WAS CONCEDED IN MILLIGAN'S CASE (4 WALL.  2,
127), WHERE IT WAS SAID IN THE PREVAILING OPINION: 

"'IF, IN FOREIGN INVASION OR CIVIL WAR, THE COURTS ARE ACTUALLY
CLOSED, AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ADMINISTER CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACCORDING
TO LAW, THEN, ON THE THEATRE OF ACTUAL MILITARY OPERATIONS, WHERE WAR
REALLY PREVAILS, THERE IS A NECESSITY TO FURNISH A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE
CIVIL AUTHORITY, THUS OVERTHROWN, TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY OF THE ARMY
AND SOCIETY; AND AS NO POWER IS LEFT BUT THE MILITARY, IT IS ALLOWED TO
GOVERN BY MARTIAL RULE UNTIL THE LAWS CAN HAVE THEIR FREE COURSE.'" 
ADDRESS BY HON. CHARLES E. HUGHES, WAR POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
(1917) XLII REPORTS OF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 232, 244. 

IN THE PRESENT CASES THE RECORDS HAVE INCORPORATED THE FOLLOWING
TESTIMONY OF LT. GEN. ROBERT C. RICHARDSON, JR., U.S.A., COMMANDING
GENERAL OF THE CENTRAL PACIFIC AREA: 

"A....  THIS WHOLE AREA UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN AREA, ADMIRAL NIMITZ, IS AN ACTIVE THEATRE OF WAR,
AND WITHIN THAT THEATRE OF WAR IS THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS, OF WHICH
THE HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT IS A PART. 

"Q.  WILL YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN, FROM THE MILITARY VIEWPOINT, BY
THE TERMS 'ACTIVE THEATRE OF WAR' AND 'THEATRE OF OPERATIONS'? 

"A.  WELL, AN ACTIVE THEATRE OF WAR IS THAT AREA WHICH IS OR MAY
BECOME ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR.  A THEATRE OF
OPERATIONS IS THAT PART OF AN ACTIVE WAR THEATRE WHICH IS NEEDED FOR
THE OPERATIONS EITHER OFFENSIVELY OR DEFENSIVELY, ACCORDING TO THE
MISSIONS ASSIGNED OR A COMBINATION OF THE MISSIONS; AND IT INCLUDES
ALSO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE CONDUCT OF
THOSE OPERATIONS." 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"Q.  IS THERE ANY MILITARY PARLANCE THAT INDICATES THAT PORTION OF
THE EARTH'S SURFACE WHERE THE FIGHTING ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE? 

"A.  YES. 

"Q.  WHAT IS THAT CALLED? 

"A.  COMBAT ZONE. 

"Q.  YOU WOULD NOT CALL HAWAII A COMBAT ZONE? 

"A.  YES, I WOULD, BECAUSE THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS OR THE COMBAT
ZONE ALSO INCLUDES THAT PART ASSIGNED TO YOUR MISSION, WHETHER IT BE
OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE.  WE ARE ON THE DEFENSIVE MISSION HERE IN OAHU,
WHEREAS THE FLEET OPERATES OFFENSIVELY FROM HERE, AND SOME OF OUR
TROOPS WHICH ARE BASED HERE OPERATE OFFENSIVELY FROM THIS BASE.  BUT
CONCURRENTLY WITH ITS MISSION AS AN OFFENSIVE BASE, WE HAVE A VERY
DECIDED MISSION HERE AS A DEFENSIVE BASE, AND THAT DEFENSIVE MISSION
DESIGNATES OR CHARACTERIZES IT AS A PART OF THE COMBAT ZONE. 

"Q.  THEN A COMBAT ZONE CAN BE AN AREA WHERE NO SHOOTING IS GOING ON
AT ALL? 

"A.  OH, YES; OH, YES. 

"Q.  NO REAL DESTRUCTION OF LIFE OR PROPERTY? 

"A.  ABSOLUTELY.... 

"Q.  WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY TERM, MILITARY TERM, THAT PRECISELY FITS
THE PLACE WHERE LIFE AND PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY BEING DESTROYED AS A
RESULT OF ORGANIZED WARFARE? 

"A.  YES, THE BATTLE." 

FN4  "TO THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII: 

"THE MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES OF THE EMPIRE OF JAPAN HAVE ATTACKED
AND ATTEMPTED TO INVADE THESE ISLANDS. 

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 67 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII, APPROVED APRIL 30, 1900, THE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII HAS CALLED UPON
ME, AS COMMANDER OF THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN HAWAII,
TO PREVENT SUCH INVASION; HAS SUSPENDED THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS; HAS PLACED THE TERRITORY UNDER MARTIAL LAW; HAS
AUTHORIZED AND REQUESTED ME AND MY SUBORDINATES TO EXERCISE THE POWERS
NORMALLY EXERCISED BY THE GOVERNOR AND BY SUBORDINATE CIVIL OFFICERS;
AND HAS REQUIRED ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE TERRITORY TO OBEY SUCH
PROCLAMATIONS, ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS AS I MAY ISSUE DURING THE
PRESENT EMERGENCY. 

"I ANNOUNCE TO THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII, THAT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ABOVE REQUESTS OF THE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII, I HAVE THIS DAY ASSUMED THE
POSITION OF MILITARY GOVERNOR OF HAWAII, AND HAVE TAKEN CHARGE OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORY, OF THE PRESERVATION OF ORDER THEREIN, AND
OF PUTTING THESE ISLANDS IN A PROPER STATE OF DEFENSE. 

"ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, WHETHER RESIDENTS
THEREOF OR NOT WHETHER CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OR NOT, OF NO
MATTER WHAT RACE OR NATIONALITY, ARE WARNED THAT BY REASON OF THEIR
PRESENCE HERE THEY OWE DURING THEIR STAY AT LEAST A TEMPORARY DUTY OF
OBEDIENCE TO THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT THEY ARE BOUND TO REFRAIN FROM
GIVING BY WORD OR DEED, ANY AID OR COMFORT TO THE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED
STATES.  ANY VIOLATION OF THIS DUTY IS TREASON, AND WILL BE PUNISHED BY
THE SEVEREST PENALTIES. 

"THE TROOPS UNDER MY COMMAND, IN PUTTING DOWN ANY DISORDER OR
REBELLION AND IN PREVENTING ANY AID TO THE INVADER, WILL ACT WITH SUCH
FIRMNESS AND VIGOR AND WILL USE SUCH ARMS AS THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
THEIR TASK MAY REQUIRE. 

"THE IMMINENCE OF ATTACK BY THE ENEMY AND THE POSSIBILITY OF INVASION
MAKE NECESSARY A STRICTER CONTROL OF YOUR ACTIONS THAN WOULD BE
NECESSARY OR PROPER AT OTHER TIMES.  I SHALL THEREFORE SHORTLY PUBLISH
ORDINANCES GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY WITH
RESPECT TO THE SHOWING OF LIGHTS, CIRCULATION, MEETINGS, CENSORSHIP,
POSSESSION OF ARMS, AMMUNITION, AND EXPLOSIVES, THE SALE OF
INTOXICATING LIQUORS AND OTHER SUBJECTS. 

"IN ORDER TO ASSIST IN REPELLING THE THREATENED INVASION OF OUR
ISLAND HOME, GOOD CITIZENS WILL CHEERFULLY OBEY THIS PROCLAMATION AND
THE ORDINANCES TO BE PUBLISHED; OTHERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO SO.
OFFENDERS WILL BE SEVERELY PUNISHED BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS OR WILL BE
HELD IN CUSTODY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CIVIL COURTS ARE ABLE TO
FUNCTION. 

"PENDING FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THIS HEADQUARTERS THE HAWAII
DEFENSE ACT AND THE PROCLAMATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII HERETOFORE
ISSUED THEREUNDER SHALL CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT." 

FN5  SEE ALSO THE LETTERS OF GENERAL GEORGE C. MARSHALL, CHIEF OF
STAFF, OF SEPTEMBER 25 AND 27, 1944, TO GOVERNOR THOMAS E. DEWEY,
EMPHASIZING THE TRAGIC MILITARY CONSEQUENCES WHICH AT THAT DATE WOULD
FOLLOW DISCLOSURE THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD "BROKEN" THE JAPANESE
SECRET MESSAGE CODE.  HEARINGS BEFORE JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS TO
INVESTIGATE THE PEARL HARBOR ATTACK, 79TH CONG., 2D SESS., PART III,
1128-1133. 

FN6  DEC. 7, 1941.  GOVERNOR POINDEXTER INVOKED SEC. 67 OF THE
HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT AND BY PROCLAMATION PLACED THE TERRITORY UNDER
MARTIAL LAW; SUSPENDED THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND
DELEGATED TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE HAWAIIAN DEPARTMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES ARMY NOT ONLY ALL OF HIS POWERS AS GOVERNOR BUT ALSO ALL
OF THE "POWERS NORMALLY EXERCISED BY JUDICIAL OFFICERS  ...  OF THIS
TERRITORY  ...  DURING THE PRESENT EMERGENCY AND UNTIL THE DANGER OF
INVASION IS REMOVED  ..." 

DEC. 7, 1941.  BY RADIO THE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII NOTIFIED THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES THAT HE HAD PLACED THE TERRITORY UNDER MARTIAL LAW
AND SUSPENDED THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

DEC. 7, 1941.  THE COMMANDING GENERAL, WALTER C. SHORT, REFERRING
SPECIFICALLY TO GOVERNOR POINDEXTER'S PROCLAMATION OF THE SAME DATE,
HIMSELF ISSUED A PROCLAMATION NOTIFYING THE PEOPLE OF HAWAII THAT HE
HAD ASSUMED THE POSITION OF "MILITARY GOVERNOR OF HAWAII" AND HAD TAKEN
OVER THE GOVERNMENT OF HAWAII. 

DEC. 7, 1941.  THE MILITARY GOVERNOR OF HAWAII ISSUED GENERAL ORDERS
NO. 4 BY WHICH HE SET UP A SYSTEM OF MILITARY COURTS TO TRY CIVILIANS
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE LAWS OF THE
TERRITORY, AND "RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS OR POLICIES" OF THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES.  THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR THESE MILITARY COURTS WAS
THAT OF SPECIAL AND SUMMARY COURTS MARTIAL. 

DEC. 8, 1941.  THE COURTS OF THE TERRITORY WERE CLOSED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
COMMANDING GENERAL. 

DEC. 9, 1941.  THE PRESIDENT APPROVED BY RADIO, THE ACTION OF THE
GOVERNOR SUSPENDING THE WRIT AND PLACING THE TERRITORY UNDER MARTIAL
LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORGANIC ACT OF HAWAII. 

DEC. 16, 1941.  BY GENERAL ORDERS NO. 29 THE COMPLETE CLOSING OF THE
COURTS WAS PARTLY RELAXED.  THE RELAXATION AFFECTED ONLY CIVIL MATTERS
NOT INVOLVING JURY TRIALS. 

DEC. 17, 1941.  GENERAL SHORT TRANSFERRED TO GENERAL EMMONS HIS
POWERS AS MILITARY GOVERNOR OF HAWAII. 

JAN. 27, 1942.  THE MILITARY GOVERNOR, BY GENERAL ORDERS NO. 57,
MODIFIED FURTHER THE RESTRICTIONS ON COURT PROCEEDINGS.  BY THIS ORDER
THE COURTS OF THE TERRITORY WERE AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE CERTAIN OF THE
POWERS NORMALLY EXERCISED BY THEM DURING THE EXISTENCE OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT.  WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, THE COURTS WERE RESTORED TO THEIR
RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS PRIOR TO MARTIAL LAW, "AS AGENTS OF THE MILITARY
GOVERNOR."  THE CRIMINAL COURTS COULD NOT, UNDER THE ORDER, SUMMON A
GRAND JURY; AND NEITHER THE CRIMINAL NOR CIVIL COURTS COULD GRANT A
JURY TRIAL, OR AT ANY TIME GRANT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

AUG. 31, 1942.  GENERAL ORDERS NO. 133 EXTENDED THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURTS TO JURY TRIALS.  THIS ORDER STATED IN SEC. I:  "...  MARTIAL
LAW HAS BEEN DECLARED AND THE EMERGENCY WHICH CALLED IT FORTH STILL
PREVAILS....  IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE RELAXATION HEREIN
SPECIFIED IS INTENDED TO RETURN TO THE COURTS CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND
CIVIL LITIGATION TO THE EXTENT THAT WAR CONDITIONS PERMIT.  HOWEVER,
THIS ACTION IS EXPERIMENTAL IN NATURE AND THE MILITARY GOVERNOR
RESERVES THE RIGHT FURTHER TO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OR
TO CLOSE THEM ENTIRELY, IF THAT COURSE SHALL BE NECESSARY." 

SEPT. 4, 1942.  GENERAL ORDERS NO. 135 ENUMERATED THE CRIMINAL
OFFENSES INVOLVING CRIMES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OR RELATED TO THE WAR
EFFORT, IN RESPECT TO WHICH THE COURTS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE
JURISDICTION. 

FEB. 8, 1943.  GOVERNOR STAINBACK, WHO SUCCEEDED GOVERNOR POINDEXTER,
ISSUED A PUBLIC PROCLAMATION PROVIDING THAT, ALTHOUGH MARTIAL LAW AND
SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WERE TO REMAIN
IN EFFECT, THE GOVERNOR AND OTHER CIVIL AGENCIES WOULD RESUME THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, INCLUDING CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEEDINGS,
EXCEPT FOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND
CIVIL SUITS AGAINST THEM FOR ACTS OR OMISSIONS IN THE LINE OF DUTY AND
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF MILITARY ORDERS, EXCEPT AS
THESE EXCEPTIONS MIGHT BE WAIVED BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL IN ANY
PARTICULAR CASE OR CLASS OF CASES. 

FEB. 8, 1943.  GENERAL EMMONS, THE MILITARY GOVERNOR, ISSUED A PUBLIC
PROCLAMATION RELINQUISHING TO THE GOVERNOR AND OTHER CIVILIAN OFFICERS
OF THE TERRITORY THE FUNCTIONS SET FORTH IN THE GOVERNOR'S
PROCLAMATION. 

MAR. 10, 1943.  GENERAL EMMONS ISSUED A REVISED SET OF GENERAL ORDERS
NOS. 1 TO 14, AND RESCINDED GENERAL ORDERS NOS. 1 TO 181, ISSUED UNDER
PRIOR PROCLAMATIONS.  GENERAL ORDERS NO. 2 VESTED PROVOST COURTS AND
MILITARY COMMISSIONS WITH JURISDICTION TO TRY ANY CASE INVOLVING
VIOLATIONS BY A CIVILIAN OF "RULES, REGULATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, OR
ORDERS OF THE MILITARY OR NAVAL AUTHORITIES, OR OF THE MILITARY
GOVERNOR OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, OR OF THE LAWS OF WAR," AND TO
IMPOSE A FINE, IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.  MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT WAS TO BE
CONFINEMENT AT HARD LABOR FOR FIVE YEARS, OR A FINE OF FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS OR BOTH.    OCT. 19, 1944.  THE PRESIDENT ISSUED PROCLAMATION
NO. 2627 PROVIDING THAT, EFFECTIVE OCT. 24, 1944, THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS RESTORED AND MARTIAL LAW TERMINATED AND
DIRECTING THE GOVERNOR TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION ACCORDINGLY. 

OCT. 24, 1944.  THE GOVERNOR ISSUED A PROCLAMATION WHICH PROCLAIMED
THAT "THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS RESTORED AND THAT
MARTIAL LAW IS TERMINATED IN THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII." 

FN7  SEE FOOTNOTES 2 AND 6. 
..END :



















SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD V. NIEROTKO, 327 U.S. 358 


NO. 318.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 149
F.2D 273, AFFIRMED. 


1.  "BACK PAY" AWARDED UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO AN
EMPLOYEE WHO WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED IS TO BE
TREATED UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AS "WAGES" FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYEE
IS ENTITLED TO CREDIT ON HIS OLD AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE ACCOUNT. 
PP. 359, 364. 

(A)  THE TREATMENT OF SUCH BACK PAY AS WAGES UNDER THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT IS REQUIRED BY THAT ACT'S DEFINITIONS OF WAGES AS
"REMUNERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT" AND OF EMPLOYMENT AS "ANY SERVICE, OF
WHATEVER NATURE, PERFORMED  ...  BY ANY EMPLOYEE FOR HIS EMPLOYER."  P.
364. 

(B)  THE WORD "SERVICE," AS USED IN THE ACT'S DEFINITION OF
EMPLOYMENT, MEANS NOT ONLY WORK ACTUALLY PERFORMED BUT THE ENTIRE
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS PAID TO THE
EMPLOYEE BY THE EMPLOYER.  PP. 365-366. 

(C)  THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT BY THE SOCIAL
SECURITY BOARD, WHEREBY "BACK PAY" IS EXCLUDED FROM "WAGES," IS UNSOUND
AND GOES BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION.  P. 367. 

(D)  ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS MUST HAVE A BASIS IN LAW AND BE
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  P. 369. 

(E)  AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY MAY NOT FINALLY DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF
ITS STATUTORY POWER; THAT IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  P. 369. 

2.  "BACK PAY" TREATED AS "WAGES" UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO THE PERIODS FOR WHICH THE WAGES ORDINARILY WOULD
HAVE BEEN PAID.  P. 370. 

3.  THE BACK PAY HAVING BEEN AWARDED FOR A PERIOD PRIOR TO THE 1939
AMENDMENTS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT ALTHOUGH ACTUALLY PAID
THEREAFTER, THE DECISION HERE IS CONTROLLED BY THE ACT IN ITS EARLIER
FORM.  HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN
THE AMENDED ACT SO FAR AS THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED IS CONCERNED.  P.
360. 

SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD V. NIEROTKO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD REFUSED TO CREDIT RESPONDENT'S OLD AGE AND
SURVIVORS INSURANCE ACCOUNT WITH THE AMOUNT OF "BACK PAY" AWARDED HIM
BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  THE DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  149
F.2D 273.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 700.  AFFIRMED, P.
370. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A PROBLEM AS TO WHETHER "BACK PAY," WHICH IS GRANTED TO AN EMPLOYEE
UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SHALL BE TREATED AS "WAGES"
UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT COMES BEFORE US ON THIS RECORD.  IF SUCH
"BACK PAY" IS A WAGE PAYMENT, THERE IS ALSO AT ISSUE THE PROPER
ALLOCATION OF SUCH SUMS TO THE QUARTERS OF COVERAGE FOR WHICH THE "BACK
PAY" WAS ALLOWED. 

THE RESPONDENT, JOSEPH NIEROTKO, WAS FOUND BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD TO HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED FOR UNION ACTIVITY
BY HIS EMPLOYER, THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AND WAS REINSTATED BY THAT
BOARD IN HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH DIRECTIONS FOR "BACK PAY" FOR THE PERIOD
FEBRUARY 2, 1937, TO SEPTEMBER 25, 1939.  FN1  THE "BACK PAY" WAS PAID
BY THE EMPLOYER ON JULY 18, 1941.  THEREAFTER NIEROTKO REQUESTED THE
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD TO CREDIT HIM IN THE SUM OF THE "BACK PAY" ON HIS
OLD AGE AND SURVIVOR'S INSURANCE ACCOUNT WITH THE BOARD.  FN2  IN
CONFORMITY WITH ITS MINUTE OF FORMAL GENERAL ACTION OF MARCH 27, 1942,
THE BOARD REFUSED TO CREDIT NIEROTKO'S "BACK PAY" AS WAGES.  ON REVIEW
OF THE BOARD'S DECISION,  FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE BOARD. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  149 F.2D 273.  ON ACCOUNT OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN4  326 U.S. 700; JUDICIAL CODE
SEC. 240. 

DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH "BACK PAY" WAS AWARDED RESPONDENT THE
FEDERAL OLD AGE BENEFITS WERE GOVERNED BY TITLE II OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT OF 1935.  49 STAT. 622.  AS TITLE II OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1939 BECAME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1940(53
STAT. 1362), THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE "BACK WAGES" OCCURRED
THEREAFTER.  IN OUR VIEW THE GOVERNING PROVISIONS WHICH DETERMINE
WHETHER THIS "BACK PAY" IS WAGES ARE THOSE OF THE EARLIER ENACTMENT. 
FN5 

WAGES ARE THE BASIS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL OLD AGE
BENEFITS.  49 STAT. 622.  ONLY THOSE WHO EARN WAGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
BENEFITS.  FN6  THE PERIODS OF TIME DURING WHICH WAGES WERE EARNED ARE
IMPORTANT AND MAY BE CRUCIAL ON ELIGIBILITY UNDER EITHER THE ORIGINAL
ACT OR THE AMENDMENTS OF 1939.  SEE SEC. 210(C) AND COMPARE SEC.
209(G), 53 STAT. 1376.  FN7  THE BENEFITS ARE FINANCED BY PAYMENTS FROM
EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS WHICH ARE CALCULATED ON WAGES.  FN8  THE ACT
DEFINES "WAGES" FOR OLD AGE BENEFITS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 210.  WHEN USED IN THIS TITLE - 

(A)  THE TERM 'WAGES' MEANS ALL REMUNERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT,
INCLUDING THE CASH VALUE OF ALL REMUNERATION PAID IN ANY MEDIUM OTHER
THAN CASH; ..."  EMPLOYMENT IS DEFINED THUS: 

"(B)  THE TERM 'EMPLOYMENT' MEANS ANY SERVICE, OF WHATEVER NATURE,
PERFORMED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR HIS EMPLOYER,
EXCEPT - " 

THE TAX TITLES OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAVE IDENTICAL DEFINITIONS
OF WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT.  FN9  AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED BUT THE INDIVIDUAL TO WHOM THE ACT'S
BENEFITS ARE TO BE PAID IS ONE RECEIVING "WAGES" FOR "EMPLOYMENT" IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 210(C) AND EMPLOYMENT IS SERVICE BY AN "EMPLOYEE"
TO AN "EMPLOYER."  OBVIOUSLY A SHARPLY DEFINED LINE BETWEEN PAYMENTS TO
EMPLOYEES WHICH ARE WAGES AND WHICH ARE NOT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROPER
ADMINISTRATION.  FN10 

UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AN EMPLOYEE IS DESCRIBED AS
"ANY INDIVIDUAL WHOSE WORK HAS CEASED  ...  BECAUSE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE."  SEC. 2(3), 49 STAT. 450.  THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF
THIS ACT UNDER WHICH NIEROTKO RECEIVED HIS "BACK PAY" ALLOW THE LABOR
BOARD TO REINSTATE "EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY."  SEC. 10(C). 
THE PURPOSE OF THE "BACK PAY" ALLOWANCE IS TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES
OF THE LABOR ACT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.  FN11 

THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL OLD AGE BENEFITS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT IS TO PROVIDE FUNDS THROUGH CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE
FOR THE DECENT SUPPORT OF ELDERLY WORKMEN WHO HAVE CEASED TO LABOR. 
FN12  ELIGIBILITY FOR THESE BENEFITS AND THEIR AMOUNT DEPENDS UPON THE
TOTAL WAGES WHICH THE EMPLOYEE HAS RECEIVED AND THE PERIODS IN WHICH
WAGES WERE PAID.  FN13  WHILE THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT AND ITS AMENDMENTS OR THE LANGUAGE OF THE ENACTMENTS
THEMSELVES DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DEAL WITH WHETHER OR NOT "BACK PAY"
UNDER THE LABOR ACT IS TO BE TREATED AS WAGES UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT, WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE
LABOR ACT AND WHO RECEIVES "BACK PAY" FOR A PERIOD OF TIME DURING WHICH
HE WAS WRONGFULLY SEPARATED FROM HIS JOB, IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT
AWARD OF BACK PAY TREATED AS WAGES UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
DEFINITIONS WHICH DEFINE WAGES AS "REMUNERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT" AND
EMPLOYMENT AS "ANY SERVICE  ...  PERFORMED  ...  BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR HIS
EMPLOYER ..." 

SURELY THE "BACK PAY" IS "REMUNERATION."  UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF THE
LABOR ACT, THE LABOR BOARD ACTS FOR THE PUBLIC TO VINDICATE THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE LABOR ACT AGAINST UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (SEC. 8)
AND TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION WHICH IS
DECLARED BY SEC. 7.  FN14  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT, IN REQUIRING
REPARATION TO THE EMPLOYEE THROUGH "BACK PAY," REPARATION IS BASED UPON
THE LOSS OF WAGES WHICH THE EMPLOYEE HAS SUFFERED FROM THE EMPLOYER'S
WRONG.  "BACK PAY" IS NOT A FINE OR PENALTY IMPOSED UPON THE EMPLOYER
BY THE BOARD.  REINSTATEMENT AND "BACK PAY" ARE FOR THE "PROTECTION OF
THE EMPLOYEES AND THE REDRESS OF THEIR GRIEVANCES" TO MAKE THEM
"WHOLE."  REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7, 11, 12. 
"... A WORKER'S LOSS IN WAGES AND IN GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS MUST BE
MADE WHOLE."  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 196.  A
WORKER IS NOT GIVEN "BACK PAY" BY THE BOARD EQUAL TO WHAT HE WOULD HAVE
EARNED WITH THE EMPLOYER BUT FOR THE UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE, BUT IS GIVEN
THAT SUM LESS ANY NET EARNINGS DURING THE TIME BETWEEN DISCHARGE AND
REINSTATEMENT.  FN15 

SINCE NIEROTKO REMAINED AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE DEFINITION OF THE LABOR
ACT, ALTHOUGH HIS EMPLOYER HAD ATTEMPTED TO TERMINATE THE RELATIONSHIP,
HE HAD "EMPLOYMENT" UNDER THAT ACT AND WE NEED CONSIDER FURTHER ONLY
WHETHER UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT ITS DEFINITION OF EMPLOYMENT, AS
"ANY SERVICE  ...  PERFORMED  ...  BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR HIS EMPLOYER,"
COVERS WHAT NIEROTKO DID FOR THE FORD MOTOR COMPANY.  THE PETITIONER
URGES THAT NIEROTKO DID NOT PERFORM ANY SERVICE.  IT POINTS OUT THAT
CONGRESS IN CONSIDERING THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT THOUGHT OF BENEFITS AS
RELATED TO "WAGES EARNED" FOR "WORK DONE."  FN16  WE ARE UNABLE,
HOWEVER, TO FOLLOW THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD IN SUCH A LIMITED
CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF THE WORD "SERVICE."  THE VERY WORDS "ANY SERVICE
...  PERFORMED 

...  FOR HIS EMPLOYER," WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
IN MIND, IMPORT BREADTH OF COVERAGE.  THEY ADMONISH US AGAINST HOLDING
THAT "SERVICE" CAN BE ONLY PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY.  WE THINK THAT
"SERVICE" AS USED BY CONGRESS IN THIS DEFINITIVE PHRASE MEANS NOT ONLY
WORK ACTUALLY DONE BUT THE ENTIRE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FOR
WHICH COMPENSATION IS PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE BY THE EMPLOYER.  FN17 

AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE INTERPRETATION WHICH WE GIVE TO "SERVICE
PERFORMED" IS THE CONTRARY RULING OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WHICH
ARE CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  THEIR
COMPETENCE AND EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD COMMAND US TO REFLECT BEFORE WE
DECIDE CONTRARY TO THEIR CONCLUSION.  THE FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION WAS APPARENTLY MADE IN 1939 BY AN OFFICE DECISION OF THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE ON THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER "BACK PAY" UNDER A
LABOR BOARD ORDER WAS WAGES SUBJECT TO TAX UNDER TITLES VIII AND IX OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT WHICH THE BUREAU COLLECTS.  FN18  THE BACK PAY
WAS HELD NOT TO BE SUBJECT AS WAGES TO THE TAX BECAUSE NO SERVICE WAS
PERFORMED, THE EMPLOYER HAD TRIED TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP AND THE ALLOWANCE OF BACK PAY WAS DISCRETIONARY WITH THE
LABOR BOARD.  RELIANCE FOR THE CONCLUSIONS WAS PLACED UPON AGWILINES,
INC. V. LABOR BOARD, 87 F.2D 146, WHICH HAD HELD "BACK PAY" A PUBLIC
REPARATION ORDER AND THEREFORE NOT TRIABLE BY JURY AS A PRIVATE RIGHT
FOR WAGES WOULD HAVE BEEN.  THIS POSITION IS MAINTAINED BY THE SOCIAL
SECURITY BOARD BY MINUTE OF MARCH 27, 1942.  IT IS FOLLOWED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WHICH AT ONE TIME APPROVED THE RETENTION
BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE TAX ON THE EMPLOYEES' BACK PAY FOR TRANSMISSION
TO THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT AS A TAX ON WAGES BUT LATER REVERSED ITS
POSITION ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE DECISION TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS
JUST BEEN MADE.  RE PENNSYLVANIA FURNACE & IRON CO., 13 N.L.R.B. 49,
53(5), 54, 58.  FN19 

THE OFFICE DECISION SEEMS TO US UNSOUND.  THE PORTION OF THE
AGWILINES DECISION, WHICH THE OFFICE DECISION RELIED UPON, WAS DIRECTED
AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM TO A RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.  IT STATED
THAT "BACK PAY" WAS NOT A PENALTY OR DAMAGES WHICH A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
MIGHT CLAIM.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE OPINION WHICH SUPPORTS THE
IDEA THAT THE "BACK PAY" AWARD DIFFERS FROM OTHER PAY.  INDEED THE
OPINION SAID THAT "CONGRESS HAS THE RIGHT TO ERADICATE THEM (UNFAIR
PRACTICES) AS FROM THE BEGINNING."  87 F.2D AT 151, 1.  C. WE THINK THE
TRUE RELATION OF AWARDS OF "BACK PAY" TO COMPENSATION APPEARS IN THE
REPUBLIC STEEL AND PHELPS-DODGE CASES, HEREINBEFORE DISCUSSED.  FN20 

BUT IT IS URGED BY PETITIONER THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION ON
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER "BACK PAY" IS TO BE TREATED AS WAGES SHOULD
LEAD US TO FOLLOW THE AGENCIES' DETERMINATION.  THERE IS A SUGGESTION
THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION SHOULD BE TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE, AND
RELIANCE FOR THAT ARGUMENT IS PLACED UPON LABOR BOARD V. HEARST
PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 130, AND GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402,
411.  IN THE ACTS WHICH WERE CONSTRUED IN THE CASES JUST CITED, AS IN
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THOSE ACTS WERE GIVEN
POWER TO REACH PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AS TO COVERAGE IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE RESPECTIVE ACTS.  EACH ACT CONTAINS A STANDARDIZED
PHRASE THAT BOARD FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE.  FN21  THE VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS IS SPECIFICALLY RESERVED
FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF
1939, SEC. 205(G). 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD AND THE TREASURY WERE COMPELLED TO DECIDE,
ADMINISTRATIVELY, WHETHER OR NOT TO TREAT "BACK PAY" AS WAGES; AND
THEIR EXPERT JUDGMENT IS ENTITLED, AS WE HAVE SAID, TO GREAT WEIGHT. 
FN22  THE VERY FACT THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW HAS BEEN ACCORDED, HOWEVER,
MAKES EVIDENT THAT SUCH DECISIONS ARE ONLY CONCLUSIVE AS TO PROPERLY
SUPPORTED FINDINGS OF FACT.  BOTH HEARST PUBLICATIONS, P. 131, AND GRAY
V. POWELL, P. 411, ADVERT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATIONS.  ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS MUST HAVE A BASIS IN
LAW AND MUST BE WITHIN THE GRANTED AUTHORITY.  ADMINISTRATION, WHEN IT
INTERPRETS A STATUTE SO AS TO MAKE IT APPLY TO PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES, ACTS AS A DELEGATE TO THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.  CONGRESS
MIGHT HAVE DECLARED THAT "BACK PAY" AWARDS UNDER THE LABOR ACT SHOULD
OR SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS WAGES.  CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE DELEGATED TO
THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD TO DETERMINE WHAT COMPENSATION PAID BY
EMPLOYERS TO EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE TREATED AS WAGES.  EXCEPT AS SUCH
INTERPRETIVE POWER MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENCIES' ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTIONS, CONGRESS DID NEITHER.  AN AGENCY MAY NOT FINALLY DECIDE THE
LIMITS OF ITS STATUTORY POWER.  THAT IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION N23. 
CONGRESS USED A WELL UNDERSTOOD WORD - "WAGES" - TO INDICATE THE
RECEIPTS WHICH WERE TO GOVERN TAXES AND BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT.  THERE MAY BE BORDERLINE PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES ON WHICH
COURTS WOULD FOLLOW ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER SUCH
PAYMENTS WERE OR WERE NOT WAGES UNDER THE ACT. 

WE CONCLUDE, HOWEVER, THAT THE BOARD'S INTERPRETATION OF THIS STATUTE
TO EXCLUDE BACK PAY GOES BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ROUTINE AND THE STATUTORY LIMITS.  THIS IS A RULING WHICH EXCLUDES FROM
THE AMBIT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT PAYMENTS WHICH WE THINK WERE
INCLUDED BY CONGRESS.  IT IS BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION. 

PETITIONER FURTHER QUESTIONS THE VALIDITY OF THE DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE GROUND THAT IT MUST BE INFERRED FROM
THE OPINION THAT THE "BACK PAY" MUST BE ALLOCATED AS WAGES BY THE BOARD
TO THE "CALENDAR QUARTERS" OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE MONEY WOULD HAVE
BEEN EARNED, IF THE EMPLOYEE HAD NOT BEEN WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED.  WE
THINK THIS INFERENCE IS CORRECT.  FN24  THIS CONCLUSION, PETITIONER
ARGUES, TENDS TO SHOW THAT "BACK PAY" CANNOT BE WAGES BECAUSE THE
AMENDMENTS OF 1939 USE "QUARTERS" AS THE BASIS FOR ELIGIBILITY AS WELL
AS THE MEASURE OF BENEFITS AND REQUIRE "WAGES" TO BE "PAID" IN CERTAIN
"QUARTERS."  FN25    IF, AS WE HAVE HELD ABOVE, "BACK PAY" IS TO BE
TREATED AS WAGES, WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO THE
PERIODS WHEN THE REGULAR WAGES WERE NOT PAID AS USUAL.  ADMITTEDLY
THERE ARE ACCOUNTING DIFFICULTIES WHICH THE BOARD WILL BE CALLED UPON
TO SOLVE BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE INSUPERABLE.  FN26  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SEC. 10(C), 49 STAT. 454. 

FN2  SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, SEC. 205(C)(3), 53 STAT. 1369.    FN3  SEC.
205(G). 

FN4  THE BRIEFS OF THE GOVERNMENT ADVISE US THAT MORE THAN THIRTY
THOUSAND INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES WERE ALLOWED "BACK PAY" IN "CLOSED" CASES
BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNDER SEC. 10(C), 49 STAT. 454,
IN THE PERIOD 1939-1945.  SEE PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313
U.S. 177, 187, SECOND.  THE AGGREGATE IN MONEY EXCEEDED $7,700,000 IN
THE FISCAL YEARS 1939 TO 1944, AS SHOWN BY THE REPORTS OF THE N.L.R.B.
FOR THOSE YEARS. 

FN5  BY THE FOREGOING STATEMENT IT IS NOT INTENDED TO IMPLY THAT THE
VARIATIONS IN THE DEFINITIONS OF WAGES BETWEEN THE TWO ENACTMENTS ARE
SIGNIFICANT ON THE ISSUES HEREIN CONSIDERED.  SEC. 209(B) OF THE
AMENDMENT RECOGNIZES POSSIBLE DIFFERENCES IN THE MEANING OF
EMPLOYMENT: 

"(B)  THE TERM 'EMPLOYMENT' MEANS ANY SERVICE PERFORMED AFTER
DECEMBER 31, 1936, AND PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1940, WHICH WAS EMPLOYMENT
AS DEFINED IN SECTION 210(B) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT PRIOR TO
JANUARY 1, 1940(EXCEPT SERVICE PERFORMED BY AN INDIVIDUAL AFTER HE
ATTAINED THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE IF PERFORMED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1939),
AND ANY SERVICE, OF WHATEVER NATURE, PERFORMED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1939,
BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE PERSON EMPLOYING HIM  ..." 

FN6  "SEC.  202.  (A)  EVERY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL (AS DEFINED IN
BEGINNING ON THE DATE HE ATTAINS THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE, OR ON JANUARY
1, 1942, WHICHEVER IS THE LATER, AND ENDING ON THE DATE OF HIS DEATH,
AN OLD-AGE BENEFIT (PAYABLE AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE IN EQUAL MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS) AS FOLLOWS: 

(1)  IF THE TOTAL WAGES (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 210) DETERMINED BY THE
BOARD TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO HIM, WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT (AS DEFINED
IN SECTION 210) AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1936, AND BEFORE HE ATTAINED THE AGE
OF SIXTY-FIVE, WERE NOT MORE THAN $3,000, THE OLD-AGE BENEFIT SHALL BE
AT A MONTHLY RATE OF ONE-HALF OF 1 PER CENTUM OF SUCH TOTAL WAGES; 

(2)  IF SUCH TOTAL WAGES WERE MORE THAN $3,000, THE OLD-AGE BENEFIT
SHALL BE AT A MONTHLY RATE EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE FOLLOWING: 

(A)  ONE-HALF OF 1 PER CENTUM OF $3,000; PLUS 

(B)  ONE-TWELFTH OF 1 PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH SUCH TOTAL
WAGES EXCEEDED $3,000 AND DID NOT EXCEED $45,000; PLUS 

(C)  ONE-TWENTY-FOURTH OF 1 PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH SUCH
TOTAL WAGES EXCEEDED $45,000." 

SEC. 210.  "(C)  THE TERM 'QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL' MEANS ANY INDIVIDUAL
WITH RESPECT TO WHOM IT APPEARS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BOARD THAT
 

(1)  HE IS AT LEAST SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE; AND 

(2)  THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WAGES PAID TO HIM, WITH RESPECT TO
EMPLOYMENT AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1936, AND BEFORE HE ATTAINED THE AGE OF
SIXTY-FIVE, WAS NOT LESS THAN $2,000; AND 

(3)  WAGES WERE PAID TO HIM, WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT ON SOME FIVE
DAYS AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1936, AND BEFORE HE ATTAINED THE AGE OF SIXTY
FIVE, EACH DAY BEING IN A DIFFERENT CALENDAR YEAR." 

FN7  SEC. 209.  "(G) THE TERM 'FULLY INSURED INDIVIDUAL' MEANS ANY
INDIVIDUAL WITH RESPECT TO WHOM IT APPEARS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
BOARD THAT - 

(1) HE HAD NOT LESS THAN ONE QUARTER OF COVERAGE FOR EACH TWO OF THE
QUARTERS ELAPSING AFTER 1936, OR AFTER THE QUARTER IN WHICH HE ATTAINED
THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE, WHICHEVER QUARTER IS LATER, AND UP TO BUT
EXCLUDING THE QUARTER IN WHICH HE ATTAINED THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE, OR
DIED, WHICHEVER FIRST OCCURRED, AND IN NO CASE LESS THAN SIX QUARTERS
OF COVERAGE; OR 

(2)  HE HAD AT LEAST FORTY QUARTERS OF COVERAGE. 

AS USED IN THIS SUBSECTION, AND IN SUBSECTION (H) OF THIS SECTION,
THE TERM 'QUARTER' AND THE TERM 'CALENDAR QUARTER' MEAN A PERIOD OF
THREE CALENDAR MONTHS ENDING ON MARCH 31, JUNE 30, SEPTEMBER 30, OR
DECEMBER 31; AND THE TERM 'QUARTER OF COVERAGE' MEANS A CALENDAR
QUARTER IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN PAID NOT LESS THAN $50 IN
WAGES...." 

FN8  49 STAT. 636-37: 

"SECTION 801.  IN ADDITION TO OTHER TAXES, THERE SHALL BE LEVIED,
COLLECTED, AND PAID UPON THE INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL A TAX EQUAL TO
THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 811)
RECEIVED BY HIM AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1936, WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT (AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 811) AFTER SUCH DATE: 

(1)  WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT DURING THE CALENDAR YEARS 1937, 1938,
AND 1939, THE RATE SHALL BE 1 PER CENTUM...." 

"SEC. 804.  IN ADDITION TO OTHER TAXES, EVERY EMPLOYER SHALL PAY AN
EXCISE TAX, WITH RESPECT TO HAVING INDIVIDUALS IN HIS EMPLOY, EQUAL TO
THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 811) PAID
BY HIM AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1936, WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT (AS DEFINED
IN SECTION 811) AFTER SUCH DATE: 

(1)  WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT DURING THE CALENDAR YEARS 1937, 1938,
AND 1939, THE RATE SHALL BE 1 PER CENTUM...." 

FN9  SECS. 811(A) AND (B), AND 907(B) AND (C). 

FN10  PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE QUOTED ARE FOUND IN THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1939.  SEE SECS. 202(A), 202(E), 203(D),
209(A), (B), (E), (G), (H), AND 601, 604, AND 606 AT 53 STAT. 1363 ET
SEQ. 

FN11  49 STAT. 449: 

"IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO
ELIMINATE THE CAUSES OF CERTAIN SUBSTANTIAL OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE
FLOW OF COMMERCE AND TO MITIGATE AND ELIMINATE THESE OBSTRUCTIONS WHEN
THEY HAVE OCCURRED BY ENCOURAGING THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND BY PROTECTING THE EXERCISE BY WORKERS OF FULL
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION, AND DESIGNATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR
PROTECTION." 

FN12 SEE HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619, 641; H. REP. NO. 728, 76TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., 3-4; S. REP. NO. 734, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 3-4. 

FN13  UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935, SEE SECS. 202(A) AND
210(C), SUPRA, NOTE 6.  UNDER THE 1939 AMENDMENTS, SEE SECS. 202 AND
209(E), (F) AND (G), 53 STAT. 1363, ET SEQ. 

FN14  VIRGINIA ELECTRIC CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 319 U.S. 533, 543. 

FN15  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 196, 198.  SEE
THIRD ANNUAL REPORT, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 202, N. 11; EIGHTH
ANNUAL REPORT 41; NINTH ANNUAL REPORT 49.  NIEROTKO'S ORDER WAS IN THIS
FORM, 14 N.L.R.B. 346, 410. 

FN16  H. REP. NO. 615, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 6, 21, 32, AND S.
REP. NO. 628, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 7, 32. 

FN17  FOR EXAMPLE THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD'S REGULATIONS NO. 3 IN
CONSIDERING "WAGES" TREATS VACATION ALLOWANCES AS WAGES.  26 CFR, 1940
SUPP., 402.227(B). 

COMPARE ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126, 133. 

TREASURY DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS NO. 91 RELATING TO THE EMPLOYEES' TAX
AND THE EMPLOYER'S TAX UNDER TITLE VIII OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT,
1936, ART. 16, CLASSIFIES DISMISSAL PAY, VACATION ALLOWANCES OR SICK
PAY AS WAGES.  REGULATIONS 106 UNDER THE FEDERAL INSURANCE
CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, 1940, PP. 48, 51, CONTINUES TO CONSIDER VACATION
ALLOWANCES AS WAGES.  IT DIFFERENTIATES VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PAY. 

I.R.B., 1940, 1-22-10271, S.S.T. 389, AN OFFICE DECISION, HOLDS THAT
AMOUNTS PAID EMPLOYEES DURING ABSENCE ON JURY SERVICE TO MAKE THEIR PAY
EQUIVALENT TO REGULAR SALARY ARE WAGES. 

THOUGH FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD ON MARCH
27, 1942, OUR ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN CALLED TO ANY REGULATION OF ANY
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY EXCLUDING "BACK PAY" FROM WAGES.  THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT HAS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
TAXES.  SECS. 808 AND 908, 49 STAT. 638, ET SEQ.; I.R.C., SEC. 1429, 53
STAT. 178.  SO HAS THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, SEC. 1102, 49 STAT. 647,
AND SEC. 205(A), 53 STAT. 1368.  ALL AUTHORITY FOR THE PROMULGATION OF
REGULATIONS LIMITS THE ACTION TO RULES AND REGULATIONS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE VARIOUS SECTIONS. 

IN REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE COLLECTION OF INCOME TAXES AT SOURCE ON
OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1945, 58 STAT. 247, THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
CLASSIFIED VACATION ALLOWANCES AND DISMISSAL PAY AS WAGES UNDER THE
FOLLOWING STATUTORY DEFINITION OF WAGES: 

"SEC. 1621.  DEFINITIONS.  AS USED IN THIS SUBCHAPTER - 

(A)  WAGES.  - THE TERM 'WAGES' MEANS ALL REMUNERATION (OTHER THAN
FEES PAID TO A PUBLIC OFFICIAL) FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY AN EMPLOYEE
FOR HIS EMPLOYER, INCLUDING THE CASH VALUE OF ALL REMUNERATION PAID IN
ANY MEDIUM OTHER THAN CASH; EXCEPT THAT SUCH TERM SHALL NOT INCLUDE
REMUNERATION PAID - " SEE 26 CFR, 1944 SUPP., 405.101(D) AND (E). 

FN18  I.R.B., 1939, 1-14-9776, S.S.T. 359.  NO REGULATIONS COVERING
"BACK PAY" UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAVE BEEN FOUND.  THEY ARE
AUTHORIZED BY SECS. 808 AND 908, 49 STAT. 638, 643. 

FN19  THE STATES HAVE LARGELY FOLLOWED THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
IN THEIR CLASSIFICATION OF "BACK PAY."  SOME HAVE DISAGREED. 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SERVICE, ALL STATE TREATISE, C.C.H., PARAGRAPH
1201.  SEE MATTER OF TONRA, 258 APP. DIV. 835, 15 N.Y.S.2D 755; 283
N.Y. 676, 28 N.E.2D 402. 

FN20  THIS WAS THE VIEW OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT WHEN A "BACK PAY" CLAIM
WAS PRESENTED IN BANKRUPTCY.  LABOR BOARD V. KILLOREN, 122 F.2D 609,
614. 

FN21  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 454, SEC. 10(E);
BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 72, 85, SEC. 4-A; SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1939, SEC. 205(C)(3) AND (G). 

FN22 SEE SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 39, 52; SKIDMORE V. SWIFT
& CO., 323 U.S. 134, 139-40. 

FN23  AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94,
110; INTERNATIONAL R. CO. V. DAVIDSON, 257 U.S. 506, 514; ISELIN V.
UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 245; KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441;
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S.
134, 144-145; UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475,
489; HELVERING V. CREDIT ALLIANCE CO., 316 U.S. 107, 113; HELVERING V.
SABINE TRANSPORTATION CO., 318 U.S. 306, 311-12; ADDISON V. HOLLY HILL
CO., 322 U.S. 607, 611, ET SEQ.; CF. STEUART & BRO. V. BOWLES, 322 U.S.
398, 403. 

FN24  SEE NIEROTKO V. SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, 149 F.2D 273, 274, R.C. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA.  THE SAME PROBLEM WOULD ARISE UNDER THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT. 625, SEC. 210(C). 

FN26  THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD ITSELF HAS RECOMMENDED THE INCLUSION
OF "BACK PAY" IN WAGES.  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY,
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD (1945), SEC. 5, P. 398: 

"CERTAIN ITEMS OF INCOME WHICH ARE NOW NOT CONSIDERED 'WAGES' UNDER
THE DEFINITION IN THE ACT, SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS WAGES, SO THAT THE
BASE FOR BENEFITS WOULD REPRESENT THE WORKER'S ACTUAL REMUNERATION FROM
EMPLOYMENT.  THESE INCLUDE TIPS, DISMISSAL PAYMENTS WHICH THE EMPLOYER
IS NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO MAKE BUT NEVERTHELESS DOES MAKE, AND
PAYMENTS MADE UNDER ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OR A
SIMILAR STATE BOARD." 

A PENDING BILL, S. 1050, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PART F, SEC. 275,
MAKES PROVISION FOR THE INCLUSION IN WAGES UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT OF SUMS PAID PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

"BACK PAY" IS NOW TREATED DISTRIBUTIVELY UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE.  SEC. 119, REVENUE ACT OF 1943, 58 STAT. 39. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT A MAN'S TIME MAY, AS
A MATTER OF LAW, BE IN THE SERVICE OF ANOTHER THOUGH HE BE INACTIVE. 
E.G., ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126.  THIS IS, PRACTICALLY
SPEAKING, THE ORDINARY SITUATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN A "STAND-BY"
CAPACITY.  UNITED STATES V. LOCAL 807, 315 U.S. 521, 535.  THE BASIS OF
A BACK-PAY ORDER UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 151, IS PRECISELY THAT.  WHEN THE EMPLOYER IS LIABLE FOR
BACK PAY, HE IS SO LIABLE BECAUSE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THOUGH HE
HAS ILLEGALLY DISCHARGED THE EMPLOYEE, HE STILL ABSORBS HIS TIME. 
PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177.  IN SHORT, AN EMPLOYER
MUST PAY WAGES ALTHOUGH, IN VIOLATION OF LAW, HE HAS SUBJECTED HIS
EMPLOYEE TO ENFORCED IDLENESS.  SINCE SUCH COMPENSATION IS IN FACT PAID
AS WAGES, IT IS A PLAIN DISREGARD OF THE LAW FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY
BOARD NOT TO INCLUDE SUCH PAYMENTS AMONG THE EMPLOYEES' WAGES.  NEITHER
THE TERMS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 49 STAT. 620, 53 STAT. 1360, 42
U.S.C. SEC. 301, NOR THE IMPLICATIONS OF POLICY, COMPARABLE TO SOME
ASPECTS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 44 STAT. 577, 48 STAT. 926, 48 STAT.
1185, 49 STAT. 1921, 54 STAT. 785, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151, GIVE THE BOARD
JUDICIALLY UNREVIEWABLE AUTHORITY TO EXCLUDE FROM WAGES WHAT AS A
MATTER OF LAW ARE WAGES.  AND SO I CONCUR IN THE DECISION OF THE
COURT. 
..END :



















UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO., 327 U.S. 372 


ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 147 F.2D 912,
REVERSED. 


THE UNITED STATES IN 1942 ACQUIRED BY CONDEMNATION FOR PUBLIC USE A
BUILDING THEN OCCUPIED BY TENANTS HOLDING UNDER LEASES FOR VARIOUS
TERMS.  THE USE TAKEN WAS FOR A PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1945, WITH THE
RIGHT OF SURRENDER IN 1943 OR 1944 ON 60 DAYS NOTICE TO THE OWNER.  AN
ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE POSSESSION WAS ENTERED, AND TENANTS WERE GIVEN
NOTICES VARYING FROM SIX TO TWENTY DAYS TO VACATE.  HELD: 

1.  SINCE TERMINATION EARLIER OF THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY
WAS TAKEN WAS WHOLLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE TAKING
MUST BE DEEMED A TAKING FOR PUBLIC USE UNTIL JUNE 30, 1945.  P. 374. 

2.  THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES IS THE VALUE OF THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF
THE LEASEHOLD FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TENANT'S TERM, LESS THE AMOUNT
OF THE RENT WHICH THE TENANT AGREED TO PAY FOR SUCH USE AND OCCUPANCY. 
P. 381. 

3.  A TENANT WHOSE LEASE CONTAINED A "TERMINATION BY CONDEMNATION"
CLAUSE WAS WITHOUT ANY RIGHT OF RECOVERY.  P. 375. 

4.  TENANTS WHOSE LEASES WERE FOR TERMS SHORTER THAN THE PERIOD FOR
WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE
COSTS OF REMOVAL OR RELOCATION CONSIDERED AS ELEMENTS OF "VALUE" OF
THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE UNEXPIRED PORTIONS OF THEIR LEASES.  UNITED
STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 378. 

5.  IN THE CASE OF TENANCIES AT WILL, DETERMINATION OF THE REMAINDER
OF THE TERM WILL DEPEND UPON THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW AS TO NOTICE
FOR THE TERMINATION OF SUCH TENANCIES.  P. 380. 

6.  IN THE CASE OF A TENANT WHOSE LEASE CONTAINED A RIGHT OF RENEWAL
FOR A YEAR, THE VALUE OF THAT RIGHT (IF IT CONTINUED UNDER THE STATE
LAW) MUST BE ADDED TO THE VALUE OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF THE LEASE.  P.
380. 

UNITED STATES V. PETTY MOTOR CO. 

NO. 77.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 78, UNITED STATES V. BROCKBANK, DOING BUSINESS AS
BROCKBANK APPAREL CO.; NO. 79, UNITED STATES V. GRIMSDELL, DOING
BUSINESS AS GROCER PRINTING CO.; NO. 80, UNITED STATES V. WIGGS, DOING
BUSINESS AS CHICAGO FLEXIBLE SHAFT CO.; NO. 81, UNITED STATES V.
INDEPENDENT PNEUMATIC TOOL CO.; NO. 82, UNITED STATES V. GALIGHER CO.;
AND NO. 83, UNITED STATES V. GRAY-CANNON LUMBER CO., ON CERTIORARI TO
THE SAME COURT, ARGUED AND DECIDED ON THE SAME DATES. 

PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF A
BUILDING FOR TEMPORARY PUBLIC USE RESULTED IN VERDICTS FOR THE
TENANTS.  ON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  147 F.2D 912.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  325 U.S.
848.  REVERSED, P. 381. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 240 BRINGS HERE FOR
REVIEW CERTAIN PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR TENANTS
IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE THEIR ENTIRE LEASEHOLDS WHEN THE
UNITED STATES HAD ALREADY TAKEN OVER THE LESSORS' INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY WHICH THE TENANTS OCCUPY.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO CONSIDER
THE HOLDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 147 F.2D 912, AFFIRMING
THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT EVIDENCE BY A TENANT OF THE
COSTS OF MOVING AND REINSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE TO
ESTABLISH THE VALUE OF HIS LEASEHOLD UNDER THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN UNITED
STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373.  AS THIS ISSUE PRESENTS
AN IMPORTANT PHASE OF THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN,  FN1  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  325 U.S. 848. 

THESE CASES ARISE OUT OF A PETITION FOR CONDEMNATION OF THE TEMPORARY
USE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES OF A BUILDING IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, FILED
NOVEMBER 9, 1942, WHICH SOUGHT TO TAKE THE USE OF THE BUILDING FOR THE
GOVERNMENT THROUGH JUNE 30, 1945, WITH THE RIGHT OF ELECTION UPON THE
PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO SURRENDER THE PREMISES ON JUNE 30, 1943,
OR JUNE 30, 1944, UPON SIXTY DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE OWNER.  FN2
THE OWNER AND TENANTS WERE PARTIES DEFENDANT.  AN ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE
POSSESSION WAS ENTERED ON NOVEMBER 11, 1942, SUBJECT TO AUTHORIZATION
TO THE TENANTS TO CONTINUE THEIR OCCUPATION OF THEIR PREMISES FOR SHORT
PERIODS WHICH VARIED FROM SIX TO TWENTY DAYS. 

WHILE THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY MADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES WHICH RESULTED IN THE
DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER.  THERE IS NO CLAIM BY THE
UNITED STATES THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT RELEASED IT FROM LIABILITY TO THE
TENANTS FOR ITS TAKING OF THEIR LEASEHOLDS.  AS THE VALUE OF THE USE OF
THE TOTALITY OF PROPERTY, WHICH WAS TAKEN, THUS LOST ALL MEANING, THE
GOVERNMENT ACCEPTS A SEPARATE RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPENSATE THE TENANTS
FOR ANY LEGALLY RECOGNIZED INTEREST WHICH THEY MAY HAVE IN THE
PROPERTY.  SEE DUCKETT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 149. 

ALTHOUGH AN EARLIER SURRENDER MIGHT OCCUR BY THE ELECTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE ESTATE SOUGHT DID NOT NECESSARILY EXPIRE UNTIL JUNE
30, 1945.  PROMPT POSSESSION WAS REQUIRED FROM THE TENANTS AND ALL OF
THEM WERE REQUIRED BY THE ORDER OF POSSESSION TO VACATE THE PREMISES
WHICH THEY OCCUPIED WITHIN VARIOUS SHORT PERIODS OF WHICH TWENTY DAYS
WAS THE LONGEST.  THE JUDGMENTS STATED THE ISSUE WAS THE AMOUNT DUE THE
TENANTS FOR THE TAKING OF THEIR OCCUPANCY OF THEIR PREMISES AND FOUND
IN DOLLARS THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE RIGHTS TAKEN.  THESE FACTS, WE
CONCLUDE, RESULTED IN THE TAKING BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE TEMPORARY
USE OF THE BUILDING UNTIL JUNE 30, 1945.  WHEN THE SHORTENING OF THE
TERM IS WHOLLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE LESSEE, THE TERM OF THE LEASEHOLD
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF THE TAKING MUST BE
CONSIDERED TO BE ITS LONGEST LIMIT.  FN3  ALL RIGHTS OF ALL THE
TENANTS, EXCEPT THE INDEPENDENT PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY, WHICH IS ONE OF
THE RESPONDENTS HERE, TERMINATED BEFORE THE END OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
LEASE BY THE LAPSE OF TIME OR, IN THE CASE OF THE TOOL COMPANY, BY A
"TERMINATION ON CONDEMNATION" CLAUSE.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PETTY
MOTOR COMPANY AND THE INDEPENDENT PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY, THE TENANTS
WERE TENANTS UNDER ORAL CONTRACTS ON A MONTH TO MONTH BASIS.  THIS
ENTITLED THEM ONLY TO NOTICE OF TERMINATION FIFTEEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
END OF A RENTAL PERIOD.  UTAH CODE ANN. (1943), TITLE 104-60-3(2).  THE
PETTY MOTOR COMPANY HELD A LEASE WHICH EXPIRED OCTOBER 31, 1943, WITH
AN OPTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR.  CONSEQUENTLY ITS RIGHTS UNDER ITS
LEASE ENDED BEFORE THOSE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT BY ITS PETITION. 

THE LEASE OF THE INDEPENDENT PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY INCLUDED A CLAUSE
FOR ITS TERMINATION ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ENTRY INTO POSSESSION
OF THE LEASED PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE.  FN4  THE EVENTS CONNECTED WITH
THE GOVERNMENT'S ENTRY JUST SET OUT APPEAR TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
TERMINATION.  THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO BE CONTROVERTED.  THE CONTENTION OF
THE TOOL COMPANY, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT THE TENANT IS BARRED
FROM CLAIMING ANY "OF THE AWARD OF THE LANDLORD" BUT THAT THE CONDEMNOR
IS NOT RELIEVED OF LIABILITY TO THE LESSEE.  THIS POSITION SEEMS
INCONSISTENT.  IF THE TOOL COMPANY, WITH ITS TERMINATION ON
CONDEMNATION CLAUSE, WAS THE ONLY TENANT AND CONDEMNATION OF ALL
INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTY WAS DECREED, THE LANDLORD WOULD TAKE THE
ENTIRE COMPENSATION BECAUSE THE LESSEE WOULD HAVE NO RIGHTS AGAINST THE
FUND.  THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE NO GREATER RIGHT WHERE THE LANDLORD HAS
BEEN OTHERWISE SATISFIED.  CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS ARE IN REM, DUCKETT
& CO. V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 149; UNITED STATES V. DUNNINGTON, 146
U.S. 338, 350-54, AND COMPENSATION IS MADE FOR THE VALUE OF THE RIGHTS
WHICH ARE TAKEN.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373,
379.  THE TOOL COMPANY HAD CONTRACTED AWAY ANY RIGHTS THAT IT MIGHT
OTHERWISE HAVE HAD.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A CLAUSE FOR AUTOMATIC
TERMINATION OF THE LEASE ON A TAKING OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE BY
GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.  WITH THIS TYPE OF CLAUSE, AT LEAST IN THE
ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY STATE RULE, THE TENANT HAS NO RIGHT WHICH
PERSISTS BEYOND THE TAKING AND CAN BE ENTITLED TO NOTHING.  FN5 

IN ORDER TO INFORM THE JURY AS TO THE VALUE OF THE TENANTS' INTERESTS
WHERE THERE WAS A RIGHT TO CONTINUE THE OCCUPATION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
PREMISES, THE TRIAL COURT PERMITTED THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE, OVER
THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIONS, NOT ONLY AS TO THE VALUE ON THE MARKET OF
THE USE AND OCCUPANCY, OVER AND ABOVE THE AGREED RENT, FOR ANY
REMAINDER OF A TERM WHICH MAY HAVE EXISTED IN THE RESPECTIVE TENANTS
AFTER THEY WERE DISPOSSESSED, BUT ALSO ALLOWED EVIDENCE OF THE EXPENSES
INCURRED IN MOVING AND THE REINSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT.  THE TRIAL
COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS MADE CLEAR THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY NOT FOR A FINDING ON THE COST TO THE TENANTS OF RELOCATING THEIR
BUSINESSES BUT AS AN ELEMENT IN DETERMINING THE "VALUE" OF THEIR
TENANCIES FOR THAT PORTION OF THEIR TERM WHICH WAS LEFT UPON THE
TERMINATION OF THE LEASE.  THE ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE AND ITS
SUBMISSION TO THE JURY WAS APPROVED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON
THE THEORY THAT CONSIDERATION OF SUCH ELEMENTS OF COST WAS COMPELLED BY
THE GENERAL MOTORS CASE.  323 U.S. 373.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
RECOGNIZED THAT HERE THE GOVERNMENT TOOK THE ENTIRE TERM OF ALL THE
LESSEES EXCEPT THE TOOL COMPANY AND POSSIBLY THE PETTY MOTOR COMPANY
BUT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CASE
APPLIED WHEN ANY LEASEHOLD WAS TAKEN.  147 F.2D 912, 914.  IN SO
HOLDING, THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR. 

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTES DO NOT DEFINE THE MEANING OF JUST
COMPENSATION.  BUT IT HAS COME TO BE RECOGNIZED THAT JUST COMPENSATION
IS THE VALUE OF THE INTEREST TAKEN.  THIS IS NOT THE VALUE TO THE OWNER
FOR HIS PARTICULAR PURPOSES OR TO THE CONDEMNOR FOR SOME SPECIAL USE
BUT A SO-CALLED "MARKET VALUE."  IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT AN OWNER OFTEN
RECEIVES LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO HIM BUT EXPERIENCE HAS
SHOWN THAT THE RULE IS REASONABLY SATISFACTORY.  SINCE "MARKET VALUE"
DOES NOT FLUCTUATE WITH THE NEEDS OF CONDEMNOR OR CONDEMNEE BUT WITH
GENERAL DEMAND FOR THE PROPERTY, EVIDENCE OF LOSS OF PROFITS, DAMAGE TO
GOOD WILL, THE EXPENSE OF RELOCATION AND OTHER SUCH CONSEQUENTIAL
LOSSES ARE REFUSED IN FEDERAL CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.  MITCHELL V.
UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 341, 344; UNITED STATES EX REL. T.V.A. V.
POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266, 281; POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 66 APP. D.C. 77, 85 F.2D 243; ORGEL, VALUATION UNDER EMINENT
DOMAIN, CHAP. V. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESE CASES, IT IS IMMATERIAL
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY TOOK THE LEASEHOLDS OF THE TENANTS IN
ADDITION TO TAKING THE TEMPORARY USE OF THE FEE OR ONLY DESTROYED THE
TENANTS' RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY.  IF ANY PROPERTY IS TAKEN, COMPENSATION IS
REQUIRED.  CF. UNITED STATES V. WELCH, 217 U.S. 333. 

THERE WAS A COMPLETE TAKING OF THE ENTIRE INTEREST OF THE TENANTS IN
THE PROPERTY.  IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT TO MEASURE JUST COMPENSATION FOR
THE TAKING OF A LEASEHOLD BY ITS VALUE ON THE MARKET OR BY THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FAIR RENTAL AS OF THE TIME OF TAKING AND THE
AGREED RENT, IS UNFAIR.  IT IS SAID THE UNFAIRNESS COMES FROM THE FACT
THAT THERE IS REALLY NO MARKET FOR LEASEHOLDS; THAT THEIR VALUE IS
SOMETHING PECULIARLY PERSONAL TO THE LESSEE.  FN6  THE SAME THING IS
TRUE AS TO INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES TO THE OWNER OF A FEE. 
WE THINK THE SOUNDER RULE UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTES IS TO TREAT THE
CONDEMNATION OF ALL INTERESTS IN A LEASEHOLD LIKE THE CONDEMNATION OF
ALL INTERESTS IN THE FEE.  IN NEITHER SITUATION SHOULD EVIDENCE OF THE
COST OF REMOVAL OR RELOCATION BE ADMITTED.  SUCH COSTS ARE APART FROM
THE VALUE OF THE THING TAKEN.  THEY ARE PERSONAL TO THE LESSEE.  FN7
THE LESSEE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE AT THE END OF HIS TERM UNLESS THE LEASE
WAS RENEWED.  THE COMPENSATION FOR THE VALUE OF HIS LEASEHOLD COVERS
THE LOSS FROM THE PREMATURE TERMINATION EXCEPT IN THE UNUSUAL SITUATION
WHERE THERE IS A HIGHER COST FOR PRESENT RELOCATION THAN FOR A FUTURE. 

UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. WAS A DIFFERENT CASE.  IN IT
ONLY A PORTION OF THE LEASE WAS TAKEN.  WE THERE SAID, P. 382: 

"WHEN IT TAKES THE PROPERTY, THAT IS, THE FEE, THE LEASE, WHATEVER HE
MAY OWN, TERMINATING ALTOGETHER HIS INTEREST, UNDER THE ESTABLISHED LAW
IT MUST PAY HIM FOR WHAT IS TAKEN, NOT MORE; AND HE MUST STAND WHATEVER
INDIRECT OR REMOTE INJURIES ARE PROPERLY COMPREHENDED WITHIN THE
MEANING OF 'CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE' AS THAT CONCEPTION HAS BEEN DEFINED
IN SUCH CASES.  EVEN SO THE CONSEQUENCES OFTEN ARE HARSH.  FOR THESE
WHATEVER REMEDY MAY EXIST LIES WITH CONGRESS." 

THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TAKING OF A PART OF A
LEASE AND THE TAKING OF THE WHOLE LEASE.  THAT DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE
LESSEE MUST RETURN TO THE LEASEHOLD AT THE END OF THE GOVERNMENT'S USE
OR AT LEAST THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PERIOD OF THE LEASE WHICH IS NOT
TAKEN RESTS UPON THE LESSEE.  THIS WAS BROUGHT OUT IN THE GENERAL
MOTORS DECISION.  FN8  BECAUSE OF THAT CONTINUING OBLIGATION IN ALL
TAKINGS OF TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF LEASEHOLDS, THE VALUE OF THE RIGHTS
OF THE LESSEES WHICH ARE TAKEN MAY BE AFFECTED BY EVIDENCE OF THE COST
OF TEMPORARY REMOVAL. 

UPON A NEW TRIAL, EACH TENANT, OTHER THAN THE INDEPENDENT PNEUMATIC
TOOL COMPANY, SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO PROVE DAMAGES FOR THE CONDEMNATION
OF ITS RIGHTS FOR ANY REMAINDER OF ITS TERM WHICH EXISTED AFTER ITS
OUSTER BY THE ORDER OF POSSESSION BUT NOT COSTS OF MOVING OR RELOCATION
N9.  THE REMAINDER WHICH MAY EXIST WILL DEPEND UPON THE UTAH LAW ON THE
REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE TO TERMINATE THE TENANCIES AT WILL.  FN10  SOME
TENANTS OF THIS GROUP WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANYTHING BECAUSE THE
NOTICE GIVEN THEM BY THE ORDER OF POSSESSION IS MORE THAN THE UTAH
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.  THE VALUE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM OF THE
PETTY MOTOR COMPANY'S LEASE INCLUDES THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT TO A
RENEWAL FOR A YEAR, IF SUCH RIGHT CONTINUES UNDER UTAH LAW, AS WELL AS
THE VALUE OF THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 31, 1943.  THE MEASURE OF
DAMAGES IS THE VALUE OF THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE LEASEHOLD FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THE TENANT'S TERM, PLUS THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT TO RENEW IN
THE LEASE OF PETTY, LESS THE AGREED RENT WHICH THE TENANT WOULD PAY FOR
SUCH USE AND OCCUPANCY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE UNITED STATES V. 10,620 SQUARE FEET IN CANADIAN PACIFIC
BLDG., 62 F.SUPP.  115. 

FN2  NO ONE QUESTIONS THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONDEMN
THIS TEMPORARY INTEREST.  SECOND WAR POWERS ACT, 56 STAT. 177, SEC.
201.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373. 

FN3  IN UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, NOTE 3,
A DIFFERENT SITUATION EXISTED.  WHILE THE ESTATE THERE SOUGHT DID NOT
NECESSARILY EXPIRE DURING THE EXISTING NATIONAL EMERGENCY, THE ORDER
FOR POSSESSION, THE VERDICT AND THE JUDGMENT WERE FOR THAT PART OF THE
LEASEHOLD INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY EXTENDING FROM JUNE 19, 1942, TO
JUNE 30, 1943.  WE SAID:  "THE CASE NOW PRESENTED INVOLVES ONLY THE
ORIGINAL TAKING FOR ONE YEAR.  IF, ON REMAND, THE CASE BE TREATED AS
INVOLVING THE GOVERNMENT'S OPTION OF RENEWAL, THE ADDITIONAL VALUE OF
THAT INTEREST MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPENSATION AWARDED."    FN4
THE CLAUSE READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE DEMISED PREMISES SHALL BE TAKEN BY
FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY, OR OTHER AUTHORITY FOR PUBLIC USE, OR
UNDER ANY STATUTE, OR BY RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, THEN WHEN POSSESSION
SHALL BE TAKEN THEREUNDER OF SAID PREMISES, OR ANY PART THEREOF, THE
TERM HEREBY GRANTED AND ALL RIGHTS OF THE LESSEE HEREUNDER SHALL
IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND TERMINATE, AND THE LESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED
TO ANY PART OF ANY AWARD THAT MAY BE MADE FOR SUCH TAKING, NOR TO ANY
DAMAGES THEREFOR EXCEPT THAT THE RENT SHALL BE ADJUSTED AS OF THE DATE
OF SUCH TERMINATION OF THE LEASE." 

FN5  SEE UNITED STATES V. 10,620 SQUARE FEET IN CANADIAN PACIFIC
BLDG., 62 F.SUPP.  115; UNITED STATES V. 8286 SQ. FT. OF SPACE, 61
F.SUPP.  737, 740-43; UNITED STATES V. 21,815 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, 59
F.SUPP.  219; UNITED STATES V. 3.5 ACRES OF LAND, 57 F.SUPP.  548;
UNITED STATES V. IMPROVED PREMISES, 54 F.SUPP.  469, 472; GOODYEAR SHOE
MACHINERY CO. V. BOSTON TERMINAL CO., 176 MASS. 115, 57 N.E. 214.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. ENTIRE FIFTH FLOOR IN BUTTERICK BLDG., 54 F.SUPP. 
258. 

FN6  SEE METROPOLITAN WEST SIDE ELEVATED R. CO. V. SIEGEL, 161 ILL.
638, 44 N.E. 276; MCMILLIN PRINTING CO. V. PITTSBURG, C. & W.R. CO.,
216 PA. 504, 65 A. 1091. 

FN7  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. IMPROVED PREMISES, 54 F.SUPP.  469,
472; UNITED STATES V. ENTIRE FIFTH FLOOR IN BUTTERICK BLDG., IDEM, 261;
UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND, IDEM, 562; WM. WRIGLEY, JR.,
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 75 CT. CLS. 569; THERMAL SYNDICATE, LTD. V.
UNITED STATES, 81 CT. CLS. 446, 454. 

FN8  323 U.S. 373, 380, 383: 

"THE QUESTION POSED IN THIS CASE THEN IS, SHALL A DIFFERENT MEASURE
OF COMPENSATION APPLY WHERE THAT WHICH IS TAKEN IS A RIGHT OF TEMPORARY
OCCUPANCY OF A BUILDING EQUIPPED FOR THE CONDEMNEE'S BUSINESS, FILLED
WITH HIS COMMODITIES, AND PRESUMABLY TO BE REOCCUPIED AND USED, AS
BEFORE, TO THE END OF THE LEASE TERM ON THE TERMINATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S USE?" 

"SOME OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY AND DIRECTLY AFFECT THE
MARKET PRICE AGREED UPON BY A TENANT AND A SUBLESSEE IN SUCH AN
EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL TRANSACTION WOULD BE THE REASONABLE COST OF
MOVING OUT THE PROPERTY STORED AND PREPARING THE SPACE FOR OCCUPANCY BY
THE SUBTENANT.  THAT COST WOULD INCLUDE LABOR, MATERIALS, AND
TRANSPORTATION.  AND IT MIGHT ALSO INCLUDE THE STORAGE OF GOODS AGAINST
THEIR SALE OR THE COST OF THEIR RETURN TO THE LEASED PREMISES.  SUCH
ITEMS MAY BE PROVED, NOT AS INDEPENDENT ITEMS OF DAMAGE BUT TO AID IN
THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT WOULD BE THE USUAL - THE MARKET - PRICE WHICH
WOULD BE ASKED AND PAID FOR SUCH TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING
THEN IN USE UNDER A LONG-TERM LEASE." 

FN9  THE FACT THAT SOME TENANTS HAD OCCUPIED THEIR LEASEHOLDS BY
MUTUAL CONSENT FOR LONG PERIODS OF YEARS DOES NOT ADD TO THEIR RIGHTS. 
EMERY V. BOSTON TERMINAL CO., 178 MASS. 172, 185, 59 N.E. 763: 

"IT APPEARED THAT THE OWNERS HAD BEEN IN THE HABIT OF RENEWING THE
PETITIONERS' LEASE FROM TIME TO TIME, AND AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO GIVE
THIS FACT THE ASPECT OF AN ENGLISH CUSTOMARY TENANT RIGHT.  THE
EVIDENCE MERELY SHOWED THAT THE LANDLORDS AND THE TENANTS WERE MUTUALLY
SATISFIED AND WERE LIKELY TO KEEP ON TOGETHER.  IT ADDED NOTHING EXCEPT
BY WAY OF CORROBORATION TO THE TESTIMONY THAT THEY BOTH INTENDED TO
KEEP ON.  CHANGEABLE INTENTIONS ARE NOT AN INTEREST IN LAND, AND
ALTHOUGH NO DOUBT SUCH INTENTIONS MAY HAVE ADDED PRACTICALLY TO THE
VALUE OF THE PETITIONERS' HOLDING, THEY COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
IN DETERMINING WHAT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD PAY.  THEY ADDED NOTHING TO
THE TENANTS' LEGAL RIGHTS, AND LEGAL RIGHTS ARE ALL THAT MUST BE PAID
FOR.  EVEN IF SUCH INTENTIONS ADDED TO THE SALEABLE VALUE OF THE LEASE,
THE ADDITION WOULD REPRESENT A SPECULATION ON A CHANCE, NOT A LEGAL
RIGHT.  THE COURT WAS RIGHT IN EXCLUDING EXPERT EVIDENCE AS TO AN
INCREASE IN VALUE FROM THAT SOURCE." 

FN10  UNITED STATES EX REL. T.V.A. V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266, 279. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE RESULT AND WITH THE COURT'S OPINION, BUT WITH AN
IMPORTANT RESERVATION WHICH I THINK SHOULD BE MADE EXPRESSLY. 

IN UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373, THE PROBLEM
WAS STATED AS ONE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, NAMELY, TO ASCERTAIN THE JUST
COMPENSATION THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES WHERE, UNDER POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN, TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF PART OF A LEASED BUILDING IS TAKEN FROM
A TENANT HOLDING UNDER A LONG-TERM LEASE.  THE COURT DISTINGUISHED THE
CASE FROM OTHERS WHERE THE TAKING IS OF THE OWNER'S ENTIRE INTEREST,
WHETHER A FEE, A TERM OF YEARS OR SOME OTHER INTEREST.  SENSING THE
DANGER OF APPLYING TO SUCH A SITUATION THE STRICT RULES LIMITING THE
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IN THE LATTER TYPES OF CASES, THE COURT SAID
THIS WOULD OPEN A WAY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DEVISE ITS CONDEMNATION, BY
CHOPPING THE OWNER'S INTEREST INTO BITS, TAKING SOME AND LEAVING HIM
WITH OTHERS IN SUSPENDED ANIMATION, SO THAT THE AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY
MIGHT BECOME AN INSTRUMENT OF CONFISCATION, NOT ONE OF JUST
COMPENSATION FOR WHAT WAS TAKEN.  SUCH A PROCEDURE, THE COURT FURTHER
STATED, WOULD BE "NEITHER THE 'TAKING' NOR THE 'JUST COMPENSATION' THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT CONTEMPLATES."  323 U.S. AT 382. 

THE NOVELTY OF SUCH A FORM OF TAKING, TOGETHER WITH THE OBVIOUSLY
CONFISCATORY CONSEQUENCES, IN A PRACTICAL SENSE, FOR THE OWNER, LED THE
COURT TO HOLD THAT THE USUAL MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION APPLICABLE
WHEN ALL THE OWNER'S LEASEHOLD IS CONDEMNED, NAMELY, PAYMENT OF ONLY
THE LONG-TERM RENTAL OF AN EMPTY BUILDING FIXED BY THE TERMS OF HIS
LEASE OR BY MARKET VALUE, OR LESS, WOULD NOT SUFFICE TO COMPENSATE FOR
CARVING OUT OF THE LEASE A RIGHT OF "TEMPORARY USE."  OTHER ELEMENTS
WERE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF WHAT
WAS TAKEN. 

THESE INCLUDED (1) "WHAT WOULD BE THE MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF SUCH A
BUILDING ON A LEASE BY THE LONG-TERM TENANT TO THE TEMPORARY OCCUPIER,"
323 U.S. AT 382, WHICH IN ADDITION TO THE BEARING OF THE LONG-TERM
RENTAL AS ONE ELEMENT WOULD INCLUDE AS OTHER ELEMENTS AFFECTING
"CERTAINLY AND DIRECTLY  ...  THE MARKET PRICE AGREED UPON BY A TENANT
AND A SUBLESSEE IN SUCH AN EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL TRANSACTION," 323
U.S. AT 383, (2) THE REASONABLE COST OF MOVING OUT THE PROPERTY STORED
ON THE PREMISES AND OF PREPARING THE SPACE FOR OCCUPANCY BY THE
SUBTENANT, INCLUDING THE COST OF LABOR, MATERIALS AND TRANSPORTATION;
AND POSSIBLY ALSO THE COST OF STORAGE OF GOODS REMOVED AGAINST THEIR
SALE OR THE COST OF THEIR RETURN TO THE PREMISES.  IN ADDITION, FOR
FIXTURES AND PERMANENT EQUIPMENT DESTROYED OR DEPRECIATED IN VALUE BY
REASON OF THE TAKING, THE COURT HELD THAT THE TENANT WHOSE LEASE WAS SO
CUT UP WAS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AS FOR PROPERTY TAKEN, UNDER THE
SETTLED RULE OF CITED AUTHORITIES.  323 U.S. AT 383. 

FINALLY, IN A FOOTNOTE THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT AFTER JUDGMENT THE
GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND ITS PETITION SO AS TO INCLUDE IN
THE INTEREST TAKEN A YEARLY RIGHT OF RENEWAL, AFTER WHICH THE TRIAL
COURT ENTERED A NEW JUDGMENT FOR THE ORIGINAL FIGURE.  STATING THAT
THESE FACTS WERE NOT TAKEN TO ALTER THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE, WHICH
INVOLVED ONLY THE ORIGINAL TAKING FOR ONE YEAR, THE COURT WENT ON
EXPRESSLY TO RULE:  "IF, ON REMAND, THE CASE BE TREATED AS INVOLVING
THE GOVERNMENT'S OPTION OF RENEWAL, THE ADDITIONAL VALUE OF THAT
INTEREST MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPENSATION AWARDED."  323 U.S. AT
376, NOTE 3. 

THUS THE COURT APPLIED A RULE OF COMPENSATION TO THE CASE OF CARVING
OUT A TEMPORARY OR SHORT-TERM USE FROM A LONGER TERM VERY DIFFERENT
FROM THAT GENERALLY APPLICABLE WHEN THE OWNER'S ENTIRE INTEREST IS
TAKEN.  THE PURPOSE AND THE BASIS FOR THIS WERE TO GIVE SUBSTANCE, IN
PRACTICAL EFFECT, TO THE AMENDMENT'S EXPLICIT MANDATE FOR PAYMENT OF
"JUST COMPENSATION" IN CASES OF SUCH EXTRAORDINARY "TAKINGS" AND TO
PREVENT THOSE WORDS FROM BEING WHITTLED DOWN BY LEGALISTIC CONSTRUCTION
INTO MEANS FOR PRACTICAL CONFISCATION. 

IN THIS CASE THE COURT HAS CONSTRUED ALL OF THE TAKINGS AS BEING OF
THE TENANT-OWNERS' ENTIRE INTERESTS.  THIS IS CLEARLY THE CASE, ON THE
RECORD, WITH RESPECT TO ALL EXCEPT PETTY MOTOR CO. AS TO IT I HAVE
DOUBT BUT I ACCEPT THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS
CONDEMNED ITS ENTIRE LEASEHOLD INTEREST IN THE PREMISES AND THEREFORE
MUST PAY THE FULL VALUE OF THAT TERM ACCORDING TO THE USUAL RULES IN
SUCH CASES. 

MY RESERVATION, HOWEVER, HAS TO DO WITH A POSSIBILITY THIS RECORD
DOES NOT PRESENT AS AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT IN THE CASE OF THE PETTY CO.,
BUT DOES PRESENT AS A CONTINGENCY WHICH MIGHT BE REALIZED AND, IN THAT
EVENT, WOULD HAVE A DIRECT AND INESCAPABLE RELATION TO THE RULING
CONCERNING THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION IN THE GENERAL MOTORS CASE. 

IN THAT CASE THE INTEREST TAKEN WAS FOR ONE YEAR OUT OF A TWENTY-YEAR
TERM WHICH HAD SIX YEARS TO RUN FROM THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL
CONDEMNATION.  THERE WAS ALSO ADDED BY THE LATER AMENDMENT THE RIGHT OF
RENEWAL FROM YEAR TO YEAR WHICH, IF EXERCISED, MIGHT HAVE EXTENDED THE
TERM TAKEN TO THE END OF THE LEASEHOLD INTEREST. 

IN THIS CASE A CONVERSE SORT OF TAKING IS PRESENTED BY THE PETTY
MOTOR SITUATION.  THAT COMPANY HELD A LEASE EXPIRING OCTOBER 31, 1943,
WITH AN OPTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR WHICH IF EXERCISED WOULD EXTEND
THE TERM TO OCTOBER 31, 1944.  THE CONDEMNATION PETITION WAS FILED
NOVEMBER 9, 1942, WHEN THE PETTY LEASE HAD ALMOST ONE YEAR TO RUN IN
ANY EVENT AND TWO IF THE OPTION SHOULD BE EXERCISED.  THE GOVERNMENT
SOUGHT TO TAKE THE USE OF THE BUILDING THROUGH JUNE 30, 1945, BUT WITH
THE OPTION TO SURRENDER THE PREMISES ON JUNE 30, 1943, OR JUNE 30,
1944, ON GIVING SIXTY DAYS ADVANCE NOTICE IN WRITING. 

IT IS THIS OPTION WHICH I THINK MAKES DUBIOUS THE RULING THAT ALL OF
THE PETTY MOTOR COMPANY'S INTEREST WAS "TAKEN."  IN MY OPINION IT WAS
ONLY "TAKEN" CONTINGENTLY.  FOR, IF THE OPTION IS VALID, QUITE
OBVIOUSLY THE GOVERNMENT WAS FREE TO SURRENDER, BY GIVING NOTICE, ON
JUNE 30, 1943, IN WHICH EVENT PETTY'S LEASE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN FORCE
UNTIL THE FOLLOWING OCTOBER 31 IN ANY EVENT, OR ON JUNE 30, 1944, IN
WHICH CASE PETTY'S LEASE MIGHT HAVE CONTINUED IN FORCE UNTIL OCTOBER
31, 1944.  IN EITHER EVENT THE CASE WOULD HAVE FALLEN SQUARELY WITHIN
THE GENERAL MOTORS SITUATION AND RULING. 

IN MY OPINION THAT RULING AND THE REQUIREMENT OF PAYING COMPENSATION
ACCORDING TO THE MEASURE IT PRESCRIBES APPLY WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT
CARVES OUT PART OF THE TENANT-OWNER'S TERM BY ONE METHOD OF STATING
WHAT IT TAKES OR ANOTHER.  THAT IS, FOR THIS PURPOSE, IT MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT "TAKES" THE TEMPORARY USE FOR PART OF
THE TERM BUT ADDS TO THIS A RIGHT OF RENEWAL PERIODICALLY WHICH IF
EXERCISED WILL EXTEND THE TERM TAKEN BEYOND THE TERM OF THE LEASE; OR,
ON THE OTHER HAND, PURPORTS TO TAKE A TERM WHICH EXTENDS BEYOND THAT OF
THE LEASEHOLD INTEREST, BUT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CUT THIS DOWN
PERIODICALLY SO THAT IN FACT IT MAY SURRENDER THE PREMISES BEFORE THE
LEASEHOLD EXPIRES AND THUS CARVE OUT OF IT A SHORTER TERM, JUST AS IN
THE GENERAL MOTORS TAKING. 

WHETHER THE CHOPPING UP IS ACCOMPLISHED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THE
EFFECTS FOR THE OWNER ARE THE SAME, THE "TAKING" IS IN SUBSTANCE THE
SAME, AND THE COMPENSATION IS REQUIRED, UNDER THE GENERAL MOTORS
DECISION, TO BE THE SAME.  THAT RULING CANNOT BE AVOIDED BY INVERTING
THE LENGTH OF THE TERM SPECIFIED AND, CORRELATIVELY, THE CHARACTER OF
THE OPTION ADDED.  NOR CAN IT BE AVOIDED BY CONSTRUING THE TERM TAKEN,
IN VIEW OF THE CONTINGENT OPTION, IN CASES OF THE PETTY TYPE AS
INCLUDING ALL OF THE INTEREST OF THE LESSEE, IF IN FACT THE GOVERNMENT
EXERCISES THE OPTION AND SURRENDERS THE PREMISES BEFORE THE LESSEE'S
TERM EXPIRES.  UPON SUCH A SHOWING THE GENERAL MOTORS RULE WOULD APPLY
AND THE OWNER-LESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER COMPENSATION
INCLUDING ALL OF THE ELEMENTS SPECIFIED IN THAT RULE, SUBJECT ONLY TO
MAKING PROOF OF THEM. 

THIS QUESTION I THINK SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT TO BE EXPLICITLY
RESERVED FOR DECISION WHEN A CASE ARISES REQUIRING APPLICATION OF THE
GENERAL MOTORS RULE TO SUCH A SITUATION.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COURT
TO RULE TO THE CONTRARY, SINCE THERE IS NO SHOWING ON THIS RECORD THAT
THE GOVERNMENT HAS EXERCISED ITS OPTION.  I THEREFORE CONCUR IN THE
DECISION AS IT IS RENDERED UPON THE RECORD WHICH HAS BEEN PRESENTED. 
..END :
















LABOR BOARD V. CHENEY LUMBER CO., 327 U.S. 385 


NO. 319.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 10, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  -
149 F.2D 333, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON FINDINGS THAT AN EMPLOYER HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM (A) PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EMPLOYEES IN REGARD
TO HIRE OR TENURE, AND "(B) IN ANY OTHER MANNER INTERFERING WITH,
RESTRAINING, OR COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO
SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND
TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION, AS GUARANTEED IN SECTION
7 OF THE ACT."  UPON THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS STRUCK OUT PARAGRAPH (B).  HELD THAT,
SINCE NO OBJECTION TO THE PARAGRAPH WAS RAISED BEFORE THE BOARD OR ANY
AGENT THEREOF, AND SINCE THE FAILURE OR NEGLECT WAS UNEXCUSED, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 10(E) OF THE ACT, WAS
WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO STRIKE THE PARAGRAPH FROM THE ORDER.  P. 387. 

2.  LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426,
DIFFERENTIATED.  P. 387. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. CHENEY CALIFORNIA LUMBER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

UPON A PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ORDER OF THE LABOR BOARD, THE COURT MODIFIED THE ORDER AND DECREED
ENFORCEMENT AS MODIFIED.  149 F.2D 333.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 706.  REVERSED, P. 389. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CHENEY CALIFORNIA LUMBER COMPANY, THE RESPONDENT, OPERATED A SAWMILL
AT GREENVILLE, CALIFORNIA.  SOME EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY WERE MEMBERS
OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, LOCAL 2647, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR.  THE UNION COMPLAINED TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD THAT THE COMPANY HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8 OF THE WAGNER ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 452, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 158.  FOLLOWING THE USUAL PROCEDURE, THERE WAS A HEARING BEFORE A
TRIAL EXAMINER WHO MADE AN INTERMEDIATE REPORT, INCLUDING SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER.  THE COMPANY FILED NO
EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT, NOR DID IT REQUEST AN ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE
THE BOARD.  UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, THE BOARD ADOPTED THE FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER.  54 N.L.R.B.
205.  THEREUPON THE BOARD ASKED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT TO ENTER A DECREE UPON ITS ORDER.  THE COMPANY THEN
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, WHICH WERE GRANTED BY THE
COURT BELOW.  149 F.2D 333.  THE GOVERNMENT PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI
URGING THAT ONE OF THE CHANGES MADE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
BASED ON A MISCONCEPTION OF LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312
U.S. 426, AS TO THE ALLOWABLE SCOPE OF THE BOARD'S POWER "TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES" OF THE ACT.  SEC. 10(C), 49 STAT. 454, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
160(C).  SO WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  326 U.S. 706.  UPON THE
ARGUMENT, THIS WAS THE ONLY MODIFICATION TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
OBJECTED.  WE SHALL NOT CONSIDER THE OTHERS.  THE COURT BELOW STRUCK
OUT FROM THE BOARD'S ORDER PARAGRAPH 1(B) WHEREBY THE COMPANY WAS
ORDERED, AFTER APPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
ARISING FROM PROHIBITED DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES, TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM 

"(B)  IN ANY OTHER MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING
ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION, AS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT." 

THE COURT FOUND WARRANT FOR ITS EXCISION OF THIS PROVISION IN LABOR
BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., SUPRA.  THAT CASE, HOWEVER, RECOGNIZED
THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE BOARD TO MAKE AN ORDER PRECISELY
LIKE 1(B).  IT MERELY HELD THAT WHETHER SUCH AN INCLUSIVE PROVISION AS
1(B) IS JUSTIFIED IN A PARTICULAR CASE DEPENDS UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE PARTICULAR CASE BEFORE THE BOARD.  SEE 312 U.S. AT 433, 437-38. 
HERE THE TRIAL EXAMINER RECOMMENDED THE INCLUSION OF 1(B) ON THE BASIS
OF HIS REVIEW OF PAST HOSTILITIES BY THE COMPANY AGAINST EFFORTS AT
UNIONIZATION; NO EXCEPTION WAS MADE EITHER TO THE FINDINGS OR TO THIS
RECOMMENDATION; UPON FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD THE BOARD ADOPTED
THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION; NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE
COMPANY UNTIL AFTER THE BOARD SOUGHT JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF ITS
ORDER.  THE OBJECTION CAME TOO LATE. 

WHEN JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AVAILABLE AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE
QUESTIONS (APART FROM WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS THE CONSTITUTION MAY MAKE
IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS) THAT DEPEND ON THE PARTICULAR CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENT UNDER WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AUTHORIZED.  ORDERS OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ARE ENFORCEABLE BY DECREES OF CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS.  IN SUCH AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, A COURT OF
APPEALS MAY ENFORCE OR MODIFY OR SET ASIDE THE BOARD'S ORDER.  SEC.
10(E), 49 STAT. 454, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(E).  SINCE THE COURT IS
ORDERING ENTRY OF A DECREE, IT NEED NOT RENDER SUCH A DECREE IF THE
BOARD HAS PATENTLY TRAVELED OUTSIDE THE ORBIT OF ITS AUTHORITY SO THAT
THERE IS, LEGALLY SPEAKING, NO ORDER TO ENFORCE.  BUT THE PROPER SCOPE
OF A BOARD ORDER UPON FINDING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES CALLS FOR AMPLE
DISCRETION IN ADAPTING REMEDY TO VIOLATION.  WE HAVE SAID THAT "IN THE
NATURE OF THINGS CONGRESS COULD NOT CATALOGUE ALL THE DEVICES AND
STRATAGEMS FOR CIRCUMVENTING THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  NOR COULD IT
DEFINE THE WHOLE GAMUT OF REMEDIES TO EFFECTUATE THESE POLICIES IN AN
INFINITE VARIETY OF SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.  CONGRESS MET THESE
DIFFICULTIES BY LEAVING THE ADAPTATION OF MEANS TO END TO THE EMPIRIC
PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATION.  THE EXERCISE OF THE PROCESS WAS COMMITTED
TO THE BOARD, SUBJECT TO LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW."  PHELPS DODGE CORP.
V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194. 

A LIMITATION WHICH CONGRESS HAS PLACED UPON THE POWER OF COURTS TO
REVIEW ORDERS OF THE LABOR BOARD IS DECISIVE OF THIS CASE.  SECTION
10(E) OF THE ACT COMMANDS THAT "NO OBJECTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN URGED
BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER, AGENT OR AGENCY, SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY
THE COURT, UNLESS THE FAILURE OR NEGLECT TO URGE SUCH OBJECTION SHALL
BE EXCUSED BECAUSE OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES."  WE HAVE HERETOFORE
HAD OCCASION TO RESPECT THIS EXPLICIT DIRECTION OF CONGRESS.  MARSHALL
FIELD & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 318 U.S. 253; AND SEE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 326 U.S. 376, 386, N. 5.  BY THIS PROVISION,
CONGRESS HAS SAID IN EFFECT THAT IN A PROCEEDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER THE COURT IS TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON CONSENT AS TO ALL
ISSUES THAT WERE CONTESTABLE BEFORE THE BOARD BUT WERE IN FACT NOT
CONTESTED.  CF. POPE V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 1.  WE CAN SAY OF THIS
CASE, AS WAS SAID OF THE MARSHALL FIELD CASE, SUPRA, THAT IT "GIVES
EMPHASIS TO THE SALUTARY POLICY ADOPTED BY SEC. 10(E) OF AFFORDING THE
BOARD OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER ON THE MERITS QUESTIONS TO BE URGED UPON
REVIEW OF ITS ORDER."  MARSHALL FIELD & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, AT
256.  THE APPROPRIATENESS OF SUCH A PROHIBITION AS THE BOARD'S ORDER
CONTAINS DEPENDS, AS THE EXPRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY CASE, SUPRA,
ABUNDANTLY SHOWS, UPON EVIDENCE FOUND BY THE BOARD DISCLOSING A COURSE
OF CONDUCT AGAINST WHICH SUCH AN ORDER MAY BE THE ONLY PROPER REMEDY. 
THE BOARD HERE SO FOUND.  JUSTIFICATION OF SUCH AN ORDER, WHICH
NECESSARILY INVOLVES CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS WHICH ARE THE
FOUNDATION OF THE ORDER, IS NOT OPEN FOR REVIEW BY A COURT IF NO PRIOR
OBJECTION HAS BEEN URGED BEFORE THE CASE GETS INTO COURT AND THERE IS A
TOTAL WANT OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES TO EXCUSE "THE FAILURE OR
NEGLECT TO URGE SUCH OBJECTION  ..."  CONGRESS DESIRED THAT ALL
CONTROVERSIES OF FACT, AND THE ALLOWABLE INFERENCES FROM THE FACTS, BE
THRESHED OUT, CERTAINLY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, BEFORE THE BOARD.  THAT
IS WHAT THE BOARD IS FOR.  IT WAS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF THE
COURT BELOW TO MAKE THE DELETION IT MADE.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR ON A GROUND WHICH THE COURT'S OPINION POINTS OUT AND WHICH
IS ALONE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN ITS DECISION, NAMELY, THAT THE COURT
BELOW ERRONEOUSLY APPLIED LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312
U.S. 426.  BUT I CANNOT SAY THAT WHEN THE COURT BELOW WAS APPEALED TO
AS A COURT OF EQUITY TO ENFORCE BY ITS INJUNCTION THE BOARD'S ORDER,
SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT RENDERED THE COURT
POWERLESS TO FRAME ITS OWN INJUNCTION CONSISTENTLY WITH THE RECORD, ON
WHICH THAT SECTION REQUIRES IT TO ACT, AND IN CONFORMITY TO ACCEPTED
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTION; OR THAT IF THE TABLES
WERE TURNED THE SECTION WOULD REQUIRE THE REVIEWING COURT TO REPEAT, BY
THE EXCESSIVE SCOPE OF ITS INJUNCTION, THE VERY ABUSE OF POWER
CONDEMNED BY THE EXPRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY CASE. 

THE PROHIBITION BY SEC. 10(E) OF THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF
OBJECTIONS WHICH THE PARTIES DID NOT URGE BEFORE THE BOARD IS A
LIMITATION UPON THE COURT'S REVIEW OF THE GROUNDS FOR GRANTING OR
DENYING RELIEF.  THIS COURT HAS TREATED IT AS SUCH.  SEE MARSHALL FIELD
& CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 318 U.S. 253.  BUT WE HAVE NOT HELD THAT SEC.
10(E) COULD, AND I THINK IT CANNOT RIGHTLY, BE CONSTRUED TO BE ALSO A
LIMITATION ON THE COURT'S POWER TO CONFORM ITS OWN PROCESS TO ACCEPTED
LEGAL STANDARDS APPLIED TO THE "ENTIRE RECORD" WHICH SEC. 10(E)
REQUIRES TO BE FILED WITH IT.  NOR IS THAT PROHIBITION A COMMAND TO THE
COURT TO ACT AS A MERE MINISTERIAL AGENCY TO EXECUTE THE ORDER OF THE
BOARD, WITHOUT REGARD TO THOSE STANDARDS WHICH CONTROL THE COURT'S USE
OF ITS OWN PROCESS, EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD AND THE PARTIES HAVE IGNORED
THEM. 

ONLY RECENTLY WE HAVE HELD THAT THE IMPOSITION OF A MANDATORY DUTY ON
A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF A STATUTE IS NOT TO
BE TAKEN AS DEPRIVING THE COURT OF ITS TRADITIONAL POWER TO ADMINISTER
ITS REMEDIES ACCORDING TO ITS OWN GOVERNING PRINCIPLES AND IN
CONFORMITY TO THE STANDARDS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.  SEE HECHT CO. V.
BOWLES, 321 U.S. 321, 331.  IN THAT CASE WE HELD THAT A COMMAND
EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED TO A COURT OF EQUITY, BY SEC. 205(A) OF THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION ENFORCING
THE ACT WHEN VIOLATION OF IT IS SHOWN, DID NOT DEPRIVE THE COURT OF ITS
EQUITABLE DISCRETION TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD AN INJUNCTION.  IT HAS BEEN
WELL SAID THAT SEC. 205(A), WHICH DIRECTS THAT THE COURT UPON SHOWING
OF VIOLATION "SHALL" GRANT THE INJUNCTION, "DOES NOT CHANGE THE
HISTORIC CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE BY COURTS OF EQUITY OF THEIR POWER
TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS  ..."  321 U.S. 331. 

IT SHOULD LIKEWISE BE HELD THAT THE PRESENT STATUTE DOES NOT ALTER
THE POWER OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO FRAME ITS INJUNCTION ACCORDING TO
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORD ON WHICH IT
MUST ACT.  HERE THE STATUTE IS NOT MANDATORY.  IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO
CURTAIL THE COURT'S POWER TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF ITS PROCESS.  THE
ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS SO MODIFIED, OR SETTING ASIDE IN
WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BOARD."  THIS EMPHASIZES WHAT WAS
IMPLICIT IN THE STATUTE INVOLVED IN THE HECHT CASE, AND MADE EXPLICIT
BY THE OPINION, THAT WHEN A STATUTE AUTHORIZES AN APPEAL TO EQUITY TO
ENFORCE A LIABILITY CREATED BY STATUTE, THE EXERCISE IS INVOKED OF
THOSE POWERS WHICH PERTAIN TO IT AS A COURT OF EQUITY.  THIS AT LEAST
INCLUDES THE POWER TO FIX, ON ITS OWN MOTION, THE SCOPE OF THE DECREE
WHICH IT MAY BE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE BY CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, IN
CONFORMITY TO RECOGNIZED EQUITABLE STANDARDS APPLIED TO THE RECORD
BEFORE IT.
..END :



HOLMBERG V. ARMBRECHT, 327 U.S. 392 


NO. 505.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 150
F.2D 829, REVERSED. 


1.  DECISION OF A SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT TO ENFORCE A FEDERALLY
CREATED EQUITABLE RIGHT IS NOT CONTROLLED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
OF THE STATE OF THE FORUM.  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99,
DISTINGUISHED.  ACCORDINGLY, A CLASS SUIT BY CREDITORS OF A JOINT STOCK
LAND BANK TO ENFORCE THE LIABILITY IMPOSED UPON SHAREHOLDERS OF THE
BANK BY SEC. 16 OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT IS NOT BARRED BY THE STATE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  P. 394. 

2.  STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ARE NOT CONTROLLING MEASURES OF EQUITABLE
RELIEF, BUT HAVE BEEN DRAWN UPON BY EQUITY SOLELY FOR THE LIGHT THEY
MAY SHED IN DETERMINING THAT WHICH IS DECISIVE FOR THE CHANCELLOR'S
INTERVENTION, NAMELY, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS INEXCUSABLY SLEPT ON
HIS RIGHTS SO AS TO MAKE A DECREE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT UNFAIR.  P.
396. 

HOLMBERG ET AL. V. ARMBRECHT ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

FROM A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN A SUIT TO ENFORCE A STATUTORY
LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS OF A FARM LOAN BANK, THE DEFENDANTS
APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  150 F.2D 829.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 712.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P.
398. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT IN EQUITY BY PETITIONERS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHER CREDITORS OF THE SOUTHERN MINNESOTA JOINT STOCK LAND BANK OF
MINNEAPOLIS TO ENFORCE THE LIABILITY IMPOSED UPON SHAREHOLDERS OF THE
BANK BY SEC. 16 OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, EQUAL TO ONE HUNDRED
PERCENT OF THEIR HOLDINGS.  39 STAT. 360, 374, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 812.  FN1
THE BANK CLOSED ITS DOORS IN MAY, 1932.  ITS DEBTS EXCEEDED ITS ASSETS
BY MORE THAN $3,000,000, THE AMOUNT OF ITS OUTSTANDING STOCK.  SUIT WAS
ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA FOR DETERMINING AND COLLECTING THE ASSESSMENT DUE
UNDER SEC. 16.  HOLMBERG V. SOUTHERN MINNESOTA JOINT STOCK LAND BANK,
10 F.SUPP.  795.  ARMBRECHT, A NEW YORK STOCKHOLDER, WAS SUED THERE. 
THE SUIT FAILED ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS AND WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO FURTHER ACTION.  HOLMBERG V. ANCHELL, 24 F.SUPP.  594,
598.  NOT UNTIL 1942, SO IT IS ALLEGED, DID PETITIONERS LEARN THAT
JULES S. BACHE HAD CONCEALED HIS OWNERSHIP OF ONE HUNDRED SHARES OF THE
BANK STOCK UNDER THE NAME OF CHARLES ARMBRECHT.  THE PRESENT ACTION
AGAINST ARMBRECHT AND BACHE WAS BEGUN IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK IN NOVEMBER, 1943.  BACHE DIED DURING PENDENCY OF THE SUIT AND HIS
EXECUTORS WERE SUBSTITUTED AS PARTIES. 

THE RESPONDENTS MADE TWO DEFENSES:  (1) THEY INVOKED A NEW YORK
STATUTE OF LIMITATION BARRING SUCH AN ACTION AFTER TEN YEARS, NEW YORK
CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 53; (2) THEY URGED LACHES, CLAIMING THAT
PETITIONERS HAD UNDULY DELAYED COMMENCEMENT OF THE SUIT.  NEITHER
DEFENSE WAS SUSTAINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AND JUDGMENT WENT AGAINST
THE RESPONDENTS.  THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  150 F.2D 829.  THAT COURT DID NOT REACH THE DEFENSE OF LACHES
BECAUSE IT HELD, RELYING ON GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99,
THAT THE NEW YORK STATUTE OF LIMITATION WAS CONTROLLING AND THAT THE
MERE LAPSE OF TEN YEARS BARRED THE ACTION.  SINCE THE CASE RAISES A
QUESTION OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE IN ENFORCING LIABILITY UNDER
FEDERAL EQUITABLE ENACTMENTS, WE BROUGHT IT HERE FOR REVIEW.  326 U.S.
712. 

IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, SUPRA, WE RULED THAT WHEN A STATE
STATUTE BARS RECOVERY OF A SUIT IN A STATE COURT ON A STATE-CREATED
RIGHT, IT LIKEWISE BARS RECOVERY OF SUCH A SUIT ON THE EQUITY SIDE OF A
FEDERAL COURT BROUGHT THERE MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS "BETWEEN CITIZENS OF
DIFFERENT STATES" UNDER ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
AMENABILITY OF SUCH A FEDERAL SUIT TO A STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATION
CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A PROBLEM IN TERMINOLOGY, WHEREBY THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF A STATUTE OF LIMITATION WOULD TURN ON THE CONTENT WHICH
ABSTRACT ANALYSIS MAY ATTRIBUTE TO "SUBSTANCE" AND "PROCEDURE."  WE
HELD, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT A STATUTE OF LIMITATION IS A SIGNIFICANT
PART OF THE LEGAL RULES WHICH DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF A LITIGATION. 
AS SUCH, IT IS AS SIGNIFICANT IN ENFORCING A STATE-CREATED RIGHT BY AN
EXCLUSIVELY EQUITABLE REMEDY AS IT IS IN AN ACTION AT LAW.  BUT IN THE
YORK CASE WE POINTED OUT WITH ALMOST WEARISOME REITERATION, IN REACHING
THIS RESULT, THAT WE WERE THERE CONCERNED SOLELY WITH STATE-CREATED
RIGHTS.  FOR PURPOSES OF DIVERSITY SUITS A FEDERAL COURT IS, IN EFFECT,
"ONLY ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE."  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, SUPRA,
AT 108.  THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT URGE ADJUDICATION BY THE SAME LAW IN
ALL COURTS WITHIN A STATE WHEN ENFORCING A RIGHT CREATED BY THAT STATE
ARE HARDLY RELEVANT FOR DETERMINING THE RULES WHICH BAR ENFORCEMENT OF
AN EQUITABLE RIGHT CREATED NOT BY A STATE LEGISLATURE BUT BY CONGRESS. 

IF CONGRESS EXPLICITLY PUTS A LIMIT UPON THE TIME FOR ENFORCING A
RIGHT WHICH IT CREATED, THERE IS AN END OF THE MATTER.  THE
CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE OF LIMITATION IS DEFINITIVE.  SEE, E.G., HERGET
V. CENTRAL BANK CO., 324 U.S. 4.  THE RUB COMES WHEN CONGRESS IS
SILENT.  APART FROM PENAL ENACTMENTS, CONGRESS HAS USUALLY LEFT THE
LIMITATION OF TIME FOR COMMENCING ACTIONS UNDER NATIONAL LEGISLATION TO
JUDICIAL IMPLICATIONS.  AS TO ACTIONS AT LAW, THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS
HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT IT IS FEDERAL POLICY TO ADOPT THE
LOCAL LAW OF LIMITATION.  SEE CAMPBELL V. HAVERHILL, 155 U.S. 610;
CHATTANOOGA FOUNDRY & PIPE WORKS V. ATLANTA, 203 U.S. 390; RAWLINGS V.
RAY, 312 U.S. 96.  THE IMPLIED ABSORPTION OF STATE STATUTES OF
LIMITATION WITHIN THE INTERSTICES OF THE FEDERAL ENACTMENTS IS A PHASE
OF FASHIONING REMEDIAL DETAILS WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT SPOKEN BUT LEFT
MATTERS FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION WITHIN THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF
FAMILIAR LEGAL PRINCIPLES.  SEE BOARD OF COMM'RS V. UNITED STATES, 308
U.S. 343, 349-50, 351-52. 

THE PRESENT CASE CONCERNS NOT ONLY A FEDERALLY-CREATED RIGHT BUT A
FEDERAL RIGHT FOR WHICH THE SOLE REMEDY IS IN EQUITY.  WHEELER V.
GREENE, 280 U.S. 49; CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302 U.S. 500; RUSSELL
V. TODD, 309 U.S. 280, 285.  AND SO WE HAVE THE REVERSE OF THE
SITUATION IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, SUPRA.  WE DO NOT HAVE THE
DUTY OF A FEDERAL COURT, SITTING AS IT WERE AS A COURT OF A STATE, TO
APPROXIMATE AS CLOSELY AS MAY BE STATE LAW IN ORDER TO VINDICATE
WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION A RIGHT DERIVED SOLELY FROM A STATE.  WE HAVE
THE DUTY OF FEDERAL COURTS, SITTING AS NATIONAL COURTS THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY, TO APPLY THEIR OWN PRINCIPLES IN ENFORCING AN EQUITABLE RIGHT
CREATED BY CONGRESS.  WHEN CONGRESS LEAVES TO THE FEDERAL COURTS THE
FORMULATION OF REMEDIAL DETAILS, IT CAN HARDLY EXPECT THEM TO BREAK
WITH HISTORIC PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERALLY
CREATED EQUITABLE RIGHTS. 

TRADITIONALLY AND FOR GOOD REASONS, STATUTES OF LIMITATION ARE NOT
CONTROLLING MEASURES OF EQUITABLE RELIEF.  SUCH STATUTES HAVE BEEN
DRAWN UPON BY EQUITY SOLELY FOR THE LIGHT THEY MAY SHED IN DETERMINING
THAT WHICH IS DECISIVE FOR THE CHANCELLOR'S INTERVENTION, NAMELY,
WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF HAS INEXCUSABLY SLEPT ON HIS RIGHTS SO AS TO MAKE
A DECREE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT UNFAIR.  SEE RUSSELL V. TODD, SUPRA, AT
289.  "THERE MUST BE CONSCIENCE, GOOD FAITH, AND REASONABLE DILIGENCE,
TO CALL INTO ACTION THE POWERS OF THE COURT."  MCKNIGHT V. TAYLOR, 1
HOW.  161, 168.  A FEDERAL COURT MAY NOT BE BOUND BY A STATE STATUTE OF
LIMITATION AND YET THAT COURT MAY DISMISS A SUIT WHERE THE
PLAINTIFFS'"LACK OF DILIGENCE IS WHOLLY UNEXCUSED; AND BOTH THE NATURE
OF THE CLAIM AND THE SITUATION OF THE PARTIES WAS SUCH AS TO CALL FOR
DILIGENCE  ..."  BENEDICT V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 250 U.S. 321, 328.  A
SUIT IN EQUITY MAY FAIL THOUGH "NOT BARRED BY THE ACT OF LIMITATIONS
..."  MCKNIGHT V. TAYLOR, SUPRA; ALSOP V. RIKER, 155 U.S. 448. 

EQUITY ESCHEWS MECHANICAL RULES; IT DEPENDS ON FLEXIBILITY.  EQUITY
HAS ACTED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT "LACHES IS NOT LIKE LIMITATION, A MERE
MATTER OF TIME; BUT PRINCIPALLY A QUESTION OF THE INEQUITY OF
PERMITTING THE CLAIM TO BE ENFORCED - AN INEQUITY FOUNDED UPON SOME
CHANGE IN THE CONDITION OR RELATIONS OF THE PROPERTY OR THE PARTIES." 
GALLIHER V. CADWELL, 145 U.S. 368, 373; SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
BOGERT, 250 U.S. 483, 488-89.  AND SO, A SUIT IN EQUITY MAY LIE THOUGH
A COMPARABLE CAUSE OF ACTION AT LAW WOULD BE BARRED.  IF WANT OF DUE
DILIGENCE BY THE PLAINTIFF MAY MAKE IT UNFAIR TO PURSUE THE DEFENDANT,
FRAUDULENT CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE PREVENTED THE
PLAINTIFF FROM BEING DILIGENT AND MAY MAKE IT UNFAIR TO BAR APPEAL TO
EQUITY BECAUSE OF MERE LAPSE OF TIME. 

EQUITY WILL NOT LEND ITSELF TO SUCH FRAUD AND HISTORICALLY HAS
RELIEVED FROM IT.  IT BARS A DEFENDANT FROM SETTING UP SUCH A
FRAUDULENT DEFENSE, AS IT INTERPOSES AGAINST OTHER FORMS OF FRAUD.  AND
SO THIS COURT LONG AGO ADOPTED AS ITS OWN THE OLD CHANCERY RULE THAT
WHERE A PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN INJURED BY FRAUD AND "REMAINS IN IGNORANCE
OF IT WITHOUT ANY FAULT OR WANT OF DILIGENCE OR CARE ON HIS PART, THE
BAR OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL THE FRAUD IS DISCOVERED,
THOUGH THERE BE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR EFFORTS ON THE PART OF THE
PARTY COMMITTING THE FRAUD TO CONCEAL IT FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
OTHER PARTY."  BAILEY V. GLOVER, 21 WALL.  342, 348; AND SEE
EXPLORATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 435; SHERWOOD V. SUTTON, 5
MASON 143. 

THIS EQUITABLE DOCTRINE IS READ INTO EVERY FEDERAL STATUTE OF
LIMITATION.  IF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT HAD AN EXPLICIT STATUTE OF
LIMITATION FOR BRINGING SUIT UNDER SEC. 16, THE TIME WOULD NOT HAVE
BEGUN TO RUN UNTIL AFTER PETITIONERS HAD DISCOVERED, OR HAD FAILED IN
REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO DISCOVER, THE ALLEGED DECEPTION BY BACHE WHICH
IS THE BASIS OF THIS SUIT.  BAILEY V. GLOVER, SUPRA; EXPLORATION CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. DIAMOND COAL CO., 255 U.S. 323,
333.  IT WOULD BE TOO INCONGRUOUS TO CONFINE A FEDERAL RIGHT WITHIN THE
BARE TERMS OF A STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATION UNRELIEVED BY THE SETTLED
FEDERAL EQUITABLE DOCTRINE AS TO FRAUD, WHEN EVEN A FEDERAL STATUTE IN
THE SAME TERMS WOULD BE GIVEN THE MITIGATING CONSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY
THAT DOCTRINE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DECISION IN THE YORK CASE IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL EQUITABLE RIGHTS.  THE FEDERAL DOCTRINE APPLIED
IN BAILEY V. GLOVER, SUPRA, AND IN THE SERIES OF CASES FOLLOWING IT,
GOVERNS.  WHEN THE LIABILITY, IF ANY, ACCRUED IN THIS CASE, CF.
RAWLINGS V. RAY, SUPRA, AT 98, AND WHETHER THE PETITIONERS ARE
CHARGEABLE WITH LACHES, SEE FOSTER V. MANSFIELD, C. & L.M.R. CO., 146
U.S. 88, 99; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. BOGERT, SUPRA, AT 488, ARE
QUESTIONS AS TO WHICH WE IMPLY NO VIEWS.  WE LEAVE THEM FOR
DETERMINATION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO WHICH THE CASE IS
REMANDED.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  "SHAREHOLDERS OF EVERY JOINT STOCK LAND BANK ORGANIZED UNDER
THIS ACT SHALL BE HELD INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE, EQUALLY AND RATABLY,
AND NOT ONE FOR ANOTHER, FOR ALL CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS OF
SUCH BANK TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF STOCK OWNED BY THEM AT THE PAR
VALUE THEREOF, IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT PAID IN AND REPRESENTED BY
THEIR SHARES." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE RESULT AND WITH THE OPINION, RESERVING HOWEVER ANY
INTIMATION, EXPLICIT OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FULL SCOPE TO WHICH THE
DOCTRINE OF GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, MAY BE APPLIED IN
DIVERSITY CASES.  MANY OF THE CONSIDERATIONS NOW STATED BY THE COURT
FOR REFUSING TO EXTEND THAT DOCTRINE TO CASES CONCERNING FEDERALLY
CREATED RIGHTS, RELATING TO THE FLEXIBILITY OF REMEDIES IN EQUITY
EITHER TO CUT DOWN OR TO EXTEND THE STATE STATUTORY PERIOD OF
LIMITATIONS, SEEMED TO ME TO BE APPLICABLE WHENEVER A FEDERAL COURT
MIGHT BE ASKED TO EXTEND THE AID OF ITS EQUITY ARM, WHETHER IN ITS
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION OR OTHER.  THE RULING IN THE YORK CASE HOWEVER
MAY BE ACCEPTED GENERALLY FOR DIVERSITY CASES AND, MOREOVER, REJECTED
FOR EXTENSION TO CASES OF THIS SORT, WITHOUT INDICATING THAT THERE MAY
NOT BE SOME CASES EVEN OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION TO WHICH FEDERAL
COURTS MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO APPLY IT.  WITH THIS RESERVATION I JOIN
IN THE COURT'S ACTION. 
..END :














POFF V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 327 U.S. 399 


NO. 484.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 150
F.2D 902, REVERSED. 


THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT PROVIDES THAT THE LIABILITY OF
THE CARRIER UNDER THE ACT SHALL EXTEND, IN CASE OF THE DEATH OF THE
EMPLOYEE, "TO HIS OR HER PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE SURVIVING WIDOW OR HUSBAND AND CHILDREN OF SUCH EMPLOYEE; AND, IF
NONE, THEN OF SUCH EMPLOYEE'S PARENTS; AND, IF NONE, THEN OF THE NEXT
OF KIN DEPENDENT UPON SUCH EMPLOYEE."  HELD, WHERE A DECEDENT LEFT NO
SPOUSE, CHILDREN OR PARENTS, A COUSIN WHO WAS DEPENDENT ON THE DECEDENT
HAD A RIGHT OF RECOVERY, EVEN THOUGH THE DECEDENT WAS SURVIVED ALSO BY
NEARER NEXT OF KIN WHO WERE NOT DEPENDENT AND COULD NOT RECOVER.  P.
401. 

POFF, EXECUTRIX, V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE DISTRICT
COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  57 F.SUPP.  625.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  150 F.2D 902.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 712.  REVERSED, P. 402. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CONGRESS PROVIDED IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (35 STAT.
65, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51) THAT THE CARRIER'S LIABILITY IN CASE OF THE
DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE RUNS 

"TO HIS OR HER PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
SURVIVING WIDOW OR HUSBAND AND CHILDREN OF SUCH EMPLOYEE; AND, IF NONE,
THEN OF SUCH EMPLOYEE'S PARENTS; AND, IF NONE, THEN OF THE NEXT OF KIN
DEPENDENT UPON SUCH EMPLOYEE  ..." 

THE DECEASED, RESIDING IN PENNSYLVANIA, WAS A RAILROAD ENGINEER
EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT AND WAS KILLED WHILE ENGAGED IN ITS SERVICE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE WAS CONCEDED.  THE
DECEASED LEFT NO WIDOW, CHILDREN, OR PARENTS.  HIS NEAREST SURVIVING
RELATIVES WERE TWO SISTERS AND A NEPHEW, NONE OF WHOM WAS IN ANY WAY
FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT ON HIM.  BUT PETITIONER, WHO WAS HIS COUSIN, WAS
A MEMBER OF HIS HOUSEHOLD AND WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON HIM FOR SUPPORT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER.  57 F.SUPP.  625.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO RECOVER SINCE THERE WERE NEARER RELATIVES, THOUGH NOT
DEPENDENT ONES, WHO SURVIVED THE DECEASED.  150 F.2D 902.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION. 

WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT MEMBERS OF THE SECOND OR THIRD CLASS,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR NEED, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER IF THERE
SURVIVES A MEMBER OF THE PRIOR CLASS.  CF. NOTTI V. GREAT NORTHERN R.
CO., 110 MONT. 464, 104 P.2D 7.  THE LIABILITY IS NOT "TO THE SEVERAL
CLASSES COLLECTIVELY" BUT IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO ONE OF THE THREE
CLASSES.  CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. WELLS-DICKEY TRUST CO., 275 U.S.
161, 163.  THUS TO AN EXTENT, AT LEAST, THE ORDER OF PRIORITY IS
DETERMINED BY RELATIONSHIP, NOT BY DEPENDENCY.  SEE NEW ORLEANS &
N.E.R. CO. V. HARRIS, 247 U.S. 367.  CF. LYTLE V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 152
S.C. 161, 149 S.E. 692.  BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WENT FURTHER
AND APPLIED THAT PRINCIPLE TO DETERMINE WHICH MEMBERS OF THE THIRD
CLASS (NEXT OF KIN) WERE ENTITLED TO RECOVER.  IT SAID THAT SINCE
PARENTS OR GRANDCHILDREN, DEPENDENT ON THE DECEASED, ARE LEFT WITHOUT
REMEDY IF A WIDOW OR CHILD SURVIVES, CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO
RECOGNIZE REMOTE MEMBERS OF THE DECEASED'S OTHER KIN, SIMILARLY
SITUATED.  IT READ "NEXT OF KIN DEPENDENT UPON SUCH EMPLOYEE" TO MEAN
"NEXT OF KIN, IF DEPENDENT UPON SUCH EMPLOYEE."  SINCE THE TWO SISTERS
AND NEPHEW WERE THE "NEXT OF KIN" WHO WOULD TAKE TO THE EXCLUSION OF
PETITIONER UNDER PENNSYLVANIA'S LAW OF DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION  FN1
IF THE DECEASED DIED INTESTATE, PETITIONER WAS BARRED HERE. 

WE READ THE STATUTE DIFFERENTLY. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT "NEXT OF KIN" IS DETERMINED BY STATE LAW.  SEABOARD
AIR LINE V. KENNEY, 240 U.S. 489.  STATE LAW GOVERNS WHETHER IT IS
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE IF ONE RELATIVE IS CLOSER THAN ANOTHER, OR IF A
CLAIMANT FALLS WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE CLASS.  BUT UNDER THIS ACT, UNLIKE
THE STATE STATUTES OF DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION, A MEMBER OF THE THIRD
CLASS MUST BE NOT ONLY NEXT OF KIN BUT ALSO DEPENDENT ON THE DECEASED
IN ORDER TO RECOVER.  THE EMPHASIS ON DEPENDENCY SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS
GRANTED THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY TO SUCH NEXT OF KIN AS WERE DEPENDENT ON
THE DECEASED.  AND THAT INTERPRETATION SEEMS TO US TO BE MORE IN
HARMONY WITH THE ACT THAN THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS. 

WE ARE NOT WARRANTED IN TREATING AS AN ANTECEDENT CLASS THE NEARER
NEXT OF KIN WHO ARE NOT DEPENDENT.  THAT WOULD BE TO REWRITE THE
STATUTE.  CONGRESS HAS CREATED THREE CLASSES, NOT FOUR OR MORE.  YET TO
HOLD THAT THE EXISTENCE OF NEARER NEXT OF KIN WHO ARE NOT DEPENDENT
BARS RECOVERY BY MORE REMOTE NEXT OF KIN WHO ARE DEPENDENT IS TO ASSUME
THAT THE FORMER CONSTITUTE A PREFERRED CLASS.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER,
PLACED ALL NEXT OF KIN IN ONE CLASS.  TO USE DEPENDENCY AS THE
SELECTIVE FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHICH MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR CLASS MAY
RECOVER IS NO INNOVATION UNDER THIS ACT.  FOR THE COURT HELD IN GULF,
C. & S.F.R. CO. V. MCGINNIS, 228 U.S. 173, THAT IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY A
WIDOW AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE BENEFIT OF HERSELF AND FOUR CHILDREN, A
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF AN ADULT CHILD WHO WAS MARRIED AND RESIDED WITH
AND WAS MAINTAINED BY HER HUSBAND WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN ABSENCE OF
A SHOWING OF PECUNIARY LOSS.  MOREOVER, WHEN CONGRESS MADE THE WIDOW
PREFERRED OVER THE PARENTS AND BOTH THE WIDOW AND PARENTS PREFERRED
OVER THE NEXT OF KIN, IT BARRED THE DEFERRED CLASSES FROM RECOVERING BY
CREATING A PREFERRED CLASS WHICH COULD RECOVER.  YET IF RESPONDENT'S
THEORY IS ADOPTED, THE NEARER NEXT OF KIN WHO ARE NOT DEPENDENT ARE
TREATED AS A PREFERRED CLASS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THEM TO
RECOVER BUT TO DEFEAT A RECOVERY BY ALL NEXT OF KIN.  FN2  IT MAY BE
TRUE, AS WAS THE CASE IN CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. WELLS-DICKEY TRUST
CO., SUPRA, THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE LOST TO THE PREFERRED CLASS
AND TO THE DEFERRED CLASS AS WELL.  BUT THAT RESULT, THOUGH POSSIBLE,
FLOWS NOT FROM THE NATURE OF THE PREFERENCE BUT FROM SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
AS THE FAILURE PROMPTLY TO PURSUE THE CLAIM.  YET IT WOULD BE A RADICAL
DEPARTURE FROM THE STATUTORY SCHEME TO DO WITHIN THE THIRD CLASS WHAT
CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE BETWEEN THE CLASSES AND DEFEAT ALL RECOVERY BY
HOLDING THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION VESTED IN ONE WHO COULD NOT UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES SUE.  UNDER THIS ACT DEFERMENT OF A CLASS IS BASED ON THE
EXISTENCE OF MEMBERS OF A PREFERRED CLASS TO WHOM CONGRESS HAS GRANTED
THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY.  WE FIND NO COMPULSION IN THE POLICY OR LANGUAGE
OF THE ACT TO ADOPT A MORE STRINGENT INTERPRETATION WHEN WE COME TO
DETERMINING WHAT MEMBERS OF THE THIRD CLASS MAY SUE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE 20 PURDON'S PA. STATS. ANN. SECS. 62, 63, 66, 67. 

FN2  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TWO SISTERS AND THE NEPHEW, THE NEAREST
SURVIVING RELATIVES, COULD NOT RECOVER.  LINDGREN V. UNITED STATES, 281
U.S. 38. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON
CONCURS. 

CONGRESS MIGHT WELL HAVE ALLOWED RECOVERY AS A MATTER OF COURSE TO ANY
NEAR RELATIVE OF A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WHOSE DEATH WAS DUE TO A CARRIER'S
NEGLIGENCE.  CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. CONGRESS MERELY GAVE A RIGHT
OF ACTION "TO CERTAIN RELATIVES DEPENDENT UPON AN EMPLOYE WRONGFULLY
INJURED, FOR THE LOSS AND DAMAGE RESULTING TO THEM FINANCIALLY BY
REASON OF THE WRONGFUL DEATH."  MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO. V. VREELAND,
227 U.S. 59, 68; AND SEE GULF, C. & S.F.R. CO. V. MCGINNIS, 228 U.S.
173, 175; GARRETT V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 235 U.S. 308, 313. 
CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE EXTENDED THE BENEFITS OF ITS LEGISLATION TO ANY
DEPENDENT RELATIVE BY USING A COLLOQUIAL DESCRIPTION SUCH AS "THE
NEAREST DEPENDENT SURVIVING RELATIVE."  IT CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT.  ON
THE CONTRARY, IT USED THE PHRASE "NEXT OF KIN," A TERM OF PRECISE
MEANING IN THE LAW.  IN SUM, CONGRESS CAREFULLY LIMITED THE RELATIVES
ELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION FOR AN EMPLOYEE'S DEATH AND STRICTLY
DESIGNATED THE BASIS OF ELIGIBILITY.  FN1 

WHAT CONGRESS DID WAS THUS ANALYZED BY THE COURT BELOW: 

"CONGRESS, WHICH WAS WILLING TO LEAVE UNREMEDIED LOSS SUFFERED BY
PARENTS, OR GRANDCHILDREN, WHO MIGHT BE TOTALLY DEPENDENT UPON THE
DECEASED, COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO RECOGNIZE REMOTE MEMBERS OF THE
DECEASED'S OTHER KIN, SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE PLAINTIFF'S
INTERPRETATION DOES NOT FULFILL ANY RATIONAL PURPOSE; IT MERELY
INTRODUCES AN EXCEPTION AT THE PRECISE PLACE WHERE AN EXCEPTION IS
LEAST TO BE DESIRED OR EXPECTED; IT MUTILATES THE STATUTE, AS MUCH IN
ITS PURPOSE AS IN ITS LANGUAGE.  AS IN THE CASE OF THE FIRST TWO
PREFERRED CLASSES, 'NEXT OF KIN' IS DEFINED BY ITS HEREDITARY, NOT BY
ITS PECUNIARY, RELATION TO THE DECEASED; IT MEANS THE NEXT OF KIN AS
THE LAW HAS ALWAYS MEANT IT; AND DEPENDENCY IS ONLY A SELECTIVE FACTOR,
A CONDITION UPON RECOVERY BY ANY MEMBERS OF THAT CLASS, AS IT IS AMONG
MEMBERS OF THE FIRST TWO CLASSES.  THE CASE IS NOT THEREFORE ONE IN
WHICH CONGRESS HAS FAILED TO EXPRESS ITS OBVIOUS PURPOSE, AND IN WHICH
COURTS ARE FREE TO SUPPLY THE NECESSARY OMISSION; IT IS A CASE WHERE -
WHATEVER THAT PURPOSE - IT CERTAINLY DID NOT INCLUDE WHAT THE PLAINTIFF
ASSERTS."  POFF V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 150 F.2D 902, 905. 

I DO NOT FIND A PERSUASIVE ANSWER TO THIS ANALYSIS AND AM THEREFORE
OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THAT EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD  ...  (IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE) SHALL BE LIABLE IN DAMAGES TO ANY PERSON SUFFERING
INJURY WHILE HE IS EMPLOYED BY SUCH CARRIER IN SUCH COMMERCE, OR, IN
CASE OF THE DEATH OF SUCH EMPLOYEE, TO HIS OR HER PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SURVIVING WIDOW OR HUSBAND AND
CHILDREN OF SUCH EMPLOYEE; AND, IF NONE, THEN OF SUCH EMPLOYEE'S
PARENTS; AND, IF NONE, THEN OF THE NEXT OF KIN DEPENDENT UPON SUCH
EMPLOYEE, FOR SUCH INJURY OR DEATH  ..."  35 STAT. 65, 53 STAT. 1404,
45 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 
..END :



COMMISSIONER V. WILCOX, 327 U.S. 404 


NO. 163.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 148
F.2D 933, AFFIRMED. 


1.  EMBEZZLED MONEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME TO THE
EMBEZZLER UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHICH DEFINES
"GROSS INCOME" AS INCLUDING "GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM
ANY SOURCE WHATEVER."  P. 408. 

2.  A TAXABLE GAIN IS CONDITIONED UPON (1) THE PRESENCE OF A CLAIM OF
RIGHT TO THE ALLEGED GAIN AND (2) THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE,
UNCONDITIONAL OBLIGATION TO REPAY OR RETURN THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE
CONSTITUTE A GAIN.  P. 408. 

3.  WHERE AN EMBEZZLER RECEIVES THE EMBEZZLED MONEY WITHOUT ANY
SEMBLANCE OF A BONA FIDE CLAIM OF RIGHT AND REMAINS UNDER AN
UNQUALIFIED DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO REPAY, THE EMBEZZLED MONEY DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME.  P. 408. 

4.  THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT ALTERED BY THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER
DISSIPATED ALL OF THE EMBEZZLED FUNDS, SINCE THE LOSS OR DISSIPATION OF
EMBEZZLED MONEY CAN NOT CREATE TAXABLE INCOME TO AN EMBEZZLER ANY MORE
THAN THE INSOLVENCY OR BANKRUPTCY OF A BORROWER CAUSES THE LOANS TO BE
TREATED AS TAXABLE INCOME TO THE BORROWER.  P. 409. 

5.  THE FACT THAT A THEFT OR LOAN MAY GIVE RISE TO A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS
TO THE OWNER OF THE MONEY DOES NOT CREATE TAXABLE INCOME TO THE
EMBEZZLER OR THE BORROWER.  P. 409. 

6.  THE TAX COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT THE EMBEZZLED MONEY
CONSTITUTED TAXABLE INCOME TO THE EMBEZZLER INVOLVED A CLEAR-CUT
MISTAKE OF LAW, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS JUSTIFIED IN
REVERSING THE TAX COURT'S DECISION.  P. 410. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. WILCOX ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT WAS
REQUIRED TO REPORT AS INCOME CERTAIN MONEY WHICH HE HAD EMBEZZLED AND
ASSESSED AN INCOME TAX DEFICIENCY AGAINST HIM.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED
THE COMMISSIONER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  148 F.2D
933.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 701.  AFFIRMED, P. 410. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE. 

THE SOLE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER EMBEZZLED MONEY CONSTITUTES TAXABLE
INCOME TO THE EMBEZZLER UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 
FN1 

THE FACTS ARE STIPULATED.  THE TAXPAYER WAS EMPLOYED AS A BOOKKEEPER
BY A TRANSFER AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY IN RENO, NEVADA, FROM 1937 TO
1942.  HE WAS PAID HIS SALARY PROMPTLY EACH MONTH WHEN DUE, IT NOT
BEING THE CUSTOM TO ALLOW HIM TO DRAW HIS SALARY IN ADVANCE.  IN JUNE
1942, THE COMPANY'S BOOKS WERE AUDITED AND IT WAS DISCOVERED FOR THE
FIRST TIME THAT THE TAXPAYER HAD CONVERTED $12,748.60 TO HIS OWN USE
DURING 1941.  FN2  THIS AMOUNT WAS COMPOSED OF MISCELLANEOUS SUMS OF
MONEY BELONGING TO THE COMPANY WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED AND COLLECTED AT
VARIOUS TIMES IN HIS CAPACITY AS BOOKKEEPER.  HE FAILED TO DEPOSIT THIS
MONEY TO THE CREDIT OF THE COMPANY.  INSTEAD HE POCKETED AND WITHDREW
PAYMENTS IN CASH MADE TO HIM BY CUSTOMERS, NEGLECTING TO CREDIT THE
CUSTOMERS' ACCOUNTS OR THE COMPANY'S ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WITH THE FUNDS
RECEIVED. 

THE TAXPAYER LOST PRACTICALLY ALL OF THIS MONEY IN VARIOUS GAMBLING
HOUSES IN RENO.  THE COMPANY NEVER CONDONED OR FORGAVE THE TAKING OF
THE MONEY AND STILL HOLDS HIM LIABLE TO RESTORE IT.  THE TAXPAYER WAS
CONVICTED IN A NEVADA STATE COURT IN 1942 OF THE CRIME OF
EMBEZZLEMENT.  HE WAS SENTENCED TO SERVE FROM 2 TO 14 YEARS IN PRISON
AND WAS PAROLED IN DECEMBER, 1943. 

THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS REQUIRED TO REPORT
THE $12,748.60 EMBEZZLED IN 1941 AS INCOME RECEIVED IN THAT YEAR AND
ASSERTED A TAX DEFICIENCY OF $2,978.09.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER BUT THE COURT BELOW REVERSED.  148 F.2D 933.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT AMONG CIRCUITS AS TO THE TAXABILITY OF
EMBEZZLED MONEY.  FN3 

INCLUDE "GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM  ...  DEALINGS IN
PROPERTY  ...  GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN
SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM  ...  THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY
SOURCE WHATEVER."  THE QUESTION THUS IS WHETHER THE WRONGFUL
ACQUISITION OF FUNDS BY AN EMBEZZLER SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
STATUTORY PHRASE "GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE
WHATEVER," THEREBY CONSTITUTING TAXABLE INCOME TO THE EMBEZZLER. 

THE COMMISSIONER RELIES UPON THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT ORTHODOX
CONCEPTS OF OWNERSHIP FAIL TO REFLECT THE OUTER BOUNDARIES OF
TAXATION.  AS THIS COURT HAS STATED, TAX LIABILITY "MAY REST UPON THE
ENJOYMENT BY THE TAXPAYER OF PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS SO SUBSTANTIAL AND
IMPORTANT AS TO MAKE IT REASONABLE AND JUST TO DEAL WITH HIM AS IF HE
WERE THE OWNER, AND TO TAX HIM ON THAT BASIS."  BURNET V. WELLS, 289
U.S. 670, 678.  SEE HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331; HELVERING V.
HORST, 311 U.S. 112.  APPLYING THAT RULE TO THIS CASE, THE COMMISSIONER
URGES THAT THE ACT OF APPROPRIATING THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER TO ONE'S
OWN USE IS AN EXERCISE OF A MAJOR POWER OF OWNERSHIP EVEN THOUGH THE
ACT IS CONSCIOUSLY AND ENTIRELY WRONGFUL.  AS AGAINST ALL THE WORLD
EXCEPT THE TRUE OWNER THE EMBEZZLER IS THE LEGAL OWNER, AT LEAST WHILE
HE REMAINS IN POSSESSION.  THE MONEY OR PROPERTY ACQUIRED IN THIS
UNLAWFUL MANNER, IT IS SAID, SHOULD THEREFORE BE TREATED AS TAXABLE
INCOME TO THE WRONGDOER UNDER SEC. 22(A).  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO USE THE FULL MEASURE OF ITS TAXING POWER WITHIN
THOSE DEFINABLE CATEGORIES."  HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA, 334.  THE
VERY ESSENCE OF TAXABLE INCOME, AS THAT CONCEPT IS USED IN SEC. 22(A),
IS THE ACCRUAL OF SOME GAIN, PROFIT OR BENEFIT TO THE TAXPAYER.  THIS
REQUIREMENT OF GAIN, OF COURSE, MUST BE READ IN ITS STATUTORY CONTEXT. 
NOT EVERY BENEFIT RECEIVED BY A TAXPAYER FROM HIS LABOR OR INVESTMENT
NECESSARILY RENDERS HIM TAXABLE.  NOR IS MERE DOMINION OVER MONEY OR
PROPERTY DECISIVE IN ALL CASES.  IN FACT, NO SINGLE, CONCLUSIVE
CRITERION HAS YET BEEN FOUND TO DETERMINE IN ALL SITUATIONS WHAT IS A
SUFFICIENT GAIN TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF AN INCOME TAX.  NO MORE
CAN BE SAID IN GENERAL THAN THAT ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
MUST BE CONSIDERED.  SEE MAGILL, TAXABLE INCOME (1945). 

FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, HOWEVER, IT IS ENOUGH TO NOTE THAT A TAXABLE
GAIN IS CONDITIONED UPON (1) THE PRESENCE OF A CLAIM OF RIGHT TO THE
ALLEGED GAIN AND (2) THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE, UNCONDITIONAL
OBLIGATION TO REPAY OR RETURN THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE A
GAIN.  WITHOUT SOME BONA FIDE LEGAL OR EQUITABLE CLAIM, EVEN THOUGH IT
BE CONTINGENT OR CONTESTED IN NATURE, THE TAXPAYER CANNOT BE SAID TO
HAVE RECEIVED ANY GAIN OR PROFIT WITHIN THE REACH OF SEC. 22(A).  SEE
NORTH AMERICAN OIL V. BURNET, 286 U.S. 417, 424.  NOR CAN TAXABLE
INCOME ACCRUE FROM THE MERE RECEIPT OF PROPERTY OR MONEY WHICH ONE IS
OBLIGED TO RETURN OR REPAY TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNER, AS IN THE CASE OF A
LOAN OR CREDIT.  TAXABLE INCOME MAY ARISE, TO BE SURE, FROM THE USE OR
IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF SUCH PROPERTY.  THUS IF THE TAXPAYER USES
THE PROPERTY HIMSELF SO AS TO SECURE A GAIN OR PROFIT THEREFROM, HE MAY
BE TAXABLE TO THAT EXTENT.  AND IF THE UNCONDITIONAL INDEBTEDNESS IS
CANCELLED OR RETIRED, TAXABLE INCOME MAY ADHERE, UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES, TO THE TAXPAYER.  BUT APART FROM SUCH FACTORS THE BARE
RECEIPT OF PROPERTY OR MONEY WHOLLY BELONGING TO ANOTHER LACKS THE
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A GAIN OR PROFIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 22(A). 

WE FAIL TO PERCEIVE ANY REASON FOR APPLYING DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES TO A
SITUATION WHERE ONE EMBEZZLES OR STEALS MONEY FROM ANOTHER.  MORAL
TURPITUDE IS NOT A TOUCHSTONE OF TAXABILITY.  THE QUESTION, RATHER, IS
WHETHER THE TAXPAYER IN FACT RECEIVED A STATUTORY GAIN, PROFIT OR
BENEFIT.  THAT THE TAXPAYER'S MOTIVE MAY HAVE BEEN REPREHENSIBLE OR THE
MODE OF RECEIPT ILLEGAL HAS NO BEARING UPON THE APPLICATION OF SEC.
22(A). 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TAXPAYER IN THIS INSTANCE, IN EMBEZZLING THE
$12,748.60, RECEIVED THE MONEY WITHOUT ANY SEMBLANCE OF A BONA FIDE
CLAIM OF RIGHT.  AND HE WAS AT ALL TIMES UNDER AN UNQUALIFIED DUTY AND
OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE MONEY TO HIS EMPLOYER.  UNDER NEVADA LAW THE
CRIME OF EMBEZZLEMENT WAS COMPLETE WHENEVER AN APPROPRIATION WAS MADE;
FN4  THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTITLED TO REPLEVY THE MONEY AS SOON AS IT WAS
APPROPRIATED  FN5  OR TO HAVE IT SUMMARILY RESTORED BY A MAGISTRATE. 
FN6  THE EMPLOYER, MOREOVER, AT ALL TIMES HELD THE TAXPAYER LIABLE TO
RETURN THE FULL AMOUNT.  THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR RELATIONSHIP WAS DEFINITE
AND UNCONDITIONAL.  ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE MONEY RESTED
WITH THE EMPLOYER.  THE TAXPAYER THUS RECEIVED NO TAXABLE INCOME FROM
THE EMBEZZLEMENT. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS UNALTERED BY THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER
SUBSEQUENTLY DISSIPATED ALL OF THE EMBEZZLED FUNDS IN GAMBLING HOUSES. 
THE LOSS OR DISSIPATION OF MONEY CANNOT CREATE TAXABLE INCOME HERE ANY
MORE THAN THE INSOLVENCY OR BANKRUPTCY OF AN ORDINARY BORROWER CAUSES
THE LOANS TO BE TREATED AS TAXABLE INCOME TO THE BORROWER.  SEE
MCKNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER, 127 F.2D 572, 573-574.  IN EACH INSTANCE THE
TAXABILITY IS DETERMINED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE RECEIPT
AND HOLDING OF THE MONEY RATHER THAN BY THE DISASTROUS USE TO WHICH IT
IS PUT.  LIKEWISE, THE FACT THAT A THEFT OR LOAN MAY GIVE RISE TO A
DEDUCTIBLE LOSS TO THE OWNER OF THE MONEY DOES NOT CREATE INCOME TO THE
EMBEZZLER OR THE BORROWER.  SUCH DEDUCTIONS, LACKING ANY NECESSARILY
CORRESPONDING RELATIONSHIP TO GAINS AND BEING A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE
GRACE, FAIL TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF TAXABLE INCOME. 

HAD THE TAXPAYER USED THE EMBEZZLED MONEY AND OBTAINED PROFITS
THEREFROM SUCH PROFITS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAXABLE REGARDLESS OF THE
ILLEGALITY INVOLVED.  FN7  OR HAD HIS EMPLOYER CONDONED OR FORGIVEN ANY
PART OF THE UNLAWFUL APPROPRIATION, THE TAXPAYER MIGHT HAVE BEEN
SUBJECT TO TAX LIABILITY TO THAT EXTENT.  BUT NEITHER SITUATION IS
PRESENT IN THIS PROCEEDING AND WE NEED NOT EXPLORE SUCH POSSIBILITIES. 
SANCTIONING A TAX UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US WOULD SERVE ONLY TO
GIVE THE UNITED STATES AN UNJUSTIFIED PREFERENCE AS TO PART OF THE
MONEY WHICH RIGHTFULLY AND COMPLETELY BELONGS TO THE TAXPAYER'S
EMPLOYER. 

THE TAX COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT THE EMBEZZLED MONEY CONSTITUTED
TAXABLE INCOME TO THE EMBEZZLER, A RESULT IN ACCORD WITH ITS PRIOR
DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE,  FN8  INVOLVED A CLEAR-CUT MISTAKE OF LAW.  THE
COURT BELOW WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN REVERSING THAT JUDGMENT.  CF.
COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN CO., 323 U.S. 119; DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489; TRUST OF BINGHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 325 U.S.
365.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  26 U.S.C. SEC. 22(A). 

FN2  THE SUM OF $10,147.41 WAS EMBEZZLED DURING 1942 BUT THAT AMOUNT
IS NOT IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE. 

FN3  THE DECISION BELOW IS IN ACCORD WITH MCKNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER,
127 F.2D 572(C.C.A. 5), BUT IS IN CONFLICT WITH KURRLE V. HELVERING,
126 F.2D 723(C.C.A.8).  SEE ALSO BOSTON CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 128 F.2D 473, 476-477(C.C.A.1, CONCURRING OPINION). 

FN4  STATE V. TROLSON, 21 NEV. 419, 32 P. 930. 

FN5  NEVADA COMPILED LAWS (1929) SEC. 8681; PERKINS V. BARNES, 3 NEV.
557; STUDEBAKER CO. V. WITCHER, 44 NEV. 468, 199 P. 477. 

FN6  NEVADA COMPILED LAWS (1929) SECS. 11243-11246. 

FN7  SEE JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189; UNITED STATES V.
SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259; CALDWELL V. COMMISSIONER, 135 F.2D 488; CHADICK
V. UNITED STATES, 77 F.2D 961; NATIONAL CITY BANK V. HELVERING, 98 F.2D
93.  SEE ALSO MANN V. NASH, (1932) 1 K.B. 752; SOUTHERN V. A.B., (1933)
1 K.B. 713. 

FN8  SEE ESTATE OF SPRUANCE V. COMMISSIONER, 43 B.T.A. 221, REVERSED
SUB NOM. MCKNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER, 127 F.2D 572; KURRLE V.
COMMISSIONER, PRENTICE-HALL 1941 B.T.A. MEMORANDUM DECISIONS, PAR.
41,085, AFFIRMED 126 F.2D 723.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION IS TO
THE SAME EFFECT AS THE TAX COURT'S DECISIONS.  G.C.M. 16572, XV-1 CUM.
BULL.  82(1936). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, DISSENTING. 

BY HOLDING IN THIS CASE THAT EMBEZZLED FUNDS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A
TAXABLE GAIN TO THE EMBEZZLER UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, I
BELIEVE THE COURT MISINTERPRETS THE CODE.  THAT INTERPRETATION IS
CONTRARY TO THE ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CODE AND
TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE INTENT OF SEC. 22(A) AS DISCLOSED BY ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  SECTION 22(A) EXPRESSLY INCLUDES IN THE NET
INCOME OF A TAXABLE PERSON "GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM
ANY SOURCE WHATEVER."  26 U.S.C., SEC. 22(A).  IT IS DIFFICULT TO
IMAGINE A BROADER DEFINITION.  THIS COURT HAS SAID OF THIS SECTION,
"THE BROAD SWEEP OF THIS LANGUAGE INDICATES THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO
USE THE FULL MEASURE OF ITS TAXING POWER WITHIN THOSE DEFINABLE
CATEGORIES."  HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 334. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION DEMONSTRATES THE CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT TO TAX NOT MERELY "LAWFUL" GAINS BUT ALL GAINS LAWFUL OR
UNLAWFUL.  SECTION II B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF 1913, 38 STAT. 167,
PROVIDED ORIGINALLY THAT - 

"...  THE NET INCOME OF A TAXABLE PERSON SHALL INCLUDE GAINS,
PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR
PERSONAL SERVICE OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, BUSINESSES, TRADE, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, ALSO FROM
INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY LAWFUL
BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME
DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER,  ..." 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916(39 STAT. 757), SEC. 2(A), REENACTED THIS
PROVISION OMITTING ONLY THE WORD "LAWFUL" BEFORE THE WORD "BUSINESS" SO
THAT NOW THE FINAL CLAUSE, AS INCORPORATED IN SEC. 22(A), READS, "ALSO
FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY
BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME
DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER  ..."  THE 1916 AMENDMENT DEMONSTRATED
AN INTENT TO INCLUDE GAINS, PROFITS AND INCOME FROM ANY UNLAWFUL
BUSINESS AS WELL AS FROM ANY LAWFUL BUSINESS.  IT IS INESCAPABLE
EVIDENCE OF A LIKE INTENT TO INCLUDE UNLAWFUL AS WELL AS LAWFUL "GAINS
...  FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER  ..."  SEE UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN, 274
U.S. 259. 

THERE HAVE BEEN MANY DECISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT THIS SECTION
INCLUDES SUCH UNLAWFUL GAINS AS THOSE FROM ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN LIQUOR,
FN1  RACE-TRACK BOOKMAKING,  FN2  CARD PLAYING,  FN3 UNLAWFUL INSURANCE
POLICIES,  FN4  ILLEGAL PRIZE FIGHTING PICTURES,  FN5  LOTTERIES,  FN6
GRAFT, FN7  FRAUDULENTLY MISAPPLIED MONEYS OF A CLIENT BY AN ATTORNEY,
FN8  "PROTECTION PAYMENTS" TO RACKETEERS AND RANSOM MONEY PAID TO A
KIDNAPPER.  FN9    THE MAJORITY OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE RECOGNIZES
THAT HAD "THE TAXPAYER USED THE EMBEZZLED MONEY AND OBTAINED PROFITS
THEREFROM SUCH PROFITS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAXABLE REGARDLESS OF THE
ILLEGALITY INVOLVED."  THE MAJORITY OPINION THEREFORE DOES NOT EXEMPT
THE EMBEZZLED FUNDS FROM TAXATION MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS "ILLEGALITY
INVOLVED."  THE OPINION REACHES ITS RESULT BY READING INTO SEC. 22(A) A
LEGISLATIVE DISTINCTION I DO NOT FIND THERE.  THE OPINION LIMITS THE
CLAIM OF RIGHT" BY THE TAXPAYER AND AS ARE NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH "A
DEFINITE, UNCONDITIONAL OBLIGATION TO REPAY OR RETURN THAT WHICH WOULD
OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE A GAIN."  BELIEVING, AS I DO, THAT CONGRESS IN
THIS SECTION HAS SOUGHT "TO USE THE FULL MEASURE OF ITS TAXING POWER,"
AND IN DOING SO HAS SOUGHT TO TAX ALL "GAINS  ...  FROM ANY SOURCE
WHATEVER," I AM UNABLE TO RECOGNIZE AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR READING INTO
THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE LANGUAGE THE UNEXPRESSED LIMITATION PROPOSED IN
THE MAJORITY OPINION. 

THE EMBEZZLER'S COMPLETE POSSESSION OF THE EMBEZZLED FUNDS, HIS
EXERCISE OF DOMINION OVER THEM TO THE EXTENT OF DISPOSING OF EVERY CENT
OF THEM AND HIS TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF THEM TO OTHERS IN SUCH A
MANNER AS TO GIVE THE RECIPIENTS TITLE TO THEM, AMOUNTS TO SUCH AN
AMPLE ENJOYMENT OF THEM, USE OF THEM, DOMINION OVER THEM, DISPOSITION
OF THEM AND RECEIPT OF BENEFITS FROM THEM AS TO MAKE THEM OF OBVIOUS
ECONOMIC VALUE TO THE EMBEZZLER.  SUCH A READILY REALIZABLE VALUE
PRESENTS NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR EXEMPTING THESE FUNDS FROM TAXATION
THAT WOULD BE APPLIED TO THEM IF EARNED IN A LAWFUL MANNER.  THE
"GOVERNMENT  ...  MAY TAX NOT ONLY OWNERSHIP, BUT ANY RIGHT OR
PRIVILEGE THAT IS A CONSTITUTENT OF OWNERSHIP  ....  LIABILITY MAY REST
UPON THE ENJOYMENT BY THE TAXPAYER OF PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS SO
SUBSTANTIAL AND IMPORTANT AS TO MAKE IT REASONABLE AND JUST TO DEAL
WITH HIM AS IF HE WERE THE OWNER, AND TO TAX HIM ON THAT BASIS." 
BURNET V. WELLS, 289 U.S. 670, 678. 

IN NATIONAL CITY BANK V. HELVERING, 98 F.2D 93, 96, L. HAND, J.,
WRITING FOR THE COURT, SAID: 

"ALTHOUGH TAXES ARE PUBLIC DUTIES ATTACHED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF
PROPERTY, THE STATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXACT THEIR PERFORMANCE WITHOUT
BEING COMPELLED TO TAKE SIDES IN PRIVATE CONTROVERSIES.  POSSESSION IS
IN GENERAL PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP, AND IS PERHAPS INDEED THE
SOURCE OF THE CONCEPT ITSELF, THOUGH THE TIME IS LONG PAST WHEN IT WAS
SYNONYMOUS WITH IT.  IT WOULD BE INTOLERABLE THAT THE TAX MUST BE
ASSESSED AGAINST BOTH THE PUTATIVE TORTFEASOR AND THE CLAIMANT;
COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE CANNOT BE DELAYED, NOR SHOULD THE TREASURY BE
COMPELLED TO DECIDE WHEN A POSSESSOR'S CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT LEGAL
WARRANT." 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EMBEZZLER CONCEALED THE EMBEZZLEMENT LONG
ENOUGH TO ENABLE HIM TO GAMBLE AWAY ALL OF THE EMBEZZLED FUNDS.  HE
ASSERTED, FALSELY TO BE SURE, BUT NONETHELESS POSITIVELY, HIS RIGHT TO
DISPOSE OF THE FUNDS AND HE DID DISPOSE OF THEM BEYOND ALL CHANCE OF
THEIR RECOVERY.  THIS WAS A USE OF THEM BY HIM FOR HIS OWN ENJOYMENT
JUST AS FULLY AS THOUGH HE HAD LEGAL TITLE TO THEM.  IF HE HAD MADE
GAMBLING OR OTHER PROFITS FROM THEM, HE WOULD HAVE CLAIMED THOSE
PROFITS AS HIS OWN AND WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED ON THOSE PROFITS.  IF HE
HAD GAINED POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL FUNDS BY EXTORTION, FRAUD OR
USURIOUS PRACTICES, THOSE GAINS WOULD BE TAXABLE TO HIM UNDER THE
GENERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 22(A).  THE MAJORITY OPINION, HOWEVER, HOLDS
THAT IF HE GAINED POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL FUNDS BY EMBEZZLEMENT THEN
SUCH GAINS ARE NOT TO BE TAXED TO HIM UNDER THAT LANGUAGE.  THIS READS
INTO THE SECTION A SHARP DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE EMBEZZLER AND
DEFRAUDER, EXEMPTING THE FORMER BUT NOT THE LATTER.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
AN EXPRESS DECLARATION OF SUCH AN INTENT BY CONGRESS, I BELIEVE THAT
THE COURTS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN READING SUCH A DISTINCTION INTO THIS

FURTHERMORE, WHERE AN EMBEZZLER USES EMBEZZLED FUNDS FOR HIS OWN
PURPOSES AND, BY CONCEALMENT OF THE EMBEZZLEMENT OR OTHERWISE, DEPRIVES
HIS VICTIM OF A CORRESPONDING OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY THOSE FUNDS, THE
CODE PERMITS HIS VICTIM TO DEDUCT AS A "LOSS," FROM THE VICTIM'S
TAXABLE INCOME, THE SUMS SO EMBEZZLED.  FN10  SEE BURNET V. HUFF, 288
U.S. 156.  THE ALLOWANCE OF SUCH A DEDUCTION SUGGESTS THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS TO TRANSFER THE LIABILITY FOR THE TAX ON THOSE FUNDS TO THE
EMBEZZLER.  THE MAJORITY OPINION PREVENTS SUCH A TRANSFER. 

A POINT HAS BEEN MADE OF THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S TAX LIEN UPON
PROPERTY OF THE EMBEZZLER WOULD HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE CLAIM OF THE
VICTIM OF THE EMBEZZLEMENT TO RECOVER FROM SUCH PROPERTY THE LOSSES
WHICH THE VICTIM SUFFERED BY THE EMBEZZLEMENT.  THIS PRIORITY OF THE
TAX LIEN IS HARDLY AN ADEQUATE ARGUMENT TO ELIMINATE THE TAX ITSELF. 
AT MOST IT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR CONGRESS TO MODIFY THE TAX LIEN IN FAVOR
OF THE VICTIM. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT EXPRESSLY REQUIRES, AS A CONDITION
OF THE EXISTENCE OF A TAXABLE GAIN, THAT THERE ALSO BE AN ABSENCE OF "A
DEFINITE, UNCONDITIONAL OBLIGATION TO REPAY OR RETURN THAT WHICH WOULD
OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE A GAIN."  IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL CITY BANK V.
HELVERING, SUPRA, P. 95, THE TAXPAYER WAS TAXED ON BONDS WHICH HE HAD
UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD FROM THE CORPORATION OF WHICH HE WAS AN OFFICER. 
THESE BONDS WERE THE PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION IN THE SENSE THAT IT
COULD HAVE RECLAIMED THEM AND THE COURT SAID - 

"BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL CASES IN WHICH PERSONS HAVE BEEN TAXED UPON
PROPERTY WHICH COULD BE RECOVERED FROM THEM.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE LENDER
UPON USURIOUS INTEREST - IF ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS - MUST INCLUDE HIS
APPARENT PROFIT IN HIS RETURN, THOUGH POSSIBLY HE MAY BE ALLOWED TO
DEDUCT IT AS A LOSS IF THE BORROWER RECLAIMS IT.  BARKER V. MAGRUDER,
68 APP. D.C. 211, 95 F.2D 122.  AGAIN, WHEN A RAILROAD COLLECTS TOO
LARGE FARES, THE EXCESS IS INCOME, THOUGH THE PASSENGERS HAVE A
THEORETICAL RIGHT OF RESTITUTION.  CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 7 CIR., 47 F.2D 990." 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 22(A) LONG HAS BEEN TO TAX
THE EMBEZZLED FUNDS.  IT DATES AT LEAST FROM G.C.M. 16572, XV-1 CUM.
BULL.  (1936) 82, IN WHICH IT WAS EXPRESSLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE
PROFITS OF AN EMBEZZLER "CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE
EMBEZZLER FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES."  THIS INTERPRETATION WAS
FOLLOWED BY THE TAX COURT IN THIS CASE AND IT HAS BEEN REGULARLY
FOLLOWED BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN THE PAST.  KURRLE V.
COMMISSIONER, 1941 PRENTICE-HALL B.T.A. MEM. DECISIONS, P41,085,
AFFIRMED, 126 F.2D 723; ESTATE OF SPRUANCE V. COMMISSIONER, 43 B.T.A.
221, REVERSED SUB NOM. MCKNIGHT V. COMMISSIONER, 127 F.2D 572. 

BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 22(A), THE BREADTH OF THE
LANGUAGE USED BY CONGRESS IN THAT SECTION, THAT ATTEMPT OF CONGRESS TO
USE THE FULL MEASURE OF ITS TAXING POWER IN THAT SECTION, THE LONG
ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE OF HOLDING EMBEZZLED FUNDS TO BE
TAXABLE INCOME OF THE EMBEZZLER, AND FINALLY BECAUSE OF THE ARBITRARY
DISTINCTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE EMBEZZLER WHICH ARISE FROM AN OPPOSITE
INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, I BELIEVE THAT EMBEZZLED FUNDS ARE TAXABLE
GAINS AS DEFINED BY CONGRESS. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259.  SEE ALSO, STEINBERG V.
UNITED STATES, 14 F.2D 564; MADDAS V. COMMISSIONER, 40 B.T.A. 572,
AFFIRMED, 114 F.2D 548; POZNAK V. COMMISSIONER, 14 B.T.A. 727. 

FN2  M'KENNA V. COMMISSIONER, 1 B.T.A. 326. 

FN3  WEINER V. COMMISSIONER, 10 B.T.A. 905. 

FN4  PATTERSON V. ANDERSON, 20 F.SUPP.  799. 

FN5  RICKARD V. COMMISSIONER, 15 B.T.A. 316. 

FN6  DROGE V. COMMISSIONER, 35 B.T.A. 829; HUNTINGTON V.
COMMISSIONER, 35 B.T.A. 835; VOYER V. COMMISSIONER, 4 B.T.A. 1192. 

FN7  CHADICK V. UNITED STATES, 77 F.2D 961, CERT. DENIED, 296 U.S.
609. 

FN8  UNITED STATES V. WAMPLER, 5 F.SUPP.  796. 

FN9 HUMPHREYS V. COMMISSIONER, 42 B.T.A. 857, AFFIRMED, 125 F.2D
340. 

FN10  26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(E). 
..END :




NIPPERT V. RICHMOND, 327 U.S. 416 


NO. 72.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 183
VA. 689, 33 S.E.2D 206, REVERSED. 


1.  A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE IMPOSED UPON PERSONS "ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AS
SOLICITORS" AN ANNUAL LICENSE TAX OF "$50.00 AND ONE-HALF OF ONE PER
CENTUM OF THE GROSS EARNINGS, RECEIPTS, FEES OR COMMISSIONS FOR THE
PRECEDING LICENSE YEAR IN EXCESS OF $1,000."  A PERMIT FROM THE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY WAS A PREREQUISITE TO ISSUANCE OF THE
LICENSE, AND VIOLATORS WERE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES.  UPON A
RECORD WHICH SHOWED THAT APPELLANT HAD BEEN SOLICITING IN THE CITY FOR
FIVE DAYS, WITHOUT A LICENSE, ORDERS FOR OUT-OF-STATE CONFIRMATION AND
SHIPMENT INTO THE STATE, APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED AND FINED.  HELD THAT
THE ORDINANCE AS SO APPLIED VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 417, 434. 

2.  ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DIST., 120 U.S. 489, AND LATER
CASES, FOLLOWED; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 417-418, 420. 

3.  THE TAX HERE CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AS ONE UPON THE "LOCAL
INCIDENT" OF "SOLICITATION."  WHETHER A "LOCAL INCIDENT" RELATED TO OR
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF STATE TAXATION
DEPENDS UPON CONSIDERATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY HAVING REFERENCE
TO THE SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL, OF THE PARTICULAR TAX
IN SUPPRESSING OR BURDENING COMMERCE UNDULY.  PP. 422-424. 

4.  THE EFFECTS OF THE TAX HERE IN QUESTION ARE NOT ONLY PROHIBITIVE
IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE, IN MANY APPLICATIONS, BUT ARE DISCRIMINATORY IN
FAVOR OF THE LOCAL MERCHANT AS AGAINST THE OUT-OF-STATE ONE.  P. 431. 

(A)  THE ORDINANCE IS NOT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT IT IS NEITHER
PROHIBITIVE NOR DISCRIMINATORY ON ITS FACE; NOR BY THE FACT THAT IT IS
APPLICABLE ALSO TO ALL LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS OPERATING SIMILARLY.  P.
431. 

(B)  THE VERY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND LOCAL TRADE, TAKEN IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE INHERENT CHARACTER OF THE TAX, MAKES EQUALITY OF
APPLICATION AS BETWEEN THOSE TWO CLASSES OF COMMERCE, GENERALLY
SPEAKING, IMPOSSIBLE.  P. 432. 

5.  LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY NOT IMPOSE A TAX WHICH, THOUGH APPLICABLE
TO ALL COMMERCE, STRIKES DOWN OR DISCRIMINATES AGAINST LARGE VOLUMES OF
THAT COMMERCE, IN ORDER TO REACH OTHER PORTIONS AS TO WHICH THE
APPLICATION OF THE TAX WOULD PRODUCE NO SUCH CONSEQUENCES OR ONLY
NEGLIGIBLE ONES.  P. 433. 

6.  THE TAX HERE IN QUESTION INVOLVES TOO MANY PROBABILITIES, AND
ACTUALITIES, FOR EXCLUSION OF OR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN FAVOR OF LOCAL COMPETING BUSINESS, TO BE SUSTAINED IN ANY
SUCH APPLICATION AS THAT GIVEN IT IN THIS CASE.  P. 434. 

NIPPERT V. CITY OF RICHMOND. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF A
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE IMPOSING A LICENSE TAX.  REVERSED, P. 435. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A LICENSE TAX LAID BY AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, UPON ENGAGING IN BUSINESS AS SOLICITOR CAN
BE APPLIED IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SEC. 8.  AS THE CASE HAS
BEEN MADE, THE ISSUE IS SUBSTANTIALLY WHETHER THE LONG LINE OF SO
CALLED "DRUMMER CASES"  FN1  BEGINNING WITH ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY
TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489, SHALL BE ADHERED TO IN RESULT OR SHALL
NOW BE OVERRULED IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY SAY ARE
RECENT TRENDS REQUIRING THAT OUTCOME. 

THE ORDINANCE LAYS AN ANNUAL LICENSE TAX IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 

"(UPON)  ...  - AGENTS - SOLICITORS - PERSONS, FIRMS OR CORPORATIONS
ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AS SOLICITORS  ...  $50.00 AND ONE-HALF OF ONE PER
CENTUM OF THE GROSS EARNINGS, RECEIPTS, FEES OR COMMISSIONS FOR THE
PRECEDING LICENSE YEAR IN EXCESS OF $1,000.00.  PERMIT OF DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRED BEFORE LICENSE WILL BE ISSUED...."  FN2 

APPELLANT WAS ARRESTED IN RICHMOND FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS
OF A SOLICITOR THERE WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY PROCURING THE REQUIRED
LICENSE.  AFTER HEARING BEFORE A POLICE COURT JUSTICE SHE WAS FINED
$25.00 AND COSTS AND ORDERED TO SECURE A LICENSE.  AN APPEAL WAS NOTED
TO THE HUSTINGS COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, WHERE A TRIAL DE NOVO
WAS HAD UPON THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN. 
FN3  THE HUSTINGS COURT HELD THE ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE FACTS AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT,
SO APPLIED, IT WAS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
ACCORDINGLY THE COURT FOUND THE APPELLANT GUILTY AND FINED HER FIVE
DOLLARS AND COSTS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA AFFIRMED. 
183 VA. 689, 33 S.E.2D 206.  FROM THAT JUDGMENT OF THE STATE'S HIGHEST
COURT THE CASE COMES HERE BY APPEAL. 

IF THE MATTER IS TO BE SETTLED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AUTHORITY,
NOTHING MORE IS REQUIRED THAN BARE REFERENCE TO THE LONG LIST OF
DRUMMER DECISIONS, WHICH HAVE HELD UNVARYINGLY THAT SUCH A TAX AS
RICHMOND HAS EXACTED CANNOT BE APPLIED CONSTITUTIONALLY TO SITUATIONS
IDENTICAL WITH OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 
AMONG THE LATEST OF THESE IS REAL SILK HOSIERY MILLS V. PORTLAND, 268
U.S. 325, IN WHICH A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE REQUIRING SOLICITORS TO PAY A
LICENSE FEE WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A FORBIDDEN BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHEN APPLIED TO AN OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATION WHOSE
REPRESENTATIVES SOLICITED ORDERS FOR SUBSEQUENT INTERSTATE SHIPMENT. 
CF. BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454. 

COUNSEL FOR RICHMOND, HOWEVER, INSIST THAT OTHER CASES DECIDED HERE
HAVE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED THE "DRUMMER" LINE OF AUTHORITY, SO MUCH SO
THAT THOSE RULINGS NO LONGER CAN STAND CONSISTENTLY WITH THE LATER
ONES.  THEIR PRINCIPAL RELIANCE IS ON MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO.,
309 U.S. 33, IN WHICH THE COURT SUSTAINED THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK
CITY'S SALES TAX TO THE DELIVERY THERE, AT THE END OF ITS INTERSTATE
JOURNEY, OF COAL SHIPPED FROM PENNSYLVANIA PURSUANT TO CONTRACTS OF
SALE PREVIOUSLY MADE IN NEW YORK.  FN4  IT IS URGED THAT THE CASE IS
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRESENT ONE ON ANY TENABLE BASIS RELATING TO
THE BEARING OR EFFECT OF THE TAX UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH THE
OPINION REVIEWED AT SOME LENGTH THE DRUMMER CASES, AMONG OTHERS, AND
EXPRESSLY DISTINGUISHED THEM.  FN5 

UNLESS THEREFORE THIS LATEST PRONOUNCEMENT UPON THEIR CONTINUING
AUTHORITY IS TO BE PUT ASIDE WITH THE CASES THEMSELVES, THE APPLICATION
MADE OF THE ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE MUST BE STRICKEN DOWN.  FOR THE TAX
THUS LAID IS PRECISELY THE "FIXED-SUM LICENSE TAXES IMPOSED ON THE
BUSINESS OF SOLICITING ORDERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS TO BE SHIPPED
INTERSTATE" WHICH THE BERWIND-WHITE OPINION DISTINGUISHED FROM THE NEW
YORK TAX.  FN6 

BUT WE ARE TOLD THAT THE RATIONALE OF THE DECISION REQUIRES THE
DISTINCTION TO BE DISCARDED.  AS COUNSEL STATE IT, THIS WAS "THAT THE
TAX WAS IMPOSED UPON EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED WITHIN THE TAXING
JURISDICTION WHICH EVENTS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION OR INTERCOURSE WHICH IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  FN7  THE
LOGIC IS COMPLETED BY NOTING THAT THE NEW YORK TAX WAS UPON THE "LOCAL
INCIDENT" OF "DELIVERY" WHILE IN THIS CASE IT IS ON THE LIKE INCIDENT
OF "SOLICITATION"; AND BY ADDING THE CONTENTION, GIVEN MORE SUBSTANCE
SINCE THE ARGUMENT BY OUR DECISION IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310, THAT "MERE SOLICITATION" WHEN IT IS REGULAR,
CONTINUOUS AND PERSISTENT, RATHER THAN MERELY CASUAL, CONSTITUTES
"DOING BUSINESS," CONTRARY TO FORMERLY PREVAILING NOTIONS.  HENCE IT IS
CONCLUDED, SINCE THE DELIVERY IN THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE COULD BE TAXED,
SO CAN THE SOLICITATION IN THIS CASE. 

APPELLEE'S RATIONALIZATION TAKES ONLY PARTIAL ACCOUNT OF THE
REASONING AND POLICY UNDERLYING THE BERWIND-WHITE DECISION AND ITS
DIFFERENTIATION OF THE DRUMMER AUTHORITIES.  IF THE ONLY THING
NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN A STATE TAX BEARING UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE
TO DISCOVER SOME LOCAL INCIDENT WHICH MIGHT BE REGARDED AS SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT FROM "THE TRANSPORTATION OR INTERCOURSE WHICH IS" THE COMMERCE
ITSELF AND THEN TO LAY THE TAX ON THAT INCIDENT, ALL INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COULD BE SUBJECTED TO STATE TAXATION AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE TAX UPON THE COMMERCE.  FOR THE
SITUATION IS DIFFICULT TO THINK OF IN WHICH SOME INCIDENT OF AN
INTERSTATE TRANSACTION TAKING PLACE WITHIN A STATE COULD NOT BE
SEGREGATED BY AN ACT OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS AND MADE THE FULCRUM OF THE
TAX.  ALL INTERSTATE COMMERCE TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE
STATES AND NECESSARILY INVOLVES "INCIDENTS" OCCURRING WITHIN EACH STATE
THROUGH WHICH IT PASSES OR WITH WHICH IT IS CONNECTED IN FACT.  AND
THERE IS NO KNOWN LIMIT TO THE HUMAN MIND'S CAPACITY TO CARVE OUT FROM
WHAT IS AN ENTIRE OR INTEGRAL ECONOMIC PROCESS PARTICULAR PHASES OR
INCIDENTS, LABEL THEM AS "SEPARATE AND DISTINCT" OR "LOCAL," AND THUS
ACHIEVE ITS DESIRED RESULT. 

IT HAS NOT YET BEEN DECIDED THAT EVERY STATE TAX BEARING UPON OR
AFFECTING COMMERCE BECOMES VALID, IF ONLY SOME CONCEIVABLY OR
CONVENIENTLY SEPARABLE "LOCAL INCIDENT" MAY BE FOUND AND MADE THE FOCUS
OF THE TAX.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE PRESENCE OF SO-CALLED LOCAL
INCIDENTS IS IRRELEVANT.  ON THE CONTRARY THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONNECTION
IN FACT BETWEEN THE COMMERCE AND THE STATE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT IN
ITSELF FOR STRIKING DOWN THE TAX ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS ALONE; AND EVEN
SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTIONS, IN AN ECONOMIC SENSE, HAVE BEEN HELD
INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE LOCAL TAX.  FN8  BUT BEYOND THE PRESENCE OF A
SUFFICIENT CONNECTION IN A DUE PROCESS OR "JURISDICTIONAL" SENSE,
WHETHER OR NOT A "LOCAL INCIDENT" RELATED TO OR AFFECTING COMMERCE MAY
BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF STATE TAXATION DEPENDS UPON OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
OF CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY HAVING REFERENCE TO THE SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS,
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL, OF THE PARTICULAR TAX IN SUPPRESSING OR BURDENING
UNDULY THE COMMERCE.  FN9  SOME OF THESE AT LEAST WERE EMPHASIZED IN
THE BERWIND-WHITE OPINION. 

THUS THE COURT, REFERRING TO THE SHELBY COUNTY LINE OF DECISIONS,
STRESSED THAT "READ IN THEIR PROPER HISTORICAL SETTING THESE CASES MAY
BE SAID TO SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THIS KIND OF A TAX IS LIKELY TO BE
USED 'AS AN INSTRUMENT OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE'..."  FN10  AND THAT THE TAX "IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION, WAS
CAPABLE OF USE, THROUGH INCREASE IN THE TAX, AND IN FACT OPERATED TO
SOME EXTENT TO PLACE THE MERCHANT THUS DOING BUSINESS INTERSTATE AT A
DISADVANTAGE IN COMPETITION WITH UNTAXED SALES AT RETAIL STORES WITHIN
THE STATE."  FN11  NOTING THAT THE STATE IN SOME INSTANCES CAN SUPPRESS
OR CURTAIL ONE KIND OF LOCAL BUSINESS FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF ANOTHER TYPE
OF COMPETING BUSINESS, THE OPINION DENIED THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE "MAY
BE SIMILARLY AFFECTED BY THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF A STATE TAXING
STATUTE," AND ALSO DENIED THAT THE NEW YORK TAX HAD ANY SUCH ACTUAL OR
POTENTIAL EFFECT. 

THUS THE ESSENCE OF THE DISTINCTION TAKEN IN THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE
WAS THAT THE TAXES OUTLAWED IN THE DRUMMER CASES IN THEIR PRACTICAL
OPERATION WORKED DISCRIMINATORILY AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO IMPOSE
UPON IT A BURDEN, EITHER IN FACT OR BY THE EVERY THREAT OF ITS
INCIDENCE, WHICH THEY DID NOT PLACE UPON COMPETING LOCAL BUSINESS AND
WHICH THE NEW YORK SALES TAX DID NOT CREATE.  FN12  SEE BEST & CO. V.
MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454; CF. NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S.
359. 

AS HAS BEEN SO OFTEN STATED BUT NEVERTHELESS SEEMS TO REQUIRE
CONSTANT REPETITION, NOT ALL BURDENS UPON COMMERCE, BUT ONLY UNDUE OR
DISCRIMINATORY ONES, ARE FORBIDDEN N13.  FOR, THOUGH "INTERSTATE
BUSINESS MUST PAY ITS WAY,"  FN14  A STATE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE CANNOT PUT A BARRIER AROUND ITS BORDERS TO BAR OUT
TRADE FROM OTHER STATES AND THUS BRING TO NAUGHT THE GREAT
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE OF THE FATHERS IN GIVING TO CONGRESS THE POWER
"TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, AND AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES  ..."  FN15  NOR MAY THE PROHIBITION BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE
GUISE OF TAXATION WHICH PRODUCES THE EXCLUDING OR DISCRIMINATORY
EFFECT.  FN16 

APPELLEE ARGUES, AS THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS HELD,  FN17
THAT THE RICHMOND TAX IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY OR UNDULY BURDENSOME IN
EFFECT.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS VIEW IT RELIES MAINLY ON TWO CONTENTIONS,
FIRST, THAT THE TAX IS NO MORE DISCRIMINATORY OR BURDENSOME THAN WAS
THE TAX IN THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE; AND, SECOND, THAT IT APPLIES ALIKE
TO ALL SOLICITORS WHETHER THEY ARE ENGAGED IN SOLICITING FOR LOCAL OR
FOR INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE TAX AS APPLIED
HERE IS LAID DIRECTLY UPON SALES ARISING ONLY UNDER CONTRACTS REQUIRING
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF GOODS, CF. 309 U.S. 48 FF., THE CONTENTIONS
ENTIRELY MISCONCEIVE WHAT IS MEANT BY DISCRIMINATION OR UNDUE BURDEN IN
THE SENSE APPLICABLE TO THESE PROBLEMS. 

IN VIEW OF THE RULING IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA,
WE PUT ASIDE ANY SUGGESTION THAT "SOLICITATION," WHEN CONDUCTED
REGULARLY AND CONTINUOUSLY WITHIN THE STATE, SO AS TO CONSTITUTE A
COURSE OF BUSINESS, MAY NOT BE "DOING BUSINESS" JUST AS IS THE MAKING
OF DELIVERY, AT ANY RATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FOCUSING A TAX WHICH IN
OTHER RESPECTS WOULD BE SUSTAINABLE.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THE TAX AS IT
WAS APPLIED IN THIS CASE EITHER CONFORMS TO THOSE CONDITIONS OF
REGULARITY AND CONTINUITY OR AVOIDS OTHER PROHIBITED EFFECTS. 

THE SALES AND THE DELIVERIES IN THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE WERE REGULAR,
CONTINUOUS AND PERSISTENT.  THEY CONSTITUTED A "COURSE OF BUSINESS." 
THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION, NOR ANY BASIS IN THE FACTS FOR ONE, THAT THEY
WERE ONLY CASUAL, SPASMODIC OR IRREGULAR.  ON THE PRESENT RECORD THE
ONLY SHOWING IS THAT APPELLANT "ON JANUARY 20, 1944, WAS SOLICITING
ORDERS" IN RICHMOND, FOR LATER OUT-OF-STATE CONFIRMATION AND
FULFILLMENT, AND THAT FOR FOUR DAYS PRIOR TO THAT DATE SHE HAD BEEN
ENGAGED IN SUCH SOLICITATION "FROM PLACE TO PLACE IN THE CITY OF
RICHMOND," INCLUDING PARTICULARLY SOLICITATION OF THE CLERKS IN THE
DEPARTMENT STORE OF MILLER & RHOADS, INCORPORATED, AND IN A FIVE AND
TEN CENT STORE.  THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT, APART FROM THESE FIVE DAYS,
APPELLANT HAD SOLICITED PREVIOUSLY IN RICHMOND, THAT SHE INTENDED TO
RETURN LATER FOR THE SAME PURPOSE OR, IF SO, WHETHER REGULARLY AND
INDEFINITELY OR ONLY OCCASIONALLY AND SPASMODICALLY. 

THIS DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO
DISTINGUISH THE CASES.  BUT THERE ARE OTHER DIFFERENCES.  THE TAX HERE
WAS A FIXED SUBSTANTIAL SUM FOR THE FIRST YEAR, TO WHICH IN SUBSEQUENT
YEARS WOULD BE ADDED ONE-HALF OF ONE PER CENT OF THE GROSS RETURNS IN
EXCESS OF $1000.  AND, REGARDLESS OF THE DISCRETIONARY ELEMENT IN THE
ISSUING FUNCTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY, HIS PERMIT WAS
REQUIRED WITH PAYMENT OF THE TAX BEFORE THE LICENSE COULD ISSUE OR THE
ACT OF SOLICITATION COULD LAWFULLY TAKE PLACE, CRIMINAL SANCTION BEING
PRESCRIBED FOR VIOLATION.  SO FAR AS APPEARS A SINGLE ACT OF UNLICENSED
SOLICITATION WOULD BRING THE SANCTION INTO PLAY.  THE TAX THUS
INHERENTLY BORE NO RELATION TO THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS DONE OR OF
RETURNS FROM IT.  THE NEW YORK SALES TAX, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS
LIMITED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS RETURNS, BEING THUS DIRECTLY
PROPORTIONED TO THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS TRANSACTED AND OF RETURNS FROM
IT.  ALTHOUGH THE SELLER WAS PUT UNDER DUTY TO PAY THE TAX WITHIN A
SPECIFIED TIME FROM THE SALE, HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT OR
LICENSE BEFOREHAND IN ORDER TO INITIATE OR COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION. 
MOREOVER THE ECONOMIC INCIDENCE OF THE TAX FELL ONLY UPON COMPLETED
TRANSACTIONS, NOT AS IN THIS CASE ON THE VERY INITIAL STEP TOWARD
BRINGING ONE ABOUT. 

OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT THEREFORE ARE THE TWO TAXES, FIRST, IN THEIR
EXCLUSIONARY EFFECTS, ESPECIALLY UPON SMALL OUT-OF-STATE OPERATORS,
WHETHER CASUAL OR REGULAR; AND ALSO, IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR, IN
DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS AS BETWEEN SUCH OPERATORS AND LOCAL ONES OF THE
SAME TYPE OR OTHER COMPETING LOCAL MERCHANTS.  THE NEW YORK TAX BORE
EQUALLY UPON ALL, WHETHER LOCAL OR OUT-OF-STATE AND WHETHER MAKING A
SINGLE SALE OR CASUAL ONES OR ENGAGING CONTINUOUSLY IN THEM THROUGHOUT
THE YEAR.  AS THE COURT SAID, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE NEW YORK
TAX COULD BEAR IN ANY CASE MORE HEAVILY UPON OUT-OF-STATE OPERATORS
THAN UPON LOCAL ONES, APART FROM POSSIBLE MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION OR
THE THREAT OF IT SUCH AS, AMONG OTHER CONSIDERATIONS N18, WAS THOUGHT
TO FORBID THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE TAX IN ADAMS MFG. CO. V.
STOREN, 304 U.S. 307.  THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX WAS THE SAME UPON BOTH
TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS, AS WAS ITS AMOUNT; AND IF IN ANY INSTANCE THERE
WAS EXCLUSIONARY EFFECT OR TENDENCY, THIS DID NOT APPEAR FROM THE
RECORD OR FROM THE INHERENT CHARACTER OF THE TAX.  NEITHER DID ANY
POSSIBILITY APPEAR THAT IT WOULD STRIKE MORE HEAVILY UPON OUT-OF-STATE
SELLERS THAN ON LOCAL ONES, APART FROM THAT OF MULTIPLE STATE
TAXATION.  FN19 

IN ADDITION TO THAT POSSIBILITY, THE RICHMOND TAX IMPOSES SUBSTANTIAL
EXCLUDING AND DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS OF ITS OWN.  AS HAS BEEN SAID, THE
SMALL OPERATOR PARTICULARLY AND MORE ESPECIALLY THE CASUAL OR
OCCASIONAL ONE FROM OUT OF THE STATE WILL FIND THE TAX NOT ONLY
BURDENSOME BUT PROHIBITIVE, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE COMMERCE IS
STOPPED BEFORE IT IS BEGUN.  AND THIS EFFECT WILL BE EXTENDED TO MORE
SUBSTANTIAL AND REGULAR OPERATORS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHOSE PRODUCT IS
OF HIGHLY LIMITED OR SPECIAL CHARACTER AND WHOSE MARKET IN ANY SINGLE
LOCALITY FOR THAT REASON OR OTHERS CANNOT BE MINED MORE THAN ONCE IN
EVERY SO OFTEN.  FN20 

THE POTENTIAL EXCLUDING EFFECTS FOR ITINERANT SALESMEN BECOME MORE
APPARENT WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX ARE
CONSIDERED.  CF. MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., SUPRA, AT 58.  AND
THEY ARE MAGNIFIED MANY TIMES BY RECALLING THAT THE TAX IS A MUNICIPAL
TAX, NOT ONE IMPOSED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR UNIFORM APPLICATION
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN LEGAL THEORY THE MUNICIPALITY EXERCISES BY
DELEGATION THE STATE'S LEGISLATIVE POWER AND THAT PRIOR DECISIONS HERE
HAVE NOT RESTED SQUARELY UPON ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TAX MUNICIPALLY
IMPOSED AND ONE LAID BY THE LEGISLATURE.  BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT,
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, OF FLAT MUNICIPAL TAXES LAID IN SUCCESSION UPON
THE ITINERANT MERCHANT AS HE PASSES FROM TOWN TO TOWN IS OBVIOUSLY
GREATER THAN THAT OF ANY TAX OF STATE-WIDE APPLICATION LIKELY TO BE
LAID BY THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF.  AND IT IS ALMOST AS OBVIOUS THAT THE
CUMULATIVE BURDEN WILL BE FELT MORE STRONGLY BY THE OUT-OF-STATE
ITINERANT THAN BY THE ONE WHO CONFINES HIS MOVEMENT WITHIN THE STATE OR
THE SALESMAN WHO OPERATES WITHIN A SINGLE COMMUNITY OR ONLY A FEW. 
FN21  THE DRUMMER OR SALESMAN WHOSE BUSINESS REQUIRES HIM TO MOVE FROM
PLACE TO PLACE, EXHAUSTING HIS MARKET AT EACH PERIODIC VISIT OR
CONDUCTING HIS BUSINESS IN MORE SPORADIC FASHION WITH REFERENCE TO
PARTICULAR LOCALITIES, WOULD FIND THE CUMULATIVE BURDEN OF THE RICHMOND
TYPE OF TAX EATING AWAY ALL POSSIBLE RETURN FROM HIS SELLING.  A DAY
HERE, A DAY THERE, FIVE DAYS NOW AND FIVE DAYS A YEAR OR SEVERAL MONTHS
LATER, WITH A FLAT LICENSE TAX ANNUALLY IMPOSED LACKING ANY PROPORTION
TO THE NUMBER OR LENGTH OF VISITS OR THE VOLUME OF THE BUSINESS OR
RETURN, CAN ONLY MEAN THE STOPPAGE OF A LARGE AMOUNT OF COMMERCE WHICH
WOULD BE CARRIED ON EITHER IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TAX OR UNDER THE
INCIDENCE OF ONE TAKING ACCOUNT OF THESE VARIATIONS. 

THESE EFFECTS, NOT PRESENT IN THE BERWIND-WHITE TYPE OF TAX,  FN22
ARE INHERENT IN THE RICHMOND TYPE IN RELATION TO A WIDE VARIETY OF
SELLING ACTIVITIES.  THEY ARE NOT ONLY PROHIBITIVE IN AN ABSOLUTE
SENSE, FOR MANY APPLICATIONS.  THEY ARE DISCRIMINATORY IN FAVOR OF THE
LOCAL MERCHANT AS AGAINST THE OUT-OF-STATE ONE. 

IT IS NO ANSWER, AS APPELLEE CONTENDS, THAT THE TAX IS NEITHER
PROHIBITIVE NOR DISCRIMINATORY ON THE FACE OF THE ORDINANCE; OR THAT IT
APPLIES TO ALL LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS DOING BUSINESS AS APPELLANT HAS
DONE.  NOT THE TAX IN A VACUUM OF WORDS, BUT ITS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES
FOR THE DOING OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN APPLICATIONS TO CONCRETE FACTS
ARE OUR CONCERN.  FN23  TO IGNORE THE VARIATIONS IN EFFECT WHICH FOLLOW
FROM APPLICATION OF THE TAX, UNIFORM ON THE FACE OF THE ORDINANCE, TO
HIGHLY DIFFERENT FACT SITUATIONS IS ONLY TO IGNORE THOSE PRACTICAL
CONSEQUENCES.  IN THAT BLINDNESS LIES THE VICE OF THE TAX AND OF
APPELLEE'S POSITION. 

THE TAX, BY REASON OF THOSE VARIATIONS, CANNOT BE TAKEN TO APPLY
GENERALLY TO LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS IN THE SAME MANNER AND WITH LIKE
EFFECTS AS IN APPLICATION TO OUT-OF-STATE DISTRIBUTORS.  THE VERY
DIFFERENCE IN LOCATIONS OF THEIR BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS, IF ANY, AND OF
THEIR ACTIVITIES MAKES THIS IMPOSSIBLE.  THIS, OF COURSE, IS BUT
ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT THE VERY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND
LOCAL TRADE, TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INHERENT CHARACTER OF THE
TAX, MAKES EQUALITY OF APPLICATION AS BETWEEN THOSE TWO CLASSES OF
COMMERCE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, IMPOSSIBLE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE TAX MAY STRIKE AS HEAVILY UPON SOME VIRGINIA
SOLICITORS, AND EVEN UPON SOME WHO CONFINE THEMSELVES TO RICHMOND, AS
IT DOES UPON OTHERS WHO COME PERIODICALLY OR OTHERWISE FROM WASHINGTON,
NEW YORK OR CEDAR RAPIDS.  AND IT MAY BEAR UPON A FEW OF THE FORMER
MORE HEAVILY THAN UPON MOST OF THE LATTER.  BUT NEITHER CONSEQUENCE IS
THE MORE PROBABLE ONE FOR THE LARGER NUMBER OF CASES.  THE STRONG
LIKELIHOOD IS THE OTHER WAY.  AND TO POINT TO EITHER OF THOSE
POSSIBILITIES IS ONLY TO SAY, IN A DIFFERENT WAY, THAT THE TAX IS
HIGHLY VARIABLE IN ITS INCIDENCE AND EFFECTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE
MANNER IN WHICH ONE ORGANIZES HIS BUSINESS AND ESPECIALLY IN RESPECT TO
ITS LOCATION AND SPREAD IN RELATION TO STATE LINES.  IT WAS EXACTLY
THESE VARIATIONS, WHEN THEY BEAR WITH UNDUE BURDEN UPON COMMERCE THAT
CROSSES STATE LINES, WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS INTENDED TO
PREVENT. 

WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL THAT LARGE ENTERPRISE WHICH "DOES BUSINESS" BY
SENDING SOLICITORS REGULARLY AND CONTINUOUSLY INTO SEVERAL STATES, CF.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, MAY HAVE THE FINANCIAL
RESOURCES AND ESTABLISHED COURSE OF BUSINESS ENABLING IT TO ABSORB THE
TAX AND JUSTIFYING ITS DOING SO IN AN ECONOMIC SENSE; OR THAT,
THEREFORE, IF THE RULING SHOULD EXTEND TO SUCH A SITUATION, THE
BUSINESS SO SITUATED WOULD ESCAPE TO THAT EXTENT BEARING THE BURDEN OF
THE TAX BORNE BY LOCAL BUSINESSES SIMILARLY SITUATED, ABSENT SOME OTHER
FORM OF TAX TO EQUALIZE THE BURDEN.  BUT, IN THE FIRST PLACE, NO SUCH
CASE IS PRESENTED BY THE FACTS HERE.  FN24 AND EVEN IF SUCH A RESULT
SHOULD BE THOUGHT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE FORBIDDEN
CONSEQUENCES IN SO MANY OTHER APPLICATIONS, THAT FACT WOULD NOT JUSTIFY
SUSTAINING THE TAX AND PERMITTING THOSE CONSEQUENCES TO OCCUR. 

THERE IS NO LACK OF POWER IN THE STATE OR ITS MUNICIPALITIES TO SEE
THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEARS WITH LOCAL TRADE ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE
COST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, MORE ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF RECENT TRENDS IN
THIS FIELD.  MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., SUPRA.  BUT THIS DOES NOT
MEAN, AND THE TRENDS DO NOT SIGNIFY, THAT THE STATE OR MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENTS MAY DEVISE A TAX APPLICABLE TO ALL COMMERCE ALIKE, WHICH
STRIKES DOWN OR DISCRIMINATES AGAINST LARGE VOLUMES OF THAT COMMERCE IN
ORDER TO REACH OTHER PORTIONS AS TO WHICH THE APPLICATION OF THE TAX
WOULD PRODUCE NO SUCH CONSEQUENCES OR ONLY NEGLIGIBLE ONES.  OTHER
TYPES OF TAX ARE AVAILABLE FOR REACHING BOTH PORTIONS WHICH DO NOT
INVOLVE THE FORBIDDEN EVILS OR THE NECESSITY FOR PUTTING THEM UPON SOME
COMMERCE IN ORDER TO REACH OTHER.  THE PROBLEM COMES DOWN THEREFORE TO
WHETHER THE STATE OR MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES IN FRAMING THEIR
TAXING MEASURES TO REACH INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHALL BE AT PAINS TO DO SO
IN A MANNER WHICH AVOIDS THE EVILS FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND
PUTS THAT COMMERCE ACTUALLY UPON A PLANE OF EQUALITY WITH LOCAL TRADE
IN LOCAL TAXATION, NOT AS IS SAID TO A QUESTION OF WHETHER INTERSTATE
TRADE SHALL BEAR ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE COST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE
BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF WHICH IT ENJOYS ON A PAR WITH LOCAL
BUSINESS. 

THE TAX HERE IN QUESTION INHERENTLY INVOLVES TOO MANY PROBABILITIES,
AND WE THINK ACTUALITIES, FOR EXCLUSION  FN25  OF OR DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN FAVOR OF LOCAL COMPETING BUSINESS, TO
BE SUSTAINED IN ANY APPLICATION SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT
ONE.  WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS SO INTENDED, THOSE ARE ITS NECESSARY
EFFECTS.  INDEED, IN VIEW OF THAT FACT AND OTHERS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE,
WE CANNOT BE UNMINDFUL, AS OUR PREDECESSORS WERE NOT WHEN THEY STRUCK
DOWN THE DRUMMER TAXES, THAT THESE ORDINANCES LEND THEMSELVES
PECULIARLY TO CREATING THOSE VERY CONSEQUENCES OR THAT IN FACT THIS IS
OFTEN IF NOT ALWAYS THE OBJECT OF THE LOCAL COMMERCIAL INFLUENCES WHICH
INDUCE THEIR ADOPTION.  PROVINCIAL INTERESTS AND LOCAL POLITICAL POWER
ARE AT THEIR MAXIMUM WEIGHT IN BRINGING ABOUT ACCEPTANCE OF THIS TYPE
OF LEGISLATION.  WITH THE FORCES BEHIND IT, THIS IS THE VERY KIND OF
BARRIER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS PUT IN THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW TO GUARD
AGAINST.  IT MAY BE, AS THE COURT SAID IN THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE, THAT
THE STATE IS FREE TO ALLOW ITS MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISIONS TO ERECT SUCH
BARRIERS AGAINST EACH OTHER, TO SOME EXTENT, AS TO THE COMMERCE OVER
WHICH THE STATE HAS EXCLUSIVE CONTROL.  IT CANNOT SO OUTLAW OR BURDEN
THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE DRUMMER IS A FIGURE REPRESENTATIVE OF A BY-GONE DAY.  FN26  BUT
HIS MODERN PROTOTYPE PERSISTS UNDER MORE EUPHONIOUS APPELLATIONS.  SO
ENDURE THE BASIC REASONS WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT HIS PROTECTION FROM THE
KIND OF LOCAL FAVORITISM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE TYPIFY. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED APPELLEE'S OTHER CONTENTIONS AND FIND THEM WITHOUT
MERIT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309
U.S. 33, 55-57, AND THE COURT'S DISCUSSION, PARTICULARLY IN NOTE 11. 
AS THERE STATED, IN THE SHELBY COUNTY CASE THE COURT WAS COGNIZANT OF
THE RAPIDLY GROWING TENDENCY OF STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES TO LAY
LICENSE TAXES UPON DRUMMERS "FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMBARRASSING THIS
COMPETITION WITH LOCAL MERCHANTS," AND FOLLOWING THE SHELBY COUNTY
DECISION NINETEEN SUCH TAXES WERE HELD INVALID. 

FOR A DISCUSSION OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN DRUMMERS AND PEDDLERS, SEE
COMMENT, 40 YALE L.J. 1094. 

FN2  CHAPTER 10, SEC. 23, RICHMOND CITY CODE (1939). 

CHAPTER 10, SEC. 166 1/2(A) READS:  "EVERY PERSON, FIRM AND
CORPORATION DESIRING A LICENSE UNDER SECTIONS 14, 16, 23, 94, 120 AND
143, OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL FIRST APPLY TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
FOR A PERMIT ON BEHALF OF SAID INDIVIDUAL, FIRM OR CORPORATION, AS THE
CASE MAY BE, TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS WHICH IS DESIRED TO BE CONDUCTED
AND SHALL PRODUCE TO THAT DIRECTOR EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD CHARACTER OF
THE INDIVIDUAL, THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRM, OR THE CHIEF OFFICERS OF THE
CORPORATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IT SHALL THEREUPON BE THE DUTY OF
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY TO MAKE A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION OF THE
CHARACTER OF SAID INDIVIDUAL, EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRM, OR EACH
OF THE CHIEF OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IF HE
BE SATISFIED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL, THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRM OR THE
PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BE OF GOOD
MORAL CHARACTER AND A PERSON OR PERSONS FIT TO ENGAGE IN THE PROPOSED
BUSINESS, HE SHALL ISSUE THE PERMIT.  THE FORM OF THE APPLICATION FOR
SUCH PERMIT AND THE FORM OF THE PERMIT ITSELF SHALL BE PREPARED AND
FURNISHED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY." 

APPELLANT HAS ARGUED IN THIS COURT THAT THE ORDINANCE'S REQUIREMENTS
RELATING TO PERMITS, PARTICULARLY IN SO FAR AS THEY MAY VEST IN THE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISCRETIONARY POWER TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD THE
PERMIT, OF THEIR OWN FORCE AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CHARACTER OF
THE TAX IN OTHER RESPECTS RENDER IT INVALID IN THE PRESENT
APPLICATION.  APPELLEE INSISTS THAT THE POINT WAS NOT PRESENTED IN THE
STATE COURTS AND THEREFORE IS NOT OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION HERE.  IN VIEW
OF THE DISPOSITION WE MAKE OF THE CAUSE ON OTHER GROUNDS, IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THESE QUESTIONS. 

FN3  "THE AMERICAN GARMENT COMPANY, WHICH IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY
JOHN V. ROSSER, WITH ITS MAIN OFFICE AT 3617 12TH STREET, N.E.,
WASHINGTON, D.C., IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF CERTAIN
LADIES' GARMENTS.  THE AMERICAN GARMENT COMPANY EMPLOYS SOLICITORS WHO
TRAVEL FROM CITY TO CITY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND OBTAIN ORDERS FOR
THIS PARTICULAR GARMENT, WHICH IS SOLD FOR $2.98, AND THE SOLICITOR
RECEIVES FROM THE PURCHASER A DOWN PAYMENT USUALLY SUFFICIENT TO PAY
THE COMMISSION OF THE SOLICITOR, AND THE ORDER IS THEN SENT TO THE HOME
OFFICE OF THE AMERICAN GARMENT COMPANY AND THE GARMENT IS THEN SENT
THROUGH THE UNITED STATES MAILS C.O.D. FOR THE BALANCE TO THE
PURCHASER.  THE SOLICITORS AT NO TIME MAKE A DELIVERY OF THE ARTICLE. 

"THE DEFENDANT HEREIN WAS NOT AND IS NOT CARRIED ON THE ROLLS OF THE
AMERICAN GARMENT COMPANY AS AN EMPLOYEE AND HER SOLE COMPENSATION IS
THE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF EACH ARTICLE. 

"THE DEFENDANT, DOROTHY NIPPERT, ON JANUARY 20, 1944, WAS SOLICITING
ORDERS FOR THE AMERICAN GARMENT COMPANY, AS ABOVE SET FORTH, IN THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, AND THAT DOROTHY NIPPERT HAD BEEN ENGAGED FOR FOUR
DAYS PRIOR TO JANUARY 20, 1944, IN GOING FROM PLACE TO PLACE IN THE
CITY OF RICHMOND AND IN SOLICITING ORDERS FOR THE SALE OF MERCHANDISE
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GARMENT COMPANY AND HAD, DURING THAT TIME,
BEEN ENGAGED IN GOING FROM PLACE TO PLACE WITHIN THE PLACES OF BUSINESS
OF MILLER & RHOADS, INCORPORATED, A LARGE DEPARTMENT STORE IN THE CITY
OF RICHMOND AND WITHIN THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF ONE OF THE FIVE AND TEN
CENT STORES IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND, AND THEREIN SOLICITING THE CLERKS
IN THOSE STORES SO AS TO PROCURE FROM THOSE CLERKS ORDERS FOR THE SALE
OF MERCHANDISE ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GARMENT COMPANY, AND THAT SUCH
SOLICITATION OCCURRED ON THE 20TH OF JANUARY, 1944, AND THAT SHE, THE
SAID DOROTHY NIPPERT, HAD NOT (THERETOFORE) PROCURED A CITY REVENUE
LICENSE FROM THE CITY OF RICHMOND."    FN4  SOME RELIANCE APPEARS TO BE
PLACED ALSO UPON OTHER MORE RECENT CASES, INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340, AND GENERAL
TRADING CO. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 322 U.S. 335.    FN5  POINTING
OUT, WITH A REFERENCE TO THE SHELBY COUNTY CASE ITSELF, THAT IN SOME OF
THE CASES THE TAX APPEARED TO BE AIMED AT THE SUPPRESSION OF THIS TYPE
OF BUSINESS OR PUTTING IT AT DISADVANTAGE WITH COMPETING INTRASTATE
SALES, THE OPINION CONTINUED: 

"IN ALL (THE CITED CASES), THE STATUTE, IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION,
WAS CAPABLE OF USE, THROUGH INCREASE IN THE TAX, AND IN FACT OPERATED
TO SOME EXTENT TO PLACE THE MERCHANT THUS DOING BUSINESS INTERSTATE AT
A DISADVANTAGE IN COMPETITION WITH UNTAXED SALES AT RETAIL STORES
WITHIN THE STATE.  WHILE A STATE, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY BY
TAXATION SUPPRESS OR CURTAIL ONE TYPE OF INTRASTATE BUSINESS TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF ANOTHER TYPE OF COMPETING BUSINESS WHICH IS LEFT UNTAXED,
...  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE SIMILARLY
AFFECTED BY THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF A STATE TAXING STATUTE....  IT
IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE RULE OF ROBBINS V. SHELBY
COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, SUPRA, HAS BEEN NARROWLY LIMITED TO FIXEDSUM
LICENSE TAXES IMPOSED ON THE BUSINESS OF SOLICITING ORDERS FOR THE
PURCHASE OF GOODS TO BE SHIPPED INTERSTATE  ...; AND THAT THE ACTUAL
AND POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE OF SUCH A TAX IS WHOLLY WANTING IN
THE PRESENT CASE."  309 U.S. AT 56-57.  IN BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL THE
COURT SAID:  "IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO....  WE POINTED OUT
THAT THE LINE OF DECISIONS FOLLOWING ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY  ...
RESTED ON THE ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION INHERENT IN CERTAIN
FIXED-SUM LICENSE TAXES."  311 U.S. 454, 455, NOTE 3. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 5.  WHETHER OR NOT THE "FIXED SUM" REFERENCE WOULD
APPLY TO A TAX MEASURED IN PART BY GROSS RECEIPTS (CF. THE LANGUAGE OF
THE ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE RELATING TO EARNINGS, ETC., IN EXCESS OF
$1000), THE TAX AS APPLIED HERE PRESUMABLY WOULD NOT INVOLVE THAT
FEATURE, SINCE BY THE EXPLICIT WORDING IT APPLIES ONLY TO EARNINGS,
ETC., "FOR THE PRECEDING LICENSE YEAR" AND THERE IS NO SHOWING RELATING
TO SUCH EARNINGS IN THIS CASE.  SEE ALSO NOTE 7. 

FN7  COUNSEL CITE THE COURT'S STATEMENT MADE IN DIFFERENTIATING ADAMS
MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, "THE RATIONALE OF THE ADAMS
MANUFACTURING CO. CASE DOES NOT CALL FOR CONDEMNATION OF THE PRESENT
TAX.  HERE THE TAX IS CONDITIONED UPON A LOCAL ACTIVITY, DELIVERY OF
GOODS WITHIN THE STATE UPON THEIR PURCHASE FOR CONSUMPTION."  309 U.S.
AT 58.  HOWEVER, THE COURT WENT ON IMMEDIATELY TO SAY, "IT IS AN
ACTIVITY WHICH, APART FROM ITS EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE, IS SUBJECT TO
THE STATE TAXING POWER.  THE EFFECT OF THE TAX, EVEN THOUGH MEASURED BY
THE SALES PRICE (CF. NOTE 6 SUPRA), AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, NEITHER
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NOR OBSTRUCTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE MORE THAN
NUMEROUS OTHER STATE TAXES WHICH HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN SUSTAINED AS
INVOLVING NO PROHIBITED REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  IBID. 

FN8  THE LATEST INSTANCE DECIDED HERE BEING MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO.,
322 U.S. 327. 

FN9  IT IS OLD DOCTRINE, NOTWITHSTANDING MANY EARLY DEVIATIONS, THAT
THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE TAX, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL, RATHER THAN
ITS DESCRIPTIVE LABEL OR FORMAL CHARACTER IS DETERMINATIVE.  SEE THE
AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 23.  THE BERWIND-WHITE AND OTHER RECENT
CASES, INCLUDING BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454, ONLY BRING THAT
DOCTRINE DOWN TO DATE.  CF. LOCKHART, THE SALES TAX IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE (1939) 52 HARV. L. REV. 617, 621. 

FN10  309 U.S. AT 56, NOTE 11; SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 6. 

FN12  SEE LOCKHART, THE SALES TAX IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (1939) 52
HARV. L. REV. 617, 621. 

FN13  CF. POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. V. RICHMOND, 249 U.S. 252, 259;
WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 254; MCGOLDRICK
V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, 46; NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.,
312 U.S. 359. 

FN14  POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. V. RICHMOND, 249 U.S. 252, 259; NEW
JERSEY BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. STATE BOARD OF TAXES, 280 U.S. 338, 351. 

FN15  WALLING V. MICHIGAN, 116 U.S. 446, 455-458.  THUS, EVEN THE
COMMERCE IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS, OVER WHICH THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT
GIVES THE STATES THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF CONTROL, IS NOT ALTOGETHER
BEYOND THE REACH OF THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER, AT ANY RATE WHEN THE
STATE'S REGULATION SQUARELY CONFLICTS WITH REGULATION IMPOSED BY
CONGRESS GOVERNING INTERSTATE TRADE OR TRAFFIC, UNITED STATES V.
FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES, 324 U.S. 293, WHETHER OR NOT ALSO IN SOME
INSTANCES IN ADDITION TO COMPLETE EXCLUSION FROM PASSING THROUGH THE
STATE, COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518, IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  CF. CARTER V. VIRGINIA, 321 U.S. 131, 137;
ZIFFRIN V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132, 140. 

FN16  CF. WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 256;
BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC., 294 U.S. 511, 522-523; BEST & CO. V.
MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454, 455, AND AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 3 THEREIN. 

FN17  SEE, IN ADDITION TO THE INSTANT CASE, DUNSTON V. NORFOLK, 177
VA. 689, 15 S.E.2D 86. 

FN18  THE COURT SAID:  "THE VICE OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO
RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE SALES IS THAT THE TAX INCLUDES IN ITS MEASURE,
WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM ACTIVITIES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE; AND THAT THE EXACTION IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT IF LAWFUL
IT MAY IN SUBSTANCE BE LAID TO THE FULLEST EXTENT BY STATES IN WHICH
THE GOODS ARE SOLD AS WELL AS THOSE IN WHICH THEY ARE MANUFACTURED. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD THUS BE SUBJECTED TO THE RISK OF A DOUBLE TAX
BURDEN TO WHICH INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS NOT EXPOSED, AND WHICH THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBIDS.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT SUCH A TAX IS A
REGULATION OF, AND A BURDEN UPON, INTERSTATE COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE OPINION OF THE STATE
SUPREME COURT STRESSES THE GENERALITY AND NONDISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER
OF THE EXACTION, BUT IT IS SETTLED THAT THIS WILL NOT SAVE THE TAX IF
IT DIRECTLY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  304 U.S. AT 311-312. 

FN19  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT NO QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED IN THIS
CASE CONCERNING ANY ISSUE OF SO-CALLED "MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION."  CF.
NOTE 7.  BUT IF A NONDISCRIMINATORY STATE TAX MAY BECOME DISCRIMINATORY
OR UNDULY BURDENSOME BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT OTHER STATES ALSO MAY
IMPOSE A SIMILAR TAX BEARING UPON THE TRANSACTION, THE POSSIBILITIES
FOR SUCH MULTIPLICATION WOULD SEEM OBVIOUSLY TO BE MAGNIFIED MANY TIMES
BY THE APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL TAXES LIKE THAT INVOLVED HERE. 

FN20  THE ESTABLISHED MERCHANT MAINTAINING A LOCAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
WHERE HE DEALS IN A VARIETY OF COMMODITIES, FOR INSTANCE, IS MUCH MORE
FAVORABLY PLACED TO ABSORB THE COST OF THE TAX THAN THE ITINERANT
VENDOR WHO DEALS IN OR TAKES ORDERS FOR A SINGLE SPECIALIZED COMMODITY
OR ONLY A FEW. 

THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER APPELLANT WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPENSATED BY THE COMPANY FOR WHOM SHE SOLICITS, HAD SHE PAID THE
TAX. 

FN21  THE DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST SOLICITORS CONSTITUTE ONLY PART OF
THE MORE GENERAL PROBLEM OF INTERSTATE TRADE BARRIERS.  SEE HEARINGS
BEFORE THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
PT. 29; MELDER, STATE AND LOCAL BARRIERS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE
UNITED STATES (1937).  BUT AS TO THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STATUTES AND
ORDINANCES DESIGNED TO FAVOR LOCAL BUSINESS AS AGAINST ITINERANT
SOLICITORS AND PEDDLERS AND "GYPSY TRUCKERS," SEE HEARINGS, SUPRA,
15965-15987 AND EXHIBIT NO. 2394(NOT INCLUDED IN THE PRINTED HEARINGS);
GOULD, LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION IN THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ORTHODOX AND
DIRECT-SELLING DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS (1941) 8 LAW & CONTEMP.  PROB. 
318.  ONE METHOD USED TO DISCOURAGE SOLICITORS HAS BEEN TO REQUIRE
ELABORATE INFORMATION.  IT IS SAID THAT "IN SOME NEW JERSEY CITIES THIS
METHOD HAS REDUCED THE NUMBER OF CANVASSERS BY 35 PER CENT."  18 PUBLIC
MANAGEMENT 83.  AND IN ARIZONA AT ONE TIME AN ITINERANT TRUCKER, WHO
WENT THROUGH ALL THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE, WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGED TO
PAY $4,400 IN FEES IN ADDITION TO POSTING A $5,000 BOND.  HEARINGS,
SUPRA, EX. 2353.  IN ADDITION, LICENSING STATUTES, OTHERWISE FAIR ON
THEIR FACE, ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATORILY ENFORCED AGAINST
ITINERANT MERCHANTS.  SEE NOTE (1940) 16 IND. L.J. 247, 251. 

FN22  THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE FURNISHES AN ILLUSTRATION THAT THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUNICIPAL AND STATE-WIDE TAXES MAY NOT BE
CONTROLLING OR EVEN RELEVANT IN RELATION TO A TAX WHICH, APART FROM THE
POSSIBILITY OF MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION, PRESENTS NEITHER THE
PROHIBITIVE CONSEQUENCES INHERENT IN RICHMOND'S TAX NOR ANY ELEMENT OF
DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF LOCAL BUSINESS.  THE ITINERANT OUT-OF-STATE
MERCHANT COULD PAY THE NEW YORK SALES TAX AND SURVIVE, ACCORDING TO ITS
GENERAL EFFECT, WITHOUT ANY DISADVANTAGE AS COMPARED WITH LOCAL
MERCHANTS, ITINERANT OR ESTABLISHED, RESULTING FROM THE TAX, EXCEPTING
ONLY THE POSSIBILITY OF MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION. 

FN23  CF. GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 224,
227; LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, 280; SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167, 177; WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY
CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444, 445; NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S.
359, 363, 366. 

FN24  SINCE APPELLANT WORKS FOR AN OUT-OF-STATE FIRM AND THE RECORD
CONTAINS NOTHING TO SHOW HER PRESENCE IN RICHMOND AT ANY TIME OTHER
THAN DURING THE ONE FIVE-DAY PERIOD, OR ANY INTENTION TO RETURN,
WHETHER PERIODICALLY OR CASUALLY, NO PRESUMPTION CAN ARISE THAT SHE WAS
A RESIDENT OF RICHMOND OR WAS REGULARLY ENGAGED IN SOLICITATION THERE. 
THE PRESUMPTION ON THE FACTS BEFORE US IS THE OTHER WAY. 

MOREOVER, HERE AS IN BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454, THE "REAL
COMPETITORS" OF PETITIONER ARE, AMONG OTHERS, THE LOCAL RETAIL
MERCHANTS.  THE RICHMOND ORDINANCE, UNLIKE THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE,
DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON ITS FACE BETWEEN SUCH MERCHANTS AND TRANSIENT
SOLICITORS; NOR DOES IT FIX A LOWER RATE FOR THE FORMER.  BUT THE
OPINION IN THE BEST CASE EXPRESSLY POINTED OUT THAT NOMINALLY THE
STATUTE TREATED LOCAL AND OUT-OF-STATE TRANSIENTS ALIKE.  NEVERTHELESS,
SINCE THE LATTERS' PRINCIPAL COMPETITION OBVIOUSLY CAME FROM "REGULAR
RETAIL MERCHANTS" AND THE TAX BORE "NO RELATION TO ACTUAL OR PROBABLE
SALES," THE COURT FOUND THE NORTH CAROLINA ATMOSPHERE TOO HOSTILE TO
ALLOW SURVIVAL OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE DISCRIMINATION RESULTING
FROM THE PRESENT APPLICATION OF THE RICHMOND ORDINANCE, AS BETWEEN OUT
OF-STATE SOLICITORS AND REGULAR RETAIL MERCHANTS, IS ONLY LESS
OBVIOUS.  IT IS NOT LESS REAL.  CF. NOTE 5. 

FN25  OBVIOUSLY A TOTAL EXCLUSION OF COMMERCE IS ITSELF THE MOST
EFFECTIVE FORM OF DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF THE LOCAL MERCHANT WHO IS
SO SITUATED THAT HE CAN CONTINUE IN THE BUSINESS. 

FN26  SEE, FOR THE PART PLAYED BY ITINERANTS IN OUR HISTORY, WRIGHT,
HAWKERS AND WALKERS IN EARLY AMERICA (1927).  PEDDLERS WERE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN FAVOR OF TOWN MERCHANTS AS EARLY AS 1700. 
WRIGHT, SUPRA, AT 90. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE COURT HAS NOT SHARED THE DOUBTS WHICH SOME OF US HAVE HAD
CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF THE JUDICIARY ACTING TO NULLIFY STATE
LEGISLATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761, 784, 795, DISSENTING
OPINIONS.  BUT THE POLICY OF THE COURT IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED TO THE
CONTRARY. 

EVEN IN THAT VIEW, HOWEVER, THIS JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE REVERSED. 
THE COURT HAS HELD DRUMMER TAXES UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHERE THEY WERE
DISCRIMINATORY ON THEIR FACE OR WHERE IT APPEARED THAT NECESSARILY OR
IN PRACTICAL OPERATION THEY WORKED TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, 45-46,
NOTE 2.  BUT THE PRESENT ORDINANCE ON ITS FACE SEEMS TO REFLECT NO MORE
THAN A BONA FIDE EFFORT TO MAKE INTERSTATE COMMERCE PAY ITS WAY. 
WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 254.  IT TREATS
A SOLICITOR FOR A VIRGINIA MANUFACTURER EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT TREATS
SOLICITORS FOR MANUFACTURERS LOCATED IN OTHER STATES.  UNDER THIS TYPE
OF TAX, THE SOLICITOR FOR A VIRGINIA MANUFACTURER PAYS AS MUCH AS
NIPPERT, WHETHER HE CONFINES HIMSELF TO ONE LOCALITY OR WORKS HIS WAY
THROUGH THE STATE. 

IN THAT VIEW A GRANT OF IMMUNITY TO NIPPERT IS THE GRANT OF A
PREFERENCE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER, DOES NOT END THERE.  BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311
U.S. 454.  IN THAT CASE, A NORTH CAROLINA TAX ON THOSE WHO DISPLAYED
GOODS IN ANY HOTEL ROOM OR TEMPORARY OFFICE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN RETAIL
ORDERS WAS APPLICABLE TO SOLICITORS REPRESENTING LOCAL AS WELL AS OUT
OF-STATE DISTRIBUTORS.  WE HELD THAT THAT PARITY OF TREATMENT DID NOT
SAVE THE TAX.  WE SAID THAT THE TAX MUST BE COMPARED WITH THE TAX ON
THE LOCAL RETAIL MERCHANTS - THE "REAL COMPETITORS" OF THE OUT-OF-STATE
SOLICITOR.  FINDING THAT THE TAX ON THE LOCAL RETAIL MERCHANTS WAS
LIGHTER, WE HELD THAT THE TAX DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE OUT-OF-STATE
SOLICITOR AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TAX ON NIPPERT MAY OR MAY NOT, IN PRACTICAL
OPERATION, WORK TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THIS INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  IT
WOULD BE ONE THING IF NIPPERT'S BUSINESS TOOK HER FROM TOWN TO TOWN
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.  BUT, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, NIPPERT MAY BE A
RESIDENT OF RICHMOND WORKING EXCLUSIVELY THERE, FULL OR PART TIME.  IN
THAT EVENT, WE COULD NOT DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF DISCRIMINATION WITHOUT
KNOWING WHAT TAXES THE RETAIL MERCHANTS IN RICHMOND MUST PAY.  IF THE
FACTS WERE KNOWN, IT MIGHT APPEAR THAT THE TAX, NOW STRUCK DOWN, IN
FACT RESULTED IN PARITY OF TREATMENT BETWEEN NIPPERT AND HER LOCAL
COMPETITORS.  THE RECORD DOES NOT ENLIGHTEN US ON ANY OF THESE
MATTERS.    I THINK THAT ONE WHO COMPLAINS THAT A STATE TAX, THOUGH NOT
DISCRIMINATORY ON ITS FACE, DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IN ITS ACTUAL OPERATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME FORWARD WITH PROOF
TO SUSTAIN THE CHARGE.  SEE SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. KING, 217 U.S. 524,
534-537.  THIS DOES NOT, OF COURSE, REQUIRE PROOF OF THE OBVIOUS.  BUT,
AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS POINTED OUT, CASES OF THIS TYPE SHOULD NOT BE
DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF SPECULATION; THE SPECIAL FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES WILL OFTEN BE DECISIVE.  HAMMOND V. SCHAPPI BUS LINE, 275
U.S. 164, 170-172.  WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS WE FREQUENTLY CAN
HAVE NO "SURE BASIS" FOR THE INFORMED JUDGMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR
DECISION.  TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN. V. BROTHERHOOD OF TRAINMEN, 318 U.S.
1, 8.  THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE CASE HERE.  PROOF SHOULD BE REQUIRED
TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTIVE VALIDITY OF THIS LOCAL LEGISLATION AS
APPLIED TO NIPPERT. 
..END :



U.S. V. AMERICAN UNION TRANSPORT, 327 U.S. 437 


NO. 44.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  A FORWARDER OF FREIGHT FOR TRANSSHIPMENT BY COMMON CARRIERS BY
WATER IN FOREIGN COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH NOT CONTRACTUALLY OR CORPORATELY
AFFILIATED WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, HELD TO BE "CARRYING ON THE
BUSINESS OF FORWARDING  ...  IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY
WATER," HENCE AN "OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE
REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT.  PP. 441, 443. 

2.  THE CONCLUSION THAT INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ACT'S REGULATORY PROVISIONS IS SUPPORTED BY THE BROAD TERMS OF ITS
DEFINITION OF "OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT"; BY THE POLICY
IMPLICIT IN THE SCHEME OF REGULATION; BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY; AND
BY THE DECISION IN CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 577.  P. 443. 

3.  A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE FACT THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED JURISDICTION OVER
SUCH FORWARDERS; NOR BY THE HISTORY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE LEGISLATION
AFFECTING NON-WATER TRANSPORTATION; NOR BY JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELATING
TO THAT LEGISLATION.  PP. 454-455. 

4.  THE FACT THAT NO QUESTION IS INVOLVED OF THE USE OF FORWARDERS BY
CARRIERS TO EVADE REGULATION GIVES NO BASIS FOR RELIEVING INDEPENDENT
FORWARDERS FROM THE ACT'S PROVISIONS.  P. 456. 

5. THE WISDOM OF REGULATING FORWARDERS - WITH THE CORRESPONDING
RESTRICTION OF COMPETITIVE FREEDOM IN THE BUSINESS - IS A QUESTION FOR
CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.  P. 457. 

UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN UNION TRANSPORT, INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, ENJOINING
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION.  SEE 55 F.SUPP. 
682.  REVERSED, P. 457. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES APPEALS FROM A DECREE ENTERED BY A DISTRICT COURT
OF THREE JUDGES PERMANENTLY ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE
UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION.  THE ORDER REQUIRED THE APPELLEES
AND OTHERS TO ANSWER WITHIN THIRTY DAYS A QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING
CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THEIR BUSINESS TRANSACTED DURING 1940, 1941 AND
1942.  FN1  THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS WHETHER APPELLEES ARE WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF THE SHIPPING ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 801, FOR THIS PURPOSE. 

ON AUGUST 21, 1942, THE COMMISSION, UPON ITS OWN MOTION, ORDERED AN
INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE LAWFULNESS OF THE RULES, REGULATIONS,
PRACTICES AND OPERATIONS OF NAMED PERSONS AND FIRMS, DESCRIBED AS
CARRYING ON "THE BUSINESS OF FORWARDING IN FOREIGN COMMERCE  ..."  THE
ORDER STATED THAT FROM INFORMATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION IT APPEARED
THAT A CERTAIN FORWARDING FIRM WAS ENGAGING IN PRACTICES WHICH SEEMED
TO BE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 17 OF THE SHIPPING ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 816,
AND FURTHER "THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES A GENERAL INQUIRY TO
DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE SAID PRACTICES AMONG ALL
OTHER FORWARDERS IN THE PORT OF NEW YORK SUBJECT TO SAID ACT, AND THE
LAWFULNESS OF SAID PRACTICES UNDER SECTION 17 THEREOF  ..." 

ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION SENT TO THE PERSONS AND FIRMS NAMED A
QUESTIONNAIRE CONTAINING THE INQUIRY, AMONG OTHERS, "DO YOU CARRY ON
THE BUSINESS OF FORWARDING IN CONNECTION WITH COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
IN FOREIGN COMMERCE?"  FN2  EACH OF THE APPELLEES ANSWERED THIS IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.  FN3  BUT NEGATIVE ANSWERS WERE GIVEN TO THE QUESTION, "IS
YOUR COMPANY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY SHIPPERS FOR
WHOM YOU ACT AS FORWARDER OR WITH ANY COMMON CARRIER?" 

IN DECEMBER, 1942, THE COMMISSION HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE A TRIAL
EXAMINER PURSUANT TO THE INVESTIGATION ORDER.  ON THE SECOND DAY THE
HEARINGS WERE ADJOURNED SINE DIE SO THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT OBTAIN
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.  THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RESUMED. 

ON JANUARY 14, 1943, THE COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER, PURSUANT TO
SEC. 21 OF THE SHIPPING ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 820, DIRECTING APPELLEES
AND OTHERS TO ANSWER A QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO THEIR FORWARDING
OPERATIONS IN 1940, 1941 AND 1942.  THE ANSWERS WERE TO BE FILED WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS.  BEFORE THIS PERIOD EXPIRED APPELLEES INSTITUTED THIS SUIT
TO ENJOIN THE CARRYING OUT OF THAT ORDER AND THE GENERAL ORDER OF
INVESTIGATION.  THEREAFTER THE COMMISSION EXTENDED THE TIME FOR
ANSWERING THE QUESTIONNAIRE, AND ON MAY 18, 1943, WITHDREW ITS ORDER OF
JANUARY 14, ISSUING INSTEAD ANOTHER UNDER SEC. 21.  THIS ORDER, LIKE
THE EARLIER ONE, REQUIRED THE APPELLEES TO ANSWER A QUESTIONNAIRE
CONCERNING THEIR FORWARDING OPERATIONS.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE,
APPARENTLY, WAS THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT WAS SOMEWHAT MORE
EXTENSIVE.  THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE SUIT SHOULD BE CONTINUED AS
AGAINST THE ORDER OF MAY 18 WITHOUT FORMAL AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT. 

ON NOVEMBER 30, 1943, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE COMMISSION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING EXECUTION OF THE MAY 18, 1943, ORDER.  THE INJUNCTION WAS
MADE PERMANENT ON NOVEMBER 30, 1944.  FN4  THE COURT HELD THAT THE
MARITIME COMMISSION HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE APPELLEES SINCE, IN
ITS VIEW, THEY DID NOT COME WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "OTHER
PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT" GIVEN IN SEC. 1 OF THE STATUTE, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 801.  IT REFUSED, HOWEVER, TO ENJOIN THE ORDER OF AUGUST 21, 1942,
ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ANNUL AN ORDER WHICH
ITSELF DID NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPLAINING PARTIES. 

THE QUESTION WE ARE TO REVIEW IS WHETHER THE APPELLEES ARE INCLUDED
WITHIN THE DESIGNATION "OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT" AS THAT
PHRASE IS DEFINED IN SEC. 1 OF THE SHIPPING ACT.  THE DEFINITION READS:
"THE TERM 'OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT' MEANS ANY PERSON NOT
INCLUDED IN THE TERM 'COMMON CARRIER BY WATER,' CARRYING ON THE
BUSINESS OF FORWARDING OR FURNISHING WHARFAGE, DOCK, WAREHOUSE, OR
OTHER TERMINAL FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY
WATER." 

SUBSTANTIALLY, THE ISSUE TURNS UPON THE MEANING OF "IN CONNECTION
WITH," THAT IS, WHETHER SOME RELATION OF AFFILIATION WITH THE CARRIER
IS REQUIRED, SUCH AS THAT EXEMPLIFIED IN RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V.
DUQUESNE WAREHOUSE CO., 326 U.S. 446; OR, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
STATUTORY PHRASING IS SATISFIED BY THE TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP ILLUSTRATED
BY THE COMPANION CASES OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES AND OAKLAND V.
UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 577.  FN5 

IF, AS APPELLEES CONTEND, "IN CONNECTION WITH" COVERS ONLY FORWARDING
BUSINESSES ACTUALLY AFFILIATED WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER IN A
CORPORATE SENSE, OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF OR PURSUANT TO A CONTINUING
CONTRACT WITH SUCH A CARRIER, THEN PLAINLY THE MARITIME COMMISSION IS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER THESE APPELLEES, SINCE NONE OF THEM IS
CONTROLLED BY OR AFFILIATED WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER IN ANY SUCH
MANNER.  ALL ARE SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS AND THE CASE COMES
DOWN TO WHETHER SUCH FORWARDERS ARE COVERED BY THE ACT. 

THERE IS LITTLE OR NO DISPUTE AS TO THE NATURE OF THEIR BUSINESS. 
THEY ARE PRIMARILY FORWARDERS OF FREIGHT, AS THAT TERM IS GENERALLY
UNDERSTOOD,  FN6  FOR TRANSSHIPMENT IN FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE FOREIGN
FREIGHT FORWARDING BUSINESS IS A MEDIUM USED BY ALMOST ALL EXPORT
SHIPPERS.  AN EXPORTER, INTENDING TO SEND GOODS ABROAD, CONSIGNS THE
MERCHANDISE TO A FORWARDER WHO THEN MAKES ALL THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
DISPATCHING IT TO A FOREIGN PORT.  THE FORWARDER MUST ARRANGE FOR
NECESSARY SPACE WITH THE STEAMSHIP COMPANIES, PROCURE AND PREPARE THE
MANY DOCUMENTS, OBTAIN PERMITS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF FREIGHT AT PIERS,
AND AT TIMES MUST FIND AVAILABLE STORAGE SPACE FOR THE SHIPMENT UNTIL
STEAMERS ARE AVAILABLE.  IF REQUESTED TO DO SO, A FORWARDER WILL SECURE
WHATEVER INSURANCE IS NEEDED. 

FORWARDERS ALSO HAVE MANY OTHER INCIDENTAL DUTIES.  THEY CHECK THE
MARKS ON SHIPPING PAPERS AND CONTAINERS IN ORDER TO BE CERTAIN THAT
THEY ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE COUNTRY OF
DESTINATION.  THEY CONVERT WEIGHTS AND MEASUREMENTS INTO THE METRIC
SYSTEM WHEN NECESSARY.  THEY KEEP RECORDS, FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE
EXPORTER, OF ALL SHIPMENTS DISPATCHED.  THEY ALSO PROSECUTE SUCH CLAIMS
AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE EXPORTER AGAINST CARRIERS, INSURANCE
COMPANIES, AND ANY OTHER PARTIES IN INTEREST. 

BY ENGAGING IN THESE MANY ACTIVITIES OF THE FORWARDING BUSINESS,
INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS - AND PARTICULARLY THE APPELLEES - ACT AS AGENTS
OF THE SHIPPER.  THEY ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF GOODS. 

WE THINK THE APPELLEES ARE WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF SEC. 1.  THIS
CONCLUSION IS REQUIRED NOT ONLY BY THE BROAD AND LITERAL WORDING OF THE
DEFINITION BUT ALSO TO MAKE EFFECTIVE THE SCHEME OF REGULATION THE
STATUTE ESTABLISHED AND BY CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY IMPLICIT IN THAT
SCHEME, AS WELL AS BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE DECISION IN THE
CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND CASES, SUPRA. IN ORDER TO PLACE THE DISCUSSION
OF OUR REASONS IN STATUTORY AS WELL AS FACTUAL SETTING, WE SKETCH BELOW
SOME OF THE MORE PERTINENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  IN DOING SO WE SHALL
EMPHASIZE THE CONSEQUENCES OF INCLUDING OR EXCLUDING SO-CALLED
INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS, LIKE THE APPELLEES, FOR EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT AND ACHIEVEMENT OF ITS POLICY.  BUT FIRST WE
TURN TO THE DEFINITION IN SEC. 1 ITSELF. 

THE LANGUAGE IS BROAD AND GENERAL.  NO INTENT IS SUGGESTED TO
CLASSIFY FORWARDERS, COVERING SOME BUT NOT OTHERS, JUST AS NONE APPEARS
TO DIVIDE PERSONS "FURNISHING WHARFAGE, DOCK, WAREHOUSE, OR OTHER
TERMINAL FACILITIES" INTO REGULATED AND UNREGULATED GROUPS.  CALIFORNIA
V. UNITED STATES; OAKLAND V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE ABSENCE OF ANY
SUCH SUGGESTION BECOMES HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT BY CONTRAST WITH SIMILAR
DEFINITIONS OF OTHER STATUTES MORE OR LESS RELATED TO THE SHIPPING
ACT.  IN THESE CONGRESS, WHEN REGULATING CARRIERS AND "OTHER PERSONS,"
REPEATEDLY HAS MADE PLAIN THE INTENT TO COVER ONLY AFFILIATES OR OTHER
SPECIALLY LIMITED GROUPS WHEN THIS HAS BEEN IN FACT ITS PURPOSE. 

THUS, IN THE LEGISLATION RELATING TO RAILROADS, FORWARDERS WERE FIRST
COVERED EXPRESSLY IN 1942.  49 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1002(A)(5).  THE
DEFINITION IN SHORTENED PARAPHRASE IS LIMITED TO ANY "PERSON," OTHER
THAN A CARRIER, HOLDING ITSELF OUT "TO TRANSPORT OR PROVIDE
TRANSPORTATION" WHICH "IN THE ORDINARY AND USUAL COURSE OF ITS
UNDERTAKING" (A) PERFORMS THE USUAL FUNCTIONS OF A FORWARDER, "AND (B)
ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH PROPERTY FROM
POINT OF RECEIPT TO POINT OF DESTINATION, AND (C) UTILIZES, FOR THE
WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH SHIPMENTS, THE SERVICES
OF A CARRIER OR CARRIERS  ..."  NOT ONLY WOULD LANGUAGE SO EXPLICITLY
LIMITED BE DIFFICULT TO APPLY TO A PERSON NOT PERFORMING ANY PART OF
THE "TRANSPORTATION SERVICE" PROPER, CF. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 243 U.S. 444; BUT THE VERY LIMITATIONS, ALTOGETHER ABSENT FROM
SEC. 1 OF THE SHIPPING ACT, FORBID IDENTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE TWO
DEFINITIONS.  SEE ALSO, IN RELATION TO THE DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF RAIL
FORWARDERS, THE CORRELATED DEFINITION OF "SERVICE SUBJECT TO THIS
CHAPTER."  49 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC. 1002(A)(7). 

THE SAME DIFFERENCE APPLIES WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEFINITIONS OF THE
TERM "EMPLOYER" IN THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937, 45 U.S.C. SEC.
288A, AND THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT OF 1938, 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 351, CONSTRUED IN RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. DUQUESNE WAREHOUSE
CO., SUPRA.  IN EACH INSTANCE THE STATUTE DECLARES THAT "EMPLOYER"
SHALL MEAN "ANY CARRIER  ...  AND ANY COMPANY" CARRIER-OWNED OR
CONTROLLED "AND WHICH OPERATES ANY EQUIPMENT OR FACILITY OR PERFORMS
ANY SERVICE  ...  IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS
OR PROPERTY  ...," THUS PLAINLY SETTING FORTH AS TO OTHERS COVERED THAN
THE CARRIER BOTH THE AFFILIATION REQUIREMENT AND THAT OF PERFORMING
PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. 

IN THE FACE OF SUCH REPEATED DEMONSTRATIONS THAT CONGRESS MAKES ITS
PURPOSE PLAIN, WHEN IT ACTUALLY INTENDS TO LIMIT THE COVERAGE OF OTHERS
THAN CARRIERS TO AFFILIATES OR TO PERSONS PERFORMING PART OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, THE CONCLUSION HARDLY IS TENABLE THAT IT MEANS
THE SAME THING WHEN IT EMPLOYS MORE BROADLY INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE AND
WHOLLY OMITS ALL SUCH LIMITATIONS.  THIS VIEW IS FURTHER EMPHASIZED, AS
WILL APPEAR, BY THE FACT THAT TO CUT DOWN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1 AS
APPELLEES SUGGEST WOULD BE TO SINGLE OUT THE TERM "FORWARDING" FROM ALL
OTHERS IN THE DEFINITION AND GIVE TO IT A NARROW APPLICATION NONE OF
THEM POSSESSES. 

IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT THE WORDING OF THE
DEFINITION IS SUFFICIENTLY AMBIGUOUS TO REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION, MORE
ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND
CASES.  BUT IF ROOM FOR DOUBT REMAINS, IT IS ALTOGETHER REMOVED BY THE
CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY AND HISTORY TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED.  WE
TURN ACCORDINGLY TO THE STATUTORY SETTING. 

IN SEVERAL SECTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, SECS. 15, 16, 17, 20 AND
21(PURSUANT TO WHICH THIS PROCEEDING BEGAN), "OTHER PERSONS" AS WELL AS
COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER EITHER ARE MADE SUBJECT TO AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES
OR ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN ACTIVITIES. 

WITH THE COMMISSION AND EXEMPTS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ANTITRUST
LAWS ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY CARRIERS AND "OTHER PERSONS" AMONG THEMSELVES
OR WITH ONE ANOTHER WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED WITH AND APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION.  FN8  THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN THE POWER TO DISAPPROVE,
CANCEL OR MODIFY, AMONG OTHERS, ANY AGREEMENT WHICH IT FINDS TO BE
UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY OR UNFAIR AS BETWEEN CARRIERS, SHIPPERS,
EXPORTERS, IMPORTERS OR PORTS, OR BETWEEN UNITED STATES EXPORTERS AND
THEIR FOREIGN COMPETITORS; OR TO OPERATE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES; OR TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 
OBVIOUSLY AGREEMENTS OR UNDERSTANDINGS BETWEEN FORWARDERS OR BETWEEN
FORWARDERS AND SHIPPERS OR BETWEEN FORWARDERS AND CARRIERS MAY BE
DISCRIMINATORY IN SUCH A WAY AS TO VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 15. 
MOREOVER, SINCE FORWARDERS ARRANGE THE TERMS OF CARRIAGE FOR SHIPPERS
WITH CARRIERS, THEY MAY BE THE ACTIVE AGENTS WHO BRING ABOUT THE VERY
TYPES OF AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT THE SECTION CONTEMPLATES THE
COMMISSION SHALL HAVE POWER AND OPPORTUNITY TO OUTLAW.  CONSEQUENTLY
JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSION OVER FORWARDERS WOULD SEEM ESSENTIAL TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE ACT AND THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION WELL
MIGHT PREVENT GIVING FULL EFFECT TO THAT POLICY. 

OTHER PRACTICES, ON THE PART OF ANY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER "OR OTHER
PERSON," WHICH AN INDEPENDENT FORWARDER READILY MAY COMMIT OR INDUCE. 
IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT WHATEVER DISCRIMINATIONS MIGHT BE
PRACTICED NECESSARILY WOULD BE IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A
CARRIER AND A FORWARDER WHO, IT IS WELL TO POINT OUT AGAIN, ACTS AS
AGENT OF THE SHIPPER; AND THAT SINCE CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE COMMISSION
JURISDICTION OVER THE CARRIERS, IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT SUCH
JURISDICTION WAS THOUGHT TO BE SUFFICIENT.    WHETHER OR NOT THE
PREMISE IS CORRECT, THE CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW.  THAT THE
COMMISSION MAY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ONE OF THE TWO PARTIES TO A
DISCRIMINATORY AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT HARDLY MEANS THAT IT SHALL NOT
HAVE JURISDICTION OVER BOTH.  INDEED, UNLESS THE JURISDICTION INCLUDES
BOTH, IT MAY BE INEFFECTIVE AS TO THE ONE COVERED; FOR THE COMMISSION
THEN MIGHT LACK THE NECESSARY MEANS OF OBTAINING OR CHECKING UPON
INFORMATION (CF. SEC. 21) NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN THE EXISTENCE OF A
DISCRIMINATION OR TO TAKE OTHER ACTION COMMANDED BY THE STATUTE. 
MOREOVER, SOME OF THE PRACTICES FORBIDDEN APPEAR TO BE PECULIARLY IF
NOT EXCLUSIVELY SUSCEPTIBLE OF COMMISSION OR INDUCEMENT BY FORWARDERS,
BROKERS AND SHIPPERS' AGENTS, ALL SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE

THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 17,  FN10  IN RELEVANT PART, IS TO PROVIDE FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT, OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUST AND REASONABLE
REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES RELATING TO OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
RECEIVING, HANDLING, STORING OR DELIVERING OF PROPERTY.  BY THE NATURE
OF THEIR BUSINESS, INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS ARE INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH
THESE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES.  HERE AGAIN, UNLESS THE COMMISSION HAS
JURISDICTION OVER THEM, IT MAY NOT BE ABLE EFFECTIVELY TO CARRY OUT THE
POLICY OF THE ACT. 

15(11) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, FORBIDS THE DISCLOSURE OF
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BY A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER OR OTHER PERSON,
FN12  WHEN THE INFORMATION MIGHT BE USED TO THE DETRIMENT OR PREJUDICE
OF A SHIPPER OR CONSIGNEE, OR OF A CARRIER, OR MIGHT IMPROPERLY
DISCLOSE HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS TO A COMPETITOR. 

FINALLY, SEC. 21, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE,
REQUIRES THE FILING OF REPORTS, RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE
BUSINESS OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE ACT. 

THE INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP OF THE FORWARDER TO BOTH SHIPPER AND
CARRIER, ESSENTIALLY THAT OF GO-BETWEEN, GIVES HIM NOT ONLY UNIQUE
SOURCES OF INFORMATION, PERHAPS IN ITS TOTALITY AVAILABLE TO NO ONE
ELSE, BUT ALSO UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN PRACTICES WHICH THE ACT
CONTEMPLATES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION, SOME OF WHICH WE HAVE
EMPHASIZED IN QUOTING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  THE STATUTE THROUGHOUT
IS DRAWN IN VERY BROAD TERMS.  IT FORBIDS DIRECT OR INDIRECT
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE OUTLAWED ACTS.  IT BROADLY COVERS SPECIFIC
PRACTICES, INCLUDING FALSE BILLING, CLASSIFICATION, WEIGHING, AND THE
MANNER OF PLACING INSURANCE, SEC. 16, AS WELL AS GENERAL PRACTICES
RESULTING IN FORBIDDEN EVILS, SECS. 15, 17, WHICH FORWARDERS,
AFFILIATED OR INDEPENDENT, ARE FAVORABLY PLACED TO BRING ABOUT.  IT
MENTIONS FORWARDERS SPECIFICALLY, NOT ONLY IN SEC. 1, BUT ELSEWHERE,
E.G., SEC. 16, WITHOUT SUGGESTION OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN TWEEN
INDEPENDENT AND AFFILIATED OPERATORS.  TO INCLUDE THE LATTER BUT
EXCLUDE THE FORMER WOULD BE INCONGRUOUS, NOT ONLY FOR WANT OF ANY SUCH
EXPLICIT SUGGESTION, BUT BECAUSE INCLUSION OF ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER
WOULD CREATE A STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION TENDING IN TIME TO FORCE OUT
THE AFFILIATED FORWARDER AND, WITH THAT ACHIEVED, TO REMOVE FORWARDING
ENTIRELY FROM THE REACH OF THE REGULATORY PLAN.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
CONGRESS HAD IN MIND SUCH A SELF-DEFEATING SCHEME.  ALMOST AS WELL
MIGHT IT HAVE EXEMPTED ALL FORWARDERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.  NOR DO WE
THINK THE DESIGN OF THE ACT WAS MERELY BY INDIRECTION TO FORBID
CARRIERS OR THEIR AFFILIATES TO ACT AS FORWARDERS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CLEARLY SUPPORTS THIS VIEW, ALTHOUGH FOR
EXPLICIT STATEMENT IT IS SCANTY.  NO DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE MEANING
OF "ANY PERSON (NOT A CARRIER) CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF FORWARDING
...  IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER" APPEARS EXCEPT IN
THE STATEMENT OF THE MANAGER OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES.  FN13  WHEN DEALING WITH THE BREADTH OF THE TERM
"OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT," HE SAID:  "HENCE, IF THIS BOARD
(THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD) EFFECTUALLY REGULATES WATER
CARRIERS, IT MUST ALSO HAVE SUPERVISION OF ALL THOSE INCIDENTAL
FACILITIES CONNECTED WITH THE MAIN CARRIERS  ..."  53 CONG. REC. 8276. 
CERTAINLY THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT INDICATIVE OF INTENT TO GIVE A NARROWLY
RESTRICTED SCOPE TO THE DEFINITION'S COVERAGE.  QUITE THE OPPOSITE IS
ITS EFFECT. 

THE MORE SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, HOWEVER, APPEARS IN THE
METAMORPHOSIS WHICH THIS PROVISION OF SEC. 1 UNDERWENT DURING THE
PROCESS OF ENACTMENT.  A PREDECESSOR BILL (H.R. 14337, 64TH CONG.)
WORDED THE DEFINITION AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE TERM 'OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT' MEANS ANY PERSON NOT
INCLUDED IN THE TERM 'COMMON CARRIER BY WATER' AND CARRYING ON THE
BUSINESS OF FORWARDING, FERRYING, TOWING, OR FURNISHING TRANSFER,
LIGHTERAGE, DOCK, WAREHOUSE, OR OTHER TERMINAL FACILITIES IN OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

AS THIS WAS REVISED IN THE BILL WHICH WAS ENACTED (H.R. 15455, 64TH
CONG.), TWO CHANGES OCCURRED, APART FROM ADDING EXPLICIT MENTION OF
WHARFAGE AS AMONG THE TERMINAL SERVICES.  ONE WAS TO ELIMINATE THE
WORDS "FERRYING, TOWING  ...  TRANSFER, LIGHTERAGE."  THE OTHER WAS TO
SUBSTITUTE "IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER" FOR "IN OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

HAD THIS LATTER WORDING BEEN RETAINED THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE
REMOTEST BASIS FOR SUGGESTING THAT INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS WERE NOT
COVERED, AS THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NONE WITH REFERENCE TO ANY OF THE
OTHER BUSINESSES OR SERVICES MENTIONED.  BUT, FOR A REASON WHOLLY
UNRELATED TO NARROWING THE CLASS OF FORWARDERS AND OTHERS NOT CARRIERS
WHO HAD BEEN INCLUDED, THE ORIGINAL CONCLUDING PHRASEOLOGY WAS
CHANGED.  THAT LANGUAGE WAS OBVIOUSLY INEXACT WHEN APPLIED, AS THE
SHIPPING ACT DID APPLY, TO CARRIAGE BY WATER AND INCIDENTAL
ACTIVITIES.  TAKEN LITERALLY, THE BROAD WORDING WOULD HAVE INCLUDED
FORWARDERS AND OTHERS FURNISHING TERMINAL FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH
SHIPMENTS BY RAIL.  OBVIOUSLY IT WAS TO ELIMINATE THIS INCONGRUITY, AND
NOT TO CONSTRICT THE CLASSES OF "OTHER PERSONS" PREVIOUSLY ENUMERATED,
THAT THIS CHANGE WAS MADE. 

THAT IT HAD NO OTHER PURPOSE APPEARS, MOREOVER, FROM THE ELIMINATION
OF "FERRYING, TOWING  ... TRANSFER, LIGHTERAGE," WHICH SHOWS THAT WHEN
CONGRESS WISHED TO CUT DOWN THE CLASSES ORIGINALLY COVERED IT DID SO
ATTENTIVELY AND EXPLICITLY.  THESE ELIMINATED PERSONS WERE INCLUDED
ORIGINALLY, ALONG WITH FORWARDERS AND OTHERS, NOT SIMPLY TO REACH
AFFILIATES OF CARRIERS, BUT BROADLY TO PROVIDE "FOR EQUAL TREATMENT TO
ALL SHIPPERS AND WATER CARRIERS BY TRANSFER AND LIGHTERAGE CONCERNS
WHEN FORMING A LINK IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE."  FN14  NOTHING
IN THE HEARINGS, THE COMMITTEE REPORTS, OR THE DEBATES, UPON THE
ORIGINAL OR THE SUBSTITUTED BILLS,  FN15  SUGGESTS EITHER AN ORIGINAL
INTENTION TO RESTRICT TO CARRIER AFFILIATES THE COVERAGE OF FORWARDERS
OR OTHER FURNISHERS OF TERMINAL OR "LINK" SERVICE OR A LATER INTENTION
TO CHANGE THE INITIAL BROAD COVERAGE BY SO RESTRICTING IT.  SILENCE SO
COMPLETE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE VOICE OF CHANGE.  THE ORIGINAL
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE CLEARLY WAS TO REACH ALL WHO CARRY ON THE
SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES, WHETHER IN OR OUT OF AFFILIATION WITH A CARRIER. 
THAT PURPOSE REMAINED UNALTERED BY ANYTHING WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE
COURSE OF TRANSITION FROM THE FIRST TO THE FINAL FORM IN WHICH THE BILL
WAS ENACTED. 

INDEED, WE HELD AS MUCH IN THE CASES OF CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES
AND OAKLAND V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE DECISION WAS THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION OVER STATE AND MUNICIPALLY OWNED BUSINESSES
FURNISHING TERMINAL FACILITIES.  THE RULING WOULD INCLUDE A FORTIORI
PRIVATELY OWNED INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES OF THE SAME TYPE.  IT WOULD BE A
STRANGE READING OF THE "OTHER PERSON" PROVISION IF FORWARDERS ALONE
WERE REQUIRED TO BE AFFILIATED IN ORDER TO COME WITHIN ITS TERMS, ALL
OTHERS COVERED IN BOTH THE ORIGINAL AND THE FINAL FORMS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS BEING EITHER INDEPENDENT OR AFFILIATED.  YET THIS
IS, IN EFFECT, APPELLEES' EXACT CONTENTION AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  AS HAS BEEN NOTED,  FN16  THAT COURT MISCONCEIVED THE
FACTS IN THE OAKLAND CASE AND THUS PERHAPS, AT THE TIME OF ENTRY OF ITS
FINAL ORDER, THE FULL SCOPE AND EFFECT OF OUR DECISION.  FN17  AT ANY
RATE, SINCE CONGRESS HAS INDICATED NO INTENTION TO SINGLE OUT
FORWARDERS FOR REGULATION ONLY WHEN THEY ARE AFFILIATED WITH A CARRIER,
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME BROADLY COVERING TERMINAL OPERATORS AND OTHERS,
WE ARE NOT FREE TO INJECT SUCH A DISTINCTION. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID DISPOSES OF THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES. 
APPELLEES HOWEVER OFFER OTHER ARGUMENTS, FOUNDED CHIEFLY IN THE ABSENCE
OF PRIOR ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, FN18  BUT ALSO IN THE
HISTORY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE LEGISLATION AFFECTING NONWATER
TRANSPORTATION AND IN DECISIONS RELATING TO THAT LEGISLATION N19.  WE
REGARD THESE CONSIDERATIONS AS INAPPOSITE TO THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THIS
CASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE QUITE DIFFERENT WORDING, COVERAGE, HISTORY
AND, TO SOME EXTENT, POLICY OF THE SHIPPING ACT, FOR REASONS ALREADY
SET FORTH IN PART AND FOR OTHERS BRIEFLY INDICATED IN THE MARGINAL
NOTES ATTACHED TO THIS PARAGRAPH.  FN20 

IT REMAINS ONLY TO NOTICE THE FURTHER OBJECTIONS THAT THE CASE DOES
NOT INVOLVE THE USE OF FORWARDERS BY CARRIERS TO EVADE REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO CARRIERS; AND THAT TO HOLD INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS
"SUBJECT TO THIS ACT" WILL BRING THEM UNDER ITS REGULATORY PROVISIONS,
IN OTHER WORDS, WILL MAKE THEM "SUBJECT TO THIS ACT." 

NEEDLESS TO REPEAT, IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE WE THINK THE LATTER
EFFECT IS REQUIRED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS ALREADY SET FORTH THAT OUR
CONCLUSION HAS BEEN REACHED.  MOREOVER, SUPPORT FOR IT IS GIVEN BY THE
VERY TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC REGULATORY PROVISIONS CITED TO CONTRADICT
IT, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT.  FN21  THE GROUND NEED NOT BE TRAVERSED
AGAIN.  THE CITED PROVISIONS, LIKE SEC. 1, ARE BROAD AND GENERAL.  THEY
STRIKE AT EVILS AS LIKELY TO BE PERPETRATED BY INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS
AS BY ANY OF THE "OTHER PERSONS" ADMITTEDLY COVERED BY THE ACT.  THEY
AFFORD NO SUGGESTION OF APPLICATION NARROWED TO AFFILIATED FORWARDERS
OR OF OTHER DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM AND INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS, SUCH
AS INVARIABLY AND IN THE CLEAREST TERMS CONGRESS HAS STATED WHENEVER IT
HAS DEALT WITH FORWARDERS BY LAND. 

THE COMMON SENSE OF ALL THIS, OF COURSE, IS THAT CONGRESS KNEW WHAT
IT WAS ABOUT IN BOTH INSTANCES.  WE CANNOT IGNORE ITS REPEATED
DEMONSTRATIONS OF THAT FACT.  TO DO SO WOULD BE TO REWRITE THE STATUTE,
INJECTING LIMITATIONS OF AFFILIATION NO MORE RIGHTFULLY WITHIN OUR
FUNCTION THAN INSERTING OTHERS OF PHYSICAL PARTICIPATION IN THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PROPER OR OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.
THESE ADMITTEDLY CANNOT GO IN, ALTHOUGH THERE WOULD BE AS MUCH WARRANT
FOR ADDING THEM AS FOR PUTTING IN AFFILIATION. 

STATUTES MAY BE EMASCULATED AS READILY AND AS MUCH BY UNAUTHORIZED
RESTRICTED READING AS BY ONE UNDULY EXPANSIVE.  AND THE WISDOM OF THE
REGULATION OF FORWARDERS WITH THE CORRESPONDING RESTRICTION OF
COMPETITIVE FREEDOM IN THE BUSINESS IS THE CONCERN OF CONGRESS, NOT OF
THIS COURT.  WE LEAVE THE STATUTE AS CONGRESS ENACTED IT. 

IT IS INHERENT IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE STATUTE THAT MORE IS
INVOLVED THAN MERELY A CARRIER'S ATTEMPT TO IMMUNIZE ITSELF AGAINST THE
ACT'S PENALTIES BY USING A FORWARDER TO EVADE THE REGULATIONS MADE
BINDING ON CARRIERS.  IN THAT RESPECT FORWARDERS ARE OBVIOUSLY NO
DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PERSONS, FOR THE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT SUCH EVASION
BY A CARRIER WHETHER THROUGH THE USE OF FORWARDERS OR ANY OTHER
PERSONS.  WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS THAT THE ACT IS DESIGNED AND IN
TERMS UNDERTAKES NOT ONLY TO PREVENT SUCH EVASION BY CARRIERS THROUGH
DENYING THEM IMMUNITY WHEN THEY HIDE BEHIND FORWARDERS; IT ALSO DENIES
IMMUNITY TO THE FORWARDERS THEMSELVES WHEN THEY COMMIT THE ACTS OR
PRACTICES CARRIERS AND OTHERS SUBJECT TO THE ACT ARE FORBIDDEN TO
PERFORM. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  SEE NOTE 4.  JURISDICTION RESTS ON SEC. 31 OF THE SHIPPING ACT,
46 U.S.C. SEC. 830; 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47, 47A; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345(4). 
SEE CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 577, 579. 

FN2  THE INQUIRY WAS FRAMED WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY PROVISION
IMMEDIATELY IN ISSUE, NAMELY, THE DEFINITION OF "OTHER PERSON SUBJECT
TO THIS ACT" CONTAINED IN SEC. 1 OF THE SHIPPING ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
801, SET FORTH HEREINAFTER IN THE TEXT. 

FN3  IN THEIR COMPLAINT THE APPELLEES ALLEGE THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE
ANSWERS GIVEN WERE ERRONEOUS AND WERE MADE "WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE
IMPORT OF THE SAID QUESTION OR OF THE KIND OR NATURE OF THE BUSINESS
WHICH IT WAS NECESSARY TO CARRY ON, OR THE CHARACTER OF RELATIONSHIP
WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER IN FOREIGN COMMERCE, WHICH IT WAS
NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN, IN ORDER TO FALL WITHIN THE SAID DEFINITION
..." 

FN4  THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION AND ON MOTION FOR REARGUMENT IS REPORTED IN 55 F.SUPP. 
682.  THE OPINION ON FINAL JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS SIMPLY AN ADHERENCE TO
THE COURT'S PREVIOUS OPINION, IS NOT REPORTED. 

FN5  THE AGENCIES FOUND SUBJECT TO THE ACT IN THESE CASES WERE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES.  ALTHOUGH SOME CONTINUING CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP MAY
HAVE EXISTED BETWEEN THE STATE WHARFINGER AND THE CARRIERS IN THE
CALIFORNIA CASE, NO SUCH RELATION EXISTED, EXCEPT AS TO ONE PIER, IN
THE OAKLAND CASE, A FACT OF WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE
OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT INFORMED, IN VIEW OF ITS CONTRARY STATEMENT.  SEE
NOTE 17.    FN6  SEE PLACE V. UNION EXPRESS CO., 2 HILT.  (N.Y.)  19,
25; IN RE EMERSON, MARLOW & CO., 199 F. 95, 97; H. REP. NO. 1682, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., 5 ET SEQ. CF. THE DEFINITION OF "FREIGHT FORWARDER" IN
PART IV OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. (SUPP. V) SEC.
1002(A)(5), DISCUSSED AT A LATER POINT IN THIS OPINION. 

IN ADDITION TO ACTING AS FREIGHT FORWARDERS, THE APPELLEES ALSO ACT
AS FREIGHT BROKERS.  AND FOR THEIR SERVICES AS BROKERS THEY RECEIVE
BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS OR FEES FROM THE CARRIER WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME
SHIPMENTS FOR WHICH THEY ACT AS FORWARDERS. 

IN VIEW OF THE DISPOSITION WE MAKE OF THE CAUSE, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER
THE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT IN ANY CASE THE APPELLEES,
BECAUSE THEY ALSO ACT AS FREIGHT BROKERS AND RECEIVE COMPENSATION FROM
THE CARRIERS, COME WITHIN THE MARITIME COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  CF.
IN RE GULF BROKERAGE AND FORWARDING AGREEMENTS, 1 U.S.M.C. 533, 534,
WHERE IT WAS SAID:  "BROKERS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SHIPPING ACT, 1916,
AND CONSEQUENTLY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THAT ACT AND
BROKERS ARE NOT OF THE CHARACTER REQUIRED TO BE FILED UNDER SECTION 15
THEREOF." 

FN7  "EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, OR OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS
ACT, SHALL FILE IMMEDIATELY WITH THE BOARD (COMMISSION) A TRUE COPY,
OR, IF ORAL, A TRUE AND COMPLETE MEMORANDUM, OF EVERY AGREEMENT WITH
ANOTHER SUCH CARRIER OR OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, OR
MODIFICATION OR CANCELLATION THEREOF, TO WHICH IT MAY BE A PARTY OR
CONFORM IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FIXING OR REGULATING TRANSPORTATION RATES
OR FARES; GIVING OR RECEIVING SPECIAL RATES, ACCOMMODATIONS, OR OTHER
SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OR ADVANTAGES; CONTROLLING, REGULATING, PREVENTING,
OR DESTROYING COMPETITION; POOLING OR APPORTIONING EARNINGS, LOSSES, OR
TRAFFIC; ALLOTTING PORTS OR RESTRICTING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE
NUMBER AND CHARACTER OF SAILINGS BETWEEN PORTS; LIMITING OR REGULATING
IN ANY WAY THE VOLUME OR CHARACTER OF FREIGHT OR PASSENGER TRAFFIC TO
BE CARRIED; OR IN ANY MANNER PROVIDING FOR AN EXCLUSIVE, PREFERENTIAL,
OR COOPERATIVE WORKING ARRANGEMENT.  THE TERM 'AGREEMENT' IN THIS

"THE BOARD (COMMISSION) MAY BY ORDER DISAPPROVE, CANCEL, OR MODIFY
ANY AGREEMENT, OR ANY MODIFICATION OR CANCELLATION THEREOF, WHETHER OR
NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY IT, THAT IT FINDS TO BE UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATORY OR UNFAIR AS BETWEEN CARRIERS, SHIPPERS, EXPORTERS,
IMPORTERS, OR PORTS, OR BETWEEN EXPORTERS FROM THE UNITED STATES AND
THEIR FOREIGN COMPETITORS, OR TO OPERATE TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT, AND
SHALL APPROVE ALL OTHER AGREEMENTS, MODIFICATIONS, OR CANCELLATIONS. 

"AGREEMENTS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD
(COMMISSION) SHALL BE LAWFUL UNTIL DISAPPROVED BY THE BOARD
(COMMISSION).  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO CARRY OUT ANY AGREEMENT OR ANY
PORTION THEREOF DISAPPROVED BY THE BOARD (COMMISSION). 

"ALL AGREEMENTS, MODIFICATIONS, OR CANCELLATIONS MADE AFTER THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD (COMMISSION) SHALL BE LAWFUL ONLY WHEN AND AS
LONG AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD (COMMISSION), AND BEFORE APPROVAL OR
AFTER DISAPPROVAL IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO CARRY OUT IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY SUCH AGREEMENT, MODIFICATION, OR
CANCELLATION. 

"EVERY AGREEMENT, MODIFICATION, OR CANCELLATION LAWFUL UNDER THIS
SECOND, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY, ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO PROTECT TRADE
AND COMMERCE AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES,' AND
AMENDMENTS AND ACTS SUPPLEMENTARY THERETO, AND THE PROVISIONS OF
APPROVED AUGUST TWENTY-SEVENTH, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR,
ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO REDUCE TAXATION, TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' AND AMENDMENTS AND ACTS
SUPPLEMENTARY THERETO. 

"WHOEVER VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE LIABLE TO A
PENALTY OF $1,000 FOR EACH DAY SUCH VIOLATION CONTINUES, TO BE
RECOVERED BY THE UNITED STATES IN A CIVIL ACTION."  39 STAT. 733; 46
U.S.C. SEC. 814. 

FN8  SEE THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, NOTE 7 SUPRA; AND SEE CURRENT
LEGISLATION, 17 COL. L. REV. 357, 358.  IT SHOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO
EMPHASIZE, IN VIEW OF THE STATUTE'S PLAIN LANGUAGE, THAT, AS IS
INDICATED, THE EXEMPTION ARISES NOT UPON THE MERE FILING OF THE
AGREEMENT, BUT ONLY AFTER APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION. 

FN9  "THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY SHIPPER, CONSIGNOR,
CONSIGNEE, FORWARDER, BROKER, OR OTHER PERSON, OR ANY OFFICER, AGENT,
OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF, KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
BY MEANS OF FALSE BILLING, FALSE CLASSIFICATION, FALSE WEIGHING, FALSE
REPORT OF WEIGHT, OR BY ANY OTHER UNJUST OR UNFAIR DEVICE OR MEANS TO
OBTAIN OR ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN TRANSPORTATION BY WATER FOR PROPERTY AT
LESS THAN THE RATES OR CHARGES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE APPLICABLE. 

"THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, OR OTHER
PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, EITHER ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY
OTHER PERSON, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY - 

"FIRST.  TO MAKE OR GIVE ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR
ADVANTAGE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, LOCALITY, OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC
IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER, OR TO SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON,
LOCALITY, OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC TO ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER. 

"SECOND.  TO ALLOW ANY PERSON TO OBTAIN TRANSPORTATION FOR PROPERTY
AT LESS THAN THE REGULAR RATES OR CHARGES THEN ESTABLISHED AND ENFORCED
ON THE LINE OF SUCH CARRIER BY MEANS OF FALSE BILLING, FALSE
CLASSIFICATION, FALSE WEIGHING, FALSE REPORT OF WEIGHT, OR BY ANY OTHER
UNJUST OR UNFAIR DEVICE OR MEANS. 

"THIRD.  TO INDUCE, PERSUADE, OR OTHERWISE INFLUENCE ANY MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY OR UNDERWRITER, OR AGENT THEREOF, NOT TO GIVE A
COMPETING CARRIER BY WATER AS FAVORABLE A RATE OF INSURANCE ON VESSEL
OR CARGO, HAVING DUE REGARD TO THE CLASS OF VESSEL OR CARGO, AS IS
GRANTED TO SUCH CARRIER OR OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT. 

"WHOEVER VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000 FOR EACH
OFFENSE."  39 STAT. 734, AS AMENDED BY 49 STAT. 1518; 46 U.S.C. SEC.
815. 

FN10  "...  EVERY SUCH CARRIER AND EVERY OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS
ACT SHALL ESTABLISH, OBSERVE, AND ENFORCE JUST AND REASONABLE
REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE RECEIVING,
HANDLING, STORING, OR DELIVERING OF PROPERTY.  WHENEVER THE BOARD
(COMMISSION) FINDS THAT ANY SUCH REGULATION OR PRACTICE IS UNJUST OR
UNREASONABLE IT MAY DETERMINE, PRESCRIBE, AND ORDER ENFORCED A JUST AND
REASONABLE REGULATION OR PRACTICE."  39 STAT. 734; 46 U.S.C. SEC. 816. 

FN11  "THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER OR
OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, OR ANY OFFICER, RECEIVER, TRUSTEE,
LESSEE, AGENT, OR EMPLOYEE OF SUCH CARRIER OR PERSON, OR FOR ANY OTHER
PERSON AUTHORIZED BY SUCH CARRIER OR PERSON TO RECEIVE INFORMATION,
KNOWINGLY TO DISCLOSE TO OR PERMIT TO BE ACQUIRED BY ANY PERSON OTHER
THAN THE SHIPPER OR CONSIGNEE, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF SUCH SHIPPER OR
CONSIGNEE, ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THE NATURE, KIND, QUANTITY,
DESTINATION, CONSIGNEE, OR ROUTING OF ANY PROPERTY TENDERED OR
DELIVERED TO SUCH COMMON CARRIER OR OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT
FOR TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, WHICH INFORMATION
MAY BE USED TO THE DETRIMENT OR PREJUDICE OF SUCH SHIPPER OR CONSIGNEE,
OR WHICH MAY IMPROPERLY DISCLOSE HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS TO A
COMPETITOR, OR WHICH MAY BE USED TO THE DETRIMENT OR PREJUDICE OF ANY
CARRIER; AND IT SHALL ALSO BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO SOLICIT OR
KNOWINGLY RECEIVE ANY SUCH INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE SO USED."  39 STAT.
735; 46 U.S.C. SEC. 819.  EXCEPTIONS ARE MADE FOR DISCLOSURE IN
RESPONSE TO LEGAL PROCESS, ETC. 

FN12  SECTION 15(11) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
15(11), DOES NOT CONTAIN THE "OTHER PERSON" PROVISION.  THE COVERAGE OF
THE TWO SECTIONS, HOWEVER, IS SO BROAD THAT IT PROBABLY WOULD INCLUDE
FORWARDERS EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF OTHER

FN13  REPRESENTATIVE ALEXANDER, THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES. 

FN14  H. REP. NO. 659, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 32.  IT IS TRUE THAT NO
COMPARABLE EXPLICIT STATEMENT APPEARS CONCERNING FORWARDING OR TERMINAL
ACTIVITIES.  BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF DISTINGUISHING LANGUAGE, THE
ORIGINAL COVERAGE OF "FERRYING, TOWING  ...  TRANSFER, LIGHTERAGE"
HARDLY CAN BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN BROADER, AS RESPECTS AFFILIATION, THAN
"FORWARDING OR FURNISHING WHARFAGE, DOCK, WAREHOUSE, OR OTHER TERMINAL
FACILITIES  ..."; AND THE ELIMINATION OF THE FORMER CANNOT BE SAID TO
HAVE RESTRICTED THE LATTER IN THIS RESPECT OR, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION
IN THE CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND CASES, TO HAVE SINGLED OUT FORWARDING
ALONE FOR SUCH RESTRICTION. 

FN15  HEARINGS ON H.R. 14337 BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; HEARINGS ON H.R.
15455 BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 64TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; H. REP. NO. 659, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 689, 64TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 5. 

FN17  THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION, 55 F.SUPP.  682, WAS FILED
NOVEMBER 30, 1943, AND REFERS TO THE CALIFORNIA CASE, BUT IT MAKES NO
REFERENCE TO THE OAKLAND CASE, ALTHOUGH BOTH WERE THEN PENDING HERE. 
THE COURT'S FURTHER OPINION, FILED MARCH 8, 1944, UPON THE MOTION FOR
REARGUMENT, MAKES NO REFERENCE TO EITHER OF THESE CASES.  THE FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE FILED NOVEMBER 30, 1944, AND
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED THE SAME DAY, NEARLY ELEVEN MONTHS AFTER OUR
DECISION IN THE CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND CASES HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED ON
JANUARY 3, 1944.  AS HAS BEEN STATED, SEE NOTE 5, IN THE OAKLAND CASE,
EXCEPT IN ONE INSTANCE, THERE WAS NO SHOWING OF AFFILIATION WITH A
CARRIER, WHETHER BY CONTINUING AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE. 

FN18  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT UNTIL THE PRESENT PROCEEDING NEITHER THE
UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION NOR ITS PREDECESSOR, THE UNITED
STATES SHIPPING BOARD, ATTEMPTED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER
FORWARDERS SUCH AS THE APPELLEES.  SEE, HOWEVER, FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF
THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, P. 75; SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF
THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, P. 10.  IT IS NOT TO BE INFERRED
HOWEVER THAT EITHER OF THOSE BODIES HELD THE VIEW THAT THEY WERE
WITHOUT SUCH JURISDICTION OR THAT, IF EITHER DID, THAT FACT WOULD BE
CONCLUSIVE.  AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY IS NOT ORDINARILY UNDER AN
OBLIGATION IMMEDIATELY TO TEST THE LIMITS OF ITS JURISDICTION.  IT MAY
AWAIT AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OR CLEAR NEED FOR DOING SO.  IT MAY
ALSO BE MISTAKEN AS TO THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY.  CF. SOCIAL SECURITY
BOARD V. NIEROTKO, 327 U.S. 358. 

ALTHOUGH FAILURE TO EXERCISE POWER MAY BE SIGNIFICANT AS A FACTOR
SHEDDING LIGHT ON WHETHER IT HAS BEEN CONFERRED, SEE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349, THAT FACT ALONE NEITHER
EXTINGUISHES POWER GRANTED NOR ESTABLISHES THAT THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT
IS GIVEN REGARDS ITSELF AS IMPOTENT.  THE PRESENT CASE, BY VIRTUE OF
DIFFERENCES FROM THAT OF BUNTE BROS. RELATING TO THE CLARITY AND
DEFINITENESS OF THE STATUTE'S TERMS, THE POLICY OF THE ACT, AND THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IS ONE WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE PRONOUNCEMENT:
"AUTHORITY ACTUALLY GRANTED BY CONGRESS OF COURSE CANNOT EVAPORATE
THROUGH LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXERCISE."  312 U.S. AT 352. 

FN19  APPELLEES STRONGLY URGE THAT THIS CASE IS GOVERNED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PHRASE "IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSPORTATION" IN THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, CITED AND DISCUSSED IN THE TEXT ABOVE (SEE
LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 444), AND FOR THIS VIEW
RELY UPON UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD S.S. CO., 284 U.S.
474, 481, WHICH HELD THAT THE SHIPPING ACT AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, "EACH IN ITS OWN FIELD, SHOULD HAVE LIKE INTERPRETATION,
APPLICATION AND EFFECT."  AS WE HAVE STATED, THE PHRASE "CONNECTED WITH
TRANSPORTATION," IN THE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SETTING OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, IS SO DISSIMILAR IN TERMS AND SETTING TO THE PHRASE "IN
CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER" AS USED IN THE SHIPPING ACT
THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FORMER CANNOT BE CONTROLLING IN
DETERMINING THE MEANING OF THE LATTER. 

FN20  APPELLEES' CONTENTIONS THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A
FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
FORWARDING "IN CONNECTION WITH" A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER AND THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY REFUSED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AUGUST 21,
1942, ARE FOUNDED IN THEIR VIEW THAT THE ACT REQUIRES AFFILIATION.  FOR
THIS AND OTHER REASONS IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THEM FURTHER. 

FN21  SEE NOTES 7, 9, 10, AND DISCUSSION IN THE TEXT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND WHAT THIS CASE IS NOT.  IT DOES NOT
INVOLVE THE POWER OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION TO OBTAIN FROM A FORWARDER
ALL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO ANY INQUIRY BY THE COMMISSION, BASED ON
COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATIONS OF THE SHIPPING ACT OR ON ITS OWN MOTION. 
SUBJECTS EVERY PERSON, FORWARDER OR NOT, TO TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION.  39
STAT. 728, 737, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 826.  NOR DOES THE CASE INVOLVE THE
ATTEMPT OF A CARRIER TO USE A FORWARDER AS A MEANS OF EVADING THE
REGULATIONS BY WHICH WATER CARRIERS ARE CONTROLLED.  BY NO SUCH
INDIRECTION CAN A CARRIER IMMUNIZE ITSELF AGAINST THE ACT'S PENALTIES. 
COMPARE LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 444.    THE
CASE IS THIS.  THE BUSINESS OF THESE APPELLEES IS TO NEGOTIATE ON
BEHALF OF SHIPPERS FOR SHIPPING SPACE AND TO MAKE THE NECESSARY
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS.  THEY HAVE NO
PART IN THE PHYSICAL PROCESS OF MOVING GOODS.  THEY HAVE NO CORPORATE,
PHYSICAL, OR FINANCIAL TIE WITH THE CARRIERS.  THE SOLE QUESTION HERE
IS WHETHER SUCH BUSINESS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UNDER THE REGULATORY SCHEME
OF THE ACT.  THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT THEY ARE "PERSONS SUBJECT TO
THE ACT."  IF THE COMMISSION IS CORRECT, THESE FORWARDERS WOULD HAVE TO
SUBMIT ALL SORTS OF AGREEMENTS WITH CARRIERS AND WITH OTHER FORWARDERS
TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL (39 STAT. 733, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 814),
WHEREUPON SUCH AGREEMENTS MAY BE FREED FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE
SHERMAN LAW; THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN UNIFORM RATES (39 STAT.
734, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 815); THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S
SUPERVISION INSOFAR AS THEIR ACTIVITIES INVOLVED PRACTICES PERTAINING
TO THE HANDLING AND CARE OF SHIPMENTS (39 STAT. 734, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
816); THEY WOULD HAVE TO FILE REPORTS AND BUSINESS RECORDS CALLED FOR
BY THE COMMISSION (39 STAT. 736, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 820); THEY WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO AWARD REPARATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS
OF THE ACT (39 STAT. 736, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 821); AND THEY WOULD BE LIABLE
TO HEAVY PENALTIES (39 STAT. 734, 736, 738, 40 STAT. 900, 902, 46
U.S.C. SECS. 815, 820, 831, 839). 

THE SHIPPING ACT HAS BEEN ON THE STATUTE BOOKS SINCE 1916.  YET NOT
UNTIL 1942 DID THE AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ENFORCING THE ACT
DEEM FORWARDERS OF THIS TYPE TO BE COVERED BY IT.  THE SCOPE OF ITS
LEGISLATION IS, OF COURSE, FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE AND NOT FOR THE
ENFORCING AGENCY.  INACTION, NO MATTER HOW CONSISTENT AND LONG
CONTINUED, CANNOT CONTRACT THE REACH OF A STATUTE.  BUT MUCH HAS
PROPERLY BEEN SAID ABOUT THE IMPORTANT SIGNIFICANCE WHICH ATTACHES TO
THE MEANING GIVEN A STATUTE BY THOSE WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO ENFORCE IT AND
WHO ARE DEEMED ESPECIALLY EQUIPPED TO BREATHE LIFE INTO INERT
LANGUAGE.  JUST AS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME GOES A LONG WAY TO PROVE THAT POWERS
EXERCISED WERE IMPLIEDLY GIVEN, SEE UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO.,
236 U.S. 459, A CONSISTENT AND UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO EXERCISE POWER
NOT OBVIOUSLY CONFERRED BY LEGISLATION MAY BE EQUALLY PERSUASIVE THAT
THE POWER CLAIMED WAS NEVER CONFERRED.  IT IS NOT TO BE PRESUMED THAT
FOR DECADES OFFICIALS WERE EITHER IGNORANT OF THE DUTIES WITH WHICH
CONGRESS CHARGED THEM OR DERELICT IN THEIR ENFORCEMENT. 

A CONSIDERATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEGISLATION IN ITS PROPER
SETTING MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION
AND ITS PREDECESSOR FOR MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS TO EXERCISE THE
AUTHORITY WHICH IT NOW CLAIMS WAS DUE NEITHER TO IGNORANCE NOR TO
INDIFFERENCE.  THE EXPLANATION THAT WOULD SPONTANEOUSLY OCCUR TO ONE
FOR SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IS, I BELIEVE, THE RIGHT ONE:  THE
POWER WAS NOT EXERCISED BECAUSE CONGRESS DID NOT GRANT IT. 

IT IS A FAIR GENERALIZATION THAT CONGRESS HAS NEVER SUPPLANTED THE
FORCES OF COMPETITION BY ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION UNTIL A REAL EVIL
HAD, IN THE OPINION OF CONGRESS, MANIFESTED THE NEED FOR IT.  ONE TURNS
IN VAIN TO THE CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION WHICH LED TO THE SHIPPING
ACT, TO THE HEARINGS ON THE BILLS WHICH BECAME THAT ACT, TO THE REPORTS
ON WHICH IT WAS BASED, TO THE EXPERIENCE UNDER THE ACT SINCE ITS
INCEPTION, AS REFLECTED IN THE REPORTS OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION AND
ITS PREDECESSOR THE SHIPPING BOARD, FOR ANY INDICATION THAT THE
BUSINESS OF INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS, LIKE THOSE IN THIS CASE, WAS SO
CONDUCTED AS TO MAKE THEIR REGULATION APPROPRIATE EITHER TO CURB
PRACTICES THEMSELVES INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR TO RENDER
EFFECTIVE THE REGULATION OF WATER CARRIERS. 

THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM OF JURISDICTION MUST REST ON CONSTRUCTION OF
THE PHRASE "BUSINESS OF FORWARDING  ...  IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON
CARRIER BY WATER."  39 STAT. 728, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 801.  WHATEVER THE
"BUSINESS OF FORWARDING" MAY HERE MEAN, EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO THE
QUALIFYING PHRASE "IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER."  IF
IT IS LEFT WITHOUT ANY APPROPRIATE FUNCTION UNLESS THESE INDEPENDENT
FORWARDERS ARE COVERED, IT MUST BE APPLIED TO THEM.  BUT IF AMPLE SCOPE
CAN BE GIVEN TO THE PHRASE WITHOUT ATTRIBUTING TO CONGRESS SUCH A
SUDDEN ASSUMPTION OF AUTHORITY OVER INDEPENDENT FORWARDERS ALTHOUGH NO
NEED FOR TAKING SUCH CONTROL HAD BEEN REVEALED, WE SHOULD AVOID UNDUE
EXTENSION OF LANGUAGE AS PART OF OUR DUTY TO GIVE FAIR MEANING TO WHAT
CONGRESS HAS SAID. 

ABSTRACTLY IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT "FORWARDING" WAS INTENDED TO COVER
ONLY THOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH INCLUDED THE PHYSICAL TRANSPORTATION OR
MOVEMENT OF GOODS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.  CF. E.G., H.R. 9089,
9090, 9888, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. (1940); S. 3665, 3666, 4096, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS. (1940).  SUPPORT FOR SUCH A RESTRICTIVE MEANING MIGHT
BE DRAWN FROM THE FACT THAT THE "OTHER PERSONS" SUBJECT TO THE ACT WERE
THOSE CONCERNED WITH THE PHYSICAL HANDLING OF THE GOODS.  BUT SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION WOULD DISREGARD THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE.  AGAIN, THE
TERM MAY BE SAID TO COVER ONLY THOSE BUSINESSES IN WHICH THE FORWARDER
ASSUMES THE LIABILITY FOR SAFE SHIPMENT OF THE GOODS FROM POINT OF
SHIPMENT TO THEIR DESTINATION.  CF. 56 STAT. 284, 49 U.S.C. SUPP. V,
SEC. 1002 (A)(5)(B).  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION LIKEWISE DOES NOT HARMONIZE
WITH THE AIMS OF THE STATUTE.  THE MOST NATURAL MEANING OF "FORWARDING"
INCLUDES THE BUSINESS IN WHICH THESE APPELLEES ENGAGE, NAMELY, THE
RENDERING OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND BROKERAGE SERVICES.  CF. H.R. REP. NO.
1682, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942). 

BUT CONGRESS DID NOT REGULATE "FORWARDERS"; IT REGULATED THE
"BUSINESS OF FORWARDING  ...  IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY
WATER."  WHEN, THEN, IS FORWARDING "IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER
BY WATER"?  THAT TERM MAY MEAN A BUSINESS OR FINANCIAL CONNECTION; IT
MAY MEAN A PHYSICAL CONNECTION, I.E., THE MUTUAL HANDLING OF GOODS; IT
MAY MEAN BOTH.  OR IT MAY MEAN ANY SHARE IN THE PROCESS OF OFFERING OF
GOODS FOR WATER SHIPMENT.  THIS LAST CONSTRUCTION WOULD MEAN THAT THE
RESTRICTION COULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING
FORWARDERS LIKE THESE BUT CONCERNED WITH SHIPMENT BY RAIL.  SUCH IS THE
COMMISSION'S ESSENTIAL ARGUMENT, THAT THE PHRASE IS MERELY A SAVING
CLAUSE AGAINST ITS APPLICATION TO FORWARDERS DEALING WITH LAND
CARRIERS.  TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH A ROUNDABOUT METHOD WAS USED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SAYING THAT THIS STATUTE WAS NOT IMPLIEDLY INTENDED AS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE FAMILIAR INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 24 STAT. 379, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 1, AMENDMENTS TO WHICH HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DESIGNATED AS SUCH,
THE ADMINISTRATION OF WHICH WAS VESTED WITH A DIFFERENT COMMISSION, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHICH WAS
COMPLETELY DISTINGUISHABLE IN THE VERY TITLES OF THE STATUTES, IS TO
ATTRIBUTE A FANCIFUL ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, AND LESS THAN COMMON SENSE
TO THE DRAUGHTSMAN.  IF EVERY FORWARDER DEALING WITH WATER CARRIERS WAS
TO BE COVERED BY THE ACT, THE OBVIOUS WAY OF COVERING THEM WOULD HAVE
BEEN SIMPLY TO SAY "FORWARDERS" WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.  THE COMMISSION
REALLY ASKS US TO DISREGARD THE DUTY OF COURTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO EVERY
PHRASE USED BY CONGRESS.  THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS NOW ACCEPTED MEANS
THAT "IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER" ARE PERFECTLY
SUPERFLUOUS WORDS AND ARE TO BE DELETED. 

SIGNIFICANCE MUST BE GIVEN TO THE QUALIFICATION.  WHAT MORE
REASONABLE THAN TO HOLD THAT THIS PHRASE MEANS THOSE FORWARDERS WHO ARE
SO CLOSELY TIED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE WATER CARRIER, BY CORPORATE,
FINANCIAL, OR PHYSICAL UNION, AS TO MAKE REGULATION OF THEM APPROPRIATE
IN ORDER TO CONTROL EFFECTIVELY THE CARRIERS WITH WHICH THEY ARE
AFFILIATED?  SUCH A FORWARDER IS REALLY A PART OF THE PROCESS OF
CARRYING.  HERE THE FORWARDERS ARE CLOSELY CONNECTED NOT WITH THE
CARRIER BUT WITH THE SHIPPER. 

THAT SUCH CONSTRUCTION RESPECTS CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IS REINFORCED
BY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION REGARDING FORWARDERS DEALING WITH LAND
CARRIERS.  WHEN CONGRESS, IN 1942, FIRST REGULATED SUCH LAND-CARRIER
FORWARDERS, 56 STAT. 284, 49 U.S.C., SUPP. V, SEC. 1001, FORWARDERS,
HAVING THE SAME FUNCTIONS IN RELATION TO LAND TRAFFIC AS THESE
APPELLEES DO IN RELATION TO WATER-BORNE TRAFFIC, WERE NOT INCLUDED. 
AND YET IT IS ARGUED THAT CONGRESS THIRTY YEARS AGO ASSERTED CONTROL
OVER SUCH FORWARDERS CONCERNED WITH WATER-BORNE TRAFFIC AND FORBADE
ORDINARY COMPETITION AMONG THEM, THOUGH NO BASIS IN EXPERIENCE CAN
ACCOUNT FOR SUCH ACTION BY CONGRESS. 

CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 577, INVOLVED A TOTALLY
DIFFERENT SITUATION.  THAT CASE WAS CONCERNED WITH WHARVES - FACILITIES
PHYSICALLY CONNECTED WITH WATER CARRIERS.  THESE WERE JUST AS MUCH THE
AGENTS OF THE CARRIER AS OF THE SHIPPER; THEY FORMED AN INTEGRAL PART
OF THE CARRIER'S BUSINESS.  AS A MATTER OF PHYSICAL FACT, THE
"CONNECTION" OF THESE FORWARDERS TO A CARRIER IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM
THE "CONNECTION" OF WHARF FACILITIES TO THE CARRIER.  AWARENESS OF THAT
FACT WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE SPECIFIC OMISSION, IN THE CALIFORNIA
OPINION, OF THE TERM "FORWARDER" IN CONSIDERING WHETHER PORT FACILITIES
WERE "CONNECTED" WITH WATER CARRIERS.  SEE CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, AT 586.  THE DIFFERENCE IN FACT AND IN BUSINESS RELATION BETWEEN
THE FORWARDERS'"CONNECTION" IN THIS CASE, CONSTITUTING MERELY AN ASPECT
OF THE SHIPPER-CARRIER RELATIONSHIP, AND THE "CONNECTION" IN THE
CALIFORNIA CASE, WHICH NORMALLY INVOLVES A CLOSE BUSINESS TIE WITH THE
CARRIER, IS VITAL AND SHOULD BE OBSERVED IN APPLYING A SECTION IN WHICH
CONGRESS DEALT COMPENDIOUSLY WITH VARIOUS ENTERPRISES OUTSIDE OF, BUT
RELATED TO, THE REGULATED FUNCTIONS OF WATER CARRIERS. 
..END :












BOUTELL V. WALLING, 327 U.S. 463 


NO. 73.  ARGUED OCTOBER 9, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1946.  - 148
F.2D 329, AFFIRMED. 


1.  EMPLOYEES OF A GARAGE WHO ARE ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN REPAIRING AND
MAINTAINING VEHICLES OF A SINGLE INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER COME WITHIN
THE COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P. 466. 

2.  THEY ARE NOT ENGAGED IN A "SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART
OF WHOSE  ...  SERVICING IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE" WITHIN THE
EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY SEC. 13(A)(2) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 
P. 467. 

3.  NOR DO THEY COME WITHIN SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT EXEMPTING "ANY EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, 1935," SINCE THEIR EMPLOYER IS NOT A CARRIER.  P. 467. 

4.  THE POWER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204 OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT (PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT) IS LIMITED
TO EMPLOYEES OF "CARRIERS."  P. 467. 

5.  ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BY
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.  P. 471. 

BOUTELL ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS F.J. BOUTELL SERVICE CO., V.
WALLING, WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED PETITIONERS
FROM VIOLATING THE MAXIMUM HOURS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  148 F.2D 329. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  325 U.S. 849.  AFFIRMED, P. 472. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, TO ENJOIN PETITIONERS
FROM VIOLATING THE MAXIMUM HOURS PROVISIONS  FN1  OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201, ET SEQ. 

PETITIONERS ARE TWO OF FOUR PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS AS F.J. BOUTELL
SERVICE COMPANY, THE OTHER TWO NOT BEING SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE FOUR PARTNERS ARE THE SOLE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
F.J. BOUTELL DRIVE-AWAY COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF AUTOMOBILES AND ARMY EQUIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SERVICE COMPANY INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT ARE
MECHANICS ENGAGED IN GREASING, REPAIRING, SERVICING AND MAINTAINING THE
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE DRIVE-AWAY COMPANY. 
THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED AND THE TRIAL COURT HAS FOUND THAT THE
SERVICE COMPANY IS ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN RENDERING SUCH SERVICE TO THE
DRIVE-AWAY COMPANY AND SUCH CORPORATION "IS AN ENTITY SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT FROM" THE SERVICE COMPANY. 

THE CASE PRESENTS TWO QUESTIONS:  (1) WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
SERVICE COMPANY ARE "ENGAGED IN ANY RETAIL OR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE
GREATER PART OF WHOSE SELLING OR SERVICING IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE, SEC. 13(A)(2); FN2  AND (2)
WHETHER THEY COME WITHIN THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE, SEC. 13(B)(1), WHICH
EXEMPTS FROM SEC. 7  FN3  OF THE ACT "ANY EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 204 FN4  OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935."  52 STAT. 1068, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 213(B)(1).  THE DISTRICT COURT RULED AGAINST PETITIONERS ON
BOTH QUESTIONS AND GRANTED THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON BOTH GROUNDS.  148 F.2D 329. 
WE AGREE WITH THOSE CONCLUSIONS. 

THE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES INCLUDE THE
STATEMENT THAT THE PETITIONERS' EMPLOYEES "INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING
ARE MECHANICS ENGAGED IN GREASING, REPAIRING, SERVICING AND MAINTAINING
THE TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE F.J. BOUTELL
DRIVE-AWAY COMPANY  ..."  NO CLAIM IS MADE THAT THESE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THEY ARE WELL WITHIN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE
"ACTUALLY IN OR SO CLOSELY RELATED TO THE MOVEMENT OF THE COMMERCE AS
TO BE A PART OF IT."  MCLEOD V. THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491, 497.  FN5 

IN ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THESE
EMPLOYEES DO NOT COME WITHIN THE EXEMPTION STATED IN SEC. 13(A)(2). 
THIS IS SO BECAUSE THEIR EMPLOYER, THE SERVICE COMPANY, SUPPLIES ITS
SERVICES, INCLUDING THEIR SERVICES, EXCLUSIVELY TO THE DRIVE-AWAY
COMPANY WHICH IN TURN USES THOSE SERVICES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
DRIVE-AWAY COMPANY DOES NOT USE THEIR SERVICES FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES AS
AN ULTIMATE CONSUMER, BEYOND THE END OF THE FLOW OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SERVICE COMPANY ARE NOT
ENGAGED IN A RETAIL OR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
13(A)(2) AS INTERPRETED IN ROLAND ELECTRICAL CO. V. WALLING, 326 U.S.
657, AND MARTINO V. MICHIGAN WINDOW CLEANING CO., 327 U.S. 173. 
FURTHERMORE, SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE SERVICING DONE BY THE SERVICE
COMPANY IS THUS DONE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHEREAS SEC. 13(A)(2)
REQUIRES THE GREATER PART OF IT TO BE DONE IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE IF
THE EMPLOYEES RENDERING IT ARE TO BE EXEMPTED UNDER THAT PROVISION. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SERVICE COMPANY ARE TO BE
EXEMPTED BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 13(B)(1) TURNS UPON WHETHER THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS THE "POWER TO ESTABLISH" MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE FOR THEM UNDER SEC. 204(A)(1), (2) OR (3) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT, 1935, FN6  NOW OFFICIALLY CITED AS PART II OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 919, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 301, ET SEQ. WHATEVER MAY BE
THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S "POWER TO ESTABLISH" HOURS OF
SERVICE, WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE THAT POWER OVER THE
MEN HERE CONCERNED BECAUSE THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO
EMPLOYEES OF "CARRIERS" AND THE RECORD HERE SHOWS THAT THE MEN IN
QUESTION ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE SERVICE COMPANY, WHICH IS NOT A CARRIER,
RATHER THAN OF THE DRIVE-AWAY COMPANY, WHICH IS A CARRIER.  THIS IS
TRUE ALTHOUGH THE WORK THESE EMPLOYEES DO IS ALL SUPPLIED TO THE DRIVE
AWAY COMPANY THROUGH THE SERVICE COMPANY. 

THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION HAS FOUND TO ITS SATISFACTION THE FACTS
NECESSARY TO PLACE THESE EMPLOYEES OF THE SERVICE COMPANY UNDER ITS
JURISDICTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE
RECORD CONTAINS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
OR ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE BODY HAS FOUND THAT THESE EMPLOYEES OF THE
SERVICE COMPANY ARE OR SHOULD BE TREATED AS EMPLOYEES OF THE DRIVE-AWAY
COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THIS CASE,
THEREFORE, IS DECIDED UPON THE BASIS THAT THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED
AND THE TRIAL COURT HAS FOUND THAT THESE EMPLOYEES ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE
PARTNERSHIP, THE SERVICE COMPANY, WHICH IS THE RELATIONSHIP ESTABLISHED
FOR THEM BY THE PETITIONERS AS THEIR EMPLOYERS.  SEE SCHENLEY
DISTILLERS CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 432, FOR A CASE GIVING
EFFECT TO CERTAIN OTHER CONSEQUENCES UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF A
CORPORATE ARRANGEMENT CHOSEN BY THE PERSONS CONCERNED AS A MEANS OF
CARRYING ON THEIR BUSINESS.  SEE ALSO HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473,
477, FOR A DIFFERENT RESULT UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF POWER IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO
ESTABLISH THE MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF THESE EMPLOYEES, THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS TO THEIR MAXIMUM HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT REMAIN APPLICABLE TO THEM. 

IT APPEARS FROM THE FACE OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT THAT SEC. 204
REFERS ONLY TO THE REGULATION OF "CARRIERS."  MOREOVER, SECTION 226 OF
THE ACT (FORMERLY NUMBERED 225, 54 STAT. 929, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 325),
WHICH AUTHORIZES INVESTIGATIONS BY THE COMMISSION AS A BASIS FOR THE
REGULATION OF THE MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES UNDER SEC. 204,
REFERS ONLY TO INVESTIGATIONS OF THE "MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF
EMPLOYEES OF ALL MOTOR CARRIERS AND PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY
MOTOR VEHICLE  ..."  FN7  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION IS
REVIEWED IN UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534,
544-550. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS WRITTEN MANY DECISIONS
DEFINING THE LIMITS OF ITS AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS UNDER SEC.
204(A)(1), (2) AND (3), BUT THROUGHOUT THESE DECISIONS IT APPARENTLY
HAS ASSUMED THAT ITS JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO EMPLOYEES OF "CARRIERS"
WHICH IN TURN ARE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  IT HAS,
FOR EXAMPLE, RECOGNIZED ITS POWER TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
FOR AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE MECHANICS OF "CARRIERS"  FN8  BUT AT THE
SAME TIME HAS SAID - 

"BY FAR THE LARGER PROPORTION OF THE CARRIERS SUBJECT TO OUR
JURISDICTION OPERATE LESS THAN 10 VEHICLES AND DO NOT EMPLOY MECHANICS
TO REPAIR THEIR VEHICLES, BUT ON THE CONTRARY HAVE SUCH WORK DONE IN
COMMERCIAL GARAGES.  WE HAVE, OF COURSE, NO JURISDICTION OVER EMPLOYEES
WORKING IN COMMERCIAL GARAGES."  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, IN THE MATTER OF
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF MOTOR CARRIER EMPLOYEES, 28 M.C.C. 125,
132. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR HAS INTERPRETED SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO IT BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN9  THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS ACT BY EACH OF
THESE AGENCIES IS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN
TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, 549. 

THROUGHOUT THE DISCUSSION OF THESE SECTIONS BY THIS COURT IN UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., SUPRA, AND IN SOUTHLAND GASOLINE
CO. V. BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THEY REFER TO EMPLOYEES
OF "CARRIERS" AND OF "MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS" WHICH ARE THEMSELVES
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND THERE
IS NOTHING IN EITHER CASE TO INDICATE AN INTERPRETATION BY THIS COURT
THAT THE EXEMPTION PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 13(B)(1) EXTENDS TO WORKERS WHOSE
SERVICES AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLE CARRIERS BUT
WHO ARE NOT THEMSELVES EMPLOYEES OF A CARRIER. 

IN THIS VIEW OF THIS CASE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND
OF A CARRIER THE DRIVE-AWAY COMPANY IS OR EVEN WHETHER IT IS A CARRIER
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ARE NOT ITS EMPLOYEES.  SIMILARLY, IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHICH OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SERVICE COMPANY DO
WORK WHICH AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
BECAUSE THAT CLASSIFICATION APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES WHOSE HOURS ARE
REGULATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND NOT TO THOSE WHOSE
HOURS ARE REGULATED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE FIND THAT PETITIONERS' EMPLOYEES COME WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 AND NOT WITHIN THE
EXEMPTIONS STATED IN EITHER SEC. 13(A)(2) OR SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THAT ACT,
AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THEREFORE, IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  7.  (A) NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
IN THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

(1)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, 

(2)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-TWO HOURS DURING THE SECOND
YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, OR 

(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED
AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  52 STAT. 1063, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 207(A). 

FN2  "SEC.  13.  (A) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 6 AND 7 SHALL NOT
APPLY WITH RESPECT TO  ...  (2) ANY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN ANY RETAIL OR
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF WHOSE SELLING OR SERVICING IS
IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE; ..."  52 STAT. 1067, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 213(A)(2). 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1 SUPRA. 

FN4  "SEC.  204(A) IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION - 

"(1)  TO REGULATE COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN
THIS PART, AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CONTINUOUS AND ADEQUATE SERVICE,
TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS, UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS,
RECORDS, AND REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND
EQUIPMENT. 

"(2)  TO REGULATE CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN
THIS PART, AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND
REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT. 

"(3)  TO ESTABLISH FOR PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE,
IF NEED THEREFOR IS FOUND, REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE SAFETY OF
OPERATION, AND TO THAT END PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS
OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT...."  49 STAT. 546,
49 U.S.C. SEC. 304(A)(1)(2)(3). 

FN5  OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125, 130; OVERNIGHT
MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 574.  SEE ALSO UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. MARCONE, 281 U.S.
345, 349; PEDERSEN V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 229 U.S. 146, 150; NEW
YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. WALSH, 223 U.S. 1, 6.  COMPARE SHANKS V.
DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 239 U.S. 556, 560. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 4 SUPRA. 

FN7  "SEC.  225.  THE COMMISSION IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE
AND REPORT ON THE NEED FOR FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE SIZES AND WEIGHT
OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND COMBINATIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND OF THE
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF ALL MOTOR
CARRIERS AND PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE; AND IN SUCH
INVESTIGATION THE COMMISSION SHALL AVAIL ITSELF OF THE ASSISTANCE OF
ALL DEPARTMENTS OR BUREAUS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND OF ANY ORGANIZATION OF
MOTOR CARRIERS HAVING SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SUCH MATTER."  49 STAT.
566, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 325, RENUMBERED AS SEC. 226 BY 54 STAT. 929.    IN
DISCUSSING SEC. 204(A)(1), (2) AND (3) AND SEC. 225 SENATOR WHEELER,
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, SAID IN EXPLANATION OF IT - 

"...  THE COMMITTEE AMENDED PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) TO CONFER POWER ON
THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF COMMON AND
CONTRACT CARRIERS, THUS RESTORING PROVISIONS THAT WERE IN THE RAYBURN
BILL, INTRODUCED IN THE SEVENTY-THIRD CONGRESS....    "IN ORDER TO MAKE
THE HIGHWAYS MORE SAFE, AND SO THAT COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS MAY
NOT BE UNDULY PREJUDICED IN THEIR COMPETITION WITH PEDDLER TRUCKS AND
OTHER PRIVATE OPERATORS OF MOTOR TRUCKS, A PROVISION WAS ADDED IN
SUBPARAGRAPH 3 GIVING THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH SIMILAR
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF
THE EMPLOYEES OF SUCH OPERATORS.  THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER WITH
RESPECT TO THE THREE CLASSES OF CARRIERS IS INTENDED TO BE CONTINGENT
UPON THE RESULTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF THE NEED FOR
REGULATION OF THIS KIND PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 225  ...."  79 CONG.
REC. 5652.  SEE ALSO, P. 5660. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTATIVE PETTENGILL READ THE
FOLLOWING OBSERVATION MADE BY JOSEPH B. EASTMAN OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION - 

"THE BILL  ...  GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF COMMON CARRIERS, CONTRACT
CARRIERS, AND PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY  ...."  79 CONG. REC.
12,229.  SEE ALSO, S. REP. NO. 482, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1935) P. 1. 

FN8  "OUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"FINDINGS OF FACT.  - 1.  THAT MECHANICS EMPLOYED BY COMMON AND
CONTRACT CARRIERS AND PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE,
SUBJECT TO PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, DEVOTE A LARGE PART
OF THEIR TIME TO ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT THE SAFETY OF
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.... 

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  -  ... 

"3.  THAT WE HAVE POWER, UNDER SECTION 204(A) OF SAID PART II, TO
ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THE CLASSES
OF EMPLOYEES COVERED BY FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBERED 1, 2, AND 3 ABOVE,
(MECHANICS, LOADERS AND HELPERS EMPLOYED BY CARRIERS) AND THAT WE HAVE
NO SUCH POWER OVER ANY OTHER CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT DRIVERS."  EX
PARTE NO. MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125, 138-139.  SEE ALSO EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 3
M.C.C. 665, 667; 6 M.C.C. 557; 11 M.C.C. 203; EX PARTE NO. MC-28,
JURISDICTION OVER EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS, 13 M.C.C. 481, 488; EX
PARTE NO. MC-3, MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS - PRIVATE CARRIERS, 23
M.C.C. 1, 8. 

FN9  SEE INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 9, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION,
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, ORIGINALLY ISSUED MARCH, 1939, 5TH REV.,
OCTOBER, 1943.  2 C.C.H. LABOR LAW SERVICE, P32,109.  WHERE MOTOR
VEHICLE DRIVERS OR MECHANICS ARE EMPLOYED BY COMPANIES ENGAGED IN
CERTAIN TYPES OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OVER WHICH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION DISCLAIMS JURISDICTION, THEY ARE HELD TO BE COVERED
BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FOR EXAMPLE, IF SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF CONSUMABLE
GOODS, SUCH AS FOOD, COAL AND ICE, TO RAILROADS AND DOCKS FOR USE IN
TRAINS AND STEAMSHIPS, JURISDICTION OVER THEM IS DISCLAIMED BY THE
COMMISSION BUT IS ACCEPTED BY THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION AS COVERED BY
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 9, SUPRA,
PAR. 6(B).  THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION ALSO ACCEPTS JURISDICTION OVER
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WHO ARE EMPLOYED, NOT BY THE CARRIER, BUT BY A CONTRACTOR DEALING
DIRECTLY WITH THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.  ID., PAR. 7(B). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE THAT THESE EMPLOYEES WOULD BE COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT BUT FOR THE EXEMPTION CONTAINED IN SEC. 13(B)(1).  THAT
SUBSECTION EXEMPTS FROM SEC. 7 OF THE ACT "ANY EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO
WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935  ..." 

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS THE
POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS FOR EMPLOYEES OF A
CARRIER WHO ARE MECHANICS ENGAGED IN GREASING, REPAIRING, SERVICING,
AND MAINTAINING ITS TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT.  IN THE MATTER OF MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE OF MOTOR CARRIER EMPLOYEES, 28 M.C.C. 125.  I THINK
THAT POWER WOULD STILL EXIST IF THE CARRIER SEPARATELY INCORPORATED ITS
GARAGE.  THIS AFFILIATED GARAGE IS NOT LIKE AN INDEPENDENT COMMERCIAL
GARAGE.  IT IS STILL A PART OF THE CARRIER'S BUSINESS - NO MORE
SEPARATE OR DISTINCT THAN ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT.  THE SAME PEOPLE OWN
IT, OPERATE IT, AND MANAGE IT.  IF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
ACTING UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, HAD UNDERTAKEN
TO ESTABLISH THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS FOR THESE MECHANICS,
I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD ALLOW ITS JURISDICTION TO BE DEFEATED BY
THAT DEVICE, WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE REASON FOR THE SEPARATE
INCORPORATION OF THE GARAGE.  FOR THESE MECHANICS WERE, IN THE
PRACTICAL SENSE, EMPLOYEES OF THE CARRIER AFTER, AS WELL AS BEFORE,
INCORPORATION.  AND THE EXEMPTION CONTAINED IN SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS DEPENDENT, NOT ON THE EXERCISE BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF ITS POWER, BUT ON THE EXISTENCE OF
THAT POWER.  FN1  THE POWER WHICH CONGRESS GRANTED THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS FOR
MECHANICS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DEFEATED BY ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN
PARTIES WHICH, FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, MAY ESTOP THEM FROM ASSERTING THAT
TWO CORPORATIONS IN FORM ARE ONE IN SUBSTANCE. 

THIS PARTICULAR EXEMPTION MAY NOT BE A WISE ONE.  BUT WE MUST TAKE
THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN.  THE POLICY BEHIND THE EXEMPTION IS DEFEATED,
IF MERE LEGAL FORMS ARE ALLOWED TO NULLIFY THE POWER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF SAFETY.  AS THE
COMMISSION SAID, "...  THE CAREFULLY SUPERVISED WORK OF SKILLED
MECHANICS IS A MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS,
AND THEREFORE IN THE PROMOTION OF HIGHWAY SAFETY."  IN THE MATTER OF
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF MOTOR CARRIER EMPLOYEES, SUPRA, P. 133.  WE
SHOULD REFUSE TO WHITTLE DOWN THAT JURISDICTION, EVEN THOUGH WE THOUGHT
THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY BROADENING THE
COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

FN1  TO DATE THE COMMISSION HAS PRESCRIBED QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS ONLY FOR DRIVERS.  SEE 49 CODE FED. REG., CUM. SUPP. (1944) PARTS
191, 192. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS
DISSENT. 
..END :
















MABEE V. WHITE PLAINS PUB. CO., 327 U.S. 178 


NO. 57.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 11, 1946.  - 294
N.Y. 701, 60 N.E.2D 848, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PUBLISHER OF A DAILY NEWSPAPER WITH A CIRCULATION RANGING FROM
9,000 TO 11,000 COPIES, OF WHICH ABOUT ONE-HALF OF ONE PER CENT
REGULARLY GOES OUT OF THE STATE, IS ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS
FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT OF 1938.  PP. 180, 184. 

(A)  THE MAXIM DE MINIMIS HAS NO APPLICATION HERE, BECAUSE CONGRESS
MADE NO DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF VOLUME OF BUSINESS, BUT, BY SEC.
15(A)(1) OF THE ACT, OUTLAWED THE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF
"ANY GOODS IN THE PRODUCTION OF WHICH ANY EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN
VIOLATION OF" THE OVERTIME AND MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT. 
P. 181. 

(B)  THOUGH IT BE ASSUMED THAT SPORADIC OR OCCASIONAL SHIPMENTS OF
INSUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF GOODS WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT
PROHIBITION, THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR ASSUMING THAT REGULAR SHIPMENTS
ARE TO BE INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED DEPENDENT ON THEIR SIZE.  P. 181. 

(C)  THESE VIEWS ARE BORNE OUT BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT,
BY THE EXPRESS EXEMPTION BY SEC. 13(A)(8) OF ANY EMPLOYEE OF ANY WEEKLY
OR SEMIWEEKLY NEWSPAPER WITH A CIRCULATION OF LESS THAN 3,000, THE
MAJOR PART OF WHICH IS WITHIN THE COUNTY OF PUBLICATION, AND BY THE
LACK OF ANY EXEMPTION FOR DAILY NEWSPAPERS OR ON THE BASIS OF VOLUME OF
OUT-OF-STATE CIRCULATION.  P. 182. 

2.  THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297
U.S. 233, HOLDING A STATE LICENSE TAX ON NEWSPAPERS GRADUATED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE VOLUME OF CIRCULATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ARE NOT
APPLICABLE HERE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXEMPTION OF SMALL WEEKLY AND
SEMIWEEKLY NEWSPAPERS BY SEC. 13(A)(8) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  P. 184. 

(A)  THE ACT DOES NOT LAY A DIRECT BURDEN ON THE PRESS IN VIOLATION
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, SINCE THE PRESS HAS NO SPECIAL IMMUNITY FROM
LAWS APPLICABLE TO BUSINESS IN GENERAL.  P. 184. 

(B)  THE EXEMPTION OF SMALL WEEKLIES AND SEMIWEEKLIES IS NOT A
"DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED DEVICE" TO PENALIZE A CERTAIN GROUP OF
NEWSPAPERS BUT WAS INSERTED TO PUT THOSE PAPERS MORE ON A PARITY WITH
OTHER SMALL TOWN ENTERPRISES.  P. 184. 

(C)  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE FULL AND UNIFORM EXERCISE
OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  CONGRESS MAY WEIGH RELATIVE NEEDS AND RESTRICT
THE APPLICATION OF A LEGISLATIVE POLICY TO LESS THAN THE ENTIRE FIELD. 
P. 184. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE PUBLISHER OF SUCH A NEWSPAPER IS ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN
THAT HIS EMPLOYEES ARE COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938,
SINCE THAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE CHARACTER OF THEIR WORK.  KIRSCHBAUM CO.
V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 524; WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317
U.S. 564.  P. 184. 

4.  NO OPINION IS EXPRESSED ON THAT PHASE OF THE CASE, SINCE THE
STATE APPELLATE COURTS DID NOT PASS ON IT.  P. 185. 

MABEE ET AL. V. WHITE PLAINS PUBLISHING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

PETITIONERS SUED IN THE NEW YORK COURTS FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION
UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE TRIAL COURT
OVERRULED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, 179 MISC. 832, 38 N.Y.S.2D
231, AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS.  180 MISC. 8, 41 N.Y.S.2D 534. 
THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED.  267 APP. DIV. 284, 45 N.Y.S.2D 479. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  293 N.Y. 781, 58 N.E.2D 520.  IT LATER
AMENDED THE REMITTITUR.  294 N.Y. 701, 60 N.E.2D 848.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  325 U.S. 845.  REVERSED, P. 185. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT PUBLISHES A DAILY NEWSPAPER AT WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK. 
DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT HERE, ITS DAILY CIRCULATION RANGED FROM
9,000 TO 11,000 COPIES.  IT HAD NO DESIRE FOR AND MADE NO EFFORT TO
SECURE OUT-OF-STATE CIRCULATION.  PRACTICALLY ALL OF ITS CIRCULATION
WAS LOCAL.  BUT ABOUT ONE-HALF OF 1 PER CENT WAS REGULARLY OUT-OF
STATE.  FN1  PETITIONERS ARE SOME OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES.  THEY
BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE NEW YORK COURTS TO RECOVER OVERTIME
COMPENSATION, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND COUNSEL FEES PURSUANT TO SEC.
16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.  52 STAT. 1069, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 216(B).  THE SUPREME COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
PETITIONERS.  179 MISC. 832, 38 N.Y.S.2D 231; 180 MISC. 8, 41 N.Y.S.2D
534.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED AND ORDERED THE COMPLAINT TO BE
DISMISSED.  267 APP. DIV. 284, 45 N.Y.S.2D 479.  THAT JUDGMENT WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHOUT OPINION.  293 N.Y. 781, 58
N.E.2D 520; 294 N.Y. 701, 60 N.E.2D 848.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
PROBABLE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND THOSE FROM THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  FN2 

THE APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE MAXIM DE MINIMIS TO EXCLUDE
RESPONDENT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  WE THINK THAT WAS ERROR. 
THE COURT INDICATED IN LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 607,
THAT THE OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (49 STAT. 449,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 151) WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON "ANY PARTICULAR VOLUME OF
COMMERCE AFFECTED MORE THAN THAT TO WHICH COURTS WOULD APPLY THE MAXIM
DE MINIMIS."  THAT ACT,  FN3  UNLIKE THE PRESENT ONE (WALLING V.
JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564, 570-571), REGULATES LABOR
DISPUTES "AFFECTING" COMMERCE.  49 STAT. 450, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 152.  WE
NEED NOT STOP TO CONSIDER WHAT DIFFERENT SCOPE, IF ANY, THE MAXIM DE
MINIMIS MIGHT HAVE IN CASES ARISING THEREUNDER.  HERE CONGRESS HAS MADE
NO DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF VOLUME OF BUSINESS.  BY SEC. 15(A)(1) IT
HAS MADE UNLAWFUL THE SHIPMENT IN COMMERCE OF "ANY GOODS IN THE
PRODUCTION OF WHICH ANY EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF" THE
OVERTIME AND MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  THOUGH WE ASSUME
THAT SPORADIC OR OCCASIONAL SHIPMENTS OF INSUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF GOODS
WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT PROHIBITION, THERE IS NO
WARRANT FOR ASSUMING THAT REGULAR SHIPMENTS IN COMMERCE ARE TO BE
INCLUDED OR EXCLUDED DEPENDENT ON THEIR SIZE.  THAT HAS BEEN THE
CONSISTENT POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  INTERPRETATIVE BULL.  NO. 5,
PAR. 9(1939), 1944-45 WAGE HOUR MAN.  21.  HIS RULINGS AND
INTERPRETATIONS, "WHILE NOT CONTROLLING UPON THE COURTS BY REASON OF
THEIR AUTHORITY, DO CONSTITUTE A BODY OF EXPERIENCE AND INFORMED
JUDGMENT TO WHICH COURTS AND LITIGANTS MAY PROPERLY RESORT FOR
GUIDANCE."  SKIDMORE V. SWIFT & CO., 323 U.S. 134, 140. 

WE STATED IN UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 123, "CONGRESS, TO
ATTAIN ITS OBJECTIVE IN THE SUPPRESSION OF NATIONWIDE COMPETITION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY GOODS PRODUCED UNDER SUBSTANDARD LABOR
CONDITIONS, HAS MADE NO DISTINCTION AS TO THE VOLUME OR AMOUNT OF
SHIPMENTS IN THE COMMERCE OR OF PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE BY ANY
PARTICULAR SHIPPER OR PRODUCER.  IT RECOGNIZED THAT IN PRESENT-DAY
INDUSTRY, COMPETITION BY A SMALL PART MAY AFFECT THE WHOLE AND THAT THE
TOTAL EFFECT OF THE COMPETITION OF MANY SMALL PRODUCERS MAY BE GREAT." 
AND SEE WARREN-BRADSHAW CO. V. HALL, 317 U.S. 88, 91.  THAT VIEW IS
BORNE OUT BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT.  EARLIER DRAFTS HAD
EMBODIED THE "SUBSTANTIAL" STANDARD.  FN4  THESE WERE OMITTED FROM THE
COVERAGE PROVISIONS OF THE ONE WHICH BECAME THE LAW.  MOREOVER, ONE OF
THE EXEMPTIONS WRITTEN INTO THE ACT EXTENDS TO "ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLICATION OF ANY WEEKLY OR SEMIWEEKLY
NEWSPAPER WITH A CIRCULATION OF LESS THAN THREE THOUSAND THE MAJOR PART
OF WHICH CIRCULATION IS WITHIN THE COUNTY WHERE PRINTED AND PUBLISHED
..."  SEC. 13(A)(8).  REPRESENTATIVE CREAL OF KENTUCKY PROPOSED THIS
EXEMPTION.  HE STATED THAT "UNDER THIS BILL, BECAUSE 1 OR 2 PERCENT OF
A PAPER'S CIRCULATION GOES OUTSIDE TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET THE HOME
TOWN PAPER TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT LUCY GOT MARRIED, OR WHETHER SALLY'S
BABY HAS BEEN BORN YET, BECAUSE THAT INFINITESIMAL BIT OF THEIR
BUSINESS IS WITH PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE COUNTY, THESE PUBLISHERS FALL UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL, WHEN ON EACH SIDE OF THIS LITTLE PRINTSHOP
ARE THE BUTCHER AND THE BAKER, WHO ARE EXEMPT AND WHO ARE FINANCIALLY
BETTER FIXED THAN HE IS."  83 CONG. REC. P. 7445.  NO SUCH EXEMPTION
FOR DAILY NEWSPAPERS WAS GRANTED.  FN5  NO EXEMPTION ON THE BASIS OF
VOLUME OF OUT-OF-STATE CIRCULATION WAS WRITTEN INTO THE ACT.  RATHER
THE EXEMPTION OF THE SMALL WEEKLIES OR SEMI-WEEKLIES SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN
ADOPTED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT WITHOUT IT A NEWSPAPER WITH A REGULAR
OUT-OF-STATE CIRCULATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, WOULD BE UNDER THE ACT. 
THE CHOICE CONGRESS MADE WAS NOT THE EXEMPTION OF NEWSPAPERS WITH SMALL
OUT-OF-STATE CIRCULATIONS BUT THE EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN TYPES OF SMALL
NEWSPAPERS.  WE WOULD CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE EXEMPTION WHICH CONGRESS
SAW FIT TO GRANT, IF WE APPLIED THE MAXIM DE MINIMIS TO THIS TYPE OF
CASE.  WE WOULD ALSO DISREGARD THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SEC. 15(A)(1)
PROHIBITING THE SHIPMENT IN COMMERCE OF "ANY GOODS" IN THE PRODUCTION
OF WHICH "ANY EMPLOYEE" WAS EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME AND
MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT. 

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT TO BRING IT UNDER THE ACT, WHILE THE SMALL
WEEKLIES OR SEMI-WEEKLIES ARE EXEMPT BY REASON OF SEC. 13(A)(8), IS TO
SANCTION A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE DAILY PAPERS IN VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233. 
VOLUME OF CIRCULATION, FREQUENCY OF ISSUE, AND AREA OF DISTRIBUTION ARE
SAID TO BE AN IMPROPER BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION.  MOREOVER, IT IS SAID
THAT THE ACT LAYS A DIRECT BURDEN ON THE PRESS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT.  THE GROSJEAN CASE IS NOT IN POINT HERE.  THERE THE
PRESS WAS SINGLED OUT FOR SPECIAL TAXATION AND THE TAX WAS GRADUATED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH VOLUME OF CIRCULATION.  NO SUCH VICE INHERES IN THIS
LEGISLATION.  AS THE PRESS HAS BUSINESS ASPECTS, IT HAS NO SPECIAL
IMMUNITY FROM LAWS APPLICABLE TO BUSINESS IN GENERAL.  ASSOCIATED PRESS
V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103, 132-133.  AND THE EXEMPTION OF SMALL
WEEKLIES AND SEMI-WEEKLIES IS NOT A "DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED DEVICE"
TO PENALIZE A CERTAIN GROUP OF NEWSPAPERS.  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS
CO., SUPRA, P. 250.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, IT WAS INSERTED TO PUT THOSE
PAPERS MORE ON A PARITY WITH OTHER SMALL TOWN ENTERPRISES.  83 CONG.
REC. 7445.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE FULL AND UNIFORM
EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  CONGRESS MAY WEIGH RELATIVE NEEDS AND
RESTRICT THE APPLICATION OF A LEGISLATIVE POLICY TO LESS THAN THE
ENTIRE FIELD.  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548; CURRIN V.
WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 13-14. 

WE HOLD THAT RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE.  THAT, OF COURSE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE PETITIONERS, ITS
EMPLOYEES, ARE COVERED BY THE ACT.  THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT TO
THEM IS DEPENDENT ON THE CHARACTER OF THEIR WORK.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V.
WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 524; WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., SUPRA,
PP. 571-572.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THAT PHASE OF THE CASE, AS THE
NEW YORK APPELLATE COURTS DID NOT PASS ON IT.  SINCE THE JUDGMENT BELOW
MUST BE REVERSED, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THESE
EMPLOYEES WILL BE OPEN ON THE REMAND OF THE CAUSE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ABOUT 45 COPIES DAILY.  THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN AN OUT-OF
STATE CIRCULATION OF 43, 46, AND 40 FOR THE YEARS ENDING MARCH 31,
1939, 1940, AND 1941 RESPECTIVELY. 

FN2  CF. DAVIS V. GOODMAN LUMBER CO., 133 F.2D 52, 53; SUN PUBLISHING
CO. V. WALLING, 140 F.2D 445, 448; NEW MEXICO PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V.
ENGEL, 145 F.2D 636, 640. 

FN3  SEC. 1 OF THAT ACT IS A STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF CONGRESS.  IT
STATES THAT THE DENIAL BY EMPLOYERS OF THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEES TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY HAS THE INTENT OR EFFECT OF BURDENING OR
OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE BY "MATERIALLY AFFECTING" THE FLOW OF GOODS FROM
OR INTO THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE OR BY "CAUSING DIMINUTION OF
EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES IN SUCH VOLUME AS SUBSTANTIALLY TO IMPAIR OR
DISRUPT" THE MARKET FOR SUCH GOODS. 

FN4  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, H.R. 7200, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., INTRODUCED
MAY 24, 1937.  IT PROVIDED FOR A LABOR STANDARDS BOARD TO ADMINISTER
THE ACT.  THE BOARD WAS TO BE GIVEN THE POWER TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM
WAGES WHEN IT FOUND, INTER ALIA, THAT WAGES LOWER THAN A MINIMUM FAIR
WAGE WERE PAID TO EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS WHICH
ARE SOLD OR SHIPPED TO A SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
..."  SEC. 5(A). 

THE CONFIDENTIAL COMMITTEE PRINT OF APRIL 13, 1938, CONTAINING A
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO S. 2475, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., AND EMBODIED IN
THE COMMITTEE PRINT OF APRIL 15, 1938, S. 2475, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.,
WOULD HAVE LIMITED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT TO EMPLOYERS "ENGAGED
IN COMMERCE IN ANY INDUSTRY AFFECTING COMMERCE  ..."  SECS. 4, 5.  IT
WAS FURTHER PROVIDED BY SEC. 6 OF THE DRAFT THAT THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
SHOULD, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, DETERMINE THE RELATION OF THE VARIOUS
INDUSTRIES TO COMMERCE.  ONLY IF THE SECRETARY FOUND THAT THE INDUSTRY
WAS (A) "DEPENDENT FOR ITS EXISTENCE UPON SUBSTANTIAL PURCHASES OR
SALES OF GOODS IN COMMERCE AND UPON TRANSPORTATION IN COMMERCE," OR (B)
"NATION-WIDE IN  ...  SCOPE," OR (C) RELATED TO COMMERCE "IN OTHER
RESPECTS CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL," COULD THE SECRETARY ISSUE AN ORDER
DECLARING THE INDUSTRY TO BE ONE AFFECTING COMMERCE AND THUS WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE ACT. 

FN5  A NUMBER OF BILLS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE
ACT TO SECURE A SIMILAR EXEMPTION FOR DAILY NEWSPAPERS, BUT NONE OF
THEM HAS PASSED.  SEE H.R. 7340, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. 4385, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS.; H.R. 64, H.R. 4208, S. 1310, S. 284, 77TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE THAT TO PRINT APPROXIMATELY 10,000 NEWSPAPERS A DAY AND
REGULARLY TO SEND 45 OF THEM, OR 1/2 OF 1%, OUT OF THE STATE IS TO
PRODUCE GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT I CANNOT AGREE THAT
CONGRESS MEANT TO INCLUDE A BUSINESS OF THAT NATURE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938. 

THIS COURT, IN LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 606, STATED
THAT "THE AMOUNT OF THE COMMERCE REGULATED IS OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE
ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT CONGRESS MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE EXCLUDED COMMERCE
OF SMALL VOLUME FROM THE OPERATION OF ITS REGULATORY MEASURE BY EXPRESS
PROVISION OR FAIR IMPLICATION."  CONCEDEDLY, CONGRESS HAS NOT EXCLUDED
COMMERCE OF SMALL VOLUME FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT BY "EXPRESS PROVISION."  BUT CERTAINLY THE "FAIR IMPLICATION" IS
ONE OF EXCLUSION.  ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS WE HAVE POINTED OUT THAT
CONGRESS IN THIS ACT DID NOT EXERCISE THE FULL SCOPE OF ITS COMMERCE
POWER, KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 522-523, AND THAT
CONGRESS PLAINLY INDICATED ITS PURPOSE TO LEAVE LOCAL BUSINESS TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE STATES SO FAR AS WAGE AND HOUR PROBLEMS WERE
CONCERNED, WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564, 570;
PHILLIPS CO. V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 490, 497. 

IN MY OPINION, A COMPANY THAT PRODUCES 99 1/2% OF ITS PRODUCTS FOR
LOCAL COMMERCE IS ESSENTIALLY AND REALISTICALLY A LOCAL BUSINESS. 
TRUE, 1/2 OF 1% OF ITS PRODUCTION IS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THUS
SUBJECTING IT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS WHEN AND IF
EXERCISED.  BUT THAT FACT DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS A LOCAL BUSINESS,
WHICH WE HAVE SAID CONGRESS PLAINLY EXCLUDED FROM THIS ACT. 

I WOULD THEREFORE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW IN THIS RESPECT. 
..END :





















OKLA. PRESS PUB. CO. V. WALLING, 327 U.S. 186 


ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 18, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 11, 1946.  - 147 F.2D
658 - 148 F.2D 57, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AS APPLIED TO THE BUSINESS OF
PUBLISHING AND DISTRIBUTING NEWSPAPERS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST OR
FIFTH AMENDMENT OR EXCEED THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  P. 192. 

2.  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO INVESTIGATE CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES
OF EMPLOYMENT IN ANY INDUSTRY SUBJECT TO THE ACT, AND OF SEC. 9,
INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS, DO
NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 194, 208, 214. 

3.  A REVIEW OF THE CASES APPLICABLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF CORPORATE
RECORDS AND PAPERS IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA OR ORDER AUTHORIZED BY LAW
AND SAFEGUARDED BY JUDICIAL SANCTION DISCLOSES THAT THEY HOLD, IN
EFFECT, THAT: 

(A)  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AFFORDS NO PROTECTION BY VIRTUE OF THE SELF
INCRIMINATION PROVISION, WHETHER FOR THE CORPORATION OR FOR ITS
OFFICERS.  P. 208. 

(B)  THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, IF APPLICABLE, GUARDS AGAINST ABUSE ONLY
BY WAY OF TOO MUCH INDEFINITENESS OR BREADTH IN THE THINGS REQUIRED TO
BE "PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED," IF THE INQUIRY IS ONE THE DEMANDING AGENCY
IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO MAKE AND THE MATERIALS SPECIFIED ARE RELEVANT,
THE GIST OF THE PROTECTION BEING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DISCLOSURE
SOUGHT SHALL NOT BE UNREASONABLE.  P. 208. 

(C)  THE REQUIREMENT OF "PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR
AFFIRMATION," LITERALLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A WARRANT, IS
SATISFIED, IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER FOR PRODUCTION, BY THE COURT'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS AND IS
FOR A PURPOSE CONGRESS CAN ORDER AND THAT THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT ARE
RELEVANT TO THE INQUIRY.  P. 209. 

(D)  BEYOND THIS, THE REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLENESS, INCLUDING
PARTICULARITY IN "DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS
TO BE SEIZED," ALSO LITERALLY APPLICABLE TO WARRANTS, COMES DOWN TO
SPECIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED, ADEQUATE BUT NOT
EXCESSIVE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RELEVANT INQUIRY.  P. 209. 

4.  THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS' RIGHTS IN THESE CASES,
SINCE BOTH PETITIONERS WERE CORPORATIONS; THE ONLY RECORDS OR DOCUMENTS
SOUGHT WERE CORPORATE ONES; NO ELEMENT OF SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS
PRESENTED OR CLAIMED; ALL THE RECORDS SOUGHT WERE RELEVANT TO AN
INQUIRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONERS WERE SUBJECT
TO THE ACT AND, IF SO, WHETHER THEY WERE VIOLATING IT; AND SUCH AN
INQUIRY WAS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 11(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 
P. 209. 

5.  THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
ISSUED BY HIM PURSUANT TO SEC. 9 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN THE
COURSE OF AN INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 11(A) OF THE ACT,
WITHOUT A PRIOR ADJUDICATION THAT THE INDUSTRY OR ACTIVITY SOUGHT TO BE
INVESTIGATED IS COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  PP. 209, 214. 

(A)  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR, RATHER THAN THE
DISTRICT COURTS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF
COVERAGE IN THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT; IN DOING SO TO EXERCISE HIS SUBPOENA POWER
FOR SECURING EVIDENCE UPON THAT QUESTION BY OBTAINING THE PRODUCTION OF
RELEVANT BOOKS, RECORDS AND PAPERS; AND, IN CASE OF REFUSAL TO OBEY HIS
SUBPOENA, TO HAVE THE AID OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IN ENFORCING IT.  P.
214. 

(B)  THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE OF SECS. 9 AND 11(A) OF THE ACT LEAVES NO
ROOM TO DOUBT THAT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS, IN AUTHORIZING
INVESTIGATIONS SUPPORTED BY SUBPOENAS AND ENFORCEMENT ORDERS, WAS TO
ENABLE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DISCOVER AND PROCURE EVIDENCE, NOT TO PROVE
A PENDING CHARGE OR COMPLAINT, BUT TO ENABLE HIM TO MAKE ONE IF, IN HIS
JUDGMENT, THE FACTS THUS DISCOVERED SHOULD JUSTIFY DOING SO.  PP. 194,
197, 201, 214. 

(C)  SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE,
EXPRESSIONS IN COMMITTEE REPORTS ON SUBSEQUENT APPROPRIATIONS, COMING
LARGELY FROM ONE HOUSE OF CONGRESS, CAN NOT BE HELD TO CHANGE OR
QUALIFY THE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDING OF THE STATUTE.  P. 197, N.
20. 

6.  IN SEC. 9 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT (INCORPORATED IN
SEC. 9 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT), WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO INVOKE THE AID OF THE COURT "IN CASE OF DISOBEDIENCE
OF THE SUBPOENA" AND AUTHORIZES THE COURT TO GIVE ASSISTANCE "IN CASE
OF CONTUMACY OR REFUSAL TO OBEY A SUBPOENA," CONGRESS MADE NO EXPRESS
REQUIREMENT OF ANY SHOWING OF "PROBABLE CAUSE"; AND ANY POSSIBLE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF THAT SORT WAS SATISFIED WHEN THE
ADMINISTRATOR, IN INVOKING THE AID OF A COURT TO ENFORCE A SUBPOENA
AGAINST A CORPORATION, SET FORTH THAT IT WAS A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER,
THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE IT WAS VIOLATING THE ACT,
THAT IT WAS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE AND IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE," THAT HE WAS PROCEEDING WITH HIS INVESTIGATION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE MANDATE OF CONGRESS, AND THAT THE SPECIFIED RECORDS SOUGHT
WERE RELEVANT FOR THAT PURPOSE.  P. 215. 

7.  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION, IN SEARCHING OUT
VIOLATIONS WITH A VIEW TO ENFORCING THE ACT, IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS
THE GRAND JURY'S OR THE COURT'S IN ISSUING OTHER PRETRIAL ORDERS FOR
THE DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE, AND IS GOVERNED BY THE SAME LIMITATIONS -
THAT HE SHALL NOT ACT ARBITRARILY OR IN EXCESS OF HIS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY.  P. 216. 

OKLAHOMA PRESS PUBLISHING CO. V. WALLING, WAGE AND HOUR
ADMINISTRATOR. 

NO. 61.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 63, NEWS PRINTING CO., INC. V. WALLING, WAGE AND
HOUR ADMINISTRATOR, ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  ARGUED AND DECIDED ON THE SAME DATES. 

NO. 61.  UPON APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, A DISTRICT COURT ISSUED AN ORDER
DIRECTING THAT HE BE GIVEN ACCESS TO CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS OF A
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO SECS. 9 AND 11(A) OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  7 WAGE HOUR REP. 656.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  147 F.2D 658.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  325
U.S. 845.  AFFIRMED, P. 218. 

NO. 63.  A DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FOR AN ORDER
TO ENFORCE A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM ISSUED BY HIM PURSUANT TO SEC. 9 OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN BOOKS,
RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS OF A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING CORPORATION.  49
F.SUPP.  659.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  148 F.2D 57. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  325 U.S. 845.  AFFIRMED, P. 218. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES BRING FOR DECISION IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S RIGHT TO JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM
ISSUED BY HIM IN THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO
SEC. 11(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  52 STAT. 1060.  HIS CLAIM
IS FOUNDED DIRECTLY UPON SEC. 9, WHICH INCORPORATES THE ENFORCEMENT
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 9 AND 10 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, 38
STAT. 717.  FN1  THE SUBPOENAS SOUGHT THE PRODUCTION OF SPECIFIED
RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHETHER PETITIONERS WERE VIOLATING THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, INCLUDING RECORDS RELATING TO COVERAGE.  PETITIONERS,
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING CORPORATIONS, MAINTAIN THAT THE ACT IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THEM, FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER REASONS, AND INSIST
THAT THE QUESTION OF COVERAGE MUST BE ADJUDICATED BEFORE THE SUBPOENAS
MAY BE ENFORCED. 

IN NO. 61, INVOLVING THE OKLAHOMA PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS REJECTED THIS VIEW,
HOLDING THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS ENTITLED TO ENFORCEMENT UPON SHOWING
OF "PROBABLE CAUSE," WHICH IT FOUND HAD BEEN MADE.  147 F.2D 658. 
ACCORDINGLY IT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR BE GIVEN ACCESS TO THE RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS SPECIFIED. 
FN2 

IN NO. 63, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
LIKEWISE REJECTED THE COMPANY'S POSITION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING ON THE
GROUND THAT PROBABLE CAUSE HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN.  148 F.2D 57.  IT
ACCORDINGLY REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THE
PROCEEDING TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH IN EFFECT DENIED ENFORCEMENT FOR WANT
OF A SHOWING OF COVERAGE.  49 F.SUPP.  659.  FN3 THE COURT OF APPEALS
THOUGHT THAT REQUIRING THE ADMINISTRATOR "TO MAKE PROOF OF COVERAGE
WOULD BE TO TURN THE PROCEEDING INTO A SUIT TO DECIDE A QUESTION WHICH
MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE COURSE OF HIS
INVESTIGATION" AND RELIED UPON ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS, 317
U.S. 501, AS BEING PERSUASIVE THAT THIS COULD NOT BE DONE.  REGARDING
THE SUBPOENA AS CONTAINING NO UNREASONABLE DEMAND, IT CONCEIVED THE
RETURN AND AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE COMPANY, TOGETHER WITH THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S ALLEGATIONS OF COVERAGE,  FN4  AS A SHOWING SUFFICIENT
TO REQUIRE ENFORCEMENT.  HENCE IT DIRECTED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DISCRETION BE EXERCISED WITH THAT EFFECT. 

BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT
AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE GROUNDS FOR THE TWO
DECISIONS, AS WELL AS BETWEEN THEM AND DECISIONS FROM OTHER CIRCUITS,
FN5  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN BOTH CASES.  325 U.S. 845. 

THE ISSUES HAVE TAKEN WIDE RANGE.  THEY ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IN
THE TWO CAUSES, EXCEPT IN ONE RESPECT TO BE NOTED.  FN6  IN ADDITION TO
AN ARGUMENT FROM CONGRESS' INTENT, RELIANCE FALLS UPON VARIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING THE FIRST, FOURTH AND FIFTH
AMENDMENTS, AS WELL AS THE LIMITED REACH OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, TO
SHOW THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S CONDUCT AND THE RELIEF HE SEEKS ARE
FORBIDDEN. 

I. 

COLORING ALMOST ALL OF PETITIONERS' POSITION, AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM,
IS A PRIMARY MISCONCEPTION THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT KNOCKS OUT ANY
POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO THE BUSINESS OF
PUBLISHING AND DISTRIBUTING NEWSPAPERS.  THE ARGUMENT HAS TWO PRONGS. 

THE BROADSIDE ASSERTION THAT PETITIONERS "COULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE
ACT," FOR THE REASON THAT "APPLICATION OF THIS ACT TO ITS NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHING BUSINESS WOULD VIOLATE ITS RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT," IS WITHOUT MERIT.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301
U.S. 103, AND ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1; MABEE V.
WHITE PLAINS PUBLISHING CO., 327 U.S. 178.  FN7  IF CONGRESS CAN REMOVE
OBSTRUCTIONS TO COMMERCE BY REQUIRING PUBLISHERS TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH EMPLOYEES AND REFRAIN FROM INTERFERING WITH THEIR
RIGHTS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION, MATTERS CLOSELY RELATED TO ELIMINATING LOW
WAGES AND LONG HOURS, CONGRESS LIKEWISE MAY STRIKE DIRECTLY AT THOSE
EVILS WHEN THEY ADVERSELY AFFECT COMMERCE.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312
U.S. 100, 116, 117.  THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID THIS OR OTHER
REGULATION WHICH ENDS IN NO RESTRAINT UPON EXPRESSION OR IN ANY OTHER
EVIL OUTLAWED BY ITS TERMS AND PURPOSES.  FN8 

PETITIONERS' NARROWER ARGUMENT, OF ALLEGEDLY INVALID CLASSIFICATION,
FN9  ARISES FROM THE STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS AND MAY BE SHORTLY
DISMISSED.  THE INTIMATION THAT THE ACT FALLS BY REASON OF THE
EXCLUSION OF SEAMEN, FARM WORKERS AND OTHERS BY SEC. 13(A) IS HARDLY
MORE THAN A SUGGESTION AND IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY.  CF. BUCK V. BELL,
274 U.S. 200, 208.  THE CONTENTION DRAWN FROM THE EXEMPTION OF
EMPLOYEES OF SMALL NEWSPAPERS BY SEC. 13(A)(8) DESERVES ONLY SLIGHTLY
MORE ATTENTION.  FN10  IT SEEMS TO BE TWOFOLD, THAT THE AMENDMENT
FORBIDS CONGRESS TO "REGULATE THE PRESS BY CLASSIFYING IT" AT ALL AND
IN ANY EVENT THAT IT CANNOT USE VOLUME OF CIRCULATION OR SIZE AS A
FACTOR IN THE CLASSIFICATION.  FN11 

RELIANCE UPON GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, TO
SUPPORT THESE CLAIMS IS MISPLACED.  THERE THE STATE STATUTE SINGLED OUT
NEWSPAPERS FOR SPECIAL TAXATION AND WAS HELD IN EFFECT TO GRADUATE THE
TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH VOLUME OF CIRCULATION.  HERE THERE WAS NO
SINGLING OUT OF THE PRESS FOR TREATMENT DIFFERENT FROM THAT ACCORDED
OTHER BUSINESS IN GENERAL.  RATHER THE ACT'S PURPOSE WAS TO PLACE
PUBLISHERS OF NEWSPAPERS UPON THE SAME PLANE WITH OTHER BUSINESSES AND
THE EXEMPTION FOR SMALL NEWSPAPERS HAD THE SAME OBJECT.  83 CONG. REC.
7445.  NOTHING IN THE GROSJEAN CASE FORBIDS CONGRESS TO EXEMPT SOME
PUBLISHERS BECAUSE OF SIZE FROM EITHER A TAX OR A REGULATION WHICH
WOULD BE VALID IF APPLIED TO ALL. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ALSO DISPOSES OF THE CONTENTION DRAWN FROM THE
SCOPE OF THE COMMERCE POWER AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO THE PUBLISHING
BUSINESS CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE AMENDMENT'S INFLUENCE. 
ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.

                      II. 

OTHER QUESTIONS PERTAIN TO WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS AS
DIRECTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS WILL VIOLATE ANY OF
PETITIONERS' RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND RELATED ISSUES
CONCERNING CONGRESS' INTENT.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT ENFORCEMENT WOULD
PERMIT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CONDUCT GENERAL FISHING EXPEDITIONS INTO
PETITIONERS' BOOKS, RECORDS AND PAPERS, IN ORDER TO SECURE EVIDENCE
THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE ACT, WITHOUT A PRIOR CHARGE OR COMPLAINT
AND SIMPLY TO SECURE INFORMATION UPON WHICH TO BASE ONE, ALL ALLEGEDLY
IN VIOLATION OF THE AMENDMENT'S SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISIONS. 
SUPPORTING THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND SUCH USE TO
BE MADE OF THE DELEGATED POWER, WHICH RESTS IN PART UPON ASSERTED
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS, BUT PRIMARILY UPON THE REPORTS OF
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES, PARTICULARLY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
MADE IN PASSING UPON APPROPRIATIONS FOR YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACT'S
EFFECTIVE DATE.  FN12 

THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OBJECTIONS IS THAT THE
RECORDS IN THESE CASES PRESENT NO QUESTION OF ACTUAL SEARCH AND
SEIZURE, BUT RAISE ONLY THE QUESTION WHETHER ORDERS OF COURT FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF SPECIFIED RECORDS HAVE BEEN VALIDLY MADE; AND NO
SUFFICIENT SHOWING APPEARS TO JUSTIFY SETTING THEM ASIDE.  FN13  NO
OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON HAS SOUGHT TO ENTER PETITIONERS' PREMISES
AGAINST THEIR WILL, TO SEARCH THEM, OR TO SEIZE OR EXAMINE THEIR BOOKS,
RECORDS OR PAPERS WITHOUT THEIR ASSENT, OTHERWISE THAN PURSUANT TO
ORDERS OF COURT AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND MADE AFTER ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT OBJECTIONS, WHICH IN FACT WERE MADE.  FN14  NOR HAS ANY
OBJECTION BEEN TAKEN TO THE BREADTH OF THE SUBPOENAS OR TO ANY OTHER
SPECIFIC DEFECT WHICH WOULD INVALIDATE THEM.  FN15 

WHAT PETITIONERS SEEK IS NOT TO PREVENT AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND
SEIZURE.  IT IS RATHER A TOTAL IMMUNITY TO THE ACT'S PROVISIONS,
APPLICABLE TO ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, REQUIRING THEM TO SUBMIT
THEIR PERTINENT RECORDS FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INSPECTION UNDER EVERY
JUDICIAL SAFEGUARD, AFTER AND ONLY AFTER AN ORDER OF COURT MADE
PURSUANT TO AND IN EXACT COMPLIANCE WITH AUTHORITY GRANTED BY
CONGRESS.  THIS BROAD CLAIM OF IMMUNITY NO DOUBT IS INDUCED BY
PETITIONERS' FIRST AMENDMENT CONTENTIONS.  BUT BEYOND THEM IT IS RESTED
ALSO UPON CONCEPTIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT EQUALLY LACKING IN
MERIT. 

PETITIONERS' PLEA THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PLACES THEM SO FAR ABOVE
THE LAW THAT THEY ARE BEYOND THE REACH OF CONGRESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL
POWER AS THOSE POWERS HAVE BEEN EXERTED HERE ONLY RAISES THE GHOST OF
CONTROVERSY LONG SINCE SETTLED ADVERSELY TO THEIR CLAIM.  FN16  THEY
HAVE ADVANCED NO CLAIM FOUNDED ON THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S SOMEWHAT
RELATED GUARANTY AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, WHETHER OR NOT FOR THE
SUFFICIENT REASON AMONG OTHERS THAT THIS PRIVILEGE GIVES NO PROTECTION
TO CORPORATIONS OR THEIR OFFICERS AGAINST THE PRODUCTION OF CORPORATE
RECORDS PURSUANT TO LAWFUL JUDICIAL ORDER, WHICH IS ALL THESE CASES
INVOLVE.  FN17 

THE CITED AUTHORITIES WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO DISPOSE OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT ARGUMENT, AND MORE RECENT DECISIONS CONFIRM THEIR RULING. 
FN18  PETITIONERS HOWEVER ARE INSISTENT IN THEIR CONTRARY VIEWS, BOTH
UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PHASES AND IN THEIR ASSERTED BEARING UPON THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS.  WHILE WE THINK THOSE VIEWS REFLECT A CONFUSION
NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE ACTUAL STATE OF THE DECISIONS, THE CONFUSION HAS
ACQUIRED SOME CURRENCY, AS THE DIVIDED STATE OF OPINION AMONG THE
CIRCUITS SHOWS.  FN19  SINCE THE MATTER IS OF SOME IMPORTANCE, IN ORDER
TO REMOVE ANY POSSIBLE BASIS FOR LIKE MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE FUTURE,
WE GIVE MORE DETAILED CONSIDERATION TO THE VIEWS ADVANCED AND TO THE
AUTHORITIES THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE NECESSARY. 

THERE ARE TWO DIFFICULTIES WITH PETITIONERS' THEORY CONCERNING THE
INTENT OF CONGRESS.  ONE IS THAT THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SO-CALLED
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE POWERS EXPRESSLY GRANTED
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COURTS BY SECS. 9 AND 11(A), SO FLATLY
THAT TO ACCEPT PETITIONERS' VIEW WOULD LARGELY NULLIFY THEM.  FN20
FURTHERMORE THE EXCERPTED HISTORY FROM THE LATER APPROPRIATION MATTERS
DOES NOT GIVE THE FULL STORY AND WHEN THAT IS CONSIDERED THE CLAIMED
INTERPRETATION IS NOT MADE OUT, REGARDLESS OF ITS RETROSPECTIVE
ASPECT.  FN21  MOREOVER, THE STATUTE'S LANGUAGE LEAVES NO ROOM TO DOUBT
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE JUST WHAT THE ADMINISTRATOR DID AND
SOUGHT TO HAVE THE COURTS DO.  FN22  SECTION 11(A) EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO "ENTER AND INSPECT SUCH PLACES AND SUCH RECORDS
(AND MAKE SUCH TRANSCRIPTIONS THEREOF), QUESTION SUCH EMPLOYEES, AND
INVESTIGATE SUCH FACTS, CONDITIONS, PRACTICES, OR MATTERS AS HE MAY
DEEM NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY PERSON HAS
VIOLATED ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR WHICH MAY AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  FN23  THE SUBPOENA POWER CONFERRED BY
SEC. 9(THROUGH ADOPTION OF SEC. 9 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT)
IS GIVEN IN AID OF THIS INVESTIGATION AND, IN CASE OF DISOBEDIENCE, THE
DISTRICT COURTS ARE CALLED UPON TO ENFORCE THE SUBPOENA THROUGH THEIR
CONTEMPT POWERS,  FN24  WITHOUT EXPRESS CONDITION REQUIRING SHOWING OF
COVERAGE.  FN25 

IN VIEW OF THESE PROVISIONS, WITH WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION
WAS IN EXACT COMPLIANCE, THIS CASE PRESENTS AN INSTANCE OF "THE MOST
EXPLICIT LANGUAGE"  FN26  WHICH LEAVES NO ROOM FOR QUESTIONING
CONGRESS' INTENT.  THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE SUBPOENA AND OF THE ORDER,
AS OF THE AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION, IS TO DISCOVER AND PROCURE
EVIDENCE, NOT TO PROVE A PENDING CHARGE OR COMPLAINT, BUT UPON WHICH TO
MAKE ONE IF, IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT, THE FACTS THUS DISCOVERED
SHOULD JUSTIFY DOING SO.    ACCORDINGLY, IF SECS. 9 AND 11(A) ARE NOT
TO BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDERS, IT MUST BE,
AS PETITIONERS SAY, BECAUSE THIS CONSTRUCTION WOULD MAKE THEM SO
DUBIOUS CONSTITUTIONALLY AS TO COMPEL RESORT TO AN INTERPRETATION WHICH
SAVES RATHER THAN TO ONE WHICH DESTROYS OR IS LIKELY TO DO SO. THE
COURT HAS ADOPTED THIS COURSE AT LEAST ONCE IN THIS TYPE OF CASE.  FN27
BUT IF THE SAME COURSE IS FOLLOWED HERE, THE JUDGMENTS MUST BE
REVERSED WITH THE EFFECT OF CUTTING SQUARELY INTO THE POWER OF
CONGRESS.  FOR TO DENY THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDERS WOULD BE IN EFFECT TO
DENY NOT ONLY CONGRESS' POWER TO ENACT THE PROVISIONS SUSTAINING THEM,
BUT ALSO ITS AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE EFFECTIVE POWER TO INVESTIGATE
VIOLATIONS OF ITS OWN LAWS, IF NOT PERHAPS ALSO ITS OWN POWER TO MAKE
SUCH INVESTIGATIONS. 

                                 III. 

THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF MISCONCEPTION CONCERNING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S
FUNCTION LIES PERHAPS IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF CASES INVOLVING SO
CALLED "FIGURATIVE" OR "CONSTRUCTIVE" SEARCH WITH CASES OF ACTUAL
SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  FN28  ONLY IN THIS ANALOGICAL SENSE CAN ANY
QUESTION RELATED TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE BE THOUGHT TO ARISE IN
SITUATIONS WHICH, LIKE THE PRESENT ONES, INVOLVE ONLY THE VALIDITY OF
AUTHORIZED JUDICIAL ORDERS. 

THE CONFUSION IS DUE IN PART TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE VERY KIND
OF SITUATION IN WHICH THE DECISIONS HAVE MOVED WITH VARIANT DIRECTION,
ALTHOUGH WITHOUT ACTUAL CONFLICT WHEN ALL OF THE FACTS IN EACH CASE ARE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, EMPHASIS AND TONE AT TIMES
ARE HIGHLY CONTRASTING, WITH CONSEQUENT OVERTONES OF DOUBT AND
CONFUSION FOR VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE OR ITS APPLICATION.  THE SUBJECT
MATTER PERHAPS TOO OFTEN HAS BEEN GENERATIVE OF HEAT RATHER THAN LIGHT,
FOR THE BORDER ALONG WHICH THE CASES LIE IS ONE WHERE GOVERNMENT
INTRUDES UPON DIFFERENT AREAS OF PRIVACY AND THE HISTORY OF SUCH
INTRUSIONS HAS BROUGHT FORTH SOME OF THE STOUTEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE
INSTANCES OF RESISTANCE TO EXCESS OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.  FN29 

THE MATTER OF REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS TO SECURE
EVIDENCE IS NOT AS ONE-SIDED, IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION, AS THE MOST
EXTREME EXPRESSIONS OF EITHER EMPHASIS WOULD INDICATE.  WITH SOME
OBVIOUS EXCEPTIONS, THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A REAL PROBLEM OF BALANCING
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AGAINST PRIVATE SECURITY.  THE CASES FOR PROTECTION
OF THE OPPOSING INTERESTS ARE STATED AS CLEARLY AS ANYWHERE PERHAPS IN
THE SUMMATIONS, QUOTED IN THE MARGIN,  FN30  OF TWO FORMER MEMBERS OF
THIS COURT, EACH OF WHOM WAS FULLY ALIVE TO THE DUAL NECESSITY OF
SAFEGUARDING ADEQUATELY THE PUBLIC AND THE PRIVATE INTEREST.  BUT
EMPHASIS HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SO APTLY PLACED. 

THE CONFUSION OBSCURING THE BASIC DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACTUAL AND SO
CALLED "CONSTRUCTIVE" SEARCH HAS BEEN ACCENTUATED WHERE THE RECORDS AND
PAPERS SOUGHT ARE OF CORPORATE CHARACTER, AS IN THESE CASES. 
HISTORICALLY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO BROAD VISITORIAL
POWER, BOTH IN ENGLAND AND IN THIS COUNTRY.  AND IT LONG HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED THAT CONGRESS MAY EXERCISE WIDE INVESTIGATIVE POWER OVER
THEM, ANALOGOUS TO THE VISITORIAL POWER OF THE INCORPORATING STATE,
FN31 WHEN THEIR ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE WITHIN OR AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN32  CORRESPONDINGLY IT HAS BEEN SETTLED THAT CORPORATIONS
ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS WHICH PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS HAVE IN THESE AND RELATED MATTERS.  AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THEY
ARE NOT AT ALL WITHIN THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
ALTHOUGH THIS COURT MORE THAN ONCE HAS SAID THAT THE PRIVILEGE RUNS
VERY CLOSELY WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT'S SEARCH AND SEIZURE
PROVISIONS.  FN33 IT IS ALSO SETTLED THAT AN OFFICER OF THE COMPANY
CANNOT REFUSE TO PRODUCE ITS RECORDS IN HIS POSSESSION, UPON THE PLEA
THAT THEY EITHER WILL INCRIMINATE HIM OR MAY INCRIMINATE IT.  FN34
AND, ALTHOUGH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HELD APPLICABLE TO
CORPORATIONS  FN35  NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR EXCLUSION FROM THE PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, THE SAME LEADING CASE OF WILSON V. UNITED
STATES, 221 U.S. 361, DISTINGUISHING THE EARLIER QUITE DIFFERENT ONE OF
BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616,  FN36  HELD THE PROCESS NOT
INVALID UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH IT BROADLY REQUIRED THE
PRODUCTION OF COPIES OF LETTERS AND TELEGRAMS "SIGNED OR PURPORTING TO
BE SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT OF SAID COMPANY DURING THE (MONTHS) OF MAY
AND JUNE, 1909; IN REGARD TO AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE STATUTES OF
THE UNITED STATES BY C.C. WILSON."  221 U.S. AT 368, 375. 

THE WILSON CASE HAS SET THE PATTERN OF LATER DECISIONS AND HAS BEEN
FOLLOWED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION OF ITS RULING.  FN37  CONTRARY
SUGGESTIONS OR IMPLICATIONS MAY BE EXPLAINED AS DICTA; FN38  OR BY
VIRTUE OF THE PRESENCE OF AN ACTUAL ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE
EFFECTS OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT LATER TO OVERCOME BY APPLYING
THE MORE LIBERAL DOCTRINE DEVELOPED IN RELATION TO "CONSTRUCTIVE
SEARCH"; FN39 OR BY THE SCOPE OF THE SUBPOENA IN CALLING FOR DOCUMENTS
SO BROADLY OR INDEFINITELY THAT IT WAS THOUGHT TO APPROACH IN THIS
RESPECT THE CHARACTER OF A GENERAL WARRANT OR WRIT OF ASSISTANCE,
ODIOUS IN BOTH ENGLISH AND AMERICAN HISTORY N40.  BUT NO CASE HAS BEEN
CITED OR FOUND IN WHICH, UPON SIMILAR FACTS, THE WILSON DOCTRINE HAS
NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.  NOR IN ANY HAS CONGRESS BEEN ADJUDGED TO HAVE
EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY, WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION OF BOYD V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, WHICH DIFFERED FROM BOTH THE WILSON CASE AND THE PRESENT
ONES IN PROVIDING A DRASTICALLY INCRIMINATING METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT
FN41  WHICH WAS APPLIED TO THE PRODUCTION OF PARTNERS' BUSINESS
RECORDS.  WHATEVER LIMITS THERE MAY BE TO CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO
PROVIDE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CORPORATE OR OTHER BUSINESS RECORDS,
THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT TO BE FOUND, IN VIEW OF THE COURSE OF PRIOR
DECISIONS, IN ANY SUCH ABSOLUTE OR UNIVERSAL IMMUNITY AS PETITIONERS
SEEK. 

WITHOUT ATTEMPT TO SUMMARIZE OR ACCURATELY DISTINGUISH ALL OF THE
CASES, THE FAIR DISTILLATION, IN SO FAR AS THEY APPLY MERELY TO THE
PRODUCTION OF CORPORATE RECORDS AND PAPERS IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA OR
ORDER AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND SAFEGUARDED BY JUDICIAL SANCTION, SEEMS TO
BE THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AFFORDS NO PROTECTION BY VIRTUE OF THE SELF
INCRIMINATION PROVISION, WHETHER FOR THE CORPORATION OR FOR ITS
OFFICERS; AND THE FOURTH, IF APPLICABLE, AT THE MOST GUARDS AGAINST
ABUSE ONLY BY WAY OF TOO MUCH INDEFINITENESS OR BREADTH IN THE THINGS
REQUIRED TO BE "PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED," IF ALSO THE INQUIRY IS ONE THE
DEMANDING AGENCY IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO MAKE AND THE MATERIALS
SPECIFIED ARE RELEVANT.  THE GIST OF THE PROTECTION IS IN THE
REQUIREMENT, EXPRESSED IN TERMS, THAT THE DISCLOSURE SOUGHT SHALL NOT
BE UNREASONABLE. 

AS THIS HAS TAKEN FORM IN THE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC
RESULTS HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY, AS IN THE CASE OF A
WARRANT, THAT A SPECIFIC CHARGE OR COMPLAINT OF VIOLATION OF LAW BE
PENDING OR THAT THE ORDER BE MADE PURSUANT TO ONE.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT
THE INVESTIGATION BE FOR A LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED PURPOSE, WITHIN THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO COMMAND.  THIS HAS BEEN RULED MOST OFTEN PERHAPS
IN RELATION TO GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS,  FN42  BUT ALSO FREQUENTLY IN
RESPECT TO GENERAL OR STATISTICAL INVESTIGATIONS AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS.  FN43  THE REQUIREMENT OF "PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH
OR AFFIRMATION," LITERALLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A WARRANT, IS
SATISFIED IN THAT OF AN ORDER FOR PRODUCTION BY THE COURT'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE INVESTIGATION IS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, IS FOR
A PURPOSE CONGRESS CAN ORDER, AND THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT ARE RELEVANT TO
THE INQUIRY.  FN44  BEYOND THIS THE REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLENESS,
INCLUDING PARTICULARITY IN "DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND
THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED," ALSO LITERALLY APPLICABLE TO
WARRANTS, COMES DOWN TO SPECIFICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
ADEQUATE, BUT NOT EXCESSIVE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RELEVANT INQUIRY. 
NECESSARILY, AS HAS BEEN SAID, THIS CANNOT BE REDUCED TO FORMULA; FOR
RELEVANCY AND ADEQUACY OR EXCESS IN THE BREADTH OF THE SUBPOENA ARE
MATTERS VARIABLE IN RELATION TO THE NATURE, PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF THE
INQUIRY.  FN45 

WHEN THESE PRINCIPLES ARE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES,
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE HOW A VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS' RIGHTS
COULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.  BOTH WERE CORPORATIONS.  THE ONLY RECORDS OR
DOCUMENTS SOUGHT WERE CORPORATE ONES.  NO POSSIBLE ELEMENT OF SELF
INCRIMINATION WAS THEREFORE PRESENTED OR IN FACT CLAIMED.  ALL THE
RECORDS SOUGHT WERE RELEVANT TO THE AUTHORIZED INQUIRY N46, THE PURPOSE
OF WHICH WAS TO DETERMINE TWO ISSUES, WHETHER PETITIONERS WERE SUBJECT
TO THE ACT AND, IF SO, WHETHER THEY WERE VIOLATING IT.  THESE WERE
SUBJECTS OF INVESTIGATION AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 11(A), THE LATTER
EXPRESSLY, THE FORMER BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION.  FN47  IT IS NOT TO BE
DOUBTED THAT CONGRESS COULD AUTHORIZE INVESTIGATION OF THESE MATTERS. 
IN ALL THESE RESPECTS,  FN48  THE SPECIFICATIONS MORE THAN MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS LONG ESTABLISHED BY MANY PRECEDENTS. 

MORE RECENT CONFIRMATION OF THOSE RULINGS MAY BE FOUND IN ENDICOTT
JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS, SUPRA, AND MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S.
41.  IT IS TRUE THAT THESE CASES INVOLVED DIFFERENT STATUTES
SUBSTANTIALLY AND PROCEDURALLY.  BUT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE POSSIBLE
INFLUENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY TO SUIT IN THE
ENDICOTT JOHNSON CASE, IT WOULD BE ANOMALOUS TO HOLD THAT UNDER THE
WALSH-HEALEY ACT, 49 STAT. 2036, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED
TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF COVERAGE OR, ON THE BASIS OF ITS ADVERSE
DECISION, TO DENY ENFORCEMENT TO THE SECRETARY'S SUBPOENA SEEKING
RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON THAT QUESTION, BECAUSE CONGRESS HAD COMMITTED ITS
INITIAL DETERMINATION TO HIM; AND AT THE SAME TIME TO RULE THAT
CONGRESS COULD NOT CONFER THE SAME POWER UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR WITH
REFERENCE TO VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FN49  THE
QUESTION AT ISSUE IS NOT IN EITHER CASE THE NATURE OF THE LEGAL
OBLIGATION, VIOLATION OF WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS SOUGHT TO SHOW.  IT IS
RATHER WHETHER EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE VIOLATION, WHATEVER THE
OBLIGATION'S CHARACTER, CAN BE DRAWN FORTH BY THE EXERCISE OF THE
SUBPOENA POWER. 

THE MYERS CASE DID NOT INVOLVE A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, BUT WAS A SUIT
TO ENJOIN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FROM HOLDING A HEARING
UPON A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN EMPLOYER ALLEGED TO BE ENGAGED IN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES FORBIDDEN BY THE WAGNER ACT, 49 STAT. 449.  THE HEARING
REQUIRED AN INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINATION OF COVERAGE, INVOLVING AS
IN THIS CASE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE. 
IT DENIED THIS UPON ALLEGATIONS THOUGHT TO SUSTAIN THE DENIAL, AS WELL
AS THE FUTILITY, EXPENSIVENESS AND VEXATIOUS CHARACTER OF THE HEARING
TO ITSELF.  FN50 THIS COURT HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN THE HEARING.  REGARDING AS APPROPRIATE THE
PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD AND AS ADEQUATE THE PROVISIONS FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF ITS ACTION, INCLUDING ITS DETERMINATION OF COVERAGE, THE
COURT SUSTAINED THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD, AND OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS UPON REVIEW, TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION, WITH OTHERS
COMMITTED TO THEIR JUDGMENT, IN THE STATUTORY PROCEEDING FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT EXIST.  THE OPINION REFERRED
TO THE BOARD'S SUBPOENA POWER, ALSO TO ITS AUTHORITY TO APPLY TO A
DISTRICT COURT FOR ENFORCEMENT, AND STATED THAT "TO SUCH AN APPLICATION
APPROPRIATE DEFENCE MAY BE MADE."  BUT THE DECISION'S NECESSARY EFFECT
WAS TO RULE THAT IT WAS NOT "AN APPROPRIATE DEFENCE" THAT COVERAGE HAD
NOT BEEN DETERMINED PRIOR TO THE HEARING OR, IT WOULD SEEM NECESSARILY
TO FOLLOW, PRIOR TO THE BOARD'S PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF
VIOLATION.  IF THIS IS TRUE IN THE CASE OF THE BOARD, IT WOULD SEEM TO
BE EQUALLY TRUE IN THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  FN51 

IN THESE RESULTS UNDER THE LATER AS WELL AS THE EARLIER DECISIONS,
THE BASIC COMPROMISE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT IN A MANNER TO SECURE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND AT THE SAME TIME TO GUARD THE PRIVATE ONES AFFECTED
AGAINST THE ONLY ABUSES FROM WHICH PROTECTION RIGHTFULLY MAY BE
CLAIMED.  THE LATTER ARE NOT IDENTICAL WITH THOSE PROTECTED AGAINST
INVASION BY ACTUAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE, NOR ARE THE THREATENED ABUSES
THE SAME.  THEY ARE RATHER THE INTERESTS OF MEN TO BE FREE FROM
OFFICIOUS INTERMEDDLING, WHETHER BECAUSE IRRELEVANT TO ANY LAWFUL
PURPOSE OR BECAUSE UNAUTHORIZED BY LAW, CONCERNING MATTERS WHICH ON
PROPER OCCASION AND WITHIN LAWFULLY CONFERRED AUTHORITY OF BROAD LIMITS
ARE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC EXAMINATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  OFFICIOUS
EXAMINATION CAN BE EXPENSIVE, SO MUCH SO THAT IT EATS UP MEN'S
SUBSTANCE.  IT CAN BE TIME CONSUMING, CLOGGING THE PROCESSES OF
BUSINESS.  IT CAN BECOME PERSECUTION WHEN CARRIED BEYOND REASON. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, PETITIONERS' VIEW, IF ACCEPTED, WOULD STOP MUCH IF
NOT ALL OF INVESTIGATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AT THE THRESHOLD OF
INQUIRY AND, IN THE CASE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, IS DESIGNED AVOWEDLY TO
DO SO.  THIS WOULD RENDER SUBSTANTIALLY IMPOSSIBLE HIS EFFECTIVE
DISCHARGE OF THE DUTIES OF INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT WHICH CONGRESS
HAS PLACED UPON HIM.  AND IF HIS FUNCTIONS COULD BE THUS BLOCKED, SO
MIGHT MANY OTHERS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE. 

WE THINK, THEREFORE, THAT THE COURTS OF APPEALS WERE CORRECT IN THE
VIEW THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE ADMINISTRATOR, RATHER THAN THE
DISTRICT COURTS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF
COVERAGE IN THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLY EXISTING
VIOLATIONS; IN DOING SO TO EXERCISE HIS SUBPOENA POWER FOR SECURING
EVIDENCE UPON THAT QUESTION, BY SEEKING THE PRODUCTION OF PETITIONERS'
RELEVANT BOOKS, RECORDS AND PAPERS; AND, IN CASE OF REFUSAL TO OBEY HIS
SUBPOENA, ISSUED ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE'S AUTHORIZATION, TO HAVE THE
AID OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN ENFORCING IT.  NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
FORBIDS CONGRESS TO DO THIS.  ON THE CONTRARY, ITS AUTHORITY WOULD SEEM
CLEARLY TO BE COMPREHENDED IN THE "NECESSARY AND PROPER" CLAUSE, AS
INCIDENTAL TO BOTH ITS GENERAL LEGISLATIVE AND ITS INVESTIGATIVE
POWERS.                                       IV. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID DISPOSES OF PETITIONERS' PRINCIPAL CONTENTION UPON
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SHOWING.  OTHER ASSIGNMENTS, HOWEVER, PRESENT
THE FURTHER QUESTIONS WHETHER ANY SHOWING IS REQUIRED BEYOND THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S ALLEGATIONS OF COVERAGE AND RELEVANCE OF THE REQUIRED
MATERIALS TO THAT QUESTION; AND, IF SO, OF WHAT CHARACTER.  STATED
OTHERWISE, THEY ARE WHETHER THE COURT MAY ORDER ENFORCEMENT ONLY UPON A
FINDING OF "PROBABLE CAUSE," THAT IS, PROBABILITY IN FACT, OF COVERAGE,
AS WAS HELD BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN NO. 61,
FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT IN WALLING V. BENSON, 137 F.2D
501, OR MAY DO SO UPON THE NARROWER BASIS ACCEPTED BY THE THIRD CIRCUIT
IN NO. 63. 

THE SHOWING IN NO. 61 WAS CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE "PROBABLE
CAUSE" IN THIS SENSE UNDER CONCEPTIONS OF COVERAGE PREVAILING AT THE
TIME OF THE HEARING,  FN52  WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOWING WAS NECESSARY. 
ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

IN NO. 63 THE SHOWING WAS LESS EXTENSIVE, AND IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT IT
WOULD CONSTITUTE "PROBABLE CAUSE" OF COVERAGE AS THAT TERM WAS USED IN
THE DECISIONS FROM THE TENTH AND EIGHTH CIRCUITS.  FN53  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT DID NOT SO LABEL IT, BUT HELD THE SHOWING
SUFFICIENT. 

CONGRESS HAS MADE NO REQUIREMENT IN TERMS OF ANY SHOWING OF "PROBABLE
CAUSE"; FN54  AND, IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID, ANY POSSIBLE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF THAT SORT WAS SATISFIED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S SHOWING IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING NOT ONLY THE
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING COVERAGE, BUT ALSO THAT HE WAS PROCEEDING WITH
HIS INVESTIGATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATE OF CONGRESS AND THAT
THE RECORDS SOUGHT WERE RELEVANT TO THAT PURPOSE.  ACTUALLY, IN VIEW OF
TODAY'S RULING IN MABEE V. WHITE PLAINS PUBLISHING CO., SUPRA, THE
SHOWING HERE, INCLUDING THE FACTS SUPPLIED BY THE RESPONSE, WAS
SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH COVERAGE ITSELF, THOUGH THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED. 

THE RESULT THEREFORE SUSTAINS THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POSITION THAT HIS
INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION, IN SEARCHING OUT VIOLATIONS WITH A VIEW TO
SECURING ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE GRAND
JURY'S, OR THE COURT'S IN ISSUING OTHER PRETRIAL ORDERS FOR THE
DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE,  FN55  AND IS GOVERNED BY THE SAME LIMITATIONS. 
THESE ARE THAT HE SHALL NOT ACT ARBITRARILY OR IN EXCESS OF HIS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY, BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HIS INQUIRY MUST BE
"LIMITED  ...  BY FORECASTS OF THE PROBABLE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION
..."  BLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 273, 282; CF. HALE V. HENKEL,
201 U.S. 43.  NOR IS THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION EITHER ABUSED OR ABASED, AS
HAS BEEN SUGGESTED,  FN56  BY LEAVING TO IT THE DETERMINATION OF THE
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POSITION CONCEDES THE
COURTS MAY DECIDE.  FN57 

PETITIONERS STRESS THAT ENFORCEMENT WILL SUBJECT THEM TO
INCONVENIENCE, EXPENSE AND HARASSMENT.  THAT ARGUMENT IS ANSWERED FULLY
BY WHAT WAS SAID IN MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP. FN58  THERE IS NO
HARASSMENT WHEN THE SUBPOENA IS ISSUED AND ENFORCED ACCORDING TO LAW. 
THE ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER AND INSPECT, BUT THE ACT MAKES
HIS RIGHT TO DO SO SUBJECT IN ALL CASES TO JUDICIAL SUPERVISION. 
PERSONS FROM WHOM HE SEEKS RELEVANT INFORMATION ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
SUBMIT TO HIS DEMAND, IF IN ANY RESPECT IT IS UNREASONABLE OR
OVERREACHES THE AUTHORITY CONGRESS HAS GIVEN.  TO IT THEY MAY MAKE
"APPROPRIATE DEFENCE" SURROUNDED BY EVERY SAFEGUARD OF JUDICIAL
RESTRAINT.  IN VIEW OF THESE SAFEGUARDS, THE EXPRESSED FEARS OF
UNWARRANTED INTRUSIONS UPON PERSONAL LIBERTY ARE EFFECTIVE ONLY TO
RECALL MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO'S REPLY TO THE SAME EXAGGERATED FOREBODINGS
IN JONES V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION:  "HISTORIANS MAY FIND
HYPERBOLE IN THE SANGUINARY SIMILE."  FN59 

NOR IS THERE ROOM FOR INTIMATION THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS PROCEEDED
IN THESE CASES IN ANY MANNER CONTRARY TO PETITIONERS' FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OR OTHERWISE THAN STRICTLY ACCORDING TO LAW.  IT IS TO BE
REMEMBERED THAT PETITIONERS' ARE NOT THE ONLY RIGHTS WHICH MAY BE
INVOLVED OR THREATENED WITH POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENT.  THEIR EMPLOYEES'
RIGHTS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER THE DECLARED POLICY OF CONGRESS
ALSO WOULD BE AFFECTED IF PETITIONERS SHOULD ENJOY THE PRACTICALLY
COMPLETE IMMUNITY THEY SEEK. 

NO SUFFICIENT REASON WAS SET FORTH IN THE RETURNS OR THE ACCOMPANYING
AFFIDAVITS FOR NOT ENFORCING THE SUBPOENAS, A BURDEN PETITIONERS WERE
REQUIRED TO ASSUME IN ORDER TO MAKE "APPROPRIATE DEFENCE." 

ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENTS IN BOTH CAUSES, NO. 61 AND NO. 63, ARE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THESE VARIOUS STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE
SET FORTH IN NOTES 23 AND 24. 

FN2  UPON FILING OF THE APPLICATION, AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ENFORCEMENT SHOULD NOT BE HAD WAS ISSUED.  THEREAFTER THE MATTER WAS
HEARD UPON THE PLEADINGS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION AND THE
RESPONDENT'S RETURN, TOGETHER WITH AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE PARTIES. 
SEE NOTE 4; ALSO NOTE 52 INFRA.  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, SEE 7 WAGE HOUR REP. AT 656, WHICH AMONG
OTHER THINGS DETERMINED "THAT THE COMPANY HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO THE WAGE
AND HOUR ACT"; AND ISSUED ITS ORDER FOR INSPECTION ACCORDINGLY.  AS TO
THIS FINDING AND CONCLUSION THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID:  "WHEN THE
MATTER WAS SUBMITTED TO THE TRIAL COURT ON THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, IT
CONCLUDED COVERAGE, BUT IT DID NOT HAVE TO GO THAT FAR."  147 F.2D 658,
662. 

FN3  IN NO. 63, AS IN NO. 61, AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED ON FILING
OF THE APPLICATION.  UPON RETURN MADE, WHICH INCLUDED AFFIDAVITS
ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS, THE COURT RENDERED ITS OPINION AND ENTERED ITS
ORDER DISMISSING THE PROCEEDINGS, STATING HOWEVER THAT SINCE THE
ADMINISTRATOR "HAS NOT HAD OPPORTUNITY SUFFICIENTLY TO ARGUE THE
QUESTION OF COVERAGE, THAT MATTER IS LEFT TO SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE...."  49 F.SUPP.  659, 661.  THE OPINION, NOTING
THAT TO DENY ENFORCEMENT "WOULD BE TO DIVIDE PROCEEDINGS INTO TWO
DISTINCT STAGES - ONE CONCERNING THE PRESENCE OF 'COMMERCE,' AND THE
OTHER TO DETERMINE OTHER ELEMENTS OF VIOLATION," WENT ON TO SAY: "THERE
WOULD SEEM TO BE NO COMPELLING REASON WHY SUCH SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE,
FOR IF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO A CERTAIN BUSINESS OR PART OF AN
INDUSTRY, IT WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHOULD
NOT BE APPLIED THERETO...."  49 F.SUPP.  AT 660. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 53.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF COVERAGE IN BOTH APPLICATIONS
WERE MADE UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF AND WERE GENERAL RATHER THAN
SPECIFIC OR EVIDENTIARY IN CHARACTER.  EACH APPLICATION SET FORTH THAT
THE RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PUBLISHING A NEWSPAPER OR
NEWSPAPERS AND BY VIRTUE OF THAT ACTIVITY WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR SUCH COMMERCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT. 

IN NO. 61 THE FURTHER ALLEGATIONS APPEARED THAT IN THE COURSE OF ITS
BUSINESS THE COMPANY "RECEIVES AND SENDS DAILY NEWS, INTELLIGENCE, AND
COMMUNICATIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND TRANSPORTS, SHIPS AND
DELIVERS GOODS PRODUCED BY IT FROM POINTS WITHIN" TO POINTS OUTSIDE
OKLAHOMA; AND THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR "HAVING REASONABLE GROUNDS TO
BELIEVE THAT THE COMPANY" WAS VIOLATING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF THE ACT,
ENTERED TO MAKE AN INVESTIGATION AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 11(A), WAS REFUSED
PERMISSION TO INSPECT RECORDS, ETC. 

APART FROM ONE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN NO. 61 SETTING
FORTH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE COMPANY'S FAILURE TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE
TO THE SUBPOENA, NO OTHER FACTS, BEYOND THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
APPLICATION, WERE SUBMITTED BY HIM IN EITHER CASE.  THE COMPANIES
HOWEVER FILED AFFIDAVITS IN BOTH PROCEEDINGS, WHICH SUPPLIED ADDITIONAL
FACTS, AS WELL AS THE AFFIANTS' CONCLUSIONS, CONCERNING COVERAGE.  SEE
TEXT, PART IV, AT NOTES 52, 53. 

FN5  SPECIFICALLY, GENERAL TOBACCO & GROCERY CO. V. FLEMING, 125 F.2D
596(C.C.A. 6), MODIFIED IN WALLING V. LA BELLE STEAMSHIP CO., 148 F.2D
198, FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS, 317
U.S. 501, AS TO WHICH SEE NOTE 49 INFRA AND TEXT.  THE DECISIONS IN
OTHER CIRCUITS WHICH HAVE PASSED ON THE MATTER ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IN
ACCORD WITH THE RESULTS IN NO. 61.  SEE MARTIN TYPEWRITER CO. V.
WALLING, 135 F.2D 918(C.C.A. 1); WALLING V. STANDARD DREDGING CORP.,
132 F.2D 322(C.C.A. 2); WALLING V. AMERICAN ROLBAL CORP., 135 F.2D
1003(C.C.A. 2); CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. FLEMING, 119 F.2D 209(C.C.A. 5),
REV'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 315 U.S. 357; CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. FLEMING,
122 F.2D 1005(C.C.A. 8), REV'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 315 U.S. 785;
MISSISSIPPI ROAD SUPPLY CO. V. WALLING, 136 F.2D 391(C.C.A. 5); FLEMING
V. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 114 F.2D 384(C.C.A. 7); WALLING V. BENSON,
137 F.2D 501(C.C.A. 8). 

FN6  SEE PART IV. 

FN7  SEE ALSO SUN PUBLISHING CO. V. WALLING, 140 F.2D 445; FLEMING V.
LOWELL SUN CO., 36 F.SUPP.  320, REV'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 120 F.2D 213,
AFFIRMED, 315 U.S. 784. 

FN8  NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED WHETHER CONGRESS COULD ENFORCE ITS
MANDATE BY EXCLUDING FROM COMMERCE THE CIRCULATION OF A PUBLISHER
REFUSING TO CONFORM.  CF. SUN PUBLISHING CO. V. WALLING, 140 F.2D 445,
449. 

FN9  SINCE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, UNLIKE THE FOURTEENTH, CONTAINS NO
"EQUAL PROTECTION" CLAUSE, PETITIONERS BURDEN DUE PROCESS WITH THIS
DUTY HERE. 

FN10  THE PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS:  "SEC.  13.  (A) THE PROVISIONS OF
EMPLOYED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLICATION OF ANY WEEKLY OR SEMIWEEKLY
NEWSPAPER WITH A CIRCULATION OF LESS THAN THREE THOUSAND THE MAJOR PART
OF WHICH CIRCULATION IS WITHIN THE COUNTY WHERE PRINTED AND PUBLISHED
..." 

THE EXEMPTION SHOWS CONCLUSIVELY THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE ACT TO
APPLY TO EMPLOYEES OF PUBLISHERS NOT WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE
EXEMPTION. 

FN11  TO SUPPORT THESE VIEWS, PETITIONERS GIVE INTERESTING STATISTICS
CONCERNING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PAPERS IN THE COUNTRY, THE NUMBER
PUBLISHED DAILY, DAILY AND SUNDAY, WEEKLY, SEMIWEEKLY AND TRIWEEKLY,
AND THE NUMBER IN EACH GROUP HAVING MORE OR LESS THAN 3,000
CIRCULATION. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 21.  THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE JUNE 25, 1938. 

FN13  AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SHOWING, SEE PART IV. 

FN14  CF. NOTES 2, 3, 4.  THE FACTS IN BOTH CASES SHOW THAT
PETITIONERS, WHEN SERVED WITH THE SUBPOENAS, DECLINED TO HONOR THEM
UPON THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, AND THEREAFTER THE ADMINISTRATOR APPLIED TO
THE COURT FOR ENFORCEMENT IN EACH CASE. 

FN15  CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTES 42-47; SEE ALSO NOTE 40. 

FN16  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTES 31 AND 32. 

FN17  HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43; WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S.
361; ESSGEE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 262 U.S. 151; UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH
& LOMB OPTICAL CO., 321 U.S. 707, 726; CF. UNITED STATES V. WHITE, 322
U.S. 694. 

FN18  ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS, 317 U.S. 501; MYERS V.
BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41, DISCUSSED INFRA, PART III, AT NOTES 49
51. 

FN19  CF. NOTE 5 AND TEXT. 

FN20  IN SUCH A SITUATION, WITHOUT AN ACCOMPANYING CHANGE IN THE
STATUTE'S LANGUAGE, AN EXPRESSION IN COMMITTEE REPORTS ON SUBSEQUENT
APPROPRIATIONS, COMING LARGELY FROM ONE HOUSE, HARDLY CAN BE HELD TO
CHANGE OR QUALIFY THE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDING OF THE STATUTE. 
SUCH A RESULT WOULD AMOUNT TO RETROACTIVE AMENDMENT BY COMMITTEE
REPORT, A STEP IN CONSTRUCTION BY REFERENCE TO "PROSPECTIVE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY" NOT HERETOFORE TAKEN. 

FN21  THE CONTROVERSY AS TO APPROPRIATIONS AROSE OVER THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S REQUEST FOR SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ALLOW A PERIODIC
ROUTINE INSPECTION OF EVERY PLANT THAT MIGHT BE COVERED BY THE ACT. 
SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR - FEDERAL
SECURITY AGENCY APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1942, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PT.
1, 347-350.  THE SENATE HAD ACCEDED TO THIS REQUEST.  BUT THE HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE THOUGHT THE COST UNJUSTIFIABLE AND THEREFORE
RECOMMENDED THAT ONLY ENOUGH FUNDS BE MADE AVAILABLE TO PERMIT THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE "SPOT INSPECTIONS" OF TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE
PLANTS AND ALSO TO PERMIT HIM TO INSPECT ALL PLANTS AGAINST WHICH
COMPLAINTS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN REGISTERED.  H. REP. NO. 688, 77TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., 13-14; SEE ALSO 87 CONG. REC. 4629, 5682-5683.  AFTER THE
CONFEREES HAD BEEN UNABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT AND THE HOUSE HAD
INSTRUCTED ITS CONFEREES TO INSIST ON THE SMALLER APPROPRIATION, 87
CONG. REC. 5682-5686, THE SENATE ACCEPTED THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE
APPROPRIATION BILL.  87 CONG. REC. 5703. 

IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, 1942, THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE NOTED
WITH DISAPPROVAL THAT "THE SPOT-CHECKING SYSTEM APPROVED BY THE
CONGRESS" HAD NOT BEEN ADOPTED AND REITERATED ITS DESIRE THAT THE
RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE BE FOLLOWED.  H. REP. NO. 2200, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., 8.  SEE ALSO HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR - FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1943, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., PT. 1, 281-284; CF. HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR - FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY APPROPRIATION BILL
FOR 1945, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., PT. 1, 403-405. 

THIS HISTORY FALLS FAR SHORT OF SUSTAINING THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS HAD
NO INTENT, EITHER WHEN THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED OR LATER, THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD HAVE THE POWERS OF INVESTIGATION EXPRESSLY AND
CLEARLY CONFERRED UPON HIM.    FN22  THE SPARSE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
BEARING ON THE QUESTION CONTAINS NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY.  THE BILLS
ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED DID NOT INCORPORATE SECS. 9 AND 10 OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT BUT CONTAINED SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR PROVISIONS. 
S. 2475, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 15, 81 CONG. REC. 4961; H.R. 7200,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 15, 81 CONG. REC. 4998.  THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR REPORTED OF THIS SECTION (THEN SEC. 12) THAT IT
"CONTAINS THE USUAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO
CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, SUBPENA WITNESSES, AND COMPEL TESTIMONY."  H.
REP. NO. 1452, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 18, ALSO PAGE 10.  THE SENATE
COMMITTEE USED THE SAME LANGUAGE.  S. REP. NO. 884, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., 8.  THE HOUSE BILL HAVING BEEN RECOMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE, 82
CONG. REC. 1834-1835, IT DRAFTED THE SUBPOENA SECTION (THEN SEC. 7)
INTO ESSENTIALLY ITS PRESENT FORM.  SEE H. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG.,
2D SESS., 3, 11.  THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE WAS THAT THE SUBPOENA
POWER WAS GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY "HEARING" BUT NOT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ANY "INVESTIGATION."  HOWEVER, SEC. 15(B) OF THE BILLS
INTRODUCED IN BOTH HOUSES, SUPRA, GRANTED THE SUBPOENA POWER "FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ANY INVESTIGATION OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING UNDER THIS
ACT...."  AND COMPARE SEC. 15(A).  THE DIFFERENCE WAS REMEDIED BY THE
SENATE AND HOUSE CONFEREES; FOR OUT OF CONFERENCE CAME SEC. 9 AS IT IS
NOW WRITTEN.  83 CONG. REC. 9160; 83 CONG. REC. 9248, 9254.  SEE ALSO
CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HOLLAND, 315 U.S. 357, 362, N. 3. 

NOTHING IN THE REPORTS OR THE DISCUSSION SUGGESTS THAT THE POWER WAS
NOT TO BE EXERCISED, OR THAT SUBPOENAS ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TERMS OF THE STATUTE WERE NOT TO BE ENFORCED, EXACTLY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE AUTHORITY GIVEN. 

FN23  SECTION 11(A) IS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS
DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY INVESTIGATE AND GATHER DATA REGARDING
THE WAGES, HOURS, AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES OF EMPLOYMENT IN
ANY INDUSTRY SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, AND MAY ENTER AND INSPECT SUCH PLACES
AND SUCH RECORDS (AND MAKE SUCH TRANSCRIPTIONS THEREOF), QUESTION SUCH
EMPLOYEES, AND INVESTIGATE SUCH FACTS, CONDITIONS, PRACTICES, OR
MATTERS AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER
ANY PERSON HAS VIOLATED ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR WHICH MAY AID IN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
SHALL UTILIZE THE BUREAUS AND DIVISIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FOR
ALL THE INVESTIGATIONS AND INSPECTIONS NECESSARY UNDER THIS SECTION. 
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL BRING ALL
ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 17 TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT." 

THE SECTION THUS AUTHORIZES BOTH GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIONS,
ONE FOR GATHERING STATISTICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES,
CF. WALLING V. AMERICAN ROLBAL CORP., 135 F.2D 1003, THE OTHER TO
DISCOVER SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS.  THE PATTERN HAS BECOME COMMON SINCE ITS
INTRODUCTION INTO FEDERAL LAW BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
LEGISLATION.  SEE THE SUMMARY GIVEN AS TO BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE
INSTANCES IN HANDLER, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INVESTIGATIONS BY THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (1928) 28 COL. L. REV. 708, 905, AT 905-909;
SEE ALSO 925-929. 

FN24  SECTION 9 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT READS:  "FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ANY HEARING OR INVESTIGATION PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT, THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 9 AND 10(RELATING TO THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES
AND THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS, PAPERS, AND DOCUMENTS) OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1914, AS AMENDED (U.S.C., 1934
EDITION, TITLE 15, SECS. 49 AND 50), ARE HEREBY MADE APPLICABLE TO THE
JURISDICTION, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE CHIEF OF THE
CHILDREN'S BUREAU, AND THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEES." 

THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATIONS, THE COMMISSION
OR ITS AGENTS SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO AND THE RIGHT TO COPY "ANY
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ANY CORPORATION BEING INVESTIGATED OR PROCEEDED
AGAINST," WITH THE POWER TO REQUIRE BY SUBPOENA "THE ATTENDANCE AND
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF ALL SUCH DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE RELATING TO ANY MATTER UNDER INVESTIGATION." 

THE SECTION THEN PROCEEDS:  "...  IN CASE OF DISOBEDIENCE TO A
SUBPOENA THE COMMISSION MAY INVOKE THE AID OF ANY COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES IN REQUIRING THE ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND THE
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 

"ANY OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF WHICH SUCH INQUIRY IS CARRIED ON MAY, IN CASE OF
CONTUMACY OR REFUSAL TO OBEY A SUBPOENA ISSUED TO ANY CORPORATION OR
OTHER PERSON, ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING SUCH CORPORATION OR OTHER PERSON
TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSION, OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IF
SO ORDERED, OR TO GIVE EVIDENCE TOUCHING THE MATTER IN QUESTION; AND
ANY FAILURE TO OBEY SUCH ORDER OF THE COURT MAY BE PUNISHED BY SUCH
COURT AS A CONTEMPT THEREOF." 

PROSECUTION, PENALTY OR FORFEITURE ON ACCOUNT OF TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE
PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBPOENA. 

NEGLECT OR REFUSE TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY, OR TO ANSWER ANY LAWFUL
INQUIRY, OR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, IF IN HIS POWER TO DO SO,
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE SUBPOENA OR LAWFUL REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMISSION
..."  NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED IN THESE CASES CONCERNING THIS
PROVISION. 

FN25  SEE PART IV, AT NOTE 54; ALSO NOTE 24. 

FN26  SEE NOTE 27. 

FN27  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S.
298, 305-306, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SPEAKING FOR THE COURT SAID:
"ANYONE WHO RESPECTS THE SPIRIT AS WELL AS THE LETTER OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT WOULD BE LOATH TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE
ONE OF ITS SUBORDINATE AGENCIES TO SWEEP ALL OUR TRADITIONS INTO THE
FIRE (INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447, 479),
AND TO DIRECT FISHING EXPEDITIONS INTO PRIVATE PAPERS ON THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THEY MAY DISCLOSE EVIDENCE OF CRIME.  WE DO NOT
DISCUSS THE QUESTION WHETHER IT COULD DO SO IF IT TRIED, AS NOTHING
SHORT OF THE MOST EXPLICIT LANGUAGE WOULD INDUCE US TO ATTRIBUTE TO
CONGRESS THAT INTENT."  SEE ALSO NOTE 40.  CF. BOYD V. UNITED STATES,
116 U.S. 616; HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43; HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 211 U.S. 407. 

FN28  "IN OTHER WORDS, THE SUBPOENA IS EQUIVALENT TO A SEARCH AND
SEIZURE AND TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL IT MUST BE A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF
THE POWER."  LASSON, DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION, 137, CITING INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447; HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 76.  CF. BOYD V.
UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. AT 634-635(AS TO WHICH SEE ALSO NOTES 33 AND
36):  "...  WE ARE FURTHER OF OPINION THAT A COMPULSORY PRODUCTION OF
THE PRIVATE BOOKS AND PAPERS OF THE OWNER OF GOODS SOUGHT TO BE
FORFEITED  ...  IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SEARCH AND SEIZURE - AND AN
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE - WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT." 

SEE ALSO HANDLER, CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INVESTIGATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION (1928) 28 COL. L. REV. 708, 905, AT 909 FF., AND
AUTHORITIES CITED, CHARACTERIZING THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN ORDER FOR
PRODUCTION WITH AN ACTUAL SEARCH OR SEIZURE AS "THE FIGURATIVE
INTERPRETATION."  P. 917, N. 56. 

FN29  SEE, IN ADDITION TO THE BETTER KNOWN ACCOUNTS OF WRITS OF
ASSISTANCE CITED IN GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES, DISSENTING OPINION, 316
U.S. AT 139, N. 5, LASSON, DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (1937). 

FN30  THE CASE FOR PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST WAS STATED AS
FOLLOWS:  "THE OPINION OF THE COURT REMINDS US OF THE DANGERS THAT WAIT
UPON THE ABUSE OF POWER BY OFFICIALDOM UNCHAINED.  THE WARNING IS SO
FRAUGHT WITH TRUTH THAT IT CAN NEVER BE UNTIMELY.  BUT TIMELY TOO IS
THE REMINDER, AS A HOST OF IMPOVERISHED INVESTORS WILL BE READY TO
ATTEST, THAT THERE ARE DANGERS IN UNTRUTHS AND HALF TRUTHS WHEN
CERTIFICATES MASQUERADING AS SECURITIES PASS CURRENT IN THE MARKET. 
THERE ARE DANGERS IN SPREADING A BELIEF THAT UNTRUTHS AND HALF TRUTHS,
DESIGNED TO BE PASSED ON FOR THE GUIDANCE OF CONFIDING BUYERS, ARE TO
BE RANKED AS PECCADILLOS, OR EVEN PERHAPS AS PART OF THE AMENITIES OF
BUSINESS....  A COMMISSION WHICH IS WITHOUT COERCIVE POWERS, WHICH
CANNOT ARREST OR AMERCE OR IMPRISON THOUGH A CRIME HAS BEEN UNCOVERED,
OR EVEN PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT, BUT CAN ONLY INQUIRE AND REPORT, THE
PROPRIETY OF EVERY QUESTION IN THE COURSE OF THE INQUIRY BEING SUBJECT
TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE ORDINARY COURTS OF JUSTICE, IS LIKENED WITH
DENUNCIATORY FERVOR TO THE STAR CHAMBER OF THE STUARTS.  HISTORIANS MAY
FIND HYPERBOLE IN THE SANGUINARY SIMILE."  MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, WITH
WHOM JOINED THE PRESENT CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
DISSENTING IN JONES V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 298 U.S. 1, 32
33.  SEE ALSO HANDLER, CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INVESTIGATIONS OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (1928) 28 COL. L. REV. 708, 905, PARTICULARLY
AT 933 FF. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE FOR PROTECTED PRIVACY WAS PUT BY MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS, DISSENTING, IN OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S.
438, 478-479:  "THE MAKERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION UNDERTOOK TO SECURE
CONDITIONS FAVORABLE TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.  THEY RECOGNIZED THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF MAN'S SPIRITUAL NATURE, OF HIS FEELINGS AND OF HIS
INTELLECT.  THEY KNEW THAT ONLY A PART OF THE PAIN, PLEASURE AND
SATISFACTIONS OF LIFE ARE TO BE FOUND IN MATERIAL THINGS.  THEY SOUGHT
TO PROTECT AMERICANS IN THEIR BELIEFS, THEIR THOUGHTS, THEIR EMOTIONS
AND THEIR SENSATIONS.  THEY CONFERRED, AS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THE
RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE - THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE OF RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT
MOST VALUED BY CIVILIZED MEN.  TO PROTECT THAT RIGHT, EVERY
UNJUSTIFIABLE INTRUSION BY THE GOVERNMENT UPON THE PRIVACY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL, WHATEVER THE MEANS EMPLOYED, MUST BE DEEMED A VIOLATION OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  AND THE USE, AS EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING, OF FACTS ASCERTAINED BY SUCH INTRUSION MUST BE DEEMED A
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH." 

FN31  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361, 382; HALE V. HENKEL, 201
U.S. 43, 74-75; THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS AND THE VISITORIAL
POWER OF CONGRESS OVER STATE CORPORATIONS, NOTE (1930) 30 COL. L. REV.
103. 

FN32  IBID.; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25; BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 221 U.S. 612; INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. GOODRICH TRANSIT CO., 224 U.S. 194; UNITED
STATES V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 236 U.S. 318; SMITH V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 245 U.S. 33; UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R.
CO., 272 U.S. 457; CF., HOWEVER, HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, 211 U.S. 407; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CLAIRE FURNACE
CO., 274 U.S. 160.  AND SEE HANDLER, CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
INVESTIGATIONS BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (1928) 28 COL. L. REV.
708, 903. 

THE POWER IS NOT LIMITED TO INQUIRING CONCERNING MATTERS WHICH
CONGRESS MAY REGULATE OTHERWISE THAN BY REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF
INFORMATION, AT ANY RATE WHEN IT IS MADE TO APPEAR THAT SOME PHASE OF
THE ACTIVITY IS IN COMMERCE OR AFFECTS IT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. NEW
YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 272 U.S. 457, 464, AND AUTHORITIES CITED; FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. CLAIRE FURNACE CO., 274 U.S. 160.  NOR MUST THE
"JURISDICTIONAL" LINE BE DRAWN IN SUCH CASES BEFORE THE INFORMATION IS
CALLED FOR.  CF. MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41; HANDLER, OP.
CIT. SUPRA, AT 918 FF., AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN33  IN THE LEADING CASE OF BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616,
630, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN RELATION TO THE
COMPELLED PRODUCTION OF "A MAN'S OWN TESTIMONY OR OF HIS PRIVATE PAPERS
(SPECIFICALLY A BUSINESS INVOICE) TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE TO CONVICT HIM
OF CRIME OR TO FORFEIT HIS GOODS," SAID IN A MUCH QUOTED STATEMENT:
"IN THIS REGARD THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS RUN ALMOST INTO EACH
OTHER."  THE OPINION, QUOTING AT LENGTH FROM LORD CAMDEN'S DISCUSSION
IN THE HISTORIC CASE OF ENTICK V. CARRINGTON, 19 HOWELL'S STATE TRIALS
1029, RELIES STRONGLY IN THIS PHASE UPON HIS CONJUNCTION OF THE RIGHT
TO FREEDOM FROM SEARCH AND SEIZURE "WHERE THE LAW FORCETH EVIDENCE OUT
OF THE OWNER'S CUSTODY BY PROCESS" AND THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION.  116 U.S. AT 629.  CF. ALSO THE STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, QUOTED SUPRA NOTE 30. 

FN34  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361; HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S.
43; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25. 

FN35  SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385; HALE V.
HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, 154
U.S. 447, 448 FF.  SEE ALSO CONSOLIDATED RENDERING CO. V. VERMONT, 207
U.S. 541. 

FN36  SEE NOTE 33.  THE RULING WAS LIMITED, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, TO
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY.  ONLY
A SINGLE DOCUMENT WAS CALLED FOR.  THE VITIATING ELEMENT LAY IN THE
INCRIMINATING CHARACTER OF THE UNUSUAL PROVISION FOR ENFORCEMENT.  THE
STATUTE PROVIDED THAT FAILURE TO PRODUCE MIGHT BE TAKEN AS A CONFESSION
OF WHATEVER MIGHT BE ALLEGED IN THE MOTION FOR PRODUCTION. 

FN37  SEE NOTES 31, 32, 40.  THUS FAR CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO
LEAVE TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS.  THE
PATTERN ADOPTED IN SECS. 9 AND 10 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT,
OF REFERRING ENFORCEMENT TO THE COURTS, HAS BECOME ACCEPTED, WHETHER BY
VIRTUE OF REFLECTIONS OF THE OPINION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
V. BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447, OR FOR OTHER REASONS.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THE PATTERN HAS BEEN ADOPTED IS SUMMARIZED, PARTIALLY AT LEAST, IN
HANDLER, OP. CIT. SUPRA, AT 925 FF.    FN38  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, ESSGEE
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 262 U.S. 151. 

FN39  E.G., IN SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S.
385, GOVERNMENT OFFICERS, AFTER ARRESTING CORPORATE OFFICIALS AT THEIR
HOMES, "WITHOUT A SHADOW OF AUTHORITY WENT TO THE OFFICE OF THEIR
COMPANY AND MADE A CLEAN SWEEP OF ALL THE BOOKS, PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS
FOUND THERE," TAKING THEM TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHERE THEY
WERE PHOTOGRAPHED.  AFTER AN ORDER OF COURT TO RETURN THE ORIGINALS,
BUT IMPOUNDING THE COPIES, SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINALS WERE
ENFORCED BY AN ORDER, THE REFUSAL TO OBEY WHICH WAS HELD A CONTEMPT. 
THE COURT'S STRONG LANGUAGE IN REVERSING THIS DECISION UNDOUBTEDLY WAS
CALLED FORTH BY THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORT, NOT TO SAY SUBTERFUGE, THUS TO
AVOID THE EFFECTS OF ITS INITIAL WRONG.  CF. WEEKS V. UNITED STATES,
232 U.S. 383; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298. 

FN40  THUS, THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298, CF. NOTE 27, SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN
THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM OF "AN UNLIMITED RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE
RESPONDENTS' PAPERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 5."  264 U.S. AT 305.  THE COURT SAID:
"IT IS CONTRARY TO THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE TO ALLOW A SEARCH
THROUGH ALL THE RESPONDENTS' RECORDS, RELEVANT OR IRRELEVANT, IN THE
HOPE THAT SOMETHING WILL TURN UP."  P. 306.  CF. SILVERTHORNE LUMBER
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, NOTE 39. 

HOWEVER IN WHEELER V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 478, WHERE NO ELEMENT
OF ACTUAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE WAS PRESENT, A SUBPOENA WAS ENFORCED WHICH
CALLED FOR COPIES OF ALL LETTERS AND TELEGRAMS, ALL CASH BOOKS,
LEDGERS, JOURNALS AND OTHER ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION COVERING A
PERIOD OF FIFTEEN MONTHS; CF. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447.  AND IN BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 134,
THE SUBPOENA CALLED FOR ALL LETTERS, TELEGRAMS OR COPIES THEREOF
PASSING BETWEEN A NATIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS, INCLUDING
THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS, OVER A PERIOD OF TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS,
WITH REFERENCE TO EIGHTEEN DIFFERENT ITEMS.  THE COURT, BY MR. JUSTICE
SUTHERLAND, SAID:  "THE SUBPOENA  ...  SPECIFIES A REASONABLE PERIOD OF
TIME AND, WITH REASONABLE PARTICULARITY, THE SUBJECTS TO WHICH THE
DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR RELATE.  THE QUESTION IS RULED, NOT BY HALE V.
HENKEL, BUT BY CONSOLIDATED RENDERING CO. V. VERMONT, 207 U.S. 541, 553
554, AND WHEELER V. UNITED STATES," SUPRA. 

WITH REFERENCE TO THE BREADTH OF THE SUBPOENA OR ORDER FOR PRODUCTION
IN THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS CALLED FOR, IN ADDITION TO THE AUTHORITIES
CITED IN THIS NOTE AND NOTE 45, SEE HAMMOND PACKING CO. V. ARKANSAS,
212 U.S. 322; UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL CO., 321 U.S. 707;
HANDLER, OP. CIT. SUPRA, AT 913 FF. 

FN41  SEE NOTE 36. 

FN42  E.G., HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43; WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221
U.S. 361, 372. 

FN43  SMITH V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 245 U.S. 33; BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 221 U.S. 612; CF.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. GOODRICH TRANSIT CO., 224 U.S. 194;
HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 211 U.S. 407, 419.  AND SEE
HANDLER, OP. CIT. SUPRA, 918 FF. 

FN44  CF. THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTES 42 AND 43. 

FN45  CF. GO-BART IMPORTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344, 357;
BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. AT 630, AND NOTE 40 SUPRA. 

FN46  THE SUBPOENA IN NO. 61 CALLED FOR PRODUCTION OF: 

"ALL OF YOUR BOOKS, PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE HOURS WORKED BY
AND WAGES PAID TO EACH OF YOUR EMPLOYEES BETWEEN OCTOBER 28, 1938, AND
THE DATE HEREOF, INCLUDING ALL PAYROLL LEDGERS, TIME SHEETS, TIME CARDS
AND TIME CLOCK RECORDS, AND ALL YOUR BOOKS, PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS
SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAPERS OUTSIDE THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, THE
DISSEMINATION OF NEWS OUTSIDE THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, THE SOURCE AND
RECEIPT OF NEWS FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, AND THE SOURCE AND
RECEIPT OF ADVERTISEMENTS OF NATIONALLY ADVERTISED GOODS." 

THE SPECIFICATION IN NO. 63 WAS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR
THE PERIOD OF TIME COVERED BY THE DEMAND. 

FN47  SEE THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION, NOTE 24 SUPRA.  OF COURSE
VIOLATION COULD BE FOUND ONLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE COVERAGE WOULD
EXIST.  AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE THE EXISTENCE OF VIOLATIONS
ACCORDINGLY INCLUDED AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE COVERAGE.  CF. ENDICOTT
JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS, 317 U.S. 501; MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303
U.S. 41, DISCUSSED IN THE TEXT HEREIN AT NOTES 49-51; AND AUTHORITIES
CITED IN NOTE 32 SUPRA. 

FN48  THE DESCRIPTION WAS MADE WITH ALL OF THE PARTICULARITY THE
NATURE OF THE INQUIRY AND THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SITUATION WOULD PERMIT. 
SEE NOTE 46.  THE SUBPOENAS WERE LIMITED TO THE BOOKS, PAPERS AND
DOCUMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE CORPORATIONS, TO WHICH ALONE THEY WERE
ADDRESSED.  THEY REQUIRED PRODUCTION AT SPECIFIED TIMES AND PLACES IN
THE CITIES OF PUBLICATION AND STATED THE PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
TO BE ONE AFFECTING THE RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECS.
9 AND 11(C), "REGARDING COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATIONS BY SAID COMPANY OF
THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTES 32 AND 45. 

FN49  THIS COURT, IN GRANTING CERTIORARI IN THE ENDICOTT JOHNSON
CASE, DID SO, AMONG OTHER REASONS, "BECAUSE OF PROBABLE CONFLICT WITH"
GENERAL TOBACCO & GROCERY CO. V. FLEMING, 125 F.2D 596, A CASE ARISING
UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  317 U.S. AT 502. 

FN50  TO THE ARGUMENT OF "IRREPARABLE DAMAGE," THE COURT SAID:  "THE
CONTENTION IS AT WAR WITH THE LONG SETTLED RULE OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION THAT NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL RELIEF FOR A
SUPPOSED OR THREATENED INJURY UNTIL THE PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED.... OBVIOUSLY, THE RULE  ...  CANNOT BE
CIRCUMVENTED BY ASSERTING THAT THE CHARGE ON WHICH THE COMPLAINT RESTS
IS GROUNDLESS AND THAT THE MERE HOLDING OF THE PRESCRIBED
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING WOULD RESULT IN IRREPARABLE DAMAGE.  LAWSUITS
ALSO OFTEN PROVE TO HAVE BEEN GROUNDLESS; BUT NO WAY HAS BEEN
DISCOVERED OF RELIEVING A DEFENDANT FROM THE NECESSITY OF A TRIAL TO
ESTABLISH THE FACT."  303 U.S. AT 50. 

FN51  IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE MYERS SITUATION THE BOARD'S
DETERMINATION IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, IS GIVEN FINALITY AS TO THE FACTS IF
THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN ITS FINDINGS, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, SEC. 10(E)(49 STAT. 454), AND IS EXPRESSLY MADE EXCLUSIVE, IBID.,
SEC. 10(A), WHEREAS IN THE SITUATIONS NOW PRESENTED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
INVESTIGATION IS ONLY PRELIMINARY TO INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS IN COURT
AND THUS HAS NONE OF THE FINALITY OR QUASI-JUDICIAL CHARACTER GIVEN TO
THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION.  BUT, AS THE COURT NOTED, THE BOARD ALSO HAS
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY, INCIDENTAL TO PREPARATION FOR THE
HEARING, TO WHICH ITS SUBPOENA POWER APPLIES, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, SEC. 11(49 STAT. 455, 456); AND, AS WE HAVE SAID, IF THE COURTS
ARE FORBIDDEN TO DETERMINE COVERAGE PRIOR TO THE BOARD'S QUASI-JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING FOR DECIDING THAT QUESTION, IT WOULD SEEM NECESSARILY TO
FOLLOW THAT THEY ARE FORBIDDEN ALSO TO DECIDE IT PRIOR TO THE BOARD'S
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROCEEDING SHALL BE
INSTITUTED. 

THE MERE FACT THAT THE FIRST STAGE OF FORMAL ADJUDICATION IS
ADMINISTRATIVE IN THE ONE CASE AND JUDICIAL IN THE OTHER WOULD SEEM TO
MAKE NO DIFFERENCE WITH THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE EITHER THE
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OR THE USE OF THE SUBPOENA POWER IN AID OF
IT. 

FN52  THE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMPANY OR ITS EMPLOYEES WERE ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE, ETC., WAS SUPPLIED LARGELY BY IT IN THE RETURN TO THE RULE TO
SHOW CAUSE AND THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, CONSISTING OF ADMISSIONS AND
STATEMENTS OF FACT CONCERNING ITS MODES OF DOING BUSINESS.  THE
ADMISSIONS OBVIOUSLY WERE MADE UPON PETITIONER'S BROAD THEORY THAT THE
PUBLISHING BUSINESS IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ACT OR TO THE COMMERCE
POWER.  BUT THOSE CONCLUSIONS DO NOT NULLIFY THE FACTUAL CHARACTER OF
THE ADMISSIONS AND, SO TAKEN, THEY ADEQUATELY SUSTAIN THE APPELLATE
COURT'S CONCLUSION OF "PROBABLE CAUSE" OF COVERAGE. 

FN53  SEE NOTES 3, 4.  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ALLEGATIONS, MORE GENERAL
THAN IN NO. 61, MERELY SET FORTH THAT THE COMPANY WAS A NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHER, THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE IT WAS
VIOLATING THE ACT, AND THAT IT WAS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE AND IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  THIS CONCLUSION WAS DENIED.  THE
ADMISSIONS OF THE RETURN, INCLUDING THE AFFIDAVITS, SUPPLIED ONLY THE
PERTINENT FACTS IN RELATION TO COVERAGE THAT THE RESPONDENT, NEWS
PRINTING CO., WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PUBLISHING AND
DISTRIBUTING THE "PATERSON EVENING NEWS," A DAILY PAPER, THAT LESS THAN
ONE PER CENT OF ITS CIRCULATION OF MORE THAN 23,000 COPIES, OR A DAILY
AVERAGE OF 278 COPIES, WAS DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE NEW JERSEY, WHERE THE
PAPER WAS PUBLISHED, AND THAT THE BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED IN THE SAME
MANNER AS OTHER "LOCAL" PAPERS ACCORDING TO THE METHODS SHOWN BY THE
AFFIDAVITS.  THESE DISCLOSED NOTHING MATERIAL CONCERNING INTERSTATE
PHASES OF SUCH BUSINESSES GENERALLY, EXCEPT AS MIGHT BE INFERRED FROM
STATEMENTS THAT THEY PUBLISH NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL AS WELL AS
LOCAL NEWS, AND MUST DO SO AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE EVENTS
OCCUR. 

FN54  SECTION 9 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT AUTHORIZES THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO INVOKE THE AID OF THE COURT "IN CASE OF DISOBEDIENCE
TO A SUBPOENA" AND THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO GIVE ASSISTANCE "IN CASE
OF CONTUMACY OR REFUSAL TO OBEY A SUBPOENA ISSUED TO ANY CORPORATION OR
OTHER PERSON  ..."  CF. NOTE 24. 

FN55  THE BILL OF DISCOVERY IN EQUITY WOULD SEEM TO FURNISH AN
INSTANCE.  CF. SINCLAIR REFINING CO. V. JENKINS PETROLEUM CO., 289 U.S.
689, 696-697.  SEE ALSO THE PROVISIONS FOR PRETRIAL EXAMINATION AND THE
TAKING OF DEPOSITIONS, FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES 26(B),
30(D), 45; UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO. V. BURGER, 27 F.SUPP.  556;
BLOOMER V. SIRIAN LAMP CO., 4 F.R.D. 167, 8 F.R.S. 26B.31, CASE 3;
LEWIS V. UNITED AIR LINES TRANSPORT CORP., 27 F.SUPP.  946, 947.  THE
POWER OF CONGRESS ITSELF TO CALL FOR INFORMATION PRESENTS A RELATED
ILLUSTRATION.  MCGRAIN V. DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S. 135, 156-158. 

FN56  IN GENERAL TOBACCO & GROCERY CO. V. FLEMING, 125 F.2D 596, 599,
THE COURT SAID:  "IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER TO REVIEW
QUESTIONS OF LAW, AS CONFERRED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE SEAL OF A
UNITED STATES COURT SHOULD NOT BECOME A MERE RUBBER STAMP FOR THE
APPROVAL OF ARBITRARY ACTION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY."  IN THIS
CASE, NO. 63, THE DISTRICT COURT SAID:  "...  THE FUNCTIONS OF THE
COURTS REMAIN, AND THOSE FUNCTIONS ARE NOT MERELY TO ACT AS AN ADJUNCT
OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES...."  49 F.SUPP.  659, 661. 

FN57  THE ISSUES OF AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION, RELEVANCY
OF THE MATERIALS SOUGHT, AND BREADTH OF THE DEMAND ARE NEITHER MINOR
NOR MINISTERIAL MATTERS.  NOR WOULD THERE BE ANY FAILURE TO SATISFY
FULLY THE DISCRETIONARY POWER IMPLIED IN THE STATUTE'S USE OF THE WORD
"MAY," RATHER THAN "SHALL," SEE NOTE 24, IN AUTHORIZING THE COURT TO
ENFORCE THE SUBPOENAS.  IT WOULD BE GOING FAR TO SAY THAT CONGRESS
COULD NOT PROCEED UPON THIS BASIS, BUT COULD GO FORWARD ONLY BY
REQUIRING A SHOWING OF PROBABLE CAUSE OF COVERAGE IN THE SENSE OF
PROBABILITY IN FACT OF COVERAGE.  CF. NOTE 44 AND TEXT.  COVERAGE IS
BUT ONE ELEMENT IN VIOLATION AND IF PROBABLE CAUSE, IN THAT SENSE, MUST
BE SHOWN CONCERNING IT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY PROBABLE
CAUSE MUST NOT BE SHOWN ALSO CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS, SEE MARTIN
TYPEWRITER CO. V. WALLING, 135 F.2D 918; WALLING V. LA BELLE S.S. CO.,
148 F.2D 198, OR ANY OTHER ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN VIOLATION. 

FN58  SEE NOTE 50 SUPRA. 

FN59  SEE NOTE 30. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

IT IS NOT WITHOUT DIFFICULTY THAT I DISSENT FROM A PROCEDURE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR MANY YEARS.  BUT I
AM UNABLE TO APPROVE THE USE OF NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENTS. 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW HAS INCREASED GREATLY IN THE PAST FEW YEARS AND
SEEMS DESTINED TO BE AUGMENTED EVEN FURTHER IN THE FUTURE.  BUT
ATTENDING THIS GROWTH SHOULD BE A NEW AND BROADER SENSE OF
RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS. 
EXCESSIVE USE OR ABUSE OF AUTHORITY CAN NOT ONLY DESTROY MAN'S INSTINCT
FOR LIBERTY BUT WILL EVENTUALLY UNDO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES
THEMSELVES.  OUR HISTORY IS NOT WITHOUT A PRECEDENT OF A SUCCESSFUL
REVOLT AGAINST A RULER WHO "SENT HITHER SWARMS OF OFFICERS TO HARASS
OUR PEOPLE." 

PERHAPS WE ARE TOO FAR REMOVED FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF THE PAST TO
APPRECIATE FULLY THE CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY RESULT FROM AN IRRESPONSIBLE
THOUGH WELL-MEANING USE OF THE SUBPOENA POWER.  TO ALLOW A NON-JUDICIAL
OFFICER, UNARMED WITH JUDICIAL PROCESS, TO DEMAND THE BOOKS AND PAPERS
OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS AN OPEN INVITATION TO ABUSE OF THAT POWER.  IT IS
NO ANSWER THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MAY REFUSE TO PRODUCE THE MATERIAL
DEMANDED.  MANY PERSONS HAVE YIELDED SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE AIR OF
AUTHORITY WITH WHICH THE DEMAND IS MADE, A DEMAND THAT CANNOT BE
ENFORCED FORCED WITHOUT SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL AID.  MANY INVASIONS OF
PRIVATE RIGHTS THUS OCCUR WITHOUT THE RESTRAINING HAND OF THE JUDICIARY
EVER INTERVENING. 

ONLY BY CONFINING THE SUBPOENA POWER EXCLUSIVELY TO THE JUDICIARY CAN
THERE BE ANY INSURANCE AGAINST THIS CORROSION OF LIBERTY.  STATUTORY
ENFORCEMENT WOULD NOT THEREBY BE MADE IMPOSSIBLE.  INDEED, IT WOULD BE
MADE EASIER.  A PEOPLE'S DESIRE TO COOPERATE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
STATUTE IS IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THE RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
SHOWN IN THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.  LIBERTY IS TOO PRICELESS TO BE
FORFEITED THROUGH THE ZEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT. 
..END :



IN RE YAMASHITA, 327 U.S. 1 


ARGUED JANUARY 7, 8, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  - LEAVE AND
PETITION DENIED. 


PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 3, 1945, PETITIONER WAS THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF
THE FOURTEENTH ARMY GROUP OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE ARMY IN THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  ON THAT DAY, HE SURRENDERED TO THE UNITED STATES
ARMY AND BECAME A PRISONER OF WAR.  RESPONDENT WAS THE COMMANDING
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES, WESTERN PACIFIC, WHOSE
COMMAND EMBRACED THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  RESPONDENT APPOINTED A
MILITARY COMMISSION TO TRY THE PETITIONER ON A CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF
THE LAW OF WAR.  THE GIST OF THE CHARGE WAS THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED
IN HIS DUTY AS AN ARMY COMMANDER TO CONTROL THE OPERATIONS OF HIS
TROOPS, "PERMITTING THEM TO COMMIT" SPECIFIED ATROCITIES AGAINST THE
CIVILIAN POPULATION AND PRISONERS OF WAR.  PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY
AND SENTENCED TO DEATH.  HELD: 

1.  THE MILITARY COMMISSION APPOINTED TO TRY THE PETITIONER WAS
LAWFULLY CREATED.  P. 9. 

(A)  NATURE OF THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE MILITARY COMMISSIONS FOR THE
TRIAL OF ENEMY COMBATANTS FOR OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR, AND
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY SUCH COMMISSIONS,
CONSIDERED.  CITING EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, AND OTHER CASES.  PP.
7-9. 

(B)  A MILITARY COMMISSION MAY BE APPOINTED BY ANY FIELD COMMANDER,
OR BY ANY COMMANDER COMPETENT TO APPOINT A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL, AS
WAS RESPONDENT BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT.  P. 10. 

(C)  THE ORDER CREATING THE MILITARY COMMISSION WAS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE ACT OF CONGRESS (10 U.S.C. SECS. 1471-1593) SANCTIONING THE
CREATION OF SUCH TRIBUNALS FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF
WAR COMMITTED BY ENEMY COMBATANTS.  P. 11. 

2.  TRIAL OF THE PETITIONER BY THE MILITARY COMMISSION WAS LAWFUL,
ALTHOUGH HOSTILITIES HAD CEASED.  P. 12. 

(A)  A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR, COMMITTED BEFORE THE CESSATION OF
HOSTILITIES, MAY LAWFULLY BE TRIED BY A MILITARY COMMISSION AFTER
HOSTILITIES HAVE CEASED, AT LEAST UNTIL PEACE HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY
RECOGNIZED BY TREATY OR PROCLAMATION BY THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  P. 12. 

(B)  TRIAL OF THE PETITIONER BY THE MILITARY COMMISSION WAS
AUTHORIZED BY THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, BY MILITARY
COMMAND, BY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND USAGE, AND BY THE TERMS OF THE
SURRENDER OF THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT.  P. 13. 

3.  THE CHARGE PREFERRED AGAINST THE PETITIONER WAS OF A VIOLATION OF
THE LAW OF WAR.  P. 13. 

(A)  THE LAW OF WAR IMPOSES ON AN ARMY COMMANDER A DUTY TO TAKE SUCH
APPROPRIATE MEASURES AS ARE WITHIN HIS POWER TO CONTROL THE TROOPS
UNDER HIS COMMAND FOR THE PREVENTION OF ACTS WHICH ARE VIOLATIONS OF
THE LAW OF WAR AND WHICH ARE LIKELY TO ATTEND THE OCCUPATION OF HOSTILE
TERRITORY BY AN UNCONTROLLED SOLDIERY; AND HE MAY BE CHARGED WITH
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS FAILURE TO TAKE SUCH MEASURES WHEN
VIOLATIONS RESULT.  PP. 14, 16. 

(B)  WHAT MEASURES, IF ANY, PETITIONER TOOK TO PREVENT THE ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR, AND WHETHER SUCH MEASURES AS HE MAY HAVE
TAKEN WERE APPROPRIATE AND SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE DUTY IMPOSED
UPON HIM, WERE QUESTIONS WITHIN THE PECULIAR COMPETENCE OF THE MILITARY
OFFICERS COMPOSING THE COMMISSION AND WERE FOR IT TO DECIDE.  P. 16. 

(C)  CHARGES OF VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR TRIABLE BEFORE A
MILITARY TRIBUNAL NEED NOT BE STATED WITH THE PRECISION OF A COMMON LAW
INDICTMENT.  P. 17. 

(D)  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE CHARGE HERE, TESTED BY ANY REASONABLE
STANDARD, SUFFICIENTLY SET FORTH A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR; AND THE
MILITARY COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO TRY AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WHICH
IT RAISED.  P. 17. 

4.  IN ADMITTING ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION A DEPOSITION AND
HEARSAY AND OPINION EVIDENCE, THE MILITARY COMMISSION DID NOT VIOLATE
ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, TREATY OR MILITARY COMMAND DEFINING THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.  PP. 18, 23. 

(A)  THE ARTICLES OF WAR, INCLUDING ARTICLES 25 AND 38, ARE NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE TRIAL OF AN ENEMY COMBATANT BY A MILITARY COMMISSION
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR, AND IMPOSED NO RESTRICTIONS UPON THE
PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN SUCH TRIAL.  PP. 19, 20. 

(B)  ARTICLE 63 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1929, WHICH PROVIDES THAT
"SENTENCE MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST A PRISONER OF WAR ONLY BY THE SAME
COURTS AND ACCORDING TO THE SAME PROCEDURE AS IN THE CASE OF PERSONS
BELONGING TO THE ARMED FORCES OF THE DETAINING POWER," DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT ARTICLES 25 AND 38 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR BE APPLIED IN THE TRIAL
OF THE PETITIONER.  ARTICLE 63 REFERS TO SENTENCE "PRONOUNCED AGAINST A
PRISONER OF WAR" FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE A PRISONER OF WAR, AND
NOT FOR A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR COMMITTED WHILE A COMBATANT.  P.
20. 

(C)  THE COURT EXPRESSES NO OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF THE WISDOM OF
CONSIDERING SUCH EVIDENCE AS WAS RECEIVED IN THIS PROCEEDING, NOR ON
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACTION OF A MILITARY TRIBUNAL IN ADMITTING
EVIDENCE WHICH CONGRESS OR CONTROLLING MILITARY COMMAND HAS DIRECTED TO
BE EXCLUDED MAY BE DRAWN IN QUESTION BY PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OR
PROHIBITION.  P. 23. 

5.  ON AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, THE COURT IS NOT CONCERNED
WITH THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE PETITIONER.  P. 8. 

6.  BY SANCTIONING TRIALS OF ENEMY ALIENS BY MILITARY COMMISSION FOR
OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF THE
ACCUSED TO MAKE A DEFENSE, AND DID NOT FORECLOSE THEIR RIGHT TO CONTEND
THAT THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHHOLD AUTHORITY
TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL.  P. 9. 

7.  THE COURT DOES NOT APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE PETITIONER
HERE WAS CONVICTED.  P. 17. 

8.  THE MILITARY COMMISSION'S RULINGS ON EVIDENCE AND ON THE MODE OF
CONDUCTING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE NOT REVIEWABLE BY
THE COURTS, BUT ONLY BY THE REVIEWING MILITARY AUTHORITIES.  FROM THIS
VIEWPOINT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHAT, IN OTHER SITUATIONS, THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT MIGHT REQUIRE.  PP. 8, 23. 

9.  ARTICLE 60 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1929, WHICH PROVIDES THAT
"AT THE OPENING OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING DIRECTED AGAINST A PRISONER OF
WAR, THE DETAINING POWER SHALL ADVISE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
PROTECTING POWER THEREOF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND ALWAYS BEFORE THE
DATE SET FOR THE OPENING OF THE TRIAL," APPLIES ONLY TO PERSONS WHO ARE
SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED WHILE
PRISONERS OF WAR.  P. 23. 

10.  THE DETENTION OF THE PETITIONER FOR TRIAL AND HIS DETENTION UPON
HIS CONVICTION, SUBJECT TO THE PRESCRIBED REVIEW BY THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES, WERE LAWFUL.  P. 25. 

IN RE YAMASHITA. 

NO. 61, MISC. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 672, YAMASHITA V. STYER, COMMANDING GENERAL, ON
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES.  FOR EARLIER ORDERS IN THESE CASES SEE
326 U.S. 693, 694. 

NO. 61, MISC.  APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND PROHIBITION IN THIS COURT CHALLENGING THE
JURISDICTION AND LEGAL AUTHORITY OF A MILITARY COMMISSION WHICH
CONVICTED APPLICANT OF A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR AND SENTENCED HIM
TO BE HANGED.  DENIED. 

NO. 672.  PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES, 42 OFF.  GAZ.  664,
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND PROHIBITION
LIKEWISE CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION AND LEGAL AUTHORITY OF THE
MILITARY COMMISSION WHICH TRIED AND CONVICTED PETITIONER.  DENIED. 

COLONEL HARRY E. CLARKE, PRO HAC VICE, CAPTAIN A. FRANK REEL AND
CAPTAIN MILTON SANDBERG ARGUED THE CAUSE FOR PETITIONER.  WITH THEM ON
THE BRIEF WERE LT. COL. WALTER C. HENDRIX, LT. COL. JAMES G. FELDHAUS
AND MAJOR GEORGE F. GUY. 

SOLICITOR GENERAL MCGRATH AND ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL JUDSON
ARGUED THE CAUSE FOR RESPONDENT.  WITH THEM ON THE BRIEF WERE THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY, FREDERICK BERNAYS WIENER, GEORGE THOMAS
WASHINGTON, DAVID REICH, IRVING HILL, COLONEL WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JR.
AND CAPTAIN D. C. HILL. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NO. 61 MISCELLANEOUS IS AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION
FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND PROHIBITION IN THIS COURT.  NO. 672 IS A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES (28 U.S.C. SEC. 349), DENYING
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION TO THAT COURT FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
PROHIBITION.  AS BOTH APPLICATIONS RAISE SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE QUESTIONS,
AND BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE AND NOVELTY OF SOME OF THOSE PRESENTED,
WE SET THE TWO APPLICATIONS DOWN FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AS ONE CASE. 

FROM THE PETITIONS AND SUPPORTING PAPERS IT APPEARS THAT PRIOR TO
SEPTEMBER 3, 1945, PETITIONER WAS THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE
FOURTEENTH ARMY GROUP OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE ARMY IN THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS.  ON THAT DATE HE SURRENDERED TO AND BECAME A PRISONER OF WAR
OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES IN BAGUIO, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  ON
SEPTEMBER 25TH, BY ORDER OF RESPONDENT, LIEUTENANT GENERAL WILHELM D.
STYER, COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES, WESTERN
PACIFIC, WHICH COMMAND EMBRACES THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PETITIONER WAS
SERVED WITH A CHARGE PREPARED BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, PURPORTING TO CHARGE PETITIONER WITH A
VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR.  ON OCTOBER 8, 1945, PETITIONER, AFTER
PLEADING NOT GUILTY TO THE CHARGE, WAS HELD FOR TRIAL BEFORE A MILITARY
COMMISSION OF FIVE ARMY OFFICERS APPOINTED BY ORDER OF GENERAL STYER. 
THE ORDER APPOINTED SIX ARMY OFFICERS, ALL LAWYERS, AS DEFENSE
COUNSEL.  THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH FOLLOWED, INCLUDING THOSE
BEFORE THIS COURT, DEFENSE COUNSEL HAVE DEMONSTRATED THEIR PROFESSIONAL
SKILL AND RESOURCEFULNESS AND THEIR PROPER ZEAL FOR THE DEFENSE WITH
WHICH THEY WERE CHARGED. 

ON THE SAME DATE A BILL OF PARTICULARS WAS FILED BY THE PROSECUTION,
AND THE COMMISSION HEARD A MOTION MADE IN PETITIONER'S BEHALF TO
DISMISS THE CHARGE ON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED TO STATE A VIOLATION OF
THE LAW OF WAR.  ON OCTOBER 29TH THE COMMISSION WAS RECONVENED, A
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS WAS FILED, AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS
WAS DENIED.  THE TRIAL THEN PROCEEDED UNTIL ITS CONCLUSION ON DECEMBER
7, 1945, THE COMMISSION HEARING TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIX WITNESSES,
WHO GAVE OVER THREE THOUSAND PAGES OF TESTIMONY.  ON THAT DATE
PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE AS CHARGED AND SENTENCED TO
DEATH BY HANGING. 

THE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS SET UP THAT THE DETENTION OF
PETITIONER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIAL WAS UNLAWFUL FOR REASONS WHICH
ARE NOW URGED AS SHOWING THAT THE MILITARY COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT
LAWFUL AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION TO PLACE PETITIONER ON TRIAL, AS
FOLLOWS: 

(A)  THAT THE MILITARY COMMISSION WHICH TRIED AND CONVICTED
PETITIONER WAS NOT LAWFULLY CREATED, AND THAT NO MILITARY COMMISSION TO
TRY PETITIONER FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR COULD LAWFULLY BE
CONVENED AFTER THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES BETWEEN THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN; 

(B)  THAT THE CHARGE PREFERRED AGAINST PETITIONER FAILS TO CHARGE HIM
WITH A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR; 

(C)  THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION TO
TRY AND CONVICT PETITIONER BECAUSE THE ORDER GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE OF
THE COMMISSION PERMITTED THE ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF DEPOSITIONS,
AFFIDAVITS AND HEARSAY AND OPINION EVIDENCE, AND BECAUSE THE
COMMISSION'S RULINGS ADMITTING SUCH EVIDENCE WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE
25TH AND 38TH ARTICLES OF WAR (10 U.S.C. SECS. 1496, 1509) AND THE
GENEVA CONVENTION (47 STAT. 2021), AND DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A FAIR
TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; 

(D)  THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION IN
THE PREMISES BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO GIVE ADVANCE NOTICE OF
PETITIONER'S TRIAL TO THE NEUTRAL POWER REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF
JAPAN AS A BELLIGERENT AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 60 OF THE GENEVA
CONVENTION, 47 STAT. 2021, 2051. 

ON THE SAME GROUNDS THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION SET UP
THAT THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT,
DENIED THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS PRESENTED TO IT, ON THE GROUND,
AMONG OTHERS, THAT ITS JURISDICTION WAS LIMITED TO AN INQUIRY AS TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION TO PLACE PETITIONER ON TRIAL FOR THE
OFFENSE CHARGED, AND THAT THE COMMISSION, BEING VALIDLY CONSTITUTED BY
THE ORDER OF GENERAL STYER, HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF
PETITIONER AND OVER THE TRIAL FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED. 

IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, WE HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER AT LENGTH
THE SOURCES AND NATURE OF THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE MILITARY COMMISSIONS
FOR THE TRIAL OF ENEMY COMBATANTS FOR OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR. 
WE THERE POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER
CONFERRED UPON IT BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION TO
"DEFINE AND PUNISH  ... OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS  ...," OF
WHICH THE LAW OF WAR IS A PART, HAD BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR (10 U.S.C.
SECS. 1471-1593) RECOGNIZED THE "MILITARY COMMISSION" APPOINTED BY
MILITARY COMMAND, AS IT HAD PREVIOUSLY EXISTED IN UNITED STATES ARMY
PRACTICE, AS AN APPROPRIATE TRIBUNAL FOR THE TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT OF
OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR.  ARTICLE 15 DECLARES THAT THE
"PROVISIONS OF THESE ARTICLES CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON COURTS
MARTIAL SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS DEPRIVING MILITARY COMMISSIONS  ...
OR OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF
OFFENDERS OR OFFENSES THAT BY STATUTE OR BY THE LAW OF WAR MAY BE
TRIABLE BY SUCH MILITARY COMMISSIONS  ...  OR OTHER MILITARY
TRIBUNALS."  SEE A SIMILAR PROVISION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917, 50
U.S.C. SEC. 38.  ARTICLE 2 INCLUDES AMONG THOSE PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE
ARTICLES OF WAR THE PERSONNEL OF OUR OWN MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.  BUT
THIS, AS ARTICLE 12 INDICATES, DOES NOT EXCLUDE FROM THE CLASS OF
PERSONS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSIONS "ANY OTHER PERSON WHO
BY THE LAW OF WAR IS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS," AND WHO,
UNDER ARTICLE 12, MAY BE TRIED BY COURT-MARTIAL, OR UNDER ARTICLE 15 BY
MILITARY COMMISSION. 

WE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS, BY SANCTIONING TRIAL OF ENEMY
COMBATANTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR BY MILITARY COMMISSION, HAD
NOT ATTEMPTED TO CODIFY THE LAW OF WAR OR TO MARK ITS PRECISE
BOUNDARIES.  INSTEAD, BY ARTICLE 15 IT HAD INCORPORATED, BY REFERENCE,
AS WITHIN THE PREEXISTING JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS CREATED
BY APPROPRIATE MILITARY COMMAND, ALL OFFENSES WHICH ARE DEFINED AS SUCH
BY THE LAW OF WAR, AND WHICH MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE INCLUDED WITHIN
THAT JURISDICTION.  IT THUS ADOPTED THE SYSTEM OF MILITARY COMMON LAW
APPLIED BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS SO FAR AS IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND
DEEMED APPLICABLE BY THE COURTS, AND AS FURTHER DEFINED AND
SUPPLEMENTED BY THE HAGUE CONVENTION, TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES AND
THE AXIS POWERS WERE PARTIES. 

WE ALSO EMPHASIZED IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, AS WE DO HERE, THAT ON
APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE GUILT OR
INNOCENCE OF THE PETITIONERS.  WE CONSIDER HERE ONLY THE LAWFUL POWER
OF THE COMMISSION TO TRY THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED.  IN
THE PRESENT CASES IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT THAT THE MILITARY
TRIBUNALS WHICH CONGRESS HAS SANCTIONED BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR ARE NOT
COURTS WHOSE RULINGS AND JUDGMENTS ARE MADE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THIS
COURT.  SEE EX PARTE VALLANDIGHAM, 1 WALL.  243; IN RE VIDAL, 179 U.S.
126; CF. EX PARTE QUIRIN, SUPRA, 39.  THEY ARE TRIBUNALS WHOSE
DETERMINATIONS ARE REVIEWABLE BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES EITHER AS
PROVIDED IN THE MILITARY ORDERS CONSTITUTING SUCH TRIBUNALS OR AS
PROVIDED BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR.  CONGRESS CONFERRED ON THE COURTS NO
POWER TO REVIEW THEIR DETERMINATIONS SAVE ONLY AS IT HAS GRANTED
JUDICIAL POWER "TO GRANT WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN
INQUIRY INTO THE CAUSE OF RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY."  28 U.S.C. SECS. 451,
452.  THE COURTS MAY INQUIRE WHETHER THE DETENTION COMPLAINED OF IS
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THOSE DETAINING THE PETITIONER.  IF THE
MILITARY TRIBUNALS HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO HEAR, DECIDE AND CONDEMN,
THEIR ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW MERELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE
MADE A WRONG DECISION ON DISPUTED FACTS.  CORRECTION OF THEIR ERRORS OF
DECISION IS NOT FOR THE COURTS BUT FOR THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES WHICH
ARE ALONE AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW THEIR DECISIONS.  SEE DYNES V. HOOVER,
20 HOW.  65, 81; RUNKLE V. UNITED STATES, 122 U.S. 543, 555-556; CARTER
V. MCCLAUGHRY, 183 U.S. 365; COLLINS V. MCDONALD, 258 U.S. 416.  CF.
MATTER OF MORAN, 203 U.S. 96, 105. 

FINALLY, WE HELD IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, SUPRA, 24, 25, AS WE HOLD NOW,
THAT CONGRESS BY SANCTIONING TRIALS OF ENEMY ALIENS BY MILITARY
COMMISSION FOR OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR HAD RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT
OF THE ACCUSED TO MAKE A DEFENSE.  CF. EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69. 
IT HAS NOT FORECLOSED THEIR RIGHT TO CONTEND THAT THE CONSTITUTION OR
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHHOLD AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH THE
TRIAL.  IT HAS NOT WITHDRAWN, AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT COULD NOT, UNLESS THERE WAS SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT, WITHDRAW
FROM THE COURTS THE DUTY AND POWER TO MAKE SUCH INQUIRY INTO THE
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION AS MAY BE MADE BY HABEAS CORPUS. 

WITH THESE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES IN MIND WE TURN TO THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE SEVERAL CONTENTIONS URGED TO ESTABLISH WANT OF AUTHORITY IN THE
COMMISSION.  WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH THE POWER OF MILITARY
COMMISSIONS TO TRY CIVILIANS.  SEE EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2, 132;
STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378; EX PARTE QUIRIN, SUPRA, 45.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION IS THAT GENERAL STYER'S ORDER CREATING THE
COMMISSION CONFERRED AUTHORITY ON IT ONLY TO TRY THE PURPORTED CHARGE
OF VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR COMMITTED BY PETITIONER, AN ENEMY
BELLIGERENT, WHILE IN COMMAND OF A HOSTILE ARMY OCCUPYING UNITED STATES
TERRITORY DURING TIME OF WAR.  OUR FIRST INQUIRY MUST THEREFORE BE
WHETHER THE PRESENT COMMISSION WAS CREATED BY LAWFUL MILITARY COMMAND
AND, IF SO, WHETHER AUTHORITY COULD THUS BE CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION
TO PLACE PETITIONER ON TRIAL AFTER THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES BETWEEN
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN. 

THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE COMMISSION.  GENERAL STYER'S ORDER FOR
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMISSION WAS MADE BY HIM AS COMMANDER OF THE
UNITED STATES ARMY FORCES, WESTERN PACIFIC.  HIS COMMAND INCLUDES, AS
PART OF A VASTLY GREATER AREA, THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, WHERE THE
ALLEGED OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED, WHERE PETITIONER SURRENDERED AS A
PRISONER OF WAR, AND WHERE, AT THE TIME OF THE ORDER CONVENING THE
COMMISSION, HE WAS DETAINED AS A PRISONER IN CUSTODY OF THE UNITED
STATES ARMY.  THE CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND
ITS SANCTION OF THEIR USE IN TRYING OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR TO
WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED, SANCTIONED THEIR CREATION BY MILITARY COMMAND
IN CONFORMITY TO LONG-ESTABLISHED AMERICAN PRECEDENTS.  SUCH A
COMMISSION MAY BE APPOINTED BY ANY FIELD COMMANDER, OR BY ANY COMMANDER
COMPETENT TO APPOINT A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL, AS WAS GENERAL STYER, WHO
HAD BEEN VESTED WITH THAT POWER BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT.  2 WINTHROP,
MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS, 2D ED.,*  1302; CF. ARTICLE OF WAR 8. 

HERE THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ONLY CREATED BY A COMMANDER COMPETENT TO
APPOINT IT, BUT HIS ORDER CONFORMED TO THE ESTABLISHED POLICY OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND TO HIGHER MILITARY COMMANDS AUTHORIZING HIS ACTION.  IN
A PROCLAMATION OF JULY 2, 1942(56 STAT. 1964), THE PRESIDENT PROCLAIMED
THAT ENEMY BELLIGERENTS WHO, DURING TIME OF WAR, ENTER THE UNITED
STATES, OR ANY TERRITORY OR POSSESSION THEREOF, AND WHO VIOLATE THE LAW
OF WAR, SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF WAR AND TO THE JURISDICTION OF
MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  PARAGRAPH 10 OF THE DECLARATION OF POTSDAM OF JULY
26, 1945, DECLARED THAT "...  STERN JUSTICE SHALL BE METED OUT TO ALL
WAR CRIMINALS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO HAVE VISITED CRUELTIES UPON OUR
PRISONERS."  U.S. DEPT. OF STATE BULL., VOL. XIII, NO. 318, PP. 137
138.  THIS DECLARATION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT BY ITS
NOTE OF AUGUST 10, 1945.  U.S. DEPT. OF STATE BULL., VOL. XIII, NO.
320, P. 205.    BY DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, THE JOINT CHIEFS OF
STAFF OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES, ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1945,
INSTRUCTED GENERAL MACARTHUR, COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED STATES ARMY
FORCES, PACIFIC, TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL, BEFORE APPROPRIATE MILITARY
TRIBUNALS, OF SUCH JAPANESE WAR CRIMINALS "AS HAVE BEEN OR MAY BE
APPREHENDED."  BY ORDER OF GENERAL MACARTHUR OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1945,
GENERAL STYER WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL OF
PETITIONER UPON THE CHARGE HERE INVOLVED.  THIS ORDER WAS ACCOMPANIED
BY DETAILED RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH GENERAL MACARTHUR PRESCRIBED
FOR THE TRIAL OF WAR CRIMINALS.  THESE REGULATIONS DIRECTED, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, THAT REVIEW OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION
SHOULD BE BY THE OFFICER CONVENING IT, WITH "AUTHORITY TO APPROVE,
MITIGATE, REMIT, COMMUTE, SUSPEND, REDUCE OR OTHERWISE ALTER THE
SENTENCE IMPOSED," AND DIRECTED THAT NO SENTENCE OF DEATH SHOULD BE
CARRIED INTO EFFECT UNTIL CONFIRMED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, UNITED
STATES ARMY FORCES, PACIFIC. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE ORDER CREATING THE COMMISSION FOR THE TRIAL
OF PETITIONER WAS AUTHORIZED BY MILITARY COMMAND, AND WAS IN COMPLETE
CONFORMITY TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS SANCTIONING THE CREATION OF SUCH
TRIBUNALS FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR COMMITTED BY
ENEMY COMBATANTS.  AND WE TURN TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE AUTHORITY TO
CREATE THE COMMISSION AND DIRECT THE TRIAL BY MILITARY ORDER CONTINUED
AFTER THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES. 

AN IMPORTANT INCIDENT TO THE CONDUCT OF WAR IS THE ADOPTION OF
MEASURES BY THE MILITARY COMMANDER, NOT ONLY TO REPEL AND DEFEAT THE
ENEMY, BUT TO SEIZE AND SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY MEASURES THOSE ENEMIES
WHO, IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO THWART OR IMPEDE OUR MILITARY EFFORT, HAVE
VIOLATED THE LAW OF WAR.  EX PARTE QUIRIN, SUPRA, 28.  THE TRIAL AND
PUNISHMENT OF ENEMY COMBATANTS WHO HAVE COMMITTED VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW
OF WAR IS THUS NOT ONLY A PART OF THE CONDUCT OF WAR OPERATING AS A
PREVENTIVE MEASURE AGAINST SUCH VIOLATIONS, BUT IS AN EXERCISE OF THE
AUTHORITY SANCTIONED BY CONGRESS TO ADMINISTER THE SYSTEM OF MILITARY
JUSTICE RECOGNIZED BY THE LAW OF WAR.  THAT SANCTION IS WITHOUT
QUALIFICATION AS TO THE EXERCISE OF THIS AUTHORITY SO LONG AS A STATE
OF WAR EXISTS - FROM ITS DECLARATION UNTIL PEACE IS PROCLAIMED.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, 9 WALL.  56, 70; THE PROTECTOR, 12 WALL. 
700, 702; MCELRATH V. UNITED STATES, 102 U.S. 426, 438; KAHN V.
ANDERSON, 255 U.S. 1, 9-10.  THE WAR POWER, FROM WHICH THE COMMISSION
DERIVES ITS EXISTENCE, IS NOT LIMITED TO VICTORIES IN THE FIELD, BUT
CARRIES WITH IT THE INHERENT POWER TO GUARD AGAINST THE IMMEDIATE
RENEWAL OF THE CONFLICT, AND TO REMEDY, AT LEAST IN WAYS CONGRESS HAS
RECOGNIZED, THE EVILS WHICH THE MILITARY OPERATIONS HAVE PRODUCED.  SEE
STEWART V. KAHN, 11 WALL.  493, 507. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO CONVENE A COMMISSION
AFTER HOSTILITIES HAVE ENDED TO TRY VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR
COMMITTED BEFORE THEIR CESSATION, AT LEAST UNTIL PEACE HAS BEEN
OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BY TREATY OR PROCLAMATION OF THE POLITICAL BRANCH
OF THE GOVERNMENT.  IN FACT, IN MOST INSTANCES THE PRACTICAL
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM OF MILITARY JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW OF WAR
WOULD FAIL IF SUCH AUTHORITY WERE THOUGHT TO END WITH THE CESSATION OF
HOSTILITIES.  FOR ONLY AFTER THEIR CESSATION COULD THE GREATER NUMBER
OF OFFENDERS AND THE PRINCIPAL ONES BE APPREHENDED AND SUBJECTED TO
TRIAL. 

NO WRITER ON INTERNATIONAL LAW APPEARS TO HAVE REGARDED THE POWER OF
MILITARY TRIBUNALS, OTHERWISE COMPETENT TO TRY VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF
WAR, AS TERMINATING BEFORE THE FORMAL STATE OF WAR HAS ENDED.  FN1  IN
OUR OWN MILITARY HISTORY THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS INSTANCES IN WHICH
OFFENDERS WERE TRIED BY MILITARY COMMISSION AFTER THE CESSATION OF
HOSTILITIES AND BEFORE THE PROCLAMATION OF PEACE, FOR OFFENSES AGAINST
THE LAW OF WAR COMMITTED BEFORE THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES.  FN2 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE POWER TO PROSECUTE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF
WAR SHALL BE EXERCISED BEFORE PEACE IS DECLARED RESTS, NOT WITH THE
COURTS, BUT WITH THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND MAY ITSELF
BE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF AN ARMISTICE OR THE TREATY OF PEACE.  HERE,
PEACE HAS NOT BEEN AGREED UPON OR PROCLAIMED.  JAPAN, BY HER ACCEPTANCE
OF THE POTSDAM DECLARATION AND HER SURRENDER, HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE
TRIALS OF THOSE GUILTY OF VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR.  THE CONDUCT OF
THE TRIAL BY THE MILITARY COMMISSION HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE
POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, BY MILITARY COMMAND, BY
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND USAGE, AND BY THE TERMS OF THE SURRENDER OF THE
JAPANESE GOVERNMENT. 

THE CHARGE.  NEITHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION NOR THE MILITARY ORDERS
CONSTITUTING THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED IT TO PLACE PETITIONER ON TRIAL
UNLESS THE CHARGE PREFERRED AGAINST HIM IS OF A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF
WAR.  THE CHARGE, SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT, IS THAT PETITIONER, BETWEEN
OCTOBER 9, 1944 AND SEPTEMBER 2, 1945, IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
"WHILE COMMANDER OF ARMED FORCES OF JAPAN AT WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA AND ITS ALLIES, UNLAWFULLY DISREGARDED AND FAILED TO
DISCHARGE HIS DUTY AS COMMANDER TO CONTROL THE OPERATIONS OF THE
MEMBERS OF HIS COMMAND, PERMITTING THEM TO COMMIT BRUTAL ATROCITIES AND
OTHER HIGH CRIMES AGAINST PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF ITS ALLIES
AND DEPENDENCIES, PARTICULARLY THE PHILIPPINES; AND HE  ...  THEREBY
VIOLATED THE LAWS OF WAR." 

BILLS OF PARTICULARS, FILED BY THE PROSECUTION BY ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION, ALLEGE A SERIES OF ACTS, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE IN
NUMBER, COMMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE FORCES UNDER PETITIONER'S COMMAND
DURING THE PERIOD MENTIONED.  THE FIRST ITEM SPECIFIES THE EXECUTION OF
"A DELIBERATE PLAN AND PURPOSE TO MASSACRE AND EXTERMINATE A LARGE PART
OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF BATANGAS PROVINCE, AND TO DEVASTATE AND
DESTROY PUBLIC, PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS PROPERTY THEREIN, AS A RESULT OF
WHICH MORE THAN 25,000 MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ALL UNARMED
NONCOMBATANT CIVILIANS, WERE BRUTALLY MISTREATED AND KILLED, WITHOUT
CAUSE OR TRIAL, AND ENTIRE SETTLEMENTS WERE DEVASTATED AND DESTROYED
WANTONLY AND WITHOUT MILITARY NECESSITY."  OTHER ITEMS SPECIFY ACTS OF
VIOLENCE, CRUELTY AND HOMICIDE INFLICTED UPON THE CIVILIAN POPULATION
AND PRISONERS OF WAR, ACTS OF WHOLESALE PILLAGE AND THE WANTON
DESTRUCTION OF RELIGIOUS MONUMENTS. 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT SUCH ACTS DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIVILIAN
POPULATION OF AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY AND AGAINST PRISONERS OF WAR ARE
RECOGNIZED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR. 
ARTICLES 4, 28, 46, AND 47, ANNEX TO THE FOURTH HAGUE CONVENTION, 1907,
36 STAT. 2277, 2296, 2303, 2306-7.  BUT IT IS URGED THAT THE CHARGE
DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT PETITIONER HAS EITHER COMMITTED OR DIRECTED THE
COMMISSION OF SUCH ACTS, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT NO VIOLATION IS CHARGED
AS AGAINST HIM.  BUT THIS OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THE GIST OF THE
CHARGE IS AN UNLAWFUL BREACH OF DUTY BY PETITIONER AS AN ARMY COMMANDER
TO CONTROL THE OPERATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF HIS COMMAND BY "PERMITTING
THEM TO COMMIT" THE EXTENSIVE AND WIDESPREAD ATROCITIES SPECIFIED.  THE
QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER THE LAW OF WAR IMPOSES ON AN ARMY COMMANDER A
DUTY TO TAKE SUCH APPROPRIATE MEASURES AS ARE WITHIN HIS POWER TO
CONTROL THE TROOPS UNDER HIS COMMAND FOR THE PREVENTION OF THE
SPECIFIED ACTS WHICH ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR AND WHICH ARE
LIKELY TO ATTEND THE OCCUPATION OF HOSTILE TERRITORY BY AN UNCONTROLLED
SOLDIERY, AND WHETHER HE MAY BE CHARGED WITH PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
FOR HIS FAILURE TO TAKE SUCH MEASURES WHEN VIOLATIONS RESULT.  THAT
THIS WAS THE PRECISE ISSUE TO BE TRIED WAS MADE CLEAR BY THE STATEMENT
OF THE PROSECUTION AT THE OPENING OF THE TRIAL. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CONDUCT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS BY TROOPS WHOSE
EXCESSES ARE UNRESTRAINED BY THE ORDERS OR EFFORTS OF THEIR COMMANDER
WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY RESULT IN VIOLATIONS WHICH IT IS THE PURPOSE OF
THE LAW OF WAR TO PREVENT.  ITS PURPOSE TO PROTECT CIVILIAN POPULATIONS
AND PRISONERS OF WAR FROM BRUTALITY WOULD LARGELY BE DEFEATED IF THE
COMMANDER OF AN INVADING ARMY COULD WITH IMPUNITY NEGLECT TO TAKE
REASONABLE MEASURES FOR THEIR PROTECTION.  HENCE THE LAW OF WAR
PRESUPPOSES THAT ITS VIOLATION IS TO BE AVOIDED THROUGH THE CONTROL OF
THE OPERATIONS OF WAR BY COMMANDERS WHO ARE TO SOME EXTENT RESPONSIBLE
FOR THEIR SUBORDINATES. 

THIS IS RECOGNIZED BY THE ANNEX TO THE FOURTH HAGUE CONVENTION OF
1907, RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND.  ARTICLE 1 LAYS
DOWN AS A CONDITION WHICH AN ARMED FORCE MUST FULFILL IN ORDER TO BE
ACCORDED THE RIGHTS OF LAWFUL BELLIGERENTS, THAT IT MUST BE "COMMANDED
BY A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS SUBORDINATES."  36 STAT. 2295. 
SIMILARLY ARTICLE 19 OF THE TENTH HAGUE CONVENTION, RELATING TO
BOMBARDMENT BY NAVAL VESSELS, PROVIDES THAT COMMANDERS IN CHIEF OF THE
BELLIGERENT VESSELS "MUST SEE THAT THE ABOVE ARTICLES ARE PROPERLY
CARRIED OUT."  36 STAT. 2389.  AND ARTICLE 26 OF THE GENEVA RED CROSS
CONVENTION OF 1929, 47 STAT. 2074, 2092, FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE
CONDITION OF THE WOUNDED AND SICK IN ARMIES IN THE FIELD, MAKES IT "THE
DUTY OF THE COMMANDERS-IN-CHIEF OF THE BELLIGERENT ARMIES TO PROVIDE
FOR THE DETAILS OF EXECUTION OF THE FOREGOING ARTICLES, (OF THE
CONVENTION) AS WELL AS FOR UNFORESEEN CASES  ..."  AND, FINALLY,
ARTICLE 43 OF THE ANNEX OF THE FOURTH HAGUE CONVENTION, 36 STAT. 2306,
REQUIRES THAT THE COMMANDER OF A FORCE OCCUPYING ENEMY TERRITORY, AS
WAS PETITIONER, "SHALL TAKE ALL THE MEASURES IN HIS POWER TO RESTORE,
AND ENSURE, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY, WHILE
RESPECTING, UNLESS ABSOLUTELY PREVENTED, THE LAWS IN FORCE IN THE
COUNTRY." 

THESE PROVISIONS PLAINLY IMPOSED ON PETITIONER, WHO AT THE TIME
SPECIFIED WAS MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS WELL AS
COMMANDER OF THE JAPANESE FORCES, AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO TAKE SUCH
MEASURES AS WERE WITHIN HIS POWER AND APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
TO PROTECT PRISONERS OF WAR AND THE CIVILIAN POPULATION.  THIS DUTY OF
A COMMANDING OFFICER HAS HERETOFORE BEEN RECOGNIZED, AND ITS BREACH
PENALIZED BY OUR OWN MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  FN3  A LIKE PRINCIPLE HAS
BEEN APPLIED SO AS TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON THE UNITED STATES IN
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS.  CASE OF JEANNAUD, 3 MOORE, INTERNATIONAL
ARBITRATIONS, 3000; CASE OF THE ZAFIRO, 5 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW, 707. 

WE DO NOT MAKE THE LAWS OF WAR BUT WE RESPECT THEM SO FAR AS THEY DO
NOT CONFLICT WITH THE COMMANDS OF CONGRESS OR THE CONSTITUTION.  THERE
IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE PRESENT CHARGE, THUS READ, IS WITHOUT THE
SUPPORT OF EVIDENCE, OR THAT THE COMMISSION HELD PETITIONER RESPONSIBLE
FOR FAILING TO TAKE MEASURES WHICH WERE BEYOND HIS CONTROL OR
INAPPROPRIATE FOR A COMMANDING OFFICER TO TAKE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
N4.  WE DO NOT HERE APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER WHAT MEASURES, IF ANY, PETITIONER TOOK
TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION, BY THE TROOPS UNDER HIS COMMAND, OF THE
PLAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR DETAILED IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS,
OR WHETHER SUCH MEASURES AS HE MAY HAVE TAKEN WERE APPROPRIATE AND
SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE DUTY IMPOSED UPON HIM.  THESE ARE QUESTIONS
WITHIN THE PECULIAR COMPETENCE OF THE MILITARY OFFICERS COMPOSING THE
COMMISSION AND WERE FOR IT TO DECIDE.  SEE SMITH V. WHITNEY, 116 U.S.
167, 178.  IT IS PLAIN THAT THE CHARGE ON WHICH PETITIONER WAS TRIED
CHARGED HIM WITH A BREACH OF HIS DUTY TO CONTROL THE OPERATIONS OF THE
MEMBERS OF HIS COMMAND, BY PERMITTING THEM TO COMMIT THE SPECIFIED
ATROCITIES.  THIS WAS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO HEAR EVIDENCE
TENDING TO ESTABLISH THE CULPABLE FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO PERFORM THE
DUTY IMPOSED ON HIM BY THE LAW OF WAR AND TO PASS UPON ITS SUFFICIENCY
TO ESTABLISH GUILT. 

OBVIOUSLY CHARGES OF VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR TRIABLE BEFORE A
MILITARY TRIBUNAL NEED NOT BE STATED WITH THE PRECISION OF A COMMON LAW
INDICTMENT.  CF. COLLINS V. MCDONALD, SUPRA, 420.  BUT WE CONCLUDE THAT
THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE CHARGE, TESTED BY ANY REASONABLE STANDARD,
ADEQUATELY ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR AND THAT THE COMMISSION
HAD AUTHORITY TO TRY AND DECIDE THE ISSUE WHICH IT RAISED.  CF. DEALY
V. UNITED STATES, 152 U.S. 539; WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES, 207 U.S.
425, 447; GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 66, AND CASES CITED. 

THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY
GENERAL MACARTHUR GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE TRIAL OF PETITIONER
BY THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADMIT SUCH
EVIDENCE "AS IN ITS OPINION WOULD BE OF ASSISTANCE IN PROVING OR
DISPROVING THE CHARGE, OR SUCH AS IN THE COMMISSION'S OPINION WOULD
HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE IN THE MIND OF A REASONABLE MAN," AND THAT IN
PARTICULAR IT MIGHT ADMIT AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS OR OTHER STATEMENTS
TAKEN BY OFFICERS DETAILED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY MILITARY AUTHORITY.  THE
PETITIONS IN THIS CASE CHARGED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL THE
COMMISSION RECEIVED, OVER OBJECTION BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL, THE
DEPOSITION OF A WITNESS TAKEN PURSUANT TO MILITARY AUTHORITY BY A
UNITED STATES ARMY CAPTAIN.  IT ALSO, OVER LIKE OBJECTION, ADMITTED
HEARSAY AND OPINION EVIDENCE TENDERED BY THE PROSECUTION.  PETITIONER
ARGUES, AS GROUND FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THAT ARTICLE 25  FN5
OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR PROHIBITED THE RECEPTION IN EVIDENCE BY THE
COMMISSION OF DEPOSITIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION IN A CAPITAL
CASE, AND THAT ARTICLE 38  FN6  PROHIBITED THE RECEPTION OF HEARSAY AND
OF OPINION EVIDENCE.    WE THINK THAT NEITHER ARTICLE 25 NOR ARTICLE 38
IS APPLICABLE TO THE TRIAL OF AN ENEMY COMBATANT BY A MILITARY
COMMISSION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR.  ARTICLE 2 OF THE ARTICLES
OF WAR ENUMERATES "THE PERSONS  ...  SUBJECT TO THESE ARTICLES," WHO
ARE DENOMINATED, FOR PURPOSES OF THE ARTICLES, AS "PERSONS SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW."  IN GENERAL, THE PERSONS SO ENUMERATED ARE MEMBERS OF
OUR OWN ARMY AND OF THE PERSONNEL ACCOMPANYING THE ARMY.  ENEMY
COMBATANTS ARE NOT INCLUDED AMONG THEM.  ARTICLES 12, 13 AND 14, BEFORE
THE ADOPTION OF ARTICLE 15 IN 1916, MADE ALL "PERSONS SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW" AMENABLE TO TRIAL BY COURTS-MARTIAL FOR ANY OFFENSE MADE
PUNISHABLE BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR.  ARTICLE 12 MAKES TRIABLE BY GENERAL
COURT-MARTIAL "ANY OTHER PERSON WHO BY THE LAW OF WAR IS SUBJECT TO
TRIAL BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS."  SINCE ARTICLE 2, IN ITS 1916 FORM,
INCLUDES SOME PERSONS WHO, BY THE LAW OF WAR, WERE, PRIOR TO 1916,
TRIABLE BY MILITARY COMMISSION, IT WAS FEARED BY THE PROPONENTS OF THE
1916 LEGISLATION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A SAVING PROVISION, THE
AUTHORITY GIVEN BY ARTICLES 12, 13 AND 14 TO TRY SUCH PERSONS BEFORE
COURTS-MARTIAL MIGHT BE CONSTRUED TO DEPRIVE THE NON-STATUTORY MILITARY
COMMISSION OF A PORTION OF WHAT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE ITS TRADITIONAL
JURISDICTION.  TO AVOID THIS, AND TO PRESERVE THAT JURISDICTION INTACT,
ARTICLE 15 WAS ADDED TO THE ARTICLES N7.  IT DECLARED THAT "THE
PROVISIONS OF THESE ARTICLES CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON COURTS
MARTIAL SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS DEPRIVING MILITARY COMMISSIONS  ...
OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENDERS OR OFFENSES THAT
...  BY THE LAW OF WAR MAY BE TRIABLE BY SUCH MILITARY COMMISSIONS." 

BY THUS RECOGNIZING MILITARY COMMISSIONS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THEIR
TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION OVER ENEMY COMBATANTS UNIMPAIRED BY THE
ARTICLES, CONGRESS GAVE SANCTION, AS WE HELD IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, TO ANY
USE OF THE MILITARY COMMISSION CONTEMPLATED BY THE COMMON LAW OF WAR. 
BUT IT DID NOT THEREBY MAKE SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLES OF WAR PERSONS
OTHER THAN THOSE DEFINED BY ARTICLE 2 AS BEING SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLES,
NOR DID IT CONFER THE BENEFITS OF THE ARTICLES UPON SUCH PERSONS.  THE
ARTICLES RECOGNIZED BUT ONE KIND OF MILITARY COMMISSION, NOT TWO.  BUT
THEY SANCTIONED THE USE OF THAT ONE FOR THE TRIAL OF TWO CLASSES OF
PERSONS, TO ONE OF WHICH THE ARTICLES DO, AND TO THE OTHER OF WHICH
THEY DO NOT, APPLY IN SUCH TRIALS.  BEING OF THIS LATTER CLASS,
PETITIONER CANNOT CLAIM THE BENEFITS OF THE ARTICLES, WHICH ARE
APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE OTHER CLASS.  PETITIONER, AN
ENEMY COMBATANT, IS THEREFORE NOT A PERSON MADE SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLES
OF WAR BY ARTICLE 2, AND THE MILITARY COMMISSION BEFORE WHICH HE WAS
TRIED, THOUGH SANCTIONED, AND ITS JURISDICTION SAVED, BY ARTICLE 15,
WAS NOT CONVENED BY VIRTUE OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, BUT PURSUANT TO THE
COMMON LAW OF WAR.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ARTICLES OF WAR, INCLUDING
ARTICLES 25 AND 38, WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER'S TRIAL AND
IMPOSED NO RESTRICTIONS UPON THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED.  THE
ARTICLES LEFT THE CONTROL OVER THE PROCEDURE IN SUCH A CASE WHERE IT
HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN, WITH THE MILITARY COMMAND. 

PETITIONER FURTHER URGES THAT BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 63 OF THE GENEVA
CONVENTION OF 1929, 47 STAT. 2052, HE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS
AFFORDED BY THE 25TH AND 38TH ARTICLES OF WAR TO MEMBERS OF OUR OWN
FORCES.  ARTICLE 63 PROVIDES:  "SENTENCE MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST A
PRISONER OF WAR ONLY BY THE SAME COURTS AND ACCORDING TO THE SAME
PROCEDURE AS IN THE CASE OF PERSONS BELONGING TO THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE DETAINING POWER."  SINCE PETITIONER IS A PRISONER OF WAR, AND AS
THE 25TH AND 38TH ARTICLES OF WAR APPLY TO THE TRIAL OF ANY PERSON IN
OUR OWN ARMED FORCES, IT IS SAID THAT ARTICLE 63 REQUIRES THEM TO BE
APPLIED IN THE TRIAL OF PETITIONER.  BUT WE THINK EXAMINATION OF
ARTICLE 63 IN ITS SETTING IN THE CONVENTION PLAINLY SHOWS THAT IT
REFERS TO SENTENCE "PRONOUNCED AGAINST A PRISONER OF WAR" FOR AN
OFFENSE COMMITTED WHILE A PRISONER OF WAR, AND NOT FOR A VIOLATION OF
THE LAW OF WAR COMMITTED WHILE A COMBATANT. 

ARTICLE 63 OF THE CONVENTION APPEARS IN PART 3, ENTITLED "JUDICIAL
SUITS," OF CHAPTER 3, "PENALTIES APPLICABLE TO PRISONERS OF WAR," OF
SEC. V, "PRISONERS' RELATIONS WITH THE AUTHORITIES," ONE OF THE
THE CONDUCT AND CONTROL OF PRISONERS OF WAR WHILE IN CAPTIVITY AS
SUCH.  CHAPTER 1 OF SEC. V, ARTICLE 42 DEALS WITH COMPLAINTS OF
PRISONERS OF WAR BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS OF CAPTIVITY.  CHAPTER 2,
ARTICLES 43 AND 44, RELATES TO THOSE OF THEIR NUMBER CHOSEN BY
PRISONERS OF WAR TO REPRESENT THEM. 

CHAPTER 3 OF SEC. V, ARTICLES 45 THROUGH 67, IS ENTITLED "PENALTIES
APPLICABLE TO PRISONERS OF WAR."  PART 1 OF THAT CHAPTER, ARTICLES 45
THROUGH 53, INDICATE WHAT ACTS OF PRISONERS OF WAR, COMMITTED WHILE
PRISONERS, SHALL BE CONSIDERED OFFENSES, AND DEFINES TO SOME EXTENT THE
PUNISHMENT WHICH THE DETAINING POWER MAY IMPOSE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH
OFFENSES.  FN8  PUNISHMENT IS OF TWO KINDS - "DISCIPLINARY" AND
"JUDICIAL," THE LATTER BEING THE MORE SEVERE.  ARTICLE 52 REQUIRES THAT
LENIENCY BE EXERCISED IN DECIDING WHETHER AN OFFENSE REQUIRES
DISCIPLINARY OR JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT.  PART 2 OF CHAPTER 3 IS ENTITLED
"DISCIPLINARY PUNISHMENTS," AND FURTHER DEFINES THE EXTENT OF SUCH
PUNISHMENT, AND THE MODE IN WHICH IT MAY BE IMPOSED.  PART 3, ENTITLED
"JUDICIAL SUITS," IN WHICH ARTICLE 63 IS FOUND, DESCRIBES THE PROCEDURE
BY WHICH "JUDICIAL" PUNISHMENT MAY BE IMPOSED.  THE THREE PARTS OF
CHAPTER 3, TAKEN TOGETHER, ARE THUS A COMPREHENSIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES WHICH PRISONERS OF WAR MAY COMMIT DURING THEIR
IMPRISONMENT, OF THE PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH
OFFENSES, AND OF THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH GUILT MAY BE ADJUDGED AND
SENTENCE PRONOUNCED. 

WE THINK IT CLEAR, FROM THE CONTEXT OF THESE RECITED PROVISIONS, THAT
PART 3, AND ARTICLE 63, WHICH IT CONTAINS, APPLY ONLY TO JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS DIRECTED AGAINST A PRISONER OF WAR FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED
WHILE A PRISONER OF WAR.  SECTION V GIVES NO INDICATION THAT THIS PART
WAS DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH OFFENSES OTHER THAN THOSE REFERRED TO IN
PARTS 1 AND 2 OF CHAPTER 3. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION, IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE TO WHICH
OBJECTION IS NOW MADE, VIOLATED ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, TREATY OR MILITARY
COMMAND DEFINING THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.  FOR REASONS ALREADY
STATED WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION'S RULINGS ON EVIDENCE AND ON THE
MODE OF CONDUCTING THESE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER ARE NOT
REVIEWABLE BY THE COURTS, BUT ONLY BY THE REVIEWING MILITARY
AUTHORITIES.  FROM THIS VIEWPOINT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHAT,
IN OTHER SITUATIONS, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT MIGHT REQUIRE, AND AS TO THAT
NO INTIMATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IS TO BE IMPLIED.  NOTHING WE HAVE
SAID IS TO BE TAKEN AS INDICATING ANY OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF THE
WISDOM OF CONSIDERING SUCH EVIDENCE, OR WHETHER THE ACTION OF A
MILITARY TRIBUNAL IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE, WHICH CONGRESS OR CONTROLLING
MILITARY COMMAND HAS DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED, MAY BE DRAWN IN QUESTION
BY PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OR PROHIBITION. 

EFFECT OF FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE TRIAL TO THE PROTECTING
POWER.  ARTICLE 60 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF JULY 27, 1929, 47 STAT.
2051, TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN WERE SIGNATORIES, PROVIDES
THAT "AT THE OPENING OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING DIRECTED AGAINST A
PRISONER OF WAR, THE DETAINING POWER SHALL ADVISE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE PROTECTING POWER THEREOF AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND ALWAYS BEFORE THE
DATE SET FOR THE OPENING OF THE TRIAL."  PETITIONER RELIES ON THE
FAILURE TO GIVE THE PRESCRIBED NOTICE TO THE PROTECTING POWER  FN9  TO
ESTABLISH WANT OF AUTHORITY IN THE COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH THE
TRIAL. 

FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED WE CONCLUDE THAT ARTICLE 60 OF THE GENEVA
CONVENTION, WHICH APPEARS IN PART 3, CHAPTER 3, SEC. V, TITLE III OF
THE GENEVA CONVENTION, APPLIES ONLY TO PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECTED TO
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED WHILE PRISONERS OF WAR. 
FN10 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE ORDER CONVENING THE COMMISSION WAS A LAWFUL
ORDER, THAT THE COMMISSION WAS LAWFULLY CONSTITUTED, THAT PETITIONER
WAS CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR, AND THAT THE COMMISSION
HAD AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL, AND IN DOING SO DID NOT
VIOLATE ANY MILITARY, STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND.  WE HAVE
CONSIDERED, BUT FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS, OTHER CONTENTIONS WHICH
WE FIND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.  WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE DETENTION
OF PETITIONER FOR TRIAL AND HIS DETENTION UPON HIS CONVICTION, SUBJECT
TO THE PRESCRIBED REVIEW BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES, WERE LAWFUL, AND
THAT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, AND LEAVE TO FILE IN THIS COURT
PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND PROHIBITION SHOULD BE, AND
THEY ARE DENIED. 

FN1 THE COMMISSION ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHORS OF THE WAR
AND ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF PENALTIES OF THE VERSAILLES PEACE CONFERENCE,
WHICH MET AFTER CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR, WERE
OF THE VIEW THAT VIOLATORS OF THE LAW OF WAR COULD BE TRIED BY MILITARY
TRIBUNALS.  SEE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION, MARCH 9, 1919, 14 AM. J. INT.
L. 95, 121.  SEE ALSO MEMORANDUM OF AMERICAN COMMISSIONERS CONCURRING
ON THIS POINT, ID., AT P. 141.  THE TREATIES OF PEACE CONCLUDED AFTER
WORLD WAR I RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF THE ALLIES AND OF THE UNITED STATES
TO TRY SUCH OFFENDERS BEFORE MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  SEE ART. 228 OF
TREATY OF VERSAILLES, JUNE 28, 1919; ART. 173 OF TREATY OF ST. GERMAIN,
SEPT. 10, 1919; ART. 157 OF TREATY OF TRIANON, JUNE 4, 1920. 

THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH ENDED HOSTILITIES IN THE BOER WAR
RESERVED THE RIGHT TO TRY, BEFORE MILITARY TRIBUNALS, ENEMY COMBATANTS
WHO HAD VIOLATED THE LAW OF WAR.  95 BRITISH AND FOREIGN STATE PAPERS
(1901-1902) 160.  SEE ALSO TRIALS CITED IN COLBY, WAR CRIMES, 23
MICHIGAN LAW REV. 482, 496-7. 

FN2  SEE CASES MENTIONED IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, SUPRA, P. 32, NOTE 10,
AND IN 2 WINTHROP, SUPRA,* 1310-1311, N. 5; 14 OP. A.G. 249(MODOC
INDIAN PRISONERS). 

FN3  FAILURE OF AN OFFICER TO TAKE MEASURES TO PREVENT MURDER OF AN
INHABITANT OF AN OCCUPIED COUNTRY COMMITTED IN HIS PRESENCE.  GEN.
ORDERS NO. 221, HQ. DIV. OF THE PHILIPPINES, AUGUST 17, 1901.  AND IN
GEN. ORDERS NO. 264, HQ. DIV. OF THE PHILIPPINES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1901, IT
WAS HELD THAT AN OFFICER COULD NOT BE FOUND GUILTY FOR FAILURE TO
PREVENT A MURDER UNLESS IT APPEARED THAT THE ACCUSED HAD "THE POWER TO
PREVENT" IT. 

FN4  IN ITS FINDINGS THE COMMISSION TOOK ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFICULTIES
"FACED BY THE ACCUSED WITH RESPECT NOT ONLY TO THE SWIFT AND
OVERPOWERING ADVANCE OF AMERICAN FORCES, BUT ALSO TO THE ERRORS OF HIS
PREDECESSORS, WEAKNESSES IN ORGANIZATION, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLY  ...,
TRAINING, COMMUNICATION, DISCIPLINE AND MORALE OF HIS TROOPS," AND THE
"TACTICAL SITUATION, THE CHARACTER, TRAINING AND CAPACITY OF STAFF
OFFICERS AND SUBORDINATE COMMANDERS AS WELL AS THE TRAITS OF CHARACTER
...  OF HIS TROOPS."  IT NONETHELESS FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT
TAKEN SUCH MEASURES TO CONTROL HIS TROOPS AS WERE "REQUIRED BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES."  WE DO NOT WEIGH THE EVIDENCE.  WE MERELY HOLD THAT THE
CHARGE SUFFICIENTLY STATES A VIOLATION AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR, AND THAT
THE COMMISSION, UPON THE FACTS FOUND, COULD PROPERLY FIND PETITIONER
GUILTY OF SUCH A VIOLATION. 

FN5 ARTICLE 25 PROVIDES:  "A DULY AUTHENTICATED DEPOSITION TAKEN UPON
REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY MAY BE READ IN EVIDENCE BEFORE
ANY MILITARY COURT OR COMMISSION IN ANY CASE NOT CAPITAL, OR IN ANY
PROCEEDING BEFORE A COURT OF INQUIRY OR A MILITARY BOARD,  ...
PROVIDED, THAT TESTIMONY BY DEPOSITION MAY BE ADDUCED FOR THE DEFENSE
IN CAPITAL CASES." 

FN6  ARTICLE 38 PROVIDES:  "THE PRESIDENT MAY, BY REGULATIONS, WHICH
HE MAY MODIFY FROM TIME TO TIME, PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE, INCLUDING
MODES OF PROOF, IN CASES BEFORE COURTS-MARTIAL, COURTS OF INQUIRY,
MILITARY COMMISSIONS, AND OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS, WHICH REGULATIONS
SHALL INSOFAR AS HE SHALL DEEM PRACTICABLE, APPLY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
GENERALLY RECOGNIZED IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING CONTRARY TO OR
INCONSISTENT WITH THESE ARTICLES SHALL BE SO PRESCRIBED:..." 

FN7  GENERAL CROWDER, THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, WHO APPEARED BEFORE
CONGRESS AS SPONSOR FOR THE ADOPTION OF ARTICLE 15 AND THE ACCOMPANYING
AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 25, IN EXPLAINING THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 15,
SAID: 

"ARTICLE 15 IS NEW.  WE HAVE INCLUDED IN ARTICLE 2 AS SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW A NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY
MILITARY COMMISSION.  A MILITARY COMMISSION IS OUR COMMON-LAW WAR
COURT.  IT HAS NO STATUTORY EXISTENCE, THOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED BY
STATUTE LAW.  AS LONG AS THE ARTICLES EMBRACED THEM IN THE DESIGNATION
'PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW,' AND PROVIDED THAT THEY MIGHT BE
TRIED BY COURT-MARTIAL, I WAS AFRAID THAT, HAVING MADE A SPECIAL
PROVISION FOR THEIR TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, (ARTS. 12, 13, AND 14) IT
MIGHT BE HELD THAT THE PROVISION OPERATED TO EXCLUDE TRIALS BY MILITARY
COMMISSION AND OTHER WAR COURTS; SO THIS NEW ARTICLE WAS
INTRODUCED:..."  (SEN. R. 130, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 40.) 

FN8  PART 1 OF CHAPTER 3, "GENERAL PROVISIONS," PROVIDES IN ARTICLES
45 AND 46 THAT PRISONERS OF WAR ARE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS IN FORCE
IN THE ARMIES OF THE DETAINING POWER, THAT PUNISHMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE
PROVIDED "FOR THE SAME ACTS FOR SOLDIERS OF THE NATIONAL ARMIES" MAY
NOT BE IMPOSED ON PRISONERS OF WAR, AND THAT "COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT FOR
INDIVIDUAL ACTS" IS FORBIDDEN.  ARTICLE 47 PROVIDES THAT "ACTS
CONSTITUTING AN OFFENSE AGAINST DISCIPLINE, AND PARTICULARLY ATTEMPTED
ESCAPE, SHALL BE VERIFIED IMMEDIATELY; FOR ALL PRISONERS OF WAR,
COMMISSIONED OR NOT, PREVENTIVE ARREST SHALL BE REDUCED TO THE ABSOLUTE
MINIMUM.  JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRISONERS OF WAR SHALL BE
CONDUCTED AS RAPIDLY AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT  ...  IN ALL CASES,
THE DURATION OF PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE
DISCIPLINARY OR JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT INFLICTED  ..."    ARTICLE 48
PROVIDES THAT PRISONERS OF WAR, AFTER HAVING SUFFERED "THE JUDICIAL OR
DISCIPLINARY PUNISHMENT WHICH HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THEM," ARE NOT TO BE
TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER PRISONERS, BUT PROVIDES THAT "PRISONERS
PUNISHED AS A RESULT OF ATTEMPTED ESCAPE MAY BE SUBJECTED TO SPECIAL
SURVEILLANCE."  ARTICLE 49 RECITES THAT PRISONERS "GIVEN DISCIPLINARY
PUNISHMENT MAY NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE PREROGATIVES ATTACHED TO THEIR
RANK."  ARTICLES 50 AND 51 DEAL WITH ESCAPED PRISONERS WHO HAVE BEEN
RETAKEN OR PRISONERS WHO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ESCAPE.  ARTICLE 52
PROVIDES: "BELLIGERENTS SHALL SEE THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
EXERCISE THE GREATEST LENIENCY IN DECIDING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN
INFRACTION COMMITTED BY A PRISONER OF WAR SHOULD BE PUNISHED BY
DISCIPLINARY OR JUDICIAL MEASURES.  THIS SHALL BE THE CASE ESPECIALLY
WHEN IT IS A QUESTION OF DECIDING ON ACTS IN CONNECTION WITH ESCAPE OR
ATTEMPTED ESCAPE....  A PRISONER MAY NOT BE PUNISHED MORE THAN ONCE
BECAUSE OF THE SAME ACT OR THE SAME COUNT." 

FN9  SWITZERLAND, AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, WAS THE POWER DESIGNATED
BY JAPAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF JAPANESE PRISONERS OF WAR DETAINED BY
THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT IN HAWAII.  U.S. DEPT. OF STATE BULL., VOL.
XIII, NO. 317, P. 125. 

FN10  ONE OF THE ITEMS OF THE BILL OF PARTICULARS, IN SUPPORT OF THE
CHARGE AGAINST PETITIONER, SPECIFIES THAT HE PERMITTED MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES UNDER HIS COMMAND TO TRY AND EXECUTE THREE NAMED AND OTHER
PRISONERS OF WAR, "SUBJECTING TO TRIAL WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROTECTING POWER, WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND,
AND WITHOUT COUNSEL; DENYING OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL FROM THE SENTENCE
RENDERED; FAILING TO NOTIFY THE PROTECTING POWER OF THE SENTENCE
PRONOUNCED; AND EXECUTING A DEATH SENTENCE WITHOUT COMMUNICATING TO THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROTECTING POWER THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE OFFENSE CHARGED."  IT MIGHT BE SUGGESTED THAT IF ARTICLE 60 IS
INAPPLICABLE TO PETITIONER IT IS INAPPLICABLE IN THE CASES SPECIFIED,
AND THAT HENCE HE COULD NOT BE LAWFULLY HELD OR CONVICTED ON A CHARGE
OF FAILING TO REQUIRE THE NOTICE, PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 60, TO BE
GIVEN. 

AS THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE CHARGE AND
SPECIFICATIONS THAT THE PRISONERS IN QUESTION WERE NOT CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES COMMITTED BY THEM AS PRISONERS RATHER THAN WITH OFFENSES
AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR COMMITTED BY THEM AS ENEMY COMBATANTS.  BUT
APART FROM THIS CONSIDERATION, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION, IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR, ON WHICH
THERE COULD BE A CONVICTION IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, TO INFLICT
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ON PRISONERS OF WAR WITHOUT AFFORDING TO THEM
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DEFENSE.  2 WINTHROP, SUPRA,*  434-435, 1241;
ARTICLE 84, OXFORD MANUAL, LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND; U.S. WAR
DEPT., BASIC FIELD MANUAL, RULES OF LAND WARFARE (1940) PAR. 356;
LIEBER'S CODE, G.O. NO. 100(1863) INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, PAR. 12; SPAIGHT, WAR RIGHTS
ON LAND, 462, N. 

FURTHER, THE COMMISSION, IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, SUMMARIZED AS
FOLLOWS THE CHARGES, ON WHICH IT ACTED, IN THREE CLASSES, ANY ONE OF
WHICH, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHERS IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION:  (1) EXECUTION OR MASSACRE
WITHOUT TRIAL AND MALADMINISTRATION GENERALLY OF CIVILIAN INTERNEES AND
PRISONERS OF WAR; (2) BRUTALITIES COMMITTED UPON THE CIVILIAN
POPULATION, AND (3) BURNING AND DEMOLITION, WITHOUT ADEQUATE MILITARY
NECESSITY, OF A LARGE NUMBER OF HOMES, PLACES OF BUSINESS, PLACES OF
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, HOSPITALS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS. 

THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED:  "(1) THAT A SERIES OF ATROCITIES AND OTHER
HIGH CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE JAPANESE ARMED
FORCES" UNDER COMMAND OF PETITIONER "AGAINST PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES, THEIR ALLIES AND DEPENDENCIES  ...; THAT THEY WERE NOT SPORADIC
IN NATURE BUT IN MANY CASES WERE METHODICALLY SUPERVISED BY JAPANESE
OFFICERS AND NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS"; (2) THAT DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION PETITIONER "FAILED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF  ...  (HIS)
TROOPS, AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  THE COMMISSION SAID:
"...  WHERE MURDER AND RAPE AND VICIOUS, REVENGEFUL ACTIONS ARE
WIDESPREAD OFFENSES, AND THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE ATTEMPT BY A COMMANDER
TO DISCOVER AND CONTROL THE CRIMINAL ACTS, SUCH A COMMANDER MAY BE HELD
RESPONSIBLE, EVEN CRIMINALLY LIABLE, FOR THE LAWLESS ACTS OF HIS
TROOPS, DEPENDING UPON THEIR NATURE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING
THEM." 

THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDING OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENEVA
CONVENTION.  NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION FROM WHICH WE
COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE ALLEGED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 60 OF THE
GENEVA CONVENTION HAD ANY RELATION TO THE COMMISSION'S FINDING OF A
SERIES OF ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE FORCES UNDER
PETITIONER'S COMMAND, AND THAT HE FAILED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE CONTROL
OF HIS TROOPS, AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES; OR WHICH COULD
SUPPORT THE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER
HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED FOR FAILURE TO REQUIRE THE NOTICE
PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 60 TO BE GIVEN. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE FACING THE COURT TODAY CANNOT BE
OVEREMPHASIZED.  AN AMERICAN MILITARY COMMISSION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
TO TRY A FALLEN MILITARY COMMANDER OF A CONQUERED NATION FOR AN ALLEGED
WAR CRIME.  THE AUTHORITY FOR SUCH ACTION GROWS OUT OF THE EXERCISE OF
THE POWER CONFERRED UPON CONGRESS BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 10 OF THE
CONSTITUTION TO "DEFINE AND PUNISH ...  OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF
NATIONS  ..."  THE GRAVE ISSUE RAISED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER A
MILITARY COMMISSION SO ESTABLISHED AND SO AUTHORIZED MAY DISREGARD THE
PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED PERSON AS GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, ESPECIALLY BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE ANSWER IS PLAIN.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW APPLIES TO "ANY PERSON" WHO IS ACCUSED OF A CRIME BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES.  NO EXCEPTION IS MADE AS TO THOSE
WHO ARE ACCUSED OF WAR CRIMES OR AS TO THOSE WHO POSSESS THE STATUS OF
AN ENEMY BELLIGERENT.  INDEED, SUCH AN EXCEPTION WOULD BE CONTRARY TO
THE WHOLE PHILOSOPHY OF HUMAN RIGHTS WHICH MAKES THE CONSTITUTION THE
GREAT LIVING DOCUMENT THAT IT IS.  THE IMMUTABLE RIGHTS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL, INCLUDING THOSE SECURED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, BELONG NOT ALONE TO THE MEMBERS OF THOSE NATIONS THAT
EXCEL ON THE BATTLEFIELD OR THAT SUBSCRIBE TO THE DEMOCRATIC IDEOLOGY. 
THEY BELONG TO EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD, VICTOR OR VANQUISHED,
WHATEVER MAY BE HIS RACE, COLOR OR BELIEFS.  THEY RISE ABOVE ANY STATUS
OF BELLIGERENCY OR OUTLAWRY.  THEY SURVIVE ANY POPULAR PASSION OR
FRENZY OF THE MOMENT.  NO COURT OR LEGISLATURE OR EXECUTIVE, NOT EVEN
THE MIGHTIEST ARMY IN THE WORLD, CAN EVER DESTROY THEM.  SUCH IS THE
UNIVERSAL AND INDESTRUCTIBLE NATURE OF THE RIGHTS WHICH THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RECOGNIZES AND PROTECTS WHEN LIFE OR
LIBERTY IS THREATENED BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE EXISTENCE OF THESE RIGHTS, UNFORTUNATELY, IS NOT ALWAYS
RESPECTED.  THEY ARE OFTEN TRAMPLED UNDER BY THOSE WHO ARE MOTIVATED BY
HATRED, AGGRESSION OR FEAR.  BUT IN THIS NATION INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE
RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED, AT LEAST IN REGARD TO GOVERNMENTAL ACTION. 
THEY CANNOT BE IGNORED BY ANY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, EVEN THE
MILITARY, EXCEPT UNDER THE MOST EXTREME AND URGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE FAILURE OF THE MILITARY COMMISSION TO OBEY THE DICTATES OF THE
DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS APPARENT IN THIS
CASE.  THE PETITIONER WAS THE COMMANDER OF AN ARMY TOTALLY DESTROYED BY
THE SUPERIOR POWER OF THIS NATION.  WHILE UNDER HEAVY AND DESTRUCTIVE
ATTACK BY OUR FORCES, HIS TROOPS COMMITTED MANY BRUTAL ATROCITIES AND
OTHER HIGH CRIMES.  HOSTILITIES CEASED AND HE VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED. 
AT THAT POINT HE WAS ENTITLED, AS AN INDIVIDUAL PROTECTED BY THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, TO BE TREATED FAIRLY AND JUSTLY
ACCORDING TO THE ACCEPTED RULES OF LAW AND PROCEDURE.  HE WAS ALSO
ENTITLED TO A FAIR TRIAL AS TO ANY ALLEGED CRIMES AND TO BE FREE FROM
CHARGES OF LEGALLY UNRECOGNIZED CRIMES THAT WOULD SERVE ONLY TO PERMIT
HIS ACCUSERS TO SATISFY THEIR DESIRES FOR REVENGE. 

A MILITARY COMMISSION WAS APPOINTED TO TRY THE PETITIONER FOR AN
ALLEGED WAR CRIME.  THE TRIAL WAS ORDERED TO BE HELD IN TERRITORY OVER
WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS COMPLETE SOVEREIGNTY.  NO MILITARY
NECESSITY OR OTHER EMERGENCY DEMANDED THE SUSPENSION OF THE SAFEGUARDS
OF DUE PROCESS.  YET PETITIONER WAS RUSHED TO TRIAL UNDER AN IMPROPER
CHARGE, GIVEN INSUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE,
DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFITS OF SOME OF THE MOST ELEMENTARY RULES OF
EVIDENCE AND SUMMARILY SENTENCED TO BE HANGED.  IN ALL THIS NEEDLESS
AND UNSEEMLY HASTE THERE WAS NO SERIOUS ATTEMPT TO CHARGE OR TO PROVE
THAT HE COMMITTED A RECOGNIZED VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR.  HE WAS
NOT CHARGED WITH PERSONALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE ACTS OF ATROCITY OR
WITH ORDERING OR CONDONING THEIR COMMISSION.  NOT EVEN KNOWLEDGE OF
THESE CRIMES WAS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM.  IT WAS SIMPLY ALLEGED THAT HE
UNLAWFULLY DISREGARDED AND FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTY AS COMMANDER TO
CONTROL THE OPERATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF HIS COMMAND, PERMITTING THEM
TO COMMIT THE ACTS OF ATROCITY.  THE RECORDED ANNALS OF WARFARE AND THE
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AFFORD NOT THE SLIGHTEST
PRECEDENT FOR SUCH A CHARGE.  THIS INDICTMENT IN EFFECT PERMITTED THE
MILITARY COMMISSION TO MAKE THE CRIME WHATEVER IT WILLED, DEPENDENT
UPON ITS BIASED VIEW AS TO PETITIONER'S DUTIES AND HIS DISREGARD
THEREOF, A PRACTICE REMINISCENT OF THAT PURSUED IN CERTAIN LESS
RESPECTED NATIONS IN RECENT YEARS. 

IN MY OPINION, SUCH A PROCEDURE IS UNWORTHY OF THE TRADITIONS OF OUR
PEOPLE OR OF THE IMMENSE SACRIFICES THAT THEY HAVE MADE TO ADVANCE THE
COMMON IDEALS OF MANKIND.  THE HIGH FEELINGS OF THE MOMENT DOUBTLESS
WILL BE SATISFIED.  BUT IN THE SOBER AFTERGLOW WILL COME THE
REALIZATION OF THE BOUNDLESS AND DANGEROUS IMPLICATIONS OF THE
PROCEDURE SANCTIONED TODAY.  NO ONE IN A POSITION OF COMMAND IN AN
ARMY, FROM SERGEANT TO GENERAL, CAN ESCAPE THOSE IMPLICATIONS.  INDEED,
THE FATE OF SOME FUTURE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND HIS CHIEFS
OF STAFF AND MILITARY ADVISERS MAY WELL HAVE BEEN SEALED BY THIS
DECISION.  BUT EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT WILL BE THE HATRED AND ILL-WILL
GROWING OUT OF THE APPLICATION OF THIS UNPRECEDENTED PROCEDURE.  THAT
HAS BEEN THE INEVITABLE EFFECT OF EVERY METHOD OF PUNISHMENT
DISREGARDING THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL CULPABILITY.  THE EFFECT IN THIS
INSTANCE, UNFORTUNATELY, WILL BE MAGNIFIED INFINITELY, FOR HERE WE ARE
DEALING WITH THE RIGHTS OF MAN ON AN INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.  TO SUBJECT
AN ENEMY BELLIGERENT TO AN UNFAIR TRIAL, TO CHARGE HIM WITH AN
UNRECOGNIZED CRIME, OR TO VENT ON HIM OUR RETRIBUTIVE EMOTIONS ONLY
ANTAGONIZES THE ENEMY NATION AND HINDERS THE RECONCILIATION NECESSARY
TO A PEACEFUL WORLD. 

THAT THERE WERE BRUTAL ATROCITIES INFLICTED UPON THE HELPLESS
FILIPINO PEOPLE, TO WHOM TYRANNY IS NO STRANGER, BY JAPANESE ARMED
FORCES UNDER THE PETITIONER'S COMMAND IS UNDENIABLE.  STARVATION,
EXECUTION OR MASSACRE WITHOUT TRIAL, TORTURE, RAPE, MURDER AND WANTON
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY WERE FOREMOST AMONG THE OUTRIGHT VIOLATIONS OF
THE LAWS OF WAR AND OF THE CONSCIENCE OF A CIVILIZED WORLD.  THAT JUST
PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE METED OUT TO ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL
ACTS OF THIS NATURE IS ALSO BEYOND DISPUTE.  BUT THESE FACTORS DO NOT
ANSWER THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE.  THEY DO NOT JUSTIFY THE ABANDONMENT
OF OUR DEVOTION TO JUSTICE IN DEALING WITH A FALLEN ENEMY COMMANDER. 
TO CONCLUDE OTHERWISE IS TO ADMIT THAT THE ENEMY HAS LOST THE BATTLE
BUT HAS DESTROYED OUR IDEALS. 

WAR BREEDS ATROCITIES.  FROM THE EARLIEST CONFLICTS OF RECORDED
HISTORY TO THE GLOBAL STRUGGLES OF MODERN TIMES INHUMANITIES, LUST AND
PILLAGE HAVE BEEN THE INEVITABLE BY-PRODUCTS OF MAN'S RESORT TO FORCE
AND ARMS.  UNFORTUNATELY, SUCH DESPICABLE ACTS HAVE A DANGEROUS
TENDENCY TO CALL FORTH PRIMITIVE IMPULSES OF VENGEANCE AND RETALIATION
AMONG THE VICTIMIZED PEOPLES.  THE SATISFACTION OF SUCH IMPULSES IN
TURN BREEDS RESENTMENT AND FRESH TENSION.  THUS DOES THE SPIRAL OF
CRUELTY AND HATRED GROW. 

IF WE ARE EVER TO DEVELOP AN ORDERLY INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY BASED
UPON A RECOGNITION OF HUMAN DIGNITY IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT
THE NECESSARY PUNISHMENT OF THOSE GUILTY OF ATROCITIES BE AS FREE AS
POSSIBLE FROM THE UGLY STIGMA OF REVENGE AND VINDICTIVENESS.  JUSTICE
MUST BE TEMPERED BY COMPASSION RATHER THAN BY VENGEANCE.  IN THIS, THE
FIRST CASE INVOLVING THIS MOMENTOUS PROBLEM EVER TO REACH THIS COURT,
OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS BOTH LOFTY AND DIFFICULT.  WE MUST INSIST, WITHIN
THE CONFINES OF OUR PROPER JURISDICTION, THAT THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF
JUSTICE BE APPLIED IN THIS TRIAL OF AN ENEMY COMMANDER CONDUCTED UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  OTHERWISE STARK RETRIBUTION WILL
BE FREE TO MASQUERADE IN A CLOAK OF FALSE LEGALISM.  AND THE HATRED AND
CYNICISM ENGENDERED BY THAT RETRIBUTION WILL SUPPLANT THE GREAT IDEALS
TO WHICH THIS NATION IS DEDICATED.    THIS COURT FORTUNATELY HAS TAKEN
THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT STEP TOWARD INSURING THE SUPREMACY OF LAW
AND JUSTICE IN THE TREATMENT OF AN ENEMY BELLIGERENT ACCUSED OF
VIOLATING THE LAWS OF WAR.  JURISDICTION PROPERLY HAS BEEN ASSERTED TO
INQUIRE "INTO THE CAUSE OF RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY" OF SUCH A PERSON.  28
U.S.C. SEC. 452.  THUS THE OBNOXIOUS DOCTRINE ASSERTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE, TO THE EFFECT THAT RESTRAINTS OF LIBERTY
RESULTING FROM MILITARY TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS ARE POLITICAL MATTERS
COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE ARENA OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, HAS BEEN REJECTED
FULLY AND UNQUESTIONABLY.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN, OF COURSE, THAT THE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND POLICIES OF THE NATION ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF
JUDICIAL INQUIRY.  BUT WHEN THE LIBERTY OF ANY PERSON IS RESTRAINED BY
REASON OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IS AVAILABLE TO TEST THE LEGALITY OF THAT RESTRAINT, EVEN THOUGH DIRECT
COURT REVIEW OF THE RESTRAINT IS PROHIBITED.  THE CONCLUSIVE
PRESUMPTION MUST BE MADE, IN THIS COUNTRY AT LEAST, THAT ILLEGAL
RESTRAINTS ARE UNAUTHORIZED AND UNJUSTIFIED BY ANY FOREIGN POLICY OF
THE GOVERNMENT AND THAT COMMONLY ACCEPTED JURIDICAL STANDARDS ARE TO BE
RECOGNIZED AND ENFORCED.  ON THAT BASIS JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO THESE
MATTERS MAY PROCEED WITHIN ITS PROPER SPHERE. 

THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT OF REVIEW OF WAR TRIALS CALLS FOR
JUDICIAL STATESMANSHIP OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.  THE ULTIMATE NATURE AND
SCOPE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ARE WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE
JUDICIARY UNLESS VALIDLY CIRCUMSCRIBED BY CONGRESS.  HERE WE ARE
CONFRONTED WITH A USE OF THE WRIT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES NOVEL IN THE
HISTORY OF THE COURT.  FOR MY OWN PART, I DO NOT FEEL THAT WE SHOULD BE
CONFINED BY THE TRADITIONAL LINES OF REVIEW DRAWN IN CONNECTION WITH
THE USE OF THE WRIT BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS WHO HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE
JUDICIARY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  THOSE HELD BY THE MILITARY LACK ANY
SUCH ACCESS; CONSEQUENTLY THE JUDICIAL REVIEW AVAILABLE BY HABEAS
CORPUS MUST BE WIDER THAN USUAL IN ORDER THAT PROPER STANDARDS OF
JUSTICE MAY BE ENFORCEABLE. 

BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE I ACCEPT THE SCOPE OF REVIEW
RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT AT THIS TIME.  AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE
FOLLOWING ISSUES IN CONNECTION WITH WAR CRIMINAL TRIALS ARE REVIEWABLE
THROUGH THE USE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS:  (1) WHETHER THE MILITARY
COMMISSION WAS LAWFULLY CREATED AND HAD AUTHORITY TO TRY AND TO CONVICT
THE ACCUSED OF A WAR CRIME; (2) WHETHER THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED
STATED A VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR; (3) WHETHER THE COMMISSION, IN
ADMITTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE, VIOLATED ANY LAW OR MILITARY COMMAND
DEFINING THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY IN THAT RESPECT; AND (4) WHETHER
THE COMMISSION LACKED JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO GIVE ADVANCE
NOTICE TO THE PROTECTING POWER AS REQUIRED BY TREATY OR CONVENTION. 

THE COURT, IN MY JUDGMENT, DEMONSTRATES CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE
MILITARY COMMISSION WAS LAWFULLY CREATED IN THIS INSTANCE AND THAT
PETITIONER COULD NOT OBJECT TO ITS POWER TO TRY HIM FOR A RECOGNIZED
WAR CRIME.  WITHOUT PAUSING HERE TO DISCUSS THE THIRD AND FOURTH
ISSUES, HOWEVER, I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO AGREE THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST
THE PETITIONER STATED A RECOGNIZED VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR. 

IT IS IMPORTANT, IN THE FIRST PLACE, TO APPRECIATE THE BACKGROUND OF
EVENTS PRECEDING THIS TRIAL.  FROM OCTOBER 9, 1944, TO SEPTEMBER 2,
1945, THE PETITIONER WAS THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE 14TH ARMY GROUP
OF THE IMPERIAL JAPANESE ARMY, WITH HEADQUARTERS IN THE PHILIPPINES. 
THE RECONQUEST OF THE PHILIPPINES BY THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES BEGAN APPROXIMATELY AT THE TIME WHEN THE PETITIONER ASSUMED THIS
COMMAND.  COMBINED WITH A GREAT AND DECISIVE SEA BATTLE, AN INVASION
WAS MADE ON THE ISLAND OF LEYTE ON OCTOBER 20, 1944.  "IN THE SIX DAYS
OF THE GREAT NAVAL ACTION THE JAPANESE POSITION IN THE PHILIPPINES HAD
BECOME EXTREMELY CRITICAL.  MOST OF THE SERVICEABLE ELEMENTS OF THE
JAPANESE NAVY HAD BEEN COMMITTED TO THE BATTLE WITH DISASTROUS
RESULTS.  THE STRIKE HAD MISCARRIED, AND GENERAL MACARTHUR'S LAND WEDGE
WAS FIRMLY IMPLANTED IN THE VULNERABLE FLANK OF THE ENEMY  ...  THERE
WERE 260,000 JAPANESE TROOPS SCATTERED OVER THE PHILIPPINES BUT MOST OF
THEM MIGHT AS WELL HAVE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD SO FAR AS
THE ENEMY'S ABILITY TO SHIFT THEM TO MEET THE AMERICAN THRUSTS WAS
CONCERNED.  IF GENERAL MACARTHUR SUCCEEDED IN ESTABLISHING HIMSELF IN
THE VISAYAS WHERE HE COULD STAGE, EXPLOIT, AND SPREAD UNDER COVER OF
OVERWHELMING NAVAL AND AIR SUPERIORITY, NOTHING COULD PREVENT HIM FROM
OVERRUNNING THE PHILIPPINES."  BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF
THE UNITED STATES ARMY, JULY 1, 1943, TO JUNE 30, 1945, TO THE
SECRETARY OF WAR, P. 74. 

BY THE END OF 1944 THE ISLAND OF LEYTE WAS LARGELY IN AMERICAN
HANDS.  AND ON JANUARY 9, 1945, THE ISLAND OF LUZON WAS INVADED. 
"YAMASHITA'S INABILITY TO COPE WITH GENERAL MACARTHUR'S SWIFT MOVES,
HIS DESIRED REACTION TO THE DECEPTION MEASURES, THE GUERRILLAS, AND
GENERAL KENNEY'S AIRCRAFT COMBINED TO PLACE THE JAPANESE IN AN
IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION.  THE ENEMY WAS FORCED INTO A PIECEMEAL COMMITMENT
OF HIS TROOPS."  IBID., P. 78.  IT WAS AT THIS TIME AND PLACE THAT MOST
OF THE ALLEGED ATROCITIES TOOK PLACE.  ORGANIZED RESISTANCE AROUND
MANILA CEASED ON FEBRUARY 23.  REPEATED LAND AND AIR ASSAULTS
PULVERIZED THE ENEMY AND WITHIN A FEW MONTHS THERE WAS LITTLE LEFT OF
PETITIONER'S COMMAND EXCEPT A FEW REMNANTS WHICH HAD GATHERED FOR A
LAST STAND AMONG THE PRECIPITOUS MOUNTAINS. 

AS THE MILITARY COMMISSION HERE NOTED, "THE DEFENSE ESTABLISHED THE
DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THE ACCUSED WITH RESPECT NOT ONLY TO THE SWIFT
AND OVERPOWERING ADVANCE OF AMERICAN FORCES, BUT ALSO TO THE ERRORS OF
HIS PREDECESSORS, WEAKNESSES IN ORGANIZATION, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLY WITH
ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO FOOD AND GASOLINE, TRAINING, COMMUNICATION,
DISCIPLINE AND MORALE OF HIS TROOPS.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE SUDDEN
ASSIGNMENT OF NAVAL AND AIR FORCES TO HIS TACTICAL COMMAND PRESENTED
ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLE DIFFICULTIES.  THIS SITUATION WAS FOLLOWED, THE
DEFENSE CONTENDED, BY FAILURE TO OBEY HIS ORDERS TO WITHDRAW TROOPS
FROM MANILA, AND THE SUBSEQUENT MASSACRE OF UNARMED CIVILIANS,
PARTICULARLY BY NAVAL FORCES.  PRIOR TO THE LUZON CAMPAIGN, NAVAL
FORCES HAD REPORTED TO A SEPARATE MINISTRY IN THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
AND NAVAL COMMANDERS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN RECEPTIVE OR EXPERIENCED IN THIS
INSTANCE WITH RESPECT TO A JOINT LAND OPERATION UNDER A SINGLE
COMMANDER WHO WAS DESIGNATED FROM THE ARMY SERVICE." 

THE DAY OF FINAL RECKONING FOR THE ENEMY ARRIVED IN AUGUST, 1945.  ON
SEPTEMBER 3, THE PETITIONER SURRENDERED TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY AT
BAGUIO, LUZON.  HE IMMEDIATELY BECAME A PRISONER OF WAR AND WAS
INTERNED IN PRISON IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. 
ON SEPTEMBER 25, APPROXIMATELY THREE WEEKS AFTER SURRENDERING, HE WAS
SERVED WITH THE CHARGE IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  UPON SERVICE OF THE
CHARGE HE WAS REMOVED FROM THE STATUS OF A PRISONER OF WAR AND PLACED
IN CONFINEMENT AS AN ACCUSED WAR CRIMINAL.  ARRAIGNMENT FOLLOWED ON
OCTOBER 8 BEFORE A MILITARY COMMISSION SPECIALLY APPOINTED FOR THE
CASE.  PETITIONER PLEADED NOT GUILTY.  HE WAS ALSO SERVED ON THAT DAY
WITH A BILL OF PARTICULARS ALLEGING 64 CRIMES BY TROOPS UNDER HIS
COMMAND.  A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL ALLEGING 59 MORE CRIMES BY HIS TROOPS WAS
FILED ON OCTOBER 29, THE SAME DAY THAT THE TRIAL BEGAN.  NO CONTINUANCE
WAS ALLOWED FOR PREPARATION OF A DEFENSE AS TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL. 
THE TRIAL CONTINUED UNINTERRUPTED UNTIL DECEMBER 5, 1945.  ON DECEMBER
7 PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY AS CHARGED AND WAS SENTENCED TO BE
HANGED. 

THE PETITIONER WAS ACCUSED OF HAVING "UNLAWFULLY DISREGARDED AND
FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTY AS COMMANDER TO CONTROL THE OPERATIONS OF
THE MEMBERS OF HIS COMMAND, PERMITTING THEM TO COMMIT BRUTAL ATROCITIES
AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES."  THE BILLS OF PARTICULARS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT
SPECIFIC ACTS OF ATROCITY WERE COMMITTED BY "MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF JAPAN UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE ACCUSED."  NOWHERE WAS IT
ALLEGED THAT THE PETITIONER PERSONALLY COMMITTED ANY OF THE ATROCITIES,
OR THAT HE ORDERED THEIR COMMISSION, OR THAT HE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF
THE COMMISSION THEREOF BY MEMBERS OF HIS COMMAND. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE MILITARY COMMISSION BEAR OUT THIS ABSENCE OF ANY
DIRECT PERSONAL CHARGE AGAINST THE PETITIONER.  THE COMMISSION MERELY
FOUND THAT ATROCITIES AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES "HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY
MEMBERS OF THE JAPANESE ARMED FORCES UNDER YOUR COMMAND  ...  THAT THEY
WERE NOT SPORADIC IN NATURE BUT IN MANY CASES WERE METHODICALLY
SUPERVISED BY JAPANESE OFFICERS AND NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS; ...  THAT
DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE CONTROL
OF YOUR TROOPS AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES." 

IN OTHER WORDS, READ AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF MILITARY EVENTS IN THE
PHILIPPINES SUBSEQUENT TO OCTOBER 9, 1944, THESE CHARGES AMOUNT TO
THIS:  "WE, THE VICTORIOUS AMERICAN FORCES, HAVE DONE EVERYTHING
POSSIBLE TO DESTROY AND DISORGANIZE YOUR LINES OF COMMUNICATION, YOUR
EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF YOUR PERSONNEL, YOUR ABILITY TO WAGE WAR.  IN
THOSE RESPECTS WE HAVE SUCCEEDED.  WE HAVE DEFEATED AND CRUSHED YOUR
FORCES.  AND NOW WE CHARGE AND CONDEMN YOU FOR HAVING BEEN INEFFICIENT
IN MAINTAINING CONTROL OF YOUR TROOPS DURING THE PERIOD WHEN WE WERE SO
EFFECTIVELY BESIEGING AND ELIMINATING YOUR FORCES AND BLOCKING YOUR
ABILITY TO MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE CONTROL.  MANY TERRIBLE ATROCITIES WERE
COMMITTED BY YOUR DISORGANIZED TROOPS.  BECAUSE THESE ATROCITIES WERE
SO WIDESPREAD WE WILL NOT BOTHER TO CHARGE OR PROVE THAT YOU COMMITTED,
ORDERED OR CONDONED ANY OF THEM.  WE WILL ASSUME THAT THEY MUST HAVE
RESULTED FROM YOUR INEFFICIENCY AND NEGLIGENCE AS A COMMANDER.  IN
SHORT, WE CHARGE YOU WITH THE CRIME OF INEFFICIENCY IN CONTROLLING YOUR
TROOPS.  WE WILL JUDGE THE DISCHARGE OF YOUR DUTIES BY THE
DISORGANIZATION WHICH WE OURSELVES CREATED IN LARGE PART.  OUR
STANDARDS OF JUDGMENT ARE WHATEVER WE WISH TO MAKE THEM." 

NOTHING IN ALL HISTORY OR IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, AT LEAST AS FAR AS I
AM AWARE, JUSTIFIES SUCH A CHARGE AGAINST A FALLEN COMMANDER OF A
DEFEATED FORCE.  TO USE THE VERY INEFFICIENCY AND DISORGANIZATION
CREATED BY THE VICTORIOUS FORCES AS THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR CONDEMNING
OFFICERS OF THE DEFEATED ARMIES BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO JUSTICE OR TO
MILITARY REALITY. 

INTERNATIONAL LAW MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO DEFINE THE DUTIES OF A
COMMANDER OF AN ARMY UNDER CONSTANT AND OVERWHELMING ASSAULT; NOR DOES
IT IMPOSE LIABILITY UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE
ORDINARY RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMAND.  THE OMISSION IS UNDERSTANDABLE. 
DUTIES, AS WELL AS ABILITY TO CONTROL TROOPS, VARY ACCORDING TO THE
NATURE AND INTENSITY OF THE PARTICULAR BATTLE.  TO FIND AN UNLAWFUL
DEVIATION FROM DUTY UNDER BATTLE CONDITIONS REQUIRES DIFFICULT AND
SPECULATIVE CALCULATIONS.  SUCH CALCULATIONS BECOME HIGHLY
UNTRUSTWORTHY WHEN THEY ARE MADE BY THE VICTOR IN RELATION TO THE
ACTIONS OF A VANQUISHED COMMANDER.  OBJECTIVE AND REALISTIC NORMS OF
CONDUCT ARE THEN EXTREMELY UNLIKELY TO BE USED IN FORMING A JUDGMENT AS
TO DEVIATIONS FROM DUTY.  THE PROBABILITY THAT VENGEANCE WILL FORM THE
MAJOR PART OF THE VICTOR'S JUDGMENT IS AN UNFORTUNATE BUT INESCAPABLE
FACT.  SO GREAT IS THAT PROBABILITY THAT INTERNATIONAL LAW REFUSES TO
RECOGNIZE SUCH A JUDGMENT AS A BASIS FOR A WAR CRIME, HOWEVER FAIR THE
JUDGMENT MAY BE IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE.  IT IS THIS CONSIDERATION
THAT UNDERMINES THE CHARGE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE.  THE
INDICTMENT PERMITS, INDEED COMPELS, THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF A
VICTORIOUS NATION TO SIT IN JUDGMENT UPON THE MILITARY STRATEGY AND
ACTIONS OF THE DEFEATED ENEMY AND TO USE ITS CONCLUSIONS TO DETERMINE
THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF AN ENEMY COMMANDER.  LIFE AND LIBERTY ARE
MADE TO DEPEND UPON THE BIASED WILL OF THE VICTOR RATHER THAN UPON
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT. 

THE COURT'S RELIANCE UPON VAGUE AND INDEFINITE REFERENCES IN CERTAIN
OF THE HAGUE CONVENTIONS AND THE GENEVA RED CROSS CONVENTION IS
MISPLACED.  THUS THE STATEMENT IN ARTICLE 1 OF THE ANNEX TO HAGUE
CONVENTION NO. IV OF OCTOBER 18, 1907, 36 STAT. 2277, 2295, TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE LAWS, RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF WAR APPLY TO MILITARY AND
VOLUNTEER CORPS ONLY IF THEY ARE "COMMANDED BY A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR
HIS SUBORDINATES," HAS NO BEARING UPON THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE.  EVEN
IF IT HAS, THE CLAUSE "RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS SUBORDINATES" FAILS TO STATE
TO WHOM THE RESPONSIBILITY IS OWED OR TO INDICATE THE TYPE OF
RESPONSIBILITY CONTEMPLATED.  THE PHRASE HAS RECEIVED DIFFERING
INTERPRETATIONS BY AUTHORITIES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW.  IN OPPENHEIM,
INTERNATIONAL LAW (6TH ED., REV. BY LAUTERPACHT, 1940, VOL. 2, P. 204,
FN. 3) IT IS STATED THAT "THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'RESPONSIBLE'...  IS
NOT CLEAR.  IT PROBABLY MEANS 'RESPONSIBLE TO SOME HIGHER AUTHORITY,'
WHETHER THE PERSON IS APPOINTED FROM ABOVE OR ELECTED FROM BELOW; ..." 
ANOTHER AUTHORITY HAS STATED THAT THE WORD "RESPONSIBLE" IN THIS
PARTICULAR CONTEXT MEANS "PRESUMABLY TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY," OR
"POSSIBLY IT MERELY MEANS ONE WHO CONTROLS HIS SUBORDINATES AND WHO
THEREFORE CAN BE CALLED TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR ACTS."  WHEATON,
INTERNATIONAL LAW (7TH ED., BY KEITH, LONDON, 1944, P. 172, FN. 30). 
STILL ANOTHER AUTHORITY, WESTLAKE, INTERNATIONAL LAW (1907, PART II, P.
61), STATES THAT "PROBABLY THE RESPONSIBILITY INTENDED IS NOTHING MORE
THAN A CAPACITY OF EXERCISING EFFECTIVE CONTROL."  FINALLY, EDMONDS AND
OPPENHEIM, LAND WARFARE (1912, P. 19, PAR. 22) STATE THAT IT IS ENOUGH
"IF THE COMMANDER OF THE CORPS IS REGULARLY OR TEMPORARILY COMMISSIONED
AS AN OFFICER OR IS A PERSON OF POSITION AND AUTHORITY  ..."  IT SEEMS
APPARENT BEYOND DISPUTE THAT THE WORD "RESPONSIBLE" WAS NOT USED IN
THIS PARTICULAR HAGUE CONVENTION TO HOLD THE COMMANDER OF A DEFEATED
ARMY TO ANY HIGH STANDARD OF EFFICIENCY WHEN HE IS UNDER DESTRUCTIVE
ATTACK; NOR WAS IT USED TO IMPUTE TO HIM ANY CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
FOR WAR CRIMES COMMITTED BY TROOPS UNDER HIS COMMAND UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES.    THE PROVISIONS OF THE OTHER CONVENTIONS REFERRED TO
BY THE COURT ARE ON THEIR FACE EQUALLY DEVOID OF RELEVANCE OR
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE SITUATION HERE IN ISSUE.  NEITHER ARTICLE 19 OF
HAGUE CONVENTION NO. X, 36 STAT. 2371, 2389, NOR ARTICLE 26 OF THE
GENEVA RED CROSS CONVENTION OF 1929, 47 STAT. 2074, 2092, REFERS TO
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE TROOPS OF A COMMANDER COMMIT ATROCITIES WHILE
UNDER HEAVILY ADVERSE BATTLE CONDITIONS.  REFERENCE IS ALSO MADE TO THE
REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE 43 OF THE ANNEX TO HAGUE CONVENTION NO. IV, 36
STAT. 2295, 2306, THAT THE COMMANDER OF A FORCE OCCUPYING ENEMY
TERRITORY "SHALL TAKE ALL THE MEASURES IN HIS POWER TO RESTORE, AND
ENSURE, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY, WHILE RESPECTING,
UNLESS ABSOLUTELY PREVENTED, THE LAWS IN FORCE IN THE COUNTRY."  BUT
THE PETITIONER WAS MORE THAN A COMMANDER OF A FORCE OCCUPYING ENEMY
TERRITORY.  HE WAS THE LEADER OF AN ARMY UNDER CONSTANT AND DEVASTATING
ATTACKS BY A SUPERIOR RE-INVADING FORCE.  THIS PROVISION IS SILENT AS
TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A COMMANDER UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AS THAT. 

EVEN THE LAWS OF WAR HERETOFORE RECOGNIZED BY THIS NATION FAIL TO
IMPUTE RESPONSIBILITY TO A FALLEN COMMANDER FOR EXCESSES COMMITTED BY
HIS DISORGANIZED TROOPS WHILE UNDER ATTACK.  PARAGRAPH 347 OF THE WAR
DEPARTMENT PUBLICATION, BASIC FIELD MANUAL, RULES OF LAND WARFARE, FM
27-10(1940), STATES THE PRINCIPAL OFFENSES UNDER THE LAWS OF WAR
RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES.  THIS INCLUDES ALL OF THE ATROCITIES
WHICH THE JAPANESE TROOPS WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED IN THIS
INSTANCE.  ORIGINALLY THIS PARAGRAPH CONCLUDED WITH THE STATEMENT THAT
"THE COMMANDERS ORDERING THE COMMISSION OF SUCH ACTS, OR UNDER WHOSE
AUTHORITY THEY ARE COMMITTED BY THEIR TROOPS, MAY BE PUNISHED BY THE
BELLIGERENT INTO WHOSE HANDS THEY MAY FALL."  THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE
"UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY THEY ARE COMMITTED" WAS NOT CLEAR.  ON NOVEMBER
15, 1944, HOWEVER, THIS SENTENCE WAS DELETED AND A NEW PARAGRAPH WAS
ADDED RELATING TO THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE LAWS
OF WAR.  CHANGE 1, FM 27-10.  THE NEW PARAGRAPH 345.1 STATES THAT
"INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO VIOLATE THE ACCEPTED LAWS AND
CUSTOMS OF WAR MAY BE PUNISHED THEREFOR.  HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT THE
ACTS COMPLAINED OF WERE DONE PURSUANT TO ORDER OF A SUPERIOR OR
GOVERNMENT SANCTION MAY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING
CULPABILITY, EITHER BY WAY OF DEFENSE OR IN MITIGATION OF PUNISHMENT. 
THE PERSON GIVING SUCH ORDERS MAY ALSO BE PUNISHED."  FROM THIS THE
CONCLUSION SEEMS INESCAPABLE THAT THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZES
INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR
ONLY AS TO THOSE WHO COMMIT THE OFFENSES OR WHO ORDER OR DIRECT THEIR
COMMISSION.  SUCH WAS NOT THE ALLEGATION HERE.  CF. ARTICLE 67 OF THE
ARTICLES OF WAR, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1539. 

THERE ARE NUMEROUS INSTANCES, ESPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE
PHILIPPINE INSURRECTION IN 1900 AND 1901, WHERE COMMANDING OFFICERS
WERE FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED THE LAWS OF WAR BY SPECIFICALLY ORDERING
MEMBERS OF THEIR COMMAND TO COMMIT ATROCITIES AND OTHER WAR CRIMES. 
FRANCISCO FRANI, G.O. 143, DEC. 13, 1900, HQ. DIV. PHIL.; EUGENIO
FERNANDEZ AND JUAN SORIANO, G.O. 28, FEB. 6, 1901, HQ. DIV. PHIL.;
CIRIACO CABUNGAL, G.O. 188, JUL. 22, 1901, HQ. DIV. PHIL.; NATALIO
VALENCIA, G.O. 221, AUG. 17, 1901, HQ. DIV. PHIL.; ANICETA ANGELES,
G.O. 246, SEPT. 2, 1901, HQ. DIV. PHIL.; FRANCISCO BRAGANZA, G.O. 291,
SEPT. 26, 1901, HQ. DIV. PHIL.; LORENZO ANDAYA, G.O. 328, OCT. 25,
1901, HQ. DIV. PHIL.  AND IN OTHER CASES OFFICERS HAVE BEEN HELD LIABLE
WHERE THEY KNEW THAT A CRIME WAS TO BE COMMITTED, HAD THE POWER TO
PREVENT IT AND FAILED TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.  PEDRO ABAD SANTOS, G.O.
130, JUNE 19, 1901, HQ. DIV. PHIL.  CF. PEDRO A. CRUZ, G.O. 264, SEPT.
9, 1901, HQ. DIV. PHIL.  IN NO RECORDED INSTANCE, HOWEVER, HAS THE MERE
INABILITY TO CONTROL TROOPS UNDER FIRE OR ATTACK BY SUPERIOR FORCES
BEEN MADE THE BASIS OF A CHARGE OF VIOLATING THE LAWS OF WAR. 

THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT THE PRINCIPLE THAT COMMANDERS IN THE FIELD
ARE BOUND TO CONTROL THEIR TROOPS HAS BEEN APPLIED SO AS TO IMPOSE
LIABILITY ON THE UNITED STATES IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS.  CASE OF
JEANNAUD (1880), 3 MOORE, INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS (1898) 3000; CASE
OF THE ZAFIRO (1910), 5 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1943)
707.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARBITRATING PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CHARGING
AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A CRIME AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR IS TOO OBVIOUS TO
REQUIRE ELABORATION.  BUT EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT IS THE FACT THAT EVEN
THESE ARBITRATION CASES FAIL TO ESTABLISH ANY PRINCIPLE OF LIABILITY
WHERE TROOPS ARE UNDER CONSTANT ASSAULT AND DEMORALIZING INFLUENCES BY
ATTACKING FORCES.  THE SAME OBSERVATION APPLIES TO THE COMMON LAW AND
STATUTORY DOCTRINE, REFERRED TO BY THE GOVERNMENT, THAT ONE WHO IS
UNDER A LEGAL DUTY TO TAKE PROTECTIVE OR PREVENTIVE ACTION IS GUILTY OF
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE IF HE WILLFULLY OR NEGLIGENTLY OMITS TO ACT AND DEATH
IS PROXIMATELY CAUSED.  STATE V. HARRISON, 107 N.J.L. 213, 152 A. 867;
STATE V. IRVINE, 126 LA. 434, 52 SO. 567; HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW, P.
278.  NO ONE DENIES THAT INACTION OR NEGLIGENCE MAY GIVE RISE TO
LIABILITY, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL.  BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO SAY
THAT THE INABILITY TO CONTROL TROOPS UNDER HIGHLY COMPETITIVE AND
DISASTROUS BATTLE CONDITIONS RENDERS ONE GUILTY OF A WAR CRIME IN THE
ABSENCE OF PERSONAL CULPABILITY.  HAD THERE BEEN SOME ELEMENT OF
KNOWLEDGE OR DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE ATROCITIES THE PROBLEM WOULD BE
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.  MOREOVER, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT WE ARE NOT
DEALING HERE WITH AN ORDINARY TORT OR CRIMINAL ACTION; PRECEDENTS IN
THOSE FIELDS ARE OF LITTLE IF ANY VALUE.  RATHER WE ARE CONCERNED WITH
A PROCEEDING INVOLVING AN INTERNATIONAL CRIME, THE TREATMENT OF WHICH
MAY HAVE UNTOLD EFFECTS UPON THE FUTURE PEACE OF THE WORLD.  THAT FACT
MUST BE KEPT UPPERMOST IN OUR SEARCH FOR PRECEDENT. 

THE ONLY CONCLUSION I CAN DRAW IS THAT THE CHARGE MADE AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IS CLEARLY WITHOUT PRECEDENT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW OR IN THE
ANNALS OF RECORDED MILITARY HISTORY.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT ENEMY
COMMANDERS MAY ESCAPE PUNISHMENT FOR CLEAR AND UNLAWFUL FAILURES TO
PREVENT ATROCITIES.  BUT THAT PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE BASED UPON CHARGES
FAIRLY DRAWN IN LIGHT OF ESTABLISHED RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
RECOGNIZED CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE. 

BUT THE CHARGE IN THIS CASE, AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, WAS SPEEDILY DRAWN
AND FILED BUT THREE WEEKS AFTER THE PETITIONER SURRENDERED.  THE TRIAL
PROCEEDED WITH GREAT DISPATCH WITHOUT ALLOWING THE DEFENSE TIME TO
PREPARE AN ADEQUATE CASE.  PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WERE GROSSLY AND OPENLY VIOLATED WITHOUT
ANY JUSTIFICATION.  ALL OF THIS WAS DONE WITHOUT ANY THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF THOSE IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
ATROCITIES, OUT OF WHICH MIGHT HAVE COME SOME PROOF OR INDICATION OF
PERSONAL CULPABILITY ON PETITIONER'S PART.  INSTEAD THE LOOSE CHARGE
WAS MADE THAT GREAT NUMBERS OF ATROCITIES HAD BEEN COMMITTED AND THAT
PETITIONER WAS THE COMMANDING OFFICER; HENCE HE MUST HAVE BEEN GUILTY
OF DISREGARD OF DUTY.  UNDER THAT CHARGE THE COMMISSION WAS FREE TO
ESTABLISH WHATEVER STANDARD OF DUTY ON PETITIONER'S PART THAT IT
DESIRED.  BY THIS FLEXIBLE METHOD A VICTORIOUS NATION MAY CONVICT AND
EXECUTE ANY OR ALL LEADERS OF A VANQUISHED FOE, DEPENDING UPON THE
PREVAILING DEGREE OF VENGEANCE AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBJECTIVE
JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

AT A TIME LIKE THIS WHEN EMOTIONS ARE UNDERSTANDABLY HIGH IT IS
DIFFICULT TO ADOPT A DISPASSIONATE ATTITUDE TOWARD A CASE OF THIS
NATURE.  YET NOW IS PRECISELY THE TIME WHEN THAT ATTITUDE IS MOST
ESSENTIAL.  WHILE PEOPLES IN OTHER LANDS MAY NOT SHARE OUR BELIEFS AS
TO DUE PROCESS AND THE DIGNITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, WE ARE NOT FREE TO
GIVE EFFECT TO OUR EMOTIONS IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS.  WE LIVE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH IS THE EMBODIMENT OF ALL
THE HIGH HOPES AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE NEW WORLD.  AND IT IS APPLICABLE
IN BOTH WAR AND PEACE.  WE MUST ACT ACCORDINGLY.  INDEED, AN UNCURBED
SPIRIT OF REVENGE AND RETRIBUTION, MASKED IN FORMAL LEGAL PROCEDURE FOR
PURPOSES OF DEALING WITH A FALLEN ENEMY COMMANDER, CAN DO MORE LASTING
HARM THAN ALL OF THE ATROCITIES GIVING RISE TO THAT SPIRIT.  THE
PEOPLE'S FAITH IN THE FAIRNESS AND OBJECTIVENESS OF THE LAW CAN BE
SERIOUSLY UNDERCUT BY THAT SPIRIT.  THE FIRES OF NATIONALISM CAN BE
FURTHER KINDLED.  AND THE HEARTS OF ALL MANKIND CAN BE EMBITTERED AND
FILLED WITH HATRED, LEAVING FORLORN AND IMPOVERISHED THE NOBLE IDEAL OF
MALICE TOWARD NONE AND CHARITY TO ALL.  THESE ARE THE REASONS THAT LEAD
ME TO DISSENT IN THESE TERMS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

NOT WITH EASE DOES ONE FIND HIS VIEWS AT ODDS WITH THE COURT'S IN A
MATTER OF THIS CHARACTER AND GRAVITY.  ONLY THE MOST DEEPLY FELT
CONVICTIONS COULD FORCE ONE TO DIFFER.  THAT REASON ALONE LEADS ME TO
DO SO NOW, AGAINST STRONG CONSIDERATIONS FOR WITHHOLDING DISSENT. 

MORE IS AT STAKE THAN GENERAL YAMASHITA'S FATE.  THERE COULD BE NO
POSSIBLE SYMPATHY FOR HIM IF HE IS GUILTY OF THE ATROCITIES FOR WHICH
HIS DEATH IS SOUGHT.  BUT THERE CAN BE AND SHOULD BE JUSTICE
ADMINISTERED ACCORDING TO LAW.  IN THIS STAGE OF WAR'S AFTERMATH IT IS
TOO EARLY FOR LINCOLN'S GREAT SPIRIT, BEST LIGHTED IN THE SECOND
INAUGURAL, TO HAVE WIDE HOLD FOR THE TREATMENT OF FOES.  IT IS NOT TOO
EARLY, IT IS NEVER TOO EARLY, FOR THE NATION STEADFASTLY TO FOLLOW ITS
GREAT CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS, NONE OLDER OR MORE UNIVERSALLY
PROTECTIVE AGAINST UNBRIDLED POWER THAN DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THE TRIAL
AND PUNISHMENT OF MEN, THAT IS, OF ALL MEN, WHETHER CITIZENS, ALIENS,
ALIEN ENEMIES OR ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.  IT CAN BECOME TOO LATE. 

THIS LONG-HELD ATTACHMENT MARKS THE GREAT DIVIDE BETWEEN OUR ENEMIES
AND OURSELVES.  THEIRS WAS A PHILOSOPHY OF UNIVERSAL FORCE.  OURS IS
ONE OF UNIVERSAL LAW, ALBEIT IMPERFECTLY MADE FLESH OF OUR SYSTEM AND
SO DWELLING AMONG US.  EVERY DEPARTURE WEAKENS THE TRADITION, WHETHER
IT TOUCHES THE HIGH OR THE LOW, THE POWERFUL OR THE WEAK, THE
TRIUMPHANT OR THE CONQUERED.  IF WE NEED NOT OR CANNOT BE MAGNANIMOUS,
WE CAN KEEP OUR OWN LAW ON THE PLANE FROM WHICH IT HAS NOT DESCENDED
HITHERTO AND TO WHICH THE DEFEATED FOES' NEVER ROSE. 

WITH ALL DEFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING VIEWS OF MY BRETHREN, WHOSE
ATTACHMENT TO THAT TRADITION NEEDLESS TO SAY IS NO LESS THAN MY OWN, I
CANNOT BELIEVE IN THE FACE OF THIS RECORD THAT THE PETITIONER HAS HAD
THE FAIR TRIAL OUR CONSTITUTION AND LAWS COMMAND.  BECAUSE I CANNOT
RECONCILE WHAT HAS OCCURRED WITH THEIR MEASURE, I AM FORCED TO SPEAK. 
AT BOTTOM MY CONCERN IS THAT WE SHALL NOT FORSAKE IN ANY CASE, WHETHER
YAMASHITA'S OR ANOTHER'S, THE BASIC STANDARDS OF TRIAL WHICH, AMONG
OTHER GUARANTIES, THE NATION FOUGHT TO KEEP; THAT OUR SYSTEM OF
MILITARY JUSTICE SHALL NOT ALONE AMONG ALL OUR FORMS OF JUDGING BE
ABOVE OR BEYOND THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OR THE CONTROL OF CONGRESS WITHIN
ITS ORBIT OF AUTHORITY; AND THAT THIS COURT SHALL NOT FAIL IN ITS PART
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO SEE THAT THESE THINGS DO NOT HAPPEN. 

THIS TRIAL IS UNPRECEDENTED IN OUR HISTORY.  NEVER BEFORE HAVE WE
TRIED AND CONVICTED AN ENEMY GENERAL FOR ACTION TAKEN DURING
HOSTILITIES OR OTHERWISE IN THE COURSE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS OR DUTY. 
MUCH LESS HAVE WE CONDEMNED ONE FOR FAILING TO TAKE ACTION.  THE
NOVELTY IS NOT LESSENED BY THE TRIAL'S HAVING TAKEN PLACE AFTER
HOSTILITIES ENDED AND THE ENEMY, INCLUDING THE ACCUSED, HAD
SURRENDERED.  MOREOVER, SO FAR AS THE TIME PERMITTED FOR OUR
CONSIDERATION HAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND
PRECEDENT FOR THE PROCEEDING IN THE SYSTEM OF ANY NATION FOUNDED IN THE
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY, IN THE LAWS OF WAR OR
IN OTHER INTERNATIONALLY BINDING AUTHORITY OR USAGE. 

THE NOVELTY IS LEGAL AS WELL AS HISTORICAL.  WE ARE ON STRANGE
GROUND.  PRECEDENT IS NOT ALL-CONTROLLING IN LAW.  THERE MUST BE ROOM
FOR GROWTH, SINCE EVERY PRECEDENT HAS AN ORIGIN.  BUT IT IS THE ESSENCE
OF OUR TRADITION FOR JUDGES, WHEN THEY STAND AT THE END OF THE MARKED
WAY, TO GO FORWARD WITH CAUTION KEEPING SIGHT, SO FAR AS THEY ARE ABLE,
UPON THE GREAT LANDMARKS LEFT BEHIND AND THE DIRECTION THEY POINT
AHEAD.  IF, AS MAY BE HOPED, WE ARE NOW TO ENTER UPON A NEW ERA OF LAW
IN THE WORLD, IT BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER BEFORE FOR THE
NATIONS CREATING THAT SYSTEM TO OBSERVE THEIR GREATEST TRADITIONS OF
ADMINISTERING JUSTICE, INCLUDING THIS ONE, BOTH IN THEIR OWN JUDGING
AND IN THEIR NEW CREATION.  THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE VEER SO FAR
FROM SOME OF OUR TIME-TESTED ROAD SIGNS THAT I CANNOT TAKE THE LARGE
STRIDES VALIDATING THEM WOULD DEMAND. 

      I. 

IT IS NOT IN OUR TRADITION FOR ANYONE TO BE CHARGED WITH CRIME WHICH
IS DEFINED AFTER HIS CONDUCT, ALLEGED TO BE CRIMINAL, HAS TAKEN PLACE;
FN1  OR IN LANGUAGE NOT SUFFICIENT TO INFORM HIM OF THE NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE OR TO ENABLE HIM TO MAKE DEFENSE.  FN2  MASS GUILT WE DO NOT
IMPUTE TO INDIVIDUALS, PERHAPS IN ANY CASE BUT CERTAINLY IN NONE WHERE
THE PERSON IS NOT CHARGED OR SHOWN ACTIVELY TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN OR
KNOWINGLY TO HAVE FAILED IN TAKING ACTION TO PREVENT THE WRONGS DONE BY
OTHERS, HAVING BOTH THE DUTY AND THE POWER TO DO SO. 

IT IS OUTSIDE OUR BASIC SCHEME TO CONDEMN MEN WITHOUT GIVING
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR PREPARING DEFENSE; FN3  IN CAPITAL OR OTHER
SERIOUS CRIMES TO CONVICT ON "OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS ...; AFFIDAVITS; ...
DOCUMENTS OR TRANSLATIONS THEREOF; DIARIES  ..., PHOTOGRAPHS, MOTION
PICTURE FILMS, AND  ...  NEWSPAPERS"  FN4  OR ON HEARSAY, ONCE, TWICE
OR THRICE REMOVED,  FN5 MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
OR SOME OF IT IS PREPARED EX PARTE BY THE PROSECUTING AUTHORITY AND
INCLUDES NOT ONLY OPINION BUT CONCLUSIONS OF GUILT.  NOR IN SUCH CASES
DO WE DENY THE RIGHTS OF CONFRONTATION OF WITNESSES AND CROSS
EXAMINATION.  FN6    OUR TRADITION DOES NOT ALLOW CONVICTION BY
TRIBUNALS BOTH AUTHORIZED AND BOUND  FN7  BY THE INSTRUMENT OF THEIR
CREATION TO RECEIVE AND CONSIDER EVIDENCE WHICH IS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED
BY ACT OF CONGRESS OR BY TREATY OBLIGATION; NOR IS IT IN ACCORD WITH
OUR BASIC CONCEPTS TO MAKE THE TRIBUNAL, SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED FOR THE
PARTICULAR TRIAL, REGARDLESS OF THOSE PROHIBITIONS THE SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY, PROBATIVE VALUE AND ADMISSIBILITY
OF WHATEVER MAY BE TENDERED AS EVIDENCE. 

THE MATTER IS NOT ONE MERELY OF THE CHARACTER AND ADMISSIBILITY OF
EVIDENCE.  IT GOES TO THE VERY COMPETENCY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO TRY AND
PUNISH CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, AND TREATIES MADE UNDER THE NATION'S
AUTHORITY. 

ALL THESE DEVIATIONS FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW, AND OTHERS, OCCURRED
IN THE COURSE OF CONSTITUTING THE COMMISSION, THE PREPARATION FOR TRIAL
AND DEFENSE, THE TRIAL ITSELF, AND THEREFORE, IN EFFECT, IN THE
SENTENCE IMPOSED.  WHETHER TAKEN SINGLY IN SOME INSTANCES AS DEPARTURES
FROM SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES OR IN TOTALITY AS IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S COMMAND THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE,
LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, A TRIAL SO VITIATED
CANNOT WITHSTAND CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY. 

ONE BASIC PROTECTION OF OUR SYSTEM AND ONE ONLY, PETITIONER HAS HAD. 
HE HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY ABLE COUNSEL, OFFICERS OF THE ARMY HE
FOUGHT.  THEIR DIFFICULT ASSIGNMENT HAS BEEN DONE WITH EXTRAORDINARY
FIDELITY, NOT ONLY TO THE ACCUSED, BUT TO THEIR HIGH CONCEPTION OF
MILITARY JUSTICE, ALWAYS TO BE ADMINISTERED IN SUBORDINATION TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND CONSISTENT ACTS OF CONGRESS AND TREATIES.  BUT, AS
WILL APPEAR, EVEN THIS CONCEDED SHIELD WAS TAKEN AWAY IN MUCH OF ITS
VALUE, BY DENIAL OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO PERFORM THEIR
FUNCTION. 

ON THIS DENIAL AND THE COMMISSION'S INVALID CONSTITUTION
SPECIFICALLY, BUT ALSO MORE GENERALLY UPON THE TOTALITY OF DEPARTURES
FROM CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS INHERENT IN THE IDEA OF A FAIR TRIAL, I REST
MY JUDGMENT THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION FROM THE
BEGINNING TO TRY OR PUNISH THE PETITIONER AND THAT, IF IT HAD ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION THEN, ITS POWER TO PROCEED WAS LOST IN THE COURSE OF WHAT
WAS DONE BEFORE AND DURING TRIAL. 

ONLY ON ONE VIEW, IN MY OPINION, COULD EITHER OF THESE CONCLUSIONS BE
AVOIDED.  THIS WOULD BE THAT AN ENEMY BELLIGERENT IN PETITIONER'S
POSITION IS ALTOGETHER BEYOND THE PALE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION,
REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT HOSTILITIES HAD ENDED AND HE HAD
SURRENDERED WITH HIS COUNTRY.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS SO ARGUED, URGING
THAT WE ARE STILL AT WAR WITH JAPAN AND ALL THE POWER OF THE MILITARY
EFFECTIVE DURING ACTIVE HOSTILITIES IN THEATRES OF COMBAT CONTINUES IN
FULL FORCE UNAFFECTED BY THE EVENTS OF AUGUST 14, 1945, AND AFTER. 

IN THIS VIEW THE ACTION TAKEN HERE IS ONE OF MILITARY NECESSITY,
EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
AND HIS MILITARY SUBORDINATES TO TAKE IN WARDING OFF MILITARY DANGER
AND SUBJECT TO NO JUDICIAL RESTRAINT ON ANY ACCOUNT, ALTHOUGH SOMEWHAT
INCONSISTENTLY IT IS SAID THIS COURT MAY "EXAMINE" THE PROCEEDINGS
GENERALLY. 

AS I UNDERSTAND THE COURT, THIS IS IN SUBSTANCE THE EFFECT OF WHAT
HAS BEEN DONE.  FOR I CANNOT CONCEIVE ANY INSTANCE OF DEPARTURE FROM
OUR BASIC CONCEPTS OF FAIR TRIAL, IF THE FAILURES HERE ARE NOT
SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE THAT EFFECT. 

WE ARE TECHNICALLY STILL AT WAR, BECAUSE PEACE HAS NOT BEEN
NEGOTIATED FINALLY OR DECLARED.  BUT THERE IS NO LONGER THE DANGER
WHICH ALWAYS EXISTS BEFORE SURRENDER AND ARMISTICE.  MILITARY NECESSITY
DOES NOT DEMAND THE SAME MEASURES.  THE NATION MAY BE MORE SECURE NOW
THAN AT ANY TIME AFTER PEACE IS OFFICIALLY CONCLUDED.  IN THESE FACTS
IS ONE GREAT DIFFERENCE FROM EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1.  PUNITIVE
ACTION TAKEN NOW CAN BE EFFECTIVE ONLY FOR THE NEXT WAR, FOR PURPOSES
OF MILITARY SECURITY.  AND ENEMY ALIENS, INCLUDING BELLIGERENTS, NEED
THE ATTENUATED PROTECTIONS OUR SYSTEM EXTENDS TO THEM MORE NOW THAN
BEFORE HOSTILITIES CEASED OR THAN THEY MAY AFTER A TREATY OF PEACE IS
SIGNED.  AMPLE POWER THERE IS TO PUNISH THEM OR OTHERS FOR CRIMES,
WHETHER UNDER THE LAWS OF WAR DURING ITS COURSE OR LATER DURING
OCCUPATION.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF THAT.  THE ONLY QUESTION IS
HOW IT SHALL BE DONE, CONSISTENTLY WITH UNIVERSAL CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMANDS OR OUTSIDE THEIR RESTRICTING EFFECTS.  IN THIS SENSE I THINK
THE CONSTITUTION FOLLOWS THE FLAG. 

THE OTHER THING TO BE MENTIONED IN ORDER TO BE PUT ASIDE IS THAT WE
HAVE NO QUESTION HERE OF WHAT THE MILITARY MIGHT HAVE DONE IN A FIELD
OF COMBAT.  THERE THE MAXIM ABOUT THE LAW BECOMING SILENT IN THE NOISE
OF ARMS APPLIES.  THE PURPOSE OF BATTLE IS TO KILL.  BUT IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT THIS WOULD JUSTIFY KILLING BY TRIAL AFTER CAPTURE OR
SURRENDER, WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS OR TREATIES MADE TO APPLY IN
SUCH CASES, WHETHER TRIAL IS BEFORE OR AFTER HOSTILITIES END. 

I TURN NOW TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE DETAILS OF WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE. 
MY BASIC DIFFERENCE IS WITH THE COURT'S VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF THE
ARTICLES OF WAR AND OF TREATIES ARE NOT MADE APPLICABLE TO THIS
PROCEEDING AND WITH ITS RULING THAT, ABSENT SUCH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS,
NONE OF THE THINGS DONE SO VITIATED THE TRIAL AND SENTENCE AS TO
DEPRIVE THE COMMISSION OF JURISDICTION. 

MY BROTHER MURPHY HAS DISCUSSED THE CHARGE WITH RESPECT TO THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE CRIME.  WITH HIS CONCLUSIONS IN THIS RESPECT I AGREE. 
MY OWN PRIMARY CONCERN WILL BE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION
AND OTHER MATTERS TAKING PLACE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS,
RELATING CHIEFLY TO THE DENIAL OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE
PETITIONER'S DEFENSE AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, TOGETHER WITH
SERIOUS QUESTIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY, TO PROVE AN OFFENSE, ALL GOING AS I
THINK TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. 

NECESSARILY ONLY A SHORT SKETCH CAN BE GIVEN CONCERNING EACH MATTER. 
AND IT MAY BE STATED AT THE START THAT, ALTHOUGH IT WAS RULED IN EX
PARTE QUIRIN, SUPRA, THAT THIS COURT HAD NO FUNCTION TO REVIEW THE
EVIDENCE, IT WAS NOT THERE OR ELSEWHERE DETERMINED THAT IT COULD NOT
ASCERTAIN WHETHER CONVICTION IS FOUNDED UPON EVIDENCE EXPRESSLY
EXCLUDED BY CONGRESS OR TREATY; NOR DOES THE COURT PURPORT TO DO SO
NOW. 

II.

             INVALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S CONSTITUTION. 

THE FOUNTAINHEAD OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY WAS GENERAL
MACARTHUR'S DIRECTIVE BY WHICH GENERAL STYER WAS ORDERED TO AND
PURSUANT TO WHICH HE DID PROCEED WITH CONSTITUTING THE COMMISSION.  FN8
THE DIRECTIVE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ELABORATE AND DETAILED RULES AND
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURE AND RULES OF EVIDENCE TO BE
FOLLOWED, OF WHICH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES SEC. 16, SET FORTH BELOW,  FN9
IS CRUCIAL. 

REPORTS, AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS, DIARIES, LETTERS, COPIES OF DOCUMENTS
OR OTHER SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONTENTS, HEARSAY, OPINION
EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS, IN FACT OF ANYTHING WHICH IN THE COMMISSION'S
OPINION "WOULD BE OF ASSISTANCE IN PROVING OR DISPROVING THE CHARGE,"
WITHOUT ANY OF THE USUAL MODES OF AUTHENTICATION. 

A MORE COMPLETE ABROGATION OF CUSTOMARY SAFEGUARDS RELATING TO THE
PROOF, WHETHER IN THE USUAL RULES OF EVIDENCE OR ANY REASONABLE
SUBSTITUTE AND WHETHER FOR USE IN THE TRIAL OF CRIME IN THE CIVIL
COURTS OR MILITARY TRIBUNALS, HARDLY COULD HAVE BEEN MADE.  SO FAR AS
THE ADMISSIBILITY AND PROBATIVE VALUE OF EVIDENCE WAS CONCERNED, THE
DIRECTIVE MADE THE COMMISSION A LAW UNTO ITSELF. 

IT ACTED ACCORDINGLY.  AS AGAINST INSISTENT AND PERSISTENT OBJECTION
TO THE RECEPTION OF ALL KINDS OF "EVIDENCE," ORAL, DOCUMENTARY AND
PHOTOGRAPHIC, FOR NEARLY EVERY KIND OF DEFECT UNDER ANY OF THE USUAL
PREVAILING STANDARDS FOR ADMISSIBILITY AND PROBATIVE VALUE, THE
COMMISSION NOT ONLY CONSISTENTLY RULED AGAINST THE DEFENSE, BUT
REPEATEDLY STATED IT WAS BOUND BY THE DIRECTIVE TO RECEIVE THE KINDS OF
EVIDENCE IT SPECIFIED,  FN10  REPRIMANDED COUNSEL FOR CONTINUING TO
MAKE OBJECTION, DECLINED TO HEAR FURTHER OBJECTIONS, AND IN MORE THAN
ONE INSTANCE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS REVERSED ITS RULINGS
FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE, WHERE INITIALLY IT HAD DECLINED TO RECEIVE
WHAT THE PROSECUTION OFFERED.  EVERY CONCEIVABLE KIND OF STATEMENT,
RUMOR, REPORT, AT FIRST, SECOND, THIRD OR FURTHER HAND, WRITTEN,
PRINTED OR ORAL, AND ONE "PROPAGANDA" FILM WERE ALLOWED TO COME IN,
MOST OF THIS RELATING TO ATROCITIES COMMITTED BY TROOPS UNDER
PETITIONER'S COMMAND THROUGHOUT THE SEVERAL THOUSAND ISLANDS OF THE
PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO DURING THE PERIOD OF ACTIVE HOSTILITIES COVERED
BY THE AMERICAN FORCES' RETURN TO AND RECAPTURE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 
FN11 

THE FINDINGS REFLECT THE CHARACTER OF THE PROOF AND THE CHARGE.  THE
STATEMENT QUOTED ABOVE FN12  GIVES ONLY A NUMERICAL IDEA OF THE
INSTANCES IN WHICH ORDINARY SAFEGUARDS IN RECEPTION OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE
WERE IGNORED.  IN ADDITION TO THESE 423 "EXHIBITS," THE FINDINGS STATE
THE COMMISSION "HAS HEARD 286 PERSONS DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL,
MOST OF WHOM HAVE GIVEN EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF WHAT THEY ENDURED OR
WHAT THEY SAW." 

BUT THERE IS NOT A SUGGESTION IN THE FINDINGS THAT PETITIONER
PERSONALLY PARTICIPATED IN, WAS PRESENT AT THE OCCURRENCE OF, OR
ORDERED ANY OF THESE INCIDENTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WHOLLY
INFERENTIAL SUGGESTION NOTED BELOW.  NOR IS THERE ANY EXPRESS FINDING
THAT HE KNEW OF ANY ONE OF THE INCIDENTS IN PARTICULAR OR OF ALL TAKEN
TOGETHER.  THE ONLY INFERENTIAL FINDINGS THAT HE HAD KNOWLEDGE, OR THAT
THE COMMISSION SO FOUND, ARE IN THE STATEMENT THAT THE "CRIMES ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN PERMITTED BY THE ACCUSED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR
MAY BE GROUPED INTO THREE CATEGORIES" SET OUT BELOW,  FN13  IN THE
FURTHER STATEMENT THAT "THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
THE CRIMES WERE SO EXTENSIVE AND WIDESPREAD, BOTH AS TO TIME AND AREA,
FN14 THAT THEY MUST EITHER HAVE BEEN WILFULLY PERMITTED BY THE ACCUSED,
OR SECRETLY ORDERED BY" HIM; AND IN THE CONCLUSION OF GUILT AND THE
SENTENCE.  FN15  INDEED THE COMMISSION'S ULTIMATE FINDINGS FN16  DRAW
NO EXPRESS CONCLUSION OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT STATE ONLY TWO THINGS:  (1) THE
FACT OF WIDESPREAD ATROCITIES AND CRIMES; (2) THAT PETITIONER "FAILED
TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE CONTROL  ... AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES." 

THIS VAGUENESS, IF NOT VACUITY, IN THE FINDINGS RUNS THROUGHOUT THE
PROCEEDINGS, FROM THE CHARGE ITSELF THROUGH THE PROOF AND THE FINDINGS,
TO THE CONCLUSION.  IT AFFECTS THE VERY GIST OF THE OFFENSE, WHETHER
THAT WAS WILFUL, INFORMED AND INTENTIONAL OMISSION TO RESTRAIN AND
CONTROL TROOPS KNOWN BY PETITIONER TO BE COMMITTING CRIMES OR WAS ONLY
A NEGLIGENT FAILURE ON HIS PART TO DISCOVER THIS AND TAKE WHATEVER
MEASURES HE THEN COULD TO STOP THE CONDUCT. 

ALTHOUGH IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE FROM WHAT IS BEFORE US WHETHER
PETITIONER IN FACT HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ONE OR THE OTHER OR OF BOTH
THESE THINGS,  FN17  THE CASE HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON THE FORMER BASIS
AND, UNLESS AS IS NOTED BELOW THERE IS FATAL DUPLICITY, IT MUST BE
TAKEN THAT THE CRIME CHARGED AND SOUGHT TO BE PROVED WAS ONLY THE
FAILURE, WITH KNOWLEDGE, TO PERFORM THE COMMANDER'S FUNCTION OF
CONTROL, ALTHOUGH THE COURT'S OPINION NOWHERE EXPRESSLY DECLARES THAT
KNOWLEDGE WAS ESSENTIAL TO GUILT OR NECESSARY TO BE SET FORTH IN THE
CHARGE. 

IT IS IN RESPECT TO THIS FEATURE ESPECIALLY, QUITE APART FROM THE
RECEPTION OF UNVERIFIED RUMOR, REPORT, ETC., THAT PERHAPS THE GREATEST
PREJUDICE AROSE FROM THE ADMISSION OF UNTRUSTWORTHY, UNVERIFIED,
UNAUTHENTICATED EVIDENCE WHICH COULD NOT BE PROBED BY CROSS-EXAMINATION
OR OTHER MEANS OF TESTING CREDIBILITY, PROBATIVE VALUE OR
AUTHENTICITY. 

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE HAVE INFORMED US IN THE BRIEF AND AT THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE SOLE PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL WAS
IN THE FORM OF EX PARTE AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS.  APART FROM WHAT
HAS BEEN EXCERPTED FROM THE RECORD IN THE APPLICATIONS AND THE BRIEFS,
AND SUCH PORTIONS OF THE RECORD AS I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXAMINE, IT HAS
BEEN IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME FULLY TO VERIFY COUNSEL'S STATEMENT IN THIS
RESPECT.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED IT; AND IT HAS MAINTAINED
THAT WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXAMINE THE RECORD UPON ANY QUESTION "OF
EVIDENCE."  ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT CONCESSION TO THAT VIEW, THE STATEMENT
OF COUNSEL IS TAKEN FOR THE FACT.  AND IN THAT STATE OF THINGS
PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME IN WHICH KNOWLEDGE IS AN
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT, WITH NO PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE OTHER THAN WHAT WOULD BE
INADMISSIBLE IN ANY OTHER CAPITAL CASE OR PROCEEDING UNDER OUR SYSTEM,
CIVIL OR MILITARY, AND WHICH FURTHERMORE CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY
COMMANDED SHALL NOT BE RECEIVED IN SUCH CASES TRIED BY MILITARY
COMMISSIONS AND OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  FN18 

MOREOVER COUNSEL ASSERT IN THE BRIEF, AND THIS ALSO IS NOT DENIED,
THAT THE SOLE PROOF MADE OF CERTAIN OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE BILLS
OF PARTICULARS WAS BY EX PARTE AFFIDAVITS.  IT WAS IN RELATION TO THIS
ALSO VITAL PHASE OF THE PROOF THAT THERE OCCURRED ONE OF THE
COMMISSION'S REVERSALS OF ITS EARLIER RULINGS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE,
FN19  A FACT IN ITSELF CONCLUSIVE DEMONSTRATION OF THE NECESSITY TO THE
PROSECUTION'S CASE OF THE PROHIBITED TYPE OF EVIDENCE AND OF ITS
PREJUDICIAL EFFECTS UPON THE DEFENSE.    THESE TWO BASIC ELEMENTS IN
THE PROOF, NAMELY, PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRIMES AND PROOF OF THE
SPECIFICATIONS IN THE BILLS, THAT IS, OF THE ATROCITIES THEMSELVES,
CONSTITUTE THE MOST IMPORTANT INSTANCES PERHAPS, IF NOT THE MOST
FLAGRANT OF DEPARTURE NOT ONLY FROM THE EXPRESS COMMAND OF CONGRESS
AGAINST RECEIVING SUCH PROOF BUT FROM THE WHOLE BRITISH-AMERICAN
TRADITION OF THE COMMON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.  MANY OTHERS
OCCURRED, WHICH THERE IS NEITHER TIME NOR SPACE TO MENTION.  FN21 

PETITIONER ASSERTS, AND THERE CAN BE NO REASON TO DOUBT, THAT BY THE
USE OF ALL THIS FORBIDDEN EVIDENCE HE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION AND OTHER MEANS TO ESTABLISH THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
DEPONENTS OR AFFIANTS, NOT TO SPEAK OF THE AUTHORS OF REPORTS, LETTERS,
DOCUMENTS AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES; OF OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE MULTITUDINOUS CRIMES SPECIFIED IN THE BILLS WERE COMMITTED IN FACT
BY TROOPS UNDER HIS COMMAND OR BY NAVAL OR AIR FORCE TROOPS NOT UNDER
HIS COMMAND AT THE TIME ALLEGED; TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CRIMES
ATTESTED WERE ISOLATED ACTS OF INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS OR WERE MILITARY
ACTS COMMITTED BY TROOP UNITS ACTING UNDER SUPERVISION OF OFFICERS;
AND, FINALLY, WHETHER "IN SHORT, THERE WAS SUCH A 'PATTERN' OF" CONDUCT
AS THE PROSECUTION ALLEGED AND ITS WHOLE THEORY OF THE CRIME AND THE
EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO BE MADE OUT. 

HE POINTS OUT IN THIS CONNECTION THAT THE COMMISSION BASED ITS
DECISION ON A FINDING AS TO THE EXTENT AND NUMBER OF THE ATROCITIES AND
THAT THIS OF ITSELF ESTABLISHES THE PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OF THE
AFFIDAVITS, ETC., AND OF THE DENIAL RESULTING FROM THEIR RECEPTION OF
ANY MEANS OF PROBING THE EVIDENCE THEY CONTAINED, INCLUDING ALL
OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.  YET IT IS SAID THERE IS NO
SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF PREJUDICE.  THE EFFECT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OTHER
THAN HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL.  THE MATTER IS NOT ONE MERELY OF "RULES OF
EVIDENCE."  IT GOES, AS WILL APPEAR MORE FULLY LATER, TO THE BASIC
RIGHT OF DEFENSE, INCLUDING SOME FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO TEST PROBATIVE
VALUE. 

INSUFFICIENT AS THIS RECITAL IS TO GIVE A FAIR IMPRESSION OF WHAT WAS
DONE, IT IS ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS NO TRIAL IN THE TRADITIONS OF
THE COMMON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.  IF THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF WAS NOT
STRANGE TO THEM OTHERWISE, IT WAS IN ITS FORMS AND MODES OF PROCEDURE,
IN THE CHARACTER AND SUBSTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IT RECEIVED, IN THE
DENIAL OF ALL MEANS TO THE ACCUSED AND HIS COUNSEL FOR TESTING THE
EVIDENCE, IN THE BREVITY AND AMBIGUITY OF ITS FINDINGS MADE UPON SUCH A
MASS OF MATERIAL AND, AS WILL APPEAR, IN THE DENIAL OF ANY REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR PREPARATION OF THE DEFENSE.  BECAUSE THIS LAST
DEPRIVATION NOT ONLY IS IMPORTANT IN ITSELF, BUT IS CLOSELY RELATED TO
THE DEPARTURES FROM ALL LIMITATIONS UPON THE CHARACTER OF AND MODES OF
MAKING THE PROOF, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE TURNING TO THE IMPORTANT
LEGAL QUESTIONS RELATING TO WHETHER ALL THESE VIOLATIONS OF OUR
TRADITIONS CAN BE BRUSHED ASIDE AS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE VALID ACTS OF
CONGRESS, TREATIES AND THE CONSTITUTION, IN THAT ORDER.  IF ALL THESE
TRADITIONS CAN BE SO PUT AWAY, THEN INDEED WILL WE HAVE ENTERED UPON A
NEW BUT FOREBODING ERA OF LAW. 

         III. 

              DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE DEFENSE. 

PETITIONER SURRENDERED SEPTEMBER 3, 1945, AND WAS INTERNED AS A
PRISONER OF WAR IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 9 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION
OF JULY 27, 1929.  FN22  HE WAS SERVED WITH THE CHARGE ON SEPTEMBER 25
AND PUT IN CONFINEMENT AS AN ACCUSED WAR CRIMINAL.  ON OCTOBER 8 HE WAS
ARRAIGNED AND PLEADED NOT GUILTY.  ON OCTOBER 29 THE TRIAL BEGAN AND IT
CONTINUED UNTIL DECEMBER 7, WHEN SENTENCE WAS PRONOUNCED, EXACTLY FOUR
YEARS ALMOST TO THE HOUR FROM THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR. 

ON THE DAY OF ARRAIGNMENT, OCTOBER 8, THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE TRIAL
BEGAN, PETITIONER WAS SERVED WITH A BILL OF PARTICULARS SPECIFYING 64
ITEMS SETTING FORTH A VAST NUMBER OF ATROCITIES AND CRIMES ALLEGEDLY
COMMITTED BY TROOPS UNDER HIS COMMAND.  FN23  THE SIX OFFICERS
APPOINTED AS DEFENSE COUNSEL THUS HAD THREE WEEKS, IT IS TRUE AT THE
PROSECUTION'S SUGGESTION A WEEK LONGER THAN THEY SOUGHT AT FIRST, TO
INVESTIGATE AND PREPARE TO MEET ALL THESE ITEMS AND THE LARGE NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS THEY EMBODIED, MANY OF WHICH HAD OCCURRED IN DISTANT ISLANDS
OF THE ARCHIPELAGO.  THERE IS SOME QUESTION WHETHER THEY THEN
ANTICIPATED THE FULL SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF THE CHARGE OR THE EVIDENCE
THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET.  BUT, AS WILL APPEAR, THEY WORKED NIGHT AND
DAY AT THE TASK.  EVEN SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO DO
THOROUGHLY, HAD NOTHING MORE OCCURRED. 

BUT THERE WAS MORE.  ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE TRIAL, OCTOBER 29, THE
PROSECUTION FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS, CONTAINING 59
MORE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE SAME GENERAL CHARACTER, INVOLVING PERHAPS AS
MANY INCIDENTS OCCURRING OVER AN EQUALLY WIDE AREA.  FN24  A COPY HAD
BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENSE THREE DAYS EARLIER.  ONE ITEM, NO. 89, CHARGED
THAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS, PRISONERS OF WAR, HAD BEEN TRIED AND EXECUTED
WITHOUT NOTICE HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO THE PROTECTING POWER OF THE UNITED
STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION,
WHICH IT IS NOW ARGUED, STRANGELY, THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT REQUIRED
TO OBSERVE AS TO PETITIONER'S TRIAL.  FN25 

BUT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL, AS THEY FELT WAS
THEIR DUTY, AT ONCE MOVED FOR A CONTINUANCE.  FN26  THE APPLICATION WAS
DENIED.  HOWEVER THE COMMISSION INDICATED THAT IF, AT THE END OF THE
PROSECUTION'S PRESENTATION CONCERNING THE ORIGINAL BILL, COUNSEL SHOULD
"BELIEVE THEY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME  ..., THE COMMISSION WILL
CONSIDER SUCH A MOTION AT THAT TIME," BEFORE TAKING UP THE ITEMS OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.  COUNSEL AGAIN INDICATED, WITHOUT OTHER RESULT, THAT
TIME WAS DESIRED AT ONCE "AS MUCH, IF NOT MORE" TO PREPARE FOR CROSS
EXAMINATION "AS THE PROSECUTION'S CASE GOES IN" AS TO PREPARE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. 

ON THE NEXT DAY, OCTOBER 30, THE COMMISSION INTERRUPTED THE
PROSECUTOR TO SAY IT WOULD NOT THEN LISTEN TO TESTIMONY OR DISCUSSION
UPON THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.  AFTER COLLOQUY IT ADHERED TO ITS PRIOR
RULING AND, IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRY FROM THE PROSECUTION, THE DEFENSE
INDICATED IT WOULD REQUIRE TWO WEEKS BEFORE IT COULD PROCEED ON THE
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.  ON NOVEMBER 1 THE COMMISSION RULED IT WOULD NOT
RECEIVE AFFIDAVITS WITHOUT CORROBORATION BY WITNESSES ON ANY
SPECIFICATION, A RULING REVERSED FOUR DAYS LATER. 

ON NOVEMBER 2, AFTER THE COMMISSION HAD RECEIVED AN AFFIRMATIVE
ANSWER TO ITS INQUIRY WHETHER THE DEFENSE WAS PREPARED TO PROCEED WITH
AN ITEM IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL WHICH THE PROSECUTION PROPOSED TO
PROVE, IT ANNOUNCED:  "HEREAFTER, THEN, UNLESS THERE IS NO OBJECTION BY
THE DEFENSE, THE COMMISSION WILL ASSUME THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO
PROCEED WITH ANY ITEMS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL."  ON NOVEMBER 8, THE
QUESTION AROSE AGAIN UPON THE PROSECUTION'S INQUIRY AS TO WHEN THE
DEFENSE WOULD BE READY TO PROCEED ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL, THE
PROSECUTOR ADDING:  "FRANKLY, SIR, IT TOOK THE WAR CRIMES COMMISSION
SOME THREE MONTHS TO INVESTIGATE THESE MATTERS AND I CANNOT CONCEIVE OF
THE DEFENSE UNDERTAKING A SIMILAR INVESTIGATION WITH ANY LESS PERIOD OF
TIME."  STATING IT REALIZED "THE TREMENDOUS TASK WHICH WE PLACED UPON
THE DEFENSE" AND ITS "DETERMINATION TO GIVE THEM THE TIME THEY
REQUIRE," THE COMMISSION AGAIN ADHERED TO ITS RULING OF OCTOBER 29. 

FOUR DAYS LATER THE COMMISSION ANNOUNCED IT WOULD GRANT A CONTINUANCE
"ONLY FOR THE MOST URGENT AND UNAVOIDABLE REASONS."  FN27 

ON NOVEMBER 20, WHEN THE PROSECUTION RESTED, SENIOR DEFENSE COUNSEL
MOVED FOR A REASONABLE CONTINUANCE, RECALLING THE COMMISSION'S
INDICATION THAT IT WOULD THEN CONSIDER SUCH A MOTION AND STATING THAT
SINCE OCTOBER 29 THE DEFENSE HAD BEEN "WORKING DAY AND NIGHT," WITH "NO
TIME WHATSOEVER TO PREPARE ANY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE," SINCE COUNSEL HAD
BEEN FULLY OCCUPIED TRYING "TO KEEP UP WITH THAT NEW BILL OF
PARTICULARS." 

THE COMMISSION THEREUPON RETIRED FOR DELIBERATION AND, ON RESUMING
ITS SESSIONS SHORTLY, DENIED THE MOTION.  COUNSEL THEN ASKED FOR "A
SHORT RECESS OF A DAY."  THE COMMISSION SUGGESTED A RECESS UNTIL 1:30
IN THE AFTERNOON.  COUNSEL RESPONDED THIS WOULD NOT SUFFICE.  THE
COMMISSION STATED IT FELT "THAT THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE PREPARED AT LEAST
ON ITS OPENING STATEMENT," TO WHICH SENIOR COUNSEL ANSWERED:  "WE
HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO DO THAT, SIR."  THE COMMISSION THEN RECESSED UNTIL
8:30 THE FOLLOWING MORNING. 

FURTHER COMMENT IS HARDLY REQUIRED.  OBVIOUSLY THE BURDEN PLACED UPON
THE DEFENSE, IN THE SHORT TIME ALLOWED FOR PREPARATION ON THE ORIGINAL
BILL, WAS NOT ONLY "TREMENDOUS."  IN VIEW OF ALL THE FACTS, IT WAS AN
IMPOSSIBLE ONE, EVEN THOUGH THE TIME ALLOWED WAS A WEEK LONGER THAN
ASKED.  BUT THE GROSSER VICE WAS LATER WHEN THE BURDEN WAS MORE THAN
DOUBLED BY SERVICE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, A
PROCEDURE WHICH, TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSISTENT DENIALS OF
CONTINUANCE AND THE COMMISSION'S LATER REVERSAL OF ITS RULINGS
FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE, WAS WHOLLY ARBITRARY, CUTTING OFF THE LAST
VESTIGE OF ADEQUATE CHANCE TO PREPARE DEFENSE AND IMPOSING A BURDEN THE
MOST ABLE COUNSEL COULD NOT BEAR.  THIS SORT OF THING HAS NO PLACE IN
OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, CIVIL OR MILITARY.  WITHOUT MORE, THIS WIDE
DEPARTURE FROM THE MOST ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS VITIATED THE
PROCEEDING.  WHEN ADDED TO THE OTHER DENIALS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
SKETCHED ABOVE, IT DEPRIVED THE PROCEEDING OF ANY SEMBLANCE OF TRIAL AS
WE KNOW THAT INSTITUTION. 

                  IV.

                APPLICABILITY OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR. 

THE COURT'S OPINION PUTS THE PROCEEDING AND THE PETITIONER, IN SO FAR
AS ANY RIGHTS RELATING TO HIS TRIAL AND CONVICTION ARE CONCERNED,
WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE ARTICLES OF WAR.  IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE, I
THINK THE DECISION'S NECESSARY EFFECT IS ALSO TO PLACE THEM ENTIRELY
BEYOND LIMITATION AND PROTECTION, RESPECTIVELY, BY THE CONSTITUTION.  I
DISAGREE AS TO BOTH CONCLUSIONS OR EFFECTS. 

THE COURT RULES THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT MADE ARTICLES 25 AND 38
APPLICABLE TO THIS PROCEEDING.  I THINK IT HAS MADE THEM APPLICABLE TO
THIS AND ALL OTHER MILITARY COMMISSIONS OR TRIBUNALS.  IF SO, THE
COMMISSION NOT ONLY LOST ALL POWER TO PUNISH PETITIONER BY WHAT
OCCURRED IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  IT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION TO TRY
HIM.  FOR THE DIRECTIVE BY WHICH IT WAS CONSTITUTED, IN THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 16,  FN28  WAS SQUARELY IN CONFLICT WITH ARTICLES 25 AND 38 OF
THE ARTICLES OF WAR  FN29  AND THEREFORE WAS VOID. 

ARTICLE 25 ALLOWS READING OF DEPOSITIONS IN EVIDENCE, UNDER
PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS, IN THE PLAINEST TERMS "BEFORE ANY MILITARY COURT
OR COMMISSION IN ANY CASE NOT CAPITAL," PROVIDING, HOWEVER, THAT
"TESTIMONY BY DEPOSITION MAY BE ADDUCED FOR THE DEFENSE IN CAPITAL
CASES."  THIS LANGUAGE CLEARLY AND BROADLY COVERS EVERY KIND OF
MILITARY TRIBUNAL, WHETHER "COURT" OR "COMMISSION."  IT COVERS ALL
CAPITAL CASES.  IT MAKES NO EXCEPTION OR DISTINCTION FOR ANY ACCUSED. 

ARTICLE 38 AUTHORIZES THE PRESIDENT BY REGULATIONS TO PRESCRIBE
PROCEDURE, INCLUDING MODES OF PROOF, EVEN MORE ALL-INCLUSIVELY IF
POSSIBLE, "IN CASES BEFORE COURTS-MARTIAL, COURTS OF INQUIRY, MILITARY
COMMISSIONS, AND OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS."  LANGUAGE COULD NOT BE MORE
BROADLY INCLUSIVE.  NO EXCEPTIONS ARE MENTIONED OR SUGGESTED, WHETHER
OF TRIBUNALS OR OF ACCUSED PERSONS.  EVERY KIND OF MILITARY BODY FOR
PERFORMING THE FUNCTION OF TRIAL IS COVERED.  THAT IS CLEAR FROM THE
FACE OF THE ARTICLE. 

ARTICLE 38 MOREOVER LIMITS THE PRESIDENT'S POWER.  HE IS SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE TO PRESCRIBE "THE RULES OF EVIDENCE GENERALLY RECOGNIZED IN
THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES," A CLEAR MANDATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED ALL MILITARY TRIALS TO
CONFORM AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO OUR CUSTOMARY PROCEDURAL AND
EVIDENTIARY PROTECTIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY, FOR ACCUSED
PERSONS.  BUT THERE ARE ALSO TWO UNQUALIFIED LIMITATIONS, ONE "THAT
NOTHING CONTRARY TO OR INCONSISTENT WITH THESE ARTICLES (SPECIFICALLY
HERE ARTICLE 25) SHALL BE SO PRESCRIBED"; THE OTHER "THAT ALL RULES
MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE LAID BEFORE THE CONGRESS
ANNUALLY." 

NOTWITHSTANDING THESE BROAD TERMS THE COURT, RESTING CHIEFLY ON
ARTICLE 2, CONCLUDES THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AMONG THE PERSONS THERE
DECLARED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLES OF WAR AND THEREFORE THE
COMMISSION WHICH TRIES HIM IS NOT SUBJECT TO THEM.  THAT ARTICLE DOES
NOT COVER PRISONERS OF WAR OR WAR CRIMINALS.  NEITHER DOES IT COVER
CIVILIANS IN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, THEATRES OF MILITARY OPERATIONS OR
OTHER PLACES UNDER MILITARY JURISDICTION WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE UNITED
STATES OR TERRITORY SUBJECT TO ITS SOVEREIGNTY, WHETHER THEY BE
NEUTRALS OR ENEMY ALIENS, EVEN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, UNLESS
THEY ARE CONNECTED IN THE MANNER ARTICLE 2 PRESCRIBES WITH OUR ARMED
FORCES, EXCLUSIVE OF THE NAVY. 

THE LOGIC WHICH EXCLUDES PETITIONER ON THE BASIS THAT PRISONERS OF
WAR ARE NOT MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 2 WOULD EXCLUDE ALL THESE.  I STRONGLY
DOUBT THE COURT WOULD GO SO FAR, IF PRESENTED WITH A TRIAL LIKE THIS IN
SUCH INSTANCES.  NOR DOES IT FOLLOW NECESSARILY THAT, BECAUSE SOME
PERSONS MAY NOT BE MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 2, THEY CAN BE TRIED WITHOUT
REGARD TO ANY OF THE LIMITATIONS PLACED BY ANY OF THE OTHER ARTICLES
UPON MILITARY TRIBUNALS. 

ARTICLE 2 IN DEFINING PERSONS "SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLES OF WAR" WAS, I
THINK, SPECIFYING THOSE TO WHOM THE ARTICLES IN GENERAL WERE
APPLICABLE.  AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT MOST OF THE ARTICLES ARE NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE PETITIONER.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, HOWEVER, AND ARTICLE
2 DOES NOT PROVIDE, THAT THERE MAY NOT BE IN THE ARTICLES SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS COVERING PERSONS OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 2. 
HAD IT SO PROVIDED, ARTICLE 2 WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTRADICTORY NOT ONLY OF
ARTICLES 25 AND 38 BUT ALSO OF ARTICLE 15 AMONG OTHERS.    IN 1916,
WHEN THE LAST GENERAL REVISION OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR TOOK PLACE,  FN30
FOR THE FIRST TIME CERTAIN OF THE ARTICLES WERE SPECIFICALLY MADE
APPLICABLE TO MILITARY COMMISSIONS.  UNTIL THEN THEY HAD APPLIED ONLY
TO COURTS-MARTIAL.  THERE WERE TWO PURPOSES, THE FIRST TO GIVE
STATUTORY RECOGNITION TO THE MILITARY COMMISSION WITHOUT LOSS OF PRIOR
JURISDICTION AND THE SECOND TO GIVE THOSE TRIED BEFORE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS AFFORDED PERSONS
TRIED BY COURTS-MARTIAL. 

IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE FIRST PURPOSE, THE ARMY PROPOSED ARTICLE
15.  FN31  TO EFFECTUATE THE SECOND PURPOSE, ARTICLES 25 AND 38 AND
SEVERAL OTHERS WERE PROPOSED.  FN32  BUT AS THE COURT NOW CONSTRUES THE
ARTICLES OF WAR, THEY HAVE NO APPLICATION TO MILITARY COMMISSIONS
BEFORE WHICH ALLEGED OFFENDERS AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR ARE TRIED.  WHAT
THE COURT HOLDS IN EFFECT IS THAT THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF MILITARY
COMMISSION, ONE TO TRY OFFENSES WHICH MIGHT BE COGNIZABLE BY A COURT
MARTIAL, THE OTHER TO TRY WAR CRIMES, AND THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE
ARTICLES OF WAR REFERRING IN TERMS TO MILITARY COMMISSIONS WITHOUT
EXCEPTION TO BE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FIRST TYPE. 

THIS MISCONCEIVES BOTH THE HISTORY OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR.  THERE IS ONLY ONE KIND OF
MILITARY COMMISSION.  IT IS TRUE, AS THE HISTORY NOTED SHOWS, THAT WHAT
IS NOW CALLED "THE MILITARY COMMISSION" AROSE FROM TWO SEPARATE
MILITARY COURTS INSTITUTED DURING THE MEXICAN WAR.  THE FIRST MILITARY
COURT, CALLED BY GENERAL SCOTT A "MILITARY COMMISSION," WAS GIVEN
JURISDICTION IN MEXICO OVER CRIMINAL OFFENSES OF THE CLASS COGNIZABLE
BY CIVIL COURTS IN TIME OF PEACE.  THE OTHER MILITARY COURT, CALLED A
"COUNCIL OF WAR," WAS GIVEN JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS
OF WAR.  WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS (2D ED., REPRINTED
1920)*  1298-1299.  DURING THE CIVIL WAR "THE TWO JURISDICTIONS OF THE
EARLIER COMMISSION AND COUNCIL RESPECTIVELY  ...  (WERE) UNITED IN THE
...  WAR-COURT, FOR WHICH THE GENERAL DESIGNATION OF 'MILITARY
COMMISSION' WAS RETAINED AS THE PREFERABLE ONE."  WINTHROP, SUPRA, AT*
1299.  SINCE THAT TIME THERE HAS BEEN ONLY ONE TYPE OF MILITARY
TRIBUNAL CALLED THE MILITARY COMMISSION, THOUGH IT MAY EXERCISE
DIFFERENT KINDS OF JURISDICTION,  FN33  ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH AND PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT IS CONVENED. 

THE TESTIMONY OF GENERAL CROWDER IS PERHAPS THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE
EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATION, FOR HE WAS ITS MOST
ACTIVE OFFICIAL SPONSOR, SPENDING YEARS IN SECURING ITS ADOPTION AND
REVISION.  ARTICLES 15, 25 AND 38 PARTICULARLY ARE TRACEABLE TO HIS
EFFORTS.  HIS CONCERN TO SECURE STATUTORY RECOGNITION FOR MILITARY
COMMISSIONS WAS EQUALLED BY HIS CONCERN THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
GIVING THIS SHOULD NOT RESTRICT THEIR PREEXISTING JURISDICTION.  HE DID
NOT WISH BY SECURING ADDITIONAL JURISDICTION, OVERLAPPING PARTIALLY
THAT OF THE COURT-MARTIAL, TO SURRENDER OTHER.  HENCE ARTICLE 15.  THAT
ARTICLE HAD ONE PURPOSE AND ONE ONLY.  IT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
ACQUISITION OF PARTIALLY CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH COURTS-MARTIAL
SHOULD NOT CAUSE LOSS OF ANY OTHER.  AND IT WAS JURISDICTION, NOT
PROCEDURE, WHICH WAS COVERED BY OTHER ARTICLES, WITH WHICH HE AND
CONGRESS WERE CONCERNED IN THAT ARTICLE.  IT DISCLOSES NO PURPOSE TO
DEAL IN ANY WAY WITH PROCEDURE OR TO QUALIFY ARTICLES 25 AND 38.  AND
IT IS CLEAR THAT GENERAL CROWDER AT ALL TIMES REGARDED ALL MILITARY
COMMISSIONS AS BEING GOVERNED BY THE IDENTICAL PROCEDURE.  IN FACT, SO
FAR AS ARTICLES 25 AND 38 ARE CONCERNED, THIS SEEMS OBVIOUS FOR ALL
TYPES OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  THE SAME WOULD APPEAR TO BE TRUE OF OTHER
ARTICLES ALSO, E.G., 24(PROHIBITING COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION), 26,
27, 32(CONTEMPTS), ALL EXCEPT THE LAST DEALING WITH PROCEDURAL
MATTERS. 

ARTICLE 12 IS ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT.  IT EMPOWERS GENERAL COURTS
MARTIAL TO TRY TWO CLASSES OF OFFENDERS:  (1) "ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW," UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ARTICLE 2, FOR ANY OFFENSE "MADE
PUNISHABLE BY THESE ARTICLES"; (2) "AND ANY OTHER PERSON WHO BY THE LAW
OF WAR IS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS," NOT COVERED BY THE
TERMS OF ARTICLE 2. 

ARTICLE 12 THUS, IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 15, GIVES THE GENERAL
COURT-MARTIAL CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF WAR CRIMES AND WAR CRIMINALS
WITH MILITARY COMMISSIONS.  NEITHER IT NOR ANY OTHER ARTICLE STATES OR
INDICATES THERE ARE TO BE TWO KINDS OF GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL FOR
TRYING WAR CRIMES; YET THIS IS THE NECESSARY RESULT OF THE COURT'S
DECISION, UNLESS IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD BE TO IMPLY THAT IN
EXERCISING SUCH JURISDICTION THERE IS ONLY ONE KIND OF GENERAL COURT
MARTIAL, BUT THERE ARE TWO OR MORE KINDS OF MILITARY COMMISSION, WITH
WHOLLY DIFFERENT PROCEDURES AND WITH THE RESULT THAT "THE COMMANDER IN
THE FIELD" WILL NOT BE FREE TO DETERMINE WHETHER GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL
OR MILITARY COMMISSION SHALL BE USED AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY DICTATE,
BUT MUST GOVERN HIS CHOICE BY THE KIND OF PROCEDURE HE WISHES TO HAVE
EMPLOYED. 

THE ONLY REASONABLE AND, I THINK, POSSIBLE CONCLUSION TO DRAW FROM
THE ARTICLES IS THAT THE ARTICLES WHICH ARE IN TERMS APPLICABLE TO
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ARE SO UNIFORMLY AND THOSE APPLICABLE TO BOTH SUCH
COMMISSIONS AND TO COURTS-MARTIAL WHEN EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER
OFFENDERS AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR LIKEWISE ARE UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE. 
AND NOT DIVERSELY ACCORDING TO THE PERSON OR OFFENSE BEING TRIED. 

NOT ONLY THE FACE OF THE ARTICLES, BUT SPECIFIC STATEMENTS IN GENERAL
CROWDER'S TESTIMONY SUPPORT THIS VIEW.  THUS IN THE PORTION QUOTED
ABOVE  FN34  FROM HIS 1916 STATEMENT, AFTER STATING EXPRESSLY THE
PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 15 TO PRESERVE UNIMPAIRED THE MILITARY COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION, AND TO MAKE IT CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF COURTS-MARTIAL IN
SO FAR AS THE TWO WOULD OVERLAP, "SO THAT THE MILITARY COMMANDER IN THE
FIELD IN TIME OF WAR WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO EMPLOY EITHER FORM OF COURT
THAT HAPPENS TO BE CONVENIENT," HE WENT ON TO SAY:  "BOTH CLASSES OF
COURTS HAVE THE SAME PROCEDURE," A STATEMENT SO UNEQUIVOCAL AS TO LEAVE
NO ROOM FOR QUESTION.  AND HIS QUOTATION FROM WINTHROP SUPPORTS HIS
STATEMENT, NAMELY:  "ITS (I.E., THE MILITARY COMMISSION'S) COMPOSITION,
CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE FOLLOW THE ANALOGY OF COURTS-MARTIAL." 

AT NO POINT IN THE TESTIMONY IS THERE SUGGESTION THAT THERE ARE TWO
TYPES OF MILITARY COMMISSION, ONE BOUND BY THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF
THE ARTICLES, THE OTHER WHOLLY FREE FROM THEIR RESTRAINTS OR, AS THE
COURT STRANGELY PUTS THE MATTER, THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE KIND OF
COMMISSION, BUT THAT IT IS BOUND OR NOT BOUND BY THE ARTICLES
APPLICABLE IN TERMS, DEPENDING UPON WHO IS BEING TRIED AND FOR WHAT
OFFENSE; FOR THAT VERY DIFFERENCE MAKES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE AND
TWO.  THE HISTORY AND THE DISCUSSION SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THAT GENERAL
CROWDER WISHED TO SECURE AND CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE STATUTORY
RECOGNITION TO ALL FORMS OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS; TO ENABLE COMMANDING
OFFICERS IN THE FIELD TO USE EITHER COURT-MARTIAL OR MILITARY
COMMISSION AS CONVENIENCE MIGHT DICTATE, THUS BROADENING TO THIS EXTENT
THE LATTER'S JURISDICTION AND UTILITY; BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO PRESERVE
ITS FULL PREEXISTING JURISDICTION; AND ALSO TO LAY DOWN IDENTICAL
PROVISIONS FOR GOVERNING OR PROVIDING FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PROCEDURE AND RULES OF EVIDENCE OF EVERY TYPE OF MILITARY TRIBUNAL,
WHEREVER AND HOWEVER CONSTITUTED.  FN35 

FINALLY, UNLESS CONGRESS WAS LEGISLATING WITH REGARD TO ALL MILITARY
COMMISSIONS, ARTICLE 38, WHICH GIVES THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO
"PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE, INCLUDING MODES OF PROOF, IN CASES BEFORE
COURTS-MARTIAL, COURTS OF INQUIRY, MILITARY COMMISSIONS, AND OTHER
MILITARY TRIBUNALS," TAKES ON A RATHER SENSELESS MEANING; FOR THE
PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE SUCH POWER ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THOSE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS EXERCISING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH COURTS-MARTIAL. 

ALL THIS SEEMS SO OBVIOUS, UPON A MERE READING OF THE ARTICLES
THEMSELVES AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AS NOT TO REQUIRE
DEMONSTRATION.  AND ALL THIS CONGRESS KNEW, AS THAT HISTORY SHOWS.  IN
THE FACE OF THAT SHOWING I CANNOT ACCEPT THE COURT'S HIGHLY STRAINED
CONSTRUCTION, FIRST, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS IN PLAIN CONTRADICTION OF
THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE HISTORY OF ARTICLES 15, 25 AND 38 AS WELL AS
THEIR LANGUAGE; AND ALSO BECAUSE THAT CONSTRUCTION DEFEATS AT LEAST TWO
OF THE ENDS GENERAL CROWDER HAD IN MIND, NAMELY, TO SECURE STATUTORY
RECOGNITION FOR EVERY FORM OF MILITARY TRIBUNAL AND TO PROVIDE FOR THEM
A BASIC UNIFORM MODE OF PROCEDURE OR METHOD OF PROVIDING FOR THEIR
PROCEDURE. 

ACCORDINGLY, I THINK ARTICLES 25 AND 38 ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS
PROCEEDING; THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNING DIRECTIVE IN SEC. 16
ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THOSE ARTICLES; AND FOR THAT REASON THE
COMMISSION WAS INVALIDLY CONSTITUTED, WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AND ITS
SENTENCE IS THEREFORE VOID. 

                     V.

                    THE GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1929. 

IF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 25 AND 38 WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE
PROCEEDING BY THEIR OWN FORCE AS ACTS OF CONGRESS, I THINK THEY WOULD
STILL BE MADE APPLICABLE BY VIRTUE OF THE TERMS OF THE GENEVA
CONVENTION OF 1929, IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 63.  AND IN OTHER RESPECTS,
IN MY OPINION, THE PETITIONER'S TRIAL WAS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THAT
TREATY, NAMELY, WITH ARTICLE 60. 

THE COURT DOES NOT HOLD THAT THE GENEVA CONVENTION IS NOT BINDING
UPON THE UNITED STATES AND NO SUCH CONTENTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS
CASE.  FN36  IT RELIES ON OTHER ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT ARTICLE 60,
WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE PROTECTING POWER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE
OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING DIRECTED AGAINST A PRISONER OF WAR, AND
ARTICLE 63, WHICH PROVIDES THAT A PRISONER OF WAR MAY BE TRIED ONLY BY
THE SAME COURTS AND ACCORDING TO THE SAME PROCEDURE AS IN THE CASE OF
PERSONS BELONGING TO THE ARMED FORCES OF THE DETAINING POWER, ARE NOT
PROPERLY INVOKED BY THE PETITIONER.  BEFORE CONSIDERING THE COURT'S
VIEW THAT THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROCEEDING BY THEIR
TERMS, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT ON HIS SURRENDER PETITIONER WAS INTERNED IN
CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 9 OF THIS CONVENTION. 

THE CHIEF ARGUMENT IS THAT ARTICLES 60 AND 63 HAVE REFERENCE ONLY TO
OFFENSES COMMITTED BY A PRISONER OF WAR WHILE A PRISONER OF WAR AND NOT
TO VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR COMMITTED WHILE A COMBATANT.  THIS
CONCLUSION IS DERIVED FROM THE SETTING IN WHICH THESE ARTICLES ARE
PLACED.  I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE CONTEXT GIVES ANY SUPPORT TO THIS
ARGUMENT.  THE ARGUMENT IS IN ESSENCE OF THE SAME TYPE AS THE ARGUMENT
THE COURT EMPLOYS TO NULLIFY THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 25 AND 38 OF
THE ARTICLES OF WAR BY RESTRICTING THEIR OWN BROADER COVERAGE BY
REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 2.  FOR REASONS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN37  I
THINK IT EQUALLY INVALID HERE. 

NEITHER ARTICLE 60 NOR ARTICLE 63 CONTAINS SUCH A RESTRICTION OF
MEANING AS THE COURT READS INTO THEM.  FN38  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH
LIMITATION, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO COVER ALL JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER INSTITUTED FOR CRIMES ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED BEFORE
CAPTURE OR LATER.  POLICY SUPPORTS THIS VIEW.  FOR SUCH A CONSTRUCTION
IS REQUIRED FOR THE SECURITY OF OUR OWN SOLDIERS, TAKEN PRISONER, AS
MUCH AS FOR THAT OF PRISONERS WE TAKE.  AND THE OPPOSITE ONE LEAVES
PRISONERS OF WAR OPEN TO ANY FORM OF TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT FOR OFFENSES
AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR THEIR CAPTORS MAY WISH TO USE, WHILE
SAFEGUARDING THEM, TO THE EXTENT OF THE TREATY LIMITATIONS, IN CASES OF
DISCIPLINARY OFFENSE.  THIS, IN MANY INSTANCES, WOULD BE TO MAKE THE
TREATY STRAIN AT A GNAT AND SWALLOW THE CAMEL. 

THE UNITED STATES HAS COMPLIED WITH NEITHER OF THESE ARTICLES.  IT
DID NOT NOTIFY THE PROTECTING POWER OF JAPAN IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL AS
ARTICLE 60 REQUIRES IT TO DO, ALTHOUGH THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL CHARGES
THE SAME FAILURE TO PETITIONER IN ITEM 89.  FN39  IT IS SAID THAT,
ALTHOUGH THIS MAY BE TRUE, THE PROCEEDING IS NOT THEREBY INVALIDATED. 
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT OUR NONCOMPLIANCE MERELY GIVES JAPAN A RIGHT OF
INDEMNITY AGAINST US AND THAT ARTICLE 60 WAS NOT INTENDED TO GIVE
YAMASHITA ANY PERSONAL RIGHTS.  I CANNOT AGREE.  THE TREATIES MADE BY
THE UNITED STATES ARE BY THE CONSTITUTION MADE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SOMETHING IN THE TREATY INDICATING THAT ITS
PROVISIONS WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE ENFORCED, UPON BREACH, BY MORE THAN
SUBSEQUENT INDEMNIFICATION, IT IS, AS I CONCEIVE IT, THE DUTY OF THE
COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY TO INSURE THE NATION'S COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH
TREATIES, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS.  THIS IS
ESPECIALLY TRUE WHERE THE TREATY HAS PROVISIONS - SUCH AS ARTICLE 60 -
FOR THE PROTECTION OF A MAN BEING TRIED FOR AN OFFENSE THE PUNISHMENT
FOR WHICH IS DEATH; FOR TO SAY THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH PROVISIONS SOLELY BY CLAIM, AFTER BREACH, OF
INDEMNITY WOULD BE IN MANY INSTANCES, ESPECIALLY THOSE INVOLVING TRIAL
OF NATIONALS OF A DEFEATED NATION BY A CONQUERING ONE, TO DEPRIVE THE
ARTICLES OF ALL FORCE.  EXECUTED MEN ARE NOT MUCH AIDED BY POSTWAR
CLAIMS FOR INDEMNITY.  I DO NOT THINK THE ADHERING POWERS' PURPOSE WAS
TO PROVIDE ONLY FOR SUCH INEFFECTIVE RELIEF. 

FINALLY, THE GOVERNMENT HAS ARGUED THAT ARTICLE 60 HAS NO APPLICATION
AFTER THE ACTUAL CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES, AS THERE IS NO LONGER ANY
NEED FOR AN INTERVENING POWER BETWEEN THE TWO BELLIGERENTS.  THE
PREMISE IS THAT JAPAN NO LONGER NEEDS SWITZERLAND TO INTERVENE WITH THE
UNITED STATES TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF JAPANESE NATIONALS, SINCE JAPAN
IS NOW IN DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH THIS GOVERNMENT.  THIS OF COURSE IS
IN CONTRADICTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S THEORY, IN OTHER CONNECTIONS, THAT
THE WAR IS NOT OVER AND MILITARY NECESSITY STILL REQUIRES USE OF ALL
THE POWER NECESSARY FOR ACTUAL COMBAT.    FURTHERMORE THE PREMISE
OVERLOOKS ALL THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION.  JAPAN IS A DEFEATED
POWER, HAVING SURRENDERED, IF NOT UNCONDITIONALLY THEN UNDER THE MOST
SEVERE CONDITIONS.  HER TERRITORY IS OCCUPIED BY AMERICAN MILITARY
FORCES.  SHE IS SCARCELY IN A POSITION TO BARGAIN WITH US OR TO ASSERT
HER RIGHTS.  NOR CAN HER NATIONALS.  SHE NO LONGER HOLDS AMERICAN
PRISONERS OF WAR.  FN40  CERTAINLY, IF THERE WAS THE NEED OF AN
INDEPENDENT NEUTRAL TO PROTECT HER NATIONALS DURING THE WAR, THERE IS
MORE NOW.  IN MY OPINION THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY
ARTICLE 60 IS ONLY ANOTHER INSTANCE OF THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO
OBSERVE THE OBLIGATIONS OF OUR LAW. 

WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 63 OF
THE SAME CONVENTION.  YAMASHITA WAS NOT TRIED "ACCORDING TO THE SAME
PROCEDURE AS IN THE CASE OF PERSONS BELONGING TO THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE DETAINING POWER."  HAD ONE OF OUR SOLDIERS OR OFFICERS BEEN TRIED
FOR ALLEGED WAR CRIMES, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF
THE ARTICLES OF WAR.  I THINK THAT YAMASHITA WAS EQUALLY ENTITLED TO
THE SAME PROTECTION.  IN ANY EVENT, HE WAS ENTITLED TO THEIR BENEFITS
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 63 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION.  THOSE
BENEFITS HE DID NOT RECEIVE.  ACCORDINGLY, HIS TRIAL WAS IN VIOLATION
OF THE CONVENTION. 

                               VI.

  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

WHOLLY APART FROM THE VIOLATION OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR AND OF THE
GENEVA CONVENTION, I AM COMPLETELY UNABLE TO ACCEPT OR TO UNDERSTAND
THE COURT'S RULING CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THIS CASE.  NOT HERETOFORE HAS IT BEEN
HELD THAT ANY HUMAN BEING IS BEYOND ITS UNIVERSALLY PROTECTING SPREAD
IN THE GUARANTY OF A FAIR TRIAL IN THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL SENSE.  THAT
DOOR IS DANGEROUS TO OPEN.  I WILL HAVE NO PART IN OPENING IT.  FOR
ONCE IT IS AJAR, EVEN FOR ENEMY BELLIGERENTS, IT CAN BE PUSHED BACK
WIDER FOR OTHERS, PERHAPS ULTIMATELY FOR ALL. 

THE COURT DOES NOT DECLARE EXPRESSLY THAT PETITIONER AS AN ENEMY
BELLIGERENT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, A RULING I COULD UNDERSTAND
BUT NOT ACCEPT.  NEITHER DOES IT AFFIRM THAT HE HAS SOME, IF BUT
LITTLE, CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  NOR DOES THE COURT DEFEND WHAT WAS
DONE.  I THINK THE EFFECT OF WHAT IT DOES IS IN SUBSTANCE TO DENY HIM
ALL SUCH SAFEGUARDS.  AND THIS IS THE GREAT ISSUE IN THE CAUSE. 

FOR IT IS EXACTLY HERE WE ENTER WHOLLY UNTRODDEN GROUND.  THE SAFE
SIGNPOSTS TO THE REAR ARE NOT IN THE SUM OF PROTECTIONS SURROUNDING
JURY TRIALS OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING KNOWN TO OUR LAW.  NOR IS THE
ESSENCE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S ELEMENTARY PROTECTION COMPREHENDED IN
ANY SINGLE ONE OF OUR TIME-HONORED SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
IN TRIAL, THOUGH THERE ARE SOME WITHOUT WHICH THE WORDS "FAIR TRIAL"
AND ALL THEY CONNOTE BECOME A MOCKERY. 

APART FROM A TRIBUNAL CONCERNED THAT THE LAW AS APPLIED SHALL BE AN
INSTRUMENT OF JUSTICE, ALBEIT STERN IN MEASURE TO THE GUILT
ESTABLISHED, THE HEART OF THE SECURITY LIES IN TWO THINGS.  ONE IS THAT
CONVICTION SHALL NOT REST IN ANY ESSENTIAL PART UPON UNCHECKED RUMOR,
REPORT, OR THE RESULTS OF THE PROSECUTION'S EX PARTE INVESTIGATIONS,
BUT SHALL STAND ON PROVEN FACT; THE OTHER, CORRELATIVE, LIES IN A FAIR
CHANCE TO DEFEND.  THIS EMBRACES AT THE LEAST THE RIGHTS TO KNOW WITH
REASONABLE CLARITY IN ADVANCE OF THE TRIAL THE EXACT NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE WITH WHICH ONE IS TO BE CHARGED; TO HAVE REASONABLE TIME FOR
PREPARING TO MEET THE CHARGE AND TO HAVE THE AID OF COUNSEL IN DOING
SO, AS ALSO IN THE TRIAL ITSELF; AND IF, DURING ITS COURSE, ONE IS
TAKEN BY SURPRISE, THROUGH THE INJECTION OF NEW CHARGES OR REVERSAL OF
RULINGS WHICH BRINGS FORTH NEW MASSES OF EVIDENCE, THEN TO HAVE FURTHER
REASONABLE TIME FOR MEETING THE UNEXPECTED SHIFT. 

SO FAR AS I KNOW, IT HAS NOT YET BEEN HELD THAT ANY TRIBUNAL IN OUR
SYSTEM, OF WHATEVER CHARACTER, IS FREE TO RECEIVE SUCH EVIDENCE "AS IN
ITS OPINION WOULD BE OF ASSISTANCE IN PROVING OR DISPROVING THE
CHARGE," OR, AGAIN AS IN ITS OPINION, "WOULD HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE IN
THE MIND OF A REASONABLE MAN"; AND, HAVING RECEIVED WHAT IN ITS
UNLIMITED DISCRETION IT REGARDS AS SUFFICIENT, IS ALSO FREE TO
DETERMINE WHAT WEIGHT MAY BE GIVEN TO THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED WITHOUT
RESTRAINT.  FN41 

WHEN TO THIS FATAL DEFECT IN THE DIRECTIVE, HOWEVER INNOCENTLY MADE,
ARE ADDED THE BROAD DEPARTURES FROM THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FAIR PLAY IN
THE PROOF AND IN THE RIGHT TO DEFEND WHICH OCCURRED THROUGHOUT THE
PROCEEDING, THERE CAN BE NO ACCOMMODATION WITH THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW
WHICH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DEMANDS. 

ALL THIS THE COURT PUTS TO ONE SIDE WITH THE SHORT ASSERTION THAT NO
QUESTION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OR JURISDICTION
REVIEWABLE HERE IS PRESENTED.  I DO NOT THINK THIS MEETS THE ISSUE,
STANDING ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUGGESTION WHICH FOLLOWS THAT
THE COURT GIVES NO INTIMATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER CONCERNING WHAT
FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS MIGHT REQUIRE IN OTHER SITUATIONS. 

IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO ADD HERE THAT, ALTHOUGH WITHOUT DOUBT THE
DIRECTIVE WAS DRAWN IN GOOD FAITH IN THE BELIEF THAT IT WOULD EXPEDITE
THE TRIAL AND THAT ENEMY BELLIGERENTS IN PETITIONER'S POSITION WERE NOT
ENTITLED TO MORE, THAT STATE OF MIND AND PURPOSE CANNOT CURE THE
NULLIFICATION OF BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RECAPITULATE.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
COURT'S VIEW OF THIS PROCEEDING AND MY OWN COMES DOWN IN THE END TO THE
VIEW, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT THERE IS NO LAW RESTRICTIVE UPON THESE
PROCEEDINGS OTHER THAN WHATEVER RULES AND REGULATIONS MAY BE PRESCRIBED
FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT BY THE EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OR THE MILITARY AND, ON
THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, OF THE
GENEVA CONVENTION AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT APPLY. 

I CANNOT ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT ANYWHERE IN OUR SYSTEM RESIDES OR LURKS
A POWER SO UNRESTRAINED TO DEAL WITH ANY HUMAN BEING THROUGH ANY
PROCESS OF TRIAL.  WHAT MILITARY AGENCIES OR AUTHORITIES MAY DO WITH
OUR ENEMIES IN BATTLE OR INVASION, APART FROM PROCEEDINGS IN THE NATURE
OF TRIAL AND SOME SEMBLANCE OF JUDICIAL ACTION, IS BESIDE THE POINT. 
NOR HAS ANY HUMAN BEING HERETOFORE BEEN HELD TO BE WHOLLY BEYOND
ELEMENTARY PROCEDURAL PROTECTION BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  I CANNOT
CONSENT TO EVEN IMPLIED DEPARTURE FROM THAT GREAT ABSOLUTE. 

IT WAS A GREAT PATRIOT WHO SAID: 

"HE THAT WOULD MAKE HIS OWN LIBERTY SECURE MUST GUARD EVEN HIS ENEMY
FROM OPPRESSION; FOR IF HE VIOLATES THIS DUTY HE ESTABLISHES A
PRECEDENT THAT WILL REACH TO HIMSELF."  FN42 

FN1  CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277; KRING V. MISSOURI, 107 U.S.
221. 

FN2  ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56, 83-84; UNITED
STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81; CF. SCREWS V. UNITED STATES,
325 U.S. 91.  SEE NOTE 17 AND TEXT. 

FN3  HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271; SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S.
97, 105:  "WHAT MAY NOT BE TAKEN AWAY IS NOTICE OF THE CHARGE AND AN
ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN DEFENSE OF IT."  SEE PART III. 

FN4  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS STATE:  "WE HAVE RECEIVED FOR ANALYSIS
AND EVALUATION 423 EXHIBITS CONSISTING OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF THE
UNITED STATES ARMY, THE UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT, AND THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES; AFFIDAVITS; CAPTURED ENEMY DOCUMENTS
OR TRANSLATIONS THEREOF; DIARIES TAKEN FROM JAPANESE PERSONNEL,
PHOTOGRAPHS, MOTION PICTURE FILMS, AND MANILA NEWSPAPERS."  SEE NOTES
19 AND 20. 

CONCERNING THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THESE ELEMENTS IN THE PROOF, THE
ISSUES TO WHICH THEY WERE DIRECTED, AND THEIR PREJUDICIAL EFFECTS, SEE
TEXT INFRA AND NOTES IN PART II. 

FN5  QUEEN V. HEPBURN, 7 CRANCH 290; DONNELLY V. UNITED STATES, 228
U.S. 243, 273.  SEE PART II; NOTE 21. 

FN6  MOTES V. UNITED STATES, 178 U.S. 458; PAONI V. UNITED STATES,
281 F. 801.  SEE PARTS II AND III. 

FN7  SEE PART II AT NOTES 10, 19; PART III. 

FN8  THE LINE OF AUTHORIZATION WITHIN THE MILITARY HIERARCHY EXTENDED
FROM THE PRESIDENT, THROUGH THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF AND GENERAL
MACARTHUR, TO GENERAL STYER, WHOSE ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 25TH AND OTHERS
WERE MADE PURSUANT TO AND IN CONFORMITY WITH GENERAL MACARTHUR'S
DIRECTIVE.  THE CHARGE WAS PREPARED BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.  THERE IS NO DISPUTE CONCERNING THESE FACTS OR
THAT THE DIRECTIVE WAS BINDING ON GENERAL STYER AND THE COMMISSION,
THOUGH IT IS ARGUED HIS OWN AUTHORITY AS AREA COMMANDING GENERAL WAS
INDEPENDENTLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN WHAT WAS DONE. 

FN9  "16.  EVIDENCE.  - A. THE COMMISSION SHALL ADMIT SUCH EVIDENCE
AS IN ITS OPINION WOULD BE OF ASSISTANCE IN PROVING OR DISPROVING THE
CHARGE, OR SUCH AS IN THE COMMISSION'S OPINION WOULD HAVE PROBATIVE
VALUE IN THE MIND OF A REASONABLE MAN.  IN PARTICULAR, AND WITHOUT
LIMITING IN ANY WAY THE SCOPE OF THE FOREGOING GENERAL RULES, THE
FOLLOWING EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED: 

(1)  ANY DOCUMENT WHICH APPEARS TO THE COMMISSION TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED
OR ISSUED OFFICIALLY BY ANY OFFICER, DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, OR MEMBER OF
THE ARMED FORCES OF ANY GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT PROOF OF THE SIGNATURE OR
OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE DOCUMENT. 

(2)  ANY REPORT WHICH APPEARS TO THE COMMISSION TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED
OR ISSUED BY THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS OR A MEMBER THEREOF, OR BY A
MEDICAL DOCTOR OR ANY MEDICAL SERVICE PERSONNEL, OR BY AN INVESTIGATOR
OR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON WHOM THE COMMISSION
FINDS TO HAVE BEEN ACTING IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTY WHEN MAKING THE
REPORT. 

(3)  AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS, OR OTHER STATEMENTS TAKEN BY AN OFFICER
DETAILED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY MILITARY AUTHORITY. 

(4)  ANY DIARY, LETTER OR OTHER DOCUMENT APPEARING TO THE COMMISSION
TO CONTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO THE CHARGE. 

(5)  A COPY OF ANY DOCUMENT OR OTHER SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF ITS
CONTENTS, IF THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT THE ORIGINAL IS NOT AVAILABLE
OR CANNOT BE PRODUCED WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY...." 

FN10  IN ONE INSTANCE THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION SAID: "THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH GUIDE THIS COMMISSION ARE BINDING UPON THE
COMMISSION AND AGENCIES PROVIDED TO ASSIST THE COMMISSION....  WE HAVE
BEEN AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE AND WEIGH SUCH EVIDENCE AS WE CAN CONSIDER
TO HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE, AND FURTHER COMMENTS BY THE DEFENSE ON THE
RIGHT WHICH WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THIS EVIDENCE IS DECIDEDLY OUT OF
ORDER."  BUT SEE NOTE 19. 

FN11  CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 19 CONCERNING THE PREJUDICIAL CHARACTER
OF THE EVIDENCE. 

FN12  NOTE 4. 

FN13  NAMELY, "(1) STARVATION, EXECUTION OR MASSACRE WITHOUT TRIAL
AND MALADMINISTRATION GENERALLY OF CIVILIAN INTERNEES AND PRISONERS OF
WAR; (2) TORTURE, RAPE, MURDER AND MASS EXECUTION OF VERY LARGE NUMBERS
OF RESIDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND
MEMBERS OF RELIGIOUS ORDERS, BY STARVATION, BEHEADING, BAYONETING,
CLUBBING, HANGING, BURNING ALIVE, AND DESTRUCTION BY EXPLOSIVES; (3)
BURNING AND DEMOLITION WITHOUT ADEQUATE MILITARY NECESSITY OF LARGE
NUMBERS OF HOMES, PLACES OF BUSINESS, PLACES OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP,
HOSPITALS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.  IN POINT OF
TIME, THE OFFENSES EXTENDED THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD THE ACCUSED WAS IN
COMMAND OF JAPANESE TROOPS IN THE PHILIPPINES.  IN POINT OF AREA, THE
CRIMES EXTENDED THROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, ALTHOUGH BY FAR
THE MOST OF THE INCREDIBLE ACTS OCCURRED ON LUZON." 

FN14  CF. NOTE 13. 

FN15  IN ADDITION THE FINDINGS SET FORTH THAT CAPTURED ORDERS OF
SUBORDINATE OFFICERS GAVE PROOF THAT "THEY, AT LEAST," ORDERED ACTS
"LEADING DIRECTLY TO" ATROCITIES; THAT "THE PROOF OFFERED TO THE
COMMISSION ALLEGED CRIMINAL NEGLECT  ...  AS WELL AS COMPLETE FAILURE
BY THE HIGHER ECHELONS OF COMMAND TO DETECT AND PREVENT CREUL AND
INHUMAN TREATMENT ACCORDED BY LOCAL COMMANDERS AND GUARDS"; AND THAT,
ALTHOUGH THE "DEFENSE ESTABLISHED THE DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THE
ACCUSED" WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE AMONG OTHER THINGS TO THE DISCIPLINE
AND MORALE OF HIS TROOPS UNDER THE "SWIFT AND OVERPOWERING ADVANCE OF
AMERICAN FORCES," AND NOTWITHSTANDING HE HAD STOUTLY MAINTAINED HIS
COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF THE CRIMES, STILL HE WAS AN OFFICER OF LONG
EXPERIENCE; HIS ASSIGNMENT WAS ONE OF BROAD RESPONSIBILITY; IT WAS HIS
DUTY "TO DISCOVER AND CONTROL" CRIMES BY HIS TROOPS, IF WIDESPREAD, AND
THEREFORE 

"THE COMMISSION CONCLUDES:  (1) THAT A SERIES OF ATROCITIES AND OTHER
HIGH CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY MEMBERS OF THE JAPANESE ARMED FORCES
UNDER YOUR COMMAND AGAINST PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, THEIR ALLIES
AND DEPENDENCIES THROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; THAT THEY WERE NOT
SPORADIC IN NATURE BUT IN MANY CASES WERE METHODICALLY SUPERVISED BY
JAPANESE OFFICERS AND NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS; (2) THAT DURING THE
PERIOD IN QUESTION YOU FAILED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF YOUR
TROOPS AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

"ACCORDINGLY UPON SECRET WRITTEN BALLOT, TWO-THIRDS OR MORE OF THE
MEMBERS CONCURRING, THE COMMISSION FINDS YOU GUILTY AS CHARGED AND
SENTENCES YOU TO DEATH BY HANGING." 

FN16  SEE NOTE 15. 

FN17  THE CHARGE, SET FORTH AT THE END OF THIS NOTE, IS CONSISTENT
WITH EITHER THEORY - OR BOTH - AND THUS AMBIGUOUS, AS WERE THE
FINDINGS.  SEE NOTE 15.  THE ONLY WORD IMPLYING KNOWLEDGE WAS
"PERMITTING."  IF "WILFULLY" IS ESSENTIAL TO CONSTITUTE A CRIME OR
CHARGE OF ONE, OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTION OF "VAGUENESS," CF.
SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91, IT WOULD SEEM THAT "PERMITTING"
ALONE WOULD HARDLY BE SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE "WILFUL AND INTENTIONAL"
ACTION OR OMISSION; AND, IF TAKEN TO BE SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE KNOWLEDGE,
IT WOULD FOLLOW NECESSARILY THAT THE CHARGE ITSELF WAS NOT DRAWN TO
STATE AND WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF MERE FAILURE TO
DETECT OR DISCOVER THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF OTHERS.    AT THE MOST,
"PERMITTING" COULD CHARGE KNOWLEDGE ONLY BY INFERENCE OR IMPLICATION. 
AND REASONABLY THE WORD COULD BE TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CHARGE TO
MEAN "ALLOWING" OR "NOT PREVENTING," A MEANING CONSISTENT WITH ABSENCE
OF KNOWLEDGE AND MERE FAILURE TO DISCOVER.  IN CAPITAL CASES SUCH
AMBIGUITY IS WHOLLY OUT OF PLACE.  THE PROOF WAS EQUALLY AMBIGUOUS IN
THE SAME RESPECT, SO FAR AS WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED, AND SO, TO REPEAT,
WERE THE FINDINGS.  THE USE OF "WILFULLY," EVEN QUALIFIED BY A "MUST
HAVE," ONE TIME ONLY IN THE FINDINGS HARDLY CAN SUPPLY THE ABSENCE OF
THAT OR AN EQUIVALENT WORD OR LANGUAGE IN THE CHARGE OR IN THE PROOF TO
SUPPORT THAT ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN THE CRIME. 

THE CHARGE WAS AS FOLLOWS:  "TOMOYUKI YAMASHITA, GENERAL IMPERIAL
JAPANESE ARMY, BETWEEN 9 OCTOBER 1944 AND 2 SEPTEMBER 1945, AT MANILA
AND AT OTHER PLACES IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, WHILE COMMANDER OF ARMED
FORCES OF JAPAN AT WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS
ALLIES, UNLAWFULLY DISREGARDED AND FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS DUTY AS
COMMANDER TO CONTROL THE OPERATIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF HIS COMMAND,
PERMITTING THEM TO COMMIT BRUTAL ATROCITIES AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES
AGAINST PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF ITS ALLIES AND DEPENDENCIES,
PARTICULARLY THE PHILIPPINES; AND HE, GENERAL TOMOYUKI YAMASHITA,
THEREBY VIOLATED THE LAWS OF WAR." 

FN18  CF. TEXT INFRA PART IV. 

FN19  ON NOVEMBER 1, EARLY IN THE TRIAL, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
COMMISSION STATED:  "I THINK THE PROSECUTION SHOULD CONSIDER THE
DESIRABILITY OF STRIKING CERTAIN ITEMS.  THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT
THERE MUST BE WITNESSES INTRODUCED ON EACH OF THE SPECIFICATIONS OR
ITEMS.  IT HAS NO OBJECTION TO CONSIDERING AFFIDAVITS, BUT IT IS
UNWILLING TO FORM AN OPINION OF A PARTICULAR ITEM BASED SOLELY ON AN
AFFIDAVIT.  THEREFORE, UNTIL EVIDENCE IS INTRODUCED, THESE PARTICULAR
EXHIBITS ARE REJECTED." 

LATER EVIDENCE OF THE EXCLUDED TYPE WAS OFFERED, TO INTRODUCTION OF
WHICH THE DEFENSE OBJECTED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING THE PRIOR
RULING.  AT THE PROSECUTION'S URGING THE COMMISSION WITHDREW TO
DELIBERATE.  LATER IT ANNOUNCED THAT "AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THE
COMMISSION REVERSES THAT RULING (OF NOVEMBER 1) AND AFFIRMS ITS
PREROGATIVE OF RECEIVING AND CONSIDERING AFFIDAVITS OR DEPOSITIONS, IF
IT CHOOSES TO DO SO, FOR WHATEVER PROBATIVE VALUE THE COMMISSION
BELIEVES THEY MAY HAVE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PRESENTATION OF SOME
PARTIALLY CORROBORATIVE ORAL TESTIMONY."  IT THEN ADDED:  "THE
COMMISSION DIRECTS THE PROSECUTION AGAIN TO INTRODUCE THE AFFIDAVITS OR
DEPOSITIONS THEN IN QUESTION, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE
WHICH THE PROSECUTION STATED HAD BEEN PREPARED FOR INTRODUCTION." 

THEREAFTER THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE WAS CONSISTENTLY RECEIVED AND AGAIN,
BY THE UNDISPUTED STATEMENT OF COUNSEL, AS THE SOLE PROOF OF MANY OF
THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE BILLS, A PROCEDURE WHICH THEY CHARACTERIZE
CORRECTLY IN MY VIEW AS HAVING "IN EFFECT, STRIPPED THE PROCEEDING OF
ALL SEMBLANCE OF A TRIAL AND CONVERTED IT INTO AN EX PARTE
INVESTIGATION." 

FN20  THIS PERHAPS CONSISTED IN THE SHOWING OF THE SO-CALLED
"PROPAGANDA" FILM, "ORDERS FROM TOKYO," PORTRAYING SCENES OF BATTLE
DESTRUCTION IN MANILA, WHICH COUNSEL SAY "WAS NOT IN ITSELF SERIOUSLY
OBJECTIONABLE."  HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE, INFLAMMATORY AND PREJUDICIAL,
HOWEVER, WAS THE ACCOMPANYING SOUND TRACK WITH COMMENT THAT THE FILM
WAS "EVIDENCE WHICH WILL CONVICT," MENTIONING PETITIONER SPECIFICALLY
BY NAME. 

FN21  INNUMERABLE INSTANCES OF HEARSAY, ONCE OR SEVERAL TIMES
REMOVED, RELATING TO ALL MANNER OF INCIDENTS, RUMORS, REPORTS, ETC.,
WERE AMONG THESE.  MANY INSTANCES, TOO, ARE SHOWN OF THE USE OF OPINION
EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS OF GUILT, INCLUDING REPORTS MADE AFTER EX
PARTE INVESTIGATIONS BY THE WAR CRIMES BRANCH OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT, WHICH IT WAS AND IS URGED HAD THE EFFECT OF
"PUTTING THE PROSECUTION ON THE WITNESS STAND" AND OF USURPING THE
COMMISSION'S FUNCTION AS JUDGE OF THE LAW AND THE FACTS.  IT IS SAID
ALSO THAT SOME OF THE REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AS THE SOLE PROOF OF SOME
OF THE SPECIFICATIONS. 

FN22  ALSO WITH PARAGRAPH 82 OF THE RULES OF LAND WARFARE. 

FN23  TYPICAL OF THE ITEMS ARE ALLEGATIONS THAT MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF JAPAN UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE ACTS
"DURING THE MONTHS OF OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 1944(OF) BRUTALLY
MISTREATING AND TORTURING NUMEROUS UNARMED NONCOMBATANT CIVILIANS AT
THE JAPANESE MILITARY POLICE HEADQUARTERS LOCATED AT CORTABITARTE AND
MABINI STREETS, MANILA" AND "ON ABOUT 19 FEBRUARY 1945, IN THE TOWN OF
CUENCA, BATANGAS PROVINCE, BRUTALLY MISTREATING, MASSACRING AND KILLING
JOSE M. LAGUO, ESTEBAN MAGSAMDOL, JOSE LANBO, FELISA APUNTAR, ELFIDIO
LUNAR, VICTORIANA RAMO, AND 978 OTHER PERSONS, ALL UNARMED NONCOMBATANT
CIVILIANS, PILLAGING AND UNNECESSARY, DELIBERATELY AND WANTONLY
DEVASTATING, BURNING AND DESTROYING LARGE AREAS OF THAT TOWN." 

FN24  THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL CONTAINS ALLEGATIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE SET
OUT IN THE ORIGINAL BILL.  SEE NOTE 23.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT CHARGED THAT
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF JAPAN UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE ACCUSED
"DURING THE PERIOD FROM 9 OCTOBER 1944 TO ABOUT 1 FEBRUARY 1945, AT
CAVITE CITY, IMUS, AND ELSEWHERE IN CAVITE PROVINCE," WERE PERMITTED TO
COMMIT THE ACTS OF "BRUTALLY MISTREATING, TORTURING, AND KILLING OR
ATTEMPTING TO KILL, WITHOUT CAUSE OR TRIAL, UNARMED NONCOMBATANT
CIVILIANS." 

FN25  SEE NOTE 39 AND TEXT, PART V. 

FN26  IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION COUNSEL INDICATED SURPRISE BY SAYING
THAT, THOUGH IT WAS ASSUMED TWO OR THREE NEW SPECIFICATIONS MIGHT BE
ADDED, THERE HAD BEEN NO EXPECTATION OF 59 "ABOUT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
PERSONS AND TIMES."  THE STATEMENT CONTINUED: 

"WE HAVE WORKED EARNESTLY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK IN ORDER TO PREPARE THE
DEFENSE ON 64 SPECIFICATIONS.  AND WHEN I SAY 'PREPARE THE DEFENSE,'
SIR, I DO NOT MEAN MERELY AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, BUT TO ACQUAINT
OURSELVES WITH THE FACTS SO THAT WE COULD PROPERLY CROSS EXAMINE THE
PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES. 

"...  'IN ADVANCE OF TRIAL' MEANS:  SUFFICIENT TIME TO ALLOW THE
DEFENSE A CHANCE TO PREPARE ITS DEFENSE. 

"WE EARNESTLY STATE THAT WE MUST HAVE THIS TIME IN ORDER TO
ADEQUATELY PREPARE A DEFENSE.  I MIGHT ADD, SIR, WE THINK THAT THIS IS
IMPORTANT TO THE ACCUSED, BUT FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY RIGHTS OF
THIS ACCUSED, WE BELIEVE, IS THE PROPOSITION THAT THIS COMMISSION
SHOULD NOT DEVIATE FROM A FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS
..." 

FN27  THE COMMISSION WENT ON TO QUESTION THE NEED FOR ALL OF THE SIX
OFFICERS REPRESENTING THE DEFENSE TO BE PRESENT DURING PRESENTATION OF
ALL THE CASE, SUGGESTED ONE OR TWO WOULD BE ADEQUATE AND OTHERS "SHOULD
BE OUT OF THE COURTROOM" ENGAGED IN OTHER MATTERS AND STRONGLY
SUGGESTED BRINGING IN ADDITIONAL COUNSEL IN THE MIDST OF THE TRIAL, ALL
TO THE END THAT "NEED TO REQUEST A CONTINUANCE MAY NOT ARISE." 

FN28  SEE NOTE 9. 

FN29  ARTICLE 25 IS AS FOLLOWS:  "A DULY AUTHENTICATED DEPOSITION
TAKEN UPON REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY MAY BE READ IN
EVIDENCE BEFORE ANY MILITARY COURT OR COMMISSION IN ANY CASE NOT
CAPITAL, OR IN ANY PROCEEDING BEFORE A COURT OF INQUIRY OR A MILITARY
BOARD, IF SUCH DEPOSITION BE TAKEN WHEN THE WITNESS RESIDES, IS FOUND,
OR IS ABOUT TO GO BEYOND THE STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT IN WHICH THE
COURT, COMMISSION, OR BOARD IS ORDERED TO SIT, OR BEYOND THE DISTANCE
OF ONE HUNDRED MILES FROM THE PLACE OF TRIAL OR HEARING, OR WHEN IT
APPEARS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT, COMMISSION, BOARD, OR
APPOINTING AUTHORITY THAT THE WITNESS, BY REASON OF AGE, SICKNESS,
BODILY INFIRMITY, IMPRISONMENT, OR OTHER REASONABLE CAUSE, IS UNABLE TO
APPEAR AND TESTIFY IN PERSON AT THE PLACE OF TRIAL OR HEARING:
PROVIDED, THAT TESTIMONY BY DEPOSITION MAY BE ADDUCED FOR THE DEFENSE
IN CAPITAL CASES."  U.S.C. SEC. 1496. 

ARTICLE 38 READS:  "THE PRESIDENT MAY, BY REGULATIONS, WHICH HE MAY
MODIFY FROM TIME TO TIME, PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE, INCLUDING MODES OF
PROOF, IN CASES BEFORE COURTS-MARTIAL, COURTS OF INQUIRY, MILITARY
COMMISSIONS, AND OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS, WHICH REGULATIONS SHALL
INSOFAR AS HE SHALL DEEM PRACTICABLE, APPLY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE
GENERALLY RECOGNIZED IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING CONTRARY TO OR
INCONSISTENT WITH THESE ARTICLES SHALL BE SO PRESCRIBED:  PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT ALL RULES MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE LAID
BEFORE THE CONGRESS ANNUALLY."  10 U.S.C. SEC. 1509. 

FN30  ANOTHER REVISION OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR TOOK PLACE IN 1920.  AT
THIS TIME ARTICLE 15 WAS SLIGHTLY AMENDED. 

IN 1916 ARTICLE 15 WAS ENACTED TO READ:  "THE PROVISIONS OF THESE
ARTICLES CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON COURTS-MARTIAL SHALL NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS DEPRIVING MILITARY COMMISSIONS, PROVOST COURTS, OR OTHER
MILITARY TRIBUNALS OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENDERS
OR OFFENSES THAT BY THE LAW OF WAR MAY BE LAWFULLY TRIABLE BY SUCH
MILITARY COMMISSIONS, PROVOST COURTS, OR OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS." 

THE 1920 AMENDMENT PUT IN THE WORDS "BY STATUTE OR" BEFORE THE WORDS
"BY THE LAW OF WAR" AND OMITTED THE WORD "LAWFULLY." 

FN31  SPEAKING AT THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY
AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 62D CONG., 2D SESS., PRINTED AS AN
APPENDIX TO S. REP. 229, 63D CONG., 2D SESS., GENERAL CROWDER SAID: 

"THE NEXT ARTICLE, NO. 15, IS ENTIRELY NEW, AND THE REASONS FOR ITS
INSERTION IN THE CODE ARE THESE:  IN OUR WAR WITH MEXICO TWO WAR COURTS
WERE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY ORDERS OF GEN. SCOTT, VIZ, THE MILITARY
COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL OF WAR.  BY THE MILITARY COMMISSION GEN.
SCOTT TRIED CASES COGNIZABLE IN TIME OF PEACE BY CIVIL COURTS, AND BY
THE COUNCIL OF WAR HE TRIED OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR.  THE
COUNCIL OF WAR DID NOT SURVIVE THE MEXICAN WAR PERIOD, AND IN OUR
SUBSEQUENT WARS ITS JURISDICTION HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE MILITARY
COMMISSION, WHICH DURING THE CIVIL WAR PERIOD TRIED MORE THAN 2,000
CASES.  WHILE THE MILITARY COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY AUTHORIZED
BY STATUTE, ITS JURISDICTION AS A WAR COURT HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS AN INSTITUTION OF THE
GREATEST IMPORTANCE IN A PERIOD OF WAR AND SHOULD BE PRESERVED.  IN THE
NEW CODE THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT AMPLIFIED
BY THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PHRASE 'PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW.' 
THERE WILL BE MORE INSTANCES IN THE FUTURE THAN IN THE PAST WHEN THE
JURISDICTION OF COURTS-MARTIAL WILL OVERLAP THAT OF THE WAR COURTS, AND
THE QUESTION WOULD ARISE WHETHER CONGRESS HAVING VESTED JURISDICTION BY
STATUTE THE COMMON LAW OF WAR JURISDICTION WAS NOT OUSTED.  I WISH TO
MAKE IT PERFECTLY PLAIN BY THE NEW ARTICLE THAT IN SUCH CASES THE
JURISDICTION OF THE WAR COURT IS CONCURRENT."  S. REP. NO. 229, 63D
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 53. 

AND LATER, IN 1916, SPEAKING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY
AFFAIRS OF THE SENATE AT THEIR HEARINGS ON S. 3191, A PROJECT FOR THE
REVISION OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PRINTED AS AN
APPENDIX TO S. REP. 130, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., GENERAL CROWDER
EXPLAINED AT GREATER LENGTH: 

"ARTICLE 15 IS NEW.  WE HAVE INCLUDED IN ARTICLE 2 AS SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW A NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY
MILITARY COMMISSION.  A MILITARY COMMISSION IS OUR COMMON-LAW WAR
COURT.  IT HAS NO STATUTORY EXISTENCE, THOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED BY
STATUTE LAW.  AS LONG AS THE ARTICLES EMBRACED THEM IN THE DESIGNATION
'PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW,' AND PROVIDED THAT THEY MIGHT BE
TRIED BY COURT-MARTIAL, I WAS AFRAID THAT, HAVING MADE A SPECIAL
PROVISION FOR THEIR TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL, IT MIGHT BE HELD THAT THE
PROVISION OPERATED TO EXCLUDE TRIALS BY MILITARY COMMISSION AND OTHER
WAR COURTS; SO THIS NEW ARTICLE WAS INTRODUCED ... 

"IT JUST SAVES TO THESE WAR COURTS THE JURISDICTION THEY NOW HAVE AND
MAKES IT A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH COURTS-MARTIAL, SO THAT THE
MILITARY COMMANDER IN THE FIELD IN TIME OF WAR WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO
EMPLOY EITHER FORM OF COURT THAT HAPPENS TO BE CONVENIENT.  BOTH
CLASSES OF COURTS HAVE THE SAME PROCEDURE.  FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE
COMMITTEE AND IN EXPLANATION OF THESE WAR COURTS TO WHICH I HAVE
REFERRED I INSERT HERE AN EXPLANATION FROM WINTHROP'S MILITARY LAW AND
PRECEDENTS - 

"'THE MILITARY COMMISSION - A WAR COURT - HAD ITS ORIGIN IN G.O. 20,
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY AT TAMPICO, FEBRUARY 19, 1847(GEN.  SCOTT). 
ITS JURISDICTION WAS CONFINED MAINLY TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES OF THE CLASS
COGNIZABLE BY CIVIL COURTS IN TIME OF PEACE COMMITTED BY INHABITANTS OF
THE THEATER OF HOSTILITIES.  A FURTHER WAR COURT WAS ORIGINATED BY GEN.
SCOTT AT THE SAME TIME, CALLED "COUNCIL OF WAR," WITH JURISDICTION TO
TRY THE SAME CLASSES OF PERSONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR,
MAINLY GUERRILLAS.  THESE TWO JURISDICTIONS WERE UNITED IN THE LATER
WAR COURT OF THE CIVIL WAR AND SPANISH WAR PERIODS, FOR WHICH THE
GENERAL DESIGNATION OF "MILITARY COMMISSION" WAS RETAINED.  THE
MILITARY COMMISSION WAS GIVEN STATUTORY RECOGNITION IN SECTION 30, ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1863, AND IN VARIOUS OTHER STATUTES OF THAT PERIOD.  THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE VALIDITY OF ITS
JUDGMENTS (EX PARTE VALLANDIGHAM, 1 WALL., 243, AND COLEMAN V.
TENNESSEE, 97 U.S., 509).  IT TRIED MORE THAN 2,000 CASES DURING THE
CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD.  ITS COMPOSITION, CONSTITUTION,
AND PROCEDURE FOLLOWS THE ANALOGY OF COURTS-MARTIAL.  ANOTHER WAR COURT
IS THE PROVOST COURT, AN INFERIOR COURT WITH JURISDICTION ASSIMILATED
TO THAT OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND POLICE COURTS; AND OTHER WAR
COURTS VARIOUSLY DESIGNATED "COURTS OF CONCILIATION," "ARBITRATORS,"
"MILITARY TRIBUNALS," HAVE BEEN CONVENED BY MILITARY COMMANDERS IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER AS OCCASION AND NECESSITY DICTATED.'    "YET,
AS I HAVE SAID, THESE WAR COURTS NEVER HAVE BEEN FORMALLY AUTHORIZED BY
STATUTE. 

"SENATOR COLT.  THEY GREW OUT OF USAGE AND NECESSITY? 

"GEN. CROWDER.  OUT OF USAGE AND NECESSITY.  I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST AS
WELL, AS INQUIRIES WOULD ARISE, TO PUT THIS INFORMATION IN THE
RECORD."  S. REP. NO. 130, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1916) P. 40. 

ARTICLE 15 WAS ALSO EXPLAINED IN THE "REPORT OF A COMMITTEE ON THE
PROPOSED REVISION OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTIONS OF
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, MARCH 10, 1915," INCLUDED IN REVISION OF THE
ARTICLES OF WAR, COMPARATIVE PRINTS, ETC., 1904-1920, J.A.G.O., AS
FOLLOWS: 

"A NUMBER OF ARTICLES  ...  OF THE REVISION HAVE THE EFFECT OF GIVING
COURTS-MARTIAL JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN OFFENDERS AND OFFENSES WHICH,
UNDER THE LAW OF WAR OR BY STATUTE, ARE ALSO TRIABLE BY MILITARY
COMMISSIONS, PROVOST COURTS, ETC.  ARTICLE 15 IS INTRODUCED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MAKING CLEAR THAT IN SUCH CASES A COURT-MARTIAL HAS ONLY A
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH SUCH WAR TRIBUNALS." 

FN32  OF COURSE, ARTICLES 25 AND 38, AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY GAVE
PROTECTION TO DEFENDANTS BEFORE MILITARY COMMISSIONS, ALSO PROVIDED FOR
THE APPLICATION BY SUCH TRIBUNALS OF MODERN RULES OF PROCEDURE AND
EVIDENCE. 

FN33  WINTHROP, SPEAKING OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS AT THE TIME HE WAS
WRITING, 1896, SAYS:  "THE OFFENCES COGNIZABLE BY MILITARY COMMISSIONS
MAY THUS BE CLASSED AS FOLLOWS:  (1) CRIMES AND STATUTORY OFFENCES
COGNIZABLE BY STATE OR U.S. COURTS, AND WHICH WOULD PROPERLY BE TRIED
BY SUCH COURTS IF OPEN AND ACTING; (2) VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS AND
USAGES OF WAR COGNIZABLE BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS ONLY; (3) BREACHES OF
MILITARY ORDERS OR REGULATIONS FOR WHICH OFFENDERS ARE NOT LEGALLY
TRIABLE BY COURT-MARTIAL UNDER THE ARTICLES OF WAR."  WINTHROP, AT*
1309.  AND CF. FAIRMAN, THE LAW OF MARTIAL RULE (2D ED. 1943):
"MILITARY COMMISSIONS TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THREE CATEGORIES OF CRIMINAL
CASES:  OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR, BREACHES OF MILITARY
REGULATIONS, AND CIVIL CRIMES WHICH, WHERE THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE
CEASED TO FUNCTION, CANNOT BE TRIED NORMALLY."  FAIRMAN, 265-266.  SEE
ALSO DAVIS, A TREATISE ON THE MILITARY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES (1915)
309-310. 

FN34  NOTE 31. 

FN35  IN ADDITION TO THE STATEMENTS OF GENERAL CROWDER WITH RELATION
TO ARTICLE 15, SET OUT IN NOTE 31 SUPRA, SEE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS
MADE WITH REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 25, IN 1912 AT A HEARING BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS OF THE HOUSE:  "WE COME NOW TO ARTICLE
25, WHICH RELATES TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPOSITIONS....  IT WILL BE
NOTED FURTHER THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE OLD ARTICLE HAS BEEN
BROADENED TO INCLUDE MILITARY COMMISSIONS, COURTS OF INQUIRY, AND
MILITARY BOARDS. 

"MR. SWEET.  PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY MILITARY COMMISSION. 

"GEN. CROWDER.  THAT IS OUR COMMON LAW OF WAR COURT, AND WAS REFERRED
TO BY ME IN A PRIOR HEARING.  (THE REFERENCE IS TO THE DISCUSSION OF
ARTICLE 15.)  THIS WAR COURT CAME INTO EXISTENCE DURING THE MEXICAN
WAR, AND WAS CREATED BY ORDERS OF GEN. SCOTT.  IT HAD JURISDICTION TO
TRY ALL CASES USUALLY COGNIZABLE IN TIME OF PEACE BY CIVIL COURTS. 
GEN. SCOTT CREATED ANOTHER WAR COURT, CALLED THE 'COUNCIL OF WAR,' WITH
JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR.  THE
CONSTITUTION, COMPOSITION, AND JURISDICTION OF THESE COURTS HAVE NEVER
BEEN REGULATED BY STATUTE.  THE COUNCIL OF WAR DID NOT SURVIVE THE
MEXICAN WAR PERIOD, SINCE WHICH ITS JURISDICTION HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY
THE MILITARY COMMISSION.  THE MILITARY COMMISSION RECEIVED EXPRESS
RECOGNITION IN THE RECONSTRUCTION ACTS, AND ITS JURISDICTION HAS BEEN
AFFIRMED AND SUPPORTED BY ALL OUR COURTS.  IT WAS EXTENSIVELY EMPLOYED
DURING THE CIVIL WAR PERIOD AND ALSO DURING THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR. 
IT IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE THAT THIS IMPORTANT WAR COURT SHOULD BE
CONTINUED TO BE GOVERNED AS HERETOFORE, BY THE LAWS OF WAR RATHER THAN
BY STATUTE."  S. REP. NO. 229, 63D CONG., 2D SESS., 59; CF. S. REP.
130, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 54-55.  SEE ALSO HEARINGS BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS OF THE SENATE ON
ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY JUSTICE, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 1182-1183. 

FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLES WERE
INTENDED TO APPLY TO ALL FORMS OF MILITARY TRIBUNAL IS GIVEN BY ARTICLE
24, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1495, WHICH PROVIDES AGAINST COMPULSORY SELF
INCRIMINATION "BEFORE A MILITARY COURT, COMMISSION, COURT OF INQUIRY,
OR BOARD, OR BEFORE AN OFFICER CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION."  THIS
ARTICLE WAS DRAFTED SO THAT "THE PROHIBITION SHOULD REACH ALL
WITNESSES, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CLASS OF MILITARY TRIBUNAL BEFORE WHICH
THEY APPEAR  ..."  COMPARATIVE PRINT SHOWING S. 3191 WITH THE PRESENT
ARTICLES OF WAR AND OTHER RELATED STATUTES, AND EXPLANATORY NOTES,
PRINTED FOR USE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, 64TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., 17, INCLUDED IN REVISION OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR,
COMPARATIVE PRINTS, ETC., 1904-1920, J.A.G.O. 

FN36  WE ARE INFORMED THAT JAPAN HAS NOT RATIFIED THE GENEVA
CONVENTION.  SEE DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE 82 IN THE PARAGRAPHS BELOW.  WE
ARE ALSO INFORMED, HOWEVER - AND THE RECORD SHOWS THIS AT LEAST AS TO
JAPAN - THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND
JAPAN ANNOUNCED THEIR INTENTION TO ADHERE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THAT
TREATY.  THE FORCE OF THAT UNDERSTANDING CONTINUES, PERHAPS WITH
GREATER REASON IF NOT EFFECT, DESPITE THE END OF HOSTILITIES.  SEE NOTE
40 AND TEXT. 

ARTICLE 82 PROVIDES: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRESENT CONVENTION MUST BE RESPECTED BY THE
HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. 

"IN CASE, IN TIME OF WAR, ONE OF THE BELLIGERENTS IS NOT A PARTY TO
THE CONVENTION, ITS PROVISIONS SHALL NEVERTHELESS REMAIN IN FORCE AS
BETWEEN THE BELLIGERENTS WHO ARE PARTIES THERETO." 

IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ARTICLE MEANS THAT DURING A WAR, WHEN ONE
OF THE BELLIGERENTS IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONVENTION, THE PROVISIONS
MUST NEVERTHELESS BE APPLIED BY ALL THE OTHER BELLIGERENTS TO THE
PRISONERS OF WAR NOT ONLY OF ONE ANOTHER BUT ALSO OF THE POWER THAT WAS
NOT A PARTY THERETO OR WHETHER IT MEANS THAT THEY NEED NOT BE APPLIED
TO SOLDIERS OF THE NONPARTICIPATING PARTY WHO HAVE BEEN CAPTURED.  IF
THE LATTER MEANING IS ACCEPTED, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH WOULD SEEM TO
CONTRADICT THE SECOND. 

"LEGISLATIVE HISTORY" HERE IS OF SOME, IF LITTLE, AID.  A SUGGESTED
DRAFT OF A CONVENTION ON WAR PRISONERS DRAWN UP IN ADVANCE OF THE
GENEVA MEETING BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS (ACTES
DE LA CONFERENCE DIPLOMATIQUE DE GENEVE, EDITED BY DES GOUTTES, PP. 21
34) PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 92 THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION "NE
CESSERONT D'ETRE OBLIGATORIES QU'AU CAS OU L'UN DES ETATS BELLIGERENTS
PARTICIPANT A LA CONVENTION SE TROUVE AVOIR A COMBATTRE LES FORCES
ARMEES D'UN AUTRE ETAT QUE N'Y SERAIT PAR PARTIE ET A L'EGARD DE CET
ETAT SEULEMENT."  SEE RASMUSSEN, CODE DES PRISONNIERS DE GUERRE (1931)
70.  THE FACT THAT THIS SUGGESTED ARTICLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
GENEVA CONVENTION WOULD INDICATE THAT THE NATIONS IN ATTENDANCE WERE
AVOIDING A DECISION ON THIS PROBLEM.  BUT I THINK IT SHOWS MORE, THAT
IS, IT MANIFESTS AN INTENTION NOT TO FORECLOSE A FUTURE HOLDING THAT
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONVENTION A STATE IS BOUND TO APPLY THE
PROVISIONS TO PRISONERS OF WAR OF NONPARTICIPATING STATES.  AND NOT TO
FORECLOSE SUCH A HOLDING IS TO INVITE ONE.  WE SHOULD, IN MY OPINION,
SO HOLD, FOR REASONS OF SECURITY TO MEMBERS OF OUR OWN ARMED FORCES
TAKEN PRISONER, IF FOR NO OTHERS. 

MOREOVER, IF THIS VIEW IS WRONG AND THE GENEVA CONVENTION IS NOT
STRICTLY BINDING UPON THE UNITED STATES AS A TREATY, IT IS STRONG
EVIDENCE OF AND SHOULD BE HELD BINDING AS REPRESENTING WHAT HAVE BECOME
THE CIVILIZED RULES OF INTERNATIONAL WARFARE.  YAMASHITA IS AS MUCH
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SUCH RULES AS TO THE BENEFIT OF A BINDING
TREATY WHICH CODIFIES THEM.  SEE U.S. WAR DEPT., BASIC FIELD MANUAL,
RULES OF LAND WARFARE (1940), PAR. 5-B. 

FN37  TITLE III OF THE CONVENTION, WHICH COMPRISES ARTICLES 7 TO 67,
IS CALLED "CAPTIVITY."  IT CONTAINS SEC. I, "EVACUATION OF PRISONERS OF
WAR" (ARTICLES 7-8); SEC. II, "PRISONERS-OF-WAR CAMPS" (ARTICLES 9-26);
SEC. III, "LABOR OF PRISONERS OF WAR" (ARTICLES 27-34); SEC. IV,
"EXTERNAL RELATIONS OF PRISONERS OF WAR" (ARTICLES 35-41); AND SEC. V,
"PRISONERS' RELATIONS WITH THE AUTHORITIES" (ARTICLES 42-67).  THUS
TITLE III REGULATES ALL THE VARIOUS INCIDENTS OF A PRISONER OF WAR'S
LIFE WHILE IN CAPTIVITY. 

THREE CHAPTERS.  CHAPTER 1(ARTICLE 42) GIVES A PRISONER OF WAR THE
RIGHT TO COMPLAIN OF HIS CONDITION OF CAPTIVITY.  CHAPTER 2(ARTICLES 43
44) GIVES PRISONERS OF WAR THE RIGHT TO APPOINT AGENTS TO REPRESENT
THEM.  CHAPTER 3 IS DIVIDED INTO THREE SUBSECTIONS AND IS TERMED
"PENALTIES APPLICABLE TO PRISONERS OF WAR."  SUBSECTION 1(ARTICLES 45
53) CONTAINS VARIOUS MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
LATER.  SUBSECTION 2(ARTICLES 54-59) CONTAINS PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT
TO DISCIPLINARY PUNISHMENTS.  AND SUBSECTION 3(ARTICLES 60-67), WHICH
IS TERMED "JUDICIAL SUITS," CONTAINS VARIOUS PROVISIONS FOR PROTECTION
OF A PRISONER'S RIGHTS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AGAINST HIM. 

THUS, SUBSECTION 3, WHICH CONTAINS ARTICLES 60 AND 63, AS OPPOSED TO
SUBSECTION 2, OF CHAPTER 3, IS CONCERNED NOT WITH MERE PROBLEMS OF
DISCIPLINE, AS IS THE LATTER, BUT WITH THE MORE SERIOUS MATTERS OF
TRIAL LEADING TO IMPRISONMENT OR POSSIBLE SENTENCE OF DEATH; CF.
BRERETON, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AMONG PRISONERS OF WAR BY
MILITARY COURTS (1935) 1 PROC. AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW 143, 153.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, WOULD HAVE THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSECTION 2 AND SUBSECTION 3 ONE BETWEEN MINOR
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST A PRISONER OF WAR FOR ACTS COMMITTED WHILE
A PRISONER AND MAJOR JUDICIAL ACTION AGAINST A PRISONER OF WAR FOR ACTS
COMMITTED WHILE A PRISONER.  THIS NARROW VIEW NOT ONLY IS HIGHLY
STRAINED, CONFUSING THE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS AND PROBLEMS TREATED BY
THE TWO SUBDIVISIONS.  IT DEFEATS THE MOST IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS
SUBSECTION 3 WAS INTENDED TO SECURE, FOR OUR OWN AS WELL AS FOR ENEMY
CAPTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

AT THE MOST, THERE WOULD BE LOGIC IN THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION IF IT
COULD BE SAID THAT ALL OF CHAPTER 3 DEALS WITH ACTS COMMITTED WHILE A
PRISONER OF WAR.  OF COURSE, SUBSECTION 2 DOES, BECAUSE OF THE VERY
NATURE OF ITS SUBJECT-MATTER.  DISCIPLINARY ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY A
CAPTOR POWER AGAINST PRISONERS OF WAR ONLY FOR ACTS COMMITTED BY
PRISONERS AFTER CAPTURE. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT SUBSECTION 1 DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH ACTS
COMMITTED BY A PRISONER OF WAR AFTER HAVING BECOME A PRISONER, AND THIS
INDICATES SUBSECTION 3 IS LIMITED SIMILARLY.  THIS IGNORES THE FACT
THAT SOME OF THE ARTICLES IN SUBSECTION 1 APPEAR, ON THEIR FACE, TO
APPLY TO ALL JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE INSTITUTED. 
ARTICLE 46, FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDES IN PART: 

"PUNISHMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR THE SAME ACTS FOR SOLDIERS
OF THE NATIONAL ARMIES MAY NOT BE IMPOSED UPON PRISONERS OF WAR BY THE
MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND COURTS OF THE DETAINING POWER." 

THIS SEEMS TO REFER TO WAR CRIMES AS WELL AS TO OTHER OFFENSES; FOR
SURELY A COUNTRY CANNOT PUNISH SOLDIERS OF ANOTHER ARMY FOR OFFENSES
AGAINST THE LAWS OF WAR, WHEN IT WOULD NOT PUNISH ITS OWN SOLDIERS FOR
THE SAME OFFENSES.  SIMILARLY, ARTICLE 47 IN SUBSECTION 1 APPEARS TO
REFER TO WAR CRIMES AS WELL AS TO CRIMES COMMITTED BY A PRISONER AFTER
HIS CAPTURE.  IT READS IN PART: 

"JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PRISONERS OF WAR SHALL BE CONDUCTED AS
RAPIDLY AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT; PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT SHALL BE
LIMITED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE." 

THUS, AT THE MOST, SUBSECTION 1 CONTAINS, IN SOME OF ITS ARTICLES,
THE SAME AMBIGUITIES AND IS OPEN TO THE SAME PROBLEM THAT WE ARE FACED
WITH IN CONSTRUING ARTICLES 60 AND 63.  IT CANNOT BE SAID, THEREFORE,
THAT ALL OF CHAPTER 3, AND ESPECIALLY SUBSECTION 3, RELATE ONLY TO ACTS
COMMITTED BY PRISONERS OF WAR AFTER CAPTURE, FOR THE MEANING OF
SUBSECTION 3, IN THIS ARGUMENT, IS RELATED TO THE MEANING OF SUBSECTION
1; AND SUBSECTION 1 IS NO MORE CLEARLY RESTRICTED TO PUNISHMENTS AND
PROCEEDINGS IN DISCIPLINARY MATTERS THAN IS SUBSECTION 3. 

FN38  ARTICLE 60 PERTINENTLY IS AS FOLLOWS:  "AT THE OPENING OF A
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING DIRECTED AGAINST A PRISONER OF WAR, THE DETAINING
POWER SHALL ADVISE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROTECTING POWER THEREOF
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND ALWAYS BEFORE THE DATE SET FOR THE OPENING OF
THE TRIAL. 

"THIS ADVICE SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: 

"A)  CIVIL STATE AND RANK OF PRISONER; 

"B)  PLACE OF SOJOURN OR IMPRISONMENT; 

"C) SPECIFICATION OF THE (COUNT) OR COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT, GIVING
THE LEGAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE. 

"IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MENTION IN THAT ADVICE THE COURT WHICH WILL
PASS UPON THE MATTER, THE DATE OF OPENING THE TRIAL AND THE PLACE WHERE
IT WILL TAKE PLACE, THIS INFORMATION MUST BE FURNISHED TO THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROTECTING POWER LATER, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND
AT ALL EVENTS, AT LEAST THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE OPENING OF THE TRIAL." 

ARTICLE 63 READS:  "SENTENCE MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST A PRISONER OF
WAR ONLY BY THE SAME COURTS AND ACCORDING TO THE SAME PROCEDURE AS IN
THE CASE OF PERSONS BELONGING TO THE ARMED FORCES OF THE DETAINING
POWER." 

FN39  ITEM 89 CHARGED THE ARMED FORCES OF JAPAN WITH SUBJECTING TO
TRIAL CERTAIN NAMED AND OTHER PRISONERS OF WAR "WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE TO
A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROTECTING POWER, WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO
DEFEND, AND WITHOUT COUNSEL; DENYING OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL FROM THE
SENTENCE RENDERED; FAILING TO NOTIFY THE PROTECTING POWER OF THE
SENTENCE PRONOUNCED; AND EXECUTING A DEATH SENTENCE WITHOUT
COMMUNICATING TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROTECTING POWER THE NATURE
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED."    FN40  NATIONS ADHERE TO
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF WAR AT LEAST IN PART
BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF RETALIATION.  JAPAN NO LONGER HAS THE MEANS OF
RETALIATING. 

FN41 THERE CAN BE NO LIMIT EITHER TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OR THE USE OF
EVIDENCE IF THE ONLY TEST TO BE APPLIED CONCERNS PROBATIVE VALUE AND
THE ONLY TEST OF PROBATIVE VALUE, AS THE DIRECTIVE COMMANDED AND THE
COMMISSION FOLLOWED OUT, LIES "IN THE COMMISSION'S OPINION," WHETHER
THAT BE CONCERNING THE ASSISTANCE THE "EVIDENCE" TENDERED WOULD GIVE IN
PROVING OR DISPROVING THE CHARGE OR AS IT MIGHT THINK WOULD "HAVE VALUE
IN THE MIND OF A REASONABLE MAN."  NOR IS IT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE
SEMBLANCE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT THE COMMISSION DECLARES, IN
RECEIVING THE EVIDENCE, THAT IT COMES IN AS HAVING ONLY SUCH PROBATIVE
VALUE, IF ANY, AS THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO AWARD IT AND THIS IS
ACCEPTED AS CONCLUSIVE. 

FN42  2 THE COMPLETE WRITINGS OF THOMAS PAINE (EDITED BY FONER, 1945)
588. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



















CANIZIO V. NEW YORK, 327 U.S. 82 


NO. 152.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  -
AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, BEING UNDER A STATE COURT SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR 15
TO 30 YEARS ON A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A CHARGE OF ROBBERY AND HAVING
SERVED ALMOST 14 YEARS, INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS IN A COUNTY COURT BY A
MOTION CORAM NOBIS PRAYING THAT THE SENTENCE BE VACATED AND SET ASIDE. 
HE ALLEGED UNDER OATH THAT, AT THE TIME OF HIS ARRAIGNMENT, GUILTY PLEA
AND SENTENCE, HE WAS 19 YEARS OLD AND UNFAMILIAR WITH LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS, THAT HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THAT THE COURT
NEITHER ASKED HIM IF HE DESIRED COUNSEL NOR ADVISED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO
COUNSEL, AND THAT THE ACCEPTANCE OF HIS GUILTY PLEA AND THE SENTENCING
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DEPRIVED HIM OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN OPPOSITION TO THE
MOTION, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ADMITTING THAT THE
COURT RECORDS FAILED TO SHOW THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS ARRAIGNED AND WHEN HE PLEADED GUILTY, BUT DENYING
THAT HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL WHEN SENTENCED AND ALLEGING THAT
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER WAS FILED TWO
DAYS BEFORE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED.  PETITIONER FILED NO DENIAL.  THE
RECORD OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED
SHOWED THAT HE WAS ACTIVELY REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN LONG HEARINGS
DURING THE DAY OF SENTENCE.  THE COURT DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION ON
THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PAPERS, INCLUDING THE RECORD OF THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT PERMITTING PETITIONER TO INTRODUCE ANY
EVIDENCE.  HELD: 

1.  THE MOTION CORAM NOBIS BEING A PROPER PROCEDURE TO RAISE THE
FEDERAL QUESTION UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE AND THE COUNTY COURT'S DENIAL
OF THE MOTION NOT BEING APPEALABLE TO ANY HIGHER STATE COURT, THIS
COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE CASE.  P. 85. 

2.  HAD THERE BEEN NOTHING TO CONTRADICT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION THAT
HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN HIS PLEA OF
GUILTY AND THE TIME HE WAS SENTENCED, HIS CHARGES WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCH
AS TO HAVE REQUIRED THE COURT TO HOLD A HEARING ON HIS MOTION.  P. 85. 

3.  THE NEW FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S AFFIDAVIT
BEING UNDENIED AND THE RECORD OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS SHOWING THAT
PETITIONER WAS ACTIVELY REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN LONG HEARINGS DURING
THE DAY OF SENTENCE, SO FAR REFUTED PETITIONER'S ENTIRE CONSTITUTIONAL
CLAIM AS TO JUSTIFY THE COUNTY COURT'S HOLDING THAT A HEARING ON HIS
MOTION WAS UNNECESSARY.  P. 85. 

4.  SINCE COUNSEL WHO REPRESENTED PETITIONER ON THE DAY OF SENTENCE
COULD HAVE MOVED TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA OF GUILTY AND LET HIM STAND TRIAL
AND PETITIONER HAD COUNSEL IN AMPLE TIME TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EVERY
DEFENSE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO HIM ORIGINALLY, IT CAN NOT
BE SAID THAT THE COURT DENIED PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO HAVE A TRIAL WITH
THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL.  P. 85. 

CANIZIO V. NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK. 

PETITIONER INSTITUTED A CORAM NOBIS PROCEEDING IN THE COUNTY COURT OF
KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK, PRAYING THAT A SENTENCE WHICH HAD BEEN IMPOSED
ON HIM ON A PLEA OF GUILTY BE VACATED ON THE GROUND, INTER ALIA, THAT
HE HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE MOTION HAVING BEEN DENIED
AND THERE BEING NO APPEAL TO A HIGHER STATE COURT, THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 705.  AFFIRMED, P. 87. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON JUNE 1, 1931 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK, THE
PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY TO THE CRIME OF ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE. 
ON JUNE 19, 1931 THAT COURT SENTENCED HIM TO SERVE A TERM OF FROM 15 TO
30 YEARS IN STATE PRISON.  AFTER THE PETITIONER HAD SERVED ALMOST 14
YEARS OF THIS SENTENCE HE INSTITUTED THIS PROCEEDING BY A MOTION, CORAM
NOBIS, IN THE KINGS COUNTY COURT, PRAYING THAT THE JUNE 19, 1931
SENTENCE BE VACATED AND SET ASIDE.  HIS MOTION, VERIFIED BY OATH,
ALLEGED THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS ARRAIGNMENT, GUILTY PLEA, AND SENTENCE,
PETITIONER WAS 19 YEARS OLD AND UNFAMILIAR WITH LEGAL PROCEEDINGS; THAT
HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL; AND THAT THE COURT NEITHER ASKED HIM
WHETHER HE DESIRED COUNSEL TO BE ASSIGNED, NOR ADVISED HIM OF HIS RIGHT
TO COUNSEL.  PETITIONER'S MOTION CHARGED THAT THE ACCEPTANCE OF HIS
GUILTY PLEA AND THE SENTENCING UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES VIOLATED
ARTICLE 1, SEC. 6 OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION AND SEC. 308 OF
THE NEW YORK CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AND DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS
LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION.  THIS
AFFIDAVIT, BASED ON INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM COURT RECORDS, ADMITTED
THAT THESE FAILED TO SHOW THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS ARRAIGNED AND WHEN HE PLEADED GUILTY ON JUNE 1,
1931.  TO OVERCOME THIS APPARENT DEFECT OF THE RECORD THE AFFIDAVIT
URGED THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO SUPPORT
THE CONCLUSION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY, THAT
THE JUDGE MUST HAVE PERFORMED HIS DUTY UNDER NEW YORK'S LAWS TO ADVISE
PETITIONER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CONTENDED
THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION THOUGH VERIFIED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME
THIS PRESUMPTION, ESPECIALLY SINCE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION OCCURRED 14
YEARS AGO.  MOREOVER, THE AFFIDAVIT DENIED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING, AND ALLEGED THAT ON
JUNE 17, 1931, TWO DAYS BEFORE THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED, THERE WAS
FILED A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. 
THUS, ACCORDING TO THE AFFIDAVIT PETITIONER WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
FROM JUNE 17TH TO JUNE 19TH, 1931.  PETITIONER FILED NO DENIAL TO THIS
AFFIDAVIT. 

THE COURT DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION ON THE BASIS OF THE
AFOREMENTIONED PAPERS INCLUDING THE RECORD OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING,
AND WITHOUT PERMITTING PETITIONER TO INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE.  UNDER NEW
YORK PRACTICE PETITIONER'S MOTION WAS THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO RAISE THE
FEDERAL QUESTION.  LYONS V. GOLDSTEIN, 290 N.Y. 19, 47 N.E.2D 425. 
SINCE THE COURT'S DENIAL OF THE MOTION CANNOT BE APPEALED TO ANY HIGHER
NEW YORK COURT, PEOPLE V. GERSEWITZ, 294 N.Y. 163, 61 N.E.2D 427, WE
HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE CASE.  BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455,
461.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE CASE PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION INVOLVING THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

BEFORE WE CONSIDER THIS QUESTION WE SHALL ASSUME THAT PETITIONER WAS
WITHOUT COUNSEL WHEN ARRAIGNED AND WHEN HE PLEADED GUILTY AND THAT
ALTHOUGH HE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH HIS LEGAL RIGHTS THE COURT FAILED TO
INFORM HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  CONSEQUENTLY, HAD THERE BEEN
NOTHING TO CONTRADICT PETITIONER'S GENERAL ALLEGATION THAT HE WAS NOT
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN HIS PLEA OF GUILTY AND
THE TIME HE WAS SENTENCED, HIS CHARGES WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCH AS TO HAVE
REQUIRED THE COURT TO HOLD A HEARING ON HIS MOTION.  RICE V. OLSON, 324
U.S. 786.  BUT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S AFFIDAVIT AND THE RECORD AND
STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPTS OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH
PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED SHOW THAT PETITIONER WAS ACTIVELY REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL IN LONG HEARINGS DURING THE DAY OF SENTENCE.  IN OUR
OPINION, THESE NEW FACTS, UNDENIED, SO FAR REFUTED PETITIONER'S ENTIRE
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM AS TO JUSTIFY THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT A HEARING
ON PETITIONER'S MOTION WAS UNNECESSARY. 

THESE PAPERS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT SHOWED THAT PETITIONER ALONG WITH
TWO OTHERS WERE ORIGINALLY CHARGED UNDER THREE COUNTS.  PETITIONER
PLEADED GUILTY ON ONE CHARGE ON CONDITION THAT HE WOULD NOT BE
PROSECUTED ON THE OTHER TWO.  THEREAFTER, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, AN
ATTORNEY APPEARED ON HIS BEHALF IN AN EFFORT TO SECURE A LOW SENTENCE. 
THE ATTORNEY COULD HAVE MOVED TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA OF GUILTY AND THE
COUNTY COURT OF KINGS COUNTY WOULD HAVE HAD THE POWER TO SET ASIDE THE
PLEA AND LET THE PETITIONER STAND TRIAL.  NEW YORK CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, SEC. 337; PEOPLE V. GOWASKY, 244 N.Y. 451, 155 N.E. 737. 
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL PROBABLY THOUGHT IT UNDESIRABLE TO DO SO, BECAUSE
THIS MOVE MIGHT HAVE JEOPARDIZED HIS CHANCES FOR SECURING A LOW
SENTENCE.  THE PLEA WAS TO ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, UNARMED.  THE
RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PETITIONER WAS HEAVILY ARMED.  HAD HE BEEN
CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY WHILE ARMED HE WOULD IN ALL
LIKELIHOOD HAVE GOTTEN A HIGHER SENTENCE.  CF. PEOPLE EX REL. O'BERST
V. MURPHY, 256 APP. DIV. 58, 8 N.Y.S.2D 965; PEOPLE EX REL. PILO V.
MARTIN, 262 APP. DIV. 1056, 30 N.Y.S.2D 290.  AT ANY RATE, WHATEVER THE
REASON, PETITIONER'S COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE GUILTY PLEA. 
FN1  ALL OF THIS DEMONSTRATED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT BELOW
THAT EVEN THOUGH PETITIONER MAY NOT HAVE HAD COUNSEL AT THE BEGINNING,
HE HAD COUNSEL IN AMPLE TIME TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EVERY DEFENSE WHICH
WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO HIM ORIGINALLY.  WE THINK THE RECORD SHOWS
THAT PETITIONER ACTUALLY HAD THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL.  WHEN THAT COUNSEL
TOOK OVER PETITIONER'S DEFENSE HE COULD HAVE RAISED THE QUESTION OF A
DEFECT IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  FN2  FAILING TO DO SO
WHEN THE STATUTE AFFORDED HIM THE OPPORTUNITY, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
COURT DENIED PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO HAVE A TRIAL WITH THE BENEFIT OF
COUNSEL. 

PETITIONER'S MOTION WAS, THEREFORE, PROPERLY DENIED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ASSUMPTION CANNOT BE MADE THAT HAD PETITIONER'S COUNSEL DONE
SO IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  IF THE MOTION HAD IN FACT BEEN
DENIED, PETITIONER'S COUNSEL COULD HAVE APPEALED AND THUS HAVE BROUGHT
UP THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION.  CODE OF CRIM. PROC. SEC. 517; PEOPLE V.
JOYCE, 41 HUN 641.  IF THE CASE HAD THEN EVENTUALLY REACHED US OUR
PREVIOUS DECISIONS WOULD HAVE COMPELLED US TO HOLD THE DENIAL OF THE
MOTION IMPROPER.  SEE E.G. RICE V. OLSON, SUPRA.  BUT THE QUESTION IS
NOT BEFORE US IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

FN2  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE NEW YORK CASE OF PEOPLE V. STEINMETZ,
240 N.Y. 411, 148 N.E. 597, WHICH ALLOWS A WITHDRAWN GUILTY PLEA UNDER
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL AS EVIDENCE IN THE NATURE OF
A CONFESSION, MIGHT HAVE COMPELLED COUNSEL TO REFRAIN FROM MAKING A
MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA BECAUSE IN VIEW OF THE STEINMETZ RULE
LITTLE WOULD THEREBY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A PRACTICAL WAY.  IN THE
STEINMETZ CASE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT THE TIME OF
THE GUILTY PLEA.  THE OPINION, READ AS A WHOLE, SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT
A GUILTY PLEA WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AT A TRIAL, WHERE IT
WAS LATER WITHDRAWN BECAUSE DEFENDANT, IGNORANT OF HIS RIGHT TO
COUNSEL, HAD AT THE TIME OF PLEADING GUILTY NOT BEEN INFORMED OF HIS
RIGHT.  WE HAVE HELD THAT IN A FEDERAL COURT A WITHDRAWN GUILTY PLEA IS
NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.  KERCHEVAL V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 220,
223, 225.  SEE ALSO PEOPLE V. ARIANO, 264 APP. DIV. 426, 35 N.Y.S.2D
818.  IF A GUILTY PLEA WITHOUT COUNSEL SHOULD BE HELD ADMISSIBLE IN NEW
YORK, THE PROPER CASE IN WHICH TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE PROPRIETY OF
ITS ADMISSION IS ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT ON CONVICTION AFTER TRIAL. 
OTHERWISE, IF SUCH AN ADMISSION IS PROPER AT ALL IT WOULD ALSO BE
PROPER IF A TRIAL IS HAD AFTER WE REVERSED THIS CASE.  CONSEQUENTLY
NOTHING WOULD BE GAINED BY A REVERSAL ON THAT GROUND. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE COMPLETE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE REVEALED BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE
FORCES ME TO DISSENT. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS A VERY NECESSARY
AND PRACTICAL ONE.  THE ORDINARY PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME HAS LITTLE IF
ANY KNOWLEDGE OF LAW OR EXPERIENCE IN ITS APPLICATION.  HE IS ILL
PREPARED TO COMBAT THE ARSENAL OF STATUTES, DECISIONS, RULES OF
PROCEDURE, TECHNICALITIES OF PLEADING AND OTHER LEGAL WEAPONS AT THE
READY DISPOSAL OF THE PROSECUTOR.  WITHOUT COUNSEL, MANY OF HIS
ELEMENTARY PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS MAY BE LOST IRRETRIEVABLY
IN THE INTRICATE LEGAL MAZE OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  ESPECIALLY IS
THIS TRUE OF THE IGNORANT, THE INDIGENT, THE ILLITERATE AND THE
IMMATURE DEFENDANT.  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 69; WILLIAMS V.
KAISER, 323 U.S. 471, 474-476.  COURTS MUST THEREFORE BE UNYIELDING IN
THEIR INSISTENCE THAT THIS BASIC CANON OF JUSTICE, THIS RIGHT TO
COUNSEL, BE RESPECTED AT ALL TIMES. 

TODAY, HOWEVER, A SERIOUS QUALIFICATION IS ADDED TO THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO WHICH I AM UNABLE TO ASSENT.  PETITIONER AND
TWO OTHERS WERE INDICTED ON MAY 25, 1931, FOR THREE OFFENSES: (1)
ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE; (2) GRAND LARCENY IN THE SECOND DEGREE;
AND (3) ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE.  THEY WERE ARRAIGNED ON THE SAME
DAY AND PLEADED NOT GUILTY.  PETITIONER AT THIS TIME WAS BUT 19 YEARS
OLD, INDIGENT, POORLY EDUCATED, ORPHANED AND IGNORANT OF HIS RIGHT TO
COUNSEL.  THE COURT DID NOT INFORM HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT THIS
TIME AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HE COMPETENTLY AND INTELLIGENTLY
WAIVED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  SEVERAL DAYS LATER, ON JUNE 1,
PETITIONER AGAIN APPEARED WITHOUT COUNSEL AND WITHOUT BEING INFORMED OF
HIS RIGHT IN THAT RESPECT.  THIS TIME HE WITHDREW HIS PLEA OF NOT
GUILTY AND ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE CRIME OF FIRST DEGREE
ROBBERY.  THE PROSECUTOR AGREED TO WITHDRAW THE OTHER CHARGES.  ON JUNE
17, A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER WAS
FILED.  AND ON JUNE 19, IN THE PRESENCE OF THIS COUNSEL, PETITIONER WAS
SENTENCED TO SERVE FROM 15 TO 30 YEARS IN PRISON.  ON THE BASIS OF
THESE FACTS, THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT PETITIONER WAS ADEQUATELY
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  THE ERROR MANIFEST IN THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT
OF COUNSEL DURING THE ARRAIGNMENT AND THE PLEA OF GUILTY IS HELD CURED
BY THE MERE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL ON THE DAY OF THE IMPOSITION OF THE
SENTENCE. 

IT IS SAID THAT, AT LEAST UNDER NEW YORK PRACTICE, THE ATTORNEY ON
THE DAY OF THE SENTENCING COULD HAVE MOVED TO WITHDRAW PETITIONER'S
PLEA OF GUILTY; THE JUDGE WOULD THEN HAVE HAD POWER TO SET ASIDE THE
PLEA AND LET THE PETITIONER STAND TRIAL.  ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
JUDGE WOULD HAVE GRANTED SUCH A MOTION HAD IT BEEN MADE, THE ARGUMENT
IS ADVANCED THAT PETITIONER HAD COUNSEL IN AMPLE TIME TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF EVERY DEFENSE ORIGINALLY AVAILABLE.  THUS THE CONCLUSION IS REACHED
THAT THIS DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL PRIOR TO THE IMPOSITION OF
SENTENCE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION. 

IN MY OPINION, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL MEANS NOTHING UNLESS IT
MEANS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT EACH AND EVERY STEP IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.  THE FAILURE AT ANY PARTICULAR POINT TO HAVE REPRESENTATION
OR TO BE AWARE OF ONE'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL MAY HAVE AN INDELIBLE AND
IMPONDERABLE EFFECT UPON THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING, AN EFFECT WHICH MAY NOT
BE ERASABLE ON THE DAY OF IMPOSING THE SENTENCE.  AS WAS SAID IN
GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 76, "THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS TOO FUNDAMENTAL AND ABSOLUTE TO ALLOW COURTS
TO INDULGE IN NICE CALCULATIONS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF PREJUDICE ARISING
FROM ITS DENIAL."  SO HERE WE CANNOT ASSUME OR DETERMINE THAT THE
DENIAL OF COUNSEL AT THE TIME OF THE ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA WAS
HARMLESS.  NOR CAN WE SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL
AT THE FINAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING WAS SUFFICIENT TO COUNTERACT THE
PREJUDICE INHERENT IN THE PRIOR DENIAL OF COUNSEL.  UNLESS ALL THE
EFFECTS OF SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY ARE COMPLETELY AND
UNQUESTIONABLY ELIMINATED, A CONVICTION CANNOT STAND.  AN ELIMINATION
OF THAT NATURE ORDINARILY, AND PARTICULARLY IN THIS CASE, MEANS A NEW
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS FULLY PROTECTED AT ALL
TIMES. 

IT IS FURTHER SIGNIFICANT THAT THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
INFORM THE PETITIONER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS IN VIOLATION NOT ONLY
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BUT ALSO OF
ARTICLE 1, SEC. 6, OF THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION AND OF SECS. 8, 188,
308 AND 309 OF THE NEW YORK CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  THE
ARRAIGNMENT AND THE PLEA OF GUILTY WERE THEREBY VITIATED, FROM WHICH IT
FOLLOWS THAT THE CONVICTION WAS INCONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 
SEE JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 468; WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S.
101, 104.   THE LACK OF DUE PROCESS IN THE CONVICTION WAS UNAFFECTED BY
THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE COUNSEL WHICH PETITIONER EVENTUALLY OBTAINED
MIGHT HAVE SUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO VACATE THE VOID PLEA OF GUILTY. 
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS WELL AS DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS REST UPON
SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BUT WAS NOT DONE. 
THE INESCAPABLE FACTS CONFRONTING US ARE THAT PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE
RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND THAT THE COURT'S JUDGMENT WAS BASED UPON AN
ILLEGAL ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA.  COUNSEL'S NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO MOVE
TO SET ASIDE THAT PLEA SHOULD NOT BLIND US TO THOSE FACTS; NOR CAN IT
INVEST THE PROCEEDING WITH THE DUE PROCESS WHICH IT OTHERWISE LACKED. 

MOREOVER, EVEN HAD PETITIONER'S COUNSEL BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN MAKING
SUCH A MOTION, THE EFFECT OF THE ILLEGAL PLEA MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN
DISSIPATED.  UNDER NEW YORK LAW, A PLEA OF GUILTY WHICH IS WITHDRAWN
MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL.  PEOPLE V.
STEINMETZ, 240 N.Y. 411, 148 N.E. 597.  AND EVEN THOUGH SUCH A PRACTICE
MIGHT BE OF DOUBTFUL CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
POSSIBILITY OF ITS OCCURRENCE MAY HAVE EFFECTIVELY AND UNDERSTANDABLY
DETERRED COUNSEL FROM SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE PLEA AND SUBJECTING
PETITIONER TO THE RISK OF A GREATER SENTENCE. 

THE DENIAL OF THE PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WAS A SERIOUS
MATTER.  UNAIDED BY COUNSEL, HE WAS FACED WITH CHARGES OF THREE
CRIMES.  EACH OF THESE CRIMES INVOLVED DIFFERENT DEGREES.  PETITIONER
WAS NOT COMPETENT TO DECIDE WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY CHARGED WITH THE
CORRECT DEGREE OF EACH CRIME.  NOR WAS HE COMPETENT TO DETERMINE
WHETHER TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANY OR ALL OF THE OFFENSES.  THOSE WERE
COMPLEX LEGAL PROBLEMS AS TO WHICH PETITIONER DESERVED LEGAL AID.  YET
THAT NECESSARY AID WAS DENIED HIM.  NOTHING HAPPENED ON THE DAY OF
SENTENCING, MOREOVER, TO NEGATIVE THAT FACT.  TO SUSTAIN HIS CONVICTION
THEREFORE FAILS TO GIVE PETITIONER THE HIGH DEGREE OF PROTECTION WHICH
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL DESERVES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I AGREE WITH MY BROTHER MURPHY THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED
AND JOIN SUBSTANTIALLY IN HIS OPINION. 

MY CONCLUSION RESTS SQUARELY UPON THE FACT, AS I UNDERSTAND THE
RECORD AND THE LAW OF NEW YORK, THAT UNDER THAT LAW A WITHDRAWN PLEA OF
GUILTY IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED AT HIS LATER
TRIAL.  PEOPLE V. STEINMETZ, 240 N.Y. 411, 148 N.E. 597.  I HAVE
HERETOFORE EXPRESSED MY REASONS FOR THINKING THAT SUCH A PROCEDURE
INVOLVES A SPECIES OF SELF-INCRIMINATION.  WOOD V. UNITED STATES, 75
U.S. APP. D.C. 274, 128 F.2D 265.  THAT QUESTION HOWEVER HAS NOT BEEN
DETERMINED HERE, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN HELD ON NONCONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS
THAT IN A FEDERAL COURT A WITHDRAWN PLEA OF GUILTY IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. 
KERCHEVAL V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 220.  NOR HAS THIS COURT DECIDED
WHETHER SUCH A PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN A STATE COURT WOULD BE IN
VIOLATION OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 

IN THE SETTING OF THE FACTS IN THIS CASE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEW
YORK RULE IS THAT THE RULE ITSELF MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE FULL
EFFECTS OF PETITIONER'S INVALID PLEA OF GUILTY TO BE WIPED OUT EVEN
THROUGH A SUCCESSFUL MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL, HAD ONE BEEN MADE BY
PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY AFTER HIS APPEARANCE IN THE CAUSE FOLLOWING THE
PLEA AND SHORTLY BEFORE SENTENCE. 

IT IS NOT AT ALL CERTAIN THAT THE MOTION WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL. 
HAD IT BEEN MADE AND GRANTED, PETITIONER BY THE STATE'S LAW WOULD HAVE
BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE NECESSITY OF OVERCOMING BY PROOF THE
INCRIMINATING EFFECT OF HIS PRIOR PLEA.  HIS BURDEN OF DEFENSE THUS
INCREASED NOT ONLY WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATER THAN IF THE INVALID PLEA HAD
NOT BEEN MADE.  IT WOULD HAVE GONE FAR TO DESTROY THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED UNTIL OTHERWISE AND LAWFULLY PROVED
GUILTY.  FINALLY HIS LAWYER PRESUMABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN COGNIZANT OF
THESE FACTS.  IMAGINATION NEED NOT BE STRETCHED TO BELIEVE THAT EVEN
THE MOST COMPETENT ATTORNEY, CONFRONTED WITH SUCH A SITUATION, MIGHT
HAVE CHOSEN TO ADVISE AGAINST MOVING TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA RATHER THAN
UNDERTAKING THE HEAVY BURDEN OF MEETING IT BY PROOF AT THE TRIAL. 

IN MY OPINION THE DAMAGE DONE BY THE ORIGINAL INVALID PLEA WAS NOT
REMOVED BY THE ATTORNEY'S ELEVENTH-HOUR ENTRY NOR COULD IT HAVE BEEN AT
THAT TIME, FULLY AND EFFECTIVELY, IN VIEW OF THE EXISTING STATE OF THE
LAW AND THE FACTS.  ACCORDINGLY, I THINK THERE WAS NO EFFECTIVE WAIVER
THROUGH THE LATE ENTRANCE OF COUNSEL AND HIS HAMPERED ADVICE, WHICH AS
I UNDERSTAND IS THE ONLY BASIS FOR THE COURT'S DECISION.  THERE WAS NO
CHOICE BUT HOBSON'S.
..END :





CASE V. BOWLES, 327 U.S. 92 


NO. 261.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  - 149
F.2D 777, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT APPLIES TO THE SALE BY THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON OF TIMBER GROWING ON LANDS GRANTED BY CONGRESS TO THE
STATE "FOR THE SUPPORT OF COMMON SCHOOLS," NOTWITHSTANDING A PROVISION
IN THE ENABLING ACT PROVIDING THAT THESE LANDS SHALL "BE DISPOSED OF
ONLY AT PUBLIC SALE, AND AT A PRICE NOT LESS THAN" $10 PER ACRE AND A
PROVISION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION THAT THESE LANDS SHALL NOT BE SOLD
EXCEPT "AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER" AT A PRICE NOT LESS
THAN THE FULL MARKET VALUE FOUND AFTER APPRAISAL OR "THE PRICE
PRESCRIBED IN THE GRANT" OF THESE LANDS.  P. 98. 

2.  THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT APPLIES GENERALLY TO SALES OF
COMMODITIES BY THE STATES.  P. 98. 

(A)  THE DEFINITION IN SEC. 302(H) MAKING THE ACT APPLICABLE TO THE
UNITED STATES "OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS, OR ANY AGENCY OF THE FOREGOING," CLEARLY IS BROAD ENOUGH
TO INCLUDE THE STATES.  P. 98. 

(B)  IT WOULD FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT FOR THE COURTS TO
READ EXEMPTIONS INTO IT WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT SEE FIT TO PUT IN THE
LANGUAGE, SINCE EXCESSIVE PRICES FOR RENTS OR COMMODITIES CHARGED BY A
STATE WOULD PRODUCE EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITIONS AS WOULD BE PRODUCED
WERE THESE PRICES CHARGED BY OTHERS.  P. 99. 

3.  A SPECIAL EXEMPTION CAN NOT BE READ INTO THE ACT IN ORDER TO
PERMIT STATES HOLDING LAND GRANTED FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES TO CHARGE MORE
THAN THE CEILING PRICE SET FOR TIMBER.  P. 100. 

WHILE CONGRESSIONAL GRANTS OF LAND TO THE STATES FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES
TRANSFERRED EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OVER THOSE LANDS TO THE
STATES, NO PART OF ALL THE HISTORY CONCERNING THESE GRANTS INDICATES A
PURPOSE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO A PERMANENT AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATES UNDER WHICH THEY WOULD BE FREE TO USE THE LANDS IN A
MANNER WHICH WOULD CONFLICT WITH VALID LEGISLATION ENACTED BY CONGRESS
IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.  P. 100. 

4.  AS THUS CONSTRUED, THE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 100. 

(A)  WHILE THE STATE DOES HAVE POWER TO OWN AND CONTROL THE SCHOOL
LANDS HERE INVOLVED AND TO SELL THE LANDS OR THE TIMBER GROWING ON
THEM, THIS POWER IS SUBORDINATE TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO FIX MAXIMUM
PRICES IN ORDER TO CARRY ON WAR.  P. 101. 

(B)  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD IMPAIR THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF POWER
TO MAKE WAR, WHICH WAS A PRIME PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
ESTABLISHMENT.  P. 102. 

(C)  THE TENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT OPERATE AS A LIMITATION UPON THE
POWERS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, DELEGATED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  P.
102. 

5.  SECTION 201(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT SPECIFICALLY
EMPOWERS THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR TO COMMENCE SUITS TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS
OF THAT ACT AND AUTHORIZES ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED BY HIM TO REPRESENT HIM
IN SUCH SUITS.  THEREFORE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 485, MAKING IT THE DUTY OF
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS TO PROSECUTE MOST CIVIL ACTIONS TO WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS A PARTY, IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS.  P. 96. 

6.  WHERE THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT AGAINST A STATE OFFICER TO ENJOIN
VIOLATIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE STATUTE BUT MERELY ALLEGES THAT ITS
ENFORCEMENT WOULD VIOLATE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, SEC. 266 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE CASE BE TRIED BY A THREE
JUDGE COURT.  P. 97. 

7.  NEITHER ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION, GIVING THIS
COURT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF ALL CASES IN WHICH A STATE IS A PARTY,
NOR SEC. 233 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, GIVING THIS COURT EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO TRY CASES BETWEEN A STATE AND THE UNITED STATES,
PREVENTS A DISTRICT COURT FROM HAVING JURISDICTION TO TRY SUITS TO
ENJOIN STATE OFFICERS FROM VIOLATING THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT. 
P. 97. 

(A)  CONSISTENTLY WITH ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS CAN
GIVE THE DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION TO TRY CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A
STATE AND THE UNITED STATES.  P. 97. 

(B)  SECTION 205(C) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT SPECIFICALLY
GIVES THE DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION OVER ALL ENFORCEMENT SUITS AND
SUPERSEDES SEC. 233 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO THAT EXTENT.  P. 97. 

8.  WHILE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT DENIES A DEFENDANT IN AN
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATION SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED (SINCE EXCLUSIVE INITIAL JURISDICTION
TO DETERMINE THIS QUESTION IS VESTED IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS), IT DOES NOT DENY HIM THE RIGHT TO ATTACK THE ACT ITSELF ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  P. 98. 

9.  IN REVIEWING A JUDGMENT IN AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, THIS COURT
ORDINARILY WOULD NOT PASS ON THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR TO PROMULGATE A REGULATION, SINCE CONGRESS HAS GRANTED
EXCLUSIVE INITIAL JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION TO THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 98. 

10.  IT WILL DO SO, HOWEVER, WHERE THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE
CERTAIN PRICES IS CHALLENGED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, IF IT IS NOT A
DEVICE TO ATTACK THE REGULATIONS INDIRECTLY.  P. 98. 

CASE, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, V.
BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

AFTER LITIGATION INSTITUTED IN A STATE COURT BY THE BIDDERS FOR
CERTAIN TIMBER ON SCHOOL LANDS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAD RESULTED
IN A HOLDING BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT THAT THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT DID NOT BAR THE SALE OF SCHOOL-LAND TIMBER AT A PRICE ABOVE
THE CEILING FIXED PURSUANT TO THAT ACT, SOUNDVIEW PULP CO. V. TAYLOR,
21 WASH.2D 261, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR INSTITUTED SUIT IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS AND THE
SUCCESSFUL BIDDER AT A PUBLIC AUCTION FROM COMPLETING A SALE OF SCHOOL
LAND TIMBER AT A PRICE ABOVE THE CEILING FIXED BY MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 460, 8 FED. REG. 11850, AS AMENDED, 8 FED. REG. 13023. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  149 F.2D 777.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 706.  AFFIRMED, P. 103. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL ENABLING ACT PROVIDING FOR THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON'S ADMISSION TO THE UNION GRANTED CERTAIN LANDS TO THAT STATE
"FOR THE SUPPORT OF COMMON SCHOOLS."  25 STAT. 676, 679.  SECTION 11 OF
THE ENABLING ACT PROVIDED THAT THESE LANDS SHOULD "BE DISPOSED OF ONLY
AT PUBLIC SALE, AND AT A PRICE NOT LESS THAN TEN DOLLARS PER ACRE
..."  THE STATE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT THESE LANDS SHALL NOT BE
SOLD EXCEPT "AT PUBLIC AUCTION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER" AT A PRICE WHICH
MAY NOT BE BELOW BOTH THE FULL MARKET VALUE FOUND AFTER APPRAISAL AND
"THE PRICE PRESCRIBED IN THE GRANT" OF THESE LANDS.  IN 1943 THE STATE
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS HELD A PUBLIC AUCTION FOR THE SALE OF
TIMBER ON SCHOOL LANDS.  AT THAT AUCTION THE SOUNDVIEW PULP COMPANY,
ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS, BID $86,335.39 FOR SOME OF THE TIMBER.  THIS
AMOUNT EXCEEDED BY APPROXIMATELY $9,000.00 THE CEILING PRICE FIXED BY
MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 460.  FN1  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR ADVISED
SOUNDVIEW THAT CONSUMMATION OF THE SALE AT THE BID PRICE WOULD
CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION AND OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT.  FN2  THEREAFTER SOUNDVIEW AND THE UNSUCCESSFUL BIDDER,
COOS BAY PULP CORPORATION, COMMENCED ACTIONS IN THE STATE COURTS,
SEEKING AN ADJUDICATION AS TO THE LEGALITY OF SOUNDVIEW'S BID AND OF
THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF TIMBER TO SOUNDVIEW.  THIS RESULTED IN A
HOLDING BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT THAT THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT
DID NOT BAR THE SALE OF SCHOOL-LAND TIMBER AT PRICES ABOVE THE
CEILING.  SOUNDVIEW PULP CO. V. TAYLOR, 21 WASH.2D 261, 150 P.2D 839. 
WHEN, AFTER THIS JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, THE PARTIES WERE ABOUT TO
COMPLETE THE SALE, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR COMMENCED THIS ACTION IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS
AND SOUNDVIEW FROM COMPLETING THE TIMBER TRANSACTION AT A PRICE ABOVE
THE CEILING FIXED BY THE REGULATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT DID NOT GRANT THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
AUTHORITY TO SET MAXIMUM PRICES FOR SCHOOL-LAND TIMBER SOLD BY THE
STATE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  149 F.2D 777.  BECAUSE
THE CIRCUIT COURT'S DECISION CONFLICTED WITH THAT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF IDAHO IN TWIN FALLS COUNTY V. HULBERT, 66 IDAHO - , 156 P.2D 319, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH CASES. 

BEFORE CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE STATE, WE
SHALL AT THE OUTSET BRIEFLY DISPOSE OF CERTAIN PROCEDURAL CONTENTIONS. 
THE STATE URGES THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE
IT WAS SIGNED BY ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR AND NOT
BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 
TRUE, 28 U.S.C. 485 MAKES IT THE DUTY OF EVERY DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO
PROSECUTE MOST CIVIL ACTIONS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY. 
BUT THIS SECTION DOES NOT PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE UNDER THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT, FOR THAT ACT SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERS THE ADMINISTRATOR
TO COMMENCE ACTIONS SUCH AS THIS ONE AND AUTHORIZES ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED
BY HIM TO REPRESENT HIM IN SUCH ACTIONS.  SEC. 201(A).  THE STATE
CONTENDS FURTHER THAT THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRIED BY A DISTRICT
COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES BECAUSE SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
REQUIRES SUCH A PROCEEDING WHENEVER ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE IS
SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT HERE THE COMPLAINT DID NOT CHALLENGE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE STATUTE BUT ALLEGED MERELY THAT ITS
ENFORCEMENT WOULD VIOLATE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT. 
CONSEQUENTLY A THREE-JUDGE COURT IS NOT REQUIRED.  EX PARTE BRANSFORD,
310 U.S. 354, 358-359; QUERY V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 486, 488-489. 
ANOTHER PROCEDURAL POINT URGED BY THE STATE IS THAT SINCE THIS IS IN
EFFECT A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
UNDER ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, CLAUSE 2, OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED POWER TO TRY THE CASE.  BUT IT IS WELL
SETTLED THAT DESPITE ARTICLE III, CONGRESS CAN GIVE THE DISTRICT COURTS
JURISDICTION TO TRY CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A STATE AND THE UNITED
STATES.  FN3  CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE DISTRICT COURT POWER TO TRY CASES
SUCH AS THIS ONE.  WHILE SEC. 233 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE DOES GIVE THIS
COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO TRY CASES BETWEEN A STATE AND THE
UNITED STATES, SEC. 205(C) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION
OVER ALL ENFORCEMENT SUITS.  TO THAT EXTENT SEC. 205(C) OF THE PRICE
CONTROL ACT SUPERSEDES SEC. 233 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 186. 

THE STATE'S PRINCIPAL CONTENTION IS THAT SALES BY A STATE, SUCH AS
THE ONE HERE INVOLVED, ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE MADE SUBJECT TO PRICE
CONTROL.  MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 460, WHICH THE STATE'S SALE OF
TIMBER ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT IT IS APPLICABLE
TO SALES BY STATES.  THE STATE MAKES THE FOLLOWING CONTENTIONS:  (1)
INSOFAR AS THE REGULATION APPLIES TO STATE SALES IT IS UNAUTHORIZED BY
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, SINCE CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT ACT
TO APPLY TO STATES.  (2) EVEN IF THE ACT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO STATE
SALES, THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR TO FIX A MAXIMUM PRICE AT WHICH TIMBER ON SCHOOL-LAND
GRANTS CAN BE SOLD BY STATES.  (3) IF THE ACT IS SO CONSTRUED, IT
VIOLATES THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 

WE ORDINARILY WOULD NOT PASS ON THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO PROMULGATE THE REGULATION IN A PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS
ONE.  FOR CONGRESS HAS GRANTED EXCLUSIVE INITIAL JURISDICTION TO
DETERMINE THIS QUESTION TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  LOCKERTY V.
PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182.  BUT WHILE THE ACT THUS DENIES A DEFENDANT IN
AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATION, IT DOES NOT DENY HIM THE RIGHT TO ATTACK THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT ITSELF ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  YAKUS V. UNITED
STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 430.  OF COURSE, THIS RIGHT MAY NOT BE UTILIZED
AS A MEANS OF INDIRECTLY ATTACKING THE REGULATIONS THEMSELVES INSTEAD
OF THE STATUTE.  BUT HERE PETITIONER'S THIRD CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS
LACKS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE PRICES OF STATE SCHOOL-LAND TIMBER
EXTENDS BEYOND THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION AND STRIKES AT THE ACT
ITSELF.  IN ORDER TO REACH THIS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, WE FIRST HAVE
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ACT, PROPERLY INTERPRETED, IS APPLICABLE TO SALES
BY STATES, INCLUDING SALES OF TIMBER ON SCHOOL-GRANT LANDS. 

THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT GRANTS TO THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
BROAD POWERS TO SET MAXIMUM PRICES FOR COMMODITIES AND RENTS AND MAKES
IT UNLAWFUL FOR "ANY PERSON" TO VIOLATE THESE MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATIONS.  SECTION 302(H) DEFINES A "PERSON" AS INCLUDING "AN
INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, OR ANY OTHER
ORGANIZED GROUP OF PERSONS, OR LEGAL SUCCESSOR OR REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY
OF THE FOREGOING, AND INCLUDES THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF,
OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, OR ANY
AGENCY OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING."  THIS LANGUAGE ON ITS FACE, AND GIVEN
ITS ORDINARY MEANING, WOULD APPEAR TO BE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ANY
PERSON, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL, OR ANY GROUP OR AGENCY, PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE, WHICH SELLS COMMODITIES  FN4  OR CHARGES RENTS.  THE ARGUMENT
THAT THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO INCLUDE A STATE WITHIN
THE ENUMERATED LIST MADE SUBJECT TO PRICE REGULATION, RESTS LARGELY ON
THE PREMISE THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT ORDINARILY ATTEMPT TO REGULATE STATE
ACTIVITIES AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT INFER SUCH AN INTENTION IN THE
ABSENCE OF PLAIN AND UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE.  PETITIONER PRESSES THIS
CONTENTION SO FAR AS TO URGE US TO ACCEPT AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT
UNLESS CONGRESS ACTUALLY USES THE WORD "STATE," COURTS SHOULD NOT
CONSTRUE REGULATORY ENACTMENTS AS APPLICABLE TO THE STATES.  THIS COURT
HAS PREVIOUSLY REJECTED SIMILAR ARGUMENTS,  FN5  AND WE CANNOT ACCEPT
SUCH AN ARGUMENT NOW. 

WE THINK IT TOO PLAIN, TO CALL FOR EXTENDED DISCUSSION, THAT CONGRESS
MEANT TO INCLUDE STATES AND THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS WHEN IT
EXPRESSLY MADE THE ACT APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES "OR ANY OTHER
GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, OR ANY AGENCY OF ANY
OF THE FOREGOING  ..."  CONGRESS CLEARLY INTENDED TO CONTROL ALL
COMMODITY PRICES AND ALL RENTS WITH CERTAIN SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS WHICH
IT DECLARED.  IT WOULD FRUSTRATE THIS PURPOSE FOR COURTS TO READ
EXEMPTIONS INTO THE ACT WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT SEE FIT TO PUT IN THE
LANGUAGE.  EXCESSIVE PRICES FOR RENTS OR COMMODITIES CHARGED BY A STATE
OR ITS AGENCIES WOULD PRODUCE EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITIONS AS WOULD BE
PRODUCED WERE THESE PRICES CHARGED BY OTHER PERSONS.  WE, THEREFORE,
HAVE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE ACT TO APPLY GENERALLY TO
SALES OF COMMODITIES BY STATES.  FN6 

NOR CAN WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT A SPECIAL EXEMPTION COULD BE
READ INTO THE ACT IN ORDER TO PERMIT STATES HOLDING LAND GRANTED FOR
SCHOOL PURPOSES TO CHARGE MORE THAN THE CEILING PRICE SET FOR TIMBER. 
IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION WE ARE NOT UNAWARE OF THE DIFFICULTIES
WHICH CONFRONTED THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, NOR OF THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
THOSE SCHOOL LANDS.  BOTH THE ACT OF CONGRESS, WHICH GRANTED THE LAND
TO WASHINGTON, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE, HAD PROVIDED FOR
SAFEGUARDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISPOSITION OF SCHOOL LANDS.  WE DO
NOT QUESTION THE WISDOM OF THESE PRECAUTIONS.  WE ARE MINDFUL ALSO OF
THE FACT THAT THIS COURT HAS DECLARED THAT GRANTS OF LAND TO THE STATE,
LIKE THOSE HERE INVOLVED, TRANSFERRED EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL
OVER THOSE LANDS TO THE STATE.  COOPER V. ROBERTS, 18 HOW.  173.  NO
PART OF ALL THE HISTORY CONCERNING THESE GRANTS, HOWEVER, INDICATES A
PURPOSE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO ENTER INTO A PERMANENT AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATES UNDER WHICH STATES WOULD BE FREE TO USE THE LANDS IN A
MANNER WHICH WOULD CONFLICT WITH VALID LEGISLATION ENACTED BY CONGRESS
IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.  HERE AGAIN, THE SALE OF SCHOOL-LAND TIMBER
AT ABOVE-CEILING PRICES COULD BE JUST AS DISTURBING TO THE NATIONAL
INFLATION-CONTROL PROGRAM AS THE CHARGING OF EXCESS PRICES FOR TIMBER
LOCATED ON ANY OTHER LANDS. 

WE NOW TURN TO PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION.  THOUGH AS WE
HAVE POINTED OUT PETITIONERS HAVE ALLEGED THAT THE ACT APPLIED TO
SETTING A MAXIMUM PRICE FOR SCHOOL-LAND TIMBER VIOLATES THE FIFTH AND
TENTH AMENDMENTS, THE ARGUMENT HERE SEEMS TO SPRING FROM IMPLICATIONS
OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT ONLY.  THE CONTENTION RESTS ON THE PREMISE THAT
THERE IS A DOCTRINE IMPLIED IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THAT "THE TWO
GOVERNMENTS, NATIONAL AND STATE, ARE EACH TO EXERCISE ITS POWERS SO AS
NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE FREE AND FULL EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF THE
OTHER."  IT IS NOT CONTENDED, AND COULD NOT BE UNDER OUR PRIOR
DECISIONS, THAT THE CEILING PRICE FIXED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID AS APPLIED TO PRIVATELY OWNED TIMBER.  YAKUS
V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414; BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503. 
NOR IS IT DENIED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR COULD HAVE FIXED CEILING PRICES
IF THE STATE HAD ENGAGED IN A SALES BUSINESS "HAVING THE INCIDENTS OF
SIMILAR ENTERPRISES USUALLY PROSECUTED FOR PRIVATE GAIN."  ALLEN V.
REGENTS, 304 U.S. 439, 452.  BUT IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ACT CANNOT BE
APPLIED TO THIS SALE BECAUSE IT WAS "FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING REVENUE
TO CARRY OUT AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION - THE EDUCATION OF ITS
CITIZENS."  SINCE THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED AS
A CONGRESSIONAL EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER, THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS
THAT THE EXTENT OF THAT POWER AS APPLIED TO STATE FUNCTIONS DEPENDS ON
WHETHER THESE ARE "ESSENTIAL" TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT.  THE USE OF THE
SAME CRITERION IN MEASURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO TAX
HAS PROVED TO BE UNWORKABLE, FN7  AND WE REJECT IT AS A GUIDE IN THE
FIELD HERE INVOLVED.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 297 U.S.
AT 183-185.    THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DOES HAVE POWER TO OWN AND
CONTROL THE SCHOOL LANDS HERE INVOLVED AND TO SELL THE LANDS OR THE
TIMBER GROWING ON THEM, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS SET OUT IN THE
ENABLING ACT.  AND OUR ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE'S POWER TO
MAKE THE SALES MUST BE IN SUBORDINATION TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO FIX
MAXIMUM PRICES IN ORDER TO CARRY ON WAR.  FOR REASONS TO WHICH WE HAVE
ALREADY ADVERTED, AN ABSENCE OF FEDERAL POWER TO FIX MAXIMUM PRICES FOR
STATE SALES OR TO CONTROL RENTS CHARGED BY A STATE MIGHT RESULT IN
DEPRIVING CONGRESS OF ABILITY EFFECTIVELY TO PREVENT THE EVIL OF
INFLATION AT WHICH THE ACT WAS AIMED.  THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF THE POWER TO MAKE WAR WOULD BE INADEQUATE TO
ACCOMPLISH ITS FULL PURPOSE.  AND THIS RESULT WOULD IMPAIR A PRIME
PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ESTABLISHMENT. 

TO CONSTRUE THE CONSTITUTION AS PREVENTING THIS WOULD BE TO READ IT
AS A SELF-DEFEATING CHARTER.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN SO INTERPRETED.  SINCE
THE DECISION IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 420, IT HAS
SELDOM IF EVER BEEN DOUBTED THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER IN ORDER TO ATTAIN
A LEGITIMATE END - THAT IS, TO ACCOMPLISH THE FULL PURPOSE OF A GRANTED
AUTHORITY - TO USE ALL APPROPRIATE MEANS PLAINLY ADAPTED TO THAT END,
UNLESS INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  AND WE HAVE
SAID, THAT THE TENTH AMENDMENT "DOES NOT OPERATE AS A LIMITATION UPON
THE POWERS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, DELEGATED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT." 
FN8 

WHERE, AS HERE, CONGRESS HAS ENACTED LEGISLATION AUTHORIZED BY ITS
GRANTED POWERS, AND WHERE AT THE SAME TIME, A STATE HAS A CONFLICTING
LAW WHICH BUT FOR THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT WOULD BE VALID, THE
CONSTITUTION MARKS THE COURSE FOR COURTS TO FOLLOW.  ARTICLE VI
PROVIDES THAT "THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...
MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF  ...  SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
..."  FN9  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  8 FED. REG. 11850, AS AMENDED, 8 FED. REG. 13023. 

FN2  56 STAT. 23, 58 STAT. 640; C. 214, 59 STAT. 306. 

FN3  AMES V. KANSAS, 111 U.S. 449; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 123
U.S. 32; UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175. 

FN4  SECTION 302 OF THE ACT DEFINES "COMMODITY" AS INCLUDING
"SERVICES RENDERED OTHERWISE THAN AS AN EMPLOYEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION, STORAGE, INSTALLATION, REPAIR, OR NEGOTIATION
OF PURCHASES OR SALES OF A COMMODITY, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
OPERATION OF ANY SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE SERVICING OF A
COMMODITY." 

FN5  OHIO V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360, 370; UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 186; CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S.
577, 585. 

FN6  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS RECENTLY CONSIDERED THE SAME
QUESTION AND REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION.  DALLAS V. BOWLES, 152 F.2D
464. 

FN7  SEE THE SEVERAL OPINIONS IN NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S.
572. 

FN8  FERNANDEZ V. WIENER, 326 U.S. 340, 362.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY,
312 U.S. 100, 124; CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; OKLAHOMA V. ATKINSON CO., 313 U.S. 508, 534-535. 

FN9  FOR APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE SEE HINES V. DAVIDOVITZ, 312
U.S. 52, 68; STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S. 94, 104. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT FOR THE REASONS SET
FORTH IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN HULBERT V. TWIN FALLS COUNTY, 327
U.S. 105. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























HULBERT V. TWIN FALLS COUNTY, 327 U.S. 103 


NO. 238.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  - 66
IDAHO - , 156 P.2D 319, REVERSED. 


MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 133, PROMULGATED BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, APPLIES TO
A SALE OF A TRACTOR BY A COUNTY.  CASE V. BOWLES, ANTE, P. 92.  P.
104. 

HULBERT ET AL. V. TWIN FALLS COUNTY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO. 

AN IDAHO DISTRICT COURT HELD THE SALE OF A FARM TRACTOR BY A COUNTY
TO BE SUBJECT TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT AND MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 133 PROMULGATED PURSUANT THERETO.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
IDAHO REVERSED.  66 IDAHO - , 156 P.2D 319.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 707.  REVERSED, P. 105. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER HULBERT BID $1,050 FOR A USED FARM-TYPE GASOLINE
TRACTOR WHICH TWIN FALLS COUNTY, IDAHO, OFFERED FOR SALE AT AN
AUCTION.  HIS WAS THE HIGHEST BID.  UPON BEING INFORMED BY THE OFFICE
OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION THAT THE AMOUNT BID WAS ABOVE THE CEILING PRICE
OF $723.56, PETITIONER REFUSED TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT.  HE TENDERED
$723.56 WHICH THE COUNTY REFUSED TO ACCEPT.  THEREUPON THE COUNTY SUED
THE PETITIONER IN THE STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR $1,050.  PETITIONER
TENDERED $1,050 TO BE DISPOSED OF ACCORDING TO THE OUTCOME OF THE
CASE.  HE DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE OFFICE
OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION THAT THE REGULATION SETTING A CEILING PRICE WAS
APPLICABLE AND STATED THAT HE WAS WILLING TO PAY ANY SUM UP TO $1,050
WHICH WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY THIS REGULATION.  THE ADMINISTRATOR
INTERVENED, ALLEGING THAT THE BID PRICE EXCEEDED THE CEILING PRICE
FIXED BY MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION 133  FN1  AND THAT THE REGULATION WAS
APPLICABLE TO THE SALE OF A TRACTOR BY THE COUNTY.  THE COUNTY STATED
THAT PRIOR TO THE SALE IT HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE COUNTY PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY THAT THE SALE WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY SEC. 30-708 OF THE IDAHO
CODE, ANN., AND THAT THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS
WERE INAPPLICABLE.  THE IDAHO DISTRICT COURT HELD THE SALE SUBJECT TO
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT AND TO REGULATION NO. 133.  THE COURT
GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE COUNTY FOR THE CEILING PRICE OF $723.56, HOLDING
THAT THE SALE AS TO THE AMOUNT ABOVE THAT CEILING PRICE WAS VOID.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO REVERSED.  66 IDAHO - , 156 P.2D 319.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION CONFLICTED WITH
THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN BOWLES V.
CASE, 149 F.2D 777. 

THE ONLY QUESTION PROPERLY BEFORE US IS WHETHER MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 133 APPLIES TO SALES OF TRACTORS BY A COUNTY.  IN
DEFINING THE TERM "PERSON" THE REGULATION USES THE SAME LANGUAGE AS
SEC. 302(H) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  IN CASE V. BOWLES, 327
U.S. 92, WE HELD THAT THAT LANGUAGE MAKES THE ACT APPLICABLE TO SALES
BY STATES AND THEIR SUBDIVISIONS SUCH AS THIS ONE.  FOR THE REASONS SET
OUT IN THAT OPINION, THIS LANGUAGE AS EMPLOYED IN REGULATION NO. 133
MAKES THAT REGULATION APPLICABLE TO THE SALE OF THE TRACTOR BY THE
COUNTY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  7 F.R. 3185, 6936, 7599; 8 F.R. 234. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK JUDGE GIVENS, WRITING FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO (66
IDAHO - , 156 P.2D 319), HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS AT LEAST DOUBTFUL IF
CONGRESS MEANT TO INCLUDE THE STATES AS SELLERS UNDER THIS ACT.  FN1  I
THINK THERE IS LITTLE TO ADD TO HIS ANALYSIS EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THE
DOUBT FOR ME IS INCREASED WHEN THE WHOLE SCHEME OF REGULATION IS
CONSIDERED.  WHILE SEC. 302(H) WOULD RELIEVE THE STATES FROM THE
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS OF THE ACT,  FN2  THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
TREBLE DAMAGE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 205(E), WHICH ARE REMEDIAL, NOT
PUNITIVE, IN NATURE.  BOWLES V. AMERICAN STORES, 139 F.2D 377, 379. 
AND THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD HAVE THE POWER UNDER SEC. 205(F)(1) TO
REQUIRE A STATE TO GET A LICENSE FROM HIM IN ORDER TO SELL ITS
COMMODITIES - A LICENSE WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SUSPENSION.  SEC.
205(F)(2).  THESE ARE SUBSTANTIAL INTRUSIONS ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
STATES, INVOLVING MATTERS OF GREAT DELICACY.  AND THEY RAISE FOR ME
SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  CF. NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 326
U.S. 572, 590, DISSENTING OPINION.  SINCE THE ACT IS AT BEST AMBIGUOUS,
I WOULD CHOOSE THE CONSTRUCTION  FN3  WHICH AVOIDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE.  ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT WAS EXPLICIT
WOULD I ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED EVEN IN DAYS OF WAR TO INTERFERE
WITH THE TRADITIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES TO THE EXTENT
INDICATED. 

FN1  SEC. 302(H) DEFINES THE TERM "PERSON" AS INCLUDING "AN
INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, OR ANY OTHER
ORGANIZED GROUP OF PERSONS, OR LEGAL SUCCESSOR OR REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY
OF THE FOREGOING, AND INCLUDES THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF,
OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, OR ANY
AGENCY OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING: PROVIDED, THAT NO PUNISHMENT PROVIDED
BY THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE UNITED STATES, OR TO ANY SUCH
GOVERNMENT, POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, OR AGENCY." 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  A PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION IS THAT THE PHRASE "THE UNITED STATES
...  OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT" MEANS THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER
COMPARABLE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES, I.E., FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 327 U.S. 106 


ARGUED JANUARY 2, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  - 149 F.2D 31,
REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE, ON AN APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON
THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE UNDER RULE II(3) OF THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY OBJECTION IS TO THE
TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS ON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AND THAT THERE WAS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS FINDINGS, THE APPEAL DOES NOT PRESENT A
REVIEWABLE ISSUE OF LAW; AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD, ON
ITS OWN MOTION, DISMISS THE APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS UNDER RULE IV, WHICH
GIVES THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS POWER TO SUPERVISE AND CONTROL ALL
PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL.  P. 113. 

2.  IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE THAT FINDINGS ON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURTS ON
MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REMAIN
UNDISTURBED, EXCEPT IN MOST EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 111. 

3.  IT IS NOT THE PROVINCE OF THIS COURT OR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS TO REVIEW ORDERS GRANTING OR DENYING MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL
WHEN SUCH REVIEW IS SOUGHT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT MADE
ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF FACT AND IT DOES NOT CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE
FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE.  P. 111. 

4.  WHILE A DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE FULL BENEFIT OF A MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE UNDER RULE
II(3) OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES, COURTS SHOULD BE ON THE ALERT TO
SEE THAT THE PRIVILEGE IS NOT ABUSED; AND ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE
METHODS OF PREVENTING ABUSE IS TO REFRAIN FROM REVIEWING FINDINGS OF
FACT WHICH HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.  P. 113. 

UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON. 

NO. 115.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 116, UNITED STATES V. SOMMERS ET AL., ON
CERTIORARI TO THE SAME COURT.  ARGUED AND DECIDED ON THE SAME DATES. 

RESPONDENTS IN BOTH CASES WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATIONS OF PENAL
PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACTS AND FOR CONSPIRACY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  123 F.2D 111, 142.  AFTER GRANTING CERTIORARI,
315 U.S. 790, THIS COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  319 U.S. 503.  THAT COURT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT TO PERMIT A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND OF
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  THAT MOTION WAS MADE AND DENIED.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  142 F.2D 588.  RESPONDENTS
PETITIONED THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI, BUT THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED ON
MOTION OF THEIR COUNSEL.  323 U.S. 806.  AFTER OBTAINING A SECOND
REMAND FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE GROUND OF STILL FURTHER
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, RESPONDENTS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AN
AMENDED MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THAT MOTION WAS DENIED.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  149 F.2D 31.  THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 702.  REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT.  P. 113. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON OCTOBER 12, 1940, AFTER A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TRIAL LASTING
MORE THAN SIX WEEKS, A JURY FOUND RESPONDENT JOHNSON GUILTY OF WILFULLY
ATTEMPTING TO DEFEAT AND EVADE A LARGE PART OF HIS INCOME TAXES FOR THE
CALENDAR YEARS 1936-1939 AND OF CONSPIRING TO DO SO; THE OTHER
RESPONDENTS WERE CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR CONSPIRING WITH AND AIDING
AND ABETTING HIM.  FN1  FROM THE TIME OF THESE CONVICTIONS UNTIL NOW,
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SENTENCES WAS DELAYED BY PERSISTENT EFFORTS TO
OBTAIN A NEW TRIAL.  THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN NO SECOND TRIAL THE CASE IS
HERE FOR THE THIRD TIME. 

SEPTEMBER 21, 1941, WAS THE DATE WHEN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST REVERSED THE CONVICTION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  123 F.2D 111. 
JUNE 7, 1943, WE REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, 319 U.S. 503.  RESPONDENTS THEN ASKED THAT COURT TO REMAND THE
CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT TO PERMIT A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE
GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT ACTING
PURSUANT TO RULE II(3) OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES  FN3 REMANDED THE
CASE AND ON OCTOBER 29, 1943, RESPONDENTS, WITH LEAVE OF THE TRIAL
COURT, FILED A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THE RESPONDENTS ALLEGED THAT
THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE PROVED THAT GOLDSTEIN, A GOVERNMENT
WITNESS AT THE TRIAL, WAS UNWORTHY OF BELIEF AND HAD COMMITTED PERJURY
IN TESTIFYING THAT CERTAIN PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED BY HIM ON BEHALF
OF JOHNSON AND WITH MONEY SUPPLIED BY JOHNSON.  TO SUPPORT THEIR
CHARGES AGAINST GOLDSTEIN RESPONDENTS OFFERED NUMEROUS AFFIDAVITS.  THE
GOVERNMENT FILED AN ANSWER TO THE MOTION AND A NUMBER OF COUNTER
AFFIDAVITS.  AND AMONG THE PAPERS BEFORE THE COURT WERE AFFIDAVITS BY
GOLDSTEIN REAFFIRMING HIS TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, IN
A CAREFULLY PREPARED OPINION COVERING FIFTY-SIX PAGES OF THE RECORD,
GAVE THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO EACH AFFIDAVIT, REACHED THE CONCLUSION
THAT NONE OF THEM SHOWED THAT GOLDSTEIN HAD PERJURED HIMSELF, AND FOUND
BOTH FROM THE NEW AFFIDAVITS AND HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGINAL SIX
WEEKS TRIAL, THAT GOLDSTEIN'S TESTIMONY WAS TRUE.  THE MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL WAS CONSEQUENTLY DENIED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  142 F.2D 588.  IT UNANIMOUSLY
HELD THAT IT COULD NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT ON THE FACTS FOR THAT OF
THE TRIAL JUDGE; THAT IT DID NOT HAVE POWER TO TRY THESE FACTS DE NOVO;
THAT IT COULD REVIEW THE RECORD FOR ERRORS OF LAW, TO DETERMINE, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD ABUSED HIS DISCRETION; THAT A
REVIEW OF THE NEW EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD DID NOT INEVITABLY LEAD TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT GOLDSTEIN HAD TESTIFIED FALSELY; THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE
HAD NOT REACHED HIS CONCLUSION "ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY, OR IN THE
MISAPPLICATION OF ANY RULE OF LAW" AND HENCE HAD NOT ABUSED HIS
DISCRETION.  THE RESPONDENTS THEREUPON FILED A SECOND PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT.  WHILE THIS PETITION WAS PENDING, RESPONDENTS
PRESENTED PAPERS INFORMING US THAT THEY HAD DISCOVERED STILL MORE NEW
EVIDENCE TENDING TO DISCREDIT GOLDSTEIN'S ORIGINAL TESTIMONY.  WE
DEFERRED CONSIDERATION OF THEIR CASE, WHICH WE LATER DISMISSED, 323
U.S. 806, AND THEY, AFTER OBTAINING A SECOND REMAND FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, FILED AN AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE TRIAL COURT AGAIN WROTE AN OPINION ANALYZING EACH NEW
AFFIDAVIT IN DETAIL.  THESE ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVITS CONTAINED STATEMENTS
WHICH, HAD THEY BEEN OFFERED AS TESTIMONY AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL, WOULD
HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND RELEVANT TO DISCREDIT GOLDSTEIN'S AND BUTTRESS
JOHNSON'S TESTIMONY.  AT LEAST SOME OF THE FACTS SET OUT IN THE
AFFIDAVITS HAD NOT BEEN DISCOVERED UNTIL SHORTLY BEFORE THE AMENDED
MOTION WAS MADE.  BUT THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE NEW AFFIDAVITS
FAILED TO PROVE THAT GOLDSTEIN HAD COMMITTED PERJURY, AND THAT
CONSEQUENTLY THE BASIC GROUND FOR THE MOTION - THAT THERE WAS NEW
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT GOLDSTEIN HAD PERJURED HIMSELF - WAS WITHOUT
FOUNDATION.  FN4 THAT COURT FOUND AGAIN THAT THE NEW AND OLD EVIDENCE
TAKEN TOGETHER AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWED THAT GOLDSTEIN HAD BEEN A TRUTHFUL
WITNESS.  THIS TIME, HOWEVER, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED
WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  149 F.2D 31.  THE REVERSAL RESTED BASICALLY
ON THE COURT'S BELIEF THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD ERRONEOUSLY FOUND THAT
GOLDSTEIN DID NOT COMMIT PERJURY.  THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT REVIEWED
PARTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS AND CONCLUDED FROM THEM THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE'S
FINDING THAT GOLDSTEIN DID NOT COMMIT PERJURY WAS ILLOGICAL AND
UNREASONABLE.  THE MAJORITY SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN FINDING THAT
GOLDSTEIN'S ORIGINAL TESTIMONY WAS "UNERRINGLY FALSE" AND HELD THAT THE
TRIAL JUDGE'S CONTRARY CONCLUSION AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 
SINCE WE THINK IT IMPORTANT FOR THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE THAT FINDINGS ON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE BY TRIAL COURTS ON
MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE REMAIN
UNDISTURBED EXCEPT FOR MOST EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

IN OUR OPINION THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED.  THE APPEAL TO
THAT COURT WAS SO DEVOID OF MERIT THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 
THE CRUCIAL QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT WAS ONE OF FACT:  DID THE
NEW EVIDENCE SHOW THAT GOLDSTEIN'S ORIGINAL TESTIMONY WAS FALSE?  FN5
THE TRIAL JUDGE, AFTER CAREFULLY STUDYING ALL THE EVIDENCE, FOUND THAT
THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW PERJURY ON THE PART OF GOLDSTEIN, THAT
GOLDSTEIN HAD IN FACT TOLD THE TRUTH, AND CONCLUDED THAT A NEW TRIAL
WAS NOT WARRANTED.  THE TRIAL COURT THUS ANSWERED THE ABOVE QUESTION IN
THE NEGATIVE.  TWO JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT
THE EVIDENCE COMPELLED AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER.  BUT IT IS NOT THE
PROVINCE OF THIS COURT OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REVIEW ORDERS
GRANTING OR DENYING MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL WHEN SUCH REVIEW IS SOUGHT
ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT MADE ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF
FACT.  HOLMGREN V. UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 509; HOLT V. UNITED STATES,
218 U.S. 245; FAIRMOUNT GLASS WORKS V. CUB FORK COAL CO., 287 U.S. 474,
481.  WHILE THE APPELLATE COURT MIGHT INTERVENE WHEN THE FINDINGS OF
FACT ARE WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, CF. UNITED STATES V. SOCONY
VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 247; GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S.
60, 87, IT SHOULD NEVER DO SO WHERE IT DOES NOT CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE
FINDINGS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE'S FINDINGS WERE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  HE HAD
CONDUCTED THE ORIGINAL TRIAL AND HAD WATCHED THE CASE AGAINST JOHNSON
AND THE OTHER RESPONDENTS UNFOLD FROM DAY TO DAY.  CONSEQUENTLY THE
TRIAL JUDGE WAS EXCEPTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO PASS ON THE AFFIDAVITS.  THE
RECORD OF BOTH THE ORIGINAL TRIAL AND THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE MOTIONS
FOR A NEW TRIAL SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE GAVE THE NUMEROUS
ELEMENTS OF THE CONTROVERSY CAREFUL AND HONEST CONSIDERATION.  WE THINK
THAT EVEN A CASUAL PERUSAL OF THIS RECORD SHOULD HAVE REVEALED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT HERE NOTHING MORE WAS INVOLVED THAN AN
EFFORT TO UPSET A TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT. 

DETERMINATION OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE AS A RESULT OF A FAIR TRIAL, AND
PROMPT ENFORCEMENT OF SENTENCES IN THE EVENT OF CONVICTION, ARE
OBJECTIVES OF CRIMINAL LAW.  IN THE INTEREST OF PROMPTNESS, RULE II(2)
OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES REQUIRES THAT MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL
GENERALLY MUST BE MADE WITHIN THREE DAYS AFTER VERDICT OR FINDING OF
GUILT, AND RULE III REQUIRES APPEALS TO BE TAKEN WITHIN FIVE DAYS.  BUT
MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE HAVE
BEEN MORE LIBERALLY TREATED.  THEY CAN, UNDER RULE II(3), BE MADE AT
ANY TIME WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER JUDGMENT, AND IN THE EVENT OF AN
APPEAL, AT ANY TIME BEFORE FINAL DISPOSITION BY THE APPELLATE COURT. 
THIS EXTRAORDINARY LENGTH OF TIME WITHIN WHICH THIS TYPE OF MOTION CAN
BE MADE IS DESIGNED TO AFFORD RELIEF WHERE, DESPITE THE FAIR CONDUCT OF
THE TRIAL, IT LATER CLEARLY APPEARS TO THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT, BECAUSE OF
FACTS UNKNOWN AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WAS NOT DONE. 
IT IS OBVIOUS, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PRIVILEGE MIGHT LEND ITSELF FOR USE
AS A METHOD OF DELAYING ENFORCEMENT OF JUST SENTENCES.  ESPECIALLY IS
THIS TRUE WHERE DELAY IS EXTENDED BY APPEALS LACKING IN MERIT.  THIS
CASE WELL ILLUSTRATES THIS POSSIBILITY.  WHILE A DEFENDANT SHOULD BE
AFFORDED THE FULL BENEFIT OF THIS TYPE OF RECTIFYING MOTION, COURTS
SHOULD BE ON THE ALERT TO SEE THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF ITS USE IS NOT
ABUSED.  ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE METHODS OF PREVENTING THIS ABUSE IS
FOR APPELLATE COURTS TO REFRAIN FROM REVIEWING FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH
HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHEN IT DECLARED THAT IT DID NOT SIT TO TRY DE
NOVO MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL.  IT WAS WRONG IN THE SECOND INSTANCE WHEN
IT DID REVIEW THE FACTS DE NOVO AND ORDER THE JUDGMENT SET ASIDE. 

THE APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS INSTITUTED BY NOTICE
OF APPEAL UNDER RULE III OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES.  RULE IV GIVES
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS POWER TO SUPERVISE AND CONTROL ALL
PROCEEDINGS ON THE APPEAL AND TO EXPEDITE SUCH PROCEEDINGS BY, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, ENTERTAINING MOTIONS TO DISMISS.  RAY V. UNITED STATES,
301 U.S. 158, 164; MORTENSEN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 369.  UNDER
THAT RULE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HERE, AFTER STUDYING THE ISSUES
RAISED, AND UPON DETERMINING THAT THE ONLY OBJECTION WAS TO THE TRIAL
COURT'S FINDINGS ON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THAT THIS
DOES NOT PRESENT A REVIEWABLE ISSUE OF LAW AND ON ITS OWN MOTION HAVE
DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS FRIVOLOUS.  FN6 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENTS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE RESPONDENT BROWN WAS FOUND GUILTY ONLY ON THE CONSPIRACY
COUNT AND COUNTS 3 AND 4, THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS FOR 1938-1939. 

FN2  PREVIOUSLY RESPONDENTS HAD APPLIED TO MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER
FOR A STAY OF MANDATE PENDING PETITION FOR REHEARING.  MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER'S DENIAL OF THE MOTION SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT IT WAS TO
BE "WITHOUT PREJUDICE, HOWEVER, TO THE CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION BY
THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT OF
ANY MOTION FILED UNDER RULE 2(3) OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES  ..." 

FN3  "II.  MOTIONS. 

     .   .         .         .         . 

"(3)  EXCEPT IN CAPITAL CASES A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL SOLELY UPON
THE GROUND OF NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE MAY BE MADE WITHIN SIXTY (60)
DAYS AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM
AT WHICH JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, UNLESS AN APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN AND IN
THAT EVENT THE TRIAL COURT MAY ENTERTAIN THE MOTION ONLY ON REMAND OF
THE CASE BY THE APPELLATE COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND SUCH REMAND MAY
BE MADE AT ANY TIME BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT  ..." 

FN4  AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND FOR THE COURT'S DENIAL OF THE MOTION NEED
NOT BE CONSIDERED HERE.  FOR AS WILL BE SEEN WE THINK THAT THE TRIAL
COURT'S FINDINGS THAT THE SO-CALLED NEW EVIDENCE FAILED TO SHOW
GOLDSTEIN'S PERJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UPSET.  THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND
WAS THAT ALL THE SO-CALLED NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WAS EITHER NOT
NEWLY DISCOVERED, OR MERELY CUMULATIVE OR IMPEACHING, AND IN ANY EVENT
WOULD PROBABLY NOT PRODUCE A DIFFERENT RESULT.  IN THIS ASPECT OF THE
CASE, THE TRIAL COURT, AS DID THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ITS FIRST
OPINION, RELIED ON THE FREQUENTLY QUOTED AND FOLLOWED RULE ANNOUNCED IN
BERRY V. GEORGIA, 10 GA. 511. 

FN5  IN ADDITION TO QUESTIONS INVOLVING THE MERELY IMPEACHING OR
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE EVIDENCE, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED NEED
NOT BE CONSIDERED HERE, SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA, WE ALSO NEED NOT CONSIDER
WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD HAVE GUIDED THE COURT IN PASSING ON THE MOTION,
HAD RESPONDENTS ACTUALLY SHOWN THAT GOLDSTEIN RECANTED HIS TESTIMONY OR
THAT HE COMMITTED PERJURY.  COMPARE LARRISON V. UNITED STATES, 24 F.2D
82, WITH BERRY V. GEORGIA, SUPRA, NOTE 2.  FOR AS LATER APPEARS WE
CONSIDER THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING, THAT GOLDSTEIN'S TESTIMONY WAS
NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN FALSE, NOT REVIEWABLE.  THAT WAS SUFFICIENT TO
WARRANT A DENIAL OF THE MOTION.    FN6  ALBERTS V. UNITED STATES, 21
F.2D 968; CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY, 271 U.S. 323, 329; AVENT V. UNITED
STATES, 266 U.S. 127, 131; SUGARMAN V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 182,
184; ZUCHT V. KING, 260 U.S. 174, 176; CAMPBELL V. OLNEY, 262 U.S. 352;
SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S. 86, 90, 92; SALINGER V.
UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 542, 544; KRYDER V. INDIANA, 305 U.S. 570; CADY
V. GEORGIA, 323 U.S. 676. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :







ESTEP V. UNITED STATES, 327 U.S. 114 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  - 150 F.2D 768,
148 F.2D 288, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT OF 1940 FOR WILFULLY FAILING AND REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION, A
REGISTRANT WHO APPEARED AT THE INDUCTION CENTER AND WAS FINALLY
ACCEPTED, BUT WHO REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION - HAVING PURSUED HIS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY TO THE END - MAY INTERPOSE THE DEFENSE THAT THE
ACTION OF HIS LOCAL BOARD IN REJECTING HIS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION AS A
MINISTER OF RELIGION AND CLASSIFYING HIM AS AVAILABLE FOR MILITARY
SERVICE WAS BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION.  FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S.
549, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 121. 

2.  ACTION OF A LOCAL BOARD WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE ACT OR THE
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED PURSUANT THERETO IS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF
THE BOARD.  PP. 120, 121. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT MAKES NO
PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF LOCAL BOARDS OR THE
APPEAL AGENCIES IS NOT NECESSARILY TO BE CONSTRUED AS A DENIAL OF THE
POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO GRANT RELIEF IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
GENERAL JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED UPON THEM.  P. 119. 

4.  APART FROM CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THE QUESTION WHETHER
JUDICIAL REVIEW WILL BE PROVIDED WHERE CONGRESS IS SILENT DEPENDS ON
THE WHOLE SETTING OF THE PARTICULAR STATUTE AND THE SCHEME OF
REGULATION WHICH IS ADOPTED.  P. 120. 

5.  EXCEPT WHEN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION MAY BE GRANTED OR WITHHELD AS CONGRESS CHOOSES. 
P. 120. 

6.  SECTION 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT IS NOT TO BE
READ AS REQUIRING COURTS TO SANCTION ORDERS WHICH FLAGRANTLY VIOLATE
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL
BOARDS.  P. 121. 

7.  THE PROVISION OF THE ACT MAKING DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS
"FINAL" MEANS THAT CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO GIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
UNDER THE ACT THE CUSTOMARY SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH OBTAINS
UNDER OTHER STATUTES; THAT THE COURTS ARE NOT TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE LOCAL BOARD WAS
JUSTIFIED; AND THAT DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS MADE IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE REGULATIONS ARE CONCLUSIVE EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE ERRONEOUS. 
P. 122. 

8.  ON JUDICIAL REVIEW THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL
BOARD IS REACHED ONLY IF THERE IS NO BASIS IN FACT FOR THE
CLASSIFICATION GIVEN THE REGISTRANT.  P. 122. 

ESTEP V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 292.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 66, SMITH V. UNITED STATES, ON CERTIORARI TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.  ARGUED AND DECIDED ON
THE SAME DATES. 

NO. 292.  PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  150 F.2D 768.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S.
703.  REVERSED, P. 125. 

NO. 66.  PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  148 F.2D 288.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  325 U.S.
846.  REVERSED, P. 125. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, WE HELD THAT IN A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940(54 STAT. 894, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311) A REGISTRANT COULD NOT
DEFEND ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS WRONGFULLY CLASSIFIED AND WAS ENTITLED
TO A STATUTORY EXEMPTION, WHERE THE OFFENSE WAS A FAILURE TO REPORT FOR
INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED FORCES OR FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 
FN1  WE FOUND NO PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A REGISTRANT'S
CLASSIFICATION PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN HE HAD TAKEN ALL THE STEPS IN THE
SELECTIVE PROCESS AND HAD BEEN FINALLY ACCEPTED BY THE ARMED SERVICES. 
THE QUESTION IN THESE CASES IS WHETHER THERE MAY BE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
HIS CLASSIFICATION IN A PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 11 WHERE HE REPORTED FOR
INDUCTION, WAS FINALLY ACCEPTED, BUT REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION. 

ESTEP'S LOCAL BOARD CLASSIFIED HIM AS I-A, I.E., AS AVAILABLE FOR
MILITARY SERVICE.  FN2 SEC. 5(D) OF THE ACT EXEMPTS FROM TRAINING AND
SERVICE (BUT NOT FROM REGISTRATION) "REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS
OF RELIGION  ..."  UNDER THE REGULATIONS THOSE IN THAT CATEGORY ARE
CLASSIFIED AS IV-D.  FN3  ESTEP, A MEMBER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,
CLAIMED THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THAT CLASSIFICATION.  THE LOCAL BOARD
RULED AGAINST HIM.  HE TOOK HIS CASE TO THE APPEAL BOARD WHICH
CLASSIFIED HIM AS I-A.  FN4  HE THEN ASKED THE STATE AND NATIONAL
DIRECTORS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE TO APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HIM.  FN5
HIS REQUEST WAS REFUSED.  THE LOCAL BOARD THEREUPON ORDERED HIM TO
REPORT FOR INDUCTION.  HE REPORTED AT THE TIME AND PLACE INDICATED.  HE
WAS ACCEPTED BY THE NAVY.  BUT HE REFUSED TO BE INDUCTED, CLAIMING THAT
HE WAS EXEMPT FROM SERVICE BECAUSE HE WAS AN ORDAINED MINISTER OF THE
GOSPEL. 

HE WAS INDICTED UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE ACT FOR WILFULLY FAILING AND
REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION.  FN6  HE SOUGHT TO DEFEND ON THE
GROUND THAT AS A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS HE WAS A MINISTER OF RELIGION AND
THAT HE HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY DENIED EXEMPTION FROM SERVICE, BECAUSE THE
CLASSIFYING AGENCIES ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY IN REFUSING TO
CLASSIFY HIM AS IV-D.  HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT HIS RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE
APPEAL HAD BEEN DENIED BECAUSE THE LOCAL BOARD UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD
CERTAIN RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FROM THE APPEAL BOARD AND INCLUDED IMPROPER
MATERIAL IN THE RECORD ON APPEAL.  THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THESE
DEFENSES AND DID NOT PERMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN
ESTEP'S CONTENTION.  THE JURY FOUND HIM GUILTY AND HE WAS SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF FIVE YEARS.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED, ON A DIVIDED VOTE.  150 F.2D 768. 

SMITH, LIKE ESTEP, IS A MEMBER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  HE CLAIMED
EXEMPTION FROM ALL SERVICE ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS A MINISTER OF
RELIGION.  HIS LOCAL BOARD PLACED HIM IN CLASS I-A, AS AVAILABLE FOR
MILITARY SERVICE.  HIS CLASSIFICATION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPEAL
BOARD.  ON APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT HIS CLASSIFICATION WAS AGAIN
AFFIRMED.  THE LOCAL BOARD THEN ORDERED HIM TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION. 
HE REPORTED TO THE INDUCTION STATION, WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MILITARY, BUT
REFUSED TO BE INDUCTED, CLAIMING HE WAS EXEMPT FROM SERVICE BECAUSE HE
WAS A MINISTER.  HE WAS INDUCTED AGAINST HIS WILL AND LATER WAS HELD
FOR TRIAL BY A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF MILITARY
ORDERS.  HE FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WHICH WAS
DENIED.  SMITH V. RICHART, 53 F.SUPP.  582.  WHILE HIS APPEAL WAS
PENDING, WE DECIDED BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542.  HE WAS
THEREUPON RELEASED FROM MILITARY CUSTODY AND INDICTED FOR VIOLATION OF
SEC. 11 OF THE ACT.  AT THE TRIAL HE SOUGHT TO ATTACK THE
CLASSIFICATION GIVEN HIM BY HIS LOCAL BOARD, CLAIMING, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THAT IT ACTED WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION OF FACT, DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST HIM BECAUSE HE WAS A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS, AND DENIED HIM THE
RIGHT TO MAKE FULL PROOF OF HIS CLAIM THAT HE WAS A MINISTER OF
RELIGION.  THE COURT RULED THAT NO SUCH DEFENSE COULD BE TENDERED. 
SMITH WAS FOUND GUILTY BY THE JURY AND A SENTENCE OF THREE AND ONE-HALF
YEARS WAS IMPOSED.  THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL. 
148 F.2D 288. 

THE CASES ARE HERE ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

CONGRESS ENTRUSTED THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM
TO CIVILIAN AGENCIES, NOT TO THE MILITARY.  IT AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT
TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH A SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM AND TO ESTABLISH
CIVILIAN LOCAL BOARDS AND APPEAL BOARDS TO ADMINISTER IT.  SEC.
10(A)(2).  THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO "PROVIDE FOR
THE CLASSIFICATION OF REGISTRANTS AND OF PERSONS WHO VOLUNTEER FOR
INDUCTION UNDER THIS ACT ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABILITY FOR TRAINING AND
SERVICE  ..."  ID.  CONGRESS SPECIFIED CERTAIN RESTRICTED CLASSES FOR
DEFERMENT  FN7  OR EXEMPTION FROM SERVICE, INCLUDING IN THE LATTER, AS
WE HAVE SAID, "REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF RELIGION  ..." 
SEC. 5.  THE PRESIDENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEFERMENT OF
OTHER CLASSES BY RULES AND REGULATIONS.  FN8  SEC. 5(E).  AND THE LOCAL
BOARDS "UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT" WERE
GRANTED THE "POWER WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE APPEAL BOARDS HEREIN
AUTHORIZED, ALL QUESTIONS OR CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO INCLUSION FOR, OR
EXEMPTION OR DEFERMENT FROM, TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THIS ACT OF ALL
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS."  SEC.
10(A)(2).  THE ACT MAKES NO PROVISION IN TERMS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
THE ACTIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS OR THE APPEAL BOARDS.  FOR SEC.
10(A)(2) STATES THAT THE "DECISIONS OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS SHALL BE FINAL
EXCEPT WHERE AN APPEAL IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE."  FN9 

BY THE TERMS OF THE ACT CONGRESS ENLISTED THE AID OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS ONLY FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.  SEC. 11 MAKES CRIMINAL A WILFUL
FAILURE TO PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED OF A REGISTRANT BY THE ACT OR THE
RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE UNDER IT.  AN ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION
IS SUCH A DUTY; AND IT INCLUDES THE DUTY TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION. 
BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, SUPRA, P. 557.  SEC. 11 CONFERS JURISDICTION ON
THE DISTRICT COURTS TO TRY ONE CHARGED WITH SUCH OFFENSE.  BUT SEC. 11
IS SILENT WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEFENSES, IF ANY, WHICH MAY BE
INTERPOSED. 

THUS WE START WITH A STATUTE WHICH MAKES NO PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF THE ACTIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS OR THE APPEAL AGENCIES.  THAT
ALONE, OF COURSE, IS NOT DECISIVE.  FOR THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS AS TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT NECESSARILY TO BE CONSTRUED AS A DENIAL OF THE
POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO GRANT RELIEF IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
GENERAL JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED UPON THEM.  AMERICAN
SCHOOL OF HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94; GEGIOW V. UHL, 239 U.S. 3;
STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288.  JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY INDEED BE REQUIRED
BY THE CONSTITUTION.  NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276.  APART FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THE QUESTION WHETHER JUDICIAL REVIEW WILL
BE PROVIDED WHERE CONGRESS IS SILENT DEPENDS ON THE WHOLE SETTING OF
THE PARTICULAR STATUTE AND THE SCHEME OF REGULATION WHICH IS ADOPTED. 
SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297, 301.  AND EXCEPT
WHEN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IT, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION MAY BE GRANTED OR WITHHELD AS CONGRESS CHOOSES. 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL BOARDS WHOSE ORDERS ARE THE BASIS OF THESE
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BOTH BY THE ACT AND BY THE
REGULATIONS.  THEIR AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS OF
DEFERMENT OR EXEMPTION IS, AS STATED IN SEC. 10(A)(2), LIMITED TO
ACTION "WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS."  IT IS ONLY ORDERS
"WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS" THAT ARE MADE FINAL.  IT WOULD
SEEM, THEREFORE, THAT IF A PENNSYLVANIA BOARD ORDERED A CITIZEN AND
RESIDENT OF OREGON TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION, THE DEFENSE THAT IT ACTED
BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION COULD BE INTERPOSED IN A PROSECUTION UNDER SEC.
11.  THAT CASE WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO TUNG V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D
919, WHERE THE LOCAL BOARD ORDERED A REGISTRANT TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION
WITHOUT ALLOWING HIM THE APPEAL TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED UNDER THE
REGULATIONS.  SINCE SEC. 10(A)(2) MAKES THE DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL
BOARDS FINAL "EXCEPT WHERE AN APPEAL IS AUTHORIZED" UNDER THE
REGULATIONS, THE DEFENSE WAS ALLOWED IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL. 

ANY OTHER CASE WHERE A LOCAL BOARD ACTS SO CONTRARY TO ITS GRANTED
AUTHORITY AS TO EXCEED ITS JURISDICTION  FN10  DOES NOT STAND ON A
DIFFERENT FOOTING.  BY SEC. 10(A)(2) THE LOCAL BOARDS, IN HEARING AND
DETERMINING CLAIMS FOR DEFERMENT OR EXEMPTION, MUST ACT "UNDER RULES
AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT  ..."  THOSE RULES LIMIT,
AS WELL AS DEFINE, THEIR JURISDICTION.  ONE OF THOSE REGULATIONS
FORBIDS THE LOCAL BOARDS FROM BASING THEIR CLASSIFICATION OF A
REGISTRANT ON A DISCRIMINATION "FOR OR AGAINST HIM BECAUSE OF HIS RACE,
CREED, OR COLOR, OR BECAUSE OF HIS MEMBERSHIP OR ACTIVITY IN ANY LABOR,
POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, OR OTHER ORGANIZATION."  623.1.  ANOTHER
PROVIDES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATE CONTAINED IN SEC. 5(C)(1) OF
THE ACT, FOR THE DEFERMENT OF GOVERNORS OF STATES AND MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS WHILE THEY HOLD THEIR OFFICES.  FN11 622.42.  ANOTHER PROVIDES
THAT THE LOCAL BOARD "SHALL REOPEN AND CONSIDER ANEW THE CLASSIFICATION
OF A REGISTRANT" ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE STATE DIRECTOR OR THE
DIRECTOR AND UPON RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST "SHALL IMMEDIATELY CANCEL" ANY
ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION OR FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 
626.2-1.  IF A LOCAL BOARD ORDERED A MEMBER OF CONGRESS TO REPORT FOR
INDUCTION, OR IF IT CLASSIFIED A REGISTRANT AS AVAILABLE FOR MILITARY
SERVICE BECAUSE HE WAS A JEW, OR A GERMAN, OR A NEGRO, IT WOULD ACT IN
DEFIANCE OF THE LAW.  IF A LOCAL BOARD REFUSED TO REOPEN ON THE WRITTEN
REQUEST OF THE STATE DIRECTOR A REGISTRANT'S CLASSIFICATION AND REFUSED
TO CANCEL ITS ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION, IT WOULD BE ACTING IN THE
TEETH OF THE REGULATIONS.  IN ALL SUCH CASES ITS ACTION WOULD BE
LAWLESS AND BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION. 

WE CANNOT READ SEC. 11 AS REQUIRING THE COURTS TO INFLICT PUNISHMENT
ON REGISTRANTS FOR VIOLATING WHATEVER ORDERS THE LOCAL BOARDS MIGHT
ISSUE.  WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS WERE TO BE APPLIED TO ORDERS ISSUED BY LOCAL BOARDS NO MATTER
HOW FLAGRANTLY THEY VIOLATED THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WHICH DEFINE
THEIR JURISDICTION.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A QUESTION OF PERSONAL
LIBERTY.  A REGISTRANT WHO VIOLATES THE ACT COMMITS A FELONY.  FN12  A
FELON CUSTOMARILY SUFFERS THE LOSS OF SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.  FN13  SEC.
11, BEING SILENT ON THE MATTER, LEAVES THE QUESTION OF AVAILABLE
DEFENSES IN DOUBT.  BUT WE ARE LOATH TO RESOLVE THOSE DOUBTS AGAINST
THE ACCUSED.  WE CANNOT READILY INFER THAT CONGRESS DEPARTED SO FAR
FROM THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF A FAIR TRIAL WHEN IT MADE THE ACTIONS
OF THE LOCAL BOARDS "FINAL" AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CITIZEN OF THIS
COUNTRY SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR NOT OBEYING AN UNLAWFUL ORDER OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  WE ARE LOATH TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS REDUCED
CRIMINAL TRIALS UNDER THE ACT TO PROCEEDINGS SO BARREN OF THE CUSTOMARY
SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE LAW HAS DESIGNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
ACCUSED.  THE PROVISION MAKING THE DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS
"FINAL" MEANS TO US THAT CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO GIVE ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION UNDER THIS ACT THE CUSTOMARY SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH
OBTAINS UNDER OTHER STATUTES.  IT MEANS THAT THE COURTS ARE NOT TO
WEIGH THE EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE
LOCAL BOARDS WAS JUSTIFIED.  THE DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS MADE IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE REGULATIONS ARE FINAL EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE
ERRONEOUS.  THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL BOARD IS REACHED
ONLY IF THERE IS NO BASIS IN FACT FOR THE CLASSIFICATION WHICH IT GAVE
THE REGISTRANT.  FN14  SEE GOFF V. UNITED STATES, 135 F.2D 610, 612. 

FALBO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUCH A DEFENSE IN
THE PRESENT CASES.  IN THE FALBO CASE THE DEFENDANT CHALLENGED THE
ORDER OF HIS LOCAL BOARD BEFORE HE HAD EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES.  HERE THESE REGISTRANTS HAD PURSUED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES TO THE END.  ALL HAD BEEN DONE WHICH COULD BE DONE. 
SUBMISSION TO INDUCTION WOULD BE SATISFACTION OF THE ORDERS OF THE
LOCAL BOARDS, NOT A FURTHER STEP TO OBTAIN RELIEF FROM THEM.  FN15 
IF SEC. 11 WERE NOT CONSTRUED TO PERMIT THE ACCUSED TO DEFEND ON THE
GROUND THAT HIS LOCAL BOARD ACTED BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION, A CURIOUS
RESULT WOULD FOLLOW.  THE REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS EXTENDS TO A CASE
WHERE A PERSON "IS IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR OF A
LAW  ...  OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  R.S. SEC. 753, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
453.  IT HAS BEEN ASSUMED THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE ONLY AFTER A
REGISTRANT HAS BEEN INDUCTED INTO THE ARMED SERVICES.  FN16  BUT IF WE
NOW HOLD THAT A REGISTRANT COULD NOT DEFEND AT HIS TRIAL ON THE GROUND
THAT THE LOCAL BOARD HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THE PREMISES, IT WOULD SEEM
THAT THE WAY WOULD THEN BE OPEN TO HIM TO CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF
THE LOCAL BOARD AFTER CONVICTION BY HABEAS CORPUS.  FN17  THE COURT
WOULD THEN BE SENDING MEN TO JAIL TODAY WHEN IT WAS APPARENT THAT THEY
WOULD HAVE TO BE RELEASED TOMORROW. 

WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED ONE JUDICIAL
REMEDY ANOTHER SHOULD BE IMPLIED.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT WHERE ONLY ONE
JUDICIAL REMEDY IS PROVIDED, IT NORMALLY WOULD BE DEEMED EXCLUSIVE. 
BUT THE FACT THAT HABEAS CORPUS AFTER CONVICTION IS AVAILABLE IN THESE
CASES GIVES ADDED SUPPORT TO OUR READING OF SEC. 11.  IT SUPPORTS A
REJECTION OF A CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT THAT REQUIRES THE COURTS TO
MARCH UP THE HILL WHEN IT IS APPARENT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THEY WILL
HAVE TO MARCH DOWN AGAIN. 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE DEFENSES WHICH WERE
TENDERED.  SINCE THE PETITIONERS WERE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW
THAT THEIR LOCAL BOARDS EXCEEDED THEIR JURISDICTION, A NEW TRIAL MUST
BE HAD IN EACH CASE.  REVERSED. 

FN1 SEC. 5(G) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT A REGISTRANT SHALL "BE
ASSIGNED TO WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE UNDER CIVILIAN DIRECTION" IF HE
IS CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED SERVICES EVEN
FOR NONCOMBATANT SERVICE.  SEE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS, 652.1
652.14, 653.1-653.16. 

FN2  SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS, 622.11. 

FN3  ID., 622.44. 

FN4  BY SEC. 10(A)(2) OF THE ACT THE PRESIDENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO
ESTABLISH "CIVILIAN LOCAL BOARDS AND SUCH OTHER CIVILIAN AGENCIES,
INCLUDING APPEAL BOARDS AND AGENCIES OF APPEAL, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO
CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING
APPEALS TO THE BOARDS OF APPEAL ARE CONTAINED IN 627.1-627.61 OF THE
REGULATIONS.  THE ACT PROVIDES A SPECIAL APPEAL PROCEDURE FOR
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.  SEE SEC. 5(G). 

FN5  EITHER OF THEM MAY TAKE SUCH AN APPEAL AT ANY TIME WHEN HE
"DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST OR NECESSARY TO AVOID AN
INJUSTICE  ..."  SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS, 628.1.  A REGISTRANT
MAY APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE IS CLASSIFIED AS I-A PROVIDED ONE
OR MORE OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL DISSENTED FROM SUCH CLASSIFICATION. 
ID., 628.2.  IN ESTEP'S CASE THE BOARD OF APPEAL WAS UNANIMOUS IN
CLASSIFYING HIM IN I-A. 

FN6  SEC. 11 SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE PROVIDES:  "ANY PERSON WHO  ...
SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM
UNDER OR IN THE EXECUTION OF THIS ACT, OR RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE
PURSUANT TO THIS ACT,  ...  SHALL, UPON CONVICTION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF, BE PUNISHED BY
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$10,000, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT  ..." 

FN7  THUS BY SEC. 5(C)(1) SPECIFIED CLASSES OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS WERE
DEFERRED FROM TRAINING AND SERVICE WHILE HOLDING THEIR OFFICES. 

FN8  THE REGULATIONS PLACED IN DEFERRED CLASSIFICATIONS THOSE WHOSE
EMPLOYMENT IN INDUSTRY, AGRICULTURE, OR OTHER OCCUPATIONS OR WHOSE
ACTIVITY WAS FOUND TO BE NECESSARY TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE NATIONAL
HEALTH, SAFETY, OR INTEREST; THOSE WHO HAD PERSONS DEPENDENT ON THEM
FOR SUPPORT; THOSE FOUND TO BE PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY, OR MORALLY
DEFICIENT OR DEFECTIVE.  SEE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS 622.21,
622.25-1, 622.32, 622.61, 622.62. 

FN9  THE PART OF SEC. 10(A)(2) RELEVANT HERE PROVIDES:  "SUCH LOCAL
BOARDS, UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT, SHALL
HAVE POWER WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS TO HEAR AND DETERMINE,
SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE APPEAL BOARDS HEREIN AUTHORIZED,
ALL QUESTIONS OR CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO INCLUSION FOR, OR EXEMPTION OR
DEFERMENT FROM, TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THIS ACT OF ALL INDIVIDUALS
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS.  THE DECISIONS OF SUCH
LOCAL BOARDS SHALL BE FINAL EXCEPT WHERE AN APPEAL IS AUTHORIZED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY
PRESCRIBE." 

FN10  SEE CASES CITED IN NOTE 14, INFRA. 

FN11  622.42 PROVIDES, "IN CLASS IV-B SHALL BE PLACED ANY REGISTRANT"
WHO HOLDS SPECIFIED OFFICES. 

FN12  "ALL OFFENSES WHICH MAY BE PUNISHED BY DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT
FOR A TERM EXCEEDING ONE YEAR SHALL BE DEEMED FELONIES."  CRIMINAL CODE
SEC. 335, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 541. 

FN13  CALIFORNIA:  SEC. 2600 OF THE PENAL CODE PROVIDES THAT A
SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LESS THAN LIFE SUSPENDS ALL CIVIL RIGHTS
AND FORFEITS ALL PUBLIC OFFICES AND PRIVATE TRUSTS, AUTHORITY, OR POWER
DURING THE IMPRISONMENT. 

NEW YORK:  FOR A SIMILAR PROVISION SEE SEC. 510 OF THE PENAL LAW. 

MISSOURI:  SEC. 4561 REV. STAT. ANN. RENDERS ANY PERSON SENTENCED TO
A PENITENTIARY OR CONVICTED OF A FELONY FOR ANY CRIME INCOMPETENT TO
SERVE AS A JUROR, AND FOREVER DISQUALIFIES HIM FROM VOTING OR HOLDING
OFFICE, UNLESS PARDONED. 

FN14  THAT IS THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY IN DEPORTATION CASES
WHERE CONGRESS HAS MADE THE ORDERS OF DEPORTATION "FINAL."  CHIN YOW V.
UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 8; NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, SUPRA; MAHLER V. EBY,
264 U.S. 32; U.S. EX REL. VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, 273
U.S. 103; BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135.  THAT IS ALSO THE SCOPE OF
JUDICIAL INQUIRY WHEN A REGISTRANT AFTER INDUCTION SEEKS RELEASE FROM
THE MILITARY BY HABEAS CORPUS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CAIN, 144 F.2D
944. 

FN15  IT IS SAID THAT OUR CONCLUSION RUNS COUNTER TO AN UNBROKEN LINE
OF CASES HOLDING THAT A REGISTRANT MAY NOT CHALLENGE HIS CLASSIFICATION
IN A PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 11.  BUT MOST OF THOSE CASES ON THEIR FACTS
INVOLVED ONLY THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE FALBO CASE.  IN ONLY A FEW OF
THEM WAS THE ISSUE PRESENTED HERE NECESSARY FOR DECISION.  THE QUESTION
WAS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES V. PITT, 144 F.2D 169, 173(C.C.A. 3D,
1944).  IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE QUESTION WAS NECESSARY FOR
DECISION, AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEFENSE WAS NOT AVAILABLE:  FLETCHER
V. UNITED STATES, 129 F.2D 262(C.C.A.5TH, 1942); UNITED STATES V.
RINKO, 147 F.2D 1(C.C.A.7TH, 1945); GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 149 F.2D
751(C.C.A.8TH, 1945); KOCH V. UNITED STATES, 150 F.2D 762(C.C.A.4TH,
1945). 

FN16  SEE UNITED STATES V. GRIEME, 128 F.2D 811; UNITED STATES V.
KAUTEN, 133 F.2D 703; UNITED STATES V. MROZ, 136 F.2D 221; BIRON V.
COLLINS, 145 F.2D 758; FUJII V. UNITED STATES, 148 F.2D 298; GIBSON V.
UNITED STATES, 149 F.2D 751.  SEE CONNOR AND CLARKE, JUDICIAL
INVESTIGATION OF SELECTIVE SERVICE ACTION, 19 TULANE L. REV. 344;
ELLIFF, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT, 31 VA. L.
REV. 811. 

FN17  THE COURTS WHICH HAVE SAID THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS AVAILABLE
ONLY AFTER INDUCTION (SEE NOTE 16, SUPRA) APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN
INFLUENCED BY THE DECISIONS ARISING UNDER THE 1917 ACT, 40 STAT. 76, 50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 201.  THUS IN UNITED STATES V. GRIEME, SUPRA, NOTE 16,
P. 814, THE COURT IN RULING THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS WERE
NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURTS SAID, "HERE AGAIN THE RULE IS SIMILAR TO
THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT OF 1917.  SEE EX
PARTE HUTFLIS 245 F. 798, 799."  THE LATTER CASE INVOLVED A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AFTER INDUCTION, WHICH WAS THE ACCEPTED WAY
OF CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE DRAFT BOARDS UNDER THE 1917
ACT.  BUT AS WE POINTED OUT IN BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, SUPRA, P. 546, A
REGISTRANT UNDER THE 1917 ACT WAS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW FROM THE TIME
HE WAS ORDERED TO PRESENT HIMSELF FOR INDUCTION.  DEFIANCE OF THE ORDER
WAS HELD TO CONSTITUTE DESERTION EVEN THOUGH THE DRAFTEE HAD NOT BEEN
AFFORDED A FAIR HEARING BY THE BOARD.  EX PARTE ROMANO, 251 F. 762; EX
PARTE TINKOFF, 254 F. 912.  IT WAS SAID IN EX PARTE ROMANO, SUPRA, P.
764:  "ALTHOUGH BASED ON IRREGULAR PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOT VOID.  UNTIL
VACATED, IT WAS BINDING ON THE PETITIONER." 

BUT AS BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, SUPRA, MAKES PLAIN, THE PRESENT ACT AND
THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER IT ARE DIFFERENT.  A REGISTRANT IS
NOT SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW FROM THE TIME HE IS ORDERED TO REPORT FOR
INDUCTION, BUT ONLY AFTER HE HAS SUBMITTED TO INDUCTION.  THUS THE
DECISIONS UNDER THE 1917 ACT, HOLDING THAT HIS REMEDY AGAINST UNLAWFUL
ACTION OF THE LOCAL BOARD IS BY WAY OF HABEAS CORPUS AFTER INDUCTION,
ARE NO GUIDE TO DECISION UNDER THE PRESENT ACT. 

IT IS TRUE THAT AFTER THE CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE FALBO
CASE, HIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS DENIED.  141 F.2D
689.  AND IN A LIKE SITUATION HABEAS CORPUS WAS DENIED IN ADVANCE OF
THE TRIAL.  ALBERT V. GOGUEN, 141 F.2D 302.  BUT IN THOSE CASES
ADDITIONAL STEPS IN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCEDURE REMAINED TO BE
TAKEN.  DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS FOLLOWED BY ANALOGY TO THE FAMILIAR
SITUATIONS WHERE OTHER CORRECTIVE PROCEDURES HAD BEEN AVAILABLE WHICH
MIGHT HAVE AFFORDED RELIEF FROM THE ORDERS COMPLAINED OF.  SEE BOWEN V.
JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19; EX PARTE WILLIAMS, 317 U.S. 604; EX PARTE HAWK,
321 U.S. 114.  BUT IN THE PRESENT CASES THE REGISTRANTS, AS WE HAVE
SAID, HAD PURSUED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES TO THE END. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. 

TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTIONS OF THE TWO PETITIONERS IN THESE CASES
WOULD REQUIRE ADHERENCE TO THE PROPOSITION THAT A PERSON MAY BE
CRIMINALLY PUNISHED WITHOUT EVER BEING ACCORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVE THAT THE PROSECUTION IS BASED UPON AN INVALID ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER.  THAT IS A PROPOSITION TO WHICH I CANNOT SUBSCRIBE.  IT VIOLATES
THE MOST ELEMENTARY AND FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  IT
CONDEMNS A MAN WITHOUT A FULL HEARING AND A CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF HIS
ALLEGED DEFENSES.  TO SANCTION SUCH A PROPOSITION IS TO PLACE AN
INDELIBLE "BLOT UPON OUR JURISPRUDENCE AND CIVILIZATION," MCVEIGH V.
UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  259, 267, WHICH CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ANY
APPEAL TO PATRIOTISM OR WARTIME EXIGENCIES. 

THE TWO COURTS BELOW CONDEMNED THE PETITIONERS TO PRISON FOR FAILING
TO OBEY ORDERS TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED SERVICES, WHICH
HAD PREVIOUSLY FOUND THEM PHYSICALLY FIT.  PETITIONERS DO NOT DENY THAT
THEY DISOBEYED THESE ORDERS.  THEY DO CLAIM, HOWEVER, THAT THERE WAS A
SINGULAR LACK OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE
INDUCTION ORDERS AND THAT THE ORDERS WERE THEREFORE INVALID - CLAIMS
THAT MUST BE ASSUMED TO BE TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF THE CASES BEFORE US.
BUT THE COURTS BELOW, RELYING UPON FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S.
549, FORBADE THEM FROM RAISING SUCH CLAIMS.  UNDER THAT VIEW, IT IS
IRRELEVANT THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD NEVER HAD A PRIOR OPPORTUNITY AND
WILL NEVER HAVE A FUTURE CHANCE TO TEST THESE CLAIMS; IT IS LIKEWISE
IMMATERIAL THAT THE CLAIMS, IF PROVED, MIGHT COMPLETELY ABSOLVE THEM
FROM LIABILITY.  THUS THE STIGMA AND PENALTIES OF CRIMINALITY ATTACH TO
ONE WHO WILFULLY DISOBEYS AN INDUCTION ORDER WHICH MAY BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID, OR UNAUTHORIZED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION, OR
ISSUED BY MISTAKE, OR ISSUED SOLELY AS THE RESULT OF BIAS AND
PREJUDICE.  THE MERE STATEMENT OF SUCH A RESULT IS ENOUGH TO CONDEMN
IT. 

THE REASONS ADVANCED FOR THUS DEPRIVING THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR
LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW ARE UNMERITORIOUS. 

FIRST.  IT IS SAID THAT CONGRESS SO DESIGNED THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940 AS TO PRECLUDE COURTS FROM INQUIRING INTO THE
VALIDITY OF AN INDUCTION ORDER DURING THE COURSE OF A PROSECUTION UNDER
SEC. 11 FOR A WILFUL FAILURE TO OBEY SUCH AN ORDER.  BUT IF THAT IS
TRUE, THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS RESPECT.  BEFORE A PERSON MAY
BE PUNISHED FOR VIOLATING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER DUE PROCESS OF LAW
REQUIRES THAT THE ORDER BE WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY AND THAT IT NOT BE ISSUED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DEPRIVE THE PERSON
OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO TRY SUCH
A CASE HAS A CLEAR, INHERENT DUTY TO INQUIRE INTO THESE MATTERS SO THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE NOT IMPAIRED OR DESTROYED.  CONGRESS LACKS
ANY AUTHORITY TO NEGATIVE THIS DUTY OR TO COMMAND A COURT TO EXERCISE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WITHOUT REGARD TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW OR OTHER
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE IS TO SUBSTITUTE ILLEGAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS.  AS THIS COURT
HAS PREVIOUSLY SAID, "UNDER OUR SYSTEM THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR THE VIEW
THAT THE JUDICIAL POWER OF A COMPETENT COURT CAN BE CIRCUMSCRIBED BY
ANY LEGISLATIVE ARRANGEMENT DESIGNED TO GIVE EFFECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION GOING BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY."  ST.
JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 29 U.S. 38, 52.  THIS
PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CORPORATIONS.  OHIO VALLEY WATER CO. V. BEN AVON BOROUGH, 253 U.S. 287,
289; DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456, 486;
PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, 432; PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC
COAST LINE CO., 211 U.S. 210.  I ASSUME THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS ENTITLED
TO NO LESS RESPECT. 

BUT THE ACT NEED NOT BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO REACH THIS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULT.  NOTHING IN THE STATUTE COMMANDS COURTS TO
SHUT THEIR EYES TO THE CONSTITUTION OR TO DENY A FULL AND FAIR HEARING
WHEN PERFORMING THEIR FUNCTIONS UNDER SEC. 11, AND WE SHOULD BE
UNWILLING TO IMPLY SUCH A PROHIBITION.  ONCE THE JUDICIAL POWER IS
PROPERLY INVOKED UNDER SEC. 11, A COURT HAS UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE JUDICIAL CODE TO ACCORD A DEFENDANT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND TO INQUIRE INTO ALLEGED DEPRIVATIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC AUTHORITY
UNDER THE ACT TO THAT EFFECT.  A CONTRARY RESULT CERTAINLY IS NOT
DICTATED BY THE FACT THAT THE ACT MAKES LOCAL BOARD DECISIONS "FINAL,"
SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROVISIONS.  THIS MERELY
DETERMINES THE POINT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY, LEAVING TO THE COURTS
THE ULTIMATE AND HISTORICAL DUTY OF JUDGING THE VALIDITY OF THE "FINAL"
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS WHICH THEY ARE CALLED UPON TO ENFORCE WITH
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS, AT LEAST WHERE NO OTHER METHOD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
IS PREVIOUSLY AVAILABLE.    A CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT SO AS TO INSURE
DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES IS
NOT AN AMENDMENT TO THE ACT.  IT IS SIMPLY A RECOGNIZED USE OF THE
INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS TO ACHIEVE A JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESULT,
COUPLED WITH A REFUSAL TO ASCRIBE TO CONGRESS AN UNSTATED INTENTION TO
CAUSE DEPRIVATIONS OF DUE PROCESS. 

SECOND.  IT IS URGED THAT THE PURPOSE AND SCHEME OF THE LEGISLATIVE
PROGRAM NECESSITATE THE FORECLOSURE OF A FULL HEARING IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 11.  THE URGENT NEED OF MOBILIZING THE MANPOWER
OF THE NATION FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES AND THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY
IN THAT PROCESS ARE EMPHASIZED.  FROM THIS PREMISE IT IS ARGUED THAT NO
"LITIGIOUS INTERRUPTION" IN THE SELECTIVE PROCESS CAN BE TOLERATED AND
THAT JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF AN INDUCTION ORDER DURING
THE COURSE OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF A "LITIGIOUS
INTERRUPTION." 

THIS ARGUMENT, WHICH WAS PRESSED SO URGENTLY AND SUCCESSFULLY IN THE
FALBO CASE, CONVENIENTLY IGNORES THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION.  THE
SELECTIVE PROCESS, IN RELATION TO THE PETITIONERS, WAS FINALLY AND
COMPLETELY INTERRUPTED AT THE TIME WHEN THEY DISOBEYED THE INDUCTION
ORDERS AND SUBJECTED THEMSELVES TO POSSIBLE CRIMINAL LIABILITY.  ANY
SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE INDUCTION ORDERS COULD HAVE NO
POSSIBLE EFFECT UPON THE CONTINUANCE OF THE SELECTIVE PROCESS AND COULD
BEAR NO EARMARKS OF A "LITIGIOUS INTERRUPTION."  THUS AT THE TIME OF
PETITIONERS' TRIALS THE COURTS WERE CONFRONTED WITH ACCOMPLISHED
INTERRUPTIONS RATHER THAN WITH A THEORY.  A DECISION AT THAT POINT TO
GRANT PETITIONERS FULL HEARINGS AND TO PROTECT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS WOULD SIMPLY BE A RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION
PROTECTS THE PETITIONERS WHENEVER THEIR LIBERTY IS AT STAKE, WHATEVER
MAY HAVE BEEN THEIR MOTIVES IN DISOBEYING THE ORDERS. 

IT IS ALLEGED, OF COURSE, THAT TO ALLOW A FULL HEARING IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT WOULD BE TO EXTEND AN OPEN INVITATION TO ALL
INDUCTEES TO DISOBEY THEIR INDUCTION ORDERS AND LITIGATE THE VALIDITY
OF THE ORDERS IN THE SUBSEQUENT TRIALS.  THIS IS AT BEST A POOR EXCUSE
FOR STRIPPING PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 
MOREOVER, THE DEGREE TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW AT THIS STAGE WOULD
ENCOURAGE DISOBEDIENCE OF INDUCTION ORDERS LIES IN THE REALM OF
CONJECTURE AND CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BY PROOF. 
BUT COMMON SENSE WOULD INDICATE THAT THE NUMBER OF THOSE WILLING TO
UNDERGO THE RISK OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT IN ORDER TO TEST THE VALIDITY
OF THEIR INDUCTION ORDERS, WITH THE ATTENDANT DIFFICULTIES OF PROOF,
WOULD BE EXTREMELY SMALL.  ADHERENCE TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN CRIMINAL
TRIALS IS UNLIKELY TO IMPEDE THE WAR EFFORT UNDULY.  AND SHOULD
PERCHANCE THE OPPOSITE BE TRUE THERE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY LEGISLATIVE MEANS
OF COMBATING THE PROBLEM. 

THIRD.  THE FURTHER SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT THE ONLY JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF INDUCTION ORDERS AVAILABLE IS BY MEANS OF HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS
BROUGHT SUBSEQUENT TO INDUCTION AND THAT THIS REMEDY SATISFIES WHATEVER
JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  I FULLY CONCUR IN
THE DESIRABILITY AND NECESSITY OF SUCH A PROCEEDING FOR THOSE WHO HAVE
BEEN INDUCTED AND WHO WISH TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THEIR INDUCTION
ORDERS. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN PASSING, HOWEVER, THAT THIS REMEDY MAY BE QUITE
ILLUSORY IN MANY INSTANCES.  IT REQUIRES ONE FIRST TO ENTER THE ARMED
FORCES AND DROP EVERY VESTIGE OF CIVIL RIGHTS.  MILITARY ORDERS BECOME
THE LAW OF LIFE AND VIOLATIONS ARE MET WITH SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL
PROCEDURE.  NO MORE DRASTIC CONDITION PRECEDENT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW HAS
EVER BEEN FRAMED.  MANY PERSONS WITH RELIGIOUS OR CONSCIENTIOUS
SCRUPLES ARE UNABLE TO MEET SUCH A CONDITION.  BUT EVEN IF A PERSON IS
INDUCTED AND A QUEST IS MADE FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE OUTLOOK
IS OFTEN BLEAK.  THE PROCEEDING MUST BE BROUGHT IN THE JURISDICTION IN
WHICH THE PERSON IS THEN DETAINED BY THE MILITARY, WHICH MAY BE
THOUSANDS OF MILES REMOVED FROM HIS HOME, HIS FRIENDS, HIS COUNSEL, HIS
LOCAL BOARD AND THE WITNESSES WHO CAN TESTIFY IN HIS BEHALF.  SHOULD HE
OVERCOME ALL THESE OBSTACLES AND POSSESS ENOUGH MONEY TO PROCEED
FURTHER, HE STILL FACES THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING SHIFTED BY THE
MILITARY AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE INTO ANOTHER JURISDICTION, THUS MAKING
THE PROCEEDING MOOT.  THERE IS LITTLE ASSURANCE, MOREOVER, THAT THE
MILITARY WILL TREAT HIS EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THE WRIT WITH SYMPATHETIC
UNDERSTANDING.  THESE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES MAY THUS DESTROY WHATEVER
EFFICACY THE REMEDY MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE AND CAST CONSIDERABLE DOUBT ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS NECESSARILY GUARANTEE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW TO INDUCTEES. 

BUT THE AVAILABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW THROUGH HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS MISSES THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  SUCH A PROCEEDING MAY OR
MAY NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY FOR THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN
INDUCTED.  WE ARE DEALING HERE, HOWEVER, WITH TWO PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT
BEEN INDUCTED AND WHO NEVER WILL BE INDUCTED BY FORCE OF THE ORDERS
UNDER ATTACK.  THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOLLOWING INDUCTION IS THUS A
COMPLETELY NON-EXISTENT REMEDY SO FAR AS THESE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED.  IT NEITHER ADDS TO NOR DETRACTS FROM THE REASONS FOR
GRANTING JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THESE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. 

IF, AS I BELIEVE, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SOME SORT AND AT SOME TIME IS
REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THEN WHEN AND WHERE CAN THESE PETITIONERS
SECURE THAT REVIEW?  THEY HAVE NOT HAD A PRIOR CHANCE TO OBTAIN REVIEW
OF THE INDUCTION ORDERS; NOR WILL THEY SUBSEQUENTLY BE ACCORDED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TEST THEIR CONTENTIONS IN COURT.  IT IS NO ANSWER THAT
THEY SHOULD HAVE PURSUED DIFFERENT COURSES OF ACTION AND SECURED WRITS
OF HABEAS CORPUS AFTER INDUCTION.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS NOT DISPENSED
ON THE BASIS OF WHAT PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE OR SHOULD HAVE DONE.  THE SOLE
ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS TO BE GRANTED NOW OR
NEVER.  THE CHOICE SEEMS OBVIOUS. 

BY DENYING JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THIS CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THE COURTS
BELOW IN EFFECT SAID TO EACH PETITIONER:  YOU HAVE DISOBEYED AN
ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL ORDER FOR WHICH YOU MUST BE PUNISHED WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, ALTHOUGH
IF YOU HAD OBEYED THE ORDER YOU WOULD HAVE HAD ALL THE JUDICIAL REVIEW
NECESSARY.  I AM AT A LOSS TO APPRECIATE THE LOGIC OR JUSTICE OF THAT
POSITION.  IT DENIES DUE PROCESS OF LAW TO ONE WHO IS CHARGED WITH A
CRIME AND GRANTS IT TO ONE WHO IS OBEDIENT.  IT CLOSES THE DOOR OF THE
CONSTITUTION TO A PERSON WHOSE LIBERTY IS AT STAKE AND WHOSE NEED FOR
DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS MOST ACUTE.  IN SHORT, IT CONDEMNS A MAN WITHOUT
A FAIR HEARING. 

THERE IS SOMETHING BASICALLY WRONG AND UNJUST ABOUT A JURIDICAL
SYSTEM THAT SANCTIONS THE IMPRISONMENT OF A MAN WITHOUT EVER ACCORDING
HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLAIM THAT THE CHARGE MADE AGAINST HIM IS
ILLEGAL.  I AM NOT YET WILLING TO CONCLUDE THAT WE HAVE SUCH A SYSTEM
IN THIS NATION.  EVERY FIBER OF THE CONSTITUTION AND EVERY LEGAL
PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS INDICATE OTHERWISE.  THE REPORTS ARE
FILLED WITH DECISIONS AFFIRMING THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND FULL HEARING,
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVERY POSSIBLE DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL CHARGE
AND THE CHANCE AT SOME POINT TO CHALLENGE AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
BEFORE PUNISHMENT.  THOSE RUDIMENTARY CONCEPTS ARE INGRAINED IN OUR
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND STAND READY FOR USE WHENEVER LIFE OR LIBERTY IS IN
PERIL.  THE NEED FOR THEIR APPLICATION IN THIS INSTANCE SEEMS BEYOND
DISPUTE. 

WE MUST BE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A
LEGISLATIVE MEASURE BORN OF THE CATACLYSM OF WAR, WHICH NECESSITATES
MANY TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS ON PERSONAL LIBERTY AND FREEDOM.  BUT THE
WAR POWER IS NOT A BLANK CHECK TO BE USED IN BLIND DISREGARD OF ALL THE
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHICH WE HAVE STRUGGLED SO LONG TO RECOGNIZE AND
PRESERVE.  IT MUST BE USED WITH DISCRETION AND WITH A SENSE OF
PROPORTIONATE VALUES.  IN THIS INSTANCE IT SEEMS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT
THE WAR EFFORT NECESSITATES THE DESTRUCTION OF THE RIGHT OF A PERSON
CHARGED WITH A CRIME TO OBTAIN A COMPLETE REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF
HIS DEFENSE.  AS LONG AS COURTS ARE OPEN AND FUNCTIONING, JUDICIAL
REVIEW IS NOT EXPENDABLE. 

ALL OF THE MOBILIZATION AND ALL OF THE WAR EFFORT WILL HAVE BEEN IN
VAIN IF, WHEN ALL IS FINISHED, WE DISCOVER THAT IN THE PROCESS WE HAVE
DESTROYED THE VERY FREEDOMS FOR WHICH WE FOUGHT.  THESE CASES REPRESENT
A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT REFLECTION OF THAT FACT.  THE REVERSAL OF THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW IS THEREFORE IN LINE WITH THE HIGHEST TRADITIONS OF THE
COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE RESULT IN EACH CASE AND IN THE COURT'S OPINION FOR THE
REASONS IT SETS FORTH.  A FURTHER REASON WOULD FORCE ME TO THIS
RESULT.  IN MY JUDGMENT A CONTRARY CONSTRUCTION WOULD INVALIDATE THE
STATUTE.  I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS COULD MAKE ADMINISTRATIVE OR
EXECUTIVE ACTION FINAL IN SUCH MATTERS AS THESE IN THE SENSE OF
EXCLUDING ALL JUDICIAL REVIEW, EXCEPTING ONLY WHAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY
THE CONSTITUTION IN THE ABSENCE OF SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.  FN1  CF. EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 6 WALL.  318; LOCKERTY V.
PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182; NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276. 

BUT AS I DO NOT THINK CONGRESS CAN MAKE IT A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY THE
FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER TO VIOLATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WITHOUT
AFFORDING AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
INVALIDITY, CF. YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 460, DISSENTING
OPINION,  FN2 SO EVEN MORE DO I NOT THINK CONGRESS CAN MAKE CRIMINAL
THE DISOBEDIENCE TO SUCH AN ORDER ALLOWING NO OPPORTUNITY WHATEVER FOR
SHOWING ITS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  IT IS ONE THING TO DENY JURISDICTION
OF THE COURTS ALTOGETHER, SAVE IN SO FAR AS THE CONSTITUTION OF ITS OWN
FORCE MAY PRESERVE THE JURISDICTION.  IT IS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT TO
CONFER JURISDICTION FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES, BUT IN DOING SO TO CUT
OFF ALL RIGHT OF DEFENSE ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. 

TO SUSTAIN SUCH A VIEW NOT ONLY WOULD HAVE THE COURTS MARCHING UP THE
HILL IN THE CRIMINAL CASE AND DOWN AGAIN IN HABEAS CORPUS.  FN3  IT
WOULD MAKE THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION A RUBBER STAMP IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXECUTIVE ACTION.  AND IT WOULD CLOSE THE TRAP WHICH,
IN BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542, 558, WE SAID WOULD BE SET IF
FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, WERE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WHAT IT
IS NOW SOUGHT TO HAVE DONE TO THE PETITIONERS. 

FN1  UNDER THE SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT OF 1917, THE CIVIL COURTS WERE NOT
CALLED UPON TO ENFORCE INDUCTION ORDERS BY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS; FOR
THE RECEIPT OF SUCH AN ORDER AUTOMATICALLY SUBJECTED A DRAFTEE TO
MILITARY LAW AND FOR DISOBEDIENCE THEREOF HE WAS TRIABLE BY A COURT
MARTIAL FOR DESERTION.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MCINTYRE, 4 F.2D 823;
BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542, 545-546; CF. THE SELECTIVE DRAFT
LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366. 

FN2  AND SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, 321 U.S.
AT 433, 435.  APART FROM THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF SPLITTING A
CRIMINAL TRIAL INTO CIVIL AND HIGHLY ATTENUATED CRIMINAL PARTS, THE
ISSUE IN THE YAKUS CASE RELATED TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE OPPORTUNITY
ALLOWED FOR CHALLENGING THE ORDER'S VALIDITY IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS.  THE RULING DID NOT COMPREHEND A SITUATION WHERE NO
OPPORTUNITY IS AFFORDED PRIOR TO OR DURING THE TRIAL. 

FN3  IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THESE CASES TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONGRESS
COULD CONFINE THE SCOPE OF REVIEW IN THE CRIMINAL CAUSE, ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, TO THOSE WHICH MIGHT BE ASSERTED IN HABEAS
CORPUS AFTER CONVICTION.  THE VERY FACT THAT ORDINARILY THE PERMISSIBLE
SCOPE OF SUCH OBJECTIONS IN THE LATTER TYPE OF PROCEEDING IS
CONSIDERABLY MORE RESTRICTED THAN IN THE FORMER IS ADDITIONAL REASON
FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO ALLOW
REVIEW BY HABEAS CORPUS BUT NOT BY DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL. 

THAT VIEW, OF COURSE, REJECTS THE IDEA THAT "FINAL" IN THE STATUTE
"MEANS FINAL," THAT IS, BEYOND JUDICIAL REACH IN ANY MANNER, AS IT
LIKEWISE IMPLICITLY BUT NECESSARILY DENIES THAT "WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION" - OF THE LOCAL BOARDS - IS WHOLLY GEOGRAPHICAL. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING IN RESULT. 

ALTHOUGH CONGRESS, IN 1940, AND BY REENACTMENT SINCE, PROVIDED THAT
WHEN A DRAFT BOARD DETERMINES WHETHER A REGISTRANT IS ENTITLED TO
EXEMPTION OR DEFERMENT THE BOARD'S DECISION IS "FINAL," THE COURT NOW
CONCLUDES THAT SUCH A DECISION IS NOT FINAL BUT MAY BE REVIEWED WHEN
THE REGISTRANT IS TRIED BEFORE A JURY FOR WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF A
BOARD'S ORDER.  NOT ONLY IS SUCH A RESULT OPPOSED TO THE EXPRESSED WILL
OF CONGRESS.  IT RUNS COUNTER TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE GREAT OBJECT
AVOWED BY CONGRESS IN ENACTING THIS LEGISLATION; IT CONTRADICTS THE
SETTLED PRACTICE UNDER THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT THROUGHOUT THE WAR
YEARS, RECOGNIZED AS SUCH BY AUTHORITATIVE CONGRESSIONAL OPINION; IT
REVERSES ALL THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS BEFORE WHOM THE MATTER HAS
COME, CONSTITUTING AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF DECISIONS AND EXPRESSING THE
VIEWS OF MORE THAN FORTY JUDGES.    THE CASE IS THIS.  ESTEP WAS A
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS.  BY VIRTUE OF THAT FACT HE CLAIMED THE PROTECTION OF
SEC. 5(D) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940(54 STAT.
885, 888; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 305(D)), WHICH EXEMPTS FROM SERVICE
"REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED MINISTERS OF RELIGION  ..."  HIS LOCAL BOARD
RULED AGAINST THIS CLAIM AND CLASSIFIED ESTEP AS I-A, THAT IS,
AVAILABLE FOR MILITARY SERVICE, AND ORDERED HIM TO REPORT FOR
INDUCTION.  HE REPORTED AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE NAVY BUT REFUSED TO
SUBMIT TO INDUCTION.  SEE BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542.  THIS
PROSECUTION WAS THEN COMMENCED UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE ACT (54 STAT. 885,
894; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311).  THAT SECTION MAKES IT AN OFFENSE FOR
ANY PERSON WILFULLY TO DISOBEY "ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR
THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE OR DIRECTIONS GIVEN THEREUNDER ..." 
CONCEDEDLY ESTEP FAILED TO CARRY OUT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD TO SUBMIT
TO INDUCTION.  ESTEP SOUGHT TO DEFEND DISOBEDIENCE ON THE GROUND THAT
THE LOCAL BOARD HAD IMPROPERLY DENIED HIS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FROM
SERVICE IN THAT THEY REFUSED TO CLASSIFY HIM AS A "REGULAR OR DULY
ORDAINED MINISTER OF RELIGION  ..."  HE ALSO OFFERED IN DEFENSE PROOF
OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY THE BOARD BEARING ON HIS RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM
THE BOARD'S DECISION.  DISALLOWANCE OF THESE DEFENSES BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, WHICH AFTER CONVICTION WERE SUSTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, PRESENTS TWO ISSUES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION:  I. IS THE DECISION
OF A LOCAL BOARD DENYING A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION SUBJECT TO
RECONSIDERATION IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR KNOWINGLY FAILING TO
DISCHARGE THE DUTIES REQUIRED BY THE ACT AS A RESULT OF SUCH
CLASSIFICATION?  II.  IS ACTION BY THE LOCAL BOARD WHEREBY A REGISTRANT
IS CUT OFF FROM THE OPPORTUNITIES OF A REVIEW WITHIN THE SELECTIVE
SERVICE PROCESS AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT AVAILABLE AS A DEFENSE IN SUCH
PROSECUTION FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE LOCAL BOARD'S ORDER?  THESE ARE
QUESTIONS OF SUCH MOMENT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE
ACT AS TO CALL FOR AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS THAT IMPEL
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MAJOR CONCLUSION OF THE COURT. 

                       I. 

DID CONGRESS PLACE WITHIN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM THE AUTHORITY
FOR DETERMINING WHO SHALL AND WHO SHALL NOT SERVE IN THE ARMED
SERVICES, WHO SHALL AND WHO SHALL NOT ENJOY THE EXEMPTIONS AND
DEFERMENTS BY WHICH CONGRESS HAS QUALIFIED THE DUTY OF ALL TO SERVE? 
OR, DID IT LEAVE SUCH DETERMINATION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN TRIALS
BEFORE JURIES OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF DUTIES
DEFINED BY THE ACT?  THIS IS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE IN THE CASE AND TOUCHES
THE VERY NERVE-CENTER OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT. 

ONE WOULD SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS EXPRESSED ITS WILL WITH THE UTMOST
CLARITY, PRECLUDING THE NEED OF LABORED ARGUMENTATION AS TO ITS
PURPOSE.  SECTION 10(A)(2) GIVES THE ANSWER. 

"SUCH LOCAL BOARDS, UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE
PRESIDENT, SHALL HAVE POWER WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS TO
HEAR AND DETERMINE, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE APPEAL BOARDS
HEREIN AUTHORIZED, ALL QUESTIONS OR CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO INCLUSION
FOR, OR EXEMPTION OR DEFERMENT FROM, TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THIS
ACT OF ALL INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS. 
THE DECISIONS OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS SHALL BE FINAL EXCEPT WHERE AN
APPEAL IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS
THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE."  54 STAT. 885, 893; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
310(A)(2). 

THESE WORDS CAN ONLY MEAN WHAT THEY APPEAR TO MEAN IF THEY ARE READ
AS ORDINARY WORDS SHOULD BE READ.  ORDINARY WORDS SHOULD BE READ WITH
THEIR COMMON, EVERYDAY MEANING WHEN THEY SERVE AS DIRECTIONS FOR
ORDINARY PEOPLE.  IF LEGISLATION WAS EVER DESIGNED TO DEFINE THE RIGHTS
AND DUTIES OF THE VAST BODY OF ORDINARY PEOPLE, IT IS THE SELECTIVE
SERVICE ACT.  ONE NEED NOT ITALICIZE "FINAL" TO MAKE FINAL MEAN FINAL,
WHEN NOWHERE IN THE ACT IS THERE ANY DEROGATION OF THIS CONGRESSIONAL
COMMAND OF FINALITY TO "THE DECISIONS OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS," SUBJECT
ONLY TO REVIEWABILITY WITHIN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM. 

BUT IF ONE GOES BEYOND THE MEANING THAT THE TEXT SPONTANEOUSLY
YIELDS, ALL OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS ONLY CONFIRM WHAT THE TEXT
EXPRESSES.  TO ALLOW JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A BOARD'S DECISION ON
CLASSIFICATION IS NOT TO RESPECT THE CONTEXT OF PURPOSE INTO WHICH A
SPECIFIC PROVISION OF A LAW IS PROPERLY PLACED.  TO DO SO DISREGARDS
THAT PURPOSE.  AND CONGRESS DID NOT RELY ON THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF
THE PURPOSE THAT MOVED IT IN PASSING THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT, AS WELL
IT MIGHT HAVE, CONSIDERING THAT THE ACT WAS PASSED IN SEPTEMBER, 1940. 
IT WAS EXPLICIT:  "THE CONGRESS HEREBY DECLARES THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE
TO INCREASE AND TRAIN THE PERSONNEL OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES."  SEC. 1(A), 54 STAT. 885; 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 301(A). 

THERE CANNOT HAVE BEEN MANY INSTANCES IN OUR NATIONAL LIFE WHEN
CONGRESS STAMPED ITS LEGISLATION AS "IMPERATIVE."  AND HISTORY HAS
AMPLY UNDERSCORED THE DESPERATE URGENCY.  CONGRESS DEEMED IT IMPERATIVE
TO SECURE A VAST CITIZEN ARMY WITH THE UTMOST EXPEDITION.  IT DID SO
WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS BY GIVING AMPLE
OPPORTUNITIES, WITHIN THE ELABORATE SYSTEM WHICH IT ESTABLISHED, FOR
SUPERVISION OF THE DECISIONS OF THE MULTITUDINOUS DRAFT BOARDS ON THE
SELECTION OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SERVICE.  AS TO SUCH LEGISLATION, EVEN
WERE THE LANGUAGE NOT EXPLICIT, EVERY PROVISION OF THE ACT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED TO PROMOTE FULFILLMENT OF THE IMPERATIVE NEED WHICH INSPIRED
IT.  SURELY IT WOULD HAMPER THE AIM OF CONGRESS TO SUBJECT THE
DECISIONS OF THE SELECTIVE PROCESS IN DETERMINING WHO IS AMENABLE TO
SERVICE TO RECONSIDERATION BY THE CUMBERSOME PROCESS OF TRIAL BY JURY,
ADMIRABLY SUITED AS THAT IS FOR THE FAMILIAR CONTROVERSIES WHEN THE
NATION'S LIFE IS NOT AT STAKE.  TO AVOID SUCH A PALPABLE INROAD UPON
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, WE NEED NOT DRAW ON IMPLICATIONS.  WE MUST
MERELY RESIST UNWARRANTED IMPLICATIONS THAT STERILIZE WHAT CONGRESS HAS
EXPRESSLY REQUIRED. 

IN CONSTRUING THE ACT, THIS COURT HAS HERETOFORE APPLIED THE REASONS
WHICH LED CONGRESS TO RELY WHOLLY ON THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM IN
DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.  THIS IS WHAT WE SAID TWO YEARS
AGO: 

"TO MEET THE NEED WHICH IT FELT FOR MOBILIZING NATIONAL MANPOWER IN
THE SHORTEST PRACTICABLE PERIOD, CONGRESS ESTABLISHED A MACHINERY WHICH
IT DEEMED EFFICIENT FOR INDUCTING GREAT NUMBERS OF MEN INTO THE ARMED
FORCES.  CAREFUL PROVISION WAS MADE FOR FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ACT'S POLICIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCESS." 

WE SO RULED IN FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, 554.  THAT WAS A
CASE IN WHICH WE HELD THAT A CHALLENGE TO A LOCAL BOARD'S
CLASSIFICATION CANNOT BE RAISED UPON A TRIAL LIKE THE PRESENT FOR
VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER, WHERE THE REGISTRANT DISOBEYS THE ORDER
BEFORE HE IS ACCEPTED FOR NATIONAL SERVICE.  BUT THE CONGRESS MADE THE
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD "FINAL" WITHOUT REGARD TO THE STAGE AT WHICH THE
REGISTRANT DISOBEYS IT.  THE COMMAND OF CONGRESS MAKES THE DECISION OF
THE BOARD NO LESS FINAL AFTER THE REGISTRANT HAS SUBMITTED TO THE PRE
INDUCTION EXAMINATION THAN BEFORE SUCH SUBMISSION.  THE FINALITY OF THE
BOARD IS NEITHER DIMINISHED, NOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS TO REVIEW
SUCH DECISION ENLARGED, BECAUSE A REGISTRANT FLOUTS THE SELECTIVE
SERVICE PROCESS AT AN EARLY OR AT A LATE STAGE.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE IS UNQUALIFIED AND ALL-INCLUSIVE: "THE DECISIONS OF SUCH LOCAL
BOARDS SHALL BE FINAL EXCEPT WHERE AN APPEAL IS AUTHORIZED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY
PRESCRIBE." 

SUCH HAS BEEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN FORTY JUDGES IN THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  FN1 THE QUESTION RAISED BY THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE HAS COME BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST,
THE SECOND, THE THIRD, THE FOURTH, THE FIFTH, THE SIXTH, THE SEVENTH
AND THE EIGHTH CIRCUITS.  ALL, EIGHT OF THEM, HAVE RULED THAT JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF A DRAFT BOARD CLASSIFICATION IS NOT AVAILABLE, IN A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION, EVEN THOUGH THE REGISTRANT HAS SUBMITTED TO THE PRE
INDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.  SIRSKI V. UNITED STATES, 145 F.2D
749(C.C.A. 1ST, 1944); UNITED STATES V. FLAKOWICZ, 146 F.2D
874(C.C.A.2D, 1945); UNITED STATES V. ESTEP, 150 F.2D 768(C.C.A. 3D,
1945); SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 148 F.2D 288(C.C.A.4TH, 1945); KOCH V.
UNITED STATES, 150 F.2D 762(C.C.A.4TH, 1945); FLETCHER V. UNITED
STATES, 129 F.2D 262(C.C.A.5TH, 1942); KLOPP V. UNITED STATES, 148 F.2D
659(C.C.A.6TH, 1945); UNITED STATES V. RINKO, 147 F.2D 1(C.C.A.7TH,
1945); GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 149 F.2D 751(C.C.A.8TH, 1945).  FN2
SUCH WAS THE IMPACT OF THIS COURT'S REASONING IN THE FALBO CASE THAT IT
GREATLY INFLUENCED THE RULING OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AS TO
THE FINALITY OF LOCAL BOARD ORDERS AND PRACTICALLY SILENCED WHATEVER
DOUBTS MAY THERETOFORE HAVE BEEN HELD BY A FEW OF THE JUDGES. 

THAT IT WAS DURING THE CRUCIAL WAR YEARS THAT THE ACT WAS THUS
INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED, WHEREBY THE RAISING OF THE ARMED FORCES WAS
SAVED FROM OBSTRUCTION BY NOT SUBJECTING THE SELECTIVE PROCESS TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW WHEN CONGRESS FORBADE IT, IS OF COURSE NO REASON FOR
MISCONSTRUING IT NOW AND RELAXING THE MODE OF ADMINISTRATION WHICH
CONGRESS DEEMED NECESSARY FOR ITS EFFECTIVENESS. 

CONGRESS NOT ONLY SO WILLED BUT THOSE ESPECIALLY ENTRUSTED WITH
FORMULATING THIS LEGISLATION WERE FULLY AWARE OF THE JUDICIAL
CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT IT PRESCRIBED.  THIS IS SHOWN BY AN AUTHORITATIVE
REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS WHEN THAT COMMITTEE,
THE ORIGINATOR OF THE ACT, WAS CONSIDERING AMENDMENTS ON RENEWAL OF THE
ACT.  IN ITS REPORT IN JANUARY, 1945, MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AFTER THE
ACT HAD BEEN IN OPERATION, THE COMMITTEE THUS STATED WITH ACCURACY AND
ACQUIESCENCE THE UNANIMITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE
RESPECT BY THE JUDICIARY OF FINALITY OF THE DECISIONS OF THE DRAFT
BOARD: 

"UNDER THE ACT AS IT IS NOW WRITTEN, REGISTRANTS WHO ARE ORDERED TO
SUBMIT TO INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED FORCES MAY NOT REFUSE AND DEFEND
SUCH REFUSALS IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR
CLASSIFICATIONS WERE NOT GIVEN FAIR CONSIDERATION BY THEIR BOARDS.  IN
ORDER TO OBTAIN A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF SUCH ISSUES SUCH
REGISTRANTS MUST FIRST SUBMIT TO INDUCTION AND RAISE THE ISSUE BY
HABEAS CORPUS."  H.R. REP. NO. 36, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945) 4-5. 

CONGRESS WANTED MEN TO GET INTO THE ARMY, NOT TO LITIGATE ABOUT
GETTING IN.  AND SO IT LEGISLATED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ITS CAREFULLY
DEVISED SCHEME FOR DETERMINING WITHIN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, WHO
WAS UNDER DUTY TO SERVE IN THE ARMY WOULD GO AWRY TOO SELDOM TO JUSTIFY
ALLOWANCE OF REVIEW BY THE COURTS.  IF CHALLENGES TO SUCH DETERMINATION
BY THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM WERE FOUND BASELESS, AS THEY WERE SO
FOUND AS A MATTER OF EXPERIENCE IN ALL BUT A NEGLIGIBLE NUMBER OF
INSTANCES, THE MEN HAVING SUBMITTED TO INDUCTION WOULD BE IN THE ARMY,
AVAILABLE AS SUCH, AND NOT IN PRISON FOR DISOBEDIENCE.  ACCORDINGLY,
CONGRESS LEGISLATED TO DISCOURAGE OBSTRUCTION AND DELAY THROUGH
DILATORY COURT PROCEEDINGS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INEVITABLE IF JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF CLASSIFICATION HAD BEEN AFFORDED DURING THE WAR YEARS. 

THE COURT FINDS SUPPORT FOR ITS READING THAT "FINAL" DOES NOT MEAN
FINAL IN THE FACT THAT NOT EVEN AT A TIME OF OUR GREATEST NATIONAL
EMERGENCY WAS THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHDRAWN AS THE ULTIMATE
SAFEGUARD OF PERSONAL LIBERTY.  SEE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 9,
CL. 2; 1 STAT. 81, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 451.  BUT THIS GENERAL
RIGHT TO QUESTION THE ENTIRE WANT OF A LEGAL FOUNDATION FOR A RESTRAINT
IS NO MEASURE OF THE ISSUES THAT CONGRESS LEFT OPEN FOR DETERMINATION
IN A JURY TRIAL FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS OF THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARDS
MADE "FINAL" BY SEC. 10(A)(2).  STILL LESS CAN IT JUSTIFY NULLIFICATION
OF AN EXPLICIT DIRECTION BY CONGRESS THAT SUCH ORDERS SHALL FINALLY BE
DETERMINED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM.  THE
ISSUES IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING ARE QUICKLY JOINED, STRICTLY
LIMITED AND SWIFTLY DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE JUDGE.  SEE 14 STAT. 385;
28 U.S.C. SEC. 465.  HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS ARE FREED FROM THE
CUMBERSOMENESS WHICH IS A PROPER PRICE TO PAY FOR THE COUNTERVAILING
ADVANTAGES OF JURY TRIALS IN APPROPRIATE SITUATIONS.  HABEAS CORPUS
"COMES IN FROM THE OUTSIDE," AFTER REGULAR PROCEEDINGS FORMALLY DEFINED
BY LAW HAVE ENDED, "NOT IN SUBORDINATION TO THE PROCEEDINGS, AND
ALTHOUGH EVERY FORM MAY HAVE BEEN PRESERVED OPENS THE INQUIRY WHETHER
THEY HAVE BEEN MORE THAN AN EMPTY SHELL."  HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN
FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 346.  HABEAS CORPUS, AFTER CONVICTION,
COULD NOT, OF COURSE, SERVE AS A REVISORY PROCESS OF THE DETERMINATION
OF CLASSIFICATION WHICH CONGRESS LODGED WITH FINALITY IN THE DRAFT
BOARDS.  IT COULD ONLY BE USED IN THOSE HARDLY CONCEIVABLE SITUATIONS
IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DRAFT BOARD WERE A MERE SHAM,
"NOTHING BUT AN EMPTY FORM."  IBID.  THE AVAILABILITY IN SUCH A REMOTE
CONTINGENCY OF HABEAS CORPUS EVEN AFTER CONVICTION IS CERTAINLY NO
REASON FOR DEFLECTING AND CONFUSING A TRIAL FOR THE SIMPLE ISSUE
DEFINED BY SEC. 11, NAMELY, WHETHER THERE WAS A WILFUL DISREGARD OF AN
ORDER MADE BY THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, A SYSTEM RANGING FROM THE
LOCAL BOARD TO THE PRESIDENT.  IT IS ONE THING FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS TO BE AVAILABLE EVEN THOUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION MAY
OTHERWISE BE "FINAL."  SEE E.G., NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276.  IT
IS QUITE ANOTHER TO INTERPOLATE JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THEREBY TO DISRUPT
A WHOLE SCHEME OF LEGISLATION UNDER WHICH MILLIONS OF ORDERS NEED
PROMPTLY TO BE MADE AND PROMPTLY TO BE RESPECTED AND WERE THEREFORE
ENDOWED WITH FINALITY WHEN SANCTIONS FOR DISOBEDIENCE ARE SOUGHT. 
ANOTHER GROUND FOR DENYING THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF CONGRESS AND
DISREGARDING THE TERMS IN WHICH IT EXPRESSED THAT PURPOSE, IS THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE VALIDITY OF A CLASSIFICATION GOES TO THE
"JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD" TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION. 
BUT CONGRESS DID NOT SAY THAT "THE DECISION OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS WHEN
PROPERLY ACTING UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY SHALL BE FINAL."  IT SAID SIMPLY
AND UNQUALIFIEDLY "THE DECISIONS OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS SHALL BE FINAL
..."  TO BE SURE LOCAL BOARDS ARE GIVEN POWER TO ACT "WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS."  BUT ALL AGENCIES UPON WHICH CONGRESS
CONFERS AUTHORITY HAVE SUCH AUTHORITY IMPLIEDLY ONLY "WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS."  IF THAT INHERENT LIMITATION OPENED THE DOOR
TO REVIEW OF THEIR ACTION IN EVERY ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING DESPITE
PROVISIONS FOR FINALITY, A PROVISION OF FINALITY IS MEANINGLESS. 

THIS ARGUMENT REVIVES, IF INDEED IT DOES NOT MULTIPLY, ALL THE
CASUISTIC DIFFICULTIES SPAWNED BY THE DOCTRINE OF "JURISDICTIONAL
FACT."  IN VIEW OF THE CRITICISM WHICH THAT DOCTRINE, AS SPONSORED BY
CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, BROUGHT FORTH AND OF THE ATTRITIONS OF
THAT CASE THROUGH LATER DECISIONS, ONE HAD SUPPOSED THAT THE DOCTRINE
HAD EARNED A DESERVED REPOSE.  IN WITHHOLDING JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE
SITUATIONS WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED, CONGRESS WAS ACTING UPON THE
CONVICTION THAT IT WAS DEALING WITH MATTERS WHICH WERE MORE FITTINGLY
LODGED IN THE EXCLUSIVE DISCRETION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM. 
EVEN IN CASES OF FAR LESS EXIGENCY, CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO ACT ON SUCH
A VIEW.  SEE, E.G., GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402; FINAL REPORT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE (1941) 86. 
BUT THE SHORT ANSWER TO ANY CLAIM OF REVIEWABILITY DRAWN FROM THE
CONFINEMENT OF THE LOCAL BOARDS TO ACTION "WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS" IS THAT CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH GEOGRAPHY AND NOT
WITH LAW.  THROUGHOUT THIS ACT, THE TERM "JURISDICTION" HAS THIS
GEOGRAPHIC CONNOTATION.  IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS,
BENT ON CREATING A VAST ARMED FORCE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, WOULD IN
EFFECT AUTHORIZE EVERY ORDER OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM TO BE
RECONSIDERED UPON TRIALS FOR DISREGARD OF SUCH ORDERS?  THE ACT DOES
NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE POWER OF THE BOARD TO ALLOW EXEMPTIONS
AND ITS POWER TO GRANT DEFERMENTS.  THE BOARDS WERE INVESTED WITH FINAL
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE SUCH MATTERS SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH REVIEW AS THE
ACT AUTHORIZES.  WHEN CONGRESS TALKED ABOUT A BOARD ACTING WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION IT MEANT THAT A REGISTRANT HAD SUBMITTED HIS PAPERS TO A
BOARD EITHER BECAUSE HE RESIDED WITHIN ITS AREA OR FOR SOME OTHER
RELEVANT REASON HAD REGISTERED WITH IT. 

FOR FIVE YEARS THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE CONSTRUED SEC.
10(A)(2) TO MEAN THAT CONGRESS ESTABLISHED A SYSTEM FOR ORGANIZING A
VAST CITIZEN'S ARMY, THE SELECTION OF WHICH SHALL BE IN CIVILIAN BOARDS
WITH SUCH CONTROL OVER THEM AS THE PRESIDENT MAY FORMULATE.  DESIGNED
OBSTRUCTION OF THIS MEANS OF MEETING THE GREAT EMERGENCY WAS MADE AN
OFFENSE.  THAT THE CONGRESS HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DO SO NEEDS
NO ARGUMENT AT THIS LATE DATE.  SEE SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S.
366; HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 93.  AND YET THE COURT
TODAY HOLDS THAT EIGHT CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS WERE WRONG IN READING
THE LANGUAGE OF CONGRESS AS CONGRESS WROTE IT, EVEN THOUGH IN DOING SO
THESE COURTS WERE RESPECTFUL OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MOVED CONGRESS
TO WRITE THE ACT AS IT DID IN ORDER TO RAISE THAT ARMY.  IF THIS BE SO,
NOT ONLY WERE THEY WRONG, BUT PROBABLY HUNDREDS OF CONVICTIONS FOR
DISOBEDIENCE OF LOCAL BOARD ORDERS BASED ON SUCH REGARD FOR WHAT
CONGRESS HAD WRITTEN, WERE INVALID. 

                                 II. 

SINCE CONGRESS HAS MADE FINAL THE DECISION OF A LOCAL BOARD ON A
CLAIM OF EXEMPTION, ITS DECISION AS TO EXEMPTION CANNOT BE REOPENED
UPON A TRIAL FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE BOARD'S ORDER.  BUT CONGRESS ALSO
AUTHORIZED AN APPEAL FROM THE LOCAL BOARD TO AN APPEAL BOARD AND
ULTIMATELY TO THE PRESIDENT.  CONGRESS HAS NOT GIVEN TO THE LOCAL BOARD
AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHEN SUCH STATUTORY RIGHTS OF APPEAL MAY BE AVAILED
OF, NOR TO MAKE "FINAL" UNWARRANTED ACTION BY A BOARD WHEREBY SUCH
APPEAL IS FRUSTRATED.  CF. TUNG V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 919(C.C.A.
1ST, 1944).  ACCORDINGLY, IF A REGISTRANT DOES NOT OBEY AN ORDER OF
INDUCTION BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS CUT OFF THE OPPORTUNITY WHICH THE
STATUTE GIVES HIM TO APPEAL TO HIGHER AUTHORITY, HIS OBLIGATION OF
OBEDIENCE HAS NOT YET MATURED.  THEREFORE HE HAS NOT FAILED TO
DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGATION UNDER THE ACT.  THE DUTY TO OBEY IS NOT MERELY
A DUTY TO OBEY AN ORDER OF THE DRAFT BOARD, BUT TO OBEY SUCH AN ORDER
AFTER IT IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO REVIEW WITHIN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE
SYSTEM.  "THE DECISIONS OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS SHALL BE FINAL EXCEPT
WHERE AN APPEAL IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE."  ESTEP MADE THE CLAIM THAT
HE WAS EFFECTIVELY DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IN ADDITION TO HIS
INADMISSIBLE DEFENSE THAT THE LOCAL BOARD CLASSIFIED HIM IMPROPERLY. 
HE OFFERED TO PROVE THAT FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE LOCAL BOARD
FRUSTRATED HIS RIGHT TO HAVE HIS CASE GO TO THE APPEAL BOARD, IN
VIOLATION OF THE BOARD'S DUTY UNDER THE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS.  ESTEP
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE PROOF OF THIS CLAIM BY APPROPRIATE
MOTION TO BE DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT.  AS IN SITUATIONS OF COMPARABLE
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE, A TRIAL COURT MAY, OF COURSE, LEAVE CONTROVERTED
ISSUES OF FACT TO THE JURY. 

ANOTHER ISSUE IS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER IN NO. 66.  THE
INDICTMENT ALLEGES A FAILURE TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION.  WHILE THE
PETITIONER DID NOT REPORT AT THE LOCAL BOARD AS HE WAS ORDERED TO DO,
HE WAS FORCIBLY TAKEN TO THE INDUCTION CENTER AND WENT THROUGH THE PRE
INDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO
INDUCTION.  AN ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION, AS WE SAID IN BILLINGS V.
TRUESDELL, "INCLUDES A COMMAND TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION."  321 U.S., AT
557; UNITED STATES V. COLLURA, 139 F.2D 345(C.C.A.2D, 1943).  THERE IS,
HOWEVER, BASIS FOR THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE CASE WAS TRIED
AND SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THE THEORY THAT HE FAILED TO SHOW UP AT
HIS LOCAL BOARD.  HE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THAT REQUEST BY BEING
AT THE INDUCTION CENTER FOR EXAMINATION.  THE TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE IS
AT BEST AMBIGUOUS.  THE COURT MORE THAN ONCE APPARENTLY CHARGED NOT
THAT HE DID NOT SUBMIT TO INDUCTION, BUT THAT HE FAILED TO APPEAR
VOLUNTARILY AT THE INDUCTION POINTS.  "A CONVICTION OUGHT NOT TO REST
ON AN EQUIVOCAL DIRECTION TO THE JURY ON A BASIC ISSUE."  BOLLENBACH V.
UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 607.  ON THIS GROUND THE CONVICTION IS PROPERLY
REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS IS A LIST OF THE JUDGES: 

FIRST CIRCUIT:  MAHONEY, WOODBURY, PETERS. 

SECOND CIRCUIT:  LEARNED HAND, SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, CLARK,
FRANK, SIMONS, HUTCHESON (THE LAST TWO SITTING AS DESIGNATED JUDGES). 

THIRD CIRCUIT:  JONES, MARIS, GOODRICH, MCLAUGHLIN, PARKER (THE LAST
SITTING AS A DESIGNATED JUDGE). 

FOURTH CIRCUIT:  PARKER, SOPER, DOBIE, NORTHCOTT. 

FIFTH CIRCUIT:  SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, HOLMES, MCCORD, WALLER, LEE,
STRUM. 

SIXTH CIRCUIT:  HICKS, SIMONS, HAMILTON, MARTIN. 

SEVENTH CIRCUIT:  EVANS, SPARKS, MAJOR, KERNER, MINTON, LINDLEY,
BRIGGLE. 

EIGHTH CIRCUIT:  SANBORN, WOODROUGH, THOMAS, JOHNSEN, RIDDICK. 

SINCE FALBO, THE ONLY CONTRARY VIEWS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY JUDGES
BIGGS AND LEAHY IN THE COURT BELOW IN NO. 292. 

FN2  SEE, ALSO, UNITED STATES V. KAUTEN, 133 F.2D 703(C.C.A.2D,
1943); UNITED STATES V. NELSON, 143 F.2D 584(C.C.A.2D, 1944); UNITED
STATES V. GRIEME, 128 F.2D 811(C.C.A. 3D, 1942); UNITED STATES V.
BOWLES, 131 F.2D 818(C.C.A. 3D, 1942), AFF'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 319 U.S.
33; GOODRICH V. UNITED STATES, 146 F.2D 265(C.C.A.5TH, 1944); UNITED
STATES V. MROZ, 136 F.2D 221(C.C.A.7TH, 1943); UNITED STATES V.
MESSERSMITH, 138 F.2D 599(C.C.A.7TH, 1943); UNITED STATES V. DAILY, 139
F.2D 7(C.C.A.7TH, 1943); UNITED STATES V. SAULER, 139 F.2D
173(C.C.A.7TH, 1944); UNITED STATES V. VAN DEN BERG, 139 F.2D
654(C.C.A.7TH, 1944); UNITED STATES V. FRATRICK, 140 F.2D 5(C.C.A.7TH,
1944); UNITED STATES V. BAXTER, 141 F.2D 359(C.C.A.7TH, 1944); UNITED
STATES V. DOMRES, 142 F.2D 477(C.C.A.7TH, 1944); BRONEMANN V. UNITED
STATES, 138 F.2D 333(C.C.A.8TH, 1943); VAN BIBBER V. UNITED STATES, 151
F.2D 444(C.C.A.8TH, 1945). 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, WITH WHOM MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN
THESE CASES SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR REASONS STATED IN PART I OF MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S OPINION. 

WE THINK THAT UNDER SEC. 10(A)(2) OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT,
RIGHTLY CONSTRUED, THE REGISTRANT IS REQUIRED, ON PAIN OF CRIMINAL
PENALTIES, TO OBEY THE LOCAL BOARD'S ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION INTO
THE ARMED FORCES, EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD'S ORDER OR THE ACTION OF THE
APPEAL BOARD ON WHICH IT IS BASED, IS ERRONEOUS.  "IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF SUCH ISSUES SUCH REGISTRANTS MUST FIRST
SUBMIT TO INDUCTION AND RAISE THE ISSUE BY HABEAS CORPUS."  H. REP. NO.
36, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945) 5.  IT FOLLOWS THAT IF THE REGISTRANT
IS INDICTED FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE BOARD'S ORDER HE CANNOT DEFEND ON
THE GROUND THAT THE DRAFT PROCEDURE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH OR, IF
CONVICTED, SECURE HIS RELEASE ON THAT GROUND BY RESORT TO HABEAS
CORPUS.  THE RESULT IS THAT SUCH RELIEF IS OPEN TO HIM ONLY IF HE OBEYS
THE ORDER AND SUBMITS TO INDUCTION, WHEN HE IS FREE TO SEEK HABEAS
CORPUS. 

WE DO NOT FIND IN THE RECORD OF EITHER CASE SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR
REVERSAL THEREOF ON THE GROUNDS SUGGESTED IN PART II OF MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER'S OPINION. 
..END :










HANNEGAN V. ESQUIRE, INC., 327 U.S. 146 


NO. 399.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  - 151
F.2D 49, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 14 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1879 PROVIDES THAT, IN
ORDER TO BE ADMITTED AS SECOND-CLASS MAIL, A PUBLICATION "MUST BE
ORIGINATED AND PUBLISHED FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION OF A
PUBLIC CHARACTER, OR DEVOTED TO LITERATURE, THE SCIENCES, ARTS  ..." 
HELD THAT, UNDER THIS PROVISION, THE POSTMASTER GENERAL IS WITHOUT
POWER TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS FOR THE LITERATURE OR THE ART WHICH A
MAILABLE PERIODICAL (NOT OBSCENE) DISSEMINATES, OR TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE CONTENTS OF THE PERIODICAL MEET SOME STANDARD OF THE PUBLIC GOOD OR
WELFARE.  PP. 148, 158. 

2.  A PURPOSE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO GRANT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
A POWER OF CENSORSHIP - A POWER SO ABHORRENT TO OUR TRADITIONS - IS NOT
LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED.  P. 151. 

3.  WHEN READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE POSTAL LAWS OF WHICH IT IS AN
INTEGRAL PART, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14 MUST BE TAKEN AS ESTABLISHING
STANDARDS WHICH RELATE TO THE FORMAT OF THE PUBLICATION AND TO THE
NATURE OF ITS CONTENTS, BUT NOT TO THEIR QUALITY, WORTH, OR VALUE.  P.
152. 

IN THAT VIEW, "LITERATURE" AND THE "ARTS" MEAN NO MORE THAN
PRODUCTIONS WHICH CONVEY IDEAS BY WORDS, PICTURES, OR DRAWINGS.  P.
153. 

HANNEGAN, POSTMASTER GENERAL, V. ESQUIRE, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

IN A SUIT BY THE RESPONDENT TO ENJOIN THE POSTMASTER GENERAL FROM
CARRYING INTO EFFECT AN ORDER REVOKING RESPONDENT'S SECOND-CLASS-MAIL
PERMIT, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REVERSED.  151 F.2D 49.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S. 708. 
AFFIRMED, P. 159. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CONGRESS HAS MADE OBSCENE MATERIAL NONMAILABLE (35 STAT. 1129, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 334), AND HAS APPLIED CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THAT POLICY.  IT HAS DIVIDED MAILABLE MATTER INTO FOUR
CLASSES, PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS CONSTITUTING THE SECOND-CLASS.  FN1
SEC. 7 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1879, 20 STAT. 358, 43 STAT. 1067,
39 U.S.C. SEC. 221.  AND IT HAS SPECIFIED FOUR CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A
PUBLICATION SHALL BE ADMITTED TO THE SECOND-CLASS.  SEC. 14 OF THE
CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1879, 20 STAT. 359, 48 STAT. 928, 39 U.S.C. SEC.
226.  THE FOURTH CONDITION, WHICH IS THE ONLY ONE RELEVANT HERE,  FN2
PROVIDES: 

"EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A
PUBLICATION SHALL BE ADMITTED TO THE SECOND CLASS ARE AS FOLLOWS  ...
FOURTH.  IT MUST BE ORIGINATED AND PUBLISHED FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF
INFORMATION OF A PUBLIC CHARACTER, OR DEVOTED TO LITERATURE, THE
SCIENCES, ARTS, OR SOME SPECIAL INDUSTRY, AND HAVING A LEGITIMATE LIST
OF SUBSCRIBERS.  NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO
ADMIT TO THE SECOND-CLASS RATE REGULAR PUBLICATIONS DESIGNED PRIMARILY
FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES, OR FOR FREE CIRCULATION, OR FOR CIRCULATION
AT NOMINAL RATES." 

RESPONDENT IS THE PUBLISHER OF ESQUIRE MAGAZINE, A MONTHLY PERIODICAL
WHICH WAS GRANTED A SECOND-CLASS PERMIT IN 1933.  IN 1943, PURSUANT TO
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1107, 39 U.S.C. SEC. 232, A CITATION
WAS ISSUED TO RESPONDENT BY THE THEN POSTMASTER GENERAL (FOR WHOM THE
PRESENT POSTMASTER GENERAL HAS NOW BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS PETITIONER) TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY THAT PERMIT SHOULD NOT BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED.  FN3  A
HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE A BOARD DESIGNATED BY THE THEN POSTMASTER
GENERAL.  FN4  THE BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT THE PERMIT NOT BE REVOKED. 
PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW.  HE DID NOT FIND THAT
ESQUIRE MAGAZINE CONTAINED OBSCENE MATERIAL AND THEREFORE WAS
NONMAILABLE.  HE REVOKED ITS SECOND-CLASS PERMIT BECAUSE HE FOUND THAT
IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOURTH CONDITION.  THE GIST OF HIS HOLDING
IS CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM HIS OPINION: 

"THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THIS STATUTE DOES NOT ASSUME THAT A
PUBLICATION MUST IN FACT BE 'OBSCENE' WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF THE
POSTAL OBSCENITY STATUTES BEFORE IT CAN BE FOUND NOT TO BE 'ORIGINATED
AND PUBLISHED FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION OF A PUBLIC
CHARACTER, OR DEVOTED TO LITERATURE, THE SCIENCES, ARTS, OR SOME
SPECIAL INDUSTRY.' 

"WRITINGS AND PICTURES MAY BE INDECENT, VULGAR, AND RISQUE AND STILL
NOT BE OBSCENE IN A TECHNICAL SENSE.  SUCH WRITINGS AND PICTURES MAY BE
IN THAT OBSCURE AND TREACHEROUS BORDERLAND ZONE WHERE THE AVERAGE
PERSON HESITATES TO FIND THEM TECHNICALLY OBSCENE, BUT STILL MAY SEE
AMPLE PROOF THAT THEY ARE MORALLY IMPROPER AND NOT FOR THE PUBLIC
WELFARE AND THE PUBLIC GOOD.  WHEN SUCH WRITINGS OR PICTURES OCCUR IN
ISOLATED INSTANCES THEIR DANGEROUS TENDENCIES AND MALIGNANT QUALITIES
MAY BE CONSIDERED OF LESSER IMPORTANCE. 

"WHEN, HOWEVER, THEY BECOME A DOMINANT AND SYSTEMATIC FEATURE THEY
MOST CERTAINLY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, AND A
PUBLICATION WHICH USES THEM IN THAT MANNER IS NOT MAKING THE 'SPECIAL
CONTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE' WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE
FOURTH CONDITION. 

"A PUBLICATION TO ENJOY THESE UNIQUE MAIL PRIVILEGES AND SPECIAL
PREFERENCES IS BOUND TO DO MORE THAN REFRAIN FROM DISSEMINATING
MATERIAL WHICH IS OBSCENE OR BORDERING ON THE OBSCENE.  IT IS UNDER A
POSITIVE DUTY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND THE PUBLIC
WELFARE." 

RESPONDENT THEREUPON SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA TO ENJOIN THE REVOCATION ORDER.  THE PARTIES STIPULATED AT A
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE THAT THE SUIT WOULD NOT BE DEFENDED ON THE GROUND
THAT ESQUIRE MAGAZINE WAS OBSCENE OR WAS FOR ANY OTHER REASON
NONMAILABLE N5.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT.  55 F.SUPP.  1015.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  151
F.2D 49.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH
WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE POSTAL LAWS. 

THE ISSUES OF ESQUIRE MAGAZINE UNDER ATTACK ARE THOSE FOR JANUARY TO
NOVEMBER, INCLUSIVE, OF 1943.  THE MATERIAL COMPLAINED OF EMBRACES IN
BULK ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THOSE ISSUES.  FN6 REGULAR FEATURES OF
THE MAGAZINE (CALLED "THE MAGAZINE FOR MEN") INCLUDE ARTICLES ON TOPICS
OF CURRENT INTEREST, SHORT STORIES, SPORTS ARTICLES OR STORIES, SHORT
ARTICLES BY MEN PROMINENT IN VARIOUS FIELDS OF ACTIVITIES, ARTICLES
ABOUT MEN PROMINENT IN THE NEWS, A BOOK REVIEW DEPARTMENT HEADED BY THE
LATE WILLIAM LYON PHELPS, A THEATRICAL DEPARTMENT HEADED BY GEORGE JEAN
NATHAN, A DEPARTMENT ON THE LIVELY ARTS BY GILBERT SELDES, A DEPARTMENT
DEVOTED TO MEN'S CLOTHING, AND PICTORIAL FEATURES, INCLUDING WAR ACTION
PAINTINGS, COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF DOGS AND WATER COLORS OR ETCHINGS OF
GAME BIRDS AND REPRODUCTIONS OF FAMOUS PAINTINGS, PRINTS AND DRAWINGS. 
THERE WAS VERY LITTLE IN THESE FEATURES WHICH WAS CHALLENGED.  BUT
PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR FOUND THAT THE OBJECTIONABLE ITEMS, THOUGH A
SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL BULK, WERE REGULAR RECURRENT FEATURES
WHICH GAVE THE MAGAZINE ITS DOMINANT TONE OR CHARACTERISTIC.  THESE
INCLUDE JOKES, CARTOONS, PICTURES, ARTICLES, AND POEMS.  THEY WERE SAID
TO REFLECT THE SMOKING-ROOM TYPE OF HUMOR, FEATURING, IN THE MAIN,
SEX.  SOME WITNESSES FOUND THE CHALLENGED ITEMS HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE,
CALLING THEM SALACIOUS AND INDECENT.  OTHERS THOUGHT THEY WERE ONLY
RACY AND RISQUE.  SOME CONDEMNED THEM AS BEING MERELY IN POOR TASTE. 
OTHER WITNESSES COULD FIND NO OBJECTION TO THEM. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ITEMS MAKES PLAIN, WE THINK, THAT THE
CONTROVERSY IS NOT WHETHER THE MAGAZINE PUBLISHES "INFORMATION OF A
PUBLIC CHARACTER" OR IS DEVOTED TO "LITERATURE" OR TO THE "ARTS."  IT
IS WHETHER THE CONTENTS ARE "GOOD" OR "BAD."  TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF
REVOCATION WOULD, THEREFORE, GRANT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL A POWER OF
CENSORSHIP.  SUCH A POWER IS SO ABHORRENT TO OUR TRADITIONS THAT A
PURPOSE TO GRANT IT SHOULD NOT BE EASILY INFERRED. 

THE SECOND-CLASS PRIVILEGE IS A FORM OF SUBSIDY.  FN7  FROM THE
BEGINNING CONGRESS HAS ALLOWED SPECIAL RATES TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF
PUBLICATIONS.  THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1792, 1 STAT. 232, 238, GRANTED
NEWSPAPERS A MORE FAVORABLE RATE.  THESE WERE EXTENDED TO MAGAZINES AND
PAMPHLETS BY THE ACT OF MAY 8, 1794, 1 STAT. 354, 362.  PRIOR TO THE
CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1879, PERIODICALS WERE PUT INTO THE SECOND-CLASS,
FN8  WHICH BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, 12 STAT. 701, 705, INCLUDED
"ALL MAILABLE MATTER EXCLUSIVELY IN PRINT, AND REGULARLY ISSUED AT
STATED PERIODS, WITHOUT ADDITION BY WRITING, MARK, OR SIGN."  THAT ACT
PLAINLY ADOPTED A STRICTLY OBJECTIVE TEST AND LEFT NO DISCRETION TO THE
POSTAL AUTHORITIES TO WITHHOLD THE SECOND-CLASS PRIVILEGE FROM A
MAILABLE NEWSPAPER OR PERIODICAL BECAUSE IT FAILED TO MEET SOME
STANDARD OF WORTH OR VALUE OR PROPRIETY.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
LANGUAGE OR HISTORY OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1879 WHICH SUGGESTS
THAT CONGRESS IN THAT LAW MADE ANY BASIC CHANGE IN ITS TREATMENT OF
SECOND-CLASS MAIL, LET ALONE SUCH AN ABRUPT AND RADICAL CHANGE AS WOULD
BE ENTAILED BY THE INAUGURATION OF EVEN A LIMITED FORM OF CENSORSHIP. 

THE POSTAL LAWS MAKE A CLEAR-CUT DIVISION BETWEEN MAILABLE AND
NONMAILABLE MATERIAL.  THE FOUR CLASSES OF MAILABLE MATTER ARE
GENERALLY DESCRIBED BY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS WHICH REFER IN PART TO THEIR
CONTENTS, BUT NOT TO THE QUALITY OF THEIR CONTENTS.  FN9  THE MORE
PARTICULAR DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FIRST,  FN10  THIRD,  FN11  AND FOURTH
FN12  CLASSES FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN, AS DO THE FIRST THREE CONDITIONS
SPECIFIED FOR SECOND-CLASS MATTER.  FN13  IF, THEREFORE, THE FOURTH
CONDITION IS READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE POSTAL LAWS OF WHICH IT IS AN
INTEGRAL PART, IT, TOO, MUST BE TAKEN TO SUPPLY STANDARDS WHICH RELATE
TO THE FORMAT OF THE PUBLICATION AND TO THE NATURE OF ITS CONTENTS, BUT
NOT TO THEIR QUALITY, WORTH, OR VALUE.  IN THAT VIEW, "LITERATURE" OR
THE "ARTS" MEAN NO MORE THAN PRODUCTIONS WHICH CONVEY IDEAS BY WORDS,
PICTURES, OR DRAWINGS. 

IF THE FOURTH CONDITION IS READ IN THAT WAY, IT IS PLAIN THAT
CONGRESS MADE NO RADICAL OR BASIC CHANGE IN THE TYPE OF REGULATION
WHICH IT ADOPTED FOR SECOND-CLASS MAIL IN 1879.  THE INAUGURATION OF
EVEN A LIMITED TYPE OF CENSORSHIP WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCH A STARTLING
CHANGE AS TO HAVE LEFT SOME TRACES IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  BUT WE
FIND NONE.  CONGRESSMAN MONEY, A MEMBER OF THE POSTAL COMMITTEE WHO
DEFENDED THE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, STATED THAT IT WAS
"NOTHING BUT A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE POSTAL CODE.  THERE ARE NO NEW
POWERS GRANTED TO THE DEPARTMENT BY THIS BILL, NONE WHATEVER."  8 CONG.
REC. 2134.  THE BILL CONTAINED REGISTRATION PROVISIONS WHICH WERE
OPPOSED ON THE GROUND THAT THEY MIGHT BE THE INCEPTION OF A CENSORSHIP
OF THE PRESS.  ID., P. 2137.  THESE WERE DELETED.  ID., PP. 2137,
2138.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT THE CONGRESS, HAVING DELETED
THEM FOR FEAR OF CENSORSHIP, GAVE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL BY THE FOURTH
CONDITION DISCRETION TO DENY PERIODICALS THE SECOND-CLASS RATE, IF IN
HIS VIEW THEY DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE PUBLIC GOOD.  CONGRESSMAN MONEY
INDEED REFERRED TO "THE DAILY NEWSPAPERS, WITH THEIR LOAD OF GOSSIP AND
SCANDAL AND EVERY-DAY TOPICS THAT ARE FLOATING THROUGH THE PRESS" AS
BEING ENTITLED WITHOUT QUESTION TO THE SECOND-CLASS PRIVILEGE.  ID., P.
2135.  TO THE CHARGE THAT THE BILL IMPOSED A CENSORSHIP, HE POINTED OUT
THAT IT ONLY WITHHELD THE PRIVILEGED RATE FROM PUBLICATIONS "MADE UP
SIMPLY OF ADVERTISING CONCERNS NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION"; AND
ADDED: 

"WE KNOW THE REASON FOR WHICH PAPERS ARE ALLOWED TO GO AT A LOW RATE
OF POSTAGE, AMOUNTING ALMOST TO THE FRANKING PRIVILEGE, IS BECAUSE THEY
ARE THE MOST EFFICIENT EDUCATORS OF OUR PEOPLE.  IT IS BECAUSE THEY GO
INTO GENERAL CIRCULATION AND ARE INTENDED FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF
USEFUL KNOWLEDGE SUCH AS WILL PROMOTE THE PROSPERITY AND THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.  THEN ALL THIS VAST MASS
OF MATTER IS EXCLUDED FROM THAT LOW RATE OF POSTAGE.  I SAY, INSTEAD OF
BEING A CENSORSHIP UPON THE PRESS, IT IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
LEGITIMATE JOURNALS OF THE COUNTRY."  ID., P. 2135. 

THE POLICY OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN CLEAR.  IT HAS BEEN TO ENCOURAGE THE
DISTRIBUTION OF PERIODICALS WHICH DISSEMINATED "INFORMATION OF A PUBLIC
CHARACTER" OR WHICH WERE DEVOTED TO "LITERATURE, THE SCIENCES, ARTS, OR
SOME SPECIAL INDUSTRY," BECAUSE IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THOSE PUBLICATIONS
AS A CLASS CONTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC GOOD.  FN14  THE STANDARDS
PRESCRIBED IN THE FOURTH CONDITION HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED, BUT NOT ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY PROVIDE FOR CENSORSHIP.  FN15  AS STATED BY THE POSTAL
COMMISSION OF 1911, H. DOC. 559, 62D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 142: 

"THE ORIGINAL OBJECT IN PLACING ON SECOND-CLASS MATTER A RATE FAR
BELOW THAT ON ANY OTHER CLASS OF MAIL WAS TO ENCOURAGE THE
DISSEMINATION OF NEWS AND OF CURRENT LITERATURE OF EDUCATIONAL VALUE. 
THIS OBJECT HAS BEEN ONLY IN PART ATTAINED.  THE LOW RATE HAS HELPED TO
STIMULATE AN ENORMOUS MASS OF PERIODICALS, MANY OF WHICH ARE OF LITTLE
UTILITY FOR THE CAUSE OF POPULAR EDUCATION.  OTHERS ARE OF EXCELLENT
QUALITY, BUT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE POST OFFICE HAS SHOWN THE
IMPOSSIBILITY OF MAKING A SATISFACTORY TEST BASED UPON LITERARY OR
EDUCATIONAL VALUES.  TO ATTEMPT TO DO SO WOULD BE TO SET UP A
CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS.  OF NECESSITY THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE -
'DEVOTED TO LITERATURE, THE SCIENCES, ARTS, OR SOME SPECIAL INDUSTRY' -
MUST HAVE A BROAD INTERPRETATION." 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT CONGRESS HAS A BROAD POWER OF CLASSIFICATION AND
NEED NOT OPEN SECOND-CLASS MAIL TO PUBLICATIONS OF ALL TYPES.  THE
CATEGORIES OF PUBLICATIONS ENTITLED TO THAT CLASSIFICATION HAVE INDEED
VARIED THROUGH THE YEARS.  FN16  AND THE COURT HELD IN EX PARTE
JACKSON, 96 U.S. 727, THAT CONGRESS COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE IT A
CRIME TO SEND FRAUDULENT OR OBSCENE MATERIAL THROUGH THE MAILS.  BUT
GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE IMMEDIATELY RAISED ONCE IT IS SAID
THAT THE USE OF THE MAILS IS A PRIVILEGE WHICH MAY BE EXTENDED OR
WITHHELD ON ANY GROUNDS WHATSOEVER.  SEE THE DISSENTS OF MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS AND MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN MILWAUKEE PUBLISHING CO. V.
BURLESON, 255 U.S. 407, 421-423, 430-432, 437-438.  UNDER THAT VIEW THE
SECOND-CLASS RATE COULD BE GRANTED ON CONDITION THAT CERTAIN ECONOMIC
OR POLITICAL IDEAS NOT BE DISSEMINATED.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTH
CONDITION WOULD HAVE TO BE FAR MORE EXPLICIT FOR US TO ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS MADE SUCH A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM OUR TRADITIONS  FN17  AND
UNDERTOOK TO CLOTHE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL WITH THE POWER TO SUPERVISE
THE TASTES OF THE READING PUBLIC OF THE COUNTRY.  FN18    IT IS PLAIN,
AS WE HAVE SAID, THAT THE FAVORABLE SECOND-CLASS RATES WERE GRANTED
PERIODICALS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTH CONDITION, SO THAT
THE PUBLIC GOOD MIGHT BE SERVED THROUGH A DISSEMINATION OF THE CLASS OF
PERIODICALS DESCRIBED.  BUT THAT IS A FAR CRY FROM ASSUMING THAT
CONGRESS HAD ANY IDEA THAT EACH APPLICANT FOR THE SECOND-CLASS RATE
MUST CONVINCE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL THAT HIS PUBLICATION POSITIVELY
CONTRIBUTES TO THE PUBLIC GOOD OR PUBLIC WELFARE.  UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT THERE IS AN ACCOMMODATION FOR THE WIDEST VARIETIES OF TASTES
AND IDEAS.  FN19  WHAT IS GOOD LITERATURE, WHAT HAS EDUCATIONAL VALUE,
WHAT IS REFINED PUBLIC INFORMATION, WHAT IS GOOD ART, VARIES WITH
INDIVIDUALS AS IT DOES FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER.  THERE DOUBTLESS
WOULD BE A CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS  FN20  CONCERNING CERVANTES' DON
QUIXOTE, SHAKESPEARE'S VENUS AND ADONIS, OR ZOLA'S NANA.  BUT A
REQUIREMENT THAT LITERATURE OR ART CONFORM TO SOME NORM PRESCRIBED BY
AN OFFICIAL SMACKS OF AN IDEOLOGY FOREIGN TO OUR SYSTEM.  THE BASIC
VALUES IMPLICIT IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTH CONDITION CAN BE
SERVED ONLY BY UNCENSORED DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE.  FROM THE
MULTITUDE OF COMPETING OFFERINGS THE PUBLIC WILL PICK AND CHOOSE.  WHAT
SEEMS TO ONE TO BE TRASH MAY HAVE FOR OTHERS FLEETING OR EVEN ENDURING
VALUES.  BUT TO WITHDRAW THE SECOND-CLASS RATE FROM THIS PUBLICATION
TODAY BECAUSE ITS CONTENTS SEEMED TO ONE OFFICIAL NOT GOOD FOR THE
PUBLIC WOULD SANCTION WITHDRAWAL OF THE SECOND-CLASS RATE TOMORROW FROM
ANOTHER PERIODICAL WHOSE SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC VIEWS SEEMED HARMFUL TO
ANOTHER OFFICIAL.  THE VALIDITY OF THE OBSCENITY LAWS IS RECOGNITION
THAT THE MAILS MAY NOT BE USED TO SATISFY ALL TASTES, NO MATTER HOW
PERVERTED.  BUT CONGRESS HAS LEFT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL WITH NO POWER
TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS FOR THE LITERATURE OR THE ART WHICH A MAILABLE
PERIODICAL DISSEMINATES. 

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL UNDER THE FOURTH CONDITION.  IT IS HIS DUTY TO "EXECUTE ALL
LAWS RELATIVE TO THE POSTAL SERVICE."  REV. STAT. SEC. 396, 5 U.S.C.
SEC. 369.  FOR EXAMPLE, QUESTIONS WILL ARISE AS THEY DID IN HOUGHTON V.
PAYNE, 194 U.S. 88; BATES & GUILD CO. V. PAYNE, 194 U.S. 106, AND SMITH
V. HITCHCOCK, 226 U.S. 53, WHETHER THE PUBLICATION WHICH SEEKS THE
FAVORABLE SECOND-CLASS RATE IS A PERIODICAL AS DEFINED IN THE FOURTH
CONDITION OR A BOOK OR OTHER TYPE OF PUBLICATION.  AND IT MAY APPEAR
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A PERIODICAL MAY NOT BE OF A "PUBLIC
CHARACTER."  BUT THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PERIODICAL (WHICH IS
MAILABLE) CONTAINS INFORMATION OF A PUBLIC CHARACTER, LITERATURE OR ART
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FURTHER POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONTENTS
MEET SOME STANDARD OF THE PUBLIC GOOD OR WELFARE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THAT MAILABLE MATTER OF THE SECOND CLASS SHALL EMBRACE ALL
NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS WHICH ARE ISSUED AT STATED
INTERVALS, AND AS FREQUENTLY AS FOUR TIMES A YEAR AND ARE WITHIN THE
CONDITIONS NAMED IN SECTIONS TWELVE AND FOURTEEN."  SEC. 10 OF THE
CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1879, 20 STAT. 359, 39 U.S.C. SEC. 224.  FOR
OTHER PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN SECOND-CLASS
MATTER, SEE 37 STAT. 550, 39 U.S.C. SEC. 229; 31 STAT. 660, 39 U.S.C.
SEC. 230. 

FN2  THE FIRST THREE CONDITIONS ARE: 

"FIRST.  IT MUST REGULARLY BE ISSUED AT STATED INTERVALS, AS
FREQUENTLY AS FOUR TIMES A YEAR, AND BEAR A DATE OF ISSUE, AND BE
NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY.  SECOND.  IT MUST BE ISSUED FROM A KNOWN OFFICE
OF PUBLICATION.  THIRD.  IT MUST BE FORMED OF PRINTED PAPER SHEETS,
WITHOUT BOARD, CLOTH, LEATHER, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIAL BINDING, SUCH AS
DISTINGUISH PRINTED BOOKS FOR PRESERVATION FROM PERIODICAL
PUBLICATIONS:  PROVIDED, THAT PUBLICATIONS PRODUCED BY THE STENCIL,
MIMEOGRAPH, OR HECTOGRAPH PROCESS OR IN IMITATION OF TYPEWRITING SHALL
NOT BE REGARDED AS PRINTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS CLAUSE." 

FN3  SEC. 1 OF THAT ACT PROVIDES: 

"WHEN ANY PUBLICATION HAS BEEN ACCORDED SECOND-CLASS MAIL PRIVILEGES,
THE SAME SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED OR ANNULLED UNTIL A HEARING SHALL HAVE
BEEN GRANTED TO THE PARTIES INTERESTED." 

FN4  SEE 7 FED. REG. 3001. 

FN5  IT WAS NOT CONTENDED THAT ESQUIRE MAGAZINE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH
THE FIRST THREE CONDITIONS OF 39 U.S.C. SEC. 226, SET FORTH IN NOTE 2,
SUPRA. 

FN6  ITEMS TAKING UP A PART OR ALL OF 86 PAGES OUT OF A TOTAL OF
1,972 PAGES. 

FN7  IT WAS FOUND TO BE WORTH $500,000 A YEAR TO ESQUIRE MAGAZINE. 
"A NEWSPAPER EDITOR FEARS BEING PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DENIAL OF THE SECOND-CLASS MAILING PRIVILEGE MUCH MORE
THAN THE PROSPECT OF PRISON SUBJECT TO A JURY TRIAL."  CHAFEE, FREEDOM
OF SPEECH (1920), P. 199. 

FN8  RATES ON PERIODICALS, DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR ADVERTISING
PURPOSES OR FOR FREE CIRCULATION, WERE INCREASED BY THE ACT OF JULY 12,
1876, 19 STAT. 78, 82. 

FN9  SEC. 7 OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1879, AS AMENDED, 39 U.S.C.
SEC. 221, PROVIDES: 

"MAILABLE MATTER SHALL BE DIVIDED INTO FOUR CLASSES: 

"FIRST, WRITTEN MATTER; 

"SECOND, PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS; 

"THIRD, MISCELLANEOUS PRINTED MATTER AND OTHER MAILABLE MATTER NOT IN
THE FIRST, SECOND, OR FOURTH CLASSES; 

"FOURTH, MERCHANDISE AND OTHER MAILABLE MATTER WEIGHING NOT LESS THAN
EIGHT OUNCES AND NOT IN ANY OTHER CLASS." 

FN10  FIRST CLASS.  "MAILABLE MATTER OF THE FIRST CLASS SHALL EMBRACE
LETTERS, POSTAL CARDS, AND ALL MATTERS WHOLLY OR PARTLY IN WRITING
..."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 222. 

FN11  THIRD CLASS.  "MAIL MATTER OF THE THIRD CLASS SHALL INCLUDE
BOOKS, CIRCULARS, AND OTHER MATTER WHOLLY IN PRINT (EXCEPT NEWSPAPERS
AND OTHER PERIODICALS ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER), PROOF SHEETS,
CORRECTED PROOF SHEETS, AND MANUSCRIPT COPY ACCOMPANYING SAME,
MERCHANDISE (INCLUDING FARM AND FACTORY PRODUCTS) AND ALL OTHER
MAILABLE MATTER NOT INCLUDED IN THE FIRST OR SECOND CLASS, OR IN THE
FOURTH CLASS  ..."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 235. 

FN12  FOURTH CLASS.  "MAIL MATTER OF THE FOURTH CLASS SHALL WEIGH IN
EXCESS OF EIGHT OUNCES, AND SHALL INCLUDE BOOKS, CIRCULARS, AND OTHER
MATTER WHOLLY IN PRINT (EXCEPT NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER PERIODICALS ENTERED
AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER), PROOF SHEETS, CORRECTED PROOF SHEETS AND
MANUSCRIPT COPY ACCOMPANYING SAME, MERCHANDISE (INCLUDING FARM AND
FACTORY PRODUCTS), AND ALL OTHER MAILABLE MATTER NOT INCLUDED IN THE
FIRST OR SECOND CLASS, OR IN THE THIRD CLASS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 235
OF THIS TITLE, NOT EXCEEDING ELEVEN POUNDS IN WEIGHT, NOR GREATER IN
SIZE THAN SEVENTY-TWO INCHES IN LENGTH AND GIRTH COMBINED, NOR IN FORM
OR KIND LIKELY TO INJURE THE PERSON OF ANY POSTAL EMPLOYEE OR DAMAGE
THE MAIL EQUIPMENT OR OTHER MAIL MATTER AND NOT OF A CHARACTER
PERISHABLE WITHIN A PERIOD REASONABLY REQUIRED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND
DELIVERY."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 240. 

FN13 SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN14  SEE LEWIS PUBLISHING CO. V. MORGAN, 229 U.S. 288, 301; ANNUAL
REPORT OF POSTMASTER GENERAL (1892), P. 71. 

FN15  SEE REPORT OF THE POSTAL COMMISSION OF 1906, H. DOC. 608, 59TH
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. XXXVI-XXXVII: 

"BUT IN WHAT WAY CAN IT BE SAID THAT A REQUIREMENT THAT A CERTAIN
PRINTED MATTER SHOULD BE 'DEVOTED TO LITERATURE' SERVES TO MARK IT OFF
FROM ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE PUT INTO PRINT.  THERE IS PRACTICALLY NO
FORM OF EXPRESSION OF THE HUMAN MIND THAT CAN NOT BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF 'PUBLIC INFORMATION,' 'LITERATURE, THE SCIENCES, ART, OR SOME
SPECIAL INDUSTRY.'  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS EFFECTIVE AND JUST AS
REASONABLE FOR THE STATUTE TO HAVE SAID, 'DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS OF
HUMANITY,' OR 'DEVOTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION,' OR 'DEVOTED
TO HUMAN INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY.' 

"THE PRIME DEFECT IN THE STATUTE IS, THEN, THAT IT DEFINES NOT BY
QUALITIES BUT BY PURPOSES, AND THE PURPOSE DESCRIBED IS SO BROAD AS TO
INCLUDE EVERYTHING AND EXCLUDE NOTHING. 

"WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW INSTANCES WHERE THE PUBLICATION HAS BEEN
EXCLUDED BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WAS DEEMED NOT TO BE PUBLIC, NO
PERIODICAL HAS EVER BEEN CLASSIFIED BY THE APPLICATION OF TESTS OF THIS
KIND.  ANY ATTEMPT TO APPLY THEM GENERALLY WOULD SIMPLY END IN A PRESS
CENSORSHIP." 

FN16  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE FOURTH CONDITION BARS ADMISSION TO SECOND
CLASS PRIVILEGES OF PUBLICATIONS "DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR ADVERTISING
PURPOSES, OR FOR FREE CIRCULATION, OR FOR CIRCULATION AT NOMINAL
RATES."  PUBLICATIONS OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE WERE NOT
GRANTED THE SPECIAL RATE UNTIL THE ACT OF JUNE 6, 1900, 31 STAT. 660,
39 U.S.C. SEC. 230.  AND THAT WAS NOT DONE FOR PUBLICATIONS OF
BENEVOLENT AND FRATERNAL SOCIETIES, OF INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING, TRADE
UNIONS, STRICTLY PROFESSIONAL, LITERARY, HISTORICAL AND SCIENTIFIC
SOCIETIES UNTIL THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912, 37 STAT. 550, 39 U.S.C.
SEC. 229. 

FN17  SEE DEUTSCH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND OF THE MAILS, 36 MICH. L.
REV. 703, 715-727. 

FN18  WHEN CONGRESS HAS BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE CONTENT OF MATTER
PASSING THROUGH THE MAILS, IT HAS ENACTED CRIMINAL STATUTES MAKING, FOR
EXAMPLE, OBSCENE MATERIAL (35 STAT. 1129, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 334),
FRAUDULENT MATERIAL (35 STAT. 1130, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 338), AND SEDITIOUS
LITERATURE (40 STAT. 230, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 344) NONMAILABLE IN ANY
CLASS.  AND IT HAS GRANTED THE POSTMASTER GENERAL POWER TO REFUSE TO
DELIVER MAIL FOR ANY PERSON WHOM HE FINDS TO BE USING THE MAILS IN
CONDUCTING LOTTERIES OR FRAUDULENT SCHEMES.  REV. STAT. 3929, 39 U.S.C.
SEC. 259. 

BUT THAT POWER HAS BEEN ZEALOUSLY WATCHED AND STRICTLY CONFINED. 
SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, S. DOC. 118, 24TH CONG., 1ST SESS., REPORTING
ADVERSELY ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF PRESIDENT JACKSON THAT A LAW BE
PASSED PROHIBITING THE USE OF THE MAILS FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF
PUBLICATIONS INTENDED TO INSTIGATE THE SLAVES TO INSURRECTION.  IT WAS
SAID, P. 3: 

"BUT TO UNDERSTAND MORE FULLY THE EXTENT OF THE CONTROL WHICH THE
RIGHT OF PROHIBITING CIRCULATION THROUGH THE MAIL WOULD GIVE TO THE
GOVERNMENT OVER THE PRESS, IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND, THAT THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER THE POST OFFICE AND THE MAIL IS AN EXCLUSIVE POWER.  IT
MUST ALSO BE REMEMBERED THAT CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER,
MAY DECLARE ANY ROAD OR NAVIGABLE WATER TO BE A POST ROAD; AND THAT, BY
THE ACT OF 1825, IT IS PROVIDED 'THAT NO STAGE, OR OTHER VEHICLE WHICH
REGULARLY PERFORMS TRIPS ON A POST ROAD, OR ON A ROAD PARALLEL TO IT,
SHALL CARRY LETTERS.'  THE SAME PROVISION EXTENDS TO PACKETS, BOATS, OR
OTHER VESSELS, ON NAVIGABLE WATERS.  LIKE PROVISION MAY BE EXTENDED TO
NEWSPAPERS AND PAMPHLETS; WHICH, IF IT BE ADMITTED THAT CONGRESS HAS
THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE IN REFERENCE TO THEIR CHARACTER, WHAT PAPERS
SHALL OR WHAT SHALL NOT BE TRANSMITTED BY THE MAIL, WOULD SUBJECT THE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, ON ALL SUBJECTS, POLITICAL, MORAL, AND RELIGIOUS,
COMPLETELY TO ITS WILL AND PLEASURE.  IT WOULD, IN FACT, IN SOME
RESPECTS, MORE EFFECTUALLY CONTROL THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS THAN ANY
SEDITION LAW, HOWEVER SEVERE ITS PENALTIES.  THE MANDATE OF THE
GOVERNMENT ALONE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO CLOSE THE DOOR AGAINST
CIRCULATION THROUGH THE MAIL, AND THUS, AT ITS SOLE WILL AND PLEASURE,
MIGHT INTERCEPT ALL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PRESS AND THE PEOPLE
..." 

FN19  "THE FOOLISH JUDGMENTS OF LORD ELDON ABOUT ONE HUNDRED YEARS
AGO, PROSCRIBING THE WORKS OF BYRON AND SOUTHEY, AND THE FINDING BY THE
JURY UNDER A CHARGE BY LORD DENMAN THAT THE PUBLICATION OF SHELLEY'S
'QUEEN MAB' WAS AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE ARE A WARNING TO ALL WHO HAVE TO
DETERMINE THE LIMITS OF THE FIELD WITHIN WHICH AUTHORS MAY EXERCISE
THEMSELVES."  UNITED STATES V. ONE BOOK ENTITLED ULYSSES, 72 F.2D 705,
708. 

FN20  IN THE PRESENT CASE PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR SAID IN HIS
REPORT: 

"WHEN THE POLLS OF PUBLIC OPINION SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLICATION ARE
EXAMINED, IT IS FOUND THAT THESE PICTURES WERE CHARACTERIZED AS OBSCENE
OR INDECENT BY 19 TO 22% OF THE PERSONS INTERVIEWED, AND THAT 20 TO 26%
OF THE PERSONS POLLED WOULD OBJECT TO HAVING THEM IN THEIR HOMES." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE CASE LIES WITHIN VERY NARROW CONFINES.  THE PUBLICATION UNDER
SCRUTINY IS A PERIODICAL.  IT IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO THE SPECIAL
RATES ACCORDED BY CONGRESS PROVIDED IT IS PUBLISHED "FOR THE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION OF A PUBLIC CHARACTER, OR DEVOTED TO
LITERATURE, THE SCIENCES, ARTS ..."  IF IT BE DEVOTED TO "LITERATURE"
IT BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER HOW SMALL AN INFUSION OF
"INFORMATION OF A PUBLIC CHARACTER" ENTITLES A PERIODICAL TO THE SECOND
CLASS MAIL RATES WHEN THE BULK OF ITS CONTENTS WOULD NOT OTHERWISE
SATISFY THE CONGRESSIONAL CONDITIONS. 

CONGRESS HAS NEITHER DEFINED ITS CONCEPTION OF "LITERATURE" NOR HAS
IT AUTHORIZED THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO DO SO.  BUT IT HAS PLACED A
LIMITATION UPON WHAT IS TO BE DEEMED "LITERATURE" FOR A PRIVILEGE WHICH
THE COURT RIGHTLY CALLS A FORM OF SUBSIDY.  MATTERS THAT ARE DECLARED
NONMAILABLE (CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 211; 35 STAT. 1129, 36 STAT. 1339; 18
U.S.C. SEC. 334) ARE OF COURSE NOT "LITERATURE" WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
SECOND-CLASS PRIVILEGE.  BUT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL DOES NOT CONTEND
THAT THE PERIODICAL WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED WAS NONMAILABLE.  HE
MERELY CONTENDS THAT IT WAS NOT DEVOTED TO THE KIND OF "LITERATURE" OR
"ART" WHICH MAY CLAIM THE SUBSIDY OF SECOND-CLASS MATTER.  BUT SINCE
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO ALLOW "LITERATURE" CONVEYED BY PERIODICALS TO
HAVE THE SECOND-CLASS PRIVILEGE WITHOUT MAKING ANY ALLOWABLE
CLASSIFICATION OF "LITERATURE," EXCEPT ONLY THAT NONMAILABLE MATTER AS
DEFINED BY SEC. 211 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE IS EXCLUDED, THE AREA OF
"LITERATURE, THE SCIENCES, ARTS" INCLUDES ALL COMPOSITION OF WORDS,
PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION, OR NOTATIONS THAT ARE INTELLIGIBLE TO ANY
PORTION OF THE POPULATION, NO MATTER WHETHER THEIR APPEAL IS EXTENSIVE
OR ESOTERIC.  SINCE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL DISAVOWS THE NONMAILABILITY
OF THE ISSUES OF THE PERIODICAL HE HAD BEFORE HIM AND SINCE CONGRESS
DID NOT QUALIFY "LITERATURE, THE SCIENCES, ARTS" BY ANY STANDARDS OF
TASTE OR EDIFICATION OR PUBLIC ELEVATION, THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
EXCEEDED HIS POWERS IN DENYING THIS PERIODICAL A SECOND-CLASS PERMIT. 
IT SEEMS TO ME IMPORTANT STRICTLY TO CONFINE DISCUSSION IN THIS CASE
BECAUSE ITS RADIATIONS TOUCH, ON THE ONE HAND, THE VERY BASIS OF A FREE
SOCIETY, THAT OF THE RIGHT OF EXPRESSION BEYOND THE CONVENTIONS OF THE
DAY, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FREEDOM OF SOCIETY FROM CONSTITUTIONAL
COMPULSION TO SUBSIDIZE ENTERPRISE, WHETHER IN THE WORLD OF MATTER OR
OF MIND.  WHILE ONE MAY ENTIRELY AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, IN
LEACH V. CARLILE, 258 U.S. 138, 140, AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
FIRST AMENDMENT FORBIDS CONTROL OF THE POST SO FAR AS SEALED LETTERS
ARE CONCERNED, ONE CONFRONTS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SET OF QUESTIONS IN
CONSIDERING THE BASIS ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY GRANT OR WITHHOLD
SUBSIDIES THROUGH LOW POSTAL RATES, AND HUGE SUBSIDIES, IF ONE IS TO
JUDGE BY THE GLIMPSE AFFORDED BY THE PRESENT CASE.  IT WILL BE TIME
ENOUGH TO CONSIDER SUCH QUESTIONS WHEN THE COURT CANNOT ESCAPE DECISION
UPON THEM. 
..END :





MEYER V. FLEMING, 327 U.S. 161 


NO. 392.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1946.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  - 149
F.2D 529, REVERSED. 


1.  PETITIONER, OWNER OF A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SHARES OF STOCK IN A
CORPORATION, FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION A CLAIM (IN THE NATURE
OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT) AGAINST A DEBTOR IN REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  SUBSEQUENTLY A PETITION OF THE
CORPORATION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 WAS FILED AND APPROVED,
AND A TRUSTEE WAS APPOINTED.  HELD: 

(A)  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD ALLOW THE CLAIM TO BE AMENDED BY
JOINING THE CORPORATION OR ITS TRUSTEE.  P. 172. 

(B)  IF PROSECUTION OF THE CLAIM WILL BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION OF THE CORPORATION OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF ITS
AFFAIRS, THE CLAIM SHOULD BE DISALLOWED; IF NOT, THEN THE CLAIM SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS.  P. 172. 

2.  THE "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" GRANTED THE REORGANIZATION COURT BY
SEC. 77(A) IS THAT WHICH BANKRUPTCY COURTS HAVE CUSTOMARILY POSSESSED;
AND THE TITLE AND POWERS OF THE TRUSTEE ARE BY SEC. 77(C)(2)
ASSIMILATED TO THOSE OF TRUSTEES IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. 
P. 164. 

3.  SO FAR AS ENFORCEMENT OF CLAIMS IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO
INDICATION THAT CONGRESS ADOPTED A DIFFERENT RULE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SEC. 77 THAN HAD LONG OBTAINED IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  P.
164. 

4.  LITIGATION COMMENCED BY OR ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATION MAY NOT BE
DEFEATED BY SUPERVENING PROCEEDINGS FOR REORGANIZATION OF THE
CORPORATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 165. 

5. THE TRUSTEE, BEING IN A POSITION TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE LITIGATION
BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS BECOME A PART OF THE
ESTATE, SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE CHOICE - OF PERMITTING
THE SUIT TO CONTINUE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE; OF INTERVENING IN IT; OF
STARTING A NEW SUIT; OR OF CAUSING THE SUIT TO BE ABATED - WHICH IS
MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE ESTATE.  P. 167. 

6.  SINCE THE CLAIM IN THIS CASE WAS FILED BEFORE THE PETITION OF THE
CORPORATION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 WAS APPROVED, THAT EVENT
SHOULD HAVE NO DIFFERENT EFFECT ON THE CLAIM THAN IT WOULD HAVE HAD ON
A SUIT WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY INSTITUTED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE
CORPORATION.  P. 169. 

7.  WHERE A CLAIM ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATION IS FILED IN A
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING, THE NECESSARY AND PROPER PROCEDURE IS FOR
THE REORGANIZATION COURT TO SUMMON IN THE CORPORATION OR ITS TRUSTEE,
SO THAT ALL PARTIES WILL BE BOUND BY ANY ORDER WHICH IS ENTERED ON THE
MERITS.  P. 170. 

8.  CONTINUATION OF THE PROSECUTION OF THE CLAIM BY THE PETITIONER
MIGHT BE WHOLLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISPOSITION OF THE CLAIM BY THE
REORGANIZATION COURT OR WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE.  PP.
171, 172. 

MEYER V. FLEMING ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, A
CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER WAS DISALLOWED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 529.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  326 U.S.
707.  REVERSED AND REMANDED, P. 172. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER IS THE OWNER OF A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SHARES OF STOCK OF
THE ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.  IN APRIL 1934 HE FILED A
CLAIM FOR THE BENEFIT OF ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN IN THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN INSTITUTED UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (49 STAT. 911, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205) FOR THE
REORGANIZATION OF THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. THE
CLAIM FILED WAS A CLAIM FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN ALLEGEDLY HAD AGAINST THE ROCK ISLAND.  IT AMOUNTED TO
MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND AROSE OUT OF AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
THE ROCK ISLAND AND OTHERS TO CONTROL THE ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN TO
THEIR OWN INTEREST, IN BREACH OF THEIR FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP TO ST.
LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  IT WAS
STATED IN THE CLAIM THAT A DEMAND ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ST.
LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN TO FILE THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE
FUTILE, THE DOMINANT STOCKHOLDER AND THE DIRECTORS OF ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN BEING PARTIES TO THE CONSPIRACY.  IN MAY 1935 THE TRUSTEES
OF ROCK ISLAND OBJECTED TO THE CLAIM BY GENERAL DENIAL.  IN DECEMBER
1935 - ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AFTER THE CLAIM HAD BEEN FILED - ST.
LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN FILED A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE PETITION WAS APPROVED AND A
TRUSTEE WAS APPOINTED.  THEREUPON THE TRUSTEES OF ROCK ISLAND FURTHER
OBJECTED TO THE CLAIM FILED BY PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT ALL CAUSES
OF ACTION BELONGING TO ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN HAD BECOME VESTED IN ITS
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE AND COULD NO LONGER BE ASSERTED IN THE ROCK ISLAND
PROCEEDING BY PETITIONER.  THE CLAIM WAS REFERRED TO A SPECIAL MASTER
WHO, IN FEBRUARY 1942, FILED HIS REPORT, CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROSECUTE THE CLAIM.  TWO YEARS LATER THE
DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND DISALLOWED THE
CLAIM.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D
529.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE THE PROBLEM PRESENTED IS AN IMPORTANT ONE IN BANKRUPTCY
LAW. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT A STOCKHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE
SUIT COMMENCED BEFORE THE CORPORATION'S PETITION UNDER SEC. 77 HAD BEEN
APPROVED COULD NOT BE CONTINUED THEREAFTER WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
REORGANIZATION COURT.  IT RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77 WHICH
GAVE THE REORGANIZING COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND
ITS PROPERTY  FN1  AND WHICH GIVE A TRUSTEE APPOINTED IN THOSE
PROCEEDINGS THE TITLE AND POWERS OF OTHER BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES.  FN2 BUT
THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION GRANTED THE REORGANIZATION COURT BY SEC.
77(A) IS THAT WHICH BANKRUPTCY COURTS HAVE CUSTOMARILY POSSESSED.  FN3
AND THE TITLE AND POWERS OF THE TRUSTEE ARE BY SEC. 77(C)(2)
ASSIMILATED TO THOSE OF TRUSTEES IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. 
CERTAINLY, SO FAR AS THE ENFORCEMENT OF CLAIMS IS CONCERNED, THERE IS
NO INDICATION THAT CONGRESS ADOPTED A DIFFERENT RULE IN PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 77 THAN HAD LONG OBTAINED IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS.  YET, IF THE VIEW OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WERE
FOLLOWED, ANY SUIT WHICH HAD BEEN BROUGHT BY THE CORPORATION BEFORE ITS
PETITION UNDER SEC. 77 HAD BEEN APPROVED WOULD BE DEFEATED WHEN THAT
EVENT HAPPENED.  THAT IS NOT THE RULE IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS.  AND IT WOULD BE A RADICAL CHANGE IN THE LAW TO WRITE THAT
RULE INTO SEC. 77. 

LITIGATION INSTITUTED BY A CREDITOR MAY NOT BE DEFEATED MERELY BY
REASON OF THE FACT THAT HE HAS BECOME A BANKRUPT.  THATCHER V.
ROCKWELL, 105 U.S. 467, 469-470.  TITLE TO THE CLAIM VESTS, OF COURSE,
IN THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE.  FN4  HE IS IN POSITION TO TAKE CONTROL OF
THE LITIGATION.  HE MAY, AS INDICATED IN JOHNSON V. COLLIER, 222 U.S.
538, 540, START A NEW SUIT  FN5  AND CAUSE THE OLD ONE TO BE ABATED, OR
INTERVENE IN THE OLD ONE  FN6  AND OBTAIN SUCH BENEFITS AS IT AFFORDS. 
FN7  THE CHOICE MAY INDEED BE A VALUABLE ONE.  RIGHTS MIGHT BE LOST IF
THE EARLIER SUIT WERE ABATED.  AND THE SPECULATIVE NATURE OF THE
LITIGATION OR THE EXPENSE INVOLVED MIGHT INDICATE TO THE TRUSTEE THAT
IT WAS MORE PROVIDENT FOR HIM NOT TO INTERVENE IN THE EXISTING SUIT,
NOR TO INSTITUTE A NEW ONE, BUT TO LET THE ONE WHICH HAD BEEN STARTED
RUN ITS COURSE.  FN8  AS STATED IN JOHNSON V. COLLIER, SUPRA, P. 540, 

"IF, BECAUSE OF THE DISPROPORTIONATE EXPENSE, OR UNCERTAINTY AS TO
THE RESULT, THE TRUSTEE NEITHER SUES NOR INTERVENES, THERE IS NO REASON
WHY THE BANKRUPT HIMSELF SHOULD NOT CONTINUE THE LITIGATION.  HE HAS AN
INTEREST IN MAKING THE DIVIDEND FOR CREDITORS AS LARGE AS POSSIBLE, AND
IN SOME STATES THE MORE DIRECT INTEREST OF CREATING A FUND WHICH MAY BE
SET APART TO HIM AS AN EXEMPTION.  IF THE TRUSTEE WILL NOT SUE AND THE
BANKRUPT CANNOT SUE, IT MIGHT RESULT IN THE BANKRUPT'S DEBTOR BEING
DISCHARGED OF AN ACTUAL LIABILITY.  THE STATUTE INDICATES NO SUCH
PURPOSE, AND IF MONEY OR PROPERTY IS FINALLY RECOVERED, IT WILL BE FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE.  NOR IS THERE ANY MERIT IN THE SUGGESTION
THAT THIS MIGHT INVOLVE A LIABILITY TO PAY BOTH THE BANKRUPT AND THE
TRUSTEE.  THE DEFENDANT IN ANY SUCH SUIT CAN, BY ORDER OF THE BANKRUPT
COURT, BE AMPLY PROTECTED AGAINST ANY DANGER OF BEING MADE TO PAY
TWICE."  FN9  THE SAME RULE OBTAINS IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS.  FN10 

WE SEE NO REASON WHY THERE SHOULD BE A DIFFERENT RULE IN THE CASE OF
STOCKHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE SUITS.  THEY ARE LIKEWISE SUITS TO ENFORCE A
CORPORATE CLAIM.  THEY ARE ONE OF THE REMEDIES WHICH EQUITY DESIGNED
FOR THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE MANAGEMENT THROUGH FRAUD, NEGLECT OF
DUTY OR OTHER CAUSE DECLINES TO TAKE THE PROPER AND NECESSARY STEPS TO
ASSERT THE RIGHTS WHICH THE CORPORATION HAS.  FN11  THE STOCKHOLDERS
ARE THEN ALLOWED TO TAKE THE INITIATIVE AND INSTITUTE THE SUIT WHICH
THE MANAGEMENT SHOULD HAVE STARTED HAD IT PERFORMED ITS DUTY.  THE
CORPORATION IS A NECESSARY PARTY.  DAVENPORT V. DOWS, 18 WALL.  626. 
HENCE, IT IS JOINED AS A DEFENDANT.  BUT IT IS ONLY NOMINALLY A
DEFENDANT, SINCE ANY JUDGMENT OBTAINED AGAINST THE REAL DEFENDANT RUNS
IN ITS FAVOR.  THE REASONS OF POLICY FOR HOLDING THAT ORDINARY SUITS TO
ENFORCE A CORPORATE CLAIM ARE NOT ABATED WHEN THE CORPORATION IS
ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT OR WHEN A RECEIVER IS APPOINTED ARE EQUALLY
APPLICABLE HERE.  THE CLAIM SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED IN A DERIVATIVE SUIT
MAY BE AN IMPORTANT ASSET OF THE ESTATE.  IT MIGHT BE LOST TO THE
ESTATE THROUGH THE OPERATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, IF THE TRUSTEE
OR RECEIVER WERE REQUIRED TO START ANEW.  AS IN CASE OF ORDINARY SUITS
TO ENFORCE CORPORATE CLAIMS, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED A CHOICE TO LET THE
SUIT CONTINUE UNDER THE STOCKHOLDERS' AUSPICES; FN12  TO INTERVENE IN
IT; FN13  TO START A NEW SUIT; OR, IN CASE HE DEEMS IT MORE PROVIDENT
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE ESTATE TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM
OR TO RESERVE IT FOR THE REORGANIZED COMPANY, TO CAUSE IT TO BE
ABATED.  FN14  HE MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT THE MORE PROVIDENT COURSE WAS TO
LET THE SUIT CONTINUE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE.  FN15  THAT DECISION MIGHT
BE DICTATED BY THE SPECULATIVE NATURE OF THE SUIT AND THE EXPENSE
INVOLVED, AS JOHNSON V. COLLIER, SUPRA, INDICATES.  IF THE TRUSTEE WILL
NOT SUE AND THE STOCKHOLDER CANNOT CONTINUE WITH THE LITIGATION, WHAT
MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE A VALUABLE CLAIM MIGHT BE LOST TO THE ESTATE, NOT
ONLY THROUGH THE OPERATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, BUT IN CASES
LIKE THE PRESENT THROUGH A DISCHARGE OF THE DEBTOR.  FN16  THE POINT IS
THAT THE TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER, BEING IN A POSITION TO TAKE CONTROL OF
THE LITIGATION BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS
BECOME A PART OF THE ESTATE, SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE
CHOICE WHICH IS MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE ESTATE.  CF. THOMPSON V.
MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478, 483.  THE FACT THAT THE
CORPORATION IS NOMINALLY A DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT LEAD TO ANY DIFFERENT
RESULT.  FN17  THAT GIVES THE SUIT ONLY A DIFFERENCE IN FORM, NOT A
DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE. 

WE HAVE IN THE PRESENT CASE NOT A STOCKHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE SUIT FILED
BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY OF HIS CORPORATION, BUT A CLAIM FILED IN THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS OF THE ALLEGED DEBTOR (ROCK ISLAND) BY A
STOCKHOLDER ON BEHALF OF HIS CORPORATION, ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN.  IF
THE CLAIM WERE TO BE FILED AFTER THE PETITION FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN HAD BEEN APPROVED, IT COULD BE DONE ONLY WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  FOR IT HAS EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE HOW CAUSES OF ACTION WHICH HAVE BECOME A PART OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ESTATE SHALL BE ENFORCED.  SEE PORTER V. SABIN, 149 U.S.
473; KLEIN V. PETER, 284 F. 797.  BUT SINCE THE CLAIM WAS FILED BEFORE
THE PETITION OF ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN UNDER SEC. 77 HAD BEEN APPROVED,
NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY THAT EVENT SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT EFFECT ON
THE CLAIM THAN IT WOULD HAVE HAD ON A SUIT WHICH HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY
INSTITUTED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION.  INDEED, THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE EMPHASIZE THE REASON FOR GIVING THE TRUSTEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CHOOSE WHAT COURSE TO TAKE.  THE CLAIM WAS FILED IN APRIL 1934, A YEAR
AND A HALF PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN THE PETITION OF ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN UNDER SEC. 77 HAD BEEN APPROVED.  WE ARE TOLD THAT THE
TIME FOR FILING OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE ROCK ISLAND EXPIRED OVER ELEVEN
YEARS AGO.  IF THE CLAIM WERE NOW DISALLOWED, THE TRUSTEE OF ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN, IF HE DESIRED TO ASSERT IT, WOULD BE FACED WITH THE TASK
OF OBTAINING LEAVE TO FILE OUT OF TIME.  FN18  THERE IS, THEREFORE, THE
SAME REASON FOR ALLOWING THE ESTATE TO OBTAIN THE BENEFITS OF THE CLAIM
WHICH HAS BEEN FILED, AS THERE WOULD BE FOR ALLOWING THE TRUSTEE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE OVER A STOCKHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE SUIT PREVIOUSLY
INSTITUTED. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED BECAUSE
THE CORPORATION ON WHOSE BEHALF THE CLAIM WAS FILED WAS NOT BEFORE THE
COURT.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE CORPORATION IS A NECESSARY PARTY IN A
STOCKHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE SUIT.  DAVENPORT V. DOWS, SUPRA.  IT CAN BE
JOINED AS A PARTY AND BROUGHT IN BY SUMMONS IN THE USUAL WAY.  BUT THE
FILING OF A CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY IS NOT THE INSTITUTION OF A PLENARY
SUIT.  IT IS A CLAIM AGAINST ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT, NOT AN ACTION IN PERSONAM.  THE ABSENCE OF THE CORPORATION IS A
PROPER BASIS FOR AN OBJECTION TO THE CLAIM.  BUT THERE IS NO WAY
AVAILABLE TO THE STOCKHOLDER TO JOIN IT IN THE CLAIM OTHER THAN BY
MOVING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO BRING IT IN.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS
THAT POWER.  FN19  THE OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENT CLAIM, HOWEVER, WERE
NOT BASED ON THE ABSENCE BEFORE THE COURT OF ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN OR
ITS TRUSTEE.  FN20  BUT WHETHER SUCH AN OBJECTION WAS MADE OR NOT, THE
PROPER AND NECESSARY PROCEDURE FOR THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS TO SUMMON IN
THE CORPORATION OR ITS TRUSTEE SO THAT ALL PARTIES WILL BE BOUND BY ANY
ORDER WHICH IS ENTERED ON THE MERITS.  FN21 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT BY REASON OF EVENTS WHICH HAVE TRANSPIRED
SINCE ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN FILED ITS PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION
UNDER SEC. 77, THE CLAIM WHICH MEYER FILED IN THE ROCK ISLAND
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED.  IN THE FIRST
PLACE, IT APPEARS THAT A REORGANIZATION PLAN FOR THE ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  IN RE ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN R. CO., 53 F.SUPP.  914.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, IN PREPARING THE PLAN, INVESTIGATED MEYER'S CHARGES AND
CONCLUDED THAT THEY HAD NO SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT.  ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN
R. CO. REORGANIZATION, 249 I.C.C. 5, 46-149; 252 I.C.C. 325, 330-337. 
IT REFUSED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION BE RESERVED IN THE
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  252 I.C.C., PP. 334-335.  THE DISTRICT COURT
CONCURRED IN THAT RECOMMENDATION (53 F.SUPP., P. 925), SAYING THAT THE
TRUSTEE HAD INVESTIGATED THE CHARGES, FOUND NO BASIS FOR INSTITUTING
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN, AND THAT THERE
WAS NO CHARGE THAT THE TRUSTEE HAD ACTED IN BAD FAITH OR HAD SHOWN A
LACK OF DILIGENCE.  53 F.SUPP.  926.  MOREOVER, WE WERE ADVISED ON ORAL
ARGUMENT, ALTHOUGH THE MATTER DOES NOT APPEAR OF RECORD, THAT A MOTION
OF MEYER IN THE ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN PROCEEDINGS FOR AN ORDER
DIRECTED TO THE TRUSTEE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MEYER SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED
TO PROSECUTE THE CLAIM FILED BY HIM IN THE ROCK ISLAND PROCEEDINGS WAS
DENIED IN FEBRUARY 1944.  THE GROUNDS OF THIS DENIAL DO NOT APPEAR.  WE
CAN INFER, ON THE BASIS OF THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMING
THE PLAN, THAT THE MOTION WAS DENIED BECAUSE THE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW
THAT THE CLAIM HAD NO SUBSTANCE.  BUT A DECISION OF THE COURT NOT TO
DIRECT OR AUTHORIZE ITS TRUSTEE TO UNDERTAKE THE PROSECUTION OF A CLAIM
IS ONE THING; THE PROBLEM PRESENTED HERE IS QUITE A DIFFERENT ONE. 
WHILE THE COURT MIGHT NOT DEEM IT PROVIDENT TO HAVE THE ESTATE ASSUME
THAT BURDEN, THE CONTINUATION OF THE PROSECUTION OF THE CLAIM BY MEYER
MIGHT BE WHOLLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE DISPOSITION OF THE CLAIM BY THE
REORGANIZATION COURT OR WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE.  IT IS
NOT APPARENT IN THIS CASE THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY SUCH INCONSISTENCY IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PLAN MAKES NO PROVISION FOR THE CLAIM.  AS
STATED IN JOHNSON V. COLLIER, SUPRA, P. 540, "IF THE TRUSTEE WILL NOT
SUE AND THE BANKRUPT CANNOT SUE, IT MIGHT RESULT IN THE BANKRUPT'S
DEBTOR BEING DISCHARGED OF AN ACTUAL LIABILITY."    THE ORDER
DISALLOWING THE CLAIM WILL BE REVERSED.  ON REMAND OF THE CAUSE THE
DISTRICT COURT WILL ALLOW THE CLAIM TO BE AMENDED BY JOINING ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN OR ITS TRUSTEE.  IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONTINUED
PROSECUTION OF THE CLAIM WILL BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION OF ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF ITS
AFFAIRS, THE CLAIM SHOULD BE DISALLOWED.  IF IT IS NOT SO ESTABLISHED,
THE CLAIM SHOULD THEN BE CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEC. 77(A) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"IF THE PETITION IS SO APPROVED, THE COURT IN WHICH SUCH ORDER IS
ENTERED SHALL, DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS
THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED, AND SHALL HAVE AND MAY
EXERCISE IN ADDITION TO THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS SECTION ALL THE
POWERS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SECTION, WHICH A FEDERAL COURT WOULD
HAVE HAD IF IT HAD APPOINTED A RECEIVER IN EQUITY OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE DEBTOR FOR ANY PURPOSE.  PROCESS OF THE COURT SHALL EXTEND TO AND
BE VALID WHEN SERVED IN ANY JUDICIAL DISTRICT." 

SEC. 77(L) PROVIDES: 

"IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF, THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE COURT, THE DUTIES OF THE
DEBTOR AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY, SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A
VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF
ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE DEBTOR'S PETITION WAS
FILED." 

FN2  SEC. 77(C)(2) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES SO APPOINTED, UPON FILING SUCH BOND, SHALL
HAVE ALL THE TITLE AND SHALL EXERCISE, SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE
JUDGE AND CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, ALL OF THE
POWERS OF A TRUSTEE APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 44 OF THIS ACT OR ANY
OTHER SECTION OF THIS ACT, AND, TO THE EXTENT NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS SECTION, IF AUTHORIZED BY THE JUDGE, THE POWERS OF A RECEIVER IN
AN EQUITY PROCEEDING  ..." 

FN3  ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE CO., 282 U.S. 734, 737-738; EX PARTE BALDWIN,
291 U.S. 610, 615; CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I.
& P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 648, 682-684; THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO.,
309 U.S. 478, 483.  AND SEE THOMPSON V. TERMINAL SHARES, 104 F.2D 1. 
CF. IN RE STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 119 F.2D 658, 661, ARISING UNDER
SEC. 77B. 

FN4  SEC. 70 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 52 STAT. 879, 11 U.S.C. SEC.
110.  THE SAME IS TRUE UNDER SEC. 77 BY REASON OF THE PROVISION IN SEC.
77(C)(2), SUPRA NOTE 2. 

FN5  SEC. 11(E) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 29(E),
AUTHORIZES A RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE, WITHIN TWO YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE
ADJUDICATION OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER PERIOD OF TIME AS FEDERAL OR STATE
LAW PERMITS, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN BEHALF OF THE ESTATE UPON ANY
CLAIM AGAINST WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD NOT EXPIRED AT THE
TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY. 

THIS PROVISION IS APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 BY REASON
OF SEC. 77(1), SET FORTH IN SUPRA NOTE 1. 

FN6  SEC. 11(C) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 52 STAT. 849, 11 U.S.C. SEC.
29(C), PROVIDES THAT "A RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE MAY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF
THE COURT, BE PERMITTED TO PROSECUTE AS RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE ANY SUIT
COMMENCED BY THE BANKRUPT PRIOR TO THE ADJUDICATION, WITH LIKE FORCE
AND EFFECT AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN COMMENCED BY HIM."  THIS PROVISION IS
LIKEWISE APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77(1), SUPRA NOTE 1. 

FN7  AND SEE DANCIGER V. SMITH, 276 U.S. 542; BLUEGRASS CANNING CO.
V. STEWARD, 175 F. 537, 543-544; PARADISE V. VOGTLANDISCHE
MASCHINENFABRIK, 99 F.2D 53, 55; BENNETT V. ASSOCIATED THEATERS, 247
MICH. 493, 496, 226 N.W. 239; GRIFFIN V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 119 GA.
664, 46 S.E. 870. 

FN8  IF THE SUIT IS CONTINUED BY THE BANKRUPT, THE TRUSTEE IS
CONCLUDED BY THE JUDGMENT.  EYSTER V. GAFF, 91 U.S. 521, 524-525;
PARADISE V. VOGTLANDISCHE MASCHINEN-FABRIK, SUPRA NOTE 7, P. 55. 

FN9 AS STATED IN VAN DER STEGEN V. NEUSS, HESSLEIN & CO., 270 N.Y.
55, 59-60, 200 N.E. 577: 

"AGAIN, THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY IS NOT OBLIGED TO MAINTAIN OR
CONTINUE EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH THE BANKRUPT MAY HAVE.  HE IS NOT
BOUND TO ACCEPT BURDENSOME PROPERTY NOR UNPROFITABLE CONTRACTS
(ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. HURLEY, 153 FED. REP. 503; AFFD., 213
U.S. 126), NOR IS HE OBLIGED TO INTERVENE IN ANY ACTION PENDING BY OR
AGAINST THE BANKRUPT.  (KESSLER V. HERKLOTZ, 132 APP. DIV. 278; FLEMING
V. COURTENAY, 98 ME. 401.)  IF A TRUSTEE DOES NOT TAKE UP THE
PROSECUTION OF A SUIT THE DEFENDANT IS NOT RELEASED EVEN WHERE THE
RIGHT OF ACTION IS ONE THAT MIGHT HAVE PASSED TO THE TRUSTEE.  THE
BANKRUPT MAY CONTINUE THE PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION.  (GRIFFIN V.
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 119 GA. 664.)  THE RELATIONSHIP, THEREFORE,
BETWEEN THE BANKRUPT AND HIS TRUSTEE IS FOR ONE AND THE SAME PURPOSE -
TO GET OUT OF THE BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY AND CLAIMS ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY
HIS DEBTS AND TO RELIEVE THE BANKRUPT, THROUGH HIS DISCHARGE, FROM
FURTHER RESPONSIBILITY." 

FN10  SEE MISSOURI, K. & T. TRUST CO. V. GERMAN NATIONAL BANK, 77 F.
117, 122-123; BOSTON ELEVATED R. CO. V. PAUL BOYNTON CO., 211 F. 812,
822-823; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. FEDERAL BOND & MORTGAGE
CO., 59 F.2D 950, 956.  SEE 1 CLARK ON RECEIVERS (2D ED., 1929) SECS.
614, 615. 

FN11  GLENN, THE STOCKHOLDER'S SUIT, 33 YALE L. JOURN.  580. 

FN12  CF. AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 231
F. 1003; SEAGRIST V. REID, 171 APP. DIV. 755, 759, 157 N.Y.S. 979.  AND
SEE 4 COOK ON CORPORATIONS (8TH ED., 1923) SEC. 748. 

FN13  MEYER V. PAGE, 112 APP. DIV. 625, 627, 98 N.Y.S. 739; FLOYD V.
LAYTON, 172 N.C. 64, 89 S.E. 998. 

FN14  MOREOVER, THE STOCKHOLDER'S SUIT MIGHT SO INTIMATELY AFFECT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE AS TO REQUIRE
THAT IT BE CONTINUED ONLY UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE TRUSTEE OR
RECEIVER.  SEE ADLER V. SEAMAN, 266 F. 828, 835-837; SEAMAN V.
MCCULLOCH, 8 F.2D 820, 825-826. 

FN15  IN RE NATIONAL REPUBLIC CO., 109 F.2D 167, 171; MCANARNEY V.
LEMBECK, 97 N.J. EQ. 361, 127 A. 197. 

FN16  SEC. 77(F) PROVIDES FOR THE DISCHARGE OF THE DEBTOR "FROM ITS
DEBTS AND LIABILITIES, EXCEPT SUCH AS MAY CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN BE RESERVED  ..." 

FN17  BUT SEE COYLE V. SKIRVIN, 124 F.2D 934, 937-938(RECEIVERSHIP). 
THE PROVISION IN SEC. 77(J) EMPOWERING THE COURT TO "ENJOIN OR STAY THE
COMMENCEMENT OR CONTINUATION OF SUITS AGAINST THE DEBTOR UNTIL AFTER
FINAL DECREE" OBVIOUSLY RELATES TO SUITS WHERE CLAIMS ARE ASSERTED
AGAINST THE DEBTOR, NOT WHERE THE DEBTOR IS MADE A NOMINAL DEFENDANT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR. 

FN18  SEC. 77(C)(7) PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGE "SHALL PROMPTLY DETERMINE
AND FIX A REASONABLE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS MAY BE
FILED OR EVIDENCED AND AFTER WHICH NO CLAIM NOT SO FILED OR EVIDENCED
MAY PARTICIPATE EXCEPT ON ORDER FOR CAUSE SHOWN  ..."  THIS IS THE
EQUITY RULE (5 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (1944) P. 537) WHICH PERMITS THE
FILING OF CLAIMS OUT OF TIME PROVIDED THE CLAIM IS EQUITABLE, THE
CLAIMANT IS NOT CHARGEABLE WITH LACHES, AND THE ASSETS HAVE NOT BEEN
DISTRIBUTED (SEE CONKLIN V. UNITED STATES SHIPBUILDING CO., 136 F.
1006, 1009-1010; PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK CITY R. CO., 198 F.
721, 740-742); AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE LATE FILING DOES NOT
UNDULY DELAY THE PROCEEDINGS.  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. HENWOOD, 86 F.2D
347, 353. 

FN19  SEC. 2(A)(6) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 11(A)(6)
GRANTS THE COURT POWER TO "BRING IN AND SUBSTITUTE ADDITIONAL PERSONS
OR PARTIES IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS TITLE WHEN NECESSARY FOR THE
COMPLETE DETERMINATION OF A MATTER IN CONTROVERSY."  SEE 1 COLLIER ON
BANKRUPTCY (14 ED., 1940), PP. 214-218. 

FN20  ONE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE SPECIAL MASTER BASED HIS
RECOMMENDATION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM WAS THAT THE CLAIM WAS
IMPROPERLY FILED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, SINCE THE CORPORATION WAS NOT
MADE A PARTY.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT, LIKE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, PROCEEDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM COULD NO LONGER BE
PROSECUTED AFTER APPROVAL OF THE PETITION FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF ST.
LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN UNLESS THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THAT PROCEEDING
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED IT. 

FN21  CF. 14 BOSTON UNIV.  L. REV. 802, 808. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :









MARTINO V. MICH. WINDOW CLEANING CO., 327 U.S. 173 


NO. 21.  ARGUED OCTOBER 8, 9, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 4, 1946.  - 145
F.2D 163, REVERSED. 


RESPONDENT CORPORATION WAS ENGAGED IN WASHING WINDOWS WITHIN THE STATE
OF ITS INCORPORATION UNDER CONTRACTS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS.  THE GREATER
PART OF THE WORK WAS DONE ON PREMISES USED BY ITS CUSTOMERS IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ITS EMPLOYEES WERE
REQUIRED TO WORK OVERTIME AND WERE NOT PAID TIME AND A HALF EXCEPT FOR
HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 44 HOURS PER WEEK.  THIS WAS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH BONA FIDE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO WITH THE LABOR UNION OF WHICH
ITS EMPLOYEES WERE MEMBERS.  IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF SEC.
15(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND TO RECOVER FOR UNPAID
OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE ACT, HELD: 

1.  RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED "IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS
FOR (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE" SO AS TO BRING THEM WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  ROLAND ELECTRICAL CO. V. WALLING, 326
U.S. 657.  P. 176. 

2.  THEY ARE NOT EXEMPT AS EMPLOYEES OF A "RETAIL OR SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 13(A)(2) OF THE ACT.  ROLAND
ELECTRICAL CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA.  P. 177. 

3.  THE EXISTENCE AND OBSERVANCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO
IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE LABOR UNION OF WHICH THE EMPLOYEES WERE MEMBERS,
PROVIDING FOR OVERTIME PAY FOR FEWER HOURS THAN REQUIRED BY THE ACT,
CONSTITUTE NO BAR TO THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEES TO RECOVER UNDER SEC.
16(B) OF THE ACT.  P. 177. 

MARTINO V. MICHIGAN WINDOW CLEANING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITIONER SUED TO ENJOIN VIOLATION OF SEC. 15(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT AND TO RECOVER UNDER SEC. 16(B) FOR UNPAID OVERTIME
COMPENSATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  51 F.SUPP. 
505.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  145 F.2D 163.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  325 U.S. 849.  REVERSED, P. 178. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS HERE ARE THE SAME AS THOSE IN ROLAND ELECTRICAL CO. V.
WALLING, 326 U.S. 657.  THEY ARE (1) WHETHER RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES,
UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, ARE ENGAGED "IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS
FOR COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938(52 STAT. 1060, 1062-1063, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 206 AND
207), AND (2) WHETHER, IF SO ENGAGED, THEY NEVERTHELESS ARE EXEMPTED
FROM THE ACT BECAUSE THEY ARE ENGAGED IN A "RETAIL OR SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF WHOSE SELLING OR SERVICING IS IN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 13(A)(2).  29 U.S.C.
SEC. 213(A)(2).  AS IN THE ROLAND ELECTRICAL CO. CASE, WE ANSWER THE
FIRST QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND THE SECOND IN THE NEGATIVE.  THE
RESPONDENT ALSO URGES AS A DEFENSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS WHICH IT HAD
RENEWED FROM YEAR TO YEAR WITH ITS EMPLOYEES FOR A HIGHER NUMBER OF
HOURS OF WORK PER WEEK, BEFORE PAYING OVERTIME, THAN IS PRESCRIBED IN
THE ACT. 

THE PETITIONER SUED THE RESPONDENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.  HE SUED FOR
HIMSELF AS A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENT AND ALSO IN A
REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY FOR ITS OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED.  HE
SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE RESPONDENT FROM VIOLATION OF SEC. 15(A)(1), (2)
AND (3), 29 U.S.C. SEC. 215(A)(1), (2) AND (3), OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AND TO RECOVER UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE ACT  FN1
UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION TOGETHER WITH A LIKE SUM AS LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES, A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE AND COSTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD THE CASE ON THE PLEADINGS, STIPULATIONS OF
FACT AND THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MADE SEVERAL
FINDINGS OF LAW, ORDERED THAT THE PETITIONERS RECOVER NOTHING AND
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  51 F.SUPP.  505.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL.  145 F.2D 163.  THIS COURT HAS GRANTED
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 849, BECAUSE OF DIVERGENCE OF OPINIONS
AMONG THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC.
13(A)(2), AND NOW DECIDES THIS CASE IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS, UPON
PRINCIPLES STATED IN ROLAND ELECTRICAL CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA. 

THE RESPONDENT, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN DETROIT, WAS ENGAGED IN WASHING WINDOWS, PAINTING AND
SIMILAR MAINTENANCE WORK.  THE EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT WERE
REQUIRED IN SOME INSTANCES TO WORK LONGER THAN 42 HOURS PER WEEK
SUBSEQUENT TO OCTOBER 24, 1939, AND LONGER THAN 40 HOURS PER WEEK
SUBSEQUENT TO OCTOBER 24, 1940, BUT WERE NOT PAID TIME AND A HALF
EXCEPT FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 44 HOURS PER WEEK.  FN2 

THE WORK OF THE RESPONDENT AND OF ITS EMPLOYEES WAS DONE WITHIN THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN AND, FOR THE MOST PART, ON THE PREMISES OF THE
RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS.  IT CONSISTED PRIMARILY OF CLEANING THE WINDOWS
FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS, ALWAYS UNDER CONTRACTS BETWEEN THEM AND THE
RESPONDENT.  THE GREATER PART OF THIS WORK WAS DONE ON WINDOWS ON
PREMISES USED BY RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN3  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE
CLEANING OF THE WINDOWS OF INDUSTRIAL PLANTS BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
RESPONDENT IS AN OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF THE GOODS
PRODUCED IN THOSE PLANTS.  FN4  IF THE SERVICES RENDERED IN THIS CASE
HAD BEEN RENDERED BY EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THOSE EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE
COME UNDER THE ACT.  RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES ARE NOT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM
SUCH COVERAGE MERELY BECAUSE THEIR EMPLOYMENT TO DO THE SAME WORK WAS
UNDER INDEPENDENT CONTRACTS.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517,
524; WARREN-BRADSHAW CO. V. HALL, 317 U.S. 88, 90. 

THE RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY IN SERVICING CUSTOMERS
FOR WHOM SUCH SERVICES WERE NECESSARY IN THEIR PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS TOOK PLACE IN THE MIDST OF PRODUCING "THE
FLOW OF GOODS IN COMMERCE" INTENDED TO BE COVERED BY THE ACT. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE RESPONDENT CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A "RETAIL OR
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 13(A)(2), WHICH
CONTEMPLATES AN ESTABLISHMENT SERVING ULTIMATE CONSUMERS BEYOND THE END
OF SUCH "FLOW OF GOODS IN COMMERCE."  ROLAND ELECTRICAL CO. V. WALLING,
SUPRA. 

THROUGHOUT THIS CASE, THE RESPONDENT HAS URGED AS A DEFENSE THAT, IN
GOOD FAITH AND FROM YEAR TO YEAR, SINCE BEFORE 1939, IT HAS ENTERED
INTO AND RENEWED WRITTEN AGREEMENTS WITH THE LABOR UNION OF WHICH
PETITIONER AND THOSE FOR WHOM THIS SUIT IS BROUGHT WERE MEMBERS.  SOME
OF THESE AGREEMENTS, RENEWED SINCE THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE, APPLIED TO
THE PERIODS HERE IN QUESTION AND REQUIRED THE RESPONDENT TO PAY
OVERTIME FOR WORK DONE IN EXCESS OF 44 HOURS A WEEK.  THIS REQUIREMENT
WAS FULLY OBSERVED.  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE A FINDING THAT THE
EXISTENCE AND OBSERVANCE OF SUCH AGREEMENTS CONSTITUTED NO BAR TO THE
RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEES TO RECOVER UNDER SEC. 16(B) IF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT APPLIED TO THE CASE AND REQUIRED OVERTIME PAY FOR WORK
DONE IN EXCESS OF A LESSER NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK THAN WERE
STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENTS.  IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THIS AGREEMENT BECAUSE, IN
ITS VIEW, THE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES. 
HOWEVER, UNDER THE VIEW WHICH WE TAKE, THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO A
DECISION ON THIS FURTHER DEFENSE.  WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT
THAT THE AGREEMENTS CANNOT SUPERSEDE THE ACT AND ARE NOT A BAR TO THIS
ACTION.  CF. BROOKLYN BANK V. O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697, 707, ET SEQ. 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
REVERSED AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  16.... 

"(B)  ANY EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR
AFFECTED IN THE AMOUNT OF THEIR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OR THEIR UNPAID
OVERTIME COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IN AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL
AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ACTION TO RECOVER SUCH LIABILITY MAY BE
MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BY ANY ONE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AND OTHER
EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, OR SUCH EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES MAY
DESIGNATE AN AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE TO MAINTAIN SUCH ACTION FOR AND IN
BEHALF OF ALL EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE COURT IN SUCH ACTION
SHALL, IN ADDITION TO ANY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR
PLAINTIFFS, ALLOW A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE TO BE PAID BY THE
DEFENDANT, AND COSTS OF THE ACTION."  52 STAT. 1069, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
216(B). 

FN2  "SEC.  7.  (A) NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
IN THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

(1)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, 

(2)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-TWO HOURS DURING THE SECOND
YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, OR 

(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, 

UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN
EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE
HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  52 STAT. 1063,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 207(A). 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 WAS APPROVED JUNE 25, 1938, AND
THIS SECTION BECAME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 24, 1938.  29 U.S.C. SEC.
207(D). 

FN3  MANY OF THE CUSTOMERS WERE ENGAGED ALSO IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ON THOSE PREMISES. 

FN4  "...  AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED  ...  IN ANY PROCESS
OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION THEREOF, IN ANY STATE."  29
U.S.C. SEC. 203(J). 

SEE 100 FACTORY MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE, MARCH 1942, P. 101; 74
ARCHITECTURAL FORUM, MAY 1941, PP. 333, 335; 41 NATIONAL SAFETY NEWS,
MARCH 1940, P. 88; BALDERSTON, KARABASZ AND BRECHT, MANAGEMENT OF AN
ENTERPRISE (1935) P. 145; CONOVER, CLEAN WINDOWS FOR SAFETY, 74 SAFETY
ENGINEERING, SEPT. 1937, PP. 13-14; 63 THE FOUNDRY, AUG. 1935, P. 89;
RANDALL AND MARTIN, MAKING YOUR WINDOWS DELIVER MORE DAYLIGHT, 22
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ILLUMINATING ENGINEERING SOCIETY, MARCH 1927, PP.
239-257. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :









KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V. COMM'R, 326 U.S. 599 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1946.  - 148 F.2D 80,
REVERSED - 148 F.2D 776, AFFIRMED. 


A TAXPAYER OWNING FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO CERTAIN LANDS LEASED THE LANDS
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINERALS FOR A CASH BONUS, A
ROYALTY IN THE USUAL FORM AND A SHARE OF THE NET PROFITS REALIZED BY
THE LESSEES FROM THEIR OPERATIONS UNDER THE LEASE.  HELD: 

1.  THE TAXPAYER IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
PERMITTED UNDER SECS. 23(M) AND 114(B)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
FROM HIS SHARE OF THE NET PROFITS FROM THE OIL EXTRACTED FROM THE
LEASED LANDS, AS WELL AS FROM THE INCOME DERIVED FROM BONUSES AND
ROYALTIES.  PP. 600, 607. 

2.  SINCE THE "NET PROFIT" PAYMENTS FLOW DIRECTLY FROM THE LESSOR'S
ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL AND PARTAKE OF THE QUALITY OF RENT RATHER
THAN OF A SALE PRICE, THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF THE LESSOR IS REDUCED
BY THE EXTRACTION OF THE OIL AND THE LESSOR IS ENTITLED TO DEPLETION. 
HELVERING V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 370; HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND
DEVELOPMENT CO., 303 U.S. 372, AND ANDERSON V. HELVERING, 310 U.S. 404,
DIFFERENTIATED.  PP. 605, 606. 

3.  THE LESSOR'S ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL IS NO LESS WHEN HIS
RIGHT IS TO SHARE A NET PROFIT FROM ITS SALE THAN WHEN IT IS TO SHARE
THE GROSS RECEIPTS.  P. 604. 

KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

NO. 56.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 197, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. CRAWFORD,
ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 7, 1945. 

NO. 56.  CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 845, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A
DECISION OF THE TAX COURT, 2 T.C. 1258. 

NO. 197.  CERTIORARI, POST, P. 703, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A
DECISION OF THE TAX COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN KIRBY PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSIONER BRINGS
HERE FOR REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT, 148 F.2D 80, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT, 2
T.C. 1258, WHICH HAD SUSTAINED THE TAXPAYER'S POSITION.  THE NARROW
ISSUE IS THE DEDUCTIBILITY UNDER SECTIONS 23(M) AND 114(B)(3)  FN1  OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE OF 27 1/2 PER
CENTUM OF GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR,
PERMITTED BY THOSE SECTIONS FROM THE TAXPAYER'S GROSS INCOME FOR 1940
FROM CERTAIN OIL LEASES. 

THE TAXPAYER OWNED THE FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO CERTAIN TEXAS LANDS,
EXCEPT FOR A MINOR MINERAL INTEREST WHICH IS NOT HERE INVOLVED.  IT
LEASED THE LANDS TO TWO COMPANIES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF OIL, GAS AND
OTHER MINERALS FOR A CASH BONUS, A ROYALTY IN THE USUAL FORM AND AN
AGREEMENT, EXECUTED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE LEASE AND AS PART
CONSIDERATION THEREFOR, THAT THE TAXPAYER SHOULD RECEIVE TWENTY PER
CENT OF THE NET MONEY PROFITS REALIZED BY THE LESSEES FROM THEIR
OPERATIONS UNDER THE LEASE. 

THE SAME NARROW ISSUE IS IN COMMISSIONER V. CRAWFORD.  IN THIS LATTER
CASE, THE TAXPAYER OWNED AN INTEREST IN FEE IN CERTAIN REAL ESTATE IN
CALIFORNIA.  SHE, TOGETHER WITH HER CO-OWNERS, ENTERED INTO SEVERAL
LEASES FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF OIL, GAS AND
OTHER MINERALS.  FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES HERE PRESENTED, IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO ANALYZE THE LEASES FURTHER THAN TO SAY THAT THEY WERE
GIVEN IN CONSIDERATION OF BONUSES, ROYALTIES IN THE USUAL FORM AND
ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS FROM THE NET PROFITS OF THE OPERATION.  FN2  THE
COMMISSIONER ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY BECAUSE OF THE DENIAL OF A CLAIMED
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR 1938, 1939 AND 1940.  THE TAX COURT SUPPORTED
THE TAXPAYER'S POSITION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  148
F.2D 776. 

IN BOTH CASES, THE COMMISSIONER CONCEDES THAT THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
OF SECS. 23(M) AND 114(B)(3) IS APPLICABLE TO THE BONUSES AND
ROYALTIES.  FN3  THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE IDENTICAL FOR ALL YEARS. 
THE 27 1/2 PER CENTUM ALLOWED BY SEC. 114(B)(3) WAS THEREFORE PROPERLY
DEDUCTED BY THE TAXPAYERS FROM THESE BONUSES AND ROYALTIES.  IN EACH OF
THESE YEARS THERE WAS ALSO INCOME TO THESE TAXPAYERS FROM THE LEASE
PROVISIONS FOR THE LESSORS TO SHARE IN THE NET PROFITS FROM THE OIL
EXTRACTED FROM THE LEASED LANDS.  THE TAXPAYERS CLAIM THE RIGHT TO
DEDUCT THE 27 1/2 PER CENT DEPLETION FROM THESE RECEIPTS ALSO.  THESE
ARE THE DEDUCTIONS WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED.  ON ACCOUNT OF
THE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUITS IN THESE CASES ON THE POINT,
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BY US.  325 U.S. 845; 326 U.S. 703. 

THE PRESENT PROVISIONS FOR DEPLETION ALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT
SO AS TO GIVE THE HOLDER OF AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL OR OTHER
NATURAL RESOURCE AN ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION.  FN4  WHILE THERE ARE
INCOME INCIDENTS TO THE UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, THERE IS ALSO
AN OBVIOUS EXHAUSTION OF THE CAPITAL USED TO PRODUCE THE INCOME.  IN
THEORY THE AGGREGATE SUM ALLOWED FOR DEPLETION WOULD EQUAL THE VALUE OF
THE NATURAL RESOURCE AT THE TIME OF ITS ACQUISITION BY THE TAXPAYER, SO
THAT AT THE EXHAUSTION OF THE RESOURCE THE TAXPAYER WOULD HAVE
RECOVERED THROUGH DEPLETION EXACTLY HIS INVESTMENT.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE
DIFFICULTIES IN TAXATION OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION IN VIEW OF THE
UNCERTAINTIES OF QUANTITIES AND TIME OF ACQUISITION, THAT IS AT THE
PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY OR AT THE DISCOVERY OF OIL OR GAS, FINALLY
HAVE BROUGHT CONGRESS TO THE ARBITRARY ALLOWANCE OF 27 1/2 PER CENT NOW
EMBODIED IN SEC. 114(B)(3).  FN5  THUS, THE 27 1/2 PER CENT IS
APPROPRIATED BY THE STATUTE TO THE RESTORATION OF THE TAXPAYER'S
CAPITAL AND THE REST OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE NATURAL ASSET BECOMES GROSS
INCOME.  ANDERSON V. HELVERING, 310 U.S. 404, 407-8.  IT FOLLOWS FROM
THIS THEORY THAT ONLY A TAXPAYER WITH AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE
ASSET, HERE THE OIL, IS ENTITLED TO THE DEPLETION.  PALMER V. BENDER,
287 U.S. 551, 557; THOMAS V. PERKINS, 301 U.S. 655, 659.  BY THIS IS
MEANT ONLY THAT UNDER HIS CONTRACT HE MUST LOOK TO THE OIL IN PLACE AS
THE SOURCE OF THE RETURN OF HIS CAPITAL INVESTMENT.  THE TECHNICAL
TITLE TO THE OIL IN PLACE IS NOT IMPORTANT.  TITLE IN A CASE OF A LEASE
MAY DEPEND UPON THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE DEPOSIT LIES.  BURNET
V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 109-10.  THE TEST OF THE RIGHT TO DEPLETION IS
WHETHER THE TAXPAYER HAS A CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE OIL IN PLACE WHICH
IS NECESSARILY REDUCED AS THE OIL IS EXTRACTED.  SEE ANDERSON V.
HELVERING, 310 U.S. 404, 407. 

THE TAXPAYERS HERE INVOLVED WERE LESSORS.  UNDER THE LEASES AND OUR
PREVIOUS DECISIONS, THESE TAXPAYERS HAD AN ECONOMIC INTEREST, A CAPITAL
INVESTMENT, IN SO MUCH OF THE EXTRACTED OIL AS WAS USED BY THE LESSEE
TO PAY TO THE TAXPAYERS THE ROYALTIES AND BONUSES.  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA.
THE TAXPAYER LESSORS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE ON THESE
ROYALTIES AND BONUSES WHETHER THEY WERE PAID TO THEM IN OIL OR CASH,
THE PROCEEDS OF THE OIL.  HELVERING V. TWIN BELL OIL SYNDICATE, 293
U.S. 312, 321. 

IF THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT IN THESE LEASES HAD BEEN A PORTION OF THE
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF THE OIL EXTRACTED BY THE LESSEES
INSTEAD OF A PORTION OF THE NET PROFITS, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO DOUBT
AS TO THE ECONOMIC INTEREST OF THE LESSORS IN SUCH OIL.  THIS WOULD BE
AN OIL ROYALTY.  THE LESSORS' ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL IS NO LESS
WHEN THEIR RIGHT IS TO SHARE A NET PROFIT.  AS IN THOMAS V. PERKINS,
301 U.S. 655, THEIR ONLY SOURCE OF PAYMENT IS FROM THE NET PROFIT WHICH
THE OIL PRODUCES.  IN BOTH SITUATIONS THE LESSORS' POSSIBILITY OF
RETURN DEPENDS UPON OIL EXTRACTION AND ENDS WITH THE EXHAUSTION OF THE
SUPPLY.  ECONOMIC INTEREST DOES NOT MEAN TITLE TO THE OIL IN PLACE BUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF PROFIT FROM THAT ECONOMIC INTEREST DEPENDENT SOLELY
UPON THE EXTRACTION AND SALE OF THE OIL.  FN6 

THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE, IN THE AGGREGATE, IS ALWAYS THE SAME AMOUNT,
27 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE "GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY."  FN7  IN THE
CASE OF LEASES THE DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE EQUITABLY APPORTIONED BETWEEN
THE LESSOR AND LESSEE."  SEC. 23(M).  AN EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT IS
OBTAINED BY EXCLUDING FROM THE LESSEE'S GROSS INCOME FROM OIL OR GAS
PRODUCED FROM THE PROPERTY, HELVERING V. TWIN BELL OIL SYNDICATE,
SUPRA, 321, "AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ANY RENTS OR ROYALTIES PAID OR INCURRED
BY THE TAXPAYER IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY."  SEC. 114(B)(3).  FN8
SUCH DEDUCTIONS BECOME THE GROSS INCOME OF THE LESSOR.  WE THINK THESE
TAXPAYERS HAD AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL, SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
DEPLETION ON THE SUMS RECEIVED AS NET PROFIT. 

IF WE ASSUME THAT THE ONLY PAYMENT FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF OIL
EXTRACTION MADE TO THE TAXPAYER LESSORS BY THE LESSEES WAS THE PORTION
OF "NET INCOME" PAID UNDER THE LEASES, IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT SUCH
PAYMENT OF "NET INCOME" WOULD TAXWISE BE RENT OR ROYALTY PAID BY THE
LESSEES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF EXTRACTION.  SINCE SEC. 114(B)(3) WOULD
REQUIRE THE LESSEES TO DEDUCT THIS RENT OR ROYALTY FROM THEIR GROSS
INCOMES FROM THE SALE OF OIL FROM THE PROPERTY BEFORE TAKING THE
LESSEES' DEPLETION, A GROSS RECEIPT FROM OIL SOLD, EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT
OF THE "NET INCOME" PAID TO THE TAXPAYER LESSORS, WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT
TO DEPLETION, UNLESS THE TAXPAYER LESSORS ARE PERMITTED TO APPLY
DEPLETION TO THIS PAYMENT.  THIS WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF
THE DEPLETION STATUTE, WHICH IS TO ALLOW TO THE LESSOR AND LESSEE
TOGETHER A DEPLETION OF 27 1/2 PER CENT OF THE GROSS SALE PRICE OF THE
OIL.  ON THE OTHER HAND IF DEPLETION ON THE "NET INCOME" PAYMENTS IS
ALLOWED TO THE LESSORS, THE LESSEES ARE ALLOWED DEPLETION ON THE GROSS
INCOME FROM OIL SALES LESS THE NET INCOME PAYMENT AND THE ENTIRE
ALLOWABLE DEPLETION IS ALLOCATED BETWEEN THE LESSORS AND LESSEES. 

REFERENCE IS MADE TO A SENTENCE IN ANDERSON V. HELVERING, 310 U.S.
404, 409, AS INDICATING THAT THIS COURT HAD DETERMINED THAT "NET
PROFIT" PAYMENTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO DEPLETION.  IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"A SHARE IN THE NET PROFITS DERIVED FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION,
ON THE CONTRARY, DOES NOT ENTITLE THE HOLDER OF SUCH INTEREST TO A
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE EVEN THOUGH CONTINUED PRODUCTION IS ESSENTIAL TO
THE REALIZATION OF SUCH PROFITS." 

THE ANDERSON CASE INVOLVED THE TAXABILITY TO THE OIL OPERATOR OF THE
GROSS PROCEEDS OF THE OIL, WHICH HIS CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE
OIL PROPERTY REQUIRED HIM TO TURN OVER TO THE SELLER AS A MEANS OF
SATISFYING A DEFERRED PAYMENT FOR THE PROPERTY.  AS THE DEFERRED
PAYMENT ALSO HAD TO BE SATISFIED OUT OF ANY SALE OF THE FEE SIMPLE
TITLE TO THE LAND, WE HELD THE OPERATOR LIABLE AS A PURCHASER BECAUSE
THE SELLER WAS NOT "ENTIRELY DEPENDENT" UPON THE OIL PRODUCTION FOR HIS
PURCHASE PRICE.  THIS GAVE THE OPERATOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICABLE
DEPLETION.  PAGE 413.  ONLY THE RESERVATION OF AN INTEREST IN THE FEE
DIFFERENTIATED THE ANDERSON CASE FROM THOMAS V. PERKINS, 301 U.S. 655,
WHERE DEFERRED PAYMENT IN OIL OR ITS PROCEEDS, PAYABLE ONLY FROM
PRODUCTION, WAS HELD SUBJECT TO DEPLETION WHEN PAID TO THE ASSIGNORS. 

THE PART JUST QUOTED FROM THE ANDERSON CASE OCCURS IN SETTING OUT THE
SERIES OF CASES DEALING WITH DEPLETION.  NO NET INCOME WAS INVOLVED IN
THE ANDERSON CASE.  THE STATEMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE CITATION OF
HELVERING V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 370, AND HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND
CO., 303 U.S. 372.  IN THE O'DONNELL CASE, THE TAXPAYER, WHO RECEIVED
THE "NET INCOME" FROM AN OIL OPERATION, WAS A STRANGER TO THE LEASE,
WHO HAD CONTRACTED FOR A SHARE OF ITS NET PROFITS AS CONSIDERATION FOR
HIS STOCK IN A CORPORATION WHICH WAS THE OWNER OF THE LEASE.  "THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER RESPONDENT HAD AN INTEREST, THAT IS, A CAPITAL
INVESTMENT, IN THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE ....  AS A MERE OWNER OF SHARES
IN THE SAN GABRIEL COMPANY, RESPONDENT HAD NO SUCH INTEREST."  PAGE
371.  IN THE ELBE OIL LAND CASE, THERE WAS A SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT
CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN THE "NET PROFIT" PAYMENT SHOULD RESULT IN
"FULL OWNERSHIP" TO THE BUYER.  THE TRANSACTION WHICH INCLUDED THE
CLAUSE FOR "NET PROFIT" WAS A SALE OF ALL THE RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST
IN THE PROPERTY, WHICH CONSISTED OF TANGIBLE PERSONALTY AND DRILLING
PERMITS, AGREEMENTS, AND LEASES.  THIS COURT SAID THE ADDITIONAL
PAYMENT OF A SHARE OF NET PROFITS DID NOT QUALIFY "IN ANY WAY THE
EFFECT OF THE TRANSACTION AS AN ABSOLUTE SALE."  PAGE 375.  THUS THE
ANDERSON CASE CORRECTLY STATED THAT A SHARE IN "NET PROFITS,"
DISASSOCIATED FROM AN ECONOMIC INTEREST, DOES NOT ENTITLE THE HOLDER TO
A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE.  THE FACTS OF EACH TRANSACTION MUST BE APPRAISED
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRANSFEROR HAS MADE AN ABSOLUTE SALE OR HAS
RETAINED AN ECONOMIC INTEREST - A CAPITAL INVESTMENT. 

IN OUR VIEW, THE "NET PROFIT" PAYMENTS IN THESE CASES FLOW DIRECTLY
FROM THE TAXPAYERS' ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL AND PARTAKE OF THE
QUALITY OF RENT RATHER THAN OF A SALE PRICE.  THEREFORE, THE CAPITAL
INVESTMENT OF THE LESSORS IS REDUCED BY THE EXTRACTION OF THE OIL AND
THE LESSORS SHOULD HAVE DEPLETION.  NO. 56 IS REVERSED.  NO. 197 IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE: 

"SEC. 23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

     .         .         .   .         . 

"(M)  DEPLETION.  - IN THE CASE OF MINES, OIL AND GAS WELLS, OTHER
NATURAL DEPOSITS, AND TIMBER, A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION AND
FOR DEPRECIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS
IN EACH CASE; SUCH REASONABLE ALLOWANCE IN ALL CASES TO BE MADE UNDER
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY  ....  IN THE CASE OF LEASES THE DEDUCTIONS
SHALL BE EQUITABLY APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE LESSOR AND LESSEE ...." 

"SEC. 114.  BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  BASIS FOR DEPLETION.  - 

     .         .         .         .   . 

"(3)  PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR OIL AND GAS WELLS.  - IN THE CASE OF
OIL AND GAS WELLS THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION UNDER SECTION 23(M) SHALL
BE 27 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR, EXCLUDING FROM SUCH GROSS INCOME AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ANY
RENTS OR ROYALTIES PAID OR INCURRED BY THE TAXPAYER IN RESPECT OF THE
PROPERTY  ...." 

FN2  THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE OF ONE LEASE WILL ILLUSTRATE THE TYPE OF
ARRANGEMENT WHICH PRODUCED THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS:    "WHEN, AND AS
SOON AS THE 'INCOME CREDITS' OF SAID ACCOUNT SHALL EXCEED THE
'OPERATING CHARGES' OF THE LESSEE, THE LESSOR SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A
SECONDARY AND ADDITIONAL ROYALTY, THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE ONE-HALF OF
SUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 'OPERATING CHARGES' AND 'INCOME CREDITS' OF
SAID ACCOUNT."  THE LEASES DEFINED METHODS OF COMPUTATION. 

FN3  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 111; PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S.
551, 557.  SEE ANDERSON V. HELVERING, 310 U.S. 404, 409. 

FN4  TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, SEC. 19.23(M)-1, AS AMENDED BY T.D.
5413, 1944 CUM. BULL.  124, 129:    "UNDER SUCH PROVISIONS, THE OWNER
OF AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN MINERAL DEPOSITS OR STANDING TIMBER IS
ALLOWED ANNUAL DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS.  AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IS POSSESSED
IN EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS ACQUIRED, BY INVESTMENT, ANY
INTEREST IN MINERAL IN PLACE OR STANDING TIMBER AND SECURES, BY ANY
FORM OF LEGAL RELATIONSHIP, INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SEVERANCE AND SALE
OF THE MINERAL OR TIMBER, TO WHICH HE MUST LOOK FOR A RETURN OF HIS
CAPITAL.  BUT A PERSON WHO HAS NO CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE MINERAL
DEPOSIT OR STANDING TIMBER DOES NOT POSSESS AN ECONOMIC INTEREST MERELY
BECAUSE, THROUGH A CONTRACTUAL RELATION TO THE OWNER, HE POSSESSES A
MERE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE DERIVED FROM PRODUCTION.  THUS, AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE OWNER OF AN ECONOMIC INTEREST AND ANOTHER ENTITLING THE
LATTER TO PURCHASE THE PRODUCT UPON PRODUCTION OR TO SHARE IN THE NET
INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INTEREST OF SUCH OWNER DOES NOT CONVEY A
DEPLETABLE ECONOMIC INTEREST." 

FN5  FOR THE BACKGROUND OF THE PRESENT PROVISIONS, SEE HELVERING V.
TWIN BELL OIL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312. 

FN6  WHILE THE RESERVATION OF ROYALTIES SHOWS AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN
THE OIL NECESSARY FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THE ROYALTIES, SUCH
RESERVATION WOULD NOT SHOW AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN OIL NOT NECESSARY
FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE ROYALTIES.  BUT SEE ESTATE OF JAPHET, 3 T.C.
86. 

FN7  SEC. 114(B)(3).  THE GROSS INCOME REFERS ONLY TO OIL AND GAS. 
HELVERING V. TWIN BELL OIL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, 320-21; ANDERSON V.
HELVERING, 310 U.S. 404, 408. 

FN8  SEE HELVERING V. TWIN BELL OIL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, 322. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :












BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 607 


NO. 41.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 15, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1946.  -
147 F.2D 199, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A PROSECUTION FOR CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE UNDER THE
NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT, AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY THAT THE
POSSESSION OF PROPERTY SHORTLY AFTER IT HAD BEEN STOLEN IN ANOTHER
STATE CREATED A PRESUMPTION THAT THE POSSESSOR HAD TRANSPORTED THE
PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR.  PP. 609,
611, 613. 

2.  THE MANIFEST MISDIRECTION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE CAN
NOT BE TREATED AS A "TECHNICAL ERROR" NOT AFFECTING THE DEFENDANT'S
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.  P. 614. 

3.  UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE, ONE WHO AIDS OR ABETS THE COMMISSION OF
A FEDERAL OFFENSE IS PUNISHABLE AS A PRINCIPAL; THE OFFENSE OF AN
ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT IS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENTLY PUNISHABLE.  P.
611. 

4.  A CONVICTION OUGHT NOT TO REST ON AN EQUIVOCAL DIRECTION TO THE
JURY ON A BASIC ISSUE.  P. 613. 

5.  UPON REVIEW OF A CONVICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, THE QUESTION
IS NOT WHETHER GUILT MAY BE SPELT OUT OF THE RECORD, BUT WHETHER GUILT
HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE JURY ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE AND STANDARDS
APPROPRIATE FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 614. 

6.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANT PLACE OF TRIAL BY JURY IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS, CONGRESS WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE INTENDED TO SUBSTITUTE THE
BELIEF OF APPELLATE JUDGES IN THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED, HOWEVER
JUSTIFIABLY ENGENDERED BY THE RECORD, FOR ASCERTAINMENT OF GUILT BY A
JURY UNDER APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL GUIDANCE, HOWEVER CUMBERSOME THAT
PROCESS MAY BE.  P. 615. 

BOLLENBACH V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 837, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION OF
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE UNDER THE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE THE NATIONAL
STOLEN PROPERTY ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT SUSTAINED THE CONVICTION.  147 F.2D 199.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE
HERE, 324 U.S. 837, BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN A WAY THAT
RAISED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL
JUSTICE. 

THE RELEVANT FACTS UPON WHICH DECISION MUST TURN ARE THESE. 
BOLLENBACH, THE PETITIONER, AND OTHERS WERE INDICTED UPON TWO COUNTS:
FOR TRANSPORTING SECURITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE KNOWING THEM TO HAVE
BEEN STOLEN (48 STAT. 794, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 415; 35 STAT. 1152, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 550) AND FOR CONSPIRING TO COMMIT THAT OFFENSE (35 STAT. 1096, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 88).  HAVING BEEN GRANTED A SEVERANCE, BOLLENBACH WAS TRIED
SEPARATELY.  NO DOUBT THE SECURITIES HAD BEEN STOLEN IN MINNEAPOLIS AND
WERE TRANSPORTED TO NEW YORK.  AND IT IS NOT CONTROVERTED THAT
BOLLENBACH HELPED TO DISPOSE OF THEM IN NEW YORK. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED UNDER THE
INDICTMENT.  THE TRIAL LASTED SEVEN DAYS.  AFTER THE JURY HAD BEEN OUT
SEVEN HOURS THEY RETURNED TO THE COURT TO REPORT THAT THEY WERE
"HOPELESSLY DEADLOCKED."  INTERCHANGES THEN ENSUED BETWEEN COURT AND
JURY AND BETWEEN COURT AND COUNSEL.  ONE OF THE JURORS ASKED "CAN ANY
ACT OF CONSPIRACY BE PERFORMED AFTER THE CRIME IS COMMITTED?"  THE
TRIAL JUDGE MADE SOME UNRESPONSIVE COMMENTS BUT FAILED TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION.  NO EXCEPTION WAS NOTED IMMEDIATELY.  IN A FEW MINUTES THE
JURY LEFT, BUT AFTER TWENTY MINUTES AGAIN RETURNED FOR FURTHER
INSTRUCTIONS.  BOLLENBACH'S COUNSEL THEN INDICATED THAT THE COURT HAD
LEFT THE BENCH TOO HURRIEDLY TO ENABLE HIM TO EXCEPT TO THE JUDGE'S
FAILURE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.  AFTER AN EXCEPTION WAS THEN TAKEN AND
ALLOWED, THE JUDGE "MISTAKENLY REPLIED," AS THE LOWER COURT NOTED,
"THAT HE HAD ALREADY TOLD THEM THAT THERE COULD BE NO CONSPIRACY AFTER
THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY HAD BEEN ATTAINED." 

AFTER INDULGING IN FURTHER COLLOQUY WITH COUNSEL, NOT HERE PERTINENT,
THE JUDGE STATED THAT HE HAD THIS NOTE OF INQUIRY FROM THE JURY:  "IF
THE DEFENDANT WERE AWARE THAT THE BONDS WHICH HE AIDED IN DISPOSING OF
WERE STOLEN DOES THAT KNOWLEDGE MAKE HIM GUILTY ON THE SECOND COUNT." 
IN ANSWER THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY AS FOLLOWS:  "OF COURSE IF IT
OCCURRED AFTERWARDS IT WOULD NOT MAKE HIM GUILTY, BUT IN THAT
CONNECTION I SAY TO YOU THAT IF THE POSSESSION WAS SHORTLY AFTER THE
BONDS WERE STOLEN, AFTER THE THEFT, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
CONCLUSION BY YOU JURORS OF KNOWLEDGE BY THE POSSESSOR THAT THE
PROPERTY WAS STOLEN.  AND, JUST A MOMENT - I FURTHER CHARGE YOU THAT
POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY IN ANOTHER STATE THAN THAT IN WHICH IT
WAS STOLEN SHORTLY AFTER THE THEFT RAISES A PRESUMPTION THAT THE
POSSESSOR WAS THE THIEF AND TRANSPORTED STOLEN PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, BUT THAT SUCH PRESUMPTION IS SUBJECT TO EXPLANATION AND MUST
BE CONSIDERED WITH ALL THE TESTIMONY IN THE CASE."  COUNSEL FOR THE
ACCUSED EXCEPTED TO THIS CHARGE, BUT THE JUDGE CUT SHORT AN ATTEMPTED
REQUEST BY COUNSEL WITH THE REMARK, "YOU MAY EXCEPT TO THE CHARGE, BUT
I WILL NOT TAKE ANY REQUESTS."  THE JURY FILED OUT AND RETURNED FIVE
MINUTES LATER WITH A VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE SECOND - THE CONSPIRACY -
COUNT.  A SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS AND A FINE OF $10,000 WERE IMPOSED. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND ORDERED A NEW
TRIAL.  IT FOUND ERROR IN THE CHARGE JUST QUOTED.  "CERTAINLY IT IS
UNTENABLE TO SAY," WAS THE CRUX OF ITS HOLDING, "THAT THE POSSESSION OF
STOLEN GOODS RAISES ANY PRESUMPTION THAT THEY HAVE IN FACT BEEN
TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  147 F.2D 199, 202.  AND IT HELD
THAT IT COULD NOT DISREGARD THE ERROR BECAUSE OF THE QUESTIONABLE
EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER THE ACCUSED KNEW THAT THE BONDS HAD COME FROM
ANOTHER STATE.  BUT ON REHEARING THE COURT'S ATTENTION WAS CALLED TO
THE FACT THAT, AFTER HIS ARREST, THE ACCUSED ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW THAT
THE BONDS HAD COME FROM THE WEST AND THAT HE MAY HAVE HAD THAT
KNOWLEDGE BEFORE HE DISPOSED OF THEM.  ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE
BEARING OF THIS EVIDENCE UPON THE DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLACE OF
THE THEFT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CHANGED ITS VIEW AND HELD THAT
"IT WOULD BE ALTOGETHER UNWARRANTED TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF
THE MISTAKE IN THE CHARGE."  147 F.2D AT 202. 

THAT COURT EVIDENTLY FELT FREE TO DISREGARD "THE MISTAKE IN THE
CHARGE" ONLY ON ITS ASSUMPTION THAT BOLLENBACH COULD BE CONVICTED UNDER
THIS INDICTMENT AS AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT.  BUT BOLLENBACH WAS
NEITHER CHARGED NOR TRIED NOR CONVICTED AS AN ACCESSORY AFTER THE
FACT.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT INVOKE THAT THEORY IN THE TWO LOWER
COURTS AND DISAVOWS IT HERE.  AND RIGHTLY SO.  THE RECEIPT OF STOLEN
SECURITIES AFTER THEIR TRANSPORTATION ACROSS STATE LINES WAS NOT A
FEDERAL CRIME AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION, AND WE NEED
NOT CONSIDER THE SCOPE OF A LATER AMENDMENT MAKING IT SO.  SEE ACT OF
AUGUST 3, 1939, 53 STAT. 1178, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 416; H.R. REP. 422, 76TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1939); AND S. REP. 674, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1939).  BOLLENBACH COULD NOT PROPERLY BE CONVICTED FOR THE OFFENSE FOR
WHICH HE WAS CHARGED AND FOR WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED, NAMELY, FOR HAVING
CONSPIRED TO TRANSPORT SECURITIES ACROSS STATE LINES MERELY ON PROOF
THAT HE WAS A "FENCE," I.E., HELPED TO DISPOSE OF THE STOLEN SECURITIES
AFTER THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION WAS CONCLUDED.  WHILE SEC. 332 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE, SUPRA, MADE AIDERS AND ABETTORS OF AN OFFENSE
PRINCIPALS, CONGRESS HAS NOT MADE ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT
PRINCIPALS.  THEIR OFFENSE IS DISTINCT AND IS DIFFERENTLY PUNISHED. 
(SEC. 333 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 35 STAT. 1152, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 551.) 

WE ARE THEREFORE THROWN BACK UPON AN APPRAISAL OF WHAT THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS DEEMED A MISTAKEN CHARGE IN THE PROPER SETTING OF THIS
CASE. 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DEFEND THE "PRESUMPTION" AS A FAIR SUMMARY OF
EXPERIENCE.  IT OFFENDS REASON, SO THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS, AS MUCH AS
DID THE PRESUMPTION WHICH WAS FOUND UNSUPPORTABLE IN TOT V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 463, EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS EMBODIED IN AN ACT OF
CONGRESS.  INSTEAD, THE GOVERNMENT IN EFFECT ASKS US TO PAY NO
ATTENTION TO THIS PALPABLY ERRONEOUS ANSWER BY THE JUDGE TO THE JURY'S
INQUIRY AS TO GUILT ON THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT STOLEN
SECURITIES "IF THE DEFENDANT WERE AWARE THAT THE BONDS WHICH HE AIDED
IN DISPOSING OF WERE STOLEN."  WE CAN PAY NO ATTENTION TO THIS
MISDIRECTION ONLY BY ASSUMING THAT THE JURY PAID NO ATTENTION TO IT AND
THAT THE CASE IS BEFORE US AS THOUGH NO MISDIRECTION HAD BEEN GIVEN. 
TO DO SO IS TO DISREGARD THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COURSE OF EVENTS, AS
REVEALED BY THE RECORD, AFTER THE CASE WENT TO THE JURY. 

THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT THE JUDGE'S MISCONCEIVED "PRESUMPTION"
WAS "JUST WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE - A QUITE CURSORY, LAST MINUTE,
INSTRUCTION ON THE QUESTION OF THE NECESSITY OF KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE
STOLEN CHARACTER OF THE NOTES - AND NOTHING MORE."  BUT PRECISELY
BECAUSE IT WAS A "LAST MINUTE INSTRUCTION" THE DUTY OF SPECIAL CARE WAS
INDICATED IN REPLYING TO A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR FURTHER LIGHT ON A VITAL
ISSUE BY A JURY WHOSE FOREMAN REPORTED THAT THEY WERE "HOPELESSLY
DEADLOCKED" AFTER THEY HAD BEEN OUT SEVEN HOURS.  "IN A TRIAL BY JURY
IN A FEDERAL COURT, THE JUDGE IS NOT A MERE MODERATOR, BUT IS THE
GOVERNOR OF THE TRIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING ITS PROPER CONDUCT
AND OF DETERMINING QUESTIONS OF LAW."  QUERCIA V. UNITED STATES, 289
U.S. 466, 469.  "THE INFLUENCE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE ON THE JURY IS
NECESSARILY AND PROPERLY OF GREAT WEIGHT," STARR V. UNITED STATES, 153
U.S. 614, 626, AND JURORS ARE EVER WATCHFUL OF THE WORDS THAT FALL FROM
HIM.  PARTICULARLY IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL, THE JUDGE'S LAST WORD IS APT TO
BE THE DECISIVE WORD.  IF IT IS A SPECIFIC RULING ON A VITAL ISSUE AND
MISLEADING, THE ERROR IS NOT CURED BY A PRIOR UNEXCEPTIONABLE AND
UNILLUMINATING ABSTRACT CHARGE. 

AN EXPERIENCED TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT SUCH A LONG
WRANGLE IN THE JURY ROOM AS OCCURRED IN THIS CASE WOULD LEAVE THE JURY
IN A STATE OF FRAYED NERVES AND FATIGUED ATTENTION, WITH THE DESIRE TO
GO HOME AND ESCAPE OVERNIGHT DETENTION, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF A PLAIN
HINT FROM THE JUDGE THAT A VERDICT OUGHT TO BE FORTHCOMING.  THE JURY
WAS OBVIOUSLY IN DOUBT AS TO BOLLENBACH'S PARTICIPATION IN THE THEFT OF
THE SECURITIES IN MINNEAPOLIS AND THEIR TRANSPORTATION TO NEW YORK. 
THE JURY'S QUESTIONS, AND PARTICULARLY THE LAST WRITTEN INQUIRY IN
REPLY TO WHICH THE UNTENABLE "PRESUMPTION" WAS GIVEN, CLEARLY INDICATED
THAT THE JURORS WERE CONFUSED CONCERNING THE RELATION OF KNOWINGLY
DISPOSING OF STOLEN SECURITIES AFTER THEIR INTERSTATE JOURNEY HAD ENDED
TO THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRING TO TRANSPORT SUCH SECURITIES.  DISCHARGE OF
THE JURY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DRAWING APPROPRIATE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE
TESTIMONY DEPENDED ON DISCHARGE OF THE JUDGE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO GIVE
THE JURY THE REQUIRED GUIDANCE BY A LUCID STATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT
LEGAL CRITERIA.  WHEN A JURY MAKES EXPLICIT ITS DIFFICULTIES A TRIAL
JUDGE SHOULD CLEAR THEM AWAY WITH CONCRETE ACCURACY.  IN ANY EVENT,
THEREFORE, THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD NO BUSINESS TO BE "QUITE CURSORY" IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE JURY HERE ASKED FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
INSTRUCTION.  BUT HE WAS NOT EVEN "CURSORILY" ACCURATE.  HE WAS SIMPLY
WRONG. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS READ THE JUDGE'S CHARGE TO MEAN THAT THE
JURY WAS PERMITTED TO FIND BOLLENBACH "GUILTY OF A CONSPIRACY TO
TRANSPORT STOLEN NOTES IF HE JOINED IN THEIR DISPOSAL AFTER THE
TRANSPORTATION HAD ENDED."  WE SO READ IT.  THAT COURT, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, PROPERLY REJECTED THE PROPRIETY OF LEAVING THE CASE TO THE JURY
AS THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD LEFT IT, BUT SUSTAINED THE CONVICTION ON ITS OWN
ACCESSORY-AFTER-THE-FACT THEORY.  COMPELLED TO REPUDIATE THIS THEORY,
THE GOVERNMENT NOW SEEKS TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION ON THE AFTERTHOUGHT
THAT THE CHARGE DID NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAID, AND THAT, WHILE THE JURY
ASKED ONE QUESTION, THE TRIAL JUDGE REPLIED TO ANOTHER.  HERE THEN ARE
THREE DIFFERENT AND CONFLICTING THEORIES REGARDING A CHARGE DESIGNED TO
GUIDE THE JURY IN DETERMINING GUILT, AND YET WE ARE ASKED TO SUSTAIN
THE CONVICTION ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE JURY WAS PROPERLY GUIDED. 
THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE
SEVERAL FACTORS IN REGARD TO THE CRITICIZED CHARGE.  WHAT REASON IS
THERE FOR ASSUMING THAT THE JURY DID NOT ALSO FAIL TO APPRECIATE THESE
FACTORS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT, IN AN ELABORATE ARGUMENT, EXPLAINS AS
REQUISITE FOR A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH AT BEST WAS
DUBIOUSLY EXPRESSED?  A CONVICTION OUGHT NOT TO REST ON AN EQUIVOCAL
DIRECTION TO THE JURY ON A BASIC ISSUE.  AND A CHARGE DEEMED ERRONEOUS
BY THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF LONG EXPERIENCE AND WHO HAVE A STURDY VIEW
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS CERTAINLY NOT BETTER THAN EQUIVOCAL.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTION REALLY IMPLIES THAT, ALTHOUGH IT IS THE JUDGE'S
SPECIAL BUSINESS TO GUIDE THE JURY BY APPROPRIATE LEGAL CRITERIA
THROUGH THE MAZE OF FACTS BEFORE IT, WE CAN SAY THAT THE LAY JURY WILL
KNOW ENOUGH TO DISREGARD THE JUDGE'S BAD LAW IF IN FACT HE MISGUIDES
THEM.  TO DO SO WOULD TRANSFER TO THE JURY THE JUDGE'S FUNCTION IN
GIVING THE LAW AND TRANSFER TO THE APPELLATE COURT THE JURY'S FUNCTION
OF MEASURING THE EVIDENCE BY APPROPRIATE LEGAL YARDSTICKS. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE STING OF ERROR IS EXTRACTED BECAUSE
THERE WAS PROOF, OTHER THAN THE ERRONEOUS "PRESUMPTION," ON THE ISSUE
OF BOLLENBACH'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WRONGDOING BEFORE THE
TRANSPORTATION OF THE STOLEN SECURITIES HAD ENDED.  THIS IS TO
DISREGARD THE VITAL FACT THAT FOR SEVEN HOURS THE JURY WAS UNABLE TO
FIND GUILT IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAIN CHARGE, BUT REACHED A VERDICT OF
GUILTY UNDER THE CONSPIRACY COUNT FIVE MINUTES AFTER THEIR INQUIRY WAS
ANSWERED BY AN UNTENABLE LEGAL PROPOSITION.  IT WOULD INDEED BE A LONG
JUMP AT GUESSING TO BE CONFIDENT THAT THE JURY DID NOT RELY ON THE
ERRONEOUS "PRESUMPTION" GIVEN THEM AS A GUIDE.  A CHARGE SHOULD NOT BE
MISLEADING.  SEE AGNEW V. UNITED STATES, 165 U.S. 36, 52.  LEGAL
PRESUMPTIONS INVOLVE SUBTLE CONCEPTIONS TO WHICH NOT EVEN JUDGES ALWAYS
BRING CLEAR UNDERSTANDING.  SEE THAYER, PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON
EVIDENCE (1898) CHAPS.  8 AND 9; WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SECS.
2490-2540; MORGAN, SOME OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING PRESUMPTIONS (1931) 44
HARV. L. REV. 906; DENNING, PRESUMPTIONS AND BURDENS (1945) 61 L.Q.
REV. 379.  IN VIEW OF THE GOVERNMENT'S INSISTENCE THAT THERE IS
ABUNDANT EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT BOLLENBACH WAS IMPLICATED IN THE
CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE FROM THE BEGINNING, IT MAY NOT BE AMISS TO REMIND
THAT THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER GUILT MAY BE SPELT OUT OF A RECORD,
BUT WHETHER GUILT HAS BEEN FOUND BY A JURY ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE
AND STANDARDS APPROPRIATE FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 
ACCORDINGLY, WE CANNOT TREAT THE MANIFEST MISDIRECTION IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AS ONE OF THOSE "TECHNICAL ERRORS" WHICH "DO
NOT AFFECT THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES" AND MUST THEREFORE BE
DISREGARDED.  40 STAT. 1181, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 391.  ALL LAW IS TECHNICAL
IF VIEWED SOLELY FROM CONCERN FOR PUNISHING CRIME WITHOUT HEEDING THE
MODE BY WHICH IT IS ACCOMPLISHED.  THE "TECHNICAL ERRORS" AGAINST WHICH
CONGRESS PROTECTED JURY VERDICTS ARE OF THE KIND WHICH LED SOME JUDGES
TO TRIVIALIZE LAW BY GIVING ALL LEGAL PRESCRIPTIONS EQUAL POTENCY.  SEE
TAFT, ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL LAW (1905) 15 YALE L.J. 1, 15. 
DEVIATIONS FROM FORMAL CORRECTNESS DO NOT TOUCH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
STANDARDS BY WHICH GUILT IS DETERMINED IN OUR COURTS, AND IT IS THESE
THAT CONGRESS RENDERED HARMLESS.  BRUNO V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 287,
293-94; WEILER V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 606, 611.  FN1  FROM
PRESUMING TOO OFTEN ALL ERRORS TO BE "PREJUDICIAL," THE JUDICIAL
PENDULUM NEED NOT SWING TO PRESUMING ALL ERRORS TO BE "HARMLESS" IF
ONLY THE APPELLATE COURT IS LEFT WITHOUT DOUBT THAT ONE WHO CLAIMS ITS
CORRECTIVE PROCESS IS, AFTER ALL, GUILTY.  IN VIEW OF THE PLACE OF
IMPORTANCE THAT TRIAL BY JURY HAS IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, IT IS NOT TO
BE SUPPOSED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO SUBSTITUTE THE BELIEF OF
APPELLATE JUDGES IN THE GUILT OF AN ACCUSED, HOWEVER JUSTIFIABLY
ENGENDERED BY THE DEAD RECORD, FOR ASCERTAINMENT OF GUILT BY A JURY
UNDER APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL GUIDANCE, HOWEVER CUMBERSOME THAT PROCESS
MAY BE.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE THE APPLICATIONS BY THE ENGLISH COURTS OF A SIMILAR
PROVISION IN THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT, 1907:  MAXWELL V. DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, (1935) A.C. 309; REX V. LECKEY, (1944) 1 K.B. 80;
REX V. SLENDER, 26 CRIM. APP. REP. 155(1938); REX V. REDD, (1923) 1
K.B. 104; REX V. WATSON, (1916) 2 K.B. 385; REX V. AHLERS, (1915) 1
K.B. 616; REX V. THOMPSON, (1914) 2 K.B. 99; REX V. EDWARDS, (1913) 1
K.B. 287; REX V. RODLEY, (1913) 3 K.B. 468; REX V. ELLIS, (1910) 2 K.B.
746; REX V. DYSON, (1908) 2 K.B. 454; CF. BRAY V. FORD, (1896) A.C.
44.  AND SEE MAKIN V. ATTORNEY GENERAL, (1894) A.C. 57, CONSTRUING A
SIMILAR PROVISION IN THE CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1883. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463, HELD THAT THE MERE POSSESSION OF
A PISTOL COUPLED WITH CONVICTION FOR A PRIOR CRIME WAS NOT EVIDENCE
PROVING THAT THE PISTOL HAD BEEN SHIPPED OR TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  I AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE TRIAL
COURT'S CHARGE IN THIS CASE DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE TOT HOLDING. 
FOR THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT CHARGE THE JURY THAT INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF THE STOLEN SECURITIES COULD BE INFERRED FROM THEIR
MERE POSSESSION IN NEW YORK.  IN FACT, THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWED
THAT THE SECURITIES, STOLEN IN MINNESOTA, TURNED UP IN THE PETITIONER'S
POSSESSION IN NEW YORK VERY SHORTLY AFTER THE THEFT.  NO EVIDENCE WAS
OFFERED TO EXPLAIN THIS POSSESSION OF THE STOLEN GOODS.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIAL JUDGE RIGHTLY CHARGED THE JURY THAT THE
UNEXPLAINED POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY SHORTLY AFTER THE THEFT WAS
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER NOT ONLY KNEW THAT
THE BONDS WERE STOLEN BUT THAT HE WAS THE THIEF.  SUCH SEEMS TO HAVE
BEEN THE ESTABLISHED RULE OF LAW SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL.  FN1 

NEVER UNTIL TODAY HAS THIS COURT CAST ANY DOUBT ON THE EXISTENCE OR
SOUNDNESS OF THE RULE.  IN FACT IT HAS RECOGNIZED OR EXPRESSLY APPROVED
IT AS PROPER IN CASES INVOLVING LARCENY, DUNLOP V. UNITED STATES, 165
U.S. 486, 502; BURGLARY, MCNAMARA V. HENKEL, 226 U.S. 520, 524-525;
ARSON, WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 162 U.S. 613, 617, 619, 620; AND EVEN
MURDER, IBID.  AND IN THE WILSON CASE, SUPRA, THIS COURT APPROVED A
CHARGE BY THE TRIAL COURT USING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME LANGUAGE AS TO
"PRESUMPTION," WHICH THE TRIAL COURT HERE USED.  FN2  THERE IS NO
REASON WHICH I CAN CONCEIVE, AND THE COURT OFFERS NONE, WHY THE
SENSIBLE AND LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN ALL KINDS
OF CASES EXCEPT THE ONE BEFORE US. CERTAINLY EVIDENCE OF THE THEFT OF
THE BONDS AND THEIR TRANSPORT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF
THE THEFT, WAS RELEVANT ON BOTH COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT, THE FIRST
CHARGING THE THEFT AND TRANSPORTATION, AND THE SECOND CHARGING
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE CRIME.  AND THESE RELEVANT FACTS WERE CAPABLE
OF PROOF BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS TO EACH
COUNT.  THE "UNEXPLAINED POSSESSION" RULE IS IN SUBSTANCE A
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE.  THE EXPERIENCE OF AGES HAS JUSTLY GIVEN
THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE A HIGH VALUE.  IN MY
OPINION THE TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE INSOFAR AS IT STATED THAT UNEXPLAINED
POSSESSION OF THE STOLEN BONDS RAISED A "PRESUMPTION" THAT PETITIONER
WAS THE THIEF, WAS A CORRECT STATEMENT OF LAW UNDER OUR FORMER
DECISIONS.  THE COURT'S OPINION DOES NOT EXPLICITLY REPUDIATE THIS PART
OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S INSTRUCTION BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SUCH
REPUDIATION IS IMPLICIT IN THE COURT'S REASONING. 

THERE IS SOME INDICATION IN THE COURT'S OPINION THAT IT THOUGHT THE
ENTIRE ANSWER TO THE JURY'S QUESTION ERRONEOUS BECAUSE IT WAS
MISLEADING.  THE ONLY REASON, I CAN IMAGINE, WHY THE COURT'S ANSWER,
STATING THIS WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE, COULD BE THOUGHT MISLEADING, IS
THAT THE ANSWER WAS IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT. 
THUS THE COURT MAY BE SAYING THAT THE JURY MIGHT HAVE BELIEVED FROM THE
TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS THAT UNEXPLAINED POSSESSION IS NOT ONLY
PROOF THAT PETITIONER WAS THE THIEF BUT ALSO IS IN AND OF ITSELF PROOF
THAT HE WAS A CONSPIRATOR.  IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE
PREVIOUSLY FULLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON CONSPIRACY, I DO NOT THINK IT
EITHER POSSIBLE OR PROBABLE THAT THE JURY WAS MISLED IN THE WAY
INDICATED.  BUT MY OBJECTION IS CHIEFLY TO THE COURT'S REPUDIATION,
EITHER PARTIAL, OR COMPLETE, OF A RULE WHICH PERMITS COURTS AND JURIES
TO DRAW PERFECTLY JUSTIFIABLE INFERENCES FROM PROVEN FACTS. 

NOR DO I THINK THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS WRONG IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY THAT
THE UNEXPLAINED POSSESSION IN NEW YORK OF THE SECURITIES RECENTLY
STOLEN IN MINNESOTA JUSTIFIED AN INFERENCE THAT THE PETITIONER HAD
TRANSPORTED THEM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IF THIS POSSESSION IN NEW
YORK JUSTIFIED AN INFERENCE THAT HE HAD STOLEN THE SECURITIES IN
MINNESOTA, I FAIL TO SEE WHY IT DOES NOT ALSO JUSTIFY THE INFERENCE
THAT HE CARRIED THEM TO NEW YORK.  CAN IT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A
PRESUMPTION THAT HE STOLE THEM IN MINNESOTA AND THEN PASSED OUT OF THE
PICTURE WHILE THE STOLEN GOODS WERE CARRIED TO NEW YORK, AND THAT THE
JURY WAS COMPELLED TO ATTRIBUTE HIS POSSESSION IN NEW YORK TO SOMETHING
AS INDEFINITE AS AN "ACT OF GOD OR THE PUBLIC ENEMY"?  THE VERY
PRESUMPTION OF THEFT HAS TO CARRY WITH IT THE PRESUMPTION OF
TRANSPORTATION.  THIEVES DO NOT REMAIN AT THE SCENE OF THEIR CRIME. 
THE CLASSICAL DEFINITION OF LARCENY CONTAINS THE PHRASE "A FELONIOUS
TAKING AND CARRYING AWAY." 

THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS IMPROPERLY INVOKED TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S
HOLDING IN THIS CASE.  IT CONTEMPLATES THAT A DEFENDANT SHALL HAVE A
FAIR TRIAL, BUT IT DOES NOT COMMAND THAT JURIES SHALL BE DENIED THE
RIGHT TO DRAW THE KIND OF INFERENCES FROM ADMITTED FACTS THAT ALL
PEOPLE OF REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING WOULD DRAW.  I ASSUME THAT IF THESE
BONDS HAD BEEN STOLEN IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, AT 6 A.M., AND THIS
PETITIONER HAD TURNED UP WITH THEM JUST OUTSIDE THE NEW YORK AIRPORT AT
12 O'CLOCK NOON OF THE SAME DAY, A REASONABLE PERSON COULD NOT ONLY
INFER THAT HE HAD STOLEN THEM, BUT ALSO THAT HE HAD TRANSPORTED THEM. 
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DRAWING AN INFERENCE OF TRANSPORTATION IN
THAT CASE AND THE ONE BEFORE US IS THAT THE INFERENCE OF TRANSPORTATION
HERE MIGHT NOT BE QUITE SO OVERPOWERING.  BUT IT IS NONE THE LESS A
REASONABLE ONE. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE'S ORAL CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS CLEAR, FAIR, CORRECT,
AND UNCHALLENGED.  I DISAGREE WITH THE COURT'S CENSURE OF HIS
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS.  FN3  THE JURY'S VERDICT, GIVEN AFTER A FAIR
TRIAL, WAS SUPPORTED, IF NOT COMPELLED, BY THE EVIDENCE.  IT IS, IN MY
JUDGMENT, A DISSERVICE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL LAW TO REVERSE
THIS CASE. 

FN1  SEE THE CASES COLLECTED IN NOTES ON HUNT V. COMMONWEALTH, 70 AM.
DEC. 443, 447-452; STATE V. DREW, 101 AM. ST. REP. 474, 481-524. 

FN2  THE COURT'S CHARGE HERE CONDEMNED WAS THAT UNEXPLAINED
POSSESSION "RAISED A PRESUMPTION."  IT MAY BE, ALTHOUGH I AM NOT SURE,
THAT THE CONDEMNATION RESTS ON THE USE OF THE WORD "PRESUMPTION"
INSTEAD OF "INFERENCE."  AND IT IS TRUE THAT FINE-SPUN REFINEMENTS HAVE
BEEN INVENTED IN EFFORTS TO DISTINGUISH "PRESUMPTIONS" FROM
"INFERENCES," CF. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. GAMER, 303 U.S. 161, 175
177.  BUT I AM SURE THAT THIS JURY WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DIALECTICS
WHICH SOUGHT WITHOUT SUCCESS TO DELIVER THESE METAPHYSICAL DISTINCTIONS
FROM FOETAL DARKNESS.  AND THE NOTES ALREADY CITED, AS WELL AS MANY
CASES, HAVE SHOWN THAT NO SUCH PRACTICAL DISTINCTION EXISTS.  SEE E.G.
UNITED STATES V. DI CARLO, 64 F.2D 15, 17; UNITED STATES V. SEEMAN, 115
F.2D 371, 374.  THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE TREATED A "PRESUMPTION" AS AN
INFERENCE, JUST AS ANY JUROR WOULD, IS SHOWN BY AN EARLIER PART OF HIS
CHARGE AS FOLLOWS:  "IT IS THE LAW THAT THE UNEXPLAINED POSSESSION OF
STOLEN PROPERTY SHORTLY AFTER THE THEFT IS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
CONCLUSION BY A JURY OF KNOWLEDGE BY THE POSSESSOR THAT THE PROPERTY
WAS STOLEN."  AND IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THIS COURT SAID IN THE
WILSON CASE, SUPRA, AT 619-620, THAT "IN RICKMAN'S CASE, 2 EAST P.C.
1035, CITED, IT WAS HELD THAT ON AN INDICTMENT FOR ARSON, PROOF THAT
PROPERTY WAS IN THE HOUSE AT THE TIME IT WAS BURNED, AND WAS SOON
AFTERWARDS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PRISONER, RAISES A PROBABLE
PRESUMPTION THAT HE WAS PRESENT AND CONCERNED IN THE OFFENCE; AND IN
REX V. DIGGLES, (WILLS CIR. EV.*  53,) THAT THERE IS A LIKE PRESUMPTION
IN THE CASE OF MURDER ACCOMPANIED BY ROBBERY.  PROOF THAT DEFENDANT HAD
IN HIS POSSESSION, SOON AFTER, ARTICLES APPARENTLY TAKEN FROM THE
DECEASED AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH IS ALWAYS ADMISSIBLE, AND THE FACT,
WITH ITS LEGITIMATE INFERENCE, IS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY ALONG
WITH THE OTHER FACTS IN THE CASE IN ARRIVING AT THEIR VERDICT." 

FN3  THIS COURT READS THE TRIAL JUDGE'S CHARGE TO MEAN THAT
BOLLENBACH WAS "GUILTY OF A CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT STOLEN NOTES IF HE
JOINED IN THEIR DISPOSAL AFTER THE TRANSPORTATION HAD ENDED."  THE
TRIAL JUDGE ACTUALLY CHARGED THE JURY THUS:  "IF THE PARTICIPATION OF
THIS DEFENDANT IN THIS WAS SUBSEQUENT, THAT IS, THAT HE DID NOT KNOW
THAT THEY WERE TRANSPORTED, THAT IS, IF HE DID NOT TRANSPORT THEM OR
CAUSE THEM TO BE TRANSPORTED HIMSELF, OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE NO
OFFENSE.  THAT IS, IF THE BONDS ARRIVED IN NEW YORK AND HE HAD NOTHING
TO DO WITH TRANSPORTING OR CAUSING THEM TO BE TRANSPORTED THERE WOULD
BE NO OFFENSE."  LATER THE JURY ASKED THE JUDGE THIS QUESTION:  "IF THE
DEFENDANT WERE AWARE THAT THE BONDS WHICH HE AIDED IN DISPOSING OF WERE
STOLEN DOES THAT KNOWLEDGE MAKE HIM GUILTY ON THE SECOND COUNT?"  THE
JUDGE'S REPLY SO FAR AS RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION WAS:  "OF
COURSE IF IT OCCURRED AFTERWARDS IT WOULD NOT MAKE HIM GUILTY ..."  NOT
ONE WORD AND NOT ONE INTIMATION HAVE I BEEN ABLE TO DISCOVER IN THE
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY TO THE EFFECT THAT BOLLENBACH COULD BE
CONVICTED IF HE HAD DONE NO MORE THAN JOIN IN DISPOSAL OF THE BONDS
AFTER THEIR TRANSPORTATION HAD ENDED. 
..END :















HILLSBOROUGH V. CROMWELL, 326 U.S. 620 


NO. 305.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 14, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1946.  -
149 F.2D 617, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 274(D), A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF A STATE TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER THE
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE COMPLAINANT CAN NOT BE PROTECTED
ADEQUATELY BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS.  GREAT LAKES DREDGE &
DOCK CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, DIFFERENTIATED.  PP. 622-624. 

2.  WHERE A TAXPAYER WHO HAS BEEN SINGLED OUT FOR DISCRIMINATORY
TAXATION MAY NOT OBTAIN EQUALIZATION UNDER THE STATE LAW BY REDUCTION
OF HIS OWN ASSESSMENT BUT IS RESTRICTED TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OTHER
MEMBERS OF HIS CLASS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THEIR TAXES INCREASED,
THE STATE REMEDY IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 623. 

3.  A TAXPAYER BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF A STATE TAX
ASSESSMENT UNDER THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THERE WAS UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE MEANING OF
THE LOCAL LAW.  HE COULD HAVE APPEALED ORIGINALLY TO THE STATE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS, BUT THAT BOARD HAD NO RIGHT TO PASS ON CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS.  ITS JUDGMENTS COULD BE REVIEWED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT
BY CERTIORARI, BUT THE ALLOWANCE OF SUCH A WRIT WAS DISCRETIONARY.  THE
REFUSAL OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT COULD NOT BE
JUDICIALLY REVIEWED BY THE STATE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS.  WHEN THE
DISTRICT COURT RULED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, THE TIME FOR APPEAL TO THE
STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAD EXPIRED.  WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT
RENDERED JUDGMENT, THERE HAD BEEN A RECENT AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION
OF THE LOCAL LAW BY THE STATE COURT.  HELD: 

(A)  THERE WAS SUCH UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE STATE
REMEDY AS TO JUSTIFY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN RETAINING
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE.  P. 625. 

(B)  IT WAS PROPER FOR THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO PROCEED TO
DECIDE THE CASE ON ITS MERITS, EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION WAS NOT ON
FEDERAL GROUNDS BUT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE STATE STATUTE.  SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN,
323 U.S. 101, DIFFERENTIATED.  PP. 626-629. 

4.  THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING TO THIS CASE THE RULE OF
DUKE POWER CO. V. STATE BOARD, 129 N.J.L. 449, 131 N.J.L. 275, WHICH
INVOLVED CLOSELY ANALOGOUS FACTS.  P. 629. 

TOWNSHIP OF HILLSBOROUGH ET AL. V. CROMWELL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 704, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF A
DISTRICT COURT, 56 F.SUPP.  41, DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DECLARING CERTAIN STATE TAX ASSESSMENTS TO BE NULL AND VOID. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACT, JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 274(D), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400, TO HAVE DECLARED
NULL AND VOID CERTAIN ASSESSMENTS ON INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
ENTERED FOR THE YEARS 1940 AND 1941 BY THE COLLECTOR OF HILLSBOROUGH
TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.  FN1  THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURT IN NEW JERSEY WAS INVOKED BY REASON OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP AND THE ALLEGATION THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES HAD
CONSISTENTLY, SYSTEMATICALLY AND INTENTIONALLY SINGLED OUT RESPONDENT
FOR DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES FOR WHICH SHE
WAS WITHOUT REMEDY UNDER THE LAWS AND DECISIONS OF NEW JERSEY.  IT WAS
PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS BE DECLARED INVALID AS IN CONTRAVENTION OF
THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND OF THE PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE NEW JERSEY STATUTES TO
WHICH WE WILL LATER REFER.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED A MOTION TO
DISMISS AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  56 F.SUPP.  41.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  149 F.2D 617.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE THE ASSERTED
CONFLICT OF THAT DECISION WITH GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V.
HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, RAISED AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM CONCERNING THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL COURTS AND STATE TAXING AUTHORITIES. 

SEC. 267 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 384, PROVIDES THAT
SUITS IN EQUITY SHALL NOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS "IN ANY
CASE WHERE A PLAIN, ADEQUATE, AND COMPLETE REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW." 
THAT PRINCIPLE HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS HAVING "PECULIAR FORCE" IN
CASES WHERE THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE ASKED TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF A
STATE TAX.  MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525, AND CASES CITED. 
"THE SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF STATE
GOVERNMENTS WHICH SHOULD AT ALL TIMES ACTUATE THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND A
PROPER RELUCTANCE TO INTERFERE BY INJUNCTION WITH THEIR FISCAL
OPERATIONS, REQUIRE THAT SUCH RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED IN EVERY CASE
WHERE THE ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT MAY BE PRESERVED WITHOUT IT."  ID., P.
525.  WHERE THE REMEDY AT LAW IS "PLAIN, ADEQUATE, AND COMPLETE," IT IS
THE ONE WHICH MUST BE PURSUED EVEN FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANY FEDERAL
RIGHT.  THAT PRACTICE OF THE FEDERAL EQUITY COURTS WAS GIVEN FURTHER
RECOGNITION AND SANCTION BY CONGRESS IN THE JOHNSON ACT, 48 STAT. 775,
AS AMENDED, 50 STAT. 738, SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 41(1), WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO DISTRICT COURT SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION OF ANY SUIT TO ENJOIN, SUSPEND, OR RESTRAIN THE
ASSESSMENT, LEVY, OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX IMPOSED BY OR PURSUANT TO
THE LAWS OF ANY STATE WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY
BE HAD AT LAW OR IN EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE."  IT WAS
AGAINST THAT BACKGROUND THAT WE HELD IN GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO.
V. HUFFMAN, SUPRA, THAT THE POLICY WHICH LED FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY
TO REFRAIN FROM ENJOINING THE COLLECTION OF ALLEGEDLY UNLAWFUL STATE
TAXES SHOULD LIKEWISE GOVERN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR DISCRETION IN
WITHHOLDING RELIEF UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FULLY RECOGNIZED THE PRINCIPLE OF THE
HUFFMAN CASE, BUT CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE PROCEDURE WAS NOT "SPEEDY,
EFFICIENT OR ADEQUATE" TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL RIGHT AGAINST
DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXATION.  IT IS AROUND THAT CONCLUSION THAT THE
FIRST PHASE OF THIS CONTROVERSY TURNS. 

THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE
INDIVIDUAL FROM STATE ACTION WHICH SELECTS HIM OUT FOR DISCRIMINATORY
TREATMENT BY SUBJECTING HIM TO TAXES NOT IMPOSED ON OTHERS OF THE SAME
CLASS.  THE RIGHT IS THE RIGHT TO EQUAL TREATMENT.  HE MAY NOT COMPLAIN
IF EQUALITY IS ACHIEVED BY INCREASING THE SAME TAXES OF OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE CLASS TO THE LEVEL OF HIS OWN.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT,
HOWEVER, IS NOT SATISFIED IF A STATE DOES NOT ITSELF REMOVE THE
DISCRIMINATION, BUT IMPOSES ON HIM AGAINST WHOM THE DISCRIMINATION HAS
BEEN DIRECTED THE BURDEN OF SEEKING AN UPWARD REVISION OF THE TAXES OF
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CLASS.  SIOUX CITY BRIDGE CO. V. DAKOTA COUNTY,
260 U.S. 441, 445-447; IOWA-DES MOINES NATIONAL BANK V. BENNETT, 284
U.S. 239, 247; CUMBERLAND COAL CO. V. BOARD OF REVISION, 284 U.S. 23,
28-29.  THE COURTS OF NEW JERSEY IN A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS N2 HAVE
HELD THAT A TAXPAYER WHO HAS BEEN SINGLED OUT FOR DISCRIMINATORY
TAXATION MAY NOT OBTAIN EQUALIZATION BY REDUCTION OF HIS OWN
ASSESSMENT.  HIS REMEDY IS RESTRICTED TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OTHER
MEMBERS OF HIS CLASS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THEIR TAXES INCREASED. 
THE RULE WAS STATED IN ROYAL MFG. CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 76
N.J.L. 402, 70 A. 978, AFF'D 78 N.J.L. 337, 74 A. 525, AS FOLLOWS:
"...  THE COUNTY BOARDS ARE REQUIRED TO SECURE TAXATION OF ALL PROPERTY
AT ITS TRUE VALUE; SO THAT THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY OF A IS ASSESSED
AT ITS TRUE VALUE AND THE PROPERTY OF OTHER TAXPAYERS WITHIN THE SAME
DISTRICT IS ASSESSED BELOW ITS TRUE VALUE, AFFORDS A NO GROUND FOR
DEMANDING A REDUCTION OF HIS VALUATION, THOUGH IT DOES ENTITLE HIM TO
APPLY FOR AN INCREASE IN THE VALUATION OF THE OTHERS."  76 N.J.L. PP.
404-405.  ON THE BASIS OF THAT RULE IT IS PLAIN THAT THE STATE REMEDY
IS NOT ADEQUATE TO PROTECT RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT IN 1933 THE NEW JERSEY COURTS ADOPTED A
DIFFERENT RULE WHEN CENTRAL R. CO. V. STATE TAX DEPT. (THAYER-MARTIN),
112 N.J.L. 5, 169 A. 489, WAS DECIDED BY THE COURT OF ERRORS AND
APPEALS.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT DID ENTERTAIN AN OBJECTION THAT THE
PARTICULAR TAX ASSESSMENT VIOLATED THE RULE OF SIOUX CITY BRIDGE CO. V.
DAKOTA COUNTY, SUPRA.  IT FOUND THAT THE COMPLAINING TAXPAYER HAD NOT
SHOWN THAT A DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR CASES EXISTED. 
SO IT IS ARGUED THAT AS THE HIGHEST COURT IN NEW JERSEY RECOGNIZED THE
FEDERAL RULE, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE REMITTED
RESPONDENT TO HER REMEDY IN THE NEW JERSEY COURTS.  THERE IS, HOWEVER,
A TWO-FOLD DIFFICULTY WITH THAT POSITION. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE SAME JUDGE WHO WROTE THE OPINION FOR THE
COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS IN THE THAYER-MARTIN CASE WROTE THE OPINION
FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A YEAR LATER IN LEHIGH VALLEY R.
CO. V. STATE BOARD, 12 N.J. MISC. 673, 174 A. 359.  THE TAXPAYER
CONTENDED THAT THE STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ERRED IN REFUSING TO
ADMIT EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION.  THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE RULE OF
SIOUX CITY BRIDGE CO. V. DAKOTA COUNTY, SUPRA, SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND
THE HOLDING OF ROYAL MFG. CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, SUPRA, SHOULD
BE DISAPPROVED.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY DECLINED TO ALLOW A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENTS OF THE STATE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS.  IT DID NOT MENTION THE THAYER-MARTIN CASE, BUT FOLLOWED ROYAL
MFG. CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, SUPRA, SAYING THAT THE NEW JERSEY
LAW ON THE POINT WAS "SETTLED AND CONTROLLING."  12 N.J. MISC. P. 675. 
IT, THEREFORE, MAY WELL BE TRUE, AS RESPONDENT SAYS, THAT THE COURT IN
THE THAYER-MARTIN CASE SIMPLY DECIDED THAT THE POINT RAISED BY THE
TAXPAYER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO
CONSIDER WHETHER, IF SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION HAD BEEN SHOWN, NEW
JERSEY WOULD HAVE AFFORDED AN ADEQUATE REMEDY.  IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS
SUCH UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE NEW JERSEY REMEDY AS TO MAKE IT
SPECULATIVE (WALLACE V. HINES, 253 U.S. 66, 68) WHETHER THE STATE
AFFORDS FULL PROTECTION TO THE FEDERAL RIGHTS.  IN THE SECOND PLACE,
THE STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS TO WHICH RESPONDENT MIGHT HAVE APPEALED
CONCEDEDLY HAS NO RIGHT TO PASS ON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  FN3  ITS
JUDGMENTS MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT BY
CERTIORARI.  THE ALLOWANCE OF THAT WRIT, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MATTER OF
RIGHT, BUT PURELY DISCRETIONARY.  FN4  AND THE REFUSAL OF A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY THE SUPREME COURT MAY NOT BE JUDICIALLY REVIEWED BY THE
COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS.  FN5  ACCORDINGLY WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE
WAS SUCH UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE STATE REMEDY AS TO
JUSTIFY THE DISTRICT COURT IN RETAINING JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE. 
WHILE THE CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE COMPLAINT WERE DENIED, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE BILL (HART V. B.F. KEITH VAUDEVILLE EXCHANGE, 262 U.S. 271) WHICH
HERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE SECOND PHASE OF THE CONTROVERSY.  NEITHER THE
DISTRICT COURT NOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE ON
FEDERAL GROUNDS.  THEY HELD IN RELIANCE ON DUKE POWER CO. V. STATE
BOARD, 129 N.J.L. 449, 30 A.2D 416, 131 N.J.L. 275, 36 A.2D 201, THAT
THE ASSESSMENTS WERE INVALID UNDER THE NEW JERSEY STATUTES.  IN THAT
CASE, AS IN THE PRESENT ONE, PROPERTY "OMITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT" WAS
ATTEMPTED TO BE ASSESSED BY THE COUNTY BOARD AGAINST THE TAXPAYER AFTER
APRIL 1ST OF EACH OF THE TAX YEARS INVOLVED WITHOUT NOTICE AND
HEARING.  FN6  THE ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE AS NOT BEING IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE STATUTE.  AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE REMEDIAL STATUTES,  FN7
DESIGNED TO CURE IRREGULARITIES IN ASSESSING OR LEVYING TAXES, "DO NOT
APPLY WHERE THE STATUTE FOR THE ADDITION OF PROPERTY OMITTED FROM THE
ASSESSMENT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH."  129 N.J.L. P. 457. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM DUKE POWER CO. V. STATE
BOARD, SUPRA, THAT RESPONDENT HAD A REMEDY IN THE STATE TRIBUNALS FOR
FAILURE OF PETITIONER TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY THE NEW
JERSEY STATUTES AND THAT THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED HER TO
PURSUE IT.  WE HAVE HELD THAT WHERE A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
TURNS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF LOCAL LAW AND THE LOCAL LAW IS IN DOUBT,
THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS FOR THE FEDERAL COURT TO HOLD THE CASE UNTIL A
DEFINITE DETERMINATION OF THE LOCAL LAW CAN BE MADE BY THE STATE
COURTS.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496; CHICAGO V.
FIELDCREST DAIRIES, 316 U.S. 168; SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323
U.S. 101.  THE LATTER CASE INVOLVED A SUIT IN WHICH THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A CONNECTICUT TAX WAS CHALLENGED.  THERE WAS
UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THE LOCAL LAW.  UNDER ONE
CONSTRUCTION THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WOULD FALL; AND IN ANY EVENT A
DECISION BY THE STATE COURTS WOULD CAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES TO
BE FORMULATED IN AN AUTHORITATIVE RATHER THAN A SPECULATIVE WAY.  BUT
IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS AVAILABLE A STATE REMEDY TO WHICH THE
COMPLAINANT COULD RESORT ON THE REMAND OF THE CAUSE.  IN THE PRESENT
CASE IT APPEARS THAT RESPONDENT'S OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO THE STATE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS  FN8  HAD EXPIRED EVEN BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT
RULED ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS N9.  AND IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT TODAY
RESPONDENT HAS OPEN ANY ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE NEW JERSEY COURTS FOR
CHALLENGING THE ASSESSMENTS ON LOCAL LAW GROUNDS.  FN10  MOREOVER, DUKE
POWER CO. V. STATE BOARD, SUPRA, DECIDED SHORTLY BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT,  FN11  GAVE AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF
THE LOCAL LAW.  HENCE, THE REASON FOR HOLDING THE CASE IN SPECTOR MOTOR
CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, SUPRA, AND REMITTING THE COMPLAINANT TO THE STATE
COURTS FOR DETERMINATION OF THE LOCAL LAW QUESTION NO LONGER WAS
EXISTENT HERE. 

IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT THE BILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 
AS STATED IN GREENE V. LOUISVILLE & I.R. CO., 244 U.S. 499, 520, "A
REMEDY AT LAW CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE, SO AS TO PREVENT EQUITABLE
RELIEF, UNLESS IT COVERS THE ENTIRE CASE MADE BY THE BILL IN EQUITY." 
THOUGH THE AVAILABILITY OF A STATE REMEDY ON THE LOCAL LAW QUESTION BE
ASSUMED TO EXIST, SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDS THE NEW JERSEY REMEDY
TO PROTECT THE TAXPAYER'S FEDERAL RIGHT THAT A REFUSAL TO DISMISS THE
BILL WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF DISCRETION.  THUS, HOWEVER THE CASE MAY
BE VIEWED, THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WE HAVE NOTED TAKE IT
OUT OF THE GENERAL RULE OF GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V. HUFFMAN,
SUPRA.  THE DISTRICT COURT, THEREFORE, PROPERLY PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE
CASE ON THE MERITS.  THAT IT PLACED ITS DECISION ON LOCAL LAW GROUNDS
IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE.  FOR IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHERE THE FEDERAL
COURT HAS JURISDICTION, IT MAY PASS ON THE WHOLE CASE AND AGREEABLY
WITH THE DESIRED PRACTICE DECIDE IT ON LOCAL LAW QUESTIONS, WITHOUT
REACHING THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.  SILER V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO.,
213 U.S. 175, 191, 193; GREENE V. LOUISVILLE & I.R. CO., SUPRA, P. 508;
CHICAGO G.W.R. CO. V. KENDALL, 266 U.S. 94, 97-98; RISTY V. CHICAGO,
R.I. & P.R. CO., 270 U.S. 378, 387; WAGGONER ESTATE V. WICHITA COUNTY,
273 U.S. 113, 116; HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238, 243-248. 

PETITIONER MAKES AN EXTENDED ARGUMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT DUKE POWER
CO. V. STATE BOARD, SUPRA, IS NOT A CONTROLLING PRECEDENT ON THE LOCAL
LAW QUESTION ON WHICH THE DECISION BELOW TURNED.  ON SUCH QUESTIONS WE
PAY GREAT DEFERENCE TO THE VIEWS OF THE JUDGES OF THOSE COURTS "WHO ARE
FAMILIAR WITH THE INTRICACIES AND TRENDS OF LOCAL LAW AND PRACTICE." 
HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232, 237.  WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING TO
THIS CASE THE RULE OF DUKE POWER CO. V. STATE BOARD, WHICH INVOLVED
CLOSELY ANALOGOUS FACTS.  AFFIRMED.    FN1  THE ASSESSMENTS CALL FOR
TAX PAYMENTS OF NEARLY $7,000,000 FOR EACH YEAR AS COMPARED WITH THE
TOWNSHIP'S BUDGET OF SOMETHING LIKE $97,000 ANNUALLY.  PRIOR TO THESE
ASSESSMENTS THE NET ASSESSED VALUATION FOR TAXATION OF ALL PROPERTY
ASSESSED, BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL, IN THE TOWNSHIP AMOUNTED TO
$3,117,863 FOR 1940 AND $3,139,020 FOR 1941.  THE RESULTING TAX RATE
WAS 3.12 PER CENT FOR 1940 AND 3.10 PER CENT FOR 1941.  THE ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST RESPONDENT APPARENTLY WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE
VALUATION OF THE TOWNSHIP TAX RATABLES BY $221,940,438 FOR EACH OF THE
TWO TAX YEARS, THOUGH IT WOULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE TAX RATES FOR
THOSE YEARS. 

FN2  STATE V. RANDOLPH, 25 N.J.L. 427, 431; STATE V. TAYLOR, 35
N.J.L. 184, 189; STATE V. KOSTER, 38 N.J.L. 308; STATE V. SEGOINE, 53
N.J.L. 339, 340, 21 A. 852, AFF'D 54 N.J.L. 212, 25 A. 963; CENTRAL R.
CO. V. STATE BOARD, 74 N.J.L. 1, 65 A. 244; ROYAL MFG. CO. V. BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION, 76 N.J.L. 402, 78 N.J.L. 337; PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. V.
SADDLE RIVER, 96 N.J.L. 40, 43, 114 A. 157. 

FN3  DUKE POWER CO. V. HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, 20 N.J. MISC. 240, 243,
26 A.2D 713(REVERSED ON ANOTHER POINT, 129 N.J.L. 449, 30 A.2D 416);
SCHWARTZ V. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD, 129 N.J.L. 129, 132, 28 A.2D 482, AFF'D
130 N.J.L. 177, 32 A.2D 354. 

FN4  STAUBACH V. CITIES SERVICE OIL CO., 130 N.J.L. 157, 31 A.2D
804. 

FN5  POST V. ANDERSON, 111 N.J.L. 303, 168 A. 622; STAUBACH V. CITIES
SERVICE OIL CO., SUPRA NOTE 4. 

FN6  N.J. REV. STAT. SEC. 54: 3-20 PROVIDES IN PART, "ON THE WRITTEN
COMPLAINT OF THE COLLECTOR, OR ANY TAXPAYER OF THE TAXING DISTRICT OR
OF THE GOVERNING BODY THEREOF, THAT PROPERTY SPECIFIED HAS BEEN OMITTED
IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE COUNTY BOARD, ON FIVE DAYS' NOTICE IN WRITING TO
THE OWNER BY THE PARTY COMPLAINING, AND AFTER DUE EXAMINATION AND
HEARING, MAY ENTER THE OMITTED PROPERTY ON THE DUPLICATE BY JUDGMENT
RENDERED WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE HEARING, A TRANSCRIPT WHEREOF SHALL
BE FURNISHED BY THE BOARD TO THE COLLECTOR, WHO SHALL AMEND HIS
DUPLICATE ACCORDINGLY." 

A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE IS PROVIDED BY SEC. 54: 3-20 FOR INCLUSION OF
PROPERTY "OMITTED BY THE ASSESSOR."  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF ASSESSMENTS SEE DUKE POWER CO. V. STATE BOARD,
SUPRA, 129 N.J.L. PP. 452-455.  AT P. 455, THE COURT SAID:  "IF
PROPERTY IN A TAXING DISTRICT IS OMITTED BY THE ASSESSOR IT MUST BE
ADDED TO THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE APRIL 1ST.  ITS ADDITION DECREASES THE
AMOUNT OF TAXES TO BE RAISED SINCE THE RATABLES ARE THEREBY INCREASED. 
THE TAXPAYER IS NOT EMBARRASSED.  HE KNOWS HE WILL HAVE A TAX TO PAY
AND IS LIABLE ANYWAY EVEN IF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
ASSESSMENT.  HOWEVER, IF PROPERTY IS ADDED TO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER THE
RATE HAS BEEN FIXED IT GIVES RISE TO A MUNICIPAL WINDFALL.  THERE IS NO
HARM IN THIS IF THERE WERE DUE NOTICE AND A FAIR HEARING BY THE COUNTY
BOARD AND A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION BY IT." 

FN7  SEC. 54: 4-58 PROVIDES: 

"NO TAX, ASSESSMENT OR WATER RATE IMPOSED OR LEVIED IN THIS STATE
SHALL BE SET ASIDE OR REVERSED IN ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING FOR
ANY IRREGULARITY OR DEFECT IN FORM, OR ILLEGALITY IN ASSESSING, LAYING
OR LEVYING ANY SUCH TAX, ASSESSMENT OR WATER RATE, OR IN THE PROCEEDING
FOR ITS COLLECTION IF THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM OR THE PROPERTY UPON
WHICH IT IS ASSESSED OR LAID IS, IN FACT, LIABLE TO TAXATION,
ASSESSMENT OR IMPOSITION OF THE WATER RATE, IN RESPECT TO THE PURPOSES
FOR WHICH THE TAX, ASSESSMENT OR RATE IS LEVIED, ASSESSED OR LAID." 

SEC. 54: 4-59 PROVIDES: 

"THE COURT IN WHICH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING IS OR SHALL BE
PENDING TO REVIEW ANY SUCH TAX, ASSESSMENT OR WATER RATE SHALL AMEND
ALL IRREGULARITIES, ERRORS OR DEFECTS, AND MAY IF NECESSARY ASCERTAIN
AND DETERMINE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PERSON OR PROPERTY WAS LEGALLY
LIABLE AND BY ORDER OR DECREE FIX THE AMOUNT THEREOF.  THE SUM SO FIXED
SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF TAX, ASSESSMENT OR WATER RATE FOR WHICH THE
PERSON OR PROPERTY SHALL BE LIABLE." 

THE COURT IN DUKE POWER CO. V. STATE BOARD, SUPRA, 129 N.J.L. P. 457,
STATED THAT "THE REMEDIAL STATUTES WE DO NOT FIND TO HAVE BEEN A
SUBSTITUTE FOR PROPER ASSESSMENT.  THEIR APPLICATION HAS BEEN ONLY IN
INSTANCES WHERE PROPERTY HAS BEEN OMITTED BY THE ASSESSOR OR HAS BEEN
ASSESSED IN THE NAME OF ONE OTHER THAN THE TRUE OWNER." 

FN8  NINETY DAYS ARE ALLOWED.  STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, RULE V
(C), CCH.  CORP.  TAX SERV. PAR. 89-505.  THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE COUNTY
BOARD ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENTS WERE ENTERED JUNE 26, 1941. 

FN9  THE PRESENT BILL WAS FILED IN JULY, 1941, THE ANSWER IN
SEPTEMBER, 1941, AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS IN NOVEMBER, 1941.  THE
ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS MADE IN AUGUST, 1942. 

FN10  IT SEEMS THAT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT MAY BE HAD IN LIEU OF AN APPEAL TO THE STATE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS.  IT WAS HELD IN SCHWARTZ V. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD, SUPRA NOTE 3,
THAT LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY BOARD OR IRREGULARITY IN ITS
PROCEEDINGS MAY BE TESTED BY CERTIORARI.  130 N.J.L. P. 178.  AND SEE
STATE V. CLOTHIER, 30 N.J.L. 351.  BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, NOTE 4 SUPRA,
IT IS A DISCRETIONARY WRIT. 

FN11  THAT CASE WAS DECIDED BY THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS ON
MARCH 9, 1944.  THE PRESENT CASE WAS DECIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON
JULY 14, 1944. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















ALLEN V. TRUST CO., 326 U.S. 630 


NO. 289.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 4, 1946.  - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1946.  - 149
F.2D 120, AFFIRMED. 


IN 1925, DECEDENT ESTABLISHED TWO SPENDTHRIFT TRUSTS FOR HIS CHILDREN,
TRANSFERRING SECURITIES TO EACH TRUST AND RESERVING THE POWER TO AMEND
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE TRUSTEE AND BENEFICIARY.  IN 1934 HE ADDED
SECURITIES TO EACH TRUST.  HE PAID GIFT TAXES ON THESE TRANSFERS. 
LEARNING IN 1937 THAT, UNDER A RECENT DECISION OF THIS COURT, THE
RESERVATION OF THE POWER TO AMEND BROUGHT THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST INTO
THE SETTLOR'S ESTATE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES, HE RENOUNCED THE POWER TO
AMEND. HE DIED IN 1938 AT THE AGE OF 82.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE INCLUDED THE CORPUS OF EACH TRUST IN HIS ESTATE AND COLLECTED
THE ESTATE TAX ON IT.  THE EXECUTORS SUED FOR A REFUND.  BOTH THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT DECEDENT
ESTABLISHED THE TRUSTS TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF HIS CHILDREN BY
GIVING THEM PROPERTY FREED OF ALL CLAIMS, TAX OR OTHERWISE, AND THAT HE
RENOUNCED THE POWER TO AMEND IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE WHICH
HE ORIGINALLY HAD BUT WHICH HE LATER DISCOVERED HAD NOT BEEN ACHIEVED. 
HELD: 

1.  THOSE FINDINGS ARE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE STATUTORY
PRESUMPTION THAT THE RENOUNCEMENT OF THE POWER TO AMEND, BEING MADE
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF DECEDENT'S DEATH, WAS MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF
DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 302(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  P.
635. 

2.  THE QUESTION WHETHER A DONOR'S DOMINANT MOTIVE IS ASSOCIATED WITH
LIFE, RATHER THAN WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY IN CONTEMPLATION OF
DEATH, IS A QUESTION OF FACT IN EACH CASE.  P. 636. 

3.  WHERE THE QUESTION ARISES OUT OF A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS ALL
RELATED TO THE SAME PURPOSE, IT IS NOT PROPER TO ISOLATE ONE
TRANSACTION FROM ALL THE OTHERS AND TREAT IT AS A WHOLLY INDEPENDENT
TRANSACTION.  P. 636. 

4.  WHERE THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS IS TO
PROVIDE FOR THE DONOR'S CHILDREN, THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LAST
TRANSACTION IS TO RECTIFY AN ERROR WHICH WOULD HAVE SUBJECTED THE
CORPUS OF THE TRUST TO AN ESTATE TAX DOES NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT IT WAS A TRANSACTION IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 302(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  P. 636. 

ALLEN, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. TRUST COMPANY OF GEORGIA ET
AL., EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 700, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, 55
F.SUPP.  269, AGAINST A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR A REFUND OF
AN OVERPAYMENT OF AN ESTATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DECEDENT, JACK J. SPALDING, DIED DECEMBER 8, 1938, AT THE AGE OF
82.  IN 1925 HE ESTABLISHED TWO SPENDTHRIFT TRUSTS - ONE FOR HIS
DAUGHTER SUZANNE AND ONE FOR HIS SON JACK - AND TRANSFERRED TO EACH
TRUST SECURITIES OF THE VALUE OF $50,000.  IN 1934 HE ADDED SECURITIES
TO EACH TRUST.  HE PAID GIFT TAXES ON THESE TRANSFERS.  WHEN HE DIED,
THE COMMISSIONER INCLUDED THE CORPUS OF EACH TRUST IN HIS ESTATE AND
COLLECTED THE ESTATE TAX ON IT.  THE EXECUTORS BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR A
REFUND.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE TRUSTS WERE ESTABLISHED
UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

SUZANNE AND HER HUSBAND, BEFORE 1925, HAD ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS
VENTURE WHICH HAD ENDED IN DISASTER.  BOTH HAD LOST ALL THEIR PROPERTY
AND WERE HEAVILY INDEBTED.  SUZANNE'S HUSBAND WAS WITHOUT MEANS TO
SUPPORT HER AND THEIR FIVE CHILDREN.  JACK LIKEWISE HAD ENGAGED IN AN
UNSUCCESSFUL BUSINESS VENTURE.  HE WAS NOT EARNING ENOUGH TO SUPPORT
HIS FAMILY.  THE GIFTS WERE MADE BY THE DECEDENT TO RELIEVE THE NEEDS
AND TO MAKE SECURE THE MAINTENANCE OF HIS CHILDREN AND THE EDUCATION
AND SUPPORT OF HIS GRANDCHILDREN.  THE GIFTS WERE PLACED IN TRUST
BECAUSE SUZANNE AND JACK HAD LOST PRIOR GIFTS IN UNSUCCESSFUL
PROJECTS.  THE DECEDENT DESIRED TO PROTECT THEM AGAINST THEIR OWN
BUSINESS MISADVENTURES AND NOT TO RETAIN ANY BENEFIT, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, TO HIMSELF.  HE MADE THE GIFTS TO MEET THEIR NECESSITIES
AND DESIRED TO SET ASIDE THE TRUST PROPERTY, FREED FROM ALL CLAIMS, TAX
OR OTHERWISE.  THE DECEDENT, HOWEVER, RETAINED UNDER THE TRUSTS A POWER
TO AMENDED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE TRUSTEE AND BENEFICIARY.  FN1  AT
THE TIME THE TRUSTS WERE ESTABLISHED IN 1925 AND ENLARGED IN 1934 HE
BELIEVED THAT THE GIFTS WERE COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE AND INTENDED THEM TO
BE SUCH.  HE WAS A LAWYER AND BELIEVED THAT UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW THE
RESERVATION OF SUCH A POWER TO AMEND WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE INCLUSION IN
HIS GROSS ESTATE AT HIS DEATH OF THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS OF EACH
TRUST.  BUT IN 1935 HELVERING V. CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO., 296 U.S.
85, WAS DECIDED, HOLDING THAT THE RESERVATION OF A POWER TO AMEND
BROUGHT THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST INTO THE SETTLOR'S ESTATE, EVEN THOUGH
THE POWER COULD NOT BE EXERCISED BY THE SETTLOR ALONE.  UPON BEING
ADVISED IN 1937 THAT THE GIFTS REMAINED A PART OF HIS ESTATE FOR ESTATE
TAX PURPOSES, DECEDENT EXECUTED AN INSTRUMENT RENOUNCING THE POWER TO
AMEND THE TRUSTS.  THIS WAS DONE SO THAT THE TRUSTS WOULD NOT BE A PART
OF HIS ESTATE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  AT THAT TIME, AS WELL AS IN
1925 AND 1934, THE DECEDENT WAS IN AVERAGE GOOD HEALTH FOR A MAN OF HIS
AGE.  HE RELEASED THE POWER TO AMEND SO AS TO PUT THE TRUSTS IN THE
CONDITION HE HAD THOUGHT THEY WERE IN WHEN HE MADE THEM.  THE RELEASE
WAS DESIGNED TO CARRY OUT HIS ORIGINAL PURPOSE IN SETTING ASIDE THE
PROPERTY FREED FROM ALL CLAIMS, TAX OR OTHERWISE.  IN 1925, 1934, AND
1937, HE DID NOT ENTERTAIN THOUGHTS OF DEATH EXCEPT THE GENERAL
EXPECTATION OF DEATH THAT ALL ENTERTAIN. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER THE ESTABLISHMENT OR THE
ENLARGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS, NOR THE RELEASE OF THE POWER TO AMEND WAS
MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.  ACCORDINGLY, IT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR
RESPONDENTS.  55 F.SUPP.  269.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED
THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  149 F.2D
120.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF AN APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT DECISION AND CASES
FROM OTHER CIRCUITS.  FN2 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CORPUS OF EACH TRUST WAS PROPERLY INCLUDED IN
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE IF HE RELEASED THE POWER TO AMEND IN
CONTEMPLATION OF HIS DEATH.  FN3  AND THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT HE
DID SO BECAUSE THE RELEASE WAS MADE LESS THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE HIS
DEATH.  FN4 

IT WAS SAID IN UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S. 102, 117, THAT A GIFT
IS MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ESTATE TAX
LAW IF "THE MOTIVE WHICH INDUCES" IT IS "OF THE SORT WHICH LEADS TO
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION."  PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS THAT A PURPOSE TO
AVOID THE ESTATE TAX IS SUCH A MOTIVE.  IT IS A MOTIVE WHICH WOULD
CAUSE A DECEDENT TO MAKE AN INTER VIVOS TRANSFER RATHER THAN A WILL. 
SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH PROVISION WAS TO REACH
SUBSTITUTES FOR TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS IN ORDER TO PREVENT EVASIONS
OF THE TAX (UNITED STATES V. WELLS, SUPRA, PP. 116-117), THE STATUTE IS
SATISFIED, IT IS SAID, WHERE FOR ANY REASON THE DECEDENT BECOMES
CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO HIS PROPERTY AT HIS DEATH AND AS A
RESULT TAKES ACTION TO CONTROL OR IN SOME MANNER AFFECT ITS
DEVOLUTION. 

THAT IS A CORRECT STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE FOR IT
PRESUMES THE EXISTENCE OF THE REQUISITE MOTIVE.  THE TRANSFER IS MADE
IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH IF THE THOUGHT OF DEATH IS THE "IMPELLING
CAUSE OF THE TRANSFER."  CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. V. MCGOWAN, 323
U.S. 594, 599.  THE TRANSFER MAY BE SO MOTIVATED, EVEN THOUGH THE
DECEDENT HAD NO IDEA THAT HE WAS ABOUT TO DIE.  UNITED STATES V. WELLS,
SUPRA, PP. 117-118.  ON THE OTHER HAND, EVERY MAN MAKING A GIFT KNOWS
THAT WHAT HE GIVES AWAY TODAY WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN HIS ESTATE WHEN
HE DIES.  ALL SUCH GIFTS PLAINLY ARE NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH
IN THE STATUTORY SENSE.  MANY GIFTS, EVEN TO THOSE WHO ARE THE NATURAL
AND APPROPRIATE OBJECTS OF THE DONOR'S BOUNTY, ARE MOTIVATED BY
"PURPOSES ASSOCIATED WITH LIFE, RATHER THAN WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF
PROPERTY IN ANTICIPATION OF DEATH."  UNITED STATES V. WELLS, SUPRA, P.
118.  THOSE MOTIVES COVER A WIDE RANGE.  SEE 1 PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE &
GIFT TAXATION (1942) SECS. 6.09 ET SEQ. "THERE MAY BE THE DESIRE TO
RECOGNIZE SPECIAL NEEDS OR EXIGENCIES OR TO DISCHARGE MORAL
OBLIGATIONS.  THE GRATIFICATION OF SUCH DESIRES MAY BE A MORE
COMPELLING MOTIVE THAN ANY THOUGHT OF DEATH."  UNITED STATES V. WELLS,
SUPRA, P. 119.  WHETHER SUCH A DESIRE WAS THE DOMINANT, CONTROLLING OR
IMPELLING MOTIVE IS A QUESTION OF FACT IN EACH CASE.  WE DO NOT HAVE
HERE THE TYPE OF PROBLEM PRESENTED IN MCCAUGHN V. REAL ESTATE LAND CO.,
297 U.S. 606, WHERE THE APPELLATE COURT UNDERTOOK TO REVERSE THE TRIAL
COURT ON A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.  HERE TWO COURTS HAVE RESOLVED THAT
QUESTION OF FACT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS.  THEY HAVE FOUND, AS WE HAVE
SAID, THAT MR. SPALDING ESTABLISHED THE TRUSTS TO MEET THE NECESSITIES
OF HIS CHILDREN BY GIVING THEM PROPERTY, FREED OF ALL CLAIMS, TAX OR
OTHERWISE; AND THAT IN 1937 HE RELEASED THE POWER TO AMEND TO
ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE WHICH HE ORIGINALLY HAD, BUT WHICH HE LATER
DISCOVERED HAD NOT BEEN ACHIEVED.  THOSE FINDINGS ARE SUFFICIENT TO
OVERCOME THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE GIFTS, BEING MADE WITHIN
TWO YEARS OF MR. SPALDING'S DEATH, WERE MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF
DEATH.  THOSE FINDINGS, BEING CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE TWO LOWER
COURTS, WILL BE ACCEPTED HERE WITHOUT REEXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 501, 508, AND CASES CITED. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THOSE FINDINGS REST ON A MISCONCEPTION OF
THE LAW, SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE DECEDENT IN 1937 RELEASED THE POWER TO
AMEND SO AS TO AVOID PAYING AN ESTATE TAX ON THE PROPERTY INCLUDED
UNDER THE TRUSTS.  BUT THAT IS TO ISOLATE THE RELEASE FROM ALL THAT
PRECEDED AND TO TREAT IT AS A WHOLLY INDEPENDENT TRANSACTION.  THIS IS
NOT A CASE WHERE A SETTLOR, HAVING MADE ONE PLAN FOR THE DISPOSITION OF
HIS PROPERTY, LATER MAKES A DIFFERENT ONE TO AVOID DEATH TAXES.  MR.
SPALDING, IN MAKING THE RELEASE, DID WHAT HE ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO DO
TO MAKE COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE GIFTS TO HIS CHILDREN, FREED OF ALL
CLAIMS, INCLUDING TAXES.  RETENTION OF THE POWER TO AMEND WOULD HAVE
BROUGHT THE TRUST PROPERTY INTO MR. SPALDING'S ESTATE AND SUBJECTED IT
TO THE ESTATE TAX LIEN.  FN5  HIS PURPOSE TO TAKE CARE OF HIS CHILDREN,
COME WHAT MAY, MIGHT THUS HAVE BEEN THWARTED OR IMPAIRED.  HE GUESSED
WRONG ON THE LAW, WHEN HE RETAINED THE POWER TO AMEND. WHEN HE
RECTIFIED THE ERROR, HE WAS IN GOOD FAITH, ENDEAVORING TO COMPLETE HIS
ORIGINAL PROJECT, NOT TO GIVE HIS CHILDREN MORE THAN HE AT FIRST
INTENDED IN ORDER TO SAVE TAXES.  WHAT HE DID IN 1937 WAS MERELY TO
ACCOMPLISH BY AN ADDITIONAL STEP WHAT HE ASSUMED HE HAD ALREADY DONE. 
THE FINDINGS MAKE PLAIN THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TRUSTS IN 1925,
THEIR ENLARGEMENT IN 1934, AND THE RELEASE OF THE POWER TO AMEND IN
1937 WERE PARTS OF ONE INTEGRATED TRANSACTION.  THAT IS A FINDING OF
FACT WHICH WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISTURB ON THIS RECORD.  ON THESE
FACTS, HIS DESIRE TO AVOID DEATH TAXES DOES NO MORE THAN ESTABLISH THAT
HE DID NOT WANT HIS PLAN TO UNDERWRITE THE NECESSITIES OF HIS CHILDREN
AND GRANDCHILDREN JEOPARDIZED.  HIS DESIRE TO MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISION
FOR THEM REMAINED THE DOMINANT MOTIVE, OR SO THE TRIERS OF FACT COULD
PROPERLY FIND.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "DURING MY LIFE, BY THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE SAID TRUSTEE,
MY SAID DAUGHTER (SON) AND OF MYSELF, THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT MAY
BE AMENDED, CHANGED, ENLARGED OR LIMITED, BUT IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
CONVEYANCE OF SAID STOCK TO THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART BE REVOKED." 

FN2  CF. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. V. BOWERS, 68 F.2D 916; FARMERS'
LOAN & TRUST CO. V. BOWERS, 98 F.2D 794; FIRST TRUST & DEPOSIT CO. V.
SHAUGHNESSY, 134 F.2D 940; COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. DRISCOLL, 50
F.SUPP.  949, AFF'D 137 F.2D 653.  AND SEE PAVENSTEDT, TAXATION OF
TRANSFERS IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, 54 YALE L. JOURN.  70; HARRISS,
GIFT TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES (1940) CH. II. 

FN3  SEC. 302(D)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 9, AS
AMENDED BY SEC. 401 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR
PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED - 

     .      .         .         .         . 

"(D)(1)  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT
HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, WHERE THE
ENJOYMENT THEREOF WAS SUBJECT AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH TO ANY CHANGE
THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF A POWER, EITHER BY THE DECEDENT ALONE OR IN
CONJUNCTION WITH ANY PERSON, TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE, OR WHERE THE
DECEDENT RELINQUISHED ANY SUCH POWER IN CONTEMPLATION OF HIS DEATH,
EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH." 

ARTICLE 16 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 80(1937 ED.)  AS AMENDED BY T.D.
4966, 1940-1 CUM. BULL.  220, PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE PHRASE 'CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH,' AS USED IN THE STATUTE, DOES
NOT MEAN, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT GENERAL EXPECTATION OF DEATH SUCH AS
ALL PERSONS ENTERTAIN, NOR, ON THE OTHER, IS ITS MEANING RESTRICTED TO
AN APPREHENSION THAT DEATH IS IMMINENT OR NEAR.  A TRANSFER IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH IS A DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY PROMPTED BY THE
THOUGHT OF DEATH (THOUGH IT NEED NOT BE SOLELY SO PROMPTED).  A
TRANSFER IS PROMPTED BY THE THOUGHT OF DEATH IF IT IS MADE WITH THE
PURPOSE OF AVOIDING THE TAX, OR AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A TESTAMENTARY
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY, OR FOR ANY OTHER MOTIVE ASSOCIATED WITH
DEATH.  THE BODILY AND MENTAL CONDITION OF THE DECEDENT AND ALL OTHER
ATTENDANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TO BE SCRUTINIZED TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OR NOT SUCH THOUGHT PROMPTED THE DISPOSITION." 

FN4  SEC. 302(D)(3) PROVIDES: 

"THE RELINQUISHMENT OF ANY SUCH POWER, NOT ADMITTED OR SHOWN TO HAVE
BEEN IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, MADE WITHIN TWO YEARS
PRIOR TO HIS DEATH WITHOUT SUCH A CONSIDERATION AND AFFECTING THE
INTEREST OR INTERESTS (WHETHER ARISING FROM ONE OR MORE TRANSFERS OR
THE CREATION OF ONE OR MORE TRUSTS) OF ANY ONE BENEFICIARY OF A VALUE
OR AGGREGATE VALUE, AT THE TIME OF SUCH DEATH, IN EXCESS OF $5,000,
THEN, TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH EXCESS, SUCH RELINQUISHMENT OR
RELINQUISHMENTS SHALL, UNLESS SHOWN TO THE CONTRARY, BE DEEMED TO HAVE
BEEN MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS TITLE." 

FN5  SEE INT. REV. CODE SEC. 827, 53 STAT. 128, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 827. 
IT WAS HELD IN HIGLEY V. COMMISSIONER, 69 F.2D 160, THAT THE PERSONAL
LIABILITY OF TRANSFEREES DID NOT EXTEND TO THE BENEFICIARIES UNDER A
TRUST. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :












U.S. V. NEW YORK TEL. CO., 326 U.S. 638 


NO. 55.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 14, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1946.  -
56 F.SUPP.  932, REVERSED. 


PROPERTY SOLD TO THE APPELLEE TELEPHONE COMPANY BY ITS PARENT
CORPORATION WAS ENTERED ON APPELLEE'S BOOKS AT "STRUCTURAL VALUE," AN
AMOUNT CONSIDERABLY IN EXCESS OF THE "ORIGINAL COST" OF THE PROPERTY TO
THE PARENT.  THEREAFTER, THE APPELLEE DID NOT APPLY SPECIAL
DEPRECIATION RATES TO THIS PROPERTY ALTHOUGH AT THE TIME OF THE SALE IT
HAD A RELATIVELY SHORT REMAINING LIFE.  AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL
ENTRIES, APPELLEE WAS SUBJECT TO THE ACCOUNTING REGULATIONS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, ORDERED THE
APPELLEE TO CHARGE TO SURPLUS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE "STRUCTURAL
VALUE" AND THE "ORIGINAL COST" OF THE PROPERTY, LESS RELATED
DEPRECIATION, AND TO MAKE APPROPRIATE CONCURRENT ENTRIES IN OTHER
ACCOUNTS.  AT THE TIME OF THIS ORDER, SOME OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION
HAD BEEN RETIRED.  HELD: 

1.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ORIGINAL ENTRIES IN
APPELLEE'S BOOKS WERE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS
PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, SINCE THE PRINCIPAL
FOUNDATION OF THE ORDER WAS THAT THE APPELLEE WAS SUBJECT UNDER THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF RESTATING ITS ACCOUNTS ON THE
BASIS OF ORIGINAL COST.  P. 647. 

2.  IT WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO ORDER
A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ENTRIES AS TO THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY WHICH
HAD BEEN RETIRED AS WELL AS TO THAT WHICH HAD NOT.  P. 648. 

3.  RATES ESTABLISHED UNDER THE "GROUP METHOD" OF DEPRECIATION ARE
NOT PROPERLY APPLIED TO PROPERTY WHICH IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE AS LONG AN
EXPECTED SERVICEABLE LIFE AS PROPERTY OF THE SAME SORT PURCHASED NEW. 
P. 650. 

4.  TO SHOW SEPARATELY THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE PRICE PAID BY THE
ACCOUNTING COMPANY FOR PROPERTY NOW IN SERVICE EXCEEDED THE ORIGINAL
COST OF THAT PROPERTY IS NOT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ORIGINALCOST
ACCOUNTING.  UNDER THAT SYSTEM THE INFLATION IN ACCOUNTS MAY BE NOT
ONLY SEGREGATED BUT ALSO WRITTEN OFF.  P. 651. 

5.  THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE STIPULATION
IN AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232. 
P. 652. 

A FINDING BY THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AFTER A FULL HEARING AND
ON EVIDENCE WHICH SUSTAINS THE FINDING, THAT PART OF THE COST ON THE
BOOKS OF A COMPANY IS DUE TO A PROFIT MADE BY A PARENT CORPORATION UPON
A SALE OF PROPERTY TO THE COMPANY, CONSTITUTES A DETERMINATION "AFTER A
FAIR CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES" THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO
TRUE INVESTMENT BUT ONLY A "FICTITIOUS OR PAPER INCREMENT."  P. 653. 

6.  THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT IMPOSES UPON THE COMPANY, AND NOT UPON THE
COMMISSION, THE BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING ACCOUNTING ENTRIES.  P. 654. 

7.  AN ACCOUNTING ORDER OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MAY NOT BE
SET ASIDE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW UNLESS IT IS SO ENTIRELY AT ODDS WITH
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CORRECT ACCOUNTING AS TO BE THE EXPRESSION OF
A WHIM RATHER THAN AN EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT.  P. 655. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
ENJOINED THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS NEW QUESTIONS OF "ORIGINAL COST" ACCOUNTING, WHICH
ARISE FROM AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REQUIRING
READJUSTMENTS IN APPELLEE'S ACCOUNTS.  A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE
FACTS IS NECESSARY TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES.  BUT THE SHORT
EFFECT OF THE CONTROVERSY IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REQUIRED THE
APPELLEE, NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, TO MAKE CHARGES OF SOME
$4,166,000 TO SURPLUS, WITH CORRESPONDING CREDITS TO OTHER ACCOUNTS;
THE ULTIMATE EFFECT BEING SUBSTANTIALLY TO COMPEL THE ELIMINATION OF SO
CALLED WRITE-UPS FROM THE COMPANY'S ACCOUNTS IN ORDER TO BRING THEM, TO
THIS EXTENT, INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE COMMISSION'S UNIFORM SYSTEM OF
ACCOUNTS, WHICH IS BASED UPON "ORIGINAL COST."  THE ATTACKED ENTRIES
WERE MADE IN 1925, 1926, 1927 AND 1928, PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT, UPON ACQUISITION BY APPELLEE OF BUSINESS
AND PROPERTY FROM ITS AFFILIATE, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
COMPANY.  THE CASE EMBODIES A RATHER LONG DELAYED CHAPTER OF THE BROAD
CONTROVERSY PRESENTED IN AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 299 U.S. 232, TO BE DISCUSSED LATER. 

FOR PRELIMINARY PURPOSES IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE APPELLEE
QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO MAKE THE ORDER IN ISSUE AND A
DISTRICT COURT, COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES, HAS PERMANENTLY ENJOINED ITS
EXECUTION.  56 F.SUPP.  932.  FROM THAT JUDGMENT THIS APPEAL HAS
FOLLOWED. 

WE TURN TO THE FACTS BEFORE UNDERTAKING TO STATE THE ISSUES MORE
PRECISELY.  APPELLEE, THE NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, IS A SUBSIDIARY
OF THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, WHICH OWNS ALL ITS
COMMON STOCK.  SINCE ITS INCORPORATION IN 1896 APPELLEE HAS ENGAGED IN
THE BUSINESS OF FURNISHING INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE TELEPHONE SERVICE
TO THE PUBLIC IN THE STATES OF NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT.  PRIOR TO
1925, FOR HISTORICAL REASONS, AMERICAN ALSO HAD FURNISHED INTRASTATE
TOLL SERVICE BETWEEN CERTAIN POINTS IN NEW YORK STATE; BUT IN THAT
YEAR, AS PART OF ITS PLAN TO WITHDRAW FROM ALL SUCH BUSINESS, AMERICAN
TRANSFERRED ITS INTRASTATE TOLL BUSINESS IN NEW YORK STATE TO THE
APPELLEE. 

IN CONNECTION WITH THIS TRANSACTION OCCURRED THE FOUR TRANSFERS OF
PROPERTY, THE ACCOUNTING FOR WHICH NOW CONCERNS US.  IN NOVEMBER, 1925,
SEPTEMBER, 1926, AND DECEMBER, 1928, APPELLEE PURCHASED FROM AMERICAN
CERTAIN TOLL PLANT CONSISTING OF PROPERTY SUCH AS POLES, CROSSARMS,
GUYS AND ANCHORS, AERIAL WIRE AND CABLE, UNDERGROUND CABLE, LOADING
COILS, CONDUIT, AND RIGHT OF WAY.  THIS PROPERTY WAS NEEDED TO HANDLE
THE ADDITIONAL INTRASTATE BUSINESS WHICH HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO IT.
MUCH OF THE PROPERTY SO ACQUIRED WAS IN THE FORM OF AN ADDITIONAL
INTEREST IN TOLL PLANT WHICH, PRIOR TO THESE TRANSFERS, HAD BEEN
JOINTLY OWNED BY AMERICAN AND NEW YORK. 

THE FOURTH SALE TOOK PLACE IN 1927.  BEFORE THAT TIME AMERICAN HAD
RETAINED OWNERSHIP OF THREE ESSENTIAL PARTS, COLLECTIVELY CALLED "THE
INSTRUMENTS" - THE TRANSMITTER, RECEIVER AND INDUCTION COIL - OF THE
TELEPHONE STATIONS USED BY SUBSCRIBERS.  AMERICAN HAD FURNISHED AND
MAINTAINED THESE INSTRUMENTS UNDER A CONTRACT BETWEEN IT AND NEW YORK
UNDER WHICH NEW YORK PAID IT A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF ITS GROSS
REVENUES.  IN DECEMBER, 1927, AMERICAN SOLD TO NEW YORK THE INSTRUMENTS
THEN IN THE SERVICE OR SUPPLIES OF NEW YORK. 

NONE OF THESE TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY CHANGED THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER OF
THE PLANT OR THE SERVICE RENDERED TO THE PUBLIC.  THE SOLE EFFECTS WERE
TO SHIFT CERTAIN OPERATING COSTS OF AMERICAN AND CERTAIN FIXED CHARGES
AND TAXES CONNECTED WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY TO NEW YORK AND
TO ELIMINATE NEW YORK'S OBLIGATION TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO AMERICAN FOR USE
OF "THE INSTRUMENTS"; FOR THE REST, AS THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION DESCRIBED THE TRANSFER, IT WAS "A BOOKKEEPING TRANSACTION,
WITH NO CHANGE IN ULTIMATE OWNERSHIP, IN LOCATION, OR IN USE OF THE
...  PROPERTY, BUT REFLECTING ONLY A REVISED BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS."  FN1 

AMERICAN AND NEW YORK AGREED THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE TOLL
PLANT WAS TO BE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ITS "STRUCTURAL VALUE."  AS DEFINED
BY THE UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR TELEPHONE COMPANIES (INSTRUCTION
13) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THIS WAS "THE ESTIMATED COST
OF REPLACEMENT OR REPRODUCTION LESS DETERIORATION TO THE THEN EXISTING
CONDITIONS THROUGH WEAR AND TEAR, OBSOLESCENCE, AND INADEQUACY."  A
FIELD INSPECTION AND AN APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY WERE MADE BY
ENGINEERS, AND APPELLEE PAID TO AMERICAN A TOTAL OF $5,973,441.47 FOR
THE TOLL PLANT.  THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE INSTRUMENTS TRANSFERRED IN
1927 WAS $6,661,238.91.  THIS WAS BASED ON THE AVERAGE PRICE CHARGED
AMERICAN BY THE WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, THE MANUFACTURER AND ALSO A
SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN, DURING THE FIRST NINE MONTHS OF 1927, LESS A
TWENTY PER CENT ALLOWANCE TO REFLECT THE THEN EXISTING CONDITION OF THE
INSTRUMENTS. 

THE TABLES SET OUT IN THE MARGIN SHOW THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT OF
THESE TRANSFERS AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED.  FN2  AS THE TABLES
DISCLOSE, THE "PROFIT" TO AMERICAN, THAT IS, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
NET BOOK COST TO IT AND THE RECORD BOOK COST TO NEW YORK, WAS
$4,166,510.57.  THIS AMOUNT AMERICAN CREDITED TO SURPLUS ACCOUNTS AS
PROFIT ON THE TRANSACTIONS. 

THIS "PROFIT," OF COURSE, ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT NEW YORK IN
MAKING ITS ACCOUNTING ENTRIES IGNORED THE ORIGINAL COST TO AMERICAN AND
THE DEPRECIATION WHICH HAD ACCRUED ON THE BOOKS OF AMERICAN UP TO THE
TIME OF TRANSFER, AND ENTERED SOLELY THE ACTUAL PRICE PAID BY IT FOR
THE PROPERTIES.  IT DID NOT, SO TO SPEAK, "FOLD IN" THE NET BOOK COST
TO AMERICAN. 

HAVING SET DOWN THESE PROPERTIES ON ITS BOOKS AT THE PRICE IT PAID TO
THE PARENT CORPORATION FOR THEM, NEW YORK THEN APPLIED WHAT IT CALLS
THE "GROUP METHOD" OF DEPRECIATION.  FN3  UNDER THIS METHOD SPECIAL
DEPRECIATION RATES WERE NOT APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT HAD A RELATIVELY SHORT REMAINING LIFE. 
INSTEAD THE CURRENT DEPRECIATION RATES APPLICABLE TO SIMILAR CLASSES OF
PLANT WERE APPLIED AS LONG AS THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN SERVICE.  AS
PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY WERE RETIRED, THEY WERE WRITTEN OUT OF THE
PLANT ACCOUNT AT THE AMOUNTS AT WHICH THEY HAD BEEN RECORDED THEREIN,
THAT IS, AT THE STRUCTURAL VALUE; AND DEBITS OF CORRESPONDING AMOUNTS,
LESS ALLOWANCE FOR SALVAGE, WERE CHARGED CONCURRENTLY TO THE
DEPRECIATION OR AMORTIZATION RESERVE. 

ON JANUARY 1, 1937, THE UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  FN4 FOR CLASS A AND CLASS B TELEPHONE
COMPANIES BECAME EFFECTIVE  FN5  AND APPLICABLE TO NEW YORK.  UNDER
THIS SYSTEM TELEPHONE COMPANIES WERE OBLIGED TO ESTABLISH OR RECLASSIFY
THEIR INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS ON THE BASIS OF "ORIGINAL COST."  FN6 

IN RECLASSIFYING ITS ACCOUNTS AS OF JANUARY 1, 1937, NEW YORK
ESTIMATED THE AMOUNTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SURVIVING TOLL PLANT RECEIVED
FROM AMERICAN, WHICH IT ORIGINALLY HAD INCLUDED IN ITS BOOKS ON THE
BASIS OF STRUCTURAL VALUE.  NEW YORK THEN DETERMINED THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THOSE ESTIMATES AND WHAT IT ESTIMATED WAS THE ORIGINAL COST OF
SUCH SURVIVING PLANT TO AMERICAN.  THE DIFFERENCE WAS PLACED IN ACCOUNT
100.4, TELEPHONE PLANT ACQUISITION ADJUSTMENT.  ACCOUNT 100.4 INCLUDES
AMOUNTS "REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN (1) THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
ACTUALLY PAID (OR THE CURRENT MONEY VALUE OF ANY CONSIDERATION OTHER
THAN MONEY EXCHANGED) FOR TELEPHONE PLANT ACQUIRED, PLUS PRELIMINARY
EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION; AND (2) THE
ORIGINAL COST OF SUCH PLANT, GOVERNMENTAL FRANCHISES AND SIMILAR RIGHTS
ACQUIRED, LESS THE AMOUNTS OF RESERVE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPRECIATION AND
AMORTIZATION OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED."  FN7 

IN 1938 NEW YORK BEGAN AMORTIZING THIS SUM BY CHARGES AND CREDITS TO
ITS OPERATING EXPENSE ACCOUNT 614, AMORTIZATION OF TELEPHONE PLANT
ACQUISITION ADJUSTMENT, WITH CONCURRENT ENTRIES TO ACCOUNT 172,
AMORTIZATION RESERVE.  AS PORTIONS OF THE ACQUIRED PLANT WERE RETIRED,
AMOUNTS IN ACCOUNT 100.4 WERE WRITTEN OUT OF THAT ACCOUNT AND
CONCURRENT ENTRIES WERE MADE IN ACCOUNT 172. 

ON JUNE 16, 1942, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION INSTITUTED
THE PRESENT PROCEEDING BY ORDERING A GENERAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE
ACCOUNTING PERFORMED BY APPELLEE AT THE TIME OF AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE
FOUR TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT.  THE ORDER REQUIRED
NEW YORK TO SHOW CAUSE WHY $4,166,510.57(THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOOK
COST TO AMERICAN, LESS RELATED DEPRECIATION, AND THE STRUCTURAL VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY AS RECORDED ON THE BOOKS OF NEW YORK) SHOULD NOT BE
CHARGED TO ITS ACCOUNT 413, MISCELLANEOUS DEBITS TO SURPLUS, WITH
CONCURRENT ENTRIES TO SUCH ACCOUNTS AS MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.  THE ORDER
ALSO SUSPENDED ALL CHARGES TO OPERATING EXPENSE ACCOUNTS MADE BY NEW
YORK ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1943, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OR IN CONJUNCTION
WITH AMORTIZING OR OTHERWISE DISPOSING OF AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN ACCOUNT
100.4, PENDING SUBMISSION OF PROOF BY RESPONDENT OF THE PROPRIETY AND
REASONABLENESS OF SUCH CHARGES.  FN8 

A JOINT HEARING WAS THEN HELD WITH THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, AND IN JUNE, 1943, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ISSUED ITS PROPOSED REPORT.  AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COMMISSION
SITTING EN BANC, A FINAL REPORT AND ORDER WERE ISSUED ON DECEMBER 14,
1943.  52 P.U.R. (N.S.)  101.  THE ORDER DIRECTED NEW YORK TO CHARGE
$4,166,510.57 TO ITS ACCOUNT 413, MISCELLANEOUS DEBITS TO SURPLUS, AND
TO MAKE APPROPRIATE CONCURRENT ENTRIES TO OTHER ACCOUNTS.  FN9 

NEW YORK THEN BROUGHT THIS SUIT BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES TO ENJOIN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  FN10  APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DENIED AND ON JANUARY 2, 1945, AS HAS BEEN SAID,
THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ITS JUDGMENT PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THE
ORDER.  56 F.SUPP.  932.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES
WERE LEGAL WHEN MADE, SINCE THEY WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM THEN PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; AND THAT,
CONSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSION COULD "NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY A NEW
SYSTEM TO WRITE DOWN THE PLAINTIFF'S SURPLUS."  THE COURT ALSO HELD
THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS CONTRARY TO THIS COURT'S DECISION IN
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232, AND
TO A "STIPULATION" FILED IN THAT CAUSE BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL.  THE
PRESENT APPEAL FOLLOWED. 

APPELLEE'S FIRST ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION
IS A SIMPLE ONE.  IT IS, SHORTLY, THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS
PREMISED UPON THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORIGINAL ACCOUNTING ENTRIES WERE
ILLEGAL WHEN MADE.  APPELLEE DISPUTES THIS, MAINTAINING THAT THE
ACCOUNTING ENTRIES MADE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1937, WERE IN FULL
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THAT SYSTEM, BY THE ARGUMENT, WAS BASED NOT UPON
ORIGINAL COST BUT UPON ACTUAL COST "WITHOUT DISTINCTION BETWEEN
ACQUISITIONS FROM AFFILIATED COMPANIES AND ACQUISITIONS FROM OTHERS
THAN AFFILIATES."  FN11 

THE ANSWER TO THIS CONTENTION IS EQUALLY SIMPLE.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES, WHEN MADE, WERE LEGAL UNDER
THE SYSTEM PROMULGATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; FOR WE
THINK THE ORDER IN REVIEW WAS NOT BASED EXCLUSIVELY UPON THAT PREMISE. 
IT IS TRUE THAT LANGUAGE IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT, WHEN READ OUT OF
CONTEXT, MIGHT BE TAKEN TO LEND SUPPORT TO APPELLEE'S POSITION.  BUT
THE REPORT, READ AS A WHOLE, SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER FOR THE
READJUSTMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS WENT ON THE VIEW THAT THE INFLATION WAS
NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS OWN ORIGINAL COST SYSTEM OF
ACCOUNTS.  THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE THOUGHT, AS AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND
FOR ITS DECISION, THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE ILLEGAL WHEN MADE; FN12  BUT
THE PRINCIPAL FOUNDATION OF THE ORDER WAS THAT APPELLEE WAS LEGALLY
SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF RESTATING ITS ACCOUNTS ON THE BASIS OF
ORIGINAL COST; FN13  AND CONSEQUENTLY ANY EXCESS ON ITS BOOKS OVER
AMERICAN'S NET BOOK COST MUST BE ELIMINATED. 

WE TURN THEREFORE TO NEW YORK'S FURTHER ARGUMENT, WHICH BEGINS WITH A
CONCESSION.  THE BRIEF ADMITS THAT THE COMMISSION "COULD REQUIRE THE
BALANCES REMAINING IN APPELLEE'S PROPERTY ACCOUNTS TO BE
RECLASSIFIED."  BUT IT IS URGED THAT THE COMMISSION PROPERLY CAN GO NO
FURTHER.  SINCE PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN RETIRED AND WRITTEN
OUT OF THE PLANT ACCOUNT AT THE AMOUNT AT WHICH THEY WERE RECORDED
ORIGINALLY AND SINCE CORRESPONDING CHARGES HAVE BEEN MADE CONCURRENTLY
TO THE DEPRECIATION RESERVE,  FN14  APPELLEE SAYS THE COMMISSION IS
WITHOUT POWER, PERHAPS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, BUT
AT ANY RATE UNDER ITS OWN SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS, TO ORDER A
RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ENTRIES FOR PLANT WHICH HAS NOW BEEN RETIRED. 
THE GOVERNMENT ANSWERS THAT THE EFFECT OF THE WRITE-UP CAUSED
ORIGINALLY BY NEW YORK'S RECORDING THE PROPERTY AT STRUCTURAL VALUE
RATHER THAN AT AMERICAN'S NET BOOK COST HAS NEVER BEEN ERADICATED.  IT
POINTS TO THE FACT THAT NEW YORK DID NOT APPLY A SPECIAL DEPRECIATION
RATE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT NEW AND ITS PRICE
PURPORTED TO REFLECT EXISTING DEPRECIATION.  THUS, THE GOVERNMENT IN
EFFECT ASSERTS THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN UNDERDEPRECIATION N15.  NEW YORK
DENIES THIS.  IT SAYS THAT THE GROUP METHOD,  FN16  UNDER WHICH THE
PROPERTY WAS DEPRECIATED AT RATES SIMILAR TO THOSE APPLYING TO LIKE
PROPERTY, TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT SOME PROPERTY MAY REMAIN IN
SERVICE FOR A SHORTER TIME THAN IS EXPECTED AND THAT SOME PROPERTY MAY
REMAIN SERVICEABLE FOR A LONG TIME.  UNDER THE GROUP METHOD, IT
INSISTS, SUCH INEQUALITIES ARE AVERAGED OUT IN THE RATE FIXED FOR THE
GROUP AS A WHOLE. 

THE EFFECT OF APPELLEE'S ARGUMENT WOULD BE TO RENDER THE COMMISSION
POWERLESS TO WRITE OFF MUCH OF THE INFLATION CAUSED BY THE ORIGINAL
ACCOUNTING IN THIS CASE.  FOR, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THE INFLATION
IS NOT "REMOVED AS PROPERTY IS RETIRED....  WHEN PROPERTY IS RETIRED
ITS COST IS CREDITED TO THE PROPER ASSET ACCOUNT AND (NEGLECTING THE
EFFECT OF SALVAGE) THE SAME COST IS DEBITED TO DEPRECIATION RESERVE,
AND THE RESULTANT CHANGE IN BOOK VALUE IS ZERO.  THUS THE EFFECT OF
RETIRING AN INFLATIONARY ASSET ITEM IS TO CREATE A DEFICIENCY IN
DEPRECIATION RESERVE EQUAL TO THE INFLATION FORMERLY EXISTING IN THE
ASSET ACCOUNT."  FN17 

MOREOVER, IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR THAT RATES ESTABLISHED UNDER THE GROUP
METHOD OF DEPRECIATION ARE NOT PROPERLY APPLIED TO PROPERTY PURCHASED
WHICH IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE AS LONG AN EXPECTED SERVICEABLE LIFE AS
PROPERTY OF THE SAME SORT PURCHASED WHEN NEW.  IT IS TRUE THAT
TESTIMONY APPEARS IN THE RECORD THAT AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE OF THE
PROPERTY "THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF THIS PURCHASE ON THE
DEPRECIATION RATES, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE DEPRECIATION RATES SHOULD BE
INCREASED (SO AS) TO ALLOW FOR THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY PURCHASED WAS
NOT NEW AND, THEREFORE, HAD LESS THAN THE FULL LIFE REMAINING" AROSE
AND WAS CONSIDERED.  TRUE ALSO, TESTIMONY SHOWED IT WAS DECIDED AT THE
TIME "THAT WITHOUT ANY INCREASE IN THE RATES THE RATES THAT WERE
ALREADY IN EFFECT WOULD BE AMPLE TO PROVIDE FOR RETIREMENT OF THE
PROPERTY PURCHASED."  NEVERTHELESS THE COMMISSION APPARENTLY FOUND THAT
SUCH WAS NOT THE CASE. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH A CONCLUSION WAS ERRONEOUS.  FN18  AND IT MAY
BE ADDED, IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION'S DESIRE TO PUT NEW YORK'S
ACCOUNTS ON AN ORIGINAL COST BASIS, THAT ONE OF THE EFFECTS OF ORIGINAL
COST ACCOUNTING WILL BE NOT TO REQUIRE NEW YORK IN THE FUTURE TO DO
WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, AT LEAST UNDER THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS.  "...  THE DEPRECIATION
RATE APPLICABLE TO A SPECIFIC CLASS OF PLANT CAN BE BASED ON AN
ESTIMATE OF TOTAL SERVICE LIFE.  THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO DEPRECIATE
PART OF THE ACCOUNT (CONSTRUCTED PLANT) ON A TOTAL SERVICE-LIFE BASIS
AND ANOTHER PART (ACQUIRED PROPERTIES) ON A REMAINDER-LIFE BASIS." 
FN19 

APPELLEE FURTHER URGES THAT SO MUCH OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AS
AFFECTS PROPERTY ALREADY RETIRED IS IMPROPER, BECAUSE THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF ORIGINAL COST ACCOUNTING IS TO SHOW SEPARATELY THE AMOUNT BY WHICH
THE PRICE PAID BY THE ACCOUNTING COMPANY FOR PROPERTY NOW IN SERVICE
EXCEEDED THE ORIGINAL COST OF THAT PROPERTY.  BUT THE PURPOSES OF AN
ORIGINAL COST SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING ARE BROADER.  UNDER SUCH A SYSTEM
THE INFLATION IN ACCOUNTS NOT ONLY MAY BE SEGREGATED BUT MAY ALSO BE
WRITTEN OFF.  FN20  NORTHWESTERN ELECTRIC CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, 321 U.S. 119, 123-124; CALIFORNIA OREGON CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, 150 F.2D 25, 27-28. 

THE FINAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ORDER FALLS WITHIN THE DECISION IN
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232. 
THAT CASE INVOLVED AN ATTEMPT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PRESCRIBING A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR
TELEPHONE COMPANIES.  THE COMPANIES OBJECTED TO THE ORDER'S "ORIGINAL
COST" PROVISIONS AS PREVENTING THEM "'FROM RECORDING THEIR ACTUAL
INVESTMENT IN THEIR ACCOUNTS' WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ACCOUNTS DO NOT
FAIRLY EXHIBIT THEIR FINANCIAL SITUATION TO SHAREHOLDERS, INVESTORS,
TAX COLLECTORS AND OTHERS."  THE COURT REPLIED THAT SUCH A CONSEQUENCE
WOULD NOT BE ENTAILED, BUT THAT UNDER THE ORDER ONLY SUCH AN AMOUNT
WOULD BE WRITTEN OFF "AS APPEARS  ...  TO BE A FICTITIOUS OR PAPER
INCREMENT."  299 U.S. AT 240.  HOWEVER, TO AVOID POSSIBLE
MISUNDERSTANDING AND TO GIVE ASSURANCE TO THE COMPANIES, THE COURT
REQUESTED THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEARING FOR THE GOVERNMENT
TO REDUCE TO WRITING HIS STATEMENT IN THAT REGARD IN BEHALF OF THE
COMMISSION.  THIS HE DID, INFORMING THE COURT THAT "THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CONSTRUES THE PROVISIONS OF TELEPHONE
DIVISION ORDER NO. 7-C, ISSUED JUNE 19, 1935, PERTAINING TO ACCOUNT
100.4" AS MEANING "THAT AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN ACCOUNT 100.4 THAT ARE
DEEMED, AFTER A FAIR CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO
REPRESENT AN INVESTMENT WHICH THE ACCOUNTING COMPANY HAS MADE IN ASSETS
OF CONTINUING VALUE WILL BE RETAINED IN THAT ACCOUNT UNTIL SUCH ASSETS
CEASE TO EXIST OR ARE RETIRED; AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (C) OF
ACCOUNT 100.4, PROVISION WILL BE MADE FOR THEIR AMORTIZATION."  THIS
STATEMENT THE COURT ACCEPTED "AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION BINDING
UPON THE COMMISSION IN ITS FUTURE DEALINGS WITH THE COMPANIES."  THE
COURT ALSO NOTED THAT THE CASE WAS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM NEW YORK
EDISON CO. V. MALTBIE, 244 APP. DIV. 685, 281 N.Y.S. 223, AFF'D, 271
N.Y. 103, 2 N.E.2D 277, "WHERE UNDER RULES PRESCRIBED BY THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK, THERE WAS AN INFLEXIBLE REQUIREMENT
THAT AN ACCOUNT SIMILAR IN SOME ASPECTS TO 100.4 BE WRITTEN OFF IN ITS
ENTIRETY OUT OF SURPLUS, WHETHER THE VALUE THERE RECORDED WAS GENUINE
OR FALSE." 

THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THE ORDER IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS
ERRONEOUS "IN VIEW OF THE STIPULATION OF THESE SAME DEFENDANTS MADE IN
AMERICAN T. & T. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; CERTAINLY IN THE ABSENCE
OF PROOF THAT THE EXCESS OF PRICE OVER THE SELLER'S NET BOOK COST WAS
NOT A 'TRUE INCREMENT OF VALUE.'  THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY DETERMINATION
BASED UPON A FAIR CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STIPULATION MENTIONED, NOR UPON THE EVIDENTIARY CIRCUMSTANCES
REFERRED TO IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT."  56 F.SUPP.  AT 938. 

WE THINK THIS MISCONCEIVES THE "STIPULATION'S" PURPORT AND EFFECT. 
WHEN THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FINDS, AFTER FULL HEARING
AND ON EVIDENCE WHICH SUSTAINS THE FINDING, THAT PART OF THE COST ON
THE BOOKS OF A COMPANY IS DUE TO A PROFIT MADE BY AN AFFILIATE OR A
PARENT AT THE TIME WHEN THE AFFILIATE OR PARENT HAS TRANSFERRED
PROPERTY TO IT, THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED, "AFTER A FAIR
CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES" IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE
"STIPULATION'S" RESERVATION, THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO TRUE INVESTMENT BUT
ONLY A "FICTITIOUS OR PAPER INCREMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY CASE.  FN21  THE STIPULATION DID
NOT FORECLOSE, RATHER IT IN TERMS RESERVED THIS INQUIRY.  "FOR AN
INTERCORPORATE PROFIT WHICH UPON A CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT OF THE
AFFILIATED GROUP WOULD DISAPPEAR ENTIRELY IS TOO LACKING IN SUBSTANCE
TO BE TREATED AS AN ACTUAL COST."  PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 139 F.2D 445, 450.  INDEED THE OPINION IN THE
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY CASE SAID:  "THERE IS WIDESPREAD
BELIEF THAT TRANSFERS BETWEEN AFFILIATES OR SUBSIDIARIES COMPLICATE THE
TASK OF RATE-MAKING FOR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS AND IMPEDE THE SEARCH
FOR TRUTH.  BUYER AND SELLER IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAY NOT BE DEALING
AT ARM'S LENGTH, AND THE PRICE AGREED UPON BETWEEN THEM MAY BE A POOR
CRITERION OF VALUE."  299 U.S. AT 239. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE USE OF THE WORD "MAY" WAS INTENDED TO
PUT THE BURDEN ON THE COMMISSION TO FIND THAT IN SUCH INTER-AFFILIATE
OR PARENT-SUBSIDIARY TRANSACTIONS THE PRICE ACTUALLY WAS A POOR
CRITERION OF VALUE.  THAT IS NOT OUR UNDERSTANDING.  IN THE FIRST
PLACE, THE ACT IMPOSES UPON THE COMPANY, NOT ON THE COMMISSION, THE
BURDEN OF PROOF TO JUSTIFY ACCOUNTING ENTRIES.  NEITHER THE COURT NOR
THE COMMISSION, IN ACTION TAKEN WITH RELATION TO THE "STIPULATION," CAN
BE THOUGHT TO HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO SHIFT THIS BURDEN IN THE TEETH OF THE
STATUTORY PROVISION, AS THE FULL TERMS OF THE "STIPULATION," SET FORTH
BELOW,  FN22  DISCLOSE.  WE THINK THAT THE USE OF THE CONDITIONAL WAS
MEANT TO INDICATE NO MORE THAN THAT THIS COURT WAS NOT TAKING SIDES IN
THE DEBATE IN ACCOUNTING CIRCLES AS TO WHETHER THE PRICE AGREED UPON
BETWEEN AFFILIATES WAS OR WAS NOT IN FACT A POOR CRITERION OF VALUE. 
TO RESOLVE THAT DISCUSSION WAS AND IS FOR THE REGULATORY COMMISSIONS
AND NOT FOR THE COURTS.  WE REPEAT THAT FOR A COURT TO UPSET AN
ACCOUNTING ORDER IT MUST BE "'SO ENTIRELY AT ODDS WITH FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF CORRECT ACCOUNTING'...  AS TO BE THE EXPRESSION OF A WHIM
RATHER THAN AN EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT."  299 U.S. AT 236-237.  THE ORDER
IN THIS CASE IS NOT OF THAT CHARACTER.  FN23 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  OPINION OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, CASE 9436,
ADOPTED DECEMBER 14, 1943, 1 REPORT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
(1943) 569, 571. 

FN2  (CHART OMITTED) 

FN3  THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DEFINES "'GROUP PLAN,' AS
APPLIED TO DEPRECIATION ACCOUNTING" AS "THE PLAN UNDER WHICH
DEPRECIATION CHARGES ARE ACCRUED UPON THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL COST
...  OF ALL PROPERTY INCLUDED IN EACH DEPRECIABLE PLANT ACCOUNT, USING
THE AVERAGE SERVICE LIFE THEREOF PROPERLY WEIGHTED, AND UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF ANY DEPRECIABLE PROPERTY ITS FULL SERVICE VALUE IS
CHARGED TO THE DEPRECIATION RESERVE WHETHER OR NOT THE PARTICULAR ITEM
HAS ATTAINED THE AVERAGE SERVICE LIFE."  47 CODE FED. REG. 31.01-3(P). 

FN4  THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934(48 STAT. 1064) PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 220(A).  THE COMMISSION MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, PRESCRIBE THE
FORMS OF ANY AND ALL ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND MEMORANDA TO BE KEPT BY
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, INCLUDING THE ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND
MEMORANDA OF THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC, AS WELL AS OF THE RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURES OF MONEYS." 

"SEC. 220(C).  THE COMMISSION SHALL AT ALL TIMES HAVE ACCESS TO AND
THE RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION OF ALL ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND
MEMORANDA, INCLUDING ALL DOCUMENTS, PAPERS, AND CORRESPONDENCE NOW OR
HEREAFTER EXISTING, AND KEPT OR REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY SUCH CARRIERS,
AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION RESPECTING THE PRESERVATION AND
DESTRUCTION OF BOOKS, PAPERS, AND DOCUMENTS SHALL APPLY THERETO.  THE
BURDEN OF PROOF TO JUSTIFY EVERY ACCOUNTING ENTRY QUESTIONED BY THE
COMMISSION SHALL BE ON THE PERSON MAKING, AUTHORIZING, OR REQUIRING
SUCH ENTRY AND THE COMMISSION MAY SUSPEND A CHARGE OR CREDIT PENDING
SUBMISSION OF PROOF BY SUCH PERSON...." 

"SEC. 220(G).  AFTER THE COMMISSION HAS PRESCRIBED THE FORMS AND
MANNER OF KEEPING OF ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND MEMORANDA TO BE KEPT BY ANY
PERSON AS HEREIN PROVIDED, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR SUCH PERSON TO KEEP
ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, OR MEMORANDA THAN THOSE SO PRESCRIBED OR
SUCH AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION OR TO KEEP THE ACCOUNTS IN
ANY OTHER MANNER THAN THAT PRESCRIBED OR APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. 
NOTICE OF ALTERATIONS BY THE COMMISSION IN THE REQUIRED MANNER OR FORM
OF KEEPING ACCOUNTS SHALL BE GIVEN TO SUCH PERSONS BY THE COMMISSION AT
LEAST SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE SAME ARE TO TAKE EFFECT." 

PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE
ACCOUNTS FOR TELEPHONE COMPANIES HAD BEEN LODGED WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT SEC. 20(5), 41 STAT. 493,
SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED, 54 STAT. 917.  SEE AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232, 235-236. 

FN5  THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PRESCRIBING A
UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR TELEPHONE COMPANIES HAVING AVERAGE
ANNUAL OPERATING REVENUES EXCEEDING $50,000, WAS ADOPTED ON JUNE 19,
1935, 1 F.C.C. 45, AND WAS ORIGINALLY TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1936. 
THIS ORDER WAS STAYED BECAUSE OF THE PROCEEDING IN THE AMERICAN
TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. CASE, SUPRA NOTE 4, AND DID NOT BECOME
EFFECTIVE, AS AMENDED, UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1937.  3 F.C.C. 9. 

FN6  THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION PROVIDE THAT "'ORIGINAL COST' OR 'COST,' AS APPLIED TO
TELEPHONE PLANT, FRANCHISE, PATENT RIGHTS, AND RIGHT-OF-WAY, MEANS THE
ACTUAL MONEY COST OF (OR THE CURRENT MONEY VALUE OF ANY CONSIDERATION
OTHER THAN MONEY EXCHANGED FOR) PROPERTY AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS FIRST
DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC USE, WHETHER BY THE ACCOUNTING COMPANY OR BY
PREDECESSORS."  47 CODE FED. REG. 31.01-3(X). 

FN7  AT THE SAME TIME APPELLEE TRANSFERRED FROM ITS ACCOUNT 171,
DEPRECIATION RESERVE, TO ITS ACCOUNT 172, AMORTIZATION RESERVE, AN
AMOUNT WHICH, WHEN SUPPLEMENTED BY FUTURE ACCRUALS OVER THE ESTIMATED
REMAINING LIFE OF THE PLANT AT THE THEN CURRENT DEPRECIATION RATES,
WOULD PROVIDE A RESERVE EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IN ACCOUNT
100.4 AT THE TERMINATION OF THE LIFE OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED. 

FN8  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS GROUNDED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
220(C) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  SEE NOTE 4. 

FN9  ON THE SAME DATE THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALSO
ADOPTED ITS FINAL REPORT AND REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION.  SEE NOTE 1. 
WE ARE INFORMED BY A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE FILED BY THE NEW YORK PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION THAT "A PROCEEDING FOR THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF
THE NEW YORK COMMISSION HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK BUT THE ARGUMENT THEREOF HAS
BEEN DEFERRED, PENDING THE DECISION BY THIS COURT IN THE PRESENT
CASE."    FN10  SECTION 402(A) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT MAKES
APPLICABLE TO ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, WITH
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  38 STAT. 219, 220. 

FN11  THE DISTRICT COURT APPARENTLY ACCEPTED THIS ARGUMENT, FOR IT
SAID:  "THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW PROCEEDS UPON THE THEORY THAT
PLAINTIFF'S ACCOUNTING IN QUESTION WAS IMPROPER WHEN MADE AND SHOULD BE
CORRECTED."  56 F.SUPP.  AT 938.    FN12  CF. OPINION OF THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HOLDING, IN PART, THAT THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS DID NOT OBLIGE NEW YORK "TO
WRITE UP THE BOOK VALUE OF SYSTEM PROPERTY OR TO INFLATE SURPLUS BY
INTRA-SYSTEM PROFITS.  BUT THE ADROIT COMPANIES FOUND IT A CONVENIENT
EXCUSE FOR INFLATING BOOK VALUES."  1 REPORT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION (1943) 569, 587. 

FN13  SEE AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299
U.S. 232, 242:  "WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
CLASSIFICATION IS TO BE VIEWED AS ARBITRARY BECAUSE THE FATE OF ANY
ITEM, ITS ULTIMATE DISPOSITION, REMAINS IN SOME DEGREE UNCERTAIN UNTIL
THE COMMISSION HAS GIVEN PARTICULAR DIRECTIONS WITH REFERENCE THERETO. 
BY BEING INCLUDED IN THE ADJUSTMENT ACCOUNT, IT IS CLASSIFIED AS
PROVISIONALLY A TRUE INVESTMENT, SUBJECT TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THAT
ACCOUNT AND GIVEN A DIFFERENT CHARACTER IF INVESTIGATION BY THE
COMMISSION SHOWS IT TO BE DESERVING OF THAT TREATMENT." 

FN14  SEE TEXT AT NOTE 3. 

FN15  THE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION STATES:  "A WRITE-UP OR INFLATION OF THE BOOK COST MAY BE
BROUGHT ABOUT EITHER BY AN INFLATION OF THE BOOK COST FIGURE ON THE
ASSET SIDE OR BY A REDUCTION OF THE RELATED DEPRECIATION FIGURE ON THE
LIABILITY SIDE. 

"IN THIS CASE, THE INFLATION WAS ACCOMPLISHED PRINCIPALLY BY AN
UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE RELATED DEPRECIATION." 

FN16  SEE TEXT AT NOTE 3. 

FN17  OPINION OF THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 1 REPORT OF
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (1943) 569, 590. 

FN18  THE COMMISSION STATED:  "NEW YORK ATTEMPTED TO COUNTER THESE
CONCLUSIONS WITH THE CONTENTION THAT ITS DEPRECIATION RESERVE AS A
WHOLE IS NOW IN EXCESS OF REQUIREMENTS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE INFLATION
INTRODUCED THROUGH THE ACCOUNTING FOR THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION HAS
BEEN OFFSET BY AN EXCESS IN THE RESERVE RESULTING FROM OTHER CAUSES;
AND THAT, FURTHER, UNLESS THE COMMISSION CAN SHOW THAT THE RESERVE AS A
WHOLE IS DEFICIENT NO CORRECTING ENTRY WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE RESERVE
CAN BE REQUIRED.  BUT THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE DEPRECIATION
RESERVE, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, IS ADEQUATE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUES
HEREIN.  NO CHALLENGE IS HERE BEING MADE TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE
DEPRECIATION RESERVE AS A WHOLE.  THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT REPRESENTS AN
ATTEMPT TO OFFSET ONE ERROR BY ANOTHER.  IF NEW YORK'S DEPRECIATION
RESERVE IS IN EXCESS OF REQUIREMENTS, IT MEANS THAT NEW YORK HAS BEEN
MAKING EXCESSIVE CHARGES TO OPERATING EXPENSES FOR DEPRECIATION."  52
P.U.R. (N.S.)  101, 116-117. 

IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT, EVEN IF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WAS CORRECT IN ORDERING THE INFLATION IN THE ACCOUNTS OF NEW YORK
WRITTEN OFF THE BOOKS, THAT INFLATION HAS BEEN REDUCED BY SOME FRACTION
OF THE DEPRECIATION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN, THAT IS, PRIOR TO ELIMINATION OF
THE INFLATION, EVEN THOUGH THE GROUP METHOD OF DEPRECIATION WAS
EMPLOYED.  THAT POINT, WHATEVER ITS MERITS, WAS NOT MADE UNTIL THE CASE
REACHED THIS COURT.  ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT. 

FN19  COLBERT, ADVANTAGES OF ORIGINAL COST CLASSIFICATION OF PLANT
(1945) 35 PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY 333, 343. 

FN20  FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, THE UTILITY COMPANIES HAVE NOT OBJECTED SO
MUCH TO THE SEGREGATING OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST TO THE
ACCOUNTING COMPANY OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED AND ORIGINAL COST LESS
DEPRECIATION AS THEY HAVE TO REMOVING THIS DIFFERENCE FROM THE BOOKS. 
SEE KRIPKE, A CASE STUDY IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF LAW AND ACCOUNTING:
UNIFORM ACCOUNTS 100.5 AND 107(1944) 57 HARV. L. REV. 433, 438 FF.,
ESPECIALLY AT 445. 

FN21  ALL RELEVANT FACTS PERTAINING TO THE TRANSACTION WERE BEFORE
THE COMMISSION.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO REAL INCREMENT
OF VALUE TO THE ASSETS AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER AND THAT THE
INCLUSION OF ANY WRITE-UP WOULD INTRODUCE "INFLATIONARY ELEMENTS" INTO
THE PLANT ACCOUNTS WHICH IN TIME WOULD BE "IMPROPERLY REFLECTED IN THE
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE ACCOUNT AS AN ALLEGED OPERATING COST."  NO OTHER
FINDINGS WERE NECESSARY.  AND THE REJECTION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
COMPANY'S CONTENTION THAT REPRODUCTION COST LESS DEPRECIATION WAS THE
TRUE CRITERION OF "VALUE" WAS PLAINLY NO ERROR OF LAW. 

FN22  THE ENTIRE STATEMENT (SOMETIMES CALLED "STIPULATION") OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY CASE (EXHIBIT
C IN THE INSTANT CASE) READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CONSTRUES THE PROVISIONS OF
TELEPHONE DIVISION ORDER NO. 7-C, ISSUED JUNE 19, 1935, PERTAINING TO
ACCOUNT 100.4, AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1)  THAT AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN ACCOUNT 100.4 THAT ARE DEEMED, AFTER A
FAIR CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO REPRESENT AN INVESTMENT
WHICH THE ACCOUNTING COMPANY HAS MADE IN ASSETS OF CONTINUING VALUE
WILL BE RETAINED IN THAT ACCOUNT UNTIL SUCH ASSETS CEASE TO EXIST OR
ARE RETIRED; AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (C) OF ACCOUNT 100.4,
PROVISION WILL BE MADE FOR THEIR AMORTIZATION. 

"(2)  THAT WHEN AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN ACCOUNT 100.4 ARE DEEMED, AFTER A
FAIR CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO BE DEFINITELY
ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEPRECIABLE TELEPHONE PLANT, PROVISION WILL BE MADE FOR
AMORTIZATION OF SUCH AMOUNTS THROUGH OPERATING EXPENSES, THROUGH THE
MEDIUM OF EITHER ACCOUNT 613(R. 186) OR ACCOUNT 675(R. 205). 

"THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT THE FOREGOING CONSTRUCTION OF ITS ORDER
IS THAT WHICH IT PRESENTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT THROUGH THE AFFIDAVITS
OF ITS WITNESSES." 

FN23  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, AND SOME STATE COMMISSIONS (SEE THE OPINION OF THE NEW YORK
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN THE INSTANT CASE) HAVE TAKEN THE SAME
POSITION CONCERNING INTERAFFILIATE TRANSACTIONS AS HAS THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.  SEE KRIPKE, A CASE STUDY IN THE
RELATIONSHIP OF LAW AND ACCOUNTING:  UNIFORM ACCOUNTS 100.5 AND
107(1944) 57 HARV. L. REV. 693, 705-708. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, THAT APPELLANT, THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, IS BOUND BY AND HAS NOT COMPLIED
WITH THE STIPULATION TO WHICH IT WAS A PARTY AND WHICH THIS COURT
APPROVED IN AMERICAN TEL. & TEL. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232,
240, 241.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR TELEPHONE
COMPANIES WOULD REQUIRE THAT ALL AMOUNTS REPRESENTING EXCESS OF
PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY THE TELEPHONE COMPANY TO ITS PARENT COMPANY OVER
THE SELLER'S ORIGINAL COST BE WRITTEN OFF. 

THE COURT HELD THAT UNDER THAT SYSTEM, APPLIED TO THE ACCOUNT HERE IN
QUESTION, WHICH HAD BEEN LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED UNDER INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION REGULATIONS, ONLY SUCH AMOUNT COULD BE WRITTEN OFF AS
APPEARED "TO BE A FICTITIOUS OR PAPER INCREMENT," AND NOT "A TRUE
INCREMENT OF VALUE."  TO AVOID "THE CHANCE OF MISUNDERSTANDING AND TO
GIVE ADEQUATE ASSURANCE TO THE COMPANIES (INCLUDING APPELLEE HERE) AS
TO THE PRACTICE TO BE FOLLOWED," THE COURT REQUESTED THE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REDUCE HIS STATEMENTS TO THAT EFFECT TO WRITING IN
BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION.  HE DID THIS AND INFORMED THE COURT "THAT
'THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CONSTRUES THE PROVISIONS OF
TELEPHONE DIVISION ORDER NO. 7-C, ISSUED JUNE 19, 1935, PERTAINING TO
ACCOUNT 100.4' AS MEANING 'THAT AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN ACCOUNT 100.4 THAT
ARE DEEMED, AFTER A FAIR CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO
REPRESENT AN INVESTMENT WHICH THE ACCOUNTING COMPANY HAS MADE IN ASSETS
OF CONTINUING VALUE WILL BE RETAINED IN THAT ACCOUNT UNTIL SUCH ASSETS
CEASE TO EXIST OR ARE RETIRED; AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (C) OF
ACCOUNT 100.4, PROVISION WILL BE MADE FOR THEIR AMORTIZATION.'" 

BEFORE THE COMMISSION COULD RIGHTLY DIRECT THAT THE ASSETS IN THAT
ACCOUNT, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN RETIRED, BE WRITTEN OFF, THE STIPULATION
REQUIRED IT TO FIND, AFTER A "FAIR CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES," THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL COST AND THE
PRICE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID IS NOT "A TRUE INCREMENT OF VALUE." 
THIS THE COMMISSION HAS NOT DONE.  IN THE FACE OF ITS STIPULATION IT
MAY NOT ASSUME, WITHOUT A FINDING BASED UPON EVIDENCE, THAT THERE IS NO
"TRUE INCREMENT OF VALUE" TO THE ASSETS WHICH APPELLEE PURCHASED OVER
THE COST TO THE SELLER, MERELY BECAUSE APPELLEE PURCHASED THE ASSETS
FROM ITS PARENT CORPORATION. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :








ROLAND CO. V. WALLING, 326 U.S. 657 


NO. 45.  ARGUED OCTOBER 8, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 28, 1946.  - 146
F.2D 745, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER, A MARYLAND CORPORATION HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE, PLACE
OF BUSINESS AND A MANUFACTURING PLANT IN BALTIMORE, IS ENGAGED THERE IN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WIRING, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, AND DEALING
IN ELECTRICAL MOTORS AND GENERATORS FOR PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL USES.  IT HAD APPROXIMATELY 1,000 ACTIVE ACCOUNTS, 99% OF
WHICH WERE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL FIRMS.  OF ITS 33 LARGER AND MOST
ACTIVE ACCOUNTS, ONE WAS A TELEPHONE COMPANY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, FOUR WERE ENGAGED IN THE REPAIR OF SHIPS, TUGS, BARGES AND
OTHER BOATS INTENDED FOR MOVEMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND (WITH ONE
EXCEPTION) THE REMAINDER WERE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE AS DEFINED IN SEC. 3 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, SHIPPING
AT LEAST A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR TOTAL PRODUCTION OUT OF
MARYLAND.  ALL OF PETITIONER'S MECHANICS WORKED, IN PRACTICALLY EVERY
WORK WEEK, FOR SOME OF THESE 33 CUSTOMERS, EITHER IN THE REPAIR OF
THEIR MOTORS OR GENERATORS, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF USED MOTORS SOLD TO
THEM, OR IN PERFORMING ELECTRICAL WORK AT THEIR RESPECTIVE
ESTABLISHMENTS.  THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR BROUGHT SUIT TO ENJOIN
PETITIONER FROM VIOLATING THE MINIMUM WAGE, MAXIMUM HOUR, AND
REPORTMAKING PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  HELD: 

1.  PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED "IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS
FOR (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE" SO AS TO BRING THEM WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF
SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P. 662. 

2.  THEY ARE NOT EXEMPTED FROM THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER
IS A "SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 13(A)(2).  P.
666. 

3.  SECTION 6(A) OF THE ACT, WHEN READ WITH THE DEFINITIONS OF
"COMMERCE," "GOODS," AND "PRODUCED" IN SEC. 3(B), (I), AND (J),
REQUIRES EVERY EMPLOYER TO PAY NOT LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM WAGES
TO EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS EMPLOYED IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION
NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION, IN ANY STATE, OF ANY PART OR INGREDIENT OF
ANY ARTICLES OR SUBJECTS OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR TRANSPORTATION, OF ANY
CHARACTER, FOR TRADE, COMMERCE OR TRANSPORTATION AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES.  P. 663. 

(A)  THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TO BE DIRECTLY "ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE" AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.  P. 663. 

(B)  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE WHICH ITSELF BECOMES A SUBJECT OF COMMERCE OR
TRANSPORTATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.  P. 663. 

(C)  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE EMPLOYEE BE EMPLOYED, FOR EXAMPLE, IN AN
OCCUPATION WHICH IS NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF A PART OF ANY OTHER
"ARTICLES OR SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE OF ANY CHARACTER" WHICH ARE PRODUCED
FOR TRADE, COMMERCE OR TRANSPORTATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.  P.
663. 

(D)  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO BE EMPLOYED EXCLUSIVELY IN
THE SPECIFIED OCCUPATION.  P. 664. 

(E)  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE OCCUPATION IN WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED TO BE
INDISPENSABLE TO THE PRODUCTION UNDER CONSIDERATION.  P. 664. 

(F)  IT IS ENOUGH THAT HIS OCCUPATION BE "NECESSARY TO THE
PRODUCTION."  P. 664. 

(G)  EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE ALTERNATIVE OCCUPATIONS THAT COULD BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR IT, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE ONE AT ISSUE IS NEEDED IN
SUCH PRODUCTION AND WOULD, IF OMITTED, HANDICAP THE PRODUCTION.  P.
664. 

4.  THE WORK OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES HAS SUCH A CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE
TIE WITH THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE, AND WAS SUCH AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF IT, THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ENGAGED
IN AN OCCUPATION "NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE." 
KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517.  P. 665. 

5.  WHEN READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE ACT, ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND ITS ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION, SEC.
13(A)(2), EXEMPTING EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN ANY RETAIL OR SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF WHOSE SELLING OR SERVICING IS IN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE," DOES NOT EXEMPT EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE."  P. 666. 

(A)  WHEN SO READ, IT EXEMPTS EMPLOYEES OF ONLY SUCH RETAIL OR
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AS ARE COMPARABLE TO LOCAL MERCHANTS, CORNER
GROCERS OR FILLING STATION OPERATORS WHO SELL TO OR SERVE ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS.  P. 666. 

(B)  ITS ORIGIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ESTABLISHMENTS "PRODUCING
GOODS FOR (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE."  P. 667. 

6.  TO THE EXTENT THAT SALES OR SERVICES ARE NECESSARY FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THEY GENERALLY ARE NOT
SALES OR SERVICES TO AN ULTIMATE CONSUMER FOR HIS PERSONAL USE AND,
ACCORDINGLY, ARE NEITHER RETAIL SALES NOR SERVICES OF A COMPARABLE
CHARACTER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 13(A)(2).  P. 667. 

7.  TO FAIL TO COVER IN THIS ACT THE MULTITUDE OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
ENGAGED IN ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH SUPPLY THE MATERIALS AND SERVICES
CURRENTLY NEEDED FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PRODUCTIVE MACHINERY USED BY
THOSE WHO PRODUCE GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD TAKE THE HEART
OUT OF THE ACT.  P. 668. 

8.  ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE IS NOT SO MUCH TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AS SUCH, AS IT IS TO PROHIBIT THE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS AND THUS
TO RAISE LIVING STANDARDS.  P. 669. 

9.  THIS PURPOSE WILL FAIL OF REALIZATION UNLESS THE ACT HAS
SUFFICIENTLY BROAD COVERAGE TO ELIMINATE IN LARGE MEASURE FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE ACCRUING FROM SAVINGS IN
COSTS BASED UPON SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS.  P. 670. 

10.  IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT, THERE NEVER WAS AN INTENT
EXPRESSED TO EXEMPT RETAILERS OTHER THAN LOCAL MERCHANTS OF THE TYPE
DEALING WITH THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER.  P. 671. 

11.  THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS SHOW AN INTENT TO RESTRICT THE WORD
"RETAIL" TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS WITH ULTIMATE CONSUMERS AS ARE COMMONLY
CARRIED ON AT LOCAL DRY GOODS, BUTCHERING OR GROCERY STORES.  P. 672. 

12.  THIS IS CONFIRMED BY THE GENERAL USAGE OF THE WORD "RETAIL,"
WHICH MAKES A DISTINCTION, NOT MERELY BETWEEN THE SIZE AND VOLUME OF
SALES BUT ALSO BETWEEN TYPES OF PURCHASERS.  IT RELATES TO SALES TO
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE WHO BUY TO RESELL OR TO
USE FOR BUSINESS NEEDS.  P. 673. 

13.  GOVERNMENT USAGE MAKES THE SAME DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF THE
USE FOR WHICH THE GOODS ARE PURCHASED.  P. 674. 

14.  THE WORD "SERVICE" IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORD "RETAIL" IN THIS
ACT SO AS TO RESTRICT ITS MEANING SIMILARLY TO SERVICES TO ULTIMATE
USERS OF THEM FOR PERSONAL RATHER THAN COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.  P. 675. 

15. THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "RETAIL AND SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENTS" IS REINFORCED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF
THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT. 
P. 676. 

16.  ALTHOUGH THE MOTORS SOLD BY PETITIONER WERE NOT PURCHASED BY ITS
CUSTOMERS FOR RESALE OR TO BE PROCESSED FOR RESALE, AND ALTHOUGH THEY
WERE TO BE USED AND PROBABLY ULTIMATELY "CONSUMED" IN THE HANDS OF
PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS, THEY REMAINED ACTIVELY IN USE IN THE GREAT
FIELD OF THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO WHICH THE
ACT IS DIRECTED.  P. 678. 

17.  THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THE CHARACTER OF PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS
AS "COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL" AND NOT "RETAIL" CUSTOMERS IN THE SAME
SENSE AS IS THE CUSTOMER OF THE LOCAL MERCHANT, GROCER OR FILLING
STATION OPERATOR WHO BUYS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL CONSUMPTION.  P. 678. 

18.  THE ACT IS CONCERNED WITH GOODS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE BUT
NOT WITH THOSE IN "THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMER THEREOF OTHER THAN A PRODUCER, MANUFACTURER, OR PROCESSOR
THEREOF."  P. 678. 

ROLAND ELECTRICAL CO. V. WALLING, WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 849, TO REVIEW REVERSAL OF AN ORDER, 54 F.SUPP. 
733, DISMISSING A COMPLAINT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SEEKING TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE (1) WHETHER PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES ARE
ENGAGED "IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" SO AS TO BRING THEM
WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF
1938(52 STAT. 1060, 1062-3, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 206 AND 207), AND (2), IF
SO, WHETHER THEY ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE ACT BECAUSE "ENGAGED IN ANY
RETAIL OR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF WHOSE SELLING OR
SERVICING IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
13(A)(2).  29 U.S.C. SEC. 213(A)(2). 

RESPONDENT SOUGHT A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT RESTRAINING PETITIONER FROM CONTINUED VIOLATION OF THE
MINIMUM WAGE, MAXIMUM HOUR AND REPORT-MAKING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  29
U.S.C. SECS. 206, 207, 211(C).  AS TO THE COVERAGE BY THE ACT, THE
DISTRICT COURT SAID THAT "THE VIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD NOT BE
ACCEPTED," BUT IT RESTED ITS DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT UPON THE GROUND
THAT THE PETITIONER WAS EXEMPTED UNDER SEC. 13(A)(2).  54 F.SUPP.  733,
736.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ON THE OTHER HAND, HELD THAT
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES "WERE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE" AND THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT A "RETAIL OR SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENT" WITHIN THE EXEMPTION PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 13(A)(2).  IT
ACCORDINGLY REVERSED THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OPINION.  146 F.2D 745.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE DIVERGENCE OF OPINIONS
AMONG THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC.
13(A)(2).  FN1 

MOST OF THE RELEVANT FACTS WERE STIPULATED.  PETITIONER IS A MARYLAND
CORPORATION "HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE, PLACE OF BUSINESS AND A
MANUFACTURING PLANT" IN BALTIMORE.  IT IS THERE ENGAGED IN "COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL WIRING, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, AND DEALING IN
ELECTRICAL MOTORS AND GENERATORS, FOR PRIVATE, COMMERCIAL, AND
INDUSTRIAL USES." 

PETITIONER HAD "APPROXIMATELY 1,000 ACTIVE ACCOUNTS  ...  99 PERCENT
OF WHICH ARE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL FIRMS."  ITS "LARGER AND MOST
ACTIVE ACCOUNTS" WERE 33 IN NUMBER.  OF SUCH 33 CUSTOMERS, ONE WAS A
TELEPHONE COMPANY "ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE"; FOUR WERE "ENGAGED
IN THE REPAIR OF SHIPS, TUGS, BARGES, AND OTHER BOATS WHICH WERE
INTENDED FOR MOVEMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE"; AND "THE REMAINING
COMPANIES ON SAID LIST, WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THE AMERICAN ICE COMPANY
(A SMALL ACCOUNT IN THE PERIOD STIPULATED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE), WERE
ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, SHIPPING AT LEAST A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR TOTAL PRODUCTION TO POINTS OUTSIDE THE
STATE OF MARYLAND."  DURING THE PERIOD STIPULATED, "EVERY MECHANIC OF
THE DEFENDANT (PETITIONER) WORKED, IN PRACTICALLY EVERY WORKWEEK, FOR
SOME OF THE SAID (33) CUSTOMERS EITHER IN THE REPAIR OF THEIR MOTORS,
GENERATORS, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF USED MOTORS SOLD TO THEM, OR IN
PERFORMING ELECTRICAL WORK AT THEIR RESPECTIVE ESTABLISHMENTS."  TO
CARRY ON ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS, THE PETITIONER HAD 36 EMPLOYEES,
CONSISTING OF A FOREMAN, 4 TROUBLE SHOOTERS, 14 MECHANICS, 11 HELPERS
AND 6 OFFICE EMPLOYEES.  NO CLAIM OF COVERAGE IS MADE ON THE GROUND
THAT ANY OF THE PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES WERE ENGAGED "IN (INTERSTATE)
COMMERCE," BUT ONLY THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED "IN PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
(INTERSTATE) COMMERCE." 

                        I 

AS TO COVERAGE, THE ACT IS UNAMBIGUOUS AND THE PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES
COME SQUARELY WITHIN IT AS EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  THIS TURNS ON SECS. 6(A), 7(A), 3(B), 3(I) AND
3(J).  SECTION 6(A) PROVIDES:  "EVERY EMPLOYER SHALL PAY TO EACH OF HIS
EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE WAGES AT THE FOLLOWING RATES 

..."  SECTION 7(A) LIKEWISE PROVIDES:  "NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" AT
WAGES LESS THAN 1 1/2 TIMES THE REGULAR RATE, WHERE AN EMPLOYEE IS
EMPLOYED FOR MORE THAN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOURS PRESCRIBED. 


"(B)  'COMMERCE' MEANS TRADE, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION,
OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR FROM ANY STATE TO ANY
PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF. 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"(I)  'GOODS' MEANS GOODS (INCLUDING SHIPS AND MARINE EQUIPMENT),
WARES, PRODUCTS, COMMODITIES, MERCHANDISE, OR ARTICLES OR SUBJECTS OF
COMMERCE OF ANY CHARACTER, OR ANY PART OR INGREDIENT THEREOF, BUT DOES
NOT INCLUDE GOODS AFTER THEIR DELIVERY INTO THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL
POSSESSION OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER THEREOF OTHER THAN A PRODUCER,
MANUFACTURER, OR PROCESSOR THEREOF. 

"(J)  'PRODUCED' MEANS PRODUCED, MANUFACTURED, MINED, HANDLED, OR IN
ANY OTHER MANNER WORKED ON IN ANY STATE; AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
ACT AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION
OF GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN PRODUCING, MANUFACTURING,
MINING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WORKING ON SUCH
GOODS, OR IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION
THEREOF, IN ANY STATE." 

PUTTING THESE DEFINITIONS TOGETHER IN THEIR OWN TERMS, SEC. 6(A), AS
APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, PROVIDES IN EFFECT THAT "EVERY
EMPLOYER SHALL PAY (NOT LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM WAGES) TO EACH
OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS EMPLOYED IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY
TO THE PRODUCTION, IN ANY STATE, OF ANY PART OR INGREDIENT OF ANY
ARTICLES OR SUBJECTS OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR TRANSPORTATION, OF ANY
CHARACTER, FOR TRADE, COMMERCE OR TRANSPORTATION AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES."  THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TO BE DIRECTLY "ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE" AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.  THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE
TO BE EMPLOYED EVEN IN THE PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE WHICH ITSELF
BECOMES THE SUBJECT OF COMMERCE OR TRANSPORTATION AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE EMPLOYEE BE EMPLOYED, FOR EXAMPLE, IN AN
OCCUPATION WHICH IS NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF A PART OF ANY OTHER
"ARTICLES OR SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE OF ANY CHARACTER" WHICH ARE PRODUCED
FOR TRADE, COMMERCE OR TRANSPORTATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.  THIS
DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO BE EMPLOYED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE
SPECIFIED OCCUPATION.  THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE OCCUPATION IN
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED BE INDISPENSABLE TO THE PRODUCTION UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT HIS OCCUPATION BE "NECESSARY TO THE
PRODUCTION."  THERE MAY BE ALTERNATIVE OCCUPATIONS THAT COULD BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR IT BUT IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE ONE AT ISSUE IS NEEDED IN
SUCH PRODUCTION AND WOULD, IF OMITTED, HANDICAP THE PRODUCTION. 

THE NECESSITY TO THE PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS, IN THEIR PRODUCTIVE
WORK, OF THE SALES MADE AND THE SERVICES SUPPLIED TO THEM BY THE
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES IS THE FOUNDATION OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS.  THE
ESSENTIAL NEED FOR MOTORS AND WIRING IN THE CONDUCT OF ELECTRICALLY
OPERATED PRODUCTIVE PROCESSES OF MANUFACTURE IS BEYOND QUESTION.  WHEN
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PRODUCERS, SUCH AS THE PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS,
USE ELECTRIC MOTORS IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
SERVICES SUCH AS THOSE OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES ARE NECESSARY TO THE
CONTINUITY OF SUCH PRODUCTION.  SUCH SALES AND SERVICES MUST BE
IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS OR THEIR PRODUCTION
WILL STOP.  IF NOT SUPPLIED TO THE CUSTOMERS BY EMPLOYEES OF THE
PETITIONER, SUCH CUSTOMERS WOULD HAVE TO EMPLOY COMPARABLE EMPLOYEES OF
THEIR OWN OR OF OTHER CONTRACTORS.  FN2 

THE WORK OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES HAS "SUCH A CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE
TIE WITH THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE, AND WAS THEREFORE SO
MUCH AN ESSENTIAL PART OF IT, THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE REGARDED AS
ENGAGED IN AN OCCUPATION 'NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE.'"  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 525-526.  THE
RELATION OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS IS FULLY AS CLOSE AND
"NECESSARY" AS WAS THAT OF THE LOFT BUILDING WATCHMEN AND PORTERS TO
THE PETITIONER'S TENANTS IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA; THE
MANUFACTURING PLANT WATCHMAN OF THE RESPONDENT IN WALTON V. SOUTHERN
PACKAGE CORP., 320 U.S. 540; OR THE FIREGUARDS SUBJECT TO CALL IN
ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126.  IN THE LATTER CASE THIS COURT
SAID (P. 130): 

"...  NO HARD AND FAST RULE MAY BE TRANSPOSED FROM ONE INDUSTRY TO
ANOTHER TO SAY WHAT IS NECESSARY IN 'THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS.'  WHAT IS
PRACTICALLY NECESSARY TO IT WILL DEPEND ON ITS ENVIRONMENT AND
POSITION....  WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A PRACTICAL JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER
THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYER ACTUALLY OPERATES THE WORK AS PART OF AN
INTEGRATED EFFORT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS." 

THE FOREGOING CONCLUSIONS FOLLOW SO CLEARLY FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE AS TO MAKE UNNECESSARY A DISCUSSION OF THE DECLARED PURPOSE OR
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT TO SUPPORT THEM.  FN3

 II 

THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES ARE
EXEMPTED FROM THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER IS A "SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 13(A)(2).  FN4  THE LANGUAGE
OF THAT CLAUSE IS CAPABLE OF TWO INTERPRETATIONS.  IF READ IN A
DETACHED AND BROAD SENSE, IT CAN BE MADE TO EXEMPT FROM THE ACT THE
EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
OTHER EMPLOYEES LIKE THEM, TO THE SERIOUS DETRIMENT OF THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ACT.  HOWEVER, IF READ IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
AND ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION, THE CLAUSE DOES NOT REACH EMPLOYEES
"ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" AS WERE THOSE IN THIS
CASE.  WHEN SO READ, THE EXEMPTION REACHES EMPLOYEES OF ONLY SUCH
RETAIL OR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AS ARE COMPARABLE TO THE LOCAL
MERCHANT, CORNER GROCER OR FILLING STATION OPERATOR WHO SELLS TO OR
SERVES ULTIMATE CONSUMERS WHO ARE AT THE END OF, OR BEYOND, THAT "FLOW
OF GOODS IN COMMERCE" WHICH IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO REACH.  SEE
SEC. 2, INFRA.  WITHOUT THIS CLAUSE SUCH LOCAL ESTABLISHMENTS MIGHT
FIND THEMSELVES TECHNICALLY COVERED BY THE ACT, NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE
"PRODUCING GOODS FOR (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE," BUT BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE,
THEY WERE RETAILING MILK NEAR A STATE LINE AND, THEREFORE, MIGHT BE
REGARDED AS ACTUALLY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHEN DELIVERING RETAIL
SALES OF MILK TO LOCAL CUSTOMERS, ALL OF WHOM WERE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS
OF IT FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE, BUT A SMALL PROPORTION OF WHOM LIVED
ACROSS THE STATE LINE FROM THE MILK DEALER.  WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE
PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564, 571; PHILLIPS CO. V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 490,
497.  SIMILARLY, IT WAS FELT THAT WITHOUT THIS EXEMPTION CLAUSE, THE
EMPLOYEES OF A LOCAL MERCHANT WHO PURCHASED HIS GOODS FROM OUTSIDE HIS
STATE BUT RETAILED THEM ALL WITHIN HIS STATE TO ULTIMATE CONSUMERS
ACROSS HIS COUNTER, MIGHT, NEVERTHELESS, TECHNICALLY BE COVERED BY THE
ACT AS BEING ACTUALLY "IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE" BECAUSE OF HIS
PURCHASES, ALTHOUGH HIS SALES ALL MIGHT BE AT "RETAIL" AND BEYOND THE
END OF THE "FLOW OF GOODS IN COMMERCE."  83 CONG. REC. 7393-7394, 7436
7438.  THE ORIGIN OF THIS CLAUSE, SEC. 13(A)(2), HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
ESTABLISHMENTS "PRODUCING GOODS FOR (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE." 

IT IS RARE, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, FOR AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN AN
OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE
TO BE SAID TO BE AT THE SAME TIME AN EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN A RETAIL OR
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT WHOSE SELLING AND SERVICING IS CONFINED TO
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS.  THESE EMPLOYMENTS ARE LARGELY MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. 
TO THE EXTENT THAT SALES OR SERVICES ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE THEY GENERALLY ARE BY THAT HYPOTHESIS
NOT SALES OR SERVICES TO AN ULTIMATE CONSUMER FOR HIS PERSONAL USE AND,
ACCORDINGLY, ARE NEITHER "RETAIL" SALES NOR SERVICES OF A COMPARABLE
CHARACTER, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 13(A)(2). 

THE LOGIC OF THIS RESULT IS AS CLEAR AS THE DECLARED PURPOSE,
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE WHICH COMBINE TO
PRODUCE IT. 

THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT ARE DECLARED AS FOLLOWS IN SEC. 2: 

"(A)  THE CONGRESS HEREBY FINDS THAT THE EXISTENCE, IN INDUSTRIES
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, OF
LABOR CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE MINIMUM STANDARD
OF LIVING NECESSARY FOR HEALTH, EFFICIENCY, AND GENERAL WELL-BEING OF
WORKERS (1) CAUSES COMMERCE AND THE CHANNELS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
COMMERCE TO BE USED TO SPREAD AND PERPETUATE SUCH LABOR CONDITIONS
AMONG THE WORKERS OF THE SEVERAL STATES; (2) BURDENS COMMERCE AND THE
FREE FLOW OF GOODS IN COMMERCE; (3) CONSTITUTES AN UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION IN COMMERCE; (4) LEADS TO LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND
OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF GOODS IN COMMERCE; AND (5)
INTERFERES WITH THE ORDERLY AND FAIR MARKETING OF GOODS IN COMMERCE. 
"(B)  IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF THIS ACT, THROUGH THE
EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, TO CORRECT AND AS RAPIDLY AS PRACTICABLE TO ELIMINATE
THE CONDITIONS ABOVE REFERRED TO IN SUCH INDUSTRIES WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING EMPLOYMENT OR EARNING POWER."  52 STAT. 1060,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 202.    TO FAIL TO COVER IN THIS ACT THE MULTITUDE OF
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ENGAGED IN ESTABLISHMENTS LIKE THAT OF THE PETITIONER
AND WHICH SUPPLY THE MATERIALS AND SERVICES CURRENTLY NEEDED FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF PRODUCTIVE MACHINERY USED BY THOSE WHO PRODUCE GOODS FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD TAKE THE HEART OUT OF THIS ACT.  SAVINGS
RESULTING FROM SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS WOULD BE REFLECTED DIRECTLY
INTO COMPETITIVE COSTS.  THIS WOULD WEAKEN THE GOVERNMENTAL MECHANISM
FOR SUSTAINING "THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING NECESSARY FOR THE
HEALTH, EFFICIENCY, AND GENERAL WELL-BEING OF WORKERS" REFERRED TO AS
THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT.  FN5 

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS NOT SO MUCH TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AS SUCH, AS IT IS, THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER,
TO PROHIBIT THE SHIPMENT OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IF THEY ARE
PRODUCED UNDER SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS.  SUCH A PROHIBITION IS AN
APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 115; UNITED STATES V.
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 147.  THIS ACT SEEKS TO ELIMINATE
SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS, INCLUDING CHILD LABOR, ON A WIDE SCALE
THROUGHOUT THE NATION.  THE PURPOSE IS TO RAISE LIVING STANDARDS.  THIS
PURPOSE WILL FAIL OF REALIZATION UNLESS THE ACT HAS SUFFICIENTLY BROAD
COVERAGE TO ELIMINATE IN LARGE MEASURE FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE THE
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE ACCRUING FROM SAVINGS IN COSTS BASED UPON
SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS.  OTHERWISE THE ACT WILL BE INEFFECTIVE,
AND WILL PENALIZE THOSE WHO PRACTICE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS AS AGAINST
THOSE WHO DO NOT. 

THE ORIGINAL BILL PROVIDED FOR A LABOR STANDARDS BOARD WHICH WAS
GIVEN BROAD AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS AND ORDERS TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INCLUDING AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE SOME QUESTIONS
OF COVERAGE.  IT LISTED NO SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS SUCH AS ARE NOW
CONTAINED IN SEC. 13.  IN THE JOINT HEARINGS ON THIS BILL (JOINT
HEARINGS, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON S. 2475 AND H.R. 7200, PP. 1-89,
SEE ESPECIALLY PP. 24-25, 24-29, 35 ET SEQ.), THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ASKED THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL (P. 35) - 

"WOULD YOU EXPLAIN UNDER JUST WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR THE REGULATION OF RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENTS AND SMALL BUSINESS ENTERPRISES TO COME UNDER THIS
BILL?"  TO WHICH HE REPLIED - 

"IT WAS NOT INTENDED BY THIS BILL TO APPLY GENERALLY TO RETAILERS OR
TO APPLY TO THE SERVICE TRADES, SUCH AS THE FILLING-STATION ATTENDANT,
AND THE PANTS PRESSER AND SMALL BUSINESS GENERALLY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"PRACTICALLY, THE SITUATION IN WHICH A LOCAL MERCHANT MIGHT BE
AFFECTED WOULD BE IF HE WERE MOVING HIS GOODS IN THE COURSE OF DELIVERY
ACROSS THE STATE LINE TO A SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT SO THAT HE WERE ENGAGING
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE POLICY OF THE BILL
IS NOT TO INCLUDE THE SERVICE TRADES AND SMALL BUSINESSES AND THE
RETAILING ENTERPRISES." 

ANY EMPLOYER EMPLOYING LESS THAN A FIXED MINIMUM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
EXCEPT IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE LABOR STANDARDS BOARD FOUND
THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF APPROPRIATE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS BY EVEN SUCH A
CLASS OF EMPLOYERS WAS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT
THE PURPOSES, OR PREVENT THE CIRCUMVENTION, OF ANY PROVISION OF THE
ACT.  THE REQUIREMENT OF A MINIMUM SIZE FOR AN INCLUDED ESTABLISHMENT,
AND THE PROVISIONS FOR THE BOARD AND ITS DISCRETIONARY POWER WERE LATER
ELIMINATED BUT THE PURPOSE OF ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS IS SERVED TO A
SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE BY THE INSERTION OF SEC. 13 IN THEIR PLACE. 

WHILE ITS LANGUAGE AND COVERAGE WERE CHANGED IN DETAILS, THE BILL DID
NOT DEPART SUBSTANTIALLY FROM ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE.  THIS PURPOSE
REMAINS THE KEY TO THE MEANING OF THE WORDS DEFINING ITS COVERAGE AND
ALSO TO THOSE DEFINING EXEMPTION FROM ITS COVERAGE.  THERE NEVER WAS AN
INTENT EXPRESSED TO EXEMPT RETAILERS OTHER THAN THE LOCAL MERCHANTS OF
THE TYPE DEALING WITH THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER.  SECTION 13(A)(2)
CLARIFIED THE EXEMPTION OF SUCH OF THESE AS WERE NEAR STATE LINES AND
OF LOCAL MERCHANTS WHOSE PURCHASES MIGHT BE INTERSTATE ALTHOUGH THE
GREATER PART OF THEIR SALES WERE INTRASTATE.  FN6 

IN THE BILL AS REPORTED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 21,
1938, THE DECLARATION OF PURPOSES REFERRED TO "SUBSTANDARD LABOR
CONDITIONS IN OCCUPATIONS IN COMMERCE, IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING COMMERCE."  FN7  THE BREADTH OF THE
PHRASE "AFFECTING COMMERCE" WAS SO UNCERTAIN AND DIFFICULT OF
DEFINITION THAT IT WAS AT FIRST PROPOSED IN THE BILL TO GRANT TO A
LABOR STANDARDS BOARD, AND LATER TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, AUTHORITY
TO DETERMINE WHAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ACTUALLY "AFFECTING COMMERCE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  THIS PROPOSAL PROVED UNSATISFACTORY AND
CONGRESS FINALLY CHOSE TO FOREGO THE EXERCISE OF ITS FULL
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND ELIMINATED FROM THE ACT THE CLAUSE "AFFECTING
COMMERCE."  THE REMAINING COVERAGE RELATES ONLY TO EMPLOYEES (1) "IN
(INTERSTATE) COMMERCE,"  - FROM WHOM SEC. 13(A)(2) EXEMPTS EMPLOYEES OF
RETAIL AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS THE GREATER PART OF WHOSE SELLING OR
SERVICING IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE - AND TO THOSE (2) "IN PRODUCTION
OF GOODS FOR (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE."  THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS SHOW AN
INTENT TO RESTRICT THE WORD "RETAIL" TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS WITH ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS AS ARE COMMONLY CARRIED ON AT LOCAL DRY GOODS, BUTCHERING, OR
GROCERY STORES.  THE WORDS "SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS" AND "SERVICING,"
HOWEVER, WERE INTRODUCED IN THE FINAL CONFERENCE REPORT AND WERE NOT
DISCUSSED ON THE FLOOR.  FN8  83 CONG. REC. 9161, 9249. 

RETURNING TO THE TEXT OF THE ACT AND TO ITS AUTHORITATIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION, FURTHER CONFIRMATION IS APPARENT.  IN
GENERAL USAGE THE NOUN "RETAIL" MEANS "THE SALE OF COMMODITIES IN SMALL
QUANTITIES OR PARCELS; - OPPOSED TO WHOLESALE."  THE VERB "RETAIL"
MEANS "TO SELL IN SMALL QUANTITIES, AS BY THE SINGLE YARD, POUND,
GALLON, ETC.; TO SELL DIRECTLY TO THE CONSUMER; AS, TO RETAIL CLOTH OR
GROCERIES."  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED (2D
ED., 1938). 

IN THE SUGGESTED USE OF THE WORD "RETAIL" AS OPPOSED TO THE WORD
"WHOLESALE," A DISTINCTION APPEARS NOT MERELY BETWEEN THE SIZE AND
VOLUME OF THE SALES BUT BETWEEN TYPES OF PURCHASERS.  FOR EXAMPLE - 

"WHOLESALING INCLUDES ALL MARKETING TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE
PURCHASER IS ACTUATED SOLELY BY A PROFIT OR BUSINESS MOTIVE IN MAKING
THE PURCHASE. 

"RETAILING INCLUDES ALL MARKETING TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE PURCHASER
IS ACTUATED SOLELY BY A DESIRE TO SATISFY HIS OWN PERSONAL WANTS OR
THOSE OF HIS FAMILY OR FRIENDS THROUGH THE PERSONAL USE OF THE
COMMODITY OR SERVICE PURCHASED."  (BECKMAN AND ENGLE IN WHOLESALING
PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE (1937) P. 25.) 

SIMILARLY THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL SCIENCES STATES THAT "THE
DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF THE RETAIL TRADE  ...  CONSISTS IN SELLING
MERCHANDISE TO ULTIMATE CONSUMERS," (VOL. 13, P. 346), WHEREAS
WHOLESALING IS SAID TO COVER SALES "TO A RETAILER, A WHOLESALER OR AN
INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER SO LONG AS THE PURPOSE OF THE CUSTOMER IN BUYING
SUCH GOODS IS TO RESELL THEM IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER OR TO USE THEM FOR
BUSINESS NEEDS AS SUPPLIES OR EQUIPMENT."  (VOL. 15, P. 411.) 

GOVERNMENTAL USAGE MAKES THE SAME DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF THE USE
FOR WHICH THE GOODS ARE PURCHASED.  THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS STATES IN
ITS DEFINITION OF "WHOLESALE" THAT "IN GENERAL, THE DISTINGUISHING
CHARACTERISTIC IS THAT GOODS SOLD AT WHOLESALE ARE TO BE USED FOR
BUSINESS PURPOSES (SUCH AS MATERIALS FOR FURTHER PROCESSING AND
FABRICATION, MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE UNCHANGED, ETC.), RATHER THAN FOR
PERSONAL OR HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION."  U.S. CENSUS OF BUSINESS, 1939,
INSTRUCTIONS TO ENUMERATORS FOR BUSINESS AND MANUFACTURERS, P. 18; ALSO
VOL. I, RETAIL TRADE, P. 1; VOL. II, WHOLESALE TRADE, P. 1.  IT
CLASSIFIES AS "WHOLESALE SALES," SALES OF GOODS OR MERCHANDISE "TO
TRADING ESTABLISHMENTS OF ALL KINDS, TO INSTITUTIONS, INDUSTRIAL,
COMMERCIAL, AND PROFESSIONAL USERS, AND SALES TO GOVERNMENTAL BODIES." 
(IBID.) THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, IN ITS STANDARD INDUSTRIAL
CLASSIFICATION MANUAL, LIKEWISE CLASSIFIES "WHOLESALE TRADE" TO INCLUDE
"ALL ESTABLISHMENTS OR PLACES OF BUSINESS ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN SELLING
MERCHANDISE TO RETAILERS, TO INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL USERS, OR TO
OTHER WHOLESALERS  ..."  VOL. II - NONMANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES, 1942,
P. 35.  IT DEFINES "RETAIL TRADE" TO INCLUDE "ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGED IN
SELLING MERCHANDISE FOR PERSONAL OR HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION AND RENDERING
SERVICES INCIDENTAL TO THE SALES OF GOODS."  (IBID.) SIMILARLY THE
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, IN ITS INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION CODE, VOL. I,
DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRIES, 1942, PP. 99-100, PREPARED FOR USE OF THE
BOARD AND STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING EMPLOYMENT SECURITY LEGISLATION,
DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN WHOLESALE AND RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS ON THE BASIS
OF WHETHER THE GOODS THEY SELL ARE TO BE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES OR
FOR PERSONAL OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES. 

THE WORD "RETAIL" BECAUSE OF ITS READY CONTRAST WITH "WHOLESALE" IS
GENERALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE WORD "SERVICE."  THE TWO, HOWEVER,
ARE USED SO CLOSELY TOGETHER IN THIS STATUTE AS TO REQUIRE THEM TO BE
INTERPRETED SIMILARLY.  THIS MAKES IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE
BROADER MEANING OF "SERVICE" TO A MEANING COMPARABLE TO THAT GIVEN THE
NARROWER TERM "RETAIL."  THE WORDS ARE PUT ON A LIKE LEVEL ESPECIALLY
BY THEIR USE IN THE ALTERNATIVE WITH THE SINGLE WORD "ESTABLISHMENT" IN
THE PHRASE "ANY RETAIL OR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF
WHOSE SELLING OR SERVICING IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE."  ACCORDINGLY, IN
PROPORTION AS THE MEANING OF THE WORD "RETAIL" IS RESTRICTED TO SALES
MADE IN SMALL QUANTITIES TO ULTIMATE CONSUMERS TO MEET PERSONAL RATHER
THAN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES OF THOSE ARTICLES, SO IT IS
CORRESPONDINGLY APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE WORD "SERVICE" TO SERVICES
TO ULTIMATE USERS OF THEM FOR PERSONAL RATHER THAN COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES.  THIS IS SUPPORTED BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CLAUSE. 
FN9 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE TERMS "RETAIL AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS,"
"RETAIL SALES" AND "SERVICES" AS USED IN THIS CONNECTION REINFORCES THE
INTERPRETATIONS ABOVE STATED,  FN10  AND THIS COURT, IN SPEAKING OF
INTERPRETATIONS OF THIS ACT BY THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, HAS SAID:
"IN ANY CASE SUCH INTERPRETATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT." 
UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, 549.  SEE
ALSO, SKIDMORE V. SWIFT & CO., 323 U.S. 134, 140.  THE ADMINISTRATOR
CLASSIFIES AS "NON-RETAIL" MANY TYPES OF SALES CLOSELY COMPARABLE TO
THOSE MADE BY THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE, OF MOTORS, GENERATORS AND
SIMILAR EQUIPMENT TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS FOR THEIR USE
IN PRODUCING GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN11 

ALTHOUGH IN THIS CASE THE MOTORS SOLD BY THE PETITIONER WERE NOT
PURCHASED BY ITS CUSTOMERS FOR RESALE OR TO BE PROCESSED FOR RESALE,
AND ALTHOUGH THEY WERE TO BE USED AND PROBABLY ULTIMATELY TO BE
"CONSUMED" IN THE HANDS OF THE PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS, THESE MOTORS
REMAINED ACTIVELY IN USE IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE "FLOW OF GOODS IN
COMMERCE."  IT IS TO THIS GREAT FIELD OF THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT THE ACT IS DIRECTED. 

THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THE "COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL" CHARACTER OF
THE PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS.  THE PETITIONER'S CIRCULAR ADVERTISES ITS
BUSINESS AS THAT OF "ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, MOTOR DEALERS, COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL WIRING."  THE CIRCULAR OFFERS "SERVICE FOR ALL TYPES OF
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL WIRING."  THE STIPULATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER SHOWS THAT 99% OF ITS "ACTIVE ACCOUNTS AS REFLECTED IN ITS
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE LEDGER  ...  ARE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL FIRMS." 
THESE ARE NOT "RETAIL" CUSTOMERS IN THE SAME SENSE AS IS THE CUSTOMER
OF THE LOCAL MERCHANT, LOCAL GROCER OR FILLING STATION OPERATOR WHO
BUYS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL CONSUMPTION.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS
CONCERNED WITH GOODS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE BUT NOT WITH THOSE IN
"THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER THEREOF OTHER
THAN A PRODUCER, MANUFACTURER, OR PROCESSOR THEREOF."  SEE SEC. 3(I),
SUPRA. 

FOR THESE REASONS THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER WERE PROPERLY HELD
TO BE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER
THE COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND WERE NOT TAKEN OUT OF
THAT COVERAGE BY THE EXEMPTION STATED IN SEC. 13(A)(2).  THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  COMPARE FLEMING V. A.B. KIRSCHBAUM CO., 124 F.2D 567, 572, AND
FLEMING V. ARSENAL BLDG. CORP., 125 F.2D 278, 280, BOTH AFFIRMED SUB
NOM. KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, WITHOUT DISPOSING OF THE
QUESTION NOW PRESENTED; GUESS V. MONTAGUE, 140 F.2D 500; BRACEY V.
LURAY, 138 F.2D 8; WITH LONAS V. NATIONAL LINEN CORP., 136 F.2D 433,
CERT. DENIED, 320 U.S. 785; MARTINO V. MICHIGAN WINDOW CLEANING CO.,
145 F.2D 163, CERT. GRANTED, 325 U.S. 849.    FN2  THE DEPENDENCE OF
THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF THE PETITIONER UPON SUCH
SALES AND SERVICES IS WELL PRESENTED IN THE PETITIONER'S ADVERTISING
CIRCULAR: 

"IT COSTS MORE TO OPERATE A FAULTY MOTOR THAN TO BUY A NEW ONE.  BUT
IT ISN'T NECESSARY TO BUY A NEW MOTOR.  WE'LL RECONDITION YOUR PRESENT
MOTORS TO GIVE YOU THE SAME SERVICE AND SATISFACTION AS NEW ONES.  AND
WE'LL SAVE YOU 25% TO 50% ON NEW MOTOR COSTS.... 

"WHEN A MOTOR SUDDENLY GOES DEAD OR LAGS, WHEN TROUBLE IN ELECTRICAL
EQUIPMENT ARISES, YOU NEED SERVICE AND YOU NEED IT QUICK.  EVERY SECOND
OF DELAY MEANS MORE DOLLARS LOST.  HOW WELL DO WE APPRECIATE WHAT SPEED
MEANS TO OUR PATRONS, AS WELL AS DEPENDABLE WORKMANSHIP.... 

"NO JOB IS TOO SMALL OR TOO LARGE TO HANDLE PROMPTLY.  TEMPORARY
REPLACEMENTS CAN BE MADE IMMEDIATELY FROM OUR STOCKS.  NO CHARGE IS
MADE FOR EQUIPMENT THAT IS LOANED WHILE REPAIRS ARE BEING MADE." 

FN3  THE DECISION DOES NOT REST ON THE SMALL QUANTITIES OF SCRAP
ANNUALLY SOLD, MELTED DOWN AND SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NOR ON
THE SMALL AMOUNT OF WORK PERFORMED BY THE PETITIONER IN MARYLAND
DIRECTLY FOR CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE, NOR UPON THE SMALL NUMBERS
OF SALES OF REBUILT MOTORS TO CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  THE
RESULT REACHED MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANY OR ALL OF
THE PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES WERE ENGAGED "IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE" AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE "PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR (INTERSTATE)
COMMERCE." 

FN4  "SEC.  13.  (A) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 6 AND 7 SHALL NOT
APPLY WITH RESPECT TO  ...  (2) ANY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN ANY RETAIL OR
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF WHOSE SELLING OR SERVICING IS
IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE; ..."  52 STAT. 1060, 1067, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
213(2). 

FN5  PHILLIPS CO. V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 490, 493.  THE BILL WAS
INTRODUCED MAY 24, 1937, AS S. 2475 AND H.R. 7200, ACCOMPANIED BY A
PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE.  THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL AGREED THAT THE BILL WAS
"INTENDED TO CARRY OUT THE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT IN HIS
MESSAGE."  81 CONG. REC. 4960, 4961.  THE PRESIDENT SAID "TO PROTECT
THE FUNDAMENTAL INTERESTS OF FREE LABOR AND A FREE PEOPLE WE PROPOSE
THAT ONLY GOODS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH MEET
THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF FREE LABOR SHALL BE ADMITTED TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  GOODS PRODUCED UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH DO NOT MEET
RUDIMENTARY STANDARDS OF DECENCY SHOULD BE REGARDED AS CONTRABAND AND
OUGHT NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO POLLUTE THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE TRADE." 
ID. AT 4961.  THE PRESIDENT EMPHASIZED HIS PURPOSE TO FOLLOW THE
REASONING OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES' DISSENTING OPINION IN THE 5 TO 4
DECISION IN HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, 277.  THIS COURT HAS NOW
OVERRULED THAT DECISION AND UNANIMOUSLY UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S.
100, 115-117.  THE BILL BECAME KNOWN AS THE "WAGE AND HOUR BILL." 
LATER IT RECEIVED ITS OFFICIAL TITLE OF THE "FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
OF 1938."  THE RESPECTIVE BILLS WERE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR IN THE SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR IN THE
HOUSE.  JOINT HEARINGS WERE HAD BEFORE THESE COMMITTEES JUNE 2-5, 7-15,
21 AND 22, 1937.  HEARINGS ON S. 2475 AND H.R. 7200, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.  IT WAS REPORTED TO THE SENATE JULY 8, 1937 WITH AMENDMENTS. 
SEN. REP. NO. 884, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  AFTER FULL DISCUSSION IT WAS
PASSED BY THE SENATE JULY 31, 1937, WITH AMENDMENTS.  81 CONG. REC.
7957.  IN THAT FORM IT WAS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE
HOUSE, AND WAS REPORTED OUT AUGUST 6, 1937(H. REP. NO. 1452, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.), WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AS TO COVERAGE OR
EXEMPTIONS.  AFTER DEBATE, IT WAS RECOMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR
DECEMBER 17, 1937(82 CONG. REC. 1835), INCLUDING PARTICULARLY THE
SUBSTITUTION OF A SINGLE ADMINISTRATOR IN PLACE OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS BOARD PROPOSED IN THE ORIGINAL BILL.  IT WAS AGAIN REPORTED
FAVORABLY BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR APRIL 21, 1938, WITH
AMENDMENTS.  H. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.  AFTER DEBATE, IT
WAS PASSED BY THE HOUSE MAY 24, 1938.  83 CONG. REC. 7449.  IT WENT TO
CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES AND WAS REPORTED OUT OF CONFERENCE
WITH SEVERAL AMENDMENTS IN SUBSTANTIALLY ITS PRESENT FORM AND THE
CONFERENCE REPORTS WERE ADOPTED IN BOTH HOUSES JUNE 14, 1938.  83 CONG.
REC. 9158, 9246.  IT WAS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT JUNE 25, 1938.  THE
QUESTIONS OF COVERAGE AND EXEMPTION ARE CLOSELY RELATED TO EACH OTHER
IN THE DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS AND IN THE AMENDMENTS ADOPTED. 

FN6  THE ORIGINAL SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT SAID (SEN. REP. NO. 884,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5): 

"THE BILL CAREFULLY EXCLUDES FROM ITS SCOPE BUSINESS IN THE SEVERAL
STATES THAT IS OF A PURELY LOCAL NATURE.  IT APPLIES ONLY TO THE
INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE NATION INSOFAR AS THEY
UTILIZE THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR SERIOUSLY AND
SUBSTANTIALLY BURDEN OR HARASS SUCH COMMERCE.  IT LEAVES TO STATE AND
LOCAL COMMUNITIES THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES CONCERNING THOSE LOCAL
SERVICE AND OTHER BUSINESS TRADES THAT DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INFLUENCE
THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE POLICY IN THIS
REGARD IS SUCH THAT IT IS NOT EVEN INTENDED TO INCLUDE IN ITS SCOPE
THOSE PURELY LOCAL AND SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS THAT HAPPEN TO LIE
NEAR STATE LINES, AND SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH LOCATION, ACTUALLY
SERVE A WHOLLY LOCAL COMMUNITY TRADE WITHIN TWO STATES." 

SEE ALSO, NOTE 8, INFRA; WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S.
564, 571, AND PHILLIPS CO. V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 490, 497. 

FN7  SECTION 2(A), S. 2475 ACCOMPANYING REPORT NO. 2182 ON UNION
CALENDAR NO. 804 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 

FN8  SEE, DEBATES IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 83 CONG. REC. 7393
7394, 7436-7438.  IT IS HERE THAT SEC. 13(A)(2) HAD ITS ORIGIN IN AN
AMENDMENT PRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVE CELLER AND ACCEPTED BY CHAIRMAN
NORTON OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR.  IT PROVIDED FOR THE INSERTION
OF THE WORDS "BUT NO SUCH ORDER SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO ANY RETAIL
INDUSTRY, THE GREATER PART OF WHOSE SALES IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE." 

IT WAS INTENDED "TO ELIMINATE RETAILING" AND TO PREVENT THE
CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES OF RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS AS EMPLOYEES
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE OF EITHER PURCHASES OR SALES
MADE BY SUCH EMPLOYERS ACROSS STATE LINES.  REPRESENTATIVE CELLER SAID
(83 CONG. REC. 7438): 

"THE COURTS WILL LOOK TO THE DEBATES IN THIS HOUSE FOR WHAT IS MEANT
BY THESE WORDS....  IF YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE RETAILING, YOU SHOULD SAY
SO IN CLEAR-CUT LANGUAGE, AND THIS AMENDMENT WHICH I OFFER INDICATES IN
THE CLEAREST WAY THAT RETAILING IS EXEMPTED....  ACCEPT IT AND THEN
RETAIL DRY GOODS, RETAIL BUTCHERING, GROCERS, RETAIL CLOTHING STORES,
DEPARTMENT STORES WILL ALL BE EXEMPT." 

REPRESENTATIVE NORTON REPLIED:  "...  IN VIEW OF THE GREAT
MISUNDERSTANDING THERE MUST BE ABOUT THIS RETAILING FEATURE OF THE
BILL, THE COMMITTEE WILL ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.  THERE HAS BEEN A GREAT
DEAL OF DOUBT AS TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PARTICULAR SECTION, AND I
THINK THIS AMENDMENT WILL NOT WEAKEN OUR BILL, BUT WILL IN FACT
STRENGTHEN IT." 

THE AMENDMENT THEREUPON WAS AGREED TO.  (AYES, 145 - NOES, 56.) 

REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON OF OKLAHOMA, IN WITHDRAWING AN AMENDMENT WHICH
WOULD HAVE EXPRESSLY STRICKEN OUT INTERSTATE PURCHASES AS A BASIS FOR
BRINGING WITHIN THE ACT EMPLOYEES OF AN INDUSTRY MAKING SUCH PURCHASES,
THEN SAID: 

"...  THE AMENDMENT  ...  OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK (MR.
CELLER), WHICH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BODY, IS TO PROTECT
THE LITTLE CORNER STORE, FILLING STATION, AND OTHER RETAILERS WHO
PURCHASE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR GOODS ACROSS THE STATE LINE." 

FN9  GUESS V. MONTAGUE, 140 F.2D 500, 503; CF. FLEMING V. ARSENAL
BLDG. CORP., 125 F.2D 278, 280, AFFIRMED SUB NOM., KIRSCHBAUM CO. V.
WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 526. 

FN10  INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 6 OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND UNDER THE TITLE OF "RETAIL
AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT - THE SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF THE
EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY SECTION 13(A)(2) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
OF 1938" ORIGINALLY ISSUED DECEMBER, 1938, AND REVISED JUNE, 1941, 2
C.C.H. LABOR LAW SERVICE, P32,106. 

SOME OF THESE INTERPRETATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 13(A)(2), WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TYPICALLY TO THE GROCERY
STORE, BUTCHER SHOP, HABERDASHERY, CLOTHING STORE, FILLING STATION,
BEAUTY PARLOR, HOTEL, AND SIMILAR COMMONLY RECOGNIZED RETAIL AND
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS."  PAR. 3. 

"A RETAIL SALE IS A SALE OF GOODS FOR DIRECT CONSUMPTION AND NOT FOR
PURPOSES OF RESALE OR REDISTRIBUTION IN ANY FORM."  PAR. 12. 

"A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT SELLS GOODS TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS FOR
PERSONAL OR FAMILY CONSUMPTION."  PAR. 14. 

"THE TERM 'SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT' AS USED IN SECTION 13(A)(2) MAY BE
CONSIDERED TO INCLUDE GENERALLY THAT LARGE MISCELLANEOUS ASSORTMENT OF
BUSINESS ENTERPRISES WHICH ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENTS, BUT WHICH MAY NOT BE ACCURATELY CLASSIFIED AS SUCH. 
SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS SUGGESTED BY THE MANNER IN WHICH SECTION
13(A)(2) IS DRAFTED.  SERVICE AND RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS ARE CONSIDERED
IN THE SAME SENTENCE AND THE SAME CRITERION OF INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS
MADE APPLICABLE TO BOTH."  PAR. 22.  SEE ALSO, PARS. 23-29. 

"AS ALREADY INDICATED, ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH PERFORM A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF WORK FOR INDUSTRIAL OR BUSINESS USERS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES,
INSTITUTIONS, AND SIMILAR CUSTOMERS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENTS.  A SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IS ONE WHICH PERFORMS SERVICE
FOR PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS FOR PERSONAL OR FAMILY USE."  PAR. 27. 

IN PARAGRAPH 29, THE ADMINISTRATOR LISTS MANY EXAMPLES OF
"ESTABLISHMENTS NOT CONSIDERED SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS UNDER EXEMPTION"
AND SAYS OF THEM - 

"ALTHOUGH WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE FOREGOING COMPANIES PERFORM SERVICE,
IT IS NEVERTHELESS OUR OPINION THAT ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGED IN SUCH
BUSINESSES ARE NOT IN THE ORDINARY CASE SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR IN
CHARACTER TO RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(A)(2)." 

AMONG THE COMPANIES SO LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 29, AND TO WHICH THE ABOVE
QUOTATION REFERS, ARE THE FOLLOWING WHICH HAVE SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE:  ENGINEERING FIRMS, MACHINE SHOPS AND
FOUNDRIES, ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGED IN SHARPENING AND RECONDITIONING
INDUSTRIAL TOOLS, IN RESISTANCE WELDING, IN ARMATURE REWINDING, OR IN
MAKING ELECTRIC SIGNS, COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE REPAIR OF BUSINESS
MACHINES OR IN REPAIRING ELEVATORS. 

FN11  "THUS, MANY ESTABLISHMENTS ARE ENGAGED IN SELLING GOODS WHICH
HAVE ONLY AN INDUSTRIAL OR BUSINESS MARKET, E.G., ESTABLISHMENTS
ENGAGED IN SELLING PRODUCTION MACHINERY, FREIGHT TRAILERS, OIL-WELL
DRILLING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, ETC.  THESE ESTABLISHMENTS ARE NOT
RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 13(A)(2) SINCE THEY
DO NOT SELL REGULARLY TO THE GENERAL CONSUMING PUBLIC."  INTERPRETATIVE
BULLETIN NO. 6, PAR. 11, 2 C.C.H. LABOR LAW SERVICE, P32,106.  A
FOOTNOTE TO PARAGRAPH 11 IN THE SAME BULLETIN CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT: "ORDINARILY THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF GOODS HAVE ONLY AN
INDUSTRIAL OR BUSINESS MARKET AND ARE NOT SOLD TO THE GENERAL CONSUMING
PUBLIC.  ACCORDINGLY, SALES OF SUCH GOODS, IN THE ORDINARY CASE, ARE
NOT RETAIL.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE TYPES OF GOODS LISTED BELOW
ARE MERELY EXAMPLES AND DO NOT COMPRISE AN EXHAUSTIVE ENUMERATION." 
THE NOTE THEN LISTS MANY ILLUSTRATIONS SOME OF WHICH ARE CLOSELY
COMPARABLE TO THE TYPES OF GOODS SOLD AND SERVICED IN THIS CASE.  AMONG
THE ILLUSTRATIONS ARE BUTCHERS' EQUIPMENT, FILLING STATION EQUIPMENT,
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, MACHINE TOOLS, MECHANICAL RUBBER GOODS (SUCH AS
BELTING, PACKING, GASKETS, AND RECOIL PADS), POWER ENGINES, POWERHOUSE
EQUIPMENT, WELDING EQUIPMENT, HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT (SUCH AS X-RAY
MACHINES), PLUMBERS' EQUIPMENT, SHOE REPAIRERS' EQUIPMENT, COMMERCIAL
AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT, RAILROAD EQUIPMENT AND COMMERCIAL SHIP EQUIPMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











ORDER OF CONDUCTORS V. PITNEY, 326 U.S. 561 


NO. 37.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1946.  - 145
F.2D 351, MODIFIED. 


WHILE A PROCEEDING FOR REORGANIZATION OF A RAILROAD UNDER SEC. 77 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE TRUSTEES
AGREED WITH THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF "YARD CONDUCTORS" THAT
CERTAIN TRAINS WHICH HAD BEEN MANNED BY "ROAD CONDUCTORS" SHOULD BE
MANNED BY "YARD CONDUCTORS."  RELYING ON EARLIER AGREEMENTS, THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROAD CONDUCTORS PETITIONED THE COURT
TO INSTRUCT THE TRUSTEES NOT TO DISPLACE THE ROAD CONDUCTORS AND TO
ENJOIN SUCH ACTION AS LONG AS THE EARLIER AGREEMENTS WERE NOT ALTERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  THE COURT DETERMINED THAT
THE YARD CONDUCTORS WERE ENTITLED TO MAN THE TRAINS IN QUESTION, AND
DISMISSED THE PETITION.  HELD: 

1.  SO FAR AS THE ORDER CONSTITUTED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRUSTEES, IT
WAS WITHIN THE SUPERVISORY POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS A BANKRUPTCY
COURT AND IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 562, 567. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE AGREEMENTS FOR
PURPOSES OF FINALLY ADJUDICATING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE UNIONS AND THE
RAILROAD, BUT SHOULD STAY DISMISSAL OF THE CAUSE SO AS TO AFFORD
OPPORTUNITY FOR APPLICATION TO THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  P.
567. 

3.  CONGRESS HAVING CREATED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AN AGENCY
ESPECIALLY COMPETENT AND SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED TO SETTLE SUCH A LABOR
DISPUTE AS IS HERE INVOLVED, THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE EQUITABLE
DISCRETION TO GIVE THAT AGENCY THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO PASS ON THE
ISSUE.  THE EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF AN INJUNCTION SHOULD BE WITHHELD AT
LEAST UNTIL THEN.  P. 567. 

4.  ANY RIGHTS CLEARLY REVEALED BY AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
AGREEMENTS BY THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MIGHT THEN, IF THE SITUATION
WARRANTS, BE PROTECTED IN THIS PROCEEDING.  P. 568. 

ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA ET AL. V. PITNEY ET AL.,
TRUSTEES OF CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 849, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, UPON APPEAL
FROM AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE REQUIRES US TO CONSIDER TO WHAT EXTENT A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT HAVING CHARGE OF A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION HAS POWER TO
ADJUDICATE A JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE INVOLVING THE RAILROAD AND TWO
EMPLOYEE ACCREDITED BARGAINING AGENTS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., GIVING SUCH POWER TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ESTABLISHED THEREUNDER.  EACH UNION CLAIMS THAT
ITS RESPECTIVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ENTITLES IT TO SUPPLY
CONDUCTORS FOR FIVE DAILY FREIGHT TRAINS OPERATED WITHIN THE
ELIZABETHPORT, NEW JERSEY, YARDS OF THE RAILROAD AND BOTH PRESSED THEIR
CONTENTIONS ON THE REORGANIZATION TRUSTEES APPOINTED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  11 U.S.C. SEC. 205.  THE
TWO UNIONS ARE THE ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS (O.R.C.), WHICH
REPRESENTS ROAD CONDUCTORS WHO ORDINARILY OPERATE TRAINS OUTSIDE THE
YARDS, AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN (B.R.T.), WHICH
REPRESENTS YARD CONDUCTORS WHO ORDINARILY OPERATE TRAINS INSIDE THE
YARDS.  BUT HERE, THE PRACTICE OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS HAD BEEN THAT AT
TIMES YARD CONDUCTORS MANNED SOME TRAINS OUTSIDE THE YARD AND ROAD
CONDUCTORS MANNED SOME TRAINS WITHIN THE YARD, INCLUDING THE FIVE
FREIGHT TRAINS HERE INVOLVED.  IN 1940 THE RAILROAD IN RESPONSE TO
PRESSURE BY THE O.R.C. AGREED THAT THEREAFTER ONLY ROAD CONDUCTORS
WOULD MAN THE OUTSIDE TRAINS.  HOWEVER, O.R.C. CONDUCTORS CONTINUED TO
OPERATE THE FIVE DAILY FREIGHT TRAINS WITHIN THE YARD.  IN 1943 THE
RAILROAD WAS PREVAILED UPON BY THE B.R.T. TO AGREE TO SUBSTITUTE B.R.T.
YARD CONDUCTORS FOR THE O.R.C. CONDUCTORS OPERATING THESE FIVE TRAINS. 

THEREUPON O.R.C. BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE REORGANIZATION COURT.  IT
ALLEGED THAT ITS MEMBERS HAD FOR THE PAST 35 YEARS OPERATED THE TRAINS
IN ISSUE AS A RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS AS TO RULES, RATES OF PAY AND
WORKING CONDITIONS BETWEEN IT AND THE RAILROAD AND THAT THE 1940
CONTRACT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT THIS SITUATION WOULD NOT BE CHANGED
WITHOUT FURTHER AGREEMENT.  THUS, THE PROPOSED DISPLACEMENT OF O.R.C.
CONDUCTORS WOULD VIOLATE SEC. 6 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WHICH MAKES IT
UNLAWFUL FOR A CARRIER OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES TO CHANGE "PAY,
RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS," UNLESS 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE
INTENDED CHANGE SHALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND THE CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN
FINALLY ACTED UPON BY THE MEDIATION BOARD.  FN1  THE O.R.C. ASKED THE
COURT TO INSTRUCT ITS TRUSTEES NOT TO DISPLACE ROAD CONDUCTORS AND TO
ENJOIN THEM PERMANENTLY FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION SO LONG AS O.R.C.'S
CONTRACTS WITH THE ROAD WERE NOT ALTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

ANSWERS WERE FILED BY THE TRUSTEES AND THE B.R.T. AS INTERVENOR.  THE
CASE WAS REFERRED TO A MASTER WHO, AFTER A HEARING, FOUND THAT O.R.C.'S
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS DID NOT PROVIDE THAT ITS CONDUCTORS
WERE TO OPERATE THE FIVE FREIGHT TRAINS AND THAT THE B.R.T. CONTRACT
ALLOTTED THESE LINES TO ITS MEMBERS.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED
THESE FINDINGS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE PETITION ON THE MERITS. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED
ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS BECAUSE IT THOUGHT THAT THE REMEDIES OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES SUCH AS HERE INVOLVED
ARE EXCLUSIVE.  145 F.2D 351.  IT FURTHER STATED THAT IF IT SHOULD BE
MISTAKEN ON THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION, THEN IT AGREED WITH THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT THE ROAD CONDUCTORS MUST LOSE ON THE MERITS. 

TRUSTEE ACTING UNDER THIS ACT SHALL CHANGE THE WAGES OR WORKING
CONDITIONS OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IN
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT  ..."  49 STAT. 923.  SECTION 1 OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT DEFINES A CARRIER, SUBJECT TO IT, AS INCLUDING "ANY RECEIVER,
TRUSTEE, OR OTHER INDIVIDUAL OR BODY, JUDICIAL OR OTHERWISE, WHEN IN
THE POSSESSION OF THE BUSINESS OF ANY SUCH 'CARRIER'..."  AND SEC. 2,
SEVENTH, OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "NO CARRIER, ITS OFFICERS OR AGENTS
SHALL CHANGE THE RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, AS A CLASS AS EMBODIED IN AGREEMENTS EXCEPT IN THE MANNER
PRESCRIBED IN SUCH AGREEMENTS OR IN SECTION 6 OF THIS ACT."  SECTION 6,
AS WE HAVE SEEN, PROHIBITS SUCH CHANGES UNLESS NOTICE IS FIRST GIVEN
AND ITS REQUIREMENTS ARE OTHERWISE COMPLIED WITH.  SECTION 2, TENTH, OF
THE ACT MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR, PUNISHABLE BY BOTH FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT, FOR A CARRIER WILFULLY TO VIOLATE SEC. 6. 

THESE SECTIONS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ONLY CONDUCT WHICH WOULD
VIOLATE SEC. 6 IS A CHANGE OF THOSE WORKING CONDITIONS WHICH ARE
"EMBODIED" IN AGREEMENTS.  BUT THE ANSWERS HERE SPECIFICALLY DENIED
THAT THE O.R.C. AGREEMENTS PROVIDED THAT ROAD CONDUCTORS OPERATE THE
FIVE TRAINS IN QUESTION.  THIS PUT IN ISSUE THE MEANING OF THE
CONTRACTS THAT ALLEGEDLY EMBODIED THE WORKING CONDITIONS WHICH THE
TRUSTEES WERE ABOUT TO CHANGE.  THE COURT, THEREFORE, HAD TO INTERPRET
THESE CONTRACTS BEFORE IT COULD FIND THAT SEC. 6 HAD BEEN VIOLATED. 

IN INTERPRETING THE CONTRACTS THE COURT MIGHT ACT IN TWO DISTINCT
CAPACITIES.  FIRST, IT MIGHT DO SO IN THE CAPACITY OF A "JUDICIAL"
"BODY" IN THE "POSSESSION OF THE BUSINESS," OR A "CARRIER" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 1 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  AS SUCH IT WOULD HAVE TO
INTERPRET THE CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED
BY THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN2  TO CONTROL ITS TRUSTEES SO AS TO INSURE THE
PRESERVATION AND PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE.  BUT
SUCH INSTRUCTIONS, WHILE BINDING ON THE TRUSTEES AND, JUST AS ANY OTHER
ORDER, SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW, AMOUNT TO NO MORE THAN THE DECISION
ANY OTHER CARRIER WOULD SOONER OR LATER MAKE ABOUT THE COURSE IT MUST
FOLLOW AND, THEREFORE, CAN NOT FINALLY SETTLE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN UNION
AND EMPLOYER. 

FINALLY, TO SETTLE THAT DISPUTE THE REORGANIZATION COURT WOULD HAVE
TO ACT IN THE FURTHER CAPACITY OF A TRIBUNAL EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE
EQUITABLE RELIEF SOUGHT, EVEN THOUGH GRANTING THAT RELIEF REQUIRES
INTERPRETATION OF THESE CONTRACTS.  BUT CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED FOR A TRIBUNAL TO INTERPRET CONTRACTS SUCH AS THESE IN ORDER
FINALLY TO SETTLE A LABOR DISPUTE.  SECTION 3 FIRST (I) OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT PROVIDES THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN A CARRIER AND ITS EMPLOYEES
"GROWING OUT OF  ...  THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS
CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS  ...  MAY BE
REFERRED  ...  BY EITHER PARTY TO THE  ...  ADJUSTMENT BOARD."  THE
BOARD CAN NOT ONLY ORDER REINSTATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES, SHOULD THEY
ACTUALLY BE DISCHARGED, BUT IT CAN ALSO UNDER SEC. 3, FIRST (O) AND (P)
GRANT A MONEY AWARD SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WITH AN ALLOWANCE FOR
ATTORNEY'S FEES SHOULD THE AWARD BE SUSTAINED.  NOT ONLY HAS CONGRESS
THUS DESIGNATED AN AGENCY PECULIARLY COMPETENT TO HANDLE THE BASIC
QUESTION HERE INVOLVED, BUT AS WE HAVE INDICATED IN SEVERAL RECENT
CASES IN WHICH WE HAD OCCASION TO DISCUSS THE HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, IT ALSO INTENDED TO LEAVE A MINIMUM
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COURTS.  FN3 

OF COURSE, WHERE THE STATUTE IS SO OBVIOUSLY VIOLATED THAT "A
SACRIFICE OR OBLITERATION OF A RIGHT WHICH CONGRESS  ...  CREATED"  FN4
TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF INDIVIDUALS OR THE PUBLIC IS CLEARLY SHOWN,
A COURT OF EQUITY COULD, IN A PROPER CASE, INTERVENE.  TEXAS & N.O.R.
CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515.  BUT HERE IT DOES NOT CLEARLY APPEAR WHETHER
THE STATUTE HAS BEEN VIOLATED OR COMPLIED WITH OR THAT THE THREATENED
ACTION "WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  PENNSYLVANIA V.
WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185.  WE HAVE SEEN THAT IN ORDER TO REACH A
FINAL DECISION ON THAT QUESTION THE COURT FIRST HAD TO INTERPRET THE
TERMS OF O.R.C.'S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  THE RECORD SHOWS,
HOWEVER, THAT INTERPRETATION OF THESE CONTRACTS INVOLVES MORE THAN THE
MERE CONSTRUCTION OF A "DOCUMENT" IN TERMS OF THE ORDINARY MEANING OF
WORDS AND THEIR POSITION.  SEE BROWN LUMBER CO. V. L. & N.R. CO., 299
U.S. 393, 396.  GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. MERCHANTS ELEVATOR CO., 259
U.S. 285, 291.  FOR O.R.C.'S AGREEMENTS WITH THE RAILROAD MUST BE READ
IN THE LIGHT OF OTHERS BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND B.R.T.  AND SINCE ALL
PARTIES SEEK TO SUPPORT THEIR PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF THESE
AGREEMENTS BY EVIDENCE AS TO USAGE, PRACTICE AND CUSTOM, THAT TOO MUST
BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD.  THE FACTUAL QUESTION IS
INTRICATE AND TECHNICAL.  AN AGENCY ESPECIALLY COMPETENT AND
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED TO DEAL WITH IT HAS BEEN CREATED BY CONGRESS. 
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE EQUITABLE
DISCRETION TO GIVE THAT AGENCY THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO PASS ON THE
ISSUE.  CERTAINLY THE EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF AN INJUNCTION SHOULD BE
WITHHELD, AT LEAST, UNTIL THEN.  SEE THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM
CO., 309 U.S. 478, 483-484; BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315.  ONLY
AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACTS, BUT NOT UNTIL THEN, CAN IT PLAINLY
APPEAR THAT SUCH RELIEF IS NECESSARY TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STATUTE.  UNTIL SUCH TIME, O.R.C. CAN NOT SHOW IRREPARABLE LOSS AND
INADEQUACY OF THE LEGAL REMEDY.  THE COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD, THEREFORE,
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION STAY ITS HAND.  LAWRENCE V. ST. LOUIS
SAN FRANCISCO R. CO., 274 U.S. 588, 592-3 AND OTHER CASES CITED IN
MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 51, N. 9; NATURAL
GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300. 

WE HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD SUPERVISORY POWER TO INSTRUCT ITS
TRUSTEES AS IT DID.  AND A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE PERSUADES US THAT THE
COURT'S FINDINGS ON WHICH SUCH INSTRUCTIONS WERE BASED ARE NOT CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS.  TO THE EXTENT THAT ITS ORDER CONSTITUTES INSTRUCTIONS TO
ITS TRUSTEES, IT IS AFFIRMED.  OF COURSE, IN THIS RESPECT IT IS NO MORE
BINDING ON THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD THAN THE ACTION OF ANY OTHER CARRIER. 
BUT THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE CONTRACTS FOR PURPOSES OF
FINALLY ADJUDICATING THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE UNIONS AND THE RAILROAD. 
THE DISMISSAL OF THE CAUSE SHOULD THEREFORE BE STAYED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, SO AS TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR APPLICATION TO THE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENTS.  ANY RIGHTS CLEARLY
REVEALED BY SUCH AN INTERPRETATION MIGHT THEN, IF THE SITUATION
WARRANTS, BE PROTECTED IN THIS PROCEEDING.  FN5  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "SEC.  6.  CARRIERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES SHALL
GIVE AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN INTENDED CHANGE IN
AGREEMENTS AFFECTING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS, AND
THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE BEGINNING OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES INTERESTED IN SUCH INTENDED CHANGES
SHALL BE AGREED UPON WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF SAID NOTICE,
AND SAID TIME SHALL BE WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS PROVIDED IN THE NOTICE. 
IN EVERY CASE WHERE SUCH NOTICE OF INTENDED CHANGE HAS BEEN GIVEN, OR
CONFERENCES ARE BEING HELD WITH REFERENCE THERETO, OR THE SERVICES OF
THE MEDIATION BOARD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY EITHER PARTY, OR SAID BOARD
HAS PROFFERED ITS SERVICES, RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS
SHALL NOT BE ALTERED BY THE CARRIER UNTIL THE CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN
FINALLY ACTED UPON AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 5 OF THIS ACT, BY THE
MEDIATION BOARD, UNLESS A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS HAS ELAPSED AFTER
TERMINATION OF CONFERENCES WITHOUT REQUEST FOR OR PROFFER OF THE
SERVICES OF THE MEDIATION BOARD." 

FN2  SEE ESPECIALLY SUBDIVISION (C) OF SEC. 77 OF THE ACT, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT ACTION OF TRUSTEES IN ADMINISTERING AN ESTATE SHALL BE
"SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE JUDGE." 

FN3  GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T. R. CO., 320 U.S. 323; SWITCHMEN'S
UNION V. BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; TRAINMEN V. TOLEDO, P. & W.R. CO., 321
U.S. 50; TELEGRAPHERS V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342. 

FN4  SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. BOARD, SUPRA, 300. 

FN5  MITCHELL COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247, 267. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I AGREE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD RETAIN JURISDICTION OF THE
CAUSE PENDING INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENTS IN THE PROCEDURE
PROVIDED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT FOR SUBMITTING SUCH QUESTIONS TO THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  SECTION 77(N) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS NOT
INTENDED, I THINK, TO GIVE THE DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER A "CHANGE IN AGREEMENTS AFFECTING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR
WORKING CONDITIONS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 6 HAS, IN FACT, TAKEN
PLACE.  ITS SOLE EFFECT IS TO REQUIRE A BANKRUPTCY COURT TO FOLLOW THE
PROCEDURE SET UP BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.    IN MY OPINION, HOWEVER,
PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY RELIEF, PENDING THE
DETERMINATION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, IN ORDER TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE
WITH SEC. 6, IF THE BOARD SHOULD DECIDE IN THEIR FAVOR. 

AND EMPLOYEES, A DUTY WHICH IS JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE, SINCE NO OTHER
REMEDY IS PROVIDED.  FN1  THE OPINION OF THE COURT SO RULES, AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, FOR OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR HOLDING THE
CAUSE.  BUT IF, PENDING THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION,  FN2  THE CHANGE
FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 6 TAKES PLACE AND THE BOARD'S DECISION TURNS OUT TO
BE IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS, THE VERY PURPOSE OF SEC. 6 WILL HAVE
BEEN DEFEATED.  ITS OBJECT IS TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, PENDING THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD PROVIDED BY THE SECTION FOR ALLOWING THE
PROCESSES OF NEGOTIATION, MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION TO HAVE PLAY.  IT
IS TO PREVENT CHANGES BEING MADE UNTIL THESE PROCESSES HAVE BEEN
EXHAUSTED OR THE PRESCRIBED WAITING PERIOD HAS EXPIRED WITHOUT BRINGING
THEM INTO EFFECT.  SEE TRAINMEN V. TOLEDO, P. & W.R. CO., 321 U.S. 50;
CF. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711. 

THE DECISION OF THE BOARD WILL NOT RESTORE THIS RIGHTFUL STATUS QUO
FOR THE PERIOD REQUIRED FOR MAKING ITS DETERMINATION, INCLUDING THE
TIME NOW GONE BY, OR IN FACT FOR ANY LATER PERIOD.  THE ONLY RELIEF THE
BOARD CAN GIVE IS EITHER "AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECLARATORY DETERMINATION"
OR AN AWARD OF MONEY DAMAGES, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  ALTHOUGH THE LATTER REMEDY WOULD AFFORD PARTIAL
VINDICATION OF PRIVATE RIGHTS, IT DOES NOT SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRIMARY DESIGN OF SEC. 6.  FN3  AND IN
MANY CASES IT MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A COURT TO EFFECTUATE THE BOARD'S
DECISION FOR THE FUTURE WITH ADEQUATE RESTORATIVE MEASURES.  FN4 

ACCORDINGLY I THINK THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD GRANT TEMPORARY RELIEF
TO O.R.C., AS WAS DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CAUSE,  FN5  UNTIL THE
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN ASCERTAINED AND PERMANENT RELIEF IS
GIVEN OR DENIED.  PETITIONERS HAVE MADE A PRIMA FACIE CASE,  FN6  NOT
ONLY FOR HOLDING THE CAUSE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD BUT ALSO FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
PENDING THAT DECISION.  WITHOUT SUCH RELIEF THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL
NOT BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED NOR WILL THE COURT'S JURISDICTION BE
PRESERVED, IN THE SENSE OF POWER TO AFFORD THE FULL RELIEF REQUIRED BY
THE POLICY OF THE ACT. 

FN1  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548;
VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515; SWITCHMEN'S UNION
V. NATIONAL MEDITATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; GENERAL COMMITTEE V.
MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO., 320 U.S. 323, 331. 

SEE TEXT INFRA AS TO ADEQUACY OF THE REMEDY BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD. 

FN2  THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE IS UNUSUAL BECAUSE RESORT MUST BE HAD
TO THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD BEFORE IT CAN BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE
FORBIDDEN CHANGE HAS BEEN PROPOSED OR HAS TAKEN PLACE IN FACT. 

WHETHER THE RELIEF SOUGHT SHOULD BE GRANTED DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD FINDS THAT THE 1943 CONTRACT WITH B.R.T., OR ACTION
TAKEN THEREUNDER, CONSTITUTES A "CHANGE IN AGREEMENTS AFFECTING RATES
OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 6 OR
ONE IN "THE RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, AS A CLASS AS EMBODIED IN AGREEMENTS," EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
SEC. 6, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2, SEVENTH.  CF. ALSO SEC. 77(N) OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THIS IN TURN WILL DEPEND UPON THE EFFECT WHICH THE
BOARD FINDS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PRIOR AGREEMENTS, INCLUDING NOT ONLY
THE 1940 CONTRACT WITH O.R.C., BUT THE BASIC AGREEMENTS OF 1927 AND
1928 WITH O.R.C. AND B.R.T., RESPECTIVELY, AS AFFECTED BY THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF SWITCHING LIMITS IN 1929 AND OTHER MATTERS BEARING
UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WRITTEN CONTRACTS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES. 

ONLY AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAS ACTED CAN IT BE KNOWN WHETHER A
CHANGE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6 WAS PROPOSED OR BROUGHT ABOUT THROUGH THE
1943 AGREEMENT.  IF PETITIONERS ARE CORRECT IN THEIR VIEW OF THEIR
RIGHTS ON THE MERITS, AND THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SO FINDS, THE 1943
CONTRACT AND THE ACTION TAKEN UNDER IT WERE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6.  IF
RESPONDENTS ARE RIGHT AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENTS MADE PRIOR TO
1943, AND THE BOARD SO FINDS, NO "CHANGE" IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6 WAS
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE 1943 CONTRACT, WHICH IN THAT EVENT BECOMES MERELY
DECLARATORY OF PREEXISTING RIGHTS.  THE CRUCIAL ISSUE IS WHETHER THE
1943 AGREEMENT "CHANGED," THAT IS, ALTERED THE TERMS OF PREEXISTING
CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OR MERELY DECLARED THEM, A QUESTION WHICH ONLY THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD CAN DECIDE, INITIALLY AT ANY RATE, SINCE IT REQUIRES
INTERPRETATION OF EXISTING COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS, NOT THE MAKING OF NEW
OR DIFFERENT ONES.  CF. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711. 

FN3  IN PROVIDING A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE FINAL RUPTURE, WITH LEEWAY
FOR MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION TO WORK, SEC. 6 HAS THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE
NOT ONLY TO PREVENT INFRINGEMENT OF PRIVATE RIGHTS BUT MORE ESPECIALLY
TO SAVE THE PUBLIC FROM POSSIBLE DISRUPTION OF SERVICE.  SEE NOTE 4. 

FN4  ALTHOUGH ONLY FIVE JOBS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS JURISDICTIONAL
DISPUTE, ANOTHER MAY INVOLVE 500 OR 5000.  ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT
OF ANY CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF MEN, ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY
THROWN OUT, TO DISPLACE OTHERS WHO HAVE TAKEN THEIR PLACES ITSELF
INVOLVES THE VERY KIND OF DISRUPTION, OR POSSIBILITY FOR IT, WHICH
CONGRESS SOUGHT TO WARD OFF BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 6.  AND IT IS
COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT STRIKES INVOLVING LARGE NUMBERS MAY ARISE FROM AN
EMPLOYER'S ADVERSE ACTION AFFECTING DIRECTLY ONLY A FEW EMPLOYEES OR
EVEN ONE. 

FN5  THE COURT GRANTED A STAY ORDER UPON FILING OF THE PETITION WHICH
REMAINED IN EFFECT UNTIL APRIL 5, 1943, WHEN THE ORDER OF REFERENCE TO
THE MASTER WAS MADE.  THEREAFTER THE TRUSTEES MADE EFFECTIVE THE 1943
CONTRACT WITH B.R.T. AND, IN MY OPINION, BY THIS ACTION VIOLATED SEC.
6. 

FN6  THE DECISION OF THE COURT IMPLIES THAT THE PETITIONERS' CASE IS
NOT FRIVOLOUS.  THAT IT IS NOT IS BORNE OUT BY THE FOLLOWING FACTS,
AMONG OTHERS: 

THE TRUSTEES AND B.R.T. DO NOT DENY THAT O.R.C. MEMBERS HAD PERFORMED
THE WORK IN QUESTION CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN THIRTY-FIVE YEARS OR
EXCLUSIVELY UNTIL THE CONTRACT OF 1943 WITH B.R.T. WAS MADE AND PUT
INTO EFFECT.  THEY ALLEGE NO PROTEST AGAINST THIS ARRANGEMENT UNTIL
SHORTLY AFTER THE 1940 AGREEMENT WITH O.R.C. 

IN 1929 THE CARRIER ESTABLISHED SWITCHING LIMIT BOUNDARIES. 
RESPONDENTS SAY THE EFFECT OF ESTABLISHING THESE LIMITS WAS GENERALLY
THAT YARDMEN, REPRESENTED BY B.R.T., SHOULD NOT PERFORM WORK OUTSIDE OF
THEM AND THAT ROADMEN, REPRESENTED BY O.R.C., SHOULD NOT PERFORM WORK
WITHIN THEM.  THE FIVE DRILLS IN QUESTION LIE WITHIN THE SWITCHING
LIMITS.  O.R.C. CONTENDS THAT THE FIXING OF SWITCHING LIMITS WAS NOT
INTENDED TO CHANGE THE PREVIOUS PRACTICE UNDER WHICH ROAD CONDUCTORS
HAD CUSTOMARILY MANNED THE FIVE DRILLS.  IT POINTS TO THE FACT THAT
ROAD CONDUCTORS CONTINUED TO WORK ON THE FIVE DRILLS AFTER THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF SWITCHING LIMITS AND TO THE FURTHER FACT THAT, BY THE
AGREEMENT MADE IN 1940 BETWEEN O.R.C. AND THE CARRIER, THE LATTER
AGREED NOT TO CHANGE THE THEN PRESENT METHOD OF ASSIGNING CONDUCTORS. 
O.R.C. ALSO MAINTAINS THAT THE BASIC AGREEMENTS, TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE 1929 ESTABLISHMENT OF SWITCHING LIMITS, DID NOT PRESCRIBE
TERRITORIAL PRIORITIES, BUT MERELY PROVIDED FOR RATES OF PAY TO BE
APPLICABLE WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED. 
..END :

















NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 572 


NO. 5.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 8, 1944.  REARGUED DECEMBER 4, 1945.  -
DECIDED JANUARY 14, 1946.  - 140 F.2D 608, AFFIRMED. 


THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN THE SALE OF MINERAL WATERS TAKEN FROM
SARATOGA SPRINGS, OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE STATE, IS NOT IMMUNE UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FROM THE TAX IMPOSED ON MINERAL WATERS BY SEC.
615 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  PP. 573-574, 584. 

NEW YORK ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 724, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE UNITED STATES, 48 F.SUPP.  15, IN A SUIT TO RECOVER TAXES ASSESSED
AGAINST THE STATE ON THE SALE OF MINERAL WATER. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND
DELIVERED AN OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOINED. 

A TAX ON MINERAL WATERS.  FN1  THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO
RECOVER TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON THE SALE OF
MINERAL WATERS TAKEN FROM SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK.  FN2  THE STATE
CLAIMS IMMUNITY FROM THIS TAX ON THE GROUND THAT "IN THE BOTTLING AND
SALE OF THE SAID WATERS THE DEFENDANT STATE OF NEW YORK WAS ENGAGED IN
THE EXERCISE OF A USUAL, TRADITIONAL AND ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION."  THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND JUDGMENT
WENT FOR THE UNITED STATES.  48 F.SUPP.  15.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  140 F.2D 608. 
THE STRONG URGING OF NEW YORK FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF THE
AMENABILITY OF STATES TO THE TAXING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES LED US
TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  322 U.S. 724.  AFTER THE CASE WAS ARGUED AT THE
1944 TERM, REARGUMENT WAS ORDERED. 

ON THE BASIS OF AUTHORITY THE CASE IS QUICKLY DISPOSED OF.  WHEN
STATES SOUGHT TO CONTROL THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC BY GOING INTO THE LIQUOR
BUSINESS, THEY WERE DENIED IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL TAXES UPON THE LIQUOR
BUSINESS.  SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437; OHIO V.
HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360.  AND IN REJECTING A CLAIM OF IMMUNITY FROM
FEDERAL TAXATION WHEN MASSACHUSETTS TOOK OVER THE STREET RAILWAYS OF
BOSTON, THIS COURT A DECADE AGO SAID:  "WE SEE NO REASON FOR PUTTING
THE OPERATION OF A STREET RAILWAY (BY A STATE) IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY
FROM THE SALE OF LIQUORS."  HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S. 214, 227.  WE
CERTAINLY SEE NO REASON FOR PUTTING SOFT DRINKS IN A DIFFERENT
CONSTITUTIONAL CATEGORY FROM HARD DRINKS.  SEE ALSO ALLEN V. REGENTS,
304 U.S. 439. 

ONE OF THE GREATEST SOURCES OF STRENGTH OF OUR LAW IS THAT IT
ADJUDICATES CONCRETE CASES AND DOES NOT PRONOUNCE PRINCIPLES IN THE
ABSTRACT.  BUT THERE COMES A TIME WHEN EVEN THE PROCESS OF EMPIRIC
ADJUDICATION CALLS FOR A MORE RATIONAL DISPOSITION THAN THAT THE
IMMEDIATE CASE IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM PRECEDING CASES.  THE ARGUMENT
PRESSED BY NEW YORK AND THE FORTY-FIVE OTHER STATES WHO, AS AMICI
CURIAE, HAVE JOINED HER DESERVES AN ANSWER. 

ENACTMENTS LEVYING TAXES MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE,
AS OTHER LAWS ARE, "THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND."  ART. VI,
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S.
107, 153.  THE FIRST OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON CONGRESS IS THE POWER
"TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES  ..."  ART. I,
SEC. 8.  BY ITS TERMS THE CONSTITUTION HAS PLACED ONLY ONE LIMITATION
UPON THIS POWER, OTHER THAN LIMITATIONS UPON METHODS OF LAYING TAXES
NOT HERE RELEVANT:  CONGRESS CAN LAY NO TAX "ON ARTICLES EXPORTED FROM
ANY STATE."  ART. I, SEC. 9.  BARRING ONLY EXPORTS, THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO TAX "REACHES EVERY SUBJECT."  LICENSE TAX CASES, 5 WALL. 
462, 471.  BUT THE FACT THAT OURS IS A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM,
AS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED IN THE TENTH AMENDMENT, CARRIES WITH IT
IMPLICATIONS REGARDING THE TAXING POWER AS IN OTHER ASPECTS OF
GOVERNMENT.  SEE, E.G., HOPKINS SAVINGS ASSN. V. CLEARY, 296 U.S. 315. 
THUS, FOR CONGRESS TO TAX STATE ACTIVITIES WHILE LEAVING UNTAXED THE
SAME ACTIVITIES PURSUED BY PRIVATE PERSONS WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO THE
PRESUPPOSITIONS DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT WE ARE A NATION COMPOSED OF
STATES. 

BUT THE FEAR THAT ONE GOVERNMENT MAY CRIPPLE OR OBSTRUCT THE
OPERATIONS OF THE OTHER EARLY LED TO THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS A
RECIPROCAL IMMUNITY OF THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF EACH FROM TAXATION BY
THE OTHER.  IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THERE WAS AN EQUIVALENCE IN THE
IMPLICATIONS OF TAXATION BY A STATE OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND THE TAXATION BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF
STATE INSTRUMENTALITIES.  THIS ASSUMED EQUIVALENCE WAS NOURISHED BY THE
PHRASE OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL THAT "THE POWER TO TAX INVOLVES THE
POWER TO DESTROY."  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 431.  TO BE
SURE, IT WAS UTTERED IN CONNECTION WITH A TAX OF MARYLAND WHICH PLAINLY
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE USE BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE BANK OF THE
UNITED STATES AS ONE OF ITS INSTRUMENTS.  WHAT HE SAID MAY NOT HAVE
BEEN IRRELEVANT IN ITS SETTING.  BUT CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL SPOKE AT A
TIME WHEN SOCIAL COMPLEXITIES DID NOT SO CLEARLY REVEAL AS NOW THE
PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS OF A RHETORICAL ABSOLUTE.  SEE HOLMES, J., IN
LONG V. ROCKWOOD, 277 U.S. 142, 148, AND IN PANHANDLE OIL CO. V.
MISSISSIPPI, 277 U.S. 218, 223.  THE PHRASE WAS SEIZED UPON AS THE
BASIS OF A BROAD DOCTRINE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME AN EXPANSIVE SCOPE WAS GIVEN TO WHAT WERE DEEMED TO BE
"INSTRUMENTALITIES OF GOVERNMENT" FOR PURPOSES OF TAX IMMUNITY.  AS A
RESULT, IMMUNITY WAS UNTIL RECENTLY ACCORDED TO ALL OFFICERS OF ONE
GOVERNMENT FROM TAXATION BY THE OTHER, AND IT WAS FURTHER ASSUMED THAT
THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF A TAX ON ANY INTEREST DERIVED FROM A GOVERNMENT
IMPOSES A BURDEN ON THAT GOVERNMENT SO AS TO INVOLVE AN INTERFERENCE BY
THE TAXING GOVERNMENT WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF THE OTHER GOVERNMENT. 
SEE METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514; HELVERING V. PRODUCERS
CORP., 303 U.S. 376; GRAVES V. N.Y. EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, 480
81. 

TO PRESS A JURISTIC PRINCIPLE DESIGNED FOR THE PRACTICAL AFFAIRS OF
GOVERNMENT TO ABSTRACT EXTREMES IS NEITHER SOUND LOGIC NOR GOOD SENSE. 
AND THIS COURT IS UNDER NO DUTY TO MAKE LAW LESS THAN SOUND LOGIC AND
GOOD SENSE.  WHEN THIS COURT FOR THE FIRST TIME RELIEVED STATE OFFICERS
FROM A NON-DISCRIMINATORY CONGRESSIONAL TAX, NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING
SAID IN THE CONSTITUTION BUT BECAUSE OF THE SUPPOSED IMPLICATIONS OF
OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY POINTED OUT THE INVALIDITY OF
THE NOTION OF RECIPROCAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY.  THE
CONSIDERATIONS BEARING UPON TAXATION BY THE STATES OF ACTIVITIES OR
AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE NOT CORRELATIVE WITH THE
CONSIDERATIONS BEARING UPON FEDERAL TAXATION OF STATE AGENCIES OR
ACTIVITIES.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE GOVERNMENT OF ALL THE
STATES, AND ALL THE STATES SHARE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BY WHICH A
TAX OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY IS LAID.  "THE TAXATION BY THE STATE
GOVERNMENTS OF THE INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED BY THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IN
THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS," SAID MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, "IS A VERY
DIFFERENT THING.  SUCH TAXATION INVOLVES AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
POWERS OF A GOVERNMENT IN WHICH OTHER STATES AND THEIR CITIZENS ARE
EQUALLY INTERESTED WITH THE STATE WHICH IMPOSES THE TAXATION."  FN3
SINCE THEN WE HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM THE THEORETICAL ASSUMPTION THAT THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS BURDENED IF ITS FUNCTIONARIES, LIKE OTHER
CITIZENS, PAY FOR THE UPKEEP OF THEIR STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND WE HAVE
DENIED THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS FROM
STATE TAXES.  GRAVES V. N.Y. EX REL. O'KEEFE, SUPRA.  SEE GILLESPIE V.
OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501, CRITICIZED IN BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO.,
285 U.S. 393, 401, AND EXPLICITLY OVERRULED IN HELVERING V. PRODUCERS
CORP., 303 U.S. 376; LONG V. ROCKWOOD, 277 U.S. 142, OVERRULED IN FOX
FILM CORP. V. DOYAL, 286 U.S. 123; COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, AND
NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401, OVERRULED IN GRAVES V.
N.Y. EX REL. O'KEEFE, SUPRA. 

IN THE MEANTIME, CASES CAME HERE, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, IN WHICH
STATES CLAIMED IMMUNITY FROM A FEDERAL TAX IMPOSED GENERALLY ON
ENTERPRISES IN WHICH THE STATE ITSELF WAS ALSO ENGAGED.  THIS PROBLEM
DID NOT ARISE BEFORE THE PRESENT CENTURY, PARTLY BECAUSE STATE TRADING
DID NOT ACTIVELY EMERGE UNTIL RELATIVELY RECENTLY, AND PARTLY BECAUSE
OF THE NARROW SCOPE OF FEDERAL TAXATION.  IN SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED
STATES, 199 U.S. 437, IMMUNITY FROM A FEDERAL TAX ON A DISPENSARY
SYSTEM, WHEREBY SOUTH CAROLINA MONOPOLIZED THE SALE OF INTOXICATING
LIQUORS, WAS DENIED BY DRAWING A LINE BETWEEN TAXATION OF THE
HISTORICALLY RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF A STATE, AND BUSINESS
ENGAGED IN BY A STATE OF A KIND WHICH THERETOFORE HAD BEEN PURSUED BY
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.  THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THUS TO TAX A
LIQUOR BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY THE STATE WAS DERIVED FROM AN APPEAL TO
THE CONSTITUTION "IN THE LIGHT OF CONDITIONS SURROUNDING AT THE TIME OF
ITS ADOPTION."  SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 457.  THAT
THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL LINE BETWEEN THE STATE AS GOVERNMENT AND THE
STATE AS TRADER, WAS STILL MORE RECENTLY MADE THE BASIS OF A DECISION
SUSTAINING A LIQUOR TAX AGAINST OHIO.  "IF A STATE CHOOSES TO GO INTO
THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLING COMMODITIES, ITS RIGHT TO DO SO MAY
BE CONCEDED SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED; BUT THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT IS NOT THE PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION
...  WHEN A STATE ENTERS THE MARKET PLACE SEEKING CUSTOMERS IT DIVESTS
ITSELF OF ITS QUASI SOVEREIGNTY PRO TANTO, AND TAKES ON THE CHARACTER
OF A TRADER, SO FAR, AT LEAST, AS THE TAXING POWER OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS CONCERNED."  OHIO V. HELVERING, SUPRA, AT 369.  WHEN THE
OHIO CASE WAS DECIDED IT WAS TOO LATE IN THE DAY NOT TO RECOGNIZE THE
VAST EXTENSION OF THE SPHERE OF GOVERNMENT, BOTH STATE AND NATIONAL,
COMPARED WITH THAT WITH WHICH THE FATHERS WERE FAMILIAR.  IT COULD
HARDLY REMAIN A SATISFACTORY CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE THAT ONLY SUCH
STATE ACTIVITIES ARE IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL TAXATION AS WERE ENGAGED IN BY
THE STATES IN 1787.  SUCH A STATIC CONCEPT OF GOVERNMENT DENIES ITS
ESSENTIAL NATURE.  "THE SCIENCE OF GOVERNMENT IS THE MOST ABSTRUSE OF
ALL SCIENCES; IF, INDEED, THAT CAN BE CALLED A SCIENCE WHICH HAS BUT
FEW FIXED PRINCIPLES, AND PRACTICALLY CONSISTS IN LITTLE MORE THAN THE
EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION, APPLIED TO THE EXIGENCIES OF THE STATE
AS THEY ARISE.  IT IS THE SCIENCE OF EXPERIMENT."  ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6
WHEAT.  204, 226. 

WHEN THIS COURT CAME TO SUSTAIN THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER UPON A
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OPERATED BY A STATE, IT DID SO IN WAYS FAMILIAR
IN DEVELOPING THE LAW FROM PRECEDENT TO PRECEDENT.  IT EDGED AWAY FROM
RELIANCE ON A SHARP DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE "GOVERNMENTAL" AND THE
"TRADING" ACTIVITIES OF A STATE, BY DENYING IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL
TAXATION TO A STATE WHEN IT "IS UNDERTAKING A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE OF A
SORT THAT IS NORMALLY WITHIN THE REACH OF THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER AND
IS DISTINCT FROM THE USUAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS THAT ARE IMMUNE FROM
FEDERAL TAXATION IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THE NECESSARY INDEPENDENCE OF
THE STATE."  HELVERING V. POWERS, SUPRA, AT 227.  BUT THIS LIKEWISE
DOES NOT FURNISH A SATISFACTORY GUIDE FOR DEALING WITH SUCH A PRACTICAL
PROBLEM AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES OVER STATE
ACTIVITIES.  TO REST THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER ON WHAT IS "NORMALLY"
CONDUCTED BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IN CONTRADICTION TO THE "USUAL"
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IS TOO SHIFTING A BASIS FOR DETERMINING
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND TOO ENTANGLED IN EXPEDIENCY TO SERVE AS A
DEPENDABLE LEGAL CRITERION.  THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE PROBLEM CANNOT
BE HIDDEN BY AN ATTEMPT TO SEPARATE MANIFESTATIONS OF INDIVISIBLE
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS.  SEE WAMBAUGH, PRESENT SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT (1897)
20 A.B.A. REP. 307; FRANKFURTER, THE PUBLIC AND ITS GOVERNMENT (1930). 

THE PRESENT CASE ILLUSTRATES THE STERILITY OF SUCH AN ATTEMPT.  FN4
NEW YORK URGES THAT IN THE USE IT IS MAKING OF SARATOGA SPRINGS IT IS
ENGAGED IN THE DISPOSITION OF ITS NATURAL RESOURCES.  AND SO IT IS.
BUT IN DOING SO IT IS ENGAGED IN AN ENTERPRISE IN WHICH THE STATE SELLS
MINERAL WATERS IN COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE WATERS, THE SALE OF WHICH
CONGRESS HAS FOUND NECESSARY TO TAP AS A SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR CARRYING
ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  TO SAY THAT THE STATES CANNOT BE TAXED FOR
ENTERPRISES GENERALLY PURSUED, LIKE THE SALE OF MINERAL WATER, BECAUSE
IT IS SOMEWHAT CONNECTED WITH A STATE'S CONSERVATION POLICY, IS TO
INVOKE AN IRRELEVANCE TO THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER.  LIQUOR CONTROL BY A
STATE CERTAINLY CONCERNS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF A STATE'S NATURAL
RESOURCES - THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF ITS PEOPLE.  SEE MUGLER V.
KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623, 662; CRANE V. CAMPBELL, 245 U.S. 304, 307.  IF IN
ITS WISDOM A STATE ENGAGES IN THE LIQUOR BUSINESS AND MAY BE TAXED BY
CONGRESS AS OTHERS ENGAGED IN THE LIQUOR BUSINESS ARE TAXED, SO ALSO
CONGRESS MAY TAX THE STATES WHEN THEY GO INTO THE BUSINESS OF BOTTLING
WATER AS OTHERS IN THE MINERAL WATER BUSINESS ARE TAXED EVEN THOUGH A
STATE'S SALE OF ITS MINERAL WATERS HAS RELATION TO ITS CONSERVATION
POLICY. 

IN THE OLDER CASES, THE EMPHASIS WAS ON IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION.  THE
WHOLE TENDENCY OF RECENT CASES REVEALS A SHIFT IN EMPHASIS TO THAT OF
LIMITATION UPON IMMUNITY.  THEY ALSO INDICATE AN AWARENESS OF THE
LIMITED ROLE OF COURTS IN ASSESSING THE RELATIVE WEIGHT OF THE FACTORS
UPON WHICH IMMUNITY IS BASED.  ANY IMPLIED LIMITATION UPON THE
SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO LEVY A TAX LIKE THAT NOW BEFORE US,
IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST STATE ACTIVITIES, BRINGS
FISCAL AND POLITICAL FACTORS INTO PLAY.  THE PROBLEM CANNOT ESCAPE
ISSUES THAT DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO JUDGMENT BY CRITERIA AND METHODS
OF REASONING THAT ARE WITHIN THE PROFESSIONAL TRAINING AND SPECIAL
COMPETENCE OF JUDGES.  INDEED THE CLAIM OF IMPLIED IMMUNITY BY STATES
FROM FEDERAL TAXATION RAISES QUESTIONS NOT WHOLLY UNLIKE PROVISIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH AS THAT OF ART. IV, SEC. 4, GUARANTEEING STATES
A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, SEE PACIFIC STATES TEL. & TEL. CO. V.
OREGON, 223 U.S. 118, WHICH THIS COURT HAS DEEMED NOT WITHIN ITS DUTY
TO ADJUDICATE.    WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT BY ENGAGING IN THE RAILROAD
BUSINESS A STATE CANNOT WITHDRAW THE RAILROAD FROM THE POWER OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE COMMERCE.  UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA,
297 U.S. 175.  SEE ALSO UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, 289
U.S. 48.  SURELY THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO LAY TAXES HAS IMPLIEDLY NO
LESS A REACH THAN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE.  THERE
ARE, OF COURSE, STATE ACTIVITIES AND STATE-OWNED PROPERTY THAT PARTAKE
OF UNIQUENESS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. 
THESE INHERENTLY CONSTITUTE A CLASS BY THEMSELVES.  ONLY A STATE CAN
OWN A STATEHOUSE; ONLY A STATE CAN GET INCOME BY TAXING.  THESE COULD
NOT BE INCLUDED FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL TAXATION IN ANY ABSTRACT
CATEGORY OF TAXPAYERS WITHOUT TAXING THE STATE AS A STATE.  BUT SO LONG
AS CONGRESS GENERALLY TAPS A SOURCE OF REVENUE BY WHOMSOEVER EARNED AND
NOT UNIQUELY CAPABLE OF BEING EARNED ONLY BY A STATE, THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT FORBID IT MERELY BECAUSE ITS INCIDENCE
FALLS ALSO ON A STATE.  IF CONGRESS DESIRES, IT MAY OF COURSE LEAVE
UNTAXED ENTERPRISES PURSUED BY STATES FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD WHILE IT
TAXES LIKE ENTERPRISES ORGANIZED FOR PRIVATE ENDS.  CF. SPRINGFIELD GAS
CO. V. SPRINGFIELD, 257 U.S. 66; UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AT 57; PUGET SOUND CO. V. SEATTLE, 291 U.S. 619.  IF
CONGRESS MAKES NO SUCH DIFFERENTIATION AND, AS IN THIS CASE, TAXES ALL
VENDORS OF MINERAL WATER ALIKE, WHETHER STATE VENDORS OR PRIVATE
VENDORS, IT SIMPLY SAYS, IN EFFECT, TO A STATE:  "YOU MAY CARRY OUT
YOUR OWN NOTIONS OF SOCIAL POLICY IN ENGAGING IN WHAT IS CALLED
BUSINESS, BUT YOU MUST PAY YOUR SHARE IN HAVING A NATION WHICH ENABLES
YOU TO PURSUE YOUR POLICY."  AFTER ALL, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE
STATES, HAVING, AS THE APPEARANCE OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF FORTY-SIX
STATES AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT SHOWS, COMMON INTERESTS, ALONE CAN PASS
SUCH A TAXING MEASURE AND THEY ALONE IN THEIR WISDOM CAN GRANT OR
WITHHOLD IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL TAXATION OF SUCH STATE ACTIVITIES. 

THE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION DOES NOT THRIVE ON
CONJURING UP HORRIBLE POSSIBILITIES THAT NEVER HAPPEN IN THE REAL WORLD
AND DEVISING DOCTRINES SUFFICIENTLY COMPREHENSIVE IN DETAIL TO COVER
THE REMOTEST CONTINGENCY.  NOR NEED WE GO BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A
REASONED DISPOSITION OF THE KIND OF CONTROVERSY NOW BEFORE THE COURT. 
THE RESTRICTION UPON STATES NOT TO MAKE LAWS THAT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A VITAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE, EVEN THOUGH
"DISCRIMINATION" IS NOT A CODE OF SPECIFICS BUT A CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF
APPLICATION.  SO WE DECIDE ENOUGH WHEN WE REJECT LIMITATIONS UPON THE
TAXING POWER OF CONGRESS DERIVED FROM SUCH UNTENABLE CRITERIA AS
"PROPRIETARY" AGAINST "GOVERNMENTAL" ACTIVITIES OF THE STATES, OR
HISTORICALLY SANCTIONED ACTIVITIES OF GOVERNMENT, OR ACTIVITIES
CONDUCTED MERELY FOR PROFIT,  FN5  AND FIND NO RESTRICTION UPON
CONGRESS TO INCLUDE THE STATES IN LEVYING A TAX EXACTED EQUALLY FROM
PRIVATE PERSONS UPON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  615.  TAX ON SOFT DRINKS. 

"(A)  THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED -  ... 

"(5)  UPON ALL NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL MINERAL WATERS OR TABLE WATERS,
WHETHER CARBONATED OR NOT, AND ALL IMITATIONS THEREOF, SOLD BY THE
PRODUCER, BOTTLER, OR IMPORTER THEREOF, IN BOTTLES OR OTHER CLOSED
CONTAINERS, AT OVER 12 1/2 CENTS PER GALLON, A TAX OF 2 CENTS PER
GALLON." 

FN2  THE HISTORY OF NEW YORK'S RELATIONS TO THE SPRINGS AT SARATOGA
MAY BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED.  UNDER PREVIOUS PRIVATE OPERATION THE FLOW
OF THE SPRINGS HAD BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISHED BY EXCESSIVE PUMPING. 
IN 1911 THE STATE OF NEW YORK BEGAN TO ACQUIRE TITLE TO ALL THE LANDS
ON WHICH THE MINERAL SPRINGS WERE LOCATED AT SARATOGA SPRINGS.  IN
ORDER TO CONSERVE THE SPRINGS FOR BENEFICIAL OPERATION, THE STATE TOOK
VARIOUS MEASURES UNTIL, IN 1930, CONTROL OVER THE SPRINGS IN THE STATE
RESERVATION WAS GIVEN TO THE NEWLY CREATED SARATOGA SPRINGS
COMMISSION.  IN 1933, THE COMMISSION LEASED THE SPRINGS' FACILITIES AND
DELEGATED THEIR MANAGEMENT TO THE SARATOGA SPRINGS AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC
BENEFIT CORPORATION OF NEW YORK. 

DURING THE YEARS 1932 TO 1934, FOR WHICH THE TAX IS ASSERTED, THE
COMMISSION AND THE AUTHORITY OPERATED THE RESERVATION AS A HEALTH
RESORT AND SPA.  THERE ARE RECREATION FACILITIES, BATH HOUSES, DRINK
HALLS, A RESEARCH LABORATORY, AND OTHER BUILDINGS ON THE GROUNDS.  SOME
OF THE MINERAL WATERS OF THE SPRINGS THAT HAVE A MEDICINAL VALUE ARE
BOTTLED AND SOLD TO DISTRIBUTORS, RETAILERS, AND DIRECTLY TO
CONSUMERS.  THE SALES ARE PROMOTED BY ADVERTISING AND CUSTOMARILY YIELD
A PROFIT WHICH IS APPLIED TO MEETING IN PART THE EXPENSES OF OPERATING
THE OTHER FACILITIES.  THE REMAINDER OF THOSE EXPENSES IS MET BY ANNUAL
LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS. 

FN3  THE VIEWS OF MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY HAVE BEEN SO VINDICATED BY TIME
AND EXPERIENCE THAT HIS WHOLE COMPACT OPINION DESERVES TO BE RECALLED: 

"I DISSENT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE, IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE SAME POWER OF TAXING
THE INCOME OF OFFICERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS AS IT HAS OF TAXING
THAT OF ITS OWN OFFICERS.  IT IS THE COMMON GOVERNMENT OF ALL ALIKE;
AND EVERY CITIZEN IS PRESUMED TO TRUST HIS OWN GOVERNMENT IN THE MATTER
OF TAXATION.  NO MAN CEASES TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BY
BEING AN OFFICER UNDER THE STATE GOVERNMENT.  I CANNOT ACCEDE TO THE
DOCTRINE THAT THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IS TO BE REGARDED AS IN ANY SENSE
FOREIGN OR ANTAGONISTIC TO THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, THEIR OFFICERS, OR
PEOPLE; NOR CAN I AGREE THAT A PRESUMPTION CAN BE ADMITTED THAT THE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT WILL ACT IN A MANNER HOSTILE TO THE EXISTENCE OR
FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, WHICH ARE CONSTITUENT PARTS OF THE
SYSTEM OR BODY POLITIC FORMING THE BASIS ON WHICH THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT IS FOUNDED.  THE TAXATION BY THE STATE GOVERNMENTS OF THE
INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED BY THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
POWERS, IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING.  SUCH TAXATION INVOLVES AN
INTERFERENCE WITH THE POWERS OF A GOVERNMENT IN WHICH OTHER STATES AND
THEIR CITIZENS ARE EQUALLY INTERESTED WITH THE STATE WHICH IMPOSES THE
TAXATION.  IN MY JUDGMENT, THE LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF TAXATION IN
THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH THE PRESENT DECISION ESTABLISHES, WILL BE
FOUND VERY DIFFICULT OF CONTROL.  WHERE ARE WE TO STOP IN ENUMERATING
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WHICH WILL BE INTERFERED WITH BY
FEDERAL TAXATION?  IF A STATE INCORPORATES A RAILROAD TO CARRY OUT ITS
PURPOSES OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT, OR A BANK TO AID ITS FINANCIAL
ARRANGEMENTS, RESERVING, PERHAPS, A PERCENTAGE ON THE STOCK OR PROFITS,
FOR THE SUPPLY OF ITS OWN TREASURY, WILL THE BONDS OR STOCK OF SUCH AN
INSTITUTION BE FREE FROM FEDERAL TAXATION?  HOW CAN WE NOW TELL WHAT
THE EFFECT OF THIS DECISION WILL BE? I CANNOT BUT REGARD IT AS FOUNDED
ON A FALLACY, AND THAT IT WILL LEAD TO MISCHIEVOUS CONSEQUENCES.  I AM
AS MUCH OPPOSED AS ANY ONE CAN BE TO ANY INTERFERENCE BY THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT WITH THE JUST POWERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS.  BUT NO
CONCESSION OF ANY OF THE JUST POWERS OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAN
EASILY BE RECALLED.  I, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT MY DUTY TO AT LEAST
RECORD MY DISSENT WHEN SUCH CONCESSION APPEARS TO BE MADE.  AN EXTENDED
DISCUSSION OF THE SUBJECT WOULD ANSWER NO USEFUL PURPOSE."  COLLECTOR
V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, 128-29. 

FN4  THIS METHOD OF SOLVING A PROBLEM INHERENT IN A FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM HAS BEEN FOUND EQUALLY INCONCLUSIVE IN LATIN
AMERICA.  SEE AMADEO, ARGENTINE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1943) 97-103. 

FN5  ATTEMPTS ALONG SIMILAR LINES TO SOLVE KINDRED PROBLEMS ARISING
UNDER THE CANADIAN AND AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONS HAVE ALSO PROVED A
BARREN PROCESS.  SEE AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT, 1900, SEC. 114, IN
EGERTON, FEDERATIONS AND UNIONS IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE (2D ED., 1924)
225; POND, INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY:  A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM (1941) 26 IOWA L. REV. 272; KENNEDY & WELLS, THE LAW OF
THE TAXING POWER IN CANADA (1931) 35-37. 

EVEN WHERE THE CONSTITUTION OF A FEDERAL SYSTEM EXPLICITLY DEALS WITH
THE PROBLEM OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAXATION, AS IN BRAZIL, LITIGATION IS
NOT ESCAPED AND NICE DISTINCTIONS HAVE TO BE MADE.  SEE CASES ARISING
UNDER ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1891 AND UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1937:  APPELLACAO CIVEL, NO. 2.884, 13 REVISTA DO
SUPREMO TRIBUNAL 203(1917); APPELLACAO CIVEL, NO. 2.900, 14 REVISTA DO
SUPREMO TRIBUNAL 44(1918); APPELLACAO CIVEL, NO. 2.536, 19 REVISTA DO
SUPREMO TRIBUNAL 76(1919); RECURSO DE MANDADO DE SEGURANCA NO. 617, 56
ARCHIVO JUDICIARIO 1(1940); AGRAVO DE PETICAO, NO. 8.024, 59 ARCHIVO
JUDICIARIO 85(1941).  ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1937, THE
PRESENT BRAZILIAN CONSTITUTION, PROVIDES:  "THE UNION, THE STATES AND
THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE FORBIDDEN:...  C) TO TAX GOODS, INCOME OR
SERVICES OF EACH OTHER."  SPEAKING OF THE EARLIER CONSTITUTION, A
COMMENTATOR NOTES:  "THESE LIMITATIONS ON THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER ARE
ALL TAKEN FROM OUR OWN JURISPRUDENCE, EITHER BY DIRECT TRANSCRIPTION
FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR BY THE INCORPORATION OF
PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN DECISIONS OF OUR (THE UNITED STATES) SUPREME
COURT, AS IS THE CASE WITH THE LAST-NAMED PROHIBITION" - "THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST TAXING THE PROPERTY, REVENUES, OR SERVICES OF THE
STATES."  JAMES, FEDERAL BASIS OF THE BRAZILIAN SYSTEM (1923) 45. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND IN THE RESULT. 
I HAVE NO DOUBT UPON THE QUESTION OF POWER.  THE SHIFT FROM IMMUNITY TO
TAXABILITY HAS GONE TOO FAR, AND WITH TOO MUCH REASON TO SUSTAIN IT, AS
RESPECTS BOTH STATE FUNCTIONARIES AND STATE FUNCTIONS, FOR BACKTRACKING
TO DOCTRINES FOUNDED IN PHILOSOPHIES OF SOVEREIGNTY MORE CURRENT AND
PERHAPS MORE REALISTIC IN AN EARLIER DAY.  TOO MUCH IS, OR MAY BE, AT
STAKE FOR THE NATION TO PERMIT RELIEVING THE STATES OF THEIR DUTY TO
SUPPORT IT, FINANCIALLY AS OTHERWISE, WHEN THEY TAKE OVER INCREASINGLY
THE THINGS MEN HAVE BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO CARRY ON AS PRIVATE, AND
THEREFORE TAXABLE, ENTERPRISE.  COMPETITIVE CONSIDERATIONS UNITE WITH
THE NECESSITY FOR SECURING THE FEDERAL REVENUE, IN A TIME WHEN THE
FEDERAL BURDEN GROWS HEAVIER PROPORTIONATELY THAN THAT OF THE STATES,
TO FORBID THAT THEY BE FREE TO UNDERMINE RATHER THAN OBLIGATED TO
SUSTAIN THE NATION'S FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS. 

ALL AGREE THAT NOT ALL OF THE FORMER IMMUNITY IS GONE.  FOR THE
PRESENT I ASSENT TO THE LIMITATION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION, WHICH I TAKE
TO MEAN THAT STATE FUNCTIONS MAY NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR TAXATION WHEN
OTHERS PERFORMING THEM ARE NOT TAXED OR FOR SPECIAL BURDENS WHEN THEY
ARE.  WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE STATE SHOULD TAKE OVER A MONOPOLY OF
TRADITIONALLY PRIVATE, INCOME-PRODUCING BUSINESS MAY BE LEFT FOR THE
FUTURE, IN SO FAR AS THIS HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED BY SOUTH CAROLINA V.
UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437.  PERHAPS THERE ARE OTHER LIMITATIONS ALSO,
APART FROM THE PRACTICAL ONE IMPOSED BY THE STATE'S REPRESENTATION IN
CONGRESS.  IF THE WAY WERE OPEN, I WOULD ADD A FURTHER RESTRICTING
FACTOR, NOT OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORT, BUT OF CONSTRUCTION. 

WITH THE PASSING OF THE FORMER BROAD IMMUNITY, I SHOULD THINK TWO
CONSIDERATIONS WELL MIGHT BE TAKEN TO REQUIRE THAT, BEFORE A FEDERAL
TAX CAN BE APPLIED TO ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON DIRECTLY BY THE STATES, THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO TAX THEM SHOULD BE STATED EXPRESSLY AND NOT
DRAWN MERELY FROM GENERAL WORDING OF THE STATUTE APPLICABLE ORDINARILY
TO PRIVATE SOURCES OF REVENUE.  ONE OF THESE IS SIMPLY A REFLECTION OF
THE OLD IMMUNITY, IN THE PRESENCE OF WHICH, OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE
INCONCEIVABLE THAT GENERAL WORDING, SUCH AS THE STATUTE NOW IN QUESTION
CONTAINS, COULD BE TAKEN AS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE STATES.  FN1  THE
OTHER IS THAT, QUITE APART FROM REFLECTIONS OF THAT IMMUNITY, I SHOULD
EXPECT THAT CONGRESS WOULD SAY SO EXPLICITLY, WERE ITS PURPOSE ACTUALLY
TO INCLUDE STATE FUNCTIONS, WHERE THE LEGAL INCIDENCE OF THE TAX FALLS
UPON THE STATE.  FN2  AND THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY
IN UNITED STATES V. RAILROAD CO., 17 WALL.  322, 333, INDICATES THAT HE
MAY HAVE BEEN OF THIS GENERAL VIEW. 

NEVERTHELESS, SINCE SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, SUCH A
RULE OF CONSTRUCTION SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN THOUGHT REQUIRED.  FN3
ACCORDINGLY, ALTHOUGH I GRAVELY DOUBT THAT WHEN CONGRESS TAXED EVERY
"PERSON" IT INTENDED ALSO TO TAX EVERY STATE, THE RULING HAS BEEN MADE
FN4  AND I THEREFORE ACQUIESCE IN THIS CASE. 

FN1  TO GIVE REMOVAL OF THE IMMUNITY THE EFFECT OF INVERTING THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS, IN ITS LATER USE OF THE SAME FORMULA, IS A LEAP
IN CONSTRUCTION LONGER THAN SEEMS REASONABLE TO MAKE. 

FN2  CF. 26 U.S.C. SEC. 22(A) WHERE CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED THAT COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, INCLUDIBLE IN GROSS
INCOME, INCLUDES COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE AS AN OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE OF A STATE, OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR ANY
AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOREGOING.    FN3
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 48; OHIO V.
HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360.  SEE MANHATTAN CO. V. BLAKE, 148 U.S. 412.  IN
GRAVES V. N.Y. EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, 479, 480, THE COURT SAID,
IN ANOTHER CONNECTION:  "IT IS TRUE THAT THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS, WHEN
IT HAS AUTHORITY TO SPEAK, MAY SOMETIMES GIVE RISE TO AN IMPLICATION AS
TO THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE ....  BUT THERE IS LITTLE SCOPE FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THAT DOCTRINE TO THE TAX IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENTAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES." 

FN4  SEE OHIO V. HELVERING, SUPRA.    MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE
CONCURRING. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, MR. JUSTICE BURTON AND I CONCUR
IN THE RESULT.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TAX HERE INVOLVED SHOULD
BE SUSTAINED AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW AFFIRMED. 

IN VIEW OF OUR DECISIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S.
437; OHIO V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360; HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S.
214; AND ALLEN V. REGENTS, 304 U.S. 439, WE WOULD FIND IT DIFFICULT NOT
TO SUSTAIN THE TAX IN THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH WE REGARD AS UNTENABLE THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN "GOVERNMENTAL" AND "PROPRIETARY" INTERESTS ON WHICH
THOSE CASES REST TO SOME EXTENT.  BUT WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY LAY A NON-DISCRIMINATORY
TAX ON EVERY CLASS OF PROPERTY AND ACTIVITIES OF STATES AND INDIVIDUALS
ALIKE. 

CONCEDEDLY A FEDERAL TAX DISCRIMINATING AGAINST A STATE WOULD BE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXERTION OF POWER OVER A COEXISTING SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN
THE SAME FRAMEWORK OF GOVERNMENT.  BUT OUR DIFFICULTY WITH THE FORMULA,
NOW FIRST SUGGESTED AS OFFERING A NEW SOLUTION FOR AN OLD PROBLEM, IS
THAT A FEDERAL TAX WHICH IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY AS TO THE SUBJECT MATTER
MAY NEVERTHELESS SO AFFECT THE STATE, MERELY BECAUSE IT IS A STATE THAT
IS BEING TAXED, AS TO INTERFERE UNDULY WITH THE STATE'S PERFORMANCE OF
ITS SOVEREIGN FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  THE COUNTERPART OF SUCH UNDUE
INTERFERENCE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED SINCE MARSHALL'S DAY AS THE IMPLIED
IMMUNITY OF EACH OF THE DUAL SOVEREIGNTIES OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM
FROM TAXATION BY THE OTHER.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316.  WE
ADD NOTHING TO THIS FORMULA BY SAYING, IN A NEW FORM OF WORDS, THAT A
TAX WHICH CONGRESS APPLIES GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY AND ACTIVITIES OF
PRIVATE CITIZENS MAY NOT BE IN SOME INSTANCES CONSTITUTIONALLY EXTENDED
TO THE STATES, MERELY BECAUSE THE STATES ARE INCLUDED AMONG THOSE WHO
PAY TAXES ON A LIKE SUBJECT OF TAXATION. 

IF THE PHRASE "NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX" IS TO BE TAKEN IN ITS LONG
ACCEPTED MEANING AS REFERRING TO A TAX LAID ON A LIKE SUBJECT MATTER,
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PERSONALITY OF THE TAXPAYER, WHETHER A STATE, A
CORPORATION OR A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, IT IS PLAIN THAT THERE MAY BE NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAXES WHICH, WHEN LAID ON A STATE, WOULD NEVERTHELESS
IMPAIR THE SOVEREIGN STATUS OF THE STATE QUITE AS MUCH AS A LIKE TAX
IMPOSED BY A STATE ON PROPERTY OR ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT.  MAYO V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 441, 447-448.  THIS IS NOT
BECAUSE THE TAX CAN BE REGARDED AS DISCRIMINATORY BUT BECAUSE A
SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT IS THE TAXPAYER, AND THE TAX, EVEN THOUGH NON
DISCRIMINATORY, MAY BE REGARDED AS INFRINGING ITS SOVEREIGNTY. 

A STATE MAY, LIKE A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, OWN REAL PROPERTY AND RECEIVE
INCOME.  BUT IN VIEW OF OUR FORMER DECISIONS WE COULD HARDLY SAY THAT A
GENERAL NON-DISCRIMINATORY REAL ESTATE TAX (APPORTIONED), OR AN INCOME
TAX LAID UPON CITIZENS AND STATES ALIKE COULD BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
APPLIED TO THE STATE'S CAPITOL, ITS STATE-HOUSE, ITS PUBLIC SCHOOL
HOUSES, PUBLIC PARKS, OR ITS REVENUES FROM TAXES OR SCHOOL LANDS, EVEN
THOUGH ALL REAL PROPERTY AND ALL INCOME OF THE CITIZEN IS TAXED.  IF IT
BE SAID THAT PRIVATE CITIZENS DO NOT OWN STATE-HOUSES OR PUBLIC SCHOOL
BUILDINGS OR RECEIVE TAX REVENUES, IT MAY EQUALLY BE SAID THAT PRIVATE
CITIZENS DO NOT CONDUCT A STATE-OWNED LIQUOR BUSINESS OR DERIVE REVENUE
FROM A STATE-OWNED ATHLETIC FIELD.  OBVIOUSLY CONGRESS, IN TAXING
PROPERTY OR INCOME GENERALLY, IS NOT TAXING A STATE "AS A STATE"
BECAUSE THE STATE HAPPENS TO OWN REAL ESTATE OR RECEIVE INCOME. 
WHETHER A STATE OR AN INDIVIDUAL IS TAXED, IN EACH INSTANCE THE TAXABLE
OCCASION IS THE SAME.  THE TAX REACHES THE STATE BECAUSE OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO LAY THE TAX ON THE SUBJECT MATTER CHOSEN,
REGARDLESS OF WHO PAYS IT.  TO SAY THAT THE TAX FAILS BECAUSE THE STATE
HAPPENS TO BE THE TAXPAYER IS ONLY TO SAY THAT THE STATE, TO SOME
EXTENT UNDEFINED, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL TAXATION. 
ONLY WHEN AND BECAUSE THE SUBJECT OF TAXATION IS STATE PROPERTY OR A
STATE ACTIVITY MUST WE CONSIDER WHETHER SUCH A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX
UNDULY INTERFERES WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE STATE'S FUNCTIONS OF
GOVERNMENT.  IF IT DOES, THEN THE FACT THAT THE TAX IS NON
DISCRIMINATORY DOES NOT SAVE IT.  IF WE ARE TO TREAT AS INVALID,
BECAUSE DISCRIMINATORY, A TAX ON "STATE ACTIVITIES AND STATE-OWNED
PROPERTY THAT PARTAKE OF UNIQUENESS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS," IT IS PLAIN THAT THE INVALIDITY IS DUE
WHOLLY TO THE FACT THAT IT IS A STATE WHICH IS BEING TAXED SO AS UNDULY
TO INFRINGE, IN SOME MANNER, THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS AS A
GOVERNMENT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION RECOGNIZES AS SOVEREIGN. 

IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE IMMUNITY OF THE STATE FROM
FEDERAL TAXATION WOULD, IN THIS CASE, ACCOMPLISH A WITHDRAWAL FROM THE
TAXING POWER OF THE NATION A SUBJECT OF TAXATION OF A NATURE WHICH HAS
BEEN TRADITIONALLY WITHIN THAT POWER FROM THE BEGINNING.  ITS EXERCISE
NOW, BY A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX, DOES NOT CURTAIL THE BUSINESS OF THE
STATE GOVERNMENT MORE THAN IT DOES THE LIKE BUSINESS OF THE CITIZEN. 
IT GIVES MERELY AN ACCUSTOMED AND REASONABLE SCOPE TO THE FEDERAL
TAXING POWER.  SUCH A WITHDRAWAL FROM A NON-DISCRIMINATORY FEDERAL TAX,
AND ONE WHICH DOES NOT BEAR ON THE STATE ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN ON THE
CITIZEN, IS ITSELF AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE TAXING POWER OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, AND THE ACTIVITY TAXED IS SUCH THAT ITS TAXATION DOES NOT
UNDULY IMPAIR THE STATE'S FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  THE NATURE OF THE
TAX IMMUNITY REQUIRES THAT IT BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO ALLOW TO EACH
GOVERNMENT REASONABLE SCOPE FOR ITS TAXING POWER, METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 524.  THE NATIONAL TAXING POWER WOULD BE UNDULY
CURTAILED IF THE STATE, BY EXTENDING ITS ACTIVITIES, COULD WITHDRAW
FROM IT SUBJECTS OF TAXATION TRADITIONALLY WITHIN IT. HELVERING V.
POWERS, SUPRA, 225; OHIO V. HELVERING, SUPRA; SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AND SEE MURRAY V. WILSON DISTILLING CO., 213 U.S. 151,
173, EXPLAINING SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE PROBLEM IS NOT ONE TO BE SOLVED BY A FORMULA, BUT WE MAY LOOK TO
THE STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AS OUR GUIDE TO DECISION.  "IN A
BROAD SENSE, THE TAXING POWER OF EITHER GOVERNMENT, EVEN WHEN EXERCISED
IN A MANNER ADMITTEDLY NECESSARY AND PROPER, UNAVOIDABLY HAS SOME
EFFECT UPON THE OTHER.  THE BURDEN OF FEDERAL TAXATION NECESSARILY SETS
AN ECONOMIC LIMIT TO THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE TAXING POWER OF THE
STATES, AND VICE VERSA.  TAXATION BY EITHER THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AFFECTS IN SOME MEASURE THE COST OF OPERATION OF THE OTHER. 

"BUT NEITHER GOVERNMENT MAY DESTROY THE OTHER NOR CURTAIL IN ANY
SUBSTANTIAL MANNER THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS.  HENCE THE LIMITATION
UPON THE TAXING POWER OF EACH, SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS THE OTHER, MUST
RECEIVE A PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION WHICH PERMITS BOTH TO FUNCTION WITH
THE MINIMUM OF INTERFERENCE EACH WITH THE OTHER; AND THAT LIMITATION
CANNOT BE SO VARIED OR EXTENDED AS SERIOUSLY TO IMPAIR EITHER THE
TAXING POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT IMPOSING THE TAX  ...  OR THE
APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AFFECTED BY
IT."  METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, SUPRA, 523-524. 

SINCE ALL TAXES MUST BE LAID BY GENERAL, THAT IS, WORKABLE, RULES,
THE EFFECT OF THE IMMUNITY ON THE NATIONAL TAXING POWER IS TO BE
DETERMINED NOT QUANTITATIVELY BUT BY ITS OPERATION AND TENDENCY IN
WITHDRAWING TAXABLE PROPERTY OR ACTIVITIES FROM THE REACH OF FEDERAL
TAXATION.  NOT THE EXTENT TO WHICH A PARTICULAR STATE ENGAGES IN THE
ACTIVITY, BUT THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE ACTIVITY BY WHOMSOEVER
PERFORMED IS THE RELEVANT CONSIDERATION. 

REGARDED IN THIS LIGHT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE CONSTITUTION EITHER
REQUIRES IMMUNITY OF THE STATE'S MINERAL WATER BUSINESS FROM FEDERAL
TAXATION, OR DENIES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWER TO LAY THE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

                                  I 

IF SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437, IS TO STAND, THE
PRESENT JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFIRMED.  FOR I AGREE THAT THERE IS
NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FEDERAL TAX ON SOUTH CAROLINA'S
LIQUOR BUSINESS AND A FEDERAL TAX ON NEW YORK'S MINERAL WATER
BUSINESS.  WHETHER SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES REACHES THE RIGHT
RESULT IS ANOTHER MATTER. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS STATED THAT "STARE DECISIS IS USUALLY THE WISE
POLICY, BECAUSE IN MOST MATTERS IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT THE
APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW BE SETTLED THAN THAT IT BE SETTLED RIGHT." 
BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, 406.  BUT THROUGHOUT
THE HISTORY OF THE COURT STARE DECISIS HAS HAD ONLY A LIMITED
APPLICATION IN THE FIELD OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  AND IT IS A WISE
POLICY WHICH LARGELY RESTRICTS IT TO THOSE AREAS OF THE LAW WHERE
CORRECTION CAN BE HAD BY LEGISLATION.  OTHERWISE THE CONSTITUTION LOSES
THE FLEXIBILITY NECESSARY IF IT IS TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF SUCCESSIVE
GENERATIONS. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES STATES THE CORRECT
RULE.  A STATE'S PROJECT IS AS MUCH A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY
WHETHER IT IS TRADITIONAL, OR AKIN TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, OR CONDUCTED
FOR PROFIT.  CF. HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 426-427.  A STATE
MAY DEEM IT AS ESSENTIAL TO ITS ECONOMY THAT IT OWN AND OPERATE A
RAILROAD, A MILL, OR AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS IT DOES TO OWN AND OPERATE
BRIDGES, STREET LIGHTS, OR A SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANT.  WHAT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN VIEWED IN AN EARLIER DAY AS AN IMPROVIDENT OR EVEN DANGEROUS
EXTENSION OF STATE ACTIVITIES MAY TODAY BE DEEMED INDISPENSABLE.  BUT
AS MR. JUSTICE WHITE SAID IN HIS DISSENT IN SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED
STATES, ANY ACTIVITY IN WHICH A STATE ENGAGES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS
POLICE POWER IS A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY.  HERE A STATE IS
DISPOSING OF SOME OF ITS NATURAL RESOURCES.  TOMORROW IT MAY ISSUE
SECURITIES, SELL POWER FROM ITS PUBLIC POWER PROJECT, OR MANUFACTURE
FERTILIZER.  EACH IS AN EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF SOVEREIGNTY.  MUST IT
PAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF EXERCISING THAT
INHERENT POWER?  IF THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS IT IMMUNITY FROM A TAX ON
THE ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES, ON WHAT GROUNDS CAN IT BE FORCED TO PAY A
TAX WHEN IT SELLS POWER OR DISPOSES OF OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES? 

                                  II 

ONE VIEW, JUST ANNOUNCED, PURPORTS TO REJECT THE DISTINCTION WHICH
SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES DREW BETWEEN THOSE ACTIVITIES OF A
STATE WHICH ARE AND THOSE WHICH ARE NOT STRICTLY GOVERNMENTAL, USUAL,
OR TRADITIONAL.  BUT IT IS SAID THAT A FEDERAL TAX ON A STATE WILL BE
SUSTAINED SO LONG AS CONGRESS "DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO TAX A STATE BECAUSE
IT IS A STATE."  YET IF THAT MEANS THAT A FEDERAL REAL ESTATE TAX OF
GENERAL APPLICATION (APPORTIONED) WOULD BE VALID IF APPLIED TO A POWER
DAM OWNED BY A STATE BUT INVALID IF APPLIED TO A STATE-HOUSE, THE OLD
DOCTRINE HAS MERELY BEEN POURED INTO A NEW CONTAINER.  IF, ON THE OTHER
HAND, ANY FEDERAL TAX ON ANY STATE ACTIVITY WERE SUSTAINED UNLESS IT
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE STATE, THEN A CONSTITUTIONAL RULE WOULD BE
FASHIONED WHICH WOULD UNDERMINE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES AS IT HAS
BEEN UNDERSTOOD THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY.  ANY SUCH CHANGE SHOULD BE
ACCOMPLISHED ONLY BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.  THE DOCTRINE OF STATE
IMMUNITY IS TOO INTRICATELY INVOLVED IN PROJECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN
LAUNCHED TO BE WHITTLED DOWN BY JUDICIAL FIAT. 

                                 III 

WOODROW WILSON STATED THE STARTING POINT FOR ME WHEN HE SAID  FN1
THAT 

"THE STATES OF COURSE POSSESS EVERY POWER THAT GOVERNMENT HAS EVER
ANYWHERE EXERCISED, EXCEPT ONLY THOSE POWERS WHICH THEIR OWN
CONSTITUTIONS OR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES EXPLICITLY OR BY
PLAIN INFERENCE WITHHOLD.  THEY ARE THE ORDINARY GOVERNMENTS OF THE
COUNTRY; THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ITS INSTRUMENT ONLY FOR PARTICULAR
PURPOSES." 

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2, APPLIES TO FEDERAL LAWS
WITHIN THE POWERS DELEGATED TO CONGRESS BY THE STATES.  BUT IT IS
ANTAGONISTIC TO THE VERY IMPLICATIONS OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM TO SAY THAT
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, ARTICLE I, SEC. 8,
INCLUDES THE POWER TO TAX ANY STATE ACTIVITY OR FUNCTION SO LONG AS THE
TAX DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE STATES.  FN2  AS STATED IN UNITED
STATES V. RAILROAD CO., 17 WALL.  322, 327-328, 

"THE RIGHT OF THE STATES TO ADMINISTER THEIR OWN AFFAIRS THROUGH
THEIR LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS, IN THEIR OWN
MANNER THROUGH THEIR OWN AGENCIES, IS CONCEDED BY THE UNIFORM DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT AND BY THE PRACTICE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM ITS
ORGANIZATION.  THIS CARRIES WITH IT AN EXEMPTION OF THOSE AGENCIES AND
INSTRUMENTS, FROM THE TAXING POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IF THEY
MAY BE TAXED LIGHTLY, THEY MAY BE TAXED HEAVILY; IF JUSTLY,
OPPRESSIVELY.  THEIR OPERATION MAY BE IMPEDED AND MAY BE DESTROYED, IF
ANY INTERFERENCE IS PERMITTED." 

CAN IT BE THAT A GENERAL FEDERAL TAX ON THE ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES
WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL IF APPLIED TO THE ISSUANCE OF MUNICIPAL
SECURITIES OR OF STATE BONDS OR OF THE SECURITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICTS ORGANIZED BY THE STATES?  COULD THE STATES BE CLASSIFIED WITH
FARMERS, BUSINESS MEN, INDUSTRIAL WORKERS, JUDGES, AND OTHER ORDINARY
CITIZENS AND REQUIRED TO PAY AN INCOME TAX TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? 
IT IS SAID THAT A FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON THE TAX REVENUES OF A STATE
WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE SUCH A TAX WOULD INTERFERE WITH A
SOVEREIGN FUNCTION OF THE STATE.  BUT CAN IT BE THAT A FEDERAL INCOME
TAX ON STATE REVENUES DERIVED NOT FROM TAXES BUT FROM THE SALE OF
MINERAL WATER, LIQUOR, LUMBER AND THE LIKE, WOULD BE SUSTAINED?    A
TAX IS A POWERFUL, REGULATORY INSTRUMENT.  LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS
FREE LAND DOES NOT EXIST FOR ITSELF.  THE FACT THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MAY ENTER THE DOMAIN OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND OPERATE A PROJECT FOR
PROFIT DOES NOT PUT IT IN THE CLASS OF PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE FOR
TAX PURPOSES.  LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO PROVIDE FOR THE WELFARE OF
ITS PEOPLE, NOT FOR A LIMITED GROUP OF STOCKHOLDERS.  IF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN PLACE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ON ITS TAX COLLECTOR'S LIST,
THEIR CAPACITY TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THEIR CITIZENS IS AT ONCE HAMPERED
OR CURTAILED.  THE FIELD OF FEDERAL EXCISE TAXATION ALONE IS
PRACTICALLY WITHOUT LIMITS.  MANY STATE ACTIVITIES ARE IN MARGINAL
ENTERPRISES WHERE PRIVATE CAPITAL REFUSES TO VENTURE.  ADD TO THE COST
OF THESE PROJECTS A FEDERAL TAX AND THE SOCIAL PROGRAM MAY BE DESTROYED
BEFORE IT CAN BE LAUNCHED.  IN ANY CASE, THE REPERCUSSIONS OF SUCH A
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE ON THE CREDIT OF THE STATES AND ON THEIR PROGRAMS TO
TAKE CARE OF THE NEEDY AND TO BUILD FOR THE FUTURE WOULD BE
CONSIDERABLE.  TO SAY THE PRESENT TAX WILL BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE IT DOES
NOT IMPAIR THE STATE'S FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT IS TO CONCLUDE EITHER
THAT THE SALE BY THE STATE OF ITS MINERAL WATER IS NOT A FUNCTION OF
GOVERNMENT OR THAT THE PRESENT TAX IS SO LIGHT AS TO BE NO BURDEN.  THE
FORMER OBVIOUSLY IS NOT TRUE.  THE LATTER OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THE
POWER TO TAX LIGHTLY IS THE POWER TO TAX SEVERELY.  THE POWER TO TAX IS
INDEED ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE FORMS OF REGULATION.  AND NO MORE
POWERFUL INSTRUMENT FOR CENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT COULD BE DEVISED. 
FOR WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IMMUNE AND THE STATES SUBJECT TO TAX,
THE ECONOMIC ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO EXPAND ITS ACTIVITIES
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE STATES IS AT ONCE APPARENT.  THAT IS THE RESULT
WHETHER THE RULE OF SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES BE PERPETUATED OR A
NEW RULE OF DISCRIMINATION BE ADOPTED. 

THE NOTION THAT THE SOVEREIGN POSITION OF THE STATES MUST FIND ITS
PROTECTION IN THE WILL OF A TRANSIENT MAJORITY OF CONGRESS IS FOREIGN
TO AND A NEGATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  THERE WILL OFTEN BE
VITAL REGIONAL INTERESTS REPRESENTED BY NO MAJORITY IN CONGRESS.  THE
CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO KEEP THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE STATES AND
THE NATION OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF LEGISLATIVE CONTROVERSY. 

THE IMMUNITY OF THE STATES FROM FEDERAL TAXATION IS NO LESS CLEAR
BECAUSE IT IS IMPLIED.  THE STATES ON ENTERING THE UNION SURRENDERED
SOME OF THEIR SOVEREIGNTY.  IT WAS FURTHER CURTAILED AS VARIOUS
AMENDMENTS WERE ADOPTED.  BUT THE TENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT "THE
POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR
PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES
RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE."  THE CONSTITUTION IS A COMPACT BETWEEN
SOVEREIGNS.  THE POWER OF ONE SOVEREIGN TO TAX ANOTHER IS AN INNOVATION
SO STARTLING AS TO REQUIRE EXPLICIT AUTHORITY IF IT IS TO BE ALLOWED. 
IF THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX THE STATES IS CONCEDED,
THE RESERVED POWER OF THE STATES GUARANTEED BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT DOES
NOT GIVE THEM THE INDEPENDENCE WHICH THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ASSUMED TO
HAVE.  THEY ARE RELEGATED TO A MORE SERVILE STATUS.  THEY BECOME
SUBJECT TO INTERFERENCE AND CONTROL BOTH IN THE FUNCTIONS WHICH THEY
EXERCISE AND THE METHODS WHICH THEY EMPLOY.  THEY MUST PAY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF EXERCISING THE POWERS OF SOVEREIGNTY
GUARANTEED THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION,  FN3 WHETHER, AS HERE, THEY ARE
DISPOSING OF THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES, OR TOMORROW THEY ISSUE SECURITIES
OR PERFORM ANY OTHER ACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR POLICE POWER. 

OF COURSE, THE LEVYING OF THE PRESENT TAX DOES NOT CURTAIL THE
BUSINESS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT MORE THAN IT DOES THE LIKE BUSINESS OF
THE CITIZEN.  BUT THE SAME MIGHT BE TRUE IN THE CASE OF MANY STATE
ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE LONG BEEN ASSUMED TO BE IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL
TAXATION.  WHEN A MUNICIPALITY ACQUIRES A WATER SYSTEM OR AN ELECTRIC
POWER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES, IT WITHDRAWS PROJECTS FROM THE
FIELD OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.  IS THE TAX IMMUNITY TO BE DENIED BECAUSE
A TAX ON THE MUNICIPALITY WOULD NOT CURTAIL THE MUNICIPALITY MORE THAN
IT WOULD THE PRIOR PRIVATE OWNER?  IS THE MUNICIPALITY TO BE TAXED
WHENEVER IT ENGAGES IN AN ACTIVITY WHICH ONCE WAS IN THE FIELD OF
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND THEREFORE WAS ONCE TAXABLE?  EVERY EXPANSION OF
STATE ACTIVITY SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE REACH
OF FEDERAL TAXATION IF STATE IMMUNITY IS RECOGNIZED.  YET NONE WOULD
CONCEDE THAT THE SOVEREIGN POWERS OF THE STATES WERE LIMITED TO THOSE
WHICH THEY EXERCISED IN 1787.  NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT IF THE PRESENT
TAX IS NOT SUSTAINED THERE WILL BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE TAXING POWER OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A SUBJECT OF TAXATION WHICH HAS BEEN
TRADITIONALLY WITHIN THAT POWER FROM THE BEGINNING.  NOT UNTIL SOUTH
CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES WAS IT HELD THAT SO-CALLED BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES OF A STATE WERE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TAXATION.  THAT WAS AFTER
THE TURN OF THE PRESENT CENTURY.  THUS THE MAJOR OBJECTION TO THE
SUGGESTED TEST IS THAT IT DISREGARDS THE TENTH AMENDMENT, PLACES THE
SOVEREIGN STATES ON THE SAME PLANE AS PRIVATE CITIZENS, AND MAKES THE
SOVEREIGN STATES PAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
EXERCISING THE POWERS OF SOVEREIGNTY GUARANTEED THEM BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THAT THIS IDEA IS HOSTILE TO THE VIEW OF THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS EVIDENT FROM HAMILTON'S DISCUSSION OF THE TAXING POWER
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE FEDERALIST, NOS. 30
36(SESQUICENTENNIAL ED. 1937) PP. 183-224.  HE REPEATEDLY STATED THAT
THE TAXING POWERS OF THE STATES AND OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WERE TO
BE "CONCURRENT" - "THE ONLY ADMISSIBLE SUBSTITUTE FOR AN ENTIRE
SUBORDINATION, IN RESPECT TO THIS BRANCH OF POWER, OF THE STATE
AUTHORITY TO THAT OF THE UNION."  PP. 202-203.  HE ALSO STATED, "THE
CONVENTION THOUGHT THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION PREFERABLE TO THAT
SUBORDINATION; AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT HAS AT LEAST THE MERIT OF
RECONCILING AN INDEFINITE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF TAXATION IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH AN ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT POWER IN THE STATES
TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR OWN NECESSITIES."  P. 209.  ON SUCH ASSURANCES
COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THOUGHT THAT THE STATES WERE SO SUBORDINATE THAT
THEIR ACTIVITIES COULD BE TAXED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? 

IN M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, THE COURT HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL A STATE TAX ON NOTES OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL (PP. 429-430) IS
ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE CASE FOR THE RECIPROCAL IMMUNITY OF THE STATE
AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS: 

"IF WE MEASURE THE POWER OF TAXATION RESIDING IN A STATE, BY THE
EXTENT OF SOVEREIGNTY WHICH THE PEOPLE OF A SINGLE STATE POSSESS, AND
CAN CONFER ON ITS GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE AN INTELLIGIBLE STANDARD,
APPLICABLE TO EVERY CASE TO WHICH THE POWER MAY BE APPLIED.  WE HAVE A
PRINCIPLE WHICH LEAVES THE POWER OF TAXING THE PEOPLE AND PROPERTY OF A
STATE UNIMPAIRED; WHICH LEAVES TO A STATE THE COMMAND OF ALL ITS
RESOURCES, AND WHICH PLACES BEYOND ITS REACH, ALL THOSE POWERS WHICH
ARE CONFERRED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNION, AND ALL THOSE MEANS WHICH ARE GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CARRYING THOSE POWERS INTO EXECUTION.  WE HAVE A PRINCIPLE WHICH IS
SAFE FOR THE STATES, AND SAFE FOR THE UNION.  WE ARE RELIEVED, AS WE
OUGHT TO BE, FROM CLASHING SOVEREIGNTY; FROM INTERFERING POWERS; FROM A
REPUGNANCY BETWEEN A RIGHT IN ONE GOVERNMENT TO PULL DOWN WHAT THERE IS
AN ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHT IN ANOTHER TO BUILD UP; FROM THE INCOMPATIBILITY
OF A RIGHT IN ONE GOVERNMENT TO DESTROY WHAT THERE IS A RIGHT IN
ANOTHER TO PRESERVE.  WE ARE NOT DRIVEN TO THE PERPLEXING INQUIRY, SO
UNFIT FOR THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, WHAT DEGREE OF TAXATION IS THE
LEGITIMATE USE, AND WHAT DEGREE MAY AMOUNT TO THE ABUSE OF THE POWER." 

                              IV 

THOSE WHO AGREED WITH SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES HAD THE FEAR
THAT AN EXPANDING PROGRAM OF STATE ACTIVITY WOULD DRY UP SOURCES OF
FEDERAL REVENUES AND THUS CRIPPLE THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  199 U.S.
PP. 454-455.  THAT WAS IN 1905.  FN4  THAT FEAR IS EXPRESSED AGAIN
TODAY WHEN WE HAVE THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, FROM WHICH EMPLOYEES OF THE
STATES MAY NOT CLAIM EXEMPTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  HELVERING V.
GERHARDT, SUPRA.  THE FEAR OF DEPRIVING THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF
REVENUE IF THE TAX IMMUNITY OF THE STATES IS SUSTAINED HAS NO MORE
PLACE IN THE PRESENT DECISION THAN THE SPECTRE OF SOCIALISM, THE FEAR
OF WHICH, SAID HOLMES, "WAS TRANSLATED INTO DOCTRINES THAT HAD NO
PROPER PLACE IN THE CONSTITUTION OR THE COMMON LAW."  FN5 

THERE IS NO SHOWING WHATSOEVER THAT AN EXPANDING FIELD OF STATE
ACTIVITY EVEN FAINTLY PROMISES TO CRIPPLE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ITS
SEARCH FOR NEEDED REVENUES.  IF THE TRUTH WERE KNOWN, I SUSPECT IT
WOULD SHOW THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE STATES IN THE FIELDS OF HOUSING,
PUBLIC POWER AND THE LIKE HAVE INCREASED THE LEVEL OF INCOME OF THE
PEOPLE AND HAVE RAISED THE STANDARDS OF MARGINAL OR SUB-MARGINAL
GROUPS.  SUCH CONDITIONS AFFECT FAVORABLY, NOT ADVERSELY, THE TAX
POTENTIAL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

FN1  CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE UNITED STATES (1908), PP. 183
184. 

FN2  AS STATED IN UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 184,
185, THE IMMUNITY OF STATE INSTRUMENTALITIES FROM FEDERAL TAXATION "IS
IMPLIED FROM THE NATURE OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM AND THE RELATIONSHIP
WITHIN IT OF STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, AND IS EQUALLY A
RESTRICTION ON TAXATION BY EITHER OF THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE
OTHER."  IT WENT ON TO SAY IN JUSTIFICATION OF MAKING STATE ACTIVITIES
SUBJECT TO THE EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF THE COMMERCE POWER, "BUT THERE
IS NO SUCH LIMITATION UPON THE PLENARY POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE.  THE
STATE CAN NO MORE DENY THE POWER IF ITS EXERCISE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS THAN CAN AN INDIVIDUAL." 

FN3  THAT FACT DISTINGUISHES THOSE CASES WHERE A CITIZEN SEEKS TAX
IMMUNITY BECAUSE HIS INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM A STATE OR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  RECOGNITION OF SUCH A CLAIM WOULD CREATE A "PRIVILEGED
CLASS OF TAXPAYERS" (HELVERING V. GERHARDT, SUPRA, P. 416) AND EXTEND
THE TAX IMMUNITY OF THE STATES OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PRIVATE
CITIZENS.  IT WAS IN PROTEST TO THE RECOGNITION OF SUCH A DERIVATIVE
IMMUNITY THAT MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY DISSENTED IN COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11
WALL.  113, 128, WHERE THE COURT HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL A FEDERAL TAX ON
THE SALARY OF A JUDICIAL OFFICER OF A STATE.  AS MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY
STATED, "NO MAN CEASES TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BY BEING AN
OFFICER UNDER THE STATE GOVERNMENT."  11 WALL.  P. 128.  AND SEE GRAVES
V. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, HOLDING THAT SALARIES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY INCLUDED IN A NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE INCOME
TAX. 

FN4  AS THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF NEW YORK POINTS OUT, IN THE YEAR
WHEN SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES WAS DECIDED OVER ONE-FOURTH OF THE
ENTIRE ANNUAL INCOME OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS DERIVED FROM TAXES
ON SPIRITS AND FERMENTED LIQUORS.  SEE ANNUAL REPORT, SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY (1905), PP. 7, 26. 

FN5  HOLMES, COLLECTED LEGAL PAPERS (1921) P. 295. 
..END :

















MARKHAM V. ALLEN, 326 U.S. 490 


NO. 60.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1946.  - 147
F.2D 136, REVERSED. 


1.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF A SUIT BY THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AGAINST AN EXECUTOR AND RESIDENT HEIRS TO DETERMINE
THE CUSTODIAN'S ASSERTED RIGHT TO SHARE IN THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE WHICH
IS IN COURSE OF PROBATE ADMINISTRATION IN A STATE COURT.  PP. 491,
496. 

2.  WHILE A FEDERAL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PROBATE A WILL OR
ADMINISTER AN ESTATE, IT DOES HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUITS TO
ESTABLISH CLAIMS AGAINST A DECEDENT'S ESTATE, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS OR ASSUME GENERAL JURISDICTION
OF THE PROBATE OR CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE STATE
COURT.  P. 494. 

3.  WHILE A FEDERAL COURT MAY NOT DISTURB OR AFFECT THE POSSESSION OF
PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF A STATE COURT, IT MAY ADJUDICATE RIGHTS IN
SUCH PROPERTY WHEN THE FINAL JUDGMENT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE STATE
COURT'S POSSESSION SAVE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATE COURT IS BOUND BY
THE JUDGMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT ADJUDICATED BY THE FEDERAL COURT. 
P. 494. 

4.  WHERE THE EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT OF A FEDERAL COURT IS TO LEAVE
UNDISTURBED THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF A DECEDENT'S ESTATE IN A
STATE PROBATE COURT BUT TO DECREE A RIGHT IN PROPERTY TO BE DISTRIBUTED
AFTER ADMINISTRATION, THIS IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF PROBATE JURISDICTION
OR AN INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OR CUSTODY OF A
STATE COURT.  P. 495. 

5.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION IN
ENTERTAINING A SUIT BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN TO DETERMINE HIS
RIGHT TO SHARE IN A DECEDENT'S ESTATE IN COURSE OF PROBATE
ADMINISTRATION IN A STATE COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE SUIT INVOLVED ISSUES
OF STATE LAW; BECAUSE SEC. 17 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
SPECIALLY CONFERS ON THE FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION TO ENTER ALL SUCH
ORDERS AND DECREES AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROPER TO ENFORCE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THIS INDICATES THAT CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED THE
POLICY OF PERMITTING THE CUSTODIAN TO PROCEED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO
ENFORCE HIS RIGHTS, WHETHER THEY DEPEND ON STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.  P.
495. 

MARKHAM, ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, V. ALLEN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 846, TO REVIEW REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF A
DISTRICT COURT (52 F.SUPP.  850) ALLOWING A CLAIM OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN AGAINST A DECEDENT'S ESTATE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS
JURISDICTION OF A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AGAINST
AN EXECUTOR AND RESIDENT HEIRS TO DETERMINE THE CUSTODIAN'S ASSERTED
RIGHT TO SHARE IN DECEDENT'S ESTATE WHICH IS IN COURSE OF PROBATE
ADMINISTRATION IN A STATE COURT. 

ON JANUARY 23, 1943, PETITIONER, THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, ACTING
UNDER SEC. 5(B)(1)(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 55 STAT. 839,
50 U.S.C. APP., SUPP. IV, SEC. 616, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9095, AS
AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 9193, 3 CODE FED. REG. (CUM. SUPP.) 1174,
ISSUED VESTING ORDER NO. 762, BY WHICH HE PURPORTED TO VEST IN HIMSELF
AS CUSTODIAN ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF GERMAN LEGATEES IN THE
ESTATE OF ALVINA WAGNER, WHO DIED TESTATE, A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA,
WHOSE WILL WAS ADMITTED TO PROBATE AND WHOSE ESTATE IS BEING
ADMINISTERED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  PREVIOUSLY, ON
DECEMBER 30, 1942, SIX OF THE OTHER HEIRS-AT-LAW OF DECEDENT, RESIDING
IN THE UNITED STATES, FILED A PETITION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA FOR DETERMINATION OF HEIRSHIP, ASSERTING THAT UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA STATUTES, 1941, CHAP. 895, SEC. 1* , THE
GERMAN LEGATEES WERE INELIGIBLE AS BENEFICIARIES, AND THAT THE AMERICAN
HEIRS WERE THEREFORE ENTITLED TO INHERIT DECEDENT'S ESTATE.  THIS
PROCEEDING IS STILL PENDING. 

*THIS STATUTE PURPORTS TO LIMIT INHERITANCE BY NON-RESIDENT ALIENS TO
NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES WHICH GRANT RECIPROCAL RIGHTS OF INHERITANCE TO
AMERICAN CITIZENS. 

ON APRIL 6, 1943, THE CUSTODIAN BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST THE
EXECUTOR AND THE SIX CALIFORNIA CLAIMANTS, SEEKING A JUDGMENT
DETERMINING THAT THE RESIDENT CLAIMANTS HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE ESTATE,
AND THAT THE CUSTODIAN, BY VIRTUE OF HIS VESTING ORDER, IS ENTITLED TO
THE ENTIRE NET ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT AFTER PAYMENT OF EXPENSES OF
ADMINISTRATION, DEBTS, AND TAXES, AND IS THE OWNER OF SPECIFIED REAL
ESTATE OF DECEDENT PASSING UNDER THE WILL.  THE COMPLAINT PRAYED THAT
THE EXECUTOR BE ORDERED TO PAY THE ENTIRE NET ESTATE TO THE CUSTODIAN
UPON THE ALLOWANCE BY THE STATE COURT OF THE EXECUTOR'S FINAL ACCOUNT. 
ON MOTION OF RESPONDENTS TO STRIKE THE COMPLAINT, AND ON PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT
FOR PETITIONER, 52 F.SUPP.  850.  THE COURT HELD THAT IT HAD
JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE VESTING ORDER OF PETITIONER; THAT ITS
JURISDICTION IS DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRICTION OR OUSTER BY STATE
LEGISLATION; AND THAT CALIFORNIA STATUTES, 1941, CHAP. 895, SEC. 1, IS
INVALID.  THE JUDGMENT DECLARED THAT PETITIONER HAD ACQUIRED THE
INTERESTS OF THE GERMAN NATIONALS IN THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT; THAT NONE
OF RESPONDENTS HAVE ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE ESTATE; AND
THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE NET ESTATE IN DISTRIBUTION
AFTER PAYMENT OF EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION, DEBTS AND TAXES. 

WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE MERITS, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT REVERSED AND ORDERED THE CAUSE DISMISSED, UPON THE GROUND THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
THE ACTION.  147 F.2D 136.  THE COURT THOUGHT THAT SINCE "THE MATTER IS
WITHIN PROBATE JURISDICTION AND THAT COURT IS IN POSSESSION OF THE
PROPERTY, ITS RIGHT TO PROCEED TO DETERMINE HEIRSHIP CANNOT BE
INTERFERED WITH BY THE FEDERAL COURT." 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE PRESENT SUIT IS A SUIT "OF A CIVIL NATURE
...  IN EQUITY," BROUGHT BY AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, AUTHORIZED
TO SUE, OF WHICH DISTRICT COURTS ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION BY SEC. 24(1),
28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  BUT RESPONDENTS ARGUE, AS
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THAT AS THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER PROBATE MATTERS, SEE
BRODERICK'S WILL, 21 WALL.  503, 517; BYERS V. MCAULEY, 149 U.S. 608,
615, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT ARE NOT "CASES OR CONTROVERSIES
WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION," AND SINCE THE
PRESENT SUIT TO DETERMINE HEIRSHIP OF PROPERTY BEING ADMINISTERED IN A
STATE PROBATE COURT IS AN EXERCISE OF PROBATE JURISDICTION, THE
DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT A FEDERAL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PROBATE A WILL
OR ADMINISTER AN ESTATE, THE REASON BEING THAT THE EQUITY JURISDICTION
CONFERRED BY THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 AND SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, WHICH IS THAT OF THE ENGLISH COURT OF CHANCERY IN 1789, DID NOT
EXTEND TO PROBATE MATTERS.  KERRICH V. BRANSBY, 7 BROWN P.C. 437;
BARNESLEY V. POWEL, 1 VES.  SEN.  284; ALLEN V. MACPHERSON, 1 PHILLIPS
133, 1 HOUSE OF LORDS CASES 191; BRODERICK'S WILL, SUPRA; FARRELL V.
O'BRIEN, 199 U.S. 89; SUTTON V. ENGLISH, 246 U.S. 199, 205.  BUT IT HAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED BY A LONG SERIES OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT
FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUITS "IN FAVOR
OF CREDITORS, LEGATEES AND HEIRS" AND OTHER CLAIMANTS AGAINST A
DECEDENT'S ESTATE "TO ESTABLISH THEIR CLAIMS" SO LONG AS THE FEDERAL
COURT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS OR ASSUME GENERAL
JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATE OR CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE STATE COURT.  WATERMAN V. CANAL-LOUISIANA BANK CO., 215 U.S. 33,
43, AND CASES CITED.  SEE SUTTON V. ENGLISH, SUPRA, 205; UNITED STATES
V. BANK OF NEW YORK CO., 296 U.S. 463, 477; COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V.
BRADFORD, 297 U.S. 613, 619; UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 303 U.S. 276;
PRINCESS LIDA V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 456, 466. 

SIMILARLY WHILE A FEDERAL COURT MAY NOT EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION TO
DISTURB OR AFFECT THE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF A STATE
COURT, PENN CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 189, 195-196 AND CASES CITED;
UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK CO., SUPRA, 477-478 AND CASES CITED,
IT MAY EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE RIGHTS IN SUCH PROPERTY
WHERE THE FINAL JUDGMENT DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO INTERFERE WITH THE STATE
COURT'S POSSESSION SAVE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATE COURT IS BOUND BY
THE JUDGMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT ADJUDICATED BY THE FEDERAL COURT. 
COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. BRADFORD, SUPRA, 619; UNITED STATES V. KLEIN,
SUPRA, 281 AND CASES CITED. 

ALTHOUGH IN THIS CASE PETITIONER SOUGHT A JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT ORDERING DEFENDANT EXECUTOR TO PAY OVER THE ENTIRE NET ESTATE TO
THE PETITIONER UPON AN ALLOWANCE OF THE EXECUTOR'S FINAL ACCOUNT, THE
JUDGMENT DECLARED ONLY THAT PETITIONER "IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE NET
ESTATE OF THE LATE ALVINA WAGNER IN DISTRIBUTION, AFTER THE PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION, DEBTS, AND TAXES."  THE EFFECT OF THE
JUDGMENT WAS TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF
DECEDENT'S ESTATE IN THE STATE PROBATE COURT AND TO DECREE PETITIONER'S
RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY TO BE DISTRIBUTED AFTER ITS ADMINISTRATION. 
THIS, AS OUR AUTHORITIES DEMONSTRATE, IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF PROBATE
JURISDICTION OR AN INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OR
CUSTODY OF A STATE COURT. 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION SHOULD, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, HAVE DECLINED
TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT WHICH INVOLVES ISSUES OF STATE LAW AND HAVE
REMITTED THE PETITIONER TO HIS REMEDY IN THE STATE PROBATE PROCEEDING. 
SEE THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA CO., 309 U.S. 478, 483; RAILROAD COMMISSION V.
PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496; CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES, 316 U.S. 168;
COMPARE PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 182-186; GORDON V.
OMINSKY, 294 U.S. 186; GORDON V. WASHINGTON, 295 U.S. 30, 39; UNITED
STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK CO., SUPRA, 480.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS
CONFERRED UPON IT, IS REQUIRED TO INTERPRET STATE LAW IS NOT IN ITSELF
A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR WITHHOLDING RELIEF TO PETITIONER.  MEREDITH V.
WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228.  THIS IS THE MORE SO IN THIS CASE BECAUSE
SEC. 17 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 17,
SPECIALLY CONFERS ON THE DISTRICT COURT, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE STATUTES
GOVERNING GENERALLY JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS, JURISDICTION TO
ENTER "ALL SUCH ORDERS AND DECREES  ...  AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROPER
IN THE PREMISES TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS" OF THE ACT.  ALTHOUGH THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE PRESENT CASE UNDER SEC. 24(1) OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE, IRRESPECTIVE OF SEC. 17, THE LATTER SECTION PLAINLY
INDICATES THAT CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED THE POLICY OF PERMITTING THE
CUSTODIAN TO PROCEED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS TO ENFORCE HIS RIGHTS UNDER
THE ACT, WHETHER THEY DEPEND ON STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.  THE CAUSE WAS
THEREFORE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH COULD
APPROPRIATELY PROCEED WITH THE CASE, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRONEOUSLY ORDERED ITS DISMISSAL. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CAUSE SHOULD BE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND JURISDICTION SHOULD BE RETAINED BY
IT PENDING THE STATE COURT'S DECISION AS TO THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE THE NET ESTATE. 
..END :




















N.Y. EX REL. RAY V. MARTIN, 326 U.S. 496 


NO. 158.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1946.  - 294
N.Y. 61, 60 N.E.2D 541, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE COURT OF NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY A NON-INDIAN FOR
THE MURDER OF ANOTHER NON-INDIAN COMMITTED ON THE ALLEGANY RESERVATION
OF THE SENECA INDIANS WITHIN THAT STATE.  UNITED STATES V. MCBRATNEY,
104 U.S. 621, FOLLOWED.  P. 498. 

2.  SECTION 2145 OF THE REVISED STATUTES DOES NOT OPERATE TO DEPRIVE
STATES OF JURISDICTION OF CRIMES COMMITTED ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS BY
ONE NON-INDIAN AGAINST ANOTHER.  P. 499. 

3.  EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A STATE COURT OF NEW YORK OVER CRIMES
INVOLVING ONLY NON-INDIANS AND COMMITTED ON THE ALLEGANY RESERVATION OF
THE SENECA INDIANS WITHIN THAT STATE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE TREATY OF
1794.  P. 500. 

NEW YORK EX REL. RAY V. MARTIN, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF WYOMING COUNTY, NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 685, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  SEE 268 APP. DIV. 218, 52 N.Y.S.2D
496; 181 MISC. 925, 47 N.Y.S.2D 883. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN UNITED STATES V. MCBRATNEY, 104 U.S. 621, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE
STATE COURTS OF COLORADO, NOT THE FEDERAL COURTS, HAD JURISDICTION TO
PROSECUTE A MURDER OF ONE NON-INDIAN BY ANOTHER COMMITTED ON AN INDIAN
RESERVATION LOCATED WITHIN THAT STATE.  THE HOLDING IN THAT CASE WAS
THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS ADMITTING COLORADO INTO THE UNION OVERRULED
ALL PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATUTES AND TREATIES AND PLACED IT "UPON AN
EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES  ..."; THAT THIS MEANT THAT
COLORADO HAD "CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER ITS OWN CITIZENS AND OTHER
WHITE PERSONS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THE TERRITORY WITHIN ITS LIMITS,
INCLUDING THE UTE RESERVATION"; AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY, THE UNITED
STATES NO LONGER HAD "SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" OVER THE
RESERVATION, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT SUCH TREATY
PROVISIONS WHICH REMAINED IN FORCE.  THAT CASE HAS SINCE BEEN FOLLOWED
BY THIS COURT  FN1  AND ITS HOLDING HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED BY ANY ACT OF
CONGRESS.  THE QUESTION THIS CASE PRESENTS IS WHETHER NEW YORK, WHICH
IS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL STATES, HAS JURISDICTION TO PUNISH A MURDER OF
ONE NON-INDIAN COMMITTED BY ANOTHER NON-INDIAN UPON THE ALLEGANY
RESERVATION OF THE SENECA INDIANS LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW
YORK. 

IN 1939, THE PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN A NEW
YORK STATE COURT FOR THE MURDER OF A MAN IN THE CITY OF SALAMANCA,
WHICH IS WITHIN THE ALLEGANY RESERVATION BUT HAS ONLY 8 INDIAN FAMILIES
LIVING AMONG ITS 9,000 INHABITANTS.  HE LATER BROUGHT THIS HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDING IN A COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE.  FN2  HE ALLEGED THAT
SINCE THE INDIAN RESERVATION WAS UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF
THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE COURTS LACKED JURISDICTION TO TRY AND
CONVICT HIM.  THE COUNTY COURT OF WYOMING COUNTY HEARD THE CASE AND
ORDERED THE WRIT DISMISSED.  181 MISC. 925, 47 N.Y.S.2D 883.  BOTH THE
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, 268 APP. DIV. 218, 52 N.Y.S.2D
496, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, 294 N.Y. 61, 60 N.E.2D 541, AFFIRMED THE
DISMISSAL.  FN3  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS
RAISED. 

WE THINK THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN THE MCBRATNEY CASE CONTROLLING AND
THAT THE NEW YORK COURT THEREFORE PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION. 
FOR THAT CASE AND OTHERS WHICH FOLLOWED IT ALL HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE
OF A LIMITING TREATY OBLIGATION OR CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT EACH STATE
HAD A RIGHT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER INDIAN RESERVATIONS WITHIN
ITS BOUNDARIES.  FN4  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE MCBRATNEY CASE DIFFERS
FROM THIS PROCEEDING IN SEVERAL RESPECTS.  FIRST, HE CONTENDS THAT
COLORADO COULD EXERCISE GREATER POWERS OVER ITS INDIAN RESERVATIONS
THAN NEW YORK CAN BY VIRTUE OF THE ENABLING ACT WHICH ADMITTED COLORADO
INTO THE UNION, A SIMILAR ENACTMENT BEING LACKING HERE SINCE NEW YORK
IS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL STATES.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE COLORADO ENABLING
ACT WAS HELD IN THE MCBRATNEY CASE TO PUT COLORADO "UPON AN EQUAL
FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES," AND TO REPEAL EARLIER LEGISLATION
AND TREATIES INCONSISTENT WITH THE ENABLING ACT.  THE FACT THAT
COLORADO WAS PUT ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES OBVIOUSLY
DID NOT GIVE IT ANY GREATER POWER THAN NEW YORK.  AND NO GREATER POWER
CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE REPEALING FUNCTION OF THE ENABLING ACT, SINCE,
AS WE SHALL POINT OUT, THE STATUTES AND TREATIES WHICH PETITIONER
CLAIMS DEPRIVE NEW YORK OF JURISDICTION DO NOT IN FACT DO SO. 

THIS BRINGS US TO PETITIONER'S FURTHER CONTENTION THAT CERTAIN
FEDERAL STATUTES SPECIFICALLY GRANT THE UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE SENECA RESERVATION.  HE POINTS OUT THAT THE LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAKE MURDER A CRIME "IF COMMITTED IN ANY PLACE
WITHIN THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES  ...";
18 U.S.C. 452; THAT SEC. 2145 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 25 U.S.C. 217,
MAKES THIS MURDER STATUTE APPLICABLE TO "INDIAN COUNTRY"; AND CONTENDS
THAT THE SENECA RESERVATION IS INDIAN COUNTRY, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY
NEW YORK HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PUNISH A MURDER COMMITTED ON THAT
RESERVATION.  THE CASES FOLLOWING THE MCBRATNEY CASE ADEQUATELY ANSWER
PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS CONCERNING SEC. 2145, EVEN IF WE ASSUME, WHAT
WE NEED NOT DECIDE, THAT THE SENECA RESERVATION IS INDIAN COUNTRY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  WHILE SEC. 2145 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES HAS BEEN HELD APPLICABLE IN TERRITORIES TO CRIMES BETWEEN
WHITES AND WHITES WHICH DO NOT AFFECT INDIANS,  FN5  THE MCBRATNEY LINE
OF DECISIONS STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT STATES, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
STATEHOOD, HAVE JURISDICTION OVER SUCH CRIMES NOTWITHSTANDING SEC.
2145.  FN6  SEE ALSO NEW YORK V. DIBBLE, 21 HOW.  366. 

PETITIONER FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE MCBRATNEY RULE IS NOT APPLICABLE
HERE BECAUSE EXERCISE OF STATE JURISDICTION OVER NON-INDIANS AT
SALAMANCA WOULD VIOLATE THE TREATY OF 1794, 7 STAT. 44.  WE CAN FIND NO
LANGUAGE IN THAT TREATY THAT LENDS ITSELF TO SUCH INTERPRETATION.  THE
TREATY WAS ONE OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
THE INDIANS.  IT PROVIDED AGAINST PRIVATE REVENGE OR RETALIATION ON
ACCOUNT OF INJURIES DONE BY INDIVIDUALS ON EITHER SIDE.  SUCH INJURIES
WERE TO BE REPORTED BY EACH NATION TO THE OTHER WITH A VIEW OF HAVING
THE NATION TO WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL OFFENDER BELONGED TAKE "SUCH PRUDENT
MEASURES  ...  AS SHALL BE NECESSARY TO PRESERVE ...  PEACE AND
FRIENDSHIP UNBROKEN."  THIS PROCEDURE WAS TO BE FOLLOWED UNTIL CONGRESS
MADE "OTHER EQUITABLE PROVISION FOR THE PURPOSE."  THIS LATTER
LANGUAGE, UPON WHICH THE PETITIONER MOST STRONGLY RELIES AS IMPOSING A
DUTY UPON THE UNITED STATES TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE WHOLE
RESERVATION TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATE, EVEN AS TO OFFENSES
COMMITTED BY WHITES AGAINST WHITES, CANNOT PROPERLY BE INTERPRETED AS
THE PETITIONER ASKS.  THE ENTIRE EMPHASIS IN TREATIES AND CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENTS DEALING WITH INDIAN AFFAIRS HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOCUSED UPON THE
TREATMENT OF THE INDIANS THEMSELVES AND THEIR PROPERTY.  GENERALLY NO
EMPHASIS HAS BEEN PLACED ON WHETHER STATE OR UNITED STATES COURTS
SHOULD TRY WHITE OFFENDERS FOR CONDUCT WHICH HAPPENED TO TAKE PLACE
UPON AN INDIAN RESERVATION, BUT WHICH DID NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT THE
INDIANS.  NEITHER THE 1794 TREATY NOR ANY OTHER REQUIRES A HOLDING THAT
OFFENSES BY NON-INDIANS AGAINST NON-INDIANS DISTURBING THE PEACE AND
ORDER OF SALAMANCA ARE BEYOND NEW YORK'S POWER TO PUNISH.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  DRAPER V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 240.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES
V. RAMSEY, 271 U.S. 467, 469; DONNELLY V. UNITED STATES, 228 U.S. 243,
271; UNITED STATES V. KAGAMA, 118 U.S. 375, 383. 

FN2  A PREVIOUS PETITION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS HAD BEEN DENIED
BECAUSE RELIEF HAD NOT FIRST BEEN SOUGHT IN THE NEW YORK STATE COURTS. 
54 F.SUPP.  218; 141 F.2D 300. 

FN3  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HELD, AND THE STATE URGES HERE,
THAT THE STATE COURT HAD JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 7 OF THE ACT OF
CONGRESS PASSED IN 1875, 18 STAT. 330, AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PARTS OF THE
ALLEGANY RESERVATION TO BE SURVEYED FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A NUMBER OF
VILLAGES INCLUDING SALAMANCA.  SECTION 8 PROVIDED AMONG OTHER THINGS
THAT "ALL THE MUNICIPAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF SAID STATE (NEW YORK)
MAY EXTEND OVER AND BE ENFORCED WITHIN SAID VILLAGES."  ACTING UNDER
WHAT IT CONCEIVED TO BE THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THIS SECTION, NEW YORK
PASSED A LAW, CHAP. 188 OF NEW YORK LAWS OF 1881, EXTENDING ITS
"GENERAL LAW" SO AS TO APPLY TO SALAMANCA.  SINCE WE THINK THE RULE IN
THE MCBRATNEY CASE CONTROLLING, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO
PASS ON THE SCOPE AND VALIDITY OF THIS ACT. 

FN4  THIS HOLDING WAS IN HARMONY WITH GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING
THIS SUBJECT.  SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S. 647, 651;
HALLOWELL V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 317, 320; UNITED STATES V.
MCGOWAN, 302 U.S. 535, 539. 

FN5  IN RE WILSON, 140 U.S. 575; PICKETT V. UNITED STATES, 216 U.S.
456, 458. 

FN6  IN DONNELLY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 228 U.S. AT P. 270, THIS
COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 2145 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES WERE FIRST ENACTED AS SEC. 25 OF THE INDIAN
INTERCOURSE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1834, 4 STAT. 729, 733.  THIS MEANS THAT
THE STATUTE WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE MCBRATNEY DECISION.  YET,
SIGNIFICANTLY, THE COURT DID NOT EVEN FIND IT NECESSARY TO MENTION IT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :

















MARSH V. ALABAMA, 326 U.S. 501 


NO. 114.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1946.  - 21
SO.2D 558, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE CAN NOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE
PRESS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, IMPOSE
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT ON A PERSON FOR DISTRIBUTING RELIGIOUS LITERATURE
ON THE SIDEWALK OF A COMPANY-OWNED TOWN CONTRARY TO REGULATIONS OF THE
TOWN'S MANAGEMENT, WHERE THE TOWN AND ITS SHOPPING DISTRICT ARE FREELY
ACCESSIBLE TO AND FREELY USED BY THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL, EVEN THOUGH THE
PUNISHMENT IS ATTEMPTED UNDER A STATE STATUTE MAKING IT A CRIME FOR
ANYONE TO ENTER OR REMAIN ON THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER AFTER HAVING BEEN
WARNED NOT TO DO SO.  PP. 502, 505. 

2.  WHETHER A CORPORATION OR A MUNICIPALITY OWNS OR POSSESSES A TOWN,
THE PUBLIC IN EITHER CASE HAS AN IDENTICAL INTEREST IN THE FUNCTIONING
OF THE COMMUNITY IN SUCH MANNER THAT THE CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION
REMAIN FREE.  P. 507. 

3.  PEOPLE LIVING IN COMPANY-OWNED TOWNS ARE FREE CITIZENS OF THEIR
STATE AND COUNTRY, JUST AS RESIDENTS OF MUNICIPALITIES; AND THERE IS NO
MORE REASON FOR DEPRIVING THEM OF THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS THAN THERE IS FOR CURTAILING THESE FREEDOMS
WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER CITIZEN.  P. 508. 

MARSH V. ALABAMA. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ALABAMA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF A STATE
STATUTE CHALLENGED AS INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE
STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 246 ALA. 539, 21 SO.2D 564. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER A STATE, CONSISTENTLY
WITH THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, CAN IMPOSE CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT ON A PERSON WHO UNDERTAKES TO DISTRIBUTE RELIGIOUS
LITERATURE ON THE PREMISES OF A COMPANY-OWNED TOWN CONTRARY TO THE
WISHES OF THE TOWN'S MANAGEMENT.  THE TOWN, A SUBURB OF MOBILE,
ALABAMA, KNOWN AS CHICKASAW, IS OWNED BY THE GULF SHIPBUILDING
CORPORATION.  EXCEPT FOR THAT IT HAS ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY
OTHER AMERICAN TOWN.  THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS,
STREETS, A SYSTEM OF SEWERS, A SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANT AND A "BUSINESS
BLOCK" ON WHICH BUSINESS PLACES ARE SITUATED.  A DEPUTY OF THE MOBILE
COUNTY SHERIFF, PAID BY THE COMPANY, SERVES AS THE TOWN'S POLICEMAN. 
MERCHANTS AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS HAVE RENTED THE STORES AND
BUSINESS PLACES ON THE BUSINESS BLOCK AND THE UNITED STATES USES ONE OF
THE PLACES AS A POST OFFICE FROM WHICH SIX CARRIERS DELIVER MAIL TO THE
PEOPLE OF CHICKASAW AND THE ADJACENT AREA.  THE TOWN AND THE
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH CAN NOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE GULF
PROPERTY BY ANYONE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY LINES, ARE THICKLY
SETTLED, AND ACCORDING TO ALL INDICATIONS THE RESIDENTS USE THE
BUSINESS BLOCK AS THEIR REGULAR SHOPPING CENTER.  TO DO SO, THEY NOW,
AS THEY HAVE FOR MANY YEARS, MAKE USE OF A COMPANY-OWNED PAVED STREET
AND SIDEWALK LOCATED ALONGSIDE THE STORE FRONTS IN ORDER TO ENTER AND
LEAVE THE STORES AND THE POST OFFICE.  INTERSECTING COMPANY-OWNED ROADS
AT EACH END OF THE BUSINESS BLOCK LEAD INTO A FOUR-LANE PUBLIC HIGHWAY
WHICH RUNS PARALLEL TO THE BUSINESS BLOCK AT A DISTANCE OF THIRTY
FEET.  THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP HIGHWAY TRAFFIC FROM COMING ONTO THE
BUSINESS BLOCK AND UPON ARRIVAL A TRAVELER MAY MAKE FREE USE OF THE
FACILITIES AVAILABLE THERE.  IN SHORT THE TOWN AND ITS SHOPPING
DISTRICT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO AND FREELY USED BY THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL AND
THERE IS NOTHING TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM ANY OTHER TOWN AND SHOPPING
CENTER EXCEPT THE FACT THAT THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY BELONGS TO A
PRIVATE CORPORATION. 

APPELLANT, A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS, CAME ONTO THE SIDEWALK WE HAVE JUST
DESCRIBED, STOOD NEAR THE POST OFFICE AND UNDERTOOK TO DISTRIBUTE
RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.  IN THE STORES THE CORPORATION HAD POSTED A
NOTICE WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS:  "THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND WITHOUT
WRITTEN PERMISSION, NO STREET, OR HOUSE VENDOR, AGENT OR SOLICITATION
OF ANY KIND WILL BE PERMITTED."  APPELLANT WAS WARNED THAT SHE COULD
NOT DISTRIBUTE THE LITERATURE WITHOUT A PERMIT AND TOLD THAT NO PERMIT
WOULD BE ISSUED TO HER.  SHE PROTESTED THAT THE COMPANY RULE COULD NOT
BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED SO AS TO PROHIBIT HER FROM DISTRIBUTING
RELIGIOUS WRITINGS.  WHEN SHE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE THE SIDEWALK AND
CHICKASAW SHE DECLINED.  THE DEPUTY SHERIFF ARRESTED HER AND SHE WAS
CHARGED IN THE STATE COURT WITH VIOLATING TITLE 14, SEC. 426 OF THE
1940 ALABAMA CODE WHICH MAKES IT A CRIME TO ENTER OR REMAIN ON THE
PREMISES OF ANOTHER AFTER HAVING BEEN WARNED NOT TO DO SO.  APPELLANT
CONTENDED THAT TO CONSTRUE THE STATE STATUTE AS APPLICABLE TO HER
ACTIVITIES WOULD ABRIDGE HER RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION
CONTRARY TO THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 
THIS CONTENTION WAS REJECTED AND SHE WAS CONVICTED.  THE ALABAMA COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, HOLDING THAT THE STATUTE AS APPLIED
WAS CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE TITLE TO THE SIDEWALK WAS IN THE
CORPORATION AND BECAUSE THE PUBLIC USE OF THE SIDEWALK HAD NOT BEEN
SUCH AS TO GIVE RISE TO A PRESUMPTION UNDER ALABAMA LAW OF ITS
IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC.  21 SO.2D 558.  THE STATE SUPREME
COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 246 ALA. 539, 21 SO.2D 564, AND THE CASE IS
HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344(A). 

HAD THE TITLE TO CHICKASAW BELONGED NOT TO A PRIVATE BUT TO A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND HAD APPELLANT BEEN ARRESTED FOR VIOLATING A
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE RATHER THAN A RULING BY THOSE APPOINTED BY THE
CORPORATION TO MANAGE A COMPANY TOWN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR THAT
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED.  UNDER OUR DECISION IN LOVELL
V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444 AND OTHERS WHICH HAVE FOLLOWED THAT CASE,  FN1
NEITHER A STATE NOR A MUNICIPALITY CAN COMPLETELY BAR THE DISTRIBUTION
OF LITERATURE CONTAINING RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL IDEAS ON ITS STREETS,
SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES OR MAKE THE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE DEPENDENT
ON A FLAT LICENSE TAX OR PERMIT TO BE ISSUED BY AN OFFICIAL WHO COULD
DENY IT AT WILL.  WE HAVE ALSO HELD THAT AN ORDINANCE COMPLETELY
PROHIBITING THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS ON THE CITY STREETS CANNOT BE
JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MUNICIPALITY HOLDS LEGAL TITLE TO
THEM.  JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413.  AND WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE
PRESERVATION OF A FREE SOCIETY IS SO FAR DEPENDENT UPON THE RIGHT OF
EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO RECEIVE SUCH LITERATURE AS HE HIMSELF MIGHT
DESIRE THAT A MUNICIPALITY COULD NOT, WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING THAT VITAL
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, PROHIBIT DOOR TO DOOR DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE. 
MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141, 146, 147.  FROM THESE DECISIONS IT
IS CLEAR THAT HAD THE PEOPLE OF CHICKASAW OWNED ALL THE HOMES, AND ALL
THE STORES, AND ALL THE STREETS, AND ALL THE SIDEWALKS, ALL THOSE
OWNERS TOGETHER COULD NOT HAVE SET UP A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT WITH
SUFFICIENT POWER TO PASS AN ORDINANCE COMPLETELY BARRING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.  OUR QUESTION THEN NARROWS DOWN
TO THIS:  CAN THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN OR COME TO CHICKASAW BE DENIED
FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION SIMPLY BECAUSE A SINGLE COMPANY HAS LEGAL
TITLE TO ALL THE TOWN?  FOR IT IS THE STATE'S CONTENTION THAT THE MERE
FACT THAT ALL THE PROPERTY INTERESTS IN THE TOWN ARE HELD BY A SINGLE
COMPANY IS ENOUGH TO GIVE THAT COMPANY POWER, ENFORCEABLE BY A STATE
STATUTE, TO ABRIDGE THESE FREEDOMS. 

WE DO NOT AGREE THAT THE CORPORATION'S PROPERTY INTERESTS SETTLE THE
QUESTION.  FN2  THE STATE URGES IN EFFECT THAT THE CORPORATION'S RIGHT
TO CONTROL THE INHABITANTS OF CHICKASAW IS COEXTENSIVE WITH THE RIGHT
OF A HOMEOWNER TO REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF HIS GUESTS.  WE CANNOT ACCEPT
THAT CONTENTION.  OWNERSHIP DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN ABSOLUTE DOMINION. 
THE MORE AN OWNER, FOR HIS ADVANTAGE, OPENS UP HIS PROPERTY FOR USE BY
THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL, THE MORE DO HIS RIGHTS BECOME CIRCUMSCRIBED BY
THE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO USE IT.  CF.
REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 324 U.S. 793, 798, 802, N. 8. 
THUS, THE OWNERS OF PRIVATELY HELD BRIDGES, FERRIES, TURNPIKES AND
RAILROADS MAY NOT OPERATE THEM AS FREELY AS A FARMER DOES HIS FARM. 
SINCE THESE FACILITIES ARE BUILT AND OPERATED PRIMARILY TO BENEFIT THE
PUBLIC AND SINCE THEIR OPERATION IS ESSENTIALLY A PUBLIC FUNCTION, IT
IS SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION.  FN3  AND, THOUGH THE ISSUE IS NOT
DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO THE ONE BEFORE US, WE DO WANT TO POINT OUT BY WAY
OF ILLUSTRATION THAT SUCH REGULATION MAY NOT RESULT IN AN OPERATION OF
THESE FACILITIES, EVEN BY PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANIES, WHICH
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INTERFERES WITH AND DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  PORT RICHMOND FERRY V. HUDSON COUNTY, SUPRA, 234 U.S. AT 326
AND CASES CITED, PP. 328-329; CF. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177.  HAD THE CORPORATION HERE OWNED THE
SEGMENT OF THE FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY WHICH RUNS PARALLEL TO THE "BUSINESS
BLOCK" AND OPERATED THE SAME UNDER A STATE FRANCHISE, DOUBTLESS NO ONE
WOULD HAVE SERIOUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE CORPORATION'S PROPERTY INTEREST
IN THE HIGHWAY GAVE IT POWER TO OBSTRUCT THROUGH TRAFFIC OR TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V.
CHANDLER, 96 U.S. 205, 208; DONOVAN V. PENNSYLVANIA CO., SUPRA, 199
U.S. AT 294; COVINGTON DRAWBRIDGE CO. V. SHEPHERD, 21 HOW.  112, 125. 
AND EVEN HAD THERE BEEN NO EXPRESS FRANCHISE BUT MERE ACQUIESCENCE BY
THE STATE IN THE CORPORATION'S USE OF ITS PROPERTY AS A SEGMENT OF THE
FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY, OPERATION OF ALL THE HIGHWAY, INCLUDING THE SEGMENT
OWNED BY THE CORPORATION, WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC
FUNCTION AND DISCRIMINATION WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL.  FN4 

WE DO NOT THINK IT MAKES ANY SIGNIFICANT CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE AS
TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER AND THOSE OF THE
PUBLIC THAT HERE THE STATE, INSTEAD OF PERMITTING THE CORPORATION TO
OPERATE A HIGHWAY, PERMITTED IT TO USE ITS PROPERTY AS A TOWN, OPERATE
A "BUSINESS BLOCK" IN THE TOWN AND A STREET AND SIDEWALK ON THAT
BUSINESS BLOCK.  CF. BARNEY V. KEOKUK, 94 U.S. 324, 340.  WHETHER A
CORPORATION OR A MUNICIPALITY OWNS OR POSSESSES THE TOWN THE PUBLIC IN
EITHER CASE HAS AN IDENTICAL INTEREST IN THE FUNCTIONING OF THE
COMMUNITY IN SUCH MANNER THAT THE CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION REMAIN
FREE.  AS WE HAVE HERETOFORE STATED, THE TOWN OF CHICKASAW DOES NOT
FUNCTION DIFFERENTLY FROM ANY OTHER TOWN.  THE "BUSINESS BLOCK" SERVES
AS THE COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER AND IS FREELY ACCESSIBLE AND OPEN TO
THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA AND THOSE PASSING THROUGH.  THE MANAGERS
APPOINTED BY THE CORPORATION CANNOT CURTAIL THE LIBERTY OF PRESS AND
RELIGION OF THESE PEOPLE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES, AND A STATE STATUTE, AS THE ONE HERE
INVOLVED, WHICH ENFORCES SUCH ACTION BY CRIMINALLY PUNISHING THOSE WHO
ATTEMPT TO DISTRIBUTE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE CLEARLY VIOLATES THE FIRST
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 

MANY PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES LIVE IN COMPANY-OWNED TOWNS.  FN5
THESE PEOPLE, JUST AS RESIDENTS OF MUNICIPALITIES, ARE FREE CITIZENS OF
THEIR STATE AND COUNTRY.  JUST AS ALL OTHER CITIZENS THEY MUST MAKE
DECISIONS WHICH AFFECT THE WELFARE OF COMMUNITY AND NATION.  TO ACT AS
GOOD CITIZENS THEY MUST BE INFORMED.  IN ORDER TO ENABLE THEM TO BE
PROPERLY INFORMED THEIR INFORMATION MUST BE UNCENSORED.  THERE IS NO
MORE REASON FOR DEPRIVING THESE PEOPLE OF THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY
THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS THAN THERE IS FOR CURTAILING THESE
FREEDOMS WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER CITIZEN.  FN6 

WHEN WE BALANCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY
AGAINST THOSE OF THE PEOPLE TO ENJOY FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION, AS
WE MUST HERE, WE REMAIN MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE LATTER OCCUPY A
PREFERRED POSITION.  FN7  AS WE HAVE STATED BEFORE, THE RIGHT TO
EXERCISE THE LIBERTIES SAFEGUARDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT "LIES AT THE
FOUNDATION OF FREE GOVERNMENT BY FREE MEN" AND WE MUST IN ALL CASES
"WEIGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND  ...  APPRAISE THE  ...  REASONS  ... IN
SUPPORT OF THE REGULATION  ...  OF THE RIGHTS."  SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
308 U.S. 147, 161.  IN OUR VIEW THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE PROPERTY
RIGHTS TO THE PREMISES WHERE THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY, HERE INVOLVED,
TOOK PLACE, WERE HELD BY OTHERS THAN THE PUBLIC, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY THE STATE'S PERMITTING A CORPORATION TO GOVERN A COMMUNITY OF
CITIZENS SO AS TO RESTRICT THEIR FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES AND THE
ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH RESTRAINT BY THE APPLICATION OF A STATE STATUTE. 
INSOFAR AS THE STATE HAS ATTEMPTED TO IMPOSE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT ON
APPELLANT FOR UNDERTAKING TO DISTRIBUTE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IN A
COMPANY TOWN, ITS ACTION CANNOT STAND.  THE CASE IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147;
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S.
296; DISSENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE STONE IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584,
600, ADOPTED AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 319 U.S. 103; LARGENT V.
TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105; FOLLETT V.
MCCORMICK, 321 U.S. 573. 

FN2  WE DO NOT QUESTION THE STATE COURT'S DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE
OF "DEDICATION."  THAT DETERMINATION MEANS THAT THE CORPORATION COULD,
IF IT SO DESIRED, ENTIRELY CLOSE THE SIDEWALK AND THE TOWN TO THE
PUBLIC AND IS DECISIVE OF ALL QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW WHICH DEPEND ON
THE OWNER'S BEING ESTOPPED TO RECLAIM POSSESSION OF, AND THE PUBLIC'S
HOLDING THE TITLE TO, OR HAVING RECEIVED AN IRREVOCABLE EASEMENT IN,
THE PREMISES.  DEMOPOLIS V. WEBB, 87 ALA. 659, 6 SO. 408; HAMILTON V.
TOWN OF WARRIOR, 215 ALA. 670, 112 SO. 136; TOWN OF LEEDS V. SHARP, 218
ALA. 403, 405, 118 SO. 572; FORNEY V. CALHOUN COUNTY, 84 ALA. 215, 4
SO. 153; CLOVERDALE HOMES V. CLOVERDALE, 182 ALA. 419, 62 SO. 712.  THE
"DEDICATION" OF A ROAD TO THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO BE DECISIVE OF WHETHER,
UNDER ALABAMA LAW, OBSTRUCTING THE ROAD CONSTITUTES A CRIME, BEVERLY V.
STATE, 28 ALA. APP. 451, 185 SO. 768, AND WHETHER CERTAIN ACTION ON OR
NEAR THE ROAD AMOUNTS TO A TORT.  THRASHER V. BURR, 202 ALA. 307, 80
SO. 372.  BUT DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF "DEDICATION" DOES NOT
DECIDE THE QUESTION UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HERE INVOLVED. 
FN3  CLARK'S FERRY BRIDGE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 291 U.S.
227; AMERICAN TOLL BRIDGE CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 307 U.S. 486;
MILLS V. ST. CLAIR COUNTY, 8 HOW.  569, 581; PORT RICHMOND FERRY V.
HUDSON COUNTY, 234 U.S. 317, 327, 331-332; COVINGTON & L. TURNPIKE ROAD
CO. V. SANDFORD, 164 U.S. 578; NORFOLK & S. TURNPIKE CO. V. VIRGINIA,
225 U.S. 264; DONOVAN V. PENNSYLVANIA CO., 199 U.S. 279, AND CASES
CITED ON PP. 293-295. 

FN4  AND CERTAINLY THE CORPORATION CAN NO MORE DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF
FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION THAN IT CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
COMMERCE.  IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584,
600, WHICH LATER WAS ADOPTED AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 319 U.S. 103,
104, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE MADE THE FOLLOWING PERTINENT STATEMENT:
"FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION, EXPLICITLY GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, MUST AT LEAST BE ENTITLED TO THE SAME FREEDOM FROM
BURDENSOME TAXATION WHICH IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT THAT THE MORE GENERAL
PHRASEOLOGY OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS EXTENDED TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WHATEVER DOUBTS MAY BE ENTERTAINED AS TO THIS COURT'S
FUNCTION TO RELIEVE, UNAIDED BY CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, FROM
BURDENSOME TAXATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SEE GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE
V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 441, 446-55; MCCARROLL V. DIXIE LINES, 309
U.S. 176, 184-85, IT CANNOT BE THOUGHT THAT THAT FUNCTION IS WANTING
UNDER THE EXPLICIT GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND
RELIGION."  316 U.S. AT 610-11. 

FN5  IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY ALONE, APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF OF
THE MINERS IN THE UNITED STATES LIVED IN COMPANY-OWNED HOUSES IN THE
PERIOD FROM 1922-23.  THE PERCENTAGE VARIED FROM 9 PER CENT IN ILLINOIS
AND INDIANA AND 64 PER CENT IN KENTUCKY, TO ALMOST 80 PER CENT IN WEST
VIRGINIA.  U.S. COAL COMMISSION, REPORT, 1925, PART III, PP. 1467, 1469
SUMMARIZED IN MORRIS, THE PLIGHT OF THE COAL MINER, PHILADELPHIA 1934,
CH. VI, P. 86.  THE MOST RECENT STATISTICS WE FOUND AVAILABLE ARE IN
MAGNUSSON, HOUSING BY EMPLOYERS IN THE UNITED STATES, BUREAU OF LABOR
STATISTICS BULLETIN NO. 263(MISC.  SER.)  P. 11.  SEE ALSO UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DATA ON PAY ROLL
DEDUCTIONS, UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY, UNION POINT, GEORGIA, JUNE
1941; RHYNE, SOME SOUTHERN COTTON MILL WORKERS AND THEIR VILLAGES,
CHAPEL HILL, 1930(STUDY COMPLETED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE INSTITUTE
FOR RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA);
COMMENT, URBAN REDEVELOPMENT, 54 YALE L.J. 116. 

FN6  AS TO THE SUPPRESSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES IN COMPANY TOWNS AND
THE NEED OF THOSE WHO LIVE THERE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, SEE THE
SUMMARY OF FACTS AIRED BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
LABOR, VIOLATIONS OF FREE SPEECH AND RIGHTS OF LABOR, HEARINGS PURSUANT
TO S. RES. 266, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., 1937, SUMMARIZED IN BOWDEN,
FREEDOM FOR WAGE EARNERS, ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, NOV. 1938, P. 185; Z. CHAFEE, THE INQUIRING MIND
(NEW YORK, 1928), PP. 173-74; PAMPHLET PUBLISHED IN 1923 BY THE
BITUMINOUS OPERATORS' SPECIAL COMMITTEE UNDER THE TITLE THE COMPANY
TOWN; U.S. COAL COMMISSION, REPORT, SUPRA, PART III, P. 1331. 

FN7  JONES V. OPELIKA, SUPRA, 316 U.S. AT 608; MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 319 U.S. AT 115; FOLLETT V. MCCORMICK, SUPRA, 321
U.S. AT 577. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

SO LONG AS THE VIEWS WHICH PREVAILED IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 319 U.S.
103, IN CONNECTION WITH 316 U.S. 584, 600; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319
U.S. 105; MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141, EXPRESS THE LAW OF THE
CONSTITUTION, I AM UNABLE TO FIND LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THE FACT THAT A
TOWN IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS OF RELIGION AND SPEECH ARE
INVOKED HAPPENS TO BE COMPANY-OWNED.  THESE DECISIONS ACCORDED THE
PURVEYORS OF IDEAS, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE, "A PREFERRED POSITION,"
MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA AT 115, EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF RELIEVING
THEM FROM AN UNHAMPERING AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY DUTY OF BEARING THEIR
SHARE OF THE COST OF MAINTAINING THE PEACE AND THE OTHER AMENITIES OF A
CIVILIZED SOCIETY.  CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES HAVING SUCH A REACH OUGHT
NOT TO DEPEND UPON A STATE COURT'S NOTION OF THE EXTENT OF "DEDICATION"
OF PRIVATE PROPERTY TO PUBLIC PURPOSES.  LOCAL DETERMINATIONS OF SUCH
TECHNICAL MATTERS GOVERN CONTROVERSIES AFFECTING PROPERTY.  BUT WHEN
DECISIONS BY STATE COURTS INVOLVING LOCAL MATTERS ARE SO INTERWOVEN
WITH THE DECISION OF THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT ONE
NECESSARILY INVOLVES THE OTHER, STATE DETERMINATION OF LOCAL QUESTIONS
CANNOT CONTROL THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. 

A COMPANY-OWNED TOWN GIVES RISE TO A NET-WORK OF PROPERTY RELATIONS. 
AS TO THESE, THE JUDICIAL ORGAN OF A STATE HAS THE FINAL SAY.  BUT A
COMPANY-OWNED TOWN IS A TOWN.  IN ITS COMMUNITY ASPECTS IT DOES NOT
DIFFER FROM OTHER TOWNS.  THESE COMMUNITY ASPECTS ARE DECISIVE IN
ADJUSTING THE RELATIONS NOW BEFORE US, AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN
ADJUDICATING THE CLASH OF FREEDOMS WHICH THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS
DESIGNED TO RESOLVE - THE FREEDOM OF THE COMMUNITY TO REGULATE ITS LIFE
AND THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO EXERCISE HIS RELIGION AND TO
DISSEMINATE HIS IDEAS.  TITLE TO PROPERTY AS DEFINED BY STATE LAW
CONTROLS PROPERTY RELATIONS; IT CANNOT CONTROL ISSUES OF CIVIL
LIBERTIES WHICH ARISE PRECISELY BECAUSE A COMPANY TOWN IS A TOWN AS
WELL AS A CONGERIES OF PROPERTY RELATIONS.  AND SIMILARLY THE TECHNICAL
DISTINCTIONS ON WHICH A FINDING OF "TRESPASS" SO OFTEN DEPENDS ARE TOO
TENUOUS TO CONTROL DECISION REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE VITAL LIBERTIES
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

ACCORDINGLY, AS I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, SO LONG AS THE SCOPE OF THE
GUARANTEES OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY
ABSORPTION OF THE FIRST REMAINS THAT WHICH THE COURT GAVE TO IT IN THE
SERIES OF CASES IN THE OCTOBER TERM, 1942, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
PRESENT CASE SEEM TO ME CLEARLY TO FALL WITHIN IT.  AND SO I AGREE WITH
THE OPINION OF THE COURT, EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF IT WHICH RELIES ON
ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IMPOSES
ON STATE REGULATION OF COMMERCE.  IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO FURTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS TO SEEK HELP FOR THE SOLUTION OF THE DELICATE
PROBLEMS ARISING UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM THE VERY DIFFERENT
ORDER OF PROBLEMS WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PRESENTS.  THE LATTER
INVOLVES AN ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN NATIONAL AND STATE POWERS OPERATING
IN THE SAME FIELD.  WHERE THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIES, IT IS A DENIAL
OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL POWER IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

FORMER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE INTERPRETED GENEROUSLY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE IN THIS LAND TO EXERCISE FREEDOM OF
RELIGION, OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS.  FN1  IT HAS NEVER BEEN HELD AND
IS NOT NOW BY THIS OPINION OF THE COURT THAT THESE RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE
AND UNLIMITED EITHER IN RESPECT TO THE MANNER OR THE PLACE OF THEIR
EXERCISE N2.  WHAT THE PRESENT DECISION ESTABLISHES AS A PRINCIPLE IS
THAT ONE MAY REMAIN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AGAINST THE WILL OF THE OWNER
AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE STATE SO LONG AS THE ONLY OBJECTION TO
HIS PRESENCE IS THAT HE IS EXERCISING AN ASSERTED RIGHT TO SPREAD THERE
HIS RELIGIOUS VIEWS.  SEE MARRONE V. WASHINGTON JOCKEY CLUB, 227 U.S.
633.  THIS IS THE FIRST CASE TO EXTEND BY LAW THE PRIVILEGE OF
RELIGIOUS EXERCISES BEYOND PUBLIC PLACES OR TO PRIVATE PLACES WITHOUT
THE ASSENT OF THE OWNER.  COMPARE MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141. 

AS THE RULE NOW ANNOUNCED PERMITS THIS INTRUSION, WITHOUT POSSIBILITY
OF PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY BY LAW, AND APPARENTLY IS EQUALLY
APPLICABLE TO THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE
TO EXPRESS A DISSENT TO THIS, TO US, NOVEL CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE.  OF
COURSE, SUCH PRINCIPLE MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE RESTRICTED BY THIS COURT TO
THE PRECISE FACTS OF THIS CASE - THAT IS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY IN A
COMPANY TOWN WHERE THE OWNER FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE HAS PERMITTED A
RESTRICTED PUBLIC USE BY HIS LICENSEES AND INVITEES.  SUCH DISTINCTIONS
ARE OF DEGREE AND REQUIRE NEW ARBITRARY LINES, JUDICIALLY DRAWN,
INSTEAD OF THOSE HITHERTO ESTABLISHED BY LEGISLATION AND PRECEDENT. 
WHILE THE POWER OF THIS COURT, AS THE INTERPRETER OF THE CONSTITUTION
TO DETERMINE WHAT USE OF REAL PROPERTY BY THE OWNER MAKES THAT PROPERTY
SUBJECT, AT WILL, TO THE REASONABLE PRACTICE OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISES BY
STRANGERS, CANNOT BE DOUBTED, WE FIND NOTHING IN THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, ADOPTED NOW INTO THE FOURTEENTH, WHICH JUSTIFIES THEIR
APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  FN3 

BOTH FEDERAL AND ALABAMA LAW PERMIT, SO FAR AS WE ARE AWARE, COMPANY
TOWNS.  BY THAT WE MEAN AN AREA OCCUPIED BY NUMEROUS HOUSES, CONNECTED
BY PASSWAYS, FENCED OR NOT, AS THE OWNERS MAY CHOOSE.  THESE
COMMUNITIES MAY BE ESSENTIAL TO FURNISH PROPER AND CONVENIENT LIVING
CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYEES ON ISOLATED OPERATIONS IN LUMBERING, MINING,
PRODUCTION OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES AND LARGE-SCALE FARMING.  THE
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE OWNERS UPON THE OCCUPANTS ARE SOMETIMES
GALLING TO THE EMPLOYEES AND MAY APPEAR UNREASONABLE TO OUTSIDERS. 
UNLESS THEY FALL UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF SOME LEGAL RULE, HOWEVER,
THEY ARE A MATTER FOR ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND LICENSEE, OR BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION.  COMPARE WESTERN TURF ASSN. V. GREENBERG, 204
U.S. 359. 

ALABAMA HAS A STATUTE GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL PRIVATELY OWNED
PREMISES.  IT IS TITLE 14, SEC. 426, ALABAMA CODE 1940 WHICH SO FAR AS
PERTINENT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"TRESPASS AFTER WARNING.  - ANY PERSON WHO, WITHOUT LEGAL CAUSE OR
GOOD EXCUSE, ENTERS INTO THE DWELLING HOUSE OR ON THE PREMISES OF
ANOTHER, AFTER HAVING BEEN WARNED, WITHIN SIX MONTHS PRECEDING, NOT TO
DO SO; OR ANY PERSON, WHO, HAVING ENTERED INTO THE DWELLING HOUSE OR ON
THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER WITHOUT HAVING BEEN WARNED WITHIN SIX MONTHS
NOT TO DO SO, AND FAILS OR REFUSES, WITHOUT LEGAL CAUSE OR GOOD EXCUSE,
TO LEAVE IMMEDIATELY ON BEING ORDERED OR REQUESTED TO DO SO BY THE
PERSON IN POSSESSION, HIS AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE, SHALL, ON
CONVICTION, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, AND MAY ALSO BE
IMPRISONED IN THE COUNTY JAIL, OR SENTENCED TO HARD LABOR FOR THE
COUNTY, FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE MONTHS."  APPELLANT WAS DISTRIBUTING
RELIGIOUS PAMPHLETS ON A PRIVATELY OWNED PASSWAY OR SIDEWALK THIRTY
FEET REMOVED FROM A PUBLIC HIGHWAY OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA AND REMAINED
ON THESE PRIVATE PREMISES AFTER AN AUTHORIZED ORDER TO GET OFF.  WE DO
NOT UNDERSTAND FROM THE RECORD THAT THERE WAS OBJECTION TO APPELLANT'S
USE OF THE NEARBY PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND UNDER OUR DECISIONS SHE COULD
RIGHTFULLY HAVE CONTINUED HER ACTIVITIES A FEW FEET FROM THE SPOT SHE
INSISTED UPON USING.  AN OWNER OF PROPERTY MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN
WILLING FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE THE PRIVATE PASSWAY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES
AND YET HAVE BEEN UNWILLING TO FURNISH SPACE FOR STREET TRADES OR A
LOCATION FOR THE PRACTICE OF RELIGIOUS EXHORTATIONS BY ITINERANTS.  THE
PASSWAY HERE IN QUESTION WAS NOT PUT TO ANY DIFFERENT USE THAN OTHER
PRIVATE PASSWAYS THAT LEAD TO PRIVATELY OWNED AREAS, AMUSEMENT PLACES,
RESORT HOTELS OR OTHER BUSINESSES.  THERE HAD BEEN NO DEDICATION OF THE
SIDEWALK TO THE PUBLIC USE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.  ALABAMA SO DECIDED AND
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS COURT ACCEPTS THAT CONCLUSION.  ALABAMA, ALSO,
DECIDED THAT APPELLANT VIOLATED BY HER ACTIVITIES THE ABOVE-QUOTED
STATE STATUTE. 

THE COURT CALLS ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE OWNERS OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES, BRIDGES, FERRIES, TURNPIKES AND RAILROADS ARE SUBJECT TO
STATE REGULATION OF RATES AND ARE FORBIDDEN TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS IS QUITE TRUE BUT WE DOUBT IF THE COURT
MEANS TO IMPLY THAT THE PROPERTY OF THESE UTILITIES MAY BE UTILIZED,
AGAINST THE COMPANIES' WISHES, FOR RELIGIOUS EXERCISES OF THE KIND IN
QUESTION. 

A STATE DOES HAVE THE MORAL DUTY OF FURNISHING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS ENLIGHTENMENT TO ITS INHABITANTS,
INCLUDING THOSE WHO LIVE IN COMPANY TOWNS, BUT IT HAS NOT HERETOFORE
BEEN ADJUDGED THAT IT MUST COMMANDEER, WITHOUT COMPENSATION, THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY OF OTHER CITIZENS TO CARRY OUT THAT OBLIGATION. 
HERETOFORE THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES, UNDER AN
APPROPRIATE STATUTE, PROTECTING FULL FREEDOM OF EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION,
TO SOLICIT UNION MEMBERSHIP IN NONWORKING TIME ON THE PROPERTY OF AN
EMPLOYER AND AGAINST HIS EXPRESS PROHIBITION.  THIS IS BECAUSE THE
PROHIBITION IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE RIGHT OF ORGANIZATION WHICH IS
PROTECTED BY A STATUTE WHICH GOVERNS A RELATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES IF AND WHEN THE LATTER ARE ADMITTED TO THE EMPLOYERS'
PREMISES AS LICENSEES.  IT WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE OPINION THAT THE
FREEDOM OF SOLICITATION WAS THE RESULT OF A REGULATORY STATUTE AND WAS
NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. LABOR BOARD,
324 U.S. 793, 803.  IN THE AREA WHICH IS COVERED BY THE GUARANTEES OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THIS COURT HAS BEEN CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THAT THE
OWNER OF PROPERTY MAY PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THE INTRUSION OF
STRANGERS.  ALTHOUGH IN MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141, AN ORDINANCE
FORBIDDING THE SUMMONSING OF THE OCCUPANTS OF A DWELLING TO RECEIVE
HANDBILLS WAS HELD INVALID BECAUSE IN CONFLICT WITH THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND PRESS, THIS COURT POINTED OUT AT PAGE 147 THAT, AFTER
WARNING, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE PROTECTED FROM ANNOYANCE.  FN4
THE VERY ALABAMA STATUTE WHICH IS NOW HELD POWERLESS TO PROTECT THE
PROPERTY OF THE GULF SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, AFTER NOTICE, FROM THIS
TRESPASS WAS THERE CITED, NOTE 10, TO SHOW THAT IT WOULD PROTECT THE
HOUSEHOLDER, AFTER NOTICE.  THE RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE IDEAS WAS
EXPRESSED BY US IN JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413, 416, AS FOLLOWS:
"BUT ONE WHO IS RIGHTFULLY ON A STREET WHICH THE STATE HAS LEFT OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC CARRIES WITH HIM THERE AS ELSEWHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS IN AN ORDERLY FASHION."    OUR CONSTITUTION
GUARANTEES TO EVERY MAN THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS IN AN ORDERLY
FASHION.  AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF "ORDERLY" IS THAT THE MAN SHALL ALSO
HAVE A RIGHT TO USE THE PLACE HE CHOOSES FOR HIS EXPOSITION.  THE
RIGHTS OF THE OWNER, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS AS WELL AS THE
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, ARE NOT OUTWEIGHED BY THE INTERESTS OF THE
TRESPASSER, EVEN THOUGH HE TRESPASSES IN BEHALF OF RELIGION OR FREE
SPEECH.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CAN CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE
OF A LICENSE, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN GRANTED, TO HOLD THEIR MEETINGS IN
OTHER PRIVATE PLACES, MERELY BECAUSE THE OWNER HAS ADMITTED THE PUBLIC
TO THEM FOR OTHER LIMITED PURPOSES.  EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE REACHED THE
POINT WHERE THIS COURT IS REQUIRED TO FORCE PRIVATE OWNERS TO OPEN
THEIR PROPERTY FOR THE PRACTICE THERE OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES OR
PROPAGANDA DISTASTEFUL TO THE OWNER, BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE APPLICATION OF
SUCH A DOCTRINE HERE.  APPELLANT, AS WE HAVE SAID, WAS FREE TO ENGAGE
IN SUCH PRACTICES ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, WITHOUT BECOMING A TRESPASSER
ON THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY. 

FN1  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496;
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88;
CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296; DISSENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE STONE
IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, 600, ADOPTED AS THE OPINION OF THE
COURT, 319 U.S. 103; JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413; LARGENT V. TEXAS,
318 U.S. 418; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105; MARTIN V.
STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141; FOLLETT V. MCCORMICK, 321 U.S. 573. 

FN2 SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47; GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268
U.S. 652; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568; PRINCE V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158. 

FN3  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES."  FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. 

FN4  "THE DANGERS OF DISTRIBUTION CAN SO EASILY BE CONTROLLED BY
TRADITIONAL LEGAL METHODS, LEAVING TO EACH HOUSEHOLDER THE FULL RIGHT
TO DECIDE WHETHER HE WILL RECEIVE STRANGERS AS VISITORS, THAT STRINGENT
PROHIBITION CAN SERVE NO PURPOSE BUT THAT FORBIDDEN BY THE
CONSTITUTION, THE NAKED RESTRICTION OF THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS. 

"TRADITIONALLY THE AMERICAN LAW PUNISHES PERSONS WHO ENTER ONTO THE
PROPERTY OF ANOTHER AFTER HAVING BEEN WARNED BY THE OWNER TO KEEP OFF. 
GENERAL TRESPASS AFTER WARNING STATUTES EXIST IN AT LEAST TWENTY
STATES, WHILE SIMILAR STATUTES OF NARROWER SCOPE ARE ON THE BOOKS OF AT
LEAST TWELVE STATES MORE.  WE KNOW OF NO STATE WHICH, AS DOES THE
STRUTHERS ORDINANCE IN EFFECT, MAKES A PERSON A CRIMINAL TRESPASSER IF
HE ENTERS THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER FOR AN INNOCENT PURPOSE WITHOUT AN
EXPLICIT COMMAND FROM THE OWNERS TO STAY AWAY.  THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS HAS PROPOSED A FORM OF REGULATION TO ITS
MEMBER CITIES WHICH WOULD MAKE IT AN OFFENSE FOR ANY PERSON TO RING THE
BELL OF A HOUSEHOLDER WHO HAS APPROPRIATELY INDICATED THAT HE IS
UNWILLING TO BE DISTURBED.  THIS OR ANY SIMILAR REGULATION LEAVES THE
DECISION AS TO WHETHER DISTRIBUTERS OF LITERATURE MAY LAWFULLY CALL AT
A HOME WHERE IT BELONGS - WITH THE HOMEOWNER HIMSELF."  MARTIN V.
STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141, 147-48. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :













TUCKER V. TEXAS, 326 U.S. 517 


NO. 87.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1946.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE CAN NOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE
PRESS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, IMPOSE
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT UPON A PERSON ENGAGED IN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES AND
DISTRIBUTING RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IN A VILLAGE OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES UNDER A CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM DESIGNED TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR
WORKERS ENGAGED IN NATIONAL DEFENSE ACTIVITIES, WHERE THE VILLAGE IS
FREELY ACCESSIBLE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND HAS ALL THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPICAL AMERICAN TOWN, EVEN THOUGH THE PUNISHMENT
IS ATTEMPTED UNDER A STATE STATUTE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY "PEDDLER
OR HAWKER OF GOODS OR MERCHANDISE" WILLFULLY TO REFUSE TO LEAVE THE
PREMISES AFTER HAVING BEEN NOTIFIED TO DO SO BY THE OWNER OR POSSESSOR
THEREOF.  P. 519. 

2.  NEITHER THE FEDERAL HOUSING ACT NOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
REGULATIONS INDICATE A PURPOSE TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND OF
THE PRESS WITHIN VILLAGES SUCH AS THE ONE HERE INVOLVED.  P. 520. 

3.  A JUDGMENT OF AN INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT SUSTAINING A STATE
STATUTE CHALLENGED AS REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS
REVIEWABLE HERE UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, WHERE SUCH
INTERMEDIATE COURT IS THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH A
DECISION IN THE CASE COULD BE HAD.  P. 518. 

TUCKER V. TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF A
STATE STATUTE CHALLENGED AS INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT WAS CHARGED IN THE JUSTICE COURT OF MEDINA COUNTY,
TEXAS, WITH VIOLATING ARTICLE 479, CHAP. 3 OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE
WHICH MAKES IT AN OFFENSE FOR ANY "PEDDLER OR HAWKER OF GOODS OR
MERCHANDISE" WILFULLY TO REFUSE TO LEAVE PREMISES AFTER HAVING BEEN
NOTIFIED TO DO SO BY THE OWNER OR POSSESSOR THEREOF.  THE APPELLANT
URGED IN HIS DEFENSE THAT HE WAS NOT A PEDDLER OR HAWKER OF
MERCHANDISE, BUT A MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL ENGAGED IN THE DISTRIBUTION
OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE TO WILLING RECIPIENTS.  HE CONTENDED THAT TO
CONSTRUE THE TEXAS STATUTE AS APPLICABLE TO HIS ACTIVITIES WOULD, TO
THAT EXTENT, BRING IT INTO CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
OF FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION.  HIS CONTENTION WAS REJECTED AND HE
WAS CONVICTED.  ON APPEAL TO THE MEDINA COUNTY COURT, HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION WAS AGAIN OVERRULED.  SINCE HE COULD NOT
APPEAL TO A HIGHER STATE COURT THIS APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. 344(A) IS PROPERLY BEFORE US.  LARGENT V.
TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418. 

THE FACTS SHOWN BY THE RECORD NEED BE BUT BRIEFLY STATED.  APPELLANT
IS AN ORDAINED MINISTER OF THE GROUP KNOWN AS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRACTICES OF THIS GROUP HE CALLS ON PEOPLE FROM
DOOR TO DOOR, PRESENTS HIS RELIGIOUS VIEWS TO THOSE WILLING TO LISTEN,
AND DISTRIBUTES RELIGIOUS LITERATURE TO THOSE WILLING TO RECEIVE IT.
IN THE COURSE OF HIS WORK, HE WENT TO THE HONDO NAVIGATION VILLAGE
LOCATED IN MEDINA COUNTY, TEXAS.  THE VILLAGE IS OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES UNDER A CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR PERSONS ENGAGED IN NATIONAL DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.  42 U.S.C.,
SECS. 1521-1553.  ACCORDING TO ALL INDICATIONS THE VILLAGE WAS FREELY
ACCESSIBLE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND HAD THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A
TYPICAL AMERICAN TOWN.  THE FEDERAL PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY HAD PLACED
THE BUILDINGS IN CHARGE OF A MANAGER WHOSE DUTY IT WAS TO RENT THE
HOUSES, COLLECT THE RENTS, AND GENERALLY TO SUPERVISE OPERATIONS,
SUBJECT TO OVER-ALL CONTROL BY THE AUTHORITY.  HE ORDERED APPELLANT TO
DISCONTINUE ALL RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES IN THE VILLAGE.  APPELLANT
REFUSED.  LATER THE MANAGER ORDERED APPELLANT TO LEAVE THE VILLAGE. 
INSISTING THAT THE MANAGER HAD NO RIGHT TO SUPPRESS RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITIES, APPELLANT DECLINED TO LEAVE, AND HIS ARREST FOLLOWED.  AT
THE TRIAL THE MANAGER TESTIFIED THAT THE CONTROLLING FEDERAL AGENCY HAD
GIVEN HIM FULL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF THOSE LIVING IN THE
VILLAGE, AND THAT HE DID NOT ALLOW PREACHING BY MINISTERS OF ANY
DENOMINATION WITHOUT A PERMIT ISSUED BY HIM IN HIS DISCRETION.  HE
THOUGHT THIS BROAD AUTHORITY WAS ENTRUSTED TO HIM, AT LEAST IN PART, BY
A REGULATION, WHICH THE AUTHORITY'S WASHINGTON OFFICE HAD ALLEGEDLY
PROMULGATED.  HE TESTIFIED THAT THIS REGULATION PROVIDED THAT NO
PEDDLERS OR HAWKERS COULD COME INTO OR REMAIN IN THE VILLAGE WITHOUT
GETTING PERMISSION FROM THE MANAGER.  FN1  SINCE THE TEXAS COURT HAS
DEEMED THIS EVIDENCE OF AUTHORITY OF THE MANAGER TO SUPPRESS
APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION UNDER THE
STATE STATUTE, WE ACCEPT THEIR HOLDING IN THIS RESPECT FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THIS APPEAL. 

THE FOREGOING STATEMENT OF FACTS SHOWS THEIR CLOSE SIMILARITY TO THE
FACTS WHICH LED US THIS DAY TO DECIDE IN MARSH V. ALABAMA, ANTE, P.
501, THAT MANAGERS OF A COMPANY-OWNED TOWN COULD NOT BAR ALL
DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE WITHIN THE TOWN, OR CONDITION
DISTRIBUTION UPON A PERMIT ISSUED AT THE DISCRETION OF ITS MANAGEMENT. 
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS CASE AND MARSH V. ALABAMA IS THAT HERE
INSTEAD OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OWNS AND
OPERATES THE VILLAGE.  THIS DIFFERENCE DOES NOT AFFECT THE RESULT. 
CERTAINLY NEITHER CONGRESS NOR FEDERAL AGENCIES ACTING PURSUANT TO
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION MAY ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF PRESS AND
RELIGION SAFEGUARDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  TRUE, UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES IT MIGHT BE PROPER FOR SECURITY REASONS TO ISOLATE THE
INHABITANTS OF A SETTLEMENT, SUCH AS HONDO VILLAGE, WHICH HOUSES
WORKERS ENGAGED IN PRODUCING WAR MATERIALS.  BUT NO SUCH NECESSITY AND
NO SUCH INTENTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS OR THE PUBLIC HOUSING
AUTHORITY ARE SHOWN HERE. 

IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT WE HAVE SAID THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TEXAS
STATUTE WAS HELD TO AUTHORIZE APPELLANT'S PUNISHMENT FOR REFUSING TO
REFRAIN FROM RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES IN HONDO VILLAGE IT IS AN INVALID
ABRIDGEMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION. 

WE THINK IT ONLY PROPER TO ADD THAT NEITHER THE HOUSING ACT PASSED BY
CONGRESS NOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY REGULATIONS CONTAIN LANGUAGE
INDICATING A PURPOSE TO BAR FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION WITHIN
VILLAGES SUCH AS THE ONE HERE INVOLVED.  THE CASE IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THE AVAILABLE REGULATIONS OF THE AUTHORITY, OF WHICH WE CAN TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE, BOWLES V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 33, 35, DO NOT SHOW
A REGULATION OF THIS KIND. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS THAT IS CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFIANCE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHEN
SUCH LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS CONFRONTS US WITH THE PROBLEM.  THE
PRESENT CASE DOES NOT PRESENT SUCH A SITUATION.  SUBJECT TO THIS
RESERVATION, I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT FOR THE REASONS
BRIEFLY STATED IN MARSH V. ALABAMA, ANTE, P. 510.  IN THE CASE OF
COMMUNITIES ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SPONSORSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES BY
VIRTUE OF ITS SPENDING POWER, IT WOULD, I SHOULD THINK, BE EVEN LESS
DESIRABLE THAN IN THE CASE OF COMPANY TOWNS TO MAKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
FREEDOMS OF RELIGION AND SPEECH TURN ON GOSSAMER DISTINCTIONS ABOUT THE
EXTENT TO WHICH LAND HAS BEEN "DEDICATED" TO PUBLIC USES. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON,
DISSENTING. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONSTRUE
THE RECORD IN THIS CASE AS SHOWING A CONVICTION FOR REFUSING, AT THE
REQUEST OF ITS AUTHORIZED AGENT, TO LEAVE PREMISES WHICH ARE OWNED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE DEDICATED TO
GENERAL USE BY THE PUBLIC.  WE, THEREFORE, WOULD AFFIRM THE CONVICTION
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE DISSENT IN MARSH V. ALABAMA, ANTE, P.
511. 
..END :














JOHN KELLEY CO. V. COMM'R, 326 U.S. 521 


ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1946.  - 146 F.2D 466,
REVERSED - 146 F.2D 809, AFFIRMED. 


1.  TWO TAX CASES TURNED UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER PAYMENTS MADE UNDER
CERTAIN CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS WERE INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS.  ALTHOUGH THE
FACTS WERE QUITE SIMILAR, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OBLIGATIONS IN
QUESTION AND THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES WERE OF SUCH A NATURE THAT
IT WAS REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PAYMENTS
WERE INTEREST TO CREDITORS IN ONE CASE AND DIVIDENDS TO STOCKHOLDERS IN
THE OTHER CASE; AND THE TAX COURT SO DECIDED.  HELD THE CONCLUSIONS OF
THE TAX COURT IN SUCH CASES SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.  PP. 526-529. 

2.  SECTION 1141(C)(1) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHICH AUTHORIZES
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, UPON REVIEWING A DECISION OF THE TAX
COURT, TO AFFIRM IT OR, IF THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT "IS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW," TO MODIFY OR REVERSE IT, LEAVES TO THE FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE TAX COURT ALL ISSUES WHICH ARE NOT CLEAR-CUT
QUESTIONS OF LAW.  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, FOLLOWED.  P.
526. 

3.  THE WORDS "INTEREST" AND "DIVIDENDS," AS USED IN THE TAX
STATUTES, ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD AND NEED NO FURTHER DEFINITION.  P. 530. 

JOHN KELLEY CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

NO. 36.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 47, TALBOT MILLS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

NO. 36.  CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 843, TO REVIEW REVERSAL OF A DECISION
OF THE TAX COURT, 1 T.C. 457, HOLDING CERTAIN PAYMENTS BY THE
PETITIONER TO BE INTEREST ON INDEBTEDNESS AND DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC.
23(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

NO. 47.  CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 844, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION
OF THE TAX COURT, 3 T.C. 95, HOLDING CERTAIN PAYMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
TO BE DIVIDENDS ON STOCK AND NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS INTEREST UNDER SEC.
23(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE REED, ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER. 

THESE WRITS OF CERTIORARI WERE GRANTED TO EXAMINE THE DEDUCTIBILITY
AS INTEREST OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS WHICH THE TAXPAYER CORPORATIONS MADE TO
HOLDERS OF THEIR CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS.  ALTHOUGH THE OBLIGATIONS OF
THE TWO TAXPAYERS HAD ONLY ONE STRIKING DIFFERENCE, THE NONCUMULATIVE
IN ONE AND THE CUMULATIVE QUALITY IN THE OTHER OF THE PAYMENTS RESERVED
UNDER THE CHARACTERIZATION OF INTEREST, THE TAX COURT (FORMERLY THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 56 STAT. 957; ONLY ITS PRESENT NAME WILL BE USED
HEREIN) HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS UNDER THE FORMER, THE KELLEY COMPANY
CASE, WERE INTEREST AND UNDER THE TALBOT MILLS WERE DIVIDENDS.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE TAX COURT IN THE KELLEY CASE AND
ANOTHER CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE TALBOT MILLS DECISION.  FN1  ON ACCOUNT OF
THE DIVERSITY OF APPROACH IN THE TAX COURT AND THE REVIEWING COURTS, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

IN THE KELLEY CASE, A CORPORATION, ALL OF WHOSE COMMON AND PREFERRED
STOCK WAS OWNED DIRECTLY OR AS TRUSTEE BY MEMBERS OF A FAMILY GROUP,
WAS REORGANIZED BY AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF $250,000 INCOME DEBENTURE
BEARER BONDS, ISSUED UNDER A TRUST INDENTURE, CALLING FOR 8% INTEREST,
NONCUMULATIVE.  THEY WERE OFFERED ONLY TO SHAREHOLDERS OF THE TAXPAYER
BUT WERE ASSIGNABLE.  THE DEBENTURES WERE PAYABLE IN TWENTY YEARS,
DECEMBER 31, 1956, WITH PAYMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST CONDITIONED UPON
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE NET INCOME TO MEET THE OBLIGATION.  THE
DEBENTURE HOLDERS HAD PRIORITY OF PAYMENT OVER STOCKHOLDERS BUT WERE
SUBORDINATED TO ALL OTHER CREDITORS.  THE DEBENTURES WERE REDEEMABLE AT
THE TAXPAYER'S OPTION AND CARRIED THE USUAL ACCELERATION PROVISIONS FOR
SPECIFIC DEFAULTS.  THE DEBENTURE HOLDERS HAD NO RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE
IN MANAGEMENT.  OTHER CHANGES NOT MATERIAL HERE WERE MADE IN THE
CORPORATE STRUCTURE.  DEBENTURES WERE ISSUED TO THE AMOUNT OF $150,000
FACE VALUE.  THE GREATER PART, $114,648, WAS ISSUED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
ORIGINAL PREFERRED, WITH SIX PER CENT CUMULATIVE GUARANTEED DIVIDENDS,
AT ITS RETIREMENT PRICE AND THE BALANCE SOLD TO STOCKHOLDERS AT PAR,
WHICH WAS EVENTUALLY PAID WITH SUMS OBTAINED BY THE PURCHASERS FROM
COMMON STOCK DIVIDENDS.  COMMON STOCK WAS OWNED IN THE SAME PROPORTIONS
BY THE SAME STOCKHOLDERS BEFORE AND AFTER THE REORGANIZATION. 

IN THE TALBOT MILLS CASE THE TAXPAYER WAS A CORPORATION WHICH, PRIOR
TO ITS RECAPITALIZATION, HAD A CAPITAL STOCK OF FIVE THOUSAND SHARES OF
THE PAR VALUE OF $100 OR $500,000.  ALL OF THE STOCK WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF SOME QUALIFYING SHARES WAS HELD BY MEMBERS, THROUGH BLOOD OR
MARRIAGE, OF THE TALBOT FAMILY.  IN AN EFFORT TO ADJUST THE CAPITAL
STRUCTURE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE TAXPAYER, THE COMPANY WAS
RECAPITALIZED JUST PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR IN
QUESTION, BY EACH STOCKHOLDER SURRENDERING FOUR-FIFTHS OF HIS STOCK AND
TAKING IN LIEU THEREOF REGISTERED NOTES IN AGGREGATE FACE VALUE EQUAL
TO THE AGGREGATE PAR VALUE OF THE STOCK RETIRED.  THIS AMOUNTED TO AN
ISSUE OF $400,000 IN NOTES TO THE THEN STOCKHOLDERS.  THESE NOTES WERE
DATED OCTOBER 2, 1939, AND WERE PAYABLE TO A SPECIFIC PAYEE OR HIS
ASSIGNEES ON DECEMBER 1, 1964.  THEY BORE ANNUAL INTEREST AT A RATE NOT
TO EXCEED 10% NOR LESS THAN 2%, SUBJECT TO A COMPUTATION THAT TOOK INTO
CONSIDERATION THE NET EARNINGS OF THE CORPORATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED LAST PREVIOUS TO THE ANNUAL INTEREST PAYING DATE.  THERE WAS,
THEREFORE, A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF 2% AND A MAXIMUM OF 10% DUE ANNUALLY AND
BETWEEN THESE LIMITS THE INTEREST PAYABLE VARIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
COMPANY EARNINGS.  THE NOTES WERE TRANSFERABLE ONLY BY THE OWNER'S
ENDORSEMENT AND THE NOTATION OF THE TRANSFER BY THE COMPANY.  THE
INTEREST WAS CUMULATIVE AND PAYMENT MIGHT BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE NOTE'S
MATURITY WHEN "NECESSARY BY REASON OF THE CONDITION OF THE
CORPORATION."  DIVIDENDS COULD NOT BE PAID UNTIL ALL THEN DUE INTEREST
ON THE NOTES WAS SATISFIED.  THE NOTES LIMITED THE CORPORATION'S RIGHT
TO MORTGAGE ITS REAL ASSETS.  THE NOTES COULD BE SUBORDINATED BY ACTION
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO ANY OBLIGATION MATURING NOT LATER THAN THE
MATURITY OF THE NOTES.  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR IN QUESTION THE MAXIMUM
PAYMENT OF 10% WAS MADE ON THE NOTES. 

THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION ON CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS WERE FOR THE YEARS
IN THE KELLEY CASE, 1937, 1938 AND 1939; IN THE TALBOT MILLS CASE FOR
THE YEAR 1940.  BOTH CORPORATIONS DEDUCTED THE PAYMENTS AS INTEREST
FROM THEIR REPORTS OF GROSS INCOME UNDER STATUTORY SECTIONS AND
REGULATIONS SET OUT IN THE FOOTNOTE.  FN2  THE APPLICABLE STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS WERE IDENTICAL FOR ALL PERIODS.  THE COMMISSIONER ASSERTED
DEFICIENCIES BECAUSE THE PAYMENTS WERE CONSIDERED DIVIDENDS AND NOT
INTEREST. 

THERE IS NOT PRESENT IN EITHER SITUATION THE WHOLLY USELESS TEMPORARY
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY LITERALNESS WHICH THIS COURT CONDEMNED AS
FUTILE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465.  THE
DEMONSTRATED POSSIBILITY OF SALES BY THE HOLDERS OF THE OBLIGATIONS TO
PERSONS OTHER THAN STOCKHOLDERS ALONE PROVES THE DIFFERENTIATION.  AS
MATERIAL AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL WERE INVESTED IN STOCK, WE NEED NOT
CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF EXTREME SITUATIONS SUCH AS NOMINAL STOCK
INVESTMENTS AND AN OBVIOUSLY EXCESSIVE DEBT STRUCTURE. 

FROM THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS OF FACTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL THE OBLIGATIONS IN QUESTION AND THE SURROUNDING
CIRCUMSTANCES WERE OF SUCH A NATURE THAT IT IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE FOR
DETERMINERS TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SECURED ANNUAL PAYMENTS
WERE INTEREST TO CREDITORS IN ONE CASE AND DIVIDENDS TO STOCKHOLDERS IN
THE OTHER CASE.  IN THE KELLEY CASE THERE WERE SALES OF THE DEBENTURES
AS WELL AS EXCHANGES OF PREFERRED STOCK FOR DEBENTURES, A PROMISE TO
PAY A CERTAIN ANNUAL AMOUNT, IF EARNED, A PRIORITY FOR THE DEBENTURES
OVER COMMON STOCK, THE DEBENTURES WERE ASSIGNABLE WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY
TRANSFER OF STOCK, AND A DEFINITE MATURITY DATE IN THE REASONABLE
FUTURE.  THESE INDICIA OF INDEBTEDNESS SUPPORT THE TAX COURT CONCLUSION
THAT THE ANNUAL PAYMENTS WERE INTEREST ON INDEBTEDNESS.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, IN THE TALBOT MILLS CASE, THE TAX COURT FOUND THE FACTORS THERE
PRESENT OF FLUCTUATING ANNUAL PAYMENTS WITH A TWO PER CENT MINIMUM, THE
LIMITATION OF THE ISSUE OF NOTES TO STOCKHOLDERS IN EXCHANGE ONLY FOR
STOCK, TO BE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH DISTINGUISH THE TALBOT MILLS NOTES
FROM THE KELLEY COMPANY DEBENTURES.  UPON AN APPRAISAL OF ALL THE
FACTS, THE TAX COURT REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ANNUAL PAYMENTS BY
TALBOT MILLS WERE IN REALITY DIVIDENDS AND NOT INTEREST. 

WE THINK THESE CONCLUSIONS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS AND BY OURSELVES.  JUDICIAL REVIEW OF TAX COURT DECISIONS
DEPENDS UPON THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SEC. 1141(C) POWERS (1).  IT
READS: 

"TO AFFIRM, MODIFY, OR REVERSE.  - UPON SUCH REVIEW, SUCH COURTS
SHALL HAVE POWER TO AFFIRM OR, IF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, TO MODIFY OR TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD,
WITH OR WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE FOR A REHEARING, AS JUSTICE MAY
REQUIRE." 

IT IS ONLY RECENTLY THAT WE GAVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE
PROBLEMS OF REVIEW OF TAX COURT DECISIONS.  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320
U.S. 489.  THAT OPINION EMPHASIZED THAT OUR INTERPRETATION OF
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, IN ENACTING THE STATUTE, JUST QUOTED, FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF TAX COURT DECISIONS, WAS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
LEAVE TO THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE TAX COURT ALL ISSUES WHICH WERE
NOT CLEAR-CUT QUESTIONS OF LAW. 

THE PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW ARE THE SAME NOW AS THEY WERE WHEN ENACTED
IN 1926.  CONGRESS, AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED, WERE THEN WELL AWARE OF
THE DIFFICULTIES IN DRAWING A LINE BETWEEN QUESTIONS OF FACT AND
QUESTIONS OF LAW.  FN3  THE LEGISLATION WAS UPON A SUBJECT, THE
COLLECTION OF THE REVENUE, IN WHICH FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY HAD
BEEN GIVEN WIDE SCOPE.  FN4  THE TAX COURT WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED
TO "SECURE AN IMPARTIAL AND DISINTERESTED DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES
INVOLVED,"  FN5  SO THAT THE TAXPAYER AND THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE POSITION OF EITHER ON TAX DEMANDS BEFORE
PAYMENT OF THE TAX OR FORECLOSURE OF AN ASSERTED DEFICIENCY.  TWO YEARS
LATER ITS SUCCESS WAS RECOGNIZED BY COMMITTEE COMMENDATION AND THE
ENLARGEMENT OF THE FINALITY OF ITS DECISIONS FROM "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
OF THE FACTS CONTAINED THEREIN" TO REVIEWABILITY ONLY "IF THE DECISION
OF THE BOARD IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  FN6 AS TO THE MISCHIEF
WHICH THE LIMITATION OF THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS TO CURE, WE
FIND ONLY THE WORDS OF THE COMMITTEE REPORTS.  FN7  WITHOUT A CLEARER
DESCRIPTION BY CONGRESS OF THE INTENDED LINE TO SEPARATE REVIEWABILITY
OF THE TAX COURT DECISIONS FROM NON-REVIEWABILITY, COURTS MUST
INTERPRET THE REVIEW STATUTE, AS BEST THEY CAN, TO ACCOMPLISH THE
DECLARED CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE OF ADEQUATE CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION WITHOUT SUBSTITUTING JUDICIAL OPINION FOR THAT OF THE TAX COURT
UPON THE EVIDENCE.  NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

THE ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE REPORT, NOTE 7, SUPRA, ARE LEGAL QUESTIONS
WITHOUT DOUBT, EXCEPT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE WORDS "APPLICATION OF
THE STATUTE OR ANY REGULATION HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW" MAY BE THOUGHT
TO GIVE A REVIEWING COURT POWER TO PASS UPON THE TAX COURT'S CONCLUSION
FROM THE PRIMARY OR EVIDENTIAL FACTS.  SO THAT, IN THE PRESENT CASES,
IT MIGHT BE SAID TO BE A QUESTION OF LAW AS TO WHETHER THE PRIMARY
FACTS ADDUCED MADE THE PAYMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION DIVIDENDS OR
INTEREST.  BUT WE THINK SUCH CONCLUSION GIVES INADEQUATE WEIGHT TO THE
PURPOSE OF THE TAX COURT.  THE FINALITY OF THE TAX COURT'S RULINGS WAS
BEING ENLARGED BY THE 1926 ACT.  THE THEN BOARD WAS SPOKEN OF AS AN
IMPARTIAL AND INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL OF EXPERTS "FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
TAX LIABILITIES AS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE TAXPAYER."  H. REP.
NO. 1, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 17.  THERE WOULD HARDLY NEED TO BE
EXPERTS IN TAX AFFAIRS TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF DATES OR AMOUNTS OR
VALUES OR TO CALCULATE RATES.  THEIR USEFULNESS LIES PRIMARILY IN THEIR
ABILITY TO EXAMINE RELEVANT FACTS OF BUSINESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT THEY COME UNDER STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  ADEQUATE REASON FOR THE USE OF
THE WORD "APPLICATION" OF COURSE EXISTS IN SITUATIONS WHERE TRUE LEGAL
QUESTIONS ARISE, AS IN WHETHER AN ACT APPLIES TO TRANSFERS ANTECEDENT
TO ITS ENACTMENT OR TO INCOME OR ESTATE TAXES FROM TRUSTS OR TO
SITUATIONS WHICH INVOLVE CONFLICTS OF LAW.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
CONTEXT IN WHICH THE WORD "APPLICATION" IS USED WHICH SUGGESTS TO US
THAT IT SHOULD BE GIVEN ITS WIDEST CONNOTATION. 

THESE CASES NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION DEAL WITH WELL UNDERSTOOD WORDS
AS USED IN THE TAX STATUTES - "INTEREST" AND "DIVIDENDS."  THEY NEED NO
FURTHER DEFINITION.  EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. COMMISSIONER,
321 U.S. 560; DEPUTY V. DUPONT, 308 U.S. 488, 498.  THE TAX COURT IS
FITTED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ANNUAL PAYMENTS UNDER THESE CORPORATE
OBLIGATIONS ARE TO BE CLASSIFIED AS INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS.  THE TAX
COURT DECISIONS MERELY DECLARE THAT THE UNDISPUTED FACTS DO OR DO NOT
BRING THE PAYMENTS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS.  FN8
THE DOCUMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION EMBODY ELEMENTS OF OBLIGATIONS AND
ELEMENTS OF STOCK.  THERE IS NO ONE CHARACTERISTIC, NOT EVEN EXCLUSION
FROM MANAGEMENT, WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE DECISIVE IN THE DETERMINATION
OF WHETHER THE OBLIGATIONS ARE RISK INVESTMENTS IN THE CORPORATIONS OR
DEBTS.  SO-CALLED STOCK CERTIFICATES MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY CORPORATIONS
WHICH ARE REALLY DEBTS, AND PROMISES TO PAY MAY BE EXECUTED WHICH HAVE
INCIDENTS OF STOCK.  SUCH SITUATIONS SEEM TO US TO FALL WITHIN THE
DOBSON RULE.  FN9 

THIS LEADS US TO AFFIRM THE TALBOT MILLS DECREE AND TO REVERSE THE
KELLEY JUDGMENT.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  1 T.C. 457; 146 F.2D 466; CERT. GRANTED, 325 U.S. 843; JUDICIAL
CODE SEC. 240(A).  3 T.C. 95; 146 F.2D 809; CERT. GRANTED, 325 U.S.
844; JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 240(A). 

FN2  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE: 

"SEC. 23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.  IN COMPUTING NET INCOME
THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  INTEREST.  - ALL INTEREST PAID OR ACCRUED WITHIN THE TAXABLE
YEAR ON INDEBTEDNESS  ..." 

"SEC. 115.  DISTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS.  (A)  DEFINITION OF
DIVIDEND.  - THE TERM 'DIVIDEND' WHEN USED IN THIS CHAPTER (EXCEPT IN
COMPANIES) MEANS ANY DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A CORPORATION TO ITS
SHAREHOLDERS, WHETHER IN MONEY OR IN OTHER PROPERTY, (1) OUT OF ITS
EARNINGS OR PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913, OR (2) OUT OF
THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR  ..."    TREASURY
REGULATIONS 103: 

"SEC. 19.23(B)-1.  INTEREST.  - INTEREST PAID OR ACCRUED WITHIN THE
YEAR ON INDEBTEDNESS MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME  ... 

     .         .   .         .         .    "SO-CALLED INTEREST ON
PREFERRED STOCK, WHICH IS IN REALITY A DIVIDEND THEREON, CANNOT BE
DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING NET INCOME  ...." 

SEE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938, 49 STAT. 1648, 1659, 52 STAT. 447,
460, AND TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, ART. 23(B)-1, AND 101, ART. 23(B)-1. 

FN3  COMPARE THAYER, A PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON EVIDENCE AT THE COMMON
LAW, CH. V, WITH HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW, PP. 123-129.  1 HOLDSWORTH,
HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 298, 312; DICKINSON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE, C.
III, P. 55: 

"IN TRUTH, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN 'QUESTIONS OF LAW' AND 'QUESTIONS
OF FACT' REALLY GIVES LITTLE HELP IN DETERMINING HOW FAR THE COURTS
WILL REVIEW; AND FOR THE GOOD REASON THAT THERE IS NO FIXED
DISTINCTION.  THEY ARE NOT TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE KINDS OF QUESTIONS,
BASED UPON A DIFFERENCE OF SUBJECT-MATTER.  MATTERS OF LAW GROW
DOWNWARD INTO ROOTS OF FACT, AND MATTERS OF FACT REACH UPWARD, WITHOUT
A BREAK, INTO MATTERS OF LAW.  THE KNIFE OF POLICY ALONE EFFECTS AN
ARTIFICIAL CLEAVAGE AT THE POINT WHERE THE COURT CHOOSES TO DRAW THE
LINE BETWEEN PUBLIC INTEREST AND PRIVATE RIGHT." 

FN4  R.S. SEC. 3224; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 3653; HEINER V. DIAMOND ALKALI
CO., 288 U.S. 502; CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236. 

FN5  S. REP. NO. 398, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 9. 

FN6  H. REP. NO. 179, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 8; 44 STAT. 110, SEC.
1003(B); H. REP. NO. 1, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 17; S. REP. NO. 52,
69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 34. 

WHILE ESTABLISHING A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF REVIEW, IT HAS ALL ALONG BEEN
RECOGNIZED THAT THE TAXPAYER COULD SECURE A JURY TRIAL OF FACT ISSUES,
IF HE CHOSE TO PAY AND SUE FOR RECOVERY.  S. REP. NO. 52, 69TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 37.  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, 495. 

FN7  H. REP. NO. 1, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 19-20: 

"COURT REVIEW - QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW.  - THE PROCEDURE IS MADE
TO CONFORM AS NEARLY AS MAY BE TO THE PROCEDURE IN THE CASE OF AN
ORIGINAL ACTION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  INASMUCH AS THE
COMPLICATED AND TECHNICAL FACTS GOVERNING TAX LIABILITY REQUIRE A
DETERMINATION BY A BODY OF EXPERTS, THE REVIEW IS TAKEN DIRECTLY TO AN
APPELLATE COURT, JUST AS, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE CASE OF ORDERS OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, AND ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT.  IN VIEW OF THE GRANT OF
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO THE BOARD FINALLY TO DETERMINE THE FACTS UPON WHICH
TAX LIABILITY IS BASED, SUBDIVISION (B) OF SECTION 914 LIMITS THE
REVIEW ON APPEAL TO WHAT ARE COMMONLY KNOWN AS QUESTIONS OF LAW.  THE
COURT UPON REVIEW MAY CONSIDER, FOR EXAMPLE, QUESTIONS AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW APPLIED, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF THE PROCEDURE USED, FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY
LAW, THE PROPER INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE OR ANY
REGULATION HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW, THE EXISTENCE OF AT LEAST SOME
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND THE VALIDITY OF ANY
RULING UPON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE (SEE SUBDIVISION (A) OF
ACT AS PASSED.)  THE COURT, THEREFORE, MAY ADEQUATELY CONTROL THE
ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OR AGENCY, BUT WILL NOT BE
BURDENED WITH THE DUTY OF SUBSTITUTING ITS OPINION FOR THAT OF THE
BOARD UPON THE EVIDENCE." 

THE REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND TO THE PACKERS AND
STOCKYARDS ACT WAS TO SHOW THE CHOICE OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO SUGGEST THE ADOPTION FOR THE
TAX COURT REVIEW OF ANY STANDARD OF SCOPE OF REVIEW. 

FN8 DICKINSON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE, 312; PAUL, DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER:  THE STRANGE WAYS OF LAW AND FACT, 57 HARV. L.R. 753,
826, 832, 840; BROWN, FACT AND LAW IN JUDICIAL REVIEW, 56 HARV. L.R.
899, 904. 

FN9  COMPARE HELVERING V. F. & R. LAZARUS CO., 308 U.S. 252, 255;
WILMINGTON TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 316 U.S. 164, 167; HELVERING V.
STOCK YARDS CO., 318 U.S. 693, 700, 702; EQUITABLE SOCIETY V.
COMMISSIONER, 321 U.S. 560, 563; COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN CO.,
323 U.S. 119. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT IN NO. 47.  HE IS OF THE
OPINION THAT NO. 36 SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 146 F.2D 466. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE RESULT IN THE KELLEY CASE BUT
DISSENTS FROM THE RESULT IN THE TALBOT MILLS CASE ON THE GROUNDS STATED
IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MAGRUDER, J., IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENTS IN BOTH CASES SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  ON THE
RECORDS PRESENTED, I CAN SEE NO SATISFACTORY BASIS FOR DECIDING ONE
CASE ONE WAY AND THE OTHER DIFFERENTLY.  AND I AGREE WITH THE COURTS OF
APPEALS THAT, ON THE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL FACTS, THE PAYMENTS WERE
DIVIDENDS AND NOT INTEREST. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE
TAX COURT TO MAKE OR THE REVIEWING COURTS TO SUSTAIN DIRECTLY
CONFLICTING DETERMINATIONS OF TAX LIABILITY IN IDENTICAL FACT
SITUATIONS.  NOR, IN MY OPINION, WAS THIS THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF THE
DOBSON DECISIONS, 320 U.S. 489.  SO TO REGARD THEM OR THE STATUTE
NULLIFIES THE RIGHT TO REVIEW EXPRESSLY GIVEN BY CONGRESS.  MOREOVER
THAT VIEW DESTROYS THE VERY UNIFORMITY WHICH DOBSON SOUGHT,
TRANSFERRING THE CONFLICT OF DECISION FROM THE COURTS OF APPEALS BACK
TO THE TAX COURT, BY MAKING THE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF ITS SIXTEEN
DIVISIONS FINAL.  FN1  THIS AFFORDS RELIEF TO THE TAXPAYER FROM
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND TO THE COURTS FROM JUDICIALLY REVIEWING.  BUT IT
DEFIES CONGRESS' MANDATE FOR REVIEW AND, WHAT IS MORE, PERPETUATES
CHAOS IN THE LAW. 

ALL THIS PRESUPPOSES, OF COURSE, THAT THE RECORDS NOW HERE PRESENT
FACT SITUATIONS IDENTICAL IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS.  THAT IS TRUE IN MY
JUDGMENT.  IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO ATTEMPT DEMONSTRATION.  BUT,
BESIDES REFERRING TO THE OPINIONS OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE
SMALL DETAILS OF THE FACTS AND THEIR MINUTE DIFFERENCES,  FN2  IT MAY
BE NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CREDIBILITY.  SUBSTANTIALLY ALL
OF THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS WERE STIPULATED IN BOTH CASES.  NOR IS THERE
ANY FINDING IN EITHER CASE THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS WERE A SHAM.  CF.
GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465.  APART FROM SUCH CONSIDERATIONS,
THE MATERIAL FACTS IN MY OPINION WERE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT IN
ANY RESPECT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ONE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION, WHETHER
LABELLED OF "LAW," OF "FACT," OR "MIXED," FOR ONE CASE AND THE OPPOSITE
CONCLUSION FOR THE OTHER. 

THAT IS TRUE WHETHER THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF "INTEREST" OR "DIVIDEND"
IS TO BE DRAWN FROM A MINUTE COMPARISON OF, AND EFFORT TO
DIFFERENTIATE, THE MULTITUDINOUS MICROSCOPIC DETAILS BY WHICH IN BOTH
CASES IT WAS SOUGHT TO CONVERT STOCK INTO "DEBENTURES" OR "REGISTERED
NOTES," WITHOUT LOSING ANY OF THE STOCK'S SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGES; OR,
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FINAL PLUNGE OF JUDGMENT IS TO BE MADE FROM
WHOLESALE WEIGHING OF THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS.  NEITHER APPROACH
DISCLOSES FACTORS OF SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WAS DONE SUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN CONTRARY JUDGMENTS. 

THERE WERE SOME HIGHLY TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO TYPES OF
"SECURITY" WHICH WERE DEVISED TO REPLACE THE PRE-EXISTING PREFERRED
STOCK ISSUES.  BUT IN BOTH INSTANCES THE ORIGINAL STOCK AND THE
REPLACING SECURITY WERE CLOSELY HELD.  THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
IN THE DISTRIBUTION AFTER THE "REORGANIZATION."  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE STOCK AND THE SUBSTITUTED SECURITY WAS SO SMALL, IN ITS EFFECT UPON
THE HOLDERS' SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, THAT FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES IT WAS
NEGLIGIBLE.  FOR EXAMPLE, A REMOTE RIGHT TO SUE TO ENFORCE THE
OBLIGATION, DEFERRED IN ONE CASE FOR 25 YEARS, TOOK THE PLACE OF THE
HOLDER'S RIGHT TO SHARE IN THE CORPORATION'S ASSETS ON DISSOLUTION OR
WINDING UP.  MEANWHILE "INTEREST" WAS HOOKED IN LARGE PART TO NET
ANNUAL EARNINGS AND WAS MADE ENTIRELY SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTORS' POWER
TO SUSPEND PAYMENT UNTIL THE ULTIMATE MATURITY DATE.  THE SHORTENED
STORY IS THAT THE PREFERRED SHAREHOLDERS WHO WENT INTO THE WASH CAME
OUT SUBSTANTIALLY, FOR ALL PURPOSES MATERIAL TO ANY TAX DETERMINATION
AND IT MAY BE FOR PRACTICALLY ALL OTHERS, JUST ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE
WHEN THEY WENT IN. 

THE COURT INDEED DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO FIND A SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENTIATING FACTOR OTHER THAN IN THE TAX COURT'S "APPRAISAL OF ALL
THE FACTS," IN OTHER WORDS ITS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION.  THAT IS TRUE AS
BETWEEN THE TWO CASES AND ALSO AS AFFECTS THE POSITIONS OF THE
RESPECTIVE SHAREHOLDERS BEFORE AND AFTER THE WASH.  RATHER THE OPINION
CONCEDES THAT IN EACH CASE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH THAT DETERMINERS
REASONABLY COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE SO-CALLED ANNUAL PAYMENTS WERE
EITHER INTEREST OR DIVIDENDS.  HENCE, IT SEEMS TO FOLLOW, THE
CONCLUSION MAY BE DRAWN IN SQUARELY CONFLICTING WAYS, IF THE TAX COURT
SEES FIT SO TO DRAW IT; AND IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT NO FACTOR OF
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IS OR CAN BE POINTED OUT. 

ONE MIGHT ENTERTAIN THE VIEW THAT IN A CLOSE SITUATION THE TAX
COURT'S JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED WHATEVER WAY THE DIE WERE CAST,
ALTHOUGH REVIEWING COURTS MIGHT DIFFER ON THE DIRECTION.  BUT IT WOULD
NOT FOLLOW, AND IN MY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT, THAT THEY ARE POWERLESS WHEN
THE THROW IS IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS AT THE SAME TIME.  WHEN THIS
OCCURS, IN MY OPINION A "CLEAR-CUT" QUESTION OF LAW IS PRESENTED,
RISING ABOVE THE RUBRIC OF "EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION."  THE
MORE APT CHARACTERIZATION WOULD BE "EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE FOG." 

I THINK THE COURTS OF APPEALS AND WE ARE BOUND TO REVIEW SUCH CASES;
THEY BY PLAIN MANDATE OF SEC. 1141(C)(1) OF THE CODE, WE BY THAT
PROVISION OF OUR RULES MAKING CONFLICT BETWEEN CIRCUITS "SPECIAL AND
IMPORTANT REASON" FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI.  RULE 38-5(B).  CONFLICT IS
NOT REMOVED SIMPLY BECAUSE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS
JUDICIALLY FORMALIZE THE CONTRARY ULTIMATE, BUT NEVERTHELESS
ADMINISTRATIVE, CONCLUSIONS OF THE TAX COURT.  WHEN NO FACTS CAN BE
POINTED TO WHICH ARE SUFFICIENT TO DISTINGUISH TAX COURT DECISIONS IN
LEGAL EFFECT, EXCEPT THAT THE TAX COURT HAS DECIDED DIFFERENTLY IN TWO
CASES, THE COURTS OF APPEALS AND WE ARE BOUND BY LAW AND BY OUR DUTY TO
EXERCISE A SOUND DISCRETION IN REVIEW TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT. 

ANOTHER REASON CONVINCES ME THAT BOTH JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
WHAT HAS BEEN SAID APPLIES TO CONFLICTING DETERMINATIONS OF THE TAX
COURT, WHATEVER THE PARTICULAR LINE WHICH IS TO BE DRAWN AND REGARDLESS
OF ITS GENERAL LOCATION.  BUT IN THESE CASES I THINK THAT AS A MATTER
OF LAW THE LINE SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED WHERE THE TAX COURT HAS PLACED
IT. 

TAX LIABILITY SHOULD DEPEND UPON THE SUBTLE REFINEMENTS OF CORPORATE
FINANCE NO MORE THAN IT DOES UPON THE NICETIES OF CONVEYANCING.  FN3
SHEER TECHNICALITIES SHOULD HAVE NO MORE WEIGHT TO CONTROL FEDERAL TAX
CONSEQUENCES IN ONE INSTANCE THAN IN THE OTHER.  THE TAXING STATUTE
DRAWS THE LINE BROADLY BETWEEN "INTEREST" AND "DIVIDEND."  THIS
REQUIRES ONE WHO WOULD CLAIM THE INTEREST DEDUCTION TO BRING HIMSELF
CLEARLY WITHIN THE CLASS FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED.  FN4  THAT IS NOT
DONE WHEN THE USUAL SIGNPOSTS BETWEEN BONDS AND STOCK ARE SO
OBLITERATED THAT THEY BECOME INVISIBLE OR POINT EQUALLY IN BOTH
DIRECTIONS AT THE SAME TIME. 

"DIVIDEND" AND "INTEREST," "STOCK" AND "BOND," "DEBENTURE" OR "NOTE,"
ARE CORRELATIVE AND CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE CONCEPTIONS IN THEIR SIMPLER
AND MORE TRADITIONAL EXEMPLIFICATIONS.  BUT THEIR DISTINGUISHING
FEATURES VANISH WHEN ASTUTE MANIPULATION OF THE BROAD PERMISSIONS OF
MODERN INCORPORATION ACTS RESULTS IN A "SECURITY DEVICE" WHICH IS IN
TRUTH NEITHER STOCK NOR BOND, BUT THE HALF-BREED OFFSPRING OF BOTH.  AT
TIMES ONLY THE LABEL ENABLES ONE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT THE MANIPULATOR
INTENDED TO BRING FORTH.  BUT INTENTION CLARIFIED BY LABEL ALONE IS NOT
ALWAYS LEGALLY EFFECTIVE FOR THE PURPOSE IN MIND.  FN5  AND THERE IS
SCARCELY ANY LIMIT TO THE EXTENT OR VARIETY TO WHICH THIS KIND OF
INTERMINGLING OF THE TRADITIONAL FEATURES OF STOCK AND BONDS OR OTHER
FORMS OF DEBT MAY GO, AS THE BOOKS ABUNDANTLY TESTIFY.  FN6  THE
TAXPAYER SHOULD SHOW MORE THAN A LABEL OR A HYBRID SECURITY TO ESCAPE
HIS LIABILITY.  HE SHOULD SHOW AT THE LEAST A SUBSTANTIAL PREPONDERANCE
OF FACTS POINTING TO "INTEREST" RATHER THAN "DIVIDENDS." 

SOMETHING MORE IS AT STAKE IN THESE CASES THAN NICE DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN "STOCK" AND "BONDS," ON THE ONE HAND, OR BETWEEN ULTIMATE
CONCLUSIONS OF "FACT" AND "LAW" OR "MIXED FACT AND LAW," ON THE OTHER,
JUST AS WAS TRUE IN THE CONVEYANCING CASES.  THE BORDER CUTTING ACROSS
ONE SET OF NORMALLY OPPOSING CONCEPTIONS MAY BE DELIBERATELY OBSCURED
AND MADE INTO A NO MAN'S LAND AS READILY AS THAT INVOLVED IN THE
OTHER.  WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THE FINAL LINK IN THE CHAIN OF JUDGMENT IS
DECISIVE, WHATEVER ITS LABEL.  FN7  IF THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE
TAX COURT OR ITS DIVISIONS CAN BE MADE IN EXACTLY OPPOSING WAYS, AND
MUST BE LEFT UNDISTURBED, WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENTIATING FACTS, OR
WHEN HYBRID ARRANGEMENTS BEAR TAX INDICIA EQUALLY WITH MARKS OF NON
TAXABILITY, NOT ONLY IS THE STATUTORY REVIEW NULLIFIED.  THE RIGHT OF
TAXPAYERS TO BE TREATED WITH EQUAL JUSTICE BEFORE THE LAW IS DENIED. 
FN1  THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE PROVIDES THAT THE CHAIRMAN (NOW
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE TAX COURT, SEC. 1100) MAY "FROM TIME TO TIME
DIVIDE THE BOARD INTO DIVISIONS OF ONE OR MORE MEMBERS" AND "A MAJORITY
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR OF ANY DIVISION THEREOF SHALL CONSTITUTE
A QUORUM FOR THE TRANSACTION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD OR OF THE
DIVISION, RESPECTIVELY."  SECS. 1103(C), (D).  BY SECS. 1118(B) THE
REPORT OF A DIVISION BECOMES THE REPORT OF THE BOARD WITHIN 30 DAYS
UNLESS THE CHAIRMAN DIRECTS THAT IT BE REVIEWED BY THE BOARD.    EACH
OF THE TWO CASES BEFORE US WAS DECIDED BY ONLY ONE TAX COURT JUDGE, A
DIFFERENT JUDGE IN EACH CASE.  SEE GRISWOLD, THE NEED FOR A COURT OF
TAX APPEALS (1944) 57 HARV. L. REV. 1153, 1170-1172. 

FN2  146 F.2D 466; 146 F.2D 809. 

FN3  HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 117-118; SMITH V.
SHAUGHNESSY, 318 U.S. 176, 180. 

FN4  INTERSTATE TRANSIT LINES V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 590, 593; SEE
ALSO NEW COLONIAL CO. V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 435, 440; DEPUTY V. DU
PONT, 308 U.S. 488, 493; MCDONALD V. COMMISSIONER, 323 U.S. 57, 60. 

FN5  IN RE FECHHEIMER FISHEL CO., 212 F. 357, 360; MATTER OF COLLIER,
112 MISC. 70, 182 N.Y.S. 555; CASS V. REALTY SECURITIES CO., 148 APP.
DIV. 96, 100, 132 N.Y.S. 1074, AFFIRMED, 206 N.Y. 649, 99 N.E. 1105;
SEE COMMISSIONER V. SCHMOLL FILS ASSOCIATED, INC., 110 F.2D 611. 

FN6  SEE HANSEN, HYBRID SECURITIES:  A STUDY OF SECURITIES WHICH
COMBINE CHARACTERISTICS OF BOTH STOCKS AND BONDS (1936) 13 N.Y.U.L.Q.
407; UHLMAN, THE LAW OF HYBRID SECURITIES (1938) 23 WASH. U.L.Q. 182;
JEWEL TEA CO. V. UNITED STATES, 90 F.2D 451, 452-453. 

FN7  THE LEGAL ELEMENT IS NOT ELIMINATED MERELY BECAUSE IT APPEARS IN
"A MOLECULAR COMBINATION OF FACT AND LAW WHICH DEFIES SEPARATION." 
BERRY V. IRVING PLACE CORP., 52 F.SUPP.  875, 881.  IT MAY BE THE
DOMINANT ELEMENT IN THE COMBINATION.  WHEN IT IS, MINUTIAE OF FACTUAL
DIFFERENCE SHOULD NOT GOVERN RESULT OR SUSTAIN CONFLICTING OUTCOMES. 
..END :



MASON V. PARADISE DISTRICT, 326 U.S. 536 


NO. 306.  SUBMITTED DECEMBER 4, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1946.  - 149
F.2D 334, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A PLAN FOR COMPOSITION OF DEBTS OF AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT UNDER
CHAPTER IX OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PROVIDED THAT THE HOLDERS OF
OUTSTANDING BONDS WERE TO BE PAID IN CASH 52.521 CENTS ON EACH DOLLAR
OF PRINCIPAL, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST, THE CASH TO BE SUPPLIED THROUGH A
LOAN FROM THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, WHICH WAS TO RECEIVE
NEW OR REFUNDING 4 PER CENT BONDS IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS LOAN. 
CREDITORS OWNING NOT LESS THAN 92 PER CENT IN AMOUNT OF THE BONDS
ACCEPTED THE PLAN, CONSENTED TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION, AND
DEPOSITED THEIR BONDS UNDER THE PLAN.  THE R.F.C. DID NOT ADVANCE THE
FUNDS TO THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT BUT PURCHASED THE BONDS AT THE
COMPOSITION FIGURE AND REGISTERED THEM IN ITS NAME.  THE OLD BONDS SO
ACQUIRED REMAINED OBLIGATIONS OF THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, WERE HELD BY
THE R.F.C. AS SECURITY FOR ITS ADVANCES, AND WERE TO BE EXCHANGED UNDER
THE PLAN FOR 4 PER CENT REFUNDING BONDS IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF ITS CASH
ADVANCES.  THE R.F.C., AS HOLDER OF ABOUT 92 PER CENT OF THE BONDS,
APPROVED THE PLAN PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION.  THERE WAS FULL
DISCLOSURE TO THE SECURITY HOLDERS AND TO THE COURT.  THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT, FINDING THAT ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING BONDS WERE OF ONE CLASS,
THAT THE REQUISITE PERCENTAGE OF BONDHOLDERS HAD APPROVED THE PLAN,
THAT THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT WAS UNABLE TO MEET ITS DEBTS AS THEY
MATURED, THAT THE PLAN WAS FAIR, EQUITABLE AND FOR THE BEST INTERESTS
OF CREDITORS, AND THAT IT DID NOT DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF ANY
CREDITOR, APPROVED THE PLAN.  MASON, WHO OWNED SOME OF THE OLD BONDS
AND HAD OPPOSED THE PLAN, APPEALED, CONTENDING THAT, SINCE HE AND THE
R.F.C. WERE PUT IN THE SAME CLASS, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED ALIKE AND HE
SHOULD RECEIVE 4 PER CENT REFUNDING BONDS, INSTEAD OF 52.521 CENTS IN
CASH ON EACH DOLLAR OF PRINCIPAL.  THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE FULL
VALUE OF HIS CLAIM WAS MORE THAN 52.521 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR.  HELD THAT
THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WAS NOT WARRANTED
IN FINDING THAT THE CASH OFFER WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE.  P. 546. 

2.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE R.F.C. HOLDS THE VAST MAJORITY OF ALL THE
BONDS AND IS IN A DOMINANT POSITION IN THE REORGANIZATION DOES NOT MEAN
THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO PREFERRED TREATMENT.  P. 541. 

3.  HOWEVER, THOSE WHO PUT NEW MONEY INTO A DISTRESSED ENTERPRISE MAY
BE GIVEN PREFERRED TREATMENT.  PP. 541, 543. 

4.  CONGRESS INTENDED THE R.F.C. TO BE TREATED IN SUCH SITUATIONS AS
A CREDITOR.  P. 542. 

5.  THE SECURITIES ACQUIRED BY THE R.F.C. PURSUANT TO THE PLAN OF
COMPOSITION ARE NOT EXTINGUISHED AND MAY BE COMPUTED IN DETERMINING THE
PERCENTAGE OF CONSENTING CREDITORS NECESSARY FOR THE FILING OF A
PETITION UNDER CHAPTER IX.  P. 542. 

6.  SINCE THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT 52.521 CENTS IN CASH WAS NOT AS
ADVANTAGEOUS AS 52.521 CENTS IN REFUNDING BONDS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THIS COURT TO SAY THAT, ALTHOUGH A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT WAS
WARRANTED, ANY DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF THE R.F.C. WAS SO GREAT AS TO
BE UNFAIR.  P. 543. 

7.  WHILE THE PROVISION OF 11 U.S.C. SEC. 403(B) TO THE EFFECT THAT
HOLDERS OF ALL CLAIMS PAYABLE WITHOUT PREFERENCE FROM THE SAME SOURCE
SHALL BE PUT IN ONE CLASS STATES THE GENERAL RULE, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
HAS THE POWER TO MAKE A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION WHERE INEQUITABLE
RESULTS WOULD OTHERWISE OBTAIN.  P. 544. 

8.  UNDER SEC. 403(J) THE SECURITIES ACQUIRED BY THE R.F.C. MAY BE
INCLUDED IN THE PERCENTAGE OF CONSENTING SECURITIES NECESSARY FOR THE
FILING OF A PETITION UNDER CHAPTER IX. P. 544. 

9.  SECTION 403(D), REQUIRING APPROVAL BY CREDITORS "HOLDING AT LEAST
TWO-THIRDS OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CLAIMS OF ALL CLASSES," IS
CONSTRUED TO MEAN TWO-THIRDS OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALL CLAIMS IN ALL
CLASSES AND NOT TWO-THIRDS OF EACH CLASS.  P. 544. 

10.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION TO GIVE TAXING AGENCIES A
WORKABLE AND PRACTICAL METHOD OF OBTAINING RELIEF FROM OPPRESSIVE DEBT
BURDENS WOULD BE THWARTED OR IMPEDED IF CHAPTER IX WERE GIVEN A
CONSTRUCTION WHICH PLACED THE FATE OF COMPOSITION PLANS IN THE HANDS OF
MINORITY, NON-CONSENTING BONDHOLDERS.  P. 545. 

11.  PROVISION "FOR THE PROTECTION" OF THE CLAIMS OF NON-ASSENTING
CREDITORS, AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 403(D), COULD BE MADE BY LEAVING THEM
UNDISTURBED; BUT, IF THE NON-ASSENTING CREDITORS HAD THE OPTION TO COME
IN UNDER THE PLAN OR TO RETAIN THEIR OLD SECURITIES, THE DEBTOR WOULD
BE UNABLE TO GET THE RELIEF WHICH CHAPTER IX AFFORDS OR COULD DO SO
ONLY ON SUCH TERMS AS A MINORITY DICTATED.  P. 545. 

12.  ASSUMING THAT PROVISION "FOR THE PROTECTION" OF THE CLAIMS OF
NON-ASSENTING CREDITORS COULD BE MADE UNDER SEC. 403(D) IN WAYS OTHER
THAN BY LEAVING THE CLAIMS UNDISTURBED, THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO
REASON WHY PAYMENT IN CASH OF THE FULL VALUE OF THEIR CLAIMS WOULD NOT
BE ADEQUATE.  P. 546. 

MASON V. PARADISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 704, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE APPROVING
A PLAN OF COMPOSITION OF THE DEBTS OF AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT UNDER
CHAPTER IX OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT - LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER IT
WAS PROPER TO APPROVE A PLAN WHICH TREATED PETITIONER DIFFERENTLY FROM
THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT IS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF BUTTE OF THAT STATE.  IT EXPERIENCED FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES IN THE 1930'S.  IT HAD OUTSTANDING $476,000 PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF BONDS BEARING INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PER CENT.  BEING
UNABLE TO COLLECT TAXES SUFFICIENT TO SERVICE THE BONDS, IT TRIED TO
WORK OUT A DEBT READJUSTMENT PROGRAM.  IT APPLIED FOR A LOAN FROM THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.  A LOAN OF $252,500 WAS ARRANGED,
PROVIDED ALL THE HOLDERS OF THE OUTSTANDING BONDS AGREED TO THE
REFINANCING PROGRAM.  THE OFFER TO THE BONDHOLDERS WAS THAT THEY
SURRENDER THEIR BONDS FOR 52.521 CENTS ON EACH DOLLAR OF PRINCIPAL,
EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST - AN AMOUNT WHICH RESPONDENT DEEMED FAIR TO THE
BONDHOLDERS AND TO THE OWNERS OF THE LAND IN THE DISTRICT.  THE HOLDERS
OF ABOUT 92 PER CENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE OUTSTANDING BONDS
AGREED.  RESPONDENT, BEING UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE ASSENT OF THE HOLDERS
OF THE REMAINING BONDS, FILED ITS PETITION UNDER CH. IX OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT LATE IN 1937.  50 STAT. 653, 52 STAT. 939, 54 STAT. 667,
11 U.S.C. SEC. 401.  IT SUBMITTED WITH ITS PETITION ITS PLAN OF
COMPOSITION OR DEBT READJUSTMENT AND PRAYED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE PLAN
BE APPROVED.  THE PLAN PROVIDED THAT THE HOLDERS OF THE OUTSTANDING
BONDS BE PAID IN CASH 52.521 CENTS ON EACH DOLLAR OF PRINCIPAL,
EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST; THAT THE CASH WAS TO BE SUPPLIED FROM THE
PROCEEDS OF A LOAN OF $252,500 FROM THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION; THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WAS TO RECEIVE
NEW OR REFUNDING 4 PER CENT BONDS IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS LOAN,
AND 4 PER CENT ON ALL DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE DATE THEREOF UNTIL THE NEW
OR REFUNDING BONDS WERE ISSUED TO IT.  THE PETITION RECITED THAT THE
CREDITORS OWNING NOT LESS THAN 92 PER CENT IN AMOUNT OF THE BONDS HAD
ACCEPTED THE PLAN AND CONSENTED TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION.  FN1  IT
APPEARS THAT THE CONSENTING BONDHOLDERS HAD DEPOSITED THEIR BONDS UNDER
THE PLAN; THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION DID NOT ADVANCE
THE FUNDS TO RESPONDENT BUT, ACTING THROUGH A BANK, PURCHASED THE BONDS
AT THE COMPOSITION FIGURE AND REGISTERED THE BONDS IN ITS NAME; THAT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, THE OLD BONDS SO ACQUIRED REMAINED
OBLIGATIONS OF RESPONDENT, WERE HELD BY THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION AS SECURITY FOR ITS ADVANCES AND ARE TO BE EXCHANGED UNDER
THE PLAN FOR 4 PER CENT REFUNDING BONDS.  THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION, AS HOLDER OF ABOUT 92 PER CENT OF THE BONDS, APPROVED THE
PLAN PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION UNDER CH. IX. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING BONDS WERE OF
ONE AND THE SAME CLASS,  FN2 THAT THE REQUISITE PERCENTAGE OF
BONDHOLDERS HAD APPROVED THE PLAN,  FN3  THAT RESPONDENT WAS UNABLE TO
MEETS ITS DEBTS AS THEY MATURED,  FN4  AND HELD THAT THE PLAN WAS FAIR,
EQUITABLE AND FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF ITS CREDITORS AND DID NOT
UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF ANY CREDITOR.  FN5  IT ACCORDINGLY
APPROVED THE PLAN.  FN6 

PETITIONER IS THE OWNER OF $29,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE OLD BONDS
WHO OPPOSED THE PLAN OF COMPOSITION.  HIS OBJECTIONS WERE NOT SUSTAINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE OVERRULED
THEM.  149 F.2D 334.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS,  FN7 LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER IT WAS PROPER
TO APPROVE A PLAN WHICH TREATED PETITIONER DIFFERENTLY FROM THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT SINCE HE AND THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION WERE PUT IN THE SAME CLASS, THE RULE OF "EQUALITY BETWEEN
CREDITORS" APPLICABLE IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (CLARKE V. ROGERS, 228
U.S. 534, 548) REQUIRED THAT THEY BE TREATED ALIKE.  IN OTHER WORDS, HE
CONTENDS THAT INSTEAD OF BEING REQUIRED TO TAKE 52.521 CENTS IN CASH ON
EACH DOLLAR OF PRINCIPAL, HE SHOULD RECEIVE 4 PER CENT REFUNDING
BONDS. 

WE HELD IN AMERICAN UNITED INS. CO. V. AVON PARK, 311 U.S. 138, 147,
THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY BETWEEN CREDITORS GOVERNED COMPOSITIONS
UNDER CH. IX AS IT DID COMPOSITIONS UNDER THE OLD SEC. 12.  THE FACT
THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION HOLDS THE VAST MAJORITY OF
ALL THE BONDS AND THEREFORE IS IN A DOMINANT POSITION IN THE
REORGANIZATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO PREFERRED
TREATMENT.  IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT.  AMERICAN UNITED INS. CO. V.
AVON PARK, SUPRA, P. 148.  THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION HAS
NOT BY PURCHASING BONDS IN THE MARKET ACQUIRED MERELY A SPECULATIVE
POSITION IN THE PLAN OF COMPOSITION.  NOR IS IT MERELY IN THE POSITION
OF A HOLDER OF A MAJORITY OF THE BONDS.  BY CONTRACT WITH THE DEBTOR IT
HAS UNDERWRITTEN THE WHOLE REFINANCING PROGRAM.  IT HAS VENTURED THE
CAPITAL NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PLAN OF COMPOSITION.  IT HAS LONG
BEEN RECOGNIZED IN REORGANIZATION LAW THAT THOSE WHO PUT NEW MONEY INTO
THE DISTRESSED ENTERPRISE MAY BE GIVEN A PARTICIPATION IN THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN REASONABLY EQUIVALENT TO THEIR CONTRIBUTION.  CASE
V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308 U.S. 106, 117, 121-122 AND
CASES CITED; ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448, 486-487. 
THAT RULE IS BASED ON PRACTICAL NECESSITIES.  WITHOUT THE INDUCEMENT
NEW MONEY COULD NOT BE OBTAINED. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WHEN
IT BECOMES THE HOLDER OF BONDS MUST BE TREATED ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS
A CREDITOR AND NOT AN OUTSIDE LENDER OF MONEY.  IT IS CLEAR THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION TO BE TREATED
IN SITUATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT AS A CREDITOR.  SEC. 402 OF THE ACT
PROVIDES THAT "ANY AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES HOLDING SECURITIES
ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO CONTRACT WITH ANY PETITIONER UNDER THIS CHAPTER
SHALL BE DEEMED A CREDITOR IN THE AMOUNT OF THE FULL FACE VALUE
THEREOF."  THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION IS SUCH AN AGENCY. 
SEC. 403(J) GIVES SECURITIES ACQUIRED, AS HERE, PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF
COMPOSITION PRIOR TO THE FILING OF A PETITION THE SAME RECOGNITION AS
ANY OTHER SECURITIES.  FN8  IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT SECURITIES
ACQUIRED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO A PLAN
OF COMPOSITION, ARE NOT EXTINGUISHED, REMAIN SECURITIES "AFFECTED BY
THE PLAN,"  FN9  AND MAY BE COMPUTED IN DETERMINING THE PERCENTAGE OF
CONSENTING CREDITORS NECESSARY FOR THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER CH.
IX.  FN10  IF THE ACT WERE CONSTRUED AS REQUIRING THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION IN SITUATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT TO BE TREATED AS
EVERY OTHER CREDITOR OF THE SAME CLASS, THE FACT THAT IT HAD
UNDERWRITTEN THE WHOLE REFINANCING PROGRAM WOULD BE CONSIDERED
IRRELEVANT.  BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, HE WHO FURNISHES NEW CAPITAL TO A
DISTRESSED ENTERPRISE HAS LONG BEEN ACCORDED PREFERRED TREATMENT.  THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION CONTRIBUTES SOMETHING THAT MASON
DOES NOT.  IT FURNISHES THE UNDERWRITING WHICH MAKES THE REFINANCING
POSSIBLE.  IT GIVES SOMETHING OF VALUE FOR THE PREFERRED TREATMENT
WHICH IT RECEIVES.  THE OTHER SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE SAME CLASS GIVE
NOTHING NEW.  THAT DIFFERENCE WARRANTS A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT.  CASE
V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA; ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R.
CORP., SUPRA.  THE PLAN, OF COURSE, MUST BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND IT
MUST "NOT DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY" IN FAVOR OF ANY CREDITOR.  SEC.
403(E).  A SECRET ADVANTAGE WOULD NOT MEET THAT TEST.  AMERICAN UNITED
INS. CO. V. AVON PARK, SUPRA.  BUT HERE THERE WAS FULL DISCLOSURE TO
THE SECURITY HOLDERS AND TO THE COURT.  PETITIONER RECEIVES 52.521
CENTS ON EACH DOLLAR OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF HIS BONDS.  THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION RECEIVES NEW AND REFUNDING BONDS IN
THE FACE AMOUNT OF ITS CASH ADVANCES.  IT IS, OF COURSE, POSSIBLE THAT
52.521 CENTS IN CASH MAY NOT BE AS ADVANTAGEOUS AN OFFER AS 52.521
CENTS IN NEW AND REFUNDING BONDS.  BUT THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT IT IS
NOT.  HENCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO SAY THAT, ALTHOUGH A DIFFERENCE
IN TREATMENT WAS WARRANTED, ANY DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WAS SO GREAT AS TO BE UNFAIR. 

A DIFFERENT QUESTION ARISES WHEN WE COME TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF
CREDITORS FOR VOTING ON A PLAN OF COMPOSITION.  SEC. 403(B) PROVIDES
THAT THERE SHALL BE PUT IN ONE CLASS HOLDERS OF ALL CLAIMS PAYABLE
WITHOUT PREFERENCE FROM THE SAME SOURCE.  FN11  WHILE THIS PROVISION
STATES THE GENERAL RULE, WE SAID IN AMERICAN UNITED INS. CO. V. AVON
PARK, SUPRA, P. 146, THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS THE POWER TO MAKE A
DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION WHERE INEQUITABLE RESULTS WOULD OTHERWISE
OBTAIN.  WE ASSUME THAT A MAJORITY BONDHOLDER WHO WAS RECEIVING
PREFERRED TREATMENT UNDER A PLAN BY REASON OF HIS UNDERWRITING OR
OTHERWISE WOULD NORMALLY HAVE TO BE PUT IN A DIFFERENT CLASS WHEN IT
CAME TO VOTING ON THE PLAN.  BUT WE SEE NO REASON WHY CONGRESS COULD
NOT PROVIDE OTHERWISE.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, SEC. 402 ALLOWS THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION TO BE TREATED AS A CREDITOR IN THE
AMOUNT OF THE FULL FACE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES IT ACQUIRED.  BY REASON
OF SEC. 403(J) THOSE SECURITIES MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE PERCENTAGE OF
CONSENTING SECURITIES NECESSARY FOR THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER
CHAPTER IX.  THOSE PROVISIONS WERE INSERTED TO MAKE THESE REFINANCING
PROGRAMS POSSIBLE AND PRACTICAL.  THEY GIVE STATUTORY SANCTION TO THIS
PARTICULAR METHOD OF REFINANCING.  SEC. 403(D) REQUIRES APPROVAL BY
CREDITORS "HOLDING AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF
CLAIMS OF ALL CLASSES" AFFECTED BY THE PLAN.  FN12  IF THAT IS
CONSTRUED TO MEAN NOT TWO-THIRDS OF EACH CLASS BUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALL CLAIMS IN ALL CLASSES, THE SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION
OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IN
RESULT IN THE PRESENT CASE.  FOR ALL OF THE BONDS HELD BY IT ARE MORE
THAN TWO-THIRDS OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ALL CLAIMS AFFECTED BY THE
PLAN.  ONLY IF THE ACT WERE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT TWO-THIRDS OF EACH
CLASS IS NECESSARY FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN WOULD THE SEPARATE
CLASSIFICATION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION PRODUCE A
DIFFERENT RESULT IN THIS CASE.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER, WOULD
PLACE THE SUCCESS OF THESE REFINANCING PROGRAMS AT THE MERCY OF THE
MINORITY INTERESTS.  IF IT WERE NECESSARY IN THIS TYPE OF CASE TO PUT
NON-ASSENTING BONDHOLDERS IN A SEPARATE CLASS, THEY COULD BLOCK THE
REFINANCING PROGRAM EVEN THOUGH IT WERE FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND THE ONLY
FEASIBLE ONE WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD WORK OUT.  IN DESIGNING THIS
LEGISLATION CONGRESS WAS SOLICITOUS NOT ONLY TO PROTECT THE POSITION OF
THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION IN THESE REFINANCING PROGRAMS
FN13  BUT ALSO TO GIVE THIS CLASS OF DEBTORS A WORKABLE AND PRACTICAL
METHOD OF OBTAINING RELIEF FROM OPPRESSIVE DEBT BURDENS.  THAT PURPOSE
WOULD BE THWARTED OR IMPEDED IF WE GAVE CH. IX A CONSTRUCTION WHICH
PLACED THE FATE OF THESE PLANS IN THE HANDS OF MINORITY, NON-CONSENTING
BONDHOLDERS.  THE AIM TO PROVIDE A METHOD OF FORCING "RECALCITRANT
MINORITY CREDITORS INTO AGREEMENT" (H. REP. NO. 517, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 3) WOULD BE DEFEATED.  FOR ONCE SUCH A RULE WERE ANNOUNCED
MINORITY BONDHOLDERS WOULD HAVE A GREAT NUISANCE VALUE, MAKING IT
WORTHWHILE FOR THEM TO LIE BACK UNTIL THEY GOT THEIR PRICE.  FN14 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE PLAN MIGHT BE APPROVED WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF THE MINORITY IF, AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 403(D), "PROVISION IS MADE IN
THE PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIEN OF SUCH
CREDITORS OR CLASS OF CREDITORS."  PROVISION "FOR THE PROTECTION" OF
THE CLAIMS OF NON-ASSENTING CREDITORS COULD BE MADE BY LEAVING THEM
UNDISTURBED.  BUT THE PURPOSE OF CH. IX IS TO PROVIDE TAXING AGENCIES
WITH A METHOD OF SCALING DOWN THEIR DEBT STRUCTURES AND REDUCING THEIR
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE NEED FOR RELIEF IS SHOWN.  IF THE
NON-ASSENTING CREDITORS HAD THE OPTION TO COME IN UNDER THE PLAN OR TO
RETAIN THEIR OLD SECURITIES, THE DEBTOR WOULD BE UNABLE TO GET THE
RELIEF WHICH CH. IX AFFORDS, OR COULD DO SO ONLY ON SUCH TERMS AS THE
MINORITY DICTATED.  THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO ABANDON THIS TYPE
OF REFINANCING.  BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, IT HAS STATUTORY SANCTION.  IT IS
SAID, HOWEVER, THAT PROVISION "FOR THE PROTECTION" OF THE CLAIMS OF NON
ASSENTING CREDITORS COULD BE MADE IN WAYS OTHER THAN LEAVING THE CLAIMS
UNDISTURBED.  IF, ARGUENDO, WE ASSUME THAT IS TRUE, WE SEE NO REASON
WHY PAYMENT IN CASH OF THE FULL VALUE OF THE CLAIMS WOULD NOT BE
ADEQUATE.  THAT IS PERMISSIBLE IN CONNECTION WITH REORGANIZATIONS UNDER
CH. IX.  52 STAT. 840, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 616(7).  IT IS INDEED THE
HISTORIC METHOD OF DEALING WITH DISSENTERS UNDER PLANS OF
REORGANIZATION.  CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, P.
121, NOTE 15.  NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY, UNDER OUR ASSUMPTION, THE
SAME COULD NOT BE DONE UNDER CH. IX.  YET, EVEN IN THAT VIEW, THE
PRESENT PLAN WAS PROPERLY CONFIRMED.  FOR THERE IS NO SHOWING
WHATSOEVER THAT THE FULL VALUE OF MASON'S CLAIMS IS MORE THAN 52.521
CENTS ON THE DOLLAR WHICH HE RECEIVES IN CASH.  THE DISTRICT COURT,
INDEED, FOUND THAT THE CASH OFFER WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND WE ARE
UNABLE TO SAY THAT THAT FINDING WAS NOT WARRANTED.  AFFIRMED.    FN1
SEC. 403(A) REQUIRES THE PETITION TO STATE, INTER ALIA, THAT "CREDITORS
OF THE PETITIONER OWNING NOT LESS THAN 51 PER CENTUM IN AMOUNT OF THE
SECURITIES AFFECTED BY THE PLAN (EXCLUDING, HOWEVER, ANY SUCH
SECURITIES OWNED, HELD, OR CONTROLLED BY THE PETITIONER), HAVE ACCEPTED
IT IN WRITING." 

FN2  SEC. 403(B) PROVIDES THAT "THE HOLDERS OF ALL CLAIMS, REGARDLESS
OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE EVIDENCED, WHICH ARE PAYABLE WITHOUT
PREFERENCE OUT OF FUNDS DERIVED FROM THE SAME SOURCE OR SOURCES SHALL
BE OF ONE CLASS.  THE HOLDERS OF CLAIMS FOR THE PAYMENT OF WHICH
SPECIFIC PROPERTY OR REVENUES ARE PLEDGED, OR WHICH ARE OTHERWISE GIVEN
PREFERENCE AS PROVIDED BY LAW, SHALL ACCORDINGLY CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE
CLASS OR CLASSES OF CREDITORS." 

FN3  SEC. 403(D) PROVIDES THAT A PLAN OF COMPOSITION SHALL NOT BE
CONFIRMED, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE, "UNTIL IT HAS BEEN
ACCEPTED IN WRITING, BY OR ON BEHALF OF CREDITORS HOLDING AT LEAST TWO
THIRDS OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CLAIMS OF ALL CLASSES AFFECTED" BY
THE PLAN, EXCLUDING "CLAIMS OWNED, HELD, OR CONTROLLED BY THE
PETITIONER." 

FN4  SEC. 403(A) REQUIRES THE PETITION TO STATE THAT THE PETITIONER
IS "INSOLVENT OR UNABLE TO MEET ITS DEBTS AS THEY MATURE."  AMONG THE
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SEC. 403(E) FOR CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN IS THAT IT
"COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER." 

FN5  THAT FINDING IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 403(E). 

FN6  NOVEMBER, 1943. 

FN7  TEXAS V. TABASCO SCHOOL DIST., 132 F.2D 62, 133 F.2D 196,
DECIDED BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IS TO BE CONTRASTED TO
THE DECISION BELOW AND TO WEST COAST LIFE INS. CO. V. MERCED IRRIGATION
DIST., 114 F.2D 654, DECIDED BY THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND
ALSO TO LUEHRMANN V. DRAINAGE DIST., 104 F.2D 696, DECIDED BY THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

FN8  SEC. 403(J) READS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE PARTIAL COMPLETION OR
EXECUTION OF ANY PLAN OF COMPOSITION AS OUTLINED IN ANY PETITION FILED
UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS TITLE BY THE EXCHANGE OF NEW EVIDENCES OF
INDEBTEDNESS UNDER THE PLAN FOR EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS COVERED BY
THE PLAN, WHETHER SUCH PARTIAL COMPLETION OR EXECUTION OF SUCH PLAN OF
COMPOSITION OCCURRED BEFORE OR AFTER THE FILING OF SAID PETITION, SHALL
NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LIMITING OR PROHIBITING THE EFFECT OF THIS TITLE,
AND THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE HOLDERS OF ANY SECURITIES OUTSTANDING AS
THE RESULT OF ANY SUCH PARTIAL COMPLETION OR EXECUTION OF ANY PLAN OF
COMPOSITION SHALL BE INCLUDED AS CONSENTING CREDITORS TO SUCH PLAN OF
COMPOSITION IN DETERMINING THE PERCENTAGE OF SECURITIES AFFECTED BY
SUCH PLAN OF COMPOSITION." 

FN9  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORY OF SEC. 403(J) SEE WEST COAST
LIFE INS. CO. V. MERCED IRRIGATION DIST., SUPRA NOTE 7, PP. 667-668. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN13  THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WOULD PLAY AN
IMPORTANT ROLE IN THESE REFINANCING PROGRAMS WAS IN THE FOREFRONT WHEN
THIS LEGISLATION WAS BEFORE CONGRESS.  SEE H. REP. NO. 517, SUPRA, P.
4; 81 CONG. REC. 6322. 

FN14  CONGRESSMAN SUMNERS, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,
STATED DURING THE DEBATE: "THE FORCE OF THE BILL IS DIRECTED AGAINST
THAT MINORITY PRESENT IN EVERY EFFORT OF DEBTORS AND CREDITORS TO BRING
THE TOTAL OF AMOUNTS PAYABLE WITHIN THE ABILITY OF THE DEBTOR TO PAY. 
IT IS THE MINORITY WHO TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GENERAL DESIRE TO
SETTLE TO COMPEL AN ADVANTAGE TO THEMSELVES IN ORDER TO REMOVE THEIR
SELFISHLY INTERPOSED OBSTRUCTION.  THEY ARE HOLD-UP MEN OPERATING
WITHIN THE LAW."  81 CONG. REC. 6313.  THE SAME VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY
SENATOR PEPPER WHO MANAGED THE LEGISLATION ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE. 
81 CONG. REC. 8543. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION IS NOT TO
BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY BONDHOLDERCREDITOR BUT IS ENTITLED TO
PREFERRED TREATMENT BECAUSE IT ACQUIRED THE BONDS OF THE DEBTOR AS PART
OF AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH MADE POSSIBLE FINANCING OF THE PLAN OF
COMPOSITION.  WITH THIS I AGREE.  BUT I FIND NOTHING IN CHAPTER IX
WHICH, WHILE PERMITTING THE R.F.C. TO BE CONSIDERED A PREFERRED
CREDITOR FOR PURPOSES OF DISTRIBUTION, ALLOWS IT TO BE CLASSIFIED AMONG
ORDINARY CREDITORS FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING.  NOR DO CONSIDERATIONS OF
POLICY REQUIRE THAT THE R.F.C. BE GIVEN SUCH A TWO-FACED CHARACTER.  IT
IS SUGGESTED THAT IF THE VOTES OF A PREFERRED CREDITOR IN THE POSITION
OF THE R.F.C. COULD NOT BE COUNTED WITH THE VOTES OF THE ORDINARY
CREDITORS THAT CLASS MIGHT NOT FURNISH THE NECESSARY TWO-THIRDS OF THE
AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CLAIMS OF THAT CLASS.  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE MERE FAILURE OF A CLASS LIKE THAT OF ORDINARY
CREDITORS, E.G., THOSE HAVING NO PREFERRED POSITION IN THE SCHEME FOR
DISTRIBUTION, TO ACCEPT A PLAN OF COMPOSITION DOES NOT PROVE THAT ITS
RESISTANCE IS IMPROPERLY OR UNFAIRLY RECALCITRANT.  CF. AMERICAN UNITED
INS. CO. V. AVON PARK, 311 U.S. 138, 148.  AND RECOGNITION THAT
BONDHOLDERS MAY EXERCISE THEIR STATUTORY RIGHTS AS COMMON CREDITORS NOT
TO ASSENT DOES NOT, OF COURSE, MAKE OF THEM A SEPARATE CLASS OF NON
ASSENTING BONDHOLDERS WITH A VETO POWER OVER THE PLAN.  BUT IF THE
RECALCITRANCY DOES REPRESENT A DOG-IN-THE-MANGER ATTITUDE, CHAPTER IX
WOULD SEEM TO HAVE PROVIDED FOR THE CONTINGENCY.  ACCORDING TO SEC.
83(D) OF THE ACT, 50 STAT. 653, 657, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 403(D), A PLAN
MIGHT BE APPROVED WITHOUT THE OTHERWISE NECESSARY VOTE, NOT ONLY WHERE
THE CLAIMS OF THE CREDITORS "ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE PLAN," BUT ALSO
WHERE "PROVISION IS MADE IN THE PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIEN OF SUCH CREDITORS OR CLASS OF CREDITORS." 
BUT, THOUGH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS THE POWER OF DISPENSING WITH THE
NEED OF AN APPROVING VOTE BY A CLASS OF CREDITORS, BY PROTECTING THAT
CLASS' INTERESTS, IT IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE THE COURT HAS NOT IN FACT
DETERMINED, AS IT HAS NOT IN THIS CASE, THAT THE DISSENT OF THAT CLASS
WAS AN ABUSIVE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT TO VETO A PLAN. 

TO GIVE SUCH FLEXIBLE SCOPE TO SEC. 83(D),  FN1  THOUGH, LIKE OTHER
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER IX, IT IS NOT FREE FROM AMBIGUITY, IS THE MORE
PERTINENT IF, AS SUGGESTED, CHAPTER IX REQUIRES APPROVAL OF TWO-THIRDS
NOT OF EACH CLASS OF CLAIMS BUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALL CLAIMS.  SEE
REMINGTON, BANKRUPTCY (1939) SEC. 4364.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF APPROVAL
OF THE PLAN BY TWO-THIRDS OF EACH CLASS IS REQUIRED, SUCH A REQUIREMENT
CAN ONLY MEAN THAT A GROUP OF MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF ANY CLASS IS
CAPABLE OF EXERCISING THE VETO POWER, EXCEPT WHEN SEC. 83(D) CAN BE
INVOKED.  IN ESTABLISHING THESE CLASSES, CREDITORS ARE NOT PROPERLY
GROUPED WHO, ON THE FACE-VALUE OF THE SAME BONDS, GET DIFFERENT
EQUIVALENTS, AND ARE, AS TO THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, NOT BOUND
TOGETHER BY THE SAME TIES BUT SEPARATED BY ANTAGONISTIC INTERESTS.  TO
PUT THESE GROUPS WITH SUCH ANTAGONISTIC INTERESTS INTO THE SAME CLASS
IS TO CONTRADICT THE VERY NOTION OF A CLASS.  REASON REJECTS SUCH
CLASSIFICATION AND NOTHING IN THE STATUTE INDICATES THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO DEFINE A CLASS AS A GROUP WITH INCONSISTENT INTERESTS. 

FN1  THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 83(D) IS
INDICATED BY THE CUMBERSOME BUT MORE DETAILED FORM IN WHICH THE PURPOSE
OF SEC. 83(D) IS EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER DRAFT OF THE ACT: 

"...  (3) SHALL, WITH RESPECT TO CREDITORS WHOSE ACCEPTANCE IS NOT
REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION (E) OF THIS SECTION IF
THEIR INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS ARE PROTECTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED
IN THIS CLAUSE (3), PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR THE REALIZATION BY
THEM OF THE VALUE OF THEIR INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS, IF THE PROPERTY
OR REVENUE AFFECTED BY SUCH INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS IS DEALT WITH
BY THE PLAN, EITHER AS PROVIDED IN THE PLAN, (A) BY THE TRANSFER OR
SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY SUBJECT TO SUCH INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS, OR
SUCH PROPERTY SHALL CONTINUE TO BE HELD BY THE TAXING DISTRICT SUBJECT
TO SUCH INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS, OR (B) BY A SALE FREE OF SUCH
INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS AT NOT LESS THAN A FAIR UPSET PRICE AND THE
TRANSFER OF SUCH INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS TO THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH
SALE, OR (C) BY APPRAISAL AND PAYMENT IN CASH OF THE VALUE OF SUCH
INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS, OR, AT THE OBJECTING CREDITORS' ELECTION,
OF THE SECURITIES ALLOTTED TO SUCH INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS UNDER
THE PLAN, IF ANY SHALL BE SO ALLOTTED, OR (D) BY SUCH METHOD AS WILL IN
THE OPINION OF THE JUDGE, UNDER AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, EQUITABLY AND FAIRLY PROVIDE SUCH PROTECTION:
PROVIDED, THAT IF PROVISION THEREFOR IS MADE IN THE PLAN, THE JUDGE MAY
REQUIRE OBJECTING CREDITORS TO ACCEPT, IN LIEU OF ANY CASH PAYMENT
UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION, SUCH SECURITIES, OF ANY KIND, IN PAYMENT OF
THEIR INTERESTS, CLAIMS, OR LIENS AS SHALL, IN THE OPINION OF THE
JUDGE, UPON THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN, REPRESENT THE FAIR AND
EQUITABLE SHARES OF SUCH CREDITORS IN THE PROPERTY AND REVENUES OF THE
TAXING DISTRICT, AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ITS DEBTS  ..."  H.R.
5267, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1933) SEC. 81(B)(3), AS IT APPEARS IN THE
HEARINGS ON THAT BILL, AT PAGE 17. 
..END :























WILLIAMS V. GREEN BAY & W.R. CO., 326 U.S. 549 


NO. 100.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1946.  - 147
F.2D 777, REVERSED. 


PETITIONERS, RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK AND HOLDERS OF CLASS B DEBENTURES
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT, A WISCONSIN CORPORATION, BROUGHT SUIT IN A NEW
YORK COURT TO RECOVER AMOUNTS DUE AND PAYABLE UNDER THE DEBENTURES OUT
OF EARNINGS IN LIEU OF INTEREST.  UNDER THE COVENANT IN THE CLASS B
DEBENTURES, THE HOLDERS THEREOF WERE ENTITLED TO ALL OF THE REMAINING
NET EARNINGS EACH YEAR AFTER HOLDERS OF CLASS A DEBENTURES HAD RECEIVED
5% ON THE FACE VALUE THEREOF AND STOCKHOLDERS HAD RECEIVED 5% ON THE
PAR VALUE OF THE STOCK, THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THE CLASS B DEBENTURE
HOLDERS TO "BE FIXED AND DECLARED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS." 
RESPONDENT'S RAILROAD LINES WERE WHOLLY IN WISCONSIN AND ITS PRESIDENT
AND GENERAL AUDITOR WERE THERE.  HOWEVER, IT DID BUSINESS IN NEW YORK;
ITS CLASS B DEBENTURES WERE PAYABLE, LISTED AND TRADED IN THERE; IT
MAINTAINED ITS FINANCIAL OFFICE, A TRAFFIC OFFICE AND A BANK ACCOUNT
THERE; FIVE OF ITS SIX DIRECTORS (INCLUDING ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE AND
FISCAL OFFICERS EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL AUDITOR) AND TWO OF
THE THREE MEMBERS OF ITS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WERE THERE; DIRECTORS'
MEETINGS WERE CUSTOMARILY HELD THERE; AND ITS FINANCIAL RECORDS,
TRANSFER BOOKS, MINUTE BOOKS AND THE LIKE WERE KEPT THERE.  AFTER
REMOVING THE CASE TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEW YORK ON THE
GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY, RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT
THE SUIT CONCERNED THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND
COULD MORE CONVENIENTLY BE TRIED IN THE STATE OF ITS INCORPORATION. 
THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTION.  HELD: 

1.  IT WAS IMPROPER TO DISMISS THE SUIT ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS.  PP. 552, 560. 

2.  THIS RULE WAS DESIGNED AS AN INSTRUMENT OF JUSTICE TO PREVENT A
CASE FROM BEING TRIED IN ONE COURT WHEN IN FAIRNESS IT SHOULD BE TRIED
IN ANOTHER.  (ILLUSTRATIONS GIVEN.)  P. 554. 

3.  WHEN IT IS INVOKED, EACH CASE TURNS ON ITS FACTS.  P. 557. 

4.  THE RELIEF SOUGHT, A MONEY JUDGMENT, WAS NOT OF SUCH A CHARACTER
THAT A FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK WOULD BE SO HANDICAPPED THAT IT SHOULD
REMIT THE PARTIES TO WISCONSIN.  P. 558. 

5.  NOR SHOULD THE CASE HAVE BEEN REMITTED TO WISCONSIN ON THE THEORY
THAT A CONSTRUCTION OF THE COVENANT WOULD PRIMARILY AFFECT THE
INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC IN THAT STATE.  P. 558. 

6.  SINCE THE SUIT SOUGHT ONLY A MONEY JUDGMENT, IT DID NOT INVOLVE
SUFFICIENT INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE FOREIGN
CORPORATION TO JUSTIFY DISMISSAL ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  P. 559. 

7.  UNDER THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD NOT BE VEXATIOUS OR
OPPRESSIVE TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT IN NEW YORK, WHETHER THE AVAILABILITY
OF WITNESSES OR ANY OTHER ASPECT OF A TRIAL BE CONSIDERED.  P. 559. 

WILLIAMS ET AL. V. GREEN BAY & WESTERN RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 699, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, 59
F.SUPP.  98, DISMISSING A SUIT UNDER THE RULE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS, RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ARE HOLDERS OF CLASS
B DEBENTURES ISSUED BY RESPONDENT RAILROAD COMPANY, A WISCONSIN
CORPORATION.  THEY BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE NEW YORK COURTS TO RECOVER
AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO BE DUE AND PAYABLE UNDER THE DEBENTURES OUT OF
EARNINGS IN LIEU OF INTEREST.  ON PETITION OF RESPONDENT THE ACTION WAS
REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK ON THE GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY.  RESPONDENT THEREUPON MOVED (1) TO
SET ASIDE THE SERVICE BECAUSE RESPONDENT WAS NOT DOING BUSINESS IN NEW
YORK AND (2) TO DISMISS BECAUSE THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS CONCERNED WITH
THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DENIED THE FIRST MOTION, BUT GRANTED THE SECOND.  59 F.SUPP.  98.  ON
APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED VOTE, HOLDING
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN BASING ITS
DISMISSAL ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  147 F.2D 777.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

THE CLASS B DEBENTURES, ISSUED IN 1896, HAVE NO MATURITY DATE.  THEIR
PRINCIPAL IS PAYABLE "ONLY IN THE EVENT OF A SALE OR REORGANIZATION" OF
THE COMPANY AND "THEN ONLY OUT OF ANY NET PROCEEDS" REMAINING AFTER
SPECIFIED PAYMENTS TO THE CLASS A DEBENTURES AND TO THE STOCK.  THE
COVENANT IN THE CLASS B DEBENTURES OUT OF WHICH THIS LITIGATION ARISES
IS SET FORTH BELOW.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS DIVIDED AS
TO ITS MEANING.  THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE NET
EARNINGS AFTER THE PAYMENTS TO THE CLASS A DEBENTURES AND TO THE STOCK,
THE DIRECTORS HAD DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT SUM
SHOULD BE PAID TO THE CLASS B DEBENTURES.  THE COURT THEREUPON HELD, IN
RELIANCE ON ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 123; COHN V.
MISHKOFF COSTELLO CO., 256 N.Y. 102, 175 N.E. 529; COHEN V. AMERICAN
WINDOW GLASS CO., 126 F.2D 111, THAT THE SUIT CONCERNED THE INTERNAL
AFFAIRS OF RESPONDENT AND COULD BETTER BE TRIED IN WISCONSIN, THE STATE
OF ITS INCORPORATION.  THE MINORITY THOUGHT THAT THE AMOUNT OF NET
EARNINGS REMAINING AFTER DEDUCTING THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE CLASS A
DEBENTURES AND TO THE STOCK WAS TO BE PAID TO THE CLASS B DEBENTURES,
THAT THE DIRECTORS HAD NO DISCRETION TO WITHHOLD SUCH AMOUNTS, AND THAT
THEIR PAYMENT INVOLVED NOTHING MORE THAN A MINISTERIAL ACT.  FN2  IN
THAT VIEW THE SUIT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS ONE FOR A LIQUIDATED
SUM AND WOULD ENTAIL NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A
FOREIGN CORPORATION. 

WE LEAVE OPEN THE QUESTION OF THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE "NET
EARNINGS" COVENANT IN THE CLASS B DEBENTURES.  ALTHOUGH WE ASSUME THAT
THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE
COVENANT, WE THINK IT WAS IMPROPER TO DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUNDS
OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS. 

ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., SUPRA, IS THE ONLY DECISION OF THIS
COURT HOLDING THAT A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO HEAR A CASE
BECAUSE IT CONCERNS THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A CORPORATION FOREIGN TO
THE STATE WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT SITS.  A CORPORATION CHARTERED BY ONE
STATE COMMONLY DOES BUSINESS IN THE FARTHEST REACHES OF THE NATION. 
ITS BUSINESS ENGAGEMENTS - THE ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES, MORTGAGING OF
ASSETS, CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKINGS - FREQUENTLY RAISE QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS CHARTER, BY-LAWS AND THE LIKE, OR
THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY OF ITS OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS, OR THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF ONE GROUP IN THE CORPORATE FAMILY TO ANOTHER GROUP. 
ALL SUCH QUESTIONS INVOLVE IN A SENSE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF A
CORPORATION - WHETHER IN A SUIT ON A CONTRACT THE CORPORATION
INTERPOSES THE DEFENSE OF ULTRA VIRES, OR A BONDHOLDER SUES ON HIS BOND
OR A STOCKHOLDER ASSERTS RIGHTS UNDER HIS STOCK CERTIFICATE.  BUT A
FEDERAL COURT WHICH UNDERTAKES TO DECIDE SUCH A QUESTION DOES NOT
TRESPASS ON A FORBIDDEN DOMAIN.  SEE WILLIAMSON V. MISSOURI-KANSAS PIPE
LINE CO., 56 F.2D 503, 510.  UNDER THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64, A FEDERAL COURT IN A DIVERSITY CASE APPLIES LOCAL LAW.  IN
CONFLICT OF LAWS CASES THAT MAY MEAN ASCERTAINING AND APPLYING THE LAW
OF A STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT IS LOCATED. 
KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 313 U.S. 487.  THE FACT THAT
THE CORPORATION LAW OF ANOTHER STATE IS INVOLVED DOES NOT SET THE CASE
APART FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT.  THE PROBLEM OF ASCERTAINING THE STATE LAW
MAY OFTEN BE DIFFICULT.  BUT THAT IS NOT A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR A
FEDERAL COURT TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE A CASE
PROPERLY BEFORE IT.  AS WE SAID IN MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S.
228, 234, "THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WAS NOT CONFERRED FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS OR TO SERVE THEIR CONVENIENCE.  ITS PURPOSE WAS
GENERALLY TO AFFORD TO SUITORS AN OPPORTUNITY IN SUCH CASES, AT THEIR
OPTION, TO ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL RATHER THAN IN THE STATE
COURTS."  SO LONG AS DIVERSITY JURISDICTION REMAINS, THE PARTIES MAY
NOT BE REMITTED TO A STATE COURT MERELY BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY OF
MAKING A DECISION IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN,
SUPRA.  IF THE DISTRICT COURT WERE SUSTAINED IN DECLINING TO EXERCISE
ITS JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE, THERE COULD BE NO ASSURANCE THAT THE
LITIGATION WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE WISCONSIN STATE COURTS.  IF
PETITIONERS SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN WISCONSIN, AS THEY COULD BY
REASON OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY THAT
COURT SHOULD NOT PROCEED TO DECISION.  THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL COURT
IN WISCONSIN COULD PASS ON THIS INTERNAL AFFAIR OF THIS CORPORATION
DOES NOT, OF COURSE, MEAN THAT THE FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK NEED DO
SO.  THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM PRESENTED AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT MIGHT BE
OF CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE IN INDUCING THE FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK
TO REMIT THE PARTIES TO WISCONSIN.  BUT AS WE SHALL SEE, NO SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT NATURE ARE PRESENT HERE. 

WE MENTION THIS PHASE OF THE MATTER TO PUT THE RULE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE.  IT WAS DESIGNED AS AN "INSTRUMENT OF
JUSTICE."  FN3  MAINTENANCE OF A SUIT AWAY FROM THE DOMICILE OF THE
DEFENDANT - WHETHER HE BE A CORPORATION OR AN INDIVIDUAL - MIGHT BE
VEXATIOUS OR OPPRESSIVE.  FN4  AN ADVENTITIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE MIGHT LAND
A CASE IN ONE COURT WHEN IN FAIRNESS IT SHOULD BE TRIED IN ANOTHER. 
THE RELIEF SOUGHT AGAINST A FOREIGN CORPORATION MAY BE SO EXTENSIVE OR
CALL FOR SUCH DETAILED AND CONTINUING SUPERVISION THAT THE MATTER COULD
BE MORE EFFICIENTLY HANDLED NEARER HOME.  FN5  THE LIMITED TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT FN6  MIGHT INDEED MAKE IT DIFFICULT
FOR IT TO MAKE ITS DECREE EFFECTIVE.  FN7  BUT WHERE IN THIS TYPE OF
LITIGATION ONLY A MONEY JUDGMENT IS SOUGHT, THE CASE NORMALLY IS
DIFFERENT.  THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM INVOLVES COMPLICATED AFFAIRS OF A
FOREIGN CORPORATION IS NOT ALONE A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR A FEDERAL
COURT TO DECLINE TO DECIDE IT.  FN8  THE SAME MAY BE TRUE EVEN WHERE AN
INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT.  FN9  WE GIVE THESE MERELY AS ILLUSTRATIONS. 
EACH CASE TURNS ON ITS FACTS.  THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES HERE,
HOWEVER, WHICH SHOULD LEAD THE DISTRICT COURT IN NEW YORK TO DECLINE TO
EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION WHICH IT HAS. 

IF PETITIONERS' THEORY OF THE CASE IS RIGHT, THE COURT NEED GO NO
FURTHER THAN IT WOULD IN ENFORCING ANY CONTRACT TO PAY MONEY.  IF, AS
THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT, THE PAYMENT OF NET INCOME TO
THE CLASS B DEBENTURES RESTED IN THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTORS, THE
QUESTION UNDER THE APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW WOULD NORMALLY BE WHETHER THEIR
DISCRETION HAD BEEN ABUSED.  FN10 IN CASE IT WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
ABUSED, THE CUSTOMARY REMEDY IS COMPARABLE TO THAT WHICH A COURT OF
EQUITY AFFORDS IN A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.  FN11  THE POINT IS
THAT, HOWEVER THIS SUIT BE VIEWED, THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS NOT OF SUCH A
CHARACTER AS TO SUGGEST THAT THE FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK WOULD BE SO
HANDICAPPED THAT IT SHOULD REMIT THE PARTIES TO WISCONSIN.  THERE IS A
SUGGESTION THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD BE REMITTED TO WISCONSIN BECAUSE A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE COVENANT WILL PRIMARILY AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF THE
PUBLIC IN THAT STATE WHERE ALL OF RESPONDENT'S RAILROAD LINES ARE
LOCATED.  REFERENCE IS MADE TO NEW YORK, L.E. & W.R. CO. V. NICKALS,
119 U.S. 296, WHERE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS SUED FOR DIVIDENDS WHICH
THEY CLAIMED HAD BEEN EARNED ON THEIR STOCK AND WRONGFULLY WITHHELD. 
THE COURT CONSTRUED THE PARTICULAR CONTRACT AS VESTING DISCRETION IN
THE DIRECTORS.  IN HOLDING THAT THEIR DISCRETION IN WITHHOLDING A
DISTRIBUTION OF NET EARNINGS HAD NOT BEEN ABUSED, IT EMPHASIZED "THE
DUTY OF THE COMPANY TO MAINTAIN ITS TRACK AND CARS IN SUCH CONDITION AS
TO ACCOMMODATE THE PUBLIC AND PROVIDE FOR THE SAFE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS AND FREIGHT."  P. 306.  BUT SUCH CONSIDERATIONS WILL
FREQUENTLY BE INVOLVED IN APPLYING THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
SUPRA.  THEY GO NO FURTHER THAN TO SUGGEST ONE ADDITIONAL PHASE OF
LOCAL LAW WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT, WHETHER IT SITS IN NEW YORK OR IN
WISCONSIN, MAY HAVE TO APPLY.  THEY FALL FAR SHORT OF THOSE INSTANCES,
REVIEWED IN MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, SUPRA, P. 235, WHERE THE FEDERAL
COURT DECLINES TO ACT BECAUSE ITS ACTION MIGHT INTERFERE WITH STATE
PROCEEDINGS, OR STATE FUNCTIONS, OR THE FUNCTIONING OF STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES. 

IT WAS HELD IN WEISS V. ROUTH, 149 F.2D 193, THAT A FEDERAL COURT IN
A DIVERSITY CASE WAS REQUIRED BY ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, TO
APPLY THE LOCAL RULE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  WE RESERVE DECISION ON
THAT QUESTION.  FOR EVEN IF WE ASSUME THE NEW YORK RULE TO BE
APPLICABLE HERE, WE WOULD REACH NO DIFFERENT RESULT.  COHN V. MISHKOFF
COSTELLO CO., SUPRA, ON WHICH THE COURT BELOW RELIED, WAS A SUIT
AGAINST A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR THE REDEMPTION OF ITS SHARES OF STOCK
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A DECLARATION OF A DIVIDEND.  BUT THAT
INVOLVED A DEGREE OF VISITATION NOT PRESENT HERE WHERE PETITIONERS SEEK
ONLY A MONEY JUDGMENT ON THEIR DEBENTURES.  NOR DO PETITIONERS
CHALLENGE AN ACT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH "OFFENDED SOLELY AGAINST THE
MAJESTY OF THE STATE TO WHICH IT OWED ITS LIFE."  ERNST V. RUTHERFORD
GAS CO., 38 APP. DIV. 388, 392, 56 N.Y.S. 403.  THE COURT OF APPEALS IN
THE COHN CASE STATED THAT "CONTRACTS BETWEEN A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND
ITS MEMBERS WILL USUALLY BE ENFORCED IN THE COURTS OF THIS STATE."  256
N.Y. P. 105.  CARDOZO, J., STATED THE NEW YORK RULE IN TRAVIS V. KNOX
TERPEZONE CO., 215 N.Y. 259, 264, 109 N.E. 250, AS FOLLOWS:  "TO TRACE
IN ADVANCE THE PRECISE LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE CONTROVERSIES
AFFECTING A FOREIGN CORPORATION IN WHICH JURISDICTION WILL BE ASSUMED
AND THOSE IN WHICH JURISDICTION WILL BE DECLINED, WOULD BE A DIFFICULT
AND HAZARDOUS VENTURE.  A LITIGANT IS NOT, HOWEVER, TO BE EXCLUDED
BECAUSE HE IS A STOCKHOLDER, UNLESS CONSIDERATIONS OF CONVENIENCE OR OF
EFFICIENCY OR OF JUSTICE POINT TO THE COURTS OF THE DOMICILE OF THE
CORPORATION AS THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUNALS."  AND SEE THE NEW YORK
AUTHORITIES REVIEWED IN WEISS V. ROUTH, SUPRA.  IN THE TRAVIS CASE THE
COURT ENTERTAINED A SUIT BY A STOCKHOLDER OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION TO
COMPEL THE TRANSFER OF SHARES OR TO RECOVER THEIR VALUE.  WE PERCEIVE
IN THE PRESENT CASE NO GREATER INTERFERENCE IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF
THIS FOREIGN CORPORATION. 

NOR CAN WE CONCLUDE THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS SUIT IN NEW YORK
WILL BE VEXATIOUS OR OPPRESSIVE.  PETITIONERS, AS WE HAVE SAID, RESIDE
THERE.  WHILE RESPONDENT'S RAILROAD LINES ARE WHOLLY IN WISCONSIN, IT
DOES BUSINESS IN NEW YORK.  THE CLASS B DEBENTURES ARE LISTED AND
TRADED IN ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE.  THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE ON THEM
IN LIEU OF INTEREST ARE PAYABLE IN NEW YORK.  RESPONDENT MAINTAINS ITS
FINANCIAL AS WELL AS A TRAFFIC OFFICE IN NEW YORK.  IT MAINTAINS A BANK
ACCOUNT IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY TO TAKE CARE OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER ITS
SECURITIES, BUT ALSO TO HANDLE EXCESS OPERATING FUNDS NOT NEEDED IN
WISCONSIN.  FIVE OF RESPONDENT'S SIX DIRECTORS ARE TO BE FOUND IN NEW
YORK.  THESE FIVE DIRECTORS INCLUDE ALL THE EXECUTIVE AND FISCAL
OFFICERS, EXCEPT THE PRESIDENT WHO SUPERVISES OPERATIONS IN WISCONSIN
AND THE GENERAL AUDITOR WHO IS IN WISCONSIN.  DIRECTORS' MEETINGS ARE
CUSTOMARILY HELD IN NEW YORK.  TWO OF THE THREE MEMBERS OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, WHICH ACTS FOR THE BOARD BETWEEN MEETINGS, ARE TO
BE FOUND IN NEW YORK.  FINANCIAL RECORDS, TRANSFER BOOKS, MINUTE BOOKS
AND THE LIKE ARE KEPT IN NEW YORK.  THESE FACTS PLAINLY INDICATE TO US
THAT IT WOULD NOT BE VEXATIOUS OR OPPRESSIVE TO ENTERTAIN THIS SUIT IN
NEW YORK, WHETHER THE AVAILABILITY OF WITNESSES OR ANY OTHER ASPECT OF
A TRIAL BE CONSIDERED.  WE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDE THAT, THE REQUIREMENTS
OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE BEING SATISFIED (JUDICIAL CODE, SECS. 24, 51,
28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(1), 112), THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE
DECLINED TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE CASE.  REVERSED.    FN1  "THE SAID
RAILROAD COMPANY HEREBY AGREES THAT UNTIL SUCH PAYMENT, THE HOLDERS OF
THIS SERIES OF DEBENTURES SHALL IN LIEU OF INTEREST THEREON PARTICIPATE
IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL NET INCOME TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT, VIZ.:
- SO MUCH OF THE ANNUAL NET EARNINGS OF THE SAID COMPANY IN ANY YEAR AS
WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS ON STOCK SHALL BE
APPLIED AS FOLLOWS, VIZ.: - TO THE HOLDERS OF CLASS A DEBENTURES 2 1/2
PER CENT UPON THE FACE VALUE THEREOF, OR IF SUCH ANNUAL NET EARNINGS
ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE SAME, THEN ALL SUCH NET
EARNINGS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED PRO RATA AMONG THE HOLDERS OF SAID CLASS
A DEBENTURES.  AFTER THE PAYMENT OF 2 1/2 PER CENT UPON THE FACE VALUE
OF CLASS A DEBENTURES, THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY ARE ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE THE BALANCE OF SUCH NET EARNINGS UNTIL 2 1/2 PER CENT SHALL
HAVE BEEN PAID OUT OF THE SAME UPON THE PAR VALUE OF THE SAID STOCK,
AND ALL SURPLUS NET EARNINGS THEN REMAINING SHALL BE PAID TO THE
HOLDERS OF CLASS A DEBENTURES AND OF THE STOCK PRO RATA UNTIL FIVE PER
CENT SHALL HAVE BEEN PAID UPON THE FACE VALUE OF SAID DEBENTURES AND
UPON THE PAR OF SAID STOCK FOR SUCH YEAR, AND ANY SURPLUS NET EARNINGS
ARISING IN SUCH YEAR WHICH MAY THEN REMAIN SHALL BE PAID TO AND
DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE HOLDERS OF CLASS B DEBENTURES PRO RATA.  NONE OF
SUCH PAYMENTS SHALL BE CUMULATIVE.  THE AMOUNTS, IF ANY, PAYABLE UPON
THIS SERIES OF DEBENTURES OUT OF THE NET EARNINGS IN ANY YEAR, WILL BE
FIXED AND DECLARED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON OR BEFORE THE FIRST DAY
OF FEBRUARY, IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR  ..." 

FN2  PETITIONERS ALLEGED THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THREE YEARS,
RESPONDENT HAD SUBSTANTIAL NET EARNINGS IN EACH YEAR FROM 1924 TO 1943
INCLUSIVE, IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS REQUIRED TO BE PAID AND ACTUALLY
PAID ON THE CLASS A DEBENTURES AND ON THE STOCK.  THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT
OF SUCH NET EARNINGS, AFTER DEDUCTING RESERVES FOR ADDITIONS AND
GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS AND DEPRECIATION, AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE PAYMENTS
ON THE CLASS A DEBENTURES AND THE STOCK WAS ALLEGED TO BE APPROXIMATELY
$1,650,000.  THE AMOUNTS ACTUALLY PAID ON THE CLASS B DEBENTURES DURING
THOSE YEARS WAS $840,000, LEAVING DUE, ACCORDING TO PETITIONERS, ABOUT
$810,000. 

FN3  MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DISSENTING, ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO.,
SUPRA, P. 151. 

FN4  IN GIBB, INTERNATIONAL LAW OF JURISDICTION (1926), PP. 212-213,
THE LAW OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND IS STATED AS FOLLOWS:  "THE COURT WILL
NOT HOLD ITS HAND UNLESS THERE BE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,
SUCH HARDSHIP ON THE PARTY SETTING UP THE PLEA AS WOULD AMOUNT TO
VEXATIOUSNESS OR OPPRESSION IF THE COURT PERSISTED IN EXERCISING
JURISDICTION.  THE INCONVENIENCE, THEN, MUST AMOUNT TO ACTUAL HARDSHIP,
AND THIS MUST BE REGARDED AS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON OF SUCCESS IN
PUTTING FORWARD A DEFENCE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  FOR THE GENERAL
RULE IS THAT A COURT POSSESSING JURISDICTION MUST EXERCISE IT UNLESS
THE REASONS TO THE CONTRARY ARE CLEAR AND COGENT." 

IN SOCIETE DU GAZ DE PARIS V. "LES ARMATEURS FRANCAIS", 1926 S.C.
(H.L.)  13, PERHAPS THE LEADING ENGLISH CASE ON THE SUBJECT, A FRENCH
MANUFACTURING COMPANY SUED A FIRM OF FRENCH SHIPOWNERS IN A SCOTTISH
COURT ON A CHARTER-PARTY.  IT PROVIDED THAT THE VESSEL WAS TO LOAD A
CARGO OF COAL IN ENGLAND AND PROCEED TO A FRENCH PORT.  THE VESSEL,
AFTER LOADING, SAILED AND FOUNDERED.  THE PLAINTIFF ATTACHED ANOTHER
VESSEL OF DEFENDANTS FOUND IN A SCOTTISH PORT AND CLAIMED DAMAGES BY
REASON OF THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL.  NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR
DEFENDANT HAD A PLACE OF BUSINESS IN SCOTLAND.  THE BULK OF THE
EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE CONTROVERSY WAS FRENCH, NO
MACHINERY EXISTED FOR COMPELLING THE ATTENDANCE OF FRENCH WITNESSES IN
A SCOTTISH COURT, NO QUESTION OF SCOTS LAW WAS INVOLVED, AND A TRIAL IN
SCOTLAND WOULD DEPRIVE DEFENDANTS OF A DEFENSE OPEN UNDER FRENCH LAW. 
A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE PLEA OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS WAS SUSTAINED. 
LORD CHANCELLOR CAVE SUMMARIZED THE RULE AS FOLLOWS:  "...  IF IN ANY
CASE IT APPEARED TO THE COURT, AFTER GIVING CONSIDERATION TO THE
INTERESTS OF BOTH PARTIES AND TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF JUSTICE, THAT THE
CASE COULD NOT BE SUITABLY TRIED IN THE COURT IN WHICH IT WAS
INSTITUTED, AND FULL JUSTICE COULD NOT BE DONE THERE TO THE PARTIES,
BUT COULD BE DONE IN ANOTHER COURT, THEN THE FORMER COURT MIGHT GIVE
EFFECT TO THE PLEA BY DECLINING JURISDICTION AND PERMITTING THE ISSUES
TO BE FOUGHT OUT IN THE MORE APPROPRIATE COURT."  PP. 16-17.  LORD SHAW
OF DUNFERMLINE STATED:  "IF IN THE WHOLE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT
BE DISCOVERED THAT THERE IS A REAL UNFAIRNESS TO ONE OF THE SUITORS IN
PERMITTING THE CHOICE OF A FORUM WHICH IS NOT THE NATURAL OR PROPER
FORUM, EITHER ON THE GROUND OF CONVENIENCE OF TRIAL OR THE RESIDENCE OR
DOMICILE OF PARTIES, OR OF ITS BEING EITHER THE LOCUS CONTRACTUS, OR
THE LOCUS SOLUTIONIS, THEN THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IS
PROPERLY APPLIED."  P. 20. 

AND SEE CANADA MALTING CO. V. PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, 285 U.S. 413, 423,
WHERE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SPEAKING FOR THE COURT SAID, "COURTS OF
EQUITY AND OF LAW ALSO OCCASIONALLY DECLINE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE, TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION, WHERE THE SUIT IS BETWEEN ALIENS OR
NON-RESIDENTS OR WHERE FOR KINDRED REASONS THE LITIGATION CAN MORE
APPROPRIATELY BE CONDUCTED IN A FOREIGN TRIBUNAL."  FOR REVIEWS OF THE
CASES SEE BLAIR, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN ANGLO-AMERICAN
LAW, 29 COL. L. REV. 1; FOSTER, PLACE OF TRIAL IN CIVIL ACTIONS, 43
HARV. L. REV. 1217, 44 HARV. L. REV. 41; DAINOW, THE INAPPROPRIATE
FORUM, 29 ILL. L. REV. 867. 

FN5  SEE WALLACE V. MOTOR PRODUCTS CORP., 25 F.2D 655, WHERE A SUIT
WAS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN MICHIGAN TO ANNUL THE
REORGANIZATION OF A NEW YORK CORPORATION AND TO RESTORE THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE OLD CORPORATION TO THE POSITION THEY HAD OCCUPIED
PRIOR TO THE REINCORPORATION; EBERHARD V. NORTHWESTERN LIFE INS. CO.,
210 F. 520, WHERE POLICY HOLDERS OF A WISCONSIN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN OHIO FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF DIVIDENDS
RECEIVED AND PAID AND FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ELECTION OF
TRUSTEES, AND PRAYING THAT THE TRUSTEES WHO HAD COMMITTED ALLEGEDLY
WRONGFUL ACTS BE DECREED NOT TO BE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AND THAT A
RECEIVER OF THE COMPANY BE APPOINTED; BOYER V. TRAVELERS' PROTECTIVE
ASSN., 75 F.2D 440, WHERE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN
PENNSYLVANIA TO ENJOIN A MISSOURI CORPORATION FROM ENFORCING CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS TO ITS CONSTITUTION; COHEN V. AMERICAN WINDOW GLASS CO., 126
F.2D 111, WHERE STOCKHOLDERS OF A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION SUED IN THE
FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK TO ENJOIN A PROPOSED MERGER, TO HAVE DECLARED
ILLEGAL THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS, AND TO HAVE A RECEIVER, RESIDENT IN
PENNSYLVANIA, APPOINTED. 

FN6  GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S. 439, 467-468, AND CASES
CITED. 

FN7  THE SAME IS TRUE, OF COURSE, OF STATE COURTS.  SEE TAYLOR V.
MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASSN., 97 VA. 60, 33 S.E. 385; HOWELL V.
CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 51 BARB.  378, 383.  CF. ALSO THE CASES WHERE THE
COURT IN WHICH SUIT IS BROUGHT CANNOT GIVE THE RELIEF NECESSARY TO
PRODUCE AN EQUITABLE RESULT (MARSHALL V. SHERMAN, 148 N.Y. 9, 42 N.E.
419; STATE V. DENTON, 229 MO. 187, 129 S.W. 709) OR WHERE THE RIGHT OF
RECOVERY IS INCAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE IT IS SO DISSIMILAR TO ANY
WHICH THE COURT, WHOSE JURISDICTION IS INVOKED, RECOGNIZES.  SLATER V.
MEXICAN NATIONAL R. CO., 194 U.S. 120. 

FN8  AMERICAN SEATING CO. V. BULLARD, 290 F. 896, 901, WHERE
STOCKHOLDERS OF A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, WHO DID NOT CONSENT TO THE
SALE OF ITS ASSETS PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND
REFINANCING, SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN MICHIGAN TO RECOVER THE VALUE
OF THEIR STOCK; UNITED MILK PRODUCTS CORP. V. LOVELL, 75 F.2D
923(SEMBLE); NATIONAL LOCK CO. V. HOGLAND, 101 F.2D 576(SEMBLE);
OVERFIELD V. PENNROAD CORP., 113 F.2D 6, WHERE STOCKHOLDERS BROUGHT A
DERIVATIVE ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA TO RECOVER FOR
WRONGS DONE THEIR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, BY A PENNSYLVANIA
COMPANY; WILLIAMSON V. MISSOURI-KANSAS PIPE LINE CO., SUPRA, (SEMBLE). 
CF. KELLEY V. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO., 139 F.2D 76. 

FN9  HARR V. PIONEER MECHANICAL CORP., 65 F.2D 332, WHERE
STOCKHOLDERS OF A DELAWARE CORPORATION SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN NEW
YORK TO ENJOIN THE SALE OF STOCK ON THE REPRESENTATION THAT IT HAD
PRIORITY OVER THE SHARES HELD BY PLAINTIFFS; AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS V.
POWELL, 298 F. 417, WHERE STOCKHOLDERS OF A MARYLAND CORPORATION SUED
IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN LOUISIANA TO ANNUL AND CANCEL THE ISSUANCE OF
CERTAIN STOCK. 

FN10  THAT IS THE USUAL RULE IN SUITS TO COMPEL THE DECLARATION OF
DIVIDENDS.  DODGE V. FORD MOTOR CO., 204 MICH. 459, 170 N.W. 668; MOREY
V. FISH BROS. WAGON CO., 108 WIS. 520, 529, 84 N.W. 862; HISCOCK V.
LACY, 9 MISC. 578, 30 N.Y.S. 860; KASSEL V. EMPIRE TINWARE CO., 178
APP. DIV. 176, 164 N.Y.S. 1033. 

SEE SPELLMAN, CORPORATE DIRECTORS (1931) SEC. 141; WEINER, THEORY OF
ANGLO-AMERICAN DIVIDEND LAW, 29 COL. L. REV. 461; BALLANTINE & HILLS,
CORPORATE CAPITAL AND RESTRICTIONS UPON DIVIDENDS UNDER MODERN
CORPORATION LAWS, 23 CALIF. L. REV. 229. 

FN11  FOR THE DECREE ENTERED IN DODGE V. FORD MOTOR CO., SUPRA NOTE
9, SEE KALES V. WOODWORTH, 20 F.2D 395, 396.  AND SEE BOARDMAN V. LAKE
SHORE & M.S.R. CO., 84 N.Y. 157, 180; KASSEL V. EMPIRE TINWARE CO.,
SUPRA NOTE 10, P. 180. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






SCHENLEY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 432 


NO. 560.  DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1946.  - 61 F.SUPP.  981, AFFIRMED. 


IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IT WAS A "CONTRACT
CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE" AS DEFINED BY SEC. 203(A)(15) OF PART II OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OR A "PRIVATE CARRIER OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR
VEHICLE" AS DEFINED BY SEC. 203(A)(17), ONE OF THE APPELLANTS APPLIED
TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR A PERMIT UNDER SEC. 209(B) TO
OPERATE AS A "CONTRACT CARRIER."  IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, IT MOVED TO DISMISS ITS OWN APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT
THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS WERE NOT SUCH AS TO MAKE IT A "CONTRACT
CARRIER," INTRODUCED NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 209(B),
AND SOUGHT A RULING BY THE COMMISSION THAT IT COULD CARRY ON ITS
OPERATIONS AS A "PRIVATE CARRIER" WITHOUT OBTAINING A PERMIT.  IT
CONTENDED THAT IT WAS A "PRIVATE CARRIER" BECAUSE ITS OPERATIONS WERE
TO BE PERFORMED FOR ITS PARENT CORPORATION (WHICH OWNED ALL OF
APPLICANT'S STOCK) AND FOR OTHER CORPORATIONS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY
THE PARENT.  THE COMMISSION RULED IN ITS REPORT THAT APPLICANT WAS A
"CONTRACT CARRIER" AND NOT A "PRIVATE CARRIER" AND MADE THIS REPORT A
PART OF AN ORDER DENYING THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SHOW
COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 209(B).  APPLICANT AND ITS PARENT CORPORATION SUED
TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  HELD: 

1.  THE PARENT CORPORATION HAD NO STANDING TO SUE, SINCE IT DID NOT
APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND ITS SOLE INTEREST IN THE PERMIT SOUGHT BY THE
APPLICANT WAS THAT OF A STOCKHOLDER.  P. 435. 

2.  THE PARENT CORPORATION IS ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED FOR THE PURPOSES
OF SUCH A SUIT BY THE SUBSIDIARY, WHOSE CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION IT
CONTROLS.  P. 435. 

3.  IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO TREAT THE FILING OF AN
APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 209(B), WITH A REQUEST THAT IT BE DISMISSED ON
THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED, AS A PROPER METHOD OF RAISING THE
ISSUE WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  CORNELL STEAMBOAT
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 634, 635, REAFFIRMED.  P. 436. 

4.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DETERMINING THAT APPLICANT IS SUBJECT TO
THE ACT IS A REVIEWABLE ORDER.  P. 436. 

5.  APPLICANT'S PROPOSED OPERATIONS WOULD CLEARLY CONSTITUTE IT A
"CONTRACT" RATHER THAN A "PRIVATE" CARRIER.  P. 436. 

6.  WHILE CORPORATE ENTITIES MAY BE DISREGARDED WHEN THEY ARE USED TO
AVOID A CLEAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, THEY WILL NOT BE DISREGARDED WHERE
THOSE IN CONTROL HAVE DELIBERATELY ADOPTED THE CORPORATE FORM IN ORDER
TO SECURE ITS ADVANTAGES AND WHERE NO VIOLENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE IS DONE BY TREATING THE CORPORATION AS A SEPARATE LEGAL
PERSON.  P. 437. 

7.  THE FACT THAT SEVERAL CORPORATIONS ARE USED IN CARRYING ON ONE
BUSINESS DOES NOT RELIEVE THEM OF THEIR SEVERAL STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. 
P. 437. 

SCHENLEY DISTILLERS CORP. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF DELAWARE. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT, THREE JUDGES
SITTING, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, 38 STAT. 220,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 47, DISMISSING APPELLANTS' PETITION TO SET ASIDE AN
ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  APPELLANT SCHENLEY
DISTILLERIES MOTOR DIVISION, INC., APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION FOR A
PERMIT, UNDER SEC. 209(B) OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 309(B), AUTHORIZING OPERATION AS A "CONTRACT CARRIER BY
MOTOR VEHICLE" OF SPECIFIED COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BETWEEN
SPECIFIED POINTS.  AT THE OUTSET OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, THE APPELLANT MOVED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION ON THE
GROUND THAT THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS WERE NOT SUCH AS TO CONSTITUTE
APPLICANT A "CONTRACT CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE," DEFINED BY SEC.
203(A)(15) OF THE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(A)(15), AS "ANY PERSON WHICH,
UNDER INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS, ENGAGES IN THE TRANSPORTATION
(OTHER THAN TRANSPORTATION REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH (14) AND THE
EXCEPTION THEREIN) BY MOTOR VEHICLE OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION." 

APPLICANT CONTENDED AT THE HEARING THAT IT WAS A "PRIVATE CARRIER OF
PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE," WHICH IS DEFINED BY SEC. 203(A)(17) AS "ANY
PERSON NOT INCLUDED IN THE TERMS 'COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE' OR
'CONTRACT CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE', WHO OR WHICH TRANSPORTS IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE BY MOTOR VEHICLE PROPERTY OF WHICH SUCH
PERSON IS THE OWNER, LESSEE, OR BAILEE, WHEN SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SALE, LEASE, RENT, OR BAILMENT, OR IN FURTHERANCE OF ANY
COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE." 

APPLICANT INTRODUCED NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY SEC. 209(B) FOR GRANTING A PERMIT AS A
"CONTRACT CARRIER" BUT SOUGHT A RULING BY THE COMMISSION THAT IT COULD
CARRY ON ITS OPERATIONS AS A "PRIVATE CARRIER" WITHOUT OBTAINING A
PERMIT.  STATING THAT "THE PRIMARY REASON FOR FILING THIS APPLICATION
WAS TO SECURE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE INVOLVED OPERATIONS
WERE THOSE OF A CONTRACT CARRIER OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE OR OF A
PRIVATE CARRIER," DIVISION 5 OF THE COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT RULED THAT
THE APPLICANT WAS A "CONTRACT CARRIER" AND NOT A "PRIVATE CARRIER."  AS
NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN INTRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS
WOULD COMPLY WITH SEC. 209(B), DIVISION 5 MADE ITS ORDER DENYING THE
APPLICATION, AND MADE THE REPORT A PART OF THE ORDER.  RECONSIDERATION
BY THE FULL COMMISSION WAS DENIED. 

THIS SUIT TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS BROUGHT BY THE
APPLICANT, SCHENLEY DISTILLERIES MOTOR DIVISION, AND BY SCHENLEY
DISTILLERS CORPORATION, OWNER OF ALL THE STOCK OF THE FORMER.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER.  IT
DISMISSED THE SUIT AS TO THE PARENT CORPORATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT
HAD NO LEGAL INTEREST SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE IT TO MAINTAIN SUIT.  THE
COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION PROPERLY RULED THAT THE APPLICANT WAS A
"CONTRACT CARRIER," AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE PARENT CORPORATION HAD NO
STANDING TO SUE.  IT DID NOT ASK THAT A PERMIT BE ISSUED TO IT, AND ITS
SOLE INTEREST IN THE PERMIT SOUGHT FOR ITS CO-APPELLANT WAS THAT OF A
STOCKHOLDER.  WE HAVE HELD THAT A MINORITY STOCKHOLDER OF A CARRIER
CORPORATION CANNOT BRING SUIT TO SET ASIDE A COMMISSION ORDER AGAINST
THE CORPORATION.  PITTSBURGH & W. VA. R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S.
479, 486-488.  A PARENT CORPORATION WHICH BY ITS STOCK OWNERSHIP
CONTROLS ITS SUBSIDIARY, AND WHICH AS A PARTY LITIGANT ASSERTS ONLY ITS
STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE RIGHTS TO HAVE ITS SUBSIDIARY SECURE THE
PERMIT, CF. AMERICAN POWER CO. V. S.E.C., 325 U.S. 385, 389, IS EVEN
LESS AGGRIEVED BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DENYING THE PERMIT THAN WOULD
BE A MINORITY STOCKHOLDER.  FOR THE PARENT IS ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED
FOR PURPOSES OF SUIT BY THE SUBSIDIARY WHOSE CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION
IT CONTROLS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CHARACTER OF A STOCKHOLDER'S
INTEREST IN THIS REGARD IS NOT SO ALTERED BY THE MERE FACTS THAT IT
OWNS ALL THE STOCK OF THE CORPORATION AGAINST WHICH THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER IS ENTERED AND THAT THE PARENT MANAGES AND CONTROLS ITS
SUBSIDIARY, AS TO GIVE THE STOCKHOLDER STANDING TO SUE TO SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

AS TO APPELLANT SCHENLEY DISTILLERIES MOTOR DIVISION, INC., THE
APPELLEE URGES THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT
THE APPELLANT MADE NO SHOWING SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF THE
PERMIT SOUGHT BY THE APPLICATION AND THAT THUS THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
RESTS ON A CONTROLLING GROUND, I.E., LACK OF EVIDENCE.  BUT THERE
REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT
APPELLANT WILL BE A "CONTRACT CARRIER" IS REVIEWABLE IN THE PRESENT
SUIT.  THE COMMISSION MADE ITS REPORT A PART OF ITS ORDER, AND THE
REPORT DENIED THE RELIEF WHICH APPELLANT SOUGHT, NAMELY, A
DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS A "PRIVATE CARRIER" ENTITLED TO CARRY ON ITS
OPERATIONS WITHOUT A PERMIT AND WITHOUT SUBJECTING ITSELF TO CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS.  THE COMMISSION HAS TREATED THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION
UNDER SEC. 209(B) WITH A REQUEST THAT THE APPLICATION BE DISMISSED ON
THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED, AS A PROPER METHOD OF RAISING THE
ISSUE WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  ANY OTHER
CONSTRUCTION OF THAT SECTION WOULD MAKE IT NECESSARY FOR A CARRIER TO
TAKE THE RISK OF OPERATING ILLEGALLY AND INCURRING CRIMINAL AND OTHER
PENALTIES IN ORDER TO SECURE A DETERMINATION WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE
PERMIT REQUIREMENT.  WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THAT THE COURSE FOLLOWED
HERE WAS "APPROPRIATE," AND THAT AN ORDER DETERMINING THAT THE
APPELLANT IS WITHIN THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IS A REVIEWABLE ORDER. 
CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 634, 635.  WE REAFFIRM
THAT HOLDING. 

WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT WAS PLAINLY RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE
COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT APPELLANT'S PROPOSED OPERATIONS WOULD
CONSTITUTE IT A "CONTRACT" RATHER THAN A "PRIVATE" CARRIER. 
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION TO THE CONTRARY IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT ITS
OPERATIONS WERE TO BE PERFORMED FOR ITS PARENT AND FOR OTHER
CORPORATIONS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE PARENT.  APPELLANT SAYS THAT
THE TRANSPORTATION WILL BE IN FURTHERANCE OF ONE "COMMERCIAL
ENTERPRISE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 203(A)(17).  BUT THAT SECTION
APPLIES ONLY TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SEC. 203(A)(15) DOES NOT, AND THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE TRANSPORTATION WAS
TO BE "FOR COMPENSATION" FROM APPELLANT'S PARENT AND THE OTHER
CORPORATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE PARENT.  APPELLANT URGES THAT WE
DISREGARD THE SEPARATE CORPORATE ENTITIES WHICH ARE TO PAY COMPENSATION
TO APPELLANT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AND TREAT THE CORPORATIONS
CONTROLLED BY APPELLANT'S PARENT AS ONE SINGLE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE. 
WHILE CORPORATE ENTITIES MAY BE DISREGARDED WHERE THEY ARE MADE THE
IMPLEMENT FOR AVOIDING A CLEAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, THEY WILL NOT BE
DISREGARDED WHERE THOSE IN CONTROL HAVE DELIBERATELY ADOPTED THE
CORPORATE FORM IN ORDER TO SECURE ITS ADVANTAGES AND WHERE NO VIOLENCE
TO THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE IS DONE BY TREATING THE CORPORATE ENTITY AS
A SEPARATE LEGAL PERSON.  ONE WHO HAS CREATED A CORPORATE ARRANGEMENT,
CHOSEN AS A MEANS OF CARRYING OUT HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES, DOES NOT HAVE
THE CHOICE OF DISREGARDING THE CORPORATE ENTITY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE
OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE STATUTE LAYS UPON IT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC. 

THE FACT THAT SEVERAL CORPORATIONS ARE USED IN CARRYING ON ONE
BUSINESS DOES NOT RELIEVE THEM OF THEIR SEVERAL STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS
MORE THAN IT RELIEVES THEM OF THE TAXES SEVERALLY LAID UPON THEM.  "IF
THE ONE BUSINESS COULD NOT BE CARRIED ON WITHOUT TWO CORPORATIONS
TAKING PART IN IT, EACH MUST PAY, BY THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE ACT." 
EDWARDS V. CHILE COPPER CO., 270 U.S. 452, 456.  CF. GRAY V. POWELL,
314 U.S. 402, 414; MOLINE PROPERTIES V. COMMISSIONER, 319 U.S. 436. 
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :









MISSISSIPPI PUB. CORP. V. MURPHREE, 326 U.S. 438 


NO. 234.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1946.  - 149
F.2D 138, AFFIRMED. 


RESPONDENT, A RESIDENT OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI,
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THAT DISTRICT AGAINST
PETITIONER, A DELAWARE CORPORATION HAVING AN OFFICE AND PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN
AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING $3,000 FOR LIBEL PUBLISHED IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT.  THE SUIT WAS BEGUN BY SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT BY THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL UPON THE AGENT DESIGNATED BY
PETITIONER TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS WITHIN THE STATE.  HELD: 

1.  THE CASE BEING OF A CIVIL NATURE, THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
EXCEEDING $3,000, AND THE PARTIES BEING OF DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP, THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.  P. 440. 

2.  SINCE THE SOLE GROUND OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION WAS DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP AND SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S
RESIDENCE, THERE WAS NO WANT OF VENUE UNDER SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE.  P. 441. 

3.  PETITIONER WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT AND SUBJECTED TO ITS JUDGMENT IN THE SUIT BY SERVICE
OF SUMMONS ON PETITIONER'S AGENT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT, SINCE THIS
WAS AUTHORIZED BY RULES 4(D)(3) AND 4(F) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  P. 443. 

4.  AS THUS APPLIED, RULE 4(F) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IS IN
HARMONY WITH THE ENABLING ACT UNDER WHICH IT WAS PROMULGATED AND WITH
THE STATUTES FIXING VENUE AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS. 
P. 445. 

5.  BY CONSENTING TO SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON ITS AGENT RESIDING IN
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT, PETITIONER RENDERED ITSELF "PRESENT" THERE FOR
PURPOSES OF SERVICE.  P. 442. 

6.  BY APPOINTING AN AGENT TO RECEIVE SERVICE, PETITIONER CONSENTED
TO SUITS WITHIN THE STATE IN COURTS WHICH APPLY THE LAW OF THE STATE,
WHETHER THEY BE STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 443. 

7.  THE FACT THAT THIS COURT PROMULGATED THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AS FORMULATED AND RECOMMENDED BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DOES NOT
FORECLOSE CONSIDERATION OF THEIR VALIDITY, MEANING OR CONSTRUCTION; BUT
IN ASCERTAINING THEIR MEANING THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THEM BY THE
COMMITTEE IS OF WEIGHT.  P. 444. 

8.  RULE 4(F) WAS DEVISED TO PERMIT SERVICE OF PROCESS ANYWHERE
WITHIN A STATE IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUING THE PROCESS IS HELD
AND WHERE THE STATE EMBRACES TWO OR MORE DISTRICTS.  P. 444. 

9.  IT WAS ADOPTED WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO SUITS AGAINST A
FOREIGN CORPORATION HAVING AN AGENT TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS
RESIDENT IN A DISTRICT WITHIN THE STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH THE
SUIT IS BROUGHT.  P. 444. 

10.  RULE 4(F) DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH RULE 82 OR THE STATUTES FIXING
VENUE AND JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS, SINCE IT DOES NOT
ENLARGE OR DIMINISH THE VENUE OR JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS
BUT SERVES ONLY TO IMPLEMENT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED, BY PROVIDING A PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE
DEFENDANT MAY BE BROUGHT INTO COURT AT THE PLACE WHERE CONGRESS HAS
DECLARED THAT SUIT MAY BE MAINTAINED.  P. 444. 

11.  RULE 4(F) DOES NOT "ABRIDGE, ENLARGE, NOR MODIFY THE SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHTS OF ANY LITIGANT," SINCE IT IS A RULE OF PROCEDURE AND NOT OF
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT.  P. 445. 

12.  THE PROHIBITION IN THE ENABLING ACT OF ANY ALTERATION OF
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO SUCH
INCIDENTAL EFFECTS AS NECESSARILY ATTEND THE ADOPTION OF NEW RULES OF
PROCEDURE UPON THE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS WHO, AGREEABLY TO RULES OF
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE A COURT AUTHORIZED TO
DETERMINE THEIR RIGHTS.  P. 445. 

MISSISSIPPI PUBLISHING CORP. V. MURPHREE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST.  P. 702, TO REVIEW REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A SUIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE VENUE WAS NOT PROPERLY LAID. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, A RESIDENT OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI,
BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THAT DISTRICT AGAINST
PETITIONER, A DELAWARE CORPORATION HAVING AN OFFICE AND PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, TO RECOVER DAMAGES
FOR LIBEL PUBLISHED IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT.  THE SUIT WAS BEGUN BY
SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT BY THE UNITED STATES
MARSHAL UPON THE AGENT DESIGNATED BY PETITIONER TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF
PROCESS WITHIN THE STATE.  THE QUESTIONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE WHETHER
THE VENUE WAS PROPERLY LAID IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT, AND WHETHER
PETITIONER COULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT AND SUBJECTED TO ITS
JUDGMENT IN THE SUIT BY SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON PETITIONER'S AGENT IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE VENUE WAS NOT PROPERLY LAID IN THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED,
149 F.2D 138, HOLDING THAT AS THERE WAS DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND AS
THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDED $3,000, THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT HAD JURISDICTION, THAT THE VENUE WAS PROPERLY LAID
THERE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 112, AND THAT SERVICE OF SUMMONS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT WAS
AUTHORIZED BY RULE 4(F) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 326 U.S. 702.  FN1 

THE PRESENT CASE BEING OF A CIVIL NATURE, THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
EXCEEDING $3,000, AND THE PARTIES BEING OF DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP, THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT, THAT
IS, OF THE CLASS OF CASES OF WHICH THE PRESENT IS ONE.  28 U.S.C. SEC.
41(1).  THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES IF THE PETITIONER
WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT BY THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WITHIN
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT.  AND IT COULD RIGHTLY EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION,
NOTWITHSTANDING PETITIONER'S MOTION, UNLESS THERE WAS WANT OF VENUE. 
VENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS CONTROLLED BY SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. 112, WHICH PROVIDES, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL,
THAT "WHERE THE JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED ONLY ON THE FACT THAT THE
ACTION IS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT
ONLY IN THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF EITHER THE PLAINTIFF OR THE
DEFENDANT  ..." 

SINCE THERE WAS JURISDICTION OF THE PRESENT SUIT ON THE SOLE GROUND
OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND SINCE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE
DISTRICT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S RESIDENCE, AS FOUND BY BOTH COURTS BELOW,
THERE WAS, BY SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, NO WANT OF VENUE AND THE
COURT WAS NOT WARRANTED IN DISMISSING THE SUIT IF THE SERVICE OF
SUMMONS WAS EFFECTIVE TO MAKE THE DEFENDANT A PARTY.  NEIRBO CO. V.
BETHLEHEM CORP., 308 U.S. 165, ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIES, SUPPORTS NO
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  THERE THE SOLE GROUND OF JURISDICTION WAS
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES.  THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS
SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN NEW YORK, IN WHICH NEITHER THE
PLAINTIFF NOR THE DEFENDANT WAS A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT,  FN2  BUT WHERE
THE DEFENDANT WAS DOING BUSINESS, MAINTAINED AN OFFICE, AND HAD
CONSENTED TO BE SUED BY APPOINTING A RESIDENT AGENT TO RECEIVE SERVICE
OF PROCESS.  RECOGNIZING THAT SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, IN CASES
WHERE THE JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP,
ESTABLISHES VENUE AS THE PLACE WHERE THE SUIT MAY BE MAINTAINED FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES, AND THAT THE STATUTORY VENUE FOR A SUIT OF
WHICH THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION MAY BE WAIVED, WE HELD THAT THE
CORPORATION HAD WAIVED OBJECTIONS TO VENUE BY ITS CONSENT TO THE SUIT. 
BY DESIGNATING AN AGENT TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS AND CONSENTING TO
BE SUED IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, THE CORPORATION HAD CONSENTED TO
SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BEING A COURT SITTING FOR A DISTRICT WITHIN
THE STATE AND APPLYING THERE THE LAWS OF THE STATE, AND IT HAD THUS
WAIVED THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  308 U.S.
AT 175.  CF. RAILROAD CO. V. HARRIS, 12 WALL.  65; LAFAYETTE INS. CO.
V. FRENCH, 18 HOW.  404; EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369.  IN THE
PRESENT SUIT THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO ESTABLISH WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS TO
VENUE IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, SINCE THE STATUTE HAD
PROVIDED IN ADVANCE THAT THERE SHOULD BE VENUE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT, WHERE RESPONDENT RESIDED. 

UNLIKE THE CONSENT TO SERVICE IN THE NEIRBO CASE THE CONSENT TO
SERVICE OF PROCESS ON PETITIONER'S AGENT THROUGHOUT THE STATE WAS NOT
SIGNIFICANT AS A WAIVER OF VENUE, BUT IT WAS AN ESSENTIAL STEP IN THE
PROCEDURE BY WHICH PETITIONER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT AND RENDERED
AMENABLE TO ITS JUDGMENT IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT.  BY CONSENTING TO
SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON ITS AGENT RESIDING IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT,
PETITIONER RENDERED ITSELF "PRESENT" THERE FOR PURPOSES OF SERVICE. 
SEE EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, SUPRA, 377; CF. INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310.  HAD CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED SERVICE
THERE FOR PURPOSES OF SUIT IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT, PETITIONER WOULD
HAVE BEEN PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE PRESENT SUIT, SINCE CONGRESS COULD PROVIDE FOR SERVICE OF
PROCESS ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES.  TOLAND V. SPRAGUE, 12 PET. 300,
328; UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 98 U.S. 569, 604; ROBERTSON
V. RAILROAD LABOR BOARD, 268 U.S. 619, 622. 

CONGRESS, HAVING OMITTED SO TO DIRECT, THE OMISSION WAS SUPPLIED BY
RULE 4(F) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "ALL
PROCESS OTHER THAN A SUBPOENA MAY BE SERVED ANYWHERE WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT IS HELD." 
IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SERVICE WAS MADE PURSUANT TO RULE 4(D)(3) BY
THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL, WHO DELIVERED THE SUMMONS TO THE AGENT OF
PETITIONER DESIGNATED TO RECEIVE THE SERVICE.  IF THE SERVICE OF THE
SUMMONS WAS VALID PETITIONER WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IN
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT, WHICH HAD VENUE AND JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE SUIT. 

IT IS SAID THAT PETITIONER, BY APPOINTING AN AGENT TO RECEIVE
SERVICE, HAS ONLY CONSENTED TO SERVICE OF PROCESS IN SUITS BROUGHT IN
THE STATE COURTS AND IN CONFORMITY TO STATE STATUTES REGULATING THE
VENUE, AND THAT IN ANY CASE RULE 4(F) WAS ADOPTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY
SINCE THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 723B,
WHICH AUTHORIZED THE PROMULGATION OF RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE DISTRICT
COURTS, DIRECTED THAT THEY "SHALL NEITHER ABRIDGE, ENLARGE, NOR MODIFY
THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF ANY LITIGANT," AND BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION
GIVEN TO RULE 4(F) BY THE COURT BELOW IS INCONSISTENT WITH RULE 82
WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE RULES "SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXTEND OR
LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OR
THE VENUE OF ACTIONS THEREIN." 

THE ANSWER TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE CONSENT TO SUIT IN THE STATE IS
A CONSENT TO SUIT ONLY IN THE STATE COURTS AND SUBJECT TO STATE
STATUTES REGULATING VENUE IN THOSE COURTS IS PLAIN.  SUCH CONSENT HAS
BEEN UNIFORMLY CONSTRUED TO MEAN SUITS WITHIN THE STATE WHICH APPLY THE
LAW OF THE STATE, WHETHER THEY BE STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS.  SEE NEIRBO
CO. V. BETHLEHEM CORP., SUPRA, 171; CF. EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, SUPRA,
377; MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V. MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239, 255-256;
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. CHATTERS, 279 U.S. 320, 329.  AND
SINCE THE CONSENT IS TO SUITS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, IT IS A CONSENT TO
SUITS BROUGHT IN CONFORMITY TO THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND PROCEDURE OF THOSE COURTS.  EX PARTE
SCHOLLENBERGER, SUPRA, 377; NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM CORP., SUPRA, 175. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER RULE 4(F) IS AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF
BRINGING THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT WHERE THE SUIT WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT IN CONFORMITY TO SEC. 51
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THE FACT THAT THIS COURT PROMULGATED THE RULES
AS FORMULATED AND RECOMMENDED BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DOES NOT
FORECLOSE CONSIDERATION OF THEIR VALIDITY, MEANING OR CONSISTENCY.  BUT
IN ASCERTAINING THEIR MEANING THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THEM BY THE
COMMITTEE IS OF WEIGHT.  RULE 4(F), AS EXPLAINED BY THE AUTHORIZED
SPOKESMEN FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, SEE PROCEEDINGS OF WASHINGTON AND
NEW YORK INSTITUTE ON FEDERAL RULES, 291, 292; PROCEEDINGS OF THE
CLEVELAND INSTITUTE ON THE FEDERAL RULES, 205, 206, WAS DEVISED SO AS
TO PERMIT SERVICE OF PROCESS ANYWHERE WITHIN A STATE IN WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT ISSUING THE PROCESS IS HELD AND WHERE THE STATE EMBRACES
TWO OR MORE DISTRICTS.  IT WAS ADOPTED WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO
SUITS AGAINST A FOREIGN CORPORATION HAVING AN AGENT TO RECEIVE SERVICE
OF PROCESS RESIDENT IN A DISTRICT WITHIN THE STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN
WHICH THE SUIT IS BROUGHT.  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE RULE DID NOT
AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OR VENUE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS FIXED BY THE
STATUTE, BUT WAS INTENDED AMONG OTHER THINGS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURAL
MEANS OF BRINGING THE CORPORATION DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT IN
CONFORMITY TO ITS CONSENT, BY SERVING THE AGENT WHEREVER HE MIGHT BE
FOUND WITHIN THE STATE.  SEE ALSO HUGHES, FEDERAL PRACTICE, VOL. 17,
SEC. 18993; MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, VOL. 1, P. 360-361. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH A
COURT HAVING VENUE AND JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT
ASSERTS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE PARTY SERVED.  BUT IT IS
EVIDENT THAT RULE 4(F) AND RULE 82 MUST BE CONSTRUED TOGETHER, AND THAT
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, IN DOING SO, HAS TREATED RULE 82 AS REFERRING
TO VENUE AND JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISTRICT COURTS
AS DEFINED BY THE STATUTES, SECS. 51 AND 52 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE IN
PARTICULAR, RATHER THAN THE MEANS OF BRINGING THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THE
COURT ALREADY HAVING VENUE AND JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER. 
RULE 4(F) DOES NOT ENLARGE OR DIMINISH THE VENUE OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
OR ITS POWER TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN THE SUIT, WHICH IS JURISDICTION OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER, INDUSTRIAL ASSN. V. COMMISSIONER, 323 U.S. 310,
313, TO WHICH RULE 82 MUST BE TAKEN TO REFER.  RULE 4(F) SERVES ONLY TO
IMPLEMENT THE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER WHICH CONGRESS HAS
CONFERRED, BY PROVIDING A PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE DEFENDANT MAY BE
BROUGHT INTO COURT AT THE PLACE WHERE CONGRESS HAS DECLARED THAT THE
SUIT MAY BE MAINTAINED.  THUS CONSTRUED, THE RULES ARE CONSISTENT WITH
EACH OTHER AND DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE STATUTE FIXING VENUE AND
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

WE THINK THAT RULE 4(F) IS IN HARMONY WITH THE ENABLING ACT WHICH, IN
AUTHORIZING THIS COURT TO PRESCRIBE GENERAL RULES FOR THE DISTRICT
COURTS GOVERNING PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN CIVIL SUITS IN LAW AND
EQUITY, DIRECTED THAT THE RULES "SHALL NEITHER ABRIDGE, ENLARGE, NOR
MODIFY THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF ANY LITIGANT."  UNDOUBTEDLY MOST
ALTERATIONS OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE MAY AND OFTEN DO
AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS.  CONGRESS' PROHIBITION OF ANY
ALTERATION OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT
ADDRESSED TO SUCH INCIDENTAL EFFECTS AS NECESSARILY ATTEND THE ADOPTION
OF THE PRESCRIBED NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE UPON THE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS
WHO, AGREEABLY TO RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
BEFORE A COURT AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE THEIR RIGHTS.  SIBBACH V. WILSON
& CO., 312 U.S. 1, 11-14.  THE FACT THAT THE APPLICATION OF RULE 4(F)
WILL OPERATE TO SUBJECT PETITIONER'S RIGHTS TO ADJUDICATION BY THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN MISSISSIPPI WILL UNDOUBTEDLY AFFECT THOSE
RIGHTS.  BUT IT DOES NOT OPERATE TO ABRIDGE, ENLARGE OR MODIFY THE
RULES OF DECISION BY WHICH THAT COURT WILL ADJUDICATE ITS RIGHTS.  IT
RELATES MERELY TO "THE MANNER AND THE MEANS BY WHICH A RIGHT TO RECOVER
...  IS ENFORCED."  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99, 109.  IN
THIS SENSE THE RULE IS A RULE OF PROCEDURE AND NOT OF SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHT, AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE ENABLING ACT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE LOWER COURTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSISTENT IN THE APPLICATION OF
RULE 4(F).  COMPARE CONTRACTING DIVISION, A.C. HORN CORP. V. NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO., 113 F.2D 864; GIBBS V. EMERSON ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 29
F.SUPP.  810; MELEKOV V. COLLINS, 30 F.SUPP.  159; CARBY V. GRECO, 31
F.SUPP.  251; RICHARD V. FRANKLIN COUNTY DISTILLING CO., 38 F.SUPP. 
513, WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE PRESENT CASE, 149
F.2D 138; DEVIER V. GEORGE COLE MOTOR CO., 27 F.SUPP.  978; ZWERLING V.
NEW YORK & CUBA MAIL S.S. CO., 33 F.SUPP.  721; WILLIAMS V. JAMES, 34
F.SUPP.  61; SALVATORI V. MILLER MUSIC, INC., 35 F.SUPP.  845; ANDRUS
V. YOUNGER BROS., 49 F.SUPP.  499, AND O'LEARY V. LOFTIN, 3 F.R.D. 36. 

FN2  FOR PURPOSES OF JURISDICTION A CORPORATION IS A CITIZEN OR
RESIDENT ONLY OF THE STATE OF ITS ORGANIZATION.  SHAW V. QUINCY MINING
CO., 145 U.S. 444, 451; IN RE KEASBEY & MATTISON CO., 160 U.S. 221,
229; MACON GROCERY CO. V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 215 U.S. 501, 509;
SEABOARD RICE CO. V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 270 U.S. 363, 366. 
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















RAILROAD BOARD V. DUQUESNE CO., 326 U.S. 446 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1946.  - 148 F.2D 473,
REVERSED - 149 F.2D 507, AFFIRMED. 


WHERE A WAREHOUSE COMPANY WHOLLY OWNED BY A RAILROAD COMPANY LOADS AND
UNLOADS GOODS SHIPPED ON THE RAILROAD, IT PERFORMS SERVICES "IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF  ...  PROPERTY BY RAILROAD"; IT
IS AN "EMPLOYER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1(A) OF THE RAILROAD
RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937 AND SEC. 1(A) OF THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE ACT OF 1938; AND ITS EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS
OF THOSE ACTS, EVEN THOUGH THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED TO, AND PAID FOR
BY, THE SHIPPERS.  P. 453. 

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD ET AL. V. DUQUESNE WAREHOUSE CO. 

NO. 95.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 103, DUQUESNE WAREHOUSE CO. V. RAILROAD RETIREMENT
BOARD ET AL., ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

NO. 95.  CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 848, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF A
JUDGMENT, 56 F.SUPP.  87, SETTING ASIDE A DECISION OF THE RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT IS AN "EMPLOYER" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 1(A) OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT. 

NO. 103.  CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 848, TO REVIEW REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
SETTING ASIDE A DECISION OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD HOLDING THAT
PETITIONER IS AN "EMPLOYER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1(A) OF THE
RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 307, 45 U.S.C. SEC.
228A, ESTABLISHED A SYSTEM OF ANNUITY, PENSION, AND DEATH BENEFITS FOR
EMPLOYEES OF DESIGNATED CLASSES OF EMPLOYERS.  THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT
BOARD ADJUDICATES CLAIMS OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES FOR THE VARIOUS TYPES OF
BENEFITS CREATED BY THE ACT.  SEC. 10(B).  THE ELIGIBILITY OF AN
EMPLOYEE FOR SUCH BENEFITS IS BASED ON SERVICE TO THOSE INCLUDED IN THE
ACT'S DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYER."  SEC. 1(A).  THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER
THE DUQUESNE WAREHOUSE CO. WAS SUCH AN "EMPLOYER."  THE BOARD AFTER A
HEARING FOUND IN NO. 95 THAT IT WAS.  DUQUESNE, PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT, BROUGHT SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT TO
COMPEL THE BOARD TO SET ASIDE ITS ORDER.  FN1  THAT COURT RENDERED
JUDGMENT FOR DUQUESNE.  56 F.SUPP.  87.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, BY A DIVIDED VOTE.  148 F.2D 473. 

THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1094, 45
U.S.C. SEC. 351, ESTABLISHED A SYSTEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR
EMPLOYEES OF DESIGNATED CLASSES OF EMPLOYERS.  THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT
BOARD ADJUDICATES CLAIMS OF ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE PAYMENTS.  SEC. 5(B).  THE ELIGIBILITY OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR
SUCH PAYMENTS IS BASED ON SERVICE TO THOSE INCLUDED IN THE ACT'S
DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYER."  SEC. 1(A).  THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER
DUQUESNE WAS SUCH AN "EMPLOYER."  THE BOARD AFTER A HEARING FOUND IN
NO. 103 THAT IT WAS.  THE FINDINGS WERE IDENTICAL TO THOSE WHICH THE
BOARD MADE IN NO. 95 AND WERE BASED ON THE SAME RECORD.  DUQUESNE,
PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(F), BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO SET ASIDE THAT ORDER.  THAT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT
FOR DUQUESNE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REVERSED.  149 F.2D 507.  SINCE THE DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYER" UNDER BOTH
ACTS WAS THE SAME, THERE WAS PRESENTED A CONFLICT IN DECISIONS WHICH
LED US TO GRANT THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI. 

THE MATERIAL PART OF THE DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYER" CONTAINED IN EACH
ACT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE TERM 'EMPLOYER' MEANS ANY CARRIER  ...  AND ANY COMPANY WHICH IS
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY ONE OR MORE SUCH CARRIERS
OR UNDER COMMON CONTROL THEREWITH, AND WHICH OPERATES ANY EQUIPMENT OR
FACILITY OR PERFORMS ANY SERVICE  ...  IN CONNECTION WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY RAILROAD, OR THE RECEIPT,
DELIVERY, ELEVATION, TRANSFER IN TRANSIT, REFRIGERATION OR ICING,
STORAGE, OR HANDLING OF PROPERTY TRANSPORTED BY RAILROAD  ..." 

DUQUESNE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRST PART OF THE DEFINITION. 
FOR IT IS A CORPORATION, ALL OF WHOSE STOCK IS OWNED BY THE
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, A CARRIER BY RAILROAD.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER DUQUESNE "PERFORMS ANY SERVICE" (1) "IN CONNECTION WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION OF ...  PROPERTY BY RAILROAD" OR (2) "IN CONNECTION WITH
...  THE RECEIPT, DELIVERY  ...  STORAGE, OR HANDLING OF PROPERTY
TRANSPORTED BY RAILROAD." 

DUQUESNE OPERATES TWO WAREHOUSES OWNED AND LEASED TO IT BY THE
PENNSYLVANIA, ONE IN PITTSBURGH AND THE OTHER IN EAST LIBERTY, WITHIN
THE PITTSBURGH CITY LIMITS.  EACH WAREHOUSE IS ON A RAIL SIDING OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA.  AT EAST LIBERTY, DUQUESNE HANDLES AND STORES CARLOAD
SUGAR, ALL OF WHICH COMES IN AND GOES OUT OVER THE PENNSYLVANIA.  THE
SUGAR IS HANDLED BY DUQUESNE UNDER SO-CALLED STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT
PRIVILEGES COVERED BY TARIFFS FILED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA WITH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN2  DUQUESNE UNLOADS THE SUGAR FROM
THE PENNSYLVANIA'S CARS ON ARRIVAL AND RELOADS THE SUGAR INTO
PENNSYLVANIA'S CARS ON THEIR DEPARTURE.  BY THE TARIFF THE OWNERS ARE
REQUIRED TO DO THE LOADING AND UNLOADING.  THE WORK OF UNLOADING AND
LOADING IS PERFORMED FOR THE OWNER BY DUQUESNE, WHO BILLS THE OWNER FOR
THAT SERVICE AS WELL AS FOR STORAGE AND OTHER SERVICES RENDERED.  AT
ITS PITTSBURGH WAREHOUSE DUQUESNE HANDLES FREIGHT WHICH HAS COME IN, OR
IS DESTINED TO MOVEMENT, OVER THE PENNSYLVANIA, OR WHICH HAS BOTH COME
IN AND IS GOING OUT OVER THE PENNSYLVANIA.  THE COMMODITIES HANDLED AT
THAT PLACE ARE HAULED IN BOTH CARLOAD AND LESS-THAN-CARLOAD LOTS. 
DUQUESNE LOADS AND UNLOADS THE CARLOAD SHIPMENTS AS THEY ARRIVE AT AND
DEPART FROM ITS PLATFORM, STORES THE GOODS, AND PERFORMS OTHER HANDLING
SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR RECEIPT AND DELIVERY.  DUQUESNE
CHARGES THE OWNER FOR THESE SERVICES.  IN THE CASE OF INCOMING LESS
THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENTS THE FREIGHT IS UNLOADED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA FROM
THE CARS TO ITS PLATFORM AND IS DELIVERED TO AND RECEIVED BY DUQUESNE
THERE.  IN THE CASE OF OUTGOING LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENTS, DUQUESNE
DELIVERS THE FREIGHT ON THE PENNSYLVANIA'S PLATFORM.  PENNSYLVANIA THEN
ISSUES ITS BILL OF LADING, LOADS THE FREIGHT INTO CARS, AND MOVES THEM
OUT.  DURING A PART OF THE PERIOD RELEVANT HERE,  FN3  DUQUESNE ALSO
PERFORMED UNLOADING, STORING AND RELOADING SERVICES AND CERTAIN OTHER
TRANSIT SERVICES AT ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA, IN CONNECTION WITH CARLOAD
SHIPMENTS OF NEWSPRINT PAPER WHICH WERE ENTITLED TO STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT
PRIVILEGES UNDER THE TARIFFS.  THESE SERVICES WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE
PERFORMED BY DUQUESNE AT EAST LIBERTY.  FN4 

OF THE TOTAL SPACE USED BY DUQUESNE AT ITS WAREHOUSES AT EAST LIBERTY
AND PITTSBURGH, ABOUT 30 PER CENT WAS DEVOTED TO THE HANDLING OF
FREIGHT ACCORDED STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT PRIVILEGES IN 1936; ABOUT 12.5 PER
CENT IN 1937; ABOUT 12.5 PER CENT IN 1938.  DURING THE PERIOD OF
OPERATION AT ERIE, ALL THE SPACE AT THAT POINT WAS USED FOR SUCH
FREIGHT. 

IT APPEARS THAT THE DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYER" IN THE PRESENT ACTS
DERIVES WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE FROM THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 48 STAT.
1185, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151, FIRST.  FN5  WE ARE REFERRED TO THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WHICH WAS SPONSORED BY MR.
EASTMAN, FEDERAL CO-ORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION.  RELIANCE IS MADE ON
HIS TESTIMONY AT THE HEARINGS  FN6  AS INDICATING THAT THE WORDS IN THE
CARRIER DEFINITION IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT DESCRIPTIVE OF
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WERE TAKEN FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
FN7  41 STAT. 474, 54 STAT. 899, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  THE RAILROAD
RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937 WAS SPONSORED BY BOTH LABOR AND MANAGEMENT,
WHOSE VIEWS WERE PRESENTED AT THE HEARINGS BY GEORGE M. HARRISON.  FN8
REFERENCES ARE MADE TO HIS TESTIMONY THAT THE CARRIER AFFILIATES
EMBRACED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYER" ARE THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED
IN SERVICE THAT IS PART OF RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION.  FN9  DUQUESNE
ARGUES ON THE BASIS OF THAT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT ANY SERVICE "IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION" OF PROPERTY OR ANY SERVICE "IN
CONNECTION WITH" THE RECEIPT, ETC., OF "PROPERTY TRANSPORTED BY
RAILROAD," AS USED IN THE PRESENT ACTS, MEANS THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY
WHICH IS DEFINED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS FORMING A PART OF
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BOARD ARGUES THAT THE
STATUTORY DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYER" IS NOT SO RESTRICTED.  IT STRESSES
THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND THE PURPOSE TO BRING
UNDER THE ACT AFFILIATES WHICH CARRY OUT PORTIONS OF THE RAILROAD'S
BUSINESS.  FN10 

WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THAT CONTROVERSY.  AT THE VERY
LEAST THE PHRASES IN QUESTION EMBRACE ACTIVITIES WHICH FORM A PART OF
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  DUQUESNE REGULARLY PERFORMS SERVICE OF THAT CHARACTER.  IT IS,
THEREFORE, AN "EMPLOYER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PRESENT ACTS. 

WE HAVE NOTED THE LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICES RENDERED BY
DUQUESNE.  THE DUTY OF UNLOADING CARLOAD FREIGHT ORDINARILY RESTS WITH
THE SHIPPER OR CONSIGNEE.  PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. KITTANNING CO., 253
U.S. 319, 323.  BUT IT IS A TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 193, 200; BARRINGER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S.
1, 6.  ITS COST MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE LINE-HAUL TARIFFS OR SEPARATELY
FIXED OR ALLOWED AS AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE.  ADAMS V. MILLS, 286 U.S.
397, 410-415; LOADING AND UNLOADING CARLOAD FREIGHT, 101 I.C.C. 394;
BERG INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL CO. V. READING CO., 142 I.C.C. 161, 163-164;
LIVESTOCK LOADED AND UNLOADED AT CHICAGO, 213 I.C.C. 330, 336-337.  SEE
HABERMAN V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 234 I.C.C. 167, DEALING WITH LESS-THAN
CARLOAD LOTS. 

DUQUESNE'S ANSWER IS THAT THE SERVICE OF LOADING AND UNLOADING IS
DONE BY IT FOR ITS CUSTOMERS, THAT THESE SERVICES ARE RENDERED BEFORE
RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION HAS BEGUN OR AFTER IT HAS ENDED, THAT THEY ARE
NOT AND CANNOT BE A PART OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SINCE THE TARIFF OF
THE PENNSYLVANIA FORBIDS IT FROM PERFORMING THE SERVICES.  DUQUESNE'S
CONCLUSION IS THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES LOADING AND UNLOADING ARE
NOT AND CANNOT BE A PART OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION.  THE QUESTION,
HOWEVER, IS NOT WHETHER IN THESE CASES THE SERVICE OF LOADING AND
UNLOADING IS BEING RENDERED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA AND IS, THEREFORE, IN
FACT A PART OF ITS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  IT IS NOT WHETHER THE
AFFILIATE WOULD ITSELF BE SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  IT
IS WHETHER A CARRIER'S AFFILIATE IS PERFORMING A SERVICE THAT COULD BE
PERFORMED BY THE CARRIER AND CHARGED FOR UNDER THE LINE-HAUL TARIFFS. 
IF IT IS SUCH A SERVICE, IT IS A TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE PRESENT ACTS.  SENATOR WAGNER, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE
RETIREMENT BILL IN THE SENATE, STATED THAT ITS COVERAGE INCLUDED "NOT
ONLY THOSE DIRECTLY IN THE RAILROAD BUSINESS BUT THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH
IT."  FN11  AND GEORGE M. HARRISON, ON WHOSE TESTIMONY DUQUESNE HEAVILY
RELIES, STATED THAT AFFILIATES OF CARRIERS WERE INCLUDED "WHEN THOSE
COMPANIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS OR
PROPERTY FOR THE RAILROAD, OR OTHER SERVICE THAT IS A PART OF RAILWAY
TRANSPORTATION."  FN12  IN OTHER WORDS IF A SERVICE IS INVOLVED WHICH
THE RAILROAD COULD PERFORM AS A PART OF ITS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, IT
IS WITHIN THE PRESENT ACTS.  IT THEN MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT IT IS
PERFORMED BY A CARRIER AFFILIATE RATHER THAN BY THE CARRIER ITSELF.  WE
THINK IT PLAIN THAT THE DEFINITIONS IN QUESTION INCLUDE AT THE VERY
LEAST THOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH WOULD BE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WHEN
PERFORMED BY A RAILROAD BUT WHICH IT CHOOSES TO HAVE PERFORMED BY ITS
AFFILIATE. 

WE DO NOT DECIDE WHETHER SERVICES OTHER THAN LOADING AND UNLOADING
WHICH ARE PERFORMED BY DUQUESNE ARE IN THE SAME CATEGORY NOR WHETHER
THE "EMPLOYER" DEFINITIONS MAY BE GIVEN A BROADER SCOPE.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THESE CASES THAT THE LOADING AND
UNLOADING SERVICES PERFORMED BY DUQUESNE ARE SERVICES PERFORMED "IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF ...  PROPERTY BY RAILROAD." 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 95 IS REVERSED.  THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 103 IS
AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT
HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES AND ITS PRESIDENT, G.M.
HARRISON, WERE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS IN NO. 95.  THE
BROTHERHOOD INTERVENED IN NO. 103. 

FN2  INCOMING SHIPMENTS ARE CONSIGNED TO THE OWNER CARE OF DUQUESNE,
THE ROUTE BEING DESIGNATED "PENN RR - FOR STGE IN TRANSIT."  OUTGOING
SHIPMENTS ARE CONSIGNED TO THE OWNER; THEY HAVE A TRANSIT RECORD NUMBER
AND ARE MARKED "ACCORDED TRANSIT PRIVILEGE AT EAST LIBERTY, PA."  THAT
IS, SUGAR IN CARLOAD LOTS TRANSPORTED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA TO CONSIGNEES
AT EAST LIBERTY MAY BE DELIVERED THERE TO THE CONSIGNEES AT THE LOCAL
RATES.  WHEN IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY SHIPPED OUT VIA THE SAME ROAD IT IS
ENTITLED TO BE CHARGED THE THROUGH RATE FROM THE FIRST POINT OF
SHIPMENT TO THE ULTIMATE DESTINATION. 

FN3  BETWEEN AUGUST 1937 AND MAY 1938.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT DUQUESNE
IS NOW AND HAS BEEN AT LEAST SINCE AUGUST 28, 1935, AN EMPLOYER WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ACTS. 

FN4  DUQUESNE ALSO HAS "SALVAGE FREIGHT" AGREEMENTS WITH THE
PENNSYLVANIA UNDER WHICH THE PENNSYLVANIA TURNS OVER TO IT, FOR SALE OR
OTHER DISPOSITION, "OVER" AND DAMAGED FREIGHT WHICH HAS BEEN REFUSED OR
UNCLAIMED BY THE OWNER.  FOR THIS SERVICE DUQUESNE RETAINS 10 PER CENT
OF THE GROSS PLUS CERTAIN COSTS AND REMITS THE BALANCE TO THE
PENNSYLVANIA. 

FN5  THE CORRESPONDING PART OF THE DEFINITION OF "CARRIER" CONTAINED
IN SEC. 1 FIRST OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT READS AS FOLLOWS:  "ANY
COMPANY WHICH IS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY OR UNDER
COMMON CONTROL WITH ANY CARRIER BY RAILROAD AND WHICH OPERATES ANY
EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES OR PERFORMS ANY SERVICE (OTHER THAN TRUCKING
SERVICE) IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION, RECEIPT, DELIVERY,
ELEVATION, TRANSFER IN TRANSIT, REFRIGERATION OR ICING, STORAGE, AND
HANDLING OF PROPERTY TRANSPORTED BY RAILROAD  ..."    FN6  HEARINGS, S.
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 3266, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP.
10-11, 145.  AT THE LATTER POINT HE TESTIFIED, "I AM INCLINED TO
BELIEVE THAT FOR THE PRESENT IT WOULD BE WELL NOT TO GO BEYOND CARRIERS
AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION."  AND SEE HEARINGS,
H. COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 7650, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 17, 18. 

FN7  SEC. 1(3)(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT INCLUDES IN THE
DEFINITION OF TRANSPORTATION "ALL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
RECEIPT, DELIVERY, ELEVATION, AND TRANSFER IN TRANSIT, VENTILATION,
REFRIGERATION OR ICING, STORAGE, AND HANDLING OF PROPERTY
TRANSPORTED." 

FN8  SEE HEARINGS, H. COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
ON H.R. 6956, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 10-11, 82. 

FN9  SEE HEARINGS, SUPRA, NOTE 8, PP. 16, 17.  HE TESTIFIED AT THE
LATTER POINT THAT CARRIER AFFILIATES WERE INCLUDED "WHEN THOSE
COMPANIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS OR
PROPERTY FOR THE RAILROAD, OR OTHER SERVICE THAT IS A PART OF RAILWAY
TRANSPORTATION."  AND SEE HEARINGS, S. COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ON S. 2395, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11. 

FN10  SENATOR WAGNER, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE RETIREMENT BILL IN THE
SENATE, STATED:  "THE COVERAGE IS EXTENDED EXPRESSLY TO RAILROAD LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, RAILROAD ASSOCIATIONS, TRAFFIC ASSOCIATIONS, AND IS MADE
MORE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO SUBSIDIARIES OF RAILROAD COMPANIES SUCH AS
REFRIGERATOR STORAGE AND OTHER FACILITIES.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT COVERS A
GREATER NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, NOT ONLY THOSE DIRECTLY IN THE RAILROAD
BUSINESS BUT THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND IN THAT REGARD IT IS MORE
LIBERAL THAN THE PRESENT ACT."  81 CONG. REC. 6223. 

IN S. REP. NO. 697, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 7, IT IS STATED, AFTER
NOTING THAT CASUAL SERVICE AND OPERATION IS EXCLUDED, "IN ADDITION TO
TRUCKING SERVICE, IT IS INTENDED TO EXCLUDE EMPLOYEES OF A CONTRACTOR
WHO MAY, FOR EXAMPLE, BE OCCASIONALLY EMPLOYED BY A 'CARRIER' TO REPAIR
A DEPOT OR BUILD A BRIDGE.  CONTRACTORS, OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH PERFORM
CASUAL SERVICE, WOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER CONTROL
BE LEGAL OR DE FACTO.  DE-FACTO CONTROL MAY BE EXERCISED NOT ONLY BY
DIRECT OWNERSHIP OF STOCK, BUT BY MEANS OF AGREEMENTS, LICENSES, AND
OTHER DEVICES WHICH INSURE THAT THE OPERATION OF THE COMPANY IS
CONDUCTED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE CARRIER. 

"BY THESE CHANGES THERE ARE BROUGHT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THOSE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE INTIMATELY RELATED TO
THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY BY RAILROAD IN THE UNITED
STATES." 

IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT VARIOUS RAILROAD ASSOCIATIONS ARE
INCLUDED IN THE ACTS AND THAT THEIR EXPRESS INCLUSION WAS TO MAKE CLEAR
WHAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY IMPLIED.  ID., PP. 6-7.  IT IS THEREFORE
ARGUED THAT SINCE SOME OF THOSE ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOT ENGAGED IN
RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION, CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE COVERAGE OF THE
ACTS TO BE RESTRICTED TO ORGANIZATIONS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION EITHER
IN THE ORDINARY SENSE OR IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT USES THE TERM. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :








CHATWIN V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 455 


ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1946.  - 146 F.2D 730,
REVERSED. 


1.  IN A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT, THE
STIPULATED FACTS AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A 15-YEAR-OLD GIRL
UNDERTOOK AND CONTINUED A "CELESTIAL" MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP WITH A
CULTIST, FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT SHE HAD BEEN "HELD" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE WORDS "HELD FOR RANSOM OR REWARD OR OTHERWISE" AS USED
IN THE ACT, AND THEREFORE CONVICTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER THE ACT
CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED.  P. 459. 

(A)  FOR AUGHT THAT APPEARS FROM THE STIPULATED FACTS, THE ALLEGED
VICTIM WAS FREE TO LEAVE THE PETITIONERS WHEN AND IF SHE DESIRED;
THEREFORE THERE WAS NO PROOF OF UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT.  P. 460. 

(B)  THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT ANY OF THE PETITIONERS WILLFULLY
INTENDED, BY FORCE, FEAR, OR DECEPTION, TO HOLD THE ALLEGED VICTIM
AGAINST HER WILL.  PETITIONERS' BELIEFS ARE NOT SHOWN TO INVOLVE
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF CELESTIAL WIVES.  P. 460. 

(C)  THERE WAS NO COMPETENT OR SUBSTANTIAL PROOF THAT THE GIRL WAS OF
SUCH AN AGE OR MENTALITY AS NECESSARILY PRECLUDED HER FROM
UNDERSTANDING THE DOCTRINE OF CELESTIAL MARRIAGE AND FROM EXERCISING
HER OWN FREE WILL; THEREFORE THE CONSENT OF THE PARENTS OR GUARDIAN IS
NOT A FACTOR IN THE CASE.  P. 461. 

(D)  IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF THE METHOD OF TESTING THE GIRL'S
MENTAL AGE, AND OF PROOF AS TO THE WEIGHT AND SIGNIFICANCE TO BE
ATTACHED TO THE PARTICULAR MENTAL AGE, THE STIPULATED FACT THAT, A YEAR
BEFORE THE ALLEGED INVEIGLEMENT AND DETENTION, THE GIRL WAS OF THE
MENTAL AGE OF 7 CAN NOT BE SAID NECESSARILY TO HAVE PRECLUDED HER FROM
JUDGING THE PRINCIPLES OF CELESTIAL MARRIAGE AND FROM ACTING IN
ACCORDANCE WITH HER BELIEFS IN THE MATTER.  THERE MUST BE COMPETENT
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF A VICTIM'S MENTAL INCAPACITY IN
RELATION TO THE VERY ACTS IN QUESTION BEFORE THE CONSENT OF THE
VICTIM'S PARENTS OR GUARDIAN CAN BECOME A FACTOR.  P. 462. 

2.  INVOLUNTARINESS OF THE VICTIM'S SEIZURE AND DETENTION IS OF THE
ESSENCE OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPING; AND, IF THAT ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IS
ABSENT, THE ACT OF PARTICIPATING IN ILLICIT RELATIONS OR CONTRIBUTING
TO THE DELINQUENCY OF A MINOR OR ENTERING INTO A CELESTIAL MARRIAGE,
FOLLOWED BY INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL
KIDNAPING ACT.  P. 464. 

3.  THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT WAS TO OUTLAW INTERSTATE
KIDNAPINGS RATHER THAN GENERAL TRANSGRESSIONS OF MORALITY INVOLVING THE
CROSSING OF STATE LINES; AND THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THE ACT MUST BE
INTERPRETED AND APPLIED IN THE LIGHT OF THAT PURPOSE.  P. 464. 

CHATWIN V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 31.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 32, ZITTING V. UNITED STATES, AND NO. 33,
CHRISTENSEN V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 835, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS, 56
F.SUPP.  890, OF VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT  FN1  PUNISHES ANY ONE WHO KNOWINGLY
TRANSPORTS OR AIDS IN TRANSPORTING IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE
"ANY PERSON WHO SHALL HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY SEIZED, CONFINED, INVEIGLED,
DECOYED, KIDNAPED, ABDUCTED, OR CARRIED AWAY BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER
AND HELD FOR RANSOM OR REWARD OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT, IN THE CASE OF A
MINOR, BY A PARENT THEREOF."  THE SOLE ISSUE CONFRONTING US IN THESE
CASES IS WHETHER THE STIPULATED FACTS SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS OF THE
THREE PETITIONERS UNDER THIS ACT, THE INDICTMENT HAVING CHARGED THAT
THEY UNLAWFULLY INVEIGLED, DECOYED AND CARRIED AWAY A MINOR CHILD OF
THE AGE OF 15, HELD HER FOR A STATED PERIOD, AND TRANSPORTED HER FROM
UTAH TO ARIZONA WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT SHE HAD BEEN SO INVEIGLED AND
HELD.  WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE OR CHARACTERIZE THE MORALITY
OF THEIR ACTIONS.  NOR ARE WE CONCERNED HERE WITH THEIR LIABILITY UNDER
ANY OTHER STATUTE, FEDERAL OR STATE. 

PETITIONERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST CULT OF THE MORMON
FAITH, A CULT THAT SANCTIONS PLURAL OR "CELESTIAL" MARRIAGES.  IN
AUGUST, 1940, PETITIONER CHATWIN, WHO WAS THEN A 68-YEAR OLD WIDOWER,
EMPLOYED ONE DOROTHY WYLER AS A HOUSEKEEPER IN HIS HOME IN SANTAQUIN,
UTAH.  THIS GIRL WAS NEARLY 15 YEARS OLD AT THIS TIME ALTHOUGH THE
STIPULATION INDICATES THAT SHE HAD ONLY A MENTAL AGE OF 7.  FN2  HER
EMPLOYMENT BY CHATWIN WAS APPROVED BY HER PARENTS.  WHILE RESIDING AT
CHATWIN'S HOME, THE GIRL WAS CONTINUALLY TAUGHT BY CHATWIN AND ONE LULU
COOK, WHO ALSO RESIDED THERE, THAT PLURAL MARRIAGE WAS ESSENTIAL TO HER
SALVATION.  CHATWIN ALSO TOLD HER THAT IT WAS HER GRANDMOTHER'S DESIRE
THAT HE SHOULD TAKE HER IN CELESTIAL MARRIAGE AND THAT SUCH A MARRIAGE
WAS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF THE ORIGINAL MORMON
CHURCH.  AS A RESULT OF THESE TEACHINGS, THE GIRL WAS CONVERTED TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF CELESTIAL MARRIAGE AND ENTERED INTO A CULT MARRIAGE WITH
CHATWIN ON DECEMBER 19, 1940.  THEREAFTER SHE BECAME PREGNANT, WHICH
FACT WAS DISCOVERED BY HER PARENTS ON JULY 24, 1941.  THE PARENTS THEN
INFORMED THE JUVENILE AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE OF UTAH OF THE SITUATION
AND THEY TOOK THE GIRL INTO CUSTODY AS A DELINQUENT ON AUGUST 4, 1941,
MAKING HER A WARD OF THE JUVENILE COURT. 

ON AUGUST 10, 1941, THE GIRL ACCOMPANIED A JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICER
TO A MOTION PICTURE SHOW AT PROVO, UTAH.  THE OFFICER LEFT THE GIRL AT
THE SHOW AND RETURNED LATER TO CALL FOR HER.  THE GIRL ASKED TO BE
ALLOWED TO STAY ON FOR A SHORT TIME AND THE OFFICER CONSENTED. 
THEREAFTER, AND PRIOR TO THE SECOND RETURN OF THE OFFICER, THE GIRL
"LEFT THE PICTURE SHOW AND WENT OUT ONTO THE STREET IN PROVO."  THERE
SHE MET TWO MARRIED DAUGHTERS OF CHATWIN WHO GAVE HER SUFFICIENT MONEY
TO GO FROM PROVO TO SALT LAKE CITY.  SHORTLY AFTER ARRIVING THERE SHE
WAS TAKEN TO THE HOME OF PETITIONERS ZITTING AND CHRISTENSEN.  THEY,
TOGETHER WITH CHATWIN, CONVINCED HER THAT SHE SHOULD ABIDE, AS THEY PUT
IT, "BY THE LAW OF GOD RATHER THAN THE LAW OF MAN" AND THAT SHE WAS
PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN RUNNING AWAY FROM THE JUVENILE COURT IN ORDER TO
LIVE WITH CHATWIN.  THEY FURTHER CONVINCED HER THAT SHE SHOULD GO WITH
THEM TO MEXICO TO BE MARRIED LEGALLY TO CHATWIN AND THEN REMAIN IN
HIDING UNTIL SHE HAD REACHED HER MAJORITY UNDER UTAH LAW.  THEREAFTER,
ON OCTOBER 6, 1941, THE THREE PETITIONERS TRANSPORTED THE GIRL IN
ZITTING'S AUTOMOBILE FROM SALT LAKE CITY TO JUAREZ, MEXICO, WHERE SHE
WENT THROUGH A CIVIL MARRIAGE CEREMONY WITH CHATWIN ON OCTOBER 14.  SHE
WAS THEN BROUGHT BACK TO UTAH AND THENCE TO SHORT CREEK, ARIZONA. 
THERE SHE LIVED IN HIDING WITH CHATWIN UNDER ASSUMED NAMES UNTIL
DISCOVERED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES OVER TWO YEARS LATER, DECEMBER 9,
1943.  WHILE IN SHORT CREEK SHE GAVE BIRTH TO TWO CHILDREN BY CHATWIN. 
THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE GIRL FROM PROVO TO SALT LAKE CITY, THENCE TO
JUAREZ, MEXICO, AND FINALLY TO SHORT CREEK WAS WITHOUT THE CONSENT AND
AGAINST THE WISHES OF HER PARENTS AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY FROM THE
JUVENILE COURT OFFICIALS.  FN3 

HAVING WAIVED JURY TRIALS, THE THREE PETITIONERS WERE FOUND GUILTY AS
CHARGED AND WERE GIVEN JAIL SENTENCES.  56 F.SUPP.  890.  THE COURT
BELOW AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS.  146 F.2D 730.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
324 U.S. 835, BECAUSE OF OUR DOUBTS AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
JUDGMENT THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE GUILTY UNDER THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING
ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING FACTS. 

THE ACT BY ITS OWN TERMS CONTEMPLATES THAT THE KIDNAPED VICTIM SHALL
HAVE BEEN (1) "UNLAWFULLY SEIZED, CONFINED, INVEIGLED, DECOYED,
KIDNAPED, ABDUCTED, OR CARRIED AWAY BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER" AND (2)
"HELD FOR RANSOM OR REWARD OR OTHERWISE."  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT
BOTH ELEMENTS APPEAR FROM THE STIPULATED FACTS IN THIS CASE.  THE
PETITIONERS, IT IS ARGUED, UNLAWFULLY "INVEIGLED" OR "DECOYED" THE GIRL
AWAY FROM THE CUSTODY OF HER PARENTS AND THE JUVENILE COURT
AUTHORITIES, THE GIRL BEING "INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THE FULL
SIGNIFICANCE OF PETITIONERS' IMPORTUNITIES" BECAUSE OF HER TENDER YEARS
AND EXTREMELY LOW MENTALITY.  IT IS CLAIMED, MOREOVER, THAT THE GIRL
WAS "HELD" DURING THE TWO-MONTH PERIOD FROM AUGUST 10 TO OCTOBER 6,
1941, PRIOR TO THE LEGAL MARRIAGE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING CHATWIN
TO COHABIT WITH HER AND THAT THIS PURPOSE, BEING OF "BENEFIT TO THE
TRANSGRESSOR," IS WITHIN THE STATUTORY TERM "OR OTHERWISE" AS DEFINED
IN GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124, 128. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO APPROVE THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION.  THE AGREED
STATEMENT THAT THE GIRL "LEFT THE PICTURE SHOW AND WENT OUT ONTO THE
STREET IN PROVO" WITHOUT ANY APPARENT MOTIVATING ACTIONS BY THE
PETITIONERS CASTS SERIOUS DOUBTS ON THE CLAIM THAT THEY "INVEIGLED" OR
"DECOYED" HER AWAY FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE JUVENILE COURT AUTHORITIES. 
BUT WE DO NOT PAUSE TO PURSUE THIS MATTER FOR IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE
HAS BEEN A COMPLETE LACK OF COMPETENT PROOF THAT THE GIRL WAS "HELD FOR
RANSOM OR REWARD OR OTHERWISE" AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE FEDERAL
KIDNAPING ACT. 

THE ACT OF HOLDING A KIDNAPED PERSON FOR A PROSCRIBED PURPOSE
NECESSARILY IMPLIES AN UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL OR MENTAL RESTRAINT FOR AN
APPRECIABLE PERIOD AGAINST THE PERSON'S WILL AND WITH A WILLFUL INTENT
SO TO CONFINE THE VICTIM.  IF THE VICTIM IS OF SUCH AN AGE OR MENTAL
STATE AS TO BE INCAPABLE OF HAVING A RECOGNIZABLE WILL, THE CONFINEMENT
THEN MUST BE AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PARENTS OR LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE
VICTIM.  IN THIS INSTANCE, HOWEVER, THE STIPULATED FACTS FAIL TO REVEAL
THE PRESENCE OF ANY OF THESE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS. 

(1)  THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CHATWIN OR ANY OF THE OTHER PETITIONERS
IMPOSED AT ANY TIME AN UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL OR MENTAL RESTRAINT UPON THE
MOVEMENTS OF THE GIRL.  NOTHING INDICATES THAT SHE WAS DEPRIVED OF HER
LIBERTY, COMPELLED TO REMAIN WHERE SHE DID NOT WISH TO REMAIN, OR
COMPELLED TO GO WHERE SHE DID NOT WISH TO GO.  FOR AUGHT THAT APPEARS
FROM THE STIPULATION, SHE WAS PERFECTLY FREE TO LEAVE THE PETITIONERS
WHEN AND IF SHE SO DESIRED.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED
TO PROVE AN ACT OF UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. 

(2)  THERE IS NO PROOF THAT CHATWIN OR ANY OF THE OTHER PETITIONERS
WILLFULLY INTENDED THROUGH FORCE, FEAR OR DECEPTION TO CONFINE THE GIRL
AGAINST HER DESIRES.  WHILE BONA FIDE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS CANNOT ABSOLVE
ONE FROM LIABILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT, PETITIONERS'
BELIEFS ARE NOT SHOWN TO NECESSITATE UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS OF CELESTIAL
WIVES AGAINST THEIR WILLS.  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT CHATWIN INTENDED TO
COHABIT WITH THE GIRL AND TO LIVE WITH HER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE SERVE AS
A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN INTENT TO RESTRAIN HER MOVEMENTS CONTRARY TO HER
WISHES, AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT. 

(3)  FINALLY, THERE IS NO COMPETENT OR SUBSTANTIAL PROOF THAT THE
GIRL WAS OF SUCH AN AGE OR MENTALITY AS NECESSARILY TO PRECLUDE HER
FROM UNDERSTANDING THE DOCTRINE OF CELESTIAL MARRIAGE AND FROM
EXERCISING HER OWN FREE WILL, THEREBY MAKING THE WILL OF HER PARENTS OR
THE JUVENILE COURT AUTHORITIES THE IMPORTANT FACTOR.  AT THE TIME OF
THE ALLEGED INVEIGLEMENT IN AUGUST, 1941, SHE WAS 15 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS
OF AGE AND THE ALLEGED HOLDING OCCURRED THEREAFTER.  THERE IS NO LEGAL
WARRANT FOR CONCLUDING THAT SUCH AN AGE IS IPSO FACTO PROOF OF MENTAL
INCAPACITY IN VIEW OF THE GENERAL RULE THAT INCAPACITY IS TO BE
PRESUMED ONLY WHERE A CHILD IS UNDER THE AGE OF 14.  9 WIGMORE ON
EVIDENCE (3RD ED.)  SEC.  2514.  FN4  NOR IS THERE ANY STATUTORY
WARRANT IN THIS INSTANCE FOR HOLDING THAT THE CONSENT OF A CHILD OF
THIS AGE IS IMMATERIAL.  CF. IN RE MORRISSEY, 137 U.S. 157; UNITED
STATES V. WILLIAMS, 302 U.S. 46; STATE V. RHOADES, 29 WASH. 61, 69 P.
389.  IN UTAH, PARENTHETICALLY, ANY ALLEGED VICTIM OVER THE AGE OF 12
IS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENTLY COMPETENT SO THAT HIS CONSENT MAY BE USED BY
AN ALLEGED KIDNAPER IN DEFENSE TO A CHARGE UNDER THE STATE KIDNAPING
STATUTE.  UTAH CODE ANN. (1943) SEC. 103-33-2.  AND A PERSON OVER THE
AGE OF 14 IN UTAH IS STATED TO BE CAPABLE OF COMMITTING A CRIME, THE
PRESUMPTION OF INCAPACITY APPLYING ONLY TO THOSE YOUNGER.  SEC. 103-1
40.  SADLEIR V. YOUNG, 97 UTAH 291, 85 P.2D 810; STATE V. TERRELL, 55
UTAH 314, 186 P. 108. 

GREAT STRESS IS PLACED BY THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, UPON THE ADMITTED
FACT THAT THE GIRL POSSESSED A MENTAL AGE OF 7 IN 1940, ONE YEAR BEFORE
THE ALLEGED INVEIGLEMENT AND HOLDING.  IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY, THE RELIABILITY OR THE PROPER USE OF MENTAL
TESTS, PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO CRIMINAL TRIALS.  IT SUFFICES TO
NOTE THAT THE METHOD OF TESTING THE GIRL'S MENTAL AGE IS NOT REVEALED
AND THAT THERE IS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF PROOF IN THE RECORD AS TO THE
PROPER WEIGHT AND SIGNIFICANCE TO BE ATTACHED TO THIS PARTICULAR MENTAL
AGE.  NOTHING APPEARS SAVE A BARE MATHEMATICAL APPROXIMATION
UNRESTRICTED IN TERMS TO THE NARROW LEGAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES A STIPULATED MENTAL AGE OF 7 CANNOT BE SAID
NECESSARILY TO PRECLUDE ONE FROM UNDERSTANDING AND JUDGING THE
PRINCIPLES OF CELESTIAL MARRIAGE AND FROM ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ONE'S BELIEFS IN THE MATTER.  THE SERIOUS CRIME OF KIDNAPING SHOULD
TURN ON SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN SUCH AN UNEXPLAINED
MATHEMATICAL APPROXIMATION OF THE VICTIM'S MENTAL AGE.  THERE MUST BE
COMPETENT PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OF A VICTIM'S MENTAL
INCAPACITY IN RELATION TO THE VERY ACTS IN QUESTION BEFORE CRIMINAL
LIABILITY CAN BE SANCTIONED IN A CASE OF THIS NATURE.  FN5 

THE STIPULATED FACTS OF THIS CASE REVEAL A SITUATION QUITE DIFFERENT
FROM THE GENERAL PROBLEM TO WHICH THE FRAMERS OF THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING
ACT ADDRESSED THEMSELVES.  THIS STATUTE WAS DRAWN IN 1932 AGAINST A
BACKGROUND OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE.  75 CONG. REC. 13282-13304. 
KIDNAPING BY THAT TIME HAD BECOME AN EPIDEMIC IN THE UNITED STATES. 
RUTHLESS CRIMINAL BANDS UTILIZED EVERY KNOWN LEGAL AND SCIENTIFIC MEANS
TO ACHIEVE THEIR AIMS AND TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.  VICTIMS WERE SELECTED
FROM AMONG THE WEALTHY WITH GREAT CARE AND STUDY.  DETAILS OF THE
SEIZURES AND DETENTIONS WERE FULLY AND METICULOUSLY WORKED OUT IN
ADVANCE.  RANSOM WAS THE USUAL MOTIVE.  "LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES,
LACKING COORDINATION, WITH NO UNIFORM SYSTEM OF INTERCOMMUNICATION AND
RESTRICTED IN AUTHORITY TO ACTIVITIES IN THEIR OWN JURISDICTION, FOUND
THEMSELVES LAUGHED AT BY CRIMINALS BOUND BY NO SUCH INHIBITIONS OR
RESTRICTIONS  ...  THE PROCEDURE WAS SIMPLE - A MAN WOULD BE KIDNAPPED
IN ONE STATE AND WHISKED INTO ANOTHER, AND STILL ANOTHER, HIS CAPTORS
KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THE POLICE IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE CRIME
WAS COMMITTED HAD NO AUTHORITY AS FAR AS THE STATE OF CONFINEMENT AND
CONCEALMENT WAS CONCERNED."  FISHER AND MCGUIRE, "KIDNAPPING AND THE SO
CALLED LINDBERGH LAW," 12 NEW YORK U.L.Q. REV. 646, 653.  SEE ALSO
HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY (72D CONG., 1ST
SESS.) ON H.R. 5657, SERIAL 4; FINLEY, "THE LINDBERGH LAW," 28
GEORGETOWN L.J. 908. 

IT WAS TO ASSIST THE STATES IN STAMPING OUT THIS GROWING AND SINISTER
MENACE OF KIDNAPING THAT THE FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT WAS DESIGNED.  ITS
PROPONENTS RECOGNIZED THAT WHERE VICTIMS WERE TRANSPORTED ACROSS STATE
LINES ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD THE POWER TO DISREGARD SUCH
BARRIERS IN PURSUING THE CAPTORS.  H. REP. NO. 1493(72D CONG., 1ST
SESS.); S. REP. NO. 765(72D CONG., 1ST SESS.).  GIVEN ADDED IMPETUS BY
THE EMOTION WHICH GRIPPED THE NATION DUE TO THE FAMOUS LINDBERGH
KIDNAPING CASE, THE FEDERAL STATUTE WAS SPEEDILY ADOPTED.  SEE 75 CONG.
REC. 5075-5076, 13282-13304.  COMPREHENSIVE LANGUAGE WAS USED TO COVER
EVERY POSSIBLE VARIETY OF KIDNAPING FOLLOWED BY INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  ARMED WITH THIS LEGISLATIVE MANDATE, FEDERAL OFFICIALS
HAVE ACHIEVED A HIGH AND EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THIS TYPE OF CRIME. 
BUT THE BROADNESS OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE DOES NOT PERMIT US TO TEAR
THE WORDS OUT OF THEIR CONTEXT, USING THE MAGIC OF LEXIGRAPHY TO APPLY
THEM TO UNATTRACTIVE OR IMMORAL SITUATIONS LACKING THE INVOLUNTARINESS
OF SEIZURE AND DETENTION WHICH IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE CRIME OF
KIDNAPING.  THUS, IF THIS ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IS MISSING, THE ACT OF
PARTICIPATING IN ILLICIT RELATIONS OR CONTRIBUTING TO THE DELINQUENCY
OF A MINOR OR ENTERING INTO A CELESTIAL MARRIAGE, FOLLOWED BY
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME UNDER THE
FEDERAL KIDNAPING ACT.  NO UNUSUAL OR NOTORIOUS SITUATION RELATING TO
THE INABILITY OF STATE AUTHORITIES TO CAPTURE AND PUNISH PARTICIPANTS
IN SUCH ACTIVITIES EVIDENCED ITSELF AT THE TIME THIS ACT WAS CREATED;
NO AUTHORITATIVE SPOKESMAN INDICATED THAT THE ACT WAS TO BE USED TO
ASSIST THE STATES IN THESE MATTERS, HOWEVER UNLAWFUL AND OBNOXIOUS THE
CHARACTER OF THESE ACTIVITIES MIGHT OTHERWISE BE.  NOR IS THERE ANY
INDICATION THAT CONGRESS DESIRED OR CONTEMPLATED THAT THE PUNISHMENT OF
DEATH OR LONG IMPRISONMENT, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT, MIGHT BE APPLIED
TO THOSE GUILTY OF IMMORALITIES LACKING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUE
KIDNAPINGS.  IN SHORT, THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO OUTLAW INTERSTATE
KIDNAPINGS RATHER THAN GENERAL TRANSGRESSIONS OF MORALITY INVOLVING THE
CROSSING OF STATE LINES.  AND THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE MUST BE
INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT PLAIN FACT IN MIND.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, 310 U.S. 534, 543-544. 

WERE WE TO SANCTION A CARELESS CONCEPT OF THE CRIME OF KIDNAPING OR
WERE WE TO DISREGARD THE BACKGROUND AND SETTING OF THE ACT THE
BOUNDARIES OF POTENTIAL LIABILITY WOULD BE LOST IN INFINITY.  A LOOSE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE CONCEIVABLY COULD LEAD TO THE
PUNISHMENT OF ANYONE WHO INDUCED ANOTHER TO LEAVE HIS SURROUNDINGS AND
DO SOME INNOCENT OR ILLEGAL ACT OF BENEFIT TO THE FORMER, STATE LINES
SUBSEQUENTLY BEING TRAVERSED.  THE ABSURDITY OF SUCH A RESULT, WITH ITS
ATTENDANT LIKELIHOOD OF UNFAIR PUNISHMENT AND BLACKMAIL, IS SUFFICIENT
BY ITSELF TO FORECLOSE THAT CONSTRUCTION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMING THE CONVICTIONS OF THE
PETITIONERS MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED. 

FN1  47 STAT. 326; 48 STAT. 781; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 408A. 

FN2  AT THE TIME OF HER EMPLOYMENT BY CHATWIN, THE GIRL'S PHYSICAL
AGE WAS 14 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS; HER MENTAL AGE WAS 7 YEARS AND 2 MONTHS;
HER INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT WAS 67.  AT THE TIME OF THE STIPULATION IN
MARCH, 1944, SHE WAS A "HIGH GRADE MORON" WITH A MENTAL AGE OF 9 YEARS
AND 8 MONTHS AND AN INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT OF 64. 

FN3  IN CHATWIN V. TERRY, 107 UTAH 340, 153 P.2D 941(1944), THE UTAH
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE JUVENILE COURT HAD AUTHORITY TO HOLD THE
GIRL IN CUSTODY UNTIL SHE REACHED THE AGE OF 21, DESPITE HER LEGAL
MARRIAGE TO CHATWIN. 

FN4  SEE COMMONWEALTH V. NICKERSON, 87 MASS. 518(CHILD OF 9 HELD
INCOMPETENT TO ASSENT TO FORCIBLE TRANSFER OF CUSTODY); STATE V.
FARRAR, 41 N.H. 53(CHILD OF 4 HELD INCAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO FORCIBLE
SEIZURE AND ABDUCTION); HERRING V. BOYLE, 1 C.M. & R. 377(CHILD OF 10
COULD NOT RECOVER FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PROOF THAT HE KNEW OF
ALLEGED RESTRAINT UPON HIM); IN RE LLOYD, 3 MAN.  & GR. 547(CHILD
BETWEEN 11 AND 12 HELD COMPETENT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO LIVE WITH FATHER
OR MOTHER). 

FN5  SEE STATE V. KELSIE, 93 VT. 450, 108 A. 391; STATE V. SCHILLING,
95 N.J.L. 145, 112 A. 400; PEOPLE V. OXNAM, 170 CAL. 211, 149 P. 165;
STATE V. SCHAFER, 156 WASH. 240, 286 P. 833; COMMONWEALTH V. STEWART,
255 MASS. 9, 151 N.E. 74; COMMONWEALTH V. TRIPPI, 268 MASS. 227, 167
N.E. 354; WOODBRIDGE, "PHYSICAL AND MENTAL INFANCY IN THE CRIMINAL
LAW," 87 U. OF PA. L. REV. 426. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :
























COMMISSIONER V. FLOWERS, 326 U.S. 465 


NO. 145.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 12, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1946.  -
148 F.2D 163, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AUTHORIZING
IN COMPUTING INCOME TAX THE DEDUCTION OF TRAVELING EXPENSES INCURRED IN
THE PURSUIT OF A TRADE OR BUSINESS, AS INTERPRETED BY SEC. 19.23(A)-2
OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, TRAVELING EXPENSES OF AN EMPLOYEE
RESULTING FROM THE FACT THAT HE CHOOSES FOR REASONS OF PERSONAL
CONVENIENCE TO MAINTAIN A RESIDENCE IN A CITY OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH
HIS POST OF DUTY IS LOCATED ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS TRAVEL EXPENSES IN
PURSUIT OF BUSINESS.  P. 473. 

2.  TRAVELING EXPENSES IN PURSUIT OF BUSINESS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, CAN ARISE ONLY WHEN THE
EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS FORCES THE TAXPAYER TO TRAVEL AND LIVE TEMPORARILY
AT SOME PLACE OTHER THAN WHERE HIS BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS ARE LOCATED,
THEREBY ADVANCING THE INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYER.  THE EXIGENCIES OF
BUSINESS RATHER THAN THE PERSONAL CONVENIENCES AND NECESSITIES OF THE
TRAVELER MUST BE THE MOTIVATING FACTOR.  P. 474. 

3.  THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY SEC. 19.23(A)-2 OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS 103 TO THE PROVISION OF SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, WHICH IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS THAT GIVEN TO IDENTICAL
PROVISIONS OF PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT REVENUE ACTS, MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE
LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL AND TO HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW.  P. 469. 

4.  WHETHER PARTICULAR EXPENSES ARE DEDUCTIBLE AS TRAVELING EXPENSES
UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS INTERPRETED BY
SEC. 19.23(A)-2 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, IS IN MOST INSTANCES
PURELY A QUESTION OF FACT, UPON WHICH THE TAX COURT'S INFERENCES AND
CONCLUSIONS SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED BY AN APPELLATE COURT.  P. 470. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. FLOWERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 701, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN
DEDUCTIONS IN COMPUTING THE TAXPAYER'S INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS A PROBLEM AS TO THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FN1
ALLOWING A DEDUCTION FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES OF "TRAVELING EXPENSES
(INCLUDING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR MEALS AND LODGING) WHILE AWAY
FROM HOME IN THE PURSUIT OF A TRADE OR BUSINESS." 

THE TAXPAYER, A LAWYER, HAS RESIDED WITH HIS FAMILY IN JACKSON,
MISSISSIPPI, SINCE 1903.  THERE HE HAS PAID TAXES, VOTED, SCHOOLED HIS
CHILDREN AND ESTABLISHED SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS CONNECTIONS.  HE BUILT A
HOUSE IN JACKSON NEARLY THIRTY YEARS AGO AND AT ALL TIMES HAS
MAINTAINED IT FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY.  HE HAS BEEN CONNECTED WITH
SEVERAL LAW FIRMS IN JACKSON, ONE OF WHICH HE FORMED AND WHICH HAS
BORNE HIS NAME SINCE 1922. 

IN 1906 THE TAXPAYER BEGAN TO REPRESENT THE PREDECESSOR OF THE GULF,
MOBILE & OHIO RAILROAD, HIS PRESENT EMPLOYER.  HE ACTED AS TRIAL
COUNSEL FOR THE RAILROAD THROUGHOUT MISSISSIPPI.  FROM 1918 UNTIL 1927
HE ACTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE RAILROAD IN MISSISSIPPI.  HE WAS
ELECTED GENERAL SOLICITOR IN 1927 AND CONTINUED TO BE ELECTED TO THAT
POSITION EACH YEAR UNTIL 1930, WHEN HE WAS ELECTED GENERAL COUNSEL. 
THEREAFTER HE WAS ANNUALLY ELECTED GENERAL COUNSEL UNTIL SEPTEMBER,
1940, WHEN THE PROPERTIES OF THE PREDECESSOR COMPANY AND ANOTHER
RAILROAD WERE MERGED AND HE WAS ELECTED VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
COUNSEL OF THE NEWLY FORMED GULF, MOBILE & OHIO RAILROAD. 

THE MAIN OFFICE OF THE GULF, MOBILE & OHIO RAILROAD IS IN MOBILE,
ALABAMA, AS WAS ALSO THE MAIN OFFICE OF ITS PREDECESSOR.  WHEN OFFERED
THE POSITION OF GENERAL SOLICITOR IN 1927, THE TAXPAYER WAS UNWILLING
TO ACCEPT IT IF IT REQUIRED HIM TO MOVE FROM JACKSON TO MOBILE.  HE HAD
ESTABLISHED HIMSELF IN JACKSON BOTH PROFESSIONALLY AND PERSONALLY AND
WAS NOT DESIROUS OF MOVING AWAY.  AS A RESULT, AN ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE
BETWEEN HIM AND THE RAILROAD WHEREBY HE COULD ACCEPT THE POSITION AND
CONTINUE TO RESIDE IN JACKSON ON CONDITION THAT HE PAY HIS TRAVELING
EXPENSES BETWEEN MOBILE AND JACKSON AND PAY HIS LIVING EXPENSES IN BOTH
PLACES.  THIS ARRANGEMENT PERMITTED THE TAXPAYER TO DETERMINE FOR
HIMSELF THE AMOUNT OF TIME HE WOULD SPEND IN EACH OF THE TWO CITIES AND
WAS IN EFFECT DURING 1939 AND 1940, THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION. 

THE RAILROAD COMPANY PROVIDED AN OFFICE FOR THE TAXPAYER IN MOBILE
BUT NOT IN JACKSON.  WHEN HE WORKED IN JACKSON HIS LAW FIRM PROVIDED
HIM WITH OFFICE SPACE, ALTHOUGH HE NO LONGER PARTICIPATED IN THE FIRM'S
BUSINESS OR SHARED IN ITS PROFITS.  HE USED HIS OWN OFFICE FURNITURE
AND FIXTURES AT THIS OFFICE.  THE RAILROAD, HOWEVER, FURNISHED
TELEPHONE SERVICE AND A TYPEWRITER AND DESK FOR HIS SECRETARY.  IT ALSO
PAID THE SECRETARY'S EXPENSES WHILE IN JACKSON.  MOST OF THE LEGAL
BUSINESS OF THE RAILROAD WAS CENTERED IN OR CONDUCTED FROM JACKSON, BUT
THIS BUSINESS WAS HANDLED BY LOCAL COUNSEL FOR THE RAILROAD.  THE
TAXPAYER'S PARTICIPATION WAS ADVISORY ONLY AND WAS NO DIFFERENT FROM
HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE RAILROAD'S LEGAL BUSINESS IN OTHER AREAS. 

THE TAXPAYER'S PRINCIPAL POST OF BUSINESS WAS AT THE MAIN OFFICE IN
MOBILE.  HOWEVER, DURING THE TAXABLE YEARS OF 1939 AND 1940, HE DEVOTED
NEARLY ALL IF HIS TIME TO MATTERS RELATING TO THE MERGER OF THE
RAILROADS.  SINCE IT WAS LEFT TO HIM WHERE HE WOULD DO HIS WORK, HE
SPENT MOST OF HIS TIME IN JACKSON DURING THIS PERIOD.  IN CONNECTION
WITH THE MERGER, ONE OF THE COMPANIES WAS INVOLVED IN CERTAIN
LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN JACKSON AND THE TAXPAYER
PARTICIPATED IN THAT LITIGATION. 

DURING 1939 HE SPENT 203 DAYS IN JACKSON AND 66 IN MOBILE, MAKING 33
TRIPS BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES.  DURING 1940 HE SPENT 168 DAYS IN JACKSON
AND 102 IN MOBILE, MAKING 40 TRIPS BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES.  THE
RAILROAD PAID ALL OF HIS TRAVELING EXPENSES WHEN HE WENT ON BUSINESS
TRIPS TO POINTS OTHER THAN JACKSON OR MOBILE.  BUT IT PAID NONE OF HIS
EXPENSES IN TRAVELING BETWEEN THESE TWO POINTS OR WHILE HE WAS AT
EITHER OF THEM. 

THE TAXPAYER DEDUCTED $900 IN HIS 1939 INCOME TAX RETURN AND $1,620
IN HIS 1940 RETURN AS TRAVELING EXPENSES INCURRED IN MAKING TRIPS FROM
JACKSON TO MOBILE AND AS EXPENDITURES FOR MEALS AND HOTEL
ACCOMMODATIONS WHILE IN MOBILE.  FN2  THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE
DEDUCTIONS, WHICH ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TAX COURT.  BUT THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE TAX COURT'S JUDGMENT, 148 F.2D
163, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
DECISION BELOW AND THAT REACHED BY THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IN BARNHILL V. COMMISSIONER, 148 F.2D 913. 

THE PORTION OF SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) AUTHORIZING THE DEDUCTION OF
"TRAVELING EXPENSES (INCLUDING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR MEALS AND
LODGING) WHILE AWAY FROM HOME IN THE PURSUIT OF A TRADE OR BUSINESS" IS
ONE OF THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES GIVEN BY CONGRESS IN THAT SECTION OF
"ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS."  IT IS TO BE CONTRASTED
WITH THE PROVISION OF SEC. 24(A)(1) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
DISALLOWING ANY DEDUCTIONS FOR "PERSONAL, LIVING, OR FAMILY EXPENSES." 
AND IT IS TO BE READ IN LIGHT OF THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN IT BY SEC.
19.23(A)-2 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, PROMULGATED UNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  THIS INTERPRETATION, WHICH IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS THAT
GIVEN TO IDENTICAL TRAVELING EXPENSE DEDUCTIONS AUTHORIZED BY PRIOR AND
SUCCESSIVE REVENUE ACTS,  FN3 IS DEEMED TO POSSESS IMPLIED LEGISLATIVE
APPROVAL AND TO HAVE THE EFFECT OF LAW.  HELVERING V. WINMILL, 305 U.S.
79; BOEHM V. COMMISSIONER, 326 U.S. 287.  IN PERTINENT PART, THIS
INTERPRETATION STATES THAT "TRAVELING EXPENSES, AS ORDINARILY
UNDERSTOOD, INCLUDE RAILROAD FARES AND MEALS AND LODGING.  IF THE TRIP
IS UNDERTAKEN FOR OTHER THAN BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE RAILROAD FARES ARE
PERSONAL EXPENSES AND THE MEALS AND LODGING ARE LIVING EXPENSES.  IF
THE TRIP IS SOLELY ON BUSINESS, THE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TRAVELING
EXPENSES, INCLUDING RAILROAD FARES, MEALS, AND LODGING, ARE BUSINESS
EXPENSES  ....  ONLY SUCH EXPENSES AS ARE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY IN
THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS AND DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT MAY BE
DEDUCTED  ....  COMMUTERS' FARES ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS
EXPENSES AND ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE." 

THREE CONDITIONS MUST THUS BE SATISFIED BEFORE A TRAVELING EXPENSE
DEDUCTION MAY BE MADE UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1)(A): 

(1)  THE EXPENSE MUST BE A REASONABLE AND NECESSARY TRAVELING
EXPENSE, AS THAT TERM IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD.  THIS INCLUDES SUCH
ITEMS AS TRANSPORTATION FARES AND FOOD AND LODGING EXPENSES INCURRED
WHILE TRAVELING. 

(2)  THE EXPENSE MUST BE INCURRED "WHILE AWAY FROM HOME." 

(3)  THE EXPENSE MUST BE INCURRED IN PURSUIT OF BUSINESS.  THIS MEANS
THAT THERE MUST BE A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE
CARRYING ON OF THE TRADE OR BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER OR OF HIS
EMPLOYER.  MOREOVER, SUCH AN EXPENDITURE MUST BE NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND PURSUIT OF THE BUSINESS OR TRADE. 

WHETHER PARTICULAR EXPENDITURES FULFILL THESE THREE CONDITIONS SO AS
TO ENTITLE A TAXPAYER TO A DEDUCTION IS PURELY A QUESTION OF FACT IN
MOST INSTANCES.  SEE COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467, 475.  AND
THE TAX COURT'S INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS ON SUCH A FACTUAL MATTER,
UNDER ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES, SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED BY AN APPELLATE
COURT.  COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN CO., 323 U.S. 119; DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489. 

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE TAX COURT WITHOUT DETAILED ELABORATION CONCLUDED
THAT "THE SITUATION PRESENTED IN THIS PROCEEDING IS, IN PRINCIPLE, NO
DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN WHICH A TAXPAYER'S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IS IN ONE
CITY AND FOR REASONS SATISFACTORY TO HIMSELF HE RESIDES IN ANOTHER." 
IT ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY
REPRESENT LIVING AND PERSONAL EXPENSES RATHER THAN TRAVELING EXPENSES
INCURRED WHILE AWAY FROM HOME IN THE PURSUIT OF BUSINESS.  THE COURT
BELOW ACCEPTED THE TAX COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT BUT REVERSED ITS
JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS THAT IT HAD IMPROPERLY CONSTRUED THE WORD "HOME"
AS USED IN THE SECOND CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A TRAVELING EXPENSE
DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1)(A).  THE TAX COURT, IT WAS SAID,
ERRONEOUSLY CONSTRUED THE WORD TO MEAN THE POST, STATION OR PLACE OF
BUSINESS WHERE THE TAXPAYER WAS EMPLOYED - IN THIS INSTANCE, MOBILE -
AND THUS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE EXPENDITURES IN ISSUE WERE NOT
INCURRED "WHILE AWAY FROM HOME."  THE COURT BELOW FELT THAT THE WORD
WAS TO BE GIVEN NO SUCH "UNUSUAL" OR "EXTRAORDINARY" MEANING IN THIS
STATUTE, THAT IT SIMPLY MEANT "THAT PLACE WHERE ONE IN FACT RESIDES" OR
"THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF ABODE OF ONE WHO HAS THE INTENTION TO LIVE
THERE PERMANENTLY."  148 F.2D AT 164.  SINCE THE TAXPAYER HERE
ADMITTEDLY HAD HIS HOME, AS THUS DEFINED, IN JACKSON AND SINCE THE
EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHILE HE WAS AWAY FROM JACKSON, THE COURT BELOW
HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS PERMISSIBLE. 

THE MEANING OF THE WORD "HOME" IN SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) WITH REFERENCE TO
A TAXPAYER RESIDING IN ONE CITY AND WORKING IN ANOTHER HAS ENGENDERED
MUCH DIFFICULTY AND LITIGATION.  4 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME
TAXATION (1942) SEC. 25.82.  THE TAX COURT  FN4  AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE
RULINGS FN5  HAVE CONSISTENTLY DEFINED IT AS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE
TAXPAYER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS.  SEE BARNHILL V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA
(C.C.A.4).  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DECISION BELOW AND WALLACE V.
COMMISSIONER, 144 F.2D 407(C.C.A. 9), HAVE FLATLY REJECTED THAT VIEW
AND HAVE CONFINED THE TERM TO THE TAXPAYER'S ACTUAL RESIDENCE.  SEE
ALSO COBURN V. COMMISSIONER, 138 F.2D 763(C.C.A.2). 

WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY HERE TO ENTER INTO OR TO DECIDE THIS
CONFLICT.  THE TAX COURT'S OPINION, AS WE READ IT, WAS GROUNDED NEITHER
SOLELY NOR PRIMARILY UPON THAT AGENCY'S CONCEPTION OF THE WORD "HOME." 
ITS DISCUSSION WAS DIRECTED MAINLY TOWARD THE RELATION OF THE
EXPENDITURES TO THE RAILROAD'S BUSINESS, A RELATIONSHIP REQUIRED BY THE
THIRD CONDITION OF THE DEDUCTION.  THUS EVEN IF THE TAX COURT'S
DEFINITION OF THE WORD "HOME" WAS IMPLICIT IN ITS DECISION AND EVEN IF
THAT DEFINITION WAS ERRONEOUS, ITS JUDGMENT MUST BE SUSTAINED HERE IF
IT PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT THE NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
EXPENDITURES AND THE RAILROAD'S BUSINESS WAS LACKING.  FAILURE TO
SATISFY ANY ONE OF THE THREE CONDITIONS DESTROYS THE TRAVELING EXPENSE
DEDUCTION. 

TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THE THIRD CONDITION, THIS CASE IS DISPOSED
OF QUICKLY.  THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT THE TAX COURT MISCONSTRUED THIS
CONDITION OR USED IMPROPER STANDARDS IN APPLYING IT. AND IT IS READILY
APPARENT FROM THE FACTS THAT ITS INFERENCES WERE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
AND THAT ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURES IN ISSUE WERE NON
DEDUCTIBLE LIVING AND PERSONAL EXPENSES WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED. 

THE FACTS DEMONSTRATE CLEARLY THAT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED IN
THE PURSUIT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER'S EMPLOYER, THE RAILROAD. 
JACKSON WAS HIS REGULAR HOME.  HAD HIS POST OF DUTY BEEN IN THAT CITY
THE COST OF MAINTAINING HIS HOME THERE AND OF COMMUTING OR DRIVING TO
WORK CONCEDEDLY WOULD BE NON-DEDUCTIBLE LIVING AND PERSONAL EXPENSES
LACKING THE NECESSARY DIRECT RELATION TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE
BUSINESS.  THE CHARACTER OF SUCH EXPENSES IS UNALTERED BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE TAXPAYER'S POST OF DUTY WAS IN MOBILE, THEREBY
INCREASING THE COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION, FOOD AND LODGING.  WHETHER HE
MAINTAINED ONE ABODE OR TWO, WHETHER HE TRAVELED THREE BLOCKS OR THREE
HUNDRED MILES TO WORK, THE NATURE OF THESE EXPENDITURES REMAINED THE
SAME. 

THE ADDED COSTS IN ISSUE, MOREOVER, WERE AS UNNECESSARY AND
INAPPROPRIATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RAILROAD'S BUSINESS AS WERE HIS
PERSONAL AND LIVING COSTS IN JACKSON.  THEY WERE INCURRED SOLELY AS THE
RESULT OF THE TAXPAYER'S DESIRE TO MAINTAIN A HOME IN JACKSON WHILE
WORKING IN MOBILE, A FACTOR IRRELEVANT TO THE MAINTENANCE AND
PROSECUTION OF THE RAILROAD'S LEGAL BUSINESS.  THE RAILROAD DID NOT
REQUIRE HIM TO TRAVEL ON BUSINESS FROM JACKSON TO MOBILE OR TO MAINTAIN
LIVING QUARTERS IN BOTH CITIES.  NOR DID IT COMPEL HIM, SAVE IN ONE
INSTANCE, TO PERFORM TASKS FOR IT IN JACKSON.  IT SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO
BE AT HIS PRINCIPAL POST IN MOBILE AS BUSINESS DEMANDED AND AS HIS
PERSONAL CONVENIENCE WAS SERVED, ALLOWING HIM TO DIVIDE HIS BUSINESS
TIME BETWEEN MOBILE AND JACKSON AS HE SAW FIT.  EXCEPT FOR THE FEDERAL
COURT LITIGATION, ALL OF THE TAXPAYER'S WORK IN JACKSON WOULD NORMALLY
HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN THE HEADQUARTERS AT MOBILE.  THE FACT THAT HE
TRAVELED FREQUENTLY BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES AND INCURRED EXTRA LIVING
EXPENSES IN MOBILE, WHILE DOING MUCH OF HIS WORK IN JACKSON, WAS
OCCASIONED SOLELY BY HIS PERSONAL PROPENSITIES.  THE RAILROAD GAINED
NOTHING FROM THIS ARRANGEMENT EXCEPT THE PERSONAL SATISFACTION OF THE
TAXPAYER.    TRAVEL EXPENSES IN PURSUIT OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) COULD ARISE ONLY WHEN THE RAILROAD'S BUSINESS
FORCED THE TAXPAYER TO TRAVEL AND TO LIVE TEMPORARILY AT SOME PLACE
OTHER THAN MOBILE, THEREBY ADVANCING THE INTERESTS OF THE RAILROAD. 
BUSINESS TRIPS ARE TO BE IDENTIFIED IN RELATION TO BUSINESS DEMANDS AND
THE TRAVELER'S BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS.  THE EXIGENCIES OF BUSINESS
RATHER THAN THE PERSONAL CONVENIENCES AND NECESSITIES OF THE TRAVELER
MUST BE THE MOTIVATING FACTORS.  SUCH WAS NOT THE CASE HERE. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF
THE TAX COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(A)(1)(A), AS AMENDED, 56 STAT. 819.    "SEC.
23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

"(A)  EXPENSES.  - 

"(1)  TRADE OR BUSINESS EXPENSES.  - 

"(A)  IN GENERAL.  - ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR
INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS,
INCLUDING A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR SALARIES OR OTHER COMPENSATION FOR
PERSONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED; TRAVELING EXPENSES (INCLUDING THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR MEALS AND LODGING) WHILE AWAY FROM HOME IN
THE PURSUIT OF A TRADE OR BUSINESS; AND RENTALS OR OTHER PAYMENTS
REQUIRED TO BE MADE AS A CONDITION TO THE CONTINUED USE OR POSSESSION,
FOR PURPOSES OF THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, OF PROPERTY TO WHICH THE
TAXPAYER HAS NOT TAKEN OR IS NOT TAKING TITLE OR IN WHICH HE HAS NO
EQUITY." 

FN2  NO CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS MADE BY THE TAXPAYER FOR THE AMOUNTS
SPENT IN TRAVELING FROM MOBILE TO JACKSON.  HE ALSO TOOK TRIPS DURING
THE TAXABLE YEARS TO WASHINGTON, NEW YORK, NEW ORLEANS, BATON ROUGE,
MEMPHIS AND JACKSON (TENN.), WHICH WERE APPARENTLY IN THE NATURE OF
BUSINESS TRIPS FOR WHICH THE TAXPAYER PRESUMABLY WAS REIMBURSED BY THE
RAILROAD.  NO CLAIM WAS MADE IN REGARD TO THEM. 

FN3  ARTICLE 23(A)-2 OF REGULATIONS 101, 94, 86; ARTICLE 122 OF
REGULATIONS 77 AND 74; ARTICLE 102 OF REGULATIONS 69 AND 65; ARTICLE
101(A) OF REGULATIONS 62. 

FN4  BIXLER V. COMMISSIONER, 5 B.T.A. 1181; GRIESEMER V.
COMMISSIONER, 10 B.T.A. 386; BROWN V. COMMISSIONER, 13 B.T.A. 832;
DUNCAN V. COMMISSIONER, 17 B.T.A. 1088; PETERS V. COMMISSIONER, 19
B.T.A. 901; LINDSAY V. COMMISSIONER, 34 B.T.A. 840; POWELL V.
COMMISSIONER, 34 B.T.A. 655; TRACY V. COMMISSIONER, 39 B.T.A. 578;
PRIDDY V. COMMISSIONER, 43 B.T.A. 18; SCHURER V. COMMISSIONER, 3 T.C.
544; GUSTAFSON V. COMMISSIONER, 3 T.C. 998. 

FN5  SECTION 19.23(A)-2 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 103 DOES NOT ATTEMPT
TO DEFINE THE WORD "HOME" ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSIONER ARGUES THAT THE
STATEMENT THEREIN CONTAINED TO THE EFFECT THAT COMMUTERS' FARES ARE NOT
BUSINESS EXPENSES AND ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE "NECESSARILY RESTS ON THE
PREMISE THAT 'HOME' FOR TAX PURPOSES IS AT THE LOCALITY OF THE
TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS."  OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS HAVE
BEEN MORE EXPLICIT IN TREATING THE STATUTORY HOME AS THE ABODE AT THE
TAXPAYER'S REGULAR POST OF DUTY.  SEE, E.G., O.D. 1021, 5 CUM. BULL. 
174(1921); I.T. 1264, I-1 CUM. BULL.  122(1922); I.T. 3314, 1939-2 CUM.
BULL.  152; G.C.M. 23672, 1943 CUM. BULL.  66. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
WHEN CONGRESS USED THE WORD "HOME" IN SEC. 23 OF THE CODE, I DO NOT
BELIEVE IT MEANT "BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS."  AND IN MY OPINION THIS CASE
PRESENTS NO OTHER QUESTION. 

CONGRESS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION FOR "TRAVELING EXPENSES (INCLUDING THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR MEALS AND LODGING) WHILE AWAY FROM HOME IN
THE PURSUIT OF A TRADE OR BUSINESS."  TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, SEC.
19.23(A)-1, ARE TO THE SAME EFFECT, WITH THE WORD "SOLELY" ADDED AFTER
"HOME."  SECTION 19.23(A)-2 ALSO PROVIDES:  "COMMUTERS' FARES ARE NOT
CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS EXPENSES AND ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE."  BY THIS
DECISION, THE LATTER REGULATION IS ALLOWED, IN EFFECT, TO SWALLOW UP
THE DEDUCTION FOR MANY SITUATIONS WHERE THE REGULATION HAS NO FIT
APPLICATION. 

RESPONDENT'S HOME WAS IN JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, IN EVERY SENSE, UNLESS
FOR APPLYING SEC. 23.  THERE HE MAINTAINED HIS FAMILY, WITH HIS
PERSONAL, POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS CONNECTIONS; SCHOOLED HIS CHILDREN;
PAID TAXES, VOTED, AND RESIDED OVER MANY YEARS.  THERE TOO HE KEPT HOLD
UPON HIS PLACE AS A LAWYER, THOUGH NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ACTIVE IN PRACTICE
OTHERWISE THAN TO PERFORM HIS WORK AS GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE
RAILROAD.  THIS REQUIRED HIS PRESENCE IN MOBILE, ALABAMA, FOR ROUGHLY A
THIRD OF HIS TIME.  THE REMAINDER HE SPENT IN JACKSON AT THE SAME WORK,
EXCEPT FOR THE TIME HE WAS REQUIRED TO TRAVEL TO POINTS OTHER THAN
MOBILE. 

THE COMPANY'S PRINCIPAL OFFICES WERE THERE, INCLUDING ONE SET ASIDE
FOR RESPONDENT'S USE.  BUT THE BULK OF ITS TRACKAGE WAS IN MISSISSIPPI
AND MUCH OF ITS LEGAL WORK, WITH WHICH HE WAS CONCERNED, WAS DONE
THERE.  HIS CHOICE TO KEEP HIS HOME IN JACKSON MUST HAVE BEEN AFFECTED
BY THIS FACT, ALTHOUGH IT WAS MOTIVATED CHIEFLY BY MORE PURELY PERSONAL
CONSIDERATIONS.  IT IS DOUBTFUL INDEED, THOUGH PERHAPS NOT MATERIAL,
WHETHER BY NOT MOVING TO MOBILE HE DID NOT SAVE THE GOVERNMENT FROM
LARGER DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELING EXPENSE THAN THOSE HE
CLAIMED. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION THEREFORE BUT THAT RESPONDENT'S HOME WAS IN
JACKSON FOR EVERY PURPOSE, UNLESS FOR THE SINGLE ONE OF APPLYING SEC.
23.  NOR IS IT IN DOUBT THAT HE TRAVELED FROM JACKSON TO MOBILE AND
RETURN, AS HE CLAIMED, OR THAT HE SPENT THE SUMS DEDUCTED FOR THAT
PURPOSE, INCLUDING MEALS AND LODGING.  NEITHER IS IT DENIED, AS MATTER
OF FACT, THAT HIS SOLE REASON FOR GOING TO MOBILE WAS TO PERFORM HIS
WORK AS IT REQUIRED HIS PRESENCE OR THAT HE RETURNED TO HIS HOME IN
JACKSON PERIODICALLY WHEN HIS DUTIES NO LONGER REQUIRED HIM TO BE IN
MOBILE. 

I THINK THIS MAKES A CASE SQUARELY WITHIN THE STATUTE AND THE
REGULATIONS.  BUT THE TAX COURT RULED THAT THE CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS WERE
"PERSONAL, LIVING, OR FAMILY EXPENSES."  BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER ELECTED
TO KEEP HIS HOME IN JACKSON, RATHER THAN MOVE TO MOBILE, AND BECAUSE
HIS EMPLOYER DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO PAY THESE EXPENSES, IT VIEWED THE
CASE AS BEING THE SAME AS IF HE HAD MOVED TO MOBILE.  IN THAT EVENT, IT
SAID, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BEAR THE EXPENSES OF HIS OWN MEALS
AND LODGING.  THIS IS OBVIOUS, EVEN THOUGH THE "AS IF" CONCLUSION DOES
NOT FOLLOW.  THE COURT WENT ON, HOWEVER, TO GIVE THE FURTHER REASON FOR
IT:  "THE SITUATION  ...  IS, IN PRINCIPLE, NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN
WHICH A TAXPAYER'S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IS IN ONE CITY AND FOR REASONS
SATISFACTORY TO HIMSELF HE RESIDES IN ANOTHER."  IT SEEMS QUESTIONABLE
WHETHER, IN SO RULING, THE TAX COURT HAS NOT CONFUSED THE TAXPAYER'S
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT WITH HIS EMPLOYER'S.  FOR ON THE FACTS
JACKSON RATHER THAN MOBILE WOULD SEEM MORE APPROPRIATELY TO BE FOUND
HIS BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS.  BUT, REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE AUTHORITIES
CITED  FN1  AND THE GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORTING ARGUMENT SHOW THAT THE CASE
WAS REGARDED AS IN ESSENCE THE COMMUTER'S, EXCEPTED BY THE
REGULATIONS. 

APART FROM THIS RULING, THE TAX COURT MADE NO FINDING, OF FACT OR
LAW, THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENGAGED "IN THE PURSUIT OF A TRADE OR
BUSINESS"; THAT HE WAS NOT "AWAY FROM HOME"; THAT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT
"BUSINESS EXPENSES" OR "BUSINESS TRAVELING EXPENSES"; OR THAT THEY WERE
NOT "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY."  YET BY A MERRY-GO-ROUND ARGUMENT,  FN2
WHICH ALWAYS COMES BACK TO REST ON THE IDEA THAT "HOME" MEANS "BUSINESS
HEADQUARTERS," THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO INJECT SUCH ISSUES AND FINDINGS,
INCLUDING A DOBSON (320 U.S. 489) CONTENTION, INTO THE TAX COURT'S
DETERMINATION.  I THINK THERE WAS ONLY ONE ISSUE, A QUESTION OF LAW
REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE AS TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD
"HOME" AND, IF THAT IS RESOLVED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THE TAX COURT'S
JUDGMENT HAS NO OTHER FOUNDATION ON WHICH TO STAND.  EVERY OTHER
CONTENTION FALLS WHEN THIS ONE DOES.  ALL STAND IF IT IS VALID. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT IF CONGRESS HAD MEANT
"BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS," AND NOT "HOME," IT WOULD HAVE SAID "BUSINESS
HEADQUARTERS."  WHEN IT USED "HOME" INSTEAD, I THINK IT MEANT HOME IN
EVERYDAY PARLANCE, NOT IN SOME TWISTED SPECIAL MEANING OF "TAX HOME" OR
"TAX HEADQUARTERS."  FN3  I FIND NO PURPOSE STATED OR IMPLIED IN THE
ACT, THE REGULATIONS OR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO SUPPORT SUCH A
DISTORTION OR TO USE SEC. 23 AS A LEVER TO FORCE PEOPLE TO MOVE THEIR
HOMES TO THE LOCALITY WHERE THEIR EMPLOYER'S CHIEF BUSINESS
HEADQUARTERS MAY BE, ALTHOUGH THEIR OWN WORK MAY BE DONE AS WELL IN
MAJOR PART AT HOME.  THE ONLY STATED PURPOSE, AND IT IS CLEARLY STATED,
NOT IN WORDS OF ART, IS TO RELIEVE THE TAX BURDEN WHEN ONE IS AWAY FROM
HOME ON BUSINESS. 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION, BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND THE TAX COURT, AND SAYS THAT UNLESS THIS IS ACCEPTED
THE ACT CREATES TAX INEQUALITY.  IF SO, IT IS INEQUALITY CREATED BY
CONGRESS, AND IT IS NOT FOR THE COMMISSIONER OR THE TAX COURT, BY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTRUCTION, TO REWRITE WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN OR
TO CORRECT ITS VIEWS OF EQUALITY.  MOREOVER, IN MY OPINION, THE
INEQUITY, IF ANY, COMES NOT FROM THE STATUTE OR THE REGULATION BUT FROM
THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IDENTIFIES PETITIONER WITH A COMMUTER. 

THAT WORD TOO HAS LIMITATIONS UNLESS IT ALSO IS MADE A TOOL FOR
REWRITING THE ACT.  THE ORDINARY, USUAL CONNOTATION, CF. 21 I.C.C. 428;
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. TOWERS, 245 U.S. 6, 12, DOES NOT INCLUDE
IRREGULAR, ALTHOUGH FREQUENT JOURNEYS OF 350 MILES, REQUIRING PULLMAN
ACCOMMODATIONS AND SOME TWELVE TO FIFTEEN HOURS, ONE WAY. 

CONGRESS GAVE THE DEDUCTION FOR TRAVELING AWAY FROM HOME ON
BUSINESS.  THE COMMUTER'S CASE, RIGHTLY CONFINED, DOES NOT FALL IN THIS
CLASS.  ONE WHO LIVES IN AN ADJACENT SUBURB OR CITY AND BY USUAL MODES
OF COMMUTATION CAN WORK WITHIN A DISTANCE PERMITTING THE DAILY JOURNEY
AND RETURN, WITH TIME FOR THE DAY'S WORK AND A PERIOD AT HOME, CLEARLY
CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEDUCTION ON THE BASIS OF THE SECTION'S TERMS
EQUALLY WITH ITS OBVIOUS PURPOSE.  BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE IF "COMMUTER"
IS TO SWALLOW UP THE DEDUCTION BY THE SAME SORT OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH
MAKES "HOME" MEAN "BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS" OF ONE'S EMPLOYER.  IF THE
LINE MAY BE EXTENDED SOMEWHAT TO COVER DOUBTFUL CASES, IT NEED NOT BE
LENGTHENED TO INFINITY OR TO COVER CASES AS FAR REMOVED FROM THE
PREVAILING CONNOTATION OF COMMUTER AS THIS ONE.  INCLUDING IT PUSHES
"COMMUTING" TOO FAR, EVEN FOR THESE TIMES OF RAPID TRANSIT.  FN4 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE SOME BOUNDS.  IT EXCEEDS WHAT
ARE LEGITIMATE WHEN IT RECONSTRUCTS THE STATUTE TO NULLIFY OR
CONTRADICT THE PLAIN MEANING OF NONTECHNICAL TERMS NOT ARTFULLY
EMPLOYED.  MOREOVER, IN THIS CASE THE MATTER HAS BEEN HELD IN
SUSPENSION BY LITIGATION WITH VARYING RESULTS  FN5  AND APPARENT
QUALIFICATION BY THE TAX COURT CONSEQUENT UPON SOME OF THE DECISIONS. 
FN6 

BY CONSTRUING "HOME" AS "BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS"; BY READING
"TEMPORARILY" AS "VERY TEMPORARILY" INTO SEC. 23; BY BRINGING DOWN
"ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" FROM ITS FIRST SENTENCE INTO ITS SECOND; FN7
BY FINDING "INEQUITY" WHERE CONGRESS HAS SAID NONE EXISTS; BY
CONSTRUING "COMMUTER" TO COVER LONG-DISTANCE, IRREGULAR TRAVEL; AND BY
CONJURING FROM THE "STATUTORY SETTING" A MEANING AT ODDS WITH THE PLAIN
WORKING OF THE CLAUSE, THE GOVERNMENT MAKES OVER UNDERSTANDABLE
ORDINARY ENGLISH INTO HIGHLY TECHNICAL TAX JARGON.  THERE IS ENOUGH OF
THIS IN THE TAX LAWS INESCAPABLY, WITHOUT ADDING MORE IN THE ABSENCE OF
EITHER COMPULSION OR AUTHORITY.  THE ARM OF THE TAX-GATHERER REACHES
FAR.  IN MY JUDGMENT IT SHOULD NOT GO THE LENGTH OF THIS CASE. 
CONGRESS HAS REVISED SEC. 23 ONCE TO OVERCOME NIGGARDLY CONSTRUCTION. 
FN8  IT SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DO SO AGAIN. 

FN1  FRANK H. SULLIVAN, 1 B.T.A. 93; MORT L. BIXLER, 5 B.T.A. 1181;
JENNIE A. PETERS, 19 B.T.A. 901; WALTER M. PRIDDY, 43 B.T.A. 18. 

THE SULLIVAN CASE ILLUSTRATES THE TYPICAL COMMUTER SITUATION.  THE
PETERS CASE ILLUSTRATES THE EXTENSION OF THAT RULING TO GREATER
DISTANCES AND IRREGULAR TRAVEL. 

RECENT DECISIONS, HOWEVER, WHERE THE TRAVELING DISTANCE IS GREAT,
APPEAR TO GO ON THE THEORY, PRESENTED IN THE INSTANT CASE, THAT THE
WORD "HOME" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A)(1) MEANS "PRINCIPAL PLACE
OF BUSINESS."  SEE TAX COURT MEMORANDUM OPINION, DEC. 13,853(M), 1
C.C.H. TAX SERV. 1945, P. 1268.  THUS, MERTENS SAYS THAT THE
DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELING EXPENSES TO ONE'S PLACE OF BUSINESS "IS BASED
PRIMARILY ON THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE TRAVELING EXPENSES INCLUDE ONLY
AMOUNTS EXPENDED 'WHILE AWAY FROM HOME.'"  4 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL
INCOME TAXATION, 478. 

FN2  THUS, THE ASSERTION THAT THE DEDUCTIONS WERE "NOT EVEN
'BUSINESS' EXPENSES" IS BROUGHT BACK TO THE MEANING OF "HOME" BY THE
GIVEN REASON THAT "THE MAINTENANCE OF MORE THAN ONE DWELLING PLACE
MANIFESTLY IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE PROSECUTION OF A BUSINESS."  AND
THIS, IN TURN, COMPLETES THE CIRCLE BY RESTING ON THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE TAXPAYER HAD TWO DWELLING PLACES, ONE IN MOBILE (PRESUMABLY THE
HOTEL OR HOTELS WHERE HE STOPPED) "WHERE HE RESIDED DURING THE PERIODS
THE LIVING EXPENSES IN QUESTION WERE INCURRED," THE OTHER IN JACKSON
"WHERE HE RESIDED DURING OTHER PERIODS."  LIKEWISE, THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE DEDUCTIONS WERE NOT "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES," SEE NOTE 8,
DEPENDS ON THE VIEW THAT JACKSON WAS NOT "HOME" BUT MOBILE WAS.  SO
WITH THE ASSERTION THAT THE "MOBILE LIVING EXPENSES" WERE NOT "BUSINESS
TRAVELING EXPENSES." 

FN3  CF. COX V. COLLECTOR, 12 WALL.  204; ADDISON V. HOLLY HILL CO.,
322 U.S. 607, 617-618. 

FN4  CONCEIVABLY MEN SOON MAY LIVE IN FLORIDA OR CALIFORNIA AND FLY
DAILY TO WORK IN NEW YORK AND BACK.  POSSIBLY THEY WILL BE REGARDED AS
COMMUTERS WHEN THAT DAY COMES.  BUT, IF SO, THAT IS NOT THIS CASE AND,
IN ANY EVENT, NEITHER SITUATION WAS COMPREHENDED BY CONGRESS WHEN SEC.
23 WAS ENACTED.    FN5  SEE WALLACE V. COMMISSIONER, 144 F.2D
407(C.C.A.9); COBURN V. COMMISSIONER, 138 F.2D 763(C.C.A.2); AND THE
DECISION NOW IN REVIEW, 148 F.2D 163(C.C.A.5), WITH WHICH COMPARE
BARNHILL V. COMMISSIONER AND WINBORNE V. COMMISSIONER, 148 F.2D
913(C.C.A.4). 

FN6  SEE HARRY F. SCHURER, 3 T.C. 544; CHARLES G. GUSTAFSON, 3 T.C.
998; MORTIMER M. MAHONY, C.C.H. TAX CT. SERV., DEC. 14,508(M), APRIL
10, 1945; CHARLES J. MCLENNAN, C.C.H. TAX CT. SERV., DEC. 14,644(M),
JUNE 25, 1945; ROBERT S. SHELLEY, C.C.H. TAX CT. SERV., DEC. 14,642(M),
JUNE 25, 1945. 

FN7  THE LANGUAGE IS:  "ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID
OR INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR
BUSINESS, INCLUDING A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR SALARIES OR OTHER
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED; TRAVELING
EXPENSES (INCLUDING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR MEALS AND LODGING)
WHILE AWAY FROM HOME IN THE PURSUIT OF A TRADE OR BUSINESS; ..."  SEC.
23(A)(1)(A), INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

FN8  THE TREASURY REGULATIONS IN FORCE IN 1920 ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF
ONLY THE EXCESS OF THE COST OF MEALS AND LODGING AWAY FROM HOME OVER
THE COST AT HOME; AND UNDER EARLIER REGULATIONS ONE OF THIS EXPENSE WAS
ALLOWED.  CONGRESS INSERTED THE WORDS "ALL" AND "ENTIRE" IN THE 1921
ACT TO OVERCOME THIS RULING. 
..END :





COMM'R V. ESTATE OF HOLMES, 326 U.S. 480 


NO. 203.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1946.  - 148
F.2D 740, REVERSED. 


1.  DECEDENT IN 1935 TRANSFERRED PROPERTY UPON TRUSTS FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THREE SONS, RETAINING NO POWER TO REVEST IN HIMSELF OR IN HIS ESTATE
ANY PART OF THE INCOME OR CORPUS.  DECEDENT WAS NAMED TRUSTEE AND ACTED
AS SUCH UNTIL HIS DEATH.  EACH TRUST WAS TO CONTINUE FOR 15 YEARS, OR
ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS LONGER; AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS WERE MADE FOR
DISPOSITION OVER UPON THE DEATH OF ANY BENEFICIARY.  THE TRUSTEE WAS
AUTHORIZED IN HIS DISCRETION EITHER TO DISTRIBUTE OR TO ACCUMULATE THE
INCOME, AND TO APPLY EACH BENEFICIARY'S SHARE OF THE CORPUS TO THE
WELFARE AND HAPPINESS OF SUCH BENEFICIARY.  DECEDENT RESERVED TO
HIMSELF THE POWER TO TERMINATE ANY OR ALL OF THE TRUSTS, AND TO
DISTRIBUTE THE PRINCIPAL AND ACCUMULATED INCOME TO THE BENEFICIARIES
THEN ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT.  HELD THAT, UNDER SEC.811(D)(2) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SO TRANSFERRED BY THE DECEDENT WAS INCLUDIBLE IN
HIS GROSS ESTATE, AS AN INTEREST WHEREOF THE "ENJOYMENT" WAS SUBJECT,
AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH, TO CHANGE THROUGH EXERCISE OF A POWER TO
"ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE."  P. 483. 

(A)  ONE WHO HAS THE POWER TO TERMINATE CONTINGENCIES UPON WHICH THE
RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT IS STAKED, SO AS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT A BENEFICIARY
WILL HAVE IT WHO MAY NEVER COME INTO IT IF THE POWER IS NOT EXERCISED,
HAS NOT DIVESTED HIMSELF OF CONTROL TO THE EXTENT WHICH SEC. 811(D)(2)
REQUIRES IN ORDER TO AVOID THE TAX.  P. 487. 

(B)  DECEDENT'S FAILURE TO RESERVE FOR HIMSELF ANY BENEFICIAL
INTEREST OR POWER TO RECAPTURE ONE IS NOT CONTROLLING.  P. 489. 

(C)  NOR IS IT CONTROLLING THAT THE DECEDENT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO
DESIGNATE BENEFICIARIES OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE INDENTURE,
AND WAS THEREFORE LIMITED TO CHANGING ENJOYMENT AMONG ONLY THAT GROUP. 
P. 489. 

(D)  UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE TRUSTS, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE
DECEDENT RESERVED THE POWER OF TERMINATION TO HIMSELF MERELY AS TRUSTEE
RATHER THAN AS DONOR; AND IT IS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE
EFFECT OF THE VARIATION BETWEEN SECS. 811(D)(1) AND (2) IN THIS
RESPECT.  P. 489. 

2.  THE WORDS "ENJOYMENT" AND "ENJOY," AS USED IN SEC. 811 OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND SIMILAR STATUTES, ARE NOT TERMS OF ART, BUT
CONNOTE SUBSTANTIAL PRESENT ECONOMIC BENEFIT RATHER THAN TECHNICAL
VESTING OF TITLE OR ESTATES.  P. 486. 

3.  THE 1936 AMENDMENT OF SEC. 302(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926,
WHEREBY AS TO TRANSFERS SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 22, 1936, THE WORDS "OR
TERMINATE" WERE ADDED TO "ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE," WAS DECLARATORY OF
THE EXISTING LAW.  P. 488. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. ESTATE OF HOLMES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 702, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE TAX COURT, 3 T.C. 571, WHICH SET ASIDE THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN ESTATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN WHITE V. POOR, 296 U.S. 98, THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER THE POWER
"TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE" INCLUDED THE POWER OF A DECEDENT TO
TERMINATE A TRUST SO AS TO BRING THE TRUST ESTATE WITHIN HIS GROSS
ESTATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TRANSFER TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 302(D) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, 71.  THE COURT, FINDING IT
UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION, DISPOSED OF THE CASE UPON
ANOTHER GROUND.  THE QUESTION IS HERE AGAIN, THIS TIME INESCAPABLY, BUT
WITH A FURTHER LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT SETTING OF
FACT. 

IN 1936, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE WHITE DECISION, CONGRESS REVISED
SEC. 302(D) BY REWRITING IT INTO TWO SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS RELATING TO
"REVOCABLE TRANSFERS," ONE APPLYING TO TRANSFERS AFTER JUNE 22, 1936,
THE OTHER TO TRANSFERS ON OR PRIOR TO THAT DATE.  THESE ARE NOW SECS.
811(D)(1) AND (2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN
THE MARGIN.  FN1  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THE DIFFERENCE CLAIMED TO BE
IMPORTANT CONSISTED IN CHANGING THE PHRASE "TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE"
APPLYING TO TRANSFERS ON OR PRIOR TO JUNE 22, 1936, SO THAT IN SEC.
811(D)(1) IT READS "TO ALTER, AMEND, REVOKE, OR TERMINATE," AS TO
TRANSFERS AFTER THAT DATE. 

HOWEVER SEC. 811(D)(2) GOVERNS THE TRANSFER IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT
WAS MADE IN JANUARY, 1935, PRIOR TO THE DIVIDING DATE.  AND THE
QUESTION MOST MOOTED HAS BEEN WHETHER THE CHANGE WAS ONE OF SUBSTANCE
OR WAS ONLY A CLARIFYING AMENDMENT.  PUT DIFFERENTLY, THE PRINCIPAL
ISSUE IS WHETHER POWER TO "ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE" INCLUDED POWER
MERELY TO TERMINATE THE INTERESTS CREATED BY THE TRUST OR REQUIRED SOME
FURTHER CHANGE. 

THE TAX COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, HAVE RULED THAT THE CHANGE WAS SUBSTANTIAL, NOT
MERELY DECLARATORY.  3 T.C. 571; 148 F.2D 740.  ACCORDINGLY THEY HAVE
HELD THAT NO DEFICIENCY RESULTED FROM THE TAXPAYER'S FAILURE TO INCLUDE
THE VALUE OF THE TRUST ESTATE CREATED BY THE DECEDENT HOLMES IN HIS
GROSS ESTATE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  THE COMMISSIONER MAINTAINS THE
CONTRARY VIEW.  BECAUSE OF ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS FROM OTHER
CIRCUITS,  FN2  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  326 U.S. 702. 

WE THINK THE TAX COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS WERE IN ERROR IN
THEIR VIEW OF THE STATUTE'S EFFECT. 

THE FACTS WERE STIPULATED.  IN SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO STATE, THEY ARE
AS FOLLOWS.  ON JANUARY 20, 1935, BY A SINGLE TRUST INDENTURE HOLMES
CREATED THREE SEVERAL IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS, ONE FOR EACH OF THREE SONS
THEN AGED 22, 19 AND 14 YEARS RESPECTIVELY.  EACH WAS GIVEN THE
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN ONE-THIRD OF A COMMON FUND CONSISTING OF
CORPORATE STOCK LATER CONVERTED INTO OTHER ASSETS.  FN3  THE THREE
TRUSTS WERE IDENTICAL IN TERMS.  HOLMES WAS NAMED AND ACTED AS TRUSTEE
UNTIL HIS DEATH OCTOBER 5, 1940. 

EACH TRUST WAS TO CONTINUE FOR A PERIOD OF FIFTEEN YEARS, UNLESS
EARLIER TERMINATED UNDER POWER RESERVED TO THE GRANTOR, OR FOR A LONGER
TERM ON SPECIFIED CONDITIONS SUMMARIZED BELOW.  BUT THE GRANTOR
RESERVED TO HIMSELF DURING HIS LIFETIME THE POWER TO TERMINATE ANY OR
ALL OF THE TRUSTS AND DISTRIBUTE THE PRINCIPAL, WITH ACCUMULATED
INCOME, TO THE BENEFICIARIES THEN ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT.  FN4  HE
RETAINED NO POWER TO REVEST IN HIMSELF OR HIS ESTATE ANY PORTION OF THE
CORPUS OR INCOME. 

VARIOUS PROVISIONS FOR DISPOSITION OVER WERE MADE TO COVER
CONTINGENCIES CREATED BY THE DEATH OF BENEFICIARIES DURING CONTINUANCE
OF THE TRUST.  GENERALLY STATED, THE SCHEME WAS THAT THE SURVIVING
ISSUE OF EACH SON SHOULD TAKE HIS SHARE OF THE CORPUS, RECEIVING IT
SHARE AND SHARE ALIKE, UNCONDITIONALLY IF OVER 21; AS BENEFICIARIES
UNTIL ATTAINING THAT AGE, IF UNDER IT.  IF A SON SHOULD DIE WITHOUT
ISSUE, HIS "SHARE OR TRUST" WAS TO GO "PRO RATA" TO THE OTHER TWO SONS,
OR THEIR SURVIVING ISSUE PER STIRPES; IF EITHER OTHER SON SHOULD BE
DEAD WITHOUT ISSUE, THE SURVIVOR OR HIS ISSUE WAS TO TAKE THE WHOLE;
AND IF ALL THE SONS SHOULD BE DECEASED WITHOUT ISSUE, WHATEVER MIGHT
REMAIN IN THE TRUST ESTATE WAS GIVEN TO THE GRANTOR'S WIFE, IF LIVING;
IF NOT, TO HER HEIRS AT LAW.  THE TRUST WAS TO TERMINATE IN ANY EVENT
UPON THE DEATH OF THE LAST SURVIVOR OF THE THREE SONS AND THE
EXPIRATION OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS THEREAFTER. 

THE TRUSTEE WAS GIVEN BROAD DISCRETIONARY POWER TO APPLY EACH
BENEFICIARY'S SHARE OF THE CORPUS FOR HIS MAINTENANCE, WELFARE, COMFORT
OR HAPPINESS, WITH A PRECATORY SUGGESTION OF LIBERALITY. 

THE INCOME WAS SUBJECT TO SPENDTHRIFT PROVISIONS AND DISCRETIONARY
POWER OF ACCUMULATION.  IF NOT ACCUMULATED, IT WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO
THE BENEFICIARY, PREFERABLY IN MONTHLY INSTALMENTS. 

THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTION IS THAT THE SUM OF THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS
WAS TO CREATE OR RESERVE TO THE DECEDENT ONLY A POWER TO ACCELERATE IN
TIME THE ENJOYMENT OF THE BENEFICIAL INTERESTS BROUGHT INTO BEING BY
THE TRUSTS; THAT THESE WERE VESTED INTERESTS; THAT NO POWER WAS
RESERVED TO REVEST THEM OR ANY OF THEM IN THE DONOR OR HIS ESTATE OR TO
CHANGE OR ALTER THEM, OR THE TERMS OF THE GIFTS, IN ANY MANNER OTHER
THAN BY MERE ACCELERATION OF ENJOYMENT; AND THAT THE POWERS THUS
RESERVED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING THE TRUST ESTATE, OR ANY PART OF
IT, WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF SEC. 811(D)(2).  FN5 

THIS VIEW PRESUPPOSES TWO THINGS.  ONE IS THAT TERMINATION OF
CONTINGENCIES UPON WHICH ENJOYMENT IS DEPENDENT DOES NOT "CHANGE,
ALTER, OR REVOKE" ENJOYMENT; THE OTHER, THAT THE POWER "TO ALTER,
AMEND, OR REVOKE" SPECIFIED IN SEC. 811(D)(2) DOES NOT INCLUDE A POWER
TO TERMINATE CONTINGENCIES WHICH ACCELERATE ENJOYMENT, WITH THE EFFECT
OF MAKING CERTAIN THAT THE BENEFICIARY TAKING WILL HAVE IT RATHER THAN
OTHERS TO WHOM IT WOULD OR MIGHT INURE IF TERMINATION WERE LONGER
DEFERRED. 

ONE DIFFICULTY WITH RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS IN ITS CONCEPTION OF
"ENJOYMENT."  MORE THAN ONCE RECENTLY WE HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT
"ENJOYMENT" AND "ENJOY," AS USED IN THESE AND SIMILAR STATUTES, ARE NOT
TERMS OF ART, BUT CONNOTE SUBSTANTIAL PRESENT ECONOMIC BENEFIT RATHER
THAN TECHNICAL VESTING OF TITLE OR ESTATES.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
PELZER, 312 U.S. 399, 403; FONDREN V. COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 18, 20;
COMMISSIONER V. DISSTON, 325 U.S. 442.  FN6  IN THIS SENSE IT IS CLEAR
THAT NONE OF THE SONS HERE HAD A PRESENT RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE ENJOYMENT
OF EITHER INCOME OR PRINCIPAL, SEE COMMISSIONER V. DISSTON, SUPRA,
ALTHOUGH EACH MAY HAVE BEEN INVESTED WITH WHAT RESPONDENT REGARDS AS A
"FEE SIMPLE" IN AN EQUITABLE INTEREST, SUBJECT TO DIVESTMENT BY THE
CONTINGENCY OF THE BENEFICIARY'S DEATH DURING CONTINUANCE OF THE
TRUST.  SO LONG AS IT CONTINUED - AND IT MIGHT CONTINUE FOR THE LIFE OF
THE SURVIVOR OF THE THREE SONS AND 21 YEARS - IT COULD NOT BE SAID WITH
ASSURANCE THAT ANY OF THE SONS, OR HIS ISSUE, WOULD COME INTO PRESENT
ENJOYMENT OF HIS SHARE, OR ANY PART OF IT; FOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE OF MANY CONTINGENCIES, INCLUDING THE GRANTOR'S
DEATH AND HIS EARLIER EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF TERMINATION, IT IS TO BE
RECALLED THAT THE GRANTOR RESERVED TO HIMSELF, WHILE ACTING AS TRUSTEE,
THE POWER TO ACCUMULATE THE INCOME. 

IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT ONE WHO HAS THE POWER TO TERMINATE
CONTINGENCIES UPON WHICH THE RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT IS STAKED, SO AS TO
MAKE CERTAIN THAT A BENEFICIARY WILL HAVE IT WHO MAY NEVER COME INTO IT
IF THE POWER IS NOT EXERCISED, HAS POWER WHICH AFFECTS NOT ONLY THE
TIME OF ENJOYMENT BUT ALSO THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO MAY ENJOY THE
DONATION.  MORE THEREFORE IS INVOLVED THAN MERE ACCELERATION OF THE
TIME OF ENJOYMENT.  THE VERY RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT IS AFFECTED, THE
DIFFERENCE DEPENDENT UPON THE GRANTOR'S POWER BEING BETWEEN PRESENT
SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT AND THE MERE PROSPECT OR POSSIBILITY, EVEN THE
PROBABILITY, THAT ONE MAY HAVE IT AT SOME UNCERTAIN FUTURE TIME OR
PERHAPS NOT AT ALL.  A DONOR WHO KEEPS SO STRONG A HOLD OVER THE ACTUAL
AND IMMEDIATE ENJOYMENT OF WHAT HE PUTS BEYOND HIS OWN POWER TO RETAKE
HAS NOT DIVESTED HIMSELF OF THAT DEGREE OF CONTROL WHICH SEC. 811(D)(2)
REQUIRES IN ORDER TO AVOID THE TAX. 

BUT THE RESPONDENT RELIES HEAVILY UPON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND
THE CONTINUED USE OF "ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE" IN THE 1936 REVISION,
WHICH AT THE SAME TIME INTRODUCED "OR TERMINATE" TO GOVERN FUTURE
TRANSACTIONS, AS EXPRESSIVE OF INTENTION TO DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO
CLASSES OF TRANSFERS.  THIS VIEW PUTS EMPHASIS ON THE MEANING OF
"REVOKE" RATHER THAN OF "ENJOYMENT," AND EXCLUDES FROM THAT TERM'S
SCOPE A POWER NOT AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN ONE OF TERMINATION. 

WE THINK THE HISTORY GIVES THE OPPOSITE STORY.  THE 1936 REVISION
RESULTED FROM THE WHITE DECISION, WHICH RAISED DOUBT WHETHER CONGRESS
HAD INCLUDED THE POWER TO TERMINATE IN THE WORDS "ALTER, AMEND, OR
REVOKE."  TO CLARIFY THE MATTER CONGRESS REMOVED ALL DOUBT FOR THE
FUTURE BY ENACTING SEC. 811(D)(1).  AT THE SAME TIME IT ADOPTED SEC.
811(D)(2), WHICH RETAINED THE EARLIER PHRASING.  THIS WAS FROM CONCERN
THAT RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF SEC. 811(D)(1) SHOULD NOT IMPOSE TAXES
ON PRIOR TRANSFERS NOT COMPREHENDED BY THE PRIOR LAW, AS THE CONCLUDING
SENTENCE OF SEC. 811(D)(2) SHOWS.  FN7  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS AND THE
DOUBT CREATED BY WHITE V. POOR, SUPRA, THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EXPRESSLY STATES THAT
THE ADDITION OF "OR TERMINATE" IN SEC. 811(D)(1) WAS "DECLARATORY OF
EXISTING LAW."  FN8 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION, INCLUDING TREASURY
REGULATIONS, SUPPORT THIS VIEW,  FN9  WHICH ALSO IS EITHER FOLLOWED OR
INDICATED IN DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, EXCEPT THE ONE
NOW IN REVIEW.  FN10  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THAT VIEW IS MORE
CONSONANT WITH THE STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION GIVEN CONCOMITANT
TAXING ACT PROVISIONS.  FOR ALL THESE REASONS, WE THINK IT MUST
PREVAIL. 

RESPONDENT'S OTHER CONTENTIONS REQUIRE ONLY BRIEF NOTICE.  THE
CONTINGENCIES HERE WERE TOO NUMEROUS AND TOO IMPORTANT IN THEIR EFFECTS
NOT ONLY UPON THE TIME BUT ALSO UPON THE RIGHT OF IMMEDIATE ENJOYMENT
FOR THEM TO BE REGARDED AS TRIVIAL OR INCONSEQUENTIAL, AS RESPONDENT
URGES.  DECEDENT'S FAILURE TO RESERVE FOR HIMSELF ANY BENEFICIAL
INTEREST OR POWER TO RECAPTURE ONE IS NOT CONTROLLING.  PORTER V.
COMMISSIONER, 288 U.S. 436.  NOR IS THE FACT THAT HE COULD NOT SELECT
NEW BENEFICIARIES OUTSIDE THOSE COMPREHENDED BY THE INDENTURE, AND WAS
THEREFORE LIMITED TO CHANGING ENJOYMENT AMONG THAT GROUP.  FN11 

IT SEEMS SUGGESTED THAT THE POWER OF TERMINATION WAS RESERVED TO THE
GRANTOR, NOT IN THE CAPACITY OF DONOR, BUT ONLY IN THAT OF TRUSTEE,
FROM WHICH THE CONCLUSION APPEARS TO BE DRAWN THAT NO POWER OF
TERMINATION WAS RESERVED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 811(D)(2).  AS WE
HAVE NOTED, FN12  THE ELEVENTH PARAGRAPH OF THE INDENTURE IS NOT WHOLLY
CLEAR CONCERNING THE PREMISE.  BUT IN TERMS THE RESERVATION IS TO THE
"GRANTOR, DURING HIS LIFETIME" AND GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SECOND SENTENCE SEEMS TO INDICATE THE QUALIFYING CLAUSE "WHILE ACTING
AS TRUSTEE HEREUNDER" WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE DECEDENT'S SON
OR SONS ACTING IN THAT CAPACITY.  FN13  IF THE QUESTION HAS BEEN SAVED,
WE CANNOT SAY UPON THIS LANGUAGE THAT THE GRANTOR DID NOT RESERVE THE
POWER OF TERMINATION TO HIMSELF AS DONOR RATHER THAN MERELY AS
TRUSTEE.  IT IS UNNECESSARY THEREFORE TO DETERMINE WHETHER, IF THE
RESERVATION WERE DIFFERENT, THE VARIATION IN WORDING BETWEEN SECS.
811(D)(1) AND (2) IN THIS RESPECT WOULD BE MATERIAL.  FN14  WE HAVE
CONSIDERED RESPONDENT'S REMAINING CONTENTIONS AND FIND THEM WITHOUT
MERIT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  "SEC.  811.  GROSS ESTATE.  THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE
DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS
DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE,
WHEREEVER SITUATED, EXCEPT REAL PROPERTY SITUATED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED
STATES - 

"(D)  REVOCABLE TRANSFERS.  - (1)  TRANSFERS AFTER JUNE 22, 1936.  -
TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS AT ANY
TIME MADE A TRANSFER (EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA-FIDE SALE FOR AN
ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH), BY TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, WHERE THE ENJOYMENT THEREOF WAS SUBJECT AT THE DATE OF HIS
DEATH TO ANY CHANGE THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF A POWER (IN WHATEVER
CAPACITY EXERCISABLE) BY THE DECEDENT ALONE OR BY THE DECEDENT IN
CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OTHER PERSON (WITHOUT REGARD TO WHEN OR FROM WHAT
SOURCE THE DECEDENT ACQUIRED SUCH POWER), TO ALTER, AMEND, REVOKE, OR
TERMINATE, OR WHERE ANY SUCH POWER IS RELINQUISHED IN CONTEMPLATION OF
DECEDENT'S DEATH; 

"(2)  TRANSFERS ON OR PRIOR TO JUNE 22, 1936.  - TO THE EXTENT OF ANY
INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER,
BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, WHERE THE ENJOYMENT THEREOF WAS SUBJECT AT THE
DATE OF HIS DEATH TO ANY CHANGE THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF A POWER, EITHER
BY THE DECEDENT ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY PERSON, TO ALTER,
AMEND, OR REVOKE, OR WHERE THE DECEDENT RELINQUISHED ANY SUCH POWER IN
CONTEMPLATION OF HIS DEATH, EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE FOR AN
ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  EXCEPT IN
THE CASE OF TRANSFERS MADE AFTER JUNE 22, 1936, NO INTEREST OF THE
DECEDENT OF WHICH HE HAS MADE A TRANSFER SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS
ESTATE UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) UNLESS IT IS INCLUDIBLE UNDER THIS
PARAGRAPH."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 811.    FN2  MELLON V. DRISCOLL, 117 F.2D
477(C.C.A.3); COMMISSIONER V. HOFHEIMER'S ESTATE, 149 F.2D
733(C.C.A.2).  SEE ALSO THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 11 INFRA. 

FN3  THE CORPORATION WHICH HAD ISSUED THE STOCK WAS LIQUIDATED AND
THE CORPORATE ASSETS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE TRUST TO REPLACE THE
STOCK. 

FN4  THE POWER OF TERMINATION WAS RESERVED BY PARAGRAPH ELEVEN OF THE
INDENTURE, AS FOLLOWS: 

"GRANTOR, DURING HIS LIFETIME, AND MY SON OR SONS HEREIN NAMED, WHILE
ACTING AS TRUSTEE HEREUNDER, MAY, IF DEEMED ADVISABLE BY THEM AS
TRUSTEE, DISTRIBUTE TO EITHER OF GRANTOR'S CHILDREN, THE WHOLE OR ANY
PART OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE TRUSTS, AND THEIR INTERESTS
THEREUNDER.  AND GRANTOR MAY, DURING HIS LIFETIME, IF DEEMED ADVISABLE
BY HIM, AND MY SON OR SONS HEREIN NAMED, WHILE ACTING AS TRUSTEE
HEREUNDER, MAY, IF DEEMED ADVISABLE BY THEM AS TRUSTEE, TERMINATE
EITHER OR ALL OF SAID TRUSTS HEREIN CREATED FOR THE RESPECTIVE BENEFIT
OF MY SAID SONS, AND DISTRIBUTE THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST TO THE
PERSONS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE SAME UNDER THE TERMS HEREOF ON THE DATE
OF SUCH TERMINATION." 

IT SEEMS QUESTIONABLE ON THE WORDING THAT THE GRANTOR'S POWER OF
TERMINATION, LIKE THAT OF HIS SONS, WAS LIMITED BY THE CLAUSE "WHILE
ACTING AS TRUSTEE HEREUNDER."  SEE NOTE 13 AND TEXT. 

FN5  THE TAXPAYER ASSERTS THAT EACH SON ACQUIRED, ON EXECUTION OF THE
INDENTURE, "A FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO ONE-THIRD OF THE TRUST CORPUS AND
INCOME," SUBJECT ONLY TO THE TRUSTEE'S POWER OF MANAGEMENT FOR 15 YEARS
AT THE MOST AND TO THE SON'S LIVING UNTIL THIS POWER SHOULD END.  THE
RESERVED POWER OF TERMINATION, IT IS SAID, APPLIES ONLY TO THE SEVERAL
CONTINGENCIES WHICH MIGHT AFFECT THE TIME OF ENJOYMENT, BUT NOT
ENJOYMENT ITSELF. 

FN6  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT ONE INVOLVING THE TAXABILITY OF
GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY" AS WAS TRUE OF THE CASES
CITED.  IT IS LIKEWISE TRUE THAT THE LAWS RELATING TO ESTATE TAXES AND
THOSE RELATING TO GIFT TAXES ARE NOT COMPLETELY RECIPROCAL.  ESTATE OF
SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 39; SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY, 318 U.S.
176.  BUT THERE CAN BE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS
"ENJOYMENT" AND "ENJOY" AS THEY ARE USED IN THE PERTINENT STATUTORY
PROVISIONS RESPECTIVELY. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN8  THE REPORT STATED:  "ANOTHER CHANGE MADE IN SUBSECTION (A) OF
WITH THE POWERS TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE.  IN THE CASE OF WHITE V.
POOR, SUPRA, THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
THE POWER TO TERMINATE WAS INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE RELATING TO A POWER
'TO ALTER, AMEND OR REVOKE.'  SINCE IN SUBSTANCE A POWER TO TERMINATE
IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A POWER TO REVOKE, THIS QUESTION SHOULD BE SET AT
REST.  EXPRESS PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT HAS BEEN MADE AND IT IS
BELIEVED THAT IT IS DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW."  H. REP. NO. 2818,
74TH CONG., 2D SESS., 10.  THE REPORT WAS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH
H.R. 12,793, OF THE SAME SESSION, OF WHICH SEC. 206 CONTAINED THE
CHANGES LATER ENACTED, WITHOUT PRESENTLY MATERIAL DIFFERENCE, AS SEC.
805 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, NOW SEC. 811(D) OF THE CODE. 

FN9  SEE TREASURY REGULATIONS 105, SEC. 81.20, STATING:  "SUCH
ADDITION IS CONSIDERED BUT DECLARATORY OF THE MEANING OF THE
SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT.  A POWER TO TERMINATE CAPABLE OF
BEING SO EXERCISED AS TO REVEST IN THE DECEDENT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
TRANSFERRED PROPERTY OR AN INTEREST THEREIN, OR AS OTHERWISE TO INURE
TO HIS BENEFIT OR THE BENEFIT OF HIS ESTATE, IS, TO THAT EXTENT, THE
EQUIVALENT OF A POWER TO 'REVOKE,' AND WHEN OTHERWISE SO EXERCISABLE AS
TO EFFECT A CHANGE IN THE ENJOYMENT, IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A POWER TO
'ALTER,'" 

FN10  CF. THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 11. 

FN11  CHICKERING V. COMMISSIONER, 118 F.2D 254; COMMISSIONER V.
HOFHEIMER'S ESTATE, 149 F.2D 733; COMMISSIONER V. BRIDGEPORT CITY TRUST
CO., 124 F.2D 48; GUGGENHEIM V. HELVERING, 117 F.2D 469; COMMISSIONER
V. CHASE NATIONAL BANK, 82 F.2D 157; UNION TRUST CO. V. DRISCOLL, 138
F.2D 152; MILLARD V. MALONEY, 121 F.2D 257; MELLON V. DRISCOLL, 117
F.2D 477; HOLDERNESS V. COMMISSIONER, 86 F.2D 137. 

FN12  NOTE 4. 

FN13  IBID.  THE PARENTHETICAL PHASE "(IN WHATEVER CAPACITY
EXERCISABLE)" WAS ADDED TO SEC. 811(D)(1) AT THE SAME TIME AS "OR
TERMINATE," AND POSSIBLY ALSO AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE DECISION IN WHITE
V. POOR.  ALTHOUGH THE LEGISLATIVE REPORTS ARE NOT CLEAR, SEE H. REP.
NO. 2818, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., 9, THIS CHANGE ALSO HAS BEEN HELD TO
HAVE BEEN DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW.  WELCH V. TERHUNE, 126 F.2D 695;
UNION TRUST CO. V. DRISCOLL, 138 F.2D 152; SEE ALSO TREAS. REG. 105,
SEC. 81.20; ESTATE OF NETTLETON V. COMMISSIONER, 4 T.C. 987. 

FN14  SEE THE PRECEDING NOTE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















HERCULES GASOLINE CO. V. COMM'R, 326 U.S. 425 


NO. 93.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1945.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 17, 1945.  - 147
F.2D 972, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 IMPOSED A TAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS,
BUT SEC. 26(C)(1) ALLOWED CREDIT, IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX, FOR
SUCH UNDISTRIBUTED EARNINGS AS THE CORPORATION COULD NOT DISTRIBUTE
"WITHOUT VIOLATING A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE
CORPORATION ...  WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS WITH THE PAYMENT OF
DIVIDENDS."  HELD THAT THE CREDIT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE WHERE RESTRICTIONS
ON THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS WERE CONTAINED IN PROVISIONS OF PREFERRED
STOCK CERTIFICATES INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE TERMS OF THE
CORPORATION'S CHARTER.  P. 428. 

2.  SECTION 26(C)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 IS LIMITED TO
CONTRACTS INVOLVING ORDINARY OBLIGATIONS TO CREDITORS (HELVERING V.
NORTHWEST STEEL MILLS, 311 U.S. 46), AND DOES NOT APPLY TO OBLIGATIONS
TO PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, SINCE THEY ARE NOT CREDITORS.  P. 428. 

HERCULES GASOLINE CO., INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 701, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE TAX COURT SUSTAINING THE COMMISSIONER'S ACTION IN REJECTING CLAIMS
FOR CERTAIN CREDITS UNDER SEC. 26(C)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936
AGAINST THE TAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS IMPOSED BY THAT ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE REQUIRES US TO CONSTRUE SEC. 26(C)  FN1  OF THE
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX LAW, 49 STAT. 1648, ENACTED BY CONGRESS IN
1936.  THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX, WHICH WAS NOT CONTINUED BY
CONGRESS AFTER 1938, WAS A SURTAX AT GRADUATED RATES UPON CORPORATE
PROFITS NOT DISTRIBUTED DURING THE TAX YEAR BY WAY OF DIVIDENDS. 
PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS IS PREVENTED BY CERTAIN CONTRACT PROVISIONS. 
SUBDIVISION (C)(1) OF THE SECTION ALLOWED SUCH A CREDIT WHERE A
DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS WOULD VIOLATE A "PROVISION OF A WRITTEN
CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION  ...  WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY
DEALS WITH THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS."  SUBDIVISION (C)(2) ALLOWED A
CREDIT WHERE "EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR  ...  (ARE)
REQUIRED (BY A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE
CORPORATION  ..., WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS WITH THE DISPOSITION
OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR) TO BE PAID WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR IN DISCHARGE OF A DEBT, OR TO BE IRREVOCABLY SET ASIDE
WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A DEBT."  PETITIONER
CLAIMED A CREDIT UNDER SEC. 26(C)(1), BUT IN ASSESSING THE DEFICIENCY
FOR 1937 THE COMMISSIONER REJECTED THIS CLAIM.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED
THE COMMISSIONER AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  147 F.2D 972.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF CONFLICTING
DETERMINATIONS BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS AS TO THE SCOPE OF THESE CREDIT
PROVISIONS.  FN2 

PETITIONER, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ADMITS LIABILITY AS TRANSFEREE OF
THE ASSETS OF THE HERCULES GASOLINE COMPANY, INC., A LOUISIANA
CORPORATION, WHICH WAS DISSOLVED IN 1939.  ARTICLE V OF THE ORIGINAL
CHARTER OF THE TRANSFEROR AUTHORIZED THE ISSUANCE OF NON-PAR COMMON
STOCK AND OF PREFERRED STOCK AT $50 PAR VALUE.  THE PREFERRED STOCK WAS
ENTITLED "TO CUMULATIVE DIVIDENDS AT THE RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM  ...  IN
PREFERENCE AND PRIORITY TO ANY PAYMENT OF ANY DIVIDEND ON THE COMMON
STOCK FOR SUCH YEAR."  THE CHARTER FURTHER PROVIDED THAT "THERE SHALL
BE NO DIVIDEND ON THE COMMON STOCK UNTIL ALL OF THE PREFERRED STOCK HAS
BEEN RETIRED, REDEEMED AND DISCHARGED."  ALL CERTIFICATES OF PREFERRED
STOCK CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING PROVISION:  "FOR RIGHTS AND VOTING POWERS
OF PREFERRED STOCK SEE ARTICLE V OF CHARTER."  THE PETITIONER CONTENDS
THAT THESE PREFERRED STOCK CERTIFICATES CONSTITUTED CONTRACTS EXECUTED
BY THE CORPORATION WHICH EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS
WHILE THESE SHARES WERE OUTSTANDING AND THAT PETITIONER IS THEREFORE
ENTITLED TO THE CREDIT ALLOWED UNDER SUBDIVISION (C)(1). 

WE THINK THAT THE PREFERRED STOCK CERTIFICATES ARE NOT THE KIND OF
CONTRACTS WHICH ENTITLE A CORPORATION TO ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT UNDER
SUBDIVISION (C)(1).  IN OUR VIEW, THAT SUBDIVISION MUST BE READ IN THE
LIGHT OF SEC. 26(C) AND THE ACT AS A WHOLE AND, WHEN THUS READ, IS
CONFINED TO CONTRACTS MADE WITH CREDITORS AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED WITHIN THE BODY CORPORATE.  IN HELVERING V.
NORTHWEST STEEL MILLS, 311 U.S. 46, THE QUESTION BEFORE US WAS WHETHER
SEC. 26(C)(1) ALLOWS A CREDIT WHERE THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS IS
PROHIBITED BY STATUTE.  IN CONSTRUING SEC. 26(C), WE STATED: 

"THAT THE LANGUAGE USED IN SEC. 26(C)(1) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A CREDIT
FOR STATUTORILY PROHIBITED DIVIDENDS IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY A
CONSIDERATION OF SEC. 26(C)(2).  BY THIS SECTION, A CREDIT IS ALLOWED
TO CORPORATIONS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO SET EARNINGS ASIDE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF DEBTS.  THAT THIS SECTION REFERRED TO ROUTINE CONTRACTS
DEALING WITH ORDINARY DEBTS AND NOT TO STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS IS OBVIOUS
- YET THE WORDS USED TO INDICATE THAT THE SECTION HAD REFERENCE ONLY TO
A 'WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION' ARE IDENTICAL WITH
THOSE USED IN SEC. 26(C)(1).  THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THAT A BROADER MEANING BE ATTACHED TO THESE WORDS AS
USED IN SEC. 26(C)(1) THAN ATTACHED TO THEM UNDER THE NECESSARY
LIMITATIONS OF 26(C)(2)."  311 U.S. 46, AT 49-50. 

WE THUS HELD THAT SEC. 26(C)(1) IS LIMITED TO CONTRACTS INVOLVING
ORDINARY OBLIGATIONS TO CREDITORS AND SINCE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS ARE
NOT CREDITORS, WARREN V. KING, 108 U.S. 389, 399, SEC. 26(C)(1) DOES
NOT APPLY HERE. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT OUR CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 26(C)(1)
WAS ERRONEOUS BUT FOR REASONS GIVEN IN THE NORTHWEST STEEL CASE WE
THINK IT WAS CORRECT AND ADHERE TO IT.  OUR CONSTRUCTION FINDS FURTHER
SUPPORT IN SEC. 26(C)(3) WHICH, IN ORDER TO PREVENT "DOUBLE CREDIT,"
PROVIDES THAT IN THE EVENT BOTH SUBDIVISIONS (C)(1) AND (C)(2) APPLY,
"THE ONE OF SUCH PARAGRAPHS WHICH ALLOWS THE GREATER CREDIT SHALL BE
APPLIED; AND, IF THE CREDIT ALLOWABLE UNDER EACH PARAGRAPH IS THE SAME,
ONLY ONE OF SUCH PARAGRAPHS SHALL BE APPLIED."  CONGRESS HAVING THUS
MADE THE RELIEF OBTAINABLE UNDER (C)(1) AND (C)(2) MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
HAS INDICATED THAT IT CONSIDERED THE TWO SUBDIVISIONS AS
INTERDEPENDENT.  CONGRESS THEREFORE INTENDED TO COVER THE SAME TYPE OF
CONTRACT, NAMELY A CONTRACT WITH CREDITORS, IN BOTH SUBSECTIONS AND NOT
TO EXTEND SUBDIVISION (C)(1) TO INTRA-CORPORATE CONTRACTS WHILE
SUBDIVISION (C)(2) WAS TO COVER CONTRACTS WITH CREDITORS ONLY. 
MOREOVER, STATEMENTS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
FN3  REFER TO SEC. 26(C) AS A WHOLE, AS PROVIDING FOR THE RELIEF OF
CORPORATIONS PREVENTED FROM PAYING DIVIDENDS BY CONTRACTS INVOLVING THE
PAYMENT OF DEBTS.  NO OTHER VIEW OF THE SECTION WOULD BE IN KEEPING
WITH THE POLICY BEHIND THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX.  THAT TAX WAS
DESIGNED TO REACH PROFITS HELD BY THE CORPORATION WHICH AS A
CONSEQUENCE COULD NOT BE TAXED AS DIVIDENDS IN THE HANDS OF
STOCKHOLDERS.  AN INTRA-CORPORATE AGREEMENT IS SIMPLY ONE WAY OF
KEEPING PROFITS IN THE CORPORATION'S TREASURY SO THAT THE TAX COLLECTOR
CANNOT REACH THEM.  FN4  TO HOLD THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT ENTITLED THE
CORPORATION TO TAX CREDIT WOULD DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX.  FN5  THE REJECTION OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM
FOR TAX CREDIT WAS PROPER.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  26.  CREDITS OF CORPORATIONS. 

IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION THE FOLLOWING CREDITS SHALL BE ALLOWED
TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE VARIOUS SECTIONS IMPOSING TAX - 

     .         .         .         . . 

(C)  CONTRACTS RESTRICTING PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.  - 

(1)  PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.  - AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE
EXCESS OF THE ADJUSTED NET INCOME OVER THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS
WHICH CAN BE DISTRIBUTED WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR AS DIVIDENDS WITHOUT
VIOLATING A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION
PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936, WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS WITH THE PAYMENT
OF DIVIDENDS.  IF A CORPORATION WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A CREDIT UNDER
THIS PARAGRAPH BECAUSE OF A CONTRACT PROVISION AND ALSO TO ONE OR MORE
CREDITS BECAUSE OF OTHER CONTRACT PROVISIONS, ONLY THE LARGEST OF SUCH
CREDITS SHALL BE ALLOWED, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE IF TWO OR MORE CREDITS
ARE EQUAL IN AMOUNT ONLY ONE SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 

(2)  DISPOSITION OF PROFITS OF TAXABLE YEAR.  - AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
THE PORTION OF THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR WHICH IS
REQUIRED (BY A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE
CORPORATION PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936, WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS WITH
THE DISPOSITION OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR) TO BE PAID
WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR IN DISCHARGE OF A DEBT, OR TO BE IRREVOCABLY
SET ASIDE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A DEBT; TO THE
EXTENT THAT SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN SO PAID OR SET ASIDE.  FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, A REQUIREMENT TO PAY OR SET ASIDE AN AMOUNT
EQUAL TO A PERCENTAGE OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS SHALL BE CONSIDERED A
REQUIREMENT TO PAY OR SET ASIDE SUCH PERCENTAGE OF EARNINGS AND
PROFITS.  AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH, THE WORD 'DEBT' DOES NOT INCLUDE A
DEBT INCURRED AFTER APRIL 30, 1936. 

(3)  DOUBLE CREDIT NOT ALLOWED.  - IF BOTH PARAGRAPH (1) AND
PARAGRAPH (2) APPLY, THE ONE OF SUCH PARAGRAPHS WHICH ALLOWS THE
GREATER CREDIT SHALL BE APPLIED; AND, IF THE CREDIT ALLOWABLE UNDER
EACH PARAGRAPH IS THE SAME, ONLY ONE OF SUCH PARAGRAPHS SHALL BE
APPLIED." 

FN2  LEHIGH STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 127 F.2D 67;
PHILADELPHIA RECORD CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 145 F.2D 613. 

FN3  SEE FOR ILLUSTRATION THE STATEMENT BY THE HON. SAMUEL B. HILL,
80 CONG. REC. 6004. 

FN4  SEE WARREN TELEPHONE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 128 F.2D 503, 506. 
HERE THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE AGREEMENT THAT ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED THE
PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.  DURING 1937 AND 1938 TRANSFEROR HAD OUTSTANDING
1,294 SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK OF A TOTAL PAR VALUE OF $64,700.  THESE
SHARES WERE ALL RETIRED IN 1939.  HAD THEY BEEN REDEEMED IN 1937 THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING IN THE AGREEMENT PREVENTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF
EARNINGS.  CONSEQUENTLY IT DOES NOT CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THERE WAS ANY
PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENTS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITING THE PAYMENT OF
DIVIDENDS.  CF. DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 45 B.T.A. 540;
STALEY MANUFACTURING CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 46 B.T.A. 199, 205. 

FN5  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND LATER THE TAX COURT HAVE
CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT SEC. 26(C)(1) DOES NOT COVER THE TYPE OF
AGREEMENT HERE INVOLVED.  THIBAUT & WALKER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 42
B.T.A. 29; ELJER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, DECIDED DEC. 4, 1941, 1941 P-H
B.T.A. MEMORANDUM DECISIONS, PAR. 41,533; BUDD INTERNATIONAL CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, 45 B.T.A. 737; BISHOP & BABCOCK MANUFACTURING CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 45 B.T.A. 776; PHILADELPHIA RECORD CO. V. COMMISSIONER,
DECIDED JANUARY 23, 1943, 1943 P-H T.C. MEMORANDUM DECISIONS, PAR.
43,038. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

ACCEPTING HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL MILLS, 311 U.S. 46,
COMPLETELY, I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THIS CONTRACT WITH PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS WAS OTHER THAN A "ROUTINE CONTRACT DEALING WITH ORDINARY
DEBTS."  CERTAINLY THIS IS NOT AN INSTANCE OF A "STATUTORY OBLIGATION,"
WHICH ARE THE WORDS USED IN THE NORTHWEST CASE TO DESCRIBE THE
ANTITHESIS OF THE CONTRACT COVERED.  "ROUTINE" AND "ORDINARY," AS USED
IN NORTHWEST, DO NOT IMPLY TO ME ANYTHING MORE THAN AN EXPRESS
CONTRACT, EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 26(C)(1). 

THE EXEMPTION PROVISIONS OF SEC. 26(C) MAKE NO EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE THE
DEBT OF THE CORPORATION IS OWNED BY A STOCKHOLDER.  IF SUCH AN
EXCEPTION IS TO BE DEDUCED FROM THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE WORDS OF THE
THESE BECAUSE THEIR INTEREST IS LIKE THAT OF A CREDITOR.  AS I BELIEVE
THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, I SHOULD REVERSE.  FN1 

FN1  SEE IN ACCORD, LEHIGH STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 127
F.2D 67; BUDD INTERNATIONAL CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 143 F.2D 784;
PHILADELPHIA RECORD CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 145 F.2D 613; REX-HANOVER
MILLS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 53 F.SUPP.  235.  SEE ELJER CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 134 F.2D 251, 255. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :
























FERNANDEZ V. WIENER, 326 U.S. 340 


NO. 58.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 1945.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 10, 1945.  - 60
F.SUPP.  169, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON THE TERMINATION OF A LOUISIANA MARITAL COMMUNITY BY THE DEATH
OF THE HUSBAND, A FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE
ENTIRE COMMUNITY PROPERTY, WAS LEVIED PURSUANT TO SEC. 811(E)(2) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS AMENDED BY SEC. 402 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1942.  HELD THAT THE TAX DOES NOT INFRINGE ANY PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 342, 362. 

(1)  THE STATUTE IS A REVENUE MEASURE ENACTED BY CONGRESS IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT AN EXCISE.  P. 351. 

(2)  THE TAX DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  PP. 346, 357. 

(A)  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO IMPOSE DEATH TAXES IS NOT LIMITED TO
THE TAXATION OF TRANSFERS AT DEATH, BUT EXTENDS TO THE CREATION,
EXERCISE, ACQUISITION, OR RELINQUISHMENT OF ANY POWER OR LEGAL
PRIVILEGE WHICH IS INCIDENT TO THE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY, WHEN ANY OF
THESE IS OCCASIONED BY DEATH.  P. 352. 

(B)  UPON THE TERMINATION OF A LOUISIANA MARITAL COMMUNITY BY THE
DEATH OF EITHER THE HUSBAND OR WIFE, THERE OCCURS, BY VIRTUE OF STATE
LAW, A REDISTRIBUTION OF POWERS AND RESTRICTIONS UPON POWER WITH
RESPECT TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY PROPERTY WHICH AFFORDS AN APPROPRIATE
OCCASION FOR THE LEVY OF AN EXCISE TAX MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE
ENTIRE COMMUNITY PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH FROM THE MOMENT THE COMMUNITY WAS
ESTABLISHED THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE SPOUSES IN THE COMMUNITY WERE
IN EVERY SENSE "VESTED," AND IT WAS CERTAIN THAT THE CHANGES IN LEGAL
AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS TO PROPERTY WHICH OCCASION THE TAX WOULD
OCCUR.  P. 355. 

(C)  THE STATUTE IS NOT INVALID AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ALTHOUGH
IT TAXES TRANSFERS AT DEATH AND ALSO THE SHIFTING AT DEATH OF
PARTICULAR INCIDENTS OF PROPERTY.  P. 358. 

(D)  THE STATUTE IS AN EXCISE TAX UPON THE SHIFTING AT DEATH OF THE
INCIDENTS OF PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR ORIGIN, AND DOES NOT DEPEND
FOR ITS OPERATION UPON ANY PRESUMPTION THAT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY
PROPERTY IS OWNED OR ECONOMICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SPOUSE FIRST TO
DIE.  P. 358. 

(3)  THE STATUTE DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE REQUIREMENT OF ARTICLE I,
SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT "EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES."  P. 359. 

(A)  THE UNIFORMITY COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION IS GEOGRAPHICAL
UNIFORMITY, NOT UNIFORMITY OF INTRINSIC EQUALITY AND OPERATION.  P.
359. 

(B)  THE TAX ON COMMUNITY PROPERTY INTERESTS IS NOT LACKING IN
GEOGRAPHICAL UNIFORMITY BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT IN SOME STATES SUCH
INTERESTS ARE NOT FOUND.  A TAXING STATUTE DOES NOT FALL SHORT OF THE
PRESCRIBED UNIFORMITY BECAUSE ITS OPERATION AND INCIDENCE MAY BE
AFFECTED BY DIFFERENCES IN STATE LAWS.  P. 359. 

(C)  THE STATUTE IS NOT LACKING IN UNIFORMITY, EVEN THOUGH IT APPLIES
TO COMMUNITY PROPERTY INTERESTS AND NOT TO INTERESTS IN TENANCIES IN
COMMON AND LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS.  P. 360. 

(4)  THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE, LAID UPON THE SHIFTING AT DEATH
OF SOME OF THE INCIDENTS OF PROPERTY, IS NOT A DIRECT TAX WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TO BE APPORTIONED.  P. 361. 

(5)  THE TAX DOES NOT INVADE THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES BY THE
TENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 362. 

(A)  THE TENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE POWER DELEGATED TO THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO LAY AN EXCISE TAX QUA TAX.  P. 362. 

(B)  THE INCIDENTAL REGULATORY EFFECT OF THE TAX IS EMBRACED WITHIN
THE POWER TO LAY IT. P. 362. 

(C)  IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE COURTS TO INQUIRE INTO THE
UNEXPRESSED PURPOSES OR MOTIVES WHICH MAY HAVE MOVED CONGRESS TO
EXERCISE A POWER CONSTITUTIONALLY CONFERRED UPON IT. P. 362. 

2.  ALSO INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE, PURSUANT TO SEC.
811(G)(4) OF THE CODE AS AMENDED BY SEC. 404 OF THE ACT, WERE THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDS OF INSURANCE POLICIES ON THE LIFE OF THE DECEDENT, ON
ALL OF WHICH POLICIES THE WIFE WAS NAMED BENEFICIARY, THE RIGHT TO
CHANGE THE NAME OF THE BENEFICIARY WAS RESERVED TO THE INSURED, AND
PREMIUMS WERE PAID FROM COMMUNITY FUNDS.  HELD THAT THE TAX AS SO
APPLIED IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  PP. 362-363. 

THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, SINCE IT ENDED HIS CONTROL OVER THE
DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDS AND GAVE HIS WIFE THE PRESENT ENJOYMENT OF
THEM, MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE MADE THE OCCASION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF
AN INDIRECT TAX MEASURED BY THE PROCEEDS THEMSELVES.  P. 363. 

FERNANDEZ, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. WIENER ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 

APPEAL UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, FROM A JUDGMENT
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN A SUIT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
TO RECOVER AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, THE DECISION
BEING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX STATUTE
AS APPLIED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 811(E)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 811(E)(2),
AS AMENDED BY SEC. 402 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798, HAS
LEVIED AN ESTATE TAX ON THE TERMINATION OF THE MARITAL COMMUNITY BY THE
DEATH OF THE HUSBAND, A DOMICILED RESIDENT OF LOUISIANA, THE TAX BEING
MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  AND, ON THE
AUTHORITY OF SEC. 811(G)(4) OF THE CODE, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 811(G)(4), AS
AMENDED BY SEC. 404 OF THE SAME STATUTE, HE ALSO INCLUDED IN DECEDENT'S
GROSS ESTATE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS OF INSURANCE POLICIES ON THE
DECEDENT'S LIFE. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE (1) WHETHER THE POWER
ASSERTED BY THE STATUTE, TO TAX THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY INTEREST, IS
WITHIN THE TAXING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES; (2) WHETHER THE TAX
INFRINGES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; (3) WHETHER
THE TAXING STATUTE CONTRAVENES THE COMMAND OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE
CONSTITUTION THAT "EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES"; (4) WHETHER THE TAX SO FAR AS IT IS MEASURED BY THE SURVIVING
WIFE'S SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY, IS A DIRECT TAX, INVALID
BECAUSE NOT APPORTIONED AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE
CONSTITUTION; AND (5) WHETHER THE TAX INVADES THE POWERS RESERVED TO
THE STATES BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 

APPELLEES, THE CHILDREN AND SOLE HEIRS OF DECEDENT, BROUGHT THIS SUIT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN LOUISIANA, TO RECOVER FROM APPELLANT,
THE COLLECTOR, AS AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT, SO MUCH OF THE ESTATE TAX
PAID AS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INCLUSION IN DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE OF
HIS WIFE'S SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY, AND OF ALL, RATHER THAN
HALF, OF THE INSURANCE MONEY.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
APPELLEES, 60 F.SUPP.  169, HOLDING THAT THE STATUTE AS APPLIED
VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE CASE COMES
HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER
SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 751, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
349A, APPELLANT ASSIGNING AS ERROR THE LOWER COURT'S RULING THAT THE
STATUTE DENIED DUE PROCESS, AND THE COURT'S FAILURE TO SUSTAIN THE LEVY
AS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER. 

THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  IN
1907, DECEDENT, A RESIDENT OF LOUISIANA, MARRIED A LOUISIANA RESIDENT
WITH WHOM HE LIVED IN THAT STATE UNTIL HIS DEATH, HIS WIFE SURVIVING. 
DURING THE MARRIAGE HE CARRIED ON IN LOUISIANA VARIOUS KINDS OF
BUSINESS.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN
MISSISSIPPI, ALL THE PROPERTY OF DECEDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH WAS
HELD IN OWNERSHIP BY THE MARITAL COMMUNITY WHICH EXISTED BETWEEN HIM
AND HIS WIFE.  AT NO TIME DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMMUNITY WAS THE
WIFE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED OUTSIDE THE HOUSEHOLD, NOR DID SHE RECEIVE FROM
ANY ONE ANY SALARY OR OTHER COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, NOR WAS
ANY PART OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY DERIVED FROM ANY SEPARATE PROPERTY
OF HER OWN.  DECEDENT, HAVING BY HIS WILL CONSTITUTED APPELLEES HIS
SOLE HEIRS, AND HAVING NO DEBTS OF CONSEQUENCE, NO ADMINISTRATION WAS
HAD ON HIS ESTATE, AND APPELLEES WERE BY JUDGMENT OF THE PROBATE COURT
PLACED IN POSSESSION OF ALL DECEDENT'S PROPERTY. 

APPELLEES FILED THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX RETURN, IN WHICH THEY REPORTED
ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE NET VALUE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY AS SUBJECT TO
THE TAX.  INCLUDED IN THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY, AND ALSO REPORTED TO THE
EXTENT OF ONLY ONE-HALF, WERE THE PROCEEDS OF FIFTEEN POLICIES OF
INSURANCE ON THE LIFE OF DECEDENT, ALL OF WHICH WERE (A) EFFECTED BY
DECEDENT DURING THE MARRIAGE, (B) NAMED THE WIFE AS BENEFICIARY, AND
(C) RESERVED THE RIGHT TO THE INSURED OF CHANGING THE BENEFICIARY.  ALL
OF THE PREMIUMS ON THESE POLICIES HAD BEEN PAID FROM COMMUNITY FUNDS. 
THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY IN ESTATE TAX BASED UPON
APPELLEES' FAILURE TO INCLUDE IN THE GROSS ESTATE, SUBJECT TO TAX, THE
ENTIRE VALUE OF ALL THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY, AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE
FIFTEEN INSURANCE POLICIES.  APPELLEES PAID THE DEFICIENCY AND,
FOLLOWING REJECTION OF THEIR CLAIM FOR REFUND, BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT
TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIENCY PAYMENT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN
THE JUDGMENT IN THEIR FAVOR. 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 811(E), SO AS TO INCLUDE IN THE
GROSS ESTATE OF DECEDENT, SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE TAX: 

"(2)  COMMUNITY INTERESTS.  - TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST THEREIN
HELD AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY BY THE DECEDENT AND SURVIVING SPOUSE UNDER
THE LAW OF ANY STATE  ...  OF THE UNITED STATES,  ... EXCEPT SUCH PART
THEREOF AS MAY BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR
PERSONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED BY THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OR DERIVED
ORIGINALLY FROM SUCH COMPENSATION OR FROM SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE
SURVIVING SPOUSE.  IN NO CASE SHALL SUCH INTEREST INCLUDED IN THE GROSS
ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT BE LESS THAN THE VALUE OF SUCH PART OF THE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY AS WAS SUBJECT TO THE DECEDENT'S POWER OF
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION."  FN1 

THE REVENUE LAWS MAKE NO PROVISION FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BURDEN
OF THE TAX BEYOND PROVIDING THAT THE TAX SHALL BE A LIEN ON ALL OF THE
PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE.  SEC. 827(A) I.R.C.,
26 U.S.C. SEC. 827(A).  SEE DETROIT BANK V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S.
329, 331-333.  SECTION 826(B) OF THE I.R.C. CONTEMPLATES THAT THE TAX
"BE PAID OUT OF THE TAXABLE ESTATE BEFORE ITS DISTRIBUTION," UNLESS
OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY DECEDENT'S WILL.  ALTHOUGH THE SHARE OF THE
SURVIVING SPOUSE IS SUBJECT TO THE LIEN AND THE TAX MUST BE PAID OUT OF
THE ESTATE AS A WHOLE, THE FEDERAL STATUTE LEAVES IT TO THE STATES TO
DETERMINE HOW THE TAX BURDEN SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THOSE WHO SHARE
IN THE TAXED ESTATE.  SEE RIGGS V. DEL DRAGO, 317 U.S. 95. 

APPELLEES' ARGUMENT IS IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE NATURE OF COMMUNITY
PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT HUSBAND AND WIFE EACH HAS, BY VIRTUE OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THEIR MARITAL COMMUNITY, AND FROM ITS BEGINNING, A
PRESENT HALF INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; THAT THE DEATH OF EITHER
EFFECTS NO TRANSFER OR RELINQUISHMENT OF ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY
OTHER THAN THAT OF THE HALF SHARE WHICH THE DECEDENT HAD BEFORE HIS
DEATH; AND THAT THE SURVIVOR IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DEATH OF THE OTHER
SPOUSE ACQUIRES NO NEW OR DIFFERENT INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, BUT ONLY
RETAINS THE HALF SHARE HE OR SHE HAD PRIOR TO THE DEATH OF THE OTHER
SPOUSE.  FROM THIS APPELLEES CONCLUDE THAT THE DEATH OF EITHER SPOUSE
IS NOT AN EVENT WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BRING MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF THE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY WITHIN THE REACH OF THE POWER TO "LAY AND COLLECT
...  IMPOSTS AND EXCISES" CONFERRED ON CONGRESS BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF
THE CONSTITUTION, AND THAT THE PRESENT AMENDMENT TAXING THE ENTIRE
VALUE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY ON THE DEATH OF EITHER SPOUSE IS A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE DEATH OF NEITHER OPERATES TO
TRANSFER, RELINQUISH OR ENLARGE ANY LEGAL OR ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY OF THE OTHER SPOUSE.  HENCE IT IS SAID THAT THE STATUTE
INFRINGES DUE PROCESS BY ADDING TO THE CONCEDEDLY VALID TAX ON THE
DECEDENT'S HALF SHARE A FURTHER TAX MEASURED BY THE ONE-HALF INTEREST
OF THE SURVIVING SPOUSE.  FURTHER, IT IS URGED IN SUPPORT OF THE DUE
PROCESS CONTENTION, THAT THE STATUTE ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY
INVENTS DIFFERENT RULES OF TAXATION WHOSE ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION IS
GOVERNED BY A SINGLE CONSIDERATION, NAMELY, WHICH WILL YIELD THE
GREATER TAX; AND THAT THE STATUTE CREATES A PRESUMPTION CONTRARY TO
STATE LAW, AND HAVING NO RATIONAL BASIS IN FACT, THAT THE ENTIRE
COMMUNITY IS OWNED OR ECONOMICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SPOUSE FIRST TO
DIE.  IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT EVEN IF CONGRESS COULD VALIDLY IMPOSE THE
TAX WHERE, AS HERE, THE HUSBAND IS FIRST TO DIE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
THE TAX WHERE THE WIFE DIES FIRST, AND THAT SINCE THE STATUTE PURPORTS
TO APPLY IN EITHER CASE, AND IS NOT SEPARABLE, IT CANNOT BE VALIDLY
APPLIED IN THIS. 

IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE TAX IS NOT UNIFORM AS REQUIRED BY
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE JOINT
INTERESTS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE IN COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES ARE TAXED
ACCORDING TO A DIFFERENT AND MORE ONEROUS STANDARD THAN IS APPLIED TO
COMPARABLE JOINT INTERESTS, AND SPECIFICALLY TO TENANCIES IN COMMON AND
LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS, CREATED UNDER THE LAWS OF OTHER STATES IN WHICH
THE PRESUMPTION IS NOT APPLIED; AND BECAUSE THE STATUTE DISREGARDS FOR
PURPOSES OF TAXATION THE PROPERTY LAWS OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY
STATES, WHILE RECOGNIZING THE PROPERTY LAWS OF OTHER STATES FOR THOSE
PURPOSES. 

IT IS SAID TOO THAT THE LEVY IS A DIRECT TAX, INVALID BECAUSE NOT
APPORTIONED (ARTICLE I, SEC. 9, CLAUSE 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION), INSOFAR
AS IT CONTEMPLATES COLLECTION OF PART OF THE TAX OUT OF THE WIFE'S HALF
OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY, SINCE, IT IS SAID, THERE IS NO EXCISABLE
EVENT TOUCHING HER PROPERTY ON HER HUSBAND'S DEATH AND THE TAX
COLLECTED BUT OF HER PROPERTY IS IN EFFECT A DIRECT TAX UPON IT.  AND
FINALLY THE TAX IS SAID TO INVADE THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES BY
THE TENTH AMENDMENT, TO DETERMINE PROPERTY RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THEIR
BORDERS. 

THE MERITS OF THESE CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE ACCURATELY APPRAISED
WITHOUT SOME INQUIRY AS TO THE NATURE OF RESPECTIVE SPOUSES' COMMUNITY
PROPERTY INTERESTS AS DEFINED BY LOUISIANA LAW.  WE HAVE HAD OCCASION
IN SEVERAL EARLIER CASES TO MAKE SOME EXAMINATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING
THE INTERESTS OF THE SPOUSES IN COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES.  SEE E.G.,
MOFFITT V. KELLY, 218 U.S. 400; POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101; BENDER V.
PFAFF, 282 U.S. 127; COMMISSIONER V. HARMON, 323 U.S. 44.  COUNSEL FOR
APPELLEES CONCEDE THAT THE OPINION IN BENDER V. PFAFF, SUPRA, SO FAR AS
IT GOES, CORRECTLY DEFINES THE SEVERAL INTERESTS OF THE SPOUSES IN
LOUISIANA COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  TO THAT WE NOW ADD A MORE DETAILED
STATEMENT SO FAR AS IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE DECISION OF THE PRESENT
CASE. 

BY THE LAW OF LOUISIANA, EVERY MARITAL STATUS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF
THE STATE SUPERINDUCES A PARTNERSHIP OR COMMUNITY OF THE SPOUSES WITH
RESPECT TO PROPERTY IN THE STATE ACQUIRED DURING THE LIFE OF THE
COMMUNITY, UNLESS THERE BE AT THE TIME OF THE MARRIAGE A STIPULATION TO
THE CONTRARY.  FN2  ALL EARNINGS AND ALL PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE
HUSBAND OR WIFE DURING THE LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY BECOME COMMUNITY
PROPERTY, WITH CERTAIN LIMITED EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE INVOLVED, AND WHICH
NEED NOT BE DETAILED FURTHER THAN TO SAY THAT THE SPOUSES CAN ACQUIRE
SOME SEPARATE PROPERTY DURING MARRIAGE.  FN3  IT IS SAID THAT ALL
PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE SPOUSES DURING THE MARRIAGE WHICH FALLS INTO
THE COMMUNITY IS "DUE TO THE JOINT OR COMMON EFFORTS, LABOR, INDUSTRY,
ECONOMY, AND SACRIFICES OF THE HUSBAND AND WIFE," AND THAT FOR THIS
REASON THE HUSBAND AND WIFE EACH HAS AT ALL TIMES AN EQUAL PRESENT
INTEREST IN AN UNDIVIDED HALF OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.  FN4  THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IS ENTRUSTED TO THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF
THE HUSBAND,  FN5  AND HE MAY DEAL WITH AND DISPOSE OF COMMUNITY
PROPERTY WITH NO LIABILITY TO ACCOUNT TO THE WIFE SO LONG AS THE
COMMUNITY CONTINUES.  FN6  THE RULE IS, HOWEVER, THAT THE HUSBAND MAY
NOT GIVE AWAY ANY OF THE IMMOVABLES, NOR A QUOTA OF THE MOVABLES, NOR
MAY BE FRAUDULENTLY MAKE ANY ALIENATION OF PROPERTY "TO INJURE HIS
WIFE."  FN7 

SO LONG AS THE COMMUNITY CONTINUES, THE WIFE HAS NO CONTROL OVER
COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  SHE MAY NOT GIVE IT AWAY, NO SELL IT, AND IN
GENERAL, MAY NOT BIND IT FOR THE PAYMENT OF HER DEBTS.  FN8 BUT UPON
THE TERMINATION OF THE COMMUNITY,  FN9  SHE, HER HEIRS, OR OTHER
DESIGNEES RECEIVE IN FULL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT ONE-HALF IN VALUE OF
THE TOTAL COMMUNITY ASSETS SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COMMUNITY DEBTS. 
FN10  THIS RIGHT SO TO RECEIVE ONE-HALF IS INDEFEASIBLE, AND IF SHE DIE
FIRST, HER HEIRS OR LEGATEES TAKE HER HALF-SHARE TO THE EXCLUSION OF
THE HUSBAND; IF THE HUSBAND DIE FIRST, HIS HALF PASSES TO HIS HEIRS OR
AS HE HAD DIRECTED, AND THE OTHER HALF IS THE WIFE'S.  FN11 

EXAMINATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTE, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND REPORTS AND THE CONGRESSIONAL
DEBATES, CAN LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING IT
WAS THE ELIMINATION OF WHAT WAS BELIEVED TO BE AN UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION
OF THE TAX BURDENS OF ESTATE TAXES WHICH LED CONGRESS TO APPLY TO
COMMUNITY PROPERTY THE PRINCIPLES OF DEATH TAXES WHICH IT HAD ALREADY
APPLIED TO OTHER FORMS OF JOINT OWNERSHIP, ON THE DEATH OF EITHER OF
THE JOINT OWNERS.  THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THE
ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 811 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
POINTED OUT THE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT ACCORDED BY THE FEDERAL ESTATE
TAX LAWS TO COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  H. REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., PP. 35 TO 37, 160.  FN12    THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.  APPELLEES
DO NOT DENY THAT THE COMMISSIONER CORRECTLY APPLIED THE STATUTE AND
CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE TAX IF THE STATUTE IS VALID.  HERE, AS WILL
PRESENTLY APPEAR, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THE STATUTE, EITHER
IN ITS PURPOSE OR IN ITS PRACTICAL EFFECT, OPERATES TO REGULATE MATTERS
WHOSE REGULATION THE CONSTITUTION RESERVED TO THE STATES.  IT IS A
REVENUE MEASURE ENACTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO LAY AND
COLLECT AN EXCISE.  CONGRESS HAS A WIDE LATITUDE IN THE SELECTION OF
OBJECTS OF TAXATION, BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1, 12;
STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 581, AND EVEN UNDER THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE FIFTH, THE STATES MAY DISTINGUISH, FOR PURPOSES OF
TRANSFER TAXES, BETWEEN PROPERTY WHICH HAS BORNE ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE
TAX BURDENS AND SIMILAR OR LIKE PROPERTY PASSING TO THE SAME CLASS OF
BENEFICIARIES WHICH HAS NOT.  WATSON V. STATE COMPTROLLER, 254 U.S.
122.  HENCE WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT
THE TAX. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE ESTATE TAX AS ORIGINALLY DEVISED AND
CONSTITUTIONALLY SUPPORTED WAS A TAX UPON TRANSFERS.  KNOWLTON V.
MOORE, 178 U.S. 41; Y.M.C.A. V. DAVIS, 264 U.S. 47, 50.  BUT THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO IMPOSE DEATH TAXES IS NOT LIMITED TO THE TAXATION OF
TRANSFERS AT DEATH.  IT EXTENDS TO THE CREATION, EXERCISE, ACQUISITION,
OR RELINQUISHMENT OF ANY POWER OR LEGAL PRIVILEGE WHICH IS INCIDENT TO
THE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY, AND WHEN ANY OF THESE IS OCCASIONED BY
DEATH, IT MAY AS READILY BE THE SUBJECT OF THE FEDERAL TAX AS THE
TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AT DEATH.  SEE BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S.
124, 135, ET SEQ. 

CONGRESS MAY TAX REAL ESTATE OR CHATTELS IF THE TAX IS APPORTIONED,
AND WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT IT MAY LAY AN EXCISE UPON A PARTICULAR USE OR
ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY OR THE SHIFTING FROM ONE TO ANOTHER OF ANY POWER
OR PRIVILEGE INCIDENTAL TO THE OWNERSHIP OR ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY. 
BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, SUPRA; BURNET V. WELLS, 289 U.S. 670, 678; CF.
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 267-8; HENNEFORD
V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 582.  THE POWER TO TAX THE WHOLE
NECESSARILY EMBRACES THE POWER TO TAX ANY OF ITS INCIDENTS OR THE USE
OR ENJOYMENT OF THEM.  IF THE PROPERTY ITSELF MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
TAXED, OBVIOUSLY IT IS COMPETENT TO TAX THE USE OF IT, HYLTON V. UNITED
STATES, 3 DALL.  171; BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261, OR THE
SALE OF IT, NICOL V. AMES, 173 U.S. 509; THOMAS V. UNITED STATES, 192
U.S. 363, 370, OR THE GIFT OF IT, BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, SUPRA.  IT MAY
TAX THE EXERCISE, NON-EXERCISE, OR RELINQUISHMENT OF A POWER OF
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, WHERE OTHER IMPORTANT INDICIA OF OWNERSHIP ARE
LACKING.  SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, 276 U.S. 260; CHASE NATIONAL BANK
V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 327; ESTATE OF ROGERS V. COMMISSIONER, 320
U.S. 410; CF. GRAVES V. SCHMIDLAPP, 315 U.S. 657 WITH SEC. 811(D)(F) OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 811(D)(F). 

IF THE GIFT OF PROPERTY MAY BE TAXED, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS ANY
WANT OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO TAX THE RECEIPT OF IT, WHETHER AS THE
RESULT OF INHERITANCE, STEBBINS V. RILEY, 268 U.S. 137, OR OTHERWISE,
WHATEVER NAME MAY BE GIVEN TO THE TAX, AND EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHT TO
RECEIVE IT, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS ACTUAL RECEIPT AND POSSESSION AT
A FUTURE DATE, ANTEDATED THE STATUTE.  RECEIPT IN POSSESSION AND
ENJOYMENT IS AS MUCH A TAXABLE OCCASION WITHIN THE REACH OF THE FEDERAL
TAXING POWER AS THE ENJOYMENT OF ANY OTHER INCIDENT OF PROPERTY.  THE
TAKING OF POSSESSION OF INHERITED PROPERTY IS ONE OF THE MOST ANCIENT
SUBJECTS OF TAXATION KNOWN TO THE LAW.  SUCH TAXES EXISTED ON THE
EUROPEAN CONTINENT AND IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF OUR
CONSTITUTION.  FN13 

IT IS UPON THESE PRINCIPLES THAT THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY
SUSTAINED THE APPLICATION OF ESTATE TAXES UPON THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE
JOINT OWNERS TO PROPERTY HELD IN JOINT OWNERSHIP, MEASURED BY THE FULL
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SO HELD.  WE UPHELD A LIKE TAX WHEN APPLIED TO
TENANCIES BY THE ENTIRETY IN TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497;
THIRD NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. V. WHITE, 287 U.S. 577, AND TO PROPERTY
HELD IN JOINT TENANCY IN UNITED STATES V. JACOBS AND DIMOCK V. CORWIN
(COMPANION CASES), 306 U.S. 363. 

DECISION IN THESE CASES WAS NOT RESTED, AS APPELLEES ARGUE, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE TAX WAS IMPOSED ON A GIFT MADE BY THE HUSBAND, WHO HAD
CREATED THE TENANCY, VIEWED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A TESTAMENTARY
TRANSFER, OR ON ANY EVENT WHICH ANTEDATED THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE JOINT
OWNERS.  INSTEAD, AS WE SAID IN WHITNEY V. TAX COMMISSION, 309 U.S.
530, 539, "THE EMPHASIS IN THESE CASES WAS ON THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF
DEATH IN BRINGING ABOUT A SHIFT IN ECONOMIC INTEREST, AND THE POWER OF
THE LEGISLATURE TO FASTEN ON THAT SHIFT AS THE OCCASION FOR A TAX."  WE
POINTED OUT IN TYLER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 503, 504, THAT THE USE,
POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE JOINT PROPERTY WHICH WAS JOINT BEFORE
THE DEATH WAS THEREBY MADE EXCLUSIVE IN THE SURVIVOR, AND THUS
CONSTITUTED A "DEFINITE ACCESSION TO THE PROPERTY RIGHTS" OF THE
SURVIVOR.  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE THOUGHT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE VALID
THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE GROSS ESTATE WHICH FORMS THE
PRIMARY BASIS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE TAX.  AND IN UNITED STATES V.
JACOBS, SUPRA, THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE TAX, ASSAILED ON DUE PROCESS
GROUNDS, WHEN APPLIED TO A JOINT TENANCY CREATED BEFORE THE ENACTMENT
OF THE TAXING STATUTE.  WE SAID, 306 U.S. AT 371, THAT THE SUBJECT OF
THE TAX WAS NOT THE GIFT TO THE WIFE MADE BY THE HUSBAND'S CREATION OF
THE JOINT TENANCY FOR HIMSELF AND WIFE, BUT THE CHANGE IN POSSESSION
AND ENJOYMENT OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, OCCASIONED BY THE DEATH OF ONE OF
THE JOINT TENANTS, AND THAT THE TAX WAS APPROPRIATELY MEASURED BY THE
VALUE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.  "UNDER THE STATUTE THE DEATH OF DECEDENT
IS THE EVENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE TAX IS LAID.  IT IS THE EXISTENCE
OF THE JOINT TENANCY AT THE TIME, AND NOT ITS CREATION AT THE EARLIER
DATE, WHICH FURNISHES THE BASIS FOR THE TAX."  GRISWOLD V. HELVERING,
290 U.S. 56, 58.  COMPARE SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, SUPRA, 271. 

SIMILARLY, A TAX UPON THE TERMINATION BY DEATH OF A POWER TO DISPOSE
OF PROPERTY, CREATED BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAX STATUTE, DOES NOT
OFFEND DUE PROCESS, REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339, NOR
DOES A TAX UPON THE RECEIPT OF INCOME WHICH WAS EARNED AND DUE BEFORE
THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAXING STATUTE.  BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC R.
CO., SUPRA, 20; LYNCH V. HORNBY, 247 U.S. 339, 343; TAFT V. BOWERS, 278
U.S. 470, 483, 484; COOPER V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 409, 411.  IT IS
THE RECEIPT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF A RIGHT
PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED AND VESTED UPON WHICH THE TAX IS LAID.  SUCH WAS
DEEMED TO BE THE TAXABLE EVENT UNDER OUR EARLIER DEATH TAXES.  CLAPP V.
MASON, 94 U.S. 589; VANDERBILT V. EIDMAN, 196 U.S. 480.  AND SEE
MOFFITT V. KELLY, SUPRA. 

WITH THESE GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN MIND, WE TURN TO THEIR APPLICATION
TO FEDERAL DEATH TAXES LAID WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERESTS IN COMMUNITY
PROPERTY.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND OF THE LOUISIANA
MARITAL COMMUNITY NOT ONLY OPERATES TO TRANSFER HIS RIGHTS IN HIS SHARE
OF THE COMMUNITY TO HIS HEIRS OR THOSE TAKING UNDER HIS WILL.  IT
TERMINATES HIS EXPANSIVE AND SOMETIMES PROFITABLE CONTROL OVER THE
WIFE'S SHARE, AND FOR THE FIRST TIME BRINGS HER HALF OF THE PROPERTY
INTO HER FULL AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION, CONTROL AND ENJOYMENT.  THE
CESSATION OF THESE EXTENSIVE POWERS OF THE HUSBAND, EVEN THOUGH THEY
WERE POWERS OVER PROPERTY WHICH HE NEVER "OWNED," AND THE ESTABLISHMENT
IN THE WIFE OF NEW POWERS OF CONTROL OVER HER SHARE, THOUGH IT WAS
ALWAYS HERS, FURNISH APPROPRIATE OCCASIONS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF AN
EXCISE TAX. 

SIMILARLY, WITH THE DEATH OF THE WIFE, HER TITLE OR OWNERSHIP IN HER
SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY ENDS, AND PASSES TO HER HEIRS OR OTHER
APPOINTEES.  MORE THAN THIS, HER DEATH, BY ENDING THE MARITAL
COMMUNITY, LIBERATES HER HUSBAND'S SHARE FROM THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH
THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMMUNITY HAD PLACED UPON HIS CONTROL OF IT.  HE
ACQUIRES BY HER DEATH, THE RIGHT TO HAVE HIS SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY
SEPARATED FROM HERS BY PARTITION AND TO HOLD IF FREE OF ALL CONTROLS. 
HE OBTAINS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE RIGHT TO GIVE AWAY HIS IMMOVABLES,
AND THE RIGHT TO GIVE AWAY HIS MOVABLES AS A WHOLE OR BY A FRACTION OF
THE WHOLE.  HERE TOO, THE WIFE'S DEATH BRINGS INTO BEING A NEW SET OF
RELATIONSHIPS WITH RESPECT TO HIS SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS
HERS, AMONG WHICH ARE NEW POWERS OF CONTROL AND DISPOSITION WHICH ARE
PROPER SUBJECTS OF AN EXCISE TAX MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF HIS SHARE. 
AND WHILE WE DO NOT REST DECISION ON THE POINT, IT IS OF SOME
SIGNIFICANCE THAT THIS SHIFT OF LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS EFFECTS A SHIFT IN
POINT OF ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE.  THE PRECEPT THAT THE WIFE IS EQUAL CO
OWNER WITH HER HUSBAND OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY UNDOUBTEDLY CALLS INTO
PLAY WITHIN THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP PERSONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FORCES
WHICH HAVE GREAT IMPORTANCE IN THE PRACTICAL DETERMINATION OF HOW
COMMUNITY PROPERTY SHALL BE MANAGED BY THE HUSBAND.  THOUGH IT MAY BE
IMPOSSIBLE FULLY TO TRANSLATE THESE IMPONDERABLES INTO LEGAL RULES, THE
DEATH OF THE WIFE UNDOUBTEDLY BRINGS, IN EVERY PRACTICAL ASPECT,
GREATER FREEDOM TO THE HUSBAND IN HIS DISPOSITION OF THAT SHARE OF
COMMUNITY PROPERTY WHICH IS TECHNICALLY HIS, THAN IS TO BE GATHERED
SOLELY FROM A READING OF STATUTES AND CASE LAW. 

THIS REDISTRIBUTION OF POWERS AND RESTRICTIONS UPON POWER IS BROUGHT
ABOUT BY DEATH NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY SUBJECT
TO THESE POWERS AND RESTRICTIONS WERE IN EVERY SENSE "VESTED" FROM THE
MOMENT THE COMMUNITY BEGAN.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT DEATH BRINGS ABOUT
CHANGES IN THE LEGAL AND ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS TO THE PROPERTY TAXED,
AND THE EARLIER CERTAINTY THAT THOSE CHANGES WOULD OCCUR DOES NOT
IMPAIR THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO RECOGNIZE THEM, AND TO LEVY A TAX ON
THE HAPPENING OF THE EVENT WHICH WAS THEIR GENERATING SOURCE. 

THE PRINCIPLES WHICH SUSTAIN THE PRESENT TAX AGAINST DUE PROCESS
OBJECTIONS ARE PRECISELY THOSE WHICH SUSTAINED THE CALIFORNIA TAX,
MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE VALUE OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY IN MOFFITT V. KELLY,
SUPRA.  THERE THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE SURVIVING WIFE TOOK HER
SHARE OF THE PROPERTY ON HER HUSBAND'S DEATH, NOT AS AN HEIR, BUT AS AN
OWNER OF AN INTEREST, THE RIGHT TO WHICH SHE ACQUIRED BEFORE THE DEATH
AND BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAXING ACT.  BUT THE LEVY UPON THE
ENTIRE VALUE OF THE COMMUNITY WAS SUSTAINED, NOT AS A TAX UPON PROPERTY
OR THE TRANSFER OF IT, BUT AS A TAX UPON THE "VESTING OF THE WIFE'S
RIGHT OF POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT ARISING UPON THE DEATH OF HER
HUSBAND," WHICH THE COURT DEEMED AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF TAXATION,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTRACT, EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN14  SO FAR AS COOLIDGE V. LONG, 282 U.S. 582,
IS INCONSISTENT WITH MOFFITT V. KELLY, SUPRA, AND THE CONTENTIONS NOW
URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE APPLICATION OF THE REASONING OF THE
COOLIDGE CASE TO THE TAXATION OF JOINT OR COMMUNITY INTERESTS MUST BE
TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN LIMITED BY OUR DECISIONS IN TYLER V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, AND UNITED STATES V. JACOBS, SUPRA, AND THE CASES FOLLOWING
THEM. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID OF THE NATURE AND INCIDENCE OF THE TAX ON COMMUNITY
PROPERTY IN LARGE MEASURE DISPOSES OF THE VARIOUS OTHER CONTENTIONS OF
APPELLEES.  SINCE THE LEVY IS AN EXCISE AND NOT A PROPERTY TAX, THE
CASE IS NOT ONE OF TAKING THE SURVIVOR'S PROPERTY TO PAY THE TAX ON
DECEDENT'S ESTATE.  AS THE TAX IS UPON THE SURRENDER OF OLD INCIDENTS
OF PROPERTY BY THE DECEDENT AND THE ACQUISITION OF NEW BY THE SURVIVOR,
IT IS APPROPRIATELY MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO WHICH
THESE INCIDENTS ATTACH.  THE TAX BURDEN THUS LAID IS NOT SO UNRELATED
TO THE PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY THE TAXPAYERS WHO ARE OWNERS OF THE
PROPERTY AFFECTED THAT IT CAN BE SAID TO BE AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF
THE TAXING POWER.  MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15; BURNET V.
WELLS, SUPRA, 678-9.  COMPARE SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, SUPRA.  WHILE
IT MAY GENERALLY BE TRUE, AS APPELLEES ARGUE, THAT NEITHER THE HUSBAND
NOR WIFE GAINS ANY OVER-ALL FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE WHEN THE OTHER DIES, IT
SUFFICES THAT THE DECEDENT LOSES AND THE SURVIVOR ACQUIRES, WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY TAXED, SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF ENJOYMENT AND
CONTROL WHICH MAY BE OF VALUE.  LIABILITY TO THE TAX, IN ORDER TO AVOID
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION, DOES NOT HAVE TO REST UPON THE ENJOYMENT BY
THE TAXPAYER OF ALL THE PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS OF THE MOST FAVORED
OWNER AT A GIVEN TIME AND PLACE.  CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376;
REINECKE V. SMITH, 289 U.S. 172; CF. BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S.
280. 

WE FIND NO BASIS FOR THE CONTENTION THAT THE TAX IS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE IT TAXES TRANSFERS AT DEATH AND ALSO THE SHIFTING AT
DEATH OF PARTICULAR INCIDENTS OF PROPERTY.  CONGRESS IS FREE TO TAX
EITHER OR BOTH, AND HERE IT HAS TAXED BOTH, AS IT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY
DO, IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH "THE PURPOSES AND POLICY OF TAXATION" TO
PROTECT THE REVENUE AND AVOID AN UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE TAX
BURDEN.  WATSON V. STATE COMPTROLLER, SUPRA. 

EVEN IF IT COULD BE THOUGHT TO AFFECT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
TAXING STATUTE, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT DEPEND FOR ITS
OPERATION UPON ANY PRESUMPTION THAT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY PROPERTY IS
OWNED OR ECONOMICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SPOUSE FIRST TO DIE.  SAVE AS
THE STATUTE ITSELF GRANTS AN EXEMPTION BY SUCH ATTRIBUTION, SO FAR AS
THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY "MAY BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED BY THE SURVIVING
SPOUSE OR DERIVED ORIGINALLY FROM SUCH COMPENSATION OR FROM SEPARATE
PROPERTY OF THE SURVIVING SPOUSE," THE TAX IS LAID WITHOUT REGARD TO
THE ECONOMIC SOURCE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  APART FROM THE
EXEMPTION, IT IS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE SHIFTING AT DEATH OF THE
INCIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF ORIGIN, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT
OF THE TAX.    THE PRESENT STATUTE, WHICH WAS ENACTED IN ORDER TO
SECURE A MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BURDEN OF FEDERAL DEATH
TAXES,  FN15  IS ASSAILED BECAUSE THE TAX IS LACKING IN UNIFORMITY. 
BUT THE UNIFORMITY IN EXCISE TAXES EXACTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IS
GEOGRAPHICAL UNIFORMITY, NOT UNIFORMITY OF INTRINSIC EQUALITY AND
OPERATION.  KNOWLTON V. MOORE, SUPRA, 83-109.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES
NOT COMMAND THAT A TAX "HAVE AN EQUAL EFFECT IN EACH STATE," ID. P.
104.  IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
UNIFORMITY REQUIREMENT A "TAX IS UNIFORM WHEN IT OPERATES WITH THE SAME
FORCE AND EFFECT IN EVERY PLACE WHERE THE SUBJECT OF IT IS FOUND." 
HEAD MONEY CASES, 112 U.S. 580, 594.  SEE ALSO LABELLE IRON WORKS V.
UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 377, 392-3; BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, SUPRA, 138;
STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA, 583. 

THE AMENDMENT TAXING COMMUNITY PROPERTY INTERESTS IS APPLICABLE
THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES WHEREVER SUCH INTERESTS
MAY BE FOUND.  THERE IS NO LACK OF GEOGRAPHICAL UNIFORMITY BECAUSE IN
SOME STATES THEY ARE NOT FOUND.  FOR A TAXING STATUTE DOES NOT FALL
SHORT OF THE PRESCRIBED UNIFORMITY BECAUSE ITS OPERATION AND INCIDENCE
MAY BE AFFECTED BY DIFFERENCES IN STATE LAWS.  PHILLIPS V.
COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 602; RIGGS V. DEL DRAGO, SUPRA, 102. 
"DIFFERENCES OF STATE LAW, WHICH MAY BRING A PERSON WITHIN OR WITHOUT
THE CATEGORY DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS AS TAXABLE, MAY NOT BE READ INTO
THE REVENUE ACT TO SPELL OUT A LACK OF UNIFORMITY" IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  POE V. SEABORN, SUPRA, 117-8. 

APPELLEES SUGGEST THAT INTERESTS IN TENANCIES IN COMMON AND LIMITED
PARTNERSHIPS ARE VERY LIKE INTERESTS IN COMMUNITY PROPERTY, AND THAT IF
THE TAX IS TO BE UNIFORM, THE ONE CANNOT BE TAXED UNLESS THE OTHERS ARE
ALSO.  BUT EVEN IF IT BE AS APPELLEES ARGUE, THAT COMMON LAW FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS WITH DIFFERENT NAMES CAN BE SO
DEVISED THAT THE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP IS ATTENDED BY THE SAME POWERS
AND RESTRICTIONS AS THOSE DERIVED FROM THE LAWS OF THE COMMUNITY
PROPERTY STATES, AND THAT THEY ARE DIFFERENTLY OR MORE LIGHTLY TAXED
THAN COMMUNITY PROPERTY INTERESTS, WE FIND NO LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  THE PRESENT AMENDMENT IS GEOGRAPHICALLY UNIFORM
IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE ONLY SUBJECT OF WHICH IT TREATS, COMMUNITY
PROPERTY INTERESTS, AND IT LEVIES IN EVERY STATE AN IDENTICAL TAX UPON
THE SUBJECT MATTER INCLUDED WITHIN ITS TERMS - DEFINED PROPERTY
INTERESTS CREATED BY STATE LAW, HAVING A COMMON HISTORICAL ORIGIN, A
COMMON NAME, AND CONSTITUTING A UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED DISTINCT CLASS
OF PROPERTY INTERESTS. 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE SELECTION OF SUCH A CLASS FOR TAXATION
WOULD NOT OFFEND AGAINST THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, OR EVEN THE FOURTEENTH,
MERELY BECAUSE IT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO REACH CASUAL ARRANGEMENTS
RESULTING FROM INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS.  TAXES MUST BE LAID BY GENERAL
RULES.  SEE STATE RAILROAD TAX CASES, 92 U.S. 575, 612; HEAD MONEY
CASES, SUPRA, 595; LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 392;
GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412, 424. 
CONSIDERATIONS OF PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE AND COST IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF TAX LAWS AFFORD ADEQUATE GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING A TAX
ON A WELL RECOGNIZED AND DEFINED CLASS, WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO EXTEND IT
SO AS TO EMBRACE A PENUMBRA OF SPECIAL AND MORE OR LESS CASUAL
INTERESTS WHICH IN EACH CASE MAY OR MAY NOT RESEMBLE THE TAXED CLASS. 
BURNET V. WELLS, SUPRA, 678; CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO.,
301 U.S. 495, 511; RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573, 582
3; MADISON AVENUE OFFICES V. BROWNE, APPEAL DISMISSED, 326 U.S. 682. 
SUCH INTERESTS WOULD BE BUT ISOLATED SPECIMENS OF THE ATTORNEY'S ART,
AND LIKELY TO RESIST EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY THEM WITH THE TAXABLE
SUBJECT. 

APPELLEES' CONTENTION THAT THE UNIFORMITY CLAUSE PRECLUDES SUCH
CLASSIFICATION WOULD IN EFFECT ADD TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS
UPON CONGRESS AN EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THAT OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND IS WITHOUT JUDICIAL OR HISTORICAL
SUPPORT.  THIS COURT IN LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
392, ET SEQ. RECOGNIZED THAT THE UNIFORMITY CLAUSE, BEYOND REQUIRING
GEOGRAPHICAL UNIFORMITY IN THE APPLICATION OF THE PARTICULAR TAX LAID
BY THE TAXING ACT, COULD NOT BE TAKEN TO IMPOSE GREATER RESTRICTIONS ON
CONGRESS' POWER TO TAX THAN THOSE WHICH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
PLACES UPON THE STATES.  WE REAFFIRM WHAT THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES
HELD, THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND THAT "EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES" REFERS TO GEOGRAPHICAL UNIFORMITY IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE PARTICULAR EXCISE WHICH CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED.  WE
CONCLUDE THAT IT ADDS NOTHING TO RESTRICTIONS WHICH OTHER CLAUSES OF
THE CONSTITUTION MAY IMPOSE UPON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO SELECT AND
CLASSIFY THE SUBJECTS OF TAXATION.  IT REQUIRES ONLY THAT WHAT CONGRESS
HAS PROPERLY SELECTED FOR TAXATION MUST BE IDENTICALLY TAXED IN EVERY
STATE WHERE IT IS FOUND. 

AN EXCISE TAX, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TO BE UNIFORM, LAID
UPON THE SHIFTING AT DEATH OF SOME OF THE INCIDENTS OF PROPERTY, COULD
HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO BE A DIRECT TAX WHICH MUST BE APPORTIONED.  SEE
BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, SUPRA, 138.  THE CONTENTION THAT SUCH A TAX IS
DIRECT BECAUSE MEASURED BY THE PROPERTY WHOSE INCIDENTS ARE SHIFTED AT
DEATH, WAS REJECTED IN BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, SUPRA, AND IN TYLER V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 501-4, AND PHILLIPS V. DIME TRUST CO., 284 U.S.
160, 165.  A TAX IMPOSED UPON THE EXERCISE OF SOME OF THE NUMEROUS
RIGHTS OF PROPERTY IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM A DIRECT TAX, WHICH
FALLS UPON THE OWNER MERELY BECAUSE HE IS OWNER, REGARDLESS OF HIS USE
OR DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY.  "THE PERSISTENCE OF THIS DISTINCTION
AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT REST UPON THE HISTORIC FACT THAT (EXCISE)
TAXES OF THIS TYPE WERE NOT UNDERSTOOD TO BE DIRECT TAXES WHEN THE
CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED AND, AS WELL, UPON THE RELUCTANCE OF THIS
COURT TO ENLARGE, BY CONSTRUCTION, LIMITATIONS UPON THE SOVEREIGN POWER
OF TAXATION BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, SO VITAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT."  BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, SUPRA, 137. 

THE TENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT OPERATE AS A LIMITATION UPON THE POWERS,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, DELEGATED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  UNITED
STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 123-4.  THE AMENDMENT HAS CLEARLY PLACED
NO RESTRICTION UPON THE POWER DELEGATED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO
LAY AN EXCISE TAX QUA TAX.  UNDOUBTEDLY EVERY TAX WHICH LAYS ITS BURDEN
ON SOME AND NOT OTHERS MAY HAVE AN INCIDENTAL REGULATORY EFFECT.  BUT
SINCE THAT IS AN INSEPARABLE CONCOMITANT OF THE POWER TO TAX, THE
INCIDENTAL REGULATORY EFFECT OF THE TAX IS EMBRACED WITHIN THE POWER TO
LAY IT. IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH ON ITS
FACE PURPORTS TO BE AN EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER, IS NOT ANY THE
LESS SO BECAUSE THE TAX IS BURDENSOME OR TENDS TO RESTRICT OR SUPPRESS
THE THING TAXED.  IN SUCH A CASE IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF
COURTS TO INQUIRE INTO THE UNEXPRESSED PURPOSES OR MOTIVES WHICH MAY
HAVE MOVED CONGRESS TO EXERCISE A POWER CONSTITUTIONALLY CONFERRED UPON
IT.  SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506, 513-514, AND CASES
CITED. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE TAX HERE LAID WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMUNITY
PROPERTY INFRINGES NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 

THE INCLUSION OF ALL THE PROCEEDS OF DECEDENT'S LIFE INSURANCE
POLICIES WITHIN HIS GROSS ESTATE FOR PURPOSES OF ESTATE TAXATION
REQUIRES NO EXTENDED DISCUSSION.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE
PROCEEDS OF THE POLICIES ARE NOT MADE TAXABLE BY THE TERMS OF SEC.
811(G) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS AMENDED BY SEC. 404 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942.  FN16  THE AMENDMENT INDICATES ON ITS FACE THE
PURPOSE TO BRING THE PROVISIONS FOR THE TAXATION OF THE PROCEEDS OF
INSURANCE POLICIES PAYABLE AT DEATH INTO HARMONY WITH THE AMENDMENT
TAXING COMMUNITY INTERESTS, AND THE COURT BELOW SEEMS TO HAVE REGARDED,
AS DO THE PARTIES HERE, THE DISPOSITION OF THE QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE
TAX ON COMMUNITY INTERESTS AS DETERMINATIVE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX
ON THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICIES.  BUT IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES THAT THE TAX IS LAID UPON THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY THE WIFE AS
A BENEFICIARY OF THE POLICIES ON THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND, AND THAT THE
HUSBAND POSSESSED AT HIS DEATH AN INCIDENT OF OWNERSHIP, THE POWER TO
CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES. 

FOR REASONS WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY FULLY DEVELOPED IN THIS OPINION,
THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, SINCE IT ENDED HIS CONTROL OVER THE
DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDS AND GAVE HIS WIFE THE PRESENT ENJOYMENT OF
THEM, MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY MADE THE OCCASION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF
AN INDIRECT TAX MEASURED BY THE PROCEEDS THEMSELVES.  STEBBINS V.
RILEY, SUPRA, 141; CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 811 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (26 U.S.C. SEC. 811) AS
AMENDED BY SEC. 404 OF THE ACT OF 1942, PROVIDES THAT THE TAXABLE VALUE
OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY INCLUDING
THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF 

"(G)  PROCEEDS OF LIFE INSURANCE 

"(1)  ...  TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY THE EXECUTOR
... 

"(2)  ...  TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY ALL OTHER
BENEFICIARIES AS INSURANCE UNDER POLICIES UPON THE LIFE OF THE DECEDENT
(A) PURCHASED WITH PREMIUMS, OR OTHER CONSIDERATION, PAID ...  BY THE
DECEDENT,  ...  OR (B) WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE DECEDENT POSSESSED AT
HIS DEATH ANY OF THE INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP  ... 

"(4)  ...  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, PREMIUMS  ...  PAID
WITH PROPERTY HELD AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY BY THE INSURED AND SURVIVING
SPOUSE UNDER THE LAW OF ANY STATE,  ...  SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE
BEEN PAID BY THE INSURED, EXCEPT SUCH PART THEREOF AS MAY BE SHOWN TO
HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY
RENDERED BY THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OR DERIVED ORIGINALLY FROM SUCH
COMPENSATION OR FROM SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE SURVIVING SPOUSE; AND THE
TERM 'INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP' INCLUDES INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP POSSESSED
BY THE DECEDENT AT HIS DEATH AS MANAGER OF THE COMMUNITY." 

FN2  DART'S LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE (1945) ARTICLE 2399. 

FN3  ID., ARTICLE 2402; SEE TROXLER V. COLLEY, 33 LA. ANN. 425.  THE
INCOME FROM THE SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE HUSBAND, AND OF SUCH OF THE
WIFE'S SEPARATE PROPERTY AS IS GIVEN OVER TO THE HUSBAND'S MANAGEMENT
ALSO FALLS INTO THE COMMUNITY BY ARTICLE 2402, SUPRA; SEE ALSO HELLBERG
V. HYLAND, 168 LA. 493, 122 SO. 593. 

FN4  SUCCESSION OF WIENER, 203 LA. 649, 14 SO.2D 475; SEE ALSO
PHILLIPS V. PHILLIPS, 160 LA. 813, 825 ET SEQ., 107 SO. 584. 

FN5  DART'S LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE (1945) ARTICLE 2404. 

FN6  MCCAFFREY V. BENSON, 40 LA. ANN. 10, 3 SO. 393; FRIERSON V.
FRIERSON, 164 LA. 687, 114 SO. 594. 

FN7  DART'S LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE (1945) ART. 2404.  THE RIGHTS
SECURED TO THE WIFE BY THIS INHIBITION ON GIFTS APPARENTLY MAY NOT BE
ENFORCED AGAINST THE HUSBAND OR THOSE TAKING UNDER HIM EITHER DURING
THE LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY OR AFTER ITS TERMINATION.  THE SOLE REMEDY IS
A SUIT AGAINST THE DONEE TO RECOVER THE PROPERTY IN HIS HANDS, BISTER
V. MENGE, 21 LA. ANN. 216; FRIERSON V. FRIERSON, SUPRA, AND EVEN SUCH A
SUIT APPARENTLY MAY NOT BE MAINTAINED UNTIL AFTER THE TERMINATION OF
THE COMMUNITY.  DAGGETT, THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM OF LOUISIANA
(1931) 24.  WHERE THE HUSBAND HAS ALIENED SOME PART OF THE COMMUNITY IN
FRAUD OF HIS WIFE'S RIGHTS, SHE OR THOSE REPRESENTING HER HAVE AN
ACTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT AGAINST THE HUSBAND OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES
UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT NOT BEFORE.  GUICE V.
LAWRENCE, 2 LA. ANN. 226, 228.  THE FRAUD REQUIRED FOR AN ACTION OF
THIS KIND SEEMINGLY MUST BE INTENTIONAL AND THE MOTIVE FOR THE
TRANSFER.  SEE ART. 2404, SUPRA; SUCCESSION OF PACKWOOD, 12 ROB. 
(LA.)  334, 364-5; EXPOSITO V. LAPEYROUSE, 195 SO. 814(LA. APP.). 

FN8  BYWATER V. ENDERLE, 175 LA. 1098, 145 SO. 118; D.H. HOLMES CO.
V. MORRIS, 188 LA. 431, 177 SO. 417. 

FN9  DART'S LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE (1945) ARTICLES 2406, 2425.  AT THE
DISSOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY, THE SHARE OF EACH SPOUSE IN THE
PARTNERSHIP'S ASSETS IS CREDITED WITH ONE-HALF OF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH
THE OTHER SPOUSE'S SEPARATE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ENHANCED IN VALUE BY THE
APPLICATION THERETO OF COMMUNITY FUNDS OR OF COMMON LABOR, ID., ARTICLE
2408; DILLON V. DILLON, 35 LA. ANN. 92.  THE WIFE'S SHARE MUST ALSO BE
CREDITED WITH ONE-HALF OF THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY FUNDS EXPENDED TO PAY
THE HUSBAND'S SEPARATE DEBTS, GLENN V. ELAM, 3 LA. ANN. 611, ALTHOUGH
THOSE DEBTS MAY BE SATISFIED DURING THE COMMUNITY BY LEVY UPON
COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  DAVIS V. COMPTON, 13 LA. ANN. 396. 

THE COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIP ENDS UPON THE DEATH OF ONE SPOUSE,
DIVORCE, SEPARATION FROM BED AND BOARD, OR, IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE,
UPON A JUDGMENT OF JUDICIAL SEPARATION OF PROPERTY.  SEE DART'S
LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE (1945), ARTICLES 2425, 2427, 2430.  ONLY THE WIFE
MAY REQUEST SUCH A SEPARATION, AND THE SEPARATION IS NOT A MERE MATTER
OF CONSENT BETWEEN THE SPOUSES.  DRISCOLL V. PIERCE, 115 LA. 156, 38
SO. 949.  SHE MUST SHOW THAT HER DOWRY RIGHTS OR OTHER SEPARATE
PROPERTY ENTRUSTED TO THE HUSBAND ARE IN DANGER OWING TO HER HUSBAND'S
MISMANAGEMENT OR FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT, OR THAT LIKE CONDITIONS
RENDER IT DOUBTFUL THAT SHE OR THE CHILDREN OF THE MARRIAGE WILL HAVE
THE BENEFIT OF HER OWN EARNINGS, OR OF HER FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF
SPEARATE PROPERTY.  DAVOCK V. DARCY, 6 ROB.  (LA.)  342; WEBB V. BELL,
24 LA. ANN. 75; MEYER V. SMITH & CO., 24 LA. ANN. 153; JONES V. JONES,
119 LA. 677, 44 SO. 429.    FN10  DART'S LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE (1945)
ARTICLES 2406, 2409, 2430. 

FN11  SEE SUCCESSION OF WIENER, SUPRA. 

FN12  THE REPORT STATED: 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAXATION, HUSBAND AND WIFE LIVING
IN COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATES ENJOY A PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OVER THOSE
LIVING IN NON-COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATES.  THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT
ALL OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE HUSBAND AFTER MARRIAGE, THROUGH HIS
OWN EFFORTS, IN A COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATE IS TREATED AS IF ONE-HALF
BELONGED TO THE WIFE.  IN NON-COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATES, ALL SUCH
PROPERTY IS REGARDED AS BELONGING ENTIRELY TO THE HUSBAND.  THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX IS ENORMOUS AS SHOWN
BY THE FOLLOWING TABLES:..." 

THE TABLES SHOW THE GREAT DISPARITY BETWEEN THE ESTATE TAX LEVIED ON
COMMUNITY PROPERTY UPON THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND WHO HAD ACCUMULATED IT
AND THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND IN LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES IN NON-COMMUNITY
STATES.  THE TAX UPON AN ESTATE OF $100,000 BEING $500 IN A COMMUNITY
PROPERTY STATE AND $9,500 IN NON-COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES.  IN THE
CASE OF A $5,000,000 ESTATE THE TAX SAVING IN A COMMUNITY PROPERTY
STATE WOULD AMOUNT TO AS MUCH AS $485,800, THE SAVING ON A $10,000,000
ESTATE IN A COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATE AMOUNTING TO AS MUCH AS
$1,171,800. 

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IT WAS SAID, "ELIMINATES SPECIAL ESTATE TAX
PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY DECEDENTS OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY ESTATES."  TO THE
SAME EFFECT IS S. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 231.  THE
INEQUITY INHERENT IN ALLOWING SPOUSES IN COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES TO
BEAR A LIGHTER TAX BURDEN THAN THEIR COUNTERPARTS IN OTHER STATES HAD
BEEN BROUGHT TO CONGRESSIONAL ATTENTION ON OTHER OCCASIONS.  SEE E.G.,
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS JUNE 1, 1937, H. DOC. NO.
260, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5; ALSO REPORTS TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE
ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION, VOL. 2, PART II (1933), PP. 15, 118-121,
139-140. 

FN13  NIELSEN V. JOHNSON, 279 U.S. 47, 54, ET SEQ.; GLEASON & OTIS,
"INHERITANCE TAXATION" (4TH ED.), P. 243 ET SEQ. FEUDAL "RELIEF" WAS A
PAYMENT EXACTED OF THE HEIR FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ADMISSION TO
POSSESSION OF THE LAND OF HIS ANCESTOR.  DIGBY, "HISTORY OF THE LAW OF
REAL PROPERTY" (5TH ED.), P. 40. 

FN14  THE FORCE OF MOFFITT V. KELLY, SUPRA, AS AN AUTHORITY
CONTROLLING THE TAXATION OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY IN LOUISIANA, WHERE THE
WIFE'S INTEREST IS VESTED BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND, IS NOT
IMPAIRED BY THE FACT THAT THE CALIFORNIA COURTS LATER HELD THAT THE
WIFE'S INTEREST IN COMMUNITY PROPERTY IN THAT STATE IS NOT SO VESTED. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. ROBBINS, 269 U.S. 315 WITH UNITED STATES V.
MALCOLM, 282 U.S. 792.  THE MOFFITT CASE WAS DECIDED UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE WIFE'S INTEREST WAS "VESTED." 

FN15  SEE FOOTNOTE 12, ANTE. 

FN16  FOOTNOTE 1, ANTE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

PRIOR TO THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942 THERE WAS A GREAT LACK OF UNIFORMITY
AMONG THE STATES IN THE INCIDENCE OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  IN MOST
OF THE STATES THE ACCUMULATIONS OF THE HUSBAND (WHO TYPICALLY IS THE
BREAD-WINNER) WERE TAXED IN THEIR ENTIRETY ON HIS DEATH.  IN THE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES THE TAX GENERALLY REACHED ONLY HALF OF THE
ACCUMULATIONS BECAUSE OF THE THEORY THAT THEY WERE THE PRODUCT OF THE
WIFE'S AS WELL AS OF THE HUSBAND'S ACTIVITIES.  IT WAS THIS DISPARITY
WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE.  AS STATED IN THE HOUSE REPORT (H.
REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 35-37), 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAXATION, HUSBAND AND WIFE LIVING
IN COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATES ENJOY A PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OVER THOSE
LIVING IN NON-COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATES.  THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT
ALL OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE HUSBAND AFTER MARRIAGE, THROUGH HIS
OWN EFFORTS, IN A COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATE IS TREATED AS IF ONE-HALF
BELONGED TO THE WIFE.  IN NON-COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATES, ALL SUCH
PROPERTY IS REGARDED AS BELONGING ENTIRELY TO THE HUSBAND." 

THERE ARE CONTAINED IN THE REPORT TABLES SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE IN
THE AMOUNT OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX IN THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES
AND IN THE OTHER STATES, AFTER WHICH THE COMMITTEE MAKES THE FOLLOWING
COMMENT, 

"...  IN SOME INSTANCES THERE IS AN ENTIRE EXEMPTION FROM THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX FOR THE REASON THAT THE OMISSION OF ONE-HALF OF THE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY REDUCES THE HUSBAND'S NET ESTATE BELOW THE MINIMUM
EXEMPTION OF $40,000.  MOREOVER, THIS HALVING OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY
GREATLY REDUCES THE ESTATE TAX BECAUSE OF THE PROGRESSIVE RATES.  FOR
EXAMPLE, UNDER THE PRESENT LAW, A NET ESTATE OF $50,000 WILL PAY AN
ESTATE TAX OF $500 IN A NON-COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATE AND NO TAX IN
COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATE.  AN ESTATE OF $100,000 WILL PAY A TAX OF
$9,500 ON THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND IN A NON-COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATE
AND A TAX OF $500 ON THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND IN A COMMUNITY-PROPERTY
STATE. 

"IF THE WIFE DIES WITHIN 5 YEARS OF HER HUSBAND, THE REMAINING
$50,000 UPON WHICH THE HUSBAND PAID NO ESTATE TAX WILL BE SUBJECT TO AN
ESTATE TAX OF $500.  THUS, THE TOTAL TAX PAID ON THIS $100,000 ESTATE
IN THE COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATE WILL BE $1,000 AS COMPARED WITH $9,500
IN THE NON-COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATE OR A TAX SAVING OF $8,500.  IN THE
CASE OF A $5,000,000 ESTATE, THE TAX SAVING IN A COMMUNITY-PROPERTY
STATE WILL AMOUNT TO AS MUCH AS $485,800 AND IN THE CASE OF A
$10,000,000 ESTATE, THE TAX SAVING IN A COMMUNITY-PROPERTY STATE WILL
AMOUNT TO AS MUCH AS $1,171,800."  AND SEE S. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 231. 

MUCH MAY BE SAID FOR THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY THEORY THAT THE
ACCUMULATIONS OF PROPERTY DURING MARRIAGE ARE AS MUCH THE PRODUCT OF
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE WIFE AS THOSE OF THE TITULAR BREAD-WINNER.  BUT I
CAN SEE NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY CONGRESS MAY NOT CREDIT THEM ALL
TO THE HUSBAND FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF
PROPERTY INTERESTS UNDER LOCAL LAW OFTEN DETERMINE THE REACH OF FEDERAL
TAX STATUTES.  HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154, 161-162, AND CASES
CITED.  AND SEE CAHN, LOCAL LAW IN FEDERAL TAXATION, 52 YALE L. JOURN. 
799.  YET THAT IS NOT ALWAYS SO.  UNITED STATES V. PELZER, 312 U.S.
399.  TAXATION IS EMINENTLY A PRACTICAL MATTER.  CONGRESS NEED NOT BE
CIRCUMSCRIBED BY WHATEVER LINES ARE DRAWN BY LOCAL LAW.  IT MAY RELY,
AS TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497, 502-503, HELD, ON MORE
REALISTIC CONSIDERATIONS AND BASE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR ESTATE TAX
PURPOSES ON ECONOMIC ACTUALITIES.  IT WAS HELD, TO BE SURE, IN HOEPER
V. TAX COMMISSION, 284 U.S. 206, THAT A STATE COULD NOT ASSESS AGAINST
THE HUSBAND AN INCOME TAX COMPUTED ON THE COMBINED TOTAL OF HIS AND HIS
WIFE'S INCOME.  BUT I CAN SEE NO REASON WHY THAT WHICH IS IN FACT AN
ECONOMIC UNIT MAY NOT BE TREATED AS ONE IN LAW.  FOR AS MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES POINTED OUT IN HIS DISSENT, THERE IS A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST
"WHEN TWO SPOUSES LIVE TOGETHER AND WHEN USUALLY EACH WOULD GET THE
BENEFIT OF THE INCOME OF EACH WITHOUT INQUIRY INTO THE SOURCE."  AND HE
WENT ON TO SAY "TAXATION MAY CONSIDER NOT ONLY COMMAND OVER, BUT ACTUAL
ENJOYMENT OF, THE PROPERTY TAXED."  284 U.S. PP. 219-220.  CF.
HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 335-337. 

THE CONGRESS HAS NOT GONE THE FULL DISTANCE HERE.  IT HAS NOT
INCLUDED IN ONE ESTATE ALL THE PROPERTY OWNED BY HUSBAND AND WIFE.  SO
FAR AS THIS CASE IS CONCERNED, IT HAS ONLY INCLUDED IN THE ESTATE OF
THE HUSBAND THE ACCUMULATIONS WHICH UNDER THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM
ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE JOINT EFFORTS OF HIM AND HIS
WIFE.  I CAN SEE NO OBSTACLE TO THAT COURSE UNLESS IT BE THE UNIFORMITY
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 1.  BUT THERE CAN BE
NO OBJECTION ON THAT SCORE.  ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE LAW GOES NO
FURTHER THAN TO ELIMINATE THE ESTATE TAX ADVANTAGE WHICH A MARRIED
RANCHER, BUSINESS MAN, ETC., IN LOUISIANA HAS OVER THOSE SIMILARLY
SITUATED IN THE COMMON LAW STATES.  CONGRESS, TO BE SURE, HAS
DISREGARDED THE MANNER IN WHICH LOUISIANA DIVIDED "OWNERSHIP" OF
PROPERTY BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE.  BUT AS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE,
NOTIONS OF "VESTED INTERESTS," "OWNERSHIP," AND THE LIKE, ESTABLISHED
BY LOCAL LAW, ARE NO SURE GUIDE TO WHAT "BELONGS" TO ONE OR THE OTHER
IN ANY PRACTICAL SENSE.  WE WOULD BE BLIND TO THE USUAL IMPLICATIONS OF
THE INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP OF MARRIAGE IF WE FORCED CONGRESS TO TREAT
SUCH DIVISIONS OF "OWNERSHIP" THE SAME WAY IT DOES DIVISIONS OF
"OWNERSHIP" AMONG STRANGERS.  I FIND NO SUCH COMPULSION IN THE
CONSTITUTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. ROMPEL, 326 U.S. 367 


NO. 59.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 6, 1945.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 10, 1945.  - 59
F.SUPP.  483, REVERSED. 


A FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, PURSUANT TO SEC. 811(E)(2) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE AS AMENDED BY SEC. 402 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, ON THE
TERMINATION OF A TEXAS MARITAL COMMUNITY BY THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND,
THE TAX BEING MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY PROPERTY,
HELD VALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FERNANDEZ V. WIENER, ANTE,
P. 340.  P. 370. 

UNITED STATES V. ROMPEL, ADMINISTRATOR. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, FROM A JUDGMENT
FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER AN
ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, THE DECISION BEING AGAINST
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX STATUTE AS APPLIED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO FERNANDEZ V. WIENER, ANTE, P. 340.  THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 811(E)(2) OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 811(E)(2), AS AMENDED BY SEC.
402 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798, HAS LEVIED, AND APPELLEE
HAS PAID, AN ESTATE TAX ON THE TERMINATION OF A TEXAS MARITAL COMMUNITY
BY THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND, A DOMICILED RESIDENT OF TEXAS, THE TAX
BEING MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  ALL OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED HERE WERE PRESENTED AND DECIDED IN
FERNANDEZ V. WIENER. 

APPELLEE, DECEDENT'S ADMINISTRATOR, BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER THE
TUCKER ACT, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 761-765, TO RECOVER AS AN ALLEGED
OVERPAYMENT SO MUCH OF THE ESTATE TAX PAID AS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
INCLUSION IN DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE OF THE VALUE OF THE WIFE'S SHARE
OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY. 

THE FACTS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT WERE STIPULATED AND ARE NOT IN
DISPUTE.  DECEDENT, A RESIDENT OF TEXAS, WAS MARRIED FEBRUARY 12, 1901,
AND DIED ON NOVEMBER 17, 1943, LEAVING HIM SURVIVING HIS WIFE, THEIR
CHILD, AND GRANDCHILDREN.  FROM THE DATE OF THE MARRIAGE UNTIL 1934
DECEDENT'S PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY WAS THAT OF RAISING LIVESTOCK ON A RANCH
IN TEXAS, ACQUIRED LARGELY ON CREDIT, AND PAID FOR OUT OF SAVINGS FROM
THE RANCHING BUSINESS.  OTHER SAVINGS FROM THE BUSINESS WERE INVESTED
FROM TIME TO TIME.  AFTER 1934 HE RECEIVED RENT FROM THE RANCH PROPERTY
AND INCOME FROM LOANS AND INVESTMENTS ACCUMULATED OUT OF SAVINGS. 
DURING THE MARRIAGE NEITHER DECEDENT NOR HIS WIFE WAS EVER EMPLOYED BY
ANY ONE AT A WAGE OR SALARY, AND NEITHER RECEIVED ANY COMMISSIONS, FEES
OR SIMILAR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES RENDERED.  AT THE TIME OF
DECEDENT'S DEATH THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY CONSISTED OF THE ORIGINAL RANCH
PROPERTY, INVESTMENTS ACQUIRED FROM SAVINGS FROM THE RANCH BUSINESS,
RENTALS AND OTHER INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS. 

IN THE ESTATE TAX RETURN FOR DECEDENT'S ESTATE ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE
VALUE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY WAS REPORTED.  THE COMMISSIONER
INCLUDED THE FULL VALUE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY IN THE DECEDENT'S
GROSS ESTATE, AND ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY ACCORDINGLY, WHICH APPELLEE
PAID.  IN THIS SUIT WHICH FOLLOWED, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT
FOR APPELLEE, 59 F.SUPP.  483, HOLDING THAT THE TAX VIOLATED THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE COMMAND OF ARTICLE I,
SEC. 8 THAT "ALL DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES."  THE COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS
ON OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTIONS PRESENTED. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF
AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 751, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 349A, APPELLANT ASSIGNING
AS ERROR THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULING THAT THE TAX VIOLATES THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE UNIFORMITY CLAUSE OF
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE DISTRICT COURT'S FAILURE
TO HOLD THAT THE TAX IS CONSTITUTIONAL. 

COMMUNITY PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AND DEFINED BY THE LAWS OF
TEXAS THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY.* ITS LAWS GOVERNING COMMUNITY PROPERTY
INTERESTS ARE SIMILAR IN MOST RESPECTS TO THOSE OF LOUISIANA DESCRIBED
IN OUR OPINION IN THE WIENER CASE, SUPRA.  ON THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND,
IN TEXAS, AS IN LOUISIANA, THE WIFE'S SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY IS FREED
FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF HIS EXCLUSIVE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL, AND THE
WIFE ACQUIRES EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY
CONSTITUTING HER SHARE, AS WELL AS IMPORTANT NEW POWERS OF CONTROL AND
DISPOSITION OVER IT.  ON THE DEATH OF THE WIFE, HER SHARE PASSES TO HER
HEIRS, AND HIS SHARE IS FREED FROM THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE EXISTENCE
OF THE COMMUNITY PLACES ON HIS CONTROL OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  WHILE
TEXAS DOES NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON GIFTS WHICH ARE TO BE
FOUND IN THE LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE, TEXAS DOES PLACE SOME LIMITATIONS ON
THE HUSBAND'S POWER TO MAKE GIFTS OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  AS WE SAID OF
TEXAS COMMUNITY PROPERTY IN HOPKINS V. BACON, 282 U.S. 122, 126, THE
AUTHORITIES HOLD "THAT IF THE HUSBAND, AS AGENT OF THE COMMUNITY, ACTS
IN FRAUD OF THE WIFE'S RIGHTS, SHE IS NOT WITHOUT REMEDY IN THE
COURTS.  (STRAMLER V. COE, 15 TEX. 211; MARTIN V. MORAN, 32 S.W. 904;
WATSON V. HARRIS, 130 S.W. 237; DAVIS V. DAVIS, 186 S.W. 775.)" 
APPELLEE ALSO CONCEDES THAT "EXCESSIVE AND CAPRICIOUS DONATIONS ARE
VOID," AND THAT MALICIOUS OR FRAUDULENT INTENT NEED NOT BE ESTABLISHED
IN ORDER THAT THE WIFE SHALL HAVE THE REMEDIES REFERRED TO. APPELLEE
DOES NOT QUESTION THAT THESE ARE THE RULES GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO
COMMUNITY PROPERTY IN TEXAS. 

*SPEER, LAW OF MARITAL RIGHTS IN TEXAS (1929) P. 409 ET SEQ. 

THE DEATH OF EITHER THE HUSBAND OR THE WIFE OF THE TEXAS COMMUNITY
THUS EFFECTS SUFFICIENT ALTERATION IN THE SPOUSES' POSSESSION AND
ENJOYMENT AND RECIPROCAL POWERS OF CONTROL AND DISPOSITION OF THE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY AS TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF AN EXCISE TAX
MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. 

FOR THE REASONS FULLY STATED IN OUR OPINION IN THE WIENER CASE, WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE TAX AMENDMENT OF SEC. 811 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE AUTHORIZING THE TAX AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE IS NOT OPEN TO ANY OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED AGAINST IT EITHER
HERE OR BELOW.  THE JUDGMENT IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE RESULT FOR
THE REASONS STATED IN THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN
FERNANDEZ V. WIENER, ANTE, P. 363. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















MINE SAFETY CO. V. FORRESTAL, 326 U.S. 371 


NO. 71.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 13, 1945.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 10, 1945.  -
59 F.SUPP.  733, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR IN THE FORM OF A SUIT
AGAINST THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT AS AN
OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO PREVENT
HIM FROM TAKING ACTION UNDER THE RENEGOTIATION ACT TO STOP PAYMENT OF
MONEY BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SATISFY THE GOVERNMENT'S AND NOT THE UNDER
SECRETARY'S DEBT, THE UNITED STATES IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  P.
373. 

2.  SUCH A SUIT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED, EVEN THOUGH IT CHALLENGED THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT; BECAUSE IT WAS A SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO WHICH THE SOVEREIGN HAD NOT CONSENTED. 

MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO. V. FORRESTAL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING, AS A
SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO WHICH THE SOVEREIGN HAD NOT
CONSENTED, A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY SEEKING
AN INJUNCTION AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT HOLDING THE RENEGOTIATION ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AFTER AN INVESTIGATION IN WHICH APPELLANT APPEARED, APPELLEE JAMES V.
FORRESTAL, WHILE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, DETERMINED THAT THE
APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED A LARGE AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE PROFITS ON
GOVERNMENT WAR CONTRACTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT. 
FN1  PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GIVEN HIM BY THAT ACT THE APPELLEE NOTIFIED
APPELLANT THAT UNLESS APPELLANT TOOK ACTION TO ELIMINATE THESE PROFITS
THE UNDER SECRETARY WOULD DIRECT GOVERNMENT DISBURSING OFFICERS TO
WITHHOLD PAYMENTS DUE APPELLANT ON OTHER CONTRACTS, SUFFICIENT IN
AMOUNT TO OFFSET THE GOVERNMENT'S LOSS DUE TO THE EXCESSIVE PROFITS. 
FN2  SECTION 403(E) OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY
CONTRACTOR AGGRIEVED BY THE SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION MAY WITHIN NINETY
DAYS APPLY TO THE TAX COURT FOR A DE NOVO TRIAL AND ADJUDICATION OF THE
ISSUE.  THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE TAX COURT "SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION  ...  TO FINALLY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT  ... AND SUCH
DETERMINATION SHALL NOT BE REVIEWED OR REDETERMINED BY ANY COURT OR
AGENCY."  58 STAT. 86.  THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE
PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 403(E), FILED THIS COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE COMPLAINT SEEKS AN INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  IT
ALLEGES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON MANY
GROUNDS; THAT WITHHOLDING PAYMENT OF THE SUMS FOUND TO REPRESENT
EXCESSIVE PROFITS WOULD SERIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS
AND WITH PRODUCTION OF CRITICAL MATERIALS FOR THE GOVERNMENT; THAT, DUE
TO STATUTES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS WHICH MAKE MANY OF THE APPELLANT'S
CONTRACTS CONFIDENTIAL AND SECRET, IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO
CARRY ON PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE ITS CONTRACT RIGHTS UNTIL THESE
RESTRICTIONS ARE LIFTED; AND THAT IT IS WITHOUT A PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND
COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW.  FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE
JUDGES DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO
WHICH THE SOVEREIGN HAD NOT CONSENTED, 59 F.SUPP.  733, AND THE CASE
COMES BEFORE US ON DIRECT APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A.  HERE
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, APPEARING FOR THE SECRETARY, ADVANCE THE DISTRICT
COURT'S GROUNDS AND CONTEND FURTHER THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW BE AFFIRMED
BECAUSE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY AND TO
FOLLOW THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE IN NOT FIRST GOING BEFORE THE TAX COURT
TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS GRANTED "EXCLUSIVE" JURISDICTION, AND BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT APPELLANT IS WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY. 

WE THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY IN THIS CASE, AND
SINCE IT HAS NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS
TYPE OF PROCEEDING, THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT OFFICER.  MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382; STANLEY
V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255.  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE ACTION SEEKS TO
PREVENT A TORT BY THE SECRETARY, ACTING AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT AS AN
OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT, CONSISTING OF A TRESPASS AGAINST APPELLANT'S
PROPERTY, AND THAT EQUITABLE RELIEF IS NECESSARY BECAUSE APPELLANT HAS
NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW AND SINCE IT WOULD OTHERWISE SUFFER
IRREPARABLE LOSS.  UNDER OUR FORMER DECISIONS, HAD THE FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTED THESE CONTENTIONS, THE COMPLAINT AS FILED WOULD,
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, HAVE PROVIDED A BASIS FOR
THE EQUITABLE RELIEF SOUGHT.  SEE E.G., PHILADELPHIA COMPANY V.
STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 619-620.  FOR ACCORDING TO THESE CASES, IF WE
ASSUME, AS WE MUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL
ISSUE, THAT APPELLANT'S ALLEGATIONS INCLUDING THE ONE THAT THE
RENEGOTIATION ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARE TRUE, THE FACT THAT THE
SECRETARY HAD ACTED PURSUANT TO THE COMMAND OF THAT STATUTE WOULD HAVE
MADE NO DIFFERENCE.  THESE CASES HOLD THAT A PUBLIC OFFICER CAN NOT
JUSTIFY A TRESPASS AGAINST A PERSON'S PROPERTY BY INVOKING THE COMMAND
OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TORT
BECOMES THE OFFICER'S INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND THE GOVERNMENT IS
NOT HELD TO HAVE SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN THE CONTROVERSY TO BE
CONSIDERED AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT LACK
SUCH INTEREST IN ALL CASES WHERE THE SUIT IS NOMINALLY AGAINST THE
OFFICER AS AN INDIVIDUAL.  THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST MUST BE DETERMINED
IN EACH CASE "BY THE ESSENTIAL NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE PROCEEDING, AS
IT APPEARS FROM THE ENTIRE RECORD."  EX PARTE NEW YORK, 256 U.S. 490,
500. 

HERE, THE ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT DO NOT MAKE OUT
A THREATENED TRESPASS AGAINST ANY PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF OR
BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT.  NOR DOES THE RECORD PRESENT ANY OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD MAKE THE SECRETARY SUABLE AS AN INDIVIDUAL IN
THIS PROCEEDING.  CERTAINLY THE ACTION WHICH THE SECRETARY PROPOSED TO
TAKE IS NOT A VIOLATION OF ANY EXPRESS COMMAND OF CONGRESS.  CF.
ROLSTON V. MISSOURI FUND COMM'RS, 120 U.S. 390, 411; HOUSTON V. ORMES,
252 U.S. 469; SMITH V. JACKSON, 246 U.S. 388.  THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS
PROCEEDING IS TO PREVENT THE SECRETARY FROM TAKING CERTAIN ACTION WHICH
WOULD STOP PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MONEY LAWFULLY IN THE UNITED
STATES TREASURY TO SATISFY THE GOVERNMENT'S AND NOT THE SECRETARY'S
DEBT TO THE APPELLANT.  THE ASSUMPTION UNDERLYING THIS ACTION IS THAT
IF THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IS GRANTED, THE GOVERNMENT WILL PAY AND THUS
RELINQUISH OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF THE MONEY.  IN EFFECT,
THEREFORE, THIS IS AN INDIRECT EFFORT TO COLLECT A DEBT ALLEGEDLY OWED
BY THE GOVERNMENT IN A PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT
CONSENTED.  THE UNDERLYING BASIS FOR THE RELIEF ASKED IS THE ALLEGED
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT  FN4  AND THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF THE PROCEEDING IS TO FIX THE GOVERNMENT'S AND NOT THE SECRETARY'S
LIABILITY.  THUS, THOUGH APPELLANT DENIES IT, THE CONCLUSION IS
INESCAPABLE THAT THE SUIT IS ESSENTIALLY ONE DESIGNED TO REACH MONEY
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OWNS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE GOVERNMENT IS
AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY, MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 388,
EVEN THOUGH THE RENEGOTIATION ACT UNDER WHICH THE SECRETARY PROPOSED TO
ACT MIGHT BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  LOUISIANA V. JUMEL, 107 U.S. 711;
CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK R. CO., 109 U.S. 446; HAGOOD V.
SOUTHERN, 117 U.S. 52, 67, 68; IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443, 496, 497, 505
507; PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY, 140 U.S. 1, 9; WELLS V. ROPER, 246 U.S.
335, 337; SEE ALSO N.Y. GUARANTY & INDEMNITY CO. V. STEEL, 134 U.S.
230.  IN SHORT THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY CAN NOT BE TRIED "BEHIND ITS
BACK."  LOUISIANA V. GARFIELD, 211 U.S. 70, 78.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  56 STAT. 226, 245; 56 STAT. 798, 982; 57 STAT. 347; 57 STAT.
564; 58 STAT. 21, 78. 

FN2  SECTION 403(C)(2) OF THE RENEGOTIATION ACT AUTHORIZES AND
DIRECTS THE SECRETARY TO ELIMINATE EXCESSIVE PROFITS BY, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, "WITHHOLDING FROM AMOUNTS OTHERWISE DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR ANY
AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESSIVE PROFITS." 

FN3  APPELLANT ALSO ALLEGED BELOW THAT THE SECRETARY HAD THREATENED
TO INSTRUCT OTHER CONTRACTORS TO WITHHOLD ANY MONEYS DUE TO APPELLANT. 
A STIPULATION AND AFFIDAVIT BY THE PARTIES REVEAL, HOWEVER, THAT THIS
ACTION WILL IN FACT NOT BE TAKEN.  ANY CONTROVERSY THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
BEFORE THE COURT BY VIRTUE OF THIS ALLEGATION HAS, THUS, BECOME MOOT. 
IT CAN THEREFORE NOT SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER QUESTIONS HERE IN ISSUE.  UNITED STATES
V. ALASKA STEAMSHIP CO., 253 U.S. 113; COMMERCIAL CABLE CO. V.
BURLESON, 250 U.S. 360; MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 326
U.S. 690.  CF. COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, 323 U.S. 316. 

FN4  THIS IS SEEN FROM THE PRAYER FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, WHICH
ASKS ONLY THAT THE RENEGOTIATION ACT BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THE RESULT FOR THE REASON THAT HE THINKS
NO ADEQUATE GROUND IS ALLEGED FOR AN INJUNCTION.  IN HIS VIEW A LEGAL
REMEDY EXISTS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS SINCE OBJECTION TO THE AMOUNT OF
EXCESS PROFITS IS WAIVED AND THE STIPULATION, REFERRED TO IN THE
OPINION, REMOVES MULTIPLICITY OF ACTIONS FOR RELIEF AS A POSSIBLE
GROUND. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















MAY STORES CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 326 U.S. 376 


NO. 39.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1945.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 10, 1945.  - 146
F.2D 66, MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT ALL NON
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES IN THE MEN'S BUSHELING ROOMS OF A DEPARTMENT
STORE, THOUGH NUMBERING ONLY 30 TO 40 OF THE STORE'S 5,000 EMPLOYEES,
CONSTITUTED AN APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNDER SEC.
9(B) OF THE ACT, SINCE THESE EMPLOYEES HAD A DEGREE OF SELF
ORGANIZATION AND A SPECIAL TRADE WHICH SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENTIATED THEM
FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES, WAS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 380. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ELECTION OF A JOINT COUNCIL AS
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE IN THIS CASE - THE BOARD HAVING DIRECTED THE
PLACING OF THE NAME OF THE JOINT COUNCIL ON THE BALLOT, ALTHOUGH THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT WERE MEMBERS OF A LOCAL UNION WHICH THE JOINT
COUNCIL REPRESENTED - THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE EMPLOYER'S OBJECTION TO
THE CERTIFICATION ON THE GROUND OF POSSIBLE CONFUSION OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  P. 381. 

3.  UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY ONLY WITH THE DULY RECOGNIZED OR
ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES; AND DISREGARD OF THIS DUTY
IS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT.  P. 383. 

4.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT
THE EMPLOYER, IN SEEKING THE WAR LABOR BOARD'S APPROVAL OF WAGE
INCREASES FOR ITS EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT HERE
INVOLVED, WITHOUT BARGAINING COLLECTIVELY WITH THE CERTIFIED
REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF THE WAGES, WAS GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT.  P. 384. 

5.  THE ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF
ANNOUNCEMENTS MADE OVER THE STORE'S PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM AND IN THE
HOUSE ORGAN, CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WAR LABOR BOARD APPROVAL OF
WAGE INCREASES FOR ITS EMPLOYEES, DID NOT DENY THE EMPLOYER'S FREEDOM
OF SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P.
386. 

6.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
EMPLOYER WILL BE MODIFIED SO AS NOT TO APPLY GENERALLY TO ALL
VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT HERE
INVOLVED, BUT ONLY TO OTHER INTERFERENCES, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) OR
OTHERWISE, WITH THE CERTIFIED AGENT'S REPRESENTATION OF THESE
EMPLOYEES.  P. 392. 

MAY DEPARTMENT STORES CO., DOING BUSINESS AS FAMOUS-BARR CO., V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 838, TO REVIEW A DECREE ORDERING ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 53 N.L.R.B. 1366. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW THE DECREE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD WHICH WAS ENTERED AFTER THE BOARD FOUND UPON HEARINGS
THAT PETITIONER HAD VIOLATED SECTIONS 8(1) AND 8(5) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  FN1  THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT PRESENTED ISSUES
(1) AS TO WHETHER TWO SMALL RELATED DEPARTMENTS WITH THIRTY TO FORTY
EMPLOYEES MAY BE AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT WHEN THE DEPARTMENT
STORE OF WHICH THEY ARE A PART HAS AROUND THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY
DEPARTMENTS AND APPROXIMATELY FIVE THOUSAND EMPLOYEES; (2) AS TO
WHETHER THE BOARD COULD PROPERLY PLACE THE NAME OF A JOINT LABOR
COUNCIL ON THE BALLOT FOR THE EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WHEN
NONE OF THE EMPLOYEES WERE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL BUT ONLY OF A LOCAL
UNION WHICH WAS ASSOCIATED WITH OTHERS IN THE COUNCIL; (3) AS TO
WHETHER SEEKING AUTHORITY BY THE EMPLOYER FROM THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR
BOARD TO INCREASE WAGES WITHOUT TAKING UP THE INCREASE WITH A CERTIFIED
BARGAINING AGENT MAY BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(1) OF THE
LABOR ACT; AND (4) AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF A BOARD ORDER TO CEASE AND
DESIST GENERALLY FROM UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INSTEAD OF AN ORDER TO
CEASE AND DESIST ONLY FROM THE TYPE OR TYPES OF UNFAIR PRACTICES WHICH
THE BOARD FOUND THE EMPLOYER COMMITTED.  AS THESE ISSUES PRESENTED
IMPORTANT PROBLEMS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  324 U.S. 838. 

APPROPRIATE UNIT.  AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH THE EMPLOYER, THE
PETITIONER HERE, THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, DOING BUSINESS AS
FAMOUS-BARR COMPANY, A ST. LOUIS DEPARTMENT STORE, TOOK PART, THE LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, ON JUNE 16, 1943, FOUND THAT ALL NON-SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY, THEN 28 IN NUMBER, WORKING IN THE MAIN AND
BASEMENT MEN'S BUSHELING ROOMS, CONSTITUTED AN APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 9(B)  FN2  OF THE
LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  AN ELECTION WAS ORDERED.  IT RESULTED IN THE
CHOICE AND DESIGNATION OF THE ST. LOUIS JOINT COUNCIL, UNITED RETAIL,
WHOLESALE & DEPARTMENT STORE EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, C.I.O., AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIT. 

THE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT A STORE-WIDE UNIT OF ITS FIVE THOUSAND
EMPLOYEES WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND AT ANY RATE THAT EMPLOYEES IN
THE WOMEN'S ALTERATION AND THE FUR ALTERATION DEPARTMENTS SHOULD BE
ADDED TO THE EMPLOYEES IN THE MEN'S BUSHELING ROOMS TO FORM THE UNIT. 
AS THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR DIRECT REVIEW OF THE DETERMINATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, THE COMPANY, IN ORDER
TO SECURE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE FINDING AS TO THE UNIT, AWAITED THIS
PROCEEDING WHICH SOUGHT A DECREE DIRECTING IT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE.  SEE INLAND EMPIRE COUNCIL V. MILLIS, 325 U.S.
697. 

A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THIS PROCEEDING A DETERMINATION THAT ALL
EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY SUBJECT TO STATED EXCEPTIONS WERE THE
APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HAD BEEN SOUGHT BY THE
C.I.O.  THE COMPANY OBJECTED BECAUSE NO SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF
REPRESENTATION WAS MADE AND BECAUSE IT TOOK EXCEPTION TO THE EXCLUSION
OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FROM THE PROPOSED UNIT.  THIS PETITION WAS
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE OF THE C.I.O. TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF
MEMBERSHIP IN THE SUGGESTED STOREWIDE UNIT.  46 N.L.R.B. 305.  THAT
PRIOR APPLICATION IS NOT A BAR TO THIS.  THE BOARD WAS CAREFUL TO NOTE
IN THIS PROCEEDING THAT A LARGER UNIT MIGHT BE FIXED AS APPROPRIATE IF
SELF-ORGANIZATION DEVELOPED.  OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THE STORE HAD
MEMBERS OF THIS AND OTHER UNIONS AS EMPLOYEES.  THIS PRESENCE OF UNION
MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE ENTERPRISE WAS A MATTER OF CONSIDERATION IN
DECIDING UPON THE APPROPRIATE UNIT BUT WAS NOT DECISIVE.  COMPARE
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 146, 156.  NO LABOR
ORGANIZATION CLAIMED TO REPRESENT THE ENTIRE BODY OF EMPLOYEES. 
THEREFORE THE BOARD DETERMINED TO APPROVE THIS UNIT AS APPROPRIATE SO
THAT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MIGHT START FOR THESE EMPLOYEES WITHOUT
WAITING UNTIL MORE EMPLOYEES MIGHT BE ORGANIZED INTO A LARGER UNIT. 
COMPARE LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 134. 

UNDER SEC. 9(B) THE BOARD IS DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE
UNIT.  THE JUDICIAL REVIEW AFFORDED IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF WEIGHING
THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE BOARD ACTED AND PERHAPS TO OVERRULE THE
EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION BUT TO "GUARANTEE AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION
BY THE BOARD."  FN3  THE BOARD HAD BEFORE IT THE BUSINESS OF THE
COMPANY, THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES, THE TREATMENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES AS A
UNIT BY MANAGEMENT WITH REFERENCE TO SICK LEAVE, HOSPITALIZATION,
EMPLOYEE PRIVILEGES, VACATIONS, ET CETERA.  EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED THAT
A LARGE PROPORTION OF EMPLOYEES IN THE PROPOSED UNIT WERE MEMBERS OF
THE SAME UNION.  IT HAD TESTIMONY AS TO SIMILARITY AND DISSIMILARITY IN
TAILORING AND ALTERING BETWEEN THE MEN'S AND WOMEN'S ALTERATION ROOMS. 
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THOSE WHO WORK ON MEN'S CLOTHING, SPEAKING
GENERALLY, BELONG TO A DIFFERENT UNION ORGANIZATION THAN THOSE WHO WORK
ON WOMEN'S CLOTHES.  THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE INTERCHANGE OF WORKERS
BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS.  WE THINK THAT THERE WAS AMPLE TESTIMONY TO
SUPPORT THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE TWO BUSHELING
ROOMS WERE AN APPROPRIATE UNIT, SINCE THESE EMPLOYEES HAD A DEGREE OF
SELF-ORGANIZATION AND A SPECIAL TRADE WHICH SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENTIATED
THEM FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES. 

FORM OF BALLOT.  PETITIONER OBJECTS TO THE CERTIFICATION BECAUSE THE
BALLOT CONTAINED THE NAME OF THE ST. LOUIS JOINT COUNCIL, UNITED
RETAIL, WHOLESALE & DEPARTMENT STORE EMPLOYEES, AS A CANDIDATE FOR
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE UNIT.  THIS WAS THE ORGANIZATION
WHICH WAS CERTIFIED.  IT HAD FILED THE PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF
THE REPRESENTATIVE.  THE COUNCIL CLAIMED THAT MORE THAN 51% OF THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE SUGGESTED UNIT HAD DESIGNATED IT AS THEIR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  THE BOARD DIRECTS WHAT NAMES GO ON THE
BALLOT.  UNLESS THERE IS A SHOWING OF A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
IN THE PROPOSED UNIT WHO HAVE BECOME MEMBERS OF AND SELECTED THE
PETITIONER AS THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, THE BOARD DOES NOT
ORDINARILY ORDER AN ELECTION.  FN4  THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY OF
THE BOARD.  IN THIS CASE, ON THE JOINT COUNCIL'S PETITION FOR
CERTIFICATION, THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE COUNCIL HAD A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  AS A MATTER OF FACT IT WAS A LOCAL UNION WHICH THE
EMPLOYEES HAD SELECTED AND JOINED.  THE BOARD POINTED OUT IN ITS
FINDING OF FACTS ON THE PETITION FOR AN ELECTION THAT THE JOINT COUNCIL
REPRESENTED THIS LOCAL AND SIMILAR LOCALS IN OTHER STORES. 

THE COMPANY SAYS THAT SOME EMPLOYEES MAY HAVE BEEN MISLED BY THE
BALLOT INTO THINKING THAT THE JOINT COUNCIL HAD A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF
THE UNIT'S EMPLOYEES AS MEMBERS, BECAUSE ELECTIONS ARE NOT ORDINARILY
CALLED UNLESS THAT SITUATION EXISTS.  THE LOCAL WAS REPRESENTED BY THE
JOINT COUNCIL.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. FRANKS BROS. CO., 137 F.2D 989, 992,
AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS, FRANKS BROS. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S.
702.  THE JOINT COUNCIL WAS CHOSEN BY A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF
THE UNIT AND CERTIFIED.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ELECTION, WE SEE
NO BASIS FOR THE COMPANY'S OBJECTION TO THE CERTIFIED REPRESENTATIVE ON
THE GROUND OF POSSIBLE CONFUSION OF THE EMPLOYEES. 

ACTION ON WAGES.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE COMPANY INTERFERED WITH,
RESTRAINED AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS
GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HEREIN
DETAILED, IN SEEKING THE NECESSARY APPROVAL (56 STAT. 765; EXECUTIVE
ORDER 9250, 7 FED. REG. 7871) ON AUGUST 30, 1943, OF THE NATIONAL WAR
LABOR BOARD FOR AN UPWARD WAGE ADJUSTMENT FOR A LARGE PROPORTION OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIT HERE INVOLVED, WITHOUT
BARGAINING COLLECTIVELY ON THE SUBJECT OF THE WAGES WITH THE CERTIFIED
UNION.  A LETTER ACCOMPANIED THE REQUEST TO THE WAR LABOR BOARD WHICH
EXPLAINED THAT CERTAIN CRAFT EMPLOYEES, NOT HERE INVOLVED, WERE
EXCLUDED FROM THE APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE WAGES BECAUSE
THEY WERE COVERED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  THE LETTER WENT
ON TO SAY: 

"THE ST. LOUIS JOINT COUNCIL, UNITED RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT
STORE EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, C.I.O.,  ...  HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, BUT WE DO NOT REGARD THIS AS AN
APPROPRIATE UNIT AND HAVE CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THAT POSITION AND HAVE SO
NOTIFIED ALL PARTIES CONCERNED.  IT IS OUR INTENTION TO SUBMIT THAT
QUESTION TO THE COURTS, IF AND WHEN THE OCCASION ARISES.  WE HAVE NOT
RECOGNIZED THIS UNION AND HAVE NOT BARGAINED WITH IT FOR THE EMPLOYEES
IN DEPARTMENTS 280 OR 281 AND NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THAT UNION ARE
PENDING.  IT IS INTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN DEPARTMENTS
280 AND 281 SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION. 

"WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS NAMED IN THE
APPLICATION, NOR THE ORGANIZATION NAMED ABOVE, HAVE ANY INTEREST
WHATEVER IN THE ENCLOSED APPLICATION.  HOWEVER, IF THE ORGANIZATION
NAMED ABOVE SHOULD OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF THE EMPLOYEES OF
DEPARTMENTS 280 AND 281 IN THE APPLICATION, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT SAID
APPLICATION MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN AMENDED SO AS TO EXCLUDE
THOSE EMPLOYEES FROM THE APPLICATION."  THE NEXT MORNING THE EMPLOYEES
WERE TOLD OVER THE STORE ADDRESS SYSTEM OF THE APPLICATION FOR A WAGE
INCREASE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT HIGHER PAID EXECUTIVES AND THOSE
EMPLOYEES "WHOSE SALARIES HAVE BEEN FIXED BY CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS." 
A SHORT TIME LATER ANOTHER REFERENCE TO THE APPLICATION WAS MADE OVER
THE ADDRESS SYSTEM.  A SIMILAR ANNOUNCEMENT APPEARED IN THE SEPTEMBER 3
ISSUE OF THE STORE PAPER.  THE CONDITIONAL OFFER TO EXCLUDE THE
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIT WAS NOT REFERRED TO IN THE ANNOUNCEMENTS.  UPON
THESE FACTS THE BOARD FOUND A VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1). 

THE COMPANY URGES THAT ITS REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY, WITHOUT NEGOTIATION
WITH THE CERTIFIED UNION AS TO THE APPLICATION TO THE WAR LABOR BOARD,
WAS NOT AN UNFAIR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(1) BUT ONLY A NECESSARY RESULT
OF ITS POSITION ON NON-RECOGNITION OF THE CERTIFIED REPRESENTATIVE
BECAUSE THE COMPANY DID NOT AGREE WITH THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF THE
APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR THE SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES.  THE COMPANY
SAYS IT COULD NOT GIVE RECOGNITION TO THE CERTIFIED AGENT AND MAINTAIN
THIS POSITION. 

WE HAVE IN A PRECEDING DIVISION OF THIS OPINION STATED OUR CONCLUSION
THAT THE JOINT COUNCIL WAS A PROPERLY CERTIFIED BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE.  THEREFORE AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST TO THE WAR LABOR
BOARD FOR AUTHORITY TO INCREASE WAGES, THE JOINT COUNCIL MUST BE
CONSIDERED AS A PROPERLY CERTIFIED BARGAINING AGENT.  COMPANY ACTION IN
REGARD TO IT MUST BE JUDGED IN THAT LIGHT EVEN THOUGH ITS ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE CERTIFICATION MADE ITS CHOICE DIFFICULT. 

THE JOINT COUNCIL WAS CERTIFIED ON JULY 12, 1943.  AFTER THE
ELECTION, THE COUNCIL HAD REQUESTED A CONFERENCE WITH THE COMPANY FOR
NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT TO COVER WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS. 
THIS REQUEST WAS DECLINED ON JULY 19TH WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE
COMPANY DID NOT AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD AND DESIRED TO
PRESERVE ITS FULL RIGHTS TO QUESTION THE RESULT AS IT "MAY SEE FIT." 
THE APPLICATION TO THE WAR LABOR BOARD FOLLOWED ON AUGUST 30TH. 

IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT MAKES IT AN EMPLOYER'S
DUTY TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY ONLY WITH THE DULY RECOGNIZED OR
ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES.  DISREGARD OF THIS DUTY
VIOLATES SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT.  SEC. 9(A).  MEDO CORP. V. LABOR BOARD,
321 U.S. 678, 683-84.  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD INFRINGE AN ESSENTIAL
PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  SEE J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
321 U.S. 332, 338.  EMPLOYER ACTION TO BRING ABOUT CHANGES IN WAGE
SCALES WITHOUT CONSULTATION AND NEGOTIATION WITH THE CERTIFIED
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES CANNOT, WE THINK, LOGICALLY OR
REALISTICALLY, BE DISTINGUISHED FROM BARGAINING WITH INDIVIDUALS OR
MINORITIES.  THE FACT THAT THE APPLICATION TO THE WAR LABOR BOARD WAS
NOT THE ACTUAL INCREASE OF WAGES BUT A NECESSARY PRELIMINARY DOES NOT
MAKE UNILATERAL ACTION, ACCOMPANIED BY PUBLICATION OF THE STEP TAKEN TO
THE EMPLOYEES, ANY THE LESS OBJECTIONABLE.  THE APPLICATION TO THE WAR
LABOR BOARD MARKED A UNILATERAL DETERMINATION BY THE COMPANY THAT THE
EMPLOYEES OF THIS UNIT SHOULD HAVE THE SPECIFIC INCREASE DEEMED DUE
THEM BY THE COMPANY OR NONE AT ALL, IF THE BARGAINING AGENT SHOULD
OBJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LETTER QUOTED ABOVE.  THE EMPLOYER WAS
NOT GETTING INTO POSITION TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE AGENT.  HE DECLARED THE
CONTRARY AND PROPOSED THAT HE, AS EMPLOYER, WOULD MAKE THE INCREASE IF
PERMISSION WERE GRANTED.    TWO NATIONAL LABOR GROUPS HAD EACH
SEPARATELY SOUGHT FOR MONTHS TO ORGANIZE THE COMPANY.  ONE EFFORT TO
SECURE THE DESIGNATION OF A UNIT HAD FAILED.  THE PRESENT DESIGNATION
WAS MADE OVER THE PROTESTS OF THE COMPANY.  IT HAD URGED IN ITS MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER OF ELECTION: 

"THERE ARE TWO COMPETING LABOR ORGANIZATIONS SEEKING TO ORGANIZE THE
EMPLOYEES IN THIS STORE.  BY THIS DECISION ONE OF THEM IS GRANTED AN
ELECTION IN THE UNIT COMPOSED OF TWO DEPARTMENTS.  THERE ARE SOME 350
DEPARTMENTS IN THIS STORE AND IF THIS EMPLOYER IS TO BE CONFRONTED WITH
ELECTIONS AND SEPARATE BARGAINING FOR EACH ONE OR TWO DEPARTMENTS IT
WILL BE AN ENDLESS AND INTOLERABLE INTERFERENCE WITH STORE OPERATIONS,
WHICH SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED."  BY GOING AHEAD WITH WAGE ADJUSTMENTS
WITHOUT NEGOTIATION WITH THE BARGAINING AGENT, IT TOOK A STEP WHICH
JUSTIFIED THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOARD AS TO THE VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(1).  SUCH UNILATERAL ACTION MINIMIZES THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZED
BARGAINING.  IT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION BY
EMPHASIZING TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT.  IF SUCCESSFUL IN SECURING APPROVAL FOR
THE PROPOSED INCREASE OF WAGES, IT MIGHT WELL, AS THE BOARD POINTS OUT,
BLOCK THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE IN SECURING FURTHER WAGE
ADJUSTMENTS. 

IT MAY BE THAT THE COMPANY SOUGHT ONLY TO PRESERVE ITS OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTEST THE CERTIFICATION OF THE UNIT.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE
INCREASES FOR WHICH APPROVAL WAS SOUGHT COVERED SEVERAL THOUSAND
EMPLOYEES AND THAT IT IS HARDLY CONCEIVABLE THAT A GENERAL INCREASE FOR
SO MANY WOULD BE SOUGHT TO INJURE SO FEW.  BUT THE BOARD'S CONTENTION
IS NOT THAT THE APPLICATION, AS A WHOLE, WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
UNDERMINING THE COUNCIL.  ITS CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE MANNER OF
PRESENTING AND PUBLICIZING THE APPLICATION HAD THE EFFECT OF COERCING
THE EMPLOYEES.  INSTEAD OF TAKING UP THE INCREASE OF THIS UNIT'S WAGES
WITH THE COUNCIL, FILING A JOINT APPLICATION, WITH RESERVATION OF THE
COMPANY'S LEGAL RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE CERTIFICATION OF THE BARGAINING
AGENT WHEN ANY COMPLAINT MIGHT BE FILED FOR REFUSAL TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY, OR, OMITTING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE QUESTIONED UNIT, IF THE
COUNCIL WOULD NOT JOIN IN SUCH AN APPLICATION, THE COMPANY CHOSE TO
IGNORE THE PROPERLY CERTIFIED AGENT.  NOR CAN WE AGREE THAT IF, UNDER
THE PROCEDURE SUGGESTED, THE EMPLOYEES IN THIS UNIT HAD BEEN OMITTED
FROM THE EMPLOYEES WHO RECEIVED INCREASES, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN DANGER
THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED SUCH
OMISSION AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  WHATEVER WEIGHT AN OMISSION MIGHT
HAVE UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, UNDER THESE IT WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED AN
EFFORT TO AVOID INJURY TO THE EMPLOYEES AND COULD NOT PROPERLY BE HELD
AN INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR RIGHTS. 

WE FIND NO BASIS FOR ELIMINATING THE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR THE PUBLICATION
FROM CONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE AN EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION, SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THEY ARE A
PART OF THE TOTALITY OF COMPANY ACTIVITIES AND WERE PROPERLY RECEIVED
BY THE BOARD AS EVIDENCE OF THE UNILATERAL ACTION OF THE EMPLOYER. 
LABOR BOARD V. VIRGINIA POWER CO., 314 U.S. 469, 477. 

BREADTH OF ORDER.  PETITIONER COMPLAINS HERE OF THE REFUSAL OF THE
COURT TO MODIFY PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE BOARD'S ORDER TO THE EXTENT WHICH
PETITIONER EXPLICITLY ASKED FOR BELOW IN ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING. 
FN5  THAT PARAGRAPH, TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER WHICH ENJOINS REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN, IS SET OUT BELOW.  FN6  PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE BROAD,
BLANKET PROVISIONS OF 1(B) ARE INVALID, EVEN THOUGH, OF COURSE,
RESTRICTED TO THE FEW EMPLOYEES IN THE AFFECTED UNIT.  THE LANGUAGE OF
THE PROHIBITION COVERS INTERFERENCES WITH ALL THE RIGHTS OF THESE
EMPLOYEES WHICH ARE SECURED BY SEC. 7 OF THE LABOR ACT, WHILE AT THE
MOST, PETITIONER URGES, THE BOARD HAS FOUND AND THE CIRCUIT COURT
SUSTAINED ONLY TWO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY PETITIONER, "(1) REFUSAL
TO BARGAIN AND (2) THE STOREWIDE SALARY INCREASE."  BOTH OF THESE, IT
IS ASSERTED, ARE BUT INCIDENTS IN PETITIONER'S EFFORT TO OBTAIN
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION.  AS THE BOARD'S SELECTION
OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT TO CHOOSE THE EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE AND THE BOARD'S SUBSEQUENT CERTIFICATION OF THE
REPRESENTATIVE CHOSEN, SEC. 9, ARE NOT JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE DIRECTLY,
PETITIONER TAKES THE POSITION THAT IT COMMITTED THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE OF REFUSING TO BARGAIN WITH AN ACCREDITED UNION MERELY TO OPEN
THE WAY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE CERTIFICATION.  FN7  CONSEQUENTLY
PETITIONER URGES THE CASE AND DESIST ORDER SHOULD BE NO BROADER THAN
THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WHICH IS COVERED BY PARAGRAPH 1(A), NOTE 6
SUPRA, WITH THE ADDITION OF "OR FROM ANY OTHER ACTS IN ANY MANNER
INTERFERING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE'S EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE."  THE
SUGGESTED ADDITION IS TAKEN FROM THE EXPRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY CASE,
312 U.S. AT 438.  THUS THE BREADTH OF PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE BOARD'S
ORDER IS SHARPLY CHALLENGED AS BEING BEYOND THE POWER OF THE BOARD IN
VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS IN THIS CASE. 

THE SCOPE OF INJUNCTIONS WHICH FOLLOW NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DETERMINATIONS IS IMPORTANT TO EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  WHILE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INSTITUTED ONLY BY THE BOARD AND IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST,  FN8  THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTEMPT PENALTIES BY THE COURT FOR
FUTURE LABOR ACT VIOLATIONS ADDS SUFFICIENT ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS TO
MAKE MATERIAL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENJOINED AND NON-ENJOINED EMPLOYER
ACTIVITIES.  FN9  THE DECISION IN THE EXPRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY CASE
EMPHASIZED THIS ISSUE.  FN10  THE PARAGRAPH UNDER ATTACK IN THAT CASE
WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE THE PARAGRAPH HERE ATTACKED. 

THE TEST OF THE PROPER SCOPE OF A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER IS WHETHER
THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE REASONABLY CONCLUDED FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT SUCH
AN ORDER WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE EMPLOYER BEFORE IT "FROM ENGAGING
IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AFFECTING COMMERCE."  SEC. 10(A).  FN11
EQUITY HAS LONG BEEN ACCUSTOMED IN OTHER FIELDS TO REACH CONCLUSIONS AS
TO THE SCOPE OF ORDERS WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PREVENT INTERFERENCES
WITH THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO SEEK THE COURTS' PROTECTION.  FN12
INJUNCTIONS IN BROAD TERMS ARE GRANTED EVEN IN ACTS OF THE WIDEST
CONTENT, WHEN THE COURT DEEMS THEM ESSENTIAL TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT.  FN13  WE THINK THAT THE BOARD HAS THE SAME POWER TO
DETERMINE THE NEEDED SCOPE OF CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT THAT COURTS HAVE, WHEN AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE
INJUNCTIONS, IN OTHER LITIGATION. 

THAT POWER OF THE BOARD IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW UNDER SEC. 10.  WHILE
THE BOARD HAS BEEN DELEGATED INITIALLY THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO
PREVENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,  FN14  COURTS, WHICH ARE CALLED UPON TO
ENFORCE SUCH ORDERS BY THEIR OWN DECREES, MAY EXAMINE ITS SCOPE TO SEE
WHETHER, ON THE EVIDENCE, THEY GO SO BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD
AS TO REQUIRE MODIFICATION AS A MATTER OF LAW BEFORE ENFORCEMENT.  SEC.
10(A) AND (E).  THE EXPRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY CASE DECLARED: "TO
JUSTIFY AN ORDER RESTRAINING OTHER VIOLATIONS IT MUST APPEAR THAT THEY
BEAR SOME RESEMBLANCE TO THAT WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAS COMMITTED OR THAT
DANGER OF THEIR COMMISSION IN THE FUTURE IS TO BE ANTICIPATED FROM THE
COURSE OF HIS CONDUCT IN THE PAST."  P. 437.  WE THINK THAT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(1) AS WELL AS 8(5), THE VIOLATION OF 8(1) IS SO INTERTWINED WITH THE
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH A UNIT ASSERTED TO BE CERTIFIED IMPROPERLY
THAT, WITHOUT A CLEAR DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF AN ATTITUDE OF
OPPOSITION TO THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYEES GENERALLY, THE DECREE NEED NOT ENJOIN COMPANY ACTIONS WHICH
ARE NOT DETERMINED BY THE BOARD TO BE SO MOTIVATED. 

THIS CONCLUSION REQUIRES A MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE SO THAT THE
INJUNCTION WILL NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO ALL VIOLATIONS UNDER THE ACT OF
THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES IN DEPARTMENTS 280 AND 281, BUT WILL APPLY
TO OTHER INTERFERENCES, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) OR OTHERWISE, WITH
THE COUNCIL'S REPRESENTATION OF THESE EMPLOYEES.  THERE SHOULD BE ADDED
TO PARAGRAPH 1(A) OF THE DECREE, NOTE 6 SUPRA, THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE,
"OR FROM ANY OTHER ACTS IN ANY MANNER INTERFERING WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVE'S EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE FOR OR REPRESENT THE ABOVE NAMED
EMPLOYEES AS BARGAINING AGENT."  PARAGRAPH 1(B) SHOULD BE STRICKEN. 
TEXTUAL CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE MADE TO CONFORM TO THESE CHANGES.  AS
THUS MODIFIED, THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 452-53.  "SEC.  7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
SELFORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND
TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION. 

"SEC. 8.  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER - 

"(1)  TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(5)  TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
HIS EMPLOYEES, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(A)." 

OPINION OF THE C.C.A., LABOR BOARD V. MAY DEPARTMENT STORES CO., 146
F.2D 66; DETERMINATION OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 53 N.L.R.B.
1366. 

FN2  49 STAT. 453, SEC. 9.  "(B) THE BOARD SHALL DECIDE IN EACH CASE
WHETHER, IN ORDER TO INSURE TO EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND OTHERWISE
TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT, THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SHALL BE THE EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT
UNIT, PLANT UNIT, OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF." 

FN3  S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 14. 

FN4 IN RE HOUSTON SHIPBUILDING CORP., 41 N.L.R.B. 638; IN RE AMERICAN
MANUFACTURING CO., 41 N.L.R.B. 995. 

FN5  SECTION 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 454,
PRECLUDES THE CONSIDERATION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ANY OBJECTION NOT
RAISED BEFORE THE BOARD, UNLESS SUCH FAILURE IS EXCUSABLE BECAUSE OF
"EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES."  THIS COURT THEREFORE IS AUTHORIZED, SUA
SPONTE, TO APPRAISE THE RECORD TO DETERMINE THE POWER OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT TO REVIEW PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE BOARD'S ORDER.  LABOR BOARD V.
BRADFORD DYEING ASSN., 310 U.S. 318, 341. 

IN THIS PROCEEDING THE PARAGRAPH FIRST APPEARED IN THE INTERMEDIATE
REPORT OF THE BOARD'S EXAMINER.  THE PETITIONER EXCEPTED SPECIFICALLY
TO PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE PROPOSED ORDER AS "NOT SUPPORTED OR JUSTIFIED
BY THE RECORD."  THIS WAS THE ONLY OBJECTION MADE TO THE PARAGRAPH IN
QUESTION IN THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE
EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD IN ITS ORDER. 
UNLESS THIS OBJECTION WAS SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO APPRISE THE BOARD OF
THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED, THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD NO POWER TO CONSIDER
IT.  MARSHALL FIELD & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 318 U.S. 253.  IN THE
MARSHALL FIELD CASE WE DECLINED TO CONSIDER AN ISSUE AS TO THE POWER OF
THE BOARD TO GRANT A BACK PAY ORDER WHICH WAS CONSTRUED AS BARRING THE
DEDUCTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FROM THE AWARD, ALTHOUGH THE
QUESTION WAS RAISED BY ANSWER AND DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, LABOR BOARD V. MARSHALL FIELD & CO., 129 F.2D 169.  OUR REASON
FOR REFUSING REVIEW WAS THAT THE ONLY OBJECTION TO THE BOARD'S POWER
WAS ERROR BY THE EXAMINER "IN MAKING EACH AND EVERY RECOMMENDATION." 
THE REMEDY RECOMMENDED BY THE EXAMINER WAS THE USUAL BACK PAY LESS
EARNINGS WITHOUT ANY WORD IN THE REPORT AS TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION.  THIS WAS TOO GENERAL TO APPRISE THE BOARD OF AN
INTENTION TO BRING UP THE QUESTION OF THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE
COMPENSATION AND OF THE NECESSITY FOR FINDINGS. 

ALTHOUGH IT FALLS SHORT OF DESIRABLE SPECIFICITY, WE THINK THE
OBJECTION WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE.  NO FURTHER FINDINGS ARE
NEEDED.  THE PARAGRAPH IN ISSUE IS A STANDARD FORM OF ORDER FREQUENTLY
USED BY THE BOARD; THE SAME QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO AN ALMOST
IDENTICAL ORDER WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS
PUB. CO., 312 U.S. 426, AND HAS BEEN A FREQUENT SUBJECT OF DISPUTE IN
THE CIRCUIT COURTS (SEE N. 10 INFRA).  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES COUPLED WITH
AN OBJECTION THAT THE ORDER WAS "NOT SUPPORTED OR JUSTIFIED BY THE
RECORD" PUT THE BOARD ON NOTICE OF THE ISSUE NOW PRESENTED. 

FN6  DECREED THAT MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, ETC., SHALL:  "1. 
CEASE AND DESIST FROM:  (A) REFUSING TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH ST.
LOUIS JOINT COUNCIL, UNITED RETAIL & DEPARTMENT STORE EMPLOYEES OF
AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, AS
THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL ITS EMPLOYEES AT ITS ST. LOUIS
STORE ENGAGED IN THE BUSHELING ROOM, SECOND FLOOR, DEPARTMENT 280, AND
IN THE BUSHELING ROOM, BASEMENT, DEPARTMENT 281, INCLUDING REGULAR
EXTRA EMPLOYEES IN THESE DEPARTMENTS, BUT EXCLUDING THE TWO FOREMEN AND
ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT; 

"(B)  IN ANY OTHER MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING
ITS EMPLOYEES WHO ARE REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 1(A) IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR
OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION, AS GUARANTEED
IN SECTION 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT." 

FN7  SEE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401;
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 146; INLAND EMPIRE
COUNCIL V. MILLIS, 325 U.S. 697. 

FN8  AMALGAMATED WORKERS V. EDISON CO., 309 U.S. 261, 269. 

FN9  SEE FOR BUSINESS OPERATIONS UNDER CONTEMPT ORDERS 41 COLUMBIA L.
REV. AT 913. 

FN10  THE PROBLEM OF THE SCOPE OF INJUNCTION DEALT WITH IN LABOR
BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426, HAS RECENTLY RECEIVED
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION BY JUDGES AND WRITERS.  41 COLUMBIA L. REV. 911;
29 GEORGETOWN L.J. 1026; 53 HARVARD L. REV. 472; 23 BOSTON UNIVERSITY
L. REV. 447; 54 YALE L.J. 141.    ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE DECISIONS IN THE
CIRCUIT COURTS ARE THE FOLLOWING CASES: 

1.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 

(A)  UPHOLDING A GENERAL SEC. 8(1) ORDER ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (THE NATURE OF THE UNFAIR PRACTICES IS GIVEN IN
BRACKETS).  - LABOR BOARD V. HIGHLAND PARK MFG. CO., 110 F.2D
632(C.C.A. 4)(SEC.  8(5)); ART METALS CONST. CO. V. BOARD, 110 F.2D
148(C.C.A. 2)(SEC.  8(5)); WILSON & CO. V. BOARD, 124 F.2D 845(C.C.A.
7)(SEC.  8(3)); LABOR BOARD V. SUNBEAM ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 133 F.2D
856(C.C.A. 7)(SEC.  8(1)); LABOR BOARD V. STANDARD OIL CO., 138 F.2D
885(C.C.A. 2)(SEC.  8(2)). 

(B) UPHOLDING A GENERAL SEC. 8(1) ORDER WHERE THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  - LABOR BOARD V. BOSS MFG. CO., 107 F.2D
574(C.C.A. 7)(SECS.  8(1), 8(3), 8(5)); LABOR BOARD V. REED & PRINCE
MFG. CO., 118 F.2D 874(C.C.A. 1)(SECS.  8(1), 8(3), 8(5)); F.W.
WOOLWORTH CO. V. BOARD, 121 F.2D 658(C.C.A. 2)(SECS.  8(1), 8(3));
BOARD V. ALGOMA NET CO., 124 F.2D 730(C.C.A. 7)(SECS.  8(1), 8(3));
LABOR BOARD V. BALDWIN LOCOMOTIVE WORKS, 128 F.2D 39(C.C.A. 3)(SECS. 
8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(4)); LABOR BOARD V. BREZNER TANNING CO., 141 F.2D
62(C.C.A. 1)(SECS.  8(1), 8(3)); IDAHO POTATO GROWERS V. BOARD, 144
F.2D 295(C.C.A. 9)(SECS.  8(3), 8(5)). 

(C)  LIMITING A SEC. 8(1) ORDER BASED ON A SINGLE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE TO ACTS SPECIFICALLY CONDEMNED.  - GLOBE COTTON MILLS V.
BOARD, 103 F.2D 2D 91(C.C.A. 5)(SEC.  8(5)); LABOR BOARD V. SWIFT &
CO., 108 F.2D 988(C.C.A. 7)(SEC.  8(2)); MCQUAY-NORRIS MFG. CO. V.
BOARD, 119 F.2D 1009(C.C.A. 7)(SEC.  8(5)); LABOR BOARD V. NEWARK
MORNING LEDGER CO., 120 F.2D 262(C.C.A. 3)(SEC.  8(3)); LABOR BOARD V.
BURRY BISCUIT CORP., 123 F.2D 540(C.C.A. 7)(SEC.  8(2)); LABOR BOARD V.
STONE, 125 F.2D 752(C.C.A. 7)(SEC.  8(1)); COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. V.
BOARD, 135 F.2D 891(C.C.A. 7)(SEC.  8(2)); CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORP.
V. BOARD, 141 F.2D 785(C.C.A. 9)(SEC.  8(1)); LABOR BOARD V. WALT
DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, 146 F.2D 44(C.C.A. 9)(SEC.  8(3)); LABOR BOARD V.
LIPSHUTZ, 149 F.2D 141(C.C.A. 5)(SEC.  8(1)). 

(D)  LIMITING A SEC. 8(1) ORDER WHERE THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE.  - PRESS CO. V. BOARD, 73 APP. D.C. 103, 118 F.2D
937(SECS.  8(1), 8(3)); LABOR BOARD V. GROWER-SHIPPER VEGETABLE ASSN.,
122 F.2D 368(C.C.A. 9)(SECS.  8(1), 8(3)); WILSON & CO. V. BOARD, 123
F.2D 411(C.C.A. 8)(SECS.  8(1), 8(2), 8(3)); LABOR BOARD V. SERVEL,
INC., 149 F.2D 542(C.C.A. 7)(SECS.  8(1), 8(3)). 

2.  OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION 

A SIMILAR SITUATION PREVAILS WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF INJUNCTIONS
TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT, 56 STAT. 23. 

(A)  SUSTAINING GENERAL INJUNCTIONS ON THE BASIS OF PARTICULAR
VIOLATIONS OF A REGULATION.  - BOWLES V. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 143
F.2D 2D 38(C.C.A. 7)(PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST VIOLATION OF ANY
PRICE REGULATION FOR VIOLATION OF SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF ONE REGULATION
SUSTAINED). 

(B)  SUSTAINING LIMITED INJUNCTIONS.  - BOWLES V. TOWN HALL GRILL,
145 F.2D 680(C.C.A. 1)(VIOLATION OF RESTAURANT CEILING PRICES ON
POULTRY, LOBSTER, GIN ITEMS; INJUNCTION LIMITED TO SUCH ITEMS
SUSTAINED); BOWLES V. SACHER, 146 F.2D 186(C.C.A. 2)(SUSTAINING
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LIMITED TO PARTICULAR TYPE OF VIOLATION
PROVED). 

3.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

(A)  ENFORCING OR AFFIRMING ORDER BROADER THAN SPECIFIC ACTS
COMPLAINED OF. - OSTLER CANDY CO. V. F.T.C., 106 F.2D 962(C.C.A. 10);
HERSHEY CHOCOLATE CORP. V. F.T.C., 121 F.2D 968(C.C.A. 3); EUGENE
DIETZGEN CO. V. F.T.C., 142 F.2D 321(C.C.A. 7). 

(B)  LIMITING ORDERS TO SPECIFIC ACTS.  - F.T.C. V. BEECHNUT PACKING
CO., 257 U.S. 441; F.T.C. V. A. MCLEAN & SON, 84 F.2D 910(C.C.A. 7);
HELEN ARDELLE, INC. V. F.T.C., 101 F.2D 718(C.C.A. 9). 

FN11  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 461; UNION
PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 450, 470; UNITED STATES V.
BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707, 724. 

FN12  HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 321, 328; WYOMING V. COLORADO,
286 U.S. 494, 508. 

FN13  SHERMAN ACT - STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1,
77: 

"IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT ORDINARILY WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT ACTS HAD
BEEN DONE IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, ADEQUATE MEASURE OF RELIEF WOULD
RESULT FROM RESTRAINING THE DOING OF SUCH ACTS IN THE FUTURE.  SWIFT V.
UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375.  BUT IN A CASE LIKE THIS, WHERE THE
CONDITION WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, IN
AND OF ITSELF, IS NOT ONLY A CONTINUED ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE, BUT ALSO
A MONOPOLIZATION, THE DUTY TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE
APPLICATION OF BROADER AND MORE CONTROLLING REMEDIES."  "SO FAR AS THE
OWNERS OF THE STOCK OF THE SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS AND THE CORPORATIONS
THEMSELVES WERE CONCERNED AFTER THE STOCK HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED, SEC. 6
OF THE DECREE ENJOINED THEM FROM IN ANY WAY CONSPIRING OR COMBINING TO
VIOLATE THE ACT OR TO MONOPOLIZE OR ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE IN VIRTUE OF
THEIR OWNERSHIP OF THE STOCK TRANSFERRED TO THEM, AND PROHIBITED ALL
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS OR OTHER STOCKHOLDERS IN
THE FUTURE, TENDING TO PRODUCE OR BRING ABOUT FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE
ACT."  P. 79. 

"WE SO THINK, SINCE WE CONSTRUE THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH OF THE DECREE,
NOT AS DEPRIVING THE STOCKHOLDERS OR THE CORPORATIONS, AFTER THE
DISSOLUTION OF THE COMBINATION, OF THE POWER TO MAKE NORMAL AND LAWFUL
CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS, BUT AS RESTRAINING THEM FROM, BY ANY DEVICE
WHATEVER, RECREATING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THE ILLEGAL COMBINATION
WHICH THE DECREE DISSOLVED."  P. 81. 

LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 299: 

"APPELLANTS SEEK ELIMINATION OF THE PROVISION OF THE DECREE THAT
ENJOINS THEM FROM USING ANY OF THE OFFICES OR POSITIONS IN LOCAL 167 OR
THE SHOCHTIM UNION 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF COERCING MARKETMEN TO BUY
POULTRY, POULTRY FEED, OR OTHER COMMODITIES NECESSARY TO THE POULTRY
BUSINESS FROM PARTICULAR SELLERS THEREOF.'  THE UNITED STATES IS
ENTITLED TO EFFECTIVE RELIEF.  TO THAT END THE DECREE SHOULD ENJOIN
ACTS OF THE SORT THAT ARE SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE TO HAVE BEEN DONE OR
THREATENED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY.  IT SHOULD BE BROAD ENOUGH
TO PREVENT EVASION.  IN FRAMING ITS PROVISIONS DOUBTS SHOULD BE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND AGAINST THE CONSPIRATORS. 
WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526, 532....  WHEN REGARD IS HAD
TO THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSING THE NUMEROUS PURPOSES OF THE CONSPIRACY AND
THE ACTS OF COERCION CUSTOMARILY EMPLOYED BY DEFENDANTS, IT IS PLAIN
THAT THE CLAUSE REFERRED TO CANNOT BE CONDEMNED AS UNNECESSARY OR
WITHOUT WARRANT." 

SEE AMERICAN FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 194. 

FN14  S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 15; H. REP. NO.
1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 23. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING IN PART. 

I CANNOT AGREE, AS THE COURT SEEMS TO SAY AND THE LABOR BOARD FOUND,
FN1  THAT THERE WERE TWO UNFAIR PRACTICES IN THIS CASE, (1) REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN, CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(5); AND (2) INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT AND
COERCION OF EMPLOYEES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1).  I THINK ONLY ONE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WAS SHOWN, NAMELY, REFUSAL TO BARGAIN; AND FOR
THAT REASON I THINK THE BOARD'S ORDER MUST BE MODIFIED TO ELIMINATE THE
RESTRAINTS BASED ON ITS FINDING OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1), AS THE
EXPRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY CASE, 312 U.S. 426, REQUIRES IN SUCH A
SITUATION. 

I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE MAJORITY'S APPLICATION OF THAT CASE TO
A SITUATION IN WHICH THE BOARD HAS FOUND THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  THE COURT DOES NOT HOLD TO THE
CONTRARY OR RULE THAT EITHER FINDING WAS UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 
RATHER IT SEEMS TO APPROVE AND SUSTAIN BOTH.  YET IT MODIFIES, AS I
THINK AMBIGUOUSLY,  FN2  THE RELIEF WHICH THE BOARD FOUND APPROPRIATE
TO PREVENT A REPETITION OF THE INTERFERENCE, COERCION AND RESTRAINT IT
DETERMINED HAD BEEN INFLICTED UPON THE EMPLOYEES, IN ADDITION TO THE
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN.  THE EXPRESS PUBLISHING CASE COVERS NO SUCH
SITUATION.  IT WAS LIMITED TO ONE WHERE THE BOARD HAD IMPOSED BOTH
TYPES OF RESTRAINT UPON A FINDING ONLY OF REFUSAL TO BARGAIN.  FN3 

IT IS APPOSITE TO INQUIRE, THEREFORE, WHETHER THAT CASE HAS NOW BEEN
EXPANDED TO FORBID THE BOARD TO IMPOSE BOTH TYPES OF RESTRAINT WHERE IT
HAS FOUND BOTH KINDS OF VIOLATION AND NEITHER FINDING IS OVERTURNED. 
IF SO, I THINK THE RESULT SQUARELY CONFLICTS WITH REPEATED DECISIONS,
REFLECTED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPINION IN THE EXPRESS PUBLISHING CASE
ITSELF, THAT "HAVING FOUND THE ACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE THE BOARD IS FREE TO RESTRAIN THE PRACTICE AND OTHER LIKE OR
RELATED UNLAWFUL ACTS."  312 U.S. 426, 436.  FN4 

IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT TO KNOW WHETHER THE
BOARD IS TO BE FREE TO ADAPT THE REMEDY TO FIT THE EVIL IT HAS FOUND TO
EXIST, AS THE STATUTE COMMANDS, SEC. 10(C); OR, ON THE CONTRARY, ITS
REMEDY THUS ADAPTED MAY BE STRICKEN DOWN OR MODIFIED ALTHOUGH THE
FINDING WHICH JUSTIFIES IT IS APPROVED.  THAT, IN MY JUDGMENT, GOES
BEYOND CORRECTION OF ABUSE OF THE BOARD'S DISCRETION AND SUBSTITUTES
THE COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR THE BOARD'S IN DEVISING THE APPROPRIATE
REMEDY. 

FOR THIS REASON IT BECOMES IMPORTANT TO STATE THE DIFFERENT REASONS
WHY I THINK THE ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO ELIMINATE ANY RESTRAINT
BASED UPON THE FINDING OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1).  IT IS NOT BECAUSE
THIS COURT HAS POWER OR DISCRETION, WHEN THERE ARE TWO SUBSTANTIAL AND
DIFFERENT UNFAIR PRACTICES, TO MODIFY THE BOARD'S ORDER BY RESTRICTING
THE RELIEF TO WHAT IS APPROPRIATE TO PREVENT REPEATING ONLY ONE OR BY
OTHER MODIFICATION TO ELIMINATE RELIEF APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED BY THE
BOARD TO PREVENT REPETITION OF UNFAIR PRACTICES IT HAS FOUND TO EXIST. 
IT IS BECAUSE, IN MY OPINION, THERE WAS ONLY ONE UNFAIR PRACTICE AND
THAT WAS THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN.  HENCE I THINK THE EXPRESS PUBLISHING
CASE EXACTLY APPLIES, AND DOES SO WITHOUT NECESSITY FOR EXTENDING THE
SCOPE OF ITS RULING AS THE COURT'S APPLICATION APPEARS TO DO. 

IN MY JUDGMENT, AN EMPLOYER DOES NOT COMMIT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
WHEN HE DOES NO MORE THAN EXERCISE RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, INCLUDING THE WAGNER ACT.  FN5  THAT ACT DOES
NOT PUT HIM TO THE CHOICE OF GIVING UP HIS RIGHTS OR EXERCISING THEM ON
PAIN OF BEING FOUND GUILTY OF UNFAIR PRACTICE.  APART FROM THE EVIDENCE
RELATING TO REFUSAL TO BARGAIN UNDER SEC. 8(5), THERE WAS NOTHING, IN
MY OPINION, WHICH WENT BEYOND WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO EXERCISE OR
PRESERVE THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHTS SECURED BY LAW.  THE APPLICATION TO THE
WAR LABOR BOARD FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED WEEKLY INCREASE OF $2.00
FOR ALL THE ST. LOUIS EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT THOSE REPRESENTED BY RECOGNIZED
UNIONS, WAS MADE AUGUST 31, 1943, SHORTLY AFTER THE COMPANY HAD
DECLINED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION IN ORDER TO PRESERVE ITS RIGHT TO
CONTEST APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNIT.  ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THIS ACTION OVER
THE PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM FOLLOWED ON SEPTEMBER 1 AND 11, WITH ONE ALSO
IN "STORE CHAT" ON SEPTEMBER 3. 

IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS, I DO NOT THINK THESE ACTS AMOUNTED TO
MORE THAN THE EXERCISE OF LEGAL RIGHTS SECURED TO THE EMPLOYER BY THE
WAGNER ACT, THE STABILIZATION ACT AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THEY
CONSTITUTED NEITHER A WAGE INCREASE NOR AN OFFER OF ONE.  THERE WAS NO
MORE THAN TAKING STEPS TO SECURE OFFICIAL APPROVAL, REQUIRED IN ADVANCE
BY THE STABILIZATION ACT, TO MAKE AN INCREASE, OR TENDER ONE, AT SOME
UNCERTAIN FUTURE DATE, POSSIBLY NEVER TO ARRIVE.  THE APPLICATION WAS
MERELY A NECESSARY PRELIMINARY STEP TO LATER ACTION, WHICH MIGHT OR
MIGHT NOT MATERIALIZE, IN THE NATURE OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYEES OR
OFFERING TO DO SO, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THEIR BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES. 

THE CASE THEREFORE IS NOT MEDO,  FN6  IN SPITE OF THE BOARD'S
REPEATED AND INSISTENT ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY.  THERE THE EMPLOYER
ACTUALLY DEALT WITH THE EMPLOYEES, NOT ONLY NEGOTIATING BUT CONTRACTING
WITH THEM.  SO IN J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332.  HERE
THERE WAS NEITHER NEGOTIATION NOR CONTRACTING.  THERE WAS NOTHING THE
EMPLOYER COULD OFFER AT THAT TIME OR THE EMPLOYEES THEN COULD ACCEPT. 
THERE WAS ONLY PREPARATORY ACTION LOOKING TO THE POSSIBILITY OF LATER
NEGOTIATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF THIS ACTION TO THE EMPLOYEES. 

IF THE EMPLOYER HAD THE RIGHT TO PUT ITSELF LEGALLY IN POSITION TO
NEGOTIATE, EITHER WITH THE EMPLOYEES OR WITH THE UNION, IT ALSO HAD THE
RIGHT TO STATE WHAT IT HAD DONE.  THE EFFECT OF THE BOARD'S DECISION,
AND NOW APPARENTLY OF THE COURT'S, IS TO RULE THAT THE WAGNER ACT SO
CIRCUMSCRIBES AN EMPLOYER THAT HE CANNOT TAKE THE NECESSARY PRELIMINARY
STEPS, IN THIS CASE REQUIRED BY LAW, TO PLACE HIMSELF IN POSITION TO
UNDERTAKE BARGAINING WITH HIS EMPLOYEES, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH
THEIR SELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.  IT IS FURTHER TO HOLD THAT IF HE TAKES
SUCH STEPS, WITHOUT HAVING FIRST SECURED THE UNION'S PERMISSION, HE
MUST KEEP THE FACT TO HIMSELF AND DARE NOT DISCLOSE TO HIS EMPLOYEES
WHAT IS TO ALL OTHERS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.  THIS GOES BEYOND
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.  IT GIVES TO THE UNION A VETO ON
MANAGEMENT, NOT ONLY AS RESPECTS NEGOTIATIONS FOR TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT
BUT FOR PUTTING THE EMPLOYER IN POSITION TO NEGOTIATE.  NO CASE HERE
HAS GONE SO FAR AND, IN MY JUDGMENT, THE WAGNER ACT DOES NOT
CONTEMPLATE THAT ANY SHOULD DO SO. 

OTHER FACTS BEAR OUT THIS CONCLUSION.  ONE IS THAT THE BOARD MADE NO
FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYER'S ACTION WAS TAKEN WITH INTENT TO INTERFERE
WITH, RESTRAIN OR COERCE THE EMPLOYEES IN RESPECT TO THEIR RIGHTS. 
NATURALLY ENOUGH THERE WAS NO SUCH FINDING.  THE APPLICATION AFFECTED
SOME 4,500 EMPLOYEES.  THE UNIT INVOLVED ONLY ABOUT 30.  IT IS HARDLY
CONCEIVABLE THAT THE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE TAKEN THIS STEP IN RELATION TO
SO MANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COERCING, INTERFERING WITH OR RESTRAINING
30.  THERE IS LACKING, THEREFORE, ANY SHOWING OR FINDING OF INTENT, A
FACTOR THE COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN CONCLUDING FROM
OTHERWISE INNOCENT OR EQUIVOCAL FACTS THAT UNFAIR PRACTICE MAY EXIST;
FN7  AND ONE WHICH IN THIS CASE THE COURT APPEARENTLY MAKES CRUCIAL TO
DETERMINE WHETHER RELIEF RELEVANT TO A FINDING OF UNFAIR PRACTICE MAY
BE SUSTAINED.  THE BOARD FOUND ONLY THAT THE EMPLOYER'S "UNILATERAL
ACTION," IN MAKING THE APPLICATION TO THE WAR LABOR BOARD AND IN
ANNOUNCING THIS FACT, "HAD THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING THE UNION OF CREDIT
WHICH NORMALLY WOULD ACCRUE TO IT, AND OF NULLIFYING ITS EFFICACY AS A
BARGAINING AGENT." 

EVEN WERE THIS TRUE, IT HAS NOT HERETOFORE BEEN HELD THAT THE WAGNER
ACT FORBIDS AN EMPLOYER TO TAKE ANY PRELIMINARY STEP WHATEVER LOOKING
TOWARD DEALING WITH HIS EMPLOYEES IN THE FUTURE WHICH, THOUGH NOT
INTENDED TO DISCREDIT THE UNION, MAY HAVE THE EFFECT TO PREVENT IT FROM
OBTAINING SOME CREDIT FOR PROPOSING POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION WHICH IN
FACT THE EMPLOYER HAS PROPOSED.  NOTHING IN THE ACT REQUIRES AN
EMPLOYER TO MAINTAIN A UNION'S PRESTIGE OR TO GIVE IT CREDIT FOR
ORIGINATING ALL PROPOSALS WHICH MAY HAVE SOME FUTURE EFFECT UPON HIS
RELATIONS WITH HIS EMPLOYEES.  SECTION 8(1) FORBIDS INTERFERENCE,
COERCION AND RESTRAINT UPON EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS,
NOT THE MERE FAILURE OF THE EMPLOYER TO MAGNIFY THE UNION'S INFLUENCE. 

MOREOVER THE BOARD MADE NO FINDING, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN ONE, OF PARTICULAR AND CONCRETE FACTS SHOWING THAT
THE EMPLOYER'S SO-CALLED "UNILATERAL ACTION" ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE
UNION'S STATUS AMONG ITS MEMBERS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES.  FN8  IT ONLY
CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTION "REASONABLY (MAY) BE SAID TO HAVE UNDERMINED
THE UNION  ...  AND TO HAVE DISCOURAGED EMPLOYEES GENERALLY IN THEIR
UNION AFFILIATION."  PRESUMABLY, SINCE NO SUCH EFFECTS WERE PROVED OR
FOUND SPECIFICALLY, THE BASIS FOR THIS CONCLUSION WAS THE BOARD'S
"EXPERIENCE," THOUGH THIS WAS NOT REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER OR THE
REPORT ON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED.  THAT FOUNDATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, IN
MY JUDGMENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF MORE UNEQUIVOCAL ACTS OF UNFAIR
PRACTICE, OF ANY FINDING OF INTENT TO INTERFERE, RESTRAIN OR COERCE,
AND OF ANY SHOWING WHATEVER OF SPECIFIC DISCOURAGING OR UNDERMINING
EFFECTS.  SOMETHING MORE THAN SUPPOSITION SHOULD UNDERLIE A CONCLUSION
WHICH SUPPORTS A FINDING OF UNFAIR PRACTICE. 

NOR DID THE EMPLOYER IGNORE THE UNION'S POSSIBLY LEGITIMATE STATUS OR
ITS RIGHT TO HAVE A VOICE IN THE MATTER OF THE INCREASE, IF APPROVAL BY
THE WAR LABOR BOARD SHOULD MATERIALIZE.  THE APPLICATION SET FORTH THE
ESSENTIAL FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXISTING DISPUTE CONCERNING
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNIT, THE EMPLOYER'S INTENTION TO LITIGATE THE
QUESTION WHENEVER IT MIGHT, ITS NONRECOGNITION OF THE UNION PENDING THE
OBTAINING OF A DECISION, AND ITS PURPOSE FOR THESE REASONS TO INCLUDE
THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES IN THE APPLICATION.  BUT THE APPLICATION WENT ON
TO SAY THAT IF THE UNION SHOULD OBJECT TO THE INCREASE, FOR DEPARTMENTS
280 AND 281, THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER IT AS AMENDED TO EXCLUDE THOSE
EMPLOYEES.  FN9 

THIS HARDLY FURNISHES GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS
ATTEMPTING TO "SHORT-CIRCUIT" THE UNION, UNDERMINE IT, OR DISCREDIT IT
WITH THE EMPLOYEES.  IT EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE UNION, IF
RIGHTLY DESIGNATED AND CERTIFIED, WAS ENTITLED TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN PAY SHOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE.  ACTUALLY, THAT
RIGHT WAS CONCEDED, REGARDLESS OF THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF THE ISSUE ON
VALIDITY OF THE CERTIFICATION.  FN10  CLEARLY, IN VIEW OF THIS
CONCESSION, THERE WAS NO EFFORT EITHER TO CONTRACT WITH THE EMPLOYEES
DIRECTLY OR TO DEAL WITH THEM, OVER THE UNION'S HEAD, ABOUT THE
INCREASE.  WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE AS TO THEM WAS
LEFT, NOT TO THE EMPLOYEES THEMSELVES, BUT TO THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE
JUDGMENT OF THE UNION.  THERE WAS THEREFORE NO SEMBLANCE OF THE SHORT
CIRCUITING OR DIRECT DEALING WITH EMPLOYEES WHICH WAS PRESENT IN BOTH
THE MEDO AND THE J.I. CASE DECISIONS. 

POSSIBLY FOR THIS REASON THE BOARD IS DRIVEN BACK TO ITS
"UNDERMINING" CONTENTION.  THE COMPANY, IT SAYS, BY INCLUDING THESE
EMPLOYEES, "PUT THE UNION ON THE SPOT," SO THAT IT HAD NO REAL CHOICE. 
THE ARGUMENT SHOWS CONCERN FOR THE UNION'S "SPOT," BUT GIVES NO
RECOGNITION TO THE EMPLOYER'S.  THE BOARD DOES NOT URGE THAT THE
COMPANY SHOULD HAVE EXCLUDED THESE EMPLOYEES FROM THE GENERAL
APPLICATION, WITH GOOD REASON.  HAD THIS BEEN DONE, OBVIOUSLY THE
COMPANY WOULD HAVE LAID ITSELF OPEN TO A CHARGE AND A FINDING OF UNFAIR
PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(1).  THE BOARD IS UNWILLING, APPARENTLY, TO PUT
THE EMPLOYER IN THAT DILEMMA.  CF. MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 321 U.S. 678, 699.  IT DOES NOT SAY, THOUGH THE COURT DOES BY
WAY OF DICTUM, THAT EXCLUDING THESE EMPLOYEES FROM THE APPLICATION
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN UNFAIR PRACTICE.  THE BOARD SAYS THE EMPLOYER'S
ONLY WAY OUT WAS TO CONSULT THE UNION BEFORE MAKING THE APPLICATION. 

THIS CAN ONLY MEAN THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS COMPELLED TO ASK THE UNION'S
PERMISSION TO INCLUDE THESE EMPLOYEES; IN SHORT, THAT THE UNION HAD THE
RIGHT UNDER THE WAGNER ACT TO VETO ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE EMPLOYER TO
OBTAIN THE NECESSARY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE ANY INCREASE FOR THEM,
WHETHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE UNION.  I DO NOT THINK THE WAGNER ACT
CONFERS SUCH A POWER ON THE UNION.  NOR DID THE STABILIZATION ACT OR
THE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT PURSUANT TO ITS PROVISIONS DO SO.  FN11
MOREOVER, THE EMPLOYER ASSERTS THAT IT COULD NOT REFER THE MATTER TO
THE UNION WITHOUT SURRENDERING THE VERY RIGHTS IT WAS SEEKING TO
PRESERVE.  THIS, IT SAYS, WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO RECOGNITION AND WOULD
HAVE FORECLOSED IT LATER FROM SECURING REVIEW UNDER THE TERMS OF SEC.
10 UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE UNIT WAS APPROPRIATE. 

WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS TRUE, THERE WAS CERTAINLY GOOD REASON TO
BELIEVE IT SO.  THE RIGHT TO REVIEW IS GIVEN IN TERMS ONLY AS AN
INCIDENT OF AN UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.  SEC. 10; CF. AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401; INLAND EMPIRE COUNCIL
V. MILLIS, 325 U.S. 697.  IN THIS STATE OF THE LAW, THE COMPANY'S ONLY
CERTAIN REMEDY WAS TO WITHHOLD RECOGNITION UNTIL THE MATTER COULD BE
DETERMINED.  HAD IT RECOGNIZED THE UNION, BY SEEKING ITS PERMISSION TO
INCLUDE THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEES, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO FACTUAL OR
LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ONLY PROCEEDINGS BY WHICH REVIEW WAS ASSURED; AND,
IN ORDER TO SECURE IT, THE COMPANY THEN WOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED TO
COMMIT SOME OTHER ACT OF UNFAIR PRACTICE OR TO TAKE ITS CHANCE UPON
SOME OTHER DOUBTFUL REMEDY.  IN EITHER EVENT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
CONFRONTED WITH ITS PRIOR ACTION OF DEALING WITH THE UNION AND THE
POSSIBILITIES THIS WOULD PRESENT EITHER FOR APPLYING THE BROAD DOCTRINE
OF ESTOPPEL OR FOR OCCUPYING THE INCONSISTENT, NOT TO SAY INDEFENSIBLE,
POSITION OF HAVING RECOGNIZED THE UNION AND THEN HAVING DELIBERATELY
REPUDIATED THE RECOGNITION. 

I DO NOT THINK THE WAGNER ACT WAS INTENDED TO PUT THE EMPLOYER IN
SUCH A DILEMMA.  IT HAS BEEN SETTLED THAT HE TAKES THE RISK OF HIS
ERROR WHEN HE MISTAKENLY JUDGES THAT THE UNIT IS NOT APPROPRIATE OR FOR
OTHER REASON THAT THE DULY SELECTED OR CERTIFIED UNION IS NOT ENTITLED
TO RECOGNITION N12.  AS TO THAT, THE EMPLOYER'S CHOICE WAS HARD, MADE
SO BY THE VERY STATE OF THE LAW.  HAD THE LAW BEEN THAT CERTIFICATION
WAS NONE OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THAT THE COMPANY HAD NO RIGHT OF
REVIEW, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN ITS RIGHTS AND ITS LIABILITIES.  THAT WAS
NOT AND IS NOT THE LAW.  THE COMPANY WAS TOLD EXPRESSLY THAT IT HAD A
RIGHT OF REVIEW, BUT ONLY IN AN UNFAIR PRACTICE PROCEEDING.  FN13  IT
WAS THEREFORE PUT TO THE CHOICE, BY THE STATUTE'S TERMS, OF FOREGOING
REVIEW OR HAVING IT BY AN ACT OF UNFAIR PRACTICE.  HENCE THE FINDING OF
UNFAIR PRACTICE BY REFUSAL TO BARGAIN MUST BE SUSTAINED.  BUT, IN
TAKING THIS RISK, THE EMPLOYER DID NO MORE THAN IT WAS COMPELLED BY LAW
TO DO TO SAVE ITS RIGHTS UNDER THE WAGNER ACT AND TO AVOID BEING FOUND
GUILTY, BY VIRTUE OF SOME ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF CONDUCT RELATING TO THE
APPLICATION, OF FURTHER UNFAIR PRACTICES. 

I DO NOT AGREE, THEREFORE, THAT THIS NECESSITOUS ACTION AMOUNTED TO
AN ADDITIONAL UNFAIR PRACTICE, IN THE NATURE OF INTERFERENCE, COERCION
OR RESTRAINT OF EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS, WHETHER OR NOT THE FINDING THAT IT
WAS IS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN AN INDEPENDENT PROVISION FOR RELIEF. 

A WORD REMAINS TO BE SAID CONCERNING THE ANNOUNCEMENTS.  AS HAS BEEN
STATED, IF THE COMPANY HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE APPLICATION AS IT DID,
IT ALSO HAD THE RIGHT TO ANNOUNCE THAT FACT TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE
EMPLOYEES, SO LONG AS IN DOING THIS IT DID NOT DO SO WITH INTENT OR IN
A MANNER TO VIOLATE THE ACT.  I FIND NOTHING IN THE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO
JUSTIFY A FINDING THEY WERE MADE WITH THIS PURPOSE OR EFFECT, AND THERE
IS NO FINDING TO THE CONTRARY N14.  THEY WERE, IN MY JUDGMENT, NO MORE
THAN AN EXERCISE OF THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND A FREE
PRESS, SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. VIRGINIA
ELECTRIC & POWER CO., 314 U.S. 469; LABOR BOARD V. FORD MOTOR CO., 114
F.2D 905; LABOR BOARD V. AMERICAN TUBE BENDING CO., 134 F.2D 993;
COMPARE TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD, 281 U.S. 548, 568. 

IT FOLLOWS FROM MY VIEW OF THE CASE THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER SHOULD BE
MODIFIED BY STRIKING FROM IT PARAGRAPH 1(B) TOGETHER WITH THE WORDS
"AND (B)" FROM PARAGRAPH 2(B), AND AS SO MODIFIED ENFORCED. 
ACCORDINGLY, I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, ENFORCING
THE BOARD'S ORDER, SHOULD BE MODIFIED IN THESE RESPECTS AND, AS THUS
MODIFIED, AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE BOARD ADOPTED THE TRIAL EXAMINER'S INTERMEDIATE REPORT
WITHOUT CHANGE, THE EMPLOYER NOT HAVING APPLIED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.  53
N.L.R.B. 1366.  AFTER REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE UNDER THE SEPARATE
HEADINGS OF "A.  THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN" AND "B.  INTERFERENCE,
RESTRAINT AND COERCION," THE REPORT FOUND AS TO THE FORMER THAT "ON
JULY 19, 1943, AND AT ALL TIMES THEREAFTER" THE COMPANY HAD REFUSED TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION; AS TO THE LATTER "THAT, BY ITS
UNILATERAL ACTION IN SEEKING APPROVAL OF ITS PROPOSED WAGE
ADJUSTMENTS," AND BY LATER PUBLICIZING THIS ACTION, IT HAD "INTERFERED
WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES" IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SEC. 7.  THERE WERE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BASED ON THESE FINDINGS, TO WHICH THE SEPARATE
PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER RELATED. 

FN2  THE MODIFICATION DIRECTED BY THE COURT, IF IT IS MORE THAN A
CHANGE IN THE FORM OF WORDS USED IN PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE BOARD'S
ORDER, NECESSARILY CUTS DOWN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ORDER.  BUT SINCE THE
INJUNCTION WILL APPLY "TO OTHER INTERFERENCES, IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(1) OR OTHERWISE, WITH THE COUNCIL'S REPRESENTATION" OF EMPLOYEES IN
DEPARTMENTS 280 AND 281, AND SINCE VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) INCLUDES
INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED
BY SEC. 7, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IN JUST WHAT PARTICULARS THE
ORDER HAS BEEN MODIFIED.  IN THE ABSENCE OF MORE DEFINITE SPECIFICATION
WE MUST ACCEPT THE COURT'S MODIFICATION AS MEANING THAT SOME
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE FROM THE ORDER'S TERMS IS INTENDED. 

FN3  UNDER THE RULING THE BOARD IS NOT FREE TO UTILIZE SEC. 8(1) AS A
DEVICE FOR MULTIPLYING AN UNFAIR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(5), SO THAT THE
SINGLE ACT OF REFUSING TO BARGAIN MAY BE MADE TO JUSTIFY AN ORDER
FORBIDDING NOT ONLY THAT CONDUCT BUT ALSO THE NUMEROUS TYPES OF UNFAIR
PRACTICE PROHIBITED BY THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF SEC. 8(1).  THE GIST OF
THE DECISION WAS THAT THE BOARD CANNOT THUS PILE UNFAIR PRACTICE ON
UNFAIR PRACTICE, LIKE PRESUMPTION ON PRESUMPTION, FOR PURPOSES OF
ENFORCEABLE RELIEF, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ACT OF MERELY REFUSING TO
BARGAIN MAY BE HELD TECHNICALLY TO VIOLATE BOTH SECTIONS IN VIEW OF THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 7.  LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S.
426, 433. 

FN4  THIS COURT HAS, IN VARIOUS CONTEXTS, DECLARED THAT THE
PARTICULAR MEANS BY WHICH THE EFFECTS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ARE TO
BE EXPUNGED IS FOR THE BOARD AND NOT FOR THE COURTS TO DETERMINE. 
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 319 U.S. 533, 539; LABOR
BOARD V. LINK-BELT CO., 311 U.S. 584, 600; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 82.  SEE LABOR BOARD V.
BRADFORD DYEING ASSOCIATION, 310 U.S. 318, 342-343.  AND THE COURT HAS
SAID THAT "THE RELATION OF REMEDY TO POLICY IS PECULIARLY A MATTER FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCE" AND THAT "COURTS MUST NOT ENTER THE
ALLOWABLE AREA OF THE BOARD'S DISCRETION...."  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V.
LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194.  SEE ALSO REGAL KNITWEAR CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 324 U.S. 9, 13. 

FN5  THE WAGNER ACT, DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY
SECURING EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS, DOES SO BY APPROPRIATE REMEDIES WHICH ALSO
AFFORD PROTECTIONS FOR THE EMPLOYER.  SEE TEXT AT NOTE 13. 

FN6  MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 678. 

FN7  SEE MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 107 F.2D 555, 559;
LABOR BOARD V. WHITTIER MILLS CO., 111 F.2D 474, 478-479; LABOR BOARD
V. ELKLAND LEATHER CO., 114 F.2D 221, 224; LABOR BOARD V. CHICAGO
APPARATUS CO., 116 F.2D 753, 756-757; PETER J. SCHWEITZER, INC. V.
LABOR BOARD, 79 U.S. APP. D.C. 178, 144 F.2D 520, 522. 

FN8  THE GENERAL "FINDING" THAT THE COMPANY'S ACTION IN MAKING THE
APPLICATION AND PUBLICIZING IT "INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND
COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES," 53 N.L.R.B. AT 1371, RESTED ON NO MORE THAN THE
BOARD'S ASSERTION THAT "IT LOGICALLY FOLLOWS" THAT THESE ACTS "HAD THE
EFFECT" OF DEPRIVING THE UNION OF CREDIT AND "MAY  ...  BE SAID TO HAVE
UNDERMINED" IT.    FN9  THE BOARD'S BRIEF STATES THAT THE UNION
OBJECTED AND THE WAR LABOR BOARD ACCORDINGLY ELIMINATED THE BUSHELMEN
FROM THE APPLICATION, CITING IN RE MAY DEPT. STORES CO., N.W.L.B. CASE
NO. 7-6585(UNREPORTED). 

FN10  SEE NOTE 11. 

FN11  THE REGULATIONS REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICATION BE SIGNED "EITHER
(A) JOINTLY BY THE EMPLOYER AND A DULY RECOGNIZED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGENCY  ..., OR (B) BY THE EMPLOYER ALONE."  4 WAR LABOR REP. XXXI,
XXXIII-XXXIV, SEC. III, 3.  IT WAS FURTHER REQUIRED, IN EITHER CASE,
THAT THE APPLICATION STATE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS "A DULY RECOGNIZED
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENCY ...  WHICH HAS NOT JOINED WITH THE
EMPLOYER IN THE APPLICATION."  IF SO, PROVISION WAS MADE FOR THE WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION TO NOTIFY THE ORGANIZATION AND REQUEST IT TO INFORM
THE OFFICE OF OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO ACTION ON THE APPLICATION.  CF.
NOTE 9.  IF NONE WERE MADE, THE APPLICATION WOULD BE ACTED ON.  IF
MADE, THE MATTER WAS TO BE TREATED AS A DISPUTE AND REFERRED TO THE
CONCILIATION SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 

IT WAS APPARENTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REGULATION THAT THE
APPLICATION IN THIS CASE SET FORTH THE REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING THE
NONRECOGNITION OF THE UNION, THE DISPUTE, ETC.  THE REGULATIONS WERE
AMENDED LATER TO INCLUDE EITHER A RECOGNIZED OR A CERTIFIED UNION.  9
WAR LABOR REP. XXXIII; 8 FED. REG. 16678. 

FN12  SEE, E.G., LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111;
FRANKS BROS. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 702; MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP.
V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 678; J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S.
332; PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 146; LABOR
BOARD V. BRADFORD DYEING ASSN., 310 U.S. 318; NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350; CF. H.J. HEINZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S.
514, 523(EMPLOYER BARGAINED BUT REFUSED TO SIGN WRITTEN CONTRACT). 

FN13  THE ATTENUATED CHARACTER OF THE RIGHT MAKES ALL THE MORE
ESSENTIAL THAT IT NOT BE WHITTLED AWAY OR NULLIFIED BY RULINGS WHICH
MAKE ITS EXERCISE MORE PRECARIOUS THAN IT IS BY THE VERY CONDITIONS OF
ITS EXISTENCE. 

FN14  THE MERE FACT THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENTS OMITTED SPECIFIC REFERENCE
TO DEPARTMENTS 280 AND 281 DOES NOT SUPPLY THIS ELEMENT.  SUCH A
REFERENCE, IF MADE, MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED, BY ITS SINGLING OUT OF
THIS UNIT FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT AND THEREBY FOR INVIDIOUS IMPLICATION,
AS FURNISHING THE VERY EVIDENCE OF WRONGFUL SPECIFIC INTENT AND EFFECT
WHICH THE BOARD HAS FAILED TO FIND. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




















MARKHAM V. CABELL, 326 U.S. 404 


NO. 76.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1945.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 10, 1945.  - 148
F.2D 737, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT ALLOWS "ANY PERSON
NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY  ...  TO WHOM ANY DEBT MAY BE OWING FROM
AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY WHOSE PROPERTY OR ANY PART THEREOF SHALL HAVE
BEEN CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, DELIVERED, OR PAID TO THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN" TO SUE THE CUSTODIAN OR THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  SECTION 9(E) PROVIDES THAT NO DEBT SHALL
BE ALLOWED UNDER SEC. 9 "UNLESS IT WAS OWING TO AND OWNED BY THE
CLAIMANT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 6, 1917" NOR "UNLESS NOTICE OF THE CLAIM HAS
BEEN FILED, OR APPLICATION THEREFOR HAS BEEN MADE, PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE ENACTMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928."  HELD: 

(A)  THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE AGAIN
AUTOMATICALLY AT THE OUTBREAK OF WORLD WAR II.  P. 407. 

THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO OPERATE NOT ONLY IN WORLD WAR I BUT ALSO,
UNLESS REPEALED OR SUPERSEDED, IN ANY FUTURE WAR.  P. 409. 

(B)  THE RIGHT TO SUE ON A DEBT, GRANTED BY SEC. 9(A), HAS NOT BEEN
WHOLLY WITHDRAWN.  P. 412. 

(C)  THE TIME LIMITATIONS IN SEC. 9(E) RELATE TO CLAIMS AGAINST
PROPERTY SEIZED DURING WORLD WAR I.  P. 412. 

(D)  ALLOWANCE OF SUIT ON A DEBT AS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 9(A) IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE POWER GRANTED THE EXECUTIVE BY THE 1941 AMENDMENT
OF SEC. 5(B) TO VEST THE PROPERTY OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR NATIONAL
THEREOF AND TO MAKE OF SEIZED PROPERTY ANY USE WHICH THE NATIONAL
INTEREST IN WARTIME MIGHT REQUIRE.  P. 412. 

2.  RESORT TO THE POLICY OF A LAW MAY BE HAD TO AMELIORATE ITS
SEEMING HARSHNESS OR TO QUALIFY ITS APPARENT ABSOLUTES.  HOLY TRINITY
CHURCH V. UNITED STATES, 143 U.S. 457.  P. 409. 

3.  A LESS LITERAL READING WHICH EFFECTUATES A STATUTE IS PREFERRED
TO A STRICT READING WHICH WOULD RENDER IT INEFFECTUAL.  P. 409. 

4.  WHERE CONGRESS AMENDS ONLY ONE SECTION OF A LAW, LEAVING ANOTHER
UNTOUCHED, THE NORMAL ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE TWO WERE DESIGNED TO
FUNCTION AS AN INTEGRATED WHOLE.  P. 411. 

MARKHAM, ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, ET AL. V. CABELL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 847, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AND THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER
FROM THE ASSETS OF THE ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI DI TRIESTE E VENEZIA, AN
ITALIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, THE UNPAID PORTION OF A CLAIM FOR LEGAL
SERVICES RENDERED THAT COMPANY.  THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY HAD VESTED
IN THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN IN 1942  FN1 AND THE VESTED ASSETS HAD
BEEN DELIVERED TO HIM.  THE SUIT WAS SOUGHT TO BE MAINTAINED UNDER SEC.
9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (40 STAT. 411, AS AMENDED 41
STAT. 977, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 9(A)) WHICH ALLOWS "ANY PERSON NOT AN
ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY  ...  TO WHOM ANY DEBT MAY BE OWING FROM AN
ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY WHOSE PROPERTY OR ANY PART THEREOF SHALL HAVE
BEEN CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, DELIVERED, OR PAID TO THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN" TO SUE THE CUSTODIAN OR THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  PETITIONERS MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE CLAIM DID NOT QUALIFY UNDER SEC. 9(E) OF THE ACT.  SEC.
9(E), WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE ACT IN 1920(41 STAT. 980) AND AMENDED IN
1928(45 STAT. 271), PROVIDES THAT NO DEBT SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER SEC. 9
"UNLESS IT WAS OWING TO AND OWNED BY THE CLAIMANT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 6,
1917" NOR "UNLESS NOTICE OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED, OR APPLICATION
THEREFOR HAS BEEN MADE, PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE
SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928."  IN VIEW OF THOSE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 9(E) THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  148 F.2D 737.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

IF SEC. 9(E) IS APPLICABLE HERE, THE SUIT MAY NOT BE MAINTAINED SINCE
THE DEBT WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON OCTOBER 6, 1917, NOR HAD NOTICE OF THE
CLAIM BEEN FILED OR APPLICATION THEREFOR BEEN MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE ENACTMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928.  WE WOULD
HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT CASE IF SEC. 9(A) AND (E) HAD BEEN ENACTED AFTER
THE OUTBREAK OF THE RECENT WAR.  FOR WE MAY ASSUME THAT CONGRESS COULD
SET UP SUCH BARRIERS AS IT CHOSE TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAIMS OF AN
ALIEN'S CREDITORS AGAINST THE SEIZED PROPERTY.  BUT THE DOUBT AS TO THE
APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 9(E) TO THE PRESENT SITUATION ARISES BECAUSE THAT
PROVISION WAS PART OF THE LEGISLATION ENACTED AFTER THE OUTBREAK OF
WORLD WAR I TO DEAL WITH THE CLAIMS AGAINST PROPERTY SEIZED DURING THAT
PERIOD.  THAT LEGISLATION WAS NOT REENACTED WHEN THE RECENT WAR BROKE
OUT.  IT AUTOMATICALLY WENT INTO EFFECT AGAIN AT THAT TIME.  FN2  HENCE
THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9(E) ARE LIMITED TO CLAIMS
AGAINST PROPERTY SEIZED DURING WORLD WAR I. OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THEY
ARE SO LIMITED. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, SEC. 9(E) DISALLOWS RECOVERY "TO ANY PERSON WHO
IS A CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF ANY NATION WHICH WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
UNITED STATES IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR, UNLESS SUCH NATION IN LIKE
CASE EXTENDS RECIPROCAL RIGHTS TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES."  WHEN
IT IS RECALLED THAT SEC. 9(E) WAS FIRST ADDED TO THE ACT IN 1920, IT
SEEMS TOLERABLY CLEAR THAT THE WORDS "WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNITED
STATES IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR" REFER TO WORLD WAR I. THE USE NOT
ONLY OF THE PAST TENSE BUT ALSO OF THE CONCEPT OF "ASSOCIATE" IS
SIGNIFICANT.  AS JUDGE LEARNED HAND SPEAKING FOR THE COURT BELOW SAID,
THE WORD "ASSOCIATE" WAS USED DURING WORLD WAR I "IN SEDULOUS AVOIDANCE
OF ANY IMPLICATION" THAT WE HAD "ALLIES."  IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE
TIME LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 9(E) POINT THE SAME WAY.  AS THE
UNITED STATES SAYS, SOME SECTIONS OF THE ACT WERE EXPLICITLY RESTRICTED
TO SITUATIONS GROWING OUT OF WORLD WAR I, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, SEC. 3(D). 
BUT IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9(E) WITH WHICH WE ARE
NOW CONCERNED CARRY ALMOST AS PLAIN A HALLMARK.  FOR THE RESTRICTION OF
SUITS TO DEBTS WHICH WERE OWING TO AND OWNED BY THE CLAIMANT PRIOR TO
OCTOBER 6, 1917 AND AS RESPECTS WHICH A NOTICE OF CLAIM HAD BEEN FILED
PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT
OF 1928 STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS WAS DEALING EXCLUSIVELY WITH
WORLD WAR I CLAIMS, NOT WITH CLAIMS WHICH MIGHT ARISE IN SOME FUTURE
WAR.  AS OF 1920 AND 1928 THE TIME LIMITATIONS WRITTEN INTO SEC. 9(E)
HAD NO OTHER RELEVANCY.  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS,  FN3  ACCOMPANYING THE
LEGISLATION BY WHICH SEC. 9(E) WAS ADDED TO THE LAW, WHILE NOT EXPLICIT
ON THE PRECISE POINT, SHOW THAT CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE
HANDLING OF CLAIMS WHICH THEN EXISTED.  THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST
SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESS WAS DRAFTING A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS LIKEWISE
APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS WHICH MIGHT BE ASSERTED IN CASE THE UNITED STATES
AT SOME FUTURE TIME AGAIN WENT TO WAR.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS INDICATE
TO US THAT IT WOULD BE A DISTORTION TO READ SEC. 9(E) AS IF CONGRESS IN
DECEMBER 1941 DECIDED THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO
WORLD WAR I CLAIMS SHOULD LIKEWISE BE APPLICABLE TO WORLD WAR II
CLAIMS.  IF WE GAVE SEC. 9(E) THAT BROAD INTERPRETATION, WE WOULD, IN
THE THIRD PLACE, DEPRIVE SEC. 9(A) OF ALL MEANING SO FAR AS WORLD WAR
II CLAIMS WERE CONCERNED.  THAT WE HESITATE TO DO, FOR THE ACT WAS NOT
ONLY DESIGNED TO OPERATE IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR; IT WAS ALSO TO BECOME
EFFECTIVE AT THE TIME OF ANY FUTURE WAR UNLESS REPEALED OR SUPERSEDED. 
YET THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY SEC. 9(A) WOULD BE QUITE ILLUSORY AND
INEFFECTIVE SO FAR AS IT APPLIES TO WORLD WAR II CLAIMS IF SEC. 9(E)
WERE READ LITERALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS HISTORY.  IT WAS FOR THIS
REASON PARTICULARLY THAT THE COURT BELOW REFUSED "TO MAKE A FORTRESS
OUT OF THE DICTIONARY" AND TO READ SEC. 9(E) STRICTLY AND LITERALLY. 
THE POLICY AS WELL AS THE LETTER OF THE LAW IS A GUIDE TO DECISION. 
RESORT TO THE POLICY OF A LAW MAY BE HAD TO AMELIORATE ITS SEEMING
HARSHNESS OR TO QUALIFY ITS APPARENT ABSOLUTES AS HOLY TRINITY CHURCH
V. UNITED STATES, 143 U.S. 457 ILLUSTRATES.  THE PROCESS OF
INTERPRETATION ALSO MISSES ITS HIGH FUNCTION IF A STRICT READING OF A
LAW RESULTS IN THE EMASCULATION OR DELETION OF A PROVISION WHICH A LESS
LITERAL READING WOULD PRESERVE. 

THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF SEC.
9(E) WOULD GRAVELY INTERFERE WITH THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF ALIEN
PROPERTY CONTROLS IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICIES ADOPTED BY CONGRESS IN
RELATION TO WORLD WAR II.  IT POINTS OUT THAT BY VIRTUE OF AMENDMENTS
TO SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT WHICH WERE MADE ON
DECEMBER 18, 1941 BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT (55 STAT. 839, 50 U.S.C.
APP., SUPP. IV, SEC. 616), THE EXECUTIVE IS NOW ARMED WITH FAR MORE
COMPREHENSIVE POWER OVER ALIEN PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OF OTHER
FOREIGN INTERESTS THAN IN WORLD WAR I. NOW THERE IS THE "FREEZING" OR
"BLOCKING" OF FOREIGN FUNDS AIMED AT THE IMMOBILIZATION OF FOREIGN
ASSETS IN THE UNITED STATES BY PROHIBITING, WITHOUT A LICENSE, ANY
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THEM - A PROGRAM INITIATED AFTER THE INVASION BY
GERMANY OF DENMARK AND NORWAY AND ADMINISTERED BY THE TREASURY.  FN4
IF THE TREASURY REFUSES A LICENSE PERMITTING PAYMENT OF CREDITORS OUT
OF BLOCKED FUNDS, NEITHER THE CREDITOR NOR THE OWNER HAS ANY REMEDY AS
A MATTER OF RIGHT UNDER THE ACT.  IT IS SAID THAT TO ALLOW CREDITORS OF
CERTAIN ALIENS WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VESTED IN THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN TO MAINTAIN SUITS BUT TO DISALLOW SUITS BY CREDITORS OF
ALIENS WHOSE FUNDS ARE MERELY FROZEN IS TO DESTROY CONSISTENCY IN THE
POSITION OF CREDITORS UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  MOREOVER,
SEC. 9(A) PERMITS SUITS ON DEBT CLAIMS ONLY IF THE DEBT IS ONE "OWING
FROM AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY" WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TAKEN.  BY THE
1941 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5(B) THE VESTING POWER HAS NOT BEEN SO LIMITED
BUT EXTENDS TO "ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY OR
NATIONAL."  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT TO CONSTRUE SEC. 9(E) SO AS TO PERMIT
CREDITORS OF AN ENEMY TO SUE IS TO DISCRIMINATE WITHOUT WARRANT AGAINST
CREDITORS OF NON-ENEMY FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO ARE GIVEN NO SUCH REMEDY. 
MOREOVER, IT IS SAID THAT IF SEC. 9(E) IS NOT A BARRIER TO SUITS, A
RACE OF DILIGENCE WOULD BE STARTED WITH NO GUARANTEE OF ANY EQUITABLY
ORDERED PRIORITY IN THE PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMS OUT OF THE SEIZED
PROPERTY.  IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT IF THESE SUITS ARE ALLOWED THE
OPERATIONS OF THE CUSTODIAN WOULD BE BURDENED WITH LITIGATION. 

WE HAVE CONCLUDED THAT HOWEVER MERITORIOUS THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE,
THEY RAISE QUESTIONS OF POLICY FOR CONGRESS.  WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY
WITH THE RIGHT TO SUE ON A DEBT UNDER SEC. 9.  CONGRESS GRANTED THAT
RIGHT TO SOME CLAIMANTS AND WITHHELD IT FROM OTHERS.  WHETHER ITS
CHOICE WAS WISE OR NOT IS NOT FOR US TO SAY.  THE RIGHT TO SUE,
EXPLICITLY GRANTED BY SEC. 9(A), SHOULD NOT BE READ OUT OF THE LAW
UNLESS IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS BY WHAT IT LATER DID WITHDREW ITS
EARLIER PERMISSION.  WE CAN FIND NO INDICATION IN THE 1941 LEGISLATION
THAT CONGRESS BY AMENDING SEC. 5(B) DESIRED TO DELETE OR WHOLLY NULLIFY
SEC. 9(A).  ON THE CONTRARY, THE NORMAL ASSUMPTION IS THAT WHERE
CONGRESS AMENDS ONLY ONE SECTION OF A LAW, LEAVING ANOTHER UNTOUCHED,
THE TWO WERE DESIGNED TO FUNCTION AS PARTS OF AN INTEGRATED WHOLE.  WE
SHOULD GIVE EACH AS FULL A PLAY AS POSSIBLE.  MOREOVER, WE ARE ABLE TO
FIND IN THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5(B) NO SUGGESTION OR INDICATION THAT
CONGRESS WAS WRITING A DIFFERENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAN WAS THEN
CONTAINED IN SEC. 9(E).  THE 1941 AMENDMENT IS AS SILENT ON THAT SCORE
AS IT IS ON THE RIGHT TO SUE AFFORDED BY SEC. 9(A). 

IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 5(B) GAVE A BROADER GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO THE
EXECUTIVE THAN HAD EXISTED UNDER THE ORIGINAL ACT.  FN5  AS RESPECTS
THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY IT PROVIDES:  "ANY PROPERTY OR INTEREST OF ANY
FOREIGN COUNTRY OR NATIONAL THEREOF SHALL VEST, WHEN, AS, AND UPON THE
TERMS, DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT, IN SUCH AGENCY OR PERSON AS MAY BE
DESIGNATED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE PRESIDENT, AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE SUCH INTEREST OR PROPERTY
SHALL BE HELD, USED, ADMINISTERED, LIQUIDATED, SOLD, OR OTHERWISE DEALT
WITH IN THE INTEREST OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
SUCH DESIGNATED AGENCY OR PERSON MAY PERFORM ANY AND ALL ACTS INCIDENT
TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OR FURTHERANCE OF THESE PURPOSES." 

IT IS SAID THAT THE SURVIVAL OF THE PRIVILEGE OF SATISFYING DEBT
CLAIMS AS A MATTER OF RIGHT OUT OF VESTED PROPERTY IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE NEW POWER GRANTED THE EXECUTIVE BY SEC. 5(B) TO MAKE ANY
AFFIRMATIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN TIME OF
WAR MIGHT REQUIRE.  BUT WE ARE HERE CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE RIGHT TO
SUE ON A DEBT, NOT WITH THE RIGHT TO SUE TO RECLAIM PROPERTY NOR WITH
ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE SATISFACTION OF ANY JUDGMENT WHICH MAY BE
OBTAINED.  WE ONLY HOLD THAT THE RIGHT TO SUE ON A DEBT GRANTED BY SEC.
9(A) HAS NOT BEEN WHOLLY WITHDRAWN AND THAT SEC. 9(E) IS NOT APPLICABLE
TO THIS CLASS OF CLAIMS.  WE CANNOT SEE THAT THE ALLOWANCE OF A SUIT ON
A DEBT AS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 9(A) COLLIDES WITH THE POLICY OF SEC.
5(B).  THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CAUSE INTERFERENCE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE VESTED PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(B).  SEC.
9(A), TO BE SURE, CONTAINS A PROVISION WHICH PRESCRIBES HOW ANY
JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN THE SUIT AGAINST THE CUSTODIAN OR TREASURER SHALL
BE SATISFIED; FN6  AND ALSO ALLOWS SUITS TO RECLAIM PROPERTY.  FN7
WHETHER THOSE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED BY SEC. 5(B) OR WHETHER
SEC. 5(B) CONTAINS A GRANT OF AUTHORITY WHICH MAY BE SO EXERCISED AS TO
PREVENT THE RECLAMATION OF PROPERTY OR THE PAYMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OR
TO ALTER THE PROCEDURE FOR RECLAMATION OR PAYMENT AS PRESCRIBED IN SEC.
9(A) ARE DISTINCT QUESTIONS.  HERE WE ARE DEALING SOLELY WITH THE RIGHT
TO MAINTAIN A SUIT ON A DEBT, A RIGHT WHICH IS NOT SHOWN TO COLLIDE
WITH SEC. 5(B).  WE RESERVE DECISION ON THE OTHER QUESTIONS. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE VESTING ORDER 218, DATED OCTOBER 7, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 9466;
VESTING ORDER 468, DATED DECEMBER 9, 1942, 8 FED. REG. 1038.  FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE OFFICE OF ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AND THE
DEFINITION OF HIS FUNCTIONS AS RESPECTS THE VESTING OF ALIEN PROPERTY,
SEE EXECUTIVE ORDER 9193, DATED JULY 6, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 5205,
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 9095, DATED MARCH 11, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 1971. 

FN2  AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT, THAT FOLLOWED FROM
SEVERAL CIRCUMSTANCES:  (A) SEC. 2(C) DEFINED "THE BEGINNING OF THE
WAR" TO MEAN "MIDNIGHT ENDING THE DAY ON WHICH CONGRESS HAS DECLARED OR
SHALL DECLARE WAR OR THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF WAR"; (B) SEC. 302 OF
THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, APPROVED DECEMBER 18, 1941(55 STAT. 838, 840)
ASSUMED THAT THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT HAD NOT BEEN IN FORCE
BEFORE DECEMBER 8, 1941, AND THAT IT WENT INTO EFFECT AGAIN AT THAT
TIME; AND (C) SEC. 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT WAS AMENDED
DECEMBER 18, 1941, BY THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT WITHOUT ANY MENTION OF
THE OTHER PARTS OF THE EARLIER ACT.  55 STAT. 839.    FN3  SEE H. REP.
NO. 1089, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 273, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 29; H. REP. NO. 17, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 20.  IN S. REP. NO.
273, SUPRA, IT WAS STATED:  "UNDER THE EXISTING LAW A CREDITOR OF A
PERSON WHOSE PROPERTY WAS SEIZED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN MAY
FILE A CLAIM AND INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE DEBT,
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  INASMUCH AS THESE CLAIMANTS HAVE HAD MORE
THAN 10 YEARS IN WHICH TO FILE THEIR CLAIMS, THIS PROVISION IS AMENDED
BY SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 12 OF THE PROPOSED BILL SO AS TO PERMIT
PAYMENT ONLY WHERE THE CLAIM WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE
ENACTMENT OF THE BILL." 

FN4  THIS PROGRAM, INITIATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 8389, DATED APRIL 10,
1940, 5 FED. REG. 1400, WAS RATIFIED BY CONGRESS ON MAY 7, 1940, BY
JOINT RESOLUTION.  54 STAT. 179. 

FN5  AS STATED IN H. REP. NO. 1507, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 2-3: 

"SECTION 5(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT HAS BEEN CONTINUED
DOWN TO THE PRESENT TIME.  THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF FOREIGN PROPERTY
CONTROL (COMMONLY KNOWN AS FREEZING CONTROL) IS BASED ON THAT
SUBDIVISION AS LAST AMENDED ON MAY 7, 1940.  THAT SUBDIVISION OF
POWERS TO TAKE, ADMINISTER, CONTROL, USE, LIQUIDATE, ETC., SUCH
FOREIGNOWNED PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE GIVEN BY SECTION 301 OF THE BILL. 

"AT PRESENT THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SUPERVISION OVER TRANSACTIONS IN
FOREIGN PROPERTY, EITHER BY PROHIBITING SUCH TRANSACTIONS OR BY
PERMITTING THEM ON CONDITION AND UNDER LICENSE.  IT IS, THEREFORE, A
SYSTEM WHICH CAN PREVENT TRANSACTIONS IN FOREIGN PROPERTY PREJUDICIAL
TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT IT IS NOT A SYSTEM
WHICH CAN AFFIRMATIVELY COMPEL THE USE AND APPLICATION OF FOREIGN
PROPERTY IN THOSE INTERESTS. 

"SECTION 301 REMEDIES THAT SITUATION BY ADDING TO THE EXISTING
FREEZING CONTROL, IN SUBSTANCE, THE POWERS CONTAINED IN THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT WITH RESPECT TO ALIEN PROPERTY, EXTENDING THOSE
POWERS, AND ADDING A FLEXIBILITY OF CONTROL WHICH EXPERIENCE UNDER THE
ORIGINAL ACT AND THE RECENT EXPERIENCE UNDER FREEZING CONTROL HAVE
DEMONSTRATED TO BE ADVISABLE.  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 301 WOULD
PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF ALIEN PROPERTY
TREATMENT.  IT VESTS FLEXIBLE POWERS IN THE PRESIDENT, OPERATING
THROUGH SUCH AGENCY OR AGENCIES AS HE MIGHT CHOOSE, TO DEAL WITH THE
PROBLEMS THAT SURROUND ALIEN PROPERTY OR ITS OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL IN
THE MANNER DEEMED MOST EFFECTIVE IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE.  IN THIS
RESPECT THE BILL AVOIDS THE RIGIDITY AND INFLEXIBILITY WHICH
CHARACTERIZED THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN LAW ENACTED DURING THE LAST
WAR.  THE NECESSITY FOR FLEXIBILITY IN LEGISLATION ON THIS SUBJECT IS
ACCENTUATED BY THE VASTNESS OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY PROBLEM CONFRONTING
THE GOVERNMENT TODAY.  AT THE PEAK OF HIS ACTIVITY, THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN OF THE LAST WAR ADMINISTERED PROPERTY VALUED AT SOMETHING
OVER $500,000,000.  TODAY THERE IS OVER $7,000,000,000 WORTH OF
PROPERTY ALREADY SUBJECT TO THE EXISTING CONTROL." 

AND SEE S. REP. NO. 911, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

FN6  "IF SUIT SHALL BE SO INSTITUTED, THEN SUCH MONEY OR PROPERTY
SHALL BE RETAINED IN THE CUSTODY OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, OR IN
THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, AND UNTIL
ANY FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE WHICH SHALL BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE
CLAIMANT SHALL BE FULLY SATISFIED BY PAYMENT OR CONVEYANCE, TRANSFER,
ASSIGNMENT, OR DELIVERY BY THE DEFENDANT, OR BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN, OR TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES ON ORDER OF THE COURT, OR
UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE SHALL BE ENTERED AGAINST THE CLAIMANT OR
SUIT OTHERWISE TERMINATED." 

FN7  SEC. 9(A) ALLOWS SUITS BY "ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF
ENEMY CLAIMING ANY INTEREST, RIGHT, OR TITLE IN ANY MONEY OR OTHER
PROPERTY WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED,
DELIVERED, OR PAID TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR SEIZED BY HIM
HEREUNDER AND HELD BY HIM OR BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES," AS
WELL AS SUITS BY ANY SUCH PERSON TO WHOM A DEBT MAY BE OWING FROM ANY
ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SEIZED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, CONCURRING. 

A REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT FROM
ITS INCEPTION IN 1917, EARLY IN WORLD WAR I, FURTHER DISCLOSES ITS DUAL
PURPOSES IN A WAY THAT THROWS NEEDED LIGHT UPON ITS MEANING AT THE TIME
OF THIS PROCEEDING IN 1944, LATE IN WORLD WAR II. 

IT ORIGINATED AS H.R. 4960, JUNE 11, 1917, DRAFTED IN THE FORM OF
PERMANENT LEGISLATION.  ITS PURPOSES WERE EXPLAINED BY HOUSE AND SENATE
COMMITTEES IN TERMS SUITED TO PERMANENT LEGISLATION.  FN1  BEFORE ITS
PASSAGE, SEVERAL AMENDMENTS WERE INSERTED WHICH LIMITED SPECIFIC
LIMITED SEC. 9 OR THE ACT AS A WHOLE.  OTHER SECTIONS WERE LIMITED BY
REFERENCES MADE TO SPECIFIC NATIONS AND STILL OTHERS BY REFERENCES TO
SPECIFIC DATES.  LATER AMENDMENTS ADDED OTHER PROVISIONS CONFINED TO
WORLD WAR I. HOWEVER, NO GENERAL LIMITATION EVER HAS CONFINED THE ACT
AS A WHOLE OR ITS MAIN STRUCTURAL PROVISIONS TO A SPECIFIC WAR,
SPECIFIC NATIONS OR SPECIFIC DATES.  IN THIS WAY THE ACT HAS MET THE
IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF ITS TIME AND ALSO HAS STOOD READY TO MEET ADDITIONAL
WARS AND ADDITIONAL ENEMIES.  THE BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR II IN 1941
ACCORDINGLY FOUND MANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, SUCH AS SEC. 9(E),
LIMITED BY REFERENCES TO WORLD WAR I, AND OTHERS, SUCH AS SEC. 9(A),
NOT SO LIMITED. 

BY ITS TERMS, ITS NATURE AND ITS HISTORY, SEC. 9(E)  FN3  FROM ITS
INCEPTION HAS RELATED SOLELY TO WORLD WAR I. ITS RELATION TO WORLD WAR
I IS APPARENT ON ITS FACE.  ITS FIRST CLAUSE REFERS TO A RESTRICTION ON
THE ALLOWANCE OF A DEBT "TO ANY PERSON WHO IS A CITIZEN OR A SUBJECT OF
ANY NATION WHICH WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNITED STATES IN THE
PROSECUTION OF THE WAR."  THESE WORDS, ENACTED IN 1920(41 STAT. 977,
980) AND REENACTED IN 1923(42 STAT. 1511, 1514), REFER TO ANY NATION
"ASSOCIATED" WITH US IN WORLD WAR I. "ASSOCIATED" WAS THEN A WORD OF
ART. ITS SECOND CLAUSE READS, "NOR IN ANY EVENT SHALL A DEBT BE ALLOWED
UNDER THIS SECTION UNLESS IT WAS OWING TO AND OWNED BY THE CLAIMANT
PRIOR TO OCTOBER 6, 1917."  THIS REFERS TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ORIGINAL TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  THIS DATE PROVIDES A REASONABLE
TEST FOR DEBTS TO BE ALLOWED AGAINST PROPERTY SEIZED BY THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN IN CONNECTION WITH WORLD WAR I. IT HAS NO REASONABLE
RELATION TO A WAR BEGINNING IN 1941.  TO REQUIRE CLAIMS TO BE MORE THAN
24 YEARS OLD IN ORDER TO BE ACCEPTABLE IS BEYOND REASON.  THE LAST
CLAUSE READS, "NOR SHALL A DEBT BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS SECTION UNLESS
NOTICE OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED, OR APPLICATION THEREFOR HAS BEEN
MADE, PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR
CLAIMS ACT OF 1928."  THIS CLAUSE MEANS NOTHING WHEN APPLIED TO A CLAIM
LIKE THE PRESENT ONE WHICH WAS NOT EARNED UNTIL 1935. 

CLAIMS TO BE ALLOWED AGAINST ENEMY PROPERTY SEIZED IN WORLD WAR I. AS
SUCH IT IS REASONABLE.  IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS
INTENTIONALLY CHOSE THIS INDIRECT WAY OF SAYING THAT AMERICAN CREDITORS
MAY ASSERT JUST CLAIMS AGAINST ASSETS OF DEBTORS WHOSE PROPERTIES WERE
SEIZED IN WORLD WAR I, BUT NOT AGAINST ASSETS OF DEBTORS WHOSE
PROPERTIES MIGHT BE HELD IN CUSTODY BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AS
A RESULT OF FUTURE WARS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY EMPHASIZES THIS.  THE ORIGINAL TRADING WITH
THE ENEMY ACT, WHEN ENACTED, OCTOBER 6, 1917(40 STAT. 411), CONTAINED
TWO KINDS OF PROVISIONS.  THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF THE ACT WAS IN TERMS
OF PERMANENT LEGISLATION.  SECTION 2 IN DEFINING TERMS REFRAINED FROM
REFERENCE TO THE WAR THEN IN PROGRESS OR TO SPECIFIC NATIONS OR FIXED
DATES.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT PROVIDED THAT: 

"THE WORDS 'THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR,' AS USED HEREIN, SHALL BE
DEEMED TO MEAN MIDNIGHT ENDING THE DAY ON WHICH CONGRESS HAS DECLARED
OR SHALL DECLARE WAR OR THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF WAR. 

"THE WORDS 'END OF THE WAR,' AS USED HEREIN, SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN
THE DATE OF PROCLAMATION OF EXCHANGE OF RATIFICATIONS OF THE TREATY OF
PEACE, UNLESS THE PRESIDENT SHALL, BY PROCLAMATION, DECLARE A PRIOR
DATE, IN WHICH CASE THE DATE SO PROCLAIMED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE
'END OF THE WAR' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS ACT."  (50 U.S.C. APP.,
SEC. 2(C).) 

FOR TRADING UNDER PRESIDENTIAL LICENSE IN TIME OF WAR.  SECTION 5(B)
DEALT WITH THE REGULATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE, COIN EXPORT, TRANSFERS
OF CREDIT, ETC. SECTION 6 AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO APPOINT AN
OFFICIAL TO BE KNOWN AS THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  SECTION 9
PROVIDED FOR THE ASSERTION OF PROPERTY CLAIMS AND DEBT CLAIMS ON BEHALF
OF ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY AGAINST CERTAIN ASSETS IN
THE POSSESSION OF THE CUSTODIAN. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, CERTAIN OTHER PROVISIONS WERE, FROM THE BEGINNING,
EARMARKED AS TEMPORARY PROVISIONS.  FOR EXAMPLE, SEC. 3(D) REFERRED TO
CERTAIN CENSORSHIP TO BE ESTABLISHED "DURING THE PRESENT WAR."  SECTION
4(A) REFERRED TO CERTAIN GERMAN INSURANCE COMPANIES.  SECTION 4(B)
REFERRED TO "THE PRESENT WAR."  SIMILAR REFERENCES TO "THE PRESENT WAR"
OCCURRED IN SECS. 11, 13 AND 14. 

PERMANENT NATURE.  IT HAS BEEN AMENDED NINE TIMES.  ITS FIRST PARAGRAPH
HAS BEEN PRESERVED, WITH SLIGHT CHANGES, AS SEC. 9(A) IN THE FORM OF
PERMANENT LEGISLATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, MANY NEW SUBSECTIONS OF SEC.
9, INCLUDING SEC. 9(E), CONTAIN PROVISIONS SUITED ONLY TO TRANSACTIONS
GROWING OUT OF WORLD WAR I. THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO SEC. 9 WAS THAT OF
JULY 11, 1919(41 STAT. 35).  THIS THREATENED TO CONFUSE THE SITUATION. 
IT INSERTED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH A PROVISO REFERRING TO (41 STAT. 36)
"ALL PROPERTY HERETOFORE DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE BEEN HELD
...  FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PERSON WHO WAS AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY" AND
TO "TERRITORY OF ANY NATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNITED STATES IN THE
PROSECUTION OF THE WAR WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY THE MILITARY OR NAVAL
FORCES OF GERMANY OR AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, OR THEIR ALLIES."  ON JUNE 5,
1920, HOWEVER, THE SECOND AMENDMENT (41 STAT. 977) CORRECTED THIS AND
SET THE PATTERN WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FOLLOWED.  IT REENACTED THE WHOLE
OF SEC. 9 AND, IN DOING SO, REMOVED FROM ITS FIRST PARAGRAPH THE 1919
PROVISO.  IT RESTORED THAT PARAGRAPH TO GENERAL TERMS AND GAVE IT THE
DESIGNATION OF SEC. 9(A) WHICH IT HAS RETAINED.  CONGRESS, AT THE SAME
TIME, ADDED SEVERAL SUBSECTIONS MOST OF WHICH CONTAINED EXPRESS
REFERENCES TO GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.  SECTION 9(E) FIRST APPEARED
AT THAT TIME.  FROM THE BEGINNING, SEC. 9(E) CONTAINED ITS PRESENT
REFERENCES TO "ANY NATION WHICH WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNITED STATES
IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR" AND TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEBT IN
ORDER TO BE ALLOWED UNDER THE SECTION MUST HAVE BEEN "OWING TO AND
OWNED BY THE CLAIMANT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 6, 1917."  LATER AMENDMENTS
EMPHASIZED THIS RESTRICTION OF SEC. 9(E) TO WORLD WAR I, WHILE
PRESERVING THE GENERAL AND PERMANENT CHARACTER OF SEC. 9(A).  FN4
DISTORTION OF THE MEANING OF STATUTORY LANGUAGE WOULD RESULT NOT FROM
LIMITING SEC. 9(E) TO WORLD WAR I BUT FROM APPLYING IT TO WORLD WAR
II. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT TO EXCLUDE THE DEFENSE WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE
SUPPLIED BY SEC. 9(E) AGAINST DEBTS PAYABLE OUT OF PROPERTY VESTED IN
THE CUSTODIAN DURING WORLD WAR II, UNDER SEC. 5(B), AS AMENDED BY THE
FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, DECEMBER 18, 1941(55 STAT. 839), WILL RESULT IN
INEQUITIES.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS URGED THAT SEC. 5(B) WAS AMENDED IN
1941 TO PERMIT VESTING IN THE CUSTODIAN OF PROPERTY OF "ANY FOREIGN
COUNTRY OR NATIONAL THEREOF."  HOWEVER, SEC. 9(A) HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED
CORRESPONDINGLY TO PERMIT THE ASSERTION OF CLAIMS TO THE PAYMENT OF
DEBTS OUT OF THE PROPERTY OF A FOREIGN NATIONAL AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
THAT OF AN "ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY."  FROM THIS IT IS ARGUED THAT
CONGRESS SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING INTENDED TO CREATE SUCH
INEQUITIES, IF THERE BE SUCH, BETWEEN CREDITORS OF "ENEMIES" AND THOSE
OF OTHER "FOREIGN NATIONALS," THROUGH THE PASSAGE OF THE FIRST WAR
POWERS ACT; AND THAT, THEREFORE, CONGRESS MUST BE REGARDED AS HAVING
INTENDED THAT SEC. 9(E) ELIMINATE ALL CREDITORS' CLAIMS UNDER SEC. 9(A)
AGAINST PROPERTY OF ENEMIES AND OF ALLIES OF ENEMIES, UNLESS FILED OR
CLAIMED BEFORE MARCH 10, 1928. 

THIS AMOUNTS TO AN ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION HAS
PRODUCED INEQUITABLE RESULTS, THEREFORE PRE-EXISTING LEGISLATION SHOULD
BE REINTERPRETED SO AS TO ELIMINATE THESE SUBSEQUENTLY CREATED
INEQUITIES.  IF THE MEANING OF SEC. 9(E) WAS RESTRICTED TO WORLD WAR I
PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, THE FIRST WAR
POWERS ACT CANNOT CHANGE THE MEANING OF SEC. 9(E) WITHOUT AMENDING IT,
AND IT DOES NOT AMEND IT.  A SUGGESTION THAT AMENDATORY LEGISLATION
MIGHT NOW BE HELPFUL IS FOUND IN BILLS RECENTLY INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS
WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  THE HEARINGS
EMPHASIZE THAT NEED.  FN5 

FURTHERMORE, THE INTERPRETATION NOW URGED TO OFFSET INEQUITIES WOULD
CREATE OTHER INEQUITIES.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE PROPOSED INTERPRETATION
WOULD RESULT IN AN INEQUITY TO THE RESPONDENT IN THE PRESENT CASE.  HE
IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITH AN ADMITTEDLY GOOD CLAIM FOR ABOUT $7,000
EARNED IN 1935, AGAINST AN ENEMY CORPORATION, ASSETS OF WHICH IN THE
HANDS OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN ARE AMPLE TO PAY THE CLAIM.  THE
CLAIMANT FILED HIS CLAIM WITHIN THE ONE YEAR PRESCRIBED IN THE ORDER
VESTING THE ASSETS OF THE ENEMY COMPANY IN THE CUSTODIAN.  FN6  THE
CLAIMANT IS NOW MET WITH A DEFENSE THAT HE CANNOT RECOVER BECAUSE HE
FAILED TO FILE HIS CLAIM BEFORE MARCH 10, 1928, WHICH WAS SEVEN YEARS
BEFORE IT WAS EARNED AND FOURTEEN YEARS BEFORE THE ASSETS HAD BEEN
VESTED IN THE CUSTODIAN WITH WHOM HE IS ASKED TO FILE HIS NOTICE.  THE
DECISION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF INEQUITIES UNDER THE 1941 AMENDMENT AND
AS TO THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH THEM LAY WITH CONGRESS IN 1941 AND
STILL LIES THERE.    THE ACT NEVER HAS HAD A TERMINATION CLAUSE AND WAS
EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1921(41 STAT.
1359), WHICH DECLARED THAT CERTAIN ACTS OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED
AS IF THE WAR HAD ENDED AND THE PRESENT OR THEN EXISTING EMERGENCY HAD
EXPIRED.  THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928  FN7  WAS ENGRAFTED
UPON THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT WITHOUT AFFECTING ITS GENERAL
STRUCTURE OR ITS LIFE.  IN THE NATURAL COURSE OF EVENTS WORLD WAR I
CLAIMS ULTIMATELY WOULD HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF AND YET THE MAIN
STRUCTURE OF THE ACT WOULD HAVE REMAINED ON THE BOOKS READY FOR LATER
USE.  THAT THIS WAS CONTEMPLATED IS EVIDENCED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 6694,
MAY 1, 1934.  FN8  THIS WAS ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE
REORGANIZATION ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933(47 STAT. 1489, 1517).  SECTION 1
EXPRESSLY ABOLISHED THE OFFICE OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AND
TRANSFERRED THE "AUTHORITY, RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, POWERS, AND DUTIES
CONFERRED AND IMPOSED ON THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN BY LAW AND/OR
EXECUTIVE ORDER  ...  TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO BE ADMINISTERED
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL."  THIS INCORPORATED THE
OFFICE OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN INTO THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE OF
THE GOVERNMENT.  WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THE RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES, POWERS AND DUTIES CONFERRED UPON THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN WERE PLACED UNDER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND WERE LATER
EXERCISED LARGELY THROUGH HIM OR THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN
CHARGE OF THE CLAIMS DIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  ON MAY 15,
1939, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 8136, 4 FED. REG. 2044, ALL POWER AND
AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE PRESIDENT BY SECS. 9, 12, 20 AND 21 OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AND ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY WHICH THE
PRESIDENT UNDER THAT ACT HAD THERETOFORE ORDERED TO BE EXERCISED
THROUGH THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN WERE VESTED IN AND REQUIRED TO BE
EXERCISED THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN CHARGE OF THE CLAIMS DIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 

IN THIS STATUS SEC. 9(A) AND OTHER PERMANENT PORTIONS OF THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT AWAITED THE NEXT WAR.  IF LEFT IN THAT FORM THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN NO INEQUITIES OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH HAD EXISTED IN
WORLD WAR I. THE ACT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED MUCH AS IT WAS IN
WORLD WAR I EXCEPT THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INSTEAD OF THROUGH AN
INDEPENDENT AGENCY.  IN 1940, AT THE APPROACH OF WORLD WAR II, THE ACT
HAD MUCH THE SAME STRUCTURE IN SECS. 9(A), 9(E) AND 5(B) AS IT HAD IN
1928.  THE INEQUITIES DISCUSSED IN THIS PROCEEDING AROSE LATER FROM THE
SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF SEC. 5(B).  FN9 

ON DECEMBER 18, 1941 CAME THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT.  55 STAT. 839. 
NO STATUTORY OR EXECUTIVE ACTION WAS NEEDED TO MAKE THE MACHINERY OF
THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AVAILABLE.  IT WAS ALREADY IN EFFECT
WITH THE FULL STATUTORY POWERS OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN VESTED
IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  TITLE III OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT
EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT BY AMENDING ONLY
SEC. 5(B) OF IT.  CONGRESS ALSO CONFIRMED ALL ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN
"UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT" WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED
"IF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT (FIRST WAR POWERS ACT) AND THE
AMENDMENTS MADE BY IT HAD BEEN IN EFFECT." 

ON MARCH 11, 1942, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDER 9095, 7 FED.
REG. 1971, ESTABLISHING IN THE OFFICE FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, THE OFFICE OF ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN, AT THE HEAD OF WHICH THERE AGAIN WOULD BE AN ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.  BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 9142, APRIL
21, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 2985, EXPRESSLY ACTING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IN PARTICULAR UNDER TITLE I OF THE FIRST
WAR POWERS ACT, THE PRESIDENT TRANSFERRED "FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE
PRESENT WAR AND FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE TERMINATION THEREOF" TO "THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN PROVIDED FOR BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9095,"
EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER 6694 OF MAY 1, 1934, OR TO THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN CHARGE OF THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 8136, MAY 15, 1939, 4 FED. REG. 2044. 

ON JULY 6, 1942, EXECUTIVE ORDER 9095 WAS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
9193, 7 FED. REG. 5205.  THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN "PROVIDED FOR BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9095," AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 9193, WAS THUS
GIVEN THE POWERS OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AS FULLY AS IN WORLD
WAR I AND ALSO ADDITIONAL POWERS PROVIDED THROUGH AMENDMENTS INCLUDING
THE EXPANSION OF POWERS UNDER SEC. 5(B).  THESE AUTHORIZATIONS CARRIED
POWER TO ISSUE REGULATIONS PARTICULARLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE VESTING
OF PROPERTY AS WAS DONE BY THE VESTING ORDERS IN THIS CASE.  FN10  THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, IN TAKING OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, IS ENTITLED TO THE FULL SCOPE OF ITS
PERMANENT PROVISIONS WHETHER FOUND IN SEC. 5(B) OR SEC. 9(A) OR
ELSEWHERE. 

FOR THESE REASONS, SEC. 9(E) DOES NOT PRESENT A GROUND FOR DISMISSAL
OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH DEPENDS UPON SEC. 9(A) AND THE DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THE CHIEF OBJECTS OF THIS BILL ARE (1) TO RECOGNIZE AND APPLY
CONCRETELY, SUBJECT TO DEFINITE MODIFICATIONS, THE PRINCIPLE AND
PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW INTERDICTING TRADE IN TIME OF WAR, AND
(2) TO CONSERVE AND UTILIZE UPON A BASIS OF PRACTICAL JUSTICE ENEMY
PROPERTY FOUND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES....
ACCORDING TO AMERICAN LAW ONE OF THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF WAR IS
TO PUT AN END TO ALL COMMERCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS
OF BELLIGERENT NATIONS."  H.R. REP. NO. 85, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 1,
JUNE 21, 1917.  "TO SUMMARIZE THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS NOT TO CREATE
NEW INTERNATIONAL RULES OR PRACTICES, BUT TO DEFINE AND MITIGATE
THEM."  H.R. REP. NO. 85, SUPRA, P. 2.  "THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO
MITIGATE THE RULES OF LAW WHICH PROHIBIT ALL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE
CITIZENS OF WARRING NATIONS, AND TO PERMIT, UNDER CAREFUL SAFEGUARDS
AND RESTRICTIONS, CERTAIN KINDS OF BUSINESS TO BE CARRIED ON.  IT ALSO
PROVIDES FOR THE CARE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY AND PROPERTY
RIGHTS OF ENEMIES AND THEIR ALLIES IN THIS COUNTRY PENDING THE WAR." 
SEN. REP. NO. 113, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 1, AUG. 31, 1917. 

FN2  THE CONFERENCE REPORT INSERTED FIVE SUCH REFERENCES.  H.R. REP.
NO. 155, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 3, 6, SEPTEMBER 21, 1917. 

FN3  SECTION 9(E) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS LAST AMENDED,
AUGUST 24, 1937(50 U.S.C. APP., SEC. 9(E)), IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY SHALL BE RETURNED NOR ANY DEBT ALLOWED
UNDER THIS SECTION TO ANY PERSON WHO IS A CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF ANY
NATION WHICH WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNITED STATES IN THE PROSECUTION
OF THE WAR, UNLESS SUCH NATION IN LIKE CASE EXTENDS RECIPROCAL RIGHTS
TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES:  PROVIDED, THAT ANY ARRANGEMENT MADE
BY A FOREIGN NATION FOR THE RELEASE OF MONEY AND OTHER PROPERTY OF
AMERICAN CITIZENS AND CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AS FAIR AND THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS ARRANGEMENT
OBTAINABLE SHALL BE REGARDED AS MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT; NOR IN ANY
EVENT SHALL A DEBT BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS SECTION UNLESS IT WAS OWING TO
AND OWNED BY THE CLAIMANT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 6, 1917, AND AS TO CLAIMANTS
OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS IT AROSE WITH REFERENCE
TO THE MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY HELD BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES HEREUNDER; NOR SHALL A DEBT BE ALLOWED
UNDER THIS SECTION UNLESS NOTICE OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED, OR
APPLICATION THEREFOR HAS BEEN MADE, PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT
OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928(ACT MARCH 10, 1928, CH.
167)." 

FN4  THE LATER AMENDMENTS WERE THOSE OF FEBRUARY 27, 1921(41 STAT.
1147), APPLYING SECS. 9(B)(2) AND (3) TO SITUATIONS WHERE A WOMAN
"PRIOR TO APRIL 6, 1917, INTERMARRIED WITH A SUBJECT OR CITIZEN OF
GERMANY OR AUSTRIA-HUNGARY"; 

DECEMBER 21, 1921(42 STAT. 351), AMENDING SEC. 9(A) TO PERMIT SUITS
TO BE BROUGHT EIGHTEEN MONTHS INSTEAD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE "END OF
THE WAR."  THE AMENDMENT DID NOT INSERT ANY CALENDAR DATE RELATING TO
WORLD WAR I ALTHOUGH PEACE HAD BEEN DECLARED JULY 2, 1921.  THE WORDS
"END OF THE WAR" MUST, THEREFORE, BE GIVEN THEIR GENERAL MEANING
APPLICABLE TO ALL WARS AS PROVIDED IN THE DEFINITIONS IN SEC. 2,
SUPRA; 

DECEMBER 27, 1922(42 STAT. 1065), AMENDING SEC. 9(A) TO PERMIT SUITS
TO BE BROUGHT 30 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 18 MONTHS AFTER THE "END OF THE
WAR"; 

MARCH 4, 1923(42 STAT. 1511), REENACTING THE WHOLE SEC. 9.  IN SEC.
9(A) IT OMITTED ALL LIMITATION ON THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SUITS MIGHT BE
BROUGHT.  IT ADDED NEW SUBSECTIONS ESPECIALLY ADAPTED TO WORLD WAR I
CLAIMS SUCH AS A RESTRICTION AGAINST CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES NATURALIZED SINCE NOVEMBER 11, 1918; 

MAY 7, 1926(44 STAT. 406), ADDING SECS. 9(B)(3A) AND (3B) AS TO
CITIZENS OF GERMANY, AUSTRIA, HUNGARY OR AUSTRIA-HUNGARY; 

MARCH 10, 1928(45 STAT. 254-279).  THIS WAS THE "SETTLEMENT OF WAR
CLAIMS ACT OF 1928."  IT DEALT EXPRESSLY WITH WORLD WAR I. IT WAS
CONCERNED WITH SUCH SUBJECTS AS THE "MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION" AND "THE
TRIPARTITE CLAIMS COMMISSION."  IT AMENDED THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT IN MANY DETAILS AS TO WORLD WAR I CLAIMS AND ADDED MANY NEW
PROVISIONS AS TO THOSE CLAIMS.  IT ADDED SUBSECTIONS TO SEC. 9.  IN
SEC. 9(E) IT INSERTED THE CLAUSE WHICH REQUIRED THAT NOTICES OF CLAIMS
MUST HAVE BEEN FILED OR APPLICATIONS FOR CLAIMS MUST HAVE BEEN MADE
BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928; 

AUGUST 24, 1937(50 STAT. 748), AMENDING SEC. 9(E) BY INSERTING THE
PROVISO AS TO ARRANGEMENTS WHICH WILL BE REGARDED AS MEETING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF RECIPROCAL RIGHTS. 

FN5  S. 1940, H.R. 4840 AND H.R. 5031 WERE INTRODUCED IN THE 78TH
CONGRESS.  H.R. 1530 WAS INTRODUCED IN THE 79TH CONGRESS, JANUARY 16,
1945.  SEE HEARINGS ON H.R. 4840 BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 78TH CONG.,
2D SESS., SERIAL NO. 18, JUNE 9-15, 1944. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 10 INFRA. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 4 SUPRA. 

FN8  28 C.F.R. SEC. 4.1. 

FN9  THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW ESPECIALLY AFFECTING SEC. 5(B) WHICH
TOOK PLACE DURING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II, DID NOT
CHANGE THE SITUATION ALTHOUGH IT DID EMPHASIZE THE CONNECTION OF THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT WITH THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. 

FOR EXAMPLE, ON MARCH 9, 1933(48 STAT. 1), SEC. 5(B), RELATING TO
FOREIGN EXCHANGE, EXPORT OR HOARDING OF COIN, ETC., WAS AMENDED AS A
PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM TO MEET THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY IN
BANKING.  THE AMENDMENT THUS APPLIED THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER
THIS ACT TO THE INTERNAL CONDITIONS OF THE COUNTRY RATHER THAN TO ITS
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.  THIS WAS SUPPLEMENTED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
6560, JANUARY 15, 1934, 31 C.F.R. SEC. 127.0. 

FOLLOWING THE TRANSFER OF THE OFFICE OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SEC. 9(E) RECEIVED A SLIGHT AMENDMENT ON
AUGUST 24, 1937.  (50 STAT. 748.)  SEE NOTE 4 SUPRA.  ADDITIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE ACT WAS PLACED UPON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR
THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CHARGE OF CLAIMS ON MAY 15, 1939. 
EXECUTIVE ORDER 8136, 4 FED. REG. 2044.  ON APRIL 10, 1940, THE
PRESIDENT ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDER 8389, 5 FED. REG. 1400, WHICH, UNDER
AUTHORITY OF SEC. 5(B), EXTENDED CONTROL OVER PROPERTY IN WHICH NORWAY
OR DENMARK OR ANY NATIONAL THEREOF HAD AN INTEREST.  THIS ACTION WAS
CONFIRMED AND FURTHER SUPPLEMENTED BY THE ACT OF MAY 7, 1940(54 STAT.
179).  THIS WAS SUBSTANTIALLY EXTENDED TO MANY OTHER NATIONS BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER 8785, JUNE 14, 1941, 6 FED. REG. 2897; PROCLAMATION NO.
2497, JULY 17, 1941, 6 FED. REG. 3555; EXECUTIVE ORDER 8832, JULY 26,
1941, 6 FED. REG. 3715; EXECUTIVE ORDER 8839, JULY 30, 1941, 6 FED.
REG. 3823; EXECUTIVE ORDER 8900, SEPTEMBER 15, 1941, 6 FED. REG. 4795;
EXECUTIVE ORDER 8963, DECEMBER 9, 1941, 6 FED. REG. 6348. 

FN10  "WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO ANY OTHER POWERS OR AUTHORITY OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OR THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN UNDER ANY
OTHER PROVISION OF THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
AND THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN ARE AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED, EITHER
JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY, TO PRESCRIBE FROM TIME TO TIME, REGULATIONS,
RULINGS, AND INSTRUCTIONS TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS EXECUTIVE
ORDER."  SEC. 4, EXECUTIVE ORDER 9193, JULY 6, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 5205. 
SEE ALSO, PROVISIONS OF THE VESTING ORDERS AS TO NOTICE OF CLAIMS
AGAINST THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

EACH OF THE VESTING ORDERS CITED IN THE COURT'S OPINION PROVIDES:
"ANY PERSON, EXCEPT A NATIONAL OF A DESIGNATED ENEMY COUNTRY, ASSERTING
ANY CLAIM ARISING AS A RESULT OF THIS ORDER MAY FILE WITH THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN A NOTICE OF HIS CLAIM, TOGETHER WITH A REQUEST FOR A
HEARING THEREON, ON FORM APC-1, WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE HEREOF,
OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER TIME AS MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN.  NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE AN
ADMISSION OF THE EXISTENCE, VALIDITY OR RIGHT TO ALLOWANCE OF ANY SUCH
CLAIM."  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE ALLEGES, "A NOTICE OF THIS
CLAIM DATED AND VERIFIED JANUARY 19TH, 1943, WAS FILED WITH THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN ON OR ABOUT THAT DATE AND BY HIM ASSIGNED THE NUMBER
F-38-98-1.  AN AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF THE CLAIM DATED AND
VERIFIED MAY 1ST, 1944, HAS, AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN, BEEN EXECUTED AND FILED AND A NEW NUMBER, TO WIT, 280 HAS
BEEN ASSIGNED THERETO."    MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, HAVING CONCURRED IN
THE COURT'S OPINION, ALSO JOINS IN THESE VIEWS. 
..END :




INTERNAT. SHOE CO. V. WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310 


NO. 107.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1945.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 3, 1945.  - 22
WASH.2D 146, 154 P.2D 801, AFFIRMED. 


ACTIVITIES WITHIN A STATE OF SALESMEN IN THE EMPLOY OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION, EXHIBITING SAMPLES OF MERCHANDISE AND SOLICITING ORDERS
FROM PROSPECTIVE BUYERS TO BE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED BY THE CORPORATION
AT A POINT OUTSIDE THE STATE, WERE SYSTEMATIC AND CONTINUOUS, AND
RESULTED IN A LARGE VOLUME OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  A STATUTE OF THE
STATE REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO PAY INTO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION FUND A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE WAGES PAID FOR THE
SERVICES OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE STATE.  HELD: 

1.  IN VIEW OF 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1606(A), PROVIDING THAT NO PERSON SHALL
BE RELIEVED FROM COMPLIANCE WITH A STATE LAW REQUIRING PAYMENTS TO AN
UNEMPLOYMENT FUND ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE FACT THAT THE CORPORATION IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE DOES NOT RELIEVE IT FROM LIABILITY FOR PAYMENTS TO THE STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND.  P. 315. 

2.  THE ACTIVITIES IN BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION RENDER IT AMENABLE TO
SUIT IN COURTS OF THE STATE TO RECOVER PAYMENTS DUE TO THE STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND.  P. 320. 

(A)  THE ACTIVITIES IN QUESTION ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE
CORPORATION SUFFICIENT CONTACTS OR TIES TO MAKE IT REASONABLE AND JUST,
AND IN CONFORMITY TO THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, FOR THE STATE TO ENFORCE AGAINST THE CORPORATION AN
OBLIGATION ARISING OUT OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.  P. 320. 

(B)  IN SUCH A SUIT TO RECOVER PAYMENTS DUE TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION FUND, SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON ONE OF THE CORPORATION'S
SALESMEN WITHIN THE STATE, AND NOTICE SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL TO THE
CORPORATION AT ITS HOME OFFICE, SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE
PROCESS.  P. 320. 

3.  THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION STATUTE -
CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT, IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE CORPORATION, AS
A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF EMPLOYING SALESMEN WITHIN THE STATE - DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P.
321. 

INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. STATE OF WASHINGTON ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION STATUTE AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT
CORPORATION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE (1) WHETHER, WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, APPELLANT, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, HAS BY ITS ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
RENDERED ITSELF AMENABLE TO PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTS OF THAT STATE TO
RECOVER UNPAID CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
FUND EXACTED BY STATE STATUTES, WASHINGTON UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
ACT, WASHINGTON REVISED STATUTES, SEC. 9998-103A THROUGH SEC. 9998
123A, 1941 SUPP., AND (2) WHETHER THE STATE CAN EXACT THOSE
CONTRIBUTIONS CONSISTENTLY WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE STATUTES IN QUESTION SET UP A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, THE COSTS OF WHICH ARE DEFRAYED BY
CONTRIBUTIONS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY EMPLOYERS TO A STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION FUND.  THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE
WAGES PAYABLE ANNUALLY BY EACH EMPLOYER FOR HIS EMPLOYEES' SERVICES IN
THE STATE.  THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE
FUND ARE ADMINISTERED BY APPELLEES.  SECTION 14(C) OF THE ACT (WASH.
REV. STAT., 1941 SUPP., SEC. 9998-114C) AUTHORIZES APPELLEE
COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE AN ORDER AND NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF DELINQUENT
CONTRIBUTIONS UPON PRESCRIBED PERSONAL SERVICE OF THE NOTICE UPON THE
EMPLOYER IF FOUND WITHIN THE STATE, OR, IF NOT SO FOUND, BY MAILING THE
NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYER BY REGISTERED MAIL AT HIS LAST KNOWN ADDRESS. 
THAT SECTION ALSO AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSIONER TO COLLECT THE ASSESSMENT
BY DISTRAINT IF IT IS NOT PAID WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE
NOTICE.  BY SECS. 14E AND 6B THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MAY BE
ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEWED BY AN APPEAL TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE OFFICE OF
UNEMPLOYMENT UPON PETITION OF THE EMPLOYER, AND THIS DETERMINATION IS
BY SEC. 6I MADE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW ON QUESTIONS OF LAW BY THE
STATE SUPERIOR COURT, WITH FURTHER RIGHT OF APPEAL IN THE STATE SUPREME
COURT AS IN OTHER CIVIL CASES. 

IN THIS CASE NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION WAS
PERSONALLY SERVED UPON A SALES SOLICITOR EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT IN THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND A COPY OF THE NOTICE WAS MAILED BY REGISTERED
MAIL TO APPELLANT AT ITS ADDRESS IN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.  APPELLANT
APPEARED SPECIALLY BEFORE THE OFFICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND MOVED TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER AND NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SERVICE
UPON APPELLANT'S SALESMAN WAS NOT PROPER SERVICE UPON APPELLANT; THAT
APPELLANT WAS NOT A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND WAS NOT
DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE; THAT IT HAD NO AGENT WITHIN THE STATE
UPON WHOM SERVICE COULD BE MADE; AND THAT APPELLANT IS NOT AN EMPLOYER
AND DOES NOT FURNISH EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE. 

THE MOTION WAS HEARD ON EVIDENCE AND A STIPULATION OF FACTS BY THE
APPEAL TRIBUNAL WHICH DENIED THE MOTION AND RULED THAT APPELLEE
COMMISSIONER WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE UNPAID CONTRIBUTIONS.  THAT
ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER; BOTH THE SUPERIOR COURT AND
THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  22 WASH.2D 146, 154 P.2D 801.  APPELLANT
IN EACH OF THESE COURTS ASSAILED THE STATUTE AS APPLIED, AS A VIOLATION
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND AS IMPOSING
A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE CAUSE
COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 344(A), APPELLANT ASSIGNING AS ERROR THAT THE CHALLENGED STATUTES
AS APPLIED INFRINGE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL AND ACCEPTED BY THE STATE
SUPERIOR COURT AND SUPREME COURT, ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  APPELLANT IS A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ST.
LOUIS, MISSOURI, AND IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF SHOES
AND OTHER FOOTWEAR.  IT MAINTAINS PLACES OF BUSINESS IN SEVERAL STATES,
OTHER THAN WASHINGTON, AT WHICH ITS MANUFACTURING IS CARRIED ON AND
FROM WHICH ITS MERCHANDISE IS DISTRIBUTED INTERSTATE THROUGH SEVERAL
SALES UNITS OR BRANCHES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 

APPELLANT HAS NO OFFICE IN WASHINGTON AND MAKES NO CONTRACTS EITHER
FOR SALE OR PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE THERE.  IT MAINTAINS NO STOCK OF
MERCHANDISE IN THAT STATE AND MAKES THERE NO DELIVERIES OF GOODS IN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  DURING THE YEARS FROM 1937 TO 1940, NOW IN
QUESTION, APPELLANT EMPLOYED ELEVEN TO THIRTEEN SALESMEN UNDER DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF SALES MANAGERS LOCATED IN ST. LOUIS.  THESE
SALESMEN RESIDED IN WASHINGTON; THEIR PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES WERE
CONFINED TO THAT STATE; AND THEY WERE COMPENSATED BY COMMISSIONS BASED
UPON THE AMOUNT OF THEIR SALES.  THE COMMISSIONS FOR EACH YEAR TOTALED
MORE THAN $31,000.  APPELLANT SUPPLIES ITS SALESMEN WITH A LINE OF
SAMPLES, EACH CONSISTING OF ONE SHOE OF A PAIR, WHICH THEY DISPLAY TO
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS.  ON OCCASION THEY RENT PERMANENT SAMPLE ROOMS,
FOR EXHIBITING SAMPLES, IN BUSINESS BUILDINGS, OR RENT ROOMS IN HOTELS
OR BUSINESS BUILDINGS TEMPORARILY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE COST OF SUCH
RENTALS IS REIMBURSED BY APPELLANT. 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE SALESMEN IS LIMITED TO EXHIBITING THEIR SAMPLES
AND SOLICITING ORDERS FROM PROSPECTIVE BUYERS, AT PRICES AND ON TERMS
FIXED BY APPELLANT.  THE SALESMEN TRANSMIT THE ORDERS TO APPELLANT'S
OFFICE IN ST. LOUIS FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION, AND WHEN ACCEPTED THE
MERCHANDISE FOR FILLING THE ORDERS IS SHIPPED F.O.B. FROM POINTS
OUTSIDE WASHINGTON TO THE PURCHASERS WITHIN THE STATE.  ALL THE
MERCHANDISE SHIPPED INTO WASHINGTON IS INVOICED AT THE PLACE OF
SHIPMENT FROM WHICH COLLECTIONS ARE MADE.  NO SALESMAN HAS AUTHORITY TO
ENTER INTO CONTRACTS OR TO MAKE COLLECTIONS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON WAS OF OPINION THAT THE REGULAR AND
SYSTEMATIC SOLICITATION OF ORDERS IN THE STATE BY APPELLANT'S SALESMEN,
RESULTING IN A CONTINUOUS FLOW OF APPELLANT'S PRODUCT INTO THE STATE,
WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE SO AS TO MAKE
APPELLANT AMENABLE TO SUIT IN ITS COURTS.  BUT IT WAS ALSO OF OPINION
THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES SHOWN TO BRING THE
CASE WITHIN THE RULE FREQUENTLY STATED, THAT SOLICITATION WITHIN A
STATE BY THE AGENTS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION PLUS SOME ADDITIONAL
ACTIVITIES THERE ARE SUFFICIENT TO RENDER THE CORPORATION AMENABLE TO
SUIT BROUGHT IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE TO ENFORCE AN OBLIGATION
ARISING OUT OF ITS ACTIVITIES THERE.  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 579, 587; PEOPLE'S TOBACCO CO. V. AMERICAN TOBACCO
CO., 246 U.S. 79, 87; FRENE V. LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO., 77 U.S. APP. D.C.
129, 134 F.2D 511, 516.  THE COURT FOUND SUCH ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES IN
THE SALESMEN'S DISPLAY OF SAMPLES SOMETIMES IN PERMANENT DISPLAY ROOMS,
AND THE SALESMEN'S RESIDENCE WITHIN THE STATE, CONTINUED OVER A PERIOD
OF YEARS, ALL RESULTING IN A SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF MERCHANDISE
REGULARLY SHIPPED BY APPELLANT TO PURCHASERS WITHIN THE STATE.  THE
COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE STATUTE AS APPLIED DID NOT INVADE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
DID NOT IMPOSE A PROHIBITED BURDEN ON SUCH COMMERCE. 

APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT, RENEWED HERE, THAT THE STATUTE IMPOSES AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE NEED NOT DETAIN US.  FOR
53 STAT. 1391, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1606(A) PROVIDES THAT "NO PERSON REQUIRED
UNDER A STATE LAW TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO AN UNEMPLOYMENT FUND SHALL BE
RELIEVED FROM COMPLIANCE THEREWITH ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR THAT THE STATE LAW DOES NOT
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE
AND THOSE ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE."  IT IS NO LONGER DEBATABLE
THAT CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER, MAY AUTHORIZE THE
STATES, IN SPECIFIED WAYS, TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IMPOSE
BURDENS UPON IT.  KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R.
CO., 299 U.S. 334; PERKINS V. PENNSYLVANIA, 314 U.S. 586; STANDARD
DREDGING CORP. V. MURPHY, 319 U.S. 306, 308; HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V.
EVATT, 324 U.S. 652, 679; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S.
761, 769. 

APPELLANT ALSO INSISTS THAT ITS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE WERE NOT
SUFFICIENT TO MANIFEST ITS "PRESENCE" THERE AND THAT IN ITS ABSENCE THE
STATE COURTS WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, THAT CONSEQUENTLY IT WAS A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR THE STATE TO SUBJECT APPELLANT TO SUIT.  IT
REFERS TO THOSE CASES IN WHICH IT WAS SAID THAT THE MERE SOLICITATION
OF ORDERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS WITHIN A STATE, TO BE ACCEPTED
WITHOUT THE STATE AND FILLED BY SHIPMENT OF THE PURCHASED GOODS
INTERSTATE, DOES NOT RENDER THE CORPORATION SELLER AMENABLE TO SUIT
WITHIN THE STATE.  SEE GREEN V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 205 U.S. 530,
533; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, 586-587;
PHILADELPHIA & READING R. CO. V. MCKIBBIN, 243 U.S. 264, 268; PEOPLE'S
TOBACCO CO. V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., SUPRA, 87.  AND APPELLANT FURTHER
ARGUES THAT SINCE IT WAS NOT PRESENT WITHIN THE STATE, IT IS A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS TO SUBJECT IT TO TAXATION OR OTHER MONEY EXACTION.  IT
THUS DENIES THE POWER OF THE STATE TO LAY THE TAX OR TO SUBJECT
APPELLANT TO A SUIT FOR ITS COLLECTION. 

HISTORICALLY THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS TO RENDER JUDGMENT IN
PERSONAM IS GROUNDED ON THEIR DE FACTO POWER OVER THE DEFENDANT'S
PERSON.  HENCE HIS PRESENCE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF A
COURT WAS PREREQUISITE TO ITS RENDITION OF A JUDGMENT PERSONALLY
BINDING HIM.  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714, 733.  BUT NOW THAT THE
CAPIAS AD RESPONDENDUM HAS GIVEN WAY TO PERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR
OTHER FORM OF NOTICE, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES ONLY THAT IN ORDER TO
SUBJECT A DEFENDANT TO A JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM, IF HE BE NOT PRESENT
WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE FORUM, HE HAVE CERTAIN MINIMUM CONTACTS
WITH IT SUCH THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT DOES NOT OFFEND
"TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE."  MILLIKEN
V. MEYER, 311 U.S. 457, 463.  SEE HOLMES, J., IN MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243
U.S. 90, 91.  COMPARE HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313,
316, 319.  SEE BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421; HESS V.
PAWLOSKI, 274 U.S. 352; YOUNG V. MASCI, 289 U.S. 253. 

SINCE THE CORPORATE PERSONALITY IS A FICTION, ALTHOUGH A FICTION
INTENDED TO BE ACTED UPON AS THOUGH IT WERE A FACT, KLEIN V. BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, 282 U.S. 19, 24, IT IS CLEAR THAT UNLIKE AN INDIVIDUAL ITS
"PRESENCE" WITHOUT, AS WELL AS WITHIN, THE STATE OF ITS ORIGIN CAN BE
MANIFESTED ONLY BY ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON IN ITS BEHALF BY THOSE WHO ARE
AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR IT.  TO SAY THAT THE CORPORATION IS SO FAR
"PRESENT" THERE AS TO SATISFY DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, FOR PURPOSES OF
TAXATION OR THE MAINTENANCE OF SUITS AGAINST IT IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE, IS TO BEG THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED.  FOR THE TERMS "PRESENT"
OR "PRESENCE" ARE USED MERELY TO SYMBOLIZE THOSE ACTIVITIES OF THE
CORPORATION'S AGENT WITHIN THE STATE WHICH COURTS WILL DEEM TO BE
SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS.  L. HAND, J., IN
HUTCHINSON V. CHASE & GILBERT, 45 F.2D 139, 141.  THOSE DEMANDS MAY BE
MET BY SUCH CONTACTS OF THE CORPORATION WITH THE STATE OF THE FORUM AS
MAKE IT REASONABLE, IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT,
TO REQUIRE THE CORPORATION TO DEFEND THE PARTICULAR SUIT WHICH IS
BROUGHT THERE.  AN "ESTIMATE OF THE INCONVENIENCES" WHICH WOULD RESULT
TO THE CORPORATION FROM A TRIAL AWAY FROM ITS "HOME" OR PRINCIPAL PLACE
OF BUSINESS IS RELEVANT IN THIS CONNECTION.  HUTCHINSON V. CHASE &
GILBERT, SUPRA, 141. 

"PRESENCE" IN THE STATE IN THIS SENSE HAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED WHEN THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE CORPORATION THERE HAVE NOT ONLY BEEN CONTINUOUS AND
SYSTEMATIC, BUT ALSO GIVE RISE TO THE LIABILITIES SUED ON, EVEN THOUGH
NO CONSENT TO BE SUED OR AUTHORIZATION TO AN AGENT TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF
PROCESS HAS BEEN GIVEN.  ST. CLAIR V. COX, 106 U.S. 350, 355;
CONNECTICUT MUTUAL CO. V. SPRATLEY, 172 U.S. 602, 610-611; PENNSYLVANIA
LUMBERMEN'S INS. CO. V. MEYER, 197 U.S. 407, 414-415; COMMERCIAL MUTUAL
CO. V. DAVIS, 213 U.S. 245, 255-256; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
KENTUCKY, SUPRA; CF. ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. ALEXANDER, 227 U.S. 218. 
CONVERSELY IT HAS BEEN GENERALLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE CASUAL PRESENCE OF
THE CORPORATE AGENT OR EVEN HIS CONDUCT OF SINGLE OR ISOLATED ITEMS OF
ACTIVITIES IN A STATE IN THE CORPORATION'S BEHALF ARE NOT ENOUGH TO
SUBJECT IT TO SUIT ON CAUSES OF ACTION UNCONNECTED WITH THE ACTIVITIES
THERE.  ST. CLAIR V. COX, SUPRA, 359, 360; OLD WAYNE LIFE ASSN. V.
MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8, 21; FRENE V. LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO., SUPRA, 515,
AND CASES CITED.  TO REQUIRE THE CORPORATION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES TO
DEFEND THE SUIT AWAY FROM ITS HOME OR OTHER JURISDICTION WHERE IT
CARRIES ON MORE SUBSTANTIAL ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN THOUGHT TO LAY TOO
GREAT AND UNREASONABLE A BURDEN ON THE CORPORATION TO COMPORT WITH DUE
PROCESS.    WHILE IT HAS BEEN HELD, IN CASES ON WHICH APPELLANT RELIES,
THAT CONTINUOUS ACTIVITY OF SOME SORTS WITHIN A STATE IS NOT ENOUGH TO
SUPPORT THE DEMAND THAT THE CORPORATION BE AMENABLE TO SUITS UNRELATED
TO THAT ACTIVITY, OLD WAYNE LIFE ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, SUPRA; GREEN V.
CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., SUPRA; SIMON V. SOUTHERN R. CO., 236 U.S. 115;
PEOPLE'S TOBACCO CO. V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., SUPRA; CF. DAVIS V.
FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE CO., 262 U.S. 312, 317, THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES
IN WHICH THE CONTINUOUS CORPORATE OPERATIONS WITHIN A STATE WERE
THOUGHT SO SUBSTANTIAL AND OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO JUSTIFY SUIT AGAINST
IT ON CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING FROM DEALINGS ENTIRELY DISTINCT FROM
THOSE ACTIVITIES.  SEE MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. REYNOLDS, 255 U.S.
565; TAUZA V. SUSQUEHANNA COAL CO., 220 N.Y. 259, 115 N.E. 915; CF. ST.
LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. ALEXANDER, SUPRA. 

FINALLY, ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION OF SOME SINGLE OR OCCASIONAL ACTS OF
THE CORPORATE AGENT IN A STATE SUFFICIENT TO IMPOSE AN OBLIGATION OR
LIABILITY ON THE CORPORATION HAS NOT BEEN THOUGHT TO CONFER UPON THE
STATE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE IT, ROSENBERG BROS. & CO. V. CURTIS BROWN
CO., 260 U.S. 516, OTHER SUCH ACTS, BECAUSE OF THEIR NATURE AND QUALITY
AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR COMMISSION, MAY BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO
RENDER THE CORPORATION LIABLE TO SUIT.  CF. KANE V. NEW JERSEY, 242
U.S. 160; HESS V. PAWLOSKI, SUPRA; YOUNG V. MASCI, SUPRA.  TRUE, SOME
OF THE DECISIONS HOLDING THE CORPORATION AMENABLE TO SUIT HAVE BEEN
SUPPORTED BY RESORT TO THE LEGAL FICTION THAT IT HAS GIVEN ITS CONSENT
TO SERVICE AND SUIT, CONSENT BEING IMPLIED FROM ITS PRESENCE IN THE
STATE THROUGH THE ACTS OF ITS AUTHORIZED AGENTS.  LAFAYETTE INSURANCE
CO. V. FRENCH, 18 HOW.  404, 407; ST. CLAIR V. COX, SUPRA, 356;
COMMERCIAL MUTUAL CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA, 254; WASHINGTON V. SUPERIOR
COURT, 289 U.S. 361, 364-365.  BUT MORE REALISTICALLY IT MAY BE SAID
THAT THOSE AUTHORIZED ACTS WERE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO JUSTIFY THE
FICTION.  SMOLIK V. PHILADELPHIA & READING CO., 222 F. 148, 151. 
HENDERSON, THE POSITION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 94-95. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CRITERIA BY WHICH WE MARK THE BOUNDARY LINE
BETWEEN THOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH JUSTIFY THE SUBJECTION OF A CORPORATION
TO SUIT, AND THOSE WHICH DO NOT, CANNOT BE SIMPLY MECHANICAL OR
QUANTITATIVE.  THE TEST IS NOT MERELY, AS HAS SOMETIMES BEEN SUGGESTED,
WHETHER THE ACTIVITY, WHICH THE CORPORATION HAS SEEN FIT TO PROCURE
THROUGH ITS AGENTS IN ANOTHER STATE, IS A LITTLE MORE OR A LITTLE
LESS.  ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. ALEXANDER, SUPRA, 228; INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, 587.  WHETHER DUE PROCESS IS
SATISFIED MUST DEPEND RATHER UPON THE QUALITY AND NATURE OF THE
ACTIVITY IN RELATION TO THE FAIR AND ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAWS
WHICH IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO INSURE.  THAT
CLAUSE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT A STATE MAY MAKE BINDING A JUDGMENT IN
PERSONAM AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE DEFENDANT WITH WHICH THE
STATE HAS NO CONTACTS, TIES, OR RELATIONS.  CF. PENNOYER V. NEFF,
SUPRA; MINNESOTA COMMERCIAL ASSN. V. BENN, 261 U.S. 140. 

BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT A CORPORATION EXERCISES THE PRIVILEGE OF
CONDUCTING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A STATE, IT ENJOYS THE BENEFITS AND
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS OF THAT STATE.  THE EXERCISE OF THAT PRIVILEGE
MAY GIVE RISE TO OBLIGATIONS, AND, SO FAR AS THOSE OBLIGATIONS ARISE
OUT OF OR ARE CONNECTED WITH THE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE, A
PROCEDURE WHICH REQUIRES THE CORPORATION TO RESPOND TO A SUIT BROUGHT
TO ENFORCE THEM CAN, IN MOST INSTANCES, HARDLY BE SAID TO BE UNDUE. 
COMPARE INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, WITH GREEN V.
CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., SUPRA, AND PEOPLE'S TOBACCO CO. V. AMERICAN
TOBACCO CO., SUPRA.  COMPARE CONNECTICUT MUTUAL CO. V. SPRATLEY, SUPRA,
619, 620 AND COMMERCIAL MUTUAL CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA, WITH OLD WAYNE LIFE
ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, SUPRA.  SEE 29 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW, 187-195. 

APPLYING THESE STANDARDS, THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON IN BEHALF OF
APPELLANT IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WERE NEITHER IRREGULAR NOR
CASUAL.  THEY WERE SYSTEMATIC AND CONTINUOUS THROUGHOUT THE YEARS IN
QUESTION.  THEY RESULTED IN A LARGE VOLUME OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS, IN
THE COURSE OF WHICH APPELLANT RECEIVED THE BENEFITS AND PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS OF THE STATE, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO RESORT TO THE COURTS FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS RIGHTS.  THE OBLIGATION WHICH IS HERE SUED UPON
AROSE OUT OF THOSE VERY ACTIVITIES.  IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE
OPERATIONS ESTABLISH SUFFICIENT CONTACTS OR TIES WITH THE STATE OF THE
FORUM TO MAKE IT REASONABLE AND JUST, ACCORDING TO OUR TRADITIONAL
CONCEPTION OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, TO PERMIT THE STATE TO
ENFORCE THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH APPELLANT HAS INCURRED THERE.  HENCE WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON INVOLVES AN UNREASONABLE OR UNDUE PROCEDURE. 

WE ARE LIKEWISE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SERVICE OF THE PROCESS
WITHIN THE STATE UPON AN AGENT WHOSE ACTIVITIES ESTABLISH APPELLANT'S
"PRESENCE" THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE SUIT, OR THAT THE
SUIT WAS SO UNRELATED TO THOSE ACTIVITIES AS TO MAKE THE AGENT AN
INAPPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR COMMUNICATING THE NOTICE.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT
APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED SUCH CONTACTS WITH THE STATE THAT THE
PARTICULAR FORM OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ADOPTED THERE GIVES REASONABLE
ASSURANCE THAT THE NOTICE WILL BE ACTUAL.  CONNECTICUT MUTUAL CO. V.
SPRATLEY, SUPRA, 618, 619; BOARD OF TRADE V. HAMMOND ELEVATOR CO., 198
U.S. 424, 437-438; COMMERCIAL MUTUAL CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA, 254-255.  CF.
RIVERSIDE MILLS V. MENEFEE, 237 U.S. 189, 194, 195; SEE KNOWLES V.
GASLIGHT & COKE CO., 19 WALL.  58, 61; MCDONALD V. MABEE, SUPRA;
MILLIKEN V. MEYER, SUPRA.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE MAILING OF THE
NOTICE OF SUIT TO APPELLANT BY REGISTERED MAIL AT ITS HOME OFFICE WAS
NOT REASONABLY CALCULATED TO APPRISE APPELLANT OF THE SUIT.  COMPARE
HESS V. PAWLOSKI, SUPRA, WITH MCDONALD V. MABEE, SUPRA, 92, AND WUCHTER
V. PIZZUTTI, 276 U.S. 13, 19, 24; CF. BECQUET V. MACCARTHY, 2 B. & AD.
951; MAUBOURQUET V. WYSE, 1 IR. REP. C.L. 471.  SEE WASHINGTON V.
SUPERIOR COURT, SUPRA, 365. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID OF APPELLANT'S LIABILITY FOR THE DEMANDED
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
WASHINGTON, CONSTRUING AND APPLYING THE STATUTE, HAS HELD THAT IT
IMPOSES A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF EMPLOYING APPELLANT'S SALESMEN WITHIN
THE STATE MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE WAGES, HERE THE COMMISSIONS
PAYABLE TO THE SALESMEN.  THIS CONSTRUCTION WE ACCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF
DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE.  THE RIGHT TO
EMPLOY LABOR HAS BEEN DEEMED AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF TAXATION IN THIS
COUNTRY AND ENGLAND, BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 579, ET SEQ.
AND SUCH A TAX IMPOSED UPON THE EMPLOYER FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IS
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATES.  CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN
COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495, 508, ET SEQ. 

APPELLANT HAVING RENDERED ITSELF AMENABLE TO SUIT UPON OBLIGATIONS
ARISING OUT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF ITS SALESMEN IN WASHINGTON, THE STATE
MAY MAINTAIN THE PRESENT SUIT IN PERSONAM TO COLLECT THE TAX LAID UPON
THE EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE OF EMPLOYING APPELLANT'S SALESMEN WITHIN
THE STATE.  FOR WASHINGTON HAS MADE ONE OF THOSE ACTIVITIES, WHICH
TAKEN TOGETHER ESTABLISH APPELLANT'S "PRESENCE" THERE FOR PURPOSES OF
SUIT, THE TAXABLE EVENT BY WHICH THE STATE BRINGS APPELLANT WITHIN THE
REACH OF ITS TAXING POWER.  THE STATE THUS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
LAY THE TAX AND TO SUBJECT APPELLANT TO A SUIT TO RECOVER IT.  THE
ACTIVITIES WHICH ESTABLISH ITS "PRESENCE" SUBJECT IT ALIKE TO TAXATION
BY THE STATE AND TO SUIT TO RECOVER THE TAX.  EQUITABLE LIFE SOCIETY V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 238 U.S. 143, 146; CF. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, 322 U.S. 435, 442, ET SEQ.; HOOPESTON CANNING
CO. V. CULLEN, SUPRA, 316-319; SEE GENERAL TRADING CO. V. TAX COMM'N,
322 U.S. 335.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING OPINION. 

CONGRESS, PURSUANT TO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE,
HAS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT A STATE SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED FROM
LEVYING THE KIND OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAX HERE CHALLENGED.  26
U.S.C. 1600.  WE HAVE TWICE DECIDED THAT THIS CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT IS
AN ADEQUATE ANSWER TO A CLAIM THAT IMPOSITION OF THE TAX VIOLATES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PERKINS V. PENNSYLVANIA, 314 U.S. 586, AFFIRMING 342
PA. 529; STANDARD DREDGING CORP. V. MURPHY, 319 U.S. 306, 308.  TWO
DETERMINATIONS BY THIS COURT OF AN ISSUE SO PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT ARE
SUFFICIENT.  CONSEQUENTLY THAT PART OF THIS APPEAL WHICH AGAIN SEEKS TO
RAISE THE QUESTION SEEMS SO PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS AS TO MAKE THE CASE A
FIT CANDIDATE FOR DISMISSAL.  FAY V. CROZER, 217 U.S. 455.  NOR IS THE
FURTHER GROUND ADVANCED ON THIS APPEAL, THAT THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
HAS DENIED APPELLANT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, ANY LESS DEVOID OF SUBSTANCE. 
IT IS MY VIEW, THEREFORE, THAT WE SHOULD DISMISS THE APPEAL AS
UNSUBSTANTIAL,  FN1  SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S. 86,
90, 92, AND DECLINE THE INVITATION TO FORMULATE BROAD RULES AS TO THE
MEANING OF DUE PROCESS, WHICH HERE WOULD AMOUNT TO DECIDING A
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION "IN ADVANCE OF THE NECESSITY FOR ITS
DECISION."  FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, 461. 

CERTAINLY APPELLANT CANNOT IN THE LIGHT OF OUR PAST DECISIONS
MERITORIOUSLY CLAIM THAT NOTICE BY REGISTERED MAIL AND BY PERSONAL
SERVICE ON ITS SALES SOLICITORS IN WASHINGTON DID NOT MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS
NOT BROUGHT IN ISSUE ANY MORE BY APPELLANT'S FURTHER CONCEPTUALISTIC
CONTENTION THAT WASHINGTON COULD NOT LEVY A TAX OR BRING SUIT AGAINST
THE CORPORATION BECAUSE IT DID NOT HONOR THAT STATE WITH ITS MYSTICAL
"PRESENCE."  FOR IT IS UNTHINKABLE THAT THE VAGUE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
WAS EVER INTENDED TO PROHIBIT A STATE FROM REGULATING OR TAXING A
BUSINESS CARRIED ON WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS IS DONE
BY AGENTS OF A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND HAVING ITS HEADQUARTERS
ELSEWHERE.  TO READ THIS INTO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WOULD IN FACT
RESULT IN DEPRIVING A STATE'S CITIZENS OF DUE PROCESS BY TAKING FROM
THE STATE THE POWER TO PROTECT THEM IN THEIR BUSINESS DEALINGS WITHIN
ITS BOUNDARIES WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION.  NOTHING
COULD BE MORE IRRATIONAL OR MORE DESIGNED TO DEFEAT THE FUNCTION OF OUR
FEDERATIVE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  CERTAINLY A STATE, AT THE VERY LEAST,
HAS POWER TO TAX AND SUE THOSE DEALING WITH ITS CITIZENS WITHIN ITS
BOUNDARIES, AS WE HAVE HELD BEFORE.  HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V. CULLEN,
318 U.S. 313.  WERE THE COURT TO FOLLOW THIS PRINCIPLE, IT WOULD
PROVIDE A WORKABLE STANDARD FOR CASES WHERE, AS HERE, NO OTHER
QUESTIONS ARE INVOLVED.  THE COURT HAS NOT CHOSEN TO DO SO, BUT INSTEAD
HAS ENGAGED IN AN UNNECESSARY DISCUSSION IN THE COURSE OF WHICH IT HAS
ANNOUNCED VAGUE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA APPLIED FOR THE FIRST TIME TO
THE ISSUE BEFORE US.  IT HAS THUS INTRODUCED UNCERTAIN ELEMENTS
CONFUSING THE SIMPLE PATTERN AND TENDING TO CURTAIL THE EXERCISE OF
STATE POWERS TO AN EXTENT NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE CRITERIA ADOPTED INSOFAR AS THEY CAN BE IDENTIFIED READ AS
FOLLOWS:  DUE PROCESS DOES PERMIT STATE COURTS TO "ENFORCE THE
OBLIGATIONS WHICH APPELLANT HAS INCURRED" IF IT BE FOUND "REASONABLE
AND JUST ACCORDING TO OUR TRADITIONAL CONCEPTION OF FAIR PLAY AND
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE."  AND THIS IN TURN MEANS THAT WE WILL "PERMIT" THE
STATE TO ACT IF UPON "AN 'ESTIMATE OF THE INCONVENIENCES' WHICH WOULD
RESULT TO THE CORPORATION FROM A TRIAL AWAY FROM ITS 'HOME' OR
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS," WE CONCLUDE THAT IT IS "REASONABLE" TO
SUBJECT IT TO SUIT IN A STATE WHERE IT IS DOING BUSINESS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT DID USE THE TERMS "FAIR PLAY" AND
"SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE" IN EXPLAINING THE PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING THE
HOLDING THAT IT COULD NOT BE "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" TO RENDER A PERSONAL
JUDGMENT AGAINST A DEFENDANT WITHOUT NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD.  MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S. 457.  IN MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243
U.S. 90, 91, CITED IN THE MILLIKEN CASE, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING
FOR THE COURT, WARNED AGAINST JUDICIAL CURTAILMENT OF THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO BE HEARD AND REFERRED TO SUCH A CURTAILMENT AS A DENIAL OF "FAIR
PLAY," WHICH EVEN THE COMMON LAW WOULD HAVE DEEMED "CONTRARY TO NATURAL
JUSTICE."  AND PREVIOUS CASES HAD INDICATED THAT THE ANCIENT RULE
AGAINST JUDGMENTS WITHOUT NOTICE HAD STEMMED FROM "NATURAL JUSTICE"
CONCEPTS.  THESE CASES, WHILE GIVING ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY NOTICE
UNDER PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IS INADEQUATE, DID NOT MEAN THEREBY THAT
ALL LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS WHICH THIS COURT MIGHT DEEM TO BE CONTRARY
TO NATURAL JUSTICE OUGHT TO BE HELD INVALID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  NONE OF THE CASES PURPORT TO SUPPORT OR COULD SUPPORT A
HOLDING THAT A STATE CAN TAX AND SUE CORPORATIONS ONLY IF ITS ACTION
COMPORTS WITH THIS COURT'S NOTIONS OF "NATURAL JUSTICE."  I SHOULD HAVE
THOUGHT THE TENTH AMENDMENT SETTLED THAT. 

I BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION LEAVES TO EACH STATE, WITHOUT
ANY "IFS" OR "BUTS," A POWER TO TAX AND TO OPEN THE DOORS OF ITS COURTS
FOR ITS CITIZENS TO SUE CORPORATIONS WHOSE AGENTS DO BUSINESS IN THOSE
STATES.  BELIEVING THAT THE CONSTITUTION GAVE THE STATES THAT POWER, I
THINK IT A JUDICIAL DEPRIVATION TO CONDITION ITS EXERCISE UPON THIS
COURT'S NOTION OF "FAIR PLAY," HOWEVER APPEALING THAT TERM MAY BE.  NOR
CAN I STRETCH THE MEANING OF DUE PROCESS SO FAR AS TO AUTHORIZE THIS
COURT TO DEPRIVE A STATE OF THE RIGHT TO AFFORD JUDICIAL PROTECTION TO
ITS CITIZENS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD BE MORE "CONVENIENT" FOR THE
CORPORATION TO BE SUED SOMEWHERE ELSE.    THERE IS A STRONG EMOTIONAL
APPEAL IN THE WORDS "FAIR PLAY," "JUSTICE," AND "REASONABLENESS."  BUT
THEY WERE NOT CHOSEN BY THOSE WHO WROTE THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION OR
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A MEASURING ROD FOR THIS COURT TO USE IN
INVALIDATING STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS PASSED BY ELECTED LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVES.  NO ONE, NOT EVEN THOSE WHO MOST FEARED A DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENT, EVER FORMALLY PROPOSED THAT COURTS SHOULD BE GIVEN POWER TO
INVALIDATE LEGISLATION UNDER ANY SUCH ELASTIC STANDARDS.  EXPRESS
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST CERTAIN TYPES OF LEGISLATION ARE FOUND IN THE
CONSTITUTION, AND UNDER THE LONG-SETTLED PRACTICE, COURTS INVALIDATE
LAWS FOUND TO CONFLICT WITH THEM.  THIS REQUIRES INTERPRETATION, AND
INTERPRETATION, IT IS TRUE, MAY RESULT IN EXTENSION OF THE
CONSTITUTION'S PURPOSE.  BUT THAT IS NO REASON FOR READING THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE SO AS TO RESTRICT A STATE'S POWER TO TAX AND SUE THOSE
WHOSE ACTIVITIES AFFECT PERSONS AND BUSINESSES WITHIN THE STATE,
PROVIDED PROPER SERVICE CAN BE HAD.  SUPERIMPOSING THE NATURAL JUSTICE
CONCEPT ON THE CONSTITUTION'S SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS COULD OPERATE AS A
DRASTIC ABRIDGMENT OF DEMOCRATIC SAFEGUARDS THEY EMBODY, SUCH AS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND RELIGION,  FN2  AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL. 
THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.  BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455.  COMPARE
FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 487, 494-503.  FOR APPLICATION OF
THIS NATURAL LAW CONCEPT, WHETHER UNDER THE TERMS "REASONABLENESS,"
"JUSTICE," OR "FAIR PLAY," MAKES JUDGES THE SUPREME ARBITERS OF THE
COUNTRY'S LAWS AND PRACTICES.  POLK CO. V. GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5, 17-18;
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575,
600, N. 4.  THIS RESULT, I BELIEVE, ALTERS THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT OUR
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES.  I CANNOT AGREE. 

TRUE, THE STATE'S POWER IS HERE UPHELD.  BUT THE RULE ANNOUNCED MEANS
THAT TOMORROW'S JUDGMENT MAY STRIKE DOWN A STATE OR FEDERAL ENACTMENT
ON THE GROUND THAT IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THIS COURT'S IDEA OF NATURAL
JUSTICE.  I THEREFORE FIND MYSELF MOVED BY THE SAME FEARS THAT CAUSED
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES TO SAY IN 1930: 

"I HAVE NOT YET ADEQUATELY EXPRESSED THE MORE THAN ANXIETY THAT I
FEEL AT THE EVER INCREASING SCOPE GIVEN TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN
CUTTING DOWN WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
STATES.  AS THE DECISIONS NOW STAND, I SEE HARDLY ANY LIMIT BUT THE SKY
TO THE INVALIDATING OF THOSE RIGHTS IF THEY HAPPEN TO STRIKE A MAJORITY
OF THIS COURT AS FOR ANY REASON UNDESIRABLE."  BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281
U.S. 586, 595. 

FN1  THIS COURT HAS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS POINTED OUT THE UNDESIRABLE
CONSEQUENCES OF A FAILURE TO DISMISS FRIVOLOUS APPEALS.  SALINGER V.
UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 542, 544; UNITED SURETY CO. V. AMERICAN FRUIT
PRODUCT CO., 238 U.S. 140; DE BEARN V. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO., 233
U.S. 24, 33-34. 

FN2  THESE FIRST AMENDMENT LIBERTIES - FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND
RELIGION - PROVIDE A GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE POTENTIAL RESTRICTIVE
CAPACITY OF A RULE UNDER WHICH THEY ARE PROTECTED AT A PARTICULAR TIME
ONLY BECAUSE THE COURT, AS THEN CONSTITUTED, BELIEVES THEM TO BE A
REQUIREMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE.  CONSEQUENTLY, UNDER THE SAME RULE,
ANOTHER COURT, WITH A DIFFERENT BELIEF AS TO FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE,
COULD, AT LEAST AS AGAINST STATE ACTION, COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY
WITHDRAW CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FROM THESE BASIC FREEDOMS, JUST AS
THOUGH THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAD NEVER BEEN WRITTEN. 
..END :
























ASHBACKER RADIO CO. V. F.C.C., 326 U.S. 327 


NO. 65.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1945.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 3, 1945.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE TWO APPLICATIONS PERTAINING TO BROADCASTING STATION LICENSES
UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, THE GRANT
OF ONE WITHOUT HEARINGS ON BOTH DEPRIVES THE LOSER OF THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR A HEARING TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER SEC. 309(A) OF THE ACT,
EVEN THOUGH HIS APPLICATION IS SET FOR A HEARING AT A LATER DATE.  PP.
327, 329, 333. 

2.  IN SUCH A CASE, THE APPLICANT WHOSE APPLICATION WAS NOT ACTED
UPON IS PLACED IN THE SAME POSITION AS A NEWCOMER WHO SEEKS TO DISPLACE
AN ESTABLISHED BROADCASTER AND THUS IS PLACED UNDER A GREATER BURDEN
THAN IF A HEARING ON HIS APPLICATION HAD PRECEDED THE GRANT OF THE
OTHER APPLICATION.  P. 332. 

3.  WHILE HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO A HEARING HAS BEEN PRESERVED IN
FORM, IT HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY NULLIFIED AS A PRACTICAL MATTER BY THE
GRANT OF THE OTHER APPLICATION.  P. 334. 

ASHBACKER RADIO CORP. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 846, TO REVIEW DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FROM AN
ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DISMISSING A PETITION
FOR A HEARING, REHEARING AND OTHER RELIEF. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRIMARY QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER AN APPLICANT FOR A
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT (48 STAT.
1064, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 151) IS GRANTED THE HEARING TO WHICH HE IS
ENTITLED BY SEC. 309(A) OF THE ACT,  FN1  WHERE THE COMMISSION, HAVING
BEFORE IT TWO APPLICATIONS WHICH ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, GRANTS ONE
WITHOUT A HEARING AND SETS THE OTHER FOR HEARING. 

IN MARCH 1944 THE FETZER BROADCASTING COMPANY FILED WITH THE
COMMISSION AN APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BROADCASTING
STATION AT GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, TO OPERATE ON 1230 KC WITH 250 WATTS
POWER, UNLIMITED TIME.  IN MAY 1944, BEFORE THE FETZER APPLICATION HAD
BEEN ACTED UPON, PETITIONER FILED AN APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO
CHANGE THE OPERATING FREQUENCY OF ITS STATION WKBZ OF MUSKEGON,
MICHIGAN, FROM 1490 KC WITH 250 WATTS POWER, UNLIMITED TIME, TO 1230
KC. THE COMMISSION, AFTER STATING THAT THE SIMULTANEOUS OPERATION ON
1230 KC AT GRAND RAPIDS AND MUSKEGON "WOULD RESULT IN INTOLERABLE
INTERFERENCE TO BOTH APPLICANTS," DECLARED THAT THE TWO APPLICATIONS
WERE "ACTUALLY EXCLUSIVE."  THE COMMISSION, UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE
FETZER APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DATA, GRANTED IT IN JUNE 1944 WITHOUT
A HEARING.  ON THE SAME DAY THE COMMISSION DESIGNATED PETITIONER'S
APPLICATION FOR HEARING.  PETITIONER THEREUPON FILED A PETITION FOR
HEARING, REHEARING AND OTHER RELIEF DIRECTED AGAINST THE GRANT OF THE
FETZER APPLICATION.  THE COMMISSION DENIED THIS PETITION, STATING, 

"THE COMMISSION HAS NOT DENIED PETITIONER'S APPLICATION.  IT HAS
DESIGNATED THE APPLICATION FOR HEARING AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 309(A) OF
THE ACT.  AT THIS HEARING, PETITIONER WILL HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO
SHOW THAT ITS OPERATION AS PROPOSED WILL BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST THAN WILL THE GRANT OF THE FETZER APPLICATION AS AUTHORIZED
JUNE 27, 1944.  SUCH GRANT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE COMMISSION, AT A LATER
DATE FROM TAKING ANY ACTION WHICH IT MAY FIND WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  IN RE:  BERKS BROADCASTING COMPANY (WEEU), READING,
PENNSYLVANIA, 8 FCC 427(1941); IN RE:  THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION
(WWJ), DETROIT, MICHIGAN, 8 FCC 552(1941); IN RE:  MERCED BROADCASTING
COMPANY (KYOS), MERCED, CALIFORNIA, 9 FCC 118, 120(1942)."  PETITIONER
FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE GRANT OF THE FETZER CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ASSERTING
THAT IT WAS A "PERSON AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED" BY THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
402(B)(2) OF THE ACT.  FN2 THE COMMISSION FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE
APPEAL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN
IT.  THIS MOTION WAS GRANTED WITHOUT OPINION.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

OUR CHIEF PROBLEM IS TO RECONCILE TWO PROVISIONS OF SEC. 309(A) WHERE
THE COMMISSION HAS BEFORE IT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE APPLICATIONS.  THE
FIRST AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION "UPON EXAMINATION" OF AN APPLICATION
FOR A STATION LICENSE TO GRANT IT IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT
"PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY WOULD BE SERVED" BY THE
GRANT.  FN3  THE SECOND PROVISION OF SEC. 309(A) SAYS THAT IF, UPON
EXAMINATION OF SUCH AN APPLICATION, THE COMMISSION DOES NOT REACH SUCH
A DECISION, "IT SHALL NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THEREOF, SHALL FIX AND GIVE
NOTICE OF A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING THEREON, AND SHALL AFFORD SUCH
APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS
AS IT MAY PRESCRIBE."  FN4  IT IS THUS PLAIN THAT SEC. 309(A) NOT ONLY
GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO GRANT LICENSES WITHOUT A HEARING, BUT
ALSO GIVES APPLICANTS A RIGHT TO A HEARING BEFORE THEIR APPLICATIONS
ARE DENIED.  WE DO NOT THINK IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO ISSUE A LICENSE ON A FINDING OF PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY SUPPORTS ITS GRANT OF ONE OF TWO MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE APPLICATIONS WITHOUT A HEARING OF THE OTHER.  FOR IF THE
GRANT OF ONE EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDES THE OTHER, THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO A
HEARING WHICH CONGRESS HAS ACCORDED APPLICANTS BEFORE DENIAL OF THEIR
APPLICATIONS BECOMES AN EMPTY THING.  WE THINK THAT IS THE CASE HERE. 

THE COMMISSION IN ITS NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITIONER'S APPLICATION
STATED THAT THE APPLICATION "WILL NOT BE GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION
UNLESS THE ISSUES LISTED ABOVE ARE DETERMINED IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT
ON THE BASIS OF A RECORD DULY AND PROPERLY MADE BY MEANS OF A FORMAL
HEARING."  ONE OF THE ISSUES LISTED WAS THE DETERMINATION OF "THE
EXTENT OF ANY INTERFERENCE WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM THE SIMULTANEOUS
OPERATION" OF PETITIONER'S PROPOSED STATION AND FETZER'S STATION. 
SINCE THE COMMISSION ITSELF STATED THAT SIMULTANEOUS OPERATION OF THE
TWO STATIONS WOULD RESULT IN "INTOLERABLE INTERFERENCE" TO BOTH, IT IS
APPARENT THAT PETITIONER CARRIES A BURDEN WHICH CANNOT BE MET.  TO
PLACE THAT BURDEN ON IT IS IN EFFECT TO MAKE ITS HEARING A REHEARING ON
THE GRANT OF THE COMPETITOR'S LICENSE RATHER THAN A HEARING ON THE
MERITS OF ITS OWN APPLICATION.  THAT MAY SATISFY THE STRICT LETTER OF
THE LAW BUT CERTAINLY NOT ITS SPIRIT OR INTENT.  FN5 

THE FETZER APPLICATION WAS NOT CONDITIONALLY GRANTED PENDING
CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION.  INDEED A STAY OF IT PENDING
THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION WAS DENIED.  OF COURSE THE FETZER
LICENSE, LIKE ANY OTHER LICENSE GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION, WAS SUBJECT
TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH THE ACT IMPOSES AS A MATTER OF LAW.  WE
FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT THE COMMISSION, AS IT SAID, IS NOT PRECLUDED "AT A
LATER DATE FROM TAKING ANY ACTION WHICH IT MAY FIND WILL SERVE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST."  NO LICENSEE OBTAINS ANY VESTED INTEREST IN ANY
FREQUENCY.  FN6  THE COMMISSION FOR SPECIFIED REASONS MAY REVOKE ANY
STATION LICENSE PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 312(A) AND
MAY SUSPEND THE LICENSE OF ANY OPERATOR ON THE GROUNDS AND IN THE
MANNER SPECIFIED BY SEC. 303(M).  IT MAY ALSO MODIFY A STATION LICENSE
IF IN ITS JUDGMENT "SUCH ACTION WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY, OR THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER  ...
WILL BE MORE FULLY COMPLIED WITH."  SEC. 312(B).  AND LICENSES FOR
BROADCASTING STATIONS ARE LIMITED TO THREE YEARS, THE RENEWALS BEING
SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS AND PRACTICE WHICH AFFECT THE
GRANTING OF ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS.  SEC. 307(D).  BUT IN ALL THOSE
INSTANCES THE LICENSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE FINAL
ACTION CAN BE TAKEN.  FN7  WHAT THE COMMISSION CAN DO TO FETZER IT CAN
DO TO ANY LICENSEE.  AS THE FETZER APPLICATION HAS BEEN GRANTED,
PETITIONER, THEREFORE, IS PRESENTLY IN THE SAME POSITION AS A NEWCOMER
WHO SEEKS TO DISPLACE AN ESTABLISHED BROADCASTER.  BY THE GRANT OF THE
FETZER APPLICATION PETITIONER HAS BEEN PLACED UNDER A GREATER BURDEN
THAN IF ITS HEARING HAD BEEN EARLIER.  LEGAL THEORY IS ONE THING.  BUT
THE PRACTICALITIES ARE DIFFERENT.  FOR WE ARE TOLD HOW DIFFICULT IT IS
FOR A NEWCOMER TO MAKE THE COMPARATIVE SHOWING NECESSARY TO DISPLACE AN
ESTABLISHED LICENSEE.  PEORIA BROADCASTING CO. AND ILLINOIS
BROADCASTING CO., 1 F.C.C. 167.  NO SUGGESTION IS MADE HERE AS IN
MATHESON RADIO CO., 8 F.C.C. 427 OR THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, 8
F.C.C. 552, THAT IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO MAKE WORKABLE ADJUSTMENTS SO
THAT BOTH APPLICATIONS CAN BE GRANTED.  THE COMMISSION CONCEDES THAT
"THESE APPLICATIONS ARE ACTUALLY EXCLUSIVE."  THE APPLICATIONS ARE FOR
A FACILITY WHICH CAN BE GRANTED TO ONLY ONE.  SINCE THE FACILITY HAS
BEEN GRANTED TO FETZER, THE HEARING ACCORDED PETITIONER CONCERNS A
LICENSE FACILITY NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR A GRANT UNLESS THE EARLIER
GRANT IS RECALLED.  A HEARING DESIGNED AS ONE FOR AN AVAILABLE
FREQUENCY BECOMES BY THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN SUBSTANCE ONE FOR THE
REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF AN OUTSTANDING LICENSE.  SO IT WOULD SEEM
THAT PETITIONER WOULD CARRY AS A MATTER OF LAW THE SAME BURDEN
REGARDLESS OF THE PRECISE PROVISIONS OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMISSION, BY GRANTING THE FETZER
APPLICATION FIRST, CONCLUDED THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE
FURTHERED BY MAKING FETZER'S SERVICE AVAILABLE AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE
DATE.  IF SO, THAT CONCLUSION IS ONLY AN INFERENCE FROM WHAT THE
COMMISSION DID.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION, LET ALONE A FINDING, BY THE
COMMISSION THAT THE DEMANDS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST WERE SO URGENT AS TO
PRECLUDE THE DELAY WHICH WOULD BE OCCASIONED BY A HEARING. 

THE PUBLIC, NOT SOME PRIVATE, INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY
GOVERNS THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES UNDER THE ACT.  BUT WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED HERE WITH THE MERITS.  FN8  THIS INVOLVES ONLY A MATTER OF
PROCEDURE.  CONGRESS HAS GRANTED APPLICANTS A RIGHT TO A HEARING ON
THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR STATION LICENSES.  FN9 WHETHER THAT IS WISE
POLICY OR WHETHER THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE
IS PREFERABLE IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE.  WE ONLY HOLD THAT WHERE TWO
BONA FIDE APPLICATIONS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE THE GRANT OF ONE WITHOUT
A HEARING TO BOTH DEPRIVES THE LOSER OF THE OPPORTUNITY WHICH CONGRESS
CHOSE TO GIVE HIM. 

IN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309
U.S. 470, 476-477, WE HELD THAT A RIVAL STATION WHICH WOULD SUFFER
ECONOMIC INJURY BY THE GRANT OF A LICENSE TO ANOTHER STATION HAD
STANDING TO APPEAL UNDER SEC. 402(B)(2) OF THE ACT.  IN FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., 319 U.S. 239,
WE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION WHERE AN APPLICATION HAD BEEN GRANTED
WHICH WOULD CREATE SUCH INTERFERENCE ON THE CHANNEL GIVEN AN EXISTING
LICENSEE AS IN EFFECT TO MODIFY THE EARLIER LICENSE.  PETITIONER IS AT
LEAST AS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN THIS
CASE AS WERE THE PROTESTANTS IN THOSE CASES.  WHILE THE STATUTORY RIGHT
OF PETITIONER TO A HEARING ON ITS APPLICATION HAS IN FORM BEEN
PRESERVED, IT HAS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY NULLIFIED BY
THE GRANT OF THE FETZER APPLICATION.  FN10 REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 319 RELATES TO APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.  BUT
SINCE SUCH APPLICATIONS ARE IN SUBSTANCE APPLICATIONS FOR STATION
LICENSES (GOSS V. FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION, 62 APP. D.C. 301, 67 F.2D
507, 508) THE COMMISSION IN SUCH CASES UNIFORMLY FOLLOWS THE PROCEDURE
PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 309(A) FOR STATION LICENSES. 

FN2  THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 402(B) READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN, IN THE MANNER HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, FROM
DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CASES: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(2)  BY ANY OTHER PERSON AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY ANY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION GRANTING OR REFUSING ANY
SUCH APPLICATION." 

FN3  SEC. 307(A) PROVIDES:  "THE COMMISSION, IF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE,
INTEREST, OR NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED THEREBY, SUBJECT TO THE
LIMITATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, SHALL GRANT TO ANY APPLICANT THEREFOR A
STATION LICENSE PROVIDED FOR BY THIS CHAPTER." 

FN4  SEC. 309(A) READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF UPON EXAMINATION OF ANY APPLICATION FOR A STATION LICENSE OR FOR
THE RENEWAL OR MODIFICATION OF A STATION LICENSE THE COMMISSION SHALL
DETERMINE THAT PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY WOULD BE
SERVED BY THE GRANTING THEREOF, IT SHALL AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE,
RENEWAL, OR MODIFICATION THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID FINDING.  IN
THE EVENT THE COMMISSION UPON EXAMINATION OF ANY SUCH APPLICATION DOES
NOT REACH SUCH DECISION WITH RESPECT THERETO, IT SHALL NOTIFY THE
APPLICANT THEREOF, SHALL FIX AND GIVE NOTICE OF A TIME AND PLACE FOR
HEARING THEREON, AND SHALL AFFORD SUCH APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS IT MAY PRESCRIBE." 

FN5  THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES IN ITS REGULATIONS THE DESIRABILITY OF
HEARING SUCH RELATED MATTERS AT THE SAME TIME OR IN CONSOLIDATED
CASES.  BY SEC. 1.193, 47 CODE FED. REG. CUM. SUPP. IT IS PROVIDED: 

"IN FIXING DATES FOR HEARINGS THE COMMISSION WILL, SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE, ENDEAVOR TO FIX THE SAME DATE FOR SEPARATE HEARINGS (A) ON
ALL RELATED MATTERS WHICH INVOLVE THE SAME APPLICANT, OR ARISE OUT OF
THE SAME COMPLAINT OR CAUSE; AND (B) FOR SEPARATE HEARINGS ON ALL
APPLICATIONS WHICH BY REASON OF THE PRIVILEGES, TERMS, OR CONDITIONS
REQUESTED PRESENT CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF THE SAME NATURE." 

AND BY SEC. 1.194, 47 CODE FED. REG. CUM. SUPP. IT IS PROVIDED: 

"THE COMMISSION, UPON MOTION, OR UPON ITS OWN MOTION, WILL, WHERE
SUCH ACTION WILL BEST CONDUCE TO THE PROPER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS AND TO
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, CONSOLIDATE FOR HEARING (A) ANY CASES WHICH
INVOLVE THE SAME APPLICANT OR ARISE FROM THE SAME COMPLAINT OR CAUSE,
OR (B) ANY APPLICATIONS WHICH BY REASON OF THE PRIVILEGES, TERMS, OR
CONDITIONS REQUESTED PRESENT CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF THE SAME NATURE." 
FN6  SEE SECS. 301, 304, 307(D), 309(B)(1) OF THE ACT.  "THE POLICY OF
THE ACT IS CLEAR THAT NO PERSON IS TO HAVE ANYTHING IN THE NATURE OF A
PROPERTY RIGHT AS A RESULT OF THE GRANTING OF A LICENSE."  FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470, 475. 

FN7  FOR THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION GOVERNING THESE PROCEDURES
SEE 47 CODE FED. REG. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 1.401(REVOCATION), SEC. 1.359 AND
SEC. 1.402(MODIFICATION), SEC. 1.411 AND SEC. 1.412(SUSPENSION), SEC.
1.360(RENEWAL). 

FN8  SEE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING
CO., 309 U.S. 134, 145-146. 

FN9  APPARENTLY NO REGULATION EXISTS WHICH, FOR ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION, REQUIRES AN APPLICATION FOR A FREQUENCY, PREVIOUSLY
APPLIED FOR, TO BE FILED WITHIN A CERTAIN DATE.  NOR IS THERE ANY
SUGGESTION THAT PETITIONER'S APPLICATION, WHICH WAS FILED SHORTLY AFTER
FETZER'S, WAS NOT FILED IN GOOD FAITH. 

FN10  A LICENSE TO OPERATE A STATION IS REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO A
PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT ONE.  AS RESPECTS AN OPERATING LICENSE, SEC. 319(B)
PROVIDES:  "UPON THE COMPLETION OF ANY STATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OR
CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH A PERMIT HAS BEEN GRANTED, AND UPON IT
BEING MADE TO APPEAR TO THE COMMISSION THAT ALL THE TERMS, CONDITIONS,
AND OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION AND PERMIT HAVE BEEN FULLY
MET, AND THAT NO CAUSE OR CIRCUMSTANCE ARISING OR FIRST COMING TO THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMISSION SINCE THE GRANTING OF THE PERMIT WOULD, IN
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION, MAKE THE OPERATION OF SUCH STATION
AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE COMMISSION SHALL ISSUE A LICENSE TO
THE LAWFUL HOLDER OF SAID PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF SAID STATION. 
SAID LICENSE SHALL CONFORM GENERALLY TO THE TERMS OF SAID PERMIT."  FOR
THE REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION GOVERNING SUCH APPLICATIONS SEE 47
CODE FED. REG. CUM. SUPP. SEC. 1.357.  IT WAS CONCEDED ON ORAL ARGUMENT
THAT IN THAT PROCEEDING PETITIONER WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO INTERVENE
TO CHALLENGE THE PROPRIETY OF THE GRANT OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO
FETZER WITHOUT A HEARING ON PETITIONER'S APPLICATION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH
THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE. 
INSOFAR AS THE ACTIONS OF THESE AGENCIES COME UNDER THE SCRUTINY OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW, IT IS THE BUSINESS OF THE COURTS TO RESPECT THE
DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY THAT CONGRESS MAKES AS BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE
AND JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS.  OF COURSE COURTS MUST HOLD THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THEIR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.  BUT IN
DOING SO THEY SHOULD NOT EVEN UNWITTINGLY ASSUME THAT THE FAMILIAR IS
THE NECESSARY AND DEMAND OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OBSERVANCE OF
CONVENTIONAL JUDICIAL PROCEDURES WHEN CONGRESS HAS MADE NO SUCH
EXACTION.  SINCE THESE AGENCIES DEAL LARGELY WITH THE VINDICATION OF
PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT THE ENFORCEMENT OF PRIVATE RIGHTS, THIS COURT
OUGHT NOT TO IMPLY HAMPERING RESTRICTIONS, NOT IMPOSED BY CONGRESS,
UPON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  ONE REASON FOR
THE EXPANSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES HAS BEEN THE RECOGNITION THAT
PROCEDURES APPROPRIATE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF PRIVATE RIGHTS IN THE
COURTS MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE KIND OF DETERMINATIONS WHICH
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE CALLED UPON TO MAKE. 

THE DISPOSITION OF THE PRESENT CASE SEEMS TO ME TO DISREGARD THESE
CONTROLLING CONSIDERATIONS, IF THE COURT NOW HOLDS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT
SO TO DO, THAT WHENEVER CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS ARE MADE FOR A RADIO
LICENSE THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MUST HEAR ALL THE APPLICATIONS
TOGETHER. 

IN THE REGULATION OF BROADCASTING, CONGRESS MOVED OUTSIDE THE
FRAMEWORK OF PROTECTED PROPERTY RIGHTS.  SEE COMMISSION V. SANDERS
RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470.  CONGRESS COULD HAVE RETAINED FOR ITSELF
THE GRANTING OR DENIAL OF THE USE OF THE AIR FOR BROADCASTING PURPOSES,
AND IT COULD HAVE GRANTED INDIVIDUAL LICENSES BY INDIVIDUAL ENACTMENTS
AS IN THE PAST IT GAVE RIVER AND HARBOR RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUALS.  INSTEAD
OF MAKING SUCH A CRUDE USE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, CONGRESS, BY
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 151,
FORMULATED AN ELABORATE LICENSING SCHEME AND ESTABLISHED THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AS ITS AGENCY FOR ENFORCEMENT.  OUR TASK IS
TO GIVE EFFECT TO THIS LEGISLATION AND TO THE AUTHORITY WHICH CONGRESS
HAS SEEN FIT TO REPOSE IN THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 

TO COME TO THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE, WHAT HAS THE COMMISSION DONE THAT IS
HERE CHALLENGED AND WHAT AUTHORITY FROM CONGRESS DOES IT AVOUCH FOR
WHAT IT HAS DONE? 

THE COMMISSION HAD BEFORE IT AT LEAST TWO APPLICATIONS FOR THE USE OF
THE SAME RADIO WAVE LENGTH IN THE WESTERN MICHIGAN AREA (MUSKEGON-GRAND
RAPIDS) - THAT OF THE PETITIONER AND FETZER'S.  THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE
COMMISSION WAS THE PROCEDURE APPROPRIATE IN ACTING UPON THESE TWO
APPLICATIONS.  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO GRANT AN
APPLICATION WITHOUT RESORT TO A PUBLIC HEARING, 47 U.S.C. SECS. 309(A),
319(A), BUT A PUBLIC HEARING MAY BE DEMANDED WHEN THE COMMISSION DENIES
AN APPLICATION, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 309(A).  THE COURT IN EFFECT RULES THAT
IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS THE COMMISSION CAN DECIDE ONLY
AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING ON ALL OF THEM.  THIS REQUIREMENT IS APPARENTLY
DERIVED FROM THE ASSUMPTION THAT IN THIS CASE THE COMMISSION, HAVING
RECEIVED TWO CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS, SHUT OFF, OUT OF HAND AND QUITE
ARBITRARILY, PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO HAVE ITS APPLICATION CONSIDERED, AS
OF COURSE THE COMMISSION IS IN DUTY BOUND TO CONSIDER IT, BY GRANTING
FETZER'S.  BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.  THE COMMISSION IS CHARGED
WITH THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WE MUST ASSUME THAT AN
AGENCY WHICH CONGRESS HAS TRUSTED DISCHARGES ITS TRUST.  ON THE RECORD
BEFORE US IT MUST BE ACCEPTED THAT THE COMMISSION, BEFORE HAVING TAKEN
ACTION, CAREFULLY TESTED, ACCORDING TO ITS ESTABLISHED PRACTICE, THE
CLAIMS BOTH OF FETZER AND OF PETITIONER BY THE TOUCHSTONE OF PUBLIC
INTEREST.  SEE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE, MONOGRAPH NO. 3, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
(1940) 8 ET SEQ. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INQUIRY, IT FOUND THAT THE FETZER
APPLICATION WAS CLEARLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST; IT FOUND THAT THE
ASHBACKER APPLICATION DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING EVEN TO STAY
THE COMMISSION'S HAND IN WITHHOLDING THE FETZER GRANT LONG ENOUGH TO
ENABLE ASHBACKER TO SUPPORT ITS APPLICATION MORE PERSUASIVELY.  ON THE
CONTRARY, IT THOUGHT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE FURTHERED BY MAKING
FETZER'S SERVICE AVAILABLE AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT THAT RESTRICTS THE COMMISSION IN
TRANSLATING ITS DUTY TO FURTHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS IT DID IN THE
PARTICULAR SITUATION BEFORE IT.  IN GRANTING FETZER'S APPLICATION AND
SETTING THE DENIAL OF THE PETITIONER'S DOWN FOR A HEARING AFTER FULLY
CANVASSING THE SITUATION, THE COMMISSION BROUGHT ITSELF WITHIN THE
EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND APPLIED THEM WITH
THAT FLEXIBILITY OF PROCEDURE WHICH CONGRESS HAS PUT INTO THE
COMMISSION'S OWN KEEPING.  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V.
POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 138. 

BUT IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE RIGHT TO A HEARING UPON DENIAL OF AN
APPLICATION IS NOT SATISFIED BY A HEARING BOUND TO BE BARREN.  IN ORDER
TO APPRECIATE THE FUNCTION OF A HEARING UNDER THE STATUTE IN A
SITUATION LIKE THAT BEFORE US, HOWEVER, IT IS VITAL TO REMEMBER THAT
THE TWO APPLICATIONS OF PETITIONER'S AND FETZER'S ARE VERY DIFFERENT
FROM AN ORDINARY LITIGATION BETWEEN FETZER AND PETITIONER IN A COURT OF
LAW.  EACH OF THEM WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE ASCERTAINMENT OF WHICH IS THE EXPERT FUNCTION
OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.  IT BEARS REPEATING THAT THE
APPLICATION OF BOTH PRESUMABLY RECEIVED CAREFUL SCRUTINY BY THE
COMMISSION BEFORE ACTION WAS TAKEN.  ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE INDICATES
THAT WHERE THERE ARE CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS, THE COMMISSION HAS
GRANTED SOME WITHOUT HEARING WHERE IT THOUGHT THE PUBLIC INTEREST BEST
SERVED BY THAT PROCEDURE, WHILE SETTING OTHERS FOR HEARING WHERE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST SO DEMANDED.  FN1  FETZER MADE A CLEAR SHOWING TO THE
AGENCY DESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSE BY CONGRESS THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST
WOULD BE SERVED BY THE GRANT OF ITS APPLICATION.  THE SAME AGENCY FOUND
NO BASIS IN PUBLIC INTEREST FOR ASHBACKER'S APPLICATION.  CERTAINLY IT
IS WHOLLY CONSONANT WITH THE SCHEME OF THE LEGISLATION AND THE POWERS
GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION THAT, UPON DENIAL OF THE ASHBACKER APPLICATION
AFTER A FINDING THAT IT WOULD NOT AND FETZER WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, THE BURDEN BE CAST ON ASHBACKER TO SHOW THAT IT WOULD SERVE
THE PUBLIC INTEREST BETTER THAN WOULD FETZER.  THE COMMISSION IS
AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE TO MODIFY A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT OR ANY LICENSE
GRANTED BY IT.  FN2  THIS GIVES CONSIDERABLE SCOPE FOR ADJUSTING THE
PRIOR GRANT TO FETZER SO AS TO GIVE TO THE PUBLIC THE BENEFITS OF
RECONCILING BOTH THE FETZER AND THE ASHBACKER APPLICATIONS, IF THE
HEARING SHOULD DEVELOP CONSIDERATIONS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE PRIOR
SCRUTINY OF THE COMMISSION.  NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE COMMISSION, IN ITS
OPINION ON HEARING THE ASHBACKER COMPLAINT, CONSTRUED ITS OWN ACTION IN
GRANTING THE FETZER APPLICATION TO BE CONDITIONAL, SO AS TO HAVE ROOM
FOR ANY ACTION WHICH IT MAY FIND WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AFTER
THE HEARING ON THE ASHBACKER APPLICATION.  SUCH A PRACTICE OF
CONDITIONAL GRANT BY THE COMMISSION OUGHT NOT TO BE DEEMED OUTSIDE THE
RANGE OF THE PROCEDURAL DISCRETION ALLOWED TO IT BY CONGRESS.  FN3 

IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE HEARING GRANTED TO
ASHBACKER DO MAKE OF IT A MERE FORMALITY, FOR THE COMMISSION PUT UPON
ASHBACKER THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE GRANT OF A LICENSE TO IT
WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE SIMULTANEOUS OPERATIONS OF THE PROPOSED
FETZER STATION.  BUT SINCE THE COMMISSION HAD APPARENTLY ALREADY
CONCLUDED THAT THE SIMULTANEOUS OPERATION OF THE TWO STATIONS WOULD
RESULT IN "INTOLERABLE INTERFERENCE," ITS ORDER FOR A HEARING SEEMS TO
FORECLOSE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT SHOULD STILL BE OPEN TO ASHBACKER.  IT
IS ENTITLED TO SHOW THE SUPERIORITY OF ITS CLAIM OVER THAT OF FETZER,
EVEN THOUGH THE COMMISSION, ON THE BASIS OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY,
WAS ENTITLED TO GRANT FETZER THE LICENSE IN THE QUALIFIED WAY IN WHICH
THE STATUTE AUTHORIZED, AND THE COMMISSION MADE, THE GRANT.  IN MY
VIEW, THEREFORE, THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE CASE IS TO RETURN IT TO
THE COMMISSION WITH DIRECTION THAT IT MODIFY ITS ORDER SO AS TO ASSURE
AN APPROPRIATE HEARING OF THE ASHBACKER APPLICATION.  IT MAY BE WISE
POLICY TO REQUIRE THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SHOULD GIVE A
PUBLIC HEARING FOR ALL MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BEFORE GRANTING ANY.  BUT
TO MY READING OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSED
THIS POLICY. 

FN1                                  CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS

           TOTAL NO. OF              NO. GRANTED    NO. GRANTED 

FISCAL          APPLICATIONS                WITHOUT      AFTER 

YEAR             CONSIDERED     NUMBER      HEARING        HEARING 

1941  .........     159           49       14              2 

1942 ..........     142           52           1              2 

1943  .........      23      5           0              1 

1944  .........      39          14           2              1 

1945  ......... 114           69           5              8 

FN2  SEC. 312(B):  "ANY STATION LICENSE HEREAFTER GRANTED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OR THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED HEREBY AND
HEREAFTER ISSUED, MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE COMMISSION EITHER FOR A
LIMITED TIME OR FOR THE DURATION OF THE TERM THEREOF, IF IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION SUCH ACTION WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY, OR THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OR
OF ANY TREATY RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES WILL BE MORE FULLY COMPLIED
WITH  ..."  CF. 47 CODE FED. REG. SEC. 1.402. 

FN3  CF. BERKS BROADCASTING CO. (WEEU), READING, PENNSYLVANIA, 8
F.C.C. 427; THE EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION (WWJ), DETROIT, MICHIGAN, 8
F.C.C. 552; MERCED BROADCASTING CO. (KYOS), MERCED, CALIFORNIA, 9
F.C.C. 118, 120. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :













SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS CO., 326 U.S. 249 


NO. 54.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1945.  - 147
F.2D 608, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE EXPIRATION
OF A PATENT ARE FEDERAL QUESTIONS, THE ANSWERS TO WHICH ARE TO BE
DERIVED FROM THE PATENT LAWS AND THE POLICIES WHICH THEY ADOPT.  P.
255. 

2.  AN ASSIGNOR OF A PATENT IS NOT ESTOPPED BY VIRTUE OF HIS
ASSIGNMENT TO DEFEND A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ASSIGNED PATENT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE ALLEGED INFRINGING DEVICE IS THAT OF A PRIOR-ART
EXPIRED PATENT.  WESTINGHOUSE CO. V. FORMICA CO., 266 U.S. 342,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 250, 257. 

3.  THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL SO AS TO FORECLOSE
THE ASSIGNOR OF A PATENT FROM ASSERTING THE RIGHT TO MAKE USE OF THE
PRIOR-ART INVENTION OF AN EXPIRED PATENT, WHICH ANTICIPATES THAT OF THE
ASSIGNED PATENT, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PATENT LAWS WHICH DEDICATE TO
PUBLIC USE THE INVENTION OF AN EXPIRED PATENT.  P. 257. 

4.  THE PATENT LAWS DO NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT ANYONE BY CONTRACT OR ANY
FORM OF PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT MAY WITHHOLD FROM THE PUBLIC THE USE OF THE
INVENTION OF AN EXPIRED PATENT, THE PUBLIC RIGHT TO THE ENJOYMENT OF
WHICH HAS BEEN SECURED BY THE GRANT OF A MONOPOLY IN THE PATENTED
INVENTION FOR A LIMITED TIME.  P. 256. 

SCOTT PAPER CO. V. MARCALUS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 843, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF, 54 F.SUPP.  105, IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT
OF A PATENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSIGNOR
OF A PATENT IS ESTOPPED BY VIRTUE OF HIS ASSIGNMENT TO DEFEND A SUIT
FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ASSIGNED PATENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ALLEGED
INFRINGING DEVICE IS THAT OF A PRIOR ART, EXPIRED PATENT. 

AUTOMATIC PAPER MACHINERY COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER'S ASSIGNOR,
ACQUIRED BY ASSIGNMENT, FROM RESPONDENT MARCALUS, PATENT NO. 1,843,429
OF FEBRUARY 2, 1932, ISSUED ON THE APPLICATION OF MARCALUS FOR "A
METHOD AND MACHINE FOR MOUNTING A CUTTING STRIP OF A HARD NON-METALLIC
SUBSTANCE ON AN EDGE OF A BOX BLANK."  THE PATENT DESCRIBES AND CLAIMS
A METHOD, AND A MACHINE FOR EMPLOYING IT, WHEREBY, IN SUBSTANTIALLY ONE
OPERATION, INDURATED PAPER IS DRAWN FROM A ROLL AND BROUGHT INTO
OVERLAPPING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EDGE OF A BOX BLANK, WHEN A STRIP OF
THE PAPER IS AUTOMATICALLY CUT OFF AND GLUED TO THE BOX BLANK IN SUCH
POSITION THAT ITS LONGITUDINAL EDGE PROJECTS BEYOND THE EDGE OF THE BOX
BLANK.  THE BOX THUS EQUIPPED WITH THE CUTTING EDGE OF THE STRIP IS
USEFUL AS A DISPENSING CONTAINER FOR ROLLED WAX PAPER WHICH, AS DRAWN
FROM THE ROLL, MAY BE CUT IN ANY DESIRED LENGTHS BY DRAWING IT ACROSS
THE CUTTING EDGE AT AN ANGLE WITH THE PLANE OF THE CUTTER.  MARCALUS,
WHILE AN OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER, MADE THE PATENTED
INVENTION AND ASSIGNED HIS PATENT APPLICATION TO PETITIONER FOR A
VALUABLE CONSIDERATION.  THE PATENT ISSUED ON THE APPLICATION AS FILED,
WITHOUT AMENDMENT, AFTER WHICH MARCALUS SEVERED HIS CONNECTION WITH
PETITIONER AND ORGANIZED RESPONDENT COMPANY, WHICH HE CONTROLS, AND
WHICH, LIKE PETITIONER, IS ENGAGED IN PRODUCING AND SELLING BOX BLANKS
HAVING A CUTTING EDGE. 

IN THE PRESENT SUIT, BROUGHT BY PETITIONER FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE
ASSIGNED PATENT, RESPONDENTS DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR ACCUSED
MACHINE IS A COPY OF THAT OF THE EXPIRED, PRIOR ART PATENT ISSUED TO
INMAN IN 1912.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER, 54
F.SUPP.  105, HOLDING THAT INASMUCH AS RESPONDENTS WERE ESTOPPED BY
MARCALUS' ASSIGNMENT OF THE PATENT TO SHOW ITS INVALIDITY, THEY COULD
NOT, BY RECOURSE TO THE PRIOR ART TO SHOW NONINFRINGEMENT, ACCOMPLISH
THE SAME RESULT BY INDIRECTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 147
F.2D 608, HOLDING THAT THE PRIOR ART MAY BE RESORTED TO BY THE ASSIGNOR
TO MEASURE THE EXTENT OF ANTICIPATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIMITING THE
CLAIMS OF THE ASSIGNED PATENT, AND THUS AVOID INFRINGEMENT.  BECAUSE OF
THE IDENTITY PATENTWISE OF THE INMAN PATENT WITH THE ASSIGNED PATENT
AND WITH THE ACCUSED DEVICE, THE COURT HELD THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE
ASSIGNED PATENT WERE LIMITED TO NAUGHT, AND HENCE THAT THERE COULD BE
NO INFRINGEMENT. 

TO SUSTAIN ITS RIGHT TO ENJOIN INFRINGEMENT BY THE ASSIGNOR OF A
PATENTED INVENTION ANTICIPATED BY A PRIOR ART PATENT, PETITIONER RELIES
ON THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL AS APPLIED TO THE ASSIGNOR OF A PATENT FOR
VALUE.  ITS BASIC PRINCIPLE IS SAID TO BE ONE OF GOOD FAITH, THAT ONE
WHO HAS SOLD HIS INVENTION MAY NOT, TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PURCHASER,
DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THAT WHICH HE HAS SOLD.  SEE WESTINGHOUSE CO. V.
FORMICA CO., 288 F. 330, 333.  THE RULE, AS STATED BY THIS COURT IN
WESTINGHOUSE CO. V. FORMICA CO., 266 U.S. 342, 349, IS "THAT AN
ASSIGNOR OF A PATENT RIGHT IS ESTOPPED TO ATTACK THE UTILITY, NOVELTY
OR VALIDITY OF A PATENTED INVENTION WHICH HE HAS ASSIGNED OR GRANTED AS
AGAINST ANY ONE CLAIMING THE RIGHT UNDER HIS ASSIGNMENT OR GRANT.  AS
TO THE REST OF THE WORLD, THE PATENT MAY HAVE NO EFFICACY AND CREATE NO
RIGHT OF MONOPOLY; BUT THE ASSIGNOR CAN NOT BE HEARD TO QUESTION THE
RIGHT OF HIS ASSIGNEE TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM ITS USE.  CURRAN V. BURDSALL,
20 FED. 835; BALL & SOCKET FASTENER CO. V. BALL GLOVE FASTENING CO., 58
FED. 818; WOODWARD V. BOSTON LASTING MACHINE CO., 60 FED. 283, 284;
BABCOCK V. CLARKSON, 63 FED. 607; NOONAN V. CHESTER PARK ATHLETIC CO.,
99 FED. 90, 91." 

RESPONDENTS, DENYING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL CAN RIGHTLY BE
APPLIED TO PATENT ASSIGNMENTS, ALSO INSIST THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE.  COMPARE BUCKINGHAM PRODUCTS CO. V.
MCALEER MFG. CO., 108 F.2D 192 WITH CASCO PRODUCTS CORP. V. SINKO TOOL
& MFG. CO., 116 F.2D 119.  BOTH PARTIES RELY ON THE DECISION OF THIS
COURT IN THE FORMICA CASE, SUPRA, WHICH, ALTHOUGH STATING THAT THE
ASSIGNOR CANNOT DENY THE NOVELTY AND VALIDITY OF THE ASSIGNED PATENTED
INVENTION, NEVERTHELESS HELD THAT THE CLAIMS OF A PATENT MAY BE
NARROWED BY REFERENCE TO THE PRIOR ART SO AS TO RESTRICT THEM TO SO
MUCH OF THE INVENTION DESCRIBED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS AS IS NOT
EXHIBITED BY THE PRIOR ART. KLEIN V. RUSSELL, 19 WALL.  433, 466, 467;
GARNEAU V. DOZIER, 102 U.S. 230; WOLLENSAK V. REIHER, 115 U.S. 87;
BEIDLER V. UNITED STATES, 253 U.S. 447; MACKAY CO. V. RADIO CORP., 306
U.S. 86, 94.  CF. HOCKING & CO. V. HOCKING, 4 R.P.C. 255, 434, 6 R.P.C.
69; CLARK V. ADIE, 2 APP. CAS. 423; CROSTHWAITE V. STEEL, 6 R.P.C.
190. 

THIS COURT IN THE FORMICA CASE, PASSING THE QUESTION, NOT PRESENT
HERE, WHETHER THE ESTOPPEL OF THE ASSIGNOR EXTENDS TO CLAIMS ADDED BY
THE ASSIGNEE TO THE APPLICATION IN THE PATENT OFFICE, HELD THAT THE
ESTOPPEL DID NOT, IN ANY EVENT, PRECLUDE THE ASSIGNOR CHARGED AS AN
INFRINGER FROM NARROWING OR QUALIFYING THEIR CONSTRUCTION BY REFERENCE
TO THE PRIOR ART, SAYING, 266 U.S. AT 351: "THE DISTINCTION MAY BE A
NICE ONE BUT SEEMS TO BE WORKABLE."  IT ACCORDINGLY, BY REFERENCE TO
THE PRIOR ART, INTERPRETED THE CLAIMS, BY NARROWING THEM TO A TWO-STEP
PROCESS, SHOWN BY THE SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH THE COURT FOUND TO BE THE
ASSIGNOR'S ADVANCE OVER THE PRIOR ART, BUT WHICH WAS NOT IN TERMS
EMBODIED IN THE CLAIMS.  THE COURT THUS SUSTAINED THE DEFENSE OF
NONINFRINGEMENT BY RESTRICTING THE CLAIMS BY REFERENCE TO THE PRIOR
ART, AND BY HOLDING IN EFFECT THAT THE INVENTION ASSIGNED WAS NOT AS
BROAD IN SCOPE AS THE CLAIMS WOULD OTHERWISE ON THEIR FACE DEFINE IT TO
BE. 

PETITIONER, POINTING TO THE LOGICAL EMBARRASSMENT IN APPLYING A
DOCTRINE WHICH FORBIDS THE ASSIGNOR TO DENY VALIDITY OF THE PATENTED
INVENTION FOR WANT OF NOVELTY, BUT NEVERTHELESS ALLOWS HIM TO NARROW
ITS SCOPE BY REFERENCE TO THE PRIOR ART IN ORDER TO SAVE HIS ACCUSED
DEVICE FROM INFRINGEMENT, INSISTS THAT THE COURT BELOW HAS RESORTED TO
THE PRIOR ART, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF NARROWING THE CLAIMS AND
DISTINGUISHING FROM THE PRIOR ART SOMETHING WHICH THE ASSIGNOR
INVENTED, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING THE CLAIMS BECAUSE
ANTICIPATED.  THIS IS SAID TO BE PRECISELY THE SAME IN PURPOSE AND
EFFECT AS TO DENY INVENTION FOR WANT OF NOVELTY.  IT IS URGED THAT THE
PERMISSION THUS GIVEN TO RESPONDENT ASSIGNOR TO SHOW WANT OF NOVELTY
WHICH HE IS ESTOPPED TO DENY, IS TO DISREGARD THE ESTOPPEL BY WHICH, BY
HYPOTHESIS, HE IS BOUND. 

RESPONDENTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, INSIST THAT A LITERAL APPLICATION OF
THE RULE OF THE FORMICA CASE LIMITS THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSIGNED PATENT
TO A STRUCTURE HAVING CERTAIN MINOR MECHANICAL ADDITIONS MADE BY
MARCALUS TO THE MACHINE OF THE INMAN PATENT WHICH RESPONDENTS COPIED BY
THEIR ACCUSED DEVICE.  THESE ADDITIONS, IT IS CONCEDED, MAY NOT INVOLVE
INVENTION, BUT IF SO, IT IS SAID, RESPONDENTS ARE ESTOPPED TO ASSERT
IT.  AND APPLYING THE RULE OF THE FORMICA CASE THEY URGE THAT THE
CLAIMS OF THE PATENT MAY NEVERTHELESS BE NARROWED TO A MACHINE
EMBODYING THE ADDITIONAL, MINOR FEATURES NOT FOUND IN THE INMAN
MACHINE, AND INFRINGEMENT MAY THUS BE AVOIDED. 

BUT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO
PURSUE THESE LOGICAL REFINEMENTS, OR TO DETERMINE WHETHER, AS
RESPONDENT ASKS, THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL BY PATENT ASSIGNMENT AS
STATED BY THE FORMICA CASE SHOULD BE REJECTED.  TO WHATEVER EXTENT THAT
DOCTRINE MAY BE DEEMED TO HAVE SURVIVED THE FORMICA DECISION OR TO BE
RESTRICTED BY IT, WE THINK THAT CASE IS NOT CONTROLLING HERE.  FOR
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE DISPOSITIVE OF THIS CASE, IN WHICH, UNLIKE
FORMICA, THE ACCUSED MACHINE IS PRECISELY THAT OF AN EXPIRED PATENT. 
NEITHER IN THAT CASE NOR IN ANY OTHER, SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED, WAS
THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL APPLIED SO AS TO PENALIZE THE USE OF THE
INVENTION OF AN EXPIRED PATENT.  THAT WE THINK IS FORECLOSED BY THE
PATENT LAWS THEMSELVES. 

REVISED STATUTES, SECS. 4886, 4884 AS AMENDED, 35 U.S.C. SECS. 31,
40, PROVIDE FOR THE GRANT OF A PATENT FOR A TERM OF SEVENTEEN YEARS TO
ANY PERSON WHO HAS INVENTED A "NEW AND USEFUL ART, MACHINE,
MANUFACTURE, OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER."  THE GRANT IS CONDITIONED UPON
THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION IN THE PATENT OFFICE DESCRIBING THE
INVENTION AND THE MANNER OF MAKING AND USING IT. R.S. SEC. 4888 AS
AMENDED, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33.  REVISED STATUTES, SECS. 4895, 4898, 35
U.S.C. SECS. 44, 47, AUTHORIZE THE ASSIGNMENT OF AN INVENTION WHILE THE
APPLICATION FOR A PATENT IS PENDING AND OF THE PATENT RIGHTS TO THE
INVENTION AFTER THE PATENT HAS ISSUED.  SECTION 24(7) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(7), CONFERS ON DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES JURISDICTION OF CASES ARISING UNDER THE PATENT LAWS, AND R.S.
SEC. 4921 AS AMENDED, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 70, GIVES THE DISTRICT COURTS
AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN SUITS TO RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENT AND FOR RECOVERY
OF ANY RESULTING DAMAGE FROM THE INFRINGEMENT OF ANY RIGHT SECURED BY
THE PATENT GRANT. 

THE ENACTMENT OF THESE PROVISIONS IS THE MODE BY WHICH CONGRESS HAS
CHOSEN TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE POLICY SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 8 "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL
ARTS, BY SECURING FOR LIMITED TIMES TO  ...  INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO THEIR  ...  DISCOVERIES."  THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THE EXPIRATION OF A PATENT ARE FEDERAL QUESTIONS, THE
ANSWERS TO WHICH ARE TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PATENT LAWS AND THE
POLICIES WHICH THEY ADOPT.  CF. SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON CO., 317
U.S. 173, 176; STEELE V. L. & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 204, AND CASES
CITED.  BY THE PATENT LAWS CONGRESS HAS GIVEN TO THE INVENTOR
OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE THE MATERIAL REWARDS FOR HIS INVENTION FOR A
LIMITED TIME, ON CONDITION THAT HE MAKE FULL DISCLOSURE FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE PUBLIC OF THE MANNER OF MAKING AND USING THE INVENTION, AND THAT
UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE PATENT THE PUBLIC BE LEFT FREE TO USE THE
INVENTION.  SEE SPECIAL EQUIPMENT CO. V. COE, 324 U.S. 370, 378.  AS
HAS BEEN MANY TIMES POINTED OUT, THE MEANS ADOPTED BY CONGRESS OF
PROMOTING THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND THE ARTS IS THE LIMITED GRANT OF
THE PATENT MONOPOLY IN RETURN FOR THE FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE PATENTED
INVENTION AND ITS DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE
PATENT.  GRANT V. RAYMOND, 6 PET. 218, 241-242; GILL V. WELLS, 22
WALL.  1; BAUER V. O'DONNELL, 229 U.S. 1; MOTION PICTURE CO. V.
UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 243 U.S. 502, 510-511, AND CASES CITED. 

THE AIM OF THE PATENT LAWS IS NOT ONLY THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
SHALL BE FREE TO MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCT OR EMPLOY THE PROCESS
DISCLOSED BY THE EXPIRED PATENT, BUT ALSO THAT THE CONSUMING PUBLIC AT
LARGE SHALL RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF THE UNRESTRICTED EXPLOITATION, BY
OTHERS, OF ITS DISCLOSURES.  KELLOGG CO. V. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., 305
U.S. 111, 117-120.  IF A MANUFACTURER OR USER COULD RESTRICT HIMSELF,
BY EXPRESS CONTRACT, OR BY ANY ACTION WHICH WOULD GIVE RISE TO AN
"ESTOPPEL," FROM USING THE INVENTION OF AN EXPIRED PATENT, HE WOULD
DEPRIVE HIMSELF AND THE CONSUMING PUBLIC OF THE ADVANTAGE TO BE DERIVED
FROM HIS FREE USE OF THE DISCLOSURES.  THE PUBLIC HAS INVESTED IN SUCH
FREE USE BY THE GRANT OF A MONOPOLY TO THE PATENTEE FOR A LIMITED
TIME.  HENCE ANY ATTEMPTED RESERVATION OR CONTINUATION IN THE PATENTEE
OR THOSE CLAIMING UNDER HIM OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY, AFTER THE PATENT
EXPIRES, WHATEVER THE LEGAL DEVICE EMPLOYED, RUNS COUNTER TO THE POLICY
AND PURPOSE OF THE PATENT LAWS.  AND FOR THE SAME REASON A STRANGER,
SUCH AS RESPONDENT MARCALUS, CANNOT, BY SECURING AND ASSIGNING A PATENT
ON THE INVENTION OF THE EXPIRED INMAN PATENT, CONFER ON PETITIONER ANY
RIGHT TO DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF THE BENEFITS OF THE FREE USE OF THE
INVENTION FOR WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS PAID BY THE GRANT OF A LIMITED
MONOPOLY. 

BY THE FORCE OF THE PATENT LAWS NOT ONLY IS THE INVENTION OF A PATENT
DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC UPON ITS EXPIRATION, BUT THE PUBLIC THEREBY
BECOMES ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE GOOD WILL WHICH THE PATENTEE HAS BUILT
UP IN THE PATENTED ARTICLE OR PRODUCT THROUGH THE ENJOYMENT OF HIS
PATENT MONOPOLY.  HENCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE PATENTEE MAY NOT EXCLUDE
THE PUBLIC FROM PARTICIPATING IN THAT GOOD WILL OR SECURE, TO ANY
EXTENT, A CONTINUATION OF HIS MONOPOLY BY RESORTING TO THE TRADEMARK
LAW AND REGISTERING AS A TRADEMARK ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTIVE MATTER
APPEARING IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, DRAWINGS OR CLAIMS OF THE EXPIRED
PATENT, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH MATTER DESCRIBES ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE
INVENTION OR CLAIMS.  KELLOGG CO. V. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., SUPRA, 117
120; SINGER MANUFACTURING CO. V. JUNE MANUFACTURING CO., 163 U.S. 169,
185.    IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE PATENT LAWS PRECLUDE THE PATENTEE
OF AN EXPIRED PATENT AND ALL OTHERS INCLUDING PETITIONER FROM
RECAPTURING ANY PART OF THE FORMER PATENT MONOPOLY; FOR THOSE LAWS
DEDICATE TO ALL THE PUBLIC THE IDEAS AND INVENTIONS EMBODIED IN AN
EXPIRED PATENT.  THEY DO NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT ANYONE BY CONTRACT OR ANY
FORM OF PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT MAY WITHHOLD FROM THE PUBLIC THE USE OF AN
INVENTION FOR WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS PAID BY ITS GRANT OF A MONOPOLY AND
WHICH HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED TO THE USE OF ALL.  THE RIGHTS IN THE
INVENTION ARE THEN NO LONGER SUBJECT TO PRIVATE BARTER, SALE, OR
WAIVER.  CF. PHILLIPS CO. V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 236 U.S. 662; MIDSTATE
HORTICULTURAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 320 U.S. 356, 361; BROOKLYN
BANK V. O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697, 704.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PATENT LAWS
PRECLUDE THE PETITIONER ASSIGNEE FROM INVOKING THE DOCTRINE OF
ESTOPPEL, AS A MEANS OF CONTINUING AS AGAINST RESPONDENT, HIS ASSIGNOR,
THE BENEFIT OF AN EXPIRED MONOPOLY, AND THEY PRECLUDE THE ASSIGNOR FROM
ESTOPPING HIMSELF FROM ENJOYING RIGHTS WHICH IT IS THE POLICY OF THE
PATENT LAWS TO FREE FROM ALL RESTRICTIONS.  FOR NO MORE THAN PRIVATE
CONTRACT CAN ESTOPPEL BE THE MEANS OF SUCCESSFULLY AVOIDING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF LEGISLATION ENACTED FOR THE PROTECTION OF A PUBLIC
INTEREST.  COMPARE PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. FINK, 250 U.S.
577, 583 WITH LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 219 U.S. 467,
476-477; NEW YORK CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. GRAY, 239 U.S. 583, 586-587;
NORMAN V. B. & O.R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, 304-305, 309-310, AND CASES
CITED.  THE INTEREST IN PRIVATE GOOD FAITH IS NOT A UNIVERSAL
TOUCHSTONE WHICH CAN BE MADE THE MEANS OF SACRIFICING A PUBLIC INTEREST
SECURED BY AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.  THE
PATENT LAWS PRECLUDE US FROM SAYING THAT THE PATENT ASSIGNMENT, WHICH
THEY AUTHORIZE, OPERATES TO ESTOP THE ASSIGNOR FROM ASSERTING THAT
WHICH THE PATENT LAWS PRESCRIBE, NAMELY, THAT THE INVENTION OF AN
EXPIRED PATENT IS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC, OF WHICH THE ASSIGNOR IS A
MEMBER. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED FOR THE REASON THAT WE FIND THAT THE
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL SO AS TO FORECLOSE THE ASSIGNOR
OF A PATENT FROM ASSERTING THE RIGHT TO MAKE USE OF THE PRIOR ART
INVENTION OF AN EXPIRED PATENT, WHICH ANTICIPATES THAT OF THE ASSIGNED
PATENT, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PATENT LAWS WHICH DEDICATE TO PUBLIC
USE THE INVENTION OF AN EXPIRED PATENT.  THE ASSIGNOR HAS A COMPLETE
DEFENSE TO AN ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT WHERE THE ALLEGED INFRINGING
DEVICE IS THAT OF AN EXPIRED PATENT. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION DISCUSSED IN BRIEFS AND
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, WHETHER THE ESTOPPEL BY PATENT ASSIGNMENT
VIOLATES EITHER THE TERMS OR POLICY OF THE LAWS AGAINST RESTRAINTS OF
TRADE AND COMPETITION* . 

*THIS QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED OR ARGUED IN WESTINGHOUSE CO. V.
FORMICA CO., SUPRA, NOR, SO FAR AS APPEARS, IN ANY OF THE CASES CITED
IN THAT OPINION OR THE ENGLISH CASES WHICH PRECEDED IT. 

BY SEC. 515 OF THE RESTATEMENT OF CONTRACTS, A RESTRAINT OF TRADE IS
UNREASONABLE AND HENCE UNLAWFUL IF IT "IS BASED ON A PROMISE TO REFRAIN
FROM COMPETITION AND IS NOT ANCILLARY EITHER TO A CONTRACT FOR THE
TRANSFER OF GOOD WILL OR OTHER SUBJECT OF PROPERTY  ..."  SEE GENERALLY
AS TO THE VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS NOT TO COMPETE 76 PA. L. REV. 244, 257
FF.; HANDLER, CASES AND MATERIALS ON TRADE REGULATION, 102-150. 
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONSIDERS THAT THE DOMINANT RULE OF WESTINGHOUSE CO.
V. FORMICA CO., 266 U.S. 342, 349, IS "THAT AN ASSIGNOR OF A PATENT
RIGHT IS ESTOPPED TO ATTACK THE UTILITY, NOVELTY OR VALIDITY OF A
PATENTED INVENTION WHICH HE HAS ASSIGNED OR GRANTED AS AGAINST ANY ONE
CLAIMING THE RIGHT UNDER HIS ASSIGNMENT OR GRANT."  THE FACT THAT THE
PRIOR ART IS EVIDENCED BY AN EXPIRED PATENT DOES NOT SEEM SIGNIFICANT
TO HIM.  CONSEQUENTLY HE WOULD REVERSE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

WHEN BY A FAIR AND FREE BARGAIN A MAN SELLS SOMETHING TO ANOTHER, IT
HARDLY LIES IN HIS MOUTH TO SAY, "I HAVE SOLD YOU NOTHING."  IT
CERTAINLY OFFENDS THE RUDIMENTARY SENSE OF JUSTICE FOR COURTS TO
SUPPORT ONE WHO PURPORTS TO SELL SOMETHING TO ANOTHER IN SAYING "WHAT I
HAVE SOLD YOU IS WORTHLESS," EVEN THOUGH HE DID NOT EXPRESSLY PROMISE
THAT WHAT HE SOLD HAD WORTH.  THE OBVIOUS IMPLICATIONS OF FAIR DEALING
IN COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN PART OF OUR LAW FOR AT LEAST A
HUNDRED YEARS.  AND IT WOULD BE SURPRISING INDEED IF THE LAW MADE A
DIFFERENCE WHETHER WHAT WAS PURPORTED TO BE SOLD WAS A DIAMOND, OR A
SECRET PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING A COMMODITY, OR A PATENTED MACHINE. 

IT HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED THAT COURTS WILL NOT MAKE THEMSELVES
INSTRUMENTS OF UNFAIR DEALING WHEN WHAT IS SOLD IS A PATENT.  IN
TECHNICAL LANGUAGE, THE SALE OF A PATENT MEANS ITS ASSIGNMENT. 
CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE CONFINED THE RIGHT TO EXPLOIT A PATENT SOLELY TO
THE PATENTEE.  CONGRESS HAS ACTED ON THE CONTRARY POLICY.  EVER SINCE
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 21, 1793, 1 STAT. 318, CONGRESS HAS SANCTIONED THE
RIGHT TO ASSIGN PATENTS, REQUIRING ONLY FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN
FORMALITIES.  TO BE SURE, CONGRESS HAS NOT SAID IN SO MANY WORDS THAT
THE SELLER OF A PATENT - AN ASSIGNOR - IS SUBJECT LIKE OTHER SELLERS TO
THE OBLIGATIONS OF FAIR DEALING.  IT HAS NOT SAID THAT HE CANNOT TURN
AROUND ON THE MORROW AND RENDER FUTILE THAT WHICH HE HAS SOLD BY
CLAIMING THAT WHAT HE PURPORTED TO SELL AS A PATENT WAS IN TRUTH NOT A
PATENT, AND, SINCE IT WAS NOT A PATENT, HE, THE SELLER, COULD NOT BE
CHARGED WITH IMPAIRING THE WORTH OF THE PATENT BY PRACTISING IT
HIMSELF.  UNTIL THIS DAY SUCH A SOPHISTICAL ARGUMENT TO ACCOMPLISH
OVERREACHING IN A BUSINESS TRANSACTION HAS UNIFORMLY BEEN REJECTED BY
THE COURTS, AND IT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THIS COURT ON BASIC
CONSIDERATIONS OF "FAIR DEALING."  WESTINGHOUSE CO. V. FORMICA CO., 266
U.S. 342, 350.  IT IS RELEVANT TO RECALL THAT INSISTENCE ON THIS
DOCTRINE WAS UNANIMOUSLY MADE IN THE FORMICA CASE BY A COURT WHICH
INCLUDED MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, THAN WHOM NO ONE WAS MORE ZEALOUSLY
ALERT AGAINST THE SLIGHTEST INROADS UPON THE PUBLIC INTEREST THROUGH
UNDUE EXTENSION OF PATENT RIGHTS.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT
THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH WHICH THE CONSCIENCE OF EQUITY HAS THUS
ENFORCED BINDS ONLY AN ASSIGNOR WHO SEEKS TO USE THE COURTS TO DEFEAT
THAT WHICH HE PURPORTED TO SELL.  IT MERELY RESTRICTS ONE PERSON, THE
ASSIGNOR, FROM DENYING THAT HE SOLD A PATENT WHEN HE PURPORTED TO SELL
IT, LEAVING THE WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD FREE TO ASSAIL THE VALIDITY OR
NOVELTY OF THE PATENT. 

TO BE SURE, THE PATENT LEGISLATION DOES NOT IN SO MANY WORDS
FORMULATE THIS DOCTRINE OF FAIR DEALING BETWEEN ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE. 
BUT PATENT LEGISLATION, LIKE OTHER LEGISLATION AND INDEED LIKE ALL
COMPOSITIONS, IMPLIEDLY CONTAINS PRESUPPOSITIONS WHICH NEED NOT BE
SPELLED OUT PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.  THE FAIR
INTENDMENT OF A PATENT ASSIGNMENT AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS IS AS MUCH TO
BE RESPECTED AS THE SAME MEANING EXPLICITLY STATED.  PATENT LEGISLATION
IS PART OF THE GREAT BODY OF LAW.  FAMILIAR EQUITABLE DOCTRINES,
APPLICABLE TO THE WHOLE DOMAIN OF LAW AND UNQUESTIONED AS PART OF THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS, ARE INFUSED INTO SPECIFIC ENACTMENTS DEALING ONLY
WITH THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS THAT CALL FOR SPECIFIC FORMULATION.  IF
WARRANT IN THE LANGUAGE OF CONGRESS HAD TO BE FOUND FOR ALL
ADJUDICATIONS MADE BY THIS COURT IN LITIGATION INVOLVING PATENTS, NO
INCONSIDERABLE VOLUME OF DECISIONS DRAWN FROM GENERAL EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES OUGHT NEVER TO HAVE BEEN MADE AND SHOULD BE UNDONE. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR DEALING AS BETWEEN ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE OF A
PATENT WHEREBY THE ASSIGNOR WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SAY THAT WHAT HE
SOLD AS A PATENT WAS NOT A PATENT HAS BEEN PART OF THE FABRIC OF OUR
LAW THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THIS NATION.  IT HAS BEEN UNDEVIATINGLY
ENFORCED BY ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTS IN THIS COUNTRY, IN ENGLAND, IN
CANADA, AND AUSTRALIA.  SEE, E.G., OLDHAM V. LANGMEAD, CITED IN HAYNE
V. MALTBY, 3 T.R. 438, 439, 441(1789); INDIANA MFG. CO. V. SMITH, 10
CAN.  EXCH.  17(1905); SHEPHERD V. PATENT COMPOSITION PAVEMENT CO., 5
AUST.  JUR.  27(1874).  IF THERE ARE REASONS OF PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST
THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF THIS EQUITABLE DOCTRINE IN THE CASE OF A
PATENT, CONGRESS HAS READY MEANS OF UNDOING THAT WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN
PART OF THE PATENT LAW, AS IS TRUE OF OTHER PROVISIONS WHICH IN ITS
WISDOM MAY CALL FOR CHANGE.  THIS DOCTRINE, VOLUMINOUSLY APPLIED IN THE
LAW REPORTS, HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED BY CONGRESS IN THE SUCCESSIVE
ENACTMENTS AMENDING THE PATENT LAW.  ONLY VERY RECENTLY BILLS DEALING
WITH THIS SUBJECT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED BUT HAVE NOT YET BEEN ACTED
UPON.  SEE, E.G., H.R. 97 AND H.R. 3462, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1945);
H.R. 3874, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1943).  THE PLACE FOR RECONSIDERING
THE POLICY WHICH THIS COURT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO CHARACTERIZED AS
"A RULE WELL SETTLED BY FORTY-FIVE YEARS OF JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION,"
WESTINGHOUSE CO. V. FORMICA CO., SUPRA, AT 349, IS THE CONGRESS.  THAT
FORUM IS NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE STARK ALTERNATIVES OF EITHER ADHERING
TO THE RULE OR WIPING IT OUT, BUT HAS THE WIDE RANGE OF LEGISLATIVE
DISCRETION IN CONSIDERING WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD IN THE RULE AND
FASHIONING LEGISLATION APPROPRIATE TO THE DIVERSIFIED ASPECTS OF THE
PROBLEM. 

THE COURT PROFESSES NEITHER TO REJECT, NOR TO ADHERE TO, THE
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR DEALING REAFFIRMED BY THE FORMICA CASE.  IT
FINDS GROUND FOR AVOIDING WHAT SEEM TO ME TO BE INESCAPABLE
ALTERNATIVES BY THE CLAIM THAT THE ASSIGNOR HERE PURPORTED TO ASSIGN A
PATENT WHICH TURNS OUT TO BE INVALID BECAUSE IT NOW APPEARS THAT IT WAS
BASED ON AN EARLIER EXPIRED PATENT.  SINCE AN EXPIRED PATENT MAKES IT
PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, THE ASSIGNOR, ALTHOUGH HE HAD SOLD WHAT NEED
NOT HAVE BEEN BOUGHT, COULD ENTER THE DOMAIN LIKE THE REST OF THE
PUBLIC.  SO GOES THE ARGUMENT.  BUT THIS, I SUBMIT WITH ALL RESPECT, IS
TO THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH.  FOR IT AMOUNTS TO SAYING THAT THE
ASSIGNOR IN RAISING INVALIDITY IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT IS JUST A
PART OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND CAN ASK THE COURT TO ENFORCE EVERY
DEFENSE OPEN TO THE REST OF THE PUBLIC.  THE ESSENCE OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF FAIR DEALING WHICH BINDS THE ASSIGNOR OF A PATENT IN A SUIT BY THE
ASSIGNEE, EVEN THOUGH IT TURNS OUT THAT THE PATENT IS INVALID OR LACKS
NOVELTY, IS THAT IN THIS RELATION THE ASSIGNOR IS NOT PART OF THE
GENERAL PUBLIC BUT IS APART FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  THE ISOLATED,
INDIVIDUAL RELATION BETWEEN ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE, DUE TO THE SALE BY
THE ASSIGNOR OF SOMETHING WHICH HE AFTERWARDS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO
SAY WAS NOTHING, IS THE BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE OF FAIR DEALING WHICH
OPERATES AGAINST HIM AND AGAINST NOBODY ELSE.  THAT DOCTRINE IS WHOLLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO THE FREE AND
UNFETTERED USE OF A PATENT AFTER ITS TIME HAS EXPIRED.  IT IS
SUGGESTED, ALSO, THAT THE PUBLIC IS HARMED BY REMOVING THE ASSIGNOR
FROM THE RANKS OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL MANUFACTURERS OF WHAT IS COVERED
BY THE PATENT.  BUT THAT IS TRUE OF EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE ASSIGNOR IS
BARRED FROM QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF HIS ASSIGNMENT.  AS AGAINST THE
LOSS TO THE PUBLIC OF ONE POSSIBLE MANUFACTURER IS PUT THE PUBLIC
POLICY OF FAIR DEALING BETWEEN MAN AND MAN.  THAT IS THE MEANING OF THE
FORMICA DOCTRINE.  FN1 

A MACHINE THAT IS NOT PATENTABLE BECAUSE IT IS NOT NOVEL IS JUST AS
MUCH PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AS A MACHINE ON WHICH THE PATENT HAS
EXPIRED.  IF PUBLIC POLICY DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN INDIVIDUAL FROM BEING
HELD TO A FAIR BARGAIN WITH ANOTHER WHEN HE PURPORTED TO SELL AS A
PATENT WHAT IN FACT WAS NEVER PATENTABLE, WHAT IS THERE IN REASON - FOR
THERE IS NOTHING IN WHAT CONGRESS HAS SAID - THAT SHOULD PRECLUDE
ENFORCEMENT OF A FAIR BARGAIN WHEREBY AN INDIVIDUAL AGREED, IN EFFECT,
NOT TO COMPETE WITH ANOTHER REGARDING A MACHINE WHICH TURNS OUT NOT TO
HAVE BEEN PATENTABLE BECAUSE IT REPRESENTED AN EXPIRED PATENT OPEN TO
ALL THE REST OF THE WORLD?  OF COURSE, PARTIES CANNOT BY AGREEMENT
DEFEAT AN EXPLICIT PROVISION OR PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION.  ONE SHIPPER
CANNOT, FOR INSTANCE, SECURE THE PRIVATE ADVANTAGE OF A LOWER RATE WHEN
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PROVIDES FOR EQUALITY OF RATES AMONG
SHIPPERS, PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. FINK, 250 U.S. 577; NOR
CAN AN EMPLOYER DEFEAT THE PROTECTIVE PURPOSE OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT SETTING MINIMUM WAGE LIMITS, BY AN AGREEMENT BASED ON THE
INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES, BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V. O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697, 706.  THERE
IS NOTHING COMPARABLE TO SUCH SITUATIONS IN THE LANGUAGE OR PURPOSE OF
THE PATENT LAWS REGARDING ASSIGNMENT OF PATENTS.  ON THE CONTRARY, AS
WE HAVE SEEN, THE PRINCIPLE WHEREBY AN ASSIGNOR IS HELD TO HIS BARGAIN
WITH THE ASSIGNEE HAS BEEN PART OF THE TEXTURE OF OUR PATENT LAW
THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY.  CONGRESS IN ITS SUCCESSIVE ENACTMENTS
MODIFYING THE PATENT LAW HAS RESPECTED THIS PRINCIPLE AND LEFT IT
UNTOUCHED.  FN2 

HAPPILY LAW IS NOT SO DIVORCED FROM ETHICAL STANDARDS THAT A HITHERTO
UNQUESTIONED PRINCIPLE OF FAIR DEALING SHOULD BE DEEMED HOSTILE TO ANY
BRANCH OF THE LAW.  BUT IF THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR DEALING AS BETWEEN THE
ASSIGNOR AND THE ASSIGNEE OF A PATENT THAT HAS FOR SO LONG BEEN PART OF
THE PATENT LAW IS TO BE REPUDIATED JUDICIALLY, IT IS BETTER TO DO SO
EXPLICITLY, NOT BY CIRCUMLOCUTION. 

FN1  THE COMPLICATED FACTS IN THE FORMICA CASE HAVE SOMEWHAT OBSCURED
THE TRUE SCOPE AND MEANING OF THAT DECISION.  WHAT WAS DECIDED IS
PERHAPS BEST DISCLOSED IN THE LOWER COURT'S OPINION WHICH WAS HERE
AFFIRMED.  THAT OPINION WAS BY JUDGE DENISON WHO SPOKE WITH SPECIAL
AUTHORITY ON PATENT LAW:  "IT MAY BE GRANTED THAT THESE TWO CLAIMS (IN
CONTROVERSY) WERE PROPERLY READABLE UPON THE SPECIFICATION AND DRAWINGS
OF THE APPLICATION SIGNED BY O'CONNOR (THE ASSIGNOR) - THAT IS TO SAY,
IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PATENT OFFICE, THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE
THESE CLAIMS.  NEVERTHELESS THEY EXPRESSED A CONCEPTION OF THE
INVENTION, WHICH RESTED SOLELY ON THE 'NONPLANIFORM' SHAPE OF THE
ARTICLE AND WAS IN THIS RESPECT BROADER THAN ANY CLAIM WHICH O'CONNOR
HAD DRAFTED, AND IF THE PRIOR BAEKELAND PATENT HAD BEEN KNOWN TO
O'CONNOR, AS IT BECAME KNOWN TO HIS ASSIGNEES WHEN IT LATER COMPELLED
THEM TO ABANDON THE ORIGINAL BROAD CLAIMS, HE PROBABLY NEVER WOULD HAVE
CLAIMED AS HIS THE INVENTION THUS FORMULATED.  THE RECORD DOES NOT
SUPPORT THE INFERENCE THAT O'CONNOR EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY
REPRESENTED TO THE WESTINGHOUSE COMPANY (THE ASSIGNEE) THAT HE WAS THE
INVENTOR OF THE PROCESS DEFINED IN THESE TWO CLAIMS, AND HENCE THE
CLAIM OF ESTOPPEL MUST FAIL."  288 F. 330, 334. 

FN2  NOR CAN THE ASSIGNOR OF AN EXPIRED PATENT, WHEN THE ASSIGNEE
SEEKS TO HOLD HIM TO HIS BARGAIN, INVOKE THE LAW CONDEMNING CONTRACTS
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  SO FAR AS THE HITHERTO RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF
FAIR DEALING BETWEEN AN ASSIGNOR AND HIS ASSIGNEE UNDULY RESTRAINS THE
FREEDOM OF ACTION OF THE ASSIGNOR, IT MERELY RESTRAINS IN THE MANNER
THAT EVERY CONTRACT IS A RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  SEE CHICAGO BOARD OF
TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231, 238.  AND IT RESTRAINS EQUALLY
WHETHER WHAT IS ASSIGNED IS AN EXPIRED PATENT OR SOMETHING THAT NEVER
WAS A PATENT.  IN FACT, HOWEVER, THE DOCTRINE OF SUCH FAIR DEALING DOES
NOT RUN COUNTER TO THE CONSIDERATIONS BY WHICH THE LAW OUTLAWS
RESTRAINTS WHICH PERSONS MAY IMPOSE ON THEMSELVES BY CONTRACT.  FOR
SUCH AN IMPLIED RESTRAINT AS IS FOUND IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF A PATENT,
PURPORTEDLY VALID BUT IN FACT INVALID, LIKE ALL REASONABLE RESTRAINTS,
DOES NOT OFFEND THE OBJECTIONS TO UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS.  THE
UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF THE LAW AGAINST UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS IS
TWOFOLD.  THE FIRST OF THESE REASONS IS THAT THE LAW WILL NOT LEND ITS
AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A CONTRACT BY MEANS OF WHICH A MAN MAY
DEPRIVE HIMSELF OF THE POSSIBILITY OF EARNING A LIVELIHOOD AND DEPRIVE
THE PUBLIC OF THE "BENEFIT OF HIS LABOR."  THE SECOND, "THAT SUCH
RESTRAINTS TENDED TO GIVE  ...  THE BENEFICIARY OF SUCH RESTRAINTS, A
MONOPOLY OF THE TRADE, FROM WHICH HE HAD THUS EXCLUDED ONE COMPETITOR,
AND BY THE SAME MEANS MIGHT EXCLUDE OTHERS."  TAFT, J., IN UNITED
STATES V. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO., 85 F. 271, 279, MODIFIED, 175 U.S.
211.  NEITHER CONSIDERATION IS PERTINENT HERE. 
..END :






GLASS CITY BANK V. U.S., 326 U.S. 265 


NO. 50.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 16, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1945.  -
146 F.2D 831, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 3670 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE
AMOUNT OF TAXES OWED THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BY A TAXPAYER "SHALL
BE A LIEN IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES UPON ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO
PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON," AND SEC.
3671 CREATE A CONTINUING TAX LIEN COVERING ALL PROPERTY OR RIGHTS TO
PROPERTY OWNED BY A TAX DELINQUENT AT ANY TIME DURING THE LIFE OF THE
LIEN, INCLUDING PROPERTY ACQUIRED AFTER THE LIEN AROSE.  P. 267. 

2.  SECTION 3678 SHOWS A PLAIN INTENT TO SUBJECT TO THE TAX LIEN
"PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DELINQUENT" WHEN SUIT TO ENFORCE THE LIEN IS
FILED, RATHER THAN ONLY THAT OWNED WHEN THE LIEN AROSE.  P. 267. 

GLASS CITY BANK V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 844, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER GRANTING
PRIORITY TO THE UNITED STATES OVER A JUDGMENT CREDITOR WHOSE JUDGMENT
WAS OBTAINED AFTER THE TAX LIEN AROSE BUT BEFORE THE PROPERTY IN
QUESTION WAS ACQUIRED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1941 THE PETITIONER BANK OBTAINED A JUDGMENT IN A PENNSYLVANIA
STATE COURT AGAINST ONE FRANK A. MADDAS, FOR ABOUT $19,000.00.  THE
UNITED STATES HAD UNPAID, JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED, INCOME TAX CLAIMS
AGAINST MADDAS FOR THE YEARS 1920, 1921, AND 1922,  FN1  WHICH EXCEED
$1,000,000.00.  40 B.T.A. 572; 114 F.2D 548.  BECAUSE OF MADDAS' PAST
SERVICES AS A STATE COURT RECEIVER OF A BREWING COMPANY, THE TRUSTEE OF
THAT COMPANY, NOW IN BANKRUPTCY, OWES MADDAS $3,228.53.  THE ISSUE HERE
IS WHETHER THE BANK OR THE GOVERNMENT MAY RECOVER ON THE DEBT OWED TO
MADDAS.  THE BANK CLAIMS UNDER A LIEN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BY
AN ATTACHMENT-EXECUTION ISSUED ON ITS STATE COURT JUDGMENT AND SERVED
ON THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FEBRUARY 21, 1941.  THE UNITED STATES
CLAIMED PRIORITY, BY VIRTUE OF A TAX LIEN UNDER 26 U.S.C., SECS. 3670,
3671,  FN2  WHICH BOTH PARTIES ADMIT AROSE IN 1935, FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO
THE TAXPAYER'S SERVICES AS RECEIVER.  THE CONTENTION OF THE BANK IN THE
DISTRICT COURT  FN3  WAS THAT THE STATUTORY TAX LIEN, WHICH BECAME
EFFECTIVE IN 1935, DID NOT COVER MADDAS' CLAIM SINCE IT DID NOT EXIST
WHEN THE LIEN AROSE BUT ONLY THEREAFTER, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT,
THEREFORE, COULD REACH THE DEBT ONLY BY GARNISHMENT OR DISTRAINT AS
PROVIDED BY OTHER SECTIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE STATUTORY TAX LIEN DID COVER AFTER
ACQUIRED PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S
JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES.  146 F.2D 831.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF STATEMENTS MADE IN THE OPINIONS OF OTHER COURTS WHICH SEEMED
TO CONFLICT WITH THE CONCLUSION BELOW.  UNITED STATES V. LONG ISLAND
DRUG CO., 115 F.2D 983; UNITED STATES V. PACIFIC RAILROAD, 1 F. 97. 

BY SEC. 3670, 26 U.S.C., CONGRESS IMPRESSED A LIEN UPON "ALL PROPERTY
AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, BELONGING" TO A TAX
DELINQUENT.  STRONGER LANGUAGE COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO
REVEAL A PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE COLLECTION OF TAXES.  NOT CONTENT WITH
THIS LANGUAGE, HOWEVER, CONGRESS ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE LIEN SHOULD
"CONTINUE UNTIL THE LIABILITY FOR SUCH AMOUNT IS SATISFIED OR BECOMES
UNENFORCEABLE BY REASON OF LAPSE OF TIME."  26 U.S.C., SEC. 3671. 
THESE TWO SECTIONS READ TOGETHER INDICATE THAT A CONTINUING LIEN COVERS
PROPERTY OR RIGHTS TO PROPERTY IN THE DELINQUENT'S HANDS AT ANY TIME
PRIOR TO EXPIRATION.  THIS IS CONFIRMED BY SEC. 3678, WHICH PROVIDES
THAT "WHETHER DISTRAINT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED OR NOT," ACTION
TO ENFORCE THE LIEN MAY BE INSTITUTED AGAINST "ANY PROPERTY AND RIGHTS
TO PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, OR TO SUBJECT ANY SUCH PROPERTY
AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DELINQUENT, OR IN WHICH HE HAS ANY
RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST, TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX."  FOR HERE IS A
PLAIN INTENT TO SUBJECT TO THE LIEN "PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DELINQUENT"
WHEN SUIT IS FILED, RATHER THAN ONLY THAT OWNED WHEN THE LIEN AROSE. 
INDEED, THE MEANING OF THESE SECTIONS IS SO PLAIN AS TO RENDER
SUPERFLUOUS A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH IS
CONSISTENT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION.  FN4 

FURTHERMORE THE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING THE STATUTE HAVE CONSTRUED IT
IN THE SAME WAY.  THUS, IN 1928 GENERAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM NO. 4715,
VII-2 CUM. BUL.  94, DECLARED THAT "A DELINQUENT TAXPAYER MAY AT ANY
TIME PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF LIMITATION
BECOME POSSESSED OF PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH THE LIEN MAY ATTACH, THUS
MAKING THE TAX LIABILITY ENFORCEABLE THROUGH THE LIEN."  AGAIN IN
TREASURY DECISION 4275, VIII-2 CUM. BUL.  167, COLLECTORS WERE
ADMONISHED TO KEEP ON THE ALERT WHERE NOTICE OF LIENS HAD BEEN FILED,
SO AS TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS "WHENEVER IT IS
REASONABLY POSSIBLE THAT THE TAXPAYER MAY, IN THE FUTURE, ACQUIRE
PROPERTY OR PROPERTY RIGHTS FROM WHICH THE TAX LIABILITY MAY BE
SATISFIED."  AND IN GRAVES V. COMMISSIONER, 12 B.T.A. 124, 133, THE TAX
BOARD SAID THAT THE LIEN APPLIED, "OF COURSE, TO ALL THE PROPERTY THAT
THE TAX DEBTOR SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRES." 

THE BANK'S ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION SUPPORTING
ITS CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT MERIT.  WE ARE TOLD THAT TO INCREASE UNDULY THE
SCOPE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LIEN IS UNWISE.  BUT MOST OF THE OBJECTIONS
RAISED WOULD APPLY NOT MERELY TO LIENS THAT COVER AFTER-ACQUIRED
PROPERTY, BUT ALSO WITH EQUAL FORCE TO MOST OTHER TYPES OF LIENS.  AT
ANY RATE THE WISDOM OF LEGISLATION IS A QUESTION FOR CONGRESS.  WE ARE
FURTHER TOLD THAT THE TAX LIEN CANNOT ATTACH TO MADDAS' CLAIM BECAUSE
THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA, WHERE THIS OBLIGATION AROSE, DOES NOT TREAT
"FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY" AS "PROPERTY OR RIGHTS TO PROPERTY."  BUT THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TAX LIEN COVERS FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY IS NOT
BEFORE US.  FOR THE GOVERNMENT HERE SEEKS TO REACH AN ALREADY EXISTING
OBLIGATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED, WHICH CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  CF. MATTER OF ROSENBERG, 269 N.Y. 247, 199 N.E.
206.  MOREOVER, THE CONGRESSIONAL MEANING IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY
RESORTING TO THE LOCAL LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA.  UNITED STATES V. SNYDER,
149 U.S. 210; HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154, 161-162. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE LIEN APPLIES TO PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
DELINQUENT AT ANY TIME DURING THE LIFE OF THE LIEN.  THIS IS IN ACCORD
WITH ALL THE CASES THAT HAVE DIRECTLY PASSED UPON THIS QUESTION.  FN5
AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THERE ARE TWO CASES WHICH CONTAIN LANGUAGE WHICH
MIGHT LEAD TO ANOTHER CONCLUSION.  BUT NOTHING THERE SAID OFFERS ANY
PERSUASIVE REASON FOR RESTRICTING THE SCOPE OF THE LIEN.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THERE IS ALSO A CLAIM FOR 1936 TAXES WHICH RAISES DIFFERENT
QUESTIONS THAT NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED HERE. 

FN2  "SEC.  3670.  PROPERTY SUBJECT TO LIEN. 

"IF ANY PERSON LIABLE TO PAY ANY TAX NEGLECTS OR REFUSES TO PAY THE
SAME AFTER DEMAND, THE AMOUNT (INCLUDING ANY INTEREST, PENALTY,
ADDITIONAL AMOUNT, OR ADDITION TO SUCH TAX, TOGETHER WITH ANY COSTS
THAT MAY ACCRUE IN ADDITION THERETO) SHALL BE A LIEN IN FAVOR OF THE
UNITED STATES UPON ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR
PERSONAL, BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON. 

"SEC. 3671.  PERIOD OF LIEN. 

"UNLESS ANOTHER DATE IS SPECIFICALLY FIXED BY LAW, THE LIEN SHALL
ARISE AT THE TIME THE ASSESSMENT LIST WAS RECEIVED BY THE COLLECTOR AND
SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL THE LIABILITY FOR SUCH AMOUNT IS SATISFIED OR
BECOMES UNENFORCEABLE BY REASON OF LAPSE OF TIME." 

MORTGAGEE, PLEDGEE, PURCHASER, OR JUDGMENT CREDITOR UNTIL NOTICE IS
FILED IN AN OFFICE DESIGNATED BY STATE LAW OR IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.  HERE SUCH NOTICE WAS DULY
FILED. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE
INDEBTEDNESS TO MADDAS WAS DUE FROM THE TRUSTEE.  THE PROCEDURE BY
WHICH THAT JURISDICTION WAS ACQUIRED IS SUFFICIENTLY SET FORTH IN THE
OPINIONS BELOW AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.  54 F.SUPP.  11; 146 F.2D
831. 

FN4  14 STAT. 98, 107; 15 STAT. 125, 167; 37 STAT. 1016; 45 STAT.
791, 875. 

FN5  CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 135 F.2D 527(C.C.A.9);
NELSON V. UNITED STATES, 139 F.2D 162(C.C.A.9); INVESTMENT & SECURITIES
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 140 F.2D 894(C.C.A.9); UNITED STATES V. WORLEY,
64 F.SUPP.  271(S.D. IND.); MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 47 F.2D 942, 944(N.D. TEX.).  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. WARREN
R. CO., 127 F.2D 134; MATTER OF ROSENBERG, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I AM UNABLE TO FIND IN THE APPLICABLE STATUTES THE CLEAR EXPRESSIONN
OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT WHICH I THINK IS REQUIRED TO EXTEND THE TAX
LIEN TO AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY.  UNDER SEC. 3670 THE LIEN IS IMPOSED
AS TO TAXPAYERS DELINQUENT AFTER DEMAND "UPON ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS
TO PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON."  BY
SEC. 3671 THE LIEN ARISES, UNLESS ANOTHER DATE IS SPECIFICALLY FIXED BY
LAW, "AT THE TIME THE ASSESSMENT LIST WAS RECEIVED BY THE COLLECTOR"
AND CONTINUES "UNTIL THE LIABILITY FOR SUCH AMOUNT IS SATISFIED OR
BECOMES UNENFORCEABLE BY REASON OF LAPSE OF TIME."  NOTHING IN THESE
AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY.  THE LANGUAGE USED, WHETHER IN SEC. 3670 OR IN
SEC. 3671, IS FULLY SATISFIED IF THE LIEN IS HELD TO ATTACH TO PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE TAXPAYER AS OF THE TIME THE LIEN ARISES.  FN1  HAD
CONGRESS INTENDED TO REACH NOT ONLY EVERY DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY THEN
OWNED BY THE TAXPAYER, BUT ALSO EVERY SPECIES WHICH MIGHT LATER COME
INTO HIS HANDS, CLEARER WORDS THAN "ALL PROPERTY" AND "BELONGING TO"
WERE READILY AVAILABLE TO EXPRESS THIS PURPOSE.  THE HARSHNESS OF THE
CONSEQUENCES, NOT ONLY FOR THE TAXPAYER BUT FOR OTHERS DEALING WITH
HIM, WHICH THIS CASE DRAMATICALLY EXEMPLIFIES, GIVES REASON BEYOND THE
AMBIGUITY OF THE LANGUAGE USED FOR THINKING THERE WAS NO SUCH INTENT. 

NOR IS SUCH AN INTENT SUPPLIED BY USE OF THE PRESENT TENSE OF THE
VERB "HAS" IN THE FINAL CLAUSE OF SEC. 3678(A).  FN2  THAT SECTION
MERELY PROVIDES FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE LIEN DEFINED BY SECS. 3670
AND 3671 SHALL BE ENFORCED.  SECTION 3678(A), IN MY OPINION, WAS NOT
INTENDED TO ADD TO THE SCOPE OF THE LIEN OR EXTEND ITS DEFINITION
BEYOND THE LIMITS DEFINED BY THOSE SECTIONS.  IF THE LIEN WAS DESIGNED
TO REACH AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY, THE ALTERNATIVE METHOD SPECIFIED IN
SEC. 3678(A) FOR REACHING THE PROPERTY THEN OWNED BY THE DEBTOR WOULD
SEEM TO BE REDUNDANT. 

I FIND NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH DISCLOSES ANY
INTENTION, MORE CLEARLY THAN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE THEMSELVES, TO
INCLUDE AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE LIEN.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF CLEARER STATUTORY FOUNDATION, THE COMPARATIVELY RECENT
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION CANNOT SUPPLY THE REQUIRED CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT; AND THE SCANTY EVIDENCE OF ESTABLISHED AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE IS
NEITHER SO WHOLLY CONSISTENT NOR SO CONVINCING AS TO FURNISH THIS
NECESSARY ELEMENT. 

ACCORDINGLY I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF THE
ISSUES PRESENTED TO BUT NOT DETERMINED BY IT IN VIEW OF ITS DISPOSITION
UPON THE MATTERS NOW DETERMINED HERE. 

FN1  ALTHOUGH BY SEC. 3671 THE LIEN "ARISES" AS OF THE TIME THE
ASSESSMENT LIST IS RECEIVED BY THE COLLECTOR, IT RELATES BACK TO THE
TIME OF NOTICE AND DEMAND, SEC. 3670, AS AGAINST THE TAXPAYER, THOUGH
BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 3672(A) IT IS NOT VALID AS AGAINST ANY MORTGAGEE,
PLEDGEE, PURCHASER, OR JUDGMENT CREDITOR "UNTIL NOTICE THEREOF HAS BEEN
FILED BY THE COLLECTOR" AS PROVIDED. 

FN2  "SEC.  3678.  CIVIL ACTION TO ENFORCE LIEN ON PROPERTY. 

"(A)  FILING.  - IN ANY CASE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A REFUSAL OR
NEGLECT TO PAY ANY TAX, AND IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY TO SEIZE AND SELL
PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, TO SATISFY
THE SAME, WHETHER DISTRAINT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED OR NOT, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSIONER MAY DIRECT A CIVIL
ACTION TO BE FILED, IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, TO
ENFORCE THE LIEN OF THE UNITED STATES FOR TAX UPON ANY PROPERTY AND
RIGHTS TO PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, OR TO SUBJECT ANY SUCH
PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DELINQUENT, OR IN WHICH HE
HAS ANY RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST, TO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS
OPINION. 
..END :






















HAWK V. OLSON, 326 U.S. 271 


NO. 17.  ARGUED OCTOBER 8, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1945.  - 145
NEB. 306, 16 N.W.2D 181, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW OF A STATE COURT JUDGMENT DISMISSING A PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, THIS COURT
DETERMINES FOR ITSELF WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION ENTITLE
THE PETITIONER TO A HEARING ON HIS CLAIM THAT IN HIS CONVICTION OF
MURDER HE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 273. 

2.  THE PETITION TO A STATE COURT OF NEBRASKA FOR HABEAS CORPUS, BY
ONE UNDER SENTENCE OF A COURT OF THAT STATE UPON A CONVICTION OF MURDER
IN THE FIRST DEGREE, SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT AT HIS TRIAL THE
PETITIONER WAS DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL IN THE
CRITICAL PERIOD BETWEEN HIS ARRAIGNMENT AND THE IMPANELING OF THE JURY
A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - AND
HE WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING UPON THE PETITION.  PP. 276-278. 

DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL ON ANY MATERIAL STEP
AFTER INDICTMENT OR SIMILAR CHARGE AND ARRAIGNMENT VIOLATES THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 278. 

3.  PETITIONER WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY ON THE NEW HEARING TO FURNISH
SUCH FURTHER SPECIFICATION AS THE STATE PRACTICE MAY REQUIRE IN SUPPORT
OF HIS CLAIM THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS PROCURED BY THE USE OF TESTIMONY
KNOWN BY THE PROSECUTOR AND THE TRIAL COURT TO HAVE BEEN PERJURED.  P.
273. 

4.  ON THE ISSUES OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE
INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT OF APPEAL, THIS COURT ACCEPTS THE DECISION
OF THE STATE COURT THAT THE FIRST CAN NOT BE RAISED BY HABEAS CORPUS
AND THAT THE SECOND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS STATED BY THE
PETITIONER.  P. 273. 

HAWK V. OLSON, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 839, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
WHICH DISMISSED A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRINGS BEFORE US THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEBRASKA WHICH AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSING A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS TO INQUIRE INTO PETITIONER'S
DETENTION FOR WANT OF MERIT AND FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. 
HAWK V. OLSON, 145 NEB. 306, 16 N.W.2D 181.  FN1  PETITIONER WAS IN THE
PENITENTIARY AFTER CONVICTION FOR MURDER.  THE WRIT WAS GRANTED BECAUSE
A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION AS TO RESTRAINT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SEEMED TO BE PRESENTED BY THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND THE RESPONSE.  324 U.S. 839. 

AS NO RESPONSE WAS FILED OR EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
WE ACCEPT AS TRUE ALL WELL-PLEADED ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION AND, IN
THE EXERCISE OF THE DUTY WHICH LIES ON US AS WELL AS THE NEBRASKA
COURTS TO SAFEGUARD THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PETITIONER,
EXAMINE FOR OURSELVES WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS STATED THE PETITIONER IS
NOW ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE CLAIMED VIOLATIONS OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE IN HIS CONVICTION FOR MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  LISENBA V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 237; WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760. 

IN ITS OPINION THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA CAREFULLY CONSIDERS A
NUMBER OF CLAIMS OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  IT IS SAID THAT SOME OF THE
GROUNDS FOR RELEASE ARE PLEADED IN THE FORM OF CONCLUSIONS AND THAT
NEBRASKA PROCEDURE REQUIRES IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS THAT THE
APPLICANT MUST SET FORTH THE FACTS FROM WHICH IT MUST APPEAR THAT HE
WILL BE ENTITLED TO DISCHARGE.  HAWK V. OLSON, 16 N.W.2D 181, 183, 1. 
C. WE ASSUME, SINCE SUCH GROUNDS APPEAR IN THE PETITION, THAT ONE OF
THESE PRETERMITTED GROUNDS IS THAT "CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY THE USE
OF PERJURED TESTIMONY KNOWINGLY USED BY THE PROSECUTING OFFICIALS AND
THE TRIAL COURT."  SEE EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 116.  WHATEVER
NEBRASKA MAY REQUIRE IN THE WAY OF FURTHER SPECIFICATION MAY BE
FURNISHED, IF AVAILABLE, AND PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW OF NEBRASKA (SEE
HAWK V. OLSON, SUPRA, 183, R.C.), BY PETITIONER ON A NEW HEARING.  CF.
TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485, 487.  ON THE ISSUES OF THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT OF
APPEAL, WE ACCEPT THE DECISION OF NEBRASKA THAT THE FIRST CANNOT BE
RAISED BY HABEAS CORPUS (HAWK V. OLSON, 16 N.W.2D 181, 183) AND THAT
THE SECOND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS STATED BY PETITIONER.  FN2
OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH ARE NOT DISCUSSED
HEREIN BUT WHICH WE HAVE LOOKED INTO AND WHICH WE DO NOT CONSIDER MERIT
FURTHER ATTENTION. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HIS CONVICTION VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF DENIAL AT HIS TRIAL OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE
THE CHARGE, SUBPOENA WITNESSES, CONSULT COUNSEL AND PREPARE A DEFENSE. 
DENIAL OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DOES VIOLATE DUE PROCESS. 
POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 58; HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42, 46;
COMPARE WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760, 764. 

SINCE FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 331, THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BY ONE CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE IS A PROPER PROCEDURE "TO SAFEGUARD THE LIBERTY OF ALL PERSONS
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST INFRINGEMENT
THROUGH ANY VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION," EVEN THOUGH THE EVENTS
WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO INFRINGE DID NOT APPEAR UPON THE FACE OF THE
RECORD OF HIS CONVICTION.  THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR AN EXAMINATION INTO THE
"VERY TRUTH AND SUBSTANCE OF THE CAUSES OF HIS DETENTION" WAS SAID IN
THE FRANK CASE TO HAVE COME FROM THE ADOPTION IN 1867 OF A STATUTE
WHICH EMPOWERED FEDERAL COURTS TO EXAMINE INTO RESTRAINTS OF LIBERTY IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  14 STAT. 385, C.
28.  FN3  THE LEGISLATION ENLARGED FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS THE "BARE
LEGAL REVIEW" OF THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH A PETITIONER WAS HELD WHICH
HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY AFFORDED BY HABEAS CORPUS.  FN4  JOHNSON V. ZERBST,
304 U.S. 458, 465-67.  SEE ALSO IN RE NEAGLE, 135 U.S. 1, 69-76;
MCNALLY V. HILL, 293 U.S. 131. 

THIS LIBERALIZATION OF HABEAS CORPUS REQUIRED FEDERAL COURTS, WHEN
THE ISSUE WAS PRESENTED, TO EXAMINE WHETHER A CONVICTION OCCURRED UNDER
SUCH INFLUENCE BY MOB SPIRIT AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS.  FRANK V. MANGUM,
SUPRA, 331, 335, DISSENT 347.  THE POWER WAS CALLED INTO PLAY A FEW
YEARS LATER TO EXAMINE A STATE CONVICTION UNDER ALLEGED COMMUNITY
COERCION; AND THIS COURT SAID THAT, IF THE FACTS SET OUT WERE TRUE, THE
TRIAL WOULD NOT SUPPORT A CONVICTION.  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86. 
IN MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, 112, IT WAS DECLARED THAT THE
KNOWING USE OF MATERIAL PERJURED TESTIMONY BY A STATE PROSECUTOR WOULD
MAKE A TRIAL UNFAIR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

WHEN THE ABSENCE OF COUNSEL AT A TRIAL WAS URGED AS A GROUND FOR A
FEDERAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WE HELD THAT IN FEDERAL COURTS A FELONY
CONVICTION WITHOUT BENEFIT OF COUNSEL IS SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK
BECAUSE A VIOLATION OF THE ACCUSED'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE
SERVICES OF AN ATTORNEY UNLESS HE HAS INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED THAT
PRIVILEGE.  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, SUPRA, 467-68; WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312
U.S. 275, 286.  THE SAME IS TRUE IN INSTANCES OF COERCION.  WALEY V.
JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101, 104. 

IN STATE PROSECUTIONS A CONVICTION ON A PLEA OF GUILTY, OBTAINED BY A
TRICK, SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329, 334, OR, AFTER REFUSAL OF A
PROPER REQUEST FOR COUNSEL, BECAUSE OF THE ACCUSED'S INCAPACITY
ADEQUATELY TO DEFEND HIMSELF, WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471, WILL
NOT SUPPORT IMPRISONMENT.  SUCH PROCEDURE VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485;
COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255.  THAT AMENDMENT IS VIOLATED ALSO WHEN
A DEFENDANT IS FORCED BY A STATE TO TRIAL IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DEPRIVE
HIM OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  POWELL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA,
52, 58; HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42.  COMPARE EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S.
114; GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 69-70.  WHEN THE STATE DOES
NOT PROVIDE CORRECTIVE JUDICIAL PROCESS, THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL
ENTERTAIN HABEAS CORPUS TO REDRESS THE VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760.  WHEN THE
CORRECTIVE PROCESS IS PROVIDED BY THE STATE BUT ERROR, IN RELATION TO
THE FEDERAL QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, CREEPS INTO THE
RECORD, WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW THE STATE PROCEEDINGS. 
WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471; TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA. 

PETITIONER, A LAYMAN, SET OUT THE FOLLOWING ALLEGATIONS IN HIS
PETITION.  ON MARCH 16, 1936, AT 4:15 P.M., THE PETITIONER, WHO HAD
PREVIOUSLY HAD A PRELIMINARY HEARING, WAS BROUGHT TO OMAHA FROM THE
FEDERAL PENITENTIARY AT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS.  HE WAS HELD INCOMMUNICADO
IN THE OMAHA JAIL EXCEPT FOR A VISIT OF FIFTEEN MINUTES THAT EVENING,
11 TO 11:15 P.M., BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AND HIS ASSISTANT.  THESE
OFFICIALS TRIED TO INTIMIDATE THE PETITIONER TO PLEAD GUILTY.  THIS
PETITIONER REFUSED TO DO, "...  AT WHICH TIME THE TWO PUBLIC OFFICIALS
LEFT YOUR PETITIONER AND AT THE TIME SAID THEY WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH PETITIONER'S TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR TRIAL THE FOLLOWING MORNING." 
THE NEXT DAY PETITIONER WAS ARRAIGNED AND WAS READ AN INFORMATION
CHARGING THE MURDER TO WHICH HE PLEADED "NOT GUILTY,"  FN5  AND
"FORTHWITH MOVED THE TRIAL COURT ORALLY FOR A CONTINUANCE OF TWENTY
FOUR (24) HOURS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSULTING COUNSEL, EXAMINE THE
CHARGE, SUBPOENA WITNESSES AND PREPARE A DEFENSE, AND FORTHWITH THE
TRIAL COURT OVERRULED THE MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE AND ORDERED THE
TRIAL TO PROCEED AT WHICH TIME THE CLERK OF THE COURT BEGAN TO IMPANEL
THE TRIAL JURY AND HAD CALLED TWO OR THREE JURYMEN, WHEN JOSEPH M.
LOVELY, A PUBLIC OFFICIAL (PUBLIC DEFENDER) AND JOHN N. BALDWIN, HIS
ASSISTANT STEPPED FORWARD AND ENTERED THE CASE, WITHOUT EVER HAVING
CONSULTED YOUR PETITIONER, AND WITHOUT EVER HAVING BEEN ASSIGNED BY THE
TRIAL COURT TO REPRESENT YOUR PETITIONER. 

"YOUR PETITIONER HAD NO CONSULTATION WHATSOEVER WITH EITHER OF THE
AFORESAID PUBLIC OFFICIALS REGARDING HIS DEFENSE, THEY PICKED THE JURY
AND TESTIMONY WAS ADDUCED AND A CONTINUANCE OR RECESS TAKEN UNTIL THE
FOLLOWING MORNING MARCH 18(WEDNESDAY), 1936."  PETITIONER CLAIMED THE
PROTECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE RECORD IS EITHER SILENT ON
OR NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ANYTHING MATERIAL IN THESE ALLEGATIONS.  CF.
TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485, 487.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OR
SUGGESTION OF IGNORANCE OF OR UNFAMILIARITY WITH PROCEDURAL OR
SUBSTANTIVE LAW OR SUB-NORMAL MENTALITY. 

THESE FACTS, IF TRUE, WE THINK, SET OUT A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THEY ARE NOT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  THEY ARE NOT TOO VAGUE. 
THE CHARGE UPON WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WAS MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE.  HE HAD NO ADVICE OF COUNSEL PRIOR TO THE CALLING OF THE JURY. 
HIS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE TO EXAMINE THE CHARGE AND CONSULT COUNSEL
WAS MADE WITHOUT ASSISTANCE.  HOMICIDE HAS DEGREES IN NEBRASKA.  COMP.
STAT. NEB. 1929, SEC. 28-401 TO SEC. 28-403.  THERE ARE DIFFICULTIES IN
THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES.  IN RE APPLICATION OF COLE, 103 NEB. 802,
805, 174 N.W. 509; BOURNE V. STATE, 116 NEB. 141, 216 N.W. 173.  THE
DEFENDANT NEEDS COUNSEL AND COUNSEL NEEDS TIME.  CF. TOMKINS V.
MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485, 488. 

AS THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA CONSIDERED THE MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE ON THE MERITS,  FN6  NO QUESTION OF STATE PROCEDURE FOR THE
REEXAMINATION OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS ARISES.  AS TO THE ISSUE ON THE
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, OUR DUTY REQUIRES US TO DETERMINE ONLY WHETHER
OR NOT THE DENIAL UNDER THE FACTS ALLEGED VIOLATES DUE PROCESS.  WE
THINK THERE WAS AN ALLEGATION THAT NO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
WAS FURNISHED IN THE CRITICAL TIME BETWEEN THE PLEA OF NOT GUILTY AND
THE CALLING OF THE JURY.  CONTINUANCE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN USEFUL
TO THE ACCUSED, BUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN A
SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGE AFTER ARRAIGNMENT IS TOO LARGE TO PERMIT
SPECULATION ON ITS EFFECT.  WE HOLD THAT DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO
CONSULT WITH COUNSEL ON ANY MATERIAL STEP AFTER INDICTMENT OR SIMILAR
CHARGE AND ARRAIGNMENT VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

PETITIONER STATES A GOOD CAUSE OF ACTION WHEN HE ALLEGES FACTS WHICH
SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT THROUGH DENIAL OF ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS HE HAS NOT HAD THE KIND OF TRIAL IN A STATE COURT WHICH THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES.  THIS, OF COURSE,
DOES NOT MEAN THAT UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS MUST BE
ACCEPTED AS TRUE ON THE HEARING.  CREDIBILITY IS FOR THE TRIER OF
FACTS.  THE EVIDENCE MAY SHOW THAT THE CHARGE WAS SERVED UPON
PETITIONER WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE TRIAL (SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA) AND THAT HE
HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL AND SECURE ANY NEEDED
WITNESSES.  HE MAY HAVE INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  ADAMS V. U.S. EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 275. 

PETITIONER CARRIES THE BURDEN IN A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A JUDGMENT. 
FN7  HE MUST PROVE HIS ALLEGATIONS BUT HE IS ENTITLED TO AN
OPPORTUNITY.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA DOES NOT DEAL WITH
AN ALTERNATE GROUND OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT.  THIS WAS THAT
PREVIOUS PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS HAD "FULLY AND FINALLY
ADJUDICATED" THE PRESENT ISSUES.  COMPARE SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S.
224, 230; EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 118.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER THIS
ISSUE. 

THE FOLLOWING REPORTED CASES SHOW THE EFFORTS OF PETITIONER TO SECURE
RELEASE.  THERE ARE OTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT REPORTED.  HAWK V. O'GRADY,
137 NEB. 639, 290 N.W. 911(APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF WRIT IN STATE DISTRICT
COURT), CERT. DEN.  311 U.S. 645; HAWK V. OLSON, 130 F.2D 910(APPEAL
FROM DENIAL OF WRIT IN DISTRICT COURT), CERT. DEN.  317 U.S. 697; 318
U.S. 746(ORIGINAL); 321 U.S. 114(ORIGINAL). 

FN2  LACK OF COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL WITHHOLDING BY JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF
THE NECESSARY RECORD FORM THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS CLAIM.  THE OPINION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA DISPOSES OF THIS BY POINTING OUT THAT
PETITIONER NEVER ALLEGED A REQUEST TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR
ASSISTANCE ON APPEAL AND THAT A MANDAMUS (FOR THE RECORD) WAS DENIED. 
WE ASSUME THE DENIAL WAS PROPER AS PETITIONER MAKES NO COMPLAINT AS TO
IT.  ON THE PRESENT RECORD THE FAILURE TO SEEK REVIEW FROM THE
CONVICTION WAS WITHOUT EXCUSE.  16 N.W.2D 181, 184. 

FN3  THIS STATUTE WAS REENACTED AS R.S. SECS. 752-761.  THE PROVISION
NOW APPEARS IN 28 U.S.C. SEC. 453: 

"THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL IN NO CASE EXTEND TO A PRISONER IN
JAIL UNLESS WHERE HE IS ...  IN CUSTODY IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OR OF A LAW OR TREATY OF THE UNITED STATES  ..." 

THE SECTION HAD ITS ORIGIN IN A BILL (NO. 605) REPORTED BY THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE IN RESPONSE TO A RESOLUTION DIRECTING
THAT COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE AND REPORT TO THE HOUSE BY BILL OR OTHERWISE
"WHAT LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES  ...  TO ENFORCE THE LIBERTY OF ALL PERSONS UNDER THE OPERATION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY."  SEE CONG. GLOBE,
39TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 87, 4151.  THE DEBATES ON THE BILL IN THE HOUSE
AND SENATE, WHILE MOSTLY CONCERNED WITH INCIDENTAL MATTERS, INDICATED
THAT JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT INTENDED
TO BE LIMITED MERELY TO VIOLATIONS OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE
CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 4150, 4151, 4229; CONG. GLOBE, 39TH
CONG., 2D SESS., 730, 790.    FN4  SEE EX PARTE WATKINS, 3 PET. 193,
202, CITED IN THE FRANK CASE, AND 4 BACON'S ABRIDGEMENT 563, ET SEQ.,
JOHNSON EDITION 1856; XIV VINER'S ABRIDGMENT, (2D ED.), 212(D) AND
217(F)(2).    FN5  PETITIONER DOES NOT ALLEGE WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD
PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
REQUIREMENT OF REVISED STATUTES OF NEBRASKA SEC. 29-1802 WHICH PROVIDES
THAT, "WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AFTER THE FILING OF AN INDICTMENT FOR
FELONY, AND IN EVERY OTHER CASE ON REQUEST, THE CLERK SHALL MAKE AND
DELIVER TO THE SHERIFF, THE DEFENDANT OR HIS COUNSEL A COPY OF THE
INDICTMENT, AND THE SHERIFF ON RECEIVING SUCH COPY SHALL SERVE THE SAME
UPON THE DEFENDANT.  NO ONE SHALL BE, WITHOUT HIS ASSENT, ARRAIGNED OR
CALLED ON TO ANSWER TO ANY INDICTMENT UNTIL ONE DAY SHALL HAVE ELAPSED,
AFTER RECEIVING IN PERSON OR BY COUNSEL, OR HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO
RECEIVE A COPY OF SUCH INDICTMENT AS AFORESAID."  SECTION 29-1604 MAKES
THIS SECTION APPLICABLE TO AN INFORMATION. 

FN6  HAWK V. OLSON, 16 N.W.2D 181, 184. 

FN7  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 468; WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312
U.S. 275, 286; WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471, 474. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU V. U.S., 326 U.S. 279 


NO. 52.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1945.  - 79
U.S. APP. D.C. 380, 148 F.2D 14, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU, AN IMPORTANT IF NOT THE PRIMARY OBJECT
OF WHICH IS TO PROMOTE NOT ONLY AN ETHICAL BUT ALSO A PROFITABLE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY, HELD NOT EXEMPT FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES AS A
CORPORATION "ORGANIZED AND OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR SCIENTIFIC OR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 811(B)(8) OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  P. 282. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC.
811(B)(8) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND BY APPLICABLE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS. 

2.  LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE DOES NOT MEAN THAT WORDS AND
PHRASES MAY BE GIVEN UNUSUAL OR TORTURED MEANINGS UNJUSTIFIED BY
LEGISLATIVE INTENT, OR THAT EXPRESS LIMITATIONS ON EXEMPTIONS MAY BE
IGNORED.  P. 283. 

BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF WASHINGTON, D.C., INC. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 844, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES IN A SUIT FOR A REFUND OF SOCIAL
SECURITY TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HERE OUR CONSIDERATION IS DIRECTED TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
PETITIONER, THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF WASHINGTON, D.C., INC., IS
EXEMPT FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES AS A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND
OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR SCIENTIFIC OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SECTION 811(B)(8) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  FN1 

FROM THE STIPULATED STATEMENT OF FACTS IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER WAS
ORGANIZED IN 1920 AS A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IT HAS NO SHARES OF STOCK AND NO PART OF ITS
EARNINGS INURES TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY PRIVATE SHAREHOLDER OR
INDIVIDUAL.  ITS OFFICERS ARE ELECTED ANNUALLY FROM ITS MEMBERSHIP;
THEY HAVE MERELY NOMINAL DUTIES AND ARE PAID NO SALARY.  ONLY THE
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND A SMALL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ARE PAID.  MEMBERSHIP
IS OPEN TO "ANY PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION INTERESTED IN
BETTER BUSINESS ETHICS" AS MAY BE ELECTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND
PAY "VOLUNTARY SUBSCRIPTIONS" OR DUES. 

THE CHARTER OF PETITIONER STATES THAT "THE OBJECT FOR WHICH IT IS
FORMED IS FOR THE MUTUAL WELFARE, PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
BUSINESS METHODS AMONG MERCHANTS AND OTHER PERSONS ENGAGED IN ANY AND
ALL BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS OF EVERY DESCRIPTION
WHATSOEVER THAT DEAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH THE PUBLIC AT LARGE,
AND FOR THE EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS OF BUSINESS METHODS
AMONG PERSONS, CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN OBTAIN A PROPER, CLEAN,
HONEST AND FAIR TREATMENT IN ITS DEALINGS OR TRANSACTIONS WITH SUCH
MERCHANTS, TRADESMEN, CORPORATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS OR PERSONS FOLLOWING A
PROFESSION AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF THE LATTER
CLASSES OF BUSINESSES TO ENABLE SUCH AS ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME TO
SUCCESSFULLY AND PROFITABLY CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS AND FOR THE FURTHER
PURPOSES OF ENDEAVORING TO OBTAIN THE PROPER, JUST, FAIR AND EFFECTIVE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED MAY 29TH, 1916, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS 'AN ACT TO PREVENT FRAUDULENT ADVERTISING IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.'" 

IN CARRYING OUT ITS CHARTER PROVISIONS, PETITIONER DIVIDES ITS WORK
ROUGHLY INTO FIVE SUBDIVISIONS: 

(1)  PREVENTION OF FRAUD BY INFORMING AND WARNING MEMBERS AND THE
GENERAL PUBLIC OF THE PLANS AND SCHEMES OF VARIOUS TYPES OF SWINDLERS. 

(2)  FIGHTING FRAUD BY BRINGING GENERAL AND ABSTRACT FRAUDULENT
PRACTICES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC. 

(3)  ELEVATION OF BUSINESS STANDARDS BY SHOWING AND CONVINCING
MERCHANTS THAT THE APPLICATION OF "THE DOCTRINE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR IS NOT
GOOD BUSINESS" AND BY SHOWING AND CONVINCING THEM THAT MISLEADING
ADVERTISING, EXTRAVAGANT CLAIMS AND PRICE COMPARISONS ARE NOT GOOD
BUSINESS. 

(4)  EDUCATION OF CONSUMERS TO BE INTELLIGENT BUYERS. 

(5)  COOPERATION WITH VARIOUS GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES INTERESTED IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT. 

INFORMATION WHICH THE PETITIONER COMPILES IS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE
WITHOUT CHARGE AND IS COMMUNICATED TO THE MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC BY
MEANS OF THE RADIO, NEWSPAPERS, BULLETINS, MEETINGS AND INTERVIEWS. 
THIS INFORMATION IS ALSO EXCHANGED WITH THE APPROXIMATELY EIGHTY-FIVE
OTHER BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

AFTER PAYING THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 1937 TO
1941, INCLUSIVE, PETITIONER FILED CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS, WHICH WERE
DISALLOWED.  THIS SUIT TO RECOVER THE TAXES PAID WAS THEN FILED BY
PETITIONER IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH GRANTED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES.  THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT,
79 U.S. APP. D.C. 380, 148 F.2D 14, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, THE
TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVING REACHED A CONTRARY RESULT IN
JONES V. BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF OKLAHOMA CITY, 123 F.2D 767. 

PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT IT QUALIFIES AS A CORPORATION "ORGANIZED AND
OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR ...  SCIENTIFIC  ...  OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
...  NO PART OF THE NET EARNINGS OF WHICH INURES TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY
PRIVATE SHAREHOLDER OR INDIVIDUAL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 811(B)(8)
OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND HENCE IS EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF SOCIAL
SECURITY TAXES.  NO SERIOUS ASSERTION IS MADE, HOWEVER, THAT PETITIONER
IS DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES.  THE BASIC CONTENTION IS
THAT ALL OF ITS PURPOSES AND ACTIVITIES ARE DIRECTED TOWARD THE
EDUCATION OF BUSINESS MEN AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  MERCHANTS ARE TAUGHT
TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESSES HONESTLY, WHILE CONSUMERS ARE TAUGHT TO
AVOID BEING VICTIMIZED AND TO PURCHASE GOODS INTELLIGENTLY.  WE JOIN
WITH THE COURTS BELOW IN REJECTING THIS CONTENTION. 

IT HAS BEEN URGED THAT A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE APPLIED TO
THIS EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT IN FAVOR OF
RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.  CF. TRINIDAD V.
SAGRADA ORDEN, 263 U.S. 578; HELVERING V. BLISS, 293 U.S. 144.  BUT IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE THAT ISSUE HERE.  CF. HASSETT V. ASSOCIATED
HOSPITAL SERVICE CORP., 125 F.2D 611(C.C.A. 1).  EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL
OF CONSTRUCTIONS DOES NOT MEAN THAT STATUTORY WORDS AND PHRASES ARE TO
BE GIVEN UNUSUAL OR TORTURED MEANINGS UNJUSTIFIED BY LEGISLATIVE INTENT
OR THAT EXPRESS LIMITATIONS ON SUCH AN EXEMPTION ARE TO BE IGNORED. 
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION, HOWEVER, DEMANDS PRECISELY THAT TYPE OF
STATUTORY TREATMENT.  HENCE IT CANNOT PREVAIL. 

IN THIS INSTANCE, IN ORDER TO FALL WITHIN THE CLAIMED EXEMPTION, AN
ORGANIZATION MUST BE DEVOTED TO EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES EXCLUSIVELY.  THIS
PLAINLY MEANS THAT THE PRESENCE OF A SINGLE NONEDUCATIONAL PURPOSE, IF
SUBSTANTIAL IN NATURE, WILL DESTROY THE EXEMPTION REGARDLESS OF THE
NUMBER OR IMPORTANCE OF TRULY EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.  IT THUS BECOMES
UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EDUCATIONAL
CHARACTERIZATION OF PETITIONER'S OPERATIONS, IT BEING APPARENT BEYOND
DISPUTE THAT AN IMPORTANT, IF NOT THE PRIMARY, PURSUIT OF PETITIONER'S
ORGANIZATION IS TO PROMOTE NOT ONLY AN ETHICAL BUT ALSO A PROFITABLE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY.  THE EXEMPTION IS THEREFORE UNAVAILABLE TO
PETITIONER. 

THE COMMERCIAL HUE PERMEATING PETITIONER'S ORGANIZATION IS REFLECTED
IN ITS CORPORATE TITLE AND IN THE CHARTER PROVISIONS DEDICATING
PETITIONER TO THE PROMOTION OF THE "MUTUAL WELFARE, PROTECTION AND
IMPROVEMENT OF BUSINESS METHODS AMONG MERCHANTS" AND OTHERS AND TO THE
SECURING OF THE "EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS OF BUSINESS
METHODS" SO THAT MERCHANTS MIGHT "SUCCESSFULLY AND PROFITABLY CONDUCT
THEIR BUSINESS."  PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES ARE LARGELY ANIMATED BY THIS
COMMERCIAL PURPOSE.  UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICES AND FRAUDULENT
MERCHANDISING SCHEMES ARE INVESTIGATED, EXPOSED AND DESTROYED.  SUCH
EFFORTS TO CLEANSE THE BUSINESS SYSTEM OF DISHONEST PRACTICES ARE
HIGHLY COMMENDABLE AND MAY EVEN SERVE INCIDENTALLY TO EDUCATE CERTAIN
PERSONS.  BUT THEY ARE DIRECTED FUNDAMENTALLY TO ENDS OTHER THAN THAT
OF EDUCATION.  ANY CLAIM THAT EDUCATION IS THE SOLE AIM OF PETITIONER'S
ORGANIZATION IS THEREBY DESTROYED.  SEE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU V.
DISTRICT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD, 34 A.2D 614(D.C. MUN. 
APP.). 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 811(B)(8) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
CONFIRMS THE CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER IS NOT EXEMPT UNDER THAT
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, DEALING WITH EXEMPTIONS FOR INCOME
TAXATION.  AND CONGRESS HAS MADE IT CLEAR, FROM ITS COMMITTEE REPORTS,
THAT IT MEANT TO INCLUDE WITH SEC. 811(B)(8) ONLY THOSE ORGANIZATIONS
EXEMPT FROM THE INCOME TAX UNDER SEC. 101(6).  FN2 SIGNIFICANTLY,
HOWEVER, CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE INTO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT CERTAIN
OTHER EXEMPTIONS EMBODIED IN THE INCOME TAX PROVISIONS, ESPECIALLY THE
EXEMPTION IN SEC. 101(7) OF "BUSINESS LEAGUES, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE,
REAL-ESTATE BOARDS, OR BOARDS OF TRADE."  PETITIONER CLOSELY RESEMBLES
SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AND HAS, INDEED, SECURED AN EXEMPTION FROM THE
INCOME TAX UNDER SEC. 101(7) AS A "BUSINESS LEAGUE."  FN3  THUS
CONGRESS HAS MADE, FOR INCOME TAX EXEMPTION PURPOSES, AN UNMISTAKABLE
DEMARCATION BETWEEN CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED AND OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND THOSE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS
LEAGUES AND THE LIKE.  ITS MANIFEST DESIRE TO INCLUDE ONLY THE FORMER
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 811(B)(8) OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
PREVENTS US FROM CONSTRUING THE LANGUAGE OF THAT SECTION TO INCLUDE AN
ORGANIZATION LIKE PETITIONER. 

MOREOVER, IN AMENDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT IN 1939, CONGRESS
CREATED CERTAIN NEW EXEMPTIONS BY PROVIDING, INTER ALIA, THAT AN
ORGANIZATION EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAXES UNDER ANY OF THE SUBDIVISIONS OF
SEC. 101 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE WAS ALSO EXEMPT FROM SOCIAL
SECURITY TAXES AS TO THOSE EMPLOYEES RECEIVING NO MORE THAN $45 IN A
CALENDAR QUARTER.  FN4  THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE REPORTS REFERRED
SPECIFICALLY TO "BUSINESS LEAGUES, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, REAL ESTATE
BOARDS, AND BOARDS OF TRADE" AS BEING INCLUDED AMONG THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAXES AND AFFECTED BY THIS NEW PARTIAL
EXEMPTION FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.  FN5  THE INESCAPABLE INFERENCE
FROM THIS IS THAT SUCH ORGANIZATIONS, OF WHICH PETITIONER IS AN
EXAMPLE, REMAIN SUBJECT TO SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES AS TO HIGHER PAID
EMPLOYEES.  NO CONTENTION HAS BEEN MADE THAT ANY OF PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES ARE WITHIN THE LOW-PAID CATEGORY. 

FINALLY, A TREASURY REGULATION  FN6  DEFINING AN EDUCATIONAL
ORGANIZATION AS "ONE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAPABILITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL" FOR PURPOSES OF SEC.
101(6) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME WHEN
CONGRESS USED THAT SECTION IN FRAMING SEC. 811(B)(8) OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT.  AN IDENTICAL DEFINITION HAS BEEN PROMULGATED UNDER SEC.
811(B)(8) AND PETITIONER ADMITTEDLY DOES NOT MEET ITS TERMS.  FN7
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEFINITION IS "HIGHLY
RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF THE PROBABLE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE TIMES AND OF THE OPINIONS OF MEN WHO PROBABLY WERE ACTIVE IN THE
DRAFTING OF THE STATUTE."  WHITE V. WINCHESTER CLUB, 315 U.S. 32, 41. 
IT LENDS PERSUASIVE WEIGHT TO THE CONCLUSION WE HAVE REACHED. 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 620, 639, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1011(B):  "THE TERM
'EMPLOYMENT' MEANS ANY SERVICE, OF WHATEVER NATURE, PERFORMED WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR HIS EMPLOYER, EXCEPT - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(8)  SERVICE PERFORMED IN THE EMPLOY OF A CORPORATION, COMMUNITY
CHEST, FUND, OR FOUNDATION, ORGANIZED AND OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR
RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES,
OR FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN OR ANIMALS, NO PART OF THE
NET EARNINGS OF WHICH INURES TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY PRIVATE SHAREHOLDER
OR INDIVIDUAL." 

AN AMENDMENT TO THIS DEFINITION, NOT HERE RELEVANT, WAS ADDED IN
1939.  THE ENTIRE DEFINITION HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO SEC. 1426(B)(8)
OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

FN2  "THE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH WILL BE EXEMPT FROM SUCH (SOCIAL
SECURITY) TAXES ARE CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS NOT OPERATED FOR PRIVATE PROFIT, THE Y.M.C.A., THE
Y.W.C.A., THE Y.M.H.A., THE SALVATION ARMY, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 101(6) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1932."  H. REP. NO. 615(74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 33; S. REP.
NO. 628(74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 45. 

FN3  PETITIONER STATES THAT IT WAS INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC
INSTITUTIONS AND IT ASSERTS THAT IF IT WERE ANOTHER TYPE OF INSTITUTION
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO INCORPORATE UNDER SOME OTHER CODE
PROVISION.  BUT PETITIONER'S CLASSIFICATION FOR INCORPORATION PURPOSES
HAS NO MORE RELEVANCE FOR PURPOSES OF EXEMPTION FROM SOCIAL SECURITY
TAXES THAN IT HAS FOR PURPOSES OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, AS TO WHICH
PETITIONER HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A BUSINESS LEAGUE RATHER THAN AS AN
EDUCATIONAL OR SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION. 

FN4  53 STAT. 1360, 1374, 1384; 42 U.S.C. SEC. 409(B)(10), 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 1426(B)(10). 

FN5  H. REP. NO. 728(76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) PP. 47-48; S. REP. NO.
734(76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 57.  EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE TYPE
ALREADY EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 811(B)(8) WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THIS
RESPECT. 

FN6  ARTICLE 101(6)-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 86. 

FN7  ARTICLE 12 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 91; SEC. 402.215 OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS 106.  THE DEFINITION FURTHER STATES THAT "UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES" AN EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION "MAY INCLUDE AN ASSOCIATION
WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS THE INSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC, OR AN ASSOCIATION
WHOSE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO GIVE LECTURES ON SUBJECTS USEFUL TO THE
INDIVIDUAL AND BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY, EVEN THOUGH AN ASSOCIATION
OF EITHER CLASS HAS INCIDENTAL AMUSEMENT FEATURES."  NO "EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES" ARE APPARENT IN PETITIONER'S CASE AND, MOREOVER, NEITHER
EXCEPTIONAL CATEGORY FITS THE PETITIONER.    MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :








BOEHM V. COMMISSIONER, 326 U.S. 287 


NO. 69.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1945.  - 146
F.2D 553, AFFIRMED. 


1.  TREASURY REGULATIONS LONG CONTINUED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE,
APPLYING TO UNAMENDED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED STATUTES, ARE DEEMED
TO HAVE RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL AND HAVE THE EFFECT OF LAW.  P.
291. 

2.  TO BE DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING INCOME TAX UNDER SEC. 23(E) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936, A LOSS MUST HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN FACT DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR.  P. 292. 

3.  THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER UNDER SEC. 23(E) A LOSS WAS
SUSTAINED IN A PARTICULAR TAX YEAR REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF ALL
PERTINENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, REGARDLESS OF THEIR OBJECTIVE OR
SUBJECTIVE NATURE.  P. 292. 

THE TAXPAYER'S ATTITUDE AND CONDUCT, THOUGH NOT TO BE IGNORED, ARE
NOT DECISIVE.  P. 293. 

4.  WHETHER, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(E), PARTICULAR CORPORATE
STOCK BECAME WORTHLESS DURING A GIVEN TAXABLE YEAR IS PURELY A QUESTION
OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE TAX COURT; AND
THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE FACTS MAY BE STIPULATED OR UNDISPUTED DOES
NOT MAKE THIS ISSUE ANY THE LESS FACTUAL IN NATURE.  P. 293. 

5.  A DECISION OF THE TAX COURT WHICH IS "IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW" MAY
NOT BE SET ASIDE ON REVIEW, EVEN THOUGH DIFFERENT INFERENCES AND
CONCLUSIONS MIGHT FAIRLY HAVE BEEN DRAWN FROM THE UNDISPUTED FACTS.  P.
293. 

6.  THE TAXPAYER HAS THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT A CLAIMED
DEDUCTIBLE LOSS WAS SUSTAINED IN THE TAXABLE YEAR.  P. 294. 

7.  UPON THE STIPULATED FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE TAX COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT THE CORPORATE STOCK IN QUESTION DID NOT BECOME
WORTHLESS IN 1937, AND THAT THE TAXPAYER THEREFORE SUSTAINED NO
DEDUCTIBLE LOSS IN THAT YEAR, IS SUSTAINED.  P. 294. 

8.  REMEDYING HARSHNESS IN THE OPERATION OF A REVENUE ACT IS FOR
CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.  P. 295. 

BOEHM V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 847, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING IN PART A
DECISION OF THE TAX COURT WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE MET HERE WITH THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER THE TAX COURT PROPERLY
FOUND THAT CERTAIN CORPORATE STOCK DID NOT BECOME WORTHLESS IN 1937,
THEREBY PRECLUDING THE PETITIONING TAXPAYER FROM CLAIMING A DEDUCTIBLE
LOSS IN THAT YEAR UNDER SEC. 23(E) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  FN1 

THE FACTS, WHICH ARE STIPULATED, SHOW THAT THE TAXPAYER IN 1929
BOUGHT 1,100 SHARES OF CLASS A STOCK OF THE HARTMAN CORPORATION FOR
$32,440.  THIS CORPORATION HAD BEEN FORMED TO ACQUIRE THE CAPITAL STOCK
OF AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, AND ITS AFFILIATES, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS
OF SELLING FURNITURE, CARPETS AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS. 

IN APRIL, 1932, THE HARTMAN CORPORATION SENT ITS STOCKHOLDERS A
LETTER REPORTING THAT THE CURRENT BUSINESS DEPRESSION HAD CAUSED
SHRINKAGE OF SALES, DECLINE IN WORTH OF ASSETS  FN2  AND UNPRECEDENTED
CREDIT AND CORPORATE LOSSES.  ANOTHER LETTER SENT THE FOLLOWING MONTH
INFORMED THEM THAT BUSINESS HAD NOT SHOWN ANY IMPROVEMENT ALTHOUGH
COUNTERACTING MEASURES WERE BEING TAKEN.  THEN ON JUNE 16, 1932, A
FEDERAL COURT IN ILLINOIS APPOINTED EQUITY RECEIVERS UPON THE
ALLEGATIONS OF A CREDITOR, WHICH WERE ADMITTED TO BE TRUE BY THE
HARTMAN CORPORATION, THAT THE COMPANY HAD SUSTAINED LARGE LIQUIDATING
AND OPERATING LOSSES FROM 1930 TO 1932.  FN3 

SUBSEQUENTLY, ON DECEMBER 16, 1932, A STOCKHOLDERS' DERIVATIVE
ACTION, THE SO-CALLED GRAHAM SUIT, WAS INSTITUTED IN A NEW YORK COURT
AGAINST THE HARTMAN CORPORATION AND NINE MEMBERS OF ITS BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, SOME OF WHOM WERE ALSO OFFICERS.  THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY
THE TAXPAYER AND EIGHT OTHERS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AS STOCKHOLDERS
FN4  AND ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION AND ALL OTHER STOCKHOLDERS WHO
MIGHT JOIN WITH THEM IN THE SUIT.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE CHARGED WITH
WASTE, EXTRAVAGANCE, MISMANAGEMENT, NEGLECT AND FRAUDULENT VIOLATION OF
THEIR DUTIES AS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, "TO THE GREAT DAMAGE, LOSS AND
PREJUDICE OF THE CORPORATION AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS."  THE PLAINTIFFS
SOUGHT (1) TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANTS TO ACCOUNT TO THE CORPORATION FOR
THEIR OFFICIAL CONDUCT, (2) TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANTS TO PAY TO THE
CORPORATION'S TREASURY THE AMOUNT OF LOSS RESULTING FROM THEIR ALLEGED
WRONGFUL ACTS, (3) TO SECURE FROM THE CORPORATION SUITABLE ALLOWANCE
FOR COUNSEL FEES AND OTHER COSTS INCURRED IN THE SUIT AND (4) TO SECURE
SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS MIGHT BE JUST, EQUITABLE AND PROPER. 

THE HARTMAN CORPORATION CEASED OPERATIONS UNDER THE RECEIVERS ON MAY
26, 1933, WHEN A NEW COMPANY, HARTMAN'S INC., BOUGHT AT A BANKRUPTCY
SALE ALL OF THE ASSETS OF HARTMAN CORPORATION'S SUBSIDIARY COMPANY FOR
$501,000.  THE STOCK OF THE NEW COMPANY WAS ISSUED TO THE SUBSIDIARY'S
CREDITORS.  STOCKHOLDERS OF HARTMAN CORPORATION WERE ALSO GIVEN THE
RIGHT TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE STOCK AND DEBENTURES OF THE NEW COMPANY, BUT
THE TAXPAYER DID NOT EXERCISE THAT RIGHT. 

THE RECEIVERS FILED THEIR FIRST REPORT IN THE FEDERAL COURT ON AUGUST
10, 1934, IN WHICH IT APPEARED THAT HARTMAN CORPORATION HAD OUTSTANDING
CLAIMS OF $707,430.67 AND ASSETS OF ONLY $30,593.13 IN CASH AND THE
PENDING GRAHAM SUIT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THE SUIT WAS LISTED AS
HAVING ANY VALUE.  THE IDENTICAL SITUATION WAS APPARENT IN THE SECOND
REPORT, FILED ON JULY 11, 1935, EXCEPT THAT THE CASH ASSETS HAD FALLEN
TO $27,192.51.  A 4% DIVIDEND TO CREDITORS WAS ALSO APPROVED AT THAT
TIME.  ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1937, THE FINAL REPORT WAS MADE.  OUTSTANDING
CLAIMS OF $630,574.57 WERE THEN REPORTED; THE SOLE ASSET WAS CASH IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,909.94, WHICH WAS THEN DISTRIBUTED TO CREDITORS AFTER
DEDUCTION OF RECEIVERSHIP COSTS. 

IN THE MEANTIME THE GRAHAM SUIT WAS SLOWLY PROGRESSING.  FROM 1933 TO
1936, INCLUSIVE, EXTENSIVE EXAMINATIONS WERE MADE OF CERTAIN
DEFENDANTS, THE PLAINTIFFS EXPENDING SOME $2,800 IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH EXCLUSIVE OF COUNSEL FEES.  BUT THE CASE NEVER REACHED
TRIAL.  ON FEBRUARY 27, 1937, A SETTLEMENT WAS CONSUMMATED WHEREBY THE
DEFENDANTS PAID THE TAXPAYER AND HER EIGHT CO-PLAINTIFFS THE SUM OF
$50,000 IN FULL SETTLEMENT AND DISCHARGE OF THEIR CLAIMS AND THE CAUSE
OF ACTION.  THE TAXPAYER'S SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT, AFTER PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES, AMOUNTED TO $12,500. 

THE TAXPAYER HAD TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY IN HER 1934 INCOME TAX RETURN
TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,302 AS A
LOSS DUE TO THE WORTHLESSNESS OF HER 1,100 SHARES OF STOCK.  THE
COMMISSIONER DENIED THE DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE STOCK HAD NOT
BECOME WORTHLESS DURING 1934; APPARENTLY NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THIS
DETERMINATION.  THEN IN 1937 THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED A DEDUCTION FROM
GROSS INCOME IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,940, BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
$32,440 PURCHASE PRICE OF THE STOCK AND THE $12,500 RECEIVED PURSUANT
TO THE SETTLEMENT.  THE COMMISSIONER AGAIN DENIED THE DEDUCTION, THIS
TIME ON THE GROUND THAT THE STOCK HAD NOT BECOME WORTHLESS DURING
1937.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED HIS ACTION AND THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED
AS TO THIS POINT.  FN5  146 F.2D 553.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
AN ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY WITH SMITH V. HELVERING, 78 U.S. APP. D.C.
342, 141 F.2D 529, AS TO THE PROPER TEST TO BE USED IN DETERMINING THE
YEAR IN WHICH A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS IS SUSTAINED. 

COUNTERPARTS IN MANY PRECEDING REVENUE ACTS, PROVIDES THAT IN COMPUTING
NET INCOME FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS
"LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR AND NOT COMPENSATED FOR BY
INSURANCE OR OTHERWISE."  TREASURY REGULATIONS, IN EFFECT PRIOR TO AND
AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 1936 ACT AND REPEATED THEREAFTER,
HAVE CONSISTENTLY INTERPRETED SEC. 23(E) TO MEAN THAT DEDUCTIBLE LOSSES
"MUST BE EVIDENCED BY CLOSED AND COMPLETED TRANSACTIONS, FIXED BY
IDENTIFIABLE EVENTS, BONA FIDE AND ACTUALLY SUSTAINED DURING THE
TAXABLE PERIOD FOR WHICH ALLOWED."  FN6  SUCH REGULATIONS, BEING "LONG
CONTINUED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, APPLYING TO UNAMENDED OR
SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED STATUTES, ARE DEEMED TO HAVE RECEIVED
CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL AND HAVE THE EFFECT OF LAW."  HELVERING V.
WINMILL, 305 U.S. 79, 83. 

FIRST.  THE TAXPAYER CLAIMS THAT A SUBJECTIVE RATHER THAN AN
OBJECTIVE TEST IS TO BE EMPLOYED IN DETERMINING WHETHER CORPORATE STOCK
BECAME WORTHLESS DURING A PARTICULAR YEAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
23(E).  THIS SUBJECTIVE TEST IS SAID TO DEPEND UPON THE TAXPAYER'S
REASONABLE AND HONEST BELIEF AS TO WORTHLESSNESS, SUPPORTED BY THE
TAXPAYER'S OVERT ACTS AND CONDUCT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. 

BUT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND OF THE TREASURY
INTERPRETATIONS HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW REPELS THE USE OF SUCH A
SUBJECTIVE FACTOR AS THE CONTROLLING OR SOLE CRITERION.  SECTION 23(E)
ITSELF SPEAKS OF LOSSES "SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR."  THE
REGULATIONS IN TURN REFER TO LOSSES "ACTUALLY SUSTAINED DURING THE
TAXABLE PERIOD," AS FIXED BY "IDENTIFIABLE EVENTS."  FN7 SUCH
UNMISTAKABLE PHRASEOLOGY COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT A LOSS, TO BE
DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(E), MUST HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN FACT DURING
THE TAXABLE YEAR.  AND A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A LOSS WAS IN FACT
SUSTAINED IN A PARTICULAR YEAR CANNOT FAIRLY BE MADE BY CONFINING THE
TRIER OF FACTS TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE TAXPAYER'S BELIEFS AND
ACTIONS.  SUCH AN ISSUE OF NECESSITY REQUIRES A PRACTICAL APPROACH, ALL
PERTINENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING OPEN TO INSPECTION AND
CONSIDERATION REGARDLESS OF THEIR OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE NATURE.  AS
THIS COURT SAID IN LUCAS V. AMERICAN CODE CO., 280 U.S. 445, 449, "NO
DEFINITE LEGAL TEST IS PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LOSS IS TO BE DEDUCTED.  THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT
THAT LOSSES BE DEDUCTED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THEY ARE SUSTAINED CALLS
FOR A PRACTICAL, NOT A LEGAL TEST." 

THE STANDARD FOR DETERMINING THE YEAR FOR DEDUCTION OF A LOSS IS THUS
A FLEXIBLE, PRACTICAL ONE, VARYING ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
EACH CASE.  THE TAXPAYER'S ATTITUDE AND CONDUCT ARE NOT TO BE IGNORED,
BUT TO CODIFY THEM AS THE DECISIVE FACTOR IN EVERY CASE IS TO SURROUND
THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF SEC. 23(E) AND THE TREASURY INTERPRETATIONS WITH
AN ATMOSPHERE OF UNREALITY AND TO IMPOSE GRAVE OBSTACLES TO EFFICIENT
TAX ADMINISTRATION. 

SECOND.  THE TAXPAYER CONTENDS THAT EVEN UNDER THE PRACTICAL,
REALISTIC TEST THE STIPULATED FACTS DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT
THE STOCK OF THE HARTMAN CORPORATION DID NOT BECOME WORTHLESS UNTIL
1937, WHEN THE STOCKHOLDERS' SUIT WAS SETTLED.  HENCE IT IS CLAIMED
THAT THE TAX COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS NOT A DEDUCTIBLE
LOSS IN 1937 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(E). 

BUT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PARTICULAR CORPORATE STOCK DID OR DID NOT
BECOME WORTHLESS DURING A GIVEN TAXABLE YEAR IS PURELY A QUESTION OF
FACT TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE TAX COURT, THE BASIC
FACT-FINDING AND INFERENCE-MAKING BODY.  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE
FACTS IN A PARTICULAR CASE MAY BE STIPULATED OR UNDISPUTED DOES NOT
MAKE THIS ISSUE ANY LESS FACTUAL IN NATURE.  THE TAX COURT IS ENTITLED
TO DRAW WHATEVER INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS IT DEEMS REASONABLE FROM
SUCH FACTS.  AND AN APPELLATE COURT IS LIMITED, UNDER FAMILIAR
DOCTRINES, TO A CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT
IS "IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 1141(C)(1).  IF IT IS IN
ACCORDANCE, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT DIFFERENT INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS
MIGHT FAIRLY BE DRAWN FROM THE UNDISPUTED FACTS.  COMMISSIONER V.
SCOTTISH AMERICAN CO., 323 U.S. 119. 

HERE IT WAS THE BURDEN OF THE TAXPAYER TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT
THERE WAS A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS IN 1937.  BURNET V. HOUSTON, 283 U.S. 223,
227.  THIS BURDEN WAS SOUGHT TO BE CARRIED BY MEANS OF THE STIPULATION
OF FACTS.  BUT THE TAX COURT, USING THE PRACTICAL TEST PREVIOUSLY
DISCUSSED, FOUND THE STIPULATED FACTS "INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT
THE STOCK HAD ANY VALUE AT THE BEGINNING OF 1937 AND BECAME WORTHLESS
DURING THAT YEAR."  IT FELT THAT SUCH EVIDENCE "CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE
STOCK WAS WORTHLESS PRIOR TO THAT YEAR." 

WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE TAX COURT'S INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS
ON THIS FACTUAL MATTER ARE SO UNREASONABLE FROM AN EVIDENTIARY
STANDPOINT AS TO REQUIRE A REVERSAL OF ITS JUDGMENT.  THE STIPULATION
SHOWS A SUCCESSION OF "IDENTIFIABLE EVENTS," OCCURRING LONG BEFORE
1937, TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT THE STOCK WAS WORTHLESS PRIOR TO
THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THE SERIOUS LOSSES OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, THE
RECEIVERSHIP, THE RECEIVERS' REPORTS, THE EXCESS OF LIABILITIES OVER
ASSETS, THE TERMINATION OF OPERATIONS AND THE BANKRUPTCY SALE OF THE
ASSETS OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARY ALL LEND CREDENCE TO THE TAX COURT'S
JUDGMENT.  FN8  WHILE THE STOCKHOLDERS' SUIT WAS PROSECUTED AGAINST
DEFENDANTS OF ADMITTED "FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY" AND CONSTITUTED AN
ASSET OF THE CORPORATION UNTIL SETTLED IN 1937, THE TAX COURT FELT THAT
NO SUBSTANTIAL VALUE TO THE SUIT HAD BEEN SHOWN.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
IN THE STIPULATION OF THE MERITS OF THE SUIT, THE PROBABILITY OF
RECOVERY OR ANY ASSURANCE OF COLLECTION OF AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY
THE CREDITORS' CLAIMS OF MORE THAN $630,000 AND TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT
SURPLUS FOR STOCKHOLDERS SO AS TO GIVE ANY REAL VALUE TO THEIR STOCK. 
THE MERE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE DOES NOT
NECESSARILY INJECT ANY RECOGNIZABLE VALUE INTO THE SUIT FROM THE
STOCKHOLDERS' VIEWPOINT.  HENCE IT WAS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT ALL
VALUE HAD DEPARTED FROM THE STOCK PRIOR TO 1937 AND THAT THERE WAS
NOTHING LEFT EXCEPT A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THIRD PARTIES FOR
DESTRUCTION OF THAT VALUE. 

THE TAXPAYER POINTS TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF ERROR AND OTHER
DIFFICULTIES CONFRONTING ONE WHO IN GOOD FAITH TRIES TO CHOOSE THE
PROPER YEAR IN WHICH TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION.  BUT THESE DIFFICULTIES ARE
INHERENT UNDER THE STATUTE AS NOW FRAMED.  ANY DESIRED REMEDY FOR SUCH
A SITUATION, OF COURSE, LIES WITH CONGRESS RATHER THAN WITH THE
COURTS.  IT IS BEYOND THE JUDICIAL POWER TO DISTORT FACTS OR TO
DISREGARD LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE EQUITABLE RELIEF IN A
PARTICULAR SITUATION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 1648, 1659; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(E). 

FN2  THE BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1931, WHICH ACCOMPANIED
THIS LETTER, SHOWED ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF $15,401,097.97 AND A
TOTAL NET WORTH OF $9,410,659.50. 

FN3  THE CREDITOR'S BILL OF COMPLAINT STATED THAT HARTMAN CORPORATION
AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES IN 1931 SUSTAINED LOSSES OF $761,648 FROM CLOSING
STORES AND LOSSES OF $15,150,000 FROM NECESSARY LIQUIDATION.  IT WAS
FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE CORPORATION SUSTAINED OPERATING LOSSES IN 1930
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,830,000; IN 1931, $2,076,266[ FROM JANUARY, 1932,
TO JUNE 16, 1932, $400,000.  AFTER STATING THAT THE COMPANY WAS BEING
OPERATED AT A GREAT FINANCIAL LOSS AND THAT IT WAS UNABLE TO MEET AND
PAY ITS OBLIGATIONS, THE BILL CONCLUDED BY ALLEGING THAT THE ASSETS AND
PROPERTIES WERE OF GREAT VALUE AND THAT IF THEY WERE ADMINISTERED
THROUGH A RECEIVERSHIP THEY WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL OF THE
CORPORATION'S LIABILITIES, LEAVING A SURPLUS FOR THE STOCKHOLDERS. 
FN4  THESE NINE PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED 4,407 OF THE APPROXIMATELY
60,000 CLASS A SHARES OUTSTANDING AND 115 1/5 OF THE MORE THAN 335,000
CLASS B SHARES OUTSTANDING. 

FN5  THE COMMISSIONER ALSO INCLUDED IN THE TAXPAYER'S 1937 GROSS
INCOME THE $12,500 RECEIVED IN THE SETTLEMENT AND THE TAX COURT
SUSTAINED HIS ACTION.  BUT THE COURT BELOW REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE
$12,500 MUST BE REGARDED AS A CAPITAL ITEM IN REDUCTION OF LOSS RATHER
THAN AS INCOME.  THIS POINT IS NOT NOW BEFORE US.    FN6  TREASURY
REGULATIONS 94, ART. 23(E)-1, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  IDENTICAL
LANGUAGE IS CONTAINED IN REGULATIONS 86, ART. 23(E)-1, UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934; REGULATIONS 101, ART. 23(E)-1, UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1938; REGULATIONS 103, SEC. 19.23(E)-1, UNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE; AND REGULATIONS 111, SEC. 29.23(E)-1, UNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE. 

FN7  TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, ART. 23(E)-4, FURTHER MAKES CLEAR THAT
ONLY LOSSES IN FACT ARE DEDUCTIBLE.  LOSSES ON STOCK DUE TO SHRINKAGE
OF VALUE ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY TO THE EXTENT "ACTUALLY SUFFERED WHEN THE
STOCK IS DISPOSED OF."  AND IF, BEFORE BEING DISPOSED OF, THE STOCK
BECOMES WORTHLESS, ITS COST OR OTHER BASIS "IS DEDUCTIBLE BY THE OWNER
FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH THE STOCK BECAME WORTHLESS, PROVIDED A
SATISFACTORY SHOWING IS MADE OF ITS WORTHLESSNESS." 

FN8  SEE, IN GENERAL, 5 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION,
SECS. 28.65 TO 28.69; LYNCH, "LOSSES RESULTING FROM STOCK BECOMING
WORTHLESS - DEDUCTIBILITY UNDER FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS," 8 FORDHAM L.
REV. 199. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :















GANGE LUMBER CO. V. ROWLEY, 326 U.S. 295 


NO. 53.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 17, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1945.  -
22 WASH.2D 250, 155 P.2D 802, APPEAL DISMISSED. 


PRIOR TO THE 1941 AMENDMENT OF THE WASHINGTON INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
ACT, THERE WAS A 3-YEAR LIMITATION ON THE FILING BY A WORKMAN OF A
CLAIM FOR READJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF AGGRAVATION OF
INJURY.  THE 1941 AMENDMENT AUTHORIZED THE FILING OF SUCH A CLAIM
WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM ITS EFFECTIVE DATE.  THERE WAS NO LIMITATION,
HOWEVER, BEFORE OR AFTER THE AMENDMENT, ON THE REOPENING OF A CLAIM AND
THE AWARDING OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BY THE DEPARTMENT ON ITS OWN
MOTION.  A WORKMAN, AGAINST WHOM THE 3-YEAR LIMITATION OF THE
PREEXISTING LAW HAD RUN, FILED PURSUANT TO THE 1941 AMENDMENT A CLAIM
FOR READJUSTMENT AND WAS AWARDED ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. 

HELD THAT, UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT EMPLOYER -
HAVING SHOWN NEITHER A PROBABILITY THAT ITS FUTURE PREMIUM RATE WOULD
BE INCREASED BY ALLOWANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL AWARD NOR THAT UNDER THE
PREEXISTING LAW THE LIABILITY FOR AN ADDITIONAL AWARD HAD BEEN
EXTINGUISHED - FAILED TO MAKE A SHOWING OF SUCH SUBSTANTIAL INJURY,
ACTUAL OR IMPENDING, TO ANY LEGALLY PROTECTED INTEREST AS WOULD ENTITLE
IT TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 297, 307. 

GANGE LUMBER CO. V. ROWLEY AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES OF THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
STATE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL IS FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
RENDERED AFTER THE CASE JOURNEYED TWICE THROUGH THE STATE'S APPROPRIATE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS.  21 WASH.2D 420, 22 WASH.2D
250.  FN1  THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINED AN AWARD MADE BY THE APPELLEE,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, IN FAVOR OF ROWLEY, THE INDIVIDUAL
APPELLEE.  THE AWARD WAS FOR COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE
AGGRAVATION, BY 1943, OF INJURIES ORIGINALLY SUSTAINED BY ROWLEY IN
1937 IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BY APPELLANT.  A PRIOR AWARD FOR
THE ORIGINAL INJURY, MADE IN 1938, BECAME "FINAL"  FN2  WITHOUT APPEAL
AND IS ONLY INDIRECTLY IN ISSUE.  BOTH AWARDS WERE MADE PURSUANT TO THE
STATE'S STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE AND WERE PAYABLE
FROM A PUBLICLY ADMINISTERED FUND MAINTAINED, AS THE STATUTE REQUIRED,
BY "PREMIUMS" OR CONTRIBUTIONS OF EMPLOYERS.  FN3  APPELLANT CLAIMS
THAT THE STATUTE HAS BEEN APPLIED, IN RESPECT TO ITS LIABILITY FOR THE
PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, IN A MANNER TO DEPRIVE IT OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, CONTRARY TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE CONTROVERSY RESULTS FROM A 1941 AMENDMENT OF THE WASHINGTON
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT,  FN4 BY WHICH THE TIME ALLOWED FOR THE
BENEFICIARY OF AN AWARD TO APPLY FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT
OF AGGRAVATION OF HIS INJURY WAS EXTENDED FROM THREE TO FIVE YEARS
AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT (OR TERMINATION) OF COMPENSATION OR, BY VIRTUE
OF A PROVISO, TO FIVE YEARS FROM THE AMENDMENT'S EFFECTIVE DATE.  FN5
SINCE ROWLEY'S APPLICATION PRESENTLY INVOLVED WAS MADE IN TIME ONLY BY
VIRTUE OF THE PROVISO,  FN6  APPELLANT ASSERTS THAT THE AMENDMENT HAS
BEEN APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO REVIVE A CLAIM BARRED BY THE PREEXISTING
LAW, TO ITS SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT; AND THEREBY, UNDER THIS COURT'S
DECISION IN DANZER & CO. V. GULF & SHIP ISLAND R. CO., 268 U.S. 633,
THE CLAIMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES HAVE BEEN CREATED. 

APPELLEES HAVE RESPONDED BY RELYING UPON CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115 U.S.
620, AND CHASE SECURITIES CORP. V. DONALDSON, 325 U.S. 304.  THEY HAVE
URGED THAT AS APPLIED THE STATUTE HAS PRODUCED NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL
INJURY OR DETRIMENT TO ANY SUBSTANTIVE INTEREST OF APPELLANT; AND THAT
THE ONLY EFFECT HAS BEEN TO MODIFY ITS PROCEDURAL RIGHTS, IN PARTICULAR
BY SUPPLYING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AWARDS FOR AGGRAVATION WHERE PREVIOUSLY
ONLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE.  FN7  AS
ALL OF THESE CONTENTIONS ARE SOMEWHAT INTERRELATED, PRECISE
CONSIDERATION REQUIRES MORE EXPLICIT STATEMENT OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME
IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS. 

WASHINGTON'S PLAN OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE IS MUCH LIKE THAT OF OHIO,
BRIEFLY DESCRIBED IN COPPERWELD STEEL CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 324
U.S. 780; CF. MATTSON V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 293 U.S. 151.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HAS CHARACTERIZED THE SYSTEM AS NEITHER AN EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT NOR AN ORDINARY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, BUT RATHER AS
AN INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE STATUTE HAVING ALL THE FEATURES OF AN INSURANCE
ACT.  STERTZ V. INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION, 91 WASH. 588, 594-595,
158 P. 256.  SALIENT CHARACTERISTICS, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, INCLUDE THE
MAINTENANCE AND ADMINISTRATION BY THE STATE OF AN ACCIDENT FUND, WHICH
IS PAID INTO THE STATE TREASURY BY EMPLOYERS PURSUANT TO ANNUAL
ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, THROUGH THE
SUPERVISOR OF INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE.  EXCEPT IN SITUATIONS NOT PRESENTLY
MATERIAL,  FN8 INJURED EMPLOYEES ARE DEPRIVED OF COMMON-LAW CAUSES OF
ACTION AGAINST THEIR EMPLOYERS AND ARE RESTRICTED TO RECOVERY FROM THIS
FUND AS REPARATION FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED AT WORK. 

THE DIRECTOR IS EMPOWERED TO PROMULGATE, CHANGE AND REVISE RATES TO
BE PAID BY EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTORS.  THE SCHEME FOR DETERMINING THE RATES
IS SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED, REQUIRING CLASSIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTORS AND
THEIR WORK ACCORDING TO ITS HAZARD; AND ADJUSTMENT OF PREMIUMS TO TAKE
ACCOUNT OF THE COST EXPERIENCE NOT ONLY OF EACH CLASS BUT ALSO OF EACH
EMPLOYER, AS WELL AS THE CONDITION OF THE FUND.  REM.  REV. STAT.
WASH., SEC. 7676.  A BASIC PREMIUM RATE, TO APPLY FOR THE ENSUING
CALENDAR YEAR, IS FIXED ANNUALLY FOR EACH CLASS, WHICH TAKES ACCOUNT OF
ITS COST EXPERIENCE OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD AND OF THE CONDITION OF THE
CLASS FUND.  AT THE SAME TIME A PREMIUM RATE OF EACH EMPLOYER IS FIXED
WITH RELATION TO EACH CLASS, ALSO TO APPLY FOR THE ENSUING YEAR, WHICH
TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE EMPLOYER'S AVERAGE COST EXPERIENCE "FOR
EACH WORKMAN HOUR REPORTED BY HIM DURING EACH FISCAL YEAR  ...  OVER
THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD" IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DETERMINATION.  THE
ACTUAL PREMIUM RATE THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO PAY CONSISTS OF 40 PER
CENT OF THE BASIC RATE PLUS 60 PER CENT OF HIS COST RATE AS THUS
DETERMINED; BUT IN NO EVENT IS THE TOTAL RATE TO EXCEED 160 PER CENT OF
THE BASIC RATE. 

PREMIUMS WHEN PAID ARE PLACED TO THE CREDIT OF THE EMPLOYER IN THE
APPROPRIATE FUND, BUT BECOME THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE STATE,
EARMARKED AND APPROPRIATED FOR THE SPECIFIC USES PROVIDED BY THE
STATUTE.  REM.  REV. STAT. WASH., SEC. 7676.  SEE STATE EX REL.
TRENHOLM V. YELLE, 174 WASH. 547, 550.  NO PROVISION IS MADE FOR
REPAYMENT OR RECOVERY OF ANY EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION ONCE IT IS PAID
IN, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE FULL AMOUNT IS REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE HIS
OR OTHERS' EMPLOYEES FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED; AND NO SUCH REPAYMENTS ARE
CONTEMPLATED.  AWARDS ARE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE APPROPRIATE FUND THUS
ACCUMULATED AND PAYMENT IS IN NO WISE DEPENDENT UPON THE EMPLOYER'S
CONTINUED EXISTENCE, OPERATION OR CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUND.  NOR, UNDER
THE PLAN, CAN PAYMENT AFFECT THE RATE OF PREMIUM FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH
THE AWARD IS ALLOWED. 

IN VIEW OF THESE PROVISIONS AND EFFECTS, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS
DECLARED THAT NEITHER THE EMPLOYER NOR THE EMPLOYEE HAS A VESTED RIGHT
OR INTEREST IN THE FUND; THE MONEYS WHEN COLLECTED ARE PUBLIC MONEYS,
HELD AND ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE, ALBEIT PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY
PURPOSE THEY CONSTITUTE A "TRUST FUND" FOR THE BENEFIT OF INJURED
WORKMEN AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.  FN9  THE FUND IS THEREFORE IN NO SENSE
THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE EMPLOYER.  CONSEQUENTLY THE PAYMENT OF
AWARDS OUT OF THE FUND IN ITSELF COULD NOT AMOUNT TO A DEPRIVATION OF
THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY.  INDEED, APPELLANT DOES NOT URGE THAT THE
APPLICATION OF MONEYS PREVIOUSLY PAID IN TO THE PAYMENT OF AN AWARD OF
ITSELF WORKS THE CLAIMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULT.  RATHER THIS IS SAID
TO ARISE FROM THE EFFECT THE AWARD AND ITS PAYMENT MAY HAVE, BY VIRTUE
OF THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS RELATING TO COST EXPERIENCE IN THE FIXING
OF RATES, UPON APPELLANT'S LIABILITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS IN THE
FUTURE.  IT IS ANTICIPATED, NOT PRESENTLY REALIZED OR IMMEDIATE,
FINANCIAL INJURY OF WHICH COMPLAINT IS MADE. 

AS HAS BEEN NOTED, IN COMPUTING THE RATE OF PREMIUM THE DIRECTOR IS
REQUIRED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT NOT ONLY THE COST EXPERIENCE OF EACH
CLASS OVER A PREVIOUS TWO-YEAR PERIOD, BUT ALSO THE AVERAGE COST
EXPERIENCE OF EACH EMPLOYER OVER THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FIVE-YEAR
PERIOD, IN ADDITION TO "THE THEN CONDITION OF EACH CLASS AND/OR SUB
CLASS ACCOUNT."  THE QUOTED REFERENCE RELATES TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE KEEPING OF CLASS ACCOUNTS, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND, FOR
CREDITING OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY EACH EMPLOYER TO THE APPROPRIATE
ACCOUNTS, AND FOR THE CHARGING OF AWARDS MADE TO OR ON ACCOUNT OF
INJURIES TO HIS EMPLOYEES AGAINST HIS EXPERIENCE.  REM.  REV. STAT.
WASH., SEC. 7676.  IT IS THIS CHARGE OF WHICH APPELLANT COMPLAINS, IN
THE VIEW APPARENTLY THAT IT NECESSARILY WILL ENTAIL THE PAYMENT OF A
HIGHER PREMIUM IN YEARS FOLLOWING THE ONE IN WHICH THE AWARD IS MADE,
WHEN THE RATE COMPUTED AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES WILL REFLECT INCLUSION
OF THE AWARD IN ITS COST EXPERIENCE.  ACCORDINGLY, SINCE IT DETERMINES
THAT THE CHARGE WILL BE MADE, THE ALLOWANCE OF AN AWARD IS SAID TO BE A
MATTER VITALLY AFFECTING THE EMPLOYER'S SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITY AND
CONSTITUTES A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THAT LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT THAT
THE CHARGE MAY AFFECT THE FUTURE RATE. 

MOREOVER, THE STATUTE PROVIDES IN ITS PROCEDURAL PHASES FOR THE
EMPLOYER TO HAVE NOTICE AND THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THE
DETERMINATION.  FN10  IT MUST BE TAKEN THAT THIS RIGHT IS CONFERRED FOR
THE EMPLOYER'S PROTECTION IN THE FIXING OF RATES AS THEY MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE ALLOWANCE OF AWARDS THROUGH THE INCLUSION OF HIS COST
EXPERIENCE AS A FACTOR IN RATE COMPUTATION.  ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF
THESE PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS, APPELLANT URGES THAT ITS SUBSTANTIVE
LIABILITY, ONCE IT IS TERMINATED THROUGH BARRING OF A CLAIMANT'S RIGHT
TO PROCEED BY LAPSE OF TIME, BECOMES AN ADJUDICATED MATTER,
SUBSTANTIVE, NOT MERELY PROCEDURAL OR REMEDIAL IN CHARACTER; AND CANNOT
THEREFORE BE REVIVED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE DECISION IN THE DANZER
CASE. 

WERE THIS ALL, AND WERE THE STATE OF THE RECORD PLAIN THAT THE
ALLOWANCE OF THE AWARD NECESSARILY WOULD RESULT IN A LATER INCREASE OF
THE PREMIUM, WE WOULD BE CONFRONTED WITH THE NECESSITY OF DETERMINING
WHETHER SUCH AN INCREASE WOULD CONSTITUTE THE KIND OF INJURY OR
DETRIMENT FORBIDDEN BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  A MERE INCREASE IN
PREMIUM, UNDER A COMPULSORY AND PUBLICLY ADMINISTERED ACCIDENT
INSURANCE PLAN, DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT COST BASED UPON GENERAL AND
INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE RATHER THAN AT AN ARBITRARY FIGURE,  FN11  AND
SURROUNDED WITH ADEQUATE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ARBITRARY
ACTION, WOULD NOT SEEM TO BE SO OBVIOUSLY HARSH OR ARBITRARY IN ITS
EFFECT UPON EMPLOYERS GENERALLY THAT IT COULD BE SAID WITHOUT QUESTION
TO BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE STATE'S REGULATORY POWER OR IN VIOLATION
OF THE DUE PROCESS PROHIBITION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

BUT WE ARE NOT FACED WITH THE NECESSITY FOR DECIDING THAT QUESTION. 
ALTHOUGH APPELLANT'S BRIEF STATES THAT "THE AWARD WILL BE PAID IN LARGE
MEASURE" BY ITSELF, IT IS NOT ASSERTED THAT THIS BURDEN WILL RESULT
FROM ANY INCREASE IN APPELLANT'S RATE OR IN FACT THAT ANY INCREASE
NECESSARILY WILL FOLLOW FROM ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF THE AWARD.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THE STATEMENT SEEMS OBVIOUSLY IRRELEVANT, OR ERRONEOUS IN
SO FAR AS IT MAY BE TAKEN TO IMPLY THAT EITHER OF THESE CONSEQUENCES
WILL FOLLOW, SINCE IN NO EVENT CAN THE AWARD BE PAID OUT OF THE FUNDS
COLLECTED FROM AN INCREASE PRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART BY ITS
ALLOWANCE.  IT IS NOT UNTIL AFTER THE AWARD HAS BEEN ALLOWED THAT IT
CAN BE CHARGED TO THE EMPLOYER'S EXPERIENCE OR AFFECT HIS RATE OF
CONTRIBUTION. 

MOREOVER, IF APPELLANT IS TAKEN TO ARGUE THAT AN INCREASE WILL RESULT
FOR THE YEAR OR YEARS FOLLOWING THE AWARD'S ALLOWANCE, THE RECORD
NEITHER DEMONSTRATES THIS NOR FURNISHES SUPPORT FOR AN INFERENCE THAT
SUCH A RESULT NECESSARILY OR EVEN PROBABLY WILL FOLLOW.  AS THE
DEPARTMENT POINTS OUT, THE PAYMENT WHEN MADE MAY BE ONE FACTOR IN
DETERMINING APPELLANT'S FUTURE RATE.  BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE
WHAT RATE APPELLANT HAS BEEN PAYING.  FOR ALL THAT APPEARS, THIS MAY BE
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED BY THE STATUTE, IN WHICH EVENT NO INJURY, PRESENT
OR FUTURE, COULD RESULT FROM ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF THE AWARD.  FN12
MOREOVER, IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT THE RATE WAS LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM,
WHETHER OR NOT AN INCREASE WOULD RESULT OR, IF SO, WHETHER IT WOULD BE
SUBSTANTIAL, ARE QUESTIONS WHOLLY SPECULATIVE. 

A VARIETY OF CONSIDERATIONS MAKES THEM SO.  APPELLANT'S EXPERIENCE IS
BUT ONE FACTOR IN THE COMPUTATION.  IT AFFECTS ONLY 60 PER CENT OF THE
ACTUAL RATE.  A SINGLE AWARD IS REFLECTED IN THIS FRACTION ONLY AS IT
AFFECTS THE FIVE-YEAR INDIVIDUAL AVERAGE.  WHEN SO REFLECTED THE AMOUNT
OF RESULTING INCREASE IN THAT AVERAGE AND IN THE FRACTION MAY BE
INFINITESIMAL OR INSUBSTANTIAL.  THE ULTIMATE EFFECT UPON THE ACTUAL
RATE WILL BE WATERED DOWN NEARLY BY HALF THROUGH INCLUSION OF THE 40
PER CENT FACTOR FOR CLASS EXPERIENCE.  SINCE THE CONDITION OF THE FUND
ALSO MUST BE CONSIDERED, THIS TOO MAY MINIMIZE FURTHER THE EFFECT OR,
SO FAR AS APPEARS, MAKE AN INCREASE ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY.  THE RECORD
FURNISHES NO EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE CONDITION OF THE FUND, THE CLASS
EXPERIENCE OVER THE REQUIRED PERIOD OR THE APPELLANT'S INDIVIDUAL
EXPERIENCE OVER THE SPECIFIED FIVE YEARS.  THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD IS
SMALL, $460.50. 

IN SUM, ALL THAT THE RECORD DISCLOSES IS THAT THIS AMOUNT WILL BE
CHARGED AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S EXPERIENCE AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH
OTHER FACTORS, AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES, IN THE COMPUTATION FOR SOME
FUTURE PERIOD, WITH POSSIBLY SOME INCREASE RESULTING IN THE RATE.  BUT,
IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL EVIDENCE SHOWING THE FACTS CONCERNING THE OTHER
FACTORS, IT IS ENTIRELY PROBLEMATICAL WHETHER AN INCREASE WILL FOLLOW
OR, IF SO, WHETHER IT WILL BE WHOLLY MATHEMATICAL AND INFINITESIMAL OR
SUBSTANTIAL IN ITS ULTIMATE EFFECT UPON APPELLANT.  THIS BEING SO,
APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT COMES DOWN, ON THE RECORD, TO NOTHING MORE THAN
THE BARE POSSIBILITY OF SOME INJURY IN THE FUTURE.    THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, DOES NOT ASSURE PROTECTION
FROM THE STATES' REGULATORY POWERS AGAINST INJURIES SO REMOTE,
CONTINGENT AND SPECULATIVE.  FN13  SOME SUBSTANTIAL AND MORE IMMEDIATE
HARM MUST BE SHOWN TO PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE QUESTION CONCERNING THE
STATE'S POWER.  THE INJURY, AS IT APPEARS FROM THIS RECORD, IS NEITHER
SO CERTAIN NOR SO SUBSTANTIAL AS TO JUSTIFY A FINDING, UPON THAT
SHOWING, THAT APPELLANT'S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE
INVADED BY ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF THE AWARD. 

MOREOVER, UNDER THE ACT'S PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS, APPELLANT HAS AT NO
TIME BEEN FREE FROM THIS CONTINGENT LIABILITY, WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER
THE 1941 AMENDMENT.  FOR, ALTHOUGH THE 1927 AMENDMENT PRECLUDED THE
EMPLOYEE FROM FILING CLAIM AS OF RIGHT AFTER THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD, IT
FOLLOWED THE ORIGINAL ACT IN PLACING NO LIMIT UPON THE TIME WITHIN
WHICH THE DEPARTMENT, OF ITS OWN MOTION, MIGHT REOPEN THE CLAIM AND
INCREASE, REDUCE OR TERMINATE THE COMPENSATION.  FN14 APPELLANT
THEREFORE WAS AT ALL TIMES SUBSTANTIVELY LIABLE TO HAVE ITS PREMIUM
RATE INCREASED BY THE ALLOWANCE OF AN AWARD FOR AGGRAVATION; AND THE
INITIAL AWARD, IN CONSEQUENCE, WAS IN NO SENSE RES JUDICATA AGAINST
LATER IMPOSITION OF THIS LIABILITY.  FN15  APPELLANT'S CONTRARY
ARGUMENT ERRONEOUSLY CORRELATES ITS OWN LIABILITY TO PAY PREMIUMS, FOR
PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE STATUTE'S BAR, WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT
FORMALLY TO INSTITUTE THE PROCEEDINGS (AND TO HAVE JUDICIAL REVIEW) FOR
SECURING AN AWARD, AND ASSUMES THAT THIS LIABILITY WAS TERMINATED. 
FN16 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE RESTORATION, BY THE 1941 AMENDMENT, OF THE
EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT OF TAKING THE INITIATIVE MAY HAVE HAD PRACTICAL
EFFECTS TOWARD INCREASING THE RATES OF PREMIUM, ALTHOUGH NONE ARE SHOWN
BY THIS RECORD WITH ANY CERTAINTY.  BUT APPELLANT IS SEEKING TO HAVE A
STATE STATUTE VOIDED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WORKS A SUBSTANTIAL INJURY
TO ITS SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS BY CREATING OR RECREATING A LIABILITY WHICH
HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY PREVIOUSLY APPLICABLE LAW.  IT THEREBY HAS
UNDERTAKEN TO DEMONSTRATE NOT ONLY THE INJURY AND ITS SUBSTANTIAL
CHARACTER, BUT AS PART OF THAT BURDEN THE EXTINCTION OF THE PREEXISTING
SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITY.  THIS IT HAS NOT DONE AND COULD NOT DO, IN VIEW
OF THE DEPARTMENT'S POWER TO REOPEN THE CLAIM.  IT HAS SUCCEEDED ONLY
IN SHOWING THAT ONE MODE PROVIDED BY THE PREEXISTING LAW FOR BRINGING
THE LIABILITY INTO PLAY HAD BEEN TERMINATED.  IT WAS THIS AND ONLY THIS
WHICH THE 1941 AMENDMENT REVIVED.  AT THE MOST, THEREFORE, APPELLANT'S
INJURY, IF IT WERE OTHERWISE MORE SUBSTANTIAL, WOULD CONSIST IN THE
RESTORATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE, IF ALSO POSSIBLY A MORE EFFECTIVE,
METHOD FOR PUTTING IN MOTION THE MACHINERY PROVIDED FOR MAKING AN
AWARD. 

IN OUR VIEW APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE THE SHOWING OF SUBSTANTIAL HARM,
ACTUAL OR IMPENDING, TO ANY LEGALLY PROTECTED INTEREST WHICH IS
NECESSARY TO CALL IN QUESTION THE STATUTE'S VALIDITY.  FN17
ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL MUST BE AND HEREBY IS DISMISSED.  FN18 

FN1  THE PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CLAIMS BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND INDUSTRIES AND FOR OBTAINING JUDICIAL REVIEW IS SKETCHED BELOW IN
NOTE 10.  ON THE FIRST JOURNEY OF THE CAUSE TO THE SUPREME COURT, THE
DEPARTMENT AND THE SUPERIOR COURT HELD THAT THE CLAIM WAS OUT OF TIME
AND THAT IT SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  AFTER REVERSAL OF THESE RULINGS, THE
CASE WAS RETURNED TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE MAKING OF AN AWARD, AND ITS
ORDER ACCOMPLISHING THIS WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPERIOR AND SUPREME
COURTS, AS AGAINST APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS URGED HERE AND
OTHERS. 

FN2  THE AWARD BECAME FINAL, FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW, IN SO FAR AS THE
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ALLOWABLE FOR THE ORIGINAL INJURY AS PROVED IN
THAT PROCEEDING WAS CONCERNED.  BUT IT WAS AT ALL TIMES SUBJECT TO
BEING REOPENED FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT
OF AGGRAVATION OF THE ORIGINAL INJURY TAKING PLACE AFTER THE ORIGINAL
AWARD.  SEE NOTE 5; ALSO NOTES 14, 15 AND TEXT. 

FN3  WASHINGTON'S ORIGINAL WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (OR MORE PROPERLY
INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE) ACT WAS ADOPTED IN 1911, LAWS OF WASH., 1911, C.
74(REMINGTON'S REVISED STATUTES OF WASHINGTON, SECS. 7673 ET SEQ.).
FOR PURPOSES MATERIAL TO THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CAUSE, THE ACT WAS
AMENDED IN 1927, BY PLACING A LIMIT OF THREE YEARS FROM SPECIFIED DATES
UPON THE FILING OF CLAIMS BY INJURED WORKMEN FOR AGGRAVATION OF
INJURIES (LAWS OF WASH., 1927, C. 310, P. 844; REM.  REV.  STAT. WASH.,
1932, SEC. 7679(H), AMENDING LAWS OF 1911, C. 74, SEC. 5(H)  AND IN
1941(EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 3, 1942) BY EXTENDING THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD TO
FIVE YEARS.  LAWS OF WASH., 1941, C. 209, SEC. 1; REM.  REV.  STAT.
WASH., 1941 SUPP., SEC. 7679, AMENDING SUBSECTION (H) OF THE 1927
AMENDMENT. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 3. 

FN5  THE PROVISION, AS AMENDED IN 1941, WAS AS FOLLOWS:  "IF
AGGRAVATION, DIMINUTION, OR TERMINATION OF DISABILITY TAKES PLACE OR BE
DISCOVERED AFTER THE RATE OF COMPENSATION SHALL HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED
OR COMPENSATION TERMINATED, IN ANY CASE THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR AND
INDUSTRIES, THROUGH AND BY MEANS OF THE DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL
INSURANCE, MAY, UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE BENEFICIARY, MADE WITHIN
FIVE YEARS AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OR TERMINATION OF SUCH COMPENSATION,
OR UPON HIS OWN MOTION, READJUST FOR FURTHER APPLICATION THE RATE OF
COMPENSATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES IN THIS SECTION PROVIDED FOR
THE SAME, OR IN A PROPER CASE TERMINATE THE PAYMENT: PROVIDED, ANY SUCH
APPLICANT WHOSE COMPENSATION HAS HERETOFORE BEEN ESTABLISHED OR
TERMINATED SHALL HAVE FIVE YEARS FROM THE TAKING EFFECT OF THIS ACT
WITHIN WHICH TO APPLY FOR SUCH READJUSTMENT."  LAWS OF WASH., 1941, C.
209, SEC. 1; REM.  REV.  STAT. WASH., 1941 SUPP., SEC. 7679(H). 

THE 1927 AMENDMENT, SEE NOTE 3, WAS IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR USE OF THE
WORD "THREE" WHERE "FIVE" IS EMPLOYED.  THE ORIGINAL PROVISION, IN
FORCE FROM 1911 TO 1927, WAS AS FOLLOWS:  "IF AGGRAVATION, DIMINUTION,
OR TERMINATION OF DISABILITY TAKES PLACE OR BE DISCOVERED AFTER THE
RATE OF COMPENSATION SHALL HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED OR COMPENSATION
TERMINATED IN ANY CASE THE DEPARTMENT MAY, UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE
BENEFICIARY OR UPON ITS OWN MOTION, READJUST FOR FUTURE APPLICATION THE
RATE OF COMPENSATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES IN THIS SECTION
PROVIDED FOR THE SAME, OR IN A PROPER CASE TERMINATE THE PAYMENTS." 
LAWS OF WASH., 1911, C. 74, SEC. 5(H). 

FN6  THE ORIGINAL INJURY WAS INCURRED JULY 13, 1937.  THE ORIGINAL
AWARD, OF $307.50, FOR PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY OF THE RIGHT HAND,
BECAME "FINAL," CF. NOTE 2, MARCH 9, 1938.  THE 1927 AMENDMENT, SEE
NOTES 3 AND 5, WAS IN FORCE AT THAT TIME AND UNTIL DECEMBER 3, 1942,
WHEN THE 1941 AMENDMENT BECAME EFFECTIVE.  ROWLEY'S CLAIM FOR
AGGRAVATION WAS NOT FILED UNTIL MARCH 19, 1943, MORE THAN FIVE YEARS
FROM THE TIME THE ORIGINAL AWARD WAS "CLOSED," BUT LESS THAN FIVE YEARS
FROM THE DATE THE 1941 AMENDMENT, WITH THE PROVISO, BECAME EFFECTIVE. 

FN7  CF. NOTE 18. 

FN8  E.G., THE ACT PROVIDES THAT AN EMPLOYER, DEFAULTING IN HIS
PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, SHALL BE LIABLE TO SUIT BY THE INJURED WORKMAN, AS
PRIOR TO 1911, BUT WITHOUT SPECIFIED DEFENSES THEN AVAILABLE.  REM. 
REV. STAT. WASH., SEC. 7676. 

FN9  SEE THE OPINION OF THE COURT UPON THE FIRST APPEAL IN THIS
CAUSE, 21 WASH.2D 420, 427-429; MATTSON V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 176
WASH. 345, 347-348, 29 P.2D 675, AFFIRMED, 293 U.S. 151, HOLDING THAT
THE 1927 AMENDMENT PUTTING A LIMIT OF THREE YEARS TO THE EMPLOYEE'S
RIGHT TO CLAIM COMPENSATION AS OF RIGHT IMPAIRED NO VESTED RIGHT OF THE
EMPLOYEE, WHETHER OF PROPERTY OR EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, OR OF CONTRACT UNDER ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN10  REPORT OF ACCIDENT AND CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION MUST BE FILED
WITH THE APPELLEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES.  IF EITHER THE
CLAIMANT OR THE EMPLOYER IS AGGRIEVED BY ANY ORDER, DECISION OR AWARD,
HE MAY PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE JOINT BOARD OF THE
DEPARTMENT.  IF REHEARING IS GRANTED, THE BOARD MAY RECEIVE TESTIMONY. 
APPEAL LIES FROM THE BOARD'S ORDER TO THE SUPERIOR COURT, WHERE THE
MATTER IS TRIABLE DE NOVO, BUT UPON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE BOARD,
AND FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT'S JUDGMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT.  REM. 
REV. STAT. WASH., SEC. 7686; (1943 SUPP.) SEC. 7697. 

NO COMPLAINT IS MADE THAT APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE FULL BENEFIT OF THE
ACT'S PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS. 

ALTHOUGH THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE EMPLOYER TO
CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF AN AWARD AT THE TIME THE DEPARTMENT IS FIXING
THE RATE FOR THE ENSUING YEAR OR WHEN HE IS CALLED UPON TO PAY THAT
PREMIUM, IT DOES NOT APPEAR AFFIRMATIVELY THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE REMEDY
THEN UNDER THE GENERAL LAW OF THE STATE.  CF. COPPERWELD STEEL CO. V.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 324 U.S. 780. 

FN11  THE ORIGINAL ACT, AS ADOPTED IN 1911, PROVIDED FOR A UNIFORM
RATE OF PREMIUM TO BE COLLECTED FROM ALL EMPLOYERS.  LAWS OF WASH.,
1911, C. 74, SEC. 4.  THE COST FEATURE BASED UPON EXPERIENCE WAS
INTRODUCED IN 1931.  LAWS OF WASH., 1931, C. 104, SEC. 1. 

THE ORIGINAL ACT WITH ITS FEATURE OF "UNIFORM PAYMENT" WAS HELD
CONSTITUTIONAL BY THIS COURT IN MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243
U.S. 219, AFFIRMING STATE V. MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO., 75 WASH. 581, 135 P.
645.  SEE ALSO STATE EX REL. DAVIS-SMITH CO. V. CLAUSEN, 65 WASH. 156,
117 P. 1101.  THE "COST EXPERIENCE" AMENDMENT WAS SAID TO BE VALID IN
STATE EX REL. CRABB V. OLINGER, 196 WASH. 308, 82 P.2D 865, OVERRULED
ON ANOTHER POINT IN ST. PAUL & TACOMA LUMBER CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, 19 WASH.2D 639, 649, 144 P.2D 250. 

FN12  EXCEPT POSSIBLY UPON THE CONTINGENCY, EQUALLY SPECULATIVE UPON
THE RECORD, THAT THE MAXIMUM RATE MIGHT BE REDUCED IN CASE THE CHARGE
RESULTING FROM THE AWARD WERE NOT MADE. 

FN13  CF. MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS V. MISSOURI EX REL. JONES, 238
U.S. 41, 54; PLYMOUTH COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 531, 544-545,
AND AUTHORITIES CITED.  CF. ALSO CASTILLO V. MCCONNICO, 168 U.S. 674,
680; TYLER V. JUDGES OF THE COURT OF REGISTRATION, 179 U.S. 405;
FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 488. 

FN14  SEE THE TERMS OF SUBSECTION (H) IN ITS ORIGINAL AND AMENDED
FORMS AS SET FORTH IN NOTE 5; SMITH V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 8 WASH.2D
587, 113 P.2D 57; CF. NOTE 15. 

FN15  IT WAS EXACTLY TO PREVENT SUCH RIGID FINALITY THAT THE STATUTE
PRESERVED BOTH THE DEPARTMENT'S UNLIMITED POWER TO REOPEN THE CASE AND
THE EMPLOYEE'S POWER TO HAVE IT REOPENED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT DURING
THE LIMITED PERIOD.  FROM THE BEGINNING THE ACT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN
DRAWN TO AVOID THE CRYSTALLIZING EFFECTS OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA IN RELATION TO AWARDS, WHETHER AS AGAINST THE EMPLOYER OR THE
EMPLOYEE.  THE IDEA APPARENTLY WAS THAT THE INITIAL AWARD FOR AN INJURY
WOULD AFFORD COMPENSATION FOR HARMS THEN APPARENT AND PROVED.  BUT IT
WAS RECOGNIZED, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT ALL HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES MIGHT
NOT HAVE BECOME APPARENT AT THAT TIME AND, ON THE OTHER, THAT HARMS
THEN SHOWN TO EXIST MIGHT LATER BE TERMINATED OR MINIMIZED.  CF.
CHOCTAW PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. LAMB, 79 OKLA. 109, 110, 189 P. 750. 
THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS FOR REOPENING, WHETHER AT THE INSTANCE OF
THE EMPLOYER, THE EMPLOYEE, OR THE DEPARTMENT, CF. NOTES 5 AND 14,
OBVIOUSLY WAS TO PREVENT THE INITIAL AWARD FROM FINALLY CUTTING OFF
POWER TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THESE LATER FREQUENT DEVELOPMENTS.  IT WAS TO
MAINTAIN A MOBILE SYSTEM, CAPABLE OF ADAPTING THE AMOUNT OF
COMPENSATION FROM TIME TO TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS RELATING TO
THE INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR DISABILITY AS THEY ACTUALLY DEVELOP, NOT
TO CUT OFF RIGIDLY THE POWER EITHER TO INCREASE OR TO DECREASE THE
COMPENSATION ONCE AN AWARD HAD BECOME "FINAL" FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL. 

FN16  OBVIOUSLY THE LIABILITY AND THE RIGHT WERE NOT COEXTENSIVE IN
DURATION, SINCE THE ONE CONTINUED AFTER THE OTHER HAD BEEN CUT OFF. 
THEY WERE LACKING ALSO IN CORRELATION OF OBLIGATION, SINCE THE EMPLOYER
WAS BOUND TO PAY THE FUND, NOT THE EMPLOYEE; AND THE LATTER RECOVERED
FROM THE FUND, NOT THE EMPLOYER.  RIGHT AND LIABILITY ARE USUALLY
CORRELATIVE IN A LEGAL RELATION.  BUT IN THIS INSTANCE THE CORRELATION,
AS APPELLANT POSES IT, IS LACKING; FOR TWO LEGAL RELATIONS ARE
INVOLVED, FROM EACH OF WHICH IT SEEKS TO EXTRACT A CORRELATIVE. 

FN17  CF. MATTSON V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 293 U.S. 151. 

FN18  APPELLEES HAVE URGED THAT THE 1941 AMENDMENT DID NO MORE THAN
RESTORE THE RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, AS TO CLAIMS FILED AFTER THE
THREE-YEAR PERIOD, WHICH PRIOR TO 1927 HAD EXISTED WITH REFERENCE TO
ALL CLAIMS FOR AGGRAVATION WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO TIME; AND THEREFORE
THE AMENDMENT COULD BE TAKEN IN NO WAY TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE 1941 AMENDMENT RESTORED THE
EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WHERE PREVIOUSLY NONE HAD EXISTED. 
BUT IT ACCOMPLISHED MORE.  IT INVESTED THE EMPLOYEE WITH THE RIGHT TO
REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF TO PROCEED, WHERE PREVIOUSLY NO SUCH
RIGHT EXISTED.  WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD GIVE CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT, IF
THE RIGHT WERE COUPLED WITH A MORE SUBSTANTIAL AND LESS CONTINGENT
INJURY THAN IS SHOWN TO EXIST IN THIS CASE AND WITH A PREVIOUS TOTAL
EXTINCTION OF THE EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY, NEED NOT BE DETERMINED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ONLY PRACTICAL EFFECT OF
THE CHALLENGED STATE STATUTE WAS TO GIVE TO AN INJURED EMPLOYEE A RIGHT
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION; THAT A CONTENTION THAT
SUCH A STATUTE VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS FRIVOLOUS; AND THAT
THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BURTON CONCURS.    WE
CANNOT AGREE THAT THE INJURY TO APPELLANT IS SO REMOTE AND SPECULATIVE
AS TO PRECLUDE IT FROM ATTACKING ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS THE AWARD IN
QUESTION.  THE AWARD, WHETHER SMALL OR GREAT, ENTERS INTO THE
EMPLOYER'S COST EXPERIENCE; AND THE FUTURE PREMIUM PAYABLE BY THE
EMPLOYER REFLECTS IN PART ANY INCREASE OR DECREASE IN HIS COST
EXPERIENCE.  IF THE EMPLOYER IS NOT PAYING THE MAXIMUM RATE, AN
INCREASE IN HIS COST EXPERIENCE WILL INEVITABLY MAKE HIM PAY A RATE
WHICH WOULD BE LOWER BUT FOR THE INCREASE IN HIS COST EXPERIENCE.  AND
IF, PERCHANCE, HE IS ALREADY PAYING THE MAXIMUM RATE, AN INCREASE IN
HIS COST EXPERIENCE WILL INEVITABLY HOLD HIM THERE LONGER OR LESSEN ANY
REDUCTION TO WHICH HE OTHERWISE WOULD BE ENTITLED.  THE PRECISE EFFECT
ON FUTURE RATES CANNOT, OF COURSE, BE PRESENTLY ASCERTAINED.  NOR COULD
IT BE SHOWN IN ANY CASE, WHETHER THE AWARD WAS $460 OR $46,000.  FOR
THE RATES ARE FIXED ANNUALLY AND AT THE TIME OF ANY ONE AWARD ALL OF
THE ELEMENTS ENTERING INTO THE FUTURE COMPUTATION WILL NOT BE KNOWN. 
SO IF THIS EMPLOYER IS BARRED HERE BECAUSE HE CAN SHOW NO INJURY, HE
AND ALL OTHER EMPLOYERS WILL BE BARRED IN EVERY CASE.  FN1  YET WE KNOW
FROM THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM THAT THE COST EXPERIENCE OF EACH
EMPLOYER DETERMINES 60 PER CENT OF HIS FUTURE RATE.  THEIR RESPECTIVE
COSTS ALSO AFFECT TO A LESSER DEGREE THE BASIC PREMIUM RATE APPLICABLE
TO EACH EMPLOYER'S CLASS, AND 40 PER CENT OF THAT BASIC RATE IS
REFLECTED IN THE ACTUAL PREMIUM RATE PAID BY EACH EMPLOYER IN THAT
CLASS.  WE MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT NO EMPLOYER COULD EVER CHALLENGE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN AWARD UNDER THIS SYSTEM BECAUSE BANKRUPTCY,
FIRE OR SOME CATACLYSM MIGHT PUT HIM OUT OF BUSINESS BEFORE A NEW RATE
IS FIXED. 

ON THE MERITS WE THINK CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115 U.S. 620, AND CHASE
SECURITIES CORP. V. DONALDSON, 325 U.S. 304, GOVERN THIS CASE.  AT NO
TIME WAS THE EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM FOR AGGRAVATION EXTINGUISHED.  AT ALL
TIMES THE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE REOPENED THE CLAIM AND MADE AN
ADDITIONAL AWARD.  WE THEREFORE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT WHICH MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO ENLARGE AN AWARD
WHERE PREVIOUSLY THERE HAD BEEN A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIM.  CF.
DANZER & CO. V. GULF & SHIP ISLAND R. CO., 268 U.S. 633. 

WE WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  WE ARE NOT ADVISED THAT THE EMPLOYER CAN CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF
A PRIOR AWARD AT THE TIME THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES IS
FIXING THE PREMIUM RATE TO BE PAID INTO THE FUND FOR THE ENSUING YEAR. 
THE PERTINENT STATUTE (REM.  REV.  STAT. SEC. 7676) DOES NOT PRESCRIBE
SUCH A REMEDY AND THE DECISION OF THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT IN MUD
BAY LOGGING CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 189 WASH. 285, 286, 64 P.2D
1054, WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT IT IS NOT CONTEMPLATED. 
..END :











BAILEY V. ANDERSON, 326 U.S. 203 


NO. 49.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1945.  -
DISMISSED. 


1.  SECTION 1969J OF THE VIRGINIA CODE OF 1942 DOES NOT DENY THE DUE
PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS APPLIED TO A
LANDOWNER UPON WHOSE LAND THE STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER ENTERED AND
CONSTRUCTED A HIGHWAY IN ADVANCE OF THE APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS
AND BEFORE THEY COULD VIEW THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING ITS FAIR
VALUE UPON CONDEMNATION, SINCE THE LANDOWNER HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR A
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS, AND THEIR AWARD WAS SUBJECT TO A
JUDICIAL REVIEW UPON WHICH THE AWARD COULD BE SET ASIDE IF PLAINLY
WRONG OR UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 205. 

2.  THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A CLAIMED DENIAL TO THE
LANDOWNER OF INTEREST ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE TIME OF THE
TAKING IS NOT PROPERLY PRESENTED UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT
DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR THAT APPELLANT RAISED THAT QUESTION ON
THE RECORD OR THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT PASSED ON IT.  P. 206. 

BAILEY V. ANDERSON, STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DENYING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF ERROR TO
REVIEW A DECREE WHICH CONFIRMED AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION IN A
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLEE, STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER OF VIRGINIA, BROUGHT THIS
PROCEEDING IN CONFORMITY TO SECS. 1969J (1)-1969J (6) OF THE VIRGINIA
CODE OF 1942, TO CONDEMN APPELLANT'S LAND FOR USE AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY. 
ACTING UNDER SEC. 1969J (4), APPELLEE ENTERED ON THE LAND AND
CONSTRUCTED THE HIGHWAY IN ADVANCE OF ITS CONDEMNATION.  IN THE
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, BEGUN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE HIGHWAY, THE COMMISSIONERS, APPOINTED AND
ACTING PURSUANT TO SEC. 1969J (2), AFTER VIEWING THE LAND, AND HEARING
EVIDENCE, MADE AN AWARD OF $1,500 FOR THE LAND OCCUPIED BY THE HIGHWAY,
AND OF $6,500 FOR DAMAGES "RESULTING TO THE ADJACENT OR OTHER PROPERTY
OF THE OWNER." 

THE VIRGINIA CIRCUIT COURT CONFIRMED THE COMMISSIONERS' REPORT, AND
BY ITS DECREE DIRECTED THAT INTEREST BE PAID ON THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECREE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA,
WITHOUT OPINION, DENIED APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF ERROR.  THE
CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL, SEC. 237(A) JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344(A), APPELLANT ASSIGNING AS ERROR THAT SECS. 1969J (4) AND 1969J
(6), AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, DENY TO HIM THE DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ON EXAMINATION OF APPELLANT'S JURISDICTIONAL
STATEMENT WE POSTPONED THE QUESTION OF OUR JURISDICTION TO THE ARGUMENT
ON THE MERITS. 

APPELLANT CONTENDS HERE, AS HE DID IN THE STATE COURTS, THAT SEC.
1969J (4) INFRINGES THE ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY BY SANCTIONING
APPELLEE'S ENTRY UPON THE LAND AND THE ALTERATION OF ITS PHYSICAL
CONDITION, IN ADVANCE OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND
BEFORE THEY COULD VIEW THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING ITS FAIR
VALUE UPON CONDEMNATION.  BUT IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT DUE PROCESS
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND TO BE IN ADVANCE OF ITS
OCCUPATION BY THE CONDEMNING AUTHORITY, PROVIDED ONLY THAT THE OWNER
HAVE OPPORTUNITY, IN THE COURSE OF THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, TO BE
HEARD AND TO OFFER EVIDENCE AS TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND TAKEN.  BRAGG
V. WEAVER, 251 U.S. 57, 62, AND CASES CITED; JOSLIN CO. V. PROVIDENCE,
262 U.S. 668, 677; GEORGIA V. CHATTANOOGA, 264 U.S. 472, 483.  ITS
VALUE MAY BE FIXED BY VIEWERS WITHOUT A HEARING, AFTER ENTRY UPON THE
LAND, IF THEIR AWARD IS SUBJECT TO A REVIEW IN WHICH A TRIAL UPON
EVIDENCE MAY BE HAD.  PEARSON V. YEWDALL, 95 U.S. 294, 296; BACKUS V.
FORT STREET UNION DEPOT CO., 169 U.S. 557, 569; BRAGG V. WEAVER, SUPRA,
59, AND CASES CITED; NORTH LARAMIE LAND CO. V. HOFFMAN, 268 U.S. 276,
284-285. 

HERE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND TO
INTRODUCE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS.  THEY COULD, UPON THE
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ALTERATIONS OF THE PROPERTY
AFTER THE TAKING AND BEFORE THE VIEW; SUCH WAS THEIR DUTY UNDER THE
STATUTE.  THEIR AWARD IS MADE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW BY SEC. 1969J
(2), AND UPON SUCH REVIEW MAY BE SET ASIDE IF PLAINLY WRONG OR WITHOUT
SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  BARNES V. TIDEWATER R. CO., 107 VA. 263, 266
268, 58 S.E. 594; DUNCAN V. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, 142 VA. 135, 146
148, 128 S.E. 546.  IN THIS WE FIND NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, AND
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION PRESENTS NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION,
AS THE AUTHORITIES CITED SHOW. 

APPELLANT ALSO INSISTS THAT THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT FAILED TO
INCLUDE IN THE AWARD INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE OCCUPATION OF HIS
LAND BY APPELLEE; THAT THE AWARD THUS DENIED TO HIM JUST COMPENSATION
FOR THE LAND TAKEN, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V. MORRISTOWN, 276
U.S. 182.  APPELLANT'S PETITION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT ASKED THAT THE
AWARD INCLUDE INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF TAKING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT,
WITHOUT EXPLANATION, REJECTED HIS CLAIM FOR INTEREST.  BUT THROUGHOUT
THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANT MADE NO CLAIM TO
INTEREST ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, AND MADE NO ATTACK ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE AWARD OR THE COURT'S DECREE BECAUSE OF THE
ASSERTED DENIAL OF INTEREST.  FURTHER, NOTHING APPEARS IN THE RECORD TO
INDICATE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS' AWARD OF DAMAGES DID NOT INCLUDE THE
INTEREST CLAIMED.  APPELLEE ARGUES THAT THE APPLICABLE STATUTES
CONTEMPLATE THAT THE AWARD SHALL INCLUDE INTEREST AS COMPENSATION "FOR
THE DAMAGE AND DELAY" FROM THE TIME OF THE OCCUPATION OF THE PREMISES
TO THE DATE OF THE COMMISSIONERS' REPORT AND FOR SUCH FURTHER TIME
WITHIN WHICH APPLICATION MAY BE MADE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, SEE CITY OF
RICHMOND V. GOODWYN, 132 VA. 442, 452-454, 112 S.E. 787; EXPORT LEAF
TOBACCO CO. V. RICHMOND, 163 VA. 145, 155-156, 175 S.E. 753.  NOTHING
APPEARS TO THE CONTRARY. 

APPELLANT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ASSAILED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS THE
ASSERTED DENIAL OF INTEREST BY HIS ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IN THE STATE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS.  THE ASSIGNMENTS RELATING TO INTEREST FAILED
TO DRAW IN QUESTION THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF ANY STATUTE AS IS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT
BY ITS ORDER REFUSING THE WRIT OF ERROR DECLARED THAT UPON
CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD IT WAS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW
WAS "PLAINLY RIGHT." 

INSPECTION OF THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT, IN DENYING THE WRIT OF
ERROR, THE STATE COURT PASSED UPON ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION NOT
RAISED OR PASSED UPON IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW.  SUCH
APPEARS NOT TO BE ITS PRACTICE.  RULE 22 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF APPEALS, 181 VA. LXXV; CF. WARD CO. V. HENDERSON-WHITE CO.,
107 VA. 626, 628-629, 59 S.E. 476; BLISS V. SPENCER, 125 VA. 36, 50, 99
S.E. 593; REYNOLDS V. ADAMS, 125 VA. 295, 314, 99 S.E. 695.  ON THIS
RECORD WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE INTEREST CLAIMED WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
AWARD, OR, IF IT WAS NOT, THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
VIRGINIA, BY DENYING WRIT OF ERROR, PASSED UPON ANY QUESTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH DENIAL OF INTEREST, NOT RAISED ON THE RECORD
OR PASSED UPON BELOW.  UNLESS THIS AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS UPON THE
RECORD BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW ON APPEAL, THIS COURT IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL.  JACOBI V. ALABAMA, 187 U.S. 133, 135-136;
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. MCGREW, 188 U.S. 291, 309; CHICAGO, I. & L.R.
CO. V. MCGUIRE, 196 U.S. 128, 131; SEE FLOURNOY V. WIENER, 321 U.S.
253, 262-263, AND CASES CITED. 

THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF ANY PROPERLY PRESENTED
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















ASBURY HOSPITAL V. CASS COUNTY, 326 U.S. 207 


NO. 35.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 11, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1945.  - 73
N.D. 469, 16 N.W.2D 523, AFFIRMED IN PART. 


A STATUTE OF NORTH DAKOTA REQUIRES CORPORATIONS OWNING FARM LAND,
EXCEPT SUCH AS IS REASONABLY NECESSARY IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR
BUSINESS, TO DISPOSE OF IT WITHIN 10 YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE ACT.  FARM LAND OWNED BY ANY CORPORATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT IS
SUBJECT TO ESCHEAT TO THE COUNTY WHEREIN SUCH LAND IS LOCATED, TO BE
EFFECTED BY A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE CORPORATION MUST BE A
PARTY.  THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE LAND AT PUBLIC SALE
WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER ESCHEAT AND TO PAY THE PROCEEDS TO THE
CORPORATION.  APPELLANT, A FOREIGN CORPORATION OWNING FARM LAND IN
NORTH DAKOTA WHICH IT HAD ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ACT, SOUGHT IN THE STATE COURTS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT AS APPLIED TO IT.  HELD: 

1.  A CORPORATION IS NOT A "CITIZEN" WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSES OF ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2 AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 210. 

2.  APPELLANT BY THE MERE ACQUISITION OF LAND WITHIN THE STATE,
BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, DID NOT ACQUIRE CONTRACT RIGHTS
WHICH IT COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE STATE.  P. 211. 

3.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 211. 

(A)  DUE PROCESS DOES NOT PREVENT A STATE FROM EXCLUDING A FOREIGN
CORPORATION WHICH HAS THERETOFORE LAWFULLY ENTERED THE STATE AND
ACQUIRED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY THERE, THOUGH THE CORPORATION WILL THEREBY
BE COMPELLED TO SELL THE PROPERTY.  P. 211. 

(B)  THE POWER OF A STATE TO EXCLUDE A FOREIGN CORPORATION INCLUDES
THE POWER TO COMPEL THE CORPORATION TO SELL ITS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
WITHIN THE STATE, WITHOUT ALSO REQUIRING IT TO END ALL ITS ACTIVITIES
THERE.  P. 212. 

(C)  A STATE STATUTE, OTHERWISE VALID, REQUIRING A FOREIGN
CORPORATION TO SELL PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE, DOES NOT DENY DUE
PROCESS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, DUE TO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS PREVAILING
SINCE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, THE CORPORATION WILL NOT RECOUP ITS
ORIGINAL INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT HERE THE
CORPORATION, IN COMPLYING WITH THE LAWFUL COMMAND OF THE STATE TO PART
WITH OWNERSHIP, IS AFFORDED A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE THE VALUE OF
THE LAND, AND THAT THE SALE, WHEN REQUIRED, IS TO BE UNDER CONDITIONS
REASONABLY CALCULATED TO REALIZE ITS VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE SALE.  P.
212. 

4.  THE STATUTE'S EXEMPTION OF LANDS OF CORPORATIONS WHOSE BUSINESS
IS DEALING IN FARM LANDS, AND OF LANDS OF COOPERATIVE CORPORATIONS 75%
OF WHOSE MEMBERS OR STOCKHOLDERS ARE FARMERS, DID NOT DENY TO APPELLANT
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  P. 214. 

5.  THE QUESTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE OF
ITS (1) ALLEGED FAILURE TO REQUIRE AN ACCOUNTING OF RENTS AND PROFITS
FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT OF ESCHEAT AND THE SALE, AND (2)
ALLEGED EXEMPTION OF FARM LANDS ACQUIRED BY CORPORATIONS BY DEED OR
GRANT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THE STATUTE,  - INVOLVE THE
CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE WHICH HAVE
NOT BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY CONSTRUED AND APPLIED BY THE STATE COURTS, AND
THEREFORE MAY NOT APPROPRIATELY BE DECIDED BY THIS COURT.  PP. 213,
215. 

ASBURY HOSPITAL V. CASS COUNTY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
PROCEEDING, WHEREIN THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE, AS
APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT, WAS SUSTAINED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, A MINNESOTA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, SOUGHT, IN THE STATE
DISTRICT COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE SO
CALLED INITIATIVE MEASURE OF 1932, NORTH DAKOTA LAWS, 1933, PP. 494,
495, AS AMENDED BY CHAP. 89, LAWS 1933, AND CHAP. 111, LAWS 1935, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT'S NORTH DAKOTA FARMING LANDS. 

THE CHALLENGED STATUTE DECLARES, SECS. 2, 3, THAT CORPORATIONS, BOTH
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN, WHICH "NOW OWN OR HOLD RURAL REAL ESTATE, USED OR
USABLE, FOR FARMING OR AGRICULTURE, EXCEPT SUCH AS IS REASONABLY
NECESSARY IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR BUSINESS, SHALL DISPOSE OF THE SAME
WITHIN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE THAT THIS ACT TAKES EFFECT  ...," AND
THAT "THE TEN YEAR LIMITATION PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE DEEMED
A COVENANT, RUNNING WITH THE TITLE TO THE LAND AGAINST ANY GRANTEE,
SUCCESSOR OF (OR) ASSIGNEE OF SUCH CORPORATION, WHICH IS ALSO A
CORPORATION."  FARMING LAND IN THE STATE OWNED BY ANY CORPORATION IN
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE IS, BY SEC. 5, MADE SUBJECT TO ESCHEAT TO THE
COUNTY IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED, BY SUIT INSTITUTED BY THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY.  THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE LAND AT PUBLIC
AUCTION TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER ESCHEAT, AND TO PAY
THE PROCEEDS, LESS THE EXPENSES OF SALE, TO THE FORMER CORPORATE
OWNER. 

APPELLANT ALLEGES IN ITS AMENDED COMPLAINT THAT PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE IT HAD ACQUIRED A TRACT OF LAND WITHIN CASS
COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA, IN SATISFACTION OF A MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS, AND
THAT IT HAS SINCE LEASED THE PROPERTY OUT TO FARMERS WHO HAVE USED IT
AS FARM LAND.  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT SINCE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE APPELLANT HAS CONSTANTLY ATTEMPTED TO SELL
THIS TRACT, AND THAT IT HAS BEEN AND WILL BE UNABLE TO SELL IT FOR AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE DEBT BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE
STATUTORY TEN-YEAR PERIOD; THAT ANY SALE WHICH THE COUNTY, PROCEEDING
UNDER THE STATUTE, MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE, WOULD BE FOR SUBSTANTIALLY
LESS THAN THE AMOUNT APPELLANT HAS INVESTED IN THE LAND AND THE COSTS
OF SALE.  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT SETS UP THAT THE STATUTE, AS APPLIED TO
APPELLANT'S TRACT, VIOLATES THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSES OF
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2 AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, THE CONTRACT CLAUSE, ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, AND THE DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND
PRAYS FOR A JUDGMENT THAT THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AS
APPLIED TO APPELLANT AND FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING APPELLEE COUNTY
FROM ENFORCING THE STATUTE. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA SUSTAINED AN ORDER OF THE TRIAL
COURT OVERRULING APPELLEES' DEMURRER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, 72 N.D.
359, 7 N.W.2D 438.  UPON REMAND OF THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS,
THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE ALLEGATIONS OF FACT SET OUT IN THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT TO BE TRUE, CONSTRUED THE STATUTE AS APPLICABLE TO
APPELLANT'S LAND, WHICH WAS HELD NOT TO BE NECESSARY TO THE CONDUCT OF
APPELLANT'S BUSINESS, AND SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE IN ALL RESPECTS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA AFFIRMED. 
73 N.D. 469, 16 N.W.2D 523.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC.
237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. 344(A), APPELLANT REPEATING IN
ITS ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR THE ATTACK MADE ON THE STATUTE BY ITS
COMPLAINT. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT INVOKE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND IS NEITHER A
CITIZEN OF A STATE NOR OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSES OF ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2 OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL. 
168, 177; PEMBINA MINING CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 125 U.S. 181, 187;
SELOVER, BATES & CO. V. WALSH, 226 U.S. 112, 126.  THE STATE OF NORTH
DAKOTA HAS GRANTED NO CHARTER OR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION TO
APPELLANT, AND HAS ISSUED TO IT NO PERMIT TO DO BUSINESS OR OWN
PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE WHICH COULD GIVE RISE TO CONTRACT RIGHTS
WHICH APPELLANT COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE STATE.  NONE ARE TO BE IMPLIED
FROM APPELLANT'S MERE ACQUISITION OF LAND IN THE STATE EITHER BEFORE OR
AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE.  ERIE R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 21
WALL.  492; CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. SPRATLEY, 172 U.S. 602,
620-622; HAMMOND PACKING CO. V. ARKANSAS, 212 U.S. 322, 344-5. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT DENY TO THE STATE POWER TO EXCLUDE
A FOREIGN CORPORATION FROM DOING BUSINESS OR ACQUIRING OR HOLDING
PROPERTY WITHIN IT.  HORN SILVER MINING CO. V. NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 305,
312-315; HOOPER V. CALIFORNIA, 155 U.S. 648, 652; MUNDAY V. WISCONSIN
TRUST CO., 252 U.S. 499; CRESCENT OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 257 U.S. 129,
137.  WHILE RECOGNIZING THE UNQUALIFIED POWER OF THE STATE TO PRECLUDE
ITS ENTRY INTO THE STATE FOR THESE PURPOSES, APPELLANT POINTS OUT THAT
THE STATE HAS PERMITTED IT TO ENTER AND TO INVEST ITS MONEY IN
OBLIGATIONS SECURED BY MORTGAGE ON LAND WITHIN THE STATE, IN
CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH IT LAWFULLY ACQUIRED THE LAND FREE OF
RESTRICTIONS.  APPELLANT ARGUES THAT THE STATE MAY NOT, BY LATER
LEGISLATION, FORCE A SALE OF THE LAND THUS INNOCENTLY ACQUIRED, UNDER
CONDITIONS WHICH DO NOT ALLOW RECOVERY OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT.  BUT
A STATE'S POWER TO EXCLUDE A FOREIGN CORPORATION, OR TO LIMIT THE
NATURE OF THE BUSINESS IT MAY CONDUCT WITHIN THE STATE, DOES NOT END AS
SOON AS THE CORPORATION HAS LAWFULLY ENTERED THE STATE AND THERE
ACQUIRED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY.  SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION EXCLUDING SUCH A
CORPORATION FROM CONTINUING IN THE STATE HAS BEEN SUSTAINED AS AN
EXERCISE OF THE GENERAL POWER TO EXCLUDE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WHICH
DOES NOT OFFEND DUE PROCESS.  HAMMOND PACKING CO. V. ARKANSAS, SUPRA,
342-3; SEE ALSO BALTIC MINING CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 231 U.S. 68, 83. 
SIMILARLY, THIS COURT HAS UPHELD LEGISLATION IMPOSING BURDENS GREATER
THAN THOSE TO WHICH SUCH CORPORATIONS WERE SUBJECT AT THE TIME OF THEIR
ENTRY ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE MIGHT EXCLUDE THEM ALTOGETHER AT A
LATER DATE.  PHILADELPHIA FIRE ASSOCIATION V. NEW YORK, 119 U.S. 110;
HORN SILVER MINING CO. V. NEW YORK, SUPRA; SEE ALSO CRESCENT OIL CO. V.
MISSISSIPPI, SUPRA; LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. READ, 325 U.S.
673.  APPELLANT, EVEN IF ITS ACTIVITIES IN NORTH DAKOTA ARE NOW
RESTRICTED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF FARM LAND WITHIN THE STATE, STANDS IN NO
BETTER POSITION TO INVOKE THE PROTECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF A CORPORATION OWNING FIXED PROPERTY WITHIN A
STATE REQUIRES IT TO SELL OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF SUCH PROPERTY. 
APPELLANT MUST DO NO MORE.  WHILE APPELLANT IS NOT COMPELLED BY THE
PRESENT STATUTE TO CEASE ALL ACTIVITIES IN NORTH DAKOTA, THE GREATER
POWER INCLUDES THE LESS. 

SINCE THE STATE MAY VALIDLY REQUIRE APPELLANT TO SELL ITS FARM LAND,
THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE IS WANTING IN DUE PROCESS BECAUSE
CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUCH SINCE ITS ENACTMENT THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN
AND WILL BE UNABLE TO SALVAGE AN INVESTMENT MADE MORE THAN TEN YEARS
BEFORE RAISES NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHEN LAWFULLY
EXCLUDED AS SUCH FROM OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN THE STATE SHALL RECAPTURE
ITS COST.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE CORPORATION, IN COMPLYING WITH THE
LAWFUL COMMAND OF THE STATE TO PART WITH OWNERSHIP, IS AFFORDED A FAIR
OPPORTUNITY TO REALIZE THE VALUE OF THE LAND, AND THAT THE SALE, WHEN
REQUIRED, IS TO BE UNDER CONDITIONS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO REALIZE
ITS VALUE AT THE TIME OF SALE.  NO REASON IS ADVANCED FOR SAYING, AND
WE CANNOT SAY, THAT THE PERIOD OF TEN YEARS ALLOWED TO APPELLANT TO
DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY, OR ITS SALE AFTER TEN YEARS AT PUBLIC AUCTION
HELD UNDER DIRECTION OF THE COURT AND COMPARABLE GENERALLY TO A
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE SALE, FAILS TO SATISFY EITHER OF THESE
CONDITIONS.  AS THE NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT IN ITS
OPINION, THE STATUTORY ESCHEAT OF APPELLANT'S LAND IS EFFECTED BY SUIT
TO WHICH THE CORPORATION MUST BE A PARTY, WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD IN ADVANCE.  THE JUDGMENT OF SALE IN CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTE IS
ENTERED BY THE COURT WHICH "HAS THE POWER TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
CORPORATION AS TO THE NOTICE AND CONDUCT OF THE SALE BY APPROPRIATE
PROVISIONS IN ITS JUDGMENT." 

APPELLANT MAKES THE FURTHER OBJECTION THAT THE STATUTE DENIES DUE
PROCESS BECAUSE IT DEPRIVES IT OF THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY DURING
THE PERIOD FROM THE TIME OF ESCHEAT TO THE DATE OF PUBLIC SALE, AND
MAKES NO PROVISION FOR ANY ACCOUNTING FOR THE RENTS AND PROFITS OF THE
LAND DURING THAT PERIOD.  THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL ARGUES THAT IN
THE ESCHEAT PROCEEDING THE COURT HAS POWER TO REQUIRE AND WILL REQUIRE
SUCH AN ACCOUNTING.  THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT THIS OBJECTION
WAS RAISED OR CONSIDERED BY ANY COURT IN THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT
SUIT, OR THAT ANY STATE COURT HAS CONSTRUED THE STATUTE SO AS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER A CORPORATION WHOSE LAND HAS BEEN ESCHEATED WILL BE
DEPRIVED OF THE RENTS AND PROFITS PENDING THE SALE. 

WE ARE THUS ASKED TO PASS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A POSSIBLE
APPLICATION OF THE STATE STATUTE IN ADVANCE OF ITS APPLICATION TO
APPELLANT, AND OF ITS AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE COURTS. 
LACKING SUCH CONSTRUCTION, WITHOUT WHICH NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION CAN
ARISE, THE ISSUE IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE.  THIS COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO GIVE
ADVISORY OPINIONS.  IT WILL NOT DECIDE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH ARE
HYPOTHETICAL, OR IN ADVANCE OF THE NECESSITY FOR DECIDING THEM, OR
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATUTE, WHOSE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY IS DRAWN IN QUESTION, IS TO BE APPLIED. 
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450, 459-463, AND CASES
CITED. 

ONLY TWO OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CONTENTIONS WHICH APPELLANT PRESSES
HERE APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO OR CONSIDERED BY THE STATE
COURTS.  THE NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTE'S
EXCEPTION FROM ITS OPERATION, OF LANDS OWNED AND HELD BY CORPORATIONS
WHOSE BUSINESS IS DEALING IN FARM LANDS, (SEC. 2), AND OF THE LANDS
BELONGING TO COOPERATIVE CORPORATIONS, SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF WHOSE
MEMBERS OR STOCKHOLDERS ARE FARMERS RESIDING ON FARMS, OR DEPENDING
PRINCIPALLY ON FARMING FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD, (SEC. 4), DID NOT DENY THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMED.  WE AGREE. 

THE LEGISLATURE IS FREE TO MAKE CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF
A STATUTE WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  THE ULTIMATE
TEST OF VALIDITY IS NOT WHETHER THE CLASSES DIFFER BUT WHETHER THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM ARE PERTINENT TO THE SUBJECT WITH RESPECT TO
WHICH THE CLASSIFICATION IS MADE.  METROPOLITAN CASUALTY CO. V.
BROWNELL, 294 U.S. 580, 583, AND CASES CITED.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE
ARE NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CORPORATIONS GENERALLY AND THOSE FALLING
INTO THE EXCEPTED CLASSES WHICH MAY APPROPRIATELY RECEIVE RECOGNITION
IN THE LEGISLATIVE APPLICATION OF A STATE POLICY AGAINST THE
CONCENTRATION OF FARMING LANDS IN CORPORATE OWNERSHIP. 

THE NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE THOUGHT THAT ITS POLICY WITH
REFERENCE TO CORPORATE-OWNED AGRICULTURAL LANDS WOULD BE ADVANCED BY
PERMITTING CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN FARM
LANDS TO ACQUIRE AND SELL WITHOUT RESTRICTION LANDS FORCED UPON THE
MARKET BY THE STATUTE.  IT COULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT ITS POLICY WOULD BE
IN PART DEFEATED BY WITHHOLDING AUTHORITY FROM FARM COOPERATIVES TO
ACQUIRE AND USE FARM LANDS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 562-564.  STATUTORY
DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CLASSES WHICH ARE IN FACT DIFFERENT MUST BE
PRESUMED TO BE RELEVANT TO A PERMISSIBLE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, AND WILL
NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION IF ANY STATE OF FACTS
COULD BE CONCEIVED WHICH WOULD SUPPORT IT.  RAST V. VAN DEMAN & LEWIS
CO., 240 U.S. 342, 357; CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495,
509, AND CASES CITED. 

APPELLANT ALSO ASSERTS THAT THE STATUTE IMPOSES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE SECS. 2, 3 PROVIDE THAT ANY CORPORATION WHICH
ACQUIRED FARM LAND IN ANY MANNER PRIOR TO 1932, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE ACT, OR BY JUDICIAL PROCESS OR OPERATION OF LAW THEREAFTER, IS
REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF IT WITHIN THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD, WHILE A
CORPORATION WHICH ACQUIRED LAND BY DEED OR GRANT AFTER 1932 MAY HOLD IT
WITHOUT RESTRICTION.  BUT SEC. 4 OF CHAPTER 89 OF THE NORTH DAKOTA LAWS
OF 1933 PROVIDES:  "THAT THE TITLE AND OWNERSHIP OF ANY REAL ESTATE
ACQUIRED, IN ANY MANNER, BY ANY DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN CORPORATION, SINCE
THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE AFORESAID INITIATED LAW, IS HEREBY
DECLARED TO BE LEGAL AND VALID FOR ALL PURPOSES, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY
PROVISIONS IN SAID INITIATED LAW CONTAINED, BUT SUBJECT HOWEVER, TO ALL
OF THE PROVISIONS NOW CONTAINED IN SAID INITIATED LAW AS HEREBY AMENDED
AND REENACTED."    THIS SECTION WAS NOT CONSTRUED BY ANY STATE COURT IN
THE PRESENT LITIGATION AND WE ARE NOT ADVISED WHY FARMING LANDS
ACQUIRED IN CONFORMITY TO SEC. 4 ARE NOT, AS THE SECTION DECLARES, MADE
"SUBJECT  ...  TO ALL OF THE PROVISIONS NOW CONTAINED" IN THE ACT AS
AMENDED, INCLUDING THOSE RELATING TO THE ESCHEAT AND SALE OF FARMING
LANDS.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT ANY SUCH DISCRIMINATION IS IN FACT MADE
IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE.  AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT IN
THIS OPINION, A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHICH TURNS ON THE CONSTRUCTION
AND APPLICATION OF A STATUTE WHICH HAS NEITHER BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY
CONSTRUED NOR APPLIED BY THE STATE COURTS MAY NOT APPROPRIATELY BE
DECIDED BY THIS COURT.  FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, SUPRA, AND
CASES CITED.    THE NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT, IN ITS OPINION, AND
COUNSEL, IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT HERE, CONFINED THEIR DISCUSSION TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE STATE'S POWERS OVER A FOREIGN CORPORATION AS SUCH
JUSTIFY THE COMPULSORY DISPOSITION OF ITS FARM LAND WITHIN THE STATE. 
WE NEED NOT, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, HAVE RECOURSE TO OTHER POSSIBLE
SOURCES OF STATE POWER TO CONTROL THE OWNERSHIP AND DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY LYING WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED BUT FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS OTHER ARGUMENTS OF LESSER MOMENT. 

WE DISMISS THE APPEAL INSOFAR AS IT DRAWS IN QUESTION THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT FOR ITS ALLEGED FAILURE TO REQUIRE AN
ACCOUNTING FOR RENTS AND PROFITS OF THE LAND IN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN
THE JUDGMENT OF ESCHEAT AND THE SALE OF THE LAND, AND INSOFAR AS NORTH
DAKOTA FARMING LANDS ACQUIRED BY CORPORATIONS BY DEED OR GRANT
SUBSEQUENT TO 1932 ARE SAID TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
STATUTE.  IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



CHICKASAW NATION V. U.S., 326 U.S. 217 


NO. 170.  DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1945.  - 103 CT. CLS. 1, REVERSED. 


IN A SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY AN INDIAN TRIBE AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, ITEMS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S GRATUITOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN TRIBE WHICH, PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF AUGUST 12,
1935, ARE USED TO OFFSET THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY, SHOULD BE
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED IN THE JUDGMENT.  P. 218. 

CHICKASAW NATION V. UNITED STATES. 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HEREIN GRANTED, TO REVIEW A
JUDGMENT DISMISSING A SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE CHICKASAW NATION ASKS CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS, 103 CT. CLS. 1, DISMISSING ITS SUIT FOR MONEYS
ALLEGEDLY OWING TO IT BY THE UNITED STATES.  SOME OF PETITIONER'S
CLAIMS WERE DENIED BELOW, BUT OTHERS, TOTALLING $22,858.78, WERE
ALLOWED.  AGAINST THIS AMOUNT THE COURT BELOW, APPLYING SEC. 2 OF THE
ACT OF AUGUST 12, 1935, 49 STAT. 571, 596, OFFSET A LIKE AMOUNT WHICH
THE COURT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN GRATUITOUSLY EXPENDED BY THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NATION.  THE FINDINGS LISTED VARIOUS ITEMS OF
GRATUITY EXPENDITURES TOTALLING $69,920.39.  BUT THE JUDGMENT DID NOT
SPECIFY WHICH OF THESE ITEMS WERE BEING APPLIED AS OFFSETS TO THE
CLAIMS ALLOWED.  INSTEAD, ALL OF THE OFFSET ITEMS WERE TREATED AS
COMMINGLED IN A SINGLE GRATUITY FUND UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT
DRAW FOR THE DISCHARGE OF ITS OBLIGATIONS, AS UPON A BANK ACCOUNT. 

IN SEMINOLE NATION V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 286, 308, WE POINTED
OUT THAT THE GRATUITY ITEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN USED AS STATUTORY OFFSETS
TO INDIAN CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNATED IN THE JUDGMENT.  WHEN THAT COURSE IS NOT FOLLOWED, INDIAN
CLAIMANTS DESIROUS OF CHALLENGING THE ALLOWED OFFSETS ON APPEAL MUST BE
PREPARED TO ATTACK ALL THE ITEMS WHICH MAKE UP THE FUND, HOWEVER MUCH
IT MAY EXCEED THEIR CLAIMS.  MOREOVER, SUCH A JUDGMENT, BY LEAVING
UNIDENTIFIED THE PARTICULAR GRATUITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN APPLIED AS
OFFSETS, NECESSARILY ADJUDICATES THE VALIDITY FOR THAT PURPOSE OF ALL,
SINCE IT MAKES ALL PROPORTIONATELY APPLICABLE AS OFFSETS.  THERE IS NO
REASON WHY INDIAN CLAIMANTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED IN SOME SUBSEQUENT SUIT
TO MEET THE DEFENSE THAT GRATUITY ITEMS WHOSE OFFSET WAS NOT NECESSARY
TO THE RESULT IN AN EARLIER CASE HAVE NEVERTHELESS BEEN THERE FINALLY
ADJUDICATED TO BE VALID OFFSETS, OR WHY THIS COURT, IN REVIEWING THE
EARLIER JUDGMENT, SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PASS ON THE VALIDITY OF SUCH
ITEMS AS OFFSETS.  WHEN SPECIFIED ITEMS OF GRATUITY ARE ALLOCATED AS
OFFSETS, OTHER ITEMS, INCLUDED IN THE FINDINGS BUT NOT APPLIED AS
OFFSETS, DO NOT AFFECT THE JUDGMENT, THEIR VALIDITY AS OFFSETS NEED NOT
BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL, AND THEY CREATE NO ESTOPPEL FOR FUTURE CASES. 

THE GRATUITY ITEMS INCLUDED AMONG THE FINDINGS BELOW AS AVAILABLE FOR
OFFSET ARE THERE DESCRIBED AS "INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" FROM FINDINGS
IN A "COMPANION CASE" DECIDED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON THE SAME DAY
(CHICKASAW NATION V. UNITED STATES, 103 CT. CLS. 45, CERTIORARI DENIED,
326 U.S. 751), IN WHICH NONE OF THE GRATUITIES FOUND WERE USED, NOTHING
HAVING BEEN FOUND DUE FROM THE UNITED STATES ON THE CLAIMS THERE
ADVANCED.  THE PETITION BEFORE US MAKES NO OBJECTION TO THIS PROCEDURE,
AND IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE TO APPLY SUCH ITEMS AS OFFSETS IN THE
COMPANION CASE, WE ASSUME THAT THEIR VALIDITY AS SUCH WAS OPEN TO
OBJECTION IN THE PRESENT SUIT.  WE ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE JUDGMENT HERE
SHOULD BE IN SUCH FORM AS NOT TO COMPEL UNNECESSARY ADJUDICATION OF
SUCH OBJECTIONS ON APPEAL, OR UNNECESSARILY TO FORECLOSE CONSIDERATION
OF SUCH OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF THESE ITEMS AS OFFSETS IN SOME FUTURE
LITIGATION. 

THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, LIMITED TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE PARTICULAR GRATUITY ITEMS NECESSARILY USED AS
OFFSETS SHOULD BE DESIGNATED BY THE JUDGMENT.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED
AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



















LEVERS V. ANDERSON, 326 U.S. 219 


NO. 51.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1945.  - 147
F.2D 547, REVERSED. 


1.  AN APPLICATION FOR A REHEARING BEFORE A DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OF THE
ALCOHOL TAX UNIT OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHO HAD ENTERED
ORDERS ANNULLING A PERMIT TO OPERATE A WHOLESALE LIQUOR BUSINESS AND
DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR IMPORTER'S AND WHOLESALER'S PERMITS, IS NOT A
PREREQUISITE TO THE JUDICIAL REVIEW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY SEC. 4(H)
OF THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT.  PP. 220, 224. 

2.  HEARINGS WERE HELD AND EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN BEFORE A HEARING
COMMISSIONER, PETITIONER BEING REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  THE HEARING
COMMISSIONER MADE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH WERE APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT
SUPERVISOR WITHOUT AFFORDING PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXCEPT TO
THEM.  ON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS, THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR ENTERED
ORDERS ANNULLING AN EXISTING PERMIT AND DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR
OTHERS, WITHOUT AFFORDING PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE ORALLY
BEFORE HIM.  THE TREASURY REGULATIONS AUTHORIZE, BUT DO NOT REQUIRE,
THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR TO GRANT A REHEARING.  NOR DO THEY REQUIRE HIM
TO AFFORD PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY, ON REHEARING, TO ARGUE ORALLY
BEFORE HIM.  NOR WAS THERE SATISFACTORY PROOF OF A PUBLICLY ESTABLISHED
PRACTICE ASSURING THAT SUCH OPPORTUNITIES WOULD BE AFFORDED.  HELD THAT
PETITIONER NEED NOT APPLY FOR SUCH AN ADMINISTRATIVE REHEARING BEFORE
SEEKING THE JUDICIAL REVIEW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE.  P.
223. 

LEVERS, ADMINISTRATOR, V. ANDERSON, DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, ALCOHOL TAX
UNIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 325 U.S. 844, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING AN APPEAL
FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT OF THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE ANNULLING AN EXISTING PERMIT AND DENYING
OTHER PERMITS UNDER THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER'S PERMIT TO OPERATE A WHOLESALE LIQUOR BUSINESS UNDER
THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT, 49 STAT. 977, WAS ANNULLED BY
AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT OF THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE OF THE UNITED STATES.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE
SUPERVISOR DENIED PETITIONER'S APPLICATIONS FOR AN IMPORTER'S AND A NEW
WHOLESALER'S PERMIT.  THE SUPERVISOR WAS DULY AUTHORIZED TO ACT IN
THESE MATTERS.  FN1  SECTION 4(H) OF THE ACT AUTHORIZES AN APPLICANT OR
PERMITTEE TO APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
AFTER THE ENTRY OF ORDERS DENYING OR ANNULLING THE PERMITS.  A PETITION
FOR APPEAL WAS FILED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
DISMISSED THE APPEAL, 147 F.2D 547, ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER HAD
FAILED TO EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, SINCE HE HAD NOT FIRST
FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SUPERVISOR'S ORDER AS
PERMITTED BY TREASURY REGULATIONS, 26 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 182.255,
READING IN PART AS FOLLOWS.  FN2 

"(A)  ...  WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER AN ORDER IS MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER
OR DISTRICT SUPERVISOR REVOKING A BASIC PERMIT, THE PERMITTEE MAY FILE
AN APPLICATION WITH SUCH COMMISSIONER OR DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, FOR A
RECONSIDERATION OF SUCH ORDER, ON ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING
GROUNDS: 

"(1)  THE ORDER IS CONTRARY TO LAW, OR 

"(2)  IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, OR 

"(3)  BECAUSE OF NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH THE PERMITTEE, WITH
DUE DILIGENCE, WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE AT THE HEARING." 

WE THOUGHT THE QUESTION INVOLVED IMPORTANT AND GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE CASE IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT
WHERE, AS HERE, JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PROVIDED IN THE ACT ITSELF, THE
PETITIONER'S RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE COURTS IS TO BE DETERMINED BY
LOOKING TO THE STATUTE, THE VALID REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO
IT AND PROVEN ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE THROWING LIGHT UPON THEIR
MEANING.  IN CONSTRUING THE ACT, HOWEVER, WE MUST BE MINDFUL OF THE
"LONG-SETTLED RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION THAT NO ONE IS ENTITLED
TO JUDICIAL RELIEF FOR A SUPPOSED OR THREATENED INJURY UNTIL THE
PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED."  MYERS V.
BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51.  BUT THIS RULE DOES
NOT AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRE THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW MUST ALWAYS BE DENIED
WHERE REHEARING IS AUTHORIZED BUT NOT SOUGHT.  THIS IS SHOWN BY OUR
PAST DECISIONS,  FN3  FROM WHICH WE SEE NO REASON TO DEPART. 
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT, DO NOT DEFEND THE
DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER'S APPEAL ON SUCH A SWEEPING ASSUMPTION.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THEY ASSERT THAT MOTIONS FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE SAME
TRIBUNAL THAT ENTERS AN ORDER ARE UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES MERE
FORMALITIES WHICH WASTE THE TIME OF LITIGANTS AND TRIBUNALS, TEND
UNNECESSARILY TO PROLONG THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, AND DELAY OR
EMBARRASS ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS WHICH HAVE ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
FINALITY ESSENTIAL TO APPEALABLE ORDERS. 

BUT GOVERNMENT COUNSEL INSIST THAT THE REHEARING HERE INVOLVED IS FAR
MORE THAN A FORMALITY, AND THAT WE SHOULD THEREFORE READ THE ACT AND
REGULATIONS AS IF THESE BARRED JUDICIAL REVIEW PRIOR TO AN APPLICATION
FOR A REHEARING.  FN4  OF COURSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT IN A PARTICULAR
ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERN NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO CHALLENGE AFFORDED BY THE
MOTION FOR REHEARING MAY SUBJECT AN ORDER TO SUCH CRITICAL
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AS TO REDUCE IT TO THE LEVEL OF A "MERE
PRELIMINARY OR PROCEDURAL" STATUS, THEREBY DIVESTING IT OF THOSE
QUALITIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY ESSENTIAL TO INVOCATION OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.,
304 U.S. 375, 384-385.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT IS THE CASE HERE. 

THE ORDERS HERE CHALLENGED WERE ENTERED AFTER A HEARING AND THEY WERE
"OF A DEFINITIVE CHARACTER DEALING WITH THE MERITS OF A PROCEEDING." 
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., SUPRA, 384.  THE
EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN BEFORE, AND THE FINDINGS OF FACT WERE MADE BY, A
HEARING COMMISSIONER BEFORE WHOM PETITIONER WAS REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.  THESE FINDINGS WERE THEN APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR
WHO ENTERED THE ORDERS.  TRUE THE FINDINGS WERE APPROVED AND THE ORDERS
WERE MADE BY THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PETITIONER TO EXCEPT TO HIS ADVERSE FINDINGS OF FACT OR TO PRESENT ORAL
ARGUMENT TO HIM.  AND A REHEARING IF GRANTED WOULD HAVE AFFORDED
PETITIONER FOR THE FIRST TIME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE AND EXCEPT TO
ADVERSE FINDINGS OF FACT AND MIGHT ALSO HAVE GIVEN HIM A CHANCE TO
PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT TO THE OFFICER WHO MADE THE ORDERS.  BUT THE
REGULATIONS ONLY PROVIDE THAT THE SUPERVISOR "MAY HEAR THE APPLICATION"
FOR A REHEARING.  FN5  NO OTHER LANGUAGE OF THE REGULATIONS, AND NO
SATISFACTORY PROOF OF PUBLICLY ESTABLISHED PRACTICE UNDER THEM,
PERSUADES US THAT THE "MAY" MEANS MUST, OR THAT THE SUPERVISORS WERE
REQUIRED TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT.  THUS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
REGULATIONS PERMIT A STAY PENDING THE MOTION, THERE IS NO ASSURANCE
THAT A REHEARING WILL BE GRANTED, SO AS TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
EXCEPT TO FACT FINDINGS OR ARGUE ORALLY BEFORE THE SUPERVISOR. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WHATEVER WEIGHT SUCH FACTORS MIGHT BE ACCORDED IN
DETERMINING ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY OF THE ORDERS IS ABSENT HERE. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE MOTION IS IN ITS EFFECT SO MUCH LIKE THE
NORMAL, FORMAL TYPE OF MOTION FOR REHEARING THAT WE CANNOT READ INTO
THE ACT AN INTENTION TO MAKE IT A PREREQUISITE TO THE JUDICIAL REVIEW
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY CONGRESS.  WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WAS POSSESSED OF POWER TO EXERCISE A DISCRETION TO STAY ITS
REVIEW UNTIL AN APPLICATION WAS MADE TO THE SUPERVISOR TO GRANT A
REHEARING IS A QUESTION WHICH WAS NOT DECIDED AND UPON WHICH WE EXPRESS
NO OPINION.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN R. CO., SUPRA,
282.  REVERSED. 

FN1  53 STAT. 561; 54 STAT. 1231; 54 STAT. 230, 231; TREASURY ORDER
NO. 30, 26 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 171.4A, 5 FED. REG. 2212; TREAS. DECISION
4982, 26 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 171.4C, 5 FED. REG. 2549. 

FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ALSO REFERRED TO THE PETITIONER'S
FAILURE TO TAKE AN APPEAL TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, AS ALLOWED BY AMENDED TREASURY REGULATION 182.257.  THAT
REGULATION PROVIDES THAT:  "APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT
REQUIRED.  HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER MAY, IN HIS DISCRETION, IN ORDER
TO INSURE UNIFORMITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, ENTERTAIN AN APPEAL,
AFTER REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 182.255, FROM AN
ORDER OF REVOCATION OF A BASIC PERMIT BY A DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, IF
FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL
ORDER."  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THIS
REGULATION, "APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT REQUIRED" WAS ADDED TO
THE REGULATION AS IT ORIGINALLY STOOD FOR "THE DELIBERATE OBJECT OF
MAKING IT UNNECESSARY FOR A PARTY TO APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE
GOING TO COURT."  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT DISCUSS IT
FURTHER.  CF. PEORIA BRAUMEISTER CO. V. YELLOWLEY, 123 F.2D 637;
LEEBERN V. UNITED STATES, 124 F.2D 505, BOTH DECIDED BEFORE THE FIRST
SENTENCE WAS ADDED. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN R. CO., 265 U.S. 274, 280
282; PRENDERGAST V. NEW YORK TEL. CO., 262 U.S. 43, 48-49. 

FN4  THIS HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY DONE IN SEVERAL STATUTES.  SEE FOR
EXAMPLE 49 STAT. 860; 52 STAT. 831.  OF COURSE THE MERE FACT THAT THE
REGULATIONS MIGHT BAR JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT CONCLUSIVE, FOR THE COURT
WILL CONSIDER WHETHER THESE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENT. 

FN5  THE ONLY RELEVANT PROVISION, 26 C.F.R. CUM. SUPP. 182.255,
READS: 

"(B)  ...  THE COMMISSIONER OR DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, WITH WHOM SUCH
APPLICATION IS FILED, MAY HEAR THE APPLICATION ON A DATE AND AT A PLACE
TO BE FIXED BY HIM.  THE COMMISSIONER OR DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, AS THE
CASE MAY BE, AFTER HEARING SUCH APPLICATION, MAY EITHER AFFIRM THE
ORDER OF REVOCATION PREVIOUSLY MADE, OR MAY VACATE AND SET ASIDE SUCH
ORDER AND DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER A NEW HEARING OF THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE A DESIGNATED HEARING OFFICER." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















IN RE MICHAEL, 326 U.S. 224 


NO. 38.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 12, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1945.  -
146 F.2D 627, REVERSED. 


1.  A WITNESS MAY NOT BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT UNDER SEC. 268 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE FOR PERJURY ALONE.  CLARK V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 1,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 228. 

2.  NOR MAY A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY BE ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT
UNDER SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE FOR MISBEHAVIOR AS AN OFFICER OF
THE COURT IN AN OFFICIAL TRANSACTION, SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT HE
TESTIFIED FALSELY BEFORE A GRAND JURY IN THE COURSE OF A GENERAL
INVESTIGATION OF FRAUDS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES; SINCE SUCH TESTIMONY
IS NOT AN "OFFICIAL TRANSACTION" AS TRUSTEE.  P. 229. 

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 837, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER UPON
AN ADJUDICATION OF CONTEMPT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, AFTER A HEARING, ADJUDGED THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS GUILTY OF CONTEMPT ON FINDINGS THAT HE HAD GIVEN "FALSE
AND EVASIVE" TESTIMONY BEFORE A GRAND JURY WHICH "OBSTRUCTED THE SAID
GRAND JURY IN ITS INQUIRY AND THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE."  A
SENTENCE OF SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT WAS IMPOSED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE, FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NOT BEEN
"CONTUMACIOUS OR OBSTREPEROUS," HAD NOT REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS,
AND THAT HIS TESTIMONY COULD NOT "FAIRLY BE CHARACTERIZED AS
UNRESPONSIVE IN FAILING TO GIVE DIRECT ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED
HIM."  BUT IT ACCEPTED THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE
PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY AS TO RELEVANT FACTS WAS FALSE, AND CONCLUDED
THAT IT WAS OF A TYPE TENDING TO BLOCK THE INQUIRY AND CONSEQUENTLY "AN
OBSTRUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE  FN1  SO AS TO SUBJECT PETITIONER TO THE
DISTRICT COURT'S POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.  146 F.2D 627.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THIS QUESTION, IN VIEW OF THE CLOSE
SIMILARITY OF THE ISSUES HERE TO THOSE DECIDED IN EX PARTE HUDGINGS,
249 U.S. 378, A CASE IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT WAS HELD TO HAVE
EXCEEDED ITS CONTEMPT POWER. 

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION WILL HELP TO FOCUS THE ISSUES.  THE GRAND JURY UNDERTOOK A
GENERAL INVESTIGATION OF FRAUDS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WHICH LED TO
AN INQUIRY CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF THE REORGANIZATION OF THE
CENTRAL FORGING COMPANY UNDER SEC. 77(B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE
PETITIONER, BY APPOINTMENT OF A DISTRICT JUDGE, HAD BEEN SERVING AS
THAT COMPANY'S TRUSTEE.  WHILE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY HE WAS REPEATEDLY
INTERROGATED CONCERNING PAYMENTS OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS MADE FROM THE
BANKRUPT'S ASSETS.  HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH
NUMEROUS CHECKS HAD BEEN DRAWN.  AFTER WEEKS OF INQUIRY IN WHICH HE AND
OTHERS WERE INTERROGATED ABOUT THESE MATTERS, THE COURT, ON PETITION OF
THE PROSECUTION BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, ISSUED A RULE TO PETITIONER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER SHOULD NOT BE MADE ADJUDGING HIM IN CONTEMPT OF
COURT FOR OBSTRUCTING THE INVESTIGATION.  UPON TRIAL BY THE COURT THE
TRANSCRIPT OF PETITIONER'S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS OFFERED IN
EVIDENCE.  THE COURT THEN HEARD OTHER WITNESSES ON BEHALF OF THE
PROSECUTION WHO TESTIFIED TO FACTS WHICH DIRECTLY CONFLICTED WITH THE
PETITIONER'S EXPLANATIONS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.  THE DISTRICT COURT,
DISBELIEVING PETITIONER AND BELIEVING THE OTHER WITNESSES, MADE ITS
FINDING THAT PETITIONER'S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY HAD BEEN FALSE.  NO
WITNESS WAS OFFERED TO INDICATE THAT THE PETITIONER IN THE GRAND JURY
ROOM HAD BEEN GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT OF ANY KIND OTHER THAN FALSE
SWEARING.  AND A READING OF THE EVIDENCE PERSUADES US THAT THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY FOUND THAT HE HAD DIRECTLY RESPONDED WITH
UNEQUIVOCAL ANSWERS.  FN2  THESE UNEQUIVOCAL ANSWERS WERE CLEAR ENOUGH
SO THAT IF THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE FALSE PETITIONER WOULD CLEARLY BE
GUILTY OF PERJURY.  BUT HE COULD HAVE BEEN INDICTED FOR THAT OFFENSE,
IN WHICH EVENT A JURY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROPER TRIBUNAL TO SAY
WHETHER HE OR OTHER WITNESSES TOLD THE TRUTH.  OUR QUESTION IS WHETHER
IT WAS PROPER FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO MAKE ITS FINDING ON THAT ISSUE
THE CRUCIAL ELEMENT IN DETERMINING ITS POWER TO TRY AND CONVICT
PETITIONER FOR CONTEMPT. 

NOT VERY LONG AGO WE HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT THAT THE ACT OF 1831,
4 STAT. 487, FROM WHICH SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE DERIVES,
REPRESENTED A DELIBERATE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE DRASTICALLY TO CURTAIL
THE RANGE OF CONDUCT WHICH COURTS COULD PUNISH AS CONTEMPT.  NYE V.
UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, 44-48.  FN3  TRUE, THE ACT OF 1831 CARRIES
UPON ITS FACE THE PURPOSE TO LEAVE THE COURTS AMPLE POWER TO PROTECT
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AGAINST IMMEDIATE INTERRUPTION OF ITS
BUSINESS.  BUT THE REFERENCES TO THAT ACT'S HISTORY IN THE NYE CASE,
SUPRA, REVEAL A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO SAFEGUARD CONSTITUTIONAL
PROCEDURES BY LIMITING COURTS, AS CONGRESS IS LIMITED IN CONTEMPT
CASES, TO "THE LEAST POSSIBLE POWER ADEQUATE TO THE END PROPOSED." 
ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6 WHEAT.  204, 231.  THE EXERCISE BY FEDERAL COURTS
OF ANY BROADER CONTEMPT POWER THAN THIS WOULD PERMIT TOO GREAT INROADS
ON THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, SINCE CONTEMPTS ARE
SUMMARY IN THEIR NATURE, AND LEAVE DETERMINATION OF GUILT TO A JUDGE
RATHER THAN A JURY.  IT IS IN THIS CONSTITUTIONAL SETTING THAT WE MUST
RESOLVE THE ISSUES HERE RAISED. 

ALL PERJURED RELEVANT TESTIMONY IS AT WAR WITH JUSTICE, SINCE IT MAY
PRODUCE A JUDGMENT NOT RESTING ON TRUTH.  THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE DENIED
THAT IT TENDS TO DEFEAT THE SOLE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF A TRIAL.  IT
NEED NOT NECESSARILY, HOWEVER, OBSTRUCT OR HALT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. 
FOR THE FUNCTION OF TRIAL IS TO SIFT THE TRUTH FROM A MASS OF
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE, AND TO DO SO THE FACT-FINDING TRIBUNAL MUST
HEAR BOTH TRUTHFUL AND FALSE WITNESSES.  IT IS IN THIS SENSE,
DOUBTLESS, THAT THIS COURT SPOKE WHEN IT DECIDED THAT PERJURY ALONE
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN "OBSTRUCTION" WHICH JUSTIFIES EXERTION OF THE
CONTEMPT POWER AND THAT THERE "MUST BE ADDED TO THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
OF PERJURY UNDER THE GENERAL LAW THE FURTHER ELEMENT OF OBSTRUCTION TO
THE COURT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTY."  EX PARTE HUDGINGS, SUPRA,
382, 383, 384.  AND THE COURT ADDED, "THE PRESENCE OF THAT ELEMENT
(OBSTRUCTION) MUST CLEARLY BE SHOWN IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE POWER TO
PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT IS EXERTED." 

CLARK V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 1, IS A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT
FOUND THAT ELEMENT "CLEARLY SHOWN."  IN THAT CASE, THE COURT FOUND THAT
A PROSPECTIVE JUROR HAD TESTIFIED FALSELY IN ORDER TO QUALIFY DESPITE
THE FACT THAT SHE WAS A PARTISAN WHO WOULD VOTE FOR A VERDICT OF NOT
GUILTY REGARDLESS OF EVIDENCE OF GUILT.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF
A MORE EFFECTIVE OBSTRUCTION TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS THAN A JUROR WHO
HAS PREJUDGED THE CASE.  FOR THIS PREVENTS THE VERY FORMATION OF A
PROPER JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL.  AS THE COURT SAID IN THE CLARK CASE, "THE
DOOM OF MERE STERILITY WAS ON THE TRIAL FROM THE BEGINNING."  P. 11. 
PERJURY WAS NOT EVEN THE BASIS OF THE CONVICTION.  THE COURT'S OPINION
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE OBSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME HAD THE
PARTISAN PLAN TO THWART JUSTICE BEEN CARRIED OUT WITHOUT ANY SWEARING
AT ALL.  OF COURSE THE MERE FACT THAT FALSE SWEARING IS AN INCIDENT TO
THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGED DOES NOT IMMUNIZE THE CULPRIT FROM CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS.  CERTAINLY THAT POSITION OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR THE PRESENT
CONVICTION. 

HERE THERE WAS, AT BEST, NO ELEMENT EXCEPT PERJURY "CLEARLY SHOWN." 
NOR NEED WE CONSIDER CASES LIKE UNITED STATES V. APPEL, 211 F. 495,
496, PRESSED UPON US BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FOR THERE THE COURT THOUGHT
THAT THE TESTIMONY OF APPEL WAS "ON ITS MERE FACE, AND WITHOUT INQUIRY
COLLATERALLY, ...  NOT A BONA FIDE EFFORT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AT
ALL."  IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS COLLATERAL INQUIRY; THE TESTIMONY
OF OTHER WITNESSES WAS INVOKED TO CONVINCE THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT
PETITIONER WAS A PERJURER.  ONLY AFTER DETERMINING FROM THEIR TESTIMONY
THAT PETITIONER HAD WILFULLY SWORN FALSELY, DID THE COURT CONCLUDE THAT
PETITIONER WAS "BLOCKING THE INQUIRY JUST AS EFFECTIVELY BY GIVING A
FALSE ANSWER AS REFUSING TO GIVE ANY AT ALL."  THIS WAS THE EQUIVALENT
OF SAYING THAT FOR PERJURY ALONE A WITNESS MAY BE PUNISHED FOR
CONTEMPT.  SEC. 268 IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO GRANT SUCH POWER. 

NOR CAN THE CONVICTION BE UPHELD UNDER THAT PART OF SEC. 268 WHICH
AUTHORIZES PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPTS WHICH CONSIST OF "THE MISBEHAVIOR
OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS OF SAID COURTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL TRANSACTIONS." 
WHILE THE PETITIONER WAS A TRUSTEE, AND WE MAY ASSUME AN OFFICER OF THE
COURT WITHIN THE STATUTORY MEANING, HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN AN "OFFICIAL
TRANSACTION" AS TRUSTEE WHEN HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY IN THE
COURSE OF A GENERAL INQUIRY.  WHETHER HE COULD BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT
FOR GIVING PERJURED TESTIMONY IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS DIRECTLY
INVOLVING ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE IS ANOTHER MATTER NOT NOW BEFORE
US. 

THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE DISTRICT COURT
ARE REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 268 PROVIDES IN PART THAT THE "POWER TO PUNISH CONTEMPTS
SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXTEND TO ANY CASES EXCEPT THE MISBEHAVIOR OF
ANY PERSON IN THEIR PRESENCE, OR SO NEAR THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,  ...  AND THE DISOBEDIENCE OR RESISTANCE BY
ANY  ... WITNESS, OR OTHER PERSON TO ANY LAWFUL WRIT, PROCESS, ORDER,
RULE, DECREE, OR COMMAND OF THE SAID COURTS." 

FN2  IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN PETITIONER WAS FIRST ASKED WHETHER HE DREW
CERTAIN CHECKS ON SPECIFIED DATES HE ANSWERED THAT HE COULD NOT BE SURE
IN VIEW OF THE NUMBER OF CHECKS HE DREW.  WHEN THE PARTICULAR CHECKS
WERE MORE SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT PETITIONER DID OFFER EXPLANATIONS,
WHICH THOUGH THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN FALSE, NEVERTHELESS CONSTITUTED
CLEARCUT ANSWERS. 

FN3  SEE ALSO AS TO THIS HISTORICAL PURPOSE, NELLES AND KING,
CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 28 COL. L. REV. 401 ET
SEQ.; 525 ET SEQ.; FOX, THE HISTORY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT (1927). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






EAST NEW YORK BANK V. HAHN, 326 U.S. 230 


NO. 62.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1945.  - 293
N.Y. 622, 59 N.E.2D 625, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CHAPTER 93 OF THE LAWS OF NEW YORK OF 1943, WHICH EXTENDED FOR A
FURTHER PERIOD OF ONE YEAR MORATORY LEGISLATION FIRST ENACTED IN 1933,
WHEREBY AS TO MORTGAGES EXECUTED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1932 THE RIGHT OF
FORECLOSURE FOR DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL WAS SUSPENDED, HELD
NOT REPUGNANT TO THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP.
231, 234. 

2.  THE INCIDENCE OF MORTGAGE MORATORIUM LEGISLATION ON AN ISOLATED
CONTRACT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO
SAFEGUARD THE INTERESTS OF ITS PEOPLE.  P. 232. 

3.  HOME BLDG. ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, AND LATER CASES,
FOLLOWED; CHASTLETON CORP. V. SINCLAIR, 264 U.S. 543, DIFFERENTIATED. 
PP. 231, 235. 

EAST NEW YORK SAVINGS BANK V. HAHN ET UX. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF KINGS. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT (182 MISC. 863) WHICH, IN AN
ACTION TO FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE FOR NONPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL, SUSTAINED
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE SUSPENDING THE RIGHT OF
FORECLOSURE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WAS AN ACTION BEGUN IN 1944 TO FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE ON REAL
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK FOR NONPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL THAT HAD
BECOME DUE IN 1924.  THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT THE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDING WAS BARRED BY THE APPLICABLE NEW YORK MORATORIUM LAW.  182
MISC. 863, 51 N.Y.S.2D 496.  THIS LAW, CHAPTER 93 OF THE LAWS OF NEW
YORK OF 1943, EXTENDED FOR ANOTHER YEAR LEGISLATION FIRST ENACTED IN
1933, WHEREBY THE RIGHT OF FORECLOSURE FOR DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL WAS SUSPENDED FOR A YEAR AS TO MORTGAGES EXECUTED PRIOR TO
JULY 1, 1932.  FN1  YEAR BY YEAR (EXCEPT IN 1941 WHEN AN EXTENSION FOR
TWO YEARS WAS MADE), THE 1933 STATUTE WAS RENEWED FOR ANOTHER YEAR. 
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, AFFIRMED THE TRIAL
COURT'S JUDGMENT.  293 N.Y. 622, 59 N.E.2D 625.  UPON CLAIM DULY MADE
BELOW THAT THE MORATORIUM LAW OF 1943 WAS REPUGNANT TO THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ART. I, SEC. 10, THE
CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 344(A).  THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE IS LIKEWISE CHALLENGED
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BUT TOO FEEBLY TO MERIT CONSIDERATION. 

SINCE HOME BLDG. & L. ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, THERE ARE
LEFT HARDLY ANY OPEN SPACES OF CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE UPON MORATORY
LEGISLATION REFERABLE TO THE DEPRESSION.  THE COMPREHENSIVE OPINION OF
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN THAT CASE CUT BENEATH THE SKIN OF WORDS TO
THE CORE OF MEANING.  AFTER A FULL REVIEW OF THE WHOLE COURSE OF
DECISIONS EXPOUNDING THE CONTRACT CLAUSE - COVERING ALMOST THE LIFE OF
THIS COURT - THE CHIEF JUSTICE, DRAWING ON THE EARLY INSIGHT OF MR.
JUSTICE JOHNSON  FN2  IN OGDEN V. SAUNDERS, 12 WHEAT.  213, 286, AS
REINFORCED BY LATER DECISIONS CAST IN MORE MODERN TERMS, E.G.,
MANIGAULT V. SPRINGS, 199 U.S. 473, 480; MARCUS BROWN CO. V. FELDMAN,
256 U.S. 170, 198, PUT THE CLAUSE IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK.  THE BLAISDELL CASE AND DECISIONS RENDERED
SINCE (E.G., HONEYMAN V. JACOBS, 306 U.S. 539; VEIX V. SIXTH WARD
ASSN., 310 U.S. 32; GELFERT V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 313 U.S. 221;
FAITOUTE CO. V. ASBURY PARK, 316 U.S. 502), YIELD THIS GOVERNING
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:  WHEN A WIDELY DIFFUSED PUBLIC INTEREST HAS
BECOME ENMESHED IN A NETWORK OF MULTITUDINOUS PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS, THE
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE "TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL INTERESTS OF ITS
PEOPLE," 290 U.S. AT 434, IS NOT TO BE GAINSAID BY ABSTRACTING ONE SUCH
ARRANGEMENT FROM ITS PUBLIC CONTEXT AND TREATING IT AS THOUGH IT WERE
AN ISOLATED PRIVATE CONTRACT CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM IMPAIRMENT. 

THE FORMAL MODE OF REASONING BY MEANS OF WHICH THIS "PROTECTIVE POWER
OF THE STATE," 290 U.S. AT 440, IS ACKNOWLEDGED IS OF LITTLE MOMENT. 
IT MAY BE TREATED AS AN IMPLIED CONDITION OF EVERY CONTRACT AND, AS
SUCH, AS MUCH PART OF THE CONTRACT AS THOUGH IT WERE WRITTEN INTO IT,
WHEREBY THE STATE'S EXERCISE OF ITS POWER ENFORCES, AND DOES NOT
IMPAIR, A CONTRACT.  A MORE CANDID STATEMENT IS TO RECOGNIZE, AS WAS
SAID IN MANIGAULT V. SPRINGS, SUPRA, THAT THE POWER "WHICH IN ITS
VARIOUS RAMIFICATIONS IS KNOWN AS THE POLICE POWER, IS AN EXERCISE OF
THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THE  ...  GENERAL
WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE, AND IS PARAMOUNT TO ANY RIGHTS UNDER CONTRACTS
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS."  199 U.S. AT 480.  ONCE WE ARE IN THIS DOMAIN OF
THE RESERVE POWER OF A STATE WE MUST RESPECT THE "WIDE DISCRETION ON
THE PART OF THE LEGISLATURE IN DETERMINING WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT
NECESSARY."  IBID.  SO FAR AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS CONCERNED,
"THE POWER OF THE STATE WHEN OTHERWISE JUSTIFIED," MARCUS BROWN CO. V.
FELDMAN, 256 U.S. 170, 198, IS NOT DIMINISHED BECAUSE A PRIVATE
CONTRACT MAY BE AFFECTED. 

APPLYING THESE CONSIDERATIONS TO THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION BRINGS US TO
A QUICK CONCLUSION.  IN 1933, NEW YORK BEGAN A SERIES OF MORATORY
ENACTMENTS TO COUNTERACT THE VIRULENT EFFECTS OF THE DEPRESSION UPON
NEW YORK REALTY WHICH HAVE BEEN SPREAD TOO OFTEN UPON THE RECORDS OF
THIS COURT TO REQUIRE EVEN A SUMMARY.  CHAPTER 793 OF THE LAWS OF 1933
GAVE A YEAR'S GRACE AGAINST FORECLOSURES OF MORTGAGES, BUT IT OBLIGATED
THE MORTGAGOR TO PAY TAXES, INSURANCE, AND INTEREST.  THE VALIDITY OF
THE STATUTE WAS SUSTAINED IN KLINKE V. SAMUELS, 264 N.Y. 144, 190 N.E.
324.  THE MORATORIUM HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM YEAR TO YEAR.  WHEN THE
1937 REENACTMENT WAS QUESTIONED, THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AGAIN
UPHELD THE LEGISLATION.  MAGUIRE & CO. V. LENT & LENT, INC., 277 N.Y.
694, 14 N.E.2D 629.  THIS DECISION WAS RENDERED AFTER A JOINT
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE HAD MADE A THOROUGH STUDY AND RECOMMENDED
CONTINUANCE OF THE MORATORIUM.  NEW YORK LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT (1938)
NO. 58.  IN 1941, THE LEGISLATURE REFLECTED SOME CHANGES IN ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS BY REQUIRING AMORTIZATION OF THE PRINCIPAL AT THE RATE OF 1%
PER ANNUM, BEGINNING WITH JULY 1, 1942.  THE SAME LEGISLATURE
ESTABLISHED ANOTHER JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW ONCE MORE THE
NEW YORK MORTGAGE SITUATION.  "AFTER A MOST EXHAUSTIVE STUDY OF THE
MORATORIUM," A REPORT WAS SUBMITTED RECOMMENDING ITS EXTENSION FOR
ANOTHER YEAR.  NEW YORK LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT (1942) NO. 45.  THE
GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK URGED SUCH LEGISLATION (NEW YORK LEGISLATIVE
DOCUMENT (1943) NO. 1, P. 9) AND THE LAW NOW UNDER ATTACK WAS ENACTED. 
IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE IN SUBSEQUENT
EXTENSIONS OF THE MORATORIUM AGAIN TOOK NOTE OF CHANGED ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS BY INCREASING THE AMORTIZATION RATE TO 2% IN 1944(L. 1944,
C. 562) AND TO 3% IN 1945(L. 1945, C. 378). 

APPELLANT ASKS US TO REJECT THE JUDGMENT OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE, OF THE GOVERNOR, AND OF THE LEGISLATURE, THAT THE PUBLIC
WELFARE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF NEW YORK CONDITIONS, REQUIRES THE
SUSPENSION OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES FOR ANOTHER YEAR.  ON THE BASIS OF
EXPERT OPINION, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AND ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS OF WHICH
WE ARE TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, IT URGES SUCH A CHANGE IN ECONOMIC AND
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS IN NEW YORK AS TO DEPRIVE OF ALL JUSTIFICATION THE
DETERMINATION OF NEW YORK'S LEGISLATURE OF WHAT NEW YORK'S WELFARE
REQUIRES.  WE ARE INVITED TO ASSESS NOT ONLY THE RANGE AND INCIDENCE OF
WHAT ARE CLAIMED TO BE DETERMINING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS INSOFAR AS THEY
AFFECT THE MORTGAGE MARKET - BANK DEPOSITS AND WAR SAVINGS BONDS;
INCREASED PAYROLLS AND STORE SALES; AVAILABLE MORTGAGE MONEY AND RISE
IN REAL ESTATE VALUES - BUT ALSO TO RESOLVE CONTROVERSY AS TO THE
CAUSES AND CONTINUITY OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS, NAMELY THE EFFECT OF THE
WAR AND OF ITS TERMINATION, AND SIMILAR MATTERS.  MERELY TO ENUMERATE
THE ELEMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED SHOWS THAT THE PLACE FOR
DETERMINING THEIR WEIGHT AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IS THE LEGISLATURE NOT
THE JUDICIARY.  UNLIKE WORTHEN CO. V. KAVANAUGH, 295 U.S. 56, 60, HERE
THERE WAS NO "STUDIED INDIFFERENCE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE MORTGAGEE OR
TO HIS APPROPRIATE PROTECTION."  HERE THE LEGISLATURE WAS NOT EVEN
ACTING MERELY UPON THE POOLED GENERAL KNOWLEDGE OF ITS MEMBERS.  THE
WHOLE COURSE OF THE NEW YORK MORATORIUM LEGISLATION SHOWS THE EMPIRIC
PROCESS OF LEGISLATION AT ITS FAIREST:  FREQUENT RECONSIDERATION,
INTENSIVE STUDY OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, READJUSTMENT
TO CHANGING CONDITIONS, AND SAFEGUARDING THE FUTURE ON THE BASIS OF
RESPONSIBLE FORECASTS.  THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE WAS ADVISED BY THOSE
HAVING SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM IT THAT "THE SUDDEN TERMINATION
OF THE LEGISLATION WHICH HAS DAMMED UP NORMAL LIQUIDATION OF THESE
MORTGAGES FOR MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS MIGHT WELL RESULT IN AN EMERGENCY
MORE ACUTE THAN THAT WHICH THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION WAS INTENDED TO
ALLEVIATE."  NEW YORK LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT (1942) NO. 45, P. 25.  IT
WOULD INDEED BE STRANGE IF THERE WERE ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES WHICH DENIED THE STATE THE POWER TO SAFEGUARD ITS
PEOPLE AGAINST SUCH DANGERS.  THERE IS NOTHING.  JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
1943 ENACTMENT IS NOT NEGATIVED BECAUSE THE FACTORS THAT INDUCED AND
CONSTITUTIONALLY SUPPORTED ITS ENACTMENT WERE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
WHICH INDUCED AND SUPPORTED THE MORATORIUM STATUTE OF 1933. 

IT ONLY REMAINS TO SAY THAT IN CHASTLETON CORP. V. SINCLAIR, 264 U.S.
543, WHICH WAS STRONGLY PRESSED ON US, THE COURT DEALT WITH QUITE A
DIFFERENT SITUATION.  THE DIFFERENTIATING FACTORS ARE TOO GLARING TO
REQUIRE EXPOSITION.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE 1943 MORATORIUM LAW MADE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST, TAXES,
INSURANCE, AND AMORTIZATION CHARGES A PREREQUISITE TO SUSPENSION OF
FORECLOSURE.  THESE CONDITIONS CONCEDEDLY WERE MET AND THE ONLY DEFAULT
HERE WAS IN UNPAID PRINCIPAL. 

FN2  FOR MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON'S CONSTITUTIONAL VIEWS REGARDING THE
SCOPE AND LIMITS OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE, SEE MORGAN, MR. JUSTICE
WILLIAM JOHNSON AND THE CONSTITUTION (1944) 57 HARV. L. REV. 328, 352
ET SEQ., AND HALE, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CONTRACT CLAUSE:  III
(1944) 57 HARV. L. REV. 852, 872 ET SEQ. SEE ALSO LEVIN, MR. JUSTICE
WILLIAM JOHNSON AND THE UNENVIABLE DILEMMA (1944) 42 MICH. L. REV. 803;
MR. JUSTICE WILLIAM JOHNSON, CREATIVE DISSENTER (1944) 43 MICH. L. REV.
497; MR. JUSTICE WILLIAM JOHNSON AND THE COMMON INCIDENTS OF LIFE
(1945) 44 MICH. L. REV. 59. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



U.S. V. DETROIT NAVIGATION CO., 326 U.S. 236 


NO. 22.  ARGUED OCTOBER 9, 10, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1945.  - 57
F.SUPP.  81, REVERSED. 


APPLICATION WAS MADE TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER SEC.
309(C) OF PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO OPERATE AS COMMON CARRIERS OF MOTOR
VEHICLES BY WATER ON THE GREAT LAKES.  IT WAS OPPOSED BY APPELLEES, WHO
HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN SUCH SERVICE BEFORE THE WAR.  THE GOVERNMENT HAD
REQUISITIONED MANY VESSELS OF THE APPELLEES, LEAVING TWO OF THEM WITH
NO AUTOMOBILE CARRIERS AND THE THIRD WITH ONLY NINE VESSELS, FIVE OF
WHICH WERE OWNED BY AND OPERATED FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  APPLICANTS OWNED
FREE OF ENCUMBRANCE THREE VESSELS WHICH HAD BEEN USED EXTENSIVELY
BEFORE THE WAR AS AUTOMOBILE CARRIERS, MOSTLY UNDER CHARTER TO ONE OF
THE APPELLEES.  THEY HAD BEEN CONVERTED FOR CARRYING BULK TRAFFIC BUT
COULD READILY BE RECONVERTED TO HANDLE AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT BEFORE THE WAR THERE WERE INSUFFICIENT FACILITIES
FOR THIS PURPOSE DURING PEAK PERIODS, THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DEFINITE
NEED FOR THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF APPLICANTS' VESSELS, THAT THERE WAS A
REASONABLE CERTAINTY THAT A LIKE NEED WOULD ARISE WHEN PRODUCTION OF
AUTOMOBILES FOR CIVILIANS WAS RESUMED, THAT THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE FOR APPELLEES TO PROCURE
ADDITIONAL VESSELS AND PLACE THEM IN OPERATION, AND THAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IF APPELLEES WERE DELAYED IN
ACQUIRING THE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEEDED.  IT HELD THAT THE PROPOSED
SERVICE WOULD BE REQUIRED BY FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
AND GRANTED THE CERTIFICATE.  ITS ACTION WAS CHALLENGED BY APPELLEES. 
HELD: 

1.  THE COMMISSION ACTED WITHIN ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE CERTIFICATE.  P. 241. 

2.  A POSITIVE FINDING BY THE COMMISSION OF AN ACTUAL INABILITY OF
EXISTING CARRIERS TO ACQUIRE THE NECESSARY FACILITIES TO MEET FUTURE
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO THE GRANTING OF SUCH A
CERTIFICATE.  P. 240. 

3.  THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH A WIDE RANGE OF
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT SUCH
CERTIFICATES.  P. 241. 

4.  ITS FUNCTION IS NOT ONLY TO APPRAISE THE FACTS AND DRAW
INFERENCES FROM THEM BUT ALSO TO EXERCISE AN EXPERT JUDGMENT AND TO
DETERMINE FROM ITS ANALYSIS OF THE TOTAL SITUATION ON WHICH SIDE OF THE
CONTROVERSY THE PUBLIC INTEREST LIES.  P. 241. 

5.  IT IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDER THE MARGIN OF SAFETY WHICH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST REQUIRES FOR THE RESUMPTION OF AN INTERRUPTED SERVICE; AND IT
HAS DISCRETION TO CONCLUDE THAT FUTURE SHIPPING NEEDS SHOULD BE ASSURED
RATHER THAN LEFT UNCERTAIN.  PP. 240, 241. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. DETROIT & CLEVELAND NAVIGATION CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES SETTING
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION GRANTING A
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO OPERATE AS COMMON CARRIERS
OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY WATER ON THE GREAT LAKES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SEC. 309(C) OF PART
III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (54 STAT. 941, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
909(C)) GRANTED TO T.J. MCCARTHY STEAMSHIP CO. AND AUTOMOTIVE TRADES
STEAMSHIP CO. (WHOM WE WILL CALL THE APPLICANTS) A CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO OPERATE AS COMMON CARRIERS IN THE
TRANSPORTATION BY WATER OF MOTOR VEHICLES FROM DETROIT, MICHIGAN TO
PORTS ON LAKE ERIE AND LAKE SUPERIOR.  FN1  260 I.C.C. 175.  THE
APPELLEES, WHO WERE PROTESTANTS IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND WHO ARE COMMON CARRIERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY VESSELS ON THE GREAT
LAKES, CHALLENGED THAT ORDER BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES. 
THAT COURT SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  57 F.SUPP.  81.  THE CASE
IS HERE ON APPEAL.  FN2 

WORLD WAR II CAUSED THE CESSATION OF THE PRODUCTION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
FOR CIVILIAN USE.  PRIOR TO THAT TIME APPELLEES AS COMMON CARRIERS HAD
TRANSPORTED MOTOR VEHICLES BY VESSELS FROM DETROIT TO VARIOUS PORTS ON
THE GREAT LAKES.  THE APPLICANTS OWNED THREE VESSELS EQUIPPED AS
AUTOMOBILE CARRIERS.  THESE VESSELS WERE USED EXTENSIVELY PRIOR TO THE
WAR IN TRANSPORTING AUTOMOBILES FROM DETROIT TO LAKE ERIE PORTS.  THEY
WERE FOR THE MOST PART UNDER CHARTER TO ONE OF THE APPELLEES FROM 1936
THROUGH 1941.  WITH THE ADVENT OF THE WAR THE UNITED STATES
REQUISITIONED MANY OF THE VESSELS OF THE APPELLEES, USING SOME OF THEM
FOR CARRYING BULK COMMODITIES ON THE GREAT LAKES AND REMOVING OTHERS TO
THE SALT WATER.  AS A RESULT, TWO OF THE APPELLEES AT THE TIME OF THE
HEARING FN3  IN JUNE, 1943, HAD NO AUTOMOBILE CARRIERS AND WERE NOT
OPERATING; THE THIRD WAS OPERATING NINE VESSELS, OF WHICH FIVE WERE
OWNED BY AND OPERATED FOR THE UNITED STATES.  IN CONTRAST, THE
APPLICANTS OWNED THEIR THREE VESSELS FREE AND CLEAR OF ANY INCUMBRANCE;
AND WHILE THOSE VESSELS HAD BEEN CONVERTED FOR CARRYING BULK TRAFFIC,
ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR RECONVERSION INTO AUTOMOBILE
CARRIERS HAD BEEN PRESERVED.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT PRIOR TO THE
WAR THERE WERE INSUFFICIENT FACILITIES FOR THE MOVEMENT OF AUTOMOBILES
ON THE GREAT LAKES DURING CERTAIN PEAK PERIODS EVEN WITH THE CARRYING
CAPACITY OF APPLICANTS' VESSELS INCLUDED.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY OF
AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS AND OF MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS THAT THE CARRYING
CAPACITY OF APPLICANTS' VESSELS WOULD BE NEEDED WHEN THE MANUFACTURE OF
AUTOMOBILES WAS RESUMED.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT PRIOR TO THE WAR
THERE WAS A DEFINITE NEED FOR THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF APPLICANTS'
VESSELS IN THIS TRANSPORTATION AND THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE
CERTAINTY THAT A LIKE NEED FOR THAT CAPACITY WOULD ARISE WHEN THE
PRODUCTION OF AUTOMOBILES FOR CIVILIAN USE WAS RESUMED.  IT FOUND THAT
WHILE THE APPLICANTS COULD READILY RECONVERT THEIR VESSELS TO HANDLE
AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE LENGTH
OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE THE APPELLEES TO PROCURE AND PLACE IN OPERATION
THE ADDITIONAL VESSELS WHICH WOULD BE NEEDED WHEN PRODUCTION OF
AUTOMOBILES FOR CIVILIAN USE WAS RESUMED.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IF, AFTER PRODUCTION WAS RESUMED,
APPELLEES WERE DELAYED IN ACQUIRING THE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NEEDED TO
MEET THE TRANSPORTATION DEMANDS.  ON THAT BASIS IT HELD THAT THE
PROPOSED SERVICE WOULD BE REQUIRED BY FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER COULD NOT BE
SUSTAINED IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT APPLICANTS' VESSELS WERE THE ONLY
VESSELS AVAILABLE TO APPELLEES TO MEET THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSPORTATION
DEMANDS BEYOND THAT FURNISHED BY THEIR OWN VESSELS.  IT CONCLUDED THAT
NOT ONLY WAS THERE NO FINDING THAT IF APPLICANTS' VESSELS WERE NOT
CHARTERED THERE WAS NO OTHER CARRYING CAPACITY WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN
ACQUIRED BUT THAT THE RECORD ESTABLISHED THE CONTRARY. 

THE CASE, HOWEVER, IS NOT ONE WHERE THERE IS A SERVICE PRESENTLY
BEING RENDERED AND A NEWCOMER SEEKS ENTRY INTO THE FIELD.  WHETHER IN
THAT EVENT THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD BE CORRECT IS A
QUESTION WE DO NOT REACH.  WHILE THE AUTHORITY OF APPELLEES TO SERVE AS
CARRIERS HAS NOT BEEN TERMINATED, THE SERVICE FORMERLY RENDERED BY THEM
HAS BEEN INTERRUPTED BY THE WAR.  THE APPLICATIONS CONCERN A PROPOSED
ADDITIONAL SERVICE TO BE RENDERED IN THE FUTURE.  SEC. 309(C)
AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO PERMIT THE PROPOSED SERVICE TO BE RENDERED
IF IT "IS OR WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY."  THAT ENTAILS A PROPHECY SO FAR AS FUTURE
REQUIREMENTS ARE CONCERNED.  THE COMMISSION MADE THAT PROPHECY ON THE
BASIS OF (1) THE EARLIER SERVICE WHICH HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED DURING THE
WAR, (2) THE LIKELY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FUTURE, AND (3) THE ABILITY OF
THE EXISTING CARRIERS TO EFFECT AN EXPEDITIOUS RESUMPTION OF SERVICE AT
THE WAR'S END.  THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICANTS PROMPTLY TO RENDER THE
SERVICE AT THAT TIME IS ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED.  WHETHER THE APPELLEES
COULD OR WOULD MOVE WITH LIKE DISPATCH IS LESS CERTAIN.  MANY OF THE
VESSELS WHICH THEY PREVIOUSLY OWNED HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE UNITED
STATES.  AND THE COMMISSION HAD DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THEY WOULD OR COULD
OBTAIN THE NECESSARY ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN TIME TO
MEET THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEMANDS WHICH WOULD ARISE WHEN AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURE WAS RESUMED.  WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A CASE WHERE THERE WAS A
SURPLUS OF FACILITIES IN THE PRIOR SERVICE WHICH THE WAR INTERRUPTED. 
THE COMMISSION INDEED FOUND THAT THE PRIOR SERVICE HAD NOT BEEN
ADEQUATE, A FINDING WHICH WE THINK IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  IT TOOK
THAT FACT INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE MARGIN OF SAFETY WHICH
THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRED FOR THE RESUMPTION OF THE INTERRUPTED
SERVICE.  WE THINK THE INADEQUACY OF THE PRIOR SERVICE WAS RELEVANT TO
THAT DETERMINATION.  IT NOT ONLY BORE UPON THE FUTURE SHIPPING NEEDS
WHICH WERE LIKELY BUT ALSO UNDERSCORED THE DANGER OF DELAYS IN RESUMING
THE SERVICE IF THE FIELD WERE LEFT EXCLUSIVELY TO EXISTING CARRIERS. 

IF THE COMMISSION WERE REQUIRED TO DENY THESE APPLICATIONS UNLESS IT
FOUND AN ACTUAL INABILITY ON THE PART OF EXISTING CARRIERS TO ACQUIRE
THE FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS, A LIMITATION
WOULD BE IMPOSED ON THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION WHICH IS NOT FOUND IN
THE ACT.  THE COMMISSION IS THE GUARDIAN OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
DETERMINING WHETHER CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY SHALL BE
GRANTED.  FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT FUNCTION THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN
ENTRUSTED WITH A WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY.  INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. PARKER, 326 U.S. 60.  ITS FUNCTION IS NOT ONLY
TO APPRAISE THE FACTS AND TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM THEM BUT ALSO TO
BRING TO BEAR UPON THE PROBLEM AN EXPERT JUDGMENT AND TO DETERMINE FROM
ITS ANALYSIS OF THE TOTAL SITUATION ON WHICH SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY
THE PUBLIC INTEREST LIES.  ITS DOUBT THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BE
ADEQUATELY SERVED IF RESUMPTION OF SERVICE IS LEFT TO EXISTING CARRIERS
IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME RESPECT AS ITS EXPERT JUDGMENT ON OTHER
COMPLICATED TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS.  SEE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 35, 42; ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S.
15, 23.  FORECASTS AS TO THE FUTURE ARE NECESSARY TO THE DECISION.  BUT
NEITHER UNCERTAINTIES AS TO THE FUTURE NOR THE INABILITY OR FAILURE OF
EXISTING CARRIERS TO SHOW THE SUFFICIENCY OF THEIR PLANS TO MEET FUTURE
TRAFFIC DEMANDS NEED PARALYZE THE COMMISSION INTO INACTION.  IT MAY BE
THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES THAT FUTURE SHIPPING NEEDS BE ASSURED
RATHER THAN LEFT UNCERTAIN.  THE COMMISSION HAS THE DISCRETION SO TO
DECIDE.  IT WENT NO FURTHER HERE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COMPANIES ARE BOTH CONTROLLED BY T.J. MCCARTHY.  THE
CERTIFICATE RUNS TO T.J. MCCARTHY STEAMSHIP CO., FOR ITSELF AND AS
MANAGING AGENT OF AUTOMOTIVE TRADES STEAMSHIP CO. 

FN2  SEC. 210(28 U.S.C. SEC. 47A) AND SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

FN3  THE COMMISSION RENDERED ITS DECISION ON MARCH 7, 1944. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. JEWEL CO., 326 U.S. 242 


NO. 46.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 19, 1945.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 5, 1945.  -
146 F.2D 414, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PIPKIN PATENT NO. 1,687,510 FOR A FROSTED GLASS ELECTRIC LAMP
BULB, CHARACTERIZED BY THE PRESENCE ON THE INTERIOR OF ROUNDED INSTEAD
OF SHARP, ANGULAR CREVICES SO AS TO STRENGTHEN RESISTANCE AGAINST
BREAKAGE BY IMPACT, HELD INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  PP. 243, 248. 

2.  IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT, PRIOR TO THE PATENT IN QUESTION, ELECTRIC
BULBS HAD BEEN FROSTED ON THE INTERIOR WITH ROUNDED RATHER THAN SHARP,
ANGULAR CREVICES.  BUT AN EARLIER PATENT, AS WELL AS THE ART WHICH
PRECEDED IT, SHOWED HOW TO PRODUCE SUCH A SURFACE ON THE EXTERIOR OF
ELECTRIC BULBS; AND ANOTHER EARLIER PATENT SHOWED HOW TO FROST THE
INSIDE OF AN ELECTRIC BULB.  HELD THAT, IN VIEW OF THESE DISCLOSURES,
THERE COULD BE NO INVENTION IN FROSTING EITHER THE OUTSIDE OR INSIDE OF
AN ELECTRIC BULB SO AS TO PRODUCE ROUNDED RATHER THAN SHARP, ANGULAR
CREVICES.  PRINCIPLE OF ANSONIA BRASS & COPPER CO. V. ELECTRIC SUPPLY
CO., 144 U.S. 11, APPLIED.  PP. 247-249. 

3.  WHERE THE METHOD OF THE MANUFACTURE OF AN ARTICLE IS KNOWN, MORE
THAN A NEW ADVANTAGE OF THE PRODUCT MUST BE DISCOVERED IN ORDER TO
CLAIM INVENTION.  P. 249. 

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. JEWEL INCANDESCENT LAMP CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 838, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER, 47
F.SUPP.  818, DISMISSING A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PIPKIN PATENT NO. 1,687,510 ISSUED
TO PETITIONER, ASSIGNEE OF MARVIN PIPKIN, ON OCTOBER 16, 1928.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE PATENT TO BE INVALID AND ALSO THAT THE ACCUSED
STRUCTURE DID NOT INFRINGE.  IT ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE BILL.  47
F.SUPP.  818.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, HOLDING THE
PATENT INVALID.  146 F.2D 414.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR WRIT
OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF DECISION AMONG
THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  FN1 

THE PATENT RELATES TO A FROSTED GLASS BULB FOR ELECTRIC LAMPS.  IT IS
DEFENDED HERE AS A PRODUCT NOT A PROCESS PATENT.  THE PRODUCT IS
DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST CLAIM AS FOLLOWS: 

"A GLASS ELECTRIC LAMP BULB HAVING ITS INTERIOR SURFACE FROSTED BY
ETCHING SO THAT THE MAXIMUM BRIGHTNESS OF AN ORDINARY INCANDESCENT LAMP
COMPRISING SUCH A BULB WILL BE LESS THAN TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THAT
OF SAID LAMP WITH A CLEAR BULB, SAID INTERIOR BULB SURFACE BEING
CHARACTERIZED BY THE PRESENCE OF ROUNDED AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SHARP
ANGULAR CREVICES TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE STRENGTH TO RESIST BREAKAGE
BY IMPACT IS GREATER THAN TWENTY PER CENT OF THAT OF THE CLEAR BULB." 

MANY YEARS PRIOR TO THE PIPKIN PATENT, EFFORTS HAD BEEN MADE TO
REDUCE THE GLARE PRODUCED BY THE BRILLIANT FILAMENT OF AN INCANDESCENT
LAMP HAVING A CLEAR BULB.  THE MOST COMMON METHOD OF REDUCING THE GLARE
WAS TO FROST THE OUTSIDE SURFACE WITH AN ACID FROSTING SOLUTION.  WHILE
BULBS SO TREATED REDUCED THE GLARE, THE ROUGH OUTSIDE SURFACE COLLECTED
DIRT AND WAS DIFFICULT TO CLEAN, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE LIGHT OUTPUT
WAS FURTHER REDUCED.  TWENTY-FIVE YEARS BEFORE PIPKIN, KENNEDY (PATENT
NO. 733,972 ISSUED JULY 21, 1903) HAD SHOWED AN INSIDE FROSTED BULB. 
BUT A DIFFICULTY APPEARED.  WHEN THE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF A BULB WAS
FROSTED THE STRENGTH OF THE BULB WAS NOT MATERIALLY AFFECTED.  WHEN THE
INSIDE SURFACE, HOWEVER, WAS FROSTED, THE STRENGTH OF THE BULB WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED, MAKING IT UNFIT FOR PRACTICAL USE.  PIPKIN
RECITED THESE FACTS IN HIS SPECIFICATIONS AND STATED, "THE OBJECT OF MY
INVENTION IS TO PRODUCE AN INSIDE FROSTED GLASS BULB WHICH WILL BE MUCH
STRONGER THAN THOSE HERETOFORE PRODUCED."  HE WENT ON TO STATE THAT THE
PREFERRED METHOD OF FROSTING WAS BY USE OF A CHEMICAL MEDIUM WHICH,
WHEN APPLIED SO AS TO PRODUCE THE PROPER LIGHT DIFFUSION, MADE THE BULB
EXTREMELY FRAGILE.  AND HE ADDED:  "I HAVE FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE
BULB IS GIVEN A FURTHER TREATMENT, WHICH I TERM A STRENGTHENING
TREATMENT, IN WHICH IT IS SUBJECTED TO AN ETCHING OR FROSTING TREATMENT
OF LOWER DEGREE THAN THAT TO WHICH IT WAS FIRST SUBJECTED, IT BECOMES
QUITE STRONG.  INDEED, IT MAY BE MADE PRACTICALLY AS STRONG AS THE
ORIGINAL CLEAR GLASS BULB."  HE GAVE AS THE PROBABLE EXPLANATION THE
FACT THAT THE FIRST TREATMENT PRODUCED SHARP, ANGULAR CREVICES OR PITS
IN THE GLASS, WHILE THE SECOND OR STRENGTHENING TREATMENT ATE AWAY
ADDITIONAL GLASS AND ROUNDED OUT THE ANGULAR CREVICES INTO SAUCER
SHAPED PITS.  FN2  THE FACT THAT THE BULB WAS STRENGTHENED WHEN
ADDITIONAL GLASS WAS DISSOLVED WAS REFERRED TO BY THE COURT BELOW AS
"PIPKIN'S PARADOX."  THE PATENT CONTAINS CHARTS SHOWING THE RELATIVE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE STRENGTH OF THE BULB IS WEAKENED BY THE FIRST
FROSTING TREATMENT AND ITS STRENGTH RESTORED BY THE SECOND TREATMENT. 
THE PATENT ALSO SHOWS THAT WHILE THE BULB OF THE PATENT MATERIALLY
REDUCED THE GLARE OBTAINED IN A CLEAR BULB, THE LIGHTING EFFICIENCY OF
THE TWO IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FOR ANY GIVEN WATTAGE. 

AS THE FIRST CLAIM OF THE PATENT INDICATES, THE CHARACTERISTIC
FEATURE OF THE PATENTED BULB IS THE FACT THAT THE INTERIOR SURFACE IS
"CHARACTERIZED BY THE PRESENCE OF ROUNDED AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SHARP
ANGULAR CREVICES."  IT IS THAT FEATURE WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
BULB'S STRENGTH.  NOW, AN ELECTRIC BULB FROSTED ON THE INSIDE WAS OLD
IN THE ART. KENNEDY HAD DISCLOSED SUCH A PRODUCT TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
EARLIER.  MOREOVER, IT HAD LONG BEEN KNOWN IN THE ART THAT SUCCESSIVE
ACID TREATMENTS OF GLASS ROUNDED OUT THE SHARP ANGULAR CREVICES
PRODUCED BY THE FIRST ETCHING.  THAT WAS SHOWN IN PARTICULARITY BY
REINITZER  FN3  IN 1887 AND BY TILLOTSON  FN4  IN 1917.  AND IT WAS
SHOWN IN SPRECHSAAL OF 1907(A GERMAN TRADE PAPER) THAT IF HOLLOW GLASS
WAS SUBJECTED TO A SECOND ETCHING, THE SURFACE WOULD HAVE A SILK-LIKE
APPEARANCE, THE FINISH BEING CALLED SATIN ETCHING OR SILK MAT.  FN5  IT
IS TRUE THAT THESE PRIOR PUBLICATIONS WERE CONCERNED WITH FROSTING FOR
THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A DECORATIVE FINISH IN GLASS WARE OR DESIRED
OPTICAL EFFECTS IN FOCUSING SCREENS FOR CAMERAS AND THE LIKE.  BUT
SPRECHSAAL IN 1912 SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED THE APPLICATION OF SUCCESSIVE
ETCHINGS TO ELECTRIC BULBS.  AND THAT PUBLICATION RECOMMENDED, AS
PIPKIN DID YEARS LATER, THAT A WEAKER OR DILUTED ETCHING SOLUTION BE
USED FOR THE SECOND ETCHING.  MOREOVER, WOOD (PATENT NO. 1,240,398
ISSUED SEPTEMBER 18, 1917) OBSERVED THAT SUCCESSIVE ACID TREATMENTS OF
GLASS ROUNDED OUT THE SHARP ANGULAR CREVICES PRODUCED BY THE FIRST
ETCHING, AND HE APPLIED THAT IDEA TO ELECTRIC BULBS AS WELL AS TO OTHER
GLASS ARTICLES.  HIS PATENT COVERED THE MAKING OF LIGHT-DIFFUSING
SCREENS.  HE NOTED THAT IF GLASS WAS ETCHED ONCE, THE SURFACE WAS CUT
INTO IRREGULAR CREVICES, PITS AND GROOVES, WITH THE RESULT THAT ONLY A
PORTION OF THE LIGHT WAS TRANSMITTED.  BUT IF AFTER THE FIRST ETCHING
(WHICH HE ACCOMPLISHED BY A BLAST OF AIR CHARGED WITH A FINE DUST OF
FLOUR EMERY OR CARBORUNDUM) THE SURFACE WAS FLOWED WITH ACID, THE
CREVICES AND PITS WERE ENLARGED AND SMOOTHED OUT INTO MINUTE CONCAVE
LENSES.  THESE MICROSCOPICAL LENSES DIFFUSED THE LIGHT PERFECTLY AND
TRANSMITTED PRACTICALLY ALL OF IT.  HE NOTED THAT HIS PROCESS WAS
ESPECIALLY VALUABLE IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN TYPES OF CAMERAS.  BUT HE
ADDED, "SUCH A SCREEN IS ALSO USEFUL FOR RENDERING THE BULBS OF
INCANDESCENT LAMPS DIFFUSING WITHOUT AT THE SAME TIME CAUSING THE VERY
MARKED LOSS IN THE EFFICIENCY OF THE LAMP, WHICH RESULTS FROM FROSTING
THE BULBS IN THE USUAL MANNER."  WOOD, TO BE SURE, DID NOT DESCRIBE
FROSTING THE INSIDE OF THE BULB.  KENNEDY, HOWEVER, HAD SHOWN THAT. 
MOREOVER, PRIOR TO WOOD IT WAS WELL KNOWN IN THE ART, AS WE HAVE NOTED,
THAT SUCCESSIVE ACID TREATMENTS OF GLASS PRODUCED A SURFACE
CHARACTERIZED BY THE PRESENCE OF ROUNDED AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SHARP
ANGULAR CREVICES OR PITS.  IF THERE WAS NOVELTY IN APPLYING THAT
PROCESS TO ELECTRIC BULBS, WOOD ACHIEVED IT.  AT LEAST SINCE KENNEDY,
IT WAS KNOWN THAT INSIDE-FROSTED ELECTRIC BULBS WERE PREFERABLE TO
OUTSIDE-FROSTED BULBS. 

WOOD, OF COURSE, WAS CONCERNED ONLY WITH LIGHT DIFFUSION AND
TRANSMISSION PRIMARILY OF SCREENS, SECONDARILY OF ELECTRIC BULBS. 
NEITHER HE NOR ANY OTHER BEFORE PIPKIN APPEARS TO HAVE GIVEN ANY
INDICATION THAT THE SECOND TREATMENT RESULTED IN ANY STRENGTHENING OF
THE GLASS.  BUT STRENGTHENING WAS INHERENT IN THE METHOD HE PROPOSED. 
AND IT APPEARS THAT AN ELECTRIC BULB, WHICH HAD BEEN FROSTED INSIDE
PURSUANT TO HIS METHOD, WOULD HAVE INEVITABLY OBTAINED THE ROUNDED PITS
AND HENCE THE ATTENDANT STRENGTH CHARACTERISTIC OF THE PIPKIN BULB. 

IF A WITHOUT MENTIONING THE ELEMENT OF STRENGTH PATENTED A BULB WHICH
WAS EXTRA STRONG, B COULD NOT OBTAIN A PATENT ON THE BULB BECAUSE OF
ITS STRENGTH, THOUGH HE WAS THE FIRST TO RECOGNIZE THAT FEATURE OF IT.
THAT IS THE IMPORT OF ANSONIA BRASS & COPPER CO. V. ELECTRICAL SUPPLY
CO., 144 U.S. 11.  THAT CASE INVOLVED THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF A
PATENT FOR AN INSULATED ELECTRIC CONDUCTOR.  THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSED A
SIMILAR METHOD OF INSULATION WHICH WAS USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
WIRING OF BURGLAR ALARMS.  SUCH USE INVOLVED NO PROBLEM OF
COMBUSTIBILITY OF THE INSULATING MATERIAL WHICH EMERGED ON THE
INTRODUCTION OF ELECTRIC LIGHTING.  THE INSULATOR DISCLOSED BY THE
PRIOR ART WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE, AND PERHAPS WAS NOT KNOWN TO BE
INCOMBUSTIBLE.  BUT IN FACT THE EARLIER INSULATOR HAD APPROXIMATELY THE
SAME DEGREE OF INCOMBUSTIBILITY AS THAT DESCRIBED IN THE PATENT.  THE
COURT RULED THAT "THE APPLICATION OF AN OLD PROCESS TO A NEW AND
ANALOGOUS PURPOSE DOES NOT INVOLVE INVENTION, EVEN IF THE NEW RESULT
HAD NOT BEFORE BEEN CONTEMPLATED."  144 U.S. P. 18.  SINCE THE TWO
INSULATORS WERE PRACTICALLY THE SAME IN THEIR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION,
THE PATENTEE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CLAIM THE FEATURE OF INCOMBUSTIBILITY
AS HIS INVENTION.  THE BENEFITS OF THE "POTENCIES AND VALUES MORE
IMPORTANT THAN THE USES THAT WERE IMMEDIATELY APPARENT" BELONG TO HIM
WHO ESTABLISHES PRIORITY OF DISCOVERY.  RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA V.
RADIO ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, 293 U.S. 1, 14. 

PETITIONER, HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE
PATENTEE MERELY OBSERVED THE ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES OF AN OLD ARTICLE
OF MANUFACTURE.  IT SAYS THAT PIPKIN CREATED A NEW ARTICLE OF
MANUFACTURE, AN INSIDE-FROSTED BULB HAVING AN ETCHED INNER SURFACE
CHARACTERIZED BY ROUNDED RATHER THAN SHARP ANGULAR CREVICES - AN
ARTICLE THAT NEVER EXISTED BEFORE.  IT POINTS OUT THAT PRIOR TO PIPKIN
NO ONE KNEW WHY INSIDE FROSTED BULBS WERE WEAK NOR KNEW HOW TO REMEDY
THE WEAKNESS.  PIPKIN INDEED SEEMS TO BE THE FIRST TO HAVE RECOGNIZED
THAT THE FORM OF THE PITTING HAD AN EFFECT ON THE STRENGTH OF THE
GLASS.  THE PRIOR ART APPEARS TO HAVE MADE NO SUCH DISCLOSURE.  AND IT
IS TRUE THAT THE PIPKIN BULB MET WITH COMMERCIAL SUCCESS.  THE QUESTION
REMAINS, HOWEVER, WHETHER THE PIPKIN PATENT WAS INVALID BECAUSE OF
ANTICIPATION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANSONIA CASE AND
THE PRESENT ONE.  THERE A PRIOR PRODUCT HAD BEEN CREATED HAVING
QUALITIES WHICH WERE UNRECOGNIZED AT THE TIME AND WHICH LATER WERE
SOUGHT TO BE PATENTED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE
PRESENT CASE THAT PRIOR TO PIPKIN ELECTRIC BULBS HAD BEEN FROSTED ON
THE INTERIOR WITH ROUNDED RATHER THAN SHARP ANGULAR CREVICES OR PITS. 
BUT WOOD, AS WELL AS THE ART WHICH PRECEDED HIM, SHOWED HOW TO PRODUCE
SUCH A SURFACE ON ELECTRIC BULBS AS WELL AS ON OTHER ARTICLES OF
GLASS.  KENNEDY SHOWED HOW TO FROST THE INSIDE OF AN ELECTRIC BULB.  IN
VIEW OF THESE DISCLOSURES IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THERE COULD BE
INVENTION IN FROSTING EITHER THE OUTSIDE OR INSIDE OF AN ELECTRIC BULB
SO AS TO PRODUCE SAUCER-SHAPED RATHER THAN SHARP, ANGULAR CREVICES OR
PITS.  A PRODUCT CLAIM DESCRIBES AN ARTICLE, NEW AND USEFUL.  THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE ANSONIA CASE PLAINLY WOULD DENY VALIDITY TO THE PIPKIN
PATENT IF THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSED AN ELECTRIC BULB SO FROSTED ON THE
INSIDE AS TO ROUND OUT THE ANGULAR CREVICES PRODUCED BY THE FIRST
ETCHING, WHETHER THE FULL UTILITY OF THE BULB HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY
RECOGNIZED OR NOT.  THE SAME RESULT IS INDICATED WHERE, AS IN THE
PRESENT CASE, THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES THE METHOD OF MAKING AN ARTICLE
HAVING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PATENTED PRODUCT, THOUGH ALL THE
ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES OF THE PRODUCT HAD NOT BEEN FULLY APPRECIATED. 
LOVELL MFG. CO. V. CARY, 147 U.S. 623.  PIPKIN FOUND LATENT QUALITIES
IN AN OLD DISCOVERY AND ADAPTED IT TO A USEFUL END.  BUT THAT DID NOT
ADVANCE THE FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE IN THIS NARROW FIELD SO AS TO SATISFY
THE EXACTING STANDARDS OF OUR PATENT SYSTEM.  WHERE THERE HAS BEEN USE
OF AN ARTICLE OR WHERE THE METHOD OF ITS MANUFACTURE IS KNOWN, MORE
THAN A NEW ADVANTAGE OF THE PRODUCT MUST BE DISCOVERED IN ORDER TO
CLAIM INVENTION.  SEE DEFOREST RADIO CO. V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 283
U.S. 664, 682.  IT IS NOT INVENTION TO PERCEIVE THAT THE PRODUCT WHICH
OTHERS HAD DISCOVERED HAD QUALITIES THEY FAILED TO DETECT.  SEE CORONA
CORD TIRE CO. V. DOVAN CHEMICAL CORP., 276 U.S. 358, 369.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO. V. SAVE SALES CO., 82 F.2D 100, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH
APPLIANCE CORP., 93 F.2D 671, HELD THE PATENT VALID.  THE CORRESPONDING
CANADIAN PIPKIN PATENT NO. 289,379 WAS HELD INVALID BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF CANADA.  FUSO ELECTRIC WORKS V. CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
1940 CAN.  L. REP. 371.  THE BRITISH PIPKIN PATENT, NO. 228,907, WAS
HELD INVALID BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.  BRITISH THOMSON-HOUSTON
CO., LTD. V. TUNGSTALITE, LTD., 57 PAT.  JOURN.  271(1940). 

FN2  ONE OF THE EXPERTS, WHEN ASKED FOR THE EXPLANATION OF THIS
PHENOMENON, TESTIFIED:  "BECAUSE IN THE INSTANCE WHERE WE HAVE SHARP
ANGULAR CREVICES ON THE INSIDE SURFACE AND THE BULB IS SUBJECTED TO
IMPACT ON ITS OUTER SURFACE, THE INNER SURFACE TENDS TO BE EXTENDED AND
THEREFORE IT IS PUT INTO TENSION AND THE SHARP ANGULAR CREVICES ARE THE
STARTING POINT FOR CRACKS, WHEREAS IN THE CASE  ...  WHERE THE CREVICE
HAS BEEN ROUNDED OUT THE IMPACT AGAINST A BULB HAVING ON ITS INNER
SURFACE THIS TYPE OF FROSTING, IS SUCH THAT THE TESTING EFFORT IS
SPREAD OVER A VERY MUCH LARGER AREA AND THE BULB IS ALMOST AS STRONG AS
IT WAS BEFORE FROSTING."    FN3  DIE GLASHUTTE OF 1887, CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF GLASS ETCHING. 

FN4  JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY, OCTOBER 1917. 

FN5  IT WAS LARGELY ON THE BASIS OF THIS PRIOR DISCLOSURE THAT THE
BRITISH PATENT WAS HELD INVALID.  SEE BRITISH THOMSON-HOUSTON CO., LTD.
V. TUNGSTALITE, LTD., SUPRA NOTE 1, PP. 288-289. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA, 325 U.S. 761 


NO. 56.  ARGUED MARCH 26, 27, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - 61
ARIZ. 66, 145 P.2D 530, REVERSED. 


1.  STATE POWER TO REGULATE THE LENGTH OF RAILROAD TRAINS IS NOT
CURTAILED OR SUPERSEDED BY SEC. 1 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
(PARAGRAPHS 10-17) OF ITSELF, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
IMPLEMENTATION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; NOR BY PROVISIONS
OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT FOR BRAKES ON TRAINS; NOR BY THE PROVISION
OF SEC. 25 OF PART I OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PERMITTING THE
COMMISSION TO ORDER THE INSTALLATION OF TRAIN STOP AND CONTROL
DEVICES.  PP. 765-766. 

IN ENACTING LEGISLATION WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CONGRESS WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE INTENDED TO
STRIKE DOWN A STATE STATUTE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF THE PUBLIC UNLESS ITS PURPOSE TO DO SO IS CLEARLY MANIFESTED; OR
UNLESS THE STATE LAW, IN TERMS OR IN ITS PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION,
CONFLICTS WITH THE ACT OF CONGRESS OR PLAINLY AND PALPABLY INFRINGES
ITS POLICY.  P. 766. 

2.  THE ARIZONA TRAIN LIMIT LAW (ARIZONA CODE ANN., 1939, SEC. 69
119), MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO OPERATE WITHIN THE STATE A PASSENGER TRAIN
OF MORE THAN FOURTEEN CARS OR A FREIGHT TRAIN OF MORE THAN SEVENTY
CARS, HELD, AS APPLIED TO INTERSTATE TRAINS, INVALID AS CONTRAVENING
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 763, 781. 

3.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, EVEN WITHOUT THE AID OF CONGRESSIONAL
LEGISLATION, PROTECTS AGAINST STATE LEGISLATION WHICH IS INIMICAL TO
THE NATIONAL COMMERCE; AND IN SUCH CASES, WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED,
THIS COURT, AND NOT THE STATE LEGISLATURE, IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF THE
COMPETING DEMANDS OF STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS.  P. 769. 

4.  ALTHOUGH THIS COURT, UPON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF A STATE COURT,
MAY DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE FACTS UPON WHICH AN ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT
DEPENDS, THE CRUCIAL FINDINGS OF THE STATE COURT HERE ARE NOT
CHALLENGED IN MATERIAL PARTICULARS, ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, AND
SUPPLY AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
PRESENTED.  P. 771. 

5.  THE STATE REGULATION HERE INVOLVED, ADMITTEDLY OBSTRUCTIVE TO
INTERSTATE TRAIN OPERATION, AND HAVING A SERIOUSLY ADVERSE EFFECT ON
TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY, PASSES BEYOND WHAT IS PLAINLY
ESSENTIAL FOR SAFETY, SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT IT WILL LESSEN
RATHER THAN INCREASE THE DANGER OF ACCIDENT.  EXAMINATION OF ALL
RELEVANT FACTORS MAKES IT PLAIN THAT THE STATE INTEREST HERE ASSERTED
IS OUTWEIGHED BY THE INTEREST OF THE NATION IN AN ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL
AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  P. 781. 

6.  THE RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED
ARE NOT SUCH AS TO MAKE INAPPLICABLE THE RULE, GENERALLY OBSERVED, THAT
THE FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ITS FREEDOM FROM LOCAL
RESTRAINTS IN MATTERS REQUIRING UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION ARE INTERESTS
SAFEGUARDED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FROM STATE INTERFERENCE.  PP. 770,
781. 

7.  THE FULL-TRAIN-CREW CASES AND SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 782. 

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. ARIZONA EX REL. SULLIVAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ARIZONA
TRAIN LIMIT LAW. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ARIZONA TRAIN LIMIT LAW OF MAY 16, 1912, ARIZONA CODE ANN., 1939,
SEC. 69-119, MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION TO OPERATE
WITHIN THE STATE A RAILROAD TRAIN OF MORE THAN FOURTEEN PASSENGER OR
SEVENTY FREIGHT CARS, AND AUTHORIZES THE STATE TO RECOVER A MONEY
PENALTY FOR EACH VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE
WHETHER CONGRESS HAS, BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT, RESTRICTED THE POWER OF
THE STATES TO REGULATE THE LENGTH OF INTERSTATE TRAINS AS A SAFETY
MEASURE AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE STATUTE CONTRAVENES THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

IN 1940 THE STATE OF ARIZONA BROUGHT SUIT IN THE ARIZONA SUPERIOR
COURT AGAINST APPELLANT, THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, TO RECOVER THE
STATUTORY PENALTIES FOR OPERATING WITHIN THE STATE TWO INTERSTATE
TRAINS, ONE A PASSENGER TRAIN OF MORE THAN FOURTEEN CARS, AND ONE A
FREIGHT TRAIN OF MORE THAN SEVENTY CARS.  APPELLANT ANSWERED, ADMITTING
THE TRAIN OPERATIONS, BUT DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE
OFFENDS AGAINST THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  AFTER AN
EXTENDED TRIAL, WITHOUT A JURY, THE COURT MADE DETAILED FINDINGS OF
FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE RAILROAD COMPANY. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA REVERSED AND DIRECTED JUDGMENT FOR THE
STATE.  61 ARIZ. 66, 145 P.2D 530.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER
SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, APPELLANT RAISING BY ITS ASSIGNMENTS
OF ERROR THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED HERE FOR DECISION. 

THE SUPREME COURT LEFT UNDISTURBED THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
AND MADE NO NEW FINDINGS.  IT HELD THAT THE POWER OF THE STATE TO
REGULATE THE LENGTH OF INTERSTATE TRAINS HAD NOT BEEN RESTRICTED BY
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  IT SUSTAINED THE ACT AS A SAFETY MEASURE TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE OPERATION OF TRAINS OF
MORE THAN THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM LENGTH, ENACTED BY THE STATE
LEGISLATURE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS "POLICE POWER."  THIS POWER THE
COURT HELD EXTENDED TO THE REGULATION OF THE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN THE INTERESTS OF LOCAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELL-BEING.  IT
THOUGHT THAT A STATE STATUTE, ENACTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE
POWER, AND BEARING SOME REASONABLE RELATION TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND
WELL-BEING OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, OF WHICH THE STATE LEGISLATURE
IS THE JUDGE, WAS NOT TO BE JUDICIALLY OVERTURNED, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS
ADMITTEDLY ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE OPERATION OF INTERSTATE TRAINS. 

PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER SEC. 1, PARAGRAPHS 10-17 OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, 24 STAT. 379 AS AMENDED (49 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ.), THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AS OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1942, PROMULGATED
AS AN EMERGENCY MEASURE SERVICE ORDER NO. 85, 7 FED. REG. 7258,
SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF STATE TRAIN LIMIT LAWS FOR THE DURATION OF
THE WAR, AND DENIED AN APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER.  IN THE
MATTER OF SERVICE ORDER NO. 85, 256 I.C.C. 523.  PARAGRAPH 15 OF SEC. 1
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION, WHEN IT IS "OF
OPINION THAT SHORTAGE OF EQUIPMENT, CONGESTION OF TRAFFIC, OR OTHER
EMERGENCY REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ACTION EXISTS IN ANY SECTION OF THE
COUNTRY," TO MAKE OR SUSPEND RULES AND PRACTICES "WITH RESPECT TO CAR
SERVICE," WHICH INCLUDES BY PARAGRAPH 10 OF SEC. 1 "THE USE, CONTROL,
SUPPLY, MOVEMENT, DISTRIBUTION, EXCHANGE, INTERCHANGE, AND RETURN" OF
LOCOMOTIVES AND CARS, AND THE "SUPPLY OF TRAINS."  PARAGRAPH 16 OF SEC.
1 PROVIDES THAT WHEN A CARRIER IS UNABLE PROPERLY TO TRANSPORT THE
TRAFFIC OFFERED, THE COMMISSION MAY MAKE REASONABLE DIRECTIONS "WITH
RESPECT TO THE HANDLING, ROUTING, AND MOVEMENT OF THE TRAFFIC OF SUCH
CARRIER AND ITS DISTRIBUTION OVER OTHER LINES OF ROADS."  THE AUTHORITY
OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE ORDER NO. 85 IS CURRENTLY UNDER ATTACK IN
JOHNSTON V. UNITED STATES, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1408, PENDING IN THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS NOT IN EFFECT IN 1940 WHEN THE PRESENT
SUIT WAS BROUGHT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE LAW IN THAT YEAR, AND THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE TRAIN OPERATIONS HERE CHARGED
AS VIOLATIONS.  HENCE THE QUESTION HERE IS NOT OF THE EFFECT OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, WHICH WE ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION TO BE
VALID, BUT WHETHER THE GRANT OF POWER TO THE COMMISSION OPERATED TO
SUPERSEDE THE STATE ACT BEFORE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  WE ARE OF
OPINION THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION BY THE
COMMISSION, SEC. 1 DOES NOT OF ITSELF CURTAIL STATE POWER TO REGULATE
TRAIN LENGTHS.  THE PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSION PURPORTED TO
ACT, PHRASED IN BROAD AND GENERAL LANGUAGE, DO NOT IN TERMS DEAL WITH
THAT SUBJECT.  WE DO NOT GAIN EITHER FROM THEIR WORDS OR FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ANY HINT THAT CONGRESS IN ENACTING THEM INTENDED,
APART FROM COMMISSION ACTION, TO SUPERSEDE STATE LAWS REGULATING TRAIN
LENGTHS.  WE CAN HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS, MERELY BY CONFERRING
AUTHORITY ON THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE CAR SERVICE IN AN "EMERGENCY,"
INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE EXERCISE, OTHERWISE LAWFUL, OF STATE POWER TO
REGULATE TRAIN LENGTHS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FINDS AN "EMERGENCY" TO
EXIST. 

CONGRESS, IN ENACTING LEGISLATION WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE INTENDED TO STRIKE
DOWN A STATE STATUTE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE
PUBLIC UNLESS ITS PURPOSE TO DO SO IS CLEARLY MANIFESTED, REID V.
COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 148; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. LARABEE MILLS,
211 U.S. 612, 621, ET SEQ.; MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. HARRIS, 234 U.S.
412, 418-419; WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79, 85; ALLEN
BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 749, OR UNLESS THE STATE LAW, IN
TERMS OR IN ITS PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION, CONFLICTS WITH THE ACT OF
CONGRESS, OR PLAINLY AND PALPABLY INFRINGES ITS POLICY.  SINNOT V.
DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227, 243; MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. HABER, 169
U.S. 613, 623; SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533; CAREY V. SOUTH
DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 118, 122; ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. RAILROAD
COMM'N, 283 U.S. 380, 391; TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, 454. 

THE CONTENTION, FAINTLY URGED, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 1 AND 9, PROVIDING FOR BRAKES ON TRAINS,
AND OF SEC. 25 OF PART I OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
26(B), PERMITTING THE COMMISSION TO ORDER THE INSTALLATION OF TRAIN
STOP AND CONTROL DEVICES, OPERATE OF THEIR OWN FORCE TO EXCLUDE STATE
REGULATION OF TRAIN LENGTHS, HAS EVEN LESS SUPPORT.  CONGRESS, ALTHOUGH
ASKED TO DO SO,  FN1  HAS DECLINED TO PASS LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY
LIMITING TRAINS TO SEVENTY CARS.  WE ARE THEREFORE BROUGHT TO
APPELLANT'S PRINCIPAL CONTENTION, THAT THE STATE STATUTE CONTRAVENES
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

ALTHOUGH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE CONFERRED ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE, ITS POSSESSION OF THE POWER DOES NOT
EXCLUDE ALL STATE POWER OF REGULATION.  EVER SINCE WILLSON V. BLACK
BIRD CREEK MARSH CO., 2 PET. 245, AND COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12
HOW.  299, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICTING
LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS, THERE IS A RESIDUUM OF POWER IN THE STATE TO
MAKE LAWS GOVERNING MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN WHICH NEVERTHELESS IN SOME
MEASURE AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR EVEN, TO SOME EXTENT, REGULATE
IT.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 399-400; SOUTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 187, ET SEQ.; CALIFORNIA
V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113-14 AND CASES CITED; PARKER V. BROWN, 317
U.S. 341, 359-60.  THUS THE STATES MAY REGULATE MATTERS WHICH, BECAUSE
OF THEIR NUMBER AND DIVERSITY, MAY NEVER BE ADEQUATELY DEALT WITH BY
CONGRESS.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, SUPRA, 319; SOUTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, 185; CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON,
SUPRA, 113; DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390, 394; PARKER V. BROWN,
SUPRA, 362, 363.  WHEN THE REGULATION OF MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN IS
LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND EFFECT, AND ITS IMPACT ON THE NATIONAL COMMERCE
DOES NOT SERIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH ITS OPERATION, AND THE CONSEQUENT
INCENTIVE TO DEAL WITH THEM NATIONALLY IS SLIGHT, SUCH REGULATION HAS
BEEN GENERALLY HELD TO BE WITHIN STATE AUTHORITY.  SOUTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, 188 AND CASES CITED; LONE STAR
GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 304 U.S. 224, 238; MILK BOARD V. EISENBERG CO., 306
U.S. 346, 351; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598, 603; CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, SUPRA, 113-14 AND CASES CITED. 

BUT EVER SINCE GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, THE STATES HAVE NOT
BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO IMPEDE SUBSTANTIALLY THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE FROM STATE TO STATE, OR TO REGULATE THOSE PHASES OF THE
NATIONAL COMMERCE WHICH, BECAUSE OF THE NEED OF NATIONAL UNIFORMITY,
DEMAND THAT THEIR REGULATION, IF ANY, BE PRESCRIBED BY A SINGLE
AUTHORITY N2.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, SUPRA, 319; LEISY V. HARDIN,
135 U.S. 100, 108, 109; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, SUPRA, 399-400; EDWARDS
V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160, 176.  WHETHER OR NOT THIS LONG-RECOGNIZED
DISTRIBUTION OF POWER BETWEEN THE NATIONAL AND THE STATE GOVERNMENTS IS
PREDICATED UPON THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ITSELF, BROWN
V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419, 447; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, SUPRA, 399,
400; PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262 U.S. 553, 596; BALDWIN V.
SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 522; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL
BROS., SUPRA, 185, OR UPON THE PRESUMED INTENTION OF CONGRESS, WHERE
CONGRESS HAS NOT SPOKEN, WELTON V. MISSOURI, 91 U.S. 275, 282; HALL V.
DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485, 490; BROWN V. HOUSTON, 114 U.S. 622, 631; BOWMAN
V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 125 U.S. 465, 481-2; LEISY V. HARDIN, SUPRA,
109; IN RE RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545, 559-60; BRENNAN V. TITUSVILLE, 153
U.S. 289, 302; COVINGTON & C. BRIDGE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 154 U.S. 204,
212; GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, 479, N.,
DOWLING, INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND STATE POWER, 27 VA. LAW REV. 1, THE
RESULT IS THE SAME. 

IN THE APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES SOME ENACTMENTS MAY BE FOUND
TO BE PLAINLY WITHIN AND OTHERS PLAINLY WITHOUT STATE POWER.  BUT
BETWEEN THESE EXTREMES LIES THE INFINITE VARIETY OF CASES, IN WHICH
REGULATION OF LOCAL MATTERS MAY ALSO OPERATE AS A REGULATION OF
COMMERCE, IN WHICH RECONCILIATION OF THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF STATE
AND NATIONAL POWER IS TO BE ATTAINED ONLY BY SOME APPRAISAL AND
ACCOMMODATION OF THE COMPETING DEMANDS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL
INTERESTS INVOLVED.  PARKER V. BROWN, SUPRA, 362; TERMINAL RAILROAD
ASSN. V. BROTHERHOOD, 318 U.S. 1, 8; SEE DISANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273
U.S. 34, 44(AND COMPARE CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, SUPRA); ILLINOIS GAS
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 504-5. 

FOR A HUNDRED YEARS IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE THAT
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WITHOUT THE AID OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, THUS
AFFORDS SOME PROTECTION FROM STATE LEGISLATION INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL
COMMERCE, AND THAT IN SUCH CASES, WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED, THIS
COURT, AND NOT THE STATE LEGISLATURE, IS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THE
FINAL ARBITER OF THE COMPETING DEMANDS OF STATE AND NATIONAL
INTERESTS.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, SUPRA; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R.
CO. V. KAW VALLEY DISTRICT, 233 U.S. 75, 79; SOUTH COVINGTON R. CO. V.
COVINGTON, 235 U.S. 537, 546; MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. TEXAS, 245
U.S. 484, 488; ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 254
U.S. 535, 537; FOSTER-FOUNTAIN PACKING CO. V. HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 1, 10;
GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 441; MCCARROLL V.
DIXIE LINES, 309 U.S. 176. 

CONGRESS HAS UNDOUBTED POWER TO REDEFINE THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER
OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT MAY EITHER PERMIT THE STATES TO REGULATE
THE COMMERCE IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE PERMISSIBLE, IN
RE RAHRER, SUPRA, 561-62; ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. KENTUCKY, 238 U.S. 190,
198; ROSENBERGER V. PACIFIC EXPRESS CO., 241 U.S. 48, 50, 51; CLARK
DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S. 311, 325-6;
WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297 U.S. 431, 438-40; KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334, 350-51; HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V.
EVATT, 324 U.S. 652, 679, OR EXCLUDE STATE REGULATION EVEN OF MATTERS
OF PECULIARLY LOCAL CONCERN WHICH NEVERTHELESS AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211,
230; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 219 U.S. 467; HOUSTON,
E. & W.T.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342; AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. V.
CALDWELL, 244 U.S. 617, 626; ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N, 245 U.S. 493, 506; NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257
U.S. 591, 601; LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N V. TEXAS & N.O.R. CO.,
284 U.S. 125, 130; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. ILLINOIS BRICK CO., 297 U.S.
447, 459. 

BUT IN GENERAL CONGRESS HAS LEFT IT TO THE COURTS TO FORMULATE THE
RULES THUS INTERPRETING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN ITS APPLICATION,
DOUBTLESS BECAUSE IT HAS APPRECIATED THE DESTRUCTIVE CONSEQUENCES TO
THE COMMERCE OF THE NATION IF THEIR PROTECTION WERE WITHDRAWN, GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA, 441, AND HAS BEEN AWARE THAT IN
THEIR APPLICATION STATE LAWS WILL NOT BE INVALIDATED WITHOUT THE
SUPPORT OF RELEVANT FACTUAL MATERIAL WHICH WILL "AFFORD A SURE BASIS"
FOR AN INFORMED JUDGMENT.  TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN. V. BROTHERHOOD,
SUPRA, 8; SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KING, 217 U.S. 524.  MEANWHILE, CONGRESS
HAS ACCOMMODATED ITS LEGISLATION, AS HAVE THE STATES, TO THESE RULES AS
AN ESTABLISHED FEATURE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  THERE HAS THUS
BEEN LEFT TO THE STATES WIDE SCOPE FOR THE REGULATION OF MATTERS OF
LOCAL STATE CONCERN, EVEN THOUGH IT IN SOME MEASURE AFFECTS THE
COMMERCE, PROVIDED IT DOES NOT MATERIALLY RESTRICT THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE ACROSS STATE LINES, OR INTERFERE WITH IT IN MATTERS WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION IS OF PREDOMINANT NATIONAL
CONCERN. 

HENCE THE MATTERS FOR ULTIMATE DETERMINATION HERE ARE THE NATURE AND
EXTENT OF THE BURDEN WHICH THE STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE TRAINS,
ADOPTED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, IMPOSES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
WHETHER THE RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS
INVOLVED ARE SUCH AS TO MAKE INAPPLICABLE THE RULE, GENERALLY OBSERVED,
THAT THE FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ITS FREEDOM FROM LOCAL
RESTRAINTS IN MATTERS REQUIRING UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION ARE INTERESTS
SAFEGUARDED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FROM STATE INTERFERENCE. 

WHILE THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE STATE COURT, AND
MAY DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE FACTS OF A CASE UPON WHICH AN ASSERTED
FEDERAL RIGHT DEPENDS, HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, SUPRA, P. 659,
AND CASES CITED, THE FACTS FOUND BY THE STATE TRIAL COURT SHOWING THE
NATURE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE INVOLVED, AND THE EFFECT UPON IT OF
THE TRAIN LIMIT LAW, ARE NOT SERIOUSLY QUESTIONED.  ITS FINDINGS WITH
RESPECT TO THE NEED FOR AND EFFECT OF THE STATUTE AS A SAFETY MEASURE,
ALTHOUGH CHALLENGED IN SOME PARTICULARS WHICH WE DO NOT REGARD AS
MATERIAL TO OUR DECISION, ARE LIKEWISE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  TAKEN
TOGETHER THE FINDINGS SUPPLY AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR DECISION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. 

THE FINDINGS SHOW THAT THE OPERATION OF LONG TRAINS, THAT IS TRAINS
OF MORE THAN FOURTEEN PASSENGER AND MORE THAN SEVENTY FREIGHT CARS, IS
STANDARD PRACTICE OVER THE MAIN LINES OF THE RAILROADS OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND THAT, IF THE LENGTH OF TRAINS IS TO BE REGULATED AT ALL,
NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IN THE REGULATION ADOPTED, SUCH AS ONLY CONGRESS
CAN PRESCRIBE, IS PRACTICALLY INDISPENSABLE TO THE OPERATION OF AN
EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL NATIONAL RAILWAY SYSTEM.  ON MANY RAILROADS
PASSENGER TRAINS OF MORE THAN FOURTEEN CARS AND FREIGHT TRAINS OF MORE
THAN SEVENTY CARS ARE OPERATED, AND ON SOME SYSTEMS FREIGHT TRAINS ARE
RUN RANGING FROM ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE TO ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY
CARS IN LENGTH.  OUTSIDE OF ARIZONA, WHERE THE LENGTH OF TRAINS IS NOT
RESTRICTED, APPELLANT RUNS A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF LONG TRAINS.  IN
1939 ON ITS COMPARABLE ROUTE FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC THROUGH UTAH AND
NEVADA FROM 66 TO 85% OF ITS FREIGHT TRAINS WERE OVER SEVENTY CARS IN
LENGTH AND OVER 43% OF ITS PASSENGER TRAINS INCLUDED MORE THAN FOURTEEN
PASSENGER CARS. 

IN ARIZONA, APPROXIMATELY 93% OF THE FREIGHT TRAFFIC AND 95% OF THE
PASSENGER TRAFFIC IS INTERSTATE.  BECAUSE OF THE TRAIN LIMIT LAW
APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO HAUL OVER 30% MORE TRAINS IN ARIZONA THAN
WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN NECESSARY.  THE RECORD SHOWS A DEFINITE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OPERATING COSTS AND THE LENGTH OF TRAINS, THE
INCREASE IN LENGTH RESULTING IN A REDUCTION OF OPERATING COSTS PER
CAR.  THE ADDITIONAL COST OF OPERATION OF TRAINS COMPLYING WITH THE
TRAIN LIMIT LAW IN ARIZONA AMOUNTS FOR THE TWO RAILROADS TRAVERSING
THAT STATE TO ABOUT $1,000,000 A YEAR.  THE REDUCTION IN TRAIN LENGTHS
ALSO IMPEDES EFFICIENT OPERATION.  MORE LOCOMOTIVES AND MORE MANPOWER
ARE REQUIRED; THE NECESSARY CONVERSION AND RECONVERSION OF TRAIN
LENGTHS AT TERMINALS AND THE DELAY CAUSED BY BREAKING UP AND REMAKING
LONG TRAINS UPON ENTERING AND LEAVING THE STATE IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH
THE LAW, DELAYS THE TRAFFIC AND DIMINISHES ITS VOLUME MOVED IN A GIVEN
TIME, ESPECIALLY WHEN TRAFFIC IS HEAVY. 

TO RELIEVE THE RAILROADS OF THESE BURDENS, DURING THE WAR EMERGENCY
ONLY, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ACTING UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SUSPENDED THE OPERATION OF THE STATE LAW FOR
THE DURATION OF THE WAR BY ITS ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1942, TO WHICH WE
HAVE REFERRED.  IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER THE COMMISSION DECLARED:  "IT
WAS DESIGNED TO SAVE MANPOWER, MOTIVE POWER, ENGINE-MILES AND TRAIN
MILES; TO AVOID DELAY IN THE MOVEMENT OF TRAINS; TO INCREASE THE
EFFICIENT USE OF LOCOMOTIVES AND CARS AND TO AUGMENT THE AVAILABLE
SUPPLY THEREOF; AND TO RELIEVE CONGESTION AT TERMINALS CAUSED BY
SETTING OUT AND PICKING UP CARS ON EACH SIDE OF THE TRAIN-LIMIT LAW
STATES."  IN THE MATTER OF SERVICE ORDER NO. 85, 256 I.C.C. 523, 524. 
APPELLANT, BECAUSE OF ITS PAST COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARIZONA TRAIN LIMIT
LAW, HAS BEEN UNABLE TO AVAIL ITSELF FULLY OF THE BENEFITS OF THE
SUSPENSION ORDER BECAUSE SOME OF ITS EQUIPMENT AND THE LENGTH OF ITS
SIDINGS IN ARIZONA ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR THE OPERATION OF LONG TRAINS. 
ENGINES CAPABLE OF HAULING LONG TRAINS WERE NOT IN SERVICE.  IT CAN
ENGAGE IN LONG TRAIN OPERATIONS TO THE BEST ADVANTAGE ONLY BY
REBUILDING ITS ROAD TO SOME EXTENT AND BY CHANGING OR ADDING TO ITS
MOTIVE POWER EQUIPMENT, WHICH IT DESIRES TO DO IN ORDER TO SECURE MORE
EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL OPERATION OF ITS TRAINS. 

THE UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE ARIZONA TRAIN LIMIT
LAW IMPOSES A SERIOUS BURDEN ON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONDUCTED BY
APPELLANT.  IT MATERIALLY IMPEDES THE MOVEMENT OF APPELLANT'S
INTERSTATE TRAINS THROUGH THAT STATE AND INTERPOSES A SUBSTANTIAL
OBSTRUCTION TO THE NATIONAL POLICY PROCLAIMED BY CONGRESS, TO PROMOTE
ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PRECEDING SEC. 1, 54 STAT. 899.  ENFORCEMENT
OF THE LAW IN ARIZONA, WHILE TRAIN LENGTHS REMAIN UNREGULATED OR ARE
REGULATED BY VARYING STANDARDS IN OTHER STATES, MUST INEVITABLY RESULT
IN AN IMPAIRMENT OF UNIFORMITY OF EFFICIENT RAILROAD OPERATION BECAUSE
THE RAILROADS ARE SUBJECTED TO REGULATION WHICH IS NOT UNIFORM IN ITS
APPLICATION.  COMPLIANCE WITH A STATE STATUTE LIMITING TRAIN LENGTHS
REQUIRES INTERSTATE TRAINS OF A LENGTH LAWFUL IN OTHER STATES TO BE
BROKEN UP AND RECONSTITUTED AS THEY ENTER EACH STATE ACCORDING AS IT
MAY IMPOSE VARYING LIMITATIONS UPON TRAIN LENGTHS.  THE ALTERNATIVE IS
FOR THE CARRIER TO CONFORM TO THE LOWEST TRAIN LIMIT RESTRICTION OF ANY
OF THE STATES THROUGH WHICH ITS TRAINS PASS, WHOSE LAWS THUS CONTROL
THE CARRIERS' OPERATIONS BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE REGULATING STATE. 

ALTHOUGH THE SEVENTY CAR MAXIMUM FOR FREIGHT TRAINS IS THE LIMITATION
WHICH HAS BEEN MOST COMMONLY PROPOSED, VARIOUS BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE
STATE LEGISLATURES PROVIDED FOR MAXIMUM FREIGHT TRAIN LENGTHS OF FROM
FIFTY TO ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE CARS, AND MAXIMUM PASSENGER TRAIN
LENGTHS OF FROM TEN TO EIGHTEEN CARS.  FN3  WITH SUCH LAWS IN FORCE IN
STATES WHICH ARE INTERSPERSED WITH THOSE HAVING NO LIMIT ON TRAIN
LENGTHS, THE CONFUSION AND DIFFICULTY WITH WHICH INTERSTATE OPERATIONS
WOULD BE BURDENED UNDER THE VARIED SYSTEM OF STATE REGULATION AND THE
UNSATISFIED NEED FOR UNIFORMITY IN SUCH REGULATION, IF ANY, ARE
EVIDENT.  FN4 

AT PRESENT THE SEVENTY FREIGHT CAR LAWS ARE ENFORCED ONLY IN ARIZONA
AND OKLAHOMA, WITH A FOURTEEN CAR PASSENGER CAR LIMIT IN ARIZONA.  THE
RECORD HERE SHOWS THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARIZONA STATUTE RESULTS
IN FREIGHT TRAINS BEING BROKEN UP AND REFORMED AT THE CALIFORNIA BORDER
AND IN NEW MEXICO, SOME DISTANCE FROM THE ARIZONA LINE.  FREQUENTLY IT
IS NOT FEASIBLE TO OPERATE A NEWLY ASSEMBLED TRAIN FROM THE NEW MEXICO
YARD NEAREST TO ARIZONA, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ARIZONA LIMITATION
GOVERNS THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC AS FAR EAST AS EL PASO, TEXAS.  FOR SIMILAR
REASONS THE ARIZONA LAW OFTEN CONTROLS THE LENGTH OF PASSENGER TRAINS
ALL THE WAY FROM LOS ANGELES TO EL PASO.  FN5 

IF ONE STATE MAY REGULATE TRAIN LENGTHS, SO MAY ALL THE OTHERS, AND
THEY NEED NOT PRESCRIBE THE SAME MAXIMUM LIMITATION.  THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF SUCH REGULATION IS TO CONTROL TRAIN OPERATIONS BEYOND THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE EXACTING IT BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF
BREAKING UP AND REASSEMBLING LONG TRAINS AT THE NEAREST TERMINAL POINTS
BEFORE ENTERING AND AFTER LEAVING THE REGULATING STATE.  THE SERIOUS
IMPEDIMENT TO THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE BY THE LOCAL REGULATION OF
TRAIN LENGTHS AND THE PRACTICAL NECESSITY THAT SUCH REGULATION, IF ANY,
MUST BE PRESCRIBED BY A SINGLE BODY HAVING A NATION-WIDE AUTHORITY ARE
APPARENT. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE ARIZONA LAW HAD NO REASONABLE RELATION
TO SAFETY, AND MADE TRAIN OPERATION MORE DANGEROUS.  EXAMINATION OF THE
EVIDENCE AND THE DETAILED FINDINGS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THIS CONCLUSION
WAS RESTED ON FACTS FOUND WHICH INDICATE THAT SUCH INCREASED DANGER OF
ACCIDENT AND PERSONAL INJURY AS MAY RESULT FROM THE GREATER LENGTH OF
TRAINS IS MORE THAN OFFSET BY THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
RESULTING FROM THE LARGER NUMBER OF TRAINS WHEN TRAIN LENGTHS ARE
REDUCED.  IN CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE AS A SAFETY MEASURE,
THEREFORE, THE FACTOR OF CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE FOR PRESENT PURPOSES
IS NOT WHETHER THERE IS BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARIZONA SUPREME
COURT THAT THE INCREASE IN LENGTH OF TRAINS BEYOND THE STATUTORY
MAXIMUM HAS AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON SAFETY OF OPERATION.  THE DECISIVE
QUESTION IS WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TOTAL EFFECT OF THE LAW AS
A SAFETY MEASURE IN REDUCING ACCIDENTS AND CASUALTIES IS SO SLIGHT OR
PROBLEMATICAL AS NOT TO OUTWEIGH THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN KEEPING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FREE FROM INTERFERENCES WHICH SERIOUSLY IMPEDE IT
AND SUBJECT IT TO LOCAL REGULATION WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A UNIFORM EFFECT
ON THE INTERSTATE TRAIN JOURNEY WHICH IT INTERRUPTS. 

THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF DANGER OF ACCIDENT FROM INCREASED LENGTH OF
TRAINS IS THE RESULTING INCREASE OF "SLACK ACTION" OF THE TRAIN.  SLACK
ACTION IS THE AMOUNT OF FREE MOVEMENT OF ONE CAR BEFORE IT TRANSMITS
ITS MOTION TO AN ADJOINING COUPLED CAR.  THIS FREE MOVEMENT RESULTS
FROM THE FACT THAT IN RAILROAD PRACTICE CARS ARE LOOSELY COUPLED, AND
THE COUPLING IS OFTEN COMBINED WITH A SHOCK-ABSORBING DEVICE, A "DRAFT
GEAR," WHICH, UNDER STRESS, SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASES THE FREE MOVEMENT
AS THE TRAIN IS STARTED OR STOPPED.  LOOSE COUPLING IS NECESSARY TO
ENABLE THE TRAIN TO PROCEED FREELY AROUND CURVES AND IS AN AID IN
STARTING HEAVY TRAINS, SINCE THE APPLICATION OF THE LOCOMOTIVE POWER TO
THE TRAIN OPERATES ON EACH CAR IN THE TRAIN SUCCESSIVELY, AND THE POWER
IS THUS UTILIZED TO START ONLY ONE CAR AT A TIME. 

THE SLACK ACTION BETWEEN CARS DUE TO LOOSE COUPLINGS VARIES FROM
SEVEN-EIGHTHS OF AN INCH TO ONE AND ONE-EIGHTH INCHES AND, WITH THE
ADDED FREE MOVEMENT DUE TO THE USE OF DRAFT GEARS, MAY BE AS HIGH AS
SIX OR SEVEN INCHES BETWEEN CARS.  THE LENGTH OF THE TRAIN INCREASES
THE SLACK SINCE THE SLACK ACTION OF A TRAIN IS THE TOTAL OF THE FREE
MOVEMENT BETWEEN ITS SEVERAL CARS.  THE AMOUNT OF SLACK ACTION HAS SOME
EFFECT ON THE SEVERITY OF THE SHOCK OF TRAIN MOVEMENTS, AND ON FREIGHT
TRAINS SOMETIMES RESULTS IN INJURIES TO OPERATIVES, WHICH MOST
FREQUENTLY OCCUR TO OCCUPANTS OF THE CABOOSE.  THE AMOUNT AND SEVERITY
OF SLACK ACTION, HOWEVER, ARE NOT WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON THE LENGTH OF
TRAIN, AS THEY MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE MODE AND CONDITIONS OF OPERATION
AS TO GRADES, SPEED, AND LOAD.  AND ACCIDENTS DUE TO SLACK ACTION ALSO
OCCUR IN THE OPERATION OF SHORT TRAINS.  ON COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF
SLACK ACTION ACCIDENTS IN ARIZONA WITH THOSE IN NEVADA, WHERE THE
LENGTH OF TRAINS IS NOW UNREGULATED, THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT WITH
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC IN EACH STATE THE NUMBER OF
ACCIDENTS WAS RELATIVELY THE SAME IN LONG AS IN SHORT TRAIN
OPERATIONS.  WHILE ACCIDENTS FROM SLACK ACTION DO OCCUR IN THE
OPERATION OF PASSENGER TRAINS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEY ARE MORE
FREQUENT OR THE RESULTING SHOCKS MORE SEVERE ON LONG THAN ON SHORT
PASSENGER TRAINS.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT SLACK ACTION ACCIDENTS
OCCURRING ON PASSENGER TRAINS, WHATEVER THEIR LENGTH, ARE OF SUFFICIENT
SEVERITY TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY OR DAMAGE. 

AS THE TRIAL COURT FOUND, REDUCTION OF THE LENGTH OF TRAINS ALSO
TENDS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN
THE NUMBER OF TRAINS.  THE APPLICATION OF THE ARIZONA LAW COMPELLED
APPELLANT TO OPERATE 30.08%, OR 4,304, MORE FREIGHT TRAINS IN 1938 THAN
WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN NECESSARY.  AND THE RECORD AMPLY SUPPORTS THE
TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE FREQUENCY OF ACCIDENTS IS CLOSELY
RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF TRAINS RUN.  THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS DUE TO
GRADE CROSSING COLLISIONS BETWEEN TRAINS AND MOTOR VEHICLES AND
PEDESTRIANS, AND TO COLLISIONS BETWEEN TRAINS, WHICH ARE USUALLY FAR
MORE SERIOUS THAN THOSE DUE TO SLACK ACTION, AND ACCIDENTS DUE TO
LOCOMOTIVE FAILURES, IN GENERAL VARY WITH THE NUMBER OF TRAINS.  FN6
INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TRAINS RESULTS IN MORE STARTS AND STOPS, MORE
"MEETS" AND "PASSES," AND MORE SWITCHING MOVEMENTS, ALL TENDING TO
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS NOT ONLY TO TRAIN OPERATIVES AND OTHER
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES, BUT TO PASSENGERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC EXPOSED
TO DANGER BY TRAIN OPERATIONS. 

RAILROAD STATISTICS INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD TEND TO SHOW THAT THIS
IS THE RESULT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ARIZONA TRAIN LIMIT LAW TO
APPELLANT, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO ALL RAILROAD CASUALTIES WITHIN THE
STATE AND THOSE AFFECTING ONLY TRAINMEN WHOM THE TRAIN LIMIT LAW IS
SUPPOSED TO PROTECT.  THE ACCIDENT RATE IN ARIZONA IS MUCH HIGHER THAN
ON COMPARABLE LINES ELSEWHERE, WHERE THERE IS NO REGULATION OF LENGTH
OF TRAINS.  THE RECORD LENDS SUPPORT TO THE TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION
THAT THE TRAIN LENGTH LIMITATION INCREASED RATHER THAN DIMINISHED THE
NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS.  THIS IS SHOWN BY COMPARISON OF APPELLANTHS
OPERATIONS IN ARIZONA WITH THOSE IN NEVADA, FN7  AND BY COMPARISON OF
OPERATIONS OF APPELLANT AND OF THE SANTA FE RAILROAD IN ARIZONA WITH
THOSE OF THE SAME ROADS IN NEW MEXICO,  FN8  AND BY LIKE COMPARISON
BETWEEN APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS IN ARIZONA AND OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY.  FN9    UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE WHOLE CASE THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND THAT "IF SHORT-TRAIN OPERATION MAY OR SHOULD RESULT IN ANY
DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OR SEVERITY OF THE 'SLACK' OR 'SLACK-SURGE' TYPE
OF ACCIDENTS OR CASUALTIES, SUCH DECREASE IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN
OFFSET BY THE INCREASED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS AND CASUALTIES FROM OTHER
CAUSES THAT FOLLOW THE ARBITRARY LIMITATION OF FREIGHT TRAINS TO 70
CARS  ...  AND PASSENGER TRAINS TO 14 CARS." 

WE THINK, AS THE TRIAL COURT FOUND, THAT THE ARIZONA TRAIN LIMIT LAW,
VIEWED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, AFFORDS AT MOST SLIGHT AND DUBIOUS
ADVANTAGE, IF ANY, OVER UNREGULATED TRAIN LENGTHS, BECAUSE IT RESULTS
IN AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TRAINS AND TRAIN OPERATIONS AND THE
CONSEQUENT INCREASE IN TRAIN ACCIDENTS OF A CHARACTER GENERALLY MORE
SEVERE THAN THOSE DUE TO SLACK ACTION.  ITS UNDOUBTED EFFECT ON THE
COMMERCE IS THE REGULATION, WITHOUT SECURING UNIFORMITY, OF THE LENGTH
OF TRAINS OPERATED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH LACK IS ITSELF A
PRIMARY CAUSE OF PREVENTING THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE BY DELAYING IT
AND BY SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASING ITS COST AND IMPAIRING ITS EFFICIENCY. 
IN THESE RESPECTS THE CASE DIFFERS FROM THOSE WHERE A STATE, BY
REGULATORY MEASURES AFFECTING THE COMMERCE, HAS REMOVED OR REDUCED
SAFETY HAZARDS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE INTERSTATE
MOVEMENT OF TRAINS.  SUCH ARE MEASURES ABOLISHING THE CAR STOVE, NEW
YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 165 U.S. 628; REQUIRING LOCOMOTIVES
TO BE SUPPLIED WITH ELECTRIC HEADLIGHTS, ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V.
GEORGIA, 234 U.S. 280; PROVIDING FOR FULL TRAIN CREWS, CHICAGO, R.I. &
P.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 219 U.S. 453; ST. LOUIS & I.M.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS,
240 U.S. 518; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORWOOD, 283 U.S. 249; AND FOR
THE EQUIPMENT OF FREIGHT TRAINS WITH CABOOSES, TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN.
V. BROTHERHOOD, SUPRA. 

THE PRINCIPLE THAT, WITHOUT CONTROLLING CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, A STATE
MAY NOT REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO AS SUBSTANTIALLY TO AFFECT ITS
FLOW OR DEPRIVE IT OF NEEDED UNIFORMITY IN ITS REGULATION IS NOT TO BE
AVOIDED BY "SIMPLY INVOKING THE CONVENIENT APOLOGETICS OF THE POLICE
POWER," KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KAW VALLEY DISTRICT, SUPRA, 79;
BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267 U.S. 307, 315.  IN THE KAW VALLEY CASE THE
COURT HELD THAT THE STATE WAS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ORDER A
RAILROAD TO REMOVE A RAILROAD BRIDGE OVER WHICH ITS INTERSTATE TRAINS
PASSED, AS A MEANS OF PREVENTING FLOODS IN THE DISTRICT AND OF
IMPROVING ITS DRAINAGE, BECAUSE IT WAS "NOT PRETENDED THAT LOCAL
WELFARE NEEDS THE REMOVAL OF THE DEFENDANTS' BRIDGES AT THE EXPENSE OF
THE DOMINANT REQUIREMENTS OF COMMERCE WITH OTHER STATES, BUT MERELY
THAT IT WOULD BE HELPED BY RAISING THEM."  AND IN SEABOARD AIR LINE R.
CO. V. BLACKWELL, 244 U.S. 310, IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTERFERENCE WITH
INTERSTATE RAIL TRANSPORTATION RESULTING FROM A STATE STATUTE REQUIRING
AS A SAFETY MEASURE THAT TRAINS COME ALMOST TO A STOP AT GRADE
CROSSINGS, OUTWEIGH THE LOCAL INTEREST IN SAFETY, WHEN IT APPEARED THAT
COMPLIANCE INCREASED THE SCHEDULED RUNNING TIME MORE THAN SIX HOURS IN
A DISTANCE OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THREE MILES.  CF. SOUTHERN R. CO.
V. KING, SUPRA, WHERE THE CROSSINGS WERE LESS NUMEROUS AND THE BURDEN
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE HEAVY; AND SEE ERB V.
MORASCH, 177 U.S. 584. 

SIMILARLY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS BEEN HELD TO INVALIDATE LOCAL
"POLICE POWER" ENACTMENTS FIXING THE NUMBER OF CARS IN AN INTERSTATE
TRAIN AND THE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS TO BE CARRIED IN EACH CAR, SOUTH
COVINGTON R. CO. V. COVINGTON, SUPRA, 547; REGULATING THE SEGREGATION
OF COLORED PASSENGERS IN INTERSTATE TRAINS, HALL V. DECUIR, SUPRA, 488
9; REQUIRING BURDENSOME INTRASTATE STOPS OF INTERSTATE TRAINS, ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 163 U.S. 142; CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L.R.
CO. V. ILLINOIS, 177 U.S. 514; MISSISSIPPI RAILROAD COMM'N V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 203 U.S. 335; HERNDON V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 218
U.S. 135; ST. LOUIS-S.F.R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 261 U.S. 369;
REQUIRING AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD TO DETOUR ITS THROUGH PASSENGER TRAINS
FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SMALL CITY, ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, SUPRA; INTERFERING WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY
REQUIRING INTERSTATE TRAINS TO LEAVE ON TIME, MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO.
V. TEXAS, 245 U.S. 484; REGULATING CAR DISTRIBUTION TO INTERSTATE
SHIPPERS, ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 217 U.S. 136; OR
ESTABLISHING VENUE PROVISIONS REQUIRING RAILROADS TO DEFEND ACCIDENT
SUITS AT POINTS DISTANT FROM THE PLACE OF INJURY AND THE RESIDENCE AND
ACTIVITIES OF THE PARTIES, DAVIS V. FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE CO., 262 U.S.
312; MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO. V. MIX, 278 U.S. 492; CF. DENVER &
R.G.W.R. CO. V. TERTE, 284 U.S. 284; SEE ALSO BUCK V. KUYKENDALL,
SUPRA; FOSTER-FOUNTAIN PACKING CO. V. HAYDEL, SUPRA; BALDWIN V. SEELIG,
SUPRA, 524; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, 184
5 N., AND CASES CITED. 

MORE RECENTLY IN KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 15, WE HAVE POINTED
OUT THAT WHEN A STATE GOES BEYOND SAFETY MEASURES WHICH ARE PERMISSIBLE
BECAUSE ONLY LOCAL IN THEIR EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
"ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE PARTICULAR STANDARDS AS TO STRUCTURE, DESIGN,
EQUIPMENT AND OPERATION (OF VESSELS PLYING INTERSTATE) WHICH IN THE
JUDGMENT OF ITS AUTHORITIES MAY BE DESIRABLE BUT PASS BEYOND WHAT IS
PLAINLY ESSENTIAL TO SAFETY AND SEAWORTHINESS, THE STATE WILL ENCOUNTER
THE PRINCIPLE THAT SUCH REQUIREMENTS, IF IMPOSED AT ALL, MUST BE
THROUGH THE ACTION OF CONGRESS WHICH CAN ESTABLISH A UNIFORM RULE. 
WHETHER THE STATE IN A PARTICULAR MATTER GOES TOO FAR MUST BE LEFT TO
BE DETERMINED WHEN THE PRECISE QUESTION ARISES." 

HERE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE STATE DOES GO TOO FAR.  ITS REGULATION OF
TRAIN LENGTHS, ADMITTEDLY OBSTRUCTIVE TO INTERSTATE TRAIN OPERATION,
AND HAVING A SERIOUSLY ADVERSE EFFECT ON TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY AND
ECONOMY, PASSES BEYOND WHAT IS PLAINLY ESSENTIAL FOR SAFETY SINCE IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT IT WILL LESSEN RATHER THAN INCREASE THE DANGER OF
ACCIDENT.  ITS ATTEMPTED REGULATION OF THE OPERATION OF INTERSTATE
TRAINS CANNOT ESTABLISH NATION-WIDE CONTROL SUCH AS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF AN EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, WHICH CONGRESS ALONE
CAN PRESCRIBE.  THE STATE INTEREST CANNOT BE PRESERVED AT THE EXPENSE
OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST BY AN ENACTMENT WHICH REGULATES INTERSTATE
TRAIN LENGTHS WITHOUT SECURING SUCH CONTROL, WHICH IS A MATTER OF
NATIONAL CONCERN.  TO THIS THE INTEREST OF THE STATE HERE ASSERTED IS
SUBORDINATE. 

APPELLEES ESPECIALLY RELY ON THE FULL TRAIN CREW CASES, CHICAGO, R.I.
& P.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, SUPRA; ST. LOUIS & I.M.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS,
SUPRA; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORWOOD, SUPRA, AND ALSO ON SOUTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, AS SUPPORTING THE
STATE'S AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE LENGTH OF INTERSTATE TRAINS.  WHILE
THE FULL TRAIN CREW LAWS UNDOUBTEDLY PLACED AN ADDED FINANCIAL BURDEN
ON THE RAILROADS IN ORDER TO SERVE A LOCAL INTEREST, THEY DID NOT
OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR SERIOUSLY IMPEDE IT.  THEY HAD NO
EFFECTS OUTSIDE THE STATE BEYOND THOSE OF PICKING UP AND SETTING DOWN
THE EXTRA EMPLOYEES AT THE STATE BOUNDARIES; THEY INVOLVED NO WASTED
USE OF FACILITIES OR SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY,
WHICH ARE AMONG THE FACTORS OF CONTROLLING WEIGHT HERE.  IN SUSTAINING
THOSE LAWS THE COURT CONSIDERED THE RESTRICTION A MINIMAL BURDEN ON THE
COMMERCE COMPARABLE TO THE LAW REQUIRING THE LICENSING OF ENGINEERS AS
A SAFEGUARD AGAINST THOSE OF RECKLESS AND INTEMPERATE HABITS, SUSTAINED
IN SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465, OR THOSE AFFLICTED WITH COLOR
BLINDNESS, UPHELD IN NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. ALABAMA, 128 U.S.
96, AND OTHER SIMILAR REGULATIONS.  NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. NEW
YORK, SUPRA; ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. GEORGIA, SUPRA; CF. COUNTY
OF MOBILE V. KIMBALL, 102 U.S. 691. 

SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, WAS CONCERNED
WITH THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE WEIGHT AND WIDTH OF MOTOR
CARS PASSING INTERSTATE OVER ITS HIGHWAYS, A LEGISLATIVE FIELD OVER
WHICH THE STATE HAS A FAR MORE EXTENSIVE CONTROL THAN OVER INTERSTATE
RAILROADS.  IN THAT CASE, AND IN MAURER V. HAMILTON, SUPRA, WE WERE AT
PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE FEW SUBJECTS OF STATE REGULATION
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH ARE SO PECULIARLY OF LOCAL CONCERN
AS IS THE USE OF THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS.  UNLIKE THE RAILROADS LOCAL
HIGHWAYS ARE BUILT, OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE STATE OR ITS MUNICIPAL
SUBDIVISIONS.  THE STATE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SAFE AND ECONOMICAL
ADMINISTRATION.  REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF THEIR USE MUST BE
APPLIED ALIKE TO INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE TRAFFIC.  THE FACT THAT THEY
AFFECT ALIKE SHIPPERS IN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE IN GREAT
NUMBERS, WITHIN AS WELL AS WITHOUT THE STATE, IS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST
REGULATORY ABUSES.  THEIR REGULATION IS AKIN TO QUARANTINE MEASURES,
GAME LAWS, AND LIKE LOCAL REGULATIONS OF RIVERS, HARBORS, PIERS, AND
DOCKS, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE STATE HAS EXCEPTIONAL SCOPE FOR THE
EXERCISE OF ITS REGULATORY POWER, AND WHICH, CONGRESS NOT ACTING, HAVE
BEEN SUSTAINED EVEN THOUGH THEY MATERIALLY INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE
COMMERCE (303 U.S. AT 187-188 AND CASES CITED). 

THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PRESENT REGULATION AND THE FULL TRAIN CREW
LAWS IN POINT OF THEIR EFFECTS ON THE COMMERCE, AND THE LIKE CONTRAST
WITH THE HIGHWAY SAFETY REGULATIONS, IN POINT OF THE NATURE OF THE
SUBJECT OF REGULATION AND THE STATE'S INTEREST IN IT, ILLUSTRATE AND
EMPHASIZE THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ENTER INTO A DETERMINATION OF THE
RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS WHERE STATE REGULATION
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ATTEMPTED.  HERE EXAMINATION OF ALL
THE RELEVANT FACTORS MAKES IT PLAIN THAT THE STATE INTEREST IS
OUTWEIGHED BY THE INTEREST OF THE NATION IN AN ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL AND
EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, WHICH MUST PREVAIL. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE SENATE REPORT NO. 416, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 81 CONG. REC.
7596; AND HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., S. 69, TRAIN LENGTHS. 

FN2  IN APPLYING THIS RULE THE COURT HAS OFTEN RECOGNIZED THAT TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE BURDEN OF STATE REGULATION FALLS ON INTERESTS OUTSIDE
THE STATE, IT IS UNLIKELY TO BE ALLEVIATED BY THE OPERATION OF THOSE
POLITICAL RESTRAINTS NORMALLY EXERTED WHEN INTERESTS WITHIN THE STATE
ARE AFFECTED.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, SUPRA, 315; GILMAN V.
PHILADELPHIA, 3 WALL.  713, 731; ESCANABA CO. V. CHICAGO, 107 U.S. 678,
683; ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DIST., 120 U.S. 489, 499; LAKE
SHORE & M.S.R. CO. V. OHIO, 173 U.S. 285, 294; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY
DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS. SUPRA, 185, N.; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE
CO., 309 U.S. 33, 46, N.; CF. MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316,
428; POUND V. TURCK, 95 U.S. 459, 464; GLOUCESTER FERRY CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 114 U.S. 196, 205; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405,
412. 

FN3  ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR BILLS LIMITING TRAIN LENGTHS HAVE BEEN
INTRODUCED IN STATE LEGISLATURES SINCE 1920, OF WHICH ONLY THREE WERE
PASSED, IN NEVADA, LOUISIANA AND OKLAHOMA.  THE NEVADA AND LOUISIANA
LAWS WERE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND NEVER ENFORCED.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO. V. MASHBURN, 18 F.SUPP.  393; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. MARTIN (NO. 428
- EQUITY, E.D. OF LA. 1936), UNREPORTED.  THE ARIZONA LAW, PASSED IN
1912, WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. LA
PRADE, 2 F.SUPP.  855, REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 289 U.S. 444. 

FN4  HAD THESE BILLS BEEN PASSED A FREIGHT TRAIN RUNNING OVER
ESTABLISHED ROUTES (FROM VIRGINIA TO MICHIGAN FOR EXAMPLE) WOULD
NORMALLY PROCEED THROUGH STATES WITH A SEVENTY-FIVE CAR MAXIMUM
(VIRGINIA), A ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE CAR MAXIMUM (WEST VIRGINIA),
A THREE THOUSAND FOOT MAXIMUM (OHIO), AND A SEVENTY CAR LIMIT
(MICHIGAN).  A TRAIN FROM ARKANSAS TO WISCONSIN MIGHT BE SUBJECTED TO A
FIFTY CAR MAXIMUM (ARKANSAS), ONE-HALF MILE (MISSISSIPPI), THREE
THOUSAND FEET (IOWA), ONE AND A HALF MILES (MINNESOTA), AND THIRTY
THREE HUNDRED FEET (WISCONSIN).  A TRAIN RUNNING FROM NEBRASKA TO
CALIFORNIA MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO A SIXTY, SEVENTY-FIVE OR EIGHTY-FIVE
MAXIMUM IN NEBRASKA, TO A LIMIT FIXED BY COMMISSION IN KANSAS, TO A
SIXTY-FIVE CAR LIMIT IN COLORADO, TO A SEVENTY-FIVE CAR LIMIT IN NEW
MEXICO, TO A SEVENTY CAR LIMIT IN ARIZONA, AND TO A SEVENTY-FOUR CAR
LIMIT IN CALIFORNIA.  A PASSENGER TRAIN MIGHT BE LIMITED TO FOURTEEN
CARS IN NEW JERSEY, TEN IN PENNSYLVANIA AND EIGHTEEN IN WEST VIRGINIA. 

FN5  IN OKLAHOMA THREE LINES RUNNING FROM CHICAGO OR KANSAS CITY WEST
PASS THROUGH OKLAHOMA FOR DISTANCES OF SIXTY, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN
AND ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-THREE MILES.  SINCE NO OTHER STATE THROUGH
WHICH THE TRAFFIC PASSES (EXCEPT ARIZONA) RESTRICTS TRAIN LENGTHS IN
ANY WAY, THE EFFECT OF THE OKLAHOMA LAW IS TO REQUIRE THROUGH TRAINS TO
BE BROKEN UP FOR THE SHORT DISTANCES THEY PASS THROUGH THAT STATE. 

FN6  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN 1939 THE NUMBER OF SLACK ACCIDENT
CASUALTIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 399, WAS ONLY 6% OF THE NUMBER OF
TRAIN AND TRAIN SERVICE CASUALTIES TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES, 6,713.  IN
THAT YEAR THREE OF THE 399 SLACK ACCIDENT CASUALTIES WERE FATAL,
WHEREAS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF GRADE CROSSING CASUALTIES PER YEAR FROM
1935 TO 1939 WAS 5,718.  AND IN 1939, 1,398 PERSONS WERE KILLED AND
3,999 WERE INJURED IN HIGHWAY, GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENTS.  I.C.C.,
BUREAU OF STATISTICS, ACCIDENT BULLETIN, NO. 108, PP. 22-23.    FN7
WITH PASSENGER TRAFFIC IN NEVADA 78% AS HEAVY AS IN ARIZONA, FROM 1923
TO 1938 TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINE CASUALTIES WERE CAUSED TO PERSONS
BY PASSENGER TRAINS IN ARIZONA AND ONE HUNDRED AND NINE IN NEVADA. 
BETWEEN 1923 AND 1939 FIVE PERSONS IN NEVADA AND FOURTEEN IN ARIZONA
WERE INJURED BY SUDDEN STOPS OR JERKS ON PASSENGER TRAINS. 

FN8  CASUALTIES TO EMPLOYEES, OCCURRING IN FREIGHT TRAIN OPERATIONS
IN NEW MEXICO, HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY LESS IN BOTH NUMBER AND
FREQUENCY THAN IN ARIZONA.  FROM 1930 TO 1940 THERE WERE ONE HUNDRED
AND TWENTY-NINE CASUALTIES TO ALL CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES IN NEW MEXICO AT
THE RATE OF 7.97 PER MILLION TRAIN MILES, 12.84 PER HUNDRED MILLION CAR
MILES.  IN ARIZONA THERE WERE TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY-ONE CASUALTIES TO
EMPLOYEES, AT THE RATE OF 10.03 PER MILLION TRAIN MILES, AND 18.10 PER
HUNDRED MILLION CAR MILES. 

FN9  ON A NATIONAL BASIS THE FINDINGS SHOW THAT WHILE THE NATIONAL
ACCIDENT RATE PER HUNDRED MILLION CAR MILES FOR ALL RAILROAD EMPLOYEES
AND FOR TRAINMEN DECREASED 70% TO 66% RESPECTIVELY BETWEEN 1923-1928
AND 1935-1940, THE RATE FOR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC IN ARIZONA DECLINED
52.3% AND 53.3%.  APPELLANT'S RATE IN NEVADA DECREASED 71.1% AND
69.1%. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

IN HENNINGTON V. GEORGIA, 163 U.S. 299, 304, A CASE WHICH INVOLVED
THE POWER OF A STATE TO REGULATE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC, THIS COURT SAID,
"THE WHOLE THEORY OF OUR GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL AND STATE, IS HOSTILE TO
THE IDEA THAT QUESTIONS OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY MAY DEPEND  ...  UPON
OPINIONS OF JUDGES AS TO THE WISDOM OR WANT OF WISDOM IN THE ENACTMENT
OF LAWS UNDER POWERS CLEARLY CONFERRED UPON THE LEGISLATURE."  WHAT THE
COURT DECIDES TODAY IS THAT IT IS UNWISE GOVERNMENTAL POLICY TO
REGULATE THE LENGTH OF TRAINS.  I AM THEREFORE CONSTRAINED TO NOTE MY
DISSENT. 

FOR MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY, RAILROADS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES
HAVE ENGAGED IN CONTROVERSIES OVER THE RELATIVE VIRTUES AND DANGERS OF
LONG TRAINS.  RAILROADS HAVE ARGUED THAT THEY COULD CARRY GODDS AND
PASSENGERS CHEAPER IN LONG TRAINS THAN IN SHORT TRAINS.  THEY HAVE ALSO
ARGUED THAT WHILE THE DANGER OF PERSONAL INJURY TO THEIR EMPLOYEES
MIGHT IN SOME RESPECTS BE GREATER ON ACCOUNT OF THE OPERATION OF LONG
TRAINS, THIS DANGER WAS MORE THAN OFFSET BY AN INCREASED NUMBER OF
ACCIDENTS FROM OTHER CAUSES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE OPERATION OF A MUCH
LARGER NUMBER OF SHORT TRAINS.  THESE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN, AND ARE NOW,
VIGOROUSLY DENIED.  WHILE THERE ARE OTHERS, THE CHIEF CAUSES ASSIGNED
FOR THE BELIEF THAT LONG TRAINS UNNECESSARILY JEOPARDIZE THE LIVES AND
LIMBS OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES RELATE TO "SLACK ACTION."  CARS COUPLED
TOGETHER RETAIN A CERTAIN FREE PLAY OF MOVEMENT, RANGING BETWEEN 1 1/2
INCHES AND 1 FOOT, AND THIS IS CALLED "SLACK ACTION."  TRAIN BRAKES DO
NOT ORDINARILY APPLY OR RELEASE SIMULTANEOUSLY ON ALL CARS.  THIS
FREQUENTLY RESULTS IN A SEVERE SHOCK OR JAR TO CARS, PARTICULARLY THOSE
IN THE REAR OF A TRAIN.  IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE POSITION OF THE
EMPLOYEES THAT THE DANGERS FROM "SLACK ACTION" CORRESPOND TO AND ARE
PROPORTIONATE WITH THE LENGTH OF THE TRAIN.  THE ARGUMENT THAT "SLACK
MOVEMENTS" ARE MORE DANGEROUS IN LONG TRAINS THAN IN SHORT TRAINS SEEMS
NEVER TO HAVE BEEN DENIED.  THE RAILROADS HAVE ANSWERED IT BY WHAT IS
IN EFFECT A PLEA OF CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE.  THEY SAY THAT THE ADDED
COST OF RUNNING SHORT TRAINS PLACES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THEIR SECOND ANSWER IS THAT THE OPERATION OF
SHORT TRAINS REQUIRES THE USE OF MORE SEPARATE TRAIN UNITS; THAT A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS RESULTING IN INJURY ARE INHERENT IN THE
OPERATION OF EACH UNIT, INJURIES WHICH MAY BE INFLICTED EITHER ON
EMPLOYEES OR ON THE PUBLIC; CONSEQUENTLY, THEY HAVE ASSERTED THAT IT IS
NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF LONG TRAINS. 

IN 1912, THE YEAR ARIZONA BECAME A STATE, ITS LEGISLATURE ADOPTED AND
REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE SEVERAL SAFETY MEASURES CONCERNING THE OPERATION
OF RAILROADS.  ONE OF THESE REQUIRED RAILROADS TO INSTALL ELECTRIC
HEADLIGHTS, A POWER WHICH THE STATE HAD UNDER THIS COURT'S OPINION IN
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. GEORGIA, 234 U.S. 280.  ANOTHER ARIZONA
SAFETY STATUTE SUBMITTED AT THE SAME TIME REQUIRED CERTAIN TESTS AND
SERVICE BEFORE A PERSON COULD ACT AS AN ENGINEER OR TRAIN CONDUCTOR,
AND THEREBY EXERCISED A STATE POWER SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH THIS COURT
UPHELD IN NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. ALABAMA, 128 U.S. 96.  THE
THIRD SAFETY STATUTE WHICH THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE SUBMITTED TO THE
ELECTORATE, AND WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY IT, IS THE TRAIN LIMITATION
STATUTE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.  BY ITS ENACTMENT THE LEGISLATURE AND
THE PEOPLE ADOPTED THE VIEWPOINT THAT LONG TRAINS WERE MORE DANGEROUS
THAN SHORT TRAINS, AND LIMITED THE OPERATION OF TRAIN UNITS TO 14 CARS
FOR PASSENGER AND 70 CARS FOR FREIGHT.  THIS SAME QUESTION WAS
CONSIDERED IN OTHER STATES, AND SOME OF THEM, OVER THE VIGOROUS
PROTESTS OF RAILROADS, ADOPTED LAWS SIMILAR TO THE ARIZONA STATUTE. 
FN1 

THIS CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE RAILROADS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES, WHICH WAS
NATION-WIDE, WAS CARRIED TO CONGRESS.  EXTENSIVE HEARINGS TOOK PLACE. 
THE EMPLOYEES' POSITION WAS URGED BY MEMBERS OF THE VARIOUS
BROTHERHOODS.  THE RAILROADS' VIEWPOINT WAS PRESENTED THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR NATIONAL ASSOCIATION.  IN 1937, THE SENATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE AFTER ITS OWN EXHAUSTIVE HEARINGS
UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED THAT TRAINS BE LIMITED TO 70 CARS AS A SAFETY
MEASURE.  FN2  THE COMMITTEE IN ITS REPORT REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE AND
SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO THE LARGE AND INCREASING NUMBER OF INJURIES
AND DEATHS SUFFERED BY RAILROAD EMPLOYEES; IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
ADMITTED DANGER FROM SLACK MOVEMENT WAS GREATLY INTENSIFIED BY THE
OPERATION OF LONG TRAINS; THAT SHORT TRAINS REDUCE THIS DANGER; THAT
THE ADDED COST OF SHORT TRAINS TO THE RAILROAD WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
JEOPARDIZING THE SAFETY OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES; AND THAT THE LEGISLATION
WOULD PROVIDE A GREATER DEGREE OF SAFETY FOR PERSONS AND PROPERTY,
INCREASE PROTECTION FOR RAILWAY EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC, AND IMPROVE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR SHIPPERS AND CONSUMERS.  THE SENATE PASSED
THE BILL  FN3  BUT THE HOUSE COMMITTEE FAILED TO REPORT IT OUT. 

DURING THE HEARINGS ON THAT MEASURE, FREQUENT REFERENCES WERE MADE TO
THE ARIZONA STATUTE.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT, HOWEVER, THAT AMERICAN
RAILROADS NEVER ONCE ASKED CONGRESS TO EXERCISE ITS UNQUESTIONED POWER
TO ENACT UNIFORM LEGISLATION ON THAT SUBJECT, AND THEREBY INVALIDATE
THE ARIZONA LAW.  THAT WHICH FOR SOME UNEXPLAINED REASON THEY DID NOT
ASK CONGRESS TO DO WHEN IT HAD THE VERY SUBJECT OF TRAIN LENGTH
LIMITATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEY SHORTLY THEREAFTER ASKED AN
ARIZONA STATE COURT TO DO. 

IN THE STATE COURT A RATHER EXTRAORDINARY "TRIAL" TOOK PLACE. 
CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE LAW, THE RAILROAD ADMITTED THE CHARGE.  IT
ALLEGED THAT THE LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, HOWEVER, AND SOUGHT A TRIAL
OF FACTS ON THAT ISSUE.  THE ESSENCE OF ITS CHARGE OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY RESTED ON ONE OF THESE TWO GROUNDS:  (1) THE
LEGISLATURE AND PEOPLE OF ARIZONA ERRED IN 1912 IN DETERMINING THAT THE
RUNNING OF LONG TRAINS WAS DANGEROUS; OR (2) RAILROAD CONDITIONS HAD SO
IMPROVED SINCE 1912 THAT PREVIOUS DANGERS DID NOT EXIST TO THE SAME
EXTENT, AND THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD BE STRICKEN DOWN EITHER BECAUSE IT
CAST AN UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY REASON OF THE ADDED
COST, OR BECAUSE THE CHANGED CONDITIONS HAD RENDERED THE ACT "ARBITRARY
AND UNREASONABLE."  THUS, THE ISSUE WHICH THE COURT "TRIED" WAS NOT
WHETHER THE RAILROAD WAS GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE LAW, BUT WHETHER THE
LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL EITHER BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAD BEEN GUILTY
OF MISJUDGING THE FACTS CONCERNING THE DEGREE OF THE DANGER OF LONG
TRAINS, OR BECAUSE THE 1912 CONDITIONS OF DANGER NO LONGER EXISTED. 

BEFORE THE STATE TRIAL COURT FINALLY DETERMINED THAT THE DANGERS
FOUND BY THE LEGISLATURE IN 1912 NO LONGER EXISTED, IT HEARD EVIDENCE
OVER A PERIOD OF 5 1/2 MONTHS WHICH APPEARS IN ABOUT 3,000 PAGES OF THE
PRINTED RECORD BEFORE US.  IT THEN ADOPTED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED
TO IT BY THE RAILROAD, WHICH COVER 148 PRINTED PAGES, AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW WHICH COVER 5 PAGES.  WE CAN BEST UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THIS
"TRIAL" BY ANALOGIZING THE SAME PROCEDURE TO A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH
VIOLATING A STATE OR NATIONAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, WHERE THE DEFENDANT
COMES INTO COURT AND ADMITS VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  IN SUCH CASES, THE
ORDINARY PROCEDURE WOULD BE FOR THE COURT TO PASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT, AND EITHER DISCHARGE OR CONVICT THE
DEFENDANTS.  THE PROCEDURE HERE, HOWEVER, WOULD JUSTIFY QUITE A
DIFFERENT TRIAL METHOD.  UNDER IT, A DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED TO OFFER
VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT A LEGISLATIVE BODY HAS ERRONEOUSLY
RESOLVED DISPUTED FACTS IN FINDING A DANGER GREAT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE
PASSAGE OF THE LAW.  THIS NEW PATTERN OF TRIAL PROCEDURE MAKES IT
NECESSARY FOR A JUDGE TO HEAR ALL THE EVIDENCE OFFERED AS TO WHY A
LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW AND TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF THOSE REASONS.  IF UNDER TODAY'S RULING A COURT DOES MAKE
FINDINGS, AS TO A DANGER CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE,
AND THE EVIDENCE HEARD "LENDS SUPPORT" TO THOSE FINDINGS, A COURT CAN
THEN INVALIDATE THE LAW.  IN THIS RESPECT, THE ARIZONA COUNTY COURT
ACTED AND THIS COURT TODAY IS ACTING, AS A "SUPER-LEGISLATURE."  FN4 

EVEN IF THIS METHOD OF INVALIDATING LEGISLATIVE ACTS IS A CORRECT
ONE, I STILL THINK THAT THE "FINDINGS" OF THE STATE COURT DO NOT
AUTHORIZE TODAY'S DECISION.  THAT COURT DID NOT FIND THAT THERE IS NO
UNUSUAL DANGER FROM SLACK MOVEMENTS IN LONG TRAINS.  IT DID DECIDE ON
DISPUTED EVIDENCE THAT THE LONG TRAIN "SLACK MOVEMENT" DANGERS WERE
MORE THAN OFFSET BY PROSPECTIVE DANGERS AS A RESULT OF RUNNING A LARGER
NUMBER OF SHORT TRAINS, SINCE MANY PEOPLE MIGHT BE HURT AT GRADE
CROSSINGS.  THERE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY SOME EVIDENCE BEFORE THE STATE COURT
FROM WHICH IT COULD HAVE REACHED SUCH A CONCLUSION.  THERE WAS
UNDOUBTEDLY AS MUCH EVIDENCE BEFORE IT WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. 

UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER IT IS IN THE
INTEREST OF SOCIETY FOR THE LENGTH OF TRAINS TO BE GOVERNMENTALLY
REGULATED IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY.  SOMEONE MUST FIX THAT POLICY -
EITHER THE CONGRESS, OR THE STATE, OR THE COURTS.  A CENTURY AND A HALF
OF CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT ADMONISHES THIS COURT TO LEAVE
THAT CHOICE TO THE ELECTED LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE
THEMSELVES, WHERE IT PROPERLY BELONGS BOTH ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND
THE REQUIREMENTS OF EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT. 

I THINK THAT LEGISLATURES, TO THE EXCLUSION OF COURTS, HAVE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ENACT LAWS LIMITING TRAIN LENGTHS, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REDUCING INJURIES BROUGHT ABOUT BY "SLACK MOVEMENTS."  THEIR
POWER IS NOT LESS BECAUSE A REQUIREMENT OF SHORT TRAINS MIGHT INCREASE
GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENTS.  THIS LATTER FACT RAISES AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT ELEMENT OF DANGER WHICH IS ITSELF SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE
REGULATION.  FOR LEGISLATURES MAY, IF NECESSARY, REQUIRE RAILROADS TO
TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD OF INJURIES AT GRADE
CROSSINGS.  DENVER & R.G.R. CO. V. DENVER, 250 U.S. 241.  AND THE FACT
THAT GRADE-CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE EXPENSIVE IS NO SUFFICIENT
REASON TO SAY THAT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL "BURDEN" IS PUT UPON A RAILROAD
EVEN THOUGH IT BE AN INTERSTATE ROAD.  ERIE R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSIONERS, 254 U.S. 394, 408-411. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA DID NOT DISCUSS THE COUNTY COURT'S SO
CALLED FINDINGS OF FACT.  IT PROPERLY DESIGNATED THE ARIZONA STATUTE AS
A SAFETY MEASURE, AND FINDING THAT IT BORE A REASONABLE RELATION TO ITS
PURPOSE DECLINED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE AS TO THE
NECESSITY FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT.  IN SO DOING IT WAS WELL
FORTIFIED BY A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  TODAY'S DECISION
MARKS AN ABRUPT DEPARTURE FROM THAT LINE OF CASES. 

THERE HAVE BEEN MANY SHARP DIVISIONS OF THIS COURT CONCERNING ITS
AUTHORITY, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, TO INVALIDATE
STATE LAWS AS VIOLATING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SEE E.G., ADAMS
MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V.
HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434; MCCARROLL V. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES, 309 U.S.
176.  THAT DISCUSSION NEED NOT BE RENEWED HERE, BECAUSE EVEN THE
BROADEST EXPONENTS OF JUDICIAL POWER IN THIS FIELD HAVE NOT HERETOFORE
EXPRESSED DOUBT AS TO A STATE'S POWER, ABSENT A PARAMOUNT CONGRESSIONAL
DECLARATION, TO REGULATE INTERSTATE TRAINS IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY. 
FOR AS EARLY AS 1913, THIS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE HUGHES,
LATER CHIEF JUSTICE, REFERRED TO "THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS, THE STATES ARE NOT DENIED THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR POWER TO SECURE SAFETY IN THE PHYSICAL OPERATION OF
RAILROAD TRAINS WITHIN THEIR TERRITORY, EVEN THOUGH SUCH TRAINS ARE
USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THAT HAS BEEN THE LAW SINCE THE BEGINNING
OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION."  ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. GEORGIA,
234 U.S. 280, 291.  UNTIL TODAY, THE OFT-REPEATED PRINCIPLES OF THAT
CASE HAVE NEVER BEEN REPUDIATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 

BUT, IT IS SAID TODAY, THE PRINCIPLE THERE ANNOUNCED DOES NOT APPLY
BECAUSE IF ONE STATE APPLIES A REGULATION OF ITS OWN TO INTERSTATE
TRAINS, "UNIFORMITY" IN REGULATION OR RATHER NON-REGULATION, IS
DESTROYED.  JUSTICE HUGHES SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN THE ATLANTIC COAST
LINE CASE MADE SHORT SHRIFT OF THAT SAME ARGUMENT.  HE THERE REFERRED
TO THE CONTENTION THAT "IF STATE REQUIREMENTS CONFLICT, IT WILL BE
NECESSARY TO CARRY ADDITIONAL APPARATUS AND TO MAKE VARIOUS ADJUSTMENTS
AT STATE LINES WHICH WOULD DELAY AND INCONVENIENCE INTERSTATE
TRAFFIC."  IN ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT HE REITERATED A FORMER
DECLARATION OF THIS COURT IN NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 165
U.S. 628, ON THIS SUBJECT, AND ADDED THAT "IF THERE IS A CONFLICT IN
SUCH LOCAL REGULATIONS, BY WHICH INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE
INCONVENIENCED - IF THERE APPEARS TO BE NEED OF STANDARDIZATION OF
SAFETY APPLIANCES AND OF PROVIDING RULES OF OPERATION WHICH WILL GOVERN
THE ENTIRE INTERSTATE ROAD IRRESPECTIVE OF STATE BOUNDARIES - THERE IS
A SIMPLE REMEDY; AND IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT IT WILL NOT BE READILY
APPLIED IF THERE BE REAL OCCASION FOR IT.  THAT REMEDY DOES NOT REST IN
A DENIAL TO THE STATE, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICTING FEDERAL ACTION, OF
ITS POWER TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BORDERS, BUT IT DOES
LIE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS IN ITS
CONTROL OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO ESTABLISH SUCH REGULATIONS AS IN ITS
JUDGMENT MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE AND SUFFICIENT.  CONGRESS, WHEN IT
PLEASES, MAY GIVE THE RULE AND MAKE THE STANDARD TO BE OBSERVED ON THE
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY."  P. 292. 

THAT SAME STATEMENT HAS IN SUBSTANCE BEEN MADE IN MANY OTHER
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, A NUMBER OF WHICH ARE CITED IN THE ATLANTIC
COAST LINE CASE, AND ALL OF THEM ARE TODAY SWEPT INTO THE DISCARD.  IN
NO ONE OF ALL THESE PREVIOUS CASES WAS IT MORE APPROPRIATE THAN HERE TO
CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT CONGRESS COULD WHEN IT PLEASED
ESTABLISH A UNIFORM RULE AS TO THE LENGTH OF TRAINS.  CONGRESS KNEW
ABOUT THE ARIZONA LAW.  IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE KEEP IN CLOSE AND
INTIMATE TOUCH WITH THE AFFAIRS OF RAILROADS AND OTHER NATIONAL MEANS
OF TRANSPORTATION.  EVERY YEAR BRINGS FORTH NEW LEGISLATION WHICH GOES
THROUGH THOSE COMMITTEES, MUCH OF IT RELATING TO SAFETY.  THE ATTENTION
OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OF THE SENATE HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE
PARTICULAR PROBLEM OF THE LENGTH OF RAILROAD TRAINS.  WE CANNOT ASSUME
THAT THEY WERE IGNORANT OF THE COMMONLY KNOWN FACT THAT A LONG TRAIN
MIGHT BE MORE DANGEROUS IN SOME TERRITORIES AND ON SOME PARTICULAR
TYPES OF RAILROAD.  THE HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THIS
PROBLEM LEAVES LITTLE IF ANY ROOM TO DOUBT THAT THE CHOICE OF CONGRESS
TO LEAVE THE STATE FREE IN THIS FIELD WAS A DELIBERATE CHOICE, WHICH
WAS TAKEN WITH A FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE PROBLEMS AND
THE PROBABLE NEED FOR DIVERSE REGULATIONS IN DIFFERENT LOCALITIES.  I
AM THEREFORE COMPELLED TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT TODAY'S DECISION IS
THE RESULT OF THE BELIEF OF A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT THAT BOTH THE
LEGISLATURE OF ARIZONA AND THE CONGRESS MADE WRONG POLICY DECISIONS IN
PERMITTING A LAW TO STAND WHICH LIMITS THE LENGTH OF RAILROAD TRAINS. 
I SHOULD AT LEAST GIVE THE ARIZONA STATUTE THE BENEFIT OF THE SAME RULE
WHICH THIS COURT SAID SHOULD BE APPLIED IN CONNECTION WITH STATE
LEGISLATION UNDER ATTACK FOR VIOLATING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THAT
IS, THAT LEGISLATIVE BODIES HAVE "A WIDE RANGE OF LEGISLATIVE
DISCRETION,  ...  AND THEIR CONCLUSIONS RESPECTING THE WISDOM OF THEIR
LEGISLATIVE ACTS ARE NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURTS."  ARIZONA EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, 250 U.S. 400, 419. 

WHEN WE FINALLY GET DOWN TO THE GIST OF WHAT THE COURT TODAY ACTUALLY
DECIDES, IT IS THIS:  EVEN THOUGH MORE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WILL BE
INJURED BY "SLACK ACTION" MOVEMENTS ON LONG TRAINS THAN ON SHORT
TRAINS, THERE MUST BE NO REGULATION OF THIS DANGER IN THE ABSENCE OF
"UNIFORM REGULATIONS."  THAT MEANS THAT NO ONE CAN LEGISLATE AGAINST
THIS DANGER EXCEPT THE CONGRESS; AND EVEN THOUGH THE CONGRESS IS
PERFECTLY CONTENT TO LEAVE THE MATTER TO THE DIFFERENT STATE
LEGISLATURES, THIS COURT, ON THE GROUND OF "LACK OF UNIFORMITY," WILL
REQUIRE IT TO MAKE AN EXPRESS AVOWAL OF THAT FACT BEFORE IT WILL PERMIT
A STATE TO GUARD AGAINST THAT ADMITTED DANGER. 

WE ARE NOT LEFT IN DOUBT AS TO WHY, AS AGAINST THE POTENTIAL PERIL OF
INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES, THE COURT TIPS THE SCALES ON THE SIDE OF
"UNIFORMITY."  FOR THE EVIL IT FINDS IN A LACK OF UNIFORMITY IS THAT IT
(1) DELAYS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, (2) INCREASES ITS COST AND (3) IMPAIRS
ITS EFFICIENCY.  ALL THREE OF THESE BOIL DOWN TO THE SAME THING, AND
THAT IS THAT RUNNING SHORTER TRAINS WOULD INCREASE THE COST OF RAILROAD
OPERATIONS.  THE "BURDEN" ON COMMERCE REDUCES ITSELF TO MERE COST
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FINDING, AND NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING,
THAT BY THE EXPENDITURE OF SUFFICIENT SUMS OF MONEY, THE RAILROADS
COULD NOT ENABLE THEMSELVES TO CARRY GOODS AND PASSENGERS JUST AS
QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY WITH SHORT TRAINS AS WITH LONG TRAINS.  THUS
THE CONCLUSION THAT A REQUIREMENT FOR LONG TRAINS WILL "BURDEN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" IS A MERE EUPHEMISM FOR THE STATEMENT THAT A
REQUIREMENT FOR LONG TRAINS WILL INCREASE THE COST OF RAILROAD
OPERATIONS. 

IN THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE, SUPRA, ATTENTION WAS CALLED TO
THE FACT THAT IN 1935, 6,351 RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WERE INJURED WHILE ON
DUTY, WITH A RESULTING LOSS OF MORE THAN 200,000 WORKING DAYS, AND THAT
INJURIES TO TRAINMEN AND ENGINEMEN INCREASED MORE THAN 29% IN 1936. 
FN5 NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT'S ACTION IN REQUIRING THAT MONEY COSTS
OUTWEIGH HUMAN VALUES IS SOUGHT TO BE BUTTRESSED BY A REFERENCE TO THE
EXPRESS POLICY OF CONGRESS TO PROMOTE AN "ECONOMICAL NATIONAL RAILROAD
SYSTEM."  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT IF CONGRESS HAD DEFINED WHAT IT MEANT
BY "ECONOMICAL," IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED MONEY TO BE SAVED AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE PERSONAL SAFETY OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.  ITS WHOLE HISTORY
FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS BELIES SUCH AN INTERPRETATION OF ITS LANGUAGE. 
JUDICIAL OPINIONS RATHER THAN LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS HAVE TENDED TO
EMPHASIZE COSTS.  SEE TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., SUPRA, 58
60.  A DIFFERENT CONGRESSIONAL ATTITUDE HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE PASSAGE
OF NUMEROUS SAFETY APPLIANCE PROVISIONS, A FEDERAL EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION ACT, ABOLITION OF THE JUDICIALLY CREATED DOCTRINE OF
ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, AND VARIOUS OTHER TYPES
OF LEGISLATION.  UNFORTUNATELY, THE RECORD SHOWS, AS POINTED OUT IN THE
TILLER CASE, THAT THE COURTS HAVE BY NARROW AND RESTRICTED
INTERPRETATION TOO FREQUENTLY REDUCED THE FULL SCOPE OF PROTECTION
WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO PROVIDE. 

THIS RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY LEAVES ME WITH NO DOUBT WHATEVER THAT
MANY EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY INJURED AND KILLED IN THE PAST, AND
THAT MANY MORE ARE LIKELY TO BE SO IN THE FUTURE, BECAUSE OF "SLACK
MOVEMENT" IN TRAINS.  EVERYDAY KNOWLEDGE AS WELL AS DIRECT EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AT THE VARIOUS HEARINGS, SUBSTANTIATES THE REPORT OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE THAT THE DANGER FROM SLACK MOVEMENT IS GREATER IN LONG
TRAINS THAN IN SHORT TRAINS.  IT MAY BE THAT OFFSETTING DANGERS ARE
POSSIBLE IN THE OPERATION OF SHORT TRAINS.  THE BALANCING OF THESE
PROBABILITIES, HOWEVER, IS NOT IN MY JUDGMENT A MATTER FOR JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION, BUT ONE WHICH CALLS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. 
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE TO MAKE THEIR LAWS, RATHER THAN
JUDGES APPOINTED TO INTERPRET THOSE LAWS, CAN BEST DETERMINE THE
POLICIES WHICH GOVERN THE PEOPLE.  THAT AT LEAST IS THE BASIC PRINCIPLE
ON WHICH OUR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY RESTS.  I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA. 

FN1  A RESUME OF THESE LAWS AND THEIR RECEPTION BY THE COURTS IS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA IN THIS CASE, 61
ARIZ. 66, 145 P.2D 530. 

FN2  SENATE REPORT NO. 416, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN3  81 CONG. REC. 7596.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW ANY DISSENTING
VOTES CAST AGAINST THE BILL.  THE DEBATE ON THE MEASURE APPEARS AT PP.
7564-7595. 

FN4  THE COURT TODAY INVALIDATES THE ARIZONA LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE IDENTICAL "SUPER-LEGISLATURE" METHOD (SO DESIGNATED BY JUSTICES
BRANDEIS AND HOLMES) USED BY THE MAJORITY TO INVALIDATE A NEBRASKA
STATUTE REGULATING THE WEIGHTS OF LOAVES OF BREAD.  BURNS BAKING CO. V.
BRYAN, 264 U.S. 504, 534.  FOR HERE, AS THERE, THIS COURT HAS OVERRULED
A STATE LEGISLATURE'S FINDING THAT AN EVIL EXISTED, AND THAT THE STATE
LAW WOULD NOT IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL "BURDEN" UPON THOSE
REGULATED.  THE DISSENT IN THE BURNS CASE SAID: 

"TO DECIDE, AS A FACT, THAT THE PROHIBITION OF EXCESS WEIGHTS 'IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PURCHASERS AGAINST IMPOSITION AND
FRAUD BY SHORT WEIGHTS'; THAT IT 'IS NOT CALCULATED TO EFFECTUATE THAT
PURPOSE'; AND THAT IT 'SUBJECTS BAKERS AND SELLERS OF BREAD' TO HEAVY
BURDENS, IS, IN MY OPINION, AN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF A SUPER
LEGISLATURE - NOT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW." 

THAT DECISION RESTED ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WHILE TODAY'S DECISION
RESTS ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BUT THAT DIFFERENCE DOES NOT MAKE
INAPPLICABLE HERE THE PRINCIPLES INVOKED BY THE DISSENTERS IN THE BURNS
CASE. 

THE USE OF THE "SUPER-LEGISLATURE" TECHNIQUE HAS BEEN REPEATED TO
STRIKE DOWN OTHER STATUTES.  SEE E.G., CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V.
WISCONSIN, 238 U.S. 491, 499; WEAVER V. PALMER BROS. CO., 270 U.S. 402,
DISSENT AT 415.  SEE ALSO DISSENTS IN SCHLESINGER V. WISCONSIN, 270
U.S. 230, 241, 242; NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262, 284
285.  FOR A CASE IN WHICH THIS COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW THAT "ECONOMICS
OR THE FACTS" BEHIND A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT, SEE CENTRAL LUMBER CO. V.
SOUTH DAKOTA, 226 U.S. 157, 161; CF. STANDARD OIL CO. V. MARYSVILLE,
279 U.S. 582, 586.  SEE ALSO POWELL V. PENNSYLVANIA, 127 U.S. 678, 686;
DISSENTING OPINION, POLK CO. V. GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5, 10-19. 

FN5  THESE FIGURES APPEAR TO BE CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN THOSE LATER
REPORTED.  SEE TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, 59,
NOTE 4. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I HAVE EXPRESSED MY DOUBTS WHETHER THE COURTS SHOULD INTERVENE IN
SITUATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT AND STRIKE DOWN STATE LEGISLATION ON THE
GROUNDS THAT IT BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MCCARROLL V. DIXIE
GREYHOUND LINES, 309 U.S. 176, 183-189.  MY VIEW HAS BEEN THAT THE
COURTS SHOULD INTERVENE ONLY WHERE THE STATE LEGISLATION DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR WAS OUT OF HARMONY WITH LAWS WHICH
CONGRESS HAD ENACTED.  P. 184.  IT SEEMS TO ME PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE
THAT THAT COURSE BE FOLLOWED HERE.  FOR CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BROAD POWERS OF REGULATION OVER
INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  THE COMMISSION IS THE NATIONAL AGENCY WHICH HAS
BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE TASK OF PROMOTING A SAFE, ADEQUATE, EFFICIENT,
AND ECONOMICAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  IT IS THE EXPERT ON THIS
SUBJECT.  IT IS IN A POSITION TO POLICE THE FIELD.  AND IF ITS POWERS
PROVE INADEQUATE FOR THE TASK, CONGRESS, WHICH HAS PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY
IN THIS FIELD, CAN IMPLEMENT THEM. 

BUT THE COURT HAS NOT TAKEN THAT VIEW.  AS A RESULT THE QUESTION
PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE TOTAL EFFECT OF ARIZONA'S TRAIN-LIMIT AS A
SAFETY MEASURE IS SO SLIGHT AS NOT TO OUTWEIGH THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN
KEEPING INTERSTATE COMMERCE FREE FROM INTERFERENCES WHICH SERIOUSLY
IMPEDE OR BURDEN IT.  THE VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN THE
OPINION OF THE COURT AND IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
BLACK.  IF I SAT AS A MEMBER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OR
OF A LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO DECIDE WHETHER ARIZONA'S TRAIN-LIMIT LAW
SHOULD BE SUPERSEDED BY A FEDERAL REGULATION, THE QUESTION WOULD NOT BE
FREE FROM DOUBT FOR ME.  IF WE HAD BEFORE US THE RULING OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (IN THE MATTER OF SERVICE ORDER NO. 85,
256 I.C.C. 523, 534) THAT ARIZONA'S TRAIN-LIMIT LAW INFRINGES "THE
NATIONAL INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE UNDER THE
PRESENT EMERGENCY WAR CONDITIONS," I WOULD ACCEPT ITS EXPERT APPRAISAL
OF THE FACTS, ASSUMING IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT.  BUT THAT ORDER IS
NOT BEFORE US. AND THE PRESENT CASE DEALS WITH A PERIOD OF TIME WHICH
ANTEDATES THE WAR EMERGENCY.  MOREOVER, WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH STATE
LEGISLATION IN THE FIELD OF SAFETY WHERE THE PROPRIETY OF LOCAL
REGULATION HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED.  SEE ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V.
GEORGIA, 234 U.S. 280, 291, AND CASES COLLECTED IN CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113-114.  WHETHER THE QUESTION ARISES UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, I THINK THE LEGISLATION IS
ENTITLED TO A PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY.  IF A STATE PASSED A LAW
PROHIBITING THE HAULING OF MORE THAN ONE FREIGHT CAR AT A TIME, WE
WOULD HAVE A SITUATION COMPARABLE IN EFFECT TO A STATE LAW REQUIRING
ALL RAILROADS WITHIN ITS BORDERS TO OPERATE ON NARROW GAUGE TRACKS. 
THE QUESTION IS ONE OF DEGREE AND CALLS FOR A CLOSE APPRAISAL OF THE
FACTS.  FN1  I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE
RAILROADS OVERCOMES THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY TO WHICH THIS TRAIN
LIMIT LAW IS ENTITLED.  FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK,
ARIZONA'S TRAIN-LIMIT LAW SHOULD STAND AS AN ALLOWABLE REGULATION
ENACTED TO PROTECT THE LIVES AND LIMBS OF THE MEN WHO OPERATE THE
TRAINS. 

FN1  SEE BIKLE, JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS OF FACT AFFECTING
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION, 38 HARV. L. REV. 6. 

..END :















ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. UNION, 325 U.S. 797 


NO. 702.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 9, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - 145 F.2D
215, REVERSED. 


1.  IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT FOR LABOR UNIONS
AND THEIR MEMBERS, THOUGH FURTHERING THEIR OWN INTERESTS AS WAGE
EARNERS, TO COMBINE WITH EMPLOYERS AND WITH MANUFACTURERS OF GOODS TO
RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN, AND TO MONOPOLIZE THE MARKETING OF, SUCH GOODS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PP. 798, 810. 

2.  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND BY THE CLAYTON ACT OR THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT THAT LABOR UNIONS COULD, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE SHERMAN
ACT, AID NON-LABOR GROUPS TO CREATE BUSINESS MONOPOLIES AND TO CONTROL
THE MARKETING OF GOODS AND SERVICES.  P. 808. 

3.  IN SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE SHERMAN ACT
IS NOT TO BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO FORBID THE "EXISTENCE AND OPERATION OF
LABOR, AGRICULTURAL, OR HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS INSTITUTED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MUTUAL HELP," "THE PURPOSE OF MUTUAL HELP" CAN NOT BE DEEMED
TO EXTEND TO ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF "EMPLOYER HELP" IN
CONTROLLING MARKETS AND PRICES.  P. 808. 

4.  WHETHER PARTICULAR LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT
MAY DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE UNION ACTS ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH
BUSINESS GROUPS.  P. 810. 

5. IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN THE ANTITRUST LEGISLATION TO
OUTLAW BUSINESS MONOPOLIES; AND A BUSINESS MONOPOLY IS NO LESS SUCH
BECAUSE A UNION PARTICIPATES.  P. 811. 

6.  THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE UNION AND ITS AGENTS IN THIS CASE MUST
BE LIMITED SO AS TO ENJOIN ONLY THOSE PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE
ENGAGED IN IN COMBINATION WITH A NON-LABOR GROUP.  P. 812. 

ALLEN BRADLEY CO. ET AL. V. LOCAL UNION NO. 3, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 707, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, 51 F.SUPP.  36, IN A CIVIL SUIT TO ENJOIN
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND ORDERED DISMISSAL OF THE
SUIT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ANTI-TRUST ACT  FN1  FOR LABOR UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS, PROMPTED BY A
DESIRE TO GET AND HOLD JOBS FOR THEMSELVES AT GOOD WAGES AND UNDER HIGH
WORKING STANDARDS, TO COMBINE WITH EMPLOYERS AND WITH MANUFACTURERS OF
GOODS TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN, AND TO MONOPOLIZE THE MARKETING OF,
SUCH GOODS. 

UPON THE COMPLAINT OF PETITIONERS AND AFTER A LENGTHY HEARING THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT SUCH A COMBINATION DID VIOLATE THE SHERMAN
ACT, ENTERED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THAT EFFECT, AND ENTERED AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING RESPONDENTS FROM ENGAGING IN A WIDE RANGE OF
SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES.  41 F.SUPP.  727, 51 F.SUPP.  36.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DECISION AND DISMISSED THE CAUSE, HOLDING
THAT COMBINATIONS OF UNIONS AND BUSINESS MEN WHICH RESTRAINED TRADE AND
TENDED TO MONOPOLY WERE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT WHERE THE BONA FIDE
PURPOSE OF THE UNIONS WAS TO RAISE WAGES, PROVIDE BETTER WORKING
CONDITIONS, AND BRING ABOUT BETTER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THEIR
MEMBERS.  145 F.2D 215.  THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVING
REACHED A CONTRARY CONCLUSION IN A SIMILAR CASE, 144 F.2D 546, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH CASES. 

THE FACTS WERE SUFFICIENTLY SET OUT IN THE OPINIONS BELOW AND NEED
NOT BE DETAILED AGAIN.  THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY WILL SUFFICE FOR OUR
PURPOSES. 

PETITIONERS ARE MANUFACTURERS OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.  THEIR PLACES
OF MANUFACTURE ARE OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK CITY, AND MOST OF THEM ARE
OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK STATE AS WELL.  THEY HAVE BROUGHT THIS ACTION
BECAUSE OF THEIR DESIRE TO SELL THEIR PRODUCTS IN NEW YORK CITY, A
MARKET AREA THAT HAS BEEN CLOSED TO THEM THROUGH THE ACTIVITIES OF
RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS. 

RESPONDENTS ARE A LABOR UNION, ITS OFFICIALS AND ITS MEMBERS.  THE
UNION, LOCAL NO. 3 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, HAS JURISDICTION ONLY OVER THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF NEW YORK
CITY.  IT IS THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE UNION TO ENTER INTO A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH PETITIONERS.  SOME OF PETITIONERS
DO HAVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER UNIONS, AND IN SOME
CASES EVEN WITH OTHER LOCALS OF THE I.B.E.W. 

SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT UNION WORK FOR MANUFACTURERS WHO
PRODUCE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SIMILAR TO THAT MADE BY PETITIONERS; OTHER
MEMBERS OF RESPONDENT UNION ARE EMPLOYED BY CONTRACTORS AND WORK ON THE
INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, RATHER THAN IN ITS PRODUCTION. 

THE UNION'S CONSISTENT AIM FOR MANY YEARS HAS BEEN TO EXPAND ITS
MEMBERSHIP, TO OBTAIN SHORTER HOURS AND INCREASED WAGES, AND TO ENLARGE
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITS MEMBERS.  TO ACHIEVE THIS LATTER GOAL
THAT IS, TO MAKE MORE WORK FOR ITS OWN MEMBERS - THE UNION REALIZED
THAT LOCAL MANUFACTURERS, EMPLOYERS OF THE LOCAL MEMBERS, MUST HAVE THE
WIDEST POSSIBLE OUTLETS FOR THEIR PRODUCT.  THE UNION THEREFORE WAGED
AGGRESSIVE CAMPAIGNS TO OBTAIN CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS WITH ALL LOCAL
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS AND CONTRACTORS.  USING CONVENTIONAL
LABOR UNION METHODS, SUCH AS STRIKES AND BOYCOTTS, IT GRADUALLY
OBTAINED MORE AND MORE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS IN THE NEW YORK CITY
AREA.  UNDER THESE AGREEMENTS, CONTRACTORS WERE OBLIGATED TO PURCHASE
EQUIPMENT FROM NONE BUT LOCAL MANUFACTURERS WHO ALSO HAD CLOSED-SHOP
AGREEMENTS WITH LOCAL NO. 3; MANUFACTURERS OBLIGATED THEMSELVES TO
CONFINE THEIR NEW YORK CITY SALES TO CONTRACTORS EMPLOYING THE LOCAL'S
MEMBERS.  IN THE COURSE OF TIME, THIS TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT EXPANDED INTO INDUSTRY-WIDE UNDERSTANDINGS, LOOKING
NOT MERELY TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BUT ALSO TO PRICE AND
MARKET CONTROL.  AGENCIES WERE SET UP COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
ALL THREE GROUPS TO BOYCOTT RECALCITRANT LOCAL CONTRACTORS AND
MANUFACTURERS AND TO BAR FROM THE AREA EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE
ITS BOUNDARIES.  THE COMBINATION AMONG THE THREE GROUPS, UNION,
CONTRACTORS, AND MANUFACTURERS, BECAME HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF ALL OF THEM.  THE BUSINESS OF NEW YORK CITY MANUFACTURERS
HAD A PHENOMENAL GROWTH, THEREBY MULTIPLYING THE JOBS AVAILABLE FOR THE
LOCAL'S MEMBERS.  WAGES WENT UP, HOURS WERE SHORTENED, AND THE NEW YORK
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PRICES SOARED, TO THE DECIDED FINANCIAL PROFIT OF
LOCAL CONTRACTORS AND MANUFACTURERS.  THE SUCCESS IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE
FACT THAT SOME NEW YORK MANUFACTURERS SOLD THEIR GOODS IN THE PROTECTED
CITY MARKET AT ONE PRICE AND SOLD IDENTICAL GOODS OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK
AT A FAR LOWER PRICE.  ALL OF THIS TOOK PLACE, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DECLARED, "THROUGH THE STIFLING OF COMPETITION," AND BECAUSE
THE THREE GROUPS, IN COMBINATION AS "CO-PARTNERS," ACHIEVED "A COMPLETE
MONOPOLY WHICH THEY USED TO BOYCOTT THE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURED BY THE
PLAINTIFFS."  INTERSTATE SALE OF VARIOUS TYPES OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
HAS, BY THIS POWERFUL COMBINATION, BEEN WHOLLY SUPPRESSED. 

QUITE OBVIOUSLY, THIS COMBINATION OF BUSINESS MEN HAS VIOLATED BOTH
SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,  FN2  UNLESS ITS CONDUCT IS IMMUNIZED
BY THE PARTICIPATION OF THE UNION.  FOR IT INTENDED TO AND DID RESTRAIN
TRADE IN AND MONOPOLIZE THE SUPPLY OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IN THE NEW
YORK CITY AREA TO THE EXCLUSION OF EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURED IN AND
SHIPPED FROM OTHER STATES, AND DID ALSO CONTROL ITS PRICE AND
DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN ITS WOULD-BE CUSTOMERS.  APEX HOSIERY CO. V.
LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 512-513.  OUR PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS THEREFORE A
VERY NARROW ONE - DO LABOR UNIONS VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT WHEN, IN
ORDER TO FURTHER THEIR OWN INTERESTS AS WAGE EARNERS, THEY AID AND ABET
BUSINESS MEN TO DO THE PRECISE THINGS WHICH THAT ACT PROHIBITS? 

THE SHERMAN ACT AS ORIGINALLY PASSED CONTAINED NO LANGUAGE EXPRESSLY
EXEMPTING ANY LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES.  SHARP CONTROVERSY SOON AROSE AS
TO WHETHER THE ACT APPLIED TO UNIONS.  ONE VIEWPOINT WAS THAT THE ONLY
EVIL AT WHICH CONGRESS HAD AIMED WAS HIGH CONSUMER PRICES ACHIEVED
THROUGH COMBINATIONS LOOKING TO CONTROL OF MARKETS BY POWERFUL GROUPS;
THAT THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE A GREAT INCENTIVE FOR SUCH COMBINATIONS WOULD
BE THE BUSINESS MEN WHO WOULD BE THE DIRECT BENEFICIARIES OF THEM;
THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT PROCEEDED, CONGRESS DRAFTED ITS LAW TO APPLY
ONLY TO BUSINESS COMBINATIONS, PARTICULARLY THE LARGE TRUSTS, AND NOT
TO LABOR UNIONS OR ANY OF THEIR ACTIVITIES AS SUCH.  INVOLVED IN THIS
VIEWPOINT WERE THE FOLLOWING CONTENTIONS:  THAT THE SHERMAN ACT IS A
LAW TO REGULATE TRADE, NOT LABOR, A LAW TO PRESCRIBE THE RULES
GOVERNING BARTER AND SALE, AND NOT THE PERSONAL RELATIONS OF EMPLOYERS
AND EMPLOYEES; THAT GOOD WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS HELPED AND DID
NOT HINDER TRADE, EVEN THOUGH INCREASED LABOR COSTS MIGHT BE REFLECTED
IN THE COST OF PRODUCTS; THAT LABOR WAS NOT A COMMODITY; THAT LABORERS
HAD AN INHERENT RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT AT THEIR OWN
WILL, EITHER SEPARATELY OR IN CONCERT; THAT TO ENFORCE THEIR CLAIMS FOR
BETTER WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, THEY HAD A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO BUY
GOODS FROM THEIR EMPLOYER OR ANYBODY ELSE; THAT WHAT THEY COULD DO TO
AID THEIR CAUSE, THEY HAD A RIGHT TO PERSUADE OTHERS TO DO; AND THAT
THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS DESIGNED TO REGULATE TRADING WERE UNSUITABLE TO
REGULATE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND CONTROVERSIES.  THE CLAIM WAS
THAT THE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION SUPPORTED THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT. 
FN3 

THE CONTRARY VIEWPOINT WAS THAT THE ACT COVERED ALL CLASSES OF PEOPLE
AND ALL TYPES OF COMBINATIONS, INCLUDING UNIONS, IF THEIR ACTIVITIES
EVEN PHYSICALLY INTERRUPTED THE FREE FLOW OF TRADE OR TENDED TO CREATE
BUSINESS MONOPOLIES, AND THAT A COMBINATION OF LABORERS TO OBTAIN A
RAISE IN WAGES WAS ITSELF A PROHIBITED MONOPOLY.  FEDERAL COURTS
ADOPTED THE LATTER VIEW AND SOON APPLIED THE LAW TO UNIONS IN A NUMBER
OF CASES.  FN4  INJUNCTIONS WERE USED TO ENFORCE THE ACT AGAINST
UNIONS.  AT THE SAME TIME, EMPLOYERS INVOKED INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN
LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES EVEN WHERE NO VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT WAS
CHARGED. 

VIGOROUS PROTESTS AROSE FROM EMPLOYEE GROUPS.  THE UNIONS URGED
CONGRESSIONAL RELIEF FROM WHAT THEY CONSIDERED TO BE TWO SEPARATE, BUT
PARTIALLY OVERLAPPING EVILS - APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO UNIONS,
AND ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTIONS AGAINST STRIKES, BOYCOTTS AND OTHER LABOR
UNION WEAPONS.  NUMEROUS BILLS TO CURB INJUNCTIONS WERE OFFERED.  OTHER
PROPOSED LEGISLATION WAS INTENDED TO TAKE LABOR UNIONS WHOLLY OUTSIDE
ANY POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  ALL OF THIS IS A PART OF
THE WELL KNOWN HISTORY OF THE ERA BETWEEN 1890 AND 1914.  FN5 

TO AMEND, SUPPLEMENT AND STRENGTHEN THE SHERMAN ACT AGAINST
MONOPOLISTIC BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINTS OF
THE UNIONS AGAINST INJUNCTIONS AND APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO THEM,
CONGRESS IN 1914 PASSED THE CLAYTON ACT.  FN6  ELIMINATION OF THOSE
"TRADE PRACTICES" WHICH INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED COMPETITION WAS ITS FIRST
OBJECTIVE N7.  EACH SECTION OF THE MEASURE PROHIBITING SUCH TRADE
PRACTICES CONTAINED LANGUAGE PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE TO COMMERCIAL
TRANSACTIONS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES, BUT THERE IS
NO RECORD INDICATION IN ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID OR DONE IN ITS PASSAGE
WHICH INDICATES THAT THOSE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS COULD ESCAPE ITS OR THE
SHERMAN ACT'S PROHIBITIONS BY OBTAINING THE HELP OF LABOR UNIONS OR
OTHERS.  THAT THIS BILL WAS INTENDED TO MAKE IT ALL THE MORE CERTAIN
THAT COMPETITION SHOULD BE THE RULE IN ALL COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS IS
CLEAR FROM ITS LANGUAGE AND HISTORY. 

IN ITS TREATMENT OF LABOR UNIONS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES THE CLAYTON ACT
POINTED IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION.  CONGRESS IN THAT ACT RESPONDED TO
THE PROLONGED COMPLAINTS  FN8  CONCERNING APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN
LAW TO LABOR GROUPS BY ADOPTING SEC. 6; FN9  FOR THIS PURPOSE, AND ALSO
DRASTICALLY TO RESTRICT THE GENERAL POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS TO ISSUE
LABOR INJUNCTIONS, SEC. 20  FN10  WAS ADOPTED.  SECTION 6 DECLARED THAT
LABOR WAS NEITHER A COMMODITY NOR AN ARTICLE OF COMMERCE, AND THAT THE
SHERMAN ACT SHOULD NOT BE "CONSTRUED TO FORBID THE EXISTENCE AND
OPERATION OF LABOR, AGRICULTURAL, OR HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS,
INSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF MUTUAL HELP  ..."  SECTION 20 LIMITED
THE POWER OF COURTS TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN A CASE "INVOLVING OR
GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE OVER TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
..."  IT DECLARED THAT NO RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION SHOULD
PROHIBIT CERTAIN SPECIFIED ACTS, AND FURTHER DECLARED THAT NO ONE OF
THESE SPECIFIED ACTS SHOULD BE "HELD TO BE VIOLATIONS OF ANY LAW OF THE
UNITED STATES."  THIS ACT WAS BROADLY PROCLAIMED BY MANY AS LABOR'S
"MAGNA CARTA," WHOLLY EXEMPTING LABOR FROM ANY POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN
THE ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION; OTHERS, HOWEVER, STRONGLY DENIED THIS. 

THIS COURT LATER DECLINED TO INTERPRET THE CLAYTON ACT AS MANIFESTING
A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE WHOLLY TO EXEMPT LABOR UNIONS FROM THE SHERMAN
ACT.  DUPLEX CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V.
JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS' ASSN., 274 U.S. 37.  IN THOSE CASES LABOR
UNIONS HAD ENGAGED IN A SECONDARY BOYCOTT; THEY HAD BOYCOTTED DEALERS,
BY WHOM THE UNION MEMBERS WERE NOT EMPLOYED, BECAUSE THOSE DEALERS
INSISTED ON SELLING GOODS PRODUCED BY THE EMPLOYERS WITH WHOM THE
UNIONS HAD AN EXISTING CONTROVERSY OVER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE CLAYTON ACT EXEMPTED LABOR UNION
ACTIVITIES ONLY INSOFAR AS THOSE ACTIVITIES WERE DIRECTED AGAINST THE
EMPLOYEES' IMMEDIATE EMPLOYERS AND THAT CONTROVERSIES OVER THE SALE OF
GOODS BY OTHER DEALERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE "LABOR DISPUTES" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CLAYTON ACT. 

AGAIN THE UNIONS WENT TO CONGRESS.  THEY PROTESTED AGAINST THIS
COURT'S INTERPRETATION, REPEATING THE ARGUMENTS THEY HAD MADE AGAINST
APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO THEM.  CONGRESS ADOPTED THEIR
VIEWPOINT, AT LEAST IN LARGE PART, AND IN ORDER TO ESCAPE THE EFFECT OF
THE DUPLEX AND BEDFORD DECISIONS,  FN11  PASSED THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT, 47 STAT. 70.  THAT ACT GREATLY BROADENED THE MEANING THIS COURT
HAD ATTRIBUTED TO THE WORDS "LABOR DISPUTE," FURTHER RESTRICTED THE USE
OF INJUNCTIONS IN SUCH A DISPUTE, AND EMPHASIZED THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
UNDER MODERN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES
TO ORGANIZE INTO UNIONS AND TO ENGAGE IN "CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID AND PROTECTION." 
THIS CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE FOUND FURTHER EXPRESSION IN THE WAGNER ACT,
49 STAT. 449. 

WE SAID IN APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, SUPRA, 488, THAT LABOR UNIONS
ARE STILL SUBJECT TO THE SHERMAN ACT TO "SOME EXTENT NOT DEFINED."  THE
OPINION IN THAT CASE, HOWEVER, WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT THE SHERMAN ACT
"WAS ENACTED IN THE ERA OF 'TRUSTS' AND OF 'COMBINATIONS' OF BUSINESSES
AND OF CAPITAL ORGANIZED AND DIRECTED TO CONTROL OF THE MARKET BY
SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF GOODS AND SERVICES, THE
MONOPOLISTIC TENDENCY OF WHICH HAD BECOME A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN";
THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM MONOPOLY PRICES, AND NOT
TO SERVE AS A COMPREHENSIVE CODE TO REGULATE AND POLICE ALL KINDS AND
TYPES OF INTERRUPTIONS AND OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FLOW OF TRADE.  THIS WAS
A RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAD ACCEPTED THE ARGUMENTS MADE
CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 1890 BY GROUPS OPPOSING APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT TO UNIONS.  IT WAS AN INTERPRETATION COMMANDED BY A FAIR
CONSIDERATION OF THE FULL HISTORY OF ANTI-TRUST AND LABOR LEGISLATION. 
UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, DECLARED THAT THE SHERMAN,
CLAYTON AND NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACTS MUST BE JOINTLY CONSIDERED IN
ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES RUN
COUNTER TO THE ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION.  CONDUCT WHICH THEY PERMIT IS
NOT TO BE DECLARED A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.  THAT DECISION HELD THAT
THE DOCTRINE OF THE DUPLEX AND BEDFORD CASES WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY SET OUT IN THE THREE "INTERLACING STATUTES." 

THE RESULT OF ALL THIS IS THAT WE HAVE TWO DECLARED CONGRESSIONAL
POLICIES WHICH IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO RECONCILE.  THE ONE
SEEKS TO PRESERVE A COMPETITIVE BUSINESS ECONOMY; THE OTHER TO PRESERVE
THE RIGHTS OF LABOR TO ORGANIZE TO BETTER ITS CONDITIONS THROUGH THE
AGENCY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  WE MUST DETERMINE HERE HOW FAR
CONGRESS INTENDED ACTIVITIES UNDER ONE OF THESE POLICIES TO NEUTRALIZE
THE RESULTS ENVISIONED BY THE OTHER. 

ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THE LABOR UNION HERE ACTED IN COMBINATION
WITH THE CONTRACTORS AND MANUFACTURERS, THE MEANS IT ADOPTED TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMBINATION'S PURPOSE FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE
"SPECIFIED ACTS" DECLARED BY SEC. 20 NOT TO BE VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL
LAW.  FN12  FOR THE UNION'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE TRADE BOYCOTT WAS
ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THREATS THAT UNLESS THEIR EMPLOYERS BOUGHT THEIR
GOODS FROM LOCAL MANUFACTURERS THE UNION LABORERS WOULD TERMINATE THE
"RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT" WITH THEM AND CEASE TO PERFORM "WORK OR LABOR"
FOR THEM; AND THROUGH THEIR "RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING
OTHERS BY PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS" NOT TO "PATRONIZE" SELLERS OF THE
BOYCOTTED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.  CONSEQUENTLY, UNDER OUR HOLDINGS IN
THE HUTCHESON CASE AND OTHER CASES WHICH FOLLOWED IT,  FN13  HAD THERE
BEEN NO UNION-CONTRACTOR-MANUFACTURER COMBINATION THE UNION'S ACTIONS
HERE, COMING AS THEY DID WITHIN THE EXEMPTIONS OF THE CLAYTON AND
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACTS, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  WE PASS TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER UNIONS CAN WITH IMPUNITY AID
AND ABET BUSINESS MEN WHO ARE VIOLATING THE ACT. 

ON TWO OCCASIONS THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SHERMAN ACT WAS
VIOLATED BY A COMBINATION OF LABOR UNIONS AND BUSINESS MEN TO RESTRAIN
TRADE.  FN14  IN NEITHER OF THEM WAS THE COURT'S ATTENTION SHARPLY
CALLED TO THE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS HERE PRESENTED.  FURTHERMORE, BOTH WERE
DECIDED BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT AND PRIOR TO OUR
HOLDING IN THE HUTCHESON CASE.  IT IS CORRECTLY ARGUED BY RESPONDENTS
THAT THESE FACTORS GREATLY DETRACT FROM THE WEIGHT WHICH THE TWO CASES
MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE IN THE INSTANT CASE.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
HUTCHESON, SUPRA, 236.  WITHOUT REGARD TO THESE CASES, HOWEVER, WE
THINK CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED THAT UNIONS COULD, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
SHERMAN ACT, AID NON-LABOR GROUPS TO CREATE BUSINESS MONOPOLIES AND TO
CONTROL THE MARKETING OF GOODS AND SERVICES. 

BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO FORBID THE "EXISTENCE AND OPERATION OF LABOR,
AGRICULTURAL, OR HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS, INSTITUTED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF MUTUAL HELP  ..."  BUT "THE PURPOSE OF MUTUAL HELP" CAN
HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO COVER ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF "EMPLOYERHELP"
IN CONTROLLING MARKETS AND PRICES.  AND IN AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION WHERE
AN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION JOINED WITH OTHER GROUPS TO CONTROL THE
AGRICULTURAL MARKET, WE SAID: 

"THE RIGHT OF THESE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS THUS TO UNITE IN PREPARING
FOR MARKET AND IN MARKETING THEIR PRODUCTS, AND TO MAKE THE CONTRACTS
WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THAT COLLABORATION, CANNOT BE DEEMED TO
AUTHORIZE ANY COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY WITH OTHER PERSONS IN RESTRAINT
OF TRADE THAT THESE PRODUCERS MAY SEE FIT TO DEVISE."  UNITED STATES V.
BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 204-205. 

WE HAVE BEEN POINTED TO NO LANGUAGE IN ANY ACT OF CONGRESS OR IN ITS
REPORTS OR DEBATES, NOR HAVE WE FOUND ANY, WHICH INDICATES THAT IT WAS
EVER SUGGESTED, CONSIDERED, OR LEGISLATIVELY DETERMINED THAT LABOR
UNIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED AN IMMUNITY SUCH AS IS SOUGHT IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THIS IMMUNITY CAN BE INFERRED FROM A
UNION'S RIGHT TO MAKE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WITH ITS EMPLOYER.  SINCE
UNION MEMBERS CAN WITHOUT VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT STRIKE TO ENFORCE A
UNION BOYCOTT OF GOODS, IT IS SAID THEY MAY SETTLE THE STRIKE BY
GETTING THEIR EMPLOYERS TO AGREE TO REFUSE TO BUY THE GOODS.  EMPLOYERS
AND THE UNION DID HERE MAKE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS IN WHICH THE
EMPLOYERS AGREED NOT TO BUY GOODS MANUFACTURED BY COMPANIES WHICH DID
NOT EMPLOY THE MEMBERS OF LOCAL NO. 3.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT SUCH AN
AGREEMENT STANDING ALONE WOULD NOT HAVE VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT.  BUT
IT DID NOT STAND ALONE.  IT WAS BUT ONE ELEMENT IN A FAR LARGER PROGRAM
IN WHICH CONTRACTORS AND MANUFACTURERS UNITED WITH ONE ANOTHER TO
MONOPOLIZE ALL THE BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY, TO BAR ALL OTHER BUSINESS
MEN FROM THAT AREA, AND TO CHARGE THE PUBLIC PRICES ABOVE A COMPETITIVE
LEVEL.  IT IS TRUE THAT VICTORY OF THE UNION IN ITS DISPUTES, EVEN HAD
THE UNION ACTED ALONE, MIGHT HAVE ADDED TO THE COST OF GOODS, OR MIGHT
HAVE RESULTED IN INDIVIDUAL REFUSALS OF ALL OF THEIR EMPLOYERS TO BUY
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT NOT MADE BY LOCAL NO. 3.  SO FAR AS THE UNION
MIGHT HAVE ACHIEVED THIS RESULT ACTING ALONE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE
NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES EXEMPTED BY THE CLAYTON
ACT FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER,
SUPRA, 503.  BUT WHEN THE UNIONS PARTICIPATED WITH A COMBINATION OF
BUSINESS MEN WHO HAD COMPLETE POWER TO ELIMINATE ALL COMPETITION AMONG
THEMSELVES AND TO PREVENT ALL COMPETITION FROM OTHERS, A SITUATION WAS
CREATED NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE EXEMPTIONS OF THE CLAYTON AND NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACTS. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE EXEMPTIONS GRANTED THE UNIONS WERE
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO A GENERAL LEGISLATIVE PLAN.  THE PRIMARY
OBJECTIVE OF ALL THE ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION HAS BEEN TO PRESERVE
BUSINESS COMPETITION AND TO PROSCRIBE BUSINESS MONOPOLY.  IT WOULD BE A
SURPRISING THING IF CONGRESS, IN ORDER TO PREVENT A MISAPPLICATION OF
THAT LEGISLATION TO LABOR UNIONS, HAD BESTOWED UPON SUCH UNIONS
COMPLETE AND UNREVIEWABLE AUTHORITY TO AID BUSINESS GROUPS TO FRUSTRATE
ITS PRIMARY OBJECTIVE.  FOR IF BUSINESS GROUPS, BY COMBINING WITH LABOR
UNIONS, CAN FIX PRICES AND DIVIDE UP MARKETS, IT WAS LITTLE MORE THAN A
FUTILE GESTURE FOR CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT PRICE FIXING BY BUSINESS GROUPS
THEMSELVES.  SELDOM, IF EVER, HAS IT BEEN CLAIMED BEFORE, THAT BY
PERMITTING LABOR UNIONS TO CARRY ON THEIR OWN ACTIVITIES, CONGRESS
INTENDED COMPLETELY TO ABDICATE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO EMPOWER INTERESTED BUSINESS GROUPS TO SHIFT
OUR SOCIETY FROM A COMPETITIVE TO A MONOPOLISTIC ECONOMY.  FINDING NO
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO IMMUNIZE LABOR UNIONS WHO AID AND ABET
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS IN VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT, WE HOLD THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD
VIOLATED THE ACT. 

OUR HOLDING MEANS THAT THE SAME LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES MAY OR MAY NOT
BE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER THE UNION
ACTS ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH BUSINESS GROUPS.  THIS, IT IS ARGUED,
BRINGS ABOUT A WHOLLY UNDESIRABLE RESULT - ONE WHICH LEAVES LABOR
UNIONS FREE TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT WHICH RESTRAINS TRADE.  BUT THE
DESIRABILITY OF SUCH AN EXEMPTION OF LABOR UNIONS IS A QUESTION FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF CONGRESS.  APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, SUPRA.  IT IS
TRUE THAT MANY LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES DO SUBSTANTIALLY INTERRUPT THE
COURSE OF TRADE AND THAT THESE ACTIVITIES, LIFTED OUT OF THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, INCLUDE SUBSTANTIALLY ALL, IF NOT ALL,
OF THE NORMAL PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES OF LABOR UNIONS.  IT IS ALSO TRUE
THAT THE SHERMAN ACT "DRAWS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RESTRAINTS
EFFECTED BY VIOLENCE AND THOSE ACHIEVED BY PEACEFUL ...  MEANS," APEX
HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, SUPRA, 513, AND THAT A UNION'S EXEMPTION FROM
THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY A JUDICIAL "JUDGMENT
REGARDING THE WISDOM OR UNWISDOM, THE RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS, THE
SELFISHNESS OR UNSELFISHNESS OF THE END OF WHICH THE PARTICULAR UNION
ACTIVITIES ARE THE MEANS."  UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, SUPRA, 232. 
THUS, THESE CONGRESSIONALLY PERMITTED UNION ACTIVITIES MAY RESTRAIN
TRADE IN AND OF THEMSELVES.  THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT MANY OF
THEM DO SO, BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY.  CONGRESS EVIDENTLY
CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE CHIEF OBJECTIVE OF ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION,
PRESERVATION OF BUSINESS COMPETITION, COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY APPLYING
THE LEGISLATION PRIMARILY ONLY TO THOSE BUSINESS GROUPS WHICH ARE
DIRECTLY INTERESTED IN DESTROYING COMPETITION.  THE DIFFICULTY OF
DRAWING LEGISLATION PRIMARILY AIMED AT TRUSTS AND MONOPOLIES SO THAT IT
COULD ALSO BE APPLIED TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND RELATED RIGHTS OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS HAS
BEEN EMPHASIZED BOTH BY CONGRESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ATTEMPTS TO DRAW
LINES BETWEEN PERMISSIBLE AND PROHIBITED UNION ACTIVITIES.  THERE IS,
HOWEVER, ONE LINE WHICH WE CAN DRAW WITH ASSURANCE THAT WE FOLLOW THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  WE KNOW THAT CONGRESS FEARED THE CONCENTRATED
POWER OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS TO DOMINATE MARKETS AND PRICES.  IT
INTENDED TO OUTLAW BUSINESS MONOPOLIES.  A BUSINESS MONOPOLY IS NO LESS
SUCH BECAUSE A UNION PARTICIPATES, AND SUCH PARTICIPATION IS A
VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 

THIS BRINGS US TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AND THE INJUNCTION GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE CANNOT
SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT OR THE INJUNCTION IN THE FORM IN WHICH THEY WERE
ENTERED.  THE JUDGMENT AND THE INJUNCTION APPLY ONLY TO THE UNION, ITS
MEMBERS, AND ITS AGENTS, SINCE THEY WERE THE ONLY PARTIES AGAINST WHOM
RELIEF WAS ASKED.  THE JUDGMENT DECLARED THAT "THE COMBINATION AND
CONSPIRACY AND THE ACTS DONE AND BEING DONE IN FURTHERANCE THEREOF ALL
AS SET FORTH IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT HEREIN ARE UNLAWFUL AND CONTRARY
TO THE  ... SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAW, AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED." 
THERE WERE 374 FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH COVER 111 PAGES OF THE PRINTED
RECORD.  THESE FINDINGS WERE MADE FROM 25,000 PAGES OF EVIDENCE.  THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE INJUNCTION, IS
THUS ALMOST THE EQUIVALENT OF A STATEMENT THAT EACH FACT "AS SET FORTH
IN THE 374 FINDINGS" CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  AND
WHEN WE TURN TO THE SWEEPING COMMANDS OF THE INJUNCTION, WE FIND THAT
ITS TERMS, DIRECTED AGAINST THE UNION AND ITS AGENTS ALONE, RESTRAINED
THE UNION, EVEN THOUGH NOT ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THE MANUFACTURERS,
FROM DOING THE VERY THINGS THAT THE CLAYTON ACT SPECIFICALLY PERMITS
UNIONS TO DO.  WE AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS: 

"INDEED, THE INJUNCTION IS SO FAR CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE THAT ITS
MANDATE MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN STATED IN THE CONVERSE OF THE TERMS OF THE
CLAYTON ACT, SEC. 20, VIZ., AS RESTRAINING LOCAL 3 AND ITS OFFICERS
'FROM TERMINATING ANY RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT, OR FROM CEASING TO
PERFORM ANY WORK OR LABOR  ...  OR FROM CEASING TO PATRONIZE  ...  ANY
PARTY TO SUCH DISPUTE, OR FROM RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING
OTHERS BY PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS SO TO DO.'  29 U.S.C.A., SEC. 52,
SUPRA.  AND THE VAGUE SCOPE OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS EVEN MORE
INDEFINITELY INCLUSIVE, IN TERMS REACHING ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
DEFENDANT SET FORTH IN THE FINDINGS." 

RESPONDENTS OBJECTED TO THE FORM OF THE INJUNCTION AND SPECIFICALLY
REQUESTED THAT IT BE AMENDED SO AS TO ENJOIN ONLY THOSE PROHIBITED
ACTIVITIES IN WHICH THE UNION ENGAGED IN COMBINATION "WITH ANY PERSON,
FIRM OR CORPORATION WHICH IS A NON-LABOR GROUP  ..."  WITHOUT SUCH A
LIMITATION, THE INJUNCTION AS ISSUED RUNS DIRECTLY COUNTER TO THE
CLAYTON AND THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL SO
TO LIMIT IT WAS ERROR. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ORDERING THE ACTION
DISMISSED IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR MODIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND
INJUNCTION, CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  26 STAT. 209; 50 STAT. 693. 

FN2  SECTIONS 1 AND 2 PROVIDE IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 1.  EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL  ... 

"SEC. 2.  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE, OR ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO
MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR  ..." 

FN3  FOR A COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORY OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, SEE 51 CONG. REC. 13661-13668, 63RD CONG., 2ND SESS.  AND SEE
IBID., 13969-13971, 14013-14016, 14020-14023.  SEE ALSO BERMAN, LABOR
AND THE SHERMAN ACT (1930), PP. 1-98; MASON, ORGANIZED LABOR AND THE
LAW, CHAPTERS 7 & 8; GOMPERS, "THE SHERMAN LAW.  AMEND IT OR END IT,"
AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST, VOL. 17, NO. 3, MARCH, 1910, PP. 197, 202.  FOR
PRIOR DISCUSSIONS IN THIS COURT OF THE DOMINANT CONCERN OF CONGRESS TO
PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM BUSINESS COMBINATIONS, SEE UNITED STATES V.
TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 221 U.S. 1; APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469; UNITED
STATES V. UNDERWRITERS' ASSN., 322 U.S. 533.    FN4  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA.
SEE ALSO 51 CONG. REC. 9068-9077; 9081-9091; UNITED STATES V.
AMALGAMATED COUNCIL, 54 F. 994(1893); WATERHOUSE V. COMER, 55 F.
149(1893); UNITED STATES V. DEBS, 64 F. 724(1894); LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208
U.S. 274, 235 U.S. 522.  AND SEE APPENDIX TO BERMAN, OP. CIT., SUPRA. 
FN5  SEE AUTHORITIES CITED IN FOOTNOTES 3 AND 4, SUPRA.  AND SEE
FRANKFURTER AND GREENE, THE LABOR INJUNCTION (1930); BERMAN, OP. CIT.
SUPRA, PP. 99-117. 

FN6  38 STAT. 730. 

FN7  SENATE REPORT NO. 698, 63RD CONG., 2ND SESS. 

FN8  IBID., 10-12. 

FN9  SECTION 6 READS AS FOLLOWS:  "THAT THE LABOR OF A HUMAN BEING IS
NOT A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE OF COMMERCE.  NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE
ANTITRUST LAWS SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO FORBID THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATION
OF LABOR, AGRICULTURAL, OR HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS, INSTITUTED FOR
THE PURPOSES OF MUTUAL HELP, AND NOT HAVING CAPITAL STOCK OR CONDUCTED
FOR PROFIT, OR TO FORBID OR RESTRAIN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF SUCH
ORGANIZATIONS FROM LAWFULLY CARRYING OUT THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTS
THEREOF; NOR SHALL SUCH ORGANIZATIONS, OR THE MEMBERS THEREOF, BE HELD
OR CONSTRUED TO BE ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE, UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS." 

FN10  SECTION 20 READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS: "AND NO SUCH RESTRAINING
ORDER OR INJUNCTION SHALL PROHIBIT ANY PERSON OR PERSONS, WHETHER
SINGLY OR IN CONCERT, FROM TERMINATING ANY RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT, OR
FROM CEASING TO PERFORM ANY WORK OR LABOR, OR FROM RECOMMENDING,
ADVISING, OR PERSUADING OTHERS BY PEACEFUL MEANS SO TO DO; OR FROM
ATTENDING AT ANY PLACE WHERE ANY SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS MAY LAWFULLY
BE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PEACEFULLY OBTAINING OR COMMUNICATING
INFORMATION, OR FROM PEACEFULLY PERSUADING ANY PERSON TO WORK OR TO
ABSTAIN FROM WORKING; OR FROM CEASING TO PATRONIZE OR TO EMPLOY ANY
PARTY TO SUCH DISPUTE, OR FROM RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING
OTHERS BY PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS SO TO DO; OR FROM PAYING OR GIVING
TO, OR WITHHOLDING FROM, ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN SUCH DISPUTE, ANY STRIKE
BENEFITS OR OTHER MONEYS OR THINGS OF VALUE; OR FROM PEACEABLY
ASSEMBLING IN A LAWFUL MANNER, AND FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES; OR FROM DOING
ANY ACT OR THING WHICH MIGHT LAWFULLY BE DONE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
DISPUTE BY ANY PARTY THERETO; NOR SHALL ANY OF THE ACTS SPECIFIED IN
THIS PARAGRAPH BE CONSIDERED OR HELD TO BE VIOLATIONS OF ANY LAW OF THE
UNITED STATES." 

FN11  MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY FARM PRODUCTS, 311 U.S.
91; NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. SANITARY GROCERY CO., 303 U.S. 552. 

FN12  IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT NO LABOR DISPUTES EXISTED.  THE
ARGUMENT IS UNTENABLE.  WE DO NOT HAVE HERE, AS WE DID IN COLUMBIA
RIVER PACKERS ASSN. V. HINTON, 315 U.S. 143, A DISPUTE BETWEEN GROUPS
OF BUSINESS MEN REVOLVING SOLELY AROUND THE PRICE AT WHICH ONE GROUP
WOULD SELL COMMODITIES TO ANOTHER GROUP.  ON THE CONTRARY, LOCAL NO. 3
IS A LABOR UNION AND ITS SPUR TO ACTION RELATED TO WAGES AND WORKING
CONDITIONS. 

FN13 UNITED STATES V. BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, 313 U.S. 539; UNITED
STATES V. BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 313 U.S. 539; UNITED STATES V. HOD
CARRIERS COUNCIL, 313 U.S. 539; UNITED STATES V. FEDERATION OF
MUSICIANS, 318 U.S. 741. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. BRIMS, 272 U.S. 549; LOCAL 167 V. UNITED
STATES, 291 U.S. 293. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

WHILE I SHOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT, I AM UNABLE TO CONCUR IN THE
COURT'S OPINION.  I THINK IT CONVEYS AN INCORRECT IMPRESSION OF THE
GENESIS AND CHARACTER OF THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND
MISAPPLIES RECENT DECISIONS OF THE COURT. 

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PROGRAMME ADOPTED BY LOCAL NO. 3 ENVISAGED
THE EXCLUSION, FROM THE ENTIRE NEW YORK CITY AREA, OF ANY ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, WHETHER ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OR INSTALLING ELECTRICAL
DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL.  THE ORGANIZATION
FROM TIME TO TIME INCREASED THE CLASSES OF MEMBERS, SO AS TO ADD TO ITS
ORIGINAL MEMBERSHIP OF WORKERS ENGAGED IN FABRICATING AND INSTALLING
ELECTRICAL DEVICES, EQUIPMENT, AND APPARATUS THE ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES
OF SHOP EMPLOYES ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND ALL
WORKERS EMPLOYED IN ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS, AND REPAIRS INVOLVING
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.  IT SUCCEEDED IN UNIONIZING AND IMPOSING CLOSED
SHOPS EMPLOYING ONLY MEMBERS OF LOCAL 3, NOT ONLY ON ALL BUILDING
CONTRACTORS, BUT ON ALL REPAIR CONTRACTORS AND THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS AND
ALL MANUFACTURERS OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.  MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION WAS
CLOSELY RESTRICTED AND THE CAMPAIGN EVENTUATED IN A SITUATION WHERE NO
ELECTRICAL WORK COULD BE DONE BY PERSONS OTHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE
UNION, NO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COULD BE DONE BY OTHER THAN UNION MEN,
NO MATTER WHAT THEIR TRADE, AND NO MANUFACTURED ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE OR
APPARATUS COULD BE INSTALLED IN THE NEW YORK AREA WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF LOCAL NO. 3.  THAT CONSENT WAS GIVEN ONLY IF THE DEVICE, APPLIANCE
OR APPARATUS WAS MANUFACTURED, OR WORK DONE ON IT, BY MEMBERS OF THE
LOCAL.  COMPLICATED APPARATUS WHICH HAD TO BE MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE NEW
YORK CITY, BECAUSE NO ESTABLISHMENT MAKING IT EXISTED WITHIN THE CITY,
HAD TO BE DISMANTLED AND REBUILT BY MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL BEFORE IT
COULD BE USED IN THE NEW YORK AREA. 

IT IS TRUE THAT BEFORE LOCAL NO. 3 OBTAINED THIS COMPLETE CONTROL OF
THE INDUSTRY IN ITS AREA OF OPERATION CERTAIN ASSOCIATED BUILDING
CONTRACTORS DEALT JOINTLY AS AN ASSOCIATION WITH THE UNION.  AS
RESPECTS CERTAIN MANUFACTURERS WHICH CAME UNDER THE DOMINANCE OF THE
UNION THIS IS NOT TRUE.  NOR IS IT TRUE OF REPAIR BUSINESSES.  ON THE
CONTRARY, IT IS THE FACT THAT EACH ONE OF THESE WAS INDIVIDUALLY
COERCED BY THE UNION'S POWER TO AGREE TO ITS TERMS.  IT IS, THEREFORE,
INACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE EMPLOYERS USED THE UNION TO AID AND ABET
THEM TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SOME OF THE EMPLOYERS, NOTABLY
THE BUILDING CONTRACTORS, DID JOINTLY COOPERATE WITH THE UNION; OTHER
SORTS OF EMPLOYERS WERE FORCED INDIVIDUALLY TO COMPLY WITH THE UNION'S
DEMANDS, UNTIL ALL OF THEM HAD SUCCUMBED. 

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF THE PURPOSE OF THE UNION.  IT WAS TO
EXCLUDE FROM USE IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK ARTICLES OF COMMERCE MADE
OUTSIDE THE CITY AND OFFERED FOR SALE TO USERS WITHIN THE CITY; IT WAS
COMPLETELY TO MONOPOLIZE THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ALL ELECTRICAL
EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES WITHIN NEW YORK, AND TO EXCLUDE FROM USE IN THE
AREA EVERY SUCH ARTICLE MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE THE CITY, WHETHER IN A
CLOSED UNION SHOP OR NOT.  THE RESULTS OF THIS PROGRAMME ARE OBVIOUS. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BETWEEN NEW YORK CITY AND MANUFACTURERS HAVING
ESTABLISHMENTS OUTSIDE THE CITY WAS COMPLETELY BROKEN OFF, AND THE
MONOPOLY CREATED RAISED, STANDARDIZED AND FIXED THE PRICES OF
MERCHANDISE AND APPARATUS. 

AS I UNDERSTAND THE OPINION OF THE COURT, SUCH A PROGRAMME, AND SUCH
A RESULT, IS WHOLLY WITHIN THE LAW PROVIDED ONLY THAT EMPLOYERS DO NOT
JOINTLY AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE UNION'S DEMANDS.  UNLESS I MISREAD THE
OPINION, THE UNION IS AT LIBERTY TO IMPOSE EVERY TERM AND CONDITION AS
SHOWN BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE AND TO ENFORCE THOSE CONDITIONS AND
PROCURE AN AGREEMENT FROM EACH EMPLOYER TO SUCH CONDITIONS BY CALLING
STRIKES, BY LOCKOUT, AND BOYCOTT, PROVIDED ONLY SUCH EMPLOYER AGREES
FOR HIMSELF ALONE AND NOT IN CONCERT WITH ANY OTHER. 

I POINT OUT AGAIN, AS RESPECTS CERTAIN EMPLOYERS HERE CONCERNED, THAT
THAT IS THE SITUATION, WHEREAS, WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYERS, THERE WAS MUTUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION.  BUT
THE OPINION TAKES NO NOTE OF THE DISTINCTION IN FACT.  IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THE LAW AS ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT CREATES AN IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION
SUCH AS CONGRESS NEVER CONTEMPLATED AND LEAVES COMMERCE PARALYZED
BEYOND ESCAPE. 

UNTIL APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, WAS DECIDED I HAD
THOUGHT THAT A CONSPIRACY BY LABORERS TO INTERRUPT THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THAT CASE, HOWEVER,
ANNOUNCED A NARROWER DOCTRINE.  ITS TEACHING IS THAT ONLY ACTIVITY OF
LABOR WHICH HARMS THE COMMERCIAL COMPETITIVE SYSTEM THROUGH RAISING
PRICES, RESTRICTING PRODUCTION, OR OTHERWISE CONTROLLING THE MARKET,
FALLS WITHIN THE PROSCRIPTION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS
SAID: 

"FURTHERMORE, SUCCESSFUL UNION ACTIVITY, AS FOR EXAMPLE CONSUMMATION
OF A WAGE AGREEMENT WITH EMPLOYERS, MAY HAVE SOME INFLUENCE ON PRICE
COMPETITION BY ELIMINATING THAT PART OF SUCH COMPETITION WHICH IS BASED
ON DIFFERENCES IN LABOR STANDARDS.  SINCE, IN ORDER TO RENDER A LABOR
COMBINATION EFFECTIVE IT MUST ELIMINATE THE COMPETITION FROM NON-UNION
MADE GOODS, SEE AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES
COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 209, AN ELIMINATION OF PRICE COMPETITION BASED
ON DIFFERENCES IN LABOR STANDARDS IS THE OBJECTIVE OF ANY NATIONAL
LABOR ORGANIZATION.  BUT THIS EFFECT ON COMPETITION HAS NOT BEEN
CONSIDERED TO BE THE KIND OF CURTAILMENT OF PRICE COMPETITION
PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT." 

IT WAS ADDED THAT THE RESTRAINT THERE UNDER EXAMINATION WAS NOT SHOWN
"TO HAVE ANY ACTUAL OR INTENDED EFFECT ON PRICE OR PRICE COMPETITION." 
THE DECISION INDICATED THAT, IN SOME UNDEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES, LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE. 

IN UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, SECONDARY BOYCOTTS BY
LABOR UNIONS TO KEEP OUT OF THE MARKET NON-UNION GOODS, OR GOODS WORKED
ON BY OTHER UNIONS, WERE HELD IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL,
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT WAS THERE SAID: 

"SO LONG AS A UNION ACTS IN ITS SELF-INTEREST AND DOES NOT COMBINE
WITH NON-LABOR GROUPS, THE LICIT AND THE ILLICIT UNDER SEC. 20 ARE NOT
TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY ANY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE WISDOM OR UNWISDOM,
THE RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS, THE SELFISHNESS OR UNSELFISHNESS OF THE END
OF WHICH THE PARTICULAR UNION ACTIVITIES ARE THE MEANS." 

THUS, ALTHOUGH A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN LABORERS IS DISTINGUISHED FROM
ONE BETWEEN THEM AND EMPLOYERS, IT IS INTIMATED, AS I THINK, THAT A
PURPOSE ON THE PART OF A LABOR GROUP TO HARM THE COMMERCIAL COMPETITIVE
SYSTEM, TO RAISE PRICES, TO RESTRICT PRODUCTION, OR OTHERWISE CONTROL
THE MARKET, WOULD NOT RENDER THE CONCERTED ACTION ILLEGAL, PROVIDED
ONLY THAT NO EMPLOYER PARTICIPATED.  THE RESERVATION MADE IN THE APEX
CASE WAS DISCARDED IN THE HUTCHESON CASE.  THIS ADVANCE IN THE LAW WAS
EMPHASIZED IN UNITED STATES V. BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, 313 U.S. 539,
AND UNITED STATES V. BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, 313 U.S. 539, BUT THE
COURT WENT EVEN FARTHER, IN UNITED STATES V. FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS,
318 U.S. 741, AND, AS I THINK, RENDERED A DECISION CONTRARY TO THAT NOW
ANNOUNCED.  THERE A MOTION TO DISMISS A BILL OF COMPLAINT WAS GRANTED
AND THIS COURT SUSTAINED THAT ACTION.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED A
CONSPIRACY BY THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, A NATIONWIDE
ORGANIZATION, AND ITS OFFICERS, TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT FOR ITS MEMBERS BY
ELIMINATING ENTIRELY FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALL PHONOGRAPH RECORDS
AND ELECTRICAL TRANSCRIPTIONS OF MUSIC AND ELIMINATING ALL COMPETITION
BETWEEN TRANSCRIBED MUSIC AND THAT PRODUCED BY LIVING MUSICIANS.  THE
CONSPIRACY CHARGED WAS ABSOLUTELY TO PREVENT MANUFACTURE OR SALE OF
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS AND ELECTRICAL TRANSCRIPTIONS; TO ELIMINATE FROM THE
MARKET ALL MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, JOBBERS OR RETAILERS OF THE
SAME, AND TO PREVENT THE USE OF THE ARTICLES, EITHER IN PUBLIC PLACES
OR PRIVATE HOMES, AND, OF COURSE, TO PREVENT THEIR SALE.  IN THE BILL
IT WAS CHARGED THAT THE CONSPIRACY DID NOT GROW OUT OF OR INVOLVE ANY
DISPUTE CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; THAT THE PURPOSE
OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS TO ELIMINATE FROM THE MARKET, MANUFACTURE, SALE
AND USE OF MECHANICAL RECORDINGS AND RECORDS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS UNLESS
THE PERSONS ENGAGED IN THIS BUSINESS SHOULD ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH
THE UNION, HIRING USELESS AND UNNECESSARY LABOR, AS THE UNION WOULD
DEMAND.  THE FURTHER PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED WAS TO EXCLUDE
FROM THE MARKET COMPETITION BY ANYONE WHO FAILED EXCLUSIVELY TO EMPLOY
MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  THE COMPLAINT FURTHER CHARGED THAT THE PURPOSE
AND EFFECT OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS UNLAWFULLY TO DESTROY ALL MANUFACTURE
AND SALE, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OF PHONOGRAPH RECORDS AND ELECTRICAL
TRANSCRIPTIONS, ELIMINATE ALL COMPETITION BETWEEN MUSIC PRODUCED BY
MECHANICAL MEANS AND MUSIC PRODUCED BY LIVING MUSICIANS, TO DEPRIVE THE
PUBLIC OF AN INEXPENSIVE MEANS OF ENTERTAINMENT IN PUBLIC PLACES AND IN
THE HOME. 

THIS COURT'S AFFIRMANCE OF THE DISMISSAL OF THIS COMPLAINT CAN ONLY
MEAN THAT EVERY BUSINESSMAN WHO DESIRES TO STAY IN BUSINESS MUST, IF A
UNION SO DEMANDS, ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION ELIMINATING
CERTAIN ARTICLES FROM HIS MANUFACTURE, FROM HIS SALES, OR FROM HIS
USE.  THE DECISION MUST NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT WOULD NOT BE UNLAWFUL
TO ENTER INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION, OTHERWISE WE SHOULD
HAVE THE ANOMALY THAT THE UNION'S DEMAND FOR SUCH AN AGREEMENT IS
IMPECCABLE BUT THE EMPLOYER'S ACQUIESCENCE IS UNLAWFUL.  AS SHOWN BY
THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THAT CASE (47 F.SUPP.  304) THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT THE UNION'S EFFORT REPRESENTED "AN ATTEMPT BY
THE UNION TO FORCE EMPLOYERS TO COMBINE WITH IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RESTRAINING INTERSTATE TRADE  ..."  THE DISTRICT COURT SHORTLY ANSWERED
THIS CONTENTION (P. 309) BY SAYING: "IN THE COURT'S OPINION, UNITED
STATES V. BRIMS, 272 U.S. 549,  ...  AND LIKE CASES, ARE NOT
PERTINENT."  THIS MUST MEAN THAT EACH EMPLOYER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS
AT LIBERTY TO AGREE WITH THE UNION ON ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
WHICH CREATE A COMPLETE MONOPOLY, A COMPLETE BOYCOTT, A COMPLETE
CLOSING OF THE MARKET, AND A SERIOUS PRICE FIXING AFFECTING COMPETITIVE
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS.  THIS IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE COURT NOW
HOLDS.  THIS IS WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH IMPUNITY BY THE FEDERATION
OF MUSICIANS.  BUT THE SITUATION CREATED BY SUCH A HOLDING IS UNREAL. 
AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, IN TWO BRANCHES OF THE INDUSTRY, THE
MANUFACTURERS AND EMPLOYERS, ONE BY ONE, SUCCUMBED TO UNION PRESSURE
AND ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS.  WAS NOT SUCH AN ACTION, IN EACH INSTANCE,
A CONSPIRACY?  ARE MORE THAN TWO PARTIES REQUIRED TO CONSPIRE, AND DID
NOT EACH OF THOSE CONSPIRACIES, TO SOME EXTENT, HINDER AND RESTRAIN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND AFFECT THE MARKET AND THE COMPETITIVE PRICE
SITUATION?  AS EACH AGREEMENT WAS CONSUMMATED THE MARKET WAS, TO THAT
EXTENT, CLOSED AND THE BOYCOTT AGAINST OUT-OF-THE-CITY MANUFACTURES
TIGHTENED. 

BUT MORE.  THE UNION DID NOT CONDUCT ITS CAMPAIGN IN A CORNER. 
ALBEIT THE FINDINGS ARE THAT MANUFACTURERS AND REPAIRERS OF ELECTRICAL
APPLIANCES VIOLENTLY RESISTED THE UNIONIZATION OF THEIR BUSINESSES,
THEY, ONE BY ONE, SURRENDERED AND SIGNED.  IN DOING SO, MANY MUST HAVE
HAD KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT OTHERS WERE DOING OR HAD DONE.  AND, AS THE
COVERAGE BECAME COMPLETE, EACH ONE WAS ENABLED TO STIFLE OUT-OF-TOWN
COMPETITION AND TO RAISE PRICES.  IN ANY ACTION AGAINST THEM AND THE
UNION CHARGING CONSPIRACY, IT WOULD BE URGED THAT A CONSPIRACY NEED NOT
CONSIST OF A WRITTEN OR VERBAL AGREEMENT BUT MIGHT BE INFERRED FROM
SIMILARITY OF ACTION.  AND IT WOULD BE LITTLE PROTECTION TO THE
EMPLOYERS CONCERNED THAT, IN EACH INSTANCE, A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WAS
SIGNED BETWEEN UNION AND EMPLOYER. 

THE COURSE OF DECISION IN THIS COURT HAS NOW CREATED A SITUATION IN
WHICH, BY CONCERTED ACTION, UNIONS MAY SET UP A WALL AROUND A
MUNICIPALITY OF MILLIONS OF INHABITANTS AGAINST IMPORTATION OF ANY
GOODS IF THE UNION IS CAREFUL TO MAKE SEPARATE CONTRACTS WITH EACH
EMPLOYER, AND IF UNION AND EMPLOYERS ARE ABLE TO CONVINCE THE COURT
THAT, WHILE ALL EMPLOYERS HAVE SUCH AGREEMENTS, EACH ACTED
INDEPENDENTLY IN MAKING THEM,  - THIS NOTWITHSTANDING THE AVOWED
PURPOSE TO EXCLUDE GOODS NOT MADE IN THAT CITY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE
UNION; NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE AND INEVITABLE RESULT
IS THE STIFLING OF COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE TRADE AND THE CREATION OF
A MONOPOLY. 

THE ONLY ANSWER I FIND IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IS THAT CONGRESS
HAS SO PROVIDED.  I THINK IT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY SUCH THING AND THAT
THE FIGMENTARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EMPLOYERS NEGOTIATING JOINTLY WITH
THE ONLY UNION WITH WHICH THEY CAN DEAL,  - WHICH IMPOSES LIKE
CONDITIONS ON ALL EMPLOYERS - AND EACH EMPLOYER DEALING SEPARATELY WITH
THE SAME UNION IS UNREALISTIC AND UNWORKABLE.  AND THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.
20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT MAKES NO SUCH DISTINCTION. 

THIS COURT, AS A RESULT OF ITS PAST DECISIONS, IS IN THE PREDICAMENT
THAT WHATEVER IT DECIDES MUST ENTAIL DISASTROUS RESULTS.  I CAN
UNDERSTAND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FELT CONSTRAINED BY THE
PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT TO ORDER THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT REVERSED AND THE ACTION DISMISSED.  IF THE PRESENT DECISION IS,
AS I THINK, A RETROGRESSION FROM EARLIER HOLDINGS, I WELCOME IT; IF IT
IS BUT A LIMITATION OF THEM I CONCUR IN THE PARTIAL ALLEVIATION OF AN
IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION.  BUT I WOULD NOT LIMIT THE INJUNCTION AS THE
OPINION DIRECTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE COURT RESTS NOT SO MUCH WITH THE LEGAL
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED AS WITH THE APPLICATION OF THOSE PRINCIPLES TO THE
FACTS OF THE CASE. 

IF THE UNION IN THIS INSTANCE HAD ACTED ALONE IN ITS SELF-INTEREST,
RESULTING IN A RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE, THE SHERMAN ACT
CONCEDEDLY WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE.  BUT IF THE UNION HAD AIDED AND
ABETTED MANUFACTURERS OR TRADERS IN VIOLATING THE ACT, THE UNION'S
STATUTORY IMMUNITY WOULD DISAPPEAR.  I CANNOT AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE DEMAND THE INVOCATION OF THE LATTER RULE. 

THE UNION HERE HAS NOT IN ANY TRUE SENSE "AIDED" OR "ABETTED" A
PRIMARY VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY THE EMPLOYERS.  IN THE WORDS OF THE
UNION, IT HAS BEEN "THE DYNAMIC FORCE WHICH HAS DRIVEN THE EMPLOYER
GROUP TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS" WHEREBY TRADE HAS BEEN AFFECTED.  THE
FACT THAT THE UNION HAS EXPRESSED ITS SELF-INTEREST WITH THE AID OF
OTHERS RATHER THAN SOLELY BY ITS OWN ACTIVITIES SHOULD NOT BE DECISIVE
OF STATUTORY LIABILITY.  WHAT IS LEGAL IF DONE ALONE SHOULD NOT BECOME
ILLEGAL IF DONE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF OTHERS AND WITH THE SAME PURPOSE
IN MIND.  OTHERWISE A PREMIUM OF UNLAWFULNESS IS PLACED ON COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. 

HAD THE EMPLOYERS EMBARKED UPON A COURSE OF UNREASONABLE TRADE
RESTRAINTS AND HAD THEY SOUGHT TO IMMUNIZE THEMSELVES FROM THE SHERMAN
ACT BY USING THE UNION AS A SHIELD FOR THEIR NEFARIOUS PRACTICES, WE
WOULD HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT CASE.  THE UNION THEN COULD NOT BE SAID TO
BE ACTING IN ITS SELF-INTEREST IN COMBINING WITH THE EMPLOYERS TO CARRY
OUT TRADE RESTRAINTS PRIMARILY FOR THE EMPLOYERS' INTERESTS, EVEN
THOUGH INCIDENTAL BENEFITS MIGHT ACCRUE TO THE UNION.  UNDER SUCH
CONDITIONS THE UNION FAIRLY COULD BE SAID TO BE AIDING AND ABETTING A
VIOLATION OF THE ACT AND ITS IMMUNITY WOULD BE LOST.  THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE, HOWEVER, DO NOT ALLOW SUCH CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN. 

I WOULD THEREFORE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW. 
..END :
















HUNT V. CRUMBOCH, 325 U.S. 821 


NO. 570.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - 143 F.2D
902, AFFIRMED. 


1.  REFUSAL OF A LABOR UNION TO ADMIT TO MEMBERSHIP THE EMPLOYEES OF
AN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER, AND REFUSAL OF MEMBERS OF THE UNION TO
ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT BY THE CARRIER - EVEN THOUGH AS A RESULT IT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CARRIER TO CONTINUE IN BUSINESS - HELD NOT A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, AS AMENDED.  P. 823. 

2.  THAT THE REFUSAL OF MEMBERS OF THE UNION TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT BY
THE CARRIER STEMMED FROM PERSONAL ANTAGONISM TOWARD A PARTNER IN THE
CARRIER FIRM - ARISING OUT OF THE KILLING OF A UNION MAN, OF WHICH THE
PARTNER WAS ACQUITTED - DID NOT RENDER SUCH REFUSAL A VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  P. 824. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE UNION MEMBERS TO ACCEPT
EMPLOYMENT WAS RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER DID NOT
MAKE SUCH REFUSAL A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 825. 

4.  A LABOR UNION'S BREACH OF DUTY TO EMPLOYEES IN A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING GROUP IS NOT, OF ITSELF, A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P.
826. 

5.  THE SHERMAN ACT DOES NOT AFFORD A REMEDY FOR EVERY TORT COMMITTED
BY OR AGAINST PERSONS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 826. 

6.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF THE UNION AND ITS MEMBERS IS
ACTIONABLE UNDER STATE LAW IS NOT HERE INVOLVED.  P. 826. 

HUNT ET AL., CO-PARTNERS TRADING AS HUNT'S MOTOR FREIGHT & FOOD
PRODUCTS TRANSPORT, V. CRUMBOCH ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 704, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE DEFENDANTS, 47 F.SUPP.  571, IN A SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION AND TREBLE
DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER AN ORGANIZATION OF LABORING MEN VIOLATED
THE SHERMAN ACT, AS AMENDED, 26 STAT. 209, 38 STAT. 730, BY REFUSING TO
ADMIT TO MEMBERSHIP PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES, AND BY REFUSING TO SELL
THEIR SERVICES TO PETITIONER, THEREBY MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
PETITIONER PROFITABLY TO CONTINUE IN BUSINESS. 

FOR ABOUT FOURTEEN YEARS PRIOR TO 1939, THE PETITIONER, A BUSINESS
PARTNERSHIP ENGAGED IN MOTOR TRUCKING, CARRIED FREIGHT UNDER A CONTRACT
WITH THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. (A & P).  EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT
OF THE MERCHANDISE THUS HAULED BY PETITIONER WAS INTERSTATE, FROM AND
TO PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.  THE RESPONDENT UNION, COMPOSED OF
DRIVERS AND HELPERS, WAS AFFILIATED WITH OTHER A.F. OF L. UNIONS WHOSE
MEMBERS WORKED AT LOADING AND HAULING OF FREIGHT BY MOTOR TRUCK.  IN
1937, THE RESPONDENT UNION CALLED A STRIKE OF THE TRUCKERS AND HAULERS
OF A & P IN PHILADELPHIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING A CLOSED SHOP. 
THE PETITIONER, REFUSING TO UNIONIZE ITS BUSINESS, ATTEMPTED TO OPERATE
DURING THE STRIKE.  MUCH VIOLENCE OCCURRED.  ONE OF THE UNION MEN WAS
KILLED NEAR UNION HEADQUARTERS, AND A MEMBER OF THE PETITIONER
PARTNERSHIP WAS TRIED FOR THE HOMICIDE AND ACQUITTED.  A & P AND THE
UNION ENTERED INTO A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT, WHEREUPON ALL CONTRACT
HAULERS WORKING FOR A & P, INCLUDING THE PETITIONER, WERE NOTIFIED THAT
THEIR EMPLOYEES MUST JOIN AND BECOME MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  ALL OF THE
OTHER CONTRACTOR HAULERS EXCEPT PETITIONER EITHER JOINED THE UNION OR
MADE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS WITH IT.  THE UNION, HOWEVER, REFUSED TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE PETITIONER, AND DECLINED TO ADMIT ANY OF ITS
EMPLOYEES TO MEMBERSHIP.  ALTHOUGH PETITIONER'S SERVICES HAD BEEN
SATISFACTORY, A & P, AT THE UNION'S INSTIGATION, CANCELLED ITS CONTRACT
WITH PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF ITS CLOSEDSHOP
AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION.  LATER, THE PETITIONER OBTAINED A CONTRACT
WITH A DIFFERENT COMPANY, BUT AGAIN AT THE UNION'S INSTIGATION, AND
UPON THE CONSUMMATION OF A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT BY THAT COMPANY WITH
THE UNION, PETITIONER LOST THAT CONTRACT AND BUSINESS.  BECAUSE OF THE
UNION'S REFUSAL TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PETITIONER AND TO ACCEPT
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES AS MEMBERS, THE PETITIONER WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN
ANY FURTHER HAULING CONTRACTS IN PHILADELPHIA.  THE ELIMINATION OF THE
PETITIONER'S SERVICE DID NOT IN ANY MANNER AFFECT THE INTERSTATE
OPERATIONS OF A & P OR OTHER COMPANIES. 

THE PETITIONER THEN INSTITUTED THIS SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
AGAINST RESPONDENTS, THE UNION AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES, PRAYING FOR AN
INJUNCTION AND ASKING FOR TREBLE DAMAGES.  DEMURRERS TO THE COMPLAINT
WERE OVERRULED, THE CASE WAS TRIED, FINDINGS OF FACT WERE MADE, AND THE
DISTRICT COURT RENDERED A JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS ON THE GROUND
THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO PROVE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS.  47 F.SUPP.  571.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,
HOLDING THAT THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS' ACTIONS HAD CAUSED PETITIONER
TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS WAS NOT SUCH A RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AS WOULD BE ACTIONABLE UNDER THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS.  143 F.2D
902.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED
CONCERNING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LABOR UNIONS UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS. 

THE "DESTRUCTION" OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS RESULTED FROM THE FACT
THAT THE UNION MEMBERS, ACTING IN CONCERT, REFUSED TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT
WITH THE PETITIONER, AND REFUSED TO ADMIT TO THEIR ASSOCIATION ANYONE
WHO WORKED FOR PETITIONER.  THE PETITIONER'S LOSS OF BUSINESS IS
THEREFORE ANALOGOUS TO THE CASE OF A MANUFACTURER SELLING GOODS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHO FAILS IN BUSINESS BECAUSE UNION MEMBERS REFUSE
TO WORK FOR HIM.  HAD A GROUP OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS COMPETITORS
CONSPIRED AND COMBINED TO SUPPRESS PETITIONER'S BUSINESS BY REFUSING TO
SELL GOODS AND SERVICES TO IT, SUCH A COMBINATION WOULD HAVE VIOLATED
THE SHERMAN ACT.  BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291, 312;
FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457. 
A LABOR UNION WHICH AIDED AND ABETTED SUCH A GROUP WOULD HAVE BEEN
EQUALLY GUILTY.  ALLEN BRADLEY CO. V. LOCAL UNION NO. 3, ANTE, P. 797. 
THE ONLY COMBINATION HERE, HOWEVER, WAS ONE OF WORKERS ALONE AND WHAT
THEY REFUSED TO SELL PETITIONER WAS THEIR LABOR. 

IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT FOR LABORERS IN COMBINATION
TO REFUSE TO WORK.  THEY CAN SELL OR NOT SELL THEIR LABOR AS THEY
PLEASE, AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THEY CHOOSE, WITHOUT
INFRINGING THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S.
469, 502-503.  A WORKER IS PRIVILEGED UNDER CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS,
ACTING EITHER ALONE OR IN CONCERT WITH HIS FELLOW WORKERS, TO ASSOCIATE
OR TO DECLINE TO ASSOCIATE WITH OTHER WORKERS, TO ACCEPT, REFUSE TO
ACCEPT, OR TO TERMINATE A RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYMENT, AND HIS LABOR IS
NOT TO BE TREATED AS "A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE OF COMMERCE."  CLAYTON
ACT, 38 STAT. 730, 731; NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70; SEE ALSO
AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 209.  IT
WAS THE EXERCISE OF THESE RIGHTS THAT CREATED THE SITUATION WHICH
CAUSED THE PETITIONER TO LOSE ITS HAULING CONTRACTS AND ITS BUSINESS. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THEIR EXERCISE FALLS WITHIN THE CONDEMNATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, BECAUSE THE UNION MEMBERS' REFUSAL TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT
WAS DUE TO PERSONAL ANTAGONISM AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARISING OUT OF
THE KILLING OF A UNION MAN.  BUT CONGRESS IN THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE
LEGISLATION WHICH FOLLOWED IT MANIFESTED NO PURPOSE TO MAKE ANY KIND OF
REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PERSONAL EMPLOYMENT A VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS.  SUCH AN APPLICATION OF THOSE LAWS WOULD BE A COMPLETE DEPARTURE
FROM THEIR SPIRIT AND PURPOSE.  CF. APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, SUPRA,
512; ALLEN BRADLEY V. LOCAL UNION NO. 3, SUPRA.  MOREOVER "SO LONG AS A
UNION ACTS IN ITS SELF-INTEREST AND DOES NOT COMBINE WITH NON-LABOR
GROUPS, THE LICIT AND THE ILLICIT UNDER SEC. 20 ARE NOT TO BE
DISTINGUISHED BY ANY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE WISDOM OR UNWISDOM, THE
RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS, THE SELFISHNESS OR UNSELFISHNESS OF THE END OF
WHICH THE PARTICULAR UNION ACTIVITIES ARE THE MEANS."  UNITED STATES V.
HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219, 232.  FN1 

IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE CONCERTED REFUSAL OF UNION MEMBERS TO
WORK FOR PETITIONER MUST BE HELD TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE
PETITIONER'S BUSINESS WAS "AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 
SEE UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 312. 
ACCEPTANCE OF THIS CONTENTION WOULD IMPLY THAT WORKERS DO NOT POSSESS
THE SAME PRIVILEGES TO CHOOSE OR REJECT EMPLOYMENT WITH INTERSTATE
CARRIERS AS WITH OTHER BUSINESSES.  THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL
LEGISLATION, INCLUDING THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 48 STAT. 1185, BELIES
THIS ARGUMENT. 

FINALLY, IT IS FAINTLY SUGGESTED THAT OUR DECISIONS IN STEELE V. L. &
N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD, 323 U.S. 210, AND
WALLACE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 323 U.S. 248, REQUIRE THAT WE HOLD THAT
RESPONDENTS' CONDUCT VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT.  THOSE CASES STAND FOR
THE PRINCIPLE THAT A BARGAINING AGENT OWES A DUTY NOT TO DISCRIMINATE
UNFAIRLY AGAINST ANY OF THE GROUP IT PURPORTS TO REPRESENT.  BUT IF THE
RECORD SHOWED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EMPLOYEES HERE, IT WOULD NOT EVEN
TEND TO SHOW A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  CONGRESS HAS INDICATED NO
PURPOSE TO MAKE A UNION'S BREACH OF DUTY TO EMPLOYEES IN A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING GROUP AN INFRACTION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE CONTROVERSY IN THE INSTANT CASE, BETWEEN A UNION AND AN EMPLOYER,
INVOLVES NOTHING MORE THAN A DISPUTE OVER EMPLOYMENT, AND THE
WITHHOLDING OF LABOR SERVICES.  IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE SAID TO VIOLATE
THE SHERMAN ACT, AS AMENDED.  THAT ACT DOES NOT PURPORT TO AFFORD
REMEDIES FOR ALL TORTS COMMITTED BY OR AGAINST PERSONS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  "THE MAINTENANCE IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM OF A
PROPER DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF POLICE
AUTHORITY AND OF REMEDIES PRIVATE AND PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC WRONGS IS OF
FAR-REACHING IMPORTANCE.  AN INTENTION TO DISTURB THE BALANCE IS NOT
LIGHTLY TO BE IMPUTED TO CONGRESS."  APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310
U.S. 469, 513.  WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS' CONDUCT AMOUNTS TO AN
ACTIONABLE WRONG SUBJECTING THEM TO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA LAW IS NOT OUR CONCERN.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  DORCHY V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306, 311, CITED HERE IN DISSENT, HAS
NO RELEVANCY TO THE ISSUES BEFORE US.  IN THAT CASE DORCHY WAS
CONVICTED OF CALLING A STRIKE TO ENFORCE A STALE CLAIM CONTRARY TO
STATE LAW.  HE ATTACKED THE STATE LAW ON THE GROUND THAT THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE WAS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THIS COURT REJECTED
DORCHY'S CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION WITH THE STATEMENT THAT "NEITHER THE
COMMON LAW, NOR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, CONFERS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO
STRIKE."  THE COURT HAD NO REASON IN THE DORCHY CASE TO CONSIDER THE
CLAYTON ACT, WHICH AS WE DECIDED IN THE HUTCHESON CASE DOES RECOGNIZE
AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO WORK OR CEASE WORKING ACCORDING TO
THEIR OWN JUDGMENTS.  THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED AS LAWFUL,
THIS COURT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DECLARE UNLAWFUL, BY ARGUING
THAT CONGRESS HAS ACCORDED TOO MUCH POWER TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE ISSUE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, IN MY JUDGMENT, LIES WHOLLY OUTSIDE
AND BEYOND ANY PRECEDENT TO BE FOUND IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,
AND CERTAINLY SO AS TO APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, ON
WHICH THE COURT RELIES. 

THERE WAS A LABOR DISPUTE AS TO UNIONIZATION BETWEEN MOTOR CARRIERS
AND THE UNION REPRESENTING EMPLOYES.  THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WAS NO PART OF THAT LABOR DISPUTE BUT AN
OFF-SHOOT OF IT; NOT INVOLVING WAGES, UNIONIZATION, CLOSED SHOP, HOURS
OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF WORK. 

THE UNION, IN AN EFFORT TO ORGANIZE THE EMPLOYES OF MOTOR CARRIERS,
RESORTED TO A STRIKE.  THE PETITIONERS RESISTED UNIONIZATION.  DURING
THE ENSUING DISORDER A MAN WAS SHOT.  THE UNION OFFICIALS ATTRIBUTED
THE KILLING TO ONE OF THE PETITIONERS.  IN FACT HE WAS ACQUITTED BY A
JURY.  THE RESPONDENTS DECIDED TO PUNISH HIM.  THE RESPONDENTS HAVING
SUCCEEDED IN UNIONIZING THE INDUSTRY IN PHILADELPHIA THE PETITIONERS
COULD CONTINUE IN THEIR BUSINESS OF INTERSTATE CARRIAGE ONLY BY HAVING
THEIR MEN JOIN THE UNION AND BY SIGNING A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT.  THE
UNION DETERMINED TO PUNISH PETITIONERS BY REFUSING TO SIGN A CONTRACT
WITH THEM AND BY FORBIDDING THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION TO WORK FOR THEM. 
THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE RECORD THAT THEY DID SO BECAUSE OF ANY
LABOR CONDITIONS OR CONSIDERATIONS, OR THAT PETITIONERS' MEN WOULD NOT
JOIN THE UNION, OR THAT UNION MEN WOULD NOT WORK WITH THEM, IF THEY DID
JOIN.  IT IS HARDLY AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THEIR ATTITUDE TO SAY
THAT THE UNION MEN DECIDED NOT TO SELL THEIR LABOR TO THE PETITIONERS. 
THEY INTENDED TO DRIVE PETITIONERS OUT OF BUSINESS AS INTERSTATE MOTOR
CARRIERS, AND THEY SUCCEEDED IN SO DOING. 

THE PETITIONERS, FOR FOURTEEN YEARS, HAD BEEN CARRIERS OF MERCHANDISE
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE UNION COMPELLED A. & P., THEIR PRINCIPAL
PATRON, TO BREAK ITS CONTRACT WITH THEM AND TO DISCHARGE THEM FROM
FURTHER SERVING IT.  THE UNION FRUSTRATED EFFORTS OF PETITIONERS TO
OBTAIN CONTRACTS WITH OTHER SHIPPERS. 

THE PETITIONERS HAD BEEN, AND WERE AT THE TIME, IN COMPETITION WITH
OTHER SIMILAR INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE RESPONDENTS
WAS TO DRIVE PETITIONERS OUT OF BUSINESS IN THAT FIELD.  THIS THEY
ACCOMPLISHED.  THUS THEY REDUCED COMPETITION BETWEEN INTERSTATE
CARRIERS BY ELIMINATING ONE COMPETITOR FROM THE FIELD.  THE CONSPIRACY,
THEREFORE, WAS CLEARLY WITHIN THE DENUNCIATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AS
ONE INTENDED, AND EFFECTIVE, TO LESSEN COMPETITION IN COMMERCE, AND NOT
WITHIN ANY IMMUNITY CONFERRED BY THE CLAYTON ACT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT CONCEDES THAT IF BUSINESS COMPETITORS ALONE OR IN
COMBINATION WITH LABOR HAD CONSPIRED TO DRIVE PETITIONERS OUT OF
BUSINESS BY REFUSING GOODS OR SERVICES, COMPETITORS AND LABOR
ORGANIZATION WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE ONLY QUESTION
THEN IS WHETHER RESPONDENT IS EXEMPTED FROM THE PROHIBITION OF THE
ACT.  IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW THIS UNION IS EXCUSED FROM THE TERMS OF THE
ACT WHEN IN THE ALLEN BRADLEY CASE WE HOLD THAT LABOR UNIONS EVEN
THOUGH FURTHERING THEIR MEMBERS' INTERESTS AS WAGE EARNERS VIOLATE THE
ACT WHEN THEY COMBINE WITH BUSINESS TO DO THE THINGS PROHIBITED BY THE
ACT.  THERE, TOO, LABOR PERFORMED ITS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY BY DENYING
OR THREATENING TO DENY LABOR TO EMPLOYERS.  BUT IN THAT CASE WE HOLD
THAT NO ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IS GRANTED BY THE STATUTE, AND THAT BECAUSE
OF ITS PURPOSE AND ITS ASSOCIATION, THE LABOR UNION VIOLATED THE ACT. 
HERE TOO THE PURPOSE OF THE RESPONDENT UNION IS SUCH AS TO REMOVE THE
UNION'S ACTIVITIES FROM THE PROTECTION OF THE CLAYTON AND NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACTS.    WE SAY IN THE ALLEN BRADLEY CASE THAT, SINCE A LABOR
DISPUTE EXISTED, THE REFUSAL OF THE UNION TO WORK WOULD NOT HAVE
VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT IF IT HAD ACTED ALONE.  IN THAT CASE, THE
COURT REVIEWS FULLY THE CONFLICTING POLICIES EXPRESSED IN THOSE ACTS
INTENDED TO PRESERVE COMPETITION AND IN THOSE WHICH PERMIT LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS TO PURSUE THEIR OBJECTIVES.  THOSE STATUTES WHICH
RESTRICTED THE APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT AGAINST UNIONS WERE
INTENDED ONLY TO SHIELD THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVES OF SUCH
ORGANIZATIONS, NOT TO GIVE THEM A SWORD TO USE WITH UNLIMITED
IMMUNITY.  THE SOCIAL INTEREST IN ALLOWING WORKERS TO BETTER THEIR
CONDITION BY THEIR COMBINED BARGAINING POWER WAS THOUGHT TO OUTWEIGH
THE OTHERWISE UNDESIRABLE RESTRICTION ON COMPETITION WHICH ALL
SUCCESSFUL UNION ACTIVITY NECESSARILY ENTAILS.  BUT THERE IS NO SOCIAL
INTEREST SERVED BY UNION ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE DIRECTED NOT TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF UNION MEMBERS BUT MERELY TO CAPRICIOUS AND RETALIATORY
MISUSE OF THE POWER WHICH UNIONS HAVE SIMPLY TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON AN
EMPLOYER. 

THE APEX CASE IS AUTHORITY ONLY FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT A LABOR
ORGANIZATION WHICH EMPLOYS ITS POWER FOR RECOGNIZED PURPOSES DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT, UNLESS ITS PURPOSE IS TO AFFECT AND IT DOES
AFFECT COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF GOODS AND SERVICES.  THAT CASE
SAYS NOTHING OF THE DIRECT DESTRUCTION OF COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AS AN END IN ITSELF, WHICH THE RESPONDENT UNION HERE
EFFECTUATED.  IT EXPLICITLY DECLARES THAT TO SOME EXTENT LABOR UNIONS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SHERMAN ACT.  APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S.
469, 489.  MUCH OF WHAT WE SAID IN AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN. V. UNITED
STATES, 317 U.S. 519, IS APPLICABLE HERE, ALTHOUGH THAT CASE DID NOT
INVOLVE A LABOR UNION:  "THE PETITIONERS DID NOT REPRESENT PRESENT OR
PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYES.  THEIR PURPOSE WAS TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM TAKING
EMPLOYMENT UNDER GROUP HEALTH.  THEY WERE INTERESTED IN THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE EMPLOYMENT ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY DESIRED WHOLLY
TO PREVENT GROUP HEALTH FROM FUNCTIONING BY HAVING ANY EMPLOYES.  THEIR
OBJECTION WAS TO ITS METHOD OF DOING BUSINESS.  OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS NO
DISPUTE BETWEEN GROUP HEALTH AND THE DOCTORS IT EMPLOYED OR MIGHT
EMPLOY IN WHICH PETITIONERS WERE EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
INTERESTED."  AND IN THAT CASE, WE HELD THE CLAYTON AND NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACTS INAPPLICABLE AND SUSTAINED CONVICTIONS UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT.  IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID THAT MERELY BECAUSE RESPONDENT IS A LABOR
UNION, FOR THAT REASON ALONE A LABOR DISPUTE IS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT
CASE. 

RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THEIR CONDUCT IS NOT
PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE PRICES WITHIN THE FIELD WERE NOT
AFFECTED AND THE PUBLIC DID NOT SUFFER.  APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 344, AND SIMILAR CASES REFUSING TO APPLY THE SHERMAN
ACT HELD THAT CERTAIN PRACTICES WERE PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT
RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE, ALTHOUGH THEY DID
RESTRAIN COMPETITION AMONG THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT.  BUT THERE IS
A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING A PARTY TO CONSENSUAL RESTRICTION OF
COMPETITION WITHIN A SEGMENT OF AN INDUSTRY AND BEING FORCED OUT OF THE
INDUSTRY ENTIRELY.  COMPETITION WITHIN THE FIELD HAS BEEN LESSENED BY
THE ELIMINATION OF ONE OF THE COMPANIES ENGAGED THEREIN.  OF COURSE IT
CANNOT BE SAID ON THIS RECORD THAT THE DESTRUCTION OF PETITIONER'S
BUSINESS SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED MARKET CONDITIONS IN THE SERVICES WHICH
PETITIONER WAS ENGAGED IN RENDERING.  CF. APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER,
SUPRA, AT 512.  BUT, EVEN ASSUMING THAT SUCH AN EFFECT IS NECESSARY,
THE COURT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE SITUATION PRESENTED IN THIS
CASE AND A CASE IN WHICH A UNION BY SIMILAR METHODS AND WITH SIMILAR
MOTIVES WOULD DRIVE OUT OF BUSINESS A COMPANY WHOSE DEMISE WOULD AFFECT
PRICES IN THE FIELD. 

WITH THIS DECISION, THE LABOR MOVEMENT HAS COME FULL CIRCLE.  THE
WORKING MAN HAS STRUGGLED LONG, THE FIGHT HAS BEEN FILLED WITH HATRED,
AND CONFLICT HAS BEEN DANGEROUS, BUT NOW WORKERS MAY NOT BE DEPRIVED OF
THEIR LIVELIHOOD MERELY BECAUSE THEIR EMPLOYERS OPPOSE AND THEY FAVOR
UNIONS.  LABOR HAS WON OTHER RIGHTS AS WELL, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION,
OLD-AGE BENEFITS AND, WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT AND THE BASIS OF ALL ITS
GAINS, THE RECOGNITION THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO EARN HIS SUPPORT IS NOT
ALONE THE CONCERN OF THE INDIVIDUAL BUT IS THE PROBLEM WHICH ALL
ORGANIZED SOCIETIES MUST CONTEND WITH AND CONQUER IF THEY ARE TO
SURVIVE.  THIS COURT NOW SUSTAINS THE CLAIM OF A UNION TO THE RIGHT TO
DENY PARTICIPATION IN THE ECONOMIC WORLD TO AN EMPLOYER SIMPLY BECAUSE
THE UNION DISLIKES HIM.  THIS COURT PERMITS TO EMPLOYEES THE SAME
ARBITRARY DOMINANCE OVER THE ECONOMIC SPHERE WHICH THEY CONTROL THAT
LABOR SO LONG, SO BITTERLY AND SO RIGHTLY ASSERTED SHOULD BELONG TO NO
MAN. 

STRIKES AIMED AT COMPELLING THE EMPLOYER TO YIELD TO UNION DEMANDS
ARE NOT WITHIN THE SHERMAN ACT.  HERE THE EMPLOYER HAS YIELDED, AND THE
UNION HAS ACHIEVED THE END TO WHICH ALL LEGITIMATE UNION PRESSURE IS
DIRECTED AND LIMITED.  THE UNION CANNOT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE SHERMAN
ACT REFUSE TO ENJOY THE FRUITS OF ITS VICTORY AND DENY PEACE TERMS TO
AN EMPLOYER WHO HAS UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, HELD THAT A UNION CANNOT
LAWFULLY STRIKE FOR AN UNLAWFUL PURPOSE.  "THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON
BUSINESS - BE IT CALLED LIBERTY OR PROPERTY - HAS VALUE.  TO INTERFERE
WITH THIS RIGHT WITHOUT JUST CAUSE IS UNLAWFUL.  THE FACT THAT THE
INJURY WAS INFLICTED BY A STRIKE IS SOMETIMES A JUSTIFICATION.  BUT A
STRIKE MAY BE ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF ITS PURPOSE, HOWEVER ORDERLY THE
MANNER IN WHICH IT IS CONDUCTED.  TO COLLECT A STALE CLAIM DUE TO A
FELLOW MEMBER OF THE UNION WHO WAS FORMERLY EMPLOYED IN THE BUSINESS IS
NOT A PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE."  DORCHY V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306, 311.  NO
MORE PERMISSIBLE IS AN EXACTION OF PRIVATELY-DETERMINED PUNISHMENT FOR
ALLEGED MURDER.  AND BEING UNLAWFUL, UNION ACTIVITIES OF THIS KIND ARE
NOT PROTECTED BY THE CLAYTON AND NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACTS. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
























ASSOCIATED PRESS V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 1 


ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 6, 1944.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - 52 F.SUPP. 
362, AFFIRMED. 


BY-LAWS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION ENGAGED IN
GATHERING AND DISTRIBUTING NEWS IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,
PROHIBITED SERVICE OF AP NEWS TO NON-MEMBERS, PROHIBITED MEMBERS FROM
FURNISHING SPONTANEOUS NEWS TO NON-MEMBERS, AND EMPOWERED MEMBERS TO
BLOCK MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS OF COMPETITORS.  A CONTRACT BETWEEN AP
AND A CANADIAN PRESS ASSOCIATION OBLIGATED BOTH TO FURNISH NEWS
EXCLUSIVELY TO EACH OTHER.  CHARGING INTER ALIA THAT THE BY-LAWS AND
THE CONTRACT VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST AP AND MEMBER PUBLISHERS.  UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S
MOTION, THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  HELD: 

1.  THE BY-LAWS AND THE CONTRACT, TOGETHER WITH THE ADMITTED FACTS,
JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  RULE 56 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 
P. 5. 

2.  PUBLISHERS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT ARE SUBJECT, NO
LESS THAN OTHERS, TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE.  P. 7. 

3.  THE BY-LAWS ON THEIR FACE CONSTITUTE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE AND
VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 12. 

(A)  THAT AP HAD NOT ACHIEVED A COMPLETE MONOPOLY IS IRRELEVANT.  P.
12. 

(B)  TRADE IN NEWS CARRIED ON AMONG THE STATES IS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  P. 14. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT AP'S ACTIVITIES ARE COOPERATIVE DOES NOT RENDER
THE SHERMAN ACT INAPPLICABLE.  P. 14. 

(D)  ALTHOUGH TRUE IN A GENERAL SENSE THAT AN OWNER OF PROPERTY MAY
DISPOSE OF IT AS HE PLEASES, HE CAN NOT GO BEYOND THE EXERCISE OF THAT
RIGHT AND, BY CONTRACTS OR COMBINATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, UNDULY
HINDER OR OBSTRUCT THE FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 15. 

(E)  THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER NEWS AGENCIES WHICH SELL NEWS, AND
THAT AP'S REPORTS ARE NOT "INDISPENSABLE," CAN GIVE AP'S RESTRICTIVE BY
LAWS NO EXEMPTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 17. 

(F)  THE RESULT HERE DOES NOT INVOLVE AN APPLICATION OF THE "PUBLIC
UTILITY" CONCEPT TO THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS.  P. 19. 

(G)  ARRANGEMENTS OR COMBINATIONS DESIGNED TO STIFLE COMPETITION CAN
NOT BE IMMUNIZED THROUGH A MEMBERSHIP DEVICE WHICH WOULD ACCOMPLISH
THAT PURPOSE.  P. 19. 

(H)  APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO A COMBINATION OF PUBLISHERS TO
RESTRAIN TRADE IN NEWS DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  PP. 19-20. 

4.  THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT AP
NEWS IS TO BE FURNISHED TO COMPETITORS OF MEMBERS WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION THROUGH BY-LAWS CONTROLLING MEMBERSHIP OR OTHERWISE, IS
NOT VAGUE AND INDEFINITE AND IS APPROVED.  P. 21. 

5.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN REFUSING TO HOLD AS A VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT STANDING ALONE (1) THE BY-LAWS PROVISION FORBIDDING
SERVICE OF AP NEWS TO NON-MEMBERS, (2) THE BY-LAWS PROVISION FORBIDDING
AP MEMBERS FROM FURNISHING SPONTANEOUS NEWS TO NON-MEMBERS, OR (3) THE
CANADIAN PRESS CONTRACT; AND THE COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN ENJOINING THEIR
OBSERVANCE TEMPORARILY, PENDING AP'S ABANDONMENT OF THE BY-LAWS
PROVISION EMPOWERING MEMBERS TO BLOCK MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS OF
COMPETITORS.  P. 21. 

6.  THE FASHIONING OF A DECREE IN AN ANTITRUST CASE, TO PREVENT
FUTURE VIOLATIONS AND ERADICATE EXISTING EVILS, RESTS LARGELY IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT.  P. 22. 

7.  THE CASE HAVING BEEN PRESENTED ON THE NARROW ISSUES ARISING OUT
OF UNDISPUTED FACTS, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DECREE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROADER; AND, IF THE DECREE IN ITS PRESENT FORM
SHOULD PROVE INADEQUATE TO PREVENT FURTHER DISCRIMINATORY TRADE
RESTRAINTS AGAINST NON-MEMBER NEWSPAPERS, THE DISTRICT COURT'S
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE WILL ENABLE IT TO TAKE
APPROPRIATE ACTION.  P. 22. 

ASSOCIATED PRESS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 57.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 58, TRIBUNE COMPANY ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, AND
NO. 59, UNITED STATES V. ASSOCIATED PRESS ET AL., ALSO ON APPEALS FROM
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK. 

APPEALS FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES IN A SUIT
BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT* . 

*IN NUMBER 59, ALL THE SITTING JUSTICES CONCUR.  IN NUMBERS 57 AND
58, MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
CONCUR.  MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THAT PART OF THE OPINION
WHICH DISCUSSES THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE BUT CONCURS IN THE JUDGMENT
OF AFFIRMANCE IN A SEPARATE OPINION. 

THE PUBLISHERS OF MORE THAN 1,200 NEWSPAPERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS (AP), A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE
MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  ITS BUSINESS IS
THE COLLECTION, ASSEMBLY AND DISTRIBUTION OF NEWS.  THE NEWS IT
DISTRIBUTES IS ORIGINALLY OBTAINED BY DIRECT EMPLOYEES OF THE
ASSOCIATION, EMPLOYEES OF THE MEMBER NEWSPAPERS, AND THE EMPLOYEES OF
FOREIGN INDEPENDENT NEWS AGENCIES WITH WHICH AP HAS CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONS, SUCH AS THE CANADIAN PRESS.  DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEWS IS
MADE THROUGH INTERSTATE CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION TO THE VARIOUS
NEWSPAPER MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION, WHO PAY FOR IT UNDER AN
ASSESSMENT PLAN WHICH CONTEMPLATES NO PROFIT TO AP. 

THE UNITED STATES FILED A BILL IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST AP AND OTHER DEFENDANTS CHARGING THAT THEY HAD
VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, 26 STAT. 209, IN THAT THEIR ACTS
AND CONDUCT CONSTITUTED (1) A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT
OF TRADE AND COMMERCE IN NEWS AMONG THE STATES, AND (2) AN ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE A PART OF THAT TRADE. 

THE HEART OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CHARGE WAS THAT APPELLANTS HAD BY
CONCERTED ACTION SET UP A SYSTEM OF BY-LAWS WHICH PROHIBITED ALL AP
MEMBERS FROM SELLING NEWS TO NON-MEMBERS, AND WHICH GRANTED EACH MEMBER
POWERS TO BLOCK ITS NON-MEMBER COMPETITORS FROM MEMBERSHIP.  THESE BY
LAWS, TO WHICH ALL AP MEMBERS HAD ASSENTED, WERE, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
ADMITTED FACTS, CHARGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  A
FURTHER CHARGE RELATED TO A CONTRACT BETWEEN AP AND CANADIAN PRESS (A
NEWS AGENCY OF CANADA, SIMILAR TO AP), UNDER WHICH THE CANADIAN AGENCY
AND AP OBLIGATED THEMSELVES TO FURNISH NEWS EXCLUSIVELY TO EACH OTHER. 
THE DISTRICT COURT, COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES, HELD THAT THE BY-LAWS
UNLAWFULLY RESTRICTED ADMISSION TO AP MEMBERSHIP, AND VIOLATED THE
SHERMAN ACT INSOFAR AS THE BY-LAWS' PROVISIONS CLOTHED A MEMBER WITH
POWERS TO IMPOSE OR DISPENSE WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE ADMISSION OF HIS
BUSINESS COMPETITOR.  CONTINUED OBSERVANCE OF THESE BY-LAWS WAS
ENJOINED.  THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE CANADIAN CONTRACT WAS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE RESTRICTIVE MEMBERSHIP CONDITIONS, AND ENJOINED
ITS OBSERVANCE PENDING ABANDONMENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP RESTRICTIONS.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNDER RULE 56 OF THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE,  FN1  WAS GRANTED AND ITS PRAYER FOR RELIEF WAS
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.  52 F.SUPP.  362.  BOTH SIDES HAVE
BROUGHT THE CASE TO US ON DIRECT APPEAL.  15 U.S.C., SEC. 29; 28
U.S.C., SEC. 345. 

AT THIS POINT, IT SEEMS ADVISABLE TO PASS UPON THE CONTENTION OF THE
APPELLANTS THAT THERE WERE GENUINE DISPUTES AS TO MATERIAL FACTS AND
THAT THE CASE THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL.  THE ONLY
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR MADE BY THE APPELLANTS IN NO. 57(ASSOCIATED PRESS
ET AL. V. UNITED STATES) RELATING TO THIS QUESTION ARE THAT THE COURT
ERRED "IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO GENUINE ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES
AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT" AND "IN NOT ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST
THE PLAINTIFF."  THIS LATTER ASSIGNMENT IS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT
SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS WERE PROPERLY UTILIZED IN THE CASE.  THE APPELLANTS
IN NO. 58(TRIBUNE COMPANY ET AL. V. UNITED STATES) HAVE ONE ASSIGNMENT
OF ERROR TO THE EFFECT THAT "THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO A TRIAL OF
GENUINE ISSUES OF FACT UNMENTIONED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT BUT
WHICH IF FOUND FOR THE DEFENDANTS WOULD RENDER THIS HOLDING
UNWARRANTED."  NONE OF THE APPELLANTS HAS POINTED TO ANY DISPUTED FACTS
ESSENTIAL TO A DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THE BY
LAWS AND THE CONTRACT.  ADMITTING THE EXISTENCE OF BOTH THE BY-LAWS AND
THE CONTRACT, THEIR ANSWERS AND THEIR AFFIDAVITS IN THE SUMMARY
PROCEEDINGS DEFENDED THE LEGALITY OF THE RESTRICTIVE ARRANGEMENTS, BUT
DID NOT IN ANY INSTANCE DENY THAT NON-MEMBERS OF AP WERE DENIED ACCESS
TO NEWS OF AP AND OF ALL OF ITS MEMBER PUBLISHERS BY REASON OF THE
CONCERTED ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE APPELLANTS.  NOR WAS IT DENIED THAT
THE BY-LAWS GRANTED AP MEMBERS POWERS TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS
UPON ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP OF NON-MEMBER COMPETITORS.  THE COURT
BELOW IN MAKING FINDINGS AND ENTERING JUDGMENT CAREFULLY ABSTAINED FROM
THE CONSIDERATION OF ANY EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT POSSIBLY BE IN DISPUTE. 
WE AGREE THAT RULE 56 SHOULD BE CAUTIOUSLY INVOKED TO THE END THAT
PARTIES MAY ALWAYS BE AFFORDED A TRIAL WHERE THERE IS A BONA FIDE
DISPUTE OF FACTS BETWEEN THEM.  SARTOR V. ARKANSAS NATURAL GAS CORP.,
321 U.S. 620.  THERE WAS NO INJURY TO ANY OF THE APPELLANTS AS A RESULT
OF THE SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS SINCE, FOR REASONS TO BE INDICATED, THE
RESTRICTIVE ARRANGEMENTS, WHICH APPELLANTS ADMITTED, WERE SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY SUMMARY ACTION BY THE COURT AT THAT STAGE OF THE CASE.  IN
REACHING OUR CONCLUSION ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT QUESTION, WE ARE NOT
UNMINDFUL OF THE ARGUMENT THAT NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS CHARGED WITH
COMBINING COOPERATIVELY TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE
A DIFFERENT AND MORE FAVORABLE KIND OF TRIAL PROCEDURE THAN ALL OTHER
PERSONS COVERED BY THE ACT.  NO LANGUAGE IN THE SHERMAN ACT OR THE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STATUTE LENDS SUPPORT TO THE SUGGESTION.  THERE IS NO
SINGLE ELEMENT IN OUR TRADITIONAL INSISTENCE UPON AN EQUALLY FAIR TRIAL
FOR EVERY PERSON FROM WHICH ANY SUCH DISCRIMINATORY TRIAL PRACTICE
COULD STEM.  FOR EQUAL - NOT UNEQUAL - JUSTICE UNDER LAW IS THE GOAL OF
OUR SOCIETY.  OUR LEGAL SYSTEM HAS NOT ESTABLISHED DIFFERENT MEASURES
OF PROOF FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES IN WHICH EQUALLY INTELLIGENT AND
RESPONSIBLE DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE SAME STATUTES. 
MEMBER PUBLISHERS OF AP ARE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS FOR PROFIT EXACTLY AS
ARE OTHER BUSINESS MEN WHO SELL FOOD, STEEL, ALUMINUM, OR ANYTHING ELSE
PEOPLE NEED OR WANT.  SEE INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V. ASSOCIATED
PRESS, 248 U.S. 215, 229, 230.  ALL ARE ALIKE COVERED BY THE SHERMAN
ACT.  THE FACT THAT THE PUBLISHER HANDLES NEWS WHILE OTHERS HANDLE FOOD
DOES NOT, AS WE SHALL LATER POINT OUT, AFFORD THE PUBLISHER A PECULIAR
CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTUARY IN WHICH HE CAN WITH IMPUNITY VIOLATE LAWS
REGULATING HIS BUSINESS PRACTICES. 

NOR IS A PUBLISHER WHO ENGAGES IN BUSINESS PRACTICES MADE UNLAWFUL BY
THE SHERMAN ACT ENTITLED TO A PARTIAL IMMUNITY BY REASON OF THE "CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER" DOCTRINE WHICH COURTS HAVE USED TO PROTECT FREEDOM
TO SPEAK, TO PRINT, AND TO WORSHIP.  THAT DOCTRINE, AS RELATED TO THIS
CASE, PROVIDES PROTECTION FOR UTTERANCES THEMSELVES, SO THAT THE
PRINTED OR SPOKEN WORD MAY NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF PREVIOUS RESTRAINT OR
PUNISHMENT, UNLESS THEIR EXPRESSION CREATES A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
OF BRINGING ABOUT A SUBSTANTIAL EVIL WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO
PROHIBIT.  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 261.  FORMULATED AS IT
WAS TO PROTECT LIBERTY OF THOUGHT AND OF EXPRESSION, IT WOULD DEGRADE
THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER DOCTRINE TO FASHION FROM IT A SHIELD FOR
BUSINESS PUBLISHERS WHO ENGAGE IN BUSINESS PRACTICES CONDEMNED BY THE
SHERMAN ACT.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE HOLD THAT PUBLISHERS, LIKE ALL OTHERS
CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT, ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STATUTE.  AND THAT MEANS THAT SUCH JUDGMENTS
SHALL NOT BE RENDERED AGAINST PUBLISHERS OR OTHERS WHERE THERE ARE
GENUINE DISPUTES OF FACT ON MATERIAL ISSUES.  ACCORDINGLY, WE TREAT THE
CAUSE AS DID THE COURT BELOW, AND WILL CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE BY
LAWS AND THE CONTRACT EXCLUSIVELY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR TERMS AND THE
BACKGROUND OF FACTS WHICH THE APPELLANTS ADMITTED. 

TO PUT THE ISSUE INTO PROPER FOCUS, IT BECOMES NECESSARY AT THIS
JUNCTURE TO EXAMINE THE BY-LAWS. 

ALL MEMBERS MUST CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY THEM.  THEY IMPOSE UPON
MEMBERS CERTAIN DUTIES AND RESTRICTIONS IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR
SEPARATE BUSINESSES.  FOR A VIOLATION OF THE BY-LAWS SEVERE
DISCIPLINARY ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BY THE ASSOCIATION.  THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS MAY IMPOSE A FINE OF $1,000.00 OR SUSPEND A MEMBER AND SUCH
"ACTION  ...  SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  NO MEMBER SHALL HAVE ANY
RIGHT TO QUESTION THE SAME."  FN2  THE OFFENDING MEMBER MAY ALSO BE
EXPELLED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION FOR ANY REASON "WHICH IN ITS
ABSOLUTE DISCRETION IT SHALL DEEM OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS TO BE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS AND WELFARE OF THE CORPORATION AND ITS
MEMBERS, OR TO JUSTIFY SUCH EXPULSION.  THE ACTION OF THE REGULAR
MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION IN SUCH REGARD SHALL BE FINAL AND THERE
SHALL BE NO RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST OR REVIEW OF SUCH ACTION." 

THESE BY-LAWS, FOR A VIOLATION OF WHICH MEMBERS MAY BE THUS FINED,
SUSPENDED, OR EXPELLED, REQUIRE THAT EACH NEWSPAPER MEMBER PUBLISH THE
AP NEWS REGULARLY IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AND THAT EACH SHALL "PROMPTLY
FURNISH TO THE CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, ALL THE
NEWS OF SUCH MEMBER'S DISTRICT, THE AREA OF WHICH SHALL BE DETERMINED
BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS."  FN3 ALL MEMBERS ARE PROHIBITED FROM
SELLING OR FURNISHING THEIR SPONTANEOUS NEWS TO ANY AGENCY OR PUBLISHER
EXCEPT TO AP.  OTHER BY-LAWS REQUIRE EACH NEWSPAPER MEMBER TO CONDUCT
HIS OR ITS BUSINESS IN SUCH MANNER THAT THE NEWS FURNISHED BY THE
CORPORATION SHALL NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY NON-MEMBER IN ADVANCE OF
PUBLICATION.  THE JOINT EFFECT OF THESE BY-LAWS IS TO BLOCK ALL
NEWSPAPER NON-MEMBERS FROM ANY OPPORTUNITY TO BUY NEWS FROM AP OR ANY
OF ITS PUBLISHER MEMBERS.  ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN AP THEREBY
BECOMES A PREREQUISITE TO OBTAINING AP NEWS OR BUYING NEWS FROM ANY ONE
OF ITS MORE THAN TWELVE HUNDRED PUBLISHERS.  THE ERECTION OF OBSTACLES
TO THE ACQUISITION OF MEMBERSHIP CONSEQUENTLY CAN MAKE IT DIFFICULT, IF
NOT IMPOSSIBLE, FOR NON-MEMBERS TO GET ANY OF THE NEWS FURNISHED BY AP
OR ANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THIS COMBINATION OF AMERICAN
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS.  FN4 

THE BY-LAWS PROVIDE A VERY SIMPLE AND NON-BURDEN-SOME ROAD FOR
ADMISSION OF A NON-COMPETING APPLICANT.  THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN SUCH
CASE CAN ELECT THE APPLICANT WITHOUT PAYMENT OF MONEY OR THE IMPOSITION
OF ANY OTHER ONEROUS TERMS.  IN STRIKING CONTRAST ARE THE BY-LAWS WHICH
GOVERN ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS WHO DO COMPETE.  HISTORICALLY, AS WELL
AS PRESENTLY, APPLICANTS WHO WOULD OFFER COMPETITION TO OLD MEMBERS
HAVE A HARD ROAD TO TRAVEL.  THIS APPEARS FROM THE FOLLOWING FACTS
FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

AP ORIGINALLY FUNCTIONED AS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, AND AT THAT TIME
AN EXISTING MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION HAD AN ABSOLUTE VETO POWER OVER
THE APPLICATIONS OF A PUBLISHER WHO WAS OR WOULD BE IN COMPETITION WITH
THE OLD MEMBER.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HELD THAT AP, THUS
OPERATED, WAS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  INTER-OCEAN PUBLISHING CO. V.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, 184 ILL. 438, 56 N.E. 822.  AS A RESULT OF THIS
DECISION, THE PRESENT ASSOCIATION WAS ORGANIZED IN NEW YORK.  UNDER THE
NEW BY-LAWS, THE UNQUALIFIED VETO POWER OF THE ILLINOIS AP MEMBERS WAS
CHANGED INTO A "RIGHT OF PROTEST" WHICH, WHEN EXERCISED, PREVENTED THE
AP DIRECTORS FROM ELECTING THE APPLICANTS AS IN OTHER CASES.  THE OLD
MEMBER'S PROTEST AGAINST HIS COMPETITOR'S APPLICATION COULD THEN BE
OVERRULED ONLY BY THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF FOUR-FIFTHS OF ALL THE
MEMBERS OF AP. 

IN 1931, THE BY-LAWS WERE AMENDED SO AS TO EXTEND THE RIGHT OF
PROTEST TO ALL WHO HAD BEEN MEMBERS FOR MORE THAN 5 YEARS AND UPON WHOM
NO RIGHT OF PROTEST HAD BEEN CONFERRED BY THE 1900 BY-LAWS.  IN 1942,
AFTER COMPLAINTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAD BROUGHT ABOUT AN
INVESTIGATION, THE BY-LAWS WERE AGAIN AMENDED.  THESE BY-LAWS,
PRESENTLY INVOLVED, LEAVE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FREE TO ELECT NEW
MEMBERS UNLESS THE APPLICANT WOULD COMPETE WITH OLD MEMBERS, AND IN
THAT EVENT THE BOARD CANNOT ACT AT ALL IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSENT BY THE
APPLICANT'S MEMBER COMPETITOR.  SHOULD THE OLD MEMBER OBJECT TO
ADMISSION OF HIS COMPETITOR, THE APPLICATION MUST BE REFERRED TO A
REGULAR OR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION.  AS A PREREQUISITE TO
ELECTION, HE MUST (A) PAY TO THE ASSOCIATION 10% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
THE REGULAR ASSESSMENTS RECEIVED BY IT FROM OLD MEMBERS IN THE SAME
COMPETITIVE FIELD DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1, 1900 TO THE
FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH PRECEDING THE DATE OF THE ELECTION OF THE
APPLICANT,  FN5  (B) RELINQUISH ANY EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS THE APPLICANT MAY
HAVE TO ANY NEWS OR NEWS PICTURE SERVICES AND, WHEN REQUESTED TO DO SO
BY HIS MEMBER COMPETITOR IN THAT FIELD, MUST "REQUIRE THE SAID NEWS OR
NEWS PICTURE SERVICES, OR ANY OF THEM, TO BE FURNISHED TO SUCH MEMBER
OR MEMBERS, UPON THE SAME TERMS AS THEY ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
APPLICANT," AND (C) RECEIVE A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE REGULAR MEMBERS WHO
VOTE IN PERSON OR BY PROXY.  THESE OBSTACLES TO MEMBERSHIP, AND TO THE
PURCHASE OF AP NEWS, ONLY EXISTED WHERE THERE WAS A COMPETING OLD
MEMBER IN THE SAME FIELD.    THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE BY-LAWS
IN AND OF THEMSELVES WERE CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE  FN6  IN
THAT THEY CONTAINED PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO STIFLE COMPETITION IN THE
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING FIELD.  FN7  THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT AP'S
RESTRICTIVE BY-LAWS HAD HINDERED AND IMPEDED THE GROWTH OF COMPETING
NEWSPAPERS.  FN8  THIS LATTER FINDING, AS TO THE PAST EFFECT OF THE
RESTRICTIONS, IS CHALLENGED.  WE ARE INCLINED TO THINK THAT IT IS
SUPPORTED BY UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, BUT WE DO NOT STOP TO LABOR THE
POINT.  FOR THE COURT BELOW FOUND, AND WE THINK CORRECTLY, THAT THE BY
LAWS ON THEIR FACE, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR PAST EFFECT, CONSTITUTE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  COMBINATIONS ARE NO LESS UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY
HAVE NOT AS YET RESULTED IN RESTRAINT.  AN AGREEMENT OR COMBINATION TO
FOLLOW A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH WILL NECESSARILY RESTRAIN OR
MONOPOLIZE A PART OF TRADE OR COMMERCE MAY VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT,
WHETHER IT BE "WHOLLY NASCENT OR ABORTIVE ON THE ONE HAND, OR
SUCCESSFUL ON THE OTHER."  FN9  FOR THESE REASONS THE ARGUMENT,
REPEATED HERE IN VARIOUS FORMS, THAT AP HAD NOT YET ACHIEVED A COMPLETE
MONOPOLY IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT.  UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE DID SHOW, HOWEVER,
THAT ITS BY-LAWS HAD TIED THE HANDS OF ALL OF ITS NUMEROUS PUBLISHERS,
TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY COULD NOT AND DID NOT SELL ANY PART OF THEIR
NEWS SO THAT IT COULD REACH ANY OF THEIR NON-MEMBER COMPETITORS.  IN
THIS RESPECT THE COURT DID FIND, AND THAT FINDING CANNOT POSSIBLY BE
CHALLENGED, THAT AP'S BY-LAWS HAD HINDERED AND RESTRAINED THE SALE OF
INTERSTATE NEWS TO NON-MEMBERS WHO COMPETED WITH MEMBERS. 

INABILITY TO BUY NEWS FROM THE LARGEST NEWS AGENCY, OR ANY ONE OF ITS
MULTITUDE OF MEMBERS, CAN HAVE MOST SERIOUS EFFECTS ON THE PUBLICATION
OF COMPETITIVE NEWSPAPERS, BOTH THOSE PRESENTLY PUBLISHED AND THOSE
WHICH, BUT FOR THESE RESTRICTIONS, MIGHT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FUTURE. 
FN10 THIS IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT, IN 26
CITIES OF THE UNITED STATES, EXISTING NEWSPAPERS ALREADY HAVE CONTRACTS
FOR AP NEWS AND THE SAME NEWSPAPERS HAVE CONTRACTS WITH UNITED PRESS
AND INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE UNDER WHICH NEW NEWSPAPERS WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO PAY THE CONTRACT HOLDERS LARGE SUMS TO ENTER THE FIELD. 
FN11  THE NET EFFECT IS SERIOUSLY TO LIMIT THE OPPORTUNITY OF ANY NEW
PAPER TO ENTER THESE CITIES.  TRADE RESTRAINTS OF THIS CHARACTER, AIMED
AT THE DESTRUCTION OF COMPETITION, TEND TO BLOCK THE INITIATIVE WHICH
BRINGS NEWCOMERS INTO A FIELD OF BUSINESS AND TO FRUSTRATE THE FREE
ENTERPRISE SYSTEM WHICH IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO
PROTECT.  FN12 

WE NEED NOT AGAIN PASS UPON THE CONTENTION THAT TRADE IN NEWS CARRIED
ON AMONG THE STATES IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ASSOCIATED PRESS V.
LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103, OR THAT BECAUSE AP'S ACTIVITIES ARE
COOPERATIVE, THEY FALL OUTSIDE THE SPHERE OF BUSINESS, AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 519, 528.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT WHEN
CONGRESS HAS DESIRED TO PERMIT COOPERATIVES TO INTERFERE WITH THE
COMPETITIVE SYSTEM OF BUSINESS, IT HAS DONE SO EXPRESSLY BY
LEGISLATION.  FN13 

NOR CAN WE TREAT THIS CASE AS THOUGH IT MERELY INVOLVED A REPORTER'S
CONTRACT TO DELIVER HIS NEWS REPORTS EXCLUSIVELY TO A SINGLE NEWSPAPER,
OR AN EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT AS TO NEWS BETWEEN TWO NEWSPAPERS IN
DIFFERENT CITIES.  FOR SUCH TRADE RESTRAINTS MIGHT WELL BE
"REASONABLE," AND THEREFORE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1.  BUT HOWEVER INNOCENT
SUCH AGREEMENTS MIGHT BE, STANDING ALONE, THEY WOULD ASSUME QUITE A
DIFFERENT ASPECT IF UTILIZED AS ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A PROGRAM TO
HAMPER OR DESTROY COMPETITION.  IT IS IN THIS LIGHT THAT WE MUST VIEW
THIS CASE. 

IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THE RESTRICTIVE BY-LAWS SHOULD BE TREATED AS
BEYOND THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, SINCE THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY CAN CHOOSE HIS ASSOCIATES AND CAN, AS TO THAT WHICH HE HAS
PRODUCED BY HIS OWN ENTERPRISE AND SAGACITY, EFFORTS OR INGENUITY,
DECIDE FOR HIMSELF WHETHER AND TO WHOM TO SELL OR NOT TO SELL.  WHILE
IT IS TRUE IN A VERY GENERAL SENSE THAT ONE CAN DISPOSE OF HIS PROPERTY
AS HE PLEASES, HE CANNOT "GO BEYOND THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT, AND BY
CONTRACTS OR COMBINATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, UNDULY HINDER OR
OBSTRUCT THE FREE AND NATURAL FLOW OF COMMERCE IN THE CHANNELS OF
INTERSTATE TRADE."  UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707,
722.  THE SHERMAN ACT WAS SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO PROHIBIT INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES FROM BECOMING "ASSOCIATES" IN A COMMON PLAN WHICH IS BOUND
TO REDUCE THEIR COMPETITOR'S OPPORTUNITY TO BUY OR SELL THE THINGS IN
WHICH THE GROUPS COMPETE.  VICTORY OF A MEMBER OF SUCH A COMBINATION
OVER ITS BUSINESS RIVALS ACHIEVED BY SUCH COLLECTIVE MEANS CANNOT
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE SHERMAN ACT OR WITH PRACTICAL, EVERYDAY KNOWLEDGE
BE ATTRIBUTED TO INDIVIDUAL "ENTERPRISE AND SAGACITY"; SUCH HAMPERING
OF BUSINESS RIVALS CAN ONLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THAT WHICH REALLY MAKES IT
POSSIBLE - THE COLLECTIVE POWER OF AN UNLAWFUL COMBINATION.  THAT THE
OBJECT OF SALE IS THE CREATION OR PRODUCT OF A MAN'S INGENUITY DOES NOT
ALTER THIS PRINCIPLE.  FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457.  FN14  IT IS OBVIOUSLY FALLACIOUS TO VIEW THE
BY-LAWS HERE IN ISSUE AS INSTITUTING A PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE AND PERMIT
FULL FREEDOM OF SALE AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY BY ITS OWNERS.  RATHER,
THESE PUBLISHERS HAVE, BY CONCERTED ARRANGEMENTS, POOLED THEIR POWER TO
ACQUIRE, TO PURCHASE, AND TO DISPOSE OF NEWS REPORTS THROUGH THE
CHANNELS OF COMMERCE.  THEY HAVE ALSO POOLED THEIR ECONOMIC AND NEWS
CONTROL POWER AND, IN EXERTING THAT POWER, HAVE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS
WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND TO BE "PLAINLY DESIGNED IN THE INTEREST
OF PREVENTING COMPETITION."  FN15 

IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THERE ARE OTHER NEWS AGENCIES
WHICH SELL NEWS, IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE ACT FOR AN OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS TO COMBINE TO DECLINE TO SELL THEIR
NEWS TO THE MINORITY.  BUT THE FACT THAT AN AGREEMENT TO RESTRAIN TRADE
DOES NOT INHIBIT COMPETITION IN ALL OF THE OBJECTS OF THAT TRADE CANNOT
SAVE IT FROM THE CONDEMNATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN16  IT IS APPARENT
THAT THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PUBLISH NEWS IN A GIVEN FIELD, FURNISHED BY
AP AND ALL OF ITS MEMBERS, GIVES MANY NEWSPAPERS A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE OVER THEIR RIVALS.  FN17  CONVERSELY, A NEWSPAPER WITHOUT AP
SERVICE IS MORE THAN LIKELY TO BE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT STATED THAT IT WAS TO SECURE THIS ADVANTAGE OVER RIVALS
THAT THE BY-LAWS EXISTED.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SOME
COMPETING PAPERS HAVE GOTTEN ALONG WITHOUT AP NEWS, BUT MORNING
NEWSPAPERS, WHICH CONTROL 96% OF THE TOTAL CIRCULATION IN THE UNITED
STATES, HAVE AP NEWS SERVICE.  AND THE DISTRICT COURT'S UNCHALLENGED
FINDING WAS THAT "AP IS A VAST, INTRICATELY RETICULATED ORGANIZATION,
THE LARGEST OF ITS KIND, GATHERING NEWS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, THE
CHIEF SINGLE SOURCE OF NEWS FOR THE AMERICAN PRESS, UNIVERSALLY AGREED
TO BE OF GREAT CONSEQUENCE." 

NEVERTHELESS, WE ARE ASKED TO REVERSE THESE JUDGMEMTS ON THE GROUND
THAT THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO SHOW THAT AP REPORTS, WHICH MIGHT BE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR OWN "ENTERPRISE AND SAGACITY," ARE CLOTHED "IN
THE ROBES OF INDISPENSABILITY."  THE ABSENCE OF "INDISPENSABILITY" IS
SAID TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CHAIN OF REASONING:
AP HAS MADE ITS NEWS GENERALLY AVAILABLE TO THE PEOPLE BY SUPPLYING IT
TO A LIMITED AND SELECT GROUP OF PUBLISHERS IN THE VARIOUS CITIES;
THEREFORE, IT IS SAID, AP AND ITS MEMBER PUBLISHERS HAVE NOT DEPRIVED
THE READING PUBLIC OF AP NEWS; ALL LOCAL READERS HAVE AN "ADEQUATE
ACCESS" TO AP NEWS, SINCE ALL THEY NEED DO IN ANY CITY TO GET IT IS TO
BUY, ON WHATEVER TERMS THEY CAN IN A PROTECTED MARKET, THE PARTICULAR
NEWSPAPER SELECTED FOR THE PUBLIC BY AP AND ITS MEMBERS.  WE REJECT
THESE CONTENTIONS.  THE PROPOSED "INDISPENSABILITY" TEST WOULD FLY IN
THE FACE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND ALL OF OUR PREVIOUS
INTERPRETATIONS OF IT.  MOREOVER, IT WOULD MAKE THAT LAW A DEAD LETTER
IN ALL FIELDS OF BUSINESS, A LAW WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONSISTENTLY
MAINTAINED TO BE AN ESSENTIAL SAFEGUARD TO THE KIND OF PRIVATE
COMPETITIVE BUSINESS ECONOMY THIS COUNTRY HAS SOUGHT TO MAINTAIN. 

THE RESTRAINTS ON TRADE IN NEWS HERE WERE NO LESS THAN THOSE HELD TO
FALL WITHIN THE BAN OF THE SHERMAN ACT WITH REFERENCE TO COMBINATIONS
TO RESTRAIN TRADE OUTLETS IN THE SALE OF TILES, MONTAGUE & CO. V.
LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38; OR ENAMELED IRONWARE, STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 48-49; OR LUMBER, EASTERN STATES LUMBER
DEALERS' ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600, 611; OR WOMEN'S CLOTHES,
FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, SUPRA; OR
MOTION PICTURES, UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S.
173.  HERE AS IN THE FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD CASE, SUPRA, 465, "THE
COMBINATION IS IN REALITY AN EXTRA-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, WHICH
PRESCRIBES RULES FOR THE REGULATION AND RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND PROVIDES EXTRA-JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS FOR DETERMINATION AND
PUNISHMENT OF VIOLATIONS, AND THUS 'TRENCHES UPON THE POWER OF THE
NATIONAL LEGISLATURE AND VIOLATES THE STATUTE.'  ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211, 242."  BY THE RESTRICTIVE BY-LAWS
EACH OF THE PUBLISHERS IN THE COMBINATION HAS, IN EFFECT, "SURRENDERED
HIMSELF COMPLETELY TO THE CONTROL OF THE ASSOCIATION," ANDERSON V.
SHIPOWNERS ASSN., 272 U.S. 359, 362, IN RESPECT TO THE DISPOSITION OF
NEWS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THEREFORE THIS CONTRACTUAL RESTRAINT OF
INTERSTATE TRADE, "DESIGNED IN THE INTEREST OF PREVENTING COMPETITION,"
CANNOT BE ONE OF THE "NORMAL AND USUAL AGREEMENTS IN AID OF TRADE AND
COMMERCE WHICH MAY BE FOUND NOT TO BE WITHIN THE (SHERMAN) ACT  ..." 
EASTERN STATES LUMBER DEALERS' ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 612,
613.  IT IS FURTHER SAID THAT WE REACH OUR CONCLUSION BY APPLICATION OF
THE "PUBLIC UTILITY" CONCEPT TO THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS.  THIS IS NOT
CORRECT.  WE MERELY HOLD THAT ARRANGEMENTS OR COMBINATIONS DESIGNED TO
STIFLE COMPETITION CANNOT BE IMMUNIZED BY ADOPTING A MEMBERSHIP DEVICE
ACCOMPLISHING THAT PURPOSE. 

FINALLY, THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT TO APPLY THE SHERMAN ACT TO THIS
ASSOCIATION OF PUBLISHERS CONSTITUTES AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  PERHAPS IT WOULD BE A
SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO THIS CONTENTION TO REFER TO THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT IN ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, AND INDIANA FARMER'S
GUIDE CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER CO., 293 U.S. 268.  IT WOULD BE STRANGE
INDEED, HOWEVER, IF THE GRAVE CONCERN FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS WHICH
PROMPTED ADOPTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT SHOULD BE READ AS A COMMAND
THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO PROTECT THAT FREEDOM.  THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, FAR FROM PROVIDING AN ARGUMENT AGAINST APPLICATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT, HERE PROVIDES POWERFUL REASONS TO THE CONTRARY.  THAT
AMENDMENT RESTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE WIDEST POSSIBLE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION FROM DIVERSE AND ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES IS
ESSENTIAL TO THE WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC, THAT A FREE PRESS IS A
CONDITION OF A FREE SOCIETY.  SURELY A COMMAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT
ITSELF SHALL NOT IMPEDE THE FREE FLOW OF IDEAS DOES NOT AFFORD NON
GOVERNMENTAL COMBINATIONS A REFUGE IF THEY IMPOSE RESTRAINTS UPON THAT
CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED FREEDOM.  FREEDOM TO PUBLISH MEANS FREEDOM
FOR ALL AND NOT FOR SOME.  FREEDOM TO PUBLISH IS GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, BUT FREEDOM TO COMBINE TO KEEP OTHERS FROM PUBLISHING IS
NOT.  FREEDOM OF THE PRESS FROM GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT SANCTION REPRESSION OF THAT FREEDOM BY PRIVATE
INTERESTS.  FN18  THE FIRST AMENDMENT AFFORDS NOT THE SLIGHTEST SUPPORT
FOR THE CONTENTION THAT A COMBINATION TO RESTRAIN TRADE IN NEWS AND
VIEWS HAS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY. 

WE NOW TURN TO THE DECREE.  HAVING ADJUDGED THE BY-LAWS IMPOSING
RESTRICTIONS ON APPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP TO BE ILLEGAL, THE COURT
ENJOINED THE DEFENDANTS FROM OBSERVING THEM, OR AGREEING TO OBSERVE ANY
NEW OR AMENDED BY-LAW HAVING A LIKE PURPOSE OR EFFECT.  IT FURTHER
PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THE DECREE SHOULD PREVENT THE ADOPTION BY THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS OF NEW OR AMENDED BY-LAWS "WHICH WILL RESTRICT
ADMISSION, PROVIDED THAT MEMBERS IN THE SAME CITY AND IN THE SAME
'FIELD' (MORNING, EVENING OR SUNDAY), AS AN APPLICANT PUBLISHING A
NEWSPAPER IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR ITS TERRITORIES, SHALL NOT
HAVE POWER TO IMPOSE, OR DISPENSE WITH, ANY CONDITIONS UPON HIS
ADMISSION AND THAT THE BY-LAWS SHALL AFFIRMATIVELY DECLARE THAT THE
EFFECT OF ADMISSION UPON THE ABILITY OF SUCH APPLICANT TO COMPETE WITH
MEMBERS IN THE SAME CITY AND 'FIELD' SHALL NOT BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION IN PASSING UPON HIS APPLICATION."  SOME OF APPELLANTS
ARGUE THAT THIS DECREE IS VAGUE AND INDEFINITE.  THEY ARGUE THAT IT
WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSOCIATION TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ITS
MEMBERS TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE COMPETITIVE SITUATION IN PASSING
UPON APPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THE DECREE IS
AMBIGUOUS.  WE ASSUME, WITH THE COURT BELOW, THAT AP WILL FAITHFULLY
CARRY OUT ITS PURPOSE.  INTERPRETING THE DECREE TO MEAN THAT AP NEWS IS
TO BE FURNISHED TO COMPETITORS OF OLD MEMBERS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
THROUGH BY-LAWS CONTROLLING MEMBERSHIP, OR OTHERWISE, WE APPROVE IT. 
THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT, TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE RESTRICTIVE
CLAUSES ON ADMISSIONS TO MEMBERSHIP, THOSE SECTIONS OF THE BY-LAWS
VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT WHICH PREVENTED SERVICE OF AP NEWS TO NON
MEMBERS AND PREVENTED AP MEMBERS FROM FURNISHING SPONTANEOUS NEWS TO
ANYONE NOT A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION.  IT HELD THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
AP AND THE CANADIAN PRESS, UNDER WHICH AP SECURED EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
RECEIVE THE NEWS REPORTS OF THE CANADIAN PRESS AND ITS MEMBERS, WAS
ALSO, WHEN TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE RESTRICTIVE MEMBERSHIP
AGREEMENTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT DECLINED TO HOLD THESE
BY-LAWS AND THE AGREEMENT WITH CANADIAN PRESS ILLEGAL STANDING BY
THEMSELVES.  IT CONSEQUENTLY ENJOINED THEIR OBSERVANCE TEMPORARILY,
PENDING AP'S OBEDIENCE TO THE DECREE ENJOINING THE RESTRICTIVE
MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENTS.  THE COURT'S FINDINGS JUSTIFIED THIS PHASE OF
ITS INJUNCTION.  UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., SUPRA, 724. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS APPEALED FROM THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO HOLD EACH OF
THESE LAST-MENTIONED ITEMS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT STANDING
ALONE.  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO ASKS THAT THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
BE BROADENED, SO AS PERMANENTLY TO ENJOIN OBSERVANCE OF THE CANADIAN
PRESS CONTRACT AND ALL THE CHALLENGED BY-LAWS.  IT ALSO SUGGESTS
CERTAIN SPECIFIC TERMS WHICH SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE DECREE TO ASSURE
THE COMPLETE ERADICATION OF AP'S DISCRIMINATION AGAINST COMPETITORS OF
ITS MEMBERS. 

THE FASHIONING OF A DECREE IN AN ANTITRUST CASE IN SUCH WAY AS TO
PREVENT FUTURE VIOLATIONS AND ERADICATE EXISTING EVILS, IS A MATTER
WHICH RESTS LARGELY IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  UNITED STATES V.
CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., SUPRA.  A FULL EXPLORATION OF FACTS IS USUALLY
NECESSARY IN ORDER PROPERLY TO DRAW SUCH A DECREE.  IN THIS CASE THE
GOVERNMENT CHOSE TO PRESENT ITS CASE ON THE NARROW ISSUES WHICH WERE
WITHIN THE REALM OF UNDISPUTED FACTS.  IN THE SITUATION THUS NARROWLY
PRESENTED WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE COURT'S DECREE SHOULD HAVE GONE
FURTHER THAN IT DID.  FURTHERMORE, THE DISTRICT COURT RETAINED THE
CAUSE FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MIGHT BECOME NECESSARY.  IF, AS
THE GOVERNMENT APPREHENDS, THE DECREE IN ITS PRESENT FORM SHOULD NOT
PROVE ADEQUATE TO PREVENT FURTHER DISCRIMINATORY TRADE RESTRAINTS
AGAINST NON-MEMBER NEWSPAPERS, THE COURT'S RETENTION OF THE CAUSE WILL
ENABLE IT TO TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO CAUSE THE DECREE TO BE
FULLY AND FAITHFULLY CARRIED OUT. 

THE JUDGMENT IN ALL THREE CASES IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  RULE 56 PROVIDES, "A PARTY SEEKING TO RECOVER UPON A CLAIM,
COUNTERCLAIM, OR CROSS-CLAIM OR TO OBTAIN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MAY,
AT ANY TIME AFTER THE PLEADING IN ANSWER THERETO HAS BEEN SERVED, MOVE
WITH OR WITHOUT SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN HIS
FAVOR UPON ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF....  THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT SHALL BE
RENDERED FORTHWITH IF THE PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS, AND ADMISSIONS ON
FILE, TOGETHER WITH THE AFFIDAVITS, IF ANY, SHOW THAT, EXCEPT AS TO THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES, THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT
AND THAT THE MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW." 

FN2  THE DIRECTORS WHO HAVE THIS POWER TO PUNISH ARE ELECTED BY THE
MEMBERS BUT EACH MEMBER DOES NOT HAVE EQUAL VOTING PRIVILEGES IN THE
ELECTION.  THE BY-LAWS GRANT ONE ADDITIONAL VOTE FOR EACH $25.00 OF AP
BONDS HELD BY A MEMBER.  THIS MEANS THAT IN THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
THE OWNER OF A $1,000.00 BOND CAN CAST 40 MORE VOTES THAN A MEMBER WHO
OWNS NO BONDS.  ALL MEMBERS, HOWEVER, DO NOT AND CANNOT UNDER
RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAWS OWN AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF BONDS.  IN
1942, 99 OUT OF 1,247 MEMBERS OWNED BLOCKS OF BONDS OF THE FACE VALUE
OF $1,000.00 OR MORE, TOTALING MORE THAN 50% OF THE OUTSTANDING BONDS. 
THE COURT BELOW FOUND ON THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE THAT THE BONDHOLDER
VOTE RATHER THAN THE MEMBERSHIP VOTE CONTROLS THE SELECTION OF AP
DIRECTORS.  THE DIRECTORS HAVE POWER TO APPORTION AMONG THE MEMBERS THE
EXPENSES OF COLLECTING AND DISTRIBUTING NEWS, AND TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS
UPON THE MEMBERS.  AS TO THIS APPORTIONMENT AND LEVY THE BY-LAWS
PROVIDE THAT "THERE SHALL BE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION THE ACTION OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN RESPECT TO SUCH APPORTIONMENT OR ASSESSMENTS,
EITHER BY APPEAL TO A MEETING OF MEMBERS, OR OTHERWISE, BUT THE ACTION
OF THE DIRECTORS, WHEN TAKEN, SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE." 

FN3  ANOTHER BY-LAW PROVIDES THAT "THE NEWS WHICH A MEMBER SHALL
FURNISH AS HEREIN REQUIRED SHALL BE ALL SUCH NEWS AS IS SPONTANEOUS IN
ITS ORIGIN, BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY NEWS THAT IS NOT SPONTANEOUS IN
ITS ORIGIN, OR WHICH HAS ORIGINATED THROUGH DELIBERATE AND INDIVIDUAL
ENTERPRISE ON THE PART OF SUCH MEMBER OF THE NEWSPAPER SPECIFIED IN
SUCH MEMBER'S CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP." 

FN4  THE COURT FOUND THAT OUT OF THE 1,803 DAILY ENGLISH LANGUAGE
NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH A TOTAL CIRCULATION OF
42,080,391, 1,179 OF THEM, WITH A CIRCULATION OF 34,762,120, WERE UNDER
JOINT CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS NOT TO SUPPLY EITHER AP OR THEIR OWN
"SPONTANEOUS" NEWS TO ANY NON-MEMBER OF AP. 

FN5  UNDER THESE TERMS, A NEW APPLICANT COULD NOT HAVE ENTERED THE
MORNING FIELD IN NEW YORK WITHOUT PAYING $1,432,142.73, AND IN CHICAGO,
$416,631.90.  FOR ENTERING THE EVENING FIELD IN THE SAME CITIES IT
WOULD HAVE COST $1,095,003.21, AND $595,772.31, RESPECTIVELY. 

FN6  "THE BY-LAWS OF AP ARE IN EFFECT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE MEMBERS:
THAT ONE WHICH RESTRICTS AP TO THE TRANSMISSION OF NEWS TO MEMBERS, AND
THAT WHICH RESTRICTS ANY MEMBER TO TRANSMITTING 'SPONTANEOUS' NEWS TO
THE ASSOCIATION, ARE BOTH CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE.  THEY
RESTRICT COMMERCE BECAUSE THEY LIMIT THE MEMBERS' FREEDOM TO RELAY ANY
NEWS TO OTHERS, EITHER THE NEWS THEY LEARN THEMSELVES, OR THAT WHICH
THEY LEARN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH AP AS THEIR AGENT."  UNITED STATES V.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, 52 F.SUPP.  362, 368. 

FN7  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT, AMONG ALL THE NEWS-GATHERING
AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES, AP RANKED "IN THE FOREFRONT IN PUBLIC
REPUTATION AND ESTEEM" AND THAT IT WAS "THE CHIEF SINGLE SOURCE OF NEWS
FOR THE AMERICAN PRESS, UNIVERSALLY AGREED TO BE OF GREAT CONSEQUENCE";
THAT THE COMBINATION OF AP OWNERS ACTED TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
USING THE NEWS-GATHERING FACILITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL PUBLISHERS AND OF
THE COMBINATION, WHICH NEWS WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS AND DENIED TO
OTHERS; AND THAT THE RESTRICTIVE BY-LAWS HAD BEEN OBSERVED, CARRIED
OUT, AND APPLIED IN PRACTICE.  THE COURT DECLARED THAT THE CONDITIONS
WHICH OLD MEMBERS COULD IMPOSE UPON NEW APPLICANTS FOR MEMBERSHIP WERE
"PLAINLY DESIGNED IN THE INTEREST OF PREVENTING COMPETITION," AND THAT
THE REQUIREMENT OF PAYMENTS FROM NEW MEMBERS TO COMPETING OLD MEMBERS
"WERE DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE COMPETITORS FOR THE LOSS IN VALUE OF THEIR
MEMBERSHIP, ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICANT'S IMPROVED POSITION AS A
COMPETITOR."  THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THESE RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS
WOULD "ACT AS A DETERRENT," AND MIGHT "PROVE A COMPLETE BAR TO THE
ADMISSION OF ANY APPLICANT." 

FN8  THAT FINDING IS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE GROWTH OF NEWS AGENCIES HAS
BEEN FOSTERED TO SOME EXTENT AS A RESULT OF THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS' SERVICES TO ITS OWN MEMBERS, BUT OTHER RESTRICTIONS
IMPOSED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HAVE HAMPERED AND IMPEDED THE GROWTH OF
COMPETING NEWS AGENCIES AND OF NEWSPAPERS COMPETITIVE WITH MEMBERS OF
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS." 

THE COURT'S OPINION, AND ITS FINDINGS AS A WHOLE, SHOW THAT THE
"OTHER RESTRICTIONS" FOUND TO HAVE HAMPERED COMPETITION WERE THOSE
RELATING TO ADMISSIONS TO MEMBERSHIP IN AP AND TO RESTRAINTS UPON A
MEMBER'S FREEDOM TO SELL HIS NEWS. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 225.  SEE
ALSO UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, 402; FASHION
ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457, 466;
UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 543; PARAMOUNT FAMOUS CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30, 41; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221
U.S. 1, 65-66. 

FN10  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND AS A FACT THAT "IT IS PRACTICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ONE NEWSPAPER ALONE TO ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN THE
ORGANIZATION REQUISITE FOR COLLECTING ALL OF THE NEWS OF THE WORLD, OR
ANY SUBSTANTIAL PART THEREOF; ASIDE FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND
ORGANIZATION DIFFICULTIES THEREOF, THE FINANCIAL COST IS SO GREAT THAT
NO SINGLE NEWSPAPER ACTING ALONE COULD SUSTAIN IT." 

FN11  INS AND UP MAKE SO-CALLED "ASSET VALUE" CONTRACTS UNDER WHICH
IF ANOTHER NEWSPAPER WISHES TO OBTAIN THEIR PRESS SERVICES, THE
NEWCOMER SHALL PAY TO THE COMPETITOR HOLDING THE UP OR INS CONTRACT THE
STIPULATED "ASSET VALUE." 

FN12  PARAMOUNT FAMOUS CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 42, QUOTED
UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250 U.S. 300, 307, TO THE FOLLOWING
EFFECT:  "'THE PURPOSE OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS TO PROHIBIT MONOPOLIES,
CONTRACTS AND COMBINATIONS WHICH PROBABLY WOULD UNDULY INTERFERE WITH
THE FREE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS BY THOSE ENGAGED, OR WHO WISH TO
ENGAGE, IN TRADE AND COMMERCE - IN A WORD TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF
FREEDOM TO TRADE.'" 

FN13  SEE E.G., 7 U.S.C. 291, 292, AS TO FARM COOPERATIVES; 15 U.S.C.
17, AS TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  BUT SEE ALSO AS TO THE LATTER, APEX
HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 487-498. 

FN14  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE DECISION IN BOARD OF TRADE V. CHRISTIE
GRAIN & STOCK CO., 198 U.S. 236, REQUIRES A HOLDING THAT THESE
ARRANGEMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN THAT CASE, THE
BOARD OF TRADE GATHERED "QUOTATIONS" OF THE PRICES ON SALES OF GRAIN
FOR FUTURE DELIVERY AND SOLD THE "INFORMATION" UNDER AGREEMENTS
FORBIDDING THE PURCHASERS TO REVEAL IT.  THE BOARD OF TRADE FILED SUIT
TO PREVENT ITS PURCHASERS FROM BREAKING THIS AGREEMENT BY TRANSMITTING
THE STATISTICS TO A "BUCKET SHOP OR PLACE WHERE THEY ARE USED AS A
BASIS FOR BETS OR ILLEGAL CONTRACTS," P. 246.  IT WAS SAID IN THE
OPINION THAT THE STATISTICS WERE IN THE NATURE OF A "TRADE SECRET." 
THE OPINION STATED THAT THE BOARD'S COLLECTION OF STATISTICAL
INFORMATION WAS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; THAT IT HAD A
RIGHT TO KEEP IT TO ITSELF, AND THAT IT DID NOT "LOSE ITS RIGHTS BY
COMMUNICATING THE RESULT TO PERSONS, EVEN IF MANY, IN CONFIDENTIAL
RELATIONS TO ITSELF, UNDER A CONTRACT NOT TO MAKE IT PUBLIC, AND
STRANGERS TO THE TRUST WILL BE RESTRAINED FROM GETTING AT THE KNOWLEDGE
BY INDUCING A BREACH OF TRUST AND USING KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED BY SUCH A
BREACH."  OF COURSE, ONE WHO HAS CREATED OR ACQUIRED SOMETHING OF VALUE
HAS A GENERAL RIGHT TO USE IT ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF HIS OWN
DISCRETION, BUT THIS RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP IS MEASURED BY THE LIMITATIONS
OF LAW, AND THE SHERMAN ACT WHICH OBVIOUSLY RESTRICTS THE FREE AND
UNTRAMMELED USE OF PROPERTY, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IS A CLEAR AND
POINTED INSTANCE OF THE NON-ABSOLUTE CHARACTER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS.  AN
ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY WAS EXPRESSLY REJECTED IN FASHION ORIGINATORS'
GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, SUPRA, 467, 478. 

FURTHERMORE, THE CONTRACTS INVOLVED IN THE CHRISTIE CASE WERE "NOT
RELIED ON AS A CAUSE OF ACTION."  THIS COURT FOUND THAT THOSE CONTRACTS
DID NOT SHOW A PURPOSE TO DENY SALE OF THE STATISTICS TO NON-MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD OF TRADE.  WHETHER SUCH A CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTION WOULD HAVE
VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT, THE COURT REFUSED TO DECIDE.  IN THE INSTANT
CASE, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL PUBLISHERS AND AP
HAVE BOUND THEMSELVES TO FURNISH THEIR NEWS TO EACH OTHER AND TO DENY
IT TO ALL OTHERS.  TWO LATER CASES REPEATED THE STATEMENT AS TO THE
RIGHT OF ONE WHO GATHERED STATISTICS TO SELL THEM ON CONDITIONS. 
NEITHER OF THEM, HOWEVER, DECIDED THAT SUCH RESTRICTIVE ARRANGEMENTS AS
APPEAR IN THE INSTANT CASE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS
OF TRADE.  MOORE V. N.Y. COTTON EXCHANGE, 270 U.S. 593; HUNT V. N.Y.
COTTON EXCHANGE, 205 U.S. 322. 

FN15  EVEN IF ADDITIONAL PURPOSES WERE INVOLVED, IT WOULD NOT JUSTIFY
THE COMBINATION, SINCE THE SHERMAN ACT CANNOT "BE EVADED BY GOOD
MOTIVES.  THE LAW IS ITS OWN MEASURE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, OF WHAT IT
PERMITS, OR FORBIDS, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS CANNOT BE SET UP
AGAINST IT IN A SUPPOSED ACCOMMODATION OF ITS POLICY WITH THE GOOD
INTENTION OF PARTIES, AND IT MAY BE, OF SOME GOOD RESULTS."  STANDARD
SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 49. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., SUPRA, 221, 224. 

THIS COURT SAID IN PARAMOUNT FAMOUS CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
44, "IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THE CHALLENGED ARRANGEMENT SUPPRESSES ALL
COMPETITION BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR THAT THE PARTIES THEMSELVES ARE
DISCONTENTED WITH THE ARRANGEMENT.  THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC IN THE
PRESERVATION OF COMPETITION IS THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION."  AGAIN, IN
FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, SUPRA, 466, WE
SAID, "NOR IS IT DETERMINATIVE IN CONSIDERING THE POLICY OF THE SHERMAN
ACT THAT PETITIONERS MAY NOT YET HAVE ACHIEVED A COMPLETE MONOPOLY. 
FOR 'IT IS SUFFICIENT IF IT REALLY TENDS TO THAT END AND TO DEPRIVE THE
PUBLIC OF THE ADVANTAGES WHICH FLOW FROM FREE COMPETITION.'  UNITED
STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1, 16; ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211, 237."  SEE ALSO APEX HOSIERY CO. V.
LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 485. 

FN17  THE DISTRICT COURT POINTED OUT THAT, "MONOPOLY IS A RELATIVE
WORD.  IF ONE MEANS BY IT THE POSSESSION OF SOMETHING ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY TO THE CONDUCT OF AN ACTIVITY, THERE ARE FEW EXCEPT THE
EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF SOME NATURAL RESOURCE WITHOUT WHICH THE
ACTIVITY IS IMPOSSIBLE.  MOST MONOPOLIES, LIKE MOST PATENTS, GIVE
CONTROL OVER ONLY SOME MEANS OF PRODUCTION FOR WHICH THERE IS A
SUBSTITUTE; THE POSSESSOR ENJOYS AN ADVANTAGE OVER HIS COMPETITORS, BUT
HE CAN SELDOM SHUT THEM OUT ALTOGETHER; HIS MONOPOLY IS MEASURED BY THE
HANDICAP HE CAN IMPOSE....  AND YET THAT ADVANTAGE ALONE MAY MAKE A
MONOPOLY UNLAWFUL.  IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE, FOR INSTANCE, TO CONDUCT SOME
KIND OF A NEWSPAPER WITHOUT ANY NEWS SERVICE WHATEVER; BUT NOBODY WILL
MAINTAIN THAT, IF AP WERE THE ONLY NEWS SERVICE IN EXISTENCE, THE
MEMBERS COULD KEEP IT WHOLLY TO THEMSELVES AND REDUCE ALL OTHER PAPERS
TO SUCH NEWS AS THEY COULD GATHER BY THEIR OWN EFFORTS."  UNITED STATES
V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 52 F.SUPP.  362, 371.    FN18  IT IS ARGUED THAT
THE DECREE INTERFERES WITH FREEDOM "TO PRINT AS AND HOW ONE'S REASON OR
ONE'S INTEREST DICTATES."  THE DECREE DOES NOT COMPEL AP OR ITS MEMBERS
TO PERMIT PUBLICATION OF ANYTHING WHICH THEIR "REASON" TELLS THEM
SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED.  IT ONLY PROVIDES THAT AFTER THEIR "REASON"
HAS PERMITTED PUBLICATION OF NEWS, THEY SHALL NOT, FOR THEIR OWN
FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE, UNLAWFULLY COMBINE TO LIMIT ITS PUBLICATION.  THE
ONLY COMPULSION TO PRINT WHICH APPEARS IN THE RECORD IS FOUND IN THE BY
LAWS, PREVIOUSLY SET OUT, WHICH COMPEL MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION TO
PRINT SOME AP NEWS OR SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO FINE OR EXPULSION FROM
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  BUT IN VIEW OF THE BROADER
ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN INJECTED INTO THE DISCUSSION OF THE CASE, I ADD
A FEW WORDS TO INDICATE WHAT I DEEM TO BE THE NARROW COMPASS OF THE
DECISION. 

EVERY EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT IN THE BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL FIELD MAY
PRODUCE A RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  A MANUFACTURER WHO HAS ONLY ONE RETAIL
OUTLET FOR HIS PRODUCT MAY BE SAID TO RESTRAIN TRADE IN THE SENSE THAT
OTHER RETAILERS ARE PREVENTED FROM DEALING IN THE COMMODITY.  AND TO A
DEGREE, THE SAME KIND OF RESTRAINT MAY BE FOUND WHEREVER A REPORTER IS
GATHERING NEWS EXCLUSIVELY FOR ONE NEWSPAPER.  BUT STANDARD OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, CONSTRUED THE SHERMAN ACT TO INCLUDE NOT
EVERY RESTRAINT BUT ONLY THOSE WHICH WERE UNREASONABLE.  STARTING FROM
THAT PREMISE, I ASSUME THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT IF A NEWSPAPER IN SEATTLE AND ONE IN NEW YORK MADE AN AGENCY
AGREEMENT WHEREBY EACH WAS TO FURNISH EXCLUSIVELY TO THE OTHER NEWS
REPORTS FROM HIS LOCALITY. 

BUT SUCH AN EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT, THOUGH INNOCENT STANDING ALONE,
MIGHT BE PART OF A SCHEME WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT IN ONE OF
TWO RESPECTS. 

(1)  IT MIGHT BE A PART OF THE MACHINERY UTILIZED TO EFFECT A
RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE ACT.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707.  I THINK THE EXCLUSIVE
ARRANGEMENT EMPLOYED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HAD SUCH A NECESSARY
EFFECT.  AS DEVELOPED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THE BY-LAWS OF THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WERE AIMED AT THE COMPETITORS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS'
MEMBERS; THEIR NECESSARY EFFECT WAS TO HINDER OR IMPEDE COMPETITION
WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT NOT ONLY ORDERED
THE BY-LAWS TO BE REVISED; IT ENJOINED CONTINUANCE OF THE EXCLUSIVE
ARRANGEMENT UNTIL THE RESTRAINT EFFECTED BY THE BY-LAWS HAD BEEN
ELIMINATED.  THAT WAS PLAINLY WITHIN ITS POWER.  FOR IT IS WELL SETTLED
THAT A FEATURE OF AN ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE, WHICH IS INNOCENT BY
ITSELF AND WHICH MAY BE LAWFULLY USED IF INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED, MAY
BE UPROOTED ALONG WITH THE OTHER PARTS OF AN ILLEGAL ARRANGEMENT. 
ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 461; UNITED STATES
V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241, 254.  WE CERTAINLY CANNOT SAY THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADOPTING THAT COURSE HERE
AS AN INTERIM MEASURE PENDING A REVISION OF THE BY-LAWS. 

(2)  SUCH AN EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT AS WE HAVE HERE MIGHT RESULT IN
THE GROWTH OF A MONOPOLY IN THE FURNISHING OF NEWS, IN THE ACCESS TO
NEWS, OR IN THE GATHERING OR DISTRIBUTION OF NEWS.  THOSE ARE BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO THE SHERMAN ACT (INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE CO. V.
PRAIRIE FARMER CO., 293 U.S. 268) AS WELL AS OTHER ACTS OF CONGRESS
REGULATING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301
U.S. 103.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT IN ITS PRESENT STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HAD NO MONOPOLY OF THAT CHARACTER. 
THOSE FINDINGS ARE CHALLENGED HERE IN THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE UNITED
STATES.  THEY ARE NOT REACHED IN THE PRESENT DECISION FOR THE REASON,
DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THAT THEY CANNOT BE TRIED OUT ON
A MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  THE DECREE WHICH WE APPROVE DOES NOT
DIRECT ASSOCIATED PRESS TO SERVE ALL APPLICANTS.  IT GOES NO FURTHER
THAN TO PUT A BAN ON ASSOCIATED PRESS' PRACTICE OF DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST COMPETITORS OF ITS MEMBERS IN THE SAME FIELD OR TERRITORY. 
THAT ENTAILS NOT ONLY A DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRACTICE FOR THE FUTURE
BUT AN UNDOING OF THE WRONG WHICH HAS BEEN DONE.  IF ASSOCIATED PRESS,
AFTER THE EFFECTS OF THAT DISCRIMINATION HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED, FREEZES
ITS MEMBERSHIP AT A GIVEN LEVEL, QUITE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS WOULD BE
PRESENTED.  WHETHER THAT WOULD RESULT IN A MONOPOLY IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 1 OF THE ACT IS DISTINCT FROM THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE. 

ONLY IF A MONOPOLY WERE SHOWN TO EXIST WOULD WE BE FACED WITH THE
PUBLIC UTILITY THEORY WHICH HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH
THIS CASE AND ADOPTED BY MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.  THE DECREES UNDER
THE SHERMAN ACT DIRECTED AT MONOPOLIES HAVE CUSTOMARILY BEEN DESIGNED
TO BREAK THEM UP OR DISSOLVE THEM.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT
AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173.  THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EXCEPTIONS.  THUS IN
UNITED STATES V. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN., 224 U.S. 383, AN ACTION WAS
BROUGHT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT TO DISSOLVE A COMBINATION AMONG CERTAIN
RAILROADS SERVING ST. LOUIS.  THE COMBINATION HAD ACQUIRED CONTROL OF
ALL AVAILABLE FACILITIES FOR CONNECTING RAILROADS ON THE EAST BANK OF
THE MISSISSIPPI WITH THOSE ON THE WEST BANK.  THE COURT HELD THAT AS AN
ALTERNATIVE TO DISSOLUTION A PLAN SHOULD BE SUBMITTED WHICH PROVIDED
FOR EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF ALL RAILROADS.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V.
GREAT LAKES TOWING CO., 208 F. 733, 747, 217 F. 656, APPEAL DISMISSED,
245 U.S. 675.  UNITED STATES V. NEW ENGLAND FISH EXCHANGE, 258 F. 732. 
WHETHER THAT PROCEDURE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS TYPE OF CASE OR
SHOULD AWAIT FURTHER LEGISLATIVE ACTION (CF. MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS'
DISSENTING OPINION, INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 248
U.S. 215, 248, 262) IS A CONSIDERABLE QUESTION, THE DISCUSSION OF WHICH
SHOULD NOT CLOUD THE PRESENT DECISION.  WHAT WE DO TODAY HAS NO BEARING
WHATSOEVER ON IT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPLIED THE SHERMAN LAW IN ENJOINING THE
DEFENDANTS FROM CONTINUING TO ENFORCE THE EXISTING BY-LAWS RESTRICTING
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, AND FURTHER ENJOINING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ANOTHER RESTRICTIVE BY-LAW FORBIDDING ASSOCIATED PRESS
MEMBERS TO COMMUNICATE "SPONTANEOUS" NEWS TO NON-MEMBERS.  I WOULD
SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BELOW BY JUDGE
LEARNED HAND.  52 F.SUPP.  362. 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS IN ESSENCE THE COMMON AGENT OF ABOUT 1,300
NEWSPAPERS IN THE VARIOUS CITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY FOR THE
INTERCHANGE OF NEWS WHICH EACH PAPER COLLECTS IN ITS OWN TERRITORY, AND
FOR THE GATHERING, EDITING, AND DISTRIBUTING OF NEWS WHICH THESE MEMBER
PAPERS CANNOT COLLECT SINGLE-HANDED, AND WHICH REQUIRES THEIR POOLED
RESOURCES.  THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AGENCY, ITS WORLD-WIDE
SCOPE, THE PERVASIVE INFLUENCE IT EXERTS IN OBTAINING AND DISSEMINATING
INFORMATION, THE COUNTRY'S DEPENDENCE UPON IT FOR NEWS OF THE WORLD -
ALL THESE ARE MATTERS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND HAVE BEEN ABUNDANTLY
SPREAD UPON THE RECORDS OF THIS COURT.  INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, 248 U.S. 215; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301
U.S. 103.  SEE DESMOND, THE PRESS AND WORLD AFFAIRS (1937) CHAPTERS I,
II, III. 

THE BY-LAWS IN CONTROVERSY OPERATE IN SUBSTANCE AS A NETWORK OF
AGREEMENTS AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WHEREBY THEY
MOBILIZE THE INTEREST OF ALL AGAINST THE DANGER OF COMPETITION TO EACH
BY A PRESENT OR FUTURE RIVAL - TO THE EXTENT THAT INABILITY TO OBTAIN
AN ASSOCIATED PRESS "FRANCHISE" IS A SERIOUS FACTOR IN THE COMPETITION
BETWEEN PAPERS IN THE SAME CITY.  WHILE A MEMBER NEWSPAPER NO LONGER
HAS AN ABSOLUTE VETO POWER IN THE DENIAL OF FACILITIES OF THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS SERVICE TO A RIVAL PAPER APPLYING FOR MEMBERSHIP, FOR
PRACTICAL PURPOSES THERE REMAIN EFFECTIVE BARRIERS TO ADMISSION TO THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS BASED SOLELY ON GROUNDS OF BUSINESS COMPETITION.  AS
JUDGE LEARNED HAND HAS POINTED OUT, THE ABATEMENT IN THE BY-LAW FROM A
FORMER ABSOLUTE VETO TO A CONDITIONAL VETO AGAINST AN APPLICANT
COMPETING WITH AN EXISTING MEMBER "BY NO MEANS OPENED MEMBERSHIP TO ALL
THOSE WHO WOULD BE ENTITLED TO IT, IF THE PUBLIC HAS AN INTEREST IN ITS
BEING FREE FROM EXCLUSION FOR COMPETITIVE REASONS, AND IF THAT INTEREST
IS PARAMOUNT.  ALTHOUGH, AS WE HAVE SAID, ONLY A FEW MEMBERS WILL HAVE
ANY DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST IN KEEPING OUT AN APPLICANT, THE REST WILL
NOT FEEL FREE TO JUDGE HIM REGARDLESS OF THE EFFECT OF HIS ADMISSION ON
HIS COMPETITORS.  EACH WILL KNOW THAT THE TIME MAY COME WHEN HE WILL
HIMSELF BE FACED WITH THE APPLICATION OF A COMPETITOR  ...  A BY-LAW
WHICH LEAVES IT OPEN TO MEMBERS TO VOTE SOLELY AS THEIR SELF-INTEREST
MAY DICTATE, DISREGARDS WHATEVER PUBLIC INTEREST MAY EXIST."  52
F.SUPP.  362, 370-371. 

INDUBITABLY, THEN, WE HAVE HERE ARRANGEMENTS WHEREBY MEMBERS OF THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS BIND ONE ANOTHER FROM SELLING LOCAL NEWS TO NON
MEMBERS AND EXERCISE POWER, WHICH RECIPROCAL SELF-INTEREST INVOKES, TO
HELP ONE ANOTHER IN KEEPING OUT COMPETITORS FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS, WITH ALL THE ADVANTAGES THAT IT BRINGS TO A
NEWSPAPER.  SINCE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS AN ENTERPRISE ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, THESE
PLAINLY ARE AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF THAT COMMERCE.  BUT EVER SINCE
THE SHERMAN LAW WAS SAVED FROM STIFLING LITERALNESS BY "THE RULE OF
REASON," STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106; IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO FIND A
RESTRAINT.  THE DECISIVE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS AN UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT.  THIS DEPENDS, IN ESSENCE, ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
RESTRAINT IN RELATION TO A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY.  COMPARE CHICAGO BOARD
OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231, 238. 

TO BE SURE, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS A COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION OF
MEMBERS WHO ARE "ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS FOR PROFIT." 
ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, AT 128.  BUT IN ADDITION TO
BEING A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, IT HAS A RELATION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST
UNLIKE THAT OF ANY OTHER ENTERPRISE PURSUED FOR PROFIT.  A FREE PRESS
IS INDISPENSABLE TO THE WORKINGS OF OUR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.  THE
BUSINESS OF THE PRESS, AND THEREFORE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS, IS THE PROMOTION OF TRUTH REGARDING PUBLIC MATTERS BY FURNISHING
THE BASIS FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THEM.  TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING ARE
NOT WARES LIKE PEANUTS OR POTATOES.  AND SO, THE INCIDENCE OF
RESTRAINTS UPON THE PROMOTION OF TRUTH THROUGH DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE
BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING CALLS INTO PLAY CONSIDERATIONS VERY DIFFERENT
FROM COMPARABLE RESTRAINTS IN A COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE HAVING MERELY A
COMMERCIAL ASPECT.  I FIND MYSELF ENTIRELY IN AGREEMENT WITH JUDGE
LEARNED HAND THAT "NEITHER EXCLUSIVELY, NOR EVEN PRIMARILY, ARE THE
INTERESTS OF THE NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY CONCLUSIVE; FOR THAT INDUSTRY
SERVES ONE OF THE MOST VITAL OF ALL GENERAL INTERESTS:  THE
DISSEMINATION OF NEWS FROM AS MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES, AND WITH AS MANY
DIFFERENT FACETS AND COLORS AS IS POSSIBLE.  THAT INTEREST IS CLOSELY
AKIN TO, IF INDEED IT IS NOT THE SAME AS, THE INTEREST PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT; IT PRESUPPOSES THAT RIGHT CONCLUSIONS ARE MORE LIKELY
TO BE GATHERED OUT OF A MULTITUDE OF TONGUES, THAN THROUGH ANY KIND OF
AUTHORITATIVE SELECTION.  TO MANY THIS IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE, FOLLY;
BUT WE HAVE STAKED UPON IT OUR ALL."  52 F.SUPP.  362, 372. 

FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW IT IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT THAT THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS ITSELF HAS RIVAL NEWS AGENCIES.  AS TO ORDINARY COMMODITIES,
AGREEMENTS TO CURTAIL THE SUPPLY AND TO FIX PRICES ARE IN VIOLATION OF
THE AREA OF FREE ENTERPRISE WHICH THE SHERMAN LAW WAS DESIGNED TO
PROTECT.  THE PRESS IN ITS COMMERCIAL ASPECTS IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE
REGULATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE CO. V. PRAIRIE
FARMER CO., 293 U.S. 268.  BUT THE FREEDOM OF ENTERPRISE PROTECTED BY
THE SHERMAN LAW NECESSARILY HAS DIFFERENT ASPECTS IN RELATION TO THE
PRESS THAN IN THE CASE OF ORDINARY COMMERCIAL PURSUITS.  THE INTEREST
OF THE PUBLIC IS TO HAVE THE FLOW OF NEWS NOT TRAMMELED BY THE COMBINED
SELF-INTEREST OF THOSE WHO ENJOY A UNIQUE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION
PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC DEPENDENCE ON A FREE PRESS.  A PUBLIC
INTEREST SO ESSENTIAL TO THE VITALITY OF OUR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT MAY
BE DEFEATED BY PRIVATE RESTRAINTS NO LESS THAN BY PUBLIC CENSORSHIP. 

EQUALLY IRRELEVANT IS THE OBJECTION THAT IT TURNS THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS INTO A "PUBLIC UTILITY" TO DENY TO A COMBINATION OF NEWSPAPERS
THE RIGHT TO TREAT ACCESS TO THEIR POOLED RESOURCES AS THOUGH THEY WERE
REGULATING MEMBERSHIP IN A SOCIAL CLUB.  THE RELATION OF SUCH
RESTRAINTS UPON ACCESS TO NEWS AND THE RELATION OF SUCH ACCESS TO THE
FUNCTION OF A FREE PRESS IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY MUST NOT BE OBSCURED
BY THE SPECIALIZED NOTIONS THAT HAVE GATHERED AROUND THE LEGAL CONCEPT
OF "PUBLIC UTILITY." 

THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE BY-LAWS WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT
HAS STRUCK DOWN CLEARLY RESTRICT THE COMMERCE WHICH IS CONDUCTED BY THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS, AND THE RESTRICTIONS ARE UNREASONABLE BECAUSE THEY
OFFEND THE BASIC FUNCTIONS WHICH A CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED FREE
PRESS SERVES IN OUR NATION.    MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED.  IN RESPECT OF MOST OF THE
QUESTIONS INVOLVED I MIGHT REST ON THE DISCUSSION BY JUDGE SWAN IN HIS
DISSENTING OPINION IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE NOVELTY AND IMPORTANCE
OF THE QUESTIONS, AND THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF THEM IN THE COURT'S
OPINION, HAVE, HOWEVER, MOVED ME TO STATE MY VIEWS IN DETAIL. 

THIS CASE DEALS WITH "NEWS."  NEWS IS INFORMATION ABOUT MATTERS OF
GENERAL INTEREST.  THE TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED AS "A REPORT OF A RECENT
EVENT."  THE REPORT MAY BE MADE TO ONE MOVED BY CURIOSITY OR TO ONE WHO
WISHES TO MAKE SOME PRACTICAL USE OF IT.  NEWSPAPERS OBTAIN SUCH
REPORTS AND PUBLISH THEM AS A PART OF A BUSINESS CONDUCTED FOR PROFIT. 
THE PROPRIETOR OF A NEWSPAPER, WHEN HE EMPLOYS A PERSON TO INQUIRE AND
REPORT, ENGAGES PERSONAL SERVICE.  I SUPPOSE NO ONE WOULD DENY THAT HE
IS ENTITLED TO THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE REPORT RENDERED AS A RESULT OF
THE SERVICE FOR WHICH HE CONTRACTS AND PAYS.  I SUPPOSE THAT ONE
RENDERING SUCH SERVICE IS FREE TO CONTRACT WITH HIS EMPLOYER THAT THE
PRODUCT OF HIS INQUIRIES - THE NEWS HE FURNISHES HIS EMPLOYER - SHALL
BE USED SOLELY BY THE EMPLOYER AND NOT IMPARTED TO ANOTHER. 

AS I HAVE SAID, NEWS IS THE RESULT OF EFFORT IN THE INVESTIGATION OF
RECENT EVENTS.  EVERY NEWSPAPER IS INTERESTED IN PROCURING NEWS OF
HAPPENINGS IN ITS VICINITY, AND MAINTAINS A STAFF FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
SUCH NEWS MAY HAVE SOME VALUE TO NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHED IN CITIES OUTSIDE
THE LOCALITY OF THE OCCURRENCE.  I ASSUME THAT IF TWO PUBLISHERS AGREED
THAT EACH SHOULD SUPPLY A TRANSCRIPT OF ALL REPORTS HE RECEIVED TO THE
OTHER, AND CONDITIONED THEIR AGREEMENT THAT NEITHER WOULD ABUSE THE
PRIVILEGE ACCORDED, BY GIVING AWAY OR SELLING WHAT WAS FURNISHED UNDER
THE JOINT ARRANGEMENT, THERE COULD BE NO OBJECTION UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT.  I HAD ASSUMED, ALTHOUGH THE OPINION APPEARS TO HOLD OTHERWISE,
THAT SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WOULD NOT BE OBNOXIOUS TO THE SHERMAN ACT
BECAUSE MANY, RATHER THAN FEW, JOINED IN IT.  I THINK THAT THE
SITUATION WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT IF A MACHINERY WERE CREATED TO
FACILITATE THE EXCHANGE OF THE NEWS PROCURED BY EACH OF THE
PARTICIPANTS SUCH AS A PARTNERSHIP, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, OR A
NON-PROFIT CORPORATION. 

I ASSUME IT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED THAT TWO OR MORE PERSONS DESIROUS OF
OBTAINING NEWS MAY AGREE TO EMPLOY A SINGLE REPORTER, OR A STAFF OF
REPORTERS, TO FURNISH THEM NEWS, AND AGREE AMONGST THEMSELVES THAT, AS
THEY SHARE THE EXPENSE INVOLVED, THEY THEMSELVES WILL USE THE FRUIT OF
THE SERVICE AND WILL NOT GIVE IT AWAY OR SELL IT.  ALTHOUGH THE
PROCEDURE HAS OBVIOUS ADVANTAGES, AND IS IN ITSELF INNOCENT, I DO NOT
KNOW, FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT, WHETHER IT WOULD BE HELD THAT THE
INEVITABLE OR NECESSARY OPERATION, OR NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, OF SUCH AN
ARRANGEMENT IS TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN TRADE OR COMMERCE AND THAT IT
IS, CONSEQUENTLY, ILLEGAL.  FN1  MANY EXPRESSIONS IN THE OPINION SEEM
TO RECOGNIZE THAT ALL AP DOES IS TO KEEP FOR ITS MEMBERS THAT WHICH, AT
JOINT EXPENSE, ITS MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES HAVE PRODUCED,  - ITS REPORTS
OF WORLD EVENTS.  THUS IT IS SAID THAT NONMEMBERS ARE DENIED ACCESS TO
AP NEWS, NOT, BE IT OBSERVED, TO NEWS.  AGAIN IT IS SAID THAT THE BY
LAWS "BLOCK ALL NEWSPAPER NONMEMBERS FROM ANY OPPORTUNITY TO BUY NEWS
FROM AP OR ANY OF ITS PUBLISHER MEMBERS"; AGAIN THAT "THE ERECTION OF
OBSTACLES TO THE ACQUISITION OF MEMBERSHIP  ...  CAN MAKE IT DIFFICULT,
IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, FOR NONMEMBERS TO GET ANY OF THE NEWS FURNISHED BY
AP  ..."  IF THESE EXPRESSIONS STOOD ALONE AS THE FACTUAL BASIS OF
DECISION WE SHOULD KNOW THAT THE COURT IS CONDEMNING A JOINT ENTERPRISE
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SOMETHING - HERE, NEWS COPY - WHICH THOSE WHO
PRODUCE IT INTEND TO USE FOR THEIR EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT.  BUT IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO DEDUCE FROM THE OPINION THAT THIS IS THE RATIO OF
DECISION. 

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURT'S DECISION IS PITCHED ON THE FACT
THAT AP IS A MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION.  THE SAME RESULT COULD BE ATTAINED
BY RESORT TO A MULTI-PARTY CONTRACT, TO A PARTNERSHIP, OR TO AN
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION.  THE CHOICE OF THE FORM OF THE COOPERATIVE
ENTERPRISE DOES NOT AFFECT THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM PRESENTED.  FN2 

AP WAS CREATED TO ACCOMPLISH ON A MUTUAL, NONPROFIT, BASIS THE TWO
OBJECTS MENTIONED.  ITS PURPOSE IS STATED BY ITS CHARTER AS "THE
COLLECTION AND INTERCHANGE, WITH GREATER ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY, OF
INFORMATION AND INTELLIGENCE FOR PUBLICATION IN THE NEWSPAPERS" OF ITS
MEMBERS.  THE ORGANIZATION STARTED ON A COMPARATIVELY MODEST BASIS, TO
FACILITATE EXCHANGE OF NEWS REPORTS AMONGST ITS MEMBERS.  IT HAS GROWN
INTO A COOPERATIVELY MAINTAINED NEWS REPORTING AGENCY HAVING, IN
ADDITION, ITS OWN REPORTERS AND AGENCIES FOR THE COLLECTION,
ARRANGEMENT, EDITING, AND TRANSMISSION TO ITS MEMBERS, OF NEWS,
GATHERED BY ITS EMPLOYEES, AND THOSE OF OTHERS WITH WHOM IT CONTRACTS. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SHERMAN ACT PRECLUDES SUCH A COOPERATIVE
ARRANGEMENT AND RENDERS THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE LIABLE TO FURNISH NEWS
COPY, ON EQUAL TERMS, TO ALL NEWSPAPERS WHICH DESIRE IT, AS THE COURT
BELOW HAS HELD.  IF SO, IT MUST BE BECAUSE THE JOINT ARRANGEMENT
CONSTITUTES A CONTRACT, COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE, OR A MONOPOLIZATION, OR AN ATTEMPT OR COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY
TO MONOPOLIZE PART OR ALL OF SOME BRANCH OF INTERSTATE OR INTERNATIONAL
TRADE OR COMMERCE, OR IS A PUBLIC UTILITY SUBJECT TO REGULATION.  IF
AP'S ACTIVITIES FALL WITHIN THE DENUNCIATION OF THE STATUTE IT MUST BE
BECAUSE THE MEMBERS (1) HAVE COMBINED WITH THE PURPOSE TO RESTRAIN
TRADE BY DESTROYING COMPETITION; OR (2), EVEN THOUGH THEIR INTENT WAS
INNOCENT, HAVE SET UP A COMBINATION WHICH EITHER (A) TENDS UNREASONABLY
TO RESTRAIN, OR (B) HAS IN FACT RESULTED, IN UNDUE AND UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT OF FREE COMPETITION IN TRADE OR COMMERCE; OR (3) INTENDED AND
ATTEMPTED TO MONOPOLIZE A PART OR ALL OF A BRANCH OF TRADE; OR (4) HAVE
CREATED AN ORGANIZATION OF SUCH PROPORTIONS THAT IN FACT IT HAS SUCH A
MONOPOLY; OR (5) HAVE CREATED AN AGENCY WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT RENDERS A
PUBLIC UTILITY SUBJECT TO REGULATION NOTWITHSTANDING THE GUARANTEES OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

I AM UNABLE TO DETERMINE ON WHICH OF SUCH POSSIBLE GROUNDS THE
JUDGMENT OF ILLEGALITY IS RESTED.  THE COURT'S OPINION BLENDS AND
MINGLES STATEMENTS OF FACT, INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS, AND QUOTATIONS
FROM PRIOR OPINIONS WRESTED FROM THEIR SETTING AND CONTEXT, IN SUCH
FASHION THAT I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DEDUCE MORE THAN THAT ORDERLY
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FACTS RELEVANT TO ANY ONE OF THE POSSIBLE
METHODS OF VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS AVOIDED, IN THE VIEW THAT
SEPARATE CONSIDERATION WOULD DISCLOSE A LACK OF SUPPORT FOR ANY FINDING
OF SPECIFIC WRONGDOING.  BUT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT NOTHING ADDED
TO NOTHING WILL NOT ADD UP TO SOMETHING HOLDS TRUE IN THIS CASE.  IT IS
A TEDIOUS TASK TO SEPARATE THE GENERALITIES THUS MINGLED IN THE
OPINION, BUT I CAN ONLY ESSAY IT BY DISCUSSING ONE ASPECT OF THE CASE
AT A TIME. 

IN LIMINE, IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT NEWSPAPER PROPRIETORS WHO ARE
MEMBERS OF AP ARE NOT, AS PUBLISHERS, IN THE TRADE OF BUYING OR SELLING
NEWS.  THEIR BUSINESS IS THE PUBLISHING OF NEWSPAPERS.  IN THIS
BUSINESS THEY PRINT INTER ALIA NEWS, EDITORIAL COMMENT, SPECIAL
ARTICLES, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND ADVERTISEMENTS.  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A
JOINT EFFORT TO OBTAIN ADVERTISING TO BE PUBLISHED IN ALL THE PAPERS
PARTIES TO THE ARRANGEMENT, AT SPECIAL RATES, IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  FN3  IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THIS COURT THAT THE
COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF AN
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, AND THE FURNISHING OF THAT INFORMATION FOR
PAY TO SUCH PERSONS AS THE ASSOCIATION DECIDES SHALL SHARE IT, IS NOT A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN4  I THINK THIS IS NOT BECAUSE THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE INFORMATION OR NEWS COPY OBTAINED DIFFERS
SOMEWHAT FROM PROPERTY RIGHTS IN TILES OR LUMBER OR PIPE OR WOMEN'S
FASHIONS OR MOTION-PICTURE FILM.  I THINK IT IS BECAUSE INFORMATION
GATHERED AS THE RESULT OF EFFORT, OR OF COMPENSATION PAID THE GATHERER,
IS PROTECTED AS IS PROPERTY, UNTIL PUBLISHED; AND THAT UNAUTHORIZED
PUBLICATION BY ANOTHER IS A WRONG REDRESSIBLE IN THE SAME WAY AS
UNAUTHORIZED INTERFERENCE WITH ONE'S RIGHTS IN TANGIBLE PROPERTY.  IN
THE VERY CASE OF AP, THIS COURT HAS SO HELD,  FN5  AS HAS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN6  AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS POINTED
OUT, THIS PROPOSITION IS SUBJECT TO THE QUALIFICATION THAT THERE MUST
BE NO PURPOSE TO DESTROY COMPETITION OR TO MONOPOLIZE, BUT WITH THESE
MATTERS I SHALL DEAL HEREAFTER. 

FIRST.  ARE THE MEMBERS OF AP ACTING TOGETHER WITH THE PURPOSE OF
DESTROYING COMPETITION?  I HAVE NOT DISCOVERED ANY ALLEGATION IN THE
COMPLAINT TO THAT EFFECT.  THE COURT BELOW HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH
FINDING.  THEY DENY ANY SUCH PURPOSE OR INTENT AND YET, AS I READ
PASSAGES IN THE COURT'S OPINION, IT IS NOW FOUND, ON THIS SUMMARY
JUDGMENT RECORD, WITHOUT A TRIAL, THAT THEY ARE, AND HAVE BEEN,
ACTUATED BY SUCH AN INTENT.  THE OPINION STATES:  "AN AGREEMENT OR
COMBINATION TO FOLLOW A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH WILL NECESSARILY
RESTRAIN OR MONOPOLIZE A PART OF TRADE OR COMMERCE MAY VIOLATE THE
SHERMAN ACT, WHETHER IT BE 'WHOLLY NASCENT OR ABORTIVE ON THE ONE HAND,
OR SUCCESSFUL ON THE OTHER.'"  I TAKE THIS STATEMENT AS SUGGESTING THE
PLEADINGS AND PROOF DISCLOSE, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT AP AND ITS
MEMBERS AGREED OR COMBINED TO RESTRAIN TRADE.  THERE IS NO SUCH
ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT, AND THERE IS NOT, AND CANNOT BE, ANY
FINDING ON THIS RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION.  THE CASES CITED IN
THE OPINION OF AGREEMENTS TO BOYCOTT OR TO DRIVE COMPETITORS OUT OF
BUSINESS, OR TO COMPEL MERCHANTS TO DEAL ONLY WITH MEMBERS OF A GROUP,
ARE, AS WILL APPEAR, INAPPOSITE TO THE CASE AT BAR.  THE DEFENDANTS SAY
THAT THEY MERELY KEEP FOR THEIR OWN MEMBERS' USE THAT WHICH THEIR OWN
MEMBERS' ACTIVITY AND EXPENDITURE HAS PRODUCED.  WE MUST NOT CONFUSE
THE INTENT OF THE MEMBERS WITH THE SIZE OF THEIR ORGANIZATION.  THESE
TWO MATTERS SEEM TO BE INEXTRICABLY BLENDED IN THE COURT'S TREATMENT OF
THE CASE, BUT THEY DIFFER IN THEIR NATURE AND AS A BASIS FOR DECISION. 

BUT, IT MAY BE URGED, INTENT IS TO BE GATHERED FROM CONDUCT, AND
THOSE WHOSE ACTIONS HAVE IN FACT UNDULY RESTRAINED TRADE, WILL NOT BE
HEARD TO DENY THE PURPOSE TO ACCOMPLISH THE RESULT OF THEIR CONDUCT. 
THIS IS SOUND DOCTRINE, AND IT LEADS TO AN INQUIRY AS TO THE ACTUAL
IMPOSITION OF PROHIBITED RESTRAINTS. 

SECOND.  HAS THE PLAN, AND HAVE THE OPERATIONS OF AP, THE INEVITABLE
CONSEQUENCE OF RESTRAINING COMPETITION BETWEEN NEWS AGENCIES OR
NEWSPAPERS, OR HAVE THEY, AND DO THEY NOW, NECESSARILY TEND TO, OR IN
FACT, UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN SUCH COMPETITION?  ON THIS QUESTION THE
COURT BELOW MADE NO FINDINGS SAVE ONE OF DUBIOUS IMPORT. 

IT IS WORTH WHILE TO QUOTE THE FINDING TO WHICH THE OPINION OF THIS
COURT REFERS: 

"THE GROWTH OF NEWS AGENCIES HAS BEEN FOSTERED TO SOME EXTENT AS A
RESULT OF THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS' SERVICES TO ITS OWN
MEMBERS, BUT OTHER RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HAVE
HAMPERED AND IMPEDED THE GROWTH OF COMPETING NEWS AGENCIES AND OF
NEWSPAPERS COMPETITIVE WITH MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS." 

THE FINDING IS VAGUE FOR IT FAILS TO SPECIFY WHAT IS MEANT BY "OTHER
RESTRICTIONS."  THE PHRASE CANNOT MEAN THE MEMBERSHIP RESTRICTIONS OF
THE BY-LAWS FOR THOSE ARE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING CLAUSE.  NOR DOES
THIS COURT'S OPINION FURNISH ANY ADDITIONAL LIGHT. 

NOT ONLY IS THE FINDING ATTACKED, AS THE COURT'S OPINION ADMITS, BUT,
IN ADDITION, THE RECORD NEGATIVES THE SWEEPING ASSUMPTIONS THE COURT
INDULGES RESPECTING THE EFFECT OF AP'S ACTIVITIES. 

THE OPINION STATES THAT THE MEMBERS "HAVE, BY CONCERTED ARRANGEMENTS,
POOLED THEIR POWER TO ACQUIRE, TO PURCHASE, AND TO DISPOSE OF NEWS
REPORTS THROUGH THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE," AND, IN ADDITION, HAVE
"POOLED THEIR ECONOMIC AND NEWS CONTROL POWER AND, IN EXERTING THAT
POWER, HAVE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND TO
BE 'PLAINLY DESIGNED IN THE INTEREST OF PREVENTING COMPETITION.'"  THIS
SENTENCE IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE OPINION.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS WILL
LATER APPEAR, THE RECORD PRESENTS NO QUESTION OF "PURCHASING POWER." 
ONE CANNOT PURCHASE THE EVENTS OF HISTORY; HE CAN EMPLOY SOMEONE TO
REPORT THEM TO HIM.  DOES THE SENTENCE MEAN THAT AP HAS "PURCHASED" ALL
OR MOST OF THE AVAILABLE REPORTERS IN THE NATION OR THE WORLD? 
SECONDLY, THE SENTENCE SEEMS TO ATTRIBUTE TO AP SOME SORT OF
MONOPOLIZATION OF THE NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING BUSINESS.  AND, FINALLY, IT
SEEMS TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE COURT BELOW A FINDING THAT AP HAS UNDULY OR
UNREASONABLY RESTRAINED TRADE.  AS WILL APPEAR, THE COURT BELOW MADE NO
SUCH FINDING AND, BECAUSE IT COULD NOT DO SO, SOUGHT ANOTHER GROUND ON
WHICH TO BASE ITS DECISION.  MOREOVER, THE FACTS ASSUMED ARE
SPECIFICALLY DENIED BY THE ANSWER, AND CONTRADICTED BY THE PROOFS. 

THE UNCONTRADICTED PROOFS TO WHICH I SHALL LATER REFER SHOW THAT
NONMEMBER PUBLISHERS NOT ONLY HAVE OBTAINED, AND NOW OBTAIN, COMPLETE
AND SATISFACTORY NEWS COVERAGE FROM OTHER AGENCIES, BUT HAVE PROSPERED
AND GROWN WITHOUT AP NEWS SERVICE. 

IT IS SAID IN THE OPINION THAT THE BY-LAWS, AS OBSTACLES TO
MEMBERSHIP, TEND TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN NEWS FURNISHED BY AP OR
ITS MEMBERS AND THAT IT IS APPARENT THAT THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT WHICH AP
MEMBERS HAVE GIVES MANY NEWSPAPERS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER THEIR
RIVALS.  BUT THE EVENTS OF LIFE ARE OPEN TO ALL WHO INQUIRE.  THERE IS
NO DEARTH OF THOSE WILLING TO INQUIRE AND REPORT THOSE EVENTS, FOR
PROPER COMPENSATION.  THUS THE COURT MUST HERE BE HOLDING THAT IF A
CONCERN GATHERS FROM THE AIR, FROM THE SUNLIGHT, OR FROM THE WATERS OF
THE SEA, BY ITS EFFORT AND INGENUITY, SOMETHING THAT OTHERS HAVE NOT
GARNERED, IT MUST MAKE THE RESULTS OF ITS ACTIVITY OPEN TO ALL, FOR IF
IT SELLS TO SOME AND NOT TO OTHERS THE FORMER WILL HAVE A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE.  THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THAT WHICH IS THUS OBTAINED ALWAYS, IN
A SENSE, GIVES A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER THOSE LESS ACTIVE AND
ENTERPRISING.  THE OPINION SEEMS TO MEAN THAT NO CONTRACT, HOWEVER
NARROW ITS EFFECT, HOWEVER INNOCENT ITS PURPOSE, WHICH IN THE LEAST
DEGREE RESTRICTS COMPETITION, FN7  CAN SURVIVE ATTACK UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT; THAT NO SUCH CONCEPT AS A REASONABLE RESTRAINT, A RESTRAINT
LIMITED TO THE LEGITIMATE PROTECTION OF ONE'S PROPERTY OR BUSINESS, AND
LIMITED IN SPACE OR IN TIME, OR AFFECTING A FEW ONLY OF ALL THOSE
ENGAGED IN A GIVEN TRADE, IS FREE OF ILLEGALITY.  IS NOT THIS TO
REESTABLISH THE HARSH AND SWEEPING EFFECT ATTRIBUTED TO THE STATUTE IN
UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSOCIATION, 166 U.S. 290, AND
UNITED STATES V. JOINT TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION, 171 U.S. 505, WHICH WAS
ABANDONED MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS AGO, FOR THE VIEW, EVER SINCE
MAINTAINED, THAT THE STATUTE MERELY ADOPTED THE COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF
UNDUE AND UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  FN8  IF THE COURT IS NOW
TO REVERT TO THE HARSH AND MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF THE ACT THAT EVERY
AGREEMENT WHICH IN ANY MEASURE RESTRAINS TRADE (NOTWITHSTANDING THE
TRUISM THAT "EVERY AGREEMENT CONCERNING TRADE  ...  RESTRAINS")  FN9
IS ILLEGAL, THE RULING SHOULD BE MADE EXPLICIT AND NOT LEFT IN THE
REALM OF SPECULATION. 

THE OPINION SAYS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE BY-LAWS
"CONTAINED PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO STIFLE COMPETITION IN THE NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHING FIELD."  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE NO FINDING AND REACHED NO
CONCLUSION THAT AP IMPOSED ANY RESTRAINT WHICH WAS UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE, AND THE MATTER QUOTED IN FOOTNOTES 6 AND 8 OF THE COURT'S
OPINION DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY SUCH GLOSS AS THIS COURT PLACES ON WHAT
THE DISTRICT COURT SAID IN ITS OPINIONS OR ITS FORMAL FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS, AS A MERE READING WILL DEMONSTRATE. 

IF COLLATERAL RESTRAINTS IN AGREEMENTS FOR THE SALE OF A BUSINESS,
AND OTHERS OF LIKE SORT, PERMITTED AND ENFORCED AT COMMON LAW, AND
HERETOFORE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT  FN10 AS WELL, ARE NOW TO FALL UNDER
CONDEMNATION, WE SHOULD KNOW THE FACT. 

THE OPINION ASSUMES THAT THE COMPETITORS OF AP SUFFER FROM AN
INABILITY TO BUY NEWS.  IT IS REPLETE WITH INTIMATIONS THAT THE
COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES OF AP HAVE, IN FACT, SERIOUSLY IMPEDED THE
FOUNDING AND GROWTH OF OTHER NEWS-GATHERING AGENCIES THAN AP AND ITS
MEMBER NEWS-GATHERING AGENCIES AND OTHER NEWSPAPERS THAN AP'S MEMBER
NEWSPAPERS.  THEY ARE TOO MANY FOR ENUMERATION, BUT MAY BE ILLUSTRATED
BY THE COURT'S STATEMENT THAT "HISTORICALLY, AS WELL AS PRESENTLY,
APPLICANTS WHO WOULD OFFER COMPETITION TO OLD MEMBERS HAVE A HARD ROAD
TO TRAVEL," AND THAT "A NEWSPAPER WITHOUT AP SERVICE IS MORE THAN
LIKELY TO BE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE." 

THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD OR IN THE
FINDINGS OF THE COURT BELOW, AND ARE UNSUPPORTED BY ANY FINDING BY THIS
COURT BASED UPON THE FACTS OF RECORD.  THIS CAN BE DEMONSTRATED. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH THIS COURT HAS NOT
MODIFIED, CRITICISED, OR OVERRULED, ESTABLISHED BEYOND CAVIL THAT,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT AP WAS EARLY IN THE FIELD AND HAS GROWN TO GREAT
SIZE, MANY OTHER REPORTING AGENCIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED AND GROWN IN
THE UNITED STATES, TWO OF WHICH, UP AND INS, ARE NOW COMPARABLE TO AP
"IN SIZE, SCOPE OF COVERAGE AND EFFICIENCY."  ADDITIONAL AGENCIES WHICH
FURNISH SUBSTANTIAL NEWS-REPORTING SERVICES IN THE NATION TOTAL BETWEEN
TWENTY AND THIRTY.  STATISTICS CONCERNING THEM ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
RECORD, BUT IT IS EVIDENT THAT SOME, SINGLY, FURNISH SUBSTANTIAL
SERVICE, AND ALL, TAKEN TOGETHER, AFFORD A BROAD COVERAGE IN
COMPETITION WITH AP, UP AND INS, WIDELY USED IN THE NEWSPAPER WORLD. 
THEIR PAST GROWTH, AND THEIR OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPANSION, CONTRADICT THE
ASSUMPTION THAT AP HAS UNREASONABLY, OR IN SUBSTANTIAL MEASURE,
RESTRAINED FREE COMPETITION.  RATHER, ITS SUCCESS HAS STIMULATED OTHERS
TO ENTER THE FIELD AND TO COMPETE WITH IT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND:  "AP DOES NOT PREVENT OR HINDER NONMEMBER
NEWSPAPERS FROM OBTAINING ACCESS TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN HAPPENINGS AND
EVENTS."  NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS DIFFER AS TO THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF AP
AND OTHER SERVICES; MANY CHOOSE ONE IN PREFERENCE TO THE OTHER; SOME
HAVE RELINQUISHED ONE SERVICE AND ACQUIRED THE OTHER.  VAST NEWSPAPER
ENTERPRISES HAVE GROWN UP WHICH DEPEND ON SERVICES OTHER THAN THOSE
FURNISHED BY AP.  THESE INCLUDE METROPOLITAN NEWSPAPERS WITH
CIRCULATIONS RUNNING FROM TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND TO OVER A MILLION.  SOME
WHICH HAVE NOT USED AP REPORTS HAVE OUTSTRIPPED COMPETITORS WHO WERE
MEMBERS OF AP. 

THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT
DISCLOSE, AMONGST OTHERS, THE FOLLOWING SIGNIFICANT FACTS:  IN 1942 THE
TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF AP AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES WERE $12,986,000, THOSE
OF UP AND ITS AFFILIATES $8,628,000, AND THOSE OF INS AND ITS
AFFILIATES $9,434,000.  THUS TWO COMPETITORS, FOUND BY THE COURT BELOW
TO BE IN EVERY WAY COMPARABLE WITH AP, TOGETHER EXPENDED OVER
$5,000,000 MORE IN THAT YEAR THAN AP.  IN THE SAME YEAR AP HAD 1,247
DOMESTIC AND 5 FOREIGN MEMBERS, UP HAD 981 DOMESTIC AND 391 FOREIGN
SUBSCRIBERS TO ITS SERVICES, AND INS, IN 1941, 338 DOMESTIC NEWSPAPER
SUBSCRIBERS AND 3 SUCH FOREIGN SUBSCRIBERS.  HERE AGAIN THE TOTAL
SUBSCRIBERS OF ITS TWO MOST SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITORS OUTNUMBERED AP'S
MEMBERSHIP IN BOTH THE DOMESTIC AND THE FOREIGN FIELD.  IN THE MATTER
OF SUPPLYING FEATURES, NEWS PICTURES, AND NEWS TO RADIO STATIONS, UP
AND INS WOULD EACH APPEAR TO HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY USERS AS AP,
ALTHOUGH THE PROOFS AND THE FINDINGS DO NOT AFFORD AN ACCURATE MEASURE
OF COMPARISON. 

MANY OF THE OTHER AGENCIES, AS WELL AS UP AND INS, MAKE CONTRACTS
WITH THEIR SUBSCRIBERS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THEIR MATERIAL IN THE
SUBSCRIBER'S AREA AND FIELD.  BOTH UP AND INS MAKE WHAT ARE KNOWN AS
"ASSET VALUE" CONTRACTS WITH THEIR SUBSCRIBERS, UNDER THE TERMS OF
WHICH ANY NEWSPAPER IN THE SAME AREA AND FIELD MUST PAY TO THE EXISTING
SUBSCRIBER THE ASSET VALUE OF THAT SUBSCRIBER'S CONTRACT IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN THE SERVICE.  THUS ALL THESE AGENCIES RECOGNIZE THAT THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PUBLISH THE NEWS FURNISHED THEIR MEMBERS OR
SUBSCRIBERS IS VALUABLE.  NEITHER AS RESPECTS AP, NOR ANY OF THE OTHER
AGENCIES, IS THERE A FINDING OR EVIDENCE THAT SUCH PROVISIONS WORK ANY
HINDRANCE OR RESTRAINT OF COMPETITION AS BETWEEN AGENCIES OR
NEWSPAPERS. 

AS RESPECTS COMPETITION BETWEEN NEWSPAPERS WHICH ARE MEMBERS OF AP
AND OTHERS, IT IS FOUND THAT NEWSPAPERS OF LARGE CIRCULATION IN LARGE
MUNICIPALITIES, AS WELL AS THOSE OF MEDIUM AND SMALL CIRCULATION, HAVE
THRIVEN AND GROWN WITHOUT AP SERVICE.  THE COURT BELOW SAID:  "UPON
THIS MOTION WE MUST TAKE IT AS IN DISPUTE WHETHER THE GENERAL OPINION
IN THE CALLING IS THAT THE SERVICE OF UP IS BETTER THAN THAT OF AP, OR
VICE VERSA."  NEWSPAPERS HAVE GIVEN UP AP SERVICE FOR THAT OF ITS
COMPETITORS.  MANY, IN VARYING LOCALITIES AND FIELDS, NOT ONLY BELONG
TO AP BUT PATRONIZE ONE OR MORE OF THE OTHER SERVICES, INCLUDING UP AND
INS.  SOME OF THE LARGEST AND MOST POWERFUL NEWSPAPERS IN THE NATION
HAVE GROWN TO BE SUCH WITHOUT AP SERVICE; NOT AN INSTANCE IS CITED
WHERE A PROPOSED NEWSPAPER WAS UNABLE TO START, OR HAS BEEN COMPELLED
TO SUSPEND, PUBLICATION FOR LACK OF IT.  THE RECORD CONTRADICTS THE
ASSERTION IN THE COURT'S OPINION THAT THE PROOF DEMONSTRATES "THE NET
EFFECT IS SERIOUSLY TO LIMIT THE OPPORTUNITY OF ANY NEW PAPER TO ENTER
THESE CITIES."  NO FINDING IN THESE TERMS WAS MADE BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  A GREAT BULK OF THE MATERIAL TENDERED BY THE DEFENDANTS RUNS
COUNTER TO THE CONCLUSION; AND CERTAINLY, IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PROCEEDING, TO DRAW SUCH A CONCLUSION FROM THE AVERMENTS PRO AND CON OF
THE PLEADINGS AND AFFIDAVITS IS TO IGNORE WHAT THIS COURT HAS SAID IS
PERMISSIBLE IN SUCH A PROCEEDING. 

THE COURT BELOW HAS FOUND THAT, "AT THE PRESENT TIME, ACCESS TO THE
NEWS REPORTS OF ONE OR MORE OF AP, UP, OR INS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
SUCCESSFUL CONDUCT OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL NEWSPAPER SERVING THE GENERAL
READING PUBLIC."  IT IS TRUE ALSO THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND,
REFERRING TO THESE THREE AGENCIES, THAT "OF THE THREE NEWS AGENCIES
...  AP RANKS IN THE FOREFRONT IN PUBLIC REPUTATION AND ESTEEM,"
WHATEVER THIS MAY MEAN.  IF IT MEANS THAT IT IS THOUGHT THE BEST OF THE
THREE, THIS WOULD NOT SEEM TO ADVANCE THE ARGUMENT.  IF IT MEANS THAT
AP IS THE LARGEST OF THE THREE IN EXPENDITURES, THIS ALSO IS TRUE BUT
IRRELEVANT.  WHATEVER THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FINDING, IT CERTAINLY IS
NOT A FINDING THAT AP HAS RESTRICTED OR LIMITED COMPETITION EITHER
BETWEEN NEWS AGENCIES OR NEWSPAPERS. 

IN ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE ISSUE OF RESTRAINT, THE OPINION IGNORES
IMPORTANT FACTS.  WHILE IT CORRECTLY STATES THAT, IN THE DAILY MORNING
FIELD, AP EMBRACES 81% IN NUMBER AND 96% IN CIRCULATION, IT FAILS TO
STATE THAT UP SERVES SUCH NEWSPAPERS REPRESENTING 40% IN NUMBER AND 64%
IN CIRCULATION.  AGAIN, IN RESPECT OF THE DAILY EVENING FIELD, WHEREAS
AP MEMBERS REPRESENT 59% IN NUMBER AND 77% IN CIRCULATION, UP ACCOUNTS
FOR 45% IN NUMBER AND 65% IN CIRCULATION.  IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THERE
IS DUPLICATION BECAUSE MANY NEWSPAPERS TAKE MORE THAN ONE OF THE
EXISTING SERVICES.  THUS, AS OF 1941, OF THE 373 DOMESTIC MORNING
ENGLISH-LANGUAGE DAILIES,  - WITH A TOTAL CIRCULATION OF 15,849,132,  -
152, WITH A TOTAL CIRCULATION OF 10,701,498, WERE SUBSCRIBERS OF UP,
AND 55, WITH A TOTAL CIRCULATION OF 4,149,929, WERE SUBSCRIBERS OF INS;
AND, OF THE 1,480 DOMESTIC DAILY EVENING ENGLISH-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS,
WITH A TOTAL CIRCULATION OF 19,616,674,  - 664, WITH A TOTAL
CIRCULATION OF 16,781,020, WERE SUBSCRIBERS OF UP, AND 206, WITH A
TOTAL CIRCULATION OF 8,608,180, WERE SUBSCRIBERS OF INS. 

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT, IN THE LARGE, THE EVENTS REPORTED BY THE
LEADING AGENCIES ARE THE SAME; THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE REPORTS
BEING IN THE WAY THEY ARE WRITTEN.  INABILITY TO PERUSE AN AP REPORT,
THEREFORE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE READER FAILS TO OBTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF
WHAT IS HAPPENING, BUT OF A PARTICULAR REPORTER'S ACCOUNT OF THE
EVENT. 

FINALLY, THE RECORD CONTAINS AFFIDAVITS WHICH MUST, ON THE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BE TAKEN AS TRUE, OF TWENTY-THREE PERSONS WHO ARE IN
THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS.  THESE ARE TOO LENGTHY TO QUOTE.  IN GENERAL
THE TESTIMONY WAS TO THIS EFFECT:  TEN SAID THE UP SERVICE WAS ADEQUATE
AND COMPLETE; THIRTEEN SAID THAT AP SERVICE WAS NOT NECESSARY TO THE
SUCCESS OF A NEWSPAPER; ONE SAID THAT A NEWSPAPER WAS AT NO COMPETITIVE
DISADVANTAGE THROUGH LACK OF AP SERVICE; AND FIVE TESTIFIED THEIR
PAPERS, TO WHICH AP MEMBERSHIP WAS OPEN, ELECTED TO USE COMPETING
SERVICES.  AS OF SEPTEMBER 1941 MORE THAN 600 DOMESTIC NEWSPAPERS WHICH
WERE SUBSCRIBERS OF UP WERE NOT MEMBERS OF AP.  THE FACT IS THAT AP
DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO RESTRAIN ITS MEMBERS FROM TAKING SERVICES FROM
OTHER AGENCIES.  IT IS LITTLE WONDER THAT THE DISTRICT COURT REFRAINED
FROM FINDING THAT AP HAD UNDULY OR UNREASONABLY RESTRAINED COMPETITION
BETWEEN NEWS AGENCIES OR NEWSPAPERS. 

I CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A HOLDING
THAT THE OPERATIONS OF AP MUST INEVITABLY RESULT, OR THAT ITS
ACTIVITIES HAVE IN FACT RESULTED, IN ANY UNDUE AND UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINT OF FREE COMPETITION IN ANY BRANCH OF TRADE OR COMMERCE. 

THIRD.  HAVE AP AND ITS MEMBERS INTENDED, OR ATTEMPTED, TO MONOPOLIZE
A BRANCH OF TRADE?  AS I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE EVENTS HAPPENING
IN THE WORLD ARE AS OPEN TO ALL MEN AS THE AIR OR THE SUNLIGHT.  THE
ONLY AGENCY REQUIRED TO REPORT THEM IS A HUMAN BEING WHO WILL INQUIRE. 
SURELY THE SUPPLY OF REPORTERS IS NOT LESS DIFFICULT TO MONOPOLIZE THAN
THE EVENTS TO BE REPORTED. 

THE COURT BELOW REACHED CONCLUSIONS AS TO MONOPOLY WHICH WERE
REQUIRED BY THE RECORD: 

"AP DOES NOT MONOPOLIZE OR DOMINATE THE FURNISHING OF NEWS REPORTS,
NEWS PICTURES, OR FEATURES TO NEWSPAPERS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

"AP DOES NOT MONOPOLIZE OR DOMINATE ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCES OF
NEWS. 

"AP DOES NOT MONOPOLIZE OR DOMINATE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES FOR THE
GATHERING OR DISTRIBUTION OF NEWS REPORTS, NEWS PICTURES, OR
FEATURES." 

IF THE OPINION OF THIS COURT MEANS TO SUGGEST THAT WHILE THE NEWS CAN
BE GATHERED BY ANYONE, BECAUSE NO ONE HAS, OR CAN HAVE, A MONOPOLY OF
THE EVENTS OF HISTORY, AP MONOPOLIZES THE SERVICES OF THOSE WHO REPORT
NEWS WHICH ITS ENERGIES AND EFFORTS HAVE EMPLOYED AND TRAINED (WHICH IS
NOT SHOWN), THEN, I SUBMIT, WE HAVE A NEW CONCEPT OF MONOPOLIZATION,
NAMELY, THAT WHERE SOME PERSON, OUT OF MATERIALS OPEN TO ALL, CREATES
HIS OWN PRODUCT, BY HIRING PERSONS TO PRODUCE IT, THAT PERSON MAY NOT
DETERMINE TO WHOM HE WILL SELL AND FROM WHOM HE WILL WITHHOLD THE
PRODUCT.  SUCH A CONCEPT CAN ONLY BE JUSTIFIED ON THE PUBLIC UTILITY
THEORY UPON WHICH THE COURT BELOW PROCEEDED, OF WHICH I SHALL SAY
SOMETHING LATER. 

IN SPITE OF THE QUOTED CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT (AND NO
FACTS ARE CITED IN THIS COURT'S OPINION WHICH NEGATIVE THEIR ACCURACY),
I MUST TAKE IT THAT THE COURT INTENDS TO HOLD THAT THE PLEADINGS AND
PROOFS DISCLOSE, WITHOUT QUESTION, AN INTENT OR ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE. 

I HAVE QUOTED THE FINDING MADE BELOW THAT AP DOES NOT PREVENT OR
HINDER NONMEMBER NEWSPAPERS FROM OBTAINING ACCESS TO DOMESTIC OR
FOREIGN NEWS.  THE FACTS AND FIGURES I HAVE CITED ABOVE INDICATE NO
INTENT OR ATTEMPT TO ABSORB THE ENTIRE FIELD OF NEWS GATHERING AND
REPORTING, TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHERS FROM THE FIELD, OR TO TAKE OVER THE
ENTIRE FIELD, TO THE END THAT NO NEWSPAPER OR COMBINATION OF NEWSPAPERS
CAN OBTAIN REPORTS OF THE NEWS.  PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE COMPLAINT CHARGES
AN ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE A PART OF TRADE AND COMMERCE AND A COMBINATION
AND CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE THE SAME.  THE ANSWER SPECIFICALLY DENIES
THE ALLEGATION.  THE AMAZING GROWTH OF COMPETING AGENCIES, AND THEIR
SIZE, WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT ANY SUCH SUPPOSED INTENT OR ATTEMPT
HAD BEEN ILL SERVED BY THE OPERATIONS OF AP.  AT ALL EVENTS, THERE IS
NO ROOM IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING, BASED ON THE FACTS OF RECORD,
FOR ANY SUCH FINDING.    FOURTH.  HAVE THE DEFENDANTS CREATED AN
ORGANIZATION OF SUCH PROPORTIONS AS IN FACT TO MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF
TRADE OR COMMERCE?  IN ANSWERING THE INQUIRY I NEED DO LITTLE MORE THAN
REFER TO THE FACTS ALREADY SUMMARIZED.  THE OPINION SEEKS SUPPORT FOR A
HOLDING OF MONOPOLIZATION, BY REFERRING TO A FINDING OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, IN THESE WORDS: 

"AP IS A VAST, INTRICATELY RETICULATED ORGANIZATION, THE LARGEST OF
ITS KIND, GATHERING NEWS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, THE CHIEF SINGLE
SOURCE OF NEWS FOR THE AMERICAN PRESS, UNIVERSALLY AGREED TO BE OF
GREAT CONSEQUENCE." 

IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT THE DESCRIPTIVE ADJECTIVES ARE NOT ILL
CHOSEN, BUT THE RECORD WOULD SUPPORT A LIKE FINDING WITH REFERENCE TO
UP AND INS, SAVE FOR THE PHRASES "LARGEST OF ITS KIND" AND "CHIEF." 
AND, UPON A FULL TRIAL, IT MAY WELL BE THAT EVIDENCE PRODUCED WOULD
INDUCE SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SIZE AND ORGANIZATION OF
OTHER EXISTING NEWS AGENCIES.  UNTIL NOW IT HAS BEEN UNQUESTIONED THAT
SIZE ALONE DOES NOT BRING A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE
CONDEMNATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN11  AND ANY CONSIDERATION AS TO
SIZE WOULD EQUALLY HOLD TRUE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS A SINGLE
CORPORATION DEALING WITH MANY PERSONS IN TRADE OR COMMERCE OR AN
INSTRUMENTALITY SET UP BY A NUMBER OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISES TO SERVE
THEM ALL ON A COOPERATIVE BASIS.  THE ARGUMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT SEEMS
TO ASSUME THAT UP AND INS, INDEPENDENT CORPORATIONS, IN SPITE OF THEIR
SIZE, ARE NOT MONOPOLIES OR ATTEMPTS TO MONOPOLIZE BECAUSE THEY DEAL AT
ARM'S LENGTH WITH THEIR PATRONS WHEREAS THERE IS SOMETHING SINISTER
ABOUT AP BECAUSE IT DEALS ON THE SAME TERMS WITH ITS OWN MEMBERS.  I
CANNOT PERCEIVE HOW, IF AP FALLS WITHIN THE DENUNCIATION OF THE
STATUTE, UP AND INS DO NOT EQUALLY, AND BY THE SAME TEST.  NO
SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF THE PRACTICES OF THE ONE IS ABSENT IN THOSE OF
THE OTHERS. 

FIFTH.  THE COURT'S OPINION, UNDER THE GUISE OF ENFORCING THE SHERMAN
ACT, IN FACT RENDERS AP A PUBLIC UTILITY SUBJECT TO THE DUTY TO SERVE
ALL ON EQUAL TERMS.  THIS MUST BE SO, DESPITE THE DISAVOWAL OF ANY SUCH
GROUND OF DECISION.  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE THIS PUBLIC UTILITY THEORY
THE SOLE BASIS OF DECISION, BECAUSE IT WAS UNABLE TO FIND SUPPORT FOR A
CONCLUSION THAT AP EITHER INTENDED OR ATTEMPTED TO, OR IN FACT DID,
UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN TRADE OR MONOPOLIZE OR ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE ALL
OR ANY PART OF ANY BRANCH OF TRADE WITHIN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE SHERMAN ACT.  REALIZING THE LACK OF
SUPPORT FOR ANY OTHER, THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
GROUND OF DECISION IS SOUND AND THAT THIS COURT SHOULD ADOPT IT.  JUDGE
SWAN, IN HIS DISSENT BELOW, HAS SUFFICIENTLY DISPOSED OF THIS POINT,
FN12  AND I REFER TO HIS OPINION, IN WHICH I CONCUR, WITHOUT QUOTING OR
PARAPHRASING IT. 

SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT IT IS A NOVEL APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT
TO TREAT IT AS LEGISLATION CONVERTING AN ORGANIZATION, WHICH NEITHER
RESTRAINS TRADE NOR MONOPOLIZES IT, NOR HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO SERVE THE
PUBLIC GENERALLY, INTO A PUBLIC UTILITY BECAUSE IT FURNISHES A NEW SORT
OF ILLUMINATION - LITERARY AS CONTRASTED WITH PHYSICAL - BY PRONOUNCING
A FIAT THAT THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS - THE READING PUBLIC - NOT THAT
OF COMPETING NEWS AGENCIES OR NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS - REQUIRES EQUAL
SERVICE TO ALL NEWSPAPERS ON THE PART OF AP AND THAT A COURT OF EQUITY,
IN THE GUISE OF AN INJUNCTION, SHALL WRITE THE REQUISITE REGULATORY
STATUTE.  THIS IS GOVERNMENT-BY-INJUNCTION WITH A VENGEANCE. 

MOREOVER IT IS TO MAKE A NEW STATUTE BY COURT DECISION.  THE SHERMAN
ACT DOES NOT DEAL WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES AS SUCH.  THEY MAY VIOLATE THE
ACT, AS MAY PERSONS ENGAGED IN PRIVATE BUSINESS.  BUT THAT ACT NEVER
WAS INTENDED AND HAS NEVER BEFORE BEEN THOUGHT TO REQUIRE A PRIVATE
CORPORATION, NOT HOLDING ITSELF OUT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, WHOSE
OPERATIONS NEITHER WERE INTENDED TO NOR TENDED UNREASONABLY TO RESTRAIN
OR MONOPOLIZE TRADE, TO FULFILL THE DUTY INCIDENT TO A PUBLIC CALLING,
OF SERVING ALL APPLICANTS ON EQUAL TERMS. 

FOR MYSELF, I PREFER TO ENTRUST REGULATORY LEGISLATION OF COMMERCE TO
THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, INSTEAD OF FREEZING IT IN
THE DECREES OF COURTS LESS RESPONSIVE TO THE PUBLIC WILL.  I STILL
BELIEVE THAT "THE COURTS ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY EITHER TO DECLARE SUCH
POLICY, OR, WHEN IT IS DECLARED BY THE LEGISLATURE, TO OVERRIDE IT." 
FN13 

BUT MORE, THE COURTS ARE UNFIT INSTRUMENTS TO MAKE AND IMPLEMENT SUCH
POLICY.  A WISE JUDGE HAS SAID IN A CASE BROUGHT BY AP TO REDRESS THE
ALLEGED WRONG OF INS IN "PIRATING" AP'S NEWS:  FN14 

"COURTS ARE ILL-EQUIPPED TO MAKE THE INVESTIGATIONS WHICH SHOULD
PRECEDE A DETERMINATION OF THE LIMITATIONS WHICH SHOULD BE SET UPON ANY
PROPERTY RIGHT IN NEWS OR OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH NEWS
GATHERED BY A PRIVATE AGENCY SHOULD BE DEEMED AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC
INTEREST.  COURTS WOULD BE POWERLESS TO PRESCRIBE THE DETAILED
REGULATIONS ESSENTIAL TO FULL ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED OR TO
INTRODUCE THE MACHINERY REQUIRED FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH REGULATIONS. 
CONSIDERATIONS SUCH AS THESE SHOULD LEAD US TO DECLINE TO ESTABLISH A
NEW RULE OF LAW IN THE EFFORT TO REDRESS A NEWLY-DISCLOSED WRONG,
ALTHOUGH THE PROPRIETY OF SOME REMEDY APPEARS TO BE CLEAR." 

THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED TO THE CONCLUSION ARE PERSUASIVELY
STATED IN THE PRECEDING PAGES OF THE CITED OPINION. 

THE OPINION ASSERTS THAT, WHATEVER THE COURT BELOW HAS SAID, THIS
COURT DOES NOT ADOPT ITS REASONS FOR THE DECREE ENTERED, BUT SUSTAINS
ITS ACTION UPON THE BASIS OF RESTRAINT AND MONOPOLY VIOLATIVE OF A
PROHIBITORY LAW.  I THINK, HOWEVER, THIS IS TOO SUPERFICIAL A
CONCLUSION.  THE FACT REMAINS, AS THE COURT BELOW CONCEDES, THAT THE
ROLE ESSAYED "IS ORDINARILY 'LEGISLATIVE.'"  FN15 

FROM NOW ON, AP IS TO OPERATE UNDER THE TUTELAGE OF THE COURT.  IT IS
ORDERED TO SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL A REVISION OF ITS BY-LAWS, AND, UNLESS
THE COURT APPROVES THE CHANGES, IT IS TO BE RESTRAINED FROM CONTRACTING
WITH ITS MEMBERS THAT THEY SHALL NOT DISCLOSE THE NEWS IT FURNISHES,
AND FROM CONTINUING ITS EXISTING CONTRACT RELATIONS WITH A CANADIAN
NEWS AGENCY, BOTH OF WHICH ARE HELD, IN AND OF THEMSELVES AND APART
FROM THE ALLEGED ILLEGALITIES OF THE BY-LAWS, INNOCENT AND LEGAL. 
HOWEVER THE BY-LAWS MAY BE AMENDED, AND WHATEVER JUDICIAL BLESSING MAY
BE GIVEN THE NEW TEXT, IT IS CERTAIN THAT EVERY REFUSAL TO DEAL WITH
ANY NEWSPAPER WILL EVOKE A FRESH EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL
GUARDIANSHIP.  LAWFUL PRACTICES MAY BE THREATENED WITH INJUNCTION, AS
THEY ARE IN THE PRESENT DECREE, AS A LEVER TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE IN SOME
RESPECT THOUGHT IMPORTANT BY THE COURT. 

THE DECREE MAY WELL RESULT NOT IN FREER COMPETITION BUT IN A MONOPOLY
IN AP OR UP, OR IN SOME RESULTING AGENCY, AND THUS FORCE FULL AND
COMPLETE REGIMENTATION OF ALL NEWS SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE
NATION.  THE DECREE HERE APPROVED MAY WELL BE, AND I THINK THREATENS TO
BE, BUT A FIRST STEP IN THE SHACKLING OF THE PRESS, WHICH WILL SUBVERT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM TO PRINT OR TO WITHHOLD, TO PRINT AS AND HOW
ONE'S REASON OR ONE'S INTEREST DICTATES.  WHEN THAT TIME COMES, THE
STATE WILL BE SUPREME AND FREEDOM OF THE STATE WILL HAVE SUPERSEDED
FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO PRINT, BEING RESPONSIBLE BEFORE THE LAW
FOR ABUSE OF THE HIGH PRIVILEGE. 

IT IS NOT PROTECTING A FREEDOM, BUT CONFINING IT, TO PRESCRIBE WHERE
AND HOW AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS ONE MUST IMPART THE LITERARY PRODUCT
OF HIS THOUGHT AND RESEARCH.  THIS IS FETTERING THE PRESS, NOT STRIKING
OFF ITS CHAINS. 

THE EXISTING SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO RADIO POINTS THE MORAL OF WHAT
I HAVE SAID.  IN THAT FIELD CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED REGULATION BECAUSE, IN
CONTRAST TO THE PRESS, THE PHYSICAL CHANNELS OF COMMUNICATION ARE
LIMITED, AND CHAOS WOULD RESULT FROM UNRESTRAINED AND UNREGULATED USE
OF SUCH CHANNELS.  BUT IN IMPOSING REGULATION, CONGRESS HAS REFRAINED
FROM ANY RESTRAINT ON OWNERSHIP OF NEWS OR INFORMATION OR THE RIGHT TO
USE IT.  AND ANY REGULATION OF THIS MAJOR SOURCE OF INFORMATION, IN THE
LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH, SHOULD BE CLOSELY
AND JEALOUSLY EXAMINED BY THE COURTS. 

THE COURT GOES FAR AFIELD IN CITING ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD,
301 U.S. 103, AND INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER CO., 293
U.S. 268, AS JUSTIFYING THE DECREE.  APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE
POLICY AND THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION INVOLVED IN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
CASE WAS THAT DECLARED BY CONGRESS, NOT COURT-MADE, IT IS PLAIN FROM
THE OPINION THAT THE FREEDOM TO PUBLISH OR TO REFRAIN FROM PUBLISHING,
THE CONTROL OF ITS NEWS BY AP AND THE ENTIRE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS,
SAVE ONLY ITS DUTY TO DEAL WITH EMPLOYEES AS A CLASS, WAS UNTOUCHED. 
FN16 IN THE FARMER'S GUIDE CASE ALL THAT WAS DECIDED WAS THAT THE
NEWSPAPERS THERE IN QUESTION WERE ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THAT NEWSPAPERS, LIKE OTHER BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, CAN VIOLATE THE
SHERMAN ACT BY UNREASONABLY RESTRAINING OR MONOPOLIZING COMMERCE IN
MORE THAN ONE STATE.  I SHOULD BE THE LAST TO DENY THE CORRECTNESS OF
THESE PROPOSITIONS.  BUT, AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID, WHEN THAT CASE CAME
TO BE RETRIED, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CONCERT OF ACTION IN JOINT
SOLICITATION OF ADVERTISING AND GRANTING A REDUCED RATE FOR IT IF
PLACED IN ALL THE JOURNALS IN THE COMBINATION VIOLATED NONE OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  FN17 

FN1  THE ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL EXEMPTION OF FARMERS'
COOPERATIVES FROM THE SWEEP OF THE SHERMAN ACT FALLS SHORT, SINCE SUCH
COOPERATIVES OFTEN ARE NOT MERE JOINT PURCHASING AGENCIES OF THINGS
NEEDED AND USED BY THE MEMBERS, BUT ARE MARKETING AGENCIES WHICH MAY BE
THOUGHT TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE AND TEND TOWARD MONOPOLY.  IT WAS TO
SAFEGUARD THE LATTER SORT OF ACTIVITY THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED. 

FN2  "A COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE, OTHERWISE FREE FROM OBJECTION, WHICH
CARRIES WITH IT NO MONOPOLISTIC MENACE, IS NOT TO BE CONDEMNED AS AN
UNDUE RESTRAINT  ..."  APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S.
344, 373-4. 

FN3  PRAIRIE FARMER CO. V. INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE CO., 88 F.2D 979,
CERT. DENIED 301 U.S. 696; REHEARING DENIED 302 U.S. 773. 

FN4  BOARD OF TRADE V. CHRISTIE GRAIN & STOCK CO., 198 U.S. 236, 251,
252; HUNT V. NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE, 205 U.S. 322, 333; UNITED STATES
V. NEW YORK COFFEE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 611, 619; MOORE V. NEW YORK
COTTON EXCHANGE, 270 U.S. 593, 604, 607. 

FN5  INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 248 U.S. 215. 

FN6  "...  IT IS NO VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT FOR A GROUP OF
NEWSPAPERS TO FORM AN ASSOCIATION TO COLLECT AND DISTRIBUTE NEWS FOR
THEIR COMMON BENEFIT, AND TO THAT END TO AGREE TO FURNISH THE NEWS
COLLECTED BY THEM ONLY TO EACH OTHER OR TO THE ASSOCIATION; PROVIDED
THAT NO ATTEMPT IS MADE TO PREVENT THE MEMBERS FROM PURCHASING OR
OTHERWISE OBTAINING NEWS FROM RIVAL AGENCIES.  AND IF THAT IS TRUE THE
COROLLARY MUST BE TRUE, NAMELY, THAT NEWSPAPERS DESIRING TO FORM AND
MAINTAIN SUCH AN ORGANIZATION MAY DETERMINE WHO SHALL BE AND WHO SHALL
NOT BE THEIR ASSOCIATES."  (LETTER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL GREGORY OF MARCH
12, 1915.) 

FN7  IT WAS ONLY IN THIS LIMITED SENSE THAT THE COURT BELOW FOUND
THAT THE BY-LAWS LIMITED COMPETITION. 

FN8  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 59-62; UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, 178-179; UNITED STATES V.
TERMINAL R. ASSN., 224 U.S. 383, 394-395; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V.
UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231, 238-239; MAPLE FLOORING MFRS.  ASSN.  V.
UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563, 582; APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED STATES,
288 U.S. 344, 359-361, 375, 376-7; SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES,
297 U.S. 553, 597-600; INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S.
208, 230-232. 

FN9  CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 238; APPALACHIAN
COALS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 361. 

FN10  OREGON STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V. WINSOR, 20 WALL.  64; CINCINNATI
PACKET CO. V. BAY, 200 U.S. 179, 184, 185; UNITED STATES V. GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476; UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321
U.S. 707. 

FN11  UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417, 451;
UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., 274 U.S. 693, 707. 

FN12  52 F.SUPP.  375. 

FN13  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 537. 

FN14  INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 248 U.S. 215,
267. 

FN15  52 F.SUPP.  370. 

FN16  SEE 301 U.S. 132-3. 

FN17  SUPRA, NOTE 3. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

               I 

IF IT WERE MADE CLEAR BY THE UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT, BY ADOPTING THEIR
BY-LAWS, THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WERE ENGAGED IN A PROGRAM
TO HAMPER OR DESTROY COMPETITION, I COULD ACCEPT THE DECISION REACHED
BY THE COURT.  BUT THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED, IN MY OPINION, FALLS FAR
SHORT OF PROVING SUCH A PROGRAM AND HENCE THE DECISION HAS GRAVE
IMPLICATIONS RELATIVE TO GOVERNMENTAL RESTRAINTS ON A FREE PRESS. 

AS I VIEW THE SITUATION, THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WERE
ENTIRELY WITHIN THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS IN FORMING A COOPERATIVE
ORGANIZATION WITH FACILITIES FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXCHANGE OF NEWS
AND IN LIMITING THE MEMBERSHIP THEREIN.  MEMBERS OF AN INCORPORATED
SOCIETY, AS A GENERAL RULE, MAY EXTEND THE PRIVILEGE OF MEMBERSHIP OR
WITHHOLD IT ON SUCH TERMS AS THEY SEE FIT.  AND IF EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO
THESE FACILITIES AND REPORTS GAVE THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER BUSINESS RIVALS WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS, THAT
ALONE WOULD NOT MAKE THE ADVANTAGE UNLAWFUL.  IN RESTRICTING THE
ADMISSION OF BUSINESS RIVALS THEY WERE MERELY TRYING TO PRESERVE FOR
THEMSELVES AN ADVANTAGE THAT HAD ACCRUED TO THEM FROM THE EXERCISE OF
BUSINESS SAGACITY AND FORESIGHT.  SUCH AN ADVANTAGE, AS I SEE IT, IS
NOT A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  NOR DOES THIS ADVANTAGE REQUIRE
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS TO SHARE ITS PRODUCTS WITH COMPETITORS.  SUCH A
DOCTRINE WOULD DISCOURAGE COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE AND WOULD CARRY THE
ANTI-TRUST LAWS TO ABSURD LENGTHS.  IN THE WORDS OF THE COURT BELOW, "A
COMBINATION MAY BE WITHIN ITS RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH IT OPERATES TO THE
PREJUDICE OF OUTSIDERS WHOM IT EXCLUDES."  52 F.SUPP.  362, 369. 
THUS FOR THE FIRST TIME THE COURT TODAY USES THE SHERMAN ACT TO OUTLAW
A REASONABLE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE GAINED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ANY OF
THE EVILS THAT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND WHEN IT ENACTED THIS STATUTE.  ON
THE MAIN ISSUE BEFORE US, THE RECORD SHOWS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY
MONOPOLY, DOMINATION, PRICE FIXING, COERCION OR OTHER PREDATORY
PRACTICES BY WHICH COMPETITION IS ELIMINATED TO THE INJURY OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 491-501. 
AND THE DISTRICT COURT WAS UNABLE TO FIND OTHERWISE.  NOTHING APPEARS
SAVE A LARGE, SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS ATTEMPTED TO PROTECT
THE FRUITS OF ITS OWN ENTERPRISE FROM USE BY COMPETITORS.  TO CONCLUDE
ON SUCH EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HAS VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT
IS TO IGNORE THE REPEATED HOLDINGS OF THIS COURT THAT THE PURPOSE OF
THE STATUTE IS TO MAINTAIN FREE COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
TO ELIMINATE ONLY THOSE RESTRAINTS THAT UNREASONABLY INHIBIT SUCH
COMPETITION. 

              II 

TODAY IS ALSO THE FIRST TIME THAT THE SHERMAN ACT HAS BEEN USED AS A
VEHICLE FOR AFFIRMATIVE INTERVENTION BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE REALM OF
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.  AS THE GOVERNMENT STATES, THIS IS AN
ATTEMPT TO REMOVE "BARRIERS ERECTED BY PRIVATE COMBINATION AGAINST
ACCESS TO REPORTS OF WORLD NEWS."  THAT NEWSPAPERS AND NEWS AGENCIES
ARE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS FOR PROFIT IS BEYOND DISPUTE.  AND IT IS
UNDENIABLE THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND OTHER PRESS ASSOCIATIONS CAN
CLAIM NO IMMUNITY FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL LAWS OR OF THE
SHERMAN ACT IN PARTICULAR.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S.
103, 132-133.  BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY ARE ENGAGED
IN COLLECTING AND DISTRIBUTING NEWS AND INFORMATION RATHER THAN IN
MANUFACTURING AUTOMOBILES, ALUMINUM OR GASOLINE.  WE CANNOT AVOID THAT
FACT.  NOR CAN WE ESCAPE THE FACT THAT GOVERNMENTAL ACTION DIRECTLY
AIMED AT THE METHODS OR CONDITIONS OF SUCH COLLECTION OR DISTRIBUTION
IS AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE PRESS, HOWEVER DIFFERING IN DEGREE IT MAY
BE FROM GOVERNMENTAL RESTRAINTS ON WRITTEN OR SPOKEN UTTERANCES
THEMSELVES. 

THE TRAGIC HISTORY OF RECENT YEARS DEMONSTRATES FAR TOO WELL HOW
DESPOTIC GOVERNMENTS MAY INTERFERE WITH THE PRESS AND OTHER MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION IN THEIR EFFORTS TO CORRUPT PUBLIC OPINION AND TO DESTROY
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.  EXPERIENCE TEACHES US TO HESITATE BEFORE CREATING
A PRECEDENT IN WHICH MIGHT LURK EVEN THE SLIGHTEST JUSTIFICATION FOR
SUCH INTERFERENCE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THESE MATTERS.  PROOF OF THE
JUSTIFICATION AND NEED FOR THE USE OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO LIBERATE AND
REMOVE UNREASONABLE IMPEDIMENTS FROM THE CHANNELS OF NEWS DISTRIBUTION
SHOULD THEREFORE BE CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE.  ONLY THEN CAN THE
PRECEDENT AVOID BEING A DANGEROUS ONE AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE
SHERMAN ACT FOR UNJUSTIFIED GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION. 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS ENTITLED TO ANY
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT OR THAT THE GOVERNMENT
MUST MEET ANY HIGHER DEGREE OF PROOF OF A STATUTORY VIOLATION WHEN
DEALING WITH THE PRESS THAN WHEN DEALING WITH ANY OTHER FIELD OF
COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR.  CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE PROOF OF A SHERMAN ACT
VIOLATION, ESPECIALLY WHERE A SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED,
IS NECESSARY IN ANY CASE.  AND FAILURE TO INSIST UPON COMPLIANCE WITH
THAT STANDARD OF PROOF IS UNWISE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  BUT SUCH A
FAILURE HAS UNUSUALLY DANGEROUS IMPLICATIONS WHEN IT APPEARS WITH
REFERENCE TO AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY THOSE WHO COLLECT AND
DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION.  WE SHOULD THEREFORE BE PARTICULARLY VIGILANT
IN REVIEWING A CASE OF THIS NATURE, A VIGILANCE THAT APPARENTLY IS NOT
SHARED BY THE COURT TODAY. 

AS APPLIED TO THE SHERMAN ACT, THIS MEANS THAT AN ALLEGATION BY THE
GOVERNMENT THAT A MONOPOLY OR RESTRAINT OF TRADE EXISTS IN THE BUSINESS
OF COLLECTING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION SHOULD BE PROVED BY CLEAR
EVIDENCE AFTER A FULL CANVASS OF ALL THE PERTINENT FACTS.  NOTHING
SHOULD BE LEFT TO SPECULATION, DOUBT OR SURMISE.  NOR CAN CONJECTURES
AS TO PROBABILITIES OR INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES REPLACE PROOF OF THE
ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL EXISTENCE OF MONOPOLIES OR RESTRAINTS.  IN OTHER
WORDS, BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO ENJOIN A COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY ALLEGED TO BE IN RESTRAINT OF NEWS DISSEMINATION IT MUST BE
SHOWN BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT SUCH COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY HAS IN
FACT RESULTED IN RESTRAINTS OR WILL INEVITABLY PRODUCE ACTUAL
RESTRAINTS IN THE FUTURE.  FULL OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE ACCORDED THE
PARTIES TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND REBUT ALL THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE LITIGATION.  SUCH WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENTS IN ANY SUIT
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AGAINST THOSE WHO SELL FOOD, STEEL OR FURNITURE,
AND NO COGENT REASON IS APPARENT FOR APPLYING LESS STRINGENT
REQUIREMENTS WHEN DEALING WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE PRESS.  INDEED, THE
VERY NATURE OF THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS IS A COMPELLING REASON FOR A
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THESE REQUIREMENTS.  ANY POSSIBLE USE OF THE
SHERMAN ACT AS A READY VEHICLE FOR UNJUSTIFIED GOVERNMENTAL
INTERFERENCE IN THE DISSEMINATION OF NEWS IS THUS AVOIDED BY INSISTENCE
UPON THESE ELEMENTAL STANDARDS OF PROOF AND FAIRNESS OF PROCEDURE.  THE
ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL DANGERS IN ANY SUCH INTERFERENCE GREATLY OUTWEIGH
ANY PUBLIC INTEREST IN DESTROYING AN ABANDONED, INEFFECTIVE OR ABORTIVE
SCHEME THAT APPEARS AT FIRST GLANCE TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION AMONG
NEWSPAPERS. 

ACCORDINGLY I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF
IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  THE
ISSUES ARE TOO GRAVE AND THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES ARE TOO UNCERTAIN
NOT TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ITS CASE BY MORE PROBATIVE AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAN IT HAS SUBMITTED SO FAR.  THE ADMITTED FACTS
ARE EITHER INCONCLUSIVE OR DEFINITELY LEAN IN FAVOR OF THE CONTENTIONS
OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.  THESE ADMITTED FACTS, IN MY ESTIMATION, DO
NOT CONSTITUTE SUCH CLEAR EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED RESTRAINT OF TRADE AS
TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED INTERFERENCE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS MEMBERSHIP RULES WHICH UNDERLIE THE DISTRIBUTION OF
ASSOCIATED PRESS DISPATCHES.  THEY DO NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS BY-LAWS ON THEIR FACE, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR
PAST EFFECT, WILL "NECESSARILY" RESULT IN UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS.  IT MAY
WELL BE THAT THESE BY-LAWS WILL RESTRAIN TRADE AND OUGHT TO BE ENJOINED
BUT I AM UNWILLING TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION WITHOUT REQUIRING THE
PARTIES AND THE COURT BELOW TO EXAMINE THE FACTS MORE THOROUGHLY,
HAVING IN MIND THE DANGEROUS IMPLICATIONS INHERENT IN THIS SITUATION
AND THE CLARITY OF PROOF THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PRESENT. 

                            III 

THE NUB OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS THAT ITS BY
LAWS (1) ALLOW DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONDITION OF ADMISSION BASED UPON
THE FACTOR OF AN APPLICANT'S COMPETITION WITH A PRESENT MEMBER, AND (2)
ENFORCE SUCH DISCRIMINATORY EXCLUSION THROUGH A NON-TRADING AGREEMENT
AMONG MEMBERS, AN AGREEMENT WHICH THE COURT BELOW FOUND TO BE
REASONABLE WHEN CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.  IN OTHER WORDS, THESE BY-LAW
PROVISIONS ARE SAID TO CONSTITUTE A COMBINATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXCLUDING COMPETITORS FROM THAT PART OF THE MARKET WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE AGREEMENT AND HENCE BE AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE WITHIN
THE WELL-SETTLED MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT THESE BY-LAW PROVISIONS ON THEIR FACE ARE
RESTRICTIVE IN NATURE AND THAT THEIR NATURAL EFFECT IS TO EXCLUDE
OUTSIDE NEWSPAPERS FROM THE BENEFITS OF ASSOCIATED PRESS MEMBERSHIP. 
BUT THAT CONCESSION DOES NOT PROVE THAT THESE PROVISIONS ARE
NECESSARILY SO UNREASONABLE IN NATURE AS TO BE A RESTRAINT OF THE TYPE
CLEARLY CONDEMNED BY THE ACT.  THEY MAY BE REGARDED ON THIS RECORD AS
NOTHING MORE THAN THE EXERCISE OF A TRADER'S RIGHT ARBITRARILY TO
CHOOSE HIS OWN ASSOCIATES AND TO PROTECT THE FRUITS OF HIS OWN
ENTERPRISE FROM USE BY COMPETITORS.  UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO.,
250 U.S. 300, 307; INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 248
U.S. 215, 235.  ANY FRUSTRATION OF COMPETITION THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM
SUCH AN EXERCISE IS A NORMAL INCIDENT OF TRADE IN A COMPETITIVE
ECONOMY, A LAWFUL OBJECTIVE OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISE.  CERTAINLY THE
SHERMAN ACT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO DISCOURAGE MEN FROM COMBINING THEIR
TALENTS AND RESOURCES IN ORDER TO OUTDO THEIR RIVALS BY PRODUCING
BETTER GOODS AND SERVICES.  IT WAS MEANT TO FOSTER RATHER THAN TO
THWART OR PUNISH SUCCESSFUL COMPETITION.  COMPETITIVE PRACTICES EMERGE
AS UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE ONLY IF THEY ARE INFUSED WITH AN
ADDITIONAL ELEMENT OF UNFAIRNESS, SUCH AS MONOPOLY, DOMINATION,
COERCION, PRICE FIXING OR AN UNREASONABLE STIFLING OF COMPETITION.  IF
THERE IS SUCH A FACTOR IN THIS INSTANCE, HOWEVER, IT LIES DEEP IN THE
UNFATHOMED SEA OF CONFLICTING OR UNPROVED FACTS. 

IF IT WERE TRUE THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MONOPOLIZES OR DOMINATES
THE NEWSPAPER FIELD, THESE BY-LAW PROVISIONS MIGHT BE FOUND TO BE
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  THEN THE UNFAIRNESS OF EXCLUDING
OUTSIDE NEWSPAPERS BECAUSE OF THEIR COMPETITION WOULD BE MANIFEST.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN., 224 U.S. 383.  BUT THE
GOVERNMENT MAKES NO SUCH CLAIM.  IN FACT, THE DISTRICT COURT
SPECIFICALLY FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF MONOPOLY OR DOMINATION BY THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS IN THE COLLECTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF NEWS, THE MEANS
OF TRANSMITTING THE NEWS, OR THE ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCES OF THE
NEWS.  A BRISK RIVALRY WITH THE UNITED PRESS AND THE INTERNATIONAL NEWS
SERVICE IS RECOGNIZED IN THESE MATTERS.  ASSOCIATED PRESS THUS HAS NO
POWER, THROUGH THE USE OF ITS BY-LAWS OR BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE, TO
EXCLUDE NON-MEMBERS FROM RECEIVING OR OBTAINING NEWS REPORTS.  IN THIS
RESPECT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE BY-LAWS WILL
"NECESSARILY" RESTRAIN TRADE. 

A POINT IS MADE OF THE FACT, HOWEVER, THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS
THE LARGEST OF THE NEWS AGENCIES, RANKING "IN THE FOREFRONT IN PUBLIC
REPUTATION AND ESTEEM" AND CONSTITUTING "THE CHIEF SINGLE SOURCE OF
NEWS FOR THE AMERICAN PRESS, UNIVERSALLY AGREED TO BE OF GREAT
CONSEQUENCE."  A UNIQUE VALUE IS SAID TO ATTACH TO ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEWS REPORTS, GROWING OUT OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE FURNISHED BY AN
AGENCY COMPOSED OF AND CONTROLLED BY NEWSPAPERS REPRESENTING NEARLY
EVERY SHADE OF OPINION AND GEOGRAPHICAL SECTION OF THE NATION.  THESE
CHARACTERISTICS ARE CLAIMED TO FURNISH AN INVALUABLE GUARANTY THAT THE
NEWS WILL BE PRESENTED BY ASSOCIATED PRESS WITH A MINIMUM OF POLITICAL
AND SECTIONAL BIAS.  THE GREAT SIZE AND EXTENT OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
FACILITIES ARE ALSO SAID TO LEND A UNIQUENESS TO ITS REPORTS. 

BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD THAT
THESE FACTORS, IF THEY EXIST, MAKE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTS SO
SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF ITS RIVAL AGENCIES AS TO CLOTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS
REPORTS IN THE ROBES OF INDISPENSABILITY OR THAT COMPETITION BY NON
MEMBERS IS HINDERED OR RESTRAINED UNNECESSARILY.  PERHAPS THE
GOVERNMENT HAS EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT WHICH SHOULD BE INTRODUCED.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, NEITHER THE POLICY NOR THE
LANGUAGE OF THE SHERMAN ACT PENALIZES THOSE WHO, BY THEIR ENTERPRISE
AND SAGACITY, HAVE FORMED A NEWS SERVICE OF THE FIRST RANK AND OF
UNIQUE VALUE IN THE EYES OF A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC.  A
COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATION, UNTINGED WITH ANY MONOPOLISTIC OR OTHER
OBJECTIONABLE HUE, IS FREE TO EXCEED ITS COMPETITORS IN SIZE AND
EXCELLENCE WITHOUT LOSING ITS RIGHT TO CHOOSE ITS MEMBERS AND TO
PROTECT ITS OWN UNIQUE PRODUCTS FROM THE USE OF OTHERS. 

IF IT WERE SHOWN THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, THROUGH ITS BY-LAWS, HAS
STIFLED OR IS INEVITABLY BOUND TO STIFLE COMPETITION BY NON-MEMBER
NEWSPAPERS IN AN UNREASONABLE MANNER, SO AS TO INJURE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT WOULD BE BEYOND DISPUTE.  THIS
APPEARS TO BE THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT
TODAY, FOR IT STATES THAT INABILITY TO BUY NEWS FROM THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS "CAN HAVE" MOST SERIOUS EFFECTS ON COMPETING NEWSPAPERS AND THAT
THEY ARE "MORE THAN LIKELY" TO BE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.  BUT
EVEN IF COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE, UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, IS
SUFFICIENT TO PROVE AN UNREASONABLE STIFLING OF COMPETITION, THE
GOVERNMENT HAS AS YET PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OR
THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCH A DISADVANTAGE. 

ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND
ACCEPTED AS TRUE BY THE DISTRICT COURT DEMONSTRATES THAT MANY
NEWSPAPERS HAVE FLOURISHED WITHOUT ASSOCIATED PRESS SERVICE AND HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY COMPETED WITH ASSOCIATED PRESS MEMBERS.  THESE PROOFS ALSO
INDICATE THAT NUMEROUS PAPERS ACTUALLY PREFER THE SERVICES OF OTHER
NEWS AGENCIES TO THAT OF ASSOCIATED PRESS; SEVERAL OF THEM HAVING
ACTUALLY DROPPED THEIR ASSOCIATED PRESS MEMBERSHIP AND BECOME MEMBERS
OF ONE OF THE OTHER NEWS ASSOCIATIONS.  MOREOVER, THERE IS A COMPLETE
LACK OF ANY RELEVANT PROOF JUSTIFYING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS MEMBERSHIP POLICY HAS PREVENTED OR HINDERED THE BIRTH
OF A COMPETING NEWSPAPER, PREVENTED OR HINDERED THE SUCCESSFUL
OPERATION OF ONE, OR CAUSED ONE TO BE DISCONTINUED.    NOR DOES IT
APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT ANY APPRECIABLE SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC HAS
BEEN UNDULY DEPRIVED OF ACCESS TO WORLD NEWS THROUGH INABILITY TO READ
ASSOCIATED PRESS DISPATCHES IN NON-MEMBER NEWSPAPERS.  INDEED, THE VERY
PRESENCE OF ASSOCIATED PRESS NEWSPAPERS IN CITIES WHERE THERE ARE
COMPETING NON-MEMBERS WOULD SEEM TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC OF ASSOCIATED
PRESS NEWS AT A SMALL COST.  THE WIDE-SPREAD SERVICE OF THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS, COVERING BOTH TOWNS WITH AND WITHOUT COMPETING SERVICES, IS TO
THAT EXTENT A GUARANTEE OF ADEQUATE ACCESS TO ITS DISPATCHES. 

IT IS CONCEIVABLE, OF COURSE, THAT THESE BY-LAWS "CAN HAVE" ADVERSE
EFFECTS UPON COMPETITION AND UPON THE PUBLIC.  BUT SOMETHING MORE THAN
A BARE POSSIBILITY SHOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN
SANCTIONING INTERFERENCE BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE PRIVATE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.  THERE SHOULD BE CLEAR PROOF HERE NOT
ONLY OF A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE BUT ALSO OF SOME UNFAIR USE OF ANY
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MAY POSSESS OR PROOF
THAT IT IS ACTING SO AS TO STIFLE COMPETITION UNREASONABLY.  EVIDENCE
OF THIS NATURE, MOREOVER, UNLESS IT IS UNDISPUTED, SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY
TESTED IN THE CRUCIBLE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION AND COUNTER-EVIDENCE.  AN
ISSUE OF THIS NATURE DESERVES MORE THAN A SUMMARY DISPOSITION. 

THUS IF IT WERE SHOWN THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WAS USING ITS BY-LAWS
TO FIX PRICES FOR NEWS REPORTS OR TO COERCE NON-MEMBER NEWSPAPERS IN
SOME WAY, A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT WOULD BE PROVED.  UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THESE BY-LAWS CONCEIVABLY MIGHT BE EMPLOYED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF COERCING THE NON-MEMBERS TO JOIN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS,
TO REFRAIN FROM OBTAINING NEWS FROM OTHER SOURCES OR TO CEASE
OPERATIONS.  BUT NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ALLEGE
OR PROVE SUCH FACTS AND THEIR EXISTENCE CANNOT BE ASSUMED ANY MORE THAN
WE CAN PRESUPPOSE UNFAIR DESTRUCTION OF COMPETITION IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY
THE DECREE OF THE COURT BELOW. 

AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, MOST OF THE CASES CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE
RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT TODAY ARE RELEVANT ONLY TO A SITUATION
WHERE THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF COERCION OR UNFAIRNESS PRESENT.  THUS
THE COMBINATION IN MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38, WAS DESIGNED
TO FORCE NON-MEMBERS TO JOIN AS THE PRICE OF BEING ABLE "TO TRANSACT
THEIR BUSINESS AS THEY HAD THERETOFORE DONE."  IN STANDARD SANITARY
MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, A COMBINATION WAS FORMED TO
PROHIBIT SALES TO NON-MEMBER JOBBERS, THEREBY TENDING TO FORCE THEM TO
JOIN.  IN EASTERN STATES LUMBER DEALERS' ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234
U.S. 600, RETAILERS COMBINED AND REFUSED TO BUY FROM WHOLESALERS WHO
SOLD DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE WHOLESALERS WERE
COMPELLED TO CEASE SELLING AT RETAIL.  THE COMBINATION IN FASHION
ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457, ORGANIZED
A BOYCOTT AGAINST THOSE WHO REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH ITS PROGRAM, THUS
NARROWING THE MARKET AND FORCING THEM TO CEASE PIRATING DESIGNS. 
FINALLY, THE COMBINATION IN UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO.,
323 U.S. 173, USED ITS BUYING POWER TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION WITH
EXHIBITORS AND TO ACQUIRE A MONOPOLY IN THE AREAS IN QUESTION. 

THERE IS THUS NO DIRECT OR AUTHORITATIVE PRECEDENT GUIDING OUR
DECISION IN THIS CASE.  NONE OF THE FOREGOING CASES OR ANY OTHER THAT
COULD BE CITED JUSTIFIES US IN SANCTIONING THE APPLICATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT ON AN UNPROVED ASSUMPTION THAT A PARTICULAR COMBINATION
WILL "NECESSARILY" AND ILLEGALLY RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN THE FACE OF
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.  NOR ARE ANY OF THESE CASES
AUTHORITY FOR DECIDING A SHERMAN ACT CASE ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT WHERE SERIOUS DOUBTS EXIST AS TO THE ALLEGED UNREASONABLENESS
OF THE RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  NO CASE, MOREOVER, BIDS US TO SANCTION AN
APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO THE BUSINESS OF GATHERING AND
DISTRIBUTING NEWS WITH OUR EYES CLOSED TO THE INEVITABLE IMPLICATIONS
AND HAZARDS. 

WE STAND AT THE THRESHOLD OF A PREVIOUSLY UNOPENED DOOR.  WE SHOULD
PAUSE LONG BEFORE OPENING IT, LEST THE PATH BE MADE CLEAR FOR DANGEROUS
GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE IN THE FUTURE.  A DECREE OF THE TYPE PRESENT
IN THIS CASE IS NOT OF NECESSITY AN UNDUE INTERFERENCE BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  IF IT WERE SUPPORTED BY FACTS, IT WOULD BE A REASONABLE
AND JUSTIFIABLE METHOD OF LIBERATING NON-MEMBER NEWSPAPERS FROM THE
ALLEGED COERCIVE YOKE OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND OF ASSURING THE
PUBLIC OF FULL ACCESS TO THE NEWS OF THE WORLD.  BUT THE DANGER LIES IN
APPROVING SUCH A DECREE WITHOUT INSISTING UPON MORE PROOF THAN YET
PRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IF UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS AND CONJECTURES
AS TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND COMPETITION AMONG NEWSPAPERS ARE TO
WARRANT A RELATIVELY MILD DECREE SUCH AS THIS ONE, THEY WILL ALSO
SUSTAIN UNJUST AND MORE DRASTIC MEASURES.  THE BLUEPRINT WILL THEN HAVE
BEEN DRAWN FOR THE USE OF THE DESPOT OF TOMORROW. 

SINCE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND
THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN
LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES I HAVE MENTIONED, I DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO
COMMENT IN DETAIL ON THE OTHER PARTS OF THE DECREE DISCUSSED BY THE
COURT.  AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, IT SEEMS ONLY FAIR TO STATE THAT ON
THE FACTS PRESENTED IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
AGREEMENT WHEREBY ASSOCIATED PRESS IS GIVEN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
CANADIAN PRESS NEWS REPORTS IN THE UNITED STATES.  ASSOCIATED PRESS IS
THEREBY GIVEN AN OUTRIGHT MONOPOLY OF THE ONLY AVAILABLE COMPREHENSIVE
NEWS COVERAGE OF A GREAT NATION, NO COMPARABLE SUBSTITUTE BEING
AVAILABLE.  THE ONLY OTHER MATTER REMAINING IN DOUBT IS THE BY-LAW
RESTRICTION WHICH PREVENTS THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MEMBERS FROM MAKING
THEIR SPONTANEOUS LOCAL NEWS AVAILABLE TO NON-MEMBERS AND TO RIVAL NEWS
AGENCIES.  THE LOWER COURT APPEARS TO HAVE THOUGHT THIS PROVISION
REASONABLE WHEN CONSIDERED APART FROM THE MEMBERSHIP RESTRICTION.  ON
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD I AM NOT PREPARED TO DISAGREE ALTHOUGH
I AM INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PROVISION MAY WELL BE SHOWN TO BE
UNREASONABLE. 
..END :








I.C.C. V. PARKER, 326 U.S. 60 


ARGUED MARCH 28, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - REVERSED. 


1.  UPON AN APPLICATION MADE UNDER SECS. 206 AND 207 OF PART II OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT BY AN APPLICANT WHICH WAS OWNED WHOLLY BY A
RAILROAD, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, AUTHORIZING OPERATIONS BY THE
APPLICANT AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE OVER SPECIFIED ROUTES
ALONG RAIL LINES OF THE RAILROAD, UPON CONDITIONS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT
THE APPLICANT'S OPERATIONS TO SERVICE AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF
RAIL SERVICE.  THE COMMISSION FOUND, UPON ADEQUATE EVIDENCE, THAT THE
RESTRICTED OPERATIONS AUTHORIZED WERE OF A CHARACTER DIFFERENT FROM
EXISTING MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE AND NOT DIRECTLY COMPETITIVE OR UNDULY
PREJUDICIAL TO EXISTING MOTOR CARRIERS.  HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF THE
CERTIFICATE WAS WITHIN THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION.  PP. 62, 69. 

2.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE BY A RAILROAD IS
REQUIRED BY PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, THE COMMISSION MUST WEIGH
THE ADVANTAGES OF IMPROVED RAILROAD SERVICE AGAINST ANY SERIOUS
IMPAIRMENT OF OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE.  P. 68. 

3.  WHERE AN EXISTING RAIL SERVICE MAY BE IMPROVED BY A UNIFIED AND
LIMITED RAIL-TRUCK OPERATION, WHICH WOULD NOT BE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO
MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS, THE COMMISSION MAY AUTHORIZE SUCH OPERATION
BY THE RAILROAD, EVEN THOUGH EXISTING MOTOR CARRIERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN
UTILIZED.  P. 69. 

THE COMMISSION HERE WAS ENTITLED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PUBLIC WILL BE
BETTER SERVED THROUGH UNIFIED OPERATION BY THE RAILROAD THAN BY USE OF
THE AVAILABLE MOTOR CARRIER FACILITIES.  P. 73. 

4.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION, IN PURSUANCE OF THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY, TO GUARD AGAINST TRANSPORTATION MONOPOLIES AND
TO PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.  P.
73. 

5.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO REOPEN
THE PROCEEDING TO ADMIT EVIDENCE AS TO THE BIAS OF WITNESSES, IN THE
ABSENCE OF EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY.  P.
73. 

6.  IN VIEW OF THE CONCLUSIONS HERE REACHED, REFUSAL UPON THE HEARING
TO REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND ITS
SUBSIDIARY WAS NOT MATERIAL ERROR.  P. 74. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. PARKER, DOING BUSINESS AS
PARKER MOTOR FREIGHT, ET AL. 

NO. 507.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 508, UNITED STATES V. PARKER, DOING BUSINESS AS
PARKER MOTOR FREIGHT, ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA. 

APPEALS FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINING
THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  SEE
42 M.C.C. 721. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE APPEALS BRING HERE FOR REVIEW A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL
DISTRICT COURT WHICH ENJOINED THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW AND THE APPEALS
HERE WERE BROUGHT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(28), SECS. 43-48 AND SEC.
345.  THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION APPEARS UNDER THE TITLE WILLETT CO.
OF IND., INC., EXTENSION - FORT WAYNE-MACKINAW CITY, 42 M.C.C. 721. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT FILE AN OPINION. 

THE APPLICANT, THE WILLETT COMPANY, IS A WHOLLY OWNED, COMMON CARRIER
BY MOTOR, SUBSIDIARY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.  PREVIOUS TO
THIS APPLICATION IT HELD MOTOR CARRIER OPERATING RIGHTS FOR SOME TWENTY
FIVE ROUTES WHICH PARALLELED LINES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD AT
OTHER POINTS THAN THOSE COVERED BY THIS APPLICATION.  FORT WAYNE WAS
INCLUDED.  WILLETT SOUGHT TO SECURE FROM THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE
CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR SEVEN ADDITIONAL ROUTES
EXTENDING ALONG THE LINES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD BETWEEN FORT
WAYNE, INDIANA, AND MACKINAW CITY, MICHIGAN. 

THE APPLICATIONS WERE GRANTED AFTER FINDINGS THAT WILLETT WOULD
RENDER SERVICE AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE PENNSYLVANIA'S
SERVICE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD FREIGHT.  THE
SERVICE IS TO BE RENDERED ON RAILROAD BILLINGS AND IS TO EMPLOY
RAILROAD FIXED AND CLERICAL FACILITIES.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
WILLETT'S SERVICE WOULD BE COORDINATED WITH THE RAIL SERVICE AND UNDER
RAILROAD SUPERVISION.  42 M.C.C. 725; 21 M.C.C. AT 407.  IT ALSO FOUND
THAT THE PRESENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRED
THOSE MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY OF THE COMMISSION IN GRANTING
CERTIFICATES TO RAILROAD MOTOR CARRIER AFFILIATES TO IMPROVE THE
SERVICE OF THE RAILROAD, THE COMMISSION LIMITED THE CARRIER TO SERVICE
WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE RAIL SERVICE OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA.  IT FORBADE SERVICE TO "ANY POINT NOT A STATION ON A RAIL
LINE OF THE RAILROAD," AND TOOK STEPS TO KEEP THE COMMISSION INFORMED
OF THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN WILLETT AND THE PENNSYLVANIA. 

WHILE THE ROUTES PARALLELED THE LINES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA IN NORTHERN
INDIANA AND THE SOUTHERN PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN, THE AUTHORIZATION TO
WILLETT FORBADE THE TRANSPORTATION BY APPLICANT AS A COMMON CARRIER OF
ANY SHIPMENTS FROM FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, TO GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, OR
THROUGH OR TO OR FROM MORE THAN ONE OF SAID POINTS.  THE PURPOSE OF
THIS LIMITATION WAS TO RESTRICT WILLETT TO TRANSPORTATION TRULY
SUPPLEMENTAL OR AUXILIARY TO THE RAIL TRAFFIC.  THE TWO CITIES ARE
BREAK-BULK OR KEY POINTS.  LESS-THAN-CARLOAD FREIGHT COMES TO OR LEAVES
THEM IN CARLOAD LOTS.  WHEN A MIXED CARLOAD REACHES ONE OF THESE KEY
POINTS, THE CONTENTS ARE DISTRIBUTED TO THE SMALLER, INTERMEDIATE
POINTS OF DESTINATION AS WAY-FREIGHT BY "PEDDLER" CARS.  THE WILLETT
COMPANY SEEKS TO TAKE OVER THIS "PEDDLER" WORK AND NOT TO DO OVER-THE
ROAD TRUCKING.  SUCH MOTOR-RAIL COORDINATION HAS PROVEN SUCCESSFUL IN
IMPROVING SERVICE AND REDUCING CARRIER COSTS. 

AS A FURTHER ASSURANCE THAT WILLETT MIGHT NOT INADVERTENTLY HAVE
RECEIVED PRIVILEGES BEYOND THE COMMISSION'S INTENTION TO GRANT, A RIGHT
WAS RESERVED BY THE COMMISSION TO IMPOSE SUCH FURTHER SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS AS IT MIGHT FIND NECESSARY IN THE FUTURE TO RESTRICT
WILLETT'S OPERATION "TO SERVICE WHICH IS AUXILIARY TO, OR SUPPLEMENTAL
OF, RAIL SERVICE." 

THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WAS ENJOINED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRED
THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE TO WILLETT.  THE DISTRICT COURT SAID IN
THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT THE PRESENT HIGHWAY,
COMMON MOTOR CARRIER TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BY CERTIFICATED CARRIERS
WAS OR WOULD BE INADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC NEED.  THE APPELLANTS,
OF COURSE, CONTEST HERE THE SOUNDNESS OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION INSISTS THAT ITS ORDER AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE TO WILLETT OF THE CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FOR THE SPECIFIED ROUTES IS VALID.  IT BASES ITS CONTENTION
ON THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO ACT IN
REGULATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS AND ASSERTS ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THEM. 
UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PART II, SEC. 206(A), 49 STAT. 551,
NO MOTOR VEHICLE SUBJECT TO THE ACT MAY OPERATE ON THE HIGHWAYS WITHOUT
A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  SECTION 207(A)
PROVIDES FOR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE ON APPLICATION, IF THE
PROPOSED SERVICE "IS OR WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE PRESENT OR FUTURE
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY."  NO OTHER PROVISIONS ARE HERE
INVOLVED.  THE ENTIRE SUBSECTION APPEARS BELOW.  FN1  A FINDING OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WAS MADE, 42 M.C.C. AT 726, BUT THAT
ULTIMATE FINDING MUST HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE PROPER STATUTORY CRITERIA
AND MUST HAVE HAD THE NECESSARY FACTUAL FINDINGS TO SUPPORT IT. 

PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IS NOT DEFINED BY THE STATUTE.  THE
NOUNS IN THE PHRASE POSSESS CONNOTATIONS WHICH HAVE EVOLVED FROM THE
HALF-CENTURY EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT IN THE REGULATION OF
TRANSPORTATION.  WHEN CONGRESS IN 1935 AMENDED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT BY ADDING THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, IT CHOSE THE SAME WORDS TO STATE
THE CONDITION FOR NEW MOTOR LINES WHICH HAD BEEN EMPLOYED FOR SIMILAR
PURPOSES FOR RAILROADS IN THE SAME ACT SINCE THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1920, SEC. 402(18) AND (20), 41 STAT. 477.  SUCH USE INDICATED A
CONTINUATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
LANGUAGE.  CF. CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER CO., 308 U.S. 106, 115.  THE
COMMISSION HAD ASSUMED, AS ITS DUTY UNDER THESE EARLIER SUBSECTIONS,
THE FINDING OF FACTS AND THE EXERCISE OF ITS JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  THIS COURT APPROVED THIS
CONSTRUCTION.  CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 35,
42.  CF. GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402, 411-12.  THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS
WAS TO LEAVE TO THE COMMISSION AUTHORITATIVELY TO DECIDE WHETHER
ADDITIONAL MOTOR SERVICE WOULD SERVE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. 
CF. POWELL V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 276, 287.  THIS, OF COURSE, GIVES
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION TO THE COMMISSION, CF. MCLEAN TRUCKING CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 67, 87-88, TO DRAW ITS CONCLUSION FROM THE
INFINITE VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN SPECIFIC
INSTANCES.  THE DISPUTANTS, HERE, DO NOT CLASH OVER THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR THE NEW SERVICE OR THAT IT WILL
SERVE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  THE EVIDENCE IS AMPLE AND
UNCONTRADICTED THAT DELIVERY BY MOTOR OF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD FREIGHT TO
WAY STATIONS IS A MORE ADEQUATE, EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL METHOD FOR
RAILROADS THAN BY "PEDDLER" CAR.  THEY JOIN ISSUE ON THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION AS TO THE CARRIER WHICH WILL RENDER THAT SERVICE.  SHALL
IT BE BY THE RAILROAD THROUGH THE USE OF ITS TRUCKING SUBSIDIARY OR BY
THE EXISTING COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR? 

THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY HAS RECENTLY BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY
SUMMARIZED BY CONGRESS.  THAT DECLARATION REQUIRES ADMINISTRATION SO AS
TO PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION
AND TO PROMOTE "SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE." 
FN2  SUCH BROAD GENERALIZATIONS, WHILE WELL EXPRESSING THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, MUST FREQUENTLY PRODUCE OVERLAPPING AIMS.  IN
SUCH SITUATIONS, THE SOLUTION LIES IN THE BALANCING BY THE COMMISSION
OF THE PUBLIC INTERESTS IN THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CARRIERS WITH DUE
REGARD TO THE DECLARED PURPOSES OF CONGRESS.  CF. I.C.C. V. INLAND
WATERWAYS CORP., 319 U.S. 671, 691; UNITED STATES V. PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO., 323 U.S. 612, 615. 

WHEN CONGRESS DIRECTED THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED TO
PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, IT IS
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BAR RAILROADS FROM THE
OPERATION OF OFF-THE-RAIL MOTOR VEHICLES.  IN 1938 WHEN COMMITTEE
HEARINGS WERE BEING HELD TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT, 1935, MR. EASTMAN EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE IN OPINION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT RAILROADS SHOULD ACQUIRE MOTOR CARRIERS.  FN3  SECTION
213(A) OF THE 1935 ACT SPECIFICALLY REGULATED ACQUISITION OF MOTOR
CARRIERS BY RAILROADS.  PROVISION FOR SUCH ACQUISITIONS APPEAR NOW IN
SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 905.  SEE MCLEAN
TRUCKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  SECTION 202(C)(1) OF THE 1940
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PART II, AS AMENDED, WITHDRAWS RAILROAD
OPERATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS IN TERMINAL AREAS FROM THE SCOPE OF MOTOR
CARRIER REGULATION AND LEAVES SUCH OPERATIONS UNDER PART I. FN4
RAILROADS MAY, THEREFORE, IN APPROPRIATE PLACES OPERATE TRUCKS. 
HOWEVER, SINCE THE PRESERVATION OF THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF MOTOR
CARRIERS IS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE WITH EFFICIENCY UNDER THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY, THE COMMISSION MUST WEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE
RAILROAD AGAINST DISADVANTAGES TO THE MOTOR CARRIERS TO FIND THE
BALANCE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO
GRANT A RAILROAD APPLICATION FOR MOTOR OPERATION WHERE THESE
CERTIFICATES ARE REQUIRED.  CF. TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 522,
530. 

THIS THE COMMISSION DID IN ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION.  IT SAID: 

"THE MOTOR-CARRIER SERVICE PROPOSED BY APPLICANT, OPERATED IN CLOSE
COORDINATION WITH THE RAILROAD'S SERVICE, WILL EFFECTUATE A REDUCTION
IN COST, AND WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN EFFICIENCY IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OVER THE ROUTES HEREIN CONSIDERED, WHICH WILL INURE TO
THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  FURTHERMORE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR
THAT THE RESTRICTED SERVICE WOULD BE DIRECTLY COMPETITIVE OR UNDULY
PREJUDICIAL TO THE OPERATIONS OF ANY OTHER MOTOR CARRIER...."  42
M.C.C. AT 726. 

IN SUPPORT OF THIS STATEMENT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT WILLETT SERVED,
SIMILARLY AND SATISFACTORILY, OTHER LOCALITIES ALONG THE PENNSYLVANIA
LINES IN OHIO, INDIANA AND ILLINOIS.  THE COORDINATION OF WILLETT'S
LINE-HAUL METHOD OF OPERATIONS WITH THE RAIL SERVICE HAS BEEN
EXPLAINED.  THE EXISTING SCHEDULES OF PROTESTANTS DO NOT FIT INTO THE
NEEDS OF THE PROJECTED SERVICE.  COMMON MANAGEMENT OF RAILROAD AND
TRUCKS GAVE PROMISE OF BETTER COOPERATION THAN WOULD BE OBTAINED BY
ARM'S-LENGTH CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS.  WHILE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT
THERE WERE OPERATING TRUCK LINES IN THE AREA WHICH INDIVIDUALLY COULD
SERVE ALL THE WAY-STATIONS BY SECURING EXTENSIONS TO THEIR PRESENT
ROUTES, IT ALSO SHOWS THAT NO MOTOR CARRIER IS NOW IN A POSITION TO
RENDER THIS COMPLETE SERVICE.  CF. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN TRANSPORT CO.,
COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 10 M.C.C. 221, 232.  THE COMMISSION ON THIS
EVIDENCE HAD A BASIS TO CONCLUDE THAT A RAILROAD SUBSIDIARY OFFERED THE
MOST SATISFACTORY FACILITIES FOR MAKING LESS-THAN-CARLOAD DELIVERIES TO
WAY-STATIONS. 

THE CONTENTION OF APPELLEES, PROTESTANT MOTOR CARRIERS, IS THAT SINCE
NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED AS TO THE INADEQUACY OF THE PRESENTLY DULY
CERTIFICATED MOTOR CARRIERS TO SERVE THE RAILROAD'S NEED, THERE WAS A
FAILURE OF PROOF AS TO CONVENIENCE OF AND NECESSITY FOR A NEW MOTOR
TRUCK OPERATION IN THE TERRITORY.  PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
SHOULD BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO SECURE FOR THE NATION THE BROAD AIMS OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF 1940.  CF. NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE,
261 U.S. 184, 189; I.C.C. V. RAILWAY LABOR ASSN., 315 U.S. 373, 376-77;
UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225, 230; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V.
NORTHSIDE BELT R. CO., 276 U.S. 475, 479.  IN PROTESTANTS' VIEW A
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO
RAILROADS FOR MOTOR TRUCK OPERATION WHEN EXISTING MOTOR CARRIERS ARE
CAPABLE OF RENDERING THE SAME SERVICE.  APPELLANTS TAKE THE POSITION
THAT THIS PRECISE ISSUE NEED NOT BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE.  THEY LOOK
UPON THE APPLICATION AS ASKING FOR AUTHORITY TO IMPROVE "AN EXISTING
SERVICE."  WE THINK THAT IT WAS FOR A MOTOR SERVICE TO IMPROVE AN
EXISTING RAIL SERVICE.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE
IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANY OTHER APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE FOR OPERATION OF MOTOR LINES.  SINCE, HOWEVER, ON ADEQUATE
EVIDENCE THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE MOTOR SERVICE SOUGHT WAS OF A
DIFFERENT CHARACTER FROM THE EXISTING MOTOR SERVICE AND NOT DIRECTLY
COMPETITIVE OR UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO THE ALREADY CERTIFICATED MOTOR
CARRIERS, 42 M.C.C. 725-26, WE HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD STATUTORY
AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION TO ORDER THE CERTIFICATE TO
ISSUE.  THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF IMPROVED
TRANSPORTATION.  WHERE THAT IMPROVEMENT DEPENDS IN THE COMMISSION'S
JUDGMENT UPON A UNIFIED AND LIMITED RAIL-TRUCK OPERATION WHICH IS FOUND
NOT "UNDULY PREJUDICIAL" TO MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS, THE COMMISSION
MAY AUTHORIZE THE CERTIFICATE EVEN THOUGH THE EXISTING CARRIERS MIGHT
ARRANGE TO FURNISH SUCCESSFULLY THE PROJECTED SERVICE.    CERTIFICATES
OF THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE ONE PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION FOR
WILLETT HAVE BEEN GRANTED HERETOFORE.  FN5 THE MOTOR SERVICE WAS NOT
THE NORMAL OVER-THE-ROAD TYPE BUT RESTRICTED TO SERVICES AUXILIARY OR
SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE RAIL SERVICE.  IN ORDER TO RESTRICT MOTOR CARRIERS
WHICH WERE OPERATED BY RAILROADS TO THIS COORDINATED SERVICE, THE
COMMISSION CUSTOMARILY INSERTED A PROVISION IN THE ORDER GRANTING THE
APPLICATION THAT THE MOTOR SHIPMENTS MUST HAVE PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT
MOVEMENT BY RAIL.  E.G. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN TRANSPORT CO., COMMON
CARRIER APPLICATION, 10 M.C.C. 221, 240.  THE RAIL CARRIERS POINTED
OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THIS RESTRICTION INTERFERED WITH THE EFFICIENCY OF
THEIR OPERATIONS, SINCE COMMODITIES MIGHT BE OFFERED THEM AT ONE WAY
STATION FOR TRANSPORTATION TO ANOTHER WAY-STATION WITHIN ORDINARY
MOTORING DISTANCE.  IN SUCH A CASE A WAY-FREIGHT TRAIN WOULD BE
REQUIRED.  IT WAS TO MEET THIS SITUATION THAT THE KEY-POINT OR BREAK
BULK RULE, WHICH IS EMPLOYED HERE, WAS DEVELOPED.  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN
TRANSPORT CO., COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 28 M.C.C. 5, 9, 11, 22(PAR. 
3), 25(APP.  B). 

THIS KEY-POINT REQUIREMENT IS ONE FACTOR OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN
THIS CERTIFICATE AND THE NORMAL OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  OTHER DIFFERENTIATIONS ARE FOUND IN THE
LIMITATION OF SERVICE TO RAIL STATION POINTS AND THE CONDITION THAT THE
COMMISSION RESERVED THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE SUCH OTHER REQUIREMENTS AS
MIGHT BE FOUND NECESSARY TO RESTRICT THE RAIL SUBSIDIARY TO COORDINATED
RAIL SERVICE INSTEAD OF PERMITTING GENERAL COMPETITION WITH MOTOR
CARRIERS IN OVER-THE-ROAD SERVICE. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, OBVIOUS THAT OPPORTUNITY EXISTS FOR LIMITED
ENCROACHMENT UPON THE OVER-THE-ROAD BUSINESS OF THE EXISTING MOTOR
CARRIERS.  A SHIPPER FROM ONE WAY-STATION TO ANOTHER STATION ON THE
SAME RAILROAD WITHIN THE PERMITTED KEY-POINT LIMITATION MAY USE THE
RAILROAD MOTOR CARRIER INSTEAD OF THE MOTOR CARRIER.  FREE PICKUP AND
DELIVERY SERVICE MAY EXTEND THE COMPETITION TO THE LIMITS OF THE
TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE RAILROAD TERMINAL AREAS AND GIVE A
FURTHER ADVANTAGE TO THE RAILROAD WHERE THE MOTOR CARRIER DOES NOT
FURNISH THE SAME SERVICE.  FN6  IF THE COMMISSION LATER DETERMINES THAT
THE BALANCE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY SHIFTS THROUGH
COMPETITION OR OTHERWISE, SO THAT INJURY TO THE PUBLIC FROM INPAIRMENT
OF THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION EXCEEDS THE
ADVANTAGE TO THE PUBLIC OF EFFICIENT RAIL TRANSPORTATION, THE
COMMISSION MAY CORRECT THE TENDENCY BY RESTORATION OF THE RAIL MOVEMENT
REQUIREMENT OR OTHERWISE. 

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION RESTS WITH THE COMMISSION TO FURTHER
IMPROVEMENTS IN TRANSPORTATION.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT CONTAINS
NO PROVISION BY WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY COMPEL NON-RAIL MOTOR CARRIERS
TO COORDINATE THEIR ROAD SERVICE WITH RAIL SERVICE OR MAY COMPEL RAIL
CARRIERS TO COORDINATE THEIR SERVICE WITH MOTOR CARRIERS.  FN7  WHEN IN
RAILROAD APPLICATIONS FOR COORDINATED MOTOR SERVICE THE COMMISSION
FINDS PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR SUCH MOTOR SERVICE ON
EVIDENCE OF TRANSPORTATION ADVANTAGES TO SHIPPERS AND ECONOMY TO THE
RAIL CARRIERS, CF. TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 522, 530, IT IS IN
A POSITION TO DETERMINE BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION WHETHER THE
PROJECTED SERVICE MAY BE BETTER RENDERED BY THE RAILROAD OR EXISTING
MOTOR CARRIERS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF POWER TO COMPEL COORDINATION BETWEEN
THE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PROBABLE GAINS
IN OPERATIVE EFFICIENCY FROM UNIFIED MANAGEMENT, WE THINK THE
COMMISSION, IN VIEW OF THE LIMITATIONS ON THE RAILROAD'S MOTOR SERVICE,
IS ENTITLED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PUBLIC WILL BE BETTER SERVED BY THE
RAIL OPERATION THAN BY USE OF THE AVAILABLE MOTOR CARRIER FACILITIES. 
THE ALTERNATIVE TO THE EXISTENCE OF THIS DISCRETION IS THAT THE
LANGUAGE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PART II, FORBIDS THE GRANTING
TO RAILROADS OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE
OPERATION OF MOTOR TRUCKS, UNDER SPECIALLY LIMITED CERTIFICATES, WHEN
THERE ARE CERTIFICATED MOTOR CARRIERS, INDEPENDENT OF RAILROAD
AUTHORITY OR SUPERVISION, WITH WHOM ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SERVICE MIGHT
BE MADE BY THE RAIL CARRIERS.  THERE IS NO SUCH PROHIBITION IN TERMS. 
ANY SUCH IMPLICATION IS NEGATED BY THE DISCRETION TO GRANT CERTIFICATES
CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION BY THE ACT. 

PROTESTANTS, THE APPELLEE MOTOR CARRIERS, POINT OUT THAT UNDER THIS
INTERPRETATION IN EVERY CASE OF AN APPLICATION BY A RAIL CARRIER OR ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY, FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
TO OPERATE A MOTOR LINE TO RENDER SERVICE AT WAY-STATIONS, THE
COMMISSION WILL HAVE POWER, UNDER FACTS AND WITH LIMITATIONS IN THE
CERTIFICATE, PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED, TO GRANT THE CERTIFICATE.  THIS IS
TRUE.  IT MUST BE EXPECTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION WILL BE AS
ALERT TO PERFORM ITS DUTY IN PROTECTING THE PUBLIC IN THE MAINTENANCE
OF AN EFFICIENT MOTOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AS IT IS IN PROTECTING THAT
SAME PUBLIC IN THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF ITS RAIL SYSTEM.  THE
COMMISSION IS TRUSTED BY CONGRESS TO GUARD AGAINST THE DANGER OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSPORTATION MONOPOLY.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(2)(A) AND
(B).  IT HAS THE DUTY TO PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH MODE
OF TRANSPORTATION. 

APPELLEES RAISE HERE AN OBJECTION TO THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO
REOPEN THE CASE TO HEAR EVIDENCE ON THE BIAS OF THE RAILROAD
WITNESSES.  NO VALID REASON FOR FAILURE TO BRING OUT THE ALLEGED BIAS
AT THE TRIAL IS SUGGESTED. 

WE PASS ALSO WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION THE APPELLEES' COMPLAINT OF
MATERIAL ERROR IN THE REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
PENNSYLVANIA AND WILLETT AT THE HEARING.  IT DOES NOT SEEM MATERIAL IN
VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSIONS.  THE JOINT BOARD DIRECTED THAT THE CONTRACT BE
FILED AS A "LATE EXHIBIT."  REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 551-52: 

"SEC. 207.  (A)  SUBJECT TO SECTION 210, A CERTIFICATE SHALL BE
ISSUED TO ANY QUALIFIED APPLICANT THEREFOR, AUTHORIZING THE WHOLE OR
ANY PART OF THE OPERATIONS COVERED BY THE APPLICATION, IF IT IS FOUND
THAT THE APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING, AND ABLE PROPERLY TO PERFORM THE
SERVICE PROPOSED AND TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART AND THE
REQUIREMENTS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION THEREUNDER, AND
THAT THE PROPOSED SERVICE, TO THE EXTENT TO BE AUTHORIZED BY THE
CERTIFICATE, IS OR WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; OTHERWISE SUCH APPLICATION SHALL BE DENIED:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH CERTIFICATE SHALL BE ISSUED TO ANY
COMMON CARRIER OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR OPERATIONS OVER OTHER
THAN A REGULAR ROUTE OR ROUTES, AND BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI, EXCEPT AS
SUCH CARRIERS MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN SPECIAL OR CHARTER
OPERATIONS." 

FN2  54 STAT. 899: 

"IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF
THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES
OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO
ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF
EACH; TO PROMOTE SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND
FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS; TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
REASONABLE CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST
DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES, OR UNFAIR OR
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; TO COOPERATE WITH THE SEVERAL STATES
AND THE DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THEREOF; AND TO ENCOURAGE FAIR WAGES
AND EQUITABLE WORKING CONDITIONS; - ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING,
COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER,
HIGHWAY, AND RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE.  ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE
ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW TO CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE
DECLARATION OF POLICY." 

FN3  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, UNITED STATES SENATE, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., ON S. 3606, P.
23: 

"THE REASON FOR THAT PROVISO WAS THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THIS ACT WAS
UNDER CONSIDERATION BY YOUR COMMITTEE, THERE WAS A FEELING ON THE PART
OF MANY THAT RAILROADS, FOR EXAMPLE, OUGHT NOT BE PERMITTED TO ACQUIRE
MOTOR CARRIERS AT ALL.  IT WAS POINTED OUT, IN OPPOSITION TO THAT VIEW,
THAT THERE WERE MANY CASES WHERE RAILROADS COULD USE MOTOR VEHICLES TO
GREAT ADVANTAGE IN THEIR OPERATIONS, IN SUBSTITUTION FOR RAIL SERVICE,
AS MANY OF THEM ARE NOW DOING.  MANY RAILROAD MEN, FOR EXAMPLE, FEEL
THAT THE OPERATION OF WAY TRAINS HAS BECOME OBSOLETE; THAT THE MOTOR
VEHICLE CAN HANDLE SUCH TRAFFIC BETWEEN SMALL STATIONS MUCH MORE
ECONOMICALLY AND CONVENIENTLY THAN CAN BE DONE BY A WAY TRAIN; AND THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ARE BEING USED IN THAT WAY BY MANY RAILROADS.  THE SAME
IS TRUE OF MANY TERMINAL OPERATIONS.  THE MOTOR VEHICLE IS A MUCH MORE
FLEXIBLE UNIT THAN A LOCOMOTIVE SWITCHING CARS, AND IT CAN BE USED TO
GREAT ADVANTAGE AND WITH GREAT ECONOMY IN MANY RAILROAD OPERATIONS. 

"FOR THAT REASON, SOMETHING OF A COMPROMISE WAS REACHED BETWEEN THOSE
TWO OPPOSING VIEWS, AND IT WAS PROVIDED THAT A RAILROAD COULD ACQUIRE A
MOTOR CARRIER IF IT COULD MAKE SPECIAL PROOF THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS
NOT ONLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST BUT WOULD PROMOTE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND WOULD ALSO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A SPECIAL
WAY, NAMELY, BY ENABLING SUCH CARRIER OTHER THAN A MOTOR CARRIER TO USE
SERVICE BY MOTOR VEHICLE TO PUBLIC ADVANTAGE IN ITS OPERATIONS.  AND A
FURTHER FINDING WAS REQUIRED, THAT THE ACQUISITION WILL NOT UNDULY
RESTRAIN COMPETITION." 

FN4  56 STAT. 300, SEC. 2: 

"(C)  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION OR OF SECTION
203, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART  ...  SHALL NOT APPLY - 

"(1)  TO TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE BY A CARRIER BY RAILROAD
SUBJECT TO PART I, OR BY A WATER CARRIER SUBJECT TO PART III, OR BY A
FREIGHT FORWARDER SUBJECT TO PART IV, INCIDENTAL TO TRANSPORTATION OR
SERVICE SUBJECT TO SUCH PARTS, IN THE PERFORMANCE WITHIN TERMINAL AREAS
OF TRANSFER, COLLECTION, OR DELIVERY SERVICES; BUT SUCH TRANSPORTATION
SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE AND SHALL BE REGULATED AS TRANSPORTATION
SUBJECT TO PART I WHEN PERFORMED BY SUCH CARRIER BY RAILROAD, AS
TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO PART III WHEN PERFORMED BY SUCH WATER
CARRIER, AND AS TRANSPORTATION OR SERVICE SUBJECT TO PART IV WHEN
PERFORMED BY SUCH FREIGHT FORWARDER  ..." 

SEE CONFERENCE REPORT, H. REP. NO. 2832, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., SEC.
17(B), P. 74. 

FN5  PENNSYLVANIA TRUCK LINES - CONTROL - BARKER, 1 M.C.C. 101, 113;
5 M.C.C. 9.  SIMILAR FINDING WAS MADE IN ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO.,
COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 12 M.C.C. 485; GULF, M. & N.R. CO., COMMON
CARRIER APPLICATION, 18 M.C.C. 721; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., EXTENSION
OF OPERATIONS - ILLINOIS, 19 M.C.C. 605; WILLETT CO. OF IND., EXTENSION
- ILL., IND. AND KY., 21 M.C.C. 405; PACIFIC MOTOR TRUCKING CO., COMMON
CARRIER APPLICATION, 34 M.C.C. 249, 322, PAR. 4. 

THE COMMISSION'S BRIEF, APPENDIX B, LISTS 94 OPINIONS DEALING WITH
TRUCK MOVEMENT OF RAIL FREIGHT. 

FN6  I.C.C. LOCAL FREIGHT TARIFF, RULES, CHARGES AND ALLOWANCES FOR
THE PICK-UP AND DELIVERY SERVICE ON LESS THAN CARLOAD FREIGHT, ISSUED
JANUARY 2, 1942, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 6, 1942, P. 9: 

"ITEM NO. 30.  TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES.  (A) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN SECTION 2, PICK-UP OR DELIVERY SERVICE WILL
BE CONFINED WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF CITIES OR TOWNS; AT POINTS
NOT HAVING CORPORATE LIMITS, WITHIN A RADIUS OF ONE MILE OF CARRIER'S
FREIGHT STATION." 

SEE ALSO PICK-UP AND DELIVERY IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY, 218 I.C.C. 441,
445; DISSENT, 483-84; PICK-UP OF LIVESTOCK IN ILLINOIS, IOWA AND
WISCONSIN, 238 I.C.C. 671; 248 I.C.C. 385, 391, 397; 251 I.C.C. 549;
MORGAIN FORWARDING CO., PICK-UP AND STORAGE, 258 I.C.C. 547, 771;
EMPIRE CARPET CORP. V. BOSTON & M.R. CO., 258 I.C.C. 697.  ALSO SEE,
SEC. 202(C) OF PART II, INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 54 STAT. 920, 56 STAT.
300. 

FN7  10 M.C.C. 235-36: 

"WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO COMPEL COORDINATED SERVICE BETWEEN
CARRIERS BY RAIL AND CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  IT COULD ONLY BE
ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES AND
WE HAVE NO POWER TO REQUIRE THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.  IT FOLLOWS THAT ANY
SUCH PLAN MUST BE DEPENDENT ON VOLUNTARY COOPERATION.  WHILE
PROTESTANTS SAY THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN PROPOSALS, THEY HAVE
NOT DEVELOPED A PLAN NOR DO THEY SUGGEST WHAT GENERAL FORM IT MIGHT
TAKE. 

  .         .         .         .         . 

"UPON THE EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, WE ARE PERSUADED THAT COORDINATED
SERVICE THROUGH THE VOLUNTARY COOPERATION OF ALL OR SOME OF THE
PROTESTING MOTOR CARRIERS IS NOT HERE PRACTICABLE, AND THAT THE 'USEFUL
PUBLIC PURPOSE' WHICH THE PROPOSED NEW OPERATION WILL SERVE CANNOT 'BE
SERVED AS WELL BY EXISTING LINES OR CARRIERS.'  IT REMAINS TO BE
DETERMINED WHETHER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEFINITION OF 'PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY' IN THE PAN-AMERICAN CASE, (1 M.C.C. 190),
'IT CAN BE SERVED BY APPLICANT WITH THE NEW OPERATION OR SERVICE
PROPOSED WITHOUT ENDANGERING OR IMPAIRING THE OPERATIONS OF EXISTING
CARRIERS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.'" 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 
I 

SEC. 207(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AUTHORIZES THE ISSUANCE OF
A CERTIFICATE TO A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE PROPOSED
SERVICE "IS OR WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY."  BUT THE PRESENT DECISION ALLOWS THE
COMMISSION TO CONSTRUE THE STATUTE AS IF "RAILROAD CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY" RATHER THAN "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" WERE THE
STANDARD. 

I CAN FIND IN THE ACT NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER THAT RAILROAD
APPLICANTS FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE CERTIFICATE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED ANY
MORE FAVORABLY THAN ANY OTHER TYPE OF APPLICANT.  YET IT IS PLAIN THAT
THIS DECISION PERMITS JUST THAT.  FOR IF ANY APPLICANT OTHER THAN A
RAILROAD AFFILIATE WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE TO SERVE THIS PRECISE TERRITORY, IT WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES WERE INADEQUATE TO SERVE THE NEEDS
OF THE PUBLIC EFFICIENTLY.  FN1  NO SUCH SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE HERE. 
NONE HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED. 

THAT NECESSITY IS SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED BY HOLDING THAT THE MOTOR
CARRIER SERVICE TO BE RENDERED IS "AUXILIARY TO OR SUPPLEMENTAL OF RAIL
SERVICE."  IF, AS THE COMMISSION AT FIRST REQUIRED (KANSAS CITY
SOUTHERN TRANSPORT CO., 10 M.C.C. 221), THIS MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE WAS
RESTRICTED TO GOODS WHICH HAD A PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT RAIL HAUL, THE
SERVICE MIGHT PROPERLY BE DESIGNATED AS AN AUXILIARY OR SUPPLEMENTAL
ONE.  BUT THE COMMISSION CHANGED ITS POSITION AND WITHDREW THAT
CONDITION.  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN TRANSPORT CO., 28 M.C.C. 5.  THE KEY
POINT CONDITION WAS SUBSTITUTED.  BETWEEN THOSE POINTS THE RAILROAD
WILL OPERATE LIKE ANY MOTOR CARRIER.  THE SERVICE WHICH IT SEEKS TO
RENDER IS NOT A COMBINED RAIL-AND-TRUCK SERVICE.  AS THE COMMISSION
STATES IN ITS REPORT IN THE PRESENT CASE, "THE RAILROAD, THROUGH ITS
SUBSIDIARY, MERELY SEEKS THE SUBSTITUTION OF A MORE EFFICIENT FOR A
LESS EFFICIENT MEANS OF SERVICE."  THIS "SUBSTITUTED" SERVICE DIFFERS
FROM THE ADEQUATE INDEPENDENT MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE ALREADY EXISTING
ONLY IN ITS BEING UNDER RAILROAD CONTROL.  IN THAT RESPECT AND IN THAT
RESPECT ALONE IS THE SERVICE OF A NEW AND DIFFERENT CHARACTER. 

THE COMMISSION JUSTIFIES THAT "SUBSTITUTION" OF SERVICE ON THE
GROUNDS OF THE OPERATING CONVENIENCE OF THE RAILROAD AND A REDUCTION IN
ITS COSTS.  THAT IS A STANDARD OF "RAILROAD" NOT "PUBLIC" CONVENIENCE. 
WOULD IT BE THOUGHT FOR A MOMENT THAT MOTOR CARRIERS COULD OBTAIN
AUTHORITY TO BUILD A NEW COMPETING RAILROAD BY ANY SUCH STANDARD OF
"MOTOR CARRIER" CONVENIENCE? 

WHETHER IT IS WISE POLICY FOR THE RAILROADS TO ENTER AND DOMINATE
THIS FIELD IS NEITHER FOR US NOR THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE.  IF THE
RAILROADS ARE TO BE GIVEN THIS PREFERRED TREATMENT WHEN THEY SEEK TO
SUBSTITUTE MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE FOR RAIL SERVICE, THE AUTHORITY SHOULD
COME FROM CONGRESS, NOT THIS COURT.  MEANWHILE, WE SHOULD BE ALERT TO
SEE TO IT THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION DOES NOT BECOME THE VEHICLE
FOR RESHAPING THE LAWS WHICH CONGRESS WRITES. 

                                  II 

IF THE RAILROAD COMPANY WAS ACQUIRING AN EXISTING MOTOR CARRIER TO
RENDER THIS SERVICE, THE COMMISSION COULD APPROVE THE ACQUISITION ONLY
IF IT FOUND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE ACQUISITION WOULD "NOT UNDULY
RESTRAIN COMPETITION."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(2)(B).  SEE MCLEAN TRUCKING
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 67.  THIS PROVISION WAS INSERTED SO AS
TO PROTECT THE MOTOR CARRIER INDUSTRY FROM THE DOMINATION OF OTHER
TYPES OF CARRIERS WHICH "MIGHT USE THE CONTROL AS A MEANS TO STRANGLE,
CURTAIL, OR HINDER PROGRESS IN HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE OTHER COMPETING TRANSPORTATION."  79 CONG. REC. 12206. 

THE SAME STANDARD SHOULD BE APPLIED WHETHER THE RAILROADS ENTER THE
MOTOR CARRIER FIELD BY ACQUISITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES OR BY
ESTABLISHMENT OF THEIR OWN MOTOR CARRIER AFFILIATES.  THE
POTENTIALITIES FOR ABUSE MAY BE AS GREAT IN ONE CASE AS IN THE OTHER. 
RAILROADS, LIKE OTHER BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, ARE SUBJECT TO THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS EXCEPT AS CONGRESS HAS CREATED EXEMPTIONS FOR THEM.  GEORGIA
V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S. 439.  AND THE ANTI-TRUST POLICY IS ONE
OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH THE COMMISSION IS
SUPPOSED TO PROTECT IN THE TRANSPORTATION FIELD.  MCLEAN TRUCKING CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE PRESERVATION OF HEALTHY COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS MUST THEREFORE BE
AN INGREDIENT OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" WHICH THE
COMMISSION IS UNDER THE DUTY TO DETERMINE IN ISSUING CERTIFICATES UNDER
SEC. 207(A).  CERTAINLY THE EFFECT ON COMPETITION LOOMS LARGE WHEN ONE
TYPE OF CARRIER SEEKS TO ENTER ANOTHER FIELD OF TRANSPORTATION.  THE
COMMISSION PAID LIP-SERVICE TO THAT POLICY WHEN IT SAID IN THE PRESENT
CASE THAT THE RESTRICTED SERVICE TO BE RENDERED BY THIS RAILROAD
AFFILIATE WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE "DIRECTLY COMPETITIVE OR UNDULY
PREJUDICIAL TO THE OPERATIONS OF ANY OTHER MOTOR CARRIER."  BUT WHERE
IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT FINDING?  I DO NOT FIND IT.  IT IS
SUGGESTED THAT THERE CAN BE NO COMPETITION BECAUSE THE RAILROAD NOW HAS
THE BUSINESS.  BUT THE RAILROAD IS NOT RESTRICTED TO BUSINESS WHICH IT
NOW HAS.  BETWEEN THE KEY-POINTS IT IS ENTITLED TO ANY AND ALL BUSINESS
WHICH IT CAN GET.  EVERY FUTURE MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT WILL BE THE SUBJECT
OF COMPETITION.  IF, AS ASSUMED, THE PRESENT RAILROAD SERVICE IS POOR
AS COMPARED WITH THE PROPOSED NEW MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE, A NEW AND
IMPORTANT COMPETITIVE ELEMENT WILL CERTAINLY BE INTRODUCED.  THE
RAILROAD WANTS THIS BROAD CERTIFICATE SO IT CAN BETTER COMPETE WITH
EXISTING MOTOR CARRIERS.  IF THE RAILROAD REALLY WANTS A PURELY
AUXILIARY SERVICE, LET THE CERTIFICATE BE LIMITED TO COMMODITIES WHICH
HAVE A PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT RAIL HAUL.  BUT IT IS NOT SO CONDITIONED. 
THE RAILROAD IS ENTERING THE MOTOR CARRIER FIELD AND RENDERING A PURE
MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE.  IF THE POLICY OF CONGRESS IS TO BE HONORED,
THERE MUST BE A FINDING SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT COMPETITION WILL NOT
BE UNDULY RESTRAINED.  ON THIS RECORD NO SUCH FINDING HAS BEEN OR CAN
BE MADE. 

FN1  NORTON, COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 1 M.C.C. 114; C & D OIL CO.,
CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION, 1 M.C.C. 329; CARR, CONTRACT CARRIER
APPLICATION, 2 M.C.C. 263, 269; IRVEN G. SAAR, COMMON CARRIER
APPLICATION, 2 M.C.C. 729; MERRILL & HAMEL, COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION,
8 M.C.C. 115, 117; BOYLES & LUTEN, COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 8 M.C.C.
593; WHITE CIRCLE LINE, COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 16 M.C.C. 516. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :





AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS. V. U.S., 326 U.S. 77 


NO. 558.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 29, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - 56
F.SUPP.  394, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SECS. 206(A) AND 207(A) OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, A RAILROAD FILED SEVERAL APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES
AUTHORIZING MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF
ITS RAIL SERVICE.  SOME OF THE ROUTES INVOLVED WERE WHOLLY WITHIN A
STATE, OTHERS CROSSED STATE LINES, AND MANY WERE CONTIGUOUS.  HELD
THAT, IN REFERRING EACH APPLICATION TO A JOINT BOARD COMPOSED OF ONE
MEMBER FROM EACH STATE IN WHICH THE APPLICATION SHOWED THAT OPERATIONS
WERE TO BE CONDUCTED, THE COMMISSION COMPLIED WITH SEC. 205(A).  P.
81. 

2.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE RULING OF THIS COURT ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CERTAIN EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION MAY DEEM IT DESIRABLE TO CONSOLIDATE
HEARINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS, BUT THAT IS A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION.  P. 83. 

3.  IN PASSING UPON THE RAILROAD'S APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES
AUTHORIZING AUXILIARY MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS, THE JOINT BOARDS AND
THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC BY
TRUCK FROM POINTS COVERED IN ONE APPLICATION TO POINTS COVERED BY OTHER
APPLICATIONS AND EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECT OF THE RAILROAD'S MOTOR CARRIER
OPERATIONS, PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE, ON OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR CARRIERS. 
OTHER COMPETENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHICH PROTESTANTS MAY OFFER AS TO
THE ECONOMIC EFFECT ON THE NON-RAIL MOTOR CARRIERS SHOULD ALSO BE
RECEIVED.  THE RAILROAD SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH NEEDED
STATISTICAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS REASONABLY AVAILABLE TO IT, AND MAY
SUBMIT EVIDENCE ON ITS OWN BEHALF.  THIS SPECIFICATION OF ADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION OR
THE JOINT BOARDS IN RECEIVING OTHER EVIDENCE DEEMED BY THEM OR EITHER
OF THEM MATERIAL TO THE SOLUTION OF THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  P.
85. 

4.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE BY A RAILROAD IS
REQUIRED BY PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, THE COMMISSION MUST WEIGH
THE ADVANTAGES OF IMPROVED RAILROAD SERVICE AGAINST ANY SERIOUS
IMPAIRMENT OF OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. PARKER, ANTE, P. 60.  P. 86. 

5.  OBJECTIONS THAT THE RAILROAD AS A MOTOR CARRIER HAS BEEN
PERMITTED THROUGH OTHER PROCEEDINGS TO FILE TARIFFS VIOLATIVE OF SEC.
217 OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY
EXEMPTED BY THE COMMISSION FROM CERTAIN ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
220, CAN NOT SUSTAIN A PROTEST AGAINST ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY UNDER SECS. 206(A) AND 207(A).  P.
86. 

6.  UPON THE EVIDENCE, THE DEFENSE OF LACHES TO THE SUIT TO SET ASIDE
THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS GRANTING THE CERTIFICATES IN THIS CASE CAN NOT
BE SUSTAINED.  P. 87. 

7.  BECAUSE OF THE WAR EMERGENCY, AND THE FACT THAT SOME TRUCKS ARE
BEING OPERATED UNDER CERTIFICATES ISSUED ON THE APPLICATIONS, THE
MANDATE HEREIN IS STAYED UNTIL AUGUST 1, 1945, TO ALLOW OPPORTUNITY FOR
SUCH STEPS AS THE PARTIES MAY DEEM ADVISABLE.  P. 87. 

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL INVOLVES THE APPLICABILITY BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION OF THE LEGAL CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR MOTOR TRUCK OPERATION BY A RAILROAD WHICH
WERE DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
PARKER, ANTE, P. 60. 

IN THESE APPLICATIONS LEGH R. POWELL AND HENRY W. ANDERSON, RECEIVERS
OF THE SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, SOUGHT CERTIFICATES OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY UNDER SECTIONS 206(A) AND 207(A), MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, 1935, 49 STAT. 551, AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT
OF 1940, INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PART II, 54 STAT. 923, FOR THE
OPERATION OF MOTOR TRUCKS AS AUXILIARY TO AND SUPPLEMENTAL OF THE
RAILROAD OPERATION OF SEABOARD.  THESE MOTOR ROUTES WERE SOUGHT TO
IMPROVE THE DELIVERY OF LESS-THAN-CARLOAD FREIGHT TO WAY STATIONS OF
THE RAILROAD.  FOURTEEN APPLICATIONS ARE INVOLVED.  FN1  THE ROUTES IN
ISSUE PARALLELED THE MAIN LINE OF THE SEABOARD FOR THE GREATER PORTION
OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, AND JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. 
OTHER CONTROVERTED ROUTES SERVED SHORTER RAILWAY LINES IN NORTH
CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA AND FLORIDA.  STILL OTHER SIMILAR MOTOR ROUTES
ARE OPERATED BY THE SEABOARD UNDER ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION WHICH ARE
NOT NOW IN CONTROVERSY.  WELL ABOVE A HUNDRED WAY STATIONS WILL BE
SERVED BY THE PROPOSED APPLICATIONS.  OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATIONS
WERE MADE BY EXISTING MOTOR CARRIERS ALONG THE ROUTES AND BY VARIOUS
TRUCKING ORGANIZATIONS. 

THE COMMISSION SET THE APPLICATIONS FOR HEARING BEFORE JOINT BOARDS
PURSUANT TO ITS INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 205(B), MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF
1935, AS AMENDED, SEC. 20(C), TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  DIVERSE
RECOMMENDED REPORTS AND ORDERS WERE ISSUED BY THE JOINT BOARDS.  A
NUMBER OF THE APPLICATIONS WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR ARGUMENT BEFORE THE
COMMISSION; OTHERS WERE DEALT WITH ON THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE JOINT BOARD
REPORTS OR BY INDIVIDUAL HEARING.  AS THE SEABOARD WAS THE ONLY
APPLICANT AND THE ISSUES WERE SIMILAR, THE APPLICATIONS WERE DISPOSED
OF AS A SINGLE PROCEEDING.  SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO., MOTOR OPERATIONS
GASTON- GARNETT, S.C., 17 M.C.C. 413; 21 M.C.C. 773; 28 M.C.C. 5; 34
M.C.C. 441. 

THE COMMISSION GRANTED THE APPLICATIONS UPON A FINDING THAT THE
PROPOSED MOTOR OPERATIONS WERE A SPECIALIZED TYPE COORDINATED WITH RAIL
OPERATIONS.  SEE THOMSON V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 19.  THE SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AGAINST
ATTACK BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATES WERE GRANTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR
EFFECT ON EXISTING MOTOR CARRIERS - A GROUND CONSIDERED TODAY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. PARKER, SUPRA - AND OVER THE
ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS THAT THE JOINT BOARDS WERE IMPROPERLY
CONSTITUTED, THAT MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED
OPERATIONS ON THE EXISTING OR OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR TRUCK SERVICE WAS
EXCLUDED BY THE JOINT BOARDS AND THE COMMISSION AND THAT THE SEABOARD
WAS EXEMPTED FROM THE TARIFF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 217 AND THE ACCOUNTS
AND RECORD PROVISION OF SEC. 220 AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER.  THE
APPELLEES ASSERTED THAT LACHES BARRED THE COURT PROCEEDINGS TO ENJOIN
THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  THE SAME ISSUES ARE HERE.  NOTHING MORE
NEED BE SAID AS TO THE CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE DISCUSSED IN THE PARKER
CASE.  THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THIS APPEAL ARE AUTHORIZED BY
28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(28) AND SECS. 43-48 AND SEC. 345.  FN2 

JOINT BOARDS.  FROM THE EARLIEST HEARING, OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THE
COMPOSITION OF THE JOINT BOARDS.  SECTION 205(A), SO FAR AS PERTINENT
HERE, PROVIDES: 

"THE COMMISSION SHALL, WHEN OPERATIONS OF MOTOR CARRIERS OR BROKERS
CONDUCTED OR PROPOSED TO BE CONDUCTED INVOLVE NOT MORE THAN THREE
STATES,  ...  REFER TO A JOINT BOARD FOR APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS
THEREON, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MATTERS ARISING IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THIS PART WITH RESPECT TO SUCH OPERATIONS:  APPLICATIONS FOR
CERTIFICATES, PERMITS, OR LICENSES; ...  THE JOINT BOARD TO WHICH ANY
SUCH MATTER IS REFERRED SHALL BE COMPOSED SOLELY OF ONE MEMBER FROM
EACH STATE WITHIN WHICH THE MOTOR-CARRIER OR BROKERAGE OPERATIONS
INVOLVED IN SUCH MATTER ARE OR ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONDUCTED  ..." 

THE APPLICATIONS WERE FOR SHORT ROUTES OF VARYING LENGTHS UP TO
NEARLY TWO HUNDRED MILES.  MANY WERE CONTIGUOUS.  SOME CROSSED STATE
LINES.  OTHERS WERE WHOLLY WITHIN A STATE.  THE COMMISSION REFERRED
EACH APPLICATION TO A JOINT BOARD COMPOSED OF ONE MEMBER FROM THE STATE
OR STATES IN WHICH THE ROUTE INVOLVED IN THE PARTICULAR APPLICATION WAS
SITUATED. 

AS THE SERIES OF APPLICATIONS COVER CONTINUOUS MOTOR ROUTES FOR A
LARGE PORTION OF THE RAILROAD, APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THE COMMISSION
SHOULD HAVE CONSOLIDATED THESE APPLICATIONS, CONSTITUTED A BOARD AND
MADE ITS REFERENCE AS THOUGH THERE WERE ONLY A SINGLE APPLICATION FOR
MOTOR CARRIER SERVICE WHICH WAS TO BE FULLY INTEGRATED WITH THE
SEABOARD SYSTEM IN THE SIX STATES WHICH THE RAILROAD TRAVERSES, OR AT
LEAST VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA AND FLORIDA, IN WHICH
STATES ARE LOCATED ALL THE ROUTES FOR WHICH APPLICATIONS ARE MADE.  IF
THIS POSITION IS CORRECT THE JOINT BOARDS SHOULD HAVE HAD FOUR OR SIX
MEMBERS INSTEAD OF THE ONE OR TWO MEMBERS WHO ACTUALLY COMPOSED THEM. 
WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT SUPPORT APPELLANTS. 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT SEC. 205(A) REQUIRES THAT APPLICATIONS FOR
CERTIFICATES BE REFERRED TO JOINT BOARDS COMPOSED SOLELY OF MEMBERS
FROM THE STATE WITHIN WHICH THE OPERATIONS ARE PROPOSED TO BE
CONDUCTED.  IN THESE APPLICATIONS THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS
IN A SINGLE STATE OR IN SOME INSTANCES IN TWO STATES.  THE ONLY SOURCE
OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE COMMISSION AS TO PROPOSED OPERATIONS WERE THE
APPLICATIONS.  IT SEEMS NECESSARY FOR IT, THEREFORE, TO RELY ON THE
REPRESENTATIONS IN THE APPLICATIONS IN DETERMINING THEIR SCOPE AND IN
DESIGNATING THE JOINT BOARDS TO HEAR THEM. 

THE COMMISSION HAS SO INTERPRETED THE ACT.  SEE ARGO & COLLIER TRUCK
LINES, COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 27 M.C.C. 563, 566; ATLANTIC COAST
LINE R. CO., EXTENSION OF OPERATION, 30 M.C.C. 490, 491-2.  THESE
APPLICATIONS DID NOT DISCLOSE OR PROPOSE ANY INTERCHANGE OR UNIFICATION
OF THE TRAFFIC AMONG THE RESPECTIVE ROUTES.  ANY ONE OF THEM, OR ALL
EXCEPT ONE, MIGHT HAVE BEEN REFUSED BY THE COMMISSION.  CONSEQUENTLY,
THE COMMISSION PROPERLY REFERRED EACH APPLICATION TO A BOARD HAVING A
MEMBER SOLELY FROM THE STATE OR STATES IN WHICH THE APPLICATION
PROPOSES TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS. 

BUT THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE GRANT OF APPELLEE'S APPLICATIONS
ALLOWS A UNIFIED SERVICE IN THREE STATES AND THAT APPELLEE MAY HAVE
INTENDED THIS RESULT WHEN IT FILED THE SEVERAL APPLICATIONS.  ASSUMING
THIS TO BE TRUE, IT DOES NOT MAKE THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN THE
DESIGNATION OF SEPARATE BOARDS UNLAWFUL.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
COMMISSION TO PREDICT ACCURATELY SUCH A RESULT OR DETERMINE THE
EXISTENCE OF SUCH AN INTENT AT THE TIME AN APPLICATION IS FILED - AT
WHICH TIME THE COMMISSION MUST DESIGNATE A BOARD FOR HEARINGS.  IN MOST
INSTANCES THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF THE APPLICANT WOULD BECOME APPARENT
ONLY WHEN HEARINGS WERE HELD ON THE APPLICATIONS.  THUS THE APPELLANT'S
POSITION WOULD REQUIRE REASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO DIFFERENTLY CONSTITUTED
JOINT BOARDS AS THE SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION WAS NARROWED OR EXPANDED
BY THE TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES OR CONCLUSION OF THE
JOINT BOARDS OR THE COMMISSION IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING.  SEE
SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO., MOTOR OPERATIONS - GASTON-GARNETT, S.C., 17
M.C.C. 413, 416-17.  IT MAY BE THAT IN THE LIGHT OF OUR RULING ON THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE THE COMMISSION MAY WISH TO
CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS, BUT THAT IS A MATTER FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION. 

EXCLUDED EVIDENCE.  APPELLANTS THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE SOUGHT
TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE BOTH BEFORE THE JOINT BOARDS AND THE COMMISSION
AS TO THE ECONOMIC EFFECT ON THE EXISTING MOTOR CARRIERS OF THE
PROPOSED RAILWAY OPERATION OF MOTOR TRUCKS AND HAVE PERSISTED IN THEIR
OBJECTIONS AT EACH STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE JOINT BOARDS REFUSED
TO PERMIT EVIDENCE AS TO CONDITIONS ON ANY ROUTE EXCEPT THAT COVERED BY
THE APPLICATION UNDER CONSIDERATION.  PROTESTANTS MADE REPEATED EFFORTS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO SECURE CONSOLIDATION OF THE JOINT BOARD
HEARINGS BUT WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.  AFTER THE GRANT OF THE CERTIFICATES
WITH THE LIMITATION OF OPERATIONS TO A PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT MOVEMENT BY
RAIL ON JULY 11, 1939, 17 M.C.C. 413, AND FEBRUARY 17, 1940, 21 M.C.C.
773, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE REOPENED TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF THE
RAIL MOVEMENT REQUIREMENT IN PRIOR ORDERS.  FN3  SUBSTITUTION OF THE
KEY-POINT REQUIREMENT OR ITS EQUIVALENT FOR RAIL MOVEMENT WAS MADE ON
JANUARY 24, 1941, KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN TRANSPORT CO., COMMON CARRIER
APPLICATION, 28 M.C.C. 5.  ON OCTOBER 3, 1941, ALL APPLICATIONS WERE
REOPENED SOLELY FOR REEXAMINATION OF CONDITION 3, THE KEY-POINT
CONDITION, AS TO WHETHER IT "SHOULD BE MODIFIED AND, IF SO, THE EXTENT
OF SUCH MODIFICATION."  THIS HEARING WAS ON ALL APPLICATIONS AND BEFORE
AN EXAMINER OF THE COMMISSION ALONE.  AT THAT HEARING THE PROTESTANTS
PRESSED FOR THE INTRODUCTION AND ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE AS SET
UP IN THEIR PETITION TO WHICH REFERENCE IS ABOUT TO BE MADE.  34 M.C.C.
441, 442.  THIS PETITION SOUGHT PERMISSION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE AS TO
THE ECONOMIC EFFECT ON THE INDEPENDENT TRUCKING INDUSTRY AND A
DIRECTION TO THE SEABOARD TO FURNISH STATISTICS AS TO THE TRAFFIC IT
PROPOSED TO HANDLE BY TRUCK.  FN4  THE PETITION WAS DENIED WITHOUT A
STATEMENT AS TO THE COMMISSION'S REASONS FOR THE DENIAL.  34 M.C.C.
441, 442.  THIS WE THINK WAS ERRONEOUS. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT SETS UP IN SECTIONS VIII AND XI NUMEROUS TYPES
OR ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WHICH IT ALLEGES WERE EXCLUDED BY THE JOINT BOARDS
OR THE EXAMINER.  SOME OF THESE ITEMS, SUCH AS "THE REFUSAL OF THE
RAILROAD TO ENTER INTO ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE INDEPENDENT MOTOR
CARRIERS" OR "USE OF RAILROAD FACILITIES AND EMPLOYEES," HARDLY REQUIRE
PROOF.  THEY ARE ADMITTED BY ALL PARTIES.  OTHER ITEMS HAVE HAD
CONSIDERABLE PROOF INTRODUCED AND MORE MAY BE DEEMED BY THE COMMISSION
CUMULATIVE OR UNNECESSARY.  "COST OF OPERATIONS" WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE. 
THERE IS CONSIDERABLE OVERLAPPING OF SOME CATEGORIES OF PROPOSED
EVIDENCE.  FOR INSTANCE ONE ITEM IS "THE ECONOMIC EFFECT ON EXISTING
MOTOR CARRIERS" AND "DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION FLOWING FROM SUBSIDIZED
TRUCK OPERATIONS."  THEREFORE WE DO NOT DETERMINE THAT ALL THE ITEMS OF
EVIDENCE AS SET OUT BY APPELLANTS, EITHER IN THEIR BILL OF COMPLAINT OR
THE PETITION BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WERE IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED. 

WE THINK THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THE JOINT BOARDS AND THE
COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC BY
TRUCK FROM POINTS COVERED IN ONE APPLICATION TO POINTS COVERED BY OTHER
APPLICATIONS AND EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECT OF THE MOTOR TRAFFIC, DEVELOPED
OR PROSPECTIVE ON ALL SEABOARD ROUTES FOR WHICH APPLICATIONS ARE
PENDING OR ALREADY GRANTED, ON THE OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR CARRIERS. 
FURTHERMORE OTHER COMPETENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE PROTESTANTS
MAY PRODUCE AS TO THE ECONOMIC EFFECT ON THE NON-RAIL MOTOR CARRIERS
SHOULD BE RECEIVED.  THE APPLICANT WILL OF COURSE BE REQUIRED TO
FURNISH NEEDED STATISTICAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS REASONABLY AVAILABLE TO IT
AND WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE UPON ITS OWN PART.  THIS
SPECIFICATION OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO RESTRICT
THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION OR THE JOINT BOARDS IN RECEIVING OTHER
EVIDENCE DEEMED BY THEM OR EITHER OF THEM MATERIAL TO AID IN THE
SOLUTION OF THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 

WHILE AS POINTED OUT BY THE BRIEF OF THE SEABOARD NONE OF THIS
EVIDENCE GOES "TO THE INHERENT NATURE OF AUXILIARY MOTOR SERVICE
PERFORMED BY RAIL CARRIERS," IT MAY BE DECISIVE IN THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER TO GRANT THE APPLICATIONS.  WE HAVE JUST SAID
IN THE PARKER CASE THAT THE COMMISSION MUST WEIGH THE ADVANTAGES OF
IMPROVED RAIL TRAFFIC AGAINST THE INJURY TO THE OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR
CARRIERS TO DETERMINE WHERE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY LIES.  IT
IS A DIFFICULT TASK TO APPRAISE THESE CONFLICTING INTERESTS.  IT IS A
PROBLEM WHICH SHOULD BE SOLVED ONLY AFTER THE RECEIPT BY THE
COMMISSION, UNDER ITS USUAL RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY, OF ALL AVAILABLE
MATERIAL EVIDENCE AS TO THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSALS ON THE
OPERATIONS BOTH OF THE PROPONENTS OF AND THE PROTESTANTS AGAINST THE
APPLICATIONS.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 91; CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 264-65. 
IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE RAILROAD'S MOTOR OPERATIONS ARE FOUND BY THE
COMMISSION TO BE OF A DIFFERENT CHARACTER FROM OVER-THE-ROAD MOTOR
OPERATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE INTEGRATED WITH RAILROAD OPERATION.  THE
COMMISSION MUST ALSO CONSIDER THE DISADVANTAGE TO THE PUBLIC OF A
SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF THE NON-RAIL MOTOR CARRIERS.  THOSE AFFECTED ARE
ENTITLED TO FULLY DEVELOP THE BEARING OF THE PROPOSALS ON THE
TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES WHICH ARE INVOLVED.  THE DISCRETION OF THE
COMMISSION SHOULD BE EXERCISED AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT
INFORMATION.    APPELLANTS HAVE OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND A FEW WORDS NEED TO BE SAID
ABOUT ONLY TWO OF THEM.  IT IS OBJECTED THAT THE RAILROAD AS A MOTOR
CARRIER HAS BEEN PERMITTED THROUGH OTHER PROCEEDINGS TO FILE ILLEGAL
TARIFFS, VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 217 OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, AND HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY EXEMPTED BY THE COMMISSION FROM CERTAIN
ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 220 OF THE SAME PART TO WHICH THE OTHER
MOTOR CARRIERS ARE SUBJECT.  FN5  THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT GROUNDS UPON
WHICH APPELLANTS CAN BASE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE GRANT OF A
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. 

APPELLEES ON THEIR PART SUGGEST THAT THE COMMISSION'S GRANT OF THE
REQUESTED CERTIFICATES SHOULD BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF LACHES.  THE
FINAL CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 30, 1942, AND THIS SUIT WAS
BROUGHT OCTOBER 21, 1943, ELEVEN MONTHS LATER.  THE APPELLEES' EVIDENCE
AS TO CHANGE OF POSITION IN RELIANCE UPON THE CERTIFICATE IS NOT
IMPRESSIVE.  THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC PROOF OF THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT
IN RELIANCE ON THE CERTIFICATE OR OF FAILURE TO PURCHASE OTHER
EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS RAILROAD CARS, IN RELIANCE ON THE USE OF TRUCKS. 
THERE WAS SOME TESTIMONY OF MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN METHODS OF OPERATION. 
A NUMBER OF THE ROUTES HAD NOT BEEN PUT IN OPERATION AND OTHERS WERE
ABANDONED.  THE QUESTION OF LACHES WAS NOT PASSED ON BY THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

IN VIEW OF THIS EVIDENCE, WE DO NOT FEEL THE DEFENSE OF LACHES SHOULD
BE SUSTAINED. 

AS SOME TRUCKS ARE BEING OPERATED UNDER CERTIFICATES WHICH WERE
ISSUED ON THESE APPLICATIONS, BECAUSE OF THE PRESENT WAR EMERGENCY WE
DIRECT THAT THE MANDATE HEREIN BE STAYED UNTIL AUGUST 1, 1945, TO ALLOW
OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCH STEPS AS THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES MAY DEEM
ADVISABLE.  SEE YONKERS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 685, 321 U.S. 745;
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 675.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE DETAILED SCOPE OF THIRTEEN OF THE APPLICATIONS IS SET OUT IN
THE APPENDICES TO THE REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION, 17 M.C.C. AT 433; 28
M.C.C. AT 25, AND THAT OF SUB-NO. 19 - TAMPA-SEBRING, FLORIDA, ROUTE,
IN 21 M.C.C. AT 776. 

FN2  THE UNITED STATES ANSWERED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND CONFESSED
ERROR ON ALL POINTS.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE
SEABOARD SUPPORTED THE CHALLENGED ORDER.  THE GOVERNMENT IS REPRESENTED
HERE ONLY BY THE COMMISSION. 

FN3  SUB-NO. 19 WAS MODIFIED IN 34 M.C.C. 441. 

FN4  TWO PARAGRAPHS OF THE PETITION READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"(B)  TO DIRECT THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING
AND DETERMINING WHETHER THE PROPOSED AND EXISTING OPERATIONS BY
APPLICANT, CONSIDERED TOGETHER, AND IN CONNECTION WITH ITS
TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF RAILROADS,
EXPRESS COMPANIES, WATER CARRIERS, AND RAILROAD ASSOCIATIONS WITH WHICH
IT IS ASSOCIATED, WILL UNDULY RESTRAIN COMPETITION; IMPAIR SOUND
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE INDEPENDENT TRUCKING INDUSTRY; RESULT IN
UNFAIR AND DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
SHIPPERS; OR OTHERWISE BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF, OR THE
TRANSPORTATION POLICY DECLARED IN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND
WITH THE ANTITRUST LAWS." 

"(F)  TO DIRECT THE SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY TO FURNISH SUCH
STATISTICAL INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE
THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT, QUANTITY, KIND AND CHARACTER OF
TRAFFIC WHICH SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY HANDLES SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS
AGAINST PARTICIPATION BY INDEPENDENT MOTOR CARRIERS, AND THE QUANTITY,
KIND AND CHARACTER OF TRAFFIC WHICH SEABOARD AIR LINE PROPOSES TO
HANDLE BY TRUCK AND UPON WHICH IT RELIES FOR SUPPORT OF ITS APPLICATION
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY." 

FN5  A METHOD OF OBJECTION TO IMPROPER PRACTICES, SUCH AS
UNREASONABLE TARIFFS OR IRREGULAR ACCOUNTING, BY MOTOR CARRIERS UNDER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PART II, IS PROVIDED BY SEC. 204(C), AS
AMENDED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
CONCUR FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. PAKER, ANTE, P. 74. 
..END :























RAILWAY MAIL ASSN. V. CORSI, 326 U.S. 88 


NO. 691.  ARGUED APRIL 3, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - 293 N.Y.
315, 56 N.E.2D 721, AFFIRMED. 


ORGANIZATION" TO DENY ANY PERSON MEMBERSHIP BY REASON OF HIS RACE,
COLOR OR CREED, OR TO DENY ANY MEMBER, BY REASON OF RACE, COLOR OR
CREED, EQUAL TREATMENT IN DESIGNATION FOR EMPLOYMENT, PROMOTION OR
DISMISSAL BY ANY EMPLOYER; OTHER SECTIONS PRESCRIBE PENALTIES AND
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE.  APPELLANT RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION, AN
ORGANIZATION OF REGULAR AND SUBSTITUTE POSTAL CLERKS, LIMITS ITS
MEMBERSHIP TO PERSONS OF THE CAUCASIAN RACE AND NATIVE AMERICAN
INDIANS.  HELD: 

1.  AN APPEAL FROM A STATE COURT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT SEC. 43
WAS APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND VALID AS SO APPLIED PRESENTS A
JUSTICIABLE "CASE OR CONTROVERSY" UNDER SECS. 1 AND 2 OF ARTICLE III OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 93. 

2.  SECTION 43 IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH APPELLANT'S RIGHT OF
SELECTION OF MEMBERSHIP NOR AS AN ABRIDGMENT OF ITS PROPERTY RIGHTS AND
LIBERTY OF CONTRACT.  P. 93. 

3.  THE FACT THAT APPELLANT IS SUBJECT TO SEC. 43 AS A "LABOR
ORGANIZATION," ALTHOUGH EXCLUDED (AS AN ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES) FROM THE BENEFITS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE LABOR LAW, INVOLVES NO DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 94. 

4.  AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, SEC. 43 IS NOT REPUGNANT TO THE
PROVISION OF ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 7 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
CONFERRING ON CONGRESS POWER OVER THE POSTAL SERVICE.  P. 95. 

5.  CONGRESS HAS NOT SO CLEARLY MANIFESTED AN INTENT TO OCCUPY THE
FIELD OF REGULATION OF ORGANIZATIONS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AS TO EXCLUDE
THE STATE REGULATION HERE INVOLVED.  P. 97. 

RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION V. CORSI, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE LAW
AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT ASSOCIATION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT, RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION, QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF
RIGHTS LAW WHICH PROVIDE, UNDER PENALTY AGAINST ITS OFFICERS AND
MEMBERS, THAT NO LABOR ORGANIZATION SHALL DENY A PERSON MEMBERSHIP BY
REASON OF RACE, COLOR OR CREED, OR DENY TO ANY OF ITS MEMBERS, BY
REASON OF RACE, COLOR OR CREED, EQUAL TREATMENT IN THE DESIGNATION OF
ITS MEMBERS FOR EMPLOYMENT, PROMOTION OR DISMISSAL BY AN EMPLOYER.  FN1
APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT IT WAS NOT A "LABOR ORGANIZATION" SUBJECT TO
THESE SECTIONS, AND THAT IF THEY WERE HELD TO APPLY TO IT, THEY
VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND WERE IN CONFLICT WITH THE
FEDERAL POWER OVER POST OFFICES AND POST ROADS.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 8,
CLAUSE 7, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
REJECTED THESE CONTENTIONS.  FN2  ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT,
CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION WAS POSTPONED TO THE
HEARING ON THE MERITS FOR DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE CASE PRESENTED A
"CASE OR CONTROVERSY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT RESTS ON SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE. 

THE APPELLANT, RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION, A NEW HAMPSHIRE CORPORATION,
IS AN ORGANIZATION WITH A MEMBERSHIP OF SOME 22,000 REGULAR AND
SUBSTITUTE POSTAL CLERKS OF THE UNITED STATES RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE.  IT
HAS DIVISION AND BRANCH ASSOCIATIONS, THIRTEEN OF SUCH BRANCH
ASSOCIATIONS BEING LOCATED IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF NEW YORK.  ARTICLE III
OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTION LIMITS MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION TO
ELIGIBLE POSTAL CLERKS WHO ARE OF THE CAUCASIAN RACE, OR NATIVE
AMERICAN INDIANS.  FN3  CERTAIN OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF ONE OF
APPELLANT'S BRANCH ASSOCIATIONS RAISED THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF
ARTICLE III OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTION WITH THE APPELLEE, THE
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH
ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 43.  FACED WITH THE THREAT OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE
STATUTE AGAINST IT, THE APPELLANT FILED SUIT AGAINST THE INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSIONER IN A STATE COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE
THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 43, AND RELATED PROVISIONS, AND FOR AN INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING ITS ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT.  A STATE SUPREME
COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLANT, FINDING THAT IT WAS NOT A
"LABOR ORGANIZATION" AS DEFINED IN SEC. 43 OF THE STATE STATUTE.  FN4
ON APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THIS JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED, THE
APPELLATE COURT FINDING THAT APPELLANT WAS COVERED BY SEC. 43 AND THAT
SEC. 43 AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  FN5 

ON APPEAL TO THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
APPELLANT WAS AFFIRMED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS NOTED THAT APPELLANT'S
CONSTITUTION PROVIDED THAT ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION WAS TO
ENABLE RAILWAY POSTAL CLERKS "TO PERFECT ANY MOVEMENT THAT MAY BE FOR
THEIR BENEFIT AS A CLASS OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE
..."; FN6  THAT THE INDUSTRIAL SECRETARY OF THE ASSOCIATION  FN7  WAS
TO ASSIST IN THE PRESENTATION OF GRIEVANCES PERTAINING TO SERVICE
CONDITIONS AND ENDEAVOR TO SECURE ADJUSTMENT OF SUCH THROUGH
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  FN8 IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT APPELLANT WAS
AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND THAT THE APPELLANT
WAS DESIGNATED A "LABOR UNION" IN THE BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AS WELL AS IN VARIOUS TRADE UNION PUBLICATIONS AND
REPORTS.  APPELLANT'S OWN PUBLICATIONS CLAIMED CREDIT FOR BRINGING "TO
EVERY RAILWAY POSTAL CLERK MANY MATERIAL BENEFITS" AND "MANY ADDITIONAL
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BROUGHT TO THE POCKETS OF RAILWAY POSTAL CLERKS
EACH YEAR BY THE EFFORTS OF THE ASSOCIATION," AND POINTED OUT THAT
"REFORMS ALWAYS COME AS A RESULT OF DEMANDS FROM THE WORKER.  IF BETTER
CONDITIONS ARE WORTH SECURING, THEY MUST COME AS THE RESULT OF
ORGANIZED EFFORT."  FN9  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS EVIDENCE, THE COURT OF
APPEALS HELD APPELLANT TO BE A "LABOR ORGANIZATION" AS DEFINED IN SEC.
43.  AS HERETOFORE STATED, IT REJECTED APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS THAT THE
STATUTE, AS APPLIED TO IT, VIOLATED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES, IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER APPEAL FROM THIS STATE COURT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING
PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE "CASE OR CONTROVERSY" UNDER SECS. 1 AND 2 OF
ARTICLE III OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT
DOES.  THE CONFLICTING CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE AS TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE STATUTE PRESENT A REAL, SUBSTANTIAL
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PARTIES HAVING ADVERSE LEGAL INTERESTS, A DISPUTE
DEFINITE AND CONCRETE, NOT HYPOTHETICAL OR ABSTRACT.  LEGAL RIGHTS
ASSERTED BY APPELLANT ARE THREATENED WITH IMMINENT INVASION BY
APPELLEES AND WILL BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED TO A SPECIFIC AND SUBSTANTIAL
DEGREE BY DECISION OF THE QUESTIONS OF LAW.  FN10  NASHVILLE, C. & ST.
L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 261-62.  SEE AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V.
HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 242; CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 9; GIBBS V.
BUCK, 307 U.S. 66, 76-77; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. PACIFIC COAL & OIL
CO., 312 U.S. 270, 272-73; TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321
U.S. 590, 592.  CF. PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510. 

APPELLANT FIRST CONTENDS THAT SEC. 43  FN11  AND RELATED SECS. 41 AND
45 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, OFFENDS
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS AN INTERFERENCE
WITH ITS RIGHT OF SELECTION TO MEMBERSHIP AND ABRIDGMENT OF ITS
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIBERTY OF CONTRACT.  WE HAVE HERE A PROHIBITION OF
DISCRIMINATION IN MEMBERSHIP OR UNION SERVICES ON ACCOUNT OF RACE,
CREED OR COLOR.  A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT SUCH LEGISLATION
VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WOULD BE A DISTORTION OF THE POLICY
MANIFESTED IN THAT AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS ADOPTED TO PREVENT STATE
LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO PERPETUATE DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE
OR COLOR.  WE SEE NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE CONTENTION THAT A
STATE CANNOT PROTECT WORKERS FROM EXCLUSION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF
RACE, COLOR OR CREED BY AN ORGANIZATION, FUNCTIONING UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF THE STATE, WHICH HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO REPRESENT THE
GENERAL BUSINESS NEEDS OF EMPLOYEES.  FN12 

TO DENY A FELLOW-EMPLOYEE MEMBERSHIP BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR OR CREED
MAY OPERATE TO PREVENT THAT EMPLOYEE FROM HAVING ANY PART IN THE
DETERMINATION OF LABOR POLICIES TO BE PROMOTED AND ADOPTED IN THE
INDUSTRY AND DEPRIVE HIM OF ALL MEANS OF PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR
TREATMENT ARISING OUT OF THE FACT THAT THE TERMS IMPOSED BY A DOMINANT
UNION APPLY TO ALL EMPLOYEES, WHETHER UNION MEMBERS OR NOT.  IN THEIR
VERY NATURE, RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES ARE LIKELY TO BE SO SMALL
IN NUMBER IN ANY PARTICULAR INDUSTRY AS TO BE UNABLE TO FORM AN
EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURING SETTLEMENT OF THEIR GRIEVANCES AND
CONSIDERATION OF THEIR GROUP AIMS WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT.  THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER IS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO
SIGNIFICANCE FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW.  FN13 

APPELLANT'S SECOND GROUND FOR ATTACK ON THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 43, AND
RELATED PROVISIONS, IS THAT EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS DENIED TO
IT BY THE SECTION.  APPELLANT RESTS ITS ARGUMENT ON THE FACT THAT
ARTICLE 20 OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW,  FN14  CONFERRING CERTAIN RIGHTS
ON EMPLOYEES AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WITH RESPECT TO ORGANIZATION AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, EXCLUDES FROM THE OPERATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS THE APPELLANT, WHOSE MEMBERS ARE
"EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE,"  FN15  WHILE SEC. 43 INCLUDES THE APPELLANT
IN THE DEFINITION OF "LABOR ORGANIZATIONS" SUBJECT TO ITS PROVISIONS. 
FN16  APPELLANT THUS CONTENDS THAT THE STATE COULD NOT CLASSIFY
APPELLANT SO AS TO BE SUBJECT TO SEC. 43 AND DENY IT THE BENEFITS OF
THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 20; THAT THE STATE'S FAILURE TO EXTEND
ARTICLE 20 TO INCLUDE THE APPELLANT DENIES IT EQUAL PROTECTION.  A
STATE DOES NOT DENY EQUAL PROTECTION BECAUSE IT REGULATES THE
MEMBERSHIP OF APPELLANT BUT FAILS TO EXTEND TO ORGANIZATIONS OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PROVISIONS RELATING TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 
UNDER CUSTOMARY PRACTICES GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES DO NOT BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR EMPLOYER.  THE STATE MAY WELL HAVE THOUGHT THAT
THE PROBLEMS ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP MADE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEGISLATION MORE URGENT AND
COMPELLING THAN FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 46. 

THERE REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S THIRD CONTENTION:
THAT SEC. 43, AND RELATED PROVISIONS, ARE REPUGNANT TO ARTICLE I, SEC.
8, CLAUSE 7, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WHICH CONFERS ON CONGRESS THE
AUTHORITY OVER POSTAL MATTERS; THAT SEC. 43 CONSTITUTES AN INVASION OF
THIS FIELD OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND
CONSTITUTES AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY. 
GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAX AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS DOES NOT
EXTEND BEYOND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF AND ITS GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS.  IN THE REGULATION OF ITS INTERNAL AFFAIRS, THE STATE
INEVITABLY IMPOSES SOME BURDENS ON THOSE DEALING WITH THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT OF THE SAME KINDS AS THOSE IMPOSED ON OTHERS.  PENN DAIRIES
V. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION, 318 U.S. 261, 270.  SECTION 43 DOES NOT
IMPINGE ON THE FEDERAL MAIL SERVICE OR THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
CONDUCT IT.  IT DOES NOT BURDEN THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS SELECTION OF ITS
EMPLOYEES OR IN ITS RELATIONS WITH THEM.  NOR DOES IT OPERATE TO DEFINE
THE TERMS OF THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT OR RELATE TO ANY ASPECT OF IT.
ORGANIZATION DERIVING NO FINANCIAL OR OTHER STATUTORY SUPPORT OR
RECOGNITION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WHICH IN NO WAY ACTS AS AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN PERFORMANCE OF ITS POSTAL
FUNCTIONS.  THE OPERATION OF THE MAILS IS NO MORE AFFECTED BY THIS
STATUTE THAN BY A STATE LAW REQUIRING ANNUAL MEETINGS, OR THE ELECTION
OF OFFICERS BY SECRET BALLOT, OR BY A STATE INSURANCE REGULATION
APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT'S FRATERNAL BENEFIT ACTIVITIES.  THE DECIDED
CASES WHICH INDICATE THE LIMITS OF STATE REGULATORY POWER IN RELATION
TO THE FEDERAL MAIL SERVICE INVOLVE SITUATIONS WHERE STATE REGULATION
INVOLVED A DIRECT, PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE WITH FEDERAL ACTIVITIES UNDER
THE POSTAL POWER OR SOME DIRECT, IMMEDIATE BURDEN ON THE PERFORMANCE OF
THE POSTAL FUNCTIONS.  JOHNSON V. MARYLAND, 254 U.S. 51, 57; PRICE V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 113 U.S. 218, 222; MARTIN V. PITTSBURG & LAKE ERIE
R. CO., 203 U.S. 284, 292-93.  SEE EX PARTE JACKSON, 96 U.S. 727, 732;
IN RE RAPIER, 143 U.S. 110, 133.  AND IN AT LEAST ONE INSTANCE THIS
COURT HAS SUSTAINED DIRECT STATE INTERFERENCE WITH TRANSMISSION OF THE
MAILS WHERE THE SLIGHT PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE ARISING THEREFROM WAS FELT
TO BE FAR OUTWEIGHED BY INCONVENIENCE TO A STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
ITS LAWS WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED FROM A CONTRARY HOLDING.  UNITED
STATES V. KIRBY, 7 WALL.  482, 486. 

APPELLANT ALSO ARGUES THAT THE VARIOUS FEDERAL STATUTES REGULATING
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS INDICATE
AN INTENT ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO COMPLETELY OCCUPY THE FIELD OF
REGULATION APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL POSTAL EMPLOYEES AND THEIR LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS N17.  ESPECIAL RELIANCE IS PLACED ON SEC. 652, TITLE 5,
U.S.C., 37 STAT. 555, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "MEMBERSHIP IN ANY  ...
ORGANIZATION OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY OUTSIDE
ORGANIZATION IMPOSING AN OBLIGATION OR DUTY UPON THEM TO ENGAGE IN ANY
STRIKE, OR PROPOSING TO ASSIST THEM IN ANY STRIKE, AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, HAVING FOR ITS OBJECTS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
CONDITION OF LABOR OF ITS MEMBERS, INCLUDING HOURS OF LABOR AND
COMPENSATION THEREFOR AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE  ...  OR THE PRESENTING BY
ANY SUCH PERSON OR GROUPS OF PERSONS OF ANY GRIEVANCE OR GRIEVANCES TO
THE CONGRESS  ...  SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE OR BE CAUSE FOR REDUCTION IN
RANK OR COMPENSATION OR REMOVAL  ...  FROM SAID SERVICE."  THE LANGUAGE
OF THIS PROVISION INDICATES THAT IT HAD THE NARROW PURPOSE OF
PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BECAUSE OF
MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES WHICH DID NOT IMPOSE AN
OBLIGATION TO STRIKE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS PROVISION CAN HARDLY
BE DEEMED TO INDICATE AN INTENT ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO ENTER AND
COMPLETELY ABSORB THE FIELD OF REGULATION OF ORGANIZATIONS OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES.  CONGRESS MUST CLEARLY MANIFEST AN INTENTION TO REGULATE FOR
ITSELF ACTIVITIES OF ITS EMPLOYEES, WHICH ARE APART FROM THEIR
GOVERNMENTAL DUTIES, BEFORE THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE IS
POWERLESS.  ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 749,
AND CASES CITED.  THERE IS NO SUCH CLEAR MANIFESTATION OF CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT TO EXCLUDE IN THIS CASE.  NOR ARE WE CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OVER THE POST OFFICES
AND POST ROADS, COULD REGULATE THE APPELLANT ORGANIZATION.  SUFFICE IT
TO SAY, THAT WE DO NOT FIND IT TO HAVE EXERCISED SUCH POWER SO FAR AND
THUS REGULATION BY THE STATES IS NOT PRECLUDED.    THE JUDGMENT IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 43 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, N.Y. CONSOL.  LAWS,
CH. 6, PROVIDES: 

"AS USED IN THIS SECTION, THE TERM 'LABOR ORGANIZATION' MEANS ANY
ORGANIZATION WHICH EXISTS AND IS CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE
OR IN PART, OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS
CONCERNING GRIEVANCES, TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OF OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION.  NO LABOR ORGANIZATION SHALL HEREAFTER,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY RITUALISTIC PRACTICE, CONSTITUTIONAL OR BY
LAW PRESCRIPTION, BY TACIT AGREEMENT AMONG ITS MEMBERS, OR OTHERWISE,
DENY A PERSON OR PERSONS MEMBERSHIP IN ITS ORGANIZATION BY REASON OF
HIS RACE, COLOR OR CREED, OR BY REGULATIONS, PRACTICE OR OTHERWISE,
DENY TO ANY OF ITS MEMBERS, BY REASON OF RACE, COLOR OR CREED, EQUAL
TREATMENT WITH ALL OTHER MEMBERS IN ANY DESIGNATION OF MEMBERS TO ANY
EMPLOYER FOR EMPLOYMENT, PROMOTION OR DISMISSAL BY SUCH EMPLOYER." 

SEC. 43, PROVIDES: 

"...  ANY OFFICER OR MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION, AS DEFINED BY
ORGANIZATION OR ACTING IN ITS BEHALF WHO SHALL VIOLATE ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION FORTY-THREE OF THIS CHAPTER OR WHO SHALL AID OR
INCITE THE VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH SECTION SHALL FOR
EACH AND EVERY VIOLATION THEREOF BE LIABLE TO A PENALTY OF NOT LESS
THAN ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS NOR MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, TO BE
RECOVERED BY THE PERSON AGGRIEVED THEREBY  ...  AND SUCH OFFICER OR
MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR PERSON ACTING IN HIS BEHALF, AS THE
CASE MAY BE SHALL, ALSO, FOR EVERY SUCH OFFENSE BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE FINED NOT LESS THAN
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS NOR MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR SHALL BE
IMPRISONED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS NOR MORE THAN NINETY DAYS, OR BOTH
SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT." 


"THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER MAY ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS
...  FORTY-THREE  ...  OF THIS CHAPTER.  FOR THIS PURPOSE HE MAY USE
THE POWERS OF ADMINISTRATION, INVESTIGATION, INQUIRY, SUBPOENA, AND
HEARING VESTED IN HIM BY THE LABOR LAW; HE MAY REQUIRE SUBMISSION AT
REGULAR INTERVALS OR OTHERWISE OF INFORMATION, RECORDS AND REPORTS
PERTINENT TO DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN INDUSTRIES." 

FN2  RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION V. CORSI, 293 N.Y. 315, 56 N.E.2D 721. 

FN3  CONSTITUTION, RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION, 1941-43, ARTICLE III,
PROVIDES: 

"ANY REGULAR MALE RAILWAY POSTAL CLERK OR MALE SUBSTITUTE RAILWAY
POSTAL CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE, WHO IS OF THE
CAUCASIAN RACE, OR A NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN, SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO
MEMBERSHIP IN THE RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION." 

FN4  RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION V. MURPHY, 180 MISC. 868, 44 N.Y.S.2D
601. 

FN5  RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION V. CORSI, 267 APP. DIV. 470, 47
N.Y.S.2D 404. 

FN6  CONSTITUTION, RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION, 1941-43, ARTICLE II,
PROVIDES: 

"THE OBJECT OF THIS ASSOCIATION IS TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF A
FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS
AND BENEFICIARIES, AND NOT FOR PROFIT; TO PROVIDE CLOSER SOCIAL
RELATIONS AMONG RAILWAY POSTAL CLERKS, TO ENABLE THEM TO PERFECT ANY
MOVEMENT THAT MAY BE FOR THEIR BENEFIT AS A CLASS OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE AND MAKE PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
TO ITS MEMBERS AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES IN CASE OF DEATH, TEMPORARY OR
PERMANENT PHYSICAL DISABILITY AS A RESULT OF ACCIDENTAL MEANS." 

FN7  THE INDUSTRIAL SECRETARY ALSO HAS A DUTY UNDER APPELLANT'S
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VII, SEC. 3(4), TO REPRESENT MEMBERS BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION. 

FN8  IBID., ARTICLE VII, SEC. 3(3). 

FN9  RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION V. CORSI, 293 N.Y. 315, 320. 

FN10  ONE OF THE APPELLANT'S BRANCH ASSOCIATIONS ATTEMPTED TO ADMIT
INTO ITS MEMBERSHIP PERSONS NOT OF THE CAUCASIAN RACE.  APPELLANT
DENIED SUCH APPLICANT'S MEMBERSHIP, WHEREUPON STATE OFFICIALS CHARGED
WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 43, ON COMPLAINT BY CERTAIN INTERESTED
PARTIES, ASSERTED THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT LAW TO APPELLANT, THE
INVALIDITY OF ARTICLE III OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTION AND PREPARED TO
INVOKE SUBSTANTIAL STATUTORY PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEC.
43.  APPELLANT ASSERTS THE INVALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AND IS FACED WITH
EITHER VIOLATING ITS OWN CONSTITUTION OR A STATE STATUTE. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN12  SEE STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210; THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323
U.S. 516, 532. 

FN13  SEE 5 U.S.C. SEC. 652, 37 STAT. 555, DISCUSSED INFRA, PP. 96
97. 

FN14  NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  N.Y. CONSOL.  LAWS, CH.
31, ART. 20, SECS. 700-716.  THIS STATUTE CREATES A STATE LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD AND CONTAINS PROVISIONS IN AID OF EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS TO
ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS. 

FN15  N.Y. CONSOL.  LAWS, CH. 31, SEC. 715. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN17  39 U.S.C. SECS. 601-640. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE RAILWAY MAIL ASSOCIATION IS A UNION OF RAILWAY CLERKS.  TO
OPERATE AS A UNION IN NEW YORK IT MUST OBEY THE NEW YORK CIVIL RIGHTS
LAW.  THAT LAW PROHIBITS SUCH AN ORGANIZATION FROM DENYING MEMBERSHIP
IN THE UNION BY REASON OF RACE, COLOR OR CREED, WITH ALL THE ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES THAT SUCH DENIAL ENTAILS. 

APART FROM OTHER OBJECTIONS, WHICH ARE TOO UNSUBSTANTIAL TO REQUIRE
CONSIDERATION, IT IS URGED THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRECLUDES THE STATE OF NEW YORK FROM PROHIBITING
RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THOSE SEEKING EMPLOYMENT. 
ELABORATELY TO ARGUE AGAINST THIS CONTENTION IS TO DIGNIFY A CLAIM
DEVOID OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUBSTANCE.  OF COURSE A STATE MAY LEAVE
ABSTENTION FROM SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS TO THE CONSCIENCE OF INDIVIDUALS. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, A STATE MAY CHOOSE TO PUT ITS AUTHORITY BEHIND ONE
OF THE CHERISHED AIMS OF AMERICAN FEELING BY FORBIDDING INDULGENCE IN
RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE TO ANOTHER'S HURT.  TO USE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AS A SWORD AGAINST SUCH STATE POWER WOULD STULTIFY THAT
AMENDMENT.  CERTAINLY THE INSISTENCE BY INDIVIDUALS ON THEIR PRIVATE
PREJUDICES AS TO RACE, COLOR OR CREED, IN RELATIONS LIKE THOSE NOW
BEFORE US, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE A HIGHER CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION THAN THE
DETERMINATION OF A STATE TO EXTEND THE AREA OF NONDISCRIMINATION BEYOND
THAT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF EXACTS. 
..END :













GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK, 326 U.S. 99 


NO. 264.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 4, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - 143
F.2D 503, REVERSED. 


IN A SUIT IN EQUITY IN A FEDERAL COURT TO RECOVER UPON A STATE-CREATED
RIGHT, JURISDICTION BEING BASED SOLELY UPON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OF
THE PARTIES, A RECOVERY CAN NOT BE HAD IF A STATE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS WOULD HAVE BARRED RECOVERY HAD THE SUIT BEEN BROUGHT IN A
COURT OF THE STATE.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, FOLLOWED. 
P. 108. 

GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 693, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT (PETITIONER HERE) IN A SUIT OF WHICH THE
FEDERAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION SOLELY BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN RUSSELL V. TODD, 309 U.S. 280, 294, WE HAD "NO OCCASION TO
CONSIDER THE EXTENT TO WHICH FEDERAL COURTS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THEM BY CONGRESS TO ADMINISTER EQUITABLE
REMEDIES, ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW STATE STATUTES AND DECISIONS AFFECTING
THOSE REMEDIES."  THE QUESTION THUS CAREFULLY LEFT OPEN IN RUSSELL V.
TODD IS NOW BEFORE US.  IT ARISES UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IN MAY, 1930, VAN SWERINGEN CORPORATION ISSUED NOTES TO THE AMOUNT OF
$30,000,000.  UNDER AN INDENTURE OF THE SAME DATE, PETITIONER, GUARANTY
TRUST CO., WAS NAMED TRUSTEE WITH POWER AND OBLIGATIONS TO ENFORCE THE
RIGHTS OF THE NOTEHOLDERS IN THE ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION AND OF THE
VAN SWERINGEN BROTHERS.  IN OCTOBER, 1930, PETITIONER, WITH OTHER
BANKS, MADE LARGE ADVANCES TO COMPANIES AFFILIATED WITH THE CORPORATION
AND WHOLLY CONTROLLED BY THE VAN SWERINGENS.  IN OCTOBER, 1931, WHEN IT
WAS APPARENT THAT THE CORPORATION COULD NOT MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS,
GUARANTY COOPERATED IN A PLAN FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE OUTSTANDING NOTES
ON THE BASIS OF CASH FOR 50% OF THE FACE VALUE OF THE NOTES AND TWENTY
SHARES OF VAN SWERINGEN CORPORATION'S STOCK FOR EACH $1,000 NOTE.  THIS
EXCHANGE OFFER REMAINED OPEN UNTIL DECEMBER 15, 1931. 

RESPONDENT YORK RECEIVED $6,000 OF THE NOTES AS A GIFT IN 1934, HER
DONOR NOT HAVING ACCEPTED THE OFFER OF EXCHANGE.  IN APRIL, 1940, THREE
ACCEPTING NOTEHOLDERS BEGAN SUIT AGAINST PETITIONER, CHARGING FRAUD AND
MISREPRESENTATION.  RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION TO INTERVENE IN THAT SUIT
WAS DENIED, 117 F.2D 95, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF GUARANTY WAS
AFFIRMED.  HACKNER V. MORGAN, 130 F.2D 300.  AFTER HER DISMISSAL FROM
THE HACKNER LITIGATION, RESPONDENT, ON JANUARY 22, 1942, BEGAN THE
PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. 

THE SUIT, INSTITUTED AS A CLASS ACTION ON BEHALF OF NONACCEPTING
NOTEHOLDERS AND BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT SOLELY BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP, IS BASED ON AN ALLEGED BREACH OF TRUST BY GUARANTY IN
THAT IT FAILED TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE NOTEHOLDERS IN ASSENTING
TO THE EXCHANGE OFFER AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE ITS SELF-INTEREST WHEN
SPONSORING THE OFFER.  PETITIONER MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHICH WAS
GRANTED, UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE HACKNER CASE.  ON APPEAL, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, FOUND THAT THE HACKNER
DECISION DID NOT FORECLOSE THIS SUIT, AND HELD THAT IN A SUIT BROUGHT
ON THE EQUITY SIDE OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT THAT COURT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO APPLY THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT WOULD GOVERN
LIKE SUITS IN THE COURTS OF A STATE WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT IS SITTING
EVEN THOUGH THE EXCLUSIVE BASIS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP.  143 F.2D 503.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS LED US TO BRING THE
CASE HERE.  323 U.S. 693. 

IN VIEW OF THE BASIS OF THE DECISION BELOW, IT IS NOT FOR US TO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE NEW YORK STATUTE WOULD ACTUALLY BAR THIS SUIT WERE
IT BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT.  OUR ONLY CONCERN IS WITH THE HOLDING THAT
THE FEDERAL COURTS IN A SUIT LIKE THIS ARE NOT BOUND BY LOCAL LAW. 

WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT IN DISPOSING OF
QUESTIONS THAT ARISE WHEN A FEDERAL COURT IS ADJUDICATING A CLAIM BASED
ON A FEDERAL LAW.  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, BOARD OF COMM'RS V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 343; DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190; D'OENCH, DUHME
& CO. V. F.D.I.C., 315 U.S. 447; CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES,
318 U.S. 363; O'BRIEN V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 113 F.2D 539. 
OUR PROBLEM ONLY TOUCHES TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
ARE CREATED BY ONE OF THE STATES, AND FOR THE ASSERTION OF WHICH, IN
CASE OF DIVERSITY OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES, CONGRESS HAS MADE
A FEDERAL COURT ANOTHER AVAILABLE FORUM. 

OUR STARTING POINT MUST BE THE POLICY OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION WHICH
ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, EMBODIES.  IN OVERRULING SWIFT V.
TYSON, 16 PET. 1, ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS DID NOT MERELY OVERRULE A
VENERABLE CASE.  IT OVERRULED A PARTICULAR WAY OF LOOKING AT LAW WHICH
DOMINATED THE JUDICIAL PROCESS LONG AFTER ITS INADEQUACIES HAD BEEN
LAID BARE.  SEE, E.G., FIELD, J., DISSENTING IN BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO.
V. BAUGH, 149 U.S. 368, 391; HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN KUHN V. FAIRMONT
COAL CO., 215 U.S. 349, 370, AND IN BLACK & WHITE TAXI.  CO. V. BROWN &
YELLOW TAXI.  CO., 276 U.S. 518, 532; ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA AT
73, NOTE 6.  LAW WAS CONCEIVED AS A "BROODING OMNIPRESENCE" OF REASON,
OF WHICH DECISIONS WERE MERELY EVIDENCE AND NOT THEMSELVES THE
CONTROLLING FORMULATIONS.  ACCORDINGLY, FEDERAL COURTS DEEMED
THEMSELVES FREE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT REASON, AND THEREFORE LAW, REQUIRED
WHOLLY INDEPENDENT OF AUTHORITATIVELY DECLARED STATE LAW, EVEN IN CASES
WHERE A LEGAL RIGHT AS THE BASIS FOR RELIEF WAS CREATED BY STATE
AUTHORITY AND COULD NOT BE CREATED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND THE CASE
GOT INTO A FEDERAL COURT MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS "BETWEEN CITIZENS OF
DIFFERENT STATES" UNDER ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

THIS IMPULSE TO FREEDOM FROM THE RULES THAT CONTROLLED STATE COURTS
REGARDING STATE-CREATED RIGHTS WAS SO STRONGLY ROOTED IN THE PREVAILING
VIEWS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF LAW, THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS ALMOST
IMPERCEPTIBLY WERE LED TO MUTILATING CONSTRUCTION EVEN OF THE EXPLICIT
COMMAND GIVEN TO THEM BY CONGRESS TO APPLY STATE LAW IN CASES
PURPORTING TO ENFORCE THE LAW OF A STATE.  SEE SEC. 34 OF THE JUDICIARY
ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 73, 92.  THE MATTER WAS FAIRLY SUMMARIZED BY THE
STATEMENT THAT "DURING THE PERIOD WHEN SWIFT V. TYSON (1842-1938) RULED
THE DECISIONS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, ITS THEORY OF THEIR FREEDOM IN
MATTERS OF GENERAL LAW FROM THE AUTHORITY OF STATE COURTS PERVADED
OPINIONS OF THIS COURT INVOLVING EVEN STATE STATUTES OR LOCAL LAW." 
VANDENBARK V. OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 311 U.S. 538, 540. 

IN RELATION TO THE PROBLEM NOW HERE, THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SWIFT
V. TYSON LIES IN THE FACT THAT IT DID NOT ENUNCIATE NOVEL DOCTRINE. 
NOR WAS IT RESTRICTED TO ITS PARTICULAR SITUATION.  IT SUMMED UP PRIOR
ATTITUDES AND EXPRESSIONS IN CASES THAT HAD COME BEFORE THIS COURT AND
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS FOR AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS, AT LAW AS WELL AS IN
EQUITY.  FN1  THE SHORT OF IT IS THAT THE DOCTRINE WAS CONGENIAL TO THE
JURISPRUDENTIAL CLIMATE OF THE TIME.  ONCE ESTABLISHED, JUDICIAL
MOMENTUM KEPT IT GOING.  SINCE IT WAS CONCEIVED THAT THERE WAS "A
TRANSCENDENTAL BODY OF LAW OUTSIDE OF ANY PARTICULAR STATE BUT
OBLIGATORY WITHIN IT UNLESS AND UNTIL CHANGED BY STATUTE," 276 U.S.
518, 532, 533, STATE COURT DECISIONS WERE NOT "THE LAW" BUT MERELY
SOMEONE'S OPINION - TO BE SURE AN OPINION TO BE RESPECTED - CONCERNING
THE CONTENT OF THIS ALL-PERVADING LAW.  NOT UNNATURALLY, THE FEDERAL
COURTS ASSUMED POWER TO FIND FOR THEMSELVES THE CONTENT OF SUCH A BODY
OF LAW.  THE NOTION WAS STIMULATED BY THE ATTRACTIVE VISION OF A
UNIFORM BODY OF FEDERAL LAW.  TO SUCH SENTIMENTS FOR UNIFORMITY OF
DECISION AND FREEDOM FROM DIVERSITY IN STATE LAW THE FEDERAL COURTS
GAVE CURRENCY, PARTICULARLY IN CASES WHERE EQUITABLE REMEDIES WERE
SOUGHT, BECAUSE EQUITABLE DOCTRINES ARE SO OFTEN CAST IN TERMS OF
UNIVERSAL APPLICABILITY WHEN CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THE SOURCE OF LEGAL
ENFORCEABILITY IS NOT DEMANDED. 

IN EXERCISING THEIR JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP, THE FEDERAL COURTS, IN THE LONG COURSE OF THEIR HISTORY,
HAVE NOT DIFFERENTIATED IN THEIR REGARD FOR STATE LAW BETWEEN ACTIONS
AT LAW AND SUITS IN EQUITY.  ALTHOUGH SEC. 34 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF
1789, 1 STAT. 73, 92, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 725, DIRECTED THAT THE "LAWS OF
THE SEVERAL STATES  ...  SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF DECISION IN
TRIALS AT COMMON LAW  ...," THIS WAS DEEMED, CONSISTENTLY FOR OVER A
HUNDRED YEARS, TO BE MERELY DECLARATORY OF WHAT WOULD IN ANY EVENT HAVE
GOVERNED THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THEREFORE WAS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO
EQUITY SUITS.  FN2  SEE HAWKINS V. BARNEY'S LESSEE, 5 PET. 457, 464;
MASON V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 545, 559; ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
SUPRA AT 72.  INDEED, IT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS
GAVE GREATER RESPECT TO STATE-CREATED "SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS," PUSEY &
JONES CO. V. HANSSEN, 261 U.S. 491, 498, IN EQUITY THAN THEY GAVE THEM
ON THE LAW SIDE, BECAUSE RIGHTS AT LAW WERE USUALLY DECLARED BY STATE
COURTS AND AS SUCH INCREASINGLY FLOUTED BY EXTENSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
SWIFT V. TYSON, WHILE RIGHTS IN EQUITY WERE FREQUENTLY DEFINED BY
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT AND AS SUCH KNOWN AND RESPECTED BY THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  SEE, E.G., CLARK V. SMITH, 13 PET. 195; SCOTT V. NEELY, 140
U.S. 106; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. WESTERN UNION CO., 234 U.S.
369, 374-76; PUSEY & JONES CO. V. HANSSEN, SUPRA AT 498. 

PARTLY BECAUSE THE STATES IN THE EARLY DAYS VARIED GREATLY IN THE
MANNER IN WHICH EQUITABLE RELIEF WAS AFFORDED AND IN THE EXTENT TO
WHICH IT WAS AVAILABLE, SEE, E.G., FISHER, THE ADMINISTRATION OF EQUITY
THROUGH COMMON LAW FORMS (1885) 1 L.Q. REV. 455; WOODRUFF, CHANCERY IN
MASSACHUSETTS (1889) 5 L.Q. REV. 370; LAUSSAT, ESSAY ON EQUITY IN
PENNSYLVANIA (1826), CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT "THE FORMS AND MODES OF
PROCEEDING IN SUITS  ... OF EQUITY" WOULD CONFORM TO THE SETTLED USES
OF COURTS OF EQUITY.  SEC. 2, 1 STAT. 275, 276, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 723. 
BUT THIS ENACTMENT GAVE THE FEDERAL COURTS NO POWER THAT THEY WOULD NOT
HAVE HAD IN ANY EVENT WHEN COURTS WERE GIVEN "COGNIZANCE," BY THE FIRST
JUDICIARY ACT, OF SUITS "IN EQUITY."  FROM THE BEGINNING THERE HAS BEEN
A GOOD DEAL OF TALK IN THE CASES THAT FEDERAL EQUITY IS A SEPARATE
LEGAL SYSTEM.  AND SO IT IS, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD.  THE SUITS IN EQUITY
OF WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE HAD "COGNIZANCE" EVER SINCE 1789
CONSTITUTED THE BODY OF LAW WHICH HAD BEEN TRANSPLANTED TO THIS COUNTRY
FROM THE ENGLISH COURT OF CHANCERY.  BUT THIS SYSTEM OF EQUITY "DERIVED
ITS DOCTRINES, AS WELL AS ITS POWERS, FROM ITS MODE OF GIVING RELIEF." 
LANGDELL, SUMMARY OF EQUITY PLEADING (1877) XXVII.  IN GIVING FEDERAL
COURTS "COGNIZANCE" OF EQUITY SUITS IN CASES OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION,
CONGRESS NEVER GAVE, NOR DID THE FEDERAL COURTS EVER CLAIM, THE POWER
TO DENY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS CREATED BY STATE LAW OR TO CREATE
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS DENIED BY STATE LAW. 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHATEVER EQUITABLE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE IN A
STATE COURT MUST BE AVAILABLE IN A DIVERSITY SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT,
OR CONVERSELY, THAT A FEDERAL COURT MAY NOT AFFORD AN EQUITABLE REMEDY
NOT AVAILABLE IN A STATE COURT.  EQUITABLE RELIEF IN A FEDERAL COURT IS
OF COURSE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS:  THE SUIT MUST BE WITHIN THE
TRADITIONAL SCOPE OF EQUITY AS HISTORICALLY EVOLVED IN THE ENGLISH
COURT OF CHANCERY, PAYNE V. HOOK, 7 WALL.  425, 430; ATLAS INS. CO. V.
SOUTHERN, INC., 306 U.S. 563, 568; SPRAGUE V. TICONIC BANK, 307 U.S.
161, 164-165; A PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW MUST BE
WANTING, SEC. 16, 1 STAT. 73, 82, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 384; EXPLICIT
CONGRESSIONAL CURTAILMENT OF EQUITY POWERS MUST BE RESPECTED, SEE,
E.G., NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 101 ET SEQ.;
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY CANNOT BE EVADED, WHITEHEAD
V. SHATTUCK, 138 U.S. 146.  THAT A STATE MAY AUTHORIZE ITS COURTS TO
GIVE EQUITABLE RELIEF UNHAMPERED BY ANY OR ALL SUCH RESTRICTIONS CANNOT
REMOVE THESE FETTERS FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS.  SEE CLARK V. SMITH,
SUPRA AT 203; BRODERICK'S WILL, 21 WALL.  503, 519-20; LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE R. CO. V. WESTERN UNION CO., SUPRA AT 376; HENRIETTA MILLS V.
RUTHERFORD CO., 281 U.S. 121, 127-28; ATLAS INS. CO. V. SOUTHERN, INC.,
SUPRA AT 568-70.  STATE LAW CANNOT DEFINE THE REMEDIES WHICH A FEDERAL
COURT MUST GIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE A FEDERAL COURT IN DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION IS AVAILABLE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TRIBUNAL TO THE STATE'S
COURTS.  FN3  CONTRARIWISE, A FEDERAL COURT MAY AFFORD AN EQUITABLE
REMEDY FOR A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT RECOGNIZED BY A STATE EVEN THOUGH A
STATE COURT CANNOT GIVE IT.  WHATEVER CONTRADICTION OR CONFUSION MAY BE
PRODUCED BY A MEDLEY OF JUDICIAL PHRASES SEVERED FROM THEIR
ENVIRONMENT, THE BODY OF ADJUDICATIONS CONCERNING EQUITABLE RELIEF IN
DIVERSITY CASES LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS ENFORCED STATE
CREATED SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS IF THE MODE OF PROCEEDING AND REMEDY WERE
CONSONANT WITH THE TRADITIONAL BODY OF EQUITABLE REMEDIES, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE, AND IN SO DOING THEY WERE ENFORCING RIGHTS CREATED BY THE
STATES AND NOT ARISING UNDER ANY INHERENT OR STATUTORY FEDERAL LAW. 
FN4 

INEVITABLY, THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, AN
ACTION AT LAW, WAS PROMPTLY APPLIED TO A SUIT IN EQUITY.  RUHLIN V.
N.Y. LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 202. 

AND SO THIS CASE REDUCES ITSELF TO THE NARROW QUESTION WHETHER, WHEN
NO RECOVERY COULD BE HAD IN A STATE COURT BECAUSE THE ACTION IS BARRED
BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, A FEDERAL COURT IN EQUITY CAN TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF THE SUIT BECAUSE THERE IS DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  IS THE OUTLAWRY, ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, OF A
CLAIM CREATED BY THE STATES A MATTER OF "SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS" TO BE
RESPECTED BY A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY WHEN THAT COURT'S JURISDICTION
IS DEPENDENT ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS A STATE-CREATED RIGHT, OR IS
SUCH STATUTE OF "A MERE REMEDIAL CHARACTER," HENRIETTA MILLS V.
RUTHERFORD CO., SUPRA AT 128, WHICH A FEDERAL COURT MAY DISREGARD? 
MATTERS OF "SUBSTANCE" AND MATTERS OF "PROCEDURE" ARE MUCH TALKED ABOUT
IN THE BOOKS AS THOUGH THEY DEFINED A GREAT DIVIDE CUTTING ACROSS THE
WHOLE DOMAIN OF LAW.  BUT, OF COURSE, "SUBSTANCE" AND "PROCEDURE" ARE
THE SAME KEY-WORDS TO VERY DIFFERENT PROBLEMS.  NEITHER "SUBSTANCE" NOR
"PROCEDURE" REPRESENTS THE SAME INVARIANTS.  EACH IMPLIES DIFFERENT
VARIABLES DEPENDING UPON THE PARTICULAR PROBLEM FOR WHICH IT IS USED. 
SEE HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397, 409.  AND THE DIFFERENT
PROBLEMS ARE ONLY DISTANTLY RELATED AT BEST, FOR THE TERMS ARE IN
COMMON USE IN CONNECTION WITH SITUATIONS TURNING ON SUCH DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS AS THOSE THAT ARE RELEVANT TO QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO EX
POST FACTO LEGISLATION, THE IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACT,
THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS IN THE STATE COURTS AND THE
MULTITUDINOUS PHASES OF THE CONFLICT OF LAWS.  SEE, E.G., AMERICAN
RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. LEVEE, 263 U.S. 19, 21; DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263
U.S. 22, 24-25; WORTHEN CO. V. KAVANAUGH, 295 U.S. 56, 60; GARRETT V.
MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239, 248-49; AND SEE TUNKS,
CATEGORIZATION AND FEDERALISM:  "SUBSTANCE" AND "PROCEDURE" AFTER ERIE
RAILROAD V. TOMPKINS (1939) 34 ILL. L. REV. 271, 274-276; COOK, LOGICAL
AND LEGAL BASES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS (1942) 163-165. 

HERE WE ARE DEALING WITH A RIGHT TO RECOVER DERIVED NOT FROM THE
UNITED STATES BUT FROM ONE OF THE STATES.  WHEN, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF
HAPPENS TO BE A NON-RESIDENT, SUCH A RIGHT IS ENFORCEABLE IN A FEDERAL
AS WELL AS IN A STATE COURT, THE FORMS AND MODE OF ENFORCING THE RIGHT
MAY AT TIMES, NATURALLY ENOUGH, VARY BECAUSE THE TWO JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
ARE NOT IDENTIC.  BUT SINCE A FEDERAL COURT ADJUDICATING A STATE
CREATED RIGHT SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE
PARTIES IS FOR THAT PURPOSE, IN EFFECT, ONLY ANOTHER COURT OF THE
STATE, IT CANNOT AFFORD RECOVERY IF THE RIGHT TO RECOVER IS MADE
UNAVAILABLE BY THE STATE NOR CAN IT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE RIGHT AS GIVEN BY THE STATE. 

AND SO THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS DEEMED
A MATTER OF "PROCEDURE" IN SOME SENSE.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SUCH A
STATUTE CONCERNS MERELY THE MANNER AND THE MEANS BY WHICH A RIGHT TO
RECOVER, AS RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE, IS ENFORCED, OR WHETHER SUCH
STATUTORY LIMITATION IS A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE IN THE ASPECT THAT ALONE
IS RELEVANT TO OUR PROBLEM, NAMELY, DOES IT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE
RESULT OF A LITIGATION FOR A FEDERAL COURT TO DISREGARD A LAW OF A
STATE THAT WOULD BE CONTROLLING IN AN ACTION UPON THE SAME CLAIM BY THE
SAME PARTIES IN A STATE COURT? 

IT IS THEREFORE IMMATERIAL WHETHER STATUTES OF LIMITATION ARE
CHARACTERIZED EITHER AS "SUBSTANTIVE" OR "PROCEDURAL" IN STATE COURT
OPINIONS IN ANY USE OF THOSE TERMS UNRELATED TO THE SPECIFIC ISSUE
BEFORE US.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS WAS NOT AN ENDEAVOR TO FORMULATE
SCIENTIFIC LEGAL TERMINOLOGY.  IT EXPRESSED A POLICY THAT TOUCHES
VITALLY THE PROPER DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER BETWEEN STATE AND
FEDERAL COURTS.  IN ESSENCE, THE INTENT OF THAT DECISION WAS TO INSURE
THAT, IN ALL CASES WHERE A FEDERAL COURT IS EXERCISING JURISDICTION
SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES, THE
OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME, SO FAR AS LEGAL RULES DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF A LITIGATION,
AS IT WOULD BE IF TRIED IN A STATE COURT.  THE NUB OF THE POLICY THAT
UNDERLIES ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS IS THAT FOR THE SAME TRANSACTION THE
ACCIDENT OF A SUIT BY A NON-RESIDENT LITIGANT IN A FEDERAL COURT
INSTEAD OF IN A STATE COURT A BLOCK AWAY SHOULD NOT LEAD TO A
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT RESULT.  AND SO, PUTTING TO ONE SIDE
ABSTRACTIONS REGARDING "SUBSTANCE" AND "PROCEDURE," WE HAVE HELD THAT
IN DIVERSITY CASES THE FEDERAL COURTS MUST FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE STATE
AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF, CITIES SERVICE CO. V. DUNLAP, 308 U.S. 208, AS
TO CONFLICT OF LAWS, KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487, AS TO
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, PALMER V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109, 117.  AND SEE
SAMPSON V. CHANNELL, 110 F.2D 754.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS HAS BEEN
APPLIED WITH AN EYE ALERT TO ESSENTIALS IN AVOIDING DISREGARD OF STATE
LAW IN DIVERSITY CASES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  A POLICY SO IMPORTANT TO
OUR FEDERALISM MUST BE KEPT FREE FROM ENTANGLEMENTS WITH ANALYTICAL OR
TERMINOLOGICAL NICETIES. 

PLAINLY ENOUGH, A STATUTE THAT WOULD COMPLETELY BAR RECOVERY IN A
SUIT IF BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT BEARS ON A STATE-CREATED RIGHT VITALLY
AND NOT MERELY FORMALLY OR NEGLIGIBLY.  AS TO CONSEQUENCES THAT SO
INTIMATELY AFFECT RECOVERY OR NON-RECOVERY A FEDERAL COURT IN A
DIVERSITY CASE SHOULD FOLLOW STATE LAW.  SEE MORGAN, CHOICE OF LAW
GOVERNING PROOF (1944) 58 HARV. L. REV. 153, 155-158.  THE FACT THAT
UNDER NEW YORK LAW A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MIGHT BE LENGTHENED OR
SHORTENED, THAT A SECURITY MAY BE FORECLOSED THOUGH THE DEBT BE BARRED,
THAT A BARRED DEBT MAY BE USED AS A SET-OFF, ARE ALL MATTERS OF LOCAL
LAW PROPERLY TO BE RESPECTED BY FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN NEW YORK WHEN
THEIR INCIDENCE COMES INTO PLAY THERE.  FN5  SUCH PARTICULAR RULES OF
LOCAL LAW, HOWEVER, DO NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST CHANGE THE CRUCIAL
CONSIDERATION THAT IF A PLEA OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WOULD BAR
RECOVERY IN A STATE COURT, A FEDERAL COURT OUGHT NOT TO AFFORD
RECOVERY. 

PRIOR TO ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS IT WAS NOT NECESSARY, AS WE HAVE
INDICATED, TO MAKE THE CRITICAL ANALYSIS REQUIRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF
THAT CASE OF THE NATURE OF JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN
DIVERSITY CASES.  BUT EVEN BEFORE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, FEDERAL
COURTS RELIED ON STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY
SAT.  IN SUITS AT LAW STATE LIMITATIONS STATUTES WERE HELD TO BE "RULES
OF DECISION" WITHIN SEC. 34 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 AND AS SUCH
APPLIED IN "TRIALS AT COMMON LAW."  M'CLUNY V. SULLIVAN, 3 PET. 270;
BANK OF ALABAMA V. DALTON, 9 HOW.  522; LEFFINGWELL V. WARREN, 2 BLACK
599; BAUSERMAN V. BLUNT, 147 U.S. 647.  WHILE THERE WAS TALK OF FREEDOM
OF EQUITY FROM SUCH STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, THE CASES GENERALLY
REFUSED RECOVERY WHERE SUIT WAS BARRED IN A LIKE SITUATION IN THE STATE
COURTS, EVEN IF ONLY BY WAY OF ANALOGY.  SEE, E.G., GODDEN V. KIMMELL,
99 U.S. 201; ALSOP V. RIKER, 155 U.S. 448; BENEDICT V. CITY OF NEW
YORK, 250 U.S. 321, 327-328.  HOWEVER IN KIRBY V. LAKE SHORE & M.S.R.
CO., 120 U.S. 130, THE COURT DISREGARDED A STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
WHERE THE COURT DEEMED IT INEQUITABLE TO APPLY IT. 

TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS ON THE EQUITY SIDE OF
A FEDERAL COURT IS TO REJECT THE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WHICH, AFTER
LONG TRAVAIL, LED TO THAT DECISION.  JUDGE AUGUSTUS N. HAND THUS
SUMMARIZED BELOW THE FATAL OBJECTION TO SUCH INROAD UPON ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS: "IN MY OPINION IT WOULD BE A MISCHIEVOUS PRACTICE TO
DISREGARD STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION WHENEVER FEDERAL COURTS THINK
THAT THE RESULT OF ADOPTING THEM MAY BE INEQUITABLE.  SUCH PROCEDURE
WOULD PROMOTE THE CHOICE OF UNITED STATES RATHER THAN OF STATE COURTS
IN ORDER TO GAIN THE ADVANTAGE OF DIFFERENT LAWS.  THE MAIN FOUNDATION
FOR THE CRITICISM OF SWIFT V. TYSON WAS THAT A LITIGANT IN CASES WHERE
FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS BASED ONLY ON DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP MAY OBTAIN A
MORE FAVORABLE DECISION BY SUING IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS."  143
F.2D 503, 529, 531. 

DIVERSITY JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED ON ASSURANCE TO NONRESIDENT
LITIGANTS OF COURTS FREE FROM SUSCEPTIBILITY TO POTENTIAL LOCAL BIAS. 
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, ACCORDING TO MARSHALL, ENTERTAINED
"APPREHENSIONS" LEST DISTANT SUITORS BE SUBJECTED TO LOCAL BIAS IN
STATE COURTS, OR, AT LEAST, VIEWED WITH "INDULGENCE THE POSSIBLE FEARS
AND APPREHENSIONS" OF SUCH SUITORS.  BANK OF THE UNITED STATES V.
DEVEAUX, 5 CRANCH 61, 87.  AND SO CONGRESS AFFORDED OUT-OF-STATE
LITIGANTS ANOTHER TRIBUNAL, NOT ANOTHER BODY OF LAW.  THE OPERATION OF
A DOUBLE SYSTEM OF CONFLICTING LAWS IN THE SAME STATE IS PLAINLY
HOSTILE TO THE REIGN OF LAW.  CERTAINLY, THE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE OF
RESIDENCE OUT OF A STATE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO A LITIGATION OUGHT
NOT TO GIVE RISE TO A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OTHERS EQUALLY CONCERNED
BUT LOCALLY RESIDENT.  THE SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS ENFORCED BY A
FEDERAL COURT UNDER DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, IT CANNOT BE SAID TOO
OFTEN, IS THE LAW OF THE STATES.  WHENEVER THAT LAW IS AUTHORITATIVELY
DECLARED BY A STATE, WHETHER ITS VOICE BE THE LEGISLATURE OR ITS
HIGHEST COURT, SUCH LAW OUGHT TO GOVERN IN LITIGATION FOUNDED ON THAT
LAW, WHETHER THE FORUM OF APPLICATION IS A STATE OR A FEDERAL COURT AND
WHETHER THE REMEDIES BE SOUGHT AT LAW OR MAY BE HAD IN EQUITY. 

DICTA MAY BE CITED CHARACTERIZING EQUITY AS AN INDEPENDENT BODY OF
LAW.  TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE INDICATED, IT IS.  BUT INSOFAR AS
THESE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS GO BEYOND THAT, THEY MERELY REFLECT NOTIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY A SHARPER ANALYSIS OF WHAT FEDERAL COURTS DO
WHEN THEY ENFORCE RIGHTS THAT HAVE NO FEDERAL ORIGIN.  AND SO, BEFORE
THE TRUE SOURCE OF LAW THAT IS APPLIED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS UNDER
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WAS FULLY EXPLORED, SOME THINGS WERE SAID THAT
WOULD NOT NOW BE SAID.  BUT NOTHING THAT WAS DECIDED, UNLESS IT BE THE
KIRBY CASE, NEEDS TO BE REJECTED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  IN RUSSELL V. SOUTHARD, 12 HOW.  139, 147, MR. JUSTICE CURTIS,
REFUSING TO BE BOUND BY KENTUCKY LAW BARRING THE RECEPTION OF ORAL
EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AN ABSOLUTE BILL OF SALE WAS IN REALITY A
MORTGAGE, DECLARED THAT "UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL EQUITY
JURISPRUDENCE, THIS COURT MUST BE GOVERNED BY ITS OWN VIEWS OF THOSE
PRINCIPLES."  TO SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT, HE CITED, AMONG OTHERS,
ROBINSON V. CAMPBELL, 3 WHEAT.  212, BOYLE V. ZACHARIE AND TURNER, 6
PET. 648, AND SWIFT V. TYSON, SUPRA.  THIS COMMINGLING OF LAW AND
EQUITY CASES INDICATES THAT THE SAME VIEWS GOVERNED BOTH AND THAT SWIFT
V. TYSON WAS MERELY ANOTHER EXPRESSION OF THE IDEAS PUT FORTH IN THE
EQUITY CASES. 

FN2  IN BANK OF HAMILTON V. DUDLEY'S LESSEE, 2 PET. 492, 525, CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL, IN DISCUSSING THE APPLICABILITY OF OHIO OCCUPANT LAW
AS "RULES OF DECISION" UNDER SEC. 34, SAID, "THE LAWS OF THE STATES,
AND THE OCCUPANT LAW, LIKE OTHERS, WOULD BE SO REGARDED, INDEPENDENT OF
THAT SPECIAL ENACTMENT...."  IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THIS
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT CORRESPONDS TO THE VIEWS JOHN MARSHALL EXPRESSED
IN THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION CALLED TO RATIFY THE CONSTITUTION. 
RESPONDING TO GEORGE MASON'S QUESTION AS TO WHAT LAW WOULD APPLY IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS IN DIVERSITY CASES, MARSHALL DECLARED:  "BY THE LAWS OF
WHICH STATE WILL IT BE DETERMINED?  SAID HE. BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE
WHERE THE CONTRACT WAS MADE.  ACCORDING TO THOSE LAWS, AND THOSE ONLY,
CAN IT BE DECIDED.  IS THIS A NOVELTY?  NO; IT IS A PRINCIPLE IN THE
JURISPRUDENCE OF THIS COMMONWEALTH."  3 ELLIOTT'S DEBATES, 556. 

FN3  IN PUSEY & JONES CO. V. HANSSEN, SUPRA, THE COURT HAD TO DECIDE
WHETHER A DELAWARE STATUTE HAD CREATED A NEW RIGHT APPROPRIATE FOR
ENFORCEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TRADITIONAL EQUITY PRACTICE OR WHETHER
THE STATUTE HAD MERELY GIVEN THE DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT A NEW KIND OF
REMEDY.  THE STATUTE AUTHORIZED THE CHANCELLOR TO APPOINT A RECEIVER
FOR AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION UPON THE APPLICATION OF AN UNSECURED
SIMPLE CONTRACT CREDITOR.  SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL EQUITY COURT
UNDER DIVERSITY JURISDICTION.  ALTHOUGH TRADITIONAL EQUITY NOTIONS DO
NOT GIVE A SIMPLE CONTRACT CREDITOR AN INTEREST IN THE FUNDS OF AN
INSOLVENT DEBTOR, THE STATE MAY, AS THIS COURT RECOGNIZED, CREATE SUCH
AN INTEREST.  WHEN THE STATE HAS DONE THAT, WHATEVER REMEDIES ARE
CONSONANT WITH THE PRACTICE OF EQUITY COURTS IN EFFECTUATING CREDITOR'S
RIGHTS COME INTO PLAY.  PUSEY & JONES CO. V. HANSSEN, SUPRA, DID NOT
QUESTION THAT IN THE CASE OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION THE STATES CREATE
THE OBLIGATION FOR WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT.  BUT THE COURT CONSTRUED THE
DELAWARE STATUTE MERELY TO EXTEND THE POWER TO AN EQUITY COURT TO
APPOINT A RECEIVER ON THE APPLICATION OF AN ORDINARY CONTRACT
CREDITOR.  BY CONFERRING NEW DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY UPON ITS EQUITY
COURT, DELAWARE COULD NOT MODIFY THE TRADITIONAL EQUITY RULE IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS THAT ONLY SOMEONE WITH A DEFINED INTEREST IN THE ESTATE
OF AN INSOLVENT PERSON, E.G., A JUDGMENT CREDITOR, CAN PROTECT THAT
INTEREST THROUGH RECEIVERSHIP.  BUT THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT IF THE
DELAWARE STATUTE HAD BEEN ONE NOT REGULATING THE POWERS OF THE CHANCERY
COURT OF DELAWARE BUT CREATING A NEW INTEREST IN A CONTRACT CREDITOR,
THE FEDERAL COURT WOULD HAVE HAD POWER TO GRANT A RECEIVERSHIP AT THE
BEHEST OF SUCH A SIMPLE CONTRACT CREDITOR, AS MUCH SO AS IN THE CASE OF
A SECURED CREDITOR.  SEE MACKENZIE OIL CO. V. OMAR OIL & GAS CO., 14
DEL. CH. 36, 45, 120 A. 852, FOR DELAWARE'S VIEW AS TO THE NATURE OF
THE DELAWARE STATUTE. 

FN4  "IT IS TRUE THAT WHERE A STATE STATUTE CREATES A NEW EQUITABLE
RIGHT OF A SUBSTANTIVE CHARACTER, WHICH CAN BE ENFORCED BY PROCEEDINGS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE APPROPRIATE TO A COURT OF
EQUITY, SUCH ENFORCEMENT MAY BE HAD IN A FEDERAL COURT PROVIDED A
GROUND EXISTS FOR INVOKING THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION....  BUT THE
ENFORCEMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF NEW EQUITABLE RIGHTS CREATED BY
STATES IS SUBJECT TO THE QUALIFICATION THAT SUCH ENFORCEMENT MUST NOT
IMPAIR ANY RIGHT CONFERRED, OR CONFLICT WITH ANY INHIBITION IMPOSED, BY
THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES....  WHATEVER UNCERTAINTY
MAY HAVE ARISEN BECAUSE OF EXPRESSIONS WHICH DID NOT FULLY ACCORD WITH
THE RULE AS THUS STATED, THE DISTINCTION, WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT OF
STATE LEGISLATION, HAS COME TO BE CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BETWEEN
SUBSTANTIVE AND REMEDIAL RIGHTS."  HENRIETTA MILLS V. RUTHERFORD CO.,
SUPRA AT 127-128.    FN5  SEE, E.G., HULBERT V. CLARK, 128 N.Y. 295, 28
N.E. 638; HOUSE V. CARR, 185 N.Y. 453, 78 N.E. 171; LIGHTFOOT V. DAVIS,
198 N.Y. 261, 91 N.E. 582; DAVIDSON V. WITTHAUS, 106 APP. DIV. 182, 94
N.Y.S. 428; MATTER OF EWALD, 174 MISC. 939, 22 N.Y.S.2D 299.  THE
STATUTE MAY BE WAIVED, PEOPLES TRUST CO. V. O'NEIL, 273 N.Y. 312, 316,
237 N.Y.S. 180, AND MUST BE PLEADED, DUNKUM V. MACECK BUILDING CORP.,
227 APP. DIV. 230, 7 N.E.2D 244. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. 

I DISSENT.  IF THE POLICY OF JUDICIAL CONSERVATISM WERE TO BE
FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE, WHICH FORBIDS DECIDING CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS HYPOTHETICALLY OR PREMATURELY, I WOULD FAVOR
REMANDING THE CAUSE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DETERMINATION OF THE
NARROW AND COMPARATIVELY MINOR QUESTION WHETHER, UNDER THE APPLICABLE
LOCAL LAW, THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS BEEN BARRED BY LAPSE OF TIME.  THAT
QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED,  FN1  MAY BE DETERMINED IN RESPONDENT'S
FAVOR, AND IN THAT EVENT THE IMPORTANT QUESTION AFFECTING FEDERAL
JUDICIAL POWER NOW RESOLVED, IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO ALL PRIOR DECISION
HERE, WILL HAVE BEEN DETERMINED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL ULTIMATE EFFECT
UPON THE LITIGATION.  FN2 

BUT THE COURT CONCEIVES ITSELF CONFRONTED WITH THE NECESSITY FOR
MAKING THAT DETERMINATION AND IN DOING SO OVERTURNS A RULE OF DECISION
WHICH HAS PREVAILED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM ALMOST THE BEGINNING.  I
AM UNABLE TO ASSENT TO THAT DECISION, FOR REASONS STATED BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS FN3  AND OTHERS TO BE MENTIONED ONLY BRIEFLY.  ONE MAY GIVE
FULL ADHERENCE TO THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AND
ITS EXTENSION TO CASES IN EQUITY IN SO FAR AS THEY AFFECT CLEARLY
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS, WITHOUT CONCEDING OR ASSUMING THAT THE LONG
TRADITION, BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE, WHICH REGARDS STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS AS FALLING WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF REMEDIAL RATHER THAN
SUBSTANTIVE LAW, NECESSARILY MUST BE RULED IN THE SAME WAY; AND WITHOUT
CONCEDING FURTHER THAT ONLY A DIFFERENT JURISPRUDENTIAL CLIMATE OR A
KIND OF "BROODING OMNIPRESENCE IN THE SKY" HAS DICTATED THE HITHERTO
UNVARIED POLICY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THEIR GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARD
THE STRICT APPLICATION OF LOCAL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN EQUITY
CAUSES. 

IF ANY CHARACTERISTIC OF EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE HAS DESCENDED
UNBROKENLY FROM AND WITHIN "THE TRADITIONAL SCOPE OF EQUITY AS
HISTORICALLY EVOLVED IN THE ENGLISH COURT OF CHANCERY," IT IS THAT
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, OFTEN IN TERMS APPLYING ONLY TO ACTIONS AT
LAW, HAVE NEVER BEEN DEEMED TO BE RIGIDLY APPLICABLE AS ABSOLUTE
BARRIERS TO SUITS IN EQUITY AS THEY ARE TO ACTIONS AT LAW.  FN4 THAT
TRADITION, IT WOULD SEEM, SHOULD BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN
INCORPORATED IN THE VARIOUS ACTS OF CONGRESS WHICH HAVE CONFERRED
EQUITY JURISDICTION UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS.  SO INCORPORATED, IT HAS
BEEN REAFFIRMED REPEATEDLY BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS AND OTHER COURTS. 
FN5  IT IS NOW EXCISED FROM THOSE ACTS.  IF THERE IS TO BE EXCISION,
CONGRESS, NOT THIS COURT, SHOULD MAKE IT. 

MOREOVER, THE DECISION OF TODAY DOES NOT IN SO MANY WORDS RULE THAT
CONGRESS COULD NOT AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ADMINISTER EQUITABLE
RELIEF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES,
NOTWITHSTANDING STATE COURTS HAD BEEN FORBIDDEN BY LOCAL STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS TO DO SO.  NEVERTHELESS THE IMPLICATION TO THAT EFFECT
SEEMS STRONG, IN VIEW OF THE RELIANCE UPON ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS. 
FN6  IN ANY EVENT, THE QUESTION LOOMS MORE LARGELY IN THE ISSUES THAN
THE COURT'S OPINION APPEARS TO MAKE IT.  FOR IF LEGISLATIVE
ACQUIESCENCE IN LONG-ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION CAN MAKE IT PART
OF A STATUTE, IT HAS DONE SO IN THIS INSTANCE.  MORE IS AT STAKE IN THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION, IF NOT IN THE WORDS OF THE OPINION, THAN
SIMPLY BRINGING FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW INTO ACCORD UPON MATTERS CLEARLY
AND EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATE TO
DETERMINE.  IT IS ONE THING TO REQUIRE THAT KIND OF AN ACCORD IN
DIVERSITY CASES WHEN THE QUESTION IS MERELY WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURT
MUST FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE STATE AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF, CITIES SERVICE
CO. V. DUNLAP, 308 U.S. 208; CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, PALMER V.
HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109, 117; OR PERHAPS IN APPLICATION OF THE SO-CALLED
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE.  THESE ORDINARILY INVOLVE MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE
LAW, THOUGH NOMINATED IN TERMS OF PROCEDURE.  BUT IN SOME INSTANCES
THEIR APPLICATION MAY LIE ALONG THE BORDER BETWEEN PROCEDURE OR REMEDY
AND SUBSTANCE, WHERE THE ONE MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN FACT BUT ANOTHER NAME
FOR THE OTHER.  IT IS EXACTLY IN THIS BORDERLAND, WHERE PROCEDURAL OR
REMEDIAL RIGHTS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF DETERMINING THE
SUBSTANTIVE ONES COMPLETELY, THAT CAUTION IS REQUIRED IN EXTENDING THE
RULE OF THE ERIE CASE BY THE VERY RULE ITSELF. 

THE WORDS "SUBSTANTIVE" AND "PROCEDURAL" OR "REMEDIAL" ARE NOT
TALISMANIC.  MERELY CALLING A LEGAL QUESTION BY ONE OR THE OTHER DOES
NOT RESOLVE IT OTHERWISE THAN AS A PURELY AUTHORITARIAN PERFORMANCE. 
BUT THEY HAVE COME TO DESIGNATE IN A BROAD WAY LARGE AND DISTINCTIVE
LEGAL DOMAINS WITHIN THE GREATER ONE OF THE LAW AND TO MARK, THOUGH
OFTEN INDISTINCTLY OR WITH OVERLAPPING LIMITS, MANY DIVIDES BETWEEN
SUCH REGIONS. 

ONE OF THESE HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE SUBSTANTIVE
LAW AND THE PROCEDURAL OR REMEDIAL LAW TO BE APPLIED BY THE FEDERAL
COURTS IN DIVERSITY CASES, A DIVISION SHARPENED BUT NOT WIPED OUT BY
ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF
ITS RULING.  THE LARGE DIVISION BETWEEN ADJECTIVE LAW AND SUBSTANTIVE
LAW STILL REMAINS, TO DIVIDE THE POWER OF CONGRESS FROM THAT OF THE
STATES AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DETERMINE THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO
APPLY FEDERAL LAW OR STATE LAW IN DIVERSITY MATTERS. 

THIS DIVISION, LIKE OTHERS DRAWN BY THE BROAD ALLOCATION OF ADJECTIVE
OR REMEDIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE, HAS AREAS OF ADMIXTURE OF THESE TWO
ASPECTS OF THE LAW.  IN THESE AREAS WHETHER A PARTICULAR SITUATION OR
ISSUE PRESENTS ONE ASPECT OR THE OTHER DEPENDS UPON HOW ONE LOOKS AT
THE MATTER.  AS FORM CANNOT ALWAYS BE SEPARATED FROM SUBSTANCE IN A
WORK OF ART, SO ADJECTIVE OR REMEDIAL ASPECTS CANNOT BE PARTED ENTIRELY
FROM SUBSTANTIVE ONES IN THESE BORDERLAND REGIONS. 

WHENEVER THIS INTEGRATION OR ADMIXTURE PREVAILS IN A SUBSTANTIAL
MEASURE, SO THAT A CLEAN BREAK CANNOT BE MADE, THERE IS DANGER EITHER
OF NULLIFYING THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONTROL NOT ONLY HOW THE FEDERAL
COURTS MAY ACT, BUT WHAT THEY MAY DO BY WAY OF AFFORDING REMEDIES, OR
OF USURPING THAT FUNCTION, IF THE ERIE DOCTRINE IS TO BE EXPANDED
JUDICIALLY TO INCLUDE SUCH SITUATIONS TO THE UTMOST EXTENT. 

IT MAY BE TRUE THAT IF THE MATTER WERE WHOLLY FRESH THE BARRING OF
RIGHTS IN EQUITY BY STATUTES OF LIMITATION WOULD SEEM TO PARTAKE MORE
OF THE SUBSTANTIVE THAN OF THE REMEDIAL PHASE OF LAW.  BUT THE MATTER
IS NOT FRESH AND IT IS NOT WITHOUT ROOM FOR DEBATE.  A LONG TRADITION,
IN THE STATES AND HERE, AS WELL AS IN THE COMMON LAW WHICH ANTEDATED
BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, HAS EMPHASIZED THE REMEDIAL CHARACTER OF
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, MORE ESPECIALLY IN APPLICATION TO EQUITY
CAUSES, ON MANY KINDS OF ISSUES REQUIRING DIFFERENTIATION OF SUCH
MATTERS FROM MORE CLEARLY AND EXCLUSIVELY SUBSTANTIVE ONES.  WE HAVE
RECENTLY REAFFIRMED THE DISTINCTION IN RELATION TO THE POWER OF A STATE
TO CHANGE ITS LAWS WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT, GIVING RENEWED VIGOR IF NOT
NEW LIFE TO CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115 U.S. 620.  CHASE SECURITIES CORP. V.
DONALDSON, 325 U.S. 304.  SIMILAR, THOUGH OF COURSE NOT IDENTICAL,
ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED IN THAT CASE TO BRING ABOUT DEPARTURE FROM THE
LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE, BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS.  THE TRADITION NOW IN
QUESTION IS EQUALLY LONG AND UNVARIED.  I CANNOT SAY THE TRADITION IS
CLEARLY WRONG IN THIS CASE MORE THAN IN THAT.  NOR CAN I SAY, AS WAS
SAID IN THE ERIE CASE, THAT THE MATTER IS BEYOND THE POWER OF CONGRESS
TO CONTROL.  IF THAT BE CONCEDED, I THINK CONGRESS SHOULD MAKE THE
CHANGE IF IT IS TO BE MADE.  THE ERIE DECISION WAS RENDERED IN 1938. 
SEVEN YEARS HAVE PASSED WITHOUT ACTION BY CONGRESS TO EXTEND THE RULE
TO THESE MATTERS.  THAT IS LONG ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT
CONGRESS ALSO REGARDS THEM AS NOT GOVERNED BY ERIE AND AS WISHING TO
MAKE NO CHANGE.  THIS SHOULD BE REASON ENOUGH FOR LEAVING THE MATTER AT
REST UNTIL IT DECIDES TO ACT. 

FINALLY, THIS CASE ARISES FROM WHAT ARE IN FACT IF NOT IN LAW
INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS.  FN7  IT INVOLVES THE RIGHTS OF SECURITY
HOLDERS IN RELATION TO SECURITIES WHICH WERE DISTRIBUTED NOT IN NEW
YORK OR OHIO ALONE BUT WIDELY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  THEY ARE THE
KIND OF RIGHTS WHICH CONGRESS ACTED TO SAFEGUARD WHEN IT ADOPTED THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE LEGISLATION.  FN8 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THAT
LEGISLATION ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION.  THE BROAD POLICIES
UNDERLYING IT MAY BE INVOLVED OR AFFECTED, NAMELY, BY THE EXISTENCE OF
ADEQUATE FEDERAL REMEDIES, WHETHER JUDICIAL OR LEGISLATIVE, FOR THE
PROTECTION OF SECURITY HOLDERS AGAINST THE MISCONDUCT OF ISSUERS OR
AGAINST THE BREACH OF RIGHTS BY TRUSTEES.  EVEN THOUGH THE BASIC RIGHTS
MAY BE CONTROLLED BY STATE LAW, IN SUCH SITUATIONS THE QUESTION IS
OFTEN A DIFFICULT ONE WHETHER THE LAW OF ONE STATE OR ANOTHER APPLIES;
AND THIS IS TRUE NOT ONLY OF RIGHTS CLEARLY SUBSTANTIVE BUT ALSO OF
THOSE VARIOUSLY CHARACTERIZED AS PROCEDURAL OR REMEDIAL AND SUBSTANTIVE
WHICH INVOLVE THE APPLICATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS. 

APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN STATE TRIBUNALS ARE NOT ALWAYS
THE ONES WHICH WOULD APPLY IF SUIT WERE INSTITUTED IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE WHICH CREATES THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS FOR WHICH ENFORCEMENT IS
SOUGHT.  THE STATE OF THE FORUM IS FREE TO APPLY ITS OWN PERIOD OF
LIMITATIONS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE STATE ORIGINATING THE RIGHT HAS
BARRED SUIT UPON IT.  FN9  WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION WILL BE HELD TO BE
BARRED DEPENDS THEREFORE NOT UPON THE LAW OF THE STATE WHICH CREATES
THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, BUT UPON THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE SUIT MAY BE
BROUGHT.  THIS IN TURN WILL DEPEND UPON WHERE IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO
SECURE SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND THUS JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF THE
DEFENDANT.  IT MAY BE THEREFORE THAT BECAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S
INABILITY TO FIND THE DEFENDANT IN THE JURISDICTION WHICH CREATES HIS
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, HE WILL BE FORECLOSED OF REMEDY BY THE SHEER
NECESSITY OF GOING TO THE HAVEN OF REFUGE WITHIN WHICH THE DEFENDANT
CONFINES ITS "PRESENCE" FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES.  THE LAW OF THE
LATTER MAY BAR THE SUIT EVEN THOUGH SUIT STILL WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER
THE LAW OF THE STATE CREATING THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT. 

IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER TODAY'S DECISION PUTS IT INTO THE POWER OF
CORPORATE TRUSTEES, BY CONFINING THEIR JURISDICTIONAL "PRESENCE" TO
STATES WHICH ALLOW THEIR COURTS TO GIVE EQUITABLE REMEDIES ONLY WITHIN
SHORT PERIODS OF TIME, TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE LAW OF
THE STATE CREATING THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT.  IF SO, THE "RIGHT" REMAINS
ALIVE, WITH FULL-FLEDGED REMEDY, BY THE LAW OF ITS ORIGIN, AND BECAUSE
ENFORCEMENT MUST BE HAD IN ANOTHER STATE, WHICH AFFORDS REFUGE AGAINST
IT, THE REMEDY AND WITH IT THE RIGHT ARE NULLIFIED.  I DOUBT THAT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRES THIS, OR THAT THE JUDICIARY
ACTS PERMIT IT.  A GOOD CASE CAN BE MADE, INDEED HAS BEEN MADE, THAT
THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WAS CREATED TO AFFORD PROTECTION AGAINST
EXACTLY THIS SORT OF NULLIFYING STATE LEGISLATION.  FN10 

IN MY JUDGMENT THIS FURNISHES ADDED REASON FOR LEAVING ANY CHANGE, IF
ONE IS TO BE MADE, TO THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS.  THE NEXT STEP MAY WELL
BE TO SAY THAT IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES A FEDERAL COURT MUST
SURRENDER ITS OWN JUDGMENT AND ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT WHAT A STATE COURT
SITTING A BLOCK AWAY WOULD DO WITH THAT NOTORIOUSLY AMORPHOUS
DOCTRINE. 

FN1  THE COURT OF APPEALS ONLY ASSUMED ARGUENDO THAT THE LOCAL
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD TERMINATED THE RIGHT TO SUE.  143 F.2D 503. 

FN2  AN INFERIOR COURT, OF COURSE, IS FREE TO SELECT ONE OR MORE OF
SEVERAL AVAILABLE GROUNDS UPON WHICH TO REST ITS DECISION; AND
GENERALLY, ON REVIEW HERE, OUR FUNCTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY PASSING
UPON THE GROUNDS CHOSEN.  BUT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT IS
PROPER TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CAUSE FOR CONSIDERATION OF
OTHER ISSUES PRESENTED.  CF. E.G., THE RECENT INSTANCE OF HERB V.
PITCAIRN, 324 U.S. 117; 325 U.S. 77. 

FN3  143 F.2D 503.  THE COURT'S OPINION REVIEWS AT LENGTH THE
UNBROKEN COURSE OF DECISION NOW OVERTURNED. 

FN4  MICHOUD V. GIROD, 4 HOW.  503, 561; MEADER V. NORTON, 11 WALL. 
442; BAILEY V. GLOVER, 21 WALL.  342, 348; KIRBY V. LAKE SHORE & M.S.R.
CO., 120 U.S. 130. 

FN5  SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED AND DISCUSSED, 143 F.2D 503, 522-524. 
SEE ALSO COMMITTEE FOR HOLDERS V. KENT, 143 F.2D 684, 687; OVERFIELD V.
PENNROAD CORP., 146 F.2D 889, 901, 921-923. 

FN6  IN THE ERIE CASE THE COURT SAID:  "IF ONLY A QUESTION OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WERE INVOLVED, WE SHOULD NOT BE PREPARED TO
ABANDON A DOCTRINE SO WIDELY APPLIED THROUGHOUT NEARLY A CENTURY.  BUT
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COURSE PURSUED HAS NOW BEEN MADE CLEAR
AND COMPELS US TO DO SO."  304 U.S. 64, 77-78. 

FN7  REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR A
DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE INTRICATE AND
ELABORATE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS, INVOLVING THE DISTRIBUTION OF
$30,000,000 WORTH OF SECURITIES, APPARENTLY IN MANY STATES, INCLUDING
OHIO AND NEW YORK, AND RIGHTS GROWING OUT OF THE DISTRIBUTION.  143
F.2D AT 505 ET SEQ. SEE ALSO EASTMAN V. MORGAN, 43 F.SUPP.  637, AFF'D
SUB NOM. HACKNER V. MORGAN, 130 F.2D 300, CERT. DENIED, 317 U.S. 691. 
FN8  CF. S. REP. NO. 714, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ADDITIONAL REPORT OF
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE PURSUANT TO S. RES. 71, 74TH CONG.,
PTS.  1-4.  SEE ALSO STOCK EXCHANGE PRACTICES, HEARINGS BEFORE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY ON S. RES. 84, 72D CONG. AND S. RES.
56 AND 97, 73D CONG. 

FN9  3 BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS (1935 ED.)  1620, 1621; GOODRICH,
CONFLICT OF LAWS (1938 ED.)  201, 202. 

FN10  FRANKFURTER, DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER BETWEEN UNITED
STATES AND STATE COURTS (1928) 13 CORN.  L.Q. 499, 520.  SEE CORWIN,
THE PROGRESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY (1925) 30 AM. HIST. REV. 511,
514.  SEE ALSO FRIENDLY, THE HISTORIC BASIS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
(1928) 41 HARV. L. REV. 483, 495-497.  THAT THE MOTIVATING DESIRE WAS
OR MAY HAVE BEEN TO PROTECT CREDITORS WHO WERE MEN OF BUSINESS DOES NOT
MAKE THE POLICY LESS APPLICABLE WHEN THE CREDITOR IS A CUSTOMER OF SUCH
MEN. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :










RADIO STATION WOW V. JOHNSON, 326 U.S. 120 


NO. 593.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - 144 NEB.
406, 14 N.W.2D 666, REMANDED. 


1.  A STATE COURT DECREE OTHERWISE "FINAL" FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW BY
THIS COURT IS NONE THE LESS SO BECAUSE IT ORDERS ALSO AN ACCOUNTING OF
PROFITS, WHERE SUCH ACCOUNTING CAN NOT GIVE RISE TO A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 237.  P. 127. 

2.  THIS COURT WILL NOT REVIEW A STATE COURT DECISION RESTING ON AN
ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT NON-FEDERAL GROUND, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE
COURT MAY ALSO HAVE SUMMONED TO ITS SUPPORT AN ERRONEOUS VIEW OF
FEDERAL LAW.  P. 129. 

3.  IN A DECREE DIRECTING A TRANSFER OF THE FACILITIES OF A FEDERALLY
LICENSED RADIO STATION, THE STATE COURT EXCEEDED ITS POWER IN ORDERING
THE PARTIES "TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY" TO SECURE A TRANSFER OF THE
LICENSE, SINCE THIS INVOLVED RESTRICTIONS UPON THE LICENSING SYSTEM
WHICH CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED.  COMMUNICATIONS ACT, SEC. 307(A).  P.
130. 

4.  ALTHOUGH THE STATE HAS NOT BEEN DEPRIVED BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION
OF THE PRACTICAL POWER TO TERMINATE A BROADCASTING SERVICE BY A PROPER
ADJUDICATION SEPARATING THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY FROM THE LICENSE, THAT
POWER WILL BE AMPLY RESPECTED, IN THE INSTANT CASE, IF IT IS QUALIFIED
MERELY TO THE EXTENT OF REQUIRING THE STATE COURT TO WITHHOLD EXECUTION
OF THAT PORTION OF THE DECREE REQUIRING RETRANSFER OF THE PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES UNTIL STEPS ARE ORDERED TO BE TAKEN, WITH ALL DELIBERATE
SPEED, TO ENABLE THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH NEW
APPLICATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE STATION.  P. 132. 

5.  THE QUESTION OF FRAUD ADJUDICATED BY THE STATE COURT WILL NO
LONGER BE OPEN INSOFAR AS IT BEARS UPON THE RELIABILITY AS LICENSEE OF
ANY OF THE PARTIES.  P. 132. 

RADIO STATION WOW, INC. ET AL. V. JOHNSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 705, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE A LEASE AND AN
ASSIGNMENT OF A LICENSE OF A RADIO STATION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CONCERNS THE RELATION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 48
STAT. 1064, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., TO THE POWER OF A STATE TO
ADJUDICATE CONFLICTING CLAIMS TO THE PROPERTY USED BY A LICENSED RADIO
STATION.  AT THE OUTSET, HOWEVER, OUR RIGHT TO REVIEW THE DECISION
BELOW IS SERIOUSLY CHALLENGED. 

THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEM AS WELL AS TO THE
MAIN ISSUES ARE THESE, SUMMARIZED AS BRIEFLY AS ACCURACY PERMITS. 
PETITIONER, WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY, A FRATERNAL
BENEFIT ASSOCIATION OF NEBRASKA, OWNS RADIO STATION WOW.  THE SOCIETY
LEASED THIS STATION FOR FIFTEEN YEARS TO PETITIONER, RADIO STATION WOW,
INC., A NEBRASKA CORPORATION FORMED TO OPERATE THE STATION AS LESSEE. 
AFTER THE SOCIETY AND THE LESSEE HAD JOINTLY APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR CONSENT TO TRANSFER THE STATION LICENSE,
JOHNSON, THE RESPONDENT, A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY, FILED THIS SUIT TO
HAVE THE LEASE AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LICENSE SET ASIDE FOR FRAUD. 
WHILE THIS SUIT WAS PENDING, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
CONSENTED TO ASSIGNMENT OF THE LICENSE, AND THE SOCIETY TRANSFERRED
BOTH THE STATION PROPERTIES AND THE LICENSE TO THE LESSEE.  THEREAFTER
THE SOCIETY ANSWERED THAT "THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  ...
HAS AND CONCEDES THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
PLAINTIFF'S ACTION, EXCEPT JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE TRANSFER OF
THE LICENSE TO OPERATE SAID RADIO STATION, WHICH JURISDICTION AFTER
FULL AND COMPLETE SHOWING AND NOTWITHSTANDING OBJECTIONS FILED THERETO,
WAS EXERCISED IN THE APPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER OF SAID LICENSE TO THE
DEFENDANT RADIO STATION WOW, INC. AND FURTHER ORDER TO THE SOCIETY TO
EXECUTE AND PERFORM THE PROVISIONS OF SAID LEASE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE
POSSESSION OF SAID LEASE PROPERTY HAS NOW BEEN DELIVERED TO THE LESSEE,
ALL AS MORE PARTICULARLY HEREIN FOUND."  RESPONDENT'S REPLY ADMITTED
"THAT THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAS AND CONCEDES THAT IT
HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PLAINTIFF'S ACTION
EXCEPT JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE TRANSFER OF THE LICENSE TO OPERATE
SAID RADIO STATION."  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND NO FRAUD AND DISMISSED THE
SUIT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, THREE JUDGES DISSENTING, REVERSED AND
ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT, DIRECTING THAT THE LEASE AND LICENSE
BE SET ASIDE AND THAT THE ORIGINAL POSITION OF THE PARTIES BE RESTORED
AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE.  144 NEB. 406, 13 N.W.2D 556.  THE JUDGMENT
FURTHER ORDERED THAT AN ACCOUNTING BE HAD OF THE OPERATION OF THE
STATION BY THE LESSEE SINCE IT CAME INTO ITS POSSESSION AND THAT THE
INCOME LESS OPERATING EXPENSES BE RETURNED TO THE SOCIETY.  FN1  ON
MOTIONS FOR REHEARING, THE PETITIONERS ASSERTED THAT ONLY THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND THE FEDERAL COURTS HAD JURISDICTION OVER
THE SUBJECT MATTER, NOT THE NEBRASKA COURTS.  THESE MOTIONS WERE DENIED
IN AN OPINION IN WHICH THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT STATED, "WE CONCLUDE
AT THE OUTSET THAT THE POWER TO LICENSE A RADIO STATION, OR TO
TRANSFER, ASSIGN OR ANNUL SUCH A LICENSE, IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION....  THE EFFECT
OF OUR FORMER OPINION WAS TO VACATE THE LEASE OF THE RADIO STATION AND
TO ORDER A RETURN OF THE PROPERTY TO ITS FORMER STATUS, THE QUESTION OF
THE FEDERAL LICENSE BEING A QUESTION SOLELY FOR THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.  OUR FORMER OPINION SHOULD BE SO
CONSTRUED."  THE CLAIM THAT THE NEBRASKA COURTS HAD NO JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION WAS THUS DEALT WITH: "THE FACT
THAT THE PROPERTY INVOLVED WAS USED IN A LICENSED BUSINESS WAS AN
INCIDENT TO THE SUIT ONLY.  THE ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANTS, HERETOFORE
QUOTED, SQUARELY CONTRADICTS THE POSITION THEY NOW ENDEAVOR TO ASSUME. 
THEIR POSITION IS UNSOUND ON ITS MERITS AND, IN ADDITION THERETO, IT
WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE CASE BY THE PLEADINGS THEY FILED IN THEIR OWN
BEHALF."  144 NEB. 432, 14 N.W.2D 666.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE COURT'S DECISION HAD INVADED THE DOMAIN
OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  IN
THE ORDER ALLOWING CERTIORARI WE DIRECTED ATTENTION TO THE QUESTIONS
WHETHER THE JUDGMENT IS A FINAL ONE AND WHETHER THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS
RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ARE PROPERLY PRESENTED BY THE
RECORD.  323 U.S. 705. 

SINCE ITS ESTABLISHMENT, IT HAS BEEN A MARKED CHARACTERISTIC OF THE
FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM NOT TO PERMIT AN APPEAL UNTIL A LITIGATION HAS
BEEN CONCLUDED IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE.  SEE HEIKE V. UNITED
STATES, 217 U.S. 423; COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 323; CATLIN
V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 229.  THIS REQUIREMENT HAS THE SUPPORT OF
CONSIDERATIONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO GOOD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION. 
IT AVOIDS THE MISCHIEF OF ECONOMIC WASTE AND OF DELAYED JUSTICE.  ONLY
IN VERY FEW SITUATIONS, WHERE INTERMEDIATE RULINGS MAY CARRY SERIOUS
PUBLIC CONSEQUENCES, HAS THERE BEEN A DEPARTURE FROM THIS REQUIREMENT
OF FINALITY FOR FEDERAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  THIS PREREQUISITE TO
REVIEW DERIVES ADDED FORCE WHEN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IS
INVOKED TO UPSET THE DECISION OF A STATE COURT.  HERE WE ARE IN THE
REALM OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COURTS OF TWO DIFFERENT
GOVERNMENTS.  AND SO, EVER SINCE 1789, CONGRESS HAS GRANTED THIS COURT
THE POWER TO INTERVENE IN STATE LITIGATION ONLY AFTER "THE HIGHEST
COURT OF A STATE IN WHICH A DECISION IN THE SUIT COULD BE HAD" HAS
RENDERED A "FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE."  SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A).  THIS REQUIREMENT IS NOT ONE OF THOSE
TECHNICALITIES TO BE EASILY SCORNED.  IT IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE
SMOOTH WORKING OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

BUT EVEN SO CIRCUMSCRIBED A LEGAL CONCEPT AS APPEALABLE FINALITY HAS
A PENUMBRAL AREA.  THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING WHEN A LITIGATION IS
CONCLUDED SO AS TO BE "FINAL" TO PERMIT REVIEW HERE ARISES IN THIS CASE
BECAUSE, AS HAS BEEN INDICATED, THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT NOT ONLY
DIRECTED A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, BUT ALSO ORDERED AN ACCOUNTING OF
PROFITS FROM SUCH PROPERTY.  CONSIDERATIONS OF ENGLISH USAGE AS WELL AS
THOSE OF JUDICIAL POLICY WOULD READILY JUSTIFY AN INTERPRETATION OF
"FINAL JUDGMENT" SO AS TO PRECLUDE REVIEWABILITY HERE WHERE ANYTHING
FURTHER REMAINS TO BE DETERMINED BY A STATE COURT, NO MATTER HOW
DISSOCIATED FROM THE ONLY FEDERAL ISSUE THAT HAS FINALLY BEEN
ADJUDICATED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  SPECIFICALLY, IT MIGHT
WELL BE HELD THAT, EVEN THOUGH DEFINITIVE RULINGS ON QUESTIONS
OTHERWISE REVIEWABLE HERE HAVE BEEN MADE BELOW, SUCH RULINGS CANNOT BE
BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW IF THE STATE COURT CALLS FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT
BY A MASTER OR A LOWER STATE COURT OF AN ACCOUNT UPON WHICH A FURTHER
DECREE IS TO BE ENTERED.  SEE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL BANK V. STATELER, 171
U.S. 447, 449; BOSKEY, FINALITY OF STATE COURT JUDGMENTS UNDER THE
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CODE (1943) 43 COL. L. REV. 1002, 1009; ROBERTSON AND
KIRKHAM, JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT (1936) P. 58. 

UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, THE COURSE OF OUR JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY HAS
NOT RUN AS SMOOTHLY AS SUCH A MECHANICAL RULE WOULD MAKE IT.  TO
ENFORCE IT NOW, OR TO PRONOUNCE IT FOR THE FUTURE, WOULD INVOLVE
DISREGARD OF AT LEAST TWO CONTROLLING PRECEDENTS, BOTH OF THEM
EXPRESSING THE VIEWS OF UNANIMOUS COURTS AND ONE OF WHICH HAS STOOD ON
OUR BOOKS FOR NEARLY A HUNDRED YEARS IN AN OPINION CARRYING THE
AUTHORITY, ESPECIALLY WEIGHTY IN SUCH MATTERS, OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY. 
LEAVING TO A FOOTNOTE THE DETAILS OF A SOMEWHAT SINUOUS STORY,  FN2  IT
SUFFICES TO SAY THAT FORGAY V. CONRAD, 6 HOW.  201, AND CARONDELET
CANAL CO. V. LOUISIANA, 233 U.S. 362, FOUND THE REQUIREMENT OF FINALITY
TO BE SATISFIED BY JUDGMENTS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF WHICH CANNOT BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE PRESENTED BY THE NEBRASKA DECREE.  IN SHORT,
THE RATIONALE OF THOSE CASES IS THAT A JUDGMENT DIRECTING IMMEDIATE
DELIVERY OF PHYSICAL PROPERTY IS REVIEWABLE AND IS TO BE DEEMED
DISSOCIATED FROM A PROVISION FOR AN ACCOUNTING EVEN THOUGH THAT IS
DECREED IN THE SAME ORDER.  IN EFFECT, SUCH A CONTROVERSY IS A MULTIPLE
LITIGATION ALLOWING REVIEW OF THE ADJUDICATION WHICH IS CONCLUDED
BECAUSE IT IS INDEPENDENT OF, AND UNAFFECTED BY, ANOTHER LITIGATION
WITH WHICH IT HAPPENS TO BE ENTANGLED.  COMPARE CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292
U.S. 112, 117-119; AND SEE NOTE (1934) 48 HARV. L. REV. 302. 

THE PRESUPPOSITION IN ALLOWING SUCH REVIEW IS THAT THE FEDERAL
QUESTIONS THAT COULD COME HERE HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE STATE
COURT, AND THAT THE ACCOUNTING WHICH REMAINS TO BE TAKEN COULD NOT
REMOTELY GIVE RISE TO A FEDERAL QUESTION.  OF COURSE, WHERE THE
REMAINING LITIGATION MAY RAISE OTHER FEDERAL QUESTIONS THAT MAY LATER
COME HERE, SUCH AS IS TRUE OF EMINENT DOMAIN CASES, SEE GRAYS HARBOR
CO. V. COATS-FORDNEY CO., 243 U.S. 251, TO ALLOW REVIEW OF AN
INTERMEDIATE ADJUDICATION WOULD OFFEND THE DECISIVE OBJECTION TO
FRAGMENTARY REVIEWS.  SINCE, BY AWARDING AN EXECUTION, THE NEBRASKA
SUPREME COURT DIRECTED IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE
TRANSFERRED, THE CASE COMES SQUARELY WITHIN FORGAY V. CONRAD, SUPRA,
AND CARONDELET CANAL CO. V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA, AND THE CHALLENGE TO OUR
JURISDICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

THIS BRINGS US TO CONSIDER WHAT FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARE HERE.  THE
COURT BELOW DECREED THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY USED AS A RADIO STATION. 
IT CONCEDED THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE TRANSFER OF THE
LICENSE UNDER WHICH WOW WAS OPERATING.  THAT IS A MATTER WHICH CONGRESS
HAS PUT IN THE KEEPING OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 
PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THE COURT'S DECREE IN EFFECT INVOLVES AN
EXERCISE OF THE VERY AUTHORITY WHICH THE COURT DISAVOWED.  THIS
PRESENTS A FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH WAS DULY MADE BELOW, AND WE MUST
CONSIDER IT. 

BUT IT IS NOT OPEN TO US TO CONSIDER INDEPENDENTLY THE CLAIM THAT THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATE COURT
JURISDICTION OVER THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE STATION AND GIVEN IT
TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.  THE SOCIETY'S ANSWER
ADMITTED THAT THIS CONTROVERSY WAS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION EXCEPT AS IT RELATED TO THE TRANSFER OF THE LICENSE, AND
RESPONDENT JOINED IN THIS VIEW.  ONLY AFTER THE NEBRASKA SUPREME
COURT'S ORIGINAL OPINION DID PETITIONERS, BY MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE
SUIT AND FOR REHEARING, CLAIM THAT THE NEBRASKA COURTS WERE WHOLLY
WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER THE CONTROVERSY.  IN ITS OPINION ON REHEARING
THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT REJECTED THIS CLAIM AS "CONTRARY TO THE
PLEADINGS FILED" IN THE TRIAL COURT, AND ALSO DENIED IT ON ITS MERITS. 
"THE ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANTS, HERETOFORE QUOTED," THAT COURT WROTE,
"SQUARELY CONTRADICTS THE POSITION THEY NOW ENDEAVOR TO ASSUME.  THEIR
POSITION IS UNSOUND ON ITS MERITS AND, IN ADDITION THERETO, IT WAS
ELIMINATED FROM THE CASE BY THE PLEADINGS THEY FILED IN THEIR OWN
BEHALF."  QUESTIONS FIRST PRESENTED TO THE HIGHEST STATE COURT ON A
PETITION FOR REHEARING COME TOO LATE FOR CONSIDERATION HERE, UNLESS THE
STATE COURT EXERTED ITS JURISDICTION IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE CASE COULD
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT HERE HAD THE QUESTIONS BEEN RAISED PRIOR TO THE
ORIGINAL DISPOSITION.  SIMMERMAN V. NEBRASKA, 116 U.S. 54; GODCHAUX CO.
V. ESTOPINAL, 251 U.S. 179; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN, 287 U.S.
156.  HERE THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION
HAD DROPPED OUT AS A MATTER OF PLEADING AND ALSO DENIED ITS MERITS. 

THIS BRINGS THE SITUATION CLEARLY WITHIN THE SETTLED RULE WHEREBY
THIS COURT WILL NOT REVIEW A STATE COURT DECISION RESTING ON AN
ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT NON-FEDERAL GROUND EVEN THOUGH THE STATE COURT
MAY HAVE ALSO SUMMONED TO ITS SUPPORT AN ERRONEOUS VIEW OF FEDERAL
LAW.  "WHERE THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT RESTS ON TWO GROUNDS, ONE
INVOLVING A FEDERAL QUESTION AND THE OTHER NOT  ...  AND THE GROUND
INDEPENDENT OF A FEDERAL QUESTION IS SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO SUSTAIN
IT, THIS COURT WILL NOT TAKE JURISDICTION."  LYNCH V. NEW YORK, 293
U.S. 52, 54-55.  ONE OF THE PETITIONERS, RADIO STATION WOW, INC., SEEKS
TO AVOID THE FORCE OF THIS RULE BY SUGGESTING THAT ITS ANSWER DID NOT
MAKE THE CONCESSION AS TO THE LIMITED JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION UPON WHICH THE NEBRASKA COURT RELIED.  BUT IT
IS NOT FOR US TO CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE NON-FEDERAL GROUND
UNLESS IT IS AN OBVIOUS SUBTERFUGE TO EVADE CONSIDERATION OF A FEDERAL
ISSUE.  SEE NEILSON V. LAGOW, 12 HOW.  98, 109-111.  IT MAY BE NEBRASKA
PRACTICE THAT THE ANSWER OF ONE DEFENDANT BINDS THE OTHERS, OR THAT
FAILURE TO RAISE A QUESTION IN THE PLEADINGS PRECLUDES ITS
CONSIDERATION ON REHEARING.  THESE ARE MATTERS OF STATE LAW AND NOT OUR
CONCERN.  CF. FAIR HAVEN R. CO. V. NEW HAVEN, 203 U.S. 379, 386.    THE
FEDERAL QUESTION THAT REMAINS IS WHETHER, ALTHOUGH THE NEBRASKA COURT
CLEARLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE POWER TO VACATE A LICENSE AND TO AUTHORIZE
ITS TRANSFER LIES EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, ITS DECREE IN EFFECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH SUCH
RECOGNITION.  THIS IS URGED ON TWO GROUNDS.  IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE
NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT, BY ORDERING THE TRANSFER OF THE LICENSED
FACILITIES FROM RADIO STATION WOW, INC. TO THE SOCIETY ALTHOUGH NOT
HAVING POWER TO DIRECT THE TRANSFER OF THE LICENSE, SEVERED THE
LICENSED FACILITIES FROM THE LICENSE AND THEREFORE NULLIFIED THE
LICENSE.  SECONDLY, IT IS URGED THAT BY ORDERING THE PARTIES "TO DO ALL
THINGS NECESSARY" TO SECURE A RETURN OF THE LICENSE TO THE DEFRAUDED
SOCIETY, THE STATE COURT INVADED THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTION. 

THE JUDGMENT, FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL OPINION, ORDERED THAT "THE
TRANSFER OF THE LICENSE TO OPERATE THE STATION BE VACATED AND SET
ASIDE."  ON REHEARING, THE COURT MADE IT QUITE PLAIN THAT IT WAS WITHIN
THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO VACATE
RADIO LICENSES AND DECLARED THAT ITS FORMER OPINION SHOULD BE SO
CONSTRUED.  WHILE IT DID NOT FORMALLY MODIFY ITS JUDGMENT, IT IS
REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE VIEW WHICH IT UNAMBIGUOUSLY REJECTED IN
ITS OPINION IT DID NOT MEAN TO ASSERT THROUGH ITS JUDGMENT.  HOTEL
EMPLOYEES' LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S. 437, 440-441; BURKE V. UNIQUE
PRINTING CO., 63 NEB. 264, 88 N.W. 488.  BUT IN MATTERS OF POTENTIAL
CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES, AVOIDANCE OF NEEDLESS
FRICTION NO LESS THAN GOOD DRAFTSMANSHIP COUNSELS EXPLICIT AND NOT
MERELY ARGUMENTATIVE RESTRICTION OF A STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT WITHIN ITS
POWERS. 

IN ANY EVENT, WE THINK THE COURT WENT OUTSIDE ITS BOUNDS WHEN IT
ORDERED THE PARTIES "TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY" TO SECURE A RETURN OF
THE LICENSE.  PLAINLY THAT REQUIRES THE SOCIETY TO ASK THE COMMISSION
FOR A RETRANSFER OF THE LICENSE TO IT AND REQUIRES WOW NOT TO OPPOSE
SUCH TRANSFER.  THE UNITED STATES, IN A BRIEF FILED AT OUR REQUEST,
SUGGESTS THAT THIS PROVISION OF THE DECREE WOULD PROBABLY ALSO
DISQUALIFY WOW FROM "APPLYING FOR A NEW LICENSE TO OPERATE A RADIO
STATION IN OMAHA ON THE SAME FREQUENCY, SHOULD IT BECOME EQUIPPED TO DO
SO."  TO BE SURE, THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S POWER OF GRANTING,
REVOKING AND TRANSFERRING LICENSES INVOLVES PROPER APPLICATION OF THOSE
CRITERIA THAT DETERMINE "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY." 
SEC. 307(A), 48 STAT. 1064, 1083, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 307(A).  BUT INSOFAR
AS THE NEBRASKA DECREE ORDERS THE PARTIES "TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY"
TO SECURE THE RETURN OF THE LICENSE, IT HAMPERS THE FREEDOM OF THE
SOCIETY NOT TO CONTINUE IN BROADCASTING AND TO RESTRICT ITSELF, AS IT
PROPERLY MAY, TO ITS INSURANCE BUSINESS.  EQUALLY DOES IT PREVENT WOW
FROM OPPOSING A RETURN TO THE SOCIETY, OR, AS THE UNITED STATES
SUGGESTS, FROM SEEKING ANOTHER LICENSE OF ITS OWN.  THESE ARE
RESTRICTIONS NOT MERELY UPON THE PRIVATE RIGHTS OF PARTIES AS TO WHOM A
STATE COURT MAY MAKE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS OF FRAUD.  THEY ARE
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE LICENSING SYSTEM WHICH CONGRESS ESTABLISHED.  IT
DISREGARDS PRACTICALITIES TO DENY THAT, BY CONTROLLING THE CONDUCT OF
PARTIES BEFORE THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, THE COURT BELOW REACHED
BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE CONTROVERSY AND INTO MATTERS THAT DO NOT BELONG TO
IT. 

THE MOST TROUBLESOME QUESTION RAISED BY THIS CASE REMAINS.  WHILE THE
DECREE OF THE STATE COURT CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF THE LEASEHOLD IS,
IN VIEW OF THE PLEADINGS, NOT HERE AS AN INDEPENDENT QUESTION, DUE
CONSIDERATION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF THE
LICENSE MAKES IT PROPER TO CONSIDER THE BEARING OF A DECREE ORDERING AN
IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF THE LEASEHOLD UPON THE STATUS OF THE RADIO
LICENSE.  A PROPER REGARD FOR THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLICY THAT
PERMEATES THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT MAKES DISPOSITION OF LICENSED
FACILITIES PRIOR TO ACTION BY THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION A
SUBSIDIARY ISSUE TO THE LICENSE QUESTION.  WE HAVE NO DOUBT OF THE
POWER OF THE NEBRASKA COURT TO ADJUDICATE, AND CONCLUSIVELY, THE CLAIM
OF FRAUD IN THE TRANSFER OF THE STATION BY THE SOCIETY TO WOW AND UPON
FINDING FRAUD TO DIRECT A RECONVEYANCE OF THE LEASE TO THE SOCIETY. 
AND THIS, EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF LICENSED FACILITIES AND
THE SOCIETY CHOOSES NOT TO APPLY FOR RETRANSFER OF THE RADIO LICENSE TO
IT, OR THE COMMISSION, UPON SUCH APPLICATION, REFUSES THE RETRANSFER. 
THE RESULT MAY WELL BE THE TERMINATION OF A BROADCASTING STATION.  THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM, AND WE
FIND NOTHING IN ITS INTERSTICES THAT DISLODGES THE POWER OF THE STATES
TO DEAL WITH FRAUD MERELY BECAUSE LICENSED FACILITIES ARE INVOLVED. 
THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION IS CHARGED IS THAT
INVOLVED IN GRANTING LICENSES.  SAFEGUARDING OF THAT INTEREST CAN
HARDLY IMPLY THAT THE INTEREST OF STATES IN ENFORCING THEIR LAWS
AGAINST FRAUD HAVE BEEN NULLIFIED INSOFAR AS LICENSED FACILITIES MAY BE
THE INSTRUMENTS OF FRAUD. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE STATE'S POWER OVER FRAUD CAN BE EFFECTIVELY
RESPECTED WHILE AT THE SAME TIME REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY IS AFFORDED FOR
THE PROTECTION OF THAT PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH LED TO THE GRANTING OF A
LICENSE, THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL
AUTHORITY, WHERE THE POWERS OF THE TWO INTERSECT, SHOULD BE OBSERVED. 
SEVERANCE OF THE LICENSED FACILITIES FROM THE LICENSE SO PRECIPITOUSLY
THAT THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IS DEPRIVED OF THE
OPPORTUNITY OF ENABLING THE TWO TO BE KEPT TOGETHER NEEDLESSLY DISABLES
THE COMMISSION FROM PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTED TO ITS
CHARGE.  THIS PRESENTS A PRACTICAL AND NOT A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. 
TO CARRY OUT ABRUPTLY A STATE DECREE SEPARATING LICENSED FACILITIES
FROM THE LICENSE DEPRIVES THE PUBLIC OF THOSE ADVANTAGES OF
BROADCASTING WHICH PRESUMABLY LED THE COMMISSION TO GRANT A LICENSE. 
TO BE SURE, SUCH A LICENSE IS MERELY A PERMIT TO SERVE THE PUBLIC AND
NOT A DUTY TO DO SO.  THEREFORE, AS WE HAVE CONCLUDED, THE STATE HAS
NOT BEEN DEPRIVED BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION OF THE PRACTICAL POWER TO
TERMINATE THE BROADCASTING SERVICE BY A PROPER ADJUDICATION SEPARATING
THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY FROM THE LICENSE.  WE THINK THAT STATE POWER IS
AMPLY RESPECTED IF IT IS QUALIFIED MERELY TO THE EXTENT OF REQUIRING IT
TO WITHHOLD EXECUTION OF THAT PORTION OF ITS DECREE REQUIRING
RETRANSFER OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES UNTIL STEPS ARE ORDERED TO BE
TAKEN, WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED, TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH
NEW APPLICATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE STATION.  OF COURSE, THE
QUESTION OF FRAUD ADJUDICATED BY THE STATE COURT WILL NO LONGER BE OPEN
INSOFAR AS IT BEARS UPON THE RELIABILITY AS LICENSEE OF ANY OF THE
PARTIES. 

NEW SITUATIONS CALL FOR NEW ADAPTATION OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES.  WE HAVE
HAD OCCASION TO LIMIT THE CONCEDED JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
IN ORDER TO GIVE STATE COURTS OPPORTUNITY TO PASS AUTHORITATIVELY ON
STATE ISSUES INVOLVED IN FEDERAL LITIGATION.  SEE, E.G., SPECTOR MOTOR
CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101.  IT WILL GIVE FULL PLAY BOTH TO THE
POWERS THAT BELONG TO THE STATES AND TO THOSE THAT ARE ENTRUSTED TO THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, WHERE THE TWO ARE INTERTWINED AS
THEY ARE HERE, TO ENFORCE THE ACCOMMODATION WE HAVE FORMULATED. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  THE JUDGMENT DIRECTED "THAT SAID JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
BE, AND HEREBY IS, REVERSED AND CAUSE IS REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS THAT
THE LEASE TO THE STATION, THE LEASE TO THE SPACE OCCUPIED BY THE
STATION AND THE TRANSFER OF THE LICENSE TO OPERATE THE STATION BE
VACATED AND SET ASIDE; THAT THE $25,000 OF ACCOUNTS TURNED OVER BY THE
SOCIETY TO LESSEE BE RETURNED; THAT IN ACCOUNTING BE HAD OF THE
OPERATION OF THE STATION BY LESSEE SINCE IT TOOK POSSESSION THEREOF ON
JANUARY 14, 1943, AND THAT THE INCOME THEREOF LESS OPERATING EXPENSES
BE RETURNED TO THE SOCIETY; THAT THE LICENSE TO OPERATE THE STATION BE
RETURNED AND THAT LESSEE BE DIRECTED TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY FOR
THAT PURPOSE; THAT GENERALLY EVERYTHING BE DONE TO RESTORE THE PARTIES
TO THEIR ORIGINAL POSITION PRIOR TO THE ENTERING INTO THE LEASE; THAT
ALL EXPENSES HAD BY THE SOCIETY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE
STATION AND LICENSE TO THE LESSEE AND THE EXPENSE HAD IN CONNECTION
WITH RETURNING THE SAME TO THE SOCIETY PURSUANT HERETO ARE TO BE PAID
BY THE LESSEE.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT ALL COSTS, BOTH
IN THIS COURT AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL BE PAID BY THE
DEFENDANTS, EXCEPT THE WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY,
COSTS IN THIS COURT BEING TAXED AT $  ....; FOR ALL OF WHICH EXECUTION
IS HEREBY AWARDED, AND THAT A MANDATE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY." 

FN2  MOST OF THE CASES CITED WHICH INVOLVE AN ACCOUNTING HAVE COME
FROM FEDERAL COURTS.  IN THIS CATEGORY ARE FORGAY V. CONRAD, 6 HOW. 
201; THOMSON V. DEAN, 7 WALL.  342; WINTHROP IRON CO. V. MEEKER, 109
U.S. 180; KEYSTONE IRON CO. V. MARTIN, 132 U.S. 91; MCGOURKEY V. TOLEDO
& OHIO R. CO., 146 U.S. 536; GULF REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 269
U.S. 125. 

IN THE FORGAY CASE THE COURT BELOW SET ASIDE A CONVEYANCE OF LAND AND
SLAVES AND ORDERED A MASTER TO TAKE AN ACCOUNTING OF THE RENTS AND
PROFITS.  THIS COURT HELD THE DECREE TO BE APPEALABLE SINCE IMMEDIATE
DELIVERY OF THE PROPERTY WAS ORDERED ALTHOUGH THE DECREE WAS "NOT
FINAL, IN THE STRICT, TECHNICAL SENSE OF THAT TERM."  THE COURT SAID OF
THE LOWER COURT JUDGMENT THAT "THE BILL IS RETAINED MERELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ADJUSTING THE ACCOUNTS REFERRED TO THE MASTER.  IN ALL OTHER
RESPECTS, THE WHOLE OF THE MATTERS BROUGHT INTO CONTROVERSY BY THE BILL
ARE FINALLY DISPOSED OF AS TO ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS."  6 HOW.  201,
204.  IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT IF APPELLANTS HAD TO WAIT, THEY WOULD BE
SUBJECTED TO IRREMEDIABLE INJURY, FOR EXECUTION HAD BEEN AWARDED.  ALSO
HELD FINAL WAS THE DECREE IN THOMSON V. DEAN, SUPRA, WHERE THE COURT
ORDERED IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF STOCK AND AN ACCOUNTING TO DETERMINE THE
AMOUNTS PAID AND TO BE PAID AND THE DIVIDENDS ACCRUED.  IN GULF
REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, A JUDGMENT WAS HELD TO BE FINAL
WHERE THE ORIGINAL DECREES ENJOINED DEFENDANTS FROM TAKING OIL FROM
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND CONFIRMED AN ACCOUNTING TO JANUARY 1, 1918,
ALTHOUGH THE DECREE APPEALED FROM ORDERED A FURTHER ACCOUNTING FOR OIL
EXTRACTED PENDENTE LITE.  THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE DECREES WERE
FINAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ORIGINAL APPEALS.  ALL OF THESE CASES RELY
ON THE FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A CONCLUSIVE ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS
AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES WITH IMMEDIATE DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT.  THIS CONSIDERATION WAS EMPHASIZED IN
GRANT V. PHOENIX INS. CO., 106 U.S. 429, 431-432, AND IN COLLINS V.
MILLER, 252 U.S. 364, 371. 

ANOTHER LINE OF CASES STARTS WITH WINTHROP IRON CO. V. MEEKER, SUPRA,
WHERE A DECREE WAS HELD FINAL, ALTHOUGH AN ACCOUNTING WAS ORDERED,
BECAUSE NO ACCOUNTING HAD BEEN PRAYED FOR IN THE BILL.  THIS
UNSUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION WAS SEIZED UPON IN KEYSTONE IRON CO. V.
MARTIN, SUPRA, AND IN MCGOURKEY V. TOLEDO & OHIO R. CO., SUPRA, TO HOLD
NOT FINAL DECREES IN CASES WHERE AN ACCOUNTING HAD BEEN SOUGHT. 

THE CASES FROM STATE COURTS ARE LESS NUMEROUS.  CALIFORNIA NATIONAL
BANK V. STATELER, SUPRA, STATED BROADLY THAT A JUDGMENT REMANDING FOR
AN ACCOUNTING IS NOT FINAL.  IN THAT CASE, AN INTERVENING PARTY,
APPOINTED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW AS AGENT FOR BANK STOCKHOLDERS, SECURED
AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT MONEY BE TURNED OVER TO HIM LESS THE HOLDER'S
COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.  IN ADDITION, IF IT SHOULD BE
FOUND THAT THE HOLDER HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN STOCK AS ALLEGED THEN THE
STOCK ALSO SHOULD BE TURNED OVER.  BUT THERE WAS NO IMMEDIATE DELIVERY
OF ANYTHING SINCE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BE TURNED OVER REMAINED TO BE
ASCERTAINED AS DID THE EXISTENCE OF THE STOCK.  AND IN SAND SPRINGS
HOME V. NAHARKEY, 299 U.S. 588, THE COURT DENIED CERTIORARI "FOR THE
WANT OF A FINAL JUDGMENT" IN A CASE WHERE THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO AN
UNDIVIDED ONE-SIXTH INTEREST IN LAND WAS DECREED PLUS AN ACCOUNTING FOR
PROFITS FROM THE GAS TAKEN OUT OF THE LAND.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A
PARTITION, THERE COULD OF COURSE BE NO DELIVERY OF THE PROPERTY
ITSELF. 

OPPOSED TO THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS IN THE STATELER CASE IS THE
SQUARE RULING IN CARONDELET CANAL CO. V. LOUISIANA, 233 U.S. 362.  THE
STATE SUPREME COURT ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED REQUIRING DELIVERY
OF A CANAL TO LOUISIANA.  CERTAIN CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO A SMALL
ADDITIONAL PLOT OF GROUND WERE RESERVED AND AN ACCOUNTING OF RECEIPTS
AND DISBURSEMENTS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY WAS ORDERED.  THIS
COURT DENIED A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF A FINAL JUDGMENT.  IT
NOTED THAT THE DECREE REQUIRED IMMEDIATE DELIVERY OF THE PROPERTY TO
THE STATE SO THAT THE DECREE POSSESSED DEFINITENESS AS TO THE MATTER
DECIDED.  "IN THE CASE AT BAR THERE IS DISTINCT AND EXPLICIT FINALITY
AND THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ARE DIRECTED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE
'QUESTIONS RESERVED.'"  233 U.S. 362, 372.    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE AND
WILL INDICATE BRIEFLY THE REASON. 

PETITIONER IS INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF NEBRASKA AND OPERATES A
RADIO STATION OWNED BY THE WOODMEN OF THE WORLD, AN INSURANCE SOCIETY
ALSO ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF NEBRASKA.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE STATE
OF NEBRASKA HAS PLENARY POWER OVER THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF BOTH OF
THESE CORPORATIONS. 

THE WOODMEN OF THE WORLD, IN ADDITION TO ITS INSURANCE BUSINESS, WENT
INTO THE RADIO BUSINESS THROUGH RADIO STATION WOW.  IT BECAME INVOLVED
IN CONTROVERSIES AND EVENTUALLY DECIDED THAT IT OUGHT TO GET OUT OF THE
RADIO OPERATION. 

FROM 1923 TO 1928, IT HAD CARRIED THE RADIO STATION AT A LOSS BUT ITS
NET AVERAGE EARNINGS FROM 1936 TO 1942 WERE $194,724.14 PER YEAR.  THE
PROPERTY AND FACILITIES OF THE CORPORATION WERE LEASED TO A NEW
CORPORATION IN 1942 FOR $74,000.00 PER YEAR.  THE NEW CORPORATION
CONSISTED OF ORGANIZERS WHOM THE COURT FOUND SUSTAINED SUCH A RELATION
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY WHO MANAGED THE NEGOTIATIONS
ON ITS BEHALF THAT THE TRANSFER CONSTITUTED A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ON
POLICYHOLDERS.  IT ORDERED THAT THE TRANSACTION BE UNDONE AND COMPLETE
RESTITUTION BE MADE.  I TAKE IT THAT THIS JUDGMENT WAS FULLY WITHIN THE
COMPETENCE OF THE STATE. 

MEANWHILE, THE TRANSFEREES HAD OBTAINED APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OF THE TRANSFER OF THE LICENSE TO THEM. 
BECAUSE OF THIS, IT IS CLAIMED THAT IN SOME WAY THE POWER OF THE STATE
TO UNDO THIS TRANSACTION IS LIMITED.  CERTAINLY NO POWER HAS BEEN
CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO HEAR, TRY OR
DETERMINE THE CASE OF FRAUD BETWEEN NEBRASKA STOCKHOLDERS AND THE
OFFICERS OF NEBRASKA CORPORATIONS.  THE COMMISSION HAS, OF COURSE,
POWERS TO LOOK AFTER THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE TRANSFER OF STATIONS. 

THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE
STATE COURT OF NEBRASKA AND THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND
THIS POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT LEADS TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT TODAY. 
THAT CONFLICT CAN OCCUR ONLY IF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
SHALL HOLD THAT THE FEDERAL PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES THIS RADIO STATION
TO BE KEPT IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO ARE ADJUDGED TO BE GUILTY OF FRAUD
AND THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST CANNOT BE SERVED BY THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
ADJUDGED TO HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF THAT FRAUD ALTHOUGH THEY HAD OPERATED
THE STATION FOR MANY YEARS WITH SUCCESS AND WITHOUT ANY QUESTION AS TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SHOULD RENDER
SUCH A DECISION BY REFUSING TO RETRANSFER THE LICENSE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE JUDGMENT WE WOULD THEN HAVE A QUESTION AS TO THE FAITH AND
CREDIT DUE THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT AND ITS EFFECTS IN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.  I WOULD DEAL WITH THAT SORT OF QUESTION NOT
HYPOTHETICALLY, BUT WHEN IT ARISES AND UPON THE RECORD WHICH IS MADE
BEFORE THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 

BUT EVEN IF THE COMMISSION SHOULD DECIDE THAT THE FEDERAL INTEREST
REQUIRES THIS STATION TO BE OPERATED BY THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED IT BY
CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD, I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT OF NEBRASKA
WOULD STILL BE GOOD.  IT HAS THE POWER NOT ONLY TO COMPEL RESTITUTION
OF PROPERTY OBTAINED FROM ITS CORPORATIONS IN VIOLATION OF ITS LAWS BUT
IF BY FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS OR OTHERWISE THE WRONGDOERS HAVE PUT SOME
PART OF THE VALUE OF THIS STATION BEYOND THEIR POWER TO RECAPTURE, THE
STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO COMPEL THEM TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS VALUE.  THE
STATE, IT SEEMS TO ME, HAS THE RIGHT TO STRIP THE WRONGDOERS OF EVERY
FRUIT OF THE WRONG, INCLUDING THE VALUE OF THE FEDERAL LICENSE, EVEN IF
THE LICENSE ITSELF CANNOT BE OBTAINED. 

FOR THESE REASONS, I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE NEBRASKA COURTS
AND LEAVE THE PROBLEM OF CONFLICT TO BE DEALT WITH WHEN AND IF IT
ARISES. 
..END :






BRIDGES V. WIXON, 326 U.S. 135 


NO. 788.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 3, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
927, REVERSED. 


1.  THE ORDER FOR THE DEPORTATION OF THE PETITIONER - ISSUED UNDER THE
ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, PROVIDING FOR THE DEPORTATION OF ANY ALIEN WHO
WAS AT THE TIME OF HIS ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES, OR HAS BEEN AT ANY
TIME THEREAFTER, A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH AN ORGANIZATION THAT
BELIEVES IN, ADVISES, ADVOCATES OR TEACHES THE OVERTHROW OF THIS
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE - RESTS UPON A MISCONSTRUCTION OF THE
TERM "AFFILIATION" AS USED IN THE ACT, AND UPON AN UNFAIR HEARING ON
THE QUESTION OF HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY, WHEREFORE HIS
DETENTION UNDER THE WARRANT OF DEPORTATION IS UNLAWFUL.  PP. 140, 156. 

2.  THE ACT OR ACTS TENDING TO PROVE "AFFILIATION," WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE DEPORTATION STATUTE, MUST BE OF THAT QUALITY WHICH
INDICATES AN ADHERENCE TO OR A FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPOSES OR
OBJECTIVES OF THE PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM MERE
COOPERATION WITH IT IN LAWFUL ACTIVITIES.  THE ACT OR ACTS MUST
EVIDENCE A WORKING ALLIANCE TO BRING THE PROGRAM TO FRUITION.  P. 143. 

3.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS IS ACCORDED ALIENS RESIDING IN
THIS COUNTRY.  P. 148. 

4.  SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS THE LITERATURE PUBLISHED BY THE
PETITIONER, THE UTTERANCES MADE BY HIM WERE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION
OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS.  THEY REVEALED A MILITANT
ADVOCACY OF THE CAUSE OF TRADE UNIONISM, BUT DID NOT TEACH OR ADVOCATE
OR ADVISE THE SUBVERSIVE CONDUCT CONDEMNED BY THE STATUTE.  P. 148. 

5.  DETENTION UNDER AN INVALID ORDER OF DEPORTATION IS ESTABLISHED
WHERE AN ALIEN IS ORDERED DEPORTED FOR REASONS NOT SPECIFIED BY
CONGRESS.  P. 149. 

6.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE FINDING OF "AFFILIATION" WAS
BASED ON TOO LOOSE A MEANING OF THAT TERM.  P. 149. 

7.  A PERSON UNDER INVESTIGATION WITH A VIEW TO DEPORTATION IS
LEGALLY ENTITLED TO INSIST UPON THE OBSERVANCE OF RULES PROMULGATED
PURSUANT TO LAW BY THE AGENCY ENTRUSTED WITH THE POWER TO DEPORT.  P.
153. 

8.  OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT VIOLATES THE
GOVERNING REGULATIONS IS TIMELY WHERE MADE BEFORE BOTH THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THOUGH NOT AT THE HEARING
BEFORE THE INSPECTOR.  P. 151. 

9.  SINCE IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
CERTAIN UNSWORN STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF RULES 150.1(C) AND 150.6(I)
OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE -
CONSTRUED AS MEANING (1) THAT AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN OBTAINING A
"RECORDED STATEMENT" MUST OBTAIN THE STATEMENT BY INTERROGATION UNDER
OATH AND SEEK TO OBTAIN IT OVER THE SIGNATURE OF THE MAKER, AND (2)
THAT ONLY SUCH A "RECORDED STATEMENT," SO SAFEGUARDED, MAY BE USED AS
EVIDENCE WHEN THE MAKER OF THE STATEMENT GIVES CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE
ON THE STAND - , SINCE THE STATEMENTS IN QUESTION WERE SO CRUCIAL TO
THE FINDINGS OF MEMBERSHIP, AND SINCE THAT ISSUE WAS SO CLOSE, THIS
COURT IS UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF DEPORTATION MAY BE SUSTAINED
WITHOUT THEM.  PP. 151, 156. 

10.  IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF
DETENTION UPON A WARRANT OF DEPORTATION, THE PETITIONER DOES NOT PROVE
HE HAD AN UNFAIR HEARING MERELY BY PROVING THE DECISION TO BE WRONG OR
BY SHOWING THAT INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED OR CONSIDERED; BUT
THE CASE IS DIFFERENT WHERE EVIDENCE WAS IMPROPERLY RECEIVED AND WHERE
BUT FOR THAT EVIDENCE IT IS WHOLLY SPECULATIVE WHETHER THE REQUISITE
FINDING WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.  P. 156. 

BRIDGES V. WIXON, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 708, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DENYING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HARRY BRIDGES IS AN ALIEN WHO ENTERED THIS COUNTRY FROM AUSTRALIA IN
1920.  IN 1938 DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED AGAINST HIM ON
THE GROUND THAT HE BOTH HAD BEEN AND THEN WAS A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED
WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THAT PARTY
ADVISED AND TAUGHT THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CAUSED PRINTED MATTER TO BE CIRCULATED WHICH
ADVOCATED THAT COURSE.  UNDER THE STATUTE THEN IN FORCE, PAST
MEMBERSHIP OR PAST AFFILIATION WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR DEPORTATION,
PRESENT MEMBERSHIP OR PRESENT AFFILIATION BEING REQUIRED.  KESSLER V.
STRECKER, 307 U.S. 22.  A HEARING WAS HAD.  THE EXAMINER, HON. JAMES M.
LANDIS, CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED NEITHER THAT HARRY
BRIDGES "IS A MEMBER OF NOR AFFILIATED WITH" THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR SUSTAINED THE EXAMINER AND
DISMISSED THE PROCEEDINGS.  THAT WAS IN JANUARY 1940.  BY THE ACT OF
JUNE 28, 1940, CONGRESS AMENDED THE STATUTE SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR
DEPORTATION OF ANY ALIEN WHO WAS "AT THE TIME OF ENTERING THE UNITED
STATES, OR HAS BEEN AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER" A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED
WITH AN ORGANIZATION OF THE CHARACTER ATTRIBUTED TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY
IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING N1.  A SECOND DEPORTATION PROCEEDING WAS
INSTITUTED AGAINST HARRY BRIDGES UNDER THE AMENDED STATUTE ON THE
GROUND THAT HE HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH THAT
ORGANIZATION.  FN2  ANOTHER HEARING WAS HAD.  THE INSPECTOR DESIGNATED
TO CONDUCT THE HEARINGS AND MAKE A REPORT, HON. CHARLES B. SEARS, FOUND
THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS AN ORGANIZATION OF
THE CHARACTER DESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE, THAT THE MARINE WORKERS'
INDUSTRIAL UNION WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND WAS AN
ORGANIZATION OF THE SAME CHARACTER, AND THAT AFTER ENTERING THIS
COUNTRY HARRY BRIDGES HAD BEEN AFFILIATED WITH BOTH ORGANIZATIONS AND
HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  HE RECOMMENDED DEPORTATION. 
THE CASE WAS HEARD BY THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS  FN3  WHICH
FOUND THAT HARRY BRIDGES HAD NOT BEEN A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH
EITHER OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AT ANY TIME AFTER HE ENTERED THIS
COUNTRY.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL REVIEWED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD AND
RENDERED AN OPINION IN WHICH HE MADE FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE
PROPOSED BY THE INSPECTOR AND ORDERED HARRY BRIDGES TO BE DEPORTED.  A
WARRANT OF DEPORTATION WAS ISSUED.  HARRY BRIDGES SURRENDERED HIMSELF
TO THE CUSTODY OF RESPONDENT AND CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF HIS
DETENTION BY A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.  THAT COURT DENIED THE
PETITION AND REMANDED PETITIONER TO THE CUSTODY OF RESPONDENT.  49
F.SUPP.  292.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED
VOTE.  144 F.2D 927, 944.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUS CHARACTER OF THE
QUESTIONS WHICH ARE PRESENTED. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, HARRY BRIDGES CAME HERE FROM AUSTRALIA IN 1920.  HE
HAS NOT RETURNED TO AUSTRALIA SINCE THAT TIME.  HE WAS A LONGSHOREMAN. 
IN 1933 HE BECAME ACTIVE IN TRADE-UNION WORK ON THE WATER FRONT IN SAN
FRANCISCO.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOUND THAT HE HAD "DONE MUCH TO
IMPROVE THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AMONG THE LONGSHOREMEN."  HE
REORGANIZED AND HEADED UP THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION,
AN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR UNION.  HE LED THE MARITIME WORKERS'
STRIKE ON THE PACIFIC COAST IN 1934.  HE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION FROM 1934 TO 1936 AND WAS
PACIFIC COAST PRESIDENT IN 1936.  IN 1937 HIS UNION BROKE WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, CHANGED ITS NAME TO INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, AND BECAME AFFILIATED WITH THE
COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION.  BRIDGES WAS ELECTED PACIFIC
COAST DISTRICT PRESIDENT OF THAT UNION AND HAS HELD THE OFFICE EVER
SINCE.  HE ALSO HOLDS SEVERAL IMPORTANT OFFICES IN THE C.I.O. 

THE TWO GROUNDS ON WHICH THE DEPORTATION ORDER RESTS - THAT HARRY
BRIDGES AT ONE TIME HAD BEEN BOTH "AFFILIATED" WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY
AND A MEMBER OF IT - PRESENT DIFFERENT QUESTIONS WITH WHICH WE DEAL
SEPARATELY. 

AFFILIATION.  THE STATUTE DEFINES AFFILIATION AS FOLLOWS: 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION:  (1) THE GIVING, LOANING OR
PROMISING OF MONEY OR ANY THING OF VALUE TO BE USED FOR THE ADVISING,
ADVOCACY, OR TEACHING OF ANY DOCTRINE ABOVE ENUMERATED SHALL CONSTITUTE
THE ADVISING, ADVOCACY, OR TEACHING OF SUCH DOCTRINE; AND (2) THE
GIVING, LOANING OR PROMISING OF MONEY OR ANY THING OF VALUE TO ANY
ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, OR GROUP, OF THE CHARACTER ABOVE
DESCRIBED SHALL CONSTITUTE AFFILIATION THEREWITH; BUT NOTHING IN THIS
PARAGRAPH SHALL BE TAKEN AS AN EXCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF ADVISING,
ADVOCACY, TEACHING, OR AFFILIATION."  41 STAT. 1009, 8 U.S.C. SEC.
137F. 

THE DOCTRINE REFERRED TO IS THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE
OR VIOLENCE.  FN4  THE ORGANIZATIONS OR GROUPS REFERRED TO ARE THOSE
WHICH ADVISE AND TEACH THAT DOCTRINE OR WHICH WRITE, CIRCULATE, DISPLAY
AND THE LIKE OR HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION FOR SUCH PURPOSE ANY WRITTEN
OR PRINTED MATTER OF THAT CHARACTER. 

IN RULING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER AN ALIEN HAD BEEN "AFFILIATED" WITH
THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THEREFORE COULD BE DEPORTED, THE COURT IN
UNITED STATES V. REIMER, 79 F.2D 315, 317, SAID THAT SUCH AN
AFFILIATION WAS NOT PROVED "UNLESS THE ALIEN IS SHOWN TO HAVE SO
CONDUCTED HIMSELF THAT HE HAS BROUGHT ABOUT A STATUS OF MUTUAL
RECOGNITION THAT HE MAY BE RELIED ON TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE COMMUNIST
PARTY ON A FAIRLY PERMANENT BASIS.  HE MUST BE MORE THAN MERELY IN
SYMPATHY WITH ITS AIMS OR EVEN WILLING TO AID IT IN A CASUAL,
INTERMITTENT WAY.  AFFILIATION INCLUDES AN ELEMENT OF DEPENDABILITY
UPON WHICH THE ORGANIZATION CAN RELY WHICH, THOUGH NOT EQUIVALENT TO
MEMBERSHIP DUTY, DOES REST UPON A COURSE OF CONDUCT THAT COULD NOT BE
ABRUPTLY ENDED WITHOUT GIVING AT LEAST REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE CHARGE
OF A BREACH OF GOOD FAITH."  THE SAME IDEA WAS EXPRESSED BY DEAN LANDIS
IN THE FIRST BRIDGES' REPORT.  AFTER STATING THAT "AFFILIATION" IMPLIES
A "STRONGER BOND" THAN "ASSOCIATION," HE WENT ON TO SAY:  "IN THE
CORPORATE FIELD ITS USE EMBRACES NOT THE CASUAL AFFINITY OF AN
OCCASIONAL SIMILARITY OF OBJECTIVE, BUT TIES AND CONNECTIONS THAT,
THOUGH LESS THAN THAT COMPLETE CONTROL WHICH PARENT POSSESSES OVER
SUBSIDIARY, ARE NEVERTHELESS SUFFICIENT TO CREATE A CONTINUING
RELATIONSHIP THAT EMBRACES BOTH UNITS WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF A SYSTEM. 
IN THE FIELD OF ELEEMOSYNARY AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION THE SAME BASIC
IDEA PREVAILS."  AND HE CONCLUDED: "PERSONS ENGAGED IN BITTER
INDUSTRIAL STRUGGLES TEND TO SEEK HELP AND ASSISTANCE FROM EVERY
AVAILABLE SOURCE.  BUT THE INTERMITTENT SOLICITATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF
SUCH HELP MUST BE SHOWN TO HAVE RIPENED INTO THOSE BONDS OF MUTUAL
COOPERATION AND ALLIANCE THAT ENTAIL CONTINUING RECIPROCAL DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES BEFORE THEY CAN BE DEEMED TO COME WITHIN THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT OF AFFILIATION....  TO EXPAND THAT STATUTORY DEFINITION TO
EMBRACE WITHIN ITS TERMS AD HOC COOPERATION ON OBJECTIVES WHOSE PURSUIT
IS CLEARLY ALLOWABLE UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, OR FRIENDLY
ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE RESULTED IN THE
EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGAL MEANS, IS WARRANTED NEITHER BY REASON NOR BY
LAW." 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THROWS LITTLE LIGHT ON THE MEANING OF
"AFFILIATION" AS USED IN THE STATUTE.  IT IMPORTS, HOWEVER, LESS THAN
MEMBERSHIP BUT MORE THAN SYMPATHY.  BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE IT
INCLUDES THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE MONEY OR ANYTHING OF VALUE TO AN
ORGANIZATION WHICH BELIEVES IN, ADVISES, ADVOCATES, OR TEACHES THE
OVERTHROW OF OUR GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE.  THAT EXAMPLE THROWS
LIGHT ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM "AFFILIATION."  HE WHO RENDERS
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ANY ORGANIZATION MAY GENERALLY BE SAID TO
APPROVE OF ITS OBJECTIVES OR AIMS.  SO CONGRESS DECLARED IN THE CASE OF
AN ALIEN WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE TREASURY OF AN ORGANIZATION WHOSE AIM
WAS TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  BUT HE WHO
COOPERATES WITH SUCH AN ORGANIZATION ONLY IN ITS WHOLLY LAWFUL
ACTIVITIES CANNOT BY THAT FACT BE SAID AS A MATTER OF LAW TO BE
"AFFILIATED" WITH IT.  NOR IS IT CONCLUSIVE THAT THE COOPERATION WAS
MORE THAN INTERMITTENT AND SHOWED A RATHER CONSISTENT COURSE OF
CONDUCT.  COMMON SENSE INDICATES THAT THE TERM "AFFILIATION" IN THIS
SETTING SHOULD BE CONSTRUED MORE NARROWLY.  INDIVIDUALS, LIKE NATIONS,
MAY COOPERATE IN A COMMON CAUSE OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS OR YEARS THOUGH
THEIR ULTIMATE AIMS DO NOT COINCIDE.  ALLIANCES FOR LIMITED OBJECTIVES
ARE WELL KNOWN.  CERTAINLY THOSE WHO JOINED FORCES WITH RUSSIA TO
DEFEAT THE NAZIS MAY NOT BE SAID TO HAVE MADE AN ALLIANCE TO SPREAD THE
CAUSE OF COMMUNISM.  AN INDIVIDUAL WHO MAKES CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEED
HUNGRY MEN DOES NOT BECOME "AFFILIATED" WITH THE COMMUNIST CAUSE
BECAUSE THOSE MEN ARE COMMUNISTS.  A DIFFERENT RESULT IS NOT
NECESSARILY INDICATED IF AID IS GIVEN TO OR RECEIVED FROM A PROSCRIBED
ORGANIZATION IN ORDER TO WIN A LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVE IN A DOMESTIC
CONTROVERSY.  WHETHER INTERMITTENT OR REPEATED, THE ACT OR ACTS TENDING
TO PROVE "AFFILIATION" MUST BE OF THAT QUALITY WHICH INDICATES AN
ADHERENCE TO OR A FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPOSES OR OBJECTIVES OF THE
PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM MERE COOPERATION WITH IT
IN LAWFUL ACTIVITIES.  THE ACT OR ACTS MUST EVIDENCE A WORKING ALLIANCE
TO BRING THE PROGRAM TO FRUITION. 

WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE TERM "AFFILIATION" WAS NOT SO CONSTRUED
EITHER BY JUDGE SEARS OR BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THE REPORTS MADE IN
THIS CASE CONTAIN NO PRECISE FORMULATION OF THE STANDARD WHICH WAS
EMPLOYED.  BUT THE WAY IN WHICH THE TERM "AFFILIATION" WAS USED AND
APPLIED CONVINCES US THAT IT WAS GIVEN A LOOSER AND MORE EXPANSIVE
MEANING THAN THE STATUTE PERMITS.  JUDGE SEARS IN HIS REPORT STATED
THAT "AFFILIATION IS CLEARLY A WORD OF BROADER CONTENT THAN MEMBERSHIP,
AND OF NARROWER CONTENT THAN SYMPATHY.  GENERALLY, THERE WILL BE SOME
CONTINUITY OF RELATIONSHIP TO BRING THE WORD INTO APPLICATION."  BUT HE
CONCLUDED THAT THAT WAS NOT NECESSARILY SO IN VIEW OF THE STATUTORY
DEFINITION.  AND HE ADDED:  "AFFILIATION MAY DOUBTLESS BE SHOWN
CIRCUMSTANTIALLY.  ASSISTING IN THE ENTERPRISES OF AN ORGANIZATION,
SECURING MEMBERS FOR IT, TAKING PART IN MEETINGS ORGANIZED AND DIRECTED
BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION, WOULD ALL TEND TO SHOW
AFFILIATION.  THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO SUCH EVIDENCE IS, OF COURSE,
DETERMINED BY THE TRIER OF THE FACT."  THAT VIEW WAS APPARENTLY SHARED
BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  BUT THE BROAD SWEEP WHICH WAS GIVEN THE TERM
IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE
FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REPORT: 

"JUDGE SEARS SUMMARIZES BRIDGES' ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE COMMUNIST PARTY
AND ITS POLICIES BY SAYING THAT THE 'ISOLATED INSTANCES,' WHILE NOT
EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH MEMBERSHIP IN OR AFFILIATION WITH THE COMMUNIST
PARTY, NEVERTHELESS SHOW A SYMPATHETIC OR COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE ON HIS
PART TO THE PARTY, AND FORM 'A PATTERN WHICH IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ALIEN FOLLOWED THIS COURSE OF CONDUCT AS AN
AFFILIATE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, RATHER THAN AS A MATTER OF CHANCE
COINCIDENCE.'  THIS CONCLUSION, SAID JUDGE SEARS, WAS STRENGTHENED BY
HIS CONSISTENTLY FAVORING NONDISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION MEN BECAUSE
OF COMMUNIST MEMBERSHIP; AND BY HIS EXCORIATING 'RED BAITERS,' AS HE
CALLED THOSE WHO TOOK AN OPPOSITE VIEW, WHICH 'AMOUNTED TO COOPERATION
WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN CARRYING OUT ITS PROGRAM OF PENETRATION AND
BORING FROM WITHIN'." 

BUT WHEN WE TURN TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE HAVE LITTLE MORE THAN A
COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH REVEALS COOPERATION WITH COMMUNIST GROUPS FOR
THE ATTAINMENT OF WHOLLY LAWFUL OBJECTIVES. 

THE ASSOCIATIONS WHICH HARRY BRIDGES HAD WITH VARIOUS COMMUNIST
GROUPS SEEM TO INDICATE NO MORE THAN COOPERATIVE MEASURES TO ATTAIN
OBJECTIVES WHICH WERE WHOLLY LEGITIMATE.  THE LINK BY WHICH IT IS
SOUGHT TO TIE HIM TO SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES IS AN EXCEEDINGLY TENUOUS
ONE, IF IT MAY BE SAID TO EXIST AT ALL.  THE TRADE UNION UNITY LEAGUE
WAS FOUND TO BE A COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION.  IT CHARTERED THE MARINE
WORKERS' INDUSTRIAL UNION IN 1930, WHICH CONTINUED UNTIL 1935 AND WAS
FOUND TO BE A PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION.  THAT UNION LAUNCHED THE
WATERFRONT WORKER, A MIMEOGRAPHED SHEET, IN 1932.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUSTAINED JUDGE SEARS' FINDING THAT BRIDGES SPONSORED IT AND WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS PUBLICATION SHORTLY AFTER IT FIRST APPEARED IN 1932
AND DOWN TO ITS ABANDONMENT IN 1936.  THE PAPER ACKNOWLEDGED THE
ASSISTANCE OF THE MWIU PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15, 1933.  THE QUESTION WHEN
BRIDGES TOOK OVER THE PAPER WAS CLOSELY CONTESTED, THE BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS FINDING THAT BRIDGES BECAME CONNECTED WITH IT ABOUT
SEPTEMBER 15, 1933, AFTER THE MWIU HAD ABANDONED IT.  THE FINDING OF
JUDGE SEARS, APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT THE PAPER WAS AN
INSTRUMENT OF THE MWIU AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY FROM DECEMBER 1932 TO
ITS ABANDONMENT IN 1936 AND THAT IT WAS UNDER THE DOMINATION AND
CONTROL OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS DURING THAT PERIOD RESTED PRIMARILY ON
THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:  "(1) THE ACKNOWLEDGED COOPERATION WITH THE
M.W.I.U., IN THE EARLY ISSUES OF THE PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT FAVORABLE
TREATMENT OF THE M.W.I.U., T.U.U.L., AND OTHER COMMUNIST-SPONSORED
ORGANIZATIONS DURING THE PAPER'S ENTIRE EXISTENCE.  (2) CONSISTENT
ATTACKS UPON THE SO-CALLED 'REACTIONARY' LEADERS OF THE A.F. OF L. (3)
SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNIST CANDIDATES FOR POLITICAL OFFICE.  (4) ADVICE
TO READ COMMUNIST LITERATURE.  (5) THE USE OF ADDRESSES OF COMMUNISTS
OR COMMUNIST-AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS."  BUT WHEN THE EVIDENCE
UNDERLYING THESE FINDINGS IS EXAMINED IT IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID OF ANY
SHOWING THAT THE WATERFRONT WORKER ADVOCATED OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE.  IT WAS A MILITANT TRADE-UNION JOURNAL.  IT AIRED
THE GRIEVANCES OF THE LONGSHOREMAN.  IT DISCUSSED NATIONAL AFFAIRS
AFFECTING THE INTERESTS OF WORKING MEN.  IT DECLARED AGAINST WAR.  BUT
WE HAVE FOUND NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WHICH SUGGESTS THAT IT ADVOCATED
THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE.  NOR IS THERE ANY FINDING
THAT BRIDGES TOOK OVER THIS PROJECT WITH THE VIEW OF DOING MORE THAN
ADVANCING THE LAWFUL CAUSE OF UNIONISM.  THE ADVICE TO SUPPORT FOR
OFFICE CERTAIN CANDIDATES SAID TO BE COMMUNISTS WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON
THE PLATFORM ON WHICH THEY RAN - CASH RELIEF; ABOLITION OF VAGRANCY
LAWS; NO EVICTIONS; GAS, WATER AND ELECTRICITY FOR THE UNEMPLOYED; AND
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.  THE ADVICE TO READ COMMUNIST LITERATURE WAS NOT
GENERAL; IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED TO THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF
THOSE PUBLICATIONS AND OTHER PAPERS ON THE TRUTHFULNESS OF LABOR NEWS. 
THE USE OF ADDRESSES OF COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS, ESPECIALLY STRESSED BY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WAS SAID BY JUDGE SEARS TO DEMONSTRATE "A CLOSE
COOPERATION WITH THE COMMUNISTS AND COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS."  BUT
CLOSE COOPERATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AN "AFFILIATION"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  IT MUST EVIDENCE A WORKING ALLIANCE
TO BRING THE PROSCRIBED PROGRAM TO FRUITION. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE MARINE WORKERS' INDUSTRIAL UNION WAS
NOT A SHAM OR PRETENSE.  IT WAS A GENUINE UNION.  IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE,
AND WE ASSUME IT DID HAVE, THE ILLEGITIMATE OBJECTIVE OF OVERTHROWING
THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE.  BUT IT ALSO HAD THE OBJECTIVE OF IMPROVING
THE LOT OF ITS MEMBERS IN THE NORMAL TRADE UNION SENSE.  ONE WHO
COOPERATED WITH IT IN PROMOTING ITS LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVES CERTAINLY
COULD NOT BY THAT FACT ALONE BE SAID TO SPONSOR OR APPROVE OF ITS
GENERAL OR UNLAWFUL OBJECTIVES.  BUT UNLESS HE ALSO JOINED IN THAT OVER
ALL PROGRAM, HE WOULD NOT BE "AFFILIATED" WITH THE COMMUNIST CAUSE IN
THE SENSE IN WHICH THE STATUTE USES THE TERM. 

WHETHER ONE COULD BE A MEMBER OF THAT UNION WITHOUT BECOMING
"AFFILIATED" WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE, WE NEED NOT DECIDE.  FOR HARRY BRIDGES WAS NEVER A MEMBER OF
IT. TO SAY THAT HIS CO-OPERATION WITH IT MADE HIM IN TURN "AFFILIATED"
WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS TO IMPUTE TO HIM BELIEF IN AND ADHERENCE TO
ITS GENERAL OR UNLAWFUL OBJECTIVES.  IN THAT CONNECTION, IT MUST BE
REMEMBERED THAT ALTHOUGH DEPORTATION TECHNICALLY IS NOT CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT (JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 227, 242; BUGAJEWITZ
V. ADAMS, 228 U.S. 585, 591; MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32, 39), IT MAY
NEVERTHELESS VISIT AS GREAT A HARDSHIP AS THE DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT
TO PURSUE A VOCATION OR A CALLING.  CF. CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL. 
277; EX PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333.  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS
SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 284,
DEPORTATION MAY RESULT IN THE LOSS "OF ALL THAT MAKES LIFE WORTH
LIVING." 

WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO EMPLOY THE TERM "AFFILIATION"
IN A BROAD, FLUID SENSE WHICH WOULD VISIT SUCH HARDSHIP ON AN ALIEN FOR
SLIGHT OR INSUBSTANTIAL REASONS.  IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS DESIRED TO
HAVE THE COUNTRY RID OF THOSE ALIENS WHO EMBRACED THE POLITICAL FAITH
OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  BUT WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
CAST SO WIDE A NET AS TO REACH THOSE WHOSE IDEAS AND PROGRAM, THOUGH
COINCIDING WITH THE LEGITIMATE AIMS OF SUCH GROUPS, NEVERTHELESS FELL
FAR SHORT OF OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE. 
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF PRESS IS ACCORDED ALIENS RESIDING IN THIS
COUNTRY.  BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252.  SO FAR AS THIS RECORD
SHOWS THE LITERATURE PUBLISHED BY HARRY BRIDGES, THE UTTERANCES MADE BY
HIM WERE ENTITLED TO THAT PROTECTION.  THEY REVEALED A MILITANT
ADVOCACY OF THE CAUSE OF TRADE-UNIONISM.  BUT THEY DID NOT TEACH OR
ADVOCATE OR ADVISE THE SUBVERSIVE CONDUCT CONDEMNED BY THE STATUTE. 

INFERENCE MUST BE PILED ON INFERENCE TO IMPUTE BELIEF IN HARRY
BRIDGES OF THE REVOLUTIONARY AIMS OF THE GROUPS WHOSE AID AND
ASSISTANCE HE EMPLOYED IN HIS ENDEAVOR TO IMPROVE THE LOT OF THE
WORKINGMEN ON THE WATER FRONT.  THAT HE ENLISTED SUCH AID IS NOT
DENIED.  HE JUSTIFIED THAT COURSE ON THE GROUNDS OF EXPEDIENCY - TO GET
SUCH HELP AS HE COULD TO AID THE CAUSE OF HIS UNION.  FN5 BUT THERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT HE OPPOSED THE COMMUNIST TACTICS OF FOMENTING STRIKES;
THAT HE BELIEVED IN THE POLICY OF ARBITRATION AND DIRECT NEGOTIATION TO
SETTLE LABOR DISPUTES, WITH THE STRIKE RESERVED ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. 
AS DEAN LANDIS STATED IN THE FIRST REPORT: 

"BRIDGES' OWN STATEMENT OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS AND DISBELIEFS IS
IMPORTANT.  IT WAS GIVEN NOT ONLY WITHOUT RESERVE BUT VIGOROUSLY AS
DOGMA AND FAITHS OF WHICH THE MAN WAS PROUD AND WHICH REPRESENTED IN
HIS MIND THE AIMS OF HIS EXISTENCE.  IT WAS A FIGHTING APOLOGIA THAT
REFUSED TO TEMPER ITSELF TO THE WINDS OF CAUTION.  IT WAS AN AVOWAL OF
SYMPATHY WITH MANY OF THE OBJECTIVES THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY AT TIMES
HAS EMBRACED, AN EXPRESSION OF DISBELIEF THAT THE METHODS THEY WISHED
TO EMPLOY WERE AS REVOLUTIONARY AS THEY GENERALLY SEEM, BUT IT WAS
UNEQUIVOCAL IN ITS DISTRUST OF TACTICS OTHER THAN THOSE THAT ARE
GENERALLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRATIC METHODS.  THAT
BRIDGES' AIMS ARE ENERGETICALLY RADICAL MAY BE ADMITTED, BUT THE PROOF
FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE METHODS HE SEEKS TO EMPLOY TO REALIZE THEM
ARE OTHER THAN THOSE THAT THE FRAMEWORK OF DEMOCRATIC AND
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT PERMITS." 

THAT OBSERVATION IS EQUALLY PERTINENT TO THE RECORD BEFORE US.  WE
CANNOT CONSTRUE "AFFILIATION" AS USED IN THE STATUTE TO BRING SUCH
CONDUCT AND ATTITUDES WITHIN ITS REACH.  WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WOULD
JUSTIFY A FINDING OF "AFFILIATION" IN THE STRICT SENSE IN WHICH THE
STATUTE USES THE TERM IS NOT FOR US TO SAY.  AN ACT INNOCENT ON ITS
FACE MAY BE DONE WITH AN EVIL PURPOSE.  BUT WHERE THE FATE OF A HUMAN
BEING IS AT STAKE THE PRESENCE OF THE EVIL PURPOSE MAY NOT BE LEFT TO
CONJECTURE.  IN THESE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS WE DO NOT REVIEW THE
EVIDENCE BEYOND ASCERTAINING THAT THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
DEPORTATION ORDER.  VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103, 106.  BUT
DETENTION UNDER AN INVALID ORDER OF DEPORTATION IS ESTABLISHED WHERE AN
ALIEN IS ORDERED DEPORTED FOR REASONS NOT SPECIFIED BY CONGRESS. 
MAHLER V. EBY, SUPRA.  THAT IS THE CASE HERE.  FOR OUR REVIEW OF THE
RECORD CONVINCES US THAT THE FINDING OF "AFFILIATION" WAS BASED ON TOO
LOOSE A MEANING OF THE TERM. 

MEMBERSHIP.  THE EVIDENCE OF "AFFILIATION" WAS USED NOT ONLY TO
SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT HARRY BRIDGES HAD BEEN "AFFILIATED" WITH THE
COMMUNIST PARTY BUT ALSO TO CORROBORATE THE FINDING THAT AT ONE TIME HE
HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THAT ORGANIZATION.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT SUCH
EVIDENCE, THOUGH FALLING SHORT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF "AFFILIATION,"
MIGHT BE ADMISSIBLE FOR THE LATTER PURPOSE.  BUT THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT
THE FINDING OF MEMBERSHIP, LIKE THE FINDING OF AFFILIATION, HAS AN
INFIRMITY WHICH MAY BE CHALLENGED IN THIS ATTACK ON THE LEGALITY OF
HARRY BRIDGES' DETENTION UNDER THE DEPORTATION ORDER. 

RULE 150.1(C) OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE (8 C.F.R., 1941 SUPP., 150.1(C)) PROVIDES:  "ALL
STATEMENTS SECURED FROM THE ALINE OR ANY OTHER PERSON DURING THE
INVESTIGATION, WHICH ARE TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE, SHALL BE TAKEN DOWN IN
WRITING; AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL ASK THE PERSON
INTERROGATED TO SIGN THE STATEMENT.  WHENEVER SUCH A RECORDED STATEMENT
IS TO BE OBTAINED FROM ANY PERSON, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL
IDENTIFY HIMSELF TO SUCH PERSON AND THE INTERROGATION OF THAT PERSON
SHALL BE UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION.  WHENEVER A RECORDED STATEMENT IS
TO BE OBTAINED FROM A PERSON UNDER INVESTIGATION, HE SHALL BE WARNED
THAT ANY STATEMENT MADE BY HIM MAY BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN ANY
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING."  AND RULE 150.6(I) PROVIDES IN PART:  "A
RECORDED STATEMENT MADE BY THE ALIEN (OTHER THAN A GENERAL INFORMATION
FORM) OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON DURING AN INVESTIGATION MAY BE RECEIVED IN
EVIDENCE ONLY IF THE MAKER OF SUCH STATEMENT IS UNAVAILABLE OR REFUSES
TO TESTIFY AT THE WARRANT HEARING OR GIVES TESTIMONY CONTRADICTING THE
STATEMENTS MADE DURING THE INVESTIGATION." 

O'NEIL WAS A GOVERNMENT WITNESS.  HE WAS INTIMATE WITH HARRY
BRIDGES.  DURING THE COURSE OF THE EXAMINATION, O'NEIL WAS ASKED ABOUT
STATEMENTS WHICH HE ALLEGEDLY HAD MADE TO INVESTIGATING OFFICERS SOME
MONTHS EARLIER.  THESE STATEMENTS WERE NOT SIGNED BY O'NEIL.  THEY WERE
NOT MADE BY INTERROGATION UNDER OATH.  AND IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT O'NEIL
WAS ASKED TO SWEAR AND SIGN; OR THAT, BEING ASKED, HE REFUSED.  THEY
WERE READ INTO THE RECORD AND VERIFIED BY THE STENOGRAPHER WHO TOOK
THEM DOWN.  AND AN OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT LATER O'NEIL HAD REPEATED THE
STATEMENTS TO HIM AND TO OTHER WITNESSES.  THESE STATEMENTS WERE THAT
O'NEIL JOINED THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN DECEMBER, 1936; THAT HE WALKED
INTO BRIDGES' OFFICE ONE DAY IN 1937 AND SAW BRIDGES PASTING ASSESSMENT
STAMPS IN A COMMUNIST PARTY BOOK; AND THAT BRIDGES REMINDED O'NEIL THAT
HE HAD NOT BEEN ATTENDING PARTY MEETINGS.  O'NEIL ADMITTED MAKING
STATEMENTS TO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS BUT DENIED MAKING THOSE
PARTICULAR STATEMENTS. 

JUDGE SEARS ADMITTED THE STATEMENTS NOT FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT
BUT AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE.  THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL BOTH CONCEDED THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE ADMITTED IN
VIOLATION OF RULES 150.1(C) AND 150.6(I).  FN6  THE BOARD HELD THAT IT
WAS ERROR TO CONSIDER THE STATEMENTS AS AFFIRMATIVE, PROBATIVE
EVIDENCE.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RULED:  "HAD THE ALIEN RAISED THE
QUESTION AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENTAL
REGULATIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGATORY AND A DELIBERATE REJECTION OF A
REQUEST TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE RENDERED APPROPRIATE THE
OBJECTIONS NOW RAISED BY THE BOARD.  NO OBJECTION HAVING BEEN RAISED BY
THE ALIEN THROUGHOUT THE HEARING, HOWEVER, HE WAIVED THE RIGHT TO
OBJECT ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE STATEMENT WAS NOT TAKEN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES."  ONE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT POSITION IS THAT
BRIDGES DID PROTEST BEFORE JUDGE SEARS OVER THE USE OF THE STATEMENT. 
HE MAINTAINED THAT THEY WERE ERRONEOUSLY RECEIVED AND WERE WITHOUT
PROBATIVE VALUE THOUGH HE DID NOT REST HIS OBJECTION ON THE
REGULATIONS.  BUT THERE IS A MORE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFICULTY.  THE ORIGINAL
DECIDING BODY IS NOT THE INSPECTOR WHO HEARS THE CASE.  HE MERELY
SUBMITS A MEMORANDUM SETTING FORTH THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING,
HIS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND A PROPOSED
ORDER.  FN7  THE CASE THEN IS HEARD BY THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
APPEALS, WHICH IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN RELATION TO DEPORTATION.  8 C.F.R., 1940 SUPP., SECS. 90.2,
90.3.  AND THE CASE MAY THEN GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DECISION. 
IF THE OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT VIOLATES THE
GOVERNING REGULATIONS IS MADE BEFORE THE AGENCY ENTRUSTED WITH THE DUTY
OF DECIDING WHETHER A CASE FOR DEPORTATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, IT IS
MADE SOON ENOUGH.  OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THESE STATEMENTS AS
PROBATIVE EVIDENCE WAS MADE BEFORE BOTH THE BOARD AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.  IT WAS SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED THAT THE STATEMENTS DID NOT
QUALIFY UNDER THE REGULATIONS. 

THE RULES ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE ALIEN AND TO
AFFORD HIM DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  IT IS THE ACTION OF THE DECIDING BODY,
NOT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INSPECTOR, WHICH DETERMINES WHETHER THE
ALIEN WILL BE DEPORTED.  THE RULES AFFORD PROTECTION AT THAT CRUCIAL
STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OR NOT AT ALL.  THE PERSON TO WHOM THE POWER
TO DEPORT HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR SUCH AGENCY AS
HE DESIGNATES.  8 U.S.C. SEC. 155.  HE IS AN ORIGINAL TRIER OF FACT ON
THE WHOLE RECORD.  IT IS HIS DECISION TO DEPORT AN ALIEN THAT CONGRESS
HAS MADE "FINAL."  8 U.S.C. SEC. 155.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NO ANSWER TO
SAY THAT THE RULES MAY BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT CALLED TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE INSPECTOR. 

IT WAS ASSUMED IN BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S. 149, 155, THAT "ONE
UNDER INVESTIGATION WITH A VIEW TO DEPORTATION IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO
INSIST UPON THE OBSERVANCE OF RULES PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARY
PURSUANT TO LAW."  WE ADHERE TO THAT PRINCIPLE.  FOR THESE RULES ARE
DESIGNED AS SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ESSENTIALLY UNFAIR PROCEDURES.  THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR RULE MAY NOT BE GAINSAID.  A WRITTEN
STATEMENT AT THE EARLIER INTERVIEWS UNDER OATH AND SIGNED BY O'NEIL
WOULD HAVE AFFORDED PROTECTION AGAINST MISTAKES IN HEARING, MISTAKES IN
MEMORY, MISTAKES IN TRANSCRIPTION.  STATEMENTS MADE UNDER THOSE
CONDITIONS WOULD HAVE AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD - THE FEAR OF PROSECUTION
FOR PERJURY.  MOREOVER, IF O'NEIL HAD BEEN ASKED TO SWEAR TO AND SIGN
THE STATEMENTS AND HAD REFUSED TO DO SO, THE FACT OF HIS REFUSAL WOULD
HAVE WEIGHT IN EVALUATING THE TRUTH OF THE STATEMENTS.    THE
STATEMENTS WHICH O'NEIL ALLEGEDLY MADE WERE HEARSAY.  WE MAY ASSUME
THEY WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT.  BUT THEY
CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE AS SUBSTANTIVE
EVIDENCE.  HICKORY V. UNITED STATES, 151 U.S. 303, 309, UNITED STATES
V. BLOCK, 88 F.2D 618, 620.  SO TO HOLD WOULD ALLOW MEN TO BE CONVICTED
ON UNSWORN TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES  FN8 - A PRACTICE WHICH RUNS COUNTER
TO THE NOTIONS OF FAIRNESS ON WHICH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS FOUNDED.  FN9
THERE HAS BEEN SOME RELAXATION OF THE RULE IN ALIEN EXCLUSION CASES. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. CORSI, 65 F.2D 564.  BUT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WHOSE ROOTS MAY HAVE BECOME, AS THEY ARE IN THE
PRESENT CASE, DEEPLY FIXED IN THIS LAND.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURTS
HAVE BEEN LIBERAL IN RELAXING THE ORDINARY RULES OF EVIDENCE IN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS.  YET AS WAS APTLY STATED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 93,
"BUT THE MORE LIBERAL THE PRACTICE IN ADMITTING TESTIMONY, THE MORE
IMPERATIVE THE OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE THE ESSENTIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
BY WHICH RIGHTS ARE ASSERTED OR DEFENDED." 

HERE THE LIBERTY OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS AT STAKE.  HIGHLY INCRIMINATING
STATEMENTS ARE USED AGAINST HIM - STATEMENTS WHICH WERE UNSWORN AND
WHICH UNDER THE GOVERNING REGULATIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE.  WE ARE DEALING
HERE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
ALIEN.  THOUGH DEPORTATION IS NOT TECHNICALLY A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, IT
VISITS A GREAT HARDSHIP ON THE INDIVIDUAL AND DEPRIVES HIM OF THE RIGHT
TO STAY AND LIVE AND WORK IN THIS LAND OF FREEDOM.  THAT DEPORTATION IS
A PENALTY - AT TIMES A MOST SERIOUS ONE - CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 
METICULOUS CARE MUST BE EXERCISED LEST THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH HE IS
DEPRIVED OF THAT LIBERTY NOT MEET THE ESSENTIAL STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS. 

ON THE RECORD BEFORE US IT IS CLEAR THAT THE USE OF O'NEIL'S EX PARTE
STATEMENTS WAS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL.  THOSE UNSWORN STATEMENTS OF O'NEIL
AND THE TESTIMONY OF ONE LUNDEBERG WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AS SHOWING THAT BRIDGES WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. 
THERE WAS OTHER TESTIMONY BUT IT WAS SO "UNTRUSTWORTHY, CONTRADICTORY,
OR UNRELIABLE" AS TO BE REJECTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  IF THE
FINDING AS TO LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY WAS TREATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
INDEPENDENTLY OF HIS FINDING AS TO O'NEIL'S, WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT
CASE.  THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF
LUNDEBERG ALONE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER.  BUT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, UNLIKE JUDGE SEARS, DID NOT SEPARATE THE TESTIMONY OF
LUNDEBERG AND THAT OF O'NEIL FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS FINDING AS TO
MEMBERSHIP.  HE LUMPED THEM TOGETHER AND FOUND THAT BETWEEN THEM THEIR
TOTAL WEIGHT WAS SUFFICIENT TO TIP THE SCALES AGAINST HARRY BRIDGES. 
HE RULED THAT IF THE UNSWORN STATEMENTS OF O'NEIL AND THE TESTIMONY OF
LUNDEBERG WERE BELIEVED "THE DOUBT IS DECIDED."  FN10  IT IS THUS
APPARENT NOT ONLY THAT THE UNSWORN STATEMENTS OF O'NEIL WEIGHED HEAVILY
IN THE SCALES BUT ALSO THAT IT TOOK THOSE UNSWORN STATEMENTS AS WELL AS
LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY TO RESOLVE THE DOUBT ON THIS SHARPLY CONTESTED
AND CLOSE QUESTION.  WHETHER THE FINDING WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THIS
RECORD FROM THE TESTIMONY OF LUNDEBERG ALONE IS WHOLLY CONJECTURAL AND
HIGHLY SPECULATIVE.  NOT ONLY WAS LUNDEBERG ADMITTEDLY HOSTILE TO
BRIDGES.  NOT ONLY DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FAIL TO RULE THAT ON THE
BASIS OF LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY ALONE BRIDGES HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THE
PARTY.  BUT BEYOND THAT, THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS SIGNIFICANTLY
CONCLUDED THAT APART FROM O'NEIL'S UNSWORN STATEMENTS THE EVIDENCE OF
BRIDGES' MEMBERSHIP WAS TOO FLIMSY TO SUPPORT A FINDING.  IT IS THUS
IDLE TO CONSIDER WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MIGHT HAVE RULED ON THE
BASIS OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM.  CF. UNITED STATES V. DUNTON,
291 F. 905, 907.  THE ISSUE OF MEMBERSHIP WAS TOO CLOSE AND TOO CRUCIAL
TO THE CASE TO ADMIT OF MERE SPECULATION.  SINCE IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT
O'NEIL'S UNSWORN STATEMENTS AGAINST BRIDGES, SINCE THEY WERE SO CRUCIAL
TO THE FINDINGS OF MEMBERSHIP, AND SINCE THAT ISSUE WAS SO CLOSE, WE
ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF DEPORTATION MAY BE SUSTAINED
WITHOUT THEM. 

IN THESE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS THE ALIEN DOES NOT PROVE HE HAD AN
UNFAIR HEARING MERELY BY PROVING THE DECISION TO BE WRONG (TISI V. TOD,
264 U.S. 131, 133) OR BY SHOWING THAT INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED
AND CONSIDERED.  VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, P. 106.  BUT THE CASE
IS DIFFERENT WHERE EVIDENCE WAS IMPROPERLY RECEIVED AND WHERE BUT FOR
THAT EVIDENCE IT IS WHOLLY SPECULATIVE WHETHER THE REQUISITE FINDING
WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE.  THEN THERE IS DEPORTATION WITHOUT A FAIR
HEARING, WHICH MAY BE CORRECTED ON HABEAS CORPUS.  SEE VAJTAUER V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA. 

SINCE HARRY BRIDGES HAS BEEN ORDERED DEPORTED ON A MISCONSTRUCTION OF
THE TERM "AFFILIATION" AS USED IN THE STATUTE AND BY REASON OF AN
UNFAIR HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST
PARTY, HIS DETENTION UNDER THE WARRANT IS UNLAWFUL.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
UNNECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER THE LARGER CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
WHICH HAVE BEEN ADVANCED IN THE CHALLENGE TO THE LEGALITY OF
PETITIONER'S DETENTION UNDER THE DEPORTATION ORDER. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE STATUTE AS AMENDED (40 STAT. 1012, 41 STAT. 1008, 54 STAT.
673, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 137) PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "THAT ANY ALIEN
WHO, AT ANY TIME, SHALL BE OR SHALL HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF ANY ONE OF
THE FOLLOWING CLASSES SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED
STATES: 

     .     .         .         .         . 

"(C)  ALIENS  ...  WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY
ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, OR GROUP, THAT BELIEVES IN,
ADVISES, ADVOCATES, OR TEACHES:  (1) THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES  ... 

     .         .         .        .         . 

"(E)  ALIENS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION,
ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, OR GROUP, THAT WRITES, CIRCULATES, DISTRIBUTES,
PRINTS, PUBLISHES, OR DISPLAYS, OR CAUSES TO BE WRITTEN, CIRCULATED,
DISTRIBUTED, PRINTED, PUBLISHED, OR DISPLAYED, OR THAT HAS IN ITS
POSSESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CIRCULATION, DISTRIBUTION, PUBLICATION,
ISSUE, OR DISPLAY, ANY WRITTEN OR PRINTED MATTER OF THE CHARACTER
DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (D)(ADVISING, ADVOCATING OR TEACHING THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES). 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION:  (1) THE GIVING, LOANING OR
PROMISING OF MONEY OR ANY THING OF VALUE TO BE USED FOR THE ADVISING,
ADVOCACY, OR TEACHING OF ANY DOCTRINE ABOVE ENUMERATED SHALL CONSTITUTE
THE ADVISING, ADVOCACY, OR TEACHING OF SUCH DOCTRINE; AND (2) THE
GIVING, LOANING OR PROMISING OF MONEY OR ANY THING OF VALUE TO ANY
ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, OR GROUP, OF THE CHARACTER ABOVE
DESCRIBED SHALL CONSTITUTE AFFILIATION THEREWITH; BUT NOTHING IN THIS
PARAGRAPH SHALL BE TAKEN AS AN EXCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF ADVISING,
ADVOCACY, TEACHING, OR AFFILIATION. 

"SEC. 2.  ANY ALIEN WHO WAS AT THE TIME OF ENTERING THE UNITED
STATES, OR HAS BEEN AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, A MEMBER OF ANY ONE OF THE
CLASSES OF ALIENS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 1 OF THIS ACT, SHALL, UPON THE
WARRANT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917.  THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO THE CLASSES OF ALIENS
MENTIONED IN THIS ACT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIME OF THEIR ENTRY INTO THE
UNITED STATES."  THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917 IS FOUND IN 39
STAT. 874. 

FN2  SINCE JUNE 14, 1940 THE IMMIGRATION LAWS HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED
BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. V, EFFECTIVE JUNE 14,
1940.  54 STAT. 230, 1238, 5 U.S.C. FOL.  133T, 5 U.S.C. 133V. 

FN3  THE REGULATIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
PROVIDE THAT THE ALIEN SHALL BE ACCORDED A HEARING BEFORE AN IMMIGRANT
INSPECTOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION ON THE
CHARGES STATED IN THE WARRANT OF ARREST, AT WHICH HEARING THE ALIEN IS
ENTITLED TO REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL AND TO OFFER EVIDENCE IN HIS
BEHALF.  AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER THE HEARING HAS BEEN CONCLUDED,
THE INSPECTOR IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE A MEMORANDUM SETTING FORTH A
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, HIS PROPOSED FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND A PROPOSED ORDER, WHICH ARE TO BE
FURNISHED TO THE ALIEN OR HIS COUNSEL, WHO MAY FILE EXCEPTION THERETO
AND SUBMIT A BRIEF, 8 C.F.R., 1941 SUPP., 150.6, 150.7.  THE CASE IS
THEN HEARD BY THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, A BODY AUTHORIZED TO
PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN RELATION TO
DEPORTATION, BUT RESPONSIBLE SOLELY TO HIM.  8 C.F.R., 1940 SUPP., 90.2
90.3.  IF EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED, ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE BOARD IS
PERMITTED.  IBID., 90.5.  WHERE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD DISSENTS, WHERE
THE BOARD CERTIFIES THAT A QUESTION OF DIFFICULTY IS INVOLVED, OR IN
ANY CASE IN WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DIRECTS, THE BOARD MUST REFER
THE CASE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR REVIEW.  IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
REVERSES THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MUST STATE IN
WRITING HIS CONCLUSIONS AND THE REASONS FOR HIS DECISION.  IBID.,
90.12. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN5  AS RESPECTS PRINTING RELEASES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN A UNION
PAPER, HE TESTIFIED: 

"AS I UNDERSTAND, THE QUESTION WAS MY POSITION IN REGARD TO PRINTING
OFFICIAL COMMUNIST RELEASES.  I STILL SAY IT MIGHT DEPEND.  FOR
EXAMPLE, IF - THERE WAS A LOT OF TROUBLE UP THERE AT THAT TIME, A LOT
OF ACTION AND TIEUPS.  I BELIEVE THAT IF THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAPPENED
TO SEND IN A STATEMENT SAYING THAT THEY WOULD DO EVERYTHING THEY COULD
TO SUPPORT THE PARTICULAR DISPUTE AT THAT TIME IN BEHALF OF THE UNION
POSITION, MY POSITION WOULD BE THAT I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY GREAT OBJECTION
TO SEEING THAT CARRIED IN THE UNION PAPER."  AS RESPECTS VOTING FOR A
POLITICAL CANDIDATE KNOWN TO BE A COMMUNIST, HE TESTIFIED: 

"THE QUESTION OF SUPPORT ONLY GOES TO WHETHER HE IS A UNIONIST OR
NOT.  IF HE IS A BAD UNIONIST, WE DON'T CARE WHAT HE IS, WE ARE AGAINST
HIM; IF HE IS A GOOD ONE, WE DON'T CARE WHAT HE IS, WE ARE FOR HIM. 
HIS FIRST ALLEGIANCE MUST BE FOR THE UNION." 

FN6  WE ACCEPT THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES.  FOR RULE 150.6(I)
WHEN READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH RULE 150.1(C) FAIRLY MEANS (1) THAT AN
INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN OBTAINING A "RECORDED STATEMENT" MUST OBTAIN
THE STATEMENT BY INTERROGATION UNDER OATH AND SEEK TO OBTAIN IT OVER
THE SIGNATURE OF THE MAKER, AND (2) THAT ONLY SUCH A "RECORDED
STATEMENT," SO SAFEGUARDED, MAY BE USED AS EVIDENCE WHEN THE MAKER OF
THE STATEMENT GIVES CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY ON THE STAND.  IT IS TRUE
THAT RULE 150.6(I) ALSO PROVIDES THAT "AN AFFIDAVIT OF AN INSPECTOR AS
TO THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ALIEN OR ANY OTHER PERSON DURING AN
INVESTIGATION MAY BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE, OTHERWISE THAN IN SUPPORT OF
THE TESTIMONY OF THE INSPECTOR, ONLY IF THE MAKER OF SUCH STATEMENT IS
UNAVAILABLE OR REFUSES TO TESTIFY AT THE WARRANT HEARING OR GIVES
TESTIMONY CONTRADICTING THE STATEMENT AND THE INSPECTOR IS UNAVAILABLE
TO TESTIFY IN PERSON."  IF WE ASSUME THAT THAT PROVISION CREATES AN
EXCEPTION FROM THE GENERAL RULE IN CASE OF THE INSPECTOR WHO IS
UNAVAILABLE TO TESTIFY IN PERSON, WE CAN HARDLY INFER THAT THE
EXCEPTION WAS DESIGNED TO SWALLOW THE GENERAL RULE.  THE DEEP-ROOTED
POLICY OF THE LAW TOWARDS HEARSAY EVIDENCE CAUTIONS AGAINST SUCH A
LOOSE READING OF THESE FUNDAMENTAL PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN8  WE HAVE HERE QUITE A DIFFERENT CASE FROM THAT WHERE A PRIOR
STATEMENT OF AN ALIEN, CONTRADICTORY OF TESTIMONY MADE AT THE HEARING,
IS ADMITTED.  SEE CHAN WONG V. NAGLE, 17 F.2D 987; EX PARTE KISHIMOTO,
32 F.2D 991; 4 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3RD ED.)  SEC.  1048. 

FN9  DEAN WIGMORE IN HIS THIRD EDITION OF EVIDENCE (1940) SEC.
1018(B) TOOK THE OTHER POSITION.  BUT HE ADDED, "THE CONTRARY VIEW,
HOWEVER, IS THE ORTHODOX ONE.  IT IS UNIVERSALLY MAINTAINED BY THE
COURTS THAT PRIOR SELF-CONTRADICTIONS ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS HAVING
ANY SUBSTANTIVE OR INDEPENDENT TESTIMONIAL VALUE." 

FN10  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO HIS ANALYSIS
OF THE TESTIMONY OF LUNDEBERG AND O'NEIL, THE FOLLOWING:  "JUDGE SEARS
EXAMINES IN DETAIL THE EVIDENCE OF FIFTEEN WITNESSES AS BEARING ON
BRIDGES' MEMBERSHIP IN OR AFFILIATION WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  MUCH
OF THIS EVIDENCE IS REJECTED AS BEING UNTRUSTWORTHY, CONTRADICTORY, OR
UNRELIABLE.  HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WITNESSES IS ACCEPTED AS
SHOWING THAT BRIDGES WAS A MEMBER OF THE PARTY.  IF THIS EVIDENCE IS
BELIEVED - AND JUDGE SEARS BELIEVED IT - THE DOUBT IS DECIDED.  THE
QUESTION IS SUBSTANTIALLY ONE OF CREDIBILITY.  THE REVIEW BOARD DID NOT
THINK THE EVIDENCE CREDIBLE.  BUT IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT JUDGE
SEARS SAW THE WITNESSES ON THE STAND, WATCHED THEIR DEMEANOR AND
EXPRESSION, AND WAS IN A FAR BETTER POSITION TO JUDGE THEIR
TRUTHFULNESS THAN THE REVIEW BOARD, DEALING WITH THE COLD PRINT OF THE
RECORD. 

"THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT WITNESSES AS TO MEMBERSHIP ARE HARRY
LUNDEBERG AND JAMES D. O'NEIL." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. 

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE WILL STAND FOREVER AS A MONUMENT TO MAN'S
INTOLERANCE OF MAN.  SELDOM IF EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THIS NATION HAS
THERE BEEN SUCH A CONCENTRATED AND RELENTLESS CRUSADE TO DEPORT AN
INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE HE DARED TO EXERCISE THE FREEDOM THAT BELONGS TO HIM
AS A HUMAN BEING AND THAT IS GUARANTEED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION. 
FOR MORE THAN A DECADE POWERFUL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FORCES HAVE
COMBINED WITH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGENCIES TO SEEK THE DEPORTATION OF
HARRY BRIDGES, WHO CAME TO THIS COUNTRY IN 1920 FROM AUSTRALIA. 
EMERGING FROM THE PACIFIC COAST MARITIME STRIKE OF 1934 AS A RECOGNIZED
LABOR LEADER IN THAT AREA, BRIDGES INCURRED THE HATRED AND HOSTILITY OF
THOSE WHOSE INTERESTS COINCIDED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH THE
"VICIOUS AND INHUMANE PRACTICES TOWARD LONGSHOREMEN," 144 F.2D 927,
938, THAT BRIDGES WAS COMBATTING.  HIS PERSONAL VIEWPOINT ON CERTAIN
MATTERS ALSO ANTAGONIZED MANY PEOPLE OF MORE CONSERVATIVE LEANINGS. 
AGITATION FOR HIS DEPORTATION AROSE.  INDUSTRIAL AND FARMING
ORGANIZATIONS, VETERANS' GROUPS, CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND PRIVATE
UNDERCOVER AGENTS ALL JOINED IN AN UNREMITTING EFFORT TO DEPORT HIM ON
THE GROUND THAT HE WAS CONNECTED WITH ORGANIZATIONS DEDICATED TO THE
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE.  WIRE-TAPPING, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES WITHOUT WARRANTS AND
OTHER FORMS OF INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY HAVE BEEN WIDELY
EMPLOYED IN THIS DEPORTATION DRIVE. 

THIS OPPOSITION TO BRIDGES' PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN AS
PERSISTENT AS IT HAS BEEN UNDAUNTED BY TEMPORARY SETBACKS TO ITS AIMS. 
THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, AFTER A THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION OF THE ORIGINAL CHARGES IN 1934 AND 1935, WAS UNABLE TO
FIND EVEN A "SHRED OF EVIDENCE" WARRANTING HIS DEPORTATION AND THE
MATTER OFFICIALLY WAS DROPPED.  BUT THE CAMPAIGN TO BANISH HIM
CONTINUED UNABATED.  EVENTUALLY A WARRANT WAS ISSUED BY THE IMMIGRATION
AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE IN 1938 SEEKING HIS DEPORTATION.  A CLEAN
BILL OF HEALTH WAS GIVEN HIM, HOWEVER, AFTER A FULL HEARING BEFORE A
SPECIAL EXAMINER, DEAN LANDIS OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL.  THIS ONLY LED
TO DEMANDS THAT THE DEPORTATION LAWS BE CHANGED TO MAKE SURE THAT
BRIDGES WAS EXILED.  THEREUPON A SPECIAL BILL WAS INTRODUCED AND
ACTUALLY PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW" FORTHWITH TO TAKE
INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORT HARRY BRIDGES, "WHOSE PRESENCE IN THIS COUNTRY
THE CONGRESS DEEMS HURTFUL."  H.R. 9766, 76TH CONG., 3RD SESS.
FORTUNATELY THIS BILL DIED IN A SENATE COMMITTEE AFTER THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL DENOUNCED IT AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AMERICAN PRACTICE AND
TRADITION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  S. REP. NO. 2031, 76TH CONG., 3RD
SESS., P. 9. 

AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THIS DIRECT LEGISLATIVE ASSAULT UPON BRIDGES,
CONGRESS AMENDED THE DEPORTATION LAW BY ENACTING SEC. 23 OF THE ALIEN
REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 673.  THIS AMENDMENT SET ASIDE THIS
COURT'S DECISION IN KESSLER V. STRECKER, 307 U.S. 22, BY MAKING IT
CLEAR THAT AN ALIEN COULD BE DEPORTED IF, AT THE TIME OF ENTERING THE
UNITED STATES OR AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, HE WAS A MEMBER OF OR
AFFILIATED WITH AN ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING THE FORCEFUL OVERTHROW OF
THE GOVERNMENT.  IT THUS WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY THAT THE ALIEN BE AN
AFFILIATE OR MEMBER AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT OF
ARREST.  IN THE WORDS OF THE AUTHOR OF THIS AMENDMENT:  "IT IS MY JOY
TO ANNOUNCE THAT THIS BILL WILL DO, IN A PERFECTLY LEGAL AND
CONSTITUTIONAL MANNER, WHAT THE BILL SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT THE
DEPORTATION OF HARRY BRIDGES SEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH.  THIS BILL CHANGES
THE LAW SO THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOW HAVE LITTLE
TROUBLE IN DEPORTING HARRY BRIDGES AND ALL OTHERS OF SIMILAR ILK."  86
CONG. REC. 9031. 

THIS PROPHECY WAS QUICKLY REALIZED, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE VAST
INTERESTS ARRAYED AGAINST BRIDGES.  A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST AND
DEPORTATION UNDER THIS NEW STATUTORY PROVISION WAS ISSUED IN 1941,
FOLLOWED BY A HEARING BEFORE ANOTHER SPECIAL EXAMINER, JUDGE SEARS. 
EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON PRACTICALLY THE SAME
MATTERS AS IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING.  THIS TIME, HOWEVER, THE EXAMINER
DISCOVERED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR RECOMMENDING DEPORTATION.  ALTHOUGH
THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED THIS
RECOMMENDATION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING OR
LISTENING TO ARGUMENT, REVERSED THE BOARD AND ORDERED THE DEPORTATION
OF BRIDGES. 

IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THE BACKGROUND AND INTENSITY OF THIS EFFORT
TO DEPORT ONE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD RESULT IN A SINGULAR LACK OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT HAS
BEEN DESCRIBED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS "UNTRUSTWORTHY,
CONTRADICTORY, OR UNRELIABLE."  THE REMAINING GOVERNMENT EVIDENCE CAN
SCARCELY BE DESCRIBED IN MORE GENEROUS TERMS.  AND THE COURT'S OPINION,
IN WHICH I JOIN, DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PROCEEDING HAD ITS VALIDITY
FURTHER UNDERMINED BY A MISCONCEPTION OF THE STATUTORY TERM
"AFFILIATION" AND BY THE IMPROPER USE OF HEARSAY STATEMENTS. 

BUT THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN MORE THAN A SILENT, ANEMIC WITNESS TO
THIS PROCEEDING.  IT HAS NOT STOOD IDLY BY WHILE ONE OF ITS SUBJECTS IS
BEING EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THIS NATION WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST PROOF THAT
HIS PRESENCE CONSTITUTES A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE.  NOR HAS IT REMAINED ALOOF WHILE THIS INDIVIDUAL IS BEING
DEPORTED, RESULTING IN THE LOSS "OF ALL THAT MAKES LIFE WORTH LIVING,"
NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 284, ON A FINDING THAT, REGARDLESS
OF HIS PERSONAL BELIEFS, HE WAS A MEMBER AND AN AFFILIATE OF AN
ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING THE FORCEFUL OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT.  WHEN
THE IMMUTABLE FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS HAVE BEEN SO
OPENLY AND CONCEDEDLY IGNORED, THE FULL WRATH OF CONSTITUTIONAL
CONDEMNATION DESCENDS UPON THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT.  AND
ONLY BY EXPRESSING THAT WRATH CAN WE GIVE FORM AND SUBSTANCE TO "THE
GREAT, THE INDISPENSABLE DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS," THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323
U.S. 516, 530, TO WHICH THIS NATION IS DEDICATED. 

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE IN ISSUE AND THE INVALIDITY OF
THE PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT THERETO ARE OBVIOUS.  AS CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED IN THIS CASE, THE STATUTE CALLS FOR THE DEPORTATION OF HARRY
BRIDGES AFTER A FAIR HEARING IN WHICH "SOME" EVIDENCE IS ESTABLISHED
THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OR AFFILIATE OF AN ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING THE
FORCEFUL OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT.  SUCH A PROVISION RESTS ITS CLAIM
TO LEGALITY UPON ONE BASIC ASSUMPTION, AN ASSUMPTION THAT IS OBNOXIOUS
AND INTOLERABLE WHEN VIEWED IN LIGHT OF THE SUPERNAL HERITAGE AND
IDEALS OF THIS NATION. 

THIS ASSUMPTION UNDERLYING THE STATUTE IS THAT THE "PLENARY" POWER OF
CONGRESS TO DEPORT RESIDENT ALIENS IS UNAFFECTED BY THE GUARANTEE OF
SUBSTANTIVE FREEDOMS CONTAINED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  IN OTHER WORDS,
AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS URGED BEFORE US, THE DEPORTATION POWER OF
CONGRESS "IS UNAFFECTED BY CONSIDERATIONS WHICH IN OTHER CONTEXTS MIGHT
JUSTIFY THE STRIKING DOWN OF LEGISLATION AS AN UNWARRANTED ABRIDGMENT
OF CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION." 
FROM THIS PREMISE IT FOLLOWS THAT CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY DEPORT
ALIENS FOR WHATEVER REASONS IT MAY CHOOSE, LIMITED ONLY BY THE DUE
PROCESS REQUIREMENT OF A FAIR HEARING.  THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN, THEIR
RACIAL BACKGROUND OR THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH MAY CONCEIVABLY BE USED AS
THE BASIS FOR THEIR BANISHMENT.  AN ALIEN WHO MERELY WRITES OR UTTERS A
STATEMENT CRITICAL OF THE GOVERNMENT, OR WHO SUBSCRIBES TO AN UNPOPULAR
POLITICAL OR SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, OR WHO AFFILIATES WITH A LABOR UNION,
OR WHO DISTRIBUTES RELIGIOUS HANDBILLS ON THE STREET CORNER, MAY BE
SUBJECTED TO THE LEGISLATIVE WHIM OF DEPORTATION. 

I AM UNABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE CONSTITUTION SANCTIONS THAT
ASSUMPTION OR THE CONSEQUENCES THAT LOGICALLY AND INEVITABLY FLOW FROM
ITS APPLICATION.  THE POWER TO EXCLUDE AND DEPORT ALIENS IS ONE
SPRINGING OUT OF THE INHERENT SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE, 130 U.S. 581.  SINCE AN ALIEN OBVIOUSLY BRINGS
WITH HIM NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, CONGRESS MAY EXCLUDE HIM IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE FOR WHATEVER REASON IT SEES FIT.  TURNER V. WILLIAMS,
194 U.S. 279.  THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS A FUTILE AUTHORITY FOR THE ALIEN
SEEKING ADMISSION FOR THE FIRST TIME TO THESE SHORES.  BUT ONCE AN
ALIEN LAWFULLY ENTERS AND RESIDES IN THIS COUNTRY HE BECOMES INVESTED
WITH THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO ALL PEOPLE WITHIN OUR
BORDERS.  SUCH RIGHTS INCLUDE THOSE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AND THE
FIFTH AMENDMENTS AND BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  NONE OF THESE PROVISIONS ACKNOWLEDGES ANY DISTINCTION
BETWEEN CITIZENS AND RESIDENT ALIENS.  THEY EXTEND THEIR INALIENABLE
PRIVILEGES TO ALL "PERSONS" AND GUARD AGAINST ANY ENCROACHMENT ON THOSE
RIGHTS BY FEDERAL OR STATE AUTHORITY.  INDEED, THIS COURT HAS
PREVIOUSLY AND EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THAT HARRY BRIDGES, THE ALIEN,
POSSESSES THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND FREE PRESS AND THAT THE
CONSTITUTION WILL DEFEND HIM IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT.  BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252. 

SINCE RESIDENT ALIENS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IT FOLLOWS THAT
CONGRESS MAY NOT IGNORE THEM IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS "PLENARY" POWER OF
DEPORTATION.  AS THIS COURT SAID IN A PREVIOUS EXCLUSION CASE, "BUT
THIS COURT HAS NEVER HELD, NOR MUST WE NOW BE UNDERSTOOD AS HOLDING,
THAT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, WHEN EXECUTING THE PROVISIONS OF A
STATUTE INVOLVING THE LIBERTY OF PERSONS, MAY DISREGARD THE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES THAT INHERE IN 'DUE PROCESS OF LAW' AS UNDERSTOOD AT THE
TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION."  JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE,
189 U.S. 86, 100.  NO LESS MAY A STATUTE ON ITS FACE DISREGARD THE
BASIC FREEDOMS THAT THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES TO RESIDENT ALIENS. 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 316
U.S. 584, 609, HAS STATED THAT "THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS ALL LAWS
ABRIDGING FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION, NOT MERELY SOME LAWS OR ALL
EXCEPT TAX LAWS."  BY THE SAME TOKEN, THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND OTHER
PORTIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS MAKE NO EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF
DEPORTATION LAWS OR LAWS ENACTED PURSUANT TO A "PLENARY" POWER OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  HENCE THE VERY PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION NEGATIVE THE
PROPOSITION THAT CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF A "PLENARY" POWER, MAY
OVERRIDE THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO ARE NUMBERED AMONG THE BENEFICIARIES
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 

ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD MAKE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS
TRANSITORY AND DISCRIMINATORY IN NATURE.  THUS THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE
PRECLUDED FROM ENJOINING OR IMPRISONING AN ALIEN FOR EXERCISING HIS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT AT THE SAME TIME WOULD BE FREE,
FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT, TO DEPORT HIM FOR EXERCISING THAT
VERY SAME FREEDOM.  THE ALIEN WOULD BE FULLY CLOTHED WITH HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN DEFENDING HIMSELF IN A COURT OF LAW, BUT HE
WOULD BE STRIPPED OF THOSE RIGHTS WHEN DEPORTATION OFFICIALS ENCIRCLE
HIM.  I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION MEANT TO MAKE
SUCH AN EMPTY MOCKERY OF HUMAN FREEDOM. 

SINCE THE BASIC ASSUMPTION OF THE STATUTE IS FALSE, THE BILL OF
RIGHTS MUST BE BROUGHT TO BEAR.  AND WHEN THAT IS DONE SEVERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES ARE APPARENT IN THIS LEGISLATION.  SEE 52
YALE L.J. 108.  AS SHOWN BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, HARRY BRIDGES HAS
DONE NO MORE THAN EXERCISE HIS PERSONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND
ASSOCIATION.  YET UPON PROOF OF THAT FACT, HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
DEPORTATION UNDER THE STATUTE.  THE INVALIDITY OF LEGISLATION OF SUCH
NATURE IS INESCAPABLE. 

FIRST.  THE DEPORTATION STATUTE COMPLETELY IGNORES THE TRADITIONAL
AMERICAN DOCTRINE REQUIRING PERSONAL GUILT RATHER THAN GUILT BY
ASSOCIATION OR IMPUTATION BEFORE A PENALTY OR PUNISHMENT IS INFLICTED. 

THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT AN ALIEN, TO BE DEPORTABLE, MUST
PERSONALLY ADVOCATE OR BELIEVE IN THE FORCEFUL OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  IT IS ENOUGH IF HE IS A MEMBER OR AN AFFILIATE OF AN
ORGANIZATION WHICH ADVOCATES SUCH A DOCTRINE.  AND IN THIS CASE THE
GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT IT HAS NEITHER CLAIMED NOR ATTEMPTED TO PROVE
THAT HARRY BRIDGES PERSONALLY ADVOCATED OR BELIEVED IN THE PROSCRIBED
DOCTRINE.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, MOREOVER, THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE
COMMUNIST PARTY TO ADVOCATE VIOLENT REVOLUTION OR THAT HE EVER
COMMITTED OR TRIED TO COMMIT AN OVERT ACT DIRECTED TO THE REALIZATION
OF SUCH AN AIM. 

THE DOCTRINE OF PERSONAL GUILT IS ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF OUR JURISPRUDENCE.  IT PARTAKES OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF
THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 118, 154.  IT PREVENTS THE PERSECUTION OF THE INNOCENT
FOR THE BELIEFS AND ACTIONS OF OTHERS.  SEE CHAFEE, FREE SPEECH IN THE
UNITED STATES (1941), PP. 472-475. 

YET THE DEPORTATION STATUTE ON ITS FACE AND IN ITS PRESENT
APPLICATION FLATLY DISREGARDS THIS RULE.  IT CONDEMNS AN ALIEN TO EXILE
FOR BELIEFS AND TEACHINGS TO WHICH HE MAY NOT PERSONALLY SUBSCRIBE AND
OF WHICH HE MAY NOT EVEN BE AWARE.  THIS FACT ALONE IS ENOUGH TO
INVALIDATE THE LEGISLATION.  CF. DEJONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353;
HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357. 

IT IS NO ANSWER THAT A DEPORTATION PROCEEDING IS TECHNICALLY NON
CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND THAT A DEPORTABLE ALIEN IS NOT ADJUDGED GUILTY
OF A "CRIME."  THOSE ARE OVER-SUBTLE NICETIES THAT SHED THEIR
SIGNIFICANCE WHEN WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SAFEGUARDING THE IDEALS OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS.  THE IMPACT OF DEPORTATION UPON THE LIFE OF AN ALIEN IS
OFTEN AS GREAT IF NOT GREATER THAN THE IMPOSITION OF A CRIMINAL
SENTENCE.  A DEPORTED ALIEN MAY LOSE HIS FAMILY, HIS FRIENDS AND HIS
LIVELIHOOD FOREVER.  RETURN TO HIS NATIVE LAND MAY RESULT IN POVERTY,
PERSECUTION AND EVEN DEATH.  THERE IS THUS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR
DISCARDING THE DEMOCRATIC AND HUMANE TENETS OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AND
DESCENDING TO THE PRACTICES OF DESPOTISM IN DEALING WITH DEPORTATION. 

SECOND.  THE DEPORTATION STATUTE IS FURTHER INVALID UNDER THE "CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST ENUNCIATED IN SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249
U.S. 47.    IT IS CLEAR THAT IF AN ORGANIZATION ADVOCATED AND WAS
CAPABLE OF CAUSING IMMEDIATE AND SERIOUS VIOLENCE IN ORDER TO OVERTHROW
THE GOVERNMENT AND IF AN ALIEN MEMBER OR AFFILIATE PERSONALLY JOINED IN
SUCH ADVOCACY A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE WOULD BE
DEMONSTRATED AND THE GOVERNMENT WOULD THEN HAVE THE POWER TO DEPORT OR
OTHERWISE PUNISH THE ALIEN.  BUT THE STATUTE IN ISSUE MAKES NO ATTEMPT
TO REQUIRE SUCH PROOF.  IT IS APPARENTLY SATISFIED IF AN ORGANIZATION
AT ANY TIME SINCE THE ALIEN BECAME A MEMBER OR AFFILIATE ADVOCATED AS A
THEORETICAL DOCTRINE THE USE OF FORCE UNDER HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS AT
SOME INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME.  IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE ORGANIZATION
PRESENTLY ADVOCATES SUCH AN ABSTRACT DOCTRINE OR WHETHER THE ALIEN IS
PRESENTLY A MEMBER OR AN AFFILIATE OR WHETHER HE PRESENTLY ADHERES TO
THE ORGANIZATION'S VIEWS.  IT MATTERS NOT THAT AN ALIEN MEMBER NEVER
KNEW OR UNDERSTOOD THE ORGANIZATION'S ILLEGAL AIM OR THAT HE MAY HAVE
RESIGNED IN PROTEST UPON LEARNING OF IT.  IT APPEARS TO BE ENOUGH THAT
THE ORGANIZATION AT ONE TIME ADVOCATED THE UNLAWFUL DOCTRINE AND THAT
THE ALIEN WAS A MEMBER OR AFFILIATE AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST, EVEN IF
FOR NO LONGER THAN ONE MINUTE.  86 CONG. REC. 9032.  IT IS NOT EVEN
CLEAR THAT THE ORGANIZATION'S ADVOCACY OF VIOLENT REVOLUTION AND AN
ALIEN'S MEMBERSHIP OR AFFILIATION MUST COINCIDE IN POINT OF TIME.  SUCH
A STATUTE FAILS TO SATISFY ANY RATIONAL OR REALISTIC TEST.  IT
CERTAINLY DOES NOT PRETEND TO REQUIRE PROOF OF A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER SO AS PROPERLY TO NEGATIVE THE PRESUMPTION THAT INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS ARE SUPREME UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  IT THEREFORE FOUNDERS IN
CONSTITUTIONAL WATERS. 

THE GOVERNMENT FRANKLY CONCEDES THAT THIS CASE WAS NOT TRIED OR
DECIDED BELOW ON THE THEORY THAT THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST
HAD ANY APPLICATION.  PROOF OF BRIDGES' MEMBERSHIP AND AFFILIATION WITH
THE COMMUNIST PARTY WAS SHOWN BY SOME OF THE MOST TENUOUS AND
UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE EVER TO BE INTRODUCED IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGAL
PROCEEDING.  PROOF THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY ADVOCATES THE THEORETICAL
OR ULTIMATE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE WAS DEMONSTRATED BY
RESORT TO SOME RATHER ANCIENT PARTY DOCUMENTS, CERTAIN OTHER GENERAL
COMMUNIST LITERATURE AND ORAL CORROBORATING TESTIMONY OF GOVERNMENT
WITNESSES.  NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED TO SHOW THAT
EITHER BRIDGES OR THE COMMUNIST PARTY SERIOUSLY AND IMMINENTLY
THREATENS TO UPROOT THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE. 

DEPORTATION, WITH ALL ITS GRAVE CONSEQUENCES, SHOULD NOT BE
SANCTIONED ON SUCH WEAK AND UNCONVINCING PROOF OF A REAL AND IMMINENT
THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.  CONGRESS HAS AMPLE POWER TO PROTECT
THE UNITED STATES FROM INTERNAL REVOLUTION AND ANARCHY WITHOUT
ABANDONING THE IDEALS OF FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE.  WE AS A NATION LOSE
PART OF OUR GREATNESS WHENEVER WE DEPORT OR PUNISH THOSE WHO MERELY
EXERCISE THEIR FREEDOMS IN AN UNPOPULAR THOUGH INNOCUOUS MANNER.  THE
STRENGTH OF THIS NATION IS WEAKENED MORE BY THOSE WHO SUPPRESS THE
FREEDOM OF OTHERS THAN BY THOSE WHO ARE ALLOWED FREELY TO THINK AND ACT
AS THEIR CONSCIENCES DICTATE. 

OUR CONCERN IN THIS CASE DOES NOT HALT WITH THE FATE OF HARRY
BRIDGES, AN ALIEN WHOSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN GROSSLY
VIOLATED.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CASE IS FARREACHING.  THE LIBERTIES
OF THE 3,500,000 OTHER ALIENS IN THIS NATION ARE ALSO AT STAKE.  MANY
OF THESE ALIENS, LIKE MANY OF OUR FOREBEARS, WERE DRIVEN FROM THEIR
ORIGINAL HOMELANDS BY BIGOTED AUTHORITIES WHO DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF
FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE.  IT WOULD BE A DISMAL PROSPECT FOR THEM TO
DISCOVER THAT THEIR FREEDOM IN THE UNITED STATES IS DEPENDENT UPON
THEIR CONFORMITY TO THE POPULAR NOTIONS OF THE MOMENT.  BUT THEY NEED
NOT MAKE THAT DISCOVERY.  THE BILL OF RIGHTS BELONGS TO THEM AS WELL AS
TO ALL CITIZENS.  IT PROTECTS THEM AS LONG AS THEY RESIDE WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF OUR LAND.  IT PROTECTS THEM IN THE EXERCISE OF THE GREAT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS NECESSARY TO A SOUND POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
DEMOCRACY.  NEITHER INJUNCTION, FINE, IMPRISONMENT NOR DEPORTATION CAN
BE UTILIZED TO RESTRICT OR PREVENT THE EXERCISE OF INTELLECTUAL
FREEDOM.  ONLY BY ZEALOUSLY GUARDING THE RIGHTS OF THE MOST HUMBLE, THE
MOST UNORTHODOX AND THE MOST DESPISED AMONG US CAN FREEDOM FLOURISH AND
ENDURE IN OUR LAND. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND I THINK THAT THE
DEPORTATION ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW AFFIRMED. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS NO NOVEL QUESTION.  UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS, CONGRESS HAS ITS FUNCTIONS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIS, AND THE
COURTS THEIRS IN REGARD TO THE DEPORTATION OF ALIENS.  OUR FUNCTION IS
A VERY LIMITED ONE.  IN THIS CASE OUR DECISION TURNS ON THE APPLICATION
OF THE LONG-SETTLED RULE THAT IN REVIEWING THE FACT FINDINGS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OR AGENCIES, COURTS ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
SET ASIDE THEIR FINDINGS IF THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  THIS COURT
HAS NOT HERETOFORE DEPARTED FROM THAT RULE IN REVIEWING DEPORTATION
ORDERS UPON COLLATERAL ATTACK BY HABEAS CORPUS, TISI V. TOD, 264 U.S.
131; VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, 273 U.S. 103, 106;
COSTANZO V. TILLINGHAST, 287 U.S. 341, 343, AND CASES CITED, AND THERE
IS NO OCCASION FOR ITS DOING SO NOW. 

CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY POWER OVER THE DEPORTATION
OF ALIENS, HAS DIRECTED THE DEPORTATION OF ANY ALIEN WHO, AT THE TIME
OF HIS ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES OR AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, HAS BEEN
A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH "ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY,
OR GROUP, THAT BELIEVES IN, ADVISES, ADVOCATES, OR TEACHES  ...  THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
...  (OR) THAT WRITES, CIRCULATES, DISTRIBUTES, PRINTS, PUBLISHES, OR
DISPLAYS  ...  ANY WRITTEN OR PRINTED MATTER" ADVISING, ADVOCATING OR
TEACHING THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.  SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, C. 186,
40 STAT. 1012, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 5, 1920, C. 251, 41 STAT.
1008-1009, AND THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, C. 439, 54 STAT. 673, 8 U.S.C.
SEC. 137. 

CONGRESS HAS COMMITTED THE CONDUCT OF DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WITH NO PROVISION FOR
DIRECT REVIEW OF HIS ACTION BY THE COURTS.  INSTEAD IT HAS PROVIDED
THAT HIS DECISION SHALL BE "FINAL," 8 U.S.C. SEC. 155, AS IT MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY DO. ZAKONAITE V. WOLF, 226 U.S. 272, 275, AND CASES
CITED.  ONLY IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS, MAY COURTS INQUIRE WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS
EXCEEDED HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY OR ACTED CONTRARY TO LAW OR THE
CONSTITUTION.  BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S. 149, 153; VAJTAUER V.
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, SUPRA.  AND WHEN THE AUTHORITY TO DEPORT
THE ALIEN TURNS ON A DETERMINATION OF FACT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE
COURTS, AS WE HAVE SAID, ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DISTURB HIS FINDING
IF IT HAS THE SUPPORT OF EVIDENCE OF ANY PROBATIVE VALUE. 

IN THIS PROCEEDING, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOLLOWING THE PRESCRIBED
PROCEDURE, ISSUED A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF PETITIONER, CHARGING THAT
AFTER HIS ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES, HE HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF AND
AFFILIATED WITH ORGANIZATIONS OF THE TYPE REFERRED TO IN THE PART OF
THE DEPORTATION STATUTE WE HAVE QUOTED.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS
AUTHORIZED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS, APPOINTED THE
HONORABLE CHARLES B. SEARS, AN EXPERIENCED JUDGE FORMERLY OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, TO ACT AS AN INSPECTOR TO HEAR EVIDENCE ON THE
CHARGES.  THE HEARINGS BEFORE JUDGE SEARS EXTENDED OVER A PERIOD OF
NEARLY THREE MONTHS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND BY PETITIONER, WHO WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  THE
EVIDENCE IS CONTAINED IN MORE THAN SEVENTY-FIVE HUNDRED TYPEWRITTEN
PAGES OF THE RECORD AND IN THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY-NINE EXHIBITS.  THE
RECORD IN THIS COURT COVERS SOME SEVENTY-EIGHT HUNDRED PRINTED PAGES. 

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARINGS, JUDGE SEARS MADE HIS MEMORANDUM
DECISION, IN WHICH HE FOUND THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE MARINE WORKERS' INDUSTRIAL UNION WERE, AT ALL RELEVANT
TIMES, EACH AN ORGANIZATION WHICH BELIEVED IN AND ADVOCATED THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY ALSO WROTE, CIRCULATED, DISTRIBUTED,
PRINTED, PUBLISHED AND DISPLAYED PRINTED MATTER ADVISING, ADVOCATING OR
TEACHING THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THOSE FINDINGS ARE NOT CHALLENGED HERE.  JUDGE SEARS
ALSO FOUND THAT PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION, AND RECOMMENDED
THAT HE BE DEPORTED, ON TWO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT GROUNDS:  (A) THAT
HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND (B)
THAT HE WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND WITH THE MARINE
WORKERS' INDUSTRIAL UNION, WHICH WAS A PART OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF
THE UNITED STATES. 

AS WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE FINDING OF BRIDGES' MEMBERSHIP IN THE
COMMUNIST PARTY, STANDING ALONE, SUPPORTS THE DEPORTATION ORDER, AND
THAT THE FINDING IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY TO
CONSIDER OTHER CONTENTIONS TO WHICH THE COURT'S OPINION IS PRINCIPALLY
DIRECTED.  THE EVIDENCE OF MEMBERSHIP IS OF TWO KINDS, AND MAY BE
BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED.  IT CONSISTS OF BACKGROUND TESTIMONY OF NUMEROUS
WITNESSES, MUCH OF IT UNCONTRADICTED, WHICH JUDGE SEARS FOUND TO BE
TRUE AND WHICH SHOWED THAT BRIDGES HAD LONG AND CONTINUOUSLY ASSOCIATED
WITH COMMUNISTS AND COMMUNIST PARTY ORGANIZATIONS, AND HAD EXHIBITED A
SYMPATHETIC ATTITUDE TOWARD THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND ITS PROGRAM.  MORE
IMPORTANT AND DECISIVE OF THE ISSUE NOW BEFORE US IS EVIDENCE
CONCERNING BRIDGES' INTERVIEWS WITH TWO WITNESSES WHICH, IF TRUE, AS TO
EITHER INTERVIEW, SHOWED THAT BRIDGES, BOTH BY HIS WORDS AND CONDUCT,
PROVED HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE PARTY. 

ONE WITNESS, LUNDEBERG, A PROMINENT LABOR LEADER, TESTIFIED THAT HE
HAD DINED AT BRIDGES' HOME IN 1935; THAT BRIDGES, ALONG WITH A MEMBER
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY WHO WAS ALSO PRESENT, URGED THE WITNESS TO JOIN
THE COMMUNIST PARTY; AND THAT THIS TOOK PLACE IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO
MEMBERS OF BRIDGES' FAMILY AND HIS SECRETARY.  LUNDEBERG TESTIFIED THAT
BRIDGES SAID ON THAT OCCASION:  "YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE AFRAID BECAUSE
NOBODY HAS TO KNOW YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY  ... YOU
DON'T HAVE TO BE AFRAID BECAUSE I AM ONE TOO ...  I AM A MEMBER OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY."  BRIDGES DENIED MAKING THESE STATEMENTS, ALTHOUGH HE
ADMITTED THAT THE WITNESS HAD DINED WITH HIM AT HIS HOME IN 1935 WHEN
SEVERAL MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY WERE PRESENT.  THE OTHERS SAID TO BE
PRESENT FAILED TO TESTIFY AND THEIR ABSENCE FROM THE WITNESS STAND IS
UNEXPLAINED. 

THE OTHER WITNESS, O'NEIL, WHO WAS THE PUBLICITY DIRECTOR OF THE
C.I.O., A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, AND AN INTIMATE OF BRIDGES,
AND WHO SHARED OFFICES WITH HIM AFTER 1936, MADE A STATEMENT TO MEMBERS
OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THAT IN 1937 HE SAW BRIDGES IN
HIS OFFICE PASTING ASSESSMENT STAMPS (RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT OF COMMUNIST
PARTY DUES) IN A COMMUNIST PARTY BOOK, WHICH THE WITNESS WAS CERTAIN
WAS PETITIONER'S MEMBERSHIP BOOK IN THE PARTY, AND THAT BRIDGES ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS REMINDED THE WITNESS THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN ATTENDING
PARTY MEETINGS.  THE ACCURACY OF THE STATEMENT, AS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE,
WAS VERIFIED BY THE STENOGRAPHER WHO, TESTIFYING AS A WITNESS, READ THE
STATEMENT FROM HER STENOGRAPHIC NOTES.  MAJOR SCHOFIELD, A SPECIAL
ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TESTIFIED THAT O'NEIL HAD REPEATED
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME STATEMENT TO HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO
WITNESSES.  O'NEIL, WHO HAD DEMONSTRATED HIS HOSTILITY TO THE
GOVERNMENT AND HIS UNWILLINGNESS TO TESTIFY, TESTIFIED, WHEN HE WAS
CALLED AS A GOVERNMENT WITNESS, THAT HE HAD MADE TWO STATEMENTS AT THE
TIMES AND IN THE MANNER INDICATED, AND THAT THEY WERE TRUE STATEMENTS,
BUT HE DENIED THAT HE HAD SAID THAT BRIDGES WAS A COMMUNIST OR THAT HE
HAD SEEN HIM PASTING ASSESSMENT STAMPS IN A COMMUNIST PARTY BOOK. 

JUDGE SEARS, WHO SAW AND HEARD THE WITNESSES, RULED THAT THE PRIOR
STATEMENTS OF O'NEIL WERE ADMISSIBLE.  HE DECLARED IN HIS DECISION THAT
HE BELIEVED AND ACCEPTED AS TRUE LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY AND O'NEIL'S
PRIOR STATEMENTS; THAT EACH SUPPORTED HIS FINDINGS THAT BRIDGES WAS A
PARTY MEMBER; AND THAT EACH WAS CORROBORATED BY BRIDGES' ASSOCIATIONS
WITH COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERS AND ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL AS BY OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES, APPEARING IN THE TESTIMONY, AND WHICH IT IS UNNECESSARY
TO DETAIL.  ON REVIEW THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS PROPOSED
FINDINGS, WHICH WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE FINDINGS OF JUDGE SEARS AS
UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DECLINED TO FOLLOW THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD, BUT INSTEAD ADOPTED THE FINDINGS OF JUDGE
SEARS.  HE THEREFORE ORDERED PETITIONER'S DEPORTATION. 

ON THIS RECORD WE HAVE ONLY A SINGLE QUESTION TO DECIDE.  WAS THERE
SOME EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OF JUDGE SEARS AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL THAT BRIDGES WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY?  IF THERE
WAS, THEN, AS WE HAVE SAID, WE HAVE NO FURTHER FUNCTION TO PERFORM AND
THE JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED.  TO DETERMINE THAT ISSUE WE NEED NOT
LOOK BEYOND THE TESTIMONY OF LUNDEBERG.  IF HIS TESTIMONY IS TO BE
BELIEVED, BRIDGES ADMITTED HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CARRY CONVICTION OF THE TRUTH OF THE FACT
ADMITTED.  IT WAS FOR THE HEARING OFFICER, JUDGE SEARS, AND THE TRIER
OF FACT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, NOT THE COURTS, TO SAY WHETHER LUNDEBERG
WAS TO BE BELIEVED.  IN DECIDING THAT ISSUE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICIALS COULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, AS THEY DID, THE FACTS THAT FOUR
PERSONS, ALL EVIDENTLY FRIENDLY TO BRIDGES, AND WHO ACCORDING TO THE
TESTIMONY WERE PRESENT AT THE INTERVIEW BETWEEN LUNDEBERG AND BRIDGES,
FAILED TO TESTIFY AND THAT BRIDGES' FAILURE TO CALL THEM AS WITNESSES
STANDS UNEXPLAINED.  INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208,
225-226, AND CASES CITED.    THE CONCLUSION WHICH THE TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, CHARGED WITH FINDING THE FACTS, HAVE DRAWN
FROM THIS TESTIMONY, IS NOT TO BE BRUSHED ASIDE BY SAYING THAT THE
O'NEIL STATEMENTS ARE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AND THAT THE TRIERS OF
FACT WOULD NOT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE ACCEPTED LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY WITHOUT
O'NEIL'S.  FOR NEITHER JUDGE SEARS NOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MADE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE ONE DEPENDENT ON ACCEPTANCE OF THE OTHER.  NOT A WORD
IN JUDGE SEARS' DECISION OR THAT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUGGESTS THAT
THEY DID NOT REGARD THE TESTIMONY OF LUNDEBERG OR THE STATEMENTS OF
O'NEIL, EACH WITHOUT THE OTHER, AS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THEIR FINDING
THAT BRIDGES WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  ON THE CONTRARY,
EACH DECLARED THAT HE ACCEPTED LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY AND O'NEIL'S
STATEMENTS, AND THAT HE BELIEVED EACH.  IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID, WITHOUT
MORE, THAT THEY DID NOT ACCEPT THE CREDITED EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY EACH
WITNESS AS SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO SUPPORT THEIR FINDING OF PARTY
MEMBERSHIP. 

BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT STOP THERE.  BOTH JUDGE SEARS AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL EXAMINED THE LUNDEBERG AND THE O'NEIL TESTIMONY
SEPARATELY AND MADE SEPARATE FINDINGS AS TO THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO
EACH.  THE FINDINGS OF JUDGE SEARS, ADOPTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
SHOW AFFIRMATIVELY THAT BOTH OFFICIALS ACCEPTED THE TESTIMONY OF
LUNDEBERG AND THE STATEMENTS OF O'NEIL, AS INDEPENDENTLY SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT BRIDGES WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. 

LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY RELATED WHOLLY TO HIS INTERVIEW WITH BRIDGES IN
1935.  OF LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY, JUDGE SEARS SAID: 

"THE QUESTION FOR ME TO ANSWER IS WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS
ESTABLISHED THAT BRIDGES ADMITTED TO LUNDEBERG AT THE TIME SPECIFIED
THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  IF HE DID SO ADMIT, IT IS
IN MY JUDGMENT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE FACT."  AFTER EXAMINING
LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY, AND CONSIDERING HIS DEMEANOR ON THE WITNESS
STAND, AND THE STRONGLY CORROBORATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT OTHERS, WHO
WERE IN A POSITION TO DENY HIS TESTIMONY, HAD FAILED TO DO SO, JUDGE
SEARS SAID: 

"I REACH THE CONCLUSION, THEREFORE, THAT THE CONVERSATION DID TAKE
PLACE SUBSTANTIALLY AS TESTIFIED BY LUNDEBERG AND THAT BRIDGES DID THEN
AND THERE ADMIT TO LUNDEBERG THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY."  THUS JUDGE SEARS CLEARLY STATED THAT LUNDEBERG'S TESTIMONY
ALONE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS A MEMBER
OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN 1935. 

AT THE CONCLUSION OF HIS LIKE EXAMINATION OF O'NEIL'S STATEMENTS,
WHICH RELATED WHOLLY TO O'NEIL'S INTERVIEW WITH BRIDGES IN 1937, JUDGE
SEARS SAID: 

"HAVING THUS CONCLUDED THAT O'NEIL MADE THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO
HIM BY MRS. SEGERSTROM (THE STENOGRAPHER) AND MAJOR SCHOFIELD, I AM
ALSO CONVINCED OF THEIR TRUTH.  I DO NOT OVERLOOK O'NEIL'S REPUDIATION
OF THE STATEMENTS OR BRIDGES' DENIALS OF THE FACTS RECITED THEREIN. 

"TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE EVIDENCE BEARING ON THIS PHASE OF
THE PROCEEDING, I CONCLUDE THAT IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE NARRATIONS
CONTAINED IN O'NEIL'S STATEMENT TO MRS. SEGERSTROM AND IN HIS
CONVERSATION IN THE PRESENCE OF MAJOR SCHOFIELD ARE THE TRUTH, AND I
FIND THE FACT THAT IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH THAT BRIDGES WAS IN 1937, A
MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY." 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AFTER A LIKE SEPARATE EXAMINATION OF THE
LUNDEBERG AND O'NEIL EVIDENCE, MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HE ACCEPTED
JUDGE SEARS' FINDINGS AS TO EACH.  HE TOO SAID THAT THE QUESTION AS TO
EACH WITNESS WAS A MATTER OF HIS CREDIBILITY, AND THAT HE BELIEVED THE
WITNESS, RATHER THAN PETITIONER, BECAUSE ON THIS POINT HE ACCEPTED
JUDGE SEARS' FINDING THAT THEY, AND NOT BRIDGES, WERE TO BE BELIEVED. 
THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT THE ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICERS, WHOSE
CONCURRENT FINDINGS WE ARE BOUND TO ACCEPT IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE,
DID NOT MAKE THEIR FINDING, FROM THE LUNDEBERG TESTIMONY, THAT BRIDGES
WAS A PARTY MEMBER IN 1935, DEPENDENT IN ANY DEGREE UPON THEIR FINDING,
FROM THE O'NEIL EVIDENCE, THAT BRIDGES WAS A MEMBER OF THE PARTY IN
1937, OR VICE VERSA.  THIS IS PARTICULARLY THE CASE SINCE LUNDEBERG'S
AND O'NEIL'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT CUMULATIVE AS TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE
COMMUNIST PARTY AT A SINGLE TIME; EACH TESTIFIED AS TO A DIFFERENT
TIME, SOME TWO YEARS APART. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN AN INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH IN
HIS DECISION, SAID: "HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE OF TWO WITNESSES IS ACCEPTED
AS SHOWING THAT BRIDGES WAS A MEMBER OF THE PARTY.  IF THIS EVIDENCE IS
BELIEVED - AND JUDGE SEARS BELIEVED IT - THE DOUBT IS DECIDED."  BUT HE
WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE QUESTION WAS ONE OF CREDIBILITY, AND THAT JUDGE
SEARS, WHO SAW THE WITNESSES, WAS IN A FAR BETTER POSITION TO DECIDE
THAT QUESTION THAN THE REVIEW BOARD.  HE CONTINUED WITH A SEPARATE
DISCUSSION OF EACH WITNESS AND HIS TESTIMONY.  HE CONCLUDED AS TO EACH,
WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE OTHER, THAT THE WITNESS SHOULD BE BELIEVED
RATHER THAN BRIDGES, AND THAT JUDGE SEARS' CONCLUSION AS TO THE
CREDIBILITY OF EACH (WHICH WAS NOT DEPENDENT UPON HIS LIKE CONCLUSION
AS TO THE OTHER) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 

THE RECORD THUS CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THAT BOTH JUDGE SEARS AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOUND, ON THE LUNDEBERG TESTIMONY ALONE, THAT BRIDGES
WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN 1935.  THAT FINDING IS SUPPORTED
BY THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF LUNDEBERG, WHICH WAS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
AND HAS PROBATIVE FORCE.  AS IT SUPPORTS THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF
JUDGE SEARS AND OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT BRIDGES WAS A PARTY MEMBER
AT THAT TIME, WE CANNOT REJECT THAT FINDING. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS CONCEDING THAT O'NEIL'S PRIOR
STATEMENTS WERE IMPROPERLY ADMITTED.  THE COURT REJECTS THEM ON TWO
GROUNDS, THAT THEY WERE ADMITTED IN VIOLATION OF DEPARTMENTAL
REGULATIONS, AND THAT AS HEARSAY THEY WERE SO UNTRUSTWORTHY AS TO MAKE
THEM INADMISSIBLE IN ANY EVENT.  WE THINK NEITHER GROUND TENABLE. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
DEPORTATION CASES CALLING FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY CONCERNING
O'NEIL'S PRIOR STATEMENTS.  FN1  RULE 150.1 PROVIDES THAT STATEMENTS
SECURED DURING AN INVESTIGATION "WHICH ARE TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE"
SHALL BE MADE UNDER OATH, AND TAKEN DOWN IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE
PERSON INTERROGATED.  SUCH A STATEMENT IS DENOMINATED A "RECORDED
STATEMENT" BY THE RULE.  THE PURPOSE OF SECURING RECORDED STATEMENTS IS
OBVIOUSLY TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE IN A READILY AVAILABLE FORM, AND TO
INSURE THAT BEFORE A WARRANT OF ARREST IS ISSUED, THERE IS CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON INVESTIGATED IS AN ALIEN AND IS SUBJECT TO
DEPORTATION.  IT PROVIDES NEITHER EXPLICITLY NOR BY IMPLICATION THAT
STATEMENTS OTHER THAN RECORDED STATEMENTS ARE INADMISSIBLE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT RULE 150.6 EXCLUDES "RECORDED" STATEMENTS UNLESS THE
MAKER OF THE STATEMENT IS UNAVAILABLE, REFUSES TO TESTIFY OR GIVES
INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY.  THESE RESTRICTIONS ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EX
PARTE RECORDED STATEMENTS HARDLY CAN BE STRAINED INTO A SWEEPING
EXCLUSION OF ALL UNRECORDED STATEMENTS, OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE IN THE
PROCEEDING.  INDEED THE RULE ON ITS FACE QUITE CLEARLY PERMITS AN
INSPECTOR TO TESTIFY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY PERSONS WHO ARE
UNAVAILABLE, REFUSE TO TESTIFY OR GIVE TESTIMONY CONTRADICTORY TO A
PRIOR STATEMENT.  FN2  THE STATEMENTS AS TO WHICH THE INSPECTOR MAY
TESTIFY ARE NOT RESTRICTED BY THE TERMS OF THE RULE TO RECORDED
STATEMENTS.  HENCE JUDGE SEARS' RULING THAT MRS. SEGERSTROM AND MAJOR
SCHOFIELD COULD TESTIFY, UNDER OATH, THAT O'NEIL HAD MADE STATEMENTS TO
THEM IN CONTRADICTION WITH HIS TESTIMONY ON THE STAND, WAS NOT IN
CONFLICT WITH THE DEPARTMENTAL RULES. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS IN ANY EVENT INADMISSIBLE.  THAT
THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS
IRRELEVANT HERE, SINCE A DEPORTATION PROCEEDING IS NOT A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.  BUGAJEWITZ V. ADAMS, 228 U.S. 585, 591 AND CASES CITED;
BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, SUPRA, 154-155; MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32, 39.  AND
NO PRINCIPLE OF LAW HAS BEEN BETTER SETTLED THAN THAT THE TECHNICAL
RULES FOR THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE, APPLICABLE IN TRIALS IN COURTS,
PARTICULARLY THE HEARSAY RULE, NEED NOT BE FOLLOWED IN DEPORTATION
PROCEEDINGS, BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, SUPRA, 157, AND CASES CITED; TISI V.
TOD, SUPRA, 133; VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, SUPRA, 106,
MORE THAN IN OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO.
V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 229-230, AND CASES CITED; OPP COTTON
MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 155, AND CASES CITED.  THE ONLY
OBJECTIONS THAT CAN BE TAKEN TO THE EVIDENCE IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE
NOT TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY, BUT TO ITS PROBATIVE VALUE.  SEE CONSOLIDATED
EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 230. 

JUDGE SEARS COMPLETELY AND ACCURATELY RULED ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
MRS. SEGERSTROM'S AND MAJOR SCHOFIELD'S TESTIMONY AS TO O'NEIL'S
EARLIER STATEMENTS TO THEM.  HE SAID: 

"WHATEVER MAY BE THE COMMON-LAW RULE IN RELATION TO THE RECEPTION OF
SUCH EVIDENCE AS THAT OF MRS. SEGERSTROM AND MAJOR SCHOFIELD, IN THIS
HEARING THE PARTIES ARE NOT CONFINED TO COMMON-LAW PROOF.  HEARSAY IS
ADMISSIBLE BUT THE CHARACTER OF SUCH EVIDENCE IS AN ELEMENT TO BE USED
IN ITS EVALUATION.  THE PRINCIPAL REASON FOR THE EXCLUSION OF HEARSAY
AT COMMON LAW IS THAT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ABSENT. 
IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SANCTION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS PRESENT. 
ALTHOUGH THE STATEMENT GIVEN TO MRS. SEGERSTROM AND THE STATEMENT MADE
IN THE PRESENCE OF MAJOR SCHOFIELD WERE NOT UNDER OATH, THERE IS
SOMETHING EQUIVALENT, FOR O'NEIL TESTIFIED ON THE STAND THAT HE TOLD
THE TRUTH IN HIS INTERVIEW WITH THE AGENTS OF THE F.B.I. AND IN THE
INTERVIEW AT WHICH MAJOR SCHOFIELD WAS PRESENT.  THERE IS IN MY
OPINION, THEREFORE, EVERY REASON WHY THIS TESTIMONY SHOULD BE HEARD AND
CONSIDERED AS SUBSTANTIVE PROOF.  IT FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HERETOFORE QUOTED." 

HE APPENDED IN A FOOTNOTE: 

"(1)  THIS VIEW IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY DEAN WIGMORE IN THE 3RD EDITION
OF HIS WORK (3 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, 3RD ED., SECTION 1018(B)):  'IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW, HOWEVER, THAT PRIOR SELF-CONTRADICTIONS, WHEN ADMITTED, ARE
TO BE TREATED AS HAVING NO AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONIAL VALUE, AND THAT ANY
SUCH CREDIT IS TO BE STRICTLY DENIED THEM IN THE MIND OF THE TRIBUNAL. 
THE ONLY GROUND FOR SO DOING WOULD BE THE HEARSAY RULE.  BUT THE THEORY
OF THE HEARSAY RULE IS THAT AN EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENT IS REJECTED
BECAUSE IT WAS MADE OUT OF COURT BY AN ABSENT PERSON NOT SUBJECT TO
CROSS-EXAMINATION....  HERE, HOWEVER, BY HYPOTHESIS THE WITNESS IS
PRESENT AND SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.  THERE IS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY
TO TEST HIM AS TO THE BASIS FOR HIS FORMER STATEMENT.  THE WHOLE
PURPOSE OF THE HEARSAY RULE HAS BEEN ALREADY SATISFIED.  HENCE THERE IS
NOTHING TO PREVENT THE TRIBUNAL FROM GIVING SUCH TESTIMONIAL CREDIT TO
THE EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENT AS IT MAY SEEM TO DESERVE.  PSYCHOLOGICALLY
OF COURSE, THE ONE STATEMENT IS AS USEFUL TO CONSIDER AS THE OTHER; AND
EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE OF COURT-ROOMS IS IN ACCORD.'"  SEE ALSO
OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, SUPRA, 155, AND CASES CITED.  FN3 

WE THINK THAT THE O'NEIL STATEMENTS WERE PROPERLY ADMITTED AND THAT,
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LUNDEBERG TESTIMONY, THEY WARRANTED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S FINDING THAT BRIDGES WAS A PARTY MEMBER. 

WITH INCREASING FREQUENCY THIS COURT IS CALLED UPON TO APPLY THE
RULE, WHICH IT HAS FOLLOWED FOR MANY YEARS, IN DEPORTATION CASES AS
WELL AS IN OTHER REVIEWS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THAT WHEN THERE
IS EVIDENCE MORE THAN A SCINTILLA, AND NOT UNBELIEVABLE ON ITS FACE, IT
IS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO DETERMINE ITS CREDIBILITY AND
WEIGHT.  WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501, 508; TRADE
COMMISSION V. EDUCATION SOCIETY, 302 U.S. 112, 117; CONSOLIDATED EDISON
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 229; LABOR BOARD V. NEVADA COPPER CO., 316
U.S. 105; MARSHALL V. PLETZ, 317 U.S. 383, 388; LABOR BOARD V. SOUTHERN
BELL CO., 319 U.S. 50, 60; MEDO CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 678, 681
682.  WE CANNOT RIGHTLY REJECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING HERE AND
ACCEPT, AS WE DO ALMOST EACH WEEK, PARTICULARLY IN OUR DENIALS OF
CERTIORARI, THE FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES WHICH REST ON THE
TENUOUS SUPPORT OF EVIDENCE FAR LESS PERSUASIVE THAN THE PRESENT RECORD
PRESENTS.  THAT IS ESPECIALLY THE CASE HERE, SINCE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE ALL CONCURRED
IN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE
FINDINGS.  CORYELL V. PHIPPS, 317 U.S. 406, 411; UNITED STATES V.
JOHNSON, 319 U.S. 503, 518; MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., 321 U.S. 96,
99, AND CASES CITED; GOODYEAR CO. V. RAY-O-VAC CO., 321 U.S. 275, 278. 

PETITIONER HAS MADE A NUMBER OF OTHER ARGUMENTS WHICH THE COURT FINDS
IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS.  WE THINK THAT THEY TOO ARE WITHOUT MERIT. 
WE WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  THE OPINION OF THE COURT STATES THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CONCEDED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES.  THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MADE NO SUCH CONCESSION IN THIS COURT.  AND WE
THINK THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DECISION, WHICH IS QUOTED BY THE
COURT, WHEN FAIRLY READ, STATED NO MORE THAN THAT THE OBJECTION BASED
ON THE RULES CAME TOO LATE; THAT HAD THE QUESTION BEEN RAISED IN TIME,
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED (IT WAS NOT STATED
WHAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES WOULD HAVE ENTAILED); THAT IF THE
INSPECTOR, AFTER DELIBERATION, THEN HAD REJECTED THE OBJECTION BASED ON
THE RULES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN "APPROPRIATE" TO RAISE THE OBJECTIONS
BEFORE THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS; AND THAT THE RIGHT TO RAISE
THE OBJECTION HAD BEEN WAIVED.  PLAINLY HE DID NOT STATE OR SUGGEST
THAT OBJECTIONS TO THEIR ADMISSIBILITY WOULD HAVE BEEN VALID IF TIMELY
MADE, AND THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR HIM TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION. 
FN2  RULE 150.6(I) PROVIDES, IN PART:  "AN AFFIDAVIT OF AN INSPECTOR AS
TO THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE ALIEN OR ANY OTHER PERSON DURING AN
INVESTIGATION MAY BE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE, OTHERWISE THAN IN SUPPORT OF
THE TESTIMONY OF THE INSPECTOR, ONLY IF THE MAKER OF SUCH STATEMENT IS
UNAVAILABLE OR REFUSES TO TESTIFY AT THE WARRANT HEARING OR GIVES
TESTIMONY CONTRADICTING THE STATEMENT AND THE INSPECTOR IS UNAVAILABLE
TO TESTIFY IN PERSON." 

FN3  WIGMORE CONCEDES THAT HIS VIEWS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE
COURTS GENERALLY.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE TECHNICAL RULES OF
EVIDENCE APPLIED BY THE COURTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS.  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 229
230, AND CASES CITED; OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126,
155, AND CASES CITED.  FOR THAT REASON THE CONSIDERATIONS SUGGESTED BY
WIGMORE ARE CONTROLLING HERE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND JUDGE SEARS
COULD RIGHTLY CONSIDER O'NEIL'S STATEMENTS AS PROOF OF THE MATTERS
STATED.  BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S. 149, 157, AND CASES CITED; TISI V.
TOD, 264 U.S. 131, 133; VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, 273
U.S. 103, 106. 
..END :
















BARRETT LINE V. UNITED STATES, 326 U.S. 179 


NO. 630.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 18, 1945.  - AFFIRMED IN
PART - REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DENYING APPELLANT'S
APPLICATION FOR "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 309(F) OF PART III OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF A CONTRACT
CARRIER BY WATER, HELD ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO APPELLANT'S
CHARTERING OPERATIONS.  PP. 180, 199. 

THE COMMISSION ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN
CHARTERING OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO PART III ON THE CRITICAL DATE, FOR
FAILURE TO SHOW "THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED, THE COMMODITIES
CARRIED IN, OR THE POINTS SERVED WITH SUCH VESSELS."  P. 196. 

2.  AN APPLICANT FOR "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 309(F) IS NOT
REQUIRED TO SHOW, SO FAR AS CHARTERING OPERATIONS ARE CONCERNED, THAT
HIS CHARTERING OPERATIONS DURING THE CRITICAL PERIOD INCLUDED CARRIAGE
OF NONEXEMPT GOODS.  P. 196. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S DENIAL TO APPELLANT OF "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS
UNDER SEC. 309(F) FOR CONTRACT CARRIER OPERATIONS OTHER THAN
CHARTERING, AND DENIAL UNDER SEC. 309(G) OF A PERMIT FOR A "NEW
OPERATION," ARE SUSTAINED BY THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE.  PP. 199,
200. 

BARRETT LINE, INC. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DENIED APPELLANT A PERMIT TO ACT
AS A CONTRACT WATER CARRIER UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54
STAT. 898, PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WHICH SOUGHT REVIEW OF THAT
ORDER.  THE APPEAL IS FROM THIS JUDGMENT. 

IN MAY, 1941, APPELLANT APPLIED FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY GENERAL
COMMODITIES, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, BETWEEN POINTS ON THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES.  THE AUTHORITY SOUGHT WAS TO
"CONTINUE AN OPERATION IN EXISTENCE JANUARY 1, 1940, AND CONTINUOUSLY
THEREAFTER," AS A CONTRACT CARRIER OF PROPERTY OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES,
PURSUANT TO "GRANDFATHER RIGHTS" CLAIMED UNDER SEC. 309(F) OF PART
III.  FN1  A YEAR LATER, WHILE THE GRANDFATHER APPLICATION WAS PENDING,
APPELLANT FILED ANOTHER APPLICATION AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE.  THIS
SOUGHT, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO PERFORM THE SAME SERVICE AS A NEW
OPERATION "CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY" UNDER SEC. 309(G).  FN2 

PROTESTS WERE FILED BY OTHER CARRIERS AND THE TWO APPLICATIONS WERE
HEARD TOGETHER BEFORE AN EXAMINER IN SEPTEMBER, 1942.  HE CONCLUDED
THAT THE SHOWING DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING OF THE GRANDFATHER
APPLICATION, BUT RECOMMENDED GRANTING OF THE PERMIT UNDER SEC. 309(G). 
DIVISION IV HOWEVER DENIED BOTH APPLICATIONS, THAT UNDER SEC. 309(F)
FOR FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SHOWING OF ACTUAL OPERATIONS ON AND
AFTER THE CRUCIAL DATE, THE ONE UNDER SEC. 309(G) ON THE GROUND THAT
APPELLANT HAD "FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT IS PROPOSING ANY NEW OPERATION,
OR THAT A NEW OPERATION BY IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST OR THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, OR THAT PRESENT OR
FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE SUCH OPERATION."  A
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE FULL COMMISSION WAS DENIED AND THE
DISTRICT COURT ADOPTED ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN A PER CURIAM
OPINION. 

THE EVIDENCE CONSISTED OF EXHIBITS AND THE TESTIMONY OF APPELLANT'S
PRESIDENT, BARRETT.  THE STORY IS OF AN OLD-STYLE FAMILY INSTITUTION
WHICH, FOR FOUR GENERATIONS, HAS HAD PART IN LIFE ON THE MISSISSIPPI
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES.  AS TOLD BY CAPTAIN BARRETT, THE LINE NOT ONLY
PIONEERED IN THE GREAT DEVELOPMENT OF INLAND WATER TRANSPORTATION OF
THE MIDDLE NINETEENTH CENTURY.  ITS HISTORY HAS BEEN CONSTANTLY, DURING
THIS CENTURY, ONE OF PIONEERING IN VARIOUS FIELDS OF WATER
TRANSPORTATION.  AND THEREBY, THE INFERENCE SEEMS JUSTIFIED, HANGS THE
REASON FOR ITS SURVIVAL IN AN AGE WHEN WATER TRANSPORTATION, LIKE SO
MUCH ELSE OF INDUSTRY, HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER LARGELY BY CORPORATE OR
GOVERNMENTAL ENTERPRISE.  NOW THE VICISSITUDES OF REGULATION HAVE BEEN
ADDED TO THOSE OF COMPETITION, APPELLANT URGES, TO THREATEN ITS
CONTINUANCE. 

THE CONCERN, INCORPORATED IN 1926 AS SUCCESSOR TO INDIVIDUAL AND
PARTNERSHIP FORMS OF OPERATION, REMAINS SMALL.  AT THE TIME OF THE
HEARING IT OWNED TWENTY-ONE BARGES AND TWO TOWBOATS, WITH TWO DERRICK
BOATS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT.  CINCINNATI IS THE PORT OF REGISTRATION;
CAIRO, ILLINOIS, THE SITUS OF THE FLEET BY REASON OF ITS ACCESSIBILITY
TO CONJUNCTIONS OF MANY RIVERS. 

OPERATIONS HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN HIGHLY SELECTIVE AND VARIED IN
CHARACTER.  SINCE 1910, AT ANY RATE, THEY HAVE BEEN LIMITED GENERALLY
TO BULK MATERIALS, THE GREATER NUMBER OF WHICH MAY BE SUBJECTED TO
EXPOSURE TO WEATHER WITHOUT DAMAGE, SUCH AS SCRAP IRON, PIG IRON,
FABRICATED STEEL, PIPING, BAUXITE ORE, COAL, PAVING BRICK, AND STONE,
EXCLUDING SUCH ITEMS AS FURNITURE.  AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, HOWEVER,
AUTOMOBILES, SULPHUR, POWDER, GRAINS, SALT AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS HAVE
BEEN CARRIED.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, THE LINE HAS NOT HELD ITSELF OUT IN
THIS PERIOD AS A COMMON CARRIER AND DOES NOT NOW SEEK TO BECOME ONE. 
ITS BUSINESS HAS BEEN STRICTLY BY SPECIAL CONTRACT, NEGOTIATED WITH
REFERENCE TO THE SEASON, THE COURSE OF THE RIVER REQUIRED FOR THE
OPERATION, TIMES OF LOADING AND UNLOADING, AND OTHER SPECIAL FACTORS. 
IT IS, IN OTHER WORDS, AN IRREGULAR OPERATOR PERFORMING WHAT IT
CHARACTERIZES AS "SPECIAL AND SPORADIC SERVICES UNDER SPECIAL CONTRACTS
AND CONDITIONS."  THE SPORADIC AS WELL AS THE SPECIAL CHARACTER OF THE
SERVICE BECOMES IMPORTANT, AS WILL APPEAR, FOR APPELLANT'S POSITION ON
THE ISSUES. 

THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE AND THE CHARACTER OF THE EQUIPMENT ARE
CORRELATED.  THE BARGES ARE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, DESIGNED TO CARRY
DRY OR LIQUID CARGO, THE LATTER BY ADDING PIPING AND FITTINGS WHEN
REQUIRED.  AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, NINE HAD BEEN CONVERTED IN THIS
WAY AND WERE USED IN PETROLEUM TRAFFIC, THREE BY APPELLANT AND SIX
UNDER CHARTER TO THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF OHIO.  OF THOSE REMAINING,
SIX WERE UNDER CHARTER, TO BE CONVERTED TO PETROLEUM CARRIERS; TWO WERE
BEING USED IN CARRIAGE OF COAL; AND FOUR WERE "AVAILABLE FOR SUCH USE
AS WE PUT THEM TO."  CAPTAIN BARRETT TESTIFIED THAT IF THE MOVEMENT OF
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SHOULD CEASE THE TANKERS READILY COULD BE
RECONVERTED FOR HAULING DRY CARGO. 

THE SERVICE INCLUDES FREIGHTING, EITHER WITH APPELLANT'S OWN BARGES
AND POWER OR BY TOWING BARGES OWNED BY OTHERS.  IN ADDITION APPELLANT
ENGAGES IN CHARTERING, INCLUDING THE LEASING OR CHARTERING OF
EQUIPMENT, AT TIMES WITH CREW, TO OTHERS.  THE CHARTERING, ACCORDING TO
CAPTAIN BARRETT, INVOLVES "WIDE RAMIFICATIONS," OFTEN WITH DIFFICULTY
IN DETERMINING "JUST WHO IS THE OPERATOR, WHETHER IT IS THE SHIPPER WHO
IS RESPONSIBLE, AND THEREFORE, THE OPERATOR, OR WHETHER IT IS THE
CARRIER, WHO FURNISHES THE EQUIPMENT." 

TO ESTABLISH ITS RIGHT TO A PERMIT, WHETHER "GRANDFATHER" OR "NEW
OPERATION," APPELLANT OFFERED EVIDENCE CONSISTING OF AN EXHIBIT LISTING
ALL OF ITS OPERATIONS FROM JANUARY 1, 1936, TO AUGUST 11, 1942, WITH
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE NAME OF THE CUSTOMER, ORIGIN AND
DESTINATION, AND NATURE OF THE CARGO.  NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO PROVE
SPECIFIC OPERATIONS IN SIMILAR DETAIL PRIOR TO THE FORMER DATE.  BUT A
WRITTEN "STATEMENT OF THE HISTORY, TYPE AND SCOPE OF OPERATIONS AND
SERVICES OF THE BARRETT LINE, INC.," SUBSTANTIATED BY THE TESTIMONY OF
CAPTAIN BARRETT, DESCRIBED IN A GENERAL WAY THE CHARACTER AND SCOPE OF
SUCH MOVEMENTS. 

THE GENERAL EFFECT OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE WAS TO SHOW THE VARIED
AND SPORADIC CHARACTER OF THE OPERATIONS FROM ABOUT 1910.  IT APPEARED
THAT THE COMPANY MIGHT BE WITHOUT CONTRACTS OR BUSINESS FOR INTERVALS
OF SEVERAL MONTHS AT A TIME.  MUCH OF ITS ACTIVITY WAS IN THE NATURE OF
"PIONEERING TRADES."  IN BRIEF THIS CONSISTED IN DEMONSTRATING THE
FEASIBILITY OF WATER TRANSPORTATION FOR PARTICULAR COMMODITIES. 
GENERALLY, WHEN THE DEMONSTRATION HAD BEEN MADE, THE RESULT WAS FOR THE
SHIPPER OR ANOTHER TO TAKE OVER THE OPERATION AND APPELLANT THEN WOULD
AWAIT OR SEEK ANOTHER SIMILAR OPPORTUNITY.  FN3 

THE EVIDENCE, BEING GENERAL IN CHARACTER, WAS LACKING TO A LARGE
EXTENT IN DATES CONCERNING SPECIFIC OPERATIONS DURING THE LATTER PART
OF THE PERIOD; SO THAT FOR SOME TEN OR TWELVE YEARS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,
1936, IT IS DIFFICULT TO GATHER WHAT SPECIFIC KINDS OF MOVEMENTS WERE
BEING MADE, FOR WHOM, BETWEEN WHAT POINTS AND WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT
MATERIALS.  HOWEVER, THE GENERAL INFERENCE WOULD SEEM JUSTIFIED THAT
ANY SUITED TO THE EQUIPMENT AND THE RATHER INDEFINITE CRITERIA USED FOR
NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS WERE TAKEN WHEN OPPORTUNITY OFFERED; OTHERWISE
THE FLEET REMAINED IDLE. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EVIDENCE SUPPLIED BY THE EXHIBIT CONCERNING
MOVEMENTS BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1936, AND AUGUST 11, 1942, IS MUCH MORE
DEFINITE.  IN ALL INSTANCES WHERE THE SPECIFIC CHARACTER OF THE CARGO
IS MENTIONED, EXCEPT ONE SHIPMENT OF FABRICATED STEEL AND PILING IN
1936, EITHER STONE OR PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, INCLUDING GASOLINE AND
FURNACE OIL, EXEMPT COMMODITIES, ARE MENTIONED.  A VERY CONSIDERABLE
NUMBER OF ITEMS DESIGNATE "MISCELLANEOUS CARGO" AND THERE WERE SOME 44
INSTANCES NOTED SIMPLY AS "CHARTER," WITHOUT REFERENCE TO CHARACTER OF
THE CARGO, INCLUDING 23 IN WHICH EQUIPMENT WAS LEASED OR CHARTERED TO
SHIPPERS NOT CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  A FEW ITEMS SPECIFIED VESSEL
STORAGE, "DAMAGED BARGE," STEAMER AGROUND, FURNISHING STEAM AND LIKE
SERVICES TO OTHER CARRIERS.  IN TWO INSTANCES "TOWING" WAS SPECIFIED
FOR "U.S. ENGINEERS." 

THE "MISCELLANEOUS CARGO" ITEMS LARGELY INVOLVED TOWING LOADED BARGES
OF OTHER CARRIERS, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN BARGE LINE AND THE
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE.  IN SOME INSTANCES BARRETT IDENTIFIED
THE SPECIFIC CARGOES, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, A MOVEMENT OF THE FORMER
COMPANY'S BARGES LOADED WITH SCRAP IRON, SUGAR AND MOLASSES AND SOME OF
THE LATTER'S BEARING PACKAGED FREIGHT.  IN SUCH CASES, HOWEVER, SINCE
ONLY MOTIVE POWER WAS FURNISHED, AND TO ANOTHER CARRIER, APPELLANT
DISCLAIMED RELYING UPON THE MOVEMENTS "TO ESTABLISH THAT HE (IT) IS A
COMMON CARRIER OF GENERAL COMMODITIES," BUT PUT THEM IN "TO SHOW THE
GENERAL SWEEP AND CHARACTER OF THE SERVICE PERFORMED" AS A CONTRACT
CARRIER.  BARRETT TESTIFIED THAT APPELLANT DID NOT ALWAYS KNOW WHAT WAS
IN SUCH BARGES, THAT THE CHARGES WERE ON A PER DIEM BASIS AND IT
THEREFORE MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO APPELLANT WHAT WAS IN THE BARGES. 

THE DIFFERENCE, IF ANY, BETWEEN THIS TOWING AND CHARTERING WHEN
LABELLED AS SUCH IS SOMEWHAT NEBULOUS, IF INDEED IT IS AT ALL
MATERIAL.  BUT CONCERNING THE LATTER THE WITNESS GAVE SIMILAR
TESTIMONY:  THAT APPELLANT'S CHARGES, WHETHER FOR MOTIVE POWER, BARGES
OR BOTH, WERE ON A PER DIEM BASIS, EXCEPT IN ONE INSTANCE SPECIFYING A
BARREL RATE; AND THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE CHARACTER OF
THE CARGO OR WHERE THE BOATS WENT, ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY'S TRIP SHEETS,
NOT PRESENTED IN EVIDENCE, WOULD SHOW THE LATTER. 

THE ONLY EVIDENCE, APART FROM THE EXHIBIT, AS TO OPERATIONS AFTER
JANUARY 1, 1940, CONSISTED IN BARRETT'S TESTIMONY, SUMMARIZED ABOVE,
RELATING TO APPELLANT'S EQUIPMENT AND ITS USE AT THE TIME OF THE
HEARING.  THIS, AS MAY BE RECALLED, RELATED EXCLUSIVELY TO
TRANSPORTATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, DIRECTLY OR UNDER CHARTER; THE
USE OF TWO BARGES FOR CARRYING COAL; THE AVAILABILITY OF FOUR OTHERS
"FOR SUCH USE AS WE PUT THEM TO." 

IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT, ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE, ONE FACTOR
INDUCING THE CONCENTRATION UPON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AFTER 1940 WAS THE
EFFECT OF THE WAR EMERGENCY UPON THE CARRIAGE OF THESE PRODUCTS FROM
SOUTHWESTERN PRODUCING FIELDS TO CENTRAL AND EASTERN COMMUNITIES,
TOGETHER WITH ENCOURAGEMENT THE LINE RECEIVED FROM OFFICIALS OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO CONVERT ITS BARGES INTO TANKERS AND ENGAGE IN THIS
BUSINESS.  IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT, WITH RETURN TO NORMAL MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION AS THE WAR EMERGENCY PASSES, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW
FACILITIES ACCELERATED BY IT, THE LIFE SPAN OF THIS CONCENTRATION IS
LIKELY TO REPEAT APPELLANT'S TYPICAL "PIONEERING" PERFORMANCE. 

APPELLANT AND THE COMMISSION ARE AT ODDS UPON THE EFFECTS OF THE
SHOWING MADE CONCERNING MOVEMENTS ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936, AND AS
TO WHETHER THE COMMISSION ERRONEOUSLY REFUSED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF
EARLIER ONES SHOWN BY THE HISTORY PRIOR TO THAT TIME.  THE COMMISSION
THOUGHT THAT IT SHOULD DISREGARD THEM, MORE PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE
TO THE "GRANDFATHER" APPLICATION, AS BEING TOO REMOTE TO SUBSTANTIATE
THE CLAIM OF "BONA FIDE OPERATION" ON THE CRUCIAL DATE WITHIN SEC.
309(F); FN4  AND FOUND THAT THE MOVEMENTS SHOWN AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936,
WERE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMED RIGHTS BECAUSE ALL, EXCEPT
ONE, WERE OF EXEMPT COMMODITIES, INCLUDING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WHICH
WERE THE ONLY ONES CARRIED AFTER JANUARY 1, 1940, EXCEPT COAL, WHICH
ALSO IS EXEMPT. 

CAUGHT BETWEEN THE UPPER AND NETHER MILLSTONES, SO TO SPEAK, OF
DENIAL OF "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS AND A PERMIT FOR NEW OPERATIONS,  FN5
APPELLANT QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION'S LIMITATION OF EVIDENCE TO BE
CONSIDERED TO THAT AFFECTING OPERATIONS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936; ITS
EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, PARTICULARLY THAT
RELATING TO CHARTERING, AS SHOWING TRANSPORTATION OF EXEMPT COMMODITIES
ONLY; ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN THEIR BEARING
UPON THESE ISSUES, ESPECIALLY AS REQUIRING A SHOWING THAT CHARTERING
OPERATIONS INCLUDE NONEXEMPT COMMODITIES TO JUSTIFY ISSUANCE OF A
PERMIT; ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE SHOWING WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
THE APPLICATION FOR "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS; AND THE FURTHER CONCLUSIONS
CONCERNING THE SHOWING AS AFFECTING THE APPLICATION TO PERFORM NEW
OPERATIONS. 

THE SHORT EFFECT OF APPELLANT'S POSITION IS THAT THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION HAS LIMITED IT TO TRANSPORTATION OF EXEMPT COMMODITIES ONLY AND
THAT, IF SO LIMITED, GRAVE INJURY WILL RESULT FOR ITS BUSINESS.  IT
MAINTAINS THAT, IN VIEW OF ITS HISTORY AND THE FACTS PROPERLY
INTERPRETED, IT IS ENTITLED TO A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
COMMODITIES GENERALLY, THROUGHOUT THE MISSISSIPPI SYSTEM, INCLUDING ITS
TRIBUTARIES, AND THAT THE PERMIT PREFERABLY SHOULD BE UNDER THE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE; IF NOT, THEN FOR A "NEW OPERATION."    THE
CONTROVERSY HAS BECOME MOST CRUCIAL IN RELATION TO CHARTERING.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT THESE ACTIVITIES RELATED, IN THE CRUCIAL PERIOD
AND ON THE SHOWING MADE, ONLY TO EXEMPT COMMODITIES, FOR CARRIAGE OF
WHICH AUTHORITY IS NOT REQUIRED,  FN6 AND CONCLUDED THAT APPELLANT WAS
THEREFORE NOT ENGAGED IN CHARTERING OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO PART III OR
ENTITLED TO A PERMIT FOR THEM.  THE OPINION STATED:  "...  THE ONLY
TRANSPORTATION WHICH MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER PART III WAS
THAT OF CHARTERING OF VESSELS TO SHIPPERS.  HOWEVER, NO SHOWING IS MADE
AS TO THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED, THE COMMODITIES CARRIED IN,
OR THE POINTS SERVED WITH SUCH VESSELS.  ON SUCH MEAGER SHOWING WE
WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IN FINDING THAT APPLICANT, ON JANUARY 1, 1940,
AND CONTINUOUSLY SINCE, WAS ENGAGED IN CHARTERING OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO
PART III OF THE ACT." 

APPELLANT ATTACKS THIS FINDING AND THE CONCLUSION AS CONTRARY TO
LAW.  THE ARGUMENT IS FOUNDED UPON SEC. 302(E), WHICH DEFINES "CONTRACT
CARRIER BY WATER" AND PROVIDES THAT THE FURNISHING OF A VESSEL UNDER
CHARTER OR LEASE TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE ACT,
FOR USE IN TRANSPORTING THE LATTER'S PROPERTY, SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO
CONSTITUTE "ENGAGING IN TRANSPORTATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
DEFINITION OF "CONTRACT CARRIER BY WATER."  FN7 

ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT NO PERMIT IS REQUIRED IF ONLY EXEMPT
COMMODITIES ARE CARRIED IN CHARTERED VESSELS, APPELLANT CONSTRUES SEC.
302(E) TO ENTITLE IT TO A PERMIT IF ON THE CRUCIAL DATE IT WAS ENGAGED
IN BONA FIDE CHARTERING OPERATIONS, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE
COMMODITIES ACTUALLY CARRIED WERE EXEMPT OR NONEXEMPT.  IN THIS VIEW
THE ACT IS NOT CONCERNED, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO CHARTERING, WITH THE
CHARACTER OF THE COMMODITY, BUT TAKES ACCOUNT ONLY OF THE FURNISHING OF
THE VESSEL; AND THE COMMISSION, BY REQUIRING A SHOWING AS TO THE NATURE
OF THE COMMODITY, ADDED A REQUIREMENT NOT INCLUDED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE
STATUTE. 

ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY DISCLOSED NUMEROUS CHARTER
OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CRITICAL PERIOD, APPELLANT DRAWS TWO CONCLUSIONS:
(1) THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO GRANDFATHER RIGHTS FOR CHARTERING, AS
SUCH, AND TO A PERMIT FOR SUCH OPERATIONS WHICH WOULD ALLOW IT TO
CHARTER VESSELS FOR CARRIAGE OF NONEXEMPT AS WELL AS EXEMPT CARGO,
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS CHARACTER IN THIS RESPECT; AND (2), THIS BEING
SO, IT WAS "ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION" OF BOTH EXEMPT AND NONEXEMPT
COMMODITIES ON THE CRITICAL DATE AND THEREFORE, UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
RULINGS RELATING TO SUCH SITUATIONS, WAS ENTITLED TO A PERMIT
AUTHORIZING NOT ONLY CHARTERING BUT ALSO TRANSPORTATION OF COMMODITIES
GENERALLY. 

APPELLANT RELIES ESPECIALLY UPON THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN C.F.
HARMS CO., CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 171, RENDERED
JANUARY 4, 1944, AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN FILED IN THIS CAUSE; FN8
WITH EMPHASIS ALSO UPON RUSSELL BROS. TOWING CASE, 250 I.C.C. 429, AND
MORAN TOWING & TRANSPORTATION CO. CASE, 250 I.C.C. 541; 260 I.C.C.
269. 

IN THESE CASES PERMITS WERE GRANTED EITHER TO A "FURNISHER OF
VESSELS" OR TO TOWERS WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO COMMODITIES, ON THE
BASIS OF SUCH A HOLDING OUT, EXCEPT THAT IN THE MORAN CASE THE TOWER
HAD NO OFFICIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE LOADED BARGES. 
APPELLANT REGARDS THESE DECISIONS AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION IN THIS CASE.  THE COMMISSION DISTINGUISHES THEM, HOWEVER, ON
THE BASIS THAT THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSED OPERATIONS AFFECTING BOTH EXEMPT
AND NONEXEMPT GOODS.  THE INTERVENING PROTESTANTS CHARACTERIZE
APPELLANT'S "STRATEGY," PARTICULARLY IN ITS RELIANCE UPON THE RUSSELL
BROS. CASE, AS FOLLOWS:  "IT HOPES FIRST TO HAVE ITSELF MADE SUBJECT TO
THE ACT AS A 'FURNISHER OF VESSELS' AND, HAVING ESTABLISHED THAT
FINGERHOLD, TO BRING TO ITS AID THE DOCTRINE OF THE RUSSELL BROS. CASE
THAT BOTH REGULATED AND UNREGULATED ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING RIGHTS." 

IF THE COMMISSION'S PREMISE WERE VALID, THAT A FURNISHER OF VESSELS
MUST SHOW, AS OF THE CRITICAL DATE, THAT HIS OPERATIONS INCLUDED
NONEXEMPT COMMODITIES OR, AS ITS OPINION STATED, "THE NATURE OF THE
SERVICES RENDERED, THE COMMODITIES CARRIED IN, OR THE POINTS SERVED
WITH SUCH VESSELS," WE WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE IN DOUBT CONCERNING THE
VALIDITY OF ITS RULING THAT NO SUFFICIENT SHOWING WAS MADE IN THIS
CASE. 

APPELLANT'S EXHIBIT DISCLOSED 43 OR 44 CHARTERING OPERATIONS IN THE
PERIOD TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION AS EVIDENTIAL, DESIGNATED SIMPLY AS
"CHARTER."  ALL BUT TWO SPECIFIED CAIRO, ILLINOIS, AS BOTH ORIGIN AND
DESTINATION.  IN THE BRIEF IT IS SUGGESTED THESE WERE THEREFORE EXEMPT
UNDER SEC. 303(G) RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION IN A SINGLE HARBOR.  THE
SUGGESTION FLIES FLATLY IN THE FACE OF THE UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY
GIVEN BY CAPTAIN BARRETT THAT CAIRO WAS DESIGNATED IN THESE INSTANCES
BECAUSE IT WAS THE SITUS OF THE FLEET, APPELLANT WAS CHARTERING OR
LEASING THE EQUIPMENT ON A PER DIEM BASIS, WAS THEREFORE NOT INTERESTED
IN THE CONTENTS OR CHARACTER OF THE CARGO OR WHERE THE VESSEL WENT, AND
THAT THESE OPERATIONS WERE NOT CONFINED TO THE CAIRO HARBOR BUT THAT
POINT WAS DESIGNATED BECAUSE IT WAS THE PLACE WHERE THE MOVEMENT BEGAN
AND THE EQUIPMENT WAS DELIVERED WHEN IT ENDED.  THE EFFECT OF THIS
EVIDENCE IS NOT NULLIFIED, AS SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTED IN THE BRIEF,
BECAUSE THE WITNESS ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE CHARTERED VESSELS WERE RUN
WITH APPELLANT'S CREWS, THE MASTERS WERE HANDED MANIFESTS DISCLOSING
THE CARGOES CARRIED, AND THE TRIP SHEETS WOULD REVEAL WHERE THE VESSELS
WENT.  ANY OTHER THAN THE MOST RIGID CONSTRUCTION WOULD REGARD THOSE
FACTS AS SUPPORTING, RATHER THAN IMPAIRING, THE CLAIM OF ENGAGING IN
GENERAL CHARTERING OPERATIONS WITHOUT LIMITATION TO EXEMPT COMMODITIES
OR PARTICULAR POINTS OF LOADING AND UNLOADING. 

SIMILAR RESTRICTIVE INFERENCES ARE DRAWN IN THE BRIEF TO SUPPORT
"PROBABLE EXEMPTIONS" IN NEARLY ALL THE OTHER INSTANCES OF CHARTERING,
INCLUDING SIX IN 1937 AS "TOO REMOTE" THOUGH WITHIN THE PERIOD
CONSIDERED.  OF THESE, SOME 19 OR 20, RELATING TO CHARTERING TO OTHER
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO REGULATION, SEEM JUSTIFIED.  BUT WITH THEM
ELIMINATED, 23 INSTANCES OF CHARTERING TO SHIPPERS WHO WERE NOT
CARRIERS REMAIN TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM.  WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE VIEW
THAT THEY CONSTITUTED SO MEAGER A SHOWING AS TO JUSTIFY ON THIS GROUND
WITHHOLDING A PERMIT FOR CHARTERING. 

IN THE MORAN CASE THE COMMISSION SAID: 

"WE THINK IT UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
SERVICES PERFORMED WERE OR WERE NOT ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  THE
NATURE OF THE CARGO IN THE VESSELS TOWED IS USUALLY THE DETERMINING
FACTOR AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SERVICE IS EXEMPT, BUT APPLICANT'S
TOWAGE SERVICE IS PERFORMED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE CARGO
LOADED IN THE VESSELS TOWED BY IT."  260 I.C.C. 269, 272. 

IN THE RUSSELL BROS. CASE THE COMMISSION STATED, WITH REFERENCE TO
THE DEFINITION OF A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER IN PART III AND THE
"GRANDFATHER" REQUIREMENT OF BONA FIDE OPERATION ON THE CRITICAL DATE: 

"IT WILL BE NOTED THAT IN NEITHER INSTANCE IS THERE ANY REFERENCE TO
WHETHER THE TRANSPORTATION PERFORMED BY THE CARRIER IS OR IS NOT
SUBJECT TO REGULATION.  IN DETERMINING A CARRIER'S STATUS AND THE SCOPE
OF ITS OPERATIONS DURING THE 'GRANDFATHER' PERIOD, ITS ENTIRE OPERATION
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, AND NOT MERELY THAT PART WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS
SEEN FIT TO MAKE SUBJECT TO REGULATION.  TO FIND THAT 'GRANDFATHER'
RIGHTS MAY BE GRANTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT A SHOWING IS MADE AS TO
THE PERFORMANCE OF REGULATED TRANSPORTATION REQUIRES THE READING INTO
THE LAW OF LANGUAGE WHICH, IN FACT, IS NOT THERE."  250 I.C.C. 429, 433
434.  FN9 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMISSION'S INSISTENCE THAT THESE CASES ARE
DISTINGUISHABLE, AS RESTING UPON DIFFERENT SHOWINGS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
ACCEPT THAT VIEW IF, AS THE MORAN OPINION INDICATES, THE CRUCIAL FACT
TO BE SHOWN IS PERFORMANCE OF SERVICE "WITHOUT REGARD TO THE NATURE OF
THE CARGO LOADED IN THE VESSELS TOWED BY IT."  THE CONCLUSION IS EVEN
MORE DIFFICULT IF, AS THE RUSSELL BROS. OPINION STATES, "TO FIND THAT
'GRANDFATHER' RIGHTS MAY BE GRANTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT A SHOWING
IS MADE AS TO THE PERFORMANCE OF REGULATED TRANSPORTATION REQUIRES THE
READING INTO THE LAW OF LANGUAGE WHICH, IN FACT, IS NOT THERE." 

THIS STATEMENT APPLIES EQUALLY TO THE COMPARABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
RELATING TO CONTRACT CARRIERS.  CF. C.F. HARMS CO., CONTRACT CARRIER
APPLICATION, 250 I.C.C. 685; 260 I.C.C. 171.  SECTION 309(F) DOES NOT
IN TERMS REQUIRE THAT SUCH A CARRIER, TO BE ENTITLED TO "GRANDFATHER"
RIGHTS, MUST HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF COMMODITIES
WHICH ARE NONEXEMPT.  IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT SUCH A LIMITATION
PROPERLY MAY BE IMPLIED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL PARITY
BETWEEN OPERATIONS ON THE CRITICAL DATE AND THOSE FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS
SOUGHT, AS TO OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION THAN THE FURNISHING OF
VESSELS AS DEFINED IN SEC. 302(E).  CF. ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
315 U.S. 15, 22; NOBLE V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 88, 92.  BUT IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT THE SAME LIMITATION APPLIES TO "THE FURNISHING FOR
COMPENSATION (UNDER A CHARTER, LEASE, OR OTHER AGREEMENT) OF A VESSEL"
UNDER THAT SECTION.  IT DEFINES THE ACT OF FURNISHING, TO SHIPPERS
OTHER THAN REGULATED CARRIERS, AS "ENGAGING IN TRANSPORTATION" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF "CONTRACT CARRIER BY WATER" AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE
IDENTICALLY WITH OTHERS COVERED BY THE GENERAL DEFINITION, THE PURPOSE
AND UTILITY OF THE SPECIAL PROVISION CONCERNING FURNISHING BECOME
OBSCURE IF THE PROVISION DOES NOT IN FACT BECOME WHOLLY INEFFECTIVE. 

THE CHARTERING OR LEASING OF VESSELS AND EQUIPMENT IS NOT SO
OBVIOUSLY SIMILIAR TO OR IDENTICAL WITH ACTIVELY "ENGAGING IN
TRANSPORTATION" THAT, WITHOUT SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR COVERAGE, IT
NECESSARILY WOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THAT OF THE MORE GENERAL
DEFINITIONS AND PROVISIONS.  QUITE DIFFERENT MODES OF OPERATION,
PHYSICALLY AND IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, AS WELL AS RESPONSIBILITIES,
CONCEIVABLY IF NOT ALSO GENERALLY, GIVE THE ACTIVITY MATERIALLY
DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS FROM THE CARRYING OF GOODS IN THE MORE
CONVENTIONAL SENSE.  CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY SOUGHT TO BRING THESE
OPERATIONS WITHIN THE REGULATORY SCHEME BY THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 

IN DOING SO WE DO NOT THINK IT HAD IN MIND THE PURPOSE TO DRAW A
SHARP LINE BETWEEN FURNISHERS OF VESSELS CARRYING ONLY EXEMPT
COMMODITIES AND THOSE CARRYING NONEXEMPT ONES.  THAT IS TRUE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT ONE ENGAGING IN CHARTERING AFFECTING ONLY
THE FORMER IS NO MORE REQUIRED TO SECURE A PERMIT THAN ONE ENGAGING IN
OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTING EXEMPT COMMODITIES. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE ORIGINAL COUNTERPART OF THE
"FURNISHING" PROVISION OF SEC. 302(E) EXTENDED TO THE FURNISHING OF A
VESSEL "TO ANOTHER PERSON" RATHER THAN "TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A
CARRIER SUBJECT TO THIS ACT" AS IT NOW STANDS.  THIS MET WITH VIGOROUS
OPPOSITION, ON THE GROUND THAT AN OWNER SUPPLYING EQUIPMENT TO ANOTHER
CARRIER WOULD BECOME SUBJECT TO THE ACT, THUS POSSIBLY IMPOSING UPON
HIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CHARGES OF THE LESSEE, OR OTHER PERSON
PERFORMING THE OPERATION, FOR PERFORMING IT AND FOR THOSE OPERATIONS,
OVER WHICH OF COURSE THE OWNER WOULD NOT HAVE CONTROL.  IT WAS FEARED
THIS MIGHT DESTROY A LARGE AMOUNT OF CHARTERING ACTIVITY, INCLUDING
BOTH INTERCOASTAL AND INLAND WATERWAY BUSINESS, CONDUCTED THEN WITH A
HIGH DEGREE OF FLEXIBILITY.  CF. 84 CONG. REC. 9709; ID., 9979. 
EMPHASIS WAS PLACED IN THE DISCUSSION UPON THE FREEDOM OF RAILROADS,
ACTING UNDER PART I, AND OF MOTOR CARRIERS, UNDER PART II, TO LEASE
SURPLUS EQUIPMENT WITHOUT BECOMING RESPONSIBLE AS REGULATED CARRIERS
FOR ITS USE; AND UPON THE COMMON PRACTICE OF BARGE LINES AND OTHER
WATER CARRIERS TO LEASE EQUIPMENT FREELY AND FOR LONG OR SHORT PERIODS
OF TIME ON OPEN MARKETS.  IBID. 

TO MEET THE OBJECTIONS AN AMENDMENT WAS OFFERED IN THE HOUSE TO MAKE
THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL READ: "...  A PERSON WHICH  ...  FURNISHES A
VESSEL  ...  SHALL ITSELF NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ENGAGED...."  84
CONG. REC. 9979.  HAD THIS FINALLY BEEN ADOPTED, CHARTERING WOULD HAVE
BEEN WHOLLY EXEMPT.  THE FINAL FORM OF THE BILL STRUCK OUT THE WORD
"NOT" AND SUBSTITUTED THE PRESENT PROVISION.  THE CONFERENCE REPORT
STATES, IN ADDITION TO THE PURPOSE TO LIMIT APPLICATION TO CASES WHERE
THE VESSEL IS FURNISHED TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A REGULATED CARRIER, THE
INTENTION TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE "TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PERSON
FURNISHING THE VESSEL WILL NOT, SIMPLY BY REASON OF FURNISHING THE
VESSEL, BECOME A CONTRACT CARRIER SUBJECT TO PART III OF THE ACT AS TO
THAT PART OF ITS BUSINESS NOT RELATED TO THE FURNISHING AND USE OF THE
VESSEL."  FN10 

THIS SEEMS OBVIOUSLY TO CONTEMPLATE THAT CHARTERING, OR THE DEFINED
FURNISHING OF EQUIPMENT, IS TO BE REGARDED AND TREATED AS IN A SEPARATE
CATEGORY FROM OTHER FORMS OF ENGAGING IN REGULATED ACTIVITY; AND THAT
THE ONE FURNISHING THE VESSEL BY THAT ACT WOULD BECOME A "CONTRACT
CARRIER SUBJECT TO PART III" AS TO THAT PART OF THE BUSINESS, UNLESS
THE VESSEL WERE FURNISHED TO ANOTHER CARRIER.  THIS CONCLUSION IS
FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT SEC. 302(E) IN TERMS TAKES ACCOUNT
OF THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY TO BE SO TRANSPORTED IN THE LANGUAGE
"TO BE USED BY THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH VESSEL IS FURNISHED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF ITS OWN PROPERTY." 

THIS LIMITATION TAKES NO ACCOUNT OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXEMPT
AND NONEXEMPT COMMODITIES.  HAD CONGRESS INTENDED THAT LINE TO BE DRAWN
RIGIDLY TO REQUIRE SHOWING OF CHARTERING FOR CARRIAGE OF NONEXEMPT
GOODS, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH GRANDFATHER RIGHTS, THAT PURPOSE, WE
THINK, WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARLY EXPRESSED.  ITS CONCERN IN THIS
PROVISION WAS NOT WITH THAT LINE.  THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE WAS TO SECURE
FULL REGULATION OF THE TRAFFIC, BY APPLICATION OF THE ACT'S PROVISIONS
TO THE LESSEE, IF HE SHOULD BE A REGULATED CARRIER, THUS EXEMPTING THE
LESSOR IN THAT SITUATION; OTHERWISE TO THE LESSOR.    IN PROVIDING FOR
THE ALTERNATIVE INCIDENCE OF COVERAGE, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT, IN
CHARTERING, THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMODITY, AS BEING EXEMPT OR NOT
EXEMPT, WAS MORE THE CONCERN OF THE "LESSEE" THAN OF THE LESSOR OR
CHARTERER.  THE LATTER'S CONCERN WAS WITH THE FURNISHING OF THE VESSEL
AS SUCH AND WITH WHETHER THE "LESSEE" WAS A REGULATED CARRIER.  TO
REGARD THE ACT AS IMPOSING THE FURTHER LIMITATION THAT THE LESSOR ALSO
MUST HAVE REGARD TO THE CHARACTER OF THE CARGO WOULD CAST THAT
ACTIVITY, INTENDED TO BE KEPT FLEXIBLE, AS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
SHOWS, INTO A MORE RIGID REGULATORY MOLD THAN OTHER FORMS OF
TRANSPORTATION COVERED EITHER BY PART III OR BY PARTS I AND II. 

ACCORDINGLY WE THINK THE COMMISSION ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
APPELLANT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CHARTERING OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO PART III
ON THE CRITICAL DATE, FOR FAILURE TO SHOW "THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES
RENDERED, THE COMMODITIES CARRIED IN, OR THE POINTS SERVED WITH SUCH
VESSELS."  THIS CONCLUSION, MOREOVER, SEEMS TO BE IN ACCORD WITH ITS
OWN DECISION IN THE HARMS CASE AND IN HARMONY WITH THE PRINCIPLES
FOLLOWED IN THE MORAN TOWING CASE AND THAT OF RUSSELL BROS.  FN11 

THE COMMISSION URGES HOWEVER THAT WE ARE NOT CONCERNED SIMPLY WITH
INCONSISTENCIES IN ITS DECISIONS, SINCE EVIDENCE VARIES WITH CASES AND
TO ITS INFORMED JUDGMENT IS CONFIDED THE PRIMARY DUTY TO MAKE
APPROPRIATE APPLICATIONS OF THE ACT.  WE RESPECT THAT JUDGMENT AND THAT
OBLIGATION.  BUT THE MATTER NOW INVOLVED GOES BEYOND MERE APPARENT
INCONSISTENCY IN THE STATUTE'S APPLICATION.  SEEMINGLY THERE HAS BEEN A
BASIC DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITHIN THE COMMISSION ITSELF CONCERNING THE
NECESSITY FOR PROOF SHOWING THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMODITY, AS EXEMPT
OR NONEXEMPT, TO ESTABLISH GRANDFATHER RIGHTS TO CHARTERING OPERATIONS
AND ALSO AS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE PROOF REQUIRED.  THIS APPEARS FROM
THE FACT THAT TWO OF THE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE
DECISION BY DIVISION IV IN THIS CASE DISSENTED FROM THE FULL
COMMISSION'S DECISION IN THE HARMS CASE AND ONE OF THEM IN THE MORAN
CASE. 

WITH FULL RESPECT FOR THE DISSENTING JUDGMENT, WE THINK THE VIEW
EVENTUALLY REACHED BY THE MAJORITY IN THOSE DECISIONS ACCORDS WITH THE
STATUTORY PURPOSE AND PROVISION.  FN12  THE DISSENTING COMMISSIONERS
EMPHASIZE THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 309(G) THAT A PERMIT SHALL SPECIFY
THE BUSINESS OF THE CONTRACT CARRIER AND THE SCOPE THEREOF; AND REGARD
THIS AS QUALIFYING THE "FURNISHING" PROVISION OF SEC. 302(E) SO AS TO
REQUIRE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME SPECIFIC SHOWING AS TO CHARACTER OF THE
COMMODITIES AND TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF OPERATIONS IN CHARTERING AS HAS
BEEN DEEMED REQUIRED FOR OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION.  WITHOUT THIS,
THEY SAY, THE SUBSTANTIAL PARITY BETWEEN FUTURE OPERATIONS AND PRIOR
BONA FIDE OPERATIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THE GRANDFATHER PROVISIONS CANNOT
BE MAINTAINED. 

THE POLICY OF MAINTAINING THAT PARITY BY ADEQUATE STANDARDS OF PROOF
IS SOUND, ALTHOUGH "THE ACT IS REMEDIAL AND TO BE CONSTRUED
LIBERALLY."  MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 263, 266; CRESCENT EXPRESS
LINES V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 401, 409.  THE POLICY, HOWEVER, MAY BE
DEFEATED BY TOO STRICT AN APPLICATION IN PARTICULAR CASES, MORE
ESPECIALLY IT WOULD SEEM IN RELATION TO WATER CARRIERS WHOSE
OPERATIONS, IN CONTRACT CARRIAGE AT ANY RATE, ARE MORE GENERALLY
IRREGULAR AND SPASMODIC THAN IN THE CASE OF OTHER CARRIERS.  THE COURT
HAS SAID, EVEN IN RELATION TO THE LATTER: "THE COMMISSION MAY NOT
ATOMIZE HIS PRIOR SERVICE, PRODUCT BY PRODUCT, SO AS TO RESTRICT THE
SCOPE OF HIS OPERATIONS, WHERE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN
ADDITION TO HIS HOLDING OUT THAT HE WAS IN 'BONA FIDE OPERATION' AS A
'COMMON CARRIER' OF A LARGE GROUP OF COMMODITIES OR OF A WHOLE CLASS OR
CLASSES OF PROPERTY.  THERE MIGHT BE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF SUCH AN
UNDERTAKING THOUGH THE EVIDENCE AS TO ANY ONE ARTICLE WAS NOT
SUBSTANTIAL."  UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475,
483, 484. 

THIS LANGUAGE HAS PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE APPLICATION TO THE PROOF
MADE IN THIS CASE, AT ANY RATE IN RELATION TO THE CHARTERING
OPERATIONS, IN SO FAR AS PROOF MAY BE REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 309(G).  BEYOND THIS, IT BEARS ALSO UPON THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE TAKEN AS QUALIFYING SEC.
302(E).  TO CONSIDER THEM AS DOING SO IN A MANNER TO REQUIRE THE
CHARTERING CARRIER TO PROVE SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF NONEXEMPT COMMODITY
CARRIAGE WOULD MOLECULARIZE, IF NOT ATOMIZE, THE CHARTERING BUSINESS
AND THREATEN, IF NOT ACCOMPLISH, THE DESTRUCTION ANTICIPATED IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES.  THAT RESULT, OR ONE TENDING STRONGLY TOWARD IT,
AS WOULD SUCH A CONSTRUCTION, HARDLY CAN BE TAKEN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE DECLARED NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY "TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE
THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH" OR THE FURTHER DECLARATION THAT THIS
POLICY IS TO BE APPLIED IN ENFORCING ALL OF THE ACT'S PROVISIONS N13. 
SPASMODIC OPERATION HARDLY WOULD BE REGARDED AS AN INHERENT ADVANTAGE
OF RAIL OR PERHAPS OF MOTOR SERVICE IN GENERAL.  IT IS, OR MAY BE, THE
MOST VALUABLE INHERENT ADVANTAGE OF A CONTRACT WATER CARRIER. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED AS TO THE CHARTERING
PHASE OF APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS. 

IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE
VARIED AND SPASMODIC CHARACTER OF APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS, AND THE
POLICY OF MAINTAINING THESE AS AN INHERENT ADVANTAGE OF WATER
TRANSPORTATION, OUR JUDGMENT MIGHT DIFFER FROM THE COMMISSION'S AS TO
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SHOWING MADE AS IT RELATED TO OTHER OPERATIONS
THAN CHARTERING AND, IN VIEW OF THAT SHOWING, AS TO THE NECESSITY OR
PROPRIETY OF LIMITING THE PERIOD OF OPERATIONS CONSIDERED, IN RELATION
TO THE CLAIM OF GRANDFATHER RIGHTS, TO THAT FOLLOWING JANUARY 1, 1936. 

NEVERTHELESS, OUR VIEWS IN THESE RESPECTS ARE NOT TO BE SUBSTITUTED
FOR THE COMMISSION'S WHICH IS NOT ONLY SPECIALLY INFORMED BUT BROADLY
DISCRETIONARY AND CONTROLLING EXCEPT IN CASE OF CLEAR DEPARTURE FROM
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.  APART FROM THE CHARTERING, WE ARE UNABLE TO
SAY THERE WAS SUCH A DEPARTURE IN THIS CASE.  THE POLICY OF THE
COMMISSION HAS RECOGNIZED THAT A SOMEWHAT MORE LIBERAL ATTITUDE IS
REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF WATER CARRIERS THAN WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS IN
THE LENGTH OF THE PERIOD TO BE CONSIDERED AS ESTABLISHING THE CLAIM OF
BONA FIDE OPERATION N14.  MOREOVER, AS HAS BEEN STATED, THE EVIDENCE
RELATING TO THE LATTER PART OF THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1936 WAS RATHER MORE
VAGUE THAN THAT AFFECTING BOTH EARLIER AND LATER PERIODS.  IN VIEW OF
THESE FACTS WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION ERRED IN ITS FINDINGS OR
CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED, ON THE SHOWING MADE, TO A
PERMIT FOR GRANDFATHER OPERATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE INVOLVING
CHARTERING. 

IN THIS PHASE OF THE CASE IT IS NECESSARY ONLY TO ADD THAT, IN VIEW
OF THE SPECIFIC STATEMENT CONTAINED IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT QUOTED
ABOVE,  FN15  APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO FOUND GRANDFATHER RIGHTS TO
TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN CHARTERING UPON A SHOWING ONLY OF CHARTERING
OPERATIONS. 

WE THINK TOO THAT IT WOULD BE AN INVASION OF THE PROVINCE OF THE
COMMISSION FOR US TO INTERFERE WITH ITS ACTION IN FINDING THAT
APPELLANT UPON THE SHOWING IT MADE WAS NOT, AT THE TIME OF THE
APPLICATION, ENTITLED TO A PERMIT FOR A NEW OPERATION.  IT IS TRUE THAT
ITS CONFINEMENT, SINCE ABOUT 1940, TO OPERATIONS SUBSTANTIALLY, IF NOT
EXCLUSIVELY, IN TRANSPORTATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS HAS BEEN INDUCED,
ACCORDING TO THE PROOF, BY THE WAR EMERGENCY, AND THAT THIS BUSINESS IN
ALL PROBABILITY WILL TERMINATE WITH THE EMERGENCY'S END.  IT IS
LIKEWISE TRUE THAT APPELLANT'S EQUIPMENT CAN BE CONVERTED READILY FOR
OTHER USES WHEN THAT OCCURS AND, UNLESS AUTHORITY IS OBTAINED TO
CONDUCT OPERATIONS UPON A SCALE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE APPELLANT TO
EMPLOY IT PROFITABLY, THE BUSINESS MAY BE FORCED TO CLOSE OR REQUIRED
TO OPERATE UNECONOMICALLY.  NEVERTHELESS, IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE TO
MAKE SPECIFIC SHOWING OF SOME IMMEDIATE PROSPECT OF ENTERING UPON NEW
AND NONEXEMPT OPERATIONS, AND OF THE RANGE AND WEIGHT OF THE
COMMISSION'S DISCRETION IN RELATION TO SUCH APPLICATIONS, WE ARE NOT AT
LIBERTY TO INTERFERE WITH ITS ACTION. 

THE COMMISSION HAS SUGGESTED, IN THE BRIEF, THAT UPON ANOTHER
APPLICATION, ACCOMPANIED BY A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF INTENDED "NEW
OPERATIONS," THE DESIRED PERMIT MAY BE GRANTED.  NO DOUBT, IN SUCH AN
EVENT, THE APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ACT'S
INJUNCTION OF "FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION  ...  SO ADMINISTERED AS
TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES" OF THE TYPE OF
TRANSPORTATION IN WHICH THE BARRETT LINE HAS BEEN ENGAGED THROUGH FOUR
GENERATIONS OF RIVER LIFE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED AS TO OPERATIONS OTHER THAN CHARTERING; AS
TO THEM, IT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  SECTION 309(F) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION AND SECTION 311, NO
PERSON SHALL ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF A CONTRACT CARRIER BY WATER
UNLESS HE OR IT HOLDS AN EFFECTIVE PERMIT, ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING SUCH OPERATION:  PROVIDED, THAT, SUBJECT TO SECTION 310, IF
ANY SUCH CARRIER OR A PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST WAS IN BONA FIDE
OPERATION AS A CONTRACT CARRIER BY WATER ON JANUARY 1, 1940, OVER THE
ROUTE OR ROUTES OR BETWEEN THE PORTS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH APPLICATION
IS MADE, AND HAS SO OPERATED SINCE THAT TIME (OR, IF ENGAGED IN
FURNISHING SEASONAL SERVICE ONLY, WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION DURING THE
SEASONAL PERIOD, PRIOR TO OR INCLUDING SUCH DATE, FOR OPERATIONS OF THE
CHARACTER IN QUESTION) EXCEPT, IN EITHER EVENT, AS TO INTERRUPTIONS OF
SERVICE OVER WHICH THE APPLICANT OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST HAD NO
CONTROL, THE COMMISSION SHALL ISSUE SUCH PERMIT, WITHOUT FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, IF APPLICATION FOR SUCH PERMIT IS MADE TO THE COMMISSION
AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (G) ..."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 909(F). 

SEC. 311 TO TEMPORARY OPERATIONS. 

FN2  SECTION 309(G) PROVIDES: 

"...  SUBJECT TO SECTION 310, UPON APPLICATION THE COMMISSION SHALL
ISSUE SUCH PERMIT IF IT FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING, AND
ABLE PROPERLY TO PERFORM THE SERVICE PROPOSED AND TO CONFORM TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PART AND THE REQUIREMENTS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS OF
THE COMMISSION THEREUNDER, AND THAT SUCH OPERATION WILL BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
DECLARED IN THIS ACT.  THE BUSINESS OF THE CARRIER AND THE SCOPE
THEREOF SHALL BE SPECIFIED IN SUCH PERMIT AND THERE SHALL BE ATTACHED
THERETO AT TIME OF ISSUANCE AND FROM TIME TO TIME THEREAFTER SUCH
REASONABLE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS, CONSISTENT WITH THE
CHARACTER OF THE HOLDER AS A CONTRACT CARRIER BY WATER, AS ARE
NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART OR THOSE LAWFULLY
ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION PURSUANT THERETO: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
NO TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR LIMITATIONS SHALL RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE
CARRIER TO SUBSTITUTE OR ADD CONTRACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PERMIT,
OR TO ADD TO HIS EQUIPMENT, FACILITIES, OR SERVICE, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE PERMIT, AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND THE DEMANDS OF THE
CARRIER'S PATRONS SHALL REQUIRE."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 909(G). 

FN3  THUS, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY, THE LINE PIONEERED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION BY WATER OF PETROLEUM IN 1912 OR EARLIER; OF STEEL PIPES
FROM PITTSBURGH IN 1920; OF POWDER IN THE SAME YEAR; OF AUTOMOBILES TO
POINTS DOWNSTREAM FROM PITTSBURGH AND CINCINNATI; OF BAUXITE ORE FOR
THE ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY; OF PAVING BRICK TO NEW ORLEANS; OF RIPRAP
STONE USED BY THE ENGINEER CORPS FOR PAVING RIVER BANKS, ETC. 

FREQUENTLY THE DEMONSTRATION RESULTED IN APPELLANT'S SUPPLYING
EQUIPMENT TO THE SHIPPER WHEN THE LATTER TOOK OVER THE BUSINESS AS, FOR
INSTANCE, WHEN THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF LOUISIANA PURCHASED BOATS
AND BARGES TO CONTINUE THE DEMONSTRATED PETROLEUM OPERATION WITH ITS
OWN FLEET.  OTHER INSTANCES INCLUDED SALES TO ATLAS CEMENT CO. AND
CARNEGIE STEEL CO. 

MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES ALSO WERE RENDERED TO OTHER CARRIERS, BEFORE
AND AFTER 1936, INCLUDING RELIEF OF GROUNDED OR DISABLED VESSELS,
RAISING OF SUNKEN VESSELS, STORAGE OF BARGES OR VESSELS, ETC. 

FN4  THE OPINION OF DIVISION IV STATED:  "THE TERM 'BONA FIDE
OPERATIONS' HAS BEEN INTERPRETED TO MEAN A HOLDING OUT SUBSTANTIATED BY
ACTUAL OPERATIONS CONSISTENT THEREWITH.  ACTUAL OPERATIONS IN ORDER TO
SUBSTANTIATE A CLAIMED HOLDING OUT ON JANUARY 1, 1940, MUST HAVE BEEN
WITHIN A REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME FROM THAT DATE.  WHAT CONSTITUTES A
REASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME MAY VARY WITH THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN
EACH PROCEEDING BUT ONE SHIPMENT MADE IN 1936 AND OTHERS AT AN
INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME PRIOR THERETO ARE ENTIRELY TOO REMOTE TO
ESTABLISH BONA FIDE OPERATIONS ON JANUARY 1, 1940, AND CONTINUOUSLY
SINCE." 

FN5  THE GRANDFATHER RIGHTS WERE DENIED, OF COURSE, BECAUSE IN THE
COMMISSION'S VIEW, THE OPERATIONS SHOWN TO SUSTAIN THEM WERE TOO FAR
REMOVED IN THE PAST.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PERMIT FOR NEW OPERATIONS
WAS DENIED, ACCORDING TO ITS BRIEF, BECAUSE "APPELLANT PROPOSED NO
CHANGE IN MODE OF OPERATION BUT PLANNED TO CONTINUE DOING BUSINESS AS
IN THE PAST." 

FN6  EXEMPTION IS PROVIDED BY SEC. 303 FOR VARIOUS KINDS OF
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING, UNDER LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED, CARRIAGE OF BULK
COMMODITIES WHEN THE VESSEL IS USED TO TRANSPORT NOT MORE THAN THREE,
SEC. 303(B); CARRIAGE OF LIQUID CARGOES IN BULK IN CERTIFIED TANKERS,
SEC. 303(D); TRANSPORTATION SOLELY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A SINGLE
HARBOR, SEC. 303(G).    THE COMMISSION HAS UNIFORMLY DENIED PERMITS OR
CERTIFICATES WHERE ONLY EXEMPT TRANSPORTATION IS INVOLVED.  CF. UPPER
MISSISSIPPI TOWING CORP., COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 292,
293; GALLAGHER BROS. SAND & GRAVEL CORP., CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION,
260 I.C.C. 224, 225. 

FN7  SECTION 302(E) IN PERTINENT PART IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE TERM 'CONTRACT CARRIER BY WATER' MEANS ANY PERSON WHICH, UNDER
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS, ENGAGES IN THE TRANSPORTATION
(OTHER THAN TRANSPORTATION REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH (D) AND THE
EXCEPTION THEREIN) BY WATER OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION. 

"THE FURNISHING FOR COMPENSATION (UNDER A CHARTER, LEASE, OR OTHER
AGREEMENT) OF A VESSEL, TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A CARRIER SUBJECT TO
THIS ACT, TO BE USED BY THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH VESSEL IS FURNISHED IN
THE TRANSPORTATION OF ITS OWN PROPERTY, SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO
CONSTITUTE, AS TO THE VESSEL SO FURNISHED, ENGAGING IN TRANSPORTATION
FOR COMPENSATION BY THE PERSON FURNISHING SUCH VESSEL, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FOREGOING DEFINITION OF 'CONTRACT CARRIER BY WATER'." 
49 U.S.C. SEC. 902(E). 

FN8  THREE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED IN THE HARMS MATTER.  THE FIRST
GAVE AUTHORITY TO FURNISH VESSELS LIMITED TO SCRAP IRON AND TO
SPECIFIED PORTS, 250 I.C.C. 513; THE SECOND REMOVED THE COMMODITY
LIMITATION, 250 I.C.C. 685; THE THIRD, BY THE FULL COMMISSION, REMOVED
THE "TERRITORIAL" LIMITATION, 260 I.C.C. 171. 

FN9  THE OPINION CONTINUED:  "THIS MATTER IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
IN INSTANCES LIKE THE PRESENT WHERE AN APPLICANT IS SEEKING A
CERTIFICATE COVERING ALL COMMODITIES, OR GENERAL CARGO.  OBVIOUSLY NO
CARRIER ACTUALLY TRANSPORTS ALL COMMODITIES, AND THEREFORE THE BONA
FIDES OF AN APPLICANT'S OPERATIONS DEPEND ON THE REPRESENTATIVE
CHARACTER OF THE TRANSPORTATION PERFORMED.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE
CARRIER HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO, AND ACTUALLY DOES, TRANSPORT ALL TRAFFIC
OFFERED TO IT FROM AND TO ALL POINTS COVERED BY ITS APPLICATION BUT
THAT THE GREAT BULK OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION IS EXEMPT FROM REGULATION. 
IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IF WE SHUT OUR EYES TO ALL OF APPLICANT'S
TRANSPORTATION EXCEPT THAT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION, WE GET AN
INCOMPLETE AND DISTORTED PICTURE OF THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF ITS
OPERATIONS.  TO PLACE LIMITATIONS UPON 'GRANDFATHER' RIGHTS PREDICATED
UPON THAT VIEW WOULD BE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE, AND IS NOT
CONTEMPLATED BY THE LAW."  250 I.C.C. 429, 434. 

FN10  H.R. NO. 2016, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., 77. 

FN11  SEE, HOWEVER, W-764, UPPER MISSISSIPPI TOWING CORP., COMMON
CARRIER APPLICATIONS, 260 I.C.C. 292. 

FN12  IT IS SUGGESTED, BY THE PROTESTING INTERVENORS, THAT APPELLANT
HAS FAILED TO EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY BY NEGLECTING TO APPLY
A SECOND TIME FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION AFTER THE FINAL
HARMS DECISION, CF. NOTE 8, ALTHOUGH IT WAS RENDERED AFTER THE
COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN THIS CASE.  THE SUGGESTION, IF FOLLOWED
GENERALLY, CONCEIVABLY COULD RESULT IN KEEPING APPLICANTS RUNNING BACK
AND FORTH BETWEEN COURT AND COMMISSION, IF NOT INTERMINABLY, THEN TO AN
EXTENT CERTAINLY NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE EXHAUSTION DOCTRINE. 
APPELLANT FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT DOCTRINE BY ITS
APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION MADE TO THE ENTIRE COMMISSION AND ITS
DENIAL OF THE PETITION. 

FN13  CF. OPPENHEIM, THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND INTER
CARRIER COMPETITIVE RATES (1945) 27 FF. 

FN14  COMPARE MORAN TOWING & TRANSP.  CO., APPLICATIONS, 260 I.C.C.
269, 273; THAMES RIVER LINE, COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 250 I.C.C.
245; AND OTHER CASES IN THE LATTER VOLUME AT PP. 106, 117, 179, 353,
370 AND 599, WITH, E.G., JACK COLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 41 M.C.C. 657,
59 F.SUPP.  10, AFFIRMED PER CURIAM, 324 U.S. 822; GREGG CARTAGE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 74. 

FN15  CF. TEXT AT NOTE 10. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT, IN REJECTING THE REFUSAL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION TO GRANT A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT CARRIER BY WATER FOR CHARTER
PURPOSES, IS GREATLY INFLUENCED BY AN ALLEGED CONFLICT IN THE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATIONS.  COMPARE C.F. HARMS CO., CONTRACT CARRIER
APPLICATION, 260 I.C.C. 171; RUSSELL BROS. TOWING CO., COMMON CARRIER
APPLICATION, 250 I.C.C. 429; MORAN TOWING & TRANSPORTATION CO.,
APPLICATIONS, 260 I.C.C. 269, WITH UPPER MISSISSIPPI TOWING CORP.,
COMMON CARRIER APPLICATIONS, 260 I.C.C. 292.  ASSUMING SUCH A CONFLICT,
IT IS OUR BUSINESS TO DEAL WITH THE CASE NOW HERE AND NOT TO BE
CONCERNED WITH APPARENT INCONSISTENCIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATIONS.  IF THE COMMISSION HAS KEPT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE
STATUTE IN THIS CASE, ITS ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED.  WE THINK THAT THE
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 302(E) MADE BY THE COMMISSION WAS PROPER. 
CERTAINLY, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROVISION INVOLVES CONSIDERATIONS
SO BOUND UP WITH THE TECHNICAL SUBJECT MATTER THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE
NEUTRAL LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE PERMITS, AS A MATTER OF ENGLISH, THE
CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE COURT NOW MAKES, THE EXPERIENCE OF THE
COMMISSION SHOULD PREVAIL.  COMPARE GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402. 
..END :







FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 450 


NO. 588.  ARGUED APRIL 3, 4, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - WRIT
DISMISSED. 


1.  THE BRADFORD ACT (ALABAMA LAWS OF 1943, NO. 298) IS A
COMPREHENSIVE ENACTMENT REGULATING THE ACTIVITIES AND AFFAIRS OF LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS HAVING MEMBERS WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN ALABAMA.  SECTION 7
REQUIRES EVERY LABOR ORGANIZATION "FUNCTIONING" OR "DESIRING TO
FUNCTION" WITHIN THE STATE TO FILE A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BY
LAWS OF ITS OWN AND ANY PARENT ORGANIZATION, AND TO FILE ANNUALLY A
REPORT GIVING PRESCRIBED INFORMATION.  THE SECTION MAKES IT UNLAWFUL
FOR ANY OFFICER OR AGENT TO COLLECT DUES OR OTHER MONIES FROM ANY
MEMBER WHILE THE LABOR ORGANIZATION IS IN DEFAULT WITH RESPECT TO
FILING OF THE ANNUAL REPORT.  SECTION 15 MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
PERSON OR LABOR ORGANIZATION TO COLLECT, RECEIVE OR DEMAND ANY FEE,
ASSESSMENT OR MONEY - OTHER THAN INITIATION FEES OR DUES - FOR A "WORK
PERMIT" OR "AS A CONDITION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF WORK."  SECTION 16
MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY "EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, OR
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEE TO BE A MEMBER IN, OR TO BE ACCEPTED FOR
MEMBERSHIP BY, ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION" WHICH ADMITS TO MEMBERSHIP
EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN PERSONS OF THESE CLASSES; BUT PROVIDES THAT THE
INSURANCE CONTRACT NOW IN EXISTENCE AND IN FORCE."  SECTION 18 IMPOSES
CIVIL LIABILITY AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT. 
PETITIONERS (NATIONAL AND LOCAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND AN INDIVIDUAL
MEMBER) SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECS.
7, 15 AND 16.  HELD: 

(A)  THE CONTENTION THAT THE ACT DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS,
IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE ITS PROVISIONS, OR
SOME OF THEM, DO NOT APPLY TO BUSINESS CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS OR
TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, IS
WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  P. 471. 

THE STATE IS NOT BOUND TO REGULATE ALL TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS OR
NONE; IT MAY BEGIN WITH SUCH AS IN ITS JUDGMENT MOST NEED REGULATION
AND MAY EXCLUDE THOSE BELIEVED TO BE ALREADY APPROPRIATELY REGULATED BY
EITHER STATE OR NATIONAL LEGISLATION.  P. 472. 

(B)  OTHER ISSUES AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ACT, AS
PRESENTED BY THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT, ARE INAPPROPRIATE FOR
DECISION IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING.  P. 472. 

2.  THIS COURT CAN NOT SAY THAT SECS. 7 AND 18 COULD NOT BE SO
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED AS NOT TO DENY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY; AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AUTHORITATIVE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS BY THE STATE COURTS, AND UPON A RECORD
WHICH PRESENTS NO CONCRETE SET OF FACTS TO WHICH THE ACT IS TO BE
APPLIED, THE CASE IN THIS ASPECT IS PLAINLY NOT ONE TO BE DISPOSED OF
BY THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE.  P. 460. 

(A)  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY ARE NO
LESS STRICT IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING THAN IN ANY OTHER TYPE
OF SUIT.  P. 461. 

(B)  IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THIS COURT NOT TO DECIDE ABSTRACT,
HYPOTHETICAL OR CONTINGENT QUESTIONS; OR TO DECIDE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION IN ADVANCE OF THE NECESSITY FOR ITS DECISION; OR TO FORMULATE
A RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BROADER THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE PRECISE
FACTS TO WHICH IT IS TO BE APPLIED; OR TO DECIDE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION EXCEPT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PARTICULAR FACTS TO WHICH IT IS
TO BE APPLIED.  P. 461. 

(C)  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE MAY BE RESORTED TO ONLY IN
THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT AND WHERE THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
WILL BE ADVANCED AND AN ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE JUDGMENT MAY BE
RENDERED.  P. 462. 

3.  THE RECORD AFFORDS AN INADEQUATE FACTUAL BASIS FOR DETERMINING
WHETHER SEC. 16 IS APPLICABLE TO ANY OF PETITIONERS' MEMBERS, OR IF SO
WHETHER AS APPLIED TO THEM THE ACT WOULD VIOLATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY.  P. 462. 

4.  NOR MAY THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 16 BE HERE DETERMINED, IN VIEW OF
THE STATE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTION AS INAPPLICABLE WHEREVER
IT WOULD OTHERWISE "INTERFERE WITH OR VOID ANY INSURANCE CONTRACT NOW
IN EXISTENCE AND IN FORCE," AND SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE
RECORD WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE SECTION CAN BE DEEMED APPLICABLE
TO PETITIONERS' MEMBERS BECAUSE OF EXISTING INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS.  P.
463. 

5.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A STATUTE MAY BE ATTACKED, IN
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS AS IN ANY OTHER, ONLY BY THOSE TO WHOM
THE STATUTE APPLIES AND WHO ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY IT.  P. 463. 

6.  UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF SECS. 7 AND 16, AND
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE FACTS TO WHICH THEY ARE TO BE APPLIED, PRECLUDE
AN ADJUDICATION UPON THIS RECORD THAT THESE SECTIONS CONFLICT WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  PP. 464, 467. 

(A)  AS NONE OF THE PETITIONERS ARE SHOWN TO FUNCTION AS BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES FOR EMPLOYEES IN INDUSTRIES SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, OR, IF THEY DO SO, TO FUNCTION EXCLUSIVELY AS
REPRESENTATIVES FOR SUCH EMPLOYEES, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT SECS. 7 AND
16 COULD IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE VALIDLY APPLIED TO ANY OF THEM; AND THE
COURT IS BOUND TO ASSUME THE EXISTENCE OF ANY STATE OF FACTS WHICH
WOULD SUSTAIN THE SECTIONS WHEN THEY ARE ASSAILED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
P. 465. 

(B)  THE COURT CAN NOT ASSUME THAT THE FAILURE TO FILE REPORTS WILL
RESULT IN THE EXCLUSION OF PETITIONERS, OR ANY OF THEM, FROM
FUNCTIONING IN THE STATE, OR WILL VISIT ANY CONSEQUENCES UPON THEM
OTHER THAN THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE; NOR SAY, IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY, THAT THE FILING OF INFORMATION RETURNS
WILL IMPOSE SUCH BURDENS ON ANY OF PETITIONERS AS TO INTERFERE WITH THE
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
IN CASES WHERE THAT ACT IS APPLICABLE.  P. 466. 

(C)  THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 16 AND WHETHER IT CONFLICTS WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED UPON THIS RECORD, IN
VIEW OF THE RULING OF THE STATE COURT THAT THE SECTION IS INAPPLICABLE
WHEREVER IT WOULD OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH OR RENDER INEFFECTIVE ANY
EXISTING CONTRACT OF INSURANCE, AND IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE OF THE
PETITIONERS TO SHOW TO WHAT EXTENT SEC. 16 AS SO CONSTRUED CAN BE TAKEN
TO BE APPLICABLE TO ANY OF THEM BECAUSE OF EXISTING INSURANCE
ARRANGEMENTS.  P. 466. 

(D)  A STATE STATUTE MAY BE VOIDED AS IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL
LEGISLATION ONLY IF THE CONFLICT IS CLEARLY SHOWN; AND THEN ONLY WHERE
THE COMPLAINANT SHOWS THAT HE IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE ALLEGED
CONFLICT.  P. 467. 

7.  SINCE THE RECORD PRESENTS NO CONCRETE CASE IN WHICH SEC. 15 HAS
BEEN APPLIED, THE COURT CAN NOT SAY WHETHER ITS APPLICATION IN
CIRCUMSTANCES NOT NOW PRESENTED WOULD BE SO ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE
AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS.  P. 468. 

8.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 7 AS TO THE FILING OF
INFORMATION STATEMENTS AND REPORTS IS SO BURDENSOME ON LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
FACTS OF RECORD.  P. 469. 

9.  THE OBJECTION THAT SECS. 7 AND 16 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS VAGUE
AND UNCERTAIN CAN NOT APPROPRIATELY BE CONSIDERED IN A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT PROCEEDING IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, IN ADVANCE OF THEIR
AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION BY A STATE COURT.  P. 470. 

10.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE MAY BE
USED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CONTROL STATE ACTION LIES IN THE SOUND
DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  IT WOULD BE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THIS
COURT TO MAKE A PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE
STATUTE BEFORE IT PLAINLY APPEARED THAT THE NECESSITY FOR IT HAD
ARISEN, OR WHEN THE COURT IS LEFT IN UNCERTAINTY, WHICH IT CAN NOT
AUTHORITATIVELY RESOLVE, AS TO THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE WHEN APPLIED
TO ANY PARTICULAR STATE OF FACTS.  P. 471. 

11.  IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS COURT'S DISCRETIONARY POWER TO GRANT OR
WITHHOLD THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REMEDY IT IS OF CONTROLLING
SIGNIFICANCE THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO AVOID THE NEEDLESS
DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS AND THE NEEDLESS OBSTRUCTION
TO THE DOMESTIC POLICY OF THE STATES BY FORESTALLING STATE ACTION IN
CONSTRUING AND APPLYING ITS OWN STATUTES.  P. 471. 

ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR ET AL. V. MCADORY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 703, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT, 246 ALA. 1, 18 SO.2D
810, UPHOLDING, IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING, THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PROVISIONS OF A STATE STATUTE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURTS OF ALABAMA FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ADJUDICATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE BRADFORD ACT, NO. 298, ALABAMA LAWS OF
1943(CODE 1943, TIT. 26 SECS. 376 ET SEQ.).  THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IS
WHETHER PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS ARE SO RELATED TO ANY CASE OR
CONTROVERSY PRESENTED BY THE RECORD THAT THIS COURT MAY APPROPRIATELY
PASS UPON THEM IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING. 

PETITIONERS ARE FOUR AFFILIATED, UNINCORPORATED LABOR ORGANIZATIONS,
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, WHICH ARE NATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, AND TWO ALABAMA LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND AN INDIVIDUAL
WHO IS A CITIZEN OF ALABAMA AND A MEMBER OF PETITIONER, LOCAL UNION NO.
103, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE ALABAMA CIRCUIT COURT FOR
JEFFERSON COUNTY AGAINST RESPONDENTS, OFFICERS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY,
CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ENFORCING THE BRADFORD ACT.  THEY PRAYED A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ACT AS A WHOLE AND SPECIFICALLY SECS. 7,
15, AND 16, AMONG OTHERS, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID UNDER THE
FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS. 

AFTER A TRIAL UPON A STIPULATED STATEMENT OF FACTS, CERTAIN
AFFIDAVITS AND THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD THE
ACT AS A WHOLE, AND SPECIFICALLY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, TO BE VALID AND
CONSTITUTIONAL.  IT DECLINED AS "INAPPROPRIATE" TO MAKE DECLARATIONS AS
TO THE VALIDITY OF SECS. 15 AND 16.  ON APPEAL, PETITIONERS ASSIGNING
AS ERROR THE CIRCUIT COURT'S FAILURE TO PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF SECS. 15 AND 16, AND TO DECLARE THOSE SECTIONS AND SEC. 7
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD ALL THREE SECTIONS VALID
AND CONSTITUTIONAL.  246 ALA. 1, 18 SO.2D 810.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
323 U.S. 703, UPON A PETITION WHICH PRESENTED THE CONTENTIONS FN1  THAT
SECS. 7 AND 16 IMPOSE A PRIOR GENERAL RESTRAINT ON PETITIONERS' FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT BY DEPRIVING THEM OF RIGHTS UNDER IT; THAT SECS. 7, 15
AND 16 ARE AN ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE EXERCISE OF THE STATE POLICE
POWER WHICH DENIES PETITIONERS DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; AND THAT SECS. 15 AND 16
ARE SO AMBIGUOUS AND UNCERTAIN IN THEIR REQUIREMENTS AS TO DENY
PETITIONERS DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE BRADFORD ACT IS A COMPREHENSIVE ENACTMENT REGULATING LABOR UNIONS
HAVING MEMBERS WHO ARE EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA.  IT
ESTABLISHES A DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF
A DIRECTOR OF LABOR; IT SETS UP MEDIATION MACHINERY FOR THE SETTLEMENT
OF LABOR DISPUTES.  IT REQUIRES ALL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT VARIOUS REPORTS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND TO PAY FILING FEES.  IT REGULATES SOME PHASES
OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND ACTIVITIES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND
VARIOUS ASPECTS OF PICKETING, BOYCOTTING AND STRIKING.  IT IMPOSES
CIVIL LIABILITY AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF ITS
PROVISIONS. 

ALABAMA SHALL WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
CHAPTER, AND EVERY LABOR ORGANIZATION HEREAFTER DESIRING TO FUNCTION IN
ALABAMA SHALL, BEFORE DOING SO, FILE A COPY OF ITS CONSTITUTION AND ITS
BY-LAWS AND A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE NATIONAL OR
INTERNATIONAL UNION, IF ANY, TO WHICH THE LABOR ORGANIZATION BELONGS,
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR  ...  ALL CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION OR BY-LAWS, LOCAL, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL, ADOPTED
SUBSEQUENT TO THEIR ORIGINAL FILING MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER" THEIR ADOPTION. 

IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA AND HAVING TWENTY-FIVE OR MORE MEMBERS," SHALL
FILE ANNUALLY WITH EVERY MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION AND WITH THE
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR A VERIFIED WRITTEN REPORT GIVING
DETAILED INFORMATION AS TO ITS NAME, THE LOCATION OF ITS OFFICES, THE
OFFICERS OF THE ORGANIZATION, THEIR SALARIES, WAGES, BONUSES, AND OTHER
REMUNERATION, THE DATE OF THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS, THE NUMBER OF ITS
PAID UP MEMBERS, AND A COMPLETE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOWING ALL
RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS WITH THE NAMES OF RECIPIENTS AND PURPOSE
THEREOF, AND A COMPLETE STATEMENT OF THE MONEY AND PROPERTY OWNED BY
THE ORGANIZATION.  SECTION 7 ALSO DECLARES, "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR
ANY FISCAL OR OTHER OFFICER OR AGENT OF ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION TO
COLLECT OR ACCEPT PAYMENT OF ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, FINES, OR ANY
OTHER MONIES FROM ANY MEMBER WHILE SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION IS IN
DEFAULT WITH RESPECT TO FILING THE ANNUAL REPORT  ..." 

ANY LABOR ORGANIZER, ANY OFFICER, AGENT, REPRESENTATIVE OR MEMBER OF
ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY OTHER PERSON, TO COLLECT, RECEIVE OR
DEMAND  ...  FROM ANY PERSON, ANY FEE, ASSESSMENT, OR SUM OF MONEY
WHATSOEVER, AS A WORK PERMIT OR AS A CONDITION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
WORK; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THIS SHALL NOT PREVENT THE COLLECTION OF
INITIATION FEES OR DUES." 

ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, OR SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEE TO BE A MEMBER
IN, OR TO BE ACCEPTED FOR MEMBERSHIP BY, ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION, THE
CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF WHICH PERMIT MEMBERSHIP TO EMPLOYEES OTHER
THAN THOSE IN EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL OR SUPERVISORY
CAPACITIES, OR WHICH IS AFFILIATED WITH ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH
PERMITS MEMBERSHIP TO EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN THOSE IN AN EXECUTIVE,
ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, OR SUPERVISORY CAPACITY.  THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH OR VOID
ANY INSURANCE CONTRACT NOW IN EXISTENCE AND IN FORCE."  SECTION 18
ENACTS, "IF ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS
CHAPTER, IT SHALL BE PENALIZED CIVILLY IN A SUM NOT EXCEEDING ONE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) FOR EACH SUCH VIOLATION  ...  THE DOING OF
ANY ACT FORBIDDEN OR DECLARED UNLAWFUL BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER  ...  SHALL CONSTITUTE A MISDEMEANOR, AND SHALL BE PUNISHABLE
BY A FINE  ...  OR BY IMPRISONMENT." 

           INFRINGEMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY BY

                          SECTIONS 7 AND 16. 

PETITIONERS DO NOT DENY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO REGULATE LABOR
UNIONS.  THEY DO NOT CONTEND THAT ALL THEIR PRACTICES SHOWN BY THE
RECORD OR ALL THEIR ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED BY SEC. 7 ARE
WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS PRESERVING THE
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH OR ASSEMBLY, OR THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 7
THAT PETITIONERS FILE REPORTS, OF ITSELF, INFRINGES THEIR RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH.  BUT CONSTRUING THE WORDS OF SEC. 7 WHICH PROVIDE THAT LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS "FUNCTIONING" IN THE STATE SHALL FILE THE PRESCRIBED
STATEMENTS OR REPORTS, AND THE FURTHER REQUIREMENT THAT EVERY LABOR
ORGANIZATION "DESIRING TO FUNCTION" IN ALABAMA SHALL, BEFORE DOING SO,
FILE CERTAIN PRESCRIBED DOCUMENTS, PETITIONERS ATTACK THE SECTION AS A
LICENSING PROVISION AND ASSAIL ITS VALIDITY ON THE GROUND THAT AS SUCH
IT IS A RESTRAINT UPON THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY. 

NO OFFICER OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE IS EMPOWERED BY THE TERMS
OF THE SECTION TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD A LICENSE AUTHORIZING A LABOR
ORGANIZATION TO FUNCTION WITHIN THE STATE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT SO
HELD IN THIS CASE.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 7 IS MADE
PREREQUISITE TO THE FUNCTIONING OF ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE
STATE, AND THAT ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF PETITIONERS IS THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY TO ADVANCE THE INTERESTS
OF LABOR AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS BY WINNING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THEIR
PROGRAM, THROUGH EDUCATION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION.  THEY SAY
THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE, BEFORE A LABOR ORGANIZATION CAN
FUNCTION WITHIN THE STATE, TO BE SECURED BY FILING THE REQUISITE
STATEMENTS AND REPORTS, IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT ON THEIR RIGHT
OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.  SPECIFICALLY THEY ARGUE THAT IF THEY FAIL
TO FILE ANY OF THE STATEMENTS REQUIRED BY SEC. 7 AND AFTERWARDS
FUNCTION AS A LABOR UNION WITHIN THE STATE, BY EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT
OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY, THEY MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE CRIMINAL
PENALTIES IMPOSED BY SEC. 18, AND MAY ALSO BE ENJOINED FROM SO
FUNCTIONING BY A CIVIL SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE STATE COURTS. 

IN CONSIDERING THIS OBJECTION TO SEC. 7 THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
DID NOT ELABORATE ON THE MEANING OF THE TERMS "FUNCTION" OR
"FUNCTIONING" AS USED IN THE STATUTE.  IT INDICATED THAT THEY EMBRACE
THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN
THE STATE, SUCH AS THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF FINES AND DUES, THE
COLLECTION OF MONIES AND THEIR DISBURSEMENT, THE MANAGEMENT OF THEIR
PROPERTY, THE ELECTION OF THEIR OFFICERS AND THE APPOINTMENT OF THEIR
AGENTS, AND THE MAINTENANCE AND DEFENSE OF SUITS IN THE COURTS.  AND IT
ADDED "'FUNCTION,' AS USED IN THIS ACT, SIMPLY MEANS A LABOR
ORGANIZATION, WHETHER INCORPORATED OR NOT, ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN THIS
STATE, AND IN THE CHARACTER OF BUSINESS THUS INDICATED, FOR THE
PROMOTION OF THE INTERESTS OF ITS MEMBERS.  TRUE, AS A PART OF ITS
FUNCTIONING, AND A PART ONLY, THE ASSEMBLAGE OF ITS MEMBERS FOR
DISCUSSION IS HAD, BUT THIS IS MERELY INCIDENTAL." 

THIS LANGUAGE MAY BE TAKEN TO SUGGEST THAT ASSEMBLIES OF LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE INCIDENTAL TO THEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ARE
WITHIN THE REACH OF THE ACT.  BUT WE ARE LEFT UNINFORMED, AND, WITHOUT
THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE BY THE STATE COURTS TO SOME CONCRETE SET
OF FACTS, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY, WHETHER THE STATUTE IS TO BE CONSTRUED
AS MEANING THAT "FUNCTIONING" BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS NOT
COMPLIED WITH SEC. 7 BY FILING THE PRESCRIBED REPORTS IS ITSELF A
VIOLATION OF THE ACT SUBJECTING IT TO CUMULATIVE PENALTIES UNDER SEC.
18. 

ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE FAILURE TO FILE THE REQUIRED STATEMENTS OR
REPORTS ENTAILS A CIVIL AND POSSIBLY ALSO A CRIMINAL PENALTY.  THE
COLLECTION OF DUES AFTER SUCH A FAILURE IS BY SEC. 7 DECLARED TO BE
UNLAWFUL AND IS THEREFORE BY SEC. 18 MADE A MISDEMEANOR.  BUT THE
STATUTE NOWHERE IN TERMS MAKES IT AN OFFENSE OR UNLAWFUL FOR A LABOR
ORGANIZATION TO CONTINUE OTHERWISE TO FUNCTION AFTER FAILING TO FILE
THE REQUIRED REPORT OR STATEMENT.  SO FAR AS APPEARS THE SUPREME COURT
OF ALABAMA HAS NOT CONSTRUED THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE OR
DETERMINED THAT THE FAILURE OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION TO FILE THE
DOCUMENTS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 7 ENTAILS ANY CONSEQUENCES OTHER THAN THE
SPECIFIED PENALTY FOR THE FAILURE TO FILE, WITH A FURTHER PENALTY IF
WITHOUT FILING THE LABOR ORGANIZATION OR ITS OFFICERS CONTINUE TO
COLLECT DUES.  NEITHER OF THESE SANCTIONS IS ASSERTED OR SHOWN TO
OPERATE AS AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR ASSEMBLY. 
NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT THE ALABAMA COURTS HAVE HELD THAT A LABOR
ORGANIZATION FAILING TO FILE MAY BE ENJOINED FROM FUNCTIONING. 

MOREOVER IF "FUNCTIONING" AFTER FAILURE TO FILE IS ITSELF A VIOLATION
WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE STATUTE WILL BE INTERPRETED AS PENALIZING A
UNION MERELY FOR ENGAGING IN THOSE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE NOT
CONTENDED TO BE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH OR,
ON THE OTHER HAND, FOR HOLDING MEETINGS WHICH ARE WHOLLY UNRELATED TO
ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.  IN ANY EVENT WE ARE NOT ADVISED, NOR HAS THE
STATE COURT SAID, WHAT ASSEMBLIES OR MEETINGS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION
ARE SO RELATED TO ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AS TO BE DEEMED "INCIDENTAL"
TO THEM SO AS TO BE WITHIN THE REACH OF THE STATUTE. 

OBVIOUSLY NO DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES NOW POSED COULD BE
MADE IN THIS SUIT, AND NO OPINION COULD BE WRITTEN, WITHOUT CONSIDERING
ALL AND DECIDING SOME AT LEAST OF THESE QUESTIONS OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION.  NO STATE COURT HAS DECIDED THEM, BRIEFS AND ARGUMENT
OFFER US LITTLE AID IN THEIR SOLUTION, AND NO SOLUTION WHICH WE COULD
TENDER WOULD BE CONTROLLING ON THE STATE COURTS.  THE RECORD SUPPLIES
US WITH NO CONCRETE STATE OF FACTS TO WHICH THE CHALLENGED SECTIONS,
WHEN CONSTRUED, COULD BE APPLIED.  FOR ALL THAT WE KNOW THE ONLY
PENALTY TO WHICH PETITIONERS MAY BE SUBJECTED FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 7
IS A SINGLE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE REQUIRED STATEMENT OR
REPORT, AND THEIR CONTINUED FUNCTIONING IN THE STATE WOULD SUBJECT THEM
TO NO FURTHER PENALTY OR RESTRAINT.  AND ASSUMING THAT THE PENALTIES OR
THREAT OF PENALTIES OF THE STATUTE MAY BE SO APPLIED AS TO OPERATE AS A
PRESENT RESTRAINT MORE THAN DOES THE BARE EXISTENCE OF THE CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR LIBEL, IT NOWHERE APPEARS THAT THE STATUTORY
PENALTIES ARE BEING SO THREATENED OR APPLIED.    IT IS NOT CONTENDED
THAT THE STATUTE IN ANY WAY RESTRICTS THE FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND
SPEECH OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AFTER THEY COMPLY WITH THE FILING
REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE, AND IT NOWHERE APPEARS THAT ANY OF THE
PETITIONERS ARE SO SITUATED THAT THEY COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE
WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED BY IT FOR COMPLIANCE, WITHOUT INCURRING ANY
PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.  THE ATTACK THUS MADE ON SEC. 7 IS AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SECTION ON ITS FACE, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS
APPLICATION TO ANY PARTICULAR DEFINED SET OF FACTS, OTHER THAN THOSE
GENERALLY CATALOGUED IN THE SECTION ITSELF.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT SECS. 7
AND 18 COULD NOT BE SO CONSTRUED AND APPLIED AS NOT TO RESTRAIN
PETITIONERS' FUNCTIONING IN THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.  WE ARE THUS INVITED
TO PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE WHICH HAS
NOT YET BEEN APPLIED OR THREATENED TO BE APPLIED BY THE STATE COURTS TO
PETITIONERS OR OTHERS IN THE MANNER ANTICIPATED.  LACKING ANY
AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BY THE STATE COURTS, WITHOUT
WHICH NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ARISES, AND LACKING THE AUTHORITY TO
GIVE SUCH A CONTROLLING CONSTRUCTION OURSELVES, AND WITH A RECORD WHICH
PRESENTS NO CONCRETE SET OF FACTS TO WHICH THE STATUTE IS TO BE
APPLIED, THE CASE IS PLAINLY NOT ONE TO BE DISPOSED OF BY THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE. 

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY ARE NO LESS
STRICT IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING THAN IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF
SUIT.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249; AETNA
LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V.
PACIFIC CO., 312 U.S. 270, 273; GREAT LAKES CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S.
293, 299, 300; COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPS., 323 U.S. 316.  THIS COURT IS
WITHOUT POWER TO GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS.  HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 DALL.  409;
UNITED STATES V. EVANS, 213 U.S. 297, 301; MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES,
219 U.S. 346; STEARNS V. WOOD, 236 U.S. 75; COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPS.,
SUPRA.  IT HAS LONG BEEN ITS CONSIDERED PRACTICE NOT TO DECIDE
ABSTRACT, HYPOTHETICAL OR CONTINGENT QUESTIONS, GILES V. HARRIS, 189
U.S. 475, 486; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. BROOKE, 214 U.S. 138, 152;
ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337, 355; ELECTRIC BOND CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 419; UNITED STATES V.
APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377, 423, OR TO DECIDE ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IN ADVANCE OF THE NECESSITY FOR ITS DECISION,
CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 11 PET. 420, 553; TRADE-MARK
CASES, 100 U.S. 82, 96; LIVERPOOL, N.Y. & P.S.S. CO. V. EMIGRATION
COMM'RS, 113 U.S. 33, 39; BURTON V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 283, 295;
ARKANSAS OIL CO. V. LOUISIANA, 304 U.S. 197, 202, OR TO FORMULATE A
RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BROADER THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE PRECISE
FACTS TO WHICH IT IS TO BE APPLIED, LIVERPOOL, N.Y. & P.S.S. CO. V.
EMIGRATION COMM'RS, SUPRA, 39; WHITE V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 367, 371;
ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 746-7, OR TO DECIDE ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION EXCEPT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PARTICULAR FACTS
TO WHICH IT IS TO BE APPLIED, HALL V. GEIGER-JONES CO., 242 U.S. 539,
554; CORPORATION COMM'N V. LOWE, 281 U.S. 431, 438; CONTINENTAL BAKING
CO. V. WOODRING, 286 U.S. 352, 372; ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V.
GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412, 429-30. 

A LAW WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED IN ONE MANNER MAY, IT IS
TRUE, VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION WHEN APPLIED IN ANOTHER.  FIELD V.
CLARK, 143 U.S. 649, 694-7; DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S.
282, 289; CONCORDIA INS. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 292 U.S. 535; ASSOCIATED
PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103.  BUT "SINCE ALL CONTINGENCIES OF
ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT CANNOT BE ENVISIONED IN ADVANCE OF THOSE
APPLICATIONS" THIS COURT HAS FELT BOUND TO DELAY PASSING ON "THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ALL THE SEPARATE PHASES OF A COMPREHENSIVE STATUTE
UNTIL FACED WITH CASES INVOLVING PARTICULAR PROVISIONS AS SPECIFICALLY
APPLIED TO PERSONS WHO CLAIM TO BE INJURED."  WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S.
387, 402.  ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS FORBID OUR DECIDING HERE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE OF DOUBTFUL CONSTRUCTION IN
ADVANCE OF ITS APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE COURTS AND
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SOME PRECISE SET OF FACTS TO WHICH IT IS TO BE
APPLIED.  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE MAY BE RESORTED TO ONLY IN
THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT AND WHERE THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
WILL BE ADVANCED AND AN ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE JUDGMENT MAY BE
RENDERED.  GREAT LAKES CO. V. HUFFMAN, SUPRA; COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPS.,
SUPRA. 

LIKE OBJECTIONS ARE MADE AND LIKE QUESTIONS RAISED WITH RESPECT TO
SEC. 16 WHICH MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY "EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE,
PROFESSIONAL, OR SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEE TO BE A MEMBER IN, OR TO BE
ACCEPTED FOR MEMBERSHIP BY, ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION" WHICH ADMITS TO
MEMBERSHIP EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN PERSONS OF THESE CLASSES.  THE SECTION
DOES NOT DEFINE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL OR SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES.  NO PROCEEDING APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN ANY STATE
COURT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SECTION, AND WE ARE WITHOUT THE AID OF ANY
AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS PROVISIONS.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES
ONLY GENERAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE THAT PETITIONERS
ADMIT TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP BOTH EMPLOYEES WHO ARE AND EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
NOT OF THOSE CLASSES.  THE RECORD GIVES NO INFORMATION AS TO THE DUTIES
OF SUCH SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN PETITIONER JONES.  AS TO THEM
THE COURT IS THUS ASKED TO RULE UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE
STATUTE WHICH PETITIONERS CHALLENGE AS TOO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE TO
SATISFY CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN
APPLIED OR CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT, UPON A RECORD WHICH AFFORDS AN
INADEQUATE FACTUAL BASIS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE STATUTE IS
APPLICABLE TO ANY OF THEM, OR IF SO WHETHER AS APPLIED TO THEM THE
STATUTE WOULD VIOLATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY. 

A FURTHER AND CONCLUSIVE GROUND FOR OUR DECLINING TO PASS ON THE
VALIDITY OF SEC. 16 IS THE RULING OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT THAT THAT
VOID ANY INSURANCE CONTRACT NOW IN EXISTENCE AND IN FORCE."  THE RECORD
WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE DETAILS SHOWS THAT PETITIONERS PROVIDE INSURANCE
BENEFITS FOR THEIR MEMBERS AS SUCH, AND THAT PETITIONER JONES IS A
MEMBER OF PETITIONER UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AND AS A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO SUCH BENEFITS.  WHETHER AND TO
WHAT EXTENT SEC. 16 CAN BE DEEMED APPLICABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF ANY OF
THE OTHER PETITIONERS BECAUSE OF EXISTING INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS DOES
NOT APPEAR.  ONLY THOSE TO WHOM A STATUTE APPLIES AND WHO ARE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY IT CAN DRAW IN QUESTION ITS CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY IN A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING AS IN ANY OTHER.  MARYE V. PARSONS, 114
U.S. 325; TYLER V. THE JUDGES, 179 U.S. 405; TURPIN V. LEMON, 187 U.S.
51, 60, 61; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 463, 464; FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. TAX COMM'N, 289 U.S. 60, 65; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288; ANDERSON NAT. BANK V. LUCKETT, 321 U.S.
233, 242. 

          CONFLICT OF SECTIONS 7 AND 16 WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR

                      RELATIONS ACT. 

PETITIONERS ALSO URGE THAT SEC. 7 AND SEC. 16 CONFLICT WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ.,
IN THAT ALABAMA IS LIKELY TO ASSERT THE POWER TO ENFORCE THOSE SECTIONS
BY DEPRIVING PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO FUNCTION IN THE STATE AS
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  THEY POINT OUT THAT THE NATIONAL ACT, SEC. 8(5),
UNCONDITIONALLY REQUIRES AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS EMPLOYEES.  THEY CONTEND THAT SEC. 7 THUS
CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL ACT AND THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FORMER
TENDS TO HINDER AND INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF PETITIONERS'
FUNCTIONS UNDER THE NATIONAL ACT. 

PETITIONERS ALSO URGE THAT SEC. 16 CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IN THAT UNDER ITS PROVISIONS, AS CONSTRUED AND
ADMINISTERED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, EMPLOYEES IN
CERTAIN INDUSTRIES, WHO EXERCISE SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS, MAY JOIN AND BE
REPRESENTED BY UNIONS WHICH ALSO ADMIT TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP NON
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES.  PETITIONERS SAY THAT ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION
WHICH HAS FAILED TO FILE THE REPORT AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 7, OR WHICH
ADMITS TO ITS UNION A SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEE CONTRARY TO SEC. 16, WILL BE
PRECLUDED FROM ACTING AS A BARGAINING AGENT UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

ASSUMING AS WE DO FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THESE CONTENTIONS ARE
SOUND, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL SCOPE FOR
APPLICATION OF SECS. 7 AND 16.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES
NOT EXTEND TO ALL INDUSTRIES AND ALL EMPLOYEES.  IT IS ONLY APPLICABLE
TO THOSE EMPLOYMENTS IN WHICH STRIKES AND LABOR DISPUTES WOULD AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ARE FOUND TO BE SUCH BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD.  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 38
40; LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 604; POLISH ALLIANCE V.
LABOR BOARD, 322 U.S. 643, 647. 

THE RECORD CONTAINS EVIDENCE OF ONLY THE MOST GENERAL CHARACTER THAT
THERE ARE INDUSTRIES LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE WHOSE EMPLOYEES ARE
"WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR AND
LOCAL NO. 103, OR OF THE OTHER A.F. OF L. UNIONS WITHIN THE CLASS FOR
WHICH THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED, WHICH ARE ENGAGED  ...  IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THERE IS EVIDENCE GENERALLY AS TO THE PRACTICE
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN CERTIFYING UNIONS AS
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES.  BUT IT NOWHERE AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS THAT
ANY OF PETITIONERS ACT AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES IN
INDUSTRIES WITHIN THE STATE WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IS THAT IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT THERE ARE ANY OF PETITIONERS WHICH DO NOT REPRESENT
EMPLOYEES IN INDUSTRIES WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF THE ALLEGED CONFLICT OF SECS.
7 AND 16 WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THE EFFECT OF IT, IT
WOULD BE NECESSARY TO KNOW WHETHER PETITIONERS OR SOME OF THEM
REPRESENT EMPLOYEES IN INDUSTRIES NOT SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH FOR THAT REASON THEY MAY BE
RIGHTLY SUBJECT TO LOCAL REGULATION EVEN THOUGH THEY ALSO REPRESENT
EMPLOYEES IN OTHER INDUSTRIES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL ACT. 
THE RECORD IS SILENT AS TO WHICH OF PETITIONERS REPRESENT THE ONE, OR
THE OTHER, OR BOTH.  HENCE WE HAVE NO STATE OF FACTS BEFORE US WHICH
WOULD ENABLE US TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SEVERAL
PETITIONERS MAY BE SUBJECT TO LOCAL REGULATION WHICH DOES NOT CONFLICT
WITH THE NATIONAL ACT, AND THUS WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY TO WHAT EXTENT THE
CHALLENGED SECTIONS ARE VALID OR INVALID UNDER THE NATIONAL ACT. 

WHEN A STATUTE IS ASSAILED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WE ARE BOUND TO ASSUME
THE EXISTENCE OF ANY STATE OF FACTS WHICH WOULD SUSTAIN THE STATUTE IN
WHOLE OR IN PART.  METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INS. CO. V. BROWNELL, 294 U.S.
580, 584 AND CASES CITED; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304
U.S. 144, 152, 153.  SINCE PETITIONERS OR SOME OF THEM ARE NOT SHOWN TO
FUNCTION EXCLUSIVELY AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES FOR EMPLOYEES IN
INDUSTRIES SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WE CANNOT SAY
THAT SECS. 7 AND 16 COULD IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE VALIDLY APPLIED TO
THEM.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH IN FACT THE SECTIONS ARE OR MAY BE SO
APPLIED, AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, DOES NOT APPEAR.  IN THIS STATE OF
THE RECORD WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO SAY WHETHER OR TO WHAT EXTENT THEY
MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED. 

MOREOVER, FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED IN OUR DISCUSSION OF THE ALLEGED
INFRINGEMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY, WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT
THE FAILURE TO FILE REPORTS WILL RESULT IN THE EXCLUSION OF
PETITIONERS, OR ANY OF THEM, FROM FUNCTIONING IN THE STATE, OR VISIT
ANY CONSEQUENCES UPON THEM OTHER THAN THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE. 
WE THEREFORE HAVE NO QUESTION BEFORE US OF A STATUTE WHICH HAS BEEN
CONSTRUED TO OPERATE EITHER BY ITS PENAL SANCTIONS OR BY THE AID OF
INJUNCTION TO PREVENT PETITIONERS, OR ANY OF THEM, FROM FUNCTIONING
WITHIN THE STATE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 7.  COMPARE HILL V.
FLORIDA, POST, P. 538.  NOR CAN WE SAY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING TO
THE CONTRARY THAT THE FILING OF INFORMATION RETURNS WILL IMPOSE SUCH
BURDENS ON ANY OF PETITIONERS AS TO INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF
THEIR FUNCTIONS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN CASES WHERE
THAT ACT IS APPLICABLE. 

AND FINALLY, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, A FURTHER GROUND FOR OUR NOT
CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 16 AND WHETHER IT CONFLICTS WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS THE RULING OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT
THAT THAT SECTION IS INAPPLICABLE WHEREVER IT WOULD OTHERWISE INTERFERE
WITH OR RENDER INEFFECTIVE ANY EXISTING CONTRACT OF INSURANCE.  IN VIEW
OF THIS HOLDING, IT IS INCUMBENT ON PETITIONERS TO SHOW, AS THEY HAVE
FAILED TO DO, TO WHAT EXTENT SEC. 16 CAN BE TAKEN TO BE APPLICABLE TO
ANY OF THEM BECAUSE OF EXISTING INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS WITH UNION
MEMBERS. 

WE CAN BE ASKED TO CONDEMN A STATE STATUTE AS IN CONFLICT WITH
NATIONAL LEGISLATION ONLY IF THE CONFLICT IS CLEARLY SHOWN, ALLEN
BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, SUPRA, 749; TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441,
454, AND CASES CITED, AND ONLY BY THOSE WHO SHOW THAT THEY ARE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH NATIONAL POWER.  EACH
OF THE CONTENTIONS WHICH PETITIONERS MAKE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONFLICT
OF SECS. 7 AND 16 WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT COULD READILY
BE ADJUDICATED AND DISPOSED OF IN AN ADVERSARY SUIT DRAWING IN QUESTION
THEIR VALIDITY AS APPLIED TO SPECIFIC STATES OF FACT, IN WHICH
RESPONDENTS COULD BOTH CHALLENGE THE FACTS AND THE APPLICABILITY TO
THEM OF THE STATUTE.  IN THE PRESENT SUIT WE FIND THAT BOTH THE
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTIONS AND THE UNCERTAINTY
AS TO THE FACTS TO WHICH THEY ARE TO BE APPLIED PRECLUDE THE
ADJUDICATION WHICH THE PETITIONERS SEEK. 

        THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 15 UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 

ORGANIZER, ANY OFFICER, AGENT, REPRESENTATIVE OR MEMBER OF ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION, OR ANY OTHER PERSON, TO COLLECT, RECEIVE OR DEMAND,  ...
FROM ANY PERSON, ANY FEE, ASSESSMENT, OR SUM OF MONEY WHATSOEVER, AS A
WORK PERMIT OR AS A CONDITION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF WORK."  BUT IT
EXCLUDES FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT THE COLLECTION OF "INITIATION
FEES OR DUES."  PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THE SECTION APPLYING AS IT DOES
TO EVERY FORM OF COLLECTION OF MONEY, OTHER THAN INITIATION FEES OR
DUES, "AS A WORK PERMIT OR AS A CONDITION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF WORK,"
PREVENTS NUMEROUS LEGITIMATE AND DESIRABLE LABOR UNION PRACTICES AND
HENCE IS SO HARSH, ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE IN ITS APPLICATION AS TO
INFRINGE DUE PROCESS.  A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES ARE GIVEN, SUCH AS UNION
FEES CHARGED TO NON-UNION APPRENTICES IN RETURN FOR THEIR "GUIDANCE AND
TEACHING" BY UNION MEMBERS, FEES CHARGED TO NON-UNION MEMBERS FOR
PARTICIPATION IN THE BENEFITS OF EXISTING ALL-UNION COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING CONTRACTS, FEES CHARGED FOR THE TRANSFER FROM ONE UNION TO
ANOTHER PENDING ADMISSION TO UNION MEMBERSHIP IN THE LATTER, AND THE
LIKE. 

ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONS OF PETITIONERS, OR SOME OF
THEM, CONTAIN A PROVISION PERMITTING THEM TO CHARGE A FEE TO UNION
MEMBERS WORKING IN A UNION "JURISDICTION" OUTSIDE THAT IN WHICH THEY
LIVE, IT NOWHERE APPEARS THAT SUCH FEES OR ANY OF THE OTHERS SPECIFIED
BY PETITIONERS ARE BEING OR WILL BE CHARGED, OR THAT RESPONDENTS OR THE
COURTS HAVE DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE UNLAWFUL AS NOT BEING INITIATION
FEES OR DUES, OR THAT ANY FORM OF LEGAL PROCEEDING BASED ON SUCH A
CONTENTION IS CONTEMPLATED.  FOR THESE REASONS THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA DECLINED TO CONSIDER WHETHER SEC. 15 WAS APPLICABLE TO
PETITIONERS, SAYING, "WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN PRACTICES TO WHICH COUNSEL
REFER ARE TO BE CONSTRUED AS COMING WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
ARE QUESTIONS WHICH WILL ARISE WHEN THE PROPER CASE IS PRESENTED." 

TO SAY THAT THE STATUTE WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF APPLIED TO SUCH
EXACTIONS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE SECTION CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLY
TO EXACTIONS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE COULD HAVE THOUGHT COERCIVE,
OPPRESSIVE OR OTHERWISE UNJUST.  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE INDULGED IN SUCH PRACTICES, AND OBVIOUSLY WE CANNOT
ASSUME IN THE FACE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS THAT THEY DO NOT,
OR THAT THE STATE COULD NOT MAKE SEC. 15 APPLICABLE TO THEM.  AS THE
RECORD PRESENTS NO CONCRETE CASE TO WHICH PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS AS
TO SEC. 15 APPLY, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY WHETHER ITS APPLICATION IN ANY
GIVEN CASE NOT NOW BEFORE US WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE CONSTITUTIONAL. 
LIVERPOOL, N.Y. & P.S.S. CO. V. EMIGRATION COMM'RS, SUPRA, 39; BARKER
CO. V. PAINTERS UNION, 281 U.S. 462, 463, 464.  DETERMINATION OF THESE
QUESTIONS AS WELL AS THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTION WHICH IS
CHALLENGED AS VAGUE AND INDEFINITE MUST AWAIT ITS APPLICATION TO SOME
SPECIFIC STATE OF FACTS. 

                          OTHER CONTENTIONS. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID AS TO VARIOUS OTHER OBJECTIONS NOT ALREADY
DISPOSED OF, WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED BUT NOT SERIOUSLY PRESSED.  IT IS
SAID THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 7 TO FILE INFORMATION STATEMENTS AND
REPORTS IS SO BURDENSOME ON LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.  IT IS NOT DENIED BUT IS AFFIRMED THAT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ARE
SUBJECT TO REGULATION, ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, SUPRA, AND THAT IN
THE INTERESTS OF REGULATION THE GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE INFORMATION FROM
THOSE SUBJECT TO IT.  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 532; CF.
NORTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO. V. NEBRASKA COMM'N, 297 U.S. 471, 478;
NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300, 306 AND CASES CITED.  IT IS
SAID THAT IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR
EACH UNION, REGARDLESS OF ITS SIZE AND FINANCES, TO HIRE PUBLIC
ACCOUNTANTS OR OTHERS WITH SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE OF ACCOUNTING
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURE, SUCH AS WORKING MEN DO NOT HAVE, AND THAT SUCH
A REQUIREMENT IS BEYOND CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  BUT THESE ASSERTIONS ARE
UNSUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  IT DOES NOT SHOW TO WHAT EXTENT THE
TRANSACTIONS OF PETITIONERS, OR ANY OF THEM, ARE COMPLICATED OR
DETAILED OR OTHER FACTS WHICH WOULD ENABLE US TO SAY THAT PETITIONERS
ARE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE WITHOUT EXPERT ASSISTANCE.  SINCE
PETITIONERS' RELIANCE IS UPON THE BURDENSOME OPERATION OF THE STATUTE
ON THEM, WE ARE NOT BOUND TO SPECULATE UPON THE NATURE OR EXTENT OF THE
BURDEN.  WE CAN HARDLY MAKE PRONOUNCEMENT ON THEIR CONTENTIONS IN A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING WHERE THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE
EXTENT OF THE BURDEN, IF ANY.  WHETHER THE INFORMATION DEMANDED IS SO
EXTENSIVE, DETAILED, AND THEREFORE BURDENSOME, AS TO PASS THE BOUNDS OF
WHAT THE STATE MAY REASONABLY REQUIRE CAN BE DETERMINED ONLY IN THE
LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE STATUTE IS TO BE APPLIED. 

THE OBJECTION THAT SECS. 7 AND 16 OF THE STATE STATUTE ARE TOO VAGUE
AND UNCERTAIN TO MEET CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS IS ONE WHICH CANNOT
APPROPRIATELY BE CONSIDERED IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS, IN ADVANCE OF THEIR AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION BY A
STATE COURT.  AS WE HAVE SAID, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO
AVOID THE UNNECESSARY DECISION OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  SILER V.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 213 U.S. 175, 191; LIGHT V. UNITED
STATES, 220 U.S. 523, 538; BLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 273, 279;
CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 62, AND CASES CITED.  BUT THE USE OF
THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF A STATE
STATUTE FOR VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY INVITES RATHER THAN AVOIDS THE
UNNECESSARY DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 

MOST COURTS CONCEIVE IT TO BE THEIR DUTY TO CONSTRUE A STATUTE,
WHENEVER REASONABLY POSSIBLE, SO THAT IT MAY BE CONSTITUTIONAL RATHER
THAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  STEPHENSON V. BINFORD, 287 U.S. 251; MOORE ICE
CREAM CO. V. ROSE, 289 U.S. 373, 379; SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P.
91, AND CASES CITED; CF. SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101;
EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283.  AND THE ALABAMA COURTS ADHERE TO THAT
RULE.  MOBILE V. BOARD, 180 ALA. 489, 501, 61 SO. 368; CF. DUNCAN V.
RUDULPH, 245 ALA. 175, 176, 16 SO.2D 313; GOODMAN V. CARROLL, 205 ALA.
305, 87 SO. 368; CLOVERDALE HOMES V. TOWN OF CLOVERDALE, 182 ALA. 419,
62 SO. 712.  STATE COURTS, WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY BY THE
PRESENTATION TO THEM FOR DECISION OF AN ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY,
MAY, AND OFTEN DO, CONSTRUE STATE STATUTES SO THAT IN THEIR APPLICATION
THEY ARE NOT OPEN TO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE
ADDRESSED TO THEM.  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 575; COMPARE
SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 302 U.S. 506 WITH SCHUYLKILL
TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 296 U.S. 113.  IN ADVANCE OF AN
AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE STATUTE, WHICH THE STATE COURT
ALONE CAN MAKE, THIS COURT CANNOT KNOW WHETHER THE STATE COURT, WHEN
CALLED ON TO APPLY THE STATUTE TO A DEFINED CASE OR CONTROVERSY, MAY
NOT CONSTRUE THE STATUTE SO AS TO AVOID THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 
FOR US TO DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BY ANTICIPATING SUCH AN
AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE STATUTE WOULD BE EITHER TO
DECIDE THE QUESTION UNNECESSARILY OR REST OUR DECISION ON THE UNSTABLE
FOUNDATION OF OUR OWN CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE STATUTE WHICH THE STATE
COURT WOULD NOT BE BOUND TO FOLLOW.  SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN,
SUPRA, 105; SEE ALSO VANDENBARK V. OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 311 U.S. 538,
543; HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232.  SUCH IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF
THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE MAY BE USED IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS TO CONTROL STATE ACTION LIES IN THE SOUND DISCRETION
OF THE COURT.  SEE GREAT LAKES CO. V. HUFFMAN, SUPRA.  IT WOULD BE AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THIS COURT TO MAKE A PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE BEFORE IT PLAINLY APPEARED THAT
THE NECESSITY FOR IT HAD ARISEN, OR WHEN THE COURT IS LEFT IN
UNCERTAINTY, WHICH IT CANNOT AUTHORITATIVELY RESOLVE, AS TO THE MEANING
OF THE STATUTE WHEN APPLIED TO ANY PARTICULAR STATE OF FACTS.  IN ANY
EVENT THE PARTIES ARE FREE TO LITIGATE IN THE STATE COURTS THE VALIDITY
OF THE STATUTE WHEN ACTUALLY APPLIED TO ANY DEFINITE STATE OF FACTS,
WITH THE RIGHT OF APPELLATE REVIEW IN THIS COURT.  IN THE EXERCISE OF
THIS COURT'S DISCRETIONARY POWER TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT REMEDY IT IS OF CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE THAT IT IS IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST TO AVOID THE NEEDLESS DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS AND THE NEEDLESS OBSTRUCTION TO THE DOMESTIC POLICY OF THE
STATES BY FORESTALLING STATE ACTION IN CONSTRUING AND APPLYING ITS OWN
STATUTES.  SEE GREAT LAKES CO. V. HUFFMAN, SUPRA, 300, ET SEQ. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE ACT DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION BECAUSE ITS
PROVISIONS, OR SOME OF THEM, HAVE NOT BEEN EXTENDED TO BUSINESS
CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS OR TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE
SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., IS
WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT OBLIGE A STATE TO
REGULATE OR REFORM ALL TYPES OF ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS, OR
NONE.  IT MAY BEGIN WITH SUCH AS IN ITS JUDGMENT MOST NEED REGULATION. 
CARROLL V. GREENWICH INSURANCE CO., 199 U.S. 401, 411; KEOKEE COKE CO.
V. TAYLOR, 234 U.S. 224, 227; BUNTING V. OREGON, 243 U.S. 426; SPROLES
V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 396; CF. WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300
U.S. 379, 400, AND CASES CITED.  AND FOR THIS REASON IT MAY EXCLUDE
FROM REGULATORY MEASURES ORGANIZATIONS WHICH IT HAS REASON TO BELIEVE
ARE ALREADY APPROPRIATELY REGULATED BY EITHER STATE OR NATIONAL
LEGISLATION.  ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132, 140; CF. UNION
BANK & TRUST CO. V. PHELPS, 288 U.S. 181, 186. 

WE WOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW SO UNSUBSTANTIAL A
QUESTION, AND ALL THE OTHER ISSUES, AS PRESENTED BY THE RECORD NOW
BEFORE US, ARE, FOR REASONS WHICH WE HAVE GIVEN, INAPPROPRIATE FOR
DECISION IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING.  THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WILL THEREFORE DISMISSED. 

FN1  UNDER THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER PETITIONERS HAVE PROPERLY RAISED IN THE STATE COURTS
THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS WHICH THEY URGE HERE WITH RESPECT TO SECS. 15 AND
16. 
..END :





C.I.O. V. MCADORY, 325 U.S. 472 


NO. 855.  ARGUED APRIL 3, 4, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - WRIT
DISMISSED. 


1.  DECISION IN THIS CASE IS CONTROLLED BY THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING
ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, ANTE, P. 450.  P. 477. 

2.  THIS COURT WILL NOT PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
LEGISLATION IN A SUIT WHICH IS NOT ADVERSARY, OR IN WHICH THERE IS NO
ACTUAL ANTAGONISTIC ASSERTION OF RIGHTS.  P. 475. 

3.  THE COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS ADVERSARY AS
TO SEC. 7 OF THE BRADFORD ACT (ALABAMA LAWS OF 1943, NO. 298) IN VIEW
OF THE AGREEMENT BY RESPONDENTS TO REFRAIN FROM ENFORCING THAT SECTION
UNTIL ITS VALIDITY IS FINALLY DETERMINED BY THIS COURT, AND IN VIEW OF
THE DECISION IN THE ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR CASE.  P. 475. 

4.  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 16 BY THE
STATE COURTS, THIS COURT CANNOT SAY WHETHER THAT SECTION WILL BE
INTERPRETED SO AS TO INCLUDE WITHIN ITS SCOPE EMPLOYEES WHICH
PETITIONERS INTEND TO ADMIT TO MEMBERSHIP, AND THUS CANNOT PASS ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE SECTION AS APPLIED TO THE FUTURE
ADMISSION OF MEMBERS.  P. 476. 

5.  THE CONTENTION IN THIS CASE THAT SEC. 16 OF THE BRADFORD ACT
CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE
BEEN PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE STATE COURTS, NOR TO HAVE BEEN PASSED
UPON BY THOSE COURTS, AND THIS COURT UPON REVIEW IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER IT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  P. 477. 

CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS ET AL. V. MCADORY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 832, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT, 246 ALA. 198, 20
SO.2D 40, WHICH AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING IN PART THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT, BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURTS OF ALABAMA FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ADJUDICATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE BRADFORD ACT,
NO. 298 ALABAMA LAWS OF 1943, (CODE 1943, TIT. 26, SECS. 376, ET SEQ.),
AND FOR AN INJUNCTION, IS A COMPANION CASE TO ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION
OF LABOR V. MCADORY, ANTE, P. 450. 

PETITIONERS ARE THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, A NATIONAL
LABOR ORGANIZATION, AND CERTAIN AFFILIATED LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, WHOSE
MEMBERS ARE EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE, AND CERTAIN OF THEIR OFFICERS. 
PETITIONERS BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE STATE CIRCUIT COURT AGAINST
RESPONDENTS WHO ARE COUNTY OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ENFORCING
THE ACT, PRAYING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ACT AS A WHOLE AND
PARTICULARLY SECS. 7 AND 16, AMONG OTHERS, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER
THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS, AND ARE INVALID BECAUSE IN
CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND PRAYING THAT AN
INJUNCTION ISSUE. 

AFTER A TRIAL UPON EVIDENCE THE CIRCUIT COURT ADJUDGED CERTAIN
PART.  IN OTHER RESPECTS IT HELD THE ACT CONSTITUTIONAL AND VALID.  IT
FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSED NO EFFORT ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS
TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DECLARED TO BE INVALID AND
ACCORDINGLY DENIED AN INJUNCTION.  ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA AFFIRMED, 246 ALA. 198, 20 SO.2D 40, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN
ITS OPINION IN THE ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR CASE. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 832, ON A PETITION WHICH URGED THAT
SECS. 7 AND 16 OF THE ACT DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY;
THAT SECS. 7 AND 16 CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49
STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ.; AND THAT SEC. 7 DENIES
PETITIONERS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY THE FOUR
TEENTH AMENDMENT ON THE GROUND THAT ITS PROVISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN
EXTENDED TO EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS, AND THAT THE ACT EXCLUDES FROM ITS
OPERATION LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE AGREED NOT TO ENFORCE SEC.
7 OF THE ACT UNTIL THE FINAL DECISION AS TO THE SECTION'S VALIDITY BY
THIS COURT IN ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, SUPRA.
SINCE WE HAVE HELD IN THAT CASE THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO PASS UPON
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEC. 7 ON THE RECORD PRESENTED, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS ADVERSARY AS TO SEC. 7.  THE
COURT WILL NOT PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION IN A SUIT
WHICH IS NOT ADVERSARY, BARTEMEYER V. IOWA, 18 WALL.  129, 134-5;
CHICAGO & GRAND TRUNK R. CO. V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339; ATHERTON MILLS
V. JOHNSTON, 259 U.S. 13, 15; COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPS., 323 U.S. 316,
324, OR IN WHICH THERE IS NO ACTUAL ANTAGONISTIC ASSERTION OF RIGHTS. 
CLEVELAND V. CHAMBERLAIN, 1 BLACK 419; SWIFT & CO. V. HOCKING VALLEY R.
CO., 243 U.S. 281, 289; NORTON V. VESTA COAL CO., 291 U.S. 641; UNITED
STATES V. JOHNSON, 319 U.S. 302. 

UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD IN THIS CASE WE FIND THAT IT SHOWS
THAT PETITIONERS OR SOME OF THEM HAVE MEMBERS WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN THE
STATE OF ALABAMA IN INDUSTRIES WHOSE EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND THAT THEY ACT IN THE STATE AND ARE
CERTIFIED AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH EMPLOYEES UNDER THE
ACT.  BUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY ACT IN THE STATE AS BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES IN INDUSTRIES WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT APPEAR, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
RECORD AFFORDS NO ADEQUATE BASIS FOR AN ADJUDICATION OF THE EXTENT TO
WHICH FOR THAT REASON THE PETITIONERS OR SOME OF THEM MAY BE RIGHTLY
SUBJECT TO LOCAL REGULATION EVEN THOUGH THEY ALSO REPRESENT EMPLOYEES
IN OTHER INDUSTRIES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL ACT. 

THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS PROVIDE INSURANCE
BENEFITS FOR THEIR MEMBERS.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSTRUED SEC.
16 AS INAPPLICABLE WHENEVER IT WOULD OTHERWISE "INTERFERE WITH OR VOID
ANY INSURANCE CONTRACT NOW IN EXISTENCE AND IN FORCE" AND, AS
CONSTRUED, HAS HELD IT VALID AS APPLIED TO PETITIONERS.  ON THIS STATE
OF THE RECORD WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY TO WHAT EXTENT SEC. 16 CAN BE DEEMED
APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF ANY OF PETITIONERS BECAUSE OF EXISTING
INSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS.  FOR THIS AND THE OTHER REASONS STATED IN OUR
OPINION IN THE ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR CASE THE RECORD DOES
NOT PRESENT A CASE CALLING FOR DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
OF SEC. 16 AS APPLIED TO ANY EXISTING UNION MEMBERS. 

PETITIONERS NEVERTHELESS ASSERT THAT THEY INTEND TO ADMIT SUCH
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AS MEMBERS IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF ALABAMA IN THE ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR CASE HAS HELD
THAT SUCH FUTURE "EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, OR
SUPERVISORY" EMPLOYEES ARE NOT EXCEPTED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 16
BY REASON OF THEIR ACQUISITION AS SUCH EMPLOYEES OF INSURANCE
BENEFITS.  ALTHOUGH THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD INDICATING THAT
SOME OF PETITIONERS WHO HAVE NON-SUPERVISORY MEMBERS ADMIT TO
MEMBERSHIP EMPLOYEES WHOM THEY DESIGNATE AS "SUPERVISORY" IN THE WORDS
OF THE STATUTE, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT
THEY DO NOT ADMIT SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE THE RIGHT TO "HIRE AND
FIRE."  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA DID NOT IN ITS OPINION IN THIS
CASE OR IN THE ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR CASE DEFINE THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE "EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, OR
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEE."  THUS ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD BEFORE US WE DO
NOT KNOW WHETHER THOSE EMPLOYEES WHICH PETITIONERS INTEND TO ADMIT TO
MEMBERSHIP ARE SUCH AS ARE INCLUDED IN SEC. 16.  WE DO NOT KNOW THAT
SEC. 16 WILL NOT BE INTERPRETED TO EMBRACE ONLY THOSE EMPLOYEES WHICH
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY AND DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES.  AND SO IT DOES
NOT APPEAR THAT THE STATUTE WILL BE APPLIED SO AS TO RAISE THE FEDERAL
QUESTION WHICH WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE. 

FURTHER, THE CONTENTION THAT SEC. 16 CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, CF. HILL V. FLORIDA, POST, P. 538, WAS NOT PASSED
ON BY THE CIRCUIT COURT, WAS NOT RAISED BY ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IN THE
ALABAMA SUPREME COURT, AND THAT COURT DID NOT PASS ON THAT QUESTION
EITHER IN ITS OPINION IN THIS CASE OR IN ITS OPINION IN THE ALABAMA
STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR CASE WHICH IT ADOPTED AS CONTROLLING.  THE
ALABAMA SUPREME COURT WILL NOT CONSIDER ERRORS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
ASSIGNED, ROWLAND & CO. V. PLUMMER, 50 ALA. 182, 197; PETTIBONE-TAYLOR
CO. V. FARMERS BANK, 156 ALA. 666, 46 SO. 751; MALANEY V. LADURA MINES
CO., 191 ALA. 655, 65 SO. 666; NICHOLS V. HARDEGREE, 202 ALA. 132, 79
SO. 598; HALLE V. BROOKS, 209 ALA. 486, 96 SO. 341, OR WHICH HAVE NOT
BEEN SPECIFICALLY AND PRECISELY RAISED IN THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR,
KINNON V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 187 ALA. 480, 65 SO. 397;
CARNEY V. KISER CO., 200 ALA. 527, 76 SO. 853; HALL V. PEARCE, 209 ALA.
397, 399, 96 SO. 608; JACKSON LUMBER CO. V. BUTLER, 244 ALA. 348, 13
SO.2D 294, 298.  SINCE THE STATE SUPREME COURT DID NOT PASS ON THE
QUESTION NOW URGED, AND SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY
PRESENTED TO THAT COURT FOR DECISION, WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
CONSIDER IT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE HERE.  CAPERTON V. BOWYER, 14 WALL. 
216, 236; HULBERT V. CHICAGO, 202 U.S. 275, 280, 281; DORRANCE V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 287 U.S. 660; CHANDLER V. MANIFOLD, 290 U.S. 665; SEE
ALSO FLOURNOY V. WIENER, 321 U.S. 253; CHARLESTON ASSN. V. ALDERSON,
324 U.S. 182, 185, AND CASES CITED. 

WE FIND NO OTHER FACTUAL DIFFERENCES CALLING FOR COMMENT BETWEEN THE
CASE PRESENTED BY THE RECORD HERE AND THAT PRESENTED IN THE ALABAMA
STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR CASE.  OUR DECISION HERE IS THEREFORE
CONTROLLED BY OUR DECISION IN THAT CASE.  THE QUESTION RAISED AS TO THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS TOO UNSUBSTANTIAL TO MERIT REVIEW.  THE
OTHER ISSUES, AS PRESENTED BY THE RECORD NOW BEFORE US, ARE, FOR
REASONS STATED AT LENGTH IN OUR OPINION IN THE ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION
OF LABOR CASE, INAPPROPRIATE FOR DECISION IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
PROCEEDING.  THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 
..END :










KEEGAN V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 478 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 10, 1944.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 141 F.2D 248,
REVERSED. 


1.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN CONVICTION
OF THE PETITIONERS, MEMBERS OF THE GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND, FOR CONSPIRACY
KNOWINGLY TO COUNSEL OTHERS TO EVADE SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  PP. 488, 494. 

OPINION OF ROBERTS, J., IN WHICH FRANKFURTER AND MURPHY, JJ.,
CONCUR: 

2.  PROMULGATION AND COMMUNICATION OF BUND COMMAND NO. 37 WAS NOT IN
ITSELF A COUNSEL TO EVADE; EVIDENCE OF THE GENERAL DISPOSITION OF THE
PETITIONERS EITHER TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR
TOWARDS THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT DID NOT MAKE THE COMMAND A COUNSEL TO
EVADE; AND THE EVIDENCE AND ORAL STATEMENTS OF THE VARIOUS PETITIONERS
AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND UNIT MEETINGS OF THE BUND DID NOT SUPPLY THE
BASIS FOR A FINDING, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, OF COUNSELLING, OR
INTENDING TO COUNSEL, OR CONSPIRING TO COUNSEL, EVASION OF MILITARY
SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT.  P. 494.  BLACK AND
RUTLEDGE, JJ., CONCUR IN SEPARATE OPINIONS, PP. 495, 498. 

KEEGAN V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 39.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 44, KUNZE ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 719, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING CONVICTIONS
OF CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING OPINION, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR. 

TWO INDICTMENTS, ONE RETURNED JULY 7, 1942, THE OTHER RETURNED AUGUST
26, 1942, CHARGED A CONSPIRACY BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1940, AND ENDING AT
THE DATES THE INDICTMENTS WERE FOUND.  THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF THE
SECOND WAS TO INCLUDE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS AS ALLEGED
CONSPIRATORS.  WE SHALL TREAT THEM AS ONE. 

THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED WAS TO COUNSEL DIVERS PERSONS TO EVADE,
RESIST, AND REFUSE SERVICE IN THE LAND AND NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT OF 1940, 50 U.S.C. APP. 311. 

THE ACT DEFINES THE CRIME AS CONSPIRACY "KNOWINGLY" TO COUNSEL
"ANOTHER TO EVADE REGISTRATION OR SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES
..." 

THE PROOFS WOULD NOT SUSTAIN, AND THE INDICTMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN,
ANY CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO COUNSEL EVASION OF REGISTRATION. 

IN CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS OF THE INDICTMENT IT IS CHARGED 

(1)  THAT IT WAS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY THAT EACH WAS AND WOULD
REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND; THAT EACH WAS A
RESPONSIBLE LEADER OF THE BUND. 

(2)  THAT SOME PREPARED GERMAN ARTICLES CALLED BUND COMMANDS AND
OTHERS DISTRIBUTED AND CAUSED THEM TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO UNITS OF THE
BUND. 

(3)  THAT THE COMMANDS WERE READ AT MEETINGS. 

(4)  THAT COMMAND 37 COUNSELLED, DIRECTED, AND URGED THOSE TO WHOM
ITS CONTENTS WERE COMMUNICATED TO EVADE, RESIST, AND REFUSE SERVICE IN
THE LAND AND NAVAL FORCES. 

(5)  THAT ARTICLES IN THE NEWSPAPER "THE FREE AMERICAN," PUBLISHED BY
THE BUND, WHICH WERE DISTRIBUTED, URGED GERMAN-AMERICAN CITIZENS AND
OTHERS TO RESIST, REFUSE AND EVADE SUCH SERVICE. 

(6)  THAT THE DEFENDANTS OTHERWISE URGED GERMAN-AMERICAN CITIZENS AND
OTHERS TO RESIST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1940 AND TO EVADE
SERVICE. 

THE 25 DEFENDANTS WERE TRIED TOGETHER.  ONE WAS ACQUITTED.  THE
GOVERNMENT CALLED 68 WITNESSES AND THE TRIAL LASTED FROM SEPTEMBER 17TH
TO OCTOBER 19TH, 1942.  THE PRINTED TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY FURNISHED
THIS COURT COVERS JUST SHORT OF 800 PAGES, AND THE EXHIBITS OFFERED IN
EVIDENCE RUN TO OVER 350, SOME OF THEM CONTAINING OVER 50 PAGES.  THE
DEFENDANTS WERE REPRESENTED AT THE TRIAL BY APPOINTED COUNSEL AS THEY
WERE NOT ABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL. 

THE GOVERNMENT CORRECTLY STATES THAT THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE
PROSECUTOR FALLS INTO TWO CLASSES:  (1) THAT TOUCHING THE GERMAN
AMERICAN BUND AND ITS PURPOSES, WHICH WAS OFFERED TO INDICATE THE
MOTIVES AND PURPOSES FOR THE DEFENDANTS' STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS; AND
(2) EVIDENCE TOUCHING SPECIFIC ACTIONS, CONDUCT, AND STATEMENTS TENDING
TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY AND THE STEPS TAKEN PURSUANT TO
IT.  THE EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST CATEGORY IS OVERWHELMINGLY GREATER IN
VOLUME THAN THAT IN THE SECOND.  INDEED A QUESTION ARISES WHETHER IT
WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO GO, AT SUCH
INORDINATE LENGTH, INTO EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE BUND AND ITS
PREDECESSOR, THE FRIENDS OF NEW GERMANY, DURING A PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS
PRIOR TO THE INCEPTION OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY; AND CONCERNING BUND
UNIFORMS AND PARAPHERNALIA, AND PICTURES AND LITERATURE IN THE
POSSESSION OF VARIOUS DEFENDANTS. 

WHAT WE SHALL CHARACTERIZE AS THE BACKGROUND EVIDENCE MAY BE
SUMMARIZED.  THE PROOFS DISCLOSE THAT THERE EXISTED FROM SOME TIME IN
THE EARLY 1930'S A SOCIETY KNOWN AS THE FRIENDS OF NEW GERMANY.  ABOUT
1935 THE NAME WAS CHANGED TO THE GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND.  AFTER FRITZ
KUHN, THE LEADER OF THE ORGANIZATION, HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND CONVICTED
OF CERTAIN OFFENSES IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE, KUNZE, ONE OF THE
PETITIONERS, BECAME PRESIDENT.  AT THE CONVENTION OF 1940 A NEW
CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED; AND AT SOME TIME WITHIN THE DATES SPECIFIED
AS COVERING THE CONSPIRACY A SYNOPSIS OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUND WAS
PROMULGATED.  MINUTES OF THE CONVENTION OF 1940 ALSO WERE IN EVIDENCE. 

FROM THESE DOCUMENTS A CONCEPTION OF THE NATURE AND, TO SOME EXTENT,
THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSOCIATION MAY BE OBTAINED.  IT WAS ORGANIZED ON
THE FUEHRER OR LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLE.  THE PRESIDENT WAS THE LEADER, AND
WAS AMENABLE ONLY TO THE ASSOCIATION IN CONVENTION ASSEMBLED.  HIS
ORDERS WERE LAW UNLESS AND UNTIL MODIFIED OR ABROGATED BY A
CONVENTION.  MEMBERS WERE EXPECTED TO OBEY HIS ORDERS.  DISOBEDIENCE
INVOLVED DISCIPLINE, OR EXPULSION FROM THE ORGANIZATION.  THE ENTIRE
HIERARCHY OF CONSTITUENT ORGANIZATIONS AND OF OFFICIALS, NATIONAL AND
LOCAL, WAS CREATED BY HIM; AND ALL OFFICIALS, HIGH AND LOW, HELD OFFICE
SUBJECT TO HIS PLEASURE.  THE CONSTITUENT ORGANIZATIONS CONSISTED OF
LOCAL UNITS, EACH OF WHICH HAD ITS LEADER, AND OF COLLATERAL
ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN A UNIT, SUCH AS AN OD DIVISION, WHOSE FUNCTION WAS
TO DRILL IN UNIFORM, TO POLICE MEETINGS OF MEMBERS, AND PERFORM OTHER
SIMILAR DUTIES; A YOUTH ORGANIZATION, ETC. 

THE PROFESSED PURPOSE OF THE BUND WAS TO KEEP ALIVE THE GERMAN SPIRIT
AMONG PERSONS OF GERMAN BLOOD IN THE UNITED STATES.  SPEECHES AND
LITERATURE JUSTIFY THE INFERENCE THAT THE BUND ENDORSED THE NAZI
MOVEMENT IN GERMANY AND, IF IT DID NOT ACTUALLY ADVOCATE SOME SUCH FORM
OF GOVERNMENT IN THIS COUNTRY, AT LEAST ESSAYED TO CREATE PUBLIC
OPINION FAVORABLE TO THE HITLER REGIME AND TO THE GERMAN NATIONAL
SOCIALIST STATE.  THE BUND WAS ALSO ANTI-BRITISH AND OPPOSED OUR
ENTERING THE WAR ON THE SIDE OF THE BRITISH; ITS AIM WAS TO KEEP US
NEUTRAL AND FRIENDLY TO THE NEW GERMANY.  THERE IS MUCH IN LITERATURE
PUT OUT OR APPROVED BY THE BUND CONCERNING "DISCRIMINATION" AGAINST
AMERICAN CITIZENS OF GERMAN BLOOD AND THE FIGHT WHICH MUST BE WAGED
AGAINST IT.  THERE IS ALSO MUCH TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BUND IS PURSUING
LAWFUL AIMS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS, AND THAT
ITS ACTIVITIES NEED NOT BE HIDDEN FROM GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.  THERE IS
BASIS FOR SUSPICION OF SUBVERSIVE CONDUCT; THERE IS MATTER OFFENSIVE TO
ONE'S SENSE OF LOYALTY TO OUR GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES.  THERE MAY WELL BE
DOUBT OF THE ORGANIZATION'S HEARTY SUPPORT OF THOSE POLICIES, BUT IF
THE BUND AND ITS MEMBERSHIP WERE, PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY 1,
1940, ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES, OTHER THAN THOSE CLAIMED TO PROVE
THE CHARGE LAID IN THE INDICTMENT, THE RECORD IS BARE OF EVIDENCE OF
ANY SUCH. 

THE DRAFT ACT WAS INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS IN JUNE, 1940, WAS AMENDED
SEPTEMBER 7 BY ADDING SEC. 8(I) AND AS SO AMENDED BECAME LAW SEPTEMBER
16, 1940.  PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 7 THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN NO SUGGESTION
BY THE BUND OR ITS OFFICERS THAT, IF PASSED, THE LAW WOULD NOT BE
BINDING ON ALL AND OUGHT NOT TO BE OBEYED.  THE ORAL EVIDENCE
RESPECTING THIS PERIOD IS ALMOST ENTIRELY THAT OF LUEDTKE, FORMER
SECRETARY OF THE BUND, WHO WAS A DEFENDANT AND TURNED STATE'S
EVIDENCE. 

HE STATES THAT THE BUND AND ITS MEMBERS ALWAYS FAVORED A COMPULSORY
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.  BUT, HE SAID, THEY WERE OPPOSED TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF USING A DRAFT ARMY TO FIGHT AGAINST GERMANY.  THE BUND
FEARED THAT THE PRESIDENT MIGHT USE A CONSCRIPT ARMY BY SENDING IT
ABROAD TO FIGHT WITH ENGLAND, AGAINST GERMANY.  THE BUND DESIRED THIS
COUNTRY TO MAINTAIN NEUTRALITY BY NOT HAVING OUR SOLDIERS GO TO FOREIGN
SHORES.  THESE VIEWS WERE THEN SHARED BY MANY LOYAL CITIZENS, AND SOME
OF THEM WERE ENACTED INTO LAW BY CONGRESS.  (SEE SEC. 3(E) OF THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT.) 

THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THIS TESTIMONY. 
NOTHING APPEARS IN THE MINUTES OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTION HELD AUGUST
31-SEPTEMBER 2, 1940, OR IN THE TESTIMONY AS TO ITS PROCEEDINGS, WITH
REFERENCE TO SELECTIVE SERVICE.  IT IS TRUE LUEDTKE SAYS THERE WAS SOME
TALK ABOUT IT, AND THE STENOGRAPHER WAS INSTRUCTED TO OMIT THIS FROM
THE RECORD; BUT HE DOES NOT SAY THAT SUCH TALK WAS IN ANY WAY
INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE HAD TESTIFIED AS TO THE BUND'S ATTITUDE. 

ON SEPTEMBER 7, WHILE THE BILL WAS PENDING IN THE HOUSE, AN AMENDMENT
WAS OFFERED, WAS ADOPTED AS OFFERED, AND REMAINED IN THE BILL WHEN
SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT.  IT IS 

"8(I)  IT IS THE EXPRESSED POLICY OF THE CONGRESS THAT WHENEVER A
VACANCY IS CAUSED IN THE EMPLOYMENT ROLLS OF ANY BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY
BY REASON OF INDUCTION INTO THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AN
EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SUCH VACANCY SHALL NOT
BE FILLED BY ANY PERSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE
GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND" (50 U.S.C. APP. 308(I)). 

ADMITTEDLY KUNZE, PROBABLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF OTHER DEFENDANTS,
PROTESTED BY LETTER AND TELEGRAM TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AGAINST THE
PASSAGE OF THE BILL THUS AMENDED AND TO THE PRESIDENT AGAINST SIGNING
IT.  THE ACT BECAME LAW SEPTEMBER 16TH.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER KUNZE
CALLED A MEETING OF UNIT LEADERS, AT WHICH MANY OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE
PRESENT, INCLUDING KEEGAN, THE COUNSEL OF THE BUND.  KEEGAN ADDRESSED
THE MEETING AND SAID THAT THERE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION INVOLVED,
THAT MEMBERS OF THE BUND HAD BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST (IT IS PLAIN
THIS STATEMENT APPLIES TO SEC. 8(I)); AND THEY HAD A RIGHT TO GO TO
COURT TO ESTABLISH THEIR RIGHTS.  KUNZE RECITED HIS EFFORTS TO PREVENT
PASSAGE OF THE BILL, SAID AN ARTICLE WAS TO APPEAR IN "FREE AMERICAN"
ENTITLED "NO RIGHTS, NO DUTIES" AND THAT THE BUND WAS GOING TO FIGHT
THE DISCRIMINATION.  HE EXPLAINED THAT THE ARTICLE WOULD MAKE CLEAR
THAT IF AMERICAN CITIZENS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO WORK THEY
SHOULD NOT BE SADDLED WITH THE BURDEN OF MILITARY SERVICE.  HE SAID THE
BUND INTENDED TO FIGHT THIS DISCRIMINATION BY A TEST IN COURT.  NEITHER
KEEGAN NOR KUNZE SUGGESTED THAT BUND MEMBERS SHOULD RESIST MILITARY
SERVICE IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE TEST CASE.  LUEDTKE, WHO
IS THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS AS TO WHAT OCCURRED AT THIS MEETING, SAID HE
NEVER HEARD KEEGAN, KUNZE, OR ANY NATIONAL LEADER ADVISE ANYONE TO
RESIST MILITARY SERVICE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OUTCOME OF THE TEST CASE;
THAT IT WAS THE POLICY OF THE BUND TO GET THIS PROVISION (SEC. 8(I))
OUT OF THE ACT. 

THE SEQUEL TO THIS MEETING WAS THE ISSUE OF BUND COMMAND NO. 37 ON
OCTOBER 1, 1940.  (SOME 49 SUCH COMMANDS WERE OFFERED IN EVIDENCE,
THOUGH NONE BUT NO. 37 IS RELIED ON AS CONTAINING ANY STATEMENT
RELEVANT TO THE CHARGE.)  IN THIS COMMAND, ONE OF SEVERAL SUBJECTS
DEALT WITH WAS THAT OF MILITARY SERVICE.  THE WHOLE OF THIS SECTION IS,
ACCORDING TO THE TRANSLATION SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT: 

"4.  MILITARY SERVICE:  ON OCTOBER 16, OF THIS YEAR, ALL CITIZENS AND
NON-CITIZENS (MALE) WHO ARE OF AGE, BUT WHO HAVE NOT PASSED THEIR 36TH
YEAR, MUST REGISTER WITH THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES.  THIS ORDER MUST BE
COMPLIED WITH UNHESITATINGLY. 

"WE REPRESENT THE STANDPOINT, HOWEVER, THAT AN INDUCTION INTO THE
MILITARY SERVICE IS NOT JUSTIFIED, IN AS FAR IT CONCERNS BUND MEMBERS
AND AMERICAN GERMANS, FOR IN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE LAW THE CITIZENSHIP
RIGHTS OF BUND MEMBERS AND THE DEFENDERS OF GERMANDOM ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEVERED. 

"EVERY MAN, IF HE CAN, WILL REFUSE TO DO MILITARY DUTY UNTIL THIS LAW
AND ALL OTHER LAWS OF THE COUNTRY OR THE STATES WHICH CONFINE THE
CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS OF BUND MEMBERS ARE REVOKED. 

"WE WILL FIGHT TO ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT IN THIS SERVILE MATTER." 

WARNER, THE TRANSLATOR, A GOVERNMENT WITNESS, TESTIFIED THAT THE
GERMAN WORD "PRAZEDENFALL," HERE TRANSLATED "PRECEDENT," MEANS "A TEST
CASE IN THE LEGAL SENSE," "A CASE WHICH THEY REFER TO AS A PRECEDENT." 
HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT THE GERMAN WORDS TRANSLATED ABOVE SIMPLY AS
THE ENGLISH "IF HE CAN" MAY BE FAIRLY TAKEN TO MEAN "IF HE CAN PROPERLY
DO SO" OR "IF HE CAN POSSIBLY DO SO."  AND HE FURTHER AGREED THAT THE
WORD "JEDER," WHICH HE TRANSLATED AS "EVERY," MIGHT PROPERLY BE
TRANSLATED AS "EACH." 

THUS ALTERED, THE PHRASE WOULD READ:  "EACH MAN IF HE PROPERLY CAN
...  WILL REFUSE TO DO MILITARY SERVICE  ...  UNTIL THIS LAW ETC." 

AS WILL BE SEEN FROM WHAT FOLLOWS, THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE IS REALLY
PITCHED ON THIS COMMAND, WHICH IT CONSTRUES AS A COUNSEL TO EVADE
MILITARY SERVICE.  THE PROOF WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO SHOW THAT IT
REACHED VARIOUS UNIT LEADERS, AND THAT THEY READ IT OR MADE IT
AVAILABLE TO THE MEMBERS OF THEIR UNITS.  THE EVIDENCE IS THAT EACH OF
THE DEFENDANTS WHO WAS A UNIT LEADER EITHER READ IT TO SOME MEMBERS OF
HIS UNIT OR MADE IT AVAILABLE TO THEM, EXCEPT ONLY SCHNELLER. 

THE BUND HELD A CONVENTION IN 1941 BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
SELECTIVE SERVICE WAS THERE DISCUSSED.  IT DISBANDED IN DECEMBER 1941. 
THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE LEADERS ADVISED THE MEMBERS TO KEEP
TOGETHER, TO MEET FOR SINGING AND SOCIAL PURPOSES; BUT NO EVIDENCE THAT
ANYTHING WAS SAID ABOUT SELECTIVE SERVICE OR MILITARY SERVICE.    IF
THE PROMULGATION OR IMPARTING OF THE CONTENTS OF COMMAND NO. 37, AND
CONCURRENCE IN ITS PURPOSE, IS EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO COUNSEL EVASION
OF MILITARY SERVICE, THE CONVICTION OF ALL THE DEFENDANTS, SAVE
SCHNELLER, WAS JUSTIFIED.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT EVIDENTLY FELT THAT A
COUNSEL TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT, THUS MAKING ONE'S LIABILITY TO
SERVICE, HIS ADDRESS, ETC., MATTERS OF PUBLIC RECORD, AND THEN, IF
POSSIBLE, TO REFUSE SERVICE, IF A SUPPOSED DISCRIMINATION REMAINED
EFFECTIVE, COULD HARDLY BE CLAIMED TO BE A COUNSEL TO EVADE. 

THIS BECOMES THE CLEARER IF WE ANALYZE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 OF
THE ACT (50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311). 

IT SUBJECTS TO PUNISHMENT ANY PERSON: 

(1)  WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY MAKE OR BE A PARTY TO MAKING ANY FALSE
REGISTRATION; 

(2)  WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY MAKE OR BE A PARTY TO MAKING ANY FALSE
STATEMENT AS TO HIS OR ANOTHER'S FITNESS OR LIABILITY FOR SERVICE; 

(3)  WHO KNOWINGLY COUNSELS, AIDS, OR ABETS ANOTHER TO EVADE
REGISTRATION OR SERVICE; 

(4)  WHO IN ANY MANNER SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM ANY
DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM BY THE ACT; 

(5)  WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY HINDER OR INTERFERE BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT; 

(6)  WHO SHALL CONSPIRE SO TO DO. 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT RESISTANCE OR REFUSAL ARE NOWHERE MENTIONED,
EXCEPT AS SUCH REFUSAL WOULD CONSTITUTE A NEGLECT TO PERFORM A DUTY
ENJOINED BY THE ACT (4) OR WERE ACCOMPANIED BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE (5). 
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE APPEAR IN COLLOCATION DESCRIPTIONS OF TWO
SORTS OF EVASION, FALSE ENTRIES (1) AND FALSE STATEMENTS (2)
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY THE DENUNCIATION OF COUNSELLING "EVASION" (3). 
PLAINLY ENOUGH THE ACT DISTINGUISHES EVASION, A SPECIES OF FRAUDULENT
CONDUCT, FROM MERE NEGLECT OF DUTY AND FROM FORCIBLE AND VIOLENT
INTERFERENCE OR RESISTANCE. 

THE CLASSIFICATION SO MADE CORRESPONDS WITH WHAT "EVADE" MEANS TO THE
COMMON UNDERSTANDING, AND THE EFFORT OF THE DRAUGHTSMAN OF THE
INDICTMENT TO MAKE EVASION THE EQUIVALENT OF REFUSAL OR RESISTANCE,
DOES VIOLENCE TO SUCH USAGE AS WELL AS TO THE STATUTE. 

"EVADE" IS DEFINED AS, "TO ESCAPE; TO SLIP AWAY; TO TAKE REFUGE IN
EVASION; TO USE ARTIFICE IN AVOIDANCE." 

"RESIST" IS DEFINED AS, "TO WITHSTAND; TO OPPOSE BY PHYSICAL, MENTAL,
OR MORAL POWER." 

"REFUSE" IS DEFINED AS, "TO DECLINE TO ACCEPT; TO REJECT; TO DECLINE
TO SUBMIT TO OR UNDERGO." 

NOW THE SUREST WAY OF RENDERING ONESELF INCAPABLE OF EVADING MILITARY
SERVICE, OF SLIPPING AWAY OR ESCAPING IT, IS TO REGISTER.  AND THE BUND
COMMAND WHICH IS AT THE CORE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE ENJOINS
REGISTRATION IN THE STRONGEST TERMS.  THAT ACCOMPLISHED, A REFUSAL TO
SERVE MAY FOLLOW WHEN THE REGISTRANT IS TO BE INDUCTED.  BUT TO COUNSEL
MERELY REFUSAL IS NOT MADE CRIMINAL BY THE ACT. 

THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8(I) OF THE ACT HARDLY NEED ANIMADVERSION. 
THEY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.  CAN IT BE THAT CRITICISM, THAT AN EFFORT TO
ELIMINATE THEM FROM THE ACT, OR FORTHRIGHT ADVICE TO THOSE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THOSE PROVISIONS, TO REGISTER BUT NOT, IF IT
CAN BE AVOIDED, TO SERVE, UNLESS THOSE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED
BY THE COURTS AS LEGAL, AMOUNT TO COUNSELLING EVASION OF SERVICE?  THE
BELIEF THAT VALIDITY OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DEPENDS ON THE
VALIDITY OF THAT SECTION MAY SEEM FOOLISH TO US, BUT CAN WE SAY THAT
THE OTHER DEFENDANTS DID NOT BELIEVE WHAT THE BUND'S LAWYER TOLD THEM
ABOUT THAT? 

THUS THE GOVERNMENT, RECOGNIZING THAT THE ISSUE AND COMMUNICATION OF
COMMAND NO. 37 DID NOT, IN ITSELF, CONSTITUTE A COUNSELLING TO EVADE
MILITARY SERVICE, SOUGHT TO PROVE A SINISTER AND UNDISCLOSED INTENT IN
CONNECTION WITH IT TO COUNSEL EVASION.  FOR THIS PURPOSE IT RELIED
FIRST ON THE SO-CALLED UN-AMERICAN SENTIMENTS AND STATEMENTS OF THE
BUND; ON ARTICLES WHICH APPEARED IN THE "FREE AMERICAN" AND ON
PROCEEDINGS HAD AND SPEECHES MADE AT THE 1940 CONVENTION.  BUT THESE
EVINCED NOTHING BEARING ON THE CHARGE LAID IN THE INDICTMENT.  AT MOST
THEY WERE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANTS, OR SOME OF THEM, WERE THE KIND
OF MEN WHO MIGHT BE INCLINED TO COUNSEL EVASION OF MILITARY SERVICE. 

IN ADDITION, THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED EVIDENCE AS TO STATEMENTS MADE
BY ONE OR OTHER OF THE DEFENDANTS AT UNIT MEETINGS OR OTHER GATHERINGS
OF BUND MEMBERS.  IT MUST, IN FINAL ANALYSIS, SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT BY
THIS EVIDENCE. 

WE THINK THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE INNOCENT PURPORT
OF COMMAND NO. 37 AND TO FASTEN ON THOSE WHO IMPARTED THAT COMMAND A
COVERT PURPOSE KNOWINGLY TO COUNSEL EVASION OF MILITARY SERVICE.  THE
TESTIMONY HAS BEEN CAREFULLY EXAMINED.  IT CANNOT BE QUOTED IN
EXTENSO.  A SUMMARY MUST SUFFICE. 

MOST, THOUGH NOT ALL, OF THE TESTIMONY AS TO ORAL STATEMENTS BY THE
DEFENDANTS REFERS TO OCCASIONS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 16, 1940, THE DATE OF
THE DRAFT ACT, AND JULY 9, 1941.  THERE IS NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER THE LATTER DATE EXCEPT WHAT IS HEREINAFTER NOTED.  DURING THE
PERIOD MENTIONED COMMAND NO. 37 WAS READ OR MADE AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS
BY UNIT LEADERS, WAS TO SOME EXTENT DISCUSSED; AND, DURING THAT PERIOD,
KUNZE, ACCOMPANIED BY SOME OF THE NATIONAL LEADERS, VISITED VARIOUS
UNITS AND DISCUSSED THE ACT BEFORE GROUPS.  THE TESTIMONY, IN THE MAIN,
IS DIRECTED TO WHAT KUNZE, KEEGAN, AND UNIT LEADERS SAID ON THESE
OCCASIONS. 

MOST OF IT AMOUNTS TO THIS:  IT WAS STATED THAT THE ACT WAS UNFAIR
AND DISCRIMINATORY; THAT BUND MEMBERS OUGHT NOT AT THE SAME TIME BE
DEPRIVED OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND ASKED TO SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES; THAT
THEY SHOULD NOT BE CALLED INTO THE ARMY UNTIL THE DISCRIMINATION WAS
ABOLISHED; THAT THE BUND WOULD FIGHT THE DISCRIMINATION; THAT THE BUND
WOULD TAKE STEPS TO CORRECT THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE ACT; THAT A LAWYER
WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT; THAT THE BUND WOULD BRING A TEST CASE IF MEANS
COULD BE DEVISED TO THAT END; THAT THOSE WHO COULD AFFORD IT SHOULD
REFUSE MILITARY SERVICE UNTIL THE DISCRIMINATION WAS REMOVED; THAT THE
BUND WOULD TRY TO GET THIS PROVISION OUT OF THE ACT; THAT SEC. 8(I) WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THAT THE MEMBERS HAD TO REGISTER BUT THAT IT WAS NOT
THOUGHT RIGHT TO ASK THEM TO DO SO WHILE THE DISCRIMINATION CONTINUED,
BUT THAT THEY SHOULD ENLIST MORE OR LESS UNDER PROTEST AND WAIT UNTIL
THEIR RIGHTS WERE RESTORED TO THEM.  ONE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT KUNZE
ONCE STATED THAT IF THE MEMBERS WERE NOT TREATED RIGHT THEY DID NOT
HAVE TO BEAR ARMS AND THAT THE BUND WAS GOING TO MAKE A TEST CASE OF
THIS. 

REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO CERTAIN SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE
TESTIMONY.  A MAIL CARRIER TESTIFIED THAT SHORTLY AFTER THE ACT WENT
INTO EFFECT HE SPOKE TO THE DEFENDANT BELOHLAVEK AT THE LATTER'S OFFICE
IN CLEVELAND.  OVER OBJECTION THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT GO TO PROVE ANY
CONSPIRACY, THE COURT ADMITTED IT.  THE WITNESS STATED THAT HE SAID TO
BELOHLAVEK: 

"JOE, YOU ARE IN THE DRAFT AREN'T YOU?  HE SAID, 'YES.'  I SAID,
'WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO IF THEY SEND YOU TO THE OTHER SIDE?'  SO HE
SAID, 'WELL,' - IT WAS A VULGAR WORD - 'I WILL RUN TO THE OTHER SIDE
AND FIGHT AGAINST THEM'." 

A WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT, AT A MEETING OF A GERMAN HIKING CLUB IN
BUFFALO EARLY IN 1942, KEEGAN REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT TWO OF HIS SONS
WERE IN THE ARMY, SAID HE FELT SORRY ABOUT THEM AND, REFERRING TO THOSE
PRESENT, SAID:  "YOU BOYS ARE LUCKY IN A WAY, YOU MIGHT EVADE MILITARY
SERVICE BECAUSE YOU ARE FOREIGN-BORN."  WHEN SOMEONE ASKED HOW AND WHY,
KEEGAN EXPLAINED:  "BY CLAIMING BEING A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR."  THE
WITNESS WENT TO KEEGAN AFTERWARDS, SPOKE TO HIM PRIVATELY AND SAID:
"SUPPOSING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ME AS A NATURALIZED AMERICAN CITIZEN IF
I HAD TRIED TO EVADE MILITARY SERVICE BY CLAIMING BEING A CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTOR?  WELL, THEN, HE SAID, 'YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR CITIZENSHIP.' 
WELL, THEN, I SAID, 'OF COURSE, TO HELL WITH THAT'."  THE WITNESS WAS
INDUCTED INTO THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 

THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TESTIMONY THIS IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT ANY
DEFENDANT, IN SPEAKING OF THE DRAFT OR MILITARY SERVICE, EVER BY THE
USE OF THE WORD "EVADE," OR OTHERWISE, GAVE ANY INDICATION OF A
COUNSELLING TO ANYONE TO ESCAPE MILITARY SERVICE.  UNDER CROSS
EXAMINATION THE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT, IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS, KEEGAN
HAD SAID THAT THE ONLY WAY ANYONE COULD AVOID SERVING WAS BY CLAIMING
AND PROVING THAT HE WAS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. 

THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT, AT A MEETING HELD BEFORE THE ACT WAS PASSED,
KLAPPROTT SAID HE WOULD NOT FIGHT AGAINST GERMANY AND ALSO THAT "THE
DRAFT ACT WOULD BUILD UP AN ARMY THAT WOULD BE USED AGAINST GERMANY"
AND THAT HE "WOULD DO EVERYTHING" TO PREVENT THE PASSAGE OF SUCH AN
ACT. 

AS RESPECTS THE DEFENDANT KNUPFER, A WITNESS TESTIFIED: 

"WELL, MR. KNUPFER EXPLAINED THAT A LOT OF GERMAN PEOPLE LOSE THEIR
JOBS, AND IN A CASE LIKE THAT WE SHOULD REFUSE TO FIGHT." 

BUT, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE WITNESS QUALIFIED HIS TESTIMONY TO THE
FOLLOWING EFFECT: 

"Q.  AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THAT IF THEY WERE NOT
ALLOWED TO HAVE JOBS THEN THEY SHOULD NOT BE CALLED UPON TO FIGHT, IS
THAT RIGHT?  A. THAT IS RIGHT. 

"Q.  AND THAT IS REALLY THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT HE SAID TO YOU AT THAT
MEETING, IS IT NOT?  A. YES. 

     .         .        .         .         . 

"Q.  DID YOU EVER HEAR MR. KNUPFER SUGGEST TO YOU, OR TO ANYONE ELSE
IN THAT MEETING IN YOUR MEMBERSHIP GROUP, THAT YOU SHOULD NOT REGISTER
OR THAT YOU SHOULD EVADE THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT IN ANY WAY?  A. HE
DID NOT SAY EXACTLY THAT WE SHOULD NOT, BUT HE CAME OUT WITH THE POINT
THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE PEOPLE LOSING JOBS, IF WE NOT ABLE TO WORK IN
THIS COUNTRY WE SHOULD NOT FIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY." 

THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY CONCERNS STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO KUNZE: 

"Q.  WELL, NOW, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE, DID HE HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO SAY?  A. WELL, HE SAID ONE CAN
ALWAYS BE A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"Q.  AND HE TOLD ALL OF YOU THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE A CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTOR?  A. I DID NOT SAY THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE BUT HE SAID THAT IT
WOULD BE WISE TO BE.  HE SAID 'YOU ALWAYS CAN BECOME A CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTOR.'  THAT WAS HIS WORDING. 

"Q.  THEN DO I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT MR. KUNZE NEVER SAID THAT HE WAS
GOING TO BE A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR, IS THAT SO?  A. I CANNOT RECALL
THE EXACT WORDS THAT HE SAID, BUT HE USED THAT PHRASEOLOGY OF
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR." 

AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO A STATEMENT OF KUNZE, IT WAS TESTIFIED: 

"HE SAID THAT WE WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, THE GERMAN-AMERICANS,
AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD NOT SIGN UP FOR THE SELECTIVE SERVICE DRAFT,
AND HE ALSO MEANT THAT HE WANTED TO MAKE A TEST CASE, BUT HE DID NOT
SAY WHAT KIND OF A TEST CASE  ...  I ASKED HIM WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I
WOULD NOT SIGN UP FOR A DRAFT....  HE SAID HE DID NOT KNOW HIMSELF, BUT
HE IS GOING TO MAKE A TEST CASE IN THE EAST, YOU SEE.  SO I ASKED HIM
WHAT I SHOULD DO.  HE SAID IT WAS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL IF HE WANTS TO
SIGN UP FOR THE DRAFT." 

WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFENDANT STREUER, A WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT HE
"MENTIONED" THAT IF "ANYBODY HAS CHANCES TO STAY AWAY FROM IT (MILITARY
SERVICE) WHICH NATURALLY SOMETIMES HAPPENS TO SOME PEOPLE, IT IS ALL
RIGHT FOR THEM  ..."  THE SAME WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT STREUER NEVER
TOLD ANYBODY TO RESIST THE DRAFT OR NOT TO REGISTER. 

EXCEPT FOR THE SO-CALLED BACKGROUND EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE
GENERAL ATTITUDE AND STATE OF MIND OF THE DEFENDANTS THIS IS ALL THE
SIGNIFICANT TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO ANY COUNSELLING TO EVADE MILITARY
SERVICE.  IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT PRACTICALLY EVERY WITNESS WHO
TESTIFIED TO STATEMENTS MADE AT MEETINGS, AND TO CONVERSATIONS OF THE
VARIOUS DEFENDANTS, WHEN ASKED WHETHER HE HEARD THE DEFENDANT AS TO
WHOM HE WAS TESTIFYING ADVOCATE RESISTANCE TO MILITARY SERVICE OR
EVASION OF MILITARY SERVICE, ANSWERED THAT HE HAD NEVER HEARD ANY SUCH
ADVICE GIVEN BY THE DEFENDANT IN QUESTION. 

WHEN IT IS BORNE IN MIND THAT MOST OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE SO-CALLED
UNIT LEADERS OF SMALL GROUPS SCATTERED FROM THE ATLANTIC TO THE PACIFIC
COAST, WHOSE CONTACTS WITH THE BUND AND NATIONAL OFFICERS CONSISTED IN
ATTENDING ANNUAL CONVENTIONS, READING BUND COMMANDS TO MEMBERS OF THE
UNIT, AND ATTENDING MEETINGS TO WHICH KUNZE OR OTHER NATIONAL OFFICERS
CAME, IT BECOMES PLAIN HOW LITTLE EVIDENCE THERE IS IN THE RECORD TO
CONVICT THEM OF A NATION-WIDE CONSPIRACY TO COUNSEL EVASION OF THE
DRAFT.  IN ESSENCE, THE CASE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT AMOUNTS TO THIS:
THAT THESE MEN WERE PARTISANS OF GERMANY; WERE AGAINST OUR GOING TO WAR
WITH GERMANY, AND MIGHT BE DISPOSED, THEREFORE, TO COUNSEL EVASION OF
MILITARY SERVICE, AND WERE ALL FAMILIAR WITH BUND COMMAND NO. 37. 

THAT THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, RELIED, TO MAKE ITS CASE,
UPON THE PROMULGATION OF BUND COMMAND NO. 37, AND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE
SO UNDERSTOOD, SEEMS PLAIN FROM HIS CHARGE TO THE JURY, TO WHICH
EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN AND WHICH WAS ASSIGNED AS ERROR.  IN THAT HE SAID: 

"THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS REFERENCES IN THE EVIDENCE AND IN THE
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL TO A TEST CASE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY THE
DEFENDANTS OR SOME OF THEM TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF SECTION 308(I)
OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE AND TRAINING ACT WHICH STATES AMONGST OTHER
THINGS THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF CONGRESS THAT BUND MEMBERS BE NOT
EMPLOYED TO FILL VACANCIES CREATED BY MEN IN EMPLOYMENT BEING DRAFTED
INTO THE ARMED SERVICE.  I CHARGE YOU THAT IF YOU SHOULD BELIEVE FROM
THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANTS, OR ANY OF THEM, PROPOSED TO TEST THIS
LAW BY CONSPIRING TO COUNSEL SOMEONE TO VIOLATE THE LAW, THEN THE FACT
THAT THEIR PURPOSE WAS TO MAKE A TEST CASE IS NO DEFENSE TO THE CHARGE
HERE PRESENTED AGAINST THEM.  I REPEAT THAT THE OFFENSE WITH WHICH
THESE DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED IS A CONSPIRACY TO COUNSEL OTHERS TO EVADE
SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND SUCH AN OFFENSE
WOULD BE COMPLETE, IF AS A FACT THE DEFENDANTS DID UNLAWFULLY AND
KNOWINGLY CONSPIRE, COMBINE OR CONFEDERATE TOGETHER TO COUNSEL OTHERS
TO EVADE SUCH SERVICE, AND THIS IS TRUE EVEN IF DEFENDANTS HAD A BONA
FIDE HONEST INTENT TO MAKE A TEST CASE.  FOR IF THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY
AMONGST THESE DEFENDANTS, OR ANY OF THEM, HAVING AS ITS OBJECT THE
VIOLATION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE LAW, KNOWINGLY, THE REASON FOR SUCH
VIOLATION IS IMMATERIAL TO YOU IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF
THEIR GUILT OR INNOCENCE." 

HERE THE HONESTY AND THE BONA FIDES OF THE DEFENDANTS IS SAID TO BE
IMMATERIAL; THE FACT THAT THEY DESIRED TO TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE LAW IS SAID TO BE IMMATERIAL.  NOWHERE IS IT STATED THAT BUND
COMMAND NO. 37, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO COUNSELLING TO EVADE
MILITARY SERVICE.  MINGLED WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT INNOCENT MOTIVES WERE
NO EXCUSE, AND THE INTENTION TO TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW
WAS NO EXCUSE, ARE STATEMENTS THAT THESE ARE NOT EXCUSES WHERE THERE IS
A CONSPIRACY KNOWINGLY TO COUNSEL EVASION OF MILITARY SERVICE.  THE
STATEMENTS ARE MUTUALLY CONTRADICTORY.  ONE WITH INNOCENT MOTIVES, WHO
HONESTLY BELIEVES A LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND, THEREFORE, NOT
OBLIGATORY, MAY WELL COUNSEL THAT THE LAW SHALL NOT BE OBEYED; THAT ITS
COMMAND SHALL BE RESISTED UNTIL A COURT SHALL HAVE HELD IT VALID, BUT
THIS IS NOT KNOWINGLY COUNSELLING, STEALTHILY AND BY GUILE, TO EVADE
ITS COMMAND.  THUS HAVING CHARGED THAT INNOCENT MOTIVES AND A DESIRE TO
TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW WERE NOT A DEFENSE, THE COURT ADDED: 

"IN REGARD TO THE MATTER OF A TEST CASE, I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE
FACT THAT NO TEST CASE WAS EVER MADE, NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT
ANY LEGAL ACTION WAS EVER PREPARED, AND THE FURTHER FACT THAT BUND
ORDER NO. 37, BY ITS VERY LANGUAGE, OPPOSES MILITARY SERVICE UNTIL THIS
AND ALL OTHER LAWS, STATE AND NATIONAL, WHICH THE BUND CONSIDERED
DISCRIMINATORY, WERE REPEALED. 

"OF COURSE, IF YOU BELIEVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE
DEFENDANTS, OR ANY OF THEM, KNOWINGLY AND UNLAWFULLY CONSPIRED TO
COUNSEL EVASION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE LAW, AND THE MATTER OF A TEST
CASE WAS MERELY A SUBTERFUGE TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THEIR REAL
PURPOSE, YOU SHOULD FIND SUCH DEFENDANTS GUILTY AS CHARGED." 

THIS FINAL STATEMENT SEEMS TO MEAN NOTHING SHORT OF THIS, WHEN TAKEN
IN CONNECTION WITH WHAT JUST PRECEDED IT:  IF DEFENDANTS HAD INNOCENT
MOTIVES THEY ARE NONETHELESS GUILTY; IF THEY HAD GUILTY MOTIVES THEY,
OF COURSE, ARE GUILTY.  IT IS SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE JURY
COULD REACH ANY OTHER THAN A VERDICT OF GUILTY. 

FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE IT WILL BE SEEN THAT WE ARE OF OPINION,
FIRST, THAT THE PROMULGATION AND COMMUNICATION OF BUND COMMAND NO. 37
WAS NOT IN ITSELF A COUNSEL TO EVADE; SECOND, THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE
GENERAL DISPOSITION OF THE PETITIONERS EITHER TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES OR TOWARDS THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT DID NOT MAKE THE
COMMAND SUCH; THIRD, THAT THE EVIDENCE AND ORAL STATEMENTS OF THE
VARIOUS PETITIONERS AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND UNIT MEETINGS OF THE BUND
DID NOT SUPPLY THE BASIS FOR A FINDING, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, OF
COUNSELLING, OR INTENDING TO COUNSEL, OR CONSPIRING TO COUNSEL, EVASION
OF MILITARY SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF THE STATUTE.  WE
ARE OF THE VIEW, THEREFORE, THAT, ON THE CASE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT,
THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DIRECTION OF ACQUITTAL, FOR WHICH
THEY MOVED. 

OTHER ERRORS IN THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE AND IN THE CHARGE OF THE
COURT ARE ASSIGNED BY THE PETITIONERS.  THE VIEWS WE HAVE EXPRESSED
MAKE IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THESE ALLEGED ERRORS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

I WISH TO ADD A FEW WORDS EMPHASIZING CERTAIN REASONS, AMONG OTHERS,
WHICH PROMPT ME TO CONCUR IN THE COURT'S REVERSAL OF THESE JUDGMENTS ON
THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION OF
THE DEFENDANTS. 

THE PROSECUTION TRIED TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANTS COUNSELED THE
MEMBERS OF THE BUND TO EVADE THE SELECTICE SERVICE ACT.  ITS CASE
NECESSARILY RESTED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT MEMBERS OF THE BUND WERE
SUBJECT TO THE DRAFT UNDER THAT ACT.  IT FOLLOWS THAT IF BUND MEMBERS
WERE NOT LAWFULLY SUBJECT TO DRAFT UNDER THE ACT, NO PERSON COULD BE
CONVICTED FOR ADVISING BUND MEMBERS TO THIS EFFECT.  BUND COMMAND NO.
37, AN INDISPENSABLE ELEMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE, TOOK THE
POSITION THAT BUND MEMBERS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO DRAFT BECAUSE "IN THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE LAW THE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS OF THE BUND MEMBERS  ...
ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEVERED."  THIS SAME CRUCIAL QUESTION WAS
SEASONABLY RAISED AND URGED IN THE COURTS BELOW, AND IS ARGUED HERE. 
SINCE I THINK THE EVIDENCE INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENTS, I AM
NOT COMPELLED TO PASS ON THIS GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE. 

NEVERTHELESS, THESE DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT CANNOT FAIRLY BE APPRAISED
WITHOUT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AGAINST WHICH THEY
VEHEMENTLY PROTESTED.  FOR TESTIMONY AS TO THESE PROTESTS WAS A VITAL
PART OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM - WITHOUT THAT PART OF THE EVIDENCE
THEY COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED.  IT IS NECESSARY TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HONEST OBJECTIONS DIRECTED AT LEGITIMATE WRONGS,
AND SHAM PROTESTS WHICH ONLY OBSCURE THE REAL PURPOSE.  LANGUAGE AND
ACTIONS OF THESE DEFENDANTS WHICH IS CRUCIAL TO THEIR CONVICTIONS MUST
BE JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IT FOLLOWED PASSAGE OF THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT WHICH CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS. 

PROVIDES THAT PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN DRAFTED INTO AND HONORABLY
DISCHARGED FROM MILITARY AND NAVAL SERVICE SHALL BE ACCORDED HIGH
PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS IN REGARD TO THEIR REEMPLOYMENT BY PUBLIC OR BY
PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.  CONGRESS DECLARED IN THESE SECTIONS THAT SUCH AN EX
SERVICE MAN MUST BE RESTORED TO HIS FORMER POSITION AS THOUGH HE HAD
"BEEN ON FURLOUGH OR LEAVE OF ABSENCE DURING HIS PERIOD OF TRAINING AND
SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES," AND THAT HE SHOULD BE SO RESTORED
TO HIS FORMER JOB WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY OR OTHER PRIVILEGES
ACCORDED REGULAR EMPLOYEES.  SECTION 308(I) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER,
DECLARED THAT 

"IT IS THE EXPRESSED POLICY OF THE CONGRESS THAT WHENEVER A VACANCY
IS CAUSED IN THE EMPLOYMENT ROLLS OF ANY BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY BY REASON
OF INDUCTION INTO THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AN EMPLOYEE
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SUCH VACANCY SHALL NOT BE FILLED
BY ANY PERSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE GERMAN
AMERICAN BUND." 

AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT, THESE DEFENDANTS FOUND THEMSELVES IN
THIS POSITION.  IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT BUND MEMBERS WERE SUBJECT TO
DRAFT TO SERVE ON THE BATTLEFRONT WHERE THEY MIGHT BE SERIOUSLY INJURED
OR LOSE THEIR LIVES.  THEY FOUND THAT THE LAW UNDER WHICH THEY WERE
SAID TO BE SUBJECT TO DRAFT, COMMANDED EMPLOYERS TO REEMPLOY OTHER
CITIZENS WHO HAD BEEN HONORABLY DISCHARGED FROM THE SERVICE, BUT THE
SAME LAW PROVIDED THAT WHEN A BUND MEMBER CAME BACK AFTER AN HONORABLE
SERVICE, WITH AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE, NO PERSON ANYWHERE COULD GIVE HIM
REEMPLOYMENT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE EXPRESS POLICY OF CONGRESS. 

IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THESE DEFENDANTS HAD NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO
PROTEST AGAINST THESE PROVISIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND AMOUNTED TO NO MORE THAN AN ADMONITION; BUT THEY
WERE AN ADMONITION SOUNDED BY THE HIGHEST LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE
NATION.  IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THESE DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN BOTH THAT THE PROTESTED PROSCRIPTIVE PROVISION OF THE ACT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT COURTS WOULD SEVER IT FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE
ACT LEAVING BUND MEMBERS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO DRAFT.  BUT THIS
COURT HAS SAID THAT 

"THE LEGISLATURE COULD NOT THUS IMPOSE UPON LAYMEN, AT THE PERIL OF
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, THE DUTY OF SEVERING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND
OF THUS RESOLVING IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
THE SCOPE OF A FIELD OF REGULATION AS TO WHICH EVEN COURTS ARE NOT YET
IN ACCORD."  SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553, 564. 

WHEN WE VIEW THE CONDUCT OF THESE DEFENDANTS IN ALL OF THIS SETTING,
THEIR VIGOROUS LANGUAGE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN LITTLE, IF ANY, MORE
CONDEMNATORY OF THE DISCRIMINATORY SECTION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT
THAN LANGUAGE PREVIOUSLY USED BY THIS COURT WITH REFERENCE TO
LEGISLATION OF A SIMILAR PATTERN.  THE WHOLE TONE OF THEIR PROTEST WAS
SOUNDED GRAPHICALLY BY THEIR EXPRESSION: 

"NO CIVIL RIGHTS - NO MILITARY DUTY.  DRAFT EXEMPTS BUND MEMBERS." 
CF. INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF THE SAILORS SNUG HARBOUR, 3 PET. 99, 125,
168, 169.  AS TO LEGISLATION HAVING A SIMILAR SETTING, THIS COURT HAS
SAID: 

"...  IN THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ALL AVOCATIONS, ALL HONORS, ALL
POSITIONS, ARE ALIKE OPEN TO EVERY ONE, AND  ...  IN THE PROTECTION OF
THESE RIGHTS ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.  ANY DEPRIVATION OR
SUSPENSION OF ANY OF THESE RIGHTS FOR PAST CONDUCT IS PUNISHMENT, AND
CAN BE IN NO OTHERWISE DEFINED....  A BILL OF ATTAINDER IS A
LEGISLATIVE ACT WHICH INFLICTS PUNISHMENT WITHOUT A JUDICIAL TRIAL....
THESE BILLS ARE GENERALLY DIRECTED AGAINST INDIVIDUALS BY NAME; BUT
THEY MAY BE DIRECTED AGAINST A WHOLE CLASS."  CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4
WALL.  277, 321-323.  SEE ALSO EX PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE CONVICTIONS OF THESE DEFENDANTS CAN BE
SUSTAINED ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION,
WEIGHED ALONG WITH THAT SECTION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT WHICH
WOULD STIGMATIZE HONORABLY DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AS UNWORTHY TO HOLD A
JOB AND EARN A LIVING. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S JUDGMENT AND IN THE OPINION TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION.  I THINK
THAT IS TRUE WHETHER "EVADE," AS USED IN SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, MEANS A SPECIES OF FRAUDULENT CONDUCT
OR WILLFUL REFUSAL OR RESISTANCE OF INDUCTION.  WITHOUT COMMAND NO. 37
THE CASE COLLAPSES.  BUT ONE SENTENCE IN IT BEARS ANY POSSIBILITY OF
CONSTRUCTION AS COUNSELING EVASION, WHETHER IN THE SENSE OF REFUSAL OR
OF ARTIFICE OR FRAUD.  THAT SENTENCE IS CONDITIONAL, NOT ABSOLUTE.  THE
WHOLE COMMAND, IN MY JUDGMENT, IS NO MORE THAN VEHEMENT PROTEST AGAINST
SEC. 8(I), SHEER POLITICAL DISCUSSION.  MORE THAN THIS IS NECESSARY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND I
THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AS TO ALL THE PETITIONERS OTHER
THAN SCHNELLER WHO IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE
CONSPIRACY. 

PETITIONERS WERE NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEADERS OF THE GERMAN AMERICAN
BUND, WHOSE MEMBERSHIP WAS MADE UP OF PERSONS OF GERMAN NATIONALITY OR
DESCENT.  THEY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SEC. 11
OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, WHICH IMPOSES A
CRIMINAL PENALTY ON ANY PERSON "WHO KNOWINGLY COUNSELS, AIDS, OR ABETS
ANOTHER TO EVADE REGISTRATION OR SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES." 

THE INDICTMENTS CHARGE THAT PETITIONERS AND OTHERS CONSPIRED TO
DISTRIBUTE AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE BUND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY A
DOCUMENT KNOWN AS BUND ORDER NO. 37 "WHICH WOULD COUNSEL, DIRECT AND
URGE THOSE TO WHOM THE CONTENTS WERE MADE KNOWN THAT THEY SHOULD EVADE,
RESIST, AND REFUSE SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES."  ORDER NO. 37 WAS OSTENSIBLY PUBLISHED AS A PROTEST OF THE
BUND AGAINST THE ADOPTION BY CONGRESS OF SEC. 8(I) AS AN AMENDMENT TO
THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT, WHICH DECLARED: 

"IT IS THE EXPRESSED POLICY OF THE CONGRESS THAT WHENEVER A VACANCY
IS CAUSED IN THE EMPLOYMENT ROLLS OF ANY BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY BY REASON
OF INDUCTION INTO THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AN EMPLOYEE
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SUCH VACANCY SHALL NOT BE FILLED
BY ANY PERSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE GERMAN
AMERICAN BUND." 

ORDER NO. 37 WAS PRINTED IN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE, AND AN ENGLISH
TRANSLATION OF IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  AFTER CALLING ATTENTION
TO THE FACT THAT ALL CITIZENS WHO HAVE NOT PASSED THEIR THIRTY-SIXTH
YEAR WERE REQUIRED BY THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT TO REGISTER, IT
CONTINUED, "THIS ORDER MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNHESITATINGLY" AND
ADDED: 

"AN INDUCTION INTO THE MILITARY SERVICE IS NOT JUSTIFIED, IN AS FAR
AS IT CONCERNS BUND MEMBERS AND AMERICAN GERMANS, FOR IN THE SELECTIVE
SERVICE LAW THE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS OF BUND MEMBERS AND THE DEFENDERS OF
GERMANDOM ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEVERED."  IT CONCLUDED: 

"EVERY MAN, IF HE CAN, WILL REFUSE TO DO MILITARY DUTY UNTIL THIS LAW
AND ALL OTHER LAWS OF THE COUNTRY OR THE STATES WHICH CONFINE THE
CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS OF BUND MEMBERS ARE REVOKED. 

"WE WILL FIGHT TO ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT IN THIS SERVILE MATTER." 

THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE WHETHER THE JURY
COULD RIGHTLY FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT BUND ORDER NO. 37 DID IN FACT
COUNSEL "ANOTHER TO EVADE REGISTRATION OR SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL
FORCES," AND WHETHER PETITIONERS' CONSPIRACY TO GIVE SUCH ADVICE WAS IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNLAWFUL.  THE CONTENTIONS ARE THAT THE CONVICTION
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE ADVICE IN BUND ORDER NO. 37, THAT
"EVERY MAN IF HE CAN WILL REFUSE TO DO MILITARY DUTY" UNTIL THE LAW
OFFENSIVE TO THE BUND WAS REPEALED, CANNOT BE TAKEN TO COUNSEL THE
EVASION OF SERVICE IN THE MILITARY FORCES AND BECAUSE THE ALLEGED
CONSPIRACY WAS NOT UNLAWFUL SINCE THE BUND ORDER ONLY COUNSELLED
REFUSAL TO DO MILITARY DUTY AS A MEANS OF INITIATING A CASE TO TEST THE
VALIDITY OF SEC. 8(I) OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT, WHICH IS A LAWFUL
PURPOSE.    THERE IS ABUNDANT EVIDENCE SHOWING A CONSISTENT PURPOSE OF
THE BUND AND BUND MEMBERS TO PROMOTE IN THE UNITED STATES THE INTERESTS
OF NAZI GERMANY.  IT IS NOT DENIED, AND COULD NOT BE, THAT THERE IS
AMPLE EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE BUND
MEMBERS, AND PETITIONERS IN PARTICULAR, WERE OPPOSED TO WAR WITH
GERMANY AND HOSTILE TO THE SELECTIVE SERVICE LEGISLATION OF 1940
BECAUSE THEY WISHED TO PREVENT THE RAISING OF AN ARMY FOR A WAR AGAINST
GERMANY.  IT WAS THE THEORY OF THE GOVERNMENT, IN PRESENTING ITS CASE,
THAT RESPONDENTS SEIZED UPON THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION, WHICH BECAME
SEC. 8(I) OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AS THE READY IMPLEMENT
OF PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION AMONG BUND MEMBERS AND THEIR FRIENDS, AS A
MEANS OF HINDERING AND DELAYING THE DRAFTING OF AN ARMY TO FIGHT
AGAINST GERMANY.  THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION IS THAT BUND ORDER NO. 37,
WHICH PETITIONERS DILIGENTLY CIRCULATED AMONG BUND MEMBERS, WAS THE
PRODUCT OF THE CONSPIRACY, AND THE MEANS BY WHICH PETITIONERS
COUNSELLED MEMBERS TO EVADE SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES. 

IT SEEMS TO BE ADMITTED, AND INDEED IT CANNOT BE DENIED, THAT THE
EVIDENCE GIVES SUPPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT PETITIONERS
HAD THE INCLINATION AND THE PURPOSE TO PERSUADE BUND MEMBERS TO
OBSTRUCT THE OPERATION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT, AND THAT BUND
ORDER NO. 37 WAS THEIR CHOSEN MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT END.  BUT IT IS
INSISTED THAT THE ADVICE TO "REFUSE TO DO MILITARY DUTY," GIVEN BY THE
DISTRIBUTION OF BUND ORDER NO. 37 AMONG BUND MEMBERS OF DRAFT AGE, WAS
NOT AN INCITEMENT TO "EVADE" MILITARY SERVICE WHICH THE STATUTE
PROSCRIBES.  APPEALING TO THE DICTIONARY AS THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF THE
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, IT IS SAID THAT "EVADE" CONNOTES CONDUCT WHICH
IS FRAUDULENT OR CHARACTERIZED BY ARTIFICE OR CRAFT, AND SUGGESTS THE
IDEA OF "ESCAPING OR SLIPPING AWAY FROM" AS OPPOSED TO RESISTANCE TO OR
REFUSAL TO DO MILITARY DUTY, WHICH THE BUND ORDER COUNSELLED. 

IF THE MEANING WHICH THE DICTIONARY ASCRIBES TO A WORD STANDING IN
ISOLATION IS TO BE DEEMED CONTROLLING IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE
IN WHICH THE WORD APPEARS, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE OF SOME IMPORTANCE TO
REFER TO THE LATIN DERIVATION OF THE WORD "EVADE" AS MEANING TO GO OR
PROCEED AWAY FROM, AND TO ITS MODERN USAGE, ALSO RECOGNIZED BY THE
DICTIONARIES, AS THE SYNONYM OF "AVOID," OR "ESCAPE" BY EFFORT OR BY
FORCE OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS, AS WELL AS BY ARTIFICE, CRAFT OR
DEXTERITY.  FN1  AS THE DRAFTSMEN OF STATUTES DO NOT USUALLY LIMIT THE
APPLICATION OF THE CHOSEN WORD TO ONLY SOME OF ITS COMMON MEANINGS
WITHOUT INDICATING THEIR PURPOSE TO DO SO, THE WORD, READ IN ITS
CONTEXT IN THE STATUTE, IS FAR MORE REVEALING OF THE LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE THAN THE ARBITRARY SELECTION OF ONE OF ITS DICTIONARY MEANINGS
TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS WHICH ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE. 

HERE THE STATUTE SHOWS ON ITS FACE THAT THE WORD "EVADE" IS USED IN
SEC. 11 AS MEANING AVOIDANCE OF OR ESCAPE FROM MILITARY SERVICE EITHER
BY THE FAILURE OR THE REFUSAL TO PERFORM A DUTY WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE
RESULT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE, OR BY MEANS OF FRAUD, CRAFT,
OR ARTIFICE, IN MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT. 
WITH THE DUTY OF CARRYING OUT ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT  ...
WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM SUCH DUTY."  BUT IT ALSO
IMPOSES PENALTIES UPON ANY SUCH PERSON "WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY MAKE, OR BE
A PARTY TO THE MAKING, OF ANY FALSE, IMPROPER, OR INCORRECT
REGISTRATION, CLASSIFICATION  ...  AND ANY PERSON WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY
MAKE, OR BE A PARTY TO THE MAKING OF, ANY FALSE STATEMENT OR
CERTIFICATE  ..."  IT THEN PROVIDES FOR A LIKE APPLICATION OF THE ACT
TO ANY PERSON "WHO OTHERWISE EVADES REGISTRATION OR SERVICE IN THE LAND
OR NAVAL FORCES OR ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT, OR WHO
KNOWINGLY COUNSELS, AIDS, OR ABETS ANOTHER TO EVADE REGISTRATION OR
SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
ACT." 

THE IMPLICATION FROM THE USE OF THE PHRASE "OTHERWISE EVADES" IS
PLAIN THAT THE ACTS OF OMISSION OR REFUSAL TO PERFORM THE PRESCRIBED
DUTY AND ACTS OF OSTENSIBLE PERFORMANCE BY FALSE STATEMENTS AND THE
LIKE ARE EQUALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE STATUTE AS MODES OF EVASION OF
MILITARY SERVICE OR OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  IT IS THUS CLEAR
THAT THE PHRASE "OTHERWISE EVADES" WAS INTENDED TO INCLUDE BOTH TYPES
OF EVASION WHETHER EFFECTED BY BREACHES OF DUTY OR BY FALSE, FRAUDULENT
AND DECEPTIVE ACTS, EITHER OF WHICH, IF SUCCESSFUL, WOULD RESULT IN
AVOIDANCE OF OR ESCAPE FROM MILITARY SERVICE.  IN ADDITION TO ALL THESE
MODES OF EVASION SEC. 11 PENALIZES ONE WHO OTHERWISE (BY ANY OTHER
MODE) EVADES (AVOIDS) SERVICE.  THUS, ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE THERE
IS NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT RESPONDENTS CAN ELUDE ITS PENALTIES BECAUSE
THEY COUNSELLED BUND MEMBERS TO EVADE, I.E., ESCAPE OR AVOID, MILITARY
SERVICE BY REFUSING TO PERFORM MILITARY DUTY RATHER THAN BY FALSE
STATEMENTS, ARTIFICES, OR STRATAGEM.  THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR GIVING
THE WORD "EVADE," AS USED IN THE STATUTE, A MORE STRAINED OR A NARROWER
MEANING THAN IS RECOGNIZED IN ITS CONTEXT IN SEC. 11, WHICH IS ALSO
IDENTICAL WITH THE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS. 

SUCH LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS THERE IS SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION. 
SENATOR BURKE, ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1940, AT THE HEARINGS ON THE BILL BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, STATED THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC.
11 PROHIBITING THE COUNSELLING OF EVASION, APPLIED "WHERE ONE URGED
ANOTHER NOT TO SEEK REPEAL OF THE LAW BUT TO REFUSE TO OBEY IT WHILE IT
REMAINED THE LAW."  HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS,
76TH CONG., 3RD SESS., P. 156.  SECTION 11 WAS DERIVED FROM SEC. 6 OF
THE SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT OF 1917, 40 STAT. 80, WHICH PENALIZED ANY
PERSON WHO "EVADES OR AIDS ANOTHER TO EVADE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
ACT."  IN FRAINA V. UNITED STATES, 255 F. 28, FRAINA WAS INDICTED UNDER
SECS. 37 AND 332 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AND OF SEC. 6 OF THE SELECTIVE
SERVICE ACT OF 1917 FOR CONSPIRACY WITH OTHERS TO "COUNSEL  ...  INDUCE
...  DIVERS PERSONS  ...  TO EVADE  ...  THE REQUIREMENTS OF" THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.  THE COURT AFFIRMED A CONVICTION WHERE THE JURY
FOUND THAT THE ACCUSED MADE A SPEECH IN ORDER TO COUNSEL AND INDUCE
CERTAIN "CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS" "TO REFUSE TO BE BOUND, OR REFUSE TO
ACT OR ACCEPT THE LAW, AND REFUSE TO DO THEIR DUTY WHICH IS REQUIRED BY
THIS LAW."  THUS, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE PRESENT SELECTIVE SERVICE
ACT, IT WAS JUDICIALLY DETERMINED THAT ONE WHO REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW "EVADES" THE LAW, AND THAT ONE WHO COUNSELS
ANOTHER TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE LAW OR TO DO HIS DUTY WHICH IS REQUIRED
BY THE LAW CAN BE FOUND GUILTY OF INDUCING HIM TO EVADE IT.  WE MUST
TAKE IT THAT CONGRESS, IN ADOPTING THE TERM "EVADE" FROM SEC. 6 OF THE
EARLIER DRAFT ACT, AND USING IT IN LIKE CONTEXT IN SEC. 11 OF THE 1940
ACT, ADOPTED AND CONFIRMED THE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM AS IT
APPEARED IN THE 1917 ACT.  SESSIONS V. ROMADKA, 145 U.S. 29, 41-42;
MANHATTAN PROPERTIES V. IRVING TRUST CO., 291 U.S. 320, 336; UNITED
STATES V. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO., 298 U.S. 492, 500; MISSOURI V. ROSS,
299 U.S. 72, 75; ELECTRIC BATTERY CO. V. SHIMADZU, 307 U.S. 5, 14. 

THE CONCLUSION SEEMS INESCAPABLE THAT PETITIONERS, BY COUNSELLING
BUND MEMBERS TO REFUSE TO DO MILITARY DUTY, COUNSELLED EVASION OF
MILITARY SERVICE, AND THAT THE JURY'S VERDICT OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 11
IS THEREFORE SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE.  THIS IS NOT ANY THE LESS SO
BECAUSE THE BUND ORDER COUNSELLED MEMBERS OF THE BUND TO REFUSE TO DO
MILITARY SERVICE UNTIL SEC. 8(I) WAS REPEALED.  BUND ORDER NO. 37 WAS
PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED BY PETITIONERS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF SEC.
8(I) OF THE ACT.  ITS COUNSEL THEREFORE WAS TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE BY
EVADING MILITARY SERVICE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ORDER'S SUGGESTION THAT
THE REFUSAL TO DO MILITARY DUTY MIGHT CEASE WHENEVER REPEAL OCCURRED. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY, RIGHTLY WE THINK, THAT "BONA
FIDE HONEST INTENT TO MAKE A TEST CASE IS NO DEFENSE," SAYING:  "IF
THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY AMONGST THESE DEFENDANTS, OR ANY OF THEM, HAVING
AS ITS OBJECT THE VIOLATION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE LAW, KNOWINGLY,
THE REASON FOR SUCH VIOLATION IS IMMATERIAL TO YOU IN YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF THEIR GUILT OR INNOCENCE."  PLAINLY
ONE WHO WOULD ASSAIL THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE IN A TEST CASE CAN DO SO
ONLY BY VIOLATING ITS PROVISIONS, HERE BY KNOWINGLY COUNSELLING ANOTHER
TO EVADE REGISTRATION OR SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES.  ONE WHO THUS
EVADED OR COUNSELLED EVASION OF MILITARY SERVICE COULD NOT DEFEND ON
THE GROUND THAT HE VIOLATED THE ACT IN ORDER TO TEST ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY.  HE NEVERTHELESS DOES THE ACT WHICH THE STATUTE
PROHIBITS AND NONETHELESS INTENDED TO DO IT EVEN THOUGH HIS PURPOSE WAS
TO ESTABLISH THAT THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THERE
IS NO FREEDOM TO CONSPIRE TO VIOLATE A STATUTE WITH IMPUNITY MERELY
BECAUSE ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY IS DOUBTED.  THE PROHIBITION OF THE
STATUTE IS INFRINGED BY THE INTENDED ACT IN ANY CASE, AND THE LAW
IMPOSES ITS SANCTIONS UNLESS THE DOUBT PROVES TO BE WELL FOUNDED. 

HERE PETITIONERS LAID NO FOUNDATION FOR ASSAILING THE VALIDITY OF
SEC. 11 BY REASON OF THEIR DOUBTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC.
8(I).  NO ONE CAN URGE THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE UNTIL HE
SHOWS THAT IT IS APPLICABLE TO HIM AND THAT HE IS INJURED BY IT.  MARYE
V. PARSONS, 114 U.S. 325; TYLER V. THE JUDGES, 179 U.S. 405; COLLINS V.
TEXAS, 223 U.S. 288; ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO. V. EMMERSON, 271 U.S. 50,
54, 55; UTAH POWER CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 324; VOELLER V. NEILSTON CO., 311 U.S.
531, 537; ALABAMA STATE FEDERATION OF LABOR V. MCADORY, ANTE, P. 450. 
PETITIONERS INTRODUCED NO EVIDENCE.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY OF
THEM EVER GAVE UP ANY EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF THEIR INDUCTION INTO THE
SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT, OR
THAT THEY WERE EVER REFUSED OR THREATENED WITH REFUSAL OF ANY
EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE BUND OR THE COMMUNIST
PARTY.  AND EVEN THOUGH SEC. 8(I) WERE TO BE DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
APPLIED TO PETITIONERS, THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
SEC. 11 OR RELIEVE PETITIONERS FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR VIOLATION
OF SEC. 11.  FOR SEC. 14(B) OF THE ACT PROVIDES "IF ANY PROVISION OF
THIS ACT, OR THE APPLICATION THEREOF TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE, IS
HELD INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THE ACT, AND THE APPLICATION OF SUCH
PROVISION TO OTHER PERSONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES, SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED
THEREBY." 

THE DOCTRINE OF PEOPLE V. POWELL, 63 N.Y. 88, ON WHICH PETITIONERS
RELY, THAT A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO DO AN ACT "INNOCENT IN ITSELF" NOT
KNOWN BY THE CONSPIRATORS TO BE PROHIBITED MUST BE ACTUATED BY SOME
CORRUPT MOTIVE OTHER THAN THE INTENTION TO DO THE ACT WHICH IS
PROHIBITED AND WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, HAS NEVER BEEN
ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT.  TO ESTABLISH VIOLATION OF SEC. 11 NOTHING MORE
NEED BE PROVED THAN THAT RESPONDENTS HAD IN CONTEMPLATION ALL THE
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE WHICH THEY CONSPIRED TO COMMIT.  UNITED STATES
V. MACK, 112 F.2D 290, 292; CF. HAMBURG-AMERICAN STEAM PACKET CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 250 F. 747, 759; CHADWICK V. UNITED STATES, 141 F. 225,
243.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT KNOW THAT THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT REQUIRED THOSE SUBJECT TO IT TO DO MILITARY
SERVICE.  AND PEOPLE V. POWELL, SUPRA, WAS CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THAT
WHERE THE CONSPIRACY IS TO DO AN ACT WHICH IS NOT "INNOCENT IN ITSELF"
THE OFFENSE IS "COMPLETE WHEN THE ACT IS INTENTIONALLY DONE,"
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY ACTUAL INTENTION TO VIOLATE THE LAW.  HERE THE ACT
PROHIBITED WAS HARDLY "INNOCENT IN ITSELF."  THE FACTS FOUND BY THE
JURY UNDER INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT CONSTITUTE PLAIN VIOLATION OF SEC.
11, AND THE JURY'S VERDICT IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 

FN1  THE FOLLOWING ARE DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD "EVADE":
FUNK & WAGNALLS:  "TO AVOID BY ARTIFICE; ELUDE OR GET AWAY FROM BY
CRAFT OR FORCE; SAVE ONESELF FROM, AS AN IMPENDING EVIL; AS, TO EVADE
AN ARGUMENT OR A CRISIS."  WEBSTER:  "TO ESCAPE; TO SLIP AWAY  ...  TO
GET AWAY FROM BY ARTIFICE; TO AVOID BY DEXTERITY, SUBTERFUGE OR
INGENUITY  ...  TO ESCAPE OR AVOID, OFTEN BY THE USE OF SKILL,
DEXTERITY, OR CONTRIVANCE."  OXFORD:  "TO ESCAPE BY CONTRIVANCE OR
ARTIFICE FROM ...  TO AVOID, SAVE ONESELF FROM  ...  TO ELUDE.  NONCE
USE:  'GO OUT OF.  OPPOSED TO INVADE.'"  CENTURY:  "TO AVOID BY EFFORT
OR CONTRIVANCE; ESCAPE FROM OR ELUDE IN ANY WAY, AS BY DEXTERITY,
ARTIFICE, STRATAGEM OR ADDRESS; SLIP AWAY FROM; GET OUT OF THE WAY OF
...  TO ESCAPE; SLIP AWAY." 
..END :






NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 507 


ARGUED APRIL 23, 24, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 56 F.SUPP.  606,
REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, UNDER SEC. 13(4)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AUTHORIZED RAILROADS IN NORTH CAROLINA
TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN INTRASTATE PASSENGER COACH FARES AT LEVELS
NOT LOWER THAN INTERSTATE FARES, WHICH IN EFFECT INCREASED THE STATE
PRESCRIBED BASIC FARE OF 1.65 CENTS PER MILE TO THE INTERSTATE LEVEL OF
2.2 CENTS PER MILE.  HELD THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT BASED ON ADEQUATE
FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE
ENJOINED ITS ENFORCEMENT.  PP. 509, 520. 

2.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO NULLIFY A
STATE-PRESCRIBED INTRASTATE RATE ONLY WHEN THE COMMISSION, AFTER FULL
HEARING, FINDS THAT SUCH RATE CAUSES (1) UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, OR PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN PERSONS OR LOCALITIES IN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE ON THE ONE HAND AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON THE
OTHER, OR (2) UNDUE, UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO SET
ASIDE A STATE-PRESCRIBED INTRASTATE RATE UNLESS THERE ARE CLEAR
FINDINGS, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, OF EACH ELEMENT ESSENTIAL TO ITS
EXERCISE OF THAT POWER.  PP. 510, 511. 

3.  A MERE FINDING THAT INTERSTATE PASSENGERS PAID HIGHER FARES THAN
INTRASTATE PASSENGERS FOR THE SAME SERVICE DOES NOT ADEQUATELY SUPPORT
A STATEWIDE ORDER NULLIFYING A STATE-PRESCRIBED RATE AS UNDULY
PREJUDICIAL TO INTERSTATE PASSENGERS AND REQUIRING ALL INTRASTATE
PASSENGERS TO PAY THE HIGHER INTRASTATE RATE.  PP. 512, 514. 

4.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE 2.2 CENTS INTERSTATE RATE
WAS JUST AND REASONABLE; THAT THE SAME TRAINS IN GENERAL CARRIED BOTH
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE PASSENGERS; AND THAT THE RAILROADS AFFECTED
WOULD HAVE RECEIVED $525,000 MORE ANNUAL INCOME FROM THE PASSENGERS
THEY CARRIED HAD THE 2.2 CENTS RATE BEEN APPLIED, DID NOT SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE INTRASTATE TRAFFIC WAS NOT CONTRIBUTING ITS FAIR
SHARE OF THE REVENUE REQUIRED TO ENABLE THE RAILROADS TO RENDER
ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, AND DID NOT SUPPORT THE
ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE INTRASTATE RATES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 514. 

5.  THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE A STATE TO RAISE
INTRASTATE RATES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INTRASTATE TRAFFIC IS
CONTRIBUTING ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE EARNINGS REQUIRED TO MEET
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS AND TO YIELD A FAIR RETURN ON THE VALUE
OF PROPERTY DIRECTED TO THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, BOTH INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE.  P. 520. 

6.  THE COMMISSION CAN NOT REQUIRE INTRASTATE RATES TO BE RAISED
ABOVE A REASONABLE LEVEL.  P. 520. 

7.  WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE COMMISSION COULD
HAVE FOUND THAT A RATE OF 2.2 CENTS WAS FAR ABOVE A REASONABLE RATE
LEVEL FOR THE INTRASTATE COACH TRAFFIC OF THE RAILROADS, THE COMMISSION
MUST MAKE FINDINGS ON THAT ISSUE, WHICH FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, BEFORE ENTERING AN ORDER SUPPLANTING THE STATE AUTHORITY. 
WITHOUT SUCH FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION WAS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO FIND THAT THE INTRASTATE RATES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 520. 

NORTH CAROLINA ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

NO. 560.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 561, DAVIS, ECONOMIC STABILIZATION DIRECTOR, BY
BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, V. UNITED STATES ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

APPEALS FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENYING AN
INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN AND SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE UTILITIES COMMISSION BROUGHT SUIT TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  258
I.C.C. 133.  THE FEDERAL ECONOMIC STABILIZATION DIRECTOR ACTING THROUGH
THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR SOUGHT AND WAS GRANTED THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE
AS A PARTY PLAINTIFF.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENIED
THE INJUNCTION, 56 F.SUPP.  606, AND THE CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL
UNDER SEC. 210 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

THIS CLASH BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES CAME ABOUT BECAUSE THE
STATE COMMISSION AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION EACH CLAIMED
THE PARAMOUNT POWER TO FIX RAILROAD RATES IN NORTH CAROLINA.  THE NORTH
CAROLINA COMMISSION ORDERED RAILROADS DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE TO
CHARGE NO MORE THAN 1.65 CENTS PER MILE FOR CARRYING INTRASTATE COACH
PASSENGERS FROM ONE POINT IN THE STATE TO ANOTHER.  DESPITE THIS STATE
COMMISSION ORDER, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE
SAME RAILROADS TO CHARGE 2.2 CENTS PER MILE FOR THE SAME TYPE OF
CARRIAGE.  FN1 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ASSERTED ITS POWER TO PRESCRIBE
THESE PURELY INTRASTATE RATES UNDER SEC. 13(4) OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 13(4).  THAT SECTION, WHICH IS SET FORTH
BELOW,  FN2  EMPOWERS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE
INTRASTATE RAILROAD RATES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, DESPITE CONFLICTING
STATE ORDERS AS TO THE SAME RATES.  THE CONDITIONS THAT CONGRESS
IMPOSED AS A PREREQUISITE TO COMMISSION ACTION ARE THAT THE COMMISSION
SHALL HOLD A "FULL HEARING" AND FIND THAT THE STATE-PRESCRIBED RATES
EITHER CAUSED (1) UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, OR
PREJUDICE, AS BETWEEN PERSONS OR LOCALITIES IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE ON
THE ONE HAND, AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON THE OTHER HAND, OR (2) UNDUE,
UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THE COMMISSION HELD HEARINGS WHICH ARE CHALLENGED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS AS
FALLING SHORT OF "FULL" HEARINGS.  IT MADE FINDINGS AND CONCLUDED THAT
THE 1.65 STATE RATE WAS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO INTERSTATE PASSENGERS,
AND THAT THE STATE RATE CONSTITUTED AN UNDUE AND UNJUST DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE ATTACKED ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTED NEITHER BY FINDINGS NOR EVIDENCE.  THE
CRUCIAL QUESTION INVOLVED IN ALL THESE CONTENTIONS IS WHETHER THE
INDISPENSABLE PREREQUISITES TO THE EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION'S
POWER OVER INTRASTATE RATES HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST WITH SUFFICIENT
CERTAINTY.  BEFORE MAKING ANY DETAILED REFERENCE TO THE HEARINGS,
FINDINGS OR EVIDENCE, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SET OUT CERTAIN GUIDING
PRINCIPLES WHICH LEAD US TO A RESOLUTION OF THE CRUCIAL QUESTION. 

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AS SUCH.  AS TO INTERSTATE REGULATION, THE
COMMISSION IS GRANTED THE BROADEST POWERS TO PRESCRIBE RATES AND OTHER
TRANSPORTATION DETAILS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 323
U.S. 612.  NO SUCH BREADTH OF AUTHORITY IS GRANTED TO THE COMMISSION
OVER PURELY INTRASTATE RATES.  NEITHER SEC. 13(4), NOR ANY OTHER
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, INDICATES A PURPOSE TO ATTEMPT WHOLLY TO
DEPRIVE THE STATES OF THEIR PRIMARY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE INTRASTATE
RATES.  SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 13(4), AS BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT, A
STATE'S POWER OVER INTRASTATE RATES IS EXCLUSIVE UP TO THE POINT WHERE
ITS ACTION WOULD BRING ABOUT THE PREJUDICE OR DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
BY THAT SECTION.  WHEN THIS POINT - NOT ALWAYS EASY TO MARK - IS
REACHED, AND NOT UNTIL THEN, CAN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
NULLIFY A STATE-PRESCRIBED RATE. 

INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION IS PRIMARILY THE CONCERN OF THE STATE.  THE
POWER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH
INTRASTATE RATES IS DOMINANT ONLY SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO ALTER RATES
WHICH INJURIOUSLY AFFECT INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  AMERICAN EXPRESS
CO. V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 244 U.S. 617, 625.  A SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR
MAINTAINING THE POWER OF THE STATE IN THIS FIELD HAS CAUSED THIS COURT
TO REQUIRE THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERS GIVING PRECEDENCE
TO FEDERAL RATES MUST MEET "A HIGH STANDARD OF CERTAINTY."  ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 245 U.S. 493, 510. 
BEFORE THE COMMISSION CAN NULLIFY A STATE RATE, JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
"EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL POWER MUST CLEARLY APPEAR."  FLORIDA V. UNITED
STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 211-212.  SEE ALSO YONKERS V. UNITED STATES, 320
U.S. 685.  AND THE INTENTION TO INTERFERE WITH THE STATE'S RATE-MAKING
FUNCTION IS NOT TO BE PRESUMED, ARKANSAS COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, R.I. &
P.R. CO., 274 U.S. 597, 603; NOR MUST ITS INTENTION IN THIS RESPECT BE
LEFT IN SERIOUS DOUBT.  ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMM'N V. THOMSON, 318 U.S.
675, 684-685.  THE FOREGOING CASES ALSO STAND FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO SUPPLANT A
STATE-PRESCRIBED INTRASTATE RATE UNLESS THERE ARE CLEAR FINDINGS,
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, OF EACH ELEMENT ESSENTIAL TO THE EXERCISE OF
THAT POWER BY THE COMMISSION.  WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE TWO GROUNDS
UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION SET ASIDE THE STATE ORDER. 

PREJUDICE AGAINST INTERSTATE PASSENGERS.  ON THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE
THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS WERE THAT THE INTERSTATE 2.2 CENTS RATE WAS
JUST AND REASONABLE; THAT THE ACCOMMODATIONS AFFORDED INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE PASSENGERS IN NORTH CAROLINA WERE "SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR";
THAT IN GENERAL THESE PASSENGERS TRAVELED IN THE SAME TRAINS AND IN THE
SAME CARS; AND FROM THESE, IT CONCLUDED THAT SINCE INTERSTATE
PASSENGERS WERE FORCED TO PAY HIGHER FARES THAN INTRASTATE PASSENGERS,
THERE WAS AN UNDUE AND UNREASONABLE DISADVANTAGE AND PREJUDICE OF
INTERSTATE PASSENGERS.  ON THESE FINDINGS IT ISSUED THE STATEWIDE ORDER
REQUIRING ALL INTRASTATE PASSENGERS TO PAY 2.2 CENTS PER MILE.  WE
THINK THESE FINDINGS FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE SUPPORT TO THE ORDER. 

IN EFFECT, THE COMMISSION'S HOLDING WAS, AND ITS ARGUMENT IS HERE,
THAT SEC. 13(4) AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRES COMPLETE UNIFORMITY IN
INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE RATES.  THAT ARGUMENT IS IN SHORT THAT UNDER
OUR NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM INTERSTATE TRAVELERS AND INTRASTATE
TRAVELERS USE THE SAME TRAINS; FOR A STATE TO FIX A LOWER INTRASTATE
RATE THAN THE INTERSTATE RATE IS THEREFORE AN UNDUE ADVANTAGE TO THE
INTRASTATE PASSENGERS AND AN UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE
INTERSTATE PASSENGERS.  IF CONGRESS INTENDED TO PERMIT SUCH AN
OVERSIMPLIFIED FORM OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH "UNJUST DISCRIMINATION," THEN
ITS REQUIREMENT OF A "FULL HEARING" WAS MERE SURPLUSAGE.  IN FACT, IT
NEED HAVE PROVIDED FOR NO HEARING AT ALL SINCE IT COULD HAVE EASILY
STATED IN ITS LEGISLATION THAT INTRASTATE RATES SHALL NEVER BE LOWER
THAN INTERSTATE RATES.  THE ARGUMENT OF THE COMMISSION IN THIS REGARD
RUNS COUNTER TO THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 13(4), AND WOULD CALL FOR A
DECLARATION BY US THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY THIS SECTION TO REVERSE THE
ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION HISTORY OF THE NATION.  THE CLAUSE ABOUT
"PERSONS" AND "LOCALITIES" IS, AS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS, A
PRACTICAL ENACTMENT INTO LAW OF A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE
"SHREVEPORT" CASE.  FN3  HOUSTON, E. & W.T.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234
U.S. 342.  IN THE "SHREVEPORT" CASE THE COMMISSION FOUND FROM EVIDENCE
THAT CERTAIN TEXAS INTRASTATE RATES TO TEXAS POINTS WERE FAR BELOW THE
INTERSTATE RATES CHARGED TO CARRY THE SAME TYPES OF FREIGHT FROM
SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.  THE DISTANCES AND CONDITIONS OF BOTH
TRANSPORTATIONS WERE FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.  THE COURT
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT THE TEXAS INTRASTATE RATES
CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SHREVEPORT AND PERSONS
DOING BUSINESS THERE.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS NOT STATEWIDE, BUT
ONLY REQUIRED REMOVAL OF THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE PARTICULAR
LOCALITIES AND BUSINESS GROUPS AFFECTED BY THE DISCRIMINATION. 

IN RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 579,
580, THIS COURT REFUSED TO SUSTAIN A COMMISSION ORDER NULLIFYING ALL
STATE PASSENGER RATES BECAUSE OF A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE
TRAVELERS AND AGAINST LOCALITIES.  THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND THERE AS
HERE THAT STATE AND INTERSTATE PASSENGERS RODE ON THE SAME TRAINS IN
THE SAME CAR AND PERHAPS IN THE SAME SEATS.  IT HAD FOUND THERE, AS IT
DID HERE, THAT THIS CONSTITUTED AN UNDUE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE PASSENGERS, AND IT ISSUED A GENERAL SWEEPING ORDER AGAINST
ALL INTRASTATE PASSENGER RATES.  THIS COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER
WENT FAR BEYOND THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE SHREVEPORT CASE, AND
DECLINED TO SUSTAIN THE STATEWIDE ORDER ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE.  SEE
ALSO FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 208.  SO HERE, THE FINDING
THAT INTERSTATE PASSENGERS PAID HIGHER FARES THAN INTRASTATE PASSENGERS
FOR THE SAME FACILITIES IS AN INADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR NULLIFYING STATE
RATES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY CONSTITUTE UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE PASSENGERS. 

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ONE GROUND OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS THAT THE INTRASTATE RATES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS SUCH.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON WHICH
THIS CONCLUSION RESTED WERE THAT THE 2.2 CENTS INTERSTATE RATE WAS JUST
AND REASONABLE; THE SAME TRAINS IN GENERAL CARRIED BOTH INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE PASSENGERS; THE NORTH CAROLINA RAILROADS TO WHICH THE
INTRASTATE RATES WERE APPLIED, WOULD HAVE RECEIVED $525,000 MORE ANNUAL
INCOME FROM THE PASSENGERS THEY CARRIED HAD THE 2.2 CENTS INTERSTATE
RATE BEEN APPLIED; FROM THIS THE CONCLUSION WAS REACHED THAT INTRASTATE
TRAFFIC WAS "NOT CONTRIBUTING ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE REVENUE REQUIRED TO
ENABLE RESPONDENTS TO RENDER ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE." 

THIS CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION, IF BASED ON FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, WOULD JUSTIFY ITS ORDER.  FOR IN FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES,
292 U.S. 1, 5, WE SAID THAT SEC. 13(4) AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION "TO
RAISE INTRASTATE RATES SO THAT THE INTRASTATE TRAFFIC MAY PRODUCE ITS
FAIR SHARE OF THE EARNINGS REQUIRED TO MEET MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING
COSTS AND TO YIELD A FAIR RETURN ON THE VALUE OF PROPERTY DEVOTED TO
THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE."  WE
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER THERE BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON FINDINGS
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT THE INTRASTATE RATE "WAS ABNORMALLY LOW AND
LESS THAN REASONABLY COMPENSATORY  ... 'INSUFFICIENT UNDER ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS TO COVER THE FULL COST OF THE SERVICE.'" 
NEITHER IN ITS FORMAL FINDINGS NOR IN ITS DISCUSSION OF THE FACTS DID
THE COMMISSION INDICATE THAT THE NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD RATES HERE
INVOLVED WERE LESS THAN COMPENSATORY OR INSUFFICIENT TO COVER THE FULL
COST OF SERVICE.  NOR DID THEY FIND THAT MAINTENANCE OF THESE RATES WAS
NECESSARY TO THE OPERATION OF A NATIONALLY EFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE
RAILWAY SYSTEM.  FN4 

BUT THE QUESTION POSED BY THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION WAS WHETHER THE
PARTICULAR NORTH CAROLINA RAILROADS WERE OBTAINING FROM NORTH
CAROLINA'S INTRASTATE PASSENGER RATES THEIR FAIR PART OF SUCH FUNDS AS
WERE REQUIRED TO ENABLE THESE PARTICULAR RAILROADS TO RENDER ADEQUATE
AND EFFICIENT SERVICE.  THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDINGS AS TO WHAT
CONTRIBUTION FROM INTRASTATE TRAFFIC WOULD CONSTITUTE A FAIR PROPORTION
OF THE RAILROAD'S TOTAL INCOME.  IT MADE NO FINDING AS TO WHAT AMOUNT
OF REVENUE WAS REQUIRED TO ENABLE THESE RAILROADS TO OPERATE
EFFICIENTLY.  INSTEAD, IT RELIED ON THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A DISPARITY
BETWEEN WHAT IT SAID WAS A REASONABLE INTERSTATE RATE AND THE
INTRASTATE RATE FIXED BY NORTH CAROLINA.  IT THOUGHT THIS ACTION WAS
JUSTIFIED BY THIS COURT'S OPINION IN ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMM'N V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 474, 485.  FN5  ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT "THE MERE
EXISTENCE OF A DISPARITY BETWEEN PARTICULAR RATES ON INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC DOES NOT WARRANT THE COMMISSION IN PRESCRIBING
INTRASTATE RATES," FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 211-212;
UTAH EDIBLE LIVESTOCK RATES AND CHARGES, 206 I.C.C. 309, THERE IS
REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD EVER FIXED 2.2 CENTS
AS THE ONLY REASONABLE INTERSTATE RATE. 

THE WHOLE ARGUMENT THAT IT HAD DONE SO RESTS PRIMARILY ON AN ORDER
MADE IN 1936.  AT THAT TIME, THE COMMISSION MADE A COMPREHENSIVE
INVESTIGATION OF RATES THROUGHOUT THE NATION, AND AFTER ELABORATE
DISCUSSION MADE FINDINGS OF FACT.  IT CONCLUDED THAT ANY RATE OVER 2
CENTS PER PASSENGER MILE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL.  BUT IT
ALSO DECLARED THAT A RATE OF 1.5 CENTS THEN COMMONLY CHARGED THROUGHOUT
THE SOUTHERN STATES, WOULD NOT BE "UNREASONABLE OR OTHERWISE
UNLAWFUL."  214 I.C.C. 174, 257.  RAILROADS IN THE SOUTH CONTINUED TO
CHARGE 1.5 CENTS MOST OF THE TIME FROM THEN UNTIL 1942.  MARCH 2, 1942,
UPON AN APPLICATION OF THE AMERICAN RAILROADS, THE COMMISSION IN EX
PARTE 148, GRANTED A GENERAL 10% INCREASE ON ALL RATES THEN IN
EXISTENCE.  THIS INCREASE IT FOUND WAS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE
RAILROADS "TO CONTINUE TO RENDER ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE DURING THE PRESENT EMERGENCY."  248 I.C.C. 545,
565.  THE COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY STATED, P. 606, THAT ITS CONCLUSION
WAS NOT BASED ON "INDIVIDUAL, SECTIONAL, OR PARTICULAR INDUSTRIAL
DESIRES OR NEEDS."  FOUR MONTHS LATER, ON JULY 14, 1942, CERTAIN
RAILROADS OPERATING IN THE SOUTH, INCLUDING THE RAILROADS INVOLVED IN
THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE, FILED A PETITION WITH THE COMMISSION ASKING
THAT IT MODIFY ITS 1936 ORDER, SO AS TO PERMIT THEM TO CHARGE 2.2 CENTS
PER MILE.  TWO WEEKS LATER, WITHOUT A HEARING, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, AND
WITHOUT DISCUSSION, THE COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER DECLINING TO AMEND
ITS 1936 ORDER, BUT MODIFYING ITS 10% RATE INCREASE ORDER, "SO AS TO
AUTHORIZE" THE PETITIONING RAILROADS TO CHARGE 2.2 CENTS PER MILE.  IT
MADE NO FINDING THAT THE RAILROADS NEEDED THIS INCREASE IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN ADEQUATE RAILROAD SYSTEMS AND OF COURSE COULD NOT HAVE DONE SO
UNLESS IT RELIED UPON THE OLD 1936 EVIDENCE.  THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF
THIS NATURE RAISED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES IN THE 10% RATE INCREASE
PROCEEDINGS.  NEITHER BEFORE NOR SINCE THESE SOUTHERN RAILROADS WERE
AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION TO INCREASE THEIR INTERSTATE RATE TO 2.2
CENTS HAS ANY HEARING BEEN HELD ON THE SUBJECT.  PETITION OF NORTH
CAROLINA FOR A HEARING WAS DENIED.  NOR HAS THERE BEEN ANY FINDING
BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT THE 1.65 CENTS RATE WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND
ADEQUATE, AND NEITHER "UNREASONABLE NOR UNLAWFUL," HAS CEASED TO BE
SUCH.  WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND FROM ANY OF THE VARIOUS ORDERS THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS EVER YET MADE FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND UPON
THEM SET ASIDE ITS 1936 CONCLUSIONS THAT A 1.5 CENTS RATE FOR SOUTHERN
TERRITORY WAS REASONABLE AND LAWFUL, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HELD
THAT A 10% INCREASE WAS JUSTIFIABLE. 

FURTHERMORE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE COMMISSION HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE A
VALID 2.2 CENTS PER MILE GENERAL ORDER BROADLY APPLICABLE TO ALL
RAILROADS IN THE SOUTHERN TERRITORY OR THROUGHOUT THE NATION, IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT SUCH A GENERAL ORDER MUST PERMANENTLY STAND AS TO EACH
AND EVERY SEPARATE RAILROAD OR RAILROAD SYSTEM.  THE VERY NATURE OF
SUCH A BROAD GENERAL ORDER REQUIRES THAT IT CONTAIN A SAVING CLAUSE FOR
FUTURE MODIFICATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF PARTICULAR RATES.  THIS COURT
DECLARED THAT SUCH A SAVING CLAUSE WAS ESSENTIAL EVEN AT THE TIME THAT
ALL SURPLUS RAILROAD PROFITS WERE POOLED FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF THE
NATIONAL SYSTEM.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257
U.S. 563, 579; GEORGIA COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 765, 772;
UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70, 76, 77, 79. 

SUCH A SAVING CLAUSE LEFT TO THE STATE ITS POWER TO BRING ABOUT
PARTICULAR CHANGES IN THE INTERNAL INTRASTATE RATE STRUCTURE NECESSARY
TO KEEP INTRASTATE REVENUES AS A CLASS IN HARMONY WITH INTERSTATE
NEEDS.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563,
580.  FOR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS "WITHOUT JURISDICTION
OVER INTRASTATE RATES EXCEPT TO PROTECT AND MAKE EFFECTIVE SOME
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMM'N V.
THOMSON, 318 U.S. 675, 684.  CONSEQUENTLY, NO ONE BUT THE STATE HAD
POWER TO READJUST ITS INTERNAL INTRASTATE RATE STRUCTURE.  THIS IT
UNDERTOOK TO DO BY A HEARING FOCUSSED UPON THE STATE RAILROADS
INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY.  FOUR RAILROADS WERE DENIED THE
INCREASE, AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES NOW AFFECTED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDER.  OTHER ROADS WERE GRANTED THE INCREASE.  ITS
ORDER TO THIS EFFECT RESTED ON EVIDENCE AS TO THE DIFFERING QUALITIES
OF INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE ACCOMMODATIONS AFFORDED AS WELL AS THE NET
REVENUES OF DIFFERENT ROADS.  THE STATE COMMISSION FOUND AS TO THE FOUR
ROADS WHICH IT DENIED AN INCREASE THAT THEIR PROFITS FROM PASSENGER
REVENUES EVEN ON A 1.65 CENTS RATE WERE SO GREAT THAT CONTINUANCE OF
THAT RATE WOULD BE REASONABLE AND JUST TO THEM. 

IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE
STATE AND THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR PRESENTED THESE ISSUES WHICH THE
STATE COMMISSION HAD CONSIDERED.  BOTH THE RAILROADS AND THEIR
ADVERSARIES OFFERED EVIDENCE ON THE POINTS.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT
THE FOUR RAILROADS WERE CARRYING MORE PASSENGERS AND MORE FREIGHT, AND
WERE MORE PROSPEROUS THAN THEY HAD EVER BEEN IN THEIR HISTORY.  THIS
EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THEY WERE IN THE HIGHEST EXCESS PROFIT TAX
BRACKETS, AND THAT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 80 AND 90% OF ALL THEIR PROFITS
WERE SUBJECT TO BE PAID FOR FEDERAL TAXES. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE RAILROADS, WHICH INDICATED THAT
THEIR 1942 PER MILE NET COST OF CARRYING COACH PASSENGERS WAS UNDER OR
ABOUT 1 CENT.  THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND FACTS IN THE 1936 REPORT, 214
I.C.C. AT PP. 216, 266, WHICH INDICATED A MILEAGE COACH PASSENGER COST
OF 3.25 CENTS.  EVIDENCE OF THE FOUR RAILROADS ALSO SHOWED THEIR
AVERAGE REVENUE INCREASE SINCE 1936 HAD BEEN APPROXIMATELY 250%.  THIS
GREAT REVENUE INCREASE TRANSFORMED A 1936 $16,426.00 DEFICIT OF SIX
NORTH CAROLINA ROADS, INCLUDING THE FOUR HERE INVOLVED, INTO A 1942
$26,699,988.00 PROFIT.  MOST OF THIS INCREASED PROFIT WAS SHOWN TO HAVE
BEEN DERIVED FROM PASSENGER REVENUES. 

ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AND MUCH MORE TO WHICH WE MIGHT ADVERT WAS
SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE FOUND, HAD IT MADE
ANY FINDINGS ON THE SUBJECT AT ALL, THAT A 1.65 CENTS RATE FOR THESE
FOUR NORTH CAROLINA RAILROADS WOULD HAVE BEEN A FAIR COACH PASSENGER
CONTRIBUTION TO REVENUES REQUIRED TO ENABLE THEM TO OPERATE PROFITABLY
AND EFFICIENTLY.  BUT IT MADE NO FINDINGS ON THIS SUBJECT AT ALL.  THE
PURPOSE OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION LAW IS TO ASSURE RAILROADS A
FAIR NET OPERATING INCOME AND NO MORE.  DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456.  THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE
STATES TO RAISE THEIR INTRASTATE RATES DEPENDS UPON WHETHER INTRASTATE
TRAFFIC IS CONTRIBUTING ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE EARNINGS REQUIRED TO MEET
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COSTS AND TO YIELD A FAIR RETURN ON THE VALUE
OF PROPERTY DIRECTED TO THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BOTH INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE.  UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70, 75.  BUT THE
COMMISSION CANNOT "REQUIRE INTRASTATE RATES TO BE RAISED ABOVE A
REASONABLE LEVEL."  UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA, 78.  AND WHERE
THERE IS EVIDENCE AS HERE FROM WHICH THE COMMISSION COULD HAVE FOUND
THAT A RATE OF 2.2 CENTS WAS FAR ABOVE A REASONABLE RATE LEVEL FOR THE
INTRASTATE COACH TRAFFIC OF THESE FOUR RAILROADS, THE COMMISSION MUST
MAKE FINDINGS ON THAT ISSUE, WHICH FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE,
BEFORE ENTERING AN ORDER SUPPLANTING THE STATE AUTHORITY.  WITHOUT SUCH
FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO
FIND THAT THE INTRASTATE RATES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT BASED ON ADEQUATE
FINDINGS, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE
DECLINED TO ENFORCE ITS ORDER.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
REVERSED. 

FN1  THERE IS A CORRESPONDING CONFLICT WHICH INVOLVES ROUND TRIP
COACH RATES.  THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE THE SAME WITH REGARD TO ONE
WAY AND ROUND TRIP RATES, AND WE SHALL THEREFORE CONSIDER BOTH OF THEM
BY REFERENCE TO THE ONE WAY RATE. 

FN2  "WHENEVER IN ANY SUCH INVESTIGATION THE COMMISSION, AFTER FULL
HEARING, FINDS THAT ANY SUCH RATE, FARE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION,
REGULATION, OR PRACTICE CAUSES ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGE,
PREFERENCE, OR PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN PERSONS OR LOCALITIES IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE ON THE ONE HAND AND INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE ON THE
OTHER HAND, OR ANY UNDUE, UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUST DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, WHICH IS HEREBY FORBIDDEN AND
DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL, IT SHALL PRESCRIBE THE RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE,
OR THE MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM, OR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM, THEREAFTER TO BE
CHARGED, AND THE CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE THEREAFTER TO
BE OBSERVED, IN SUCH MANNER AS, IT ITS JUDGMENT, WILL REMOVE SUCH
ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, PREJUDICE, OR DISCRIMINATION.  SUCH RATES,
FARES, CHARGES, CLASSIFICATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES SHALL BE
OBSERVED WHILE IN EFFECT BY THE CARRIERS PARTIES TO SUCH PROCEEDING
AFFECTED THEREBY, THE LAW OF ANY STATE OR THE DECISION OR ORDER OF ANY
STATE AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  49 U.S.C. SEC.
13(4). 

FN3  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORTING THIS BILL SAID WITH REFERENCE TO
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 13(4):  "AFTER SUCH HEARING THE COMMISSION SHALL
MAKE SUCH FINDINGS AND ORDERS AS MAY IN ITS JUDGMENT TEND TO REMOVE ANY
UNDUE ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, OR PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN PERSONS OR
LOCALITIES IN STATE AND INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE PROVISION
PRACTICALLY ENACTS INTO LAW THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE SO
CALLED 'SHREVEPORT' CASE.  ANY UNDUE BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE IS FORBIDDEN AND DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL.  IT IS BELIEVED THAT
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WILL HAVE A BENEFICIAL AND HARMONIZING
EFFECT, AND WILL TEND TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SO-CALLED 'SHREVEPORT'
CASES, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME RECOGNIZING THE REGULATORY BODIES OF THE
SEVERAL STATES."  REPORT NO. 456, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 20. 

FN4  IN RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563,
THIS COURT SUSTAINED A STATEWIDE COMMISSION ORDER RAISING INTRASTATE
RATES.  SECTION 13(4) IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 1920 TRANSPORTATION ACT, 41
STAT. 456, AS IT THEN EXISTED, WAS CONSTRUED AS REQUIRING THE
COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE RATES SUFFICIENT "TO ENABLE THE CARRIERS AS A
WHOLE, OR IN GROUPS SELECTED BY THE COMMISSION, TO EARN AN AGGREGATE
ANNUAL NET RAILWAY OPERATING INCOME EQUAL TO A FAIR RETURN ON THE
AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE RAILWAY PROPERTY USED IN TRANSPORTATION."  584
585.  THE 1920 ACT, HOWEVER, TREATED THE NATIONAL RAILWAY SYSTEM AS A
UNIT.  THE NET RETURNS FOR ANY PARTICULAR RAILROAD WERE LIMITED BY THE
ACT.  ALL ABOVE THIS LIMITATION WENT INTO A COMMON POOL TO BE
DISTRIBUTED FOR THE USE OF WEAK RAILROADS.  IN THIS WAY, ALL RAILWAY
INCOME INURED TO THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE RAILROADS INDIVIDUALLY AND
COLLECTIVELY TO AID IN "MAINTAINING AN ADEQUATE RAILWAY SYSTEM."  THIS
COURT HAS SAID THAT CONGRESS ADOPTED THE POOLING PROVISIONS BECAUSE "IT
WAS NOT CLEAR THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD TOLERATE GREATLY INCREASED RATE
(ALTHOUGH NO HIGHER THAN NECESSARY TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRED REVENUES OF
WEAK LINES) IF THEREBY PROSPEROUS COMPETITORS EARNED AN UNREASONABLY
LARGE RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTIES."  NEW ENGLAND
DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 191.  BUT CONGRESS IN 1933, 48 STAT. 211,
REPEALED THIS PART OF THE 1920 ACT; THE INCOME POOLING SYSTEM WAS
ABANDONED; THE RULE OF RATE MAKING WAS RE-WRITTEN, AND WHILE THE
COMMISSION WAS TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE NEED OF ADEQUATE AND
EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT THE LOWEST COST CONSISTENT
WITH THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICE, AND TO THE NEED OF REVENUE
SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE CARRIERS UNDER HONEST, ECONOMICAL AND
EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICE, THE RATES WERE NO LONGER
TO BE TREATED ON A NATIONAL BASIS AS THOUGH ALL RAILROADS CONSTITUTED
ONE SYSTEM.  HOUSE REPORT NO. 193, 73RD CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 30-31. 
RAILROADS WERE TO BE TREATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.  ABANDONMENT OF
THE PROFIT POOLING SYSTEM MADE THIS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
CONTINUING CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO PREVENT "AN UNREASONABLY LARGE
RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTIES."  THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED
THIS LEGISLATIVE CHANGE IN RATE-MAKING POLICIES BY ITS REFERENCE TO
"REVENUES REQUIRED TO ENABLE RESPONDENTS TO RENDER ADEQUATE AND
EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE."  THE "RESPONDENTS" REFERRED TO WERE
THE INDIVIDUAL RAILROADS TO WHICH NORTH CAROLINA'S ORDER APPLIED. 

FN5  THIS CASE DID NOT INVOLVE A SWEEPING STATEWIDE ORDER BASED ON
GENERAL RAILROAD REVENUE NEEDS.  IT RELATED TO A PROBLEM LIKE THAT
CONSIDERED IN THE SHREVEPORT CASE.  THE RATES INVOLVED APPLIED TO
SWITCHING MOVEMENTS IN A SINGLE "SWITCHING DISTRICT," "ESSENTIALLY A
UNIT, SO FAR AS SWITCHING MOVEMENTS ARE CONCERNED."  THIS COURT'S
HOLDING IN THAT CASE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE STATEWIDE ORDER HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT HAS SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION WHICH WAS ENTERED MAY 8, 1944, ON A COMMISSION REPORT OF THE
PRECEDING MARCH 25TH.  258 I.C.C. 133.  THE ORDER COVERED
INVESTIGATIONS INSTITUTED UPON SEPARATE PETITIONS OF CARRIERS IN NORTH
CAROLINA, KENTUCKY, ALABAMA AND TENNESSEE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
MAINTENANCE OF INTRASTATE FARES IN THESE STATES AT LEVELS BELOW FARES
AND CHARGES ESTABLISHED FOR APPLICATION TO INTERSTATE TRAFFIC IN
RESPECTIVE STATES ON OCTOBER 1, 1942, CAUSED UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
ADVANTAGE, PREJUDICE OR PREFERENCE BETWEEN PERSONS OR LOCALITIES IN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE ON THE ONE HAND, AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON THE
OTHER, OR ANY SUCH DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  49
U.S.C. SEC. 13(4).  THE PETITIONS SOUGHT, TOO, PRESCRIPTION OF FARES
AND CHARGES BY THE COMMISSION TO REMOVE ANY PREFERENCE, ADVANTAGE,
PREJUDICE OR DISCRIMINATION FOUND TO EXIST.  SEE ALSO ALABAMA V. UNITED
STATES AND DAVIS V. UNITED STATES, POST, P. 535.  THIS DISSENT IS
APPLICABLE BOTH TO THIS AND THAT OPINION. 

WITHOUT SUMMARIZING THE ENTIRE REPORT WE CALL ATTENTION TO A FINDING
WHICH IT CONTAINS THAT TRAFFIC MOVING UNDER THESE LOWER INTRASTATE
FARES IS NOT CONTRIBUTING ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE REVENUES REQUIRED TO
ENABLE APPELLEES (THE INTERSTATE CARRIERS) TO RENDER ADEQUATE AND
EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND THAT THIS "UNLAWFULNESS SHOULD BE
REMOVED BY INCREASING" THE INTRASTATE FARES TO THE LEVEL OF THE
INTERSTATE FARES.  258 I.C.C. 154, 155, FINDINGS 5 AND 6.  THIS
FINDING, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, IS IN OUR OPINION SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY THE APPLICABLE ORDER OF MAY 8TH WHICH IS UNDER REVIEW IN THIS
APPEAL.  THAT ORDER REQUIRED THE CARRIERS TO MAINTAIN AND APPLY
INTRASTATE FARES ON BASES NO LOWER THAN THOSE APPLIED BY THE CARRIERS
IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION TO, FROM AND THROUGH THE FOUR STATES. 
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THIS ORDER ON
A VALID FINDING OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  49
U.S.C. SEC. 13(4).  IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THIS SECTION
DELEGATES A VALID POWER OF REGULATION OF INTRASTATE RATES TO THE
COMMISSION.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S.
563.  CF. MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 432, AND HOUSTON, E. &
W.T.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES (THE SHREVEPORT CASE), 234 U.S. 342, 351. 
IT GIVES AUTHORITY TO THE COMMISSION TO RAISE INTRASTATE RATES SO THAT
THAT TRAFFIC MAY PRODUCE ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE REQUIRED EARNINGS. 
UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70, 75.  AND THAT AUTHORITY DOES
NOT DEPEND UPON THE RECAPTURE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF EXCESS EARNING
OF INDIVIDUAL RAILROADS UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION
ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 488, SEC. 15A, NOW REPEALED, EMERGENCY RAILROAD
TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1933, 48 STAT. 220, SEC. 205, FOR CREATION OF A
GENERAL RAILROAD CONTINGENT FUND FOR FINANCING THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF RAILWAYS.  SECTION 13(4) WAS NOT CHANGED BY
THE ACT OF 1933.  THIS SECTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REVISED AND
REENACTED SEC. 15A OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT NOW EMPOWERS THE
COMMISSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, TO REMOVE THE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY PRESCRIBING INTRASTATE
FARES.  FN1  FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 4, FIRST.  CF.
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMM'N V. THOMSON, 318 U.S. 675, 682.  THIS COURT
TODAY RECOGNIZES THIS RULE.  THE FOUR STATES ATTACK THE FINDING OF
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH FINDING IS ESSENTIAL
TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PRESENT ORDER TO MAINTAIN INTRASTATE FARES AT
THE LEVEL OF INTERSTATE FARES, ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NEITHER
FINDING NOR EVIDENCE THAT THE INTRASTATE RATES ARE NOT PRODUCING A
PROPER PROPORTION OF THE CARRIERS' NEEDED REVENUE.  THIS COURT SUSTAINS
THE ATTACK AS SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE COMMISSION ORDER.  WE THINK
THE ARGUMENT, WHICH THE COURT HAS SUSTAINED, HAS ITS SOURCE IN A
MISCONCEPTION OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENT PROCEEDING. 

THE PETITIONS WERE FILED BY THE CARRIERS, THE INVESTIGATION WAS MADE
AND THE ORDER UNDER DISPUTE HERE WAS ENTERED TO COORDINATE THE
INTRASTATE PASSENGER FARES IN THESE FOUR STATES WITH THE PASSENGER FARE
STRUCTURE OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.  258 I.C.C. 133.  THERE HAD BEEN A
NUMBER OF RECENT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE NATIONAL STRUCTURE.  THE
EVIDENCE, WHICH WILL BE REFERRED TO LATER, PRESENTED IN THOSE
PROCEEDINGS IS, WE THINK, PROPERLY TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS
INVESTIGATION AND THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE INTRASTATE
FARES TO CONFORM TO INTERSTATE FARES IN THE FOUR STATES IS TO BE
APPRAISED IN THE LIGHT OF A PURPOSE TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL PASSENGER
RATE STRUCTURE.  THE COURT APPARENTLY ACCEPTS AS A PREMISE THE
CONTENTION OF THE STATES THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS AN ISOLATED
INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMISSION INTO AN APPLICATION BY THE RESPECTIVE
CARRIERS IN THE FOUR STATES TO HAVE THEIR INTRASTATE FARES RAISED TO
THE LEVEL OF THEIR INTERSTATE FARES BECAUSE THE INTRASTATE EARNINGS
WERE BELOW A FAIR PROPORTION OF THE CARRIERS' TOTAL REQUIRED INCOME. 
FN2  INSTEAD WE THINK THAT THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE BUT ANOTHER STEP IN
THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE GENERAL PASSENGER
FARE STRUCTURE. 

BASIC INTERSTATE FARES.  THE BASIC PASSENGER FARES WERE FIRST
INVESTIGATED ON A NATIONAL SCALE BY THE COMMISSION IN PASSENGER FARES
AND SURCHARGES, NO. 26550, DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1936.  IN THIS
PROCEEDING CARRIER COACH AND PULLMAN FARES RESPECTIVELY WERE FIXED AT
NOT TO EXCEED 2 AND 3 CENTS PER PASSENGER MILE.  214 I.C.C. 174, 256. 
FN3  THE ORDER, SEE PARAGRAPH 3, PAGE 257, LEFT THESE RESPONDENT ROADS
IN THE SOUTHERN TERRITORY FREE TO CONTINUE CERTAIN EXPERIMENTAL FARES,
WHICH WERE AS LOW AS 1.5 CENTS PER MILE IN COACHES.  A TEN PER CENT
INCREASE, APPLICABLE TO BOTH THE BASIC 2 AND 3 CENT FARES AND THE
EXPERIMENTAL FARES, WAS ALLOWED ON JANUARY 21, 1942, IN A PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE COMMISSION, DOCKETED AS EX PARTE NO. 148, INCREASED RAILWAY
RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES, 248 I.C.C. 545, 549, 564, 566, 612.  A
REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION'S DECISIONS IN THE ABOVE PROCEEDINGS WILL
INDICATE THE FULL HEARING WHICH WAS GIVEN THE FARE PROBLEMS IN THOSE
CASES.  IN THE PASSENGER FARES CASE, THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION, 214
I.C.C. AT 175, SHOWS THAT ALL CARRIERS BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THE ACT
WERE MADE RESPONDENTS AND THAT A COMMITTEE OF THE STATE COMMISSIONERS
COOPERATED WITH THE COMMISSION IN DETERMINING THE ISSUES.  IN THE
INCREASED RAILWAY RATES CASE, ALL THE STATES WERE NOTIFIED OF THE
PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDING AND A COMMITTEE OF THE STATE COMMISSIONS
ALSO ATTENDED THE HEARING AND ORAL ARGUMENT AND CONFERRED AS TO THE
DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES.  248 I.C.C. AT 549.  ALL RAIL CARRIERS
WERE AGAIN BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

AFTER THE TEN PER CENT INCREASE, THE RAILROADS OF SOUTHERN PASSENGER
ASSOCIATION TERRITORY FILED, ON JULY 14, 1942, A PETITION IN PASSENGER
FARES AND SURCHARGES, NO. 26550, SEEKING A MODIFICATION OF PARAGRAPH 3
OF THE CONCLUSIONS, 214 I.C.C. AT 257, TO ENABLE THEM TO FILE TARIFFS
INCREASING THEIR COACH FARE TO 2.2 CENTS (2 CENTS PLUS 10 PER CENT). 
THE COMMISSION RULED THAT ITS FORMER DECISION IN NO. 26550, 214 I.C.C.
AT 256, PERMITTED ALL RAILROADS, RESPONDENTS THEREIN, WHICH INCLUDED
APPLICANTS, TO CHARGE A BASIC FARE OF 2 CENTS AND THAT A GENERAL
INCREASE OF 10 PER CENT ON THESE RATES HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED IN EX PARTE
NO. 148, AND THAT THEREFORE THE COMMISSION COULD AND IT DID AUTHORIZE
THE APPLICATION OF THE 2.2 CENT BASIC RATE TO INTERSTATE RATES IN
SOUTHERN TERRITORY.  THE COMMISSION BY ORDER OF AUGUST 1, 1942,
DIRECTED THAT THE PETITION IN NO. 26550 BE DENIED, EVIDENTLY BECAUSE
THE ORDER IN THAT NUMBER HAD BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE "INCREASED RATES"
PROCEEDINGS, EX PARTE NO. 148, AND THAT ITS ORDER IN EX PARTE NO. 148
BE MODIFIED TO EFFECTUATE THIS INCREASE AND THAT IT BE LEFT OTHERWISE
UNCHANGED.  FN4  THE PARTICIPATING CARRIERS THEN APPROACHED THE
SEPARATE STATE AUTHORITIES TO OBTAIN THEIR CONSENT TO THE INCREASE FOR
INTRASTATE PASSENGER TRAFFIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECITATION IN THE
ORDER OF JANUARY 21, 1942, IN EX PARTE NO. 148.  FN5  ON THE REFUSAL OF
THE RATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, ALABAMA, TENNESSEE
AND KENTUCKY TO AUTHORIZE THE APPLICATION OF THE INCREASED INTERSTATE
BASIC COACH FARE OF 2.2 CENTS, WITH CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENTS FOR
PULLMANS, TO ALL INTRASTATE FARES, THIS PRESENT PROCEEDING WAS
INITIATED BY THE CARRIERS TO SECURE THE COMMISSION ORDER OF MAY 8,
1944, HERE INVOLVED, WHICH REQUIRES THE APPLICATION OF A BASIS NO LOWER
THAN THEIR PRESENT INTERSTATE BASIS TO INTRASTATE FARES,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE REFUSAL OF THE STATE RATE AUTHORITIES TO AUTHORIZE
A SIMILAR APPLICATION.  THE COMMISSIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES, AND
THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR FOR HIMSELF AND THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC
STABILIZATION INTERVENED. 

THE FOREGOING REFERENCES MAKE PLAIN THAT BEGINNING WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION OF PASSENGER FARES, WHICH WAS INSTITUTED BY
COMMISSION ORDER OF JUNE 4, 1934, AND RESULTED IN THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY
28, 1936, 214 I.C.C. 174, THE STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT
ONLY BEEN ADVISED OF THE RATE PROCEEDINGS BUT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN
THEM.  THE RECORD SPECIFICALLY SHOWS THIS PARTICIPATION EXCEPT IN THE
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDING UNDER DOCKET NO. 26550, WHICH WAS FILED JULY
14, 1942, AND RESULTED IN THE ORDER OF AUGUST 1, 1942, IN DOCKET EX
PARTE NO. 148.  THIS AUGUST 1, 1942, ORDER, NOTE 4 SUPRA, PERMITTED
INCREASING THE CARRIERS' INTERSTATE FARES OF 1.65 CENTS PER PASSENGER
MILE (THE 1.50 CENTS OF THE 1936 EXPERIMENTAL SOUTHERN DISTRICT FARES,
THEN ADJUDGED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE "NOT UNREASONABLE OR OTHERWISE
UNLAWFUL," 214 I.C.C. 257, PAR. 3, AND THE TEN PER CENT INCREASE
THEREON OF EX PARTE NO. 148, 248 I.C.C. 545, 564-66) TO 2.2 CENTS. 
THERE WAS NO OCCASION OR REQUIREMENT FOR HEARING OR REPORT BY THE
COMMISSION OR NOTICE TO THE STATES OF THE PETITION OF THE SOUTHERN
PASSENGER ASSOCIATION CARRIERS FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY THIS 2.2 CENTS
BASIC PASSENGER RATE TO THEIR INTERSTATE TRAFFIC. 

THE SOUTHERN RAILROAD PASSENGER RATE PROBLEM WAS STATED IN THE TERMS
OF "WHAT REASONABLE FARE BASIS WILL MEET WITH THE GREATEST REVENUE
RESPONSE FROM THE PUBLIC?"  214 I.C.C. AT 201.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COMMISSION IS THUS SUMMARIZED AT PAGE 255, FINDING OF FACT NO. 11: 

"GIVING APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION TO ALL OF THE EVIDENT CIRCUMSTANCES
AND CONDITIONS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO AFFECT THE ULTIMATE REVENUE RESULT
TO RESPONDENTS, A MAXIMUM-FARE BASIS, ONE WAY AND ROUND TRIP, FOR
GENERAL APPLICATION, OF 2 CENTS PER MILE IN COACHES AND 3 CENTS PER
MILE IN PULLMANS WOULD BE MOST LIKELY TO LESSEN THE TRANSPORTATION
BURDEN OF RESPONDENTS AND TO HARMONIZE WITH PRESENTDAY ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS, WITH CONSEQUENT FULLER ASSURANCE TO THE RESPONDENTS OF
REALIZING A FAIR RETURN UPON THEIR PROPERTY INVESTMENT.  THERE IS DOUBT
WHETHER AT LEAST IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT A COACH FARE OF 1.5 CENTS PER
MILE IS NOT PRODUCING BETTER REVENUE RESULTS FOR THOSE RESPONDENTS THAN
WOULD ANY HIGHER FARE, AND IT MAY ALSO BE THAT ROUND-TRIP FARES ON BOTH
COACH AND PULLMAN TRAFFIC AT A LOWER RATE PER MILE THAN THE ONE-WAY
FARES HEREIN PRESCRIBED WOULD BRING TO RESPONDENTS BETTER REVENUE
RESULTS THAN THE HIGHER FARES.  THESE MATTERS ARE LEFT TO THE
DISCRETION OF RESPONDENTS." 

THIS RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING PROVISION BY THE COMMISSION, AT PAGE
257: 

"3.  THE PRESENT EXPERIMENTAL FARES IN THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN
DISTRICTS AND ON THE NORFOLK & WESTERN ARE NOT UNREASONABLE OR
OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL."  OBVIOUSLY THIS PROVISION WAS TO MAKE CLEAR THAT
THE CURRENT LOWER RATES OF THE SOUTHERN CARRIERS WERE NOT DISAPPROVED. 
IT CANNOT PROPERLY BE READ, EVEN THOUGH ENTIRELY ISOLATED FROM ITS
CONTEXT, AS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE SOUTHERN CARRIERS SHOULD CONTINUE TO
APPLY THIS LOWER BASIS TO THEIR PASSENGER FARES.  THE PRECEDING
PROVISION LIMITED THE REGULAR PASSENGER FARE STRUCTURE OF ALL
RAILROADS, INCLUDING OF COURSE THE SOUTHERN CARRIERS NOW APPELLEES, TO
A MAXIMUM OF 2 CENTS PER PASSENGER MILE IN COACHES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO LOWER FARES.  LOWER FARES WERE "DISCRETIONARY" WITH THE COMPANY. 
THE ACCOMPANYING ORDER LIMITED MAXIMUM INTERSTATE FARES GENERALLY TO 2
CENTS AND CONTAINED NO REFERENCE TO THE LOWER EXPERIMENTAL FARES.  THUS
A NATIONAL INTERSTATE BASIS SCHEDULE, UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE,  FN6  WAS
ESTABLISHED BY THE REPORT AND ORDER IN DOCKET NO. 26550, THE PASSENGER
FARES AND SURCHARGES DECISION, AND THIS BASIS WAS INCREASED TO 2.2
CENTS PER MILE BY THE JANUARY 21, 1942, ORDER IN EX PARTE NO. 148, 248
I.C.C. 545.  CONSEQUENTLY WHEN THE SOUTHERN CARRIERS, APPELLEES HERE,
PETITIONED ON JULY 14, 1942, SEEKING A MODIFICATION TO PERMIT THE
PUBLICATION OF INTERSTATE PASSENGER TARIFFS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
PREVIOUS CONCLUSIONS IN NO. 26550 AND EX PARTE NO. 148, NO FURTHER
INVESTIGATION, REPORT OR NOTICE TO ANYONE WAS NEEDED. 

THE INTERSTATE BASIS HAD BEEN FIXED AT 2.2 CENTS A FEW MONTHS
BEFORE.  CARRIERS AND STATES ALIKE HAD ACQUIESCED.  THE CARRIERS NOW
WISHED TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION TO RAISE FARES, WHICH DISCRETION HAD
BEEN RESERVED TO THEM IN NO. 26550, 214 I.C.C. AT 255, AND SUBSEQUENT
CONCLUSIONS 2 AND 3, AT 256.  ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY WAS TO MODIFY THE
ORDER IN EX PARTE NO. 148 OF JANUARY 21, 1942, WHICH HAD APPROVED, "AS
PROPOSED," A REQUESTED TEN PER CENT INCREASE IN FARES "AS PUBLISHED IN
PASSENGER TARIFFS," 248 I.C.C. 550, 565, AND THE ORDER, NOTE 5 SUPRA,
SO THAT THE LIMITATION "AS PUBLISHED IN PASSENGER TARIFFS" WOULD BE
REMOVED.  THE APPELLEE CARRIERS HAD OUTSTANDING PUBLISHED TARIFFS OF
1.50 CENTS WHEN THE JANUARY 21, 1942, ORDER WAS ENTERED.  THE AUGUST 1,
1942 ORDER REMOVED THE LIMITATION.  SEE NOTE 4 SUPRA. 

THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS UNDER "BASIC INTERSTATE FARES" DEMONSTRATE,
WE THINK, THAT NO FURTHER HEARINGS OR FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION WERE
NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE THE APPLICATION OF THE
NATIONAL BASIS OF 2.2 CENTS TO THEIR INTERSTATE FARES BY THE APPELLEE
CARRIERS, INSTEAD OF THE 1.65 CENTS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE ORDER OF
AUGUST 1, 1942. 

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COURT HOLDS,
HOWEVER, THAT EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE ORDER PERMITTING THE
INTERSTATE BASIC FARE OF 2.2 CENTS IS VALID, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
THE INTRASTATE PASSENGER TRAFFIC EARNINGS ON THE 1.65 CENT RATE ARE NOT
CONTRIBUTING A FAIR PROPORTION OF THE REQUIRED TOTAL EARNINGS OF THE
ROAD.  THE COURT POINTS TO EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE COMMISSION MIGHT
HAVE FOUND THAT THE 1.65 CENT BASIS, OR A LOWER BASIS THAN 2.2 CENTS,
WOULD PRODUCE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INTRASTATE CONTRIBUTION.  EVIDENCE
IS SET OUT IN THE COURT'S OPINION SHOWING GREATLY INCREASED PASSENGER
EARNINGS.  THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT AS SUCH EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED IN
THIS RECORD, THE COMMISSION MUST MAKE FINDING THAT NO LOWER FARE WILL
PRODUCE INTRASTATE TRAFFIC'S PROPORTION OF REVENUE BEFORE REQUIRING THE
APPLICATION OF THE INTERSTATE 2.2 CENT RATE TO INTRASTATE FARES. 

THIS ARGUMENT, WE THINK, FLOWS FROM ANOTHER PHASE OF THE SAME
MISCONCEPTION TO WHICH WE EARLIER REFERRED AS THE SOURCE OF THE COURT'S
ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION.  THESE PROCEEDINGS OUGHT NOT TO BE TREATED AS
ISOLATED EFFORTS TO SECURE HIGHER INTRASTATE RATES BECAUSE THE PRESENT
INTRASTATE RATES ARE NOT PRODUCING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE TOTAL
REQUIRED INCOME.  TO THE COURT'S REQUIREMENT, WHICH IT READS INTO SECS.
13(4) AND 15A, OF A SPECIFIC FINDING ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE
PRESENT 1.65 CENT INTRASTATE RATE PRODUCES NOW THE PROPER INTRASTATE
PROPORTION OF REVENUE, THERE SEEMS TO US A CONCLUSIVE ANSWER.  THE
INTERSTATE MAXIMUM WAS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THE INTRASTATE RATES WOULD BE ADJUSTED TO THE SAME LEVEL.  THEREFORE
REVENUE FROM INTRASTATE RATES AT THE INTERSTATE FARES IS REQUIRED TO
PRODUCE THE NEEDED INCOME.    IN THIS PRESENT PROCEEDING THE VALIDITY
OF THE INTERSTATE RATE OF THESE CARRIER APPELLEES WAS RE-EXAMINED.  FN7
EVIDENCE AS TO EACH APPELLEE CARRIER OF FORMER DEFICITS FROM ITS
ENTIRE PASSENGER TRAFFIC PRIOR TO 1942 WAS NOTED.  EVIDENCE AS TO THEIR
PASSENGER OPERATING RATIOS, THEIR INCREASED EXPENSES, THEIR NET
EARNINGS ON PASSENGER BUSINESS AND OTHER OPERATIONS ALSO, WAS RECEIVED
AND APPRAISED.  ATTENTION WAS CALLED, 258 I.C.C. 142, TO THE FACT THAT
THE PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION INTO PASSENGER RATES, EX PARTE NO. 148, HAD
ANTICIPATED THE EARNINGS DURING WAR YEARS, PAGE 142, AND THEIR NEED FOR
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND WAR SERVICE, PAGE 148.  THE INTERSTATE BASIC
RATE WAS FOUND JUST AND REASONABLE.  SEE ALABAMA INTRASTATE FARES, 258
I.C.C. 133, 137. 

THE FIGURES USED WERE AGGREGATE FIGURES FOR PAST PASSENGER RECEIPTS
AND EXPENSES.  AUDITS FOR REPRESENTATIVE PERIODS SHOWED THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM THE INCREASED INTRASTATE FARES.  FN8
THE STATISTICS FOR THE NET RAILWAY OPERATING INCOME WERE INTRODUCED
WHICH COVERED ALL RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES.  THE EVIDENCE OF TRAIN SERVICE
IN THE RESPECTIVE STATES LED THE COMMISSION TO FIND THAT TRAVEL
CONDITIONS WERE "SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR," 258 I.C.C. 154.  IF THE
COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION AS TO CARRIER REVENUE NEEDS ASSUMED EQUAL
INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE FARES AND IF THE PRESENT INTERSTATE RATES
WERE HELD "JUST AND REASONABLE," IT FOLLOWS THAT THE FINDING THAT THE
LOWER INTRASTATE RATES WERE NOT CONTRIBUTING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE
"REVENUES REQUIRED TO ENABLE RESPONDENTS TO RENDER ADEQUATE AND
EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE" WAS PROPER.  THIS LOGICALLY LED TO
THE FINDING 6, THAT THIS FAILURE OF INTRASTATE TRAFFIC TO CONTRIBUTE
ITS PART DISCRIMINATED AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE DETERMINATION OF THE NECESSARY BASIC INTERSTATE RATE IN ALL THESE
PROCEEDINGS WAS MADE ON THE SUPPOSITION OF INTRASTATE RATES OF EQUAL
LEVEL.  WHEN GENERAL BASIC RATES, FARES OR CHARGES ARE FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION NECESSARILY GIVES CONSIDERATION "TO THE NEED
OF REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE CARRIERS, UNDER HONEST,
ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT TO PROVIDE" RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
AT THE LOWEST COST.  SEC. 15A.  THEREFORE WHEN INTERSTATE RATES ARE
FIXED WITH THE SUPPOSITION OF AN EQUAL LEVEL FOR INTRASTATE RATES, FOR
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR SERVICE, IT REQUIRES A CONTRIBUTION ON THAT BASIS
FROM INTRASTATE RATES TO AVOID INTRASTATE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC.  IF IT APPEARS THAT INTERSTATE FARES HAVE BEEN
FIXED WITH THE SUPPOSITION OF AN EQUAL LEVEL FOR INTRASTATE FARES, THEN
IT IS CLEAR THAT INTRASTATE RATES ARE NOT PRODUCING THEIR EXPECTED
REVENUE.  THE COMMISSION THUS WOULD HAVE MANIFESTED ITS CONSIDERATION
OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF SECS. 13(4) AND 15A THAT DUE
CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN REVENUE AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT IN FINDING
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN PRESCRIBING
THE INTRASTATE RATE WHICH WOULD REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATION.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. CAROLINA CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475, 489. 

IN THE PROCEEDING IN WHICH THESE SOUTHERN INTERSTATE CARRIERS WERE
PERMITTED TO APPLY THE GENERAL BASIC INTERSTATE COACH RATE OF 2.2
CENTS, THE ORDER THEREIN OF AUGUST 1, 1942, BY ADOPTING THE ORDER OF
JANUARY 21, 1942, IN EX PARTE NO. 148, 248 I.C.C. 545, REQUIRED THE
APPELLEE CARRIERS TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE STATE AUTHORITIES FOR
SIMILAR INTRASTATE INCREASES.  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA.  THE REQUIRED
APPLICATIONS LED DIRECTLY TO THIS LITIGATION. 

BOTH IN PASSENGER FARES AND SURCHARGES, 214 I.C.C. 174, 257, PAR. 5,
AND INCREASED RAILWAY RATES, EX PARTE NO. 148, 248 I.C.C. 545, 565-66,
WHICH ARE THE TWO INVESTIGATIONS WHICH BROUGHT INTERSTATE COACH FARES
TO A MAXIMUM OF 2.2 CENTS PER PASSENGER MILE, THE COMMISSION ITSELF
ORDERED THE NUMEROUS INTRASTATE FARES WHICH WERE UNDER ITS DIRECTION
BECAUSE REGULATED BY THE COMMISSION THROUGH PREVIOUS SEC. 13
PROCEEDINGS, MODIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERSTATE FARES.  AS
POINTED OUT IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH THE ORDER IN EX PARTE NO. 148
REQUIRED APPLICATION TO STATE RATE REGULATORY BODIES FOR AUTHORITY TO
INCREASE THE INTRASTATE PASSENGER RATES TO THE SAME LEVEL.  SPECIFIC
CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO VARIOUS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY STATE
COMMISSIONS TO THE PROPOSED NEW FARES AND RATES, ALL WITH AN EYE TO
SECURING FUTURE COMPLIANCE BY THE STATES WITH THE INTERSTATE RATES TO
BE SET BY THE COMMISSION.  SEE 248 I.C.C. AT 560, 565, 574, 580, 582. 
IN THE PASSENGER FARES INVESTIGATION, THE FIGURES ON PASSENGER TRAFFIC
REFLECT THE AGGREGATE USE OF TRAINS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF A DIVISION
OF THE TRAFFIC BETWEEN INTER-AND INTRASTATE.  214 I.C.C. 174, 176, 179,
180, 185, 200, 209, 221, 230, 231.  THE COMMISSION SAID AT PAGE 187:
"AT THE TIME THE 1920 INCREASE WAS AUTHORIZED MANY OF THE STATES
PROHIBITED PASSENGER FARES ABOVE CERTAIN AMOUNTS PER MILE, MOST OF THEM
2 CENTS OR 2.5 CENTS, AND SECTION 13 ORDERS BY US BECAME NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO BRING THE INTRASTATE FARES IN THOSE STATES UP TO THE
INTERSTATE BASIS." 

THE TABLES OF PASSENGER STATISTICS IN THE APPENDICES DO NOT SEPARATE
THE TRAFFIC.  REVENUE FROM ALL PASSENGER TRAFFIC WAS THE DOMINANT
MOTIVE.  SEE "FACT FINDINGS," PAGE 253.  EVIDENCE IN EX PARTE NO. 148
LIKEWISE RELATED TO AGGREGATE REVENUE.  SO DID THE EXPECTED INCREASES. 

"ON THE BASIS OF TRAFFIC, BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE, MOVED
DURING 1941 AND MOVING WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED, ALLOWING FOR
READJUSTMENTS REQUIRED BY COMMERCIAL AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS,
PETITIONERS ESTIMATE THAT THE PROPOSALS WILL YIELD INCREASED REVENUE
FOR ALL CLASS I RAILROADS OF ABOUT $356,956,000 PER YEAR."  248 I.C.C.
552.  THE INTERSTATE INCREASE OF EX PARTE NO. 148 "BECAME EFFECTIVE ON
INTRASTATE TRAFFIC IN ALL OF THE STATES" BY STATE ORDER.  258 I.C.C. AT
136.  THE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE DECLINE IN RAILROAD PASSENGER
TRAFFIC WHICH MOTIVATED THE COMMISSION IN ESTABLISHING THE NEW
INTERSTATE RATE APPLIED TO BOTH INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE TRAFFIC.  214
I.C.C. AT 176; 248 I.C.C. AT 551.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, SEPARATION OF
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE INCOME IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION IN
ITS ANNUAL REPORTS.  49 C.F.R. SEC. 120.11 ET SEQ.  THESE PROCEEDINGS
CONVINCE US THAT THE COMMISSION REACHED ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE PROPER
INTERSTATE RATE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE INTERSTATE RATE WOULD
BE APPLIED TO INTRASTATE TRAFFIC AND THAT SUCH REVENUE AS MIGHT RESULT
FROM THAT APPLICATION WAS NEEDED BY THE CARRIERS INVOLVED TO FURNISH
ADEQUATE SERVICE. 

UNDER SEC. 13(4) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IN PROCEEDINGS AS TO
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE ISSUE IS NOT THE
EARNINGS FROM INTRASTATE TRAFFIC BUT THE APPROPRIATE PROPORTION OF
THOSE EARNINGS AS COMPARED WITH EARNINGS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  SECTION 13(4) REQUIRES A FINDING OF
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS A BASIS FOR REGULATION OF
INTRASTATE COMMERCE, 258 I.C.C. 154-55, PARS. 5 AND 6.  IT MAY BE THAT
THE EARNINGS FROM INTRASTATE COMMERCE MAY SOMETIMES BE ONE PERCENTAGE
OF AGGREGATE EARNINGS AND AT ANOTHER TIME ANOTHER PERCENTAGE.  THE
COMMISSION MAY CONCLUDE THAT THE CARRIERS' REQUIRED REVENUE MAY BEST BE
OBTAINED FROM INTRASTATE PASSENGER FARES RATHER THAN FROM FREIGHT
RATES.  THE REVERSE WAS ONCE TRUE.  CF. 214 I.C.C. AT 227.  THESE ARE
MATTERS FOR COMMISSION DECISION. 

THE LANGUAGE OF 15A HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM ITS ORIGINAL FORM IN THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920 SO THAT IT NO LONGER SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERS
THE COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH FARES AND RATES OF CARRIERS AS A WHOLE FOR
THE NATION OR AS A WHOLE IN DESIGNATED TERRITORIES OR RATE GROUPS.  WE
THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE PRESENT STATUTE, "IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER
TO PRESCRIBE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES," THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE
CONSIDERATION TO VARIOUS NAMED FACTORS, IS ADEQUATE TO PERMIT GENERAL
RATE REGULATION UNDER 15A AND SEC. 1(5).  THIS POWER HAS BEEN
UNQUESTIONED.  SEE PASSENGER FARES AND SURCHARGES, 214 I.C.C. 174, AND
CLASS RATE INVESTIGATION NO. 28300 AND CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT
CLASSIFICATION NO. 28310.  IT IS THE ONLY PRACTICABLE APPROACH TO THE
PROBLEM.  SEE DISCUSSION IN NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184,
196.  WE CANNOT TREAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING AS DISASSOCIATED FROM THE
GENERAL INVESTIGATION INTO PASSENGER FARES.  UNITED STATES V.
LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70, 76-79.  WE THINK IT IS ADEQUATELY SHOWN THAT
THE ORDERS IN THE GENERAL INVESTIGATION WERE PREDICATED UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT INTRASTATE PASSENGER TRAFFIC WOULD HAVE AN EQUAL BASIS
WITH INTERSTATE TRAFFIC FOR FARES. 

UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE INTRASTATE FARES.  IT MAY BE THAT THE
INTRASTATE FARES PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION ARE UNJUST OR
UNREASONABLE IN CERTAIN ITEMS.  THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION PROVIDES A
REMEDY FOR SUCH A SITUATION: 

"THE FOREGOING FINDINGS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE
AUTHORITIES OF THE AFFECTED STATES, OR OF ANY INTERESTED PARTY, TO
APPLY FOR MODIFICATION THEREOF AS TO ANY SPECIFIC INTRASTATE FARE ON
THE GROUND THAT SUCH FARE IS NOT RELATED TO INTERSTATE FARES IN SUCH A
WAY AS TO CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT." 
258 I.C.C. AT P. 155. 

THE REMEDY FOR A READJUSTMENT OF THE BASIC INTERSTATE FARE OR FOR A
SEPARATION OF THE LEVELS OF INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE FARES IS BY
APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR REOPENING OF PASSENGER FARES AND
SURCHARGES, 214 I.C.C. 174. 

WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE OTHER POINTS WHICH ARE RAISED BY THE APPEAL. 

FN1  THE PRESENT SEC. 15A, 49 U.S.C., READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1)  WHEN USED IN THIS SECTION, THE TERM 'RATES' MEANS RATES, FARES,
AND CHARGES, AND ALL CLASSIFICATIONS, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES
RELATING THERETO. 

"(2)  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO PRESCRIBE JUST AND REASONABLE
RATES THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION, AMONG OTHER FACTORS,
TO THE EFFECT OF RATES ON THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC BY THE CARRIER OR
CARRIERS FOR WHICH THE RATES ARE PRESCRIBED; TO THE NEED, IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT
THE LOWEST COST CONSISTENT WITH THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICE; AND TO
THE NEED OF REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE CARRIERS, UNDER HONEST,
ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT TO PROVIDE SUCH SERVICE." 

FN2  COMPARE THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT: 

"BUT THE QUESTION POSED BY THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION WAS WHETHER
THE PARTICULAR NORTH CAROLINA RAILROADS WERE OBTAINING FROM NORTH
CAROLINA'S INTRASTATE PASSENGER RATES THEIR FAIR PART OF SUCH FUNDS AS
WERE REQUIRED TO ENABLE THESE PARTICULAR RAILROADS TO RENDER ADEQUATE
AND EFFICIENT SERVICE.  THE COMMISSION MADE NO FINDINGS AS TO WHAT
CONTRIBUTION FROM INTRASTATE TRAFFIC WOULD CONSTITUTE A FAIR PROPORTION
OF THE RAILROAD'S TOTAL INCOME.  IT MADE NO FINDING AS TO WHAT AMOUNT
OF REVENUE WAS REQUIRED TO ENABLE THESE RAILROADS TO OPERATE
EFFICIENTLY.  INSTEAD, IT RELIED ON THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A DISPARITY
BETWEEN WHAT IT SAID WAS A REASONABLE INTERSTATE RATE AND THE
INTRASTATE RATE FIXED BY NORTH CAROLINA.  IT THOUGHT THIS ACTION WAS
JUSTIFIED BY THIS COURT'S OPINION IN ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMM'N V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 474, 485." 

FN3  STATES MADE THE EARLIEST EFFORTS TO LIMIT PASSENGER FARES.  E.G.
KANSAS, 1901, SEC. 66-167, REVISED STATUTES OF KANSAS (1923); NORTH
DAKOTA, 1907, SEC 4796, COMPILED LAWS OF NORTH DAKOTA (1913); ILLINOIS,
1907, SEC. 170, CALLAGHAN'S ILLINOIS STATUTES ANNOTATED (1924); IOWA,
1913, SEC. 8126, CODE OF IOWA (1924).  SUCH LIMITATIONS WERE, OF
COURSE, NOT UNIFORM.  ON MAY 25, 1918, BY GENERAL ORDER NO. 28, THE
UNITED STATES RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE
OPERATING REVENUE FIXED THE NATIONAL BASIC PASSENGER FARE IN COACHES,
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE, AT NOT LESS THAN 3 CENTS PER MILE, WITH A
SURCHARGE FOR PULLMANS.  THIS PRODUCED A CONSIDERABLE DEGREE OF
UNIFORMITY.  AN INCREASE OF 20% OR TO 3.6 CENTS WAS MADE AS OF AUGUST
26, 1920.  IN THE DEPRESSION OF THE 1930S CERTAIN CARRIERS OPERATING IN
SOUTHERN TERRITORY EXPERIMENTED WITH FAIR SUCCESS ON REVENUES WITH
FARES AS LOW AS 1.5 CENTS PER MILE IN COACHES.  ALABAMA INTRASTATE
FARES, 258 I.C.C. AT 134. 

APPROXIMATE UNIFORMITY BEFORE 1936 WAS MAINTAINED BY THE COMMISSION'S
USE OF 13(4) ORDERS TO BRING INTRASTATE FARES INTO LINE WITH INTERSTATE
FARES.  THE COMMISSION FOUND IT MORE CONVENIENT LATER TO SECURE STATE
ADOPTION OF ITS RATES BY COOPERATION THROUGH AGREEMENT.  SEE SHARFMAN,
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION II, PP. 287-344. 

FN4  "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT THE ORDER OF JANUARY 21, 1942, IN
EX PARTE NO. 148, BE, AND IT IS HEREBY, FURTHER MODIFIED SO AS TO
AUTHORIZE THE AFORESAID PETITIONERS TO APPLY THE INCREASE OF 10 PER
CENT APPROVED IN SAID ORDER TO A BASIC COACH FARE OF 2 CENTS PER MILE
ON THE LINES OF SAID PETITIONERS, SUBJECT TO THE RULE FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF FRACTIONS AS MODIFIED BY ORDER OF JULY 6, 1942, IN SAID
PROCEEDING, AND THAT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS SAID ORDER OF JANUARY 21,
1942, SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT." 

FN5  THE PORTION OF THE ORDER REFERRED TO READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT APPEARING  ...  THAT THE PROPER AUTHORITIES OF ALL STATES HAVE
BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS PROCEEDING, AND SIMILAR APPLICATION HAS BEEN OR
WILL BE MADE TO THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES FOR
PERMISSION TO INCREASE SIMILARLY PETITIONERS' INTRASTATE RATES, FARES,
AND CHARGES;           .         .         .         .         . 

"IT IS ORDERED, THAT THE INCREASED PASSENGER FARES AS PROPOSED BY THE
SAID PETITIONERS BE, AND THEY ARE HEREBY, APPROVED  ..." 

FN6  THERE WERE CERTAIN SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS.  214 I.C.C. AT 244. 

FN7  THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION, EX PARTE NO. 148, HAS ALSO BEEN
REOPENED AND REEXAMINED AS LATE AS DECEMBER 12, 1944, BUT THE PASSENGER
RATES WERE LEFT UNCHANGED.  259 I.C.C. 159.  THIS REPORT DISCUSSED
INTERMEDIATE REEXAMINATIONS OF THE NATIONAL PASSENGER RATE STRUCTURE. 

FN8  ALABAMA INTRASTATE FARES, 258 I.C.C. 133, 154-55, FINDING 5: 

"RESPONDENTS' REVENUES UNDER THE LOWER INTRASTATE FARES ARE LESS BY
AT LEAST $725,000 PER ANNUM IN ALABAMA, $500,000 IN KENTUCKY, $525,000
IN NORTH CAROLINA, AND $525,000 IN TENNESSEE THAN THEY WOULD BE IF
THOSE FARES WERE INCREASED TO THE LEVEL OF THE CORRESPONDING INTERSTATE
FARES, AND TRAFFIC MOVING UNDER THESE LOWER INTRASTATE FARES IS NOT
CONTRIBUTING ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE REVENUES REQUIRED TO ENABLE
RESPONDENTS TO RENDER ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER
JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :























ALABAMA V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 535 


ARGUED APRIL 24, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 56 F.SUPP.  478,
REVERSED. 


DECIDED ON THE AUTHORITY OF NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P.
507. 

ALABAMA ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

NO. 574.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 592, DAVIS, ECONOMIC STABILIZATION DIRECTOR, BY
BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, V. UNITED STATES ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF KENTUCKY. 

APPEALS FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENYING
INJUNCTIONS AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINTS IN THREE SUITS TO ENJOIN AND
SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATES OF ALABAMA, TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY FILED A BILL IN A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT SEEKING TO SET ASIDE AND ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE FEDERAL ECONOMIC
STABILIZATION DIRECTOR, ACTING THROUGH THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, WAS
GRANTED THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DIRECTED THAT
INTRASTATE RAILROAD RATES IN ALABAMA, KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE AND NORTH
CAROLINA, BE RAISED TO THE LEVEL OF INTERSTATE RATES FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION.  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF
THE ORDER, 56 F.SUPP.  478, AND THE CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL UNDER
SEC. 210 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

THE ISSUES HERE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IN NORTH CAROLINA V.
UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 507, WHICH INVOLVED THE SAME ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION AS IT APPLIED TO RATES IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.  THE
COMMISSION RELIED BASICALLY ON THE 1936 RATE ORDER, TO WHICH WE
REFERRED IN OUR OPINION IN THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE.  HERE ALSO THE
COMMISSIONS OF THE THREE STATES HAD HELD HEARINGS AND DETERMINED THAT
THE INTRASTATE RATES WERE ADEQUATE IN EVERY RESPECT TO GIVE THE
PARTICULAR RAILROADS INVOLVED A SUFFICIENT INCOME TO COMPENSATE THEM
FULLY FOR THEIR SERVICES AND TO ENABLE THE RAILROADS ADEQUATELY AND
EFFICIENTLY TO OPERATE IN THE STATE.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE BEFORE EACH OF
THE STATE COMMISSIONS, AS THERE WAS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, THAT THE RAILROADS WERE ENJOYING AN UNPRECEDENTED
PROSPERITY AND REAPING A TREMENDOUS HARVEST OF PROFITS FROM THEIR
RAILROAD OPERATIONS IN THE STATE.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE INTRASTATE
PASSENGER RATES INVOLVED WERE SUFFICIENT TO PAY EACH RAILROAD A
SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT FOR EACH MILE IT CARRIED AN INTRASTATE PASSENGER. 
THE FINDINGS HERE POSSESS THE SAME INFIRMITIES AS THOSE IN THE NORTH
CAROLINA CASE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT OUR JUDGMENT MUST BE THE SAME. 

BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT BASED ON ADEQUATE
FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE DECLINED
TO ENFORCE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
IS THEREFORE REVERSED. 

FN1  258 I.C.C. 133.  THE STATE 1.65 CENTS PER MILE PASSENGER COACH
RATE WAS DIRECTED TO BE RAISED TO 2.2 CENTS PER MILE.  ROUND TRIP COACH
RATES WERE ORDERED PROPORTIONATELY RAISED.  SLEEPING AND PARLOR CAR
INTRASTATE FARES IN SOME OF THE STATES WERE ALSO DIRECTED TO BE
INCREASED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, AND MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE DISSENT IN
NORTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 520. 
..END :




HILL V. FLORIDA, 325 U.S. 538 


NO. 811.  ARGUED APRIL 4, 5, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 155 FLA.
254, 19 SO.2D 857, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 4 OF A STATUTE OF FLORIDA (LAWS OF 1943, C. 21968)
PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE LICENSED AS A "BUSINESS AGENT" OF A
LABOR UNION WHO HAS NOT BEEN A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MORE
THAN 10 YEARS, WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY, OR WHO IS NOT A
PERSON OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.  SECTION 6 REQUIRES EVERY LABOR UNION
OPERATING IN THE STATE TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT DISCLOSING ITS NAME,
THE LOCATION OF ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICES, AND THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF
ITS OFFICERS; AND TO PAY AN ANNUAL FEE OF $1.00 THEREFOR.  VIOLATION OF
THE STATUTE BY ANY PERSON OR LABOR ORGANIZATION IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR
PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  A STATE COURT ENJOINED THE
PETITIONER LABOR UNION FROM FURTHER FUNCTIONING AND OPERATING, AND
ENJOINED ITS BUSINESS AGENT FROM FURTHER ACTING IN THAT CAPACITY, UNTIL
THEY SHALL HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTE.  HELD THAT SECS. 4 AND 6 OF
THE FLORIDA STATUTE, AS SO APPLIED, ARE INVALID AS IN CONFLICT WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  P. 541. 

2.  AS HERE APPLIED, SEC. 4 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE CIRCUMSCRIBES THE
"FULL FREEDOM" OF CHOICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENTS WHICH IS
SECURED TO EMPLOYEES BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  P. 541. 

3.  THE REQUIREMENT OF REPORTS AND THE EXACTION OF A $1.00 ANNUAL FEE
IN SEC. 6 DOES NOT, IN AND OF ITSELF, CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT; IT IS THE SANCTION HERE IMPOSED - INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
LABOR UNION FUNCTIONING AS SUCH - WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
FEDERALLY PROTECTED PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  P. 543. 

HILL ET AL. V. FLORIDA EX REL. WATSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 832, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
GRANTING INJUNCTIONS AGAINST A LABOR UNION AND ITS BUSINESS AGENT UNTIL
THEY SHALL HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF A STATE STATUTE THE
VALIDITY OF WHICH THEY CHALLENGED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ONLY QUESTION WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE IN THIS CASE IS
WHETHER A FLORIDA STATUTE  FN1 REGULATING LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES HAS
BEEN APPLIED TO THESE PETITIONERS IN A MANNER WHICH BRINGS IT INTO
IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WITH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REGULATIONS OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  49 STAT. 449.  THAT FEDERAL ACT, WE
DECIDED IN ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, DID
NOT WHOLLY FORECLOSE STATE POWER TO REGULATE LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES. 
CERTAIN CONDUCT, SUCH AS MASS PICKETING, THREATS, VIOLENCE, AND RELATED
ACTIONS, WE HELD WERE NOT GOVERNED BY THE WAGNER ACT, AND HENCE,
WISCONSIN WAS FREE TO REGULATE THEM.  WE CAREFULLY POINTED OUT,
HOWEVER, THAT HAD THE STATE ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION, "AFFECTED THE
STATUS OF THE EMPLOYEES, OR  ...  CAUSED A FORFEITURE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING RIGHTS, A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION WOULD ARISE."  THAT
QUESTION WHICH WE SO DISTINCTLY RESERVED IN THE WISCONSIN CASE HAS NOW
ARISEN IN THIS CASE. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA FILED A BILL FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST
THE PETITIONER UNION AND ITS BUSINESS AGENT, HILL, IN A STATE COURT. 
HE SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN BOTH OF THEM FROM FUNCTIONING AS SUCH UNTIL THEY
HAD COMPLIED WITH THE FLORIDA STATUTE.  THE BASIS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT
AGAINST HILL WAS THAT HE HAD FOR A PECUNIARY REWARD ACTED AS A BUSINESS
AGENT IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 4; THE BASIS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT AGAINST
THE UNION WAS THAT IT HAD OPERATED WITHOUT OBTAINING A STATE LICENSE AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 6.  SECTION 4, WHICH WAS INVOKED AGAINST HILL,
PROVIDES THAT NO ONE SHALL BE LICENSED AS A "BUSINESS AGENT" OF A LABOR
UNION WHO HAS NOT BEEN A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MORE THAN 10
YEARS, WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY, OR WHO IS NOT A PERSON OF
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.  APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE AS A "BUSINESS AGENT"
MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $1.00 FEE AND A STATEMENT SIGNED BY OFFICERS
OF THE UNION SETTING FORTH THE AGENT'S AUTHORITY.  THE STATUTE THEN
PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICATION BE HELD FOR 30 DAYS TO PERMIT THE FILING
OF OBJECTIONS TO THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE.  A BOARD, COMPOSED OF THE
GOVERNOR, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
THEN PASSES ON THE APPLICATION, AND IF IT FINDS THE APPLICANT MEASURES
UP TO THE STANDARDS OF THE ACT, AS IT SEES THEM, IT AUTHORIZES THE
LICENSE TO BE ISSUED, TO "EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31 OF THE YEAR FOR WHICH
ISSUED UNLESS SOONER SURRENDERED, SUSPENDED, OR REVOKED."  SECTION 2(2)
DEFINES "BUSINESS AGENT" AS "ANY PERSON WHO SHALL FOR A PECUNIARY OR
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION ACT OR ATTEMPT TO ACT" FOR A UNION "IN
SOLICITING OR RECEIVING FROM ANY EMPLOYER ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE FOR
EMPLOYEES  ..."  OR "IN THE ISSUANCE OF MEMBERSHIP OR AUTHORIZATION
CARDS, WORK PERMITS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OF RIGHTS GRANTED OR CLAIMED
IN, OR BY, A LABOR ORGANIZATION  ..."  SECTION 6, WHICH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL INVOKED AGAINST THE UNION, REQUIRES EVERY LABOR UNION
"OPERATING" IN THE STATE TO FILE A WRITTEN REPORT WITH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE, DISCLOSING ITS NAME, THE LOCATION OF ITS OFFICES, AND THE NAMES
AND ADDRESSES OF ITS OFFICERS.  SECTION 14 MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR
"ANY PERSON OR LABOR ORGANIZATION" TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE. 

MOTIONS BY HILL AND THE UNION TO DISMISS THE BILL ON THE GROUND THAT
THE STATE STATUTE VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND CONFLICTED WITH
THE WAGNER ACT WERE DENIED.  ANSWERS WERE THEN FILED ADMITTING
VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 4 AND 6.  THE COURT HELD THE LICENSING AND
REPORTING PROVISIONS VALID.  HILL WAS ENJOINED FROM FURTHER ACTING AS
THE UNION'S BUSINESS AGENT UNTIL HE OBTAINED A STATE LICENSE.  THE
UNION WAS ENJOINED FROM FURTHER FUNCTIONING AND OPERATING UNTIL IT MADE
THE REPORT AND PAID THE FEE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  155 FLA. 254, 19 SO.2D 857. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE FLORIDA STATUTE HAS BEEN SO CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED THAT THE UNION AND ITS SELECTED REPRESENTATIVE ARE PROHIBITED
FROM FUNCTIONING AS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENTS, OR IN ANY OTHER
CAPACITY, EXCEPT UPON CONDITIONS FIXED BY FLORIDA.  THE DECLARED
PURPOSE OF THE WAGNER ACT, AS SHOWN IN ITS FIRST SECTION, IS TO
ENCOURAGE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND TO PROTECT THE "FULL FREEDOM" OF
WORKERS IN THE SELECTION OF BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOICE.  TO THIS END CONGRESS MADE IT ILLEGAL FOR AN EMPLOYER TO
INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN SELECTING THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES.  CONGRESS ATTACHED NO CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER TO THEIR
FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN THIS RESPECT.  THEIR OWN BEST JUDGMENT, NOT THAT
OF SOMEONE ELSE, WAS TO BE THEIR GUIDE.  "FULL FREEDOM" TO CHOOSE AN
AGENT MEANS FREEDOM TO PASS UPON THAT AGENT'S QUALIFICATIONS. 

CHOICE WHICH CONGRESS SAID EMPLOYEES SHOULD POSSESS.  IT DOES THIS BY
REQUIRING A "BUSINESS AGENT" TO PROVE TO THE SATISFACTION OF A FLORIDA
BOARD THAT HE MEASURES UP TO STANDARDS SET BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA AS
ONE WHO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PERFORMS THE EXACT FUNCTION OF A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  TO THE EXTENT THAT SEC. 4 LIMITS
A UNION'S CHOICE OF SUCH AN "AGENT" OR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, IT
SUBSTITUTES FLORIDA'S JUDGMENT FOR THE WORKERS' JUDGMENT. 

THUS, THE "FULL FREEDOM" OF EMPLOYEES IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH
CONGRESS ENVISIONED AS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECT THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE
AMONG THE STATES WOULD BE, BY THE FLORIDA STATUTE, SHRUNK TO A GREATLY
LIMITED FREEDOM.  NO ELABORATION SEEMS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
SEC. 4 AS APPLIED HERE "STANDS AS AN OBSTACLE TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT AND
EXECUTION OF THE FULL PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF CONGRESS."  HINES V.
DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52, 67; CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V. PATTERSON, 315
U.S. 148; NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 272 U.S. 605.  IT IS
NOT AMISS, HOWEVER, TO CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT OPERATION OF
THIS VERY SECTION HAS ALREADY INTERFERED WITH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
PROCESS.  AN EMPLOYER BEFORE THE LABOR BOARD DEFENDED ITS REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN WITH A DULY SELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF WORKERS ON THE GROUND
THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE HAD NOT SECURED A FLORIDA LICENSE AS A BUSINESS
AGENT.  IN THE MATTER OF EPPINGER & RUSSELL CO., 56 N.L.R.B. 1259.  THE
BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED THE EMPLOYER'S CONTENTION, HOLDING THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO SUBJECT THE "FULL FREEDOM" OF EMPLOYEES TO
THE ERODING PROCESS OF "VARIED AND PERHAPS CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OF
STATE ENACTMENTS."  CF. LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S.
111. 

SINCE THE LABOR BOARD HAS HELD THAT AN EMPLOYER MUST BARGAIN WITH A
PROPERLY SELECTED UNION AGENT DESPITE HIS FAILURE TO SECURE A FLORIDA
LICENSE, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE STATE LAW DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS.  BUT HERE, THIS AGENT HAS BEEN ENJOINED,
AND IF THE FLORIDA LAW IS VALID HE COULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF A CONTEMPT
FOR DOING THAT WHICH THE ACT OF CONGRESS PERMITS HIM TO DO.
FURTHERMORE, HE COULD, UNDER SEC. 14 OF THE STATE LAW, BE CONVICTED OF
A MISDEMEANOR AND SUBJECTED TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING WHICH CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED CONTEMPLATES TWO PARTIES FREE
TO BARGAIN, AND CANNOT THUS BE FRUSTRATED BY STATE LEGISLATION.  WE
HOLD THAT SEC. 4 OF THE FLORIDA ACT IS REPUGNANT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

THE FILING OF INFORMATION AND THE PAYMENT OF A $1.00 ANNUAL FEE DOES
NOT, IN AND OF ITSELF, CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ACT.  BUT, FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY, THIS UNION HAS BEEN ENJOINED FROM FUNCTIONING AS A LABOR
UNION.  IT COULD NOT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE INJUNCTION AND ALSO
SUBJECTING ITSELF TO THE POSSIBILITY OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT EVEN
ATTEMPT TO BARGAIN TO SETTLE A CONTROVERSY OR A STRIKE.  IT IS THE
SANCTION HERE IMPOSED, AND NOT THE DUTY TO REPORT, WHICH BRINGS ABOUT A
SITUATION INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERALLY PROTECTED PROCESS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  CF. WESTERN UNION CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 125
U.S. 530, 553, 554; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO. V. KAW VALLEY DRAINAGE
DISTRICT, 233 U.S. 75, 78; ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 235 U.S.
350, 368.  THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE IF THE UNION OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES
ACTED AS BARGAINING AGENTS WITHOUT MAKING THE REQUIRED REPORTS,
PRESUMABLY THEY WOULD BE LIABLE BOTH TO PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF
COURT AND TO CONVICTION UNDER THE MISDEMEANOR SECTION OF THE ACT.  SUCH
AN OBSTACLE TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CANNOT BE CREATED CONSISTENTLY
WITH THE FEDERAL ACT. 

NOR CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT OUR DECISION IN THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S.
516, FORECLOSES SUCH RESULT.  IN THAT CASE WE DID NOT HAVE, AS HERE, TO
DEAL WITH SUCH A DIRECT IMPEDIMENT TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE
FEDERALLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

OUR HOLDING IS THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND SECS. 4 AND
6 OF THE FLORIDA ACT AS HERE APPLIED CANNOT "MOVE FREELY WITHIN THE
ORBITS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PURPOSES WITHOUT IMPINGING UPON ONE
ANOTHER."  UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 207.  FN2
ACCORDINGLY THE CASE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  HOUSE BILL NO. 142, LAWS OF FLORIDA, 1943, CHAP. 21968, 565. 

FN2  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT APPLIES ONLY TO ACTIVITIES
WHICH AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN
CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 29, 30.  THE ORIGINAL BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION PRAYED
THAT THIS UNION MIGHT BE RESTRAINED FROM FUNCTIONING AS A UNION IN
CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYEES OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER SHIPBUILDING CO. OF
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, WHICH COMPANY HAS BEEN HELD BY THE LABOR BOARD
TO BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL ACT. 
MATTER OF ST. JOHNS RIVER SHIPBUILDING CO., 52 N.L.R.B. 12; 52 N.L.R.B.
958; 55 N.L.R.B. 1451; 59 N.L.R.B. NO. 83; 60 N.L.R.B. NO. 55.  THE
CASE WAS SUBMITTED ON THE PLEADINGS, WHICH ASSUME THAT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE QUESTIONS WERE INVOLVED.  THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SO
TREATED THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROHIBITED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA AND FEDERAL ACTS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE. 

I CONCUR IN SO MUCH OF THE OPINION AS FINDS CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
LICENSING PROVISIONS OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE AND THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  I DO SO ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMAND OF SEC. 7
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT THAT "EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT  ...  TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR
OWN CHOOSING" CONFLICTS WITH THE LICENSING PROVISIONS OF THE FLORIDA
ACT PURPORTING TO FIX THE QUALIFICATIONS OF BUSINESS AGENTS OF LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS. 

THIS, OF COURSE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT LABOR UNIONS OR THEIR OFFICERS
ARE IMMUNE, IN OTHER RESPECTS, FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POLICE
POWER TO PUNISH FRAUD, VIOLENCE, OR OTHER FORMS OF MISCONDUCT, EITHER
BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IT
IS FAMILIAR GROUND THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT ITSELF PRECLUDE A
STATE FROM REGULATING THOSE MATTERS WHICH, NOT BEING THEMSELVES
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NEVERTHELESS AFFECT THE COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113-114, 116, AND CASES CITED; PARKER V. BROWN,
317 U.S. 341, 360, AND CASES CITED, AND THAT THE STATE'S AUTHORITY IS
CURTAILED ONLY AS CONGRESS MAY BY LAW PRESCRIBE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
COMMERCE POWER.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 119, AND CASES
CITED.  I CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OR ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO SUGGEST A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO WITHDRAW THE
PUNISHMENT OF FRAUD OR VIOLENCE, OR THE VIOLATION OF ANY STATE LAW
OTHERWISE VALID, FROM THE STATE'S POWER MERELY BECAUSE THE STATE MIGHT
SUBJECT THE BUSINESS AGENT OF A LABOR UNION, WHO VIOLATES ITS LAW, TO
IMPRISONMENT, WHICH WOULD PREVENT HIS FUNCTIONING AS A BARGAINING AGENT
FOR EMPLOYEES UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  ALLEN-BRADLEY
LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 748.  SEE S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FOR THE SAME REASONS, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT
PRECLUDE A STATE FROM REQUIRING A LABOR UNION, OR ITS OFFICERS AND
AGENTS, AS SUCH, TO PROCURE LICENSES OR MAKE REPORTS OR PERFORM OTHER
DUTIES WHICH DO NOT MATERIALLY OBSTRUCT THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS
CONFERRED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OR OTHER FEDERAL
LEGISLATION.  THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516, 542.  BUT IT IS QUITE
ANOTHER MATTER TO SAY THAT A STATE MAY FIX STANDARDS OR QUALIFICATIONS
FOR LABOR UNIONS AND THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE ANY
OF THEM FROM BEING CHOSEN AND FROM FUNCTIONING AS BARGAINING AGENTS
UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE RIGHT CONFERRED
ON EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR
OWN CHOOSING IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 
WITHOUT THAT RIGHT, OR IF IT WERE RESTRICTED BY STATE ACTION, THE ACT
AS DRAWN WOULD HAVE LITTLE SCOPE FOR OPERATION.  THE FACT THAT THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON THE EMPLOYER ALONE
DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT DID NOT, BY SEC. 7, CONFER THE RIGHT ON EMPLOYEES
AS AGAINST OTHERS AS WELL AS THE EMPLOYER TO MAKE AN UNINHIBITED CHOICE
OF THEIR BARGAINING AGENTS.  CF. UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S.
219.  SECTION 7 CONFERS THE RIGHT OF CHOICE GENERALLY ON EMPLOYEES AND
NOT MERELY AS AGAINST THE EMPLOYER.    I DISSENT FROM SO MUCH OF THE
OPINION AS HOLDS THAT SEC. 6 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE, AS APPLIED, IS
INVALID BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 
THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF THE INFORMATION
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 6, ACCOMPANIED BY A FILING FEE OF $1.00, IS, AS THE
OPINION OF THE COURT RECOGNIZES, NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SINCE IT IN NO SUBSTANTIAL WAY HINDERS OR
INTERFERES WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE UNION'S FUNCTIONS UNDER THAT
ACT.  THOMAS V. COLLINS, SUPRA, 542; CF. NORTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO. V.
NEBRASKA COMM'N, 297 U.S. 471, 478; SEE SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL TEL.
CO., 282 U.S. 133; WESTERN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
285 U.S. 119; DAYTON POWER CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 292 U.S.
290; NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300, 306. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE
FEDERAL STATUTE AND THE LOCAL REGULATION WHICH WAS FOUND IN WESTERN
UNION CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 125 U.S. 530, 554, AND ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO.
V. ARKANSAS, 235 U.S. 350, 368, I CAN FIND NO LOGICAL OR PERSUASIVE
LEGAL GROUND OR PRACTICAL REASON FOR SAYING THAT CONGRESS BY THE
ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT INTENDED TO PRECLUDE THE
STATE FROM EXERCISING TO THE UTMOST EXTENT ITS SOVEREIGN POWER TO
ENFORCE THE LAWFUL DEMANDS OF SEC. 6 OF THE FLORIDA ACT.  THERE IS NO
MORE OCCASION FOR IMPLYING SUCH A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE WHERE THE UNION
IS PREVENTED FROM FUNCTIONING BY PUNISHMENT OR INJUNCTION, FOR A
VIOLATION OF A VALID STATE LAW, THAN FOR SAYING THAT CONGRESS, BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, INTENDED TO FORBID THE STATES TO ARREST
AND IMPRISON A LABOR LEADER FOR THE VIOLATION OF ANY OTHER VALID STATE
LAW, BECAUSE THAT WOULD PREVENT HIS OR THE UNION'S FUNCTIONING UNDER
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE QUESTION IS WHOLLY ONE OF STATE
POWER.  HERE THE STATE POWER IS NOT RESTRICTED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
STANDING ALONE, NOR, SO FAR AS I CAN SEE, BY ANY CONGRESSIONAL
INTENTION EXPRESSED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202, 206. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

THE COURT IS STRIKING DOWN A STATE LAW NOT BECAUSE SUCH A STATUTE IN
AND OF ITSELF IS BEYOND THE POWER OF A STATE TO ENACT.  THE FLORIDA
STATUTE IS NULLIFIED BECAUSE, SO FLORIDA IS TOLD, CONGRESS HAS BARRED
FLORIDA FROM THIS LAWMAKING, ALTHOUGH CONGRESS HAS NEITHER EXPRESSLY
NOR BY FAIR INFERENCE FORBIDDEN FLORIDA TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER WITH
WHICH FLORIDA HAS DEALT AND CONGRESS HAS NOT.  CONCRETELY, CONGRESS BY
PROTECTING EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FREE FROM THE COERCION OR INFLUENCE OF EMPLOYERS
DID NOT IMPLIEDLY WIPE OUT THE RIGHT OF STATES UNDER THEIR POLICE POWER
TO REQUIRE QUALIFICATIONS APPROPRIATE FOR UNION OFFICIALS HAVING
FIDUCIARY DUTIES. 

IT WAS SETTLED EARLY IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY THAT THE MERE FACT
THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
DOES NOT EXCLUDE STATE LEGISLATION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER,
EVEN THOUGH IT MAY AFFECT SUCH COMMERCE, WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER DOES
NOT DEMAND A NATION-WIDE RULE.  WILLSON V. BLACKBIRD CREEK MARSH CO., 2
PET. 245; COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, 319.  THE STATES,
IN SHORT, MAY SPEAK ON MATTERS EVEN IN THE GENERAL DOMAIN OF COMMERCE
SO LONG AS CONGRESS IS SILENT.  BUT WHEN CONGRESS HAS SPOKEN, ALTHOUGH
NOT AS FULLY AS THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES, THAT IS, WHEN A FEDERAL
ENACTMENT FALLS SHORT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO LEGISLATE TOUCHING
COMMERCE, THE STATES MAY STILL SPEAK WHERE CONGRESS IS STILL SILENT. 
THE REAL QUESTION IS:  HAS CONGRESS SPOKEN SO AS TO SILENCE THE
STATES?  THE SAME REGARD FOR THE HARMONIOUS BALANCE OF OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM, WHEREBY THE STATES MAY PROTECT LOCAL INTERESTS DESPITE THE
DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE, ALLOWS STATE LEGISLATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LOCAL INTERESTS SO LONG AS CONGRESS HAS NOT SUPPLANTED LOCAL REGULATION
EITHER BY A REGULATION OF ITS OWN OR BY AN UNMISTAKABLE INDICATION THAT
THERE IS TO BE NO REGULATION AT ALL.  THE RELATION OF SUCH ENACTMENTS
OF LOCAL CONCERN TO FEDERAL ENACTMENTS WHICH FALL SHORT OF THE FULL
REACH OF THE CONSTITUTION RAISES A PROBLEM OF JUDICIAL JUDGMENT SIMILAR
TO THAT PRESENTED WHERE A STATE LAW ENCOUNTERS NO FEDERAL STATUTE.  THE
PROBLEM IS ONE OF JUDICIAL ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN RESPECT FOR THE
SUPPLANTING AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS AND THE RESERVED POLICE POWER OF THE
STATES.  LONG AGO THIS POLICY OF ACCOMMODATION WAS FORMULATED BY THIS
COURT:  "WE AGREE, THAT IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE OF
SUPREMACY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS IN A CASE WHERE THE STATE LAW IS BUT
THE EXERCISE OF A RESERVED POWER, THE REPUGNANCE OR CONFLICT SHOULD BE
DIRECT AND POSITIVE, SO THAT THE TWO ACTS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED OR
CONSISTENTLY STAND TOGETHER."  SINNOT V. DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227, 243. 

BUT CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATE LAWS REGULATING ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE AND FEDERAL ENACTMENTS RELATING TO SUCH ASPECTS WERE FEW AND
FAR BETWEEN IN THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS OF OUR HISTORY.  APART FROM
TAXES AND TARIFFS, THE REGULATION OF FISHERIES, AND MEASURES DEALING
WITH THE COASTWISE TRADE, THERE WAS LITTLE INTERVENTION BY FEDERAL
LEGISLATION IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN UNTIL, IN 1887, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT INITIATED THE TIDE OF FEDERAL REGULATION.  SINCE THEN,
THIS COURT HAS OFTEN HAD TO DEAL WITH THE CLAIM THAT A FEDERAL STATUTE,
THOUGH ONLY PARTIALLY REGULATING A PARTICULAR PHASE OF COMMERCE,
SUPERSEDED STATE LEGISLATION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER
BEARING UPON THAT PHASE. 

IN A GREAT VARIETY OF CASES, THE COURT HAS APPLIED THE ACCOMMODATION
FORMULATED IN SINNOT V. DAVENPORT, SUPRA, AND EITHER REASSERTED OR
REINFORCED THAT POLICY.  THE EMPHASIS HAS BEEN ON RECOGNIZING THAT BOTH
THE STATE LAW AND THE FEDERAL STATUTE MUST BE ALLOWED TO PREVAIL IF
THEY MAY PREVAIL TOGETHER - THAT IS, IF THEY DO NOT, AS A MATTER OF
LANGUAGE OR PRACTICAL ENFORCEMENT, COLLIDE, OR IF CONGRESS HAS NOT
MANIFESTED AN UNAMBIGUOUS PURPOSE THAT THERE BE NO REGULATION, EITHER
STATE OR FEDERAL, AS TO MATTERS FOR WHICH IT HAS NOT PRESCRIBED.  THIS
JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE IS ESTABLISHED BY AN IMPRESSIVE BODY OF OPINIONS.  A
FEW SAMPLES MUST SUFFICE: 

1.  "MAY NOT THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS STAND WITHOUT OBSTRUCTING OR
EMBARRASSING THE EXECUTION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS?  THIS QUESTION MUST
OF COURSE BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE SETTLED RULE THAT A
STATUTE ENACTED IN EXECUTION OF A RESERVED POWER OF THE STATE IS NOT TO
BE REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS PASSED IN THE
EXECUTION OF A CLEAR POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, UNLESS THE
REPUGNANCE OR CONFLICT IS SO DIRECT AND POSITIVE THAT THE TWO ACTS
CANNOT BE RECONCILED OR STAND TOGETHER."  MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V.
HABER, 169 U.S. 613, 623. 

2.  "IT SHOULD NEVER BE HELD THAT CONGRESS INTENDS TO SUPERSEDE OR BY
ITS LEGISLATION SUSPEND THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWERS OF THE
STATES, EVEN WHEN IT MAY DO SO, UNLESS ITS PURPOSE TO EFFECT THAT
RESULT IS CLEARLY MANIFESTED.... 

"THE PRINCIPLE IS UNIVERSAL THAT LEGISLATION, WHETHER BY CONGRESS OR
BY A STATE, MUST BE TAKEN TO BE VALID, UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS MADE
CLEARLY TO APPEAR; AND AS THE CONTRARY DOES NOT SO APPEAR, THE STATUTE
OF COLORADO IS TO BE TAKEN AS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
THE STATE."  REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 148, 153. 

3.  "IS, THEN, A DENIAL TO THE STATE OF THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER FOR
THE PURPOSES IN QUESTION NECESSARILY IMPLIED IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE? 
FOR WHEN THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A FEDERAL ACT OVERRIDES A STATE LAW,
THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF THE STATUTE MUST OF COURSE BE CONSIDERED AND THAT
WHICH NEEDS MUST BE IMPLIED IS OF NO LESS FORCE THAN THAT WHICH IS
EXPRESSED.  IF THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT CANNOT OTHERWISE BE ACCOMPLISHED
IF ITS OPERATION WITHIN ITS CHOSEN FIELD ELSE MUST BE FRUSTRATED AND
ITS PROVISIONS BE REFUSED THEIR NATURAL EFFECT - THE STATE LAW MUST
YIELD TO THE REGULATION OF CONGRESS WITHIN THE SPHERE OF ITS DELEGATED
POWER.... 

"BUT THE INTENT TO SUPERSEDE THE EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF ITS POLICE
POWER AS TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS NOT TO BE
INFERRED FROM THE MERE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO CIRCUMSCRIBE
ITS REGULATION AND TO OCCUPY A LIMITED FIELD.  IN OTHER WORDS, SUCH
INTENT IS NOT TO BE IMPLIED UNLESS THE ACT OF CONGRESS FAIRLY
INTERPRETED IS IN ACTUAL CONFLICT WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE.  THIS
PRINCIPLE HAS HAD ABUNDANT ILLUSTRATION."  SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S.
501, 533. 

4.  "THESE CASES RECOGNIZE THE ESTABLISHED RULE THAT A STATE LAW
ENACTED UNDER ANY OF THE RESERVED POWERS - ESPECIALLY IF UNDER THE
POLICE POWER - IS NOT TO BE SET ASIDE AS INCONSISTENT WITH AN ACT OF
CONGRESS, UNLESS THERE IS ACTUAL REPUGNANCY, OR UNLESS CONGRESS HAS, AT
LEAST, MANIFESTED A PURPOSE TO EXERCISE ITS PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OVER
THE SUBJECT.  THE RULE RESTS UPON FUNDAMENTAL GROUNDS THAT SHOULD NOT
BE DISREGARDED."  MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. HARRIS, 234 U.S. 412, 418
419. 

5.  "IN CONSTRUING FEDERAL STATUTES ENACTED UNDER THE POWER CONFERRED
BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION THE RULE IS THAT IT SHOULD
NEVER BE HELD THAT CONGRESS INTENDS TO SUPERSEDE OR SUSPEND THE
EXERCISE OF THE RESERVED POWERS OF A STATE, EVEN WHERE THAT MAY BE
DONE, UNLESS, AND EXCEPT SO FAR AS, ITS PURPOSE TO DO SO IS CLEARLY
MANIFESTED."  ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 245
U.S. 493, 510. 

6.  "THE PRINCIPLE THUS APPLICABLE HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY STATED.  IT IS
THAT THE CONGRESS MAY CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS REGULATION AND OCCUPY A LIMITED
FIELD, AND THAT THE INTENTION TO SUPERSEDE THE EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF
ITS AUTHORITY AS TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS
NOT TO BE IMPLIED UNLESS THE ACT OF CONGRESS FAIRLY INTERPRETED IS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE."  ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V.
RAILROAD COMM'N, 283 U.S. 380, 392-393. 

7.  "UNLESS LIMITED BY THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE STATE HAS POWER TO MAKE AND ENFORCE THE ORDER. 
THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO SUPERSEDE OR EXCLUDE STATE ACTION AGAINST
THE RAVAGES OF THE DISEASE IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED.  THE
INTENTION SO TO DO MUST DEFINITELY AND CLEARLY APPEAR."  MINTZ V.
BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346, 350. 

8.  "THE POWER CONFERRED UPON THE CONGRESS IS SUCH THAT WHEN EXERTED
IT EXCLUDES AND SUPERSEDES STATE LEGISLATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME
MATTER.  BUT CONGRESS MAY SO CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS REGULATION AS TO LEAVE A
PART OF THE SUBJECT OPEN TO STATE ACTION.  ATLANTIC COAST LINE V.
GEORGIA, 234 U.S. 280, 290.  CF. NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 272
U.S. 605.  THE PURPOSE EXCLUSIVELY TO REGULATE NEED NOT BE SPECIFICALLY
DECLARED.  NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. WINFIELD, 244 U.S. 147.  BUT,
ORDINARILY SUCH INTENTION WILL NOT BE IMPLIED UNLESS, WHEN FAIRLY
INTERPRETED, THE FEDERAL MEASURE IS PLAINLY INCONSISTENT WITH STATE
REGULATION OF THE SAME MATTER."  GILVARY V. CUYAHOGA VALLEY R. CO., 292
U.S. 57, 60. 

9.  "THE CASE CALLS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE WELL-ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLE THAT CONGRESS MAY CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS REGULATION AND OCCUPY A
LIMITED FIELD, AND THAT THE INTENT TO SUPERSEDE THE EXERCISE BY THE
STATE OF ITS POLICE POWER AS TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION IS NOT TO BE IMPLIED UNLESS THE LATTER FAIRLY INTERPRETED
IS IN ACTUAL CONFLICT WITH THE STATE LAW."  TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301
U.S. 441, 454. 

10.  "STATES ARE THUS ENABLED TO DEAL WITH LOCAL EXIGENCIES AND TO
EXERT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATION AN ESSENTIAL
PROTECTIVE POWER.  AND WHEN CONGRESS DOES EXERCISE ITS PARAMOUNT
AUTHORITY, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CONGRESS MAY DETERMINE HOW FAR ITS
REGULATION SHALL GO.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RULE WHICH COMPELS
CONGRESS TO OCCUPY THE WHOLE FIELD.  CONGRESS MAY CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS
REGULATION AND OCCUPY ONLY A LIMITED FIELD.  WHEN IT DOES SO, STATE
REGULATION OUTSIDE THAT LIMITED FIELD AND OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE IS NOT
FORBIDDEN OR DISPLACED.  THE PRINCIPLE IS THOROUGHLY ESTABLISHED THAT
THE EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF ITS POLICE POWER, WHICH WOULD BE VALID IF
NOT SUPERSEDED BY FEDERAL ACTION, IS SUPERSEDED ONLY WHERE THE
REPUGNANCE OR CONFLICT IS SO 'DIRECT AND POSITIVE' THAT THE TWO ACTS
CANNOT 'BE RECONCILED OR CONSISTENTLY STAND TOGETHER.'"  KELLY V.
WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10. 

THESE RULES OF RESPECT FOR THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF STATE LAW HAVE NOT
BEEN CEREMONIAL PHRASES DISHONORED IN OBSERVANCE.  DEVIATIONS FROM THIS
POLICY HAVE BEEN VERY RARE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE ARE DEALING
NOT WITH A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA BUT WITH THE APPLICATION OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE BY JUDICIAL JUDGMENT.  THE DEVIATIONS HAVE BEEN
SO RARE ALL THESE DECADES, DESPITE THE CHANGES IN THE COURT, BECAUSE OF
FIDELITY TO THE PURPOSES OF THIS VITAL ASPECT OF OUR FEDERALISM. 

A SURVEY OF THE SCORES OF CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE THAT
STATE ACTION CANNOT SURVIVE SOME CONTRADICTORY COMMAND OF CONGRESS
LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT STATE ACTION HAS NOT BEEN SET ASIDE ON MERE
GENERALITIES ABOUT CONGRESS HAVING "OCCUPIED THE FIELD," OR ON THE
BASIS OF LOOSE TALK INSTEAD OF DEMONSTRATIONS ABOUT "CONFLICT" BETWEEN
STATE AND FEDERAL ACTION.  WE ARE IN THE DOMAIN OF GOVERNMENT AND
PRACTICAL AFFAIRS, AND THIS COURT HAS NOT STIFLED STATE ACTION, UNLESS
WHAT THE STATE HAS REQUIRED, IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS ORDERED,
WOULD TRULY ENTAIL CONTRADICTORY DUTIES OR MAKE ACTUAL, NOT
ARGUMENTATIVE, INROADS ON WHAT CONGRESS HAS COMMANDED OR FORBIDDEN. 
SINCE THE BULK OF FEDERAL REGULATORY LEGISLATION HAS UNTIL RECENTLY
BEEN CONCERNED WITH THE GREAT INTERSTATE UTILITIES, THE CASES DEALING
WITH THE RELATION OF STATE TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION IN THIS FIELD SHED
MOST LIGHT ON THE QUESTION BEFORE US.  MOREOVER, THESE PRESENT
SITUATIONS LEAST FAVORABLE TO TOLERANCE FOR STATE LEGISLATION.  THE
NEED FOR NATIONAL CONTROL, WITH CORRESPONDING RESTRICTION OF LOCAL
REGULATION, IS PRESUMABLY MOST POWERFULLY ASSERTED WHERE INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION ARE INVOLVED. 

THE RANGE AND PARTICULARITY OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION REGULATING
RAILROADS, EXPRESSED IN A LONG SERIES OF ENACTMENTS, HAVE GIVEN RISE TO
MOST OF THE CASES IN WHICH STATE ACTION HAS BEEN FOUND IN CONFLICT WITH
FEDERAL ACTION.  ONCE CONGRESS ESTABLISHED A UNIFORM FEDERAL RULE
CONCERNING LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT LOSS OR DAMAGE IN PLACE OF THE
VARIEGATED RULES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, STATE POLICY "DIFFERENTLY
CONCEIVED" HAD TO YIELD.  CHARLESTON & W.C.R. CO. V. VARNVILLE CO., 237
U.S. 597, 604.  THE COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL OVER RAILROAD RATES,
PROGRESSIVELY EXERCISED BY CONGRESS, NECESSARILY DISPLACED MUCH PRIOR
STATE LAW.  AND SO, THE PERMISSIVE POWER OF STATES TO DEAL WITH ASPECTS
OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LAW CEASED WHEN STATE
ACTION RAN COUNTER TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE HEPBURN ACT. 
SOUTHERN R. CO. V. REID, 222 U.S. 424; CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V.
HARDWICK ELEVATOR CO., 226 U.S. 426.  STATE REGULATION OF THE HOURS OF
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES COULD NOT SURVIVE A CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AS TO HOURS
OF SERVICE.  NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. WASHINGTON, 222 U.S. 370. 
EXPLICITNESS BY CONGRESS RELATING TO THE EQUIPPING OF FREIGHT CARS WITH
SAFETY APPLIANCES SUPERSEDED A STATE LAW DEALING DIFFERENTLY WITH SUCH
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.  SOUTHERN R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 236 U.S.
439.  WHEN CONGRESS SAW FIT TO DEFINE IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS
LIABILITY ACT A CARRIER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEATH OR INJURY OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, A STATE COULD NOT ASSERT A DIFFERENT BASIS OF
RESPONSIBILITY.  N.Y. CENTRAL R. CO. V. WINFIELD, 244 U.S. 147. 
UNIFORM STANDARDS SET BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR THE
EQUIPMENT OF LOCOMOTIVES PRECLUDE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH
EQUIPMENT BY THE STATES.  NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 272 U.S. 605. 
BUT MERELY BECAUSE REGULATORY POWER IS POSSESSED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY
DOES NOT DISPLACE STATE REGULATION IF NO FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE SET. 
SEE WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79; EICHHOLZ V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 306 U.S. 268.  THAT EVEN IN THIS TECHNICAL FIELD A STATE IS NOT
DENIED THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER BEYOND WHAT IS PRACTICALLY
REQUIRED BY THE ACTUAL USE OF FEDERAL POWER, IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE
LIMITED APPLICATION GIVEN TO PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 250 U.S. 566, IN TERMINAL ASSN. V. TRAINMEN, 318 U.S. 1. 

THESE ARE ILLUSTRATIONS OF A CLOSELY KNIT BODY OF REGULATIONS, FULL
OF TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS, PROTECTED AGAINST INCURSIONS FROM LOCAL
DISCRIMINATIONS AS TO THE VERY SUBJECT MATTER FOR WHICH CONGRESS DEEMED
A NATIONAL RULE ESSENTIAL.  THERE WAS, IN SHORT, CONCRETENESS OF
CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT A STATE PRESCRIBED AND WHAT CONGRESS PRESCRIBED;
THE COLLISION WAS DEMONSTRABLE, NOT ARGUMENTATIVE. 

EVEN WHERE THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE CARRIES INTERNATIONAL
IMPLICATIONS AND THUS DEALS WITH SENSITIVE CONCERNS PECULIARLY WITHIN
THE DIRECTION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY, THIS COURT ONLY RECENTLY WAS SLOW
TO STRIKE DOWN AN EXERCISE OF THE STATE POLICE POWER.  WHEN, IN HINES
V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52, THE UNITED STATES STRONGLY URGED UPON US
THAT A PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM OF ALIEN REGISTRATION, ESTABLISHED IN 1939,
HAD BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE FEDERAL ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940, WE
DID NOT DISPLACE THE STATE LAW CAVALIERLY, ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE
INFERENCE AND DOGMATIC ASSERTION, BUT EXAMINED WITH PAINSTAKING CARE
THE PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER, IN THEIR PRACTICAL OPERATION, THEY RAN COUNTER TO THE SCHEME
AS CONCEIVED BY CONGRESS AND IMPINGED UPON ITS ADMINISTRATION.  A
DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE LONG COURSE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION
AFFECTING ALIENS, OF WHICH THE ACT OF 1940 WAS THE LATEST IN A SERIES,
LED THE COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS HAD "PROVIDED A STANDARD FOR
ALIEN REGISTRATION IN A SINGLE INTEGRATED AND ALL-EMBRACING SYSTEM  ...
THROUGH ONE UNIFORM NATIONAL REGISTRATION SYSTEM" TO WHICH
PENNSYLVANIA HAD TO SUBORDINATE ITS LOCAL POLICY.  312 U.S. 52, 74. 
EVEN THIS CONCLUSION EVOKED A WEIGHTY DISSENT, AND ONE CANNOT READ THE
COURT'S OPINION WITHOUT AN AWARENESS THAT THE CASE PRESENTED A CLOSE
QUESTION.  SHORTLY AFTER THIS DECISION WE UNANIMOUSLY MADE IT CLEAR
THAT HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ WAS NOT INTENDED TO RELAX THE REQUIREMENT OF
PRACTICAL AND EFFECTIVE CONFLICT BETWEEN A STATE LAW AND A FEDERAL
ENACTMENT BEFORE A STATE POLICE MEASURE CAN BE NULLIFIED, AND THAT THE
INTERNATIONAL BEARING OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES MADE PERSUASIVE THE FINDING
OF CONFLICT IN THAT CASE.  WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ IN
ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 749, IS PRECISELY RELEVANT
HERE: 

"IN THE HINES CASE, A FEDERAL SYSTEM OF ALIEN REGISTRATION WAS HELD
TO SUPERSEDE A STATE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION.  BUT THERE WE WERE DEALING
WITH A PROBLEM WHICH HAD AN IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FIELD OF FOREIGN
RELATIONS.  THE DELICACY OF THE ISSUES WHICH WERE POSED ALONE RAISED
GRAVE QUESTIONS AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF ALLOWING A STATE SYSTEM OF
REGULATION TO FUNCTION ALONGSIDE OF A FEDERAL SYSTEM.  IN THAT FIELD,
ANY 'CONCURRENT STATE POWER THAT MAY EXIST IS RESTRICTED TO THE
NARROWEST OF LIMITS.'  P. 68.  THEREFORE, WE WERE MORE READY TO
CONCLUDE THAT A FEDERAL ACT IN A FIELD THAT TOUCHED INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS SUPERSEDED STATE REGULATION THAN WE WERE IN THOSE CASES WHERE
A STATE WAS EXERCISING ITS HISTORIC POWERS OVER SUCH TRADITIONALLY
LOCAL MATTERS AS PUBLIC SAFETY AND ORDER AND THE USE OF STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS.  MAURER V. HAMILTON, (309 U.S. 598) SUPRA, AND CASES CITED. 
HERE, WE ARE DEALING WITH THE LATTER TYPE OF PROBLEM.  WE WILL NOT
LIGHTLY INFER THAT CONGRESS BY THE MERE PASSAGE OF A FEDERAL ACT HAS
IMPAIRED THE TRADITIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEVERAL STATES IN THAT
REGARD." 

IN TRUTH, WHEN A STATE STATUTE IS ASSAILED BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
CONFLICT WITH A FEDERAL LAW, THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS OF FORBEARANCE,
THE SAME REGARD FOR THE LAWMAKING POWER OF STATES, SHOULD GUIDE THE
JUDICIAL JUDGMENT AS WHEN THIS COURT IS ASKED TO DECLARE A STATUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OUTRIGHT.  THE PROBLEM OF CONFLICT ARISES ONLY WHEN
THE STATES HAVE POWER CONCURRENT WITH CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE; TO FIND
CONFLICT IS MERELY A FORM OF DENYING THE POWER OF LEGISLATION TO THE
STATES.  EXCEPT IN RARE INSTANCES, AS ALREADY INDICATED, THIS COURT HAS
BEEN EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS IN UPSETTING STATE REGULATION UNLESS IT HAS
FOUND THAT THE REGULATION DEVISED BY CONGRESS AND THAT BY WHICH THE
STATE DEALT WITH SOME LOCAL CONCERN CANNOT, IN A PRACTICAL WORLD,
COEXIST.  ONLY THEN HAS THE COURT BEEN JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT
CONGRESS HAS MANIFESTED ITS WILL TO DISPLACE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE.  TO STRIKE DOWN A STATE LAW WHEN THAT WHICH A
STATE REQUIRES DOES NOT TRULY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT FEDERAL REGULATION IS
UNWARRANTABLY TO DEPRIVE THE STATES OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER. 

THESE ARE THE PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED BY
THE VAST BODY OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, AND THEY ARE THE
PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD DETERMINE THE FATE OF THE FLORIDA LEGISLATION
NOW HERE FOR JUDGMENT. 

BY LEGISLATION KNOWN AS HOUSE BILL NO. 142, FLORIDA, IN 1943,
UNDERTOOK TO REGULATE LABOR UNIONS AND THEIR OFFICERS.  LAWS OF
FLORIDA, 1943, CH. 21968, P. 565.  THAT ACT PROHIBITS ANY PERSON FROM
ACTING AS A "BUSINESS AGENT" FOR ANY "LABOR ORGANIZATION" WITHOUT
HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE.  SEC. 9(6).  IN ORDER TO OBTAIN SUCH A
LICENSE, FOR A FEE OF ONE DOLLAR, A PERSON MUST FILE WITH THE SECRETARY
OF STATE AN APPLICATION UNDER OATH, ACCOMPANIED BY A STATEMENT SHOWING
THE APPLICANT'S AUTHORITY TO ACT AS BUSINESS AGENT, VOUCHED FOR BY THE
PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION.  TO PERMIT THE
FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO GRANTING THE LICENSE, THE APPLICATION MUST BE
HELD ON FILE FOR THIRTY DAYS.  THEREAFTER, THE APPLICATION, WITH ALL
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, GOES TO A BOARD COMPOSED OF THE GOVERNOR, THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION.  ON FINDING THE
APPLICANT QUALIFIED, THE BOARD MUST AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO
ISSUE A LICENSE FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR.  A LICENSE MAY NOT BE ISSUED TO
ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT BEEN A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS, OR WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY, OR WHO
IS NOT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.  SEC. 4.  ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT
REQUIRES EVERY "LABOR ORGANIZATION OPERATING IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA"
TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE GIVING THE NAME OF
THE ORGANIZATION, THE LOCATION OF ITS OFFICE, THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES
OF THE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, TREASURER AND BUSINESS AGENT.  A FILING
FEE OF ONE DOLLAR IS REQUIRED.  SEC. 6.  A PENAL PROVISION PROVIDES FOR
FINES NOT EXCEEDING $500, OR SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH, FOR
VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY ANY PERSON OR LABOR ORGANIZATION.  SEC. 14. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA SOUGHT AND OBTAINED FROM A FLORIDA
CIRCUIT COURT AN INJUNCTION FORBIDDING THE PETITIONER, UNITED
ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS, LOCAL NO. 234,
FROM FUNCTIONING AS A LABOR UNION UNTIL IT HAD COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 6, AND FORBIDDING PETITIONER HILL FROM ACTING AS
BUSINESS AGENT FOR THE ASSOCIATION UNTIL HE HAD PROCURED THE LICENSE
REQUIRED BY SEC. 4.  THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AFFIRMED THE
INJUNCTION.  19 SO.2D 857.  THIS COURT REVERSES THE FLORIDA DECISION BY
CONCLUDING THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, FAMILIARLY KNOWN AS
THE WAGNER ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., DEBARRED
FLORIDA FROM DEALING WITH THE MATTERS WITH WHICH HER LEGISLATION
DEALT. 

THE COURT REACHES THIS CONCLUSION RATHER SUMMARILY, AS THOUGH THE
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE WAGNER ACT AND THE FLORIDA ACT IS TOO OBVIOUS FOR
ARGUMENT.  CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THIS CASE INVOLVES WHAT SO OFTEN
HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS THE MOST DELICATE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT,
THAT OF INVALIDATING LEGISLATION, THE ISSUE CANNOT BE DISPOSED OF SO
EASILY. 

WHILE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ON RAILROADS HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT
OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY, GIVING RISE
TO A MORE AND MORE COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF FEDERAL REGULATION, AS TO
SUCH RELATIONS IN INDUSTRY GENERALLY CONGRESS ABSTAINED FROM REGULATION
UNTIL 1935.  ITS FIRST ESSAY IN THIS FIELD WAS PROFESSEDLY VERY LIMITED
IN SCOPE.  NOT CONTENT WITH SETTING FORTH THE CENTRAL AIM OF THE WAGNER
ACT IN THE LEGISLATIVE REPORTS, CONGRESS IN THE ACT ITSELF DEFINED ITS
PURPOSES.  IN VIEW OF THE INEQUALITY BETWEEN ORGANIZED EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES DEVOID OF "FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION OR ACTUAL LIBERTY OF
CONTRACT," AND OF THE "DENIAL BY EMPLOYERS OF THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO
ORGANIZE AND THE REFUSAL BY EMPLOYERS TO ACCEPT THE PROCEDURE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING," IT WAS "DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF THE UNITED
STATES TO ELIMINATE THE CAUSES OF CERTAIN SUBSTANTIAL OBSTRUCTIONS TO
THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE AND TO MITIGATE AND ELIMINATE THESE
OBSTRUCTIONS WHEN THEY HAVE OCCURRED BY ENCOURAGING THE PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND BY PROTECTING THE EXERCISE BY
WORKERS OF FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION, AND
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF NEGOTIATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION."  SEC. 1.  TO THAT END SEC. 8, THE HEART OF
THE ACT, ENUMERATED CONDUCT BY EMPLOYERS WHICH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD WAS ESTABLISHED TO PREVENT.  SEC. 10.  IT IS AN
ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE WAGNER ACT TO SAY THAT IT AIMED TO EQUALIZE
BARGAINING POWER BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES AND THEIR EMPLOYERS BY
PUTTING FEDERAL LAW BEHIND THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION.  THE
WHOLE PLAN OR SCHEME OF THE WAGNER ACT WAS TO ENABLE EMPLOYEES TO
BARGAIN ON A FAIR BASIS, FREED FROM "RESTRAINT OR COERCION BY THEIR
EMPLOYER" THROUGH THE PROTECTION GIVEN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1, 33. 

ALL PROPOSALS TO MAKE OF THE WAGNER ACT A MORE COMPREHENSIVE
INDUSTRIAL CODE, BY DEALING WITH THE CONDUCT OF EMPLOYEES AND THEIR
UNIONS, WERE REJECTED.  THE RIGHTS CONGRESS CREATED, THE OBLIGATIONS IT
DEFINED, THE MACHINERY IT DEVISED FOR ENFORCING THESE RIGHTS AND
SECURING OBEDIENCE TO THESE OBLIGATIONS, ALL WERE EXCLUSIVELY CONCERNED
WITH PUTTING THE STRENGTH OF THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THIS CONDUCT BY
EMPLOYERS.  ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS WERE LEFT
UNTOUCHED BY THE WAGNER ACT, AND PURPOSELY SO. ALL ACTIVITIES OR
ASPECTS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF THEIR RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM
EMPLOYER COERCION WERE LEFT WHOLLY UNREGULATED BY THAT ACT.  NEITHER
EXPRESSLY NOR BY INDIRECTION DID THE WAGNER ACT DISPLACE WHATEVER
POLICE POWER THE STATES MAY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THOSE ASPECTS OF THE LIFE
OF A TRADE UNION AS TO WHICH CONGRESS, WITH EYES WIDE OPEN, REFUSED TO
LEGISLATE.  WHEN CONGRESS PURPOSELY DEALT ONLY WITH THE EMPLOYER ASPECT
OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND PURPOSELY ABSTAINED FROM MAKING ANY RULES
TOUCHING UNION ACTIVITIES, THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF UNIONS, OR THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF UNION OFFICIALS TO UNION MEMBERS AND TO THE PUBLIC,
CONGRESS CERTAINLY DID NOT SPONGE OUT THE STATES' POLICE POWER AS TO
THESE MATTERS.  IT WIPES OUT STATE POWER AND DISTORTS CONGRESSIONAL
INTENTION TO DISREGARD THE LIMITED POLICY EXPLICITLY SET FORTH BY
CONGRESS.  THAT POLICY - CURBING OF EMPLOYER INTERFERENCES WITH UNION
RIGHTS - WAS SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVED BY CONGRESS IN THE SUBSTANTIVE
PROVISIONS AS WELL AS IN THE ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE ACT.  THERE
IS NOT A BREATH IN THE ACT REFERRING TO ANY ASPECT OF UNION ACTIVITY
UNRELATED TO EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE THEREWITH.  BY REFUSING TO LEGISLATE
BEYOND THAT, CONGRESS DID NOT FORBID THE STATES FROM SO LEGISLATING. 
IF CONGRESS TOMORROW CHOSE TO SUBJECT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR
OFFICERS TO REGULATIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE DEALT WITH IN THE FLORIDA LAW,
IT COULD HARDLY BE SUGGESTED THAT THE WAGNER ACT, AS IT NOW STANDS,
ALREADY COVERS THESE SUBJECTS.  SPECIFICALLY, IF CONGRESS WERE TO MAKE
CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FILING OF REPORTS BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
THAT SEEK TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE RIGHTS DEFINED BY THE WAGNER ACT,
AND ALSO WERE TO DEVISE A SYSTEM OF IDENTIFICATION AND LICENSING OF
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNIONS, ONE WOULD BE HARD PUT TO IT
TO FIND ANYTHING IN THE WAGNER ACT TO PROVE THAT IT HAD ALREADY DEALT
WITH THESE MATTERS.  CONGRESS MAY WELL BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUCH A
DIFFERENCE IN LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO MAKE IT DESIRABLE TO LEAVE
TREATMENT OF THESE MATTERS TO THE DIFFERENT LOCALITIES.  IN ANY EVENT,
SINCE THESE SUBJECTS ARE OUTSIDE OF THE WAGNER ACT FOR PURPOSES OF
MAKING ADDITIONS BY FEDERAL LAW, THEY CANNOT BE INSIDE IT TO JUSTIFY
NULLIFICATION OF THE FLORIDA LAW.  WHETHER THE INTERESTS OF UNION
MEMBERS OR OF OUTSIDERS CALL FOR AN IDENTIFICATION AND LICENSING SYSTEM
FOR MEN DISCHARGING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF BUSINESS AGENTS, IT IS NOT
FOR US TO DETERMINE.  THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER FLORIDA IS
FREE TO DEAL WITH THESE MATTERS WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE SO.  TO
REPEAT WHAT WAS SAID IN ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, SUPRA, "WE WILL
NOT LIGHTLY INFER THAT CONGRESS BY THE MERE PASSAGE OF A FEDERAL ACT" -
THIS VERY ACT - "HAS IMPAIRED THE TRADITIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
SEVERAL STATES" OVER SUCH POLICE MATTERS AS ARE THE CONCERN OF THE
FLORIDA LEGISLATION. 

IF THE WAGNER ACT HAS LEFT FLORIDA FREE TO DEAL WITH THESE MATTERS,
FLORIDA MAY NOT ONLY LEGISLATE BUT ALSO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS
LEGISLATION.  IN OTHER WORDS, IF FLORIDA MAY CALL FOR REPORTS AND
REQUIRE BUSINESS AGENTS TO APPLY FOR LICENSES, OF COURSE FLORIDA MAY
PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS FOR SUCH REGULATIONS.  IF A UNION MAY
PROPERLY BE REQUIRED TO FILE A REPORT AND DOES NOT DO SO AND THEREFORE
IS PROHIBITED FROM PURSUING ITS INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES UNTIL IT DOES
FILE SUCH A REPORT, THE STATE IS NOT INTERFERING WITH WHATEVER RIGHTS
THE UNION MAY HAVE UNDER THE WAGNER ACT.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO
CONSIDER SUCH A CLAIM OF CONFLICT, IF ANYTHING THAT FLORIDA MAY EXACT
SHOULD, IN A CONCRETE SITUATION, ACTIVELY INTERFERE WITH APPROPRIATE
ACTION BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  IN ANY EVENT, WE DO NOT
KNOW THE REACH OF THE FLORIDA ACT.  FOR ALL THAT APPEARS THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA MAY CONSTRUE THE ACT'S REQUIREMENTS TO APPLY ONLY TO
INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNION AND ITS BUSINESS AGENTS. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :







IN RE SUMMERS, 325 U.S. 561 


NO. 205.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 30, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S REFUSAL, ON THE MERITS, OF
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW, ALTHOUGH
THE MATTER WAS NOT REGARDED BY THAT COURT AS A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING,
HELD TO INVOLVE A CASE OR CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL POWER UNDER
ART. III, SEC. 1, CL. 1 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 566. 

2.  REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN
A STATE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE UNABLE IN GOOD FAITH
TO TAKE THE REQUIRED OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE,
BECAUSE OF CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES RESULTING IN UNWILLINGNESS TO SERVE
IN THE STATE MILITIA IN TIME OF WAR, HELD NOT A DENIAL OF ANY RIGHT OF
THE APPLICANT UNDER THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 571. 

IN RE SUMMERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 705, TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS IN REFUSING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE
BAR. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SOUGHT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THIS COURT UNDER SECTION
237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS IN DENYING PETITIONER'S PRAYER FOR ADMISSION TO THE
PRACTICE OF LAW IN THAT STATE.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE DENIAL WAS "ON
THE SOLE GROUND THAT HE IS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR TO WAR" OR TO
PHRASE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY "BECAUSE OF HIS
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AGAINST PARTICIPATION IN WAR."  PETITIONER
CHALLENGES HERE THE RIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM THE
BAR UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SECURED TO HIM PROTECTION
AGAINST STATE ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  FN1  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TENDERED ISSUE IN THE
DOMAIN OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN2  323 U.S. 705. 

SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT TREATED AS JUDICIAL BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS, THE RECORD IS NOT IN THE CUSTOMARY FORM.  IT SHOWS
ACCURATELY, HOWEVER, THE STEPS BY WHICH THE ISSUE WAS DEVELOPED AND THE
ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE PRAYER FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE
OF LAW IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.  FROM THE RECORD IT APPEARS THAT CLYDE
WILSON SUMMERS HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL PREREQUISITES FOR ADMISSION TO THE
BAR OF ILLINOIS EXCEPT THAT HE HAS NOT OBTAINED THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS.  CF. ILLINOIS REVISED STATUTES
1943, C. 110, SEC. 259.58.  NO REPORT APPEARS IN THE RECORD FROM THE
COMMITTEE.  AN UNOFFICIAL LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY GIVES HIS PERSONAL
VIEWS.  FN3  A PETITION WAS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT ON AUGUST 2,
1943, WHICH ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER WAS INFORMED IN JANUARY, 1943, THAT
THE COMMITTEE DECLINED TO SIGN A FAVORABLE CERTIFICATE.  THE PETITION
SET OUT THAT THE SOLE REASON FOR THE COMMITTEE'S REFUSAL WAS THAT
PETITIONER WAS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR TO WAR, AND AVERRED THAT SUCH
REASON DID NOT JUSTIFY HIS EXCLUSION BECAUSE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION
IS INFORMAL.  IT CONSISTS OF A LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1943, TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE WHICH IS SET OUT BELOW,  FN4  A LETTER OF
THE SAME DATE TO MR. SUMMERS AND A THIRD LETTER OF MARCH 22, 1944, TO
MR. SUMMERS' ATTORNEY ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.  THESE LATTER TWO
LETTERS ARE SET OUT IN NOTE 8. 

THE ANSWER OF THE JUSTICES TO THESE ALLEGATIONS DOES NOT APPEAR IN
THE RECORD WHICH WAS TRANSMITTED FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS TO
THIS COURT BUT IN THEIR RETURN TO THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CERTIORARI
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.  THE ANSWER IS TWO-FOLD:  FIRST, THAT THE
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT A MATTER OF JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE IN ILLINOIS AND
THAT NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY EXISTS IN THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE III OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; SECOND, THAT ASSUMING THE SOLE GROUND FOR
REFUSING TO PETITIONER ADMISSION TO PRACTICE WAS HIS PROFESSION OF
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE, SUCH REFUSAL DID NOT
VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICANTS
FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR TO TAKE AN OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF
ILLINOIS COULD NOT BE MET.  IN VIEW OF HIS RELIGIOUS AFFIRMATIONS,
PETITIONER COULD NOT AGREE, FREELY, TO SERVE IN THE ILLINOIS MILITIA. 
THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS NOT BARRED BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION BUT BECAUSE
HE COULD NOT IN GOOD FAITH TAKE THE PRESCRIBED OATH, EVEN THOUGH HE
MIGHT BE WILLING TO DO SO.  WE TURN TO CONSIDERATION OF THE JUSTICES'
CONTENTIONS. 

CASE OR CONTROVERSY.  THE RETURN OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES STATES THAT THE CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS OF
PETITIONER WITH THE JUSTICES WERE NOT SPREAD UPON THE RECORDS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AND THAT UNDER THE LAW OF ILLINOIS THIS
PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CASE OR
CONTROVERSY OR A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING BUT IS A MERE APPLICATION FOR
APPOINTMENT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT.  FN5  WE OF COURSE ACCEPT THIS
AUTHORITATIVE COMMENTARY UPON THE LAW OF ILLINOIS AS ESTABLISHING FOR
THAT STATE THE NON-JUDICIAL CHARACTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION
TO THE BAR.  FN6  WE TAKE IT THAT THE LAW OF ILLINOIS TREATS THE ACTION
OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THIS PETITION AS A MINISTERIAL ACT WHICH IS
PERFORMED BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER, SUCH AS THE APPOINTMENT OF A
CLERK OR BAILIFF OR THE SPECIFICATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
ELIGIBILITY OR THE COURSE OF STUDY FOR APPLICANTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE
BAR, RATHER THAN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS IN DENYING SUMMERS' PETITION FOR AN ORDER FOR
ADMISSION TO PRACTICE LAW IN ILLINOIS IS A JUDGMENT IN A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING WHICH INVOLVES A CASE OR CONTROVERSY REVIEWABLE IN THIS
COURT UNDER ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, CL. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES,  FN7  WE MUST FOR OURSELVES APPRAISE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE REFUSAL.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249,
259.  CF. BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 259-60; NIXON V. CONDON,
286 U.S. 73, 88; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. HARTFORD, 273 U.S. 548, 552;
TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 324. 

A CASE ARISES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHEN ANY
QUESTION RESPECTING THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES HAS ASSUMED "SUCH A FORM THAT THE JUDICIAL POWER IS CAPABLE OF
ACTING ON IT."  OSBORN V. BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738, 819.  THE COURT WAS THEN
CONSIDERING THE POWER OF THE BANK TO SUE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  A
DECLARATION ON RIGHTS AS THEY STAND MUST BE SOUGHT, NOT ON RIGHTS WHICH
MAY ARISE IN THE FUTURE, PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 211 U.S. 210,
226, AND THERE MUST BE AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY OVER AN ISSUE, NOT A
DESIRE FOR AN ABSTRACT DECLARATION OF THE LAW.  MUSKRAT V. UNITED
STATES, 219 U.S. 346, 361; FAIRCHILD V. HUGHES, 258 U.S. 126, 129.  THE
FORM OF THE PROCEEDING IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  IT IS THE NATURE AND EFFECT
WHICH IS CONTROLLING.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288
U.S. 249, 259. 

THE BRIEF FOR THE JUSTICES RAISES THE QUESTION AS TO WHO ARE THE
ADVERSARY PARTIES.  THE PETITION IN THE STATE COURT WAS ENTITLED,
"CLYDE WILSON SUMMERS, PETITIONER, V. COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND
FITNESS FOR THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, RESPONDENT."  THE PRAYER SOUGHT
RELIEF AGAINST THOSE NAMED AS RESPONDENTS.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW
THAT ANY PROCESS ISSUED OR THAT ANY APPEARANCE WAS MADE.  OUR RULE ON
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI REQUIRED THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY A RECORD SHOULD NOT BE CERTIFIED AND THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI GRANTED.  THE RETURN WAS BY THE JUSTICES, NOT BY THE COURT. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, HOWEVER, CONCLUDED THAT THE "REPORT OF
THE COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED."  THUS IT
CONSIDERED THE PETITION ON ITS MERITS.  WHILE NO ENTRY WAS PLACED BY
THE CLERK IN THE FILE, ON A DOCKET, OR IN A JUDGMENT ROLL, THE COURT
TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION AND PASSED AN ORDER WHICH IS VALIDATED
BY THE SIGNATURE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER.  FN8  WHERE RELIEF IS THUS
SOUGHT IN A STATE COURT AGAINST THE ACTION OF A COMMITTEE, APPOINTED TO
ADVISE THE COURT, AND THE COURT TAKES COGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT
WITHOUT REQUIRING THE APPEARANCE OF THE COMMITTEE OR ITS MEMBERS, WE
THINK THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION BY THE SUPREME COURT, THE BODY
WHICH HAS AUTHORITY ITSELF BY ITS OWN ACT TO GIVE THE RELIEF SOUGHT,
MAKES THE PROCEEDING ADVERSARY IN THE SENSE OF A TRUE CASE OR
CONTROVERSY. 

A CLAIM OF A PRESENT RIGHT TO ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF A STATE AND A
DENIAL OF THAT RIGHT IS A CONTROVERSY.  WHEN THE CLAIM IS MADE IN A
STATE COURT AND A DENIAL OF THE RIGHT IS MADE BY JUDICIAL ORDER, IT IS
A CASE WHICH MAY BE REVIEWED UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN
FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARE RAISED AND PROPER STEPS TAKEN TO THAT END, IN
THIS COURT.  FN9 

DISQUALIFICATION UNDER ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION.  THE JUSTICES JUSTIFY
THEIR REFUSAL TO ADMIT PETITIONER TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE COURTS OF
ILLINOIS ON THE GROUND OF PETITIONER'S INABILITY TO TAKE IN GOOD FAITH
THE REQUIRED OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF ILLINOIS.  HIS
INABILITY TO TAKE SUCH AN OATH, THE JUSTICES SUBMIT, SHOWS THAT THE
COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS PROPERLY REFUSED TO CERTIFY TO HIS
MORAL CHARACTER AND MORAL FITNESS TO BE AN OFFICER OF THE COURT,
CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE UNDER THE ILLINOIS LAW.  HIS
GOOD CITIZENSHIP, THEY THINK, JUDGED BY THE STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR
PRACTICING LAW IN ILLINOIS, IS NOT SATISFACTORILY SHOWN.  FN10  A
CONSCIENTIOUS BELIEF IN NONVIOLENCE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE BELIEVER
WILL NOT USE FORCE TO PREVENT WRONG, NO MATTER HOW AGGRAVATED, AND SO
CANNOT SWEAR IN GOOD FAITH TO SUPPORT THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION, THE
JUSTICES CONTEND, MUST DISQUALIFY SUCH A BELIEVER FOR ADMISSION. 

PETITIONER APPRAISES THE DENIAL OF ADMISSION FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A
RELIGIONIST.  HE SAID IN HIS PETITION: 

"THE SO-CALLED 'MISCONDUCT' FOR WHICH PETITIONER COULD BE REPROACHED
FOR IS HIS TAKING THE NEW TESTAMENT TOO SERIOUSLY.  INSTEAD OF MERELY
READING OR PREACHING THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, HE TRIES TO PRACTICE IT.
THE ONLY FAULT OF THE PETITIONER CONSISTS IN HIS ATTEMPT TO ACT AS A
GOOD CHRISTIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, AND
ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF HIS CONSCIENCE.  WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT
THAT THE PROFESSION OF LAW DOES NOT SHUT ITS GATES TO PERSONS WHO HAVE
QUALIFIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS EVEN WHEN THEY FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS
OF THAT GREAT TEACHER OF MANKIND WHO DELIVERED THE SERMON ON THE
MOUNT.  WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
EVEN GOOD CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
ADMISSION TO THE BAR MAY BE ADMITTED TO PRACTICE LAW." 

THUS A COURT CREATED TO ADMINISTER THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS AS IT
UNDERSTANDS THEM, AND CHARGED PARTICULARLY WITH THE PROTECTION OF
JUSTICE IN THE COURTS OF ILLINOIS THROUGH SUPERVISION OF ADMISSIONS TO
THE BAR, FOUND ITSELF FACED WITH THE DILEMMA OF EXCLUDING AN APPLICANT
WHOM IT DEEMED DISQUALIFIED FOR THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PROFESSION
OF LAW OR OF ADMITTING THE APPLICANT BECAUSE OF ITS DEEPLY ROOTED
TRADITION IN FREEDOM OF BELIEF.  THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHOICE AS TO
THE PERSONNEL OF ITS BAR RESTS WITH ILLINOIS.  ONLY A DECISION WHICH
VIOLATED A FEDERAL RIGHT SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WOULD
AUTHORIZE OUR INTERVENTION.  IT IS SAID THAT THE ACTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THAT PORTION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  OF
COURSE, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, MEN COULD NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM
THE PRACTICE OF LAW, OR INDEED FROM FOLLOWING ANY OTHER CALLING, SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY BELONG TO ANY OF OUR RELIGIOUS GROUPS, WHETHER PROTESTANT,
CATHOLIC, QUAKER OR JEWISH, ASSUMING IT CONCEIVABLE THAT ANY STATE OF
THE UNION WOULD DRAW SUCH A RELIGIOUS LINE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT ANY
SUCH PURPOSE TO DISCRIMINATE MOTIVATED THE ACTION OF THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT. 

THE SINCERITY OF PETITIONER'S BELIEFS ARE NOT QUESTIONED.  HE HAS
BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR UNDER THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, AS AMENDED.  WITHOUT
DETAILING PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OR HIS SUBSEQUENT
STATEMENTS IN THE RECORD, HIS POSITION MAY BE COMPENDIOUSLY STATED AS
ONE OF NON-VIOLENCE.  PETITIONER WILL NOT SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES. 
WHILE HE RECOGNIZES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MILITARY AND POLICE
FORCES, HE WOULD NOT ACT IN THE LATTER TO COERCE THREATENED
VIOLATIONS.  PETITIONER WOULD NOT USE FORCE TO MEET AGGRESSIONS AGAINST
HIMSELF OR HIS FAMILY, NO MATTER HOW AGGRAVATED OR WHETHER OR NOT
CARRYING A DANGER OF BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS.  HE IS A
BELIEVER IN PASSIVE RESISTANCE.  WE NEED TO CONSIDER ONLY HIS ATTITUDE
TOWARD SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES. 

ILLINOIS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WHICH REQUIRE SERVICE IN THE
MILITIA IN TIME OF WAR OF MEN OF PETITIONER'S AGE GROUP.  FN11  THE
RETURN OF THE JUSTICES ALLEGES THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT MADE ANY SHOWING
THAT HE WOULD SERVE NOTWITHSTANDING HIS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS.  THIS
ALLEGATION IS UNDENIED IN THE RECORD AND UNCHALLENGED BY BRIEF.  WE
ACCEPT THE ALLEGATION AS TO UNWILLINGNESS TO SERVE IN THE MILITIA AS
ESTABLISHED.  WHILE UNDER SEC. 5(G) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT, SUPRA, CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS TO PARTICIPATION IN WAR IN
ANY FORM NOW ARE PERMITTED TO DO NON-WAR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE,
THIS IS BY GRACE OF CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION OF THEIR BELIEFS. 
HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245, 261-65, AND CASES CITED.  THE ACT
MAY BE REPEALED.  NO SIMILAR EXEMPTION DURING WAR EXISTS UNDER ILLINOIS
LAW.  THE HAMILTON DECISION WAS MADE IN 1934, IN TIME OF PEACE.  FN12
THIS DECISION AS TO THE POWERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OVER MILITARY
TRAINING IS APPLICABLE TO THE POWER OF ILLINOIS TO REQUIRE MILITARY
SERVICE FROM HER CITIZENS.    THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT ADMIT TO
CITIZENSHIP THE ALIEN WHO REFUSES TO PLEDGE MILITARY SERVICE.  UNITED
STATES V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644; UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S.
605.  EVEN THE POWERFUL DISSENTS WHICH EMPHASIZED THE DEEP CLEAVAGE IN
THIS COURT ON THE ISSUE OF ADMISSION TO CITIZENSHIP DID NOT CHALLENGE
THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO REQUIRE MILITARY SERVICE FROM EVERY ABLE
BODIED MAN.  279 U.S. AT 653; 283 U.S. AT 632.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US
TO CONCLUDE THAT THE INSISTENCE OF ILLINOIS THAT AN OFFICER WHO IS
CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE MUST TAKE AN OATH TO SUPPORT
THE CONSTITUTION OF ILLINOIS AND ILLINOIS' INTERPRETATION OF THAT OATH
TO REQUIRE A WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM MILITARY SERVICE VIOLATES THE
PRINCIPLES OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SECURES
AGAINST STATE ACTION, WHEN A LIKE INTERPRETATION OF A SIMILAR OATH AS
TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION BARS AN ALIEN FROM NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP. 
FN13 AFFIRMED. 

FN1  FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: 

"...  NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR
PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW  ..." 

FIRST AMENDMENT: 

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION,
OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF  ..."  CF. BOARD OF EDUCATION
V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 639. 

FN2  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A CERTIFIED
RECORD.  RULE 38(1).  IT ALLEGED AN INABILITY TO OBTAIN A RECORD FROM
THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS WERE
NOT IN THAT OFFICIAL'S CUSTODY.  SEE NOTE 8, INFRA.  NO OPPOSING BRIEF
WAS FILED.  AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR OPPOSING BRIEFS, RULE
38(3), A RULE ISSUED "RETURNABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS, REQUIRING THE SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE RECORD IN THIS PROCEEDING
SHOULD NOT BE CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT AND ALSO WHY THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI HEREIN SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED."  JOURNAL, SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOBER TERM, 1944, P. 6.  A RETURN WAS
DULY MADE BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS WHICH STATED THE POSITION OF THE JUSTICES ON
THE CERTIFICATION OF THE SUPPOSED AND ALLEGED RECORD AND THEIR
OPPOSITION TO THE GRANTING OF THE CERTIORARI.  ON CONSIDERATION OUR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, COMMANDING THAT "THE RECORD AND/OR PAPERS
AND PROCEEDINGS" BE SENT TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW.  JOURNAL, SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOBER TERM, 1944, P. 93.  THE PAPERS
COMPRISING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS WERE
CERTIFIED TO US BY THE CLERK OF THAT COURT. 

FN3  IN PART IT READS: 

"I THINK THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT YOU ARE A CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTOR, - ALSO THAT YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEFS GO FURTHER.  YOU
ESCHEW THE USE OF FORCE REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES BUT THE LAW WHICH
YOU PROFESS TO EMBRACE AND WHICH YOU TEACH AND WOULD PRACTICE IS NOT AN
ABSTRACTION OBSERVED THROUGH MUTUAL RESPECT.  IT IS REAL.  IT IS THE
RESULT OF EXPERIENCE OF MAN IN AN IMPERFECT WORLD, NECESSARY WE BELIEVE
TO RESTRAIN THE STRONG AND PROTECT THE WEAK.  IT RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT
EVEN OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO USE FORCE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND
COMMANDS THE USE OF FORCE TO OBTAIN ITS OBSERVANCE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"I DO NOT ARGUE AGAINST YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR YOUR PHILOSOPHY OF
NON-VIOLENCE.  MY POINT IS MERELY THAT YOUR POSITION SEEMS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE OBLIGATION OF AN ATTORNEY AT LAW." 

FN4  "THIS COURT HAS AN ELABORATE PETITION FILED BY FRANCISE HEISLER,
AN ATTORNEY OF 77 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, CHICAGEO, ILLINOIS, ON BEHALF
OF CLYDE WILSON SUMMERS. 

"THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PETITION IS THAT THE BOARD SHOULD OVERRULE THE
ACTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS, IN WHICH THE
COMMITTEE REFUSED TO GIVE HIM A CERTIFICATE BECAUSE HE IS A
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR, AND FOR THAT REASON REFUSED TO REGISTER OR
PARTICIPATE IN THE PRESENT NATIONAL EMERGENCY. 

"I AM DIRECTED TO ADVISE YOU THAT THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT
THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED. 

                "YOURS VERY TRULY, JUNE C. SMITH, CHIEF JUSTICE." 

FN5  OTHER COURTS REASON TO THE CONTRARY RESULT.  EX PARTE SECOMBE,
19 HOW.  9, 15; EX PARTE GARLAND, 4 WALL.  333; RANDALL V. BRIGHAM, 7
WALL.  523, 535; IN THE MATTER OF COOPER, 22 N.Y. 67; EX PARTE CASHIN,
128 MISS.  224, 232, 90 SO. 850. 

FN6  ILLINOIS CONSIDERS THAT THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF ITS
SUPREME COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMISSION OF ATTORNEYS ARE INHERENT
IN THE JUDICIARY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE, WHICH PROVIDES,
ARTICLE III, FOR THE TRADITIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE POWERS OF
GOVERNMENT.  SMITH-HURD ILLINOIS ANNO.  STATUTES, CONSTITUTION, P. 394;
IN RE DAY, 181 ILL. 73, 82, 54 N.E. 646.  ATTORNEYS ARE OFFICERS OF THE
COURT, ANSWERABLE TO IT FOR THEIR CONDUCT.  PEOPLE V. PEOPLES STOCK
YARDS STATE BANK, 344 ILL. 462, 470, 176 N.E. 901.  THE ACT OF
ADMISSION IS AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER, ID. 470, A JUDGMENT, IN RE
DAY, AT P. 97, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT CONSIDERED A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. 
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JUDICIAL POWER OVER THE BAR, THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS HAS ADOPTED RULES FOR ADMISSION TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE
COURTS OF THAT STATE WHICH PERMIT THE ADMISSION BY THE SUPREME COURT
AFTER SATISFACTORY EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS WHICH
INCLUDES A CERTIFICATION BY A COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS AS TO
THE APPLICANT'S CHARACTER AND MORAL FITNESS.  ILLINOIS REVISED STATUTES
1943, C. 110, SEC. 259.58. 

FN7  CONSTITUTION, ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 1:  "THE JUDICIAL POWER
SHALL EXTEND TO ALL CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY, ARISING UNDER THIS
CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TREATIES MADE, OR
WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY; - TO ALL CASES AFFECTING
AMBASSADORS, OTHER PUBLIC MINISTERS AND CONSULS; - TO ALL CASES OF
ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION; - TO CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE
UNITED STATES SHALL BE A PARTY; - TO CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN TWO OR MORE
STATES; - BETWEEN A STATE AND CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE; - BETWEEN
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES; - BETWEEN CITIZENS OF THE SAME STATE
CLAIMING LANDS UNDER GRANTS OF DIFFERENT STATES, AND BETWEEN A STATE,
OR THE CITIZENS THEREOF, AND FOREIGN STATES, CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS." 

FN8  THE ACT OF ADJUDGING TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED IS CONTAINED IN A
LETTER ADDRESSED TO PETITIONER, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"YOUR PETITION TO BE ADMITTED TO THE BAR, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
UNFAVORABLE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS FOR THE
THIRD APPELLATE COURT DISTRICT, HAS RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
COURT. 

"I AM DIRECTED TO ADVISE YOU THAT THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT
THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED. 

             "YOURS VERY TRULY, JUNE C. SMITH, CHIEF JUSTICE." 

THE LETTER WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS UNDER ITS SEAL AS "FILED IN THIS OFFICE - IN A CERTAIN CAUSE
ENTITLED IN THIS COURT.  NON RECORD NO. 462.  IN RE CLYDE WILSON
SUMMERS." 

LATER ANOTHER LETTER WAS WRITTEN IN REGARD TO THE ADMISSION WHICH
READS AS FOLLOWS:

        "MARCH 22, 1944. 

"MR. FRANCIS HEISLER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 77 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, 

"SUITE 1324, CHICAGO 2, ILLINOIS. 

        "IN RE:  CLYDE WILSON SUMMERS. 

"DEAR SIR: 

"YOUR PETITION ON BEHALF OF CLYDE WILSON SUMMERS TO RECONSIDER THE
PRIOR ACTION OF THE COURT SUSTAINING THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
CHARACTER AND FITNESS FOR THE THIRD APPELLATE COURT DISTRICT, HAS HAD
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COURT. 

"I AM DIRECTED TO ADVISE YOU THAT THE COURT DECLINES TO FURTHER
CONSIDER ITS FORMER ACTION IN THIS MATTER. 

"YOURS VERY TRULY, JUNE C. SMITH, CHIEF JUSTICE." 

BY STIPULATION OF PETITIONER AND THE JUSTICES, THE CLERK PREPARED A
SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD IN THIS CAUSE WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:  (1) A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CHARACTER COMMITTEE; (2) THE
LETTER OF MARCH 22, 1944; (3) A CERTIFICATE THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS THE
ORIGINAL AND THE LETTER A DOCUMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

FN9  IN BRADWELL V. STATE, 16 WALL.  130, THIS COURT TOOK COGNIZANCE
OF A WRIT OF ERROR TO AN ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS WHICH
DENIED A MOTION OF MRS. BRADWELL FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF ILLINOIS. 
THE PROCEEDING WAS ENTITLED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, "IN THE
MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF MRS. MYRA BRADWELL FOR A LICENSE TO
PRACTICE AS AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW."  THERE WAS AN OPINION.  A WRIT OF
ERROR UNDER THE ILLINOIS TITLE WAS ISSUED TO BRING UP THE CASE.  THE
OBJECTION TO MRS. BRADWELL'S ADMISSION WAS ON THE GROUND OF HER SEX. 
AS NO QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT UNDER
ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE CASE IS OF LITTLE, IF ANY, VALUE
AS A PRECEDENT ON THAT POINT.  ARANT V. LANE, 245 U.S. 166, 170; UNITED
STATES V. MORE, 3 CRANCH 159, 172. 

FN10  SECTION IX(2) OF THE RULES FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"BEFORE ADMISSION TO THE BAR, EACH APPLICANT SHALL BE PASSED UPON BY
THE COMMITTEE IN HIS DISTRICT AS TO HIS CHARACTER AND MORAL FITNESS. 
HE SHALL FURNISH THE COMMITTEE WITH AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUCH FORM AS THE
BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS SHALL PRESCRIBE CONCERNING HIS HISTORY AND
ENVIRONMENTS, TOGETHER WITH THE AFFIDAVITS OF AT LEAST THREE REPUTABLE
PERSONS PERSONALLY ACQUAINTED WITH HIM RESIDING IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH
THE APPLICANT RESIDES, EACH TESTIFYING THAT THE APPLICANT IS KNOWN TO
THE AFFIANT TO BE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND GENERAL FITNESS TO
PRACTICE LAW, SETTING FORTH IN DETAIL THE FACTS UPON WHICH SUCH
KNOWLEDGE IS BASED.  EACH APPLICANT SHALL APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
OF HIS DISTRICT OR SOME MEMBER THEREOF AND SHALL FURNISH THE COMMITTEE
SUCH EVIDENCE OF HIS MORAL CHARACTER AND GOOD CITIZENSHIP AS IN THE
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE WOULD JUSTIFY HIS ADMISSION TO THE BAR."  ILL.
REV. STAT. 1943, C. 110, SEC. 259.58. 

FN11  "THE MILITIA OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS SHALL CONSIST OF ALL ABLE
BODIED MALE PERSONS RESIDENT IN THE STATE, BETWEEN THE AGES OF EIGHTEEN
AND FORTY-FIVE, EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS AS NOW ARE, OR HEREAFTER MAY BE,
EXEMPTED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF THIS STATE." 
(CONSTITUTION OF ILLINOIS, ART. XII, SEC. 1, ILL. REV. STAT. 1943.) 

"NO PERSON HAVING CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AGAINST BEARING ARMS SHALL
BE COMPELLED TO DO MILITIA DUTY IN TIME OF PEACE:  PROVIDED, SUCH
PERSON SHALL PAY AN EQUIVALENT FOR SUCH EXEMPTION."  (CONSTITUTION OF
ILLINOIS, ART. XII, SEC. 6, ILL. REV. STAT. 1943.) 

FN12  CALIFORNIA IMPOSED INSTRUCTION IN MILITARY TACTICS ON MALE
STUDENTS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.  SOME STUDENTS SOUGHT
EXEMPTION FROM THIS TRAINING ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH TRAINING WAS
INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  THIS COURT DENIED THEM ANY
SUCH EXEMPTION BASED ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  THE OPINION STATES, AT PP. 262-63: 

"GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL AND STATE, EACH IN ITS OWN SPHERE OWES A DUTY TO
THE PEOPLE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION TO PRESERVE ITSELF IN ADEQUATE
STRENGTH TO MAINTAIN PEACE AND ORDER AND TO ASSURE THE JUST ENFORCEMENT
OF LAW.  AND EVERY CITIZEN OWES THE RECIPROCAL DUTY, ACCORDING TO HIS
CAPACITY, TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND GOVERNMENT AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. 
SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, SUPRA, P. 378.  MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 21
WALL.  162, 166." 

FN13  UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S. 605, 625-26: 

"IF THE ATTITUDE OF THIS CLAIMANT, AS SHOWN BY HIS STATEMENTS AND THE
INFERENCES PROPERLY TO BE DEDUCED FROM THEM, BE HELD IMMATERIAL TO THE
QUESTION OF HIS FITNESS FOR ADMISSION TO CITIZENSHIP, WHERE SHALL THE
LINE BE DRAWN?  UPON WHAT GROUND OF DISTINCTION MAY WE HEREAFTER REJECT
ANOTHER APPLICANT WHO SHALL EXPRESS HIS WILLINGNESS TO RESPECT ANY
PARTICULAR PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION OR OBEY ANY FUTURE STATUTE
ONLY UPON THE CONDITION THAT HE SHALL ENTERTAIN THE OPINION THAT IT IS
MORALLY JUSTIFIED?  THE APPLICANT'S ATTITUDE, IN EFFECT, IS A REFUSAL
TO TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE EXCEPT IN AN ALTERED FORM.  THE
QUALIFICATIONS UPON WHICH HE INSISTS, IT IS TRUE, ARE MADE BY PAROL AND
NOT BY WAY OF WRITTEN AMENDMENT TO THE OATH; BUT THE SUBSTANCE IS THE
SAME." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS HAS DENIED THE PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE
HIS PROFESSION AND TO EARN HIS LIVING AS A LAWYER.  IT HAS DENIED HIM A
LICENSE ON THE GROUND THAT HIS PRESENT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS DISQUALIFY HIM
FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION.  THE QUESTION IS, THEREFORE,
WHETHER A STATE WHICH REQUIRES A LICENSE AS A PREREQUISITE TO
PRACTICING LAW CAN DENY AN APPLICANT A LICENSE SOLELY BECAUSE OF HIS
DEEPLY-ROOTED RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.  THE FACT THAT PETITIONER MEASURES
UP TO EVERY OTHER REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR SET BY THE STATE
DEMONSTRATES BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR HIS REJECTION WAS
HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. 

THE STATE DOES NOT DENY THAT PETITIONER POSSESSES THE FOLLOWING
QUALIFICATIONS: 

HE IS HONEST, MORAL, AND INTELLIGENT, HAS HAD A COLLEGE AND A LAW
SCHOOL EDUCATION.  HE HAS BEEN A LAW PROFESSOR AND FULLY MEASURES UP TO
THE HIGH STANDARDS OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE ILLINOIS HAS SET AS A
PREREQUISITE TO ADMISSION TO PRACTICE LAW IN THAT STATE.  HE HAS NEVER
BEEN CONVICTED FOR, OR CHARGED WITH, A VIOLATION OF LAW.  THAT HE WOULD
SERVE HIS CLIENTS FAITHFULLY AND EFFICIENTLY IF ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IS
NOT DENIED.  HIS IDEALS OF WHAT A LAWYER SHOULD BE INDICATE THAT HIS
ACTIVITIES WOULD NOT REFLECT DISCREDIT UPON THE BAR, THAT HE WOULD
STRIVE TO MAKE THE LEGAL SYSTEM A MORE EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT OF
JUSTICE.  BECAUSE HE THINKS THAT "LAWSUITS DO NOT BRING LOVE AND
BROTHERLINESS, THEY JUST CREATE ANTAGONISMS," HE WOULD, AS A LAWYER,
EXERT HIMSELF TO ADJUST CONTROVERSIES OUT OF COURT, BUT WOULD
VIGOROUSLY PRESS HIS CLIENT'S CAUSE IN COURT IF EFFORTS TO ADJUST
FAILED.  EXPLAINING TO HIS EXAMINERS SOME OF THE REASONS WHY HE WANTED
TO BE A LAWYER, HE TOLD THEM:  "I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO BE
DONE IN THE LAW....  I THINK THE LAW HAS A PLACE TO SEE TO IT THAT
EVERY MAN HAS A CHANCE TO EAT AND A CHANCE TO LIVE EQUALLY.  I THINK
THE LAW HAS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO AND GET JUSTICE DONE FOR
THEMSELVES WITHOUT PAYING TOO MUCH, FOR THE BULK OF PEOPLE THAT ARE TOO
POOR."  NO ONE CONTENDS THAT SUCH A VISION OF THE LAW IN ACTION IS
EITHER ILLEGAL OR REPREHENSIBLE.    THE PETITIONER'S DISQUALIFYING
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS STEM CHIEFLY FROM A STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND A
LITERAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST AS HE UNDERSTANDS THEM. 
THOSE BELIEFS ARE THESE: 

HE IS OPPOSED TO THE USE OF FORCE FOR EITHER OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE
PURPOSES.  THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES HE BELIEVES
TO BE AGAINST THE LAW OF GOD AND CONTRARY TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF
MAN.  HE WOULD IF HE COULD, HE TOLD HIS EXAMINERS, OBEY TO THE LETTER
THESE PRECEPTS OF CHRIST:  "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES; DO GOOD TO THOSE THAT
HATE YOU; EVEN THOUGH YOUR ENEMY STRIKE YOU ON YOUR RIGHT CHEEK, TURN
TO HIM YOUR LEFT CHEEK ALSO."  FN1  THE RECORD OF HIS EVIDENCE BEFORE
US BEARS CONVINCING MARKS OF THE DEEP SINCERITY OF HIS CONVICTIONS, AND
COUNSEL FOR ILLINOIS WITH COMMENDABLE CANDOR DOES NOT QUESTION THE
GENUINENESS OF HIS PROFESSIONS. 

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT A STATE STATUTE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION IF IT SPECIFICALLY
DENIED THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW TO ALL MEMBERS OF ONE OF OUR GREAT
RELIGIOUS GROUPS, PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, OR JEWISH.  YET THE QUAKERS
HAVE HAD A LONG AND HONORABLE PART IN THE GROWTH OF OUR NATION, AND AN
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED IN THEIR BEHALF INFORMS US THAT UNDER THE
TEST APPLIED TO THIS PETITIONER, NOT ONE OF THEM IF TRUE TO THE TENETS
OF THEIR FAITH COULD QUALIFY FOR THE BAR IN ILLINOIS.  AND IT IS
OBVIOUS THAT THE SAME DISQUALIFICATION WOULD EXIST AS TO EVERY
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR TO THE USE OF FORCE, EVEN THOUGH THE CONGRESS OF
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CONTINUE ITS PRACTICE OF ABSOLVING THEM FROM
MILITARY SERVICE.  THE CONCLUSION SEEMS TO ME INESCAPABLE THAT IF
ILLINOIS CAN BAR THIS PETITIONER FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW IT CAN BAR
EVERY PERSON FROM EVERY PUBLIC OCCUPATION SOLELY BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN
NON-RESISTANCE RATHER THAN IN FORCE.  FOR A LAWYER IS NO MORE SUBJECT
TO CALL FOR MILITARY DUTY THAN A PLUMBER, A HIGHWAY WORKER, A SECRETARY
OF STATE, OR A PRISON CHAPLAIN. 

IT MAY BE, AS MANY PEOPLE THINK, THAT CHRIST'S GOSPEL OF LOVE AND
SUBMISSION IS NOT SUITED TO A WORLD IN WHICH MEN STILL FIGHT AND KILL
ONE ANOTHER.  BUT I AM NOT READY TO SAY THAT A MERE PROFESSION OF
BELIEF IN THAT GOSPEL IS A SUFFICIENT REASON TO KEEP OTHERWISE WELL
QUALIFIED MEN OUT OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, OR TO DRIVE LAW-ABIDING
LAWYERS OF THAT BELIEF OUT OF THE PROFESSION, WHICH WOULD BE THE NEXT
LOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. 

NOR AM I WILLING TO SAY THAT SUCH A BELIEF CAN BE PENALIZED THROUGH
THE CIRCUITOUS METHOD OF PRESCRIBING AN OATH, AND THEN BARRING AN
APPLICANT ON THE GROUND THAT HIS PRESENT BELIEF MIGHT LATER PROMPT HIM
TO DO OR REFRAIN FROM DOING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT VIOLATE THAT OATH. 
TEST OATHS, DESIGNED TO IMPOSE CIVIL DISABILITIES UPON MEN FOR THEIR
BELIEFS RATHER THAN FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, WERE AN ABOMINATION TO THE
FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION.  THIS FEELING WAS MADE MANIFEST IN ARTICLE VI
OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER
BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE
UNITED STATES."  CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277; EX PARTE GARLAND,
4 WALL.  333. 

THE STATE'S DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION TO PRACTICE LAW
RESOLVES ITSELF INTO A HOLDING THAT IT IS LAWFULLY REQUIRED THAT ALL
LAWYERS TAKE AN OATH TO SUPPORT THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND THAT
PETITIONER'S RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE USE OF FORCE MAKE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO OBSERVE THAT OATH.  THE PETITIONER DENIES THIS
AND IS WILLING TO TAKE THE OATH.  THE PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION INVOLVED AUTHORIZES THE LEGISLATURE TO DRAFT ILLINOIS
CITIZENS FROM 18 TO 45 YEARS OF AGE FOR MILITIA SERVICE.  IT CAN BE
ASSUMED THAT THE STATE OF ILLINOIS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
DRAFT CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS FOR WAR DUTY AND TO PUNISH THEM FOR A
REFUSAL TO SERVE AS SOLDIERS,  - POWERS WHICH THIS COURT HELD THE
UNITED STATES POSSESSES IN UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644,
AND UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S. 605.  BUT THAT IS NOT TO SAY
THAT ILLINOIS COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY USE THE TEST OATH IT DID IN THIS
CASE.  IN THE SCHWIMMER AND MACINTOSH CASES ALIENS WERE BARRED FROM
NATURALIZATION BECAUSE THEIR THEN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WOULD BAR THEM FROM
BEARING ARMS TO DEFEND THE COUNTRY.  DISSENTS IN BOTH CASES RESTED IN
PART ON THE PREMISE THAT RELIGIOUS TESTS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND RELIGION.  IN THE
SCHWIMMER CASE DISSENT, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID THAT "IF THERE IS ANY
PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT MORE IMPERATIVELY CALLS FOR
ATTACHMENT THAN ANY OTHER IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE THOUGHT - NOT
FREE THOUGHT FOR THOSE WHO AGREE WITH US BUT FREEDOM FOR THE THOUGHT
THAT WE HATE.  I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ADHERE TO THAT PRINCIPLE WITH
REGARD TO ADMISSION INTO, AS WELL AS TO LIFE WITHIN THIS COUNTRY."  PP.
654-655.  IN THE MACINTOSH CASE DISSENT, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES SAID,
"TO CONCLUDE THAT THE GENERAL OATH OF OFFICE IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS
DISREGARDING THE RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES OF THESE CITIZENS AND AS
DISQUALIFYING THEM FOR OFFICE BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT TAKE THE OATH WITH
SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD, I BELIEVE, BE GENERALLY REGARDED AS
CONTRARY NOT ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC INTENT OF THE CONGRESS BUT AS
REPUGNANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT." 
P. 632.  I AGREE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING THE
DISSENTS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES AND MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES. 

THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION ITSELF PROHIBITS THE DRAFT OF CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTORS EXCEPT IN TIME OF WAR AND ALSO EXCEPTS FROM MILITIA DUTY
PERSONS WHO ARE "EXEMPTED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  IT HAS
NOT DRAFTED MEN INTO THE MILITIA SINCE 1864, AND IF IT EVER SHOULD
AGAIN, NO ONE CAN SAY THAT IT WILL NOT, AS HAS THE CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES, EXEMPT MEN WHO HONESTLY ENTERTAIN THE VIEWS THAT THIS
PETITIONER DOES.  THUS THE PROBABILITY THAT ILLINOIS WOULD EVER CALL
THE PETITIONER TO SERVE IN A WAR HAS LITTLE MORE REALITY THAN AN
IMAGINARY QUANTITY IN MATHEMATICS. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT A STATE CAN LAWFULLY BAR FROM A SEMI-PUBLIC
POSITION A WELL-QUALIFIED MAN OF GOOD CHARACTER SOLELY BECAUSE HE
ENTERTAINS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF WHICH MIGHT PROMPT HIM AT SOME TIME IN
THE FUTURE TO VIOLATE A LAW WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN AND MAY NEVER BE
ENACTED.  UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION MEN ARE PUNISHED FOR WHAT THEY DO OR
FAIL TO DO AND NOT FOR WHAT THEY THINK AND BELIEVE.  FREEDOM TO THINK,
TO BELIEVE, AND TO WORSHIP, HAS TOO EXALTED A POSITION IN OUR COUNTRY
TO BE PENALIZED ON SUCH AN ILLUSORY BASIS.  WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF
EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 643-646. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT. 

FN1  THE QUOTATIONS ARE THE PETITIONER'S PARAPHRASE OF THE KING JAMES
TRANSLATION OF VERSES 38, 39 AND 44 OF ST. MATTHEW, CHAPTER 5, WHICH
READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"YE HAVE HEARD THAT IT HATH BEEN SAID, AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH
FOR A TOOTH: 

"BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, THAT YE RESIST NOT EVIL:  BUT WHOSOEVER SHALL
SMITE THEE ON THY RIGHT CHEEK, TURN TO HIM THE OTHER ALSO  ... 

"BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU, DO
GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU, AND PRAY FOR THEM WHICH DESPITEFULLY USE
YOU, AND PERSECUTE YOU  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :










10 EAST 40TH ST. CO. V. CALLUS, 325 U.S. 578 


NO. 820.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 146 F.2D
438, REVERSED. 


1.  MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES OF A TYPICAL METROPOLITAN OFFICE BUILDING,
OPERATED AS AN INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISE, WHICH IS USED AND TO BE USED FOR
OFFICES BY EVERY VARIETY OF TENANTS, INCLUDING SOME PRODUCERS OF GOODS
FOR COMMERCE, HELD NOT TO HAVE SUCH A CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE TIE WITH THE
PROCESS OF PRODUCTION AS TO BE DEEMED ENGAGED IN AN "OCCUPATION
NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 3(J) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AND THEREFORE NOT COVERED
BY THE ACT.  P. 583. 

2.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, BORDEN CO. V. BORELLA,
POST, P. 679, AND THIS CASE DIFFERENTIATED.  P. 580. 

10 EAST 40TH STREET BUILDING, INC. V. CALLUS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 833, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 51
F.SUPP.  528, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO RECOVER AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR
OVERTIME. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 REGULATES WAGES AND HOURS NOT
ONLY OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" BUT ALSO THOSE ENGAGED
"IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  SECTIONS 6, 7, 52 STAT.
1060, 1062-63, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 206, 207.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT
"AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED ...  IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION
NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION THEREOF, IN ANY STATE."  SEC. 3(J).  WHEN
THESE PROVISIONS FIRST CAME HERE WE MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THEIR
ENFORCEMENT WOULD INVOLVE THE COURTS IN THE EMPIRIC PROCESS OF DRAWING
LINES FROM CASE TO CASE, AND INEVITABLY NICE LINES.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V.
WALLING, 316 U.S. 517.  AND THIS FOR TWO REASONS.  IN ENACTING THIS
STATUTE CONGRESS DID NOT SEE FIT, AS IT DID IN OTHER REGULATORY
MEASURES, E.G., THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, TO EXHAUST ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE.  AND
"UNLIKE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT AND OTHER LEGISLATION, THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT PUTS UPON THE
COURTS THE INDEPENDENT RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLYING AD HOC THE GENERAL
TERMS OF THE STATUTE TO AN INFINITE VARIETY OF COMPLICATED INDUSTRIAL
SITUATIONS."  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, AT 523.  THUS, CONGRESS
WITHHELD FROM THE COURTS THE AID OF CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERIA, COMPARE,
E.G., CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111;
POLISH ALLIANCE V. LABOR BOARD, 322 U.S. 643, AS WELL AS THE BENEFIT OF
A PRIOR JUDGMENT, ON VEXING AND AMBIGUOUS FACTS, BY AN EXPERT
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  COMPARE, E.G., LABOR BOARD V. FRUEHAUF CO., 301
U.S. 49; GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402, 412. 

THE ACT HAS PRODUCED A CONSIDERABLE VOLUME OF LITIGATION AND HAS
INEVITABLY GIVEN RISE TO JUDICIAL CONFLICTS AND DIVISIONS.  THE LOWER
COURTS, AND ONLY IN A LESSER MEASURE THIS COURT, HAVE BEEN PLAGUED WITH
PROBLEMS IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYEES OF BUILDINGS OCCUPIED BY THOSE
HAVING AT LEAST SOME RELATION TO GOODS THAT EVENTUALLY FIND THEIR WAY
INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, WE WERE CONCERNED WITH
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES OF BUILDINGS CONCEDEDLY DEVOTED TO MANUFACTURE
FOR COMMERCE.  IN BORDEN CO. V. BORELLA, POST, P. 679, THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT WAS INVOKED ON BEHALF OF MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES OF A
BUILDING OWNED BY AN INTERSTATE PRODUCER AND PREDOMINANTLY OCCUPIED FOR
ITS OFFICES.  RECOGNIZING THAT THE QUESTION IN EVERY CASE IS "WHETHER
THE PARTICULAR SITUATION IS WITHIN THE REGULATED AREA," WE CONCLUDED
THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE KIRSCHBAUM CASE "HAD SUCH A
CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE TIE WITH THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION" CARRIED ON BY
THE LESSEES AS TO COME WITHIN THE ACT.  THE BORDEN CASE INVOLVED BORDEN
EMPLOYEES WHO, IF THEY HAD BEEN UNDER THE SAME ROOF WHERE THE PHYSICAL
HANDLING OF THE GOODS TOOK PLACE, COULD HARDLY, WITHOUT DRAWING
GOSSAMER AND NOT MERELY NICE LINES, BE DEEMED NOT TO BE ENGAGED IN AN
"OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS" AS DESCRIBED BY SEC.
3(J).  TO DIFFERENTIATE, IN THE INCIDENCE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT, BETWEEN MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED IN THE BUILDING WHERE THE
BUSINESS OF THE MANUFACTURE OF MILK PRODUCTS GOES ON AND EMPLOYEES
PURSUING THE SAME OCCUPATION FOR THE BORDEN ENTERPRISE IN AN OFFICE
SEPARATE FROM THE MANUFACTURING BUILDING, IS TO MAKE TOO MUCH TURN ON
THE ACCIDENT OF THE DIVISION OF THE WHOLE INDUSTRIAL PROCESS.  THE CASE
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE US PRESENTS STILL A THIRD SITUATION DIFFERING BOTH
FROM KIRSCHBAUM AND BORDEN. 

THE FACTS ARE THESE.  PETITIONER OWNS AND MANAGES A 48-STORY NEW YORK
OFFICE BUILDING.  THE OFFICES ARE LEASED TO MORE THAN A HUNDRED TENANTS
PURSUING A GREAT VARIETY OF ENTERPRISES INCLUDING EXECUTIVE AND SALES
OFFICES OF MANUFACTURING AND MINING CONCERNS, SALES AGENCIES
REPRESENTING SUCH CONCERNS, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION FIRMS,
ADVERTISING AND PUBLICITY AGENCIES, LAW FIRMS, INVESTMENT AND CREDIT
ORGANIZATIONS AND THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE.  THE
DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPANCY IN RELATION TO THE ULTIMATE ENTERPRISES OF
THE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF TENANTS WAS THE SUBJECT OF CONFLICTING
TESTIMONY AND INTERPRETATION, BUT IN OUR VIEW DOES NOT CALL FOR
PARTICULARIZATION.  INDISPUTABLY, THE BUILDING IS DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY
TO OFFICES, AND NO MANUFACTURING IS CARRIED ON WITHIN IT.  THE
RESPONDENTS ARE MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUILDING, ELEVATOR
STARTERS AND OPERATORS, WINDOW CLEANERS, WATCHMEN AND THE LIKE.  THEY
BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FOR
CLAIMS OF OVERTIME PAYMENT TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED IF THEIR
OCCUPATIONS BE DEEMED "NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE.  OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE NOT "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE."  THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT.  51 F.SUPP.  528.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  146 F.2D 438.  BY A METICULOUS CALCULATION, IT FOUND
THAT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICES OF MANUFACTURING AND MINING CONCERNS, SALES
AGENCIES REPRESENTING SUCH CONCERNS, AND PUBLICITY CONCERNS WERE
ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND, SINCE
THE OFFICES OF THESE CONCERNS OCCUPIED 42% OF THE RENTABLE AREA AND 48%
OF THE RENTED AREA, THE MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES OF THE OWNERS OF THE
BUILDING ARE ENGAGED IN OCCUPATIONS "NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS RESULT AND THAT REACHED BY
OTHER CIRCUITS LED US TO BRING THE CASE HERE.  324 U.S. 833.  FN1 

THE SERIES OF CASES IN WHICH WE HAVE HAD TO DECIDE WHEN EMPLOYEES ARE
ENGAGED IN AN "OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE HAS SETTLED AT LEAST SOME MATTERS.  MERELY BECAUSE AN
OCCUPATION INVOLVES A FUNCTION NOT INDISPENSABLE TO THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS, IN THE SENSE THAT IT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT, DOES NOT EXCLUDE IT
FROM THE SCOPE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  CONVERSELY, MERELY
BECAUSE AN OCCUPATION IS INDISPENSABLE, IN THE SENSE OF BEING INCLUDED
IN THE LONG CHAIN OF CAUSATION WHICH BRINGS ABOUT SO COMPLICATED A
RESULT AS FINISHED GOODS, DOES NOT BRING IT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  SEE WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317
U.S. 564; WALTON V. SOUTHERN PACKAGE CORP., 320 U.S. 540; ARMOUR & CO.
V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126; SKIDMORE V. SWIFT & CO., 323 U.S. 134.  IN
GIVING A FAIR APPLICATION TO SEC. 3(J), COURTS MUST REMEMBER THAT THE
"NECESSARY" IN THE PHRASE "NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE "IS COLORED BY THE CONTEXT NOT ONLY OF THE TERMS OF THIS
LEGISLATION BUT OF ITS IMPLICATIONS IN THE RELATION BETWEEN STATE AND
NATIONAL AUTHORITY."  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, AT 525.  FOR AS
WAS POINTED OUT IN WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., SUPRA, AT 570, WE
CANNOT "BE UNMINDFUL THAT CONGRESS IN ENACTING THIS STATUTE PLAINLY
INDICATED ITS PURPOSE TO LEAVE LOCAL BUSINESS TO THE PROTECTION OF THE
STATES."  WE MUST BE ALERT, THEREFORE, NOT TO ABSORB BY ADJUDICATION
ESSENTIALLY LOCAL ACTIVITIES THAT CONGRESS DID NOT SEE FIT TO TAKE OVER
BY LEGISLATION. 

RENTING OFFICE SPACE IN A BUILDING EXCLUSIVELY SET ASIDE FOR AN
UNRESTRICTED VARIETY OF OFFICE WORK SPONTANEOUSLY SATISFIES THE COMMON
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS LOCAL BUSINESS AND MAKES THE EMPLOYEES OF SUCH
A BUILDING ENGAGED IN LOCAL BUSINESS.  MERE SEPARATION OF AN OCCUPATION
FROM THE PHYSICAL PROCESS OF PRODUCTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE APPLICATION
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  BUT REMOTENESS OF A PARTICULAR
OCCUPATION FROM THE PHYSICAL PROCESS IS A RELEVANT FACTOR IN DRAWING
THE LINE.  RUNNING AN OFFICE BUILDING AS AN ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT
ENTERPRISE IS TOO MANY STEPS REMOVED FROM THE PHYSICAL PROCESS OF THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS.  SUCH REMOTENESS IS INSULATED FROM THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT BY THOSE CONSIDERATIONS PERTINENT TO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM
WHICH LED CONGRESS NOT TO SWEEP PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL SITUATIONS WITHIN
THE CONFINES OF THE ACT.  TO ASSIGN THE MAINTENANCE MEN OF SUCH AN
OFFICE BUILDING TO THE PRODUCTIVE PROCESS BECAUSE SOME PROPORTION OF
THE OFFICES IN THE BUILDING MAY, FOR THE TIME BEING, BE OFFICES OF
MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISES IS TO INDULGE IN AN ANALYSIS TOO ATTENUATED
FOR APPROPRIATE REGARD TO THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE STATES WHICH
CONGRESS SAW FIT TO RESERVE TO THEM.  DIALECTIC INCONSISTENCIES DO NOT
WEAKEN THE VALIDITY OF PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENTS, AS BETWEEN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL AUTHORITY, WHEN CONGRESS HAS CAST THE DUTY OF MAKING THEM UPON
THE COURTS.  OUR PROBLEM IS NOT AN EXERCISE IN SCHOLASTIC LOGIC. 

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES OF A BUILDING OWNED BY OCCUPANTS
PRODUCING THEREIN GOODS FOR COMMERCE, AND THE EMPLOYEES OF A BUILDING
INTENDED FOR TENANTS WHO PRODUCE SUCH GOODS THEREIN, AND THE EMPLOYEES
OF THE OFFICE BUILDING OF A LARGE INTERSTATE PRODUCER, ARE TOO THIN FOR
THE PRACTICALITIES OF ADJUDICATION.  BUT AN OFFICE BUILDING EXCLUSIVELY
DEVOTED TO THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING ALL THE USUAL MISCELLANY OF OFFICES
HAS MANY DIFFERENCES IN THE PRACTICAL AFFAIRS OF LIFE FROM A
MANUFACTURING BUILDING, OR THE OFFICE BUILDING OF A MANUFACTURER.  AND
THE DIFFERENCES ARE TOO IMPORTANT IN THE SETTING OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE COURTS. 

WE HAVE HERETOFORE TRIED TO INDICATE THE NATURE OF THE NEXUS BETWEEN
EMPLOYEES WHO, THOUGH NOT THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, ARE ENGAGED
IN OCCUPATIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE BY
DESCRIBING THE NECESSARY WORK THAT BRINGS THE OCCUPATION WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE ACT AS WORK THAT HAD "A CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE TIE WITH THE
PROCESS OF PRODUCTION."  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, AT 525. 
DOUBTLESS MORE FELICITOUS ADJECTIVES COULD BE CHOSEN, BUT THE ATTEMPT
TO ACHIEVE A FORM OF WORDS THAT COULD AVOID AN EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT
THAT A PARTICULAR OCCUPATION IS MORE IN THE NATURE OF LOCAL BUSINESS
THAN NOT, IS MERELY TO BE CONTENT WITH FORMULAS OF ILLUSORY CERTAINTY. 

ON THE TERMS IN WHICH CONGRESS DREW THE LEGISLATION WE CANNOT ESCAPE
THE DUTY OF DRAWING LINES.  AND WHEN LINES HAVE TO BE DRAWN THEY ARE
BOUND TO APPEAR ARBITRARY WHEN JUDGED SOLELY BY BORDERING CASES.  TO
SPEAK OF DRAWING LINES IN ADJUDICATION IS TO EXPRESS FIGURATIVELY THE
TASK OF KEEPING IN MIND THE CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO A PROBLEM AND
THE DUTY OF COMING DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS HAVING
CONTROLLING WEIGHT.  LINES ARE NOT THE WORSE FOR BEING NARROW IF THEY
ARE DRAWN ON RATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.  IT IS A DISTINCTION APPROPRIATE
TO THE SUBJECT MATTER TO HOLD THAT WHERE OCCUPATIONS FORM PART OF A
DISTINCTIVE ENTERPRISE, SUCH AS THE ENTERPRISE OF RUNNING AN OFFICE
BUILDING, THEY ARE PROPERLY TO BE TREATED AS DISTINCT FROM THOSE
NECESSARY PARTS OF A COMMERCIAL PROCESS WHICH ALONE, WITH DUE REGARD TO
LOCAL REGULATIONS, CONGRESS DEALT WITH IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  OF COURSE AN ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE ON THE OTHER SIDE.  THAT IS
WHAT IS MEANT BY A QUESTION OF DEGREE, AS IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US.
BUT FOR DRAWING THE FIGURATIVE LINE THE BASIS MUST BE SOMETHING
PRACTICALLY RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM IN HAND.  WE BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE
OF THE LINE DRAWN IN THIS CASE.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE, E.G., JOHNSON V. DALLAS DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CO., 132 F.2D
287; COCHRAN V. FLORIDA NAT. BLDG. CORP., 134 F.2D 615; TATE V. EMPIRE
BLDG. CORP., 135 F.2D 743; JOHNSON V. MASONIC BLDG. CORP., 138 F.2D
817. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE. 

THE VIEWS I EXPRESSED IN MY DISSENT IN BORDEN CO. V. BORELLA, POST,
P. 679, WOULD, IF ACCEPTED, CONTROL THE DECISION IN THIS CASE.  AS
THOSE VIEWS HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT, I JOIN IN THE COURT'S
OPINION IN THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON IN
PETITIONER'S 48-STORY OFFICE BUILDING IN NEW YORK CITY LEADS TO THE
INEVITABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES, LIKE
THOSE IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, AND IN BORDEN CO. V.
BORELLA, POST, P. 679, ARE ENGAGED IN OCCUPATIONS "NECESSARY TO THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" AND HENCE ARE ENTITLED TO THE
BENEFITS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938. 

(1)  APPROXIMATELY 26% OF THE RENTABLE AREA OF THE BUILDING IS
OCCUPIED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICES OF MANUFACTURING AND MINING CONCERNS
WHICH ARE CONCEDEDLY ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE. 
CORPORATE POLICIES ARE FORMED AND DIRECTED FROM THESE OFFICES.  MOST OF
THEM PURCHASE RAW MATERIALS FOR USE IN THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES OF
MANUFACTURING.  THEY KEEP IN CONSTANT AND CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE
FACTORIES, SUPERVISING ALL OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES.  SOME OF
THESE OFFICES DRAFT DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ARTICLES
PRODUCED IN THE FACTORIES.  BUSINESS AND SALES DEPARTMENTS LOCATED IN
THESE OFFICES DO WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF THESE
PRODUCTS.  ONE OFFICE EVEN HANDLES PARTS FOR THE MACHINES MANUFACTURED
BY THE COMPANY, DOING REPAIR WORK ON THE PARTS AND PACKING AND SHIPPING
THEM TO OUT-OF-STATE CUSTOMERS.    THE CASE IN THIS RESPECT IS
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS IN THE BORDEN CASE.  HERE, AS IN THE
BORDEN CASE, THE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THESE OFFICES ARE
PART OF THE COORDINATED PRODUCTIVE PATTERN OF MODERN INDUSTRY.  THE
FACT THAT NONE OF THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES OF MANUFACTURING OCCURS IN THE
SAME BUILDING IS IMMATERIAL.  PRODUCTION REQUIRES CENTRAL PLANNING,
CONTROL, SUPERVISION, PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS, DESIGNING OF PRODUCTS,
SALES PROMOTION AND THE LIKE AS WELL AS THE PHYSICAL, MANUAL PROCESSES
OF MANUFACTURING.  THESE VARIOUS CENTRAL OFFICES, THEN, ARE "PART OF AN
INTEGRATED EFFORT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS," ARMOUR & CO. V.
WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126, 130.  AND SINCE THE MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES STAND
IN THE SAME RELATION TO THIS PRODUCTIVE PROCESS AS DID THE EMPLOYEES IN
THE KIRSCHBAUM CASE, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE ENGAGED IN OCCUPATIONS
"NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE." 

THE KIRSCHBAUM CASE ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
"EXPRESSLY MAKE ITS APPLICATION DEPENDENT UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE
EMPLOYEES' ACTIVITIES."  316 U.S. AT 524.  HENCE IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT
THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING WHICH EMPLOYS THE RESPONDENT MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS
FOR COMMERCE.  AS IN THE KIRSCHBAUM CASE, IT IS ENOUGH IF THE EMPLOYEES
ARE NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS BY TENANTS OCCUPYING THE
BUILDING IN WHICH THEY WORK. 

(2)  APPROXIMATELY 6.5% OF THE RENTABLE AREA OF THE BUILDING IS
OCCUPIED BY CONCERNS ENGAGED IN WRITING AND PREPARING MIMEOGRAPHED,
PHOTOGRAPHIC AND PRINTED MATTER WHICH IS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  ONE COMPANY PRODUCES BETWEEN 15,000 AND 20,000 PAGES OF
MIMEOGRAPHED MATERIALS PER WEEK, 90% OF WHICH IS SENT OUTSIDE THE
STATE.  ANOTHER TENANT PRODUCES 60 MAGAZINES HAVING NATIONAL
CIRCULATIONS.  OTHER CONCERNS PRODUCE LARGE QUANTITIES OF PAMPHLETS,
PHOTOGRAPHS, MAGAZINES AND ADVERTISING MATTER FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT. 

SINCE TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES ARE "GOODS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT,
WESTERN UNION CO. V. LENROOT, 323 U.S. 490, 502-503, IT WOULD SEEM
CLEAR THAT THESE MAGAZINES, PAMPHLETS, ETC. WHICH ARE PREPARED IN
PETITIONER'S OFFICE BUILDING ARE LIKEWISE "GOODS."  AND SINCE THE TERM
"PRODUCED" INCLUDES "EVERY KIND OF INCIDENTAL OPERATION PREPARATORY TO
PUTTING GOODS INTO THE STREAM OF COMMERCE," IBID., 503, THE WRITING AND
PREPARATION OF THESE MATERIALS CONSTITUTES "PRODUCTION OF GOODS" FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HERE AGAIN THE RESPONDENT MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
ARE RELATED TO PRODUCTION IN THE SAME WAY AS WERE THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
KIRSCHBAUM CASE, THUS MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THEY ARE COVERED BY THE ACT
FROM THIS STANDPOINT. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DESCRIBE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE OTHER TENANTS,
ALTHOUGH IT IS CONCEDED THAT ABOUT 58% OF THE TOTAL RENTABLE AREA IS
OCCUPIED BY CONCERNS NOT ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT APPROXIMATELY 32.5% OF THE RENTABLE
AREA IS DEVOTED TO PRODUCTION.  THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAS STATED THAT HE WILL TAKE NO
ENFORCEMENT ACTION "WITH RESPECT TO MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES IN BUILDINGS
IN WHICH LESS THAN 20 PERCENT OF THE SPACE IS OCCUPIED BY FIRMS ENGAGED
THERE OR ELSEWHERE IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION RELEASE, NOVEMBER 19, 1943, P.R.-19(REV.).  WHETHER 20%
OCCUPANCY BY SUCH FIRMS IS A REASONABLE MINIMUM IS NOT IN ISSUE HERE. 
CLEARLY A 32.5% OCCUPANCY IS SO SUBSTANTIAL AS TO REMOVE ANY DOUBT THAT
THE MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES DEVOTE A LARGE PART OF THEIR TIME TO
ACTIVITIES NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  HENCE
THEY ARE COVERED BY THE ACT. 

THE STARTING POINT IN CASES OF THIS NATURE IS NOT TO DECIDE WHETHER
THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON IN THE OFFICE BUILDING IN QUESTION SATISFY
SOME NEBULOUS "COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS LOCAL BUSINESS."  THE
CRUCIAL PROBLEM, RATHER, IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH ACTIVITIES
CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PRODUCTIVE PROCESS.  ONCE IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE ACTIVITIES ARE PART OF THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF THE
ACTIVITIES BECOMES OBVIOUS; AND IT FOLLOWS THAT OCCUPATIONS NECESSARY
TO THOSE ACTIVITIES PARTAKE OF THEIR INTERSTATE FLAVOR.  NEITHER
ATTENUATED ANALYSIS NOR SCHOLASTIC LOGIC IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE
SCOPE AND CO-ORDINATION OF THE MODERN PRODUCTIVE PATTERN AND THE
INTEGRAL PART PLAYED BY THOSE WHO MANAGE AND DIRECT THE PHYSICAL
PROCESSES OF PRODUCTION.  TO APPLY THE ACT IN LIGHT OF ELEMENTARY
ECONOMIC FACTS IS NOT BEYOND THE ABILITY OF JUDGES OR BEYOND THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS. 

CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED "TO LEAVE LOCAL BUSINESS TO THE PROTECTION
OF THE STATES," WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564, 570,
WHEN IT ENACTED THIS STATUTE.  BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT IT
INTENDED TO DIVIDE THE PROCESS OF PRODUCING GOODS FOR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE INTO INTERSTATE AND LOCAL SEGMENTS, APPLYING THE STATUTE ONLY
TO THE FORMER.  AND WHEN CONGRESS SAID THAT EMPLOYEES "NECESSARY TO THE
PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE WERE TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE ACT,
IT MEANT JUST THAT, WITHOUT LIMITATION TO THOSE WHO WERE NECESSARY ONLY
TO THE PHYSICAL MANUFACTURING ASPECTS OF PRODUCTION.  UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS OUR DUTY TO RECOGNIZE ECONOMIC REALITY IN
INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE MANDATE OF THE PEOPLE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :












NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 325 U.S. 589 


ARGUED MARCH 5, 6, 7, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945. 


1.  IN A PROCEEDING WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT,
BROUGHT BY NEBRASKA AGAINST WYOMING, IN WHICH COLORADO WAS IMPLEADED AS
A DEFENDANT AND THE UNITED STATES WAS GRANTED LEAVE TO INTERVENE, THIS
COURT MAKES AN EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN THE STATES OF THE WATER
OF THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER.  PP. 591, 610. 

2.  COLORADO AND WYOMING HAVING THE RULE OF PRIORITY OF
APPROPRIATION, AND THAT RULE BEING DOMINANT IN THE NEBRASKA AREAS
AFFECTED, THE CASE IS TREATED AS INVOLVING APPROPRIATION RIGHTS IN THE
THREE STATES.  P. 599. 

3.  SINCE THE DEPENDABLE NATURAL FLOW OF THE RIVER DURING THE
IRRIGATION SEASON HAS LONG BEEN OVER-APPROPRIATED, SINCE THE CLAIMS OF
THE STATES TO THE WATER OF THE RIVER ARE BASED NOT ONLY ON PRESENT USES
BUT ON PROJECTED ADDITIONAL USES AS WELL, AND SINCE THE CLAIMS TO THE
WATER EXCEED THE SUPPLY, THERE EXISTS A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS OF THAT
CHARACTER AND DIGNITY WHICH MAKES THE CONTROVERSY A JUSTICIABLE ONE
WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  WYOMING V. COLORADO,
259 U.S. 419, FOLLOWED.  P. 610. 

4.  THE WATER RIGHTS ON WHICH THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT AND THE
KENDRICK PROJECT REST HAVING BEEN OBTAINED IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
LAW, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS TO UNAPPROPRIATED WATER
OF THE RIVER THE UNITED STATES MAY HAVE.  NOR IS IT IMPORTANT TO THE
DECREE TO BE ENTERED IN THIS CASE THAT THERE MAY BE UNAPPROPRIATED
WATER TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY IN THE FUTURE ASSERT RIGHTS
THROUGH THE MACHINERY OF STATE LAW OR OTHERWISE.  P. 611. 

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE UNITED STATES DID OWN ALL OF THE
UNAPPROPRIATED WATER, THE APPROPRIATIONS UNDER STATE LAW WERE MADE TO
THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURE WHICH CONGRESS
PROVIDED IN THE RECLAMATION ACT, AND THE RIGHTS SO ACQUIRED ARE AS
DEFINITE AND COMPLETE AS IF THEY WERE OBTAINED BY DIRECT CESSION FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  P. 615. 

5.  ALLOCATION OF THE WATER RIGHTS HERE IN QUESTION TO THE STATES,
WHO REPRESENT THEIR CITIZENS PARENS PATRIAE IN THIS PROCEEDING, IN NO
WISE INTERFERES WITH THE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION BY THE UNITED STATES
OF ITS STORAGE AND POWER PLANTS, WORKS, AND FACILITIES.  P. 616. 

6.  THE DIFFICULTIES OF DRAFTING AND ENFORCING A DECREE APPORTIONING
THE WATER OF THE RIVER AMONG THE CLAIMANT STATES - WHERE EFFORTS AT
SETTLEMENT HAVE FAILED; A GENUINE CONTROVERSY EXISTS; AND THE GRAVITY
*P590 AND IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE ARE APPARENT - DO NOT JUSTIFY REFUSAL
BY THIS COURT TO PERFORM THE IMPORTANT FUNCTION ENTRUSTED TO IT BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  P. 616. 

7.  EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT AMONG APPROPRIATION STATES DOES NOT
REQUIRE A LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PRIORITY RULE.  P. 618. 

ALTHOUGH PRIORITY OF APPROPRIATION IS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE, OTHER
RELEVANT FACTORS INCLUDE: PHYSICAL AND CLIMATIC CONDITIONS; THE
CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER IN THE SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE RIVER; THE
CHARACTER AND RATE OF RETURN FLOWS; THE EXTENT OF ESTABLISHED USES; THE
AVAILABILITY OF STORAGE WATER; THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF WASTEFUL USES ON
DOWNSTREAM AREAS; THE DAMAGE TO UPSTREAM AREAS AS COMPARED TO THE
BENEFITS TO DOWNSTREAM AREAS IF A LIMITATION IS IMPOSED ON THE FORMER. 

8.  THE DECREE OF EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT TO BE ENTERED IN THIS CASE
MUST DEAL WITH CONDITIONS AS THEY EXIST AT PRESENT AND MUST BE BASED ON
THE DEPENDABLE FLOW OF THE RIVER WHICH IS NOT GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE
CONDITION WHICH HAS PREVAILED SINCE 1930.  P. 620. 

9.  THE DECREE OF EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT WHICH IS ENTERED APPORTIONS
THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE RIVER AMONG THE THREE STATES TO THE TRI-STATE
DAM IN NEBRASKA BUT NOT BELOW IT.  PP. 621, 654. 

10.  THE UNITED STATES IS NOT GIVEN A SEPARATE ALLOCATION OF WATER,
SINCE THE WATER RIGHTS APPROPRIATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
WERE ADJUDICATED TO BE IN THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS AND SINCE THE
UNITED STATES AS AN APPROPRIATOR OF STORAGE WATER IS REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE OF WYOMING.  P. 629. 

11.  STORAGE WATER IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE APPORTIONMENT, ALTHOUGH IT
IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING EACH STATE'S EQUITABLE SHARE OF
THE NATURAL FLOW.  P. 639. 

12.  THE COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ANY ORDER, DIRECTION, OR MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE, OR ANY
SUPPLEMENTARY DECREE, THAT MAY AT ANY TIME BE DEEMED PROPER IN RELATION
TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONTROVERSY.  P. 655. 

NEBRASKA V. WYOMING ET AL. 

NO. 6, ORIGINAL.  BILL IN EQUITY. 

BILL IN EQUITY BY NEBRASKA AGAINST WYOMING (IN WHICH COLORADO WAS
IMPLEADED AS A DEFENDANT AND THE UNITED STATES WAS GRANTED LEAVE TO
INTERVENE) SEEKING AN EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATER OF THE NORTH
PLATTE RIVER AND AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING ALLEGED WRONGFUL
DIVERSIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NEBRASKA BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN 1934 AGAINST WYOMING, INVOKING OUR
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
293 U.S. 523.  COLORADO WAS IMPLEADED AS A DEFENDANT.  296 U.S. 553. 
THE UNITED STATES WAS GRANTED LEAVE TO INTERVENE.  304 U.S. 545. 
ISSUES WERE JOINED.  A SPECIAL MASTER, HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DOHERTY,
WAS APPOINTED AND HEARINGS WERE HELD BEFORE HIM.  THE MATTER IS BEFORE
US ON EXCEPTIONS TO HIS REPORT. 

           I 

THE CONTROVERSY PERTAINS TO THE USE FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES OF THE
WATER OF THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER, A NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM.  NEBRASKA
ALLEGED THAT WYOMING AND COLORADO BY DIVERSIONS OF WATER FROM THE RIVER
FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES WERE VIOLATING THE RULE OF PRIORITY OF
APPROPRIATION IN FORCE IN THE THREE STATES AND DEPRIVING NEBRASKA OF
WATER TO WHICH SHE WAS EQUITABLY ENTITLED.  THE PRAYER WAS FOR A
DETERMINATION OF THE EQUITABLE SHARE OF EACH STATE IN THE WATER AND OF
THE PRIORITIES OF ALL APPROPRIATIONS IN BOTH STATES, AND FOR AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE ALLEGED WRONGFUL DIVERSIONS.  WYOMING DENIED
THE DIVERSION OR USE OF ANY WATER TO WHICH NEBRASKA WAS EQUITABLY
ENTITLED BUT JOINED IN THE PRAYER OF NEBRASKA FOR AN EQUITABLE
APPORTIONMENT.  COLORADO FILED AN ANSWER, TOGETHER WITH A CROSS-BILL
AGAINST NEBRASKA AND WYOMING, WHICH DENIED ANY USE OR THREATENED USE OF
THE WATER OF THE NORTH PLATTE BEYOND HER EQUITABLE SHARE, AND PRAYED
FOR AN EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN THE THREE STATES, EXCEPTING ONLY
THE TRIBUTARY WATERS OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND LARAMIE RIVERS.  FN1  AT
THE CONCLUSION OF NEBRASKA'S CASE AND AGAIN AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS
IN, COLORADO MOVED TO DISMISS THE SUIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE
WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN ANY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF, OR AGAINST, ANY
PARTY.  COLORADO ARGUES HERE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF
AGAINST HER AND THAT SHE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FROM THE CASE. 

THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER RISES IN NORTHERN COLORADO IN THE MOUNTAINOUS
REGION KNOWN AS NORTH PARK.  FN2  IT PROCEEDS IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION
ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE, ENTERS WYOMING WEST OF
CHEYENNE, AND CONTINUES IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION TO THE VICINITY OF
CASPER.  THERE IT TURNS EAST ACROSS THE GREAT PLAINS AND PROCEEDS
EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY INTO AND ACROSS NEBRASKA.  ABOUT 40 MILES WEST
OF THE NEBRASKA LINE IT IS JOINED BY THE LARAMIE RIVER.  AT NORTH
PLATTE, NEBRASKA, IT IS JOINED BY THE SOUTH PLATTE, FORMING THE PLATTE
RIVER.  IT EMPTIES INTO THE MISSOURI RIVER AT PLATTSMOUTH, NEAR THE
WESTERN BORDER OF IOWA.  IN NORTH PARK IT IS A RAPID MOUNTAIN STREAM. 
IN EASTERN WYOMING IT GRADUALLY BROADENS OUT, LOSING VELOCITY.  IN
WESTERN AND CENTRAL NEBRASKA ITS CHANNEL RANGES FROM 3,000 TO 6,000
FEET; IT FREQUENTLY DIVIDES INTO SMALL CHANNELS; AND IN TIMES OF LOW
WATER IS LOST IN THE DEEP SANDS OF ITS BED.  HERE IT IS SOMETIMES
CHARACTERIZED AS A RIVER "TWO MILES WIDE AND ONE INCH DEEP." 

THERE ARE SIX NATURAL SECTIONS OF THE RIVER BASIN:  (1) NORTH PARK,
COLORADO, OR MORE ACCURATELY JACKSON COUNTY; (2) COLORADO-WYOMING LINE
TO THE PATHFINDER RESERVOIR LOCATED BETWEEN RAWLINS AND CASPER,
WYOMING; (3) PATHFINDER RESERVOIR TO WHALEN, WYOMING, WHICH IS 42 MILES
FROM THE NEBRASKA LINE; (4) WHALEN, WYOMING TO THE TRI-STATE DAM IN
NEBRASKA NEAR THE WYOMING-NEBRASKA LINE; (5) TRI-STATE DAM TO THE
KINGSLEY RESERVOIR, WEST OF KEYSTONE, NEBRASKA; (6) KINGSLEY RESERVOIR
TO GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA.  FN3 

THE RIVER BASIN IN COLORADO AND WYOMING IS ARID, IRRIGATION BEING
GENERALLY INDISPENSABLE TO AGRICULTURE.  WESTERN NEBRASKA IS PARTLY
ARID AND PARTLY SEMI-ARID.  IRRIGATION IS INDISPENSABLE TO THE KIND OF
AGRICULTURE ESTABLISHED THERE.  MIDDLE NEBRASKA IS SUB-HUMID.  SOME
CROPS CAN BE RAISED WITHOUT IRRIGATION.  BUT THE LACK OF IRRIGATION
WOULD SERIOUSLY LIMIT DIVERSIFICATION.  EASTERN NEBRASKA, BEGINNING AT
GRAND ISLAND, IS SUFFICIENTLY HUMID SO AS NOT TO JUSTIFY IRRIGATION. 

IRRIGATION IN THE RIVER BASIN BEGAN ABOUT 1865, WHEN SOME PROJECTS
WERE STARTED IN EASTERN WYOMING AND WESTERN NEBRASKA.  BETWEEN 1880 AND
1890 IRRIGATION BEGAN ON A LARGE SCALE.  UNTIL 1909 STORAGE OF WATER
WAS NEGLIGIBLE, IRRIGATION BEING EFFECTED BY DIRECT DIVERSIONS AND
USE.  PRIOR TO 1909 THE DEVELOPMENT IN COLORADO AND WYOMING WAS
RELATIVELY MORE RAPID THAN IN NEBRASKA.  SINCE 1910 THE ACREAGE UNDER
IRRIGATION IN COLORADO INCREASED ABOUT 14 PER CENT, THAT OF WYOMING 31
PER CENT, AND THAT OF NEBRASKA ABOUT 100 PER CENT.  FN4  THE LARGE
INCREASE IN NEBRASKA IS MAINLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE USE OF STORAGE WATER
FROM THE PATHFINDER RESERVOIR.  FN5 

THE PATHFINDER RESERVOIR IS PART OF THE "NORTH PLATTE PROJECT" WHICH
FOLLOWED THE ADOPTION BY CONGRESS IN 1902 OF THE RECLAMATION ACT.  32
STAT. 388.  PATHFINDER WAS COMPLETED IN 1913.  IT HAS A CAPACITY OF
1,045,000 ACRE FEET, WHICH IS 79 PER CENT OF THE AVERAGE ANNUAL RUN-OFF
OF THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER AT THAT POINT.  THIS PROJECT INCLUDES AN
AUXILIARY CHANNEL RESERVOIR CALLED GUERNSEY, LOCATED ABOVE WHALEN,
WYOMING.  ITS CAPACITY IS 50,870 ACRE FEET.  THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES
TWO SMALL RESERVOIRS IN NEBRASKA - LAKE ALICE AND LAKE MINATARE -
HAVING A CAPACITY OF 11,400 AND 67,000 ACRE FEET RESPECTIVELY.  THERE
ARE TWO MAIN SUPPLY CANALS - INTERSTATE AND FORT LARAMIE - WHICH TAKE
OUT FROM THE NORTH PLATTE AT THE WHALEN DIVERSION DAM.  THE INTERSTATE
CANAL RUNS ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THE FORT LARAMIE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE RIVER.  BOTH EXTEND FAR INTO NEBRASKA.  NORTHPORT - A THIRD CANAL -
IS LOCATED WHOLLY IN NEBRASKA.  THESE CANALS AND THEIR LATERALS EXTEND
OVER 1,600 MILES.  THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND TWO
HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS.  THE UNITED STATES CONTRACTED WITH
LANDOWNERS OR IRRIGATION DISTRICTS FOR USE OF THE WATER - SELLING IT,
AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE RECLAMATION ACT, SO AS TO RECOUP THE COST OF THE
PROJECT WHICH WAS ABOUT $19,000,000.  IT ALSO ENTERED INTO SO-CALLED
WARREN ACT CONTRACTS PURSUANT TO THE ACT KNOWN BY THAT NAME (36 STAT.
925) WHICH AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONTRACT FOR THE
STORAGE AND DELIVERY OF ANY SURPLUS WATER CONSERVED BY ANY RECLAMATION
PROJECT IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROJECT. 

WE HAVE MENTIONED THE INTERSTATE, FT. LARAMIE, AND NORTHPORT CANALS
WHICH ARE PART OF THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT, THE FIRST TWO OF WHICH TAKE
OUT AT THE WHALEN DIVERSION DAM.  ABOUT A MILE EAST OF THE WYOMING
NEBRASKA LINE IS THE TRI-STATE DAM.  JUST ABOVE THAT DAM IN NEBRASKA
ARE THE HEADGATES OF THREE LARGE NEBRASKA CANALS - TRI-STATE, GERING,
AND NORTHPORT.  WATER FOR THE NORTHPORT IS DIVERTED THROUGH THE TRI
STATE HEADGATE, NORTHPORT PHYSICALLY BEING AN EXTENSION OF THE TRI
STATE CANAL.  ANOTHER NEBRASKA CANAL IS THE RAMSHORN WHICH ALSO
RECEIVES ITS SUPPLY THROUGH TRI-STATE.  JUST ABOVE THE STATE LINE IS
THE HEADGATE OF THE MITCHELL CANAL SERVING NEBRASKA LAND.  WHILE THESE
FIVE CANALS ARE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE NEBRASKA STATE LINE CANALS,
THIS OPINION GENERALLY USES THE TERM AS EXCLUDING NORTHPORT WHICH, AS
WE HAVE SAID, IS A NORTH PLATTE PROJECT CANAL.  THERE ARE ALSO NINE
WYOMING PRIVATE CANALS DIVERTING BELOW WHALEN.  ONE OF THESE, FRENCH
CANAL, SERVES LANDS IN BOTH WYOMING AND NEBRASKA.  THE SECTION OF THE
RIVER FROM WHALEN TO THE TRI-STATE DAM IS THE PIVOTAL SECTION OF THE
ENTIRE RIVER.  IN THIS SHORT STRETCH OF 40-ODD MILES IS CONCENTRATED A
DEMAND FOR WATER AS GREAT AS IN THE ENTIRE PRECEDING 415 MILES APART
FROM THE KENDRICK PROJECT TO WHICH WE WILL REFER.  WE WILL RETURN TO A
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEMS OF THIS PIVOTAL SECTION SHORTLY. 

THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT HAS GREATLY INCREASED THE WATER RESOURCES OF
THE RIVER AVAILABLE FOR IRRIGATION.  UNUSED AND WASTED WATER ARE STORED
AND HELD OVER FROM ONE SEASON TO ANOTHER.  MOREOVER, THE STORAGE WATER
HAS AFFECTED THE WATER TABLES THROUGH SATURATION OF THE SUBSOIL.  THIS
HAS INCREASED THE RETURN FLOWS AVAILABLE FOR REDIVERSION AND
IRRIGATION.  THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THAT DUE LARGELY TO THE INFLUENCE
OF THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT AND THE APPLICATION OF STORAGE WATER TO
LANDS IN EASTERN WYOMING AND WESTERN NEBRASKA THE RETURN FLOWS
INCREASED FROM A NEGLIGIBLE QUANTITY IN 1911 TO 700,000 ACRE FEET IN
1927.  WHILE THAT AMOUNT SHARPLY DECLINED DURING THE DROUGHT BEGINNING
IN 1931, IT STILL IS SUBSTANTIAL.  THUS FROM 1931-1936 IT AMOUNTED TO
54,300 ACRE FEET IN THE WHALEN-TRI-STATE DAM SECTION.  AND AS WE HAVE
ALREADY SAID, THE GREAT AND DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASE IN ACREAGE
IRRIGATED IN NEBRASKA SINCE 1910 AS COMPARED WITH THE INCREASE IN
COLORADO AND WYOMING IS LARGELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NORTH PLATTE
PROJECT.  WHILE THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT HAS INCREASED THE WATER
RESOURCES, IT HAS COMPLICATED THE PROBLEM OF WATER ADMINISTRATION IN
WYOMING AND NEBRASKA.  IT HAS NECESSITATED A SEGREGATION OF STORAGE AND
NATURAL FLOW.  THE STORAGE PLANTS AND DIVERSION WORKS ARE IN WYOMING,
ALTHOUGH MUCH OF THE BENEFICIAL USE IS IN NEBRASKA.  APPROPRIATORS IN
NEBRASKA ARE DEPENDENT ON REGULATION AND CONTROL IN WYOMING. 

THERE IS A SECOND LARGE FEDERAL IRRIGATION PROJECT IN WYOMING KNOWN
AS THE KENDRICK PROJECT, THE ESTIMATED COST OF WHICH IS OVER
$19,000,000.  ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE IS THE IRRIGATION OF SOME 66,000
ACRES NORTH AND WEST OF CASPER, WYOMING.  THE FIRST UNIT, CAPABLE OF
SERVING 35,000 ACRES, WAS COMPLETED IN 1940.  DUE TO THE LACK OF WATER
SUPPLY IT HAS NOT YET BEEN PUT INTO OPERATION.  THE SECOND UNIT IS
UNDER CONSTRUCTION.  THE STORAGE FACILITIES ARE COMPLETED.  THEY
CONSIST OF TWO CHANNEL RESERVOIRS - THE SEMINOE, THIRTY MILES ABOVE
PATHFINDER, WITH A CAPACITY OF 1,026,400 ACRE FEET; THE ALCOVA,
THIRTEEN MILES BELOW PATHFINDER, WITH A CAPACITY OF 190,500 ACRE FEET. 
CASPER CANAL WILL DIVERT THE WATER AT ALCOVA AND SERVE THE LANDS OF THE
PROJECT. 

THE COMBINED STORAGE CAPACITY OF THE RESERVOIRS OF THESE TWO FEDERAL
PROJECTS - KENDRICK AND NORTH PLATTE - IS 2,313,270 ACRE FEET WHICH, AS
THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND, IS 175 PER CENT OF THE LONG-TIME AVERAGE
ANNUAL RUN-OFF OF THE RIVER AT PATHFINDER. 

THERE ARE ALSO TWO PROJECTS IN NEBRASKA - SUTHERLAND, WITH A CAPACITY
OF 175,000 ACRE FEET, AND TRI-COUNTY, WITH A CAPACITY OF 2,000,000 ACRE
FEET.  THE LATTER IS EXPECTED TO BRING UNDER IRRIGATION AN ADDITIONAL
205,000 ACRES IN NEBRASKA.  INCLUDING THAT ACREAGE BUT EXCLUDING THE
60,000 ACRES EXPECTED TO BE IRRIGATED IN WYOMING UNDER THE KENDRICK
PROJECT, THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THAT THE ACREAGES UNDER IRRIGATION IN
THE THREE STATES WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY AS FOLLOWS: 

COLORADO...............   131,800  ACRES   (12%) 

WYOMING................   325,720  ACRES     (29%) 

NEBRASKA...............   653,355  ACRES     (59%)

              ------------        --------- 

TOTAL.................. 1,110,875           (100%) 

PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT WENT INTO OPERATION
THERE WAS A SERIOUS SHORTAGE OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION IN WESTERN
NEBRASKA AND TO SOME EXTENT IN EASTERN WYOMING.  MANY IRRIGATION
ENTERPRISES WERE CLOSED.  AFTER THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT HAD BEEN IN
OPERATION FOR AWHILE MOST OF THE PROJECTS WHICH HAD BEEN ABANDONED WERE
REOPENED.  FROM THEN UNTIL 1931 THE SUPPLY WAS REASONABLY ADEQUATE FOR
MOST OF THE CANALS.  BUT THE YEAR 1931 STARTED THE DRIEST CYCLE OR
SWING IN THE NORTH PLATTE AND PLATTE RIVER VALLEYS OF WHICH THERE IS
ANY RECORD.  THE ANNUAL FLOW AT PATHFINDER  FN6  HAD ALWAYS FLUCTUATED
WIDELY.  FN7  THE AVERAGE FLOW FOR THE 37 YEARS COMMENCING IN 1904 WAS
1,315,900 ACRE FEET, THE MAXIMUM WAS 2,399,400 IN 1917, THE MINIMUM WAS
382,200 IN 1934.  BUT A CRITICAL CONDITION AROSE IN 1931 WITH THE
ADVENT OF THE DRY CYCLE.  THE FLOW FOR EACH OF THE YEARS BETWEEN 1931
AND 1940 AS COMPARED WITH THE MEAN OF THE FLOW FOR THE 37-YEAR PERIOD
ENDING IN 1940 WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

1931........ 55 PER CENT  1936........ 81 PER CENT 

1932........116 PER CENT  1937........ 87 PER CENT 

1933........ 89 PER CENT  1938........103 PER CENT 

1934........ 30 PER CENT  1939........ 54 PER CENT 

1935........ 54 PER CENT  1940........ 44 PER CENT 

SINCE 1930 ONLY ONE YEAR EQUALLED THE MEAN OF THE 1904 TO 1930
PERIOD.  PREVIOUS DROUGHTS HAD NOT EXCEEDED TWO OR THREE YEARS.  THE
PRESENT CYCLE HAS PERSISTED FOR 13 YEARS. 

THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS DRY CYCLE PLUS THE INITIATION OF THE
KENDRICK PROJECT PRECIPITATED THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  NEBRASKA RESTS
HER CASE ESSENTIALLY ON EVIDENCE OF SHORTAGE AND OF MISAPPROPRIATION OF
WATER BY THE UPPER STATES SINCE 1930 AND OF THREATS OF MORE SERIOUS
SHORTAGE AND DIVERSIONS IN THE FUTURE. 

                  II 

THE EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT WHICH NEBRASKA SEEKS IS BASED ON THE
PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY OF APPROPRIATION APPLIED INTERSTATE.  COLORADO
AND WYOMING HAVE THE RULE OF PRIORITY OF APPROPRIATION AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM THE RULE OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS.  COLO. CONSTITUTION, ART. XVI, SECS.
5, 6; FARMERS' HIGH LINE CANAL CO. V. SOUTHWORTH, 13 COLO. 111, 21 P.
1028; STERNBERGER V. SEATON CO., 45 COLO. 401, 102 P. 168; WYO.
CONSTITUTION, ART. VIII, SEC. 3; WYO. REV. STAT. 1931, SECS. 122-401,
122-418, 122-419; MOYER V. PRESTON, 6 WYO. 308, 44 P. 845.  AND SEE THE
DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM IN WYOMING V. COLORADO, 259 U.S. 419, 459. 
NEBRASKA ON THE OTHER HAND WAS ORIGINALLY A RIPARIAN DOCTRINE STATE. 
SEE MENG V. COFFEE, 67 NEB. 500, 93 N.W. 713.  BUT WHEN THE MORE ARID
INCREASED, LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED ADOPTING THE APPROPRIATION
PRINCIPLE.  SEE NEB. L. 1889, CH. 68; L. 1895, CH. 69.  THAT PRINCIPLE
WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH NEBRASKA ADOPTED IN 1920.  SEE
ARTICLE XV, SECS. 4, 5, AND 6.  THE ADOPTION OF THE RULE OF
APPROPRIATION DID NOT EXTINGUISH RIPARIAN RIGHTS WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY
VESTED.  SEE CLARK V. CAMBRIDGE & ARAPAHOE CO., 45 NEB. 798, 64 N.W.
239; CRAWFORD CO. V. HATHAWAY, 60 NEB. 754, 84 N.W. 271, 61 NEB. 317,
85 N.W. 303, 67 NEB. 325, 93 N.W. 781; OSTERMAN V. CENTRAL NEBRASKA
DISTRICT, 131 NEB. 356, 268 N.W. 334.  BUT RIPARIAN RIGHTS MAY BE
CONDEMNED IN FAVOR OF APPROPRIATORS; AND VIOLATION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS
BY APPROPRIATORS WILL NOT BE ENJOINED, ONLY COMPENSATION OR DAMAGES
BEING AWARDED.  CLINE V. STOCK, 71 NEB. 79, 102 N.W. 265; MCCOOK
IRRIGATION CO. V. CREWS, 70 NEB. 115, 102 N.W. 249.  IN THAT SENSE
RIPARIAN RIGHTS ARE CONSIDERED INFERIOR TO RIGHTS OF APPROPRIATORS. 
MORE IMPORTANT, THE RIGHTS ASSERTED BY NEBRASKA IN THIS SUIT ARE BASED
WHOLLY ON APPROPRIATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AND RECOGNIZED UNDER
NEBRASKA LAW.  THE APPROPRIATION SYSTEM IS DOMINANT IN THE REGIONS OF
NEBRASKA WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION.  HENCE WE, LIKE
THE SPECIAL MASTER, TREAT THE CASE AS ONE INVOLVING APPROPRIATION
RIGHTS NOT ONLY IN COLORADO AND WYOMING BUT IN NEBRASKA AS WELL. 

NORTH PARK.  THERE ARE AT PRESENT IN THE NORTH PARK AREA IN COLORADO
(JACKSON COUNTY) 131,800 ACRES IRRIGATED.  THE CLIMATE IS ARID.  THE
SOLE INDUSTRY IS CATTLE RAISING, THE ONLY CROPS BEING NATIVE HAY AND
PASTURAGE.  THE GROWING SEASON IS SHORT.  WHILE THE DIVERSIONS ARE HIGH
PER ACRE (ABOUT 4 1/2 ACRE FEET) THE RETURN FLOWS ARE LARGE, MAKING THE
AVERAGE CONSUMPTIVE USE  FN8  RATE ONLY .74 ACRE FOOT PER ACRE.  THE
131,800 ACRES OF IRRIGATED LAND CONSUME 98,572 ACRE FEET ANNUALLY,
INCLUDING RESERVOIR EVAPORATION.  EXPORTATIONS FROM THE BASIN ARE
EXPECTED TO AVERAGE 6,000 ACRE FEET, MAKING THE TOTAL ANNUAL DEPLETION
104,540 ACRE FEET.  THOUGH COLORADO CLAIMED THAT AN ADDITIONAL 100,000
ACRES IN NORTH PARK WAS SUSCEPTIBLE OF IRRIGATION, THE SPECIAL MASTER
FOUND THAT THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT 34,000 ACRES OF ADDITIONAL LAND THAT
COULD BE BROUGHT UNDER IRRIGATION; 30,390 OF THOSE ACRES ARE IRRIGABLE
FROM CONSTRUCTED DITCH SYSTEMS HAVING WATER RIGHTS.  THOSE PROJECTS,
HOWEVER, ARE NOT COMPLETED; THEY ARE INDEED PROJECTS FOR THE INDEFINITE
FUTURE.  IN ADDITION TO THESE PROJECTS IN NORTH PARK, COLORADO ALSO HAS
PROPOSED THAT LARGE QUANTITIES OF WATER FROM THE RIVER BE EXPORTED FROM
THE BASIN INTO OTHER RIVERS. 

THERE HAVE BEEN OUT-OF-PRIORITY DIVERSIONS IN COLORADO AND WYOMING
ABOVE PATHFINDER IN RELATION TO THE PRIORITIES AND NEEDS OF NEBRASKA
USERS.  THEIR FULL EXTENT IS NOT KNOWN.  BUT AS RESPECTS PATHFINDER,
THE SPECIAL MASTER ESTIMATED THAT COLORADO APPROPRIATORS JUNIOR TO
PATHFINDER CONSUME ABOUT 30,000 ACRE FEET A YEAR.  SINCE PATHFINDER
AFTER 1930 HAS NEVER BEEN FILLED AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN NEED OF WATER
FOR STORAGE, THOSE COLORADO JUNIOR DIVERSIONS MAY BE SAID TO HAVE
VIOLATED THE PATHFINDER PRIORITY.  THE CLAIMS OF COLORADO TO ADDITIONAL
DEMANDS WERE CONSTRUED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER AS A THREAT OF FURTHER
DEPLETION OF THE RIVER WITHIN NORTH PARK.  HE FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO
SURPLUS IN THE SUPPLY AND THAT ANY MATERIAL INCREASE IN DIVERSIONS IN
COLORADO WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES, NOTABLY
PATHFINDER. 

COLORADO LINE TO PATHFINDER RESERVOIR.  IN THE REGION BETWEEN THE
COLORADO-WYOMING LINE AND PATHFINDER APPROPRIATION RIGHTS COVER ABOUT
272,000 ACRES, 149,400 OF WHICH ARE IRRIGATED.  BUT OF THOSE ONLY 9,400
ACRES ARE IRRIGATED FROM THE MAIN STREAM, THE BALANCE BEING IRRIGATED
FROM TRIBUTARIES.  THE CONSUMPTIVE USE RATE IS ABOUT 1 ACRE FOOT PER
ACRE.  OVER TWO-THIRDS OF THE VOLUME OF DIVERSIONS (MAIN STREAM AND
TRIBUTARIES) AND 88 PER CENT FROM THE MAIN STREAM ARE SENIOR TO THE
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.  THEY ARE IN THE MAIN JUNIOR TO THE STATE LINE
CANALS IN NEBRASKA.  THOSE PROJECTS JUNIOR TO PATHFINDER HAVE BEEN
OPERATED SINCE 1930 IN VIOLATION OF ITS PRIORITY.  THE SPECIAL MASTER
FOUND THAT THERE IS NO PRESENT PROSPECT OF ANY LARGE EXPANSION OF
IRRIGATION IN THIS AREA, THOUGH FIVE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS HAVE BEEN
CONTEMPLATED, SOME OF THEM BEING PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED.  THE ACCRETIONS
TO THE RIVER FROM TRIBUTARIES IN THIS SECTION ARE VERY LARGE - ABOUT
790,240 ACRE FEET NET.  LAND CONSUMPTION IS 16 PER CENT OF THE NET
ACCRETIONS, WHILE THAT OF RIGHTS JUNIOR TO PATHFINDER IS ABOUT 5.6 PER
CENT OF THE NET. 

NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.  THE PRIORITY OF PATHFINDER IS DECEMBER 6, 1904
AND OF GUERNSEY APRIL 20, 1923.  BETWEEN PATHFINDER AND THE NEBRASKA
STATE LINE THERE ARE 32 CANALS ON THE MAIN RIVER WHICH HAVE PRIORITIES
SENIOR TO PATHFINDER.  THE STATE LINE CANALS IN NEBRASKA ALSO ARE
SENIOR TO PATHFINDER.  AND GUERNSEY IS JUNIOR TO ALL CANALS BELOW IT
DOWN TO THE NEBRASKA LINE.  THE PERCENTAGE OF RIGHTS IN EACH SECTION
SENIOR AND JUNIOR TO THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

                                                      PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE

                    SENIOR      JUNIOR 

NORTH PARK...................................................
67   33 

COLORADO STATE LINE TO PATHFINDER RESERVOIR..................
88          12 

PATHFINDER RESERVOIR TO WHALEN...............................
52          48 

WHALEN TO NEBRASKA STATE LINE (WYOMING PRIVATE CANALS).......      91
     9 

NEBRASKA STATE LINE CANALS...................................
100           0 

UNDER WYOMING LAW RESERVOIRS IN STORING WATER MUST OBSERVE THE
PRIORITY OF ALL SENIOR WYOMING CANALS BELOW THEM ON THE MAIN RIVER. 

KENDRICK PROJECT.  SEMINOE RESERVOIR HAS A PRIORITY OF DECEMBER 1,
1931; CASPER CANAL, JULY 27, 1934(NATURAL FLOW); ALCOVA RESERVOIR,
APRIL 25, 1936.  APART FROM MINOR EXCEPTIONS SEMINOE IS JUNIOR TO EVERY
APPROPRIATOR FROM ALCOVA TO THE TRI-STATE DAM.  THE PROJECT IS EXPECTED
TO OPERATE CHIEFLY ON STORAGE WATER.  IN ITS EARLY STAGES ITS WATER
REQUIREMENTS WILL BE HEAVIER THAN THEY WILL BE LATER, DUE TO GROUND
ABSORPTION AND STORAGE.  WHEN THE PROJECT HAS BEEN IN OPERATION A
WHILE, THE DEPLETION DURING THE IRRIGATION SEASON WILL BE ABOUT 122,000
ACRE FEET, EXCEPT AS WATER STORED IN NON-IRRIGATION SEASON IS USED. 
THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE
PATHFINDER PRIORITY, THE KENDRICK PROJECT COULD HAVE STORED NO WATER
SINCE 1930 AND CAN STORE NONE IN THE FUTURE IF PRESENT CONDITIONS
CONTINUE.  HE ALSO FOUND THAT UNDER THE AVERAGE CONDITIONS WHICH
PREVAILED FROM 1895 TO 1939 WATER COULD BE CONSERVED BY SEMINOE AND
ALCOVA WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE PRIORITIES BETWEEN PATHFINDER AND TRI
STATE DAM AND IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO SUPPLY KENDRICK AND TO LEAVE
CONSIDERABLE RETURN FLOW TO THE RIVER IN THE IRRIGATION SEASON.  THERE
ARE IN THE FIRST UNIT OF THE PROJECT TWO SUMP AREAS INTO WHICH RETURN
WATER WILL FLOW AND FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS CONSTRUCTED
DRAINAGE DITCHES SO AS TO RETURN THE WATER TO THE RIVER.  ON THE
UNCOMPLETED UNIT THREE SUMP AREAS ARE PLANNED.  THESE ARE DESIGNED TO
RETURN TO THE RIVER WATER WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD BE LOST. 

PATHFINDER TO WHALEN.  THE TOTAL LAND IRRIGATED IN THIS SECTION IS IN
EXCESS OF 55,000 ACRES, OF WHICH ABOUT 14,000 ACRES ARE SUPPLIED FROM
THE MAIN RIVER.  ALFALFA, SUGAR BEETS, POTATOES, AND GRAINS ARE THE
PRINCIPAL IRRIGATED CROPS.  THERE ARE 60 CANALS TAKING OUT OF THE MAIN
RIVER WITH PRIORITIES RANGING FROM 1887 TO 1937.  IN TERMS OF ACREAGE
ABOUT 48 PER CENT OF THE RIGHTS ON THE RIVER IN THIS SECTION ARE JUNIOR
TO THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.  ALL EXCEPT ONE ARE JUNIOR TO THE TRI
STATE CANAL AND MOST OF THEM ARE JUNIOR TO THE OTHER NEBRASKA STATE
LINE CANALS.  THE IRRIGATION PROJECTS ON THE RIVER AVERAGE NOT OVER 160
ACRES.  THE CONSUMPTIVE USE RATE IS ABOUT 1.1 ACRE FEET PER ACRE.  THE
DIVERSION RATE OF 2.5 ACRE FEET PER ACRE IS DEEMED ADEQUATE.  BUT
DURING THE 1931-1940 PERIOD THE AVERAGE SEASONAL DIVERSION RATE FOR THE
DITCHES ARE UNABLE TO DIVERT ANY WATER.  BUT AT THE RATE OF 2.5 ACRE
FEET THE TOTAL SEASONAL HEADGATE DIVERSION FOR THE 14,000 ACRES IS
35,000 ACRE FEET OF WHICH 18,200 ACRE FEET WOULD BE RETURNED TO THE
RIVER.  OF THAT RETURN ALL BUT 15 PER CENT (2,730 ACRE FEET) WOULD
OCCUR DURING THE IRRIGATION SEASON.  THE TRIBUTARY INFLOW IS GREATER
THAN RIVER DEPLETION DUE TO IRRIGATIONS AND OTHER LOSSES.  THE AVERAGE
ANNUAL NET GAIN FROM 1931-1940 WAS 64,200 ACRE FEET.  DURING THE 1931
1940 PERIOD, THE MAXIMUM SEASONAL AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OUT-OF-PRIORITY
IN RELATION TO THE NEBRASKA STATE LINE CANALS WAS FOUND BY THE SPECIAL
MASTER TO BE 5,400 ACRE FEET.  WITH PROBABLE MINOR EXCEPTIONS THERE ARE
NO FURTHER POSSIBILITIES FOR IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS SECTION. 

WHALEN TO TRI-STATE DAM.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THIS IS THE PIVOTAL
TURN.  APART FROM THE KENDRICK PROJECT, THE DEMAND FOR WATER IS AS
GREAT IN THIS SHORT SECTION OF THE RIVER AS IN THE ENTIRE PRECEDING 415
MILES FROM NORTH PARK TO WHALEN.  THE LANDS IRRIGATED FROM THE RIVER IN
THIS SECTION TOTAL 326,000 ACRES AS COMPARED WITH 339,200 ACRES IN THE
UPPER VALLEY - MAIN RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES.  THE CONSUMPTIVE USE ON THIS
326,000 ACRES FAR EXCEEDS THAT OF THE UPPER SECTIONS COMBINED.  WE HAVE
MENTIONED THE VARIOUS CANALS WHICH TAKE OUT FROM THE RIVER IN THIS
1,072,514 ACRE FEET.  THE TOTAL NET SEASONAL REQUIREMENT OF ALL THE
CANALS DIVERTING IN THIS SECTION WAS FOUND TO BE 1,027,000 ACRE FEET. 
IN THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD FROM 1931 TO 1940 THIS NET SEASONAL REQUIREMENT
OF 1,027,000 ACRE FEET LARGELY EXCEEDED THE SUPPLY IN THREE YEARS AND
WAS LESS THAN THE SUPPLY IN SEVEN YEARS.  FN9  IN THOSE SEVEN YEARS THE
SEASONAL FLOWS PASSING THE TRI-STATE DAM WERE FAR LESS THAN THE
EXCESSES, INDICATING AS THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED THAT CANAL
DIVERSIONS IN THE SECTION WERE GREATER THAN THE REQUIREMENTS.  HE
POINTED OUT THAT IF THE DIVERSIONS DURING THE PERIOD HAD BEEN
RESTRICTED TO THE DETERMINED REQUIREMENTS AND IF THE EXCESS HAD BEEN
HELD IN STORAGE IN THE UPPER RESERVOIRS AND RELEASED INDISCRIMINATELY
TO ALL CANALS AS NEEDED, IRRESPECTIVE OF STORAGE RIGHTS, ANY SURPLUS
WATER WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSERVED AND WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED TRI-STATE. 
HE ESTIMATED THAT UNDER THAT METHOD OF OPERATION THE TOTAL SUPPLY
(EXCLUDING ANY SUPPLY FOR KENDRICK) WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY
SUFFICIENT FOR THE SECTION. 

BUT ON THE BASIS OF THE 1931-1940 SUPPLY THE SEASONAL REQUIREMENT OF
1,027,000 ACRE FEET CANNOT BE MET BY NATURAL FLOW ALONE AND WITHOUT
STORAGE WATER.  THE SPECIAL MASTER ROUGHLY ESTIMATED THE DEFICIENCY OF
NATURAL FLOW AS FOLLOWS FOR THE PERIOD OF 1931 TO 1940:

                   DEFICIENCY 

YEAR               OF NATURAL FLOW  FN1 

1931..............552,952 ACRE FEET 

1932..............305,000 ACRE FEET 

1933..............251,980 ACRE FEET 

1934..............841,488 ACRE FEET 

1935..............666,058 ACRE FEET 

1936..............495,737 ACRE FEET 

1937..............489,975 ACRE FEET 

1938..............501,991 ACRE FEET 

1939..............450,908 ACRE FEET 

1940..............751,244 ACRE FEET 

FN1  "NATURAL FLOW," AS USED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER AND AS USED IN
THIS OPINION, MEANS ALL WATER IN THE STREAM EXCEPT THAT WHICH COMES
FROM STORAGE WATER RELEASES. 

ON THAT BASIS THE AVERAGE SEASONAL SUPPLY OF NATURAL FLOW AVAILABLE
IN THIS SECTION WAS ONLY 48 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL REQUIREMENT.  IN
1933, THE YEAR OF LARGEST FLOW, IT WAS ONLY 75 PER CENT. IN GENERAL THE
PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO ALLOW STORAGE RIGHT CANALS HAVING EARLY PRIORITIES
TO RECEIVE NATURAL FLOW WATER ON A PRIORITY BASIS, USING STORAGE WATER
MERELY AS A SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY.  IN THIS AREA 90 PER CENT OF THE
LANDS HAVE BOTH NATURAL FLOW AND STORAGE RIGHTS.  FN10  SEVENTY-EIGHT
PER CENT OF THE LANDS HAVING STORAGE RIGHTS ARE IN NEBRASKA, 22 PER
CENT IN WYOMING.  OF THE LANDS HAVING NATURAL FLOW RIGHTS ONLY 49 PER
CENT ARE IN NEBRASKA AND 51 PER CENT IN WYOMING. 

AS RESPECTS PRIORITY, THE CANALS (LISTED LATER IN THIS OPINION) FALL
INTO THIRTEEN GROUPS, SEVEN IN WYOMING AND SIX IN NEBRASKA.  THE
EARLIEST IN PRIORITY ARE SOME CANALS IN WYOMING, THEN SOME IN NEBRASKA,
THEN OTHERS IN WYOMING AND SO ON. 

THE EXCEPTIONAL FEATURES OF THIS SECTION OF THE RIVER WERE SUMMARIZED
BY THE SPECIAL MASTER AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1) THE GREAT CONCENTRATION OF DEMAND IN A SHORT COMPACT SECTION,
(2) THE PRESENCE OF WATER, BOTH NATURAL FLOW AND STORAGE, TO WHICH
NEBRASKA USERS ARE ENTITLED UNDER WYOMING APPROPRIATIONS, (3) THE TOTAL
DEPENDENCE OF NEBRASKA STATE LINE CANALS AND THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT
CANALS UPON WATER ORIGINATING IN WYOMING AND COLORADO, (4) THE JOINT
USE OF CANALS TO SERVE BOTH WYOMING AND NEBRASKA LANDS, (5) THE
LOCATION IN WYOMING OF THE HEAD GATES AND WORKS WHICH DIVERT GREAT
VOLUMES OF WATER FOR NEBRASKA, (6) THE DISTINCTLY INTERSTATE SCOPE AND
CHARACTER OF THE WATER DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT ANY REAL INTERSTATE
ADMINISTRATION."    THE SPECIAL MASTER MADE A DETAILED STUDY OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF EACH CANAL IN THIS SECTION AND THE DIVERSIONS OF EACH
DURING THE 1931-1940 PERIOD.  WE NEED NOT RECAPITULATE IT.  THE NINE
WYOMING CANALS AND THE TRI-STATE CANAL FARED WELL.  A COMPARISON OF THE
AVERAGE SEASONAL DIVERSIONS WITH THE SEASONAL REQUIREMENTS SHOWS THAT
THEY HAD AN EXCESS SUPPLY FOR THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD - 122 PER CENT AND
111 PER CENT RESPECTIVELY - THE FORMER HAVING A DEFICIENCY IN ONLY ONE
OF THE TEN YEARS, THE LATTER A DEFICIENCY IN THREE.  FOR THE REST OF
THESE CANALS IT APPEARS THAT THE AVERAGE SEASONAL DIVERSIONS SUPPLIED
FROM 78 PER CENT TO 98 PER CENT OF THEIR SEASONAL REQUIREMENTS.  THE
FT. LARAMIE WAS SHORT IN EIGHT OF THE TEN YEARS, GERING, RAMSHORN AND
NORTHPORT IN SEVEN EACH. 

TRI-STATE DAM TO BRIDGEPORT, NEB.  NEBRASKA ORIGINALLY CLAIMED THAT
ANY EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION WHICH WAS MADE SHOULD EXTEND TO ALL
IRRIGATED LANDS AS FAR EAST AS GRAND ISLAND, NEB.  IT IS NOW CONCEDED
THAT THE LANDS EAST OF BRIDGEPORT, NEB., WHICH IS SOME SIXTY MILES FROM
THE WYOMING-NEBRASKA STATE LINE, CAN BE REASONABLY SATISFIED OUT OF
LOCAL SUPPLIES.  HENCE WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN THIS CASE WITH THAT

IN THE SECTION WEST OF BRIDGEPORT, THERE ARE TWELVE CANALS EXCLUSIVE
OF THE RAMSHORN RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT PROBLEM.  THEIR REQUIREMENTS
ARE 132,420 ACRE FEET; THEIR DEMAND ON THE MAIN RIVER IS 102,810 ACRE
FEET, THE BALANCE BEING OBTAINED FROM INTERCEPTIONS OF DRAINS, RETURN
FLOWS, AND TRIBUTARY STREAMS.  THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED THAT LOCAL
SUPPLIES EVEN DURING THE DROUGHT PERIOD WERE ADEQUATE TO TAKE CARE OF
THE NEEDS OF THESE CANALS WITHOUT CALLING UPON UP-RIVER WATER.  SOME
SHORTAGES OCCURRED, CAUSED FOR EXAMPLE BY EXCESSIVE USE BY SOME CANALS
AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS OR BY THE WITHDRAWAL OF WATER FROM THE SECTION
TO SUPPLY SENIOR CANALS BELOW.  IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF THE KINGSLEY AND SUTHERLAND RESERVOIRS WOULD LARGELY
ELIMINATE THE LATTER CONDITION.  AND WATER PASSING TRI-STATE DAM AND
USABLE IN THE TRI-STATE TO BRIDGEPORT SECTION IS SUBSTANTIAL - THE MEAN
DIVERTIBLE FLOW FOR THE IRRIGATION SEASON IN THE 1931-1940 PERIOD BEING
81,700 ACRE FEET.  OVER HALF OF THIS OCCURRED IN MAY AND JUNE; VERY
LITTLE IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER. 

                                 III 

MOTION TO DISMISS.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, COLORADO MOVES TO DISMISS THE
PROCEEDING.  SHE ASSERTS THAT THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE BOTH INDICATE
THAT SHE HAS NOT INJURED NOR PRESENTLY THREATENS TO INJURE ANY
DOWNSTREAM WATER USER.  SHE EMPHASIZES THE LARGE INCREASE SINCE 1910 IN
ACREAGE UNDER IRRIGATION IN WYOMING AND NEBRASKA AS COMPARED WITH THE
INCREASE IN COLORADO.  SHE ASSERTS THERE IS A SURPLUS OF WATER IN THE
STREAM, AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT DURING THE RECENT DROUGHT OR DRY
CYCLE THE KENDRICK PROJECT IN WYOMING AND THE TRI-COUNTY PROJECT IN
NEBRASKA HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, INDICATING THAT THE SPONSORS CONSIDERED
THAT THE AVAILABLE WATER SUPPLY WAS NOT ENTIRELY USED BY EXISTING
PROJECTS.  AND SHE EMPHASIZES THAT DURING THE DROUGHT THERE WAS A
DIVERTIBLE FLOW PASSING TRI-STATE DAM DURING THE IRRIGATION SEASON. 
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE CASE IS NOT OF SUCH SERIOUS MAGNITUDE AND THE
DAMAGE IS NOT SO FULLY AND CLEARLY PROVED AS TO WARRANT THE
INTERVENTION OF THIS COURT UNDER OUR ESTABLISHED PRACTICE.  MISSOURI V.
ILLINOIS, 200 U.S. 496, 521; COLORADO V. KANSAS, 320 U.S. 383, 393
394.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE POTENTIAL THREAT OF INJURY, REPRESENTING
AS IT DOES ONLY A POSSIBILITY FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE, IS NO BASIS
FOR A DECREE IN AN INTERSTATE SUIT SINCE WE CANNOT ISSUE DECLARATORY
DECREES.  ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 462-464, AND CASES
CITED. 

WE FULLY RECOGNIZE THOSE PRINCIPLES.  BUT THEY DO NOT STAND IN THE
WAY OF AN ENTRY OF A DECREE IN THIS CASE. 

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE FINDING OF THE SPECIAL MASTER THAT THE
DEPENDABLE NATURAL FLOW OF THE RIVER DURING THE IRRIGATION SEASON HAS
LONG BEEN OVER-APPROPRIATED.  A GENUINE CONTROVERSY EXISTS.  THE STATES
HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES BY COMPACT.  THE AREAS
INVOLVED ARE ARID OR SEMI-ARID.  WATER IN DEPENDABLE AMOUNTS IS
ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE VAST AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES
ESTABLISHED ON THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE RIVER.  THE DRY CYCLE WHICH
HAS CONTINUED OVER A DECADE HAS PRECIPITATED A CLASH OF INTERESTS WHICH
BETWEEN SOVEREIGN POWERS COULD BE TRADITIONALLY SETTLED ONLY BY
DIPLOMACY OR WAR.  THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IS ONE OF
THE ALTERNATIVE METHODS PROVIDED BY THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION. 
MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, 180 U.S. 208, 241; GEORGIA V. TENNESSEE COPPER
CO., 206 U.S. 230, 237.  THE KENDRICK PROJECT PLAINLY IS AN EXISTING
THREAT TO SENIOR APPROPRIATORS DOWNSTREAM.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, IT IS
JUNIOR TO PRACTICALLY EVERY APPROPRIATION ON THE RIVER BETWEEN ALCOVA
AND THE TRI-STATE DAM.  SINCE 1930 THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO WATER FOR
IT IF IT WERE OPERATED ON A PRIORITY BASIS.  AND IN VIEW OF THE GENERAL
POSITION TAKEN BY WYOMING WITH RESPECT TO NEBRASKA PRIORITIES, IT
CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE KENDRICK PROJECT WOULD BE REGULATED FOR THE
BENEFIT OF SENIOR APPROPRIATORS IN NEBRASKA.  NEITHER WYOMING NOR
COLORADO HAS EVER RECOGNIZED ANY EXTENSION OF PRIORITIES ACROSS STATE
LINES.  THEY HAVE NEVER LIMITED OR REGULATED DIVERSIONS BY THEIR
APPROPRIATORS IN SUBORDINATION TO THE SENIOR APPROPRIATORS OF A
DOWNSTREAM STATE.  OUT-OF-PRIORITY DIVERSIONS BY COLORADO HAVE HAD AN
ADVERSE EFFECT DOWNSTREAM.  WE DO NOT KNOW THEIR FULL EXTENT; BUT WE DO
KNOW THAT COLORADO APPROPRIATORS JUNIOR TO PATHFINDER CONSUME ABOUT
30,000 ACRE FEET A YEAR AND THAT PATHFINDER HAS NEVER BEEN FILLED SINCE
1930 AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN NEED OF WATER.  THIS ALONE NEGATIVES THE
ABSENCE OF PRESENT INJURY.  THE FACT THAT ON THE AVERAGE THERE IS SOME
WATER PASSING TRI-STATE DAM UNUSED IS NO ANSWER.  WHILE OVER HALF OF
THAT EXCESS AMOUNT OCCURRED IN MAY AND JUNE, THERE WAS COMPARATIVELY
LITTLE IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER.  MOREOVER, WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH THE
PROBLEMS OF NATURAL FLOW.  THE CRITICAL CONDITION OF THE SUPPLY OF THE
NATURAL FLOW DURING 1931-1940 IN THE WHALEN TO TRI-STATE DAM SECTION IS
OBVIOUS.  THE CLAIM OF COLORADO TO ADDITIONAL DEMANDS MAY NOT BE
DISREGARDED.  THE FACT THAT COLORADO'S PROPOSED PROJECTS ARE NOT
PLANNED FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE IN VIEW OF THE
PRESENT OVER-APPROPRIATION OF NATURAL FLOW.  THE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS ON
THE RIVER WHICH THOSE PROJECTS INVOLVE CONSTITUTE A THREAT OF FURTHER
DEPLETION.  COLORADO IN HER ARGUMENT HERE ASSERTS THAT "IF JACKSON
COUNTY IS TO MAINTAIN ITS LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IT
HAS IN THE PAST IT WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP THIS ADDITIONAL SUMMER PASTURE
AND IT CANNOT DO THIS WITHOUT INCREASING ITS IRRIGATED ACREAGE." 

WHAT WE HAVE THEN IS A SITUATION WHERE THREE STATES ASSERT AGAINST A
RIVER, WHOSE DEPENDABLE NATURAL FLOW DURING THE IRRIGATION SEASON HAS
LONG BEEN OVER-APPROPRIATED, CLAIMS BASED NOT ONLY ON PRESENT USES BUT
ON PROJECTED ADDITIONAL USES AS WELL.  THE VARIOUS STATISTICS WITH
WHICH THE RECORD ABOUNDS ARE INCONCLUSIVE IN SHOWING THE EXISTENCE OR
EXTENT OF ACTUAL DAMAGE TO NEBRASKA.  BUT WE KNOW THAT DEPRIVATION OF
WATER IN ARID OR SEMI-ARID REGIONS CANNOT HELP BUT BE INJURIOUS.  THAT
WAS THE BASIS FOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF WATER MADE BY THE COURT IN
WYOMING V. COLORADO, SUPRA.  THERE THE ONLY SHOWING OF INJURY OR THREAT
OF INJURY WAS THE INADEQUACY OF THE SUPPLY OF WATER TO MEET ALL
APPROPRIATIVE RIGHTS.  AS MUCH IF NOT MORE IS SHOWN HERE.  IF THIS WERE
AN EQUITY SUIT TO ENJOIN THREATENED INJURY, THE SHOWING MADE BY
NEBRASKA MIGHT POSSIBLY BE INSUFFICIENT.  BUT WYOMING V. COLORADO,
SUPRA, INDICATES THAT WHERE THE CLAIMS TO THE WATER OF A RIVER EXCEED
THE SUPPLY A CONTROVERSY EXISTS APPROPRIATE FOR JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION.  IF THERE WERE A SURPLUS OF UNAPPROPRIATED WATER,
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS WOULD BE APPLICABLE.  CF. ARIZONA V.
CALIFORNIA, 298 U.S. 558.  BUT WHERE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH WATER IN THE
RIVER TO SATISFY THE CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST IT, THE SITUATION IS NOT
BASICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHERE TWO OR MORE PERSONS CLAIM THE RIGHT
TO THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND.  THE PRESENT CLAIMANTS BEING STATES, WE
THINK THE CLASH OF INTERESTS TO BE OF THAT CHARACTER AND DIGNITY WHICH
MAKES THE CONTROVERSY A JUSTICIABLE ONE UNDER OUR ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION. 

COLORADO V. KANSAS, SUPRA, IS NOT OPPOSED TO THIS VIEW.  THAT CASE
TURNED ON ITS SPECIAL FACTS.  IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPORTIONMENT OF THE
WATER OF AN INTERSTATE RIVER WAS DENIED IN THAT CASE.  BUT THE
DOWNSTREAM STATE (KANSAS) DID NOT SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT
SINCE THE EARLIER LITIGATION BETWEEN THE STATES (SEE KANSAS V.
COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46), THERE HAD BEEN A MATERIAL INCREASE IN THE
DEPLETION OF THE RIVER BY COLORADO.  IMPROVEMENTS BASED UPON IRRIGATION
HAD BEEN MADE BY COLORADO WHILE KANSAS STOOD BY FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS
WITHOUT PROTEST.  WE HELD THAT IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES A PLAIN SHOWING
WAS NECESSARY OF INCREASED DEPLETION AND SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO WARRANT
A DECREE WHICH WOULD DISRUPT THE ECONOMY OF THE UPSTREAM STATE BUILT
AROUND IRRIGATION.  MOREOVER, WE MADE CLEAR (320 U.S. P. 392, NOTE 2)
THAT WE WERE NOT DEALING THERE WITH A CASE LIKE WYOMING V. COLORADO,
SUPRA, WHERE THE DOCTRINE OF APPROPRIATION APPLIED IN EACH OF THE
STATES WHICH WERE PARTIES TO THE SUIT AND WHERE THERE WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT WATER TO MEET ALL THE PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE NEEDS. 

COLORADO'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS ACCORDINGLY DENIED. 

                      IV 

CLAIM OF UNITED STATES TO UNAPPROPRIATED WATER.  THE UNITED STATES
CLAIMS THAT IT OWNS ALL THE UNAPPROPRIATED WATER IN THE RIVER.  IT
ARGUES THAT IT OWNED THE THEN UNAPPROPRIATED WATER AT THE TIME IT
ACQUIRED WATER RIGHTS BY APPROPRIATION FOR THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT AND
THE KENDRICK PROJECT.  ITS BASIC RIGHTS ARE THEREFORE SAID TO DERIVE
NOT FROM APPROPRIATION BUT FROM ITS UNDERLYING OWNERSHIP WHICH ENTITLES
IT TO AN APPORTIONMENT IN THIS SUIT FREE FROM STATE CONTROL.  THE
ARGUMENT IS THAT THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED THE ORIGINAL OWNERSHIP OF
ALL RIGHTS IN THE WATER AS WELL AS THE LANDS IN THE NORTH PLATTE BASIN
BY CESSIONS FROM FRANCE, SPAIN AND MEXICO IN 1803, 1819, AND 1848, AND
BY AGREEMENT WITH TEXAS IN 1850.  IT SAYS IT STILL OWNS THOSE RIGHTS IN
WATER TO WHATEVER EXTENT IT HAS NOT DISPOSED OF THEM.  AN EXTENSIVE
REVIEW OF FEDERAL WATER LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO THE PLATTE RIVER
BASIN IS MADE BEGINNING WITH THE ACT OF JULY 26, 1866, 14 STAT. 251,
THE ACT OF JULY 9, 1870, 16 STAT. 217 AND INCLUDING THE DESERT LAND LAW
(ACT OF MARCH 3, 1877, 19 STAT. 377) AND THE RECLAMATION ACT OF JUNE
17, 1902, 32 STAT. 388.  BUT WE DO NOT STOP TO DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS TO
UNAPPROPRIATED WATER OF THE RIVER THE UNITED STATES MAY HAVE.  FOR THE
WATER RIGHTS ON WHICH THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT AND THE KENDRICK PROJECT
REST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.  WHETHER THEY
MIGHT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY FEDERAL RESERVATION IS NOT IMPORTANT.  NOR,
AS WE SHALL SEE, IS IT IMPORTANT TO THE DECREE TO BE ENTERED IN THIS
CASE THAT THERE MAY BE UNAPPROPRIATED WATER TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES
MAY IN THE FUTURE ASSERT RIGHTS THROUGH THE MACHINERY OF STATE LAW OR
OTHERWISE. 

THE DESERT LAND ACT "EFFECTED A SEVERANCE OF ALL WATERS UPON THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN, NOT THERETOFORE APPROPRIATED, FROM THE LAND ITSELF." 
CALIFORNIA OREGON POWER CO. V. BEAVER PORTLAND CEMENT CO., 295 U.S.
142, 158.  IT EXTENDED THE RIGHT OF APPROPRIATION TO ANY DECLARANT WHO
RECLAIMED DESERT LAND AND PROVIDED:  "ALL SURPLUS WATER OVER AND ABOVE
SUCH ACTUAL APPROPRIATION AND USE, TOGETHER WITH THE WATER OF ALL,
LAKES, RIVERS AND OTHER SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY UPON THE PUBLIC LANDS
AND NOT NAVIGABLE, SHALL REMAIN AND BE HELD FREE FOR THE APPROPRIATION
AND USE OF THE PUBLIC FOR IRRIGATION, MINING AND MANUFACTURING PURPOSES
SUBJECT TO EXISTING RIGHTS."  SEE ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82, 95; BRUSH
V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 352, 367. 

SEC. 8 OF THE RECLAMATION ACT PROVIDED:  "THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT
SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AFFECTING OR INTENDED TO AFFECT OR TO IN ANY WAY
INTERFERE WITH THE LAWS OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY RELATING TO THE
CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION OF WATER USED IN
IRRIGATION, OR ANY VESTED RIGHT ACQUIRED THEREUNDER, AND THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR, IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL
PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH SUCH LAWS, AND NOTHING HEREIN SHALL IN ANY
WAY AFFECT ANY RIGHT OF ANY STATE OR OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR OF
ANY LANDOWNER, APPROPRIATOR, OR USER OF WATER IN, TO, OR FROM ANY
INTERSTATE STREAM OR THE WATERS THEREOF: PROVIDED, THAT THE RIGHT TO
THE USE OF WATER ACQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE
APPURTENANT TO THE LAND IRRIGATED, AND BENEFICIAL USE SHALL BE THE
BASIS, THE MEASURE, AND THE LIMIT OF THE RIGHT." 

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PURSUANT TO SEC. 3 OF THE RECLAMATION
ACT WITHDREW FROM PUBLIC ENTRY CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS IN NEBRASKA AND
WYOMING WHICH WERE REQUIRED FOR THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT AND THE
KENDRICK PROJECT.  INITIATION OF BOTH PROJECTS WAS ACCOMPANIED BY
FILINGS MADE PURSUANT TO SEC. 8 IN THE NAME OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES.  THOSE FILINGS WERE
ACCEPTED BY THE STATE OFFICIALS AS ADEQUATE UNDER STATE LAW.  THEY
ESTABLISHED THE PRIORITY DATES FOR THE PROJECTS.  THERE WERE ALSO
APPLICATIONS TO THE STATES FOR PERMITS TO CONSTRUCT CANALS AND
DITCHES.  THEY DESCRIBED THE LAND TO BE SERVED.  THE ORDERS GRANTING
THE APPLICATIONS FIXED THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF THE CANAL, FOR
APPLICATION OF THE WATER TO THE LAND, AND FOR PROOF OF APPROPRIATION. 
INDIVIDUAL WATER USERS CONTRACTED WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR THE USE OF
PROJECT WATER.  THESE CONTRACTS WERE LATER ASSUMED BY THE IRRIGATION
DISTRICTS.  IRRIGATION DISTRICTS SUBMITTED PROOF OF BENEFICIAL USE TO
THE STATE AUTHORITIES ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT WATER USERS.  THE STATE
AUTHORITIES ACCEPTED THAT PROOF AND ISSUED DECREES AND CERTIFICATES IN
FAVOR OF THE INDIVIDUAL WATER USERS.  THE CERTIFICATES NAMED AS
APPROPRIATORS THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS.  THEY DESIGNATED THE NUMBER OF
ACRES INCLUDED, THE USE FOR WHICH THE APPROPRIATION WAS MADE, THE
AMOUNT OF THE APPROPRIATION, AND THE PRIORITY DATE.  THE CONTRACTS
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS PROVIDED THAT
AFTER THE STORED WATER WAS RELEASED FROM THE RESERVOIR IT WAS UNDER THE
CONTROL OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE OFFICIALS.    ALL OF THESE STEPS MAKE
PLAIN THAT THOSE PROJECTS WERE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND COMPLETED
ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN OF STATE LAW AS PROVIDED IN THE RECLAMATION
ACT.  WE CAN SAY HERE WHAT WAS SAID IN ICKES V. FOX, SUPRA, PP. 94-95:
"ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT DIVERTED, STORED AND DISTRIBUTED THE WATER,
THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONER THAT THEREBY OWNERSHIP OF THE WATER OR
WATER-RIGHTS BECAME VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT WELL FOUNDED. 
APPROPRIATION WAS MADE NOT FOR THE USE OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT, UNDER
THE RECLAMATION ACT, FOR THE USE OF THE LAND OWNERS; AND BY THE TERMS
OF THE LAW AND OF THE CONTRACT ALREADY REFERRED TO, THE WATER-RIGHTS
BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE LAND OWNERS, WHOLLY DISTINCT FROM THE
PROPERTY RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE IRRIGATION WORKS.  COMPARE
MURPHY V. KERR, 296 FED. 536, 544, 545.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS AND
REMAINED SIMPLY A CARRIER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF THE WATER (IBID.), WITH
THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SUMS STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACTS AS
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ANNUAL CHARGES FOR
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE WORKS." 

THE PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE WATER RIGHT IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM
THE PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE RESERVOIRS, DITCHES OR CANALS.  THE WATER
RIGHT IS APPURTENANT TO THE LAND, THE OWNER OF WHICH IS THE
APPROPRIATOR.  THE WATER RIGHT IS ACQUIRED BY PERFECTING AN
APPROPRIATION, I.E., BY AN ACTUAL DIVERSION FOLLOWED BY AN APPLICATION
WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME OF THE WATER TO A BENEFICIAL USE.  SEE MURPHY
V. KERR, 296 F. 536, 542, 544, 545; COMMONWEALTH POWER CO. V. STATE
BOARD, 94 NEB. 613, 143 N.W. 937; KERSENBROCK V. BOYES, 95 NEB. 407,
145 N.W. 837.  INDEED SEC. 8 OF THE RECLAMATION ACT PROVIDES AS WE HAVE
SEEN THAT "THE RIGHT TO THE USE OF WATER ACQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT SHALL BE APPURTENANT TO THE LAND IRRIGATED, AND BENEFICIAL
USE SHALL BE THE BASIS, THE MEASURE, AND THE LIMIT OF THE RIGHT." 

WE HAVE THEN A DIRECTION BY CONGRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
TO PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH STATE LAWS IN APPROPRIATING WATER FOR
IRRIGATION PURPOSES.  WE HAVE A COMPLIANCE WITH THAT DIRECTION. 
PURSUANT TO THAT PROCEDURE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS HAVE BECOME THE
APPROPRIATORS OF THE WATER RIGHTS, THE UNITED STATES BEING THE STORER
AND THE CARRIER.  FN11  WE INTIMATE NO OPINION WHETHER A DIFFERENT
PROCEDURE MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED SO AS TO APPROPRIATE AND RESERVE TO
THE UNITED STATES ALL OF THESE WATER RIGHTS.  NO SUCH ATTEMPT WAS
MADE.  THOUGH WE ASSUME ARGUENDO THAT THE UNITED STATES DID OWN ALL OF
THE UNAPPROPRIATED WATER, THE APPROPRIATIONS UNDER STATE LAW WERE MADE
TO THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURE WHICH CONGRESS
PROVIDED IN THE RECLAMATION ACT.  THE RIGHTS SO ACQUIRED ARE AS
DEFINITE AND COMPLETE AS IF THEY WERE OBTAINED BY DIRECT CESSION FROM
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THUS EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THE UNITED STATES
OWNED THE UNAPPROPRIATED RIGHTS, THEY WERE ACQUIRED BY THE LANDOWNERS
IN THE PRECISE MANNER CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT IF THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THESE WATER
RIGHTS IS NOT RECOGNIZED, ITS MANAGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL PROJECTS WILL
BE JEOPARDIZED.  IT IS POINTED OUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WYOMING AND
NEBRASKA HAVE LAWS WHICH REGULATE THE CHARGES WHICH THE OWNERS OF
CANALS OR RESERVOIRS MAY MAKE FOR THE USE OF WATER.  BUT OUR DECISION
DOES NOT INVOLVE THOSE MATTERS.  WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT WHERE CONGRESS
HAS PROVIDED A SYSTEM OF REGULATION FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IT MUST GIVE
WAY BEFORE AN INCONSISTENT STATE SYSTEM.  WE ARE DEALING HERE ONLY WITH
AN ALLOCATION, THROUGH THE STATES, OF WATER RIGHTS AMONG
APPROPRIATORS.  THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPECT TO THE
STORAGE OF WATER ARE RECOGNIZED.  SO ARE THE WATER RIGHTS OF THE
LANDOWNERS.  TO ALLOCATE THOSE WATER RIGHTS TO THE UNITED STATES WOULD
BE TO DISREGARD THE RIGHTS OF THE LANDOWNERS.  TO ALLOCATE THEM TO THE
STATES, WHO REPRESENT THEIR CITIZENS PARENS PATRIAE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
FN12  IN NO WISE INTERFERES WITH THE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION BY THE
UNITED STATES OF ITS STORAGE AND POWER PLANTS, WORKS, AND FACILITIES. 
THUS THE QUESTION OF THE OWNERSHIP BY THE UNITED STATES OF
UNAPPROPRIATED WATER IS LARGELY ACADEMIC SO FAR AS THE NARROW ISSUES OF
THIS CASE ARE CONCERNED. 

                                  V 

THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION THAT IF WE UNDERTAKE AN APPORTIONMENT OF THE
WATERS OF THIS INTERSTATE RIVER, WE EMBARK UPON AN ENTERPRISE INVOLVING
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS BEYOND OUR PROVINCE.  WE NOTED IN COLORADO V.
KANSAS, SUPRA, P. 392, THAT THESE CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN STATES OVER THE
WATERS OF INTERSTATE STREAMS "INVOLVE THE INTERESTS OF QUASI
SOVEREIGNS, PRESENT COMPLICATED AND DELICATE QUESTIONS, AND, DUE TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE CHANGE OF CONDITIONS, NECESSITATE EXPERT
ADMINISTRATION RATHER THAN JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF A HARD AND FAST
RULE.  SUCH CONTROVERSIES MAY APPROPRIATELY BE COMPOSED BY NEGOTIATION
AND AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO THE COMPACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  WE SAY OF THIS CASE, AS THE COURT HAS SAID OF INTERSTATE
DIFFERENCES OF LIKE NATURE, THAT SUCH MUTUAL ACCOMMODATION AND
AGREEMENT SHOULD, IF POSSIBLE, BE THE MEDIUM OF SETTLEMENT, INSTEAD OF
INVOCATION OF OUR ADJUDICATORY POWER."  BUT THE EFFORTS AT SETTLEMENT
IN THIS CASE HAVE FAILED.  A GENUINE CONTROVERSY EXISTS.  THE GRAVITY
AND IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE ARE APPARENT.  THE DIFFICULTIES OF DRAFTING
AND ENFORCING A DECREE ARE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR US TO REFUSE TO PERFORM
THE IMPORTANT FUNCTION ENTRUSTED TO US BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THOSE
CONSIDERATIONS DID NOT PREVAIL IN WYOMING V. COLORADO, SUPRA, WHERE AN
APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATERS OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM WAS MADE.  NOR DID
THEY PREVAIL IN THE DRAINAGE CANAL CASES.  WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS, 278
U.S. 367, 281 U.S. 179, 309 U.S. 569, 311 U.S. 107, 313 U.S. 547.  AND
SEE SANITARY DISTRICT V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 405.  WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THEY SHOULD PREVAIL HERE. 

WE RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE PROBLEM.  THE MATTER IS A
DELICATE ONE AND EXTREMELY COMPLEX.  TO BEGIN WITH WE ARE CONFRONTED
WITH THE PROBLEM OF EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT.  THE SPECIAL MASTER
RECOMMENDED A DECREE BASED ON THAT PRINCIPLE.  THAT WAS INDEED THE
PRINCIPLE ADOPTED BY THE COURT IN WYOMING V. COLORADO, SUPRA, WHERE AN
APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATERS OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM WAS MADE BETWEEN
TWO STATES, EACH OF WHICH HAD THE RULE OF APPROPRIATION.  IN SPEAKING
OF THAT RULE IN APPLICATION TO A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN STATES THE COURT,
THROUGH MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, SAID:  "THE CARDINAL RULE OF THE
DOCTRINE IS THAT PRIORITY OF APPROPRIATION GIVES SUPERIORITY OF RIGHT. 
EACH OF THESE STATES APPLIES AND ENFORCES THIS RULE IN HER OWN
TERRITORY, AND IT IS THE ONE TO WHICH INTENDING APPROPRIATORS NATURALLY
WOULD TURN FOR GUIDANCE.  THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT PROCEEDS IS NOT
LESS APPLICABLE TO INTERSTATE STREAMS AND CONTROVERSIES THAN TO
OTHERS.  BOTH STATES PRONOUNCE THE RULE JUST AND REASONABLE AS APPLIED
TO THE NATURAL CONDITIONS IN THAT REGION; AND TO PREVENT ANY DEPARTURE
FROM IT THE PEOPLE OF BOTH INCORPORATED IT INTO THEIR CONSTITUTIONS. 
IT ORIGINATED IN THE CUSTOMS AND USAGES OF THE PEOPLE BEFORE EITHER
STATE CAME INTO EXISTENCE, AND THE COURTS OF BOTH HOLD THAT THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ARE TO BE TAKEN AS RECOGNIZING THE PRIOR
USAGE RATHER THAN AS CREATING A NEW RULE.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS
PERSUADE US THAT ITS APPLICATION TO SUCH A CONTROVERSY AS IS HERE
PRESENTED CANNOT BE OTHER THAN EMINENTLY JUST AND EQUITABLE TO ALL
CONCERNED."  259 U.S. P. 470.  AND SEE WYOMING V. COLORADO, 286 U.S.
494; WASHINGTON V. OREGON, 297 U.S. 517, 526.  SINCE COLORADO, WYOMING,
AND NEBRASKA ARE APPROPRIATION STATES, THAT PRINCIPLE WOULD SEEM TO BE
EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE. 

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE MUST BE A LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE
PRIORITY RULE.  WE STATED IN COLORADO V. KANSAS, SUPRA, THAT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER ONE STATE IS "USING, OR THREATENING TO USE, MORE
THAN ITS EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE BENEFITS OF A STREAM, ALL THE FACTORS
WHICH CREATE EQUITIES IN FAVOR OF ONE STATE OR THE OTHER MUST BE
WEIGHED AS OF THE DATE WHEN THE CONTROVERSY IS MOOTED."  320 U.S. P.
394.  THAT CASE DID NOT INVOLVE A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO APPROPRIATION
STATES.  BUT IF AN ALLOCATION BETWEEN APPROPRIATION STATES IS TO BE
JUST AND EQUITABLE, STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE PRIORITY RULE MAY NOT BE
POSSIBLE.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE ECONOMY OF A REGION MAY HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED ON THE BASIS OF JUNIOR APPROPRIATIONS.  SO FAR AS POSSIBLE
THOSE ESTABLISHED USES SHOULD BE PROTECTED THOUGH STRICT APPLICATION OF
THE PRIORITY RULE MIGHT JEOPARDIZE THEM.  APPORTIONMENT CALLS FOR THE
EXERCISE OF AN INFORMED JUDGMENT ON A CONSIDERATION OF MANY FACTORS. 
PRIORITY OF APPROPRIATION IS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE.  BUT PHYSICAL AND
CLIMATIC CONDITIONS, THE CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER IN THE SEVERAL
EXTENT OF ESTABLISHED USES, THE AVAILABILITY OF STORAGE WATER, THE
PRACTICAL EFFECT OF WASTEFUL USES ON DOWNSTREAM AREAS, THE DAMAGE TO
UPSTREAM AREAS AS COMPARED TO THE BENEFITS TO DOWNSTREAM AREAS IF A
LIMITATION IS IMPOSED ON THE FORMER - THESE ARE ALL RELEVANT FACTORS. 
THEY ARE MERELY AN ILLUSTRATIVE, NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE CATALOGUE.  THEY
INDICATE THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM OF APPORTIONMENT AND THE DELICATE
ADJUSTMENT OF INTERESTS WHICH MUST BE MADE. 

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS ORDER UNDERLIE NEBRASKA'S CONCESSION
THAT THE PRIORITY RULE SHOULD NOT BE STRICTLY APPLIED TO APPROPRIATIONS
IN COLORADO, THOUGH SOME ARE JUNIOR TO THE PRIORITIES OF APPROPRIATORS
IN WYOMING AND NEBRASKA.  AS THE SPECIAL MASTER POINTS OUT, THE FLOWAGE
TIME OF WATER FROM NORTH PARK TO BRIDGEPORT, NEBRASKA IS BETWEEN TWO
AND THREE WEEKS.  IF A CANAL IN NORTH PARK WERE CLOSED TO RELIEVE THE
SHORTAGE OF A SENIOR APPROPRIATOR IN NEBRASKA, IT WOULD BE HIGHLY
SPECULATIVE WHETHER THE WATER WOULD REACH THE NEBRASKA APPROPRIATOR IN
TIME OR WHETHER THE CLOSING OF THE COLORADO CANAL WOULD WORK MORE
HARDSHIP THERE THAN IT WOULD BESTOW BENEFITS IN NEBRASKA.  MOREOVER,
THERE IS LOSS OF WATER IN TRANSIT FROM THE UPPER TO THE DOWNSTREAM
RECEIVES LESS THAN THE UPPER APPROPRIATOR LOSES.  AND THERE IS EVIDENCE
THAT A RIVER-WIDE PRIORITY SYSTEM WOULD DISTURB AND DISRUPT LONG
ESTABLISHED USES. 

NEBRASKA, HOWEVER, URGES THAT PRIORITY OF APPROPRIATION INTERSTATE BE
ADOPTED FROM THE ALCOVA RESERVOIR EAST AND MORE PARTICULARLY FROM THE
WHALEN DIVERSION DAM EAST.  SHE POINTS OUT THAT THERE IS A LARGE
ACREAGE OF NEBRASKA LAND WHICH IS IRRIGATED BY CANALS DIVERTING AT
WHALEN.  THERE ARE FOUR CANALS DIVERTING IN WYOMING AND IRRIGATING LAND
ENTIRELY OR IN PART IN NEBRASKA - MITCHELL, INTERSTATE, FT. LARAMIE AND
FRENCH.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE DIVERSION POINT FOR MITCHELL IS IN WYOMING
THOUGH ALL THE LAND IT SERVES IS IN NEBRASKA.  NEBRASKA HAS MAINTAINED
THAT DIVERSIONS OF THAT CANAL SHOULD BE REGULATED TO OBSERVE THE
PRIORITIES OF SENIOR NEBRASKA CANALS INCLUDING TRI-STATE.  WYOMING WAS
WILLING TO REGULATE HER UPSTREAM JUNIOR APPROPRIATORS FOR THE BENEFIT
OF MITCHELL PROVIDED THE WATER GO TO MITCHELL AND NOT BE USED FOR TRI
STATE WHICH IS SENIOR TO BOTH MITCHELL AND CERTAIN WYOMING
APPROPRIATORS N13.  NEBRASKA THEREFORE URGES AN INTERSTATE ALLOCATION
WHICH WOULD REQUIRE JUNIOR APPROPRIATORS IN WYOMING TO RESPECT NOT ONLY
MITCHELL'S PRIORITIES BUT ALSO THOSE OF TRI-STATE AND OTHER NEBRASKA
CANALS IN THIS SECTION OF THE RIVER. 

THE UNITED STATES TAKES SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME POSITION ON THIS
MATTER AS NEBRASKA EXCEPT THAT IT ARGUES THAT A PRIORITY ALLOCATION
INTERSTATE BE CONFINED TO THAT AREA BETWEEN WHALEN AND TRI-STATE DAM. 

WYOMING CONTENDS FOR A SYSTEM OF MASS ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE STATES,
SAYING THAT NO ATTEMPT CAN OR SHOULD BE MADE IN THIS PROCEEDING TO
DETERMINE THE PRIORITIES INTERSTATE OF THE VARIOUS APPROPRIATORS IN
EACH STATE.  THE PROPOSAL OF WYOMING ENVISAGES DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL
FLOW AND STORAGE WATER INDISCRIMINATELY AS A COMMON FUND TO ALL USERS. 
IT IS BASED ON THE THEORY THAT THERE IS A SUFFICIENCY OF WATER FOR
EVERYONE. 

THE DECREE RECOMMENDED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER DEPARTS FROM THE THEORY
OF ALLOCATION ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES.  IN RECOMMENDING HIS
APPORTIONMENT THE SPECIAL MASTER DID NOT REST ON THE LONG-TIME AVERAGE
FLOW OF THE RIVER.  WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE DROUGHT WHICH HAS PERSISTED
IN THIS RIVER BASIN SINCE 1930.  NO ONE KNOWS WHETHER IT HAS RUN ITS
COURSE OR WHETHER IT REPRESENTS A NEW NORM.  THERE IS NO RELIABLE BASIS
FOR PREDICTION.  BUT A CONTROVERSY EXISTS; AND THE DECREE WHICH IS
ENTERED MUST DEAL WITH CONDITIONS AS THEY OBTAIN TODAY.  IF THEY
SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE, THE DECREE CAN BE ADJUSTED TO MEET THE NEW
CONDITIONS.  BUT THE DECREE WHICH IS FASHIONED MUST BE BASED, AS THE
SPECIAL MASTER RECOGNIZED, ON THE DEPENDABLE FLOW.  WYOMING V.
COLORADO, SUPRA.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE AVERAGE
OF ALL YEARS WAS FAR FROM BEING A PROPER MEASURE OF THE AVAILABLE
SUPPLY.  "AN INTENDING IRRIGATOR ACQUIRING A WATER RIGHT BASED ON SUCH
A MEASURE WOULD BE ALMOST CERTAINLY CONFRONTED WITH DROUGHT WHEN HIS
NEED FOR WATER WAS GREATEST.  CROPS CANNOT BE GROWN ON EXPECTATIONS OF
AVERAGE FLOWS WHICH DO NOT COME, NOR ON RECOLLECTIONS OF UNUSUAL FLOWS
WHICH HAVE PASSED DOWN THE STREAM IN PRIOR YEARS."  259 U.S. P. 476. 
ON THIS RECORD WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE DEPENDABLE FLOW IS GREATER THAN
THE AVERAGE CONDITION WHICH HAS PREVAILED SINCE 1930.  FOR REASONS
WHICH WE DISCUSS AT A LATER POINT IN THIS OPINION, WE DEAL ONLY WITH
NATURAL FLOW, NOT WITH STORAGE WATER AS WYOMING URGES.  ON THE BASIS OF
THE CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE OBTAINED SINCE 1930, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE
NATURAL FLOW OF THE RIVER DURING THE IRRIGATION SEASON HAS BEEN OVER
APPROPRIATED.    COLORADO.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THERE ARE PRESENTLY UNDER
IRRIGATION IN THIS SECTION OF THE RIVER 131,800 ACRES WHICH CONSUME
(INCLUDING RESERVOIR EVAPORATION) 98,540 ACRE FEET ANNUALLY. 
EXPORTATIONS FROM THE BASIN AMOUNT ON THE AVERAGE TO 6,000 ACRE FEET,
MAKING THE TOTAL ANNUAL DEPLETION 104,540 ACRE FEET.  THERE ARE, AS WE
HAVE SEEN, ADDITIONAL DEMANDS MADE BY COLORADO FOR FUTURE PROJECTS. 
THE SPECIAL MASTER RECOMMENDED THAT COLORADO BE ENJOINED (A) FROM THE
DIVERSION OF WATER FOR THE IRRIGATION IN NORTH PARK OF MORE THAN
135,000 ACRES OF LAND, (B) FROM THE ACCUMULATION IN STORAGE FACILITIES
IN NORTH PARK OF MORE THAN 17,000 ACRE FEET BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 OF ANY
YEAR AND SEPTEMBER 30 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR, AND (C) FROM THE
TRANSBASIN DIVERSION OUT OF NORTH PARK OF MORE THAN 6,000 ACRE FEET
BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 OF ANY YEAR AND SEPTEMBER 30 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR. 
COLORADO EXCEPTS TO THESE PROPOSALS.  BUT WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS WHICH
WE WILL NOTE, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE WELL TAKEN. 

WE ARE SATISFIED THAT A REDUCTION IN PRESENT COLORADO USES IS NOT
WARRANTED.  THE FACT THAT THE SAME AMOUNT OF WATER MIGHT PRODUCE MORE
IN LOWER SECTIONS OF THE RIVER IS IMMATERIAL.  WYOMING V. COLORADO,
SUPRA, P. 468.  THE ESTABLISHED ECONOMY IN COLORADO'S SECTION OF THE
RIVER BASIN BASED ON EXISTING USE OF THE WATER SHOULD BE PROTECTED. 
FN14  CF. COLORADO V. KANSAS, SUPRA, P. 394.  APPROPRIATORS IN COLORADO
JUNIOR TO PATHFINDER HAVE MADE OUT-OF-PRIORITY DIVERSIONS OF
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS.  STRICT APPLICATION OF THE PRIORITY RULE MIGHT
WELL RESULT IN PLACING A LIMITATION ON COLORADO'S PRESENT USE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF PATHFINDER.  BUT AS WE HAVE SAID, PRIORITY OF APPROPRIATION,
WHILE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR AN APPORTIONMENT, IS NOT A HARD AND
FAST RULE.  COLORADO'S COUNTERVAILING EQUITIES INDICATE IT SHOULD NOT
BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO IN THIS SITUATION.  COLORADO ASSERTS, HOWEVER,
THAT THE LIMITATION OF TRANSBASIN DIVERSIONS TO 6,000 ACRE FEET A YEAR
SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED.  HER POINT IS THAT 6,000 ACRE FEET REPRESENT
MERELY THE AVERAGE ANNUAL TRANSBASIN DIVERSIONS, THAT ANNUAL DIVERSIONS
HAVE EXCEEDED THAT AMOUNT, AND THAT A LIMITATION OF 6,000 ACRE FEET
ANNUALLY WILL INTERFERE WITH EXISTING COLORADO USERS.  WE THINK THE
POINT IS WELL TAKEN.  THE DECREE WILL ENJOIN COLORADO EXPORTATIONS IN
EXCESS OF AN AVERAGE OF 6,000 ACRE FEET COMPUTED OVER A PERIOD OF TEN
YEARS.  FN15 

BUT COLORADO'S OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUGGESTED LIMITATIONS TO BE
PLACED ON HER USE OF THE WATER OF THE NORTH PLATTE ARE NOT SUSTAINED. 
THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT IS THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE LONG-TIME AVERAGES
THERE IS ENOUGH WATER TO GO AROUND, THAT NO LIMITATION ON USE IS
WARRANTED, AND THAT THE PROPOSED LIMITATION IS A DEPRIVATION SUFFERED
BY COLORADO FOR THE BENEFIT OF DOWNSTREAM USERS.  BUT THAT ARGUMENT
FAILS IF WE ASSUME, AS WE MUST ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US, THAT THE
DEPENDABLE SUPPLY DOES NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH HAS BEEN
AVAILABLE SINCE 1930.  NOR CAN WE SEE HOW EXISTING PROJECTS CAN BE
PROTECTED ON THE BASIS OF THE 1931-1940 SUPPLY IF ADDITIONAL PROJECTS
IN COLORADO ARE PERMITTED.  IF AT ANY TIME ADDITIONAL PROJECTS ARE
THREATENED IN DOWNSTREAM AREAS, COLORADO MAY MAKE COMPLAINT.  IF
CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE, ANY PARTY CAN APPLY FOR
MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE.  THE DECREE WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE FOR ALL
TIME.  PROVISION WILL BE MADE FOR ITS ADJUSTMENT TO MEET SUBSTANTIALLY
CHANGED CONDITIONS.  NOR WILL THE DECREE INTERFERE WITH RELATIONSHIPS
AMONG COLORADO'S WATER USERS.  THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE APPROPRIATORS
ARE SUBJECT TO COLORADO'S CONTROL. 

COLORADO FINALLY SAYS THAT THE PROPOSED RESTRICTION ON HER USES OF
THE WATER VIOLATE THE ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1937, 50 STAT. 564, 595, WHICH
APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR THE KENDRICK PROJECT.  THAT ACT PROVIDED THAT
"IN RECOGNITION OF THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF BOTH THE STATES OF COLORADO
AND WYOMING TO THE AMICABLE USE OF THE WATERS OF THE NORTH PLATTE
RIVER, NEITHER THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, NOR OPERATION OF SAID
(KENDRICK) PROJECT SHALL EVER INTERFERE WITH THE PRESENT VESTED RIGHTS
OR THE FULLEST USE HEREAFTER FOR ALL BENEFICIAL PURPOSES OF THE WATERS
OF SAID STREAM OR ANY OF ITS TRIBUTARIES WITHIN THE DRAINAGE BASIN
THEREOF IN JACKSON COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, AND THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO RESERVE THE POWER
BY CONTRACT TO ENFORCE SUCH PROVISIONS AT ALL TIMES."  BUT THAT ACT
DOES NOT LIMIT OR RESTRICT NEBRASKA'S OR WYOMING'S CLAIM FOR
APPORTIONMENT AGAINST COLORADO.  MOREOVER, THE KENDRICK PROJECT UNDER
PRESENT CONDITIONS (WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THE DECREE) COULD STORE NO
WATER WITHOUT VIOLATING OTHER PRIORITIES.  IF THE LONGTIME AVERAGE
CONDITIONS RETURN, IT CAN DO SO.  ONLY AT THAT TIME COULD THERE BE A
POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH THE POLICY OF CONGRESS CONTAINED IN THE ACT OF
AUGUST 9, 1937.  IF THAT CONDITION ARISES AND A CONFLICT WITH
COLORADO'S INTERESTS APPEAR IMMINENT, IT WILL BE TIME TO CONSIDER THE
PROBLEM. 

COLORADO STATE LINE TO PATHFINDER AND GUERNSEY.  THE SPECIAL MASTER
RECOMMENDS THAT WYOMING BE ENJOINED (A) FROM DIVERTING WATER FROM THE
MAIN RIVER ABOVE GUERNSEY AND FROM ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE PATHFINDER FOR
THE IRRIGATION OF MORE THAN 168,000 ACRES, AND (B) FROM THE
ACCUMULATION OF STORAGE WATER IN RESERVOIRS ABOVE PATHFINDER IN EXCESS
OF 18,000 ACRE FEET BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 OF ANY YEAR AND SEPTEMBER 30 OF
THE FOLLOWING YEAR.  WE DEEM THIS RESTRICTION APPROPRIATE PROVIDED THE
LIMITATION OF STORAGE ABOVE PATHFINDER DOES NOT INCLUDE SEMINOE
RESERVOIR WHICH LIES ABOVE PATHFINDER AND WHICH IS TO BE THE MAIN
SOURCE OF SUPPLY FOR THE KENDRICK PROJECT.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, MOST OF
THE LAND UNDER IRRIGATION IN THE SECTION ABOVE PATHFINDER IS IRRIGATED
FROM TRIBUTARIES.  THE RIGHTS ARE SMALL BUT VERY NUMEROUS.  THE TOTAL
ACREAGE UNDER IRRIGATION IS 153,000 ACRES, ALLOWING FOR A MARGIN OF
ERROR.  BELOW PATHFINDER AND ABOVE GUERNSEY THE SPECIAL MASTER DEALT
ONLY WITH DIVERSIONS FROM THE MAIN RIVER.  HE CONCLUDED THAT THE RUN
OFF OF THE TRIBUTARIES BECOMES SO FAR EXHAUSTED BEFORE ANY SHORTAGE OF
WATER OCCURS IN THE MAIN RIVER THAT ANY REGULATION OF THE TRIBUTARY
DIVERSIONS WOULD BE OF NO MATERIAL BENEFIT.  THE TRIBUTARY INFLOW IS
GREATER THAN THE DEPLETION OF THE RIVER.  THERE IS SOME OUT-OF-PRIORITY
DIVERSION AS WE HAVE NOTED.  BUT POSSIBILITIES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
ARE LARGELY NONEXISTENT.  THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED THAT IF WYOMING
WERE LIMITED TO THE IRRIGATION OF 15,000 ACRES (WHICH IS THE EXTENT OF
PRESENT IRRIGATION WITH A MARGIN OF ERROR) NATURAL CONDITIONS WOULD
MILITATE AGAINST THIS SECTION GETTING MORE THAN ITS EQUITABLE SHARE OF
THE WATER. 

WE THINK THAT IS A PRACTICAL AND FAIR ADJUSTMENT.  SO FAR AS THE
TRIBUTARIES ABOVE PATHFINDER ARE CONCERNED, PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF
APPLYING RESTRICTIONS WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WATER USED BY
THE HUNDREDS OF SMALL IRRIGATORS WOULD SEEM TO OUTWEIGH ANY SLIGHT
BENEFIT WHICH SENIOR APPROPRIATORS MIGHT OBTAIN.  THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO
BE DENIED.  AND THE CONDITIONS WHICH OBTAIN ON THE MAIN RIVER BETWEEN
PATHFINDER AND GUERNSEY SUPPORT THE LIMITATION WITHOUT MORE TO THE
IRRIGATION OF 15,000 ACRES. 

THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT SOME REGULATION OF THE
TRIBUTARIES BETWEEN PATHFINDER AND GUERNSEY IS ESSENTIAL.  IT CLAIMS
THAT THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES OF FUTURE ADDITIONAL STORAGE ON THESE
TRIBUTARIES AND THAT IF FUTURE STORAGE IS INCREASED THERE WILL BE A
REDUCTION IN TRIBUTARY FLOWS INTO THE MAIN RIVER AVAILABLE FOR STORAGE
IN THE GUERNSEY, LAKE ALICE AND LAKE MINATARE RESERVOIRS OF THE NORTH
PLATTE PROJECT.  WE DO NOT KNOW FROM THE PRESENT RECORD THE PRECISE
EXTENT OF EXISTING RESERVOIR STORAGE IN THIS AREA.  WE DO KNOW,
HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS SOME STORAGE CAPACITY, E.G. 20,000 ACRE FEET IN
THE LA PRELE PROJECT.  IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWING WHAT CONTRIBUTION
THESE TRIBUTARIES NOW MAKE TO THE SUPPLY OF THE RESERVOIRS OR WHAT
ADDITIONAL STORAGE PROJECTS MAY BE POSSIBLE OR WHAT THEIR EFFECT MIGHT
BE, THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED THERE WAS AN INSUFFICIENT BASIS FOR
ANY PRESENT LIMITATION ON STORAGE.  WE FIND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PRESENT
THREAT TO THE WATER SUPPLY FROM THIS SOURCE.  IF SUCH THREAT APPEARS
AND IT PROMISES TO DISTURB THE DELICATE BALANCE OF THE RIVER,
APPLICATION MAY BE MADE AT THE FOOT OF THE DECREE FOR AN APPROPRIATE
RESTRICTION. 

PATHFINDER, GUERNSEY, SEMINOE AND ALCOVA RESERVOIRS AND THE CASPER
CANAL.  THE SPECIAL MASTER RECOMMENDS THAT WYOMING BE ENJOINED FROM THE
STORAGE OF WATER IN THESE FOUR RESERVOIRS AND FROM THE DIVERSION OF
NATURAL FLOW WATER THROUGH THE CASPER CANAL FOR THE KENDRICK PROJECT,
BETWEEN AND INCLUDING MAY 1 AND SEPTEMBER 30 OF EACH YEAR, OTHERWISE
THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE OF PRIORITY IN RELATION TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS OF THE NEBRASKA LANDS SUPPLIED BY THE FRENCH CANAL AND
BY THE STATE LINE CANALS; THAT ALL THOSE NEBRASKA APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THAT PURPOSE BE ADJUDGED SENIOR TO THOSE FOUR RESERVOIRS AND TO CASPER
CANAL; AND THAT THE SENIOR NEBRASKA APPROPRIATIONS BE IDENTIFIED AND
DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:

                                              LIMITATION
SEASONAL

            LANDS                  CANAL      IN SECOND
LIMITATION

                    FEET  IN ACRE FEET 

TRACT OF 1,025 ACRES-------------FRENCH--------         15
2,227 

MITCHELL IRRIGATION DISTRICT-----MITCHELL------        195 35,000 

GERING IRRIGATION DISTRICT-------GERING--------    193        36,000 

FARMERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT------TRI-STATE-----        748
183,050 

RAMSHORN IRRIGATION DISTRICT-----RAMSHORN------         14
3,000 

WE HAVE NOTED THE PRIORITIES OF PATHFINDER AND GUERNSEY, AS WELL AS
THOSE OF THE KENDRICK PROJECT.  WE HAVE NOTED THAT THEIR PRIORITIES
MAKE THEM JUNIOR TO MANY DOWNSTREAM APPROPRIATORS INCLUDING THE STATE
LINE CANALS.  WHILE THE FOUR RESERVOIRS IN QUESTION ARE WYOMING
APPROPRIATORS, PATHFINDER AND GUERNSEY WERE DESIGNED MORE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF NEBRASKA THAN OF WYOMING LANDS.  RECOGNITION OF THE
PRIORITIES INTERSTATE MAKES OBVIOUS THE PROPRIETY OF AN INTERSTATE
APPORTIONMENT. 

WYOMING OBJECTS TO THIS TREATMENT OF THE KENDRICK PROJECT.  AS WE
HAVE SAID, SHE CONTENDS FOR A MASS ALLOCATION OF WATER BETWEEN NEBRASKA
AND WYOMING UNDER WHICH A DIVERSION REQUIREMENT OF 168,000 ACRE FEET
SHOULD BE ALLOTTED FOR THE KENDRICK PROJECT.  WYOMING HAS PRESENTED A
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE WATER SUPPLY OF THE RIVER ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH IT IS ARGUED THAT THE FLOW DURING THE PERIOD SINCE 1930 IS NOT
THE TRUE MEASURE OF THE DEPENDABLE SUPPLY.  IT IS URGED THAT THE LONG
TIME AVERAGES MUST BE CONSIDERED IN COMPUTING THE DEPENDABLE SUPPLY AND
IF THEY ARE AND IF THE STORAGE CAPACITY OF THESE RESERVOIRS IS ADDED TO
THE NATURAL FLOW, THE DEPENDABLE SUPPLY WILL BE INCREASED.  MOREOVER,
WYOMING ARGUES THAT NO ALLOCATION CAN BE MADE TO INDIVIDUAL
APPROPRIATORS IN ANY OF THE STATES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PARTIES AND
CANNOT BE BOUND IN THEIR ABSENCE. 

WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THESE CONTENTIONS OF WYOMING AND HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT THEY DO NOT WARRANT A DEPARTURE FROM THE METHOD OF
ALLOCATION PROPOSED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER.  ON THE RECORD BEFORE US WE
ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING THAT THERE WILL BE A GREATER SUPPLY THAN
HAS BEEN AVAILABLE DURING THE 1931-1940 PERIOD.  TO BASE THE DECREE ON
A LARGER SUPPLY WOULD NOT BE TO BASE IT ON A DEPENDABLE SUPPLY.  UNDER
THOSE CONDITIONS KENDRICK CAN STORE NO WATER.  EVEN WITH RESERVOIR
REGULATION WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT WYOMING HAS SHOWN AN ADEQUATE
SUPPLY TO JUSTIFY THE ALLOCATION SHE SEEKS.  THE COMBINED STORAGE
CAPACITY OF THE NORTH PLATTE AND KENDRICK PROJECTS IS EQUAL TO 175 PER
CENT OF THE LONG-TIME ANNUAL AVERAGE RIVER RUN-OFF OF THE RIVER AT
PATHFINDER.  WE HAVE HERE STORAGE CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF THE PRACTICABLE
LIMITS OF A DEPENDABLE SUPPLY AS THAT TERM HAS HITHERTO BEEN
CONSTRUED.  WYOMING V. COLORADO, SUPRA. 

A MASS ALLOCATION WAS MADE IN WYOMING V. COLORADO.  BUT THERE IS NO
HARD AND FAST RULE WHICH REQUIRES IT IN ALL CASES.  THE STANDARD OF AN
EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT REQUIRES AN ADAPTATION OF THE FORMULA TO THE
NECESSITIES OF THE PARTICULAR SITUATION.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE RIGHTS
OF THE APPROPRIATORS INTER SE MAY NOT BE ADJUDICATED IN THEIR ABSENCE. 
BUT ANY ALLOCATION BETWEEN WYOMING AND NEBRASKA, IF IT IS TO BE FAIR
AND JUST, MUST REFLECT THE PRIORITIES OF APPROPRIATORS IN THE TWO
STATES.  UNLESS THE PRIORITIES OF THE DOWNSTREAM CANALS SENIOR TO THE
FOUR RESERVOIRS AND CASPER CANAL ARE DETERMINED, NO ALLOCATION IS
POSSIBLE.  THE DETERMINATION OF THOSE PRIORITIES FOR THE LIMITED
PURPOSES OF THIS INTERSTATE APPORTIONMENT IS ACCORDINGLY JUSTIFIED. 
THE EQUITABLE SHARE OF A STATE MAY BE DETERMINED IN THIS LITIGATION
WITH SUCH LIMITATIONS AS THE EQUITY OF THE SITUATION REQUIRES AND
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE INDIRECT EFFECT WHICH THAT DETERMINATION MAY HAVE
ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WITHIN THE STATE.  HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA CO.,
304 U.S. 92, 106-108. 

NEBRASKA CONTENDS THAT THE ALLOTMENT TO FARMERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT
BE INCREASED IN THE SEASONAL LIMITATION RECOMMENDED, SO THAT THE WARREN
ACT CONTRACT WHICH IT HAS MAY BE RECOGNIZED.  BUT FOR REASONS WHICH WE
WILL ELABORATE THE ONLY WATER SUBJECT TO THE PRESENT ALLOCATION IS
NATURAL FLOW.  CONTRACTS REQUIRING THE SUPPLEMENTATION OF NATURAL FLOW
BY STORAGE ARE UNAFFECTED.  FN16    THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT
NEBRASKA'S EQUITABLE SHARE OF NATURAL FLOW WATER SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
THAT WHICH IS IN FACT BEING DIVERTED AND USED BY ANY OR ALL OF THE
DESIGNATED CANALS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED LIMITATIONS IN ACRE-FEET AND
SECOND-FEET.  IT IS SAID THAT THESE PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED DECREE
ARE THE OPERATIVE PROVISIONS WHICH DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF NATURAL FLOW
TO BE PASSED INTO THE WHALEN-TRI-STATE DAM SECTION OF THE RIVER.  IT IS
SAID THAT NEBRASKA CAN PERMIT, AS IT HAS HERETOFORE, WATER TO PASS THE
TRI-STATE DAM FOR USE BELOW THAT POINT EVEN THOUGH HER EQUITABLE SHARE
IS CALCULATED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE NEEDS OF APPROPRIATORS AT OR
ABOVE TRI-STATE.  AND IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE LANDS SERVED BY
DIVERSIONS BELOW TRI-STATE HAVE NO EQUITABLE CLAIM ON WATER ORIGINATING
IN WYOMING OR COLORADO, THEIR NEEDS BEING REASONABLY MET BY LOCAL
SUPPLIES.  WE THINK, AS WE WILL DEVELOP LATER, THAT THE RECORD SUSTAINS
THE CONCLUSION THAT EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT DOES NOT PERMIT NEBRASKA TO
DEMAND DIRECT FLOW WATER FROM ABOVE WHALEN FOR USE BELOW TRI-STATE. 
THE RESERVOIRS ABOVE WHALEN MAY STORE WATER AND KENDRICK MAY DIVERT
WHENEVER AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE NEBRASKA CANALS AT OR ABOVE TRI
STATE ARE NOT USING OR DIVERTING NATURAL FLOW.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE,
HOWEVER, THAT ANY REVISION OF THIS PART OF THE PROPOSED DECREE NEED BE
MADE.  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT NEBRASKA WILL UNDERTAKE TO CIRCUMVENT THE
DECREE.  MOREOVER, THE PROPOSED REVISION OFFERS DIFFICULTIES.  AS
NEBRASKA POINTS OUT, WHEN A JUNIOR NEBRASKA CANAL HAVING STORAGE RIGHTS
IS CLOSED TO NATURAL FLOW DUE TO OPERATION OF NEBRASKA PRIORITIES, IT
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY IN ITS SUPPLY IN RELATION
TO ITS REQUIREMENTS BY ASKING FOR STORAGE WATER UNDER SUCH CONTRACTS AS
IT MAY HAVE WITH THE UNITED STATES.  THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT
REPUDIATE THOSE CONTRACTS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT IT WOULD UNDULY COMPLICATE
THE DECREE TO RECAST ITS PROVISIONS SO AS TO TAKE THEM INTO ACCOUNT. 
IF, AS THE UNITED STATES FEARS, THE DECREE IS ADMINISTERED SO AS TO
DIVERT WATER FROM ABOVE TRI-STATE TO THE USE OF THOSE DIVERTING BELOW
TRI-STATE, APPLICATION FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF MAY BE MADE AT THE FOOT
OF THE DECREE. 

THE UNITED STATES ASSERTS THAT IT SHOULD BE GIVEN A SEPARATE
ALLOCATION OF WATER EVEN IF IT IS NOT TREATED AS THE OWNER OF
UNAPPROPRIATED WATER AND HENCE THE POSSESSOR OF AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF
TITLE TO PROJECT WATER.  THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED THAT THE POSITION
OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS THAT OF AN
APPROPRIATOR OF WATER FOR STORAGE UNDER THE LAWS OF WYOMING AND THAT
ITS INTERESTS ARE REPRESENTED IN THAT CONNECTION BY WYOMING.  THAT WAS
IN LINE WITH THE RULING OF THIS COURT WHEN WYOMING MOVED TO DISMISS
THIS VERY CASE ON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR WAS A NECESSARY PARTY.  NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, 295 U.S. 40, 43. 
THE COURT SAID:  "THE BILL ALLEGES, AND WE KNOW AS MATTER OF LAW, THAT
THE SECRETARY AND HIS AGENTS, ACTING BY AUTHORITY OF THE RECLAMATION
ACT AND SUPPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION, MUST OBTAIN PERMITS AND PRIORITIES
FOR THE USE OF WATER FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING IN THE SAME MANNER AS A
PRIVATE APPROPRIATOR OR AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT FORMED UNDER THE STATE
LAW.  HIS RIGHTS CAN RISE NO HIGHER THAN THOSE OF WYOMING, AND AN
ADJUDICATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS WILL NECESSARILY BIND HIM. 
WYOMING WILL STAND IN JUDGMENT FOR HIM AS FOR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATOR IN
THAT STATE.  HE IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY."  WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE
PROCEDURE OF APPROPRIATION WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THIS REGION.  THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR MADE THE APPROPRIATIONS UNDER WYOMING LAW. 
BUT WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE WATER RIGHTS WERE ADJUDICATED TO BE IN THE
INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS.  HENCE, SO FAR AS THE WATER RIGHTS ARE
CONCERNED, WE THINK IT IS NOT PROPER TO ANALOGIZE THIS CASE TO ONE
WHERE THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRES PROPERTY WITHIN A STATE AND ASSERTS
ITS TITLE AGAINST THE STATE AS WELL AS OTHERS. 

THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS THAT IT IS AT LEAST ENTITLED TO BE
RECOGNIZED AS THE OWNER OF THE STORAGE WATER WITH FULL CONTROL OVER ITS
DISPOSITION AND USE UNDER WYOMING LAW.  THAT SEEMS TO BE TRUE UNDER
WYOMING LAW.  WYO. REV. STATS. (1931) SECS. 122-1601, 122-1602; SCHERCK
V. NICHOLS, 55 WYO. 4, 19, 95 P.2D 74.  THE DECREE WHICH IS ENTERED
WILL IN NO WAY CLOUD SUCH CLAIM AS IT HAS TO STORAGE WATER UNDER
WYOMING LAW; NOR WILL THE DECREE INTERFERE WITH THE OWNERSHIP AND
OPERATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE VARIOUS FEDERAL STORAGE AND POWER
PLANTS, WORKS, AND FACILITIES.  WE REPEAT THAT THE DECREE IS RESTRICTED
TO AN APPORTIONMENT OF THE NATURAL FLOW. 

THE DECREE WILL, HOWEVER, PLACE A RESTRAINT ON THE STORAGE OF WATER
IN PATHFINDER, GUERNSEY, SEMINOE AND ALCOVA RESERVOIRS, SO AS TO
PROTECT THE NEBRASKA LANDS SERVED BY THE FRENCH CANAL AND THE STATE
LINE CANALS WHICH ARE SENIOR.  THE UNITED STATES POINTS OUT THAT IF
NEBRASKA PERMITS SOME OF THE NATURAL FLOW TO GO BELOW THE TRI-STATE
DAM, AS IT MAY DO, THUS CAUSING CERTAIN OF THE STATE LINE CANALS TO GO
SHORT, THOSE CANALS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO HAVE ANY DEFICIENCIES REPLACED
BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER WARREN ACT CONTRACTS.  IT SAYS THAT UNDER
THE PROPOSED DECREE ONLY STORAGE WATER AND NOT NATURAL FLOW COULD BE
SUPPLIED AND UNLESS STORAGE WATER IS APPROPRIATELY DEFINED BY THE
DECREE, IT MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE TO MEET THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS
WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE LIMITATIONS ON NATURAL FLOW WHICH ARE FIXED BY
THE DECREE.  AND IT SAYS THAT THAT WOULD BE THE RESULT IF STORAGE WATER
WERE DEFINED TO EXCLUDE ALL WATER PASSED THROUGH A RESERVOIR AT ANY
TIME WHEN ITS INFLOW IS AS GREAT AS OR GREATER THAN ITS OUTFLOW. 

NEBRASKA RECOGNIZES THE DESIRABILITY OF THAT COURSE.  SHE CONTENDS,
HOWEVER, THAT WHERE THE OUTFLOW IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE INTAKE,
NONE OF THE RELEASED WATER CAN BE CONSIDERED AS STORAGE WATER.  AND SHE
SAYS THAT WHEN THE WATER BEING RELEASED IS GREATER THAN THE INFLOW,
THAT PORTION WHICH REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT OF NATURAL FLOW BEING TAKEN IN
AT THE INTAKES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS STORAGE.  SEE GILA VALLEY
IRRIGATION DIST. V. UNITED STATES, 118 F.2D 507.  SHE SAYS THAT THE
UNITED STATES BY ITS PROPOSAL IS ATTEMPTING TO TRANSFORM INTO STORAGE
WATER WHAT IS IN FACT NATURAL FLOW ORIGINATING ABOVE THE RESERVOIRS. 

FOR REASONS WHICH WILL BE MORE FULLY DISCUSSED, WE THINK THAT STORAGE
WATER SHOULD BE LEFT FOR DISTRIBUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACTS
WHICH GOVERN IT.  ACCORDINGLY, WE THINK IT IS ADVISABLE TO DEFINE
STORAGE WATER IN THE MANNER PROPOSED BY THE UNITED STATES, SO AS TO
MAKE THE OPERATION OF THE DECREE MORE CERTAIN AND TO ADJUST IT TO THE
STORAGE WATER CONTRACTS WHICH ARE OUTSTANDING.  STORAGE WATER THEREFORE
IS DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE AS ANY WATER WHICH IS RELEASED
FROM RESERVOIRS FOR USE ON LANDS UNDER CANALS HAVING STORAGE CONTRACTS
IN ADDITION TO THE WATER WHICH IS DISCHARGED THROUGH THOSE RESERVOIRS
TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANY CANAL AS RECOGNIZED IN THE DECREE. 
THIS DEFINITION DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT RIGHTS RECOGNIZED IN THE
DECREE.  IT IS PERHAPS A DEPARTURE FROM THE ORDINARY MEANING OF
STORAGE.  BUT SO LONG AS THE WARREN ACT CONTRACTS ARE OUTSTANDING THAT
DEFINITION IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM EFFECTIVENESS.  FOR THEY
DO NOT PROVIDE THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL FURNISH WATER IN SUCH
AMOUNTS AS MAY FROM TIME TO TIME BE AVAILABLE.  THE UNITED STATES
AGREES TO DELIVER WATER WHICH WILL, WITH ALL THE WATER TO WHICH THE
LAND IS ENTITLED BY APPROPRIATION OR OTHERWISE, AGGREGATE A STATED
AMOUNT.  FN17 

THERE ARE OTHER EXCEPTIONS OF A MINOR CHARACTER TO THIS PART OF THE
DECREE.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THEM AND CONCLUDE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE
MERIT. 

PATHFINDER, GUERNSEY, SEMINOE AND ALCOVA RESERVOIRS.  THE SPECIAL
MASTER RECOMMENDS THAT WYOMING BE ENJOINED TO RESPECT THE RULE OF
PRIORITY OF THESE RESERVOIRS IN RESPECT TO EACH OTHER AND THAT THE
ORDER OF SENIORITY AS BETWEEN THEM BE DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:  (1)
PATHFINDER, (2) GUERNSEY, (3) SEMINOE, AND (4) ALCOVA.  HE RECOMMENDS,
HOWEVER, THAT WATER BE ALLOWED TO BE IMPOUNDED IN SEMINOE "OUT OF
PRIORITY" IN RELATION TO PATHFINDER AND GUERNSEY FOR SUCH USE ONLY IN
THE GENERATION OF POWER BY THE SEMINOE HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT AS
WILL NOT MATERIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WATER FOR
IRRIGATION PURPOSES ACCORDING TO THE PRIORITY AS DECREED FOR THE FRENCH
CANAL AND THE STATE LINE CANALS. 

THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT THE DECREE SHOULD PERMIT JOINT
OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVOIRS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PRIORITIES
AMONG THEMSELVES OR AMONG THE LANDS WHICH THEY SERVE, IN THE EVENT OF
AN APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT OF STORAGE CONTRACTS.  CONCEDEDLY THE VARIOUS
STORAGE WATER CONTRACTS, INCLUDING WARREN ACT CONTRACTS, PRECLUDE JOINT
OPERATION OF SEMINOE AND PATHFINDER.  THE SPECIAL MASTER ALSO CONCLUDED
THAT JOINT OPERATION WOULD RAISE QUESTIONS CONCERNING RIGHTS UNDER
WYOMING NATURAL FLOW APPROPRIATIONS SENIOR TO SEMINOE BUT JUNIOR TO
PATHFINDER.  IT MAY BE THAT THE LATTER PROBLEM WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT. 
FOR AS THE UNITED STATES SUGGESTS, UNDER JOINT OPERATION THE RESERVOIRS
COULD OPERATE ON THE PATHFINDER PRIORITY UNTIL THEY HAD THE COMBINED
STORAGE EQUIVALENT TO PATHFINDER.  THEREAFTER THEY WOULD STORE NO WATER
EXCEPT SUCH AS IS NEEDED FOR APPROPRIATIONS HAVING PRIORITIES SENIOR TO
SEMINOE.  SINCE JOINT OPERATION, HOWEVER, COULD NOT BE PRESENTLY
INSTITUTED BUT WOULD HAVE TO WAIT MODIFICATIONS OF OUTSTANDING
CONTRACTS, WE THINK IT BEST TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSAL
UNTIL JOINT OPERATION IN FACT AND IN LAW IS PERMISSIBLE.  THE DECREE
WILL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PARTIES TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR JOINT
OPERATION WHENEVER CHANGED CONDITIONS MAKE IT POSSIBLE. 

THE INTERSTATE, FT. LARAMIE, AND NORTHPORT CANALS ARE, AS WE HAVE
NOTED, PART OF THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.  THE KENDRICK PROJECT IS
SUBORDINATE TO THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.  THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED
THAT PROPER REGULATION FOR KENDRICK WOULD BE ONE REQUIRING THE
OBSERVANCE OF PRIORITIES, ALCOVA TO TRI-STATE DAM, BOTH IN THE STORAGE
OF WATER IN SEMINOE AND ALCOVA AND IN THE DIVERSION OF NATURAL FLOW BY
THE CASPER CANAL.  THE RECORD SUPPORTS THAT CONCLUSION.  NEBRASKA
ACCORDINGLY URGES THAT THE INTERSTATE, FT. LARAMIE, AND NORTHPORT
CANALS RECEIVE THE SAME PROTECTION FROM KENDRICK AS THE FRENCH CANAL
AND THE STATE LINE CANALS.  IF THERE WERE DOUBT THAT INTERSTATE, FT.
LARAMIE, AND NORTHPORT WOULD RECEIVE PRIORITY IN TREATMENT, THE DECREE
COULD BE FASHIONED SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR IT.  BUT THE MATTER IS COVERED
BY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE CASPER-ALCOVA IRRIGATION
DISTRICT.  THAT CONTRACT, WHICH THE UNITED STATES FULLY RECOGNIZES,
PRECLUDES OPERATION OF THE KENDRICK PROJECT EXCEPT IN RECOGNITION OF
PRIOR RIGHTS IN THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT.  FN18  WE THEREFORE DO NOT
THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE IN THE DECREE THE ADDITIONAL PROVISION
WHICH NEBRASKA SUGGESTS. 

RETURN FLOW OF KENDRICK PROJECT.  THE SPECIAL MASTER RECOMMENDS THAT
WYOMING BE ENJOINED (1) FROM THE RECAPTURE OF RETURN FLOW WATER OF THE
KENDRICK PROJECT AFTER IT SHALL HAVE REACHED THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER AND
BECOME COMMINGLED WITH THE GENERAL FLOW OF THE RIVER, AND (2) FROM
DIVERTING WATER FROM THE RIVER AT OR ABOVE ALCOVA RESERVOIR AS IN LIEU
OF KENDRICK RETURN FLOW WATER REACHING THE RIVER BELOW ALCOVA. 

THE UNITED STATES POINTS OUT THAT THE FIRST PART OF THIS RESTRICTION
MAY BE CONSTRUED TO FORBID WYOMING DIVERTERS FROM MAKING THE SAME USE
OF KENDRICK RETURN FLOW WATER AS IS PERMITTED NEBRASKA DIVERTERS. 
NATURAL FLOW IN THIS CASE IS USED THROUGHOUT AS INCLUDING RETURN FLOW. 
RETURN FLOWS ONCE RETURNED TO THE RIVER AND ABANDONED ARE PART OF THE
NATURAL FLOW AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ALL NATURAL FLOW DIVERTERS WITHIN THE
LIMITATIONS OF THE APPORTIONMENT.  TO AVOID ANY POSSIBLE
MISUNDERSTANDING, THERE SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE FIRST CLAUSE OF
THIS PROPOSED PROVISION A CLAUSE WHICH MAKES CLEAR THAT RETURN FLOWS OF
THE KENDRICK PROJECT ARE, FOR PURPOSES OF THE DECREE, DEEMED TO BE
NATURAL FLOWS WHEN THEY HAVE REACHED THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE UNITED STATES MAY DIVERT WATER FROM THE
RIVER AT OR ABOVE ALCOVA RESERVOIR AS IN LIEU OF KENDRICK RETURN FLOW
WATER REACHING THE RIVER BELOW ALCOVA PRESENTS COMPLEXITIES.  BOTH THE
UNITED STATES AND WYOMING CONTEND THAT THAT PRIVILEGE SHOULD BE
GRANTED.  THE RETURN FLOW IS ESTIMATED AT 96,000 ACRE FEET A YEAR,
46,000 ACRE FEET BEING THE ESTIMATED RETURN DURING THE IRRIGATION
SEASON.  SOME OF THAT RETURN FLOW WILL BE NATURAL DRAINAGE, SOME WILL
BE FROM SUMP AREAS, ALREADY NOTED, FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES WILL
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE DITCHES AND THUS RETURN TO THE RIVER WATER WHICH
WOULD OTHERWISE BE LOST.  HOW MUCH WILL BE RETURNED BY NATURAL DRAINAGE
AND HOW MUCH FROM THE SUMP AREAS IS NOT PRESENTLY KNOWN, SINCE THE
KENDRICK PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED. 

WE WILL CONSIDER FIRST THE RETURN FLOW FROM NATURAL DRAINAGE.  IDE V.
UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 497, HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES MIGHT
RECAPTURE WATER WHICH RESULTED FROM SEEPAGE FROM IRRIGATED LANDS UNDER
A RECLAMATION PROJECT AND WHICH WAS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF PRIVATE
APPROPRIATION UNDER WYOMING LAW.  THE SAME CONCLUSION WAS REACHED IN
UNITED STATES V. TILLEY, 124 F.2D 850, WHERE THE UNITED STATES WAS HELD
TO BE ENTITLED TO USE AND APPLY THE SEEPAGE FROM ONE DIVISION OF THE
NORTH PLATTE PROJECT TO SUPPLY LANDS OF ANOTHER DIVISION AS AGAINST THE
CLAIM OF NEBRASKA OF A RIGHT TO INTERCEPT THE SEEPAGE AND APPLY IT TO
APPROPRIATORS SENIOR TO THE PROJECT.  AND SEE RAMSHORN DITCH CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 269 F. 80.  CF. UNITED STATES V. WARMSPRINGS IRRIGATION
DIST., 38 F.SUPP.  239.  IN THE IDE CASE THIS COURT SAID:    "THE
SEEPAGE PRODUCING THE ARTIFICIAL FLOW IS PART OF THE WATER WHICH THE
PLAINTIFF, IN VIRTUE OF ITS APPROPRIATION, TAKES FROM THE SHOSHONE
RIVER AND CONDUCTS TO THE PROJECT LANDS IN THE VICINITY OF THE RAVINE
FOR USE IN THEIR IRRIGATION.  THE DEFENDANTS INSIST THAT WHEN WATER IS
ONCE USED UNDER THE APPROPRIATION IT CANNOT BE USED AGAIN,  - THAT THE
RIGHT TO USE IT IS EXHAUSTED.  BUT WE PERCEIVE NO GROUND FOR THINKING
THE APPROPRIATION IS THUS RESTRICTED.  ACCORDING TO THE RECORD IT IS
INTENDED TO COVER, AND DOES COVER, THE RECLAMATION AND CULTIVATION OF
ALL THE LANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT.  A SECOND USE IN ACCOMPLISHING THAT
OBJECT IS AS MUCH WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE APPROPRIATION AS A FIRST USE
IS.  THE STATE LAW AND THE NATIONAL RECLAMATION ACT BOTH CONTEMPLATE
THAT THE WATER SHALL BE SO CONSERVED THAT IT MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE
LARGEST PRACTICABLE USE.  A FURTHER CONTENTION IS THAT THE PLAINTIFF
SELLS THE WATER BEFORE IT IS USED, AND THEREFORE HAS NO RIGHT IN THE
SEEPAGE.  BUT THE WATER IS NOT SOLD.  IN DISPOSING OF THE LANDS IN
SMALL PARCELS, THE PLAINTIFF INVESTS EACH PURCHASER WITH A RIGHT TO
HAVE ENOUGH WATER SUPPLIED FROM THE PROJECT CANALS TO IRRIGATE HIS
LAND, BUT IT DOES NOT GIVE UP ALL CONTROL OVER THE WATER OR TO DO MORE
THAN PASS TO THE PURCHASER A RIGHT TO USE THE WATER SO FAR AS MAY BE
NECESSARY IN PROPERLY CULTIVATING HIS LAND.  BEYOND THIS ALL RIGHTS
INCIDENT TO THE APPROPRIATION ARE RETAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF.  ITS RIGHT
IN THE SEEPAGE IS WELL ILLUSTRATED BY THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM THE
OPINION OF DISTRICT JUDGE DIETRICH IN UNITED STATES V. HAGA, 276 FED.
41, 43: 

"'ONE WHO BY THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY AND LABOR DIVERTS APPROPRIABLE
WATER FROM A STREAM, AND THUS MAKES IT AVAILABLE FOR FRUITFUL PURPOSES,
IS ENTITLED TO ITS EXCLUSIVE CONTROL SO LONG AS HE IS ABLE AND WILLING
TO APPLY IT TO BENEFICIAL USES, AND SUCH RIGHT EXTENDS TO WHAT IS
COMMONLY KNOWN AS WASTAGE FROM SURFACE RUN-OFF AND DEEP PERCOLATION,
NECESSARILY INCIDENT TO PRACTICAL IRRIGATION.  CONSIDERATIONS OF BOTH
PUBLIC POLICY AND NATURAL JUSTICE STRONGLY SUPPORT SUCH A RULE.  NOR IS
IT ESSENTIAL TO HIS CONTROL THAT THE APPROPRIATOR MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS
ACTUAL POSSESSION OF SUCH WATER.  SO LONG AS HE DOES NOT ABANDON IT OR
FORFEIT IT BY FAILURE TO USE, HE MAY ASSERT HIS RIGHTS.  IT IS NOT
NECESSARY THAT HE CONFINE IT UPON HIS OWN LAND OR CONVEY IT IN AN
ARTIFICIAL CONDUIT.  IT IS REQUISITE, OF COURSE, THAT HE BE ABLE TO
IDENTIFY IT; BUT, SUBJECT TO THAT LIMITATION, HE MAY CONDUCT IT THROUGH
NATURAL CHANNELS AND MAY EVEN COMMINGLE IT OR SUFFER IT TO COMMINGLE
WITH OTHER WATERS.  IN SHORT, THE RIGHTS OF AN APPROPRIATOR IN THESE
RESPECTS ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE WATER HAS ONCE BEEN
USED.'"  263 U.S. PP. 505-506. 

IF THAT PRINCIPLE WERE LITERALLY APPLIED, THE UNITED STATES COULD
RECLAIM THE RETURN FLOWS 200 MILES DOWNSTREAM FROM KENDRICK AT WHALEN
WHERE THEY COULD BE DIVERTED TO THE INTERSTATE OR FT. LARAMIE CANAL. 
OR IF NOT RECLAIMED THERE, THE RETURN FLOWS COULD BE APPLIED BELOW THE
NEBRASKA LINE TO WARREN ACT CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.  THE SPECIAL MASTER
THOUGHT ANY SUCH PROGRAM WOULD BE SO DISRUPTIVE OF ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION AS TO BE INTOLERABLE.  THAT, OF COURSE, IS NOT THE
PROPOSAL.  THE PROPOSAL IS TO DIVERT WATER AT OR ABOVE ALCOVA IN LIEU
OF THE RETURN FLOWS FROM KENDRICK BELOW ALCOVA.  BUT WE THINK THE
PROPOSAL IS BASICALLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE
IDE CASE.  THAT PRINCIPLE IS THAT ALTHOUGH THE WATER RIGHTS BELONG TO
THE LANDOWNERS, THE OWNER OF THE IRRIGATION PROJECT HAS AN INTEREST IN
THE APPROPRIATIVE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT OF OBTAINING THE FULLEST USE OF
THE WATER FOR THE PROJECT.  IT MAY, THEREFORE, RETAIN CONTROL OVER THE
WATER UNTIL ABANDONMENT.  WE THINK IT GOES TOO FAR TO SAY THAT WHEN THE
RETURN FLOWS ARE ABANDONED, THEY MAY NEVERTHELESS BE EXCHANGED FOR
UPSTREAM DIVERSIONS BY THE SAME AMOUNT.  WHEN THE RETURN FLOWS ARE
ABANDONED, THEY BECOME SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION DOWN STREAM.  SEE 2
KINNEY, IRRIGATION AND WATER RIGHTS (2D ED. 1912) SEC. 1114.  THEY NO
LONGER REMAIN SUBJECT TO CONTROL FOR FURTHER USE IN THE PROJECT.  ANY
CLAIM TO THEM OR THEIR EQUIVALENT UNDER THE FORM OF AN "IN LIEU OF"
DIVERSION IS LOST. 

WHEN IT COMES, HOWEVER, TO RETURN FLOWS RESULTING FROM DRAINAGE
FACILITIES INSTALLED BY THE UNITED STATES, DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS MAY
BE APPLICABLE.  BUT FOR THE DRAINAGE THROUGH ARTIFICIAL CHANNELS
FURNISHED BY THE UNITED STATES, THE UNUSED WATER WOULD NEVER RETURN TO
THE RIVER.  THE UNITED STATES COULD RIGHTFULLY LEAVE THE WATER IN THE
SUMPS.  IN THAT CASE, NO ONE WOULD EVER HAVE THE USE OF IT.  IT IS
ARGUED THAT SINCE BY ARTIFICIAL DRAINAGE THE UNITED STATES ADDS TO THE
NATURAL FLOW BELOW KENDRICK, IT IS ONLY FAIR TO ALLOW KENDRICK WHATEVER
BENEFIT MAY RESULT FROM THAT CONTRIBUTION.  CF. RENO V. RICHARDS, 32
IDA.  1, 178 P. 81.  ONE DIFFICULTY IS THAT THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM HAS NOT
BEEN COMPLETED, KENDRICK HAS NOT BEEN PUT INTO OPERATION, AND WE DO NOT
KNOW WHAT THE CONTRIBUTION BY ARTIFICIAL DRAINAGE WILL BE.
ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT AT THIS TIME CONSIDER THE CLAIM ON THE MERITS. 
WHEN KENDRICK HAS BEEN PUT INTO OPERATION AND THERE IS A FULL
DEVELOPMENT OF RETURN FLOWS, APPLICATION MAY BE MADE FOR REVISION OF
THE DECREE TO PERMIT "IN LIEU OF" DIVERSIONS AT OR ABOVE ALCOVA. 

WHALEN TO TRI-STATE DAM.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THIS IS THE CRITICAL
AROUND THE SPECIAL MASTER'S PROPOSAL FOR DEALING WITH IT.  HE PROPOSES
THAT THE NATURAL FLOW WATER IN THIS SECTION BETWEEN MAY 1 AND SEPTEMBER
30 EACH YEAR BE APPORTIONED ON THE BASIS OF 25 PER CENT TO WYOMING AND
75 PER CENT TO NEBRASKA.  HE RECOMMENDS THAT NEBRASKA BE GIVEN THE
RIGHT TO DESIGNATE FROM TIME TO TIME THE PORTION OF ITS SHARE WHICH
SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE INTERSTATE, FT. LARAMIE, FRENCH AND MITCHELL
CANALS FOR USE ON NEBRASKA LANDS SERVED BY THEM AND THAT WYOMING BE
ENJOINED FROM DIVERSIONS CONTRARY TO THIS APPORTIONMENT.  FN19 

NONE OF THE PARTIES AGREES TO THIS APPORTIONMENT. 

WYOMING EARNESTLY CONTENDS THAT STORAGE WATER AS WELL AS NATURAL FLOW
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE APPORTIONMENT WHICH IS MADE FOR THIS SECTION
OF THE RIVER.  SHE POINTS OUT THAT IN WYOMING V. COLORADO, SUPRA, THE
COURT MADE AN APPORTIONMENT BASED UPON A SUPPLY "WHICH IS FAIRLY
CONSTANT AND DEPENDABLE, OR IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE SO BY STORAGE
AND CONSERVATION WITHIN PRACTICABLE LIMITS."  259 U.S. P. 480.  SHE
ARGUES THAT THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO ALLOCATE STORAGE WATER THOUGH
ITS DISPOSITION IS CONTROLLED BY CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
AND IRRIGATION DISTRICTS; AND THAT AN APPORTIONMENT WHICH EXCLUDES
STORAGE WATER IS UNFAIR.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT EACH STATE SHOULD BE
RESTRICTED TO THE USE OF SUCH SUPPLIES ONLY AS ARE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE
THEIR RESPECTIVE IRRIGATORS, INCLUDING THOSE RECEIVING WATER UNDER
CONTRACTS, WITH SUCH AMOUNTS AS ARE NECESSARY FOR BENEFICIAL USE.  THE
LARGE EXCESSES DIVERTED BY NEBRASKA ARE ADVERTED TO AS SHOWING THE
DEGREE TO WHICH CARRY-OVER STORAGE IN THE UPPER RESERVOIRS HAS BEEN
DIMINISHED AND THE SUPPLY FOR KENDRICK EXHAUSTED. 

THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT
STORAGE WATER WAS DISPOSED OF UNDER CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
AND LANDOWNERS UNDER THE PROJECT AND UNDER THE WARREN ACT CONTRACTS,
THE OBLIGATIONS OF THOSE CONTRACTS AND THE NECESSITY OF PERFORMANCE
UNDER THEM MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY THE DECREE.  HE CONCLUDED, HOWEVER,
THAT IN THE ALLOCATION OF THE NATURAL FLOW THE STORAGE WATER AVAILABLE
MIGHT BEAR UPON THE EQUITIES OF THE STATES, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD HAVE NO
RELEVANCY TO THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL APPROPRIATORS INTER SE
UNDER THE LAW OF EITHER WYOMING OR NEBRASKA.  WE THINK THE EQUITIES OF
THE CASE SUPPORT THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE STORAGE WATER IN THE
APPORTIONMENT.  WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PRESENCE OF
THE STORAGE WATER CONTRACTS WOULD PRECLUDE AN APPORTIONMENT OF STORAGE
WATER.  THE NINE WYOMING PRIVATE CANALS AND THE MITCHELL AND RAMSHORN
CANALS HAVE NO CONTRACT RIGHTS TO RECEIVE STORAGE WATER FROM THE
FEDERAL RESERVOIRS.  IT IS DIFFICULT FOR US TO SEE HOW IT WOULD BE
EQUITABLE TO MAKE AN APPORTIONMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THEY DO.  IN
CERTAIN YEARS IN THE PAST THERE HAVE BEEN EXCESSIVE DIVERSIONS BY
CANALS IN THIS SECTION, INCLUDING THE NINE WYOMING PRIVATE CANALS.  WE
CANNOT ASSUME THAT AN APPORTIONMENT OF STORAGE WATER IS NECESSARY TO
PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THOSE PRACTICES.  CERTAINLY AN APPORTIONMENT OF
STORAGE WATER WOULD DISRUPT THE SYSTEM OF WATER ADMINISTRATION WHICH
HAS BECOME ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO MANDATE OF CONGRESS IN SEC. 8 OF THE
RECLAMATION ACT THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THESE FEDERAL PROJECTS SHOULD PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH STATE LAW. 
IN PURSUANCE THERETO ALL OF THE STORAGE WATER IS DISPOSED OF UNDER
CONTRACTS WITH PROJECT USERS AND WARREN ACT CANALS.  IT APPEARS THAT
UNDER THAT SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION OF STORAGE WATER NO STATE AND NO
WATER USERS WITHIN A STATE ARE ENTITLED TO THE USE OF STORAGE
FACILITIES OR STORAGE WATER UNLESS THEY CONTRACT FOR THE USE.  SEE WYO.
REV. STATS. (1931), SECS. 122-1504, 122-1508, 122-1602.  IF STORAGE
WATER IS NOT SEGREGATED, STORAGE WATER CONTRACTORS IN TIMES OF SHORTAGE
OF THE TOTAL SUPPLY WILL BE DEPRIVED OF THE USE OF A PART OF THE
STORAGE SUPPLY FOR WHICH THEY PAY.  IF STORAGE WATER IS NOT SEGREGATED,
THOSE WHO HAVE NOT CONTRACTED FOR THE STORAGE SUPPLY WILL RECEIVE AT
THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO HAVE CONTRACTED FOR IT A SUBSTANTIAL INCREMENT
TO THE NATURAL FLOW SUPPLY WHICH, AS WE HAVE SEEN, HAS BEEN
INSUFFICIENT TO GO AROUND.  IN WYOMING V. COLORADO, SUPRA, THE COURT
DID NOT APPORTION STORAGE WATER.  IT APPORTIONED NATURAL FLOW ONLY.  IT
TOOK INTO ACCOUNT WHEN IT MADE THAT APPORTIONMENT THE EFFECTS OF
STORAGE IN EQUALIZING NATURAL FLOW IN WYOMING.  WE THINK NO MORE SHOULD
BE DONE HERE TO EFFECT AN EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT. 

WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THE EXCEPTIONAL FEATURES OF THIS SECTION - THE
GREAT CONCENTRATION OF DEMAND IN A SHORT, COMPACT AREA, THE DISTINCTLY
INTERSTATE SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF WATER DISTRIBUTION, WITH WYOMING
APPROPRIATIONS SERVING NEBRASKA USES, WITH THE DEPENDENCE OF NEBRASKA
CANALS ON WYOMING DIVERSIONS, WITH THE JOINT USE OF CANALS TO SERVE
BOTH STATES.  THERE HAS BEEN NO EFFECTIVE INTERSTATE ADMINISTRATION. 
THE NEED TO TREAT THE SECTION AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT WITHOUT REGARD
TO STATE LINES SEEMS APPARENT.  THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED THAT THE
MOST FEASIBLE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT WOULD BE A DISTRIBUTION OF
NATURAL FLOW ON A PERCENTAGE OF DAILY FLOW BASIS. 

IF A DIVISION OF FLOW WERE MADE ACCORDING TO TOTAL ACREAGE, TOTAL
REQUIREMENTS, OR ACREAGE OR REQUIREMENTS OF SENIOR AND JUNIOR
APPROPRIATORS, IT WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:

      WYOMING    NEBRASKA 

TOTAL ACREAGE.....................................     27%
73% 

TOTAL REQUIREMENT IN ACRE FEET....................     23%
77% 

TOTAL SENIOR ACREAGE..............................     24%
76% 

TOTAL JUNIOR ACREAGE..............................     28%
72% 

TOTAL ACRE FEET REQUIREMENT, SENIOR ACREAGE.......     22%
78% 

TOTAL ACRE FEET REQUIREMENT, JUNIOR ACREAGE.......     23%
77% 

IF THE RIVER FLOW IS SEPARATED ACCORDING TO PRIORITY GROUPS, WATER
VALUES EXPRESSED IN SECOND FEET, AND IT IS ASSUMED THAT EACH CANAL
DIVERTS, IN ORDER OF PRIORITY, THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF ONE SECOND FOOT FOR
EACH 70 ACRES, THE RESULT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

(CHART OMITTED) 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT WHETHER A DIVISION BE PROPORTIONED TO TOTAL
ACREAGE OR TO TOTAL DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS OR BE MADE ON A STRICT
PRIORITY BASIS, THERE WOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE EXCEPT AS TO
THE FIRST 1,500 SECOND FEET.  THE MAXIMUM DIFFERENCE AS TO OTHER WATER
WOULD BE 6%. 

WYOMING ARGUES FOR A MASS ALLOCATION, E.G. 705,000 ACRE FEET TO BE
ALLOCATED TO NEBRASKA FOR DIVERSION IN THIS SECTION DURING THE
IRRIGATION SEASON FOR NEBRASKA LANDS.  THE SPECIAL MASTER REJECTED THAT
METHOD.  HE CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION OF
DEPENDABILITY OF FLOW WHICH WOULD BE BOUND TO RESULT IN INJUSTICE TO
ONE OR OTHER OF THE STATES; THAT IT APPORTIONED NOT ONLY NATURAL FLOW
BUT ALSO STORAGE WATER, THE DISPOSITION OF WHICH IS GOVERNED BY
CONTRACTS.  WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED WYOMING'S EXCEPTION THAT STORAGE
WATER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ALLOCATION.  WE HAVE ALSO
CONSIDERED THE OTHER PHASES OF HER ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MASS
ALLOCATION.  WE REPEAT THAT THE INADEQUACY OF THE SUPPLY IS TOO CLEAR
TO PERMIT ADOPTION OF WYOMING'S FORMULA. 

THE UNITED STATES AND NEBRASKA CLAIM THAT THE ADOPTION OF A PRIORITY
SCHEDULE IN THIS SECTION WOULD ACHIEVE THE MOST EQUITABLE RESULTS.  ON
A 25-75 PERCENTAGE BASIS, NEBRASKA WOULD GET 75 SECOND FEET OUT OF THE
FIRST 100, TO NONE OF WHICH SHE WOULD BE ENTITLED IN TIMES OF AN
EXTREME LOW FLOW; WYOMING WOULD GET 225 SECOND FEET OUT OF THE NEXT 900
TO NONE OF WHICH SHE WOULD BE ENTITLED ON A PRIORITY BASIS.  A PRIORITY
BASIS WOULD ONLY COINCIDE WITH THE PERCENTAGE BASIS WHEN THE SUPPLY
AVAILABLE WAS 400 SECOND FEET OR 1,500 SECOND FEET.  IF THE SUPPLY WERE
800 SECOND FEET, A PRIORITY BASIS WOULD GIVE WYOMING 103 SECOND FEET
AND NEBRASKA THE REMAINING 697 SECOND FEET.  ON THE 25-75 PERCENTAGE
BASIS, WYOMING WOULD RECEIVE 200 SECOND FEET AND NEBRASKA 600 SECOND
FEET.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE PROPOSED APPORTIONMENT
IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE RECORD OF THE LOW FLOW OF THE RIVER IN THIS
THE FLOW NEVER ROSE ABOVE 1,500 SECOND FEET AFTER AUGUST 10TH.  IN THE
1934 SEASON IT ROSE ABOVE 1,500 SECOND FEET ONLY ONCE AFTER JUNE 10TH. 
AND IN THE 1936 SEASON IT WAS NOT OFTEN OVER 1,500 SECOND FEET.  IN
1932, 1934 AND 1936 THE DIRECT FLOW FREQUENTLY FELL BELOW 1,000 SECOND
FEET.  IN 1934 IT ROSE ABOVE 800 SECOND FEET FOR ONLY ABOUT 33 DAYS
DURING THE ENTIRE SEASON AND WAS BELOW 400 SECOND FEET ABOUT 34 DAYS. 
IN 1936 IT WAS BELOW 1,000 SECOND FEET FOR OVER 50 DAYS DURING THE
SEASON AND BELOW 800 SECOND FEET ABOUT 28 DAYS.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT
FLUCTUATION IN THE RIGHTS TO WATER IS INHERENT IN THE PRIORITY SYSTEM
AND THAT THE PERCENTAGE APPORTIONMENT OF 25-75 IS TOO RIGID AND DOES
NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT RECOGNITION TO THAT FACT.  THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH
THE FLOW HAS DROPPED BELOW 1,500 SECOND FEET DURING THE DROUGHT AND THE
INEQUITIES WHICH RESULT IF A STRICT PRIORITY APPORTIONMENT IS NOT MADE
AT SUCH TIMES ARE EMPHASIZED.    THE UNITED STATES AND NEBRASKA ADVANCE
AS THEIR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE A STRICT PRIORITY APPORTIONMENT IN WHICH
THE RIGHTS OF EACH APPROPRIATOR WOULD BE FIXED.  WYOMING SAYS THAT MAY
NOT BE DONE SINCE THE APPROPRIATORS ARE NOT PARTIES TO THIS
PROCEEDING.  THE SPECIAL MASTER HAD SERIOUS DOUBTS ON THAT SCORE.  HE
ALSO FELT THAT AN INTERSTATE PRIORITY SCHEDULE FOR THIS SECTION, WHILE
NOT OPEN TO ALL THE OBJECTIONS WHICH WOULD BE PRESENT IF IT WERE
APPLIED TO THE WHOLE RIVER, WOULD HAVE OTHER OBJECTIONS.  THOSE WERE
(1) THAT IT WOULD DEPRIVE EACH STATE OF FULL FREEDOM OF INTRASTATE
ADMINISTRATION OF HER SHARE OF THE WATER AND (2) THAT IT WOULD BURDEN
THE DECREE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE DETAIL BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY TO AN
EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT.  OUR JUDGMENT IS THAT THESE LATTER
CONSIDERATIONS WITHOUT MORE ARE SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTION
OF THE STRICT PRIORITY ALLOCATION ADVANCED BY THE UNITED STATES AND
NEBRASKA.  AN EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT MAY BE HAD WITHOUT FASHIONING A
DECREE OF THAT DETAIL.  AND GREATER ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY MAY BE
ACHIEVED WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE STATES BY CHOICE OF ANOTHER
ALTERNATIVE. 

THE UNITED STATES AND NEBRASKA, HOWEVER, PRESS ON US A SECOND
ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF THE 25-75 PERCENTAGE BASIS RECOMMENDED BY THE
SPECIAL MASTER.  THEY SUGGEST THAT A SCHEDULE OF VARYING FLOWS OF THE
STREAM BE ADOPTED.  UNDER THAT THEORY THERE WOULD BE AN ALLOCATION ON A
PRIORITY BASIS TO EACH OF THE SEVEN "BLOCKS" OF SECOND FEET UP TO AND
INCLUDING 1,526 SECOND FEET.  ALL ABOVE 1,526 SECOND FEET WOULD BE
APPORTIONED ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS, E.G. 28 PER CENT TO WYOMING AND 72
PER CENT TO NEBRASKA. 

THAT ALTERNATIVE METHOD HAS MUCH TO RECOMMEND IT BECAUSE OF ITS
RATHER STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY DURING THE PERIODS
OF LOW FLOW.  AND IT MAY BE THAT IT WOULD INVOLVE NO GREATER
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN THAN THE FLAT PERCENTAGE METHOD.  FOR AS NEBRASKA
POINTS OUT, WHEN THE SUPPLY IS DETERMINED IT WOULD SEEM TO BE AS EASY
TO GIVE WYOMING THE FIRST 103 SECOND FEET AND NEBRASKA THE NEXT 924
SECOND FEET AS IT WOULD BE TO DIVIDE THE SECOND FEET OF FLOW BY
PERCENTAGES.  MOREOVER, THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE METHOD WOULD PRESERVE,
AS WELL AS THE FLAT PERCENTAGE METHOD, THE FULL CONTROL OF EACH STATE
OVER THE INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION OF HER WATER SUPPLY. 

WE ARE NOT SATISFIED, HOWEVER, THAT THE BLOCK SYSTEM OF ALLOCATION UP
TO AND INCLUDING 1,526 SECOND FEET IS THE MORE EQUITABLE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  THE COMBINED REQUIREMENT OF THE TRI-STATE
AND MITCHELL CANALS IS 924 SECOND FEET.  UNDER THE BLOCK SYSTEM OF
APPORTIONMENT THERE WOULD BE NO WATER FOR THE WYOMING CANALS IN GROUPS
3, 5, AND 7 OF THE FOREGOING TABLE EXCEPT SUCH STORAGE WATER AS WOULD
BE AVAILABLE TO THE LINGLE AND HILL DISTRICTS IN GROUP 5 UNDER THEIR
WARREN ACT CONTRACTS.  THE WYOMING APPROPRIATIONS IN THESE GROUPS ARE,
TO BE SURE, JUNIOR TO TRI-STATE AND MITCHELL.  BUT AS THE SPECIAL
MASTER POINTS OUT THOSE WYOMING APPROPRIATIONS, THOUGH JUNIOR,
REPRESENT OLD ESTABLISHED USES IN EXISTENCE FROM 40 TO OVER 50 YEARS. 
THEIR WATER SUPPLY WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY NEBRASKA ON BEHALF OF TRI
STATE AND MITCHELL UNTIL THE 1931-1940 DROUGHT CYCLE.  FOR EXAMPLE,
6,282 ACRES ARE SERVED BY TWO CANALS WHICH HAVE EXERCISED THEIR
APPROPRIATIVE RIGHTS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FOR OVER 50 YEARS. 
FURTHERMORE, THE GREAT INCREASE IN RETURN FLOWS FROM THE NORTH PLATTE
PROJECT, WHICH WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, ARE RELEVANT HERE.  THOSE RETURN
FLOWS ARE A "WINDFALL" TO IRRIGATORS WHO ARE SO SITUATED ON THE RIVER
AS TO USE THEM YET WHO DO NOT HAVE STORAGE RIGHTS AND WHO SHARE NO PART
OF STORAGE COSTS.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THESE RETURN FLOWS ARE SUBSTANTIAL
AND SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN BALANCING THE EQUITIES BETWEEN
WYOMING AND NEBRASKA IN THIS SECTION OF THE RIVER.  MOREOVER, THE
STORAGE WATER RIGHTS OF THE LANDS INCLUDED IN GROUPS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 OF
THE FOREGOING TABLE BEAR UPON THIS PROBLEM.  EIGHTY-TWO PER CENT OF
THAT NEBRASKA ACREAGE HAS STORAGE WATER RIGHTS UNDER WARREN ACT
CONTRACTS; 7 PER CENT OF THAT WYOMING ACREAGE HAS STORAGE WATER
RIGHTS.  WHEN GROUPS 1 TO 7 ARE CONSIDERED, 82 PER CENT OF THE NEBRASKA
ACREAGE AND 47 PER CENT OF THE WYOMING ACREAGE HAVE STORAGE WATER
RIGHTS UNDER WARREN ACT CONTRACTS.  THE MITCHELL AND RAMSHORN CANALS
ARE THE ONLY NEBRASKA CANALS IN THE 7 GROUPS WHICH HAVE NO STORAGE
WATER RIGHTS.  AS WE HAVE SAID, STORAGE WATER, THOUGH NOT APPORTIONED,
MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING EACH STATE'S EQUITABLE SHARE
OF THE NATURAL FLOW.  WYOMING V. COLORADO, SUPRA.  OUR PROBLEM IS NOT
TO DETERMINE WHAT ALLOCATION WOULD BE EQUITABLE AMONG THE CANALS IN
NEBRASKA OR AMONG THOSE IN WYOMING.  THAT IS A PROBLEM OF INTERNAL
ADMINISTRATION FOR EACH OF THE STATES.  OUR PROBLEM INVOLVES ONLY AN
APPRAISAL OF THE EQUITIES BETWEEN THE CLAIMANTS WHOM WYOMING REPRESENTS
ON THE ONE HAND AND THOSE REPRESENTED BY NEBRASKA ON THE OTHER.  WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE EARLY WYOMING USES, THE RETURN FLOWS, AND THE GREATER
STORAGE WATER RIGHTS WHICH NEBRASKA APPROPRIATORS HAVE IN THIS SECTION
AS COMPARED WITH THOSE OF WYOMING APPROPRIATORS TIP THE SCALES IN FAVOR
OF THE FLAT PERCENTAGE SYSTEM RECOMMENDED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER.  IT
SHOULD BE NOTED, MOREOVER, THAT THAT METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT, THOUGH
NOT STRICTLY ADHERING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY, GIVES IT GREAT
WEIGHT AND DOES NOT CAUSE AS GREAT A DISTORTION AS MIGHT APPEAR TO BE
THE CASE.  FOR ON THE FIRST 412 SECOND FEET OF FLOW THE ADVANTAGE WOULD
BE WITH NEBRASKA, SINCE 412 IS THE POINT AT WHICH 25 PER CENT OF THE
FLOW WOULD FIRST EQUAL THE 103 SECOND FEET WHICH ON A PRIORITY BASIS
WOULD GO TO WYOMING.  ON THE NEXT 1,114 SECOND FEET THE ADVANTAGE WOULD
BE WITH WYOMING, SINCE WYOMING'S SHARE ON A PRIORITY BASIS WOULD EQUAL
25 PER CENT OF THE FLOW ONLY AFTER THE TOTAL FLOW HAD REACHED 1,526
SECOND FEET. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE FLAT PERCENTAGE METHOD RECOMMENDED
BY THE SPECIAL MASTER IS THE MOST EQUITABLE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT. 
WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AGAINST THE APPORTIONMENT
BEING MADE ON THE BASIS OF 25-75 PER CENT.  BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE
EVIDENCE WARRANTS A CHANGE IN THOSE PERCENTAGES. 

WYOMING URGES REDUCTIONS IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WHALEN TO TRI
STATE DAM SECTION OF THE RIVER.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE SEASONAL
REQUIREMENT, AS FOUND BY THE SPECIAL MASTER, IS 1,027,000 ACRE FEET. 
WYOMING THINKS THIS SHOULD BE REDUCED 85,000 ACRE FEET BY LOWERING THE
ESTIMATES FOR THE INTERSTATE, TRI-STATE AND NORTHPORT CANALS AND BY
ELIMINATING THE DEMAND OF RAMSHORN.  WYOMING WOULD REDUCE INTERSTATE BY
60,000 ACRE FEET - 15,000 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXCESSIVE ACREAGE,
27,000 ON ACCOUNT OF POSSIBLE LARGE WINTER DIVERSIONS TO LAKE MINATARE
AND LAKE ALICE, 18,000 ON ACCOUNT OF WATER WHICH CAN BE PUMPED FROM
WELLS.  WE HAVE EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE ON THE ALLEGED EXCESSIVE ACREAGE
AND THE LAKE MINATARE AND LAKE ALICE DIVERSIONS AND ARE SATISFIED THAT
WYOMING HAS NOT MADE A SHOWING SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN HER EXCEPTIONS. 
IT WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE TO BURDEN THIS OPINION WITH THE
DETAILS.  AS RESPECTS THE DESIRED REDUCTION BECAUSE OF PUMPING LITTLE
NEED BE SAID.  IN 1940 INTERSTATE RECEIVED ONLY 45 PER CENT OF ITS
REQUIREMENTS.  WYOMING ESTIMATES THAT THE WATER PUMPED DURING THAT YEAR
WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF 18,000 ACRE FEET AT THE HEADGATE.  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE THE EQUITY IN WYOMING'S DEMAND THAT INTERSTATE'S QUOTA
FROM THE RIVER BE REDUCED BY THAT AMOUNT.  THESE IRRIGATORS BORE THEIR
SHARE OF THE COST OF THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PATHFINDER AND
GUERNSEY AND ALSO PAID THE COST OF THE PUMPING.  IT IS NOT JUST THAT
THEY FOREGO THE BENEFITS OF THE WATER FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAYING, GIVE
THE BENEFITS TO OTHERS, AND TAKE ON THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF PUMPING. 

WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED WYOMING'S CLAIM THAT EXCESSIVE ESTIMATES
HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TRI-STATE AND NORTHPORT.  AS RESPECTS TRI-STATE THERE
IS A SHARP CONFLICT OVER THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE ACREAGE SERVED. 
WHILE THE ACREAGE OF 52,300 ACRES COMPUTED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER IS
LIBERAL, IT HAS SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE AND WYOMING HAS NOT MADE A
SUFFICIENT SHOWING WHICH WARRANTS A REDUCTION FROM THAT FIGURE.  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE TRI-STATE ACREAGE EXPANDED AS THE RESULT OF WARREN ACT
CONTRACTS AND THAT A DEMAND ON NATURAL FLOW TO SUPPLY THAT AGGREGATE
ACREAGE ON ITS FACE SEEMS INEQUITABLE IN RELATION TO CANALS JUNIOR TO
TRI-STATE WHICH HAVE NO STORAGE RIGHTS.  BUT THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND
THAT THE SUPPLY FOR THE WYOMING PRIVATE CANALS IN THIS SECTION HAD ALSO
BEEN ENHANCED THROUGH THE OPERATION OF PATHFINDER AND RETURN FLOWS
RESULTING FROM THE USE OF STORAGE WATER.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE SUFFICIENT
DISPARITY HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WARRANT AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE DECREE.  THE
SPECIAL MASTER ALLOWED 30 PER CENT FOR LOSS IN THE TRI-STATE CANAL. 
WYOMING CLAIMS THAT SHOULD BE REDUCED BECAUSE WATER INTERCEPTED IN THE
TRI-STATE CANAL FOR DELIVERY TO NORTHPORT DOES NOT SUFFER AS GREAT A
LOSS SINCE IT IS NOT CARRIED AS FAR.  BUT WYOMING'S WITNESS REACHED THE
SAME VIEW AS THE SPECIAL MASTER.  AND NO PROOF IS ADVANCED BY WYOMING
WHICH UNDERMINES THAT CONCLUSION.  MOREOVER, AN EXAMINATION OF THE
POINTS AT WHICH THE RETURN FLOWS ARE INTERCEPTED INDICATES THAT THE
ROOM FOR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IS NOT AS GREAT AS WYOMING SUGGESTS. 

WYOMING'S CONTENTION THAT IN DETERMINING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CANALS IN THIS SECTION RAMSHORN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED 3,000
ACRE FEET PER ANNUM PRESENTS DIFFERENT PROBLEMS.  RAMSHORN RECEIVES ITS
SUPPLY THROUGH TRI-STATE.  THE SPECIAL MASTER IN COMPUTING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF TRI-STATE DEDUCTED THE RETURN FLOWS BELOW THE TRI-STATE
DAM WHICH WERE INTERCEPTED AND UTILIZED BY THE CANAL.  FN20  BUT THERE
APPARENTLY WAS NOT DEDUCTED THE ACCRETIONS FROM SPRING CREEK, A
TRIBUTARY WHICH FLOWS INTO THE RIVER BELOW THE WYOMING-NEBRASKA LINE
AND ABOVE TRI-STATE DAM.  FN21  THE AVERAGE RUN-OFF OF SPRING CREEK
FROM MAY TO SEPTEMBER DURING THE 1932-1940 PERIOD APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
2,855 ACRE FEET.  WE AGREE THAT THIS ACCRETION SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING NEBRASKA'S REQUIREMENT OF WATER FROM WYOMING. 

THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THAT THE PRIORITIES OF THE CANALS IN THIS
FOOT FOR EACH 70 ACRES), AND THE ACRE FEET REQUIREMENT PER SEASON WERE
AS FOLLOWS: 

(CHART OMITTED) 

NEBRASKA CONTENDS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF TRI-STATE SHOULD BE
196,000 ACRE FEET AND THAT THE ALLOTMENT TO THE GERING-FT. LARAMIE
IRRIGATION DISTRICT SHOULD BE 169,165 ACRE FEET.  THE ARGUMENT FOR THE
INCREASE FOR TRI-STATE IS BASED ON THE THEORY THAT NEBRASKA HAS NOT
BEEN GIVEN IN THIS SECTION THE SAME MARGIN OF SAFETY WHICH WAS ALLOWED
WYOMING IN THE PATHFINDER-WHALEN SECTION OF THE RIVER.  BUT NEBRASKA
HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THIS ALLOWANCE WAS LESS ACCURATE THAN THE ONES MADE
TO WYOMING IN THE OTHER SECTION OF THE RIVER.  AND OUR READING OF THE
RECORD CONVINCES US THAT THE ALLOWANCES TO NEBRASKA ARE AS LIBERAL AS
THOSE TO WYOMING AND THAT AN INCREASE TO EITHER WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED
IN VIEW OF THE OVERAPPROPRIATION OF THE NATURAL FLOW.  THE ARGUMENT OF
AN INCREASE IN THE ALLOTMENT TO THE GERING-FT. LARAMIE IRRIGATION
DISTRICT POINTS OUT THAT IT RECEIVES THE SAME HEADGATE ALLOTMENT AS THE
GOSHEN IRRIGATION DISTRICT IN WYOMING WHICH SUPPLIES THE WYOMING LAND
UNDER THIS CANAL AND THAT THE LOWER AREA SHOULD BE GIVEN A
SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER HEADGATE ALLOTMENT TO COMPENSATE FOR CANAL LOSSES
IN THE UPPER SECTION OF THE CANAL.  THIS ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  THE SAME ALLOWANCE FOR THE LANDS IN EACH STATE
IS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  FOR THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE DELIVERY TO
THE LANDS IN EACH STATE IN RELATION TO HEADGATE DIVERSIONS IS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. 

THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT THE ALLOWANCE OF 65 SECOND FEET FOR
THE NORTHPORT CANAL IS ERROR.  AS THE SPECIAL MASTER INDICATED, THE 65
SECOND FEET ALLOWANCE IS THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO SERVE THE ACREAGE
UNDER THAT CANAL WHICH WILL NOT BE SERVED BY RETURN FLOW INTERCEPTED
AND TRANSPORTED FOR NORTHPORT BY THE TRI-STATE CANAL.  BUT AS THE
UNITED STATES POINTS OUT, RETURN FLOW IS NOT STEADY DURING THE
IRRIGATION SEASON.  IT PRESENTED A STUDY SHOWING THAT IN THE SEVEN BEST
YEARS FROM 1930 TO 1940 THE AVERAGE RETURN FLOW INTERCEPTED BY TRI
STATE ON MAY 1 WAS ONLY 23 SECOND FEET, AVERAGED ONLY 43.9 SECOND FEET
FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, AVERAGED 135 SECOND FEET FOR THE MONTH OF JULY
AND DID NOT REACH ITS PEAK OF 200 SECOND FEET UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, THE
END OF THE IRRIGATION SEASON.  ON THAT BASIS NORTHPORT COULD IRRIGATE
VERY LITTLE OF ITS ACREAGE FROM RETURN FLOW IN THE FIRST PART OF THE
IRRIGATION SEASON, THOUGH AT THE END OF THE SEASON IT COULD IRRIGATE
ALL.  THE SECOND FEET REQUIREMENT OF NORTHPORT IS 186.  WE CONCLUDE
THAT NORTHPORT SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO USE THAT AMOUNT OF FLOW DURING THE
SEASON TO MEET ITS REQUIREMENT OF 19,100 ACRE FEET.  THE 186 SECOND
FEET WILL, HOWEVER, BE SUBJECT TO REDUCTION BY THE AMOUNT OF RETURN
FLOW INTERCEPTED BY THE TRI-STATE CANAL FOR DELIVERY TO NORTHPORT AT
ANY GIVEN POINT OF TIME.    AS WE HAVE NOTED,  FN22  THE SPECIAL MASTER
RECOMMENDS THAT FOR THIS PART OF THE DECREE SEGREGATION OF NATURAL FLOW
AND STORAGE WATER BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMULA AND DATA
APPEARING IN U.S. EXHIBIT 204A, UNLESS AND UNTIL NEBRASKA, WYOMING AND
THE UNITED STATES AGREE UPON A MODIFICATION OR UPON ANOTHER FORMULA. 
WYOMING CONTENDS THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT IS NATURAL
FLOW AND WHAT IS STORAGE WATER IN THE WHALEN-TRI-STATE DAM SECTION OF
THE RIVER FROM DAY TO DAY.  THE PROBLEM IS A PERPLEXING ONE.  PHYSICAL
SEGREGATION IS, OF COURSE, IMPOSSIBLE.  BUT ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD
WE THINK THAT IT IS FEASIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT PORTION OF THE FLOW AT A
GIVEN POINT IS STORAGE WATER AND WHAT PORTION IS NATURAL FLOW. 
PRECISION IS CONCEDEDLY IMPOSSIBLE.  BUT APPROXIMATIONS ARE POSSIBLE;
AND THEY ARE SUFFICIENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RIVER UNDER THE
DECREE.  IT IS TRUE, AS WYOMING SAYS, THAT IN ORDER TO SEGREGATE
STORAGE WATER AND NATURAL FLOW, LOSSES BY EVAPORATION MUST BE
DETERMINED AND, SINCE THOSE LOSSES VARY FROM SECTION TO SECTION, THE
NUMBER OF DAYS REQUIRED FOR THE WATER TO TRAVEL FROM ONE POINT TO
ANOTHER MUST BE KNOWN.  THE TIME REQUIRED FOR WATER TO TRAVEL FROM
ALCOVA TO NEBRASKA VARIES UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS.  AS AN EXPERT OF
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TESTIFIED, SINCE THAT TIME INTERVAL VARIES
WITH THE AMOUNT OF WATER FLOWING IN THE RIVER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAKE
A FORMULA WHICH REFLECTS IT.  INDEED U.S. EXHIBIT 204A DOES NOT INCLUDE
THE TIME LAG ELEMENT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT SUPPLY ALL THE DATA
NECESSARY IN THE SEGREGATION OF NATURAL FLOW AND STORAGE WATER AT
WHALEN.  BUT THIS EXPERT TESTIFIED THAT ALTHOUGH IT HAD NOT BEEN
POSSIBLE TO REFLECT THE TIME INTERVAL IN A FORMULA, AN ADJUSTMENT FOR
IT WAS MADE: 

"Q. - IN MAKING THIS TIME INTERVAL CORRECTION, YOU USE YOUR BEST
JUDGMENT, BASED UPON YOUR EXPERIENCE ON THE RIVER AND YOUR OBSERVATION
OF WHAT CONDITIONS WERE IN THE RIVER, AND, USING THAT JUDGMENT, YOU
ARRIVE AT THE FIGURE FOR THIS TIME INTERVAL CORRECTION, DO YOU NOT? 

"A. - YES, IT IS A MORE OR LESS ARBITRARY CORRECTION  ..." 

BUT WHILE THE ADJUSTMENT IS AN ARBITRARY ONE, CORRECTIONS CAN BE MADE
AND ARE MADE SO THAT OVER A SHORT PERIOD OF DAYS THE SEGREGATION IS
BALANCED.  FN23  AND THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THOUGH THIS ADJUSTMENT IS
ONLY APPROXIMATE AND LACKS PRECISION, IT IS SUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES.  FOR THIS EXPERT OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
TESTIFIED: 

"Q. - BUT, GIVING CONSIDERATION TO ALL OF THESE FACTORS, THERE ISN'T
ANY WAY OF MAKING ANY ACCURATE DETERMINATION, DAY TO DAY, OF THE ACTUAL
BALANCE OF NATURAL FLOW AND STORAGE AT EITHER GUERNSEY OR THE NEBRASKA
WYOMING LINE, IS THERE? 

"A. - THAT TERM 'ACCURATE' DEPENDS UPON WHAT IS ACCURATE. 

"Q. - I MEAN THIS, MR. GLEASON - IF THERE IS 5,000 SECOND FEET OF
WATER ARRIVING AT GUERNSEY, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN CORRECTLY AND
ACCURATELY DETERMINE THAT 2,500, FOR INSTANCE, IS STORAGE AND THAT
2,500 IS NATURAL FLOW? 

"A. - OH, I BELIEVE THAT WE ARRIVE AT A FIGURE THAT IS CORRECT ENOUGH
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES.  IT MUST BE REALIZED THAT AN ERROR OF TEN
SECOND FEET IN FIVE HUNDRED IS INEVITABLE.  ALL HYDROGRAPHIC RECORDS
ARE INACCURATE TO A VARYING EXTENT, AND THE COMPUTATIONS BASED UPON
THEM, AND BASED UPON ASSUMPTIONS AS TO EVAPORATION IN PREPARING
FORMULAE, SO THE JUDGMENT OF THE MEN DOING IT ENTERS INTO THE FINAL
FIGURE, AND THE MOST WE CAN HOPE TO DO IS TO ARRIVE AT DAILY FIGURES
WHICH, SUMMED UP OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, WILL MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATE
THE ACCURATE FIGURES THAN THE DAILY FIGURES TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY DO." 

NO OTHER EXPERT TESTIMONY UNDERMINES THAT CONCLUSION. 

WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE SEGREGATION OF NATURAL FLOW AND STORAGE
WATER LACKS FEASIBILITY.  IF A COMPREHENSIVE FORMULA CAN BE AGREED
UPON, IT MAY LATER BE INCORPORATED IN THE DECREE. 

GAUGING STATIONS AND MEASURING DEVICES.  THE SPECIAL MASTER
RECOMMENDS THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL GAUGING STATIONS AND MEASURING DEVICES
AT OR NEAR THE WYOMING-NEBRASKA STATE LINE BE INSTALLED AS ARE
NECESSARY FOR EFFECTING THE APPORTIONMENT IN THE WHALEN-TRI-STATE DAM
JOINT AND EQUAL EXPENSE OF NEBRASKA AND WYOMING.  THE PARTIES TAKE NO
EXCEPTION TO THIS RECOMMENDATION AND IT WILL BE ADOPTED. 

TRI-STATE DAM TO BRIDGEPORT, NEB.  THE SPECIAL MASTER EXCLUDED THIS
CANALS ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPLIED FROM RETURN FLOWS AND OTHER LOCAL
SOURCES.  NEBRASKA TAKES EXCEPTION TO THAT EXCLUSION.  SHE POINTS OUT
THAT OF THE 12 CANALS IN THIS SECTION WHICH BEAR ON OUR PROBLEM, TWO
HAVE WARREN ACT CONTRACTS.  NINE ARE SENIOR TO ALL WYOMING
APPROPRIATIONS EXCEPT THE FIRST 103 SECOND FEET FOR THE OLDEST
APPROPRIATORS; ONLY ABOUT 200 SECOND FEET OF WYOMING APPROPRIATIONS ARE
SENIOR TO THESE NEBRASKA APPROPRIATIONS.  NEBRASKA SAYS THAT FOUR OF
THESE CANALS HAD INSUFFICIENT SUPPLIES DURING THE THREE DRY YEARS OF
1934, 1936 AND 1940.  AND SHE POINTS OUT THAT DURING THE SAME PERIODS
THE NINE WYOMING CANALS, SERVING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME KINDS OF AREAS,
HAD EXCESSIVE DIVERSIONS.  BUT IT APPEARS THAT OTHER NEBRASKA CANALS IN
THE SECTION HAD EXCESSIVE DIVERSIONS DURING THE SAME YEARS.  AND THE
RECORD SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER THAT SEASONAL
SUPPLIES ARE ADEQUATE.  HE EXPLAINED THE SHORTAGES AS DUE (1) TO LACK
OF COINCIDENCE BETWEEN THE TIME AND QUANTITY OF SUPPLIES AND THE TIME
AND EXTENT OF NEEDS; (2) THE EXCESSIVE DIVERSIONS BY SOME CANALS AT THE
EXPENSE OF OTHERS; (3) THE WITHDRAWAL OF WATER AS A MATTER OF PRIORITY
TO SUPPLY SENIOR CANALS IN THE LOWER SECTION.  THE LATTER HE THOUGHT
WOULD BE LARGELY ELIMINATED DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE KINGSLEY AND
SUTHERLAND RESERVOIRS. 

NEBRASKA HAS NOT CONVINCED US THAT THERE IS ERROR IN THIS
CONCLUSION.  TWO OF THE CANALS HAVE WARREN ACT CONTRACTS.  IN THE 1931
1940 PERIOD WHILE THERE WAS NO LIMITATION ON WYOMING USES FOR
NEBRASKA'S BENEFIT, THE MEAN DIVERTIBLE FLOW PASSING TRI-STATE DAM FOR
THE MAY-SEPTEMBER PERIOD WAS 81,700 ACRE FEET.  THIS IS IN ADDITION TO
THE LOCAL SUPPLIES WHICH EVEN DURING THE DROUGHT PERIOD WERE ADEQUATE
TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CANALS WITHOUT CALLING UPON UP-RIVER WATER. 

THIS SECTION WILL ACCORDINGLY NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE APPORTIONMENT. 

MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE.  THE SPECIAL MASTER RECOMMENDS THAT THE
DECREE PERMIT ANY OF THE PARTIES TO APPLY AT THE FOOT OF THE DECREE FOR
ITS AMENDMENT OR FOR FURTHER RELIEF, AND THAT THE COURT RETAIN
JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY ORDER, DIRECTION, OR
MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE OR ANY SUPPLEMENTARY DECREE THAT MAY AT ANY
TIME BE DEEMED PROPER IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY.  COLORADO AND WYOMING OBJECT TO THIS PROVISION. 
COLORADO'S OBJECTION THAT THIS PROVISION PLACES ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS
ON THE COURT WHICH WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY
ANSWERED.  WYOMING'S OBJECTION IS IN THE MAIN THAT A COMPLETE EQUITABLE
APPORTIONMENT SHOULD BE MADE, LEAVING OPEN FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
ONLY THE QUESTION OF ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ABOVE WHALEN IN WYOMING AND
COLORADO.  BUT OUR REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL FOR A MASS ALLOCATION
DISPOSES OF THIS OBJECTION.  AND WE DO NOT THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO BAR,
AS WYOMING SUGGESTS, APPLICATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS WITHIN A PERIOD OF
TEN YEARS, OR ALTERNATELY FIVE YEARS, FROM ENTRY OF THE DECREE. 

ORDINARY AND USUAL DOMESTIC AND MUNICIPAL PURPOSES.  THE SPECIAL
MASTER REPORTS THAT THE PARTIES ARE AGREED THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO
RESTRICTION UPON THE DIVERSION FROM THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER IN COLORADO
OR WYOMING OF WATER FOR ORDINARY AND USUAL DOMESTIC AND MUNICIPAL
PURPOSES AND CONSUMPTION AND THAT NOTHING IN THE RECOMMENDED DECREE IS
INTENDED TO OR WILL INTERFERE WITH SUCH DIVERSIONS AND USES.  WYOMING
SUGGESTS THAT THAT PROVISION COVER NOT ONLY DIVERSIONS FROM THE NORTH
PLATTE RIVER IN COLORADO AND WYOMING BUT ALSO DIVERSION FROM ITS
TRIBUTARIES IN THOSE STATES AND THAT STOCK-WATERING PURPOSES BE
EXCEPTED AS WELL AS ORDINARY AND USUAL DOMESTIC AND MUNICIPAL
PURPOSES.  WE THINK THOSE SUGGESTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE ONES.  THEY WILL
BE ADOPTED. 

RECORDS OF IRRIGATION AND STORAGE.  THE DECREE, AS HAS BEEN SEEN,
WILL LIMIT WYOMING AND COLORADO TO THE IRRIGATION OF STATED ACREAGES
ABOVE PATHFINDER AND TO STORAGE OF MORE THAN STATED AMOUNTS OF WATER IN
THAT REGION.  THE UNITED STATES INSISTS THAT THE DECREE SHOULD ALSO
REQUIRE WYOMING AND COLORADO TO MAINTAIN COMPLETE AND ACCURATE RECORDS
OF IRRIGATION AND STORAGE OF WATER IN THOSE AREAS AND TO KEEP THEM
AVAILABLE.  WYOMING SAYS THAT IS AN UNNECESSARY PROVISION.  COLORADO
SAYS THAT ITS OFFICIALS ALREADY HAVE SUCH DUTIES.  BUT THE RECORD IN
THIS CASE REFLECTS THE NEED FOR COMPLETE AND ACCURATE RECORDS.  AND IT
SEEMS TO US DESIRABLE THAT SUCH RECORDS BE KEPT.  OTHERWISE, NEITHER
THE STATES NOR THE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES CAN KNOW IF THE ACREAGE AND
STORAGE LIMITATIONS ARE BEING MET.  CONTINUOUS RECORDS WILL SIMPLIFY
THE PROGRAM OF ADMINISTRATION.  THE PROPOSAL IS ADOPTED. 

IMPORTATION OF WATER.  THE DECREE WHICH WE ENTER APPORTIONS ONLY THE
NATURAL FLOW OF THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER.  THE UNITED STATES SUGGESTS
THAT THE DECREE EXPLICITLY STATE THAT IT DOES NOT COVER ANY ADDITIONAL
SUPPLY OF WATER WHICH MAY BE IMPORTED INTO THIS BASIN FROM THE
WATERSHED OF AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE STREAM AND WHICH PRESENTLY DOES NOT
FLOW INTO THE BASIN.  TO REMOVE ANY POSSIBLE DOUBT ON THAT SCORE THE
DECREE WILL CONTAIN A PROVISION THAT IT DOES NOT AND WILL NOT AFFECT
THE USE OF SUCH ADDITIONAL SUPPLIES OF WATER OR THE RETURN FLOW FROM
IT.  ALL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE APPORTIONMENT OF SUCH WATER WILL
AWAIT THE EVENT. 

THE PARTIES MAY WITHIN NINETY DAYS SUBMIT THE FORM OF DECREE TO CARRY
THIS OPINION INTO EFFECT.  COSTS WILL BE APPORTIONED AND PAID AS
FOLLOWS: THE STATE OF COLORADO, ONE-FIFTH; THE STATE OF WYOMING, TWO
FIFTHS; AND THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, TWO-FIFTHS.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE WATERS OF THE SOUTH PLATTE AND THE LARAMIE WERE PREVIOUSLY
APPORTIONED - THE FORMER BETWEEN COLORADO AND NEBRASKA BY COMPACT (44
STAT. 195), THE LATTER BETWEEN COLORADO AND WYOMING BY DECREE.  WYOMING
V. COLORADO, 259 U.S. 496.  THOSE APPORTIONMENTS ARE IN NO WAY AFFECTED
BY THE DECREE IN THIS CASE. 

FN2  APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF THE NORTH PLATTE: 

COLORADO..................................  70 MILES 

WYOMING................................... 435 MILES 

NEBRASKA (TO NORTH PLATTE)................ 180 MILES 

DRAINAGE AREA OF THE NORTH PLATTE, EXCLUSIVE OF THE LARAMIE RIVER: 

COLORADO ..................... 1,630 SQ. MI.   6% 

WYOMING ......................17,540 SQ. MI.  63% 

NEBRASKA ..................... 8,730 SQ. MI.  31%

                            ----------------------- 

TOTAL ........................27,900 SQ. MI. 

FN3 THE AVERAGE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM 1895 TO 1939 TO THE WATER
OF THE NORTH PLATTE WERE COMPUTED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER AS FOLLOWS: 

NORTH PARK..............................   635,100 ACRE FEET 

WYOMING STATE LINE TO PATHFINDER........ 1,059,240 ACRE FEET 

PATHFINDER TO WHALEN....................   390,000 ACRE FEET 

WHALEN TO TRI-STATE DAM.................   281,940 ACRE FEET 

TRI-STATE DAM TO KINGSLEY............... 1,027,890 ACRE FEET 

KINGSLEY TO GRAND ISLAND................ 308,200 ACRE FEET 

BY STATES THE CONTRIBUTIONS WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

COLORADO............................   819,220 ACRE FEET 21% 

WYOMING............................. 1,731,600 ACRE FEET 45% 

NEBRASKA............................ 1,336,090 ACRE FEET 34% 

FN4

                 COLORADO    WYOMING  NEBRASKA*      TOTAL 

1880------------        200     11,000                   11,200 

1890............     44,500 86,000        15,300    145,800 

1900............     83,500    169,100       105,690    358,290 

1910............    113,500    224,500       192,150    530,150 

1920------------    129,140    265,375       306,930    701,445 

1930------------    130,540    307,105       371,300    808,945 

1939------------    131,810    325,720       383,355    840,885 

*NOT INCLUDING ABOUT 65,000 ACRES NOW IRRIGATED FROM THE PLATTE RIVER
BETWEEN NORTH PLATTE AND KEARNEY, NEB. 

FN5  OF THE 174,650 ACRE INCREASE SINCE 1910, 104,000 ACRES ARE NORTH
PLATTE PROJECT LANDS. 

FN6  WHICH THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND TO BE THE BEST SINGLE INDEX ON
THE RIVER DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE MAIN ACCRETIONS OF COLORADO AND
WYOMING ARE ALREADY IN THE RIVER AND THE NATURAL FLOW IS NOT
APPRECIABLY DISTORTED BY STORAGE RELEASES AS IT IS BELOW PATHFINDER. 

FN7

YEAR   ACRE FEET   YEAR   ACRE FEET   YEAR   ACRE FEET 

1904----1,262,000  1917----2,399,400  1930----1,072,800

05----1,159,400    18----1,486,100    31----  706,300

06....1,351,000    19....  859,700    32....1,506,600

07....1,851,100  1920....1,870,100    33....1,149,500

08....  918,600    21....1,782,000 34....  382,200

09....2,381,800    22....1,148,200    35....  696,200 

1910----  918,100    23----1,500,800    36----1,045,600

11----1,123,400    24----1,489,900    37----1,130,600

12----1,820,500    25----1,244,700    38----1,334,900

13----1,265,000    26----1,776,500    39----  698,200

14----1,550,900    27----1,456,200  1940----  569,800

15----  900,200    28----1,725,400

16----1,253,400    29----1,902,700 

FN8  CONSUMPTIVE USE REPRESENTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WATER DIVERTED
AND WATER WHICH RETURNS TO THE STREAM AFTER USE FOR IRRIGATION. 

FN9  THE EXCESS OR DEFICIENCY FOR EACH OF THOSE YEARS IS INDICATED BY
THE FOLLOWING: 

1931.......... 113,300  1936..........   5,480 

1932.......... 352,500  1937.......... 225,350    1933..........
465,100  1938.......... 143,150 

1934..........-515,400  1939..........  66,050 

1935..........-157,000  1940..........-382,080 

FN10  OF THIS 90 PER CENT, 68 PER CENT ARE PROJECT LANDS AND 32 PER
CENT HAVE WARREN ACT CONTRACTS. 

FN11  THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES AS STORER AND CARRIER IS NOT
NECESSARILY EXHAUSTED WHEN IT DELIVERS THE WATER TO GRANTEES UNDER ITS
IRRIGATION PROJECTS.  THUS IN IDE V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 497 THE
RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS HELD TO EXTEND TO WATER WHICH RESULTED
FROM SEEPAGE FROM THE IRRIGATED LANDS UNDER ITS PROJECT AND WHICH WAS
NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF PRIVATE APPROPRIATION UNDER LOCAL LAW. 

FN12  KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46; MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, 180 U.S.
208. 

FN13  THAT CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE STATES IS PARTLY REFLECTED IN
STATE V. MITCHELL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 129 NEB. 586, 262 N.W. 543, AND
MITCHELL IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. WHITING, 59 WYO. 52, 136 P.2D 502. 

FN14  NEBRASKA OBJECTS TO THE MARGIN OF SAFETY PROVIDED ABOVE ACTUAL
EXISTING USES.  BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MARGIN ALLOWED IS UNJUST
UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 

FN15  IN ACCORD WITH COLORADO'S SUGGESTION THE DECREE WILL EMBRACE
JACKSON COUNTY AND NOT NORTH PARK SINCE THE TWO ARE NOT COTERMINOUS AND
SINCE JACKSON COUNTY IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE RIVER BASIN AND INCLUDES
AREAS NOT LOCATED IN NORTH PARK. 

FN16  WHETHER, AS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES TOGETHER WITH THE
IRRIGATION PROJECTS SPONSORED BY IT ON THE ONE HAND AND THE FARMERS
IRRIGATION DISTRICT ON THE OTHER, THE UNITED STATES IS ESTOPPED BY
UNITED STATES V. TILLEY, 124 F.2D 850, TO DENY THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE
COVERED BY THE WARREN ACT CONTRACT WITH THE DISTRICT IS NOT RELEVANT
HERE. 

FN17  THUS THE CONTRACT WITH THE GERING IRRIGATION DISTRICT
PROVIDES: 

"THE UNITED STATES WILL IMPOUND, AND STORE WATER IN THE PATHFINDER
RESERVOIR, OR ELSEWHERE AND RELEASE THE SAME INTO THE NORTH PLATTE
RIVER AT SUCH TIMES AND IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO DELIVER, AND DOES
HEREBY AGREE TO DELIVER AT THE WYOMING-NEBRASKA STATE LINE FOR THE USE
OF SAID DISTRICT AN AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH WILL, WITH ALL THE WATER THE
LANDS OF THE DISTRICT MAY BE ENTITLED TO BY REASON OF ANY
APPROPRIATIONS AND ALL WATER NOT OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED, INCLUDING
DRAINAGE AND SEEPAGE WATERS DEVELOPED BY THE UNITED STATES, AGGREGATE A
FLOW OF WATER AS FOLLOWS: (HERE FOLLOWS THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE); THE
TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE SO DELIVERED BEING APPROXIMATELY 35,500 ACRE FEET." 

FN18  THE CONTRACT PROVIDES: 

"IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CASPER-ALCOVA
PROJECT AND THE IRRIGATION OF LANDS UNDER IT IS IN NO WAY TO IMPAIR THE
WATER RIGHTS FOR THE FEDERAL NORTH PLATTE RECLAMATION PROJECT IN
WYOMING AND NEBRASKA, AND THE SAID NORTH PLATTE PROJECT, AND WARREN ACT
CONTRACTORS UNDER IT ARE TO RECEIVE A WATER SUPPLY OF THE SAME QUANTITY
AS WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IF THE CASPER-ALCOVA PROJECT HAD NOT BEEN
CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED." 

FN19  HE LIKEWISE RECOMMENDS (1) THAT IN THE APPORTIONMENT OF WATER
IN THIS SECTION THE FLOW FOR EACH DAY, UNTIL ASCERTAINABLE, SHALL BE
ASSUMED TO BE THE SAME AS THAT OF THE PRECEDING DAY AS SHOWN BY THE
MEASUREMENTS AND COMPUTATIONS FOR THAT DAY; AND (2) THAT IN THE
SEGREGATION OF NATURAL FLOW AND STORAGE WATER, RESERVOIR EVAPORATION
AND TRANSPORTATION LOSSES SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
FORMULA AND DATA WHICH APPEAR IN THE RECORD IDENTIFIED AS UNITED STATES
EXHIBIT 204A, UNLESS AND UNTIL NEBRASKA, WYOMING, AND THE UNITED STATES
MAY AGREE UPON A MODIFICATION THEREOF OR UPON ANOTHER FORMULA.  WE
DISCUSS THE SECOND OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS LATER IN THIS OPINION.  WE
ADOPT BOTH OF THEM. 

FN20  THEY ARE SHOWN ON WYOMING'S EXHIBIT NO. 149. 

FN21  THEY ARE SHOWN ON WYOMING'S EXHIBIT NO. 150. 

FN22  NOTE 19, SUPRA. 

FN23  THIS EXPERT FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, C. F. GLEASON,
TESTIFIED: 

"Q. - IF THERE IS AN ERROR IN A SERIES OF FOUR OR FIVE DAYS AS TO THE
AMOUNT OF NATURAL FLOW IN RELATION TO THE STORAGE, THAT MIGHT MEAN THAT
A NATURAL FLOW CANAL MIGHT GET MORE OR MIGHT GET LESS THAN ITS DUE
ALLOTMENT OF WATER, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? 

"A. - THAT MIGHT BE TRUE OVER A VERY SHORT PERIOD.  HOWEVER, THE
CORRECTIONS MADE WHICH ARE SHOWN IN THE WORK SHEETS AS PLUS OR MINUS
STORAGE IN THAT SECTION OF THE RIVER ARE MADE TO BALANCE OUT IN SUCH A
WAY THAT OVER THE SEASON THERE IS NO ROBBERY OF NATURAL FLOW OR STORAGE
AND NO PARTICULAR ACCRUAL TO IT AS A RESULT OF THIS METHOD OF
CALCULATION. 

"Q. - THAT IS, AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO BALANCE OUT, ACCORDING TO YOUR
JUDGMENT OF WHAT OUGHT TO BE THE AMOUNT OF NATURAL FLOW AND STORAGE AT
THE STATE LINE, IS THAT RIGHT? 

"A. - IT IS NOT BALANCED OUT ACCORDING TO JUDGMENT.  IT IS BALANCED
OUT MATHEMATICALLY. 

"Q. - BUT IT IS BALANCED OUT MATHEMATICALLY UPON WHAT FACTORS? 

"A. - UPON THE FACTORS OF PLUS AND MINUS CHANNEL STORAGE, IF YOU WANT
TO USE THAT TERM.  IF WE PLUS STORAGE INTO THE CHANNEL SOME DAYS, WE
MINUS THE TOTAL OF THE SAME AMOUNT LATER ON TO MAKE IT BALANCE OUT. 

"Q. - THAT IS TO SAY, AND YOU JUST TESTIFIED IN THAT WAY, THAT YOUR
BALANCING OUT OF THESE PLUS AND MINUS QUANTITIES THAT YOU PUT IN IS
BASED UPON YOUR JUDGMENT OF HOW MUCH NATURAL FLOW AND STORAGE WATER IS
AT THE STATE LINE, IN VIEW OF THE CONDITIONS AND THE QUANTITIES OF
NATURAL FLOW AND STORAGE AT ALCOVA? 

"A. - YES, THAT IS CORRECT. 

"Q. - ACCORDINGLY, THE PLUS OR MINUS CORRECTIONS ARE BASED UPON THIS
MATTER OF JUDGMENT. 

"A. - YES." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE.  I
THINK THE DECISION CONSTITUTES A DEPARTURE FROM PRINCIPLES LONG
ESTABLISHED AND OBSERVED BY THE COURT IN LITIGATIONS BETWEEN THE STATES
OF THE UNION, AND ADOPTS A COURSE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO OUR MOST
RECENT ADJUDICATION IN THE FIELD OF INTERSTATE WATERS.  FN1  WITHOUT
PROOF OF ACTUAL DAMAGE IN THE PAST, OR OF ANY THREAT OF SUBSTANTIAL
DAMAGE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THE COURT NOW UNDERTAKES TO ASSUME
JURISDICTION OVER THREE QUASI-SOVEREIGN STATES AND TO SUPERVISE, FOR
ALL TIME, THEIR RESPECTIVE USES OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM ON THE BASIS OF
PAST USE, INCLUDING, OVER A TEN-YEAR TERM, THE GREATEST DROUGHT IN THE
HISTORY OF THE REGION, ADMITTING, IN EFFECT, THAT ITS ALLOCATION OF
PRIVILEGES TO THE RESPECTIVE STATES WILL HAVE TO BE REVISED AND
MODIFIED WHEN THAT DROUGHT CEASES AND MORE WATER BECOMES AVAILABLE FOR
BENEFICIAL USE.  I DOUBT IF, IN SUCH INTERSTATE CONTROVERSIES, ANY
STATE IS EVER ENTITLED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FROM THIS COURT.  I AM
SURE THAT, ON THE SHOWING IN THE PRESENT RECORD, NONE OF THE STATES IS
ENTITLED TO A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.  THE PRECEDENT NOW MADE WILL ARISE
TO PLAGUE THIS COURT NOT ONLY IN THE PRESENT SUIT BUT IN OTHERS.  THE
FUTURE WILL DEMONSTRATE, IN MY JUDGMENT, HOW WRONG IT IS FOR THIS COURT
TO ATTEMPT TO BECOME A CONTINUING UMPIRE OR A STANDING MASTER TO WHOM
THE PARTIES MUST GO AT INTERVALS FOR LEAVE TO DO WHAT, IN THEIR
SOVEREIGN RIGHT, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE,
PROVIDED ONLY THAT THEY WORK NO SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO THEIR NEIGHBORS. 
IN SUCH CONTROVERSIES THE JUDICIAL POWER SHOULD BE FIRMLY EXERCISED
UPON PROPER OCCASION, BUT AS FIRMLY WITHHELD UNLESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES
PLAINLY DEMAND THE INTERVENTION OF THE COURT.  SUCH MUTUAL
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE FUTURE AS NEBRASKA AND WYOMING DESIRE SHOULD BE
ARRANGED BY INTERSTATE COMPACT, NOT BY LITIGATION. 

NEBRASKA INITIATED THIS SUIT ON THE THEORY THAT WYOMING WAS DIVERTING
WATER UNDER WYOMING APPROPRIATIONS JUNIOR TO NEBRASKA APPROPRIATIONS,
WHICH, AT THE TIME, WERE EITHER RECEIVING NO WATER OR AN INSUFFICIENT
SUPPLY.  NEBRASKA, IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION, ATTEMPTED TO PROVE THE
WORTH OF AN ACRE-FOOT OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION.  BUT, OF COURSE, THIS IS
NOT THE WAY TO PROVE DAMAGE IN SUCH A CONTROVERSY; WATER FOR BENEFICIAL
USE IS WHAT COUNTS.  NO INJURY RESULTS FROM THE DEPRIVATION OF WATER
UNLESS A NEED IS SHOWN FOR THAT WATER FOR BENEFICIAL CONSUMPTIVE USE AT
THE TIME BY THE STATE CLAIMING TO HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY DEPRIVED OF IT.
IF WATER IS NOT NEEDED BY DOWNSTREAM SENIOR RIGHTS, THE DENIAL OF WATER
TO UPSTREAM JUNIOR RIGHTS CAN RESULT ONLY IN WASTE.  NO STATE MAY PLAY
DOG IN THE MANGER, AND BUILD UP RESERVES FOR FUTURE USE IN THE ABSENCE
OF PRESENT NEED AND PRESENT DAMAGE. 

EVEN ON NEBRASKA'S THEORY, SHE DID NOT SEE FIT TO IMPLEAD COLORADO,
OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE SHE DESPAIRED OF SHOWING THAT ANYTHING COLORADO WAS
DOING, OR THREATENING PRESENTLY TO DO, DEPRIVED HER OF ANY RIGHT. 
WYOMING IMPLEADED COLORADO NOT ON THE THEORY THAT COLORADO WAS INJURING
WYOMING, OR THREATENING SO TO DO, BUT ON THE THEORY THAT THERE OUGHT TO
BE AN APPORTIONMENT OF "RIGHTS" IN THE WATERS OF THE STREAM AS BETWEEN
THE THREE STATES,  - AN ADVISORY JUDGMENT ON THE SUBJECT. 

I SHALL FIRST DISCUSS THE CONTEMPLATED DECREE AS IT AFFECTS
COLORADO.  THE MASTER FINDS: 

"EQUITY DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY RESTRICTION UPON OR INTERFERENCE WITH
PRESENT USES OF WATER BY COLORADO WITHIN THE NORTH PLATTE BASIN IN
NORTH PARK OR ANY REDUCTION IN THE PRESENT RATE OF TRANSBASIN
EXPORTATION FROM NORTH PARK. 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"FURTHERMORE, REDUCTION IN COLORADO USE WOULD NOT CORRESPONDINGLY
ENHANCE THE SUPPLY OF THE OTHER STATES.  IN FACT THERE IS NO CLEAR
SHOWING AS TO THE EXTENT OF BENEFIT TO THE NORTH PLATTE PROJECT OR
OTHER WYOMING OR NEBRASKA USERS OF ANY LIMITATION UPON PRESENT USES IN
NORTH PARK." 

THE MASTER CONCLUDES: 

"FROM A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTORS BEARING ON THOSE EQUITIES,
MY JUDGMENT IS THAT EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY
INTERFERENCE WITH PRESENT USES IN NORTH PARK." 

AFTER REFERRING TO POSSIBLE SCHEMES FOR FURTHER USE OF WATER IN
COLORADO AS CONSTITUTING A THREAT OF FURTHER DEPLETION, HE SAYS OF THE
THREAT:  "IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID TO BE IMMEDIATE."  HE SUMS UP HIS
CONCLUSIONS AS TO COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: 

"A PROHIBITION AGAINST FURTHER EXPANSION OF IRRIGATION IN NORTH PARK
SEEMS TO ME RECOMMENDED BY CONSIDERATION OF (A) THE INSUFFICIENCY OF
THE PRESENT SUPPLY AT BEST TO MORE THAN SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PRESENTLY ESTABLISHED USES, (B) THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN WYOMING V.
COLORADO, (C) THE CONSONANCE OF SUCH LIMITATION WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
OF APPORTIONMENT BEING RECOMMENDED HEREIN.  AT THE SAME TIME TO IMPOSE
A PERMANENTLY FIXED RESTRICTION AGAINST FURTHER IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
IN NORTH PARK WOULD NOT APPEAR JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH FUTURE INCREASE IN SUPPLY AS TO RENDER IT UNNECESSARY.  THE THREE
ALTERNATIVES ARE (1) AN OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL AS TO COLORADO, (2) DENIAL
OF ANY PRESENT RELIEF AGAINST THAT STATE WITH RETENTION OF JURISDICTION
TO GRANT SUCH RELIEF ON A LATER SHOWING OF SUCH CONTINUATION OF PRESENT
CONDITIONS OF SUPPLY AS TO REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY MUST BE
ACCEPTED AS THE MEASURE OF DEPENDABILITY, (3) IMPOSITION OF A
LIMITATION TO PRESENT USES OF WATER WITH RETENTION OF JURISDICTION TO
RELEASE THE RESTRICTION IF AND WHEN THE 'DRY CYCLE' SHALL RUN ITS
COURSE AND IT APPEARS THAT THE WATER SUPPLY HAS BECOME SUCH AS TO
JUSTIFY FURTHER EXPANSION OF IRRIGATION IN NORTH PARK.  A REASONABLE
ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE FOR ANY OF THESE THREE ALTERNATIVES.  MY
RECOMMENDATION IN LINE WITH THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE IS THAT COLORADO BE
LIMITED TO THE IRRIGATION OF 135,000 ACRES, TO THE ACCUMULATION
ANNUALLY OF 17,000 ACRE FEET OF STORAGE WATER, AND THE EXPORTATION OF
6,000 ACRE FEET PER ANNUM TO THE SOUTH PLATTE BASIN." 

IN THE PROPOSED DECREE, HE WOULD ENJOIN COLORADO IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THIS RECOMMENDATION ALTHOUGH, CONFESSEDLY, COLORADO IS NOT DIVERTING OR
CONTEMPLATING DIVERSION OF THE WATERS IN QUESTION.  A MORE GRATUITOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH A QUASI-SOVEREIGN STATE I CANNOT IMAGINE.  IT WOULD
DISREGARD ALL THAT WE HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID TO THE EFFECT THAT A STATE
SHOULD NOT BE ENJOINED BY THIS COURT AT THE SUIT OF A SISTER STATE
UNLESS SHE IS INFLICTING, OR THREATENING IMMEDIATELY TO INFLICT, GRAVE
AND SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE UPON THE COMPLAINANT.  I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT, AS
BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES, AN INJUNCTION WOULD GO AGAINST ONE WHO IS NOT
DOING, OR IMMEDIATELY THREATENING TO DO, HARM TO THE COMPLAINANT.  THE
COURT IS SIMPLY TAKING COLORADO UNDER ITS WING AND PROPOSES TO ACT AS
GUARDIAN OF THE STATE IN RESPECT TO THE WATERS OF THE NORTH PLATTE
WITHIN HER BORDERS. 

ONE NEED ONLY EXAMINE THE MASTER'S REPORT TO DETERMINE THAT
NEBRASKA'S CASE AGAINST WYOMING STANDS NO BETTER THAN THAT AGAINST
COLORADO. 

THIS COURT STATED, IN COLORADO V. KANSAS, 320 U.S. 383, 393:  "SUCH A
CONTROVERSY AS IS HERE PRESENTED IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED AS IF IT WERE
ONE BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS OR APPROPRIATORS."  NOR IS
IT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE RELATIVE PRIORITIES OF THE USERS IN THE
UPPER AND THE LOWER STATES.  YET THAT IS WHAT IN EFFECT NEBRASKA SOUGHT
BY HER COMPLAINT.  SHE IS NOT AWARDED THE RELIEF SHE ASKED BUT INSTEAD
THE SO-CALLED "NATURAL FLOW" WATER IS APPORTIONED IN PERCENTAGES
BETWEEN WYOMING AND NEBRASKA.  THIS IS DONE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT
THE MASTER FINDS THAT NEBRASKA NEEDS NONE OF THE NATURAL FLOW WHICH
PASSES THE TRI-STATE DAM FOR LANDS LYING BELOW THAT POINT BUT HAS AMPLE
WATER FOR THOSE LANDS, REGARDLESS OF ANY SUCH FLOW.  WITHOUT A SHOWING
OF NEED FOR WATER FOR BENEFICIAL USE AND, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT
SOME OF THE WATER FLOWING PAST THE TRI-STATE DAM IS FOUND NOW TO GO TO
WASTE, AN APPORTIONMENT IS MADE BETWEEN WYOMING AND NEBRASKA.  THE
MASTER'S FINDINGS SHOW THAT, UNDER THE HERETOFORE UNIFORM TEST,
NEBRASKA HAS NOT PROVED SUCH DAMAGE AS WOULD ENTITLE HER NOW TO
RELIEF.  THE TABLE QUOTED IN FOOTNOTE 4 OF THE COURT'S OPINION
DEMONSTRATES THAT DURING A THIRTY-YEAR PERIOD, WHILE IRRIGATION DID NOT
INCREASE MATERIALLY IN COLORADO AND INCREASED ABOUT ONE-THIRD IN
WYOMING, NEBRASKA MORE THAN DOUBLED HER ACREAGES UNDER IRRIGATION. 
SPEAKING OF NEBRASKA AGRICULTURE'S DEPENDENCE ON IRRIGATION, THE MASTER
SAYS:    "ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN SCANNED FOR EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS
DROUTH DAMAGE SINCE 1931, THE STATISTICS ARE EQUIVOCAL.  IT APPEARS
THAT THERE WAS A RATHER SHARP REDUCTION IN THE PRODUCTION OF ALFALFA
AND SUGAR BEETS, BUT THE INDICATION IS THAT THIS WAS DUE TO A REDUCTION
OF ACREAGE RATHER THAN OF RATE OF YIELD.  WHILE THERE WAS SOME DECLINE
IN THE PRODUCTION RATE OF ALFALFA, THERE WAS A RISE IN THE RATE FOR
SUGAR BEETS.  THE ACREAGES DEVOTED TO BEANS AND POTATOES INCREASED TO
VERY CLOSELY OFFSET THE REDUCTION IN BEETS AND ALFALFA, THE TOTAL
ACREAGES DEVOTED TO THE FOUR CROPS FOR THE THREE FIVE-YEAR PERIODS,
BEING 124,281, 122,332, AND 122,130 RESPECTIVELY.  THE LARGE INCREASE
IN TOTAL PRODUCTION OF BEANS AND POTATOES SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED.  THE
STATISTICS, TAKEN ALL IN ALL, ARE, TO SAY THE LEAST, INCONCLUSIVE AS TO
THE EXISTENCE OR EXTENT OF DAMAGE TO NEBRASKA BY REASON OF THE DROUTH
OR BY REASON OF ANY DEPRIVATION OF WATER BY WRONGFUL USES IN WYOMING OR
COLORADO. 

"NEBRASKA MAKES NO STRONG CLAIM FOR ITS SHOWING IN THIS REGARD.  HER
BRIEF SAYS: 

'...  THE FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE CROP STATISTICS WHICH CANNOT BE
ELIMINATED LARGELY DISTORT THE PICTURE AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO SHOW
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THE EFFECT AND RESULTS OF THE SHORTAGE OF
IRRIGATION WATER UPON CROP PRODUCTION.  HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN
THE STATISTICS ARE PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER FACTORS,
THEY INDICATE THAT CROP PRODUCTION IS SERIOUSLY DAMAGED WHEN THE WATER
SUPPLY IS LOW.' 

"ANOTHER APPARENT DEMONSTRATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PART PLAYED
BY IRRIGATION IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF WESTERN NEBRASKA MAY BE
SEEN IN ITS EXHIBITS 433 AND 434, IN WHICH THE GROWTH OF POPULATION IN
EIGHT COUNTIES IN WHICH IRRIGATION HAS BEEN PRACTICED IS COMPARED WITH
THAT OF SIX COUNTIES WITHOUT IRRIGATION, THE LATTER LYING IMMEDIATELY
EAST AND SOUTH OF THE IRRIGATED GROUP.  THE FIRST OR IRRIGATED GROUP OF
COUNTIES SHOWS AN INCREASE IN POPULATION IN THE 40-YEAR PERIOD BETWEEN
1890 AND 1930 OF 131 PER CENT.  THE SECOND, THE NONIRRIGATED GROUP, FOR
THE SAME PERIOD SHOWS A POPULATION LOSS OF THREE PER CENT.  NO ATTEMPT,
HOWEVER, IS MADE TO ATTRIBUTE THIS LACK OF GROWTH IN THE SECOND GROUP
TO ANYTHING DONE IN WYOMING OR COLORADO." 

AGAIN THE MASTER SAYS: 

"IT IS OF COURSE OBVIOUS IN GENERAL AND WITHOUT ANY DETAILED PROOF
THAT IN AN ARID OR SEMI-ARID COUNTRY DEPRIVATION OF WATER FOR
IRRIGATION IN TIME OF NEED CANNOT BE OTHERWISE THAN INJURIOUS TO THE
AREA DEPRIVED.  THE WEAKNESS, IF SUCH THERE BE, IN NEBRASKA'S PROOF IS
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INVASION OF HER EQUITABLE SHARE
EXCEPT AS MEASURED BY DIVERSIONS 'OUT OF PRIORITY' AND UNCERTAINTY AS
TO THE EXTENT OF HER INJURY CONSEQUENT UPON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
HER EQUITABLE RIGHTS, EXCEPT AS MEASURED BY THE DOLLAR VALUE ASSIGNED
TO THE WATER LOST TO HER THROUGH SUCH DIVERSIONS.  IF TO SUSTAIN HER
BURDEN OF PROOF NEBRASKA MUST ESTABLISH NOT ONLY VIOLATIONS OF HER
PRIORITIES OR INFRINGEMENT OTHERWISE ON HER EQUITABLE SHARE BY THE
OTHER STATES, BUT ALSO THAT AS A RESULT SHE HAS SUFFERED INJURY OF
GREAT MAGNITUDE IN THE BROAD SENSE OF SERIOUS DAMAGE TO HER AGRICULTURE
OR INDUSTRIES OR OBSERVABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS UPON HER GENERAL ECONOMY,
PROSPERITY OR POPULATION, THEN HER PROOF HAS FAILED, FOR THERE IS NO
CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THESE THINGS." 

FURTHER THE MASTER FINDS: 

"ANOTHER FACTOR FAVORING NEBRASKA IS THAT THERE WILL COMMONLY BE
ACCIDENTAL WATER IN SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITIES PASSING THE STATE LINE ABOVE
THAT ALLOCATED TO THE STATE.  EVEN DURING THE DRY CYCLE AND WITH NO
RESTRICTION ON WYOMING USES, THE USABLE WATER PASSING TRI-STATE DAM
AVERAGED IN THE MAY-SEPTEMBER PERIOD 81,700 ACRE FEET.  MORE THAN HALF
OF THIS FLOW, HOWEVER, OCCURRED IN MAY AND JUNE WITH COMPARATIVELY
LITTLE IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER.  THE QUANTITY IS PERHAPS TOO UNCERTAIN
TO BE CONSIDERED OF GREAT IMPORTANCE.  IT IS A MINOR FACTOR IN THE
BALANCING OF EQUITIES BETWEEN THE STATES." 

THUS IT IS APPARENT THAT OF THE VERY NATURAL FLOW OF WATER WITH WHICH
THE MASTER IS DEALING SOME OF IT WENT TO WASTE IN THE AREA HE
CONSIDERED CRITICAL.  IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS MORE WATER FOR NEBRASKA
THAN SHE TURNED TO BENEFICIAL USE EVEN IN THE DROUGHT YEARS. 

AS RESPECTS BOTH DEFENDANTS THE DECREE MAKES A PROVISIONAL ADJUSTMENT
BASED UPON DROUGHT CONDITIONS, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF
CONDITIONS CHANGE, BY REASON OF EVENTS NOT NOW ENVISAGED, THE
DEFENDANTS MAY AGAIN COME TO THIS COURT FOR ANOTHER PROVISIONAL
ARRANGEMENT WHICH SHALL STAND UNTIL SOME PARTY TO THE DECREE THINKS
THAT A FURTHER REVISION SHOULD BE MADE.  THUS THREE STATES, WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR QUASI-SOVEREIGN RIGHTS, WILL BE IN TUTELAGE TO THIS
COURT HENCEFORTH. 

SUCH CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN STATES ARE NOT EASILY PUT TO REPOSE.  EVEN
WHEN JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS IS REQUIRED, THE ATTEMPT FINALLY TO
ADJUDICATE THEM OFTEN PROVES ABORTIVE.  OUR REPORTS AFFORD EVIDENCE OF
THIS FACT.  KANSAS AND COLORADO CAME HERE TWICE, AT THE INSTANCE OF
KANSAS, IN A DISPUTE OVER THE FLOW OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER.  FN2  IN A
CASE PRESENTING, ON THE WHOLE, LESS DIFFICULTY THAN THE PRESENT ONE
THIS COURT ENTERED A DECREE JUNE 5, 1922,  FN3  ONLY TO FIND IT
NECESSARY TO REVISE IT ON OCTOBER 9, 1922.  FN4  BUT THE CONTROVERSY
WOULD NOT DOWN.  THE PARTIES CAME BACK HERE ON THREE OCCASIONS BECAUSE
OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT OF
OUR DECREE.  FN5 

THE CONTROVERSY WITH RESPECT TO THE DIVERSION OF THE WATERS OF LAKE
MICHIGAN SEEMED TO REQUIRE A DECREE CONDITIONED UPON, AND CONTAINING
PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO, FUTURE CONDUCT.  THE DIFFICULTY OF
ADMINISTERING THAT DECREE IS EVIDENCED BY THE REPEATED APPEARANCE OF
THE PARTIES IN THIS COURT.  FN6 

EXPERIENCE TEACHES THE WISDOM OF THE RULE WE HAVE SO OFTEN ANNOUNCED,
THAT, IN SUCH CASES, THE COMPLAINING STATE MUST SHOW ACTUAL OR
IMMEDIATELY THREATENED DAMAGE OF SUBSTANTIAL MAGNITUDE TO MOVE THIS
COURT TO GRANT RELIEF; AND THAT, UNTIL SUCH SHOWING IS MADE, THE COURT
SHOULD NOT INTERFERE.  THE COURT, AS I THINK, NOW DEPARTS FROM THIS
COURSE. 

THE BILL SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

FN1  COLORADO V. KANSAS, 320 U.S. 383. 

FN2  KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46; COLORADO V. KANSAS, 320 U.S.
383. 

FN3  WYOMING V. COLORADO, 259 U.S. 496. 

FN4  ID. 260 U.S. 1. 

FN5  ID. 286 U.S. 494; 298 U.S. 573; 309 U.S. 572. 

FN6  WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS, 278 U.S. 367; 281 U.S. 179; 289 U.S. 395;
309 U.S. 569; 311 U.S. 107; 313 U.S. 547. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS
OPINION. 

                               DECREE. 

        (ENTERED OCTOBER 8, 1945.) 

THIS CAUSE HAVING BEEN HERETOFORE SUBMITTED ON THE REPORT OF THE
SPECIAL MASTER AND THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE PARTIES THERETO, AND THE COURT
BEING NOW FULLY ADVISED IN THE PREMISES: 

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 

I. THE STATE OF COLORADO, ITS OFFICERS, ATTORNEYS, AGENTS AND
EMPLOYEES, BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY SEVERALLY ENJOINED 

(A)  FROM DIVERTING OR PERMITTING THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM THE
NORTH PLATTE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES FOR THE IRRIGATION OF MORE THAN
A TOTAL OF 135,000 ACRES OF LAND IN JACKSON COUNTY, COLORADO, DURING
ANY ONE IRRIGATION SEASON; 

(B)  FROM STORING OR PERMITTING THE STORAGE OF MORE THAN A TOTAL
AMOUNT OF 17,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES FROM THE
NORTH PLATTE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES IN JACKSON COUNTY, COLORADO,
BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 OF ANY YEAR AND SEPTEMBER 30 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR; 

(C)  FROM EXPORTING OUT OF THE BASIN OF THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER AND
ITS TRIBUTARIES IN JACKSON COUNTY, COLORADO, TO ANY OTHER STREAM BASIN
OR BASINS MORE THAN 60,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER IN ANY PERIOD OF TEN
CONSECUTIVE YEARS RECKONED IN CONTINUING PROGRESSIVE SERIES BEGINNING
WITH OCTOBER 1, 1945. 

II.  EXCLUSIVE OF THE KENDRICK PROJECT AND SEMINOE RESERVOIR THE
STATE OF WYOMING, ITS OFFICERS, ATTORNEYS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES, BE AND
THEY ARE HEREBY SEVERALLY ENJOINED 

(A)  FROM DIVERTING OR PERMITTING THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM THE
NORTH PLATTE RIVER ABOVE THE GUERNSEY RESERVOIR AND FROM THE
TRIBUTARIES ENTERING THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER ABOVE THE PATHFINDER DAM
FOR THE IRRIGATION OF MORE THAN A TOTAL OF 168,000 ACRES OF LAND IN
WYOMING DURING ANY ONE IRRIGATION SEASON. 

(B)  FROM STORING OR PERMITTING THE STORAGE OF MORE THAN A TOTAL
AMOUNT OF 18,000 ACRE FEET OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES FROM THE
NORTH PLATTE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES ABOVE THE PATHFINDER RESERVOIR
BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 OF ANY YEAR AND SEPTEMBER 30 OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR. 

III.  THE STATE OF WYOMING, ITS OFFICERS, ATTORNEYS, AGENTS AND
EMPLOYEES, BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY SEVERALLY ENJOINED FROM STORING OR
PERMITTING THE STORAGE OF WATER IN PATHFINDER, GUERNSEY, SEMINOE AND
ALCOVA RESERVOIRS OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELATIVE
STORAGE RIGHTS, AS AMONG THEMSELVES, OF SUCH RESERVOIRS, WHICH ARE
HEREBY DEFINED AND FIXED AS FOLLOWS: 

FIRST, PATHFINDER RESERVOIR; 

SECOND, GUERNSEY RESERVOIR; 

THIRD, SEMINOE RESERVOIR; AND 

FOURTH, ALCOVA RESERVOIR; 

PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT WATER MAY BE IMPOUNDED IN OR RELEASED FROM
SEMINOE RESERVOIR, CONTRARY TO THE FOREGOING RULE OF PRIORITY OPERATION
FOR USE IN THE GENERATION OF ELECTRIC POWER WHEN AND ONLY WHEN SUCH
STORAGE OR RELEASE WILL NOT MATERIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES ACCORDING TO THE
PRIORITY DECREED FOR THE FRENCH CANAL AND THE STATE LINE CANALS. 

IV.  THE STATE OF WYOMING, ITS OFFICERS, ATTORNEYS, AGENTS AND
EMPLOYEES BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY SEVERALLY ENJOINED FROM STORING OR
PERMITTING THE STORAGE OF WATER IN PATHFINDER, GUERNSEY, SEMINOE OR
ALCOVA RESERVOIRS, AND FROM THE DIVERSION OF NATURAL FLOW WATER THROUGH
THE CASPER CANAL FOR THE KENDRICK PROJECT BETWEEN AND INCLUDING MAY 1
AND SEPTEMBER 30 OF EACH YEAR OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RULE OF PRIORITY IN RELATION TO THE APPROPRIATIONS OF THE NEBRASKA
LANDS SUPPLIED BY THE FRENCH CANAL AND BY THE STATE LINE CANALS, WHICH
SAID NEBRASKA APPROPRIATIONS ARE HEREBY ADJUDGED TO BE SENIOR TO SAID
FOUR RESERVOIRS AND SAID CASPER CANAL, AND WHICH SAID NEBRASKA
APPROPRIATIONS ARE HEREBY IDENTIFIED AND DEFINED, AND THEIR DIVERSION
LIMITATIONS IN SECOND FEET AND SEASONAL LIMITATIONS IN ACRE FEET FIXED
AS FOLLOWS:

                                 LIMITATION    SEASONAL

                                            IN SEC.     LIMITATION

           LANDS                  CANAL         FEET     IN ACRE
FT. 

TRACT OF 1,025 ACRES............FRENCH.........         15
2,227 

MITCHELL IRRIGATION DISTRICT....MITCHELL.......        195
35,000 

GERING IRRIGATION DISTRICT......GERING.........        193
36,000 

FARMERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT.....TRI-STATE......        748
183,050 

RAMSHORN IRRIGATION DISTRICT....RAMSHORN.......         14
3,000 

V. THE NATURAL FLOW IN THE GUERNSEY DAM TO TRI-STATE DAM SECTION
BETWEEN AND INCLUDING MAY 1 AND SEPTEMBER 30 OF EACH YEAR, INCLUDING
THE CONTRIBUTION OF SPRING CREEK, BE AND THE SAME HEREBY IS APPORTIONED
BETWEEN WYOMING AND NEBRASKA ON THE BASIS OF TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT TO
WYOMING AND SEVENTY-FIVE PER CENT TO NEBRASKA, WITH THE RIGHT GRANTED
NEBRASKA TO DESIGNATE FROM TIME TO TIME THE PORTION OF ITS SHARE WHICH
SHALL BE DELIVERED INTO THE INTERSTATE, FORT LARAMIE, FRENCH AND
MITCHELL CANALS FOR USE ON THE NEBRASKA LANDS SERVED BY THESE CANALS. 
THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, ITS OFFICERS, ATTORNEYS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES,
AND THE STATE OF WYOMING, ITS OFFICERS, ATTORNEYS, AGENTS AND
EMPLOYEES, ARE HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED FROM DIVERSION OR USE
CONTRARY TO THIS APPORTIONMENT, PROVIDED THAT IN THE APPORTIONMENT OF
WATER IN THIS SECTION THE FLOW FOR EACH DAY, UNTIL ASCERTAINABLE, SHALL
BE ASSUMED TO BE THE SAME AS THAT OF THE PRECEDING DAY, AS SHOWN BY THE
MEASUREMENTS AND COMPUTATIONS FOR THAT DAY, AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT
UNLESS AND UNTIL NEBRASKA, WYOMING AND THE UNITED STATES AGREE UPON A
MODIFICATION THEREOF, OR UPON ANOTHER FORMULA, RESERVOIR EVAPORATION
AND TRANSPORTATION LOSSES IN THE SEGREGATION OF NATURAL FLOW AND
STORAGE SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING FORMULA
TAKEN FROM UNITED STATES' EXHIBIT 204A: 

RESERVOIR EVAPORATION LOSSES. 

SEMINOE, PATHFINDER AND ALCOVA RESERVOIRS. 

EVAPORATION WILL BE COMPUTED DAILY BASED UPON EVAPORATION FROM
WEATHER BUREAU STANDARD 4 FOOT DIAMETER CLASS "A" PAN LOCATED AT
PATHFINDER RESERVOIR.  DAILY EVAPORATION WILL BE MULTIPLIED BY AREA OF
WATER SURFACE OF RESERVOIR IN ACRES AND BY CO-EFFICIENT OF 70% TO
REDUCE PAN RECORD TO OPEN WATER SURFACE.  GUERNSEY RESERVOIR. 

COMPUTE SAME AS ABOVE EXCEPT USE PAN EVAPORATION AT WHALEN DAM. 

RIVER CARRIAGE LOSSES. 

RIVER CARRIAGE LOSSES WILL BE COMPUTED UPON BASIS OF AREA OF RIVER
WATER SURFACE AS DETERMINED BY AERIAL SURVEYS MADE IN 1939 AND PREVIOUS
YEARS AND UPON AVERAGE MONTHLY EVAPORATION AT PATHFINDER RESERVOIR FOR
THE PERIOD 1921 TO 1939, INCLUSIVE, USING A CO-EFFICIENT OF 70% TO
REDUCE PAN RECORDS TO OPEN WATER SURFACE. 

DAILY EVAPORATION LOSSES IN SECOND-FEET FOR VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE
RIVER ARE SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

                       TABLE

  AREA      DAILY LOSS - SECOND FEET

      RIVER SECTION          ACRES  MAY  JUNE  JULY  AUG. SEPT. 

ALCOVA TO WENDOVER............. 8,360   53    76    87    76     56 
GUERNSEY RES. TO WHALEN........   560    4     5     6     5      4 

WHALEN TO STATE LINE........... 2,430   16    22 25    22     16 

ABOVE TABLE IS BASED UPON MEAN EVAPORATION AT PATHFINDER AS FOLLOWS:
MAY .561 FT.; JUNE .767 FT.; JULY .910 FT.; AUG. .799 FT.; SEPT. .568
FT.  CO-EFFICIENT OF 70% TO REDUCE PAN RECORD TO OPEN WATER SURFACE. 

ABOVE TABLE DOES NOT CONTAIN COMPUTED LOSS FOR SECTION OF RIVER FROM
PATHFINDER DAM TO HEAD OF ALCOVA RESERVOIR (AREA 170 ACRES) BECAUSE
THIS AREA IS LESS THAN SUBMERGED AREA OF ORIGINAL RIVER BED IN ALCOVA
RESERVOIR, AND IS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED AS OFF-SET.    LIKEWISE THE
AREA BETWEEN SEMINOE DAM AND HEAD OF PATHFINDER RESERVOIR IS LESS THAN
AREA OF ORIGINAL RIVER BED THROUGH PATHFINDER RESERVOIR - CONSIDERED AS
OFF-SET.  EVAPORATION LOSSES WILL BE DIVIDED BETWEEN NATURAL FLOW AND
STORAGE WATER FLOWING IN ANY SECTION OF RIVER CHANNEL UPON A
PROPORTIONAL BASIS.  THIS PROPORTION WILL ORDINARILY BE DETERMINED AT
THE UPPER END OF THE SECTION EXCEPT UNDER CONDITIONS OF INTERVENING
ACCRUALS OR DIVERSIONS THAT MATERIALLY CHANGE THE RATIO OF STORAGE TO
NATURAL FLOW AT THE LOWER END OF THE SECTION.  IN SUCH EVENT THE
AVERAGE PROPORTION FOR THE SECTION WILL BE DETERMINED BY USING THE MEAN
RATIO FOR THE TWO ENDS OF THE SECTION. 

IN THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSPORTATION LOSSES FOR THE VARIOUS
FROM POINT TO POINT SHALL BE USED AS MAY BE AGREED UPON BY NEBRASKA,
WYOMING AND THE UNITED STATES, OR IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AGREEMENT, AS
MAY BE DECIDED UPON FROM DAY TO DAY BY THE MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT
RESERVOIRS, WITH SUCH ADJUSTMENTS TO BE MADE BY SAID MANAGER FROM TIME
TO TIME AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO MAKE AS ACCURATE A SEGREGATION AS IS
POSSIBLE. 

VI.  THIS DECREE IS INTENDED TO AND DOES DEAL WITH AND APPORTION ONLY
THE NATURAL FLOW OF THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER.  STORAGE WATER SHALL NOT BE
AFFECTED BY THIS DECREE AND THE OWNERS OF RIGHTS THEREIN SHALL BE
PERMITTED TO DISTRIBUTE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY LAWFUL
CONTRACTS WHICH THEY MAY HAVE ENTERED INTO OR MAY IN THE FUTURE ENTER
INTO, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BECAUSE OF THIS DECREE. 

VII.  SUCH ADDITIONAL GAUGING STATIONS AND MEASURING DEVICES AT OR
NEAR THE WYOMING-NEBRASKA STATE LINE, IF ANY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR
MAKING ANY APPORTIONMENT HEREIN DECREED, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND
MAINTAINED AT THE JOINT AND EQUAL EXPENSE OF WYOMING AND NEBRASKA TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE COSTS THEREOF ARE NOT PAID BY OTHERS. 

VIII.  THE STATE OF WYOMING, ITS OFFICERS, ATTORNEYS, AGENTS AND
EMPLOYEES BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY SEVERALLY ENJOINED FROM DIVERTING OR
PERMITTING THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER OR ITS
TRIBUTARIES AT OR ABOVE ALCOVA RESERVOIR IN LIEU OF OR IN EXCHANGE FOR
RETURN FLOW WATER FROM THE KENDRICK PROJECT REACHING THE NORTH PLATTE
RIVER BELOW ALCOVA RESERVOIR. 

IX.  THE STATE OF WYOMING AND THE STATE OF COLORADO BE AND THEY
HEREBY ARE EACH REQUIRED TO PREPARE AND MAINTAIN COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
RECORDS OF THE TOTAL AREA OF LAND IRRIGATED AND THE STORAGE AND
EXPORTATION OF THE WATER OF THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
WITHIN THOSE PORTIONS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS COVERED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS I AND II HEREOF, AND SUCH RECORDS SHALL BE
AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT ALL REASONABLE TIMES; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT SUCH RECORDS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED IN REFERENCE TO THE WATER USES
PERMITTED BY PARAGRAPH X HEREOF. 

X. THIS DECREE SHALL NOT AFFECT OR RESTRICT THE USE OR DIVERSION OF
WATER FROM THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES IN COLORADO OR
WYOMING FOR ORDINARY AND USUAL DOMESTIC, MUNICIPAL AND STOCK WATERING
PURPOSES AND CONSUMPTION. 

XI.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE: 

(A)  "SEASON" OR "SEASONAL" REFERS TO THE IRRIGATION SEASON, MAY 1 TO
SEPTEMBER 30, INCLUSIVE; 

(B)  THE TERM "STORAGE WATER" AS APPLIED TO RELEASES FROM RESERVOIRS
OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE UNITED STATES IS DEFINED AS ANY WATER WHICH
IS RELEASED FROM RESERVOIRS FOR USE ON LANDS UNDER CANALS HAVING
STORAGE CONTRACTS IN ADDITION TO THE WATER WHICH IS DISCHARGED THROUGH
THOSE RESERVOIRS TO MEET NATURAL FLOW USES PERMITTED BY THIS DECREE; 

(C)  "NATURAL FLOW WATER" SHALL BE TAKEN AS REFERRING TO ALL WATER IN
THE STREAM EXCEPT STORAGE WATER; 

(D)  RETURN FLOWS OF KENDRICK PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE "NATURAL
FLOW WATER" WHEN THEY HAVE REACHED THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER, AND SUBJECT
TO THE SAME DIVERSION AND USE AS ANY OTHER NATURAL FLOW IN THE STREAM. 

XII.  THIS DECREE SHALL NOT AFFECT: 

(A)  THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF WATER USERS WITHIN ANY ONE OF THE STATES
WHO ARE PARTIES TO THIS SUIT EXCEPT AS MAY BE OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED HEREIN; 

(B)  SUCH CLAIMS AS THE UNITED STATES HAS TO STORAGE WATER UNDER
WYOMING LAW; NOR WILL THE DECREE IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH THE
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE VARIOUS FEDERAL
STORAGE AND POWER PLANTS, WORKS AND FACILITIES. 

(C)  THE USE OR DISPOSITION OF ANY ADDITIONAL SUPPLY OR SUPPLIES OF
WATER WHICH IN THE FUTURE MAY BE IMPORTED INTO THE BASIN OF THE NORTH
PLATTE RIVER FROM THE WATER SHED OF AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE STREAM, AND
WHICH PRESENTLY DO NOT ENTER SAID BASIN, OR THE RETURN FLOW FROM ANY
SUCH SUPPLY OR SUPPLIES. 

(D)  THE APPORTIONMENT HERETOFORE MADE BY THIS COURT BETWEEN THE
STATES OF WYOMING AND COLORADO OF THE WATERS OF THE LARAMIE RIVER, A
TRIBUTARY OF THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER; 

(E)  THE APPORTIONMENT MADE BY THE COMPACT BETWEEN THE STATES OF
NEBRASKA AND COLORADO, APPORTIONING THE WATER OF THE SOUTH PLATTE
RIVER. 

XIII.  ANY OF THE PARTIES MAY APPLY AT THE FOOT OF THIS DECREE FOR
ITS AMENDMENT OR FOR FURTHER RELIEF.  THE COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OF
THIS SUIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY ORDER, DIRECTION, OR MODIFICATION OF
THE DECREE, OR ANY SUPPLEMENTARY DECREE, THAT MAY AT ANY TIME BE DEEMED
PROPER IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER IN CONTROVERSY.  MATTERS WITH
REFERENCE TO WHICH FURTHER RELIEF MAY HEREAFTER BE SOUGHT SHALL
INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING: 

(A)  THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY AND EFFECT OF THE ACT OF
AUGUST 9, 1937, 50 STAT. 564, 595-596, UPON THE RIGHTS OF COLORADO AND
ITS WATER USERS WHEN AND IF WATER HEREAFTER IS AVAILABLE FOR STORAGE
AND USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE KENDRICK PROJECT IN WYOMING. 

(B)  THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT UPON THE RIGHTS OF UPSTREAM AREAS OF
THE CONSTRUCTION OR THREATENED CONSTRUCTION IN DOWNSTREAM AREAS OF ANY
PROJECTS NOT NOW EXISTING OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS DECREE; 

(C)  THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR THREATENED
CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE CAPACITY NOT NOW EXISTING ON TRIBUTARIES
ENTERING THE NORTH PLATTE RIVER BETWEEN PATHFINDER RESERVOIR AND
GUERNSEY RESERVOIR; 

(D)  THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT TO DIVERT AT OR ABOVE THE HEADGATE OF
THE CASPER CANAL ANY WATER IN LIEU OF, OR IN EXCHANGE FOR, ANY WATER
DEVELOPED BY ARTIFICIAL DRAINAGE TO THE RIVER OF SUMP AREAS ON THE
KENDRICK PROJECT; 

(E)  ANY QUESTION RELATING TO THE JOINT OPERATION OF PATHFINDER,
GUERNSEY, SEMINOE AND ALCOVA RESERVOIRS WHENEVER CHANGED CONDITIONS
MAKE SUCH JOINT OPERATION POSSIBLE; 

(F)  ANY CHANGE IN CONDITIONS MAKING MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE OR
THE GRANTING OF FURTHER RELIEF NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. 

XIV.  THE COSTS IN THIS CAUSE SHALL BE APPORTIONED AND PAID AS
FOLLOWS:  THE STATE OF COLORADO ONE-FIFTH; THE STATE OF WYOMING TWO
FIFTHS; AND THE STATE OF NEBRASKA TWO-FIFTHS.  PAYMENT OF THE FEES AND
EXPENSES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY A PREVIOUS ORDER OF
THIS COURT. 

XV.  THE CLERK OF THIS COURT SHALL TRANSMIT TO THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES
OF THE STATES OF COLORADO, WYOMING, AND NEBRASKA, COPIES OF THIS DECREE
DULY AUTHENTICATED UNDER THE SEAL OF THIS COURT. 
..END :















LINCOLN LIFE INS. CO. V. READ, 325 U.S. 673 


NO. 833.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 25, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 194
OKLA. 542, 156 P.2D 368, AFFIRMED. 


WHEN APPELLANT, AN INDIANA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST QUALIFIED TO
DO BUSINESS IN OKLAHOMA IN 1919, THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION PROVIDED
THAT NO FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY SHOULD BE GRANTED A LICENSE OR BE
PERMITTED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE UNLESS IT "SHALL AGREE TO PAY ALL
SUCH TAXES AND FEES AS MAY AT ANY TIME BE IMPOSED" BY THE LEGISLATURE. 
FOREIGN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE REQUIRED TO PAY ANNUALLY AN
"ENTRANCE FEE" OF $200, A 2 PER CENT TAX ON ALL PREMIUMS COLLECTED IN
THE STATE, AND A TAX OF THREE DOLLARS ON EACH LOCAL AGENT.  A RENEWAL
LICENSE WAS OBTAINABLE BY PAYMENT ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF FEBRUARY
OF THE GROSS PREMIUM TAX ON ALL PREMIUMS RECEIVED DURING THE PRECEDING
CALENDAR YEAR.  A STATUTE OF 1941 INCREASED THE 2 PER CENT GROSS
PREMIUM TAX TO 4 PER CENT.  HELD: 

1.  APPELLANT WAS NOT DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, EITHER BY THE 2 PER CENT OR THE
4 PER CENT GROSS PREMIUM TAX, EVEN THOUGH THE TAX WAS INAPPLICABLE TO
DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.  HANOVER INS. CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 675. 

A STATE MAY IMPOSE ON A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
DOING BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS MORE ONEROUS CONDITIONS THAN IT
IMPOSES ON DOMESTIC COMPANIES. 

2.  THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE TAX OR RATE
OF TAX EXACTED FROM A FOREIGN CORPORATION BE THE SAME AS THAT IMPOSED
ON DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.  P. 678. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE STATE COLLECTS THE TAX AT THE END OF THE
LICENSE YEAR IS IMMATERIAL; WHAT IS CONTROLLING IS THAT THE TAX WAS
LEVIED UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF ENTERING THE STATE AND ENGAGING IN
BUSINESS THERE.  P. 678. 

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. READ, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF
OKLAHOMA, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DENYING, IN PART, A RECOVERY OF ALLEGEDLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER OKLAHOMA HAS
DENIED APPELLANT THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

APPELLANT IS AN INDIANA CORPORATION.  IT QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN
OKLAHOMA IN 1919 AND HAS CONTINUED TO DO BUSINESS THERE EVERY YEAR
SINCE THEN.  THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION THEN PROVIDED, AS IT DOES NOW,
IN ARTICLE XIX, SEC. 1, THAT: 

"NO FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL BE GRANTED A LICENSE OR PERMITTED
TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS STATE UNTIL IT SHALL HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE LAWS
OF THE STATE, INCLUDING THE DEPOSIT OF SUCH COLLATERAL OR INDEMNITY FOR
THE PROTECTION OF ITS PATRONS WITHIN THIS STATE AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY
LAW, AND SHALL AGREE TO PAY ALL SUCH TAXES AND FEES AS MAY AT ANY TIME
BE IMPOSED BY LAW OR ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE, ON FOREIGN INSURANCE
COMPANIES, AND A REFUSAL TO PAY SUCH TAXES OR FEES SHALL WORK A
FORFEITURE OF SUCH LICENSE."  SECTION 2, ARTICLE XIX OF THE OKLAHOMA
CONSTITUTION ALSO REQUIRED ALL FOREIGN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PAY
PER ANNUM AN "ENTRANCE FEE" OF $200, AND PROVIDED: 

"UNTIL OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, DOMESTIC COMPANIES EXCEPTED, EACH
INSURANCE COMPANY, INCLUDING SURETY AND BOND COMPANIES, DOING BUSINESS
IN THIS STATE, SHALL PAY AN ANNUAL TAX OF TWO PER CENTUM ON ALL
PREMIUMS COLLECTED IN THE STATE, AFTER ALL CANCELLATIONS ARE DEDUCTED,
AND A TAX OF THREE DOLLARS ON EACH LOCAL AGENT." 

APPELLANT PAID THE "ENTRANCE FEE."  IT MADE APPLICATION FOR A
LICENSE.  AND IT SATISFIED THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY
OKLAHOMA FOR ADMISSION TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE.  FN1 IN EACH YEAR
SUBSEQUENT TO 1919 IT MADE APPLICATION FOR A RENEWAL LICENSE AND
SATISFIED THE VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE. 

WHEN A FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY DESIRES, FOR THE FIRST TIME, TO DO
BUSINESS IN OKLAHOMA, IT MUST APPLY FOR A LICENSE TO EXPIRE ON THE LAST
DAY OF FEBRUARY NEXT AFTER THE ISSUE OF THE LICENSE AND ON OR BEFORE
SUCH DATE IT MUST PAY THE GROSS PREMIUM TAX ON ALL PREMIUMS, LESS
PROPER DEDUCTIONS, RECEIVED BY IT IN OKLAHOMA FROM THE DATE OF ITS
LICENSE TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31ST OF THAT YEAR.  WHEN A FOREIGN
INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH HOLDS A LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS IN OKLAHOMA FOR
A PARTICULAR YEAR DESIRES TO DO BUSINESS THERE DURING THE ENSUING YEAR,
IT MUST MAKE APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF
FEBRUARY OF THE CURRENT LICENSE YEAR, PAY THE GROSS PREMIUM TAX ON
PREMIUMS RECEIVED IN OKLAHOMA DURING THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR, AND
ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF FEBRUARY OF THE ENSUING LICENSE YEAR PAY
THE GROSS PREMIUM TAX ON PREMIUMS RECEIVED BY IT IN OKLAHOMA DURING THE
PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR.  THAT IS TO SAY, THE LICENSES ISSUED EXPIRE ON
THE LAST DAY OF FEBRUARY NEXT AFTER THEIR ISSUANCE; AND TO OBTAIN A
RENEWAL THE COMPANY MUST PAY ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF FEBRUARY IN
EACH YEAR THE GROSS PREMIUM TAX ON ALL PREMIUMS RECEIVED DURING THE
PRECEDING CALENDAR YEAR.  WE ARE TOLD BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA
THAT THAT HAS BEEN THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE OF THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER SINCE 1909. 

IN 1941 OKLAHOMA ENACTED A LAW, EFFECTIVE APRIL 25, WHICH INCREASED
THE 2 PER CENT GROSS PREMIUM TAX TO 4 PER CENT.  FN2  OKLA. STAT. 1941,
TIT. 36, SEC. 104.  LIKE THE 2 PER CENT TAX, THIS NEW TAX IS APPLICABLE
ONLY TO FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES, NOT TO DOMESTIC INSURANCE
COMPANIES.  APPELLANT REPORTED THE GROSS PREMIUMS COLLECTED IN OKLAHOMA
DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1941, PAID THE 4 PER CENT TAX UNDER PROTEST,
AND BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT SO PAID.  APPELLANT
CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF BOTH THE 2 PER CENT AND THE 4 PER
CENT TAX.  THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA ALLOWED RECOVERY OF THE TAXES
PAID AT THE INCREASED RATE ON PREMIUMS COLLECTED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ACT, APRIL 25, 1941.  BUT IT DISALLOWED RECOVERY FOR THE
BALANCE AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT THE EXACTION OF THE TAX FROM FOREIGN
INSURANCE COMPANIES WHILE DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE EXEMPT
VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  156
P.2D 368.  THE CASE IS HERE BY APPEAL.  SEC. 237 JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 344. 

WE CAN PUT TO ONE SIDE SUCH CASES AS HANOVER INS. CO. V. HARDING, 272
U.S. 494, WHERE A FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY, HAVING OBTAINED AN
UNEQUIVOCAL LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS AND BUILT UP A BUSINESS
THERE, WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SUBJECTED TO DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION.  IN THE
PRESENT CASE EACH ANNUAL LICENSE, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION, WAS GRANTED ON CONDITION (1) THAT APPELLANT
AGREE TO PAY ALL SUCH TAXES AND FEES AS THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT IMPOSE ON
FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES AND (2) THAT A REFUSAL TO PAY SUCH TAXES OR
FEES SHOULD WORK A FORFEITURE OF THE LICENSE.  THE PAYMENT OF THE GROSS
PREMIUM TAX ON OR BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE LICENSE YEAR WAS ALWAYS
A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE FOR THE FOLLOWING
YEAR.  ACCORDINGLY, APPELLANT, UNLIKE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION IN
HANOVER INS. CO. V. HARDING, SUPRA, NEVER OBTAINED FROM OKLAHOMA AN
UNEQUIVOCAL LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS THERE; IT AGREED TO PAY NOT ONLY FOR
THE RENEWAL BUT ALSO FOR THE RETENTION OF ITS ANNUAL LICENSE SUCH TAXES
AS OKLAHOMA MIGHT IMPOSE. 

IT HAS BEEN HELD BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THAT
A STATE MAY IMPOSE ON A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS MORE ONEROUS CONDITIONS THAN IT IMPOSES ON
DOMESTIC COMPANIES.  PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168; DUCAT V. CHICAGO,
10 WALL.  410; PHILADELPHIA FIRE ASSN. V. NEW YORK, 119 U.S. 110.  BUT
IT IS SAID THAT A STATE MAY NOT IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION -
THAT IS IT MAY NOT EXACT AS A CONDITION AN INFRINGEMENT OR SACRIFICE OF
THE RIGHTS SECURED TO THE CORPORATION BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  FN3 THE ARGUMENT APPARENTLY IS THAT SINCE APPELLANT IS
ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, A CONDITION CANNOT BE
IMPOSED WHICH RESULTS IN ITS UNEQUAL AND DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT. 

BUT THAT ARGUMENT PROVES TOO MUCH.  IF IT WERE ADOPTED, THEN THE LONG
ESTABLISHED RULE THAT A STATE MAY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS BY ADMITTING THEM UNDER MORE ONEROUS CONDITIONS THAN IT
EXACTS FROM DOMESTIC COMPANIES WOULD GO INTO THE DISCARD.  MOREOVER, IT
HAS NEVER BEEN HELD THAT A STATE MAY NOT EXACT FROM A FOREIGN
CORPORATION AS A CONDITION TO ADMISSION TO DO BUSINESS THE PAYMENT OF A
TAX MEASURED BY THE BUSINESS DONE WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  SEE CONTINENTAL
ASSURANCE CO. V. TENNESSEE, 311 U.S. 5.  THAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE TAX
IMPOSED IN PHILADELPHIA FIRE ASSN. V. NEW YORK, SUPRA.  THAT COMPANY
WAS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK UNDER A LAW WHICH REQUIRED IT
TO PAY SUCH A TAX AS ITS HOME STATE MIGHT IMPOSE ON NEW YORK COMPANIES
DOING BUSINESS THERE.  AFTER IT HAD QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW
YORK, ITS HOME STATE EXACTED FROM FOREIGN CORPORATIONS A TAX OF 3 PER
CENT ON PREMIUMS RECEIVED IN THAT STATE.  NEW YORK ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWED
SUIT.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE INCREASED TAX, SAYING THAT SINCE THE
LICENSE OF THE FOREIGN COMPANY WAS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED
BY THE NEW YORK STATUTE, THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX COULD AT ANY TIME BE
INCREASED FOR THE FUTURE.  "THE STATE, HAVING THE POWER TO EXCLUDE
ENTIRELY, HAS THE POWER TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION AT ANY
TIME, FOR THE FUTURE, AND TO IMPOSE AS A CONDITION THE PAYMENT OF A NEW
TAX, OR A FURTHER TAX, AS A LICENSE FEE.  IF IT IMPOSES SUCH LICENSE
FEE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE FUTURE, THE FOREIGN CORPORATION, UNTIL IT
PAYS SUCH LICENSE FEE, IS NOT ADMITTED WITHIN THE STATE OR WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION.  IT IS OUTSIDE, AT THE THRESHOLD, SEEKING ADMISSION, WITH
CONSENT NOT YET GIVEN."  119 U.S. P. 119.  AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE TAX OR RATE OF TAX EXACTED FROM A FOREIGN
CORPORATION AS A CONDITION OF ENTRY TO BE THE SAME AS THAT IMPOSED ON
DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.  HANOVER INS. CO. V. HARDING, SUPRA, PP. 510
511. 

THE FACT THAT OKLAHOMA COLLECTS THE TAX AT THE END OF THE LICENSE
YEAR IS NOT MATERIAL.  THAT WAS DONE IN PHILADELPHIA FIRE ASSN. V. NEW
YORK, SUPRA.  THE CONTROLLING FACT IS THAT THE TAX THOUGH COLLECTED
LATER WAS LEVIED UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF ENTERING THE STATE AND ENGAGING
IN BUSINESS THERE.  FN4  CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE CO. V. TENNESSEE, SUPRA.
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE OKLA. STAT. 1941, TIT. 36, SECS. 47, 101. 

FN2  THIS TAX TOGETHER WITH THE ENTRANCE FEE AND THE ANNUAL TAX ON
EACH AGENT IS "IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER TAXES OR FEES, AND THE TAXES AND
FEES OF ANY SUBDIVISION OR MUNICIPALITY OF THE STATE."  OKLA. STAT.
1941, TIT. 36, SEC. 104.  ON A FAILURE TO PAY THE TAX THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER "SHALL REVOKE THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE
AGENT OR AGENTS OF THAT COMPANY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THIS STATE." 
ID. 

FN3  SEE THE CASES REVIEWED IN HANOVER INS. CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S.
494, 507-508; HENDERSON, THE POSITION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1918), CH. VIII. 

FN4  IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  HENCE WE DO NOT HAVE PRESENTED ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE
EFFECT OF UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S.
533, ON THE PROBLEM. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 
..END :
























BORDEN CO. V. BORELLA, 325 U.S. 679 


NO. 688.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 145 F.2D
63, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OWNED AND OPERATED AN OFFICE BUILDING
IN WHICH 58% OF THE RENTABLE SPACE WAS USED FOR ITS CENTRAL OFFICES,
WHERE ITS PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS ADMINISTERED,
MANAGED AND CONTROLLED, ALTHOUGH THE GOODS WERE ACTUALLY PRODUCED AT
PLANTS LOCATED ELSEWHERE.  HELD THAT MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES OF THE
BUILDING WERE ENGAGED IN AN "OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF
GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3(J) OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AND WERE THEREFORE COVERED BY THE ACT.  PP.
680, 684. 

2.  IN AN ECONOMIC SENSE, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING OF AN INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATION ARE ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS, AND THE
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES WORKING IN SUCH A BUILDING ARE ENGAGED IN
OCCUPATIONS NECESSARY TO THAT PRODUCTION.  P. 683. 

3.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE, IT CAN NOT BE ASSUMED
THAT CONGRESS IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT REFERRED TO PRODUCTION IN
OTHER THAN ITS ORDINARY AND COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC SENSE.  P. 684. 

BORDEN COMPANY V. BORELLA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 706, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE DEFENDANT, 52 F.SUPP.  952, IN A SUIT TO RECOVER OVERTIME
COMPENSATION AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ONCE AGAIN, AS IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, WE ARE
REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF
1938  FN1  TO EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO THE
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A BUILDING. 

IN THE KIRSCHBAUM CASE WE HELD THAT THE ACT DOES APPLY TO SUCH
EMPLOYEES WORKING IN A LOFT BUILDING IN WHICH LARGE QUANTITIES OF GOODS
FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE PHYSICALLY PRODUCED.  IN THE INSTANT CASE,
THE PORTERS, ELEVATOR OPERATORS AND NIGHT WATCHMEN IN QUESTION WORK IN
A 24-STORY OFFICE BUILDING IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CITY. 
THE BUILDING IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE PETITIONER, THE BORDEN
COMPANY, WHICH IS A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
MANUFACTURING MILK PRODUCTS AND OTHER FOOD PRODUCTS.  PETITIONER
OCCUPIES APPROXIMATELY 17 OF THE 24 FLOORS AND 58% OF THE TOTAL
RENTABLE AREA.  THE REMAINDER OF THE OFFICE SPACE IS LEASED TO VARIOUS
TENANTS, NONE OF WHICH WAS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO PRODUCE,
MANUFACTURE, HANDLE, PROCESS OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WORK ON ANY GOODS
IN THE BUILDING.  FN2 

PETITIONER HAS MANUFACTURING PLANTS AND FACTORIES IN BOTH THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA AND ITS PRODUCTS ARE SOLD IN LARGE VOLUMES THROUGHOUT
THIS AND OTHER COUNTRIES.  THESE ESTABLISHMENTS ARE ADMITTEDLY ENGAGED
IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE HEART OF THIS
INDUSTRIAL EMPIRE, HOWEVER, LIES IN THE CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING IN NEW
YORK CITY.  HERE THE ENTIRE ENTERPRISE IS SUPERVISED, MANAGED AND
CONTROLLED. 

IN THIS BUILDING THE DIRECTORS MEET AND THE CORPORATE OFFICERS
CONCEIVE AND DIRECT THE POLICIES OF THE COMPANY.  ALTHOUGH
GEOGRAPHICALLY DIVORCED FROM THE MANUFACTURING PLANTS, EMPLOYEES
WORKING IN THIS BUILDING DICTATE, CONTROL AND COORDINATE EVERY STEP OF
THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES IN THE INDIVIDUAL FACTORIES.  BY MEANS OF
DIRECT TELETYPE WIRES, THEY MAINTAIN DETAILED AND METICULOUS
SUPERVISION OF THE PLANTS, THE LOCAL SUPERINTENDENTS EXERCISING
DISCRETION ONLY IN THE CONDUCT OF ROUTINE MATTERS.  WHILE NO PRODUCTS
ARE ACTUALLY PROCESSED OR SOLD IN THE BUILDING, THE PURCHASE OF RAW
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES, THE METHODS OF PRODUCTION, THE AMOUNTS TO BE
PRODUCED, THE QUANTITY AND CHARACTER OF THE LABOR, THE SAFETY MEASURES,
THE BUDGETING AND FINANCING, THE LEGAL MATTERS, THE LABOR POLICIES AND
THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANTS AND EQUIPMENT ARE ALL DIRECTED FROM THIS
BUILDING.  SUCH ARE THE ACTIVITIES OF PETITIONER'S CENTRAL OFFICE WHICH
IS MAINTAINED, SERVICED AND GUARDED BY THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES. 

THE RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST PETITIONER TO RECOVER
OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, PLUS REASONABLE COUNSEL
FEES.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED RELIEF, HOLDING THAT THEY WERE NOT
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT UNDER THE RULE OF THE KIRSCHBAUM
CASE.  FN3  52 F.SUPP.  952.  THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  145 F.2D 63.  WE TOOK THE CASE BECAUSE OF THE
ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN RUCKER V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 138 F.2D 699, AND BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE KIRSCHBAUM
DOCTRINE TO SUCH FACTS AS ARE HERE PRESENTED. 

UNDER SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT, OVERTIME COMPENSATION MUST BE PAID TO ALL
EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE."  AS TO THE LATTER CATEGORY OF EMPLOYEES IT IS UNNECESSARY
THAT THEY DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF PRODUCING GOODS
INASMUCH AS SEC. 3(J) PROVIDES THAT "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT AN
EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED  ... IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION
NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION THEREOF, IN ANY STATE."  OUR PROBLEM THUS
IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESPONDENT MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES ARE
ENGAGED IN A PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS
FOR COMMERCE SO AS TO COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC. 7(A). 

THE KIRSCHBAUM CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE WORK OF MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES IN A BUILDING WHERE GOODS WERE PHYSICALLY MANUFACTURED OR
PROCESSED HAD "SUCH A CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE TIE WITH THE PROCESS OF
PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE, AND WAS THEREFORE SO MUCH AN ESSENTIAL PART OF
IT, THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ENGAGED IN AN OCCUPATION
'NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE.'"  316 U.S. AT 525
526.  THE MAINTENANCE OF A SAFE, HABITABLE BUILDING, WITH ADEQUATE
LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER, WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS
FOR COMMERCE.  SEE ALSO WALTON V. SOUTHERN PACKAGE CORP., 320 U.S. 540;
ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126.  THE ONLY DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THIS AND THE KIRSCHBAUM CASE LIES IN THE FACT THAT HERE THE EMPLOYEES
WORK IN A BUILDING WHERE PRODUCTION OF GOODS IS ADMINISTERED, MANAGED
AND CONTROLLED RATHER THAN CARRIED ON PHYSICALLY.  WE HOLD, HOWEVER,
THAT THIS DISTINCTION IS WITHOUT ECONOMIC OR STATUTORY SIGNIFICANCE AND
THAT IT CANNOT FORM THE BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE RESPONDENT
EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED IN OCCUPATIONS UNNECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE. 

IN AN ECONOMIC SENSE, PRODUCTION INCLUDES ALL ACTIVITY DIRECTED TO
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF SCARCE ECONOMIC GOODS.  IT IS NOT SIMPLY THE
MANUAL, PHYSICAL LABOR INVOLVED IN CHANGING THE FORM OR UTILITY OF A
TANGIBLE ARTICLE.  SUCH LABOR IS BUT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
COORDINATED PRODUCTIVE PATTERN OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS. 
EQUALLY A PART OF THAT PATTERN ARE THE ADMINISTRATION, MANAGEMENT AND
CONTROL OF THE VARIOUS PHYSICAL PROCESSES TOGETHER WITH THE
ACCOMPANYING ACCOUNTING AND CLERICAL ACTIVITIES.  ECONOMIC PRODUCTION,
IN OTHER WORDS, REQUIRES PLANNING AND CONTROL AS WELL AS MANUAL LABOR. 
FN4  HE WHO CONCEIVES OR DIRECTS A PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY IS AS ESSENTIAL
TO THAT ACTIVITY AS THE ONE WHO PHYSICALLY PERFORMS IT.  FROM A
PRODUCTIVE STANDPOINT, THEREFORE, PETITIONER'S EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING ARE
ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE JUST AS MUCH
AS ARE THOSE WHO PROCESS AND WORK ON THE TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IN THE
VARIOUS MANUFACTURING PLANTS.  AND SINCE THE RESPONDENT MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES STAND IN THE SAME RELATION TO THIS PRODUCTION AS DID THE
MAINTENANCE WORKERS IN THE KIRSCHBAUM CASE, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE
ENGAGED IN OCCUPATIONS "NECESSARY" TO SUCH PRODUCTION, THEREBY
QUALIFYING FOR THE BENEFITS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE ACT MILITATING AGAINST THIS CONCLUSION. 
LIMIT ITS MEANING TO PHYSICAL LABOR.  SECTION 3(J) IN PARTICULAR
DEFINES THE TERM "PRODUCED" NOT ONLY IN THE PHYSICAL SENSE OF
MANUFACTURING, MINING AND HANDLING BUT ALSO IN THE MORE GENERAL SENSE
OF PRODUCING OR "IN ANY OTHER MANNER" WORKING ON GOODS.  IN THE ABSENCE
OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE WE ARE UNABLE TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS USED THE
TERM IN OTHER THAN ITS ORDINARY AND COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC SENSE. 
INDEED, THE FACT THAT SEC. 13(A)(1) SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 6 AND 7 THOSE EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED IN A BONA FIDE
EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY IS CLEARLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE ACTIVITIES ARE INCLUDED
WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF PRODUCTION AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE ACT AND
THAT FULL EFFECT SHOULD BE GIVEN THAT FACT UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED. 
THUS WHERE, AS HERE, THE WORK OF EMPLOYEES IS ESSENTIAL OR NECESSARY TO
SUCH EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE OR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OF A
PRODUCTIVE NATURE THE EMPLOYEES FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 7(A)
EVEN THOUGH THOSE DIRECTLY ENGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE BY EXPRESS
EXEMPTION PRECLUDED FROM SHARING IN ITS BENEFITS. 

NOR DO WE FIND IN THE INTERPRETATIVE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE
KIRSCHBAUM CASE ANY BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYEES ARE
NOT "NECESSARY" TO PETITIONER'S PRODUCTION.  SINCE THEY BEAR THE SAME
RELATION TO PRODUCTION AS DID THE MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES IN THAT CASE
THEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ANY LESS ESSENTIAL TO PRODUCTION; NOR CAN
THIS CONCLUSION HAVE ANY DIFFERENT "IMPLICATIONS IN THE RELATION
BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL AUTHORITY."  316 U.S. AT 525.  PETITIONER'S
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION IS SUCH THAT THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A
CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING IS ESSENTIAL TO THE ECONOMY, EFFICIENCY AND
CONTINUITY OF PRODUCTION.  IN SHORT, THIS OFFICE IS "PART OF AN
INTEGRATED EFFORT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS," ARMOUR & CO. V.
WANTOCK, SUPRA, 130, AND THE STATUTORY CONSEQUENCES THAT FLOW FROM THAT
FACT CANNOT BE AVOIDED. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. 

FN2  THE LEASING OF SPACE TO THESE TENANTS IS INCIDENTAL TO THE USE
OF THE BUILDING BY THE BORDEN COMPANY AND WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TENANTS ARE SUCH AS TO CONSTITUTE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE. 

FN3  THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO RULED THAT THE PREPARATION AND DRAFTING
OF LABELS, PHOTOSTAT AND ADVERTISING MATERIAL IN PETITIONER'S CENTRAL
OFFICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE "PRODUCTION OF GOODS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT AND THAT THE CASE IN THIS RESPECT WAS CONTROLLED BY MCLEOD V.
THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491, AND STOIKE V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 290 N.Y.
195, 48 N.E.2D 482.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, FOUND IT
UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE.  WE LIKEWISE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS ON THIS MATTER SINCE THE DETERMINATION OF
THE MAIN ISSUE IS SUFFICIENT TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE. 

FN4  IN THE WORDS OF THE COURT BELOW, "AS WAS OBSERVED OVER A CENTURY
AGO, EVERY PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE (INDEED FOR THAT MATTER EVERY PROCESS
BY WHICH MEN CAN AFFECT THE OUTSIDE WORLD AT ALL) MAY BE RESOLVED INTO
THE MOVEMENT OF THINGS IN SPACE, AND IT WOULD BE ABSURD TO SAY THAT,
ALTHOUGH WHAT THE ARTISANS DO IN THE FACTORY, OR THE DISPATCHING CLERKS
DO UPON THE SHIPPING PLATFORMS, IS 'NECESSARY' TO 'PRODUCTION,' THE
DIRECTIONS THEY RECEIVE THAT GOVERN ALL THE MOVEMENTS THEY IMPART, ARE
NOT 'NECESSARY.'"  145 F.2D AT 65. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING. 

NO DOUBT THERE ARE PHILOSOPHERS WHO WOULD ARGUE, WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN
THE DECISION NOW RENDERED, THAT IN A COMPLEX MODERN SOCIETY THERE IS
SUCH INTERDEPENDENCE OF ITS MEMBERS THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF MOST OF THEM
ARE NECESSARY TO THE ACTIVITIES OF MOST OTHERS.  BUT I THINK THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT MAKE THAT PHILOSOPHY THE BASIS OF THE COVERAGE OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IT DID NOT, BY A "HOUSE-THAT-JACK-BUILT"
CHAIN OF CAUSATION, BRING WITHIN THE SWEEP OF THE STATUTE THE ULTIMATE
CAUSA CAUSARUM WHICH RESULT IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE. 
INSTEAD IT DEFINED PRODUCTION AS A PHYSICAL PROCESS.  IT SAID IN SEC.
3(J) "'PRODUCED' MEANS PRODUCED, MANUFACTURED, MINED, HANDLED, OR IN
ANY OTHER MANNER WORKED ON" AND DECLARED THAT THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN
ANY OF THESE PROCESSES "OR IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO"
THEM ARE ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION AND SUBJECT TO THE ACT. 

IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, AFTER POINTING OUT THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO MAKE THE ACT APPLICABLE TO ALL
OCCUPATIONS WHICH AFFECT COMMERCE, WE HELD THAT THE SERVICES OF
ELEVATOR MEN AND OTHER SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN A MANUFACTURING LOFT
BUILDING, WHERE THOSE SERVICES CONTRIBUTED TO AND ASSISTED THE
MANUFACTURING PROCESS CARRIED ON THERE, WERE WITHIN THE ACT.  BUT
NOTHING THEN DECIDED OR SAID SEEMS TO ME TO JUSTIFY OUR SAYING THAT THE
ELEVATOR MEN AND OTHER MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES IN AN OFFICE BUILDING, IN
WHICH NO MANUFACTURING IS DONE, EITHER PARTICIPATE IN OR ARE NECESSARY
TO THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS, BECAUSE TENANTS OF ITS BUILDING ARE
EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF A COMPANY WHICH DOES
MANUFACTURING ELSEWHERE. 

THE FACT THAT IT IS CONVENIENT OR EVEN NECESSARY FOR THE PRESIDENT OF
THE COMPANY TO RIDE IN AN ELEVATOR DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE THAT THE OCCUPATION MUST BE ONE NECESSARY TO
THE PHYSICAL PROCESS OF PRODUCTION.  THE STATUTE INCLUDES THOSE WHO ARE
NECESSARY TO THAT PROCESS, BUT IT DOES NOT ALSO INCLUDE THOSE WHO ARE
NECESSARY TO THEM.  THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS COULD PROCEED WITHOUT
MANY ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT TO THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS OF A MANUFACTURING COMPANY BUT WHICH DO NOT IN ANY DIRECT OR
IMMEDIATE MANNER CONTRIBUTE TO THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS, AS DID THE
SERVICES RENDERED IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA. 

THE SERVICES RENDERED IN THIS CASE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO MORE RELATED,
AND NO MORE NECESSARY TO THE PROCESSES OF PRODUCTION THAN THE SERVICES
OF THE COOK WHO PREPARES THE MEALS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY OR
THE CHAUFFEUR WHO DRIVES HIM TO HIS OFFICE.  COMPARE MCLEOD V.
THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491.  ALL ARE TOO REMOTE FROM THE PHYSICAL PROCESS
OF PRODUCTION TO BE SAID TO BE, IN ANY PRACTICAL SENSE, A PART OF OR
NECESSARY TO IT.    I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :

















GOLDSTONE V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 687 


NO. 699.  ARGUED APRIL 26, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
373, AFFIRMED. 


DECEDENT PURCHASED FROM AN INSURANCE COMPANY TWO SINGLE-PREMIUM
CONTRACTS.  THE FIRST CONTRACT INSURED THE DECEDENT'S LIFE AND PROVIDED
FOR PAYMENT OF THE PROCEEDS TO HIS WIFE OR, IF SHE PREDECEASED HIM, TO
THEIR DAUGHTERS; AND IF THE DECEDENT SURVIVED ALL BENEFICIARIES, THE
PROCEEDS WERE TO BE PAID TO HIS EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS.  THE
SECOND CONTRACT, WHICH THE DECEDENT WAS REQUIRED TO PURCHASE IN LIEU OF
A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, PROVIDED FOR SEMI-ANNUAL PAYMENTS TO THE
DECEDENT DURING HIS LIFETIME AND FOR PAYMENT OF A SPECIFIED AMOUNT HIS
WIFE UPON HIS DEATH; OR, IF SHE PREDECEASED HIM, TO THE DAUGHTERS; AND,
IF THEY WERE NOT THEN LIVING, TO HIS ESTATE.  EACH CONTRACT PROVIDED
THAT THE WIFE, DURING HER LIFETIME, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN IT,
TO BORROW MONEY ON IT, TO RECEIVE DIVIDENDS, TO CHANGE THE
BENEFICIARIES, AND TO SURRENDER THE CONTRACT AND OBTAIN ITS CASH
SURRENDER VALUE.  IF THE WIFE PREDECEASED THE DECEDENT, THOSE POWERS
WERE TO PASS TO HIM.  DECEDENT WAS 63 YEARS OF AGE WHEN THE CONTRACTS
WERE PURCHASED, AND DIED NEARLY FIVE YEARS LATER, SURVIVED BY HIS WIFE
AND DAUGHTERS.  HIS WIFE HAD NOT SURRENDERED, ASSIGNED OR ALIENATED
EITHER CONTRACT PRIOR TO HIS DEATH.  HELD: 

1.  THE CONTRACTS, WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, INVOLVED NO
TRUE INSURANCE RISK; THEREFORE SEC. 302(G) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926,
RELATING TO AMOUNTS RECEIVABLE "AS INSURANCE UNDER POLICIES TAKEN OUT
BY THE DECEDENT UPON HIS OWN LIFE," WAS INAPPLICABLE.  HELVERING V. LE
GIERSE, 312 U.S. 531.  P. 690. 

2.  FOR PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, THE PROCEEDS OF THE
CONTRACTS WERE INCLUDIBLE IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, UNDER
SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AN INTEREST OF WHICH THE
DECEDENT HAD MADE AN INTER VIVOS TRANSFER "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH."  P. 690. 

3.  THE DECEDENT'S DEATH WAS THE DECISIVE FACT THAT TERMINATED ALL OF
HIS POTENTIAL RIGHTS AND INSURED THE COMPLETE RIPENING OF THE WIFE'S
INTERESTS.  THE TRANSFER OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE CONTRACTS HAVING BEEN
EFFECTUATED FINALLY AND DEFINITELY AT THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, SEC. 302(C)
REQUIRES THAT THOSE PROCEEDS BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS
ESTATE.  P. 692. 

4.  THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT HERE IS THE DECEDENT'S POSSESSION OF A
REVERSIONARY INTEREST AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, WHICH POSTPONED UNTIL
THEN THE DETERMINATION OF THE ULTIMATE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF THE
PROPERTY.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH AN INTEREST CONSTITUTES AN IMPORTANT
INCIDENT OF OWNERSHIP SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF
THE ESTATE TAX.  HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106.  P. 692. 

5. IMPOSITION AND COMPUTATION OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX ARE BASED
UPON INTERESTS IN ACTUAL EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE DECEDENT'S
DEATH.  EVENTS WHICH WOULD HAVE EXTINGUISHED THE DECEDENT'S
REVERSIONARY INTEREST HAD THEY OCCURRED, BUT WHICH DID NOT OCCUR, MUST
BE IGNORED.  P. 693. 

GOLDSTONE ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 833, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, 52
F.SUPP.  704, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT FOR A REFUND OF
FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE PROCEEDS OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS
PAYABLE UPON THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT TO HIS WIFE ARE INCLUDIBLE IN
HIS GROSS ESTATE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES UNDER SECTION 302(C) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SEC. 811(C). 
FN1 

ON JUNE 29, 1933, THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED
STATES ISSUED TWO CONTRACTS FOR WHICH THE DECEDENT PAID SUMS
AGGREGATING $26,500: 

(1)  THE FIRST CONTRACT, FOR WHICH THE DECEDENT PAID A SINGLE PREMIUM
OF $14,357.08, INSURED THE DECEDENT'S LIFE FOR $18,928, PAYABLE UPON
DEATH TO HIS WIFE OR, IF SHE PREDECEASED HIM, TO THEIR DAUGHTERS.  IF
ALL THE BENEFICIARIES PREDECEASED THE DECEDENT, THE PROCEEDS OF THE
CONTRACT WERE TO BE PAID TO HIS EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS.  IN LIEU
OF A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THIS
CONTRACT, DECEDENT WAS REQUIRED TO PURCHASE A SECOND OR AN ANNUITY
CONTRACT. 

(2)  UNDER THE ANNUITY CONTRACT, THE DECEDENT PAID A SINGLE PREMIUM
OF $12,142.92.  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR SEMI-ANNUAL PAYMENTS OF
$386.51 TO BE MADE TO THE DECEDENT DURING HIS LIFETIME AND FOR PAYMENT
OF $6,071.46 TO HIS WIFE UPON HIS DEATH OR, IF SHE PREDECEASED HIM, TO
THEIR DAUGHTERS OR, IF THEY WERE DEAD, TO HIS ESTATE. 

BY THE TERMS OF EACH CONTRACT THE WIFE HAD THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO
ASSIGN IT, TO BORROW MONEY ON IT, TO RECEIVE DIVIDENDS, TO CHANGE THE
BENEFICIARIES AND TO SURRENDER THE CONTRACT AND OBTAIN THE SURRENDER
VALUE THEREOF.  THE CONTRACTS DESIGNATED HER AS THE "OWNER" OR
"PURCHASER," THE DECEDENT BEING CALLED THE "INSURED" OR "ANNUITANT." 
IN THE EVENT THAT THE WIFE SHOULD PREDECEASE THE DECEDENT, THE
CONTRACTS PROVIDED THAT ALL OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS WERE TO VEST IN
THE DECEDENT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH POWERS HAD NOT OTHERWISE BEEN
EXERCISED BY THE WIFE. 

THE DECEDENT WAS 63 YEARS OLD WHEN THE CONTRACTS WERE ISSUED.  HE
DIED NEARLY FIVE YEARS LATER, ON FEBRUARY 23, 1938, SURVIVED BY HIS
WIFE AND DAUGHTERS.  HIS WIFE HAD NOT SURRENDERED, ASSIGNED OR
ALIENATED EITHER CONTRACT PRIOR TO HIS DEATH.  THE EQUITABLE LIFE
ASSURANCE SOCIETY THEREUPON PAID THE WIDOW $6,071.46 UNDER THE ANNUITY
CONTRACT, $18,928 UNDER THE LIFE CONTRACT AND $182.24 AS ACCUMULATED
DIVIDENDS, MAKING A TOTAL OF $25,181.70. 

ON THESE FACTS THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DETERMINED THAT
THE PROCEEDS OF THE TWO CONTRACTS WERE INCLUDIBLE IN DECEDENT'S ESTATE
FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  THE PETITIONERS, AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE,
WERE ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY OF $5,376.11.  AFTER PAYING THAT AMOUNT THEY
FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND.  THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED.  THEY THEN BROUGHT
THIS SUIT FOR REFUND.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSIONER AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  52 F.SUPP.  704.  THE SECOND
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THIS JUDGMENT.  144 F.2D 373.  AN
APPARENT CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY AMONG LOWER COURTS ON THE QUESTION
PRESENTED LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  FN2 

HELVERING V. LE GIERSE, 312 U.S. 531, MAKES IT PLAIN THAT THESE TWO
CONTRACTS, WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER, CONTAIN NONE OF THE TRUE
ELEMENTS OF INSURANCE RISK.  SECTION 302(G) OF THE ACT, RELATING TO
AMOUNTS RECEIVABLE "AS INSURANCE UNDER POLICIES TAKEN OUT BY THE
DECEDENT UPON HIS OWN LIFE," IS THEREFORE INAPPLICABLE.  THE SOLE
QUESTION, THEN, IS WHETHER THE PROCEEDS OF THE CONTRACTS ARE INCLUDIBLE
IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE UNDER SEC. 302(C) AS THE SUBJECT OF A
TRANSFER IN TENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR
AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH.  THAT QUESTION WE ANSWER IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. 

106, REACHES ALL INTER VIVOS TRANSFERS WHICH MAY BE RESORTED TO, AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR A WILL, IN MAKING  DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY OPERATIVE AT
DEATH.  IT THUS SWEEPS INTO THE GROSS ESTATE ALL PROPERTY THE ULTIMATE
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF WHICH IS HELD IN SUSPENSE UNTIL THE MOMENT
OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH OR THEREAFTER.  FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO.
V. ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S. 108, 111.  IN SO DOING, SEC. 302(C) PIERCES ALL
THE VERBIAGE OF "UNWITTY DIVERSITIES OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY." 
HELVERING V. HALLOCK, SUPRA, 118.  TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS OF AN
INTER VIVOS NATURE CANNOT ESCAPE THE FORCE OF THIS SECTION BY HIDING
BEHIND LEGAL NICETIES CONTAINED IN DEVICES AND FORMS CREATED BY
CONVEYANCERS. 

IN THIS INSTANCE THE DECEDENT CAREFULLY PROCURED THE ISSUANCE OF TWO
CONTRACTS IN HIS WIFE'S NAME WITHOUT POSSESSING FOR A MEASURABLE PERIOD
MOST OF THE USUAL ATTRIBUTES OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE CONTRACTS.  BUT THIS
PROCEDURE DOES NOT CONCEAL THE FACT THAT DECEDENT USED THESE CONTRACTS
AS A MEANS OF EFFECTING A TRANSFER OF APPROXIMATELY $25,000 OF HIS
ESTATE TO THE NATURAL OBJECTS OF HIS BOUNTY.  NOR DOES IT NEGATIVE THE
FACT THAT THIS INTER VIVOS TRANSFER POSSESSED ALL THE INDICIA OF A
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION.  THERE WAS, IN OTHER WORDS, A "TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY PROCURED THROUGH EXPENDITURES BY THE DECEDENT WITH THE
PURPOSE, EFFECTED AT HIS DEATH, OF HAVING IT PASS TO ANOTHER."  CHASE
NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 327, 337.  SECTION 302(C) MUST
THEREFORE BE BROUGHT TO BEAR. 

THE DECEDENT, IN MAKING DISPOSITION OF $25,000 OF HIS PROPERTY
THROUGH THESE TWO CONTRACTS, RETAINED A VALUABLE INTEREST IN THAT
AMOUNT WHICH WAS NOT EXTINGUISHED UNTIL HE DIED.  HE RETAINED NOT ONLY
THE RIGHT TO SEMI-ANNUAL PAYMENTS UNDER THE ANNUITY CONTRACT BUT ALSO A
CONTINGENT REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS OF BOTH
CONTRACTS.  HAD HE SURVIVED HIS WIFE HE COULD HAVE EXERCISED THE
ATTRIBUTES OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE CONTRACTS, CHANGING THE BENEFICIARIES
OR SURRENDERING THE CONTRACTS AS HE SAW FIT.  IF HE HAD SURVIVED BOTH
HIS WIFE AND HIS DAUGHTERS THE PROCEEDS OF THE TWO CONTRACTS WOULD
AUTOMATICALLY HAVE BEEN PAYABLE TO HIS ESTATE WHEN HE DIED.  THUS THE
ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE CONTRACTS WAS SUSPENDED
UNTIL THE MOMENT OF DECEDENT'S DEATH.  ONLY THEN DID THE RESPECTIVE
INTERESTS OF THE WIFE AND DAUGHTERS BECOME FIXED; ONLY THEN WERE THEIR
INTERESTS FREED FROM THE CONTINGENCY OF THE DECEDENT'S SURVIVAL.  HIS
DEATH WAS THE DECISIVE FACT THAT TERMINATED ALL OF HIS POTENTIAL RIGHTS
AND INSURED THE COMPLETE RIPENING OF THE WIFE'S INTERESTS.  THE
TRANSFER OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE CONTRACTS HAVING BEEN EFFECTUATED
FINALLY AND DEFINITELY AT THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, AS IN THE HALLOCK CASE,
SEC. 302(C) REQUIRES THAT THOSE PROCEEDS BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS UNALTERED BY THE FACT THAT THE WIFE HAD THE
UNRESTRICTED POWER DURING THE DECEDENT'S LIFETIME TO EXERCISE MANY
IMPORTANT INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE CONTRACTS, INCLUDING THE
POWER TO TERMINATE THE DECEDENT'S REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE
PROCEEDS.  WHATEVER THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER, IT IS
A FACT THAT THE WIFE DID NOT CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES OR SURRENDER THE
CONTRACTS SO AS TO DESTROY DECEDENT'S REVERSIONARY INTEREST.  THE
STRING THAT THE DECEDENT RETAINED OVER THE PROCEEDS OF THE CONTRACTS
UNTIL THE MOMENT OF HIS DEATH WAS NO LESS REAL OR SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE
OF THE WIFE'S UNUSED POWER TO SEVER IT AT ANY TIME. 

THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, IS THE DECEDENT'S
POSSESSION OF A REVERSIONARY INTEREST AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH,
DELAYING UNTIL THEN THE DETERMINATION OF THE ULTIMATE POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH AN INTEREST
CONSTITUTES AN IMPORTANT INCIDENT OF OWNERSHIP SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO
SUPPORT THE IMPOSITION OF THE ESTATE TAX.  HELVERING V. HALLOCK, SUPRA.
THE INDEFEASIBILITY OF THAT INTEREST PRIOR TO DEATH OR THE DECEDENT'S
POSSESSION OF OTHER POWERS OF OWNERSHIP IS UNNECESSARY AND INDECISIVE
OF ESTATE TAX LIABILITY. 

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF A DECEDENT'S REVERSIONARY INTEREST, TOGETHER
WITH THE RESULTING ESTATE TAX LIABILITY, PRIOR TO DEATH THROUGH EVENTS
BEYOND THE DECEDENT'S CONTROL IS A POSSIBILITY IN MANY SITUATIONS SUCH
AS THE ONE IN ISSUE.  FN3  LIKEWISE A REVERSIONARY INTEREST MAY BECOME
VESTED PRIOR TO A DECEDENT'S DEATH BECAUSE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF OTHER
EVENTS BEYOND THE REALM OF THE DECEDENT'S VOLITION AND UNCONNECTED IN
ANY WAY WITH HIS DEATH.  BUT THE IMPOSITION AND COMPUTATION OF THE
ESTATE TAX ARE BASED UPON THE INTERESTS IN ACTUAL EXISTENCE AT THE TIME
OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH.  IT FOLLOWS THAT ONLY THOSE EVENTS THAT
ACTUALLY OCCURRED PRIOR TO THAT MOMENT CAN BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
THE EXISTENCE AND VALUE OF THE TAXABLE INTERESTS.  EVENTS THAT MIGHT
HAVE BUT FAILED TO TAKE PLACE SO AS TO ERASE A DECEDENT'S REVERSIONARY
INTEREST MUST BE IGNORED; SUCH UNREALIZED POSSIBILITIES, IF SIGNIFICANT
AT ALL, ONLY ADD TO THE REMOTENESS OF THE REVERSIONARY INTEREST. 

IN OUR VIEW OF THE CASE WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT
URGED BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS
TO SEC. 302(C) ARE ALSO APPLICABLE SINCE THE DECEDENT ACTUALLY RECEIVED
AN ANNUAL RETURN FROM THE CONTRACTS FOR A PERIOD WHICH DID NOT IN FACT
END BEFORE HIS DEATH.  NOR DO WE REACH ANY QUESTIONS OF VALUATION OF
THE DECEDENT'S REVERSIONARY INTEREST SUCH AS THOSE WHICH WERE DECIDED
IN FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES, SUPRA, AND
COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF FIELD, 324 U.S. 113.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL
PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED,
EXCEPT REAL PROPERTY SITUATED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(C) TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS
AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, IN CONTEMPLATION OF
OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS
DEATH  ..." 

FN2  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS STATED BY THE UNITED STATES TO BE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE RESULT REACHED IN LLOYD'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER,
141 F.2D 758(C.C.A. 3) AND TO BE IN HARMONY WITH BAILEY V. UNITED
STATES, 31 F.SUPP.  778(CT. CLS.).  THE UNITED STATES ALSO CLAIMS THAT
THE RESULT BELOW IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SAME COURT'S PRIOR AFFIRMANCE
OF ESTATE OF BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER, 47 B.T.A. 784, AFFIRMED, 138 F.2D
512(C.C.A. 2).  IN VIEW OF THE MANNER OF OUR DISPOSITION OF THE INSTANT
CASE, HOWEVER, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE ASSERTED
CONFLICTS EXIST OR WHETHER THE DECISION HERE NECESSARILY CONTROLS THE
FACTUAL SITUATIONS PRESENTED IN THESE OTHER CASES. 

FN3  THUS, IN FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S.
108, THE DECEDENT'S CONTINGENT POWER OF APPOINTMENT WAS EXERCISABLE
ONLY IF HER TWO DAUGHTERS DIED BEFORE HER AND LEFT NO SURVIVING
DESCENDANTS.  IF THE DAUGHTERS DIED FIRST BUT LEFT SURVIVING
DESCENDANTS, IT WOULD BE CERTAIN BEFORE THE DECEDENT'S DEATH THAT HER
POWER OF APPOINTMENT WOULD BE NUGATORY.  BUT SUCH A CONTINGENCY DID NOT
HAPPEN.  AT THE TIME WHEN THE DECEDENT DIED THERE WAS STILL THE
POSSIBILITY THAT HER POWER OF APPOINTMENT MIGHT BE EFFECTIVE.  THE FACT
THAT THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED PRIOR TO THE
DECEDENT'S DEATH DID NOT PREVENT THE IMPOSITION OF THE ESTATE TAX.  THE
DECEDENT'S DEATH WAS STILL THE DECISIVE FACTOR WHICH ENLARGED AND
MATURED THE INTERESTS OF THE DAUGHTERS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE COURT'S DECISION REPUDIATES HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106,
AND OTHER CASES WHICH HAVE APPLIED ITS REASONING.  WE HAVE RECENTLY
BEEN TOLD THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER, WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE REVENUE
ACTS, A TRANSFER IS "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
AT OR AFTER" THE GRANTOR'S DEATH IS TO BE DECIDED NOT BY THE
TERMINOLOGY OF CONVEYANCING OR THE ANCIENT REAL PROPERTY LAW RESPECTING
VESTED AND CONTINGENT ESTATES, POSSIBILITIES OF REVERTER, AND THE
LIKE.  WE HAVE BEEN WARNED THAT THE TAXPAYER AND HIS ESTATE MUST HAVE
REGARD TO SUBSTANCE RATHER THAN TO FORM, IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE TRANSFER BECOMES COMPLETE ONLY AT THE TRANSFEROR'S DEATH. 
I HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE TAX GATHERER COULD NOT IGNORE THE SAME TEST. 
HERE I THINK THE COMMISSIONER IS PERMITTED TO DO JUST THAT.  IN ORDER
TO REACH SUBSTANCE IN DISREGARD OF FORM, THIS COURT ONLY RECENTLY HAS
TREATED TWO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTS, ONE FOR INSURANCE AND THE OTHER FOR
AN ANNUITY, AS CONSTITUTING BUT A SINGLE TRANSACTION AND AMOUNTING TO A
GIFT IN FAVOR OF THE BENEFICIARY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY.  HELVERING V.
LE GIERSE, 312 U.S. 531. 

THE TRANSACTION UNDER REVIEW IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMMON ONE. 
WHERE AN APPLICANT FOR INSURANCE IS BEYOND THE AGE AT WHICH A COMPANY
WILL UNDERWRITE THE RISK, LIFE INSURANCE MAY BE OBTAINED BY PURCHASING
AN ANNUITY, WHICH DIMINISHES OR ELIMINATES RISK OF SERIOUS LOSS TO THE
COMPANY BY THE EARLY DEATH OF THE INSURED.  HERE THE DECEDENT, A MAN OF
ABOUT SIXTY-THREE, IN GOOD HEALTH, AND WITH APPARENTLY NO CONTEMPLATION
OF EARLY DEATH, CONSUMMATED SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WITH AN INSURER.  I
THINK IT DEMONSTRABLE THAT THE TRANSACTION AS RESPECTS THE BENEFICIARY,
HIS WIFE, WAS NO DIFFERENT IN SUBSTANCE OR EFFECT THAN AN OUTRIGHT GIFT
OF MONEY OR PROPERTY TO HER.    THE DECEDENT PAID SOME $14,000 AS A
SINGLE PREMIUM FOR A POLICY BY WHICH THE INSURER AGREED TO PAY SOME
$18,000 TO THE BENEFICIARIES NAMED, THAT IS, TO HIS WIFE, IF LIVING, IF
SHE WERE DEAD, TO HIS TWO DAUGHTERS.  THE POLICY WAS ISSUED TO THE WIFE
AND DESIGNATED HER AS THE OWNER OF IT.  SHE HAD THE FOLLOWING POWERS:
TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARY WITHOUT THE HUSBAND'S CONSENT, TO SURRENDER
THE CONTRACT, ASSIGN OR PLEDGE IT WITHOUT HIS CONSENT OR THAT OF ANY
SUBSEQUENT OWNER, CHANGE THE FORM OR PLAN OF INSURANCE (WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THE INSURED, ANY BENEFICIARY OR SUBSEQUENT OWNER), TO
SURRENDER THE CONTRACT AND RECEIVE A SPECIFIED CASH VALUE, TO BORROW ON
THE POLICY AT HER SOLE ELECTION, TO RECEIVE THE DIVIDENDS IN CASH OR
ACCUMULATE THEM TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL INSURANCE, IN EITHER CASE FOR
HER OWN USE.  IF SHE EXERCISED NONE OF THESE RIGHTS THE DECEDENT WOULD
HAVE BECOME, AT HER DEATH, IF HE WERE THEN LIVING, THE OWNER OF THE
POLICY IN HER PLACE AND STEAD. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT IF THE POLICY BE TREATED AS AN ITEM OF PROPERTY,
SHE HAD SOLE, FULL, AND UNTRAMMELLED DOMINION OVER IT AND ITS
PROCEEDS.  SHE WAS IN TRUTH, AND NOT BY ANY FICTION, ABSOLUTE OWNER OF
THE PROPERTY.  I CANNOT DISTINGUISH THIS CASE FROM ONE IN WHICH A
HUSBAND, NOT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, CONVEYS MONEY OR PROPERTY, REAL
OR PERSONAL, IN FEE SIMPLE TO HIS WIFE OR TO ANY OTHER RELATIVE.  FOR,
IN SUCH A CASE, ALL, OR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, MAY, UPON THE DEATH
OF THE DONEE, DESCEND TO THE DONOR UNDER THE INTESTATE LAWS, AND BOTH
PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION KNOW THIS TO BE THE FACT.  NOTWITHSTANDING
THEN THAT, UNDER THE LAW, THE WIFE MAY, UNTIL HER DEATH, SPEND, CONVEY,
MORTGAGE OR DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY, I SUPPOSE IT WILL BE HELD THAT,
INASMUCH AS ALL OR SOME OF IT WILL DESCEND TO HIM IF SHE OMITS SO TO
DO, HE WILL BE HELD, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, TO HAVE MADE A
CONVEYANCE TO TAKE EFFECT AT HIS DEATH BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY HE CAN
AVOID INHERITING IT FROM THE DONEE IS TO DIE.  APPARENTLY COURTS ARE
ONLY TO LOOK TO THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION, THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF
THE OWNERSHIP OF THE DONEE, WHERE THAT SPELLS TAXABILITY, BUT ARE TO
IGNORE THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE DONEE'S UNTRAMMELLED POWER OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE GIFT WHERE SO TO DO SPELLS TAXABILITY. 

FOR THE ANNUITY PURCHASED BY THE DECEDENT HE GAVE HIS CHECK FOR THE
SUM OF $12,000.  THE CONTRACT DESCRIBES HIS WIFE AS THE PURCHASER. 
EXCEPT FOR AN ANNUITY OF A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE TO
THE DECEDENT AND SUBJECT TO REDUCTION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT,
THE WIFE'S RIGHTS WERE AGAIN ABSOLUTE.  UPON THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT
SHE WAS TO RECEIVE A DEATH BENEFIT OF SOME $6,000, BUT SHE MIGHT OBTAIN
THIS BENEFIT AT ANY TIME DURING HIS LIFE, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, AND
WITHOUT OTHER CONDITION, UPON MERE SURRENDER OF THE CONTRACT.  SUCH
SURRENDER SHE MIGHT MAKE WITHOUT ANYONE'S CONSENT.  SHE MIGHT, WITHOUT
DECEDENT'S CONSENT, CHANGE TO ANOTHER FORM OF PLAN OR CONTRACT, OR
CHANGE THE BENEFICIARY, OR ASSIGN THE CONTRACT, MIGHT RECEIVE THE
DIVIDENDS OR ALLOW THEM TO ACCUMULATE, BORROW MONEY ON THE CONTRACT,
AND ELECT A MODE OF SETTLEMENT THEREUNDER.  HER ASSIGNMENT OF THE
CONTRACT MIGHT, IF SHE SO ELECTED, EXCLUDE ALL RIGHTS OF ANY
BENEFICIARY OR ANNUITANT UNDER IT.  HERE AGAIN, A SMALL ANNUITY,
PAYABLE TO THE DECEDENT ONLY SO LONG AS HIS WIFE PERMITTED, WAS THE
SOLE ELEMENT OF INTEREST REMAINING IN THE DECEDENT.  THE PROPERTY WAS
SUBJECT TO THE WIFE'S DOMINION AND HERS ALONE. 

TO SAY THAT THE DECEDENT HERE RETAINED AN INTEREST WHICH PASSED AT
HIS DEATH IS TO FLY IN THE FACE OF THE FACTS.  IT IS TO SAY THAT,
ALTHOUGH WE KNOW THE DONEE WAS AS FREE TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY AS IF
SHE WERE DESCRIBED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NICETIES OF CONVEYANCING, OR
THE ANCIENT LAW OF ESTATES, AS THE OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE, YET THIS
REALITY IS TO BE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINDING THAT THE DECEDENT
GAVE HER SOMETHING LESS THAN ABSOLUTE AND FULL OWNERSHIP OF THE
PROPERTY BY ENABLING HER TO DO EXACTLY AS SHE PLEASED WITH IT; THAT THE
SO-CALLED "STRING" WHICH HE RETAINED UPON THE PROPERTY NEED NOT HAVE
THE QUALITY OF A TIE THAT BINDS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
























INLAND EMPIRE COUNCIL V. MILLIS, 325 U.S. 697 


NO. 613.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 27, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 144
F.2D 539, AFFIRMED. 


1.  NO SHOWING HAVING BEEN MADE IN THIS CASE THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, IN CERTIFYING A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(C) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, ACTED
UNLAWFULLY - EITHER BY NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OR BY
DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT - IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE ACT BARS JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION BY AN INDEPENDENT
SUIT UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  PP. 699-700. 

2.  THE HEARING AFFORDED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN
THIS CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(C) WAS "APPROPRIATE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT SECTION, WHETHER OR NOT THE PROCEEDINGS
PRIOR TO THE ELECTION ORDERED BY THE BOARD WERE ADEQUATE, SINCE THE
PROCEDURE UPON REHEARING AFTER THE ELECTION WAS ADEQUATE AND CURED ANY
DEFECTS WHICH MAY HAVE EXISTED AT EARLIER STAGES OF THE HEARING.  P.
708. 

3.  RULES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPLICABLE TO
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 9(C) CONTEMPLATE FURTHER HEARINGS UPON
RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THE FINAL ACT OF CERTIFICATION.  P. 709. 

4.  DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE A HEARING AT THE INITIAL STAGE, OR
AT ANY PARTICULAR POINT, OR AT MORE THAN ONE POINT, IN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, BUT IS SATISFIED IF THE REQUISITE HEARING IS
HELD BEFORE THE FINAL ORDER BECOMES EFFECTIVE.  P. 710. 

INLAND EMPIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL, LUMBER & SAWMILL WORKERS UNION, ET AL.
V. MILLIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 703, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
REFUSING TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION A SUIT AGAINST MEMBERS OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO SET ASIDE A CERTIFICATION OF A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CONTROVERSY GROWS OUT OF A CONTEST BETWEEN RIVAL LABOR UNIONS
OVER THE RIGHT TO ACT AS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF
EMPLOYEES OF POTLATCH FORESTS, INC., A COMPANY CONDUCTING LOGGING,
LUMBERING AND MILLING OPERATIONS IN NORTHERN IDAHO.  PETITIONERS SEEK
RELIEF FROM A CERTIFICATION ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(C) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  49
STAT. 453; 29 U.S.C. SEC. 159(C).  THEY ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, THE CERTIFIED UNION WITH THE CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS. 

IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401, THIS
COURT HELD THAT A CERTIFICATION UNDER SEC. 9(C) IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY
THE SPECIAL STATUTORY PROCEDURE EXCEPT INCIDENTALLY TO REVIEW OF ORDERS
RESTRAINING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UNDER SEC. 10.  DECISION WAS
EXPRESSLY RESERVED WHETHER, APART FROM SUCH PROCEEDINGS, REVIEW OF
CERTIFICATION MAY BE HAD BY AN INDEPENDENT SUIT BROUGHT PURSUANT TO
SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  308 U.S. 412. 

PETITIONERS NOW ASSERT THE RIGHT TO SUCH REVIEW.  PRIOR TO THE
CERTIFICATION, THEY HAD REPRESENTED THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES IN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THEY DO NOT SEEK REVIEW UPON THE MERITS OF THE
CERTIFICATION.  THEIR CLAIM IS THAT THEY WERE DENIED THE "APPROPRIATE
HEARING" WHICH SEC. 9(C) REQUIRES AND THAT THE EFFECT WAS NOT ONLY TO
DEPRIVE THEM OF THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO HEARING BUT ALSO TO DENY THEM
DUE PROCESS OF LAW CONTRARY TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY. 
ACCORDINGLY THEY SEEK, IN SUBSTANCE, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUIRING
RESPONDENTS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, TO VACATE THE ORDER OF CERTIFICATION
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ORDER IS
INVALID. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO DISMISS THE SUIT, UPON RESPONDENTS'
MOTION ALLEGING, AMONG OTHER GROUNDS, THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  144 F.2D 539.  THAT COURT HELD THAT
THE STATUTORY REVIEW IS EXCLUSIVE, WITH THE CONSEQUENCE THAT THIS SUIT
CANNOT BE MAINTAINED.  THE OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION CAUSED US
TO GRANT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI N1.  323 U.S. 703. 

IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. AT 412, THE
COURT SAID, WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE WAGNER ACT HAS
EXCLUDED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION UNDER SEC. 9(C) BY AN
INDEPENDENT SUIT BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE: 

"IT CAN BE APPROPRIATELY ANSWERED ONLY UPON A SHOWING IN SUCH A SUIT
THAT UNLAWFUL ACTION OF THE BOARD HAS INFLICTED AN INJURY ON THE
PETITIONERS FOR WHICH THE LAW, APART FROM THE REVIEW PROVISIONS OF THE
WAGNER ACT, AFFORDS A REMEDY." 

PETITIONERS EARNESTLY URGE THAT THIS CASE PRESENTS THE REQUIRED
SHOWING OF UNLAWFUL ACTION BY THE BOARD AND RESULTING INJURY.  UNLESS
THEY ARE RIGHT IN THIS VIEW, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE, AS WAS SAID IN
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR CASE, TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF
REVIEW-ABILITY.  THAT QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED IN THE ABSENCE OF
SOME SHOWING THAT THE BOARD HAS ACTED UNLAWFULLY.  UPON THE FACTS
PRESENTED, WE THINK NO SUCH SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE, WHETHER BY WAY OF
DEPARTURE FROM STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OR FROM THOSE OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW. 

ON MARCH 9, 1943, LOCAL UNIONS AFFILIATED WITH THE C.I.O. FILED
PETITIONS WITH THE BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION AS BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES IN THREE OF THE COMPANY'S FIVE LOGGING AND MILLING
PLANTS OR UNITS.  THE PLANTS WERE GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATE.  SOME WERE
LOCATED AS FAR FROM OTHERS AS ONE HUNDRED MILES.  BUT THERE WAS COMMON
OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL, WITH OCCASIONAL SHIFTING OF CREWS OR
MEN FROM ONE PLANT TO ANOTHER.  FN2  ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONS SOUGHT
SEPARATE LOCAL UNITS RATHER THAN A SINGLE COMPANY-WIDE UNIT, THE BOARD
CONSOLIDATED THEM FOR HEARING BEFORE A TRIAL EXAMINER. 

THE HEARING WAS HELD IN MAY, 1943.  THE COMPANY, THE C.I.O., AND THE
PETITIONERS, WHO MAY BE REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY AS THE A.F. OF L.,
FN3  APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED.  NO COMPLAINT IS MADE CONCERNING THIS
HEARING.  IT WAS APPARENTLY A TYPICAL REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING.  THE
PRINCIPAL ISSUE WAS THE CHARACTER OF THE APPROPRIATE UNIT.  THE A.F. OF
L. URGED THAT THE UNIT SHOULD BE COMPANY-WIDE.  THE C.I.O. ADVOCATED
SEPARATE PLANT UNITS. 

THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS RENDERED JULY 13, 1943.  51 N.L.R.B. 288. 
IT FOUND THAT THE A.F. OF L. HAD ORGANIZED THE EMPLOYEES ON A COMPANY
WIDE BASIS AND ON THIS BASIS HAD MADE A "MASTER CONTRACT" WITH THE
COMPANY, WHICH, HOWEVER, WAS SUPPLEMENTED BY LOCAL CONTRACTS RELATING
TO LOCAL MATTERS IN EACH OF THE FIVE OPERATIONS.  THE BOARD CONCLUDED
THAT THE HISTORY OF THE BARGAINING RELATIONS HAD DEMONSTRATED THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF A UNIT CONSISTING OF ALL THE LOGGING AND MILL
EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY.  IT THEREFORE DISMISSED THE PETITIONS OF THE
C.I.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THE THREE SEPARATE PLANT UNITS SOUGHT WERE
INAPPROPRIATE. 

THREE DAYS LATER, ON JULY 16, THE C.I.O. FILED A FURTHER PETITION,
THIS TIME ASKING TO BE CERTIFIED AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE ON A
COMPANY-WIDE BASIS, EXCLUDING CLERICAL, SUPERVISORY, CONFIDENTIAL, AND
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES, AS WELL AS EMPLOYEES OF POTLATCH TOWNSITE AND
POTLATCH MERCANTILE COMPANY.  FN4  THE UNIT THUS SUGGESTED CONFORMED
GENERALLY TO THE ONE COVERED BY THE OUTSTANDING A.F. OF L. CONTRACT. 

ON SEPTEMBER 14, PURSUANT TO C.I.O.'S MOTION, THE BOARD SERVED NOTICE
UPON THE A.F. OF L. TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE DECISION OF JULY 13 SHOULD
NOT BE VACATED; THE PETITIONS IN THE EARLIER CASES REINSTATED AND
TREATED AS AMENDED BY THE NEW PETITION; AND WHY THE BOARD SHOULD NOT
RECONSIDER AND PROCEED TO DECISION WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING.  THE ORDER
ALSO PROPOSED TO MAKE PART OF THE RECORD THE STATEMENT OF THE BOARD'S
FIELD EXAMINER CONCERNING THE C.I.O. CLAIMS OF AUTHORIZATION TO
REPRESENT EMPLOYEES.  FN5 

THE A.F. OF L. RESPONDED BY FILING A "PROTEST AND OBJECTION."  THIS
ALLEGED THAT THE PROPOSED ORDER CONTEMPLATED A DECISION WITHOUT THE
TAKING OF EVIDENCE, TO BE BASED IN PART ON AN EX PARTE SURVEY OF THE
C.I.O. CLAIMS OF AUTHORIZATION BY EMPLOYEES; THAT EMPLOYEES OF THE TWO
UNITS NOT INVOLVED IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING WOULD HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE IN THEIR OWN BEHALF; FN6  AND THAT THE BOARD HAD NO
AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDE THE A.F. OF L.'S EXISTING CONTRACT BY SUCH
PROCEEDINGS. 

THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS, BUT FOUND THEM INSUFFICIENT,
REJECTED THE PROTEST AND, WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING FOR THE TAKING OF
EVIDENCE, CONSIDERED THE CASE UPON THE FULL RECORD, INCLUDING THAT MADE
IN THE ORIGINAL HEARINGS.  IT AGAIN APPROVED A COMPANY-WIDE UNIT,
FOLLOWING THE HISTORICAL LINES OF ORGANIZATION, BUT EXCLUDED CERTAIN
"FRINGE" CLASSIFICATIONS IN CONFORMITY WITH GENERALLY ESTABLISHED
POLICY.  IT FURTHER FOUND THAT A QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION HAD
ARISEN AND DIRECTED THAT AN ELECTION BE HELD AMONG THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
APPROPRIATE UNIT AS IT HAD BEEN DETERMINED.  THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS
RENDERED OCTOBER 14, 1943.  52 N.L.R.B. 1377. 

THE ELECTION WAS HELD DURING THE FOLLOWING NOVEMBER AND RESULTED IN A
MAJORITY FOR THE C.I.O. FN7  THE A.F. OF L. FILED "OBJECTIONS AND
EXCEPTIONS TO ELECTION," SEE 55 N.L.R.B. 255, 256, WHICH RENEWED THE
CLAIM OF IMPROPRIETY IN FAILING TO HOLD ANOTHER HEARING AND ALSO
CHALLENGED SOME EXCLUSIONS OF EMPLOYEES FROM ELIGIBILITY TO TAKE PART
IN THE ELECTION.  ACCORDINGLY THE A.F. OF L. MOVED TO VACATE THE
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION, TO VACATE THE ELECTION ITSELF, TO
STAY CERTIFICATION AND TO GRANT AN APPROPRIATE HEARING. 

IN JANUARY, 1944, THE BOARD GRANTED THE A.F. OF L.'S MOTION FOR
FURTHER HEARING, BUT DEFERRED RULING UPON THE REQUEST TO VACATE THE
PREVIOUS DECISION AND THE ELECTION.  THE HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE A
TRIAL EXAMINER IN FEBRUARY, 1944.  PETITIONERS APPEARED AND
PARTICIPATED FULLY, AS DID THE COMPANY AND THE C.I.O. NO COMPLAINT IS
MADE CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THIS HEARING OR THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS
CONDUCTED, EXCEPT AS TO ITS TIMING IN RELATION TO THE ELECTION.  FULL
OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED PETITIONERS TO PRESENT OBJECTIONS AND EVIDENCE
IN SUPPORT OF THEM.  FROM THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY ALLEGATION, AS WELL
AS THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE BOARD'S DECISION, IT MUST BE TAKEN THAT
ALL AVAILABLE OBJECTIONS TO THE BOARD'S PROCEDURE AND ACTION WERE MADE,
CONSIDERED, AND DETERMINED ADVERSELY TO PETITIONERS.  FN8 

THE BOARD RENDERED ITS SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION ON MARCH 4, 1944.  55
N.L.R.B. 255.  THIS MADE SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT BASED UPON THE
ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE RECORD IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE
ELECTION REPORT, PETITIONERS' OBJECTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION, AND THE EVIDENCE AND OBJECTIONS TAKEN AT THE FEBRUARY
HEARING.  AFTER REVIEWING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, THE BOARD FOUND THAT
AN "APPROPRIATE HEARING" HAD BEEN GIVEN, WITHIN THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC.
9(C); RULED UPON EACH OF PETITIONERS' OBJECTIONS, WHETHER NEW OR
RENEWED; AND CONCLUDED THAT NONE OF THEM FURNISHED ADEQUATE REASON FOR
DISTURBING ITS PREVIOUS DECISION AND DIRECTION FOR ELECTION. 
ACCORDINGLY IT DENIED THE MOTION TO VACATE THAT DECISION AND THE
ELECTION, AND CERTIFIED THE C.I.O. AS EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT FOUND APPROPRIATE.  A.F. OF
L.'S FURTHER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS DENIED AND THEREAFTER THE
PRESENT SUIT WAS INSTITUTED.  FN9 

UPON THIS HISTORY PETITIONERS SAY THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED THE
"APPROPRIATE HEARING" SEC. 9(C) REQUIRES.  THEY INSIST THAT THE
HEARING, TO BE "APPROPRIATE," MUST PRECEDE THE ELECTION.  ACCORDINGLY
THE FEBRUARY, 1944, HEARING IS SAID TO BE INADEQUATE TO SATISFY THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, AS WELL AS DUE PROCESS, ALTHOUGH NO COMPLAINT IS
MADE CONCERNING ITS ADEQUACY IN ANY RESPECT OTHER THAN THAT IT
FOLLOWED, RATHER THAN PRECEDED, THE ELECTION. 

PETITIONERS URGE ALSO THAT THE PROCEDURE WAS UNWARRANTED FOR THE
BOARD TO VACATE THE DECISION OF JULY, 1943, REOPEN OR "REINSTATE" THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, TREAT THE C.I.O.'S PETITION FOR COMPANY-WIDE
CERTIFICATION AS AN AMENDMENT TO ITS ORIGINAL PETITIONS, AND THEREAFTER
TO REGARD THE RECORD IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS AS PART OF THE RECORD
IN THE LATER ONES, TOGETHER WITH THE FIELD EXAMINER'S REPORT CONCERNING
C.I.O. EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION. 

PETITIONERS' EXACT CONTENTION CONCERNING THE REOPENING OF THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IS NOT ALTOGETHER CLEAR.  FN10  BUT, IN ANY EVENT,
IT CLEARLY MAINTAINS THAT THE BOARD'S ACTION, IN EFFECT TREATING THE
LATER PROCEEDINGS AS A CONTINUANCE OF THE EARLIER ONES, INJECTED NEW
ISSUES UPON WHICH PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.  ACCORDINGLY IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE ORIGINAL RECORD, TOGETHER
WITH THE ADDITIONAL MATTER PRESENTED BY THE NEW PETITION, THE MOTIONS
WHICH FOLLOWED AND THE PROCEEDING TO SHOW CAUSE, WAS NOT ADEQUATE TO
SUSTAIN THE BOARD'S ACTION IN VACATING ITS FIRST DECISION AND ENTERING
THE DIRECTION FOR ELECTION.  ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS URGE THAT THE
PREELECTION PROCEEDINGS WERE DEFECTIVE, THEY EMPHASIZE MOST STRONGLY
THAT THE FEBRUARY HEARING COULD NOT CURE THE FAILURE TO GRANT THE
FURTHER HEARING THEY DEMANDED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. 

THE BOARD'S POSITION IS, IN EFFECT, TWOFOLD:  THAT THERE WAS NO
DEPARTURE FROM THE STATUTE'S REQUIREMENTS OR THOSE OF DUE PROCESS IN
THE PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION; FN11  AND, IF THEY WERE
DEFECTIVE IN ANY RESPECT, THE DEPARTURE WAS CURED BY THE FULL HEARING
GRANTED AT PETITIONERS' INSISTENCE AFTER THE ELECTION. 

WE THINK PETITIONERS HAVE MISCONCEIVED THE EFFECTS OF SEC. 9(C).  IT
IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHENEVER A QUESTION AFFECTING COMMERCE ARISES CONCERNING THE
REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD MAY INVESTIGATE SUCH CONTROVERSY
AND CERTIFY TO THE PARTIES, IN WRITING, THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED OR SELECTED.  IN ANY SUCH
INVESTIGATION, THE BOARD SHALL PROVIDE FOR AN APPROPRIATE HEARING UPON
DUE NOTICE, EITHER IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 10 OR
OTHERWISE, AND MAY TAKE A SECRET BALLOT OF EMPLOYEES, OR UTILIZE ANY
OTHER SUITABLE METHOD TO ASCERTAIN SUCH REPRESENTATIVES." 

THE SECTION IS SHORT.  ITS TERMS ARE BROAD AND GENERAL.  ITS ONLY
REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE HEARING ARE THREE.  IT MUST BE "UPON DUE
NOTICE," IT MUST BE "APPROPRIATE," AND IT IS MANDATORY "IN ANY SUCH
INVESTIGATION," BUT MAY BE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SEC. 10(UNFAIR
PRACTICE) PROCEEDING OR OTHERWISE. 

OBVIOUSLY GREAT LATITUDE CONCERNING PROCEDURAL DETAILS IS
CONTEMPLATED.  REQUIREMENTS OF FORMALITY AND RIGIDITY ARE ALTOGETHER
LACKING.  THE NOTICE MUST BE "DUE," THE HEARING "APPROPRIATE."  THESE
REQUIREMENTS ARE RELATED TO THE CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDING OF WHICH
THE HEARING IS ONLY A PART.  THAT PROCEEDING IS NOT TECHNICAL.  IT IS
AN "INVESTIGATION," ESSENTIALLY INFORMAL, NOT ADVERSARY.  THE
INVESTIGATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY PARTICULAR FORM OR CONFINED
TO THE HEARING.  THE HEARING IS MANDATORY - "THE BOARD SHALL PROVIDE
FOR" IT.  BUT THE REQUIREMENT IS ONLY THAT IT SHALL BE PROVIDED "IN ANY
SUCH INVESTIGATION."  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO SPECIFY WHEN OR
AT WHAT STAGE OF THE INVESTIGATION THE HEARING SHALL BE HAD.  IT MAY BE
CONDUCTED "IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 10 OR
OTHERWISE."    MOREOVER, NOTHING IN THE SECTION PURPORTS TO REQUIRE A
HEARING BEFORE AN ELECTION.  NOTHING IN FACT REQUIRES AN ELECTION.  THE
HEARING "IN ANY SUCH INVESTIGATION" IS MANDATORY.  BUT THE ELECTION IS
DISCRETIONARY.  THE BOARD "MAY TAKE A SECRET BALLOT  ...  OR UTILIZE
ANY OTHER SUITABLE METHOD TO ASCERTAIN SUCH REPRESENTATIVES." 

AN ELECTION, WHEN HELD, IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF FACT. 
SEN. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 5-6; H.R. REP. NO. 1147, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., 6-7.  A DIRECTION OF ELECTION IS BUT AN INTERMEDIATE
STEP IN THE INVESTIGATION, WITH CERTIFICATION AS THE FINAL AND
EFFECTIVE ACTION.  LABOR BOARD V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, 308 U.S. 413, 414-415.  NOTHING IN SEC. 9(C)
REQUIRES THE BOARD TO UTILIZE THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION OR FORBIDS IT
TO DISREGARD THEM AND UTILIZE OTHER SUITABLE METHODS. 

IT HARDLY CAN BE TAKEN, IN VIEW OF ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED A HEARING WHICH IT MADE MANDATORY "IN ANY SUCH
INVESTIGATION" ALWAYS TO PRECEDE AN ELECTION WHICH IT MADE
DISCRETIONARY FOR ALL AND WHICH, IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS, IT
SPECIFICALLY DENOMINATED AS ONLY A METHOD FOR MAKING A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION OF FACT.  THAT CHARACTERIZATION WAS NOT BEYOND
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE AND IS WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH THE
DISCRETIONARY STATUS THE SECTION GIVES THAT MODE OF DETERMINATION. 

IN VIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FACTUAL FUNCTION OF AN ELECTION, WE
CANNOT AGREE WITH PETITIONERS' VIEW THAT ONLY A HEARING PRIOR TO AN
ELECTION CAN BE "APPROPRIATE" WITHIN THE SECTION'S MEANING.  THE
CONCLUSIVE ACT OF DECISION, IN THE INVESTIGATION, IS THE
CERTIFICATION.  UNTIL IT IS TAKEN, WHAT PRECEDES IS PRELIMINARY AND
TENTATIVE.  THE BOARD IS FREE TO HOLD AN ELECTION OR UTILIZE OTHER
SUITABLE METHODS.  SUCH OTHER METHODS ARE OFTEN EMPLOYED AND FREQUENTLY
ARE OF AN INFORMAL CHARACTER.  PETITIONERS' VIEW LOGICALLY WOULD
REQUIRE THE HEARING TO BE HELD IN ADVANCE OF THE USE OF ANY SUCH OTHER
METHOD AS MUCH AS WHEN THE METHOD OF ELECTION IS USED. 

CONGRESS WAS FULLY INFORMED CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF MANDATORY
HEARINGS PRECEDING ELECTIONS UPON THE PROCESS OF CERTIFICATION.  FOR
UNDER PUBLIC RESOLUTION 44, WHICH PRECEDED SEC. 9(C), THE RIGHT OF
JUDICIAL HEARING WAS PROVIDED.  THE LEGISLATIVE REPORTS CITED ABOVE
SHOW THAT THIS RESULTED IN PREVENTING A SINGLE CERTIFICATION AFTER
NEARLY A YEAR OF THE RESOLUTION'S OPERATION AND THAT ONE PURPOSE OF
ADOPTING THE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE WAGNER ACT WAS TO AVOID THESE
CONSEQUENCES.  FN12  IN DOING SO CONGRESS ACCOMPLISHED ITS PURPOSE NOT
ONLY BY DENYING THE RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AT THAT STAGE BUT ALSO BY
CONFERRING BROAD DISCRETION UPON THE BOARD AS TO THE HEARING WHICH SEC.
9(C) REQUIRED BEFORE CERTIFICATION. 

PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT DOES NOT IN TERMS UNDERTAKE TO REWRITE THE
STATUTE.  BUT THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO MAKE IT READ AS IF THE WORDS
"APPROPRIATE  ...  IN ANY SUCH INVESTIGATION" WERE REPLACED WITH THE
WORDS "HEARING PRIOR TO ANY ELECTION."  NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE
WORD "APPROPRIATE" SUCH AN EFFECT.  WE THINK THE STATUTORY PURPOSE
RATHER IS TO PROVIDE FOR A HEARING IN WHICH INTERESTED PARTIES SHALL
HAVE FULL AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR OBJECTIONS BEFORE
THE BOARD CONCLUDES ITS INVESTIGATION AND MAKES ITS EFFECTIVE
DETERMINATION BY THE ORDER OF CERTIFICATION. 

IN THIS CASE THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO PETITIONERS.  WE NEED
NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE HEARING WOULD HAVE BEEN ADEQUATE OR
"APPROPRIATE," IF THE FEBRUARY, 1944, HEARING HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED AND
HELD.  IN THE BOARD'S VIEW, PETITIONERS, WHEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY
IN THE PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW CAUSE HELD PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, BROUGHT
FORWARD NOTHING WHICH REQUIRED IT TO HOLD A FURTHER HEARING FOR THE
TAKING OF EVIDENCE.  WITH THIS PETITIONERS DISAGREE.  WE NEED NOT
EXAMINE WHETHER ONE OR THE OTHER WAS CORRECT IN ITS VIEW.  FOR WHEN THE
OBJECTIONS WERE RENEWED AFTER THE ELECTION, AND OTHERS ALSO WERE
ADVANCED, THE BOARD GAVE FULL AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING,
INCLUDING THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, CONCERNING THEM.  PETITIONERS
DO NOT CONTEND THAT THE HEARING WAS A SHAM OR THAT THE BOARD DID NOT
CONSIDER THEIR OBJECTIONS.  THEY DO NOT ASK FOR REVIEW UPON THE
MERITS.  THEIR ONLY OBJECTION IS THAT THE HEARING CAME TOO LATE.  THAT
OBJECTION IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE STATUTE'S TERMS AND INTENT. 

IT MAY BE, AS PETITIONERS INSIST, THAT THEIR INTERESTS WERE HARMFULLY
AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, THROUGH LOSS OF PRESTIGE AND
IN OTHER WAYS.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE INJURY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
ANY FAILURE OF THE BOARD TO AFFORD A HEARING WHICH WAS "APPROPRIATE"
WITHIN THE SECTION'S MEANING.  THIS BEING TRUE, AND SINCE PETITIONERS
DO NOT NOW QUESTION THE BOARD'S RULINGS UPON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES
APART FROM THOSE RELATING TO THE CHARACTER OF THE HEARING, THE INJURY
MUST BE REGARDED, FOR PRESENTLY MATERIAL PURPOSES, AS AN INEVITABLE
RESULT OF LOSING AN ELECTION WHICH WAS PROPERLY CONDUCTED. 

PETITIONERS ALSO ASSERT THAT THE BOARD DEPARTED FROM ITS OWN RULES IN
FAILING TO ACCORD THEM THE HEARING DEMANDED PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.  THE
REGULATIONS PROVIDE FOR DIRECTION OF ELECTION TO FOLLOW THE HEARING
BEFORE THE TRIAL EXAMINER AND, IN THE BOARD'S DISCRETION, ORAL ARGUMENT
OR FURTHER HEARING AS IT MAY DETERMINE.  RULES AND REGULATIONS, ART.
III, SECS. 3, 8, 9.  BUT THE REGULATIONS ALSO CONTEMPLATE FURTHER
HEARINGS FOR RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THE FINAL ACT OF CERTIFICATION, A
PROCEDURE OF WHICH PETITIONERS HAD FULL ADVANTAGE IN THIS CASE. 
WHETHER OR NOT THE HEARINGS PROVIDED BEFORE THE ELECTION WERE ADEQUATE
TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS, THE PROCEDURE UPON REHEARING AFTERWARD
WAS ADEQUATE TO PERFORM ITS INTENDED FUNCTION OF AFFORDING FULL
OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRECTING ANY DEFECT WHICH MAY HAVE EXISTED IN THE
PREVIOUS STAGES OF HEARING.  FN13 

WE THINK NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF DUE PROCESS IS PRESENTED.  THE
REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY THAT GUARANTY ARE NOT TECHNICAL, NOR IS ANY
PARTICULAR FORM OF PROCEDURE NECESSARY.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298
U.S. 468, 481.  "THE DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS DO NOT REQUIRE A HEARING,
AT THE INITIAL STAGE OR AT ANY PARTICULAR POINT OR AT MORE THAN ONE
POINT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING SO LONG AS THE REQUISITE HEARING
IS HELD BEFORE THE FINAL ORDER BECOMES EFFECTIVE."  OPP COTTON MILLS V.
ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 152, 153; CF. BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321
U.S. 503, 519-521.  FN14 THAT REQUIREMENT WAS FULLY MET IN THIS CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE INFERIOR COURTS HAVE DIVIDED ON THE QUESTION.  COMPARE
ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM WORKERS V. MILLIS, NO. 20854(N.D. OHIO),
UNREPORTED; SUN SHIP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC. V. LABOR BOARD, 139
F.2D 744(C.C.A. 3); INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS V.
LABOR BOARD, NO. 21994(N.D. OHIO), UNREPORTED; AMERICAN BROACH
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. LABOR BOARD, NO. 4242(E.D. MICH.), UNREPORTED;
SPOKANE ALUMINUM TRADES COUNCIL V. LABOR BOARD, NO. 349(E.D. WASH.),
UNREPORTED; WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS V.
LABOR BOARD, 41 F.SUPP.  57(E.D. MICH.); AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
V. MADDEN, 33 F.SUPP.  943(D.D.C.); KLEIN V. HERRICK, 41 F.SUPP. 
417(S.D.N.Y.); R.J. REYNOLDS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC. V. LABOR BOARD
(M.D.N.C.), UNREPORTED; REILLY V. MILLIS, 52 F.SUPP.  172(D.D.C.),
AFFIRMED, 144 F.2D 259(APP.  D.C.); BROTHERHOOD & UNION OF TRANSIT
EMPLOYEES OF BALTIMORE V. MADDEN, 58 F.SUPP.  366, 15 L.R.R. 519(D.
MD.), REVERSED, 147 F.2D 439, 15 L.R.R. 806; INLAND EMPIRE DISTRICT
COUNCIL V. GRAHAM, 53 F.SUPP.  369(W.D. WASH.). 

FN2  SOME SPECIAL OPERATIONS, E.G., THE WASHINGTON-IDAHO-MONTANA
RAILROAD, WERE CONDUCTED THROUGH WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES. 

FN3  THE COLLECTIVE DESIGNATION IS APPROXIMATE BOTH FOR CONVENIENCE
AND BY REASON OF THE FACTS, NOTED IN THE TEXT, RELATING TO A.F. OF L.'S
DEALINGS WITH THE COMPANY THROUGH BOTH A "MASTER CONTRACT" AND LOCAL
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS. 

FN4  THE BOARD'S REPORT SHOWS THAT EMPLOYEES OF THESE OPERATIONS HAD
BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE UNITS IN THE LOCAL CONTRACTS WHICH THE A.F. OF
L. HAD WITH THE SEPARATE OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY.  52 N.L.R.B. 1377,
1382-1383. 

FN5  THE FIELD EXAMINER'S REPORT IS INTRODUCED, NOT AS PROOF OF THE
EXTENT OF REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONING UNION, BUT TO SATISFY THE
BOARD THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL MEMBERSHIP AMONG THE EMPLOYEES IN THE
UNIT CLAIMED TO BE APPROPRIATE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE BOARD'S
INVESTIGATION. 

FN6  THESE WERE THE PLANTS LOCATED AT POTLATCH AND COEUR D'ALENE,
WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDE IN THE UNITS SOUGHT BY THE C.I.O. IN ITS
ORIGINAL PETITIONS. 

FN7  THE MAJORITY WAS OF THE BALLOTS CAST, BUT NOT OF THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. 

FN8  CF. 55 N.L.R.B. 255. 

FN9  THE SUIT IS THE LAST IN A SERIES INTENDED TO PREVENT THE HOLDING
OF THE ELECTION OR TO AVOID CERTIFICATION FOUNDED UPON IT.  SEE INLAND
EMPIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL V. GRAHAM, 53 F.SUPP.  369(W.D. WASH.); LOCAL
2766, LUMBER & SAWMILL WORKERS UNION V. HANSON, CIVIL ACTION NO.
1553(D. IDAHO), UNREPORTED; INLAND EMPIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL V. GRAHAM,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 834(W.D. WASH.), UNREPORTED; INLAND EMPIRE DISTRICT
COUNCIL V. LABOR BOARD, CIVIL ACTION NO. 22353(D.D.C.), UNREPORTED. 

FN10  THE ARGUMENT APPEARS TO REGARD THEM AS IRREVOCABLY CLOSED BY
THE DECISION OF JULY 13, 1943, AND THAT DECISION AS ENDOWED WITH
FINALITY PRECLUDING THE BOARD FROM LATER REOPENING THE PROCEEDINGS AND
CONSIDERING FURTHER THE RECORD MADE IN THEM.  IT SEEMS ALSO TO SUGGEST
THAT THE ORIGINAL PETITIONS COULD NOT BE AMENDED, AT ANY RATE BY
TREATING THE LATER PETITION AS AN AMENDMENT, AFTER THE DECISION,
NOTWITHSTANDING AN ORDER VACATING IT. 

FN11  THE BOARD SAYS THAT THE TWO PROCEEDINGS INVOLVED THE SAME
SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, NAMELY, REPRESENTATION OF THE POTLATCH
COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES; AND THEREFORE THE MATERIAL ISSUES WERE THE SAME
EXCEPT THAT IN THE LATER PROCEEDINGS THE C.I.O. ACCEDED TO THE DECISION
THAT A COMPANY-WIDE UNIT WAS APPROPRIATE AND SOUGHT REPRESENTATION ON
THAT BASIS.  ONLY A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY FOR ALL CONCERNED WOULD
HAVE RESULTED, IN THE BOARD'S VIEW, FROM RETRACING THE GROUND COVERED
IN THE EARLIER HEARINGS.  ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ENTIRELY PROPER TO TREAT
THE LATER ONES AS IN SUBSTANCE A CONTINUATION OF THEM AND TO PROCEED
WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS RELATING TO
REPRESENTATION WHICH THE NARROW GROUND OF THE FIRST DECISION HAD MADE
UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE. 

THE BOARD ALSO MAINTAINS THAT A FURTHER HEARING WAS NOT REQUIRED IN
THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING BY PETITIONERS THAT NEW ISSUES WERE PRESENTED
WHICH REQUIRED THE TAKING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.  IN ITS VIEW THE
PROCEDURE TO SHOW CAUSE AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR PETITIONERS
TO DO THIS AND NONE OF THE ISSUES THEY PRESENTED FURNISHED ADEQUATE
BASIS EITHER TO REQUIRE HOLDING A FURTHER HEARING OR FOR REFUSING TO
PROCEED WITH THE ELECTION UPON THE BASIS PROPOSED. 

THE BOARD AND THE PETITIONERS ARE AT ODDS THEREFORE CONCERNING THE
MATERIALITY OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED ON THE SHOW CAUSE PROCEDURE AND
THEIR SUFFICIENCY TO REQUIRE FURTHER HEARING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, THE BOARD SAYS THAT IF IT WAS WRONG AS TO
THIS IN ANY RESPECT THE ERROR WAS CURED BY THE FULL HEARING ALLOWED IN
FEBRUARY, 1944. 

FN12  CF. NOTE 9. 

FN13  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER IN A SITUATION WHERE NO HEARING
WHATEVER IS AFFORDED PRIOR TO AN ELECTION, THE FAILURE WOULD BE CURED
BY ALLOWING ONE AFTERWARD, WHETHER AS A MATTER OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STATUTE OR WITH THE REGULATIONS.  THAT SITUATION IS NOT PRESENTED.  THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE PRIOR TO THE ELECTION AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING.  AT MOST THE HEARING WAS DEFECTIVE, AND THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN
BY THE POSTELECTION HEARING WAS EFFECTIVE TO CURE WHATEVER DEFECTS MAY
HAVE EXISTED, IF ANY. 

FN14  CF. ALSO BUTTFIELD V. STRANAHAN, 192 U.S. 470, 496-497; LABOR
BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO & TEL. CO., 304 U.S. 333, 350, 351; ANNISTON MFG.
CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337, 342, 343; UNITED STATES V. JU TOY, 198 U.S.
253, 263; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226, 235;
PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 596-597. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 
..END :



ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO. V. BURLEY, 325 U.S. 711 


NO. 160.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 11, 1945.  - 140
F.2D 488, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE CONTENTION THAT AN AWARD OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN AN
ADVISORY OPINION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS, PURPOSES AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT AND WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
CONSTRUING IT. P. 720. 

2.  A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE IS WITHOUT STATUTORY
AUTHORITY UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT TO COMPROMISE AND SETTLE ACCRUED
MONETARY CLAIMS OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES (ARISING OUT OF ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BY THE EMPLOYER) OR TO REPRESENT
THEM EXCLUSIVELY BEFORE THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD IN
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT FOR DETERMINATION OF SUCH CLAIMS; AND, IN THE
ABSENCE OF LEGALLY SUFFICIENT AUTHORIZATION, A SETTLEMENT SO EFFECTED
AND AN ADVERSE AWARD BASED THEREON DO NOT BAR A SUIT BY THE INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES TO ENFORCE SUCH CLAIMS.  P. 738. 

3.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, IT CAN NOT BE SAID AS A MATTER OF
LAW THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WAS AUTHORIZED IN ANY
LEGALLY SUFFICIENT MANNER TO SETTLE THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION OR TO
REPRESENT THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  P.
748. 

ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RAILWAY CO. V. BURLEY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 690, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT RAILROAD COMPANY IN A SUIT BY EMPLOYEES UPON
CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CAUSE, ARISING UPON AN AMENDED COMPLAINT,  FN1  BRINGS FOR
DECISION NOVEL AND IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AFFECTING THE OPERATION OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1934.  48 STAT. 1185, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151 FF.  THE
ULTIMATE ISSUES ARE WHETHER SUCH AN AGENT HAS AUTHORITY, BY VIRTUE OF
THE ACT OR OTHERWISE, EITHER TO COMPROMISE AND SETTLE ACCRUED MONETARY
CLAIMS OF TEN EMPLOYEES OR TO SUBMIT THEM FOR DETERMINATION BY THE
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD TO THE EXCLUSION OF THEIR RIGHT,
AFTER THE SETTLEMENT AND AFTER THE BOARD'S ADVERSE DECISION, TO ASSERT
THEM IN A SUIT BROUGHT FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE CLAIMS ARE FOR "PENALTY
DAMAGES" FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE STARTING TIME PROVISIONS OF A
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, VARYING FROM $3,500 TO $14,000, AND IN THE
AGGREGATE AMOUNTING TO $65,274.00.  FN2 

THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE CARRIER, HOLDING
THAT THE BOARD'S AWARD WAS A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIMS, WITHIN
THE UNION'S POWER TO SEEK AND THE BOARD'S TO MAKE, PRECLUDING JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  FN3  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT, 140 F.2D 488,
HOLDING THAT THE RECORD PRESENTED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE UNION
HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY RESPONDENTS "TO NEGOTIATE, COMPROMISE AND
SETTLE" THE CLAIMS.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 690, IN ORDER TO
RESOLVE THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AFFECTING APPLICATION AND OPERATION OF
THE ACT. 

A STATEMENT OF THE MORE IMPORTANT FACTS WILL PUT THE ISSUES IN
SHARPER PERSPECTIVE.  THE CONTROVERSY RELATES TO OPERATIONS IN
PETITIONER'S SO-CALLED "WHITING YARD."  PRIOR TO JULY 24, 1934,
RESPONDENTS, OR SOME OF THEM, WERE EMPLOYED BY THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY
TO DO PRIVATE INTRAPLANT SWITCHING IN ITS WHITING, INDIANA, PLANT.  ON
THAT DATE THIS WORK WAS TAKEN OVER BY PETITIONER.  UNTIL THEN STANDARD
OIL'S SWITCHING CREWS BEGAN WORK EACH DAY AT HOURS FIXED IN ADVANCE BY
THE MANAGEMENT, WHICH VARIED AS PLANT OPERATIONS REQUIRED. 

PRIOR TO 1934 PETITIONER'S CREWS AT ALL YARDS IN INDIANA AND ILLINOIS
BEGAN WORK DAILY IN ACCORDANCE WITH STARTING TIME PROVISIONS CONTAINED
IN ARTICLE 6 OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT MADE IN 1927 BETWEEN PETITIONER
AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, GOVERNING RULES, WORKING
CONDITIONS AND RATES OF PAY OF YARDMEN. 

UPON TRANSFER OF THE WHITING YARD SWITCHING TO PETITIONER,
RESPONDENTS THERETOFORE EMPLOYED BY STANDARD OIL BECAME EMPLOYEES OF
PETITIONER AND MEMBERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD.  ON JULY 24, 1934, COMPANY
OFFICIALS CONFERRED WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ENGINEERS, THE FIREMEN
AND THE YARDMEN CONCERNING TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT.  THE BROTHERHOOD ACTED
FOR THE YARDMEN.  APPARENTLY AGREEMENT WAS REACHED ON ALL MATTERS
EXCEPT STARTING TIME BUT, AS TO THAT, VERSIONS OF WHAT TRANSPIRED
DIFFER.  RESPONDENTS AND THE BROTHERHOOD HAVE MAINTAINED THAT THE 1927
AGREEMENT, INCLUDING ARTICLE 6, BECAME APPLICABLE TO THEM UPON THE
TRANSFER.  THEY SAY, HOWEVER, THAT THEY ASSENTED TO A SUSPENSION OF
ARTICLE 6 FOR THIRTY DAYS FROM JULY 27, 1934, TO ENABLE THE COMPANY TO
WORK OUT ADJUSTMENT TO THE PLANT'S OPERATIONS, AND ACCORDINGLY IT
GOVERNED THEIR RELATION WITH PETITIONER FROM AUGUST 26, 1934. 

THE COMPANY HAS INSISTED THAT ARTICLE 6 DID NOT BECOME APPLICABLE TO
RESPONDENTS UPON THE TRANSFER AND THAT IT MADE NO AGREEMENT TO APPLY
ARTICLE 6, OTHER THAN TO FOLLOW IT AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE, PRIOR TO
OCTOBER 31, 1938, WHEN IT AND THE BROTHERHOOD EVENTUALLY AGREED TO
PLACE WHITING YARD CREWS ON FIXED STARTING TIME, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES TO
BE NOTED. 

WHICHEVER VERSION IS TRUE, A LONG CONTROVERSY RESULTED.  THE CARRIER
CONTINUED TO FOLLOW THE FORMER PRACTICE, ALTHOUGH DEPARTURES FROM THE
SCHEDULE WERE REDUCED, AS IT CLAIMS, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORAL
UNDERTAKING TO OBSERVE IT AS FAR AS POSSIBLE.  THE WORK WENT ON WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION.  BUT NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS ON ACCOUNT OF DEPARTURES WERE
MADE THROUGH LOCAL OFFICERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD.  TIME SLIPS WERE FILED
BY THE EMPLOYEES.  FREQUENT NEGOTIATIONS TOOK PLACE.  NONE HOWEVER
RESULTED IN A SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 31, 1938. 

IN THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS, RESPONDENTS AUTHORIZED THE BROTHERHOOD TO
FILE COMPLAINT WITH THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR
VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6.  THIS WAS DONE ON NOVEMBER 23, 1936.  THE
"STATEMENT OF CLAIM" WAS SIGNED AND FILED BY WILLIAMS, CHAIRMAN OF THE
GENERAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.  IT ASSERTED THAT THE CARRIER, HAVING
"PLACED THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF THE YARDMEN," HAD "FAILED
TO PUT INTO EFFECT THE STARTING TIME PROVISIONS" OF ARTICLE 6, AND
DENIED THAT VIOLATION WAS JUSTIFIED EITHER BECAUSE THE CARRIER HAD
AGREED WITH THE ENGINEERS TO FOLLOW THE FORMERLY PREVAILING PRACTICE OR
BY THE CARRIER'S CLAIM THAT THE WORK COULD BE DONE IN NO OTHER WAY. 
THE SUBMISSION WAS INTENDED TO SECURE COMPLIANCE.  THERE WAS NO PRAYER
FOR MONEY DAMAGES.  PETITIONER MAINTAINED THAT ARTICLE 6 WAS NOT
APPLICABLE. 

THE BOARD, FOLLOWING ITS CUSTOMARY PROCEDURE,  FN4  DOCKETED THE
CLAIM AS NO. 3537, NOTIFIED THE CARRIER AND THE UNION THAT THE CASE,
WITH MANY OTHERS DOCKETED AT THE SAME TIME, WAS "ASSUMED TO BE
COMPLETE," AND FORWARDED TO EACH COPIES OF THE OTHER'S SUBMISSIONS. 
THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE WHAT FOLLOWED UNTIL NEARLY TWO YEARS
LATER. 

ON OCTOBER 31, 1938, WILLIAMS AND JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF THE
BROTHERHOOD, TWO OF THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE'S THREE MEMBERS, ACCEPTED
AN OFFER MADE BY PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT, ROGERS, TO SETTLE THE CLAIM. 
THE SETTLEMENT TOOK THE FORM OF A PROPOSAL, MADE IN A LETTER BY ROGERS
TO WILLIAMS, TO SETTLE SOME 61 DIFFERENT CLAIMS, INCLUDING "LABOR BOARD
DOCKET NO. 3537 - STARTING TIME OF SWITCH ENGINES IN WHITING S.O.
YARD."  WILLIAMS AND JOHNSON ENDORSED ACCEPTANCE FOR THE BROTHERHOOD
AND THE YARDMEN ON THE LETTER.  BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE, PERTINENT
PORTIONS ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN5  ON THE DAY THE SETTLEMENT
WAS CONCLUDED ROGERS AND WILLIAMS ADVISED THE BOARD OF IT BY LETTER AND
JOINTLY REQUESTED THAT THE CASE BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE DOCKET, WHICH
ACCORDINGLY WAS DONE. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE SETTLEMENT, A FURTHER DISPUTE AROSE.  IN MARCH,
1939, THE BROTHERHOOD, THROUGH WILLIAMS, REQUESTED THE CARRIER TO
FURNISH A COMPLETE LIST OF CREWS IN THE WHITING YARD STARTED AT TIMES
OTHER THAN THOSE FIXED BY ARTICLE 6 FROM AUGUST 27, 1934, TO NOVEMBER
15, 1938, WHEN THE SETTLEMENT BECAME EFFECTIVE.  THE COMPANY DECLINED
TO FURNISH THE LIST, STATING IT WAS AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND THE REASON
FOR THE REQUEST IN VIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT. 

THE UPSHOT OF THE DISPUTE WAS THE FILING OF ANOTHER CLAIM WITH THE
BOARD, DOCKET NO. 7324, ON MAY 18, 1939, BY WILLIAMS, ACTING FOR THE
BROTHERHOOD.  THIS SUBMISSION WAS "FOR ONE DAY'S PAY AT TIME AND ONE
HALF FOR EACH FOREMAN AND EACH HELPER FOR EACH DAY THEY WERE REQUIRED
TO WORK IN YARD SERVICE IN THE WHITING (STANDARD OIL COMPANY) YARD, IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIXED STARTING TIME PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE NO. 6 OF
THE YARDMEN'S AGREEMENT  ...  EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1927, AND APPLICABLE
TO WHITING (STANDARD OIL COMPANY) YARDMEN, JULY 27, 1934, FROM DATES OF
AUGUST 27, 1934, UNTIL NOVEMBER 14, 1938, INCLUSIVE." 

THE SUBMISSION NOT ONLY MAINTAINED THE APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 6 AND
ACCRUAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS ASSERTED.  IT ALSO MAINTAINED THAT THE
SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 31, 1938, WAS EFFECTIVE ONLY TO FIX THE STARTING
TIME FOR THE FUTURE AND HAD NO EFFECT TO WAIVE OR DETERMINE INDIVIDUAL
CLAIMS FOR PENALTY DAMAGES ACCRUED PRIOR TO THE SETTLEMENT.  FN6 

THE CARRIER'S SUBMISSION REITERATED ITS POSITION IN CASE NO. 3537. 
IT ALSO RELIED UPON THE SETTLEMENT AS PRECLUDING LATER ASSERTION OF ANY
CLAIM, INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE, BASED UPON OCCURRENCES PRIOR TO THE
DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT. 

THE MATTER WENT TO DECISION BY THE BOARD.  UNDER THE PROCEDURE
PRESCRIBED IN CASE OF DEADLOCK, CF. SEC. 3 FIRST (1), A REFEREE WAS
CALLED IN.  THE AWARD WAS MADE BY THE FIRST DIVISION ON SEPTEMBER 6,
1940.  IT SUSTAINED THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION,  FN7  FOUND THAT "THE
PARTIES TO SAID DISPUTE WERE GIVEN DUE NOTICE OF HEARING THEREON," AND
HELD THAT "THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT
DISPOSED OF THE CLAIM HERE MADE BY THE LETTER OF CARRIER DATED OCTOBER
28, 1938, ACCEPTED BY EMPLOYEES OCTOBER 31, 1938."  ACCORDINGLY THE
CLAIM WAS "DENIED PER FINDINGS." 

THEREAFTER, ON NOVEMBER 19, 1940, THE PRESENT SUIT WAS INSTITUTED. 
AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE CASE COMES HERE AFTER A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
RENDERED ON THE CARRIER'S MOTION, SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF ITS
VICE PRESIDENT.  THIS IN EFFECT SET UP THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT AND THE
AWARD IN CASE NO. 7324 AS BASES FOR THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT. 

THE RANGE AND PRECISE NATURE OF THE ISSUES MAY BE SUMMARIZED BEST
PERHAPS AS THEY WERE SHAPED UPON RESPONDENTS' OPPOSITION TO THE
CARRIER'S MOTION.  THEY DENIED THAT EITHER WILLIAMS OR THE UNION HAD
AUTHORITY TO RELEASE THEIR INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OR TO SUBMIT THEM FOR
DECISION BY THE BOARD.  THEY RELIED UPON PROVISIONS OF THE
BROTHERHOOD'S CONSTITUTION AND RULES,  FN8  OF WHICH THE CARRIER WAS
ALLEGED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE, AS FORBIDDING UNION OFFICIALS TO RELEASE
INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OR TO SUBMIT THEM TO THE BOARD "WITHOUT SPECIFIC
AUTHORITY SO TO DO GRANTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS THEMSELVES"; AND
DENIED THAT SUCH AUTHORITY IN EITHER RESPECT HAD BEEN GIVEN. 

THE VALIDITY AND THE CONCLUSIVE EFFECT OF THE AWARD WERE CHALLENGED
ALSO UPON OTHER GROUNDS, AMONG THEM THAT RESPONDENTS INDIVIDUALLY
RECEIVED NO NOTICE OF THE SUBMISSION OR THE HEARING UNTIL AFTER THE
AWARD WAS MADE; THAT SINCE THE AWARD DENIED A CLAIM FOR MONEY DAMAGES,
IT WAS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION OF SEC. 3 FIRST (M), WHICH PROVIDES THAT
"THE AWARDS SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING UPON BOTH PARTIES TO THE
DISPUTE, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THEY SHALL CONTAIN A MONEY AWARD," AND
THEREFORE DID NOT PRECLUDE THIS SUIT; AND THAT THE ACT, IF CONSTRUED TO
MAKE THE AWARD CONCLUSIVE, WOULD VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S DUE
PROCESS PROVISION BY DENYING JUDICIAL REVIEW TO DEFEATED EMPLOYEES,
THOUGH ALLOWING IT TO DEFEATED EMPLOYERS.  CF. SEC. 3 FIRST (P), (Q);
WASHINGTON TERMINAL CO. V. BOSWELL, 124 F.2D 235, AFFIRMED BY AN
EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 319 U.S. 732. 

FINALLY RESPONDENTS SUGGESTED MOST SWEEPINGLY THAT THE BOARD MAY ACT
"MERELY AS AN ARBITRATOR," WITH THE RESULT THAT "ANY DECISIONS
THEREUNDER ARE VOID BECAUSE IT PASSES ON MATTERS AND BASES ITS DECISION
AND ITS OPINION ON LAW AND FACT WHICH IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY." 
THE PRAYER WAS THAT THE COURT OVERRULE THE CARRIER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND, IN DOING SO, DETERMINE THAT THE RELEASE WAS NOT
EFFECTIVE; THE AWARD WAS NOT A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIMS; AND
THE AWARD WAS VOID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES OR THE
SUBJECT MATTER OR "BECAUSE SAID ACT UNDER WHICH AWARD WAS ENTERED IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL." 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT RESTED SQUARELY ON THE CONCLUSIVE
EFFECT OF THE AWARD IN DOCKET NO. 7324.  IT DID NOT INDICATE WHETHER IT
REGARDED THE BROTHERHOOD'S AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT THE CLAIMS AND APPEAR
FOR THE EMPLOYEES AS DERIVED FROM THE STATUTE OR, APART FROM THE
STATUTE, AS A MATTER OF LAW UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS.  BUT IT MUST BE
TAKEN TO HAVE HELD THAT, UPON THE PLEADINGS AND THE AFFIDAVITS, NO
GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT WAS PRESENTED, FED. RULES CIV. PROC.,
RULE 56(C), AND THEREFORE THAT IT WAS IMMATERIAL IF, AS ALLEGED,
RESPONDENTS HAD NOT INDIVIDUALLY GIVEN THE BROTHERHOOD OR WILLIAMS
SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT THEIR CLAIMS FOR DECISION OR REPRESENT
THEM IN THE HEARINGS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, MADE NO REFERENCE TO THE ISSUES
CONCERNING THE AWARD AND ITS EFFECT UPON THE CLAIMS.  BUT ITS JUDGMENT
MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE DETERMINED IMPLICITLY THAT NONE OF PETITIONER'S
CONTENTIONS IN THESE RESPECTS IS VALID. 

THE ISSUES ARE NOT MERELY, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS ASSUMED, WHETHER
THE BROTHERHOOD HAD AUTHORITY TO COMPROMISE AND SETTLE THE CLAIMS BY
AGREEMENT WITH THE CARRIER AND WHETHER ON THE RECORD THIS PRESENTS A
QUESTION OF FACT.  FOR PETITIONER INSISTS, AND THE DISTRICT COURT HELD,
THAT THE AWARD OF THE BOARD WAS VALIDLY MADE, AND IS FINAL, PRECLUDING
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTIONS OF FINALITY, WHICH TURN
UPON CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY AS CONSTRUED.  FN9  THOSE QUESTIONS SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED
UNLESS THE AWARD WAS VALIDLY MADE, WHICH PRESENTS, IN OUR OPINION, THE
CRUCIAL QUESTION.  RESPONDENTS ATTACK THE VALIDITY AND LEGAL
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE AWARD IN THREE WAYS.  TWO STRIKE AT ITS VALIDITY
ON NARROW GROUNDS.  RESPONDENTS SAY THE BROTHERHOOD HAD NO POWER TO
SUBMIT THE DISPUTE FOR DECISION BY THE BOARD WITHOUT AUTHORITY GIVEN BY
EACH OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND THAT NO SUCH AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN.  THEY
ALSO MAINTAIN THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE NOTICE INDIVIDUALLY OF
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD AND NONE WAS GIVEN.    THE THIRD AND
MOST SWEEPING CONTENTION UNDERCUTS ALL OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING THE
AWARD'S EFFECTS, WHETHER FOR VALIDITY OR FOR FINALITY.  IN SUBSTANCE IT
IS THAT THE AWARD, WHEN RENDERED, AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN AN
ADVISORY OPINION.  THE CONTENTION, FOUNDED UPON LANGUAGE OF THE OPINION
IN MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 312 U.S. 630, REGARDS THE ACT'S
ENTIRE SCHEME FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES AS WHOLLY CONCILIATORY
IN CHARACTER, INVOLVING NO ELEMENT OF LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, WITH THE
CONSEQUENCE THAT THE PARTIES ARE ENTIRELY FREE TO ACCEPT OR IGNORE THE
BOARD'S DECISION.    AT THE OUTSET WE PUT ASIDE THIS BROADEST
CONTENTION AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT'S TERMS, PURPOSES AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  FN10  THE MOORE CASE INVOLVED NO QUESTION
CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OR THE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS OF AN AWARD WHEN
RENDERED.  FN11  NOR DID IT PURPORT TO DETERMINE THAT THE ACT CREATES
NO LEGAL OBLIGATIONS THROUGH AN AWARD OR OTHERWISE.  APART FROM THE
AFFIRMANCE BY EQUAL DIVISION IN WASHINGTON TERMINAL CO. V. BOSWELL,
SUPRA, BOTH PRIOR AND LATER DECISIONS HERE ARE WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH
SUCH A VIEW OF ITS EFFECTS.  CF. VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION,
300 U.S. 515; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; FN12
SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; GENERAL
COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO., 320 U.S. 323; GENERAL COMMITTEE V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 320 U.S. 338. 

       I 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISPUTES OVER GRIEVANCES AND DISPUTES
CONCERNING THE MAKING OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS IS TRADITIONAL IN
RAILWAY LABOR AFFAIRS.  IT HAS ASSUMED LARGE IMPORTANCE IN THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT OF 1934, SUBSTANTIVELY AND PROCEDURALLY.  FN13  IT DIVIDES
THE JURISDICTION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD FROM THOSE OF
THE MEDIATION BOARD, GIVING THEM THEIR DISTINCT CHARACTERS.  IT ALSO
AFFECTS THE PARTS TO BE PLAYED BY THE COLLECTIVE AGENT AND THE
REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES, FIRST IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT IN
CONFERENCE AND LATER IN THE QUITE DIFFERENT PROCEDURES WHICH THE ACT
CREATES FOR DISPOSING OF THE TWO TYPES OF DISPUTE.  CF. SECS. 3, 4. 

THE STATUTE FIRST MARKS THE DISTINCTION IN SEC. 2, WHICH STATES AS
AMONG THE ACT'S FIVE GENERAL PURPOSES:  "(4) TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROMPT
AND ORDERLY SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES,
OR WORKING CONDITIONS; (5) TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROMPT AND ORDERLY
SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE
INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS COVERING RATES OF PAY,
RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS."  THE TWO SORTS OF DISPUTE ARE SHARPLY
DISTINGUISHED,  FN14  THOUGH THERE ARE POINTS OF COMMON TREATMENT. 
NEVERTHELESS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ACT ITSELF, FROM THE HISTORY OF
RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES AND FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE VARIOUS
STATUTES WHICH HAVE DEALT WITH THEM,  FN15  THAT CONGRESS HAS DRAWN
MAJOR LINES OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES OF CONTROVERSY. 

THE FIRST RELATES TO DISPUTES OVER THE FORMATION OF COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENTS OR EFFORTS TO SECURE THEM.  THEY ARISE WHERE THERE IS NO
SUCH AGREEMENT OR WHERE IT IS SOUGHT TO CHANGE THE TERMS OF ONE, AND
THEREFORE THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER AN EXISTING AGREEMENT CONTROLS THE
CONTROVERSY.  THEY LOOK TO THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS FOR THE FUTURE,
NOT TO ASSERTION OF RIGHTS CLAIMED TO HAVE VESTED IN THE PAST. 

THE SECOND CLASS, HOWEVER, CONTEMPLATES THE EXISTENCE OF A COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT ALREADY CONCLUDED OR, AT ANY RATE, A SITUATION IN WHICH NO
EFFORT IS MADE TO BRING ABOUT A FORMAL CHANGE IN TERMS OR TO CREATE A
NEW ONE.  THE DISPUTE RELATES EITHER TO THE MEANING OR PROPER
APPLICATION OF A PARTICULAR PROVISION WITH REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC
SITUATION OR TO AN OMITTED CASE.  IN THE LATTER EVENT THE CLAIM IS
FOUNDED UPON SOME INCIDENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION, OR ASSERTED ONE,
INDEPENDENT OF THOSE COVERED BY THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, E.G., CLAIMS
ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL INJURIES.  IN EITHER CASE THE CLAIM IS TO RIGHTS
ACCRUED, NOT MERELY TO HAVE NEW ONES CREATED FOR THE FUTURE. 

IN GENERAL THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN WHAT ARE REGARDED TRADITIONALLY
AS THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR DISPUTES OF THE RAILWAY LABOR WORLD.  FN16
THE FORMER PRESENT THE LARGE ISSUES ABOUT WHICH STRIKES ORDINARILY
ARISE WITH THE CONSEQUENT INTERRUPTIONS OF TRAFFIC THE ACT SOUGHT TO
AVOID.  BECAUSE THEY MORE OFTEN INVOLVE THOSE CONSEQUENCES AND BECAUSE
THEY SEEK TO CREATE RATHER THAN TO ENFORCE CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS, THEY
HAVE BEEN LEFT FOR SETTLEMENT ENTIRELY TO THE PROCESSES OF
NONCOMPULSORY ADJUSTMENT. 

THE SO-CALLED MINOR DISPUTES, ON THE OTHER HAND, INVOLVING
GRIEVANCES, AFFECT THE SMALLER DIFFERENCES WHICH INEVITABLY APPEAR IN
THE CARRYING OUT OF MAJOR AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES OR ARISE INCIDENTALLY
IN THE COURSE OF AN EMPLOYMENT.  THEY REPRESENT SPECIFIC MALADJUSTMENTS
OF A DETAILED OR INDIVIDUAL QUALITY.  THEY SELDOM PRODUCE STRIKES,
THOUGH IN EXAGGERATED INSTANCES THEY MAY DO SO.  FN17  BECAUSE OF THEIR
COMPARATIVELY MINOR CHARACTER AND THE GENERAL IMPROBABILITY OF THEIR
CAUSING INTERRUPTION OF PEACEFUL RELATIONS AND OF TRAFFIC, THE 1934 ACT
SETS THEM APART FROM THE MAJOR DISPUTES AND PROVIDES FOR VERY DIFFERENT
TREATMENT. 

BROADLY, THE STATUTE AS AMENDED MARKS OUT TWO DISTINCT ROUTES FOR
SETTLEMENT OF THE TWO CLASSES OF DISPUTE, RESPECTIVELY, EACH CONSISTING
OF THREE STAGES.  THE ACT TREATS THE TWO TYPES OF DISPUTE ALIKE IN
REQUIRING NEGOTIATION AS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD SETTLEMENT AND THEREFORE
IN CONTEMPLATING VOLUNTARY ACTION FOR BOTH AT THIS STAGE, IN THE SENSE
THAT AGREEMENT IS SOUGHT AND CANNOT BE COMPELLED.  TO INDUCE AGREEMENT,
HOWEVER, THE DUTY TO NEGOTIATE IS IMPOSED FOR BOTH GRIEVANCES AND MAJOR
DISPUTES.  FN18 

BEYOND THE INITIAL STAGES OF NEGOTIATION AND CONFERENCE, HOWEVER, THE
PROCEDURES DIVERGE.  "MAJOR DISPUTES" GO FIRST TO MEDIATION UNDER THE
AUSPICES OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD; IF THAT FAILS, THEN TO
ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF ARBITRATION, CF. SEC. 7; TRAINMEN V. TOLEDO,
P. & W.R. CO., 321 U.S. 50; AND FINALLY TO POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL
INTERVENTION TO SECURE ADJUSTMENT.  SEC. 10.  FOR THEIR SETTLEMENT THE
STATUTORY SCHEME RETAINS THROUGHOUT THE TRADITIONAL VOLUNTARY PROCESSES
OF NEGOTIATION, MEDIATION, VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION, AND CONCILIATION. 
EVERY FACILITY FOR BRINGING ABOUT AGREEMENT IS PROVIDED AND PRESSURES
FOR MOBILIZING PUBLIC OPINION ARE APPLIED.  THE PARTIES ARE REQUIRED TO
SUBMIT TO THE SUCCESSIVE PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO INDUCE AGREEMENT.  SEC.
5 FIRST (B).  BUT COMPULSIONS GO ONLY TO INSURE THAT THOSE PROCEDURES
ARE EXHAUSTED BEFORE RESORT CAN BE HAD TO SELF-HELP.  NO AUTHORITY IS
EMPOWERED TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE AND NO SUCH POWER IS INTENDED, UNLESS
THE PARTIES THEMSELVES AGREE TO ARBITRATION. 

THE COURSE PRESCRIBED FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES IS VERY
DIFFERENT BEYOND THE INITIAL STAGE.  THEREAFTER THE ACT DOES NOT LEAVE
THE PARTIES WHOLLY FREE, AT THEIR OWN WILL, TO AGREE OR NOT TO AGREE. 
ON THE CONTRARY, ONE OF THE MAIN PURPOSES OF THE 1934 AMENDMENTS WAS TO
PROVIDE A MORE EFFECTIVE PROCESS OF SETTLEMENT.  FN19 

PRIOR TO 1934 THE PARTIES WERE FREE AT ALL TIMES TO GO TO COURT TO
SETTLE THESE DISPUTES.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONTRARY INTENT OF THE 1926
ACT, EACH ALSO HAD THE POWER, IF NOT THE RIGHT, TO DEFEAT THE INTENDED
SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES BY DECLINING TO JOIN IN CREATING THE LOCAL
BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENT PROVIDED FOR BY THAT ACT.  THEY EXERCISED THIS
POWER TO THE LIMIT.  DEADLOCK BECAME THE COMMON PRACTICE, MAKING
DECISION IMPOSSIBLE.  THE RESULT WAS A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN IN THE
PRACTICAL WORKING OF THE MACHINERY.  GRIEVANCES ACCUMULATED AND
STAGNATED UNTIL THE MASS ASSUMED THE PROPORTIONS OF A MAJOR DISPUTE. 
SEVERAL ORGANIZATIONS TOOK STRIKE BALLOTS AND THUS THREATENED TO
INTERRUPT TRAFFIC, A FACTOR WHICH AMONG OTHERS INDUCED THE COORDINATOR
OF TRANSPORTATION TO BECOME THE PRINCIPAL AUTHOR AND ADVOCATE OF THE
AMENDMENTS.  THE SPONSOR IN THE HOUSE INSISTED THAT CONGRESS ACT UPON
THEM BEFORE ADJOURNMENT FOR FEAR THAT IF NO ACTION WERE TAKEN A
RAILROAD CRISIS MIGHT TAKE PLACE.  FN20  THE OLD MEDIATION BOARD WAS
HELPLESS.  FN21  TO BREAK THIS LOG JAM, AND AT THE SAME TIME TO GET
GRIEVANCES OUT OF THE WAY OF THE SETTLING OF MAJOR DISPUTES THROUGH THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE MEDIATION BOARD, THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD WAS CREATED
AND GIVEN POWER TO DECIDE THEM.  FN22 

THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IS NOT ONE OF MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION ONLY,
LIKE THAT PROVIDED FOR MAJOR DISPUTES UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE
MEDIATION BOARD.  ANOTHER TRIBUNAL OF VERY DIFFERENT CHARACTER IS
ESTABLISHED WITH "JURISDICTION" TO DETERMINE GRIEVANCES AND MAKE AWARDS
CONCERNING THEM.  EACH PARTY TO THE DISPUTE MAY SUBMIT IT FOR DECISION,
WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER IS WILLING, PROVIDED HE HAS HIMSELF DISCHARGED
THE INITIAL DUTY OF NEGOTIATION.  FN23  SEC. 3 FIRST (I).  RIGHTS OF
NOTICE, HEARING, AND PARTICIPATION OR REPRESENTATION ARE GIVEN.  SEC. 3
FIRST (J).  IN SOME INSTANCES JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS
ARE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED OR ARE CONTEMPLATED.  SEC. 3 FIRST (P); CF. SEC.
3 FIRST (M).  WHEN THIS IS NOT DONE, THE ACT PURPORTS TO MAKE THE
BOARD'S DECISIONS "FINAL AND BINDING."  SEC. 3 FIRST (M). 

THE PROCEDURE IS IN TERMS AND PURPOSE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE
PREEXISTING SYSTEM OF LOCAL BOARDS.  THAT SYSTEM WAS IN FACT AND EFFECT
NOTHING MORE THAN ONE FOR WHAT RESPONDENTS CALL "VOLUNTARY
ARBITRATION."  NO DISPUTE COULD BE SETTLED UNLESS SUBMITTED BY
AGREEMENT OF ALL PARTIES.  WHEN ONE WAS SUBMITTED, DEADLOCK WAS COMMON
AND THERE WAS NO WAY OF ESCAPE.  THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD WAS CREATED TO
REMOVE THE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES FROM THIS STAGNATING PROCESS AND
BRING THEM WITHIN A GENERAL AND INCLUSIVE PLAN OF DECISION.  FN24  THE
AIM WAS NOT TO DISPENSE WITH AGREEMENT.  IT WAS TO ADD DECISION WHERE
AGREEMENT FAILS AND THUS TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS PRIVATE
INTERESTS AGAINST THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF THE PREEXISTING SCHEME. 

                                  II 

THE COLLECTIVE AGENT'S POWER TO ACT IN THE VARIOUS STAGES OF THE
STATUTORY PROCEDURES IS PART OF THOSE PROCEDURES AND NECESSARILY IS
RELATED TO THEM IN FUNCTION, SCOPE AND PURPOSE. 

THE STATUTE ITSELF VESTS EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE AND TO
CONCLUDE AGREEMENTS CONCERNING MAJOR DISPUTES IN THE DULY SELECTED
COLLECTIVE AGENT.  CF. VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, SUPRA.
FN25  SINCE THE ENTIRE STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING MAJOR DISPUTES
IS AIMED ONLY AT SECURING AGREEMENT AND NOT DECISION, UNLESS THE
PARTIES AGREE TO ARBITRATION, THIS EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY INCLUDES
REPRESENTATION OF THE EMPLOYEES NOT ONLY IN THE STAGE OF CONFERENCE,
BUT ALSO IN THE LATER ONES OF MEDIATION, ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE AGENT'S EXCLUSIVE POWER EXTENDS ALSO TO THE
SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES, IN CONFERENCE OR IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
BOARD, PRESENTS MORE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT
EXPRESSLY SO DECLARE.  NOR DOES IT EXPLICITLY EXCLUDE THESE FUNCTIONS. 
THE QUESTIONS THEREFORE ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY IMPLICATION FROM THE
PERTINENT PROVISIONS.  THESE ARE THE ONES RELATING TO RIGHTS OF
PARTICIPATION IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT AND IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE BOARD.  THEY ARE IN PART IDENTICAL WITH THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO
MAJOR DISPUTES, BUT NOT ENTIRELY SO; AND THE DIFFERENCES ARE HIGHLY
MATERIAL. 

THE QUESTIONS OF POWER TO BARGAIN CONCERNING GRIEVANCES, THAT IS, TO
CONCLUDE AGREEMENTS FOR THEIR SETTLEMENT, AND TO REPRESENT AGGRIEVED
EMPLOYEES IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD ARE NOT IDENTICAL.  BUT THEY
OBVIOUSLY ARE CLOSELY RELATED IN THE STATUTORY SCHEME AND IN FACT.  IF
THE COLLECTIVE AGENT HAS EXCLUSIVE POWER TO SETTLE GRIEVANCES BY
AGREEMENT, A STRONG INFERENCE, THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY CONCLUSIVE, WOULD
FOLLOW FOR ITS EXCLUSIVE POWER TO REPRESENT THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE
BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE CONVERSE ALSO WOULD BE TRUE.  ACCORDINGLY IT
WILL BE CONVENIENT TO CONSIDER THE TWO QUESTIONS TOGETHER. 

THE PRIMARY PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE DUTY TO TREAT ARE FOUND IN SEC.
2 FIRST AND SECOND, IMPOSING THE DUTY GENERALLY AS TO ALL DISPUTES,
BOTH MAJOR AND MINOR, AND SECS. 2 SIXTH AND 3 FIRST (I), TOGETHER WITH
THE PROVISO TO SEC. 2 FOURTH, WHICH APPLY SPECIALLY TO GRIEVANCES. 
THESE SECTIONS IN MATERIAL PART ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN26
EXCEPT THE PROVISO WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:  "PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN
THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT A CARRIER FROM PERMITTING AN
EMPLOYEE, INDIVIDUALLY, OR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES FROM
CONFERRING WITH MANAGEMENT DURING WORKING HOURS WITHOUT LOSS OF TIME,
OR TO PROHIBIT A CARRIER FROM FURNISHING FREE TRANSPORTATION TO ITS
EMPLOYEES WHILE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION." 
FN27 

RELATING TO PARTICIPATION IN THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS, IN ADDITION TO
THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE OF SEC. 3 FIRST (I), SEE NOTE 26, IS SEC. 3
FIRST (J), AS FOLLOWS:  "PARTIES MAY BE HEARD EITHER IN PERSON, BY
COUNSEL, OR BY OTHER REPRESENTATIVES, AS THEY MAY RESPECTIVELY ELECT,
AND THE SEVERAL DIVISIONS OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SHALL GIVE DUE NOTICE
OF ALL HEARINGS TO THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES AND THE CARRIER OR
CARRIERS INVOLVED IN ANY DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO THEM." 

PETITIONER URGES THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISO AND SEC. 3 FIRST
(J), THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISIONS TAKEN AS A WHOLE IS TO MAKE THE
COLLECTIVE AGENT THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES, BOTH MAJOR AND MINOR, AND OF THE LATTER
"WHETHER ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICATION OF SUCH (COLLECTIVE) AGREEMENTS
OR OTHERWISE."  THE ARGUMENT RESTS PRIMARILY UPON SECS. 2 FIRST,
SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, SIXTH, AND 3 FIRST (I).  IT EMPHASIZES THE
CARRIER'S DUTY TO TREAT WITH THE COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AS
REINFORCED BY SECS. 2 EIGHTH AND TENTH.  FN28    PETITIONER DOES NOT
SQUARELY DENY THAT THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE MAY CONFER WITH THE CARRIER'S
LOCAL OFFICIALS EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH LOCAL UNION
REPRESENTATIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISO TO SEC. 2 FOURTH.  BUT
THIS RIGHT, IF IT EXISTS, IS REGARDED APPARENTLY AS AT MOST ONE TO BE
HEARD, SINCE IN PETITIONER'S VIEW THE POWER TO MAKE SETTLEMENT BY
AGREEMENT IS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE COLLECTIVE AGENT.  CF. SECS. 2
SIXTH AND 3 FIRST (I). 

THE COLLECTIVE AGENT, AS THE CARRIER CONCEIVES THE STATUTE, IS THE
"(REPRESENTATIVES), DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED TO CONFER" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 2 SECOND, WITHOUT DISTINCTION BETWEEN MAJOR AND MINOR
DISPUTES.  IT IS LIKEWISE THE "REPRESENTATIVE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
ACT," AGAIN WITHOUT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF DISPUTE, IN
THE SELECTION OF WHICH BY "THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES" SEC. 2 THIRD FORBIDS
THE OTHER TO INTERFERE.  IT IS ALSO "THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE" OF
THE EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM, BY SEC. 2 SIXTH, THE CARRIER IS REQUIRED TO
TREAT CONCERNING GRIEVANCES IN CONFERENCE, A PROVISION CONSIDERED TO
CARRY OVER INTO SEC. 3 FIRST (I).  THE LATTER REQUIRES THAT DISPUTES
OVER GRIEVANCES "SHALL BE HANDLED IN THE USUAL MANNER UP TO AND
INCLUDING THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CARRIER DESIGNATED TO
HANDLE SUCH DISPUTES." 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS VIEW "EITHER PARTY," WITHIN THE FURTHER
PROVISION OF SEC. 3 FIRST (I) AUTHORIZING REFERENCE OF THE DISPUTE TO
THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD "BY PETITION OF THE PARTIES OR BY EITHER PARTY,"
REFERS TO THE CARRIER OR THE COLLECTIVE AGENT, NOT TO THE AGGRIEVED
EMPLOYEE ACTING OTHERWISE THAN BY THE COLLECTIVE AGENT.  HENCE,
"PARTIES" AS USED IN SEC. 3 FIRST (J) IS GIVEN SIMILAR MEANING. 
CONSEQUENTLY THE COLLECTIVE AGENT ALSO HAS EXCLUSIVE POWER TO SUBMIT
THE DISPUTE TO THE BOARD AND TO REPRESENT AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES BEFORE
IT. 

PETITIONER'S VIEW HAS BEEN ADOPTED, APPARENTLY, IN THE GENERAL
PRACTICE, IF NOT THE FORMALLY DECLARED POLICY OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD. 
AND THIS, IT SEEMS, HAS BEEN DUE TO THE POSITION TAKEN CONSISTENTLY BY
THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVES ON THE BOARD, OVER THE OPPOSITION OF
CARRIER REPRESENTATIVES.  FN29  THE UNIONS, APPARENTLY, LIKE PETITIONER
IN THIS CASE, INTERPRET THE ACT AS NOT CONTEMPLATING TWO DISTINCT
SYSTEMS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES, ONE WHOLLY COLLECTIVE FOR MAJOR
DISPUTES, THE OTHER WHOLLY INDIVIDUAL FOR MINOR ONES.  IN THIS VIEW THE
COLLECTIVE AGENT BECOMES A PARTY TO THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BY MAKING
IT, AND ITS INTEREST AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST DOES
NOT CEASE WHEN THAT FUNCTION ENDS.  IT REMAINS A PARTY TO THE
AGREEMENT, AS SUCH REPRESENTATIVE, AFTER IT IS MADE; AND CONSEQUENTLY,
IN THAT CAPACITY AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST, IS
CONCERNED WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AGREEMENT MAY BE INTERPRETED AND
APPLIED. 

ACCORDINGLY, PETITIONER URGES THAT THE STATUTE, BOTH BY ITS TERMS AND
BY ITS PURPOSE, CONFERS UPON THE COLLECTIVE AGENT THE SAME EXCLUSIVE
POWER TO DEAL WITH GRIEVANCES, WHETHER BY NEGOTIATION AND CONTRACT, OR
BY PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD WHEN AGREEMENT FAILS, AS IS GIVEN WITH
RESPECT TO MAJOR DISPUTES.  AND THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUAL ACTION ARE LIMITED TO RIGHTS OF HEARING BEFORE THE UNION AND
POSSIBLY ALSO BY THE CARRIER. 

WE THINK THAT SUCH A VIEW OF THE STATUTE'S EFFECTS, IN SO FAR AS IT
WOULD DEPRIVE THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE OF EFFECTIVE VOICE IN ANY
SETTLEMENT AND OF INDIVIDUAL HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, WOULD BE
CONTRARY TO THE CLEAR IMPORT OF ITS PROVISIONS AND TO ITS POLICY. 

IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED, BY THE 1934
AMENDMENTS, TO SUBMERGE WHOLLY THE INDIVIDUAL AND MINORITY INTERESTS,
WITH ALL POWER TO ACT CONCERNING THEM, IN THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST AND
AGENCY, NOT ONLY IN FORMING THE CONTRACTS WHICH GOVERN THEIR EMPLOYMENT
RELATION,  FN30  BUT ALSO IN GIVING EFFECT TO THEM AND TO ALL OTHER
INCIDENTS OF THAT RELATION.  ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH A VIEW WOULD REQUIRE
THE CLEAREST EXPRESSION OF PURPOSE.  FOR THIS WOULD MEAN THAT CONGRESS
HAD NULLIFIED ALL PREEXISTING RIGHTS OF WORKERS TO ACT IN RELATION TO
THEIR EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING PERHAPS EVEN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
CONSULT WITH ONE'S EMPLOYER, EXCEPT AS THE COLLECTIVE AGENT MIGHT
PERMIT.  APART FROM QUESTIONS OF VALIDITY, THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED SUCH CONSEQUENCES COULD BE ACCEPTED ONLY IF IT WERE CLEAR THAT
NO OTHER CONSTRUCTION WOULD ACHIEVE THE STATUTORY AIMS.  FN31 

THE ACT'S PROVISIONS DO NOT REQUIRE SUCH A CONSTRUCTION.  ON THE
CONTRARY THEY APPEAR EXPRESSLY TO PRECLUDE IT.  THE PROVISO TO SEC. 2
FOURTH IN TERMS RESERVES THE RIGHT OF "AN EMPLOYEE INDIVIDUALLY" TO
CONFER WITH MANAGEMENT; AND SEC. 3 FIRST (J) NOT ONLY REQUIRES THE
BOARD TO GIVE "DUE NOTICE OF ALL HEARINGS TO THE EMPLOYEE ...  INVOLVED
IN ANY DISPUTE SUBMITTED  ...," BUT PROVIDES FOR "PARTIES" TO BE HEARD
"EITHER IN PERSON, BY COUNSEL, OR BY OTHER REPRESENTATIVES, AS THEY MAY
RESPECTIVELY ELECT." 

THESE PROVISIONS WOULD BE INAPPOSITE IF THE COLLECTIVE AGENT,
NORMALLY A LABOR UNION AND AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, EXCLUSIVELY
WERE CONTEMPLATED.  SUCH ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT AND CANNOT APPEAR AND BE
HEARD "IN PERSON."  NOR WOULD THE PROVISION FOR NOTICE "TO THE EMPLOYEE
... INVOLVED IN ANY DISPUTE" BE EITHER APPROPRIATE OR NECESSARY.  IF
ONLY THE COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE WERE GIVEN RIGHTS OF SUBMISSION,
NOTICE, APPEARANCE AND REPRESENTATION, LANGUAGE MORE APTLY DESIGNED SO
TO LIMIT THOSE RIGHTS WAS READILY AVAILABLE AND WAS ESSENTIAL FOR THE
PURPOSE. 

THIS CONCLUSION ACCORDS FULLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE PROVISO TO SEC. 2
FOURTH.  IT APPEARS TO BE INTENDED AS A QUALIFICATION, IN RESPECT TO
LOSS OF TIME AND FREE TRANSPORTATION, OF THE SECTION'S PRECEDING
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST THE CARRIER'S GIVING FINANCIAL AND OTHER AID TO
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND TO EMPLOYEES IN AN EFFORT TO INFLUENCE THEIR
UNION AFFILIATIONS.  FN32  HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES
ALSO THAT THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO CONFER WITH THE MANAGEMENT
ABOUT HIS OWN GRIEVANCE IS PRESERVED.  THERE IS SOME INDICATION IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO THIS EFFECT.  FN33  THE RIGHT IS SO FUNDAMENTAL
THAT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE PURPOSE WAS TO DESTROY IT. CF. 40 OP. ATTY.
GEN., NO. 59, PP. 5, 6(DEC.  29, 1942); HUGHES TOOL CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
147 F.2D 69. 

RIGHTS OF CONFERENCE ARE NOT IDENTICAL WITH RIGHTS OF SETTLEMENT. 
BUT THE PURPOSE OF CONFERENCE AND THE DUTY TO TREAT IS TO BRING ABOUT
AGREEMENT.  THE RIGHT AND THE OBLIGATION TO SHARE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS
ARE RELEVANT TO THEIR AIM.  CONCEIVABLY THE STATUTE MIGHT CONFER THE
RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, THAT IS, TO BE HEARD BEFORE
ANY AGREEMENT IS CONCLUDED, EITHER UPON THE COLLECTIVE AGENT OR UPON
THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES, AT THE SAME TIME CONFERRING UPON
THE OTHER THE FINAL VOICE IN DETERMINING THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT. 
THIS IS, IN EFFECT, THE POSITION TAKEN BY EACH OF THE PARTIES IN THIS
CASE.  BUT THEY DIFFER CONCERNING WHERE THE FINAL SAY HAS BEEN VESTED. 
PETITIONER MAINTAINS IT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE UNION.  RESPONDENTS SAY
IT HAS BEEN LEFT WITH THEM. 

IN THE VIEW WE TAKE THE ACT GUARANTEES TO THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE MORE
THAN MERELY THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY THE UNION AND THE CARRIER.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE TERMS OF THE PROVISO TO SEC. 2 FOURTH AND OF SEC. 3
FIRST (J) ARE SO LIMITED.  MOREOVER, SEC. 3 FIRST (P) EXPRESSLY STATES
THAT THE STATUTORY SUIT TO ENFORCE AN AWARD IN FAVOR OF AN AGGRIEVED
EMPLOYEE MAY BE BROUGHT BY "THE PETITIONER," PRESUMABLY THE COLLECTIVE
AGENT OR BY THE EMPLOYEE.  ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS CONTEMPLATE
EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE STATUTORY PROCEDURES BY THE AGGRIEVED
EMPLOYEE. 

HIS RIGHTS, TO SHARE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS, TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE
BOARD, TO HAVE NOTICE, AND TO BRING THE ENFORCEMENT SUIT, WOULD BECOME
RIGHTS MORE OF SHADOW THAN OF SUBSTANCE IF THE UNION, BY COMING TO
AGREEMENT WITH THE CARRIER, COULD FORECLOSE HIS CLAIM ALTOGETHER AT THE
THRESHOLD OF THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE.  THIS WOULD BE TRUE IN ANY CASE
WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S IDEAS OF APPROPRIATE SETTLEMENT MIGHT DIFFER FROM
THE UNION'S.  BUT THE DRASTIC EFFECTS IN CURTAILMENT OF HIS PREEXISTING
RIGHTS TO ACT IN SUCH MATTERS FOR HIS OWN PROTECTION WOULD BE MOST
OBVIOUS IN TWO TYPES OF CASES:  ONE, WHERE THE GRIEVANCE ARISES FROM
INCIDENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT NOT COVERED BY A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, IN
WHICH PRESUMABLY THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST WOULD BE AFFECTED ONLY
REMOTELY, IF AT ALL; THE OTHER, WHERE THE INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE NOT A
MEMBER OF THE UNION AND THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST, OR THAT OF THE UNION
ITSELF, ARE OPPOSED OR HOSTILE.  THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO
DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THESE AND OTHER CASES FURNISHES STRONG SUPPORT FOR
BELIEVING ITS PURPOSE WAS NOT TO VEST FINAL AND EXCLUSIVE POWER OF
SETTLEMENT IN THE COLLECTIVE AGENT.  FN34 

WE NEED NOT DETERMINE IN THIS CASE WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED TO LEAVE
THE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES ALTOGETHER TO THE INDIVIDUAL WORKERS,
EXCLUDING THE COLLECTIVE AGENT ENTIRELY EXCEPT AS THEY MAY SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZE IT TO ACT FOR THEM, OR INTENDED IT ALSO TO HAVE VOICE IN THE
SETTLEMENT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST.  CF. MATTER OF
HUGHES TOOL CO., 56 N.L.R.B. 981, MODIFIED AND ENFORCED, HUGHES TOOL
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE
GRIEVANCES FROM THE COLLECTIVE AGENT'S DUTY TO TREAT OR POWER TO SUBMIT
TO THE BOARD.  BOTH COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS MAY BE
CONCERNED IN THE SETTLEMENT WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE DISPUTE
CONCERNS ALL MEMBERS ALIKE, AND SETTLEMENT HANGS EXCLUSIVELY UPON A
SINGLE COMMON ISSUE OR CAUSE OF DISPUTE ARISING FROM THE TERMS OF A
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.  FN35  THOSE INTERESTS COMBINE IN ALMOST INFINITE
VARIETY OF RELATIVE IMPORTANCE IN RELATION TO PARTICULAR GRIEVANCES,
FROM SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE TWO ARE HOSTILE OR IN WHICH THEY BEAR
LITTLE OR NO RELATION OF SUBSTANCE TO EACH OTHER AND OPPOSED TO OTHERS
IN WHICH THEY ARE IDENTIFIED.  FN36 

CONGRESS MADE NO EFFORT TO DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH THESE VARIATIONS. 
FN37  BUT WHETHER OR NOT THE COLLECTIVE AGENT HAS RIGHTS, INDEPENDENTLY
OF THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE'S AUTHORIZATION, TO ACT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST AND FOR ITS PROTECTION IN ANY SETTLEMENT,
WHETHER BY AGREEMENT OR IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD, AN AWARD
CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE AS AGAINST THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE UNLESS HE IS
REPRESENTED INDIVIDUALLY IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RIGHTS OF NOTICE AND APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO HIM BY SEC.
3 FIRST (J).  THOSE RIGHTS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ANY THE
COLLECTIVE AGENT MAY HAVE TO REPRESENT THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST.  FOR AN
AWARD TO AFFECT THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS, THEREFORE, MORE MUST BE SHOWN
THAN THAT THE COLLECTIVE AGENT APPEARED AND PURPORTED TO ACT FOR HIM. 
IT MUST APPEAR THAT IN SOME LEGALLY SUFFICIENT WAY HE AUTHORIZED IT TO
ACT IN HIS BEHALF.  FN38 

PETITIONER'S CONTRARY VIEW, AS HAS BEEN INDICATED, REGARDS THE
SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES AS PART OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING POWER,
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE MAKING OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS.  THE
ASSUMPTION IGNORES THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE WHICH THE ACT HAS DRAWN BETWEEN
THOSE FUNCTIONS, BOTH IN DEFINING THEM AND IN THE MODES PROVIDED FOR
SETTLEMENT. 

TO SETTLE FOR THE FUTURE ALONE, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO OR EFFECT UPON
THE PAST, IS IN FACT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, THAT IS, TO MAKE A
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.  THAT AUTHORITY IS CONFERRED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE
POWER TO DEAL WITH GRIEVANCES, AS PART OF THE POWER TO CONTRACT
"CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS."  IT INCLUDES
THE POWER TO MAKE A NEW AGREEMENT SETTLING FOR THE FUTURE A DISPUTE
CONCERNING THE COVERAGE OR MEANING OF A PREEXISTING COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT.  FOR THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING POWER IS NOT EXHAUSTED BY
BEING ONCE EXERCISED; IT COVERS CHANGING THE TERMS OF AN EXISTING
AGREEMENT AS WELL AS MAKING ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. 

BUT IT DOES NOT COVER CHANGING THEM WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECTS UPON
ACCRUED RIGHTS OR CLAIMS.  FOR IT IS PRECISELY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
MAKING SETTLEMENTS EFFECTIVE ONLY FOR THE FUTURE AND MAKING THEM
EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY TO CONCLUDE RIGHTS CLAIMED AS HAVING ALREADY
ACCRUED WHICH MARKS THE STATUTORY BOUNDARY BETWEEN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND THE SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES.  THE LATTER BY EXPLICIT
DEFINITION INCLUDES THE "INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION" OF EXISTING
AGREEMENTS.  TO REGARD THIS AS PART OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING POWER
IDENTIFIES IT WITH MAKING NEW AGREEMENTS HAVING ONLY PROSPECTIVE
OPERATION; AND BY SO DOING OBLIBERATES THE STATUTE'S BASIC DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THOSE FUNCTIONS.  FN39 

THE BROTHERHOOD HAD POWER, THEREFORE, AS COLLECTIVE AGENT TO MAKE AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE CARRIER, EFFECTIVE FOR THE FUTURE ONLY, TO SETTLE
THE QUESTION OF STARTING TIME, AND THAT POWER WAS DERIVED FROM THE ACT
ITSELF.  IN DEALING WITHIN ITS SCOPE, THE CARRIER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO
LOOK FURTHER THAN THE ACT'S PROVISIONS TO ASCERTAIN THE UNION'S
AUTHORITY.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, AS PETITIONER ASSUMES, THAT IT HAD
THE SAME RIGHT TO DEAL WITH THE UNION CONCERNING THE PAST.  THAT ASPECT
OF THE DISPUTE WAS NOT PART OF THE COLLECTIVE AGENT'S EXCLUSIVE
STATUTORY AUTHORITY. 

IF TO EXCLUDE IT SEVERS WHAT OTHERWISE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED ORGANIC,
THE SEVERANCE CLEARLY IS ONE WHICH CONGRESS COULD MAKE AND IS ONE WE
THINK IT HAS MADE, BY ITS DEFINITION OF GRIEVANCES AND BY THE
PROVISIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION IN THEIR SETTLEMENT.  IF,
MOREOVER, AS PETITIONER URGES, THIS MAY MAKE THE SETTLEMENT LESS
CONVENIENT THAN IF POWER TO DEAL WITH GRIEVANCES WERE VESTED
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE COLLECTIVE AGENT, THAT CONSEQUENCE MAY BE ADMITTED. 
BUT IT CANNOT OUTWEIGH THE CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUAL OR GREATER FORCE
WHICH WE THINK CONGRESS HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN PRESERVING THE
INDIVIDUAL WORKMAN'S RIGHT TO HAVE A VOICE AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN MERE
PROTEST IN THE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. 
FROM THE FACT THAT THE BROTHERHOOD OCCUPIED THE POSITION OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGENT AND AS SUCH HAD POWER TO DEAL FOR THE FUTURE,
THEREFORE, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE ANY ASSUMPTION
CONCERNING ITS AUTHORITY TO SETTLE THE CLAIMS ACCRUED FOR THE PAST OR
TO REPRESENT THE CLAIMANTS EXCLUSIVELY IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
BOARD.  ACCORDINGLY FOR THE UNION TO ACT IN THEIR BEHALF WITH
CONCLUSIVE EFFECT, AUTHORIZATION BY THEM OVER AND ABOVE ANY AUTHORITY
GIVEN BY THE STATUTE WAS ESSENTIAL. 
III 

PETITIONER URGES THAT, APART FROM THE STATUTE, THE FACTS OF RECORD
SHOW AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT RESPONDENTS AUTHORIZED THE BROTHERHOOD TO
SETTLE THE CLAIMS, TO SUBMIT THEM TO THE BOARD, AND TO REPRESENT THEM
IN ITS PROCEEDINGS.  RESPONDENTS DENY THAT AUTHORITY IN ANY OF THESE
RESPECTS WAS GIVEN, EITHER BY INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZATION OR BY VIRTUE OF
THE BROTHERHOOD'S CONSTITUTION AND RULES; AND THEY INSIST THAT THE
RECORD PRESENTS THESE QUESTIONS AS ISSUES OF FACT. 

STRIPPED OF ITS STATUTORY INFLUENCES, PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT COMES IN
SUBSTANCE TO THIS.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT FROM AUGUST 27, 1934, TO
NOVEMBER 23, 1936, WHEN THE COMPLAINT IN DOCKET NO. 3537 WAS FILED,
RESPONDENTS MADE OUT TIME SLIPS AND FILED MANY COMPLAINTS WITH THE
CARRIER'S LOCAL OFFICIALS THROUGH LOCAL OFFICERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD ON
ACCOUNT OF DEPARTURES FROM THE SCHEDULE OF ARTICLE 6.  THE QUESTION OF
THE ARTICLE'S APPLICABILITY WAS A MATTER OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE
BROTHERHOOD AND COMPANY OFFICIALS FROM THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER IN
1934.  RESPONDENTS ADMIT HAVING AUTHORIZED THE BROTHERHOOD, AT A
MEETING OF THEIR LOCAL LODGE, TO FILE THE COMPLAINT IN DOCKET NO. 3537
AND THAT THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE
BROTHERHOOD'S CONSTITUTION AND RULES.  THE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER, 1938,
AND THE CONSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF THE CLAIM IN DOCKET NO. 3537 WERE MADE
BY THE SAME OFFICIAL, WILLIAMS, WHOM RESPONDENTS HAD AUTHORIZED TO FILE
THE CLAIM AND WITH WHOM, IN EFFECT, BOTH THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT AND
THE BROTHERHOOD'S REGULATIONS REQUIRED PETITIONER TO DEAL CONCERNING
THE MATTER.  FN40  MOREOVER, THE COMPLAINT IN DOCKET NO. 7324, FILED IN
MAY, 1939, WAS FILED BY WILLIAMS AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE
COMPLAINT IN DOCKET NO. 3537. 

FROM THESE FACTS PETITIONER CONCLUDES THAT RESPONDENTS AUTHORIZED THE
BROTHERHOOD TO SETTLE THE CLAIMS AND TO REPRESENT THEM BEFORE THE
BOARD.  IN ITS VIEW, ALL OF THESE TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO THE SAME
SUBJECT MATTER, NAMELY, WHETHER ARTICLE 6 WAS APPLICABLE IN THE WHITING
YARD, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE TWO
PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT THE SAME; AND THAT DIFFERENCE IS NOT MATERIAL. 

RESPONDENTS DIFFER CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF THESE FACTS AND OTHERS
THEY SET FORTH.  THEY ALLEGE THAT UNDER THE BROTHERHOOD'S CONSTITUTION
AND RULES NEITHER WILLIAMS AND JOHNSON NOR THE GENERAL GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE COULD "REVISE OR CHANGE A GENERAL WAGE 'SCHEDULE' OR
AGREEMENT CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, NOR WORKING CONDITIONS, UNLESS
AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE LODGES, OR BY A MAJORITY
VOTE OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE SYSTEM"; THAT CLAIMS OF INDIVIDUAL
MEMBERS FOR BACK COMPENSATION COULD NOT BE RELEASED WITHOUT SPECIFIC
AUTHORITY GIVEN INDIVIDUALLY; THAT NO SUCH AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN; AND
THAT THE CARRIER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THESE LIMITATIONS.  THEY FURTHER
ALLEGE THAT WILLIAMS AND JOHNSON FAILED TO NOTIFY THEM OF THE
SETTLEMENT, AS THE BY-LAWS REQUIRED; FN41 AND DENY THAT THEY KNEW OF
THE SETTLEMENT, THE PROCEEDINGS IN DOCKET 7324 OR THE AWARD UNTIL AFTER
THE AWARD WAS MADE, WHEN THEY PROMPTLY REPUDIATED IT.  FN42  THEY SAY
ACCORDINGLY THAT WILLIAMS ACTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY FROM THEM DIRECTLY OR
THROUGH THE BROTHERHOOD'S REGULATIONS IN SUBMITTING AND PRESENTING THE
CLAIMS; AND THAT THE AWARD IS INVALID NOT ONLY FOR THIS REASON BUT ALSO
BECAUSE NO NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDING WAS GIVEN TO THEM. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PARTIES ARE AT ODDS UPON THE INFERENCES TO BE
DRAWN FROM THE FACTS AND THEIR LEGAL EFFECTS RATHER THAN UPON THE FACTS
THEMSELVES.  RESPONDENTS DENY, AND PETITIONER APPARENTLY DOES NOT
CLAIM, THAT THEY AT ANY TIME INDIVIDUALLY AND SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED
THE BROTHERHOOD OR ITS OFFICIALS TO COMPROMISE THEIR CLAIMS FOR MONEY
DUE OR TO ACT FOR THEM EXCLUSIVELY IN BOARD PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING
THOSE CLAIMS.  IF THERE IS AN ISSUE IN THIS RESPECT IT IS OBVIOUSLY ONE
OF FACT CONCERNING WHICH EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS WOULD BE REQUIRED. 

THE REAL ISSUES, AS WE VIEW THE RECORD, COME DOWN TO WHETHER
RESPONDENTS ASSENTED, IN LEGAL EFFECT, TO THE FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THEIR
CLAIMS BY THE UNION OR TO EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION BY IT IN ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING WAYS:  (1) BY MAKING COMPLAINTS THROUGH LOCAL UNION
OFFICIALS; (2) BY AUTHORIZING THE BROTHERHOOD TO SUBMIT THE COMPLAINT
IN DOCKET NO. 3537; (3) BY VIRTUE OF THE BROTHERHOOD'S REGULATIONS; (4)
BY VIRTUE OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT. 

THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE TO DEPRIVE THE
EMPLOYEES OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.  OTHERWISE THOSE RIGHTS WOULD BE
BROUGHT WITHIN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING POWER BY A MERE EXERCISE OF
THAT POWER, CONTRARY TO THE PURPORT AND EFFECT OF THE ACT AS EXCEPTING
THEM FROM ITS SCOPE AND RESERVING THEM TO THE INDIVIDUALS AGGRIEVED. 
IN VIEW OF THAT RESERVATION THE ACT CLEARLY DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT
THE RIGHTS SAVED MAY BE NULLIFIED MERELY BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CARRIER AND THE UNION. 

NOR CAN WE SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE MERE MAKING OF COMPLAINTS
THROUGH LOCAL BROTHERHOOD OFFICIALS AMOUNTED TO FINAL AUTHORIZATION TO
THE UNION TO SETTLE THE CLAIMS OR REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES BEFORE THE
BOARD.  NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE UNION'S REGULATIONS PURPORTED TO
GIVE THESE EFFECTS TO THAT CONDUCT.  THE TIME SLIPS APPARENTLY WERE
FILED BY THE EMPLOYEES THEMSELVES.  THE RECORD SHOWS ONLY THE GENERAL
FACT THAT COMPLAINTS CONCERNING DEPARTURES WERE MADE THROUGH LOCAL
OFFICIALS.  MORE THAN THIS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE UNEQUIVOCAL
INTENTION TO SURRENDER THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
SETTLEMENT AND TO GIVE THE UNION FINAL VOICE IN MAKING IT TOGETHER WITH
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO REPRESENT HIM BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE MAKING OF
COMPLAINTS IN THIS MANNER WAS ONLY PRELIMINARY TO NEGOTIATION AND
EQUIVOCAL AT THE MOST. 

NOR CAN WE SAY, IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD, THAT THE UNION'S
REGULATIONS UNEQUIVOCALLY AUTHORIZED THE GENERAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OR
ITS CHAIRMAN EITHER TO SETTLE THE CLAIMS OR TO ACT AS EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE PARTIES RELY UPON APPARENTLY
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS OR, IF THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY IN CONFLICT, THEN
UPON DIFFERENT ONES, THE APPLICABILITY OF SOME OF WHICH IS IN DISPUTE. 
THUS RESPONDENTS RELY UPON RULE 3, WHICH FORBIDS CHANGE IN EXISTING
AGREEMENTS WITHOUT THE REQUIRED VOTE OF LOCAL LODGES OR SYSTEM
MEMBERSHIP, AND PETITIONER SAYS THE RULE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE
DISPUTE IN THIS CASE.  WHETHER OR NOT THE RULE IS APPLICABLE IS A
QUESTION OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF WHATEVER EVIDENCE MAY
BE PRESENTED TO SUSTAIN THE ONE VIEW OR THE OTHER.  CONCEIVABLY IT MAY
BE INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY WHERE NO GRIEVANCE IS INVOLVED OR TO THE
SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES AND OTHER DISPUTES AS WELL.  BUT WE CANNOT
SAY, IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER LIGHT THAN IS NOW AVAILABLE, THAT ON ITS
FACE THE RULE BEARS ONLY THE ONE CONSTRUCTION OR THE OTHER. 

SIMILAR DIFFICULTIES ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER REGULATIONS. 
ONLY SOME OF THEM ARE SET FORTH IN THE PRINTED RECORD, ALTHOUGH THE
FULL CONSTITUTION AND RULES WERE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD PROPER BY
PETITIONER.  THE RULES AND REGULATIONS DO NOT PURPORT TO REQUIRE
MEMBERS TO NEGOTIATE AND SETTLE THEIR GRIEVANCES ONLY THROUGH THE
UNION.  THE GENERAL COMMITTEE CAN ACT ONLY WHEN A GRIEVANCE IS REFERRED
TO IT BY A LOCAL LODGE.  THE RULES ARE EXTENSIVE, PARTS OF THEM APPEAR
TO INVOLVE POSSIBLE CONFLICT, THE PARTIES DIFFER CONCERNING THEIR
EFFECTS, AND THE MODE OF THEIR OPERATION QUITE OBVIOUSLY MAY BE LARGELY
AFFECTED BY THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE APPLIED IN PRACTICE.  THEIR
CONSTRUCTION AND LEGAL EFFECT ARE MATTERS OF SOME COMPLEXITY AND SHOULD
NOT BE UNDERTAKEN IN A VACUUM APART FROM THE FACTS RELATING TO THEIR
APPLICATION IN PRACTICE.  BECAUSE BOTH FACTUAL AND LEGAL INFERENCES
WOULD BE INVOLVED IN DETERMINING THE EFFECTS OF THE REGULATIONS TO
BRING ABOUT A SURRENDER OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO TAKE PART IN THE
SETTLEMENT AND IN THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS, THOSE EFFECTS CANNOT BE
DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THE FIRST INSTANCE HERE. 

NOR CAN WE SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION IN
DOCKET NO. 3537, WITHOUT MORE, CONSTITUTED AUTHORIZATION EITHER TO MAKE
THE AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT OR TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES IN DOCKET NO.
7324.  THE MATTER REQUIRES SOME EXPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE VIEW WE
HAVE TAKEN CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OF AN AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE IN THE
SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES.  IN THAT VIEW NO VALID SETTLEMENT CAN BE MADE
UNLESS HE AGREES.  IF SETTLEMENT BY AGREEMENT AFTER NEGOTIATION FAILS,
HE HAS THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT THE DISPUTE TO THE BOARD FOR DECISION.  IF
IT IS SUBMITTED HE HAS RIGHTS OF NOTICE, HEARING AND INDIVIDUAL
REPRESENTATION ACCORDING TO HIS CHOICE. 

ALL THESE RIGHTS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, THOUGH CLOSELY RELATED. 
A SURRENDER OR DELEGATION OF ONE WOULD NOT RESULT IN SURRENDER OF THE
OTHERS AS A MATTER OF LAW OR NECESSARILY AS A MATTER OF FACT.  WHETHER
IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES IT MIGHT DO SO WOULD DEPEND UPON WHETHER
THEY WERE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO DISCLOSE SUCH AN INTENT.  FN43  IT
FOLLOWS THAT AUTHORITY TO CONCUR IN AN AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT DOES NOT
IMPLY WITHOUT MORE AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEE IN BOARD
PROCEEDINGS, OR THE LATTER THE FORMER.  THIS IS TRUE WHEN THE AUTHORITY
IS GIVEN TO THE COLLECTIVE AGENT AS IT IS WHEN IT IS GIVEN TO ANOTHER. 
THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT CONTROLLING.  IT ONLY BEARS AS ONE FACTOR IN
THE TOTAL SITUATION.  ACCORDINGLY IN THIS CASE THE MERE FACT THAT THE
RESPONDENTS AUTHORIZED THE UNION TO MAKE THE SUBMISSION AND TO
REPRESENT THEM IN DOCKET NO. 3537 DID NOT IMPLY AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR TO REPRESENT THEM IN THE QUITE DIFFERENT LATER
PROCEEDINGS IN DOCKET NO. 7324. 

THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THAT PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION IN
DOCKET NO. 3537 THE EMPLOYEES HAD FINALLY COMMITTED THE WHOLE MATTER OF
THEIR CLAIMS INTO THE UNION'S HANDS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CONSTITUTE A
SURRENDER OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO CONCUR IN ANY AGREEMENT OF
SETTLEMENT.  THAT CONCLUSION IS NOT JUSTIFIED MERELY FROM THE FACT THAT
THE UNION PARTICIPATED IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CARRIER. 

MOREOVER, THE AUTHORIZATION, TO ACT IN DOCKET NO. 3537, OBVIOUSLY WAS
GIVEN AFTER EFFORTS TO SECURE SETTLEMENT BY NEGOTIATION AND AGREEMENT
WERE CONSIDERED TO HAVE FAILED.  ONLY THEN WAS ANYONE ENTITLED TO MAKE
THE SUBMISSION.  ACCORDINGLY THAT AUTHORIZATION WAS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT
WITH THE IDEA THAT NO FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WOULD BE HAD, AND THEREFORE,
WITHOUT MORE, ALSO WITH THE IDEA THAT NO AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE FURTHER
WAS IMPLIED.  IT MAY BE THAT UPON A FULL HEARING CONCERNING THE COURSE
AND SCOPE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS PRIOR TO THIS SUBMISSION, THE EVIDENCE
WILL JUSTIFY A CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD AUTHORIZED THE UNION
TO ACT FINALLY FOR THEM.  BUT THE RECORD IN ITS PRESENT STATE DOES NOT
JUSTIFY THAT CONCLUSION AS A MATTER OF LAW.  FN44 

IT MAY BE TRUE ALSO THAT IF DOCKET NO. 3537 HAD BEEN CARRIED TO
DECISION THE AWARD WOULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE TO DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF
THE PARTIES.  BUT NO AWARD WAS MADE IN THAT PROCEEDING.  IT WAS
TERMINATED AND THE CLAIM WAS WITHDRAWN.  WHETHER OR NOT THAT ACTION OR
OTHER EVENTS OCCURRING LATER WERE EFFECTIVE TO TERMINATE THE AUTHORITY
GIVEN TO SUBMIT FOR THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION THE ISSUE WHICH WAS THE
FOUNDATION OF RESPONDENTS' MONETARY CLAIMS OR WHETHER THAT AUTHORITY
CONTINUED IN SPITE OF THE CHANGED CONDITIONS ARE QUESTIONS ALSO TO BE
DETERMINED FROM A FACTUAL EVALUATION OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION,
ESSENTIALLY PRELIMINARY TO DETERMINATION OF LEGAL EFFECTS, WHICH WE
CANNOT MAKE. 

SINCE UPON THE TOTAL SITUATION WE CANNOT SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT
RESPONDENTS HAD AUTHORIZED THE BROTHERHOOD TO ACT FOR THEM IN DOCKET
NO. 7324, WHETHER IN SUBMITTING THE CAUSE OR IN REPRESENTING THEM
BEFORE THE BOARD; SINCE IT IS CONCEDED ALSO THAT THEY WERE NOT GIVEN
NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OTHERWISE THAN AS THE UNION HAD KNOWLEDGE OF
THEM; AND SINCE FURTHER THEY HAVE DENIED THAT THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND OF THE AWARD UNTIL AFTER IT WAS ENTERED, THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE AWARD WAS EFFECTIVE IN ANY MANNER TO AFFECT THEIR RIGHTS
MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE REQUIRED.  THE
CRUCIAL ISSUE IN THIS RESPECT, OF COURSE, WILL BE INITIALLY WHETHER
RESPONDENTS HAD AUTHORIZED THE BROTHERHOOD IN ANY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT
MANNER TO REPRESENT THEM, INDIVIDUALLY, IN THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS IN
DOCKET NO. 7324. 

UNTIL THAT QUESTION IS DETERMINED, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO PASS
UPON THE IMPORTANT ISSUE CONCERNING THE FINALITY AND CONCLUSIVE EFFECT
OF THE AWARD, OR TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY AND LEGAL EFFECT OF THE
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.  WE ACCORDINGLY EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING
THOSE ISSUES. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1 AMENDMENTS WERE ALLOWED TO CURE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS FOUND TO
EXIST UPON AN EARLIER APPEAL.  ALDERMAN V. ELGIN, J. & E.R. CO., 125
F.2D 971. 

FN2  THE RECORD SETS FORTH NO PROVISION FOR PENALTY DAMAGES.  BUT THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT EACH OF THE
PLAINTIFFS IS ENTITLED TO "PAY FOR AN ADDITIONAL DAY, AT TIME AND ONE
HALF, AT THE REGULAR DAILY RATE" FOR EACH DAY HE WAS REQUIRED TO WORK
CONTRARY TO THE AGREEMENT'S TERMS.    FN3  THE COURT SAID:  "I THINK
THAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD, THAT IT HAD
JURISDICTION AND THAT IT WAS DECIDED, AND THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WERE
REPRESENTED THERE AND ARE BOUND THEREBY  ....  I THINK THE RULING OF
THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD WAS BINDING UPON THE PLAINTIFFS AS WELL AS UPON
THE DEFENDANT, AND THAT IT IS BINDING ON THIS COURT IN THIS
PROCEEDING." 

FN4  THE PROCEDURE, THOUGH INFORMAL, CONSISTS PRINCIPALLY IN WRITTEN
STATEMENTS OR "SUBMISSIONS" FILED BY THE PARTIES, WHICH PERFORM AND
FUNCTIONS OF PLEADING AND EVIDENCE COMBINED, AND ORAL ARGUMENT UPON THE
SUBMISSIONS THUS MADE.  SEE GARRISON, THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD:  A UNIQUE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY (1937) 46 YALE L.J. 567, FOR A
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCEDURE.  SEE ALSO FINAL REPORT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE (1941) 185
FF.; ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, SEN. DOC. NO. 10,
PART IV, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN5  THE LETTER WAS ADDRESSED TO WILLIAMS, AS GENERAL CHAIRMAN OF THE
BROTHERHOOD, AND DATED OCTOBER 28, 1938.  IT STATED: 

"SINCE MY LETTER OF AUGUST 18TH IN WHICH I TENTATIVELY PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN MATTERS OF GRIEVANCE WE HAVE HAD FURTHER
CORRESPONDENCE AND CONFERENCES WHICH HAVE MODIFIED OUR DECISION IN SOME
CASES.  THEREFORE, IN ORDER THAT THE WHOLE MATTER BE PLACED IN CONCRETE
FORM I AM OUTLINING BELOW OUR PROPOSALS TO SETTLE ALL OF THE CASES
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 

     .         .         .         .      . 

"CASE NO. 5 - LABOR BOARD DOCKET #3537 - STARTING TIME OF SWITCH
ENGINES IN WHITING S.O. YARD. 

"SETTLED BY AGREEMENT THAT THE STARTING TIMES FOR A NINETY DAY TRIAL
PERIOD COMMENCING NOVEMBER 15TH, 1938, SHALL BE THE TIMES PROVIDED FOR
IN ARTICLE 6 OF THE YARDMEN'S AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF THE STARTING TIMES
HERETOFORE AGREED UPON AND NOW BEING FOLLOWED.  IF AT THE END OF THE
NINETY DAY TRIAL PERIOD THE RAILWAY COMPANY OR ITS EMPLOYEES CLAIM THAT
THE STARTING TIMES AS FIXED IN ARTICLE 6 DO NOT RESULT IN EFFICIENT AND
ECONOMICAL OPERATION AND IN SATISFACTION TO OUR EMPLOYEES AND TO THE
INDUSTRY SERVED, THEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RAILWAY COMPANY AND
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE YARDMEN, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ENGINEERS
AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FIREMEN WILL SIT DOWN AND WORK OUT A
SCHEDULE OF STARTING TIME BEST SUITED FOR MEETING THE SPECIAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"WE HAVE BY THIS LETTER GIVEN YOU A COMPLETE RESUME OF ALL OF THE
CLAIMS WHICH HAVE NOT HERETOFORE BEEN DISPOSED OF, FILED BY YOU ON
BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES WHOM YOU REPRESENT AND HAVE PROPOSED IN THIS
LETTER A VERY LIBERAL DISPOSITION OF ALL THE CASES INVOLVED.  THE
SETTLEMENTS PROPOSED ARE PREDICATED ON A COMPLETE SETTLEMENT AND
WITHDRAWAL OF ALL CASES NOW PENDING EITHER BEFORE THE BOARD, OR UNDER
DISCUSSION WITH THIS OFFICE EXCEPT CASE NO. 4, WHICH IT IS UNDERSTOOD
WILL BE LEFT TO A DECISION BY THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD,
AND IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD THAT IN THE EVENT THESE SETTLEMENTS ARE
ACCEPTED THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED IN THIS LETTER COVER ALL CLAIMS OF A
SIMILAR NATURE, AND THAT NO OTHER CLAIMS COVERING THE SAME OR LIKE
SITUATIONS WILL BE PRESENTED WHEN SUCH CLAIMS ARISE FROM CAUSES
OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS SETTLEMENT. 

         "YOURS TRULY,                            "S. M. ROGERS,

           PRESIDENT. 

"ACCEPTED FOR THE YARDMEN:  OCT. 31, 1938. 

"C. H. WILLIAMS, GENERAL CHAIRMAN, B. OF R.T. 

"S. F. JOHNSON, SECRETARY, B. OF R.T." 

FN6  CF. NOTE 5.  THE SUBMISSION STATED:  "THERE WERE NO AGREEMENTS
REACHED WHEREBY PAYMENT FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE NO. 6 OF THE YARDMEN'S
AGREEMENT WOULD BE WAIVED AS A RESULT OF WITHDRAWAL OF LABOR BOARD
DOCKET NO. 3537.  IN FACT THAT CASE HELD NO CLAIM FOR PAYMENT FOR
TIME.  IT WAS SIMPLY A CASE TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE AS TO THE CARRIER'S
RIGHT TO FORCE THE YARD CREWS IN THE WHITING YARD TO WORK AT TIMES
OTHER THAN THE FIXED STARTING TIME PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 6  ... 

"AS STATED BEFORE, CASE NO. 5 - LABOR BOARD DOCKET NO. 3537 CONTAINED
NO CLAIM FOR PAY TO WHITING YARDMEN.  CONSEQUENTLY IT WAS NOT A
QUESTION BEFORE THE MANAGEMENT AND THE COMMITTEE IN THE STARTING TIME
NEGOTIATION AND CLAIM CANNOT BE MADE THAT A WAIVER WAS MADE ON A MATTER
WHICH WAS NOT NEGOTIATED." 

THE SUBMISSION ALSO DENIED THAT ORAL AGREEMENTS RELATING TO STARTING
TIME, CLAIMED BY THE CARRIER TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME OF THE
TRANSFER IN 1934, COULD BE EFFECTIVE "TO INVALIDATE THE PRESCRIBED
WRITTEN RULE OF ARTICLE 6."  WILLIAMS HOWEVER DID NOT QUESTION THE
VALIDITY OF THE VERBAL AGREEMENT, AS HE MAINTAINED, FOR THE THIRTY-DAY
SUSPENSION. 

FN7  THE SUBMISSIONS IN NO WAY CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BOARD OR OF THE DIVISION. 

FN8  SEE PART III.  THE PROVISIONS REGULATE THE UNION'S INTERNAL
PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO MAKING CHANGES IN A "GENERAL OR SYSTEM WAGE
SCHEDULE OR AGREEMENT," RULE NO. 3, AND THAT TO BE FOLLOWED WHEN THE
LOCAL CHAIRMAN OR GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FAILS "SATISFACTORILY TO ADJUST
ANY GRIEVANCE REFERRED TO IT."  RULE NO. 7.  THE LATTER INCLUDES A
PROVISION THAT "A GENERAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE MAY AUTHORIZE THEIR
CHAIRMAN TO HANDLE ALL GRIEVANCES RECEIVED FROM LOCAL LODGES."  SEE
ALSO NOTE 40. 

FN9  CF. SEC. 3 FIRST (M), (O), (P), (Q). 

FN10  CF. PART I. 

FN11  IT WAS HELD THAT NOTHING IN THE ACT "PURPORTS TO TAKE AWAY FROM
THE COURTS THE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE A CONTROVERSY OVER A WRONGFUL
DISCHARGE OR TO MAKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING A PREREQUISITE TO FILING
A SUIT IN COURT," 312 U.S. AT 634; AND THEREFORE THE EMPLOYEE'S SUIT
COULD BE MAINTAINED AGAINST THE CARRIER WITHOUT PRIOR RESORT TO THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  AMONG THE REASONS ASSIGNED WAS THAT THE MACHINERY
PROVIDED FOR SETTLING DISPUTES WAS NOT "BASED ON A PHILOSOPHY OF LEGAL
COMPULSION" BUT CREATED "A SYSTEM FOR PEACEFUL ADJUSTMENT AND MEDIATION
VOLUNTARY IN ITS NATURE." 

THE PROBLEM PRESENTED WAS WHETHER THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD PROCEDURE
EITHER WAS EXCLUSIVE OR WAS AN ESSENTIAL PRELIMINARY TO JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION.  THESE WERE
QUESTIONS NOT ENTIRELY DETERMINABLE BY THE CRITERION OF WHETHER THE
PROCEDURE IS WHOLLY ADVISORY OR CONCILIATORY IN CHARACTER.  FOR,
CONCEIVABLY, CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE MADE THE TAKING OF THE BOARD'S MERELY
ADVISORY OPINION A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ASKING FOR JUDICIAL RELIEF;
AND, CONVERSELY, ALLOWING THAT RELIEF WITHOUT PRIOR RESORT TO THE BOARD
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE THE BOARD'S ACTION, WHEN TAKEN, MERELY
ADVISORY. 

FN12  THUS, ONE OF THE STATUTE'S PRIMARY COMMANDS, JUDICIALLY
ENFORCEABLE, IS FOUND IN THE REPEATED DECLARATION OF A DUTY UPON ALL
PARTIES TO A DISPUTE TO NEGOTIATE FOR ITS SETTLEMENT.  SEE NOTE 26;
VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515; CF. SWITCHMEN'S
UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297, 300, 320; GENERAL
COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO., 320 U.S. 323, 331, 334.  THIS DUTY IS NOT
MERELY PERFUNCTORY.  GOOD FAITH EXHAUSTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED TO FULFILL IT.  CF. VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION, SUPRA, AT 548, 550; TRAINMEN V. TOLEDO, P. & W.R. CO., 321
U.S. 50, 56 FF.  AT SUCCESSIVE STAGES OF THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE OTHER
DUTIES ARE IMPOSED.  CF. SECS. 5 FIRST (B), 6, 10. 

FN13  CF. THE REFERENCES CITED IN NOTES 4 AND 15. 

FN14  CF. TEXT PART II AT NOTE 38; ALSO HUGHES TOOL CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 147 F.2D 69, 72, 73. 

FN15  SEE THE REFERENCES CITED IN NOTE 4; HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON H.R. 7650, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; HEARINGS
BEFORE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 3266, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS.; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. RAILROAD LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S. 72;
PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM FEDERATION V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 267 U.S. 203;
TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD, 281 U.S. 548; VIRGINIAN R. CO. V.
SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515. 

FN16  CF. THE REFERENCES CITED IN NOTE 4.  COMMISSIONER (ALSO
COORDINATOR) EASTMAN, WHO VERY LARGELY DRAFTED THE 1934 AMENDMENTS,
SAID IN TESTIFYING AT THE HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARINGS CONCERNING THEM: 

"PLEASE NOTE THAT DISPUTES CONCERNING CHANGES IN RATES OF PAY, RULES,
OR WORKING CONDITIONS MAY NOT BE SO REFERRED (TO THE NATIONAL
ADJUSTMENT BOARD), BUT ARE TO BE HANDLED, WHEN UNADJUSTED, THROUGH THE
PROCESS OF MEDIATION.  THE NATIONAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD IS TO HANDLE ONLY
THE MINOR CASES GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION
OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS."  HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ON H.R. 7650, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., 47; CF. ALSO PP. 49, 51,
59, 62.  AND SEE THE TESTIMONY OF HARRISON, A PRINCIPAL UNION
PROPONENT, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, ID., AT 80-83; AND BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE, HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON
S. 3266, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., 33, 35. 

FN17  CF. THE TESTIMONY OF EASTMAN AND HARRISON, CITED IN NOTE 16. 

FN18  CF. NOTE 12; ALSO NOTES 26, 27, AND TEXT INFRA.  THE OBLIGATION
IS NOT PARTIAL.  IN PLAIN TERMS THE DUTY IS LAID ON CARRIER AND
EMPLOYEES ALIKE, TOGETHER WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES; AND IN EQUALLY
PLAIN TERMS IT APPLIES TO ALL DISPUTES COVERED BY THE ACT, WHETHER
MAJOR OR MINOR. 

FN19  H. REP. NO. 1944 ON H.R. 9861, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., 3; S. REP.
NO. 1065 ON S. 3266, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., 1, 2. 

FN20  CF. 78 CONG. REC. 12553.  COORDINATOR EASTMAN REFERRED, IN HIS
TESTIMONY, TO FOUR RECENT STRIKE VOTES OCCASIONED BY DEADLOCK. 
HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 3266, 73D CONG.,
2D SESS., 17. 

FN21  THE CHAIRMAN TOLD THE SENATE COMMITTEE:  "THE PROVISION IN THE
PRESENT ACT (1926) FOR ADJUSTMENT BOARDS IS IN PRACTICE ABOUT AS NEAR A
FOOL PROVISION AS ANYTHING COULD POSSIBLY BE.  I MEAN THIS - THAT ON
THE FACE OF IT THEY SHALL, BY AGREEMENT, DO SO AND SO.  WELL, YOU CAN
DO PRETTY NEARLY ANYTHING BY AGREEMENT, BUT HOW CAN YOU GET THEM TO
AGREE?"  HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 3266,
73D CONG., 2D SESS., 137. 

FN22  SEE, FOR A GENERAL VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDUCING ENACTMENT
OF THE 1934 AMENDMENTS, THE REFERENCES CITED ABOVE IN NOTES 4, 15, 16,
19.  THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF THE BILL STATED: 

"MANY THOUSANDS OF THESE DISPUTES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY BOARDS
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT; BUT THE BOARDS HAVE BEEN
UNABLE TO REACH A MAJORITY DECISION, AND SO THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN
DEADLOCKED.  THESE UNADJUSTED DISPUTES HAVE BECOME SO NUMEROUS THAT ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE EMPLOYEES HAVE RESORTED TO THE ISSUANCE OF STRIKE
BALLOTS AND THREATENED TO INTERRUPT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER TO
SECURE AN ADJUSTMENT.  THIS HAS MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO INTERVENE AND ESTABLISH AN EMERGENCY BOARD TO
INVESTIGATE THE CONTROVERSIES.  THIS CONDITION SHOULD BE CORRECTED IN
THE INTEREST OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND OF UNINTERRUPTED TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE.  THIS BILL, THEREFORE, PROVIDES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
NATIONAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO WHICH THESE DISPUTES MAY BE SUBMITTED
IF THEY SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED IN CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES."  H. REP. NO. 1944, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., 3.  CF. ALSO THE
TESTIMONY OF COORDINATOR EASTMAN, HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON H.R. 7650, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., 49. 

FN23  SECTION 3 FIRST (I) EXPRESSLY CONDITIONS THE RIGHT TO MOVE FROM
NEGOTIATION INTO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD UPON "FAILING
TO REACH AN ADJUSTMENT IN THIS MANNER," I.E., BY NEGOTIATION. 

FN24  SEE THE TESTIMONY OF COORDINATOR EASTMAN AND MR. HARRISON,
CITED IN NOTE 16.  THE LATTER STATED, AT THE SENATE COMMITTEE HEARINGS,
PP. 33, 35: 

"...  THIS HAS BEEN A QUESTION FOR THE LAST 14 YEARS AS TO WHAT KIND
OF BOARDS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SETTLE OUR GRIEVANCES  ...  WE HAVE
ALWAYS SOUGHT NATIONAL BOARDS; THE RAILROADS  ... HAVE SOUGHT THE
SYSTEM BOARDS, REGIONAL BOARDS  ...  MOST OF THE BOARDS  ...  UNDER THE
PRESENT LAW  ...  HAVE DEADLOCKED ON ANY NUMBER OF CASES.  AS A RESULT
OF THAT THERE WAS FAST GROWING UP IN OUR INDUSTRY A SERIOUS CONDITION
THAT MIGHT VERY WELL DEVELOP INTO SUBSTANTIAL INTERRUPTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  THESE RAILWAY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE ALWAYS
OPPOSED COMPULSORY DETERMINATION OF THEIR CONTROVERSIES.  WE HAVE LIVED
A LONG TIME AND GOT A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, AND WE KNOW THAT THESE MINOR
CASES THAT DEVELOP OUT OF CONTRACTS THAT WE MAKE FREELY, AND  ...  WE
ARE NOW READY TO CONCEDE THAT WE CAN RISK HAVING OUR GRIEVANCES GO TO A
BOARD AND GET THEM DETERMINED, AND THAT IS A CONTRIBUTION THAT THESE
ORGANIZATIONS ARE WILLING TO MAKE  ....  IF WE ARE GOING TO GET A
HODGEPODGE ARRANGEMENT BY LAW  ...  THEN WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THAT
RIGHT, BECAUSE WE ONLY GIVE UP THE RIGHT BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT WE WILL
GET A MEASURE OF JUSTICE BY THIS MACHINERY THAT WE SUGGEST HERE." 

FN25  CF. ALSO MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 678;
J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332. 

FN26  BY SEC. 2 FIRST, "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL CARRIERS, THEIR
OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES TO EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO
MAKE AND MAINTAIN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, AND
WORKING CONDITIONS, AND TO SETTLE ALL DISPUTES, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF
THE APPLICATION OF SUCH AGREEMENTS OR OTHERWISE, IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY
INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE  ..."  BY SEC. 2 SECOND, "ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN
A CARRIER OR CARRIERS AND ITS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES SHALL BE CONSIDERED,
AND, IF POSSIBLE, DECIDED, WITH ALL EXPEDITION, IN CONFERENCE BETWEEN
REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED SO TO CONFER, RESPECTIVELY,
BY THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS AND BY THE EMPLOYEES THEREOF INTERESTED IN
THE DISPUTE."  THESE ARE THE BASIC SECTIONS CREATING THE DUTY,
APPLICABLE TO ALL DISPUTES, MAJOR OR MINOR, AND TO CARRIERS AND
EMPLOYEES ALIKE. 

OTHER PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE GENERAL DUTY TO TREAT ARE THOSE OF
SEC. 2 THIRD, THAT "REPRESENTATIVES, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT,
SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES WITHOUT INTERFERENCE" BY
THE OTHER AND "NEED NOT BE PERSONS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE CARRIER"; OF
SEC. 2 FOURTH, THAT "THE MAJORITY OF ANY CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES
SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO SHALL BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT"; AND OF SEC 2 EIGHTH
THAT "EVERY CARRIER SHALL NOTIFY ITS EMPLOYEES BY PRINTED NOTICES  ...
THAT ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND ITS EMPLOYEES WILL BE HANDLED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT." 

(I).  THE FORMER PROVIDES: "IN CASE OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN A CARRIER OR
CARRIERS AND ITS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES, ARISING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT
OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF
PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OR REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH CARRIER OR
CARRIERS AND OF SUCH EMPLOYEES, WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF
NOTICE OF A DESIRE ON THE PART OF EITHER PARTY TO CONFER IN RESPECT TO
SUCH DISPUTE, TO SPECIFY A TIME AND PLACE  ..."  SECTION 3 FIRST (I) IS
AS FOLLOWS:  "THE DISPUTES BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES
AND A CARRIER OR CARRIERS GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE
INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY,
RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS, INCLUDING CASES PENDING AND UNADJUSTED ON
THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE HANDLED IN THE USUAL MANNER
UP TO AND INCLUDING THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CARRIER
DESIGNATED TO HANDLE SUCH DISPUTES; BUT, FAILING TO REACH AN ADJUSTMENT
IN THIS MANNER, THE DISPUTES MAY BE REFERRED BY PETITION OF THE PARTIES
OR BY EITHER PARTY TO THE APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
WITH A FULL STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND ALL SUPPORTING DATA BEARING UPON
THE DISPUTES." 

FN27  SECTION 2 EIGHTH MAKES THIS PROVISO PART OF THE CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND EACH EMPLOYEE, AND SEC. 2 TENTH
MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR THE CARRIER TO REFUSE TO OBSERVE IT.
AND FIFTH IN EACH EMPLOYEE'S CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.  SECTION 2 TENTH
MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR THE CARRIER TO FAIL OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH
THE TERMS OF SECS. 2 THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH. 

FN28  SEE NOTE 27. 

FN29  CF. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, SEN. DOC.
10, PART IV, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 7.    FN30  CF. STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192; TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN, 323 U.S. 210; WALLACE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 323
U.S. 248. 

FN31  IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECALL THAT THE ACT DOES
NOT CONTEMPLATE THE EXISTENCE OF CLOSED SHOPS, TO THE EXTENT AT ANY
RATE THAT THE CARRIER IS FORBIDDEN TO MAKE SUCH AGREEMENTS.  CF. SEC. 2
FOURTH; 78 CONG. REC. 12,402; 40 OP. ATTY. GEN., NO. 59(DEC.  29,
1942).  ACCORDINGLY THE INTERESTS OF UNORGANIZED WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF
MINORITY UNIONS ARE CONCERNED IN THE SOLUTION.  THESE ARE NOT ALWAYS
ADVERSE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE MAJORITY OR OF THE DESIGNATED UNION. 
BUT THEY MAY BE SO OR EVEN HOSTILE.  CF. THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE
30.  TO REGARD THE STATUTE AS SO COMPLETELY DEPRIVING PERSONS THUS
SITUATED OF VOICE IN AFFAIRS AFFECTING THEIR VERY MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD
WOULD RAISE VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS. 

FN32  THIS UNDOUBTEDLY WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECT.  THE LANGUAGE IN THE
CONCLUDING CLAUSE, "WHILE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF A LABOR
ORGANIZATION," APPLIES LITERALLY ONLY TO EMPLOYEES TRAVELLING UPON
UNION BUSINESS, AND HAS NO APPARENT APPLICATION TO THE PRECEDING
PROVISION RELATING TO THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO CONFER WITH
MANAGEMENT. 

FN33  HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON H.R. 7650,
73D CONG., 2D SESS., 36, 44, 89. 

FN34  CF. NOTE 37 AND TEXT.  IT IS TO BE DOUBTED THAT CONGRESS BY THE
GENERALLY INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE USED CONCERNING GRIEVANCES INTENDED, FOR
INSTANCE, TO GIVE THE COLLECTIVE AGENT EXCLUSIVE POWER TO SETTLE A
GRIEVANCE ARISING INDEPENDENTLY OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, AFFECTING
ONLY NONUNION MEN TO WHOSE CLAIM THE UNION AND THE MAJORITY WERE
HOSTILE. 

FN35  BUT WHETHER OR NOT THE CARRIER'S VIOLATION AFFECTS ALL THE
MEMBERS OF THE GROUP IMMEDIATELY AND ALIKE, SO AS TO CREATE A PRESENT
BASIS FOR CLAIMS BY EACH, THE VIOLATION, THOUGH RESULTING FROM
MISINTERPRETATION, WOULD CONSTITUTE A PRESENT THREAT TO THE SIMILAR
RIGHTS OF ALL COVERED BY THE CONTRACT.  CF. HUGHES TOOL CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, SUPRA, 72, 74; 40 OP. ATTY. GEN., NO. 59, PP. 4, 5(DEC.  29,
1942). 

TO LEAVE SETTLEMENTS IN SUCH CASES ULTIMATELY TO THE SEVERAL CHOICES
OF THE MEMBERS, EACH ACCORDING TO HIS OWN DESIRE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
EFFECT UPON THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST, WOULD MEAN THAT EACH AFFECTED
WORKER WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE HIS OWN TERMS AND TO DETERMINE
THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT FOR HIMSELF. 
NECESSARILY, THE CARRIER WOULD BE FREE TO JOIN WITH HIM IN DOING SO AND
THUS TO BARGAIN WITH EACH EMPLOYEE FOR WHATEVER TERMS ITS ECONOMIC
POWER, PITTED AGAINST HIS OWN, MIGHT INDUCE HIM TO ACCEPT.  THE RESULT
NECESSARILY WOULD BE TO MAKE THE AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE, NOT TO ALL ALIKE,
BUT ACCORDING TO WHATEVER VARIED INTERPRETATIONS INDIVIDUAL WORKERS,
FROM EQUALLY VARIED MOTIVATIONS, MIGHT BE WILLING TO ACCEPT.  TO GIVE
THE COLLECTIVE AGENT POWER TO MAKE THE AGREEMENT, BUT EXCLUDE IT FROM
ANY VOICE WHATEVER IN ITS INTERPRETATION WOULD GO FAR TOWARD DESTROYING
ITS UNIFORM APPLICATION. 

FN36  DEPENDING UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE CHARACTER OF THE CLAIM, ITS
FOUNDATION IN A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE, ITS INTRINSICALLY
SUBSTANTIAL OR INSUBSTANTIAL NATURE, THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AFFECTED,
THE LENGTH OF TIME IT REMAINS UNSETTLED, THE NUMBER OF CLAIMS ALLOWED
SO TO RUN, OR PERHAPS OTHER FACTORS, THE GRIEVANCE MAY BE A MATTER OF
LARGE MOMENT TO THE GROUP AS A WHOLE OR OF LITTLE OR NO CONCERN TO IT
AND, IT MAY BE, OF EITHER IDENTICAL OR CONVERSE IMPORTANCE TO THE
INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS DIRECTLY AFFECTED. 

FN37  CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
CARRIER AND THE EMPLOYEES, NOT WITH DIFFERENCES AMONG THE LATTER OR
BETWEEN THEM, OR SOME OF THEM, AND THE COLLECTIVE AGENT.  THE STATUTE
THEREFORE WAS NOT DRAWN WITH AN EYE LEVELLED TO THESE PROBLEMS, EXCEPT
AS TO CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CF. SEC. 2 FOURTH; SEC. 2 NINTH; AND
NOTE 34. 

FN38  AUTHORITY MIGHT BE CONFERRED IN WHATEVER WAYS WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT ACCORDING TH GENERALLY ACCEPTED OR "COMMON LAW" RULES FOR
THE CREATION OF AN AGENCY, AS CONCEIVABLY BY SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION
GIVEN ORALLY OR IN WRITING TO SETTLE EACH GRIEVANCE, BY GENERAL
AUTHORITY GIVEN TO SETTLE SUCH GRIEVANCES AS MIGHT ARISE, OR BY
ASSENTING TO SUCH AUTHORITY BY BECOMING A MEMBER OF A UNION AND THEREBY
ACCEPTING A PROVISION IN ITS CONSTITUTION OR RULES AUTHORIZING IT TO
MAKE SUCH SETTLEMENTS. 

FN39  THE DISTINCTION HOLDS TRUE ALTHOUGH "INTERPRETATION OR
APPLICATION" MAY LOOK TO THE FUTURE AS WELL AS THE PAST, AS IT OFTEN
DOES.  IT GOES TO THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHT ASSERTED, WHETHER IN AN
ANTECEDENT AGREEMENT OR ONLY TO ONE PRESENTLY SOUGHT.  THE DIFFERENCE
IS IMPORTANT FOR OTHER ISSUES AS WELL AS THOSE PRESENTLY INVOLVED,
E.G., APPLICATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS. 

THE DISTINCTION IS NOT TO BE IGNORED OR WIPED OUT MERELY BECAUSE A
PARTICULAR DISPUTE OR AGREEMENT MAY LOOK BOTH TO THE PAST AND TO THE
FUTURE.  THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR SETTLING GRIEVANCES WAS CREATED
BECAUSE IT WAS INTENDED THEY SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF DIFFERENTLY FROM
DISPUTES OVER "RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS," WHICH WERE
COMMITTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE COLLECTIVE AGENT'S AUTHORITY.  ONE
IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE PRESERVED THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS TO
PARTICIPATE IN ALL STAGES OF THE SETTLEMENT.  CONGRESS THEREFORE, WHEN
IT PRESERVED THOSE RIGHTS, CONTEMPLATED SOMETHING MORE THAN COLLECTIVE
REPRESENTATION AND ACTION TO MAKE THE SETTLEMENT EFFECTIVE FOR THE
PAST.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS CANNOT BE
NULLIFIED MERELY BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE UNION.  THEY
ARE STATUTORY RIGHTS, WHICH HE MAY EXERCISE INDEPENDENTLY OR AUTHORIZE
THE UNION TO EXERCISE IN HIS BEHALF. 

FN40  THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, OF WHICH ARTICLE 6 IS A PART,
PROVIDES:  "ANY CONTROVERSY ARISING AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES
HEREIN AGREED UPON  ...  SHALL BE TAKEN UP  ..."  BY THE GENERAL
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE WITH THE GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CARRIER,
"AND IN THE EVENT OF THEIR FAILURE TO AGREE UPON A SATISFACTORY
SETTLEMENT, THE COMMITTEE ANY APPEAL TO THE VICE PRESIDENT." 
PETITIONER SAYS THIS PROVISION BOUND IT TO DEAL ONLY WITH THE GENERAL
COMMITTEE. 

PETITIONER ALSO RELIES UPON RULE 10 OF THE BROTHERHOOD'S CONSTITUTION
AND GENERAL RULES AS IMPOSING THE SAME DUTY: 

"WHATEVER ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BY THE GENERAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OR
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF ANY SYSTEM WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ABOVE
GENERAL RULES SHALL BE LAW TO THE LODGES ON THAT ROAD UNTIL AND UNLESS
REVERSED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AND IF ANY MEMBER REFUSES TO VOTE OR
ABIDE BY THE ACTION OF SUCH GENERAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OR BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT, HE SHALL BE EXPELLED FROM THE BROTHERHOOD FOR VIOLATION OF
OBLIGATION." 

SEE ALSO NOTE 8. 

FN41  THIS, THEY SAY, WAS BECAUSE WILLIAMS DID NOT REGARD THE
AGREEMENT AS WAIVING THE MONEY CLAIMS, SINCE HE DID NOT GIVE THEM THE
REQUIRED NOTICE AND SHORTLY AFTER THE SETTLEMENT FILED THE MONEY CLAIMS
WITH THE BOARD.  CF. NOTE 6. 

FN42  RESPONDENTS ALSO ATTACK THE SETTLEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT
SIGNED BY THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, THE LOCAL
GRIEVANCE CHAIRMAN.  THIS OBJECTION BORDERS ON THE FRIVOLOUS. 

FN43  IN OTHER WORDS, THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE HAS THE RIGHT TO
DELEGATE HIS POWER TO CONCUR IN AN AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT, BUT AT THE
SAME TIME TO RESERVE HIS RIGHTS TO MAKE SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD AND OF
APPEARANCE AND REPRESENTATION BEFORE IT, OR CONVERSELY TO RESERVE HIS
RIGHT TO CONCUR AND DELEGATE THE RIGHTS OF SUBMISSION AND
REPRESENTATION.  TO WHAT EXTENT HE MAY DELEGATE ONE OR ALL DEPENDS
THEREFORE UPON THE INTENT WITH WHICH HE MAKES THE PARTICULAR DELEGATION
AS DISCLOSED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT IS MADE, OR GIVES
EVIDENCE OF SUCH INTENT BY HIS CONDUCT, AND THIS WILL BE A QUESTION OF
FACT UNLESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO CLEARLY SHOW HE INTENDED TO MAKE THE
DELEGATION CLAIMED THAT NO OTHER CONCLUSION IS POSSIBLE. 

FN44  IT IS TRUE THAT RESPONDENTS' POSITION CONCERNING THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE THE SUBMISSION IN DOCKET
NO. 3537 IS NOT ALTOGETHER CONSISTENT.  FOR IN CLAIMING THAT THEY
AUTHORIZED SUBMISSION ONLY TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 6
FOR THE FUTURE, AND NOT TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF RETROACTIVITY SO
AS TO ESTABLISH OR CONCLUDE ADVERSELY THE BASIS FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL
MONETARY CLAIMS, THEY APPEAR TO IGNORE, AS DOES PETITIONER IN SOME OF
ITS CONTENTIONS, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND THE
SETTLEMENT OF GRIEVANCES AS THE ACT DEFINES THEM.  CF. NOTE 39 AND
TEXT.  IF THEIR PURPOSE WAS MERELY TO AUTHORIZE SETTLEMENT FOR THE
FUTURE, WITHOUT RETROACTIVE EFFECTS, THE SUBMISSION TO THE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD WAS MISCONCEIVED, SINCE IT HAS NO POWER TO RENDER A DECISION
REQUIRING THE CARRIER OR THE UNION TO MAKE A NEW AGREEMENT.  ITS ONLY
AUTHORITY, UNDER THE ACT, IS TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY HAVE AGREED UPON
PREVIOUSLY OR, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, WHAT RIGHTS
THE CARRIER AND ITS EMPLOYEES MAY HAVE ACQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF OTHER
INCIDENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION.  SUCH AN ISSUE BY ITS VERY NATURE
LOOKS TO THE PAST, THOUGH IT MAY ALSO SEEK COMPLIANCE FOR THE FUTURE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

ON JULY 27, 1934, THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN MADE AN
AGREEMENT WITH PETITIONER, ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,
AFFECTING ITS YARDMEN WHEREBY THE STARTING TIME FOR SWITCHING CREWS WAS
FIXED.  THE RESPONDENTS ARE EMPLOYED AS SWITCHING CREWS IN THE WHITING,
INDIANA YARD OF PETITIONER.  THEY ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD. 
OBSERVANCE BY PETITIONER OF THIS YARD AGREEMENT WAS CALLED INTO
QUESTION.  AFTER ABORTIVE CONFERENCES FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THESE
CLAIMS BETWEEN OFFICIALS OF PETITIONER AND OF THE BROTHERHOOD, C.H.
WILLIAMS, GENERAL CHAIRMAN OF THE BROTHERHOOD GENERAL GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE, FILED A COMPLAINT COVERING SEVERAL GRIEVANCES WITH THE
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, CREATED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF
1934, 48 STAT. 1185, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., TO COMPEL PETITIONER'S
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREED TIME.  IN NOVEMBER, 1936, THE CASES WERE
DULY DOCKETED.  BEFORE THEY CAME TO BE HEARD, PETITIONER, ON OCTOBER
28, 1938, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF NUMEROUS CLAIMS AGAINST IT BY THE
BROTHERHOOD THEN PENDING BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  AMONG THESE
CLAIMS WAS THE DISPUTE AS TO STARTING TIME.  PETITIONER AGREED FOR A
NINETY-DAY TRIAL PERIOD, BEGINNING NOVEMBER 15, 1938, TO ABIDE BY THE
TIME FIXED IN THE 1934 AGREEMENT.  BUT ITS OFFER WAS CONDITIONED "ON A
COMPLETE SETTLEMENT AND WITHDRAWAL OF ALL CASES NOW PENDING EITHER
BEFORE THE BOARD, OR UNDER DISCUSSION WITH THIS OFFICE  ...  AND IT IS
FURTHER UNDERSTOOD THAT IN THE EVENT THESE SETTLEMENTS ARE ACCEPTED
THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED IN THIS LETTER COVER ALL CLAIMS OF A SIMILAR
NATURE, AND THAT NO OTHER CLAIMS COVERING THE SAME OR LIKE SITUATIONS
WILL BE PRESENTED WHEN SUCH CLAIMS ARISE FROM CAUSES OCCURRING PRIOR TO
THE DATE OF THIS SETTLEMENT."  ON OCTOBER 31, 1938, SETTLEMENT ON THESE
TERMS WAS ACCEPTED FOR THE YARDMEN BY WILLIAMS, GENERAL CHAIRMAN, AND
S. F. JOHNSON, THE SECRETARY OF THE BROTHERHOOD'S GENERAL GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE.  ON THE SAME DAY AND UPON REQUEST OF THE BROTHERHOOD AND
RAILWAY, THE CASES WERE REMOVED FROM ITS DOCKET BY THE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD. 

LATER THE BROTHERHOOD FILED WITH THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD A SECOND
COMPLAINT CLAIMING MONEY DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS FOR VIOLATION
OF THE 1934 AGREEMENT.  THE BOARD, BY FORMAL AWARD, DENIED THE CLAIM ON
THE GROUND THAT THE "EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT
DISPOSED OF THE CLAIM HERE MADE BY THE LETTER OF CARRIER DATED OCTOBER
28TH, 1938, ACCEPTED BY EMPLOYES OCTOBER 31, 1938." 

RESPONDENTS THEN FILED THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DAMAGES. 
PETITIONER INVOKED THE 1938 SETTLEMENT AND THE BOARD'S AWARD THEREON AS
A BAR, AND MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  RESPONDENTS RESISTED THIS
MOTION BY DENYING THE AUTHORITY OF THE BROTHERHOOD OFFICIALS TO PRESENT
THEIR CLAIMS TO THE BOARD OR TO AGREE TO THE SETTLEMENT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT GAVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS REVERSED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ON THE GROUND THAT
THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY OF THE BROTHERHOOD OFFICIALS RAISED AN ISSUE
OF FACT FOR TRIAL BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  140 F.2D 488.  THE
CORRECTNESS OF THIS RULING IS THE IMPORTANT QUESTION NOW BEFORE US.
323 U.S. 690. 

WE HAVE HAD RECENT OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IN
OTHER ASPECTS.  SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; GENERAL
COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO., 320 U.S. 323; GENERAL COMMITTEE V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 320 U.S. 338.  THE COMPLEXITIES WHICH THE
PROBLEMS IN THOSE CASES LAID BARE, MAKE CLEAR THAT THE SPECIFIC
QUESTION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE US CANNOT BE ISOLATED FROM THE SCHEME AND
STRUCTURE OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AS AN ENTIRETY.  THE ACT IN TURN
CANNOT BE APPRECIATED APART FROM THE ENVIRONMENT OUT OF WHICH IT CAME
AND THE PURPOSES WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED TO SERVE. 

FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS OUR RAILROADS ARE
LARGELY A THING APART.  THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF THE INDUSTRY, THE
EXPERIENCE WITH UNIONIZATION OF THE ROADS, THE CONCENTRATION OF
AUTHORITY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE INDUSTRY IN NEGOTIATING COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENTS, THE INTIMACY OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEADERS OF THE TWO
PARTIES SHAPED BY A LONG COURSE OF NATIONAL, OR AT LEAST REGIONAL,
NEGOTIATIONS, THE INTRICATE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THESE AGREEMENTS AND
THE SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE FOR WHICH THEIR INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION CALL, THE PRACTICAL INTERDEPENDENCE OF SEEMINGLY SEPARATE
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS - THESE AND SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS ADMONISH
AGAINST MUTILATING THE COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPLICATED SYSTEM GOVERNING
RAILROAD INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BY EPISODIC UTILIZATION OF INAPPOSITE
JUDICIAL REMEDIES.    THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1934 IS PRIMARILY AN
INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT.  AS SUCH, THE VIEW THAT IS HELD OF THE
PARTICULAR WORLD FOR WHICH THE ACT WAS DESIGNED WILL LARGELY GUIDE THE
DIRECTION OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT.  THE RAILROAD WORLD
FOR WHICH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WAS DESIGNED HAS THUS BEEN SUMMARIZED
BY ONE OF THE MOST DISCERNING STUDENTS OF RAILROAD LABOR RELATIONS:
"THE RAILROAD WORLD IS LIKE A STATE WITHIN A STATE.  ITS POPULATION OF
SOME THREE MILLION, IF WE INCLUDE THE FAMILIES OF WORKERS, HAS ITS OWN
CUSTOMS AND ITS OWN VOCABULARY, AND LIVES ACCORDING TO RULES OF ITS OWN
MAKING....  THIS STATE WITHIN A STATE HAS ENJOYED A HIGH DEGREE OF
INTERNAL PEACE FOR TWO GENERATIONS; DESPITE THE DIVERGENT INTERESTS OF
ITS COMPONENT PARTS, THE REIGN OF LAW HAS BEEN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED." 
GARRISON, THE RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD:  A UNIQUE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY (1937) 46 YALE L.J. 567, 568-69. 

THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1934 IS AN EXPRESSION OF THAT "REIGN OF LAW"
AND PROVIDES THE MEANS FOR MAINTAINING IT.  NEARLY HALF A CENTURY OF
EXPERIMENTAL LEGISLATION LIES BEHIND THE ACT.  IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT
EVERY STAGE IN THE EVOLUTION OF THIS RAILROAD LABOR CODE WAS
PROGRESSIVELY INFUSED WITH THE PURPOSE OF SECURING SELF-ADJUSTMENT
BETWEEN THE EFFECTIVELY ORGANIZED RAILROADS AND THE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE
RAILROAD UNIONS AND, TO THAT END, OF ESTABLISHING FACILITIES FOR SUCH
SELF-ADJUSTMENT BY THE RAILROAD COMMUNITY OF ITS OWN INDUSTRIAL
CONTROVERSIES.  THESE WERE CERTAINLY NOT EXPECTED TO BE SOLVED BY ILL
ADAPTED JUDICIAL INTERFERENCES, ESCAPE FROM WHICH WAS INDEED ONE OF THE
DRIVING MOTIVES IN ESTABLISHING SPECIALIZED MACHINERY OF MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION.  GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION OF ANY KIND WAS CONTEMPLATED ONLY
AS A LAST RESORT FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF CALAMITOUS STRIKES. 

THE LANDMARKS IN THIS HISTORY, TERSELY SUMMARIZED, ARE THE MEAGER ACT
OF OCTOBER 1, 1888, 25 STAT. 501, PROVIDING FOR VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION;
THE ERDMAN ACT OF JUNE 1, 1898, 30 STAT. 424, SECURING GOVERNMENT
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION, BUT APPLICABLE ONLY TO THOSE ACTUALLY
ENGAGED IN TRAIN SERVICE OPERATIONS; THE NEWLANDS ACT OF JULY 15, 1913,
38 STAT. 103, PROVIDING FOR A PERMANENT BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ALSO A
BOARD OF ARBITRATION; THE ADAMSON ACT OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1916, 39 STAT.
721, AS TO WHICH SEE WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332; ORDER NO. 8 OF
FEBRUARY 21, 1918, FORMULATING THE LABOR POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT AFTER
THE UNITED STATES TOOK OVER THE RAILROADS, SEE HINES, WAR HISTORY OF
AMERICAN RAILROADS (1928), P. 155 ET SEQ.; THE MORE ELABORATE MACHINERY
ESTABLISHED BY TITLE III OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT.
456, 469, FOR ADJUSTMENTS OF THESE CONTROVERSIES, WHICH IN ITS TURN WAS
REPEALED AND REPLACED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF MAY 20, 1926, 44
STAT. 577, LEGISLATION AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE RAILROADS AND THE
BROTHERHOODS AND PROBABLY UNIQUE IN HAVING BEEN FRANKLY ACCEPTED AS
SUCH BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS.  FN1  THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF THIS
LEGISLATION PARTLY DISAPPOINTED THE HOPES OF ITS SPONSORS, AND LED, FOR
THE STILL GREATER PROMOTION OF SELF-GOVERNMENT BY THE RAILROAD
INDUSTRY, TO THE ACT OF 1934. 

THE ASSUMPTION AS WELL AS THE AIM OF THAT ACT IS A PROCESS OF
PERMANENT CONFERENCE AND NEGOTIATION BETWEEN THE CARRIERS ON THE ONE
HAND AND THE EMPLOYEES THROUGH THEIR UNIONS ON THE OTHER.  SECTION 2,
FIRST, PROVIDES "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL CARRIERS  ...  AND
EMPLOYEES TO EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN
AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, AND WORKING CONDITIONS, AND
TO SETTLE ALL DISPUTES, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICATION OF SUCH
AGREEMENTS OR OTHERWISE  ..."  SECTION 2, SECOND, PROVIDES "ALL
DISPUTES BETWEEN A CARRIER  ... AND ITS  ...  EMPLOYEES SHALL BE
CONSIDERED, AND, IF POSSIBLE, DECIDED, WITH ALL EXPEDITION, IN
CONFERENCE BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED SO TO
CONFER, RESPECTIVELY, BY THE CARRIER  ...  AND BY THE EMPLOYEES THEREOF
INTERESTED IN THE DISPUTE."  ACCORDING TO SEC. 2, SIXTH, "IN CASE OF A
DISPUTE  ...  ARISING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR
APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING
CONDITIONS, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OR
REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH CARRIER  ...  AND OF SUCH EMPLOYEES, WITHIN TEN
DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF A DESIRE ON THE PART OF EITHER
PARTY TO CONFER IN RESPECT TO SUCH DISPUTE, TO SPECIFY A TIME AND PLACE
AT WHICH SUCH CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD  ..."  SECTION 3, FIRST (I)
DIRECTS THAT DISPUTES GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR THE INTERPRETATION
OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING
CONDITIONS BE HANDLED BY CONFERENCE AND NEGOTIATION, INCLUDING RESORT
IF NECESSARY TO THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CARRIER.  COMPLIANCE
WITH THESE STATUTORY DUTIES IS A PREREQUISITE TO APPEAL TO THE NATIONAL
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION IS THE
EXERTION OF MAXIMUM PRESSURE TOWARD AMICABLE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES.  RESORT TO THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD IS THE LAST STEP IN THE
STATUTORY PROCESS. 

IN THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US AN AMICABLE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES - THE GOAL OF THE LEGISLATION - HAD BEEN ACHIEVED BY PURSUING
THE COURSE WHICH THE ACT OF 1934 DIRECTED.  WE ARE NOW ASKED TO NULLIFY
THIS SETTLEMENT, ARRIVED AT AFTER PROLONGED NEGOTIATIONS, AND TO OPEN
THE DOOR OF LITIGATION TO NEW DISCORDS.  NOT ONLY IS IT SOUGHT TO
REVIVE THE DISPUTE AND TO RESTORE IT TO THE STATUS IT HAD BEFORE THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS AGO.  THE RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT
AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO REPUDIATE THEIR BARGAINING
AGENTS AND TO TRY THE AUTHORITY OF THESE AGENTS AS THOUGH THIS WERE A
CONVENTIONAL LAWSUIT INVOLVING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A PRINCIPAL FOR
THE CONDUCT OF HIS AGENT. 

AS MEMBERS OF THEIR BROTHERHOOD, RESPONDENTS WERE OF COURSE FAMILIAR
WITH THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE UNION SPEAKS FOR THEM BOTH TO THE
RAILROAD AND BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  THE BROTHERHOOD'S
"CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL RULES," WHICH THE RESPONDENTS MADE PART OF
THEIR CASE BELOW, ARE CLEAR ABOUT THIS.  RULE NO. 7 DECLARES THAT,
AFTER A GRIEVANCE HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED TO A GENERAL GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE, THAT COMMITTEE "SHALL HAVE POWER TO ALTER, AMEND, ADD TO OR
STRIKE OUT  ... ANY PART OR ALL OF ANY COMPLAINT OR CLAIM SUBMITTED TO
THE COMMITTEE, SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ENTIRE GENERAL COMMITTEE AND/OR
BOARD OF APPEALS.  A GENERAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE MAY AUTHORIZE THEIR
CHAIRMAN TO HANDLE ALL GRIEVANCES RECEIVED FROM LOCAL LODGES WITH THE
MANAGEMENT FOR SETTLEMENT  ..."  RESPONDENTS CANNOT DENY THAT THE
BROTHERHOOD OFFICIALS HAD AUTHORITY TO SEEK COMPLIANCE BY THE RAILROAD
WITH THE STARTING TIME AGREEMENT THROUGH THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  IN VIEW
OF THE SWEEPING POWER OF THE GENERAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE TO SETTLE
GRIEVANCES, THE SETTLEMENT THAT WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE BROTHERHOOD
IS INVULNERABLE.  THE ATTACK ON THE SETTLEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS SIGNED BY
ONLY TWO OF THE THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE IS FRIVOLOUS.  SUCH
PROCEDURE IS NOT AT ALL UNUSUAL.  WILLIAMS AND JOHNSON SETTLED OTHER
GRIEVANCES IN LIKE MANNER, MANY OF THEM INVOLVING CLAIMS FOR MONEY. 
THE BROTHERHOOD'S OWN RULES SANCTION SUCH ACTION IN THAT THE COMMITTEE
MAY AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO HANDLE ALL GRIEVANCES. 

THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE LITTLE CASE ABOUT AN AGENT'S AUTHORITY.  DEMANDS
OF THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE IMPLY NOT ONLY AUTHORITY FROM THOSE
FOR WHOM HE SPEAKS BUT THE DUTY OF RESPECT FROM THOSE TO WHOM HE
SPEAKS.  THE CARRIER IS UNDER A LEGAL DUTY TO TREAT WITH THE UNION'S
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  SECTION 2,
NINTH; SEE VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515.  WE DO
NOT HAVE THE ORDINARY CASE WHERE A THIRD PERSON DEALING WITH AN
OSTENSIBLE AGENT MUST AT HIS PERIL ASCERTAIN THE AGENT'S AUTHORITY.  IN
SUCH A SITUATION A PERSON MAY PROTECT HIMSELF BY REFUSING TO DEAL. 
HERE PETITIONER HAS A DUTY TO DEAL.  IF PETITIONER REFUSES TO DEAL WITH
THE OFFICIALS OF THE EMPLOYEES' UNION BY CHALLENGING THEIR AUTHORITY,
IT DOES SO UNDER PAIN OF PENALTY.  IF IT DEALS WITH THEM ON THE
REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE GRIEVANCE OFFICIALS OF THE BROTHERHOOD ARE
ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUSTOMARY UNION PROCEDURE, SETTLEMENTS THUS
MADE OUGHT NOT TO BE AT THE HAZARD OF BEING JETTISONED BY FUTURE
LITIGATION.  TO ALLOW SUCH SETTLEMENTS TO BE THUS SET ASIDE IS TO
OBSTRUCT THE SMOOTH WORKING OF THE ACT.  IT UNDERMINES THE CONFIDENCE
SO INDISPENSABLE TO ADJUSTMENT BY NEGOTIATION, WHICH IS THE VITAL
OBJECT OF THE ACT.  SEE DIVISION 525, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS V.
GORMAN, 133 F.2D 273, 278. 

BUT RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE
BROTHERHOOD OFFICIALS TO HANDLE CLAIMS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
AGREED STARTING TIME, WILLIAMS DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO PRESENT TO THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES DUE TO RESPONDENTS FOR
PETITIONER'S ALLEGED PAST VIOLATION OF THE STARTING-TIME AGREEMENT. 
THEY INSIST THAT THERE IS NO RELATION BETWEEN A CLAIM FOR MONEY
RESULTING FROM THE VIOLATION OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT AND A CLAIM FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.  BUT SURELY THIS IS TO SEVER
THAT WHICH IS ORGANIC.  IT WHOLLY DISREGARDS THE NATURE OF SUCH A
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, ITS IMPLICATIONS AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS.  IN
PASSING ON THE CLAIM FOR MONEY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE YARD
AGREEMENT, ANY TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE TO EXAMINE, INTERPRET AND APPLY THE
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT PRECISELY AS IT WOULD IF THE ISSUE WERE THE DUTY
TO OBSERVE THE AGREEMENT IN THE FUTURE.  AN AWARD BASED ON THE
APPLICATION OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WOULD, QUITE APART FROM
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF RES JUDICATA, AFFECT FUTURE CLAIMS GOVERNED BY
THE SAME COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WHATEVER THE PARTICULAR FORMS IN WHICH
THE CLAIMS MAY BE CAST.  TO FIND HERE MERELY AN ISOLATED, NARROW
QUESTION OF LAW AS TO PAST LIABILITY IS TO DISREGARD THE TIES WHICH
BIND THE MONEY CONTROVERSY TO ITS RAILROAD ENVIRONMENT.  SUCH A VIEW IS
BLIND TO THE FACT THAT "ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS OR CRAFT TO WHICH AN
AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE BELONGS HAVE A REAL AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE
DISPUTE.  EACH OF THEM, AT SOME LATER TIME, MAY BE INVOLVED IN A
SIMILAR DISPUTE."  40 OPS.  ATTY.  GEN., NO. 59(DEC.  29, 1942) PP. 4
5.  INDEED, SUCH A VIEW LEAVES OUT OF CONSIDERATION NOT ONLY THE
SIGNIFICANT BEARING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT ON PARTS OF THE CARRIER'S LINES NOT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE
COURT.  IT OVERLOOKS THE RELATION OF A PROVISION IN A COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT WITH ONE RAILROAD TO COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER ROADS. 

TO ALLOW THE ISSUE OF AUTHORIZATION AFTER AN AWARD BY THE BOARD TO BE
RELITIGATED IN THE COURTS IS INIMICAL TO THE INTERNAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
BROTHERHOOD.  UNION MEMBERSHIP GENERATES COMPLICATED RELATIONS.  POLICY
COUNSELS AGAINST JUDICIAL INTRUSION UPON THESE RELATIONS.  IF RESORT TO
COURTS IS AT ALL AVAILABLE, IT CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT DISREGARD AND
DISPLACE THE ARRANGEMENTS WHICH THE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION
VOLUNTARILY ESTABLISH FOR THEIR RECIPROCAL INTERESTS AND BY WHICH THEY
BOUND THEMSELVES TO BE GOVERNED.  THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MEMBERSHIP
ARE GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF THE BROTHERHOOD.  RULE 10 CONCERNS
OBJECTIONS TO OFFICIAL ACTION:  "WHATEVER ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BY THE
GENERAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE  ...  SHALL BE LAW TO THE LODGES ON THAT
ROAD UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, AND IF ANY MEMBER
REFUSES TO VOTE OR ABIDE BY THE ACTION OF SUCH GENERAL GRIEVANCE
COMMITTEE OR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HE SHALL BE EXPELLED FROM THE
BROTHERHOOD FOR VIOLATION OF OBLIGATION."  TO ASK COURTS TO ADJUDICATE
THE MEANING OF THE BROTHERHOOD RULES AND CUSTOMS WITHOUT PRELIMINARY
RESORT TO REMEDIAL PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE BROTHERHOOD IS TO ENCOURAGE
INFLUENCES OF DISRUPTION WITHIN THE UNION INSTEAD OF FOSTERING THESE
UNIONS AS STABILIZING FORCES.  RULES OF FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS, WITH
ALL THE CUSTOMS AND ASSUMPTIONS THAT GIVE THEM LIFE, CANNOT BE TREATED
AS THOUGH THEY WERE ORDINARY LEGAL DOCUMENTS OF SETTLED MEANING. 
"FREEDOM OF LITIGATION, FOR INSTANCE, IS HARDLY SO ESSENTIAL A PART OF
THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS THAT THE COURTS SHOULD BE ASKED TO STRIKE DOWN
ALL HINDRANCES TO ITS PURSUIT.  THE COURTS ARE AS WISE, TO TAKE AN
EXAMPLE OF THIS, IN ADHERING TO THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT ALL
AVAILABLE REMEDIES WITHIN THE UNION BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE REDRESS IS
SOUGHT BEFORE THEM AS THEY ARE UNWISE IN MANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS THEY
HAVE GRAFTED UPON THIS RULE."  WITMER, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE TRADE
UNION (1941) 50 YALE L.J. 621, 630.  TO AN INCREASING EXTENT, COURTS
REQUIRE DISSIDENTS WITHIN A UNION TO SEEK INTERPRETATION OF THE
ORGANIZATION'S RULES AND TO SEEK REDRESS FOR GRIEVANCES ARISING OUT OF
THEM BEFORE APPROPRIATE UNION TRIBUNALS.  COMPARE NORFOLK & WESTERN R.
CO. V. HARRIS, 260 KY. 132, 84 S.W.2D 69; AGRIPPINO V. PERROTTI, 270
MASS. 55, 169 N.E. 793; SNAY V. LOVELY, 276 MASS. 159, 176 N.E. 791;
WEBB V. CHICAGO, R.I. & G.R. CO., 136 S.W.2D 245. 

THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AS THE PRODUCT OF LONG EXPERIENCE, IS A
COMPLICATED BUT CAREFULLY DEVISED SCHEME FOR ADJUSTING THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE TWO POWERFUL GROUPS CONSTITUTING THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY.  IT
MISCONCEIVES THE LEGISLATION AND MUTILATES ITS PROVISIONS TO READ INTO
IT COMMON LAW NOTIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF PRIVATE RIGHTS.  IF, WHEN A
DISPUTE ARISES OVER THE MEANING OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, THE LEGALLY
DESIGNATED RAILROAD BARGAINING UNIT CANNOT NEGOTIATE WITH THE CARRIER
WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL
MEMBER OF THE UNION WHO MAY BE FINANCIALLY INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE, IT
NOT ONLY WEAKENS THE UNION BY ENCOURAGING DIVISIVE ELEMENTS.  IT
GRAVELY HANDICAPS THE UNION IN ITS POWER TO BARGAIN RESPONSIBLY.  THAT
IS NOT ALL.  NOT TO ALLOW THE DULY ELECTED OFFICERS OF AN ACCREDITED
UNION TO SPEAK FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE
INTERNAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION AND TO PERMIT ANY MEMBER OF THE UNION
TO PURSUE HIS OWN INTEREST UNDER A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT UNDERMINES THE
VERY CONCEPTION OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.  IT REINTRODUCES THE
DESTRUCTIVE INDIVIDUALISM IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE RAILROADS AND
THEIR WORKERS WHICH IT WAS THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT TO
ELIMINATE.  TO ALLOW EVERY INDIVIDUAL WORKER TO BASE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS
ON HIS PRIVATE NOTIONS OF THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF A COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT INTENDED TO LAY DOWN UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR ALL THOSE COVERED
BY THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, IS TO PERMIT JURIES AND COURTS TO MAKE
VARYING FINDINGS AND GIVE VARYING CONSTRUCTIONS TO AN AGREEMENT
INEVITABLY COUCHED IN WORDS OR PHRASES REFLECTING THE HABITS, USAGE AND
UNDERSTANDING OF THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY.  THUS WILL BE INTRODUCED THOSE
DISLOCATING DIFFERENTIATIONS FOR WORKERS IN THE SAME CRAFT WHICH HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN AMONG THE MOST FERTILE PROVOCATIONS TO FRICTION, STRIFE,
AND STRIKE IN THE RAILROAD WORLD.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, ONE HAD
SUPPOSED, WOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO REDUCE AND NOT TO MULTIPLY THESE
SEEDS OF STRIFE. 

IN ORDER TO AVOID MISCHIEVOUS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE ASSERTION OF
INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS BY SHIPPERS AS AGAINST THE COMMON INTEREST OF
UNIFORMITY IN CONSTRUING RAILROAD TARIFFS, THIS COURT SO CONSTRUED THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IN THE FAMOUS ABILENE COTTON OIL CASE, 204 U.S.
426, AS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE SHIPPER THE HISTORIC COMMON LAW RIGHT TO
SUE IN THE COURTS FOR CHARGING UNREASONABLE RATES.  IT REQUIRED RESORT
TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BECAUSE NOT TO DO SO WOULD RESULT
IN THE IMPAIRMENT OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THAT ACT.  IT DID SO
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THEORETICALLY THIS COURT COULD ULTIMATELY REVIEW
SUCH ADJUDICATIONS IMBEDDED IN THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL JUDGMENTS - IF A
SHIPPER COULD GO TO A COURT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE - THERE WOULD BE
CONSIDERATIONS OF FACT WHICH THIS COURT COULD NOT POSSIBLY DISENTANGLE
SO AS TO SECURE THE NECESSARY UNIFORMITY.  THE BENEFICENT RULE IN THE
ABILENE COTTON OIL CASE WAS EVOLVED BY READING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT NOT AS THOUGH IT WERE A COLLECTION OF ABSTRACT WORDS, BUT BY
TREATING IT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT GROWING OUT OF LONG
EXPERIENCE WITH CERTAIN EVILS AND ADDRESSED TO THEIR CORRECTION.  CHIEF
JUSTICE WHITE'S OPINION IN THAT CASE WAS CHARACTERIZED BY HIS
SUCCESSOR, CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, AS A "CONSPICUOUS INSTANCE OF HIS
UNUSUAL AND REMARKABLE POWER AND FACILITY IN STATES-MANLIKE
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE LAW."  257 U.S. XXV.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT DO NOT EVEN NECESSITATE SUCH A CREATIVE ACT OF
ADJUDICATION AS THIS COURT IN THE ABILENE CASE UNANIMOUSLY
ACCOMPLISHED.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT CONTAINS NO EMBARRASSING SPECIFIC
PROVISION, AS WAS TRUE OF SEC. 22 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 24
STAT. 379, 387, CALLING FOR SUBORDINATION TO THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION.  THE CONSIDERATIONS MAKING FOR HARMONIOUS ADJUSTMENT OF
RAILROAD INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS THROUGH THE MACHINERY DESIGNED BY
CONGRESS IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT ARE DISREGARDED BY ALLOWING THAT
MACHINERY TO BE BY-PASSED AND BY INTRODUCING DISLOCATING
DIFFERENTIATIONS THROUGH INDIVIDUAL RESORT TO THE COURTS IN THE
APPLICATION OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT. 

SINCE THE CLAIM BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD WAS FOR MONEY, THERE
REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER ITS DISPOSITION WAS OPEN TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT COMMANDS THAT THE BOARD'S "AWARDS SHALL
BE FINAL AND BINDING UPON BOTH PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE, EXCEPT INSOFAR
AS THEY SHALL CONTAIN A MONEY AWARD."  SEC. 3, FIRST (M).  BUT THE
DETERMINATION HERE IN CONTROVERSY DOES NOT "CONTAIN A MONEY AWARD" SO
AS TO BE EXCEPTED FROM THE FINAL AND BINDING EFFECT GIVEN OTHER
AWARDS.  THE OBVIOUS MEANING OF "MONEY AWARD" IS AN AWARD DIRECTING THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY, NOT ONE DENYING PAYMENT.  SEE BERRYMAN V. PULLMAN
CO., 48 F.SUPP.  542.  WE ARE POINTED TO NO AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION THAT
SHOULD WITHHOLD US FROM GIVING THE FAMILIAR TERM "MONEY AWARD" ANY
OTHER THAN ITS ORDINARY MEANING AS SOMETHING THAT AWARDS MONEY.  THIS
CONSTRUCTION IS CONFIRMED BY COMPARISON WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT DEALING WITH REPARATION ORDERS.  SINCE BOTH
ACTS CAME OUT OF THE SAME CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES ONE FINDS, NATURALLY
ENOUGH, THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT AND REVIEW OF THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD'S AWARDS WERE BASED ON THOSE FOR REPARATION ORDERS BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  COMPARE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, SEC. 3,
FIRST (P) WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 5 OF THE
HEPBURN ACT, 34 STAT. 584, 590, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(1), (2).  IF A
CARRIER FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A REPARATION ORDER, AS IS TRUE OF NON
COMPLIANCE WITH AN ADJUSTMENT BOARD AWARD, THE COMPLAINANT MAY SUE IN
COURT FOR ENFORCEMENT; THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AND FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE
THEN BECOME PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS STATED.  BUT A DENIAL OF
A MONEY CLAIM BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BARS THE DOOR TO
REDRESS IN THE COURTS.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BRADY, 288 U.S. 448;
I.C.C. V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 385, 388; TERMINAL WAREHOUSE V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 297 U.S. 500, 507. 

THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT PRECLUDES REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S AWARD; AND,
SINCE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BROTHERHOOD OFFICIALS TO MAKE THE SETTLEMENT
IS NOT NOW OPEN TO JUDICIAL INQUIRY, THE JUDGMENT CALLS FOR REVERSAL. 

FN1  IN HIS MESSAGE OF DECEMBER 8, 1925, TO CONGRESS, PRESIDENT
COOLIDGE STATED:  "I AM INFORMED THAT THE RAILROAD MANAGERS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES HAVE REACHED A SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT LEGISLATION
IS NECESSARY TO REGULATE AND IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIP.  WHENEVER THEY
BRING FORWARD SUCH PROPOSALS, WHICH SEEM SUFFICIENT ALSO TO PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC, THEY SHOULD BE ENACTED INTO LAW."  67 CONG.
REC. 463. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :















TRUST OF BINGHAM V. COMM'R, 325 U.S. 365 


NO. 932.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1945.  - 145 F.2D
568, REVERSED. 


1.  THE QUESTIONS WHETHER, ON THE FACTS FOUND BY THE TAX COURT,
EXPENSES INCURRED BY TRUSTEES IN CONTESTING AN INCOME TAX DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT AND IN WINDING UP THE TRUST AFTER ITS EXPIRATION ARE
DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(A)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS EXPENSES
FOR THE "MANAGEMENT ...  OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME," ARE CLEAR-CUT QUESTIONS OF LAW, THE DECISION OF WHICH BY THE
TAX COURT DOES NOT FORECLOSE THEIR DECISION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OR THIS COURT, ALTHOUGH THEIR DECISION BY THE TAX COURT IS
ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.  P. 371. 

2.  THERE WAS NO ERROR OF LAW IN THE TAX COURT'S DETERMINATION, UPON
THE FACTS FOUND, THAT EXPENSES INCURRED BY TRUSTEES IN CONTESTING AN
INCOME TAX DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT AND IN WINDING UP THE TRUST AFTER ITS
EXPIRATION WERE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(A)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE AS EXPENSES FOR THE "MANAGEMENT  ...  OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF INCOME"; AND REVERSAL BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON
THE GROUND THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE NOT "FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME"
AND NOT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF "PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT SECTION WAS UNWARRANTED.  PP. 373,
376. 

3.  THE TRUST PROPERTIES DID NOT CEASE TO BE "HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF INCOME" EVEN THOUGH, AS THE TRUST TERM REACHED ITS EXPIRY DATE, THE
TRUSTEES WERE UNDER A DUTY TO DISTRIBUTE THE PROPERTY AMONG THE
REMAINDERMEN.  P. 373. 

4.  SECTION 23(A)(2) IS COMPARABLE AND IN PARI MATERIA WITH SEC.
23(A)(1), AUTHORIZING THE DEDUCTION OF BUSINESS OR TRADE EXPENSES.  P.
373. 

5.  THE COSTS OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST WERE
EXPENSES OF A FUNCTION OF "MANAGEMENT" OF THE TRUST PROPERTY QUITE AS
MUCH AS WERE EXPENSES INCURRED IN PRODUCING THE TRUST INCOME.  P. 375. 

6.  REFERENCES IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE BILL
WHICH BECAME THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, AND IN TREASURY REGULATIONS 103,
SEC. 19.23(A)-15, TO THE NON-DEDUCTIBILITY OF ADMINISTRATORS' AND
EXECUTORS' EXPENSES, INCURRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF
THE DECEDENT, INCLUDING THOSE OF DISTRIBUTING ASSETS TO THE
BENEFICIARIES, DO NOT REQUIRE BY ANALOGY THAT THE TRUSTEES'
DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES HERE IN QUESTION BE DEEMED NON-DEDUCTIBLE.  P.
375. 

7.  SECTION 23(A)(2) DOES NOT RESTRICT DEDUCTIONS TO THOSE LITIGATION
EXPENSES WHICH ALONE PRODUCE INCOME; ON THE CONTRARY, BY ITS TERMS AND
IN ANALOGY WITH THE RULE UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1), THE TRUST MAY DEDUCT
LITIGATION EXPENSES WHEN THEY ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH OR
PROXIMATELY RESULT FROM THE ENTERPRISE - THE MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY
HELD FOR PRODUCTION OF INCOME.  KORNHAUSER V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S.
145.  P. 376. 

8.  TO THE EXTENT THAT TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, SEC. 19.23(A)-15
PURPORTS TO DENY DEDUCTION OF LITIGATION EXPENSE UNLESS IT IS TO
PRODUCE INCOME, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DEPARTS FROM THE RULE OF
KORNHAUSER V. UNITED STATES, IT CONFLICTS WITH THE MEANING AND PURPOSE
OF SEC. 23(A)(2) AND IS UNAUTHORIZED.  P. 377. 

TRUST UNDER THE WILL OF BINGHAM ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 835, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT, 2 T.C. 853, WHICH SET ASIDE THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION
OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE THE TRUSTEES OF A TESTAMENTARY TRUST CREATED FOR A
TERM OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS UNDER THE WILL OF MARY LILY (FLAGLER)
BINGHAM.  THE TESTATRIX BEQUEATHED TO THE TRUSTEES THE RESIDUE OF HER
ESTATE, INCLUDING A LARGE NUMBER OF SECURITIES.  THE TRUSTEES WERE
EMPOWERED IN THEIR DISCRETION TO SELL ANY OF THE PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST
(EXCEPT CERTAIN SECURITIES OF TWO COMPANIES DESIGNATED AS THE
"PRINCIPAL PROPERTIES"), TO INVEST AND REINVEST THE PROCEEDS AND THE
INCOME FROM THE TRUST FUND, AND TO USE THE PROCEEDS AND THE INCOME FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE PRINCIPAL PROPERTIES AND FOR THE "MAINTENANCE,
ADMINISTRATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PRINCIPAL OR SUBSIDIARY
PROPERTIES."  THE TRUSTEES WERE TO PAY SPECIFIED AMOUNTS ANNUALLY TO
CERTAIN LEGATEES.  WHEN THE NIECE OF THE TESTATRIX REACHED A CERTAIN
AGE, SHE WAS TO RECEIVE FROM THE TRUST A SPECIFIED AMOUNT IN CASH OR
SECURITIES.  AT THE END OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, THE TRUSTEES WERE DIRECTED
TO PAY OTHER LEGACIES, AND TO DISTRIBUTE THE REMAINDER OF THE FUND IN
EQUAL PARTS TO A BROTHER AND TWO SISTERS OF THE TESTATRIX. 

IN 1935 PETITIONERS PAID THE BEQUEST TO THE NIECE PARTLY IN
SECURITIES.  THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY OF OVER $365,000
FOR INCOME TAX UPON THE APPRECIATION IN VALUE OF THE SECURITIES WHILE
THEY WERE IN PETITIONERS' HANDS.  IN CONTESTING UNSUCCESSFULLY THIS
DEFICIENCY, PETITIONERS PAID OUT IN THE YEAR 1940 APPROXIMATELY $16,000
IN COUNSEL FEES AND EXPENSES.  IN THAT YEAR, ALSO, PETITIONERS PAID OUT
ABOUT $9,000 FOR LEGAL ADVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PAYMENT OF ONE OF
THE CASH LEGACIES, AND IN CONNECTION WITH TAX AND OTHER PROBLEMS
ARISING UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE TRUST AND RELATING TO THE FINAL
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRUST FUND AMONG THE THREE RESIDUARY LEGATEES. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THESE LEGAL EXPENSES, PAID IN 1940, ARE
DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE TRUST'S INCOME
TAX, AS "NON-TRADE" OR "NON-BUSINESS" EXPENSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 23(A)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THAT SECTION, ADDED BY
SEC. 121 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, AND MADE APPLICABLE TO TAX YEARS
"BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1938," AUTHORIZES THE DEDUCTION OF "ALL
THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR FOR THE PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF INCOME, OR FOR THE MANAGEMENT,
CONSERVATION, OR MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME."  SECTION 162 OF THE CODE, SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT, MAKES SEC.
23(A)(2) APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME TAXATION OF TRUSTS. 

PETITIONERS, IN THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1940, TOOK DEDUCTIONS FOR
THE LEGAL EXPENSES.  THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTIONS AND
ASSESSED A TAX DEFICIENCY, AND PETITIONERS FILED THE PRESENT SUIT IN
THE TAX COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT.  THAT COURT, AFTER FINDING
THE FACTS AS WE HAVE STATED THEM, FOUND THAT THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS
HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME; THAT ALL THE ITEMS IN QUESTION WERE
ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST
PROPERTY; AND THAT THE FEES AND EXPENSES FOR CONTESTING THE INCOME TAX
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT WERE ALSO FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE TRUST
PROPERTY.  IT THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT ALL WERE RIGHTLY DEDUCTED IN
CALCULATING THE TAXABLE NET INCOME OF THE TRUST.  2 T.C. 853. 

ON THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED.  145 F.2D 568.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 324
U.S. 835, ON A PETITION WHICH ASSERTED AS GROUNDS FOR THE WRIT THAT THE
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTED FROM THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN
IN DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, GOVERNING REVIEW OF DECISIONS
OF THE TAX COURT, AND THAT THE DECISION CONFLICTED IN PRINCIPLE WITH
COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467, AND KORNHAUSER V. UNITED
STATES, 276 U.S. 145. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS LEFT UNDISTURBED THE TAX COURT'S FINDINGS THAT
THE QUESTIONED ITEMS WERE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OR CONSERVATION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY, BUT IT HELD THAT THE
FEES FOR CONTESTING THE TAX DEFICIENCY WERE NEVERTHELESS NOT DEDUCTIBLE
UNDER SEC. 23(A)(2).  IT THOUGHT THAT THE EXPENSES OF CONTESTING THE
INCOME TAX HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME AND HENCE
WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS EXPENSES "FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  THE COURT ALSO THOUGHT THAT THESE EXPENSES
WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE, BECAUSE THEY WERE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH PROPERTY
HELD BY THE TRUSTEES "READY FOR DISTRIBUTION," AND HENCE NOT "FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF INCOME."  SIMILARLY IT HELD THAT THE FEES FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PAYMENT OF
LEGACIES AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRUST FUND, WERE NOT EXPENSES
RELATING TO THE MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME, SINCE THEY WERE RENDERED AFTER THE TRUST TERM HAD EXPIRED AND
WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS READY FOR DISTRIBUTION. 

THE GOVERNMENT MAKES LIKE ARGUMENTS HERE.  IN ADDITION IT URGES THAT
THE EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TRUST FUND WERE
NOT EXPENSES OF MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST PROPERTY HELD FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF INCOME BUT ONLY EXPENSES RELATING TO ITS DEVOLUTION; AND
THAT THE EXPENSES ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(A)(2) BECAUSE THERE
WAS NO PROXIMATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPENSES WHEN PAID AND THE
PROPERTY THEN HELD IN TRUST. 

WE THINK THAT THESE OBJECTIONS TO THE DEDUCTIONS FAIL TO TAKE PROPER
ACCOUNT OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SEC. 23(A)(2), AND THE PURPOSE OF THE
AND THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE WEIGHT OF THE TAX COURT'S DECISION AGAINST
THEM, THEY RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW REVIEWABLE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AND BY THIS COURT. 

THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 23(A)(2) THAT DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES BE
"ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" IMPLIES THAT THEY MUST BE REASONABLE IN AMOUNT
AND MUST BEAR A REASONABLE AND PROXIMATE RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME.  SEE H. REP. NO. 2333, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 75; SEN. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P.
88.  ORDINARILY QUESTIONS OF REASONABLENESS AND PROXIMITY ARE FOR THE
TRIER OF FACT, HERE THE TAX COURT.  COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, SUPRA,
475; MCDONALD V. COMMISSIONER, 323 U.S. 57, 64-65; SEE COMMISSIONER V.
SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT CO., 323 U.S. 119.  AND EVEN WHEN THEY ARE
HYBRID QUESTIONS OF "MIXED LAW AND FACT," THEIR RESOLUTION, BECAUSE OF
THE FACT ELEMENT INVOLVED, WILL USUALLY AFFORD LITTLE CONCRETE GUIDANCE
FOR FUTURE CASES, AND REVIEWING COURTS WILL SET ASIDE THE DECISIONS OF
THE TAX COURT ONLY WHEN THEY ANNOUNCE A RULE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY,
THAT THE FACTS FOUND FALL SHORT OF MEETING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. 
DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, 502; COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF BEDFORD,
ANTE, P. 283; CF. PAUL, "DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER," 57 HARV. LAW REV.
753, AT 828-832, 836-837.  BUT WHETHER THE APPLICABLE STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS ARE SUCH AS TO PRECLUDE THE DECISION WHICH THE TAX COURT
HAS RENDERED, IS, AS WAS RECOGNIZED IN DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA,
492-493, A QUESTION OF LAW REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL.  SEE ALSO COMMISSIONER
V. HEININGER, SUPRA, 475. 

HERE THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS THAT THE EXPENSES WERE
NOT DEDUCTIBLE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING
INCOME OR CAPITAL GAIN, AND BECAUSE THE TRUST PROPERTY, BEING READY FOR
DISTRIBUTION, WAS NO LONGER HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME.  THE
TERMS OF THE TRUST, THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE DUTIES OF THE
TRUSTEES WITH RESPECT TO IT, WERE ALL FOUND BY THE TAX COURT AND ARE
NOT CHALLENGED.  THE QUESTIONS WHETHER, ON THE FACTS FOUND, THE
EXPENSES IN QUESTION ARE NONDEDUCTIBLE, EITHER BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT TO
PRODUCE INCOME OR BECAUSE THEY WERE RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
PROPERTY WHICH WAS NOT HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME, TURN IN THIS
CASE ON THE MEANING OF THE WORDS OF SEC. 23(A)(2), "PROPERTY HELD FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME."  THEY ARE THEREFORE QUESTIONS OF LAW,
DECISION OF WHICH IS UNEMBARRASSED BY ANY DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT OR
ANY NECESSITY TO DRAW AN INFERENCE OF FACT FROM THE BASIC FINDINGS. 
SEE COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT CO., SUPRA.  THEY ARE
"CLEAR CUT" QUESTIONS OF LAW, DECISION OF WHICH BY THE TAX COURT DOES
NOT FORECLOSE THEIR DECISION BY APPELLATE COURTS, AS IN OTHER CASES,
DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, 492-493, ALTHOUGH THEIR DECISION BY THE
TAX COURT IS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA,
501-502, AND CASES CITED; CF. MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V. LABOR BOARD,
321 U.S. 678, 681-682, N. 1, AND CASES CITED. 

SINCE OUR DECISION IN THE DOBSON CASE WE HAVE FREQUENTLY REEXAMINED,
AS MATTERS OF LAW, DETERMINATIONS BY THE TAX COURT OF THE MEANING OF
THE WORDS OF A STATUTE AS APPLIED TO FACTS FOUND BY THAT COURT.  FN1  A
QUESTION OF LAW IS NOT ANY THE LESS SUCH BECAUSE THE TAX COURT'S
DECISION OF IT IS RIGHT RATHER THAN WRONG.  WHETHER OR NOT ITS DECISION
IS "IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW" IS A QUESTION WHICH THE STATUTE, INT. REV.
CODE, SEC. 1141(C)(1), EXPRESSLY MAKES SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW. 
CONGRESS, WHEN IT THUS AUTHORIZED REVIEW OF QUESTIONS OF LAW ONLY, WAS
NOT UNAWARE OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF SUCH A REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF A
TRIBUNAL WHICH DECIDES QUESTIONS BOTH OF LAW AND OF FACT.  BUT CONGRESS
DID NOT DISPENSE WITH SUCH REVIEW. 

HENCE THE STATUTE DOES NOT LEAVE THE TAX COURT AS THE FINAL ARBITER
OF THE ISSUE WHETHER ITS OWN DECISIONS OF QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE RIGHT OR
WRONG.  THAT CAN ONLY BE ASCERTAINED UPON RESORT TO THE PRESCRIBED
APPELLATE PROCESS BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OF THE POINT OF LAW
INVOLVED, AND BY ITS DECISION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCESS, NOT
BEFORE IT BEGINS.  THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW, WHILE
ACCEPTING THE TAX COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT, HAS NEVERTHELESS REVERSED
ITS DECISION, WOULD SEEM NOT TO LEAVE THE QUESTION OF LAW DECIDED SO
FREE FROM DOUBT THAT THE MANDATE OF THE STATUTE COULD RIGHTLY BE
DISREGARDED ON ANY THEORY.  IF REVIEW WERE TO BE DENIED IN THIS CASE,
IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT ANY CONSTRUCTION OF A TAXING STATUTE
BY THE TAX COURT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW. 

WE TURN TO THE FIRST GROUND FOR REVERSAL RELIED ON BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THAT THE PROPERTY WAS HELD FOR DISTRIBUTION, AND NO LONGER FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME.  THE FACT THAT THE TRUSTEES, IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST, WERE REQUIRED TO INVEST ITS CORPUS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF INCOME AND TO DEVOTE THE INCOME TO THE PURPOSES OF THE
TRUST, ESTABLISHES, AS THE TAX COURT HELD, THAT THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS
HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME DURING THE STATED TERM OF THE TRUST. 
THE DECISIVE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PROPERTY CEASED TO BE HELD FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF INCOME BECAUSE, AS THE TRUST TERM REACHED ITS EXPIRY
DATE, THE TRUSTEES WERE UNDER A DUTY TO DISTRIBUTE THE PROPERTY AMONG
THE REMAINDERMEN. 

IT IS TRUE THAT EXPIRATION OF THE TRUST OPERATED TO CHANGE THE
BENEFICIARIES ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE INCOME OF THE TRUST PROPERTY,
FROM THOSE ENTITLED TO THE INCOME DURING THE TERM OF THE TRUST TO THE
REMAINDERMEN.  BUT THE DUTY OF THE TRUSTEES TO HOLD AND CONSERVE THE
TRUST PROPERTY, AND UNTIL DISTRIBUTION, TO RECEIVE INCOME FROM IT,
CONTINUED.  THE PROPERTY DID NOT CEASE TO BE HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME BECAUSE, UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE TRUST AND UNTIL
DISTRIBUTION, THE TRUSTEES WERE UNDER AN ADDITIONAL DUTY TO DISTRIBUTE
THE TRUST FUND, OR BECAUSE THE TRUSTEES, UPON DISTRIBUTION, WERE THEN
ACCOUNTABLE TO NEW AND DIFFERENT BENEFICIARIES, THE RESIDUARY LEGATEES,
BOTH FOR THE PRINCIPAL OF THE FUND AND ANY INCOME ACCUMULATING AFTER
THE EXPIRY DATE.  TO EXCLUDE FROM THE DEDUCTION PRIVILEGE, EXPENSES
WHICH THE TAX COURT HAS HELD TO BE EXPENSES OF MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST,
ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST FUND, UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE TRUST,
CEASED TO BE "HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE INCOME" WOULD BE TO
DISREGARD THE TAX COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE WORDS OF THE
STATUTE, AND WOULD DEFEAT ITS OBVIOUS PURPOSE. 

NOR IS THERE MERIT IN THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENSES WERE
NOT DEDUCTIBLE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME. 
THE PRODUCTION  ...  OF INCOME" AND EXPENSES OF "MANAGEMENT,
CONSERVATION, OR MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME."  TO READ THIS SECTION AS REQUIRING THAT EXPENSES BE PAID FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME IN ORDER TO BE DEDUCTIBLE, IS TO MAKE
UNNECESSARY AND TO READ OUT OF THE SECTION THE PROVISION FOR THE
DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES OF MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF INCOME. 

THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR SUCH A CONSTRUCTION.  SECTION 23(A)(2) IS
COMPARABLE AND IN PARI MATERIA WITH SEC. 23(A)(1), AUTHORIZING THE
DEDUCTION OF BUSINESS OR TRADE EXPENSES.  SUCH EXPENSES NEED NOT RELATE
DIRECTLY TO THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME FOR THE BUSINESS.  IT IS ENOUGH
THAT THE EXPENSE, IF "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY," IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED
WITH OR PROXIMATELY RESULTS FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS. 
KORNHAUSER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 152-153; COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER,
SUPRA, 470-471.  THE EFFECT OF SEC. 23(A)(2) WAS TO PROVIDE FOR A CLASS
OF NON-BUSINESS DEDUCTIONS COEXTENSIVE WITH THE BUSINESS DEDUCTIONS
ALLOWED BY SEC. 23(A)(1), EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT, SINCE THEY WERE NOT
INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH A BUSINESS, THE SECTION MADE IT NECESSARY
THAT THEY BE INCURRED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME OR IN THE MANAGEMENT
OR CONSERVATION OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME. 
MCDONALD V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, 61-62, 66; AND SEE H. REP. NO. 2333,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 46, 74-76; S. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., PP. 87-88. 

SINCE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT BUSINESS EXPENSES BE FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF INCOME, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT REQUIREMENT IN THE
CASE OF LIKE EXPENSES OF MANAGING A TRUST, SO LONG AS THEY ARE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY WHICH IS HELD FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF INCOME.  SECTION 23(A)(2) THUS TREATS THE TRUST AS AN
ENTITY FOR PRODUCING INCOME COMPARABLE TO A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, AND
LIKE SEC. 23(A)(1) PERMITS DEDUCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT EXPENSES OF THE
TRUST, EVEN THOUGH THE PARTICULAR EXPENSE WAS NOT AN EXPENSE DIRECTLY
PRODUCING INCOME.  IT FOLLOWS THAT ALL OF THE ITEMS OF EXPENSE HERE IN
QUESTION ARE DEDUCTIBLE IF, AS THE TAX COURT HAS HELD, THEY ARE
EXPENSES OF MANAGEMENT OR CONSERVATION OF THE TRUST FUND, WHETHER THEIR
EXPENDITURE DID OR DID NOT RESULT IN THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST TO LEGATEES ARE NOT
DEDUCTIBLE, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EXPENSES OF MANAGING INCOME PRODUCING
PROPERTY, BUT EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVOLUTION OF THE
PROPERTY.  IF THE SUGGESTION IS CORRECT, IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT EXPENSES
INCURRED IN DISTRIBUTING THE INCOME OF THE TRUST TO THE INCOME
BENEFICIARIES ARE LIKEWISE NOT DEDUCTIBLE, SINCE THE DISTRIBUTION OF
INCOME IS ALSO A DEVOLUTION OF TRUST PROPERTY.  BUT THE DUTIES OF THE
TRUSTEES WERE NOT ONLY TO HOLD THE PROPERTY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME AND TO COLLECT THE INCOME, BUT ALSO, IN ADMINISTERING THE TRUST,
TO DISTRIBUTE THE INCOME AND THE PRINCIPAL SO HELD FROM TIME TO TIME,
AND THE REMAINDER OF THE PRINCIPAL AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TRUST. 
PERFORMANCE OF EACH OF THESE DUTIES IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CARRYING OUT
THE TRUST ENTERPRISE.  ACCORDINGLY, AS THE TAX COURT HELD, THE COSTS OF
DISTRIBUTION HERE WERE QUITE AS MUCH EXPENSES OF A FUNCTION OF
"MANAGEMENT" OF THE TRUST PROPERTY AS WERE EXPENSES INCURRED IN
PRODUCING THE TRUST INCOME; AND IF "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY," THEY WERE
DEDUCTIBLE. 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, THE GOVERNMENT RELIES UPON A PART OF
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT, ACCOMPANYING THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, SEE H. REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 75,
AND UPON TREAS. REGS. 103, SEC. 19.23(A)-15, NEITHER OF WHICH WAS
MENTIONED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THEY STATE THAT AN ADMINISTRATOR OR
EXECUTOR MAY NOT DEDUCT EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ESTATE OF A DECEDENT, INCLUDING THOSE OF DISTRIBUTING ASSETS TO THE
BENEFICIARIES.  IT IS ARGUED THAT BY ANALOGY LIKE EXPENSES OF TRUSTEES
SHOULD NOT BE DEDUCTIBLE.  BUT IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH
STATEMENT IN THE REPORT OR REGULATIONS AS TO THE DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES
OF TRUSTEES.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE REGULATIONS, SEC. 19.23(A)-15, IN
DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH EXPENSES OF TRUSTEES, PROVIDES ONLY THAT
THEIR EXPENSES OF MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY
HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME ARE DEDUCTIBLE.  AND THE REFERENCES
IN THE REPORT TO THE NON-DEDUCTIBILITY OF EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATORS
AND EXECUTORS WERE IN EXPLANATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO
PREVENT THE SPECIFIED ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES FROM BEING DEDUCTIBLE
BOTH FOR INCOME AND ESTATE TAXATION.  TO ACCOMPLISH THAT PURPOSE THE
REPORT RECOMMENDED AN AMENDMENT, WHICH BECAME SEC. 161(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, ADDING SEC. 162(E) TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 
ALLOWABLE UNDER SEC. 812(B) AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE NET ESTATE
OF A DECEDENT SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 23." 
HERE, AS THE TAX COURT FOUND, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A DOUBLE
DEDUCTION, SINCE THE EXPENSES WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE DECEDENT'S
ESTATE TAX RETURN. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE TO THE EXPENSES OF
CONTESTING THE TAX DEFICIENCY.  SECTION 23(A)(2) DOES NOT RESTRICT
DEDUCTIONS TO THOSE LITIGATION EXPENSES WHICH ALONE PRODUCE INCOME.  ON
THE CONTRARY, BY ITS TERMS AND IN ANALOGY WITH THE RULE UNDER SEC.
23(A)(1), THE BUSINESS EXPENSE SECTION, THE TRUST, A TAXABLE ENTITY
LIKE A BUSINESS, MAY DEDUCT LITIGATION EXPENSES WHEN THEY ARE DIRECTLY
CONNECTED WITH OR PROXIMATELY RESULT FROM THE ENTERPRISE - THE
MANAGEMENT OF PROPERTY HELD FOR PRODUCTION OF INCOME.  KORNHAUSER V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 152-153; COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, SUPRA, 470
471.  THE TAX COURT COULD FIND AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS IT DID, THAT THE
EXPENSES OF CONTESTING THE INCOME TAXES WERE A PROXIMATE RESULT OF THE
HOLDING OF THE PROPERTY FOR INCOME.  AND WE CANNOT SAY, AS A MATTER OF
LAW, THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE ANY LESS DEDUCTIBLE THAN EXPENSES OF SUITS
TO RECOVER INCOME.  CF. COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, SUPRA. 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON TREAS. REGS. 103, SEC. 19.23(A)-15, WHICH
PROVIDE THAT "EXPENDITURES INCURRED  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERING
TAXES (OTHER THAN RECOVERIES REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN INCOME), OR FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RESISTING A PROPOSED ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT OF TAXES
(OTHER THAN TAXES ON PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME) ARE
NOT DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES UNDER THIS SECTION (SEC. 23(A)(2) OF THE CODE),
EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF WHICH THE TAXPAYER CLEARLY SHOWS TO BE
PROPERLY ALLOCABLE TO THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED
IN INCOME."  SO FAR AS THIS REGULATION PURPORTS TO DENY DEDUCTION OF
LITIGATION EXPENSE UNLESS IT IS TO PRODUCE INCOME, IT IS NOT IN
CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTE, FOR THE REASONS ALREADY STATED, OR WITH THE
REGULATION ALREADY MENTIONED, WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN ADDITION TO
EXPENSES FOR THE PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF TRUST INCOME, EXPENSES OF
MANAGEMENT OR CONSERVATION OF TRUST PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
INCOME ARE ALSO DEDUCTIBLE.  TO THAT EXTENT AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
DEPARTS FROM THE RULE OF KORNHAUSER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, IT
CONFLICTS WITH THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF SEC. 23(A)(2), AND SO IS
UNAUTHORIZED.  HELVERING V. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 306 U.S. 110. 

WE FIND NO ERROR OF LAW IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT.  ITS
JUDGMENT WILL BE AFFIRMED AND THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE, E.G., SECURITY MILLS CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 321 U.S. 281,
286; DOUGLAS V. COMMISSIONER, 322 U.S. 275; COMMISSIONER V. HARMON, 323
U.S. 44; MCDONALD V. COMMISSIONER, 323 U.S. 57; CLARIDGE APARTMENTS CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 323 U.S. 141, 145; FONDREN V. COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S.
18; CHOATE V. COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 1; COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF
FIELD, 324 U.S. 113; WEBRE STEIB CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 164;
COMMISSIONER V. SMITH, 324 U.S. 177; COMMISSIONER V. WEMYSS, 324 U.S.
303; COMMISSIONER V. WHEELER, 324 U.S. 542; ESTATE OF PUTNAM V.
COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 393; ANGELUS MILLING CO. V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE,
P. 293; COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF BEDFORD, ANTE, P. 283; COMMISSIONER
V. DISSTON, POST, P. 442. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE GROUND OF THE DECISION IS
MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE DECISION ITSELF, EXCEPT TO THE PARTIES.  AND
SO, WHILE I CONCUR IN THE RESULT, I FEEL BOUND TO SAY THAT I THINK THE
MANNER IN WHICH IT IS REACHED IS CALCULATED TO INCREASE THE ALREADY
AMPLE DIFFICULTIES IN JUDICIAL REVIEW OF TAX COURT DETERMINATIONS.  THE
COURSE OF OUR DECISIONS SINCE DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489,
CALLS FOR CLARIFICATION AND AVOIDANCE OF FURTHER CONFUSION. 

IN DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, THIS COURT ELABORATELY CONSIDERED
THE SPECIAL FUNCTION OF THE TAX COURT AND THE VERY LIMITED FUNCTIONS OF
THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND OF THIS COURT IN REVIEWING THE TAX
COURT.  THE UNANIMOUS OPINION IN THE DOBSON CASE WAS SURELY A CASE OF
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, IF IT DID NOT EMPHASIZE THE VAST RANGE OF
QUESTIONS AS TO WHICH THE TAX COURT SHOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY.  IN
MAKING THE DOBSON PRONOUNCEMENT, THE COURT WAS NOT UNAWARE THAT
"QUESTIONS OF FACT" AND "QUESTIONS OF LAW" WERE LEGAL CONCEPTS AROUND
WHICH DIALECTIC CONFLICTS HAVE BEEN FOUGHT TIME OUT OF MIND.  THE
DOBSON OPINION TOOK FOR GRANTED THAT THEY ARE USEFUL INSTRUMENTS OF
THOUGHT EVEN THOUGH NOT AMENABLE TO FIXED CONNOTATIONS.  THE TERMS ARE
UNMANAGEABLE AND TOO CONFUSING IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT UNLESS THEY HAVE
INVARIANT MEANING, THAT IS, UNLESS THEY SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE FOR
EVERY LEGAL PROBLEM IN WHICH THEY ARE INVOKED, THEY CAN SERVE NO
PURPOSE FOR ANY PROBLEM.  THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DOBSON CASE, ONE HAD
A RIGHT TO BELIEVE, WAS THE RESTRICTION OF REVIEWABLE "QUESTIONS OF
LAW" IN TAX LITIGATION TO ISSUES APPROPRIATE FOR REVIEW IN RELATION TO
THE MACHINERY WHICH CONGRESS HAS DESIGNED FOR SUCH LITIGATION.  THE
DOBSON CASE ESCHEWED STERILE ATTEMPTS AT DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN "FACT"
AND "LAW" IN THE ABSTRACT.  INSTEAD, IT FOUND SIGNIFICANCE IN THE
SCHEME DEVISED BY CONGRESS FOR ADJUDICATING TAX CONTROVERSIES WHEREBY
CONGRESS HAD, IN THE MAIN, CENTRALIZED IN THE TAX COURT REVIEW OF TAX
DETERMINATIONS BY THE TREASURY AND HAD MADE THE DECISIONS OF THE TAX
COURT FINAL UNLESS THEY WERE "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW," 44 STAT. 9,
110, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1141(C)(1), WITH THE RESULT THAT, AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF TAX COURT DECISIONS GETS INTO THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, AND A STILL SMALLER PERCENTAGE REACHES THIS
COURT.  FN1  THEREFORE, THE DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS,
AND EVEN MORE SO OF THIS COURT, ARE BOUND TO BE MORE OR LESS EPISODIC
AND DEPENDENT UPON CONTINGENCIES THAT CANNOT GIVE THESE APPELLATE
COURTS THAT FEEL OF THE EXPERT WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT FOR WISE
CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH INTERRELATED AND COMPLICATED ENACTMENTS AS THOSE
WHICH CONSTITUTE OUR REVENUE LAWS.  THESE FACTORS, SO DECISIVE IN THE
STREAM OF TAX LITIGATION, WEIGH HEAVILY IN APPORTIONING FUNCTIONS
BETWEEN THE TAX COURT AND THE COURTS REVIEWING THE TAX COURT. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE VITAL GUIDANCE OF THE DOBSON OPINION WAS THAT A
DECISION OF THE TAX COURT SHOULD STAND UNLESS IT INVOLVES "A CLEAR-CUT
MISTAKE OF LAW," 320 U.S. 489, 502.  CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY PROPERLY
GOVERN WHAT ARE TO BE DEEMED QUESTIONS OF FACT AND QUESTIONS OF LAW AS
BETWEEN JUDGE AND JURY, OR CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO THE DRAWING OF A
LINE BETWEEN QUESTIONS OF FACT AND QUESTIONS OF LAW ON APPEAL FROM A
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, OR IN DETERMINING WHAT
IS A FORECLOSED QUESTION OF FACT IN CASES COMING TO THIS COURT FROM
STATE COURTS ON CLAIMS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, MAY BE QUITE MISLEADING
WHEN A DECISION OF THE TAX COURT IS CHALLENGED IN THE VARIOUS CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS OR HERE AS "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW." 

CERTAINLY, ALL DISPUTED QUESTIONS REGARDING EVENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
THE RAW MATERIALS, AS IT WERE, OF SITUATIONS WHICH GIVE RISE TO TAX
CONTROVERSIES - ARE FOR THE TAX COURT TO SETTLE AND DEFINITIVELY SO.
SECONDLY, THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT DO NOT INVOLVE DISPUTES AS TO WHAT
REALLY HAPPENED - AS, FOR INSTANCE, WHAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED OR WHAT
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS WAS MADE - BUT INSTEAD TURN ON THE MEANING OF
WHAT HAPPENED AS A MATTER OF BUSINESS PRACTICE OR BUSINESS RELEVANCE. 
HERE WE ARE IN THE DOMAIN OF FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS INTERPRETATION IN
RELATION TO TAXATION AS TO WHICH THE TAX COURT PRESUMABLY IS AS WELL
INFORMED BY EXPERIENCE AS ARE THE APPELLATE JUDGES AND CERTAINLY MORE
FREQUENTLY ENLIGHTENED BY THE VOLUME AND RANGE OF ITS LITIGATION.  SUCH
ISSUES BRING US TREACHEROUSLY NEAR TO WHAT ABSTRACTLY ARE USUALLY
CHARACTERIZED AS QUESTIONS OF LAW, WHETHER THE QUESTION OF DIVISION OF
LABOR IN A LITIGATION IS BETWEEN JUDGES AND LAY JURIES, OR BETWEEN
JUDGES OF FIRST INSTANCE AND OF APPELLATE COURTS WHEN THERE IS NO
DIFFERENCE OF SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES OF
JUDGES.  THUS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS HAS FOR HISTORIC REASONS
BEEN DEEMED TO BE A QUESTION OF LAW IN THE SENSE THAT THE MEANING IS TO
BE GIVEN BY JUDGES AND NOT BY LAYMEN.  BUT THIS CRUDE DIVISION BETWEEN
WHAT IS "LAW" AND WHAT IS "FACT" IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE PROPER
DEMARCATION OF FUNCTIONS AS BETWEEN THE TAX COURT AND THE REVIEWING
COURTS.  TO HOLD THAT THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, AND EVENTUALLY
THIS COURT, MUST MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE MEANING OF
EVERY WORD OF TAX LEGISLATION, NO MATTER WHETHER THE WORDS EXPRESS
ACCOUNTING, BUSINESS OR OTHER CONCEPTIONS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE SPECIAL
COMPETENCE OF THE TAX COURT, IS TO SACRIFICE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
JUDICIAL SCHEME DESIGNED BY CONGRESS ESPECIALLY FOR TAX LITIGATION TO
AN ABSTRACT NOTION OF "LAW" DERIVED FROM THE MERELY HISTORIC FUNCTION
OF COURTS GENERALLY TO CONSTRUE DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING LEGISLATION.  MORE
THAN THAT.  IF THE APPELLATE COURTS MUST MAKE AN INDEPENDENT
EXAMINATION OF THE MEANING OF EVERY WORD IN TAX LEGISLATION, ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE IS NECESSARILY
FOR THE APPELLATE COURTS, HOW CAN THEY REASONABLY REFUSE TO CONSIDER
CLAIMS THAT THE WORDS HAVE BEEN MISAPPLIED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A
PARTICULAR CASE?  MEANING DERIVES VITALITY FROM APPLICATION.  MEANING
IS EASILY THWARTED OR DISTORTED BY MISAPPLICATION.  IF THE APPELLATE
COURTS ARE CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF GIVING MEANING TO WORDS BECAUSE
THEY ARE CONTAINED IN TAX LEGISLATION, THEY EQUALLY CANNOT ESCAPE THE
DUTY OF EXAMINING INDEPENDENTLY WHETHER A PROPER APPLICATION HAS BEEN
GIVEN BY THE TAX COURT.    THE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT OF THE TAX COURT
AND THE TRAINED INSTINCT THAT COMES FROM ITS EXPERIENCE OUGHT TO LEAVE
WITH THE TAX COURT THE FINAL SAY ALSO AS TO MATTERS WHICH INVOLVE
CONSTRUCTION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION EVEN
THOUGH THE PROCESS MAY BE EXPRESSED IN GENERAL PROPOSITIONS, SO LONG AS
THE TAX COURT HAS NOT COMMITTED WHAT WAS CHARACTERIZED IN THE DOBSON
CASE AS A "CLEAR-CUT MISTAKE OF LAW." 

THAT SERVES AS A GUIDE FOR JUDGMENT EVEN THOUGH NO INCLUSIVE
DEFINITION OR CATALOGUE IS ESSAYED.  THE TAX COURT OF COURSE MUST
CONFORM TO THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
LAWS OF CONGRESS COMMAND.  LIKEWISE, IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
REVENUE LAWS, THE TAX COURT MUST KEEP WITHIN WHAT MAY BROADLY BE CALLED
THE OUTWARD LIMITS OF CATEGORIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS EXPRESSING
LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  CONGRESS HAS INVESTED THE TAX COURT WITH PRIMARY -
AND LARGELY WITH ULTIMATE - AUTHORITY FOR REDETERMINING DEFICIENCIES. 
IT IS A TRIBUNAL TO WHICH MASTERY IN TAX MATTERS MUST BE ATTRIBUTED. 
THE AUTHORITY WHICH CONGRESS HAS THUS GIVEN THE TAX COURT INVOLVES THE
DETERMINATION OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN A SITUATION AND WHAT IT MEANS
IN THE TAXING WORLD.  IN ORDER TO REDETERMINE DEFICIENCIES THE TAX
COURT MUST APPLY TECHNICAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES.  THE INTERPRETATION OF TAX
STATUTES AND THEIR APPLICATION TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ALL
MATTERS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE TAX COURT.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION, DETERMINATION OF LOCAL LAW
QUESTIONS AND COMMON LAW RULES OF PROPERTY, SUCH AS THE MEANING OF A
"GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT" OR THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE AGAINST
PERPETUITIES, ARE OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL PROVINCE OF THE TAX COURT.  SEE
PAUL, DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER:  THE STRANGE WAYS OF LAW AND FACT (1944)
57 HARV. L. REV. 753, 847-48.  CONGRESS DID NOT AUTHORIZE REVIEW OF ALL
LEGAL QUESTIONS UPON WHICH THE TAX COURT PASSED.  IT MERELY ALLOWED
MODIFICATION OR REVERSAL IF THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT IS "NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  BUT IF A STATUTE UPON WHICH THE TAX COURT
UNMISTAKABLY HAS TO PASS ALLOWS THE TAX COURT'S APPLICATION OF THE LAW
TO THE SITUATION BEFORE IT AS A REASONABLE ONE - IF THE SITUATION
COULD, WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO LANGUAGE, BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE TERMS UNDER
WHICH THE TAX COURT PLACED IT OR BE KEPT OUT OF THE TERMS FROM WHICH
THAT COURT KEPT IT - THE TAX COURT CANNOT IN REASON BE SAID TO HAVE
ACTED "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  IN SHORT, THERE WAS NO "CLEAR-CUT
MISTAKE OF LAW" BUT A FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF IT. 

IF THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE TO PREVAIL, THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE A
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS WHETHER THE DECISION BY THE TAX COURT
PRESENTS A "CLEAR-CUT MISTAKE OF LAW."  THERE SHOULD BE AN END OF THE
MATTER ONCE IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE TAX COURT
WAS AN ALLOWABLE ONE.  IF A QUESTION BECOMES A REVIEWABLE QUESTION IN
TAX CASES BECAUSE, ABSTRACTLY CONSIDERED, IT MAY BE CAST INTO A "PURE
QUESTION OF LAW," IT WOULD REQUIRE NO GREAT DIALECTICAL SKILL TO THROW
MOST EQUESTIONS WHICH ARE APPEALED FROM THE TAX COURT INTO QUESTIONS OF
LAW INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWABLE BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  THE
ROAD WOULD BE OPEN TO A NEW INSISTENCE FOR INCREASED TAX REVIEWS BY
THIS COURT ON CERTIORARI.  THE INTENTION OF THE DOBSON CASE WAS
PRECISELY OTHERWISE.  IT WAS TO CENTRALIZE RESPONSIBILITY IN THE TAX
COURT, TO MINIMIZE ISOLATED INTRUSIONS BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
INTO THE TECHNICAL COMPLEXITIES OF TAX DETERMINATIONS EXCEPT WHEN THE
TAX COURT HAS CLEARLY TRANSCENDED ITS SPECIALIZED COMPETENCE, AND TO
DISCOURAGE RESORT TO THIS COURT IN TAX CASES EXCEPT WHERE CONFLICT
AMONG THE CIRCUITS OR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS OR A "CLEAR-CUT MISTAKE
OF LAW" OF REAL IMPORTANCE MAY CALL FOR OUR INTERVENTION. 

LET US APPLY THESE GOVERNING CONSIDERATIONS TO THE CASE IN HAND.  THE
TRUSTEES HERE PAID, AS EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRUST, CERTAIN
LEGAL FEES, AND THESE CHARGES THEY DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS TRUST INCOME
FOR 1940.  THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THESE DEDUCTIONS.  THE LEGAL
SERVICES CONCERNED (1) LITIGATION IN WHICH THE TRUSTEES UNSUCCESSFULLY
CONTESTED A DEFICIENCY CLAIM BASED ON TAXABLE GAIN TO THE ESTATE, (2)
PAYMENT OF A LEGACY, AND (3) PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE EXPIRATION OF
THE TRUST AND THE DISPOSITION OF ITS ASSETS.  THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE
THE TAX COURT WAS WHETHER THESE FEES AND CHANGES WERE DEDUCTIBLE AS
EXPENSES INCURRED "FOR THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION, OR MAINTENANCE OF
PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME" UNDER SEC. 121(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798, 819. 

WHETHER THESE PAYMENTS CONSTITUTED EXPENSES "FOR THE MANAGEMENT  ...
OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME," MAY AS FAIRLY BE SAID
TO BE A QUESTION OF FACT, NAMELY, THE PURPOSE WHICH THESE PAYMENTS
SERVED WITH RELATION TO PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME, AS
IT COULD BE SAID THAT THEY INVOLVE A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF WHAT THE
STATUTE MEANS BY "MANAGEMENT" OF SUCH PROPERTY.  THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER IS THAT THE PROBLEM INVOLVES A JUDGMENT REGARDING THE INTERPLAY
OF BOTH QUESTIONS, NAMELY, WHAT RELATION DO THESE PAYMENTS HAVE TO WHAT
MAY PROPERLY BE DEEMED THE MANAGERIAL DUTIES OF TRUSTEES.  IT IS
POSSIBLE TO TRANSFORM EVERY SO-CALLED QUESTION OF FACT CONCERNING THE
PROPRIETY OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY TRUSTEES INTO A GENERALIZED INQUIRY
AS TO WHAT THE DUTIES OF A TRUSTEE ARE AND, THEREFORE, WHETHER A
PARTICULAR ACTIVITY SATISFIED THE CONCEPTION OF MANAGEMENT WHICH
TRUSTEESHIP DEVOLVES UPON A TRUSTEE.  SUCH A WAY OF DEALING WITH THESE
PROBLEMS INEVITABLY LEADS TO CASUISTRIES WHICH ARE TO BE AVOIDED BY A
FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE TAX COURT AND THE REVIEWING
COURTS.  THE FACT THAT THIS PROBLEM MAY BE CAST IN THE FORM OF
INTELLECTUALLY DISINTERESTED ABSTRACTIONS GOES A LONG WAY TO PROVE THAT
ITS SOLUTION SHOULD BE LEFT WITH THE TAX COURT. 

IF THE DECISION BY THE TAX COURT MAY FAIRLY BE DEEMED THAT THE
"ISSUES ARE BROADER THAN THE PARTICULAR FACTS IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE AN
ISSUE OF "FACT."  BUT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE "ISSUES ARE BROADER THAN
THE PARTICULAR FACTS PRESENTED" BY THIS CASE, THE TAX COURT'S DECISION
IS NOT DEPRIVED OF FINALITY.  YET AN ASSUMPTION TO THE CONTRARY IS AT
THE CORE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT.  SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CORRECTNESS
OF "CERTAIN GENERAL PROPOSITIONS" IS INVOLVED DOES NOT MAKE THE
POSITION TAKEN BY THE TAX COURT A QUESTION OF LAW.  THE REAL QUESTION
IS:  WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE ISSUE UPON WHICH THE TAX COURT HAS
PRONOUNCED?  IF THE ISSUE PRESENTS A DIFFICULTY WHICH IT IS PECULIARLY
WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE TAX COURT TO RESOLVE AND THAT COURT HAS
GIVEN A FAIR ANSWER, EVERY CONSIDERATION WHICH LED TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT
IN THE DOBSON CASE SHOULD PRECLUDE INDEPENDENT REEXAMINATION OF THE TAX
COURT'S DISPOSITION.  REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE QUESTION MAY BE TERMED FOR
PURPOSES OF REVIEW, THE TAX COURT'S DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ACCORDED
FINALITY.  THAT THE TAX COURT HAS EXPRESSED AN ALLOWABLE OPINION AS TO
THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF A TAX PROVISION, HERE SEC. 121(A) OF THE
1942 REVENUE ACT, SHOULD SUFFICE TO REINSTATE ITS DECISION, WITHOUT
OPENING THE SLUICES TO INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS AND THIS COURT OF MULTITUDINOUS TAX QUESTIONS.  SUCH IS THE
PRINCIPLE OR RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION WHICH SHOULD GUIDE REVIEW
OF TAX COURT DETERMINATIONS. 

FN1  AS A MATTER OF HISTORIC SURVIVAL, SOME TAX LITIGATION STILL
REACHES DISTRICT COURTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  TO THAT EXTENT THERE
IS A QUALIFICATION UPON THE CENTRALIZATION OF REVIEW IN THE TAX COURT
OF TREASURY DETERMINATIONS.  BUT THE OVERWHELMING VOLUME OF TAX
LITIGATION GOES TO THE TAX COURT.  THE RATIO IS ABOUT 6 TO 1.  THE FACT
THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS CONTINUE TO HAVE VESTIGIAL JURISDICTION MAY
CALL FOR A SCIENTIFIC REVAMPING OF JURISDICTION IN TAX CASES.  IT DOES
NOT COUNSEL AGAINST GIVING THE FULLEST EFFICACY TO TAX COURT DECISIONS
CONSONANT WITH ITS SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY.  SEE GRISWOLD, THE NEED FOR
A COURT OF TAX APPEALS (1944) 57 HARV. L. REV. 1153; MILLER, CAN TAX
APPEALS BE CENTRALIZED?  (1945) 23 TAXES 303. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS CONCURRING
OPINION. 
..END :


















AMERICAN POWER CO. V. S.E.C., 325 U.S. 385 


ARGUED APRIL 26, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1945.  - 143 F.2D 250,
REVERSED.  - 143 F.2D 945, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 24(A) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT, WHICH
GRANTS A RIGHT OF REVIEW TO "ANY PERSON OR PARTY AGGRIEVED" BY AN ORDER
ISSUED BY THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION UNDER THE ACT, A
STOCKHOLDER HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL OR ECONOMIC INTEREST
DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE CORPORATION, WHICH IS DIRECTLY AND ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, IS A "PERSON AGGRIEVED."  P.
388. 

2.  A SOLE STOCKHOLDER OF A COMPANY ORDERED BY THE SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMMISSION UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT TO
MAKE CERTAIN ACCOUNTING ENTRIES WHICH WOULD AFFECT ADVERSELY THE
STOCKHOLDER'S RIGHT TO DIVIDENDS, HELD ENTITLED UNDER SEC. 24(A) TO A
REVIEW OF THE ORDER AS A "PERSON AGGRIEVED."  PITTSBURGH & WEST
VIRGINIA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 479, DISTINGUISHED.  P.
389. 

3.  WHERE REVIEW OF AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT IS APPLIED FOR
IN MORE THAN ONE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THAT ONE IN WHICH THE
COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 24(A) FILES A TRANSCRIPT OF ITS PROCEEDINGS
THEREUPON HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  P. 391. 

4.  A STOCKHOLDER OWNING 9,000 OUT OF A TOTAL OF SOME 5,250,000
SHARES OF STOCK OF A CORPORATION, CHARGING ILLEGALITY AND FRAUD IN A
REFINANCING TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE CORPORATION AND A SUBSIDIARY WHICH
WOULD REDUCE THE VALUE OF HIS STOCK BY REDUCING THE INTEREST INCOME OF
HIS CORPORATION, HELD ENTITLED, UNDER SEC. 24(A), AS A "PERSON
AGGRIEVED," TO A REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION APPROVING THE
TRANSACTION.  PP. 387, 392. 

5.  IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE STOCKHOLDER'S RIGHT TO A REVIEW IN
SUCH CASE THAT THE PROCEEDING HAVE THE CHARACTER OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT. 
P. 392. 

AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 

NO. 470.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 815, SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. OKIN, ON
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 701, 324 U.S. 835, TO REVIEW, IN NO. 470, THE
DISMISSAL OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION; AND,
IN NO. 815, DENIALS OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS (AND TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM) A
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THESE CASES BECAUSE OF AN APPARENT CONFLICT
IN THE DECISIONS BELOW  FN1 CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 24(A) OF
THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT,  FN2  WHICH PROVIDES THAT "ANY
PERSON OR PARTY AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION" UNDER
THE ACT MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF THE ORDER BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE CIRCUIT OF HIS RESIDENCE OR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS.  THE DIFFERENCE OF VIEW IS AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE PHRASE
"PERSON OR PARTY AGGRIEVED." 

IN NO. 470 IT APPEARS THAT THE PETITIONER IS A REGISTERED HOLDING
COMPANY AND OWNS ALL THE COMMON STOCK OF THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY.  THE PARAGRAPHS OF THE ORDER IN CONTROVERSY REQUIRE FLORIDA TO
MAKE CERTAIN ACCOUNTING ENTRIES WHICH WILL RESULT IN TAKING OUT OF
SURPLUS MONEYS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE TO PAY DIVIDENDS TO
PETITIONER.  THE ORDER INCLUDING THESE PARAGRAPHS WAS MADE AS THE
RESULT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO WHICH AMERICAN AND
FLORIDA WERE PARTIES, AND IN WHICH AMERICAN PARTICIPATED; AND THE
PROVISIONS IN CONTROVERSY APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DRAWN WITH A VIEW THAT
THEY MIGHT BE CONTESTED APART FROM OTHER MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION,
AND TO HAVE INCLUDED STATEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY WERE MADE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN AND FLORIDA TO CONTEST
THEM. 

AMERICAN PETITIONED THE COURT BELOW TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER.  LATER
FLORIDA PETITIONED ANOTHER CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO SET ASIDE THE
SAME PARAGRAPH ATTACKED BY AMERICAN.  THE COMMISSION MOVED TO DISMISS
AMERICAN'S PETITION, RECITING THE FACT THAT FLORIDA HAD INSTITUTED A
SIMILAR PROCEEDING, AND ASSERTING THAT AMERICAN, AS SOLE STOCKHOLDER,
HAD NO STANDING TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE ORDER. 

IN NO. 815 IT APPEARS THAT ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE COMPANY, A
REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY, LOANED $35,000,000 TO A SUBSIDIARY,
AMERICAN AND FOREIGN POWER COMPANY, WHICH IS ALSO A REGISTERED HOLDING
COMPANY, AND THAT THE QUESTION OF HOW THIS LOAN SHOULD BE REFINANCED
BECAME THE SUBJECT OF A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

THE RESPONDENT, OKIN, AS THE OWNER OF 9,000 OUT OF A TOTAL OF SOME
5,250,000 COMMON SHARES OF ELECTRIC BOND AND SHARE, WAS ALLOWED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDING, AND OPPOSED A PROPOSITION WHICH THE TWO
COMPANIES SUBMITTED FOR A METHOD OF REFINANCING THE LOAN.  THE
COMMISSION MADE AN ORDER APPROVING THE PROPOSAL; AND OKIN THEREUPON
PETITIONED THE COURT BELOW TO REVIEW THE ORDER.  THE GIST OF HIS
COMPLAINT WAS THAT THE REFINANCING AS APPROVED WOULD REDUCE THE VALUE
OF HIS STOCK BY REDUCING THE INTEREST INCOME OF ELECTRIC BOND AND
SHARE. 

THE COMMISSION, BEFORE FILING A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF
THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF WAS ENTERED, MOVED TO
DISMISS OKIN'S PETITION UPON TWO GROUNDS.  THE FIRST WAS THAT, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 24(A), OKIN WAS NOT A PERSON OR PARTY AGGRIEVED. 
THE SECOND WAS THAT HIS OBJECTION TO THE ORDER WAS FRIVOLOUS.  IN
RESPONSE TO THIS THE COURT HELD THAT, WHILE IT MIGHT WELL BE THAT
OKIN'S ATTACK LACKED MERIT, IF IT DID THE RESULT SHOULD BE AN
AFFIRMANCE OF THE ORDER RATHER THAN A DISMISSAL OF THE PROCEEDING, AND
THAT JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE MERITS WAS LACKING IN THE ABSENCE OF
A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THE MOTION WAS
ACCORDINGLY DENIED. 

THE COMMISSION ALLEGES THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IT FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS
OR AFFIRM, AFTER HAVING FILED AN ABBREVIATED TRANSCRIPT CONTAINING SO
MUCH OF THE RECORD AS WAS RELIED ON FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MOTION, AND
THAT THIS MOTION WAS DENIED WITHOUT OPINION.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT A
MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM WAS DENIED WITHOUT OPINION. 

THE COMMISSION ASKS US TO REVIEW BOTH DENIALS.  THE RESPONDENT
INSISTS WE LACK JURISDICTION SO TO DO, FOR THE REASON THAT NEITHER
ORDER IS FINAL. 

FIRST.  WE HOLD THAT A STOCKHOLDER HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL OR
ECONOMIC INTEREST DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE CORPORATION WHICH IS
DIRECTLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION,
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY EFFECT THE ORDER MAY HAVE ON THE CORPORATION, IS A
"PERSON AGGRIEVED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 24(A). 

THE COMMISSION DOES NOT QUESTION THAT AMERICAN, AS SOLE STOCKHOLDER
OF FLORIDA, HAS A SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC INTEREST WHICH IS AFFECTED BY
THE ORDER; NOR DOES IT MAINTAIN THAT THE TERM "PERSON AGGRIEVED" IS NOT
BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ONE WHOSE ECONOMIC INTEREST IS AFFECTED BY AN
ORDER AFFECTING HIS COMPANY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAKE IT
INEQUITABLE THAT HE BE BOUND BY THE ACTION OR INACTION OF THE
MANAGEMENT.  IT INSISTS, HOWEVER, THAT AMERICAN'S APPLICATION FOR
REVIEW IN THE COURT BELOW WAS IN THE NATURE OF A DERIVATIVE ACTION,
COMMONLY DESIGNATED A STOCKHOLDER'S SUIT, TO REDRESS A WRONG TO HIS
CORPORATION.  IN THIS VIEW, THE COMMISSION URGES THAT, AS FLORIDA HAS
ITSELF SOUGHT A REVIEW OF THE ORDER, IT MUST BE PRESUMED THAT FLORIDA
WILL ENDEAVOR TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER,
AMERICAN, AND THAT AMERICAN HAS CONSEQUENTLY FAILED TO SHOW ANY
NECESSITY FOR ITS REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF FLORIDA. 

THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS CONTENTION IS THAT THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION IN ORDERING THE TRANSFER OF AN ITEM FROM SURPLUS ACCOUNT TO
ANOTHER ACCOUNT WHERE THE ITEM WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF
DIVIDENDS DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE CORPORATION OF ANY ASSET OR ADVERSELY
AFFECT THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS IN THE MANNER IT AFFECTS THE
PETITIONER, WHEREAS THE ORDER HAS A DIRECT ADVERSE EFFECT UPON AMERICAN
AS A STOCKHOLDER ENTITLED TO DIVIDENDS.  IT WAS BECAUSE THE COURT BELOW
OVERLOOKED THIS DIFFERENCE THAT IT FOUND SUPPORT FOR ITS DECISION IN
PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 479.  THAT
WAS A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT TO SET ASIDE AN
ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ADDRESSED TO A CARRIER
OTHER THAN THE PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT.  THE PLAINTIFF WAS A MINORITY
STOCKHOLDER OF THE CARRIER AFFECTED.  THIS COURT POINTED OUT THAT,
UNDER THE ACCEPTED DOCTRINE, THE PLAINTIFF HAD NO STANDING TO SUE SINCE
IN ATTEMPTING TO DO SO IT WAS MERELY SEEKING, IN A DERIVATIVE CAPACITY,
TO VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF THE CORPORATION. 

IN AWARDING A REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, CONGRESS HAS
POWER TO FORMULATE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH RESORT TO THE COURTS MAY
BE HAD.  FN3  THE PERSONS ACCORDED A RIGHT TO OBTAIN REVIEW ARE,
THEREFORE, TO BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE.  CONGRESS
MIGHT HERE HAVE PROVIDED THAT ONLY PARTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE STANDING TO OBTAIN COURT REVIEW.  WHEN THE BILL
WHICH BECAME THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT WAS INTRODUCED IN
THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS IT PROVIDED THAT "ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY AN
ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS TITLE TO
WHICH SUCH PERSON IS A PARTY MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER."  FN4
THE PROVISION WAS ALTERED SO AS TO READ AS IT IS NOW FOUND IN THE
STATUTE.  THERE SEEMS TO BE NO REASON NOT TO ACCORD THE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE ITS NATURAL MEANING IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, WHERE THE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WOULD MOVE THE CORPORATION TO SEEK REVIEW DIFFER
FROM THOSE WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE STOCKHOLDER'S INTERESTS.  THERE
MAY BE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE TWO INTERESTS ARE THE SAME AND WHERE
CONSEQUENTLY THE GRIEVANCE OUGHT NOT TO SUPPORT TWO PROCEEDINGS
IDENTICAL IN CHARACTER.  THIS, HOWEVER, IS NOT SUCH A CASE; FOR IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT WITHOUT ANY LEGAL WRONG TO STOCKHOLDERS THE CORPORATION
MAY ELECT NOT TO PROSECUTE, OR TO ABANDON, A PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW. 

THIS COURT HAS NOT ALLOWED THE USUAL CRITERIA OF STANDING TO SUE TO
DENY PERSONS WHO, IN ANALOGOUS CASES UNDER THAT DOCTRINE, WOULD
ORDINARILY NOT BE PERMITTED TO INVOKE COURT REVIEW, THE BENEFIT OF SUCH
REVIEW UNDER STATUTES EMBODYING THE SAME LANGUAGE AS SEC. 24(A).  FN5
THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  FN6  IN THESE INSTANCES
THE EXTENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE TO PERSONS AGGRIEVED WAS HELD TO EXTEND
IT TO THOSE NOT TECHNICALLY PARTIES, AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED,
WITHOUT THE STATUTORY PROVISION, TO INITIATE LITIGATION IN A COURT. 

WHILE THE MATTER WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY MOOTED, IT WOULD SEEM THAT,
UNTIL THE INSTANT CASES, BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS HAVE BEEN
OF THE VIEW THAT PERSONS SITUATED AS ARE THE STOCKHOLDERS IN THESE
CASES WERE GIVEN THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO APPLY FOR REVIEW OF A
COMMISSION ORDER.  IN CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, AND IN THIS COURT,
STOCKHOLDERS HAVE BEEN HEARD UPON THE MERITS OF ORDERS MADE AGAINST
CORPORATIONS BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.  FN7 

THE FURTHER SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT TO PERMIT STOCKHOLDERS TO RESORT
TO COURT REVIEW WOULD CREATE UNNECESSARY INCONVENIENCE AND EXPENSE
SINCE A STOCKHOLDER ENTITLED TO APPLY TO A COURT MAY GO TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH HE RESIDES OR HAS HIS
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.  THUS, IT IS URGED, THE COMMISSION MIGHT
BE CALLED UPON TO ANSWER SUITS IN VARIOUS CIRCUITS.  BUT SEC. 24(A)
PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION MAY FILE A TRANSCRIPT OF ITS PROCEEDINGS
IN ANY CIRCUIT IN WHICH A PROCEEDING HAS BEEN INITIATED AND THEREUPON
THE COURT IN WHICH THE TRANSCRIPT IS FILED SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION.  THUS, IF THE COMMISSION HAD HERE ELECTED TO FILE A
TRANSCRIPT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHERE FLORIDA APPLIED FOR
REVIEW, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, IN WHICH
AMERICAN'S PETITION WAS FILED, SHOULD HAVE TRANSFERRED THAT PETITION TO
THE OTHER COURT AND ALL THE COMPLAINTS WOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD BY A
SINGLE COURT AND ON THE SAME RECORD.  FN8 

SECOND.  IN NO. 815, THE COURT BELOW HELD THE RESPONDENT HAD STANDING
TO MAINTAIN THE PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  IN
THIS CASE, OKIN, AS A STOCKHOLDER, ATTACKED THE TRANSACTION MADE BY HIS
COMPANY WITH ITS SUBSIDIARY ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS BOTH ILLEGAL AND
FRAUDULENT.  HIS CORPORATION URGED THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE THE
TRANSACTION, THUS TAKING A POSITION ADVERSE TO HIM.  HIS APPLICATION
FOR REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT WAS,
THEREFORE, IN THE NATURE OF A DERIVATIVE OR STOCKHOLDER'S ACTION. 
INASMUCH AS HE CHARGED ILLEGALITY AND FRAUD, IT IS EVIDENT THAT
APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WOULD HAVE BEEN FUTILE.  UNDER
THE COMMISSION'S OWN VIEW, THEREFORE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
RIGHT IN DENYING A DISMISSAL OF THE PROCEEDING FOR LACK OF STANDING ON
THE PART OF OKIN TO INITIATE IT. BUT, AS ABOVE STATED IN THE DECISION
OF NO. 470, WE DO NOT DEEM IT ESSENTIAL THAT THE PROCEEDING HAVE THE
CHARACTER OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT. 

THE COMMISSION URGES US TO HOLD THAT THE PETITION ON ITS FACE PRESENTS
ONLY FRIVOLOUS CONTENTIONS.  THE COURT BELOW WAS UNWILLING TO DISMISS
ON THIS GROUND, HOLDING THAT A MORE APPROPRIATE ORDER WOULD BE ONE OF
AFFIRMANCE.  IT REQUIRED THAT THE RECORD BE FILED, AS REQUIRED BY THE
ACT, AS A CONDITION OF CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER.  APPARENTLY IT WAS
NOT SATISFIED THAT THE FILING OF AN ABBREVIATED TRANSCRIPT FURNISHED A
BASIS FOR AFFIRMANCE.  THE COMMISSION, WITHOUT INORDINATE DELAY OR
ADDITIONAL EXPENSE, MIGHT HAVE FILED THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT AND OBTAINED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ON THE
ADEQUACY OF THE PETITION.  WE THINK WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE
THE MERITS OF THE COMMISSION'S CONTENTIONS OR TO REVERSE THE DECISION
DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS, OR THAT DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS OR
AFFIRM.  THE COURT BELOW HAS DISCRETION TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE
NECESSITY OF A RECORD, AND THE EXTENT THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH A
MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW
IS FRIVOLOUS.  IN NO. 470 THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED.  IN NO. 815 THE
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
143 F.2D 250; OKIN V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 143 F.2D 945. 

FN2  15 U.S.C. 79 X. 

FN3  FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT CO., 307 U.S. 156,
159. 

FN4  SENATE BILL NO. 1725, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 24(A); HOUSE
RESOLUTION NO. 5423, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 23(A). 

FN5  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & N. CO.,
288 U.S. 14(THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT); FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N
V. SANDERS BROS. RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470(COMMUNICATIONS ACT); CF.
L. SINGER & SONS V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 311 U.S. 295. 

FN6  ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES V. ICKES, 134 F.2D 694(THE BITUMINOUS COAL
ACT). 

FN7  LAWLESS V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 105 F.2D 574; TODD
V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 137 F.2D 475; CF. NORTHWESTERN
ELECTRIC CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 321 U.S. 119.    FN8  L. J.
MARQUIS & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 134 F.2D 335; L. J.
MARQUIS & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 134 F.2D 822. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR IN THE RESULT IN NO.
815. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

FIFTEEN YEARS AGO THIS COURT WAS CONFRONTED WITH AN ATTEMPT BY A
CORPORATE STOCKHOLDER TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION ON THE CLAIM THAT THE ORDER THREATENED THE FINANCIAL
STABILITY OF THE CORPORATION TO WHICH IT WAS DIRECTED AS WELL AS THE
"APPELLANT'S FINANCIAL INTEREST AS A MINORITY STOCKHOLDER."  THE COURT,
SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, HELD THAT THE STOCKHOLDER HAD NO
STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT SINCE "THE ORDER UNDER ATTACK DOES NOT
DEAL WITH THE INTERESTS OF INVESTORS" AND THE ONLY INJURY FEARED "IS
THE INDIRECT HARM WHICH MAY RESULT TO EVERY STOCKHOLDER FROM HARM TO
THE CORPORATION."  PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
281 U.S. 479, 487.  THAT HOLDING, IN MY ESTIMATION, DISPOSES OF THIS
ATTEMPT BY THE AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TO OBTAIN AN INDEPENDENT
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
DIRECTED AT A COMPANY IN WHICH IT IS THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER. 

PERSON OR PARTY AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION" TO
OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN AN APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  THE TEST, THEN, IS WHETHER AMERICAN WAS "AGGRIEVED" BY THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THIS INSTANCE.  SINCE THE TERM "PERSON OR PARTY
AGGRIEVED" IS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT ITS
MEANING IS TO BE DRAWN FROM TRADITIONAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND FROM ANY
RELEVANT STATUTORY POLICIES. 

ONLY TWO PARAGRAPHS OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ARE IN ISSUE.  THEY ARE
DIRECTED SOLELY TO THE FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ALL OF WHOSE
SECURITIES ARE OWNED BY AMERICAN.  THESE PARAGRAPHS FAIL EVEN TO
MENTION AMERICAN; THEY NEITHER REQUIRE NOR PROHIBIT ANY ACTION BY IT.
NOR DO THEY IN ANY WAY AFFECT AMERICAN'S RIGHTS AS A STOCKHOLDER.  THEY
SIMPLY REQUIRE FLORIDA TO MAKE CERTAIN ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENTS IN THE
FORM OF CHARGES TO EARNED SURPLUS.  SINCE DIVIDENDS ARE PAID FROM
EARNED SURPLUS AND SINCE THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL DECREASE THE EARNED
SURPLUS ACCOUNT, THE COURT REASONS THAT "THE ORDER HAS A DIRECT ADVERSE
EFFECT UPON AMERICAN AS A STOCKHOLDER ENTITLED TO DIVIDENDS."  FROM
THIS IT IS CONCLUDED THAT AMERICAN IS "AGGRIEVED" BY THE ORDER.  TO
THAT REASONING AND CONCLUSION I CANNOT AGREE. 

1.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THE ITEMS TO BE CHARGED TO SURPLUS WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE BEEN
AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION AS DIVIDENDS TO AMERICAN OR THAT THE SURPLUS
WAS OTHERWISE INADEQUATE TO PAY THE NORMAL AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS. 
FLORIDA MIGHT WELL HAVE RETAINED THESE ITEMS FOR REINVESTMENT IN THE
BUSINESS, THUS MAKING THEM UNAVAILABLE FOR DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION. 
MOREOVER, TO THE EXTENT THAT FLORIDA RETAINS THESE ITEMS IN ITS CAPITAL
STRUCTURE, AMERICAN'S ULTIMATE EQUITY IN THE ORGANIZATION IS
INCREASED.  IT CANNOT BE SAID, THEREFORE, THAT AMERICAN HAS BEEN
ADVERSELY AND PERMANENTLY AFFECTED BY THIS ORDER. 

2.  BUT EVEN IF IT WERE CLEAR THAT THE ORDER WOULD NECESSARILY
RESTRICT DIVIDEND PAYMENTS IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE RESTRAINT SO
DIRECTLY AFFECTS AMERICAN AS TO ENTITLE IT TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER AS A
PERSON "AGGRIEVED."  IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT ORDINARILY THE
MERE ACCUMULATION OF AN ADEQUATE SURPLUS DOES NOT ENTITLE A STOCKHOLDER
TO DIVIDENDS UNTIL THE DIRECTORS, IN THEIR DISCRETION, DECLARE THEM. 
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330.  AND UNTIL SUCH A
DECLARATION IS MADE THE DIRECTORS ARE FREE TO DEAL WITH THAT SURPLUS IN
GOOD FAITH AS THEY MAY SEE FIT IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR BUSINESS
JUDGMENT, THE STOCKHOLDERS NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN UNDECLARED
OR POTENTIAL DIVIDENDS TO CHALLENGE SUCH ACTION.  SEE WABASH R. CO. V.
BARCLAY, 280 U.S. 197.  THE STOCKHOLDERS' INTEREST IN SUCH MATTERS, IN
OTHER WORDS, IS INDISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE CORPORATION PRIOR TO AN
ACTUAL DECLARATION.  THUS IF THE FLORIDA MANAGEMENT HAD MADE THE SAME
ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENTS AS THOSE ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE
AMERICAN WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY "AGGRIEVED" TO ATTEMPT TO PREVENT
FLORIDA FROM MAKING SUCH ADJUSTMENTS, EVEN THOUGH DIVIDEND PAYMENTS
MIGHT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED.  NO ADEQUATE REASON IS EVIDENT FROM THE
FACTS OR FROM THE OPINION OF THIS COURT AS TO WHY AMERICAN IS ANY MORE
DIRECTLY OR ADVERSELY "AGGRIEVED" WHEN THE ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENTS ARE
ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION RATHER THAN BY FLORIDA'S MANAGEMENT OR AS TO
WHY ANY DIFFERENT RESULTS SHOULD FOLLOW.  THE IMPACT OF THE ADJUSTMENTS
IN EITHER INSTANCE IS PRESUMABLY TO STRENGTHEN THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE
OF FLORIDA; THAT THEY MAY HAVE THE INCIDENTAL EFFECT OF DECREASING
DIVIDENDS TEMPORARILY HAS NEVER HERETOFORE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE A
STOCKHOLDER TO CHALLENGE THE ADJUSTMENTS. 

3.  THE FACT THAT AMERICAN IS TRYING TO APPEAL AN ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER RATHER THAN TO INSTITUTE AN ORIGINAL ACTION AGAINST FLORIDA'S
MANAGEMENT IS IRRELEVANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS AS SUCH, IN WHICH
CASE A STOCKHOLDER CLEARLY COULD APPEAL FROM THE ORDER.  SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. CHENERY CORP., 318 U.S. 80; LAWLESS V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 105 F.2D 574; NEW YORK TRUST CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 131 F.2D 274; CITY NATIONAL BANK &
TRUST CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 134 F.2D 65.  SEE ALSO
OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 323 U.S. 624.  NOR IS
THERE ANY CHARGE OF FRAUD OR BREACH OF DUTY ON THE PART OF FLORIDA,
FROM WHICH IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT AMERICAN SHOULD BE GIVEN THE RIGHT
TO APPEAL SINCE FLORIDA MIGHT NOT ACT TO PROTECT AMERICAN'S LEGITIMATE
INTERESTS.  INDEED, SUCH A POSSIBILITY IS EXPRESSLY NEGATIVED BY THE
FACT THAT FLORIDA HAS ALREADY APPEALED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER TO
ANOTHER COURT AND IS URGING PRECISELY THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS THAT
AMERICAN SEEKS TO PRESENT IN THIS PROCEEDING.  IN VIEW OF AMERICAN'S
COMPLETE CONTROL OF FLORIDA THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP THERE IS NO DANGER
OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS ARISING BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES IN THE OTHER
PROCEEDING.  THERE IS THUS NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE ECONOMIC
INTEREST ASSERTED BY AMERICAN CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE ADEQUATELY
PROTECTED BY FLORIDA.  CF. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS
BROS. RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470; ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES V. ICKES, 134
F.2D 694, DISMISSED AS MOOT, 320 U.S. 707.  THE INEVITABLE LOGIC OF THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE LEADS STRAIGHT BACK TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
AMERICAN'S GRIEVANCE IS ONLY "THE INDIRECT HARM WHICH MAY RESULT TO
EVERY STOCKHOLDER FROM HARM TO THE CORPORATION."  PITTSBURGH & WEST
VIRGINIA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 487.  THAT CONCLUSION CALLS
FOR A DISMISSAL OF AMERICAN'S ATTEMPTED APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER JUST AS IT WOULD CALL FOR A DISMISSAL OF ANY SUIT BROUGHT BY
AMERICAN AGAINST FLORIDA ON THESE FACTS. 

4.  THE COURT'S CONCLUSION HERE LEADS ONLY TO UNFORTUNATE
CONSEQUENCES IN THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS.  IF THE
REMOTE ECONOMIC INTEREST ASSERTED BY AMERICAN IS SUFFICIENT TO
INSTITUTE A REVIEW PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHICH
MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS MAY HARASS THE COMMISSION AND THEIR RESPECTIVE
CORPORATIONS BY CHALLENGING ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION DIRECTED TO THE
CORPORATIONS.  IT IS NO ANSWER THAT SEC. 24(A) GIVES EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO THE COURT IN WHICH THE COMMISSION FILES THE TRANSCRIPT
OF A PARTICULAR PROCEEDING.  THAT PROVISION CLEARLY ENVISAGES TWO OR
MORE APPEALS IN DIFFERENT COURTS BY PERSONS WHO ARE LEGALLY "AGGRIEVED"
BY A COMMISSION ORDER AND WHO CAN OBTAIN ADEQUATE RELIEF ONLY BY
INDIVIDUAL APPEALS.  BUT UNDER THIS DECISION STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOW FREE,
WHENEVER THEY FEEL THAT THEIR POTENTIAL DIVIDENDS ARE AFFECTED BY
COMMISSION ACTION DIRECTED TO THE CORPORATION'S ACCOUNTING ENTRIES
AGAINST WHICH DIVIDENDS ARE CHARGED, TO APPEAL REGARDLESS OF THE
MANAGEMENT'S WISHES IN THE MATTER AND REGARDLESS OF THE MANAGEMENT'S
ABILITY TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS FULLY AND FAIRLY.  STOCKHOLDERS IN
EFFECT SUPPLANT THE MANAGEMENT IN DECIDING WHETHER TO APPEAL FROM
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AFFECTING SUCH INTERNAL ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE OF
THE CORPORATION, A PROBLEM WHICH UNTIL NOW WAS EXCLUSIVELY AND PROPERLY
WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE CORPORATE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS.  MANY
STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO KNOW THE INTRICACIES OF MODERN
CORPORATE ACCOUNTING OR THE PROPER ATTITUDE TO TAKE, FROM THE
CORPORATION'S POINT OF VIEW, AS TO THE CHALLENGED ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION.  BUT NOW THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN CARTE BLANCHE TO PROCEED AS THEY
DESIRE.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SUCH
CONSEQUENCES TO FLOW FROM ITS USE OF THE WORD "AGGRIEVED" IN SEC.
24(A). 

FINALLY, I DISSENT FROM THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE WRIT IN THE
OKIN CASE.  IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE, AS THE COURT STATES, THAT AN ASSERTION
THAT A TRANSACTION APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WAS FRAUDULENTLY ENTERED
INTO BY THE CORPORATION IS SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE THE STOCKHOLDER TO AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
THAT THE MERE CRY OF "FRAUD" IS SUFFICIENT.  THERE MUST BE SOME BONA
FIDE BASIS APPEARING ON THE FACE OF SO SERIOUS A CHARGE.  HERE,
HOWEVER, OKIN MERELY CHARGES THAT (1) A MAINE CORPORATION IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION BECAUSE ITS SUBSIDIARIES
OPERATE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; (2) THE PARTICULAR TRANSACTION IN
ISSUE IS DETRIMENTAL TO OKIN'S INTERESTS AS A STOCKHOLDER INASMUCH AS
THE MANAGEMENT EXTENDED A NOTE OF A SUBSIDIARY AT A REDUCED INTEREST
RATE; (3) VARIOUS CORPORATE OFFICERS HELD CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OTHER
AND WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION'S STAFF; (4) HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS HAVE BEEN INVADED; AND (5) THE TRANSACTION IS VOID FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 20 OF THE NEW YORK STOCK CORPORATION LAW.  SUCH
FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS OF FRAUD ARE INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT MAKING AN
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT A STOCKHOLDER CANNOT APPEAL AN
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WHICH INVOLVES ONLY THE CORPORATION AS SUCH. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED JOIN IN THAT PART OF THIS
DISSENT DEALING WITH NO. 470, THE AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT CO. CASE. 
..END :








AKINS V. TEXAS, 325 U.S. 398 


NO. 853.  ARGUED APRIL 30, MAY 1, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1945.  - 182
S.W.2D 723, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COURT WHICH CONVICTED THE PETITIONER WAS
ORGANIZED - ASSIGNMENT OF A JUDGE PURSUANT TO A STATUTE THE VALIDITY OF
WHICH UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION WAS UPHELD BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF
THE STATE - VIOLATED NO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE AND DENIED NO
RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 399, N. 1. 

2.  ALTHOUGH THERE WAS BUT ONE NEGRO ON THE GRAND JURY WHICH INDICTED
THE NEGRO PETITIONER, THE RECORD IN THIS CASE FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT
THE JURY COMMISSIONERS DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY LIMITED THE
NUMBER OF NEGROES ON THE PANEL, OR THAT THERE WAS DISCRIMINATION ON
ACCOUNT OF RACE IN THE SELECTION OF THE GRAND JURY, IN VIOLATION OF THE
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 403, 407. 

3.  IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO CONSIDER WHETHER PURPOSEFUL LIMITATION
OF JURORS BY RACE TO THE APPROXIMATE PROPORTION THAT THE ELIGIBLE
JURYMEN OF THE RACE SO LIMITED BEARS TO THE TOTAL ELIGIBLES WOULD BE
INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 407. 

AKINS V. TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 836, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A
SENTENCE OF DEATH UPON A CONVICTION OF MURDER. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, SENTENCING PETITIONER TO
EXECUTION ON A JURY VERDICT WHICH FOUND PETITIONER GUILTY OF MURDER
WITH MALICE AND ASSESSED THE PENALTY AT DEATH. 

CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE
OF TEXAS, WHICH HAD AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT, ON A PETITION WHICH CLAIMED
DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RACE, AGAINST THE PETITIONER, WHO IS A
NEGRO, UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN1
CERTIORARI WAS ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OF THE ALLEGED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION WHICH WAS
RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  324 U.S. 836.  THIS DISCRIMINATION WAS SAID TO CONSIST OF AN
ARBITRARY AND PURPOSEFUL LIMITATION BY THE GRAND JURY COMMISSIONERS OF
THE NUMBER OF NEGROES TO ONE WHO WAS TO BE PLACED UPON THE GRAND JURY
PANEL OF SIXTEEN FOR THE TERM OF COURT AT WHICH THE INDICTMENT AGAINST
PETITIONER WAS FOUND.  THIS IS PETITIONER'S ONLY COMPLAINT AS TO RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION.  NO OTHER ERRORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS ARE POINTED OUT. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS ANY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A RACE IN
THE SELECTION OF A GRAND JURY.  FN2  NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370,
394; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354, 356; SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S.
128; HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400.  THE BURDEN IS, OF COURSE, UPON THE
DEFENDANT TO ESTABLISH THE DISCRIMINATION.  TARRANCE V. FLORIDA, 188
U.S. 519, 520; MARTIN V. TEXAS, 200 U.S. 316; NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294
U.S. 587, 590.  AN ALLEGATION OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN SELECTING
A GRAND JURY PANEL CHALLENGES AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF PROPER JUDICIAL
PROCEDURE - THE REQUIREMENT OF FAIRNESS ON THE PART OF THE JUDICIAL ARM
OF GOVERNMENT IN DEALING WITH PERSONS CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENSES. 
IT CANNOT LIGHTLY BE CONCLUDED THAT OFFICERS OF THE COURTS DISREGARD
THIS ACCEPTED STANDARD OF JUSTICE. 

THE ORDER OVERRULING THE MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT WAS MADE
AFTER EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT OPINION.  THAT MOTION SET OUT THE ALLEGED
PURPOSEFUL LIMITATION ON RACIAL REPRESENTATION WHICH IS PRESSED HERE. 
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, HOWEVER, WITHOUT A WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF
THE TESTIMONY, SAID IN AN OPINION THAT IT FAILED "TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE
OF DISCRIMINATION.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS AN EFFORT ON
THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES TO COMPLY WITH THE HOLDING OF THIS COURT
AND OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPON THE QUESTION OF
DISCRIMINATION."  AKINS V. STATE, 182 S.W.2D 723.  THIS REFERENCE TO
THE HOLDINGS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS WAS TO AKENS V. STATE, 145
TEX. CR. R. 289, 167 S.W.2D 758, WHICH REVERSED A PREVIOUS CONVICTION
OF PETITIONER ON THE AUTHORITY OF HILL V. TEXAS, SUPRA.  ALTHOUGH THIS
OPINION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DOES NOT REFER TO PROPORTIONAL
RACIAL REPRESENTATION ON JURIES, RECENT DECISIONS OF THAT COURT HAD
PREVIOUSLY DISAPPROVED THAT PROCEDURE.  HAMILTON V. STATE, 141 TEX. CR.
R. 614, 150 S.W.2D 395, 400, R.C.; HILL V. STATE, 144 TEX. CR. R. 415,
157 S.W.2D 369, 373, L.C., REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 316 U.S. 400.  WE
THINK, THEREFORE, THAT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE STATE COURTS SHOW THAT IN
THEIR JUDGMENT THERE WAS NO PROVEN RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY LIMITATION
IN THIS CASE.  OTHERWISE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A REVERSAL BY THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS. 

AS WELL PRESENTLY APPEAR, THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTS
CERTAIN INCONSISTENCIES AND CONFLICTS OF TESTIMONY IN REGARD TO
LIMITING THE NUMBER OF NEGROES ON THE GRAND JURY.  THEREFORE, THE TRIER
OF FACT WHO HEARD THE WITNESSES IN FULL AND OBSERVED THEIR DEMEANOR ON
THE STAND HAS A BETTER OPPORTUNITY THAN A REVIEWING COURT TO REACH A
CORRECT CONCLUSION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THAT TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION. 
WHILE OUR DUTY, IN REVIEWING A CONVICTION UPON A COMPLAINT THAT THE
PROCEDURE THROUGH WHICH IT WAS OBTAINED VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, CALLS FOR OUR EXAMINATION OF
EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE FOR OURSELVES WHETHER A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT HAS BEEN DENIED, EXPRESSLY OR IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT, NORRIS V.
ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 589-90; SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128, 130, WE
ACCORD IN THAT EXAMINATION GREAT RESPECT TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE
STATE JUDICIARY, PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354, 358.  THAT RESPECT
LEADS US TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIER ON DISPUTED ISSUES
"UNLESS IT IS SO LACKING IN SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE THAT TO GIVE IT
EFFECT WOULD WORK THAT FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS WHICH IS AT WAR WITH DUE
PROCESS," LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 238, OR EQUAL
PROTECTION.  CF. ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 152, 153;
MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, 404. 

THE REGULAR STATUTORY PRACTICE FOR THE SELECTION OF GRAND JURORS WAS
FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE.  UNDER THE TEXAS STATUTES JURY COMMISSIONERS
APPOINTED BY THE JUDGE OF THE TRIAL COURT SELECT A LIST OF SIXTEEN
GRAND-JURYMEN FROM WHICH LIST TWELVE ARE CHOSEN AS A GRAND JURY.  TEXAS
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLES 333, 337.  QUALIFICATIONS FOR
GRAND-JURYMEN ARE SET OUT IN ARTICLE 339.  FN3  THE COMMISSIONERS ARE
INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT AS TO THEIR DUTIES.  ART. 366.  THIS METHOD OF
SELECTION LEAVES A WIDE RANGE OF CHOICE TO THE COMMISSIONERS.  ITS
VALIDITY, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT.  SMITH V. TEXAS,
311 U.S. 128, 130.  PETITIONER DOES NOT ATTACK IT NOW.  ITS ALTERNATIVE
WOULD BE A LIST COMPOSED OF ALL ELIGIBLES WITHIN THE TRIAL COURT'S
JURISDICTION AND SELECTION OF THE PANEL BY LOT. 

PETITIONER'S SOLE OBJECTION TO THE GRAND JURY IS THAT THE
"COMMISSIONERS DELIBERATELY, INTENTIONALLY AND PURPOSELY LIMITED THE
NUMBER OF THE NEGRO RACE THAT SHOULD BE SELECTED ON SAID GRAND JURY
PANEL TO ONE MEMBER."  FAIRNESS IN SELECTION HAS NEVER BEEN HELD TO
REQUIRE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF RACES UPON A JURY.  VIRGINIA V.
RIVES, 100 U.S. 313, 322-23; THOMAS V. TEXAS, 212 U.S. 278, 282. 
PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION IS NOT SUSTAINED BY A SHOWING THAT ON A
SINGLE GRAND JURY THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF ONE RACE IS LESS THAN THAT
RACE'S PROPORTION OF THE ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS.  THE NUMBER OF OUR RACES
AND NATIONALITIES STANDS IN THE WAY OF EVOLUTION OF SUCH A CONCEPTION
OF DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION.  DEFENDANTS UNDER OUR CRIMINAL
STATUTES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DEMAND REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR RACIAL
INHERITANCE UPON JURIES BEFORE WHOM THEY ARE TRIED.  BUT SUCH
DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO REQUIRE THAT THOSE WHO ARE TRUSTED WITH JURY
SELECTION SHALL NOT PURSUE A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH RESULTS IN
DISCRIMINATION "IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS ON RACIAL GROUNDS."  HILL V.
TEXAS, SUPRA, 404.  OUR DIRECTIONS THAT INDICTMENTS BE QUASHED WHEN
NEGROES, ALTHOUGH NUMEROUS IN THE COMMUNITY, WERE EXCLUDED FROM GRAND
JURY LISTS HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE THEORY THAT THEIR CONTINUAL EXCLUSION
INDICATED DISCRIMINATION AND NOT ON THE THEORY THAT RACIAL GROUPS MUST
BE RECOGNIZED.  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, SUPRA; HILL V. TEXAS, SUPRA; SMITH
V. TEXAS, SUPRA.  THE MERE FACT OF INEQUALITY IN THE NUMBER SELECTED
DOES NOT IN ITSELF SHOW DISCRIMINATION.  A PURPOSE TO DISCRIMINATE MUST
BE PRESENT WHICH MAY BE PROVEN BY SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION OF ELIGIBLE
JURYMEN OF THE PROSCRIBED RACE OR BY UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO
SUCH AN EXTENT AS TO SHOW INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION.  CF. SNOWDEN V.
HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1, 8.  ANY SUCH DISCRIMINATION WHICH AFFECTS AN
ACCUSED WILL MAKE HIS CONVICTION UNLAWFUL. 

THE HISTORY AND RECORD OF THIS CASE GIVES EVIDENCE THAT THE COURTS OF
TEXAS WHICH ARE CHARGED WITH THE TRIAL OF PETITIONER ENDEAVORED TO
COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE SELECTION
OF GRAND JURIES, ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS COURT IN HILL
V. TEXAS, SUPRA.  NOT ONLY DID THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS REVERSE A
FORMER CONVICTION OF PETITIONER ON ITS AUTHORITY BUT THE JUDGE, NOW
DECEASED, OF THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS INSTRUCTED THE THREE
JURY COMMISSIONERS, WHO SELECTED THIS GRAND JURY LIST, AS TESTIFIED TO
BY EACH OF THEM, THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANYONE
BECAUSE OF HIS COLOR.  FN4 

HILL V. TEXAS, SUPRA, WAS DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  THE TRIAL COURT HAS
FOUR TERMS A YEAR - JANUARY, APRIL, JULY AND OCTOBER.  AFTER THE HILL
DECISION, THE JURY COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE APPOINTED AT THE JULY 1942
TERM TO SELECT GRAND JURORS FOR THE OCTOBER 1942 TERM, TEXAS CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTS. 333 AND 338, PLACED A NEGRO ON THE GRAND JURY
LIST ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT SERVE.  UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE JUDGE AS
JUST DETAILED, THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE JANUARY 1943 TERM, AT WHICH
PETITIONER WAS INDICTED, PLACED A NEGRO ON THE LIST AND HE SERVED AS A
GRAND JUROR.  PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN THE HILL CASE, IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT ANY COLORED PERSON HAD EVER SERVED ON A GRAND JURY IN
DALLAS COUNTY. 

ON THE PRECISE ACT OF DISCRIMINATION BY THE JURY COMMISSIONERS WHICH
IS ASSERTED BY PETITIONER, THAT IS THE DELIBERATE, INTENTIONAL AND
PURPOSEFUL LIMITATION TO ONE OF THE NUMBER OF NEGROES ON THE GRAND JURY
PANEL, THE RECORD SHOWS AS FOLLOWS.  ABOUT FIFTEEN AND ONE-HALF PER
CENT OF THE POPULATION OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, IS NEGRO.  A
SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF THEM ARE QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS GRAND JURORS. 
NO EXACT COMPARISON CAN BE MADE BETWEEN THE WHITE AND NEGRO CITIZENS AS
TO THE PERCENTAGE OF EACH RACE WHICH IS ELIGIBLE.  ON THE STRICTLY
MATHEMATICAL BASIS OF POPULATION, A GRAND JURY OF TWELVE WOULD HAVE
1.8552 NEGRO MEMBERS ON THE AVERAGE.  OF COURSE, THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR
GRAND JURY SERVICE, NOTE 3 SUPRA, WOULD AFFECT THE PROPORTION OF
ELIGIBLES FROM THE TWO RACES.  AS ONE MEMBER OF THE NEGRO RACE SERVED
UPON THE GRAND JURY WHICH INDICTED PETITIONER AND ONE HAD APPEARED UPON
THE OTHER GRAND JURY LIST WHICH HAD BEEN SELECTED AFTER THE DECISION IN
HILL V. TEXAS, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE OMISSION FROM EACH OF THE TWO
LISTS OF ALL BUT ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF A RACE WHICH COMPOSED SOME
FIFTEEN PER CENT OF THE POPULATION ALONE PROVED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. 

IN CONNECTION WITH THAT FACT OF OMISSION, WE MUST APPRAISE THE
TESTIMONY OFFERED TO SHOW THE INTENTIONAL LIMITATION.  BESIDES THE
LANGUAGE QUOTED IN NOTE 4 SUPRA, WHICH RELATES PARTICULARLY TO THE
COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS, OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE OF SUCH INTENTION IS
FOUND ONLY IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMMISSIONERS.  THEY MADE THESE
STATEMENTS AS TO THEIR INTENTIONS: 

COMMISSIONER WELLS:  "THERE WAS NOTHING SAID ABOUT THE NUMBER AND
NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT THE NUMBER ON THE PANEL....  WE HAD NO INTENTION
OF PLACING MORE THAN ONE NEGRO ON THE PANEL.  WHEN WE DID THAT WE HAD
FINISHED WITH THE NEGRO.  THAT WAS THE SUGGESTION OF THE OTHERS AND
WHAT JUDGE ADAMS THOUGHT ABOUT THE SELECTION OF THE GRAND JURY....
JUDGE ADAMS DID NOT TELL US TO PUT ONE NEGRO OR FIVE NEGROES ON THE
GRAND JURY.  YES, WE JUST UNDERSTOOD TO SEE THAT NEGROES HAD
REPRESENTATION ON THE GRAND JURY, AND WE WENT OUT TO SEE THIS
PARTICULAR ONE BECAUSE WE DID NOT KNOW HIM....  AMONG THE WHITE PEOPLE
WHOSE NAMES MIGHT GO ON THE GRAND JURY, UNLESS I KNEW THEM PERSONALLY
AND KNEW THEIR QUALIFICATIONS, WE WENT OUT AND TALKED TO THEM.  NO, WE
DID NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A WHITE MAN OR A NEGRO.  I ATTEMPTED NOT
TO." 

COMMISSIONER TENNANT:  "WE THREE DID NOT GO TO SEE ANY OTHER NEGROES,
THAT IS THE ONLY ONE.  I DID NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION OF PUTTING MORE
THAN ONE ON THE LIST; I COULD NOT THINK OF ANYBODY; I WOULD HAVE IF I
COULD HAVE THOUGHT OF ANOTHER ONE, AND PUTTING ONE ON." 

COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS:  "YES, SIR, THERE WERE OTHER NEGROES' NAMES
MENTIONED BESIDES THE ONE WE SELECTED; WE DID NOT GO TALK TO THEM; WE
LIKED THIS ONE, AND OUR INTENTIONS WERE TO GET JUST ONE NEGRO ON THE
GRAND JURY; THAT IS RIGHT.  NO, I DID NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION OF PLACING
MORE THAN ONE NEGRO ON THE GRAND JURY....  WE NEVER AGREED TO SELECT
ANY CERTAIN NUMBER, BUT WHEN WE FOUND ONE WITH ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS
OF A GRAND JUROR WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS SATISFACTORY REPRESENTATION....
NO, SIR, WE DID NOT HAVE IN MIND TO PUT ANY SET NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VARIOUS RACES....  WE DID NOT AGREE TO PUT
ELEVEN NEGROES AND ONE WHITE MAN ON, NO. THAT IS RIGHT, ALL THAT WE
WERE ENDEAVORING TO GET A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL GRAND JURY WITHOUT ANY
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY RACE ON EARTH.  WE DID NOT HAVE IN MIND, OR
THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, TO PUT ANY SET NUMBER ON OF ANY RACE, WHITE,
YELLOW OR WHAT-NOT." 

A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THESE STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH ALL THE
OTHER EVIDENCE LEAVES US UNCONVINCED THAT THE COMMISSIONERS
DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF NEGROES ON THE
GRAND JURY LIST.  THE JUDGE WHO HEARD THE WITNESSES ON THE MOTION TO
QUASH DID NOT FIND THAT TYPE OF DISCRIMINATION.  THE LAW OF THEIR
STATE, THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE JUDGE, THEIR OATH OF OFFICE REQUIRED
THEM TO CHOOSE PROSPECTIVE JURORS ON THEIR STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS AND
WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR COLOR OR THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES OF
VARIOUS RACES WHO MIGHT APPEAR UPON THE LIST.  WE CANNOT SAY THE
COMMISSIONERS VIOLATED THESE OBLIGATIONS.    THIS CONCLUSION MAKES IT
UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER A PURPOSEFUL LIMITATION OF JURORS BY RACE
TO THE APPROXIMATE PROPORTION THAT THE ELIGIBLE JURYMEN OF THE RACE SO
LIMITED BEARS TO THE TOTAL ELIGIBLES IS INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CERTIORARI WAS ALLOWED ALSO FOR ALLEGED DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TRIAL
JUDGE WAS DESIGNATED TO CONDUCT THE TRIAL COURT.  HE ACTED BY
ASSIGNMENT OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL
DISTRICT OF TEXAS UNDER GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS, 48TH LEG.  REG. 
SESS., P. 25(VERNON'S ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES, TEXAS, ART. 200A, SEC.
5) INSTEAD OF BY APPOINTMENT BY THE GOVERNOR UNDER SEC. 28, ARTICLE 5,
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TEXAS, TO FILL THE VACANCY CAUSED BY THE DEATH
OF THE REGULARLY CHOSEN OCCUPANT. 

THE LEGALITY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEPENDS UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATE STATUTE AS TESTED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT IS THAT VACANCIES IN THE OFFICE OF
JUDGES SHALL BE FILLED BY THE GOVERNOR.  THE TEXAS STATUTE PROVIDED FOR
ASSIGNMENT OF OTHER JUDGES FOR THE WORK OF THE COURT.  THIS STATUTE WAS
INTERPRETED BY THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TO PROVIDE MERELY FOR THE
FUNCTIONING OF COURTS UNDER ASSIGNED JUDGES, WHO DID NOT QUALIFY AS
SUCCESSORS TO DECEDENT JUDGES, UNTIL THE VACANCY WAS FILLED BY
APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION.  THE COURT UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE.  PIERSON V. STATE, 177 S.W.2D 975; FULLER V. STATE, 180 S.W.2D
361; JONES V. STATE, 181 S.W.2D 75; BROWN V. STATE, 181 S.W.2D 93;
AKINS V. STATE, 182 S.W.2D 723.  WHETHER THE STATE RULE IS EXPRESSED IN
CONSTITUTION, STATUTE OR DECISION, OR PARTLY IN ONE AND PARTLY IN
ANOTHER, THE STATE'S POWER IS TO BE VIEWED AS A TOTALITY.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE, A STATE'S
DETERMINATION IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS AS TO THE MEANING
OF THE STATE LAW, SO FAR AS ANY FEDERAL QUESTION IS CONCERNED.  HEBERT
V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316; GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY, 286 U.S.
472, 479-80; UNITED GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123, 141-42.  WE FIND NO
VIOLATION OF ANY OF PETITIONER'S FEDERAL RIGHTS IN TEXAS' DECISION UPON
THE LEGALITY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COURT WHICH TRIED PETITIONER. 

FN2  CONSTITUTION, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SEC. 1:  "...  NOR SHALL ANY
STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

FN3  ART. 339.  "NO PERSON SHALL BE SELECTED OR SERVE AS A GRAND
JUROR WHO DOES NOT POSSESS THE FOLLOWING QUALIFICATIONS: 

"1.  HE MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE STATE, AND OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH HE
IS TO SERVE, AND QUALIFIED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS TO VOTE IN
SAID COUNTY; BUT, WHENEVER IT SHALL BE MADE TO APPEAR TO THE COURT THAT
THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF JURORS WHO HAVE PAID THEIR POLL TAXES CAN NOT
BE FOUND WITHIN THE COUNTY, THE COURT SHALL NOT REGARD THE PAYMENT OF
POLL TAXES AS A QUALIFICATION FOR SERVICE AS A JUROR. 

"2.  HE MUST BE A FREEHOLDER WITHIN THE STATE, OR A HOUSEHOLDER
WITHIN THE COUNTY. 

"3.  HE MUST BE OF SOUND MIND AND GOOD MORAL CHARACTER. 

"4.  HE MUST BE ABLE TO READ AND WRITE. 

"5.  HE MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY FELONY. 

"6.  HE MUST NOT BE UNDER INDICTMENT OR OTHER LEGAL ACCUSATION FOR
THEFT OR OF ANY FELONY." 

FN4  COMMISSIONER WELLS:  "IN THE SELECTION OF OUR PANEL OF SIXTEEN
FOR THE GRAND JURY THE WAY WE DETERMINED WHOM WE WOULD PUT ON THAT LIST
WAS, WE WERE ADVISED BY JUDGE GROVER ADAMS THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD
RULED THAT WE COULD NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY ONE BECAUSE OF HIS
COLOR, AS I RECALL, THEY HAD NOT BEEN DISCRIMINATING FOR SELECTION ON
THE GRAND JURY PANEL; AND IN TURN THEY SAID THERE WERE SIXTEEN, AND IT
WOULD BE FURTHER EVIDENT IF WE PLACED ONE AMONG THE TWELVE SO AS TO
MAKE IT CLEAR." 

COMMISSIONER TENNANT:  "WHEN THE GRAND JURY COMMISSIONERS WERE
APPOINTED BY JUDGE ADAMS THE ONLY THING I REMEMBER HE SAID IS THAT WE
COULD NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE NEGRO POPULATION BEING REPRESENTED
ON THE GRAND JURY.  NO, HE JUST OUTLINED IF HE COULD QUALIFY AS A GRAND
JUROR.  IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WE SELECTED ONE NEGRO ON THIS
PANEL; SO FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I READ IN THE PAPER THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATED THAT A NEGRO COULD SIT ON THE GRAND
JURY  ....  JUDGE ADAMS NEVER MENTIONED TO US ABOUT PUTTING ONE NEGRO
ON THE GRAND JURY, OR FIVE OR TEN.  YES, THAT THERE MUST BE
REPRESENTATION FOR THE RACE." 

COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS:  "AT THAT TIME JUDGE ADAMS, THE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT MADE SOME REFERENCE OR INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT HOW TO SELECT THE GRAND
JURY.  HE THOUGHT IT WELL TO SELECT NEGROES ON THE GRAND JURY.  HE SAID
HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WELL TO SELECT A NEGRO ON THE GRAND JURY.  THERE
WAS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.  WE DID SELECT A NEGRO ON THE
GRAND JURY.  ALL THREE OF US WENT OUT THERE TO SEE HIM.  WE ALL WENT
AND TALKED TO JUST ONE NEGRO AND THAT IS THE ONE WE SELECTED." 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ENTITLES
EVERY PERSON, WHOSE LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY IS IN ISSUE, TO THE
BENEFITS OF GRAND AND PETIT JURIES CHOSEN WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, COLOR
OR CREED.  THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE IS A FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF THE
AMERICAN FAITH IN THE JURY SYSTEM.  THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PRINCIPLE
WOULD GIVE FREE REIN TO THOSE WHO WITTINGLY OR OTHERWISE ACT TO
UNDERMINE THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF THIS SYSTEM AND WOULD MAKE JURIES
READY WEAPONS FOR OFFICIALS TO OPPRESS THOSE ACCUSED INDIVIDUALS WHO BY
CHANCE ARE NUMBERED AMONG UNPOPULAR OR INARTICULATE MINORITIES. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THIS INSTANCE APPEARS TO HAVE MADE A SINCERE
EFFORT TO OBEY THIS CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE IN SELECTING THE GRAND JURY
WHICH INDICTED THE NEGRO PETITIONER.  UNTIL THIS COURT'S DECISION IN
1942 IN HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400, NO NEGRO EVER SERVED ON A GRAND
JURY IN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, WHERE THIS CASE AROSE.  IN AN ATTEMPT TO
COMPLY WITH THAT DECISION THE THREE JURY COMMISSIONERS WERE CAREFUL
HERE TO APPOINT ONE NEGRO TO THE SIXTEEN-MEMBER GRAND JURY PANEL; HE
QUALIFIED AND SERVED ON THE TWELVE-MAN JURY.  THUS IT CANNOT BE SAID
THAT TEXAS HAS SYSTEMATICALLY AND COMPLETELY EXCLUDED NEGROES FROM THE
GRAND JURY.  CF. NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA,
306 U.S. 354; SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128; HILL V. TEXAS, SUPRA. BUT
THAT FACT ALONE DOES NOT GUARANTEE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, HOWEVER COMMENDABLE MAY BE THE ATTEMPT.  RACIAL LIMITATION
NO LESS THAN RACIAL EXCLUSION IN THE FORMATION OF JURIES IS AN EVIL
CONDEMNED BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  "THE AMENDMENT NULLIFIES
SOPHISTICATED AS WELL AS SIMPLE-MINDED MODES OF DISCRIMINATION."  LANE
V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268, 275.  THIS CASE MUST THEREFORE BE REVIEWED
WITH THAT IN MIND. 

PETITIONER, AS A NEGRO, "CANNOT CLAIM, AS MATTER OF RIGHT, THAT HIS
RACE SHALL HAVE A REPRESENTATION ON THE JURY," NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103
U.S. 370, 394, INASMUCH AS "A MIXED JURY IN A PARTICULAR CASE IS NOT
ESSENTIAL TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS," VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100
U.S. 313, 323.  BUT PETITIONER, AS A HUMAN BEING ENDOWED WITH ALL THE
RIGHTS SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION, CAN CLAIM THAT NO RACIAL OR
RELIGIOUS EXCLUSION, LIMITATION OR OTHER FORM OF DISCRIMINATION SHALL
ENTER INTO THE SELECTION OF ANY JURY WHICH INDICTS OR TRIES HIM. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN INSISTING UPON ONE NEGRO
REPRESENTATIVE ON THE GRAND JURY PANEL, HAS RESPECTED NO RIGHT
BELONGING TO PETITIONER.  ON THE CONTRARY, TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS
INSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A DEFINITE LIMITATION OF NEGRO GRAND JURORS, A
CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS BEEN DIRECTLY INVADED.  THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE GUARANTEES PETITIONER NOT ONLY THE RIGHT TO HAVE
NEGROES CONSIDERED AS PROSPECTIVE VENIREMEN BUT ALSO THE RIGHT TO HAVE
THEM CONSIDERED WITHOUT NUMERICAL OR PROPORTIONAL LIMITATION.  IF A
JURY IS TO BE FAIRLY CHOSEN FROM A CROSS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY IT
MUST BE DONE WITHOUT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS OF A PARTICULAR
COLOR, RACIAL BACKGROUND OR FAITH - ALL OF WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT FACTORS
IN SETTING QUALIFICATIONS FOR JURY SERVICE.  THIS MAY IN A PARTICULAR
INSTANCE RESULT IN THE SELECTION OF ONE, SIX, TWELVE OR EVEN NO NEGROES
ON A JURY PANEL.  THE IMPORTANT POINT, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE SELECTIONS
MUST IN NO WAY BE LIMITED OR RESTRICTED BY SUCH IRRELEVANT FACTORS. 

IN THIS CASE THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS CANDIDLY ADMITTED BEFORE US "THAT
NONE OF THE THREE (JURY COMMISSIONERS) INTENDED TO PLACE MORE THAN ONE
NEGRO UPON THE GRAND JURY DRAWN BY THEM."  COMMISSIONER WELLS TESTIFIED
THAT "WE HAD NO INTENTION OF PLACING MORE THAN ONE NEGRO ON THE PANEL. 
WHEN WE DID THAT WE HAD FINISHED WITH THE NEGRO."  IN THE WORDS OF
COMMISSIONER TENNANT, "WE THREE DID NOT GO TO SEE ANY OTHER NEGROES,
THAT IS THE ONLY ONE.  I DID NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION OF PUTTING MORE
THAN ONE ON THE LIST."  FINALLY, AS COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS STATED, "YES,
SIR, THERE WERE OTHER NEGROES' NAMES MENTIONED BESIDES THE ONE WE
SELECTED; WE DID NOT GO TALK TO THEM; WE LIKED THIS ONE, AND OUR
INTENTIONS WERE TO GET JUST ONE NEGRO ON THE GRAND JURY; THAT IS
RIGHT.  NO, I DID NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION OF PLACING MORE THAN ONE NEGRO
ON THE GRAND JURY." 

CLEARER PROOF OF INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE LIMITATION ON THE BASIS
OF COLOR WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE.  THE COMMISSIONERS'
DECLARATIONS THAT THEY DID NOT INTEND TO DISCRIMINATE AND THEIR OTHER
INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS CITED BY THE COURT FADE INTO INSIGNIFICANCE
BESIDE THE ADMITTED AND OBVIOUS FACT THAT THEY INTENDED TO AND DID
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF NEGROES ON THE JURY PANEL.  BY LIMITING THE NUMBER
TO ONE THEY THEREBY EXCLUDED THE POSSIBILITY THAT TWO OR MORE NEGROES
MIGHT BE AMONG THE PERSONS QUALIFIED TO SERVE.  ALL THOSE EXCEPT THE
ONE NEGRO WERE REQUIRED TO BE OF WHITE COLOR.  AT THE SAME TIME, BY
INSISTING UPON ONE NEGRO, THEY FORECLOSED THE POSSIBILITY OF CHOOSING
SIXTEEN WHITE MEN ON THE PANEL.  THEY REFUSED, IN BRIEF, TO DISREGARD
THE FACTOR OF COLOR IN SELECTING THE JURY PERSONNEL.  TO THAT EXTENT
THEY HAVE DISREGARDED PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS.  TO THAT EXTENT THEY HAVE IGNORED THE IDEALS OF THE JURY SYSTEM. 
OUR AFFIRMANCE OF THIS JUDGMENT THUS TARNISHES THE FACT THAT WE OF THIS
NATION ARE ONE PEOPLE UNDIVIDED IN ABILITY OR FREEDOM BY DIFFERENCES IN
RACE, COLOR OR CREED. 
..END :



















BOWLES V. SEMINOLE ROCK CO., 325 U.S. 410 


NO. 914.  ARGUED APRIL 26, 27, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1945.  - 145
F.2D 482, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER RULE (I) OF SEC. 1499.163(A)(2) OF MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION
NO. 188, ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION UNDER SEC. 2(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF
1942, A SELLER'S CEILING PRICE FOR AN ARTICLE WHICH WAS ACTUALLY
DELIVERED DURING MARCH 1942 IS THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED FOR THE
ARTICLE SO DELIVERED, REGARDLESS OF WHEN THE SALE OR CHARGE WAS MADE. 
P. 416. 

2.  IN INTERPRETING AN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION A COURT MUST
NECESSARILY LOOK TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REGULATION
IF THE MEANING OF THE WORDS USED IS IN DOUBT.  THE INTENTION OF
CONGRESS OR THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION IN SOME SITUATIONS MAY
BE RELEVANT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN CHOOSING BETWEEN VARIOUS
CONSTRUCTIONS.  BUT THE ULTIMATE CRITERION IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION, WHICH BECOMES OF CONTROLLING WEIGHT UNLESS IT IS
PLAINLY ERRONEOUS OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATION.  PP. 413-414. 

3.  THIS COURT DOES NOT HERE DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OR
STATUTORY VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION AS SO CONSTRUED (MATTERS
DETERMINABLE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS);
NOR ANY QUESTION OF HARDSHIP OF ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH CEILING PRICE (THE
PROCEDURE FOR RELIEF THEREFROM BEING PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 2(C) OF THE ACT
AND SEC. 1499.161 OF THE REGULATION).  P. 418. 

BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, V. SEMINOLE ROCK & SAND CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 835, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE
DISMISSAL OF A SUIT BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR TO ENJOIN THE RESPONDENT
FROM VIOLATION OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 AND
REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OUR CONSIDERATION HERE IS DIRECTED TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 188,
FN1  ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION
UNDER SECTION 2(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942.  FN2 

RESPONDENT IS A MANUFACTURER OF CRUSHED STONE, A COMMODITY SUBJECT TO
MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 188.  IN OCTOBER, 1941, RESPONDENT
CONTRACTED TO FURNISH THE SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY CRUSHED STONE ON
DEMAND AT 60 CENTS PER TON, TO BE DELIVERED WHEN CALLED FOR BY
SEABOARD.  THIS STONE WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO SEABOARD IN MARCH,
1942. 

IN JANUARY, 1942, RESPONDENT HAD CONTRACTED TO SELL CRUSHED STONE TO
V.P. LOFTIS CO., A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A GOVERNMENT DAM, FOR $1.50 A TON.  FN3  THIS STONE WAS TO BE DELIVERED
BY RESPONDENT BY BARGE WHEN NEEDED AT THE DAM SITE.  A SMALL PORTION OF
STONE OF A DIFFERENT GRADE THAN THAT SOLD TO SEABOARD WAS DELIVERED TO
LOFTIS CO. DURING JANUARY PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT.  FOR SOME TIME
THEREAFTER, HOWEVER, LOFTIS CO. WAS UNABLE TO POUR CONCRETE OR TO STORE
CRUSHED STONE AT THE DAM SITE.  RESPONDENT THUS MADE NO FURTHER
DELIVERIES UNDER THIS CONTRACT UNTIL AUGUST, 1942, AT WHICH TIME STONE
OF THE SAME GRADE AS RECEIVED BY SEABOARD WAS DELIVERED TO LOFTIS CO.
AT THE $1.50 RATE. 

SUBSEQUENTLY, AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 188, RESPONDENT MADE NEW CONTRACTS TO SELL CRUSHED STONE
TO SEABOARD AT 85 CENTS AND $1.00 PER TON.  ALLEGING THAT THE HIGHEST
PRICE AT WHICH RESPONDENT COULD LAWFULLY SELL CRUSHED STONE OF THE KIND
SOLD TO SEABOARD WAS 60 CENTS A TON, SINCE THAT WAS ASSERTED TO BE THE
HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED BY RESPONDENT DURING THE CRUCIAL MONTH OF MARCH,
1942, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION BROUGHT
THIS ACTION TO ENJOIN RESPONDENT FROM VIOLATING THE ACT AND MAXIMUM
PRICE REGULATION NO. 188.  FN4 THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE ACTION
ON THE GROUND THAT $1.50 A TON WAS THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED BY
RESPONDENT DURING MARCH, 1942, AND THAT THIS CEILING PRICE HAD NOT BEEN
EXCEEDED.  THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT. 
145 F.2D 482.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL AND
STABILIZATION LAWS. 

IN HIS EFFORTS TO COMBAT WARTIME INFLATION, THE ADMINISTRATOR
ORIGINALLY ADOPTED A POLICY OF PIECEMEAL PRICE CONTROL, ONLY CERTAIN
SPECIFIED ARTICLES BEING SUBJECT TO PRICE REGULATION.  ON APRIL 28,
1942, HOWEVER, HE ISSUED THE GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION.  FN5
THIS BROUGHT THE ENTIRE ECONOMY OF THE NATION UNDER PRICE CONTROL WITH
CERTAIN MINOR EXCEPTIONS.  THE CORE OF THE REGULATION WAS THE
REQUIREMENT THAT EACH SELLER SHALL CHARGE NO MORE THAN THE PRICES WHICH
HE CHARGED DURING THE SELECTED BASE PERIOD OF MARCH 1 TO 31, 1942. 
WHILE STILL APPLYING THIS GENERAL PRICE "FREEZE" AS OF MARCH, 1942,
NUMEROUS SPECIALIZED REGULATIONS RELATING TO PARTICULAR GROUPS OF
COMMODITIES SUBSEQUENTLY HAVE MADE CERTAIN REFINEMENTS AND
MODIFICATIONS OF THE GENERAL REGULATION.  MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO.
188, COVERING SPECIFIED BUILDING MATERIALS AND CONSUMERS' GOODS, IS OF
THIS NUMBER. 

THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS TO DETERMINE THE HIGHEST PRICE RESPONDENT
CHARGED FOR CRUSHED STONE DURING MARCH, 1942, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 188.  SINCE THIS INVOLVES AN
INTERPRETATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION A COURT MUST NECESSARILY
LOOK TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE REGULATION IF THE
MEANING OF THE WORDS USED IS IN DOUBT.  THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS OR
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION IN SOME SITUATIONS MAY BE RELEVANT
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN CHOOSING BETWEEN VARIOUS CONSTRUCTIONS.  BUT
THE ULTIMATE CRITERION IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION, WHICH
BECOMES OF CONTROLLING WEIGHT UNLESS IT IS PLAINLY ERRONEOUS OR
INCONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATION.  THE LEGALITY OF THE RESULT REACHED
BY THIS PROCESS, OF COURSE, IS QUITE A DIFFERENT MATTER.  IN THIS CASE
THE ONLY PROBLEM IS TO DISCOVER THE MEANING OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF
MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 188.  OUR ONLY TOOLS, THEREFORE, ARE THE
PLAIN WORDS OF THE REGULATION AND ANY RELEVANT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR. 

"THE MAXIMUM PRICE FOR ANY ARTICLE WHICH WAS DELIVERED OR OFFERED FOR
DELIVERY IN MARCH, 1942, BY THE MANUFACTURER, SHALL BE THE HIGHEST
PRICE CHARGED BY THE MANUFACTURER DURING MARCH, 1942(AS DEFINED IN SEC.
1499.163) FOR THE ARTICLE."  SECTION 1499.163(A)(2)  FN6  IN TURN
PROVIDES THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REGULATION THE TERM: 

"'HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED DURING MARCH, 1942' MEANS 

"(I) THE HIGHEST PRICE WHICH THE SELLER CHARGED TO A PURCHASER OF THE
SAME CLASS FOR DELIVERY OF THE ARTICLE OR MATERIAL DURING MARCH, 1942;
OR 

"(II)  IF THE SELLER MADE NO SUCH DELIVERY DURING MARCH, 1942, SUCH
SELLER'S HIGHEST OFFERING PRICE TO A PURCHASER OF THE SAME CLASS FOR
DELIVERY OF THE ARTICLE OR MATERIAL DURING THAT MONTH; OR 

"(III)  IF THE SELLER MADE NO SUCH DELIVERY AND HAD NO SUCH OFFERING
PRICE TO A PURCHASER OF THE SAME CLASS DURING MARCH, 1942, THE HIGHEST
PRICE CHARGED BY THE SELLER DURING MARCH, 1942, TO A PURCHASER OF A
DIFFERENT CLASS, ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE SELLER'S CUSTOMARY
DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES OF PURCHASERS  ..." 

IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THE REGULATION ESTABLISHES THREE MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE RULES FOR DETERMINING THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED BY A SELLER
DURING MARCH, 1942.  THE FACTS OF EACH CASE MUST FIRST BE TESTED BY
RULE (I); ONLY IF THAT RULE IS INAPPLICABLE MAY RULE (II) BE UTILIZED;
AND ONLY IF BOTH RULES (I) AND (II) ARE INAPPLICABLE IS RULE (III)
CONTROLLING. 

THE DISPUTE IN THIS INSTANCE CENTERS ABOUT THE MEANING AND
APPLICABILITY OF RULE (I).  THE ADMINISTRATOR CLAIMS THAT THE RULE IS
SATISFIED AND THEREFORE IS CONTROLLING WHENEVER THERE HAS BEEN AN
ACTUAL DELIVERY OF ARTICLES IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1942, SUCH AS
OCCURRED WHEN RESPONDENT DELIVERED THE CRUSHED ROCK TO SEABOARD AT THE
60-CENT RATE.  THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUES THAT THERE
MUST BE BOTH A CHARGE AND A DELIVERY DURING MARCH, 1942, IN ORDER TO
FIX THE CEILING PRICE ACCORDING TO RULE (I).  SINCE THE CHARGE OR SALE
TO SEABOARD OCCURRED SEVERAL MONTHS PRIOR TO MARCH, IT IS ASSERTED THAT
RULE (I) BECOMES INAPPLICABLE AND THAT RULE (II) MUST BE USED. 
INASMUCH AS THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING OFFERING PRICE OF $1.50 PER TON
FOR DELIVERY OF CRUSHED STONE TO LOFTIS CO. DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH,
1942, ALTHOUGH THE STONE WAS NOT ACTUALLY DELIVERED AT THAT TIME,
RESPONDENT CONCLUDES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE (II) HAVE BEEN MET
AND THAT THE CEILING PRICE IS $1.50 PER TON. 

AS WE READ THE REGULATION, HOWEVER, RULE (I) CLEARLY APPLIES TO THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE, MAKING 60 CENTS PER TON THE CEILING PRICE FOR
RESPONDENT'S CRUSHED STONE.  THE REGULATION RECOGNIZES THE FACT THAT
MORE THAN ONE MEANING MAY BE ATTACHED TO THE PHRASE "HIGHEST PRICE
CHARGED DURING MARCH, 1942."  THE PHRASE MIGHT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN
ONLY THE ACTUAL CHARGES OR SALES MADE DURING MARCH, REGARDLESS OF THE
DELIVERY DATES.  OR IT MIGHT REFER ONLY TO THE CHARGES MADE FOR ACTUAL
DELIVERY IN MARCH.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE VARIETY OF MEANINGS, HOWEVER,
RULE (I) ADOPTS THE HIGHEST PRICE WHICH THE SELLER "CHARGED  ...  FOR
DELIVERY" OF AN ARTICLE DURING MARCH, 1942.  THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT
BRINGING THE RULE INTO OPERATION IS THUS THE FACT OF DELIVERY DURING
MARCH.  IF DELIVERY OCCURS DURING THAT PERIOD THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED
FOR SUCH DELIVERY BECOMES THE CEILING PRICE.  NOTHING IS SAID
CONCERNING THE TIME WHEN THE CHARGE OR SALE  FN7  GIVING RISE TO THE
DELIVERY OCCURS.  ONE MAY MAKE A SALE OR CHARGE IN OCTOBER RELATIVE TO
AN ARTICLE WHICH IS ACTUALLY DELIVERED IN MARCH AND STILL BE SAID TO
HAVE "CHARGED  ...  FOR DELIVERY  ...  DURING MARCH."  WE CAN ONLY
CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT FOR PURPOSES OF RULE (I) THE HIGHEST PRICE
CHARGED FOR AN ARTICLE DELIVERED DURING MARCH, 1942, IS THE SELLER'S
CEILING PRICE REGARDLESS OF THE TIME WHEN THE SALE OR CHARGE WAS MADE. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS FURTHER BORNE OUT BY THE FACT THAT RULE (II)
BECOMES APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE "THE SELLER MADE NO SUCH DELIVERY DURING
MARCH, 1942," AS CONTEMPLATED BY RULE (I).  THE ABSENCE OF DELIVERY,
RATHER THAN THE ABSENCE OF BOTH A CHARGE AND A DELIVERY DURING MARCH,
IS NECESSARY TO MAKE RULE (I) INEFFECTIVE, THEREBY INDICATING THAT THE
FACTOR OF DELIVERY IS THE ESSENCE OF RULE (I).  IT IS APPARENT,
MOREOVER, THAT THE DELIVERY MUST BE AN ACTUAL INSTEAD OF A CONSTRUCTIVE
ONE.  SECTION 1499.20(D) OF GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION,
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 188 BY SEC.
1499.151, DEFINES THE WORD "DELIVERED" AS MEANING "RECEIVED BY THE
PURCHASER OR BY ANY CARRIER  ...  FOR SHIPMENT TO THE PURCHASER" DURING
MARCH, 1942.  THUS AN ARTICLE IS NOT "DELIVERED" TO A PURCHASER DURING
MARCH BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXECUTORY CONTRACT UNDER WHICH NO
SHIPMENTS ARE ACTUALLY MADE TO HIM DURING THAT MONTH.  IN SHORT, THE
ADMINISTRATOR IN RULE (I) WAS CONCERNED WITH WHAT ACTUALLY WAS
DELIVERED, NOT WITH WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DELIVERED. 

ANY DOUBTS CONCERNING THIS INTERPRETATION OF RULE (I) ARE REMOVED BY
REFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS METHOD OF
COMPUTING THE CEILING PRICE.  THUS IN A BULLETIN ISSUED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR CONCURRENTLY WITH THE GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION
ENTITLED "WHAT EVERY RETAILER SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE GENERAL MAXIMUM
PRICE REGULATION,"  FN8  WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO MANUFACTURERS AS
WELL AS TO WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS, THE ADMINISTRATOR STATED (P. 3):
"THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED DURING MARCH 1942 MEANS THE HIGHEST PRICE
WHICH THE RETAILER CHARGED FOR AN ARTICLE ACTUALLY DELIVERED DURING
THAT MONTH OR, IF HE DID NOT MAKE ANY DELIVERY OF THAT ARTICLE DURING
MARCH, THEN HIS HIGHEST OFFERING PRICE FOR DELIVERY OF THAT ARTICLE
DURING MARCH."  HE ALSO STATED (P. 4) THAT "IT SHOULD BE CAREFULLY
NOTED THAT ACTUAL DELIVERY DURING MARCH, RATHER THAN THE MAKING OF A
SALE DURING MARCH, IS CONTROLLING."  IN HIS FIRST QUARTERLY REPORT TO
CONGRESS, THE ADMINISTRATOR FURTHER REMARKED (P. 40) THAT "'HIGHEST
PRICE CHARGED' MEANS ONE OF TWO THINGS:  (1) IT MEANS THE TOP PRICE FOR
WHICH AN ARTICLE WAS DELIVERED DURING MARCH 1942, IN COMPLETION OF A
SALE TO A PURCHASER OF THE SAME CLASS  ...  (2) IF THERE WAS NO ACTUAL
DELIVERY OF A PARTICULAR ARTICLE DURING MARCH, THE SELLER MAY ESTABLISH
AS HIS MAXIMUM PRICE THE HIGHEST PRICE AT WHICH HE OFFERED THE ARTICLE
FOR SALE DURING THAT MONTH."  FINALLY, THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS STATED
THAT THIS POSITION HAS UNIFORMLY BEEN TAKEN BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION IN THE COUNTLESS EXPLANATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS GIVEN
TO INQUIRERS AFFECTED BY THIS TYPE OF MAXIMUM PRICE DETERMINATION. 

OUR READING OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1499.163(A)(2) OF MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 188 AND THE CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
FN9  OF THE PHRASE "HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED DURING MARCH, 1942" THUS
COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT'S HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED DURING
MARCH FOR CRUSHED STONE WAS 60 CENTS PER TON, SINCE THAT WAS THE
HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED FOR STONE ACTUALLY DELIVERED DURING THAT MONTH. 
THE TWO COURTS BELOW ERRED IN THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THIS REGULATION
AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST ACCORDINGLY BE REVERSED. 

WE DO NOT, OF COURSE, REACH ANY QUESTION HERE AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OR STATUTORY VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION AS WE HAVE
CONSTRUED IT, MATTERS THAT MUST IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BE PRESENTED TO
THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182;
YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414, 427-431.  NOR ARE WE HERE
CONCERNED WITH ANY POSSIBLE HARDSHIP THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE 60
CENT PRICE CEILING MAY IMPOSE ON RESPONDENT.  ADEQUATE AVENUES FOR
RELIEF FROM HARDSHIP ARE OPEN TO RESPONDENT THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 2(C) OF THE ACT AND SEC. 1499.161 OF THE REGULATION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  7 FED. REG. 5872, 7967, 8943. 

FN2  56 STAT. 23, 24. 

FN3  THE CONTRACT ACTUALLY SPOKE IN TERMS OF $1.50 PER CUBIC YARD,
BUT THERE IS NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CUBIC YARD OF CRUSHED
STONE AND A TON OF CRUSHED STONE. 

FN4  THE ADMINISTRATOR ALSO SOUGHT TO RECOVER FROM RESPONDENT A
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC. 205(E) OF THE ACT FOR THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT BY
WHICH THE SALES PRICE OF THE CRUSHED STONE SOLD BY THE RESPONDENT TO
SEABOARD AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 188
EXCEEDED 60 CENTS PER TON.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE PURCHASER
RATHER THAN THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS VESTED WITH WHATEVER CAUSE OF ACTION
EXISTED TO RECOVER A JUDGMENT UNDER SEC. 205(E).  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, HOWEVER, HELD THAT SEC. 205(E), AS AMENDED BY SEC. 108(B) OF
THE STABILIZATION EXTENSION ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 640, ENTITLED THE
ADMINISTRATOR RATHER THAN THE PURCHASER TO BRING SUIT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE IS NOT NOW BEFORE
US.    FN5  7 FED. REG. 3156. 

FN6  7 FED. REG. 7968-7969. 

FN7  RESPONDENT POINTS TO THE PROVISION IN SEC. 302(A) OF THE ACT, 56
STAT. 36, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TERM "SALE" AS USED IN THE ACT
INCLUDES "SALES, DISPOSITIONS, EXCHANGES, LEASES, AND OTHER TRANSFERS,
AND CONTRACTS AND OFFERS TO DO ANY OF THE FOREGOING," AS WELL AS TO A
SIMILAR PROVISION IN SEC. 1499.20(R) OF THE GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION.  BUT SUCH A DEFINITION IS OF NO ASSISTANCE IN DETERMINING
THE MEANING OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S USE OF THE PHRASE "CHARGED  ... FOR
DELIVERY" DURING MARCH, 1942. 

FN8  GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION, BULLETIN NO. 2(MAY, 1942). 
MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 188 ESTABLISHED PRICES "AT THE IDENTICAL
LEVEL OF THE GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION" FOR ARTICLES DEALT IN
DURING MARCH, 1942.  7 FED. REG. 5873. 

FN9  RESPONDENT POINTS TO TWO ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATIONS
MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR: 

1.  ON AUGUST 20, 1942(O.P.A. PRESS RELEASE NO. 564), HE MADE CERTAIN
STATEMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO AMENDMENT 23 TO THE GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION, 7 FED. REG. 6615, ALLOWING A DIFFERENT METHOD OF MAXIMUM
PRICE COMPUTATION WHERE GENERAL PRICE INCREASES WERE ANNOUNCED PRIOR TO
APRIL 1, 1942, AND DELIVERIES AT LOWER PRICES WERE MADE IN MARCH UNDER
PREVIOUS CONTRACTS.  THE PROVISIONS AND APPLICABILITY OF THIS AMENDMENT
ARE NOT IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE AND STATEMENTS INTERPRETING THAT
AMENDMENT HAVE NO BEARING HERE. 

2.  ON DECEMBER 5, 1942(O.P.A. PRESS RELEASE NO. 1223), HE ISSUED A
STATEMENT INTERPRETING AMENDMENT 38 TO THE GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION AND AMENDMENT 3 TO MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 188, 7 FED.
REG. 10155.  THESE AMENDMENTS AUTHORIZED SELLERS WHO MADE GENERAL PRICE
INCREASES PRIOR TO APRIL 1, 1942, TO APPLY THE INCREASES TO CEILING
PRICES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES DELIVERED DURING MARCH UNDER LONG-TERM
CONTRACTS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S EXPLANATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS, WHICH
ARE NOT PRESENTLY BEFORE US, IS LIKEWISE IRRELEVANT IN THIS CASE. 

INDEED, THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND IT NECESSARY TO MAKE
SUCH AMENDMENTS IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT UNDER THE RULES HERE IN ISSUE THE
PRICE ESTABLISHED UNDER A PREVIOUS CONTRACT IS THE MAXIMUM PRICE IF
THAT WAS THE HIGHEST PRICE FOR GOODS ACTUALLY DELIVERED DURING MARCH,
1942. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS THINKS THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR THE
REASONS GIVEN IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 145 F.2D
482. 
..END :








WALLING V. HARDWOOD CO., 325 U.S. 419 


NO. 955.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1945.  - 145 F.2D 349,
REVERSED. 


1.  IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ENJOIN ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT
ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ENJOIN THE EMPLOYER'S USE OF A
METHOD OF WAGE PAYMENTS WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAD ABANDONED ON THE DAY
BEFORE THE TRIAL - WHERE THE COURT FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO
RESUME USE OF SUCH METHOD OF PAYMENTS, NOR OF WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE
ACT, NOR OF INTENT TO VIOLATE THE ACT IN FUTURE.  P. 421. 

2.  THE REGULAR RATE CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT REFERS TO THE HOURLY RATE ACTUALLY PAID THE EMPLOYEE FOR
THE NORMAL, NON-OVERTIME WORKWEEK FOR WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED.  IN THE
CASE OF PIECE WORK WAGES, THIS REGULAR RATE IS THE QUOTIENT OF THE
AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE WEEK DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED. 
P. 424. 

3.  THE REGULAR RATE BY ITS VERY NATURE MUST REFLECT ALL PAYMENTS
WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED SHALL BE RECEIVED REGULARLY DURING THE
WORKWEEK, EXCLUSIVE OF OVERTIME PAYMENTS.  THE DETERMINATION OF THIS
RATE IS A MATTER OF MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION AND IS UNAFFECTED BY ANY
DESIGNATION OF A CONTRARY "REGULAR RATE" IN THE WAGE CONTRACTS.  P.
424. 

4.  WAGE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN A LUMBER MANUFACTURER AND EMPLOYEES
ENGAGED AS STACKERS PROVIDED FOR COMPENSATION AT A "REGULAR RATE" OF 35
CENTS PER HOUR AND ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THAT RATE FOR OVERTIME, WITH
A GUARANTY OF 70 CENTS PER 1,000 BOARD FEET OF LUMBER RICKED AND 80
CENTS STACKED.  THE GUARANTEED PIECE RATE WOULD RESULT IN AN AVERAGE
HOURLY RATE OF 59 CENTS FOR A NORMAL, NON-OVERTIME WORKWEEK.  HELD THAT
THE WAGE AGREEMENTS, SO FAR AS THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR OVERTIME
COMPENSATION OF ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE ACTUALLY
RECEIVED, WHICH IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD EQUAL THE AVERAGE HOURLY RATE OF
59 CENTS, VIOLATED SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P. 425. 

THE INDIVIDUAL REGULAR RATE WHICH MUST BE USED WILL DEPEND UPON THE
NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED AND THE WAGES RECEIVED BY EACH STACKER DURING
THE PARTICULAR WORKWEEK IN QUESTION; BUT SUCH A RATE IS THE ONE THAT
MUST ENTER INTO ANY CALCULATIONS OF OVERTIME PAYMENTS DUE UNDER SEC.
7(A). 

5.  WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624, IS NOT AUTHORITY FOR FIXING
BY CONTRACT A "REGULAR RATE" WHOLLY UNRELATED TO PAYMENTS WHICH THE
EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY AND NORMALLY RECEIVE EACH WEEK.  P. 426. 

WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 837, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A SUIT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION MANUFACTURES LUMBER FOR SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EMPLOYING VARIOUS MEN TO PICK UP AND STACK
BOARDS.  PRIOR TO THE TRIAL IN THIS CASE THESE STACKERS WERE
COMPENSATED AT AGREED PIECE RATES PER THOUSAND BOARD FEET RICKED OR
STACKED.  THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BROUGHT SUIT TO ENJOIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
OVERTIME AND RECORD-KEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
OF 1938  FN1  IN CONNECTION WITH THESE STACKERS.  ON THE DAY BEFORE THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE RESPONDENT CEASED
TO USE THE ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL MODE OF PIECE RATE COMPENSATION AND
ENTERED INTO NEW AND MORE ELABORATE WAGE AGREEMENTS WITH THE STACKERS. 
FOLLOWING THE TRIAL THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AND THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  145 F.2D 349. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE
NEW WAGE AGREEMENTS COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE
ACT. 

FIRST.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE FORMER PIECE
RATE AGREEMENTS BE CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL THE RESPONDENT HAD NO APPARENT
INTENTION OF RESUMING THEIR USE.  IT ALSO FOUND NO WILLFUL INTENTION ON
THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT TO VIOLATE THE ACT AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY
INTENTION OF FUTURE VIOLATIONS.  IT THEREFORE FELT THAT THERE WAS NO
NECESSITY FOR AN INJUNCTION.  WHILE "VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF AN
ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITY DOES NOT OPERATE TO REMOVE A CASE FROM THE
AMBIT OF JUDICIAL POWER," WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37,
43, IT MAY JUSTIFY A COURT'S REFUSAL TO ENJOIN FUTURE ACTIVITY OF THIS
NATURE WHEN IT IS COMBINED WITH A BONA FIDE INTENTION TO COMPLY WITH
THE LAW AND NOT TO RESUME THE WRONGFUL ACTS.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417, 445.  WE CANNOT SAY,
THEREFORE, THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO
ENJOIN THE ABANDONED METHOD OF WAGE PAYMENTS. 

AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW WAGE AGREEMENTS
WAS ALSO AT STAKE.  THESE AGREEMENTS ON THEIR FACE CONTEMPLATED FUTURE
HOURLY PAYMENTS AT REGULAR AND OVERTIME RATES AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL
PIECE RATE PAYMENTS.  SINCE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S COMPLAINT ALLEGED
GENERALLY THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS VIOLATING SECS. 7 AND 15(A)(2) BY
EMPLOYING ITS STACKERS ON A PIECE WORK BASIS FOR MORE THAN 40 HOURS A
WEEK WITHOUT COMPENSATING THEM FOR OVERTIME AT ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES
THE REGULAR RATE, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE NEW CONTRACTS
SATISFIED SEC. 7(A) WAS PROPERLY IN ISSUE.  UPON PROOF THAT THESE NEW
PROVISIONS DID NOT COMPLY WITH SEC. 7(A) THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS
THEREFORE ENTITLED TO AN INJUNCTION ABSENT ANY RECOGNIZED MITIGATING
FACTOR.  EVIDENCE ON THIS MATTER WAS INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL AND THE
TWO COURTS BELOW CONSIDERED THE CONTRACTS THOROUGHLY, PREDICATING THEIR
JUDGMENTS IN PART UPON THE BELIEF THAT THE AGREEMENTS DID COMPLY WITH
SEC. 7(A).  WE ACCORDINGLY TURN TO A CONSIDERATION OF THAT QUESTION. 

SECOND.  FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE TRIAL
THE STACKERS WERE PAID PIECE RATES OF 60 CENTS PER THOUSAND BOARD FEET
RICKED AND 70 CENTS PER THOUSAND BOARD FEET STACKED.  DURING THIS
PERIOD THEY EARNED AT THESE RATES AN AVERAGE OF 51 CENTS AN HOUR. 
UNDER THE NEW CONTRACTS MADE ON THE DAY BEFORE THE TRIAL, HOWEVER, THEY
WERE COMPENSATED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS: 

"THE BASIC OR REGULAR RATE OF PAY IS 35 CENTS PER HOUR FOR THE FIRST
FORTY HOURS EACH WEEK AND FOR TIME OVER FORTY HOURS EACH WEEK THE PAY
SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES SUCH BASIC OR REGULAR
RATE ABOVE MENTIONED WITH A GUARANTY THAT THE EMPLOYEE SHALL RECEIVE
WEEKLY FOR REGULAR TIME AND FOR SUCH OVERTIME AS THE EMPLOYEE MAY WORK
A SUM ARRIVED AT AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE AMOUNT OF STACKING DONE BY SAID EMPLOYEE SHALL BE FIGURED ON THE
BASIS OF 80 CENTS PER THOUSAND BOARD FEET OF LUMBER FOR FLAT STACKING
AND 70 CENTS PER THOUSAND BOARD FEET OF LUMBER RICKED." 

USING BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION THE LABOR PERFORMED AND THE HOURS WORKED
DURING THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD PRECEDING THE TRIAL, THE ADMINISTRATOR
POINTS OUT THAT UNDER THE NEW GUARANTEED PIECE RATES OF 70 AND 80 CENTS
PER THOUSAND THE STACKERS WOULD EARN AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT 59 CENTS AN
HOUR FOR ALL HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED, INCLUDING THOSE IN EXCESS OF THE
STATUTORY MAXIMUM.  ON THE BASIS OF THE CONTRACT "REGULAR RATE" OF 35
CENTS AN HOUR,  FN2  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EXCESS HOURS WOULD YIELD
THE STACKERS ONLY 52 1/2 CENTS HOURLY.  IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE
GUARANTEED PIECE RATES WOULD YIELD GREATER RETURNS ON AN HOURLY BASIS
FOR BOTH REGULAR AND OVERTIME WORK AND THAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE
RATES PAID. 

THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THESE CONTRACT PROVISIONS SATISFY SEC.
7(A) SINCE THEY PROVIDE FOR A "REGULAR RATE" OF 35 CENTS AN HOUR AND
FOR PAYMENT OF ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THAT RATE, OR 52 1/2 CENTS, FOR
ALL OVERTIME HOURS.  INASMUCH AS THE ACT DOES NOT FORBID INCENTIVE PAY
OR COMPENSATION ABOVE AND BEYOND THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IT IS URGED
THAT THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
GUARANTEED PIECE RATES ARE UNAFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY SEC. 7(A).  WE
CANNOT AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SCHEME OF COMPENSATION IS OBEDIENT TO
THIS STATUTORY MANDATE. 

UNDER SEC. 7(A) AN EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE HIS EMPLOYEES
FOR ALL HOURS IN EXCESS OF 40 AT NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES
THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED.  THUS BY INCREASING THE
EMPLOYER'S LABOR COSTS BY 50% AT THE END OF THE 40-HOUR WEEK AND BY
GIVING THE EMPLOYEES A 50% PREMIUM FOR ALL EXCESS HOURS, SEC. 7(A)
ACHIEVES ITS DUAL PURPOSE OF INDUCING THE EMPLOYER TO REDUCE THE HOURS
OF WORK AND TO EMPLOY MORE MEN AND OF COMPENSATING THE EMPLOYEES FOR
THE BURDEN OF A LONG WORKWEEK.  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S.
572, 577-578; WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, SUPRA, 40; JEWELL RIDGE
COAL CORP. V. LOCAL NO. 6167, ANTE, PP. 161, 167. 

THE KEYSTONE OF SEC. 7(A) IS THE REGULAR RATE OF COMPENSATION.  ON
THAT DEPENDS THE AMOUNT OF OVERTIME PAYMENTS WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO
EFFECTUATE THE STATUTORY PURPOSES.  THE PROPER DETERMINATION OF THAT
RATE IS THEREFORE OF PRIME IMPORTANCE. 

AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THE REGULAR RATE REFERS TO THE HOURLY
RATE ACTUALLY PAID THE EMPLOYEE FOR THE NORMAL, NON-OVERTIME WORKWEEK
FOR WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED.  WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, SUPRA, 40;
UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360, 363.  IN THE CASE OF PIECE
WORK WAGES, THIS REGULAR RATE COINCIDES WITH THE HOURLY RATE ACTUALLY
RECEIVED FOR ALL HOURS WORKED DURING THE PARTICULAR WORKWEEK, SUCH RATE
BEING THE QUOTIENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE WEEK DIVIDED BY
THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED.  SEE OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, SUPRA,
580.  AS LONG AS THE MINIMUM HOURLY RATES ESTABLISHED BY SEC. 6 ARE
RESPECTED, THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE ARE FREE TO ESTABLISH THIS REGULAR
RATE AT ANY POINT AND IN ANY MANNER THEY SEE FIT.  THEY MAY AGREE TO
PAY COMPENSATION ACCORDING TO ANY TIME OR WORK MEASUREMENT THEY
DESIRE.  UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER, SUPRA.  "BUT THIS FREEDOM OF
CONTRACT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO COMPUTE THE REGULAR RATE IN A
WHOLLY UNREALISTIC AND ARTIFICIAL MANNER SO AS TO NEGATE THE STATUTORY
PURPOSES."  WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, SUPRA, 42.  THE REGULAR RATE
BY ITS VERY NATURE MUST REFLECT ALL PAYMENTS WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE
AGREED SHALL BE RECEIVED REGULARLY DURING THE WORKWEEK, EXCLUSIVE OF
OVERTIME PAYMENTS.  IT IS NOT AN ARBITRARY LABEL CHOSEN BY THE PARTIES;
IT IS AN ACTUAL FACT.  ONCE THE PARTIES HAVE DECIDED UPON THE AMOUNT OF
WAGES AND THE MODE OF PAYMENT THE DETERMINATION OF THE REGULAR RATE
BECOMES A MATTER OF MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATION, THE RESULT OF WHICH IS
UNAFFECTED BY ANY DESIGNATION OF A CONTRARY "REGULAR RATE" IN THE WAGE
CONTRACTS. 

HERE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT UNDER THE NEW WAGE AGREEMENTS THE
STACKERS WILL RECEIVE 70 OR 80 CENTS PER THOUSAND BOARD FEET RICKED OR
STACKED.  TRANSLATED TO AN HOURLY BASIS THIS MEANS THAT THEY WILL
RECEIVE APPROXIMATELY 59 CENTS PER HOUR FOR BOTH REGULAR AND OVERTIME
HOURS.  FN3  THAT AMOUNT IS GUARANTEED THEM UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACTS AND ACCURATELY MIRRORS ALL PAYMENTS THAT THEY NORMALLY WILL
RECEIVE FROM THE RESPONDENT DURING THE WORKWEEK.  THIS 59-CENT FIGURE
IS THEREFORE THE AVERAGE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH THE STACKERS ARE
EMPLOYED.  THE INDIVIDUAL REGULAR RATE WHICH MUST BE USED DEPENDS, OF
COURSE, UPON THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED AND THE WAGES RECEIVED BY EACH
STACKER DURING THE PARTICULAR WORKWEEK IN QUESTION.  BUT SUCH A RATE IS
THE ONE THAT MUST ENTER INTO ANY CALCULATIONS OF OVERTIME PAYMENTS DUE
UNDER SEC. 7(A).  INSOFAR AS THE WAGE AGREEMENTS FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR
THE PAYMENT OF ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THIS REGULAR RATE FOR ALL
OVERTIME HOURS, THEY PLAINLY VIOLATED THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7(A). 

THE 35-CENT PER HOUR "REGULAR RATE" FIXED BY THE CONTRACTS IS
OBVIOUSLY AN ARTIFICIAL ONE, HOWEVER BONA FIDE IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN
ORIGIN.  EXCEPT IN THE EXTREMELY UNLIKELY SITUATION OF THE PIECE WORK
WAGES FALLING BELOW A 35-CENT PER HOUR FIGURE, THIS "REGULAR RATE" IS
NEVER ACTUALLY PAID.  IN THE NORMAL CASE WHERE THE STACKERS EARN MORE
THAN 35 CENTS PER HOUR ON THE PIECE RATE BASIS DURING NON-OVERTIME
HOURS, THEY ARE GUARANTEED THIS HIGHER FIGURE AND ARE ACTUALLY SO
COMPENSATED.  AND EVEN WHEN THE STACKERS WORK OVERTIME THEY ACTUALLY
RECEIVE AT THE PRESENT TIME AN AVERAGE OF 59 CENTS AN HOUR UNDER THE
GUARANTEED PIECE RATE SYSTEM RATHER THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE 35
CENT "REGULAR RATE." 

THE 35-CENT FIGURE THUS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE HOURLY RATE ACTUALLY
PAID FOR THE NORMAL, NON-OVERTIME WORKWEEK.  NOR IS IT USED AS THE
BASIS FOR CALCULATING THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR OVERTIME LABOR.  IT
IS NOT IN FACT THE REGULAR RATE UNDER ANY NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  AND
RELIANCE UPON IT TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 7(A) ONLY ALLOWS
RESPONDENT TO ESCAPE COMPLETELY THE BURDEN OF A 50% PREMIUM FOR THE
HOURS SO WORKED AND PREVENTS THE STACKERS FROM RECEIVING THE BENEFITS
OF SUCH A PREMIUM AS CONGRESS INTENDED.  THUS BY A MERE LABEL
RESPONDENT WOULD BE ENABLED TO NULLIFY ALL THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH SEC.
7(A) WAS CREATED.  WE ARE UNABLE TO PERCEIVE ANY REASON FOR SANCTIONING
THAT RESULT. 

THIS COURT'S DECISION IN WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624, LENDS
NO SUPPORT TO RESPONDENT'S POSITION.  THE PARTICULAR WAGE AGREEMENTS
THERE INVOLVED WERE UPHELD BECAUSE IT WAS FELT THAT IN FIXING A RATE OF
67 CENTS AN HOUR THE CONTRACTS DID IN FACT SET THE ACTUAL REGULAR RATE
AT WHICH THE WORKERS WERE EMPLOYED.  THE CASE IS NO AUTHORITY, HOWEVER,
FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE REGULAR RATE MAY BE FIXED BY CONTRACT AT A
POINT COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE PAYMENTS ACTUALLY AND NORMALLY
RECEIVED EACH WEEK BY THE EMPLOYEES. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND
THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. 

FN2  AT THE TIME THESE CONTRACTS WERE MADE THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR THE
TIMBER PRODUCTS INDUSTRY HAD BEEN FIXED AT 35 CENTS AN HOUR IN AN ORDER
ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

FN3  THIS 59 CENTS AN HOUR AVERAGE IS BASED UPON A SIX-MONTH STUDY OF
WORK ACTUALLY DONE BY THE STACKERS AND THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL BASIS
FOR ASSUMING THAT IT IS INCORRECT OR THAT THE AVERAGE IS LIKELY TO VARY
APPRECIABLY IN THE FUTURE. 

FOR OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING, SEE POST, P.
433; AND MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING, SEE POST, P. 434. 
..END :

















WALLING V. HARNISCHFEGER CORP., 325 U.S. 427 


NO. 956.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1945.  - 145 F.2D 589,
REVERSED. 


A WAGE AGREEMENT, ARRIVED AT BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PROVIDED FOR
COMPENSATION AT A SPECIFIED BASE RATE OR "REGULAR RATE."  ON "TIME
STUDIED" JOBS, "INCENTIVE BONUSES" OR "PIECEWORK EARNINGS" NORMALLY
RESULTED IN EMPLOYEES RECEIVING COMPENSATION, EXCLUSIVE OF OVERTIME
PAYMENTS, AT A RATE HIGHER THAN THE BASE RATE.  THE HOURLY RATE
ACTUALLY PAID ON MANY JOBS NOT "TIME STUDIED" WAS AT LEAST 20% HIGHER
THAN THE BASE.  HELD: 

1.  AS TO EMPLOYEES WHO RECEIVED HOURLY RATES HIGHER THAN THE BASE
RATE, THE COMPUTATION OF OVERTIME ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RATE RATHER THAN
ON THE RATE ACTUALLY RECEIVED VIOLATED SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  P. 430. 

2.  AS TO EMPLOYEES WHO RECEIVED INCENTIVE BONUSES, SUCH PAYMENTS
MUST ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION OF THE STATUTORY REGULAR RATE FOR
PURPOSES OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7(A), REGARDLESS OF ANY
CONTRACT PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY.  P. 431. 

3.  WHERE, AS HERE, THE FACTS DO NOT PERMIT IT, THE COURT CANNOT
ARBITRARILY DIVIDE BONUSES OR PIECE-WORK WAGES INTO REGULAR AND
OVERTIME SEGMENTS, THEREBY CREATING ARTIFICIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SEC.
7(A).  P. 432. 

4.  IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT THE EMPLOYER PAYS FOR OVERTIME A
PREMIUM WHICH MAKES THE OVERTIME RATE SOMEWHAT HIGHER THAN THE PIECE
WORK EARNINGS PER HOUR; SECTION 7(A) REQUIRES THAT THAT PREMIUM BE NOT
LESS THAN 50% OF THE ACTUAL HOURLY RATE RECEIVED FROM ALL REGULAR
SOURCES.  P. 432. 

5.  WHERE THE CORRECT OVERTIME COMPENSATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED
UNTIL AFTER THE REGULAR PAYDAY, SEC. 7(A) REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE
EMPLOYEE RECEIVE SUCH COMPENSATION AS SOON AS CONVENIENT OR PRACTICABLE
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 432. 

WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, V. HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 837, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 54 F.SUPP.  326, ENJOINING VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HERE, AS IN WALLING V. YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS HARDWOOD CO., ANTE, P.
419, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER A PARTICULAR TYPE OF
WAGE AGREEMENT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.  FN1 

RESPONDENT IS A WISCONSIN CORPORATION ENGAGED IN PRODUCING ELECTRICAL
PRODUCTS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ABOUT ONE-HALF OF RESPONDENT'S
PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES, CALLED INCENTIVE OR PIECE WORKERS, ARE INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE. 

AS A RESULT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THEIR UNION, THESE EMPLOYEES
ENTERED INTO A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WITH RESPONDENT WHEREBY THEY ARE
EACH PAID A BASIC HOURLY RATE PLUS AN "INCENTIVE BONUS" OR "PIECEWORK
EARNINGS."  THE VARIOUS JOBS PERFORMED BY THESE INCENTIVE WORKERS ARE
"TIME STUDIED" BY THE MANAGEMENT.  THE TIME WHICH THE JOB IS SHOWN TO
CONSUME IS MULTIPLIED BY A "STANDARD EARNING RATE"  FN2  PER UNIT OF
TIME.  THE AMOUNT SO OBTAINED IS KNOWN AS THE "PRICE" PLACED ON THAT
JOB.  WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS GIVEN WORK ON A JOB THAT HAS BEEN SO PRICED,
HE RECEIVES A JOB CARD BEARING THE PRICE. 

THE WORKER IS PAID HIS AGREED BASE OR HOURLY RATE (RANGING FROM 55
CENTS TO $1.05 PER HOUR) FOR THE TIME WHICH HE TAKES TO PERFORM THE
JOB.  IF THE JOB PRICE EXCEEDS THIS BASE PAY, HE ULTIMATELY RECEIVES
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AMOUNTS.  THE EXCESS OF THE JOB PRICE
OVER THE HOURLY EARNINGS IS KNOWN AS AN "INCENTIVE BONUS" OR "PIECEWORK
EARNINGS."  THUS THE SOONER A JOB IS COMPLETED THE GREATER WILL BE THIS
INCENTIVE BONUS.  WHEN THE JOB PRICE IS SMALLER THAN THE HOURLY
EARNINGS THE EMPLOYEE RECEIVES ONLY THE HOURLY RATE FOR THE TIME
WORKED, BEING ASSURED OF THAT RATE REGARDLESS OF HIS EFFICIENCY OR
SPEED.  ABOUT 98.5% OF THE INCENTIVE WORKERS, HOWEVER, WORK WITH
SUFFICIENT EFFICIENCY AND SPEED TO EARN COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE
THEIR BASE PAY.  THESE INCENTIVE BONUSES WERE FOUND BY THE DISTRICT
COURT TO FORM ABOUT 22% OF THE TOTAL COMPENSATION RECEIVED EACH PAY-DAY
BY THESE WORKERS, EXCLUSIVE OF OVERTIME PAYMENTS, ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT
CLAIMS THAT THE BONUSES VARY FROM 5% TO 29% OF EACH PAYROLL. 

ON MANY JOBS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN "TIME STUDIED" THE RESPONDENT HAS
AGREED TO PAY, AND DOES PAY, EACH INCENTIVE WORKER AN HOURLY RATE AT
LEAST 20% HIGHER THAN HIS BASIC HOURLY RATE.  AND WHEN AN INCENTIVE
WORKER IS TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED TO "NON-INCENTIVE" WORK HE IS PAID AT
LEAST 20% MORE THAN HIS BASIC HOURLY RATE.  MOREOVER, VACATION PAY IS
BASED ON AN EMPLOYEE'S AVERAGE HOURLY STRAIGHT TIME EARNINGS OVER A
THREE-MONTH PERIOD AND NOT ON HIS BASE RATE. 

THESE INCENTIVE WORKERS FREQUENTLY WORK IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY
MAXIMUM WORKWEEK.  FOR THESE EXTRA HOURS THEY RECEIVE A PREMIUM OF 50%
OF THE BASIC HOURLY RATE, WHICH DOES NOT REFLECT THE INCENTIVE BONUSES
RECEIVED.  LIKEWISE, WHEN INCENTIVE WORKERS ARE WORKING ON JOBS THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN "TIME STUDIED" OR ARE TEMPORARILY DOING "NON-INCENTIVE"
WORK THEY RECEIVE OVERTIME PAY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR BASIC HOURLY RATES
RATHER THAN ON THE 20% HIGHER HOURLY RATES ACTUALLY PAID THEM DURING
THE NON-OVERTIME HOURS. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR BROUGHT THIS ACTION TO COMPEL THE RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT.  IN DEFENSE, RESPONDENT POINTED TO
THE PROVISION IN THE COLLECTIVE CONTRACT TO THE EFFECT THAT "THE
PARTIES AGREE THAT, FOR ALL PURPOSES, THE REGULAR RATE OF PAY AT WHICH
EACH EMPLOYEE WHO PARTICIPATES IN AN INCENTIVE PLAN IS EMPLOYED, IS THE
BASE RATE OF EACH SUCH EMPLOYEE."  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS VIOLATING THE ACT BY EXCLUDING FROM THE COMPUTATION OF
OVERTIME THE PIECE RATE ACTUALLY PAID.  54 F.SUPP.  326.  THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT BY A DIVIDED VOTE.  145
F.2D 589. 

OUR ATTENTION HERE IS FOCUSED UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE REGULAR
RATE OF COMPENSATION AT WHICH THE INCENTIVE WORKERS ARE EMPLOYED.  TO
DISCOVER THAT RATE, AS IN THE YOUNGERMAN-REYNOLDS CASE, WE LOOK NOT TO
CONTRACT NOMENCLATURE BUT TO THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS, EXCLUSIVE OF THOSE
PAID FOR OVERTIME, WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED SHALL BE PAID DURING
EACH WORKWEEK. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT ALL THE INCENTIVE WORKERS RECEIVE A GUARANTEED
BASIC HOURLY PAY AS A MINIMUM.  AS TO THOSE WHO RECEIVE NO REGULAR
ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS DURING THEIR NON-OVERTIME HOURS THE RESPONDENT
COMPLIES FULLY WITH SEC. 7(A) BY PAYING THEM ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE
BASIC HOURLY RATE FOR ALL OVERTIME HOURS.  BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES DO RECEIVE REGULAR THOUGH FLUCTUATING AMOUNTS FOR WORK DONE
DURING THEIR NON-OVERTIME HOURS IN ADDITION TO THEIR BASIC HOURLY PAY. 

(1)  THOSE WHO RECEIVE HOURLY RATES AT LEAST 20% HIGHER THAN THEIR
GUARANTEED BASE RATES CLEARLY ARE PAID A REGULAR RATE IDENTICAL WITH
THE HIGHER RATE AND THE FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO PAY THEM FOR OVERTIME
LABOR ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A RATE IS A PLAIN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS AND
SPIRIT OF SEC. 7(A).  NO CONTRACT DESIGNATION OF THE BASE RATE AS THE
"REGULAR RATE" CAN NEGATIVE THE FACT THAT THESE EMPLOYEES DO IN FACT
REGULARLY RECEIVE THE HIGHER RATE.  TO COMPUTE OVERTIME COMPENSATION
FROM THE LOWER AND UNRECEIVED RATE IS NOT ONLY UNREALISTIC BUT IS
DESTRUCTIVE OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT.  A FULL 50% INCREASE IN LABOR
COSTS AND A FULL 50% WAGE PREMIUM, WHICH WERE MEANT TO FLOW FROM THE
OPERATION OF SEC. 7(A), ARE IMPOSSIBLE OF ACHIEVEMENT UNDER SUCH A
COMPUTATION. 

(2)  THOSE WHO RECEIVE INCENTIVE BONUSES IN ADDITION TO THEIR
GUARANTEED BASE PAY CLEARLY RECEIVE A GREATER REGULAR RATE THAN THE
MINIMUM BASE RATE.  FN3  IF THEY RECEIVED ONLY PIECE WORK WAGES IT IS
INDISPUTABLE THAT THE REGULAR RATE WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF THE
TRANSLATION OF THOSE WAGES INTO AN HOURLY RATE.  UNITED STATES V.
ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360.  IT FOLLOWS THAT PIECE WORK WAGES FORMING
ONLY A PART OF THE NORMAL WEEKLY INCOME MUST ALSO BE AN INGREDIENT OF
THE STATUTORY REGULAR RATE.  PIECE WORK WAGES DO NOT ESCAPE THE FORCE
OF SEC. 7(A) MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE PAID IN ADDITION TO A MINIMUM
HOURLY PAY GUARANTEED BY CONTRACT.  INDEED, FROM ANOTHER VIEWPOINT, THE
INCENTIVE EMPLOYEES SO COMPENSATED ARE IN FACT PAID ENTIRELY ON A PIECE
WORK BASIS WITH A MINIMUM HOURLY GUARANTY.  FN4  THE CONCLUSION THAT
ONLY THE MINIMUM HOURLY RATE CONSTITUTES THE REGULAR RATE OPENS AN EASY
PATH FOR EVADING THE PLAIN DESIGN OF SEC. 7(A).  WE CANNOT SANCTION
SUCH A PATENT DISREGARD OF STATUTORY DUTIES. 

IN THIS INSTANCE 98.5% OF THE INCENTIVE EMPLOYEES RECEIVE INCENTIVE
BONUSES IN ADDITION TO THEIR GUARANTEED HOURLY WAGES, DEMONSTRATING
THAT SUCH BONUSES ARE A NORMAL AND REGULAR PART OF THEIR INCOME.  ONCE
THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THESE EMPLOYEES SHOULD RECEIVE SUCH PIECE WORK
WAGES, THOSE WAGES AUTOMATICALLY ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION OF THE
REGULAR RATE FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 7(A) REGARDLESS OF ANY CONTRACT
PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY.  MOREOVER, WHERE THE FACTS DO NOT PERMIT IT,
WE CANNOT ARBITRARILY DIVIDE BONUSES OR PIECE WORK WAGES INTO REGULAR
AND OVERTIME SEGMENTS, THEREBY CREATING AN ARTIFICIAL COMPLIANCE WITH
SEC. 7(A). 

IT MATTERS NOT HOW SIGNIFICANT THE BASIC HOURLY RATES MAY BE IN
DETERMINING THE COMPENSATION IN SITUATIONS WHERE INCENTIVE BONUSES ARE
NOT PAID.  WHEN EMPLOYEES DO EARN MORE THAN THE BASIC HOURLY RATES
BECAUSE OF THE OPERATION OF THE INCENTIVE BONUS PLAN THE BASIC RATES
LOSE THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IN DETERMINING THE ACTUAL RATE OF
COMPENSATION.  NOR IS IT OF CONTROLLING IMPORTANCE THAT THE RESPONDENT
NOW PAYS A PREMIUM FOR OVERTIME EMPLOYMENT SO AS TO MAKE THE OVERTIME
RATE SOMEWHAT ABOVE THE PIECE WORK EARNINGS PER HOUR.  FN5  UNTIL THAT
PREMIUM IS 50% OF THE ACTUAL HOURLY RATE RECEIVED FROM ALL REGULAR
SOURCES, SEC. 7(A) HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED. 

RESPONDENT ALSO POINTS TO THE FACT THAT THE INCENTIVE BONUSES ARE
OFTEN NOT DETERMINED OR PAID UNTIL WEEKS OR EVEN MONTHS AFTER THE SEMI
MONTHLY PAY-DAYS, DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE "PRICED" JOBS.  BUT SEC.
7(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE THE IMPOSSIBLE.  IF THE CORRECT OVERTIME
COMPENSATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED UNTIL SOME TIME AFTER THE REGULAR PAY
PERIOD, THE EMPLOYER IS NOT THEREBY EXCUSED FROM MAKING THE PROPER
COMPUTATION AND PAYMENT.  SECTION 7(A) REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE EMPLOYEES
RECEIVE A 50% PREMIUM AS SOON AS CONVENIENT OR PRACTICABLE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. 

FN2  THE "STANDARD EARNING RATE" IS THE HOURLY RATE OF PAY WHICH
WORKERS IN THE MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, DISTRICT RECEIVE FOR THAT TYPE OF
WORK.  THIS "STANDARD EARNING RATE" IS NOT THE BASE RATE OF ANY WORKER
IN RESPONDENT'S PLANT, NOR IS IT THE AVERAGE HOURLY EARNED RATE OF ANY
WORKER. 

FN3  THIS IS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE.  AN INCENTIVE WORKER IS
ASSIGNED A BASIC RATE OF $1 AN HOUR AND WORKS 50 HOURS A WEEK ON 15
"TIME STUDIED" JOBS THAT HAVE EACH BEEN GIVEN A "PRICE" OF $5.  HE
COMPLETES THE 15 JOBS IN THE 50 HOURS.  HE RECEIVES $50 BASIC PAY PLUS
$25 INCENTIVE PAY (THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASE PAY AND 15 JOB
PRICES).  IN ADDITION, THE WORKER RECEIVES $5 EXTRA FOR THE 10 OVERTIME
HOURS.  THIS IS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF 50% OF THE $1 BASE RATE, OR 50
CENTS AN HOUR PREMIUM.  ACTUALLY, HOWEVER, THIS WORKER RECEIVES
COMPENSATION DURING THE WEEK AT THE ACTUAL RATE OF $1.50 AN HOUR ($75
DIVIDED BY 50 HOURS) AND THE OVERTIME PREMIUM SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON
THAT BASIS, GIVING THE WORKER A PREMIUM OF 75 CENTS AN HOUR OR $7.50
FOR THE 10 OVERTIME HOURS. 

FN4  THUS, IN THE EXAMPLE GIVEN IN FOOTNOTE 3, THE WORKER EARNS $75
DURING THE WEEK EXCLUSIVE OF THE OVERTIME PREMIUM.  THIS $75 MAY BE
CONSIDERED EITHER (1) THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR COMPLETING THE 15
"PRICED" JOBS WITH A $50 MINIMUM GUARANTY OR (2) THE SUM OF THE $50
HOURLY PAY AND THE $25 PIECE WORK PAY. 

FN5  THE OVERTIME RATE NOW PAID AMOUNTS TO ABOUT ONE AND ONE-THIRD OR
ONE AND ONE-FOURTH THE REGULAR HOURLY RATE OF ACTUAL EARNINGS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET
SEQ., DOES NOT PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT AT PIECE-WORK RATES.  IT MERELY
REQUIRES THAT PIECE-WORK EARNINGS BE CONVERTED TO AN HOURLY BASIS FOR
DETERMINING THE MINIMUM AND OVERTIME REQUIREMENTS OF THAT ACT.  UNITED
STATES V. ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360.  NOR DOES THE ACT BAR AN AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING AN HOURLY "REGULAR RATE" THAT DOES NOT FALL SHORT OF THE
STATUTORY MINIMUM EVEN THOUGH IT BE COMPLICATED BY A GUARANTEED WEEKLY
LUMP SUM WAGE ADAPTED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT,
PROVIDED IT IS NOT A MERE ARTIFICE UNRELATED TO WAGE-EARNING
ACTUALITIES.  WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624; WALLING V. HELMERICH
& PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37.  ACCORDINGLY, THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DOES
NOT PRECLUDE A WAGE AGREEMENT WHEREBY PIECE-RATE PAYMENTS ARE RELATED,
FAIRLY AND NOT EVASIVELY, PARTLY TO REGULAR HOURS OF WORK AND PARTLY TO
OVERTIME.  PIECE RATES NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE SO ADJUSTED THAT THEY
CANNOT FAIRLY BE DESIGNED AS PART OF THE OVERTIME BUT MUST NECESSARILY
HELP "LOAD" THE REGULAR HOURLY WAGE. 

BUT A PROPERLY APPORTIONED OVERTIME FUNCTION FOR PIECE WORK SHOULD BE
CLEARLY INDICATED AS SUCH IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.  NO DOUBT A LAW
WHICH, WHILE COVERING PIECE RATES, SPEAKS IN TERMS OF HOURLY RATES
PRESENTS DIFFICULTIES BOTH FOR THOSE CHARGED WITH THE LAW'S ENFORCEMENT
AND FOR THOSE UNDER DUTY TO OBEY IT.  BUT IF A WAGE AGREEMENT IS TO
ESCAPE THE OBVIOUS ARITHMETIC WAY OF CALCULATING HOURLY RATES BASED ON
PIECE-WORK RATES, BY DIVIDING THE TOTAL EARNINGS BY THE HOURS WORKED,
IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO REQUIRE THAT THE FUNCTION OF PIECE RATES AS AN
OVERTIME FACTOR, IF SUCH THEY BE, BE CLEARLY FORMULATED.  THE CONTRACT
SHOULD LEAVE NO SUCH DUBIETY AS TO THE ROLE OF THE PIECE RATE TO THE
REGULAR HOURLY RATE AS THE TWO ARRANGEMENTS BEFORE US.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE LEFT TO COURTS TO WORK OUT A HYPOTHETICAL MATHEMATICAL
INTERPRETATION WHICH, IF IT CORRESPONDED WITH THE ACTUAL ARRANGEMENT,
COULD SATISFY THE STATUTE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT IN BOTH THESE CASES SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AS TO ALL
PIECE WORK EMPLOYEES AND IN NO. 956 THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED
ONLY AS TO EMPLOYEES WORKING EXCLUSIVELY ON THE HOURLY WAGE BASIS. 

THE RESPONDENT IN EACH OF THESE CASES HAS ENTERED INTO A WAGE
CONTRACT WITH ITS EMPLOYEES, WHICH PLACES IN THEIR PAY ENVELOPES A
WEEKLY WAGE IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE RATE WHICH THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT PRESCRIBES FOR THE WORK WEEK OF FORTY HOURS AND THE
ADDITIONAL OVERTIME HOURS WHICH THEY WORK IN EACH WEEK.  THERE IS NO
CONTENTION THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE NOT ENTERED INTO FAIRLY AND IN A
GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SATISFY ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW AND TO
PROVIDE THE EMPLOYEES WITH A WAGE HIGHER THAN THE PREVAILING RATE OF
PAY FOR LIKE HOURS OF WORK, WITH TIME AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME.  THE
CONTRACT INVOLVED IN NO. 956 WAS THE RESULT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER AND THE C.I.O. UNION OF ITS EMPLOYEES. 
BOTH EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES DESIRE TO CONTINUE THE CONTRACTS, THE
EMPLOYERS BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES ARE SATISFIED AND LABOR DISPUTES WILL
CONSEQUENTLY BE AVOIDED, THE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY RECEIVE A LARGER
WAGE THAN IF THEY WORKED AT PREVAILING HOURLY RATES OF PAY WITH TIME
AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME AS THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES.    UNDER EACH
CONTRACT THE EMPLOYEES RECEIVE FOR THE FIRST FORTY HOURS OF THE WORK
WEEK A GUARANTEED MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE WHICH IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN
THE MINIMUM WAGE PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE.  FOR OVERTIME THEY RECEIVE
ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE HOURLY WAGE AND IN ADDITION A BONUS, THE
AMOUNT OF WHICH IS DEPENDENT UPON THE AMOUNT OF PIECE WORK WHICH THEY
DO DURING THE WORK WEEK.  THE BONUS CONSTITUTES AN ADDITION TO THE
HOURLY WAGE, BOTH REGULAR AND OVERTIME, SO THAT IN FACT THE
COMPENSATION BOTH FOR TIME AND OVERTIME IS GREATER THAN THE STATUTE
REQUIRES.  THE ONLY QUESTION INVOLVED IN EITHER CASE IS WHETHER THERE
IS ANYTHING IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WHICH COMPELS THE BONUS
PAYMENT TO BE ADDED TO THE STIPULATED TIME AND OVERTIME HOURLY WAGE IN
ANY DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS THAN THE WAGE ITSELF IS DISTRIBUTED. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE RESPONDENTS
TO PUT THEIR PIECE WORKERS ON HOURLY WAGE RATES AND THAT THEY MAY
CONTINUE TO PAY PIECE WORK RATES AND COMPLY WITH SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT, PROVIDED ONLY THAT PIECE WORK EARNINGS BE
"TRANSLATED OR REDUCED BY COMPUTATION TO AN HOURLY BASIS FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN
FULFILLED."  SUCH IS THE EFFECT OF OUR DECISION IN UNITED STATES V.
ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360, 364. 

THE METHOD OF TRANSLATION URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ADOPTED BY THE
COURT IS TO ASCERTAIN THE AVERAGE HOURLY RATE OF PAY BY DIVIDING THE
TOTAL WEEKLY PIECE WORK WAGE BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED.  THE HOURLY
RATE THUS OBTAINED, MULTIPLIED BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED PER
WEEK, PLUS ONE-HALF OF THE HOURLY RATE MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF WORK
HOURS IN EXCESS OF FORTY WILL, IT IS SAID, GIVE THE WEEKLY WAGE WHICH
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT REQUIRES RESPONDENTS TO PAY TO THEIR PIECE
WORK EMPLOYEES.  THE ADOPTION OF THIS METHOD IN THE PRESENT CASES
REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AS OVERTIME COMPENSATION
WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE COURT'S THEORY, IS NOT COMPENSATED BY THE
WEEKLY PIECE WORK WAGE, HOWEVER HIGH IT MAY BE. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS BASED ON TWO MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS.  ONE IS THAT
THE WEEKLY PIECE WORK WAGE, HOWEVER HIGH, CANNOT BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE
ANY OF THE WAGE DIFFERENTIAL WHICH THE ACT REQUIRES TO BE PAID FOR
OVERTIME HOURS.  THE OTHER IS THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE
EMPLOYER, WHO PAYS TO HIS PIECE TIME EMPLOYEES A LUMP SUM WEEKLY WAGE
MORE THAN ENOUGH TO PAY THE HOURLY MINIMUM RATE PLUS TIME AND A HALF
FOR OVERTIME, MUST NEVERTHELESS TREAT THE TOTAL WAGE AS COMPRISING ONLY
THE HOURLY WAGE PAID FOR ALL THE HOURS WORKED, WITHOUT INCLUDING
ANYTHING FOR OVERTIME.  IN SHORT, THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE STATUTE
REQUIRES THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PIECE WORK BONUS BETWEEN THE FIRST
FORTY HOURS WORKED AND THE OVERTIME HOURS IN SUCH PROPORTIONS AS WOULD
VIOLATE THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF AN INCREASED RATE
FOR THE OVERTIME HOURS.  IT THUS EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE
BONUS COULD BE DISTRIBUTED IN PROPORTIONS WHICH WOULD COMPENSATE THE
FIRST FORTY HOURS AT ANY HOURLY WAGE ABOVE THE MINIMUM STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT AND COMPENSATE FOR THE OVERTIME HOURS AT ONE AND ONE-HALF
TIMES THAT RATE. 

TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PIECE WORK RATE CAN BE LAWFUL COMPENSATION
FOR TIME AND OVERTIME FOR WHICH IT IS PAID, THE COURT, LIKE THE
GOVERNMENT, STARTS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL, NOT BECAUSE
IT IS INADEQUATE IN AMOUNT BUT BECAUSE THE BONUS WAS EITHER NOT
INTENDED TO BE OR CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE AN APPROPRIATE INCREASE IN THE
GUARANTEED OVERTIME COMPENSATION, AS WELL AS AN INCREASE IN THE
GUARANTEED, REGULAR HOURLY RATE OF PAY.  BY ASSUMING THAT A WAGE, AMPLE
TO SATISFY MINIMUM DEMANDS OF THE STATUTE FOR TIME AND OVERTIME, IS
NEVERTHELESS INTENDED TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE BY ADDING ALL OF THE BONUS
TO THE AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE ALONE, THE CONCLUSION IS REACHED THAT NO
INCREASE IN OVERTIME COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID FROM THE BONUS.  THE
WAGE MUST THEREFORE BE CORRESPONDINGLY INCREASED IN ORDER TO GIVE ADDED
COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME. 

UNDOUBTEDLY ONE COULD TRANSLATE A PIECE WORK WAGE INTO AN HOURLY RATE
WHICH WOULD VIOLATE THE STATUTE BY TREATING THE PIECE WORK WAGE AS
COMPENSATING FOR THE HOURLY RATE WITHOUT TIME AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME. 
BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE PARTIES HERE.  SUCH IS NOT THE
NECESSARY EFFECT OF THE BONUS PAYMENT, AND THERE IS NO GROUND FOR
ASSUMING THAT SUCH WAS INTENDED.  THE FACT THAT THE BONUS IS TO BE
ADDED TO A GUARANTEED MINIMUM HOURLY RATE FOR BOTH TIME AND OVERTIME
WOULD SEEM TO ESTABLISH THE CONTRARY.  CERTAINLY NO EMPLOYEE UNDER SUCH
A CONTRACT COULD DOUBT THAT ITS PURPOSE AND FUNCTION IS TO PAY HIM FOR
TIME AND OVERTIME AT A RATE ABOVE THE STATUTORY MINIMUM.  EVEN THOUGH
THE BONUS PAYMENTS WERE NOT THUS LABELED, WHERE A LAWFUL END MAY BE
ATTAINED BY A LAWFUL MEANS WE ARE NOT FREE TO ASSUME THAT IT WAS
ATTAINED BY UNLAWFUL MEANS. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS TO INSURE TO EVERY
WORKER TO WHOM IT APPLIES A MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE AND A FIFTY PERCENT
HIGHER WAGE FOR HIS OVERTIME HOURS.  IT WAS NOT TO FORCE INCREASES IN
WAGES PAID FOR TIME AND OVERTIME WHICH ARE ALREADY ABOVE THE STATUTORY
MINIMUM.  ONE MAY SEARCH THE STATUTE AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN
VAIN FOR ANY HINT THAT EMPLOYERS WHO, LIKE RESPONDENTS, ARE PAYING IN
EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE FOR TIME AND OVERTIME, ARE
COMPELLED TO INCREASE THE WAGE MERELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE FAILED TO LABEL
THE PAY ENVELOPE AS CONTAINING THE WAGE FOR BOTH TIME AND OVERTIME. 

THE FALLACY OF THE POSITION NOW TAKEN BECOMES APPARENT AT ONCE UPON
COMPARISON OF THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES, IN EACH OF WHICH THE EMPLOYEE
WORKS FIFTY HOURS A WEEK, TEN OF WHICH BEING OVERTIME MUST UNDER THE
STATUTE BE COMPENSATED AT AN HOURLY WAGE RATE OF ONE AND A HALF TIMES
THAT PAID FOR THE FIRST FORTY HOURS. 

EXAMPLE 1:  THE EMPLOYEE WORKS UPON AN HOURLY BASIS AT THE RATE OF
$1.00 PER HOUR.  HIS WAGE, AS THE STATUTE COMMANDS, WOULD BE $40.00 FOR
THE FIRST FORTY HOURS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND $15.00 FOR THE TEN HOURS OF
OVERTIME AT THE STATUTORY RATE OF ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE AGREED
HOURLY RATE, MAKING A TOTAL WEEKLY WAGE OF $55.00. 

EXAMPLE 2:  THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, AS IN THE PRESENT CASES,
PROVIDES THAT THE EMPLOYER GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF A FIXED MINIMUM
HOURLY RATE OF PAY EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE STATUTORY MINIMUM PLUS
ONE AND A HALF TIMES THAT RATE FOR OVERTIME, PLUS SUCH ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT AS THE EMPLOYEE MAY EARN ON A PIECE WORK RATE.  IF THE
GUARANTEED HOURLY RATE WERE $1.00 AN HOUR, AND THE EMPLOYEE'S EARNINGS
AT THE PIECE WORK RATE WERE $66.00, HIS WAGE WOULD BE THE WEEKLY
GUARANTEED MINIMUM OF $55.00 PLUS THE $11.00 PIECE WORK BONUS AT THE
PIECE WORK RATE, OR $66.00 IN ALL.  HIS WEEKLY WAGE ON THE HOURLY BASIS
WOULD BE CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS: 

MINIMUM $1.00 PER HOUR FOR FORTY HOURS .................      $40.00 

BONUS ADDITION 20[ PER HOUR FOR FORTY HOURS ............        8.00
GUARANTEED MINIMUM OVERTIME $1.50, TEN HOURS  ...  $R15.00 

BONUS ADDITION FOR OVERTIME 30[ AN HOUR FOR TEN HOURS ...       3.00

                                        -------------- 

TOTAL .................................................$66.00  FN1 

FN1  IF A EQUALS THE HOURLY RATE THE FOLLOWING FORMULA WOULD APPLY TO
THE FIFTY HOUR WEEK IN WHICH THE PIECE WORK WAGE IS $66.00:

                     40A   (1 1/2A X 10)   $66.00

                                      55A   66.00

           A   $1.20, THE HOURLY RATE FOR FORTY HOURS. 

       1 1/2A   $1.80, THE HOURLY RATE FOR OVERTIME HOURS. 

IT WILL BE NOTED FROM EXAMPLE 2 THAT THE WEEKLY PIECE WORK WAGE IS
SUFFICIENT IN AMOUNT WHEN "TRANSLATED OR REDUCED BY COMPUTATION" TO PAY
AN HOURLY RATE OF $1.20 AN HOUR FOR THE FIRST FORTY HOURS OF WORK AND
$1.80 AN HOUR FOR THE REMAINING TEN HOURS OF OVERTIME.  THE STATUTE,
SEE SEC. 7, REQUIRES NO MORE. 

IN EXAMPLE 2, THE GUARANTEED RATE OF $1.00 PER HOUR AND $1.50 PER HOUR
FOR OVERTIME WOULD SATISFY EVERY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, EVEN THOUGH NO
BONUS WERE ADDED TO THE WEEKLY WAGE.  IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT THE ADDITION
OF THE BONUS DOES NOT INVOLVE THE PAYMENT OF AN UNLAWFUL WAGE OR ANY
OMISSION TO PAY THE LAWFUL WAGE.  IF THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE CAN
LAWFULLY AGREE TO WORK FOR $1.20 AN HOUR FOR THE FIRST FORTY HOURS AND
FOR $1.80 PER HOUR FOR THE ADDITIONAL TEN OVERTIME HOURS, MAKING
$66.00, THE WEEKLY PIECE WORK RATE, I CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT OR IN THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIR DEALING AND COMMON
SENSE TO FORBID A CONTRACT BY WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS PAID THE SUM OF
$66.00 FOR A WEEK'S WORK OF FIFTY HOURS, OR ANY LARGER AMOUNT, FOR
PIECE WORK DONE IN THE PERIOD OF FIFTY HOURS. 

NO BASIS IS SUGGESTED FOR SAYING THAT THE EMPLOYER IN SATISFYING THE
OVERTIME REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE MUST DISTRIBUTE A LUMP SUM WEEKLY
PIECE WORK WAGE BETWEEN THE WAGE PAYABLE FOR THE FIRST FORTY HOURS AND
THAT PAID FOR OVERTIME IN SUCH PROPORTIONS AS TO RENDER THE WAGE
CONTRACT ILLEGAL RATHER THAN IN PROPORTIONS WHICH EXPRESS THE REQUIRED
STATUTORY TIME AND OVERTIME WAGE RELATIONSHIP OF ONE TO ONE AND ONE
HALF.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE REQUIRING THE WAGE CONTRACT, THE
PAY ENVELOPE, OR THE PAY ROLL TO DESIGNATE SEPARATELY THE PART OF THE
WEEKLY WAGE WHICH IS FOR THE FORTY HOURS REGULAR TIME AND THAT PORTION
WHICH IS PAID FOR THE ADDITIONAL HOURS OF OVERTIME.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT
THE WEEKLY WAGE IS THAT MUTUALLY AGREED UPON IN GOOD FAITH, THAT IT IS
INTENDED TO PAY FOR TIME AND OVERTIME, AND THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT IN
AMOUNT TO PAY FOR THE FIRST FORTY HOURS AT A RATE ABOVE THE MINIMUM
WAGE PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE AND TO PAY FOR THE OVERTIME AT ONE AND
ONE-HALF TIMES THAT RATE. 

WHEN, AS HERE, THE WAGE CONTRACT GUARANTEES AN HOURLY WAGE WITH ONE
AND A HALF TIMES THAT RATE FOR OVERTIME, IT IS OBVIOUSLY JUST AND
REASONABLE AND IN CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTE TO DIVIDE THE PIECE WORK
BONUS BETWEEN THE REGULAR HOURS OF WORK AND THE OVERTIME HOURS IN THE
SAME PROPORTIONS.  UNDER THE FORMULA ADOPTED BY THE COURT THE EMPLOYER
COULD PAY NO PIECE WORK RATE HIGH ENOUGH TO DISPENSE WITH WHAT IS
THOUGHT TO BE THE REQUIREMENT TO INCREASE THE WEEKLY WAGE IN ORDER TO
PAY THE WAGE DIFFERENTIAL FOR OVERTIME FOR WHICH, BY HYPOTHESIS, NO
PIECE WORK RATE OF PAY COMPENSATES.  THUS A PIECE WORK RATE WHICH WOULD
PAY TO THE EMPLOYEE A WEEKLY WAGE SUFFICIENT TO PAY SEVERAL TIMES THE
MINIMUM HOURLY RATE PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE FOR TIME AND OVERTIME
WOULD NOT BE LAWFUL WITHOUT A WAGE INCREASE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE
OVERTIME.  DESPITE THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSURANCE THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT
PRECLUDE EMPLOYMENT ON PIECE WORK RATES, AND OUR DECISION TO THAT
EFFECT IN THE ROSENWASSER CASE, SUPRA, THE GOAL OF LAWFULNESS COULD
NEVER BE ATTAINED BY THE ADOPTION OF SUCH A RATE OF COMPENSATION, SINCE
THE PIECE WORK WAGE, HOWEVER GREAT, CAN NEVER BE REGARDED AS INCLUDING
THE WAGE DIFFERENTIAL FOR OVERTIME EVEN THOUGH THE PARTIES SO AGREE. 

ALL THIS IS IN FLAT CONTRADICTION TO WALLING V. BELO CORPORATION, 316
U.S. 624, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT NOTHING IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
BARS AN EMPLOYER FROM CONTRACTING TO PAY HIS EMPLOYEES MINIMUM HOURLY
RATES FOR TIME PLUS ONE AND A HALF TIMES THOSE RATES FOR OVERTIME IN
EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM STATUTORY RATES, WITH A LUMP SUM WEEKLY GUARANTY
WHICH IN SOME WEEKS EXCEEDS THE WAGE AT THE STIPULATED HOURLY RATE. 
THERE WE HELD THAT THE GUARANTEED WEEKLY WAGE WAS COMPENSATION FOR
OVERTIME AS WELL AS FOR REGULAR TIME.  WE DECIDED THAT THE CONTRACT
CONTEMPLATED THAT THE EXCESS OF THE GUARANTEED WEEKLY WAGE OVER THE
STIPULATED MINIMUM AT THE HOURLY RATE WAS TO BE SO DISTRIBUTED AS TO
RECOGNIZE THE WAGE DIFFERENTIAL FOR OVERTIME, IN SUCH A WAY AS TO
SATISFY THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THE WAGE CONTRACT DID
NOT EXPLICITLY SO DECLARE.  316 U.S. AT 632.  THAT CASE IS CONTROLLING
HERE.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE "REGULAR RATE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 7(A)(3) OF THE ACT, IS, AS IN EXAMPLE 2, THE STIPULATED MINIMUM
HOURLY RATE PLUS A PART OF THE BONUS, AND THE BONUS IS, AS THE WAGE
CONTRACTS HAVE TREATED IT, AN ADDITION BOTH TO THE REGULAR RATE AND THE
OVERTIME RATE, WHICH THE STATUTE PERMITS. 

NEITHER OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, NOR WALLING V.
HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37, IS APPLICABLE HERE.  IN THE MISSEL CASE
"THERE WAS NO CONTRACTUAL LIMIT UPON THE HOURS" WHICH THE EMPLOYER
COULD REQUIRE THE EMPLOYEE TO WORK FOR THE AGREED WEEKLY WAGE, AND "NO
PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL PAY IN THE EVENT THE HOURS WORKED REQUIRED
MINIMUM COMPENSATION GREATER THAN THE FIXED WAGE," 316 U.S. AT 581. 
HENCE THE COURT WAS UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE FIXED WEEKLY WAGE WAS
INTENDED BY THE PARTIES TO COVER BOTH BASE PAY AND FIFTY PERCENT
ADDITIONAL FOR THE HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED OVER THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM. 
IN THE HELMERICH CASE, SUPRA, NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE EMPLOYER TO
APPLY THE ASSERTED REGULAR HOURLY RATE TO THE FIRST FORTY HOURS OF THE
WORK WEEK, THE ACTUAL WAGE PAID BEING GREATER.  IN CONSEQUENCE THE
OVERTIME WAGE WAS LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE HOURLY WAGE IN
FACT PAID DURING THE FIRST FORTY HOURS OF THE WORK WEEK.  THIS WAS AN
OBVIOUS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OVERTIME PAY REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE.    EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS COULD HAVE COMPELLED AN INCREASE IN
WAGES ABOVE THE STATUTORY MINIMUM FOR TIME AND OVERTIME IN THE CASE OF
ALL EMPLOYERS WHO PAY WAGES ON THE PIECE WORK BASIS, CONGRESS HAS NOT
DONE SO BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OR ADOPTED ANY POLICY
PENALIZING EMPLOYERS WHO ARE SO MISGUIDED AS TO ADD A BONUS TO A
GUARANTEED LAWFUL MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE FOR TIME AND OVERTIME.  IT IS NOT
OUR FUNCTION TO PRESCRIBE WAGE STANDARDS OR POLICIES WHICH CONGRESS HAS
NOT ADOPTED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















COMMISSIONER V. DISSTON, 325 U.S. 442 


NO. 589.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 1945.  - DECIDED JUNE 4, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
115, REVERSED. 


1.  IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF MINORS PROVIDED FOR
ACCUMULATION OF THE INCOME FROM EACH BENEFICIARY'S SHARE UNTIL HE
REACHED THE AGE OF 21; FOR PAYMENT OF THE INCOME THEREAFTER DURING HIS
LIFETIME; AND FOR ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS CONTINGENTLY. 
THE TRUSTEES WERE AUTHORIZED TO APPLY, DURING THE MINORITY OF ANY
BENEFICIARY, SO MUCH OF THE INCOME FROM HIS SHARE "AS MAY BE NECESSARY"
FOR HIS SUPPORT, EDUCATION AND COMFORT; AND TO EXPEND UP TO 10% OF THE
CORPUS IN AN "EMERGENCY."  HELD THAT GIFTS TO THE TRUSTS WERE OF
"FUTURE INTERESTS," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 504(B) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1932 AND APPLICABLE TREASURY REGULATIONS, SO THAT IN COMPUTING
THE GIFT TAX THE $5,000 EXCLUSION PRESCRIBED BY THAT SECTION WAS NOT
ALLOWABLE.  FONDREN V. COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 18.  P. 447. 

2. A TAXPAYER CLAIMING BENEFIT OF THE $5,000 EXCLUSION IN COMPUTING A
GIFT TAX UNDER SEC. 504(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 HAS THE BURDEN OF
SHOWING THAT THE GIFT TO WHICH THE CLAIM RELATES WAS NOT OF A "FUTURE
INTEREST."  P. 449. 

3.  IN COMPUTING THE GIFT TAX PURSUANT TO THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED BY
SEC. 502 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AN ADJUSTMENT MAY BE MADE IN THE
NET GIFT FIGURE FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, EVEN THOUGH ASSESSMENT AND
COLLECTION OF A GIFT TAX FOR SUCH EARLIER YEAR BE BARRED BY
LIMITATIONS.  P. 449. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. DISSTON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 832, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF
DEFICIENCIES IN GIFT TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, LIKE FONDREN V. COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 18, PRESENTS
QUESTIONS WHETHER CERTAIN GIFTS TO MINORS ARE GIFTS OF "FUTURE
INTERESTS IN PROPERTY," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,
C. 209, 47 STAT. 169. 

IN 1936 THE RESPONDENT, WILLIAM D. DISSTON, CREATED A TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF EACH OF HIS FIVE CHILDREN, THREE OF WHOM WERE THEN MINORS. 
THE TOTAL OF HIS GIFTS THAT YEAR WAS $71,952.  THE COMMISSIONER ALLOWED
AN EXEMPTION OF $5,000 ON EACH GIFT FOR THE CHILDREN AND ON ONE TO HIS
WIFE.  THE TAXPAYER ALSO WAS ALLOWED THE SPECIFIC EXEMPTION OF $40,000
PROVIDED BY SEC. 505 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AS AMENDED BY SEC.
301(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1935.  THE NET GIFTS FOR 1936 ACCORDINGLY
WERE COMPUTED TO BE $1,952, UPON WHICH A TAX WAS ASSESSED AND PAID. 

IN 1937 THE TAXPAYER ADDED TO THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST SECURITIES
VALUED AT $25,000, OF WHICH $5,000 WAS ALLOCATED TO EACH CHILD'S
INTEREST, INCLUDING THE THREE WHO WERE STILL MINORS.  IN 1938 HE
CREATED ANOTHER TRUST FOR HIS FIVE CHILDREN, THE CORPUS CONSISTING OF
UNDEVELOPED LAND WORTH $38,581.  TWO OF THE CHILDREN STILL WERE
MINORS. 

THE TWO TRUSTS WERE IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS NOW MATERIAL.  THE
PRINCIPAL WAS DIVIDED INTO FIVE EQUAL SHARES, ONE FOR EACH CHILD.  THE
TRUSTS WERE OF THE SPENDTHRIFT VARIETY.  ALL SHARES OF THE CORPUS AND
INCOME WERE TO BE FREE FROM "ANTICIPATION, ASSIGNMENT, PLEDGE, OR
OBLIGATIONS OF BENEFICIARIES," AS WELL AS EXECUTION OR ATTACHMENT.  THE
SHARES OF THE MINORS ALONE ARE NOW INVOLVED.  HENCE THE NATURE OF THE
TRUST AS APPLICABLE TO THEM ONLY NEED BE CONSIDERED. 

THE TAXPAYER'S SON, WILLIAM L. DISSTON, WAS NINETEEN IN 1936 WHEN THE
FIRST TRUST WAS CREATED.  AS TO HIS SHARE THE TRUSTEES WERE DIRECTED,
IN THE SECOND ARTICLE, "TO ACCUMULATE THE NET INCOME THEREFROM FOR THE
BENEFIT OF WILLIAM L. DISSTON UNTIL HE REACHES THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE
YEARS, AT WHICH TIME TO PAY OVER TO HIM ALL ACCUMULATED INCOME, AND
THEREAFTER TO PAY OVER TO HIM IN NOT LESS THAN QUARTERLY INSTALMENTS
THE ENTIRE NET INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM DURING HIS LIFETIME; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT UPON HIS REACHING THE AGE OF FORTY-FIVE YEARS ONE-HALF OF
THE PRINCIPAL OF HIS SHARE SHALL BE PAID OVER TO HIM FREE AND
DISCHARGED OF ALL TRUSTS; AND UPON FURTHER TRUST UPON HIS DEATH WHETHER
BEFORE OR AFTER REACHING THE AGE OF FORTY-FIVE YEARS, TO DIVIDE THE
PRINCIPAL OF HIS SHARE, OR SUCH PORTION THEREOF AS IS THEN HELD BY THE
TRUSTEES, AMONG HIS THEN LIVING DESCENDANTS  ...  IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS HE
SHALL BY WILL APPOINT, AND IN DEFAULT OF SUCH APPOINTMENT, TO DIVIDE
THE SAME EQUALLY PER STIRPES," WITH PROVISION FOR DIVISION AMONG THE
TAXPAYER'S OTHER CHILDREN AND THEIR DESCENDANTS IF NO DESCENDANT OF THE
BENEFICIARY SHOULD THEN BE LIVING.  THE ARTICLE CONTAINS A PROVISO THAT
IF THE TAXPAYER'S SON SHOULD DIE BEFORE REACHING FORTY-FIVE, THE SON
MAY APPOINT TO HIS SPOUSE FOR A PERIOD NO LONGER THAN HER LIFE NOT MORE
THAN ONE-HALF OF THE INCOME FROM HIS SHARE OF THE CORPUS. 

IDENTICAL PROVISIONS WERE MADE FOR THE TWO MINOR DAUGHTERS, EXCEPT
THAT THEY WERE TO OBTAIN ONLY ONE-THIRD OF THE CORPUS AT AGE FORTY-FIVE
AND COULD APPOINT TO THEIR SPOUSES ONLY ONE-THIRD OF THE INCOME. 

A SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPH PROVIDED THAT THE TRUSTEES SHOULD HOLD THE
MINORS' SHARES DURING THEIR RESPECTIVE MINORITIES, "AND DURING SUCH
TIME SHALL APPLY SUCH INCOME THEREFROM AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE
EDUCATION, COMFORT AND SUPPORT OF THE RESPECTIVE MINORS, AND SHALL
ACCUMULATE FOR EACH MINOR UNTIL HE OR SHE REACHES THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE
YEARS, ALL INCOME NOT SO NEEDED.  THE FOREGOING CLAUSE SHALL APPLY TO
MINOR CHILDREN OF THE SETTLOR IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DIRECTION HERETOFORE
SET FORTH TO ACCUMULATE ALL INCOME FOR SUCH MINORS." 

IN ADDITION THE FOURTH ARTICLE, WHICH DEFINED THE TRUSTEES' POWERS,
AUTHORIZED THEM "TO APPLY THE INCOME TO WHICH ANY BENEFICIARY SHALL BE
ENTITLED HEREUNDER FOR THE MAINTENANCE, EDUCATION, AND SUPPORT OF SUCH
BENEFICIARY SHOULD HE OR SHE BY REASON OF AGE, ILLNESS, OR ANY OTHER
CAUSE IN THE OPINION OF THE TRUSTEES BE INCAPABLE OF DISPENSING IT.
PAYMENT BY THE TRUSTEES TO THE PARENT OF ANY MINOR  ...  SHALL BE
SUFFICIENT ACQUITTANCE AND DISCHARGE TO THE TRUSTEES FOR SUCH PAYMENT
OR PAYMENTS." 

FINALLY, THE TRUSTEES WERE AUTHORIZED TO INVADE THE CORPUS IN AN
EMERGENCY:  "TO EXPEND OUT OF THE SHARE OF PRINCIPAL FROM WHICH ANY
BENEFICIARY MAY BE RECEIVING INCOME UNDER THIS DEED OF TRUST SUCH SUMS
AS TRUSTEES MAY CONSIDER TO BE FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF SUCH
BENEFICIARIES DURING ILLNESS OR EMERGENCY OF ANY KIND; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT IN NO CASE SHALL SUCH EXPENDITURES OF PRINCIPAL EXCEED IN
THE AGGREGATE TEN PERCENT (10%) OF THE VALUE OF SUCH SHARE OF PRINCIPAL
..." 

IN OPERATION THE 1938 TRUST OF UNIMPROVED REALTY HAD PRODUCED NO NET
INCOME TO THE TIME THE CASE CAME BEFORE THE TAX COURT.  MOST OF THE
1936 INCOME OF THE FIRST TRUST, $288 FOR EACH MINOR, WAS PAID TO THE
MOTHER OF THE BENEFICIARIES.  IN 1937 PARTIAL PAYMENTS OF INCOME, $94
PER MINOR CHILD, WERE MADE.  THE BENEFICIARIES' MOTHER RETURNED OTHER
CHECKS TO THE CORPORATE TRUSTEE IN 1937, AND ONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
TRUSTEES, AN ADULT CHILD OF THE TAXPAYER, DIRECTED THE CORPORATE
TRUSTEE THEREAFTER TO ACCUMULATE THE INCOME OF THE MINORS.  NO FURTHER
PAYMENTS OF INCOME WERE MADE TO ANY CHILD PRIOR TO HIS BECOMING OF
AGE. 

IN DETERMINING THE TAXPAYER'S GIFT TAX FOR 1937 THE COMMISSIONER
DISALLOWED THREE $5,000 EXCLUSIONS FROM THE NET GIFTS FOR THAT YEAR ON
THE GROUND THAT THE GIFTS TO THE THREE MINOR CHILDREN WERE GIFTS OF
FUTURE INTERESTS.  FOR 1938 THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED TWO $5,000
EXCLUSIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE GIFTS MADE THAT YEAR TO THE TWO
CHILDREN WHO WERE STILL MINORS WERE GIFTS OF FUTURE INTERESTS. 

IN COMPUTING THE GIFT TAX FOR 1937 AND 1938 IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE
COMMISSIONER TO COMPUTE THE AGGREGATE SUM OF THE NET GIFTS FOR THE
PRECEDING YEARS.  FN1  THE COMMISSIONER, IN DETERMINING THE NET GIFTS
MADE FOR THIS PURPOSE BY THE 1936 TRUST, ADJUSTED THE EXCLUSIONS WHICH
HE HAD ALLOWED IN 1936 TO THE EXTENT OF $5,000 FOR EACH OF THE THREE
MINORS.  THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF
1936 GIFT TAXES HAD RUN.  FN2 

THE TAX COURT UPHELD THE COMMISSIONER, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, HOLDING NO FUTURE INTERESTS AROSE AS A RESULT OF THE GIFTS TO
THE MINORS.  CONSEQUENTLY IT WAS UNNECESSARY FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS
TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARRED READJUSTMENT OF
THE NET GIFT FIGURE FOR 1936 OR SIMPLY BARRED COLLECTION OF ANY FURTHER
GIFT TAXES FOR THAT YEAR. 

THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES WERE OUTLINED RECENTLY IN FONDREN V.
COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 18.  GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS," WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 504(B), TO ANY PERSON ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE
COMPUTATION OF NET GIFTS TO THE EXTENT OF THE FIRST $5,000 IN VALUE, AS
ARE PRESENT INTERESTS.  TREASURY REGULATIONS 79(1936 ED.), ARTICLE 11,
DEFINES "FUTURE INTERESTS" AS INTERESTS "LIMITED TO COMMENCE IN USE,
POSSESSION, OR ENJOYMENT AT SOME FUTURE DATE OR TIME  ...."  THE
DEFINITION HAS BEEN APPROVED REPEATEDLY.  CF. RYERSON V. UNITED STATES,
312 U.S. 405; UNITED STATES V. PELZER, 312 U.S. 399; FONDREN V.
COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 18. 

CLEARLY THE CORPUS OF THE TRUSTS FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION. 
DISTRIBUTION TO WILLIAM L. DISSTON, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS NO RELATION TO HIS
REACHING HIS MAJORITY, WHICH HE HAS NOW ATTAINED.  HE MUST LIVE TO
ATTAIN THE AGE OF FORTY-FIVE TO ENABLE HIM TO RECEIVE ONE-HALF OF THE
CORPUS.  IF HE DOES NOT REACH THAT AGE, HIS ESTATE RECEIVES NO PART OF
THE PRINCIPAL.  THE RECIPIENTS ARE AN UNDETERMINED GROUP DESIGNATED IN
THE TRUST PROVISION, AMONG WHOM THE BENEFICIARY HAS A LIMITED POWER OF
APPOINTMENT.  AT THE TIME OF THE GIFTS IN 1936-1938 IT WAS UNKNOWN WHO
IN FACT WOULD RECEIVE THIS ONE-HALF INTEREST.  OBVIOUSLY THE ENJOYMENT
WAS POSTPONED. 

AS TO THE OTHER HALF IN WILLIAM L. DISSTON'S SHARE, IT LIKEWISE WAS
UNKNOWN WHO WOULD ENJOY THE CORPUS.  ONE THING ONLY WAS KNOWN, THAT THE
NAMED CHILD COULD NOT ENJOY IT.  HE WOULD CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THE
INCOME FROM IT FOR HIS LIFE, BUT THE PRINCIPAL WAS NOT GIVEN TO HIM. 
THE POSSIBILITY THAT IN AN EMERGENCY THE TRUSTEES MIGHT INVADE THE
CORPUS TO THE EXTENT OF TEN PER CENT FOR HIS BENEFIT DID NOT CONFER A
PRESENT INTEREST IN THAT PART OF THE PRINCIPAL.  THE EMERGENCY BY
DEFINITION WAS EXTRAORDINARY, SOMETHING THAT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT OCCUR
AT SOME INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME.  NO PRESENT, CERTAIN AND CONTINUOUS
ENJOYMENT WAS CONTEMPLATED, NOR DID IT MATERIALIZE.  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID
OF THE ONE MINOR IS TRUE OF THE OTHERS. 

THE QUESTION MUST BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE TRUSTS PROVIDED FOR A
PRESENT INTEREST IN THE TRUST INCOME, OR SOME DEFINABLE PORTION OF IT.
THE FIRST DIRECTION OF EACH TRUST IS TO ACCUMULATE THE NET INCOME UNTIL
THE MINOR REACHES TWENTY-ONE.  IF THAT WERE ALL, IT WOULD AGAIN BE
CLEAR THAT A FUTURE INTEREST WAS CREATED BY THE POSTPONEMENT OF
ENJOYMENT.  A LATER PARAGRAPH DIRECTS THE TRUSTEES, HOWEVER, "TO APPLY
...  SUCH INCOME THEREFROM AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EDUCATION,
COMFORT AND SUPPORT OF THE RESPECTIVE MINORS" AND TO ACCUMULATE THE
REMAINDER. 

RESPONDENT URGES THAT THIS CASE DIFFERS FROM THE FONDREN CASE IN THAT
THERE THE TRUST INSTRUMENT SHOWED THAT IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED THAT THE
INCOME WOULD BE NEEDED FOR EDUCATION AND SUPPORT; AND THE TRUSTEE WAS
DIRECTED TO ACCUMULATE THE INCOME UNLESS NO OTHER FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE
FOR SUCH PURPOSES, WHEREAS HERE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE TRUST
INSTRUMENT TO INDICATE SUCH AN INTENT.  IN FACT, RESPONDENT ARGUES, THE
TRUST INSTRUMENT MEANS THAT THE TRUSTEES MUST APPLY AN AMOUNT OF THE
INCOME SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE FOR EDUCATION, COMFORT AND SUPPORT, EVEN
THOUGH THE MINOR IS AMPLY CARED FOR BY HIS PARENTS, HIS OWN EFFORTS, OR
OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE, CITING 1 SCOTT, TRUSTS, SEC. 128.4 AND OTHER
AUTHORITIES.  WHEN FACED WITH THE FACT THAT THE HISTORY OF THE TRUST'S
ADMINISTRATION SHOWS A PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION BY THE TRUSTEES THAT
SUPPORT MONEY NEED NOT AUTOMATICALLY BE PAID OVER, RESPONDENT URGES
THAT THE TERMS OF THE TRUST AND THE NATURE OF THE INTEREST GRANTED
CANNOT BE VARIED BY WHAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DONE IN ADMINISTRATION. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENTS DIRECTS THAT THE INCOME BE
ACCUMULATED DURING MINORITY.  THE SUBSEQUENT PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS FOR
MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT MAY BE SAID TO INDICATE A DEPARTURE FROM THE
POLICY OF ACCUMULATION ONLY WHEN NECESSARY, IN THE REASONABLE
DISCRETION OF THE TRUSTEES.  IF THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE INTERPRETATION
OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENTS, THEN LITTLE DIFFERENCE FROM THE FONDREN CASE
IS INVOLVED.  EVEN IN ITS PRACTICAL WORKING, THE TRUSTEES DID NOT FIND
THAT NECESSARY PREREQUISITES FOR A STEADY APPLICATION OF ALL OR ANY
ASCERTAINABLE PART OF THE INCOME FOR EDUCATION, SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE. 

BUT, EVEN THOUGH THE TRUSTEES WERE UNDER A DUTY TO APPLY THE INCOME
FOR SUPPORT, IRRESPECTIVE OF OUTSIDE SOURCES OF REVENUE, THERE IS
ALWAYS THE QUESTION HOW MUCH, IF ANY, OF THE INCOME CAN ACTUALLY BE
APPLIED FOR THE PERMITTED PURPOSES.  THE EXISTENCE OF A DUTY SO TO
APPLY THE INCOME GIVES NO CLUE TO THE AMOUNT THAT WILL BE NEEDED FOR
THAT PURPOSE, OR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE, EDUCATION AND
SUPPORT THAT WERE FORESEEABLE AT THE TIME THE GIFTS WERE MADE.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF SOME INDICATION FROM THE FACE OF THE TRUST OR SURROUNDING
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT A STEADY FLOW OF SOME ASCERTAINABLE PORTION OF
INCOME TO THE MINOR WOULD BE REQUIRED, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A
CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A GIFT OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN FOR THE FUTURE. 
THE TAXPAYER CLAIMING THE EXCLUSION MUST ASSUME THE BURDEN OF SHOWING
THAT THE VALUE OF WHAT HE CLAIMS IS OTHER THAN A FUTURE INTEREST.  CF.
NEW COLONIAL CO. V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 435.  THAT BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN
SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE ADJUSTMENT OF NET GIFTS FOR 1936 IN
COMPUTING 1937 AND 1938 TAX LIABILITY IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  AS HAS BEEN NOTED, SEC. 502 REQUIRES UTILIZATION OF "THE
AGGREGATE SUM OF THE NET GIFTS FOR EACH OF THE PRECEDING CALENDAR
YEARS" IN THE FORMULA FOR COMPUTING GIFT TAX LIABILITY.  SECTION 517(A)
DOES NOT PURPORT TO BAR ADJUSTMENT OF THE NET GIFT FIGURE FOR THAT
PURPOSE, BUT SIMPLY PREVENTS ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF A TAX FOR A
YEAR BARRED BY THE STATUTE.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO PRECLUDE
AN EXAMINATION INTO EVENTS OF PRIOR YEARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTLY
DETERMINING GIFT TAX LIABILITY FOR YEARS WHICH ARE STILL OPEN.  THE TAX
COURT AND TREASURY REGULATIONS HAVE CONSTRUED SEC. 517(A) AS REQUIRING
DETERMINATION OF THE TRUE AND CORRECT AGGREGATE OF NET GIFTS FOR
PREVIOUS YEARS.  FN3  THE CONSTRUCTION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE.    ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE FORMULA RESULTS IN A PROGRESSIVE RATE OF GIFT TAXATION, NOT
LIMITED TO PROGRESSION WITHIN THE CALENDAR YEAR, BUT EXTENDING OVER THE
LIFE OF THE DONOR.  THE COMPUTATION FORMULA IS SET FORTH IN SEC. 502 OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932: 

"THE TAX FOR EACH CALENDAR YEAR SHALL BE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE
EXCESS OF - 

"(1)  A TAX, COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATE SCHEDULE
HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, ON THE AGGREGATE SUM OF THE NET GIFTS FOR SUCH
CALENDAR YEAR AND FOR EACH OF THE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEARS, OVER 
"(2)  A TAX, COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATE SCHEDULE, ON THE
AGGREGATE SUM OF THE NET GIFTS FOR EACH OF THE PRECEDING CALENDAR
YEARS." 

FN2  SEE SEC. 517(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932. 

FN3  THE PERTINENT TREASURY REGULATIONS 79, ARTICLE 5 PROVIDES:  "...
BY THE WORDS 'AGGREGATE SUM OF THE NET GIFTS FOR EACH OF THE PRECEDING
CALENDAR YEARS' (ASIDE FROM THE AMOUNT OF THE SPECIFIC EXEMPTION
DEDUCTIBLE) IS MEANT TO TRUE AND CORRECT AGGREGATE OF SUCH NET GIFTS,
NOT NECESSARILY THAT RETURNED FOR SUCH YEARS AND IN RESPECT TO WHICH
TAX WAS PAID  ...."  SEE ALSO WINTERBOTHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 46 B.T.A.
972; WALLERSTEIN V. COMMISSIONER, 2 T.C. 542; ROBERTS V. COMMISSIONER,
2 T.C. 679. 
..END :













MINE WORKERS V. EAGLE-PICHER CO., 325 U.S. 335 


NO. 337.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 28, 1945.  - 141 F.2D
843, AFFIRMED. 


1.  LABOR UNIONS WHICH INTERVENED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
SUPPORT OF A PETITION BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO REVOKE
AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE BOARD, HELD TO HAVE
STANDING TO SEEK REVIEW OF A DENIAL OF THE PETITION, EVEN THOUGH THE
BOARD ELECTED NOT TO SEEK REVIEW.  P. 338. 

2.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, HAVING SOUGHT AND OBTAINED A
DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD, IS NOT ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT - IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD OR
MISTAKE CHARGEABLE TO THE RESPONDENT, AND AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TERM
OF COURT AT WHICH THE DECREE WAS ENTERED - TO HAVE REMEDIAL PROVISIONS
OF THE DECREE SET ASIDE AND THE CASE REMANDED TO IT FOR PRESCRIPTION OF
RELIEF WHICH IT DEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  P. 339. 

3.  AMERICAN CHAIN & CABLE CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 142 F.2D
909, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 342. 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL & SMELTER WORKERS, LOCALS NOS. 15,
17, 107, 108 AND 111, (C.I.O.)  ET AL. V. EAGLE-PICHER MINING &
SMELTING CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 695, TO REVIEW A DECREE DISMISSING A PETITION OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO VACATE PART OF A DECREE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AFTER SEEKING AND OBTAINING A COURT ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT OF ITS OWN
ORDER, IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD OR MISTAKE INDUCED BY THE RESPONDENT,
AND AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TERM, IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE PROVISIONS OF
THE DECREE PRESCRIBING THE NATURE OF THE REMEDY SET ASIDE AND THE CASE
REMANDED TO IT, FOR THE PRESCRIPTION OF RELIEF IT DEEMS MORE
APPROPRIATE TO ENFORCE THE POLICY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 
FN1 

IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE PETITIONER UNIONS THE BOARD FOUND
THAT THE RESPONDENT COMPANIES HAD BEEN GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 8(1) AND 8(3) OF THE ACT.  FN2  THE HEARINGS
WERE PROTRACTED BOTH AS TO THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AND AS TO THE
REMEDY WHICH SHOULD BE ADOPTED.  WITH ALL RELEVANT DATA OPEN TO IT, THE
BOARD ORDERED THE EMPLOYERS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CERTAIN PRACTICES
AND TO REINSTATE 209 EMPLOYEES WITH BACK PAY.  BASED ON THE BOARD'S
UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE 209 MEN IN
QUESTION AND ALL OTHERS ELIGIBLE FOR REEMPLOYMENT, IT DEVISED A FORMULA
FOR THE CALCULATION OF BACK PAY FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS TO WHOM
THE AWARD WAS MADE.  FN3 

THE EMPLOYERS WERE DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER AND SOUGHT A REVIEW BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THEREUPON THE BOARD FILED A TRANSCRIPT
OF THE RECORD IN THE SAME COURT AND SOUGHT ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER. 
THE UNIONS, WHO ARE PETITIONERS IN THIS COURT, WERE PERMITTED TO
INTERVENE AND WERE HEARD IN SUPPORT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE COURT
MODIFIED THE ORDER AS TO MATTERS NOT HERE RELEVANT AND DECREED
ENFORCEMENT.  FN4  TWO PARAGRAPHS OF THE DECREE THUS OBTAINED BY THE
BOARD WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE PRESENT PETITIONERS SPECIFIED THE
METHOD OF COMPUTING BACK PAY TO THE CLAIMANTS WHOM THE BOARD HAD FOUND
ENTITLED.  THIS DECREE WAS ENTERED JUNE 27, 1941.  THE COMPANIES
PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE BACK PAY DUE THE CLAIMANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TERMS OF THE DECREE AND TENDERED THE AMOUNT THEY ASCERTAINED TO BE DUE
THEREUNDER.  THE BOARD, BY ITS AGENTS, EXAMINED THE CORPORATE RECORDS
AND REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT A DIFFERENT METHOD OF COMPENSATION TO
THE CLAIMANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. 

FEBRUARY 4, 1943, NEARLY TWO YEARS AFTER THE FINAL DECREE, AND AFTER
ATTEMPTED COMPLIANCE BY THE EMPLOYERS, THE BOARD PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS TO VACATE THAT PORTION OF ITS DECREE WHICH DEALT WITH
THE AWARD OF BACK PAY AND TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE BOARD.  THE
PETITIONER LABOR UNIONS WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AND TO SUPPORT THE
BOARD'S PETITION. 

IT IS SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO CHARACTERIZE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
PETITION.  IT DOES NOT ACCUSE THE COMPANIES OF FRAUD, BUT INDICATES
THAT CERTAIN EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THEM CREATED A WRONG IMPRESSION ON
THE MIND OF THE BOARD WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED HAD THEY GONE
INTO GREATER DETAIL AND DISCLOSED CERTAIN FACTS WITHIN THEIR KNOWLEDGE,
AND IT AVERS THAT THE BOARD PRESCRIBED ITS REMEDY IN RELIANCE UPON A
MISTAKEN UNDERSTANDING OF CONDITIONS TOUCHING POSSIBLE REEMPLOYMENT OF
THE CLAIMANTS.  TO THIS PETITION THE EMPLOYERS REPLIED CHALLENGING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO VACATE ITS DECREE, MOVED TO DISMISS THE
PETITION, AND ANSWERED ON THE MERITS, CATEGORICALLY DENYING THE
AVERMENTS OF THE PETITION.  THEREUPON THE BOARD MOVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
ITS MOTION.  THE MATTER WAS HEARD.  THE COURT HELD THAT THERE HAD BEEN
NO SHOWING THAT THE ORDER AND DECREE WERE OBTAINED BY MISREPRESENTATION
OR WRONGFUL CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYERS OR THAT ANY MISTAKE OF THE BOARD
HAD RESULTED IN A DECREE WHICH WAS UNFAIR, AND CONSEQUENTLY HELD THAT
THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REVOCATION OR REMAND OF THE PORTION OF
THE DECREE INVOLVED.  THE PETITION OF THE BOARD WAS ACCORDINGLY
DISMISSED.  FN5  THE BOARD DID NOT APPLY FOR CERTIORARI BUT THE
INTERVENING UNIONS WHOSE PETITION HAD ALSO BEEN DISMISSED APPLIED FOR
THE WRIT.  THE BOARD WAS MADE A RESPONDENT IN THIS COURT BUT APPEARED
IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION. 

THE EMPLOYERS MADE A PERSUASIVE SHOWING THAT, AS RESPECTS MATERIAL
ELEMENTS OF THE PROBLEM OF BACK PAY, THE RECORD OF THE BOARD'S HEARING,
AND THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING THE BOARD'S
ORDER, DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL THE FACTS NOW RELIED UPON BY THE BOARD FOR
REVOCATION AND REFORMATION OF ITS ORDER SUFFICIENTLY APPEARED PRIOR TO
THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER.  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
CONSIDER THIS MATTER. 

THEY ALSO ATTACK THE STANDING OF THE PETITIONERS TO SEEK REVIEW BY
THIS COURT WHEN THE BOARD, THE BODY CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, HAS ELECTED NOT TO SEEK REVIEW.  WE THINK
THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED, THE PETITIONERS, THOUGH THEY
COULD NOT HAVE INSTITUTED ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS,  FN6  HAD STANDING
TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE ORDER DENYING THE BOARD'S PETITION.  FN7 

THE IMPORTANT QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER, DESPITE A DECREE ENTERED
AT THE BOARD'S BEHEST, PRESCRIBING THE METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE
RELIEF GRANTED BY THE BOARD, THAT BODY RETAINS A CONTINUING
JURISDICTION TO BE EXERCISED WHENEVER, IN ITS JUDGMENT, SUCH EXERCISE
IS DESIRABLE AND MAY, THEREFORE, OUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND
RECALL THE PROCEEDING FOR FURTHER HEARING AND ACTION. 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THIS IS NOT A BILL OF REVIEW BASED UPON FRAUD
OR MISTAKE.  IF IT WERE TO BE TREATED AS SUCH OBVIOUSLY THE RELIEF
PRAYED COULD NOT BE GRANTED WITHOUT A TRIAL, IN VIEW OF THE ISSUES MADE
BY THE EMPLOYERS' ANSWER.  THE BOARD'S INSISTENCE IS THAT, UPON ITS
PETITION, THE AVERMENTS OF WHICH ARE DENIED, IT IS ENTITLED TO AN
OPENING OF THE DECREE AND THE REMAND OF THE CAUSE UPON ITS MERE
STATEMENT THAT IT NOW THINKS THE RELIEF ORGINALLY GRANTED WAS
INAPPROPRIATE TO THE SITUATION AS THE BOARD NOW CONCEIVES IT. 

WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.  THAT
PROCEEDING HAS ENDED AND HAS BEEN MERGED IN A DECREE OF A COURT
PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE
STATUTE PROVIDES THAT IF, IN THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, IT APPEARS
THAT ANY FURTHER FACTS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED THE COURT MAY REMAND THE
CAUSE TO THE BOARD FOR THE TAKING OF FURTHER EVIDENCE AND FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION.  (SEC. 10(E).  FN8  ) BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT THE SCHEME OF
THE ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT WHEN THE RECORD HAS BEEN MADE AND IS FINALLY
SUBMITTED FOR ACTION BY THE BOARD THE JUDGMENT "SHALL BE FINAL."  IT IS
TO HAVE ALL THE QUALITIES OF ANY OTHER DECREE ENTERED IN A LITIGATED
CAUSE UPON FULL HEARING, AND IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THIS COURT ON
CERTIORARI AS IN OTHER CASES.  (SEC. 10(E) SUPRA.) THE POSITION OF THE
PETITIONERS IS, AND NECESSARILY MUST BE, THAT, WHILE THE COURT'S DECREE
IS FINAL AS RESPECTS THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
FOUND BY THE BOARD, IT IS NEVER FINAL AS RESPECTS THE RELIEF PRESCRIBED
BY THE BOARD.  IT MUST FOLLOW THAT AT ANY TIME, HOWEVER REMOTE, AND FOR
ANY REASON SATISFACTORY TO THE BOARD, IT MAY RECALL THE PROCEEDING FROM
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INSOFAR AS CONCERNS THE RELIEF GRANTED AND
START AFRESH AS IF AN ENFORCEMENT DECREE HAD NEVER BEEN ENTERED. 

FINALITY TO LITIGATION IS AN END TO BE DESIRED AS WELL IN PROCEEDINGS
TO WHICH AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IS A PARTY AS IN EXCLUSIVELY PRIVATE
LITIGATION.  THE PARTY ADVERSE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IS ENTITLED
TO RELY ON THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF A DECREE ENTERED BY A COURT TO THE
SAME EXTENT THAT OTHER LITIGANTS MAY RELY ON JUDGMENTS FOR OR AGAINST
THEM.  THE PETITIONERS' CONTENTION IS THAT THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE
BACK PAY REMEDY ARE PRIMARILY AND PECULIARLY MATTERS LYING WITHIN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD (SEE PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194; LABOR BOARD V. LINK-BELT CO., 311 U.S. 584,
600), AND THAT A COURT'S FUNCTION IS LIMITED TO IMPARTING LEGAL
SANCTION TO THE BACK PAY REMEDY ONCE IT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE BOARD
HAS ACTED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF ITS AUTHORITY, SINCE A COURT IS
PROHIBITED FROM EXERCISING THE DISCRETION REPOSING EXCLUSIVELY IN THE
BOARD; AND IT CAN, THEREFORE, NEITHER AFFIRM NOR REVERSE A BOARD ORDER
RELATING TO BACK PAY ON THE BASIS OF ITS OWN CONCEPTION OF EFFECTUATING
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT. 

ALL THIS IS TRUE, AND WE HAVE ALLOWED THE BOARD GREAT LATITUDE IN
DEVISING REMEDIES WHICH IT DEEMS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT.  BUT IT IS NOT WE WHO ESSAY TO INTERFERE WITH THE
DISCRETION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY; IT IS THE BOARD WHICH IS SEEKING
TO VACATE A COURT ORDER.  THE BOARD HAD EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION AND
DEVISED A REMEDY.  IT GAVE LONG CONSIDERATION TO THE PROBLEM OF
ADEQUATE RELIEF FOR THE EMPLOYEES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, AND NOW
ASSERTS THAT IT MADE A MISTAKE.  THAT IS ALL THAT IT ASSERTS - NOT EVEN
THE BOARD CLAIMS THAT THE COURT BELOW IS USURPING ITS FUNCTIONS.  WHAT
THE BOARD COMPLAINS OF IS THAT IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO EXERCISE ITS
ADMITTEDLY WIDE DISCRETION A SECOND TIME, OR ANY NUMBER OF TIMES IT MAY
CHOOSE. 

ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY AND JUDICIAL CERTAINTY ARE NOT
CONTRADICTORY; THERE MUST BE AN END TO DISPUTES WHICH ARISE BETWEEN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AND THOSE OVER WHOM THEY HAVE JURISDICTION.  THIS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE BOARD COULD NOT FRAME AN ORDER WHICH BY ITS
TERMS REQUIRED MODIFICATION SHOULD CONDITIONS CHANGE.  BUT HERE THE
ORDER WAS DEFINITE AND COMPLETE; IT CONTEMPLATED ONLY ARITHMETICAL
COMPUTATION.  THE CONDITIONS REMAINED THE SAME; WHAT HAD CHANGED WAS
THE BOARD'S AWARENESS OF THEM.  DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD'S PECULIAR
ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY SERVES NO END WHERE THE MATTER IS ONE OF SIMPLE
MISTAKE.  IT RINGS HOLLOW WHEN IT REFERS TO WHAT ON THE WHOLE IS LITTLE
MORE THAN A MISTAKE IN ARITHMETIC, AND, IN ONE INSTANCE, IS JUST THAT. 

NOT ONLY HAS THIS COURT ALLOWED LARGE SCOPE TO THE DISCRETION OF
ADMINISTRATORS, BUT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT SPECIFICALLY GIVES
THE BOARD WIDE POWERS OF MODIFICATION.  UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT OF A CASE
IS FILED IN COURT, THE BOARD MAY, AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE, MODIFY ANY
FINDING OR ORDER IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  FN9  AFTER THE CASE HAS COME
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, EITHER PARTY MAY APPLY TO THE
COURT FOR REMAND TO THE BOARD.  FN10  THERE IS NO DEARTH OF DISCRETION
OR OPPORTUNITY FOR ITS EXERCISE, BUT OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD NOT BE
UNLIMITED.  IF THE PETITIONERS ARE RIGHT, IT MUST FOLLOW THAT IN ANY
CASE IN WHICH THE COURT REFUSES TO REMAND, THE BOARD NEED MERELY WAIT
UNTIL THE "FINAL" DECREE IS ENTERED AND THEN PROCEED TO RESUME
JURISDICTION, IGNORE THE COURT'S DECREE, AND COME AGAIN TO IT, ASKING
ITS IMPRIMATUR ON A NEW ORDER. 

PETITIONERS PLACE GREAT RELIANCE ON AMERICAN CHAIN & CABLE CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 142 F.2D 909, BUT FAR FROM SUPPORTING THEM,
THAT CASE EMPHASIZES THE LACK OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY HERE FOR WHAT WAS
PERMITTED THERE.  THERE, THE COURT ORDERED THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
TO CONSIDER A PETITION THAT THE COMMISSION ASK THE COURT TO VACATE ITS
ENFORCING DECREE BECAUSE OF WAR CONDITIONS.  BUT THE STATUTE IN THAT
CASE READS:  "AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING A
PETITION FOR REVIEW, IF NO SUCH PETITION HAS BEEN DULY FILED WITHIN
SUCH TIME, THE COMMISSION MAY AT ANY TIME, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY
FOR HEARING, REOPEN AND ALTER, MODIFY, OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, ANY REPORT OR ORDER MADE OR ISSUED BY IT UNDER THIS SECTION,
WHENEVER IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF FACT OR OF LAW
HAVE SO CHANGED AS TO REQUIRE SUCH ACTION OR IF THE PUBLIC INTEREST
SHALL SO REQUIRE."  FN11  THIS STATUTE SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS THE
COMMISSION TO MODIFY ITS ORDER AFTER IT HAS BECOME FINAL.  AND THE
COURT MERELY HELD THAT IT WAS REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO EXTEND TO CASES WHERE ITS ORDER HAD
BECOME FINAL BY COURT DECREE AS WELL AS TO CASES WHERE THE ORDER HAD
BECOME FINAL BY FAILURE TO APPEAL.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IS VESTED WITH NO SUCH POWER.  SECTION 10(D)  FN12  OF THE ACT
PROVIDES:  "UNTIL A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD IN A CASE SHALL HAVE BEEN
FILED IN A COURT, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, THE BOARD MAY AT ANY TIME,
UPON REASONABLE NOTICE AND IN SUCH MANNER AS IT SHALL DEEM PROPER,
MODIFY OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY FINDING OR ORDER MADE OR
ISSUED BY IT." 

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE ACT INTENDED TO VEST EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IN THE COURTS ONCE THE BOARD IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
DISCRETION HAD REACHED ITS DETERMINATION AND APPLIED FOR ENFORCEMENT. 
THIS PREVENTS CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY.  FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
305 U.S. 364.  IN THE FORD CASE, WE SAID, "THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON
THE BOARD BY SEC. 10(D) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, TO MODIFY
OR SET ASIDE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER, ENDED WITH THE FILING IN COURT OF
THE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD."  305 U.S. 364, 368.  BUT THE PETITIONERS AND
THE BOARD CONTEND THAT ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS ENTERED ITS DECREE, THE
BOARD MAY RESUME JURISDICTION IN THE SAME CASE WHEN IT PLEASES,
DISREGARDING THE COURT'S DECREE.  THIS WOULD, INDEED, BE A PECULIAR
SCHEME OF JURISDICTION, DEVISED TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURT
WHILE IT IS DELIBERATING TO DETERMINE WHAT ITS DECREE SHALL BE, BUT
ALLOWING THE DECREE TO BE IGNORED AFTER IT IS ENTERED.    THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE SHOW HOW UNFAIR IT WOULD BE TO HOLD WITH THE
PETITIONERS.  THE EMPLOYERS CHALLENGED THE BOARD'S ORDER IN THE
ORIGINAL ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, NOT ONLY AS IT AFFECTED THE CHARGED
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, BUT AS TOUCHING THE APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  WHEN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED THE ORDER, THE
COMPANIES HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW, OR TO
COMPLY WITH THE DECREE AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT.  THEY ELECTED TO
FOLLOW THE LATTER COURSE ONLY TO BE CONFRONTED, YEARS LATER, WITH AN
ATTEMPT TO REWRITE A PORTION OF THAT DECREE AT A TIME WHEN THEIR RIGHT
OF REVIEW OF OTHER PORTIONS OF IT HAD EXPIRED. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A DECREE OF A COURT ENTERED IN A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING.  THE TERM AT WHICH THE DECREE WAS ENTERED HAS LONG SINCE
EXPIRED.  THE ONLY RECOURSE OPEN TO THE BOARD IS THE SAME THAT WOULD BE
OPEN TO ANY OTHER LITIGANT, NAMELY, A BILL OF REVIEW.  IF THE PETITION
DISCLOSED ANY BASIS FOR SUCH A REVIEW THE ANSWER OF THE EMPLOYERS
SHARPLY RAISED ISSUES OF FACT WHICH REQUIRED RESOLUTION BEFORE ANY
RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF A REVIEW COULD BE GRANTED.  UNLESS THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT SO REQUIRES, THE BOARD WAS NOT ENTITLED, AS OF
RIGHT, TO HAVE THE DECREE IT HAD PROCURED SET ASIDE IN PART AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED FOR TRIAL DE NOVO IN PART.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT
TO INDICATE THAT SUCH A DECREE IS DUAL IN CHARACTER; PART OF IT FINAL
AND PART OF IT SUBJECT TO VACATION AND REEXAMINATION BY THE BOARD
REGARDLESS OF THE SHOWING MADE TO THE COURT AND REGARDLESS OF THE VIEW
THE COURT HOLDS AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF SUCH VACATION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449; 29 U.S.C. 151 FF. 

FN2  29 U.S.C. 158(1), (3). 

FN3  16 N.L.R.B. 727; 18 N.L.R.B. 320. 

FN4  119 F.2D 903. 

FN5  141 F.2D 843. 

FN6  AMALGAMATED UTILITY WORKERS V. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO., 309 U.S.
261; NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 362-363;
PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 193. 

FN7  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 218;
WILLIAMS V. MORGAN, 111 U.S. 684. 

FN8  29 U.S.C. 160(E). 

FN9  29 U.S.C. 160(D). 

FN10  29 U.S.C. 160(E). 

FN11  15 U.S.C. 45(B). 

FN12  29 U.S.C. 160(D). 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP OF
COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES SUBSEQUENT TO THE ENTRY OF A
JUDICIAL DECREE ENFORCING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.  BECAUSE THE
PARTICULAR FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SO ESSENTIAL TO A PROPER
DETERMINATION OF THESE QUESTIONS AND BECAUSE THE COURT HAS NOT SEEN FIT
TO REFER TO THE FACTUAL SITUATION IN OTHER THAN GENERAL TERMS, IT IS
NECESSARY TO REVIEW THE FACTS AT SOME LENGTH BEFORE DISCUSSING MY
REASONS FOR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE COURT'S CONCLUSION. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AFTER CONDUCTING PROCEEDINGS
INSTITUTED UPON CHARGES FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNIONS, FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT COMPANIES HAD COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION
OF SECTIONS 8(1) AND 8(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT.
449, 452.  ON OCTOBER 27, 1939, THE BOARD ENTERED AN ORDER REQUIRING
THE COMPANIES TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THEIR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
TO TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING THE REINSTATEMENT OF 209
EMPLOYEES WITH BACK PAY.  INASMUCH AS THE RECORD AT THAT TIME CONVINCED
THE BOARD THAT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE COMPANIES HAD BEEN
PERMANENTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILED SUBSEQUENT TO THE CRITICAL DATE
OF JULY 5, 1935, THE BOARD FELT THE NORMAL REMEDY OF FULL BACK PAY
WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE.  UNDER THE ASSUMED CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NORMAL
REMEDY WOULD REQUIRE THE COMPANIES TO PAY IN BACK WAGES AN AMOUNT
GREATER THAN THAT WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE PAID TO THE VICTIMS OF
DISCRIMINATION HAD THERE BEEN NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  AND IT WOULD
ALSO GIVE THE GROUP OF 209 EMPLOYEES MORE THAN IT PRESUMABLY WOULD HAVE
RECEIVED UNDER CURTAILED EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.  THE BOARD THEREFORE
DEVISED AND SET FORTH IN ITS OPINION A SPECIAL FORMULA GIVING EACH
CLAIMANT ONLY A PORTION OF THE FULL BACK PAY TO WHICH HE OTHERWISE
WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED.  FN1 16 N.L.R.B. 727; AMENDED IN 18 N.L.R.B.
320. 

THE COMPANIES THEN FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE COURT BELOW ON
NOVEMBER 6, 1939, AND THE BOARD COUNTERED WITH A CROSS-PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  ON FEBRUARY 10, 1940, THE PETITIONER UNIONS
SOUGHT AND OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM THE COURT TO INTERVENE IN THE
PROCEEDINGS ON THE CLAIM THAT SINCE CERTAIN OF THEIR MEMBERS HAD BEEN
ALLOWED AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF BY THE BOARD THEY WERE "VITALLY CONCERNED
WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF SAID ORDER OF THE BOARD."  LEAVE WAS ALSO GIVEN
THEM TO FILE BRIEFS AND PARTICIPATE IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, ON MAY 21, 1941, THE COURT BELOW RENDERED AN OPINION
AFFIRMING THE BOARD'S ORDER WITH CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS NOT HERE
MATERIAL AND A DECREE ENFORCING THE ORDER WAS ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.  119
F.2D 903. 

ON AUGUST 23, 1941, THE COMPANIES OFFERED REINSTATEMENT TO THE 209
EMPLOYEES, THEREBY FIXING THAT DAY AS THE TERMINAL DATE OF THE PERIOD
COMMENCING JULY 5, 1935, FOR WHICH BACK PAY WAS DUE UNDER THE TERMS OF
THE COURT'S DECREE ENFORCING THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE COMPANIES
SUBMITTED THEIR BACK PAY COMPUTATIONS TO THE BOARD IN MAY, 1942, AND
TENDERED THE SUM OF $8,409.39 IN PURPORTED FULL PAYMENT OF ALL BACK
PAY, ALTHOUGH THEY LATER AVERRED THAT NO MORE THAN $5,400 WAS DUE UNDER
THE FORMULA SPECIFIED BY THE BOARD.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS USUAL
PROCEDURE THE BOARD THEREUPON EXAMINED THE PERTINENT PAY ROLLS AND
RECORDS OF THE COMPANIES TO VERIFY THEIR COMPUTATIONS AND TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE.  THIS INVESTIGATION
WAS COMPLETED IN OCTOBER, 1942, AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD BECAME
CONVINCED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ITS ORDER AS ENFORCED BY THE COURT
CONTAINED CERTAIN ERRORS AND MISTAKES RELATING TO BACK PAY AND THAT IN
FRAMING THE SPECIAL FORMULA IT HAD MISCONCEIVED THE FACTS AS TO THE
AVAILABILITY OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANIES FOR THE 209 EMPLOYEES. 
IT APPEARED TO THE BOARD THAT THE COMPANIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY
5, 1935, TO AUGUST 23, 1941, HAD BEEN IN A POSITION TO ACCORD FULL
EMPLOYMENT TO THESE 209 CLAIMANTS AS WELL AS TO ALL OTHER FORMER
EMPLOYEES REAPPLYING FOR WORK AND THAT THE NORMAL BACK-WAGE
COMPUTATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED. 

THE BOARD ON FEBRUARY 1, 1943, FILED A PETITION WITH THE COURT BELOW
SETTING FORTH THE SITUATION.  IT REQUESTED THAT THE PERTINENT
PARAGRAPHS OF THE COURT'S DECREE ENFORCING THE BOARD'S ORDER BE VACATED
AND THAT SO MUCH OF THE CAUSE AS WAS THEREBY AFFECTED BE REMANDED TO
THE BOARD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  THE COMPANIES FILED AN ANSWER. 
THE UNIONS ALSO FILED A BRIEF AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT ON
THIS MATTER.  THE COURT, TREATING THE BOARD'S PETITION AS ONE "IN THE
NATURE OF A BILL OF REVIEW TO SET ASIDE, FOR FRAUD, MISTAKE AND NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, PARAGRAPHS 2(D) AND 3(B) OF THE FINAL DECREE OF
THIS COURT," DISMISSED THE PETITION ON ITS MERITS.  141 F.2D 843.  THE
COURT LATER DENIED WITHOUT OPINION THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR REHEARING
AND THE UNION'S SEPARATE MOTION TO MODIFY THE DECREE OR TO VACATE THE
PARAGRAPHS IN QUESTION AND REMAND TO THE BOARD. 

                                  I 

TURNING TO THE FACTS RELATIVE TO THE ALLEGED ERROR, WE FIND THAT THE
BOARD IN FRAMING ITS BACK PAY FORMULA FOR THE 209 EMPLOYEES EXPRESSLY
DESIRED TO MAKE THEM WHOLE AND "TO RESTORE THE SITUATION, AS NEARLY AS
POSSIBLE, TO THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE OBTAINED BUT FOR THE ILLEGAL
DISCRIMINATION."  16 N.L.R.B. AT 834.  NORMALLY THE BOARD WOULD HAVE
DIRECTED PAYMENT OF FULL BACK PAY TO EACH CLAIMANT FROM THE DATE OF
DISCRIMINATION TO THE DATE OF OFFER OF REINSTATEMENT OR PLACEMENT ON A
PREFERENTIAL REHIRING LIST, ALLOWING DUE CREDIT FOR NET INTERIM
EARNINGS RECEIVED FROM OTHER EMPLOYMENT.  BUT THE BOARD FELT THAT "THE
PECULIAR FACTUAL SITUATION HERE PRESENTS UNUSUAL DIFFICULTIES IN
FASHIONING OUR REMEDY SO AS TO RESTORE THE STATUS QUO," 16 N.L.R.B. AT
834, AND THAT A SPECIAL REMEDY SHOULD BE DEVISED. 

IT APPEARS THAT A STRIKE, BEGINNING ON MAY 8, 1935, CAUSED THE
COMPANIES TO CLOSE DOWN FOR SEVERAL WEEKS.  ON THAT DAY APPROXIMATELY
1,100 MEN WERE EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANIES.  OPERATIONS WERE RESUMED ON
JUNE 12 AND THE BOARD FOUND THAT THEREAFTER THE COMPANIES
DISCRIMINATORILY REFUSED TO REHIRE THE 209 EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION,
REFERRED TO AS THE CLAIMANTS.  EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED BY THE
COMPANIES, HOWEVER, TO SHOW THAT AFTER JULY 5, 1935, THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE ACT, CERTAIN OF THEIR MINES WERE SOLD, MANY OPERATIONS
SUSPENDED, PRODUCTION METHODS REORGANIZED AND SPECIFIC JOBS ABOLISHED -
RESULTING IN A DRASTIC CURTAILMENT OF THE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE JOBS. 
ACCORDING TO THE BOARD, ONLY ABOUT 600 MEN WERE EMPLOYED BY JULY 5. 
SOME 350 OF THE 500 EMPLOYEES NOT THEN WORKING WERE CLAIMANTS IN THE
CASE, ALTHOUGH DISCRIMINATION WAS FOUND ONLY AS TO 209 OF THEM.  AFTER
JULY 5 A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL MEN WERE PUT TO WORK, BUT THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WAS STILL CONSIDERABLY SHORT OF THE PRE
STRIKE LEVEL OF 1,100.  THE BOARD APPARENTLY ASSUMED THAT ALL 1,100 MEN
WOULD REAPPLY FOR WORK AFTER THE SETTLEMENT OF THE STRIKE, THUS MAKING
THE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE JOBS INSUFFICIENT.  AS IT LATER BECAME EVIDENT,
HOWEVER, NOT ALL OF THE 1,100 REAPPLIED AND THERE WERE, ACCORDING TO
THE BOARD, SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES AT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL TIMES FOR ALL
WHO ACTUALLY REAPPLIED, INCLUDING THE 209 VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION. 

ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT "THERE WERE PRESUMABLY AT ALL TIMES LESS JOBS
OPEN THAN OLD EMPLOYEES AVAILABLE," 16 N.L.R.B. AT 834, AND THAT THERE
WAS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHICH MEN WOULD HAVE BEEN REINSTATED HAD THE
COMPANIES ACTED LEGALLY, THE BOARD DEVISED A SPECIAL FORMULA FOR
COMPUTING BACK PAY.  IT DIRECTED THAT THERE BE COMPUTED AS A LUMP SUM
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WAGES ACTUALLY PAID TO ALL PERSONS HIRED OR
REINSTATED FROM AND AFTER JULY 5, 1935, UP TO THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE
WITH THE BOARD ORDER REINSTATING OR PLACING THE 209 EMPLOYEES ON A
PREFERENTIAL LIST.  THE BOARD INDICATED THAT "WE SHALL NOT CREDIT THE
ENTIRE LUMP SUM TO THE CLAIMANTS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, SINCE WE CANNOT
ASSUME THAT THEY AND ONLY THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THESE JOBS HAD THE
RESPONDENTS ACTED LAWFULLY.  BUT WE CAN AND DO ASSUME FOR THIS PURPOSE
THAT A PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF SUCH CLAIMANTS WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE
JOBS."  16 N.L.R.B. AT 835, 836.  ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD DIRECTED THAT
A PROPORTION OF THE LUMP SUM SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE 209
CLAIMANTS.  THIS PROPORTION WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY A GOVERNING
FRACTION HAVING AS ITS NUMERATOR THE NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS AND AS ITS
DENOMINATOR THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS AND ALL OTHER PRE-STRIKE
EMPLOYEES WHO REAPPLIED FOR WORK, WHETHER SUCCESSFULLY OR NOT, AFTER
JULY 5, 1935.  THUS, BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION, IF THE LUMP SUM AMOUNTED
TO $360,000 AND THERE WERE 200 CLAIMANTS AND 100 OTHER REAPPLICANTS,
THE GOVERNING FRACTION WOULD BE TWO-THIRDS AND THE BASIC SUM OF
$240,000 WOULD BE DIVIDED AMONG THE 200 CLAIMANTS, WITH ADJUSTMENTS
BEING MADE FOR NET EARNINGS ELSEWHERE.  NEITHER THE BOARD'S ORDER NOR
THE COURT'S ENFORCING DECREE FIXED THE AMOUNT OF BACK PAY DUE UNDER
THIS FORMULA.  THE DETERMINATION OF THAT SUM WAS LEFT TO BE MADE AFTER
THE PERIOD OF DISCRIMINATION ENDED. 

FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE PERIOD OF DISCRIMINATION, THE BOARD
EXAMINED THE PAYROLLS AND OTHER RECORDS OF THE COMPANIES TO DETERMINE
THE EXACT AMOUNT OF BACK WAGES DUE THE 209 CLAIMANTS.  ACCORDING TO THE
BOARD, THIS INVESTIGATION REVEALED THAT, DESPITE ANY CURTAILMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT, THE COMPANIES AT VIRTUALLY ALL TIMES AFTER JULY 5, 1935,
HAD JOBS OPENING UP IN NUMBERS EQUAL TO AND AT TIMES IN EXCESS OF THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS AND REAPPLICANTS AND THAT SUCH POSITIONS WERE
AVAILABLE AT VIRTUALLY ALL TIMES TO ALL THE CLAIMANTS AND
REAPPLICANTS.  THIS INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD IN SUPPORT
OF ITS PETITION TO VACATE AND REMAND THE PORTIONS OF THE COURT'S DECREE
RELATING TO BACK PAY.  IT CLAIMED THAT IT HAD BEEN LED INTO ERROR IN
FRAMING ITS ORIGINAL FORMULA BY THE EVIDENCE AND CONTENTION OF THE
COMPANIES RELATIVE TO CURTAILED EMPLOYMENT AND THAT SUCH A FORMULA,
UNDER THE FACTS AS THEY NOW APPEARED TO THE BOARD, WOULD BE GROSSLY
INEQUITABLE TO THOSE WHO HAD SUFFERED DEPRIVATION OF EARNINGS AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THE COMPANIES' UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. 

THE PARTIES DIFFER AS TO WHETHER THE BOARD AT THE TIME IT FRAMED THE
SPECIAL FORMULA WAS AWARE OF OR HAD ACCESS TO THE FACTS WHICH IT NOW
RELIES UPON.  THE BOARD ALLEGES THAT IT WAS IGNORANT OF THESE FACTS AND
THUS MISCONCEIVED THE REMEDY.  THE COMPANIES STATE, HOWEVER, THAT THE
BOARD ACTUALLY KNEW OF THESE FACTS AND THAT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
DISCRETION, IT DECREED THAT PARTIAL RATHER THAN FULL BACK WAGES SHOULD
BE PAID.  WE NEED NOT PAUSE TO DETERMINE THIS CONTROVERSY FOR IT
APPEARS OBVIOUS THAT, ASSUMING THE FIGURES SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD ARE
TRUE, THE SPECIAL FORMULA SPECIFIED BY THE BOARD IS GROSSLY INADEQUATE
AND FALLS FAR SHORT OF ACHIEVING THE EXPRESSED DESIRE OF THE BOARD IN
THIS CASE "TO RESTORE THE SITUATION, AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE, TO THAT
WHICH WOULD HAVE OBTAINED BUT FOR THE ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION."    IF IT
WERE TRUE THAT THERE WERE INSUFFICIENT JOBS FOR THE 209 CLAIMANTS AS
WELL AS FOR THE OTHER REAPPLICANTS THE SPECIAL FORMULA WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE.  THEN IT COULD BE SAID THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL
WHETHER THE 209 CLAIMANTS WOULD ALL HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANIES
SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 5, 1935, AND THAT IT WAS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO
APPORTION THE AVAILABLE JOBS AMONG CLAIMANTS AND OTHER REAPPLICANTS FOR
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING HOW MUCH BACK PAY WAS DUE THE CLAIMANTS.  BUT
IF IT IS A FACT THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR
ALL THE 209 CLAIMANTS AND THE REAPPLICANTS AT VIRTUALLY ALL TIMES, THE
BACK PAY FORMULA FRAMED BY THE BOARD BECOMES INADEQUATE.  SINCE ALL OF
THE CLAIMANTS WOULD THEN PRESUMABLY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANIES
AT ALL TIMES BUT FOR THE DISCRIMINATION, ALL OF THEM SUFFERED THE LOSS
OF THE FULL WAGES WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED AND ANY FORMULA WHICH
GIVES THEM LESS THAN THAT AMOUNT FAILS TO MAKE THEM WHOLE.  AND THE
COMPANIES ESCAPE PAYING THE FULL AMOUNT OF WAGES THEY WOULD HAVE PAID
HAD THEY ACTED LEGALLY. 

WE CANNOT ASCRIBE TO THE BOARD A DELIBERATE INTENTION TO PRESCRIBE
SOMETHING LESS THAN A FULL MAKE WHOLE REMEDY.  NOTHING APPEARS IN THE
BOARD'S OPINION OR ORDER TO THAT EFFECT.  INDEED, THE BOARD'S
STATEMENTS OF ITS OBJECTIVES IN THIS CASE EXPRESSLY NEGATIVE SUCH AN
INTENTION.  AND THE REASON GIVEN FOR FASHIONING THE SPECIAL FORMULA -
THE FACT THAT THERE WERE PRESUMABLY AT ALL TIMES LESS JOBS OPEN THAN
OLD EMPLOYEES AVAILABLE - IS CONSISTENT ONLY WITH A DESIRE TO
COMPENSATE THE CLAIMANTS AS FULLY AND AS EQUITABLY AS POSSIBLE UNDER
THE FACTS AS THEN CONTEMPLATED. 

IN ADDITION TO THE ALLEGED INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THE FORMULA AS A
WHOLE, THE BOARD CLAIMS THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER ERRORS IN THE
BACK PAY PROVISIONS THAT WARRANT REMAND FOR PURPOSES OF CORRECTION. 
THUS FOOTNOTE 185 OF THE BOARD'S OPINION INADVERTENTLY CONTAINS A
SERIOUS OMISSION WHICH, CONTRARY TO THE BOARD'S INTENTION, LIMITS THE
LUMP SUM USED IN THE FORMULA TO THE EARNINGS OF ONLY 209 EMPLOYEES
RATHER THAN TO THE EARNINGS OF 209 EMPLOYEES PLUS THE NUMBER OF OLD
EMPLOYEES REAPPLYING.  FN2  THE GOVERNING FRACTION INCLUDES THE LATTER
EMPLOYEES AND THE LUMP SUM SHOULD IN TURN REFLECT THEIR EARNINGS. 
OTHERWISE THE CLAIMANTS ARE LIMITED TO A SMALL PART OF THEIR
PROPORTIONATE LOSS IN WAGES.  MOREOVER, THE FORMULA ILLOGICALLY
REQUIRES THAT THERE BE DEDUCTED FROM EACH CLAIMANT'S SHARE THE FULL
AMOUNT RATHER THAN A PRO RATA SHARE OF HIS INTERIM EARNINGS.  THESE
ERRORS AND CERTAIN AMBIGUITIES  FN3  SERVE TO MAKE THE PARTIAL BACK PAY
FORMULA AN INEFFECTIVE MEANS FOR MAKING THE EMPLOYEES AS WHOLE AS
POSSIBLE EVEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN
CURTAILED.  THE REMEDY WHICH THE BOARD ORIGINALLY FOUND TO BE ESSENTIAL
TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT IS THEREBY RENDERED INADEQUATE. 

THE PRACTICAL IMPACT OF THIS SITUATION ON THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IS
SERIOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL.  UNDER THE BOARD'S PARTIAL AND MATHEMATICALLY
INACCURATE BACK PAY FORMULA, WHICH THIS COURT NOW INSISTS MUST BE
FOLLOWED, THE COMPANIES CLAIM THAT THE 209 EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO
ONLY $5,400.  BUT IF THE TRUE FACTS ARE AS REPRESENTED BY THE BOARD AND
IF IT SHOULD BE DETERMINED THAT THE FULL BACK PAY FORMULA SHOULD BE
UTILIZED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, APPROXIMATELY $800,000 WOULD BE DUE
THESE 209 EMPLOYEES AFTER ALLOWANCE FOR INTERIM EARNINGS ELSEWHERE. 
THUS THESE EMPLOYEES MUST BEAR THE LOSS OF NEARLY $795,000 IN UNPAID
BACK WAGES RESULTING FROM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE COMPANIES. 
ON THEM RESTS THE PENALTY FOR WHAT THIS COURT EUPHEMISTICALLY CALLS
"LITTLE MORE THAN A MISTAKE IN ARITHMETIC." 

IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT UNLESS THE BOARD IS GIVEN SOME OPPORTUNITY TO
REEXAMINE ITS BACK PAY REMEDY MUCH OF THE LOSS RESULTING FROM THE
COMPANIES' UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES MAY BE SHIFTED FROM THE COMPANIES TO
THE EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE ACT MAY BE LARGELY
CIRCUMVENTED.  OUR CONCERN HERE IS NOT WITH THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS
ALLEGED BY THE BOARD OR WITH THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY OTHER REMEDY
THE BOARD MIGHT DEVISE.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE BOARD HAS CAST
SUFFICIENT DOUBT ON THE APPROPRIATENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF ITS ORIGINAL
REMEDY TO WARRANT RESUBMISSION OF THE MATTER TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION.  THE COURT TODAY DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO DENY THAT THE
SITUATION IS AN INTOLERABLE ONE IN LIGHT OF THE ALLEGED FACTS OR THAT
MODIFICATION OR REMAND OF THE BACK PAY PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE IS A
REASONABLE REQUEST UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  HENCE, UNLESS SOME
PRINCIPLE OF LAW OR STATUTE COMPELS THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION, SUCH A
REMAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. 

                                  II 

THE PERTINENT LEGAL AND STATUTORY RULES, IN MY OPINION, DO NOT
PRECLUDE REMAND OF THE BACK PAY PROVISIONS OF THE COURT'S DECREE TO THE
BOARD UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE COMPANIES ARGUE THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE BOARD'S DISCRETION IN
DEVISING A BACK PAY FORMULA BECAME A FINALITY BY VIRTUE OF THE
ENFORCING DECREE OF THE COURT BELOW AND THAT THIS FORMULA CANNOT BE
MODIFIED OR RECONSIDERED AT THIS LATE DATE.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT ALL
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES UNDER THE DECREE WERE FIXED AND FULLY ACCRUED ON
AUGUST 23, 1941, THE TERMINAL DATE OF THE PERIOD OF DISCRIMINATION, AND
THAT THE COURT BELOW HAD NO JURISDICTION TO VACATE OR REMAND ANY
PORTION OF THAT DECREE SUBSEQUENT TO THE END OF THE TERM IN WHICH IT
WAS ENTERED. 

BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT THE BACK PAY FORMULA, AS ENFORCED BY THE COURT'S
DECREE, WAS AT MOST PROVISIONAL AND TENTATIVE IN CHARACTER.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 286 U.S. 106, 114.  IT DID NOT PRETEND TO BE
BASED UPON DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE FINDINGS AS TO ACTUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES AND ACTUAL LOSSES SUFFERED DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF
DISCRIMINATION, FACTS WHICH WERE IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE UNTIL AFTER
THE CLOSE OF THAT PERIOD.  EVEN THOUGH THE HEARING CLOSED ON APRIL 29,
1938, THAT PART OF THE ORDER RELATING TO BACK PAY SPOKE AS OF JULY 5,
1935.  THE BOARD MERELY ASSUMED FROM CERTAIN EVIDENCE AND ALLEGATIONS
THAT THERE WOULD BE DECREASED EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AT ALL TIMES
AFTER JULY 5, 1935, AND LEFT TO THE FUTURE THE PROBLEM OF UNCOVERING
THE COMPLETE FACTS.  THE FORMULA WAS DRAWN IN LIGHT OF THAT ASSUMPTION,
AN ASSUMPTION THAT NECESSARILY CONTEMPLATED THAT UNDISCLOSED OR NEW
FACTS OR A REMOVAL OF A MISCONCEPTION OF THE TRUE FACTS MIGHT CALL FOR
AN ADJUSTMENT IN THE REMEDY TO BE APPLIED.  AND THE ENFORCING DECREE OF
THE COURT IN NO WAY AFFECTED THE TENTATIVE AND UNEXECUTED NATURE OF
THIS FORMULA. 

THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES UNDER SUCH A BACK PAY FORMULA COULD NOT
BECOME FINAL UNTIL THE BOARD OR THE COURTS WERE SATISFIED WITH THE
APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA TO THE ACTUAL FACTS OR UNTIL THE FORMULA
RIPENED INTO AN EXECUTED DECREE.  THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE REMEDY WAS TO
VINDICATE THE PUBLIC POLICY BY COMPENSATING THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE
LOSSES THEY HAD SUFFERED DUE TO THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE
COMPANIES RATHER THAN TO PUNISH THE COMPANIES.  UNTIL IT WAS
AUTHORITATIVELY DETERMINED THAT THE REMEDY DID ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE
AS APPLIED TO THE ACTUAL FACTS, OR UNTIL THE DECREE WAS FULLY EXECUTED,
NO RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES CAN BE SAID FINALLY TO HAVE ACCRUED.  THUS
THE COMPANIES HAD NO VESTED RIGHT ON THE DAY THEY CEASED THEIR
DISCRIMINATORY POLICY RELATIVE TO THE 209 EMPLOYEES TO COMPENSATE THOSE
EMPLOYEES ACCORDING TO A FORMULA WHICH WOEFULLY FAILED TO MAKE THE
EMPLOYEES WHOLE.  THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE DECREE COULD STILL BE
MODIFIED OR REMANDED. 

AS THE COURT BELOW RECOGNIZED, IT RETAINED "JURISDICTION OVER THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF ITS DECREE WHICH REMAIN
UNEXECUTED."  141 F.2D AT 845.  A COURT HAS THE UNQUESTIONED AND
CONTINUING POWER TO MAKE CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES IN ITS UNEXECUTED
DECREES EVEN AFTER THE TERM OF COURT IN WHICH THEY WERE ORIGINALLY
ENTERED HAS EXPIRED.  SEE ROOT V. WOOLWORTH, 150 U.S. 401; SHIELDS V.
THOMAS, 18 HOW.  253; 8 CYCLOPEDIA OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE (2D ED.)  SEC. 
3598 AND CASES THERE CITED.  THIS INCLUDES THE POWER TO MODIFY OR GRANT
ADDITIONAL RELIEF IN THE INTEREST OF ENFORCING OR EFFECTUATING
DECREES.  THUS THE DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF JUDGMENT HAS NO RELEVANCE AS
APPLIED TO UNEXECUTED DECREES AND CANNOT BE UTILIZED TO DENY POWER IN
THE COURT BELOW TO MODIFY OR REMAND THE BACK PAY PROVISIONS OF THE
DECREE TO THE BOARD.  NO SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, MOREOVER, IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THAT ANY
DECREE REQUIRING FUTURE ACTION IS UPON ENTRY PARTLY FINAL AND PARTLY
UNEXECUTED.  "A CONTINUING DECREE OF INJUNCTION DIRECTED TO EVENTS TO
COME IS SUBJECT ALWAYS TO ADAPTATION AS EVENTS MAY SHAPE THE NEED." 
UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 286 U.S. 106, 114.  AS TO THE UNEXECUTED
PORTION OF THE DECREE BELOW, FINALITY OBVIOUSLY HAS NOT ACCRUED. 

ON THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE BOARD'S PETITION AND IN THE UNIONS'
MOTION, THE COURT BELOW PLAINLY ERRED IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE BOARD TO
RECONSIDER THE BACK PAY REMEDY.  UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF THE ACT, THE BOARD
IS AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE REMEDIAL ACTION, "INCLUDING
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  AS THE COURT RECOGNIZES, THE NATURE AND
EXTENT OF THE BACK PAY REMEDY ARE THUS PRIMARILY AND PECULIARLY MATTERS
LYING WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD, AND A COURT'S
FUNCTION IS LIMITED TO IMPARTING LEGAL SANCTION TO THE BACK PAY REMEDY
ONCE IT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE BOARD HAS ACTED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF
ITS AUTHORITY.  A COURT CANNOT EXERCISE THE DISCRETION THAT CONGRESS
HAS GIVEN ONLY TO THE BOARD.  BUT IF, AS CONCEDED, A COURT CAN NEITHER
AFFIRM NOR REVERSE A BOARD ORDER RELATING TO BACK PAY ON THE BASIS OF
ITS OWN CONCEPTION OF EFFECTUATING THE POLICIES OF THE ACT, NO LESS
SHOULD IT REFUSE TO ALLOW THE BOARD TO RECONSIDER AN UNEXECUTED REMEDY
ONCE PROPOSED IF THE BOARD REASONABLY FEELS THAT THE PUBLIC POLICY
WHICH IT GUARDS DEMANDS SUCH ACTION.  THE SPECIAL COMPETENCE OF THE
BOARD TO REQUIRE AFFIRMATIVE REMEDIAL ACTION NECESSARILY INCLUDES A
SPECIAL COMPETENCE TO MODIFY, AMEND OR REPEAL SUCH A REQUIREMENT PRIOR
TO ITS CONSUMMATION. 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, AS THE COURT ASSUMES, THAT THE BOARD AT ANY TIME
AND FOR ANY REASON SATISFACTORY TO IT MAY RECALL THAT PART OF THE
ENFORCING DECREE RELATING TO AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF AND START AFRESH.  THE
REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLENESS APPLIES HERE AS ELSEWHERE.  IF THE
BOARD'S REQUEST IS SO BASELESS AND UNNECESSARY AS TO EXCEED THE BOUNDS
OF REASONABLENESS, REFUSAL TO REMAND LIES WITHIN THE SOUND DISCRETION
OF THE COURT.  BUT HERE IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT IF THE FACTS STATED BY
THE BOARD ARE TRUE THE UNEXECUTED REMEDY IS ENTIRELY INADEQUATE TO
ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED.  EMPLOYEES SUFFER FOR
THE SINS OF THEIR EMPLOYERS AND THE PUBLIC POLICY UNDERLYING THE
REQUIREMENT OF BACK PAY IS LARGELY FRUSTRATED.  TO DENY A REMAND UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO ABUSE A COURT'S DISCRETION AND TO TRANSFORM
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM INTO A WEAPON AGAINST THE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR. 

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD FOR PROPOSING REMEDIES TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT IS A CONTINUING ONE.  CF. FRANKS BROS. CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 702, 705-706.  IT IS NOT NECESSARILY LIFTED BY
REASON OF THE ENTRY OF A JUDICIAL DECREE OF ENFORCEMENT, ALTHOUGH IT
MAY BE SUSPENDED TEMPORARILY DURING THE PENDENCY OF REVIEW PROCEEDINGS
IN THE APPELLATE COURT.  FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 364. 
IF AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE DECREE IS EXECUTED THE BOARD BECOMES
CONVINCED THAT THE REMEDY AS TENTATIVELY APPROVED BY THE COURT WILL NO
LONGER SERVE THE STATUTORY PURPOSES, REASON AND JUSTICE DICTATE THAT
THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER. 
WHETHER THE INADEQUACY OF THE REMEDY BE DUE TO INADVERTENCE,
NEGLIGENCE, FRAUD OR OTHER REASONS, THERE IS NO RECOGNIZABLE PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE INTEREST IN EXECUTING SUCH A REMEDY.  TO HOLD THAT A PARTICULAR
BACK PAY REMEDY MUST BE IMPOSED WHEN THE BOARD REASONABLY SUSPECTS THAT
IT IS INCORRECT OR INADEQUATE IS TO PROJECT LEGALISM TO AN ABSURD AND
DANGEROUS LENGTH. 

WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH AN ORDINARY COMMON LAW MONEY JUDGMENT
WHICH ONE PARTY SEEKS TO SET ASIDE FOR FRAUD, MISTAKE, OR NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  NOR ARE WE MET WITH AN ORDINARY LITIGANT SEEKING
RELIEF FOR ITSELF FROM A JUDICIAL DECREE.  WE ARE CONCERNED, RATHER,
WITH THE ATTEMPT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES
SET FORTH IN A CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE.  UNTIL THOSE POLICIES ARE
EFFECTUATED THROUGH THE ENFORCEMENT AND EXECUTION OF STATUTORY
REMEDIES, THE AGENCY AND THE COURTS SHOULD COORDINATE THEIR EFFORTS TO
REALIZE THE PLAIN WILL OF THE PEOPLE.  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307
U.S. 183, 191. 

FN1  THIS SPECIAL FORMULA WAS NOTED BY THIS COURT IN PHELPS DODGE
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 198-199, NOTE 7. 

FN2  THIS FOOTNOTE APPEARS AT 16 N.L.R.B. AT 835.  WITH THE WORDS IN
BRACKETS ORIGINALLY BEING OMITTED BY THE BOARD AND BEING ADDED HERE TO
INDICATE THE BOARD'S INTENDED MODIFICATION, THIS FOOTNOTE READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"IF AT ANY GIVEN TIME DURING THIS PERIOD THE NUMBER OF SUCH NEW OR
REINSTATED EMPLOYEES THEN WORKING EXCEEDS THE NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST (PLUS THE NUMBER OF OLD EMPLOYEES REAPPLYING),
ONLY THE EARNINGS OF A NUMBER OF SUCH EMPLOYEES EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF
CLAIMANTS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST (PLUS THE NUMBER OF OLD EMPLOYEES
REAPPLYING) SHALL BE COUNTED IN COMPUTING THE LUMP SUM  ...." 

FN3  THE BOARD CLAIMS THAT SINCE THE NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS AND
REAPPLICANTS VARIES FROM WEEK TO WEEK, THE FORMULA IS AMBIGUOUS AS TO
WHETHER A SINGLE GOVERNING FRACTION, BASED ON THE AVERAGE OR ON THE
MAXIMUM NUMBERS OF CLAIMANTS AND REAPPLICANTS, OR SUCCESSIVE GOVERNING
FRACTIONS, BASED ON THE ACTUAL NUMBERS, ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE
PERIOD OF DISCRIMINATION.  IT IS ALSO SAID THAT THE FORMULA FAILS TO
DEFINE THE "AVERAGE EARNINGS" REFERRED TO IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF
FOOTNOTE 185 OF THE BOARD'S OPINION.    MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :





















U.S. V. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO., 325 U.S. 357 


NO. 663.  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 28, 1945.  - 56 F.SUPP. 
670, REVERSED. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S FINDING, SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, THAT APPLICATION OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT TO THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS BETWEEN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS IN NEARBY VIRGINIA WAS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, WHEREFORE THE TRANSPORTATION WAS
WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE COMMERCIAL-ZONE EXEMPTION PRESCRIBED BY SEC.
203(B)(8), JUSTIFIED THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OVER SUCH
TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING THE RATES THEREOF, BY THE COMMISSION.  P.
360. 

2.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, JUSTIFY ITS ORDER, UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, PRESCRIBING
FARES FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BY A COMPANY WHICH OPERATES
STREETCARS AND BUSES AS AN INTEGRATED UNIT IN SUCH INTERSTATE SERVICE,
AND PRESCRIBING JOINT FARES FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED BY
SUCH COMPANY AND PARTICIPATING BUS LINES.  P. 362. 

3.  THOUGH SOME PASSENGERS PAID A COMBINATION OF TWO RATES, ONE FOR
TRAVEL WHOLLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT, THE OTHER FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN THE
DISTRICT AND VIRGINIA, AND THE JOURNEY FROM THEIR RESIDENCES TO
VIRGINIA AND RETURN WAS MADE IN TWO SEGMENTS, THE TOTAL INTERSTATE TRIP
WAS NEVERTHELESS ON A "THROUGH ROUTE."  P. 363. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, SET
ASIDE AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 258 I.C.C. 559, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
FINDINGS WERE INADEQUATE AND THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED BEYOND ITS
JURISDICTION.  56 F.SUPP.  670.  FN1  THE CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT
APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

AT THE REQUEST OF THE SECRETARIES OF WAR AND THE NAVY, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION INSTITUTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE REASONABLENESS
OF THE FARES OF FOUR CARRIERS, TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS BY BUS BETWEEN
POINTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND NEARBY POINTS IN THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA, WHERE ARE LOCATED CERTAIN MILITARY AND NAVAL OFFICES AND
INSTALLMENTS EMPLOYING MORE THAN 40,000 GOVERNMENT WORKERS.  MORE THAN
HALF THESE WORKERS LIVE IN THE DISTRICT SO THAT THE NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUAL PASSENGER TRIPS TO AND FROM GOVERNMENT WORK ON THE FOUR
MOTOR LINES IS IN EXCESS OF 31,000 PER DAY.  THE FARES OF THE DIFFERENT
LINES WERE NOT IDENTICAL FOR PERFORMANCE OF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, AND DISSATISFACTION OF ARMY AND NAVY
EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS HAD ARISEN ON THE GROUND THAT THE CHARGES OF
ALL THE COMPANIES WERE EXCESSIVE.  THE COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING,
FOUND SOME EXISTING FARES TO BE REASONABLE AND OTHERS UNREASONABLE. 
ITS ORDER REQUIRED SOME OF THE RATES TO BE REDUCED BUT PERMITTED OTHERS
TO BE INCREASED. 

A COMPLICATING FACTOR AROSE FROM THE DISTINCTIVE TYPE OF BUSINESS
CARRIED ON BY CAPITAL TRANSIT, ONE OF THE FOUR COMPANIES TRANSPORTING
PASSENGERS TO AND FROM THE VIRGINIA GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.  IN ADDITION
TO ITS DISTRICT-VIRGINIA BUS SERVICE, IT OPERATED AN URBAN AND SUBURBAN
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, CARRYING PASSENGERS BOTH BY BUS AND STREETCAR. 
SINCE DISTRICT TERMINALS OF ALL THE BUS COMPANIES WERE LOCATED IN OR
ADJACENT TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS SECTIONS, MOST GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
IN GOING TO AND RETURNING FROM THEIR WORK, WERE COMPELLED TO BEGIN OR
COMPLETE THEIR TRIPS BY UTILIZING BUSES OR STREETCARS OF CAPITAL
TRANSIT.  IT ACCORDED TO ITS OWN BUS AND STREETCAR PASSENGERS, BUT
DENIED TO PASSENGERS ON OTHER VIRGINIA BUSES, A PRIVILEGE OF TRANSFERS
TO AND FROM SOME OF ITS VIRGINIA BUSES WHICH LOWERED THE TOTAL FARES
BETWEEN DISTRICT RESIDENCES AND THEIR VIRGINIA PLACES OF WORK.  THE
COMMISSION TREATED TRANSIT COMPANY'S LOCAL BUS AND STREETCAR BUSINESS
AS AN INTEGRATED UNIT, AND ITS FINDINGS, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHOW
THAT ITS INTRA-COMPANY TRANSFER PRACTICES WERE THE EQUIVALENT OF
ESTABLISHMENT BY TRANSIT OF THROUGH INTERSTATE ROUTES WITH JOINT RATES
TO AND FROM DISTRICT RESIDENCES TO THE VIRGINIA POINTS.  ACCORDINGLY IT
ORDERED THAT ANALOGOUS JOINT ARRANGEMENTS AS TO FARES, INCLUDING
TRANSFER PRIVILEGES, BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN TRANSIT AND THE OTHER BUS
LINES CARRYING PASSENGERS TO AND FROM VIRGINIA GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. 
THIS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION ORDER NOT PASSED ON BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, WERE SEPARATELY ATTACKED HERE.  IN ORDER THAT FINAL
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE MAY NOT BE FURTHER DELAYED, WE SHALL CONSIDER
ALL QUESTIONS ARGUED BEFORE US. 

FIRST.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
REGULATE ANY OF THE DISTRICT-VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION HERE INVOLVED. 
THE ARGUMENT EMPHASIZES THAT THE MOVEMENT BEGINS AND ENDS IN A SINGLE
"COMMUNITY," ALL WITHIN AN AREA WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS PREVIOUSLY
RECOGNIZED AS THE "COMMERCIAL ZONE" OF WASHINGTON.  3 M.C.C. 243.  WE
ARE REFERRED HERE TO THE HOLDING OF THIS COURT IN 1912 THAT A STREET
RAILWAY, CARRYING PASSENGERS BETWEEN OMAHA, NEBRASKA AND COUNCIL
BLUFFS, IOWA, WAS "LOCAL," SERVING THE USE OF A "SINGLE COMMUNITY," AND
WAS NOT THE KIND OF "RAILROAD" WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
EMPOWERED THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE.  OMAHA STREET R. CO. V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 230 U.S. 324.  CF. UNITED STATES V. VILLAGE
OF HUBBARD, 266 U.S. 474, 479-480.  THE SAME PRINCIPLE, WE ARE TOLD,
SHOULD EXCLUDE SIMILAR LOCAL BUS OPERATIONS.  BUT THIS COURT'S DECISION
IN THE OMAHA CASE DID NOT HOLD THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT AUTHORIZE THE
COMMISSION TO REGULATE MOVEMENTS THAT TOOK PLACE ACROSS STATE LINES IN
A SINGLE LOCAL COMMUNITY.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER SUCH MOVEMENTS
CANNOT BE DOUBTED.  THE OMAHA CASE ONLY DECIDED THAT CONGRESS HAD NOT
GRANTED SUCH POWER TO THE COMMISSION UNDER THE LAW AS IT THEN EXISTED. 

WE MUST NOW TEST THE COMMISSION'S POWER IN THIS CASE BY THE
PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE OMAHA CASE, SUPRA,
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 49 STAT. 543, UNDER WHICH THE ORDER HERE WAS
ENTERED.  SECTION 203(B) OF THAT ACT PROVIDES THE CONTROLLING RULE.  IT
SPECIFICALLY DEFINES THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSION CAN
REGULATE INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES WHICH HAPPEN TO TAKE PLACE IN A SINGLE
"COMMERCIAL ZONE." 

THAT SECTION, TO A LIMITED EXTENT, EXCLUDES FROM THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION "THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE WHOLLY WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY OR BETWEEN
CONTIGUOUS MUNICIPALITIES OR WITHIN A ZONE ADJACENT TO AND COMMERCIALLY
A PART OF ANY SUCH MUNICIPALITY OR MUNICIPALITIES  ..."  OTHER PARTS OF
THE SAME SECTION AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO APPLY THE ACT TO THESE
ZONE ACTIVITIES, HOWEVER, IF IT FINDS THAT (1) "SUCH APPLICATION IS
NECESSARY" TO CARRY OUT THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY DECLARED IN
THE ACT, OR (2) IF THE CARRIER IS NOT "ENGAGED IN  ...  INTRANSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF SUCH INTERSTATE
ROUTE."  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE FOUR BUS COMPANIES CAME WITHIN
BOTH THESE EXCEPTIONS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT EXCLUDED FROM ITS
JURISDICTION.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THEY CAME WITHIN THE SECOND
EXCEPTION, BECAUSE OF OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
JUSTIFIED ITS ORDER UNDER THE FIRST EXCEPTION.  THOSE FINDINGS WERE
THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSION TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION
IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE ACT'S DECLARED POLICY, "TO ENCOURAGE THE
ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF REASONABLE CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST DISCRIMINATIONS,  ...  TO THE END OF
DEVELOPING, COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM  ...  ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED
STATES, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE."  54 STAT.
899. 

ON ITS SECOND HEARING THE COMMISSION HEARD EVIDENCE FROM EMPLOYEES OF
THE ARMY AND NAVY AS TO DISSATISFACTION WITH THE FARES.  THE
SECRETARIES OF BOTH WAR AND NAVY MADE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE
SITUATION PRODUCED BY THE RATE STRUCTURE.  A NUMBER OF WITNESSES
TESTIFIED AS TO THE DISSATISFACTION OF EMPLOYEES WITH THE PREVAILING
RATES.  IF EVIDENCE WAS NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT UNREASONABLY HIGH RATES
WERE CALCULATED TO DISTURB THE MORALE OF WORKERS FORCED TO PAY THEM,
AND THUS TO IMPAIR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT
BUT THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION WERE WELL SUPPORTED.  IT IS TO
BE REMEMBERED THAT THESE WERE INTERSTATE RATES FOR INTERSTATE TRAVEL
WHICH APPLIED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO WORKERS ENGAGED IN NATIONAL
DEFENSE.  NEITHER THE DISTRICT NOR VIRGINIA HAD POWER ADEQUATELY TO
REGULATE THE RATES; NOR HAD THEY ATTEMPTED TO DO SO.  THEIR REGULATION
WAS RIGHTFULLY A MATTER OF CONCERN TO ARMY AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS CHARGED
WITH THE SERIOUS RESPONSIBILITY OF CONDUCTING A WAR.  THE EMPLOYEES
WORKED IN THE VERY CENTER OF ACTIVITIES ESSENTIAL IN THAT CAUSE. 
CONGRESS UNEQUIVOCALLY RESERVED TO THE COMMISSION POWER TO REGULATE
REASONABLENESS OF INTERSTATE RATES IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEEDS OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON THIS ISSUE WERE
CLEAR AND COMPLETE, CF. YONKERS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 685, AND
JUSTIFIED THE COMMISSION IN EXERCISING ITS JURISDICTION. 

SECOND.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COMMISSION EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY IN
PRESCRIBING JOINT FARES BETWEEN THE CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY AND THE
OTHER BUS COMPANIES.  THIS CONTENTION RESTS ON TWO ASSUMPTIONS GROUNDED
UPON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THE PARTIES VIEW THE FACTS AND THE LAW
GOVERNING THEM.  THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF THE COMPANIES IS SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME AS THE ONE JUST REJECTED - THAT ALL OF THE TRANSIT COMPANY'S
OPERATIONS, BY BOTH BUS AND STREETCAR, ARE PURELY LOCAL AND THEREFORE
NOT SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  THE SECOND CONTENTION IS
THIS: SECTIONS 216(C) AND (E) PERMIT BUT DO NOT REQUIRE MOTOR CARRIERS
TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES WITH OTHER TYPES OF
CARRIERS; SINCE THE COMPANIES VIEW THE FACTS AS FAILING TO SHOW THAT
THROUGH ROUTES OR JOINT RATES HAVE VOLUNTARILY BEEN ESTABLISHED AS TO
TRANSIT'S STREETCARS AND THE VIRGINIA BUSES, THEY ARGUE THAT THE
COMMISSION CANNOT REQUIRE THEIR ESTABLISHMENT.  THE COMMISSION FOUND,
HOWEVER, THAT TRANSIT HAD VOLUNTARILY ESTABLISHED THROUGH ROUTES, AND
CONTENDS ITS FINDING HAS SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENTLY
SUSTAINS ITS ORDER.  IT ALSO RELIES ON ITS POWER UNDER SEC. 216(E) TO
PRESCRIBE THROUGH RATES FOR ALL SEGMENTS OF AN INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION CARRIED ON BETWEEN MOTOR CARRIERS.  THIS POWER IT ARGUES
IS BROAD ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE AN ORDER FOR JOINT RATES FOR INTERSTATE
CARRIAGE CONDUCTED BY A COMPANY WHICH, AS IT FOUND THIS ONE DID, USES
STREETCARS AND BUSES AS AN INTEGRATED UNIT IN CARRYING OUT INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  WE THINK THAT, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
SHOWN, THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ATTACK AND THAT IT
ACTED WITHIN ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN PRESCRIBING THE THROUGH RATES. 

AS PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT, TWICE A DAY MORE THAN 15,000 GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES TRAVELED BETWEEN THE VIRGINIA AGENCIES AND THEIR HOMES VIA
ONE OF THE FOUR BUS SYSTEMS.  MOST OF THEM EITHER WENT TO OR FROM THESE
BUS TERMINALS FROM OR TO THEIR HOMES OVER ANY OF TRANSIT'S THEN
AVAILABLE BUSES OR STREETCARS.  THEIR TRAVEL WAS AT CERTAIN HOURS EACH
DAY, AT WHICH SPECIAL RUSH HOUR BUSES AND CARS WERE MADE AVAILABLE FOR
THEIR CARRIAGE.  THEIR INTERSTATE JOURNEY TO WORK ACTUALLY BEGAN AT THE
TIME THEY BOARDED A TRANSIT BUS OR STREETCAR NEAR THEIR HOME, AND
ACTUALLY ENDED WHEN THEY ALIGHTED FROM THE VIRGINIA-GOING BUS AT THEIR
PLACE OF WORK.  ON RETURNING FROM WORK THEIR INTERSTATE JOURNEY
ACTUALLY BEGAN WHEN THEY BOARDED A BUS NEAR THEIR WORK AND ACTUALLY
ENDED WHEN THEY ALIGHTED FROM A TRANSIT STREETCAR OR BUS NEAR THEIR
HOME.  TRUE, THEIR INTERSTATE TRIP WAS BROKEN AT THE DISTRICT TERMINI
OF THE VIRGINIA BUSES, WHEN THEY STEPPED FROM ONE VEHICLE TO ANOTHER. 
BUT IN THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED SENSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONCEPT, THEIR
ENTIRE TRIP WAS INTERSTATE.  BALTIMORE & OHIO S.W.R. CO. V. SETTLE, 260
U.S. 166.  AND THE FACT THAT, EXCEPT AS TO TRANSIT, THEY PAID A
COMBINATION OF TWO RATES, ONE FOR TRAVEL WHOLLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT,
AND THE OTHER FOR TRAVEL BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND VIRGINIA, AND THE
JOURNEY FROM THEIR RESIDENCES TO VIRGINIA AND BACK AGAIN WAS TAKEN IN
TWO SEGMENTS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TOTAL INTERSTATE TRIP WAS NOT ON A
"THROUGH ROUTE."  VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 658, 666
667; ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 136, 139-140. 

MOREOVER, TRANSIT COMPANY ITSELF CONDUCTED ITS OWN TRAFFIC TO AND
FROM VIRGINIA AND DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL POINTS AS ONE CONTINUOUS
JOURNEY.  AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, A VIRGINIA WORKER COULD BOARD ITS LOCAL
BUS OR STREETCAR, RIDE TO A DISTRICT TERMINAL OF TRANSIT'S VIRGINIA
BOUND BUS, BOARD IT, AND OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF A TRANSFER SUPPLIED BY
TRANSIT.  SO ALSO COULD TRANSIT'S PASSENGER GET THE BENEFIT OF A
TRANSFER ON THE RETURN JOURNEY HOME FROM WORK.  HAD TRANSIT NOT OWNED
THE SEPARATE VEHICLES USED IN THE TRANSPORTATION, THESE ARRANGEMENTS
WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED "JOINT RATES" FOR A "THROUGH ROUTE" WITHIN THE
STATUTORY MEANING OF THE TERM.  AS CARRIED OUT BY TRANSIT THE
ARRANGEMENTS WERE THE EXACT EQUIVALENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON A "THROUGH
ROUTE" FOR A JOINT FARE.  HAD TRANSIT NOT OWNED THE VEHICLES
TRANSPORTING THE PASSENGERS ON EACH LEG OF THIS INTERSTATE JOURNEY, IT
COULD NOT HAVE ESTABLISHED, CONSISTENTLY WITHIN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, JOINT RATES WITH A PARTICULAR VIRGINIA BUS LINE TO THE EXCLUSION
OF ITS COMPETITORS, FOR THE REASON THAT ONE GIVEN A MONOPOLY OF THROUGH
TRAFFIC COULD "SOON BE ABLE TO DRIVE ITS COMPETITORS OUT OF BUSINESS." 
UNITED STATES V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 323 U.S. 612, 617.  THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, WHICH IS PART OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, NEED NOT BE
INTERPRETED SO AS TO PERMIT THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SUCH A RESULT. 

UNLAWFUL ANY UNREASONABLE, PREFERENTIAL, OR PREJUDICIAL RULE,
CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION OR PRACTICE ARISING FROM ANY "INDIVIDUAL OR
JOINT RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE, DEMANDED, CHARGED, OR COLLECTED BY ANY
COMMON CARRIER OR CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE OR BY ANY COMMON CARRIER OR
CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY COMMON CARRIER OR
CARRIERS BY RAILROAD  ..."  AND TO "PRESCRIBE THE LAWFUL RATE, FARE, OR
CHARGE  ...  THEREAFTER TO BE OBSERVED  ..."  WE THINK THAT UNDER THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, IT DID HAVE POWER TO
DECLARE THESE RATES UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL AS IT DID, AND THEREAFTER
TO PRESCRIBE THE LAWFUL RATE TO BE CHARGED FOR THE INTERSTATE TRIP. 
THIS DID NOT, AS ARGUED, CONSTITUTE A REGULATION OF INTRASTATE
COMMERCE.    OTHER CONTENTIONS URGED BY THE CARRIERS HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED, BUT NEED NOT BE DISCUSSED, SINCE WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE
DISPOSITION MADE OF THEM BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
FINDING NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DECLINING TO ENFORCE IT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY SET ASIDE A COMMISSION ORDER
IN THE SAME CASE BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE FINDINGS.  55 F.SUPP.  51, 256
I.C.C. 769.  THEREAFTER THE COMMISSION HEARD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, MADE
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND ENTERED THE ORDER HERE UNDER REVIEW. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO
JURISDICTION OF THE FARES IN QUESTION, FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE
OPINIONS BELOW, 55 F.SUPP.  51, AND 56 F.SUPP.  670.  MR. JUSTICE REED
AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT FROM PART SECOND OF THE OPINION. 
..END :












U.S. ALKALI ASSN. V. U.S., 325 U.S. 196 


ARGUED MAY 1, 2, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  - 58 F.SUPP.  785,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE UNITED
STATES UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AGAINST EXPORT ASSOCIATIONS AND
MEMBERS THEREOF TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT, DENYING A MOTION OF
THE DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS, MADE ON THE GROUND THAT, UNDER SECS. 1, 2
AND 5 OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE MATTERS
CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT IS VESTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION, HELD REVIEWABLE HERE BY CERTIORARI UNDER SEC. 262 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 201. 

(A)  WHERE THE PROCEEDING IS ONE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THIS COURT HAS
EXCLUSIVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION, AN APPLICATION FOR A COMMON LAW WRIT
IN AID OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION MUST BE TO THIS COURT.  P. 202. 

(B)  THE HARDSHIP WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSED ON THE DEFENDANTS BY A LONG
POSTPONED APPELLATE REVIEW, COUPLED WITH THE ATTENDANT INFRINGEMENT OF
THE ASSERTED CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF CONFERRING PRIMARY JURISDICTION ON
THE COMMISSION, TOGETHER SUPPORT THE APPEAL TO THE DISCRETION OF THIS
COURT TO EXERCISE ITS POWER TO REVIEW THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT
IN ADVANCE OF FINAL JUDGMENT.  P. 204. 

2.  EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
BY SEC. 5 OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT - TO INVESTIGATE ACTIVITIES OF ANY
EXPORT ASSOCIATION WHICH ARE BELIEVED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT; IF VIOLATIONS ARE FOUND, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUCH
ASSOCIATION FOR READJUSTMENT OF ITS BUSINESS; AND UPON FAILURE OF THE
ASSOCIATION TO COMPLY, TO REFER ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL - IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES
AGAINST AN EXPORT ASSOCIATION TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  P. 205. 

(A)  THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT'S GRANT OF POWER TO THE COMMISSION WOULD
CURTAIL THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONDUCT ANTITRUST SUITS
ONLY IF IT WERE DEEMED AN IMPLIED REPEAL PRO TANTO OF SEC. 4 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED.  P. 209. 

(B)  THE PRINCIPLE THAT EQUITY WILL NOT LEND ITS AID TO A PLAINTIFF
WHO HAS NOT FIRST EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IS
INAPPLICABLE, SINCE THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE
WEBB-POMERENE ACT IS TO INVESTIGATE, RECOMMEND AND REPORT.  THE
COMMISSION, UNDER THAT ACT, CAN GIVE NO REMEDY; IT CAN MAKE NO
CONTROLLING FINDING OF LAW OR FACT; AND ITS RECOMMENDATION NEED NOT BE
FOLLOWED BY ANY COURT OR ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXECUTIVE OFFICER.  P. 210. 

UNITED STATES ALKALI EXPORT ASSOCIATION, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES. 

NO. 1016.  CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 1017, CALIFORNIA ALKALI EXPORT ASSOCIATION ET AL.
V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 834, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT
DENYING A MOTION OF THE DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE
UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN NEW YORK, BROUGHT
BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 4, TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  THE DEFENDANTS, WHO
ARE PETITIONERS HERE, ARE TWO INCORPORATED EXPORT ASSOCIATIONS,
THIRTEEN DOMESTIC MEMBERS OF ONE OR THE OTHER, AND A BRITISH
CORPORATION AND ITS AMERICAN SUBSIDIARY, ALL OF WHICH ARE PRODUCERS OF
ALKALIES.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT PETITIONERS ARE ENGAGED
IN A CONSPIRACY TO ELIMINATE EXPORTS OF ALKALIES TO THE UNITED STATES
BY THE FOREIGN MEMBERS OF THE CONSPIRACY; TO RESTRICT OR ELIMINATE
EXPORTS OF ALKALIES BY DOMESTIC PRODUCERS FROM THE UNITED STATES TO
MANY WORLD MARKETS; TO PREVENT INDEPENDENT DOMESTIC PRODUCERS FROM
COMPETING WITH PETITIONERS, IN THE EXPORT OF ALKALIES; TO RESTRICT
THEIR PRODUCTION OF ALKALIES IN THE UNITED STATES; AND TO FIX PRICES OF
CAUSTIC SODA IN THE UNITED STATES, ALL IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED, 58 F.SUPP.  785, PETITIONERS' MOTION TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, MADE ON THE GROUND THAT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
OF THE MATTERS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT IS VESTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
IN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, UNDER SECS. 1, 2, AND 5 OF THE WEBB
POMERENE ACT OF APRIL 10, 1918, C. 50, 40 STAT. 516, 15 U.S.C. SECS.
61, 62, 65.  PETITIONERS THEN FILED HERE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI UNDER
SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 377, SEEKING REVIEW OF
THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE (1) WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, MAY
APPROPRIATELY BE REVIEWED HERE BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED UNDER SEC.
262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AND, IF SO, (2) WHETHER SECS. 1, 2, AND 5 OF
THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT CONFER PRIMARY JURISDICTION ON THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, EXCLUSIVE OF THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, TO PASS UPON
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY EXPORT ASSOCIATIONS. 

JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT; AND IT IMPOSES ON
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE UNITED STATES, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE DUTY TO INSTITUTE SUITS IN EQUITY IN THEIR
RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, TO RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS.  BUT SEC. 2 OF THE
WEBB-POMERENE ACT EXEMPTS FROM THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
ASSOCIATIONS "ENTERED INTO FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN EXPORT
TRADE AND ACTUALLY ENGAGED SOLELY IN SUCH EXPORT TRADE" AND ALSO ANY
"AGREEMENT MADE OR ACT DONE IN THE COURSE OF EXPORT TRADE BY SUCH
ASSOCIATION, PROVIDED SUCH ASSOCIATION, AGREEMENT, OR ACT IS NOT IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, AND IS NOT IN RESTRAINT OF
THE EXPORT TRADE OF ANY DOMESTIC COMPETITORS OF SUCH ASSOCIATION."  TO
THIS IS ADDED A SECOND PROVISO "THAT SUCH ASSOCIATION DOES NOT, EITHER
IN THE UNITED STATES OR ELSEWHERE, ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT,
UNDERSTANDING, OR CONSPIRACY, OR DO ANY ACT WHICH ARTIFICIALLY OR
INTENTIONALLY ENHANCES OR DEPRESSES PRICES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF
COMMODITIES OF THE CLASS EXPORTED BY SUCH ASSOCIATION, OR WHICH
SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENS COMPETITION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR OTHERWISE
RESTRAINS TRADE THEREIN." 

THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 5 OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT REQUIRES EACH
ASSOCIATION ENGAGED SOLELY IN EXPORT TRADE TO FILE WITH THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION A STATEMENT GIVING INFORMATION CONCERNING ITS OFFICERS
AND STOCKHOLDERS OR MEMBERS, AND ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS, AND A COPY OF
ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OR ITS CONTRACT OF ASSOCIATION; THE
ASSOCIATION IS REQUIRED TO REFILE ANNUALLY SUCH STATEMENTS WITH
SUITABLE CORRECTIONS, AND TO FURNISH SUCH FURTHER SPECIFIED INFORMATION
AS THE COMMISSION MAY FROM TIME TO TIME REQUEST.  SECTION 5 FURTHER
PROVIDES IN ITS SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT WHENEVER THE COMMISSION SHALL
HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN EXPORT ASSOCIATION IS VIOLATING THE
SHERMAN ACT IN THE WAYS EXCEPTED BY THE PROVISOS OF SEC. 2 FROM ITS
EXEMPTIONS, THE COMMISSION SHALL CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.  IF "IT SHALL CONCLUDE THAT THE LAW HAS BEEN
VIOLATED, IT MAY MAKE TO SUCH ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
READJUSTMENT OF ITS BUSINESS, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY THEREAFTER MAINTAIN
ITS ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW."  IF THE ASSOCIATION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE COMMISSION, IT "SHALL REFER ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES FOR SUCH ACTION THEREON AS HE
MAY DEEM PROPER."  FN1 

PETITIONERS DO NOT QUESTION THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULINGS, IN DENYING
THEIR MOTION, THAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
AND THAT UNDER ITS ALLEGATIONS PETITIONERS ARE NOT WITHIN ANY IMMUNITY
FROM THE SHERMAN ACT SECURED BY SEC. 2 OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT.  THEIR
SOLE CONTENTION ON THE MERITS IS THAT SEC. 5 OF THE LATTER ACT, BY
AUTHORIZING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
DEPRIVES THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JURISDICTION IN SHERMAN ACT CASES UNTIL
THE COMMISSION HAS MADE ITS INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS, THE
ASSOCIATIONS HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THEM, AND THE COMMISSION HAS
REFERRED ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

                                  I 

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THIS COURT MAY APPROPRIATELY REVIEW THE ORDER
OF THE DISTRICT COURT BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ISSUED UNDER SEC. 262 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THEY POINT OUT THAT SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF
FEBRUARY 11, 1903, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, GOVERNING APPEALS IN
SHERMAN ACT CASES, MAKES NO PROVISION FOR APPEALS FROM INTERLOCUTORY
ORDERS OR JUDGMENTS, AND PROVIDES THAT "AN APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT WILL LIE ONLY TO THE SUPREME COURT."  SEE UNITED
STATES V. CALIFORNIA CANNERIES, 279 U.S. 553.  BUT IT IS URGED THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT IS DEPRIVED OF ITS JURISDICTION BY SEC. 5 OF THE WEBB
POMERENE ACT, UNTIL THE TRADE COMMISSION HAS MADE THE INVESTIGATION AND
FOLLOWED THE FURTHER PROCEDURE OUTLINED BY SEC. 5; THAT THE ASSERTION
BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION, WITHOUT AWAITING AN
INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMISSION, WILL ENTAIL PROTRACTED LITIGATION AND
IMPOSE ON THE PARTIES GREAT EXPENSE BEFORE THE ERROR CAN BE CORRECTED
ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT TO THIS COURT.  ALL THIS WILL BE
AVOIDED, IT IS SAID, BY AWAITING ACTION BY THE COMMISSION.  HENCE
PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE EXERCISE BY
THIS COURT OF ITS EXTRAORDINARY POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE DISTRICT COURTS, "SHALL HAVE POWER TO
ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE
NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND
AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  UNDER SEC. 262, THIS
COURT HAS POWER, IN AID OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION, TO REVIEW
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS BY RESORT TO THE COMMON LAW
WRITS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION.  WHITNEY V. DICK, 202
U.S. 132; MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268, AND CASES CITED; IN RE
620 CHURCH STREET CORP., 299 U.S. 24, 26, AND CASES CITED; EX PARTE
PERU, 318 U.S. 578, AND CASES CITED; HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42, AND
CASES CITED; COMPARE ROCHE V. EVAPORATED MILK ASSN., 319 U.S. 21. 
THESE WRITS ARE GRANTED OR WITHHELD IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE
COURT.  SEE ROCHE V. EVAPORATED MILK ASSN., SUPRA, 25, AND CASES
CITED.  IN THE USUAL CASE THIS COURT WILL DECLINE TO ISSUE A WRIT PRIOR
TO REVIEW IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHETHER BY ORDINARY APPEAL,
IN RE TAMPA SUBURBAN R. CO., 168 U.S. 583, 588, OR BY AN EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDY, SEE EX PARTE PERU, SUPRA, 584.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, SOLE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION LIES IN THIS COURT, APPLICATION FOR A COMMON LAW
WRIT IN AID OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION MUST BE TO THIS COURT. 

THE TRADITIONAL USE OF SUCH WRITS BOTH AT COMMON LAW AND IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS HAS BEEN, IN APPROPRIATE CASES, TO CONFINE INFERIOR
COURTS TO THE EXERCISE OF THEIR PRESCRIBED JURISDICTION OR TO COMPEL
THEM TO EXERCISE THEIR AUTHORITY WHEN IT IS THEIR DUTY TO DO SO.  IN RE
CHETWOOD, 165 U.S. 443, 462(CITING TIDD'S PRAC.*  398, AND BAC.  AB.,
CERTIORARI); WHITNEY V. DICK, SUPRA, 139-140; EX PARTE PERU, SUPRA,
583, AND CASES CITED.  FN2  IT IS EVIDENT THAT HARDSHIP IS IMPOSED ON
PARTIES WHO ARE COMPELLED TO AWAIT THE CORRECTION OF AN ALLEGED ERROR
AT AN INTERLOCUTORY STAGE BY AN APPEAL FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT.  BUT SUCH
HARDSHIP DOES NOT NECESSARILY JUSTIFY RESORT TO CERTIORARI OR OTHER OF
THE EXTRAORDINARY WRITS AS A MEANS OF REVIEW.  IN SUCH CASES APPELLATE
COURTS ARE RELUCTANT TO INTERFERE WITH DECISIONS OF LOWER COURTS, EVEN
ON JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS, WHICH THEY ARE COMPETENT TO DECIDE AND
WHICH ARE REVIEWABLE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF APPEAL.  IN RE TAMPA
SUBURBAN R. CO., SUPRA; EX PARTE HARDING, 219 U.S. 363, 369; ROCHE V.
EVAPORATED MILK ASSN., SUPRA, 30-31, AND CASES CITED; CF. STOLL V.
GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165; TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66. 
THE WRITS MAY NOT BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN AUTHORIZED APPEAL; AND
WHERE, AS HERE, THE STATUTORY SCHEME PERMITS APPELLATE REVIEW OF
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS ONLY ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT, REVIEW BY
CERTIORARI OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY WRIT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE FACE
OF THE PLAIN INDICATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO AVOID PIECEMEAL
REVIEWS.  ROCHE V. EVAPORATED MILK ASSN., SUPRA, 30, AND CASES CITED;
AND SEE COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 323. 

BUT THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT THE ORDINARY ONE OF HARDSHIP RESULTING
FROM OVERRULING A PLEA IN BAR OR DENYING A PRELIMINARY MOTION WHICH, IF
WELL FOUNDED, WOULD END THE LITIGATION ON THE MERITS - DECISIONS WHICH
CONGRESS, IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER PROVISIONS FOR APPEAL, MUST HAVE
CONTEMPLATED WOULD, IN THE ORDINARY COURSE, BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL FROM
THE FINAL JUDGMENT.  THE QUESTIONS NOW PRESENTED INVOLVE THE PROPRIETY
OF THE EXERCISE, BY THE DISTRICT COURT, OF ITS EQUITY JURISDICTION, AND
AN ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN ITS JURISDICTION AND THAT OF AN AGENCY OF
CONGRESS SAID TO BE CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ENFORCING THE ANTITRUST
LAWS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE.  IF PETITIONERS' MOTION
WAS WELL FOUNDED, ITS DENIAL OPERATED TO THWART THE ASSERTED PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS TO AFFORD TO EXPORT ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH OVERSTEP THE BOUNDS OF
THE GRANTED IMMUNITY, OPPORTUNITY, WITH THE EXPERT AID OF THE TRADE
COMMISSION, TO RETRACE THEIR STEPS, WITHOUT BEING SUBJECTED TO THE
PENALTIES OF THE LAW.  EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION BY THE DISTRICT
COURT WOULD PRECLUDE THE COMMISSION FROM CARRYING OUT ITS ASSERTED
FUNCTIONS OF INVESTIGATION, RECOMMENDATION AND REPORT BEFORE ANY SUIT
BY THE UNITED STATES.  THIS WOULD BE MORE THAN THE MERE DENIAL OF THE
RIGHT OF A SUITOR SUCH AS CONGRESS MUST HAVE CONTEMPLATED WOULD BE
CORRECTED BY RECOURSE TO THE PRESCRIBED APPEAL PROCEDURE.  IT WOULD BE
A FRUSTRATION OF THE FUNCTIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED THE
COMMISSION TO PERFORM AND OF THE POLICY WHICH CONGRESS PRESUMABLY
SOUGHT TO EFFECTUATE BY THEIR PERFORMANCE. 

THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED ON PETITIONERS BY A LONG POSTPONED APPELLATE
REVIEW, COUPLED WITH THE ATTENDANT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ASSERTED
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF CONFERRING PRIMARY JURISDICTION ON THE
COMMISSION, TOGETHER SUPPORT THE APPEAL TO THE DISCRETION OF THIS COURT
TO EXERCISE ITS POWER TO REVIEW THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
ADVANCE OF FINAL JUDGMENT.  THE CASE IS ANALOGOUS TO THOSE IN WHICH
THIS COURT HAS, BY WRITS ISSUED UNDER SEC. 262, REVIEWED THE ACTION OF
DISTRICT COURTS, ALLEGED TO BE IN EXCESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY, BY WHICH
THEY HAVE FORECLOSED THE ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS OR THE PROTECTION OF
INTERESTS COMMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE OFFICER OR TRIBUNAL,
SEE IN RE CHETWOOD, SUPRA; MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, SUPRA; EX PARTE
METROPOLITAN WATER CO., 220 U.S. 539; EX PARTE SKINNER & EDDY CORP.,
265 U.S. 86; MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 1), 270 U.S. 9; EX PARTE NORTHERN
PACIFIC R. CO., 280 U.S. 142; COLORADO V. SYMES, 286 U.S. 510; OR BY
WHICH THEY HAVE DEPRIVED A PARTY OF A TRIAL BY JURY.  EX PARTE SIMONS,
247 U.S. 231; EX PARTE PETERSON, 253 U.S. 300, 305. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE THINK THE CASE IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR REVIEW
OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER BY CERTIORARI, AND WE PASS TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS.                                        II 

PETITIONERS DO NOT DENY THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE
SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT NOT WITHIN THE
EXEMPTIONS CREATED BY SEC. 2 OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT.  THE CONTENTION
IS THAT SINCE THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS ARE BEING COMMITTED BY AND ON
BEHALF OF EXPORT ASSOCIATIONS WHICH HAVE CONFORMED TO SEC. 5 OF THE
LATTER ACT, THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT IS
SUSPENDED UNTIL THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION HAS PROCEEDED AGAINST THE
ASSOCIATIONS BY WAY OF INVESTIGATION AND, IF FOUND APPROPRIATE, BY WAY
OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM AND REFERENCE OF ITS FINDINGS TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 5.    IT IS CONCEDED THAT SEC. 5
CONTAINS NO EXPLICIT RESTRICTION ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES
TO INSTITUTE ANTITRUST SUITS IN THE NORMAL WAY, NOR ANY EXPLICIT
REQUIREMENT THAT RESORT BE HAD TO THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE
INSTITUTION OF SUCH AN ANTITRUST SUIT.  PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THIS IS
TO BE IMPLIED FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACT, WHICH FIRST, BY SEC. 2,
EXEMPTS FROM THE SHERMAN ACT CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF EXPORT ASSOCIATIONS,
WITH SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS; AND THEN BY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 5,
GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY, IN LANGUAGE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL
WITH THAT OF THE EXCEPTIONS IN SEC. 2, TO INVESTIGATE SUCH ACTIVITIES
AS CONTINUE TO BE VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT IS ARGUED THAT
CONGRESS, BY AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE VIOLATIONS AND
IN APPROPRIATE CASES TO REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ANY VIOLATIONS
FOUND, HAS EXPRESSED THE PURPOSE THAT THE ACTION BY THE COMMISSION AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD BE CONSECUTIVE AND NOT CONCURRENT. 

IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT HOWEVER STRONG THE EVIDENCE, AND HOWEVER CLEAR
THE VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MUST AWAIT THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT UNDERTAKE TO PROCEED
WITH THE CASE, AND THAT IN ANY EVENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
COURTS MUST ABIDE BY THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THERE ARE NO
VIOLATIONS TO REPORT.  DURING THE TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS BETWEEN THE
ENACTMENT OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE PASSAGE OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT,
THE PLENARY AUTHORITY AND SETTLED PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TO INSTITUTE ANTITRUST SUITS, WITHOUT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS BY OTHER
AGENCIES, BECAME FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.  A PRO TANTO REPEAL OF THAT
AUTHORITY, BY CONFERRING UPON THE COMMISSION PRIMARY JURISDICTION TO
DETERMINE WHEN, IF AT ALL, AN ANTITRUST SUIT MAY APPROPRIATELY BE
BROUGHT, WOULD REQUIRE A CLEAR EXPRESSION OF THAT PURPOSE BY CONGRESS. 
UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 198-199, 203-206; SEE ALSO
GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S. 439, 456-457.  THE WEBB
POMERENE ACT, AS WE HAVE SAID, CONTAINS NO EXPLICIT INDICATION TO THAT
END.  NOR MAY SUCH AN IMPLICATION BE READILY DRAWN FROM THE LANGUAGE OF
THE STATUTES, OR THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT CURTAILED THE THEN
EXISTING AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO BRING ANTITRUST SUITS, IT IS
IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER WHAT THAT ACT DID NOT DO, AS WELL AS WHAT IT
DID.  TRUE, IT EXEMPTED FROM THE ANTITRUST LAWS SOME, BUT NOT ALL, ACTS
WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN VIOLATIONS.  BUT WHILE IT EMPOWERED THE
COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE, RECOMMEND AND REPORT, IT GAVE THE COMMISSION
NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY ORDER OR IMPOSE ANY PROHIBITION OR RESTRAINT,
OR MAKE ANY BINDING ADJUDICATION WITH RESPECT TO THESE VIOLATIONS. 

THIS IS IN MARKED CONTRAST TO THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO ISSUE CEASE
AND DESIST ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION ACT, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45,  FN3  AND WITH
RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT, SECS. 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, AS
AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 13, 14, 18, 19, 21.  FN4  ON THE OTHER HAND,
IT IS CONSONANT WITH AND CLOSELY RELATED TO ANOTHER IMPORTANT FUNCTION
OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH FROM THE BEGINNING HAS HAD EXTENSIVE POWERS TO
INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON PRACTICES WHICH CONCERN OR AFFECT THE
ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS RELATING TO TRADE AND COMMERCE, INCLUDING THE
ANTITRUST LAWS.  FN5  SUCH INVESTIGATIONS BY THE COMMISSION HAVE NEVER
BEEN DEEMED PREREQUISITE TO ANTITRUST SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES; AND
THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS, IN AUTHORIZING THE
COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE EXPORT ASSOCIATIONS, INTENDED TO PLACE SUCH
INVESTIGATIONS ON ANY DIFFERENT FOOTING THAN OTHERS, WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAD ALREADY BEEN AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE CONTEMPLATED "CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION" OF THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS, BECAUSE OF THE
INCONVENIENCE TO SUITORS IN NOT BEING AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEND
THEIR WAYS BY FOLLOWING THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.  AND
PETITIONERS URGE THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION, SINCE IT EXPLICITLY PROVIDED FOR IT WHEN IT SO DESIRED. 
THUS SECS. 1, 3, 7, AND 8 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C.
SECS. 13, 14, 18, 19, MAY BE ENFORCED EITHER BY CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS
OF THE COMMISSION, SEC. 11, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 21, OR BY SUITS IN EQUITY
INSTITUTED BY THE SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
DISTRICTS, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SEC. 15, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 25. 

THIS ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY IS
TO INVESTIGATE AND RECOMMEND, NOT TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE
ANTITRUST LAWS (SAVE AS THEY MAY INCIDENTALLY BE VIOLATIONS OF OTHER
STATUTES, WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY ENFORCE).  THE COMMISSION, BY ITS
INVESTIGATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, MAY RENDER A USEFUL SERVICE IN
BRINGING VIOLATIONS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR BY
SHOWING THAT RESORT TO THE COURTS IS UNNECESSARY, EITHER BECAUSE THERE
HAS BEEN NO VIOLATION OR BECAUSE THE ASSOCIATIONS HAVE SATISFACTORILY
CORRECTED THEIR TRADE PRACTICES.  BUT THE COMMISSION, UNDER THE WEBB
POMERENE ACT, DOES NOT ENFORCE THE ANTITRUST LAWS; ITS POWERS ARE
EXHAUSTED WHEN IT HAS REFERRED ITS FINDINGS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
INDEED, THE PROVISIONS FOR SUCH REFERENCE ARE NECESSARY NOT BECAUSE THE
COMMISSION HAS A PRIMARY JURISDICTION, BUT ONLY BECAUSE IT CANNOT
ITSELF ENFORCE THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  FURTHER, THERE IS NO WANT OF
SPECIFIC AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE THE ANTITRUST LAWS;
THE VIOLATIONS HERE ALLEGED ARE NOT VIOLATIONS OF THE WEBB-POMERENE
ACT, BUT OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AND IT IS THE LATTER WHICH PROVIDES FOR
SUITS TO BE BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES. 

BUT EVEN IF THE CASE WERE ONE OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, WE CANNOT
ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY UNSEEMLY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  CONGRESS HAS FOUND NO SUCH OBJECTION TO
THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON
ACT TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED.  THE TWO AGENCIES WILL SELDOM ACT
SIMULTANEOUSLY.  THERE WOULD BE NO OCCASION FOR AN INVESTIGATION BY THE
COMMISSION IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD ALREADY PROCURED THE REQUISITE
EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS AND WAS READY TO PROCEED WITH HIS SUIT, AS IS
SAID TO BE THE CASE HERE.  AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR INTERPRETING THE
STATUTE AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN CONTRIVED TO PREVENT HOSTILE ACTION
RATHER THAN TO ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COMMISSION
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT'S GRANT OF POWER TO THE
COMMISSION WOULD CURTAIL THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONDUCT
ANTITRUST SUITS ONLY IF IT WERE DEEMED TO BE AN IMPLIED REPEAL PRO
TANTO OF SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  AS WE POINTED OUT IN UNITED STATES
V. BORDEN CO., SUPRA, 198-199, 203-206, SUCH REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE
NOT FAVORED.  THERE WE HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT,
7 U.S.C. SECS. 291, 292, COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF SECS. 2 AND 5 OF THE
WEBB-POMERENE ACT, DID NOT OPERATE TO RESTRICT THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO MAINTAIN SUITS FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS. 

U.S.C. SECS. 291, 292, AUTHORIZED COLLECTIVE MARKETING BY MEMBERS OF
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES BUT EMPOWERED THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO
ISSUE CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS, UPON INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS THAT ANY
SUCH COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS MONOPOLIZED OR RESTRAINED INTERSTATE
TRADE AND COMMERCE TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE PRICES OF ANY
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WERE THEREBY UNDULY ENHANCED.  AND THE ACT GAVE
JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURTS TO ENFORCE THE SECRETARY'S ORDERS. 

THIS COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT GAVE
TO THE SECRETARY "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" TO DETERMINE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE COOPERATIVES WERE VIOLATIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE THEY WENT BEYOND THE IMMUNITY GRANTED BY THE CAPPER
VOLSTEAD ACT.  AND WE HELD FOR THE SAME REASONS, WHICH ARE CONTROLLING
HERE, THAT NEITHER THE LANGUAGE NOR THE STRUCTURE OF THE CAPPER
VOLSTEAD ACT INDICATED A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO MAKE THE PROCEDURE BY
THE SECRETARY, WHICH IT ESTABLISHED, EITHER A SUBSTITUTE FOR OR A
PREREQUISITE TO A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  A
FORTIORI NO SUCH PURPOSE IS TO BE INFERRED FROM THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT,
WHICH HAS WITHHELD FROM THE COMMISSION ANY AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE
SHERMAN ACT. 

PETITIONERS APPEAL TO THE FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE THAT EQUITY WILL NOT
LEND ITS AID TO A PLAINTIFF WHO HAS NOT FIRST EXHAUSTED HIS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300,
310-311; MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 51, AND N. 9, AND CASES
CITED.  AND ESPECIALLY THEY URGE THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT PROCEED
WITH THE PROSECUTION OF A SHERMAN ACT CASE UNTIL THE RELEVANT ISSUES
HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO AND PASSED UPON BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ESTABLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE THOSE ISSUES.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. PACIFIC & ARCTIC CO., 228 U.S. 87, 106-108.  TO THIS THE
ANSWER IS, AS ALREADY INDICATED, THAT THE ONLY FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT IS TO
INVESTIGATE, RECOMMEND AND REPORT.  IT CAN GIVE NO REMEDY.  IT CAN MAKE
NO CONTROLLING FINDING OF LAW OR FACT.  ITS RECOMMENDATION NEED NOT BE
FOLLOWED BY ANY COURT OR ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 

THUS THE WORDS OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT AND ITS SETTING LEND NO
SUPPORT TO PETITIONERS' CONTENTION.  AND THERE IS NOTHING IN ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO SHOW A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAINTAIN SUITS FOR EVERY KIND OF
VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  THE PRECISE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THE
PRESENT CASE WAS NOT REFERRED TO IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS OR THE
DEBATES, EXCEPT IN A REMARK BY SENATOR POMERENE, INDICATING THAT THE
ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE COMMISSION
HAS MADE ITS INVESTIGATION.  FN6  BUT THE ABSENCE OF MORE EXTENDED
DISCUSSION OF THE MATTER IS IN ITSELF PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE
WAS NO PURPOSE TO REPEAL ANY PORTION OF SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  AND
CONGRESS'S CLEAR PURPOSE TO INSURE CONTINUED AND VIGOROUS APPLICATION
OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO DOMESTIC RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT, IS SHOWN BY THE COMMITTEE REPORTS  FN7 AS WELL
AS BY STATEMENTS OF THE SPONSORS OF THE LEGISLATION ON THE FLOORS OF
CONGRESS,  FN8  AND IS A STRONG INDICATION THAT THERE WAS NO THOUGHT OF
DEPRIVING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANY OF HIS POWERS TO PROSECUTE
ANTITRUST SUITS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS AUTHORIZED TO BRING THIS SUIT,
AND THAT THE COMMISSION'S POWERS CONFERRED BY SEC. 5 OF THE WEBB
POMERENE ACT DO NOT PRECLUDE THE SUIT BEFORE THE COMMISSION HAS ACTED. 
THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 5 OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT, WITH
WHICH WE ARE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHENEVER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT AN ASSOCIATION OR ANY AGREEMENT MADE OR ACT DONE BY SUCH
ASSOCIATION IS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR IN
RESTRAINT OF THE EXPORT TRADE OF ANY DOMESTIC COMPETITOR OF SUCH
ASSOCIATION, OR THAT AN ASSOCIATION EITHER IN THE UNITED STATES OR
ELSEWHERE HAS ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDING, OR CONSPIRACY,
OR DONE ANY ACT WHICH ARTIFICIALLY OR INTENTIONALLY ENHANCES OR
DEPRESSES PRICES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OF COMMODITIES OF THE CLASS
EXPORTED BY SUCH ASSOCIATION, OR WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENS
COMPETITION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR OTHERWISE RESTRAINS TRADE
THEREIN, IT SHALL SUMMON SUCH ASSOCIATION, ITS OFFICERS, AND AGENTS TO
APPEAR BEFORE IT, AND THEREAFTER CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF LAW.  UPON INVESTIGATION, IF IT SHALL CONCLUDE
THAT THE LAW HAS BEEN VIOLATED, IT MAY MAKE TO SUCH ASSOCIATION
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE READJUSTMENT OF ITS BUSINESS, IN ORDER THAT IT
MAY THEREAFTER MAINTAIN ITS ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT ITS
BUSINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  IF SUCH ASSOCIATION FAILS TO COMPLY
WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, SAID
COMMISSION SHALL REFER ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES FOR SUCH ACTION THEREON AS HE MAY DEEM
PROPER." 

FN2  SEE ALSO REGINA V. YARRINGTON, 1 SALK.  406, 91 ENG. REP.
353(Q.B. 1710); KING V. JUSTICE OF THE WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE, 5 T.R.
629, 101 ENG. REP. 352(K.B. 1794); KING V. JUSTICES OF SOMERSETSHIRE, 5
BARN.  & CRESS.  816, 108 ENG. REP. 303(K.B. 1826); KING V. JUDGE
CLEMENTS (1932) 2 K.B. 535; KING V. MIDDLESEX JUSTICES (1933) 1 K.B.
72. 

FN3  SECTION 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, AS AMENDED, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 45, DECLARES THAT "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN
COMMERCE, AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN COMMERCE" ARE
UNLAWFUL. 

FN4  SECTION 1 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13, PROHIBITS
CERTAIN DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE AND SERVICES; SEC. 3, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
14, CERTAIN SALES OR LEASES WHERE THE PURCHASER IS REQUIRED TO REFRAIN
FROM DEALING WITH COMPETITORS OF THE SELLER; SEC. 7, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 18,
CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS BY CORPORATIONS OF STOCKS IN OTHER CORPORATIONS;
AND SEC. 8, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 19, CERTAIN INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES. 
CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1, 3, 7 AND
8.    FN5  SECTION 6(E) OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 46(E), AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION, IN LANGUAGE COMPARABLE TO THAT
OF SEC. 5 OF THE WEBB-POMERENE ACT, "UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INVESTIGATE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
READJUSTMENT OF THE BUSINESS OF ANY CORPORATION ALLEGED TO BE VIOLATING
THE ANTITRUST ACTS IN ORDER THAT THE CORPORATION MAY THEREAFTER
MAINTAIN ITS ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  SECTION 6 FURTHER AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO
INVESTIGATE THE ORGANIZATION, BUSINESS, PRACTICES AND MANAGEMENT OF ANY
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; TO REQUIRE SUCH
CORPORATIONS TO FILE ANNUAL AND SPECIAL REPORTS AND ANSWERS TO
QUESTIONS CONCERNING SUCH MATTERS; TO INVESTIGATE THE MANNER IN WHICH
CORPORATIONS, DEFENDANTS IN SHERMAN ACT SUITS BROUGHT BY THE
GOVERNMENT, HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE DECREES, AND TO TRANSMIT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL ITS "FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS"; TO INVESTIGATE AND
REPORT, UPON THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS, THE FACTS
RELATING TO ANY "VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST ACTS BY ANY CORPORATION";
TO INVESTIGATE TRADE CONDITIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES WHERE TRADE
PRACTICES MAY AFFECT OUR FOREIGN TRADE, AND TO REPORT TO CONGRESS ITS
RECOMMENDATIONS. 

FN6  IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION BY SENATOR WEEKS, THAT "ASSUMING  ...
THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION MIGHT BE ALTOGETHER WISE, WHAT
ASSURANCE HAS THE COMMISSION THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MAY NOT
TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW AND PROCEED AGAINST THESE COMBINATIONS UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT?", SENATOR POMERENE ANSWERED:
"IT MIGHT DO THAT."  55 CONG. REC. 2788. 

FN7  H. REP. NO. 1118, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3; S. REP. NO. 1056,
64TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 3-4.  SEE ALSO H. REP. NO. 50, 65TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 1, 3; S. REP. NO. 109, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 3-4;
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, REPORT ON COOPERATION IN AMERICAN EXPORT
TRADE, (1916) VOL. 1, P. 376, ET SEQ. 

FN8  SENATOR POMERENE SAID, 56 CONG. REC. 173:  "IT (THE BILL) DOES
NOT REPEAL, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE SHERMAN LAW SO FAR AS IT APPLIES TO
DOMESTIC COMMERCE.  IT STRENGTHENS THE SHERMAN LAW AND THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION LAW, IN SO FAR AS UNFAIR PRACTICES ARE CONCERNED,
BEYOND TERRITORIAL LINES."  AND HE ALSO SAID:  "THIS BILL DOES NOT
REPEAL THE SHERMAN LAW," AND THAT ASSOCIATIONS NOT REMAINING WITHIN THE
IMMUNITY GRANTED BY SEC. 2 "VIOLATE THE LAW OF THE LAND."  (P. 172.) 
HE SAID FURTHER THAT SUCH AN ASSOCIATION "WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE AUTHORITIES OF THIS COUNTRY, INCLUDING BOTH THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE."  (P. 170.) 
CONGRESSMAN WEBB, IN DISCUSSING THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5, SAID THAT THE
LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 "IS A PERFECT PRESERVATION OF THE
SHERMAN LAW IN ALL OF ITS VIRILITY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THIS
COUNTRY," 56 CONG. REC. 4724, AND THAT ASSOCIATIONS STRAYING BEYOND THE
CONFINES OF THEIR IMMUNITY "ARE LIABLE BOTH UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION LAW AND THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST LAW."  55 CONG. REC. 3579. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION IN RESPECT OF THIS
COURT'S EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 
HE DISSENTS FROM THE DECISION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER TO HEAR
THE CAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 
..END :









DE BEERS MINES V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 212 


ARGUED MAY 2, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  - REVERSED. 


IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF UPON A CHARGE
THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND
MONOPOLIZE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES WITH FOREIGN NATIONS IN GEM
AND INDUSTRIAL DIAMONDS, IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT AND SEC. 73 OF THE WILSON TARIFF ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS FROM
WITHDRAWING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR DISPOSING OF ANY PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THEM IN THE UNITED STATES, UNTIL THE CAUSE FINALLY SHALL
HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AND THE DEFENDANTS SHALL HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL
ORDERS OF THE COURT.  HELD: 

1.  THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTING THE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION WAS REVIEWABLE HERE BY CERTIORARI UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 217. 

(A)  IF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HERE GRANTED, UNLESS SET ASIDE,
WILL STAND THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL AND FOR AN INDEFINITE
PERIOD THEREAFTER, AND IF THE ORDER WAS BEYOND THE POWERS CONFERRED
UPON THE COURT, THE CASE IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR THE EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION BY THIS COURT UNDER SEC. 262.  UNITED STATES ALKALI EXPORT
ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 196.  P. 217. 

(B)  THE ORDER DID NOT GRANT SUCH RELIEF AS COULD BE AFFORDED BY ANY
FINAL INJUNCTION, BUT DEALT WITH MATTERS LYING WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE
ISSUES IN THE CASE; NO DECISION OF THE SUIT ON THE MERITS COULD REDRESS
ANY INJURY DONE BY THE ORDER; AND UNLESS IT CAN BE REVIEWED UNDER SEC.
262 IT CAN NEVER BE CORRECTED IF BEYOND THE POWER OF THE TRIAL COURT. 
P. 217. 

2.  THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HERE ISSUED WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY
STATUTE OR BY THE USAGES OF EQUITY, AND THE ORDER GRANTING IT MUST BE
REVERSED.  P. 219. 

(A)  RULE 70 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH PERMITS THE ISSUE
OF A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT OR SEQUESTRATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF A
DISOBEDIENT PARTY TO COMPEL SATISFACTION OF A JUDGMENT, IS OPERATIVE
ONLY AFTER A JUDGMENT IS ENTERED.  P. 218. 

(B)  THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HERE ISSUED WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT OR BY SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  P.
218. 

(C)  THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HERE ISSUED DEALS WITH A MATTER LYING
WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE ISSUES IN THE SUIT; IT DEALS WITH PROPERTY WHICH IN
NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE DEALT WITH IN ANY FINAL INJUNCTION THAT MAY BE
ENTERED.  P. 220. 

(D)  CASES INVOLVING INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS GRANTED WITH RESPECT
TO FUNDS OR PROPERTY WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF THE
PROVISIONS OF FINAL DECREES, AND CASES INVOLVING INJUNCTIONS BY FEDERAL
COURTS TO RESTRAIN INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR JURISDICTION, DO NOT SUSTAIN
THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HERE ISSUED.  P. 220. 

(E)  THE PRACTICE IN RESPECT OF WRITS OF NE EXEAT IS NOT ANALOGOUS. 
P. 221. 

(F)  SINCE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO DEMAND SECURITY, IT IS EQUALLY WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
COMPEL THE FURNISHING OF A BOND BY THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY.  P. 222. 

DE BEERS CONSOLIDATED MINES, LTD. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 1189.  CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 1190, SOCIETE INTERNATIONALE FORESTIERE ET MINIERE
DU CONGO ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 839, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT BROUGHT
BY THE UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT
AND THE WILSON TARIFF ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES COME BEFORE THE COURT ON PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI
PRESENTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  FN1  EACH
PETITION IS BY SEVERAL OF THE DEFENDANTS IN A SINGLE SUIT PENDING IN
THE DISTRICT COURT. 

TWO MATTERS ARE PRESENTED:  THE PROPRIETY OF REVIEW OF THE ACTION
BELOW BY CERTIORARI, AND THE ALLEGED EXCESS OF JURISDICTION BY THE
COURT BELOW IN MAKING THE ORDER OF WHICH THE PETITIONERS COMPLAIN.  AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES REQUIRES A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE
SUIT AND OF THE ORDER MADE. 

THE UNITED STATES FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE
THREE PETITIONERS IN NO. 1189, WHICH ARE CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER
THE LAWS OF SOUTH AFRICA; THE PETITIONERS IN NO. 1190, WHICH ARE
RESPECTIVELY CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE BELGIAN CONGO
AND UNDER THE LAWS OF PORTUGAL; AND FOUR OTHER CORPORATIONS, ONE
ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF BELGIUM, ONE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE BELGIAN
CONGO, AND TWO UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND NORTHERN IRELAND, AND SEVEN INDIVIDUALS RESPECTIVELY CHARACTERIZED
AS STOCKHOLDER, OR STOCKHOLDER AND DIRECTOR, OR STOCKHOLDER AND
EMPLOYEE, OR MANAGING AGENT, OR MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ONE OR MORE OF THE
CORPORATIONS.  THE COMPLAINT SOUGHT EQUITABLE RELIEF BASED UPON A
CHARGE THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND
MONOPOLIZE THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES WITH FOREIGN NATIONS IN
GEM AND INDUSTRIAL DIAMONDS, IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT  FN2  AND SEC. 73 OF THE WILSON TARIFF ACT.  FN3  THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT ALL OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS WERE DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. 

WITH THE COMPLAINT THE UNITED STATES FILED A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION IN WHICH IT PRAYED THAT ALL OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS BE
RESTRAINED FROM WITHDRAWING FROM THE COUNTRY ANY PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE UNITED STATES, AND FROM SELLING, TRANSFERRING OR DISPOSING OF ANY
PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES "UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THIS COURT SHALL HAVE
DETERMINED THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE AND DEFENDANT CORPORATIONS SHALL
HAVE COMPLIED WITH ITS ORDERS."  THE REASON GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION WAS: 

"THE INJURY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM THE WITHDRAWAL OF
SAID DEPOSITS, DIAMONDS OR OTHER PROPERTY WOULD BE IRREPARABLE BECAUSE
SEQUESTRATION OF SAID PROPERTY IS THE ONLY MEANS OF ENFORCING THIS
COURT'S ORDERS OR DECREE AGAINST SAID FOREIGN CORPORATE DEFENDANTS. 
THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF SAID DEFENDANTS IS CARRIED ON IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES AND THEY COULD QUICKLY WITHDRAW THEIR ASSETS FROM THE UNITED
STATES AND SO PREVENT ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ORDER OR DECREE WHICH THIS
COURT MAY RENDER." 

AMONGST OTHER SUPPORTING PAPERS WAS AN AFFIDAVIT BY COUNSEL FOR THE
UNITED STATES WHICH STATED THAT "THE INVESTIGATION WHICH HE HAS MADE
SHOWS THE FOREIGN CORPORATE DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN HAVE ENDEAVORED TO
AVOID SUBJECTING THEMSELVES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES BY MAKING THEIR SALES ABROAD ONLY AND REQUIRING CUSTOMERS
TO PAY IN ADVANCE FOR ALL PURCHASES." 

THERE WAS ALSO A MOTION FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER WITHOUT NOTICE.  THE
REQUESTED RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON A NUMBER OF BANKS;
ONE, A BANK IN WHICH DE BEERS HAD, THE SAME DAY, ESTABLISHED A CREDIT
OF $59,320; OTHERS IN WHICH FORESTIERE HAD CREDITS OF APPROXIMATELY
$632,000.  BANK CREDITS OF PETITIONER DIAMANTES AFFECTED AGGREGATE
APPROXIMATELY $47,000.  BOTH THE TWO LAST NAMED PETITIONERS HAD
PURCHASED MACHINERY AND SUPPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AN APPROXIMATE
VALUE OF $100,000, WHICH WERE COVERED BY THE INJUNCTION.  UPON A
SHOWING THAT AS THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS WERE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN INFORMATION AND AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR CONTENTION THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS IN THE SUIT HAD NOT BEEN MADE
UPON THEM, AND IN SUPPORT OF OTHER MOTIONS ADDRESSED TO FAILURE TO
STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE STATUTES, TIME TO PLEAD OR ANSWER WAS
EXTENDED; AND THE INJUNCTION WAS FROM TIME TO TIME MODIFIED AND
CONTINUED.  COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS, APPEARING SPECIALLY, MOVED FOR
DISSOLUTION OF THE INJUNCTION.  THE CASE WAS HEARD ON AFFIDAVITS AND
ORAL ARGUMENT, THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED, AND THE INJUNCTION WAS
CONTINUED IN FORCE.  THEREUPON THE PETITIONERS APPLIED TO THIS COURT
FOR CERTIORARI UNDER SEC. 262.  THAT SECTION PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE SUPREME COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, AND THE DISTRICT
COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF
LAW." 

ALL THE PETITIONERS ATTACK THE ORDER AS IN SUBSTANCE A SEQUESTRATION
OF PROPERTY BEYOND THE POWER OF THE COURT AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE PETITIONERS IN NO. 1189 ALSO SEEK A REVERSAL ON
THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT STATE A CLAIM COGNIZABLE BY
UNITED STATES COURTS AND THAT THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THESE PETITIONERS
ESTABLISH THAT THE COURT BELOW HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS OF
THE DEFENDANTS.  IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE RECORD THAT THESE CONTENTIONS
ARE STILL OPEN IN THE COURT BELOW AND THAT COURT HAS NOT YET PASSED
UPON THEM.  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US
PRESENTLY TO CONSIDER THEM. 

IN UNITED STATES ALKALI EXPORT ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 196,
THE COURT HAS DISCUSSED THE PROPRIETY OF REVIEW UNDER SEC. 262 IN A
SUIT BROUGHT UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WHERE THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF A SUIT WHICH IT
HAS RETAINED FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS.  WHAT IS THERE SAID APPLIES IN
THIS INSTANCE.  IF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HERE GRANTED, UNLESS SET
ASIDE, WILL STAND THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL AND FOR AN
INDEFINITE PERIOD AFTER ITS TERMINATION, AND IF THE ORDER WAS BEYOND
THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT, IT IS PLAIN, UNDER THE DECISIONS
MENTIONED, THAT THE PETITIONS PRESENT AN APPROPRIATE CASE FOR THE
EXERCISE OF OUR JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 262.  AS HEREAFTER NOTED THE
ORDER IN QUESTION WAS NOT MADE TO GRANT INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF SUCH AS
COULD BE AFFORDED BY ANY FINAL INJUNCTION, BUT IS ONE RESPECTING A
MATTER LYING WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE ISSUES IN THE CASE; NO DECISION OF THE
SUIT ON THE MERITS CAN REDRESS ANY INJURY DONE BY THE ORDER; AND
THEREFORE UNLESS IT CAN BE REVIEWED UNDER SEC. 262 IT CAN NEVER BE
CORRECTED IF BEYOND THE POWER OF THE COURT BELOW.  FN4  WHEN CONGRESS
WITHHOLDS INTERLOCUTORY REVIEWS, SEC. 262 CAN, OF COURSE, NOT BE
AVAILED OF TO CORRECT A MERE ERROR IN THE EXERCISE OF CONCEDED JUDICIAL
POWER.  BUT WHEN A COURT HAS NO JUDICIAL POWER TO DO WHAT IT PURPORTS
TO DO - WHEN ITS ACTION IS NOT MERE ERROR BUT USURPATION OF POWER - THE
SITUATION FALLS PRECISELY WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE USE OF SEC. 262.  WE
PROCEED, THEREFORE, TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT IS EMPOWERED
TO ENTER THE ORDER UNDER ATTACK. 

ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT BASED ITS MOTION UPON THE THEORY THAT THE
ENTRY OF THE REQUESTED INJUNCTION WOULD AMOUNT TO A SEQUESTRATION OF
THE DEFENDANTS' ASSETS, AND SO ARGUED IN THE COURT BELOW, IT HAS
ABANDONED THAT POSITION, BECAUSE RULE 70 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE,  FN5 WHICH PERMITS THE ISSUE OF A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT OR
SEQUESTRATION AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF A DISOBEDIENT PARTY TO COMPEL
SATISFACTION OF A JUDGMENT, IS OPERATIVE ONLY AFTER A JUDGMENT IS
ENTERED. 

THE GOVERNMENT DISCLAIMS ANY BENEFIT OF RULE 64, WHICH PROVIDES FOR
AN ATTACHMENT AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF, OR DURING THE COURSE OF, AN
ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING PAYMENT OF ANY JUDGMENT ULTIMATELY
OBTAINED, UNDER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH
THE COURT SITS OR UNDER ANY EXISTING FEDERAL STATUTE.  IT IS ADMITTED
THAT THERE IS NO APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE AND THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF
NEW YORK, AN ATTACHMENT MAY ISSUE ONLY IN AN ACTION SEEKING A MONEY
JUDGMENT AND WILL NOT ISSUE IN AN EQUITY SUIT SUCH AS THE INSTANT ONE. 
FN6 

THE COURT BELOW DEDUCED THE POWER TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION FROM SEC. 4
OF THE SHERMAN ACT  FN7 AND FROM SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, THE
RESPONDENT SEEKS TO SUSTAIN THE INJUNCTION UNDER THE SAME STATUTORY
PROVISIONS. 

"TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT."  THAT JURISDICTION,
AS WE HAVE HELD,  FN8  IS TO BE EXERCISED ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL
PRINCIPLES WHICH GOVERN THE GRANTING OF EQUITABLE RELIEF.  SINCE IT
CONFERS NO NEW OR DIFFERENT POWER THAN THOSE TRADITIONALLY EXERCISED BY
COURTS OF EQUITY, WE ARE REMITTED TO EXAMINATION OF THE PRACTICE OF
SUCH COURTS, UNLESS SEC. 262 HAS ENLARGED THOSE POWERS.  THAT SECTION
EMPOWERS DISTRICT COURTS TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
FOR BY STATUTE WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF
LAW.  IT TURNS OUT, THEREFORE, THAT WE ARE AGAIN REMITTED TO AN INQUIRY
AS TO WHAT IS THE USAGE, AND WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY
APPLICABLE IN SUCH A CASE. 

PRELIMINARY TO A DISCUSSION OF THE COURSE OF DECISION IN CHANCERY IT
WILL BE WELL TO NOTE EXACTLY WHAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INJUNCTION,
SINCE THE NAME GIVEN TO THE PROCESS IS NOT DETERMINATIVE.  IN TRUTH THE
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE INJUNCTION IS TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR
PERFORMANCE OF A FUTURE ORDER WHICH MAY BE ENTERED BY THE COURT.  ITS
ISSUE PRESUPPOSES OR ASSUMES THE FOLLOWING THINGS:  (1) THAT THE COURT
HAS OBTAINED JURISDICTION OF THE PERSONS OF THE DEFENDANTS; (2) THAT IT
MAY BE FOUND AND ADJUDGED THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS STATED A CAUSE OF
ACTION IN ITS COMPLAINT; (3) THAT A DECREE MAY BE ENTERED AFTER TRIAL
ON THE MERITS ENJOINING AND RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS FROM CERTAIN
FUTURE CONDUCT; (4) THAT THE DEFENDANTS MAY DISOBEY THE DECREE ENTERED;
(5) THAT A PROCEEDING MAY BE INSTITUTED FOR CONTEMPT AND WILL RESULT
ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANTS; (6) THAT A FINE MAY BE IMPOSED; (7) THAT
THE DEFENDANTS MAY NEGLECT OR REFUSE TO PAY THE FINE; (8) THAT AN
EXECUTION ISSUED FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE FINE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
569 MAY BE INEFFECTUAL TO SEIZE PROPERTY OR MONEY OF THE DEFENDANTS IN
LIQUIDATION OF THE FINE, UNLESS THE MONEYS AND PROPERTIES COVERED BY
THE INJUNCTION ARE HELD TO AWAIT THE EVENT. 

UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE WILSON TARIFF ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT
HAS NO JURISDICTION IN THIS SUIT TO ENTER A MONEY JUDGMENT.  ITS ONLY
POWER IS TO RESTRAIN THE FUTURE CONTINUANCE OF ACTIONS OR CONDUCT
INTENDED TO MONOPOLIZE OR RESTRAIN COMMERCE.  IT, OF COURSE, HAS THE
POWER, PENDING FINAL ACTION IN THIS RESPECT, TO RESTRAIN ACTION OR
CONDUCT VIOLATIVE OF THE STATUTE.  A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS ALWAYS
APPROPRIATE TO GRANT INTERMEDIATE RELIEF OF THE SAME CHARACTER AS THAT
WHICH MAY BE GRANTED FINALLY.  THE INJUNCTION IN QUESTION IS NOT OF
THIS CHARACTER.  IT IS NOT AN INJUNCTION IN THE CAUSE, AND IT DEALS
WITH A MATTER LYING WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE ISSUES IN THE SUIT.  IT DEALS
WITH PROPERTY WHICH IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE DEALT WITH IN ANY FINAL
INJUNCTION THAT MAY BE ENTERED.  IT IS NOT A FORM OF SEIZURE OF
PROPERTY USED IN OFFENDING AGAINST THE STATUTE, FOR THE PROPERTY IS NOT
SUCH AS MIGHT BE SEIZED UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,  FN9  OR UNDER
SEC. 76 OF THE WILSON ACT,  FN10  AND THE COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVITS DO
NOT PURPORT SO TO CHARGE.  THIS PROCESS IS, AND CAN ONLY BE, SUSTAINED
AS A METHOD OF PROVIDING SECURITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER PROCESS
WHICH CONCEIVABLY MAY BE ISSUED FOR SATISFACTION OF A MONEY JUDGMENT
FOR CONTEMPT. 

THE PARTIES AGREE THAT NEITHER OF THEM CAN FIND ANY DECISION OR
TEXTBOOK AUTHORITY FOR THE REQUISITION OF SUCH SECURITY ON THE FOOTING
OF A COMPLAINT IN EQUITY.  THE RESPONDENT REFERS US TO CERTAIN CASES AS
ANALOGOUS BUT, UPON EXAMINATION, THEY ARE ALL FOUND TO BE CASES IN
WHICH AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO A FUND OR
PROPERTY WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF ANY
FINAL DECREE IN THE CAUSE,  FN11  OR AGAINST ACTION WHICH WOULD
ULTIMATELY HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO INJUNCTION BY FINAL DECREE.  FN12  THE
GOVERNMENT ALSO REFERS US TO CASES WHERE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE ENJOINED
INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR JURISDICTION.  FN13  THUS IT ARGUES THAT A
COURT OF EQUITY HAS INHERENT POWER TO PROTECT ITS JURISDICTION.  THE
FALLACY, IN THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE HERE, IS THAT, IF SERVICE
OF THE DEFENDANTS IS PROPERLY OBTAINED, AND IF THE COMPLAINT STATES A
CAUSE OF ACTION, NO ONE QUESTIONS THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT TO ENTER AN APPROPRIATE INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE CONDUCT
VIOLATIVE OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS.  THE INJUNCTION HERE GRANTED CANNOT
AID OR PROTECT THIS EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS, AND IS NOT INTENDED TO DO
SO.    FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS APPEAR CONSISTENTLY TO HAVE REFUSED
RELIEF OF THE NATURE HERE SOUGHT.  FN14  THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS
URGES THAT EQUITY SHOULD EXTEND ITS JURISDICTION FOR THE PURPOSE
ENVISAGED IN THE ISSUE OF THE INJUNCTION AND ADVANCES SEVERAL REASONS
IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION.  IT SUGGESTS THAT, BY ANALOGY TO THE
PRACTICE OF ISSUING WRITS NE EXEAT,  FN15  THE COURT, IF IT WOULD
RESTRAIN, BY SUCH A WRIT, AN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT IN A SIMILAR CASE,
SHOULD RESTRAIN THE REMOVAL OF THE PROPERTY OF A CORPORATE DEFENDANT
FROM THE JURISDICTION.  THE ANALOGY IS NOT A HELPFUL ONE, FOR THE WRIT
NE EXEAT WOULD NOT BE ISSUED IN A CASE OF THIS SORT WHERE THE DEFENDANT
PRESENTLY OWES NO DEBT TO THE COMPLAINANT NOR IS UNDER ANY FIXED DUTY
BY REASON OF THE RECEIPT OF MONEYS TO ACCOUNT TO THE COMPLAINANT
THEREFOR.  FN16 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE SUPPOSED HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE
DEFENDANTS BY THE ENTRY OF THE INJUNCTION IS EXAGGERATED; THAT, BY
GIVING A BOND, THE DEFENDANTS COULD RELEASE THEIR MONEYS AND PROPERTY. 
TO THIS THERE ARE SEVERAL SUFFICIENT ANSWERS.  IF THE COURT IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO DEMAND SECURITY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED, IT
IS EQUALLY WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO COMPEL THE PROFFER OF A BOND BY THE
SEIZURE OF PROPERTY.  IF THE PROCESS BE JUSTIFIED IN THE PRESENT
POSTURE OF THE CASE, THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT OTHER AND FURTHER
SEIZURES OF PROPERTY OR MONEY BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES IN
CONNECTION WITH TRANSACTIONS UNRELATED TO ANY SUPPOSED VIOLATION OF THE
ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  MOREOVER, THE VERY INDEFINITENESS OF THE OBLIGATION,
THE REMOTENESS OF ANY POSSIBLE EXONERATION OF THE SURETY, AND THE
CITIZENSHIP OF THE DEFENDANTS WOULD, AS COMMON EXPERIENCE TELLS US,
REQUIRE THE POSTING OF COLLATERAL WITH ANY BONDSMAN, WHICH WOULD, IN
EFFECT, TIE UP ASSETS OF VALUE EQUAL TO THAT OF THOSE FROZEN BY THE
INJUNCTION. 

TO SUSTAIN THE CHALLENGED ORDER WOULD CREATE A PRECEDENT OF SWEEPING
EFFECT.  THIS SUIT, AS WE HAVE SAID, IS NOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM
ANY OTHER SUIT IN EQUITY.  WHAT APPLIES TO IT APPLIES TO ALL SUCH. 
EVERY SUITOR WHO RESORTS TO CHANCERY FOR ANY SORT OF RELIEF BY
INJUNCTION MAY, ON A MERE STATEMENT OF BELIEF THAT THE DEFENDANT CAN
EASILY MAKE AWAY WITH OR TRANSPORT HIS MONEY OR GOODS, IMPOSE AN
INJUNCTION ON HIM, INDEFINITE IN DURATION, DISABLING HIM TO USE SO MUCH
OF HIS FUNDS OR PROPERTY AS THE COURT DEEMS NECESSARY FOR SECURITY OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS POSSIBLE DECREE.  AND, IF SO, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
SEE WHY A PLAINTIFF IN ANY ACTION FOR A PERSONAL JUDGMENT IN TORT OR
CONTRACT MAY NOT, ALSO, APPLY TO THE CHANCELLOR FOR A SO-CALLED
INJUNCTION SEQUESTRATING HIS OPPONENT'S ASSETS PENDING RECOVERY AND
SATISFACTION OF A JUDGMENT IN SUCH A LAW ACTION.  NO RELIEF OF THIS
CHARACTER HAS BEEN THOUGHT JUSTIFIED IN THE LONG HISTORY OF EQUITY
JURISPRUDENCE. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE INJUNCTION ISSUED IN THIS CASE IS NOT
AUTHORIZED EITHER BY STATUTE OR BY THE USAGES OF EQUITY AND THAT THE
DECREE GRANTING THE INJUNCTION SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SEC. 377. 

FN2  26 STAT. 209 AS AMENDED 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2. 

FN3  28 STAT. 570 AS AMENDED 15 U.S.C. SEC. 8. 

FN4  SEE IN RE CHETWOOD, 165 U.S. 443, 462; MARYLAND V. SOPER, 270
U.S. 9, 30. 

FN5  28 U.S.C. FOLL.  SEC.  723C. 

FN6  N.Y. CIVIL PRACTICE ACT SEC. 902; 7 CARMODY, NEW YORK PRACTICE,
SEC. 309; THORINGTON V. MERRICK, 101 N.Y. 5, 3 N.E. 794; BROWN V.
CHAMINADE VELOURS, 176 MISC. 238, 26 N.Y.S.2D 1009; AVERY V. AVERY, 119
APP. DIV. 698, 104 N.Y.S. 290.  COMPARE LAZENBY V. CODMAN, 28 F.SUPP. 
949; SHIEL V. PATRICK, 59 F. 992. 

FN7  15 U.S.C. SEC. 4. 

FN8  APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344, 377. 

FN9  15 U.S.C. SEC. 6. 

FN10  15 U.S.C. SEC. 11. 

FN11  DECKERT V. INDEPENDENCE CORP., 311 U.S. 282. 

FN12  LOONEY V. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO., 247 U.S. 214; OHIO OIL CO. V.
CONWAY, 279 U.S. 813; VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S.
515; GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66. 

FN13  THIS POWER HAS OFTEN BEEN EXERCISED IN CASES WHERE A COURT OF
EQUITY HAS FIRST TAKEN JURISDICTION OF A RES AND WHERE SOME OTHER COURT
HAS THEREAFTER ESSAYED TO DEAL WITH THAT RES. SEE, E.G. WABASH R. CO.
V. ADELBERT COLLEGE, 208 U.S. 38, 45; PALMER V. TEXAS, 212 U.S. 118,
129, 130; PRINCESS LIDA V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 456, 467. 

FN14  MARTIN V. BERRY SONS' CO., 83 F.2D 857; CITIES SERVICE CO. V.
MCDOWELL, 13 DEL. CH. 109, 116 A. 4; WAHLGREN V. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL
CO., 77 F.2D 121; CAMPBELL V. ERNEST, 64 HUN 188, 19 N.Y.S. 123; PLATT
V. ELIAS, 101 APP. DIV. 518, 91 N.Y.S. 1079; MAINE PRODUCTS CO. V.
ALEXANDER, 115 APP. DIV. 112, 100 N.Y.S. 711; GOLDEN V. TAUSTER, 68
MISC. 459, 125 N.Y.S. 83; WRIGHT CO. V. AERO CORP., 128 N.Y.S. 726;
BROADFOOT V. MILLER, 106 MISC. 455, 174 N.Y.S. 497; COMPARE GORDON V.
WASHINGTON, 295 U.S. 30, 37. 

FN15  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 376. 

FN16  GINSBERG & SONS V. POPKIN, 285 U.S. 204, 208. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE WRIT SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  FOR I DO NOT THINK THIS IS A
PROPER CASE IN WHICH TO EXERCISE OUR JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 377. 

OUR JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 262 HAS BEEN FULLY REVIEWED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE IN U.S. ALKALI EXPORT ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 196.  I
AGREE THAT THE EXERCISE OF OUR EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION WAS
APPROPRIATE IN THAT CASE.  FOR THE QUESTION PRESENTED NOT ONLY WENT TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT.  IF THE
DEFENDANTS IN THAT SUIT WERE RIGHT IN THEIR CONTENTION, A TRIAL ON THE
MERITS WOULD HAVE FRUSTRATED THE STATUTORY SCHEME WHICH CONGRESS HAD
DESIGNED FOR THE CONTROL OF ANTI-TRUST ACTIVITIES. 

BUT THERE IS NO SUCH EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION PRESENTED HERE.  THIS IS
PRECISELY THE KIND OF DECREE WHICH CONGRESS BY THE EXPEDITING ACT OF
FEBRUARY 11, 1903, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, INTENDED SHOULD NOT
BE BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW.  WITH REFERENCE TO THE CHANGE MADE BY THAT
ACT, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE CANNERIES, 279 U.S. 553, 558, SAID:  "THESE
PROVISIONS GOVERNING APPEALS IN GENERAL WERE AMENDED BY THE EXPEDITING
ACT SO THAT IN SUITS IN EQUITY UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST ACT 'IN WHICH THE
UNITED STATES IS COMPLAINANT,' THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DIRECT TO THIS
COURT FROM THE FINAL DECREE IN THE TRIAL COURT.  THUS, CONGRESS LIMITED
THE RIGHT OF REVIEW TO AN APPEAL FROM THE DECREE WHICH DISPOSED OF ALL
MATTERS, SEE COLLINS V. MILLER, 252 U.S. 364; AND IT PRECLUDED THE
POSSIBILITY OF AN APPEAL TO EITHER COURT FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY
DECREE." 

TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL IS TO DEFEAT THAT POLICY.  LONG AGO IN BANK OF
COLUMBIA V. SWEENEY, 1 PET. 567, 569, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL STATED
THAT AN ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY RULING WHERE
CONGRESS PERMITTED AN APPEAL ONLY FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT WOULD BE A
"PLAIN EVASION" OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS.  WE MADE A LIKE RULING ONLY
RECENTLY IN ROCHE V. EVAPORATED MILK ASSN., 319 U.S. 21, 30, WHERE WE
SAID:  "WHERE THE APPEAL STATUTES ESTABLISH THE CONDITIONS OF APPELLATE
REVIEW, AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT RIGHTLY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO
ISSUE A WRIT WHOSE ONLY EFFECT WOULD BE TO AVOID THOSE CONDITIONS AND
THWART THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AGAINST PIECEMEAL APPEALS IN CRIMINAL
CASES." 

THE PRESENT CASE PRESENTS NO ISSUE WHICH WARRANTS A DEPARTURE FROM
THAT LONG SETTLED PRACTICE.  THIS CASE RAISES NO QUESTION OF GRAVE
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.  IT IS BY NO MEANS COMPARABLE TO EX PARTE UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 241, WHERE THE INTERLOCUTORY DECREE WAS EQUIVALENT TO
A DENIAL OF THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PUT THE ACCUSED ON
TRIAL.  IT IS WHOLLY UNLIKE THE CASES CITED IN U.S. ALKALI EXPORT ASSN.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WHERE WRITS WERE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 262 TO
REVIEW INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS WHICH FORECLOSED THE ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS
ENTRUSTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE TRIBUNAL OR WHICH DEPRIVED A
PARTY OF HIS BASIC RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.  THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF
THE PRESENT QUESTION IS NOT APPARENT.  THE ACTUAL HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON
THE DEFENDANTS IS NO MORE THAN THE COST OF PROCURING A BOND.  IT HAS
ALWAYS BEEN ASSUMED THAT MERE HARDSHIP OR INCONVENIENCE ALONE WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY RESORT TO THE EXTRAORDINARY COURSE OF REVIEW BY
WAY OF SEC. 262.  U.S. ALKALI EXPORT ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IS
THE INCONVENIENCE OF PRIVATE LITIGANTS TO BE THE NEWLY FOUND GROUND FOR
EVADING THE EXPEDITING ACT? 

THE REASON ADVANCED FOR DEPARTING FROM THE LONG STANDING PRACTICE IS
THAT "THE ORDER WAS BEYOND THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT."  BY
THAT TEST EVERY INTERLOCUTORY ORDER WHICH IS WRONG CAN BE REVIEWED HERE
UNDER SEC. 262.  THAT IS NOVEL DOCTRINE.  THAT SEEMS TO BE THE TEST FOR
THE COURT SAYS THAT THE ORDER CAN NOW BE REVIEWED BECAUSE IT INVOLVES
"A MATTER LYING WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE ISSUES IN THE CASE."  IN OTHER
WORDS, WE LOOK TO THE MERITS AND TAKE THE CASE UNDER SEC. 262 IF IT
APPEARS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY.  BUT IT ALWAYS
EXCEEDS ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT ABUSES ITS DISCRETION.  THUS WE MUST NOW
ENTERTAIN THESE APPEALS ON INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, THOUGH CONGRESS SAID
WE SHOULD NOT, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT KEPT
WITHIN BOUNDS.  CERTAINLY CONGRESS KNEW THAT SOME INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
MIGHT BE ERRONEOUS WHEN IT CHOSE TO MAKE THEM NON-REVIEWABLE.  IT DID
NOT DRAW THE DISTINCTION NOW SUGGESTED BETWEEN INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
WHICH ARE AN ABUSE OF CONCEDED JUDICIAL POWER AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS
WHICH OTHERWISE EXCEED JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.  CONGRESS MOREOVER KNEW THAT
IF IMMEDIATE REVIEW OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS COULD NOT BE HAD, NO
DECISION ON THE MERITS MIGHT BE ABLE TO "REDRESS ANY INJURY DONE BY THE
ORDER."  BUT THAT WAS THE CHOICE WHICH IT MADE.  WE SHOULD RESPECT IT. 

THE DECISION, IF FOLLOWED, WILL OPEN THE FLOOD GATES TO REVIEW OF
INTERLOCUTORY DECREES.  IT CIRCUMVENTS THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO
RESTRICT REVIEW IN THESE CASES TO FINAL JUDGMENTS. 
..END :














WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 325 U.S. 226 


NO. 84.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  - 224 N.C.
183, 29 S.E.2D 744, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A MAN AND A WOMAN, DOMICILED IN NORTH CAROLINA, LEFT THEIR SPOUSES
IN NORTH CAROLINA, OBTAINED DECREES OF DIVORCE IN NEVADA, MARRIED AND
RETURNED TO NORTH CAROLINA TO LIVE.  PROSECUTED IN NORTH CAROLINA FOR
BIGAMOUS COHABITATION, THEY PLEADED THE NEVADA DIVORCE DECREES IN
DEFENSE BUT WERE CONVICTED.  HELD THAT, UPON THE RECORD, THE JUDGMENTS
OF CONVICTION WERE NOT INVALID AS DENYING THE NEVADA DIVORCE DECREES
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIRED BY ART. IV, SEC. 1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  PP. 234, 236. 

2.  A DECREE OF DIVORCE RENDERED IN ONE STATE MAY BE COLLATERALLY
IMPEACHED IN ANOTHER BY PROOF THAT THE COURT WHICH RENDERED THE DECREE
HAD NO JURISDICTION, EVEN THOUGH THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THAT
COURT PURPORTS TO SHOW JURISDICTION.  P. 229. 

3.  UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF LAW, JUDICIAL POWER TO GRANT A DIVORCE -
JURISDICTION, STRICTLY SPEAKING - IS FOUNDED ON DOMICIL.  P. 229. 

4.  AS TO THE TRUTH OR EXISTENCE OF A FACT, LIKE THAT OF DOMICIL,
UPON WHICH DEPENDS THE POWER TO EXERT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, A STATE NOT A
PARTY TO THE EXERTION OF SUCH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN ANOTHER STATE BUT
SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY IT HAS A RIGHT, WHEN ASSERTING ITS OWN
UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY, TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OR EXISTENCE OF THAT
CRUCIAL FACT.  P. 230. 

5.  PUNISHMENT OF A PERSON FOR AN ACT AS A CRIME WHEN IGNORANT OF THE
FACTS MAKING IT SO, DOES NOT INVOLVE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 238. 

6.  THE PRIOR DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THIS CASE, WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, DID NOT FORECLOSE A SECOND TRIAL UPON THE ISSUE
OF DOMICIL.  P. 239. 

WILLIAMS ET AL. V. NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 725, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING JUDGMENTS OF
CONVICTION OF BIGAMOUS COHABITATION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH
CAROLINA, AFFIRMING CONVICTIONS FOR BIGAMOUS COHABITATION,  FN1
ASSAILED ON THE GROUND THAT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, AS REQUIRED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS NOT ACCORDED DIVORCES DECREED BY
ONE OF THE COURTS OF NEVADA.  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287,
DECIDED AN EARLIER ASPECT OF THE CONTROVERSY.  IT WAS THERE HELD THAT A
DIVORCE GRANTED BY NEVADA, ON A FINDING THAT ONE SPOUSE WAS DOMICILED
IN NEVADA, MUST BE RESPECTED IN NORTH CAROLINA, WHERE NEVADA'S FINDING
OF DOMICIL WAS NOT QUESTIONED, THOUGH THE OTHER SPOUSE HAD NEITHER
APPEARED NOR BEEN SERVED WITH PROCESS IN NEVADA AND THOUGH RECOGNITION
OF SUCH A DIVORCE OFFENDED THE POLICY OF NORTH CAROLINA.  THE RECORD
THEN BEFORE US DID NOT PRESENT THE QUESTION WHETHER NORTH CAROLINA HAD
THE POWER "TO REFUSE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO NEVADA DIVORCE DECREES
BECAUSE, CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE NEVADA COURT, NORTH CAROLINA
FINDS THAT NO BONA FIDE DOMICIL WAS ACQUIRED IN NEVADA."  WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, AT 302.  THIS IS THE PRECISE ISSUE WHICH HAS
EMERGED AFTER RETRIAL OF THE CAUSE FOLLOWING OUR REVERSAL.  ITS OBVIOUS
IMPORTANCE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  322 U.S. 725. 

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, ARTICLE IV,
SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION, FN2  FIRST RECEIVED THE SHARP ANALYSIS OF
THIS COURT IN THOMPSON V. WHITMAN, 18 WALL.  457.  THERETOFORE,
UNCRITICAL NOTIONS ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THAT CLAUSE HAD BEEN EXPRESSED IN
THE EARLY CASE OF MILLS V. DURYEE, 7 CRANCH 481.  THE "DOCTRINE" OF
THAT CASE, AS RESTATED IN ANOTHER EARLY CASE, WAS THAT "THE JUDGMENT OF
A STATE COURT SHOULD HAVE THE SAME CREDIT, VALIDITY, AND EFFECT, IN
EVERY OTHER COURT IN THE UNITED STATES, WHICH IT HAD IN THE STATE WHERE
IT WAS PRONOUNCED."  HAMPTON V. M'CONNEL, 3 WHEAT.  234, 235.  THIS
UTTERANCE, WHEN PUT TO THE TEST, AS IT WAS IN THOMPSON V. WHITMAN,
SUPRA, WAS FOUND TO BE TOO LOOSE.  THOMPSON V. WHITMAN MADE IT CLEAR
THAT THE DOCTRINE OF MILLS V. DURYEE COMES INTO OPERATION ONLY WHEN, IN
THE LANGUAGE OF KENT, "THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN ANOTHER STATE
IS NOT IMPEACHED, EITHER AS TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OR THE PERSON."  ONLY
THEN IS "THE RECORD OF THE JUDGMENT  ...  ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT."  1 KENT, COMMENTARIES (2D ED., 1832) 261 N.B.  THE ESSENCE OF
THE MATTER WAS THUS PUT IN WHAT THOMPSON V. WHITMAN ADOPTED FROM STORY:
"'THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT MEAN TO CONFER (UPON THE STATES) A NEW
POWER OR JURISDICTION, BUT SIMPLY TO REGULATE THE EFFECT OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGED JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS AND THINGS WITHIN THEIR
TERRITORY.'"  FN3  18 WALL.  457, 462.  IN SHORT, THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE PUTS THE CONSTITUTION BEHIND A JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF THE
TOO FLUID, ILL-DEFINED CONCEPT OF "COMITY."  FN4 

BUT THE CLAUSE DOES NOT MAKE A SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT A JUDGMENT IN
ANOTHER STATE.  THE PROPOSAL TO DO SO WAS REJECTED BY THE PHILADELPHIA
CONVENTION.  2 FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787,
447-48.  FN5  "TO GIVE IT THE FORCE OF A JUDGMENT IN ANOTHER STATE, IT
MUST BE MADE A JUDGMENT THERE."  M'ELMOYLE V. COHEN, 13 PET. 312, 325. 
IT CAN BE MADE A JUDGMENT THERE ONLY IF THE COURT PURPORTING TO RENDER
THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT HAD POWER TO RENDER SUCH A JUDGMENT.  A JUDGMENT
IN ONE STATE IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE MERITS IN EVERY OTHER STATE, BUT
ONLY IF THE COURT OF THE FIRST STATE HAD POWER TO PASS ON THE MERITS -
HAD JURISDICTION, THAT IS, TO RENDER THE JUDGMENT. 

"IT IS TOO LATE NOW TO DENY THE RIGHT COLLATERALLY TO IMPEACH A
DECREE OF DIVORCE MADE IN ANOTHER STATE, BY PROOF THAT THE COURT HAD NO
JURISDICTION, EVEN WHEN THE RECORD PURPORTS TO SHOW JURISDICTION ..." 
IT WAS "TOO LATE" MORE THAN FORTY YEARS AGO.  GERMAN SAVINGS SOCIETY V.
DORMITZER, 192 U.S. 125, 128. 

UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF LAW, JUDICIAL POWER TO GRANT A DIVORCE -
JURISDICTION, STRICTLY SPEAKING - IS FOUNDED ON DOMICIL.  BELL V. BELL,
181 U.S. 175; ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14.  THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION WERE FAMILIAR WITH THIS JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITE, AND
SINCE 1789 NEITHER THIS COURT NOR ANY OTHER COURT IN THE ENGLISH
SPEAKING WORLD HAS QUESTIONED IT.  DOMICIL IMPLIES A NEXUS BETWEEN
PERSON AND PLACE OF SUCH PERMANENCE AS TO CONTROL THE CREATION OF LEGAL
RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE UTMOST SIGNIFICANCE.  THE DOMICIL
OF ONE SPOUSE WITHIN A STATE GIVES POWER TO THAT STATE, WE HAVE HELD,
TO DISSOLVE A MARRIAGE WHERESOEVER CONTRACTED.  IN VIEW OF WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF DOMICIL IS
FREED FROM CONFUSING REFINEMENTS ABOUT "MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL," SEE DAVIS
V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, 41, AND THE LIKE.  DIVORCE, LIKE MARRIAGE, IS OF
CONCERN NOT MERELY TO THE IMMEDIATE PARTIES.  IT AFFECTS PERSONAL
RIGHTS OF THE DEEPEST SIGNIFICANCE.  IT ALSO TOUCHES BASIC INTERESTS OF
SOCIETY.  SINCE DIVORCE, LIKE MARRIAGE, CREATES A NEW STATUS, EVERY
CONSIDERATION OF POLICY MAKES IT DESIRABLE THAT THE EFFECT SHOULD BE
THE SAME WHEREVER THE QUESTION ARISES. 

IT IS ONE THING TO REOPEN AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN SETTLED AFTER
APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CONTENTIONS HAS BEEN AFFORDED
TO ALL WHO HAD AN INTEREST IN ITS ADJUDICATION.  THIS APPLIES ALSO TO
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS.  AFTER A CONTEST THESE CANNOT BE RELITIGATED
AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  FORSYTH V. HAMMOND, 166 U.S. 506, 517; CHICAGO
LIFE INS. CO. V. CHERRY, 244 U.S. 25, 30; DAVIS V. DAVIS, SUPRA.  BUT
THOSE NOT PARTIES TO A LITIGATION OUGHT NOT TO BE FORECLOSED BY THE
INTERESTED ACTIONS OF OTHERS; ESPECIALLY NOT A STATE WHICH IS CONCERNED
WITH THE VINDICATION OF ITS OWN SOCIAL POLICY AND HAS NO MEANS,
CERTAINLY NO EFFECTIVE MEANS, TO PROTECT THAT INTEREST AGAINST THE
SELFISH ACTION OF THOSE OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS.  THE STATE OF DOMICILIARY
ORIGIN SHOULD NOT BE BOUND BY AN UNFOUNDED, EVEN IF NOT COLLUSIVE,
RECITAL IN THE RECORD OF A COURT OF ANOTHER STATE.  AS TO THE TRUTH OR
EXISTENCE OF A FACT, LIKE THAT OF DOMICIL, UPON WHICH DEPENDS THE POWER
TO EXERT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, A STATE NOT A PARTY TO THE EXERTION OF
SUCH JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN ANOTHER STATE BUT SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY IT
HAS A RIGHT, WHEN ASSERTING ITS OWN UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY, TO
ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OR EXISTENCE OF THAT CRUCIAL FACT.  FN6 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE WHETHER POWER
WAS ASSUMED BY THE COURT OF THE FIRST STATE OR CLAIMED AFTER INQUIRY. 
THIS MAY LEAD, NO DOUBT, TO CONFLICTING DETERMINATIONS OF WHAT JUDICIAL
POWER IS FOUNDED UPON.  SUCH CONFLICT IS INHERENT IN THE PRACTICAL
APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF DOMICIL IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM.  FN7  SEE WORCESTER COUNTY CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292; TEXAS V.
FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. MURPHY, 314 U.S. 441. 
WHAT WAS SAID IN WORCESTER COUNTY CO. V. RILEY, SUPRA, IS PERTINENT
HERE.  "NEITHER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NOR THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE REQUIRES UNIFORMITY IN THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF DIFFERENT
STATES AS TO THE PLACE OF DOMICIL, WHERE THE EXERTION OF STATE POWER IS
DEPENDENT UPON DOMICIL WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES."  302 U.S. 292, 299.  IF
A FINDING BY THE COURT OF ONE STATE THAT DOMICIL IN ANOTHER STATE HAS
BEEN ABANDONED WERE CONCLUSIVE UPON THE OLD DOMICILIARY STATE, THE
POLICY OF EACH STATE IN MATTERS OF MOST INTIMATE CONCERN COULD BE
SUBVERTED BY THE POLICY OF EVERY OTHER STATE.  THIS COURT HAS LONG AGO
DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH DESTRUCTIVE POWER.  THE ISSUE HAS A FAR
REACH.  FOR DOMICIL IS THE FOUNDATION OF PROBATE JURISDICTION PRECISELY
AS IT IS THAT OF DIVORCE.  THE RULING IN TILT V. KELSEY, 207 U.S. 43,
REGARDING THE PROBATE OF A WILL, IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO A SISTER
STATE DIVORCE DECREE:  "THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT DUE TO THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NEW JERSEY COURT DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THE COURTS OF
NEW YORK SHALL BE BOUND BY ITS ADJUDICATION ON THE QUESTION OF
DOMICIL.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS OPEN TO THE COURTS OF ANY STATE IN THE
TRIAL OF A COLLATERAL ISSUE TO DETERMINE UPON THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED THE
TRUE DOMICIL OF THE DECEASED."  207 U.S. 43, 53. 

ALTHOUGH IT IS NOW SETTLED THAT A SUIT FOR DIVORCE IS NOT AN ORDINARY
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING, IT DOES NOT PROMOTE ANALYSIS, AS WAS RECENTLY
POINTED OUT, TO LABEL DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS AS ACTIONS IN REM.  WILLIAMS
V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, AT 297.  BUT INSOFAR AS A DIVORCE DECREE
PARTAKES OF SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A DECREE IN REM, IT IS
MISLEADING TO SAY THAT ALL THE WORLD IS PARTY TO A PROCEEDING IN REM. 
SEE BRIGHAM V. FAYERWEATHER, 140 MASS. 411, 413, 5 N.E. 265, QUOTED IN
TILT V. KELSEY, SUPRA, AT 52.  ALL THE WORLD IS NOT PARTY TO A DIVORCE
PROCEEDING.  WHAT IS TRUE IS THAT ALL THE WORLD NEED NOT BE PRESENT
BEFORE A COURT GRANTING THE DECREE AND YET IT MUST BE RESPECTED BY THE
OTHER FORTY-SEVEN STATES PROVIDED - AND IT IS A BIG PROVISO - THE
CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE DIVORCE-DECREEING COURT ARE
VALIDLY ESTABLISHED WHENEVER THAT JUDGMENT IS ELSEWHERE CALLED INTO
QUESTION.  IN SHORT, THE DECREE OF DIVORCE IS A CONCLUSIVE ADJUDICATION
OF EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS UPON WHICH IT IS FOUNDED,
AND DOMICIL IS A JURISDICTIONAL FACT.  TO PERMIT THE NECESSARY FINDING
OF DOMICIL BY ONE STATE TO FORECLOSE ALL STATES IN THE PROTECTION OF
THEIR SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS WOULD BE INTOLERABLE. 

BUT TO ENDOW EACH STATE WITH CONTROLLING AUTHORITY TO NULLIFY THE
POWER OF A SISTER STATE TO GRANT A DIVORCE BASED UPON A FINDING THAT
ONE SPOUSE HAD ACQUIRED A NEW DOMICIL WITHIN THE DIVORCING STATE WOULD,
IN THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM, BE EQUALLY
INDEFENSIBLE.  NO STATE COURT CAN ASSUME COMPREHENSIVE ATTENTION TO THE
VARIOUS AND POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING INTERESTS THAT SEVERAL STATES MAY
HAVE IN THE INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF MARRIAGE.  THE NECESSARY
ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE RIGHT OF ONE STATE TO SAFEGUARD ITS INTEREST
IN THE FAMILY RELATION OF ITS OWN PEOPLE AND THE POWER OF ANOTHER STATE
TO GRANT DIVORCES CAN BE LEFT TO NEITHER STATE. 

THE PROBLEM IS TO RECONCILE THE RECIPROCAL RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED BY
THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION TO THEIR ADJUDICATIONS WITH DUE REGARD FOR
ANOTHER MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF OUR FEDERALISM WHEREBY "THE DOMESTIC
RELATIONS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE  ...  WERE MATTERS RESERVED TO THE
STATES," POPOVICI V. AGLER, 280 U.S. 379, 383-84, AND DO NOT BELONG TO
THE UNITED STATES.  IN RE BURRUS, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94.  THE RIGHTS
THAT BELONG TO ALL THE STATES AND THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH MEMBERSHIP IN
THE UNION IMPOSES UPON ALL, ARE MADE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THIS COURT IS
OPEN TO CONSIDER CLAIMS, SUCH AS THIS CASE PRESENTS, THAT THE COURTS OF
ONE STATE HAVE NOT GIVEN THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A
SISTER STATE THAT IS REQUIRED BY ART. IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

BUT THE DISCHARGE OF THIS DUTY DOES NOT MAKE OF THIS COURT A COURT OF
PROBATE AND DIVORCE.  NEITHER A RATIONAL SYSTEM OF LAW NOR HARD
PRACTICALITY CALLS FOR OUR INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION, IN REVIEWING THE
JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, OF THAT RATHER ELUSIVE RELATION BETWEEN
PERSON AND PLACE WHICH ESTABLISHES DOMICIL.  "IT IS NOT FOR US TO RETRY
THE FACTS," AS WAS HELD IN A CASE IN WHICH, LIKE THE PRESENT, THE
JURISDICTION UNDERLYING A SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT WAS DEPENDENT ON
DOMICIL.  BURBANK V. ERNST, 232 U.S. 162, 164.  THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT
MUST, HOWEVER, SATISFY OUR SCRUTINY THAT THE RECIPROCAL DUTY OF RESPECT
OWED BY THE STATES TO ONE ANOTHER'S ADJUDICATIONS HAS BEEN FAIRLY
DISCHARGED, AND HAS NOT BEEN EVADED UNDER THE GUISE OF FINDING AN
ABSENCE OF DOMICIL AND THEREFORE A WANT OF POWER IN THE COURT RENDERING
THE JUDGMENT. 

WHAT IS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE US IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
NORTH CAROLINA.  WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO UPSET IT ONLY IF THERE IS WANT OF
FOUNDATION FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THAT COURT REACHED.  THE CONCLUSION
IT REACHED TURNS ON ITS FINDING THAT THE SPOUSES WHO OBTAINED THE
NEVADA DECREES WERE NOT DOMICILED THERE.  THE FACT THAT THE NEVADA
COURT FOUND THAT THEY WERE DOMICILED THERE IS ENTITLED TO RESPECT, AND
MORE.  THE BURDEN OF UNDERMINING THE VERITY WHICH THE NEVADA DECREES
IMPORT RESTS HEAVILY UPON THE ASSAILANT.  BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE NEVADA
COURT FOUND THAT IT HAD POWER TO AWARD A DIVORCE DECREE CANNOT, WE HAVE
SEEN, FORECLOSE REEXAMINATION BY ANOTHER STATE.  OTHERWISE, AS WAS
POINTED OUT LONG AGO, A COURT'S RECORD WOULD ESTABLISH ITS POWER AND
THE POWER WOULD BE PROVED BY THE RECORD.  SUCH CIRCULAR REASONING WOULD
GIVE ONE STATE A CONTROL OVER ALL THE OTHER STATES WHICH THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE CERTAINLY DID NOT CONFER.  THOMPSON V. WHITMAN,
SUPRA.  IF THIS COURT FINDS THAT PROPER WEIGHT WAS ACCORDED TO THE
CLAIMS OF POWER BY THE COURT OF ONE STATE IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT THE
VALIDITY OF WHICH IS PLEADED IN DEFENSE IN ANOTHER STATE, THAT THE
BURDEN OF OVERCOMING SUCH RESPECT BY DISPROOF OF THE SUBSTRATUM OF FACT
- HERE DOMICIL - ON WHICH SUCH POWER ALONE CAN REST WAS PROPERLY
CHARGED AGAINST THE PARTY CHALLENGING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE JUDGMENT,
THAT SUCH ISSUE OF FACT WAS LEFT FOR FAIR DETERMINATION BY APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURE, AND THAT A FINDING ADVERSE TO THE NECESSARY FOUNDATION FOR
ANY VALID SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT WAS AMPLY SUPPORTED IN EVIDENCE, WE
CANNOT UPSET THE JUDGMENT BEFORE US.  AND WE CANNOT DO SO EVEN IF WE
ALSO FOUND IN THE RECORD OF THE COURT OF ORIGINAL JUDGMENT WARRANT FOR
ITS FINDING THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION.  IF IT IS A MATTER TURNING ON
LOCAL LAW, GREAT DEFERENCE IS OWED BY THE COURTS OF ONE STATE TO WHAT A
COURT OF ANOTHER STATE HAS DONE.  SEE MICHIGAN TRUST CO. V. FERRY, 228
U.S. 346.  BUT WHEN WE ARE DEALING AS HERE WITH AN HISTORIC NOTION
COMMON TO ALL ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTS, THAT OF DOMICIL, WE SHOULD NOT
FIND A WANT OF DEFERENCE TO A SISTER STATE ON THE PART OF A COURT OF
ANOTHER STATE WHICH FINDS AN ABSENCE OF DOMICIL WHERE SUCH A CONCLUSION
IS WARRANTED BY THE RECORD. 

WHEN THIS CASE WAS FIRST HERE, NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT CHALLENGE THE
FINDING OF THE NEVADA COURT THAT PETITIONERS HAD ACQUIRED DOMICILS IN
NEVADA.  FOR HER CHALLENGE OF THE NEVADA DECREES, NORTH CAROLINA RESTED
ON HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562.  UPON RETRIAL, HOWEVER, THE
EXISTENCE OF DOMICIL IN NEVADA BECAME THE DECISIVE ISSUE.  THE
JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION NOW UNDER REVIEW BRING BEFORE US A RECORD WHICH
MAY BE FAIRLY SUMMARIZED BY SAYING THAT THE PETITIONERS LEFT NORTH
CAROLINA FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING DIVORCES FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE
SPOUSES IN NEVADA AND AS SOON AS EACH HAD DONE SO AND MARRIED ONE
ANOTHER THEY LEFT NEVADA AND RETURNED TO NORTH CAROLINA TO LIVE THERE
TOGETHER AS MAN AND WIFE.  AGAINST THE CHARGE OF BIGAMOUS COHABITATION
UNDER SEC. 14-183 OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES, PETITIONERS
STOOD ON THEIR NEVADA DIVORCES AND OFFERED EXEMPLIFIED COPIES OF THE
NEVADA PROCEEDINGS.  FN8  THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED THAT THE STATE HAD
THE BURDEN OF PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT (1) EACH
PETITIONER WAS LAWFULLY MARRIED TO ONE PERSON; (2) THEREAFTER EACH
PETITIONER CONTRACTED A SECOND MARRIAGE WITH ANOTHER PERSON OUTSIDE
NORTH CAROLINA; (3) THE SPOUSES OF PETITIONERS WERE LIVING AT THE TIME
OF THIS SECOND MARRIAGE; (4) PETITIONERS COHABITED WITH ONE ANOTHER IN
NORTH CAROLINA AFTER THE SECOND MARRIAGE.  THE BURDEN, IT WAS CHARGED,
THEN DEVOLVED UPON PETITIONERS "TO SATISFY THE TRIAL JURY, NOT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT NOR BY THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, BUT SIMPLY
TO SATISFY" THE JURY FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE, THAT PETITIONERS WERE
DOMICILED IN NEVADA AT THE TIME THEY OBTAINED THEIR DIVORCES.  THE
COURT FURTHER CHARGED THAT "THE RECITATION" OF BONA FIDE DOMICIL IN THE
NEVADA DECREE WAS "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE" SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A
FINDING OF DOMICIL IN NEVADA BUT NOT COMPELLING "SUCH AN INFERENCE." 
IF THE JURY FOUND, AS THEY WERE TOLD, THAT PETITIONERS HAD DOMICILS IN
NORTH CAROLINA AND WENT TO NEVADA "SIMPLY AND SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OBTAINING" DIVORCES, INTENDING TO RETURN TO NORTH CAROLINA ON OBTAINING
THEM, THEY NEVER LOST THEIR NORTH CAROLINA DOMICILS NOR ACQUIRED NEW
DOMICILS IN NEVADA.  DOMICIL, THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED, WAS THAT PLACE
WHERE A PERSON "HAS VOLUNTARILY FIXED HIS ABODE  ...  NOT FOR A MERE
SPECIAL OR TEMPORARY PURPOSE, BUT WITH A PRESENT INTENTION OF MAKING IT
HIS HOME, EITHER PERMANENTLY OR FOR AN INDEFINITE OR UNLIMITED LENGTH
OF TIME." 

THE SCALES OF JUSTICE MUST NOT BE UNFAIRLY WEIGHTED BY A STATE WHEN
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IS CLAIMED FOR A SISTER-STATE JUDGMENT.  BUT
NORTH CAROLINA HAS NOT SO DEALT WITH THE NEVADA DECREES.  SHE HAS NOT
RAISED UNFAIR BARRIERS TO THEIR RECOGNITION.  NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT
FAIL IN APPRECIATION OR APPLICATION OF FEDERAL STANDARDS OF FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT.  APPROPRIATE WEIGHT WAS GIVEN TO THE FINDING OF DOMICIL IN
THE NEVADA DECREES, AND THAT FINDING WAS ALLOWED TO BE OVERTURNED ONLY
BY RELEVANT STANDARDS OF PROOF.  THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE
ISSUE WAS NOT FAIRLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AND THAT IT WAS NOT FAIRLY
ASSESSED ON COGENT EVIDENCE. 

STATE COURTS CANNOT AVOID REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF THEIR DISPOSITION
OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM BY CASTING IT IN THE FORM OF AN UNREVIEWABLE
FINDING OF FACT.  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 590.  THIS RECORD IS
BARREN OF SUCH ATTEMPTED EVASION.  WHAT IT SHOWS IS THAT PETITIONERS,
LONG-TIME RESIDENTS OF NORTH CAROLINA, CAME TO NEVADA, WHERE THEY
STAYED IN AN AUTO-COURT FOR TRANSIENTS, FILED SUITS FOR DIVORCE AS SOON
AS THE NEVADA LAW PERMITTED, MARRIED ONE ANOTHER AS SOON AS THE
DIVORCES WERE OBTAINED, AND PROMPTLY RETURNED TO NORTH CAROLINA TO
LIVE.  IT CANNOT REASONABLY BE CLAIMED THAT ONE SET OF INFERENCES
RATHER THAN ANOTHER REGARDING THE ACQUISITION BY PETITIONERS OF NEW
DOMICILS IN NEVADA COULD NOT BE DRAWN FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING
THEIR NEVADA DIVORCES.  IT WOULD BE HIGHLY UNREASONABLE TO ASSERT THAT
A JURY COULD NOT REASONABLY FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THAT
PETITIONERS WENT TO NEVADA SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A
DIVORCE AND INTENDED ALL ALONG TO RETURN TO NORTH CAROLINA.  SUCH AN
INTENTION, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CHARGED, WOULD PRECLUDE ACQUISITION
OF DOMICILS IN NEVADA.  SEE WILLIAMSON V. OSENTON, 232 U.S. 619.  AND
SO WE CANNOT SAY THAT NORTH CAROLINA WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DRAW THE
INFERENCE THAT PETITIONERS NEVER ABANDONED THEIR DOMICILS IN NORTH
CAROLINA, PARTICULARLY SINCE WE COULD NOT CONSCIENTIOUSLY PREFER, WERE
IT OUR BUSINESS TO DO SO, THE CONTRARY FINDING OF THE NEVADA COURT. 

IF A STATE CANNOT FORECLOSE, ON REVIEW HERE, ALL THE OTHER STATES BY
ITS FINDING THAT ONE SPOUSE IS DOMICILED WITHIN ITS BOUNDS, PERSONS
MAY, NO DOUBT, PLACE THEMSELVES IN SITUATIONS THAT CREATE UNHAPPY
CONSEQUENCES FOR THEM.  THIS IS MERELY ONE OF THOSE UNTOWARD RESULTS
INEVITABLE IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM IN WHICH REGULATION OF DOMESTIC
RELATIONS HAS BEEN LEFT WITH THE STATES AND NOT GIVEN TO THE NATIONAL
AUTHORITY.  BUT THE OCCASIONAL DISREGARD BY ANY ONE STATE OF THE
RECIPROCAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES TO RESPECT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF EACH TO DEAL WITH DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF THOSE
DOMICILED WITHIN ITS BORDERS IS HARDLY AN ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWING ONE
STATE TO DEPRIVE THE OTHER FORTY-SEVEN STATES OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  RELEVANT STATISTICS HAPPILY DO NOT JUSTIFY LURID FOREBODINGS
THAT PARENTS WITHOUT NUMBER WILL DISREGARD THE FATE OF THEIR OFFSPRING
BY BEING UNMINDFUL OF THE STATUS OF DIGNITY TO WHICH THEY ARE
ENTITLED.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, TO THE EXTENT THAT SOME ONE STATE MAY,
FOR CONSIDERATIONS OF ITS OWN, IMPROPERLY INTRUDE INTO DOMESTIC
RELATIONS SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE OTHER STATES, IT SUFFICES TO
SUGGEST THAT ANY SUCH INDIFFERENCE BY A STATE TO THE BOND OF THE UNION
SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED, NOT ENCOURAGED. 

IN SEEKING A DECREE OF DIVORCE OUTSIDE THE STATE IN WHICH HE HAS
THERETOFORE MAINTAINED HIS MARRIAGE, A PERSON IS NECESSARILY INVOLVED
IN THE LEGAL SITUATION CREATED BY OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM WHEREBY ONE STATE
CAN GRANT A DIVORCE OF VALIDITY IN OTHER STATES ONLY IF THE APPLICANT
HAS A BONA FIDE DOMICIL IN THE STATE OF THE COURT PURPORTING TO
DISSOLVE A PRIOR LEGAL MARRIAGE.  THE PETITIONERS THEREFORE ASSUMED THE
RISK THAT THIS COURT WOULD FIND THAT NORTH CAROLINA JUSTIFIABLY
CONCLUDED THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN DOMICILED IN NEVADA.  SINCE THE
DIVORCES WHICH THEY SOUGHT AND RECEIVED IN NEVADA HAD NO LEGAL VALIDITY
IN NORTH CAROLINA AND THEIR NORTH CAROLINA SPOUSES WERE STILL ALIVE,
THEY SUBJECTED THEMSELVES TO PROSECUTION FOR BIGAMOUS COHABITATION
UNDER NORTH CAROLINA LAW.  THE LEGITIMATE FINDING OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
SUPREME COURT THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT IN TRUTH DOMICILED IN
NEVADA WAS NOT A CONTINGENCY AGAINST WHICH THE PETITIONERS WERE
PROTECTED BY ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  A
MAN'S FATE OFTEN DEPENDS, AS FOR INSTANCE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
SHERMAN LAW, ON FAR GREATER RISKS THAT HE WILL ESTIMATE "RIGHTLY, THAT
IS, AS THE JURY SUBSEQUENTLY ESTIMATES IT, SOME MATTER OF DEGREE.  IF
HIS JUDGMENT IS WRONG, NOT ONLY MAY HE INCUR A FINE OR A SHORT
IMPRISONMENT, AS HERE; HE MAY INCUR THE PENALTY OF DEATH."  NASH V.
UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 377.  THE OBJECTION THAT PUNISHMENT OF A
PERSON FOR AN ACT AS A CRIME WHEN IGNORANT OF THE FACTS MAKING IT SO,
INVOLVES A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS MORE THAN ONCE BEEN
OVERRULED.  IN VINDICATING ITS PUBLIC POLICY AND PARTICULARLY ONE SO
IMPORTANT AS THAT BEARING UPON THE INTEGRITY OF FAMILY LIFE, A STATE IN
PUNISHING PARTICULAR ACTS MAY PROVIDE THAT "HE WHO SHALL DO THEM SHALL
DO THEM AT HIS PERIL AND WILL NOT BE HEARD TO PLEAD IN DEFENSE GOOD
FAITH OR IGNORANCE."  UNITED STATES V. BALINT, 258 U.S. 250, 252,
QUOTING SHEVLIN-CARPENTER CO. V. MINNESOTA, 218 U.S. 57, 69-70. 
MISTAKEN NOTIONS ABOUT ONE'S LEGAL RIGHTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO BAR
PROSECUTION FOR CRIME. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT NORTH CAROLINA WAS NOT REQUIRED TO YIELD HER STATE
POLICY BECAUSE A NEVADA COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONERS WERE DOMICILED IN
NEVADA WHEN IT GRANTED THEM DECREES OF DIVORCE.  NORTH CAROLINA WAS
ENTITLED TO FIND, AS SHE DID, THAT THEY DID NOT ACQUIRE DOMICILS IN
NEVADA AND THAT THE NEVADA COURT WAS THEREFORE WITHOUT POWER TO
LIBERATE THE PETITIONERS FROM AMENABILITY TO THE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA
GOVERNING DOMESTIC RELATIONS.  AND, AS WAS SAID IN CONNECTION WITH
ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, OUR CONCLUSION "IS
NOT A MATTER TO AROUSE THE SUSCEPTIBILITIES OF THE STATES, ALL OF WHICH
ARE EQUALLY CONCERNED IN THE QUESTION AND EQUALLY ON BOTH SIDES." 
FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, 210 U.S. 230, 238. 

AS FOR THE SUGGESTION THAT WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA,
FORECLOSED THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA FROM ORDERING A SECOND
TRIAL UPON THE ISSUE OF DOMICIL, IT SUFFICES TO REFER TO OUR OPINION IN
THE EARLIER CASE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE PROSECUTION WAS UNDER SEC. 14-183 OF THE GENERAL STATUTES OF
NORTH CAROLINA (1943): "IF ANY PERSON, BEING MARRIED, SHALL CONTRACT A
MARRIAGE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE, WHICH MARRIAGE
WOULD BE PUNISHABLE AS BIGAMOUS IF CONTRACTED WITHIN THIS STATE, AND
SHALL THEREAFTER COHABIT WITH SUCH PERSON IN THIS STATE, HE SHALL BE
GUILTY OF A FELONY AND SHALL BE PUNISHED AS IN CASES OF BIGAMY. 
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL EXTEND  ...  TO ANY PERSON WHO
AT THE TIME OF SUCH SECOND MARRIAGE SHALL HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY DIVORCED
FROM THE BOND OF THE FIRST MARRIAGE  ..." 

FN2  "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE
PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE." 

FN3  IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THIS MORE CRITICAL ANALYSIS BY
MR. JUSTICE STORY OF THE NATURE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
FIRST APPEARED IN 1833, TWENTY YEARS AFTER HIS LOOSE CHARACTERIZATION
IN MILLS V. DURYEE, SUPRA.  3 STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION
(1ST ED., 1833) P. 183. 

FN4  "THERE IS SCARCELY ANY DOCTRINE OF THE LAW WHICH, SO FAR AS
RESPECTS FORMAL AND EXACT STATEMENT, IS IN A MORE UNREDUCED AND
UNCERTAIN CONDITION THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO THE QUESTION WHAT FORCE
AND EFFECT SHOULD BE GIVEN BY THE COURTS OF ONE NATION TO THE JUDGMENTS
RENDERED BY THE COURTS OF ANOTHER NATION."  JAMES C. CARTER AND ELIHU
ROOT, APPELLANTS' BRIEF, P. 49, IN HILTON V. GUYOT, 159 U.S. 113.  SEE,
AS TO "COMITY," LOUCKS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 224 N.Y. 99, 120 N.E. 198. 

FN5  THE REACH OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER GIVEN BY ART. IV, SEC. 1 IS NOT
BEFORE US.  SEE JACKSON, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT - THE LAWYER'S CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION (1945) 45 COL. L. REV. 1, 21-24; COOK, LOGICAL AND
LEGAL BASES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS (1942) 98 ET SEQ. 

FN6  WE HAVE NOT HERE A SITUATION WHERE A STATE DISREGARDS THE
ADJUDICATION OF ANOTHER STATE ON THE ISSUE OF DOMICIL SQUARELY
LITIGATED IN A TRULY ADVERSARY PROCEEDING. 

FN7  SINCE AN APPEAL TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE RAISES
QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
PROPER CRITERIA FOR ASCERTAINING DOMICIL, SHOULD THESE BE IN DISPUTE,
BECOME MATTERS FOR FEDERAL DETERMINATION.  SEE HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA
CO., 304 U.S. 92, 110. 

FN8  AS TO PETITIONER HENDRIX THESE INCLUDED THE PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE
AND DECREE.  AS TO PETITIONER WILLIAMS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME EVIDENCE
WITH RESPECT TO HIS DOMICIL IS IN THE RECORD FROM WITNESSES IN THIS
CASE.  IT SHOWS WHEN WILLIAMS LEFT NORTH CAROLINA, WHEN HE ARRIVED IN
NEVADA, THE PROMPT FILING OF HIS DIVORCE SUIT (NEVADA REQUIRES SIX
WEEKS' RESIDENCE PRIOR TO FILING A SUIT FOR DIVORCE), MARRIAGE TO
PETITIONER HENDRIX IMMEDIATELY AFTER PETITIONERS WERE DIVORCED, AND HIS
PROMPT RETURN TO NORTH CAROLINA.  ALL OF THIS BEARS ON ABANDONMENT OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA DOMICIL AND THE INTENT TO REMAIN INDEFINITELY
ELSEWHERE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. 

WHILE I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS
COMPEL ME TO STATE MORE FULLY MY VIEWS ON THE IMPORTANT ISSUES
PRESENTED BY THIS CASE. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA HAS UNQUESTIONED AUTHORITY, CONSISTENT WITH
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, TO GRANT DIVORCES ON WHATEVER BASIS IT SEES FIT
TO ALL WHO MEET ITS STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.  IT IS ENTITLED, MOREOVER,
TO GIVE TO ITS DIVORCE DECREES ABSOLUTE AND BINDING FINALITY WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF ITS BORDERS. 

BUT IF NEVADA'S DIVORCE DECREES ARE TO BE ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT IN THE COURTS OF HER SISTER STATES IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT NEVADA
HAVE PROPER JURISDICTION OVER THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS.  THIS MEANS THAT
AT LEAST ONE OF THE PARTIES TO EACH EX PARTE PROCEEDING MUST HAVE A
BONA FIDE DOMICIL WITHIN NEVADA FOR WHATEVER LENGTH OF TIME NEVADA MAY
PRESCRIBE. 

THIS ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THIS COURT MANY
TIMES.  IN BELL V. BELL, 181 U.S. 175, THIS COURT HELD THAT "BECAUSE
NEITHER PARTY HAD A DOMICIL IN PENNSYLVANIA" THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT HAD
NO JURISDICTION TO GRANT A DIVORCE AND ITS DECREE "WAS ENTITLED TO NO
FAITH AND CREDIT IN NEW YORK OR IN ANY OTHER STATE."  THE SAME RULE WAS
APPLIED IN THE COMPANION CASE OF STREITWOLF V. STREITWOLF, 181 U.S.
179.  REFERRING TO THESE TWO PRIOR CASES AS HOLDING THAT "DOMICIL WAS
IN ANY EVENT THE INHERENT ELEMENT UPON WHICH THE JURISDICTION MUST
REST," THE COURT IN ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14, REPEATED THAT BONA
FIDE DOMICIL IN A STATE IS "ESSENTIAL TO GIVE JURISDICTION TO THE
COURTS OF SUCH STATE TO RENDER A DECREE OF DIVORCE WHICH WOULD HAVE
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL EFFECT."  THE ANDREWS CASE MADE IT CLEAR, MOREOVER,
THAT THIS REQUIREMENT OF DOMICIL IS NOT MERELY A MATTER OF STATE LAW. 
IT WAS STATED SPECIFICALLY THAT "WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE STATUTE OF
SOUTH DAKOTA AND IN ANY EVENT" DOMICIL IN SOUTH DAKOTA WAS NECESSARY. 
188 U.S. AT 41.  ALL OF THE OPINIONS IN HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S.
562, RECOGNIZED THIS PRINCIPLE, WITH MR. JUSTICE BROWN'S DISSENTING
OPINION STATING THAT "THE COURTS OF ONE STATE MAY NOT GRANT A DIVORCE
AGAINST AN ABSENT DEFENDANT TO ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT ACQUIRED A BONA
FIDE DOMICIL IN THAT STATE."  FINALLY, IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA,
317 U.S. 287, THE COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S DOMICIL IN A
STATE "IS RECOGNIZED IN THE HADDOCK CASE AND ELSEWHERE (BEALE, CONFLICT
OF LAWS, SEC. 110.1) AS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO GIVE THE COURT
JURISDICTION WHICH WILL ENTITLE THE DIVORCE DECREE TO EXTRATERRITORIAL
EFFECT, AT LEAST WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS NEITHER BEEN PERSONALLY SERVED
NOR ENTERED AN APPEARANCE."  SEE ALSO ATHERTON V. ATHERTON, 181 U.S.
155. 

THE JURY HAS HERE FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER'S ALLEGED DOMICIL IN
NEVADA WAS NOT A BONA FIDE ONE, WHICH IN COMMON AND LEGAL PARLANCE
MEANS THAT IT WAS ACQUIRED FRAUDULENTLY, DECEITFULLY OR IN BAD FAITH. 
THIS MEANS, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THE JURY FOUND THAT THE PETITIONERS'
RESIDENCE IN NEVADA FOR SIX WEEKS WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A BONA FIDE
INTENTION TO MAKE NEVADA THEIR HOME AND TO REMAIN THERE PERMANENTLY OR
AT LEAST FOR AN INDEFINITE TIME, AS REQUIRED EVEN BY NEVADA LAW.  LAMB
V. LAMB, 57 NEV. 421, 430, 65 P.2D 872.  THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED
BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SATISFYING WHATEVER STANDARD OF PROOF MAY BE
PROPOUNDED.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE
EFFICACY OF JURY TRIALS IN RELATION TO THE QUESTION OF DOMICIL OR TO
SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER ANOTHER JURY MIGHT HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT
VERDICT ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS. 

THUS THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT NEVADA WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION SO AS TO GIVE EXTRATERRITORIAL VALIDITY TO THE DIVORCE
DECREES AND THAT NORTH CAROLINA WAS NOT COMPELLED BY THE CONSTITUTION
TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE NEVADA DECREES.  NORTH CAROLINA
WAS FREE TO CONSIDER THE ORIGINAL MARRIAGES STILL IN EFFECT, THE NEVADA
DIVORCES TO BE INVALID, AND THE NEVADA MARRIAGE TO BE BIGAMOUS, THUS
GIVING THE NEVADA MARRIAGE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT THAT NEVADA
PRESUMABLY WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT HAD NEVADA CONSIDERED THE ORIGINAL
MARRIAGES STILL OUTSTANDING.  CF. STATE V. ZICHFELD, 23 NEV. 304, 46 P.
802. 

BY BEING DOMICILED AND LIVING IN NORTH CAROLINA, PETITIONERS SECURED
ALL THE BENEFITS AND ADVANTAGES OF ITS GOVERNMENT AND PARTICIPATED IN
ITS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC LIFE.  AS LONG AS PETITIONERS AND THEIR
RESPECTIVE SPOUSES LIVED THERE AND RETAINED THAT DOMICIL, NORTH
CAROLINA HAD THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE DISSOLUTION OF THEIR
MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIPS.  HOWEVER HARSH AND UNJUST NORTH CAROLINA'S
DIVORCE LAWS MAY BE THOUGHT TO BE, PETITIONERS WERE BOUND TO OBEY THEM
WHILE RETAINING RESIDENTIAL AND DOMICILIARY TIES IN THAT STATE. 

NO JUSTIFIABLE PURPOSE IS SERVED BY IMPARTING CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTITY
TO THE EFFORTS OF PETITIONERS TO ESTABLISH A FALSE AND FICTITIOUS
DOMICIL IN NEVADA.  SUCH A RESULT WOULD ONLY TEND TO PROMOTE WHOLESALE
DISREGARD OF NORTH CAROLINA'S DIVORCE LAWS BY ITS CITIZENS, THUS
PUTTING AN END TO "THE EXISTENCE OF ALL EFFICACIOUS POWER ON THE
SUBJECT OF DIVORCE."  ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, SUPRA, 32.  CERTAINLY NO
POLICY OF NEVADA DICTATES LENDING THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO
PROTECT ACTIONS GROUNDED IN DECEIT.  NEVADA HAS A RECOGNIZABLE INTEREST
IN GRANTING ONLY TWO TYPES OF EX PARTE DIVORCES:  (A) THOSE EFFECTIVE
SOLELY WITHIN THE BORDERS OF NEVADA, AND (B) THOSE EFFECTIVE EVERYWHERE
ON THE GROUND THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE PARTIES HAD A BONA FIDE DOMICIL
IN THE STATE AT THE TIME THE DECREE WAS GRANTED.  NEITHER TYPE OF
DIVORCE IS INVOLVED HERE.  AND NEVADA HAS NO INTEREST THAT WE CAN
RESPECT IN ISSUING DIVORCE DECREES WITH EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT TO
THOSE WHO ARE DOMICILED ELSEWHERE AND WHO SECURE SHAM DOMICILS IN
NEVADA SOLELY FOR DIVORCE PURPOSES. 

THERE ARE NO STARTLING OR DANGEROUS IMPLICATIONS IN THE JUDGMENT
REACHED BY THE COURT IN THIS CASE.  ALL OF THE UNCONTESTED DIVORCES
THAT HAVE EVER BEEN GRANTED IN THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES ARE AS SECURE
TODAY AS THEY WERE YESTERDAY OR AS THEY WERE BEFORE OUR PREVIOUS
DECISION IN THIS CASE.  THOSE BASED UPON FRAUDULENT DOMICILS ARE NOW
AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO LATER REEXAMINATION WITH POSSIBLE
SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES. 

WHATEVER EMBARRASSMENT OR INCONVENIENCE RESULTING TO THOSE WHO HAVE
MADE PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS, CONTRACTED NEW MARRIAGES OR OTHERWISE ACTED
IN RELIANCE UPON DIVORCE DECREES OBTAINED UNDER CONDITIONS FOUND TO
EXIST IN THIS CASE IS NOT INSURMOUNTABLE.  THE STATES HAVE ADEQUATE
POWER, IF THEY DESIRE TO EXERCISE IT, TO ENACT LEGISLATION PROVIDING
FOR MEANS OF VALIDATING ANY SUCH PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS OR MARRIAGES OR
OF RELIEVING PERSONS FROM OTHER UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES. 

NOR ARE ANY ISSUES OF CIVIL LIBERTIES AT STAKE HERE.  IT IS
UNFORTUNATE THAT THE PETITIONERS MUST BE IMPRISONED FOR ACTS WHICH THEY
PROBABLY COMMITTED IN RELIANCE UPON ADVICE OF COUNSEL AND WITHOUT
INTENT TO VIOLATE THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE.  BUT THERE ARE MANY
INSTANCES OF PUNISHMENT FOR ACTS WHOSE CRIMINALITY WAS UNSUSPECTED AT
THE TIME OF THEIR OCCURRENCE.  INDEED, FOR NEARLY THREE-QUARTERS OF A
CENTURY OR MORE INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN PUNISHED UNDER BIGAMY STATUTES
FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT PETITIONERS HAVE DONE.  PEOPLE V. DAWELL, 25
MICH. 247; STATE V. ARMINGTON, 25 MINN. 29, 56 S.E. 673; PEOPLE V.
BAKER, 76 N.Y. 78; STATE V. WESTMORELAND, 76 S.C. 145.  PETITIONERS
ESPECIALLY MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE POSSIBLE CRIMINAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS IN VIEW OF THE PREVIOUSLY SETTLED NORTH
CAROLINA LAW ON THE MATTER.  STATE V. HERRON, 175 N.C. 754, 94 S.E.
698.  THIS CASE, THEN, ADDS NO NEW UNCERTAINTY AND COMES AS NO SURPRISE
FOR THOSE WHO ACT FRAUDULENTLY IN ESTABLISHING A DOMICIL AND WHO
DISREGARD THE LAWS OF THEIR TRUE DOMICILIARY STATES. 

AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN THE HADDOCK
CASE, 201 U.S. AT 628, "I DO NOT SUPPOSE THAT CIVILIZATION WILL COME TO
AN END WHICHEVER WAY THIS CASE IS DECIDED."  DIFFICULT PROBLEMS
INEVITABLY ARISE FROM THE FACT THAT PEOPLE MOVE ABOUT FREELY AMONG THE
FORTY-EIGHT STATES, EACH OF WHICH HAS ITS OWN POLICIES AND LAWS.  UNTIL
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS EMPOWERED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO DEAL
UNIFORMLY WITH THE DIVORCE PROBLEM OR UNTIL UNIFORM STATE LAWS ARE
ADOPTED, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT DEFINITE LINES OF DEMARCATION BE MADE AS
REGARDS THE SCOPE AND EXTENT OF THE VARYING STATE PRACTICES.  SEE 91
CONG. REC. 4238-4241(MAY 3, 1945).  THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES THE DRAWING
OF ONE SUCH LINE, A LINE THAT HAS BEEN DRAWN MANY TIMES BEFORE WITHOUT
TOO UNFORTUNATE DISLOCATIONS RESULTING AMONG THOSE CITIZENS OF A
DIVORCED STATUS.  THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY DIFFERENT OR
MORE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES WILL RESULT FROM RETRACING THAT LINE TODAY. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THESE VIEWS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

ONCE AGAIN THE GHOST OF "UNITARY DOMICIL" RETURNS ON ITS PERPETUAL
ROUND, IN THE GUISE OF "JURISDICTIONAL FACT," TO UPSET JUDGMENTS,
MARRIAGES, DIVORCES, UNDERMINE THE RELATIONS FOUNDED UPON THEM, AND
MAKE THIS COURT THE UNWILLING AND UNCERTAIN ARBITER BETWEEN THE
CONCEDEDLY VALID LAWS AND DECREES OF SISTER STATES.  FROM BELL AND
ANDREWS TO DAVIS TO HADDOCK TO WILLIAMS AND NOW BACK TO HADDOCK AND
DAVIS THROUGH WILLIAMS AGAIN  FN1  - IS THE MAZE THE COURT HAS
TRAVELLED IN A DOMICILIARY WILDERNESS, ONLY TO COME OUT WITH NO SETTLED
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY WHERE ONE IS NEEDED MOST. 

NEVADA'S JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN VOIDED.  IT COULD NOT BE, IF THE SAME
TEST APPLIES TO SUSTAIN IT AS UPHOLDS THE NORTH CAROLINA CONVICTIONS. 
FN2  IT STANDS, WITH THE MARRIAGES FOUNDED UPON IT, UNIMPEACHED.  FOR
ALL THAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED OR COULD BE, UNLESS ANOTHER CHANGE IS IN
THE MAKING, PETITIONERS ARE LAWFUL HUSBAND AND WIFE IN NEVADA. 
WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA I, 317 U.S. 287; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA
II, ANTE, P. 226.  THEY MAY BE SUCH EVERYWHERE OUTSIDE NORTH CAROLINA. 
LAWFULLY WEDDED ALSO, IN NORTH CAROLINA, ARE THE DIVORCED SPOUSE OF ONE
AND HIS WIFE, TAKEN FOR ALL WE KNOW IN RELIANCE UPON THE NEVADA
DECREE.  FN3  THAT IS, UNLESS ANOTHER JURY SHALL FIND THEY TOO ARE
BIGAMISTS FOR THEIR RELIANCE.  NO SUCH JURY HAS BEEN IMPANELLED.  BUT
WERE ONE CALLED, IT COULD PRONOUNCE THE NEVADA DECREE VALID UPON THE
IDENTICAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY IN THIS CASE DREW THE CONTRARY
CONCLUSION.  THAT JURY OR IT AND ANOTHER, IF PETITIONERS HAD BEEN TRIED
SEPARATELY, COULD HAVE FOUND ONE GUILTY, THE OTHER INNOCENT, UPON THAT
EVIDENCE UNVARIED BY A HAIR.  AND, BY THE COURT'S TEST, WE COULD DO
NOTHING BUT SUSTAIN THE CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS IN ALL THESE CASES. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION HAS THUS CONFIDED TO THE CAPRICE OF
JURIES THE FAITH AND CREDIT DUE THE LAWS AND JUDGMENTS OF SISTER
STATES.  NOR HAS IT THUS MADE THAT QUESTION A LOCAL MATTER FOR THE
STATES THEMSELVES TO DECIDE.  WERE ALL JUDGMENTS GIVEN THE SAME
INFIRMITY, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE WOULD BE ONLY A DEAD
CONSTITUTIONAL LETTER. 

I AGREE IT IS NOT THE COURT'S BUSINESS TO DETERMINE POLICIES OF
DIVORCE.  BUT PRECISELY ITS FUNCTION IS TO LAY THE JURISDICTIONAL
FOUNDATIONS UPON WHICH THE STATES' DETERMINATIONS CAN BE MADE
EFFECTIVE, WITHIN AND WITHOUT THEIR BORDERS.  FOR IN THE ONE CASE DUE
PROCESS, IN THE OTHER FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, COMMANDS OF EQUAL
COMPULSION UPON THE STATES AND UPON US, IMPOSE THAT DUTY. 

I DO NOT THINK WE PERFORM IT, WE RATHER ABDICATE, WHEN WE CONFIDE THE
ULTIMATE DECISION TO THE STATES OR TO THEIR JURIES.  THIS WE DO WHEN,
FOR EVERY CASE THAT MATTERS, WE MAKE THEIR JUDGMENT CONCLUSIVE.  IT IS
SO IN EFFECT WHEN THE CRUCIAL CONCEPT IS AS VARIABLE AND AMORPHOUS AS
"DOMICIL," IS ALWAYS A CONCLUSION OF "ULTIMATE FACT," AND CAN BE
ESTABLISHED ONLY BY PROOF FROM WHICH, AS EXPERIENCE SHOWS,
CONTRADICTORY INFERENCES MAY BE MADE AS STRIKES THE LOCAL TRIER'S
FANCY.  THE ABDICATION ONLY BECOMES MORE OBVIOUSLY EXPLICIT WHEN WE
AVOWEDLY CONFESS THAT THE FAITH AND CREDIT DUE MAY BE DETERMINED EITHER
WAY, WHEREVER "IT CANNOT REASONABLY BE CLAIMED THAT ONE SET OF
INFERENCES RATHER THAN ANOTHER" COULD NOT BE DRAWN CONCERNING THE VERY
MATTER DETERMINED BY THE JUDGMENT; AND THE FINAL CHOICE UPON SUCH A
BALANCE IS LEFT WITH THE LOCAL JURY. 

NO MORE UNSTABLE FOUNDATION, FOR STATE POLICIES OR MARITAL RELATIONS,
COULD BE FORMULATED OR APPLIED.  IN NO REGION OF ADJUDICATION OR
LEGISLATION IS STABILITY MORE ESSENTIAL FOR JURISDICTIONAL
FOUNDATIONS.  BEYOND ABNEGATING OUR FUNCTION, WE MAKE INSTABILITY
ITSELF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY WHEN THE CRUX IS SO CONCEIVED AND
PIVOTED. 

                                   I 

WHAT, EXACTLY, ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE DECISION?  THE COURT IS CAREFUL
NOT TO SAY THAT NEVADA'S JUDGMENT IS NOT VALID IN NEVADA.  TO REPEAT,
THE COURT COULD NOT SO DECLARE IT, UNLESS A DIFFERENT TEST APPLIES TO
SUSTAIN THAT JUDGMENT THAN SUPPORTS NORTH CAROLINA'S.  PRESUMABLY THE
SAME STANDARD APPLIES TO BOTH; AND EACH STATE ACCORDINGLY IS FREE TO
FOLLOW ITS OWN POLICY, WHEREVER THE EVIDENCE, WHETHER THE SAME OR
DIFFERENT, PERMITS CONFLICTING INFERENCES OF DOMICIL, AS IT ALWAYS DOES
WHEN THE QUESTION BECOMES IMPORTANT.  FN4 

THIS MUST BE TRUE UNLESS, CONTRARY TO THE DISCLAIMER, THIS COURT
ITSELF IS "TO RETRY THE FACTS."  THE COURT NO MORE COULD SAY THAT THE
NEVADA EVIDENCE PERMITTED NO CONCLUSION OF DOMICIL THERE THAN IT NOW
CAN SAY THE NORTH CAROLINA EVIDENCE WOULD NOT ALLOW A FINDING EITHER
WAY.  THIS APPARENTLY IS CONCEDED.  THE PROOF WAS NOT IDENTICAL.  BUT
IT WAS NOT SO ONE-SIDED IN EITHER CASE THAT ONLY ONE CONCLUSION WAS
COMPELLED.  THE EVIDENCE IN NEVADA WAS NEITHER THAT STRONG NOR THAT
WEAK.  FN5 SELDOM, IF EVER, IS IT SO. 

THE NECESSARY CONCLUSION FOLLOWS THAT THE NEVADA DECREE WAS VALID AND
REMAINS VALID WITHIN HER BORDERS.  SO THE MARRIAGE IS GOOD IN NEVADA,
BUT VOID IN NORTH CAROLINA, JUST AS IT WAS BEFORE "THE JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENT OF DOMICIL (WAS) FREED FROM CONFUSING REFINEMENTS ABOUT
'MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL,' SEE DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, 41, AND THE
LIKE."  SEE ALSO HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562. 

THE CHARACTERIZATION "IN REM" HAS BEEN DROPPED.  BUT IT IS CLEAR FROM
THE RESULT AND FROM THE OPINION THAT THE MORE "CONFUSING REFINEMENTS"
AND CONSEQUENCES, INCLUDING THE ANOMALOUS STATUS HADDOCK APPROVED, HAVE
NOT COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED.  WE ARE NOT TOLD DEFINITELY WHETHER
NEVADA'S ADJUDICATION OR NORTH CAROLINA'S MUST BE RESPECTED, WHEN THE
QUESTION IS RAISED IN SOME ONE OF THE OTHER FORTY-SIX STATES.  BUT ONE
THING WE DO KNOW.  "THE STATE OF DOMICILIARY ORIGIN SHOULD NOT BE BOUND
BY AN UNFOUNDED, EVEN IF NOT COLLUSIVE, RECITAL IN THE RECORD OF A
COURT OF ANOTHER STATE."  THE OPINION GOES ON TO REPEAT:  "IF A FINDING
BY THE COURT OF ONE STATE THAT DOMICIL IN ANOTHER STATE HAS BEEN
ABANDONED WERE CONCLUSIVE UPON THE OLD DOMICILIARY STATE, THE POLICY OF
EACH STATE IN MATTERS OF MOST INTIMATE CONCERN COULD BE SUBVERTED BY
THE POLICY OF EVERY OTHER STATE." 

THE QUESTION IS NOT SIMPLY PERTINENT, IT IS IMPERATIVE, WHETHER
"MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL" HAS NOT MERELY BEEN RECAST AND RETURNED TO THE
PLAY UNDER THE COMMON LAW'S MORE ANCIENT NAME OF "DOMICIL OF ORIGIN." 
FOR NORTH CAROLINA IS THE ONLY STATE WHICH, UPON THE FACTS, CONCEIVABLY
COULD QUALIFY EITHER AS "MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL" OR AS "DOMICIL OF
ORIGIN," WHETHER OR NOT THEY DIFFER.  UNDER THE FORMER CONCEPTION IT
WAS AT LEAST DOUBTFUL WHETHER SHEER REEXAMINATION OF "THE
JURISDICTIONAL FACT" PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED COULD BE MADE OUTSIDE THE
STATE GRANTING THE DIVORCE AND THE STATE OF "MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL."  FN6
NOW WE ARE TOLD THE DECREE "MUST BE RESPECTED BY THE OTHER FORTY-SEVEN
STATES PROVIDED - AND IT IS A BIG PROVISO - THE CONDITIONS FOR THE
EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE DIVORCE-DECREEING COURT ARE VALIDLY
ESTABLISHED WHENEVER THAT JUDGMENT IS ELSEWHERE CALLED INTO QUESTION." 
IF THIS MEANS WHAT IT SAYS, THE PROVISO IS BIG.  IT SWALLOWS THE
PROVISION.  UNLESS "MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL," BANISHED IN WILLIAMS I, HAS
RETURNED RENAMED IN WILLIAMS II, EVERY DECREE BECOMES VULNERABLE IN
EVERY STATE.  EVERY DIVORCE, WHEREVER GRANTED, WHETHER UPON A RESIDENCE
OF SIX WEEKS, SIX MONTHS OR SIX YEARS, MAY NOW BE REEXAMINED BY EVERY
OTHER STATE, UPON THE SAME OR DIFFERENT EVIDENCE, TO REDETERMINE THE
"JURISDICTIONAL FACT," ALWAYS THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF "DOMICIL." 
FOR THE GROUNDS OF THE DECISION WHOLLY NEGATE THAT ITS EFFECT CAN BE
LIMITED TO DECREES OF STATES HAVING SO-CALLED "LIBERAL" DIVORCE
POLICIES; OR TO DECREES RECENTLY GRANTED; OR TO CASES WHERE DIFFERENT
EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED.  IT IS IMPLICIT AND INHERENT IN THE "UNITARY
DOMICIL, JURISDICTIONAL-FACT, PERMISSIBLE-INFERENCE" RULE THAT ANY
DECREE, GRANTED AFTER ANY LENGTH OF TIME, UPON ANY GROUND FOR DIVORCE,
AND HOWEVER SOLID THE PROOF, MAY BE REEXAMINED EITHER BY "THE STATE OF
DOMICILIARY ORIGIN" OR BY ANY OTHER STATE, AS THE CASE UNCERTAINLY MAY
BE.  AND ALL THAT IS NEEDED, TO DISREGARD IT, IS SOME EVIDENCE FROM
WHICH A JURY REASONABLY MAY CONCLUDE THERE WAS NO DOMICILIARY INTENT
WHEN THE DECREE WAS RENDERED.  THAT IS, UNLESS THE COURT MEANS TO
RESERVE DECISION UPON THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THUS "TO RETRY THE
FACTS," CONTRARY TO ITS DECLARED INTENTION, IN SOME CASE OR CASES NOT
DEFINED OR INDICATED. 

                                  II 

OBVIOUSLY MORE IS INVOLVED THAN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR JUDGMENTS
OF OTHER STATES.  BENEATH THE JUDGMENT OF NEVADA LIE HER STATUTORY LAW
AND POLICY.  THESE TOO ARE DENIED RECOGNITION.  THIS IS NOT A CASE IN
WHICH THE DENIAL EXTENDS, OR COULD EXTEND, TO THE JUDGMENT ALONE.  FOR
THE NORTH CAROLINA VERDICT AND JUDGMENT DO NOT PURPORT TO REST ON ANY
FINDING OF FRAUD OR OTHER SIMILAR GROUND, WHEREBY THE PETITIONERS
PROCURED JUDGMENTS FROM THE NEVADA COURTS WHICH THE MANNER OF THEIR
PROCUREMENT VITIATES.  FN7 

NO SUCH ISSUE, IMPEACHING THE NEVADA DECREE, HAS BEEN MADE.  THE
STATE ASKED NO INSTRUCTIONS ON SUCH A THEORY AND NONE WERE GIVEN.  FN8
THE VERDICT AND JUDGMENT THEREFORE HAVE NOT DETERMINED AND DO NOT REST
UPON ANY SUCH GROUND. 

IN VIEW OF THIS FACT I AM COMPLETELY AT LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS
MEANT, IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE, BY "AN UNFOUNDED, EVEN IF NOT
COLLUSIVE, RECITAL" WHICH THE STATE OF DOMICILIARY ORIGIN, PERHAPS
OTHERS TOO, IS FREE TO DISREGARD.  THE STATEMENT ITSELF NEGATES
COLLUSION AS A GROUND FOR THE DECISION.  AND, AS I READ THE REMAINDER
OF THE OPINION, IT CONCEDES AND MUST CONCEDE, IF THE TWO JUDGMENTS ARE
TO BE TESTED ALIKE, THAT THE NEVADA DECREE WAS NOT UNFOUNDED.  THE
SHAPE THE ISSUES HAVE TAKEN COMPELS THIS CONCLUSION. 

ACCORDINGLY THE CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED AS SHORN OF ANY ELEMENT OF
FRAUD, DECEIT OR EVASION OF NEVADA'S LAW, OF SHOWING THAT THE NEVADA
COURT WAS IMPOSED UPON IN ANY WAY OR DID OTHER THAN APPLY THE NEVADA
LAW ACCORDING TO ITS TRUE INTENT AND PURPOSE.  IT MUST BE TAKEN ALSO AS
DEVOID OF ANY SHOWING THAT NEVADA FAILED IN ANY WAY TO COMPLY WITH
EVERY REQUIREMENT THIS COURT HAS MADE RESPECTING JURISDICTION OR DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, FOR RENDERING A VALID DIVORCE DECREE.  WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287. 

THE CASE THEREFORE STANDS STRIPPED OF EVERY DIFFERENCE, PRESENTLY
MATERIAL, FROM THE NEVADA PROCEEDINGS SAVE TWO.  THERE WAS NONE,
JURISDICTIONALLY, IN THE ISSUES.  THERE WAS ONLY DIFFERENT EVIDENCE
UPON WHICH THE SAME ISSUE WAS DETERMINED IN OPPOSITE FASHIONS.  AND THE
STATES HAD DIFFERENT POLICIES CONCERNING DIVORCE. 

THE DIFFERENCE IN THE EVIDENCE AFFECTED SOLELY EVENTS TAKING PLACE
AFTER THE NEVADA DECREE, THE RETURN TO NORTH CAROLINA AND THE
COHABITATION THERE.  ORDINARILY, VALID JUDGMENTS ARE NOT OVERTURNED,
SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, OR DISREGARDED UPON SUCH
RETROACTIVE PROOF.  FN9  BUT HERE THIS PROOF WAS NOT TENDERED IN ATTACK
UPON THE NEVADA DECREE.  IT WAS OFFERED AND ADMITTED EXCLUSIVELY TO
RELITIGATE THE SAME ISSUE THAT DECREE HAD DETERMINED, UPON ADEQUATE
EVIDENCE AND IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH NEVADA LAW AND THE FEDERAL LAW
GIVING NEVADA JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE IT.  WILLIAMS I; WILLIAMS II.
ITS SOLE FUNCTION WAS TO SHOW THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE THE VERY
INTENT THE NEVADA COURT, WITH EYES NOT BLINDED,  FN10  HAD FOUND THEY
POSSESSED. 

MOREOVER, THE CHARACTER OF THE COURT'S RULING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE IN
THE EVIDENCE, AS IT BORE UPON THE CONTROLLING ISSUE, OF NO
MATERIALITY.  IT IS NOT HELD THAT DENIAL OF CREDIT WILL BE ALLOWED,
ONLY IF THE EVIDENCE IS DIFFERENT OR DEPENDING IN ANY WAY UPON THE
CHARACTER OR THE WEIGHT OF THE DIFFERENCE.  THE TEST IS NOT DIFFERENT
EVIDENCE.  IT IS EVIDENCE, WHETHER THE SAME OR DIFFERENT AND, IF
DIFFERENT, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE QUALITY OF THE DIFFERENCE, FROM WHICH
AN OPPOSING SET OF INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN BY THE TRIER OF FACT "NOT
UNREASONABLY."  PRESUMABLY THE COURT WILL NOT "RETRY THE FACTS" IN
EITHER CASE. 

BUT IT DOES NOT DEFINE "NOT UNREASONABLY."  IT VAGUELY SUGGESTS A
SUPERVISORY FUNCTION, TO BE EXERCISED WHEN THE DENIAL STRIKES ITS
SENSIBILITIES AS WRONG, BY SOME NOT STATED STANDARD.  SO TO SUSPEND THE
MATTER IS NOT LAW.  IT IS ONLY ADDED UNCERTAINTY. 

IF THE COURT MEANS NOT "TO RETRY THE FACTS," THE SUGGESTION IS WHOLLY
OUT OF PLACE.  THEN THE TEST WILL BE AS IT IS IN OTHER CASES WHERE THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER A JURY'S VERDICT WILL BE SUSTAINED, UPON AN ISSUE
ALLEGING WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.  THERE WILL BE NO "WEIGHING." 
THERE WILL BE ONLY EXAMINATION FOR SUFFICIENCY, WITH THE LIMITS MARKED
BY "SCINTILLAS" AND THE LIKE.  FN11 

IF THIS IS THE TEST, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE COURT MIGHT AS
WELL DECLARE OUTRIGHT THAT STATES OF DOMICILIARY ORIGIN ARE FREE TO
DENY FAITH AND CREDIT TO DIVORCES GRANTED ELSEWHERE.  FOR THE CASE WILL
BE RARE INDEED WHERE, BY THIS STANDARD, "DOMICIL" CAN BE DETERMINED AS
A MATTER OF LAW, WHEN DIVORCE HAS BEEN SECURED AFTER DEPARTURE FROM
SUCH A STATE.  THESE ARE THE ONLY CASES THAT MATTER.  THE ISSUE DOES
NOT ARISE WITH STAY-AT-HOMES.  WITH OTHERS, IT ALWAYS CAN BE RAISED AND
NEARLY ALWAYS WITH "SOME" EVIDENCE, MORE THAN A "SCINTILLA," TO SUSTAIN
BOTH CONTENTIONS. 

BUT IF THE TEST IS DIFFERENT, "WEIGHING" NECESSARILY BECOMES INVOLVED
AND IMPLICITLY IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
DISCLAIMER.  IN THAT EVENT, THE CRUX OF JURISDICTION BECOMES THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE EVIDENCE; IN THIS CASE, THE RETURN TO NORTH CAROLINA
AND COHABITATION THERE. 

IF THIS IS THE DECISION'S INTENDED EFFECT, IT SHOULD BE SQUARELY SO
DECLARED.  TOO MUCH HANGS FOR TOO MANY PEOPLE AND FOR THE STATES
THEMSELVES UPON BECLOUDING IT WITH A "DIFFERENT SET OF INFERENCES -
REFUSAL TO RETRY THE FACTS" GLOSS OR OTHERWISE.  IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED
THAT THE MATTER WILL AFFECT ONLY A FEW.  FOR THIS HAS BECOME A NATION
OF TRANSIENT PEOPLE.  LAWYERS EVERYWHERE ADVISE FOR OR AGAINST DIVORCE
AND COURTS GRANT OR DENY IT, DEPENDING NOT ON THE PROBABILITY THAT THE
CASE WILL COME HERE, BUT ON WHAT IS DONE HERE WITH THE FEW CASES WHICH
DO COME.  THE MATTER IS ALTOGETHER TOO SERIOUS, FOR TOO MANY, FOR
GLOSSING OVER THE CRUCIAL BASIS OF DECISION. 

WHETHER THE ONE TEST OR THE OTHER IS INTENDED, OR PERHAPS STILL
ANOTHER NOT SUGGESTED, NORTH CAROLINA'S ACTION COMES DOWN TO SHEER
DENIAL OF FAITH AND CREDIT TO NEVADA'S LAW AND POLICY, NOT MERELY TO
HER JUDGMENT; AND THE DECISION HERE, TO APPROVAL OF THIS DENIAL.  THE
REAL DIFFERENCE, IN MY OPINION THE ONLY MATERIAL ONE, AS THE ISSUES AND
THE DECISION HAVE BEEN MADE ON THIS RECORD, IS THAT ONE SUIT AND
JUDGMENT TOOK PLACE IN NEVADA, THE OTHER IN NORTH CAROLINA, AND THE TWO
STATES HAVE DIFFERENT POLICIES RELATING TO DIVORCE.  NOR DOES THE
DEGREE OR QUALITY OF THE DIFFERENCE IN POLICIES MATTER.  IT ALSO IS NOT
WEIGHED.  FN12  THE DIFFERENCE MAY BE SMALL FOR ANYTHING THAT IS SAID,
YET THERE IS FREEDOM TO WITHHOLD CREDIT. 

IF THIS IS THE TEST, EVERY DIVORCE GRANTED A PERSON WHO HAS COME FROM
ANOTHER STATE IS VULNERABLE WHEREVER STATE POLICIES DIFFER, AS THEY DO
UNIVERSALLY IF NO ACCOUNT IS TAKEN OF THE WEIGHT OF DIFFERENCE. 

IT IS ALWAYS A SERIOUS MATTER FOR US TO SAY THAT ONE STATE IS BOUND
TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANOTHER'S DECISION, FOUNDED IN ITS DIFFERENT POLICY. 
THAT MANDATE I WOULD NOT JOIN IN ANY CASE IF NOT COMPELLED BY THE ONLY
AUTHORITY BINDING BOTH THE STATES AND OURSELVES.  CONCEIVABLY IT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN HELD THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE HAS NO APPLICATION
TO THE MATTERS OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.  BUT THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT
LEFT OPEN THAT CHOICE.  AND SUCH HAS NOT BEEN THE COURSE OF DECISION. 
THE CLAUSE APPLIES, BUT FROM TODAY IT WOULD SEEM ONLY TO COMPEL
"RESPECT" OR SOMETHING LESS THAN FAITH AND CREDIT, WHENEVER A JURY
CONCLUDES "NOT UNREASONABLY," BY ULTIMATE INFERENCE FROM THE ALWAYS
CONFLICTING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT IT SHOULD NOT APPLY. 
WHEREVER THAT SITUATION EXISTS, THE FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO "BONA
FIDE" DOMICILIARY INTENT COMES IN EVERY PRACTICAL EFFECT TO THIS AND
NOTHING MORE. 

PERMITTING THE DENIAL IS JUSTIFIED, IT IS SAID, BECAUSE WE MUST HAVE
REGARD ALSO FOR NORTH CAROLINA'S LAWS, POLICIES AND JUDGMENTS.  AND SO
WE MUST.  BUT THUS TO STATE THE QUESTION IS TO BEG THE CONTROLLING
ISSUE.  BY EVERY TEST REMAINING EFFECTIVE, AND NOT DISPUTED, NEVADA HAD
POWER TO ALTER THE PETITIONER'S MARITAL STATUS.  SHE MADE THE
ALTERATION.  IF IT IS VALID, NEITHER NORTH CAROLINA NOR WE ARE FREE TO
QUALIFY IT BY SAYING IT SHALL NOT BE EFFECTIVE THERE, WHILE IT IS
EFFECTIVE IN NEVADA, AND STANDS WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT FOR INEFFECTIVENESS
THERE. 

JUST THAT DENIAL IS WHAT THE TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT OF
CONGRESS IMPLEMENTING THEM FORBID.  IT IS EXACTLY FOR THE SITUATION
WHERE STATE POLICIES DIFFER THAT THE CLAUSE AND THE LEGISLATION WERE
INTENDED.  WITHOUT SUCH DIFFERENCES, THE NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATION WAS HARDLY ONE OF MAGNITUDE.  THE APPARENT EXCEPTIONS FOR
FRAUD AND WANT OF JURISDICTION WERE NEVER INTENDED TO ENABLE THE STATES
TO DISREGARD THE PROVISION AND EACH OTHER'S POLICIES, CRYSTALLIZED IN
JUDGMENT, WHEN EVERY REQUISITE FOR JURISDICTION HAS BEEN SATISFIED AND
NO SHOWING OF FRAUD HAS BEEN PRESENTED.  THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT PURPOSE,
ONE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE, NOT DESTRUCTIVE OF ITS
EFFECT.  THAT PURPOSE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STATE'S POLICY HAS BEEN
APPLIED IN THE JUDGMENT, NOT TO PERMIT DISCREDITING IT OR THE JUDGMENT
WHEN THE ONE VALIDLY CRYSTALLIZES THE OTHER.  SUCH AN EXCEPTION,
GRAFTED UPON THE CLAUSE, BUT NULLIFIES IT.  IT DOES SO TOTALLY WHEN THE
WEIGHT AND QUALITY OF THE DIFFERENCE IN POLICIES HAS NO BEARING ON THE
ISSUE. 

LATELY THIS FACT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED INCREASINGLY IN RELATION TO
OTHER MATTERS THAN DIVORCE.  FN13  THE VERY FUNCTION OF THE CLAUSE IS
TO COMPEL THE STATES TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE CONTRARY POLICIES OF OTHER
STATES WHEN THESE HAVE BEEN VALIDLY EMBODIED IN JUDGMENT.  TO THIS
EXTENT THE CONSTITUTION HAS FORECLOSED THE FREEDOM OF THE STATES TO
APPLY THEIR OWN LOCAL POLICIES.  THE FORECLOSURE WAS NOT INTENDED ONLY
FOR SLIGHT DIFFERENCES OR FOR UNIMPORTANT MATTERS.  IT WAS ALSO FOR THE
MOST IMPORTANT ONES.  THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT DEALING WITH PUNY
MATTERS OR INCONSEQUENTIAL LIMITATIONS.  IF THE IMPAIRMENT OF THE POWER
OF THE STATES IS LARGE, IT IS ONE THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF HAS MADE. 
NEITHER THE STATES NOR WE ARE FREE TO DISREGARD IT.  THE "LOCAL PUBLIC
POLICY" EXCEPTION IS NOT AN EXCEPTION, PROPERLY SPEAKING.  IT IS A
NULLIFYING COMPROMISE OF THE PROVISION'S TERMS AND PURPOSE. 

THE EFFORT AT SUCH COMPROMISE, IN MATTERS OF DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE,
HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL.  TOGETHER WITH THE INSTRUMENT BY WHICH THE
VARIOUS ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE, I.E., THE NOTION OF "UNITARY DOMICIL"
CONSTITUTIONALIZED AS "JURISDICTIONAL FACT," THIS EFFORT HAS BEEN THE
SOURCE OF THE LONG CONFUSION IN THE CIRCLE OF DECISION HERE.  TO IT MAY
BE ATTRIBUTED THE REIFICATION OF THE MARITAL STATUS, NOW DISCARDED IN
NAME IF NOT IN SUBSTANCE, AND THE SPLITTING OF THE RES TO MAKE TWO
PEOPLE HUSBAND AND WIFE IN ONE STATE, DIVORCED IN ANOTHER.  HADDOCK V.
HADDOCK, SUPRA; CF. WILLIAMS II.  NOW IT LEADS TO PRACTICAL ABANDONMENT
OF THE EFFORT, OF THIS COURT'S FUNCTION, AND OF THE OBLIGATION PLACED
UPON THE STATES, BY COMMITTING TO THEIR JURIES FOR ALL PRACTICAL
EFFECTS THE FINAL CHOICE TO DISREGARD IT.

                       III 

I DO NOT CONCUR IN THE ABDICATION.  I THINK A MAJOR OPERATION IS
REQUIRED TO PREVENT IT.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MENTION DOMICIL. 
NOWHERE DOES IT POSIT THE POWERS OF THE STATES OR THE NATION UPON THAT
AMORPHOUS, HIGHLY VARIABLE COMMON-LAW CONCEPTION.  JUDGES HAVE IMPORTED
IT.  THE IMPORTATION, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR BY NOW, HAS FAILED IN CREATING
A WORKABLE CONSTITUTIONAL CRITERION FOR THIS DELICATE REGION.  IN ITS
ORIGIN THE IDEA OF DOMICIL WAS STRANGER TO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AND THE
PROBLEM OF ALLOCATING POWER WITHIN IT.  THE PRINCIPAL RESULT OF
TRANSPLANTING IT TO CONSTITUTIONAL SOIL HAS BEEN TO MAKE MORE COMPLEX,
VARIABLE AND CONFUSING THAN NEED BE INHERENTLY THE ALLOCATION OF
AUTHORITY IN THE FEDERAL SCHEME.  THE COROLLARY CONSEQUENCE FOR
INDIVIDUALS HAS BEEN MORE AND MORE TO INFUSE WITH UNCERTAINTY,
CONFUSION, AND CAPRICE THOSE HUMAN RELATIONS WHICH MOST REQUIRE
STABILITY AND DEPEND FOR IT UPON HOW THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IS
MADE.    IN MY OPINION THESE CONSEQUENCES ARE INEVITABLE AS LONG AS
"UNITARY DOMICIL" USURPS THE ROLE OF "JURISDICTIONAL FACT" AND IS
APPLIED UNDER THE "PERMISSIBLE INFERENCE" RULE TO TURN QUESTIONS OF
POWER FIRST FOR CREATING JURISDICTION, THEN FOR NULLIFYING THE EFFECTS
OF ITS EXERCISE, TO SETTLE AND THEN UNSETTLE THE HUMAN RELATIONS
RESTING UPON THE POWER'S EXERTION.  THE CONCEPTION HAS OUTLIVED ITS
JURISDICTIONAL USEFULNESS UNLESS CAPRICE, CONFUSION AND CONTRADICTION
ARE THE DESIRABLE CRITERIA AND CONSEQUENCES OF JURISDICTIONAL
CONCEPTIONS. 

STRIPPED OF ITS COMMON-LAW GLOSS, THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
INHERENT IN THE PROBLEM IS WHETHER THE STATES SHALL HAVE POWER TO ADOPT
SO-CALLED "LIBERAL" DIVORCE POLICIES AND GRANT DIVORCES TO PERSONS
COMING FROM OTHER STATES WHILE THERE TRANSIENTLY OR FOR ONLY SHORT
PERIODS NOT SUFFICIENT IN THEMSELVES, ABSENT OTHER OBJECTIVE CRITERIA,
TO ESTABLISH MORE THAN CASUAL RELATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY.  ONE COULD
UNDERSTAND AND APPLY, WITHOUT DECADES OF CONFUSION, A RULING THAT
TRANSIENT DIVORCES, FOUNDED ON FLY-BY-NIGHT "RESIDENCE," ARE INVALID
WHERE RENDERED AS WELL AS ELSEWHERE; IN OTHER WORDS, THAT A DECENT
RESPECT FOR SISTER STATES AND THEIR INTERESTS REQUIRES THAT EACH, TO
VALIDLY DECREE DIVORCE, DO SO ONLY AFTER THE PERSON SEEKING IT HAS
ESTABLISHED CONNECTIONS WHICH GIVE EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIALLY AND
OBJECTIVELY THAT HE HAS BECOME MORE THAN CASUALLY AFFILIATED WITH THE
COMMUNITY.  UNTIL THEN THE NEWCOMER WOULD BE TREATED AS RETAINING HIS
ROOTS, FOR THIS PURPOSE, AS SO OFTEN HAPPENS FOR OTHERS, AT HIS FORMER
PLACE OF RESIDENCE.  ONE EQUALLY COULD UNDERSTAND AND APPLY WITH FAIR
CERTAINTY AN OPPOSITE POLICY FRANKLY CONCEDING STATE POWER TO GRANT
TRANSIENT OR SHORT-TERM DIVORCES, PROVIDED DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR
GIVING NOTICE TO THE OTHER SPOUSE WERE COMPLIED WITH. 

EITHER SOLUTION WOULD ENTAIL SOME ATTENUATION OF STATE POWER.  BUT
THAT WOULD BE TRUE OF ANY OTHER, WHICH WOULD NOT ALTOGETHER LEAVE THE
MATTER TO THE STATES AND THUS NULLIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND. 
STRONG CONSIDERATIONS COULD BE STATED FOR EITHER CHOICE.  THE ONE WOULD
GIVE EMPHASIS TO THE INTERESTS OF THE STATES IN MAINTAINING LOCALLY
PREVAILING SENTIMENT CONCERNING FAMILIAL AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS.  THE
OTHER WOULD REGARD THE MATTER AS MORE IMPORTANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
INDIVIDUAL THAN OF INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE.  BUT
EITHER CHOICE WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO THE PREVAILING ATTEMPT AT
COMPROMISE FOUNDED UPON THE "UNITARY DOMICIL-JURISDICTIONAL FACT
PERMISSIBLE INFERENCE" RULE. 

THAT COMPROMISE GIVES EFFECT TO NEITHER POLICY.  IT VITIATES BOTH;
AND DOES SO IN A MANNER WHOLLY CAPRICIOUS ALIKE FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL
AND THE INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM.  THE ELEMENT OF CAPRICE LIES
IN THE SUBSTANTIVE DOMICILIARY CONCEPT ITSELF AND ALSO IN THE MODE OF
ITS APPLICATION. 

DOMICIL, AS A SUBSTANTIVE CONCEPT, STEADILY REFLECTS NEITHER A POLICY
OF PERMANENCE NOR ONE OF TRANSIENCY.  IT RATHER REFLECTS BOTH
INCONSTANTLY.  THE VERY NAME GIVES FORTH THE IDEA OF HOME WITH ALL ITS
ANCIENT ASSOCIATIONS OF PERMANENCE.  BUT "HOME" IN THE MODERN WORLD IS
OFTEN A TRAILER OR A TOURIST CAMP.  AUTOMOBILES, NATION-WIDE BUSINESS
AND MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS HAVE DEPRIVED THE INSTITUTION,
THOUGH NOT THE IDEA, OF ITS FORMER GENERAL FIXATION TO SOIL AND
LOCALITY.  BUT, BEYOND THIS, "HOME" IN THE DOMICILIARY SENSE CAN BE
CHANGED IN THE TWINKLING OF AN EYE, THE TIME IT TAKES A MAN TO MAKE UP
HIS MIND TO REMAIN WHERE HE IS WHEN HE IS AWAY FROM HOME.  HE NEED DO
NO MORE THAN DECIDE, BY A FLASH OF THOUGHT, TO STAY "EITHER PERMANENTLY
OR FOR AN INDEFINITE OR UNLIMITED LENGTH OF TIME."  FN14  NO OTHER
CONNECTION OF PERMANENCE IS REQUIRED.  ALL OF HIS BELONGINGS, HIS
BUSINESS, HIS FAMILY, HIS ESTABLISHED INTERESTS AND INTIMATE RELATIONS
MAY REMAIN WHERE THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN.  YET IF HE IS BUT PHYSICALLY
PRESENT ELSEWHERE, WITHOUT EVEN BAG OR BAGGAGE, AND UNDERGOES THE
MENTAL FLASH, IN A MOMENT HE HAS CREATED A NEW DOMICIL THOUGH HARDLY A
NEW HOME. 

DOMICIL THUS COMBINES THE ESSENTIALLY CONTRADICTORY ELEMENTS OF
PERMANENCE AND INSTANTANEOUS CHANGE.  NO LEGAL CONCEPTION, SAVE
POSSIBLY "JURISDICTION," OF WHICH IT IS AN ELUSIVE SUBSTRATUM, AFFORDS
SUCH POSSIBILITIES FOR UNCERTAIN APPLICATION.  THE ONLY THING CERTAIN
ABOUT IT, BEYOND ITS UNCERTAINTY, IS THAT ONE MUST TRAVEL TO CHANGE HIS
DOMICIL.  BUT HE MAY TRAVEL WITHOUT CHANGING IT, EVEN REMAIN FOR A
LIFETIME IN HIS NEW PLACE OF ABODE WITHOUT DOING SO.  APART FROM THE
NECESSITY FOR TRAVEL, HARDLY EVIDENTIARY OF STABILIZED RELATIONSHIP IN
A TRANSIENT AGE, THE CRITERION COMES DOWN TO A PURELY SUBJECTIVE MENTAL
STATE, RELATED TO REMAINING FOR A LENGTH OF TIME NEVER YET DEFINED WITH
CLARITY. 

WITH THE CRUX OF POWER FIXED IN SUCH A VARIABLE, SMALL WONDER THAT
THE STATES VACILLATE IN APPLYING IT AND THIS COURT CEASELESSLY SEEKS
WITHOUT FINDING A SOLUTION FOR ITS QUANDARY.  BUT NOT ALL THE VICE LIES
IN THE SUBSTANTIVE CONCEPTION.  ONLY LAWYERS KNOW, UNLESS NOW IT IS
TAXPAYERS FN15  AND PERSONS DIVORCED, HOW RAMBLING IS THE SCOPE OF
FACTS FROM WHICH PROOF IS EVER DRAWN TO SHOW AND NEGATE THE ULTIMATE
CONCLUSION OF SUBJECTIVE "FACT."  THEY KNOW, AS DO THE COURTS AND OTHER
TRIBUNALS WHICH WRESTLE WITH THE PROBLEM, HOW EASILY FACTS PROCREATIVE
OF CONFLICTING INFERENCES MAY BE MARSHALLED AND HOW CONJECTURAL IS THE
OUTCOME.  THERE IS NO GREATER LEGAL GAMBLE.  RARE IS THE SITUATION,
WHERE MUCH IS AT STAKE, IN WHICH CONFLICTING CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE
SHOWN AND WHERE ACCORDINGLY CONFLICTING ULTIMATE INFERENCES CANNOT BE
DRAWN. 

THE ESSENTIALLY VARIABLE NATURE OF THE TEST LIES THEREFORE AS MUCH IN
THE PROOF AND THE MODE OF MAKING THE CONCLUSION AS IN THE SUBSTANTIVE
CONCEPTION ITSELF.  WHEN WHAT MUST BE PROVED IS A VARIABLE, THE PROOF
AND THE CONCLUSION WHICH FOLLOWS UPON IT INEVITABLY TAKE ON THAT
CHARACTER.  THE "UNITARY DOMICIL-JURISDICTIONAL FACT-PERMISSIBLE
INFERENCE" VARIABLE NOT ONLY IS AN INCONSTANT, VACILLATING PIVOT FOR
ALLOCATING POWER.  IT IS INHERENTLY A SURRENDER OF THE POWER TO MAKE
THE ALLOCATION. 

THAT EFFECT IS NOT NULLIFIED BY VAGUE RESERVATION OF SUPERVISORY
INTENT.  FOR SUPERVISION IN ANY CASE THAT MATTERS, THAT IS, WHEREVER
THE ISSUE IS CRUCIAL, NULLIFIES THE TEST.  I THINK ESCAPE SHOULD BE
FORTHRIGHT AND DIRECT.  IT CAN BE SO ONLY IF THE ATTEMPT TO COMPROMISE
WHAT WILL NOT YIELD TO COMPROMISE IS FORSWORN, WITH THE ANCIENT GLOSS
THAT SERVES ONLY TO CONCEAL IN FAMILIAR FORMULA ITS ESSENTIALLY
CAPRICIOUS AND THEREFORE NULLIFYING CHARACTER.  THIS DISCARDED, CHOICE
THEN WOULD BE FORCED BETWEEN THE IDEAS OF TRANSIENCY WITH DUE PROCESS
SAFEGUARDS AND SOME MINIMAL ESTABLISHMENT OF MORE THAN CASUAL OR
TRANSITORY RELATIONS IN THE NEW COMMUNITY, GIVING THE NEWCOMER
SOMETHING OF OBJECTIVE SUBSTANCE IDENTIFYING HIM WITH ITS LIFE. 

WITH THIS CHOICE MADE, OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF PROOF COULD APPLY, FOR
THE THING TO BE PROVED WOULD BE NEITHER SUBJECTIVE NOR SO HIGHLY
VARIABLE AS INFERENCE OF STATE OF MIND IN AMBIGUOUS SITUATION ALWAYS
MUST BE.  NEITHER DOMICIL'S SHARP SUBJECTIVE EXCLUSIONS BETWEEN THE OLD
AND THE NEW NOR ITS EFFORT TO PROBE THE UNPROVABLE WORKINGS OF THOUGHT
AT SOME PAST MOMENT, AS IN RELATION TO THE LENGTH OF TIME ONE PURPOSED
REMAINING OR WHETHER THERE WAS VESTIGIAL AND CONTINGENT INTENT TO
RETURN, WOULD BE MATERIAL. 

WITH THE SUBJECTIVE SUBSTRATUM REMOVED, THE LARGEST SOURCE OF
VARIABLE AND INCONSTANT DECISION WOULD DISAPPEAR.  THIS WOULD BE TRUE,
WHETHER TRANSIENCY GUARDED BY DUE PROCESS OR SOME MORE ESTABLISHED BUT
OBJECTIVELY DETERMINABLE RELATION WITH THE COMMUNITY WERE CHOSEN FOR
THE STANDARD TO TURN THE EXISTENCE OF POWER.  EITHER CHOICE WOULD BE
PREFERABLE TO THE VARIABLE WHICH CAN GIVE ONLY INCONSTANT AND
CAPRICIOUS EFFECTS, NULLIFYING BOTH POLICIES. 

IF BY ONE CHOICE STATES OF ORIGIN WERE FORCED TO MODIFY THEIR LOCAL
POLICIES BY GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIFFERENT POLICIES OF OTHER STATES
WHEN CRYSTALLIZED IN VALID JUDGMENTS, THAT WOULD BE NO MORE THAN THE
CONSTITUTION IN TERMS PURPORTS TO REQUIRE.  AND IT MAY BE DOUBTED THEIR
SURRENDER WOULD BE MUCH GREATER IN PRACTICAL EFFECTS THAN THE PRESENT
CAPRICIOUS AND THEREFORE DECEPTIVE SYSTEM BRINGS ABOUT.  FN16  IF BY
SOME MORE RESTRICTIVE CHOICE STATES NOW FREE TO GIVE ESSENTIALLY
TRANSIENT DIVORCE WERE REQUIRED TO MODIFY THAT POLICY FOR LOCALLY VALID
EFFECTS, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT CONCEIVABLY
WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, THE OBLIGATIONS THEY
OWE TO THE NATION AND TO SISTER STATES WOULD SEEM AMPLY TO JUSTIFY THAT
MODEST CURTAILMENT OF THEIR POWER.  IT IS HARD TO SEE WHAT LEGITIMATE
SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST A STATE MAY HAVE IN PROVIDING DIVORCES FOR PERSONS
ONLY TRANSIENTLY THERE OR FOR NEWCOMERS BEFORE THEY HAVE CREATED, BY
REASONABLE LENGTH OF STAY OR OTHER OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, MORE THAN FLY
BY-NIGHT CONNECTIONS. 

I THEREFORE DISSENT FROM THE JUDGMENT WHICH, IN MY OPINION, HAS
PERMITTED NORTH CAROLINA AT HER SUBSTANTIALLY UNFETTERED WILL TO DENY
ALL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE NEVADA DECREE, WITHOUT IN ANY WAY
IMPEACHING OR ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH THAT JUDGMENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY.  BUT IF SHE IS NOT TO BE REQUIRED THUS TO GIVE THE FAITH AND
CREDIT DUE, IN MY OPINION SHE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DENY IT BY ANY
STANDARD OF PROOF WHICH IS LESS THAN GENERALLY IS REQUIRED TO OVERTURN
OR DISREGARD A JUDGMENT UPON DIRECT ATTACK.  CF. SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 118.  THE SOLEMNITY OF THE JUDICIAL ACT AND THE VERY
MINIMUM OF "RESPECT" DUE THE ACTION OF A SISTER STATE SHOULD COMPEL
ADHERENCE TO THIS STANDARD, THOUGH DOING SO WOULD NOT GIVE THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS.  TO APPROXIMATE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY WOULD BE BETTER THAN TO NULLIFY IT. 

FN1  CF. TEXT INFRA PART I. 

FN2  PRESUMABLY IT WOULD BE OUR FUNCTION "TO RETRY THE FACTS" NO MORE
IF THE NEVADA DECREE WERE IMMEDIATELY UNDER CHALLENGE HERE THAN IT IS
TO DO SO WHEN THE NORTH CAROLINA JUDGMENT IS IN ISSUE.  IT WOULD SEEM
THEREFORE THAT WE OWE THE SAME DEFERENCE TO NEVADA'S FINDING OF DOMICIL
AS WE DO TO NORTH CAROLINA'S.  CF. TEXT AT NOTE 4 ET SEQ. 

FN3  THE RECORD INDICATES THAT MR. HENDRIX "HAD BROUGHT NO DIVORCE
PROCEEDING AGAINST THE FEME DEFENDANT PRIOR TO THE FIRST TRIAL OF THIS
CAUSE,  ...  BUT THAT HE HAS SINCE AND REMARRIED."  ALTHOUGH THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS INSTITUTION OF THIS PROCEEDING, IT DOES NOT SHOW A
DECREE WAS ENTERED PRIOR TO HIS REMARRIAGE.  WHETHER OR NOT HE ACTUALLY
RELIED UPON THE NEVADA DECREE, THOUSANDS OF SPOUSES SO DIVORCED DO SO
RELY, THUS FOUNDING NEW RELATIONS WHICH ARE EQUALLY SUBJECT TO
INVALIDATION BY JURY FINDING AND ARE ALWAYS BECLOUDED BY A JUDGMENT
LIKE THAT RENDERED IN THIS CASE. 

FN4  CF. TEXT AT NOTES 2, 5, 7, 9, 11 ET SEQ. 

FN5  THE NEVADA COURT KNEW THAT PETITIONERS RECENTLY HAD COME FROM
NORTH CAROLINA, RESIDED IN TOURIST QUARTERS, AN AUTO COURT, AND BY
INFERENCE AT LEAST THAT THEY HAD COME TOGETHER.  THERE WAS IN THE FACTS
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR CONCLUSION THAT THEY HAD NO "BONA FIDE" INTENTION
OF REMAINING PERMANENTLY OR INDEFINITELY, AFTER THE DECREES WERE
RENDERED, IF THE COURT HAD WISHED TO DRAW THAT CONCLUSION.  CREDIBILITY
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS ALWAYS FOR THE TRIER OF FACT.  WORCESTER
COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 299; BURBANK V. ERNST, 232
U.S. 162, 164. 

FN6  HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562, 572. 

FN7  THE CASE WAS NOT TRIED ON ANY THEORY THAT NEVADA'S COURT WAS
DEFRAUDED OR HER LAW EVADED.  NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO BRING IT WITHIN
THAT WELL RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION TO THE BINDING EFFECT OF JUDGMENTS
GENERALLY.  UNITED STATES V. THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61; TOLEDO SCALE CO.
V. COMPUTING SCALE CO., 261 U.S. 399.  NOR IS THAT GROUND ASSERTED HERE
TO SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF CREDIT.  IT WAS NOT SUGGESTED, AND IS NOT NOW,
THAT NEVADA EITHER WOULD, OR COULD BE REQUIRED TO, SET ASIDE HER
JUDGMENT OR REACH A DIFFERENT RESULT, UPON THE EVIDENCE THIS RECORD
PRESENTS; OR THAT SHE NOW IS BOUND TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO
NORTH CAROLINA'S DECISION.  NOR HAS IT BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE NEVADA
EVIDENCE WAS NOT ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT HER FINDING. 

FN8  PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT BY NONSUIT, WHICH THE COURT
DENIED, WAS GROUNDED IN PART UPON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF FRAUD UPON
THE NEVADA COURT OR LAW AND ALLEGED INCOMPETENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE IF
TENDERED.  THEY ALSO OBJECTED TO THE PORTIONS OF THE CHARGE WHICH
SUBMITTED THE ISSUE OF "BONA FIDE DOMICIL" WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
EFFECT OF THE EVIDENCE AS TENDING TO VITIATE THE NEVADA DECREE.  "BONA
FIDES" IS INHERENTLY AN ELEMENT IN DOMICILIARY INTENT.  MERELY ADDING
THE PHRASE AS QUALIFYING ADJECTIVE DOES NOT RAISE AN ISSUE OF FRAUD. 
FOR THIS REASON, FOUNDED IN THE STATE OF THE RECORD, THE COURT ESCHEWS
GROUNDING THE DECISION UPON FRAUD OR COLLUSION. 

FN9 CF. COCHRANE V. DEENER, 95 U.S. 355; UNITED STATES V. MAXWELL
LAND-GRANT CO., 121 U.S. 325, 381; UNITED STATES V. SAN JACINTO TIN
CO., 125 U.S. 273, 300; LALONE V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 255; UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN BELL TEL. CO., 167 U.S. 224.  SEE 9 WIGMORE,
EVIDENCE (3RD ED.)  SEC.  2498. 

FN10  CF. NOTE 5. 

FN11  CF. COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY V. CLARK, 94 U.S. 278, 284;
JONES V. EAST TENNESSEE, V. & G.R. CO., 128 U.S. 443, 445; TILLER V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, 68; BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT
R. CO., 319 U.S. 350, 353, 354; TENNANT V. PEORIA & P.U.R. CO., 321
U.S. 29, 35; 9 WIGMORE, SEC. 2494. 

FN12  CF. NOTE 16. 

FN13  CF. MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268; TITUS V.
WALLICK, 306 U.S. 282; TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398, 410. 

FN14  CITATION OF AUTHORITY IS HARDLY NEEDED FOR REFERENCE TO THE
DIFFICULTIES COURTS HAVE ENCOUNTERED IN THE EFFORT TO DEFINE THIS
INTENT.  "ANIMUS MANENDI" IS OFTEN A LATIN REFUGE WHICH SUCCEEDS ONLY
IN EVADING, NOT IN RESOLVING, THE QUESTION WITH WHICH JOB WRESTLED IN
HIS SUFFERING.    FN15  CF. TILT V. KELSEY, 207 U.S. 43; IOWA V.
SLIMMER, 248 U.S. 115; WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S.
292; TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398; SWEENEY V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
113 F.2D 25, CERT. DENIED, 310 U.S. 631.  COMPARE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
V. MURPHY, 314 U.S. 441, WITH DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. PACE, 320 U.S.
698.  SEE 121 A.L.R. 1200; TWEED AND SARGENT, DEATH AND TAXES ARE
CERTAIN - BUT WHAT OF DOMICILE?  (1939) 53 HARV. L. REV. 68. 

FN16  THE RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATES FOR ABSOLUTE DIVORCE
VARY DEPENDING AT TIMES ON THE GROUND FOR DIVORCE RELIED ON, THE PLACE
WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, OR OTHER FACTORS.  SPEAKING GENERALLY,
APPROXIMATELY 33 STATES REQUIRE ONE YEAR'S RESIDENCE IN MOST DIVORCE
ACTIONS.  NINE STATES ARE MORE SEVERE, 7 OF THESE REQUIRING 2 YEARS'
RESIDENCE AND TWO A LONGER PERIOD.  SIX STATES ARE LESS SEVERE.  OF
THESE NORTH CAROLINA AT PRESENT REQUIRES A 6 MONTHS' RESIDENCE AND THE
OTHERS SIX WEEKS TO THREE MONTHS.  SEE WARREN, SCHOULER DIVORCE MANUAL
(1944) 705-720.  THUS, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, 39 STATES REQUIRE ONE YEAR
OR LESS, ONLY 9 LONGER. 

IT SEEMS QUESTIONABLE, AT ANY RATE, THAT THE GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE AS
SUCH HAVE "JURISDICTIONAL" SIGNIFICANCE.  PRESUMABLY, IF LENGTH OF
RESIDENCE IS THE CONTROLLING FACTOR, ALL OF THE STATES WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO GIVE EFFECT TO DIVORCES GRANTED BY THE 42 REQUIRING ONE
YEAR OR LONGER, UNLESS THE GREATLY PREPONDERANT LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT IS
TO BE DISREGARDED.  THE PERMISSIBLE DENIAL ACCORDINGLY WOULD EXTEND AT
THE MOST TO DECREES GRANTED BY THE SIX STATES REQUIRING LESS THAN ONE
YEAR.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW GREATLY DISRUPTIVE EFFECTS WOULD BE
CREATED FOR THEM OR FOR THE OTHER STATES BY REQUIRING THEM TO
APPROXIMATE THE GENERALLY PREVAILING JUDGMENT AS TO THE LENGTH OF THE
PERIOD APPROPRIATE FOR GRANTING IMPECCABLE DIVORCE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW HAS, UNTIL TODAY, STEADFASTLY MAINTAINED THE
PRINCIPLE THAT BEFORE AN ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED OF CRIME, HE MUST BE
PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  THESE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN
SENTENCED TO PRISON BECAUSE THEY WERE UNABLE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.  THEY HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED UNDER A STATUTE SO UNCERTAIN IN ITS APPLICATION THAT NOT EVEN
THE MOST LEARNED MEMBER OF THE BAR COULD HAVE ADVISED THEM IN ADVANCE
AS TO WHETHER THEIR CONDUCT WOULD VIOLATE THE LAW.  IN REALITY THE
PETITIONERS ARE BEING DEPRIVED OF THEIR FREEDOM BECAUSE THE STATE OF
NEVADA, THROUGH ITS LEGISLATURE AND COURTS, FOLLOWS A LIBERAL POLICY IN
GRANTING DIVORCES.  THEY HAD NEVADA DIVORCE DECREES WHICH AUTHORIZED
THEM TO REMARRY.  WITHOUT CHARGE OR PROOF OF FRAUD IN OBTAINING THESE
DECREES,  FN1  AND WITHOUT HOLDING THE DECREES INVALID UNDER NEVADA
LAW, THIS COURT AFFIRMS A CONVICTION OF PETITIONERS, FOR LIVING
TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.  I CANNOT RECONCILE THIS WITH THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND WITH CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION PASSED
PURSUANT TO IT. 

IT IS MY FIRM CONVICTION THAT THESE CONVICTIONS CANNOT BE HARMONIZED
WITH VITAL CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS DESIGNED TO SAFEGUARD INDIVIDUAL
LIBERTY AND TO UNITE ALL THE STATES OF THIS WHOLE COUNTRY INTO ONE
NATION.  THE FACT THAT TWO PEOPLE WILL BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IMPELS ME TO PROTEST AS VIGOROUSLY AS I CAN
AGAINST AFFIRMANCE OF THESE CONVICTIONS.  EVEN MORE, THE COURT'S
OPINION TODAY WILL CAST A CLOUD OVER THE LIVES OF COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF
THE MULTITUDE OF DIVORCED PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE ISSUES PROMPTS ME TO SET OUT MY VIEWS IN SOME DETAIL. 

STATISTICS INDICATE THAT APPROXIMATELY FIVE MILLION DIVORCED PERSONS
ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES.  FN2  MORE THAN 85% OF
THESE DIVORCES WERE GRANTED IN UNCONTESTED PROCEEDINGS.  FN3  NOT ONE
OF THIS LATTER GROUP CAN NOW RETAIN ANY FEELING OF SECURITY IN HIS
DIVORCE DECREE.  EVER PRESENT WILL BE THE DANGER OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION AND HARASSMENT. 

ALL THESE DECREES WERE GRANTED BY STATE COURTS.  ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AND CASES FOLLOWING IT, RECOGNIZED THE OBVIOUS
TRUTH, THAT RULES OF LAW LAID DOWN BY STATE COURTS ARE BINDING.  THESE
JUDICIAL "LAWS" ARE REPRESENTED BY DECREES, JUDGMENTS AND COURT
OPINIONS.  TODAY'S OPINION, HOWEVER, UNDERMINES AND MAKES UNCERTAIN THE
VALIDITY OF EVERY UNCONTESTED DIVORCE DECREE.  IT WIPES OUT EVERY
SEMBLANCE OF THEIR FINALITY AND DECISIVENESS.  IT ACHIEVES WHAT THE
COURT TERMS THE "DESIRABLE EFFECT" OF PROVIDING THE "SAME" QUALITY TO
EVERY DIVORCE DECREE, "WHEREVER THE QUESTION ARISES" - IT ENDOWS THEM
ALL ALIKE WITH THE "SAME" INSTABILITY AND PRECARIOUSNESS.  THE RESULT
IS TO CLASSIFY DIVORCED PERSONS IN A DISTINCTIVE AND INVIDIOUS
CATEGORY.  A YEAR AGO, A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT IN A WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION CASE DECLARED THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION WAS A "NATIONALLY UNIFYING FORCE"; FN4  TODAY, AS TO
DIVORCE DECREES, THAT CLAUSE, COUPLED WITH A NEW CONTENT RECENTLY ADDED
TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, HAS BECOME A NATIONALLY DISRUPTIVE FORCE. 
UNCONTESTED DIVORCE DECREES ARE THUS SO DEGRADED THAT A PERSON WHO
MARRIES IN RELIANCE UPON THEM CAN BE SENT TO JAIL.  WITH MUCH LANGUAGE
THE COURT HAS IN EFFECT ADOPTED THE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED HYPOTHESIS
UPON WHICH THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT PERMITTED ANOTHER PERSON TO
BE SENT TO PRISON, NAMELY, THAT "THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES
NOT APPLY TO ACTIONS FOR DIVORCE, AND THAT THE STATES ALONE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT EFFECT SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE DECREES OF OTHER
STATES IN THIS CLASS OF CASES."  STATE V. HERRON, 175 N.C. 754, 758, 94
S.E. 698; CF. MATTER OF HOLMES, 291 N.Y. 261, 273, 52 N.E.2D 424. 

THE PETITIONERS WERE MARRIED IN NEVADA.  NORTH CAROLINA HAS SENTENCED
THEM TO PRISON FOR LIVING TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE IN NORTH
CAROLINA.  THIS COURT TODAY AFFIRMS THOSE SENTENCES WITHOUT A
DETERMINATION THAT THE NEVADA MARRIAGE WAS INVALID UNDER THAT STATE'S
LAWS.  THIS HOLDING CAN BE SUPPORTED, IF AT ALL, ONLY ON ONE OF TWO
GROUNDS:  (1) NORTH CAROLINA HAS EXTRA-TERRITORIAL POWER TO REGULATE
MARRIAGES WITHIN NEVADA'S TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES, OR, (2) NORTH
CAROLINA CAN PUNISH PEOPLE WHO LIVE TOGETHER IN THAT STATE AS HUSBAND
AND WIFE EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN VALIDLY MARRIED IN NEVADA.  A
HOLDING BASED ON EITHER OF THESE TWO GROUNDS ENCROACHES UPON THE
GENERAL PRINCIPLE RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT THAT A MARRIAGE VALIDLY
CONSUMMATED UNDER ONE STATE'S LAWS IS VALID IN EVERY OTHER STATE.  FN5
IF THE COURT IS TODAY ABANDONING THAT PRINCIPLE, IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE
STATES A LARGE PART OF THEIR HITHERTO PLENARY CONTROL OVER THE
INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE.  A FURTHER CONSEQUENCE IS TO SUBJECT PEOPLE TO
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR ADULTERY AND BIGAMY MERELY BECAUSE THEY
EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PASS FROM A STATE IN WHICH THEY
WERE VALIDLY MARRIED INTO ANOTHER STATE WHICH REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE
THEIR MARRIAGE.  SUCH A CONSEQUENCE RUNS COUNTER TO THE BASIC
GUARANTEES OF OUR FEDERAL UNION.  EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160. 
IT IS TRUE THAT PERSONS VALIDLY MARRIED UNDER THE LAWS OF ONE STATE
HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIME FOR LIVING TOGETHER IN OTHER STATES.  FN6
BUT THOSE STATE CONVICTIONS WERE NOT APPROVED BY THIS COURT.  AND NEVER
BEFORE TODAY HAS THIS COURT DECIDED A CASE UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT MEN
AND WOMEN VALIDLY MARRIED UNDER THE LAWS OF ONE STATE COULD BE SENT TO
JAIL BY ANOTHER STATE FOR CONDUCT WHICH INVOLVED NOTHING MORE THAN
LIVING TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. 

THE COURT'S OPINION MAY HAVE PASSED OVER THE MARRIAGE QUESTION ON THE
UNSPOKEN PREMISE THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE WITHOUT LEGAL CAPACITY TO
MARRY.  IF SO, THE PRIMARY QUESTION STILL WOULD BE WHETHER THAT
CAPACITY, AND OTHER ISSUES SUBSIDIARY TO IT, ARE TO BE DETERMINED UNDER
NEVADA, NORTH CAROLINA, OR FEDERAL LAW.  ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS
REQUIRE A DISCUSSION OF THE DIVORCE DECREES AWARDED TO THE PETITIONERS
IN A NEVADA COURT PRIOR TO THEIR MARRIAGE THERE. 

WHEN THE NEVADA DECREES WERE GRANTED, THE PETITIONERS' FORMER SPOUSES
LIVED IN NORTH CAROLINA.  WHEN PETITIONERS WERE TRIED AND CONVICTED,
ONE OF THEIR FORMER SPOUSES WAS DEAD AND THE OTHER HAD REMARRIED. 
UNDER THE LEGAL DOCTRINE PREVAILING IN NEVADA AND IN MOST OF THE
STATES, THESE FACTS WOULD MAKE BOTH THE DECREES IMMUNE FROM ATTACK
UNLESS, PERHAPS, BY PERSONS OTHER THAN THE NORTH CAROLINA SPOUSES,
WHOSE PROPERTY RIGHTS MIGHT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DECREES.  FN7
SO FAR AS APPEARS FROM THE RECORD NO PERSON'S PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE DISSOLUTION DECREES.  NONE OF THE PARTIES TO
THE MARRIAGE, ALTHOUGH FORMALLY NOTIFIED OF THE NEVADA DIVORCE
PROCEEDINGS, MADE ANY PROTEST BEFORE OR AFTER THE DECREES WERE
RENDERED.  THE STATE DID NOT SUE HERE TO PROTECT ANY NORTH CAROLINIAN'S
PROPERTY RIGHTS OR TO OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR THE FAMILIES WHICH HAD BEEN
DESERTED.  THE RESULT OF ALL THIS IS THAT THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO
ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THESE DECREES IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS TODAY
SUSTAINED, ALTHOUGH THE STATE'S CITIZENS, ON WHOSE BEHALF IT PURPORTS
TO ACT, COULD NOT HAVE DONE SO AT THE TIME OF THE CONVICTION IN A CIVIL
PROCEEDING.  FURTHERMORE, ALL OF THE PARTIES TO THE FIRST TWO MARRIAGES
WERE APPARENTLY SATISFIED THAT THEIR HAPPINESS DID NOT LIE IN CONTINUED
MARITAL COHABITATION.  NORTH CAROLINA CLAIMS NO INTEREST IN ABRIDGING
THEIR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM BY FORCING THEM TO LIVE TOGETHER AGAINST THEIR
OWN DESIRES.  THE STATE'S INTEREST AT THE TIME THESE PETITIONERS WERE
CONVICTED THUS COMES DOWN TO ITS CONCERN IN PRESERVING A BARE MARITAL
STATUS FOR A SPOUSE WHO HAD ALREADY MARRIED AGAIN.  IF THE STATE'S
INTEREST BEFORE THAT TIME BE CONSIDERED, IT WAS TO PRESERVE A BARE
MARITAL STATUS AS TO TWO PERSONS WHO HAD SOUGHT A DIVORCE AND TWO
OTHERS WHO HAD NOT OBJECTED TO IT.  IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY THING FOR A
STATE TO PROCURE A RETROACTIVE INVALIDATION OF A DIVORCE DECREE, AND
THEN PUNISH ONE OF ITS CITIZENS FOR CONDUCT AUTHORIZED BY THAT DECREE,
WHEN IT HAD NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED BY EITHER OF THE PEOPLE MOST
IMMEDIATELY INTERESTED IN IT.  I WOULD NOT PERMIT SUCH AN ATTENUATED
STATE INTEREST TO OVERRIDE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND AN ACT OF CONGRESS PURSUANT TO IT.  FN8  HERE AGAIN,
NORTH CAROLINA'S RIGHT TO ATTACK THIS JUDGMENT, DESPITE THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, IS NOT BASED ON
NEVADA LAW; NOR COULD IT BE.  FOR IN NEVADA, EVEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
COULD NOT HAVE OBTAINED A CANCELLATION OF THE DECREE ON THE GROUND THAT
IT WAS RENDERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  STATE V. MOORE, 46 NEV. 65, 207
P. 75.  THIS MAKES IT CLEAR BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT NORTH CAROLINA HAS
NOT GIVEN THESE DECREES THE SAME EFFECT THAT THEY WOULD BE GIVEN IN THE
COURTS OF NEVADA. 

THE COURT PERMITS NORTH CAROLINA TO DISREGARD THE DECREES ON THE
FOLLOWING LINE OF REASONING.  NO STATE NEED GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
TO A "VOID" DECREE.  A DECREE RENDERED BY A COURT WITHOUT
"JURISDICTION" IS "VOID."  NO STATE COURT HAS "JURISDICTION" TO GRANT A
DIVORCE UNLESS ONE OF THE PARTIES IS "DOMICILED" IN THE STATE.  THE
NORTH CAROLINA COURT HAS DECIDED THAT THESE PETITIONERS HAD NO
"DOMICILE" IN NEVADA.  THEREFORE, THE NEVADA COURT HAD NO
"JURISDICTION," THE DECREES ARE "VOID," AND NORTH CAROLINA NEED NOT
GIVE THEM FAITH OR CREDIT.  THE SOLUTION TO ALL THESE PROBLEMS DEPENDS
IN TURN UPON THE QUESTION COMMON TO ALL OF THEM - DOES STATE LAW OR
FEDERAL LAW APPLY? 

THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN
IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF
EVERY OTHER STATE.  AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE
MANNER IN WHICH SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND
THE EFFECT THEREOF."  ACTING PURSUANT TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY,
CONGRESS IN 1790 DECLARED WHAT LAW SHOULD GOVERN AND WHAT "EFFECT"
SHOULD BE GIVEN THE JUDGMENTS OF STATE COURTS.  THAT STATUTE IS STILL
THE LAW.  ITS COMMAND IS THAT THEY "SHALL HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT
GIVEN TO THEM  ... AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN."  28 U.S.C. 687.  IF, AS THE COURT
TODAY IMPLIES, DIVORCE DECREES SHOULD BE GIVEN LESS EFFECT THAN OTHER
COURT JUDGMENTS, CONGRESS ALONE HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO SAY SO.
WE SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE "DIVORCE PROBLEM" BY CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION.  AT LEAST, UNTIL CONGRESS HAS COMMANDED A DIFFERENT
"EFFECT" FOR DIVORCES GRANTED ON A SHORT SOJOURN WITHIN A STATE, WE
SHOULD STAY OUR HANDS.  A PROPER RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
CONGRESS WOULD SEEM TO ME TO REQUIRE THAT WE LEAVE THIS PROBLEM WHERE
THE CONSTITUTION DID.  IF WE FOLLOW THAT COURSE, NORTH CAROLINA CANNOT
BE PERMITTED TO DISREGARD THE NEVADA DECREES WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE
"FAITH AND CREDIT" WHICH NEVADA ITSELF WOULD GIVE TO THEM UNDER ITS OWN
"LAW OR USAGE."  THE COURT HAS DECIDED THE MATTER AS THOUGH IT WERE A
PURELY FEDERAL QUESTION; CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION DECLARED IT TO
BE A STATE QUESTION.  THE LOGIC OF THE COURT DOES NOT PERSUADE ME THAT
WE SHOULD IGNORE THESE MANDATES OF THE CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION. 
NEVADA'S DECREES PURPORTED TO GRANT PETITIONERS AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE
WITH A RIGHT TO REMARRY.  NO "LAW OR USAGE" OF NEVADA HAS BEEN POINTED
OUT TO US WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT NEVADA WOULD, UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDER ITS DECREES SO "VOID" AS TO WARRANT IMPRISONING
THOSE WHO HAVE REMARRIED IN RELIANCE UPON SUCH EXISTING AND UNANNULLED
DECREES. 

A JUDGMENT MAY BE "VOID" IN THE GENERAL SENSE, AND YET GIVE RISE TO
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.  WHILE ON THE BOOKS ITS EXISTENCE IS A FACT,
NOT A THEORY.  AND IT MAY BE SAID OF DECREES, LATER INVALIDATED, AS OF
STATUTES HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THAT "THE PAST CANNOT ALWAYS BE ERASED
BY A NEW JUDICIAL DECLARATION.  THE EFFECT OF THE SUBSEQUENT RULING AS
TO INVALIDITY MAY HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN VARIOUS ASPECTS, - WITH
RESPECT TO PARTICULAR RELATIONS, INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE, AND
PARTICULAR CONDUCT, PRIVATE AND OFFICIAL  ...  AN ALL-INCLUSIVE
STATEMENT OF A PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE RETROACTIVE INVALIDITY CANNOT BE
JUSTIFIED."  CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER STATE BANK, 308
U.S. 371, 374.  DESPITE THE CONCLUSION THAT A JUDGMENT IS "VOID,"
COURTS HAVE IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
DECLINED TO ATTRIBUTE A MEANING TO THAT WORD WHICH WOULD MAKE SUCH
JUDGMENTS, FOR ALL PURPOSES, WORTHLESS SCRAPS OF PAPER.  FN9  AFTER A
JUDGMENT HAS BEEN DECLARED "VOID" IT STILL REMAINS TO DECIDE AS TO THE
CONSEQUENCES ATTACHED TO GOOD FAITH CONDUCT BETWEEN ITS RENDITION AND
ITS NULLIFICATION.  THAT DETERMINATION, I THINK, MUST, IN THIS CASE,
UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
"LAW OR USAGE" OF NEVADA - NOT OF NORTH CAROLINA OR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. 

THIS BRINGS ME TO THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT NEVADA DECREES WERE
"VOID."  THAT CONCLUSION RESTS ON THE PREMISE THAT THE NEVADA COURT WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT FOUND THAT THE
PETITIONERS HAD NO "DOMICILE" IN NEVADA.  THE NEVADA COURT HAD BASED
ITS DECREE ON A FINDING THAT "DOMICILE" HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY
EVIDENCE BEFORE IT.  AS I READ THAT EVIDENCE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS, HAD THE CASE BEEN REVIEWED BY US.
THUS, THIS QUESTION OF FACT HAS NOW BEEN ADJUDICATED IN TWO STATE
COURTS WITH DIFFERENT RESULTS.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED NOW THAT THIS COURT
VERY RECENTLY HAS SAID AS TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE
1790 CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, THAT "FROM THE BEGINNING THIS COURT HAS
HELD THAT THESE PROVISIONS HAVE MADE THAT WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN
ONE STATE RES JUDICATA TO THE SAME EXTENT IN EVERY OTHER."  MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, SUPRA, AT 438.  FN10  THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE
FOR THE NEVADA COURT TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION OF DOMICILE CAN HARDLY
BE DOUBTED, SINCE THE CONCURRING OPINION IN OUR FIRST CONSIDERATION OF
THIS CASE CORRECTLY SAID THAT THE "NEVADA DECREES DO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND ARE BINDING IN NEVADA ON THE
ABSENT SPOUSES  ..."  317 U.S. 287, 306.  THE COURT TODAY, HOWEVER,
SEEMS TO PLACE ITS HOLDING THAT THE NEVADA DECREES ARE VOID ON THE
BASIS THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE MAKES DOMICILE AN INDISPENSABLE
PREREQUISITE TO A STATE COURT'S "JURISDICTION" TO GRANT DIVORCE.  IT
FURTHER HOLDS THAT THIS NEWLY CREATED FEDERAL RESTRICTION OF STATE
COURTS PROJECTS FACT ISSUES WHICH THE STATE COURTS CANNOT FINALLY
DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES.  DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, PROVIDES A
POSSIBLE EXCEPTION TO THIS HOLDING.  IT DECIDED THAT WHERE BOTH SPOUSES
APPEARED, A STATE COURT COULD FINALLY DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF
DOMICILE.  WHETHER THE COURT TODAY OVERRULES THAT CASE I CANNOT BE
SURE.  CERTAINLY, IF A STATE COURT CANNOT FINALLY DETERMINE THE
QUESTION OF DOMICILE BECAUSE IT IS A FEDERAL QUESTION, EACH DIVORCE
CONTROVERSY INVOLVING DOMICILE MUST BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW HERE WHETHER
BOTH PARTIES APPEAR OR NOT. 

I CANNOT AGREE TO THIS LATEST EXPANSION OF FEDERAL POWER AND THE
CONSEQUENT DIMINUTION OF STATE POWER OVER MARRIAGE AND MARRIAGE
DISSOLUTION WHICH THE COURT DERIVES FROM ADDING A NEW CONTENT TO THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  THE ELASTICITY OF THAT CLAUSE NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY
THIS HOLDING IS FOUND, I SUPPOSE, IN THE NOTION THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO
GIVE THIS COURT UNLIMITED AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE ALL ASSERTIONS OF
STATE AND FEDERAL POWER TO SEE THAT THEY COMPORT WITH OUR IDEAS OF WHAT
ARE "CIVILIZED STANDARDS OF LAW."  SEE MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S.
401.  I HAVE NOT AGREED THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE GIVES US ANY SUCH
UNLIMITED POWER, BUT UNLESS IT DOES, I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND FROM
WHAT SOURCE OUR AUTHORITY TO STRIP NEVADA OF ITS POWER OVER MARRIAGE
AND DIVORCE CAN BE THOUGHT TO DERIVE.  CERTAINLY, THERE IS NO LANGUAGE
IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CAN FIX THE LIMITS OF A STATE COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER
DIVORCES.  IN DOING SO, THE COURT TODAY EXALTS "DOMICILE," DEPENDENT
UPON A MENTAL STATE, TO A POSITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DIGNITY.  STATE
JURISDICTION IN DIVORCE CASES NOW DEPENDS UPON A STATE OF MIND AS TO
FUTURE INTENT.  THUS "A HAIR PERHAPS DIVIDES" THE CONSTITUTIONAL
JURISDICTION OR LACK OF JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS TO GRANT
DIVORCES.  CF. POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS, 322 U.S. 4, 21.  AND THIS "HAIR
LINE" DIVISION INVOLVES A FEDERAL QUESTION, APPARENTLY OPEN TO REPEATED
ADJUDICATIONS AT THE INSTANCE OF AS MANY DIFFERENT PARTIES AS CAN BE
FOUND TO RAISE IT.  MOREOVER, SINCE IT IS A FEDERAL QUESTION, EACH NEW
LITIGANT HAS A STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASK US TO PASS ON IT. 

THE TWO CASES CITED BY THE COURT DO NOT SUPPORT THIS NOVEL
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE.  BELL V. BELL, 181 U.S. 175, HELD A
PENNSYLVANIA DECREE INVALID ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO DOMICILE
SHOWN.  IT SPECIFICALLY STATED, HOWEVER, THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW REQUIRED
ONE YEAR'S DOMICILE.  NEITHER THE DECISION IN THAT CASE, NOR ANY OF THE
OTHERS ON WHICH IT RELIED, RESTED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE AS REQUIRING "DOMICILE."  FN11  NOR DID THE DECISION IN
ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14, SUPPORT TODAY'S DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
EXTENSION, FOR THERE IT WAS SAID THAT "...  IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERS NO POWER WHATEVER UPON THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO REGULATE MARRIAGE ..."  FN12 

IT IS A DRASTIC DEPARTURE FROM FORMER CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE TO HOLD
THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MEASURES THE POWER OF STATE COURTS TO
PASS UPON PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE.  THE JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS OVER
PERSONS AND THINGS WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY
ACKNOWLEDGED THROUGH THE YEARS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LENGTH OF THEIR
SOJOURN OR THEIR INTENTION TO REMAIN.  AND THAT JURISDICTION HAS NOT
BEEN THOUGHT TO BE LIMITED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  LEGISLATIVE
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE WAS COMMON IN THE COLONIES AND THE STATES UP TO
THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.  A LEGISLATIVE DISSOLUTION OF
MARRIAGE, GRANTED WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING OF ANY KIND, WAS SUSTAINED
BY THIS COURT LONG AFTER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED.  MAYNARD
V. HILL, 125 U.S. 190; CF. PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714, 734-735.  THE
PROVISION THAT MADE "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" A PREREQUISITE TO DEPRIVATION
OF "LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY" WAS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICABLE TO
PROCEEDINGS TO SEVER THE MARITAL STATUS.  IT WAS ONLY WHEN LEGISLATURES
ATTEMPTED TO CREATE OR DESTROY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS INCIDENT TO
MARRIAGE THAT COURTS BEGAN TO CONCLUDE THAT THEIR ACTS ENCROACHED UPON
THE RIGHT TO A JUDICIAL TRIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS.  FN13 THE
COURT'S HOLDING NOW APPEARS TO OVERRULE MAYNARD V. HILL, SUB SILENTIO. 
THIS PERHAPS IS IN KEEPING WITH THE IDEA THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS
A BLANK SHEET OF PAPER PROVIDED FOR COURTS TO MAKE CHANGES IN THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR IDEAS OF
CIVILIZATION'S DEMANDS.  I SHOULD LEAVE THE POWER OVER DIVORCES IN THE
STATES.  AND IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER FEDERAL LEGISLATION UNDER THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, I SHOULD LEAVE THE EFFECT OF DIVORCE
DECREES TO BE DETERMINED AS CONGRESS COMMANDED - ACCORDING TO THE LAWS
AND USAGES OF THE STATE WHERE THE DECREES ARE ENTERED.  FN14 

IMPLICIT IN THE MAJORITY OF THE OPINIONS RENDERED BY THIS AND OTHER
COURTS, WHICH, WHETHER DESIGNEDLY OR NOT, HAVE SET UP OBSTACLES TO THE
PROCUREMENT OF DIVORCES, IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT DIVORCES ARE AN
UNMITIGATED EVIL, AND THAT THE LAW CAN AND SHOULD FORCE UNWILLING
PERSONS TO LIVE WITH EACH OTHER.  OTHERS APPROACH THE PROBLEM AS ONE
WHICH CAN BEST BE MET BY MORAL, ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS.  WHICH
VIEWPOINT IS CORRECT IS NOT OUR CONCERN.  I AM CONFIDENT, HOWEVER, THAT
TODAY'S DECISION WILL NO MORE AID IN THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM THAN
THE DRED SCOTT DECISION AIDED IN SETTLING CONTROVERSIES OVER SLAVERY. 
THIS DECISION, I THINK, TAKES THE WRONG ROAD.  FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD
HAVE LESS, NOT MORE, TO DO WITH DIVORCES.  ONLY WHEN ONE STATE REFUSES
TO GIVE THAT FAITH AND CREDIT TO A DIVORCE DECREE WHICH CONGRESS AND
THE CONSTITUTION COMMAND, SHOULD WE ENTER THIS FIELD. 

THE COURT HAS NOT ONLY PERMITTED NORTH CAROLINA TO INVALIDATE A
NEVADA DECREE CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND USAGE OF THAT STATE.  IT HAS
ACTUALLY PLACED THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE VALIDITY OF THAT DECREE
ON A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH CRIME.  THE ONLY CONTESTED QUESTION WAS THE
VALIDITY OF THE DECREE, SINCE THE PETITIONERS OPENLY LIVED TOGETHER AS
MAN AND WIFE.  AND THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED CONCERNING THAT VALIDITY WAS
DOMICILE.  THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT SINGLE ISSUE UPON WHICH
PETITIONERS' LIBERTY DEPENDED WAS CAST UPON THEM.  CF. STATE V. HERRON,
175 N.C. 754, 759, 94 S.E. 698.  THE JURY WAS NOT CHARGED THAT THE
STATE MUST PROVE THE DEFENDANTS GUILTY; THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PROVE
THEIR INNOCENCE.  THE RESULT IS THAT A STATE COURT DIVORCE DECREE IS NO
PROTECTION FROM BEING SENT TO PRISON IN ANOTHER STATE UNLESS A
DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH ACTING AS IT AUTHORIZED CAN PROVE THE STATE
COURT RENDERING THE DECREE MADE NO ERROR IN RESOLVING FACTS AS TO
DOMICILE.  STATE COURT JUDGMENTS EXALTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BY
CONGRESS ARE THUS DEGRADED TO A LOWLY STATUS BY TODAY'S DECISION. 
STATE COURTS, NO LESS THAN FEDERAL COURTS, WERE RECOGNIZED BY THE
FOUNDING FATHERS AS INSTRUMENTS OF JUSTICE.  I WOULD CONTINUE TO
RECOGNIZE THEM AS SUCH.  AT THE VERY MINIMUM WE SHOULD NOT PERMIT
HOLDERS OF THESE DECREES TO BE CONVICTED OF CRIME UNLESS ANOTHER STATE
SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF INVALIDATING THEM.  IN A CASE INVOLVING NOTHING
BUT PROPERTY, THIS COURT HAS DECLINED TO PERMIT A SECOND MARRIAGE TO BE
IMPUGNED THROUGH AN ALLEGED PRIOR MARRIAGE "SAVE UPON PROOF SO CLEAR,
STRONG AND UNEQUIVOCAL AS TO PRODUCE A MORAL CONVICTION OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THAT IMPEDIMENT."  SY JOC LIENG V. SY QUIA, 228 U.S. 335,
339.  AND WE DECLINED TO PERMIT A NATURALIZATION DECREE TO BE SET ASIDE
BECAUSE OF AN ABSENCE OF "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE." 
SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159, 164, 166-170. 
IT IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUIRING A LESS BURDENSOME REQUIREMENT HERE
TO SAY THAT IN THESE FORMER CASES WE WERE DEALING WITH FEDERAL
QUESTIONS.  THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS DONE HERE.  FOR THE BASIC QUESTION
IN THIS CASE REVOLVES AROUND THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION AND THE 1790 CONGRESSIONAL ACT.  THE STANDARD OF PROOF
SUSTAINED IS A FEDERAL, NOT A STATE, STANDARD.  TO REQUIRE A DEFENDANT
IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN SUSTAINING HIS
DECREE TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE DEPRIVES HIM OF ALL BUT THE LAST SHRED OF
PROTECTION THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE 1790 ACT OF
CONGRESS SOUGHT TO GIVE HIM.  CF. TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463,
473.  IT MAKES OF HUMAN LIBERTY A VERY CHEAP THING - TOO CHEAP TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF A FREE GOVERNMENT. 

MOREOVER, THE COURT'S UNJUSTIFIABLE DEVITALIZATION OF THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE ACT PASSED PURSUANT TO IT CREATES A SITUATION
WHICH MAKES THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE AN INESCAPABLE TRAP FOR ANY
PERSON WHO PLACES THE SLIGHTEST RELIANCE ON ANOTHER STATE'S DIVORCE
DECREE - A SITUATION WHICH A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL
QUESTION WOULD AVOID.  THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE EXCLUDES FROM ITS
COVERAGE THOSE WHO "HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY DIVORCED."  WHO AFTER TODAY'S
DECISION CAN KNOW OR GUESS WHAT "RIGHT" HE CAN SAFELY EXERCISE UNDER A
DIVORCE DECREE IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD BETWEEN THE DAY OF ITS ENTRY
AND THE DAY OF ITS INVALIDATION BY A JURY?  FN15  THIS COURT HAS SAID
THAT "A STATUTE WHICH EITHER FORBIDS OR REQUIRES THE DOING OF AN ACT IN
TERMS SO VAGUE THAT MEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS
AT ITS MEANING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION, VIOLATES THE FIRST
ESSENTIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW".  THE NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE, AS
APPLIED TO CONDEMN THESE TWO PETITIONERS TO SERVE PRISON SENTENCES,
FALLS PRECISELY WITHIN THIS DESCRIPTION.  IT DOES SO, BECAUSE THE SOLE
ESSENTIAL CONTESTED ISSUE IN THIS CASE WAS THE VALIDITY OF THE DIVORCE
DECREES.  INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE ARE QUESTIONS OF LAW MIXED WITH
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH PERPLEX LAWYERS AND JUDGES LITTLE LESS THAN
THEY BAFFLE "MEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE."  TODAY'S DECISION ADDS NEW
INTRICACIES TO THE WHOLE PROBLEM FOR LAWYERS TO ARGUE ABOUT.  IT
PROVIDES A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT OF "JURISDICTION," WHICH ITSELF
RESTS ON A NEWLY ANNOUNCED FEDERAL "CONCEPT OF DOMICILE."  NO FINAL
DETERMINATION AS TO ITS OWN "JURISDICTION" CAN HEREAFTER BE MADE BY A
STATE COURT IN AN UNCONTESTED DIVORCE CASE.  AND SO FAR AS I CAN TELL,
NO OTHER COURT CAN EVER FINALLY DETERMINE THIS QUESTION.  IT MIGHT DO
SO AS BETWEEN ANY TWO LITIGANTS, BUT I SUPPOSE THE QUESTION OF DOMICILE
WOULD STILL BE LEFT OPEN FOR OTHERS TO CHALLENGE.  A MAN MIGHT BE TRIED
FOR BIGAMY IN TWO OR MORE STATES.  HE MIGHT BE CONVICTED IN ONE OR BOTH
OR ALL, I SUPPOSE.  THE AFFIRMANCE OF THESE CONVICTIONS SHOWS THAT A
DIVORCED PERSON'S LIBERTY, SO FAR AS THIS NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE IS
CONCERNED, HINGES ON HIS ABILITY TO "GUESS" AT WHAT MAY ULTIMATELY BE
THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL CONCLUSION RESULTING FROM A CONSIDERATION OF TWO
OF THE MOST UNCERTAIN WORD SYMBOLS IN ALL THE JUDICIAL LEXICON,
"JURISDICTION" AND "DOMICILE."  WHILE THE DOCTRINE THAT "IGNORANCE OF
THE LAW EXCUSES NO MAN" HAS SOMETIMES BEEN APPLIED WITH HARSH
CONSEQUENCES, AMERICAN COURTS HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE HABIT OF MAKING
IGNORANCE OF LAW THE CRUCIAL AND CONTROLLING ELEMENT IN A PENITENTIARY
OFFENSE.  MEN HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN SENT TO PRISON FOR VIOLATING
COURT COMMANDS WHICH WERE LATER HELD INVALID.  FN17  IT IS QUITE A
DIFFERENT THING, HOWEVER, TO SEND PEOPLE TO PRISON FOR LACKING THE
CLAIRVOYANT GIFT OF PROPHESYING WHEN ONE JUDGE OR JURY WILL UPSET THE
FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY ANOTHER.   IN EARLIER TIMES, SOME RULERS
PLACED THEIR CRIMINAL LAWS WHERE THE COMMON MAN COULD NOT SEE THEM, IN
ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE ENTRAPPED INTO THEIR VIOLATION.  OTHERS IMPOSED
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IMPOSSIBLE OF ACHIEVEMENT TO THE END THAT THOSE
OBNOXIOUS TO THE RULING POWERS MIGHT BE CONVICTED UNDER THE FORMS OF
LAW.  NO ONE OF THEM EVER PROVIDED A MORE CERTAIN ENTRAPMENT, THAN A
STATUTE WHICH PRESCRIBES A PENITENTIARY PUNISHMENT FOR NOTHING MORE
THAN A LAYMAN'S FAILURE TO PROPHESY WHAT A JUDGE OR JURY WILL DO.  THIS
COURT'S DECISION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION TODAY DOES JUST THAT. 

FN1  PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE ASSERTED THAT A STATE
CANNOT JUSTIFY ITS REFUSAL TO GIVE ANOTHER STATE'S JUDGMENT FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT, AT LEAST, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT FRAUD IS AN
ADEQUATE GROUND FOR SETTING THE JUDGMENT ASIDE IN THE STATE WHERE IT
WAS RENDERED.  SEE CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290, 302-304; MAXWELL
V. STEWART, 22 WALL.  77, 81; BIGELOW V. OLD DOMINION COPPER CO., 225
U.S. 111, 134. 

FN2  ACCORDING TO THE BEST AVAILABLE STATISTICS MORE THAN FIVE
MILLION DIVORCES WERE GRANTED IN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS AND THE ANNUAL
RATE IS STEADILY INCREASING.  SEE MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE STATISTICS,
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1942, AND THE SAME REPORTS FOR DIFFERENT YEARS;
DIVORCE, DEPRESSION AND WAR, SOCIAL FORCES, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
CAROLINA PRESS, DEC. 1943, 191, 192; SOCIAL AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS,
LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, DUKE UNIVERSITY, SUMMER 1944; 1940
CENSUS, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, VOL. 4, TABLES 29 AND 48; OGBURN,
MARRIAGES, BIRTHS AND DIVORCES, ANNALS, AMERICAN ACADEMY, SEPT. 1943,
20. 

FN3  THIS PERCENTAGE IS SHOWN BY THE VARIOUS "MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE"
PUBLICATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 
CAREFUL STUDIES IN PARTICULAR LOCALITIES HAVE INDICATED THAT THE
PERCENTAGE OF UNCONTESTED DIVORCES IS SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE 85% SHOWN
IN CENSUS REPORTS.  IN MARYLAND, FOR INSTANCE, 3,306 PETITIONS FOR
DIVORCE WERE FILED IN 1929.  1,847 DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ANSWER AND THE
COMPLAINANT HAD DECREES IN ALL BUT SIX CASES.  "A TOTAL OF 1,459
DEFENDANTS, HOWEVER, FILED ANSWERS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS AND
THUS STAGED A TECHNICAL CONTEST.  THIS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT A
GIVEN DEFENDANT WAS OPPOSED TO A DECREE BEING GRANTED.  OF THESE 1,459
TECHNICALLY CONTESTED ACTIONS, 442 DROPPED OUT WITHOUT COMING TO
HEARING, THUS LEAVING 1,017 TECHNICAL CONTESTS IN THE FIELD  ....  IF
WE ACCOMPANY THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE 1,017 REMAINING TECHNICAL CONTESTS
TO THE HEARING, WE FIND LITTLE IN THE WAY OF SUBSTANTIAL CONTEST. 
THERE IS A POSITIVE RECORD OF NO CONTEST IN 808 CASES; OF A CONTEST IN
81 CASES; AND DATA ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO CONTEST IN 128
CASES  ....  IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT IN LESS THAN 100 CASES WAS THERE AT
THE HEARING A CONTEST CONCERNING WHETHER A DECREE SHOULD BE GRANTED." 
MARSHALL AND MAY, THE DIVORCE COURT, 226-227. 

FN4  MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 439. 

FN5  LOUGHRAN V. LOUGHRAN, 292 U.S. 216, 223-225; DUDLEY V. DUDLEY,
151 IOWA 142, 130 N.W. 785; EX PART CRANE, 170 MICH. 651, 136 N.W. 587;
SEE RADIN, AUTHENTICATED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, 39 ILL. L.R. 1,
32.  SEE ALSO ANNOTATIONS, 60 AM. ST. REP. 942; 28 L.R.A.N.S. 754; 127
A.L.R. 437. 

FN6  THIS QUESTION HAS ARISEN MOST FREQUENTLY IN THE APPLICATION OF
STATE LAWS MAKING IT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE FOR PERSONS OF DIFFERENT RACES
TO LIVE TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE.  SEE E.G., STATE V. BELL, 7
BAXT.  (TENN.)  9.  THAT CASE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AS A HOLDING THAT
"WITHOUT DENYING THE VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE IN ANOTHER STATE, THE
PRIVILEGES FLOWING FROM MARRIAGE MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL LAW." 
YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202, 218.  SEE ALSO GREENHOW V.
JAMES, 80 VA. 636.  CF. PEARSON V. PEARSON, 51 CAL. 120; STATE V. ROSS,
76 N.C. 242; WHITTINGTON V. MCCASKILL, 65 FLA. 162, 61 SO. 236. 

FN7  SEE E.G., FOY V. SMITH'S ESTATE, 58 NEV. 371, 81 P.2D 1065;
DWYER V. NOLAN, 40 WASH. 459, 82 P. 746, 1 L.R.A.N.S. 551; CHAPMAN V.
CHAPMAN, 224 MASS. 427, 113 N.E. 359; MATTER OF BINGHAM, 265 APP. DIV.
463, 39 N.Y.S.2D 756; MOYER V. KOONTZ, 103 WIS. 22, 79 N.W. 50;
LEATHERS V. STEWART, 108 ME. 96, 79 A. 16, ANN. CAS. 1913B, 366, 369
372; KIRSCHNER V. DIETRICH, 110 CAL. 502, 42 P. 1064; SCHOULER DIVORCE
MANUAL, 588-590. 

FN8  HERE TOO WE APPROACH THE DOMAIN WHERE THE LINE MAY BE SHADOWY
BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TO CHOOSE AND KEEP THEIR OWN
ASSOCIATES AND THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PRESCRIBE WHO SHALL BE THEIR
MOST INTIMATE ASSOCIATES.  PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY DO NOT "BELONG" TO
THE STATE.  LE MESURIER V. LE MESURIER, (1895) A.C. 517.  OUR
CONSTITUTION PRESERVES AN AREA OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM WHICH THE STATE
HAS NO RIGHT TO ABRIDGE.  THE FLAVOR OF THE COURT'S OPINION IS THAT A
STATE HAS SUPREME POWER TO CONTROL ITS DOMICILIARIES' CONDUCT WHEREVER
THEY GO AND THAT THE STATE MAY PROHIBIT THEM FROM GETTING A DIVORCE IN
ANOTHER STATE.  IN THIS ASPECT THE DECISION IS NOT CONFINED TO A
HOLDING WHICH RELATES TO STATE AS OPPOSED TO FEDERAL RIGHTS.  IT
CONTAINS A RESTRICTION OF INDIVIDUAL AS OPPOSED TO STATE RIGHTS.  SEE
RADIN, SUPRA, 28-32. 

FN9  GRAY V. BRIGNARDELLO, 1 WALL.  627, 634; COLVIN V. COLVIN, 2
PAIGE (N.Y.)  385; HARPER, THE MYTH OF THE VOID DIVORCE, 2 LAW AND
CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, 335; THE VALIDITY OF VOID DIVORCES, 79 U. PA. L.
REV. 158; TAINTER, RESTITUTION OF PROPERTY TRANSFERRED UNDER VOID OR
LATER REVERSED JUDGMENTS, 9 MISS.  L.J. 157. 

FN10  THE NEVADA COURT HAD GENERAL JURISDICTION TO GRANT DIVORCES,
AND THE COMPLAINT WAS REQUIRED TO ALLEGE DOMICILE ALONG WITH THE OTHER
REQUISITE ALLEGATIONS.  DOMICILE IS AS MUCH AN INTEGRAL ELEMENT IN THE
LITIGATION AS THE PROOF OF CRUELTY OR ANY OF THE OTHER STATUTORY
GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE IN NEVADA.  LABELING DOMICILE AS "JURISDICTIONAL"
DOES NOT MAKE IT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT WAS BEFORE.  SINCE THE NEVADA
COURT HAD NO POWER TO RENDER A DIVORCE WITHOUT PROOF OF FACTS OTHER
THAN DOMICILE, THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THIS COURT, UNDER ITS
EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, FROM LABELING THESE
OTHER FACTS AS "JURISDICTIONAL" AND TAKING MORE STATE POWERS INTO THE
FEDERAL JUDICIAL ORBIT.  BOTH THESE TYPES OF FACTS, HOWEVER LABELED,
WERE PART OF THE CONTROVERSY WHICH THE NEVADA LEGISLATURE GAVE ITS
COURTS POWER TO RESOLVE.  THE STATE COULD LABEL THEM "JURISDICTIONAL"
AND, HAVING THE EXCLUSIVE POWER TO GRANT DIVORCES, COULD ATTACH SUCH
CONSEQUENCES TO THEM AS IT SEES FIT.  BUT, WHILE CONGRESS MIGHT, UNDER
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, PRESCRIBE THE "EFFECT" IN OTHER
STATES, OF DECREES BASED ON THE FINDING, I DO NOT THINK THE FEDERAL
COURTS CAN, BY THEIR MERE LABEL, ATTACH JURISDICTIONAL CONSEQUENCES TO
THE STATE'S REQUIREMENT OF DOMICILE.  HENCE, I THINK THE QUOTED
STATEMENT FROM THE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CASE SHOULD CONTROL THIS CASE. 

FN11  STREITWOLF V. STREITWOLF, 181 U.S. 179, DECIDED THE SAME DAY AS
BELL V. BELL, HELD A NORTH DAKOTA DIVORCE DECREE INVALID.  THAT HOLDING
DID NOT REST ON ANY "FEDERAL CONCEPT OF DOMICILE," BUT ON THE FACT THAT
NORTH DAKOTA LAW REQUIRED "A DOMICILE IN GOOD FAITH  ...  FOR NINETY
DAYS AS A PREREQUISITE TO JURISDICTION OF A CASE OF DIVORCE." 

FN12  ANDREWS V. ANDREWS DID NOT ASSERT THAT ANY PARTICULAR FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION MADE DOMICILE A STATE JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENT IN DIVORCE CASES.  IT EMPHASIZED STATE AND COMMON LAW
CONCEPTS OF DOMICILE AND A STATE'S POWER OVER ITS "INHABITANTS."  THIS
EMPHASIS LED THE COURT TO PERMIT MASSACHUSETTS TO INVALIDATE A SOUTH
DAKOTA DIVORCE DECREE, EVEN THOUGH BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE HAD APPEARED
IN THE SOUTH DAKOTA COURT.  CF. DAVIS V. DAVIS, SUPRA.  MASSACHUSETTS
HAD A STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITED ITS "INHABITANTS" FROM GOING INTO
ANOTHER STATE TO GET A DIVORCE ON ACCOUNT OF CONDUCT WHICH OCCURRED IN
MASSACHUSETTS, OR FOR CONDUCT WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORIZED A DIVORCE
UNDER MASSACHUSETTS LAW.  THIS STATUTE OBVIOUSLY RESTED ON A HYPOTHESIS
THAT EACH STATE POSSESSES THESE SWEEPING POWERS OVER INDIVIDUALS:  (1)
POWER TO MAKE IT A CRIME FOR ITS INHABITANTS TO GO TO ANOTHER STATE TO
ENGAGE IN CONDUCT WHICH MIGHT BE LAWFUL THERE; (2) POWER TO PUNISH AN
INHABITANT WHO WENT INTO ANOTHER STATE AND ENGAGED IN CONDUCT IN
HARMONY WITH THAT STATE'S LAWS.  IF NORTH CAROLINA HAS ATTEMPTED TO
IMPOSE SUCH SWEEPING STATUTORY PROHIBITION UPON ITS INHABITANTS, IT HAS
NOT BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION.  IN ITS ABSENCE THE ANDREWS DECISION
GIVES NO SUPPORT TO THE OPINION AND JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE. 

FN13  WRIGHT V. WRIGHT'S LESSEE, 2 MD. 429, 453; CRANE V. MEGINNIS, 1
G. & J. REP. (MD.)  463; DWYER V. NOLAN, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO OWENS V.
CLAYTOR, 56 MD. 129; 2 SCHOULER, MARRIAGE, DIVORCE AND SEPARATION,
SIXTH EDITION, PARS. 1471-1473; VALIDITY OF LEGISLATIVE DIVORCE, 18
L.R.A. 95. 

FN14  FOR AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF SHIFTING
DIVORCES FROM THE LEGISLATURES TO THE COURTS, TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE
PATTERN OF ADVERSARY CONTROVERSIES, SEE MARSHALL AND MAY, SUPRA, CHAP.
VI, THE MIRAGE OF JUDICIAL CONTROVERSY.  FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PERTINENT
DISCUSSIONS SEE SAME, 338-341. 

FN15  THE ANSWER IS THAT, BY REASON OF TODAY'S DECISION, NO PERSON
CAN EXERCISE ANY RIGHT WHATEVER UNDER AN UNCONTESTED DIVORCE DECREE
WITHOUT SUBJECTING HIMSELF TO POSSIBLE PENITENTIARY PUNISHMENT.  "TO
MAKE THE ENJOYMENT OF A RIGHT DEPENDENT UPON AN IMPOSSIBLE CONDITION IS
EQUIVALENT TO AN ABSOLUTE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT UNDER ANY CONDITION, AND
SUCH DENIAL, ENFORCED FOR A PAST ACT, IS NOTHING LESS THAN PUNISHMENT
IMPOSED FOR THAT ACT."  CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277, 327.  THE
"CONDITION" HERE, THAT A DIVORCED PERSON CANNOT REMARRY WITHOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF BEING SUBJECTED TO REPEATED PROSECUTIONS IN ALL THE
STATES WHERE HE LIVES AS A MARRIED PERSON, WOULD SEEM TO RANK AS "AN
IMPOSSIBLE CONDITION."  IF, THEREFORE, THE COURT'S OBJECT IS TO MAKE
DIVORCES DANGEROUS, ITS OBJECT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.  I THINK DIVORCE
POLICY IS THE BUSINESS OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR LEGISLATURES - NOT THAT
OF THIS COURT. 

FN16  CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391.  SEE
ALSO YU CONG ENG V. TRINIDAD, 271 U.S. 500, 518; UNITED STATES V. COHEN
GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81, 89-93; LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451;
SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553; SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 91;
CF. NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 377 WITH CLINE V. FRINK DAIRY
CO., 274 U.S. 445, 457, 463-464. 

FN17  SEE E.G., PEOPLE V. MORLEY, 72 COLO. 421, 211 P. 643; HOLBROOK
V. PRICHARD MOTOR CO., 27 GA. APP. 480, 109 S.E. 164; ST. GEORGE'S
SOCIETY V. SAWYER, 204 IOWA 103, 214 N.W. 877; STATE V. LA FOLLETTE,
100 ORE.  1, 196 P. 412. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :













ESENWEIN V. COMMONWEALTH, 325 U.S. 279 


NO. 20.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 13, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  - 348
PA. 455, 35 A.2D 335, AFFIRMED. 


1.  RELYING UPON A NEVADA DIVORCE DECREE, PETITIONER APPLIED TO A
PENNSYLVANIA COURT FOR REVOCATION OF AN ORDER FOR THE SUPPORT OF HIS
WIFE.  THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED.  HELD THAT, UPON THE RECORD, THE
PENNSYLVANIA COURT WAS WARRANTED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT
HAVE A BONA FIDE DOMICIL IN NEVADA WHEN HE OBTAINED HIS DECREE OF
DIVORCE; AND THE NEVADA DIVORCE DECREE THEREFORE WAS NOT DENIED THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, ANTE, P. 226.  P. 280. 

2.  THE CLAIM THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS DID NOT AFFORD THE
PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE QUESTION OF DOMICIL IS
WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD.  P. 281. 

ESENWEIN V. COMMONWEALTH EX REL. ESENWEIN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 725, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH SUSTAINED THE
DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR REVOCATION OF AN ORDER FOR THE
SUPPORT OF HIS WIFE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE SAME PROBLEM AS THAT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN
WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, ANTE, P. 226.  THERE ARE MINOR VARIATIONS
OF FACT, BUT THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH CONTROLLED THE RESULT IN THE
WILLIAMS CASE GOVERN THIS. 

PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT WERE MARRIED IN PENNSYLVANIA IN 1899.  THEY
SEPARATED IN 1919 BUT CONTINUED TO LIVE THERE.  THE WIFE, RESPONDENT,
OBTAINED A SUPPORT ORDER IN THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS WHICH WAS MODIFIED
FROM TIME TO TIME.  TWICE THE PETITIONER SOUGHT A DIVORCE IN
PENNSYLVANIA AND FAILED.  IN 1941 HE WENT TO NEVADA, ARRIVING AT LAS
VEGAS ON JUNE 23RD.  SIX WEEKS LATER, PROMPTLY WITHIN THE MINIMUM
PERIOD ALLOWED BY NEVADA LAW, HE THERE FILED A SUIT FOR DIVORCE.  IT
WAS GRANTED SEPTEMBER 8TH.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER, EARLY IN OCTOBER, HE
LEFT NEVADA AND TOOK UP HIS RESIDENCE IN CLEVELAND, OHIO, WHERE HE MADE
HIS HOME.  ON FEBRUARY 1, 1943 PETITIONER FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE
THE COUNTY COURT FOR ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, FOR TOTAL RELIEF
FROM THE SUPPORT ORDER.  HE DID SO ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IN
WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, WHICH HAD BEEN DECIDED ON
DECEMBER 21, 1942.  EXEMPLIFIED COPIES OF THE NEVADA PROCEEDINGS, WITH
OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE, WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY COURT, WHICH,
AFTER ARGUMENT, DENIED THE APPLICATION.  ITS DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE SUPERIOR COURT ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE A BONA
FIDE DOMICIL IN NEVADA WHEN HE OBTAINED HIS DECREE OF DIVORCE.  153 PA.
SUPER.  69, 33 A.2D 675.  THIS WAS SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, 348 PA. 455, 35 A.2D 335, AND WE THEN GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  322 U.S. 725. 

SINCE, ACCORDING TO PENNSYLVANIA LAW, A SUPPORT ORDER DOES NOT
SURVIVE DIVORCE, COMMONWEALTH V. PARKER, 59 PA. SUPER.  74;
COMMONWEALTH V. KURNIKER, 96 PA. SUPER.  553, THE EFFICACY OF THE
NEVADA DIVORCE IN PENNSYLVANIA IS THE DECISIVE QUESTION IN THE CASE. 
THE FACTS RELATING TO DOMICIL ARE NOT ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
SET FORTH IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, ANTE, P. 226, EXCEPT THAT
PETITIONER, INSTEAD OF STAYING IN AN AUTO COURT, LIVED IN A HOTEL AND
DID NOT RETURN TO PENNSYLVANIA, HIS DOMICILIARY STATE BEFORE HE CAME TO
NEVADA, BUT WENT TO OHIO. 

THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE PLACED THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS UNDER
DUTY TO ACCORD PRIMA FACIE VALIDITY TO THE NEVADA DECREE.  THE BURDEN
IS ON THE LITIGANT WHO WOULD ESCAPE THE OPERATION OF A JUDGMENT DECREED
IN ANOTHER STATE.  PENNSYLVANIA RECOGNIZED THAT BURDEN, BUT ITS COURTS
WERE WARRANTED IN FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT SUSTAINED HER BURDEN OF
IMPEACHING THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEVADA DECREE ON THE JURISDICTIONAL
PREREQUISITE OF BONA FIDE DOMICIL.  THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT
RIGHTLY INDICATED THAT IF MERELY THE NEVADA DECREE HAD BEEN IN
EVIDENCE, IT WAS ENTITLED TO CARRY THE DAY.  BUT THE SUPREME COURT
FOUND THAT ON THE ENTIRE SHOWING THERE WAS CONVINCING COUNTERVAILING
EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE PETITIONER'S INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A DOMICIL IN
NEVADA.  THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS HAVE VIEWED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY
CORRECTLY.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO RETRY THE FACTS, AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT
IN REACHING THEIR CONCLUSION THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS DID NOT HAVE
WARRANT IN EVIDENCE AND DID NOT FAIRLY WEIGH THE FACTS. 

PETITIONER MAKES A SUBSIDIARY CLAIM WHICH NEED NOT DETAIN US LONG. 
HE ASSERTS THAT HE HAD NO NOTICE THAT THE NEVADA DOMICIL WAS TO BE PUT
IN ISSUE, AND THAT THEREFORE IT WAS UNFAIR TO DECIDE THAT QUESTION ON
THIS RECORD.  HE POINTS TO THE FACT THAT FOR ITS DECISION THE COUNTY
COURT RELIED ON THE PENNSYLVANIA DENIALS OF DIVORCE AS RES JUDICATA,
WHEREAS THE APPELLATE COURTS RESTED THEIR DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE OF
DOMICIL.  SINCE THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE BASIS OF THIS CLAIM, WE
ARE RELIEVED FROM CONSIDERING ITS LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.  THE ISSUE OF
DOMICIL WAS APPROPRIATELY PLEADED IN DEFENSE, IT WAS CONTESTED AT THE
TRIAL, AND BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT PETITIONER FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEF ON THAT ISSUE.  A CLAIM OF DEPRIVATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD
ON THE QUESTION OF DOMICIL BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS IS WITHOUT
MERIT.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND A BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE PROBLEM OF MARITAL CAPACITY AND THE PROBLEM OF SUPPORT. 

WE HELD IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, THAT A NEVADA
DIVORCE DECREE GRANTED TO A SPOUSE DOMICILED THERE WAS ENTITLED TO FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT IN NORTH CAROLINA.  THAT CASE INVOLVED THE QUESTION OF
MARITAL CAPACITY.  THE SPOUSE WHO OBTAINED THE NEVADA DECREE WAS BEING
PROSECUTED IN NORTH CAROLINA FOR LIVING WITH THE ONE WOMAN WHOM NEVADA
RECOGNIZED AS HIS LAWFUL WIFE.  QUITE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS WOULD
HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IF NORTH CAROLINA HAD MERELY SOUGHT TO COMPEL THE
HUSBAND TO SUPPORT HIS DESERTED WIFE AND CHILDREN, WHETHER THE NEVADA
DECREE HAD MADE NO PROVISION FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE FORMER WIFE AND
CHILDREN OR HAD PROVIDED AN AMOUNT DEEMED INSUFFICIENT BY NORTH
CAROLINA.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS NOT APPARENT THAT THE SPOUSE WHO
OBTAINED THE DECREE CAN DEFEAT AN ACTION FOR MAINTENANCE OR SUPPORT IN
ANOTHER STATE BY SHOWING THAT HE WAS DOMICILED IN THE STATE WHICH
AWARDED HIM THE DIVORCE DECREE.  IT IS ONE THING IF THE SPOUSE FROM
WHOM THE DECREE OF DIVORCE IS OBTAINED APPEARS OR IS PERSONALLY
SERVED.  SEE YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202; DAVIS V. DAVIS,
305 U.S. 32.  BUT I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT IN ABSENCE OF AN APPEARANCE
OR PERSONAL SERVICE THE DECREE NEED BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WHEN
IT COMES TO MAINTENANCE OR SUPPORT OF THE OTHER SPOUSE OR THE
CHILDREN.  SEE PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714.  THE PROBLEM UNDER THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS TO ACCOMMODATE AS FULLY AS POSSIBLE THE
CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF THE TWO STATES.  SEE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V.
HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 447(DISSENTING OPINION).  THE QUESTION OF MARITAL
CAPACITY WILL OFTEN RAISE AN IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
POLICIES OF THE TWO STATES.  SEE WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA.
ONE MUST GIVE WAY IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF THE FEDERAL UNION.  BUT THE
SAME CONFLICT IS NOT NECESSARILY PRESENT WHEN IT COMES TO MAINTENANCE
OR SUPPORT.  THE STATE WHERE THE DESERTED WIFE IS DOMICILED HAS A DEEP
CONCERN IN THE WELFARE OF THE FAMILY DESERTED BY THE HEAD OF THE
HOUSEHOLD.  IF HE IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT HIS FORMER WIFE, HE IS NOT
MADE A BIGAMIST AND THE OFFSPRING OF HIS SECOND MARRIAGE ARE NOT
BASTARDIZED.  IN THAT VIEW PENNSYLVANIA IN THIS CASE MIGHT REFUSE TO
ALTER ITS FORMER ORDER OF SUPPORT OR MIGHT ENLARGE IT, EVEN THOUGH
NEVADA IN WHICH THE OTHER SPOUSE WAS DOMICILED AND OBTAINED HIS DIVORCE
MADE A DIFFERENT PROVISION FOR SUPPORT OR NONE AT ALL.  SEE RADIN, THE
AUTHENTICATED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, 39 ILL. L. REV. 1, 28. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS WHICH I HAVE EXPRESSED IN WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, ANTE, P. 226, I DO NOT THINK FULL FAITH AND CREDIT HAVE
BEEN GIVEN BY THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS TO THE NEVADA DECREE IN THIS
CASE.  BUT UPON THE BASIS OF THE COURT'S DECISION IN THAT CASE, MADE
APPLICABLE ALSO IN THIS ONE, I CONCUR IN THE RESULT.  IN DOING SO,
HOWEVER, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO INDICATE MY AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED IN THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS THAT THE
JURISDICTIONAL FOUNDATION FOR A DECREE IN ONE STATE CAPABLE OF
FORECLOSING AN ACTION FOR MAINTENANCE OR SUPPORT IN ANOTHER MAY BE
DIFFERENT FROM THAT REQUIRED TO ALTER MARITAL STATUS WITH
EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT. 
..END :









COMM'R V. ESTATE OF BEDFORD, 325 U.S. 283 


NO. 710.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
272, REVERSED. 


1.  A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT WAS FILED WITHIN THREE
MONTHS AFTER "ENTRY" OF THE "JUDGMENT," AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 8 OF THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, WHEN FILED WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE DATE
OF THAT COURT'S "ORDER FOR MANDATE," THOUGH MORE THAN THREE MONTHS
AFTER THE DATE OF THE "OPINION."  P. 287. 

2.  A DISTRIBUTION OF CASH OUT OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF A
CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO A RECAPITALIZATION WHICH WAS A REORGANIZATION
AS DEFINED BY SEC. 112(G) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, HELD TO HAVE HAD
THE "EFFECT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF A TAXABLE DIVIDEND" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 112(C)(2), AND TO BE TAXABLE IN FULL UNDER THAT SECTION
AND NOT AS A CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SEC. 112(C)(1).  P. 290. 

3.  THE RESULT HERE IS THE SAME WHETHER THE CASE BE TREATED AS ONE OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, OR
AS ONE WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE OF DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER.  P. 292. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. ESTATE OF BEDFORD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 707, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A DECISION
OF THE TAX COURT, 1 T.C. 478, WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AT THE THRESHOLD, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS CHALLENGED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS NOT FILED
WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER "ENTRY" OF THE "JUDGMENT" BELOW AS REQUIRED
BY THE JUDICIARY ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925.  FN1 

THE STEPS BY WHICH THE CASE CAME HERE ARE THESE.  ON AUGUST 8, 1944,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT FILED A DOCUMENT
ENTITLED "OPINION"; ON THE SAME DAY, THE CLERK MADE A DOCKET ENTRY
READING, "ORDER REVERSED, A. N. HAND, C.J."; ON AUGUST 29, 1944, A
DOCUMENT ENTITLED "ORDER FOR MANDATE" WAS FILED, AND THE MANDATE ISSUED
THAT DAY; ON NOVEMBER 29, 1944, THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS
FILED.  THE PETITION WAS FILED TOO LATE IF THE "OPINION," AS RESPONDENT
CONTENDS, CONSTITUTES THE "JUDGMENT."  IT WAS FILED IN TIME IF THE
"ORDER FOR MANDATE" MAY PROPERLY BE DEEMED THE "JUDGMENT."  THE ISSUE
WAS ABLY PRESSED BEFORE US, AND, SINCE IT CONCERNS OUR POWER TO REVIEW
CASES COMING FROM WHAT IS PERHAPS THE BUSIEST CIRCUIT, IT CALLS FOR
MORE THAN SUMMARY TREATMENT. 

EVEN LONG CONTINUED PRACTICE CANNOT ALTER THE LIMITS WITHIN WHICH
CONGRESS HAD BOUND THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  SEE DEPT.
OF BANKING V. PINK, 317 U.S. 264.  BUT SUCH PRACTICE MAY BE DECISIVE IN
INTERPRETING PROCEDURAL WAYS WHICH, AS A MATTER OF DIALECTIC OR
ABSTRACT ANALYSIS, MAY APPEAR DUBIOUS.  WE ARE NATURALLY IMPRESSED BY
THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING THAT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT THE SO-CALLED "ORDER FOR MANDATE" IS DEEMED THE
JUDGMENT.  ROBERTSON AND KIRKHAM, JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES (1936) SEC. 384.  WE HAVE TAKEN AND DECIDED AS A
MATTER OF COURSE A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH CERTIORARI WAS
SOUGHT WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER ENTRY OF THE "ORDER FOR MANDATE" BUT
NOT WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE "OPINION."  FN2  THIS PRACTICAL
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE, FOR APPELLATE PURPOSES,
OF THE "ORDER FOR MANDATE" IS SUPPORTED AND CERTAINLY NOT CONTRADICTED
BY ALL THAT IS CONVEYED BY THE "OPINION" AND "ORDER FOR MANDATE" AND
THE RULES OF THE LOWER COURT. 

IT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE "OPINION" AS AN OPINION THAT IN ITS
HEADING IT GIVES AS DATES "ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1944.  DECIDED AUGUST 8,
1944," AND THAT IT CONCLUDES WITH "THE ORDER OF THE TAX COURT IS
REVERSED."  THE SAME OR SIMILAR PHRASES ARE COMMONLY EMPLOYED IN
OPINIONS OF THIS COURT WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR CHARACTER AS OPINIONS. 
NOR DO LIKE PHRASES IN THE OPINIONS OF THE OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS TURN THEM INTO JUDGMENTS, SINCE IN ALL OTHER CIRCUITS JUDGMENT
ORDERS ARE SEPARATELY FILED.  IN SPITE OF ITS TITLE, THE "ORDER FOR
MANDATE" ON ITS FACE FULFILLS THE FUNCTION OF SUCH A JUDGMENT ORDER. 
IT RECITES THAT "IT IS NOW HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT
THE ORDER OF SAID THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BE AND IT HEREBY
IS REVERSED. 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A MANDATE ISSUE TO THE SAID THE TAX COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DECREE. 

                                    ALEXANDER M. BELL,

                                                  CLERK. 

                                 BY A. DANIEL FUSARO,

                                       DEPUTY CLERK." 

THIS LANGUAGE PLAINLY IMPORTS THAT THIS IS THE JUDGMENT AND THAT IT
IS THEN BEING RENDERED.  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THE ORDER WAS PREPARED
BY THE CLERK AND BEARS HIS SIGNATURE DETRACT FROM ITS QUALITY AS A
JUDGMENT.  A JUDGMENT "IS THE ACT OF THE COURT," EX PARTE MORGAN, 114
U.S. 174, 175, EVEN THOUGH A CLERK DOES ALL OF THE MINISTERIAL ACTS, AS
HERE, IN CONFORMITY WITH HIS COURT'S STANDING INSTRUCTIONS. 

THE RULES OF THE COURT BELOW GOVERNING OPINIONS, REHEARINGS, ISSUANCE
OF MANDATE AND STAY OF MANDATE ARE INVOKED TO SHOW THAT THE "OPINION"
IS THE APPEALABLE "JUDGMENT."  THESE RULES, LIKE OTHER RULES, ARE NOT
PHRASED WITH SUCH FASTIDIOUS PRECISION AS TO MAKE OF ALL THE PARTS A
PERFECT HARMONY.  BUT WHILE SUBSTANTIAL DEBATING POINTS MAY BE TAKEN,
FN3  NOTHING IN THESE RULES CONTRADICTS THE NATURAL MEANING YIELDED BY
THE TERMS OF THE "OPINION" AND THE "ORDER FOR MANDATE," AS REFLECTED IN
THE PRACTICE OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT AND IN OUR OWN, WHICH TREATS NOT THE
"OPINION" BUT THE "ORDER FOR MANDATE" AS THE ORDER OF JUDGMENT.  THE
RULES WOULD HAVE TO BE FAR LESS ARTISTIC THAN THEY ARE TO WARRANT US IN
HOLDING THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS CONSISTENTLY
MISINTERPRETED SOME OF ITS OWN RULES.  WHETHER THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN
OPINION AND ITS ENTRY IN THE DOCKET AMOUNTS TO A JUDGMENT FOR PURPOSES
OF APPEAL OR WHETHER THAT MUST AWAIT SOME LATER FORMAL ACT, OUGHT NOT
TO BE DECIDED ON NICE-SPUN ARGUMENTATION IN DISREGARD OF THE JUDICIAL
HABITS OF THE COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT IS CALLED INTO QUESTION, OF THE BAR
PRACTISING BEFORE IT, OF THE CLERK WHO EMBODIES ITS PROCEDURAL
TRADITIONS, AS WELL AS IN CONFLICT WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF THE REVIEWING
COURT. 

BUT NOW THAT THE EXISTING PRACTICE HAS REVEALED ABSTRACT
DISHARMONIES, IF NOT DIFFICULTIES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL
DOUBTLESS ESTABLISH A MORE TIDY SYSTEM FOR MEETING THE TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW HERE.  THE NORMAL TIME FOR ENTERING A JUDGMENT,
AS THE STARTING POINT FOR DETERMINING WHETHER REVIEW WILL BE SOUGHT OR
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ACQUIESCENCE IN A JUDGMENT, SHOULD BE FIXED. 
THE UNCERTAINTIES INHERENT IN LITIGATION SHOULD NOT BE NEEDLESSLY
PROLONGED.  THE ENTRY OF THE "ORDER FOR MANDATE," WHICH IN THE SECOND
CIRCUIT BEINGS THE RUNNING OF THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL, IS APPARENTLY
VARIABLE AND VAGRANT.  IN THESE DAYS OF RAPID COMMUNICATION, THE
STATUTORY ALLOWANCE OF THREE MONTHS IS MORE THAN AMPLE FOR AN
UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO SEEK FURTHER REVIEW.  SO
LONG A PERIOD OUGHT NOT TO BE EXTENDED BY DELAY IN ENTERING A JUDGMENT
NOR SHOULD THE BURDEN OF SECURING SUCH ENTRY BE PUT UPON THE SUCCESSFUL
LITIGANT.  THERE ARE BOUND TO BE DIVERSITIES IN THE MODES OF RENDERING
AND RECORDING JUDGMENTS OF THE FORTY-EIGHT SYSTEMS OF STATE COURTS. 
UNIFORMITY IN THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AMONG THE ELEVEN CIRCUITS FORMING
THE SINGLE FEDERAL JUDICATURE OUGHT TO BE CAPABLE OF ACHIEVEMENT
WITHOUT LOSS TO THE GEOGRAPHIC FLEXIBILITY OF THE SYSTEM. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE MERITS, WHICH INVOLVE THE VALIDITY OF AN INCOME
TAX DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT FOR 1937.  THE CASE IS THIS.  THE ESTATE OF
EDWARD T. BEDFORD, WHO DIED MAY 21, 1931, INCLUDED 3,000 SHARES OF
CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK (PAR VALUE $100) OF ABERCROMBIE & FITCH
COMPANY.  PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF RECAPITALIZATION RESPONDENT, AS
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE, IN 1937 EXCHANGED THOSE SHARES FOR 3,500 SHARES
OF CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK (PAR VALUE $75), 1,500 SHARES OF COMMON
STOCK (PAR VALUE $1), AND $45,240 IN CASH (ON THE BASIS OF $15.08 FOR
EACH OF THE OLD PREFERRED SHARES).  THE RECAPITALIZATION HAD BEEN
PROPOSED BECAUSE THE COMPANY, AFTER CHARGING AGAINST ITS SURPLUS
ACCOUNT STOCK DIVIDENDS TOTALING $844,100, DISTRIBUTED IN 1920, 1928,
AND 1930, HAD INCURRED A BOOK DEFICIT IN THAT ACCOUNT OF $399,771.87. 
BECAUSE OF THIS DEFICIT, THE COMPANY, UNDER APPLICABLE STATE LAW, WAS
UNABLE TO PAY DIVIDENDS ALTHOUGH FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JANUARY 31,
1937 IT HAD NET EARNINGS OF $309,073.70. 

BY COMPARING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE OLD PREFERRED SHARES AT THE
DATE OF BEDFORD'S DEATH WITH THE MARKET VALUE OF THE NEW STOCK AND CASH
RECEIVED THE GAIN TO HIS ESTATE WAS $139,740.  ADMITTEDLY THE
RECAPITALIZATION WAS A REORGANIZATION, SEC. 112(G)(1)(D) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1648, 1681, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 112(G)(1)(E), SO THAT
ONLY THE CASH RECEIVED, BUT NONE OF THE STOCK, IS TAXABLE.  SECTIONS
112(B)(3), 112(C)(1), 49 STAT. 1648, 1679, 1680, 26 U.S.C. SECS.
112(B)(3), 112(C)(1).  THE SOLE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE CASH, $45,240, IS
TAXABLE AS A DIVIDEND, OR MERELY AS A CAPITAL GAIN TO THE EXTENT OF
40%.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER
THAT THE CASH WAS TAXABLE AS A DIVIDEND, 1 T.C. 478, BUT WAS REVERSED
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  144 F.2D 272.  ON A SHOWING OF
IMPORTANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE ACTS, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  323 U.S. 707. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DISTRIBUTION OF CASH IN THIS
RECAPITALIZATION "HAS THE EFFECT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF A TAXABLE
DIVIDEND" UNDER SEC. 112(C)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 AND AS SUCH
IS FULLY TAXABLE, OR IS TAXABLE ONLY AT THE RATE OF 40% AS A CAPITAL
GAIN UNDER SEC. 112(C)(1) OF THAT ACT.  THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS READ:
"(C) GAIN FROM EXCHANGES NOT SOLELY IN KIND.  - (1)  IF AN EXCHANGE
WOULD BE WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B)(1), (2), (3), OR (5)
OF THIS SECTION IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY RECEIVED
IN EXCHANGE CONSISTS NOT ONLY OF PROPERTY PERMITTED BY SUCH PARAGRAPH
TO BE RECEIVED WITHOUT THE RECOGNITION OF GAIN, BUT ALSO OF OTHER
PROPERTY OR MONTY, THEN THE GAIN, IF ANY, TO THE RECIPIENT SHALL BE
RECOGNIZED, BUT IN AN AMOUNT NOT IN EXCESS OF THE SUM OF SUCH MONEY AND
THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH OTHER PROPERTY.  (2)  IF A DISTRIBUTION
MADE IN PURSUANCE OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION IS WITHIN THE PROVISIONS
OF PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION BUT HAS THE EFFECT OF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF A TAXABLE DIVIDEND, THEN THERE SHALL BE TAXED AS A
DIVIDEND TO EACH DISTRIBUTEE SUCH AN AMOUNT OF THE GAIN RECOGNIZED
UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) AS IS NOT IN EXCESS OF HIS RATABLE SHARE OF THE
UNDISTRIBUTED EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE CORPORATION ACCUMULATED AFTER
FEBRUARY 28, 1913.  THE REMAINDER, IF ANY, OF THE GAIN RECOGNIZED UNDER
PARAGRAPH (1) SHALL BE TAXED AS A GAIN FROM THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY." 

THE HISTORY OF THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT ILLUMINATING.  SECTION
112(C)(2) ORIGINATED IN SEC. 203(D)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924, 43
STAT. 253, 257.  BUT THE REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES MERELY
USE THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION TO EXPLAIN IT.  H. REP. NO. 179, 68TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 14-15; S. REP. NO. 398, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
PP. 15-16.  NOR DOES THE APPLICABLE TREASURY REGULATION ADD ANYTHING;
IT REPEATS SUBSTANTIALLY THE COMMITTEE REPORTS.  TREAS. REG. 94, ART.
112(G)-4.  WE ARE THROWN BACK UPON THE LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE FOR
ASCERTAINING THE MEANING WHICH WILL BEST ACCORD WITH THE AIMS OF THE
LANGUAGE, THE PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW AND RELEVANT JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION. 

ALTHOUGH ABERCROMBIE & FITCH SHOWED A BOOK DEFICIT IN THE SURPLUS
ACCOUNT BECAUSE THE EARLIER STOCK DIVIDENDS HAD BEEN CHARGED AGAINST
IT, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT FOR CORPORATE TAX PURPOSES AT LEAST EARNINGS
AND PROFITS EXCEEDING THE DISTRIBUTED CASH HAD BEEN EARNED AT THE TIME
OF THE RECAPITALIZATION.  THAT CASH THEREFORE CAME OUT OF EARNINGS AND
PROFITS AND SUCH A DISTRIBUTION WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED A TAXABLE
DIVIDEND, SEE SEC. 115(A),  FN4  AND HAS SO BEEN TREATED BY THE COURTS
IN SEEMINGLY SIMILAR SITUATIONS.  IT HAS BEEN RULED IN A SERIES OF
CASES THAT WHERE THE STOCK OF ONE CORPORATION WAS EXCHANGED FOR THE
STOCK OF ANOTHER AND CASH AND THEN DISTRIBUTED, SUCH DISTRIBUTIONS OUT
OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS HAD THE EFFECT OF A DISTRIBUTION OF A TAXABLE
DIVIDEND UNDER SEC. 112(C)(2).  COMM'R V. OWENS, 69 F.2D 597; COMM'R V.
FORHAN REALTY CORP., 75 F.2D 268; ROSE V. LITTLE INVESTMENT CO., 86
F.2D 50; LOVE V. COMM'R, 113 F.2D 236; CAMPBELL V. UNITED STATES, 144
F.2D 177.  THE TAX COURT HAS REACHED THE SAME RESULT, THAT IS, HAS
TREATED THE DISTRIBUTION AS A TAXABLE DIVIDEND, IN THE CASE OF THE
RECAPITALIZATION OF A SINGLE CORPORATION.  MCCORD V. COMM'R, 31 B.T.A.
342, 344; J. WEINGARTEN, INC. V. COMM'R, 44 B.T.A. 798, 808-809; KNAPP
MONARCH CO. V. COMM'R, 1 T.C. 59, 69-70, AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 139
F.2D 863.  WE CANNOT DISTINGUISH THE TWO SITUATIONS AND FIND NO
IMPLICATION IN THE STATUTE RESTRICTING SEC. 112(C)(2) TO TAXATION AS A
DIVIDEND ONLY IN THE CASE OF AN EXCHANGE OF STOCK AND ASSETS OF TWO
CORPORATIONS. 

RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, CLAIMS THAT THIS DISTRIBUTION MORE NEARLY HAS
THE EFFECT OF A "PARTIAL LIQUIDATION" AS DEFINED IN SEC. 115(I).  FN5
BUT THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF SEC. 115, WHICH GOVERNS "DISTRIBUTIONS OF
CORPORATIONS" APART FROM REORGANIZATIONS, WERE ADOPTED FOR ANOTHER
PURPOSE.  THEY DO NOT APPLY TO A SITUATION ARISING WITHIN SEC. 112. 
THE DEFINITION OF A "PARTIAL LIQUIDATION" IN SEC. 115(I) IS
SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO USE IN SEC. 115.  TO ATTEMPT TO CARRY IT OVER
TO SEC. 112 WOULD DISTORT ITS PURPOSE.  THAT LIMITATION IS NOT TRUE OF
SEC. 115(A) WHICH DEFINES "DIVIDEND" FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE WHOLE
TITLE.  ACCORDINGLY, THIS DEFINITION IS INFUSED INTO SEC. 112(C)(2). 
UNDER SEC. 115(A) A DISTRIBUTION OUT OF ACCUMULATED EARNINGS AND
PROFITS IS A "DIVIDEND," THUS CONFIRMING THE CONCLUSION THAT A
DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS HAS THE "EFFECT OF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF A TAXABLE DIVIDEND" UNDER SEC. 112(C)(2). 
RECAPITALIZATION DOES NOT ALTER THE "EFFECT."  ALTHOUGH THE CAPITAL OF
A COMPANY IS REDUCED, THE CASH RECEIVED IS A DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS
AND PROFITS AND AS SUCH FALLS WITHIN THE FEDERAL TAX.  THAT THE
COMPANY'S TREATMENT OF ITS STOCK DIVIDENDS MAY BRING CONSEQUENCES UNDER
STATE LAW REQUIRING A CAPITAL REDUCTION DOES NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF
THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH BRING THEM WITHIN THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX. 
RECAPITALIZATION IS ONE OF THE FORMS OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
112(G)(1)(D).  IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE URGED AS A REASON FOR TAKING THE
TRANSACTION OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 112 AND FORCING IT INTO THE
MOLD OF SEC. 115.  THE REDUCTION OF CAPITAL BRINGS SEC. 112 INTO
OPERATION AND DOES NOT GIVE IMMUNITY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
112(C)(2). 

TREATING THE MATTER AS A PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION FOR OUR
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, WE HOLD THAT A DISTRIBUTION, PURSUANT TO A
REORGANIZATION, OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS "HAS THE EFFECT OF A
DISTRIBUTION OF A TAXABLE DIVIDEND" WITHIN SEC. 112(C)(2).  AS IS TRUE
OF OTHER TEASING QUESTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION RAISED BY TECHNICAL
PROVISIONS OF REVENUE ACTS THE MATTER IS NOT WHOLLY FREE FROM DOUBT. 
BUT THESE DOUBTS WOULD HAVE TO BE STRONGER THAN THEY ARE TO DISPLACE
THE INFORMED VIEWS OF THE TAX COURT.  AND IF THE CASE CAN BE REDUCED TO
ITS OWN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES RATHER THAN TURN ON A GENERALIZING
PRINCIPLE WE SHOULD FEEL BOUND TO APPLY DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320
U.S. 489, AND SUSTAIN THE TAX COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  8(A).  THAT NO WRIT OF ERROR, APPEAL, OR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, INTENDED TO BRING ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT FOR REVIEW SHALL BE ALLOWED OR ENTERTAINED UNLESS APPLICATION
THEREFOR BE DULY MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF SUCH
JUDGMENT OR DECREE, EXCEPTING THAT WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY BE GRANTED WHERE APPLICATION
THEREFOR IS MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS:  PROVIDED, THAT FOR GOOD CAUSE
SHOWN EITHER OF SUCH PERIODS FOR APPLYING FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MAY
BE EXTENDED NOT EXCEEDING SIXTY DAYS BY A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT."  43 STAT. 936, 940, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 350. 

FN2  DURING THE 1941, 1942 AND 1943 TERMS, THIS COURT ENTERTAINED
REVIEWS AND AFFIRMED JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT IN NOT LESS THAN TEN SUCH CASES: COMMERCIAL MOLASSES
CORP. V. N.Y. BARGE CORP., 314 U.S. 104; NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 315
U.S. 510; MOTHER LODE CO. V. COMM'R, 317 U.S. 222; SMITH V.
SHAUGHNESSY, 318 U.S. 176; HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371; EMIL
V. HANLEY, 318 U.S. 515; FISHER CO. V. WITMARK & SONS, 318 U.S. 643;
EQUITABLE SOCIETY V. COMM'R, 321 U.S. 560; MEDO CORP. V. LABOR BOARD,
321 U.S. 678; UNITED STATES EX REL. BRENSILBER V. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL
CO., 320 U.S. 711(EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT). 

FN3  RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE RULES OF THE COURT BELOW, WITH
RESPECT TO THE OPINIONS OF THE COURT, REHEARINGS, ISSUANCE OF MANDATE,
AND STAY OF MANDATE, SHOW THAT THE "OPINION" IS MEANT TO CONSTITUTE THE
COURT'S JUDGMENT.  BUT THESE RULES COMPUTE TIME, WITH RESPECT TO FILING
OF PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND FOR ISSUANCE OF MANDATE, NOT FROM ENTRY
OF A "JUDGMENT" BUT FROM THE "FILING OF THE OPINION OF THIS COURT." 
SOME DIFFICULTY IS RAISED BECAUSE RULE 27 REFUSES A REHEARING "UNLESS A
JUDGE WHO CONCURRED IN THE JUDGMENT DESIRES IT."  ALSO RESPONDENT FINDS
IT PARADOXICAL TO "STAY" THE COURT'S MANDATE UNDER RULE 30 WHEN THE
MANDATE IS CUSTOMARILY ISSUED ON THE SAME DAY THE "ORDER FOR MANDATE"
IS FILED.  AND RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE COURT COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO
CONFER UPON ITS CLERK DISCRETION TO HOLD UP, FOR VARYING LENGTHS OF
TIME, THE RENDERING OF A JUDGMENT UNTIL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE
PREVAILING PARTY.  IN THIS CASE THE "ORDER FOR MANDATE" AND ISSUANCE OF
THE MANDATE WERE DELAYED FOR TWENTY-ONE DAYS, AND WERE NOT ENTERED
WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE FILING OF THE OPINION WHICH RULE 30 AND
THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRE; THE TIME HAS BEEN VARIOUSLY EXTENDED
IN OTHER CASES. 

FN4  "(A).  DEFINITION OF DIVIDEND.  - THE TERM 'DIVIDEND' WHEN USED
IN THIS TITLE (EXCEPT IN SECTION 203(A)(3) AND SECTION 207(C)(1),
RELATING TO INSURANCE COMPANIES) MEANS ANY DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A
CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS, WHETHER IN MONEY OR IN OTHER PROPERTY,
(1) OUT OF ITS EARNINGS OR PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913,
OR (2) OUT OF THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR (COMPUTED AS
OF THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR WITHOUT DIMINUTION BY REASON OF ANY
DISTRIBUTIONS MADE DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR), WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
AMOUNT OF THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS AT THE TIME THE DISTRIBUTION WAS
MADE." 

FN5 "(I).  DEFINITION OF PARTIAL LIQUIDATION.  - AS USED IN THIS
DISTRIBUTION BY A CORPORATION IN COMPLETE CANCELLATION OR REDEMPTION OF
A PART OF ITS STOCK, OR ONE OF A SERIES OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN COMPLETE
CANCELLATION OR REDEMPTION OF ALL OR A PORTION OF ITS STOCK." 
..END :













ANGELUS MILLING CO. V. COMM'R, 325 U.S. 293 


NO. 610.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 8, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
469, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, BY INVESTIGATING THE MERITS OF A
CLAIM FOR REFUND OF PROCESSING TAXES PAID UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, HAD WAIVED COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF
TREASURY REGULATIONS AS TO THE FORM OF THE CLAIM; AND THE CLAIM WAS
THEREFORE PROPERLY REJECTED.  P. 297. 

2.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF TREASURY REGULATIONS AS TO THE INFORMATION
WHICH SHALL BE CONTAINED IN THE CLAIM FOR REFUND WERE NOT SATISFIED
EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM OF THE TAXPAYER TOGETHER WITH THAT OF ANOTHER
MIGHT HAVE FURNISHED THE REQUIRED DATA.  P. 299. 

ANGELUS MILLING CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 703, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE TAX COURT, 1 T.C. 1031, DISMISSING A PROCEEDING FOR REFUND OF A
PROCESSING TAX PAID UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT UNDER TITLE VII OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT.
1948, 1747, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 644 ET SEQ., FOR A REFUND OF PROCESSING TAXES
PAID UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933.  THE PROBLEM OF THE
CASE DERIVES FROM THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF A CLAIM FOR SUCH A
REFUND. 

THE PETITIONER, ANGELUS MILLING COMPANY, KNOWN UNTIL JUNE, 1933 AS
THE MIDDLEPORT FLOUR MILLS, INC., WAS A PROCESSOR OF WHEAT, WITH ITS
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK.  DURING THE YEARS FOR
WHICH THE REFUND IS CLAIMED - 1933 TO 1936 - ITS PROCESSING OPERATIONS
WERE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THOSE OF THE NIAGARA FALLS MILLING
COMPANY.  THE TWO COMPANIES HAD THE SAME OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND
MAJORITY STOCKHOLDER, AND A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT.  THEY ALSO HAD A COMMON
SET OF BOOKS, BUT THE RESPECTIVE TRANSACTIONS OF THE TWO COMPANIES -
PURCHASES, COSTS OF MANUFACTURE, SALES - WERE ENTERED IN THEIR SEPARATE
ACCOUNTS ON THE BOOKS.  BETWEEN JULY 9, 1933, AND JANUARY 31, 1935, THE
COMPANIES FILED JOINT PROCESSING TAX RETURNS.  BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1,
1935, AND NOVEMBER 30, 1935, NIAGARA FILED RETURNS IN ITS NAME ON
BEHALF OF ITSELF AND PETITIONER. 

AFTER UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, INVALIDATED THE PROCESSING
TAX, THREE CLAIMS WERE FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER ON JUNE 22, 1936,
ALL STATING THE NAME OF THE TAXPAYER AND CLAIMANT AS "NIAGARA FALLS
MILLING CO., INC. AND/OR MIDDLEPORT FLOUR MILLS, INC."  EACH OF THESE
CLAIMS IS FOR ONLY PART OF THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE TAX WAS PAID,
AND THEIR TOTAL IS $434,045.27.  ADMITTEDLY THE FORM OF THESE CLAIMS
DID NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE  FN1 OR THE AUTHORIZED
TREASURY REGULATIONS.  FN2  THEY WERE FILED ON AN OLD FORM 843 AND NOT
ON THE REQUIRED FORM P.T. 79.  WHILE THESE CLAIMS WERE STILL
UNDETERMINED, NIAGARA, ON JUNE 30, 1937, FILED A CLAIM IN THE SUM OF
$436,231.73.  THIS CLAIM WAS IN DUE FORM BUT WAS FILED BY NIAGARA ON
ITS OWN BEHALF ALONE.  THEREAFTER, ON AUGUST 15, 1938, PETITIONER FILED
A CLAIM, DESIGNATED "AMENDMENT TO CLAIM," FOR ITSELF ALONE FOR THE
REFUND OF $145,839.12.  WHILE THIS CLAIM WAS SUBMITTED ON FORM P.T. 79,
IT FAILED TO GIVE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE FORM AND THE
REGULATIONS, CONTAINING MERELY AN APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN ANGELUS AND
NIAGARA OF THE THREE EARLIER CLAIMS.  AN ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT STATED THAT
THIS CLAIM "WAS ORIGINALLY FILED ON THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 1936 IN THE
NAME OF THE NIAGARA FALLS MILLING COMPANY AND/OR MIDDLEPORT FLOUR
MILLS, INC."  THE COMMISSIONER, ON MAY 23, 1941, DENIED THIS CLAIM. 

TO REVIEW THIS DISALLOWANCE, PETITIONER BROUGHT PROCEEDINGS IN THE
UNITED STATES PROCESSING TAX BOARD OF REVIEW.  A MOTION TO DISMISS,
BECAUSE OF A FATAL DEFECT IN THE CLAIM, WAS DENIED BY THE BOARD, BUT
THE COMMISSIONER IN HIS ANSWER STOOD ON HIS GROUND THAT THE BOARD WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PROCEEDINGS.  AT THIS STAGE IN
THE LITIGATION CONGRESS ABOLISHED THE PROCESSING TAX BOARD OF REVIEW
AND TRANSFERRED ITS JURISDICTION TO THE PRESENT TAX COURT.  THAT COURT
GRANTED THE COMMISSIONER'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS, 1 T.C. 1031, AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  144 F.2D
469.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 323 U.S. 703, BECAUSE CONFLICT WAS
URGED WITH THE DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288
U.S. 62.  FN3 

PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR RECOVERING PROCESSING TAXES PAID BY IT WAS
PROPERLY REJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER IF IT DID NOT SATISFY THE
CONDITIONS WHICH CONGRESS DIRECTLY AND THROUGH THE RULE-MAKING POWER
GIVEN TO THE TREASURY LAID DOWN AS A PREREQUISITE FOR SUCH REFUND. 
INSOFAR AS CONGRESS HAS MADE EXPLICIT STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THEY MUST
BE OBSERVED AND ARE BEYOND THE DISPENSING POWER OF TREASURY OFFICIALS. 
TUCKER V. ALEXANDER, 275 U.S. 228, 231-232; UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS
COTTON OIL CO., 288 U.S. 62, 71; UNITED STATES V. GARBUTT OIL CO., 302
U.S. 528, 533.  WITHOUT NEEDLESS ELABORATION, WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS
NOTHING IN WHAT CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY COMMANDED TO BAR THE CLAIM. 
THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THESE MODERN COMPLICATED REVENUE
MEASURES INESCAPABLY LEADS CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE DETAILED
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.  HE
MAY INSIST UPON FULL COMPLIANCE WITH HIS REGULATIONS.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., SUPRA, AT 71; COMMISSIONER V. LANE
WELLS CO., 321 U.S. 219, 223-224.  IT IS HARDLY CONTENDED THAT THE
CONFUSING SERIES OF PETITIONER'S CLAIMS WHICH WE HAVE SUMMARIZED,
WHETHER SINGLY OR IN CONJUNCTION, OBEYED THE REGULATIONS.  FOR SUCH
DEFAULT THE COMMISSIONER COULD HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIMS OUT OF HAND. 
HE DID NOT DO THAT, AND BY WHAT HE DID DO HE HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE
CONTENTION THAT HE WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF HIS REGULATIONS.  THE
BASIS OF THIS CLAIM OF WAIVER IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER THROUGH HIS
AGENTS DISPENSED WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF A CLAIM BY
INVESTIGATING ITS MERITS. 

CANDOR DOES NOT PERMIT ONE TO SAY THAT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER
TO WAIVE DEFECTS IN CLAIMS FOR REFUND IS A SUBJECT MADE CRYSTAL-CLEAR
BY THE AUTHORITIES.  THE QUESTION HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED BY
CASES INVOLVING AMENDMENTS OF CLAIM.  THUS, IN UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS
COTTON OIL CO., SUPRA, A CLAIMANT'S AMENDMENT WAS ALLOWED BECAUSE FILED
BEFORE HIS ORIGINAL CLAIM WAS REJECTED ON FORMAL GROUNDS.  ACCORDING TO
WHAT WAS THERE SAID, THERE CAN BE NO AMENDMENT AFTER A REJECTION THOUGH
THE COMMISSIONER HAD EXAMINED THE CLAIMANT'S BOOKS AND TENTATIVELY
FOUND AN OVERPAYMENT.  SEE EDWARDS V. MALLEY, 109 F.2D 640; 10 MERTENS,
LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1942) SEC. 58.19.  IT SMACKS TOO MUCH
OF THE STRANGLING NICETIES OF COMMON LAW PLEADING TO FIND NO EXISTING
CLAIM TO WHICH A CURATIVE AMENDMENT MAY BE ATTACHED, ALTHOUGH THERE HAS
BEEN AN EXAMINATION OF THE MERITS, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR
REJECTION OF A FORMALLY DEFECTIVE CLAIM AND YET FIND WAIVER OF A FORMAL
DEFECT MERELY BECAUSE AN EXAMINATION OF THE MERITS BY THE COMMISSIONER
MANIFESTS CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM. 

TREASURY REGULATIONS ARE CALCULATED TO AVOID DILATORY, CARELESS, AND
WASTEFUL FISCAL ADMINISTRATION BY BARRING INCOMPLETE OR CONFUSING
CLAIMS.  TUCKER V. ALEXANDER, SUPRA, AT 231; COMMISSIONER V. LANE-WELLS
CO., SUPRA, AT 223-224.  BUT CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE TREASURY THIS RULE
MAKING POWER FOR SELF-PROTECTION AND NOT FOR SELF-IMPRISONMENT.  IF THE
COMMISSIONER CHOOSES NOT TO STAND ON HIS OWN FORMAL OR DETAILED
REQUIREMENTS, IT WOULD BE MAKING AN EMPTY ABSTRACTION, AND NOT A
PRACTICAL SAFEGUARD, OF A REGULATION TO ALLOW THE COMMISSIONER TO
INVOKE TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS AFTER HE HAS INVESTIGATED THE MERITS OF A
CLAIM AND TAKEN ACTION UPON IT.  EVEN TAX ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT AS A
MATTER OF PRINCIPLE PRECLUDE CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS. 

SINCE, HOWEVER, THE TIGHT NET WHICH THE TREASURY REGULATIONS FASHION
IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE REVENUE, COURTS SHOULD NOT UNDULY HELP
DISOBEDIENT REFUND CLAIMANTS TO SLIP THROUGH IT.  THE SHOWING SHOULD BE
UNMISTAKABLE THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS IN FACT SEEN FIT TO DISPENSE
WITH HIS FORMAL REQUIREMENTS AND TO EXAMINE THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM. 
IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT IN SOME ROUNDABOUT WAY THE FACTS SUPPORTING THE
CLAIM MAY HAVE REACHED HIM.  THE COMMISSIONER'S ATTENTION SHOULD HAVE
BEEN FOCUSED ON THE MERITS OF THE PARTICULAR DISPUTE.  THE EVIDENCE
SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSIONER UNDERSTOOD THE SPECIFIC CLAIM
THAT WAS MADE EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A DEPARTURE FROM FORM IN ITS
SUBMISSION.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE PETITIONER HAS MADE OUT SUCH A
CASE HERE. 

THE EVIDENCE OF WAIVER LARGELY RESTS UPON A LETTER FROM A GENERAL
DEPUTY COLLECTOR REQUESTING AN EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN BOOKS, AND UPON
AFFIDAVITS OF TWO ACCOUNTANTS, ONE AN OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE COMMISSIONER EXAMINED PETITIONER'S BOOKS IN ORDER TO
CONSIDER THE CLAIM.  WE AGREE WITH THE TAX COURT THAT THE EVIDENCE IS
INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH WAIVER.  THE LETTER FROM THE GENERAL DEPUTY
COLLECTOR REQUESTING PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT TO ALLOW EXAMINATION OF THE
"RECORDS OF THE MIDDLEPORT FLOUR MILLS, INC., AND ANGELUS FLOUR MILLS,
INC." WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CLAIM WHICH HAD BEEN FILED BY THE
NIAGARA MILLING COMPANY.  IN VIEW OF THE CONFUSING IDENTITY OF INTEREST
OF THE TWO COMPANIES, IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE TO ATTRIBUTE THIS INQUIRY,
AS DID THE TAX COURT, TO NIAGARA'S CLAIM AND NOT TO PETITIONER'S.  FOR
SIMILAR REASONS, THE AFFIDAVITS REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF THE
COMMISSIONER'S REPRESENTATIVES BEAR INTERPRETATION OF A LIKE
SIGNIFICANCE. 

IN THE MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CASE, WHERE AN AMENDMENT WAS ALLOWED OUT OF
TIME, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AFTER AN AUDIT OF THE TAXPAYER'S BOOKS,
NOTIFIED THE TAXPAYER IN WRITING THAT ITS REFUND CLAIMS HAD BEEN
CONSIDERED AND THAT ITS TAXES HAD BEEN READJUSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A
PROVEN OVERASSESSMENT.  SIMILAR EVIDENCE OF PREOCCUPATION BY THE
COMMISSIONER WITH THE PARTICULAR CLAIM AND CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN OFFERED
IN CASES WHERE WAIVER WAS RECOGNIZED.  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V.
ELGIN WATCH CO., 66 F.2D 344; UNITED STATES V. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING
CO., 69 F.2D 214; WEIHMAN V. UNITED STATES, 4 F.SUPP.  155.  TO BE
SURE, IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WAIVER THAT THE
COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATE HIS RULING ON THE MERITS TO THE TAXPAYER.  BUT
IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EXPLICITNESS THE IMPLICATION THAT FORMAL
REQUIREMENTS WERE DISPENSED WITH SHOULD NOT BE TENUOUSLY
ARGUMENTATIVE.  NO MORE THAN THAT CAN BE SQUEEZED OUT OF THE MATERIALS
IN THIS RECORD.  THUS IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OFFERED A
REFUND, SUBJECT TO OFFSETS, TO THE NIAGARA FALLS MILLING COMPANY.  BUT
THIS RATHER CONFIRMS THE INDICATION THE COMMISSIONER WAS BENT ON
NIAGARA'S CLAIM.  THE COMMISSIONER MAY HAVE ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE OF
PETITIONER'S AFFAIRS BUT ONLY BY THE WAY, INCIDENTALLY TO HIS
INVESTIGATION OF NIAGARA'S CLAIMS.  PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SUSTAIN
HIS BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE COMMISSIONER, BY EXAMINING THE FACTS OF
PETITIONER'S CLAIM IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE MERITS, DISPENSED WITH THE
EXACTIONS OF THE REGULATIONS. 

AN ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER NEED NOT DETAIN US LONG.  IT
URGES THAT TAKING THE CLAIMS FILED BY NIAGARA AND PETITIONER TOGETHER,
THEY FURNISH ALL THE DATA REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS.  BUT IT IS NOT
ENOUGH THAT SOMEWHERE UNDER THE COMMISSIONER'S ROOF IS THE INFORMATION
WHICH MIGHT ENABLE HIM TO PASS ON A CLAIM FOR REFUND.  THE PROTECTION
OF THE REVENUE AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSIONER TO DEMAND INFORMATION IN A
PARTICULAR FORM, AND HE IS ENTITLED TO INSIST THAT THE FORM BE OBSERVED
SO AS TO ADVISE HIM EXPEDITIOUSLY AND ACCURATELY OF THE TRUE NATURE OF
THE CLAIM.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 903 OF TITLE VII OF THE 1936 REVENUE ACT, 49 STAT. 1648,
1747, REQUIRES THAT NO REFUND BE MADE OR ALLOWED "UNLESS  ...  A CLAIM
FOR REFUND HAS BEEN FILED  ...  IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY.  ALL
EVIDENCE RELIED UPON IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM SHALL BE CLEARLY SET
FORTH UNDER OATH." 

FN2  THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS PROVIDE FOR THE MAKING OF CLAIMS ON
PRESCRIBED FORMS, PRESENTATION OF THE GROUNDS URGED, AND SUBMISSION OF
EVIDENCE, ETC.  TREAS. REG. 96, ARTS. 201, 202, 601, 603, 605, 606. 
THE ONLY INFORMATION FURNISHED IN THESE CLAIMS IS THE NAME AND ADDRESS
OF THE JOINT CLAIMANTS, AND A STATEMENT OF THE DATES AND AMOUNTS OF THE
TAX PAYMENTS MADE BY THE NIAGARA MILLING COMPANY. 

FN3  AFTER WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE, THE SAME QUESTION OF
TIMELINESS AS TO FILING OF THE PETITION EMERGED AS IS RAISED IN
COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF BEDFORD, ANTE, P. 283.  THE DECISION IN THE
BEDFORD CASE GOVERNS THIS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :









FINN V. MEIGHAN, 325 U.S. 300 


NO. 953.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  - 146 F.2D
594, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 70(B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED, WHICH SEC. 102
MAKES APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER X, AUTHORIZES ENFORCEMENT
OF AN EXPRESS COVENANT PROVIDING FOR TERMINATION OF THE LEASE UPON
APPROVAL OF A PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X FOR REORGANIZATION OF THE
LESSEE.  P. 302. 

2.  A PROVISION OF A LEASE AUTHORIZING FORFEITURE "IF THE TENANT
SHALL BE ADJUDGED BANKRUPT OR INSOLVENT BY ANY COURT," HELD OPERATIVE
UPON APPROVAL OF A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION OF THE TENANT UNDER
CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 303. 

3.  SINCE THE COVENANT HERE PROVIDES FOR FORFEITURE UPON AN
ADJUDICATION OF INSOLVENCY "BY ANY COURT," IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS
LIMITED TO AN ADJUDICATION OF INSOLVENCY BY NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE
DEBTOR AND CREDITOR LAW.  P. 304. 

FINN, TRUSTEE, V. MEIGHAN, SUBSTITUTED TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 324 U.S. 834, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT ADJUDGING THE
TERMINATION OF A LEASE HELD BY THE DEBTOR. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CHILDS COMPANY OPERATES A CHAIN OF RESTAURANTS.  IN AUGUST 1943 IT
FILED A VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER CH. X OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (52 STAT. 885, 886, 11 U.S.C. SECS. 526, 530) ALLEGING
THAT IT WAS UNABLE TO PAY ITS DEBTS AS THEY MATURED.  THE PETITION WAS
APPROVED AND PETITIONER WAS APPOINTED TRUSTEE OF THE DEBTOR.  CHILDS
COMPANY HAD BEEN LESSEE OF, AND HAD OPERATED A RESTAURANT ON, CERTAIN
PREMISES IN NEW YORK CITY FOR OVER FORTY YEARS.  ITS PRESENT LEASE IS
FOR A TERM OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS ENDING IN 1947.  THAT LEASE CONTAINS THE
FOLLOWING PROVISION: 

"THE TENANT COVENANTS THAT  ...  IF A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY SHALL BE
FILED BY THE TENANT OR IF THE TENANT SHALL BE ADJUDGED BANKRUPT OR
INSOLVENT BY ANY COURT, OR IF A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE TENANT
SHALL BE APPOINTED IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST THE
TENANT, THEN AND IN EACH AND EVERY SUCH CASE, THE TERM HEREBY GRANTED
SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE, DETERMINE AND COME TO AN END, AND THE LANDLORD
MAY RECOVER AND RESUME POSSESSION OF THE DEMISED PREMISES BY ANY LEGAL
MEANS." 

IN MAY 1944 PETITIONER ADVISED THE LESSOR THAT IT DESIRED TO ASSUME
THE LEASE.  RESPONDENT REPLIED THAT THE LEASE HAD CEASED AND COME TO AN
END BY VIRTUE OF THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  THEREAFTER, RESPONDENT
PETITIONED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR AN ORDER ADJUDGING THAT THE TERM
GRANTED BY THE LEASE HAD TERMINATED.  THE COURT GRANTED THE RELIEF
ASKED BY THE PETITION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  146
F.2D 594.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DOES NOT LOOK WITH FAVOR UPON FORFEITURE CLAUSES
IN LEASES.  THEY ARE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF THE BANKRUPT
LESSEE SO AS NOT TO DEPRIVE THE ESTATE OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY TURN OUT
TO BE A VALUABLE ASSET.  GAZLAY V. WILLIAMS, 210 U.S. 41; MODEL DAIRY
CO. V. FOLTIS-FISCHER, 67 F.2D 704, 706.  BUT AN EXPRESS COVENANT OF
FORFEITURE HAS LONG BEEN HELD TO BE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE BANKRUPTCY
TRUSTEE.  EMPRESS THEATRE CO. V. HORTON, 266 F. 657; JANDREW V. BOUCHE,
29 F.2D 346.  AND THE 1938 REVISION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT MADE NO
CHANGE IN THAT REGARD.  CONGRESS GRANTED THE TRUSTEE SIXTY DAYS (UNLESS
REDUCED OR EXTENDED) IN WHICH TO ASSUME OR REJECT A LEASE.  SEC. 70(B)
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 110(B).  BUT AT THE
SAME TIME, CONGRESS PROVIDED:  "A GENERAL COVENANT OR CONDITION IN A
LEASE THAT IT SHALL NOT BE ASSIGNED SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT
THE TRUSTEE FROM ASSUMING THE SAME AT HIS ELECTION AND SUBSEQUENTLY
ASSIGNING THE SAME; BUT AN EXPRESS COVENANT THAT AN ASSIGNMENT BY
OPERATION OF LAW OR THE BANKRUPTCY OF A SPECIFIED PARTY THERETO OR OF
EITHER PARTY SHALL TERMINATE THE LEASE OR GIVE THE OTHER PARTY AN
ELECTION TO TERMINATE THE SAME SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE."  THIS PROVISION
WAS MERELY DECLARATORY OF THE LAW AS IT THEN EXISTED.  FN1 

THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION, HOWEVER, THAT THAT PROVISION IS APPLICABLE
ONLY IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS AND NOT TO REORGANIZATIONS
UNDER CH. X. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT FREQUENTLY THE VALUE OF ENTERPRISES
IS GREATLY ENHANCED BY LEASES ON STRATEGIC PREMISES AND THAT IF
FORFEITURE CLAUSES WERE ALLOWED TO BE ENFORCED, REORGANIZATION PLANS
MIGHT BE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED.  BUT CONGRESS HAS MADE THE FORFEITURE
PROVISION OF SEC. 70 APPLICABLE TO REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER CH.
X. BY SEC. 102(11 U.S.C. SEC. 502) IT PROVIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
CH. VII (WHICH INCLUDES SEC. 70) SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS
UNDER CH. X "INSOFAR AS THEY ARE NOT INCONSISTENT OR IN CONFLICT WITH
THE PROVISIONS" OF THAT CHAPTER.  FN2  MOREOVER, CONGRESS PROVIDED IN
SEC. 102 THAT "PROVISIONS RELATING TO 'BANKRUPTS' SHALL BE DEEMED TO
RELATE ALSO TO 'DEBTORS,' AND 'BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS' OR 'PROCEEDINGS
IN BANKRUPTCY' SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS
CHAPTER."  THUS WE MUST READ SEC. 70(B) AS PROVIDING THAT AN EXPRESS
COVENANT IS ENFORCEABLE WHICH ALLOWS THE LESSOR TO TERMINATE THE LEASE
IF A PETITION TO REORGANIZE THE LESSEE UNDER CH. X IS APPROVED.  CF. IN
RE WALKER, 93 F.2D 281.  THAT BEING THE POLICY ADOPTED BY CONGRESS, OUR
DUTY IS TO ENFORCE IT. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THIS LEASE SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED. 
THERE IS TO BE A FORFEITURE "IF THE TENANT SHALL BE ADJUDGED BANKRUPT
OR INSOLVENT BY ANY COURT."  IT IS SAID THAT "INSOLVENT" IS USED
INTERCHANGEABLY WITH "BANKRUPT."  BUT IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD THAT A
GENERAL ASSIGNMENT IS AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY WHETHER OR NOT THE DEBTOR IS
INSOLVENT.  WEST CO. V. LEA, 174 U.S. 590.  THUS IT WOULD SEEM THAT
"ADJUDGED BANKRUPT" AND "ADJUDGED INSOLVENT" DO NOT COVER PRECISELY THE
SAME GROUND.  MOREOVER, INSOLVENCY IN THE EQUITY SENSE HAS ALWAYS MEANT
AN INABILITY OF THE DEBTOR TO PAY HIS DEBTS AS THEY MATURE.  FN3 UNDER
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IT MEANS AN INSUFFICIENCY OF ASSETS AT A FAIR
VALUATION TO PAY THE DEBTS.  SEC. 1(19), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 1(19).  IT WAS
LONG THE PRACTICE TO INITIATE REORGANIZATIONS IN THE FEDERAL EQUITY
COURTS BY THE FILING OF A GENERAL CREDITOR'S BILL WHICH ALLEGED
INSOLVENCY IN THE EQUITY SENSE.  FN4  THERE WOULD ACCORDINGLY SEEM TO
BE NO DOUBT THAT IF A RECEIVER WERE APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SUCH A BILL,
IT WOULD BRING INTO OPERATION AN EXPRESS COVENANT PROVIDING FOR A
FORFEITURE OF A LEASE "IF THE TENANT SHALL BE ADJUDGED INSOLVENT BY ANY
COURT."  NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY THE SAME RESULT SHOULD NOT OBTAIN IN
CASES OF REORGANIZATION UNDER CH. X. 

WE DO NOT BELIEVE A DIFFERENT RESULT IS INDICATED IN THIS CASE MERELY
BECAUSE THE PROVISION FOR FORFEITURE ON ADJUDICATION OF INSOLVENCY
APPEARS IN A PARAGRAPH OTHERWISE EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED TO THE CONTINGENCY
OF BANKRUPTCY.  PETITIONER RELIES ON THE NEW YORK DEBTOR AND CREDITOR
LAW, CONSOL.  L., C. 12, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE DISCHARGE OF INSOLVENT
DEBTORS IN PROCEEDINGS IN THE NEW YORK COURTS.  SECS. 50-88.  IT IS
SAID THAT INSOLVENCY UNDER THAT STATUTE MEANS INSOLVENCY IN THE
BANKRUPTCY SENSE (SEC. 52) AND THAT THE COVENANT IN QUESTION WAS DRAWN
SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A FORFEITURE IN THE EVENT OF SUCH AN
ADJUDICATION.  BUT AS WE HAVE SAID, THE COVENANT IN THIS LEASE PROVIDES
FOR FORFEITURE ON AN ADJUDICATION OF INSOLVENCY "BY ANY COURT."  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE IN THAT LANGUAGE A LIMITATION OF THE COVENANT TO AN
ADJUDICATION OF INSOLVENCY BY THE NEW YORK COURTS UNDER THE DEBTOR AND
CREDITOR LAW.  FN5  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED. 1942), PP. 1239-1241;
WEINSTEIN, THE BANKRUPTCY LAW OF 1938, P. 159 

FN2  AND SEE SECS. 114 AND 115.  AS RESPECTS THE REJECTION OR
ASSUMPTION OF LEASES UNDER CH. X SEE SECS. 116(1), 202, 216(4).  CF. IN
RE CHASE COMMISSARY CORP., 11 F.SUPP.  288. 

FN3  GLENN, CREDITORS' RIGHTS AND REMEDIES (1915), SEC. 370. 

FN4  RE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY RECEIVERSHIP, 208 U.S. 90; 1 GERDES,
CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS (1936) SECS. 13, 19.  PART VIII, REPORT ON
THE STUDY AND INVESTIGATION OF PROTECTIVE AND REORGANIZATION
COMMITTEES, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (1940), PP. 24 ET SEQ. 

FN5  THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK LAW DEALING WITH INSOLVENCY
COMMONLY DEFINE IT AS AN INABILITY TO PAY DEBTS AS THEY MATURE.  THE
NEW YORK AUTHORITIES ARE REVIEWED BY JUDGE KNOX IN IN RE SCHULTE RETAIL
STORES CORP., 22 F.SUPP.  612, 616. 
..END :










CHASE SECURITIES CORP. V. DONALDSON, 325 U.S. 304 


NO. 110.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  - 216
MINN. 269, 13 N.W.2D 1, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON THE RECORD OF THIS SUIT TO RECOVER THE PURCHASE PRICE OF
SECURITIES SOLD IN VIOLATION OF THE MINNESOTA BLUE SKY LAW AND ON
MISREPRESENTATIONS, THE DEFENDANT'S IMMUNITY FROM SUIT CAN NOT BE SAID
TO HAVE BEEN FINALLY ADJUDICATED BY THE STATE COURTS PRIOR TO THE
LEGISLATURE'S ENACTMENT OF AN ACT WHICH OPERATED TO ABOLISH ANY DEFENSE
THAT THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE HAD UNDER THE STATE STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS, AND THE ACT THEREFORE DID NOT DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  FOLLOWING CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115 U.S. 620.  P. 310. 

2.  THE ESSENTIAL HOLDING IN CAMPBELL V. HOLT - THAT WHERE LAPSE OF
TIME HAS NOT INVESTED A PARTY WITH TITLE TO REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY,
A STATE LEGISLATURE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, MAY
REPEAL OR EXTEND A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EVEN AFTER RIGHT OF ACTION
IS BARRED THEREBY, RESTORE TO THE PLAINTIFF HIS REMEDY, AND DIVEST THE
DEFENDANT OF THE STATUTORY BAR - SO FAR AS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE, IS
SOUND AND SHOULD NOT BE OVERRULED.  PP. 311, 315. 

3.  THE ACT IN QUESTION WAS A GENERAL ONE, APPLYING TO ALL SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSONS OR TRANSACTIONS, AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 309, N. 5. 

4.  THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY OF
LEGISLATORS AS TO THE INTENT OF THE ACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 309, N. 5. 

CHASE SECURITIES CORP., NOW KNOWN AS AMEREX HOLDING CORP., V.
DONALDSON ET AL., EXECUTORS. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE
STATUTE IN A SUIT TO RECOVER THE PURCHASE PRICE OF SECURITIES SOLD TO
THE PLAINTIFF. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA ATTACKS
AS VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A PROVISION OF THE MINNESOTA
STATUTES ENACTED AS PART OF A GENERAL REVISION OF THE MINNESOTA
SECURITIES OR BLUE SKY LAW.  ITS EFFECT UPON APPELLANT WAS TO LIFT THE
BAR OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A PENDING LITIGATION, WHICH
APPELLANT CONTENDS AMOUNTS TO TAKING ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN STATE COURT IN NOVEMBER, 1937, TO RECOVER
THE PURCHASE PRICE OF "CHASE UNITS," SOLD BY APPELLANT IN MINNESOTA TO
THE APPELLEES' TESTATE AUGUST 10, 1929.  THE "UNITS" HAD NOT BEEN
REGISTERED AS REQUIRED BY THE LAWS OF THAT STATE.  THE ACTION WAS BASED
IN PART ON ILLEGALITY OF THE SALE, BUT IT ALSO WAS GROUNDED ON COMMON
LAW FRAUD AND DECEIT.  DEFENDANT RELIED AMONG OTHER DEFENSES ON THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  PLAINTIFF COUNTERED THAT THE RUNNING OF THE
STATUTE HAD BEEN SUSPENDED BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THE
STATE AND THE STATUTE DID NOT RUN DURING ITS ABSENCE.  THE CASE WAS
TRIED BY THE COURT WITHOUT A JURY.  IT FOUND THAT THERE WAS A SALE IN
VIOLATION OF THE BLUE SKY LAW, THAT THE MINNESOTA 6-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS APPLYING TO ACTIONS "UPON A LIABILITY CREATED BY STATUTE"
GOVERNED THE CASE BUT HAD BEEN TOLLED BY WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPELLANT
FROM THE STATE IN 1931.  JUDGMENT WAS THEREFORE RENDERED FOR THE
PURCHASE PRICE ADJUSTED FOR INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS AND THE COURT FOUND
IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS ON THE FRAUD ISSUES. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA REVERSED.  FN1  IT HELD BY REFERENCE
TO A COMPANION CASE FN2 THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD NOT BEEN
TOLLED BY THE APPELLANT'S ABSENCE FROM THE STATE BECAUSE IT HAD
DESIGNATED AGENTS TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS AFTER ITS DEPARTURE AS
REQUIRED BY STATUTE.  THE CASE WAS REMANDED ON JANUARY 10, 1941 WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON "ISSUES OTHER THAN THAT OF THE
TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS." 

WHILE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN THE LOWER COURT, THE LEGISLATURE
ENACTED A STATUTE, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1941, WHICH AMENDED THE BLUE SKY
LAW IN MANY PARTICULARS NOT PERTINENT HERE.  THE SECTION IN QUESTION
ADDED A SPECIFIC STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS BASED ON
VIOLATIONS OF THE BLUE SKY LAW  FN3  AS TO WHICH THERE HAD BEEN NO
PROVISION EXCEPT A GENERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  UNDER THE FORMER
LAW THE LIMITATION ON ACTIONS FOR FRAUD DID NOT COMMENCE TO RUN UNTIL
ITS DISCOVERY.  UNDER THE NEW LAW, ACTIONS FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE NON
REGISTRATION OR FOR MISREPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING REGISTRATION, OR FOR
FALSITY OF REPRESENTATIONS IMPLIED FROM THE FACT OF SALE, ALL OF WHICH
GROUNDS WERE SET UP IN THIS ACTION, MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN SIX YEARS OF
DELIVERY OF THE SECURITIES.  AGGRIEVED PURCHASERS WERE THEREFORE DENIED
FUTURE BENEFIT OF SUSPENSION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION DURING THE
TIME SUCH FRAUDS OR GROUNDS OF ACTION REMAINED UNDISCOVERED.  BUT IT
ALSO WAS PROVIDED THAT WHERE DELIVERY HAD OCCURRED MORE THAN FIVE YEARS
PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS THE FACT IN THIS
CASE, THE ACTION MIGHT BE BROUGHT WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE LAW'S
ENACTMENT.  THE EFFECT OF THIS WAS TO ABOLISH ANY DEFENSE THAT
APPELLANT MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE MADE UNDER THE MINNESOTA STATUTES OF
LIMITATION. 

BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE MOVED IN THE TRIAL COURT, SHORTLY AFTER
THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE, FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS.  APPELLANT ASKED
FINDINGS IN ITS FAVOR ON THE THEORY THAT THE ACTION WAS BARRED, THAT
THE NEW ACT WAS INAPPLICABLE, AND THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF ACTUAL
FRAUD.  APPELLEE CONTENDED THAT THE 1941 LAW APPLIED AND THAT BY REASON
OF IT RECOVERY WAS NOT BARRED.  THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINED THAT THE
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN TORT BOTH ON THE GROUND OF AN
ILLEGAL SALE AND ON THE GROUND OF COMMON-LAW FRAUD AND DECEIT; THAT
PLAINTIFF HAD NOT DISCOVERED THE DECEPTION UNTIL SHORTLY BEFORE THE
ACTION WAS BEGUN; THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1941 ACT APPLIED TO THE
PLAINTIFF'S "CAUSE OF ACTION, OR ANY OF THE SEPARATE GROUNDS OF RELIEF
ASSERTED BY PLAINTIFF," AND OPERATED TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR THE
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION THEREON TO JULY 1, 1942 AND THAT PLAINTIFF'S
ACTION WAS THEREFORE COMMENCED WITHIN THE TIME LIMITED BY THE STATUTES
OF MINNESOTA.  THE APPELLANT MOVED FOR AMENDED FINDINGS AND THEN FOR
THE FIRST TIME RAISED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THAT THE
STATUTE, IF APPLIED SO TO LIFT THE BAR, DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
ITS MOTION WAS DENIED. 

APPEALING AGAIN TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, APPELLANT AMONG
OTHER THINGS URGED THIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  THE SUPREME
COURT AGAIN DID NOT REACH DECISION OF THE FRAUD ASPECTS OF THE CASE. 
IT HELD THAT THE BLUE SKY LAW REQUIRED THE SECURITIES TO BE REGISTERED
AND WAS VIOLATED BY THE SALE; THAT THE ACTION WAS ONE IN TORT TO
RECOVER AS DAMAGES THE PURCHASE PRICE OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES SOLD
IN MINNESOTA; THAT THE NEW LIMITATIONS STATUTE WAS APPLICABLE AND HAD
THE EFFECT OF LIFTING ANY PRE-EXISTING BAR OF THE GENERAL LIMITATION
STATUTE AND THAT IN SO DOING IT DID NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT RELIED ON CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115
U.S. 620, SAYING, "WE DO NOT FIND THAT CAMPBELL V. HOLT HAS BEEN
REVERSED OR RECONSIDERED, AND WE REGARD IT AS SOUND LAW; AND,
CERTAINLY, SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED, IT IS
BINDING ON THIS COURT UNTIL REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT."  FN4  THE
JUDGMENT WAS THEREFORE AFFIRMED, REHEARING WAS SOUGHT AND DENIED,  FN5
AND THE CASE BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL. 

AS THE CASE STOOD IN THE STATE COURTS IT IS NOT ONE WHERE A
DEFENDANT'S STATUTORY IMMUNITY FROM SUIT HAD BEEN FULLY ADJUDGED SO
THAT LEGISLATIVE ACTION DEPRIVED IT OF A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR. 
THE LOWER COURT HAD DECIDED AGAINST APPELLANT.  THE SUPREME COURT HAD
CONFINED ITS REVERSAL TO ONE QUESTION - WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S
WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATE TOLLED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  THE CASE WAS RETURNED TO THE LOWER COURT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO ANY OTHER QUESTION. 

APPELLANT, HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT IT WAS SUED UPON TWO SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT CAUSES OF ACTION, ONE BEING "UPON A LIABILITY CREATED BY
STATUTE," AND THAT ITS IMMUNITY FROM SUIT ON THAT CAUSE OF ACTION HAD
BEEN FINALLY ADJUDICATED.  THE ARGUMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE
HOLDINGS OF THE STATE COURT.  THE BLUE SKY LAW IMPOSES DUTIES UPON A
SELLER OF CERTAIN SECURITIES, BUT IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY DEFINE A
LIABILITY FOR THEIR OMISSION OR CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOR OF A
BUYER OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES.  THE STATE COURTS, NEVERTHELESS, HELD
THAT SUCH AN ILLEGAL SALE WILL SUPPORT A COMMON-LAW ACTION IN TORT. 
DREES V. MINNESOTA PETROLEUM CO., 189 MINN. 608, 250 N.W. 563.  AND ON
THE SECOND APPEAL OF THIS CASE THE COURT SAID, "THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT
IN TORT TO RECOVER AS DAMAGES THE PURCHASE PRICE OF UNREGISTERED
SECURITIES  ...  IT ALSO SOUGHT RECOVERY ON THE GROUND OF DECEIT BASED
ON MISREPRESENTATION, BUT, IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, WE
NEED NOT CONSIDER THAT PHASE OF THE CASE."  FN6  IT IS NOT UNCOMMON
THAT A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION IN TORT WILL REST BOTH ON OMISSION OF A
STATUTORY DUTY AND ON COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE; THE TWO BASES DO NOT
NECESSARILY MULTIPLY THE CAUSES OF ACTION.  CF. BALTIMORE STEAMSHIP CO.
V. PHILLIPS, 274 U.S. 316, 321; NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. KINNEY, 260
U.S. 340, 346; SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. KOENNECKE, 239 U.S. 352,
354.  THIS APPEARS TO BE PERMITTED BY THE LAW OF MINNESOTA.  TUDER V.
OREGON SHORT LINE R. CO., 131 MINN. 317, 318-19, 155 N.W. 200.  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN DISPOSING OF THE FIRST APPEAL RELIED ON
A COMPANION CASE IN WHICH IT WAS SAID THAT "PLAINTIFF MUST BE
CONSIDERED TO HAVE SUED 'UPON A LIABILITY CREATED BY STATUTE.'"  FN7
THE PLEADINGS IN THE COMPANION CASE ARE NOT BEFORE US.  NO SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF A STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION IS SET OUT IN THE COMPLAINT IN
THIS CASE.  THE STATE COURT DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE LIABILITY FOR
STATUTORY VIOLATION AS A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION BY DISMISSAL OR
OTHERWISE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS FINALLY OR SEPARATELY
ADJUDICATED.  THE STATE COURTS SEEM TO HAVE TREATED THE COMPLAINT AS
SETTING UP SEVERAL BASES FOR A SINGLE COMMON-LAW CAUSE OF ACTION IN
TORT WHICH HAD BEEN REMANDED FOR RETRIAL AT THE TIME THE NEW STATUTE
WAS ENACTED.  WE MUST REGARD IT IN THAT SAME LIGHT. 

THE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTIONS WHICH SURVIVE THE STATE COURT
DECISION ARE WHETHER THIS CASE IS GOVERNED BY CAMPBELL V. HOLT AND, IF
SO, WHETHER THAT CASE SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED AND OVERRULED. 

IN CAMPBELL V. HOLT, SUPRA, THIS COURT HELD THAT WHERE LAPSE OF TIME
HAS NOT INVESTED A PARTY WITH TITLE TO REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, A
STATE LEGISLATURE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, MAY
REPEAL OR EXTEND A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, EVEN AFTER RIGHT OF ACTION
IS BARRED THEREBY, RESTORE TO THE PLAINTIFF HIS REMEDY, AND DIVEST THE
DEFENDANT OF THE STATUTORY BAR.  THIS HAS LONG STOOD AS A STATEMENT OF
THE LAW OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW
THAT ITS HOLDING IS APPLICABLE HERE AND FATAL TO THE CONTENTIONS OF
APPELLANT.  FN8 

APPELLANT ASKS THAT IN CASE WE FIND CAMPBELL V. HOLT CONTROLLING IT
BE RECONSIDERED AND OVERRULED.  WE ARE REMINDED THAT SOME STATE COURTS
HAVE NOT FOLLOWED IT IN CONSTRUING PROVISIONS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONS
SIMILAR TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  FN9  MANY HAVE, AS THEY ARE
PRIVILEGED TO DO, SO INTERPRETED THEIR OWN EASILY AMENDABLE
CONSTITUTIONS TO GIVE RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES A MORE RIGID INTERPRETATION
THAN WE PROPERLY COULD IMPOSE UPON THEM FROM WITHOUT BY CONSTRUCTION OF
THE FEDERAL INSTRUMENT WHICH IS AMENDABLE ONLY WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY
AND WITH THE COOPERATION OF MANY STATES. 

WE ARE ALSO CITED TO SOME CRITICISMS OF CAMPBELL V. HOLT IN LEGAL
LITERATURE.  FN10  BUT NEITHER IN VOLUME NOR IN WEIGHT ARE THEY MORE
IMPRESSIVE THAN HAS BEEN DIRECTED AT MANY DECISIONS THAT DEAL WITH
CONTROVERSIAL AND RECURRENT ISSUES. 

STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ALWAYS HAVE VEXED THE PHILOSOPHICAL MIND FOR
IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIT THEM INTO A COMPLETELY LOGICAL AND SYMMETRICAL
SYSTEM OF LAW.  THERE HAS BEEN CONTROVERSY AS TO THEIR EFFECT.  SOME
ARE OF OPINION THAT LIKE THE ANALOGOUS CIVIL LAW DOCTRINE OF
PRESCRIPTION  FN11 LIMITATIONS STATUTES SHOULD BE VIEWED AS
EXTINGUISHING THE CLAIM AND DESTROYING THE RIGHT ITSELF.  ADMITTEDLY IT
IS TROUBLESOME TO SUSTAIN AS A "RIGHT" A CLAIM THAT CAN FIND NO REMEDY
FOR ITS INVASION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME COMMON-LAW COURTS HAVE
REGARDED TRUE STATUTES OF LIMITATION AS DOING NO MORE THAN TO CUT OFF
RESORT TO THE COURTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A CLAIM.  FN12  WE DO NOT NEED
TO SETTLE THESE ARGUMENTS. 

STATUTES OF LIMITATION FIND THEIR JUSTIFICATION IN NECESSITY AND
CONVENIENCE RATHER THAN IN LOGIC.  THEY REPRESENT EXPEDIENTS, RATHER
THAN PRINCIPLES.  THEY ARE PRACTICAL AND PRAGMATIC DEVICES TO SPARE THE
COURTS FROM LITIGATION OF STALE CLAIMS, AND THE CITIZEN FROM BEING PUT
TO HIS DEFENSE AFTER MEMORIES HAVE FADED, WITNESSES HAVE DIED OR
DISAPPEARED, AND EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LOST.  ORDER OF RAILROAD
TELEGRAPHERS V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342, 349.  THEY ARE BY
DEFINITION ARBITRARY, AND THEIR OPERATION DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN
THE JUST AND THE UNJUST CLAIM, OR THE VOIDABLE AND UNAVOIDABLE DELAY. 
THEY HAVE COME INTO THE LAW NOT THROUGH THE JUDICIAL PROCESS BUT
THROUGH LEGISLATION.  FN13  THEY REPRESENT A PUBLIC POLICY ABOUT THE
PRIVILEGE TO LITIGATE.  THEIR SHELTER HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS WHAT
NOW IS CALLED A "FUNDAMENTAL" RIGHT OR WHAT USED TO BE CALLED A
"NATURAL" RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  HE MAY, OF COURSE, HAVE THE
PROTECTION OF THE POLICY WHILE IT EXISTS, BUT THE HISTORY OF PLEAS OF
LIMITATION SHOWS THEM TO BE GOOD ONLY BY LEGISLATIVE GRACE AND TO BE
SUBJECT TO A RELATIVELY LARGE DEGREE OF LEGISLATIVE CONTROL. 

THIS COURT, IN CAMPBELL V. HOLT, ADOPTED AS A WORKING HYPOTHESIS, AS
A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE VIEW THAT STATUTES OF LIMITATION GO
TO MATTERS OF REMEDY, NOT TO DESTRUCTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.  THE
ABSTRACT LOGIC OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AND
REMEDIAL OR PROCEDURAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE CLEAR-CUT, BUT IT HAS BEEN
FOUND A WORKABLE CONCEPT TO POINT UP THE REAL AND VALID DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN RULES IN WHICH STABILITY IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE AND THOSE IN
WHICH FLEXIBILITY IS A MORE IMPORTANT VALUE.  THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE
ACCEPTABLE RESULT OF THE REASONING OF CAMPBELL V. HOLT AND ITS RATHER
UNSATISFACTORY RATIONALIZATION WAS WELL POINTED OUT BY MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES WHEN AS CHIEF JUSTICE OF MASSACHUSETTS HE WROTE: 

"NEVERTHELESS IN THIS CASE, AS IN OTHERS, THE PREVAILING JUDGMENT OF
THE PROFESSION HAS REVOLTED AT THE ATTEMPT TO PLACE IMMUNITIES WHICH
EXIST ONLY BY REASON OF SOME SLIGHT TECHNICAL DEFECT ON ABSOLUTELY THE
SAME FOOTING AS THOSE WHICH STAND ON FUNDAMENTAL GROUNDS.  PERHAPS THE
REASONING OF THE CASES HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN AS SOUND AS THE INSTINCT
WHICH DIRECTED THE DECISIONS.  IT MAY BE THAT SOMETIMES IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN AS WELL NOT TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
WAS CONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RULES, IF SUCH RULES WERE TO BE
TAKEN TO HAVE THE EXACTNESS OF MATHEMATICS.  IT MAY BE THAT IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN BETTER TO SAY DEFINITELY THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RULES, LIKE
THOSE OF THE COMMON LAW, END IN A PENUMBRA WHERE THE LEGISLATURE HAS A
CERTAIN FREEDOM IN FIXING THE LINE, AS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED WITH REGARD
TO THE POLICE POWER.  CAMFIELD V. UNITED STATES, 167 U.S. 518, 523,
524.  BUT HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, MULTITUDES OF CASES HAVE RECOGNIZED THE
POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CALL A LIABILITY INTO BEING WHERE THERE WAS
NONE BEFORE, IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH AS TO APPEAL WITH SOME
STRENGTH TO THE PREVAILING VIEWS OF JUSTICE, AND IF THE OBSTACLE IN THE
WAY OF THE CREATION SEEMED SMALL."  DANFORTH V. GROTON WATER CO., 178
MASS. 472, 476, 59 N.E. 1033.  THIS STATEMENT WAS APPROVED AND FOLLOWED
BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS IN ROBINSON V. ROBINS DRY DOCK CO.,
238 N.Y. 271, 144 N.E. 579. 

THE ESSENTIAL HOLDING IN CAMPBELL V. HOLT, SO FAR AS IT APPLIES TO
THIS CASE, IS SOUND AND SHOULD NOT BE OVERRULED.  THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT MAKE AN ACT OF STATE LEGISLATION VOID MERELY BECAUSE
IT HAS SOME RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION.  WHAT IT DOES FORBID IS TAKING OF
LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  SOME RULES OF
LAW PROBABLY COULD NOT BE CHANGED RETROACTIVELY WITHOUT HARDSHIP AND
OPPRESSION, AND THIS WHETHER WISE OR UNWISE IN THEIR ORIGIN.  ASSUMING
THAT STATUTES OF LIMITATION, LIKE OTHER TYPES OF LEGISLATION, COULD BE
SO MANIPULATED THAT THEIR RETROACTIVE EFFECTS WOULD OFFEND THE
CONSTITUTION, CERTAINLY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT LIFTING THE BAR OF A
STATUTE OF LIMITATION SO AS TO RESTORE A REMEDY LOST THROUGH MERE LAPSE
OF TIME IS PER SE AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  NOR HAS
THE APPELLANT POINTED OUT SPECIAL HARDSHIPS OR OPPRESSIVE EFFECTS WHICH
RESULT FROM LIFTING THE BAR IN THIS CLASS OF CASES WITH RETROSPECTIVE
FORCE.  THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE APPELLANT'S CONDUCT WOULD HAVE BEEN
DIFFERENT IF THE PRESENT RULE HAD BEEN KNOWN AND THE CHANGE FORESEEN. 
IT DOES NOT SAY, AND COULD HARDLY SAY, THAT IT SOLD UNREGISTERED STOCK
DEPENDING ON A STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR SHELTER FROM LIABILITY.  THE
NATURE OF THE DEFENSES SHOWS THAT NO COURSE OF ACTION WAS UNDERTAKEN BY
APPELLANT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE OLD RULE WOULD BE CONTINUED.  WHEN
THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, IT NO DOUBT EXPECTED TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND BY
INVOKING MINNESOTA PUBLIC POLICY THAT LAPSE OF TIME HAD CLOSED THE
COURTS TO THE CASE, AND ITS LEGITIMATE HOPES HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTED. 
BUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE POLICY AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED
DID NOT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GIVE THE APPELLANT A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT AGAINST CHANGE OF POLICY BEFORE FINAL ADJUDICATION.  WHATEVER
GRIEVANCE APPELLANT MAY HAVE AT THE CHANGE OF POLICY TO ITS
DISADVANTAGE, IT HAD ACQUIRED NO IMMUNITY FROM THIS SUIT THAT HAS
BECOME A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  DONALDSON V. CHASE SECURITIES CORP., 209 MINN. 165, 296 N.W.
518. 

FN2  POMEROY V. NATIONAL CITY CO., 209 MINN. 155, 296 N.W. 513. 

FN3  THE SECTION READS: 

"OTHER ACTIONS OR PROSECUTIONS NOT LIMITED.  - NO ACTION SHALL BE
MAINTAINED FOR RELIEF UPON A SALE OF SECURITIES MADE IN VIOLATION OF
ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR UPON A SALE OF SECURITIES MADE IN
VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF A REGISTRATION THEREOF UNDER THIS
ACT, OR FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THAT THE SALE THEREOF WAS MADE IN
VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OR IN VIOLATION OF ANY
OF THE PROVISIONS OF A REGISTRATION THEREOF UNDER THIS ACT, OR UPON ANY
REPRESENTATION WITH RESPECT TO THE REGISTRATION OR NONREGISTRATION OF
THE SECURITY CLAIMED TO BE IMPLIED FROM ANY SUCH SALE, UNLESS COMMENCED
WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH SAID SECURITIES WERE DELIVERED
TO THE PURCHASER PURSUANT TO SUCH SALE, PROVIDED THAT IF, PRIOR TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, MORE THAN FIVE YEARS SHALL HAVE ELAPSED
FROM THE DATE OF SUCH DELIVERY, THEN SUCH ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT WITHIN
A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE, AND PROVIDED
FURTHER THAT NO PURCHASER OF A SECURITY OTHERWISE ENTITLED THERETO
SHALL BRING ANY ACTION FOR RELIEF OF THE CHARACTER ABOVE SET FORTH WHO
SHALL HAVE REFUSED OR FAILED, WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT THEREOF
BY SUCH PURCHASER, TO ACCEPT A WRITTEN OFFER FROM THE SELLER OR FROM
ANY PERSON WHO PARTICIPATED IN SUCH SALE TO TAKE BACK THE SECURITIES IN
QUESTION AND TO REFUND THE FULL AMOUNT PAID THEREFOR BY SUCH PURCHASER,
TOGETHER WITH INTEREST ON SUCH AMOUNT FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT TO THE
DATE OF REPAYMENT, SUCH INTEREST TO BE COMPUTED AT THE SAME RATE AS THE
FIXED INTEREST OR DIVIDEND RATE, IF ANY, PROVIDED FOR IN SUCH
SECURITIES, OR, IF NO RATE IS SO PROVIDED, AT THE RATE OF SIX PER
CENTUM PER ANNUM, LESS IN EVERY CASE THE AMOUNT OF ANY INCOME RECEIVED
BY THE PURCHASER ON SUCH SECURITIES.  ANY WRITTEN OFFER SO MADE TO A
PURCHASER OF A SECURITY SHALL BE OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT UNLESS A
DUPLICATE THEREOF SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES
PRIOR TO THE DELIVERY THEREOF TO SUCH PURCHASER. 

"NOTHING IN THIS SECTION, EXCEPT AS HEREIN EXPRESSLY SET FORTH, SHALL
LIMIT ANY OTHER RIGHT OF ANY PERSON TO BRING ANY ACTION IN ANY COURT
FOR ANY ACT INVOLVED IN OR RIGHT ARISING OUT OF A SALE OF SECURITIES OR
THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO PUNISH ANY PERSON FOR ANY VIOLATION OF LAW." 
MASON'S MINN. STAT. 1941 SUPP., SEC. 3996-24. 

FN4  DONALDSON V. CHASE SECURITIES CORP., 216 MINN. 269, 276, 13
N.W.2D 1. 

FN5  THE PETITION FOR REHEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME RAISED TWO
QUESTIONS ALSO URGED HERE, BUT WHICH MAY BE DISPOSED OF SHORTLY. 

1.  THAT THE ACT IN QUESTION VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN
DENYING EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.  EVEN IF SEASONABLY MADE, WHICH IS
DOUBTFUL (SEE AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 156), THE CLAIM
IS WITHOUT MERIT.  THE STATUTE ON ITS FACE IS A GENERAL ONE, APPLYING
TO ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS OR TRANSACTIONS.  IT APPEARS THAT A
NUMBER OF CASES WERE INVOLVED.  AMONG OTHER LITIGATIONS WERE STERN V.
NATIONAL CITY CO. (D.C. MINN.), 25 F.SUPP.  948, AFF'D, SUB NOM. CITY
CO. OF NEW YORK V. STERN (C.C.A.8TH), 110 F.2D 601, REV'D, 312 U.S.
666; CHASE SECURITIES CORP. V. VOGEL (C.C.A.8TH), 110 F.2D 607, REV'D,
312 U.S. 666.  THESE WERE REMANDED BY THIS COURT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS "FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ANY QUESTIONS NOT
DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA" IN THE POMEROY AND
DONALDSON CASES.  ALSO IN THIS CLASS OF CASES WAS SHEPARD V. CITY CO.
OF NEW YORK (D.C. MINN.), 24 F.SUPP.  682.  THAT THE MOTIVATION FOR THE
ACT MAY HAVE ARISEN IN A FEW CASES OR IN A SINGLE CASE WOULD NOT
ESTABLISH THAT A GENERAL ACT SUCH AS WE HAVE DESCRIBED WOULD DENY EQUAL
PROTECTION. 

2.  THE CLAIM THAT APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE IT
HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY OF LEGISLATORS AS TO LEGISLATIVE
INTENT APPEARS TO US FRIVOLOUS.  THE STATE COURT HAS SEEN FIT TO DRAW
INFERENCES AS TO THE INTENT OF AN ACT FROM ITS TIMING AND FROM ITS
PROVISIONS AND FROM BACKGROUND FACTS OF PUBLIC NOTORIETY.  BUT THAT
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST BE SET ASIDE TO AFFORD A PARTY THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL LEGISLATORS TO PROVE THAT THE COURT'S INFERENCES AS
TO INTENT WERE WRONG.  STATUTES ORDINARILY BESPEAK THEIR OWN INTENTION
AND WHEN THEIR MEANING IS OBSCURE OR DUBIOUS A STATE COURT MAY
DETERMINE FOR ITSELF WHAT SOURCES OF EXTRASTATUTORY ENLIGHTENMENT IT
WILL CONSULT.  OUR CUSTOM OF GOING BACK OF AN ACT TO EXPLORE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DOES NOT OBLIGATE STATE COURTS TO DO SO, AND THERE
IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH BY THE WIDEST STRETCH OF THE
IMAGINATION COULD BE HELD TO REQUIRE TAKING TESTIMONY FROM A FEW OR A
MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATORS TO PROVE LEGISLATIVE "INTENT." 

FN6  DONALDSON V. CHASE SECURITIES CORP., 216 MINN. 269, 270-71. 

FN7  POMEROY V. NATIONAL CITY CO., 209 MINN. 155, 156, 296 N.W. 513. 

FN8  APPELLANT INVOKES THE PRINCIPLE OF OUR DECISIONS IN WILLIAM
DANZER & CO. V. GULF & SHIP ISLAND R. CO., 268 U.S. 633, AND DAVIS V.
MILLS, 194 U.S. 451.  BUT THE STATE COURT SO CONSTRUED THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN ITS LIMITATION ACTS AND THE STATE LAW CREATING THE ASSERTED
LIABILITY AS TO MAKE THESE CASES INAPPLICABLE, AND WE DO NOT THINK IT
DID SO IMPROPERLY.  IN THE DANZER CASE IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE A STATUTE
IN CREATING A LIABILITY ALSO PUT A PERIOD TO ITS EXISTENCE, A
RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD AFTER ITS EXPIRATION AMOUNTED TO A
TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  READ WITH THE DANZER
CASE, DAVIS V. MILLS STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE RESULT MAY BE
THE SAME IF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS PRESCRIBED BY A DIFFERENT
STATUTE IF IT "WAS DIRECTED TO THE NEWLY CREATED LIABILITY SO
SPECIFICALLY AS TO WARRANT SAYING THAT IT QUALIFIED THE RIGHT."  194
U.S. 454.  BUT THE SITUATION HERE PLAINLY DOES NOT PARALLEL THAT IN THE
DANZER CASE, AND THE STATE COURT WHOSE PROVINCE IT IS TO CONSTRUE STATE
LEGISLATION HAS FOUND NO PARALLEL TO THE DAVIS CASE.  AT THE TIME THIS
ACTION WAS COMMENCED THE BLUE SKY LAW OF MINNESOTA HAD IMPOSED ON
APPELLANT A DUTY; IT HAD NOT EXPLICITLY CREATED A LIABILITY.  THE
LIABILITY WAS IMPLIED BY THE STATE'S COMMON LAW; THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION WAS FOUND ONLY IN THE GENERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENACTED
MANY YEARS EARLIER.  THE STATE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE CHALLENGED
STATUTE DID NOT CONFER ON APPELLEES A NEW RIGHT OR SUBJECT APPELLANT TO
A NEW LIABILITY.  IT CONSIDERED THAT THE EFFECT OF THE LEGISLATION WAS
MERELY TO REINSTATE A LAPSED REMEDY, THAT APPELLANT HAD ACQUIRED NO
VESTED RIGHT TO IMMUNITY FROM A REMEDY FOR ITS WRONG IN SELLING
UNREGISTERED SECURITIES, AND THAT REINSTATEMENT OF THE REMEDY BY THE
STATE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INFRINGE ANY FEDERAL RIGHT UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS EXPOUNDED BY THIS COURT IN CAMPBELL V. HOLT. 

FN9  WASSON V. STATE, 187 ARK. 537, 60 S.W.2D 1020; BUSSEY V. BISHOP,
169 GA. 251, 150 S.E. 78; BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BLODGETT, 155 ILL. 441,
40 N.E. 1025; JACKSON V. EVANS, 284 KY. 748, 145 S.W.2D 1061; WILKES
COUNTY V. FORESTER, 204 N.C. 163, 167 S.E. 691; RAYMER V. COMLEY LUMBER
CO., 169 OKLA. 576, 38 P.2D 8; CATHEY V. WEAVER, 111 TEX. 515, 242 S.W.
447; RE SWAN'S ESTATE, 95 UTAH 408, 79 P.2D 999; EINGARTNER V. ILLINOIS
STEEL CO., 103 WIS. 373, 79 N.W. 433. 

FN10  APPELLANT CITES 2 LEWIS' SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION (2D
ED. 1904) SEC. 708, P. 1288; 1 WOOD, LIMITATIONS (4TH ED. 1916) SEC.
11, PP. 47-49; 24 COL. LAW REV. 803(1924); 10 CORN.  L.Q. 212(1925); 2
GEO. WASH. LAW REV. 100(1933); ROTTSCHAEFER, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (1939)
SEC. 252, PP. 548-9. 

FN11  SEE LA. CIV. CODE, ARTS. 3457-3459; BILLINGS V. HALL, 7 CAL. 1,
4; GODDARD'S HEIRS V. URQUHART, 6 LA. 659, 673. 

FN12  SEE GILBERT V. SELLECK, 93 CONN. 412, 106 A. 439; IN RE ESTATE
OF DANIEL, 208 MINN. 420, 294 N.W. 465; BATES V. CULLUM, 177 PA. 633,
35 A. 861. 

FN13  FOR HISTORY OF THESE ACTS SEE ATKINSON, "SOME PROCEDURAL
ASPECTS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS," 27 COL. LAW REV. 157(1927). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





AMBASSADOR, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 317 


NO. 446.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 12, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ENJOINED THE APPELLANT PROPRIETORS OF
HOTELS FROM COLLECTING, IN VIOLATION OF A REGULATION FILED BY THE
TELEPHONE COMPANIES WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PURSUANT
TO THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, SURCHARGES FROM GUESTS WHO MAKE INTERSTATE
OR FOREIGN LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS OR RECEIVE SUCH CALLS
"COLLECT."  PP. 324, 326. 

2.  QUESTIONS OF THE JUSTNESS OR REASONABLENESS OF THE REGULATION
MUST BE ADDRESSED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO THE COMMISSION.  P. 325. 

3.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT WAS WITHIN THE DISCRETION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE HOTELS, THOUGH IT DID NOT ENJOIN
THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES.  P. 325. 

4.  IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE HOTELS WERE
"AGENTS" OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY OR "SUBSCRIBERS."  WHATEVER THE
RELATIONSHIP, IT WAS ONE WHICH THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES SHALL BE
GOVERNED BY REASONABLE REGULATIONS INITIATED BY THE TELEPHONE COMPANY
BUT SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION.  P. 326. 

AMBASSADOR, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

DIRECT APPEAL UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT FROM A DECREE SUSTAINING THE
VALIDITY OF A TARIFF FILED WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
AND ENJOINING ITS VIOLATION BY THE DEFENDANT HOTELS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS INSTITUTED AT REQUEST OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.  THE CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO., WHICH IS ENGAGED
IN RENDERING TELEPHONE SERVICE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND THE
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. WERE MADE DEFENDANTS, AS ALSO WERE
THE APPELLANTS, COMPRISING THE PROPRIETORS OF TWENTY-SEVEN HOTELS IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE COMPLAINT ASKS AND THE COURT BELOW HAS
GRANTED AN INJUNCTION WHICH FORBIDS THE HOTELS TO MAKE CHARGES AGAINST
THEIR GUESTS IN CONNECTION WITH ANY INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN MESSAGE TOLL
SERVICE TO OR FROM THEIR PREMISES, OTHER THAN THE TOLL CHARGES OF THE
TELEPHONE COMPANIES AND APPLICABLE FEDERAL TAXES.  THE PROHIBITION IS
BASED ON A PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT IN THE TARIFF FILED BY THE
TELEPHONE COMPANIES.  UPON THE TRIAL, EVIDENCE WAS LIMITED BY
STIPULATION TO THE FACTS ABOUT THE SHOREHAM HOTEL, ACCEPTED AS TYPICAL
OF ALL DEFENDANTS. 

TELEPHONE SERVICE IS AVAILABLE TO PATRONS OF THE HOTEL WITHOUT A
CHARGE BY THE HOTEL.  IN OR NEAR THE LOBBIES, TELEPHONE BOOTHS HAVE
DIRECT CONNECTION WITH TELEPHONE COMPANY CENTRAL OFFICES.  CALLS CAN
THERE BE MADE WITHOUT INVOLVING THE SERVICES OF THE HOTEL PERSONNEL AND
AT THE USUAL TARIFF RATES OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY PAID THROUGH ITS
COIN BOXES. 

HOWEVER, MODERN HOTEL STANDARDS REQUIRE THAT TELEPHONE SERVICE ALSO
BE MADE AVAILABLE IN THE ROOMS.  EQUIPMENT FOR THIS PURPOSE IS
SPECIFIED BY THE HOTEL BUT IS INSTALLED AND OWNED BY THE TELEPHONE
COMPANY.  THE HOTEL PAYS A MONTHLY CHARGE FOR ITS USE, AND ITS
OPERATION IS AT THE HOTEL'S EXPENSE.  THE OPERATING COST IS
SUBSTANTIAL, RENTALS OF THE SHOREHAM IN 1943 BEING $8,680.10 AND
PAYROLLS FOR OPERATION AMOUNTING TO $21,895.62. 

TYPICAL EQUIPMENT CONSISTS OF A PRIVATE BRANCH EXCHANGE, KNOWN AS A
PBX BOARD, CONNECTED WITH A NUMBER OF OUTSIDE OR TRUNK LINES AND ALSO
WITH EXTENSION LINES TO EACH SERVICED ROOM, AND OTHER ITEMS.  THIS
EQUIPMENT PERMITS CALLS FOR VARIOUS KINDS OF ROOM SERVICE,
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GUESTS, AND CALLS FROM STATION TO STATION WITHIN
THE HOTEL FOR WHICH NO USE OF OTHER LINES OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY IS
NECESSARY.  THE SAME SWITCHBOARD AND ITS HOTEL-EMPLOYED OPERATORS ALSO
HANDLE BOTH INCOMING AND OUTGOING CALLS FOR GUESTS, INCLUDING MANY LONG
DISTANCE MESSAGES. 

SO FAR AS THE TELEPHONE COMPANY IS CONCERNED, THE TOLL MESSAGE COMING
TO ITS CENTRAL OFFICE FROM THE HOTEL SWITCHBOARD BOARD IS HANDLED MUCH
AS A SIMILAR MESSAGE FROM A RESIDENCE OR BUSINESS STATION.  WITHIN THE
HOTEL, HOWEVER, ROOM TELEPHONE SERVICE NECESSITATES ADDITIONAL LABOR AS
WELL AS USE OF THE EQUIPMENT.  WHEN A CALL IS MADE FROM THE STATION IN
A ROOM, IT IS PLACED WITH THE SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR EMPLOYED BY THE
HOTEL, AND SHE IN TURN PLACES THE CALL WITH THE TELEPHONE COMPANY'S
LONG DISTANCE OPERATOR.  IT IS CUSTOMARY ALSO TO RENDER SERVICES
DESCRIBED AS SECRETARIAL.  INCOMING MESSAGES MAY BE RECEIVED DURING THE
GUEST'S ABSENCE AND MEMORANDA OF THEM ARE MADE FOR AND DELIVERED TO
HIM.  OUTGOING MESSAGES MAY BE TRANSMITTED FOR THE GUEST.  INFORMATION
AS TO HIS WHEREABOUTS MAY BE LEFT WITH THE OPERATOR FOR COMMUNICATION
TO CALLERS; HE MAY ARRANGE TO BE REACHED AT OTHER LOCATIONS THAN HIS
ROOM; HE MAY ARRANGE TO HAVE TELEPHONE SERVICE SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD;
INCOMING CALLS MAY BE LIMITED TO THOSE FROM DESIGNATED PERSONS, AND
VARIOUS OTHER SERVICES HELPFUL TO COMFORTABLE LIVING ARE SUPPLIED BY
THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE INTERIOR TELEPHONE SYSTEM. 

EACH LONG DISTANCE CALL PLACED THROUGH THE HOTEL'S SWITCHBOARD IS
CHARGED BY THE TELEPHONE COMPANY TO THE HOTEL, NOT TO THE GUEST.  THE
HOTEL PAYS THE CHARGE AND IS REIMBURSED, LESS CREDIT LOSSES, BY
COLLECTIONS FROM THE GUEST.  THE REIMBURSEMENT ITEM IS SEPARATELY
STATED ON THE GUEST'S BILL AND IS NOT ITSELF INVOLVED IN THIS
CONTROVERSY. 

THE HOTEL ALSO SEEKS TO RECOUP THE COST OF ITS SERVICE, INCLUDING
EQUIPMENT RENTALS, AND PERHAPS SOME MARGIN OF PROFIT, BY A SERVICE
CHARGE TO THE GUESTS WHO MAKE LONG DISTANCE CALLS FROM THEIR ROOMS. 
THIS CHARGE VARIES IN DIFFERENT HOTELS BUT THIS TYPICAL CASE SHOWS
CHARGES OF TEN CENTS FOR TOLL CALLS WHERE THE TELEPHONE TARIFF IS ONE
DOLLAR OR LESS, TEN PERCENT OF THE TELEPHONE TARIFF WHERE THE CHARGE IS
MORE THAN ONE DOLLAR, WITH A MAXIMUM OF THREE DOLLARS PER CALL.  THIS
SERVICE CHARGE APPEARS ON THE GUEST'S BILL AS A SEPARATE ITEM, BUT IS
STATED, LIKE THE REIMBURSEMENT CHARGE, AS "LONG DISTANCE," ABBREVIATED
TO "LDIST". 

IN JANUARY 1942, A PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED BY THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE
CHARGES COLLECTED BY HOTELS, APARTMENT HOUSES AND CLUBS IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TELEPHONE
COMMUNICATION WERE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND WHAT TARIFFS, IF ANY, SHOULD BE FILED WITH
THE COMMISSION SHOWING SUCH CHARGES.  NO SUCH TARIFFS WERE ON FILE WITH
THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME THE PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED. 

THE COMMISSION, DECEMBER 10, 1943, FOUND THAT IT DOES HAVE
JURISDICTION UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OVER THE CHARGES COLLECTED BY
HOTELS AND OTHERS AND RULED THAT, IF SUCH CHARGES ARE TO BE COLLECTED
AT ALL, THEY MUST BE SHOWN ON TARIFFS ON FILE WITH THE COMMISSION.  IT
THOUGHT THAT THE HOTEL SHOULD BE REGARDED AS THE AGENT OF THE TELEPHONE
COMPANIES.  IT ISSUED AN ORDER DIRECTING THE TWO TELEPHONE COMPANIES
EITHER TO FILE APPROPRIATE TARIFFS SHOWING CHARGES COLLECTED BY THE
HOTELS IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TELEPHONE
COMMUNICATIONS OR TO FILE AN APPROPRIATE TARIFF REGULATION CONTAINING A
SPECIFIC PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN SERVICE WOULD BE FURNISHED TO HOTELS, APARTMENT
HOUSES AND CLUBS. 

CONFRONTED WITH THESE ALTERNATIVES, THE CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC
TELEPHONE COMPANY FILED A TARIFF PROVISION IN WHICH THE AMERICAN
TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY CONCURRED, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"MESSAGE TOLL TELEPHONE SERVICE IS FURNISHED TO HOTELS, APARTMENT
HOUSES AND CLUBS UPON THE CONDITION THAT USE OF THE SERVICE BY GUESTS,
TENANTS, MEMBERS, OR OTHERS SHALL NOT BE MADE SUBJECT TO ANY CHARGE BY
ANY HOTEL, APARTMENT HOUSE OR CLUB IN ADDITION TO THE MESSAGE TOLL
CHARGES OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY AS SET FORTH IN THIS TARIFF." 

THIS TARIFF PROVISION BECAME EFFECTIVE BY ITS TERMS FEBRUARY 15,
1944.  FOUR DAYS LATER, THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED TO ENJOIN THE HOTELS
FROM COLLECTING CHARGES MADE IN VIOLATION OF THE TARIFF PROVISION, AND
TO ENJOIN THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES FROM FURNISHING SUCH SERVICE TO THESE
HOTELS OR OTHERS WHICH CONTINUED TO MAKE CHARGES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE TARIFF.  FN1  IT
REGARDED THE HOTELS AS SUBSCRIBERS RATHER THAN AS AGENTS OF THE
TELEPHONE COMPANIES.  IT HELD THAT THE TARIFF WAS VIOLATED BY
COLLECTION OF SURCHARGES FROM GUESTS WHO MAKE INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS OR RECEIVE SUCH CALLS "COLLECT."  THE
COURT DID NOT PASS UPON THE JUSTNESS OR REASONABLENESS OF THE TARIFF,
BEING OF OPINION THAT SUCH QUESTIONS WERE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO BE
SUBMITTED TO AND DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION IN APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS.  AN INJUNCTION ISSUED AGAINST THE HOTELS BUT NOT AGAINST
THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES, THE COURT, HOWEVER, RETAINING JURISDICTION
OVER THE PROCEEDINGS AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING
SUCH FURTHER ORDERS AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE ITS DECISION. 
DIRECT APPEAL WAS TAKEN BY THE HOTEL DEFENDANTS TO THIS COURT.  FN2 

IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT IF COMMUNICATIONS CHARGES ARE TO
CORRESPOND EVEN ROUGHLY TO THE COST OF RENDERING THE SERVICE, THE USE
TO WHICH TELEPHONE INSTALLATIONS MAY BE PUT BY SUBSCRIBERS MUST BE
SUBJECT TO SOME KIND OF CLASSIFICATION AND REGULATION WHICH WILL
CONFORM THE ACTUAL SERVICE TO THAT CONTRACTED FOR.  FAMILIAR EXAMPLES
ARE THE CLASSIFICATION OF RESIDENCE AS AGAINST BUSINESS SERVICE WITH A
REQUIREMENT THAT THE SUBSCRIBER CONFINE HIS USE OF THE INSTRUMENTS
ACCORDINGLY.  OF COURSE, THE SUBSCRIBER WHO INSTALLS A PRIVATE BRANCH
EXCHANGE WITH MULTIPLE TRUNK LINES AND MANY EXTENSIONS HAS OBVIOUSLY
CONTRACTED FOR A CLASS OF SERVICE DIFFERENT FROM ONE WHOSE INSTALLATION
CONSISTS OF A SINGLE STATION.  ONE OF THE PROBLEMS INCIDENT TO THE
SERVICE OF A SUBSCRIBER WHO TAKES FACILITIES GREATLY IN EXCESS OF HIS
OWN NEEDS IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE OTHERS IS TO FIX UPON WHAT TERMS HE
MAY EXTEND THE USE OF TELEPHONE FACILITIES TO OTHERS.  THIS IS AN
ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM OF RESALE OF UTILITY SERVICE WHICH IS NOT
CONFINED TO THE TELEPHONE BUSINESS.  FN3 

THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 RECOGNIZES THAT TARIFFS FILED BY
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES MAY CONTAIN REGULATIONS BINDING ON SUBSCRIBERS
AS TO THE PERMISSIBLE USE OF THE RENTED COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES.  THE
SUPERVISORY POWER OF THE COMMISSION IS NOT LIMITED TO RATES AND TO
SERVICES, BUT THE FORMULA OFT REPEATED IN THE ACT TO DESCRIBE THE
COMMISSION'S RANGE OF POWER OVER THE REGULATED COMPANIES IS "CHARGES,
PRACTICES, CLASSIFICATIONS, AND REGULATIONS FOR AND IN CONNECTION WITH
SUCH COMMUNICATION SERVICE."  48 STAT. 1070, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 201(B).  IT
IS IN ALL OF THESE MATTERS THAT THE ACT REQUIRES THE FILED TARIFFS TO
BE "JUST AND REASONABLE" AND DECLARES THAT OTHERWISE THEY ARE
UNLAWFUL.  FN4  BY NONE OF THESE DEVICES MAY THE COMPANIES PERPETRATE
AN UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE.  FN5  ALL OF
THESE MUST BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION IN THE FORM IT PRESCRIBES, MAY
NOT BE CHANGED EXCEPT AFTER DUE NOTICE, AND MUST BE OBSERVED IN THE
CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS BY THE COMPANY.  FN6  THESE PROVISIONS CLEARLY
AUTHORIZE THE COMPANIES TO PROMULGATE RULES BINDING ON PBX SUBSCRIBERS
AS TO THE TERMS UPON WHICH THE USE OF THE FACILITIES MAY BE EXTENDED TO
OTHERS NOT THEMSELVES SUBSCRIBERS. 

OF COURSE, SUCH AUTHORITY IS NOT UNLIMITED.  THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES
MAY NOT, IN THE GUISE OF REGULATING THE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, ALSO
REGULATE THE HOTEL OR APARTMENT HOUSE OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS.  BUT WHERE
A PART OF THE SUBSCRIBER'S BUSINESS CONSISTS OF RETAILING TO PATRONS A
SERVICE DEPENDENT ON ITS OWN CONTRACT FOR UTILITY SERVICE, THE
REGULATION WILL NECESSARILY AFFECT, TO THAT EXTENT, ITS THIRD PARTY
RELATIONSHIPS.  SUCH A REGULATION IS NOT INVALID PER SE MERELY BECAUSE,
AS TO THE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE AND ITS INCIDENTS, IT PLACES
LIMITATION UPON THE SUBSCRIBER AS TO THE TERMS UPON WHICH HE MAY INVITE
OTHERS TO COMMUNICATE THROUGH SUCH FACILITIES. 

IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT THE REGULATION IN QUESTION IS UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE IT IS UNREASONABLE.  IT IS SAID THAT IT INVADES THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOTEL AND GUEST EXCESSIVELY, AND DENIES TO THE
HOTEL THE RIGHT REASONABLY TO RECOUP ITS COST AND TO PROFIT BY THE
SERVICES IT RENDERS.  BUT WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT WHERE
THE CLAIM OF UNLAWFULNESS OF A REGULATION IS GROUNDED IN LACK OF
REASONABLENESS, THE OBJECTION MUST BE ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION AND
NOT AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER BROUGHT TO THE COURT.  WE THINK THAT THE ACT
CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE COMMISSION TO HEAR APPELLANTS' GRIEVANCES
AGAINST THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS REGULATION.  INDEED, APPELLANTS INFORM US
THAT THE AMERICAN HOTEL ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS,
INCLUDING THE APPEALING HOTELS, HAS FILED A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH THE
COMMISSION ALLEGING THAT THE NEW PROVISION OF THE TARIFF SCHEDULE WAS
UNREASONABLE, DISCRIMINATORY AND UNLAWFUL, AND ASKING FOR INVESTIGATION
AND, AT THE SAME TIME, ASSERTING THAT THE TARIFF WAS ILLEGAL.  ACTION
ON THAT COMPLAINT HAS BEEN HELD IN ABEYANCE BY THE COMMISSION PENDING
THE FINAL DECISION ON THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION IN THIS SUIT. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CHARGES BEING MADE IN THIS CASE VIOLATE THE
REGULATION.  THE CHARGES MADE ARE NOT BASED ON THE SERVICE RENDERED BY
THE HOTEL BUT VARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOLL CHARGE MADE BY THE
TELEPHONE COMPANY FOR COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, THE
SERVICE RENDERED BY THE HOTEL IN HANDLING A GUEST'S TOLL CALL FROM
WASHINGTON TO BALTIMORE IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS FOR A CALL TO SAN
FRANCISCO.  BUT, FOR LIKE SERVICE, THE CHARGE VARIES WITH THE AMOUNT OF
THE TELEPHONE TARIFF FOR THE COMMUNICATION.  THE GUEST'S CHARGES ARE SO
IDENTIFIED WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE THAT THEY ARE BROUGHT WITHIN
THE PROHIBITIONS OF THIS REGULATION. 

SINCE THE REGULATION, APART FROM QUESTIONS OF REASONABLENESS WHICH
MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION, IS A VALID REGULATION OF THE
SUBSCRIBER'S USE OF THE TELEPHONE FACILITIES INVOLVED, A DEPARTURE FROM
THE REGULATION IS FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT AND THE PROSECUTION OF AN ACTION
TO RESTRAIN A VIOLATION IS AUTHORIZED.  FN7  WHEN AN ACTION FOR
ENFORCEMENT IS INSTITUTED IN ANY DISTRICT COURT, THE ACT EXPRESSLY
PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE LAWFUL "TO INCLUDE AS PARTIES, IN ADDITION TO
THE CARRIER, ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN OR AFFECTED BY THE CHARGE,
REGULATION, OR PRACTICE UNDER CONSIDERATION," AND DECREES MAY BE MADE
AGAINST SUCH PARTIES IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS
AUTHORIZED WITH RESPECT TO CARRIERS.  FN8  ONE CAN HARDLY GAINSAY THE
GOVERNMENT'S ASSERTION THAT THE APPELLANTS HERE ARE PERSONS INTERESTED
IN AND AFFECTED BY THE REGULATION IN QUESTION AND, THEREFORE, ARE
PROPER PARTIES DEFENDANT IN THE ACTION AND INJUNCTION COULD PROPERLY
ISSUE AGAINST THEM.    IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT INASMUCH AS THE COURT
DID NOT ENJOIN THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES, THE HOTELS SHOULD NOT BE
ENJOINED.  FOUR DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REGULATION, THE
HOTELS HAD INDICATED NO INTENTION TO COMPLY WITH IT ALTHOUGH THEY HAD
HAD DUE NOTICE.  IT WAS WELL WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT
TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS JUSTIFIED AN INJUNCTION.  FOUR DAYS OF DEFAULT BY
THE SUBSCRIBER, HOWEVER, MIGHT NOT BE REGARDED AS REQUIRING AN
INJUNCTION WHICH WOULD COMPEL THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES TO CUT OFF
SERVICE ON WHICH MANY PERSONS RELY.  WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE THAT THE
HOTELS HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED BY THE FAILURE TO ENJOIN THE TELEPHONE
COMPANIES OR ARE IN A POSITION TO COMPLAIN OF THE OMISSION OF WHAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ADDITIONAL HARDSHIP TO THEMSELVES. 

MUCH HAS BEEN SAID IN ARGUMENT ABOUT THE THEORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE HOTEL AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANY AND THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN
THE VIEW OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE CONTRACT CREATED AN AGENCY AND THAT
OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE WHO SAID THAT THE EVIDENCE FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE
HOTELS ARE AGENTS OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY, AND HELD THAT "THE HOTELS
ARE SUBSCRIBERS."  WE DO NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY IN DETERMINING THE
APPLICATION OF A REGULATORY STATUTE TO ATTEMPT TO FIT THE REGULATED
RELATIONSHIP INTO SOME COMMON-LAW CATEGORY.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY
THAT THE RELATION IS ONE WHICH THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES SHALL BE
GOVERNED BY REASONABLE REGULATIONS INITIATED BY THE TELEPHONE COMPANY
BUT SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION. 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION OF ANY OF THE
QUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE INJUNCTION WAS PROPERLY
ISSUED AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE OPINION WAS RENDERED ORALLY AND IS NOT REPORTED. 

FN2  PURSUANT TO SEC. 2 OF EXPEDITING ACT, 32 STAT. 823; 36 STAT.
1167; 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29; 49 U.S.C. SEC. 45; AND COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934, 48 STAT. 1093, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 401(D).  ALSO SEC. 238(1) OF
JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 43 STAT. 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345(1). 

FN3  CF. RE NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., 26 P.U.R. (N.S.)  311(N.Y. 1938),
30 P.U.R. (N.S.)  350(N.Y. 1939); PEOPLE EX REL. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., 262 APP. DIV. 440, 29 N.Y.S.2D
513(1941), AFF'D WITHOUT OPINION, 287 N.Y. 803, 40 N.E.2D 1020; HOTEL
PFISTER V. WISCONSIN TELEPHONE CO., 203 WIS. 20, 233 N.W. 617(1930);
JEFFERSON HOTEL CO. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO., 15 P.U.R.
(N.S.)  265(MO. 1936); RE HOTEL MARION CO., P.U.R. 1920 D, 466(ARK. 
1920); CONNOLLY V. BURLESON, P.U.R. 1920 C, 243(N.Y. 1920); RE HOTEL
TELEPHONE SERVICE AND RATES, P.U.R. 1919 A, 190(MASS.  1918); HOTEL
SHERMAN CO. V. CHICAGO TELEPHONE CO., P.U.R. 1915 F, 776(ILL.  1915);
1015 CHESTNUT STREET CORP. V. BELL TELEPHONE CO., P.U.R. 1931 A, 19, 7
P.U.R. (N.S.)  184(1930, 1934); BUDD V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE
CO., 28 P.U.R. (N.S.)  235(MO. 1939). 

REMETERING OF ELECTRIC ENERGY CREATES SIMILAR PROBLEMS OF REGULATION,
OFTEN DEALT WITH BY TARIFF PROHIBITION OF REMETERING.  SEE LEWIS V.
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO., 64 F.2D 701(APP.  D.C. 1933); KARRICK V.
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO., P.U.R. 1932 C, 40(D.C. SUP. CT. 1931);
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. V. FLORIDA EX REL. MALCOLM, 107 FLA. 317, 144
SO. 657(1932); SIXTY-SEVEN SOUTH MUNN V. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSIONERS, 106 N.J. LAW 45, 147 A. 735(SUP.  CT. 1929), AFF'D 107
N.J. LAW 386, 152 A. 920(COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS 1930), CERT.
DENIED, 283 U.S. 828; PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. J. & J. ROGERS CO.,
184 APP. DIV. 705, 172 N.Y.S. 498(N.Y. 1918); PEOPLE EX REL. N.Y.
EDISON CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 191 APP. DIV. 237, 181 N.Y.S.
259(N.Y. 1920), AFF'D, 230 N.Y. 574, 130 N.E. 899(1920). 

FN4  47 U.S.C. SEC. 201. 

FN5  47 U.S.C. SEC. 202. 

FN6  47 U.S.C. SEC. 203(A), (B), (C). 

FN7  47 U.S.C. SEC. 401. 

FN8  47 U.S.C. SEC. 411. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






SINCLAIR CO. V. INTERCHEMICAL CORP., 325 U.S. 327 


NO. 656.  ARGUED APRIL 5, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 21, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
842, REVERSED. 


1.  IN SUITS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS, THE
BETTER PRACTICE USUALLY IS FOR THE COURT TO INQUIRE FULLY INTO THE
VALIDITY OF THE PATENT.  P. 330. 

2.  IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF A PATENT THAT THE SUBJECT
MATTER REVEAL "INVENTION," "MORE INGENUITY  ...  THAN THE WORK OF A
MECHANIC SKILLED IN THE ART."  P. 330. 

3.  PATENT NO. 2,087,190, CLAIMS 3, 10, 11, 12 AND 13, TO GESSLER,
FOR A PRINTER'S INK WHICH IS NON-VOLATILE AT ROOM TEMPERATURE AND
HIGHLY VOLATILE WHEN HEATED, WHICH INVOLVED MERELY THE SELECTION OF A
KNOWN COMPOUND TO MEET KNOWN REQUIREMENTS, HELD INVALID FOR WANT OF
INVENTION.  P. 334. 

SINCLAIR & CARROLL CO., INC. V. INTERCHEMICAL CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 705, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH, UPON APPEAL FROM
A DECREE HOLDING A PATENT INVALID AND NOT INFRINGED, 50 F.SUPP.  881,
HELD THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS INFRINGEMENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE ASSIGNEES OF A PATENT ON A
PRINTING INK.  RESPONDENT, INTERCHEMICAL CORPORATION, ASSERTS THAT INKS
MADE BY THE PETITIONER INFRINGE ON CLAIMS 3, 10, 11, 12 AND 13 OF U.S.
PATENT NO. 2,087,190 WHICH WAS ISSUED TO ALBERT E. GESSLER ON JULY 13,
1937.  CLAIM 3, WHICH IS TYPICAL, IS AS FOLLOWS:  "A PRINTING INK WHICH
IS SUBSTANTIALLY NON-DRYING AT ORDINARY TEMPERATURES AND DRIES
INSTANTLY ON HEATING OF THE PRINTED MATTER, CONSISTING OF COLORING
MATTER DISPERSED IN AN ORGANIC VISCOUS VEHICLE CONSISTING OF A LIQUID
COMPONENT AND A SOLID COMPONENT COMPLETELY DISSOLVED IN THE LIQUID
COMPONENT IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO GIVE THE INK THE CONSISTENCY OF AN
ORDINARY OIL-VARNISH PRINTING INK - THE SOLID COMPONENT BEING A MEMBER
OF THE GROUP CONSISTING OF NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC RESINS AND CELLULOSE
COMPOUNDS, SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE LIQUID COMPONENT HAVING A VAPOR
PRESSURE AT 20 DEGREE C. AS LOW AS THAT OF DIETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOBUTYL
ETHER AT 20 DEGREE C., AND THE MAJOR PART OF THE LIQUID COMPONENT
HAVING A VAPOR PRESSURE WHICH AT 150 DEGREE C. APPROXIMATES THAT OF
ETHYL ALCOHOL AT ORDINARY TEMPERATURES AND FORMING A STABLE SOLUTION
WITH THE SOLID COMPONENT."  IN OTHER WORDS, GESSLER CLAIMS TO HAVE
INVENTED AN INK WHICH WILL NOT DRY AT ROOM TEMPERATURE BUT WHICH WILL
DRY INSTANTLY UPON THE APPLICATION OF HEAT AFTER PRINTING.  SUCH AN INK
IS OF NO PARTICULAR VALUE IN THE PRINTING OF NEWSPAPERS OR OTHER
PUBLICATIONS WHICH USE ABSORBENT PAPER.  THIS CAN BE DONE ACCEPTABLY
WITH ORDINARY INKS CONTAINING LINSEED OIL WHICH IS NON-VOLATILE AT ALL
RELEVANT TEMPERATURES.  THE PAPER ABSORBS THE INK WHEN ONE SIDE IS
PRINTED, AND THE OTHER SIDE CAN BE PRINTED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT DANGER
OF SMUDGING. 

BUT THE INK DISCLOSED IN THE PATENT DOES HAVE UTILITY IN THE PRINTING
OF MAGAZINES AND OTHER MATERIALS WHICH USE SMOOTH NON-ABSORBENT PAPER. 
SINCE ITS DISCLOSURE BY GESSLER, IT OR SIMILAR INKS WHICH ARE CLAIMED
TO INFRINGE HAVE BEEN USED TO PRINT "THE NEW YORKER," "COLLIER'S," AND
"THE SATURDAY EVENING POST."  SUCH PUBLICATIONS PREVIOUSLY WOULD
REQUIRE CONSIDERABLY MORE TIME FOR PRINTING SINCE THE REVERSE SIDE OF
THE PAPER WHICH THEY USED COULD NOT BE PRINTED UNTIL THE FIRST SIDE WAS
DRY.  NOR COULD THE SHEETS BE STACKED OR FOLDED WITHOUT DANGER OF
"OFFSET" PRINTING.  THE SMOOTH PAPER WOULD NOT ABSORB THE LINSEED-OIL
INKS, AND DELAY OF FROM ONE TO TWENTY-FOUR HOURS WAS NECESSARY BEFORE
PRINTING WAS SUFFICIENTLY DRY TO ALLOW THE SHEETS TO BE WORKED UPON
AGAIN. 

MANY EFFORTS WERE MADE TO ELIMINATE THE NECESSITY FOR DELAY.  THE
PROBLEM WAS COMPLICATED BY THE FACT THAT THE PRESSES USED IN THIS KIND
OF PRINTING ARE EQUIPPED WITH A LONG SERIES OF INK-DISTRIBUTING ROLLERS
TO SPREAD OUT THE INK TO THE OPTIMUM THIN FILM BEFORE IT IS APPLIED TO
THE TYPE.  HENCE, WHEN INKS WITH VOLATILE COMPONENTS WERE USED, THEY
WOULD DRY ON THE ROLLERS BEFORE THEY GOT TO THE TYPE.  AND IF INKS WITH
NON-VOLATILE INGREDIENTS - LIKE LINSEED OIL - WERE USED, THEY WOULD NOT
DRY EXCEPT BY SLOW OXIDATION.  OTHER APPROACHES TO THE SOLUTION OF THE
PROBLEM INCLUDED THE EXPOSURE OF SHEETS PRINTED FROM LINSEED-OIL INKS
TO OZONE, BUT THAT PROCESS WAS DANGEROUS AND NOT WHOLLY SATISFACTORY. 
GESSLER'S INK COMBINES THE QUALITIES OF AN INK WHICH DOES NOT DRY ON
THE ROLLERS AND ONE WHICH DRIES QUICKLY AFTER PRINTING WHEN HEAT IS
APPLIED TO IT. 

THESE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INK RESULT FROM THE NATURE OF THE
SOLVENT WHICH IS ONE OF ITS COMPONENTS.  GESSLER, IN HIS SPECIFICATION,
NAMED BUTYL CARBITOL (DIETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOBUTYL ETHER IS SAID TO BE
THE MORE ACCURATE SCIENTIFIC TERM) BUT THAT COMPOUND WAS GIVEN ONLY AS
AN EXAMPLE, AND MOST OF THE INKS WHICH HIS COMPANY NOW MAKES CONTAIN
"NARROW CUTS" OF PETROLEUM IN PLACE OF BUTYL CARBITOL.  A NARROW CUT OF
PETROLEUM CONSISTS OF ONLY A FEW KINDS OF HYDROCARBONS, AND
CONSEQUENTLY EVAPORATES CONSISTENTLY SINCE EACH OF THE HYDROCARBONS HAS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME VAPOR PRESSURE CURVE.  THE ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING
INKS SIMILARLY ARE MADE WITH NARROW CUTS OF PETROLEUM.  ALL OF THESE
SOLVENTS HAVE THE PECULIAR QUALITY OF BEING RELATIVELY NON-VOLATILE AT
ORDINARY ROOM TEMPERATURE BUT HIGHLY VOLATILE AT A TEMPERATURE OF 150
DEGREE C., A TEMPERATURE TO WHICH PAPER CAN SAFELY BE HEATED WITHOUT
BURNING.  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT INKS CONTAINING THESE SOLVENTS HAVE
ENABLED MAGAZINES TO BE PRINTED ON HIGH-SPEED ROTARY PRESSES WHICH ARE
FURNISHED WITH HEATING DEVICES, WITHOUT INTERRUPTION FOR DRYING. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD GESSLER'S PATENT INVALID BECAUSE ANTICIPATED
BY THE PRIOR ART, AND HELD THAT THE PETITIONER'S INKS DID NOT
INFRINGE.  INTERCHEMICAL CORP. V. SINCLAIR & CARROLL CO., 50 F.SUPP. 
881.  THE CIRCUIT COURT REVERSED, HOLDING THE PATENT VALID AND
INFRINGED.  INTERCHEMICAL CORP. V. SINCLAIR & CARROLL CO., 144 F.2D
842.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  323 U.S. 705. 

THERE HAS BEEN A TENDENCY AMONG THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS IN
INFRINGEMENT SUITS TO DISPOSE OF THEM WHERE POSSIBLE ON THE GROUND OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF THE
PATENT.  IRVIN V. BUICK MOTOR CO., 88 F.2D 947, 951; AERO SPARK PLUG
CO. V. B.G. CORP., 130 F.2D 290; FRANKLIN V. MASONITE CORP., 132 F.2D
800.  IT HAS COME TO BE RECOGNIZED, HOWEVER, THAT OF THE TWO QUESTIONS,
VALIDITY HAS THE GREATER PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, COVER V. SCHWARTZ, 133 F.2D
541, AND THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE FOLLOWED WHAT WILL USUALLY BE
THE BETTER PRACTICE BY INQUIRING FULLY INTO THE VALIDITY OF THIS
PATENT. 

A LONG LINE OF CASES HAS HELD IT TO BE AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR
THE VALIDITY OF A PATENT THAT THE SUBJECT-MATTER DISPLAY "INVENTION,"
"MORE INGENUITY  ...  THAN THE WORK OF A MECHANIC SKILLED IN THE ART."
HICKS V. KELSEY, 18 WALL.  670; SLAWSON V. GRAND STREET R. CO., 107
U.S. 649; PHILLIPS V. DETROIT, 111 U.S. 604; MORRIS V. MCMILLIN, 112
U.S. 244; SARANAC AUTOMATIC MACHINE CORP. V. WIREBOUNDS PATENTS CO.,
282 U.S. 704; HONOLULU OIL CORP. V. HALLIBURTON, 306 U.S. 550; CUNO
ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., 314 U.S. 84, 90.  THIS
TEST IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO APPLY; BUT ITS PURPOSE IS CLEAR.  UNDER THIS
TEST, SOME SUBSTANTIAL INNOVATION IS NECESSARY, AN INNOVATION FOR WHICH
SOCIETY IS TRULY INDEBTED TO THE EFFORTS OF THE PATENTEE.  WHETHER OR
NOT THOSE EFFORTS ARE OF A SPECIAL KIND DOES NOT CONCERN US.  THE
PRIMARY PURPOSE OF OUR PATENT SYSTEM IS NOT REWARD OF THE INDIVIDUAL
BUT THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE ARTS AND SCIENCES.  FN1  ITS INDUCEMENT IS
DIRECTED TO DISCLOSURE OF ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE WHICH WILL BE
BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY; IT IS NOT A CERTIFICATE OF MERIT, BUT AN
INCENTIVE TO DISCLOSURE.  SEE HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323
U.S. 386, 432-433.  CONSEQUENTLY IT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY
OF THE INVENTOR'S MIND, BUT WITH THE QUALITY OF HIS PRODUCT. 

THE PATENT IN SUIT WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF LONG AND DIFFICULT
EXPERIMENTATION.  ALTHOUGH LIKE OTHER PATENT CASES, THIS HAS AN
EXTENSIVE RECORD, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHEREIN GESSLER'S INVENTION
CONSISTS.  IN 1930, HE WAS ASKED TO MAKE AN ODORLESS INK, AND HE
SELECTED FROM A CATALOG OF A CHEMICAL MANUFACTURER THREE SOLVENTS WHICH
THE CATALOG INDICATED TO BE RELATIVELY ODORLESS.  THEIR VAPOR
PRESSURES, THAT IS, THEIR RATES OF EVAPORATION AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES,
WERE ALSO LISTED.  HE TRIED INKS MADE WITH EACH OF THE COMPOUNDS AS A
SOLVENT AND DECIDED THAT BUTYL CARBITOL WAS THE MOST SATISFACTORY,
SINCE IT DID NOT DRY WHILE ON THE ROLLERS, AT ORDINARY TEMPERATURE. 

THE COMPANY WHICH HAD REQUESTED THE ODORLESS INK, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT
IT WAS UNSATISFACTORY FOR OTHER REASONS AND, AFTER SOME FURTHER EFFORT,
GESSLER STOPPED TRYING TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.  SOMETIME IN 1932,
HOWEVER, THE SAME COMPANY ASKED GESSLER WHETHER HE COULD SUPPLY THEM
WITH AN INK "THAT WOULD BE DRY AFTER BEING PRINTED?  WE CAN PUT IT OVER
SOME KIND OF HEATING DEVICE."  GESSLER'S ANSWER WAS, "YES, I THINK WE
COULD.  IN FACT, ONE OF THOSE INKS I MADE FOR YOU IN THE BEGINNING
WOULD DO THAT."  GESSLER TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:  "AND NOW, WHEN MR. CRAY
CAME, IN THE YEAR 1932, AND TOLD ME THAT HEATING UNITS, STEAM-HEATED
ROLLERS ARE USED ON PRINTING PRESSES, THAT WAS THE LAST KEY THAT I
NEEDED FOR THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM.  I HAD NOT KNOWN THAT BEFORE,
AND I KNEW THAT IF I COULD APPLY ANY HEAT TO THE THIN FILM OF THOSE
INKS THAT THEY WOULD DRY ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY.  WITH THAT IN MIND
THAT WAS THE MENTAL BACKGROUND, I WOULD SAY, THAT I SENT THIS
PARTICULAR INK TO MR. CRAY.  I DID NOT SEND HIM A NUMBER OF INKS OR A
SELECTION OF INKS, BUT I SENT HIM JUST ONE SPECIFIC INK."  AND WITH
RESPECT TO THE SOLVENTS HE HAD CHOSEN, GESSLER TESTIFIED FURTHER: 

Q. WHAT I WANT TO GET STRAIGHT IN MY MIND, DR. GESSLER, IS THIS:  YOU
SELECTED THESE THREE, IS THAT RIGHT? 

A. THAT IS RIGHT. 

Q. DID YOU SELECT THEM FROM A MUCH LONGER LIST? 

A. THAT IS RIGHT. 

Q. AND BEFORE YOU SELECTED THEM YOU TRIED THEM ALL OUT, DID YOU?  A.
NO. YOU SEE THE LIST IS LISTED ACCORDING TO THE BOILING POINT, AND IF
YOU FOLLOWED ON I TOOK IT FROM A CERTAIN BOILING POINT ON UPWARDS. 

Q. OH, I SEE.  YOU TOOK THEM OUT OF A LONG LIST IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THEIR BOILING POINT?  A. THAT IS CORRECT.  THAT WAS MY FIRST INDICATION
OF EVAPORATION RATE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

Q....  IN SELECTING THESE THREE SOLVENTS THAT YOU REFERRED TO, BUTYL
CELLOSOLVE, CARBITOL AND BUTYL CARBITOL, DID YOU HAVE REFERENCE TO A
CARBIDE & CARBON CHEMICALS CORPORATION CATALOG?  A. I KNEW THEM.  I
DON'T KNOW IF I HAD REFERENCE, BUT I KNEW NATURALLY THOSE SOLVENTS. 

Q. YOU MAY HAVE REFERRED TO A CATALOG?  A. I MAY HAVE, CERTAINLY.  I
MOST PROBABLY HAD THE CATALOG. 

Q. YOU GOT COPIES OF THEIR CATALOGS, DID YOU?  A. OH, YES. 

     .         .         .         .   . 

Q. ON THE FLY-LEAF OF THE CARBIDE & CARBON CATALOG THERE IS A LIST OF
THEIR PRODUCTS.  DO YOU REMEMBER THAT LIST (HANDING TO WITNESS)?  A. A
SIMILAR LIST. 

Q. THAT GIVES BOILING POINTS AND VAPOR PRESSURES? 

A. IT DOES. 

Q. AND YOU MAY HAVE SELECTED THESE THREE SOLVENTS THAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT FROM THAT LIST?  A.  THAT IS POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH I KNEW THE
SOLVENTS.  I WAS VERY CONVERSANT WITH THEM.  I TOLD YOU A WHILE AGO
WHY. 

BUTYL CARBITOL WAS FIRST PUT ON THE MARKET IN 1929, AND SUBSEQUENTLY
WAS LISTED IN THE CATALOGS OF CARBIDE & CARBON CHEMICALS CORPORATION. 
IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT GESSLER'S CONTRIBUTION WAS A RECOGNITION THAT A
SOLVENT HAVING THE PECULIAR QUALITIES OF NEGLIGIBLE VAPOR PRESSURE AT
ROOM TEMPERATURE AND HIGH VAPOR PRESSURE AT 150 DEGREE C. WAS WHAT WAS
NEEDED.  BOTH THE CIRCUIT COURT AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT AN
ARTICLE WRITTEN IN 1931, REFERRED TO AS THE HANSON ARTICLE, HAD POSED
THE PROBLEM.  FN2  IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT IF HANSON HAD KNOWN
OF THE QUALITIES OF BUTYL CARBITOL, IF HE HAD HAD THE CARBIDE & CARBON
CATALOG BEFORE HIM, HE OR ANY OTHER PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART COULD NOT
HAVE DEVISED THE INK WHICH GESSLER CLAIMS TO HAVE INVENTED.  WE REACH
THIS CONCLUSION EVEN THOUGH HANSON TESTIFIED IN AN AFFIDAVIT INTRODUCED
IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING THAT HE HAD WORKED FOR OVER A YEAR
TRYING TO PRODUCE SUCH AN INK AND DID NOT SUCCEED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT BASED ITS JUDGMENT ON ANTICIPATION BY PRIOR
PATENTS.  MOST OF THESE PERTAINED TO INKS WHICH WERE NOT USED IN
ORDINARY PRINTING:  LEFFERTS AND STEVENS, NO. 380,654, ISSUED APRIL 3,
1888, WAS AN INK USED FOR PRINTING ON CELLULOID AND OTHER PYROXYLINE
COMPOUNDS; THE DOUGHTY AND MCELROY PATENTS, NOS. 1,439,696 AND
1,450,692, ISSUED DECEMBER 26, 1922 AND APRIL 3, 1923 TAUGHT AN INK
WHICH WAS MAINLY USEFUL FOR STAMPING WITH METALLIC INKS BY MEANS OF
HEATED DIES.  BUT THE JIROUSEK PATENT, NO. 1,954,627, ISSUED APRIL 10,
1934, WAS FOR AN ORDINARY PRINTING INK.  JIROUSEK'S PATENT WAS DIRECTED
TO "A COMPOSITION  ...  WHICH CAN SET QUICKLY AND DRY RAPIDLY AND ALSO
HANDLE AND FEED PROPERLY AND DISTRIBUTE FREELY."  AND THE PATENT
SPECIFIES, "IN THE USE OF SUCH COMPOSITIONS, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
IMPRESSION IS MADE, HEAT SHOULD BE APPLIED, AND MOST ADVANTAGEOUSLY
THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY A SUITABLE HEATER, ELECTRIC, GAS, ETC.,
ARRANGED ON OR ADJACENT THE PRESS, SO THAT THE DELIVERED PRINTED
IMPRESSION IS SUBJECTED TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE OF HEAT TO COMPLETE THE
SETTING ACTION." 

THE INKS DISCLOSED IN THESE PRIOR PATENTS DID NOT CONTAIN THE SAME
SOLVENT OR SOLVENTS SIMILAR TO THOSE WHICH GESSLER RECOMMENDED AND
WHICH HIS COMPANY AND THE PETITIONERS NOW USE.  THEY HAD DIFFERENT
VAPOR PRESSURES BOTH AT ROOM TEMPERATURE AND AT 150 DEGREE C. BUT ALL
THESE PATENTS TAUGHT AN INK MADE WITH A SOLVENT THAT WOULD BE NON
VOLATILE AT ROOM TEMPERATURE AND HIGHLY VOLATILE WHEN HEATED. 
GESSLER'S SOLVENT IS UNDOUBTEDLY MORE SATISFACTORY THAN ANY OF THE
SOLVENTS MENTIONED IN THESE PATENTS, BUT IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT ALL
BUT ONE OF THESE PATENTS WERE GRANTED BEFORE BUTYL CARBITOL APPEARED ON
THE MARKET.  THE FACT IS THAT GESSLER HIMSELF TO A LARGE EXTENT HAS
ABANDONED BUTYL CARBITOL AND NOW USES A NARROW CUT OF PETROLEUM.  EVEN
ASSUMING THAT IF GESSLER HAD DISCOVERED THE COMPOUND HE WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO A PATENT, HE DID NOT DISCOVER IT. READING A LIST AND
SELECTING A KNOWN COMPOUND TO MEET KNOWN REQUIREMENTS IS NO MORE
INGENIOUS THAN SELECTING THE LAST PIECE TO PUT INTO THE LAST OPENING IN
A JIG-SAW PUZZLE.  IT IS NOT INVENTION.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS
REVERSED.    FN1  SEE THE TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONER COE BEFORE THE
TNEC: "IT IS NOT THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF THE PATENT LAWS OF OUR OWN
COUNTRY OR OF ANY NATION TO REWARD AN INDIVIDUAL.  THE PURPOSE IS MUCH
DEEPER AND THE EFFECT MUCH WIDER THAN INDIVIDUAL GAIN.  IT IS THE
PROMOTION OF SCIENCE AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE ARTS LOOKING TO THE
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE NATION THAT THE PATENT LAWS HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH. 
THE INDIVIDUAL REWARD IS ONLY THE LURE TO BRING ABOUT THIS MUCH BROADER
OBJECTIVE.  EVERY PATENT GRANTED BENEFITS SOCIETY BY ADDING TO THE SUM
TOTAL OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE, BUT THAT IS NOT ENOUGH, AND THAT ALONE WILL
NOT ACHIEVE THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE PATENT SYSTEM."  TNEC HEARINGS,
PART 3, P. 857. 

FN2  THE RELEVANT PART OF THE HANSON ARTICLE, WHICH APPEARS IN THE
RECORD, IS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE SOLVENTS AVAILABLE HAVE DIFFERENT BOILING
POINTS RANGING THROUGH A BROAD SCALE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR THIS
PROBLEM THEIR VAPOR PRESSURE CURVES ARE NEARLY PARALLEL.  IF WE CHOOSE
ONE FROM THE GROUP WITH A BOILING POINT WELL UNDER 250 DEGREES F. (121
DEGREES C.), THE HIGHEST PRACTICAL HEAT TO APPLY TO A PRINTED SHEET, WE
FIND THAT AT ROOM TEMPERATURE ITS VAPOR PRESSURE IS STILL SO GREAT THAT
DRYING WILL PROGRESS RAPIDLY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF ONE IS SELECTED
WITH A VAPOR PRESSURE SO LOW AT ROOM TEMPERATURE THAT LITTLE DRYING
TAKES PLACE, AT 200 DEGREES TO 250 DEGREES F., WE FIND THE BOILING
POINT HARDLY ATTAINED OR NOT EVEN REACHED. 

"IF WE COULD ONLY FLATTEN THE CURVE OF A HIGH BOILING SOLVENT WITH A
VAPOR PRESSURE OF 1 IN. OF MERCURY OR LESS AT 80 DEGREES DOWN TO A
POINT WHERE AT 30 IN. THE BOILING TEMPERATURE WOULD BE REDUCED TO ONLY
150 DEGREES OR SO IT WOULD NOT TAKE US LONG TO COMPOUND AN INK TO MEET
THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR A PLASTIC INK SET FORTH ABOVE." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :
























SCREWS V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 91 


NO. 42.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 7, 1945.  - 140 F.2D
662, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION, FOR VIOLATION
OF SEC. 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AND CONSPIRACY THEREUNTO, OF LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED A NEGRO CITIZEN FOR A STATE OFFENSE
AND WRONGFULLY BEAT HIM TO DEATH, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED WITH
DIRECTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL.  PP. 92-94, 113. 

OPINION OF DOUGLAS, J., IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK
AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR: 

2.  SECTION 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, SO FAR AS IT PENALIZES ACTS
WHICH "WILLFULLY" DEPRIVE A PERSON OF ANY RIGHT SECURED TO HIM BY THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS
REQUIRING A SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEPRIVE OF A RIGHT WHICH HAS BEEN MADE
SPECIFIC BY THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES OR BY DECISIONS INTERPRETING THEM; AND, AS SO CONSTRUED, THE
GUILT.  P. 101. 

3.  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT INSTRUCTING THE JURY THAT, IN ORDER
TO CONVICT, THEY MUST FIND THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD THE PURPOSE TO
DEPRIVE THE PRISONER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER
THAT REQUISITE BAD PURPOSE WAS PRESENT THE JURY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO
CONSIDER ALL THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES - THE MALICE OF THE
DEFENDANTS, THE WEAPONS USED IN THE ASSAULT, THE CHARACTER AND DURATION
OF THE ASSAULT, THE PROVOCATION, IF ANY, AND THE LIKE.  P. 106. 

4.  ALTHOUGH NO EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN TO THE TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE, THE
ERROR WAS SO FUNDAMENTAL - FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY THE ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS OF THE ONLY OFFENSE ON WHICH THE CONVICTION COULD REST - THAT
THIS COURT TAKES NOTE OF IT SUA SPONTE.  P. 107. 

5.  IN MAKING THE ARREST AND IN ASSAULTING THE PRISONER, THE
DEFENDANTS ACTED "UNDER COLOR OF LAW," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 20 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE.  P. 107. 

DEFENDANTS WERE OFFICERS OF THE LAW WHO HAD MADE AN ARREST, AND IT
WAS THEIR DUTY UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE TO MAKE THE ARREST
EFFECTIVE.  BY THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS, THEY MADE THE ASSAULT IN ORDER TO
PROTECT THEMSELVES AND TO KEEP THE PRISONER FROM ESCAPING. 

SCREWS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 718, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING CONVICTIONS
FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AND CONSPIRACY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING OPINION, IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK
AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES A SHOCKING AND REVOLTING EPISODE IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT.  PETITIONER SCREWS WAS SHERIFF OF BAKER COUNTY, GEORGIA. 
HE ENLISTED THE ASSISTANCE OF PETITIONER JONES, A POLICEMAN, AND
PETITIONER KELLEY, A SPECIAL DEPUTY, IN ARRESTING ROBERT HALL, A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF GEORGIA.  THE ARREST WAS MADE LATE
AT NIGHT AT HALL'S HOME ON A WARRANT CHARGING HALL WITH THEFT OF A
TIRE.  HALL, A YOUNG NEGRO ABOUT THIRTY YEARS OF AGE, WAS HANDCUFFED
AND TAKEN BY CAR TO THE COURT HOUSE.  AS HALL ALIGHTED FROM THE CAR AT
THE COURT-HOUSE SQUARE, THE THREE PETITIONERS BEGAN BEATING HIM WITH
THEIR FISTS AND WITH A SOLID-BAR BLACKJACK ABOUT EIGHT INCHES LONG AND
WEIGHING TWO POUNDS.  THEY CLAIMED HALL HAD REACHED FOR A GUN AND HAD
USED INSULTING LANGUAGE AS HE ALIGHTED FROM THE CAR.  BUT AFTER HALL,
STILL HANDCUFFED, HAD BEEN KNOCKED TO THE GROUND THEY CONTINUED TO BEAT
HIM FROM FIFTEEN TO THIRTY MINUTES UNTIL HE WAS UNCONSCIOUS.  HALL WAS
THEN DRAGGED FEET FIRST THROUGH THE COURT-HOUSE YARD INTO THE JAIL AND
THROWN UPON THE FLOOR DYING.  AN AMBULANCE WAS CALLED AND HALL WAS
REMOVED TO A HOSPITAL WHERE HE DIED WITHIN THE HOUR AND WITHOUT
REGAINING CONSCIOUSNESS.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT SCREWS HELD A GRUDGE
AGAINST HALL AND HAD THREATENED TO "GET" HIM. 

AN INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED AGAINST PETITIONERS - ONE COUNT CHARGING A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 52 AND
ANOTHER CHARGING A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SEC. 20 CONTRARY TO SEC. 37 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88.  SEC. 20 PROVIDES: 

"WHOEVER, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR
CUSTOM, WILLFULLY SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY INHABITANT
OF ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS, PAINS, OR
PENALTIES, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INHABITANT BEING AN ALIEN, OR BY REASON
OF HIS COLOR, OR RACE, THAN ARE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF
CITIZENS, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE
THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH."  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT PETITIONERS,
ACTING UNDER COLOR OF THE LAWS OF GEORGIA, "WILLFULLY" CAUSED HALL TO
BE DEPRIVED OF "RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED"
TO HIM BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF
LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THE RIGHT TO BE TRIED, UPON THE CHARGE
ON WHICH HE WAS ARRESTED, BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND IF FOUND GUILTY TO
BE PUNISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF GEORGIA; THAT IS TO SAY THAT
PETITIONERS "UNLAWFULLY AND WRONGFULLY DID ASSAULT, STRIKE AND BEAT THE
SAID ROBERT HALL ABOUT THE HEAD WITH HUMAN FISTS AND A BLACKJACK
CAUSING INJURIES" TO HALL "WHICH WERE THE PROXIMATE AND IMMEDIATE CAUSE
OF HIS DEATH."  A LIKE CHARGE WAS MADE IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED TO A JURY.  FN1  THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW GAVE ONE CHARGED WITH A CRIME THE RIGHT TO BE TRIED
BY A JURY AND SENTENCED BY A COURT.  ON THE QUESTION OF INTENT IT
CHARGED THAT 

"...  IF THESE DEFENDANTS, WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO MAKE THE
ARREST EFFECTUAL OR NECESSARY TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL PROTECTION, BEAT
THIS MAN, ASSAULTED HIM OR KILLED HIM WHILE HE WAS UNDER ARREST, THEN
THEY WOULD BE ACTING ILLEGALLY UNDER COLOR OF LAW, AS STATED BY THIS
STATUTE, AND WOULD BE DEPRIVING THE PRISONER OF CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND
CONSENTED TO BY THE STATE OF GEORGIA." 

THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY AND A FINE AND IMPRISONMENT ON
EACH COUNT WAS IMPOSED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  140 F.2D 662.  THE CASE
IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 

                             I 

WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH THE CLAIM THAT SEC. 20 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, INSOFAR AS IT MAKES CRIMINAL ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE ARGUMENT RUNS AS
FOLLOWS:  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS ACT AS CONSTRUED IN UNITED STATES V.
CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 328, WAS UPHELD IN ITS APPLICATION TO CERTAIN
BALLOT BOX FRAUDS COMMITTED BY STATE OFFICIALS.  BUT IN THAT CASE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTED WERE THE RIGHTS TO VOTE SPECIFICALLY
GUARANTEED BY ART. I, SEC. 2 AND SEC. 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  HERE
THERE IS NO ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT.  THERE HAVE BEEN
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN THE COURT AS TO THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  THE MAJORITY HAVE QUITE CONSISTENTLY CONSTRUED IT IN
BROAD GENERAL TERMS.  THUS IT WAS STATED IN TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211
U.S. 78, 101, THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT "NO CHANGE IN ANCIENT
PROCEDURE CAN BE MADE WHICH DISREGARDS THOSE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, TO
BE ASCERTAINED FROM TIME TO TIME BY JUDICIAL ACTION, WHICH HAVE
RELATION TO PROCESS OF LAW AND PROTECT THE CITIZEN IN HIS PRIVATE
RIGHT, AND GUARD HIM AGAINST THE ARBITRARY ACTION OF GOVERNMENT."  IN
SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 105, IT WAS SAID THAT DUE PROCESS
PREVENTS STATE ACTION WHICH "OFFENDS SOME PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE SO
ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AS TO BE RANKED
AS FUNDAMENTAL."  THE SAME STANDARD WAS EXPRESSED IN PALKO V.
CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 325, IN TERMS OF A "SCHEME OF ORDERED
LIBERTY."  AND THE SAME IDEA WAS RECENTLY PHRASED AS FOLLOWS:  "THE
PHRASE FORMULATES A CONCEPT LESS RIGID AND MORE FLUID THAN THOSE
ENVISAGED IN OTHER SPECIFIC AND PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.  ITS APPLICATION IS LESS A MATTER OF RULE.  ASSERTED DENIAL IS
TO BE TESTED BY AN APPRAISAL OF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS IN A GIVEN CASE. 
THAT WHICH MAY, IN ONE SETTING, CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF FUNDAMENTAL
FAIRNESS, SHOCKING TO THE UNIVERSAL SENSE OF JUSTICE, MAY, IN OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, FALL SHORT OF
SUCH DENIAL."  BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 462. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE ACT MUST BE READ AS IF IT CONTAINED THOSE BROAD
AND FLUID DEFINITIONS OF DUE PROCESS AND THAT IF IT IS SO READ IT
PROVIDES NO ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IN
UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81, 89, AN ACT OF CONGRESS
WAS STRUCK DOWN, THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN "THE EXACT
EQUIVALENT OF AN EFFORT TO CARRY OUT A STATUTE WHICH IN TERMS MERELY
PENALIZED AND PUNISHED ALL ACTS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN
UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE IN THE ESTIMATION OF THE COURT AND JURY."  IN
THAT CASE THE ACT DECLARED CRIMINAL WAS THE MAKING OF "ANY UNJUST OR
UNREASONABLE RATE OR CHARGE IN HANDLING OR DEALING IN OR WITH ANY
NECESSARIES."  255 U.S. P. 86.  THE ACT CONTAINED NO DEFINITION OF AN
"UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE RATE" NOR DID IT REFER TO ANY SOURCE WHERE THE
MEASURE OF "UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE" COULD BE ASCERTAINED.  IN THE
INSTANT CASE THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS ARE, TO BE SURE, A SOURCE OF
REFERENCE FOR ASCERTAINING THE SPECIFIC CONTENT OF THE CONCEPT OF DUE
PROCESS.  BUT EVEN SO THE ACT WOULD INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE A LARGE
BODY OF CHANGING AND UNCERTAIN LAW.  THAT LAW IS NOT ALWAYS REDUCIBLE
TO SPECIFIC RULES, IS EXPRESSIBLE ONLY IN GENERAL TERMS, AND TURNS MANY
TIMES ON THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ARGUED
THAT SUCH A BODY OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES LACKS THE BASIC SPECIFICITY
NECESSARY FOR CRIMINAL STATUTES UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 
CONGRESS DID NOT DEFINE WHAT IT DESIRED TO PUNISH BUT REFERRED THE
CITIZEN TO A COMPREHENSIVE LAW LIBRARY IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHAT ACTS
WERE PROHIBITED.  TO ENFORCE SUCH A STATUTE WOULD BE LIKE SANCTIONING
THE PRACTICE OF CALIGULA WHO "PUBLISHED THE LAW, BUT IT WAS WRITTEN IN
A VERY SMALL HAND, AND POSTED UP IN A CORNER, SO THAT NO ONE COULD MAKE
A COPY OF IT."  SUETONIUS, LIVES OF THE TWELVE CAESARS, P. 278. 

THE SERIOUS CHARACTER OF THAT CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE ACT IS EMPHASIZED IF THE CUSTOMARY STANDARD OF GUILT FOR STATUTORY
CRIMES IS TAKEN.  AS WE SHALL SEE, SPECIFIC INTENT IS AT TIMES
REQUIRED.  HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW, PP. 66 ET SEQ. BUT THE GENERAL RULE
WAS STATED IN ELLIS V. UNITED STATES, 206 U.S. 246, 257, AS FOLLOWS:
"IF A MAN INTENTIONALLY ADOPTS CERTAIN CONDUCT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
KNOWN TO HIM, AND THAT CONDUCT IS FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW UNDER THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES, HE INTENTIONALLY BREAKS THE LAW IN THE ONLY SENSE IN
WHICH THE LAW EVER CONSIDERS INTENT."  AND SEE HORNING V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 254 U.S. 135, 137; NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 377. 
UNDER THAT TEST A LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER VIOLATES SEC. 20 AND
COMMITS A FEDERAL OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE CAN BE SENT TO THE PENITENTIARY
IF HE DOES AN ACT WHICH SOME COURT LATER HOLDS DEPRIVES A PERSON OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  AND HE IS A CRIMINAL THOUGH HIS MOTIVE WAS PURE AND
THOUGH HIS PURPOSE WAS UNRELATED TO THE DISREGARD OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE.  THE TREACHEROUS GROUND ON WHICH STATE OFFICIALS - POLICE,
PROSECUTORS, LEGISLATORS, AND JUDGES - WOULD WALK IS INDICATED BY THE
CHARACTER AND CLOSENESS OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT INTERPRETING THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  A CONFESSION OBTAINED BY
TOO LONG QUESTIONING (ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143); THE
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING A LICENSE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF
RELIGIOUS LITERATURE (MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105); THE
DENIAL OF THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES (CF.
POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45 WITH BETTS V. BRADY, SUPRA); THE
ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN TYPES OF ANTI-PICKETING STATUTES (THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88); THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE PRICE CONTROL LAWS
(OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313 U.S. 236); THE REQUIREMENT THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL
CHILDREN SALUTE THE FLAG (BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624)
- THESE ARE ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE KIND OF STATE ACTION N2 WHICH MIGHT OR
MIGHT NOT BE CAUGHT IN THE BROAD REACHES OF SEC. 20 DEPENDENT ON THE
PREVAILING VIEW OF THE COURT AS CONSTITUTED WHEN THE CASE AROSE.  THOSE
WHO ENFORCED LOCAL LAW TODAY MIGHT NOT KNOW FOR MANY MONTHS (AND
MEANWHILE COULD NOT FIND OUT) WHETHER WHAT THEY DID DEPRIVED SOME ONE
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE ENFORCEMENT OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE SO
CONSTRUED WOULD INDEED CAST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES LOOSE AT THEIR OWN
RISK ON A VAST UNCHARTED SEA. 

IF SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS NOT NECESSARY, IT SHOULD BE AVOIDED.  THIS
COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY FAVORED THAT INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION WHICH
SUPPORTS ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.  ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 348; LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 30; ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337, 351
352.  THAT REASON IS IMPELLING HERE SO THAT IF AT ALL POSSIBLE SEC. 20
MAY BE ALLOWED TO SERVE ITS GREAT PURPOSE - THE PROTECTION OF THE
INDIVIDUAL IN HIS CIVIL LIBERTIES. 

SEC. 20 WAS ENACTED TO ENFORCE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT N3.  IT
DERIVES  FN4  FROM SEC. 2 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF APRIL 9, 1866.  14
STAT. 27.  FN5  SENATOR TRUMBULL, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED THE BILL, STATED THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS "TO
PROTECT ALL PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES IN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND
FURNISH THE MEANS OF THEIR VINDICATION."  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 211.  IN ORIGIN IT WAS AN ANTIDISCRIMINATION MEASURE (AS ITS
LANGUAGE INDICATED), FRAMED TO PROTECT NEGROES IN THEIR NEWLY WON
RIGHTS.  SEE FLACK, THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (1908), P.
21.  IT WAS AMENDED BY SEC. 17 OF THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, 16 STAT.
144,  FN6  AND MADE APPLICABLE TO "ANY INHABITANT OF ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY."  FN7  THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE "DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES, SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES" WAS INTRODUCED BY THE
REVISERS IN 1874.  R.S. SEC. 5510.  THOSE WORDS WERE TAKEN OVER FROM
SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 20, 1871, 17 STAT. 13(THE SO-CALLED KU-KLUX
ACT) WHICH PROVIDED CIVIL SUITS FOR REDRESS OF SUCH WRONGS.  FN8 SEE
CONG. REC., 43D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 828.  THE 1874 REVISION WAS
APPLICABLE TO ANY PERSON WHO UNDER COLOR OF LAW, ETC., "SUBJECTS, OR
CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED" ANY INHABITANT TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS, ETC.  THE REQUIREMENT FOR A "WILLFUL" VIOLATION WAS INTRODUCED
BY THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF 1909.  ACT OF MARCH 4, 1909,
35 STAT. 1092.  AND WE ARE TOLD "WILLFULLY" WAS ADDED TO SEC. 20 IN
ORDER TO MAKE THE SECTION "LESS SEVERE."  43 CONG. REC., 60TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 3599. 

WE HESITATE TO SAY THAT WHEN CONGRESS SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT  FN9  IN THIS FASHION IT DID A VAIN THING.  WE HESITATE TO
CONCLUDE THAT FOR 80 YEARS THIS EFFORT OF CONGRESS, RENEWED SEVERAL
TIMES, TO PROTECT THE IMPORTANT RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN AN IDLE GESTURE.  YET IF THE ACT
FALLS BY REASON OF VAGUENESS SO FAR AS DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS CONCERNED,
THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE A SIMILAR LACK OF SPECIFICITY WHEN THE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE (MADDEN V. KENTUCKY, 309 U.S. 83) AND
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128; HILL V.
TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400) OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE INVOLVED.  ONLY IF
NO CONSTRUCTION CAN SAVE THE ACT FROM THIS CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
ARE WE WILLING TO REACH THAT RESULT.  WE DO NOT REACH IT, FOR WE ARE OF
THE VIEW THAT IF SEC. 20 IS CONFINED MORE NARROWLY THAN THE LOWER
COURTS CONFINED IT, IT CAN BE PRESERVED AS ONE OF THE SANCTIONS TO THE
GREAT RIGHTS WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO SECURE. 

      II 

WE RECENTLY POINTED OUT THAT "WILLFUL" IS A WORD "OF MANY MEANINGS,
ITS CONSTRUCTION OFTEN BEING INFLUENCED BY ITS CONTEXT."  SPIES V.
UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 492, 497.  AT TIMES, AS THE COURT HELD IN
UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, 290 U.S. 389, 394, THE WORD DENOTES AN ACT
WHICH IS INTENTIONAL RATHER THAN ACCIDENTAL.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 303 U.S. 239.  BUT "WHEN USED IN A CRIMINAL
STATUTE IT GENERALLY MEANS AN ACT DONE WITH A BAD PURPOSE."  ID., P.
394.  AND SEE FELTON V. UNITED STATES, 96 U.S. 699; POTTER V. UNITED
STATES, 155 U.S. 438; SPURR V. UNITED STATES, 174 U.S. 728; HARGROVE V.
UNITED STATES, 67 F.2D 820.  IN THAT EVENT SOMETHING MORE IS REQUIRED
THAN THE DOING OF THE ACT PROSCRIBED BY THE STATUTE.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. BALINT, 258 U.S. 250.  AN EVIL MOTIVE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WHICH THE
STATUTE CONDEMNS BECOMES A CONSTITUENT ELEMENT OF THE CRIME.  SPURR V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 734; UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, SUPRA, P. 395. 
AND THAT ISSUE MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY UNDER APPROPRIATE
INSTRUCTIONS.  UNITED STATES V. RAGEN, 314 U.S. 513, 524. 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CASES IN WHICH "WILLFULLY" HAS BEEN HELD TO
CONNOTE MORE THAN AN ACT WHICH IS VOLUNTARY OR INTENTIONAL WOULD NOT
PROVE HELPFUL AS EACH TURNS ON ITS OWN PECULIAR FACTS.  THOSE CASES,
HOWEVER, MAKE CLEAR THAT IF WE CONSTRUE "WILLFULLY" IN SEC. 20 AS
CONNOTING A PURPOSE TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF A SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT, WE WOULD INTRODUCE NO INNOVATION.  THE COURT, INDEED, HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF A SPECIFIC INTENT TO DO A PROHIBITED
ACT MAY AVOID THOSE CONSEQUENCES TO THE ACCUSED WHICH MAY OTHERWISE
RENDER A VAGUE OR INDEFINITE STATUTE INVALID.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL VICE
IN SUCH A STATUTE IS THE ESSENTIAL INJUSTICE TO THE ACCUSED OF PLACING
HIM ON TRIAL FOR AN OFFENSE, THE NATURE OF WHICH THE STATUTE DOES NOT
DEFINE AND HENCE OF WHICH IT GIVES NO WARNING.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
COHEN GROCERY CO., SUPRA.  BUT WHERE THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED IS ONLY FOR
AN ACT KNOWINGLY DONE WITH THE PURPOSE OF DOING THAT WHICH THE STATUTE
PROHIBITS, THE ACCUSED CANNOT BE SAID TO SUFFER FROM LACK OF WARNING OR
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACT WHICH HE DOES IS A VIOLATION OF LAW.  THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE ACT MUST BE WILLFUL OR PURPOSEFUL MAY NOT RENDER
CERTAIN, FOR ALL PURPOSES, A STATUTORY DEFINITION OF THE CRIME WHICH IS
IN SOME RESPECTS UNCERTAIN.  BUT IT DOES RELIEVE THE STATUTE OF THE
OBJECTION THAT IT PUNISHES WITHOUT WARNING AN OFFENSE OF WHICH THE
ACCUSED WAS UNAWARE.  THAT WAS POINTED OUT BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS
SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246 U.S. 343.  AN
IDAHO STATUTE MADE IT A MISDEMEANOR TO GRAZE SHEEP "UPON ANY RANGE
USUALLY OCCUPIED BY ANY CATTLE GROWER."  THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE
STATUTE WAS VOID FOR INDEFINITENESS BECAUSE IT FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR
THE ASCERTAINMENT OF BOUNDARIES OF A "RANGE" OR FOR DETERMINING WHAT
LENGTH OF TIME WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE A PRIOR OCCUPATION A "USUAL" ONE. 
THE COURT RULED THAT "ANY DANGER TO SHEEPMEN WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE
ARISE FROM INDEFINITENESS, IS REMOVED BY SEC. 6314 OF REVISED CODES,
WHICH PROVIDES THAT:  'IN EVERY CRIME OR PUBLIC OFFENSE THERE MUST
EXIST A UNION, OR JOINT OPERATION, OF ACT AND INTENT, OR CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE.'"  ID., P. 348.  A SIMILAR RULING WAS MADE IN HYGRADE
PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497.  THE CHARGE WAS THAT A CRIMINAL
STATUTE WHICH REGULATED THE SALE OF "KOSHER" MEAT OR PRODUCTS
"SANCTIONED BY THE ORTHODOX HEBREW RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS" WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR WANT OF ANY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT.  THE
COURT SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND STATED, "...  SINCE THE
STATUTES REQUIRE A SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEFRAUD IN ORDER TO ENCOUNTER
THEIR PROHIBITIONS, THE HAZARD OF PROSECUTION WHICH APPELLANTS FEAR
LOSES WHATEVER SUBSTANTIAL FOUNDATION IT MIGHT HAVE IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH A REQUIREMENT."  266 U.S. PP. 502-503.  IN UNITED STATES V. RAGEN,
SUPRA, WE TOOK THAT COURSE IN A PROSECUTION FOR WILLFUL EVASION OF A
FEDERAL INCOME TAX WHERE IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD DEDUCTED
MORE THAN "REASONABLE" ALLOWANCES FOR SALARIES.  BY CONSTRUING THE
STATUTE TO REQUIRE PROOF OF BAD FAITH WE AVOIDED THE SERIOUS QUESTION
WHICH THE RULE OF UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., SUPRA, MIGHT HAVE
PRESENTED.  WE THINK A LIKE COURSE IS APPROPRIATE HERE. 

MOREOVER, THE HISTORY OF SEC. 20 AFFORDS SOME SUPPORT FOR THAT
NARROWER CONSTRUCTION.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE WORD "WILLFULLY" WAS NOT
ADDED TO THE ACT UNTIL 1909.  PRIOR TO THAT TIME IT MAY BE THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THAT HE WHO DEPRIVED A PERSON OF ANY RIGHT PROTECTED
BY THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE LIABLE WITHOUT MORE.  THAT WAS THE
PATTERN OF CRIMINAL LEGISLATION WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED WITHOUT ANY
CHARGE OR PROOF OF SCIENTER.  SHEVLIN-CARPENTER CO. V. MINNESOTA, 218
U.S. 57; UNITED STATES V. BALINT, SUPRA.  AND THE PRESENT ACT IN ITS
ORIGINAL FORM WOULD HAVE BEEN SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE SAME INTERPRETATION
APART FROM THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
WHERE "PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATORY" ACTION MUST BE SHOWN.  SNOWDEN V.
HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1, 8-9.  BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE WORD "WILLFULLY" WAS
ADDED TO MAKE THE SECTION "LESS SEVERE."  WE THINK THE INFERENCE IS
PERMISSIBLE THAT ITS SEVERITY WAS TO BE LESSENED BY MAKING IT
APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE REQUISITE BAD PURPOSE WAS PRESENT, THUS
REQUIRING SPECIFIC INTENT NOT ONLY WHERE DISCRIMINATION IS CLAIMED BUT
IN OTHER SITUATIONS AS WELL.  WE REPEAT THAT THE PRESENCE OF A BAD
PURPOSE OR EVIL INTENT ALONE MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT.  WE DO SAY THAT A
REQUIREMENT OF A SPECIFIC INTENT TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF A FEDERAL RIGHT
MADE DEFINITE BY DECISION OR OTHER RULE OF LAW SAVES THE ACT FROM ANY
CHARGE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ON THE GROUNDS OF VAGUENESS. 

ONCE THE SECTION IS GIVEN THAT CONSTRUCTION, WE THINK THAT THE CLAIM
THAT THE SECTION LACKS AN ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT MUST FAIL. 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT A CRIMINAL STATUTE BE DEFINITE
SERVES A HIGH FUNCTION.  IT GIVES A PERSON ACTING WITH REFERENCE TO THE
STATUTE FAIR WARNING THAT HIS CONDUCT IS WITHIN ITS PROHIBITION.  THIS
REQUIREMENT IS MET WHEN A STATUTE PROHIBITS ONLY "WILLFUL" ACTS IN THE
SENSE WE HAVE EXPLAINED.  ONE WHO DOES ACT WITH SUCH SPECIFIC INTENT IS
AWARE THAT WHAT HE DOES IS PRECISELY THAT WHICH THE STATUTE FORBIDS. 
HE IS UNDER NO NECESSITY OF GUESSING WHETHER THE STATUTE APPLIES TO HIM
(SEE CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385) FOR HE EITHER
KNOWS OR ACTS IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF ITS PROHIBITION OF THE
DEPRIVATION OF A DEFINED CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHER FEDERAL RIGHT.  SEE
GORIN V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 19, 27-28.  NOR IS SUCH AN ACT BEYOND
THE UNDERSTANDING AND COMPREHENSION OF JURIES SUMMONED TO PASS ON
THEM.  THE ACT WOULD THEN NOT BECOME A TRAP FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.  "A MIND INTENT UPON WILLFUL EVASION IS
INCONSISTENT WITH SURPRISED INNOCENCE."  UNITED STATES V. RAGEN, SUPRA,
P. 524. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT WILL NOT SAVE
IT FROM THE INFIRMITY OF VAGUENESS SINCE NEITHER A LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIAL NOR A TRIAL JUDGE CAN KNOW WITH SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS THE
RANGE OF RIGHTS THAT ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT THAT CRITICISM IS WIDE OF
THE MARK.  FOR THE SPECIFIC INTENT REQUIRED BY THE ACT IS AN INTENT TO
DEPRIVE A PERSON OF A RIGHT WHICH HAS BEEN MADE SPECIFIC EITHER BY THE
EXPRESS TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR BY
DECISIONS INTERPRETING THEM.  TAKE THE CASE OF A LOCAL OFFICER WHO
PERSISTS IN ENFORCING A TYPE OF ORDINANCE WHICH THE COURT HAS HELD
INVALID AS VIOLATIVE OF THE GUARANTEES OF FREE SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF
WORSHIP.  OR A LOCAL OFFICIAL CONTINUES TO SELECT JURIES IN A MANNER
WHICH FLIES IN THE TEETH OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT.  IF THOSE ACTS ARE
DONE WILLFULLY, HOW CAN THE OFFICER POSSIBLY CLAIM THAT HE HAD NO FAIR
WARNING THAT HIS ACTS WERE PROHIBITED BY THE STATUTE?  HE VIOLATES THE
STATUTE NOT MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A BAD PURPOSE BUT BECAUSE HE ACTS IN
DEFIANCE OF ANNOUNCED RULES OF LAW.  HE WHO DEFIES A DECISION
INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION KNOWS PRECISELY WHAT HE IS DOING.  IF
SANE, HE HARDLY MAY BE HEARD TO SAY THAT HE KNEW NOT WHAT HE DID.  OF
COURSE, WILLFUL CONDUCT CANNOT MAKE DEFINITE THAT WHICH IS UNDEFINED. 
BUT WILLFUL VIOLATORS OF CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN
DEFINED, CERTAINLY ARE IN NO POSITION TO SAY THAT THEY HAD NO ADEQUATE
ADVANCE NOTICE THAT THEY WOULD BE VISITED WITH PUNISHMENT.  WHEN THEY
ACT WILLFULLY IN THE SENSE IN WHICH WE USE THE WORD, THEY ACT IN OPEN
DEFIANCE OR IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT WHICH
HAS BEEN MADE SPECIFIC AND DEFINITE.  WHEN THEY ARE CONVICTED FOR SO
ACTING, THEY ARE NOT PUNISHED FOR VIOLATING AN UNKNOWABLE SOMETHING. 

THE ACT SO CONSTRUED HAS A NARROWER RANGE IN ALL ITS APPLICATIONS
THAN IF IT WERE INTERPRETED IN THE MANNER URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  BUT
THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE, IF WE ARE TO AVOID GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS, IS TO CONSTRUE IT AS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THOSE ACTS WHICH ARE
CLEARLY MARKED BY THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS
DEPRIVATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES, AND
WHICH ARE KNOWINGLY DONE WITHIN THE RULE OF ELLIS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.  BUT AS WE HAVE SAID, THAT COURSE WOULD MEAN THAT ALL PROTECTION
FOR VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW WOULD DROP OUT OF THE ACT.  WE
TAKE THE COURSE WHICH MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO PRESERVE THE ENTIRE ACT AND
SAVE ALL PARTS OF IT FROM CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE.  IF CONGRESS
DESIRES TO GIVE THE ACT WIDER SCOPE, IT MAY FIND WAYS OF DOING SO.
MOREOVER, HERE AS IN APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, WE ARE
DEALING WITH A SITUATION WHERE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT WHICH WE
ADOPT DOES NOT PRECLUDE ANY STATE FROM PUNISHING ANY ACT MADE CRIMINAL
BY ITS OWN LAWS.  INDEED, THE NARROW CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE HAVE ADOPTED
MORE NEARLY PRESERVES THE TRADITIONAL BALANCE BETWEEN THE STATES AND
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT THAN THAT WHICH IS URGED
UPON US. 

UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, SUPRA, MET THE TEST WE SUGGEST.  IN THAT
CASE WE WERE DEALING MERELY WITH THE VALIDITY OF AN INDICTMENT, NOT
WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.  THE INDICTMENT WAS SUFFICIENT SINCE IT
CHARGED A WILLFUL FAILURE AND REFUSAL OF THE DEFENDANT ELECTION
OFFICIALS TO COUNT THE VOTES CAST, BY THEIR ALTERATION OF THE BALLOTS
AND BY THEIR FALSE CERTIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR THE
RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES.  313 U.S. PP. 308-309.  THE RIGHT SO TO VOTE IS
GUARANTEED BY ART. I, SEC. 2 AND SEC. 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SUCH A
CHARGE IS ADEQUATE SINCE HE WHO ALTERS BALLOTS OR WITHOUT LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION DESTROYS THEM WOULD BE ACTING WILLFULLY IN THE SENSE IN
WHICH SEC. 20 USES THE TERM.  THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS MAY NOT HAVE
BEEN THINKING IN CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS IS NOT MATERIAL WHERE THEIR AIM
WAS NOT TO ENFORCE LOCAL LAW BUT TO DEPRIVE A CITIZEN OF A RIGHT AND
THAT RIGHT WAS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  WHEN THEY SO ACT THEY AT
LEAST ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OR
GUARANTEES.  LIKEWISE, IT IS PLAIN THAT BASIC TO THE CONCEPT OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS A TRIAL - A TRIAL IN A COURT OF
LAW, NOT A "TRIAL BY ORDEAL."  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278,
285.  IT COULD HARDLY BE DOUBTED THAT THEY WHO "UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW,
STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR CUSTOM" ACT WITH THAT EVIL MOTIVE
VIOLATE SEC. 20.  THOSE WHO DECIDE TO TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS
AND ACT AS PROSECUTOR, JURY, JUDGE, AND EXECUTIONER PLAINLY ACT TO
DEPRIVE A PRISONER OF THE TRIAL WHICH DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEES
HIM.  AND SUCH A PURPOSE NEED NOT BE EXPRESSED; IT MAY AT TIMES BE
REASONABLY INFERRED FROM ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDANT ON THE ACT. 
SEE TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463. 

THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THAT THIS QUESTION OF INTENT WAS NOT SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY WITH THE PROPER INSTRUCTIONS.  THE COURT CHARGED THAT
PETITIONERS ACTED ILLEGALLY IF THEY APPLIED MORE FORCE THAN WAS
NECESSARY TO MAKE THE ARREST EFFECTUAL OR TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM
THE PRISONER'S ALLEGED ASSAULT.  BUT IN VIEW OF OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
WORD "WILLFULLY" THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FURTHER INSTRUCTED THAT IT
WAS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT PETITIONERS HAD A GENERALLY BAD PURPOSE.  TO
CONVICT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO FIND THAT PETITIONERS HAD THE
PURPOSE TO DEPRIVE THE PRISONER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, E.G. THE
RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY A COURT RATHER THAN BY ORDEAL.  AND IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THAT REQUISITE BAD PURPOSE WAS PRESENT THE JURY WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO CONSIDER ALL THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES - THE MALICE OF
PETITIONERS, THE WEAPONS USED IN THE ASSAULT, ITS CHARACTER AND
DURATION, THE PROVOCATION, IF ANY, AND THE LIKE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT NO EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN TO THE TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE. 
NORMALLY WE WOULD UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT TAKE NOTE OF THE
ERROR.  SEE JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189, 200.  BUT THERE ARE
EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RULE.  UNITED STATES V. ATKINSON, 297 U.S. 157, 160;
CLYATT V. UNITED STATES, 197 U.S. 207, 221-222.  AND WHERE THE ERROR IS
SO FUNDAMENTAL AS NOT TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
OF THE ONLY OFFENSE ON WHICH THE CONVICTION COULD REST, WE THINK IT IS
NECESSARY TO TAKE NOTE OF IT ON OUR OWN MOTION.  EVEN THOSE GUILTY OF
THE MOST HEINOUS OFFENSES ARE ENTITLED TO A FAIR TRIAL.  WHATEVER THE
DEGREE OF GUILT, THOSE CHARGED WITH A FEDERAL CRIME ARE ENTITLED TO BE
TRIED BY THE STANDARDS OF GUILT WHICH CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED. 
                         III 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT ACT "UNDER COLOR OF ANY
LAW" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  WE DISAGREE. 
WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PETITIONERS ACTED UNDER "COLOR" OF LAW IN
MAKING THE ARREST OF ROBERT HALL AND IN ASSAULTING HIM.  THEY WERE
OFFICERS OF THE LAW WHO MADE THE ARREST.  BY THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS THEY
ASSAULTED HALL IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND TO KEEP THEIR
PRISONER FROM ESCAPING.  IT WAS THEIR DUTY UNDER GEORGIA LAW TO MAKE
THE ARREST EFFECTIVE.  HENCE, THEIR CONDUCT COMES WITHIN THE STATUTE. 

SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE
CONTRARY CONCLUSION SUGGEST THAT THE QUESTION UNDER SEC. 20 IS WHETHER
CONGRESS HAS MADE IT A FEDERAL OFFENSE FOR A STATE OFFICER TO VIOLATE
THE LAW OF HIS STATE.  BUT THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR TREATING THE
QUESTION IN STATE LAW TERMS.  THE PROBLEM IS NOT WHETHER STATE LAW HAS
BEEN VIOLATED BUT WHETHER AN INHABITANT OF A STATE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF
A FEDERAL RIGHT BY ONE WHO ACTS UNDER "COLOR OF ANY LAW."  HE WHO ACTS
UNDER "COLOR" OF LAW MAY BE A FEDERAL OFFICER OR A STATE OFFICER.  HE
MAY ACT UNDER "COLOR" OF FEDERAL LAW OR OF STATE LAW.  THE STATUTE DOES
NOT COME INTO PLAY MERELY BECAUSE THE FEDERAL LAW OR THE STATE LAW
UNDER WHICH THE OFFICER PURPORTS TO ACT IS VIOLATED.  IT IS APPLICABLE
WHEN AND ONLY WHEN SOMEONE IS DEPRIVED OF A FEDERAL RIGHT BY THAT
ACTION.  THE FACT THAT IT IS ALSO A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW DOES NOT
MAKE IT ANY THE LESS A FEDERAL OFFENSE PUNISHABLE AS SUCH.  NOR DOES
ITS PUNISHMENT BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY ENCROACH ON STATE AUTHORITY OR
RELIEVE THE STATE FROM ITS RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUNISHING STATE
OFFENSES.  FN10 

WE AGREE THAT WHEN THIS STATUTE IS APPLIED TO THE ACTION OF STATE
OFFICIALS, IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO RESPECT THE PROPER BALANCE
BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
VIOLATION OF LOCAL LAW DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT FEDERAL RIGHTS
HAVE BEEN INVADED.  THE FACT THAT A PRISONER IS ASSAULTED, INJURED, OR
EVEN MURDERED BY STATE OFFICIALS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT HE IS
DEPRIVED OF ANY RIGHT PROTECTED OR SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  CF. LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263,
DEALING WITH ASSAULTS BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
DID NOT ALTER THE BASIC RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT.  UNITED STATES V. HARRIS, 106 U.S. 629; IN RE KEMMLER, 136
U.S. 436, 448.  OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS ONE OF DELEGATED POWERS
ALONE.  UNDER OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
RESTS WITH THE STATES EXCEPT AS CONGRESS, ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THOSE DELEGATED POWERS, HAS CREATED OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 101, 105.  AS STATED IN
UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 553-554, "IT IS NO MORE THE
DUTY OR WITHIN THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO PUNISH FOR A
CONSPIRACY TO FALSELY IMPRISON OR MURDER WITHIN A STATE, THAN IT WOULD
BE TO PUNISH FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT OR MURDER ITSELF."  AND SEE UNITED
STATES V. FOX, 95 U.S. 670, 672.  IT IS ONLY STATE ACTION OF A
"PARTICULAR CHARACTER" THAT IS PROHIBITED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND AGAINST WHICH THE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES CONGRESS TO AFFORD RELIEF. 
CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3, 11, 13.  THUS CONGRESS IN SEC. 20 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO MAKE ALL TORTS OF STATE
OFFICIALS FEDERAL CRIMES.  IT BROUGHT WITHIN SEC. 20 ONLY SPECIFIED
ACTS DONE "UNDER COLOR" OF LAW AND THEN ONLY THOSE ACTS WHICH DEPRIVED
A PERSON OF SOME RIGHT SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

THIS SECTION WAS BEFORE US IN UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299,
326, WHERE WE SAID: "MISUSE OF POWER, POSSESSED BY VIRTUE OF STATE LAW
AND MADE POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE THE WRONGDOER IS CLOTHED WITH THE
AUTHORITY OF STATE LAW, IS ACTION TAKEN 'UNDER COLOR OF' STATE LAW." 
IN THAT CASE STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS WERE CHARGED WITH FAILURE TO
COUNT THE VOTES AS CAST, ALTERATION OF THE BALLOTS, AND FALSE
CERTIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF VOTES CAST FOR THE RESPECTIVE
CANDIDATES.  313 U.S. PP. 308-309.  WE STATED THAT THOSE ACTS OF THE
DEFENDANTS "WERE COMMITTED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES
UNDER THE LOUISIANA STATUTE REQUIRING THEM TO COUNT THE BALLOTS, TO
RECORD THE RESULT OF THE COUNT, AND TO CERTIFY THE RESULT OF THE
ELECTION."  ID., PP. 325-326.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS WE HAVE SAID,
THE DEFENDANTS WERE OFFICERS OF THE LAW WHO HAD MADE AN ARREST AND WHO
BY THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS MADE THE ASSAULT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEMSELVES
AND TO KEEP THE PRISONER FROM ESCAPING, I.E., TO MAKE THE ARREST
EFFECTIVE.  THAT WAS A DUTY THEY HAD UNDER GEORGIA LAW.  UNITED STATES
V. CLASSIC IS, THEREFORE, INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THIS CASE SO FAR AS
"UNDER COLOR OF" STATE LAW IS CONCERNED.  IN EACH OFFICERS OF THE STATE
WERE PERFORMING OFFICIAL DUTIES; IN EACH THE POWER WHICH THEY WERE
AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE WAS MISUSED.  WE CANNOT DRAW A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THEM UNLESS WE ARE TO SAY THAT SEC. 20 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO
POLICE OFFICERS.  BUT THE BROAD SWEEP OF ITS LANGUAGE LEAVES NO ROOM
FOR SUCH AN EXCEPTION. 

IT IS SAID THAT WE SHOULD ABANDON THE HOLDING OF THE CLASSIC CASE. 
IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE PRESENT PROBLEM WAS NOT CLEARLY IN FOCUS IN
THAT CASE AND THAT ITS HOLDING WAS ILL-ADVISED.  A READING OF THE
OPINION MAKES PLAIN THAT THE QUESTION WAS SQUARELY INVOLVED AND
SQUARELY MET.  IT FOLLOWED THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100
U.S. 339, 346, THAT A STATE JUDGE WHO IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST NEGROES IN THE SELECTION OF JURIES VIOLATED THE
ACT OF MARCH 1, 1875, 18 STAT. 336.  IT IS TRUE THAT THAT STATUTE DID
NOT CONTAIN THE WORDS UNDER "COLOR" OF LAW.  BUT THE COURT IN DECIDING
WHAT WAS STATE ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
HELD THAT IT WAS IMMATERIAL THAT THE STATE OFFICER EXCEEDED THE LIMITS
OF HIS AUTHORITY.  "...  AS HE ACTS IN THE NAME AND FOR THE STATE, AND
IS CLOTHED WITH THE STATE'S POWER, HIS ACT IS THAT OF THE STATE.  THIS
MUST BE SO, OR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION HAS NO MEANING.  THEN THE
STATE HAS CLOTHED ONE OF ITS AGENTS WITH POWER TO ANNUL OR TO EVADE
IT."  100 U.S. AT P. 347.  AND SEE VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313,
321.  THE CLASSIC CASE RECOGNIZED, WITHOUT DISSENT, THAT THE CONTRARY
VIEW WOULD DEFEAT THE GREAT PURPOSE WHICH SEC. 20 WAS DESIGNED TO
SERVE.  REFERENCE IS MADE TO STATEMENTS  FN11  OF SENATOR TRUMBULL IN
HIS DISCUSSION OF SEC. 2 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 14 STAT. 27,
AND TO STATEMENTS OF SENATOR SHERMAN CONCERNING THE 1870 ACT  FN12  AS
SUPPORTING THE CONCLUSION THAT "UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW" WAS DESIGNED TO
INCLUDE ONLY ACTION TAKEN BY OFFICIALS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW.  BUT
THOSE STATEMENTS IN THEIR CONTEXT ARE INCONCLUSIVE ON THE PRECISE
PROBLEM INVOLVED IN THE CLASSIC CASE AND IN THE PRESENT CASE.  WE ARE
NOT DEALING HERE WITH A CASE WHERE AN OFFICER NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACT
NEVERTHELESS TAKES ACTION.  HERE THE STATE OFFICERS WERE AUTHORIZED TO
MAKE AN ARREST AND TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS WERE NECESSARY TO MAKE THE
ARREST EFFECTIVE.  THEY ACTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT
THEY USED EXCESSIVE FORCE IN MAKING THE ARREST EFFECTIVE.  IT IS CLEAR
THAT UNDER "COLOR" OF LAW MEANS UNDER "PRETENSE" OF LAW.  THUS ACTS OF
OFFICERS IN THE AMBIT OF THEIR PERSONAL PURSUITS ARE PLAINLY EXCLUDED. 
ACTS OF OFFICERS WHO UNDERTAKE TO PERFORM THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES ARE
INCLUDED WHETHER THEY HEW TO THE LINE OF THEIR AUTHORITY OR OVERSTEP
IT.  IF, AS SUGGESTED, THE STATUTE WAS DESIGNED TO EMBRACE ONLY ACTION
WHICH THE STATE IN FACT AUTHORIZED, THE WORDS "UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW"
WERE HARDLY APT WORDS TO EXPRESS THE IDEA. 

NOR ARE THE DECISIONS UNDER SEC. 33 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 76, IN POINT.  THAT SECTION GIVES THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL TO A
FEDERAL COURT OF ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BEGUN IN A STATE COURT
AGAINST A REVENUE OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES "ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ACT
DONE UNDER COLOR OF HIS OFFICE OR OF ANY SUCH (REVENUE) LAW."  THE
CASES UNDER IT RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS AN "EXCEPTIONAL" PROCEDURE WHICH
WRESTS FROM STATE COURTS THE POWER TO TRY OFFENSES AGAINST THEIR OWN
LAWS.  MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 1), 270 U.S. 9, 29, 35; COLORADO V.
SYMES, 286 U.S. 510, 518.  THUS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHOWING
NECESSARY FOR REMOVAL ARE STRICT.  SEE MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 2), 270
U.S. 36, 42, SAYING THAT ACTS "NECESSARY TO MAKE THE ENFORCEMENT
EFFECTIVE" ARE DONE UNDER "COLOR" OF LAW.  HENCE THOSE CASES DO NOT
SUPPLY AN AUTHORITATIVE GUIDE TO THE PROBLEMS UNDER SEC. 20 WHICH SEEKS
TO AFFORD PROTECTION AGAINST OFFICERS WHO POSSESS AUTHORITY TO ACT AND
WHO EXERCISE THEIR POWERS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF
RIGHTS SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  IT IS ONE THING TO DEPRIVE STATE COURTS OF THEIR AUTHORITY TO
ENFORCE THEIR OWN LAWS.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO EMASCULATE AN ACT OF
CONGRESS DESIGNED TO SECURE INDIVIDUALS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY
FINELY SPUN DISTINCTIONS CONCERNING THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY
OF OFFICERS OF THE LAW.  CF. YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356. 

BUT BEYOND THAT IS THE PROBLEM OF STARE DECISIS.  THE CONSTRUCTION
GIVEN SEC. 20 IN THE CLASSIC CASE FORMULATED A RULE OF LAW WHICH HAS
BECOME THE BASIS OF FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT IN THIS IMPORTANT FIELD.  THE
RULE ADOPTED IN THAT CASE WAS FORMULATED AFTER MATURE CONSIDERATION. 
IT SHOULD BE GOOD FOR MORE THAN ONE DAY ONLY.  WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A
SITUATION COMPARABLE TO MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., 321 U.S. 96,
WHERE WE OVERRULED A DECISION DEMONSTRATED TO BE A SPORT IN THE LAW AND
INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT PRECEDED AND WHAT FOLLOWED.  THE CLASSIC CASE
WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF HASTY ACTION OR INADVERTENCE.  IT WAS NOT OUT OF
LINE WITH THE CASES WHICH PRECEDED.  IT WAS DESIGNED TO FASHION THE
GOVERNING RULE OF LAW IN THIS IMPORTANT FIELD.  WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS WHICH THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE
COURT HAVE WISELY REMAINED FLEXIBLE AND SUBJECT TO FREQUENT
REEXAMINATION.  THE MEANING WHICH THE CLASSIC CASE GAVE TO THE PHRASE
"UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW" INVOLVED ONLY A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 
HENCE IF IT STATES A RULE UNDESIRABLE IN ITS CONSEQUENCES, CONGRESS CAN
CHANGE IT.  WE ADD ONLY TO THE INSTABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY OF THE LAW
IF WE REVISE THE MEANING OF SEC. 20 TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF EACH CASE
COMING BEFORE US. 

SINCE THERE MUST BE A NEW TRIAL, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  A DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT ALLEGING AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT
THE MATTERS CHARGED DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES AND DID NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 20 WAS OVERRULED. 
AT THE END OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT ON THE GROUNDS OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE WAS
DENIED. 

FN2  MOREOVER, FEDERAL AS WELL AS STATE OFFICIALS WOULD RUN AFOUL OF
THE ACT SINCE IT SPEAKS OF "ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR
CUSTOM."  COMPARABLE UNCERTAINTIES WILL EXIST IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

FN3  SEE CONG. GLOBE, 41ST CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 3807-3808, 3881. 
FLACK, THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (1908), PP. 19-54, 219,
223, 227; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 510. 

FN4  SEE UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 327, NOTE 10. 

FN5  "THAT ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE,
ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR CUSTOM, SHALL SUBJECT, OR CAUSE TO BE
SUBJECTED, ANY INHABITANT OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY TO THE DEPRIVATION
OF ANY RIGHT SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THIS ACT, OR TO DIFFERENT
PUNISHMENT, PAINS, OR PENALTIES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PERSON HAVING AT ANY
TIME BEEN HELD IN A CONDITION OF SLAVERY OR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE,
EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY
CONVICTED, OR BY REASON OF HIS COLOR OR RACE, THAN IS PRESCRIBED FOR
THE PUNISHMENT OF WHITE PERSONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT
EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR,
OR BOTH, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT." 

FN6  "THAT ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE,
ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR CUSTOM, SHALL SUBJECT, OR CAUSE TO BE
SUBJECTED, ANY INHABITANT OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY TO THE DEPRIVATION
OF ANY RIGHT SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE LAST PRECEDING SECTION OF THIS
ACT, OR TO DIFFERENT PUNISHMENT, PAINS, OR PENALTIES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH
PERSON BEING AN ALIEN, OR BY REASON OF HIS COLOR OR RACE, THAN IS
PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF CITIZENS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT
EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR,
OR BOTH, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT."  THE PRECEDING SECTION
REFERRED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL
HAVE THE SAME RIGHT IN EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY IN THE UNITED STATES
TO MAKE AND ENFORCE CONTRACTS, TO SUE, BE PARTIES, GIVE EVIDENCE, AND
TO THE FULL AND EQUAL BENEFIT OF ALL LAWS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY AS IS ENJOYED BY WHITE CITIZENS, AND
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO LIKE PUNISHMENT, PAINS, PENALTIES, TAXES, LICENSES,
AND EXACTIONS OF EVERY KIND, AND NONE OTHER, ANY LAW, STATUTE,
ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR CUSTOM TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.  NO
TAX OR CHARGE SHALL BE IMPOSED OR ENFORCED BY ANY STATE UPON ANY PERSON
IMMIGRATING THERETO FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY WHICH IS NOT EQUALLY IMPOSED
AND ENFORCED UPON EVERY PERSON IMMIGRATING TO SUCH STATE FROM ANY OTHER
FOREIGN COUNTRY; AND ANY LAW OF ANY STATE IN CONFLICT WITH THIS
PROVISION IS HEREBY DECLARED NULL AND VOID."    FN7  ITS SPONSOR,
SENATOR STEWART, STATED THAT "IT EXTENDS THE OPERATION OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS BILL, WHICH IS WELL KNOWN IN THE SENATE AND TO THE COUNTRY, TO
ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  CONG.
GLOBE, 41ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 1536. 

FN8  THAT SECTION PROVIDED IN PART:    "THAT ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER
COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE OF
ANY STATE, SHALL SUBJECT, OR CAUSE TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY PERSON WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, SHALL, ANY SUCH LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR
USAGE OF THE STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING, BE LIABLE TO THE
PARTY INJURED IN ANY ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER
PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS  ..." 

THIS SECTION BECAME SEC. 1979 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AND IS NOW
FOUND IN 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43.  SEE HAGUE V. C.I.O., SUPRA, NOTE 3, P.
510. 

FN9  SEC. 5 THEREOF PROVIDES:  "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO
ENFORCE, BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE." 

FN10  THE PETITIONERS MAY BE GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER OR MURDER UNDER
GEORGIA LAW AND AT THE SAME TIME LIABLE FOR THE FEDERAL OFFENSE
PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 20.  THE INSTANCES WHERE "AN ACT DENOUNCED AS A
CRIME BY BOTH NATIONAL AND STATE SOVEREIGNTIES" MAY BE PUNISHED BY EACH
WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROVISION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT ARE COMMON.  UNITED STATES V. LANZA, 260 U.S. 377, 382;
HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312. 

FN11  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1759. 

FN12  CONG. GLOBE, 41ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 3663. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 

FOR THE COMPELLING REASON STATED AT THE END OF THIS OPINION I CONCUR
IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDING THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  BUT FOR THAT REASON, MY VIEWS WOULD REQUIRE THAT MY VOTE
BE CAST TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT, FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY AND OTHERS I FEEL FORCED, IN THE PECULIAR SITUATION, TO STATE. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ESTABLISHED IN FACT AS A GROSS ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
BY STATE OFFICERS.  ENTRUSTED WITH THE STATE'S POWER AND USING IT,
WITHOUT A WARRANT OR WITH ONE OF ONLY DOUBTFUL LEGALITY  FN1  THEY
INVADED A CITIZEN'S HOME, ARRESTED HIM FOR ALLEGED THEFT OF A TIRE,
FORCIBLY TOOK HIM IN HANDCUFFS TO THE COURTHOUSE YARD, AND THERE BEAT
HIM TO DEATH.  PREVIOUSLY THEY HAD THREATENED TO KILL HIM, FORTIFIED
THEMSELVES AT A NEAR-BY BAR, AND RESISTED THE BARTENDER'S IMPORTUNITIES
NOT TO CARRY OUT THE ARREST.  UPON THIS AND OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH
OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTS (140 F.2D AT 665) THE VERDICT, TOGETHER WITH
INSTRUCTIONS ADEQUATELY COVERING AN OFFICER'S RIGHT TO USE FORCE, THE
JURY FOUND THE PETITIONERS GUILTY. 

       I 

THE VERDICT HAS SHAPED THEIR POSITION HERE.  THEIR CONTENTION HARDLY
DISPUTES THE FACTS ON WHICH IT RESTS.  FN2  THEY DO NOT COME THEREFORE
AS FAITHFUL STATE OFFICERS, INNOCENT OF CRIME.  JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN
FORECLOSED.  ACCORDINGLY, THEIR ARGUMENT NOW ADMITS THE OFFENSE, BUT
INSISTS IT WAS AGAINST THE STATE ALONE, NOT THE NATION.  SO THEY HAVE
MADE THEIR CASE IN THIS COURT.  FN3 

IN EFFECT, THE POSITION URGES IT IS MURDER THEY HAVE DONE,  FN4  NOT
DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  STRANGE AS THE ARGUMENT IS THE
REASON.  IT COMES TO THIS, THAT ABUSE OF STATE POWER CREATES IMMUNITY
TO FEDERAL POWER.  BECAUSE WHAT THEY DID VIOLATED THE STATE'S LAWS, THE
NATION CANNOT REACH THEIR CONDUCT.  FN5  IT MAY DEPRIVE THE CITIZEN OF
HIS LIBERTY AND HIS LIFE.  BUT WHATEVER STATE OFFICERS MAY DO IN ABUSE
OF THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY CAN GIVE THIS GOVERNMENT AND ITS COURTS NO
CONCERN.  THIS, THOUGH THE PRIME OBJECT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND
SEC. 20 WAS TO SECURE THESE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AGAINST WRONGFUL DENIAL
BY EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE STATES. 

THE DEFENSE IS NOT PRETTY.  NOR IS IT VALID.  BY A LONG COURSE OF
DECISION FROM EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, TO UNITED STATES V.
CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, IT HAS BEEN REJECTED.  FN6  THE GROUND SHOULD
NOT NEED PLOUGHING AGAIN.  IT WAS CLEARED LONG AGO AND THOROUGHLY.  IT
HAS BEEN KEPT CLEAR, UNTIL THE ANCIENT DOUBT, LAID IN THE BEGINNING,
WAS RESURRECTED IN THE LAST STAGE OF THIS CASE.  THE EVIDENCE HAS
NULLIFIED ANY PRETENSE THAT PETITIONERS ACTED AS INDIVIDUALS, ABOUT
THEIR PERSONAL THOUGH NEFARIOUS BUSINESS.  THEY USED THE POWER OF
OFFICIAL PLACE IN ALL THAT WAS DONE.  THE VERDICT HAS FORECLOSED
SEMBLANCE OF ANY CLAIM THAT ONLY PRIVATE MATTERS, NOT TOUCHING OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS, WERE INVOLVED.  YET NEITHER WAS THE STATE'S POWER, THEY
SAY. 

THERE IS NO THIRD CATEGORY.  THE AMENDMENT AND THE LEGISLATION WERE
NOT AIMED AT RIGHTFUL STATE ACTION.  ABUSE OF STATE POWER WAS THE
TARGET.  LIMITS WERE PUT TO STATE AUTHORITY, AND STATES WERE FORBIDDEN
TO PASS THEM, BY WHATEVER AGENCY.  FN7  IT IS TOO LATE NOW, IF THERE
WERE BETTER REASON THAN EXISTS FOR DOING SO, TO QUESTION THAT IN THESE
MATTERS ABUSE BINDS THE STATE AND IS ITS ACT, WHEN DONE BY ONE TO WHOM
IT HAS GIVEN POWER TO MAKE THE ABUSE EFFECTIVE TO ACHIEVE THE FORBIDDEN
ENDS.  VAGUE IDEAS OF DUAL FEDERALISM N8, OF ULTRA VIRES DOCTRINE
IMPORTED FROM PRIVATE AGENCY, FN9  AND OF WANT OF FINALITY IN OFFICIAL
ACTION,  FN10  DO NOT NULLIFY WHAT FOUR YEARS OF CIVIL STRIFE SECURED
AND EIGHTY YEARS HAVE VERIFIED.  FOR IT WAS ABUSE OF BASIC CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS, BY STATES AND THEIR OFFICIALS, THAT THE AMENDMENT AND
THE ENFORCING LEGISLATION WERE ADOPTED TO UPROOT. 

THE DANGER WAS NOT MERELY LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL.  NOR WAS IT
THREATENED ONLY FROM THE STATE'S HIGHEST OFFICIALS.  IT WAS ABUSE BY
WHATEVER AGENCY THE STATE MIGHT INVEST WITH ITS POWER CAPABLE OF
INFLICTING THE DEPRIVATION.  IN ALL ITS FLUX, TIME MAKES SOME THINGS
AXIOMATIC.  ONE HAS BEEN THAT STATE OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATE THEIR OATHS
OF OFFICE AND FLOUT THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW ARE ANSWERABLE TO IT WHEN THEIR
MISCONDUCT BRINGS UPON THEM THE PENALTY IT AUTHORIZES AND CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED. 

THERE COULD BE NO CLEARER VIOLATION OF THE AMENDMENT OR THE STATUTE. 
NO ACT COULD BE MORE FINAL OR COMPLETE, TO DENUDE THE VICTIM OF RIGHTS
SECURED BY THE AMENDMENT'S VERY TERMS.  THOSE RIGHTS SO DESTROYED
CANNOT BE RESTORED.  NOR COULD THE PART PLAYED BY THE STATE'S POWER IN
CAUSING THEIR DESTRUCTION BE LESSENED, THOUGH OTHER ORGANS WERE NOW TO
REPUDIATE WHAT WAS DONE.  THE STATE'S LAW MIGHT THUS BE VINDICATED.  IF
SO, THE VINDICATION COULD ONLY SUSTAIN, IT COULD NOT DETRACT FROM THE
FEDERAL POWER.  NOR COULD IT RESTORE WHAT THE FEDERAL POWER SHIELDED. 
NEITHER ACQUITTAL NOR CONVICTION, THOUGH AFFIRMED BY THE STATE'S
HIGHEST COURT, COULD RESURRECT WHAT THE WRONGFUL USE OF STATE POWER HAS
ANNIHILATED.  THERE WAS IN THIS CASE ABUSE OF STATE POWER, WHICH FOR
THE AMENDMENT'S GREAT PURPOSES WAS STATE ACTION, FINAL IN THE LAST
DEGREE, DEPRIVING THE VICTIM OF HIS LIBERTY AND HIS LIFE WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. 

IF THE ISSUES MADE BY THE PARTIES THEMSELVES WERE ALLOWED TO GOVERN,
THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO SAY MORE.  AT VARIOUS STAGES PETITIONERS HAVE
SOUGHT TO SHOW THAT THEY USED NO MORE FORCE THAN WAS NECESSARY, THAT
THERE WAS NO STATE ACTION, AND THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THE VERDICT AND THE JUDGMENT.  THESE ISSUES, IN VARIOUS
FORMULATIONS,  FN11  HAVE COMPREHENDED THEIR CASE.  ALL HAVE BEEN
RESOLVED AGAINST THEM WITHOUT ERROR.  THIS SHOULD END THE MATTER. 

II 

BUT OTHER AND MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES HAVE BEEN INJECTED AND MADE
DECISIVE TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT.  PETITIONERS HAVE NOT DENIED THAT
THEY ACTED "WILLFULLY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 20 OR THAT THEY
INTENDED TO DO THE ACTS WHICH TOOK THEIR VICTIM'S LIBERTY AND LIFE.  IN
THE TRIAL COURT THEY CLAIMED JUSTIFICATION.  BUT THEY WERE UNABLE TO
PROVE IT.  THE VERDICT, ON OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, HAS CONCLUDED AGAINST
THEM THEIR DENIAL OF BAD PURPOSE AND RECKLESS DISREGARD OF RIGHTS. 
THIS IS NECESSARILY IMPLIED IN THE FINDING THAT EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS
USED.  NO COMPLAINT WAS MADE OF THE CHARGE IN ANY OF THESE RESPECTS AND
NO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES CONCERNING THEM WAS OFFERED.  NOR, IN
THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI OR THE BRIEFS, HAVE THEY RAISED
QUESTIONS OF THE REQUISITE CRIMINAL INTENT OR OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL
VAGUENESS IN THE STATUTE'S DEFINITION OF THE CRIME.  HOWEVER, THESE
ISSUES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD, SO FAR AS THE RECORD DISCLOSES, FIRST
BY THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THEN BY INQUIRY AT
THE ARGUMENT AND IN THE DISPOSITION HERE. 

THE STORY WOULD BE TOO LONG, TO TRACE IN MORE THAN OUTLINE THE
HISTORY OF SEC. 20 AND COMPANION PROVISIONS, IN PARTICULAR SEC. 19,
FN12  WITH WHICH IT MUST BE CONSIDERED ON ANY SUGGESTION OF FATAL
AMBIGUITY.  BUT THIS HISTORY CANNOT BE IGNORED, UNLESS WE WOULD RISK
THROWING OVERBOARD WHAT THE NATION'S GREATEST INTERNAL CONFLICT CREATED
AND EIGHT DECADES HAVE CONFIRMED, IN PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
AGAINST IMPAIRMENT BY THE STATES. 

QUESTION OF VAGUENESS IN DEFINING THE CRIMES.  THERE ARE IMPORTANT
DIFFERENCES.  SECTION 19 STRIKES AT CONSPIRACIES, SEC. 20 AT
SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  THE FORMER PROTECTS "CITIZENS," THE LATTER
"INHABITANTS."  THERE ARE, HOWEVER, NO DIFFERENCES IN THE BASIC RIGHTS
GUARDED.  EACH PROTECTS IN A DIFFERENT WAY THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
SECURED TO INDIVIDUALS BY THE CONSTITUTION.  IF ONE FALLS FOR VAGUENESS
IN POINTING TO THESE, THE OTHER ALSO MUST FALL FOR THE SAME REASON.  IF
ONE STANDS, SO MUST BOTH.  IT IS NOT ONE STATUTE THEREFORE WHICH WE
SUSTAIN OR NULLIFY.  IT IS TWO. 

THE SECTIONS HAVE STOOD FOR NEARLY EIGHTY YEARS.  NOR HAS THIS BEEN
WITHOUT ATTACK FOR AMBIGUITY.  TOGETHER THE TWO SECTIONS HAVE REPELLED
IT.  IN 1915, ONE OF THIS COURT'S GREATEST JUDGES, SPEAKING FOR IT,
SUMMARILY DISPOSED OF THE SUGGESTION THAT SEC. 19 IS INVALID:  "IT IS
NOT OPEN TO QUESTION THAT THIS STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL  ...  (IT)
DEALT WITH FEDERAL RIGHTS AND WITH ALL FEDERAL RIGHTS, AND PROTECTED
THEM IN THE LUMP  ..."  UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383, 386,
387.  AND IN UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, THE COURT WITH
EQUAL VIGOR REAFFIRMED THE VALIDITY OF BOTH SECTIONS, AGAINST
DISSENTING ASSAULT FOR FATAL AMBIGUITY IN RELATION TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THEN IN QUESTION.  THESE MORE RECENT
PRONOUNCEMENTS BUT REAFFIRMED EARLIER AND REPEATED ONES.  THE HISTORY
SHOULD NOT REQUIRE RETELLING.  BUT OLD AND ESTABLISHED FREEDOMS VANISH
WHEN HISTORY IS FORGOTTEN. 

SEC. 19 IN THE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1870(16 STAT. 141, SEC. 6).  THEIR
GREAT ORIGINAL PURPOSE WAS TO STRIKE AT DISCRIMINATION, PARTICULARLY
AGAINST NEGROES, THE ONE SECURING CIVIL, THE OTHER POLITICAL RIGHTS. 
BUT THEY WERE NOT DRAWN SO NARROWLY.  FROM THE BEGINNING SEC. 19
PROTECTED ALL "CITIZENS," SEC. 20 "INHABITANTS." 

AT FIRST SEC. 20 SECURED ONLY RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT.  THE FIRST TEN YEARS BROUGHT IT, THROUGH BROADENING CHANGES, TO
SUBSTANTIALLY ITS PRESENT FORM.  ONLY THE WORD "WILLFULLY" HAS BEEN
ADDED SINCE THEN, A CHANGE OF NO MATERIALITY, FOR THE STATUTE IMPLIED
IT BEFOREHAND.  FN13  35 STAT. 1092.  THE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE OF THE
FIRST DECADE REPLACED THE SPECIFIC ENUMERATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
WITH THE PRESENT BROAD LANGUAGE COVERING "THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES, SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  R.S. SEC. 5510.  THIS
INCLUSIVE DESIGNATION BROUGHT SEC. 20 INTO CONFORMITY WITH SEC. 19'S
ORIGINAL COVERAGE OF "ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  SINCE THEN, UNDER THESE
GENERIC DESIGNATIONS, THE TWO HAVE BEEN LITERALLY IDENTICAL IN THE
SCOPE OF THE RIGHTS THEY SECURE.  THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN WORDING
CANNOT BE ONE OF SUBSTANCE.  FN14 

THROUGHOUT A LONG AND VARIED COURSE OF APPLICATION THE SECTIONS HAVE
REMAINED UNIMPAIRED ON THE SCORE OF VAGUENESS IN THE CRIMES THEY
DENOUNCE.  FROM 1874 TO TODAY THEY HAVE REPELLED ALL ATTACKS PROPOSED
TO INVALIDATE THEM.  NONE HAS SUCCEEDED.  IF TIME AND UNIFORM DECISION
CAN GIVE STABILITY TO STATUTES, THESE HAVE ACQUIRED IT. 

RECENTLY.  THERE WERE HOWEVER A NUMBER OF EARLY DECISIONS.  FN15  OF
LATE THE SECTION HAS BEEN APPLIED MORE FREQUENTLY, IN CONSIDERABLE
VARIETY OF SITUATION, AGAINST VARIED AND VIGOROUS ATTACK.  FN16  IN
UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. AT 321, AS HAS BEEN STATED, THIS
COURT GAVE IT CLEAR-CUT SANCTION.  THE OPINION EXPRESSLY REPUDIATED ANY
IDEA THAT THE SECTION, OR SEC. 19, IS VITIATED BY AMBIGUITY.  MOREOVER,
THIS WAS DONE IN TERMS WHICH LEAVE NO ROOM TO SAY THAT THE DECISION WAS
NOT FOCUSED UPON THAT QUESTION.  FN17  TRUE, APPLICATION TO FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS WAS RESERVED BECAUSE THE QUESTION WAS RAISED FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF FILED HERE.  313 U.S. AT 329.  BUT
THE STATUTE WAS SUSTAINED IN APPLICATION TO A VAST RANGE OF RIGHTS
SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, APART FROM THE RESERVED SEGMENT, AS THE
OPINION'S LANGUAGE AND THE SINGLE RESERVATION ITSELF ATTEST.  THE
RULING, THUS BROAD, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INADVERTENT.  FOR IT WAS
REPEATED CONCERNING BOTH SECTIONS, BROADLY, FORCEFULLY, AND UPON
CITATION OF LONG-ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY.  AND THIS WAS DONE IN RESPONSE
TO A VIGOROUS DISSENT WHICH MADE THE MOST OF THE POINT OF VAGUENESS. 
FN18  THE POINT WAS FLATLY, AND DELIBERATELY, REJECTED.  THE COURT
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BLINDED BY OTHER ISSUES TO THE IMPORT OF THIS ONE. 
THE CLASSIC DECISION THUS CANNOT BE PUT ASIDE IN THIS CASE.  NOR CAN
IT BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
ARE MORE NUMEROUS OR MORE DUBIOUS THAN THE AGGREGATE ENCOMPASSED BY
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  CERTAINLY "THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS," GUARANTEED BY THE AMENDMENT, IS NOT MORE VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE THAN MANY RIGHTS PROTECTED BY OTHER COMMANDS.  FN19  THE
SAME THING IS TRUE OF "THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES."  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CONTAINS A DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS
BROAD IN ITS TERMS RESTRICTING NATIONAL POWER AS THE FOURTEENTH IS OF
STATE POWER.  FN20  IF SEC. 20(WITH SEC. 19) IS VALID IN GENERAL
COVERAGE OF OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IT CANNOT BE VOID IN THE LESS
SWEEPING APPLICATION TO FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.  IF IT IS VALID TO
ASSURE THE RIGHTS "PLAINLY AND DIRECTLY" SECURED BY OTHER PROVISIONS,
IT IS EQUALLY VALID TO PROTECT THOSE "PLAINLY AND DIRECTLY" SECURED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, INCLUDING THE EXPRESSLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS NOT
TO BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  IF IN FACT THERE COULD BE ANY DIFFERENCE AMONG THE VARIOUS RIGHTS
PROTECTED, IN VIEW OF THE HISTORY IT WOULD BE THAT THE SECTION APPLIES
MORE CLEARLY TO FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAN TO OTHERS.  ITS
PHRASES "ARE ALL PHRASES OF LARGE GENERALITIES.  BUT THEY ARE NOT
GENERALITIES OF UNILLUMINED VAGUENESS; THEY ARE GENERALITIES
CIRCUMSCRIBED BY HISTORY AND APPROPRIATE TO THE LARGENESS OF THE
PROBLEMS OF GOVERNMENT WITH WHICH THEY WERE CONCERNED."  MALINSKI V.
NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401, CONCURRING OPINION, P. 413. 

HISTORICALLY, THE SECTION'S FUNCTION AND PURPOSE HAVE BEEN TO SECURE
RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE AMENDMENT.  FROM THE AMENDMENT'S ADOPTION UNTIL
1874, IT WAS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LEGISLATION.  SURELY WHEN IN THAT
YEAR THE SECTION WAS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE OTHER RIGHTS THESE WERE NOT
DROPPED OUT.  BY GIVING THE CITIZEN ADDITIONAL SECURITY IN THE EXERCISE
OF HIS VOTING AND OTHER POLITICAL RIGHTS, WHICH WAS THE SECTION'S
EFFECT, UNLESS THE CLASSIC CASE FALLS, CONGRESS DID NOT TAKE FROM HIM
THE PROTECTION IT PREVIOUSLY AFFORDED (WHOLLY APART FROM THE
PROHIBITION OF DIFFERENT PENALTIES)  FN21  AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF SUCH
RIGHTS ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE, OR
REPEAL THE PRIOR SAFEGUARD OF CIVIL RIGHTS. 

TO STRIKE FROM THE STATUTE THE RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO LEAVE WITHIN ITS COVERAGE THE VAST
AREA BOUNDED BY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, WOULD CONTRADICT BOTH
REASON AND HISTORY.  NO LOGIC BUT ONE WHICH NULLIFIES THE HISTORIC
FOUNDATIONS OF THE AMENDMENT AND THE SECTION COULD SUPPORT SUCH AN
EMASCULATION.  THERE SHOULD BE NO JUDICIAL HACK WORK CUTTING OUT SOME
OF THE GREAT RIGHTS THE AMENDMENT SECURES BUT LEAVING IN OTHERS.  THERE
CAN BE NONE EXCISING ALL PROTECTED BY THE AMENDMENT, BUT LEAVING EVERY
OTHER GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION INTACT UNDER THE STATUTE'S AEGIS. 

ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID OF SEC. 20 APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE TO SEC.
19.  IT HAD AN EARLIER MORE LITIGIOUS HISTORY, FIRMLY ESTABLISHING ITS
VALIDITY.  FN22  IT ALSO HAS RECEIVED RECENT APPLICATION N23, WITHOUT
QUESTION FOR AMBIGUITY EXCEPT IN THE CLASSIC CASE, WHICH NEVERTHELESS
GAVE IT EQUAL SANCTION WITH ITS SUBSTANTIVE COUNTERPART. 

SEPARATELY, AND OFTEN TOGETHER IN APPLICATION, SECS. 19 AND 20 HAVE
BEEN WOVEN INTO OUR FUNDAMENTAL AND STATUTORY LAW.  THEY HAVE PLACE
AMONG OUR MORE PERMANENT LEGAL ACHIEVEMENTS.  THEY HAVE SAFEGUARDED
MANY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES APART FROM POLITICAL ONES.  AMONG THOSE
BUTTRESSED, EITHER BY DIRECT APPLICATION OR THROUGH THE GENERAL
CONSPIRACY STATUTE, SEC. 37(18 U.S.C. SEC. 88),  FN24  ARE THE RIGHTS
TO A FAIR TRIAL, INCLUDING FREEDOM FROM SHAM TRIALS; TO BE FREE FROM
ARREST AND DETENTION BY METHODS CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN AND FROM
EXTORTION OF PROPERTY BY SUCH METHODS; FROM EXTORTION OF CONFESSIONS;
FROM MOB ACTION INCITED OR SHARED BY STATE OFFICERS; FROM FAILURE TO
FURNISH POLICE PROTECTION ON PROPER OCCASION AND DEMAND; FROM
INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY; FN25  AND THE NECESSARY IMPORT OF THE
DECISIONS IS THAT THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM DEPRIVATION OF LIFE ITSELF,
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THAT IS, THROUGH ABUSE OF STATE POWER BY
STATE OFFICIALS, IS AS FULLY PROTECTED AS OTHER RIGHTS SO SECURED. 

SO MUCH EXPERIENCE CANNOT BE SWEPT ASIDE, OR ITS TEACHING ANNULLED,
WITHOUT OVERTHROWING A GREAT, AND A FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, CONSTITUTIONAL
TRADITION.  NOR HAS THE FEARED WELTER OF UNCERTAINTY ARISEN. 
DEFENDANTS HAVE ATTACKED THE SECTIONS, OR THEIR APPLICATION, OFTEN AND
STRENUOUSLY.  SELDOM HAS COMPLAINT BEEN MADE THAT THEY ARE TOO VAGUE
AND UNCERTAIN.  OBJECTIONS HAVE CENTERED PRINCIPALLY ABOUT "STATE
ACTION," INCLUDING "COLOR OF LAW" AND FAILURE BY INACTION TO DISCHARGE
OFFICIAL DUTY, CF. CATLETTE V. UNITED STATES, 132 F.2D 902, AND ABOUT
THE STRENGTH OF FEDERAL POWER TO REACH PARTICULAR ABUSES.  FN26  MORE
RARELY THEY HAVE TOUCHED OTHER MATTERS, SUCH AS THE LIMITING EFFECT OF
OFFICIAL PRIVILEGE  FN27  AND, IN OCCASIONAL INSTANCES, MENS RED.  FN28
IN ALL THIS WEALTH OF ATTACK ACCUSED OFFICIALS HAVE LITTLE USED THE
SHIELD OF AMBIGUITY.  THE OMISSION, LIKE THE COURT'S REJECTION IN THE
CLASSIC CASE, CANNOT HAVE BEEN INADVERTENT.  THERE ARE VALID REASONS
FOR IT, APART FROM THE OLD TEACHING THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN
FORECLOSED. 

ONE IS THAT THE GENERALITY OF THE SECTION'S TERMS SIMPLY HAS NOT
WORKED OUT TO BE A HAZARD OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OR EVEN SERIOUS,
PROPORTIONS.  IT HAS NOT PROVED A SOURCE OF PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY.  IN
NO OTHER WAY CAN BE EXPLAINED THE PAUCITY OF THE OBJECTION'S APPEARANCE
IN THE WEALTH OF OTHERS MADE.  IF EXPERIENCE IS THE LIFE OF THE LAW, AS
HAS BEEN SAID, THIS HAS BEEN TRUE PREEMINENTLY IN THE APPLICATION OF
SECS. 19 AND 20. 

MOREOVER, STATUTORY SPECIFICITY HAS TWO PURPOSES, TO GIVE DUE NOTICE
THAT AN ACT HAS BEEN MADE CRIMINAL BEFORE IT IS DONE AND TO INFORM ONE
ACCUSED OF THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED, SO THAT HE MAY ADEQUATELY
PREPARE AND MAKE HIS DEFENSE.  MORE THAN THIS CERTAINLY THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE.  CF. AMEND. VI.  ALL DIFFICULTY ON THE
LATTER SCORE VANISHES, UNDER SEC. 20, WITH THE INDICTMENT'S
PARTICULARIZATION OF THE RIGHTS INFRINGED AND THE ACTS INFRINGING
THEM.  IF IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT IN EITHER RESPECT, IN THESE AS IN OTHER
CASES THE MOTION TO QUASH OR ONE FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS IS AT THE
DEFENDANT'S DISPOSAL.  THE DECIDED CASES DEMONSTRATE THAT ACCUSED
PERSONS HAVE HAD LITTLE OR NO DIFFICULTY TO ASCERTAIN THE RIGHTS THEY
HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH TRANSGRESSING OR THE ACTS OF TRANSGRESSION N29. 
SO IT WAS WITH THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE.  THEY WERE NOT PUZZLED TO
KNOW FOR WHAT THEY WERE INDICTED, AS THEIR PROOF AND THEIR DEFENSE UPON
THE LAW CONCLUSIVELY SHOW.  THEY SIMPLY MISCONCEIVED THAT THE VICTIM
HAD NO FEDERAL RIGHTS AND THAT WHAT THEY HAD DONE WAS NOT A CRIME
WITHIN THE FEDERAL POWER TO PENALIZE.  FN30  THAT KIND OF ERROR
RELIEVES NO ONE FROM PENALTY. 

IN THE OTHER ASPECT OF SPECIFICITY, TWO ANSWERS, APART FROM
EXPERIENCE, SUFFICE.  ONE IS THAT SEC. 20, AND SEC. 19, ARE NO MORE
GENERAL AND VAGUE, FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS INCLUDED, THAN OTHER
CRIMINAL STATUTES COMMONLY ENFORCED AGAINST THIS OBJECTION.  THE
SHERMAN ACT IS THE MOST OBVIOUS ILLUSTRATION.  FN31 

FURTHERMORE, THE ARGUMENT OF VAGUENESS, TO WARN MEN OF THEIR CONDUCT,
IGNORES THE NATURE OF THE CRIMINAL ACT ITSELF AND THE NOTICE
NECESSARILY GIVEN FROM THIS.  SECTION 20 STRIKES ONLY AT ABUSE OF
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS BY STATE OFFICERS.  IT DOES NOT REACH OUT FOR CRIMES
DONE BY MEN IN GENERAL.  NOT MURDER PER SE, BUT MURDER BY STATE
OFFICERS IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT AND DONE WITH THE AID OF
STATE POWER, IS OUTLAWED.  THESE FACTS, INHERENT IN THE CRIME, GIVE ALL
THE WARNING CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED.  FOR ONE, SO SITUATED, WHO GOES
SO FAR IN MISCONDUCT CAN HAVE NO EXCUSE OF INNOCENCE OR IGNORANCE. 

GENERALLY STATE OFFICIALS KNOW SOMETHING OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S BASIC
LEGAL RIGHTS.  IF THEY DO NOT, THEY SHOULD, FOR THEY ASSUME THAT DUTY
WHEN THEY ASSUME THEIR OFFICE.  IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE FOR
MEN IN GENERAL.  IT IS LESS AN EXCUSE FOR MEN WHOSE SPECIAL DUTY IS TO
APPLY IT, AND THEREFORE TO KNOW AND OBSERVE IT.  IF THEIR KNOWLEDGE IS
NOT COMPREHENSIVE, STATE OFFICIALS KNOW OR SHOULD KNOW WHEN THEY PASS
THE LIMITS OF THEIR AUTHORITY, SO FAR AT ANY RATE THAT THEIR ACTION
EXCEEDS HONEST ERROR OF JUDGMENT AND AMOUNTS TO ABUSE OF THEIR OFFICE
AND ITS FUNCTION.  WHEN THEY ENTER SUCH A DOMAIN IN DEALING WITH THE
CITIZEN'S RIGHTS, THEY SHOULD DO SO AT THEIR PERIL, WHETHER THAT BE
CREATED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.  FOR THEIR SWORN OATH AND THEIR FIRST
DUTY ARE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, THEN ONLY THE LAW OF THE STATE
WHICH TOO IS BOUND BY THE CHARTER.  SINCE THE STATUTE, AS I THINK,
CONDEMNS ONLY SOMETHING MORE THAN ERROR OF JUDGMENT, MADE IN HONEST
EFFORT AT ONCE TO APPLY AND TO FOLLOW THE LAW, CF. UNITED STATES V.
MURDOCK, 290 U.S. 389, OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATE IT MUST ACT IN INTENTIONAL
OR RECKLESS DISREGARD OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CANNOT BE IGNORANT THAT
THEY DO GREAT WRONG.  FN32  THIS BEING TRUE, THEY MUST BE TAKEN TO ACT
AT PERIL OF INCURRING THE PENALTY PLACED UPON SUCH CONDUCT BY THE
FEDERAL LAW, AS THEY DO OF THAT THE STATE IMPOSES. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID SUPPLIES ALL THE CASE REQUIRES TO BE DECIDED ON
THE QUESTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT.  IF THE CRIMINAL ACT IS LIMITED, AS I
THINK IT MUST BE AND THE STATUTE INTENDS, TO INFRACTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, BY CONDUCT WHICH AMOUNTS TO ABUSE OF ONE'S OFFICIAL PLACE OR
RECKLESS DISREGARD OF DUTY, NO UNDUE HAZARD OR BURDEN CAN BE PLACED ON
STATE OFFICIALS HONESTLY SEEKING TO PERFORM THE RIGHTFUL FUNCTIONS OF
THEIR OFFICE.  OTHERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO GREATER PROTECTION. 

BUT, IT IS SAID, A PENUMBRA OF RIGHTS MAY BE INVOLVED, WHICH NONE CAN
KNOW UNTIL DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND INFRACTION MAY OCCUR BEFORE IT IS
HAD.  IT SEEMS DOUBTFUL THIS COULD BE TRUE IN ANY CASE INVOLVING THE
ABUSE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTION WHICH THE STATUTE REQUIRES AND, IF IT COULD,
THAT ONE GUILTY OF SUCH AN ABUSE SHOULD HAVE IMMUNITY FOR THAT REASON. 
FURTHERMORE, THE DOUBTFUL CHARACTER OF THE RIGHT INFRINGED COULD GIVE
REASON AT THE MOST TO INVALIDATE THE PARTICULAR CHARGE, NOT FOR
OUTLAWING THE STATUTE OR NARROWLY RESTRICTING ITS APPLICATION IN
ADVANCE OF COMPELLING OCCASION. 

FOR THERE IS A BODY OF WELL-ESTABLISHED, CLEAR-CUT FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS, INCLUDING MANY SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, TO ALL OF
WHICH THE SECTIONS MAY AND DO APPLY, WITHOUT SPECIFIC ENUMERATION AND
WITHOUT CREATING HAZARDS OF UNCERTAINTY FOR CONDUCT OR DEFENSE.  OTHERS
WILL ENTER THAT CATEGORY.  SO FAR, AT THE LEAST WHEN THEY HAVE DONE SO,
THE SECTIONS SHOULD STAND WITHOUT QUESTION OF THEIR VALIDITY.  BEYOND
THIS, THE CHARACTER OF THE ACT PROSCRIBED AND THE INTENT IT NECESSARILY
IMPLIES WOULD SEEM TO AFFORD WOULD-BE VIOLATORS ALL OF NOTICE THE LAW
REQUIRES, THAT THEY ACT AT PERIL OF THE PENALTY IT PLACES ON THEIR
MISCONDUCT. 

WE HAVE IN THIS CASE NO INSTANCE OF MERE ERROR IN JUDGMENT, MADE IN
GOOD FAITH.  IT WOULD BE TIME ENOUGH TO REVERSE AND REMAND A
CONVICTION, OBTAINED WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS ALONG THESE LINES, IF SUCH A
CASE SHOULD ARISE.  ACTUALLY THE SUBSTANCE OF SUCH INSTRUCTION WAS
GIVEN IN THE WHOLLY ADEQUATE CHARGE CONCERNING THE OFFICER'S RIGHT TO
USE FORCE, THOUGH NOT TO EXCESS.  WHEN, AS HERE, A STATE OFFICIAL
ABUSES HIS PLACE CONSCIOUSLY OR GROSSLY IN ABNEGATION OF ITS RIGHTFUL
OBLIGATION, AND THEREBY TRAMPLES UNDERFOOT THE ESTABLISHED
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MEN OR CITIZENS, HIS CONVICTION SHOULD STAND
WHEN HE HAS HAD THE FAIR TRIAL AND FULL DEFENSE THE PETITIONERS HAVE
BEEN GIVEN IN THIS CASE. 

                                  III 

TWO IMPLICIT BUT HIGHLY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS MUST BE NOTICED MORE
DEFINITELY.  ONE IS THE FEAR GROUNDED IN CONCERN FOR POSSIBLE
MALADJUSTMENT OF FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IF THIS AND LIKE CONVICTIONS
ARE SUSTAINED.  ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID TO SHOW THAT THE FEAR IS NOT WELL
GROUNDED.  THE SAME FEAR WAS EXPRESSED, BY SOME IN EXAGGERATED AND
HIGHLY EMOTIONAL TERMS, WHEN SEC. 2 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, THE
ANTECEDENT OF SEC. 20, WAS UNDER DEBATE IN CONGRESS.  FN33  THE HISTORY
OF THE LEGISLATION'S ENFORCEMENT GIVES IT NO SUPPORT.  THE FEAR WAS NOT
REALIZED IN LATER EXPERIENCE.  EIGHTY YEARS SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO REMOVE
ANY REMAINING VESTIGE.  THE VOLUME OF PROSECUTIONS AND CONVICTIONS HAS
BEEN SMALL, IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE
LENGTH OF TIME THE STATUTES HAVE BEEN IN FORCE.  THERE ARE REASONS FOR
THIS, APART FROM SELF-RESTRAINT OF FEDERAL PROSECUTING OFFICIALS. 

ONE LIES IN THE CHARACTER OF THE CRIMINAL ACT AND THE INTENT WHICH
MUST BE PROVED.  A STRONG CASE MUST BE MADE TO SHOW ABUSE OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTION, AND THEREFORE TO SECURE INDICTMENT OR CONVICTION.  TRIAL MUST
BE "BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND THE DISTRICT WHEREIN THE
CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED."  CONST., AMEND. VI; CF. ART. III,
SEC. 2.  FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THIS MEANS WITHIN THE STATE OF
WHICH THE ACCUSED IS AN OFFICER.  CITIZENS OF THE STATE HAVE NOT BEEN,
AND WILL NOT BE, READY TO INDICT OR CONVICT THEIR LOCAL OFFICERS ON
GROUNDLESS CHARGES OR IN DOUBTFUL CASES.  THE SECTIONS CAN BE APPLIED
EFFECTIVELY ONLY WHEN TWELVE OF THEM CONCUR IN A VERDICT WHICH ACCORDS
WITH THE PROSECUTING OFFICIAL'S BELIEF THAT THE ACCUSED HAS VIOLATED
ANOTHER'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.  A FEDERAL OFFICIAL THEREFORE FACES BOTH
A DELICATE AND A DIFFICULT TASK WHEN HE UNDERTAKES TO CHARGE AND TRY A
STATE OFFICER UNDER THE TERMS OF SECS. 19 AND 20.  THE RESTRAINT WHICH
HAS BEEN SHOWN IS AS MUCH ENFORCED BY THESE LIMITATIONS AS IT HAS BEEN
VOLUNTARY.    THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY PROSECUTION HAS NOT BEEN
FREQUENT, HAS BEEN BROUGHT ONLY IN CASES OF GROSS ABUSE, AND THEREFORE
HAS PRODUCED NO GRAVE OR SUBSTANTIAL PROBLEM OF INTERFERENCE BY FEDERAL
AUTHORITY IN STATE AFFAIRS.  BUT IF THE PROBLEM IN THIS PHASE OF THE
CASE WERE MORE SERIOUS THAN IT HAS BEEN OR IS LIKELY TO BE, THE RESULT
LEGALLY COULD NOT BE TO GIVE STATE OFFICIALS IMMUNITY FROM THE
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES THE AMENDMENT AND ITS SUPPORTING
LEGISLATION HAVE IMPOSED.  FOR THE VERDICT OF THE STRUGGLE WHICH
BROUGHT ABOUT ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT WAS TO THE CONTRARY. 

LYING BENEATH ALL THE SURFACE ARGUMENTS IS A DEEPER IMPLICATION,
WHICH COMPREHENDS THEM.  IT GOES TO FEDERAL POWER.  IT IS THAT CONGRESS
COULD NOT IN SO MANY WORDS DENOUNCE AS A FEDERAL CRIME THE INTENTIONAL
AND WRONGFUL TAKING OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE OR LIBERTY BY A STATE
OFFICIAL ACTING IN ABUSE OF HIS OFFICIAL FUNCTION AND APPLYING TO THE
DEED ALL THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE.  THIS IS THE ULTIMATE PURPORT OF THE
NOTIONS THAT STATE ACTION IS NOT INVOLVED AND THAT THE CRIME IS AGAINST
THE STATE ALONE, NOT THE NATION.  IT IS REFLECTED ALSO IN THE IDEA THAT
THE STATUTE CAN PROTECT THE VICTIM IN HIS MANY PROCEDURAL RIGHTS
ENCOMPASSED IN THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL BEFORE CONDEMNATION, BUT
CANNOT PROTECT HIM IN THE RIGHT WHICH COMPREHENDS ALL OTHERS, THE RIGHT
TO LIFE ITSELF. 

SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT IF THESE IDEAS DID NOT PASS FROM THE AMERICAN
SCENE ONCE AND FOR ALL, AS I THINK THEY DID, UPON ADOPTION OF THE
AMENDMENT WITHOUT MORE, THEY HAVE LONG SINCE DONE SO. VIOLATION OF
STATE LAW THERE MAY BE.  BUT FROM THIS NO IMMUNITY TO FEDERAL AUTHORITY
CAN ARISE WHERE ANY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS MADE IT SUPREME.  TO
THE CONSTITUTION STATE OFFICIALS AND THE STATES THEMSELVES OWE FIRST
OBLIGATION.  THE FEDERAL POWER LACKS NO STRENGTH TO REACH THEIR
MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE WHEN IT INFRINGES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  IF THAT
IS A GREAT POWER, IT IS ONE GENERATED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
AMENDMENTS, TO WHICH THE STATES HAVE ASSENTED AND THEIR OFFICIALS OWE
PRIME ALLEGIANCE.  FN34 

THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE OR LIBERTY BY A STATE OFFICER
WHO TAKES IT BY ABUSE OF HIS OFFICE AND ITS POWER IS SUCH A RIGHT.  TO
SECURE THESE RIGHTS IS NOT BEYOND FEDERAL POWER.  THIS SECS. 19 AND 20
HAVE DONE, IN A MANNER HISTORY LONG SINCE HAS VALIDATED. 

ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  THE EVIDENCE WAS CONFLICTING WHETHER THE WARRANT WAS MADE OUT
AND ISSUED BEFORE, OR AFTER, THE ARREST AND KILLING, AND IF ISSUED
BEFOREHAND, WHETHER IT WAS VALID.  THE COURT OF APPEALS NOTED THERE WAS
EVIDENCE "THAT THE ALLEGED WARRANT OF ARREST WAS PREPARED BY THE
SHERIFF AND WAS A SPURIOUS AFTERTHOUGHT" (140 F.2D AT 665), BUT ASSUMED
IN THE PETITIONER'S FAVOR THAT A VALID WARRANT HAD BEEN ISSUED.  THE
DISSENTING OPINION SAID THE VICTIM'S SHOTGUN WAS TAKEN FROM HIS HOME
"NOT IN A SEARCH OF HIS PERSON BUT APPARENTLY WITHOUT LAWFUL WARRANT." 
140 F.2D AT 667. 

FN2  THE CRUCIAL DISPUTE OF FACT WAS OVER WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD
USED MORE FORCE THAN WAS NECESSARY TO RESTRAIN THE PRISONER.  THE
"OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY" (140 F.2D AT 665) WAS THAT THEY
USED NOT ONLY ALL FORCE REQUIRED TO SUBDUE HIM (IF IT IS ASSUMED HE
RESISTED), BUT CONTINUED TO BEAT HIM FOR FIFTEEN TO THIRTY MINUTES
AFTER HE WAS KNOCKED TO THE GROUND. 

FN3  CF. PART II INFRA. 

FN4  THE DISSENTING JUDGE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THE LOCAL
OFFENSE WAS NOT "WILFUL MURDER, BUT RATHER THAT IT WAS INVOLUNTARY
MANSLAUGHTER IN THE COMMISSION OF AN UNLAWFUL ACT."  140 F.2D AT 666. 

FN5  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE STATE HAS TAKEN ANY STEPS TOWARD
PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF ITS LAW. 

FN6  CF. NOTES 7 AND 10.  AND SEE NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370,
397; CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3, 15-18; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V.
CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226, 233-234; RAYMOND V. CHICAGO TRACTION CO., 207
U.S. 20, 35-37; EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; HOME TEL. & TEL. CO. V.
LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S. 278, 288-289; CUYAHOGA POWER CO. V. AKRON, 240
U.S. 462; FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. TAFOYA, 270 U.S. 426, 434; HOPKINS
V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO., 275 U.S. 393, 398; IOWA-DES
MOINES BANK V. BENNETT, 284 U.S. 239, 245-246; NIXON V. CONDON, 286
U.S. 73, 89; MOSHER V. CITY OF PHOENIX, 287 U.S. 29; STERLING V.
CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 393; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103;
MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337, 343; HAGUE V. C.I.O.,
307 U.S. 496, 512; COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255; PYLE V. KANSAS, 317
U.S. 213. 

FN7  "THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE DIRECTED TO THE
STATES,  ...  IT IS THESE WHICH CONGRESS IS EMPOWERED TO ENFORCE, AND
TO ENFORCE AGAINST STATE ACTION, HOWEVER PUT FORTH, WHETHER THAT ACTION
BE EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, OR JUDICIAL  ....  WHOEVER, BY VIRTUE OF
PUBLIC POSITION UNDER A STATE GOVERNMENT, DEPRIVES ANOTHER OF PROPERTY,
LIFE, OR LIBERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, OR DENIES OR TAKES AWAY
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL
INHIBITION; AND AS HE ACTS IN THE NAME AND FOR THE STATE, AND IS
CLOTHED WITH THE STATE'S POWER, HIS ACT IS THAT OF THE STATE.  THIS
MUST BE SO, OR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION HAS NO MEANING."  EX
PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, 346-347. 

"MISUSE OF POWER, POSSESSED BY VIRTUE OF STATE LAW AND MADE POSSIBLE
ONLY BECAUSE THE WRONGDOER IS CLOTHED WITH THE AUTHORITY OF STATE LAW,
IS ACTION TAKEN 'UNDER COLOR OF' STATE LAW."  UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC,
313 U.S. 299, 326, CITING EX PARTE VIRGINIA, SUPRA, AND OTHER
AUTHORITIES. 

FN8  CF. PART III INFRA.  "SUCH ENFORCEMENT (OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT BY CONGRESS) IS NO INVASION OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY.  NO LAW CAN
BE, WHICH THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES HAVE, BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, EMPOWERED CONGRESS TO ENACT.  THIS EXTENT OF THE POWERS
OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IS OVERLOOKED, WHEN IT IS SAID, AS IT HAS
BEEN IN THIS CASE, THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1875, (18 STAT., PART 3,
336) INTERFERES WITH STATE RIGHTS."  EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. AT
346. 

FN9 CF. HOME TEL. & TEL. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S. 278, 287. 

FN10  COMPARE BARNEY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 193 U.S. 430, WITH HOME
TEL. & TEL. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S. 278, THE LATTER SUGGESTING
THAT THE FORMER, "IF IT CONFLICTED WITH THE DOCTRINE" OF RAYMOND V.
CHICAGO TRACTION CO., 207 U.S. 20, AND EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123,
"IS NOW SO DISTINGUISHED OR QUALIFIED AS NOT TO BE HERE AUTHORITATIVE
OR EVEN PERSUASIVE."  227 U.S. AT 294.  SEE ALSO SNOWDEN V. HUGHES, 321
U.S. 1, 13; ISSEKS, JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS TO ENJOIN
UNAUTHORIZED ACTION OF STATE OFFICIALS, 40 HARV. L. REV. 969, 972. 

FN11  PETITIONERS' OBJECTIONS IN LAW WERE STATED MOST SPECIFICALLY IN
THE DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT.  THESE GROUNDS ALSO WERE INCORPORATED
IN THEIR MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AND THEIR STATEMENT OF GROUNDS
FOR APPEAL.  THE GROUNDS FOR DEMURRER MAINTAINED THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED
WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A FEDERAL OFFENSE, TO FALL WITHIN OR
VIOLATE THE TERMS OF ANY FEDERAL LAW OR STATUTE, OR TO CONFER
JURISDICTION UPON THE DISTRICT OR OTHER FEDERAL COURT.  ONE GROUND
ATTACKED THE INDICTMENT FOR VAGUENESS. 

FN12  SECTION 19 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE (18 U.S.C. SEC. 51): 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE TO INJURE, OPPRESS, THREATEN, OR
INTIMIDATE ANY CITIZEN IN THE FREE EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT
OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR BECAUSE OF HIS HAVING SO EXERCISED THE SAME, OR IF TWO OR
MORE PERSONS GO IN DISGUISE ON THE HIGHWAY, OR ON THE PREMISES OF
ANOTHER, WITH INTENT TO PREVENT OR HINDER HIS FREE EXERCISE OR
ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SO SECURED, THEY SHALL BE FINED NOT
MORE THAN $5,000 AND IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS, AND SHALL,
MOREOVER, BE THEREAFTER INELIGIBLE TO ANY OFFICE, OR PLACE OF HONOR,
PROFIT, OR TRUST CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES." 


"WHOEVER, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR
CUSTOM, WILLFULLY SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY INHABITANT
OF ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS, PAINS, OR
PENALTIES, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INHABITANT BEING AN ALIEN, OR BY REASON
OF HIS COLOR, OR RACE, THAN ARE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF
CITIZENS, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE
THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 

FN13  CF. NOTE 32.  PRESIDENT JOHNSON, VETOING ANOTHER BILL ON JULY
16, 1866, STATED THAT THE PENALTIES OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT "ARE
DENOUNCED AGAINST THE PERSON WHO WILLFULLY VIOLATES THE LAW."  CONG.
GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 3839. 

FN14  FOR THE HISTORY OF THESE CHANGES, SEE THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN
THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, PARTICULARLY FLACK, ADOPTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (1908). 

FN15  UNITED STATES V. RHODES, 27 FED. CAS. 785, NO. 16,151; UNITED
STATES V. JACKSON, 26 FED. CAS. 563, NO. 15,459; UNITED STATES V.
BUNTIN, 10 F. 730; CF. UNITED STATES V. STONE, 188 F. 836, A
PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE FOR CONSPIRACY TO
VIOLATE SEC. 20; CF., ALSO 197 F. 483; UNITED STATES V. HORTON, 26 FED.
CAS. 375, NO. 15,392.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE WAS
SUSTAINED IN THE RHODES CASE IN 1866, AND IN THE JACKSON CASE IN 1874. 
IT WAS LIKEWISE SUSTAINED IN IN RE TURNER, 24 FED. CAS. 337, NO.
14,247(1867); SMITH V. MOODY, 26 IND. 299(1866). 

FN16  CF. THE AUTHORITIES CITED INFRA AT NOTE 25. 

FN17  REFERRING TO SEC. 20, THE COURT SAID:  "THE GENERALITY OF THE
RIGHT, DOES NOT OBSCURE ITS MEANING OR IMPAIR ITS FORCE WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF ITS APPLICATION, WHICH IS RESTRICTED BY ITS TERMS TO
DEPRIVATIONS WHICH ARE WILLFULLY INFLICTED BY THOSE ACTING UNDER COLOR
OF ANY LAW, STATUTE AND THE LIKE."  313 U.S. AT 328. 

CONCERNING SEC. 19, ALSO INVOLVED, THE COURT POINTED TO THE DECISIONS
IN EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651, AND UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238
U.S. 383, CF. NOTE 22, AND COMMENTED:  "...  THE COURT FOUND NO
UNCERTAINTY OR AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, OBVIOUSLY DEVISED
TO PROTECT THE CITIZEN 'IN THE FREE EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT
OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION,' AND CONCERNED ITSELF
WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN CHOOSING A
REPRESENTATIVE IS SO SECURED.  SUCH IS OUR FUNCTION HERE."  313 U.S. AT
321.  THE OPINION STATED FURTHER:  "THE SUGGESTION THAT SEC. 19  ...
IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO BE DEEMED APPLICABLE TO PRIMARY
ELECTIONS, WILL HARDLY BEAR EXAMINATION.  SECTION 19 SPEAKS NEITHER OF
ELECTIONS NOR OF PRIMARIES.  IN UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE IT PROTECTS 'ANY
RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION,' A PHRASE WHICH  ...
EXTENDS TO THE RIGHT OF THE VOTER TO HAVE HIS VOTE COUNTED ...  AS WELL
AS TO NUMEROUS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHICH ARE WHOLLY UNRELATED
TO THE CHOICE OF A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS," CITING UNITED STATES V.
WADDELL, 112 U.S. 76; LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263; IN RE
QUARLES, 158 U.S. 532; MOTES V. UNITED STATES, 178 U.S. 458; GUINN V.
UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347.  CF. NOTE 18. 

FN18  THE DISSENTING OPINION DID NOT URGE THAT SECS. 19 AND 20 ARE
WHOLLY VOID FOR AMBIGUITY, SINCE IT PUT TO ONE SIDE CASES INVOLVING
DISCRIMINATION FOR RACE OR COLOR AS "PLAINLY OUTLAWED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT," AS TO WHICH IT WAS SAID, "SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
IS PLAIN, THERE IS NO REASON WHY SEC. 19 OR SEC. 20 SHOULD NOT BE
APPLICABLE."  HOWEVER, IT WAS THOUGHT "NO SUCH UNAMBIGUOUS MANDATE" HAD
BEEN GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELEVANT IN THE CLASSIC
CASE.  313 U.S. AT 332. 

FN19 CF. NOTE 18. 

FN20  WHETHER OR NOT THE TWO ARE COEXTENSIVE IN LIMITATION OF FEDERAL
AND STATE POWER, RESPECTIVELY, THERE IS CERTAINLY A VERY BROAD
CORRELATION IN COVERAGE, AND IT HARDLY COULD BE MAINTAINED THAT ONE IS
CONFINED BY MORE CLEAR-CUT BOUNDARIES THAN THE OTHER, ALTHOUGH
DIFFERENCES IN MEANDERING OF THE BOUNDARIES MAY EXIST. 

FN21  THE COURT'S OPINION IN THE CLASSIC CASE TREATED THIS CLAUSE OF
SEC. 20, CF. NOTE 12, AS ENTIRELY DISTINCT FROM THE PRECEDING CLAUSES,
STATING THAT "THE QUALIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ALIENAGE, COLOR AND
RACE, REFERS ONLY TO DIFFERENCES IN PUNISHMENT AND NOT TO DEPRIVATIONS
OF ANY RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION," AS WAS
THOUGHT TO BE EVIDENCED BY THE GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE OF THE SECTION AND
"THE NECESSITIES OF THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS."  313
U.S. 326. 

THE "PAINS AND PENALTIES" PROVISION IS CLEARLY ONE AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE QUALIFICATION AS TO
ALIENAGE, COLOR AND RACE DOES NOT ALSO REFER TO THE "DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES" CLAUSE, THOUGH NOT IN AN EXCLUSIVE SENSE.  NO
AUTHORITY FOR THE CONTRARY DICTUM WAS CITED.  HISTORY HERE WOULD SEEM
TO OUTWEIGH DOUBTFUL GRAMMAR, SINCE, AS SEC. 20 ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, THE QUALIFICATION AS TO "COLOR OR RACE" (ALIENAGE
WAS ADDED LATER) SEEMS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO ITS ENTIRE PROHIBITION. 
ALTHOUGH THE SECTION IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY A DISCRIMINATION STATUTE, IT
WOULD SEEM CLEARLY, IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY, TO INCLUDE
DISCRIMINATION FOR ALIENAGE, COLOR OR RACE AMONG THE PROHIBITED MODES
OF DEPRIVING PERSONS OF RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES. 

FN22  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651(1884); UNITED STATES V.
WADDELL, 112 U.S. 76(1884); LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263(1892);
IN RE QUARLES AND BUTLER, 158 U.S. 532(1895); MOTES V. UNITED STATES,
178 U.S. 458(1900); UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383(1915); UNITED
STATES V. MORRIS, 125 F. 322(1903); UNITED STATES V. LACKEY, 99 F.
952(1900), REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 107 F. 114, CERT. DENIED, 181
U.S. 621.    IN UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, SUPRA, AS IS NOTED IN THE
TEXT, THE COURT SUMMARILY DISPOSED OF THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY, STATING
THAT THE SECTION'S CONSTITUTIONALITY "IS NOT OPEN TO QUESTION."  238
U.S. AT 386.  CF. NOTE 17.  THE COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH IMPLIED
REPEAL, BUT STATED:  "BUT SEC. 6(THE ANTECEDENT OF SEC. 19 IN THE
ENFORCEMENT ACT) BEING DEVOTED, AS WE HAVE SAID, TO THE PROTECTION OF
ALL FEDERAL RIGHTS FROM CONSPIRACIES AGAINST THEM  ...  JUST AS THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT  ...  WAS ADOPTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PROTECTION OF
THE COLORED RACE BUT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE EQUALLY IMPORTANT IN ITS
APPLICATION TO THE RIGHTS OF ALL, SEC. 6 HAD A GENERAL SCOPE AND USED
GENERAL WORDS THAT HAVE BECOME THE MOST IMPORTANT  ...  THE SECTION NOW
BEGINS WITH SWEEPING GENERAL WORDS.  THOSE WORDS ALWAYS WERE IN THE
ACT, AND THE PRESENT FORM GIVES THEM A CONGRESSIONAL INTERPRETATION. 
EVEN IF THAT INTERPRETATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD CORRECT IN AN
INDICTMENT UNDER SEC. 6, WHICH WE ARE FAR FROM INTIMATING, AND IF WE
CANNOT INTERPRET THE PAST BY THE PRESENT, WE CANNOT ALLOW THE PAST SO
FAR TO AFFECT THE PRESENT AS TO DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
OF THE GENERAL PROTECTION WHICH ON ITS FACE SEC. 19 MOST REASONABLY
AFFORDS."  238 U.S. AT 387-388.  THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
LAMAR RAISED NO QUESTION OF THE SECTION'S VALIDITY.  IT MAINTAINED THAT
CONGRESS HAD NOT INCLUDED OR HAD REMOVED PROTECTION OF VOTING RIGHTS
FROM THE SECTION, LEAVING ONLY CIVIL RIGHTS WITHIN ITS COVERAGE.  238
U.S. AT 390. 

THE CASES HOLDING THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND SEC. 19 DO NOT
APPLY TO INFRACTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INVOLVING NO STATE ACTION
RECOGNIZE AND OFTEN AFFIRM THE SECTION'S APPLICABILITY TO WRONGFUL
ACTION BY STATE OFFICIALS WHICH INFRINGES THEM:  UNITED STATES V.
CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542(1876); HODGES V. UNITED STATES, 203 U.S.
1(1906); UNITED STATES V. POWELL, 212 U.S. 564(1909), SEE ALSO 151 F.
648; EX PARTE RIGGINS, 134 F. 404(1904), DISMISSED, 199 U.S. 547;
UNITED STATES V. SANGES, 48 F. 78(1891), WRIT OF ERROR DISMISSED, 144
U.S. 310; POWE V. UNITED STATES, 109 F.2D 147(1940), CERT. DENIED, 309
U.S. 679.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. HALL, 26 FED. CAS. 79, NO.
15,282(1871); UNITED STATES V. MALL, 26 FED. CAS. 1147, NO.
15,712(1871). 

FN23  CF. THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTES 22 AND 25; UNITED STATES V.
SAYLOR, 322 U.S. 385. 

FN24  SECTIONS 19 AND 37 CLEARLY OVERLAP IN CONDEMNING CONSPIRACIES
TO VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THE LATTER, APPARENTLY, HAS BEEN
MORE FREQUENTLY USED, AT ANY RATE RECENTLY, WHEN CIVIL RATHER THAN
POLITICAL RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED.  IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT IN THESE
CASES VALIDITY OF THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 37, CHARGING CONSPIRACY TO
VIOLATE SEC. 20, DEPENDS UPON THE LATTER'S VALIDITY IN APPLICATION TO
INFRACTION OF THE RIGHTS CHARGED TO HAVE BEEN INFRINGED. 

FN25  RECENT EXAMPLES INVOLVING THESE AND OTHER RIGHTS ARE:  CULP V.
UNITED STATES, 131 F.2D 93; CATLETTE V. UNITED STATES, 132 F.2D 902;
UNITED STATES V. SUTHERLAND, 37 F.SUPP.  344; UNITED STATES V.
TRIERWEILER, 52 F.SUPP.  4. 

IN THE CULP CASE THE COURT SAID:  "THAT THIS SECTION (SEC. 20) HAS
NOT LOST ANY OF ITS VITALITY SINCE IT WAS ORIGINALLY ENACTED, IS
INDICATED BY  ...  UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC  ...  IT IS OUR OPINION
THAT A STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO, UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW,
WILLFULLY AND WITHOUT CAUSE, ARRESTS AND IMPRISONS AN INHABITANT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTORTION, DEPRIVES HIM OF A RIGHT,
PRIVILEGE, AND IMMUNITY SECURED AND PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND COMMITS ONE OF THE OFFENSES DEFINED IN SEC.
52."  131 F.2D AT 98.  FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WERE INVOLVED ALSO
IN THE CATLETTE CASE; AND IN UNITED STATES V. TRIERWEILER, SUPRA, THE
COURT SAID:  "THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, OBVIOUSLY, IS TO ASSURE
ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS DEFINED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, INCLUDING THE MANDATE THAT NO STATE SHALL DEPRIVE ANY PERSON
OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW  ..."  52
F.SUPP.  AT 5. 

UNITED STATES V. BUNTIN, 10 F. 730, INVOLVED ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION
FOR RACE IN DENYING THE RIGHT TO ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL.  IN UNITED
STATES V. CHAPLIN, 54 F.SUPP.  926, THE COURT RULED THAT A STATE JUDGE,
ACTING IN HIS JUDICIAL CAPACITY, IS IMMUNE TO PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 37
FOR VIOLATING SEC. 20.  BUT CF. EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339. 

FN26  THESE HAVE BEEN THE PERENNIAL OBJECTIONS, NOTWITHSTANDING
UNIFORM REJECTION IN CASES INVOLVING INTERFERENCE WITH BOTH POLITICAL
AND CIVIL RIGHTS.  CF. THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTES 7, 10, 22 AND
25. 

FN27  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CHAPLIN, 54 F.SUPP.  926(SEE NOTE 25
SUPRA), WITH EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339. 

FN28  CF. UNITED STATES V. BUNTIN, 10 F. 730. 

FN29  CF. AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTES 7, 10, 22 AND 25. 

FN30  CF. PART III. 

FN31  COMPARE THE STATUTES UPHELD IN CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315
U.S. 568, 573-574; GORIN V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 19, 23-28;
MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT, 309 U.S. 270, 274; OLD DEARBORN CO. V.
SEAGRAM CORP., 299 U.S. 183, 196; BANDINI PETROLEUM CO. V. SUPERIOR
COURT, 284 U.S. 8, 18; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 360, 368
369; FOX V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273, 277-278; UNITED STATES V. KEITEL,
211 U.S. 370, 393-395. 

FN32  I THINK ALL THIS WOULD BE IMPLIED IF "WILLFULLY" HAD NOT BEEN
ADDED TO SEC. 20 BY AMENDMENT.  THE ADDITION BUT REINFORCES THE
ORIGINAL PURPOSE.  CF. NOTE 13 SUPRA.  CONGRESS, IN THIS LEGISLATION,
HARDLY CAN BE TAKEN TO HAVE SOUGHT TO PUNISH MERELY NEGLIGENT CONDUCT
OR HONEST ERROR OF JUDGMENT BY STATE OFFICIALS.  THE AIM WAS AT GROSSER
VIOLATIONS OF BASIC RIGHTS AND THE SUPREME LAW.  SENSIBLE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE LANGUAGE, WITH OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, REQUIRES THIS VIEW.  THE
CONSISTENT COURSE OF THE SECTION'S APPLICATION SUPPORTS IT. 

FN33  SEE FLACK, ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (1908) 22-38;
CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 474-607, 1151 FF. 

SENATOR DAVIS OF KENTUCKY SAID THAT "THIS SHORT BILL REPEALS ALL THE
PENAL LAWS OF THE STATES ....  THE CASES  ...  THE  ...  BILL WOULD
BRING UP EVERY DAY IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE AS NUMEROUS AS THE
PASSING MINUTES.  THE RESULT WOULD BE TO UTTERLY SUBVERT OUR GOVERNMENT
..."  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 598. 

FN34  CF. NOTE 8. 

MY CONVICTIONS ARE AS I HAVE STATED THEM.  WERE IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO
ADHERE TO THEM IN MY VOTE, AND FOR THE COURT AT THE SAME TIME TO
DISPOSE OF THE CAUSE, I WOULD ACT ACCORDINGLY.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, IS
DIVIDED IN OPINION.  IF EACH MEMBER ACCORDS HIS VOTE TO HIS BELIEF, THE
CASE CANNOT HAVE DISPOSITION.  STALEMATE SHOULD NOT PREVAIL FOR ANY
REASON, HOWEVER COMPELLING, IN A CRIMINAL CAUSE OR, IF AVOIDABLE, IN
ANY OTHER.  MY VIEWS CONCERNING APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION ARE MORE NEARLY
IN ACCORD WITH THOSE STATED BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, IN WHICH THREE
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT CONCUR, THAN THEY ARE WITH THE VIEWS OF MY
DISSENTING BRETHREN WHO FAVOR OUTRIGHT REVERSAL.  ACCORDINGLY, IN ORDER
THAT DISPOSITION MAY BE MADE OF THIS CASE, MY VOTE HAS BEEN CAST TO
REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
DISPOSITION REQUIRED BY THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

I DISSENT.  ROBERT HALL, A NEGRO CITIZEN, HAS BEEN DEPRIVED NOT ONLY
OF THE RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY A COURT RATHER THAN BY ORDEAL.  HE HAS BEEN
DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE ITSELF.  THAT RIGHT BELONGED TO HIM NOT
BECAUSE HE WAS A NEGRO OR A MEMBER OF ANY PARTICULAR RACE OR CREED. 
THAT RIGHT WAS HIS BECAUSE HE WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, BECAUSE HE WAS A
HUMAN BEING.  AS SUCH, HE WAS ENTITLED TO ALL THE RESPECT AND FAIR
TREATMENT THAT BEFITS THE DIGNITY OF MAN, A DIGNITY THAT IS RECOGNIZED
AND GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  YET NOT EVEN THE SEMBLANCE OF DUE
PROCESS HAS BEEN ACCORDED HIM.  HE HAS BEEN CRUELLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY
BEATEN TO DEATH BY LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS ACTING UNDER COLOR OF
AUTHORITY DERIVED FROM THE STATE.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH
AN OBVIOUS AND NECESSARY RIGHT IS INDEFINITELY GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR IS FOREIGN TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS SO
AS TO CAST ANY REASONABLE DOUBT ON THE CONVICTION UNDER SEC. 20 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE OF THE PERPETRATORS OF THIS "SHOCKING AND REVOLTING
EPISODE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT." 

THE CONSTITUTION AND SEC. 20 MUST BE READ TOGETHER INASMUCH AS SEC.
20 REFERS IN PART TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SECTION
20 PUNISHES ANYONE, ACTING UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, WHO WILLFULLY
DEPRIVES ANY PERSON OF ANY RIGHT, PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY SECURED OR
PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
PERTINENT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THIS INSTANCE IS SEC. 1 OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHICH FIRMLY AND UNMISTAKABLY PROVIDES THAT NO
STATE SHALL DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 
TRANSLATED IN LIGHT OF THIS SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, SEC. 20 THUS PUNISHES ANYONE, ACTING UNDER COLOR OF STATE
LAW, WHO WILLFULLY DEPRIVES ANY PERSON OF LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  SUCH IS THE CLEAR STATUTORY PROVISION UPON WHICH THIS CONVICTION
MUST STAND OR FALL. 

A GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, HOWEVER, IS SAID TO LURK IN THE ALLEGED
INDEFINITENESS OF THE CRIME OUTLAWED BY SEC. 20.  THE RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE CLAIMED TO BE SO UNCERTAIN AND FLEXIBLE,
DEPENDENT UPON CHANGEABLE LEGAL CONCEPTS, AS TO LEAVE A STATE OFFICIAL
CONFUSED AND IGNORANT AS TO WHAT ACTIONS OF HIS MIGHT RUN AFOUL OF THE
LAW.  THE STATUTE, IT IS CONCLUDED, MUST BE SET ASIDE FOR VAGUENESS. 

IT IS AXIOMATIC, OF COURSE, THAT A CRIMINAL STATUTE MUST GIVE A CLEAR
AND UNMISTAKABLE WARNING AS TO THE ACTS WHICH WILL SUBJECT ONE TO
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.  AND COURTS ARE WITHOUT POWER TO SUPPLY THAT WHICH
CONGRESS HAS LEFT VAGUE.  BUT THIS SALUTARY PRINCIPLE DOES NOT MEAN
THAT IF A STATUTE IS VAGUE AS TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL ACTS BUT DEFINITE AS
TO OTHERS THE ENTIRE STATUTE MUST FALL.  NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT IN THE
FIRST CASE INVOLVING THE STATUTE TO COME BEFORE US WE MUST DELINEATE
ALL THE PROHIBITED ACTS THAT ARE OBSCURE AND ALL THOSE THAT ARE
EXPLICIT. 

THUS IT IS IDLE TO SPECULATE ON OTHER SITUATIONS THAT MIGHT INVOLVE
SEC. 20 WHICH ARE NOT NOW BEFORE US.  WE ARE UNCONCERNED HERE WITH
STATE OFFICIALS WHO HAVE COERCED A CONFESSION FROM A PRISONER, DENIED
COUNSEL TO A DEFENDANT OR MADE A FAULTY TAX ASSESSMENT.  WHATEVER DOUBT
MAY EXIST IN THOSE OR IN OTHER SITUATIONS AS TO WHETHER THE STATE
OFFICIALS COULD REASONABLY ANTICIPATE AND RECOGNIZE THE RELEVANT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS IMMATERIAL IN THIS CASE.  OUR ATTENTION HERE
IS DIRECTED SOLELY TO THREE STATE OFFICIALS WHO, IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
OFFICIAL DUTIES, HAVE UNJUSTIFIABLY BEATEN AND CRUSHED THE BODY OF A
HUMAN BEING, THEREBY DEPRIVING HIM OF TRIAL BY JURY AND OF LIFE
ITSELF.  THE ONLY PERTINENT INQUIRY IS WHETHER SEC. 20, BY ITS
REFERENCE TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE THAT NO STATE SHALL
DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, GIVES FAIR
WARNING TO STATE OFFICIALS THAT THEY ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
VIOLATING THIS RIGHT TO LIFE. 

COMMON SENSE GIVES AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO THAT PROBLEM.  THE
REFERENCE IN SEC. 20 TO RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IS
MANIFEST AND SIMPLE.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE RIGHT NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF
LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS DISTINCTLY AND LUCIDLY PROTECTED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THERE IS NOTHING VAGUE OR INDEFINITE IN
THESE REFERENCES TO THIS MOST BASIC OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS.  KNOWLEDGE OF
A COMPREHENSIVE LAW LIBRARY IS UNNECESSARY FOR OFFICERS OF THE LAW TO
KNOW THAT THE RIGHT TO MURDER INDIVIDUALS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES
IS UNRECOGNIZED IN THIS NATION.  NO APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE
OR CONJECTURE ON THE PART OF THE LOWLIEST STATE OFFICIAL IS NEEDED FOR
HIM TO REALIZE THAT FACT; NOR SHOULD IT SURPRISE HIM TO FIND OUT THAT
THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS PERSONS FROM HIS RECKLESS DISREGARD OF HUMAN
LIFE AND THAT STATUTES PUNISH HIM THEREFOR.  TO SUBJECT A STATE
OFFICIAL TO PUNISHMENT UNDER SEC. 20 FOR SUCH ACTS IS NOT TO PENALIZE
HIM WITHOUT FAIR AND DEFINITE WARNING.  RATHER IT IS TO UPHOLD
ELEMENTARY STANDARDS OF DECENCY AND TO MAKE AMERICAN PRINCIPLES OF LAW
AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES MEAN SOMETHING MORE THAN PIOUS
RHETORIC. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS UNNECESSARY TO SEND THIS CASE BACK
FOR A FURTHER TRIAL ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE JURY WAS NOT CHARGED ON
THE MATTER OF THE WILLFULNESS OF THE STATE OFFICIALS, AN ISSUE THAT WAS
NOT RAISED BELOW OR BEFORE US.  THE EVIDENCE IS MORE THAN CONVINCING
THAT THE OFFICIALS WILLFULLY, OR AT LEAST WITH WANTON DISREGARD OF THE
CONSEQUENCES, DEPRIVED ROBERT HALL OF HIS LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  A NEW TRIAL COULD HARDLY MAKE THAT FACT MORE EVIDENT; THE FAILURE
TO CHARGE THE JURY ON WILLFULNESS WAS AT MOST AN INCONSEQUENTIAL
ERROR.  MOREOVER, THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF WILLFULNESS FAILS TO
DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US. SECTION 20 IS VERY
DEFINITE AND CERTAIN IN ITS REFERENCE TO THE RIGHT TO LIFE AS SPELLED
OUT IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT QUITE APART FROM THE STATE OF MIND OF
THE STATE OFFICIALS.  A FINDING OF WILLFULNESS CAN ADD NOTHING TO THE
CLARITY OF THAT REFERENCE. 

IT IS AN ILLUSION TO SAY THAT THE REAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS THE
ALLEGED FAILURE OF SEC. 20 FULLY TO WARN THE STATE OFFICIALS THAT THEIR
ACTIONS WERE ILLEGAL.  THE CONSTITUTION, SEC. 20 AND THEIR OWN
CONSCIENCES TOLD THEM THAT.  THEY KNEW THAT THEY LACKED ANY MANDATE OR
AUTHORITY TO TAKE HUMAN LIFE UNNECESSARILY OR WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES.  THEY KNEW THAT THEIR EXCESSIVE AND
ABUSIVE USE OF AUTHORITY WOULD ONLY SUBVERT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  THE
SIGNIFICANT QUESTION, RATHER, IS WHETHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND
THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH AUTHORITY SHALL BE ALLOWED TO VIOLATE WITH
IMPUNITY THE CLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE INARTICULATE AND THE
FRIENDLESS.  TOO OFTEN UNPOPULAR MINORITIES, SUCH AS NEGROES, ARE
UNABLE TO FIND EFFECTIVE REFUGE FROM THE CRUELTIES OF BIGOTED AND
RUTHLESS AUTHORITY.  STATES ARE UNDOUBTEDLY CAPABLE OF PUNISHING THEIR
OFFICERS WHO COMMIT SUCH OUTRAGES.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE STATES ARE
UNWILLING FOR SOME REASON TO PROSECUTE SUCH CRIMES THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MUST STEP IN UNLESS CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES ARE TO BECOME
ATROPHIED. 

THIS NECESSARY INTERVENTION, HOWEVER, WILL BE FUTILE IF COURTS
DISREGARD REALITY AND MISUSE THE PRINCIPLE THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST
BE CLEAR AND DEFINITE.  HERE STATE OFFICERS HAVE VIOLATED WITH RECKLESS
ABANDON A PLAIN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.  THE TWO
COURTS BELOW HAVE FOUND AND THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT THE TRIAL WAS
FAIR AND THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT CLEAR.  AND SEC. 20 UNMISTAKABLY OUTLAWS
SUCH ACTIONS BY STATE OFFICERS.  WE SHOULD THEREFORE AFFIRM THE
JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON,
DISSENTING. 

THREE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF GEORGIA, A COUNTY SHERIFF, A
SPECIAL DEPUTY AND A CITY POLICEMAN, ARRESTED A YOUNG NEGRO CHARGED
WITH A LOCAL CRIME, THAT OF STEALING A TIRE.  WHILE HE WAS IN THEIR
CUSTODY AND HANDCUFFED, THEY SO SEVERELY BEAT THE LAD THAT HE DIED. 
THIS BRUTAL MISCONDUCT RENDERED THESE LAWLESS LAW OFFICERS GUILTY OF
MANSLAUGHTER, IF NOT OF MURDER, UNDER GEORGIA LAW.  INSTEAD OF LEAVING
THIS MISDEED TO VINDICATION BY GEORGIA LAW, THE UNITED STATES DEFLECTED
GEORGIA'S RESPONSIBILITY BY INSTITUTING A FEDERAL PROSECUTION.  BUT
THIS WAS A CRIMINAL HOMICIDE ONLY UNDER GEORGIA LAW.  THE UNITED STATES
COULD NOT PROSECUTE THE PETITIONERS FOR TAKING LIFE.  INSTEAD A
PROSECUTION WAS BROUGHT, AND THE CONVICTION NOW UNDER REVIEW WAS
OBTAINED, UNDER SEC. 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 52. 
1866, 14 STAT. 27, WAS PUT ON THE STATUTE BOOKS ON MAY 31, 1870, BUT
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES IT HAS REMAINED A DEAD LETTER ALL THESE
YEARS.  THIS SECTION PROVIDES THAT "WHOEVER, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW,
STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR CUSTOM, WILLFULLY SUBJECTS ...  ANY
INHABITANT OF ANY STATE  ...  TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN ONE
THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 
UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88, A CONSPIRACY TO
COMMIT ANY FEDERAL OFFENSE IS PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO
YEARS.  THE THEORY OF THIS PROSECUTION IS THAT ONE CHARGED WITH CRIME
IS ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THAT THAT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO
AN ORDERLY TRIAL OF WHICH THE PETITIONERS DEPRIVED THE NEGRO. 

OF COURSE THE PETITIONERS ARE PUNISHABLE.  THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER
GEORGIA ALONE HAS THE POWER AND DUTY TO PUNISH, OR WHETHER THIS
PATENTLY LOCAL CRIME CAN BE MADE THE BASIS OF A FEDERAL PROSECUTION. 
THE PRACTICAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATES SHOULD BE RELIEVED FROM
RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING THEIR LAW OFFICERS TO BOOK FOR HOMICIDE, BY
ALLOWING PROSECUTIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR A RELATIVELY MINOR
OFFENSE CARRYING A SHORT SENTENCE.  THE LEGAL QUESTION IS WHETHER, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMPLISHING THIS RELAXATION OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY,
HITHERTO SETTLED PRINCIPLES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES SHALL
BE BENT AND TORTURED. 

    I 

BY THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT SLAVERY WAS ABOLISHED.  IN ORDER TO
SECURE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT FOR THE EMANCIPATED, THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED AT THE SAME TIME.  TO BE SURE, THE LATTER
AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN CONFINED TO INSTANCES OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE
OF RACE OR COLOR.  UNDOUBTEDLY, HOWEVER, THE NECESSARY PROTECTION OF
THE NEW FREEDMEN WAS THE MOST POWERFUL IMPULSE BEHIND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE VITAL PART OF THAT AMENDMENT, SEC. 1, READS AS FOLLOWS:
"ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO
THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE
STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE.  NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW
WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY,
OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

BY ITSELF, THIS AMENDMENT IS MERELY AN INSTRUMENT FOR STRIKING DOWN
ACTION BY THE STATES IN DEFINANCE OF IT.  IT DOES NOT CREATE RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS ACTIVELY ENFORCEABLE BY FEDERAL LAW.  HOWEVER, LIKE ALL
RIGHTS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THOSE CREATED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT COULD BE ENFORCED BY APPROPRIATE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION.  THE GENERAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO PASS MEASURES
EFFECTUATING THE CONSTITUTION IS GIVEN BY ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 18 - THE
NECESSARY-AND-PROPER CLAUSE.  IN ORDER TO INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF
ENFORCING THE GUARANTEES OF AMENDMENT XIV, ITS FIFTH SECTION
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES:  "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE, BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE." 

ACCORDINGLY, CONGRESS PASSED VARIOUS MEASURES FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT. 
IT IS FAMILIAR HISTORY THAT MUCH OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS BORN OF THAT
VENGEFUL SPIRIT WHICH TO NO SMALL DEGREE ENVENOMED THE RECONSTRUCTION
ERA.  LEGISLATIVE RESPECT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WAS NOT AT ITS
HEIGHT AND CONGRESS PASSED LAWS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  SEE CIVIL
RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3.  ONE OF THE LAWS OF THIS PERIOD WAS THE ACT
OF MAY 31, 1870, 16 STAT. 140.  IN ITS PRESENT FORM, AS SEC. 20, IT IS
NOW HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON FULL CONSIDERATION AS TO ITS MEANING AND
ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY, UNEMBARRASSED BY PREOCCUPATION BOTH ON THE PART
OF COUNSEL AND COURT WITH THE MORE COMPELLING ISSUE OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO CONTROL STATE PROCEDURE FOR THE ELECTION OF FEDERAL
OFFICERS.  IF SEC. 20 WERE READ AS OTHER LEGISLATION IS READ, BY GIVING
IT THE MEANING WHICH ITS LANGUAGE IN ITS PROPER SETTING NATURALLY AND
SPONTANEOUSLY YIELDS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE
REAL DOUBT ABOUT THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION.  THE UNSTRAINED SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE WORDS CHOSEN BY CONGRESS, THE DISCLOSED PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY
WERE CHOSEN AND TO WHICH THEY WERE LIMITED, THE ALWAYS RELEVANT
IMPLICATIONS OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM ESPECIALLY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF
POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AS
BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, ALL CONVERGE TO MAKE
PLAIN WHAT CONDUCT CONGRESS OUTLAWED BY THE ACT OF 1870 AND WHAT
IMPLIEDLY IT DID NOT. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITED A STATE FROM SO ACTING AS TO
DEPRIVE PERSONS OF NEW FEDERAL RIGHTS DEFINED BY IT.  SECTION 5 OF THE
AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED ENABLING LEGISLATION TO ENFORCE THAT
PROHIBITION.  SINCE A STATE CAN ACT ONLY THROUGH ITS OFFICERS, CONGRESS
PROVIDED FOR THE PROSECUTION OF ANY OFFICER WHO DEPRIVES OTHERS OF
THEIR GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND DENIED SUCH AN OFFICER THE RIGHT TO DEFEND
BY CLAIMING THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE FOR HIS ACTION.  IN SHORT,
CONGRESS SAID THAT NO STATE CAN EMPOWER AN OFFICER TO COMMIT ACTS WHICH
THE CONSTITUTION FORBADE THE STATE FROM AUTHORIZING, WHETHER SUCH
UNAUTHORIZED COMMAND BE GIVEN FOR THE STATE BY ITS LEGISLATIVE OR
JUDICIAL VOICE, OR BY A CUSTOM CONTRADICTING THE WRITTEN LAW.  SEE
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, 369.  THE
PRESENT PROSECUTION IS NOT BASED ON AN OFFICER'S CLAIM THAT THAT FOR
WHICH THE UNITED STATES SEEKS HIS PUNISHMENT WAS COMMANDED OR
AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW OF HIS STATE.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE PRESENT
PROSECUTION IS BASED ON THE THEORY THAT CONGRESS MADE IT A FEDERAL
OFFENSE FOR A STATE OFFICER TO VIOLATE THE EXPLICIT LAW OF HIS STATE. 
WE ARE ASKED TO CONSTRUE LEGISLATION WHICH WAS INTENDED TO EFFECTUATE
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST STATES FOR DEFIANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO BE
EQUALLY APPLICABLE WHERE A STATE DULY OBEYS THE CONSTITUTION, BUT AN
OFFICER FLOUTS STATE LAW AND IS UNQUESTIONABLY SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT BY
THE STATE FOR HIS DISOBEDIENCE. 

SO TO READ SEC. 20 DISREGARDS NOT MERELY THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF
LANGUAGE TO EXPRESS IDEAS APPROPRIATELY.  IT FAILS NOT MERELY TO LEAVE
TO THE STATES THE PROVINCE OF LOCAL CRIME ENFORCEMENT, THAT THE PROPER
BALANCE OF POLITICAL FORCES IN OUR FEDERALISM REQUIRES.  IT DOES BOTH,
HEEDLESS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, CLEARLY EVINCED EVEN DURING THE
FEVERISH RECONSTRUCTION DAYS, TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED THE POWER AND THE
DUTY OF THE STATES TO ENFORCE THEIR CRIMINAL LAW BY RESTRICTING FEDERAL
AUTHORITY TO THE PUNISHMENT ONLY OF THOSE PERSONS WHO VIOLATE FEDERAL
RIGHTS UNDER CLAIM OF STATE AUTHORITY AND NOT BY EXERTING FEDERAL
AUTHORITY AGAINST OFFENDERS OF STATE AUTHORITY.  SUCH A DISTORTION OF
FEDERAL POWER DEVISED AGAINST RECALCITRANT STATE AUTHORITY NEVER
ENTERED THE MINDS OF THE PROPONENTS OF THE LEGISLATION. 

INDEED, WE HAVE THE WEIGHTIEST EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THEY
REJECTED THAT WHICH NOW, AFTER SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS, THE GOVERNMENT
URGES.  SECTION 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE DERIVED FROM SEC. 2 OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 14 STAT. 27.  DURING THE DEBATE ON THAT
COMMITTEE, ANSWERED FEARS CONCERNING THE LOOSE INCLUSIVENESS OF THE
PHRASE "COLOR OF LAW."  IN PARTICULAR, OPPONENTS OF THE ACT WERE
TROUBLED LEST IT WOULD MAKE CRIMINALS OF STATE JUDGES AND OFFICIALS FOR
CARRYING OUT THEIR LEGAL DUTIES.  SENATOR TRUMBULL AGREED THAT THEY
WOULD BE GUILTY IF THEY CONSCIOUSLY HELPED TO ENFORCE DISCRIMINATORY
STATE LEGISLATION.  FEDERAL LAW, REPLIED SENATOR TRUMBULL, WAS DIRECTED
AGAINST THOSE, AND ONLY AGAINST THOSE, WHO WERE NOT PUNISHABLE BY STATE
LAW PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ACTED IN OBEDIENCE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE
LAW AND BY STATE LAW JUSTIFIED THEIR ACTION.  SAID SENATOR TRUMBULL,
"IF AN OFFENSE IS COMMITTED AGAINST A COLORED PERSON SIMPLY BECAUSE HE
IS COLORED, IN A STATE WHERE THE LAW AFFORDS HIM THE SAME PROTECTION AS
IF HE WERE WHITE, THIS ACT NEITHER HAS NOR WAS INTENDED TO HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIS CASE, BECAUSE HE HAS ADEQUATE REMEDIES IN THE
STATE COURTS; BUT IF HE IS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST UNDER COLOR OF STATE
LAWS BECAUSE HE IS COLORED, THEN IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO INTERFERE FOR
HIS PROTECTION."  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1758.  AND
THIS LANGUAGE APPLIES EQUALLY TO SEC. 17 OF THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, 16
STAT. 140, 144(NOW SEC. 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE), WHICH REENACTED THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. 

THAT THIS LEGISLATION WAS CONFINED TO ATTEMPTED DEPRIVATIONS OF
FEDERAL RIGHTS BY STATE LAW AND WAS NOT EXTENDED TO BREACHES OF STATE
LAW BY ITS OFFICIALS, IS LIKEWISE CONFIRMED BY OBSERVATIONS OF SENATOR
SHERMAN, ANOTHER LEADING RECONSTRUCTION STATESMAN.  WHEN ASKED ABOUT
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE 1870 ACT TO A NEGRO'S RIGHT TO VOTE WHEN STATE
LAW PROVIDED FOR THAT RIGHT, SENATOR SHERMAN REPLIED, "THAT IS NOT THE
CASE WITH WHICH WE ARE DEALING.  I INTEND TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO
PRESENT A QUESTION OF THAT KIND.  THIS BILL ONLY PROPOSES TO DEAL WITH
OFFENSES COMMITTED BY OFFICERS OR PERSONS UNDER COLOR OF EXISTING STATE
LAW, UNDER COLOR OF EXISTING STATE CONSTITUTIONS.  NO MAN COULD BE
CONVICTED UNDER THIS BILL REPORTED BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNLESS
THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE WAS DONE UNDER COLOR OR PRETENSE OF
STATE REGULATION.  THE WHOLE BILL SHOWS THAT.  MY HONORABLE FRIEND FROM
CALIFORNIA HAS NOT READ THIS BILL WITH HIS USUAL CARE IF HE DOES NOT
SEE THAT THAT RUNS THROUGH THE WHOLE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND SECTIONS OF THE BILL, WHICH SIMPLY PUNISH OFFICERS AS WELL AS
PERSONS FOR DISCRIMINATION UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAWS OR CONSTITUTIONS;
AND SO IT PROVIDES ALL THE WAY THROUGH."  CONG. GLOBE, 41ST CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 3663.  THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS ARE BARREN OF ANY INDICATION
THAT THE SUPPORTERS OF THE LEGISLATION NOW BEFORE US HAD THE REMOTEST
NOTION OF AUTHORIZING THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO PROSECUTE STATE
OFFICERS FOR CONDUCT WHICH THEIR STATE HAD MADE A STATE OFFENSE WHERE
THE SETTLED CUSTOM OF THE STATE DID NOT RUN COUNTER TO FORMULATED LAW. 

WERE IT OTHERWISE IT WOULD INDEED BE SURPRISING.  IT WAS NATURAL TO
GIVE THE SHELTER OF THE CONSTITUTION TO THOSE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS FOR
THE VINDICATION OF WHICH THE SUCCESSFUL CONDUCT OF THE CIVIL WAR WAS
THE END OF A LONG PROCESS.  AND THE EXTENSION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY SO
AS TO GUARD AGAINST EVASION BY ANY STATE OF THESE NEWLY CREATED FEDERAL
RIGHTS WAS AN OBVIOUS COROLLARY.  BUT TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS THE
MAKING OVERNIGHT OF A REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN THE BALANCE OF THE
POLITICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES
WITHOUT REASON, IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING.  AND TO HAVE PROVIDED FOR
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE FROM THE STATES TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING EVERY LAWLESS ACT OF
THE POLICEMAN ON THE BEAT OR IN THE STATION HOUSE, WHETHER BY WAY OF
THIRD DEGREE OR THE ILLEGAL RANSACKING FOR EVIDENCE IN A MAN'S HOUSE
(SEE GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298; BYARS V. UNITED STATES, 273
U.S. 28; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309
U.S. 227), A FEDERAL OFFENSE, WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED A REVOLUTIONARY
BREAK WITH THE PAST OVERNIGHT.  THE DESIRE FOR SUCH A DISLOCATION IN
OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM PLAINLY WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE LYMAN TRUMBULLS
AND THE JOHN SHERMANS, AND NOT EVEN BY THE THADDEUS STEVENSES. 

REGARD FOR MAINTAINING THE DELICATE BALANCE "BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL
TRIBUNALS OF THE UNION AND OF THE STATES" IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW HAS INFORMED THIS COURT, AS IT HAS INFLUENCED CONGRESS,
"IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC GOOD REQUIRES THAT THOSE
RELATIONS BE NOT DISTURBED BY UNNECESSARY CONFLICT BETWEEN COURTS
EQUALLY BOUND TO GUARD AND PROTECT RIGHTS SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION."  EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241, 251.  OBSERVANCE OF THIS
BASIC PRINCIPLE UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT HAS LED THIS COURT TO
ABSTAIN, EVEN UNDER MORE TEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES THAN THOSE NOW HERE,
FROM NEEDLESS EXTENSION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL AUTHORITY INTO MATTERS THAT
NORMALLY ARE OF STATE CONCERN AND FOR WHICH THE STATES HAD BEST BE
CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY.    WE HAVE REFERENCE TO SEC. 33 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 76.  THAT PROVISION GIVES THE
RIGHT OF REMOVAL TO A FEDERAL COURT OF ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BEGUN
IN A STATE COURT AGAINST A REVENUE OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES "ON
ACCOUNT OF ANY ACT DONE UNDER COLOR OF HIS OFFICE OR OF ANY SUCH
(REVENUE) LAW."  WHERE A STATE PROSECUTION FOR MANSLAUGHTER IS RESISTED
BY THE CLAIM THAT WHAT WAS DONE WAS JUSTIFIABLY DONE BY A UNITED STATES
OFFICER ONE WOULD SUPPOSE THAT THIS COURT WOULD BE ALERT TO CONSTRUE
VERY BROADLY "UNDER COLOR OF HIS OFFICE OR OF ANY SUCH LAW" IN ORDER TO
AVOID THE HAZARDS OF TRIAL, WHETHER THROUGH CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS
DISCRIMINATION OR HOSTILITY, OF A UNITED STATES OFFICER ACCUSED OF
HOMICIDE AND TO ASSURE HIM A TRIAL IN A PRESUMABLY MORE IMPARTIAL
FEDERAL COURT.  BUT THIS COURT LONG AGO INDICATED THAT MISUSE OF
FEDERAL AUTHORITY DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE STATUTE'S PROTECTION. 
TENNESSEE V. DAVIS, 100 U.S. 257, 261-262.  MORE RECENTLY, THIS COURT
IN A SERIES OF CASES UNANIMOUSLY INSISTED THAT A PETITION FOR REMOVAL
MUST SHOW WITH PARTICULARITY THAT THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE STATE IS
PROSECUTING RESULTED FROM A DISCHARGE OF FEDERAL DUTY.  "IT MUST APPEAR
THAT THE PROSECUTION OF HIM, FOR WHATEVER OFFENSE, HAS ARISEN OUT OF
THE ACTS DONE BY HIM UNDER COLOR OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND IN
ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL LAW, AND HE MUST BY DIRECT AVERMENT EXCLUDE THE
POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS BASED ON ACTS OR CONDUCT OF HIS NOT JUSTIFIED
BY HIS FEDERAL DUTY....  THE DEFENSE HE IS TO MAKE IS THAT OF HIS
IMMUNITY FROM PUNISHMENT BY THE STATE, BECAUSE WHAT HE DID WAS
JUSTIFIED BY HIS DUTY UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW, AND BECAUSE HE DID NOTHING
ELSE ON WHICH THE PROSECUTION COULD BE BASED."  MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO.
1), 270 U.S. 9, 33.  AND SEE MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 2), 270 U.S. 36;
MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 3), 270 U.S. 44; COLORADO V. SYMES, 286 U.S.
510.  TO THE SUGGESTION THAT SUCH A LIMITED CONSTRUCTION OF THE REMOVAL
STATUTE ENACTED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICERS WOULD
RESTRICT ITS EFFECTIVENESS, THE ANSWER WAS THAT IF CONGRESS CHOSE TO
AFFORD EVEN GREATER PROTECTION AND TO WITHDRAW FROM THE STATES THE
RIGHT AND DUTY TO ENFORCE THEIR CRIMINAL LAW IN THEIR OWN COURTS, IT
SHOULD EXPRESS ITS DESIRE MORE SPECIFICALLY.  MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO.
2), 270 U.S. 36, 42, 44.  THAT ANSWER SHOULD BE BINDING IN THE
SITUATION NOW BEFORE US. 

THE REASONS WHICH LED THIS COURT TO GIVE SUCH A RETRICTED SCOPE TO
THE REMOVAL STATUTE ARE EVEN MORE COMPELLING AS TO SEC. 20.  THE MATTER
CONCERNS POLICIES INHERENT IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM AND THE UNDESIRABLE
CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY AND
PREDOMINANTLY STATE CRIMES NO MATTER HOW MUCH SOPHISTICATED
ARGUMENTATION MAY GIVE THEM THE APPEARANCE OF FEDERAL CRIMES.  CONGRESS
HAS NOT EXPRESSED A CONTRARY PURPOSE, EITHER BY THE LANGUAGE OF ITS
LEGISLATION OR BY ANYTHING APPEARING IN THE ENVIRONMENT OUT OF WHICH
ITS LANGUAGE CAME.  THE PRACTICE OF GOVERNMENT FOR SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS
LIKEWISE SPEAKS AGAINST IT.  NOR IS THERE A BODY OF JUDICIAL OPINION
WHICH BIDS US FIND IN THE UNBRIDLED EXCESS OF A STATE OFFICER,
CONSTITUTING A CRIME UNDER HIS STATE LAW, ACTION TAKEN "UNDER COLOR OF
LAW" WHICH FEDERAL LAW FORBIDS. 

ONLY TWO REPORTED CASES CONSIDERED SEC. 20 BEFORE UNITED STATES V.
CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299.  IN UNITED STATES V. BUNTIN, 10 F. 730, A
TEACHER, IN RELIANCE ON A STATE STATUTE, REFUSED ADMITTANCE TO A
COLORED CHILD, WHILE IN UNITED STATES V. STONE, 188 F. 836, ELECTION
SUPERVISORS WHO ACTED UNDER A MARYLAND ELECTION LAW WERE HELD TO ACT
"UNDER COLOR OF LAW."  IN NEITHER CASE WAS THERE A PATENT VIOLATION OF
STATE LAW BUT RATHER AN ATTEMPT AT JUSTIFICATION UNDER STATE LAW. 
UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, SUPRA, IS THE ONLY DECISION THAT LOOKS THE
OTHER WAY.  IN THAT CASE PRIMARY ELECTION OFFICIALS WERE HELD TO HAVE
ACTED "UNDER COLOR OF LAW" EVEN THOUGH THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF AS A
FEDERAL OFFENSE WERE LIKEWISE CONDEMNED BY LOUISIANA LAW.  THE TRUTH OF
THE MATTER IS THAT THE FOCUS OF ATTENTION IN THE CLASSIC CASE WAS NOT
OUR PRESENT PROBLEM, BUT WAS THE RELATION OF PRIMARIES TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS UNDER THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.  THE VIEWS IN THE CLASSIC CASE THUS REACHED OUGHT NOT TO
STAND IN THE WAY OF A DECISION ON THE MERITS OF A QUESTION WHICH HAS
NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME BEEN FULLY EXPLORED AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
WORKINGS OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY REVEALED. 

IT WAS ASSUMED QUITE NEEDLESSLY IN THE CLASSIC CASE THAT THE SCOPE OF
SEC. 20 WAS COEXTENSIVE WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BECAUSE THE
WEIGHT OF THE CASE WAS ELSEWHERE, WE DID NOT PURSUE THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE POWER GRANTED TO CONGRESS BY THAT AMENDMENT TO BAR "ANY
STATE" FROM DEPRIVING PERSONS OF THE NEWLY CREATED CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS AND THE LIMITED EXTENT TO WHICH CONGRESS EXERCISED THAT POWER,
IN WHAT IS NOW SEC. 20, BY MAKING IT AN OFFENSE FOR ONE ACTING "UNDER
COLOR OF ANY LAW" TO DEPRIVE ANOTHER OF SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  IT
MAY WELL BE THAT CONGRESS COULD, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, TREAT ACTION TAKEN BY A STATE OFFICIAL EVEN THOUGH IN
DEFIANCE OF STATE LAW AND NOT CONDONED BY ULTIMATE STATE AUTHORITY AS
THE ACTION OF "A STATE."  IT HAS NEVER BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED
HOW A STATE CAN BE SAID TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF LIBERTY OR PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THE FOUNDATION OF THE CLAIM IS THAT A
MINOR OFFICIAL HAS DISOBEYED THE AUTHENTIC COMMAND OF HIS STATE.  SEE
RAYMOND V. CHICAGO TRACTION CO., 207 U.S. 20, 40, 41.  ALTHOUGH ACTION
TAKEN UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN DEEMED TO BE DEPRIVATION BY A
"STATE" OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FOR PURPOSES
OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION, THE DOCTRINE HAS HAD A FLUCTUATING AND DUBIOUS
HISTORY.  COMPARE BARNEY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 193 U.S. 430, WITH
RAYMOND V. CHICAGO TRACTION CO., SUPRA; MEMPHIS V. CUMBERLAND TELEPHONE
CO., 218 U.S. 624, WITH HOME TEL. & TEL. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S.
278.  BARNEY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, SUPRA, WHICH RULED OTHERWISE,
ALTHOUGH QUESTIONED, HAS NEVER BEEN OVERRULED.  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, IOWA
DES MOINES BANK V. BENNETT, 284 U.S. 239, 246-247, AND SNOWDEN V.
HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1, 13.  FN1 

BUT ASSUMING UNRESERVEDLY THAT CONDUCT SUCH AS THAT NOW BEFORE US,
PERPETRATED BY STATE OFFICERS IN FLAGRANT DEFIANCE OF STATE LAW, MAY BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE STATE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THIS DOES NOT
MAKE IT ACTION UNDER "COLOR OF ANY LAW."  SECTION 20 IS MUCH NARROWER
THAN THE POWER OF CONGRESS.  EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE SWEPT
WITHIN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW ANY ACTION THAT COULD BE DEEMED WITHIN
THE VAST REACH OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, CONGRESS DID NOT DO SO. THE
PRESUPPOSITIONS OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM, THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE
STATESMEN WHO SHAPED THIS LEGISLATION, AND THE NORMAL MEANING OF
LANGUAGE POWERFULLY COUNSEL AGAINST ATTRIBUTING TO CONGRESS INTRUSION
INTO THE SPHERE OF CRIMINAL LAW TRADITIONALLY AND NATURALLY RESERVED
FOR THE STATES ALONE.  WHEN DUE ACCOUNT IS TAKEN OF THE CONSIDERATIONS
THAT HAVE HERETOFORE CONTROLLED THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, THERE IS NOT THE
SLIGHTEST WARRANT IN THE REASON OF THINGS FOR TORTURING LANGUAGE
PLAINLY DESIGNED FOR NULLIFYING A CLAIM OF ACTING UNDER A STATE LAW
THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO APPLY TO SITUATIONS WHERE
STATE LAW IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND LOCAL MISCONDUCT
IS IN UNDISPUTED VIOLATION OF THAT STATE LAW.  IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR
DIRECTION BY CONGRESS WE SHOULD LEAVE TO THE STATES THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THEIR CRIMINAL LAW, AND NOT RELIEVE STATES OF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
VINDICATING WRONGDOING THAT IS ESSENTIALLY LOCAL OR WEAKEN THE HABITS
OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BY TEMPTING RELIANCE ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY FOR
AN OCCASIONAL UNPLEASANT TASK OF LOCAL ENFORCEMENT. 

                     II 

IN OUR VIEW THEN, THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTEMPT TO BRING AN UNJUSTIFIABLE
HOMICIDE BY LOCAL GEORGIA PEACE OFFICERS WITHIN THE DEFINED LIMITS OF
THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE CANNOT CLEAR THE FIRST HURDLE OF THE LEGAL
REQUIREMENT THAT THAT WHICH THESE OFFICERS ARE CHARGED WITH DOING MUST
BE DONE UNDER COLOR OF GEORGIA LAW. 

SINCE THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT DO NOT SHARE THIS CONVICTION THAT THE
ACTION OF THE GEORGIA PEACE OFFICERS WAS NOT PERPETRATED UNDER COLOR OF
LAW, WE, TOO, MUST CONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 20.  ALL BUT
TWO MEMBERS OF THE COURT APPARENTLY AGREE THAT INSOFAR AS SEC. 20
PURPORTS TO SUBJECT MEN TO PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME IT FAILS TO DEFINE WHAT
CONDUCT IS MADE CRIMINAL.  AS MISUSE OF THE CRIMINAL MACHINERY IS ONE
OF THE MOST POTENT AND FAMILIAR INSTRUMENTS OF ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT,
PROPER REGARD FOR THE RATIONAL REQUIREMENT OF DEFINITENESS IN CRIMINAL
STATUTES IS BASIC TO CIVIL LIBERTIES.  AS SUCH IT IS INCLUDED IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  BUT FOUR MEMBERS OF THE
COURT ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS PLAIN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF
DEFINITENESS IN CRIMINAL STATUTES MAY BE REPLACED BY AN ELABORATE
SCHEME OF CONSTITUTIONAL EXEGESIS WHEREBY THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT
DEFINED THE COURTS CAN DEFINE FROM TIME TO TIME, WITH VARYING AND
CONFLICTING DEFINITENESS IN THE DECISIONS, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, AN
UNDEFINED RANGE OF CONDUCT MAY BECOME SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE IF ONLY
SUCH UNDEFINED CONDUCT IS COMMITTED "WILLFULLY." 

IN SUBJECTING TO PUNISHMENT "DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES,
OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES," SEC. 20 ON ITS FACE MAKES CRIMINAL DEPRIVATION OF THE
WHOLE RANGE OF UNDEFINED APPEALS TO THE CONSTITUTION.  SUCH IS THE TRUE
SCOPE OF THE FORBIDDEN CONDUCT.  ITS DOMAIN IS UNBOUNDED AND THEREFORE
TOO INDEFINITE.  CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST HAVE MORE OR LESS SPECIFIC
CONTOURS.  THIS HAS NONE. 

TO SUGGEST THAT THE "RIGHT" DEPRIVATION OF WHICH IS MADE CRIMINAL BY
SEC. 20 "HAS BEEN MADE SPECIFIC EITHER BY THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OR BY DECISIONS INTERPRETING IT" HARDLY ADDS DEFINITENESS
BEYOND THAT OF THE STATUTE'S OWN TERMS.  WHAT PROVISION IS TO BE DEEMED
"SPECIFIC" "BY THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION" AND WHAT NOT
"SPECIFIC"?  IF THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAFEGUARDING FREE SPEECH BE A
"SPECIFIC" PROVISION, WHAT ABOUT THE FOURTH?  "ALL UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ARE ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT."  NATHANSON V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 41, 46.  SURELY EACH
IS AMONG THE "RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY
THE CONSTITUTION," DEPRIVATION OF WHICH IS A CRIME UNDER SEC. 20.  IN
ANY EVENT, WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA BY WHICH TO DETERMINE WHAT EXPRESS
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE "SPECIFIC" AND WHAT PROVISIONS ARE
NOT "SPECIFIC"?  AND IF THE TERMS OF SEC. 20 IN AND OF THEMSELVES ARE
LACKING IN SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS FOR A CRIMINAL STATUTE, RESTRICTION
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF "DECISIONS INTERPRETING" THE CONSTITUTION
CANNOT SHOW THE NECESSARY DEFINITENESS.  THE ILLUSTRATIONS GIVEN IN THE
COURT'S OPINION UNDERLINE THE INESCAPABLE VAGUENESS DUE TO THE DOUBTS
AND FLUCTUATING CHARACTER OF DECISIONS INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION. 

THIS INTRINSIC VAGUENESS OF THE TERMS OF SEC. 20 SURELY CANNOT BE
REMOVED BY MAKING THE STATUTE APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS
THE "REQUISITE BAD PURPOSE."  DOES THAT NOT AMOUNT TO SAYING THAT THE
BLACK HEART OF THE DEFENDANT ENABLES HIM TO KNOW WHAT ARE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DEPRIVATION OF WHICH THE STATUTE FORBIDS,
ALTHOUGH WE AS JUDGES ARE NOT ABLE TO DEFINE THEIR CLASSES OR THEIR
LIMITS, OR, AT LEAST, ARE NOT PREPARED TO STATE WHAT THEY ARE UNLESS IT
BE TO SAY THAT SEC. 20 PROTECTS WHATEVER RIGHTS THE CONSTITUTION
PROTECTS? 

UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED FOR SEC. 20, IN ORDER FOR A JURY TO
CONVICT, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY "TO FIND THAT PETITIONERS HAD THE
PURPOSE TO DEPRIVE THE PRISONER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, E.G. THE
RIGHT TO BE TRIED BY A COURT RATHER THAN BY ORDEAL."  THERE IS NO
QUESTION THAT CONGRESS COULD PROVIDE FOR A PENALTY AGAINST DEPRIVATION
BY STATE OFFICIALS "ACTING UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW" OF "THE RIGHT TO BE
TRIED BY A COURT RATHER THAN BY ORDEAL."  BUT WE CANNOT RESTRICT THE
PROBLEM RAISED BY SEC. 20 TO THE VALIDITY OF PENALIZING A DEPRIVATION
OF THIS SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  WE ARE DEALING WITH THE REACH
OF THE STATUTE, FOR CONGRESS HAS NOT PARTICULARIZED AS THE COURT NOW
PARTICULARIZES.  SUCH TRANSFORMING INTERPOLATION IS NOT
INTERPRETATION.  AND THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE SENTENCE JUST QUOTED,
NAMELY, THAT THE JURY IN ORDER TO CONVICT UNDER SEC. 20 MUST FIND THAT
AN ACCUSED "HAD THE PURPOSE TO DEPRIVE" ANOTHER "OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT," GIVING THIS SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AS "E.G.," BY WAY OF
ILLUSTRATION.  HENCE A JUDGE WOULD HAVE TO DEFINE TO THE JURY WHAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE DEPRIVATION OF WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY SEC.
20.  IF THAT IS A LEGAL QUESTION AS TO WHICH THE JURY MUST TAKE
INSTRUCTION FROM THE COURT, AT LEAST THE TRIAL COURT MUST BE POSSESSED
OF THE MEANS OF KNOWING WITH SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS THE RANGE OF
"RIGHTS" THAT ARE "CONSTITUTIONAL."  THE COURT CAN HARDLY BE HELPED OUT
IN DETERMINING THAT LEGAL QUESTION BY LEAVING IT TO THE JURY TO DECIDE
WHETHER THE ACT WAS "WILLFULLY" COMMITTED.    IT IS NOT CONCEIVABLE
THAT THIS COURT WOULD FIND THAT A STATUTE CAST IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS
WOULD SATISFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR DEFINITENESS: 

"WHOEVER WILLFULLY COMMITS ANY ACT WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL FIND TO BE A DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHT, PRIVILEGE,
OR IMMUNITY SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION SHALL BE
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN, ETC."  IF SUCH A STATUTE WOULD FALL FOR
UNCERTAINTY, WHEREIN DOES SEC. 20 AS CONSTRUED BY THE COURT DIFFER AND
HOW CAN IT SURVIVE?    IT WAS SETTLED EARLY IN OUR HISTORY THAT
PROSECUTIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS COULD NOT BE FOUNDED ON ANY
UNDEFINED BODY OF SO-CALLED COMMON LAW.  UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 7
CRANCH 32; UNITED STATES V. GOODING, 12 WHEAT.  460.  FEDERAL
PROSECUTIONS MUST BE FOUNDED ON DELINEATION BY CONGRESS OF WHAT IS MADE
CRIMINAL.  TO BASE FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS ON THE SHIFTING AND
INDETERMINATE DECISIONS OF COURTS IS TO SANCTION PROSECUTIONS FOR
CRIMES BASED ON DEFINITIONS MADE BY COURTS.  THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO
CREATING A NEW BODY OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL COMMON LAW. 

IT CANNOT BE TOO OFTEN EMPHASIZED THAT AS BASIC A DIFFERENCE AS ANY
BETWEEN OUR NOTIONS OF LAW AND THOSE OF LEGAL SYSTEMS NOT FOUNDED ON
ANGLO-AMERICAN CONCEPTIONS OF LIBERTY IS THAT CRIMES MUST BE DEFINED BY
THE LEGISLATURE.  THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT MEET THIS REQUIREMENT BY
ISSUING A BLANK CHECK TO COURTS FOR THEIR RETROSPECTIVE FINDING THAT
SOME ACT DONE IN THE PAST COMES WITHIN THE CONTINGENCIES AND CONFLICTS
THAT INHERE IN ASCERTAINING THE CONTENT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY
"THE GRADUAL PROCESS OF JUDICIAL INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION."  DAVIDSON V.
NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97, 104.  THEREFORE, TO SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT CONDUCT THAT THE COURT MAY EVENTUALLY FIND TO HAVE BEEN
WITHIN THE SCOPE OR THE LIMITATIONS OF A LEGAL DOCTRINE UNDERLYING A
DECISION IS TO SATISFY THE VITAL REQUIREMENT FOR DEFINITENESS THROUGH
AN APPEARANCE OF DEFINITENESS IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION WHICH EVERY STUDENT OF LAW KNOWS NOT TO COMPORT WITH
ACTUALITY.  WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IS A DEFINITENESS DEFINED BY
THE LEGISLATURE, NOT ONE ARGUMENTATIVELY SPELLED OUT THROUGH THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS WHICH, PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS A PROCESS, CAN NOT
AVOID INCOMPLETENESS.  A DEFINITENESS WHICH REQUIRES SO MUCH SUBTLETY
TO EXPOUND IS HARDLY DEFINITE. 

IT IS AS NOVEL AS IT IS AN INADMISSIBLE PRINCIPLE THAT A CRIMINAL
STATUTE OF INDEFINITE SCOPE CAN BE RENDERED DEFINITE BY REQUIRING THAT
A PERSON "WILLFULLY" COMMIT WHAT CONGRESS HAS NOT DEFINED BUT WHICH, IF
CONGRESS HAD DEFINED, COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY BE OUTLAWED.  OF COURSE
CONGRESS CAN PROHIBIT THE DEPRIVATION OF ENUMERATED CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  BUT IF CONGRESS MAKES IT A CRIME TO DEPRIVE ANOTHER OF ANY
RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION - AND THAT IS WHAT SEC. 20 DOES -
THIS COURT CANNOT ESCAPE FACING DECISIONS AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS ARE COVERED BY SEC. 20 BY SAYING THAT IN ANY EVENT, WHATEVER
THEY ARE, THEY MUST BE TAKEN AWAY "WILLFULLY."  IT HAS NOT BEEN
EXPLAINED HOW ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS
WHICH ARE LAID BARE IN THE EARLY PART OF THE COURT'S OPINION EVAPORATE
BY SUGGESTING THAT WHAT IS OTHERWISE TOO VAGUELY DEFINED MUST BE
"WILLFULLY" COMMITTED. 

IN THE EARLY LAW AN UNDESIRED EVENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PARTICULAR
PERSON WAS PUNISHED REGARDLESS OF THE STATE OF MIND OF THE ACTOR.  THE
RATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY ADDED A MENTAL REQUIREMENT
FOR CRIMINAL CULPABILITY, EXCEPT IN A LIMITED CLASS OF CASES NOT HERE
RELEVANT.  (SEE UNITED STATES V. BALINT, 258 U.S. 250.)  THAT REQUISITE
MENTAL INGREDIENT IS EXPRESSED IN VARIOUS FORMS IN CRIMINAL STATUTES,
OF WHICH THE WORD "WILLFULLY" IS ONE OF THE MOST COMMON.  WHEN A
CRIMINAL STATUTE PROHIBITS SOMETHING FROM BEING "WILLFULLY" DONE,
"WILLFULLY" NEVER DEFINES THE PHYSICAL CONDUCT OR THE RESULT THE
BRINGING OF WHICH TO PASS IS PROSCRIBED.  "WILLFULLY" MERELY ADDS A
CERTAIN STATE OF MIND AS A PREREQUISITE TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE OTHERWISE PROSCRIBED ACT.  IF A STATUTE DOES NOT SATISFY THE DUE
PROCESS REQUIREMENT OF GIVING DECENT ADVANCE NOTICE OF WHAT IT IS
WHICH, IF HAPPENING, WILL BE VISITED WITH PUNISHMENT, SO THAT MEN MAY
PRESUMABLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID THE HAPPENING (SEE
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 216; COLLINS V.
KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 634; UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S.
81; CLINE V. FRINK DAIRY CO., 274 U.S. 445), THEN "WILLFULLY" BRINGING
TO PASS SUCH AN UNDEFINED AND TOO UNCERTAIN EVENT CANNOT MAKE IT
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND ASCERTAINABLE.  "WILLFULLY" DOING SOMETHING
THAT IS FORBIDDEN, WHEN THAT SOMETHING IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEFINED
ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL CONCEPTIONS OF REQUISITE CERTAINTY IN OUR
CRIMINAL LAW, IS NOT RENDERED SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE BY THAT UNKNOWABLE
HAVING BEEN DONE "WILLFULLY."  IT IS TRUE ALSO OF A STATUTE THAT IT
CANNOT LIFT ITSELF UP BY ITS BOOTSTRAPS. 

CERTAINLY THESE CONSIDERATIONS OF VAGUENESS IMPLY UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
OF THE ACT AT LEAST UNTIL 1909.  FOR IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1909 THAT THE
WORD "WILLFULLY" WAS INTRODUCED.  BUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THAT
ADDITION AFFORDS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER THAT ANYBODY THOUGHT THAT
"WILLFULLY" WAS ADDED TO SAVE THE STATUTE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. 
THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE REVISION OF LAWS (WHICH
SPONSORED WHAT BECAME THE CRIMINAL CODE) GIVES NO SUCH INDICATION, FOR
IT DID NOT PROPOSE "WILLFULLY"; THE REPORTS IN NEITHER HOUSE OF
CONGRESS SHED ANY LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT, FOR THE BILL IN NEITHER HOUSE
PROPOSED THAT "WILLFULLY" BE ADDED; NO SPEECH BY ANYONE IN CHARGE OF
THE BILL IN EITHER HOUSE SHEDS ANY LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT; THE REPORT OF
THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, FROM WHICH "WILLFULLY" FOR THE FIRST TIME
EMERGES, GIVES NO EXPLANATION WHATEVER; AND THE ONLY REFERENCE WE HAVE
IS THAT TO WHICH THE COURT'S OPINION REFERS (43 CONG. REC., P. 3599). 
AND THAT IS AN UNILLUMINATING REMARK BY SENATOR DANIEL OF VIRGINIA, WHO
HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MEASURE AND WHO MADE THE REMARK IN THE
COURSE OF AN EXCHANGE WITH SENATOR HEYBURN OF IDAHO, WHO WAS IN CHARGE
OF THE MEASURE AND WHO COMPLAINED OF AN ALLEGED ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF
SOUTHERN MEMBERS TO FILIBUSTER AGAINST THE BILL BECAUSE OF THE
RETENTION OF RECONSTRUCTION LEGISLATION. 

ALL THIS BEARS NOT MERELY ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF "WILLFULLY" IN A
PRESUMABLY OTHERWISE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE STATUTE.  IT ALSO BEARS
ON THE FACT THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, WE ARE DEALING
NOT WITH AN OLD STATUTE THAT GOES BACK TO THE RECONSTRUCTION DAYS, BUT
ONLY TO 1909. 

NOR CAN SUPPORT BE FOUND IN THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT "WILLFULLY" CAN MAKE DEFINITE PROHIBITIONS OTHERWISE
INDEFINITE. 

IN OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246 U.S. 343, THE COURT SUSTAINED AN IDAHO
STATUTE PROHIBITING ANY PERSON HAVING CHARGE OF SHEEP FROM ALLOWING
THEM TO GRAZE "UPON ANY RANGE USUALLY OCCUPIED BY ANY CATTLE GROWER." 
THE STATUTE WAS ATTACKED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IN THAT IT FAILED
TO PROVIDE FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES OF A "RANGE" OR FOR
DETERMINING WHAT LENGTH OF TIME IS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE A PRIOR
OCCUPATION A "USUAL" ONE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  THIS ATTACK
UPON THE IDAHO STATUTE WAS REJECTED AND FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 

"MEN FAMILIAR WITH RANGE CONDITIONS AND DESIROUS OF OBSERVING THE LAW
WILL HAVE LITTLE DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING WHAT IS PROHIBITED BY IT.
SIMILAR EXPRESSIONS ARE COMMON IN THE CRIMINAL STATUTES OF OTHER
(GRAZING) STATES.  THIS STATUTE PRESENTS NO GREATER UNCERTAINTY OR
DIFFICULTY, IN APPLICATION TO NECESSARILY VARYING FACTS, THAN HAS BEEN
REPEATEDLY SANCTIONED BY THIS COURT."  246 U.S. AT 348. 

CERTAINLY THERE IS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN A STATUTE EMPLOYING THE
CONCEPT OF A WESTERN RANGE AND A STATUTE OUTLAWING THE WHOLE RANGE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, UNASCERTAINED IF NOT UNASCERTAINABLE. 

TO BE SURE, THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS ALSO BROUGHT TO ITS
SUPPORT SEC. 6314 OF REVISED CODES OF IDAHO WHICH PROVIDED THAT "IN
EVERY CRIME OR PUBLIC OFFENSE THERE MUST EXIST A UNION, OR JOINT
OPERATION, OF ACT AND INTENT, OR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE."  BUT THIS IS
MERELY AN IDAHO PHRASING OF THE CONVENTIONAL SAW IN TEXT BOOKS AND
DECISIONS DEALING WITH CRIMINAL LAW THAT THERE MUST BE A MENS REA FOR
EVERY OFFENSE.  IN OTHER WORDS, A GUILTY STATE OF MIND IS USUALLY
REQUIRED BEFORE ONE CAN BE PUNISHED FOR AN OUTLAWED ACT.  BUT THE
DEFINITION OF THE OUTLAWED ACT IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE STATE OF MIND
WITH WHICH IT MUST BE COMMITTED.  ALL THAT MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS MEANT
BY "INDEFINITENESS" IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS STATUTE WAS THE CLAIM THAT
THE STATUTE DID NOT GIVE ENOUGH NOTICE AS TO THE ACT WHICH WAS
OUTLAWED.  BUT NOTICE WAS GIVEN BY THE COMMON KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT A
"RANGE" WAS, AND FOR GOOD MEASURE HE SUGGESTED THAT UNDER THE ACT A MAN
WOULD HAVE TO KNOW THAT HE WAS GRAZING SHEEP WHERE HE HAD NO BUSINESS
TO GRAZE THEM.  THERE IS NO ANALOGY BETWEEN THE FACE OF THIS IDAHO
STATUTE AND THE FACE OF OUR STATUTE.  THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT
IN THE IDAHO STATUTE THE OUTLAWED ACT WAS DEFINED; IN SEC. 20 IT IS
UNDEFINED. 

IN HYGRADE PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497, NEW YORK PUNISHED
THE MISREPRESENTATION OF MEAT AS "KOSHER" OR AS SATISFYING "ORTHODOX
HEBREW RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS."  HERE, TOO, THE OBJECTION OF
INDEFINITENESS WAS REJECTED BY THIS COURT.  THE OBJECTION BORDERED ON
THE FRIVOLOUS.  IN THIS CASE, TOO, THE OPINION OF THE COURT, AS IS THE
WAY OF OPINIONS, SOFTENED THE BLOW BY SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO DANGER
OF ANYONE BEING CONVICTED FOR NOT KNOWING WHAT HE WAS DOING, FOR IT
REQUIRED HIM TO HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS THAT HE WAS OFFERING MEAT AS
"KOSHER" MEAT WHEN HE KNEW VERY WELL THAT IT WAS NOT. 

THUS IN BOTH THESE CASES THIS COURT WAS SAYING THAT THE CRIMINAL
STATUTES UNDER SCRUTINY, ALTHOUGH VERY SPECIFIC, DID NOT EXPOSE ANY
INNOCENT PERSON TO THE HAZARDS OF UNFAIR CONVICTION, BECAUSE NOT MERELY
DID THE LEGISLATION OUTLAW SPECIFICALLY DEFINED CONDUCT, BUT GUILTY
KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH DEFINED CRIMINALITY WAS ALSO REQUIRED.  IT THEREBY
TOOK THE LEGISLATION OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF UNITED STATES V. BALINT, 258
U.S. 250, IN WHICH THE COURT SUSTAINED THE PROSECUTION OF ONE WHOLLY
INNOCENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACT, COMMISSION OF WHICH THE STATUTE
EXPLICITLY FORBADE. 

THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE DENYING ADEQUATE POWER TO CONGRESS.  THERE
IS NO DIFFICULTY IN PASSING EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
CIVIL RIGHTS AGAINST IMPROPER STATE ACTION.  WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH
HERE IS SOMETHING BASIC IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, NAMELY, THE AVOIDANCE
OF THE INJUSTICE OF PROHIBITING CONDUCT IN TERMS SO VAGUE AS TO MAKE
THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS PROSCRIBED A GUESS-WORK TOO DIFFICULT FOR
CONFIDENT JUDGMENT EVEN FOR THE JUDGES OF THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE
LAND. 

III 

BY HOLDING, IN THIS CASE, THAT STATE OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATE STATE LAW
NEVERTHELESS ACT "UNDER COLOR OF" STATE LAW, AND BY ESTABLISHING AS
FEDERAL CRIMES VIOLATIONS OF THE VAST, UNDISCLOSED RANGE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THIS COURT NOW CREATES NEW DELICATE AND
COMPLICATED PROBLEMS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.  THE
ANSWERS GIVEN TO THESE PROBLEMS, IN VIEW OF THE TREMENDOUS SCOPE OF
POTENTIAL OFFENSES AGAINST THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ARE BOUND TO
PRODUCE A CONFUSION DETRIMENTAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE. 

THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES THAT "THIS IS THE FIRST CASE BROUGHT BEFORE
THIS COURT IN WHICH SEC. 20 HAS BEEN APPLIED TO DEPRIVATIONS OF RIGHTS
SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION WOULD MAKE A POTENTIAL OFFENDER AGAINST THIS
ACT OF ANY STATE OFFICIAL WHO AS A JUDGE ADMITTED A CONFESSION OF
CRIME, OR WHO AS JUDGE OF A STATE COURT OF LAST RESORT SUSTAINED
ADMISSION OF A CONFESSION, WHICH WE SHOULD LATER HOLD CONSTITUTIONALLY
INADMISSIBLE, OR WHO AS A PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER ISSUED A
REGULATORY ORDER WHICH WE SHOULD LATER HOLD DENIED DUE PROCESS OR WHO
AS A MUNICIPAL OFFICER STOPPED ANY CONDUCT WE LATER SHOULD HOLD TO BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT HAS A CONTENT THE SCOPE OF WHICH THIS COURT DETERMINES ONLY
AS CASES COME HERE FROM TIME TO TIME AND THEN NOT WITHOUT CLOSE
DIVISION AND REVERSALS OF POSITION.  SUCH A DUBIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF A
CRIMINAL STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNLESS LANGUAGE COMPELS. 

THAT SUCH A PLIABLE INSTRUMENT OF PROSECUTION IS TO BE FEARED APPEARS
TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT URGES THREE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST
ABUSE OF THE BROAD POWERS OF PROSECUTION FOR WHICH IT CONTENDS.  (1)
CONGRESS, IT SAYS, WILL SUPERVISE THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICIES AND CURB
EXCESSES BY WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS.  IT SURELY IS CASTING AN IMPOSSIBLE
BURDEN UPON CONGRESS TO EXPECT IT TO POLICE THE PROPRIETY OF
PROSECUTIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  NOR WOULD SUCH DETAILED
OVERSIGHT BY CONGRESS MAKE FOR THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW.  (2) THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER URGES THAT, SINCE
PROSECUTIONS MUST BE BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE CRIME WAS
COMMITTED, THE JUDGE AND JURORS OF THAT LOCALITY CAN BE DEPENDED UPON
TO PROTECT AGAINST FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
SUCH A SUGGESTION WOULD, FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, TRANSFER THE FUNCTIONS
OF THIS COURT, WHICH ADJUDICATES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROPER
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS, TO JURORS WHOSE
FUNCTION IS TO RESOLVE FACTUAL QUESTIONS.  MOREOVER, IF FEDERAL AND
STATE PROSECUTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME INFLUENCES, IT IS DIFFICULT
TO SEE WHAT NEED THERE IS FOR TAKING THE PROSECUTION OUT OF THE HANDS
OF THE STATE.  AFTER ALL, GEORGIA CITIZENS SITTING AS A FEDERAL GRAND
JURY INDICTED AND OTHER GEORGIA CITIZENS SITTING AS A FEDERAL TRIAL
JURY CONVICTED SCREWS AND HIS ASSOCIATES; AND IT WAS A GEORGIA JUDGE
WHO CHARGED MORE STRONGLY AGAINST THEM THAN THIS COURT THINKS HE SHOULD
HAVE.    FINALLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GIVES US THIS ASSURANCE OF
ITS MODERATION: 

"(3)  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS ESTABLISHED A POLICY OF STRICT
SELF-LIMITATION WITH REGARD TO PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACTS.  WHEN VIOLATIONS OF SUCH STATUTES ARE REPORTED, THE DEPARTMENT
REQUIRES THAT EFFORTS BE MADE TO ENCOURAGE STATE OFFICIALS TO TAKE
APPROPRIATE ACTION UNDER STATE LAW.  TO ASSURE CONSISTENT OBSERVANCE OF
THIS POLICY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTES, ALL UNITED
STATES ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO SUBMIT CASES TO THE DEPARTMENT
FOR APPROVAL BEFORE PROSECUTIONS OR INVESTIGATIONS ARE INSTITUTED.  THE
NUMBER OF PROSECUTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS
STATUTES IS SMALL.  NO STATISTICS ARE AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE
NUMBER OF PROSECUTIONS PRIOR TO 1939, WHEN A SPECIAL CIVIL RIGHTS
DURING THIS PERIOD HAVE BEEN REPORTED:  UNITED STATES V. BUNTIN, 10
FED. 730(C.C.S.D. OHIO), AND UNITED STATES V. STONE, 188 FED. 836(D.
MD.).  SINCE 1939, THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED ANNUALLY BY THE
CIVIL RIGHTS SECTION HAS RANGED FROM 8,000 TO 14,000, BUT IN NO YEAR
HAVE PROSECUTIONS UNDER BOTH SECTIONS 20 AND 19, ITS COMPANION STATUTE,
EXCEEDED 76.  IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1943, FOR EXAMPLE, 31 FULL
INVESTIGATIONS OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 20 WERE CONDUCTED, AND
THREE CASES WERE BROUGHT TO TRIAL.  IN THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR THERE
WERE 55 SUCH INVESTIGATIONS, AND PROSECUTIONS WERE INSTITUTED IN 12
CASES. 

"COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATIONS ARE OFTEN SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT BY
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHO FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER MAY FEEL
THEMSELVES POWERLESS TO TAKE ACTION UNDER STATE LAW.  IT IS PRIMARILY
IN THIS AREA, NAMELY, WHERE THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE WRONGDOERS HAS
APPARENTLY RENDERED THE STATE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO INSTITUTE
PROCEEDINGS, THAT THE STATUTE HAS COME INTO OPERATION.  THUS, IN THE
CASE AT BAR, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE ALBANY CIRCUIT IN THE STATE
OF GEORGIA, WHICH INCLUDED BAKER COUNTY, TESTIFIED (R. 42):  'THERE HAS
BEEN NO COMPLAINT FILED WITH ME IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF BOBBY
HALL AGAINST SHERIFF SCREWS, JONES, AND KELLEY.  AS TO WHOM I DEPEND
FOR INVESTIGATION OF MATTERS THAT COME INTO MY COURT, I AM AN ATTORNEY,
I AM NOT A DETECTIVE AND I DEPEND ON EVIDENCE THAT IS AVAILABLE AFTER I
COME TO COURT OR GET INTO THE CASE  ...  THE SHERIFFS AND OTHER PEACE
OFFICERS OF THE COMMUNITY GENERALLY GET THE EVIDENCE AND I ACT AS THE
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE.  I RELY ON MY SHERIFFS AND POLICEMEN AND PEACE
OFFICERS AND PRIVATE CITIZENS ALSO WHO PROSECUTE EACH OTHER TO
INVESTIGATE THE CHARGES THAT ARE LODGED IN COURT.'" 

BUT SUCH A "POLICY OF STRICT SELF-LIMITATION" IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY
ASSURANCE OF PERMANENT TENURE AND IMMORTALITY OF THOSE WHO MAKE IT THE
POLICY.  EVIL MEN ARE RARELY GIVEN POWER; THEY TAKE IT OVER FROM BETTER
MEN TO WHOM IT HAD BEEN ENTRUSTED.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THIS
SHAPELESS AND ALL-EMBRACING STATUTE CAN SERVE AS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT
OF POLITICAL INTIMIDATION AND COERCION IN THE HANDS OF THOSE SO
INCLINED. 

WE ARE TOLD LOCAL AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR COURAGEOUS
AND PROMPT ACTION, THAT OFTEN THEY HAVE PERSONAL OR POLITICAL REASONS
FOR REFUSING TO PROSECUTE.  IF IT BE SIGNIFICANTLY TRUE THAT CRIMES
AGAINST LOCAL LAW CANNOT BE LOCALLY PROSECUTED, IT IS AN OMINOUS SIGN
INDEED.  IN ANY EVENT, THE CURE IS A REINVIGORATION OF STATE
RESPONSIBILITY.  IT IS NOT AN UNDUE INCURSION OF REMOTE FEDERAL
AUTHORITY INTO LOCAL DUTIES WITH CONSEQUENT DEBILITATION OF LOCAL
RESPONSIBILITY. 

THE COMPLICATED AND SUBTLE PROBLEMS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT RAISED BY THE
COURT'S DECISION EMPHASIZE THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 20 WAS NEVER
DESIGNED FOR THE USE TO WHICH IT HAS NOW BEEN FASHIONED.  THE
GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO LEAVE THE PUNISHMENT OF
SUCH CRIMES AS THIS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES.  REGARD FOR THIS WISDOM IN
FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS WAS NOT LEFT BY CONGRESS TO EXECUTIVE
DISCRETION.  IT IS, WE ARE CONVINCED, EMBODIED IN THE STATUTE ITSELF. 

FN1  IOWA-DES MOINES BANK V. BENNETT, SUPRA, ILLUSTRATES THE
SITUATION WHERE THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE ACTION COMPLAINED OF WAS
THE ACTION OF A STATE.  THAT CASE CAME HERE FROM A STATE COURT AS THE
ULTIMATE VOICE OF STATE LAW AUTHENTICATING THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTION
AS THE LAW OF THE STATE.  CASES OF WHICH LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268,
IS AN ILLUSTRATION ARE ALSO TO BE DIFFERENTIATED.  IN THAT CASE
ELECTION OFFICIALS DISCRIMINATED ILLEGALLY AGAINST NEGROES NOT IN
DEFIANCE OF A STATE STATUTE BUT UNDER ITS AUTHORITY. 
..END :














JEWELL RIDGE CORP. V. LOCAL, 325 U.S. 161 


NO. 721.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1945.  - DECIDED MAY 7, 1945.  - 145 F.2D 10,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  TIME SPENT BY MINERS IN TRAVELING UNDERGROUND BETWEEN THE PORTAL
AND THE WORKING FACE OF BITUMINOUS COAL MINES, HELD REQUIRED BY SEC. 7
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE WORKWEEK AND TO
BE COMPENSATED ACCORDINGLY.  FOLLOWING TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA
LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590.  PP. 163, 166. 

2.  THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT THAT
TIME SPENT BY MINERS IN TRAVELING UNDERGROUND BETWEEN THE PORTAL AND
THE WORKING FACE OF BITUMINOUS COAL MINES BE INCLUDED IN THE WORKWEEK
AND COMPENSATED ACCORDINGLY CANNOT BE FRUSTRATED BY ANY CONTRARY CUSTOM
OR CONTRACT.  P. 167. 

3.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DOES NOT
REQUIRE A CONCLUSION DIFFERENT FROM THAT HERE REACHED.  P. 168. 

4.  A STATEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION
FAVORING THE COMPUTATION OF WORKING TIME IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL
INDUSTRY ON A "FACE TO FACE" BASIS, BEING LEGALLY UNTENABLE, IS NOT
ENTITLED TO THE WEIGHT USUALLY ACCORDED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RULINGS,
INTERPRETATIONS, AND OPINIONS.  P. 169. 

JEWELL RIDGE COAL CORPORATION V. LOCAL NO. 6167, UNITED MINE WORKERS
OF AMERICA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 707, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF (PETITIONER HERE) IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION
SEEKING A CONSTRUCTION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  53 F.SUPP. 
935. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, THIS COURT HELD
THAT UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IN IRON ORE MINES CONSTITUTED WORK AND HENCE
WAS INCLUDED IN THE COMPENSABLE WORKWEEK WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, 1063, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 207(A).  THE SOLE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER ANY
DIFFERENT RESULT MUST BE REACHED AS REGARDS UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IN
BITUMINOUS COAL MINES. 

THE PETITIONER, JEWELL RIDGE COAL CORPORATION, OWNS TWO BITUMINOUS
COAL MINES IN VIRGINIA.  IT INSTITUTED THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT UNIONS AND CERTAIN OF THEIR OFFICIALS,
REPRESENTING ALL OF PETITIONER'S UNDERGROUND MINE WORKERS.  THE
RESPONDENTS FILED AN ANSWER AND A COUNTERCLAIM.  BY STIPULATION, THE
PARTIES SOUGHT TO DETERMINE "WHAT CONSTITUTES THE WORKING TIME WHICH
MAKES UP THE WORKWEEK OF PLAINTIFF'S UNDERGROUND EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SECTION 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AND WHAT
AMOUNTS, IF ANY, ARE DUE AND UNPAID TO SUCH EMPLOYEES UNDER SAID
REFERRED TO A SPECIAL MASTER."  THIS ISSUE RELATES ONLY TO THE WORK
PERFORMED BY PETITIONER'S UNDERGROUND MINERS BETWEEN APRIL 1, 1943, AND
JUNE 20, 1943. 

AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED
THAT PETITIONER HAD CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE WORKWEEK ON A "FACE TO FACE"
BASIS AND THAT THE ACT DID NOT REQUIRE THAT THE WORKWEEK INCLUDE
"EITHER TIME SPENT BY SUCH EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE THE PORTAL OF THE MINES
BEFORE ENTERING THEREIN, OR TIME SPENT IN TRAVELING FROM THE PORTALS TO
THEIR USUAL PLACES OF WORK AND RETURN."  53 F.SUPP.  935, 952.  ONLY
THE ISSUE AS TO TRAVEL TIME IS INVOLVED HERE.  THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FELT THAT THE TENNESSEE COAL CASE, WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THIS
COURT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ENTRY OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT IN THIS
PROCEEDING, COULD NOT BE DISTINGUISHED IN PRINCIPLE AND ACCORDINGLY
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT ON THAT BASIS.  145 F.2D 10. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL OR
LEGAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THE TENNESSEE COAL CASE AND THAT
UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IN BITUMINOUS COAL MINES AS WELL AS IN IRON ORE
MINES IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE COMPENSABLE WORKWEEK CONTEMPLATED BY SEC.
7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

FACTUALLY, UNDERGROUND TRAVEL BETWEEN THE PORTALS AND WORKING FACES
OF PETITIONER'S TWO BITUMINOUS COAL MINES BEARS ALL THE INDICIA OF
WORK.  WHILE THE DISTRICT COURT HERE FOUND "NO SUCH PAINFUL AND
BURDENSOME CONDITIONS AS THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE IRON ORE MINES," 53
F.SUPP.  AT 949, ALL THREE OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF WORK AS SET
FORTH IN THE TENNESSEE COAL CASE, 321 U.S. AT 598, ARE PRESENT IN THIS
INSTANCE: 

1.  PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXERTION (WHETHER BURDENSOME OR NOT).  AFTER
ARRIVING AT PETITIONER'S MINES BY FOOT OR VEHICLE, THE MINERS FIRST
OBTAIN THEIR LAMPS FROM THE LAMP HOUSE NEAR THE MAIN PORTAL.  THEY THEN
ENTER THE MAN TRIPS AT THE PORTAL AND ARE TRANSPORTED DOWN TO THE
UNDERGROUND MAN TRIP STATIONS - A JOURNEY VARYING IN DISTANCE FROM
4,250 FEET TO 25,460 FEET.  EACH MAN TRIP IS COMPOSED OF A TRAIN OF
SMALL EMPTY COAL CARS DRAWN BY AN ELECTRIC MOTOR OR LOCOMOTIVE.  FROM
SEVEN TO EIGHT MEN SIT ON A BENCH OR ON THE FLOOR OF EACH CAR, WHICH IS
ONLY A FEW FEET HIGH.  THE CARS APPARENTLY ARE NOT OVERCROWDED.  IF THE
ROOF OF THE PASSAGEWAY IS SUFFICIENTLY HIGH THE MEN ARE ABLE TO SIT
UPRIGHT AS THEY RIDE.  BUT THEY MUST BE ON CONSTANT GUARD FOR THE
FREQUENT LOW CEILINGS WHICH FORCE THEM TO BEND OVER TO AVOID STRIKING
THEIR HEADS.  AND THE DANGERS OF FALLING SLATE AND FALLING CEILINGS ARE
EVER PRESENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT WHILE THIS JOURNEY IS "DEFINITELY NOT
LUXURIOUS" IT IS "NEITHER PAINFUL NOR UNDULY UNCOMFORTABLE, AND IS LESS
HAZARDOUS THAN OTHER PHASES OF MINING OPERATIONS."  IN THIS CONNECTION
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SIX PERSONS SUFFERED
COMPENSABLE INJURIES, INVOLVING ABSENCE FROM WORK FOR SEVEN DAYS OR
MORE, WHILE RIDING ON PETITIONER'S MAN TRIPS FROM JANUARY 1, 1939, TO
OCTOBER 31, 1943.  THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE OF TWO DEATHS AND NUMEROUS
MINOR INJURIES TO THE MINERS. 

AFTER ARRIVING AT THE MAN TRIP STATIONS, THE MINERS CHECK IN AT A
NEARBY CHECK-IN BOARD, A PRACTICE THAT DIFFERS INCONSEQUENTIALLY FROM
THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE MINERS IN THE TENNESSEE COAL CASE OF
CHECKING IN AT A TALLY HOUSE ON THE SURFACE.  THEY THEN COLLECT THEIR
TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, EXPLOSIVES, ETC., AND CARRY THEM ON FOOT TO THE
WORKING PLACES, USUALLY SOME 500 TO 1,500 FEET AWAY.  THIS REQUIRES
THAT THEY PROCEED THROUGH DARK AND DANGEROUS TUNNELS, OFTEN SO LOW AS
TO FORCE THEM TO CROUCH OVER WHILE CARRYING THEIR BURDENS.  MOREOVER,
THEY MUST KEEP CONSTANT VIGIL AGAINST LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES, FALLING
ROCKS AND OBSTACLES UNDER FOOT.  AT THE END OF EACH SHIFT, THE MINERS
MAKE THEIR RETURN JOURNEY TO THE MAN TRIP STATIONS, DEPOSIT THEIR TOOLS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ASCEND TO THE PORTAL VIA THE MAN TRIPS. 

IN ADDITION, APPROXIMATELY 72 MEN AT PETITIONER'S JEWELL RIDGE MINE
ENTER THE MINE AT PLACES OTHER THAN THE MAIN PORTAL AND EITHER CATCH
THE MAN TRIPS AT SOME MAN TRIP STATION INSIDE THE MINE OR WALK ALL THE
WAY TO THEIR PLACES OF WORK. 

THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UNDERGROUND
TRAVEL IN PETITIONER'S MINES INVOLVES PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXERTION. 
THAT IT MAY NOT BE SO BURDENSOME OR DISAGREEABLE AS SOME OF THE ASPECTS
OF THE TRAVEL DESCRIBED IN THE TENNESSEE COAL CASE IS NOT OF
CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS RESPECT. 

2.  EXERTION CONTROLLED OR REQUIRED BY THE EMPLOYER.  IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT THE UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IS BOTH CONTROLLED AND REQUIRED BY
PETITIONER.  BOTH THE MAN TRIP TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVEL BY FOOT OCCUR
SOLELY ON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND OCCUR ONLY AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY
PETITIONER.  PETITIONER ORGANIZES, OPERATES AND SUPERVISES ALL ASPECTS
OF THE MAN TRIPS.  DEFINITE SCHEDULES ARE ARRANGED AND MAINTAINED BY
PETITIONER.  A COMPANY FOREMAN RIDES ON EACH MAN TRIP AND OCCASIONALLY
GIVES WORK INSTRUCTIONS DURING THE JOURNEY.  HE ALSO COMPELS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NUMEROUS SAFETY RULES FOR MAN TRIPS ADOPTED BY PETITIONER IN
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.  LAYOFF OR DISCHARGE MAY RESULT FROM A
MINER'S CONTINUED FAILURE TO OBEY THESE RULES. 

3.  EXERTION PURSUED NECESSARILY AND PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
EMPLOYER AND HIS BUSINESS.  IT IS TOO OBVIOUS TO REQUIRE EXTENDED
DISCUSSION THAT HERE, AS IN THE TENNESSEE COAL CASE, THE UNDERGROUND
TRAVEL IS UNDERTAKEN NECESSARILY AND PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF
PETITIONER AND ITS COAL MINING OPERATIONS.  THE MINERS DO NOT ENGAGE IN
THIS TRAVEL FOR THEIR OWN PLEASURE OR CONVENIENCE.  IT OCCURS ONLY
BECAUSE IT IS A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE EXTRACTION OF COAL FROM
THE MINES, WHICH IS THE PRIME PURPOSE OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS. 
WITHOUT SUCH TRAVEL THE COAL COULD NOT BE MINED. 

THUS THE THREE BASIC ELEMENTS OF WORK OF A TYPE NECESSARILY INCLUDED
WITHIN THE WORKWEEK AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT ARE PLAINLY EVIDENT FROM
THESE FACTS.  THOSE WHO ARE FORCED TO TRAVEL IN UNDERGROUND MINES IN
ORDER TO EARN THEIR LIVELIHOOD ARE UNLIKE THE ORDINARY TRAVELER OR THE
ORDINARY WORKMAN ON HIS WAY TO WORK.  THEY MUST JOURNEY BENEATH THE
CRUST OF THE EARTH, FAR REMOVED FROM THE FRESH AND OPEN AIR AND FROM
THE BENEFICIAL RAYS OF THE SUN.  A HEAVY TOLL IS EXACTED FROM THOSE
WHOSE LOT IT IS TO RIDE AND WALK AND MINE BENEATH THE SURFACE.  FROM
THE MOMENT THEY ENTER THE PORTAL UNTIL THEY LEAVE THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO
CONSTANT HAZARDS AND DANGERS; THEY ARE LEFT BEGRIMED AND EXHAUSTED BY
THEIR CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXERTION. 

TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH SUBTERRANEOUS TRAVEL IS NOT WORK IS TO IGNORE
REALITY COMPLETELY.  WE THEREFORE ARE COMPELLED TO HOLD THAT THE ONLY
REASONABLE CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF
FACT AND FROM OTHER UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IS THAT THE UNDERGROUND TRAVEL
IN PETITIONER'S TWO MINES IS WORK AND THAT THE TIME SPENT IN SUCH
TRAVEL SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE WORKWEEK FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 7(A)
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

THE OTHER PROPOSITIONS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER ARE ALSO ANSWERED BY
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE TENNESSEE COAL CASE.  THUS PETITIONER PLACES
HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT "BY THE
UNIVERSAL CUSTOM AND USAGE OF THE PAST FIFTY YEARS, AND BY AGREEMENT OF
THE PARTIES IN EVERY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH WAS EVER
MADE, IT WAS UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED THAT IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL
INDUSTRY, TRAVEL TIME WAS NOT WORK TIME."  53 F.SUPP.  AT 950.  BUT
EVEN THOUGH THE CUSTOMS AND CONTRACTS PREVALENT IN THIS INDUSTRY WERE
TO COMPUTE THE WORKDAY ONLY FROM THE TIME SPENT "FACE TO FACE" WITH THE
SEAMS, WE NEED ONLY REPEAT WHAT WE SAID ON THIS SUBJECT IN THE
TENNESSEE COAL OPINION, 321 U.S. AT 602:  "BUT IN ANY EVENT IT IS
IMMATERIAL THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PRIOR CUSTOM OR CONTRACT NOT TO
CONSIDER CERTAIN WORK WITHIN THE COMPASS OF THE WORKWEEK OR NOT TO
COMPENSATE EMPLOYEES FOR CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THEIR WORK.  THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CODIFY OR PERPETUATE THOSE
CUSTOMS AND CONTRACTS WHICH ALLOW AN EMPLOYER TO CLAIM ALL OF AN
EMPLOYEE'S TIME WHILE COMPENSATING HIM ONLY FOR A PART OF IT.  CONGRESS
INTENDED, INSTEAD, TO ACHIEVE A UNIFORM NATIONAL POLICY OF GUARANTEEING
COMPENSATION FOR ALL WORK OR EMPLOYMENT ENGAGED IN BY EMPLOYEES COVERED
BY THE ACT.  ANY CUSTOM OR CONTRACT FALLING SHORT OF THAT BASIC POLICY,
LIKE AN AGREEMENT TO PAY LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS,
CANNOT BE UTILIZED TO DEPRIVE EMPLOYEES OF THEIR STATUTORY RIGHTS." 

SUCH A CONCLUSION IS THE ONLY METHOD OF ACHIEVING THE PLAIN DESIGN OF
SEC. 7(A) TO SPREAD EMPLOYMENT THROUGH IMPOSING THE OVERTIME PAY
REQUIREMENT ON THE EMPLOYER AND TO COMPENSATE THE EMPLOYEE FOR THE
BURDEN OF A WORKWEEK IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS FIXED BY THE ACT.  WALLING
V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37, 40; OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL,
316 U.S. 572, 577, 578.  THIS NECESSITATES THAT THE WORKWEEK BE
COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE HOURS SPENT IN ACTUAL WORK AND THAT
COMPENSATION BE PAID ACCORDINGLY.  AND EVEN THOSE EMPLOYERS WHO PAY
WAGES ABOVE THE MINIMUM AND WHO MAINTAIN NO SUBSTANDARD WORKING
CONDITIONS MUST RESPECT THIS STATUTORY PATTERN.  CONVERSELY, EMPLOYEES
ARE NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY
ARE WELL PAID OR BECAUSE THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY STRONG BARGAINING
AGENTS.  THIS MAY IN SOME INSTANCES REQUIRE CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS AND
ADJUSTMENTS IN EXISTING CUSTOMS AND CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO INCLUDE ALL
THE HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED IN THE STATUTORY WORKWEEK OR TO COMPENSATE AT
THE PROPER RATE FOR ALL OF SUCH LABOR.  BUT IF THESE MODIFICATIONS AND
ADJUSTMENTS ARE NOT MADE, THE PLAIN LANGUAGE AND POLICY OF SEC. 7(A)
ARE FRUSTRATED. 

PETITIONER HERE HAS PRESENTED NO COGENT REASON FOR LEGALIZING SUCH A
FRUSTRATION, HOWEVER UNINTENTIONAL IN CHARACTER, OF THE STATUTORY
SCHEME.  STATEMENTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
ACT WAS AIMED PRIMARILY AT OVERWORKED AND UNDERPAID WORKERS AND THAT
THE ACT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE WITH BONA FIDE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ARE INDECISIVE OF THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 
FN1  SUCH GENERAL REMARKS, WHEN READ FAIRLY AND IN LIGHT OF THEIR TRUE
CONTEXT, WERE OBVIOUSLY NOT MADE WITH THIS NARROW ISSUE IN MIND AND
THEY CANNOT BE SAID TO DEMONSTRATE A CONGRESSIONAL DESIRE TO ALLOW THE
COAL INDUSTRY TO USE PRIVATE CUSTOMS AND AGREEMENTS AS AN EXCUSE FOR
FAILURE TO COMPUTE THE WORKWEEK AS CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 7(A).  IN FACT,
SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZE THE NECESSITY OF MODIFYING
OR SETTING ASIDE THOSE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS THAT DID NOT CONFORM WITH
STATUTORY STANDARDS.  FN2 

NOR CAN WE GIVE WEIGHT TO THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION IN 1940 ISSUED A PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT HE WOULD NOT
REGARD THE PRACTICE OF COMPUTING WORKING TIME ON A "FACE TO FACE" BASIS
IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY AS UNREASONABLE IN LIGHT OF THE
PREVAILING CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES, SUPPORTED BY A LONG HISTORY OF BONA
FIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THIS STATEMENT, BEING LEGALLY UNTENABLE,
LACKS THE USUAL RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RULINGS,
INTERPRETATIONS AND OPINIONS.  CF. SKIDMORE V. SWIFT & CO., 323 U.S.
134, 140. 

MOREOVER, AS IN THE TENNESSEE COAL CASE, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE
WITH THE USE OF BONA FIDE CONTRACTS OR CUSTOMS TO SETTLE DIFFICULT AND
DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN ACTIVITY OR NONACTIVITY
CONSTITUTES WORK.  CF. ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126.  NOR DO
WE MAKE ANY INTIMATIONS AT THIS TIME CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF
AGREEMENTS WHEREBY, IN A BONA FIDE ATTEMPT TO AVOID COMPLEX
DIFFICULTIES OF COMPUTATION, TRAVEL TIME IS AVERAGED OR FIXED AT AN
ARBITRARY FIGURE AND UNDERGROUND MINERS ARE PAID ON THAT BASIS RATHER
THAN ACCORDING TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL TRAVEL TIME.    WE ARE DEALING HERE
SOLELY WITH A SET OF FACTS THAT LEAVES NO REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IN PETITIONER'S TWO BITUMINOUS COAL MINES PARTAKES
OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF WORK.  FN3  THIS TRAVEL MUST THEREFORE BE
INCLUDED WITHIN THE WORKWEEK FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT REGARDLESS OF ANY CUSTOM OR CONTRACT TO THE
CONTRARY AT THE TIME IN QUESTION.  THUS SHALL EACH OF PETITIONER'S
MINERS RECEIVE HIS OWN REWARD ACCORDING TO HIS OWN LABOR.  AFFIRMED. 
FN1  THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DISTRICT COURT RELIED IN PART UPON A
STATEMENT MADE BY THE SENATOR IN CHARGE OF THE ORIGINAL BILL, WHICH DID
NOT BECOME LAW AS IT WAS THEN FRAMED, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BILL DID
NOT AFFECT COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS ALREADY MADE OR HEREAFTER TO BE MADE
BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  81 CONG. REC. 7650.  ASIDE FROM THE
FACT THAT THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE WITH REFERENCE TO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
PROVISIONS THAN THOSE PRESENTLY IN THE ACT, A FULL AND FAIR READING OF
THE ENTIRE DEBATE AT THE TIME IN QUESTION DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
POSSIBILITY OF AFFECTING OR SETTING ASIDE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS WHEN
THEY DID NOT COINCIDE WITH STATUTORY STANDARDS WAS DEFINITELY
UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED.  THIS IS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING REMARKS (81
CONG. REC. 7650): 

"MR. WALSH.  NEXT, DOES THE BILL AFFECT COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS ALREADY MADE OR HEREAFTER TO BE MADE BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES? 

"MR. BLACK.  IT DOES NOT. 

"MR. WALSH.  THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION TO THAT, IS THERE NOT?  THE BILL
DOES NOT AFFECT COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WHERE THE HOURS ARE
LESS THAN 40 PER WEEK, OR WHERE THE WAGES ARE MORE THAN 40 CENTS PER
HOUR? 

"MR. BLACK.  THAT IS CORRECT. 

"MR. WALSH.  BUT IF A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT HAS BEEN
ENTERED INTO AT 36 CENTS PER HOUR WAGES, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE
JURISDICTION TO SET THAT AGREEMENT ASIDE AND TO FIX, IF THE FACTS
WARRANT IT, A MINIMUM WAGE OF 40 CENTS?" 

"MR. BLACK.  THE BOARD WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO IT, BUT UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW IT WOULD BE MY JUDGMENT THAT THE BOARD WOULD
BE VERY RELUCTANT, INDEED, TO ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE WITH A BONA-FIDE
AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. 

"MR. WALSH.  I THINK THE SENATOR IS CORRECT; BUT THE SITUATION MIGHT
WELL EXIST THAT THE BOARD, IN FIXING A MINIMUM WAGE IN A CASE WHERE THE
WAGE OF THE EMPLOYEES WAS LESS THAN 40 CENTS, AFTER A SURVEY AND STUDY
OF THE QUESTION, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SOME FACTORS THAT IT
MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN FIXING THE WAGE, MIGHT DECIDE, LET US
SAY, UPON 38 CENTS PER HOUR.  IF IT IS FOUND THAT IN SOME OTHER
INDUSTRY OF LIKE CHARACTER AND NATURE THERE WAS A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF 36 CENTS AN HOUR IT WOULD, WOULD
IT NOT, TAKE JURISDICTION AND SET ASIDE THAT COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENT INSOFAR AS THE FACTS SHOWED THAT 38 CENTS WAS A FAIR RATE?" 

"MR. BLACK.  IT WOULD." 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  INDEED, TO THE EXTENT THAT PETITIONER'S "FACE TO FACE"
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS EXCLUDED TRAVEL TIME FROM THE
COMPENSABLE WORKWEEK THERE WAS AN IMPLIED RECOGNITION THAT UNDERGROUND
TRAVEL WAS WORK AND THAT SUCH WORK WOULD NORMALLY CALL FOR ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC "FACE TO FACE" PROVISION TO
THE CONTRARY.  AND THE WIDESPREAD PRACTICE IN OTHER COAL PRODUCING
NATIONS OF INCLUDING TRAVEL TIME OR PORTIONS THEREOF IN THE WORKDAY
FURTHER BEARS OUT THE CONCLUSION THAT UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IS WORK. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND
I ARE CONSTRAINED RESPECTFULLY TO DISSENT FROM THIS DECISION BECAUSE
(1) IT EITHER INVALIDATES COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED AGREEMENTS WHICH
GOVERN THE MATTER IN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE PARTIES OR IT IGNORES
THEIR EXPLICIT TERMS; (2) NEITHER INVALIDATION NOR DISREGARD OF
COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED AGREEMENTS IS AUTHORIZED BY ANY WORD OF
CONGRESS, AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY GIVES CONVINCING INDICATIONS THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO INTERFERE WITH
THEM AS THIS DECISION HOLDS IT DOES; (3) CONGRESS WITHHELD INTERFERENCE
WITH COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED CONTRACTS AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED MINE
WORKERS AND EXPRESSED A POLICY TO OBSERVE AND PRESERVE COLLECTIVELY
BARGAINED ARRANGEMENTS APPLYING TO THE COAL INDUSTRY IN OTHER ALMOST
CONTEMPORANEOUS LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO THE PROBLEMS OF
THAT INDUSTRY; (4) THIS DECISION IS CONTRARY TO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
ACT MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
MINE WORKERS, AND IT DENIES TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RULINGS THE RESPECT
WE HAVE BEEN COMPELLING LOWER COURTS TO RENDER TO THEM IN THE CASES OF
OTHERS; (5) THE DECISION NECESSARILY INVALIDATES THE BASIS ON WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT ITSELF HAS OPERATED THE MINES AND BRINGS INTO QUESTION THE
VALIDITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S STRIKE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND OF ALL
EXISTING MINERS' AGREEMENTS; (6) IT PROCEEDS ON A PRINCIPLE WHICH THE
COURT HAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED TO UNORGANIZED WORKMEN FOR WHOSE BENEFIT
THE ACT WAS PASSED.  IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS OPINION TO SET FORTH
PARTICULARS SUPPORTING THESE GROUNDS OF DISSENT. 

1.  THE COURT'S DECISION EITHER INVALIDATES OR IGNORES THE EXPLICIT
TERMS OF COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THESE PARTIES BASED
ON A HALF CENTURY OF CUSTOM IN THE INDUSTRY.  THIS ACTION INVOLVES
LABOR IN TWO MINES, EACH EMPLOYING APPROXIMATELY FIVE HUNDRED MEN.  AT
ALL TIMES IN ISSUE THE MINES HAVE BEEN UNIONIZED AND THE WORKMEN HAVE
BEEN ORGANIZED BY THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA.  THIS UNION HAS
BEEN SELECTED AND RECOGNIZED AS THE BARGAINING AGENT OF THE MEN.  THEIR
HOURS, WAGES, AND WORKING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FIXED BY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. 

EMPLOYEES IN THESE MINES FIRST WERE ORGANIZED AS MEMBERS OF THE
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA IN 1933, FOLLOWING PROMULGATION OF THE
N.I.R.A. CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE INDUSTRY.  THIS CODE WAS
DRAWN UP BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION AND OF THE OPERATORS AND WAS
APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT PROVIDED FOR THE
"FACE TO FACE" WAGE BASIS WHICH MAKES NO DIRECT ALLOWANCE FOR TRAVEL
TIME, BUT, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE UNION, THE WAGE
SCALE WAS FIXED AT A LEVEL INTENDED INDIRECTLY TO COMPENSATE TRAVEL
TIME.  BASIC WAGE AGREEMENTS THEREAFTER WERE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
UNION AND THE OPERATORS AS OF APRIL 1, 1934(CONTINUED IN EFFECT BY
SUCCESSIVE EXTENSION AGREEMENTS FROM MARCH 31, 1935 UNTIL OCTOBER
1935); AGAIN AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1935; AND AS OF APRIL 2, 1937; AGAIN AS
OF MAY 12, 1939, WHEN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS NEARLY A YEAR
OLD AND HAD BEEN IN EFFECT FOR NEARLY SIX MONTHS, A NEW AGREEMENT WAS
BARGAINED WHICH, LIKE ALL THE PREVIOUS WAGE AGREEMENTS, EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED FOR THE "FACE TO FACE" BASIS, NECESSARILY EXCLUDING ALL TRAVEL
TIME FROM THE WORKWEEK.  THE LAST BASIC WAGE AGREEMENT REACHED BY
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PREVIOUS TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACTION,
DATED APRIL 1, 1941 AND TO EXTEND FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, DID THE
SAME.  THESE AGREEMENTS ARE ADMITTED AND, IF VALID, GOVERN THE DISPUTE
BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 

BUT THE COURT DOES NOT HONOR THESE AGREEMENTS.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY
AND CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED AGREEMENTS MUST BE
HONORED, EVEN TO THE EXTENT THAT EMPLOYERS MAY NOT, WHILE THEY EXIST,
NEGOTIATE WITH AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE OR A MINORITY, CF. J.I. CASE CO.
V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332, AND MUST PAY HEAVY PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATING THEM.  CF. ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS V. RAILWAY EXPRESS
AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342.  AND NOW AT THE FIRST DEMAND OF EMPLOYEES THE
COURT THROWS THESE AGREEMENTS OVERBOARD, EVEN INTIMATING THAT TO
OBSERVE AGREEMENTS, BARGAINED LONG BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, WOULD BE "LEGALIZING" A FRUSTRATION OF THE STATUTORY
SCHEME. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT THE AGREEMENTS WERE "FRUSTRATIONS" OF THE
STATUTORY SCHEME HAS NOT THE SLIGHTEST WARRANT IN THIS RECORD.  THIS
"FACE TO FACE" BASIS WAS TRADITIONAL IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL MINING
INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTRY AND UNIVERSALLY WAS THE BASIS FOR
DETERMINATION OF HOURS THEREIN FOR SOMETHING LIKE HALF A CENTURY.  THIS
WAS CONTRARY TO THE PRACTICE IN ENGLAND AND CONTINENTAL EUROPE, WHERE
THE BASIS HAS BEEN TO CALCULATE TIME FROM ENTRY OF THE MINE TO LEAVING
IT OR FROM "PORTAL TO PORTAL" OR SOME MODIFICATION THEREOF.  THE REASON
AMERICAN MINERS ACCEPTED THIS ARRANGEMENT APPEARS FROM AN OFFICIAL
STATEMENT BY COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THIS ACT THAT "THE UNIFORM HIGH RATES OF PAY THAT HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE WAGE AGREEMENT OF THE MINING INDUSTRY
CONTEMPLATE THE EMPLOYEE'S WORKING DAY BEGINNING WHEN HE ARRIVES AT HIS
USUAL WORKING PLACE.  HENCE, TRAVEL TIME WAS NEVER CONSIDERED AS A PART
OF THE AGREEMENT OR OBLIGATION OF THE EMPLOYER TO PAY FOR IN THIS
INDUSTRY, NOR AS HOURS WORKED BY THE EMPLOYEES, AND THIS HAS BEEN THE
CASE SINCE THE EIGHT-HOUR DAY WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE INDUSTRY - APRIL
1, 1898," AND "THIS METHOD OF MEASURING THE WORKING TIME AT THE PLACE
OF WORK HAS BEEN THE STANDARD PROVISION IN THE BASIC WAGE AGREEMENTS
FOR ALMOST FIFTY YEARS AND IS THE RESULT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN
ITS COMPLETE SENSE."  FN1 

THE COURT TAKES REFUGE IN ITS OWN DECISION IN TENNESSEE COAL CO. V.
MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, SAYING "WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT
THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL OR LEGAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS" CASE
AND THAT.  BUT IN THE TENNESSEE CASE THIS COURT POINTED TO FACTS OF
VERY DIFFERENT IMPORT SAYING, "LIKEWISE THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL, IF NOT
CONCLUSIVE, EVIDENCE THAT PRIOR TO 1938 PETITIONERS (OPERATORS)
RECOGNIZED NO INDEPENDENT LABOR UNIONS AND ENGAGED IN NO BONA FIDE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH AN EYE TOWARD REACHING AGREEMENTS ON THE
WORKWEEK.  CONTRACTS WITH COMPANY-DOMINATED UNIONS AND DISCRIMINATORY
ACTIONS TOWARD THE INDEPENDENT UNIONS ARE POOR SUBSTITUTES FOR
'CONTRACTS FAIRLY ARRIVED AT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.'  THE WAGE PAYMENTS AND WORK ON A TONNAGE BASIS, AS WELL AS
THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS AS TO THE WORKWEEK, WERE ALL DICTATED BY
PETITIONERS (OPERATORS).  THE FUTILE EFFORTS BY THE MINERS TO SECURE AT
LEAST PARTIAL COMPENSATION FOR THEIR TRAVEL TIME AND THEIR
DISSATISFACTION WITH EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS, MOREOVER, NEGATIVE THE
CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ANY REAL CUSTOM AS TO THE WORKWEEK AND
COMPENSATION THEREFOR."  TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, SUPRA,
601-2. 

THE COURT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE UNION'S RECOGNITION THAT THE
CONTRACTS NOW DISREGARDED BY THE COURT WERE "CONTRACTS FAIRLY ARRIVED
AT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."  AND THAT THERE IS
THIS IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE
SITUATION THAT WAS BEFORE US IN THE TENNESSEE CASE WAS RECOGNIZED BY
THE COUNSEL IN THE TENNESSEE CASE, THE SAME COUNSEL WHO ARGUED THIS
CASE AT OUR BAR.  HE HAD NO DIFFICULTY IN FINDING SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL
AND LEGAL DIFFERENCES WHEN HE DID NOT WANT THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED
SITUATION IN THE TENNESSEE CASE TO BE PREJUDICED BY BEING LIKENED TO
THIS SITUATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT QUOTED AS "QUITE INTERESTING" AN
EXCERPT FROM THE ARGUMENT MADE IN THE BRIEF IN THAT CASE:  "'WE ARE NOT
TRYING THE CASE OF COAL MINERS.  WE ARE NOT EXPERTS ON COAL MINING.  WE
DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE TWO GREAT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COAL MINING
SITUATION AND THE MINING OF IRON ORE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY.  IN COAL
MINING WE FIND A UNION WHICH HAS BEEN STRONG AND POWERFUL AND WHICH AS
A UNION HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE COAL
OPERATORS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS.  IN OUR CASE WE FIND THE EFFORTS
OF THE MEN TO ORGANIZE THEIR UNION PRESENTS A PITIABLE PICTURE OF
HELPLESSNESS AGAINST THE DOMINATION OF THE MINING COMPANIES.  IN COAL
MINING THE MEN WORK SEVEN HOURS PER DAY.  AT NO POINT IN THE VOLUMINOUS
RECORD CREATED BY THE APPELLANTS DO WE FIND A SINGLE ORE MINING COMPANY
OFFERING TO PAY ITS MEN ON A SEVEN HOUR DAY.'"  FN2 

WE SUBMIT THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THESE CASES, AND WE THEREFORE COME TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PRESENCE
IN THESE CASES OF GENUINE COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED CONTRACTS COVERING THE
MATTER IN DISPUTE HAS ANY LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.  THE COURT THINKS THEY
MEAN NOTHING.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

2.  NEITHER INVALIDATION NOR DISREGARD OF COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED
AGREEMENTS IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  BOTH ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONTEMPORANEOUS LEGISLATION ARE CONVINCING THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT ITSELF INTEND TO NULLIFY THEM OR TO PROVIDE ANY
LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR THIS COURT TO DO SO.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE ACT
CONTAINS NO EXPRESS AUTHORITY FOR THIS DECISION.  AS WAS SAID IN
TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL:  "IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS
UNDERGROUND TRAVEL CONSTITUTES COMPENSABLE WORK OR EMPLOYMENT WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, WE ARE NOT GUIDED BY ANY
PRECISE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF WORK OR EMPLOYMENT.  SECTION 7(A)(29
U.S.C. SEC. 207) MERELY PROVIDES THAT NO ONE, WHO IS ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, SHALL BE EMPLOYED
FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN THE PRESCRIBED HOURS UNLESS COMPENSATION IS
PAID FOR THE EXCESS HOURS AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF
TIMES THE REGULAR RATE.  SECTION 3(G)(29 U.S.C. SEC. 203(G)) DEFINES
THE WORD 'EMPLOY' TO INCLUDE 'TO SUFFER OR PERMIT TO WORK,' WHILE SEC.
3(J) STATES THAT 'PRODUCTION' INCLUDES 'ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION
NECESSARY TO  ...  PRODUCTION.'"  N3  THIS IS EVERY STRAW THAT CAN BE
PICKED FROM THE STATUTE FOR THE COURT TO GRASP AT.    LIKEWISE, THE
COURT IS UNABLE TO CITE ANY ITEM OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH HINTS
THAT CONGRESS EXPECTED THESE WORDS TO BE GIVEN THIS MEANING.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, WE FIND THAT PAINS WERE TAKEN TO ASSURE CONGRESS THAT THERE
WAS NO SUCH INTENT. 

THE BILLS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN THIS ACT WERE INTRODUCED IN
1937.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT SAID, "ALTHOUGH  ...  STATEMENTS WERE MADE
AT VARIOUS TIMES WHILE THE MEASURE WAS BEING AMENDED AND REVISED, AND
THEREFORE NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE BILL IN ITS FINAL FORM, THEY SHOW A
CONTINUING INTENTION NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PROCESSES OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING."  FN4  EXAMPLES ARE MULTIPLE.  THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR IN ITS REPORT OF JULY 6, 1937, SAID:    "THE RIGHT
OF INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS
CONCERNING WAGES AND HOURS IS RECOGNIZED AND ENCOURAGED BY THIS BILL. 
IT IS NOT INTENDED THAT THIS LAW SHALL INVADE THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE TO FIX THEIR OWN CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT, WHEREVER THERE CAN
BE ANY REAL, GENUINE BARGAINING BETWEEN THEM.  IT IS ONLY THOSE LOW
WAGE AND LONG-WORKING-HOUR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS, WHO ARE THE HELPLESS
VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN BARGAINING WEAKNESS, THAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO
ASSIST TO OBTAIN A MINIMUM WAGE."  (SENATE REPORT NO. 884, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 3-4.) 

THE DEBATES ON THE BILL APPEAR TO US TO MAKE THIS INTENTION MORE
EXPLICIT.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 81, P. 7650,
SHOWS THAT THE FOLLOWING TOOK PLACE IN DEBATE IN THE SENATE JULY 27,
1937: 

"MR. WALSH.  NEXT, DOES THE BILL AFFECT COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS ALREADY MADE OR HEREAFTER TO BE MADE BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE? 

"MR. BLACK.  IT DOES NOT." 

OF COURSE IT WAS AGREED ON ALL HANDS THAT NO AGREEMENT COULD BE
VALIDLY BARGAINED WHICH PROVIDED FOR LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGES TO BE
FIXED BY THE PROPOSED BOARD OR FOR MORE THAN THE SPECIFIED HOURS OF
LABOR.  BUT BEYOND OBSERVANCE OF THESE LIMITATIONS, WE READ THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO INDICATE THAT THE CONTROL OF WAGES, HOURS AND
WORKING CONDITIONS BY COLLECTIVE CONTRACT WAS LEFT UNDISTURBED.  FN5 

DEFINITE ASSURANCES TO THAT EFFECT REPEATEDLY GIVEN TO THE HOUSE ARE
NOTED IN THE MARGIN.  FN6 NOR ARE THESE ASSURANCES SURPRISING OR
PARADOXICAL. 

3.  CONGRESS REFRAINED FROM ENACTING AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESULT AT THE
REQUEST OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS, EXPRESSED IN THE TESTIMONY OF THEIR
RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVES, WHOSE PLAN FOR REGULATING THE COAL
INDUSTRY WAS ENACTED IN THE GUFFEY COAL ACT.  IN 1937, BILLS WHICH
ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WERE INTRODUCED IN
BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND HEARINGS WERE HELD.  MAJOR PERCY TETLOW, AN
OFFICIAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AS
A WITNESS IN THIS CASE, SUMMARIZED THE ATTITUDE OF THE MINE WORKERS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"NO, THE MINERS' ORGANIZATION HAS ALWAYS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE
QUESTION OF WAGES, HOURS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT SHOULD BE
GOVERNED AND CONTROLLED BY AGREEMENTS UNDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN
THE INDUSTRY MORE SO THAN BY LEGISLATION.  WE HAVE ALWAYS TAKEN THE
POSITION THAT ANY LEGISLATION WHICH WILL IMPROVE STANDARDS OF WORKING
MEN AND WOMEN,  - TO FAVOR IT AND FOSTER IT AND SUPPORT IT.
FUNDAMENTALLY, WE ARE OPPOSED TO LEGISLATION THAT CONTROLS THE DAILY
WAGE AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  WE THINK THAT IS A RELATIONSHIP
THAT SHOULD EXIST BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE."  THIS IS IN ACCORD
WITH THE TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN L. LEWIS, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, WHEN HE SAID: 

"FOR INSTANCE, FRANKLY I WOULD NOT WANT THIS BILL TO CONVEY POWER TO
A BOARD TO ORDER AN INVESTIGATION INTO ALL OF THE WAGE AGREEMENTS IN
THE MINING INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW, OR TO GIVE THE BOARD POWER TO DECIDE
THAT THE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS IN THE MINING INDUSTRY WERE
NOT SOUND, NOT PROPER, WERE CONFISCATORY, OR NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE
FACTS OF THE INDUSTRY, AND ORDER A MODIFICATION THEREOF.  I THINK THE
POWER OF THE BOARD SHOULD BE LIMITED TO CASES WHICH RUN BELOW THE LEVEL
OF THE STANDARDS FIXED BY CONGRESS.  I SEE ENDLESS CONFUSION IN THE
ADOPTION OF SECTION 5 NOW.  I SEE A DRIFT TOWARD THE COMPLETE FIXATION
OF WAGES IN ALL INDUSTRY BY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION."  FN7 

FAR FROM INTERFERING WITH EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE AGREEMENTS BY THIS ACT,
THE UNITED MINE WORKERS ADVOCATED AND CONGRESS ENACTED CONTEMPORANEOUS
SPECIFIC LEGISLATION TO CONFIRM THEM IN THE COAL INDUSTRY.  THE SAME
CONGRESS WHICH ENACTED THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 ENACTED THE
SECOND BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, (50 STAT. 72, CHAP. 127, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 828), WHICH STATES THAT 

"(A)  ...  IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE
UNITED STATES THAT - 

(1)  EMPLOYEES OF PRODUCERS OF COAL SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH RESPECT TO THEIR HOURS OF LABOR,
WAGES, AND WORKING CONDITIONS THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING, WITHOUT RESTRAINT, COERCION, OR INTERFERENCE ON THE PART OF
THE PRODUCERS."  15 U.S.C. SEC. 839. 

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS IN APRIL OF 1937 WROTE SUCH
A SPECIFIC DECLARATION IN FAVOR OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND A SHORT
TIME LATER BY GENERAL PHRASES OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT INTENDED
TO INVALIDATE OR DISREGARD COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

IT MAY SAFELY BE SAID THAT OVER THE PAST HALF CENTURY CONGRESS HAS
GIVEN MORE DETAILED AND SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION TO THE BITUMINOUS COAL
MINING INDUSTRY THAN TO ANY OTHER SINGLE INDUSTRY WITH THE POSSIBLE
EXCEPTION OF TRANSPORTATION.  THE EFFORTS OF CONGRESS, THE TRAVAIL OF
MINE LABOR, AND THE DIFFICULTIES OF OPERATORS ARE RECITED IN THIS CASE
AND IN EXTENSIVE BRIEFS BY THE GOVERNMENT AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE
COAL MINE LITIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED HERE.  CF. APPALACHIAN
COALS V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298
U.S. 238; SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381.  IN THE
TWENTY-THREE YEARS BETWEEN 1913 AND 1935 WHEN THE FIRST BITUMINOUS COAL
CONSERVATION ACT WAS PASSED THERE WERE NO LESS THAN NINETEEN
INVESTIGATIONS AND HEARINGS BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES OR SPECIALLY
CREATED COMMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONS IN THIS INDUSTRY WHICH
WERE OF GRAVE NATIONAL CONCERN.  THESE INVESTIGATIONS HAD DEALT WITH
BITTERLY CONTESTED STRIKES, AND WITH SERIOUS DISORDERS WHICH FREQUENTLY
RESULTED IN BLOODSHED AND MARTIAL LAW, AND WHICH ON AT LEAST FOUR
OCCASIONS WERE RESTRAINED BY INTERVENTION OF FEDERAL TROOPS.  OTHER
INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONCERNED WITH COAL SHORTAGES AND HIGH PRICES AND
WITH THE DEMORALIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY.  THE PLIGHT OF THIS INDUSTRY
AT THAT TIME WAS GRAPHICALLY SUMMARIZED BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS IN
SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, FOR AN ALL BUT UNANIMOUS
COURT:  "FOR A GENERATION THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS MANIFESTATIONS OF
INCESSANT DEMAND FOR FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN THE COAL INDUSTRY.  THE
INVESTIGATIONS PRECEDING THE 1935 AND 1937 ACTS ARE REPLETE WITH AN
EXPOSITION OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE BESET THAT INDUSTRY.  OFFICIAL
AND PRIVATE RECORDS GIVE ELOQUENT TESTIMONY TO THE STATEMENTS OF MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO IN THE CARTER CASE (P. 330) THAT FREE COMPETITION HAD
BEEN 'DEGRADED INTO ANARCHY' IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY. 
OVERPRODUCTION AND SAVAGE, COMPETITIVE WARFARE WASTED THE INDUSTRY. 
LABOR AND CAPITAL ALIKE WERE THE VICTIMS.  FINANCIAL DISTRESS AMONG
OPERATORS AND ACUTE POVERTY AMONG MINERS PREVAILED EVEN DURING PERIODS
OF GENERAL PROSPERITY.  THIS HISTORY OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY IS
WRITTEN IN BLOOD AS WELL AS IN INK. 

"IT WAS THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS THAT PRICE-FIXING AND THE
ELIMINATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITIVE PRACTICES WERE APPROPRIATE METHODS
FOR PREVENTION OF THE FINANCIAL RUIN, LOW WAGES, POOR WORKING
CONDITIONS, STRIKES, AND DISRUPTION OF THE CHANNELS OF TRADE WHICH
FOLLOWED IN THE WAKE OF THE DEMORALIZED PRICE STRUCTURES IN THIS
INDUSTRY.  IF THE STRATEGIC CHARACTER OF THIS INDUSTRY IN OUR ECONOMY
AND THE CHAOTIC CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE PREVAILED IN IT DO NOT JUSTIFY
LEGISLATION, IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE WHAT WOULD."  FN8 

IT WAS AGAINST THIS ECONOMIC BACKGROUND SO WELL KNOWN TO CONGRESS
THAT THE PLAN FOR STABILIZATION OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY,
THROUGH ELIMINATION OF "COMPETITIVE WARFARE" WAS ADOPTED IN THE
INTERESTS BOTH OF LABOR AND THE OPERATORS.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE
SUSTAINED ATTENTION CONGRESS HAD GIVEN TO THE DELICATE ECONOMY OF THE
COAL INDUSTRY AND ITS PLAN TO STABILIZE IT BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND
PRICE-FIXING, IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT IT WOULD UNDO A SUBSTANTIAL PART
OF THAT PLAN BY THE CASUAL AND AMBIGUOUS IMPLICATION WHICH THE COURT
NOW ATTRIBUTES TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

4.  THE DECISION OF THE COURT IS CONTRARY TO THE INTERPRETATIONS OF
THE ACT MADE BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
MINE WORKERS, AND IT DENIES TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RULINGS THE RESPECT
WE HAVE BEEN COMPELLING LOWER COURTS TO RENDER TO SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE
RULINGS IN THE CASES OF OTHERS.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1940 THAT ANYONE
APPEARS TO HAVE THOUGHT THE ACT AFFECTED THE COAL MINERS' AGREEMENTS. 
IN THE YEAR 1940, AN INVESTIGATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATION,
INVESTIGATING OPERATIONS OF A COAL MINING COMPANY IN PENNSYLVANIA,
RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER UNDERGROUND TRAVEL TIME MUST BE INCLUDED IN
THE WORKWEEK UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  HE STATED HIS OPINION THAT
THE "FACE TO FACE" BASIS, EXCLUDING TRAVEL TIME, WAS THE PROPER ONE TO
BE APPLIED IN THE COAL-MINING INDUSTRY, BUT INDICATED THAT IF A RULE
THERETOFORE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF A GOLD MINING COMPANY WERE REQUIRED
THE COAL COMPANY WOULD OWE SOME $70,000 TO UNDERGROUND WORKERS.  THIS
WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA COAL PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, AND HE IN TURN BROUGHT IT TO
THE ATTENTION OF OTHER OPERATORS AND OF MR. LEWIS, PRESIDENT OF THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA.  THEREAFTER
REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE OPERATORS AND THE UNITED MINE WORKERS
CONFERRED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WAGE AND
HOUR ADMINISTRATION.  BOTH THE OPERATORS AND THE UNION OFFICIALS
OPPOSED ANY CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE PAYMENT FOR
TRAVEL TIME.  ON JULY 9, 1940, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OPERATORS AND MR.
EARL HOUCK, DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS
OF AMERICA, JOINTLY COMPOSED AND SENT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION A LETTER SETTING OUT THEIR VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT N9. 
THEY URGED THAT SUCH A CHANGE "WOULD CREATE SO MUCH CONFUSION IN THE
BITUMINOUS INDUSTRY AS TO RESULT IN COMPLETE CHAOS, AND WOULD PROBABLY
RESULT IN A COMPLETE STOPPAGE OF WORK AT PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE COAL
MINES IN THE UNITED STATES.  SUCH A RULING, MOREOVER, WOULD ESTABLISH
SUCH DIVERSITY OF TIME ACTUALLY SPENT AT PRODUCTIVE WORK AS BETWEEN
DIFFERENT BITUMINOUS COAL MINES AND WITHIN EACH MINE THAT THERE WOULD
BE NO BASIS ON WHICH ANY GENERAL WAGE SCALES COULD BE PREDICATED,
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WOULD THEREFORE BE RENDERED IMPOSSIBLE THROUGHOUT
THIS INDUSTRY, AND THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
WOULD BE DEFEATED."  IN RESPONSE TO THE JOINT REPRESENTATIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF BOTH OPERATORS AND THE UNITED MINE WORKERS, THE
ADMINISTRATOR, JULY 18, 1940, RULED THAT "WORKING TIME ON A 'FACE TO
FACE' BASIS IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL MINING INDUSTRY WOULD NOT BE
UNREASONABLE."  FN10  WE HAVE ADMONISHED LOWER COURTS THAT THEY MUST
GIVE HEED TO THESE INTERPRETATIONS.  ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S.
126; SKIDMORE V. SWIFT & CO., 323 U.S. 134.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS
CASE DID SO, ONLY TO FIND THEM BRUSHED ASIDE HERE AS OF NO IMPORTANCE. 

5.  THIS DECISION NECESSARILY INVALIDATES THE BASIS ON WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT IN OPERATING THE MINES CONTRACTED WITH THE MINERS AND BRINGS
INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF ALL THE EXISTING MINE AGREEMENTS.  IT
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN WARTIME RESTRICTIONS ON FLAT WAGE INCREASES WHICH
FINALLY LED THE UNITED MINE WORKERS TO REVERSE THEIR FORMER AND TO TAKE
THEIR PRESENT POSITION.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE WAGE CONFERENCE OF 1943
THAT THE UNITED MINE WORKERS FOR THE FIRST TIME DEMANDED THAT "TO
CONFORM WITH THE BASIC AND LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR THE INDUSTRY, THE
MAXIMUM HOURS AND WORKING TIME PROVISIONS BE AMENDED TO ESTABLISH
PORTAL TO PORTAL FOR STARTING AND QUITTING TIME FOR ALL UNDERGROUND
WORKERS."  FN11  BUT THIS CONDITION WAS TO BE SATISFIED BY A FLAT WAGE
INCREASE FOR ALL MINE WORKERS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY SPENT ANY TIME
TRAVELING UNDERGROUND, AND WAS NOT TO BE BASED ON EACH INDIVIDUAL
WORKER'S ACTUAL TRAVEL TIME, AS THE COURT NOW HOLDS THE ACT REQUIRES. 
THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNION'S PRESENT DEMANDS IS TRACEABLE THROUGH THE
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. 

THIS MARCH 1943 WAGE CONFERENCE FELL INTO DISPUTE.  THE CASE WAS
CERTIFIED ON APRIL 22, 1943 TO THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD.  THE
PARTIES AGREED AFTER REQUEST BY PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT TO EXTEND THE 1941
AGREEMENT TO MAY 1.  THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD ON APRIL 24, 1943
DIRECTED THEM, PENDING DECISION, TO CONTINUE WORK UNDER THE PREVIOUS
TERMS.  WHEN MAY 1ST CAME AROUND, HOWEVER, THE MINERS WENT ON STRIKE,
THE GOVERNMENT SEIZED THE MINES, AND THE STRIKE CAME TO AN END MAY 6,
UNDER A TEMPORARY ARRANGEMENT EXTENDING THE OLD CONTRACT TO MAY 31.  ON
MAY 14, THE BOARD DIRECTED THE WAGE CONFERENCE TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS. 
THIS RECONVENED AND NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUED UNTIL JUNE 20.  HOWEVER,
WHEN THE EXTENSION AGREEMENT EXPIRED ON MAY 31, A SECOND STRIKE BEGAN. 
ON JUNE 3, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT APPEALED TO THE MINERS TO RETURN TO
WORK, AND THEY DID SO AFTER THE PRESIDENT OF THE MINE WORKERS ORDERED
THEM TO RESUME UNTIL JUNE 20.  ON THAT DAY THERE WAS A THIRD STRIKE,
WHICH LASTED THREE DAYS, WHEN IT WAS TERMINATED ON APPEAL BY PRESIDENT
ROOSEVELT, THE UNION AGAIN DIRECTING THE MINERS TO RESUME WORK UNTIL
OCTOBER 31.  THE CONFERENCES DID NOT AGREE AND THE CONTROVERSY WENT
AGAIN TO THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD.    THE BOARD FOUND AS FOLLOWS:
"THE MINE WORKERS' DEMAND OF $2.00 A DAY WAS  ...  BASED UPON AN
ASSUMPTION OR ESTIMATE THAT THE TRAVEL TIME AMOUNTED ON THE AVERAGE TO
AN HOUR AND ONE-HALF A DAY....  THE UNITED MINE WORKERS PROPOSED TO
SPREAD THIS AMOUNT OVER ALL THE WORKERS INCLUDING THOSE WHO DID NOT GO
UNDERGROUND, AND SO ARRIVED AT THE PROPOSED GENERAL WAGE INCREASE OF
$2.00 FOR ALL MINE WORKERS....  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THESE FIGURES ARE
OUT OF ALL PROPORTION TO ANY AMOUNT THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE DUE TO THE
MINE WORKERS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, EVEN IF THE COURTS
SHOULD DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS IN CONTROVERSY IN FAVOR OF THE MINE
WORKERS.  THE DEMAND IS PLAINLY AND UNMISTAKABLY A DEMAND FOR AN
'INDIRECT WAGE INCREASE IN VIOLATION OF THE WAGE STABILIZATION
POLICIES,' CONTRARY TO THE BOARD'S DIRECTIVE ORDER OF MAY 25, 1943." 
FN12  AND IN A RELEASE ON JUNE 18, 1943, THE BOARD SAID:  "...  THE
UNITED MINE WORKERS HAVE NOT PROPOSED TO CHANGE THE 'FACE TO FACE'
BASIS OF PAYMENT.  ON THE CONTRARY THEY HAVE PROPOSED MERELY TO
INCREASE THE HOURLY RATE UNDER THE PRESENT CONTRACT SYSTEM....  IT
WOULD NOT BE IN FACT PAYMENT TO THE MINE WORKERS FOR PORTAL TO PORTAL. 
IT IS MERELY A GENERAL WAGE INCREASE SUPPORTED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
MINE WORKERS  ...  THINK THEY OUGHT TO HAVE A GENERAL WAGE INCREASE
BECAUSE ON THE AVERAGE THEY WILL SPEND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME IN
TRAVEL." 

FINDING ITSELF THUS FRUSTRATED IN ITS DEMAND FOR A FLAT WAGE
INCREASE, THE UNION THEN NEGOTIATED WITH THE ILLINOIS COAL OPERATORS'
ASSOCIATION AN AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED FOR A $1.25 INCREASE FOR EACH
WORKING DAY.  THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD REFUSED TO APPROVE THIS AS
ALSO VIOLATIVE OF THE NATIONAL WAGE STABILIZATION PROGRAM.  IT WAS
THEN, AND APPARENTLY BECAUSE IT AFFORDED THE ONLY MEANS OF OBTAINING AN
INCREASE THAT DID NOT CONFLICT WITH THE WAGE STABILIZATION PROGRAM,
THAT THE MINE WORKERS NEGOTIATED THE SECOND ILLINOIS AGREEMENT, DATED
SEPTEMBER 23, 1943, OF WHICH THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD SAID:  "THE
ILLINOIS AGREEMENT NOW SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD PRESENTS FOR THE FIRST
TIME A TRUE PORTAL-TO-PORTAL METHOD OF COMPENSATION FOR THE MINE
WORKERS.  THE 1941-1943 CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR A SEVEN-HOUR DAY AND 35
HOUR WEEK OF PRODUCTIVE TIME AT THE WORKING FACE, EXCLUDING TRAVEL
TIME....  THE ILLINOIS AGREEMENT PROPOSES TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THIS METHOD
OF COMPENSATION AN 8 1/2-HOUR DAY INCLUSIVE OF TRAVEL TIME, WITH
PAYMENT AT STRAIGHT TIME RATES FOR THE 8 1/2 HOURS AND OVERTIME PAYMENT
AT RATE AND ONE-HALF FOR ALL TIME BEYOND 40 HOURS A WEEK."  FN13  THE
BOARD FOUND THAT THE EFFECT OF THIS WAS AN INCREASE WHICH IT COULD NOT
WHOLLY APPROVE. 

MEANTIME THE GOVERNMENT HAD TAKEN OVER THE MINES AND ON NOVEMBER 3,
1943, THE ICKES-LEWIS AGREEMENT WAS MADE.  THE METHOD OF WAGE
CALCULATION UNDER THE ICKES-LEWIS AGREEMENT WAS TO TREAT EACH EMPLOYEE
AS HAVING FORTY-FIVE MINUTES OF TRAVEL TIME, IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS ACTUAL
TRAVEL TIME.  THE WAR LABOR BOARD ON NOVEMBER 5, 1943 APPROVED THE
ICKES-LEWIS AGREEMENT, AND THUS IN EFFECT GRANTED A FLAT WAGE INCREASE,
UNIFORM FOR ALL MINERS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL ACTUAL TRAVEL
TIME. 

THE TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE CLOSED ON NOVEMBER 24, 1943 WITH THE MINES
STILL IN THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT'S POLICY,
HOWEVER, WAS NOT TO RETURN THE MINES UNTIL AN OPERATING AGREEMENT COULD
BE REACHED AND APPROVED BY THE MINERS AND THE OPERATORS.  THE OPERATORS
BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REACHED AGREEMENTS WHICH FOLLOWED THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ICKES-LEWIS AGREEMENT, THE MINES WERE RETURNED, AND
THIS UNIFORM METHOD CONTINUES IN USE AS A RESULT OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO OBSERVE THAT, WHILE THERE HAS THUS BEEN INTRODUCED
A CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF COMPUTING WORKING TIME, IT BY NO MEANS
COMPLIES WITH AND DID NOT PURPORT TO BE ADOPTED BECAUSE OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS NOW INTERPRETED BY THIS
COURT.  IF IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THE OPERATORS AND THE MINERS BY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING TO AGREE THAT THERE SHALL BE NO TRAVEL TIME, IT IS OBVIOUSLY
EQUALLY ILLEGAL TO AGREE THAT THE TRAVEL TIME SHALL BE FIXED AT AN
ARBITRARY FIGURE WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE FACTS.  THAT THE
ASSUMPTION OF FORTY-FIVE MINUTES OF TRAVEL IS AN UNFOUNDED ONE IS
EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE AVERAGE
DAILY TRAVEL TIME IN ONE OF THE PETITIONER'S MINES IS EIGHTY-EIGHT
MINUTES; AND IN THE OTHER, 67.1 MINUTES.  IF UNITED MINE WORKERS'
AGREEMENTS ARE INEFFECTIVE TO MAKE ALL OF THIS TIME NON-WORKING TIME,
HOW CAN THEY BE EFFECTIVE TO MAKE HALF OF IT NON-WORKING TIME? 
MOREOVER, THE AVERAGING MEANS THAT A PART OF THE TRAVEL TIME EARNED BY
ONE MINER IS TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM AND GIVEN TO ANOTHER WHO HAS EARNED
LESS THAN THE AVERAGE, A PROCEDURE UTTERLY UNWARRANTED IN THE STATUTE,
IF THE STATUTE APPLIES AT ALL.  IF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
ENTITLES EACH INDIVIDUAL MINER TO TRAVEL TIME, NOT ACCORDING TO THE
TERMS OF HIS COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED AGREEMENTS, BUT ACCORDING TO THE
TIME ACTUALLY SPENT, AS THE COURT NOW HOLDS, THESE GOVERNMENT
AGREEMENTS VIOLATED THAT LAW, THE PRESENT AGREEMENTS DO ALSO, AND HEAVY
LIABILITIES BOTH FOR OVERTIME AND PENALTIES ARE DAILY BEING INCURRED BY
THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY. 

6.  THIS DECISION PROCEEDS ON A PRINCIPLE DENIED TO UNORGANIZED
WORKMEN FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE ACT WAS PASSED.  THE INK IS HARDLY DRY ON
THIS COURT'S PRONOUNCEMENT, IN WHICH ALL OF THE MAJORITY IN THIS CASE
JOINED, THAT:  "THE LEGISLATIVE DEBATES INDICATE THAT THE PRIME PURPOSE
OF THE LEGISLATION WAS TO AID THE UNPROTECTED, UNORGANIZED AND LOWEST
PAID OF THE NATION'S WORKING POPULATION; THAT IS, THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO
LACKED SUFFICIENT BARGAINING POWER TO SECURE FOR THEMSELVES A MINIMUM
SUBSISTENCE WAGE."  BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V. O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697, 707,
N. 18.  THAT COAT ILL FITS THE UNITED MINE WORKERS.  BUT LET US
CONTRAST THE ADVANTAGE WHICH THIS DECISION EXTENDS TO A POWERFUL GROUP
SO PLAINLY OUTSIDE OF THE POLICY OF THE ACT WITH THE TREATMENT OF
GROUPS THAT, BEING UNPROTECTED AND UNORGANIZED, WERE CLEARLY WITHIN
IT. 

LITTLE MORE THAN SIX MONTHS AGO THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY REMANDED TO
THE LOWER COURTS FOR TRIAL AND FINDINGS ON THE FACTS A CASE INVOLVING
NIGHT WAITING TIME OF SEVEN UNORGANIZED FIREMEN.  IT SAID THAT "WE HAVE
NOT ATTEMPTED TO, AND WE CANNOT, LAY DOWN A LEGAL FORMULA TO RESOLVE
CASES SO VARIED IN THEIR FACTS AS ARE THE MANY SITUATIONS IN WHICH
EMPLOYMENT INVOLVES WAITING TIME.  WHETHER IN A CONCRETE CASE SUCH TIME
FALLS WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE ACT IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE RESOLVED BY
APPROPRIATE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT....  THIS INVOLVES SCRUTINY AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTICULAR PARTIES,
APPRAISAL OF THEIR PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORKING AGREEMENT BY
CONDUCT, CONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE, AND ITS RELATION
TO THE WAITING TIME, AND ALL OF THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES....  THE
LAW DOES NOT IMPOSE AN ARRANGEMENT UPON THE PARTIES.  IT IMPOSES UPON
THE COURTS THE TASK OF FINDING WHAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS."  SKIDMORE V.
SWIFT & CO., 323 U.S. 134, 136-37.  THAT WAS IN KEEPING WITH OTHER
HOLDINGS.  CF. ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126, 132-3. 

NOW COMES THIS CASE INVOLVING THE ORGANIZED MINERS, AND THE COURT
HOLDS THAT "...  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH THE USE OF BONA FIDE
CONTRACTS OR CUSTOMS TO SETTLE DIFFICULT AND DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS AS TO
WHETHER CERTAIN ACTIVITY OR NONACTIVITY CONSTITUTES WORK."  IT IS HELD
IN THIS CASE THAT THE TIME MUST BE COUNTED "REGARDLESS OF ANY CUSTOM OR
CONTRACT TO THE CONTRARY AT THE TIME IN QUESTION."  CAN IT BE THAT THIS
SUDDEN REFUSAL TO WEIGH THE FACTS IS BECAUSE AS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT
COURT ON ALMOST UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE THEY ARE SO DECISIVELY AGAINST THE
CONCLUSION THE COURT IS REACHING?  JEWELL RIDGE COAL CORP. V. LOCAL NO.
6167, UNITED MINE WORKERS, 53 F.SUPP.  935.  THIS WAS MADE PLAIN ALSO
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH SAID: 

"IN VIEW OF THE LONG ESTABLISHED CUSTOM IN THE COAL INDUSTRY NOT TO
INCLUDE TRAVEL TIME IN THE WORK WEEK, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
CONTRACTS EXTENDING OVER A LONG PERIOD RECOGNIZING THE 'FACE TO FACE'
BASIS OF PAY, THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS, THE
REASON AND PURPOSE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT ...  AND THE
PROBABLE EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONSTRUING THE ACT TO REQUIRE
TRAVEL TIME IN BITUMINOUS COAL MINES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE WORK WEEK,
THERE IS STRONG REASON FOR THINKING, AS EVERYONE CONNECTED WITH THE
MATTER SEEMS TO HAVE THOUGHT UNTIL RECENTLY, THAT IT WAS NOT THE INTENT
OF CONGRESS THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED IN ITS APPLICATION TO
THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY.  THE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION
ARE FULLY AND ABLY SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE LEARNED JUDGE BELOW
AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED.  THEY WOULD BE CONVINCING, WERE IT NOT FOR
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO. V.
MUSCODA LOCAL NO. 123, ETC., 321 U.S. 590, 64 S. CT. 698, 703, WHICH WE
DO NOT THINK CAN BE DISTINGUISHED IN PRINCIPLE FROM THE CASE AT BAR." 
AND IT ADDED, "UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NOTHING FOR US TO DO
BUT REVERSE THE DECISION BELOW.  IF IT IS THOUGHT THAT THE DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE OVERRULED OR LIMITED SO AS NOT TO APPLY TO
A CASE OF THIS CHARACTER, THAT IS A MATTER FOR THE SUPREME COURT AND
NOT FOR US."  LOCAL NO. 6167, UNITED MINE WORKERS V. JEWELL RIDGE COAL
CORP., 145 F.2D 10, 11, 13. 

THE COURT NOW SAYS TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA IS A PRECEDENT WHICH
CONTROLS THIS CASE AND "THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL FACTUAL OR LEGAL
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THE TENNESSEE COAL CASE."  THAT CAN BE SAID
ONLY BECAUSE THE COURT DECLINES TO LOOK AT THE RECORD OF FACTUAL
DIFFERENCES, CASTS THEM OUT AS BEING IMMATERIAL.  THE FACT IS THAT THE
TENNESSEE CASE DIFFERED FROM THIS AS NIGHT DOES FROM DAY.  TWO COURTS
BELOW HAD DECIDED THE VITAL FACTS IN THAT CASE IN THE MINERS' FAVOR. 
ONE COURT BELOW HAS FOUND THE FACTS IN THIS CASE AGAINST THEM, AND THE
OTHER AGREES THAT ITS FINDINGS ARE CONVINCING.  THE COURT NOW DECLINES
TO APPRAISE THE FACTUAL DIFFERENCE OF THIS CASE AND HOLDS THAT THIS
CASE WAS DECIDED, ALTHOUGH NOT BEFORE US, BY THE TENNESSEE CASE
OPINION, REGARDLESS OF ANY VARIATION OF FACTS.  THIS, TOO, ALTHOUGH WE
HAVE UNANIMOUSLY REPLIED TO ONE LITIGANT WHO SOUGHT THE BENEFIT OF
STATEMENTS THEREIN THAT "THE CONTEXT OF THE LANGUAGE CITED FROM THE
TENNESSEE COAL CASE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE THAT THE QUOTED
PHRASES WERE NOT INTENDED AS A LIMITATION ON THE ACT, AND HAVE NO
NECESSARY APPLICATION TO OTHER STATES OF FACTS."  ARMOUR & CO. V.
WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126, 133.  WE OUGHT NOT TO PLAY FAST AND LOOSE WITH
THE BASIC IMPLICATIONS OF THIS ACT. 

THE "FACE TO FACE" METHOD, WHATEVER ITS OTHER DEFECTS, IS A METHOD BY
WHICH BOTH OPERATORS AND MINERS HAVE TRIED TO BRING ABOUT UNIFORMITY OF
LABOR COSTS IN THE DIFFERENT UNIONIZED MINES AND TO REMOVE THE
OPERATOR'S RESISTANCE TO IMPROVED WAGE SCALES BASED ON FEAR OF
COMPETITION.  UNDER THIS DECISION THERE CAN BE NO UNIFORM WAGE IN THIS
INDUSTRY EXCEPT BY DISREGARDING THE VERY DUTY WHICH THIS DECISION
CREATES TO PAY EACH MINER FOR HIS ACTUAL TRAVEL TIME.  THUS, TWO MEN
WORKING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER, BUT ENTERING THE MINE AT DIFFERENT
PORTALS MUST RECEIVE EITHER DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF PAY IN THEIR ENVELOPES
OR MUST STAY AT THEIR PRODUCTIVE WORK A DIFFERENT LENGTH OF TIME. 
THUS, TOO, OLD MINES WHICH HAVE BURROWED FAR FROM THEIR PORTALS MUST
SHOULDER GREATLY INCREASED LABOR COST PER TON.  THE DIFFERENTIAL MAY BE
SUFFICIENT TO MAKE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF SOME OF THE OLDER MINES
IMPOSSIBLE.  MINING LABOR HAS TENDED TO LOCATE ITS DWELLINGS NEAR ITS
WORK, AND THE CLOSING OF MINES RESULTS IN CORRESPONDING DISLOCATIONS OF
MINING LABOR.  THESE ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS, SO FULLY SET FORTH IN THE
HOUCK LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH THE COURT IS DISREGARDING. 

WE CAN NOT SHUT OUR EYES TO THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS DECISION WHICH IS
TO IMPAIR FOR ALL ORGANIZED LABOR THE CREDIT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
THE ONLY MEANS LEFT BY WHICH THERE COULD BE A RELIABLE SETTLEMENT OF
MARGINAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING HOURS OF WORK OR COMPENSATION.  WE HAVE
JUST HELD THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WORKMAN IS DEPRIVED OF POWER TO SETTLE
SUCH QUESTIONS.  BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V. O'NEIL; DIZE V. MADDRIX, 324
U.S. 697.  NOW WE HOLD COLLECTIVE BARGAINING INCOMPETENT TO DO SO.  IT
IS HARD TO SEE HOW THE LONG-RANGE INTERESTS OF LABOR ITSELF ARE
ADVANCED BY A HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO MODE BY WHICH IT MAY BIND ITSELF
TO ANY SPECIFIED FUTURE CONDUCT, HOWEVER FAIRLY BARGAINED.  A GENUINELY
COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED AGREEMENT AS TO WAGES, HOURS OR WORKING
CONDITIONS IS NOT INVALIDATED OR SUPERSEDED BY THIS ACT AND BOTH
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE AND RELY UPON THEM, AND
THE COURTS IN DECIDING SUCH CASES SHOULD HONOR THEM. 

WE DOUBT IF ONE CAN FIND IN THE LONG LINE OF CRITICIZED CASES ONE IN
WHICH THE COURT HAS MADE A MORE EXTREME EXERTION OF POWER OR ONE SO
LITTLE SUPPORTED OR EXPLAINED BY EITHER THE STATUTE OR THE RECORD IN
THE CASE.  POWER SHOULD ANSWER TO REASON NONE THE LESS BECAUSE ITS FIAT
IS BEYOND APPEAL. 

FN1  SEE LETTER OF HOUCK SET FORTH IN NOTE 9. 

FN2  53 F.SUPP.  935, 948.  SIMILARLY INTERESTING ARGUMENTS WERE
PRESENTED TO THIS COURT IN THE BRIEF WHICH WAS SUBMITTED HERE IN THE
TENNESSEE CASE:  "THE UNDERGROUND EMPLOYEES ARE NOT COAL MINERS.  THEY
MINE IRON ORE.  WE DID NOT TRY OUT IN THE COURTS BELOW THE CLAIMS AND
COUNTERCLAIMS OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA AND THE COAL
OPERATORS.  WE DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN TRY THE ISSUES BETWEEN COAL MINERS
AND COAL OPERATORS ON A RECORD PORTRAYING THE WORK, THE ENVIRONMENT AND
THE DETAILED CONDITIONS IN THE IRON MINING INDUSTRY.  THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS APPLIES TO SPECIFIC CASES BETWEEN DESIGNATED PARTIES  ....  THE
CASE, THEREFORE, HINGES ON A MATTER OF SIMPLE FACT."  (RESPONDENTS'
BRIEF, PP. 28-29.)    FN3  321 U.S. 590, 597. 

FN4  53 F.SUPP.  935, 944. 

FN5  THE COLLOQUY FOLLOWS: 

"MR. WALSH.  NEXT, DOES THE BILL AFFECT COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS ALREADY MADE OR HEREAFTER TO BE MADE BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES? 

"MR. BLACK.  IT DOES NOT. 

"MR. WALSH.  THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION TO THAT, IS THERE NOT?  THE BILL
DOES NOT AFFECT COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WHERE THE HOURS ARE
LESS THAN 40 PER WEEK, OR WHERE THE WAGES ARE MORE THAN 40 CENTS PER
HOUR? 

"MR. BLACK.  THAT IS CORRECT. 

"MR. WALSH.  BUT IF A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT HAS BEEN
ENTERED INTO AT 36 CENTS PER HOUR WAGES, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE
JURISDICTION TO SET THAT AGREEMENT ASIDE AND TO FIX, IF THE FACTS
WARRANT IT, A MINIMUM WAGE OF 40 CENTS? 

"MR. BLACK.  THE BOARD WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO IT, BUT UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW IT WOULD BE MY JUDGMENT THAT THE BOARD WOULD
BE VERY RELUCTANT, INDEED, TO ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE WITH A BONAFIDE
AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. 

"MR. WALSH.  I THINK THE SENATOR IS CORRECT; BUT THE SITUATION MIGHT
WELL EXIST THAT THE BOARD, IN FIXING A MINIMUM WAGE IN A CASE WHERE THE
WAGE OF THE EMPLOYEES WAS LESS THAN 40 CENTS, AFTER A SURVEY AND STUDY
OF THE QUESTION, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SOME FACTORS THAT IT
MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN FIXING THE WAGE, MIGHT DECIDE, LET US
SAY, UPON 38 CENTS PER HOUR.  IF IT IS FOUND THAT IN SOME OTHER
INDUSTRY OF LIKE CHARACTER AND NATURE THERE WAS A COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF 36 CENTS AN HOUR IT WOULD, WOULD
IT NOT, TAKE JURISDICTION AND SET ASIDE THAT COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING
AGREEMENT INSOFAR AS THE FACTS SHOWED THAT 38 CENTS WAS A FAIR RATE? 

"MR. BLACK.  IT WOULD."  81 CONG. REC. 7650. 

FN6  THE DISTRICT COURT SUMMARIZED THESE AS FOLLOWS: 

"MRS. NORTON  ....  IT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THIS AMENDMENT, OR OF
THE BILL, TO START FIXING WAGES IN ALL INDUSTRIES BUT ONLY IN THOSE IN
WHICH OPPRESSIVE WAGES ARE BEING PAID TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF
WORKERS  ..."  (HOUSE, DECEMBER 13, 1937, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL.
82, P. 1391.) 

"MR. RANDOLPH  ....  IT (THE BILL) IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THAT
FORTUNATE MAJORITY OF THE LABORING CLASSES WHOSE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
POWER IS SUFFICIENTLY POTENT TO INSURE THE PRESERVATION OF THEIR
INDUSTRIAL RIGHTS. 

"BUT IT IS CONCERNED WITH THOSE MILLIONS IN INDUSTRY WHO ARE
UNPROTECTED AND UNORGANIZED  ...."  (HOUSE, DECEMBER 13, 1937,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 82, P. 1395.) 

"MR. CURLEY  ....  THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION, UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS FAIR STANDARDS OF LABOR BILL, AND THE EXISTING LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS OF THIS COUNTRY.  THE BILL CONCERNS ONLY OF RELIEVING THE
PARALYSIS WHICH, AT PRESENT, SHACKLES MISERY AND POVERTY TO MILLIONS OF
HEADS OF FAMILIES, WHO ARE UNDERPAID AND CAUSING A COLOSSAL FINANCIAL
LOSS IN PURCHASING POWER BECAUSE OF EXISTING DEPLORABLE CONDITIONS." 
(HOUSE, MAY 23, 1938, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 83, P. 7283.) 

"MR. BOILEAU  ....  WHAT IS MORE, WE ARE PRESERVING FOR ORGANIZED
LABOR ITS RIGHT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, AND IT WILL BARGAIN FOR A
HIGHER WAGE THAN THAT."  (HOUSE, MAY 23, 1938, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
VOL. 83, P. 7290.) 

"MR. ALLEN  ....  THIS BILL HAS A THREEFOLD PURPOSE AS I SEE IT.
FIRST, IT ELIMINATES SWEAT SHOPS -  ...  THE BILL DOES NOT AFFECT
ORGANIZED LABOR, BUT THOSE 5,000,000 AMERICAN WORKING MEN AND WOMEN WHO
HAVE NOT YET BEEN BENEFITED BY ORGANIZED LABOR."  (HOUSE, MAY 23, 1938,
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 83, P. 7291.) 

"MR. FITZGERALD  ....  I WOULD HAVE YOU OBSERVE THAT THIS PROPOSED
LEGISLATION WILL NOT IMPROVE THE WAGES AND HOURS OF THE MAJORITY OF
WORKERS, NOR DOES IT ATTEMPT TO.  FOR I AM GREATLY PLEASED TO SAY THAT
THE MAJORITY OF WORKERS DO NOT NEED THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE THEY ARE
RECEIVING A LIVING WAGE AND ARE NOT FORCED TO WORK UNREASONABLE
HOURS."  (HOUSE, MAY 23, 1938, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 83, P.
7310.) 

FN7  JOINT HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
UNITED STATES SENATE AND THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 2-22, 1937(75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 281. 

FN8  310 U.S. 395. 

FN9  THE LETTER APPEARS IN THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT:

                       1617 PENNSYLVANIA BOULEVARD,

                  PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, JULY 9, 1940. 

COL. PHILIP B. FLEMING,

 ADMINISTRATOR, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, 

     DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

DEAR MR. ADMINISTRATOR:  AS A RESULT OF CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS WHICH
HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE WAGE & HOUR DIVISION AT BITUMINOUS COAL
MINES IN PENNSYLVANIA, PARTICULARLY AT THE REVLOC SHAFT OF THE MONROE
COAL MINING COMPANY, AND A CONFERENCE THAT HAS BEEN HELD BY YOUR
SUPERVISING INSPECTOR, MR. CAFFEY, AT PITTSBURGH, PA., WITH A COMMITTEE
OF THE WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA COAL OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION, CONCERNING THE
APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO THE BITUMINOUS COAL
MINING INDUSTRY, CERTAIN QUESTIONS HAVE ARISEN THAT ARE DISTURBING TO
BOTH EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE INDUSTRY.  THESE UNCERTAINTIES
HAVE BEEN CONTINUING FOR SOME TIME AND ARE CAUSING MUCH CONCERN TO THE
MINE WORKERS AND THE MINE OPERATORS, ESPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO
"TRAVEL TIME." 

TODAY, THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE OF THE APPALACHIAN WAGE CONFERENCE,
NAMELY: MESSRS.  J. D. A. MORROW, PRESIDENT OF PITTSBURGH COAL COMPANY;
L. T. PUTNAM OF THE RALEIGH WYOMING MINING COMPANY, BECKLEY, W. VA.; L.
C. GUNTER, OF THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN COAL OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION,
KNOXVILLE, TENN.; CHARLES O'NEILL, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED EASTERN COAL
SALES CORPORATION, NEW YORK CITY; C. E. COWAN, VICE PRESIDENT OF MONROE
COAL MINING COMPANY; FREDERICK H. KNIGHT, COUNSEL FOR MONROE COAL
MINING COMPANY; W. L. ROBISON, PRESIDENT OF THE YOUGHIOGHENY & OHIO
COAL COMPANY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE APPALACHIAN WAGE CONFERENCE, ON THE
ONE HAND, AND MR. EARL E. HOUCK, DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF
THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, MET WITH MR. DORSEY, REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND MR. GALLAGHER, REGIONAL COUNSEL,
PHILADELPHIA, PA., AT WHICH TIME THESE QUESTIONS WERE DISCUSSED AT
LENGTH, PARTICULARLY THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT AS TO THE QUESTION OF
HOURS OF WORK IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY. 

THE MINE WORKERS AND THE MINE OPERATORS PRESENT PRESENTED THEIR VIEWS
TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION AS TO THE PROVISIONS
OF THE APPALACHIAN WAGE AGREEMENT COVERING MAXIMUM HOURS AND WORKING
TIME.  WE HAVE FILED WITH THE DIVISION COPY OF THE APPALACHIAN WAGE
AGREEMENT, AND THE ENTIRE PROVISION AS TO MAXIMUM HOURS AND WORKING
TIME IS INCLUDED THEREIN.  THE PERTINENT LANGUAGE, HOWEVER, IS "SEVEN
HOURS OF LABOR SHALL CONSTITUTE A DAY'S WORK.  THE SEVEN-HOUR DAY MEANS
SEVEN HOURS' WORK IN THE MINES AT THE USUAL WORKING PLACES FOR ALL
CLASSES OF LABOR, EXCLUSIVE OF THE LUNCH PERIOD, WHETHER THEY BE PAID
BY THE DAY OR BE PAID ON THE TONNAGE BASIS ..."  THE APPALACHIAN WAGE
AGREEMENT IS THE BASIC AGREEMENT FOR THE BITUMINOUS MINES IN THE STATES
OF PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, EASTERN KENTUCKY,
SOUTHEASTERN TENNESSEE AND MARYLAND.  IN THIS TERRITORY THERE ARE
SEVERAL THOUSAND RAIL SHIPPING MINES EMPLOYING FROM 300,000 TO 325,000
MEN, AND SOME TWENTY-THREE OPERATING DISTRICTS.  EACH OF THE DISTRICTS
WORK OUT A LOCAL WAGE AGREEMENT COVERING ITS OWN TERRITORY, SUBJECT,
HOWEVER, TO THE PROVISION THAT IT MUST INCLUDE WITHIN IT ALL OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE APPALACHIAN AGREEMENT.  THE MINES IN THE APPALACHIAN
REGION PRODUCE 70% OF THE TOTAL BITUMINOUS COAL PRODUCED IN THE UNITED
STATES ANNUALLY.  ALSO, THE APPALACHIAN AGREEMENT IS USED BY THE UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA AS THE BASIC AGREEMENT UPON WHICH THE DISTRICT
AGREEMENTS OF THE REMAINING 30% OF THE COUNTRY IS PREDICATED. 

THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA AND COAL OPERATORS OF THE UNITED
STATES HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING WAGE AGREEMENTS FOR A PERIOD OF FIFTY
YEARS.  THE APPALACHIAN AGREEMENT, COVERING AS IT DOES A GREAT NUMBER
OF MEN AND MINES, HAS BEEN WORKED OUT OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME AND
COVERS WITHIN ITS GENERAL PROVISIONS MYRIAD WAGE RATES, CONDITIONS OF
WORK, AND HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT.  THIS AGREEMENT, WITH ITS TWENTY-THREE
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS, CONSTITUTES A WHOLE DOCUMENT.  IN THOSE
CONFERENCES, OF COURSE, HOURS OF WORK HAS BEEN ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL
MATTERS OF CONSIDERATION DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME.  HOURS OF WORK
WITH WAGE RATES CONSTITUTE THE HEART OF ANY SUCH AGREEMENT.  IN THIS
BASIC INDUSTRY WE HAVE PROVIDED FOR SEVEN-HOUR DAYS, FIVE-DAY WEEKS,
THIRTY-FIVE HOURS PER WEEK, WITH HIGH RATES OF PAY.  THE BASIC INSIDE
DAY RATE IN THE NORTH IS $.857 PER HOUR, AND IN THE SOUTH IT IS $.80
PER HOUR.  THE UNDERGROUND WORKERS ARE PAID ON THIS BASIS WITH MAXIMUM
RATES FOR MOBILE LOADING MACHINE OPERATORS, APPROXIMATELY $1.09 PER
HOUR.  IN ADDITION, THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES, "WORK BY MINE WORKERS PAID
BY HOUR OR DAY IN EXCESS OF SEVEN HOURS IN ONE DAY, OR THIRTY-FIVE
HOURS IN ANY ONE WEEK, SHALL BE PAID FOR IT AT THE RATE OF TIME AND ONE
HALF  ..."  IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THESE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE
AGREEMENT ARE AMONG THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF LABOR PROVIDED IN ANY
INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES, BOTH AS TO HOURS OF WORKING TIME AND AS
TO WAGES PAID.  THERE IS FULL AND COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING IN THE
INDUSTRY BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THESE
PROVISIONS.  THIS METHOD OF MEASURING THE WORKING TIME AT THE PLACE OF
WORK HAS BEEN THE STANDARD PROVISION IN THE BASIC WAGE AGREEMENTS FOR
ALMOST FIFTY YEARS AND IS THE RESULT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN ITS
COMPLETE SENSE. 

THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY THE PROVISION AS TO WORKING TIME HAS BEEN
SET OUT AS PROVIDED BY THIS AGREEMENT.  THE IMPRACTICABILITY OF
MEASURING TIME BY ANY OTHER METHOD IS INHERENT IN THE VERY NATURE OF
MINING COAL.  COAL MINES ARE SOMETIMES VERY EXTENSIVE.  WHEN THEY ARE
FIRST OPENED UP, THE WORKING PLACES ARE, OF COURSE, CLOSE BY AND NEAR
TO THE OPENING OF THE MINE.  IN SUCH CASES THERE IS NO PROBLEM OF
EITHER TRANSPORTATION OF THE MEN, TO THE WORKING PLACES OR TIME
CONSUMED IN REACHING THEM; BUT AS MINES GROW OLDER, THE WORKING PLACES
MOVE FARTHER AND FARTHER AWAY FROM THE PORTAL OR OPENING OF THE MINE,
AND AS SUCH CONDITIONS DEVELOP, IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR PROVISION TO
BE MADE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE MEN OVER LONG DISTANCES TO THEIR
WORKING PLACES.  THIS IS USUALLY PROVIDED BY WHAT IS KNOWN IN THE
INDUSTRY AS "MAN TRIPS."  THESE TRIPS ARE SCHEDULED TO LEAVE THE
OUTSIDE OR OPENING OF THE MINE AT A CERTAIN HOUR, SO THAT ALL THE
EMPLOYEES WILL REACH THEIR WORKING PLACES BY THE HOUR AT WHICH WORK
REGULARLY BEGINS AT THE WORKING PLACES THROUGHOUT THE MINE, AND THESE
TRIPS ARE ALSO SCHEDULED TO LEAVE THE INSIDE OF THE MINE WHEN THE DAY'S
WORK IS DONE, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SEVEN-HOUR PERIOD OF WORK AT THE
WORKING PLACES.  AMONG OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, THERE IS
PROVIDED A TIME FOR STARTING THE DAY'S WORK AND A LUNCH PERIOD, AS WELL
AS A TIME FOR EXPIRATION OF THE WORK DAY.  THERE IS SOME VARIATION IN
THIS, DEPENDING UPON LOCAL CONDITIONS AS TO THE STARTING AND QUITTING
TIME AT THE VARIOUS COLLIERIES.  THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR A CERTAIN
TOLERANCE.  IN ANY EVENT, THE STARTING AND QUITTING TIME ARE NO MORE
THAN SEVEN HOURS APART, EXCLUSIVE OF THE LUNCH PERIOD. 

IN THE MANY CONFERENCES THAT HAVE BEEN HELD OVER THIS PERIOD OF FIFTY
YEARS, NATURALLY ALL MANNER OF SUGGESTIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR
AMPLIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MADE BOTH BY THE
MINE WORKERS AND THE OPERATORS. 

THE UNIFORM HIGH RATES OF PAY THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
WAGE AGREEMENT OF THE MINING INDUSTRY CONTEMPLATE THE EMPLOYEE'S
WORKING DAY BEGINNING WHEN HE ARRIVES AT HIS USUAL WORKING PLACE. 
HENCE, TRAVEL TIME WAS NEVER CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE AGREEMENT OR
OBLIGATION OF THE EMPLOYER TO PAY FOR IN THIS INDUSTRY, NOR AS HOURS
WORKED BY THE EMPLOYEES, AND THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE SINCE THE EIGHT
HOUR DAY WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE INDUSTRY - APRIL 1, 1898. 

IT IS URGED THAT ANY RULING REQUIRING SUCH A CHANGE IN THE CUSTOM,
TRADITION AND CONTRACT PROVISION SO AS TO CHANGE THE WORK DAY FROM
"SEVEN HOURS' WORK IN THE MINES AT THE USUAL WORKING PLACES" TO ANY NEW
STANDARD FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF TIME WORKED, AND TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF
WAGE RATES MADE NECESSARY THEREBY, WOULD CREATE SO MUCH CONFUSION IN
THE BITUMINOUS INDUSTRY AS TO RESULT IN COMPLETE CHAOS, AND WOULD
PROBABLY RESULT IN A COMPLETE STOPPAGE OF WORK AT PRACTICALLY ALL OF
THE COAL MINES IN THE UNITED STATES.  SUCH A RULING, MOREOVER, WOULD
ESTABLISH SUCH DIVERSITY OF TIME ACTUALLY SPENT AT PRODUCTIVE WORK AS
BETWEEN DIFFERENT BITUMINOUS COAL MINES AND WITHIN EACH MINE THAT THERE
WOULD BE NO BASIS ON WHICH ANY GENERAL WAGE SCALES COULD BE PREDICATED,
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WOULD THEREFORE BE RENDERED IMPOSSIBLE THROUGHOUT
THIS INDUSTRY, AND THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
WOULD BE DEFEATED.  IN SUCH AN EVENT, IT WOULD MAKE NECESSARY THE
REASSEMBLING OF THE APPALACHIAN JOINT WAGE CONFERENCE AND IT WOULD BE
FACED WITH AN ISSUE THAT WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE OF SOLUTION BY
AGREEMENT, RESULTING IN AN INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT THAT COULD PARALYZE THE
NATION.  THIS WOULD BE A MOST UNHAPPY RESULT TO FLOW FROM AN ACT THAT
WAS PASSED BY THE CONGRESS TO AID WORKERS IN INDUSTRIES THAT HAD
UNREASONABLY LONG HOURS AND UNREASONABLY LOW RATES OF PAY, AS
CONTRASTED WITH THE SHORT HOURS AND THE HIGH RATES OF PAY IN THE
BITUMINOUS COAL MINES.  THE GREAT AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED IN THE CASE
OF EXTRA PAYMENT BY THE OPERATORS OR THE GREAT CHANGES THAT WOULD BE
REQUIRED IN THE RATES OF PAY TO THE MINERS, SHOULD ANY CHANGE IN THE
PRESENT CONTRACT BE NECESSARY BY REASON OF A NEW STANDARD FOR THE
MEASUREMENT OF TIME WORKED, IS SO SERIOUS THAT A NEGOTIATED ADJUSTMENT
WOULD SEEM TO BE IMPOSSIBLE.    FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE BELIEVE
THAT YOUR DIVISION SHOULD ACCEPT THE STANDARDS OF WAGES AND HOURS OF
WORK, AND THE DEFINITION OF WORKING TIME, AS SET FORTH IN THE
APPALACHIAN AGREEMENT (WHICH EMBODIES THE CUSTOM AND TRADITIONS OF THE
BITUMINOUS MINING INDUSTRY), AS COMPLYING BOTH WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND OF INTERPRETIVE BULLETIN NO. 13, TO
THE EFFECT THAT "REASONABLE STANDARDS AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER
AND THE EMPLOYEE WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT." 

WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOUR DIVISION ISSUE A
SUPPLEMENT TO INTERPRETIVE BULLETIN NO. 13, STATING THAT THE STANDARD
OF WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK, AND DEFINITION OF WORKING TIME, SET FORTH
IN THE APPALACHIAN AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON MAY 12, 1940, BETWEEN
TWENTY-THREE DISTRICT ASSOCIATIONS OF BITUMINOUS COAL OPERATORS
COMPRISING THE APPALACHIAN COAL PRODUCING AREA AND THE INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND THE SEVERAL DISTRICT
AGREEMENTS BASED THEREON, CONFORM TO AND SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE WAGE & HOUR ACT. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 

FOR THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA:

                                 (S) EARL E. HOUCK,

                            DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 

FOR THE OPERATORS:

  (S) W. L. ROBISON, CHAIRMAN,

 (S) CHARLES O'NEILL,

                            (S) L. T. PUTNAM,

                            (S) L. C. GUNTER,

                            (S) J. D. A. MORROW,

  APPALACHIAN JOINT CONFERENCE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE. 

FN10  3 WAGE AND HOUR REP. 332, 333. 

FN11  53 F.SUPP.  941. 

FN12  9 WAR LAB.  REP.  118. 

FN13  11 WAR LAB.  REP.  687.
..END :










HOOVER CO. V. COE, 325 U.S. 79 


NO. 486.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 30, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
514, REVERSED. 


1.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF A SUIT UNDER R.S.
SEC. 4915 TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE PATENT
OFFICE REJECTING A CLAIM AS NOT READING ON THE DISCLOSURE IN THE
APPLICATION FOR A PATENT.  PP. 80, 83. 

JURISDICTION IS NOT DEFEATED BY THE FACT THAT AN ADJUDICATION
FAVORABLE TO THE APPLICANT MIGHT NOT CONCLUDE ALL POSSIBLE QUESTIONS AS
TO THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO A PATENT. 

2.  THE RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT IN SUCH CASE TO SUE UNDER R.S. SEC.
4915 IS SUPPORTED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, AND JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.  PP. 80,
84. 

3.  HILL V. WOOSTER, 132 U.S. 693, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 89. 

HOOVER COMPANY V. COE, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 697, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A SUIT AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS UNDER R.S. SEC.
4915. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER A DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION
OF A SUIT UNDER R.S. 4915 FN1 TO REVIEW THE REFUSAL OF A CLAIM FOR
PATENT AS NOT READING ON THE APPLICATION.  THE COURT BELOW ANSWERED IN
THE NEGATIVE. 

THE RESPONDENT CONFESSES ERROR.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, AND JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRAIN US TO HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT AND THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE
REVIEWED ITS DECISION UPON THE MERITS. 

JANUARY 10, 1941, THE PETITIONER'S ASSIGNOR FILED APPLICATION FOR A
REISSUE OF A PATENT GRANTED NOVEMBER 7, 1939, ON AN ORIGINAL
APPLICATION OF AUGUST 8, 1936.  THE ALLEGED INVENTION IS FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN A REFRIGERATING SYSTEM.  A NUMBER OF CLAIMS INCLUDED IN
THE APPLICATION FOR REISSUE WERE COPIED, OR SUBSTANTIALLY COPIED, FROM
SEVERAL LATER PATENTS, IN ORDER TO PROVOKE INTERFERENCES THEREWITH AND
A CONTEST AS TO PRIORITY OF INVENTION. 

THE PRIMARY EXAMINER FINALLY REJECTED FOUR OF THE CLAIMS, STATING
THAT THEY WERE REJECTED "AS NOT READING ON APPLICANT'S DISCLOSURE." 
THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE PATENT OFFICE AFFIRMED THE EXAMINER'S
DECISION.  THE PETITIONER THEN BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF
PATENTS UNDER R.S. 4915 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO COMPEL HIM TO ALLOW THE FOUR CLAIMS, TO THE
END THAT INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS MIGHT BE INSTITUTED.  THE CASE WAS
HEARD ON THE PATENT OFFICE RECORD AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.  THE COURT
ENTERED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIMS DID NOT READ ON, THAT IS, DID
NOT ACCURATELY DESCRIBE, THE DISCLOSURE IN THE APPLICATION. 

ON APPEAL THE COURT BELOW ON ITS OWN MOTION RAISED THE QUESTION
"WHETHER (R.S. 4915) CONFERS JURISDICTION ON THE DISTRICT COURT TO
ENTER A DECREE WHICH DOES NOT DETERMINE THE RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT TO
RECEIVE A PATENT BUT WHICH INSTEAD DIRECTS THE EXAMINER TO ALLOW CLAIMS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVOKING SUBSEQUENT INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS."  THE
PARTIES WERE HEARD UPON THIS QUESTION AND THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT, AND ON THAT GROUND
AFFIRMED ITS JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL.  FN2 

R.S. 4915 IS IN PART: 

"WHENEVER A PATENT ON APPLICATION IS REFUSED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS
OR WHENEVER ANY APPLICANT IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF INTERFERENCE EXAMINERS, THE APPLICANT, UNLESS APPEAL HAS BEEN
TAKEN TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS, AND
SUCH APPEAL IS PENDING OR HAS BEEN DECIDED, IN WHICH CASE NO ACTION MAY
BE BROUGHT UNDER THIS SECTION, MAY HAVE REMEDY BY BILL IN EQUITY, IF
FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER SUCH REFUSAL OR DECISION; AND THE COURT
HAVING COGNIZANCE THEREOF, ON NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES AND OTHER DUE
PROCEEDINGS HAD, MAY ADJUDGE THAT SUCH APPLICANT IS ENTITLED, ACCORDING
TO LAW, TO RECEIVE A PATENT FOR HIS INVENTION, AS SPECIFIED IN HIS
CLAIM OR FOR ANY PART THEREOF, AS THE FACTS IN THE CASE MAY APPEAR. 
AND SUCH ADJUDICATION, IF IT BE IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHT OF THE APPLICANT,
SHALL AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE SUCH PATENT ON THE APPLICANT
FILING IN THE PATENT OFFICE A COPY OF THE ADJUDICATION AND OTHERWISE
COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW.  IN ALL CASES WHERE THERE IS NO
OPPOSING PARTY A COPY OF THE BILL SHALL BE SERVED ON THE COMMISSIONER;
AND ALL THE EXPENSES OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT,
WHETHER THE FINAL DECISION IS IN HIS FAVOR OR NOT." 

THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT IN CONFORMITY TO THE GENERAL RULE, A COURT
OF EQUITY OUGHT NOT TO AFFORD PIECEMEAL RELIEF PENDING COMPLETION OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, AND CONSEQUENTLY OUGHT NOT TO ENTERTAIN A
SUIT UNDER THE STATUTE UNLESS ITS ADJUDICATION WOULD CONCLUDE ALL
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS AS TO THE RIGHT TO A PATENT. 

1.  ON ITS FACE THE STATUTE CONFERS THE RIGHT TO SUE "WHENEVER A
PATENT ON APPLICATION IS REFUSED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS."  THE PATENT
APPLIED FOR (THAT IS, THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION) WAS FINALLY REFUSED BY
THE BOARD OF APPEALS.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS, AND PETITIONER FILED ITS BILL WITHIN THE
TIME LIMITED IN THE SECTION. 

TWO MATTERS MAY BE NOTED RESPECTING R.S. 4915.  THESE ARE THE DENIAL
OF JURISDICTION IF APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS AND THE STATEMENT THAT ADJUDICATION IN FAVOR
OF THE APPLICANT SHALL AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE A PATENT. 
THESE PROVISIONS REQUIRE REFERENCE TO R.S. 4911, AS AMENDED.  THAT

"IF ANY APPLICANT IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF
APPEALS, HE MAY APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT
APPEALS, IN WHICH CASE HE WAIVES HIS RIGHT TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION
63(R.S. 4915) OF THIS TITLE.  IF ANY PARTY TO AN INTERFERENCE IS
DISSATISFIED.  WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF INTERFERENCE
EXAMINERS, HE MAY APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND
PATENT APPEALS:  PROVIDED, THAT SUCH APPEAL SHALL BE DISMISSED IF ANY
ADVERSE PARTY TO SUCH INTERFERENCE SHALL, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER THE
APPELLANT SHALL HAVE FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL ACCORDING TO SECTION 60 OF
THIS TITLE, FILE NOTICE WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS THAT HE ELECTS
TO HAVE ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION
63(R.S. 4915).  THEREUPON THE APPELLANT SHALL HAVE THIRTY DAYS
THEREAFTER WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A BILL IN EQUITY UNDER SAID SECTION
63(R.S. 4915), IN DEFAULT OF WHICH THE DECISIONS APPEALED FROM SHALL
GOVERN THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE." 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS OF REVIEW ARE ACCORDED AN
APPLICANT,  - ONE BY APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND
PATENT APPEALS, THE OTHER BY BILL IN EQUITY FILED IN ONE OF THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS.  IN THE FIRST THE HEARING IS SUMMARY AND SOLELY ON THE
RECORD MADE IN THE PATENT OFFICE; FN3  IN THE OTHER A FORMAL TRIAL IS
AFFORDED ON PROOF WHICH MAY INCLUDE EVIDENCE NOT PRESENTED IN THE
PATENT OFFICE.  FN4  EVERY PARTY ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A RULING ON THE
MERITS MAY, IF HE SO ELECT, PROCEED BY BILL RATHER THAN BY APPEAL.  IN
THE ONE CASE THE ADJUDICATION IN EQUITY AUTHORIZES ISSUE OF A PATENT ON
THE APPLICANT'S "OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW."  IN
THE OTHER THE DECISION "SHALL GOVERN THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE
CASE" IN THE PATENT OFFICE.  FN5 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DIFFERENCES IN THE CHARACTER OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND THE STATUTORY EFFECT OF DECISION OR ADJUDICATION
REQUIRE A HOLDING THAT AS TO ALL DECISIONS ON THE MERITS ADVERSE TO THE
APPLICANT, OTHER THAN THE FINAL ACTION AS TO THE ISSUE OF A PATENT, THE
APPLICANT MUST OBTAIN REVIEW BY APPEAL TO THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND
PATENT APPEALS, AND CAN PROCEED BY BILL UNDER R.S. 4915 ONLY WHEN EVERY
STEP REQUISITE TO ISSUE HAS BEEN TAKEN.  IF SO, THE LANGUAGE OF R.S.
4915 IS ILL CHOSEN.  "WHENEVER A PATENT ON APPLICATION IS REFUSED"
STATES PRECISELY THIS CASE.  THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION WAS REFUSED. 
"WHENEVER ANY APPLICANT IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD
OF INTERFERENCE EXAMINERS" STATES A CASE WHERE THE EXAMINER'S DECISION
MAY BE ONLY ONE OF A SERIES OF RULINGS IN THE PATENT OFFICE PRIOR TO
ISSUE OF A PATENT.  IT CAN HARDLY BE THAT THESE PHRASES HAVE NO EFFECT
AND ARE TO BE READ AS "WHENEVER, AFTER ALL ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS ARE
COMPLETE AND A PATENT IS ABOUT TO ISSUE, ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED MAY HAVE
REMEDY BY BILL IN EQUITY."  IF THAT BE THE CORRECT CONSTRUCTION, ONE
FINALLY DENIED A PATENT COULD NOT RESORT TO THE SPECIFIED REMEDY,
SINCE, EVEN IF HIS CONTENTION WERE SUSTAINED, HE MIGHT THEREAFTER HAVE
TO LEAP THE HURDLES IN THE PATENT OFFICE OF INTERFERENCES, LATER
REFERENCES, AND OTHER OBSTACLES TO PATENTABILITY. 

ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTES THE APPLICANT IS GIVEN ALTERNATIVE
REMEDIES RESULTING IN THE SAME SORT OF RELIEF SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE
FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE APPLICATION IN THE PATENT OFFICE. 

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CONFIRMS THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS SO
INTENDED. 

THAT HISTORY CANNOT BE STATED BRIEFLY.  IT HAS ITS ORIGIN IN THE
PATENT ACT OF 1836  FN6  WHICH AFFORDED AN APPLICANT AGGRIEVED BY A
RULING OF THE COMMISSIONER AN APPEAL TO A BOARD OF EXAMINERS.  FN7  BY
A LATER SECTION IT WAS PROVIDED THAT "WHENEVER A PATENT ON APPLICATION
SHALL HAVE BEEN REFUSED ON AN ADVERSE DECISION OF A BOARD OF EXAMINERS,
ON THE GROUND THAT THE PATENT APPLIED FOR WOULD INTERFERE WITH AN
UNEXPIRED PATENT," THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE REMEDY BY BILL IN EQUITY;
AND THE COURT MIGHT ADJUDGE THE APPLICANT ENTITLED TO A PATENT,
ACCORDING TO HIS CLAIM OR ANY PART OF IT.  ADJUDICATION FAVORABLE TO
THE APPLICANT WAS TO "AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE SUCH PATENT"
ON THE APPLICANT'S FILING A COPY OF THE ADJUDICATION "AND OTHERWISE
COMPLYING WITH THE REQUISITIONS OF THIS ACT."  FN8  IT WILL BE NOTED
THAT A BILL MIGHT BE FILED UNDER THIS STATUTE ONLY WHERE THE REJECTION
OF A CLAIM WAS FOR INTERFERENCE WITH AN OUTSTANDING PATENT.  BY THE ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1837,  FN9  THE SAME REMEDY WAS AFFORDED AN APPLICANT FOR
PATENT FOR AN IMPROVEMENT OR FOR "CORRECTION AND RE-ISSUE." 

BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1839,  FN10  THE SAME REMEDY WAS EXTENDED "TO
ALL CASES WHERE PATENTS ARE REFUSED FOR ANY REASON WHATEVER, EITHER BY
THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS OR BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, UPON APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF SAID COMMISSIONER," AS WELL
AS WHERE THE REFUSAL WAS BASED ON ASSERTED INTERFERENCE.  THE REASON
FOR ADDING THE PHRASE CONCERNING THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS
THAT, BY SEC. 11  FN11  OF THE SAME ACT, A SUMMARY APPEAL ON THE PATENT
OFFICE RECORD TO THIS JUDICIAL OFFICER WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE FORMER
APPEAL TO A BOARD OF EXAMINERS GIVEN BY THE ACT OF 1836.  FN12 

THUS A DISTRICT COURT MIGHT SET ASIDE, ON BILL FILED, ANY RULING
REFUSING A PATENT, EITHER ON INTERFERENCE OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER THE
RULING WERE THAT OF THE PATENT OFFICE OR OF A JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON APPEAL FROM THE PATENT OFFICE
DECISION. 

THE ACT OF JULY 8, 1870,  FN13  AMENDED, REVISED, AND CONSOLIDATED
EXISTING LAW.  IN SEC. 48 FN14  IT ENACTED THAT IN EX PARTE CASES AN
APPLICANT FOR PATENT OR REISSUE WHOSE CLAIMS HAD BEEN TWICE REJECTED
MIGHT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE
HEARING WAS TO BE SUMMARY, TO BE ON THE OFFICE RECORD, AND THE DECISION
WAS "TO GOVERN THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE."  FN15  IN SEC. 52
IT PROVIDED THAT WHENEVER A PATENT ON APPLICATION "IS REFUSED, FOR ANY
REASON WHATEVER," EITHER BY THE COMMISSIONER OR BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE DISTRICT UPON APPEAL, THE REMEDY BY BILL IN EQUITY SHOULD BE
AVAILABLE.  THE ADJUDICATION WAS TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUE OF A PATENT ON
THE APPLICANT'S FILING A COPY IN THE PATENT OFFICE "AND OTHERWISE
COMPLYING WITH THE REQUISITIONS OF LAW."  THIS STATUTE WAS CONSTRUED TO
REQUIRE AN APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT SUPREME COURT AS A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A BILL IN EQUITY.  FN16 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1870 WERE CODIFIED IN THE REVISED
STATUTES OF 1873.  FN17  IN THE PROCESS THE WORDS "FOR ANY REASON
WHATEVER" WERE DELETED FROM SEC. 52, WHICH BECAME R.S. 4915.  THE
OMISSION WAS EVIDENTLY BECAUSE THE WORDS WERE SURPLUSAGE, SINCE THE
PURPOSE OF THE REVISERS WAS NOT "TO ATTEMPT ANY CHANGE WHATEVER IN THE
EXISTING LAW" EXCEPT "MERE CHANGES OF PHRASEOLOGY NOT AFFECTING THE
MEANING OF THE LAW."  FN18 

BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 9, 1893  FN19  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS CREATED AND JURISDICTION OF SUMMARY APPEALS
FROM PATENT OFFICE RULINGS WAS TRANSFERRED TO THAT COURT.  THUS THE
REMEDY BY BILL IN EQUITY WAS NOW TO BE PURSUED IN A DISTRICT COURT ONLY
AFTER AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT HAD RESULTED
ADVERSELY TO THE APPLICANT; AND AN ADJUDICATION IN THE EQUITY SUIT WAS
SUBJECTED TO REVIEW ON APPEAL. 

SO MATTERS STOOD UNTIL THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1927.  FN20
IN THE HEARINGS ON THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE STATUTE, IT WAS PROPOSED
THAT CONGRESS ELIMINATE EITHER THE APPEAL OR THE BILL IN EQUITY, SOME
INTERESTED PARTIES SUGGESTING ABOLITION OF THE ONE REMEDY, OTHERS
ADVOCATING DROPPING THE OTHER.  CONGRESS DECIDED NOT TO DO AWAY WITH
EITHER, BUT TO ALLOW AN APPLICANT "TO HAVE THE DECISION OF THE PATENT
OFFICE REVIEWED EITHER BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OR BY FILING A BILL IN
EQUITY, BUT NOT BOTH."  FN21  IT IS EVIDENT THAT NO ALTERATION IN
RESPECT OF THE RULINGS WHICH COULD BE REVIEWED WAS INTENDED; BUT THE
NUMBER OF POSSIBLE APPEALS WAS TO BE REDUCED, WHILE SAVING TO LITIGANTS
THE OPTION OF PRODUCING NEW EVIDENCE IN A COURT, BY RETAINING THE
EQUITY PROCEDURE.  FN22    FINALLY, THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929  FN23
TRANSFERRED FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT TO THE COURT OF
CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS JURISDICTION OF APPEALS FROM THE PATENT
OFFICE, BUT EX INDUSTRIA PROVIDED "NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT SHALL
BE CONSTRUED AS AFFECTING IN ANY WAY THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN EQUITY CASES."  THIS WAS OF
COURSE TO MAKE IT PLAIN THAT SUITS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHOULD BE APPEALABLE AS ARE SUITS UNDER R.S. 4915
INSTITUTED IN DISTRICT COURTS IN CIRCUITS OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT. 

THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THROUGHOUT MORE THAN A CENTURY CONGRESS HAS FOR
CORRECTION OF ERRONEOUS ADVERSE RULINGS, WHICH IF UNREVERSED WOULD END
THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PATENT OFFICE, PRESERVED THE REMEDY BY BILL IN A
DISTRICT COURT EITHER AS ADDITIONAL TO OR ALTERNATIVE TO THAT BY
SUMMARY APPEAL AND HAS MADE THE EFFECT OF ADJUDICATION IN EQUITY THE
SAME AS THAT OF DECISION ON APPEAL. 

3.  THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS STATES THAT "WHEN CLAIMS ARE FINALLY
REJECTED BY THE EXAMINER AND HIS ACTION IS AFFIRMED BY THE BOARD OF
APPEALS, THE GROUNDS THEN STATED FOR SUCH REJECTION, AS WELL AS ANY
OTHER GROUNDS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, MAY BE SET UP BY THIS OFFICE IN
ANSWER TO A SUBSEQUENT SUIT BY THE APPLICANT UNDER REV. STAT. 4915.  IF
THE ADJUDICATION BY THE COURT IS FAVORABLE TO THE APPLICANT, IT IS THE
PRACTICE OF THIS OFFICE TO TREAT THAT JUDGMENT AS CONCLUSIVE WITH
RESPECT TO ANY GROUND OF REJECTION URGED BEFORE THE COURT IN DEFENSE OF
THE REFUSAL TO ALLOW THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE.  IN THE USUAL CASE, FOLLOWING
SUCH ADJUDICATION, THE APPLICATION IS ALLOWED AND, UPON PAYMENT OF THE
PRESCRIBED FEE, THE PATENT IS ISSUED.  HOWEVER, IN RARE INSTANCES
WHERE, AFTER TERMINATION OF THE SUIT, A NEW REFERENCE IS DISCOVERED
WHICH SHOWS LACK OF PATENTABILITY OF THE CLAIMS FOR A REASON NOT
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT, THIS OFFICE CONSIDERS ITSELF UNDER A DUTY TO
REJECT THE CLAIMS ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED GROUND, AND TO REFUSE A
PATENT ON THOSE CLAIMS UNLESS THE APPLICANT CAN OVERCOME THE NEW GROUND
OF REJECTION.  SIMILARLY, IF ANOTHER APPLICANT OR A PATENTEE IS
CLAIMING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER AS THAT HELD PATENTABLE
IN THE REV. STAT. 4915 SUIT AND A QUESTION OF PRIORITY ARISES,
INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE NECESSARY UNDER REV. STAT. 4904 TO
DETERMINE WHICH OF THE ADVERSE CLAIMANTS IS THE FIRST INVENTOR....  THE
FOREGOING IS BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE OF THIS
OFFICE FOR MANY YEARS." 

4.  THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY INDICATED A VIEW OF THE MEANING OF R.S.
4915 WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION BELOW,  FN24  ALTHOUGH THE
EXACT QUESTION HERE PRESENTED WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CASES UNDER
ADJUDICATION.  THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY CONSTRUED THE
FROM THAT AT BAR.  FN25  THEY HAVE SO HELD IN CASES WHERE IT
AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARED THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE PATENT OFFICE
WOULD BE NECESSARY FOLLOWING ADJUDICATION IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT,
FN26  AND WHERE THOUGH IT DID NOT APPEAR OF RECORD THAT FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE PATENT OFFICE, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT
THEY MIGHT ENSUE ADJUDICATION, AS WHERE A PATENT WAS DENIED FOR WANT OF
INVENTION.  FN27 AND, WHERE AN APPLICANT HAS SUCCEEDED IN A BILL FILED
UNDER R.S. 4915, THE COURTS HAVE NOT QUESTIONED THE POWER OF THE PATENT
OFFICE SUBSEQUENTLY TO DISALLOW THE CLAIMS FOR WANT OF INVENTION OVER A
NEWLY DISCOVERED REFERENCE TO THE PRIOR ART. FN28 

THE COURT BELOW RELIED UPON HILL V. WOOSTER, 132 U.S. 693, FOR ITS
HOLDING THAT A SUIT UNDER R.S. 4915 CANNOT SELECT A SINGLE ISSUE WHICH
AFFECTS THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO A PATENT, WITHOUT DETERMINING ALL THE
OTHER ISSUES ON WHICH THAT RIGHT DEPENDS.  THAT CASE WAS ONE IN WHICH
THE COMMISSIONER HAD DECIDED AN INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLAIMS OF TWO
APPLICANTS IN FAVOR OF ONE OF THEM, AND ORDERED THAT A PATENT ISSUE. 
IN AN INTER PARTES SUIT BY THE UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICANT AGAINST THE
SUCCESSFUL ONE, THIS COURT HELD THAT IF IT APPEARED THAT NEITHER
APPLICATION DISCLOSED INVENTION (A MATTER WHICH SHOULD HAVE MOVED THE
COMMISSIONER NOT TO DECLARE AN INTERFERENCE) THE BILL SHOULD BE
DISMISSED.  FN29  THE COURT DID NOT PURPORT TO DECIDE WHAT PATENT
OFFICE RULINGS ARE REVIEWABLE UNDER R.S. 4915.  FN30 

THE RULING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS NEITHER A
PROCEDURAL RULING  FN31 NOR AN INTERLOCUTORY ONE  FN32  AS TO WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT ENTERTAIN A SUIT UNDER R.S. 4915.  ON THE
CONTRARY, IT FINALLY DENIED A PATENT ON THE CLAIMS PRESENTED.  IN THIS
RESPECT IT WAS LIKE A DISMISSAL OF A SUIT IN A COURT.  UNLESS THE
APPLICANT COULD SUE TO CORRECT ERROR IN THAT DISMISSAL, HE COULD NEVER
SUE UNDER R.S. 4915.  THAT HE WAS ACCORDED A RIGHT OF SUIT IN THIS CASE
THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, ITS HISTORY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION AND JUDICIAL DECISION UNITE IN AFFIRMING. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  35 U.S.C. SEC. 63. 

FN2  144 F.2D 514. 

FN3  SEE R.S. 4914, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 62. 

FN4  BUTTERWORTH V. HOE, 112 U.S. 50, 61. 

FN5  R.S. 4911, SUPRA. 

FN6  5 STAT. 117. 

FN7  SEC. 7, 5 STAT. 119-120. 

FN8  SEC. 16, 5 STAT. 123. 

FN9  5 STAT. 191. 

FN10  SEC. 10, 5 STAT. 354. 

FN11  5 STAT. 354. 

FN12  BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 30, 1852, 10 STAT. 75, SUCH SUMMARY APPEAL
MIGHT BE HEARD BY ANY JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

FN13  16 STAT. 198. 

FN14  16 STAT. 205. 

FN15  SEC. 50, 16 STAT. 205. 

FN16  KIRK V. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS (1886), C.D. 440; FEKETE V.
ROBERTSON, 17 F.2D 335; COOPER V. ROBERTSON, 38 F.2D 852. 

FN17  THE RELEVANT SECTIONS ARE 4911-15 INCLUSIVE. 

FN18  2 CONG. REC. 646. 

FN19  27 STAT. 434, 436. 

FN20  44 STAT. 1335. 

FN21  H.R. NO. 1889, PP. 2-3; S.R. NO. 1313, P. 4, 69TH CONG., 2D
SESS. 

FN22  SEE H.R. 1889, SUPRA, P. 3; HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
PATENTS, ON H.R. 6552 AND H.R. 7087, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 21-22;
HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS, ON H.R. 7563 AND H.R. 13487, 69TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 11; HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS, ON S.
4812, 69TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 15; HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, ON H.R. 6687, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PASSIM; CF. HEARINGS,
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS, ON H.R. 7563 AND H.R. 13487, 69TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 31; HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS, ON H.R. 6252 AND
H.R. 7087, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 79. 

FN23  45 STAT. 1475. 

FN24  GANDY V. MARBLE, 122 U.S. 432, 439; IN RE HIEN, 166 U.S. 432,
439; FRASCH V. MOORE, 211 U.S. 1, 8-9; AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V.
ROBERTSON, 262 U.S. 209, 212-213; UNITED STATES EX REL. BALDWIN CO. V.
ROBERTSON, 265 U.S. 168, 180-181. 

FN25  DILG V. MOORE, 34 APP. D.C. 106; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
V. COE, 89 F.2D 679; PITMAN V. COE, 68 F.2D 412; POWER PATENTS CO. V.
COE, 110 F.2D 550; TULLY V. ROBERTSON, 19 F.2D 954; MONOPOWER CORP. V.
COE, 33 F.SUPP.  934; BOOTH FISHERIES CORP. V. COE, 114 F.2D 462;
FORWARD PROCESS CO. V. COE, 116 F.2D 946. 

FN26  PITMAN V. COE, SUPRA; INTERNATIONAL CELLUCOTTON CO. V. COE, 85
F.2D 869; AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. V. COE, 106 F.2D 851. 

FN27  AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. COE, 105 F.2D 17; ABERCROMBIE V.
COE, 119 F.2D 458; GENERAL MOTORS CORP. V. COE, 120 F.2D 736; RADTKE
PATENTS CORP. V. COE, 122 F.2D 937; HYDRAULIC PRESS CORP. V. COE, 124
F.2D 521; MINNESOTA MINING & MFG. CO. V. COE, 125 F.2D 198; POULSEN V.
MCDOWELL, 142 F.2D 267. 

FN28  GOLD V. NEWTON, 254 F. 824. 

FN29  SECTION 16 OF THE ACT OF 1836, 5 STAT. 123, SUPRA, EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED THAT UPON A BILL FILED AS A RESULT OF PATENT OFFICE DECISION
ON AN INTERFERENCE THE COURT MIGHT ADJUDGE EITHER OF THE PATENTS VOID
IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  THIS LANGUAGE WAS EVIDENTLY OMITTED IN LATER ACTS
AS SURPLUSAGE, FOR OBVIOUSLY IF EITHER PATENT WAS VOID FOR LACK OF
INVENTION OR OTHER CAUSE, THE QUESTION OF INTERFERENCE DISAPPEARED. 

FN30  THIS IS EQUALLY TRUE OF RADTKE PATENTS CORP. V. COE, 122 F.2D
937, ON WHICH THE COURT BELOW RELIED. 

FN31  BUTTERWORTH V. HOE, 112 U.S. 50; SHOEMAKER V. ROBERTSON, 54
F.2D 456; CHESSIN V. ROBERTSON, 63 F.2D 267; CHERRY-BURRELL CORP. V.
COE, 143 F.2D 372. 

FN32  AMERICAN CABLE CO. V. JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS CO., 65 F.2D 801;
SYNTHETIC PLASTICS CO. V. ELLIS-FOSTER CO., 78 F.2D 847. 
..END :























CORN PRODUCTS CO. V. COMM'N, 324 U.S. 726 


NO. 680.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, MARCH 1, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1945. 
- 144 F.2D 211, AFFIRMED. 


1.  BY PETITIONERS' BASING-POINT SYSTEM OF PRICING IN THEIR SALES OF
GLUCOSE, THEIR PRODUCT WAS SOLD AT DELIVERED PRICES COMPUTED BY ADDING
TO A BASE PRICE AT CHICAGO THE PUBLISHED FREIGHT TARIFF FROM CHICAGO TO
THE DELIVERY POINTS, EVEN THOUGH DELIVERIES WERE IN FACT MADE FROM
THEIR KANSAS CITY FACTORY AS WELL AS FROM THEIR CHICAGO FACTORY.  ON
SHIPMENTS FROM KANSAS CITY, THE DELIVERED PRICE TO THE PURCHASER THUS
DEPENDED NOT ONLY ON THE BASE PRICE PLUS THE ACTUAL FREIGHT FROM KANSAS
CITY, BUT ALSO UPON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL FREIGHT PAID AND
THE FREIGHT RATE FROM CHICAGO.  HELD: 

(A)  THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS RESULTING FROM PETITIONERS' BASING
POINT SYSTEM VIOLATED SEC. 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED.  PP.
732, 737. 

(A)  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN BUYERS
AT THE SAME POINTS OF DELIVERY.  P. 734. 

(B)  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CLAYTON ACT
OR THE AMENDATORY ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT WHICH CONFINES THEIR APPLICATION
TO DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN BUYERS AT THE SAME DESTINATION.  P. 734. 

(C)  THE CONTENTION THAT BASING-POINT SYSTEMS WERE WELL KNOWN PRIOR
TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT AND WERE CONSIDERED BY
CONGRESS TO BE LEGAL, AND THAT THEIR LEGALITY SHOULD BE SUSTAINED IN
THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR COMMAND TO THE CONTRARY, IS REJECTED.  P. 734. 

(D)  MAPLE FLOORING ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563, AND CEMENT
MANUFACTURERS ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588, DISTINGUISHED.  P.
735. 

(B) THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONERS' DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE
HAVE THE EFFECT ON COMPETITION WHICH BRINGS THE DISCRIMINATIONS WITHIN
THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE ACT.  P. 738. 

(A)  UNDER SEC. 2(A) DISCRIMINATIONS NEED NOT IN FACT HAVE HAD A
"SUBSTANTIALLY" ADVERSE EFFECT ON COMPETITION; IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT
THEY "MAY" HAVE THAT EFFECT.  P. 738. 

(B)  THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACTS PROVEN OR STIPULATED,
AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM, ARE FOR THE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE, NOT THE COURTS.  P. 739. 

2.  PETITIONERS ALSO VIOLATED SEC. 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS
AMENDED, BY PERMITTING CERTAIN FAVORED CUSTOMERS TO SECURE OPTIONS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF GLUCOSE, AND TO TAKE DELIVERY AT THE FORMER LOWER
PRICES, FOR PERIODS LONGER THAN THOSE USUALLY PERMITTED TO OTHER
CUSTOMERS; AND BY PERMITTING CERTAIN TANK WAGON CUSTOMERS TO BOOK
ORDERS AT THE LOWER PRICES CHARGED FOR TANK CAR DELIVERIES AND TO TAKE
DELIVERIES BY TANK WAGON OVER EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME.  P. 740. 

(A)  EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE PRACTICES PROHIBITED BY SEC. 2(A) ARE
DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE AND NOT IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE
OTHER THAN PRICE, THE PRESENT DISCRIMINATIONS IN THE TERMS OF SALE
OPERATED TO PERMIT THE FAVORED CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE AT A LOWER PRICE
THAN OTHER CUSTOMERS, SO THAT THEIR ONLY PRACTICAL EFFECT WAS TO
ESTABLISH DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE, PRECISELY THE EVIL AT WHICH THE
STATUTE WAS AIMED.  P. 740. 

(B)  SECTION 2(A) APPLIES TO INDIRECT AS WELL AS DIRECT
DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE.  P. 740. 

(C)  PETITIONERS FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE
PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE GRANTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THE
"EQUALLY LOW" PRICES OF COMPETITORS AND THAT THEY WERE THEREFORE
EXCEPTED FROM THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT BY THE
PROVISO OF SUBSECTION (B) OF SEC. 2 OF THAT ACT.  P. 741. 

(D)  THE STIPULATED FACTS SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE
PRACTICES IN QUESTION HAVE THE EFFECT ON COMPETITION WHICH BRINGS THEM
WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE ACT.  P. 741. 

3.  THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WHICH RESULTED FROM PETITIONERS'
ALLOWANCE OF DISCOUNTS TO CERTAIN FAVORED PURCHASERS OF GLUTEN FEED AND
MEAL, BY-PRODUCTS OF PETITIONERS' REFINING OF CORN, AND ALLOWANCE OF
DISCOUNTS TO CERTAIN FAVORED PURCHASERS OF STARCH AND STARCH PRODUCTS,
VIOLATED SEC. 2(A).  P. 742. 

(A)  THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS MUST IN
FACT HAVE HARMED COMPETITION, BUT ONLY THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE
POSSIBILITY THAT THEY "MAY" HAVE SUCH AN EFFECT.  P. 742. 

(B)  FROM THE EVIDENCE IT WAS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE COMMISSION TO INFER
THAT THESE DISCRIMINATORY ALLOWANCES WERE A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO
COMPETITION.  P. 742. 

4.  PETITIONERS' ARRANGEMENT WITH THE CURTISS COMPANY FOR ADVERTISING
DEXTROSE, ON TERMS NOT PROPORTIONALLY ACCORDED OTHER PURCHASERS,
VIOLATED SEC. 2(E) OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  P. 743. 

(A)  THE ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE WITH THE CURTISS COMPANY AS A
"PURCHASER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT THE DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF ONE PURCHASER AGAINST
ANOTHER SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR IN A PURCHASE CONTRACT OR BE REQUIRED BY
IT.  IT IS ENOUGH IF THE DISCRIMINATION BE MADE IN FAVOR OF ONE WHO IS
A PURCHASER AND DENIED TO ANOTHER PURCHASER OR OTHER PURCHASERS OF THE
COMMODITY.  P. 743. 

(B)  THE CURTISS COMPANY, WHICH PURCHASED DEXTROSE FROM PETITIONERS
AND CONVERTED IT WITH OTHER INGREDIENTS INTO CANDY WHICH IT SOLD, WAS A
PURCHASER OF A COMMODITY BOUGHT FOR "RESALE," AFTER "PROCESSING,"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  P. 744. 

(C)  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF THE
CURTISS COMPANY WAS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SALES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  P. 745. 

(D)  THE ADVERTISING FURNISHED BY PETITIONERS WAS A SERVICE OR
FACILITY "CONNECTED WITH THE PROCESSING  ...  SALE, OR OFFERING FOR
SALE" OF THE COMMODITY PURCHASED BY THE CURTISS COMPANY UPON TERMS NOT
ACCORDED TO OTHER PURCHASERS.  P. 745. 

CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. ET AL. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 706, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS, A PARENT CORPORATION AND ITS SALES SUBSIDIARY, USE A
BASING POINT SYSTEM OF PRICING IN THEIR SALES OF GLUCOSE.  THEY SELL
ONLY AT DELIVERED PRICES, COMPUTED BY ADDING TO A BASE PRICE AT CHICAGO
THE PUBLISHED FREIGHT TARIFF FROM CHICAGO TO THE SEVERAL POINTS OF
DELIVERY, EVEN THOUGH DELIVERIES ARE IN FACT MADE FROM THEIR FACTORY AT
KANSAS CITY AS WELL AS FROM THEIR CHICAGO FACTORY.  CONSEQUENTLY THERE
IS INCLUDED IN THE DELIVERED PRICE ON SHIPMENTS FROM KANSAS CTY AN
AMOUNT OF "FREIGHT" WHICH USUALLY DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO FREIGHT
ACTUALLY PAID BY PETITIONERS. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INSTITUTED THIS PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 11
OF THE CLAYTON ACT, C. 323, 38 STAT. 730, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 21, CHARGING
THAT PETITIONERS' USE OF THIS SINGLE BASING POINT SYSTEM RESULTED IN
DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF THE GLUCOSE,
AND VIOLATED SEC. 2(A) OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 1 OF THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT, C. 592, 49 STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13.  THE COMPLAINT
ALSO CHARGED PETITIONERS WITH OTHER DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICES, OR IN
SERVICES RENDERED TO FAVORED CUSTOMERS, WHICH WILL PRESENTLY BE STATED
IN DETAIL, ALL IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(A) OR SEC. 2(E) OF THE CLAYTON
ACT, AS AMENDED. 


"(A)  ...  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
..., EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN
DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES OF LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY,  ...
WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN
COMPETITION OR TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF COMMERCE, OR TO
INJURE, DESTROY, OR PREVENT COMPETITION WITH ANY PERSON WHO EITHER
GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION, OR
WITH CUSTOMERS OF EITHER OF THEM:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING HEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT DIFFERENTIALS WHICH MAKE ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR
DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR DELIVERY RESULTING
FROM THE DIFFERING METHODS OR QUANTITIES IN WHICH SUCH COMMODITIES ARE
TO SUCH PURCHASERS SOLD OR DELIVERED  ..." 

AFTER HEARINGS, AT WHICH MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE WAS STIPULATED, THE
COMMISSION MADE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT.  IT CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONERS
HAD VIOLATED SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ORDERED THEM TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH VIOLATIONS.  ON PETITION TO REVIEW THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT SUSTAINED THE ORDER, EXCEPT IN PARTICULARS NOT MATERIAL HERE. 
144 F.2D 211. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 706, BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED
ARE OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT IN VIEW OF
THE WIDESPREAD USE OF BASING POINT PRICE SYSTEMS.  THE PRINCIPAL
QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE WHETHER, WHEN SHIPMENTS ARE MADE FROM KANSAS
CITY, PETITIONERS' BASING POINT SYSTEM RESULTS IN DISCRIMINATIONS IN
PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF GLUCOSE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 2(A); AND, IF SO, WHETHER THERE IS SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
FINDING OF THE COMMISSION THAT THESE DISCRIMINATIONS HAVE THE EFFECT ON
COMPETITION DEFINED BY THAT SECTION.  FURTHER QUESTIONS ARE RAISED AS
TO WHETHER THE OTHER DISCRIMINATIONS CHARGED VIOLATE SEC. 2(A) AND SEC.
2(E). 

            I. BASING POINT PRACTICES. 

THE EVIDENCE AS TO PETITIONERS' BASING POINT SYSTEM FOR THE SALE OF
GLUCOSE WAS STIPULATED.  THE COMMISSION FOUND FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT
PETITIONERS HAVE TWO PLANTS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF GLUCOSE OR CORN
SYRUP, ONE AT ARGO, ILLINOIS, WITHIN THE CHICAGO SWITCHING DISTRICT,
AND THE OTHER AT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.  THE CHICAGO PLANT HAS BEEN IN
OPERATION SINCE 1910, AND THAT AT KANSAS CITY SINCE 1922.  PETITIONERS'
BULK SALES OF GLUCOSE ARE AT DELIVERED PRICES, WHICH ARE COMPUTED,
WHETHER THE SHIPMENTS ARE FROM CHICAGO OR KANSAS CITY, AT PETITIONERS'
CHICAGO PRICES, PLUS THE FREIGHT RATE FROM CHICAGO TO THE PLACE OF
DELIVERY.  THUS PURCHASERS IN ALL PLACES OTHER THAN CHICAGO PAY A
HIGHER PRICE THAN DO CHICAGO PURCHASERS.  AND IN THE CASE OF ALL
SHIPMENTS FROM KANSAS CITY TO PURCHASERS IN CITIES HAVING A LOWER
FREIGHT RATE FROM KANSAS CITY THAN FROM CHICAGO, THE DELIVERED PRICE
INCLUDES UNEARNED OR "PHANTOM" FREIGHT, TO THE EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCE
IN FREIGHT RATES.  CONVERSELY, WHEN THE FREIGHT FROM KANSAS CITY TO THE
POINT OF DELIVERY IS MORE THAN THAT FROM CHICAGO, PETITIONERS MUST
"ABSORB" FREIGHT UPON SHIPMENTS FROM KANSAS CITY, TO THE EXTENT OF THE
DIFFERENCE IN FREIGHT. 

THE COMMISSION ILLUSTRATED THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM BY
PETITIONERS' DELIVERED PRICES FOR GLUCOSE IN BULK IN TWELVE WESTERN AND
SOUTHWESTERN CITIES, TO WHICH SHIPMENTS WERE USUALLY MADE FROM KANSAS
CITY.  ON AUGUST 1, 1939, THE FREIGHT RATES TO THESE POINTS OF DELIVERY
FROM CHICAGO WERE FOUND TO EXCEED THOSE FROM KANSAS CITY BY FROM 4 TO
40 CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS, AND TO THAT EXTENT THE DELIVERED PRICES
INCLUDED UNEARNED OR PHANTOM FREIGHT.  AS PETITIONERS' CHICAGO PRICE
WAS THEN $2.09 PER HUNDRED POUNDS, THIS PHANTOM FREIGHT FACTOR WITH
RESPECT TO DELIVERIES TO THESE TWELVE CITIES REPRESENTED FROM 2 TO 19%
OF THE CHICAGO BASE PRICE.  FROM THIS IT FOLLOWS, AS WILL PRESENTLY BE
SEEN, THAT PETITIONERS' NET RETURN AT THEIR KANSAS CITY FACTORY ON
SALES TO THESE TWELVE CITIES, IN EFFECT THEIR F.O.B. FACTORY PRICE,
VARIED ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF PHANTOM FREIGHT INCLUDED IN THE
DELIVERED PRICE. 

MUCH OF PETITIONERS' GLUCOSE IS SOLD TO CANDY MANUFACTURERS, WHO ARE
IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER IN THE SALE OF THEIR CANDY.  GLUCOSE IS
THE PRINCIPAL INGREDIENT IN MANY VARIETIES OF LOW-PRICED CANDIES, WHICH
ARE SOLD ON NARROW MARGINS OF PROFIT.  CUSTOMERS FOR SUCH CANDIES MAY
BE DIVERTED FROM ONE MANUFACTURER TO ANOTHER BY A DIFFERENCE IN PRICE
OF A SMALL FRACTION OF A CENT PER POUND. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE HIGHER PRICES PAID FOR GLUCOSE
PURCHASED FROM PETITIONERS BY CANDY MANUFACTURERS LOCATED IN CITIES
OTHER THAN CHICAGO, RESULT IN VARYING DEGREE IN HIGHER COSTS OF
PRODUCING THE CANDIES.  THE DEGREE IN EACH INSTANCE VARIES WITH THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE DELIVERED PRICE OF THE GLUCOSE, AND THE PROPORTION OF
GLUCOSE IN THE PARTICULAR CANDY.  MANUFACTURERS WHO PAY UNEARNED OR
PHANTOM FREIGHT UNDER PETITIONERS' BASING POINT SYSTEM NECESSARILY PAY
RELATIVELY HIGHER COSTS FOR THEIR RAW MATERIAL THAN DO THOSE
MANUFACTURERS WHOSE LOCATION WITH RELATION TO THE BASING POINT IS SUCH
THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO PURCHASE AT THE BASE PRICE PLUS ONLY THE FREIGHT
ACTUALLY PAID.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PAYMENT OF THESE
INCREASED PRICES IMPOSED BY THE BASING POINT SYSTEM "MAY  ...
DIMINISH" THE MANUFACTURERS' ABILITY TO COMPETE WITH THOSE BUYERS AT
LOWER PRICES. 

THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED FROM THESE FACTS THAT PETITIONERS' BASING
POINT SYSTEM RESULTED IN DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE AMONG PURCHASERS OF
GLUCOSE, AND THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO
COMPETITION AMONG SUCH PURCHASERS.  PETITIONERS CHALLENGE EACH
CONCLUSION. 

FIRST.  SECTION 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED, MAKES IT
UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, "EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO
DISCRIMINATE IN PRICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES OF
LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY  ..."  THE STATUTE PERMITS DIFFERENTIALS "WHICH
MAKE ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF MANUFACTURE,
SALE, OR DELIVERY  ..." 

PETITIONERS' PRICING SYSTEM RESULTS INEVITABLY IN SYSTEMATIC PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS, SINCE THE PRICES THEY RECEIVE UPON DELIVERIES FROM
KANSAS CITY BEAR RELATION TO FACTORS OTHER THAN ACTUAL COSTS OF
PRODUCTION OR DELIVERY.  AS IN THE CASE OF THE TWELVE CITIES SELECTED
BY THE COMMISSION FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES, THE FREIGHT ACTUALLY PAID
BY PETITIONERS IN MAKING DELIVERIES USUALLY VARIES FROM THE FREIGHT
FACTOR FROM CHICAGO, USED IN COMPUTING THE DELIVERED PRICE.  WHEN THE
ACTUAL FREIGHT IS THE LESSER OF THE TWO, PETITIONERS CHARGE AND COLLECT
UNEARNED OR PHANTOM FREIGHT; WHEN IT IS THE GREATER, PETITIONERS ABSORB
THE EXCESS FREIGHT, WHICH THEY PAY, BUT DO NOT INCLUDE IN THE
COMPUTATION OF THEIR DELIVERED PRICE. 

IN EITHER EVENT, ON SHIPMENTS FROM KANSAS CITY, THE DELIVERED PRICE
TO THE PURCHASER DEPENDS NOT ONLY ON THE BASE PRICE PLUS THE ACTUAL
FREIGHT FROM KANSAS CITY, BUT ALSO UPON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
ACTUAL FREIGHT PAID AND THE FREIGHT RATE FROM CHICAGO WHICH IS INCLUDED
IN THE DELIVERED PRICE.  THIS DIFFERENCE ALSO RESULTS IN VARYING NET
PRICES TO PETITIONERS AT THEIR FACTORY AT KANSAS CITY, ACCORDING TO THE
DESTINATION OF THE GLUCOSE.  THE FACTORY NET VARIES ACCORDING AS
PETITIONERS COLLECT PHANTOM FREIGHT OR ABSORB FREIGHT, AND IN EACH CASE
IN THE AMOUNT OF THIS FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL.  FN1  THE PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS RESULTING FROM THIS SYSTEMATIC INCLUSION OF THE FREIGHT
DIFFERENTIAL IN COMPUTING THE DELIVERED PRICE ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY
PERMITTED BY THE STATUTE.  HENCE THEY ARE UNLAWFUL, UNLESS, AS
PETITIONERS ARGUE, THERE IS AN IMPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE FOR
SUCH A BASING POINT SYSTEM. 

PETITIONERS POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION UNDER THEIR
BASING POINT SYSTEM BETWEEN BUYERS AT THE SAME POINTS OF DELIVERY, AND
URGE THAT THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 2(A) IS DIRECTED ONLY AT PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN BUYERS AT THE SAME DELIVERY POINTS.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE TO SUPPORT SUCH A DISTINCTION,
SINCE THE STATUTE IS NOT COUCHED IN TERMS OF LOCALITY.  AND ITS PURPOSE
TO PREVENT INJURIES TO COMPETITION THROUGH PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WOULD
PRECLUDE ANY SUCH DISTINCTION, NOT REQUIRED BY ITS LANGUAGE.  THE
PURCHASERS OF GLUCOSE FROM PETITIONERS ARE FOUND TO BE IN COMPETITION
WITH EACH OTHER, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE IN DIFFERENT LOCALITIES.  THE
INJURY TO THE COMPETITION OF PURCHASERS IN DIFFERENT LOCALITIES IS NO
LESS HARMFUL THAN IF THEY WERE IN THE SAME CITY. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CLAYTON OR ROBINSON
PATMAN ACTS TO SUPPORT THE SUGGESTED DISTINCTION.  IT IS TRUE THAT SEC.
3 OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13A, INCORPORATING THE
BORAH-VAN NUYS BILL, S. 4171, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., IMPOSES CRIMINAL
PENALTIES FOR SELLING GOODS "IN ANY PART OF THE UNITED STATES AT PRICES
LOWER THAN THOSE EXACTED  ... ELSEWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DESTROYING COMPETITION  ..."  BUT THIS SECTION DOES NOT
RESTRICT THE OPERATION OF THE PROHIBITIONS, WITH CIVIL SANCTIONS, OF
THE ROBINSON-PATMAN AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  THIS
WAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT.  FN2  H. REP. NO. 2951, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 8. 

PETITIONERS FURTHER CONTEND THAT BASING POINT SYSTEMS WERE WELL KNOWN
PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT AND WERE CONSIDERED
BY CONGRESS TO BE LEGAL.  FROM THIS PETITIONERS CONCLUDE THAT THEY
REMAINED LEGAL IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR COMMAND TO THE CONTRARY.  CF.
PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314 U.S. 244; HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318
U.S. 371.  BUT WE THINK THAT THE PREMISE FALLS, AND WITH IT THE
CONCLUSION, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE IF THE PREMISE WERE VALID. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE LEGALITY OF BASING POINT SYSTEMS, PETITIONERS RELY
ON MAPLE FLOORING ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563, 570, AND CEMENT
MANUFACTURERS ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588, 597.  BUT THESE
WERE SUITS TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AND DID NOT
INVOLVE THE PROHIBITION OF THE CLAYTON ACT UPON DISCRIMINATIONS IN
PRICE.  THE ONLY QUESTION FOR DECISION IN THOSE CASES WAS WHETHER THERE
WAS A CONCERTED PRICE-FIXING SCHEME AMONG COMPETING SELLERS,
ACCOMPLISHED IN PART BY THEIR ADOPTION OF A UNIFORM BASING POINT
SYSTEM; IN FACT, NO PROHIBITED CONCERT OF ACTION WAS FOUND. 

IN ANY EVENT, THE BASING POINT SYSTEMS INVOLVED IN THOSE CASES WERE
QUITE UNLIKE THAT USED BY PETITIONERS.  IN THE MAPLE FLOORING CASE,
SUPRA, THE SINGLE BASING POINT WAS SO CLOSE TO MOST OF THE POINTS OF
PRODUCTION AS TO RESULT IN BUT TRIVIAL FREIGHT VARIANCES; AND THE
DEFENDANTS IN THAT CASE WERE WILLING TO SELL ON A F.O.B. MILL BASIS,
WHENEVER THE PURCHASER SO REQUESTED.  IN THE CEMENT CASE, SUPRA, THE
DEFENDANTS USED A MULTIPLE BASING POINT SYSTEM, WITH A BASING POINT AT
OR NEAR EACH POINT OF PRODUCTION.  UNDER THIS SYSTEM, ANY MANUFACTURER,
IN ORDER TO COMPETE IN THE TERRITORY CLOSER FREIGHTWISE TO ANOTHER,
WOULD ABSORB FREIGHT, BY ADJUSTING HIS MILL PRICE TO MAKE HIS DELIVERED
PRICE AS LOW AS THAT OF HIS COMPETITORS.  UNDER THIS SYSTEM THE
DELIVERED PRICE FOR ANY LOCALITY WAS DETERMINED BY THE NEAREST BASING
POINT.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE WHETHER A BASING POINT SYSTEM
SUCH AS THAT IN THE CEMENT CASE IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT,
IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(B), PERMITTING REDUCTIONS IN PRICE
IN ORDER TO MEET A COMPETITOR'S EQUALLY LOW PRICE.  CF. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. A.E. STALEY MFG. CO., POST, P. 746. 

WHEN THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT WAS ADOPTED IN 1936, THERE WAS NO
SETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAYTON ACT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS CONTRARY
TO THAT NOW URGED BY THE COMMISSION, AS WAS THE CASE WITH THE MEASURES
INVOLVED IN HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, SUPRA.  NOR WAS THERE ANY SETTLED
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION TO THE CONTRARY.  IN FACT IN 1924 IN THE
ONLY DECISION INVOLVING THE PROBLEM, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
AFTER EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION AND HEARINGS, ORDERED THE UNITED STATES
STEEL CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE
SALES OF THEIR ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS ON THE "PITTSBURGH-PLUS" PRICE
SYSTEM.  8 F.T.C. 1.  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE USE OF A SINGLE
BASING POINT AT PITTSBURGH FOR STEEL PLANTS OVER THE COUNTRY WAS A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS WELL AS SEC. 5 OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45, AS THEY THEN READ. 
THE RESPONDENTS IN THAT CASE SOUGHT NO REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
AND FILED WITH THE COMMISSION A FORMAL STATEMENT OF INTENDED COMPLIANCE
WITH IT. 

PETITIONERS ALSO RELY ON THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE
FURTHER ORDERS AGAINST BASING POINT SYSTEMS IN THE PERIOD FROM 1924 TO
THE PASSAGE OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT IN 1936.  THE COMMISSION
UNDERTOOK NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTIES OF ENFORCEMENT
WHICH IT ATTRIBUTED TO THE EXEMPTION PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 AND TO
DECISIONS OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS IN CLAYTON ACT CASES.  INSTEAD IT
PRESSED FOR CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT.  SEE THE COMMISSION'S
FINAL REPORT ON THE CHAIN STORE INVESTIGATION (1936), SEN. DOC. NO. 4,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 89-90, 96-97.  THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT WAS
ADOPTED IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFECTS IN
SEC. 2 BE REMEDIED AND ITS PROHIBITION OF PRICE DISCRIMINATION
STRENGTHENED. 

FINALLY, PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT CONGRESS, BY THE REJECTION OF A
PROVISION OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN BILL, WHICH WOULD HAVE IN EFFECT
PROHIBITED ALL BASING POINT SYSTEMS, HAS INDICATED ITS INTENTION TO
SANCTION ALL SUCH SYSTEMS.  THIS PROVISION, AS REPORTED TO THE HOUSE BY
THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, WOULD HAVE DEFINED "PRICE," AS USED IN
SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS MEANING "THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE
VENDOR AFTER DEDUCTING ACTUAL FREIGHT OR COST OF OTHER TRANSPORTATION,
IF ANY, ALLOWED OR DEFRAYED BY THE VENDOR." 

THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO REQUIRE
THAT THE PRICE OF ALL COMMODITIES SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BE
COMPUTED ON AN F.O.B. FACTORY BASIS, IN ORDER TO AVOID THE PROHIBITED
DISCRIMINATIONS IN SELLING PRICE.  IT WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED ANY SYSTEM
OF UNIFORM DELIVERED PRICES, AS WELL AS ANY BASING POINT SYSTEM OF
DELIVERED PRICES.  THESE EFFECTS WERE RECOGNIZED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
REPORT, SEE H. REP. NO. 2287, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 14, AND IN THE
DEBATES UPON THE ROBINSON-PATMAN BILL.  CF. 80 CONG. REC. 8118, 8223
8224.  INDEED, THE PROVISION WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED SUCH A MULTIPLE
BASING POINT SYSTEM AS THAT IN CEMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSN. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AS WELL AS THE PRESENT SYSTEM. 

SUCH A DRASTIC CHANGE IN EXISTING PRICING SYSTEMS AS WOULD HAVE BEEN
EFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ENGENDERED OPPOSITION, WHICH FINALLY
LED TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PROVISION BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY.  80 CONG. REC. 8102, 8140, 8224.  WE THINK THIS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY INDICATES ONLY THAT CONGRESS WAS UNWILLING TO REQUIRE F.O.B.
FACTORY PRICING, AND THUS TO MAKE ALL UNIFORM DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEMS
AND ALL BASING POINT SYSTEMS ILLEGAL PER SE.  ON THE CONTRARY WE THINK
THAT IT LEFT THE LEGALITY OF SUCH SYSTEMS TO BE DETERMINED ACCORDINGLY
AS THEY MIGHT BE WITHIN THE REACH OF SEC. 2(A), AS ENACTED, AND ITS
MORE RESTRICTED PROHIBITIONS OF DISCRIMINATIONS IN DELIVERED PRICES. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS INVOLVED IN PETITIONERS' PRICING
SYSTEM ARE WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE ACT.  WE PASS TO THE QUESTION
WHETHER THESE DISCRIMINATIONS HAD THE PRESCRIBED EFFECT ON
COMPETITION. 

SECOND.  SECTION 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED, PROHIBITS ONLY
DISCRIMINATIONS WHOSE "EFFECT  ...  MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN
COMPETITION  ...  IN ANY LINE OF COMMERCE, OR TO INJURE, DESTROY, OR
PREVENT COMPETITION WITH ANY PERSON WHO EITHER GRANTS OR KNOWINGLY
RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION, OR WITH CUSTOMERS OF
EITHER OF THEM:..."  PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS,
BASED UPON THE FACTS STIPULATED, DO NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION THAT
PETITIONERS' DISCRIMINATIONS HAVE THE PRESCRIBED EFFECT. 

IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT SEC. 2(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE A FINDING THAT
THE DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE HAVE IN FACT HAD AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON
COMPETITION.  THE STATUTE IS DESIGNED TO REACH SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS "IN
THEIR INCIPIENCY," BEFORE THE HARM TO COMPETITION IS EFFECTED.  IT IS
ENOUGH THAT THEY "MAY" HAVE THE PRESCRIBED EFFECT.  CF. STANDARD
FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258 U.S. 346, 356-357.  BUT AS WAS
HELD IN THE STANDARD FASHION CASE, SUPRA, WITH RESPECT TO THE LIKE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, PROHIBITING TYING CLAUSE
AGREEMENTS, THE EFFECT OF WHICH "MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN
COMPETITION," THE USE OF THE WORD "MAY" WAS NOT TO PROHIBIT
DISCRIMINATIONS HAVING "THE MERE POSSIBILITY" OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES,
BUT TO REACH THOSE WHICH WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE DEFINED EFFECT ON
COMPETITION. 

SINCE PETITIONERS' BASING POINT SYSTEM RESULTS IN A CHICAGO DELIVERED
PRICE WHICH IS ALWAYS LOWER THAN ANY OTHER, INCLUDING THAT AT KANSAS
CITY, A NATURAL EFFECT OF THE SYSTEM IS THE CREATION OF A FAVORED PRICE
ZONE FOR THE PURCHASERS OF GLUCOSE IN CHICAGO AND VICINITY, WHICH DOES
NOT EXTEND TO OTHER POINTS OF MANUFACTURE AND SHIPMENT OF GLUCOSE. 
SINCE THE COST OF GLUCOSE, A PRINCIPAL INGREDIENT OF LOW-PRICED CANDY,
IS LESS AT CHICAGO, CANDY MANUFACTURERS THERE ARE IN A BETTER POSITION
TO COMPETE FOR BUSINESS, AND MANUFACTURERS OF CANDY LOCATED NEAR OTHER
FACTORIES PRODUCING GLUCOSE, DISTANT FROM THE BASING POINT, AS KANSAS
CITY, ARE IN A LESS FAVORABLE POSITION.  THE CONSEQUENCE IS, AS FOUND
BY THE COMMISSION, THAT SEVERAL MANUFACTURERS OF CANDY, WHO WERE
FORMERLY LOCATED IN KANSAS CITY OR OTHER CITIES SERVED FROM
PETITIONERS' KANSAS CITY PLANT, HAVE MOVED THEIR FACTORIES TO CHICAGO. 

FURTHER, WE HAVE SEEN THAT PRICES IN CITIES TO WHICH SHIPMENTS ARE
MADE FROM KANSAS CITY, ARE FREQUENTLY DISCRIMINATORY, SINCE THE PRICES
IN SUCH CITIES USUALLY VARY ACCORDING TO FACTORS, PHANTOM FREIGHT OR
FREIGHT ABSORPTION, WHICH ARE UNRELATED TO ANY PROPER ELEMENT OF ACTUAL
COST.  AND THESE SYSTEMATIC DIFFERENTIALS ARE FREQUENTLY APPRECIABLE IN
AMOUNT.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT GLUCOSE IS A PRINCIPAL
INGREDIENT OF LOW PRICED CANDY AND THAT DIFFERENCES OF SMALL FRACTIONS
OF A CENT IN THE SALES PRICE OF SUCH CANDY ARE ENOUGH TO DIVERT
BUSINESS FROM ONE MANUFACTURER TO ANOTHER, READILY ADMIT OF THE
COMMISSION'S INFERENCE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT THE
EFFECT OF THE DISCRIMINATIONS MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY TO LESSEN
COMPETITION. 

THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACTS PROVEN OR STIPULATED, AND
THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM, ARE FOR THE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE, NOT THE COURTS.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. PACIFIC
STATES PAPER TRADE ASSN., 273 U.S. 52, 63; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
ALGOMA LUMBER CO., 291 U.S. 67, 73; CF. LABOR BOARD V. SOUTHERN BELL
TEL. CO., 319 U.S. 50, 60.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION'S
INFERENCE HERE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STIPULATED FACTS, OR THAT IT
DOES NOT SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

                       II.  BOOKING PRACTICES. 

ORDINARILY, WHEN PETITIONERS ANNOUNCE AN ADVANCE IN THE PRICE OF
GLUCOSE, THEY ALLOW THEIR CUSTOMERS A PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS TO "BOOK"
ORDERS, THAT IS, SECURE OPTIONS TO PURCHASE, AT THE OLD PRICE, AND A
PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS IN WHICH TO TAKE DELIVERY UPON THE OPTIONS.  THE
COMMISSION CHARGED THAT PETITIONERS HAVE FURTHER VIOLATED SEC. 2(A) OF
THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED, BY PERMITTING CERTAIN FAVORED CUSTOMERS TO
SECURE OPTIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GLUCOSE, AND TO TAKE DELIVERY AT THE
OLD PRICE, FOR PERIODS LONGER THAN THOSE USUALLY PERMITTED TO OTHER
CUSTOMERS.  THE COMMISSION ALSO CHARGED OTHER VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 2(A)
IN THAT PETITIONERS FAVORED CERTAIN TANK WAGON CUSTOMERS BY PERMITTING
THEM TO BOOK ORDERS AT THE LOWER PRICES CHARGED FOR TANK CAR
DELIVERIES, AND TO TAKE DELIVERIES BY TANK WAGON OVER EXTENDED PERIODS
OF TIME.  THE COMMISSION FOUND, UPON AMPLE EVIDENCE, THAT THESE
DISCRIMINATIONS WERE IN FACT MADE BY PETITIONERS. 

PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THE PRACTICES PROHIBITED BY SEC. 2(A) ARE
DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE, AND NOT IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE
OTHER THAN PRICE.  THEY RELY ON THE FACT THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE
PROGRESS OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN BILL THROUGH CONGRESS, THE PHRASE
"TERMS OF SALE," ORIGINALLY INCLUDED IN THE PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATIONS,
WAS STRICKEN FROM THE BILL.  BUT EVEN IF THE CONTENTION BE ACCEPTED, WE
CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE PRESENT DISCRIMINATIONS IN THE TERMS OF
SALE OPERATED TO PERMIT THE FAVORED CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE AT A LOWER
PRICE THAN OTHER CUSTOMERS, SO THAT THEIR ONLY PRACTICAL EFFECT WAS TO
ESTABLISH DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE, PRECISELY THE EVIL AT WHICH THE
STATUTE WAS AIMED.  AND THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, IN REPORTING ON THIS
ELIMINATION OF THE PHRASE "TERMS OF SALE" FROM THE BILL, MADE IT CLEAR
THAT SEC. 2(A) STILL APPLIED TO INDIRECT AS WELL AS DIRECT
DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE.  IT SAID THAT WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE
PHRASE "TERMS OF SALE," THE ACT IS INAPPLICABLE TO "TERMS OF SALE
EXCEPT AS THEY AMOUNT IN EFFECT TO THE INDIRECT DISCRIMINATIONS IN
PRICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REMAINDER OF SUBSECTION (A)."  H. REP.
NO. 2951, 74TH CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 5. 

PETITIONERS ALSO CONTEND THAT THESE SALES TO FAVORED CUSTOMERS WERE
TO MEET THE COMPETITION OF OTHER SELLERS OF GLUCOSE, AND WERE THEREFORE
EXCEPTED FROM THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 2(A), BY THE PROVISO OF
SUBSECTION (B) OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED.  SUBSECTION
(B) PROVIDES: 

"UPON PROOF BEING MADE, AT ANY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT UNDER THIS
OF REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING JUSTIFICATION
SHALL BE UPON THE PERSON CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, AND
UNLESS JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN, THE COMMISSION IS
AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TERMINATING THE DISCRIMINATION:  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT A SELLER REBUTTING
THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING THAT HIS LOWER PRICE  ...
WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR
..." 

THE ONLY EVIDENCE SAID TO REBUT THE PRIMA FACIE CASE MADE BY PROOF OF
THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WAS GIVEN BY WITNESSES WHO HAD NO PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRANSACTIONS, AND WAS LIMITED TO STATEMENTS OF EACH
WITNESS'S ASSUMPTION OR CONCLUSION THAT THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE
JUSTIFIED BY COMPETITION.  EXAMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY SATISFIES US,
AS IT DID THE COURT BELOW, THAT IT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A
FINDING THAT THE LOWER PRICES ALLOWED TO FAVORED CUSTOMERS WERE IN FACT
MADE TO MEET COMPETITION.  HENCE PETITIONERS FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE GRANTED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MEETING COMPETITION.  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. A.E.
STALEY MFG. CO., POST, P. 746. 

FINALLY IT IS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING, WHICH WAS REFERABLE TO THESE PRACTICES AS WELL AS
PETITIONERS' BASING POINT PRACTICES, THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE
MAY DIMINISH COMPETITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(A).  THIS FINDING
AS TO THE EFFECT OF BOTH TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION WAS BASED ON THE SAME
STIPULATION OF FACTS WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE BASING POINT PRACTICES.  SINCE THE CUSTOMERS HERE ARE THE SAME
MANUFACTURERS OF LOW-PRICED CANDIES AS WERE THERE INVOLVED, AND SINCE
THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS HERE ARE RELATIVELY SUBSTANTIAL IN A FIELD
WHERE DIFFERENCES OF A FRACTION OF A CENT IN THE PRICE OF CANDY ARE
SUFFICIENT TO DIVERT BUSINESS FROM ONE MANUFACTURER TO ANOTHER, WE
THINK THAT THE STIPULATION, WHICH WE FIND TO BE APPLICABLE TO THESE AS
WELL AS THE BASING POINT PRACTICES, IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE
FINDING OF THE PRESCRIBED EFFECT ON COMPETITION. 

   III.  DISCOUNTS TO PURCHASERS OF BY-PRODUCTS. 

STILL OTHER PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS BY PETITIONERS CHARGED AND FOUND BY
THE COMMISSION WERE DISCOUNTS ALLOWED TO CERTAIN FAVORED PURCHASERS OF
GLUTEN FEED AND MEAL, BYPRODUCTS OF PETITIONERS' REFINING OF CORN, AND
OTHER DISCOUNTS ALLOWED TO CERTAIN FAVORED PURCHASERS OF STARCH AND
STARCH PRODUCTS.  IT WAS NOT AND IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THESE ALLOWANCES
WERE DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF MANUFACTURE, SALE OR DELIVERY. 
BUT IT IS ASSERTED THAT THESE DISCRIMINATIONS DID NOT VIOLATE SEC.
2(A), SINCE THERE WAS NOT THE REQUISITE EFFECT ON COMPETITION. 

IT WAS STIPULATED, AND THE COMMISSION FOUND, THAT THE ALLOWANCES IN
QUESTION WERE "SUFFICIENT," IF AND WHEN REFLECTED IN WHOLE OR IN
SUBSTANTIAL PART IN RESALE PRICES, TO ATTRACT BUSINESS TO THE FAVORED
PURCHASERS AWAY FROM THEIR COMPETITORS, "OR TO FORCE (THEIR)
COMPETITORS TO RESELL  ... AT A SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED PROFIT, OR TO
REFRAIN FROM RESELLING."  BUT IT IS ASSERTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
THAT THE ALLOWANCES EVER WERE REFLECTED IN THE PURCHASERS' RESALE
PRICES.  THIS ARGUMENT LOSES SIGHT OF THE STATUTORY COMMAND.  AS WE
HAVE SAID, THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS MUST
IN FACT HAVE HARMED COMPETITION, BUT ONLY THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE
POSSIBILITY THAT THEY "MAY" HAVE SUCH AN EFFECT.  WE THINK THAT IT WAS
PERMISSIBLE FOR THE COMMISSION TO INFER THAT THESE DISCRIMINATORY
ALLOWANCES WERE A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO COMPETITION. 

                     IV.  ADVERTISING ALLOWANCES. 

THE COMMISSION ALSO CHARGED AND FOUND THAT PETITIONERS VIOLATED SEC.
2(E) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, WHICH PROVIDES:    "(E)  ...  IT SHALL BE
UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF ONE PURCHASER
AGAINST ANOTHER PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS OF A COMMODITY BOUGHT FOR
RESALE, WITH OR WITHOUT PROCESSING, BY CONTRACTING TO FURNISH OR
FURNISHING, OR BY CONTRIBUTING TO THE FURNISHING OF, ANY SERVICES OR
FACILITIES CONNECTED WITH THE PROCESSING, HANDLING, SALE, OR OFFERING
FOR SALE OF SUCH COMMODITY SO PURCHASED UPON TERMS NOT ACCORDED TO ALL
PURCHASERS ON PROPORTIONALLY EQUAL TERMS." 

THE ALLEGED VIOLATION CONSISTED OF ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES MADE BY
PETITIONERS FOR THE CURTISS CANDY COMPANY IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE SALE
OF DEXTROSE OR CORN SUGAR FOR USE IN CANDY MANUFACTURE.  FOR THIS
PURPOSE PETITIONERS ENTERED INTO AN ARRANGEMENT WITH THE CURTISS CANDY
COMPANY, WHEREBY DURING THE YEARS 1936 TO 1939 THEY SPENT OVER $750,000
IN ADVERTISING CURTISS CANDY AS BEING "RICH IN DEXTROSE."  AT THE SAME
TIME, CURTISS ADVERTISED ITS CANDY AS BEING "RICH IN DEXTROSE," AND
MADE THE SAME STATEMENT ON ITS LABELS.  WHILE CURTISS WAS FREE TO
PURCHASE DEXTROSE USED IN THE ADVERTISED CANDIES FROM OTHER
MANUFACTURERS, IT IN FACT MADE ALL SUCH PURCHASES FROM PETITIONERS, IN
ANNUALLY INCREASING QUANTITIES UNTIL IT PURCHASED A TOTAL OF SEVEN
MILLION POUNDS IN 1939.  DURING THE SAME PERIOD IT PURCHASED OF
PETITIONERS LARGE QUANTITIES OF GLUCOSE, THE PURCHASES INCREASING FROM
NOTHING IN 1937 TO ALMOST FIFTEEN MILLION POUNDS IN 1939.  ALTHOUGH
PETITIONERS SOLD DEXTROSE TO OTHERS, IT DID NOT FURNISH PROPORTIONALLY
EQUAL ADVERTISING SERVICES TO THEM. 

PETITIONERS SAY THAT THE ADVERTISING ARRANGEMENT IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY
SEC. 2(E) BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MADE WITH THE CURTISS CANDY COMPANY AS A
"PURCHASER."  BUT DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION THE CURTISS COMPANY WAS
IN FACT A PURCHASER OF PETITIONERS' COMMODITY.  THE COMMISSION COULD
PROPERLY INFER THAT THE ADVERTISING FOR WHICH PETITIONERS PAID,
CONTEMPLATED THE SALE OF THAT COMMODITY TO CURTISS, AND THAT THE
ADVERTISING CONTEMPLATED THE OFFERING FOR SALE OF THE CANDY BY
CURTISS.  PETITIONERS THUS FURNISHED A SERVICE CONNECTED WITH THE SALE
OR OFFERING FOR SALE OF A COMMODITY UPON TERMS NOT ACCORDED TO OTHER
PURCHASERS.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE DISCRIMINATION IN
FAVOR OF ONE PURCHASER AGAINST ANOTHER SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR IN A
PURCHASE CONTRACT OR BE REQUIRED BY IT.  IT IS ENOUGH IF THE
DISCRIMINATION BE MADE IN FAVOR OF ONE WHO IS A PURCHASER AND DENIED TO
ANOTHER PURCHASER OR OTHER PURCHASERS OF THE COMMODITY. 

IT IS SAID ALSO THAT THE CURTISS COMPANY WAS NOT A PURCHASER OF A
COMMODITY "BOUGHT FOR RESALE, WITH OR WITHOUT PROCESSING" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 2(E), SINCE THE CURTISS COMPANY BUYS DEXTROSE FROM
PETITIONERS, BUT USES IT WITH OTHER INGREDIENTS TO PRODUCE CANDY, AN
ENTIRELY NEW COMMODITY, WHICH IT SELLS.  WHILE THE ACT DOES NOT DEFINE
THE TERM "PROCESSING," THE CONVERSION OF DEXTROSE INTO CANDY WOULD SEEM
TO CONFORM TO THE CURRENT UNDERSTANDING THAT PROCESSING IS A MODE OF
TREATMENT OF MATERIALS TO BE TRANSFORMED OR REDUCED TO A DIFFERENT
STATE OR THING.  SEE COCHRANE V. DEENER, 94 U.S. 780, 788.  IN VIEW OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO PREVENT THE ENUMERATED DISCRIMINATIONS
ATTENDING THE SALE OF A COMMODITY FOR RESALE, THE PRECISE NATURE OR
EXTENT OF THE PROCESSING BEFORE RESALE WOULD SEEM TO BE IMMATERIAL. 
THE STATUTE IS AIMED AT DISCRIMINATION BY SUPPLYING FACILITIES OR
SERVICES TO A PURCHASER NOT ACCORDED TO OTHERS, IN ALL CASES WHERE THE
COMMODITY IS TO BE RESOLD, WHETHER IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM OR IN A
PROCESSED PRODUCT.  THE EVILS OF THE DISCRIMINATION WOULD SEEM TO BE
THE SAME WHETHER THE PROCESSING RESULTS IN LITTLE OR MUCH ALTERATION IN
THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMODITY PURCHASED AND RESOLD. 

AND FINALLY IT IS SAID THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
BECAUSE THE DEXTROSE SOLD BY PETITIONERS TO CURTISS WAS NOT FOUND TO
HAVE BEEN SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THAT IF THE SECTION IS CONSTRUED
TO APPLY TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS, IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND THAT,
IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS COMPLAINED OF,
ALTHOUGH NOT THEMSELVES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HAVE IN ANY WAY
AFFECTED SUCH COMMERCE.  BUT THE EFFECT UPON THE COMMERCE IS AMPLY
SHOWN BY THE INTERSTATE AND NATIONAL CHARACTER OF THE CURTISS COMPANY'S
BUSINESS; BY PETITIONERS' ADVERTISING FOR CURTISS, WHICH WAS ITSELF
FREQUENTLY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AMOUNTING TO $750,000; AND BY
CURTISS'S OWN ADMISSION THAT IT COMPETED IN THE SALE OF ITS CANDY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WITH ALL MANUFACTURERS OF ONE CENT AND FIVE CENT
BARS OF CANDY.  MOREOVER, SOME OF PETITIONERS' SALES TO OTHER
COMPANIES, TO WHOM THESE ALLOWANCES WERE NOT ACCORDED, WERE MADE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THUS THERE WAS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SALES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WELL WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO
REMEDY. 

PETITIONERS MAKE A NUMBER OF OTHER ARGUMENTS OR CONTENTIONS OF LESSER
MOMENT WHICH WE HAVE CONSIDERED BUT FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS.  WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE ADVERTISING FURNISHED BY PETITIONERS WAS A SERVICE OR
FACILITY "CONNECTED WITH THE PROCESSING  ...  SALE, OR OFFERING FOR
SALE" OF THE COMMODITY PURCHASED BY THE CURTISS COMPANY UPON TERMS NOT
ACCORDED TO OTHER PURCHASERS, AND THEREFORE VIOLATED THE STATUTE. 

THE SEVERAL VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 2(A) AND 2(E) OF THE CLAYTON ACT,
FOUND BY THE COMMISSION, SUSTAINED BY THE COURT BELOW, AND BROUGHT HERE
FOR REVIEW, FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACT.  THE COMMISSION'S
CONCLUSIONS ARE AMPLY SUPPORTED BY ITS FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE, AND
THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ILLUSTRATIVE PRICES FOUND BY THE COMMISSION SHOW THIS
SHARPLY VARYING FACTORY NET AND ALSO THE AMOUNTS OF PHANTOM FREIGHT. 
THE FIGURES GIVEN ARE UPON DELIVERIES FROM KANSAS CITY FOR AUGUST 1,
1939, WHEN THE CHICAGO BASE PRICE WAS $2.09. 

(CHART OMITTED) 

FN2  THE REPORT SAID:  "SECTION 3 AUTHORIZES NOTHING WHICH THAT
AMENDMENT (TO SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT) PROHIBITS, AND TAKES NOTHING
FROM IT." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :








TRADE COMM'N V. STALEY CO., 324 U.S. 746 


NO. 559.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1945.  - 144
F.2D 221, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS INVOLVED IN RESPONDENTS' BASING-POINT
DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM AND IN CERTAIN "BOOKING" PRACTICES WERE
PROHIBITED BY SEC. 2(A) OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO.
V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, ANTE, P. 726.  P. 750. 

2.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SUPPORTS THE FINDING OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION THAT RESPONDENTS' PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE NOT MADE
"IN GOOD FAITH" TO MEET EQUALLY LOW PRICES OF COMPETITORS, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(B) OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  P. 758. 

(A)  THE DETERMINATION FROM THE EVIDENCE WHETHER RESPONDENTS ACTED
"IN GOOD FAITH" TO MEET A COMPETITOR'S EQUALLY LOW PRICES, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 2(B) OF THE ACT, IS FOR THE COMMISSION.  P. 758. 

(B)  RESPONDENTS' SHOWING THAT THEY ADOPTED AND FOLLOWED THE BASING
POINT SYSTEM OF THEIR COMPETITORS DID NOT UNDER SEC. 2(B) JUSTIFY THEIR
PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS.  P. 753. 

(C)  THAT RESPONDENTS' PRICES ARE LOWER THAN THOSE THEY MIGHT HAVE
CHARGED, BUT NEVER DID CHARGE, DOES NOT TEND TO SHOW THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A LOWER PRICE TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.  P.
755. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS FAILED TO MEET THE
BURDEN OF REBUTTING THE PRIMA FACIE CASE OF PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS
INVOLVED IN THEIR BOOKING PRACTICES, SINCE THEY HAD FAILED TO SHOW THAT
THEIR LOWER PRICES WERE "MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW
PRICE OF A COMPETITOR," IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 759. 

(A)  THE APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN
THEREFROM ARE FOR THE COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS.  P. 760. 

(B)  SECTION 2(B) REQUIRES THAT THE SELLER, WHO HAS KNOWINGLY
DISCRIMINATED IN PRICE, SHOW AT LEAST THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS WHICH
WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PERSON TO BELIEVE THAT THE GRANTING
OF A LOWER PRICE WOULD IN FACT MEET THE EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR.  P. 759. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. A.E. STALEY MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 702, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH SET ASIDE AN
ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 11 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, A PARENT COMPANY AND ITS SALES SUBSIDIARY, ARE ENGAGED
IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GLUCOSE OR CORN SYRUP IN COMPETITION
WITH OTHERS, INCLUDING THE CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY, WHOSE
METHODS OF MARKETING AND PRICING ITS PRODUCTS ARE DESCRIBED IN OUR
OPINION IN CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
ANTE, P. 726.  RESPONDENTS, IN SELLING THEIR GLUCOSE, HAVE ADOPTED A
BASING POINT DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE CORN
PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY.  RESPONDENTS SELL THEIR PRODUCT,
MANUFACTURED AT DECATUR, ILLINOIS, AT DELIVERED PRICES BASED ON
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, THE PRICE IN EACH CASE BEING THE CHICAGO PRICE PLUS
FREIGHT FROM CHICAGO TO POINT OF DELIVERY. 

IN THIS PROCEEDING, BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, C. 323,
38 STAT. 730, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 21, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CHARGED
THAT RESPONDENTS' PRICING SYSTEM RESULTED IN PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS
BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS OF GLUCOSE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(A) OF
THE CLAYTON ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, C. 592, 49
STAT. 1526, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 13.  THE CASE WAS HEARD BY THE COMMISSION ON
STIPULATIONS OF FACTS AND EXHIBITS, UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE
COMMISSION ULTIMATELY MADE ITS FINDINGS.  APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLES
AS IN THE CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY CASE, IT CONCLUDED THAT
RESPONDENTS HAD MADE DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT PURCHASERS IN
THE PRICE OF THEIR PRODUCT; AND THAT RESPONDENTS WERE UNABLE TO JUSTIFY
THE DISCRIMINATIONS, AS PERMITTED BY SEC. 2(B) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, BY
SHOWING THAT THEY WERE MADE "IN GOOD FAITH" TO MEET A COMPETITOR'S
EQUALLY LOW PRICE.  THE COMMISSION ACCORDINGLY MADE ITS ORDER DIRECTING
RESPONDENTS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS. 

ON REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT SET THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ASIDE, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING.  144 F.2D 221.  ONE OF THE MAJORITY JUDGES DID NOT CONSIDER
WHETHER THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS VIOLATED SEC. 2(A), BUT HELD THAT IN
ANY EVENT THEY WERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET THEIR COMPETITORS' PRICE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(B).  ANOTHER CONCURRED IN THE RESULT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION HAD FAILED TO MAKE OUT A CASE OF
UNLAWFUL PRICE DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR THAT REASON HE FOUND NO OCCASION
TO PASS UPON THE MERITS OF RESPONDENTS' DEFENSE.  THE THIRD JUDGE
DISSENTED ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENTS' DISCRIMINATIONS WERE UNLAWFUL
AND NOT JUSTIFIED BY COMPETITION.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  323 U.S.
702. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER RESPONDENTS, WHO
ADOPTED THE DISCRIMINATORY PRICE SYSTEM OF THEIR COMPETITORS, INCLUDING
THE CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY, HAVE SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF
JUSTIFYING THEIR PRICE SYSTEM UNDER SEC. 2(B) OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS
AMENDED, BY SHOWING THAT THEIR PRICES WERE MADE "IN GOOD FAITH" TO MEET
THE EQUALLY LOW PRICES OF COMPETITORS.  A FURTHER QUESTION IS WHETHER
THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
THAT RESPONDENTS, IN GRANTING TO CERTAIN FAVORED BUYERS DISCRIMINATORY
PRICES FOR THEIR PRODUCT, DID NOT ACT "IN GOOD FAITH" TO MEET A
COMPETITOR'S EQUALLY LOW PRICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(B) OF THE
CLAYTON ACT. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES RESPONDENTS HAVE SOLD
GLUCOSE, SHIPPED TO PURCHASERS FROM THEIR PLANT AT DECATUR, ILLINOIS,
ON A DELIVERED PRICE BASIS, THE LOWEST PRICE QUOTED BEING FOR DELIVERY
TO CHICAGO PURCHASERS.  RESPONDENTS' CHICAGO PRICE IS NOT ONLY A
DELIVERED PRICE AT THAT PLACE.  IT IS ALSO A BASING POINT PRICE UPON
WHICH ALL OTHER DELIVERED PRICES, INCLUDING THE PRICE AT DECATUR, ARE
COMPUTED BY ADDING TO THE BASE PRICE, FREIGHT FROM CHICAGO TO THE POINT
OF DELIVERY.  THE DECATUR PRICE, AS WELL AS THE DELIVERED PRICE AT ALL
POINTS AT WHICH THE FREIGHT FROM DECATUR IS LESS THAN THE FREIGHT FROM
CHICAGO, INCLUDES AN ITEM OF UNEARNED OR "PHANTOM" FREIGHT, RANGING IN
AMOUNT, IN INSTANCES MENTIONED BY THE COMMISSION, FROM 1 CENT PER
HUNDRED POUNDS AT ST. JOSEPH, MISSOURI, TO 18 CENTS AT DECATUR.  THE
CHICAGO PRICE, AS WELL AS THAT AT POINTS AT WHICH THE FREIGHT FROM
DECATUR EXCEEDS FREIGHT FROM CHICAGO, REQUIRED RESPONDENTS TO "ABSORB"
FREIGHT, VARYING IN INSTANCES CITED BY THE COMMISSION FROM 4 CENTS PER
ONE HUNDRED POUNDS AT ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, TO 15 1/2 CENTS PER HUNDRED
POUNDS AT CHICAGO. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THIS INCLUSION OF UNEARNED FREIGHT OR
ABSORPTION OF FREIGHT IN CALCULATING THE DELIVERED PRICES OPERATED TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PURCHASERS AT ALL POINTS WHERE THE FREIGHT RATE
FROM DECATUR WAS LESS THAN THAT FROM CHICAGO AND IN FAVOR OF PURCHASERS
AT POINTS WHERE THE FREIGHT RATE FROM DECATUR WAS GREATER THAN THAT
FROM CHICAGO.  IT ALSO MADE FINDINGS COMPARABLE TO THOSE MADE IN THE
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY CASE THAT THE EFFECT OF THESE
DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN PURCHASERS, WHO ARE CANDY AND SYRUP
MANUFACTURERS COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER, WAS TO DIMINISH COMPETITION
BETWEEN THEM. 

THE COMMISSION ALSO FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS, DURING A PERIOD OF FROM
FIVE TO TEN DAYS AFTER THEY ADVANCE THE PRICES OF THEIR PRODUCT,
CUSTOMARILY PERMIT PURCHASERS GENERALLY TO "BOOK" ORDERS OR SECURE
OPTIONS TO PURCHASE GLUCOSE AT THE OLD PRICE, FOR DELIVERY WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS, BUT THAT THEY ALSO HAVE PERMITTED CERTAIN FAVORED
PURCHASERS TO SECURE ADDITIONAL EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR DELIVERY UPON
SUCH OPTIONS.  IN CONSEQUENCE OF THESE TIME EXTENSIONS, THE FAVORED
BUYERS WERE ENABLED TO SECURE GLUCOSE AT A LOWER PRICE THAN THAT
CONCURRENTLY BEING CHARGED TO OTHER BUYERS.  IN SOME INSTANCES, AFTER A
PRICE ADVANCE, RESPONDENTS ALSO MADE FICTITIOUS BOOKINGS ON WHICH
DELIVERIES WERE LATER MADE, AT THE OPTION OF THE FAVORED BUYERS; AND IN
STILL OTHER CASES SALES WERE MADE TO FAVORED PURCHASERS LONG AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE BOOKING PERIOD.  RESPONDENTS ALSO BOOK GLUCOSE IN
TANK CAR LOTS TO CERTAIN PURCHASERS WHO LACK STORAGE FACILITIES FOR
SUCH QUANTITIES; RESPONDENTS THEN ACTUALLY MAKE DELIVERIES IN TANK
WAGON LOTS OVER A PERIOD OF MANY MONTHS, DURING WHICH THEY ARE SELLING
TO OTHERS UPON LIKE DELIVERIES AT HIGHER PRICES. 

THESE FINDINGS, AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS INVOLVED ARE PROHIBITED BY SEC. 2(A), ARE CHALLENGED
HERE.  BUT, FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE GIVEN IN OUR OPINION IN THE CORN
PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY CASE, THE CHALLENGE MUST FAIL.  THE SOLE
QUESTION WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS HERE IS WHETHER RESPONDENTS
HAVE SUCCEEDED IN JUSTIFYING THE DISCRIMINATIONS BY AN ADEQUATE SHOWING
THAT THE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE MADE "IN GOOD FAITH" TO MEET EQUALLY LOW
PRICES OF COMPETITORS. 

                          I 

WE CONSIDER FIRST, RESPONDENTS' ASSERTED JUSTIFICATION OF THE
DISCRIMINATIONS INVOLVED IN ITS BASING POINT PRICING SYSTEM.  AS WE
HOLD IN THE CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY CASE WITH RESPECT TO A LIKE
SYSTEM, PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS ARE NECESSARILY INVOLVED WHERE THE PRICE
BASING POINT IS DISTANT FROM THE POINT OF PRODUCTION.  THIS IS BECAUSE,
AS IN RESPONDENTS' CASE, THE DELIVERED PRICES UPON SHIPMENTS FROM
DECATUR USUALLY INCLUDE AN ITEM OF UNEARNED OR PHANTOM FREIGHT OR
REQUIRE THE ABSORPTION OF FREIGHT WITH THE CONSEQUENT VARIATIONS IN THE
SELLER'S NET FACTORY PRICES.  SINCE SUCH FREIGHT DIFFERENTIALS BEAR NO
RELATION TO THE ACTUAL COST OF DELIVERY, THEY ARE SYSTEMATIC
DISCRIMINATIONS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 2(A), WHENEVER THEY HAVE THE DEFINED
EFFECT UPON COMPETITION. 

RESPONDENTS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THESE DISCRIMINATIONS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, BY A STIPULATION DETAILING THE HISTORY AND USE OF THEIR
PRESENT PRICING SYSTEM.  FROM THIS IT APPEARS THAT IN 1920, WHEN
RESPONDENTS BEGAN THE MANUFACTURE OF GLUCOSE OR CORN SYRUP, THEY FOUND
THAT SYRUP MANUFACTURED BY THEIR COMPETITORS "WAS BEING SOLD AT
DELIVERED PRICES IN THE VARIOUS MARKETS OF THE UNITED STATES"; THAT IN
CHICAGO TWO LARGE FACTORIES WERE MANUFACTURING SYRUP AND DELIVERING IT
IN CHICAGO AT PRICES LOWER THAN PRICES THEN PREVAILING IN ANY OTHER
MARKET; AND THAT THE DELIVERED PRICE IN SUCH OTHER MARKETS WAS
GENERALLY EQUAL TO THE CHICAGO PRICE PLUS THE PUBLISHED FREIGHT RATE
FROM CHICAGO TO THE POINT OF DELIVERY.  RESPONDENTS THUS FOUND IN
OPERATION A PRICING SYSTEM WHICH, IF FOLLOWED, WOULD PRODUCE EXACT
IDENTITY IN PRICES OF GLUCOSE OF THE SEVERAL PRODUCERS WHEN SOLD IN ANY
CITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  RESPONDENTS, TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE MARKETS
THUS ESTABLISHED, MADE THEIR SALES "BY FIRST QUOTING THE SAME PRICES AS
WERE QUOTED BY COMPETITORS AND THEN MAKING WHATEVER REDUCTION IN PRICE
...  WAS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN BUSINESS."  WHEN RESPONDENTS SOON FOUND
THAT THEIR PRODUCT WOULD COMMAND THE SAME MARKET PRICE AS THAT OF THEIR
COMPETITORS, THEY "ADOPTED THE PRACTICE OF SELLING AT THE SAME
DELIVERED PRICES AS (THEIR) COMPETITORS, WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE." 
RESPONDENTS HAVE FOLLOWED THE SAME PRACTICE SINCE JUNE 19, 1936, THE
DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT. 

ANY HEARING ON A COMPLAINT UNDER THIS SECTION, THAT THERE HAS BEEN
DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE  ..., THE BURDEN OF REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE
CASE THUS MADE BY SHOWING JUSTIFICATION SHALL BE UPON THE PERSON
CHARGED WITH A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION, AND UNLESS JUSTIFICATION
SHALL BE AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN, THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE AN
ORDER TERMINATING THE DISCRIMINATION:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING
HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT A SELLER REBUTTING THE PRIMA-FACIE CASE
THUS MADE BY SHOWING THAT HIS LOWER PRICE  ...  WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH
TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR  ..." 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE DEFENSE THAT THE PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE
MADE IN ORDER TO MEET COMPETITION, IS UNDER THE STATUTE A MATTER OF
"REBUTTING" THE COMMISSION'S "PRIMA-FACIE CASE."  PRIOR TO THE ROBINSON
PATMAN AMENDMENTS, SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT PROVIDED THAT NOTHING
CONTAINED IN IT "SHALL PREVENT" DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE "MADE IN GOOD
FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION."  THE CHANGE IN LANGUAGE OF THIS EXCEPTION
FN1  WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE DEFENSE A MATTER OF EVIDENCE IN
EACH CASE, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE COMPETITION
JUSTIFIED THE DISCRIMINATION.  SEE THE CONFERENCE REPORT, H. REP. NO.
2951, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 6-7; SEE ALSO THE STATEMENT OF
REPRESENTATIVE UTTERBACH, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE, 80 CONG. REC. 9418. 

BUT RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT THEY HAVE SUSTAINED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF,
AS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 2(B), BY SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE ADOPTED AND
FOLLOWED THE BASING POINT SYSTEM OF THEIR COMPETITORS.  IN THE CORN
PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY CASE WE HOLD THAT THIS PRICE SYSTEM OF
RESPONDENTS' COMPETITOR IN PART INVOLVES UNLAWFUL PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS, TO THE EXTENT THAT FREIGHT DIFFERENTIALS ENTER INTO
THE COMPUTATION OF PRICE, AS A RESULT OF THE SELECTION AS A BASING
POINT OF A PLACE DISTANT FROM THE POINT OF PRODUCTION AND SHIPMENT. 
THUS IT IS THE CONTENTION THAT A SELLER MAY JUSTIFY A BASING POINT
DELIVERED PRICE SYSTEM, WHICH IS OTHERWISE OUTLAWED BY SEC. 2, BECAUSE
OTHER COMPETITORS ARE IN PART VIOLATING THE LAW BY MAINTAINING A LIKE
SYSTEM.  IF RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT IS SOUND, IT WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW
THAT EVEN IF THE COMPETITOR'S PRICING SYSTEM WERE WHOLLY IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, RESPONDENTS COULD ADOPT AND FOLLOW IT
WITH IMPUNITY. 

THIS STARTLING CONCLUSION IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THE STATUTE PERMITS A SELLER TO MAINTAIN AN OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL SYSTEM
OF DISCRIMINATORY PRICES, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAD ADOPTED IT IN ITS
ENTIRETY, AS A MEANS OF SECURING THE BENEFITS OF A LIKE UNLAWFUL SYSTEM
MAINTAINED BY HIS COMPETITORS.  BUT SEC. 2(B) DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF
WITH PRICING SYSTEMS OR EVEN WITH ALL THE SELLER'S DISCRIMINATORY
PRICES TO BUYERS.  IT SPEAKS ONLY OF THE SELLER'S "LOWER" PRICE AND OF
THAT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS MADE "IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN
EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR."  THE ACT THUS PLACES EMPHASIS ON
INDIVIDUAL COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS, RATHER THAN UPON A GENERAL SYSTEM OF
COMPETITION.  RESPONDENTS ARE HERE SEEKING TO JUSTIFY DELIVERED PRICES
WHICH DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF BUYERS IN CHICAGO AND AT POINTS NEARER,
FREIGHTWISE, TO CHICAGO THAN TO DECATUR, BY A PRICING SYSTEM INVOLVING
PHANTOM FREIGHT AND FREIGHT ABSORPTION.  WE THINK THE CONCLUSION IS
INADMISSIBLE, IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE NOT TO
SANCTION BY SEC. 2(B) THE EXCUSE THAT THE PERSON CHARGED WITH A
VIOLATION OF THE LAW WAS MERELY ADOPTING A SIMILARLY UNLAWFUL PRACTICE
OF ANOTHER.  FN2 

THE STATUTORY TEST IS WHETHER RESPONDENTS, BY THEIR BASING POINT
SYSTEM, ADOPTED A "LOWER PRICE ...  IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY
LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR."  THIS TEST PRESUPPOSES THAT THE PERSON
CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE ACT WOULD, BY HIS NORMAL, NON-DISCRIMINATORY
PRICING METHODS, HAVE REACHED A PRICE SO HIGH THAT HE COULD REDUCE IT
IN ORDER TO MEET THE COMPETITOR'S EQUALLY LOW PRICE.  ON THE CONTRARY,
RESPONDENTS HAVE USED THEIR PRICING SYSTEM TO ADOPT THE DELIVERY PRICES
OF THEIR CHICAGO COMPETITORS, BY CHARGING THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS UPON
SHIPMENTS FROM DECATUR THE CHICAGO BASE PRICE PLUS THEIR COMPETITORS'
COSTS OF DELIVERY FROM CHICAGO.  EVEN THOUGH RESPONDENTS, AT MANY
DELIVERY POINTS, ENJOYED FREIGHT ADVANTAGES OVER THEIR COMPETITORS,
THEY DID NOT AVAIL OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHARGE LOWER DELIVERED
PRICES.  INSTEAD THEY MAINTAINED THEIR OWN PRICES AT THE LEVEL OF THEIR
COMPETITORS' HIGH PRICES, BASED UPON THE COMPETITORS' HIGHER COSTS OF
DELIVERY, BY INCLUDING PHANTOM FREIGHT IN THEIR OWN DELIVERED PRICES. 

RESPONDENTS HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN NON
DISCRIMINATORY PRICE SYSTEM, AND THEN REDUCED THEIR PRICE WHEN
NECESSARY TO MEET COMPETITION.  INSTEAD THEY HAVE SLAVISHLY FOLLOWED IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE A PRICING POLICY WHICH, IN THEIR CASE, RESULTED IN
SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATIONS, BY CHARGING THEIR CUSTOMERS UPON SHIPMENTS
FROM DECATUR, THE CHICAGO BASE PRICE PLUS THEIR COMPETITORS' ACTUAL
COSTS OF DELIVERY FROM CHICAGO.  MOREOVER, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT IF
RESPONDENTS HAD CHARGED NON-DISCRIMINATORY PRICES, THEY WOULD BE HIGHER
IN ALL CASES THAN THOSE NOW PREVAILING UNDER THEIR BASING POINT
SYSTEM.  HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT RESPONDENTS' PRICE
DISCRIMINATIONS HAVE RESULTED IN "LOWER" PRICES TO MEET EQUALLY LOW
PRICES OF A COMPETITOR. 

RESPONDENTS MAKE AN INGENIOUS ARGUMENT THAT THEY COULD HAVE USED THEIR
PRESENT PRICE FOR DELIVERIES AT DECATUR (WHICH IS THE CHICAGO BASE
PRICE PLUS FREIGHT FROM CHICAGO TO DECATUR) AS THEIR BASE PRICE; AND
THAT WITH THE ADDITION OF FREIGHT FROM DECATUR TO THE POINTS OF
DELIVERY, THE DELIVERED PRICES WOULD IN ALL CASES THEN BE HIGHER THAN
THE PRESENT PRICES, SO THAT REDUCTION TO MEET THE LOWER PRICES OF THEIR
COMPETITORS WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC. 2(B).  BUT THIS IS NO
ANSWER TO THE RULING OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE COMPETITIVE SITUATION
DID NOT JUSTIFY RESPONDENTS' PRICING SYSTEM, SINCE RESPONDENTS'
ARGUMENT IS BASED UPON A HYPOTHESIS, WHICH NEVER IN FACT EXISTED.  THE
FACT THAT RESPONDENTS' PRICES ARE LOWER THAN THOSE THEY MIGHT HAVE
CHARGED, BUT NEVER DID CHARGE, DOES NOT TEND TO SHOW THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A LOWER PRICE TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR. 

FURTHER, WE CANNOT SAY THAT RESPONDENTS' DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE
WERE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN A "GOOD FAITH" EFFORT TO MEET
COMPETITION, AS SEC. 2(B) REQUIRES.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT HERE AND IN
OUR OPINION IN THE COMPANION CASE, CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, SUPRA, THE BASING POINT SYSTEM USED BY
RESPONDENTS DISCRIMINATES SYSTEMATICALLY IN FAVOR OF BUYERS IN CHICAGO
AND AT POINTS NEARER, FREIGHTWISE, TO CHICAGO THAN TO DECATUR, AND
AGAINST PURCHASERS AT DECATUR AND POINTS NEARER TO IT, BY REASON OF
RESPONDENTS' ABSORPTION OF FREIGHT AND COLLECTION OF PHANTOM FREIGHT. 

THIS IS ILLUSTRATED MOST GRAPHICALLY BY RESPONDENTS' DELIVERED PRICES
AT DECATUR AND CHICAGO.  ON AUGUST 1, 1939, THESE WERE $2.09 AT
CHICAGO, AND $2.27 AT DECATUR.  SINCE RESPONDENTS INCURRED 18 CENTS
FREIGHT IN SHIPPING TO CHICAGO, THEIR NET PRICE AT THE DECATUR FACTORY
ON SHIPMENTS TO CHICAGO WAS $1.91.  THE DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF
CHICAGO AND AGAINST DECATUR WAS THUS 36 CENTS, OR 17 PER CENT OF THE
CHICAGO PRICE, IN A FIELD WHERE A DIFFERENCE OF A FRACTION OF A CENT IN
THE SALES PRICE OF THE CANDY PROCESSED FROM THE GLUCOSE COULD DIVERT
BUYERS FROM ONE CANDY MANUFACTURER TO ANOTHER.  ONLY TO A LESSER DEGREE
ARE THERE LIKE DISCRIMINATIONS WHEN OTHER POINTS OF DELIVERY ARE
COMPARED. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION SEEMS INESCAPABLE THAT RESPONDENTS'
DISCRIMINATIONS, SUCH AS THOSE BETWEEN PURCHASERS IN CHICAGO AND
DECATUR, WERE ESTABLISHED NOT TO MEET EQUALLY LOW CHICAGO PRICES OF
COMPETITORS THERE, BUT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ELSEWHERE THE ARTIFICIALLY
HIGH PRICES WHOSE DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT PERMEATES RESPONDENTS' ENTIRE
PRICING SYSTEM.  THE SYSTEMATIC ADOPTION OF A COMPETITOR'S PRICES BY
INCLUDING UNEARNED FREIGHT IN RESPONDENTS' DELIVERY PRICE OR, WHAT
AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING, THE MAINTENANCE OF A DISCRIMINATORY AND
ARTIFICIALLY HIGH F.O.B. FACTORY PRICE IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THE CORRESPONDINGLY HIGH PRICES OF A COMPETITOR, BASED ON ITS HIGHER
COSTS OF DELIVERY, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE DISCRIMINATION, FOR
RESPONDENT FAILS TO SHOW, AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A "LOWER PRICE" MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET THE EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR.  BY ADOPTING THE PRICE SYSTEM OF THEIR COMPETITORS,
RESPONDENTS HAVE SUCCEEDED IN MANY INSTANCES IN ESTABLISHING AN
ARTIFICIALLY HIGH PRICE AND HAVE THUS SECURED THE BENEFIT OF THE HIGH
PRICE LEVELS OF A COMPETITOR WHOSE COSTS OF DELIVERY ARE GREATER. 

A PRICE DISCRIMINATION IS MEASURED BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGH
PRICE TO ONE PURCHASER AND THE LOWER PRICE TO ANOTHER.  RESPONDENTS'
PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE NOT DICTATED BY THE LOWER DELIVERY COSTS OR
LOWER DELIVERY PRICES OF THEIR COMPETITORS.  IN NONE OF THE MARKETS IN
WHICH RESPONDENTS HAD A FREIGHT ADVANTAGE OVER THEIR CHICAGO
COMPETITORS DID RESPONDENTS REDUCE THEIR PRICES BELOW THOSE OF THEIR
COMPETITORS.  INSTEAD THEY MET AND FOLLOWED THEIR COMPETITORS' PRICES
BY PRICES RENDERED ARTIFICIALLY HIGH, BY THE INCLUSION OF UNEARNED
FREIGHT PROPORTIONED TO THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THEIR COMPETITORS'
DELIVERED COSTS EXCEEDED THEIR OWN. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT A SELLER ACTS IN GOOD FAITH WHEN IT CHOOSES TO
ADOPT SUCH A CLEARLY DISCRIMINATORY PRICING SYSTEM, AT LEAST WHERE IT
HAS NEVER ATTEMPTED TO SET UP A NON-DISCRIMINATORY SYSTEM, GIVING TO
PURCHASERS, WHO HAVE THE NATURAL ADVANTAGE OF PROXIMITY TO ITS PLANT,
THE PRICE ADVANTAGES WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED TO EXPECT OVER PURCHASERS
AT A DISTANCE.  AND FOR LIKE REASONS, WE MUST REJECT RESPONDENTS'
ARGUMENT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER COULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY, BY
RESPONDENTS' ESTABLISHING SUCH A HIGH FACTORY PRICE AS ALWAYS TO ADMIT
OF REDUCTIONS IN ORDER TO MEET THE PRICES OF COMPETITORS WHO ARE USING
A CHICAGO BASING POINT SYSTEM.  FOR WE THINK IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT
THIS PRACTICAL CONTINUATION OF THE PRESENT DISCRIMINATORY BASING POINT
SYSTEM WOULD BE IN GOOD FAITH.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT RESPONDENTS
MAY NEVER ABSORB FREIGHT WHEN THEIR FACTORY PRICE PLUS ACTUAL FREIGHT
IS HIGHER THAN THEIR COMPETITORS' PRICE, OR THAT SELLERS, BY SO DOING,
MAY NOT MAINTAIN A UNIFORM DELIVERED PRICE AT ALL POINTS OF DELIVERY,
FOR IN THAT EVENT THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE. 

CONGRESS HAS LEFT TO THE COMMISSION THE DETERMINATION OF FACT IN EACH
CASE WHETHER THE PERSON, CHARGED WITH MAKING DISCRIMINATORY PRICES,
ACTED IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET A COMPETITOR'S EQUALLY LOW PRICES.  THE
DETERMINATION OF THIS FACT FROM THE EVIDENCE IS FOR THE COMMISSION. 
SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. PACIFIC STATES PAPER TRADE ASSN., 273
U.S. 52, 63; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO., 291 U.S.
67, 73.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT
RESPONDENTS' PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE NOT MADE TO MEET A "LOWER"
PRICE AND CONSEQUENTLY WERE NOT IN GOOD FAITH, IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY
THE RECORD, AND WE THINK THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE
THIS PORTION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST. 

                                  II 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS HAD NOT SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF
REBUTTING THE PRIMA FACIE CASE OF PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS INVOLVED IN
THEIR BOOKING PRACTICES, SINCE THEY HAD FAILED TO SHOW THAT THEIR LOWER
PRICES WERE "MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET AN EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A
COMPETITOR."  THE FACTS AS STIPULATED WERE ONLY THAT THE
DISCRIMINATIONS WERE MADE IN RESPONSE TO VERBAL INFORMATION RECEIVED
FROM SALESMEN, BROKERS OR INTENDING PURCHASERS, WITHOUT SUPPORTING
EVIDENCE, TO THE EFFECT THAT IN EACH CASE ONE OR MORE COMPETITORS HAD
GRANTED OR OFFERED TO GRANT LIKE DISCRIMINATIONS.  IT IS STIPULATED
THAT RESPONDENTS, "BELIEVING SUCH REPORT TO BE TRUE, HAS THEN GRANTED
SIMILAR" PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS.  THE RECORD CONTAINS NO STATEMENTS BY
THE PERSONS MAKING THESE REPORTS AND DISCLOSES NO EFFORTS BY
RESPONDENTS TO INVESTIGATE OR VERIFY THEM, AND NO EVIDENCE OF
RESPONDENTS' KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR INFORMANTS' CHARACTER AND RELIABILITY. 
IT IS ADMITTED THAT IN SOME INSTANCES RESPONDENTS MADE SALES UPON
BOOKINGS WHICH THEY SUSPECTED HAD BEEN MADE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE
BUYERS. 

IN APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THAT THE
STATUTE DOES NOT PLACE AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN UPON SELLERS, BUT IT
EMPHASIZED THE GOOD FAITH REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE, WHICH PLACES THE
BURDEN OF PROVING GOOD FAITH ON THE SELLER, WHO HAS MADE THE
DISCRIMINATORY PRICES.  THE COMMISSION COMMENTED ON THE TENDENCY OF
BUYERS TO SEEK TO SECURE THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TERMS OF SALES POSSIBLE,
AND UPON THE ENTIRE LACK OF A SHOWING OF DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF
RESPONDENTS TO VERIFY THE REPORTS WHICH THEY RECEIVED, OR TO LEARN OF
THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS WHICH WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PERSON
TO BELIEVE THAT THE GRANTING OF A LOWER PRICE WOULD IN FACT BE MEETING
THE EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.  THE COMMISSION THOUGHT THAT
RESPONDENTS' ALLOWANCE OF DISCRETIONARY PRICES, IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
STRONGLY SUGGESTED THAT THE BUYERS' CLAIMS WERE WITHOUT MERIT, AS WELL
AS RESPONDENTS' READINESS TO GRANT DISCRIMINATORY PRICES WITHOUT TAKING
ANY STEPS TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF A LOWER PRICE OF COMPETITORS, AND
THE ENTIRE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT RESPONDENTS HAD TAKEN ANY
PRECAUTION TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS IN SUCH MANNER AS TO PREVENT
UNWARRANTED DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE, ALL TAKEN TOGETHER, REQUIRED THE
CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENTS HAD NOT SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF SHOWING
THAT THEIR PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS WERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET THE
LOWER PRICES OF COMPETITORS. 

DISCRIMINATIONS BY SHOWING THAT IN FACT THEY MET A COMPETITIVE PRICE. 
BUT IT DOES PLACE ON THE SELLER THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE PRICE
WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET A COMPETITOR'S.  THE GOOD FAITH OF THE
DISCRIMINATION MUST BE SHOWN IN THE FACE OF THE FACT THAT THE SELLER IS
AWARE THAT HIS DISCRIMINATION IS UNLAWFUL, UNLESS GOOD FAITH IS SHOWN,
AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PECULIARLY FAVORABLE TO PRICE
DISCRIMINATION ABUSES.  WE AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION THAT THE STATUTE
AT LEAST REQUIRES THE SELLER, WHO HAS KNOWINGLY DISCRIMINATED IN PRICE,
TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS WHICH WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE AND
PRUDENT PERSON TO BELIEVE THAT THE GRANTING OF A LOWER PRICE WOULD IN
FACT MEET THE EQUALLY LOW PRICE OF A COMPETITOR.  NOR WAS THE
COMMISSION WRONG IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS FAILED TO MEET THIS
BURDEN. 

THE APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM IT
ARE FOR THE COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS.  SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
V. PACIFIC STATES PAPER TRADE ASSN., SUPRA, 63; FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO., SUPRA, 73.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
COMMISSION'S INFERENCE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE STIPULATED FACTS OR THAT
ITS INFERENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT ITS ORDER. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WILL BE SUSTAINED.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW WILL BE
REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENFORCE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED, THE ROBINSON-PATMENT AMENDMENT
CONTAINED NO PROVISION SIMILAR TO THAT IN SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AS
ORIGINALLY ENACTED, WHICH PROVIDED "THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL
PREVENT  ...  DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT
COMMUNITIES MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION."  IN THE SENATE
THIS EXISTING PROVISION WAS ADDED BY AMENDMENT TO THE ROBINSON-PATMAN
BILL.  80 CONG. REC. 6426, 6435.  IN THE HOUSE, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
REPORTED THE BILL WITH THE PROVISO, SUBSTANTIALLY AS ENACTED IN SEC.
2(B).  80 CONG. REC. 8139.  THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REJECTED THE
SENATE VERSION AND APPROVED THE HOUSE AMENDMENT.  THE REPORT OF THE
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, SPEAKING OF THE SENATE PROVISO, SAID:  "THIS
LANGUAGE IS FOUND IN EXISTING LAW, AND IN THE OPINION OF THE CONFEREES
IS ONE OF THE OBSTACLES TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRESENT CLAYTON ACT  ....
A PROVISION RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF MEETING COMPETITION, INTENDED
TO OPERATE ONLY AS A RULE OF EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, IS INCLUDED IN SUBSECTION (B)  ..."  H. REP.
NO. 2951, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 6-7. 

FN2  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE CONFEREES, IN PRESENTING THE
CONFERENCE REPORT, EMPHASIZED WITH ILLUSTRATIONS THAT "THIS PROCEDURAL
PROVISION CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A CARTE BLANCHE EXEMPTION TO VIOLATE
THE BILL SO LONG AS A COMPETITOR CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE VIOLATED IT
FIRST, NOR SO LONG AS THAT COMPETITION CANNOT BE MET WITHOUT THE USE OF
OPPRESSIVE DISCRIMINATIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE
BILL."  SEE 80 CONG. REC. 9418. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :











WHITE V. RAGEN, 324 U.S. 760 


ARGUED MARCH 29, APRIL 2, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1945.  - WRITS
DISMISSED. 


1.  THE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THESE CASES SUFFICIENTLY
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PETITIONERS' RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 764. 

2.  THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THESE CASES
DOES NOT REST ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND; AND THE WRITS OF
CERTIORARI HEREIN MUST BE DISMISSED.  P. 766. 

3.  IN VIEW OF THE PRACTICE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS,
IT FOLLOWS THAT WHENEVER A PETITION ORIGINALLY FILED IN THAT COURT FOR
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED, WITHOUT OPINION OR OTHER INDICATION
OF THE GROUND OF ITS DECISION, AND WHEN THE PETITION RELIES ON
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT TO RAISE FEDERAL QUESTIONS, IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR
THE PETITIONER, IN ORDER TO EXHAUST HIS STATE REMEDIES, TO APPLY TO
THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS.  A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES DOES NOT BAR AN APPLICATION TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE RELIEF, GROUNDED ON FEDERAL RIGHTS, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS HAS DENIED.  BUT ANY OTHER STATE REMEDIES, IF AVAILABLE, MUST
BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE ANY APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  P.
767. 

4.  A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, WHICH MUST
BE DENIED HERE BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THAT COURT APPEARS TO REST ON AN
ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND, CAN NOT BE TREATED AS A PETITION TO REVIEW
A DECISION OF A LOWER COURT OF THE STATE WHICH HAD DENIED AN EARLIER
APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, SINCE THE PETITION IN THE LOWER STATE
COURT IS NOT BEFORE THIS COURT AND ITS CONTENTS DO NOT OTHERWISE APPEAR
OF RECORD.  P. 767. 

WHITE V. RAGEN, WARDEN. 

NO. 212.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 259, LUTZ V. RAGEN, WARDEN, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 704, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THESE CASES, PETITIONERS MOVED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
FOR LEAVE TO FILE THEIR PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  BOTH PETITIONERS
ARE IN THE CUSTODY OF RESPONDENT, UNDER SENTENCES UPON STATE
CONVICTIONS.  IN EACH CASE, THE ILLINOIS COURT, WITHOUT REQUIRING AN
ANSWER FROM RESPONDENT, WITHOUT APPOINTING AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT
PETITIONERS, AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS FOR ITS ACTION, DENIED
LEAVE TO FILE THE PETITIONS.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
323 U.S. 704, BECAUSE THE PETITIONS ALLEGED FACTS SHOWING PRIMA FACIE
VIOLATIONS OF PETITIONERS' RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, AND IN ORDER TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
AFFORDS CORRECTIVE PROCESS FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT.  FN1  ON APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS, COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED
TO REPRESENT THEM IN THIS COURT. 

PETITIONER WHITE, IN NO. 212, ALLEGED IN HIS PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS THAT TWO INDICTMENTS FOR "OBTAINING MONEY AND GOODS BY MEANS OF
THE CONFIDENCE GAME" WERE RETURNED AGAINST HIM IN THE STATE CRIMINAL
COURT; THAT THE COURT, IN ADVANCE OF THE TRIAL, APPOINTED COUNSEL TO
REPRESENT PETITIONER, BUT THAT THE PERSON SO APPOINTED DID NOT CONFER
WITH PETITIONER UNTIL THEY CAME TO COURT FOR THE TRIAL; THAT THEN
COUNSEL REFUSED TO DO ANYTHING FOR PETITIONER UNLESS PETITIONER HAD
SOME MONEY; THAT IN PARTICULAR PETITIONER ASKED COUNSEL TO HAVE ONE
WITNESS CALLED IN HIS BEHALF BUT COUNSEL REPLIED THAT "HE DID NOT HAVE
TIME, AS HE HAD A CASE IN ANOTHER COURT, AND FOR ME TO PLEAD GUILTY, AS
THE JUDGE WOULD NOT GIVE ME A CONTINUANCE."  THE PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER ASKED THE TRIAL JUDGE "TO
CONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS SO HE COULD HAVE TIME TO CALL A WITNESS, AND
CONFER WITH HIS ATTORNEY"; THAT THE JUDGE THEN TOLD PETITIONER "TO KEEP
STILL, AS HIS LAWYER WOULD DO ALL THE TALKING FOR HIM" AND "THEREUPON
THE ATTORNEY PLEADED THE PETITIONER GUILTY TO TWO INDICTMENTS," ON
WHICH HE WAS GIVEN SENTENCES OF FROM ONE TO TEN YEARS, TO BE SERVED
CONCURRENTLY; AND THAT PETITIONER WAS THEREBY DENIED THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF PETITIONER LUTZ, IN NO. 259,
ALLEGED THAT HE WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE
STATE CIRCUIT COURT; THAT HE WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT; AND
THAT HIS TRIAL AND CONVICTION WERE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IN THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY THE
USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES FOR THE STATE.  IT WAS ALLEGED
THAT THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY INDUCED AND PROCURED THIS TESTIMONY BY
BRIBERY OF THE WITNESSES; AND THAT HE INTRODUCED IT AT THE TRIAL, WITH
KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS FALSE.  ATTACHED TO THE PETITION ARE THE
AFFIDAVITS OF THE TWO WITNESSES IN QUESTION, EACH STATING THAT HIS
TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL WAS FALSE AND THAT HE WAS BRIBED TO GIVE IT BY
THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.  THE AFFIDAVITS OF TWO OTHER PERSONS, ALSO
ATTACHED TO THE PETITION, TEND TO CORROBORATE THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE TWO
WITNESSES. 

SINCE THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DISMISSED BOTH PETITIONS WITHOUT
REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO ANSWER, WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE PETITIONERS'
ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE.  WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471, 473-474; HOUSE
V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42.  WE HAVE MANY TIMES REPEATED THAT NOT ONLY DOES
DUE PROCESS REQUIRE THAT A DEFENDANT, ON TRIAL IN A STATE COURT UPON A
SERIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGE AND UNABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF, SHALL HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF COUNSEL, COMPARE WILLIAMS V. KAISER, SUPRA, TOMKINS V.
MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485 AND RICE V. OLSON, POST, P. 786, WITH BETTS V.
BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, BUT THAT IT IS A DENIAL OF THE ACCUSED'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL TO FORCE HIM TO TRIAL WITH SUCH
EXPEDITION AS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THE EFFECTIVE AID AND ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL.  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45; AVERY V. ALABAMA, 308 U.S.
444; EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114, 115-116; HOUSE V. MAYO, SUPRA.  AND
WE HAVE OFTEN POINTED OUT THAT A CONVICTION, SECURED BY THE USE OF
PERJURED TESTIMONY KNOWN TO BE SUCH BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, IS A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103; PYLE V.
KANSAS, 317 U.S. 213; CF. NEW YORK EX REL. WHITMAN V. WILSON, 318 U.S.
688.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF FACT IN THE PETITIONS ARE
SUFFICIENT TO MAKE OUT PRIMA FACIE CASES OF VIOLATION OF THESE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PETITIONERS, SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE CORRECTIVE
PROCESS IN SOME COURT, AND IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IF NONE IS
AFFORDED BY THE STATE. 

THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH A REMEDY IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT,
TURNING AS IT DOES ON THE EXHAUSTION OF STATE CORRECTIVE PROCESSES, SEE
MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA; EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, 116-117, MAY ALSO
DEPEND UPON AN APPLICATION TO THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE
STATE COURT, AND UPON THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH AN APPLICATION HERE. 
WHERE THE HIGHEST STATE COURT IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD
CONSIDERS AND ADJUDICATES THE MERITS OF A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS,
STATE REMEDIES, INCLUDING APPELLATE REVIEW, ARE NOT EXHAUSTED SO AS TO
PERMIT THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT, UNLESS THE FEDERAL QUESTION INVOLVED IS PRESENTED TO THIS COURT
ON CERTIORARI OR APPEAL FROM THE STATE COURT DECISION.  EX PARTE HAWK,
SUPRA, 116-117. 

IF THIS COURT DENIES CERTIORARI AFTER A STATE COURT DECISION ON THE
MERITS, OR IF IT REVIEWS THE CASE ON THE MERITS, A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT WILL NOT USUALLY REEXAMINE ON HABEAS CORPUS THE QUESTIONS THUS
ADJUDICATED.  EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, 118.  BUT WHERE THE DECISION OF THE
STATE COURT IS THAT THE REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER
THE STATE PRACTICE, OR ITS DECISION IS BASED UPON SOME OTHER ADEQUATE
NON-FEDERAL GROUND, IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THE PETITIONER TO ASK THIS
COURT FOR CERTIORARI IN ORDER TO EXHAUST HIS STATE REMEDIES, SINCE WE
WOULD LACK JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT; AND
THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE A DISTRICT
COURT FROM INQUIRING INTO THE FEDERAL QUESTION PRESENTED TO, BUT NOT
CONSIDERED BY, THE STATE COURT.  SEE HOUSE V. MAYO, SUPRA, 48.  HENCE,
WHEN THIS COURT DENIES OR DISMISSES CERTIORARI IN THIS TYPE OF CASE,
WITHOUT PASSING ON THE MERITS, IT MAY, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, BE OF
IMPORTANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS, THAT WE INDICATE AUTHORITATIVELY FOR THEIR GUIDANCE THE VIEW WE
TAKE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STATE REMEDIES, AND THE REASONS FOR OUR
DECISION. 

ON THE ARGUMENT OF THESE CASES IN THIS COURT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
ILLINOIS URGED THAT THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
OUR JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THEM.  IT WAS ARGUED, INTER ALIA, THAT
THE RECORD IN EACH CASE, WHEN READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE ILLINOIS LAW,
INDICATES THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT, DENYING LEAVE
TO FILE, DID NOT DECIDE ANY FEDERAL QUESTION OR AT LEAST THAT THE
RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE JUDGMENT DOES NOT REST ON A STATE GROUND
ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT IT.  BUT THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HAS NOT
STATED THE GROUNDS FOR ITS DENIAL OF THE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS,
AND EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD LEAVES US IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER IT
DECIDED THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONS, OR WHETHER
DECISION TURNED UPON STATE GROUNDS. 

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT REST UPON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND, OUR ATTENTION IS
DIRECTED TO THE DECISION OF THAT COURT, RENDERED ON MARCH 22, 1945, IN
THE CASE OF PEOPLE EX REL. SWOLLEY V. RAGEN, 390 ILL. 106.  THERE, AS
HERE, THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DENIED LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WITHOUT REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO ANSWER.  IN
DENYING THE RELIEF SOUGHT, THE COURT MADE AN "ANNOUNCEMENT" TO BE FILED
WITH THE RECORD IN THE CASE, WITH RESPECT TO ITS PRACTICE UPON ORIGINAL
APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THAT COURT.  IN ITS ANNOUNCEMENT IT
DECLARED:  "ANY PETITION WHICH RAISES QUESTIONS OF FACT ONLY WILL NOT
BE CONSIDERED.  THIS COURT DOES NOT TRY QUESTIONS OF FACT." 

IN THAT CASE THERE WAS NO ANSWER OR RESPONSE TO THE PETITION AND
HENCE NO ISSUE OF FACT HAD BEEN RAISED.  DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION
MIGHT THEREFORE INVOLVE A DECISION ON THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION.  SINCE THERE WERE NO ISSUES OF FACT AT
THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING, AND SINCE A QUESTION OF LAW, THE LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY OF THE PETITION, IS ALWAYS THEN PRESENT, WE MUST TAKE IT,
AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS STATES, THAT THE COURT'S
ANNOUNCEMENT MEANS THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE WILL NOT
ENTERTAIN ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS, SAVE ON A RECORD
WHICH EXCLUDES ON ITS FACE THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY TRIAL IN THAT COURT
OF AN ISSUE OF FACT.  FN2  IN THE FACE OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT, EVIDENTLY
INTENDED TO SETTLE THE PRACTICE UPON PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN
THAT COURT, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OPINION INDICATING THAT DECISION
IN THE PRESENT CASES TURNED ON A FEDERAL QUESTION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT
THE REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THESE CASES
DOES NOT REST ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  FOR THAT REASON, WE
MUST DISMISS THESE WRITS OF CERTIORARI.  WE DO NOT REACH THE
ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT, MADE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT PETITIONERS'
REMEDY IN THE STATE COURTS IS NOT HABEAS CORPUS, BUT THE STATUTORY
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, ILL. CIVIL PRACTICE ACT,
SEC. 72, AND THAT THE TWO REMEDIES ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT WHENEVER THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT DENIES A PETITION
FOR THE WRIT ORIGINALLY FILED IN THAT COURT, WITHOUT OPINION OR OTHER
INDICATION OF THE GROUND OF ITS DECISION, AND WHEN THE PETITION RELIES
ON ALLEGATIONS OF FACT TO RAISE FEDERAL QUESTIONS, IT IS UNNECESSARY
FOR THE PETITIONER, IN ORDER TO EXHAUST HIS STATE REMEDIES, TO APPLY TO
THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS.  A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES DOES NOT BAR AN APPLICATION TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE RELIEF, GROUNDED ON FEDERAL RIGHTS, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS HAS DENIED.  BUT ANY OTHER STATE REMEDIES, IF AVAILABLE, MUST
BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE ANY APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  EX
PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, 116-117. 

PETITIONER WHITE HAD MADE AN EARLIER APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS TO
THE CRIMINAL COURT OF COOK COUNTY.  ON THE ARGUMENT, COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER WHITE ASKED THAT IN THE EVENT IT BE DECIDED THAT THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S DECISION WAS BASED UPON AN ADEQUATE NON
FEDERAL GROUND, HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BE TREATED AS SEEKING
REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE CRIMINAL COURT.  FN3  WE ARE UNABLE TO DO
SO, SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE BEFORE US THE PETITION IN THE CRIMINAL COURT,
AND ITS CONTENTS DO NOT OTHERWISE APPEAR OF RECORD.  DISMISSED. 

FN1  IN THE LAST TWO TERMS OF THIS COURT, TO APRIL 21, 1945, 225
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI HAVE BEEN FILED TO REVIEW THE DENIAL BY THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT OF LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 
FROM OUR EXAMINATION OF THESE APPLICATIONS, IT APPEARS THAT IN NO CASE
DID THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DEPART FROM THE PRACTICE OF DENYING
LEAVE TO FILE WITHOUT CALLING FOR A RESPONSE AND WITHOUT OPINION.  MANY
OF THESE APPLICATIONS DISCLOSED THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD PREVIOUSLY
MADE APPLICATION TO ONE OR MORE CIRCUIT OR CRIMINAL COURTS IN ILLINOIS,
WHERE IN THE LARGE MAJORITY OF CASES THEIR PETITIONS WERE DENIED
WITHOUT CALLING FOR A RESPONSE OR APPOINTING AN ATTORNEY, AND WITHOUT
GIVING ANY REASON FOR THE DENIAL OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT IN SOME CASES
THAT THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION.  IN A FEW OF THESE LOWER COURT
CASES, IN WHICH ATTORNEYS WERE APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE PETITIONERS,
THE PETITIONS WERE DENIED WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

IT ALSO HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT THAT FOR SOME YEARS
THE WARDEN OF THE ILLINOIS STATE PENITENTIARY, CONTRARY TO EX PARTE
HULL, 312 U.S. 546, DENIED THE RIGHTS OF PRISONERS TO ACCESS TO THE
COURTS UNLESS THEY PROCURED COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THEM.  SEE UNITED
STATES EX REL. FOLEY V. RAGEN, 52 F.SUPP.  265, 143 F.2D 774; UNITED
STATES EX REL. BONGIORNO V. RAGEN, 54 F.SUPP.  973. 

FN2  APPARENTLY THE PRACTICE OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT WAS NOT
HERETOFORE SO RESTRICTED.  CF. PEOPLE EX REL. DAY V. LEWIS, 376 ILL.
509, 34 N.E.2D 712, WHERE THE COURT CALLED FOR A RETURN TO A PETITION
WHICH ALLEGED ARBITRARY ACTION BY STATE OFFICERS IN REVOKING
PETITIONER'S "GOOD-TIME" CREDIT. 

FN3  A DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS BY THE LOWER STATE COURTS IN ILLINOIS,
WHICH HAVE JURISDICTION CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT
TO ISSUE HABEAS CORPUS, SEE ILL. ANN. STAT. (SMITH-HURD), CH. 65, SEC.
2; PEOPLE V. SUPERIOR COURT, 234 ILL. 186, 197, 84 N.E. 875, APPEARS
NOT TO BE REVIEWABLE BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.  SEE PEOPLE V.
MCANALLY, 221 ILL. 66, 77 N.E. 544; PEOPLE V. SIMAN, 284 ILL. 28, 119
N.E. 940.  FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW HERE UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344, THE DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE OF THE
LOWER COURTS OF ILLINOIS, NOT REVIEWABLE IN ANY OTHER STATE COURT, IS A
DECISION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE
HAD.  BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455; CF. LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S.
418.  AND IT FOLLOWS FROM THE LACK OF A REMEDY IN THE ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT IN SUCH A CASE, THAT AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION TO THAT COURT FOR
THE WRIT IS NOT PREREQUISITE TO REVIEW HERE OF THE DECISION OF THE
LOWER STATE COURT.  CF. TENNER V. DULLEA, 314 U.S. 692.    MR. JUSTICE
ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :





UNITED STATES V. BEUTTAS, 324 U.S. 768 


NO. 431.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1945.  - 101 CT.
CLS. 748, REVERSED. 


IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR RECOVERY BY
THE CONTRACTOR OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIGHER WAGES PAID AND
THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.  P. 772. 

UNITED STATES V. BEUTTAS ET AL., TRADING AS B-W CONSTRUCTION CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 702, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN
AN ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON A CONTRACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENTS EXECUTED A CONTRACT WITH THE PETITIONER WHEREBY THEY
AGREED TO CONSTRUCT THE FOUNDATIONS FOR A PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT.  BY
ARTICLE 19 THEY AGREED THAT WORKMEN OF DESIGNATED CLASSES SHOULD BE
PAID SPECIFIED MINIMUM WAGES, AND IF, DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK,
THE PETITIONER SHOULD FIND IT DESIRABLE THAT WAGES HIGHER THAN THOSE
SPECIFIED SHOULD BE PAID, IT MIGHT ESTABLISH DIFFERENT RATES, AND IN
SUCH CASE THE CONTRACT PRICE SHOULD BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. 

THE RESPONDENTS PAID WAGES HIGHER THAN THOSE NAMED IN THE CONTRACT,
AND BROUGHT THIS ACTION, INTER ALIA, TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE.  THEY
INTRODUCED EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK WAS
SUSPENDED BY DELAYS ON THE PART OF PETITIONER'S OFFICERS AND BY OTHER
CONDITIONS FOR WHICH THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE; THAT DURING
THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION THE PETITIONER ASKED BIDS FOR ERECTION OF THE
SUPERSTRUCTURE, AND BY ITS ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED BIDDERS TO PAY HIGHER
RATES TO THE SAME CLASSES OF WORKMEN THAN THE MINIMA SPECIFIED IN THE
RESPONDENTS' CONTRACT; THAT WHEN RESPONDENTS' EMPLOYEES LEARNED OF THIS
THEY DEMANDED WAGES EQUAL TO THOSE THAT WERE TO BE PAID FOR WORK ON THE
SUPERSTRUCTURE; AND THAT TO OBTAIN WORKERS AND TO SETTLE A STRIKE THE
RESPONDENTS HAD TO PAY SUCH INCREASED WAGES. 

IT APPEARS THAT RESPONDENTS SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR
THE INCREASE IN WAGES TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WHO DISALLOWED IT, AND
THEN APPEALED TO THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC WORKS WHO FILED
A WRITTEN DECISION SUSTAINING THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S RULING.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR, IN TURN, REJECTED THE CLAIM.  IT IS URGED THAT THE LAST
NAMED OFFICIAL WAS IN ERROR AS TO CERTAIN OF THE FACTS, BUT THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT HE ACTED ARBITRARILY OR IN BAD FAITH. 

THE PETITIONER'S DEFENSE IS GROUNDED IN CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
CONTRACT AND THE SPECIFICATIONS FORMING A PART OF IT, AND FACTS FOUND
BY THE COURT BELOW. 

ARTICLE 3 PROVIDED THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MIGHT MAKE CHANGES IN
THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WITHIN THE GENERAL SCOPE THEREOF; THAT
AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT AS TO ANY INCREASE OR DECREASE OF COST DUE TO
SUCH CHANGES BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR, IN SPECIFIED CASES, HIS
SUPERIOR, SHOULD BE MADE; AND THAT IF THE CONTRACTOR WAS DISSATISFIED
WITH THE DECISION, THE DISPUTE SHOULD "BE DETERMINED AS PROVIDED IN
ARTICLE 15 HEREOF." 

ARTICLE 15 IS: 

"DISPUTES:  ALL LABOR ISSUES ARISING UNDER THIS CONTRACT WHICH CANNOT
BE SATISFACTORILY ADJUSTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT.  EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS CONTRACT, ALL OTHER DISPUTES CONCERNING
QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO
WRITTEN APPEAL BY THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT CONCERNED OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WHOSE
DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES THERETO AS TO
SUCH QUESTIONS.  IN THE MEANTIME THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DILIGENTLY
PROCEED WITH THE WORK AS DIRECTED." 

PARAGRAPH 4 OF SEC. 12 OF DIVISION I OF THE SPECIFICATIONS STATED: 

"THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR BECAUSE OF PAYMENT BY THE
CONTRACTOR OF ANY WAGE RATE IN EXCESS OF THE APPLICABLE RATE CONTAINED
HEREIN.  ALL DISPUTES IN REGARD TO THE PAYMENT OF WAGES IN EXCESS OF
THOSE SPECIFIED HEREIN SHALL BE ADJUSTED BY THE CONTRACTOR." 

WHEN RESPONDENTS ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT, THEIR EMPLOYEES WERE
UNIONIZED AND WERE WORKING UNDER A WAGE SCALE FIXED BY AGREEMENT WHICH
WAS IN ACCORD WITH THE RATES FIXED BY THE CONTRACT.  THIS AGREEMENT DID
NOT EXPIRE BY ITS TERMS UNTIL TWELVE DAYS AFTER RESPONDENTS COMPLETED
THEIR WORK.  THESE WORKMEN STRUCK BECAUSE THEY DEMANDED THE SAME WAGES
AS WERE TO BE PAID TO WORKERS UNDER THE SUPERSTRUCTURE CONTRACT,
ACCORDING TO THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THAT WORK.  THE PETITIONER
DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN RESPONDENTS AND THEIR
STRIKING WORKMEN. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S DEFENSES WERE (1) THAT THE DISPUTE MUST BE DECIDED
BY THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 15; THAT IT HAD BEEN SO DECIDED
ON THE RESPONDENTS' INVOCATION OF THAT PROCEDURE; THAT NO SHOWING OF
FRAUD OR ARBITRARY ACTION HAD BEEN MADE, AND THAT ACCORDINGLY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION WAS FINAL AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION; AND (2) THAT, IN ANY EVENT, NO BREACH OF THE CONTRACT ON
THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN SHOWN.  THESE CONTENTIONS WERE
OVERRULED BY A DIVIDED COURT, AND JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.  FN1 

1.  THE RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION IS THAT IF ARTICLE 15 BE CONSTRUED TO
COVER SUCH A DISPUTE IT IS VOID AS AN ATTEMPT TO OUST THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO DECIDE A PURE MATTER OF LAW, NAMELY, WHETHER
ON THE FACTS FOUND, THE PETITIONER HAD BROKEN THE CONTRACT.  A MAJORITY
OF THE JUDGES SO HELD, AND ALSO THOUGHT ARTICLE 15 WAS NOT INTENDED TO
COVER SUCH A DISPUTE BUT ONLY ONE AS TO CHANGES, INTERPRETATION OF THE
SPECIFICATIONS AND SIMILAR MATTERS USUALLY REMITTED TO THE JUDGMENT OF
AN ARCHITECT. 

THE PARTIES DEVOTED MUCH OF THEIR ARGUMENT HERE TO THE QUESTION
WHETHER ONLY QUESTIONS OF FACT OR QUESTIONS OF MIXED LAW AND FACT CAN
BY CONTRACT BE MADE SUBJECT TO FINAL DETERMINATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT, OR WHETHER A QUESTION OF LAW MAY ALSO, BY
CONTRACT, BE MADE SUBJECT TO FINAL DETERMINATION BY SUCH AN OFFICER. 
OUR CASES HAVE NOT EXPLICITLY DRAWN ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO
CATEGORIES.  FN2  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE THE QUESTION, FOR WE
THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE RESPONDENTS MAY NOT RECOVER FOR THE INCREASED
WAGES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

2.  TWO OF THE THREE JUDGES IN THE MAJORITY BELOW WERE OF THE VIEW
THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD IN FACT ESTABLISHED HIGHER WAGES FOR THE
RESPONDENTS' WORK AND WAS ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO PAY THE INCREASED COST
UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONTRACT.  ALL THREE JUDGES IN THE MAJORITY
HELD THAT, IN ANY CASE, THE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE BECAUSE WHAT IT DID
AMOUNTED TO A BREACH OF ITS IMPLIED OBLIGATION NOT TO RENDER
PERFORMANCE MORE COSTLY TO THE RESPONDENTS. 

CLEARLY THE PETITIONER DID NOT EXPRESSLY AVAIL ITSELF OF THE OPTION
TO SET HIGHER WAGE RATES FOR THE WORK COVERED BY THE RESPONDENTS'
CONTRACT.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE QUOTED PORTIONS OF THE CONTRACT AND
SPECIFICATIONS, IT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED THAT A RECOVERY IS JUSTIFIED
PURSUANT TO THE COVENANTS OF THE CONTRACT. 

AS AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF DECISION, SOME OF THE JUDGES BELOW
RESORTED TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS AN IMPLIED CONDITION OF EVERY
CONTRACT THAT NEITHER PARTY WILL HINDER THE OTHER IN HIS DISCHARGE OF
THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED UPON HIM, NOR INCREASE HIS COST OF
PERFORMANCE.  THEY HELD THAT, BY INVITING BIDS FOR THE SUPERSTRUCTURE
AT MINIMUM WAGES HIGHER THAN THOSE FIXED IN THE RESPONDENTS' CONTRACT
FOR THE FOUNDATIONS, THE PETITIONER BREACHED THIS IMPLIED CONDITION. 
BUT, OF COURSE, THIS CAN BE TRUE ONLY IF THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED THE
INCREASE IN WAGES.  AND THE FINDINGS, IN OUR JUDGMENT, RENDER A
CONCLUSION TO THAT EFFECT IMPOSSIBLE.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT STIPULATE
THAT THE TWO GROUPS, THOSE EMPLOYED ON THE FOUNDATIONS AND THOSE
EMPLOYED ON THE SUPERSTRUCTURE, SHOULD WORK AT THE SAME TIME AT
DIFFERENT WAGES.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT HAD EVERY REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT
THE FORMER WOULD FINISH THEIR WORK AT THE THEN AGREED RATE BEFORE THE
LATTER CAME ON THE WORK.  AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.  THERE IS NO
FINDING THAT PETITIONER'S OFFICERS OR AGENTS HAD REASON TO EXPECT THAT
THE FIXING OF A WAGE RATE UNDER ANOTHER CONTRACT FOR A SEPARATE PORTION
OF THE WORK, WHICH WAS TO BE COMMENCED AFTER COMPLETION OF RESPONDENTS'
CONTRACT, WOULD CAUSE A BREACH OF THEIR EXISTING WAGE AGREEMENT BY
RESPONDENTS' EMPLOYEES.  MOREOVER, IT IS FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER TOOK
NO PART IN THE WAGE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A HOLDING THAT THE
GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY HINDERED RESPONDENTS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
CONTRACT OR CULPABLY INCREASED THEIR COSTS. 

THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS GOING TO MAKE UP THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT
ENTERED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT ATTACKED.  AS TO THE ITEM
OF $3,751.83 INCREASED WAGE COSTS, THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED; IN
OTHER RESPECTS IT IS AFFIRMED.  THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION. 

FN1  101 CT. CLS. 748; 60 F.SUPP.  771. 

FN2  SEE KIHLBERG V. UNITED STATES, 97 U.S. 398; SWEENEY V. UNITED
STATES, 109 U.S. 618; UNITED STATES V. GLEASON, 175 U.S. 588; PLUMLEY
V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 545; MERRILL-RUCKGABER CO. V. UNITED STATES,
241 U.S. 387; UNITED STATES V. MASON & HANGER CO., 260 U.S. 323; GOLTRA
V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536; UNITED STATES V. JOHN MCSHAIN, INC., 308 U.S.
512; UNITED STATES V. CALLAHAN WALKER CO., 317 U.S. 56; UNITED STATES
V. BLAIR, 321 U.S. 730. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :







U.S. V. HANCOCK TRUCK LINES, 324 U.S. 774 


ARGUED MARCH 27, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1945.  - REVERSED. 


1.  THE PERIOD FOR TAKING AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A FINAL DECREE
OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS SIXTY DAYS.  P. 776. 

2.  AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A FINAL DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT
OF THREE JUDGES MAY BE ALLOWED BY A SINGLE JUDGE.  P. 777. 

3.  IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO REVERSE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF A PROVISION THEREIN AS TO
WHICH THE SUITOR HAD ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT IT NO LONGER OBJECTED
BUT ACQUIESCED.  P. 779. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. HANCOCK TRUCK LINES, INC. 

NO. 448.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 449, REGULAR COMMON CARRIERS CONFERENCE OF
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. V. HANCOCK TRUCK LINES, INC., ALSO
ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH SET
ASIDE IN PART AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 42 M.C.C.
547. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLEE IS A MOTOR CARRIER.  WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION IT ACQUIRED THE OPERATING RIGHTS OF GLOBE CARTAGE
COMPANY, ANOTHER SUCH CARRIER, WHICH THEN HAD PENDING BEFORE THE
COMMISSION AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY UNDER SECS. 206(A) AND 209(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  FN1  THE APPELLEE PROSECUTED THE APPLICATION AS GLOBE'S SUCCESSOR
TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING THE EXERCISE OF GLOBE'S SO-CALLED
"GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS, THAT IS, TO CONTINUE GLOBE'S OPERATIONS AS THEY
WERE CONDUCTED JULY 1, 1935. 

THE COMMISSION MADE AN ORDER AWARDING A CERTIFICATE TO APPELLEE AS A
COMMON CARRIER, BUT FOR LESS THAN ALL THE ROUTES EMBRACED IN THE
APPLICATION AND RESTRICTING APPELLEE'S OPERATIONS TO TRAFFIC MOVING ON
THE BILLS OF LADING OF FREIGHT FORWARDERS.  FN2  THE RECORD DISCLOSES
THAT THE APPELLEE FILED A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, IN WHICH IT
PRESSED FOR AMENDMENT OF THE ORDER AS RESPECTS THE ROUTES PERMITTED,
BUT WAIVED OBJECTION TO THE RESTRICTION OF ITS TRAFFIC TO SERVICE OF
FREIGHT FORWARDERS.  IT STATED:  "WE DO NOT CHALLENGE, NOR DO WE
COMPLAIN AGAINST, THE RESTRICTION TO SERVE ONLY FREIGHT FORWARDERS." 
THERE IS MORE TO THE SAME EFFECT.  THE COMMISSION DENIED THE PETITION. 

THE APPELLEE BROUGHT SUIT  FN3  TO SET ASIDE AND ENJOIN ONLY SO MUCH
OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AS RESTRICTED ITS OPERATIONS TO TRAFFIC
MOVING ON BILLS OF LADING OF FREIGHT FORWARDERS.  A DISTRICT COURT OF
THREE JUDGES HEARD THE CASE, AND ISSUED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS
PRAYED.  ONE OF THESE JUDGES ALLOWED AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT ON A
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS MORE THAN THIRTY BUT LESS THAN SIXTY
DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF THE DECREE.  THE APPELLANT IN NO. 449 INTERVENED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPELLEE'S APPLICATION, AND
WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS A DEFENDANT IN THE COURT BELOW.  NO
CIRCUMSTANCE DIFFERENTIATES ITS STATUS FROM THAT OF THE APPELLANTS IN
NO. 448, AND WHAT IS SAID CONCERNING THAT CASE MAY BE TAKEN AS
APPLICABLE TO NO. 449. 

THE APPELLEE MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT
TIMELY TAKEN AND WAS IMPROPERLY ALLOWED BY A SINGLE JUDGE.  WE
POSTPONED THE QUESTION OF OUR JURISDICTION TO THE HEARING ON THE
MERITS.  AFTER ARGUMENT AND UPON CONSIDERATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN THE
ANOMALOUS POSITION THAT WHEREAS WE HOLD WE HAVE JURISDICTION, WE CANNOT
PASS UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF THE STATUTORY POWER OF THE
COMMISSION WHICH IS THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 

FIRST.  SINCE THE APPEAL IS FROM THE FINAL DECREE OF A STATUTORY
COURT OF THREE JUDGES, AND NOT FROM THE ENTRY OF A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION THE PERIOD FOR TAKING AN APPEAL IS SIXTY DAYS,  - NOT THIRTY
DAYS AS APPELLEE CONTENDS. 

WHEN BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913  FN4  THE COMMERCE COURT WAS
ABOLISHED AND ITS JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED TO DISTRICT COURTS, DEFINITE
PROVISION WAS MADE FOR DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS,
FROM AN ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IN A SUIT
TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  IN A LATER SENTENCE THE ACT
DECLARES "A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT MAY BE"
LIKEWISE REVIEWED "IF APPEAL  ... BE TAKEN  ...  WITHIN SIXTY DAYS"
AFTER ENTRY.  THE APPELLEE'S CONTENTION, AS WE SHALL SEE, RESTS ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT WHEN THE ACT SPEAKS OF A FINAL DECREE, IT IS ADDRESSED
TO FINAL DECREES IN CASES OTHER THAN THOSE BROUGHT TO SET ASIDE ORDERS
OF THE COMMISSION.  BUT WE THINK THIS READING INCORRECT.  THE PARAGRAPH
AS A WHOLE DEALS WITH THE SAME TYPE OF SUIT. 

ON THIS ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THE APPELLEE INSISTS THAT WHEN THE ACT
OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925  FN5 RESTRICTED DIRECT REVIEW OF DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENTS IN THIS FIELD BY REPEALING VARIOUS EARLIER LEGISLATION, BUT
SAVING FROM REPEAL "SO MUCH" OF THE ACT OF 1913 "AS RELATES TO THE
REVIEW OF INTERLOCUTORY AND FINAL JUDGMENTS AND DECREES IN SUITS TO
ENFORCE, SUSPEND, OR SET ASIDE ORDERS" OF THE COMMISSION, THE SENTENCE
OF THE EARLIER ACT APPLICABLE TO FINAL JUDGMENT WAS REPEALED BECAUSE IT
DID NOT DEAL WITH JUDGMENTS IN SUITS TO SET ASIDE COMMISSION ORDERS. 
THE ARGUMENT IS, TO SOME EXTENT, BASED ON THE FACT THAT WHEN THE U.S.C.
WAS COMPILED THE SENTENCE OF THE ACT OF 1913 DEALING WITH APPEALS FROM
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS BECAME SEC. 47 OF TITLE 28 AND THE SENTENCE
DEALING WITH APPEALS FROM FINAL JUDGMENTS WAS OMITTED FROM THE TITLE. 
THE OMISSION WAS CORRECTED IN 1934 BY INSERTING THE LATTER SENTENCE AS
SEC. 47A.  FN6 

THE FACE OF THE STATUTES, THE UNIFORM PRACTICE OF THIS COURT  FN7
AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FN8  MAKE AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT
APPEALS FROM FINAL DECREES IN THE CLASS OF CASES IN QUESTION MUST BE
TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS. 

SECOND.  WE HOLD THE OBJECTION THAT APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY BUT ONE OF
THE THREE JUDGES WHO COMPOSED THE DISTRICT COURT IS UNTENABLE.  THE ACT
OF OCTOBER 22, 1913(SUPRA) REQUIRES THAT IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS BOTH
THE HEARING IN RESPECT OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND THE FINAL
HEARING SHALL BE BY THREE JUDGES.  FN9  IT SAYS NOTHING AS TO WHO SHALL
ALLOW AN APPEAL.  SINCE APPEAL IS OF RIGHT, ALLOWANCE WOULD SEEM TO BE
BUT A MINISTERIAL ACT WHICH MIGHT BE PERFORMED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE
COURT.  OUR PAST PRACTICE HAS APPARENTLY SANCTIONED SUCH AN ALLOWANCE. 
BUT IF THE PROPER PROCEDURE WAS FORMERLY A MATTER OF DOUBT, SUCH DOUBT
HAS BEEN REMOVED. 

CASE AS THIS A SINGLE JUDGE MAY "ENTER ALL ORDERS REQUIRED OR PERMITTED
BY THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME," WITH A PROVISO NOT HERE RELEVANT.  THERE
IS A FURTHER PROVISO THAT HIS ACTION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW "AT ANY
TIME PRIOR TO FINAL HEARING," BY THE COURT AS CONSTITUTED AT FINAL
HEARING.  THIS, HOWEVER, IS OBVIOUSLY INAPPLICABLE TO ACTION TAKEN
SUBSEQUENT TO FINAL HEARING.  RULE 72 STATES THAT AN APPEAL TO THIS
COURT FROM A DISTRICT COURT SHALL BE ALLOWED "AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND
THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNING SUCH AN
APPEAL."  RULE 36 OF THIS COURT AUTHORIZES A SINGLE JUDGE OF A DISTRICT
COURT TO GRANT SUCH AN APPEAL. 

THIRD.  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THE COMMISSION ERRED IN GRANTING
APPELLEE A CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER AND LIMITING ITS RIGHT
THEREUNDER TO CARRIAGE OF GOODS CONSIGNED BY FREIGHT FORWARDERS.  THIS
IS THE HOLDING THE APPELLANTS CHALLENGE.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
RECORD PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THE QUESTION. 

AS HAS BEEN STATED, THE APPELLEE, IN ITS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BY THE COMMISSION, EXPRESSLY WAIVED OBJECTION TO THAT PORTION OF THE
ORDER WHICH LIMITED OPERATIONS TO TRAFFIC MOVING ON BILLS OF LADING TO
FREIGHT FORWARDERS.  THE COMMISSION'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT RECITED THE FILING OF THAT PETITION AND ALLEGED THAT IN
IT "THE PLAINTIFF LIMITED ITS OBJECTIONS TO SAID REPORT AND ORDER, TO
THE COMMISSION'S PRESCRIPTION OF THE ROUTES OVER WHICH OPERATING
AUTHORITY WAS GRANTED THEREIN, EXPRESSLY WAIVED OBJECTION TO, AND DID
NOT CHALLENGE OR COMPLAIN AGAINST THE RESTRICTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORIZED TO COMMODITIES CONSIGNED BY FREIGHT FORWARDERS AND GAVE UP
ALL CLAIM TO THE RIGHT TO TRANSPORT GENERAL COMMODITIES NOT SO
CONSIGNED."  TO THIS ANSWER THE APPELLEE FILED A REPLY CONSISTING OF
ONE PARAGRAPH IN WHICH IT DENIED THE ALLEGATION ABOVE QUOTED, WITHOUT
EXPLANATION OR ELABORATION. 

THE COMMISSION AND THE UNITED STATES FILED IN THE COURT BELOW A
REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH INCLUDED A REQUESTED FINDING
RECITING THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND STATED THE
"SOLE ERROR ALLEGED AGAINST THE COMMISSION WAS THAT IT GRANTED
AUTHORITY FOR OPERATION ONLY AS TO A PORTION OF THE ROUTES AND BETWEEN
SOME OF THE POINTS AND PLACES SPECIFIED IN THE APPLICATION.  IN SAID
PETITION THE PLAINTIFF FURTHER STATED THAT IT DID NOT CHALLENGE NOR
COMPLAIN AGAINST THE RESTRICTION OF THE SERVICE AUTHORIZED TO THE
TRANSPORTATION OF COMMODITIES WHICH ARE MOVING ON BILLS OF LADING OF
FREIGHT FORWARDERS."  THE COURT MADE NO SUCH FINDING. 

THE ONLY ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR WHICH MAY BE SAID TO ATTACK THE FAILURE
SO TO FIND IS ONE COUCHED IN GENERAL TERMS.  IT IS:  "THE DISTRICT
COURT ERRED  ...  4.  IN REFUSING TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS." 

PUTTING TO ONE SIDE THE QUESTION WHETHER SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT IS TOO
GENERAL AND BROAD TO SUPPORT A CHALLENGE TO THE COURT'S FAILURE TO FIND
AS REQUESTED, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT, NEITHER ON BRIEF NOR IN ORAL
ARGUMENT, DID THE APPELLANTS' COUNSEL PRESS FOR REVERSAL ON THAT
GROUND, WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR, OF
WHICH WE MUST TAKE NOTE, IN PASSING ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE MADE BY
THE APPELLEE. 

IT WAS MANIFESTLY IMPROPER TO REVERSE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN
RESPECT OF A PROVISION THEREIN AS TO WHICH THE SUITOR HAD ADVISED THAT
BODY IT NO LONGER OBJECTED BUT ACQUIESCED.  THE RECORD DISCLOSED THIS
SITUATION, THE DEFENSIVE PLEADING RELIED UPON IT, AND THE COURT WAS
ASKED TO DISMISS BECAUSE OF IT.  THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  49 U.S.C. SECS. 306(A), 309(A). 

FN2  41 M.C.C. 313; 42 M.C.C. 547. 

FN3  PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(28), 43-48. 

FN4  38 STAT. 208, 219-220. 

FN5  43 STAT. 936. 

FN6  A LIKE CORRECTION WAS MADE IN SEC. 345. 

FN7  REFERENCE TO THE RECORDS OF THE COURT DISCLOSES THAT IT HAS
REPEATEDLY ENTERTAINED APPEALS TAKEN MORE THAN THIRTY BUT LESS THAN
SIXTY DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT. 

FN8  HEARINGS H.R. 8206, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 15; SENATE REPORT
ON S. 2060, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 16. 

FN9  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47. 

FN10  56 STAT. 198, 199; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 792. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :















COPPERWELD CO. V. COMM'N, 324 U.S. 780 


NO. 684.  ARGUED APRIL 5, 6, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1945.  - 143
OHIO ST. 591, 56 N.E.2D 154, APPEAL DISMISSED - CERTIORARI DENIED. 


THE STATE COURT DECISION OF WHICH REVIEW IS HERE SOUGHT WAS GROUNDED
UPON THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PURSUED THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY
STATE LAW FOR THE VINDICATION OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT CLAIMED TO
HAVE BEEN VIOLATED; SO THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED AND CERTIORARI
DENIED.  P. 785. 

COPPERWELD STEEL CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER IN PROCEEDINGS
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF AWARDS MADE TO EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT
BY THE STATE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT CONDUCTS A MANUFACTURING PLANT AT WARREN, OHIO, AND IS
AN EMPLOYER AS THE TERM IS DEFINED BY THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW OF
THE STATE.  IN AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING INSTITUTED IN THE SUPREME COURT,
THE STATE'S HIGHEST TRIBUNAL, IT CHALLENGED AWARDS MADE TO CERTAIN OF
ITS EMPLOYEES, ALLEGING THAT THE INJURIES SUFFERED WERE NOT INCURRED IN
THE COURSE OF, AND DID NOT ARISE OUT OF, THE EMPLOYMENT; THAT THE
AWARDS WERE, THEREFORE, BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSION WHICH ENTERED THEM, AND, UNLESS THEY WERE ABROGATED, THE
APPELLANT WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW;
FURTHER, THAT UNLESS RELIEF WERE AFFORDED THE APPELLANT WOULD BE DENIED
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

FROM A DECISION SUSTAINING A DEMURRER AND GRANTING JUDGMENT FOR THE
DEFENDANT  FN1  THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN.  THE APPELLEE MOVED TO DISMISS. 
WE POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO THE HEARING ON THE MERITS,
AS WE WERE NOT SATISFIED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PROPERLY PRESENTED IN
THE COURT BELOW ANY ISSUE AS TO THE INFIRMITY OF THE STATE LAW UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, OR THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
OHIO DID NOT REST ON AN APPLICATION OF STATE LAW ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT
IT. 

THE QUESTIONS POSED FOR OUR DECISION, THE MANNER OF THEIR
PRESENTATION TO THE STATE COURT AND THAT COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THEM
WILL BE UNDERSTOOD ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAW, THE COMMISSION'S ACTION UNDER THAT LAW, AND THE
CHARACTER OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT. 

THE COMPENSATION LAW IS OF THE COMPULSORY TYPE.  FN2  IT IS
ADMINISTERED BY AN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, WHICH CLASSIFIES INDUSTRIES
IN RESPECT OF HAZARDS, AND FIXES PREMIUMS TO BE PAID BY EMPLOYERS INTO
A STATE FUND FOR THE BENEFIT OF INJURED WORKMEN AND THE DEPENDENTS OF
THOSE KILLED.  IT MAY ADOPT MERIT RATINGS WHICH REDUCE THE PREMIUMS OF
EMPLOYERS HAVING A LOW CASUALTY RATE. 

EVERY EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO THE ACT IS REQUIRED EITHER TO PAY PREMIUMS
INTO THE FUND OR TO QUALIFY AS A SELF-INSURER.  PAYMENTS OF
COMPENSATION FOR INJURY OR DEATH ARE MADE FROM THE STATE FUND IN
RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES OF A CONTRIBUTING EMPLOYER AND ARE PAID DIRECTLY
BY A SELF-INSURING EMPLOYER.  EMPLOYERS OF BOTH CLASSES ARE RELIEVED OF
COMMON-LAW LIABILITY FOR AN EMPLOYEE'S INJURY OR DEATH.  THOSE,
HOWEVER, WHO FAIL TO COMPLY IN ONE OF THE PERMISSIBLE WAYS REMAIN
LIABLE AT LAW, ARE DENIED CERTAIN DEFENSES IN AN ACTION BY THE EMPLOYEE
OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE AND, WITH THEIR OFFICERS, ARE LIABLE TO CRIMINAL
PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT.  THEIR EMPLOYEES MAY,
NEVERTHELESS, ELECT TO CLAIM COMPENSATION, AND IF IT IS AWARDED, AN
ACTION TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT MAY BE MAINTAINED AGAINST THE EMPLOYER. 
SUCH AN ACTION MAY ALSO BE MAINTAINED AGAINST A SELF-INSURING EMPLOYER
WHO FAILS TO PAY AN AWARD. 

SHOULD AN EMPLOYER WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE ACT FAIL TO PAY PREMIUMS, OR
OTHERWISE OMIT TO COMPLY, MEANS ARE PROVIDED TO FIX CIVIL LIABILITY
UPON HIM, EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER OF HIS
BUSINESS. 

THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION.  IF IT MAKES AN AWARD TO A CLAIMANT ITS ACTION IS
FINAL.  NEITHER THE EMPLOYER NOR THE CLAIMANT IS GIVEN ANY APPEAL OR
RIGHT OF REVIEW.  IF THE COMMISSION REFUSES AN AWARD ON CERTAIN GROUNDS
SPECIFIED IN THE ACT THE CLAIMANT MAY APPEAL TO A COURT. 

IT IS CONCEDED BY THE APPELLEE THAT IF A SELF-INSURING OR A NON
COMPLYING EMPLOYER IS SUED FOR THE AMOUNT OF AN AWARD THE DEFENSE IS
OPEN TO HIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE GRANTED THE AWARD WAS NOT INJURED IN THE
COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT OR THAT THE INJURY DID NOT ARISE OUT OF THE
EMPLOYMENT.  IN THE CASE OF A COMPLYING EMPLOYER WHO PAYS PREMIUMS INTO
THE STATE FUND NO SUCH DEFENSE IS OPEN, FOR THE AWARD IS PAID FROM THE
FUND AND HE IS NOT A PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION. 

WE TURN NOW TO THE FACTS ALLEGED IN APPELLANT'S PETITION.  SO FAR AS
MATERIAL THEY FOLLOW.  THE MEN WHO WERE INJURED OR KILLED WERE
EMPLOYEES IN APPELLANT'S PLANT.  AT THE CLOSE OF THEIR WORK THEY LEFT
THE PLANT IN AN AUTOMOBILE AND CHOSE ONE OF SEVERAL WAYS OF EGRESS - A
PUBLIC ROAD, WHICH AT A SHORT DISTANCE FROM THE PLANT CROSSED THE
BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD'S TRACK.  WHILE CROSSING THIS TRACK THE
AUTOMOBILE WAS STRUCK BY A TRAIN.  THE COMMISSION, DESPITE APPELLANT'S
REPRESENTATION THAT THE RESULTING INJURIES AND DEATHS WERE NOT
COMPENSABLE UNDER THE ACT, ENTERED AWARDS.  BY ITS AMENDED PETITION THE
APPELLANT SHOWED THAT AS A RESULT OF THE INCLUSION OF THE AWARDS IN ITS
ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE ITS PREMIUMS HAD BEEN GREATLY INCREASED. 

ON THE FIRST HEARING THE SUPREME COURT OVERRULED APPELLANT'S
CONTENTION THAT SEC. 871-38 OF THE CODE AUTHORIZED THE INSTITUTION OF
PROCEEDINGS IN THAT COURT TO SET ASIDE COMPENSATION AWARDS.  TREATING
THE PETITION AS ONE FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION, THE COURT HELD THAT
REMEDY UNAVAILABLE TO CONTROL THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN RENDERING
AWARDS.  IF CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS, THE COURT FOUND
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED THE
ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT.  CONSTRUING THE PRAYER AS ONE FOR INJUNCTION, THE
COURT HELD THAT THE LAW OF OHIO INVESTED IT WITH NO ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION IN EQUITY, AND THAT GENERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION IS
CONFERRED ON THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE.  THESE ARE ALL
RULINGS AS TO THE LAW OF OHIO, AND, AS SUCH, WE ARE WITHOUT POWER TO
REVIEW THEM. 

IN ITS AMENDED PETITION THE APPELLANT INSISTED THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS
TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY; AND THAT IT WAS WITHOUT REMEDY
AGAINST THE LOSS OF ITS MERIT RATING AND THE INCREASE OF ITS PREMIUMS
UNLESS THE COURT SHOULD SET ASIDE THE AWARDS. 

IN A SECOND OPINION THE COURT NOTICED THESE ALLEGATIONS.  IT HELD
THAT AS APPELLANT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE COMPENSATION PROCEEDING AND AS
THE AWARDS WERE PAYABLE, NOT BY THE APPELLANT, BUT BY THE STATE FUND,
IN WHICH APPELLANT HAD NO PROPERTY INTEREST, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT
PAYMENT OF THE AWARDS DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF ANY PROPERTY.  IT SAID THAT
APPELLANT'S INTERESTS COULD BE AFFECTED ONLY WHEN IT WAS CALLED ON TO
PAY INCREASED PREMIUMS AS A RESULT OF THE AWARDS, AND ADVERTED TO THE
FACT THAT APPELLANT COULD REFUSE TO PAY PREMIUMS, AND DEFEND A SUIT FOR
THEM BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 1465-75 OF THE ACT.  AS TO THIS THE APPELLANT
URGES THAT THE PENALTIES, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSED
UPON IT AND ITS OFFICERS IF IT PURSUED SUCH A COURSE AMOUNT TO A DENIAL
OF ALL REMEDY.  OF THIS, MORE HEREAFTER. 

IN RESPECT TO THE DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION, THE COURT BELOW SEEMS
NOT TO HAVE DEALT WITH THE ARGUMENT AS PRESENTED IN THIS COURT.  IT
QUOTED DECISIONS WHICH SUSTAINED AS REASONABLE CLASSIFICATIONS OF
EMPLOYERS FOR IMPOSITION OF VARYING RATES OF PREMIUM ADJUSTED TO THE
RISKS INCIDENT TO THEIR ENTERPRISES.  EXCEPT AS ABOVE NOTED, IT HAD
NOTHING TO SAY TO THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT WHEREAS SELF-INSURERS
AND NON-COMPLIERS MAY MAKE THE DEFENSE OF EXCESS OF THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION WHEN SUED FOR THE AMOUNT OF AN AWARD, IT CANNOT ASSERT
SUCH A DEFENSE WHEN SUED FOR PREMIUMS.  IN OUR VIEW, THE ANSWER TO BOTH
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTIONS, THOUGH NOT CLEARLY EXPRESSED BELOW,
IS THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THE APPELLANT IS WITHOUT REMEDY, IF ENTITLED
TO REDRESS.  FOR IT IS STATED, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT THERE ARE
COURTS IN THE STATE HAVING GENERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION, AND IF RESORT
TO A DEFENSE AT LAW INVOLVES THE PERILS AND PENALTIES THE APPELLANT
ASSERTS, WE ARE NOT ADVISED THAT EQUITY WILL NOT CONSIDER AN
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF.  CERTAINLY WE CAN NEITHER REQUIRE THE SUPREME
COURT TO EXERCISE A JURISDICTION IT FINDS IS NOT CONFERRED UPON IT BY
LAW, NOR EXPRESS ANY VIEW AS TO THE RELIEF TO WHICH THE APPELLANT MAY
BE ENTITLED, IN ADVANCE OF ITS AVAILING ITSELF OF A FORUM APPARENTLY
NOT FORECLOSED TO IT FOR THE PROTECTION OF ITS ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ASSUMES THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL. 
THE ASSUMPTION INVOLVES THE ANSWER TO TWO QUESTIONS.  FIRST, WERE
QUESTIONS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRESENTED AND DECIDED BELOW? 
WE THINK THAT THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED, AND THE COURT BELOW UNDERSTOOD,
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION WERE INVOKED.  NOT ONLY DOES THE OHIO CONSTITUTION EMBODY
NO PROVISIONS IN THE WORDS OF THAT ARTICLE BUT IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT IT
CONTAINS ANY EQUIVALENT PROVISIONS.  WHILE THE APPELLANT'S PETITION DID
NOT MENTION THE AMENDMENT, IT USED THE EXACT PHRASEOLOGY IN WHICH IT IS
COUCHED.  THE PLEADINGS AND THE EXPRESSIONS FOUND IN THE OPINIONS LEAD
US TO CONCLUDE THAT QUESTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL CHARTER WERE PRESENTED
AND CONSIDERED. 

SECONDLY, WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATE STATUTE DRAWN
IN QUESTION?  IF NOT, WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION ON APPEAL.  BUT, AS
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION BY THE DECISION OF THE STATE
COURT IS, IN ANY CASE, INVOLVED, WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
DECISION ON CERTIORARI (28 U.S.C. 344(C)).  THE QUESTION OF THE
PROPRIETY OF ENTERTAINING THE APPEAL NEED NOT BE DECIDED, IN THE VIEW
WE TAKE OF THE BASIS OF THE STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT.  INASMUCH AS WE
CONCLUDE THAT DECISION WAS GROUNDED UPON THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT
HAD NOT PURSUED THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY STATE LAW FOR THE VINDICATION OF
ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IT CLAIMED WAS VIOLATED, WE MUST DISMISS THE
APPEAL AND DENY CERTIORARI.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE PETITION WAS HELD DEMURRABLE (142 O.S. 439, 52 N.E.2D 735),
WAS AMENDED, DEMURRED TO, AND JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT WAS RENDERED ON
DEMURRER (143 O.S. 591, 56 N.E. 154). 

FN2 THE SUMMARY OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IS DRAWN FROM THE GENERAL
CODE OF OHIO, SECS. 871-1-871-12; 871-38; 1465-37; 1465-53; 1465-54;
1465-60,-68,-69,-69A,-70,-72,-73,-74,-75,-90. 
..END :


















RICE V. OLSON, 324 U.S. 786 


NO. 391.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1945.  - 144
NEB. 547, 14 N.W.2D 850, REVERSED. 


PETITIONER, AN INDIAN UNDER A STATE COURT SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR
ONE TO SEVEN YEARS UPON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY TO A CHARGE OF BURGLARY,
PETITIONED A STATE COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ALLEGING THAT HE
HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THAT THE TRIAL COURT FAILED
TO ADVISE HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO COUNSEL AND TO CALL
WITNESSES; THAT HE HAD NOT WAIVED THOSE RIGHTS BY WORD OR ACTION; AND
THAT THE CONVICTION WAS VOID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED CRIME WAS COMMITTED ON
AN INDIAN RESERVATION WHICH WAS WITHIN EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 
HELD: 

1.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION SHOWED A PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION OF
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AND HE WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING UPON
THEM.  PP. 788, 791. 

2.  BY HIS PLEA OF GUILTY, PETITIONER HAD NOT WAIVED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  P. 788. 

3.  THE STATE COURT HAVING PLACED ITS JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL SQUARELY
ON THE ABSENCE OF MERIT IN THE PETITION, THIS COURT CAN NOT CONCLUDE
THAT THE PETITION FAILED TO SATISFY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.  P. 792. 

RICE V. OLSON, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 696, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE
DISMISSAL OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, AN INDIAN, WITHOUT BENEFIT OF COUNSEL PLEADED GUILTY TO A
CHARGE OF BURGLARY IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THURSTON COUNTY, NEBRASKA,
AND WAS SENTENCED TO FROM ONE TO SEVEN YEARS.  HE PETITIONED ANOTHER
STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELEASE FROM
THE PENITENTIARY ON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS,  FN1  THAT HE HAD BEEN
DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF COUNSEL, AND THAT THE STATE
COURT LACKED JURISDICTION.  HE ALLEGED THAT HE WAS IGNORANT OF THE LAW,
AND THAT IN PREPARING HIS PETITION HE HAD NO ONE TO HELP HIM EXCEPT A
FELLOW INMATE.  PETITIONER DID NOT CHALLENGE THE FACTS STATED IN THE
JUDGMENT ENTRY, I.E., THAT, IN THE BURGLARY PROCEEDINGS, HE WAS
ARRAIGNED AND PLEADED GUILTY, THAT THE BURGLARY STATUTE WAS READ TO
HIM, AND THAT HE THEN REITERATED HIS PLEA.  HE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY
OF THE JUDGMENT, HOWEVER, ON THE GROUND THAT, IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, HE HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
THAT THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ADVISE HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
TO COUNSEL AND TO CALL WITNESSES.  PETITIONER FURTHER ALLEGED THAT HE
HAD NOT WAIVED THOSE RIGHTS BY WORD OR ACTION.  FINALLY, THE PETITION
ALLEGED THAT THE CONVICTION WAS VOID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED CRIME WAS
COMMITTED ON AN INDIAN RESERVATION WHICH WAS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN FEDERAL
JURISDICTION. 

THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY THE STATE DISTRICT COURT, FOR LACK OF
MERIT, WITHOUT AN ANSWER, AND WITHOUT A HEARING.  PETITIONER THEN MOVED
TO SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL, REPEATING HIS ALLEGATIONS, AND REQUESTING
THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO ASSIST HIM.  THE MOTION WAS DENIED, AND
PETITIONER, AGAIN ACTING IN HIS OWN BEHALF, APPEALED TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEBRASKA.  THAT COURT, WITHOUT REQUIRING AN ANSWER, AFFIRMED
THE DISTRICT COURT.  144 NEB. 547, 14 N.W.2D 850.  BECAUSE IMPORTANT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI AND APPOINTED
COUNSEL TO REPRESENT PETITIONER.  323 U.S. 696. 

IN AFFIRMING, THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT STATED THAT "'IT IS NOT
NECESSARY THAT THERE BE A FORMAL WAIVER; AND A WAIVER WILL ORDINARILY
BE IMPLIED WHERE ACCUSED APPEARS WITHOUT COUNSEL AND FAILS TO REQUEST
THAT COUNSEL BE ASSIGNED TO HIM, PARTICULARLY WHERE ACCUSED VOLUNTARILY
PLEADS GUILTY.'"  IT IS APPARENT THAT THE COURT'S AFFIRMANCE DID NOT
REST ON ITS STATEMENT THAT A PLEA OF GUILTY "ORDINARILY IMPLIED" A
WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, BUT UPON A HOLDING THAT SUCH A PLEA
"ABSOLUTELY" AND FINALLY WAIVES THAT RIGHT.  FN2  THIS IS INCONSISTENT
WITH OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

WHATEVER INFERENCE OF WAIVER COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE PETITIONER'S
PLEA OF GUILTY IS ADEQUATELY ANSWERED BY THE UNCONTROVERTED STATEMENT
IN HIS PETITION THAT HE DID NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT EITHER BY WORD OR
ACTION.  THIS DENIAL OF WAIVER SQUARELY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT.  THE
STATE SUPREME COURT RESOLVED THIS DISPUTED FACT BY DRAWING A CONCLUSIVE
IMPLICATION FROM THE PETITIONER'S PLEA OF GUILTY.  THIS IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF A HOLDING THAT ONE WHO VOLUNTARILY PLEADS GUILTY WITHOUT
THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL HAS THEREBY COMPETENTLY WAIVED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL, EVEN THOUGH HE MAY HAVE SORELY NEEDED
AND BEEN UNABLE TO OBTAIN LEGAL AID.  A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS GUILTY IS
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL, AND A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL IS NOT
NECESSARY.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE OF
THIS CHARACTER IS INCAPABLE ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS DEFENSE, THAT HE
IS UNABLE TO GET COUNSEL, AND THAT HE DOES NOT INTELLIGENTLY AND
UNDERSTANDINGLY WAIVE COUNSEL.  FN3  WHETHER ALL THESE CONDITIONS EXIST
IS A MATTER WHICH MUST BE DETERMINED BY EVIDENCE WHERE THE FACTS ARE IN
DISPUTE. 

THE PETITIONER'S NEED FOR LEGAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE IS STRIKINGLY
EMPHASIZED BY THE ALLEGATION IN HIS HABEAS CORPUS PETITION THAT THE
OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE STATE COURT CONVICTED HIM WAS COMMITTED ON A
GOVERNMENT INDIAN RESERVATION "WITHOUT AND BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT."  THIS RAISES AN INVOLVED QUESTION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION,
POSING A PROBLEM THAT IS OBVIOUSLY BEYOND THE CAPACITY OF EVEN AN
INTELLIGENT AND EDUCATED LAYMAN, AND WHICH CLEARLY DEMANDS THE COUNSEL
OF EXPERIENCE AND SKILL. 

THE POLICY OF LEAVING INDIANS FREE FROM STATE JURISDICTION AND
CONTROL IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE NATION'S HISTORY.  SEE WORCESTER V.
GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515; 1 STAT. 469; 4 STAT. 729.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND CONGRESS IN 1885 PASSED A COMPREHENSIVE ACT, 23
STAT. 362, 385, IN ORDER TO FULFILL "TREATY STIPULATIONS WITH VARIOUS
INDIAN TRIBES," SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING THE WINNEBAGOES, OF WHICH TRIBE
THE PETITIONER ALLEGES HE IS A MEMBER.  THE LAST SECTION OF THAT ACT
SUBJECTS INDIANS WHO COMMIT CERTAIN CRIMES, INCLUDING BURGLARY, TO
TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT.  THE LANGUAGE THERE USED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS
PURPOSE IS THAT "ALL SUCH INDIANS COMMITTING ANY OF THE ABOVE CRIMES
AGAINST THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF ANOTHER INDIAN OR OTHER PERSON WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WITHIN THE LIMITS
OF ANY INDIAN RESERVATION, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAWS, TRIED IN
THE SAME COURTS AND IN THE SAME MANNER, AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME
PENALTIES AS ARE ALL OTHER PERSONS COMMITTING ANY OF THE ABOVE CRIMES
WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  23 STAT.
385.  THIS SECTION NOW APPEARS AS SEC. 548 IN TITLE 18 OF THE U.S.C.
AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT IT GIVES NEBRASKA AUTHORITY
TO TRY THE PETITIONER.  THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTION IS NOT IN
ACCORD WITH THAT HERETOFORE GIVEN IT BY THE COURTS OF NEBRASKA AND
OTHER COURTS.  FN4  IN ARGUMENT BEFORE US, NEBRASKA DOES NOT RELY ON
THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF 18 U.S.C. 548.  INSTEAD IT
ARGUES THAT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION THAT THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED ON AN
INDIAN RESERVATION IS FALSE, AND THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS
REQUIRED TO TAKE JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE OF ITS FALSITY.  IT ADMITS,
HOWEVER, THAT THURSTON COUNTY, WHERE THE BURGLARY WAS ALLEGEDLY
COMMITTED, IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL STATUTORY BOUNDARIES OF A
FEDERALLY CREATED INDIAN RESERVATION, 14 STAT. 667, 14 STAT. 671, AND
THAT THE VILLAGE OF WINNEBAGO, WHERE THE ALLEGED OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED,
IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WINNEBAGO RESERVATION.  THE
VILLAGE OF WINNEBAGO, IT INSISTS, HAS CEASED TO BE A PART OF THE
RESERVATION BECAUSE ALL THE INDIANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE FULL BENEFITS
OF CITIZENSHIP BY NEBRASKA AND BECAUSE WINNEBAGO IS INCORPORATED UNDER
THE LAWS OF NEBRASKA AND IS LOCATED ENTIRELY UPON LAND WHICH HAS BEEN
PATENTED IN FEE.  THE FACTS UPON WHICH THIS CONTENTION RESTS ARE SAID
TO BE THOSE OF WHICH NEBRASKA COURTS CAN TAKE JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE.  WITH
THESE FACTS THUS ESTABLISHED, IT IS SAID THAT JURISDICTION OF NEBRASKA
OVER THIS OFFENSE IS CONFERRED BY SEC. 6 OF THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT
PASSED IN 1887, 24 STAT. 390, AS AMENDED, 34 STAT. 182.  ASSUMING THAT
ALL THE FACTS URGED BY THE STATE ARE CORRECT, AND THAT THESE INDIAN
LANDS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF UNDER THIS LATTER STATUTE, THE STATE FINDS
SUPPORT FOR ITS CONTENTION IN THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT ACT
IN MATTER OF HEFF, 197 U.S. 488.  BUT LATER CASES HAVE CAST
CONSIDERABLE DOUBT ON WHAT WAS SAID IN THE HEFF DECISION.  UNITED
STATES V. CELESTINE, 215 U.S. 278, 290-291; HALLOWELL V. UNITED STATES,
221 U.S. 317, 323; TIGER V. WESTERN INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286, 314;
DONNELLY V. UNITED STATES, 228 U.S. 243, 269-272; UNITED STATES V.
CHAVEZ, 290 U.S. 357; UNITED STATES V. MCGOWAN, 302 U.S. 535, 539. 

ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE POWER OF THE STATE COURTS TO
TRY THIS INDIAN PETITIONER FOR BURGLARY INDICATE THE COMPLEXITIES OF
THE PROBLEM HE WOULD HAVE FOUND HAD HE ATTEMPTED TO DEFEND HIMSELF ON
THIS GROUND.  AND A DECISION BY THE STATE COURT THAT IT HAD
JURISDICTION MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE FINALLY DETERMINED THE ISSUE.  CF.
TOY TOY V. HOPKINS, 212 U.S. 542, 549, AND BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S.
19. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS
ALLEGATIONS THAT HE DID NOT, IN THE BURGLARY PROCEEDINGS, WAIVE HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL. 

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT EVEN IF THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT A PLEA OF GUILTY IS A CONCLUSIVE WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL,
ITS JUDGMENT MIGHT BE SUSTAINED ON THE GROUND THAT HABEAS CORPUS WAS
NOT THE PROPER REMEDY, OR BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION LACK
SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS.  THE VERY FACT THAT THE COURT CONSIDERED THE
PETITION ON ITS MERITS GIVES RISE TO A STRONG, IF NOT CONCLUSIVE,
INFERENCE THAT THE PETITION SATISFIED THE STATE'S PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS IN ALL RESPECTS.  BY TREATING THIS CLUMSILY DRAWN PETITION
WITH LIBERALITY, INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE PRECISE NICETIES OF TECHNICAL PROCEDURE, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TRADITIONAL SOLICITUDE FOR
THE WRIT.  FN5 AND THIS TREATMENT IS IN LINE WITH FEDERAL PRACTICE.  "A
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OUGHT NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED WITH TECHNICAL
NICETY.  EVEN IF IT IS INSUFFICIENT IN SUBSTANCE IT MAY BE AMENDED IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE."  HOLIDAY V. JOHNSTON, 313 U.S. 342, 350,
351.  FN6 

SINCE THE STATE COURT PLACED ITS JUDGMENT PRECISELY ON THE ABSENCE OF
MERIT IN THE PETITION, WE COULD NOT, EXCEPT BY SPECULATION, CONCLUDE
THAT THE PETITION FAILED TO MEASURE UP TO ITS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. 
FN7  FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, WE HOLD THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
PETITION SHOWED A PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION OF THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO
COUNSEL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION CHARGING THAT THE PETITIONER'S
IMPRISONMENT WAS ILLEGAL UNDER STATE LAWS NEED NOT BE SET OUT, SINCE
THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN FINALLY ADJUDICATED BY THE STATE SUPREME
COURT AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW HERE.  SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S.
329, 330. 

FN2  IN DISCUSSING ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION OTHER THAN THE ONE
RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, THE STATE SUPREME COURT ALSO QUOTED
WITH APPROVAL A STATEMENT THAT "A PLEA OF GUILTY ADMITS ALL FACTS
SUFFICIENTLY PLEADED, ...  OPERATES AS A WAIVER OF ANY DEFENSE, AND
...  WITH IT, OF COURSE, THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES WITH RESPECT TO
THE CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS."  THE COURT THEREFORE SAID THAT
SINCE THE RECORD AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWED "THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD PLEADED
GUILTY, THIS ABSOLUTELY WAIVED THIS AND ALL OTHER PRELIMINARY STEPS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH  ..." 

FN3  WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471; TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S.
485; HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42. 

FN4  EX PARTE CROSS, 20 NEB. 417, 30 N.W. 428, CF. KITTO V. STATE, 98
NEB. 164, 152 N.W. 380; STATE V. CAMPBELL, 53 MINN. 354, 55 N.W. 553;
PEOPLE V. DALY, 212 N.Y. 183, 105 N.E. 1048; UNITED STATES V. KAGAMA,
118 U.S. 375. 

FN5  "IT MUST BE CONCEDED THAT THE PETITION IS NOT A SKILLFULLY DRAWN
PLEADING, BUT AS IT WAS NOT ATTACKED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IT MUST
RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION HERE  ...  CROCKER MADE NO APPEARANCE IN
THE CASE, AND THE WARRANT WAS NOT SET OUT IN ANY OF THE PLEADINGS. 
WHEN ATTACKED AFTER JUDGMENT, THE PETITION, THOUGH INFORMAL, MUST BE
HELD SUFFICIENT."  URBAN V. BRAILEY, 85 NEB. 796, 798-99, 124 N.W.
467.  "IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PROPER METHOD OF ATTACKING THE
PETITION IS BY MOTION TO QUASH THE WRIT, AND THAT INSUFFICIENCY IN THE
PETITION IS WAIVED UNLESS THAT REMEDY BE RESORTED TO.  (MCGLENNAN V.
MARGOWSKI, 90 IND. 150.)"  NEBRASKA CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY V. STATE,
57 NEB. 765, 769, 78 N.W. 267.  SEE ALSO CHASE V. STATE, 93 FLA. 963,
113 SO. 103; STATE EX REL. CHASE V. CALVIRD, 324 MO. 429, 24 S.W.2D
111; STUART V. STATE, 36 ARIZ. 28, 282 P. 276; STATE EX REL. DAVIS V.
HARDIE, 108 FLA. 133, 146 SO. 97; EX PARTE TIPTON, 83 CAL. APP. 742,
257 P. 445; DEAVER V. STATE, 24 ALA. APP. 377, 135 SO. 604; MCDOWELL V.
GOULD, 166 GA. 670, 144 S.E. 206; EX PARTE TOLLISON, 73 OKL. CR. 38,
117 P.2D 549; PEOPLE V. SUPERIOR COURT, 234 ILL. 186, 84 N.E. 875;
WILLIS V. BAYLES, 105 IND. 363, 5 N.E. 8. 

FN6  SEE ALSO COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255; BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306
U.S. 19. 

FN7  SEE SMITH V. O'GRADY, SUPRA; CF. UNITED STATES V. JU TOY, 198
U.S. 253, 261. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES REVEALED BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE AND
IN THE LIGHT OF NEBRASKA'S EXPERIENCE WITH PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS,
AS LAID BEFORE THIS COURT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, THE
MEAGER ALLEGATIONS OF THIS PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD PRECLUDE
OUR ATTRIBUTING TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA A DISREGARD, IN
AFFIRMING A DENIAL OF THE PETITION, OF RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES RATHER THAN A DENIAL ON ALLOWABLE STATE GROUNDS. 
ACCORDINGLY, I BELIEVE THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS VIEW. 
..END :






















REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. BOARD, 324 U.S. 793 


ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 23, 1945.  - 142 F.2D 193,
AFFIRMED.  - 143 F.2D 67, REVERSED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WAS WARRANTED IN THESE CASES IN
FINDING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 8 OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, IN THE EMPLOYER'S (1) ENFORCEMENT OF A
"NOSOLICITATION" RULE AGAINST THE SOLICITATION OF UNION MEMBERSHIP BY
EMPLOYEES ON COMPANY PROPERTY DURING LUNCH HOUR; (2) DISCHARGE OF
EMPLOYEES FOR WEARING UNION "SHOP STEWARD" BUTTONS IN THE PLANT THOUGH
AT A TIME WHEN A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES HAD NOT DESIGNATED ANY
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE; AND (3) ENFORCEMENT OF A GENERAL
"NO-DISTRIBUTION" RULE AGAINST DISTRIBUTION OF UNION LITERATURE OR
CIRCULARS BY EMPLOYEES ON THEIR OWN TIME THOUGH ON PARKING LOTS OWNED
BY THE COMPANY AND ADJACENT TO THE PLANT.  PP. 795, 803. 

2.  AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WITH POWER AFTER HEARINGS TO
DETERMINE ON THE EVIDENCE IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS WHETHER VIOLATIONS
OF STATUTORY COMMANDS HAVE OCCURRED, THE LABOR BOARD, WITHIN THE LIMITS
OF ITS INQUIRY, MAY INFER FROM PROVEN FACTS SUCH CONCLUSIONS AS
REASONABLY MAY BE BASED ON THE FACTS PROVEN.  P. 800. 

3.  IT WAS REASONABLE FOR THE LABOR BOARD TO ADOPT A PRESUMPTION OF
INVALIDITY OF A COMPANY RULE FORBIDDING UNION SOLICITATION BY EMPLOYEES
ON COMPANY PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF WORKING HOURS, IN THE ABSENCE OF
EVIDENCE THAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE THE RULE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN PRODUCTION OR DISCIPLINE.  P. 803. 

4.  THE DISCHARGE OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR VIOLATION OF A COMPANY RULE
AGAINST SOLICITATION, WHICH RULE WAS INVALID AS APPLIED TO THE UNION
SOLICITATION IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE ENGAGED ON HIS OWN TIME, WAS
DISCRIMINATORY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT IN THAT IT
DISCOURAGED MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR UNION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE RULE
WAS ENFORCED IMPARTIALLY AGAINST ALL SOLICITORS.  P. 805. 

REPUBLIC AVIATION CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

NO. 226.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 452, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. LE TOURNEAU
COMPANY OF GEORGIA, ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 688, 698, TO REVIEW, IN NO. 226, A DECREE
GRANTING ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD;
AND, IN NO. 452, A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THE REPUBLIC AVIATION CORPORATION CASE, THE EMPLOYER, A LARGE AND
RAPIDLY GROWING MILITARY AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER, ADOPTED, WELL BEFORE
ANY UNION ACTIVITY AT THE PLANT, A GENERAL RULE AGAINST SOLICITING
WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SOLICITING OF ANY TYPE CANNOT BE PERMITTED IN THE FACTORY OR
OFFICES."  THE REPUBLIC PLANT WAS LOCATED IN A BUILT-UP SECTION OF
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK.  AN EMPLOYEE PERSISTED AFTER BEING WARNED OF
THE RULE IN SOLICITING UNION MEMBERSHIP IN THE PLANT BY PASSING OUT
APPLICATION CARDS TO EMPLOYEES ON HIS OWN TIME DURING LUNCH PERIODS. 
THE EMPLOYEE WAS DISCHARGED FOR INFRACTION OF THE RULE AND, AS THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION ON THE
PART OF THE EMPLOYER TOWARD UNION ACTIVITY. 

THREE OTHER EMPLOYEES WERE DISCHARGED FOR WEARING UAW-CIO UNION
STEWARD BUTTONS IN THE PLANT AFTER BEING REQUESTED TO REMOVE THE
INSIGNIA.  THE UNION WAS AT THAT TIME ACTIVE IN SEEKING TO ORGANIZE THE
PLANT.  THE REASON WHICH THE EMPLOYER GAVE FOR THE REQUEST WAS THAT, AS
THE UNION WAS NOT THEN THE DULY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES, THE WEARING OF THE STEWARD BUTTONS IN THE PLANT INDICATED AN
ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE STEWARDS TO
REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES IN DEALING WITH THE MANAGEMENT AND MIGHT
IMPINGE UPON THE EMPLOYER'S POLICY OF STRICT NEUTRALITY IN UNION
MATTERS AND MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE EXISTING GRIEVANCE SYSTEM OF THE
CORPORATION. 

THE BOARD WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WEARING UNION STEWARD BUTTONS BY
EMPLOYEES DID NOT CARRY ANY IMPLICATION OF RECOGNITION OF THAT UNION BY
THE EMPLOYER WHERE, AS HERE, THERE WAS NO COMPETING LABOR ORGANIZATION
IN THE PLANT.  THE DISCHARGES OF THE STEWARDS, HOWEVER, WERE FOUND NOT
TO BE MOTIVATED BY OPPOSITION TO THE PARTICULAR UNION OR, WE DEDUCE, TO
UNIONISM. 

THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT THE PROMULGATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE "NO
SOLICITATION" RULE VIOLATED SEC. 8(1) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT AS IT INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED AND COERCED EMPLOYEES IN THEIR
RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 7 AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE
UNDER SEC. 8(3).  FN1  IT DETERMINED ALSO THAT THE DISCHARGE OF THE
STEWARDS VIOLATED SEC. 8(1) AND 8(3).  AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ITS
CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE SOLICITATION AND THE WEARING OF THE INSIGNIA, THE
BOARD ENTERED THE USUAL CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND DIRECTED THE
REINSTATEMENT OF THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES WITH BACK PAY AND ALSO THE
RESCISSION OF "THE RULE AGAINST SOLICITATION IN SO FAR AS IT PROHIBITS
UNION ACTIVITY AND SOLICITATION ON COMPANY PROPERTY DURING THE
EMPLOYEES' OWN TIME."  51 N.L.R.B. 1186, 1189.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 142 F.2D 193, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 688, BECAUSE OF CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF
OTHER CIRCUITS.  FN2 

IN THE CASE OF LE TOURNEAU COMPANY OF GEORGIA, TWO EMPLOYEES WERE
SUSPENDED TWO DAYS EACH FOR DISTRIBUTING UNION LITERATURE OR CIRCULARS
ON THE EMPLOYEES' OWN TIME ON COMPANY OWNED AND POLICED PARKING LOTS,
ADJACENT TO THE COMPANY'S FENCED-IN PLANT, IN VIOLATION OF A LONG
STANDING AND STRICTLY ENFORCED RULE, ADOPTED PRIOR TO UNION
ORGANIZATION ACTIVITY ABOUT THE PREMISES, WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS:  "IN
THE FUTURE NO MERCHANTS, CONCERN, COMPANY, OR INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS
WILL BE PERMITTED TO DISTRIBUTE, POST, OR OTHERWISE CIRCULATE HANDBILLS
OR POSTERS, OR ANY LITERATURE OF ANY DESCRIPTION, ON COMPANY PROPERTY
WITHOUT FIRST SECURING PERMISSION FROM THE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT." 

THE RULE WAS ADOPTED TO CONTROL LITTERING AND PETTY PILFERING FROM
PARKED AUTOS BY DISTRIBUTORS.  THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO
UNION BIAS OR DISCRIMINATION BY THE COMPANY IN ENFORCING THE RULE. 

THE COMPANY'S PLANT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF EARTHMOVING MACHINERY AND
OTHER PRODUCTS FOR THE WAR IS IN THE COUNTRY ON A SIX THOUSAND ACRE
TRACT.  THE PLANT IS BISECTED BY ONE PUBLIC ROAD AND BUILT ALONG
ANOTHER.  THERE IS ONE HUNDRED FEET OF COMPANY-OWNED LAND FOR PARKING
OR OTHER USE BETWEEN THE HIGHWAYS AND THE EMPLOYEE ENTRANCES TO THE
FENCED ENCLOSURES WHERE THE WORK IS DONE, SO THAT CONTACT ON PUBLIC
WAYS OR ON NON-COMPANY PROPERTY WITH EMPLOYEES AT OR ABOUT THE
ESTABLISHMENT IS LIMITED TO THOSE EMPLOYEES, LESS THAN 800 OUT OF 2100,
WHO ARE LIKELY TO WALK ACROSS THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY NEAR THE PLANT ON
THEIR WAY TO WORK, OR TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO WILL STOP THEIR PRIVATE
AUTOMOBILES, BUSES OR OTHER CONVEYANCES ON THE PUBLIC ROADS FOR
COMMUNICATIONS.  THE EMPLOYEES' DWELLINGS ARE WIDELY SCATTERED. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE TO THE DISTRIBUTION
OF UNION LITERATURE BY THE EMPLOYEES ON COMPANY PROPERTY WHICH RESULTED
IN THE LAY-OFFS WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(1) AND 8(3). 
CEASE AND DESIST, AND RULE RESCISSION ORDERS, WITH DIRECTIONS TO PAY
THE EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR LOST TIME, FOLLOWED.  54 N.L.R.B. 1253.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE BOARD, 143
F.2D 67, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF CONFLICT WITH THE
REPUBLIC CASE.  323 U.S. 698. 

THESE CASES BRING HERE FOR REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD IN WORKING OUT AN ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE UNDISPUTED
RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION ASSURED TO EMPLOYEES UNDER THE WAGNER ACT
AND THE EQUALLY UNDISPUTED RIGHT OF EMPLOYERS TO MAINTAIN DISCIPLINE IN
THEIR ESTABLISHMENTS.  LIKE SO MANY OTHERS, THESE RIGHTS ARE NOT
UNLIMITED IN THE SENSE THAT THEY CAN BE EXERCISED WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY
DUTY WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS IN OTHERS MAY PLACE UPON EMPLOYER OR
EMPLOYEE.  OPPORTUNITY TO ORGANIZE AND PROPER DISCIPLINE ARE BOTH
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN A BALANCED SOCIETY. 

THE WAGNER ACT DID NOT UNDERTAKE THE IMPOSSIBLE TASK OF SPECIFYING IN
PRECISE AND UNMISTAKABLE LANGUAGE EACH INCIDENT WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  ON THE CONTRARY, THAT ACT LEFT TO THE BOARD
THE WORK OF APPLYING THE ACT'S GENERAL PROHIBITORY LANGUAGE IN THE
LIGHT OF THE INFINITE COMBINATIONS OF EVENTS WHICH MIGHT BE CHARGED AS
VIOLATIVE OF ITS TERMS.  THUS A "RIGID SCHEME OF REMEDIES" IS AVOIDED
AND ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN APPROPRIATE STATUTORY LIMITATIONS
OBTAINED TO ACCOMPLISH THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION.  PHELPS
DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194.  SO FAR AS WE ARE HERE
CONCERNED, THAT PURPOSE IS THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE FOR
MUTUAL AID WITHOUT EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE.  THIS IS THE PRINCIPLE OF
LABOR RELATIONS WHICH THE BOARD IS TO FOSTER. 

THE GRAVAMEN OF THE OBJECTION OF BOTH REPUBLIC AND LE TOURNEAU TO THE
BOARD'S ORDERS IS THAT THEY REST ON A POLICY FORMULATED WITHOUT DUE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  TO BE MORE SPECIFIC IT IS THAT THE BOARD
CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS KNOWLEDGE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS FOR SUBSTANTIVE
EVIDENCE.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE
BOARD TO SHOW THAT THE RULES AND ORDERS OF THE EMPLOYERS INTERFERED
WITH AND DISCOURAGED UNION ORGANIZATION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND
SITUATION OF EACH COMPANY.  NEITHER IN THE REPUBLIC NOR THE LE TOURNEAU
CASES CAN IT PROPERLY BE SAID THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OR A FINDING THAT
THE PLANT'S PHYSICAL LOCATION MADE SOLICITATION AWAY FROM COMPANY
PROPERTY INEFFECTIVE TO REACH PROSPECTIVE UNION MEMBERS.  NEITHER OF
THESE IS LIKE A MINING OR LUMBER CAMP WHERE THE EMPLOYEES PASS THEIR
REST AS WELL AS THEIR WORK TIME ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES, SO THAT
UNION ORGANIZATION MUST PROCEED UPON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES OR BE
SERIOUSLY HANDICAPPED.  FN3 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT CREATES A SYSTEM FOR THE ORGANIZATION
OF LABOR WITH EMPHASIS ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY EMPLOYEES WITH
EMPLOYERS IN REGARD TO LABOR RELATIONS WHICH AFFECT COMMERCE.  AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF THAT SYSTEM IS THE PROVISION FOR THE PREVENTION OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY THE EMPLOYER WHICH MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE
GUARANTEED RIGHTS.  THE METHOD FOR PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
IS FOR THE BOARD TO HOLD A HEARING ON A COMPLAINT WHICH HAS BEEN DULY
SERVED UPON THE EMPLOYER WHO IS CHARGED WITH AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 
AT THAT HEARING THE EMPLOYER HAS THE RIGHT TO FILE AN ANSWER AND TO
GIVE TESTIMONY.  THIS TESTIMONY, TOGETHER WITH THAT GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF
THE COMPLAINT, MUST BE REDUCED TO WRITING AND FILED WITH THE BOARD. 
THE BOARD UPON THAT TESTIMONY IS DIRECTED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OR ENTER APPROPRIATE ORDERS TO PREVENT IN WHOLE
OR IN PART THE UNFAIR PRACTICES WHICH HAVE BEEN CHARGED.  UPON THE
RECORD SO MADE AS TO TESTIMONY AND ISSUES, COURTS ARE EMPOWERED TO
ENFORCE, MODIFY OR SET ASIDE THE BOARD'S ORDERS,  FN4  SUBJECT TO THE
LIMITATION THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, ARE CONCLUSIVE. 

PLAINLY THIS STATUTORY PLAN FOR AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING REQUIRES THAT
THE BOARD'S ORDERS ON COMPLAINTS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BE BASED
UPON EVIDENCE WHICH IS PLACED BEFORE THE BOARD BY WITNESSES WHO ARE
SUBJECT TO CROSSEXAMINATION BY OPPOSING PARTIES.  FN5  SUCH PROCEDURE
STRENGTHENS ASSURANCE OF FAIRNESS BY REQUIRING FINDINGS ON KNOWN
EVIDENCE.  OHIO BELL TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 301 U.S. 292,
302; UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN R. CO., 265 U.S. 274, 288. 
SUCH A REQUIREMENT DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE NECESSITY FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF EVIDENTIAL FACTS, HOWEVER, AND COMPEL EVIDENCE AS TO THE RESULTS
WHICH MAY FLOW FROM SUCH FACTS.  MARKET STREET R. CO. V. RAILROAD
COMM'N, 324 U.S. 548, 559.  AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WITH POWER AFTER
HEARINGS TO DETERMINE ON THE EVIDENCE IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS WHETHER
VIOLATIONS OF STATUTORY COMMANDS HAVE OCCURRED MAY INFER WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF THE INQUIRY FROM THE PROVEN FACTS SUCH CONCLUSIONS AS
REASONABLY MAY BE BASED UPON THE FACTS PROVEN.  ONE OF THE PURPOSES
WHICH LEAD TO THE CREATION OF SUCH BOARDS IS TO HAVE DECISIONS BASED
UPON EVIDENTIAL FACTS UNDER THE PARTICULAR STATUTE MADE BY EXPERIENCED
OFFICIALS WITH AN ADEQUATE APPRECIATION OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE
SUBJECT WHICH IS ENTRUSTED TO THEIR ADMINISTRATION.  LABOR BOARD V.
VIRGINIA POWER CO., 314 U.S. 469, 479; LABOR BOARD V. HEARST
PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 130. 

IN THE REPUBLIC AVIATION CORPORATION CASE THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT
THE PETITIONER WAS IN EARLY 1943 A NON-URBAN MANUFACTURING
ESTABLISHMENT FOR MILITARY PRODUCTION WHICH EMPLOYED THOUSANDS.  IT WAS
GROWING RAPIDLY.  TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES GATHERED DAILY MANY EMPLOYEES
FOR THE PLANT FROM AN AREA ON LONG ISLAND, CERTAINLY LARGER THAN
WALKING DISTANCE.  THE RULE AGAINST SOLICITATION WAS INTRODUCED IN
EVIDENCE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS VIOLATION BY THE DISMISSED
EMPLOYEE AFTER WARNING WAS DETAILED. 

AS TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE DISCHARGED FOR WEARING THE BUTTONS OF A
UNION STEWARD, THE EVIDENCE SHOWED IN ADDITION THE DISCUSSION IN REGARD
TO THEIR RIGHT TO WEAR THE INSIGNIA WHEN THE UNION HAD NOT BEEN
RECOGNIZED BY THE PETITIONER AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES. 
PETITIONER LOOKED UPON A STEWARD AS A UNION REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
ADJUSTMENT OF GRIEVANCES WITH THE MANAGEMENT AFTER EMPLOYER RECOGNITION
OF THE STEWARDS' UNION.  UNTIL SUCH RECOGNITION PETITIONER FELT THAT IT
WOULD VIOLATE ITS NEUTRALITY IN LABOR ORGANIZATION IF IT PERMITTED THE
DISPLAY OF A STEWARD BUTTON BY AN EMPLOYEE.  FROM ITS POINT OF VIEW,
SUCH DISPLAY REPRESENTED TO OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT THE UNION ALREADY WAS
RECOGNIZED. 

NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED THAT ANY UNUSUAL CONDITIONS EXISTED IN LABOR
RELATIONS, THE PLANT LOCATION OR OTHERWISE TO SUPPORT ANY CONTENTION
THAT CONDITIONS AT THIS PLANT DIFFERED FROM THOSE OCCURRING NORMALLY AT
ANY OTHER LARGE ESTABLISHMENT. 

THE LE TOURNEAU COMPANY OF GEORGIA CASE ALSO IS BARREN OF SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS INTRODUCED TENDS TO PROVE THE
SIMPLE FACTS HERETOFORE SET OUT AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE
DISCHARGE OF THE TWO EMPLOYEES FOR DISTRIBUTING UNION CIRCULARS. 

THESE WERE THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE BOARD REACHED ITS CONCLUSIONS AS
TO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  THE INTERMEDIATE REPORT IN THE REPUBLIC
AVIATION CASE, 51 N.L.R.B. AT 1195, SET OUT THE REASON WHY THE RULE
AGAINST SOLICITATION WAS CONSIDERED INIMICAL TO THE RIGHT OF
ORGANIZATION.  FN6  THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD.  ID., 1186.  THE
BOARD'S REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE PETITIONER'S INSISTENCE THAT
ITS EMPLOYEES REFRAIN FROM WEARING STEWARD BUTTONS APPEAR AT PAGE 1187
OF THE REPORT.  FN7  IN THE LE TOURNEAU COMPANY CASE THE DISCUSSION OF
THE REASONS UNDERLYING THE FINDINGS WAS MUCH MORE EXTENDED.  54
N.L.R.B. 1253, 1258, ET SEQ. WE INSERT IN THE NOTE BELOW A QUOTATION
WHICH SHOWS THE CHARACTER OF THE BOARD'S OPINION.  FN8  FURTHERMORE, IN
BOTH OPINIONS OF THE BOARD FULL CITATION OF AUTHORITIES WAS GIVEN,
INCLUDING MATTER OF PEYTON PACKING CO., 49 N.L.R.B. 828, 50 N.L.R.B.
355, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO.  FN9    THE BOARD HAS FAIRLY, WE THINK,
EXPLICATED IN THESE CASES THE THEORY WHICH MOVED IT TO ITS CONCLUSIONS
IN THESE CASES.  THE EXCERPTS FROM ITS OPINIONS JUST QUOTED SHOW THIS. 
THE REASONS WHY IT HAS DECIDED AS IT HAS ARE SUFFICIENTLY SET FORTH. 
WE CANNOT AGREE, AS REPUBLIC URGES, THAT IN THESE PRESENT CASES
REVIEWING COURTS ARE LEFT TO "SHEER ACCEPTANCE" OF THE BOARD'S
CONCLUSIONS OR THAT ITS FORMULATION OF POLICY IS "CRYPTIC."  SEE
EASTERN-CENTRAL ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 194, 209.    NOT ONLY
HAS THE BOARD IN THESE CASES SUFFICIENTLY EXPRESSED THE THEORY UPON
WHICH IT CONCLUDES THAT RULES AGAINST SOLICITATION OR PROHIBITIONS
AGAINST THE WEARING OF INSIGNIA MUST FALL AS INTERFERENCES WITH UNION
ORGANIZATION, BUT, IN SO FAR AS RULES AGAINST SOLICITATION ARE
CONCERNED, IT HAD THERETOFORE SUCCINCTLY EXPRESSED THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PROOF WHICH IT CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO OUTWEIGH OR OVERCOME THE
PRESUMPTION AS TO RULES AGAINST SOLICITATION.  IN THE PEYTON PACKING
COMPANY CASE, 49 N.L.R.B. 828, AT 843, HEREINBEFORE REFERRED TO, THE
PRESUMPTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD IS SET FORTH.  FN10 

ALTHOUGH THIS DEFINITE RULING APPEARED IN THE BOARD'S DECISIONS, NO
MOTION WAS MADE IN THE COURT BY REPUBLIC OR LE TOURNEAU AFTER THE
BOARD'S DECISIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW
UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING THEIR PLANTS OR FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 
FN11  SUCH A MOTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE BOARD OR COURT IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INTERMEDIATE REPORT IN THE REPUBLIC AVIATION
CASE WAS DATED MAY 21, 1943, AND THAT IN LE TOURNEAU NOVEMBER 11, 1943,
WHILE THE OPINION IN THE PEYTON PACKING COMPANY CASE WAS GIVEN AS LATE
AS MAY 18, 1943.  WE PERCEIVE NO ERROR IN THE BOARD'S ADOPTION OF THIS
PRESUMPTION.  FN12  THE BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED SIMILAR RULES
IN INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND THE DEFINITIVE FORM WHICH THE PEYTON
PACKING COMPANY DECISION GAVE TO THE PRESUMPTION WAS THE PRODUCT OF THE
BOARD'S APPRAISAL OF NORMAL CONDITIONS ABOUT INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS
N13.  LIKE A STATUTORY PRESUMPTION OR ONE ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION,
THE VALIDITY, PERHAPS IN A VARYING DEGREE, DEPENDS UPON THE RATIONALITY
BETWEEN WHAT IS PROVED AND WHAT IS INFERRED.  FN14 

IN THE REPUBLIC AVIATION CASE, PETITIONER URGES THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE VALIDITY OF THE RULE AGAINST SOLICITATION, ITS APPLICATION IN THIS
INSTANCE DID NOT VIOLATE SEC. 8(3), NOTE 1, SUPRA, BECAUSE THE RULE WAS
NOT DISCRIMINATORILY APPLIED AGAINST UNION SOLICITATION BUT WAS
IMPARTIALLY ENFORCED AGAINST ALL SOLICITORS.  IT SEEMS CLEAR, HOWEVER,
THAT IF A RULE AGAINST SOLICITATION IS INVALID AS TO UNION SOLICITATION
ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES DURING THE EMPLOYEE'S OWN TIME, A DISCHARGE
BECAUSE OF VIOLATION OF THAT RULE DISCRIMINATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 8(3) IN THAT IT DISCOURAGES MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION. 

REPUBLIC AVIATION CORPORATION V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS
AFFIRMED. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. LE TOURNEAU COMPANY OF GEORGIA IS
REVERSED.  NO. 226 AFFIRMED.  NO. 452 REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449, 452: 

"SEC. 7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION. 

"SEC. 8.  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER - 

"(1)  TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7. 

     .         .         .      .         . 

"(3)  BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR
ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:..." 

FN2  MIDLAND STEEL PRODUCTS CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 113 F.2D 800; LABOR
BOARD V. WILLIAMSON-DICKIE MFG. CO., 130 F.2D 260, 267; BOEING AIRPLANE
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 140 F.2D 423; LE TOURNEAU CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 143
F.2D 67. 

FN3  SEE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PP. 43,
44; RE HARLAN FUEL CO., 8 N.L.R.B. 25, 28, 63; RE WEST KENTUCKY COAL
CO., 10 N.L.R.B., 88, 105-6, 133; RE WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER CO., 31
N.L.R.B. 258, 262, 267, 270; CF. LABOR BOARD V. WATERMAN S.S. CO., 309
U.S. 206, 224. 

FN4  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1; 49 STAT. 449, 452
455, SECS. 7 TO 10 INCLUSIVE. 

FN5  THIS IS NOT A STATUTORY ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING TO REACH A BASIS
FOR ACTION AKIN TO LEGISLATION.  SEE NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 304-319. 

FN6  51 N.L.R.B. 1195: 

"THUS, UNDER THE CONDITIONS OBTAINING IN JANUARY 1943, THE
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, WORKING LONG HOURS IN A PLANT ENGAGED ENTIRELY
IN WAR PRODUCTION AND EXPANDING WITH EXTREME RAPIDITY, WERE ENTIRELY
DEPRIVED OF THEIR NORMAL RIGHT TO 'FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION' IN THE
PLANT ON THEIR OWN TIME, THE VERY TIME AND PLACE UNIQUELY APPROPRIATE
AND ALMOST SOLELY AVAILABLE TO THEM THEREFOR.  THE RESPONDENT'S RULE IS
THEREFORE IN CLEAR DEROGATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES GUARANTEED
BY THE ACT." 

FN7  WE QUOTE AN ILLUSTRATIVE PORTION.  51 N.L.R.B. 1187-88:  "WE DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT THE WEARING OF A STEWARD BUTTON IS A REPRESENTATION
THAT THE EMPLOYER EITHER APPROVES OR RECOGNIZES THE UNION IN QUESTION
AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES, ESPECIALLY WHEN, AS HERE, THERE
IS NO COMPETING LABOR ORGANIZATION IN THE PLANT.  FURTHERMORE, THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD HEREIN THAT THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES SO
UNDERSTOOD THE STEWARD BUTTONS OR THAT THE APPEARANCE OF UNION STEWARDS
IN THE PLANT AFFECTED THE NORMAL OPERATION OF THE RESPONDENT'S
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO WEAR
UNION INSIGNIA AT WORK HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A REASONABLE AND
LEGITIMATE FORM OF UNION ACTIVITY, AND THE RESPONDENT'S CURTAILMENT OF
THAT RIGHT IS CLEARLY VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT." 

FN8  54 N.L.R.B. AT 1259-60:  "AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS HELD, 'IT IS NOT EVERY INTERFERENCE WITH
PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT IS WITHIN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT  ... INCONVENIENCE,
OR EVEN SOME DISLOCATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, MAY BE NECESSARY IN ORDER
TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.'  THE BOARD HAS
FREQUENTLY APPLIED THIS PRINCIPLE IN DECISIONS INVOLVING VARYING SETS
OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE IT HAS HELD THAT THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHT TO
CONTROL HIS PROPERTY DOES NOT PERMIT HIM TO DENY ACCESS TO HIS PROPERTY
TO PERSONS WHOSE PRESENCE IS NECESSARY THERE TO ENABLE THE EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVELY TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, AND IN THOSE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE REACHED THE COURTS, THE
BOARD'S POSITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED.  SIMILARLY, THE BOARD HAS HELD
THAT, WHILE IT WAS 'WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF AN EMPLOYER TO PROMULGATE
AND ENFORCE A RULE PROHIBITING UNION SOLICITATION DURING WORKING
HOURS,' IT WAS 'NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF AN EMPLOYER TO PROMULGATE
AND ENFORCE A RULE PROHIBITING UNION SOLICITATION BY AN EMPLOYEE
OUTSIDE OF WORKING HOURS, ALTHOUGH ON COMPANY PROPERTY,' THE LATTER
RESTRICTION BEING DEEMED AN UNREASONABLE IMPEDIMENT TO THE EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION." 

FN9  51 N.L.R.B. 1186, 1187, AT NOTE 1 AND 54 N.L.R.B. 1253, 1260, AT
NOTES 6 AND 7. 

FN10  49 N.L.R.B. AT 843-44:  "THE ACT, OF COURSE, DOES NOT PREVENT
AN EMPLOYER FROM MAKING AND ENFORCING REASONABLE RULES COVERING THE
CONDUCT OF EMPLOYEES ON COMPANY TIME.  WORKING TIME IS FOR WORK.  IT IS
THEREFORE WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF AN EMPLOYER TO PROMULGATE AND ENFORCE
A RULE PROHIBITING UNION SOLICITATION DURING WORKING HOURS.  SUCH A
RULE MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE VALID IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT IT
WAS ADOPTED FOR A DISCRIMINATORY PURPOSE.  IT IS NO LESS TRUE THAT TIME
OUTSIDE WORKING HOURS, WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER WORK, OR DURING LUNCHEON
OR REST PERIODS, IS AN EMPLOYEE'S TIME TO USE AS HE WISHES WITHOUT
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEE IS ON COMPANY PROPERTY. 
IT IS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF AN EMPLOYER TO PROMULGATE
AND ENFORCE A RULE PROHIBITING UNION SOLICITATION BY AN EMPLOYEE
OUTSIDE OF WORKING HOURS, ALTHOUGH ON COMPANY PROPERTY.  SUCH A RULE
MUST BE PRESUMED TO BE AN UNREASONABLE IMPEDIMENT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
AND THEREFORE DISCRIMINATORY IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE THE RULE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PRODUCTION
OR DISCIPLINE." 

FN11  49 STAT. 454-55, SEC. 10(E): 

"...  IF EITHER PARTY SHALL APPLY TO THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SHALL SHOW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE IN THE
HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY, THE COURT MAY
ORDER SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS
MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY, AND TO BE MADE A PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT
...." 

FN12  COMPARE LABOR BOARD V. REGAL KNITWEAR CO., 140 F.2D 746,
AFFIRMED ON ANOTHER GROUND, REGAL KNITWEAR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 324 U.S.
9; CRICHTON V. UNITED STATES, 56 F.SUPP.  876, 880. 

FN13  RE DENVER TENT & AWNING CO., 47 N.L.R.B. 586, 588; RE UNITED
STATES CARTRIDGE CO., 47 N.L.R.B. 896, 897; RE CARTER CARBURETOR CORP.,
48 N.L.R.B. 354, 356; RE SCULLIN STEEL CO., 49 N.L. R.B. 405, 411.  SEE
ALSO FOR COMPARISON THE LATER CASES OF RE DALLAS TANK & WELDING CO., 51
N.L.R.B. 1315; RE JOHNSON-STEPHENS & SHINKLE SHOE CO., 54 N.L.R.B. 189,
192. 

FN14  MOBILE, J. & K.C.R. CO. V. TURNIPSEED, 219 U.S. 35, 43; WESTERN
& ATLANTIC R. CO. V. HENDERSON, 279 U.S. 639, 642; HELVERING V. RANKIN,
295 U.S. 123, 129.  COMPARE TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS IN EACH CASE. 
..END :






PRECISION CO. V. AUTOMOTIVE CO., 324 U.S. 806 


NO. 377.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, FEBRUARY 1, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 23,
1945.  - 143 F.2D 332, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS AND BREACH OF CONTRACTS
RELATED THERETO, THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW SUSTAINED ITS JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF THE
COMPLAINANT'S "UNCLEAN HANDS," AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS'
REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT WAS ERRONEOUS.  PP. 807, 820. 

2.  THE MAXIM "HE WHO COMES INTO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS"
CLOSES THE DOORS OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO ONE TAINTED WITH
INEQUITABLENESS OR BAD FAITH RELATIVE TO THE MATTER IN WHICH HE SEEKS
RELIEF, HOWEVER IMPROPER MAY HAVE BEEN THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DEFENDANT. 
P. 814. 

3.  THE CLEAN-HANDS DOCTRINE IS ROOTED IN THE HISTORICAL CONCEPT OF A
COURT OF EQUITY AS A VEHICLE FOR AFFIRMATIVELY ENFORCING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CONSCIENCE AND GOOD FAITH.  P. 814. 

4.  WHILE EQUITY DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT ITS SUITORS SHALL HAVE LED
BLAMELESS LIVES AS TO OTHER MATTERS, IT DOES REQUIRE THAT THEY SHALL
HAVE ACTED WITHOUT FRAUD OR DECEIT AS TO THE MATTER IN ISSUE.  P. 814. 

5.  ONE'S MISCONDUCT NEED NOT HAVE BEEN OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO BE
PUNISHABLE AS A CRIME OR AS TO JUSTIFY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, IN ORDER TO
WARRANT INVOCATION OF THE MAXIM.  P. 815. 

6.  WHERE A SUIT IN EQUITY CONCERNS THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS
THE PRIVATE INTERESTS OF THE LITIGANTS, THE CLEAN-HANDS DOCTRINE
ASSUMES GREATER SIGNIFICANCE; FOR IF THE EQUITY COURT IN SUCH CASE
PROPERLY APPLIES THE MAXIM TO WITHHOLD ITS ASSISTANCE, IT NOT ONLY
PREVENTS A WRONGDOER FROM ENJOYING THE FRUITS OF HIS TRANSGRESSION BUT
AVERTS AN INJURY TO THE PUBLIC.  P. 815. 

7.  A SUIT TO ENFORCE PATENTS AND RELATED CONTRACTS INVOLVES THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS INTERESTS OF THE ADVERSE PARTIES.  P. 815. 

8.  THE FAR-REACHING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF A PATENT
GIVE THE PUBLIC A PARAMOUNT INTEREST IN SEEING THAT PATENT MONOPOLIES
SPRING FROM BACKGROUNDS FREE FROM FRAUD OR OTHER INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
AND THAT SUCH MONOPOLIES ARE KEPT WITHIN THEIR LEGITIMATE SCOPE.  P.
816. 

9.  THOSE WHO HAVE APPLICATIONS PENDING IN THE PATENT OFFICE OR WHO
ARE PARTIES TO PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS HAVE AN UNCOMPROMISING DUTY TO
REPORT TO IT ALL FACTS CONCERNING POSSIBLE FRAUD OR INEQUITABLENESS
UNDERLYING THE APPLICATIONS IN ISSUE.  FAILURE IN THIS DUTY IS NOT
EXCUSED BY REASONABLE DOUBTS AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOF OF THE
INEQUITABLE CONDUCT NOR BY RESORT TO INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE.  P.
818. 

10.  A SETTLEMENT OF INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS GROUNDED UPON
KNOWLEDGE OR REASONABLE BELIEF OF PERJURY, NOT REVEALED TO THE PATENT
OFFICE OR TO ANY OTHER PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE, LACKS THAT EQUITABLE
NATURE WHICH ENTITLES IT TO BE ENFORCED AND PROTECTED IN A COURT OF
EQUITY.  P. 819. 

PRECISION INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL. V. AUTOMOTIVE
MAINTENANCE MACHINERY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 695, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINTS AND COUNTERCLAIMS IN TWO SUITS FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS AND BREACH OF CONTRACTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT, AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE MACHINERY COMPANY, CHARGED IN
TWO SUITS THAT THE VARIOUS PETITIONERS HAD INFRINGED THREE PATENTS
OWNED BY IT RELATING TO TORQUE WRENCHES.  FN1  IT WAS FURTHER ASSERTED
THAT THE ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING ACTS ALSO BREACHED SEVERAL CONTRACTS
RELATED TO THE PATENTS.  IN DEFENSE, THE PETITIONERS CLAIMED INTER ALIA
THAT AUTOMOTIVE POSSESSED SUCH "UNCLEAN HANDS" AS TO FORECLOSE ITS
RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE PATENTS AND THE CONTRACTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, AT THE CLOSE OF A CONSOLIDATED TRIAL ON THE SOLE
ISSUE OF AUTOMOTIVE'S ALLEGED INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, DELIVERED AN ORAL
OPINION HOLDING THAT AUTOMOTIVE'S HANDS WERE SOILED TO SUCH AN EXTENT
THAT ALL RELIEF WHICH IT REQUESTED SHOULD BE DENIED.  THIS OPINION WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THE WITNESSES AND IS
NOT A PART OF THE RECORD.  AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE COURT ENTERED
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, FORMING THE BASIS FOR
A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE VARIOUS COMPLAINTS AND COUNTERCLAIMS "FOR
WANT OF EQUITY."  ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVIEWED THE
FACTS AT LENGTH AND CONCLUDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF
FACT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THAT ITS
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ITS FINDINGS.  THE JUDGMENT
WAS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED.  143 F.2D 332.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE
BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED. 

THE BASIC FACTS NECESSARY TO A DETERMINATION OF THE VITAL ISSUES ARE
CLEAR AND WITHOUT MATERIAL DISPUTE.  IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER THEY MAY BE
SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

IN 1937 AND PRIOR THERETO AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD TORQUE
WRENCHES DEVELOPED BY ONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, HERMAN W. ZIMMERMAN. 
DURING THIS PERIOD SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION WAS ONE OF ITS CUSTOMERS
FOR THESE WRENCHES.  AUTOMOTIVE ALSO HAD IN ITS EMPLOY AT THIS TIME ONE
GEORGE B. THOMASMA, WHO WORKED WITH ZIMMERMAN AND WHO WAS WELL
ACQUAINTED WITH HIS IDEAS ON TORQUE WRENCHES.  IN NOVEMBER, 1937,
THOMASMA SECRETLY GAVE INFORMATION TO AN OUTSIDER, KENNETH R. LARSON,
CONCERNING TORQUE WRENCHES.  TOGETHER THEY WORKED OUT PLANS FOR A NEW
WRENCH, ALTHOUGH THOMASMA CLAIMED THAT IT WAS ENTIRELY HIS OWN IDEA. 

AFTER UNSUCCESSFULLY TRYING TO INTEREST OTHER DISTRIBUTORS, LARSON
MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO SUPPLY SNAP-ON WITH THE NEW TORQUE WRENCH.  ON
OCTOBER 1, 1938, LARSON FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A PATENT ON THE NEWLY
DEVELOPED WRENCH, WHICH APPLICATION HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO SNAP-ON
SEVERAL DAYS PRIOR THERETO.  FN2  THEN IN DECEMBER, 1938, LARSON,
THOMASMA AND ONE WALTER A. CARLSEN ORGANIZED THE PRECISION INSTRUMENT
MANUFACTURING COMPANY TO MAKE THE WRENCHES TO SUPPLY SNAP-ON'S
REQUIREMENTS.  ALL THREE RECEIVED STOCK AND WERE ELECTED OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS OF THE NEW COMPANY.  MANUFACTURE OF THE WRENCHES BEGAN IN
JANUARY, 1939, AND PRECISION SUCCEEDED IN TAKING AWAY FROM AUTOMOTIVE
ALL OF SNAP-ON'S BUSINESS.  THOMASMA CONTINUED TO WORK FOR AUTOMOTIVE
UNTIL THE LATTER DISCOVERED HIS CONNECTION WITH PRECISION AND
DISCHARGED HIM IN JUNE, 1939.  THOMASMA'S CONNECTION WITH PRECISION WAS
ALSO CONCEALED FROM SNAP-ON DURING MOST OF THIS PERIOD. 

SUBSEQUENTLY ON OCTOBER 11, 1939, THE PATENT OFFICE DECLARED AN
INTERFERENCE BETWEEN CERTAIN CLAIMS IN LARSON'S PENDING PATENT
APPLICATION AND THOSE IN ONE FILED BY ZIMMERMAN.  AUTOMOTIVE WAS THE
OWNER OF ZIMMERMAN'S APPLICATION.  SHORTLY AFTER THE INTERFERENCE WAS
DECLARED, R. E. FIDLER, AUTOMOTIVE'S ATTORNEY, WROTE TO THE PRESIDENT
OF THE COMPANY THAT THE "WHOLE SITUATION CONFRONTING YOUR OPPONENTS IN
THIS INTERFERENCE IS QUITE MESSY, AND I WILL BE SOMEWHAT SURPRISED IF
THEY FIGHT THE MATTER."  HE FURTHER WROTE THAT IF THERE WAS A CONTEST
"THEY SURELY WILL HAVE A LOT OF EXPLAINING TO DO." 

IN AUGUST, 1940, LARSON FILED HIS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT IN THE PATENT
OFFICE PROCEEDINGS.  IN IT HE GAVE FALSE DATES AS TO THE CONCEPTION,
DISCLOSURE, DRAWING, DESCRIPTION AND REDUCTION TO PRACTICE OF HIS
CLAIMED INVENTION.  THESE DATES WERE DESIGNED TO ANTEDATE THOSE IN
ZIMMERMAN'S APPLICATION BY ONE TO THREE YEARS.  LARSON ALSO CLAIMED
THAT HE WAS THE SOLE INVENTOR OF HIS WRENCH.  WHEN FIDLER LEARNED OF
THIS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT HE IMMEDIATELY SUSPECTED THAT "THERE MUST BE
SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE" AND SUGGESTED TO AUTOMOTIVE'S
PRESIDENT THAT A "VERY CAREFUL AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION" BE MADE OF
THE SITUATION.  THE PRESIDENT AGREED.  FIDLER THEN EMPLOYED SEVERAL
INVESTIGATORS WHO MADE ORAL REPORTS TO HIM FROM TIME TO TIME. 
ACCORDING TO FIDLER'S MEMORANDA OF THESE REPORTS, FIDLER LEARNED IN
GREAT DETAIL IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, 1940, THE PART THAT THOMASMA
PLAYED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LARSON WRENCH AND IN THE ORGANIZATION
OF PRECISION.  HE DISCOVERED THAT THOMASMA CLAIMED TO HAVE INVENTED THE
WRENCH AND THAT LARSON "WAS NOW TRYING TO FREEZE HIM OUT." 

FROM OCTOBER 24 TO NOVEMBER 4, 1940, LARSON AND EIGHT WITNESSES
TESTIFIED IN THE INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIMS,
CORROBORATING HIS STATEMENTS AS TO DATES DESPITE CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
THE DAY BEFORE THIS TESTIMONY ENDED THOMASMA MET WITH FIDLER AND
AUTOMOTIVE'S PRESIDENT AND STATED THAT HE HAD DEVELOPED LARSON'S WRENCH
AND THAT LARSON'S PATENT APPLICATION WAS A "FRAME-UP."  FIDLER THEN
PROCURED FROM THOMASMA AN EIGHTY-THREE PAGE STATEMENT CONCERNING THESE
MATTERS, WHICH THOMASMA SWORE TO ON NOVEMBER 15.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND, THIS STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT "RELATED IN EXTENSIVE DETAIL THE
STATEMENTS OF THOMASMA WITH RESPECT TO LARSON'S EARLY WORK AND
DISCLOSED SUCH INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE THEREOF AS TO LEAVE LITTLE DOUBT OF
THE AUTHOR'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS." 

WITH THESE FACTS BEFORE HIM, FIDLER ADMITTED THAT HE "PERSONALLY WAS
INCLINED TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT I SHOULD DO SOMETHING DRASTIC" IN
THE FORM OF TAKING THE MATTER UP WITH THE PATENT OFFICE OR THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY.  HE RESOLVED HIS PROBLEM, HOWEVER, BY SUBMITTING IT TO AN
OUTSIDE ATTORNEY.  THE LATTER ADVISED HIM THAT HIS EVIDENCE WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH LARSON'S PERJURY, THAT THE PATENT OFFICE
WOULD NOT CONSIDER THE MATTER UNTIL ALL PROOFS IN THE INTERFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS WERE IN AND THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PROBABLY WOULD NOT
TOUCH THE SITUATION WHILE THE INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING. 
FIDLER FOLLOWED HIS ADVICE. 

A FEW DAYS LATER FIDLER INFORMED LARSON'S PATENT ATTORNEY, HARRY C.
ALBERTS, OF THE INFORMATION DISCLOSED IN THE THOMASMA AFFIDAVIT. 
ALBERTS ADMITTED THAT "IT LOOKED VERY MUCH LIKE LARSON HAD GIVEN FALSE
TESTIMONY" AND ASKED THAT FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THOMASMA BE MADE IN
HIS PRESENCE.  ACCORDINGLY, ON NOVEMBER 28, THOMASMA WAS EXAMINED
ORALLY BEFORE ALBERTS, FIDLER AND OFFICIALS OF AUTOMOTIVE AND SNAP-ON.
THOMASMA REPEATED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME STORY AS IN HIS AFFIDAVIT. 
SNAP-ON'S PRESIDENT SAID THAT IF THE STORY WERE TRUE "THE WHOLE THING
SMELLS TO THE HIGH HEAVENS."  AND ALBERTS REMARKED THAT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HE FELT HE WOULD HAVE TO WITHDRAW AS LARSON'S ATTORNEY. 

ON THE SAME DAY, ALBERTS AND SNAP-ON'S PRESIDENT CONFRONTED LARSON
AND CARLSEN WITH THE THOMASMA STORY AND DEMANDED AN EXPLANATION. 
LARSON REFUSED TO COMMIT HIMSELF ON THE TRUTH OF THOMASMA'S ACCOUNT BUT
FINALLY ADMITTED THAT "MY TESTIMONY IS FALSE AND THE WHOLE CASE IS
FALSE."  ALBERTS THEN WITHDREW AS THEIR ATTORNEY,  FN3  GIVING THEM THE
NAMES OF THREE OTHER LAWYERS, INCLUDING M. K. HOBBS.  THE FACT THAT
ALBERTS WITHDREW WAS COMMUNICATED BY HIM TO FIDLER. 

LARSON AND CARLSEN CALLED ON HOBBS THE NEXT DAY, NOVEMBER 29.  THEY
TOLD HIM THEY WERE WILLING TO CONCEDE PRIORITY IN ZIMMERMAN AND WANTED
HOBBS TO SETTLE THE INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS.  FN4 HOBBS TOOK THE CASE
ON THAT BASIS, MAKING NO EFFORT TO INQUIRE INTO THE REASONS FOR THE
CONCESSION SINCE HE CONSIDERED THAT MATTER IMMATERIAL.  EVEN WHEN
FIDLER TRIED TO TELL HIM LATER ABOUT THE PERJURY, HOBBS STOPPED HIM FOR
HE "DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR THE CONFLICT IN TESTIMONY." 

HOBBS IMMEDIATELY UNDERTOOK TO SETTLE THE INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS. 
ON DECEMBER 2 HE PROPOSED A SETTLEMENT WHICH INCLUDED A CONCESSION OF
PRIORITY BY LARSON, BUT THIS PROPOSAL WAS APPARENTLY NOT SATISFACTORY
TO ALL THOSE CONCERNED.  MEANWHILE FIDLER PRESENTED THE FACTS TO
ANOTHER DISINTERESTED LAWYER AND ASKED HIM WHETHER HE THOUGHT THERE WAS
ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO BRING A CONSPIRACY SUIT FOR DAMAGES OR A CRIMINAL
ACTION.  THE LAWYER, AFTER ADMITTING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST
DOUBT BUT THAT THOMASMA WAS TELLING THE TRUTH, REPLIED IN THE
NEGATIVE. 

ON DECEMBER 13, FIDLER SUBMITTED A DRAFT AGREEMENT THAT HE HAD
PREPARED.  THIS DRAFT CONTAINED A RECITAL THAT "IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED
BY THE PARTIES HERETO AND THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL THAT THE PARTY
ZIMMERMAN IS THE PRIOR INVENTOR OF THE SUBJECT MATTER INVOLVED IN SAID
INTERFERENCE NO. 77,565, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER SUBJECT MATTER COMMONLY
DISCLOSED IN SAID ZIMMERMAN AND LARSON APPLICATIONS."  BUT THIS DRAFT
WAS LIKEWISE UNACCEPTABLE. 

FOR A TIME, NEGOTIATIONS WERE BROKEN OFF AND RESUMPTION OF THE
INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS SEEMED IMMINENT.  ONE OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS
FOR AUTOMOTIVE WROTE A LETTER ON DECEMBER 19 TO ALBERTS, WHO WAS STILL
ACTING AS ATTORNEY FOR SNAP-ON, STATING THAT "YOU MUST RECOGNIZE THAT A
LARGE PART OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN ON BEHALF OF SNAP-ON AND LARSON IS,
TO PUT IT MILDLY, NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH" AND THAT "YOU ARE HOLDING UP THE
ISSUANCE OF THE ZIMMERMAN PATENT WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST JUSTIFICATION." 
FIDLER, WHO HAD APPROVED THIS LETTER, JUSTIFIED THESE REMARKS ON THE
GROUND THAT "THEY HAD TOLD US ZIMMERMAN WAS THE PRIOR INVENTOR AND WE
HADN'T YET RECEIVED A CONCESSION OF PRIORITY."  IN REPLY TO THIS
LETTER, ALBERTS CHARGED THAT AUTOMOTIVE'S ATTORNEYS WERE USING
"THREATENING ACCUSATIONS" AND "DURESS" AND THAT THEY WERE THREATENING
TO "UNLOOSE THE DOGS" UNLESS THEY GOT EVERYTHING THEY REQUESTED IN THE
SETTLEMENT. 

SUDDENLY ON THE NEXT DAY, DECEMBER 20, NEGOTIATIONS WERE RESUMED AND
THE PARTIES QUICKLY ENTERED INTO THREE CONTRACTS, THE FIRST TWO OF
WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT.  THESE CONTRACTS, IN THEIR RELEVANT
PARTS, PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

(1)  UNDER THE AUTOMOTIVE AND PRECISION-LARSON AGREEMENT, LARSON
CONCEDED PRIORITY IN ZIMMERMAN AND LARSON'S APPLICATION WAS TO BE
ASSIGNED TO AUTOMOTIVE.  AUTOMOTIVE AGREED TO LICENSE LARSON AND
PRECISION TO COMPLETE THEIR UNFILLED ORDERS FROM SNAP-ON TO THE EXTENT
OF ABOUT 6,000 WRENCHES, WITH A ROYALTY TO BE PAID ON THE EXCESS. 
AUTOMOTIVE RELEASED PRECISION, LARSON AND THEIR CUSTOMERS FROM
LIABILITY FOR ANY PAST INFRINGEMENT AND GAVE PRECISION AND LARSON A
GENERAL RELEASE AS TO ALL CIVIL DAMAGES.  FINALLY, PRECISION AND LARSON
ACKNOWLEDGED THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIMS OF THE PATENTS TO ISSUE ON THE
LARSON AND ZIMMERMAN APPLICATIONS. 

(2)  UNDER THE AUTOMOTIVE AND SNAP-ON AGREEMENT, SNAP-ON AGREED TO
REASSIGN THE LARSON APPLICATION TO PRECISION AND ACKNOWLEDGED THE
VALIDITY OF THE CLAIMS OF THE PATENTS TO ISSUE ON THE LARSON AND
ZIMMERMAN APPLICATIONS.  AUTOMOTIVE ALSO GAVE SNAP-ON THE RIGHT TO SELL
THE 6,000 WRENCHES THEN ON ORDER FROM PRECISION AND RELEASED SNAP-ON
FROM ANY PAST LIABILITY OR DAMAGES. 

(3)  UNDER THE SNAP-ON AND PRECISION-LARSON AGREEMENT, SNAP-ON
REASSIGNED TO LARSON AND PRECISION WHATEVER TITLE SNAP-ON HAD TO THE
LARSON APPLICATION.  PRECISION AGREED TO MANUFACTURE AND DELIVER TO
SNAP-ON THE 6,000 WRENCHES THEN ON ORDER.  SNAP-ON ALSO ASSENTED TO THE
AUTOMOTIVE AND PRECISION-LARSON AGREEMENT. 

THE LARSON APPLICATION WAS ACCORDINGLY ASSIGNED TO AUTOMOTIVE ON
DECEMBER 20, 1940.  AUTOMOTIVE SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED PATENTS ON BOTH
THE LARSON AND ZIMMERMAN APPLICATIONS AFTER MAKING CERTAIN CHANGES. 
THEN PRECISION BEGAN TO MANUFACTURE AND SNAP-ON BEGAN TO SELL A NEW
WRENCH.  AUTOMOTIVE CLAIMED THAT THIS WAS AN INFRINGEMENT OF ITS
PATENTS AND A BREACH OF THE CONTRACTS OF DECEMBER 20, 1940.  THUS THE
SUIT AROSE WHICH IS NOW BEFORE US. 

THE GUIDING DOCTRINE IN THIS CASE IS THE EQUITABLE MAXIM THAT "HE WHO
COMES INTO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS."  THIS MAXIM IS FAR MORE
THAN A MERE BANALITY.  IT IS A SELF-IMPOSED ORDINANCE THAT CLOSES THE
DOORS OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO ONE TAINTED WITH INEQUITABLENESS OR BAD
FAITH RELATIVE TO THE MATTER IN WHICH HE SEEKS RELIEF, HOWEVER IMPROPER
MAY HAVE BEEN THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DEFENDANT.  THAT DOCTRINE IS ROOTED
IN THE HISTORICAL CONCEPT OF COURT OF EQUITY AS A VEHICLE FOR
AFFIRMATIVELY ENFORCING THE REQUIREMENTS OF CONSCIENCE AND GOOD FAITH. 
THIS PRESUPPOSES A REFUSAL ON ITS PART TO BE "THE ABETTOR OF
INIQUITY."  BEIN V. HEATH, 6 HOW.  228, 247.  THUS WHILE "EQUITY DOES
NOT DEMAND THAT ITS SUITORS SHALL HAVE LED BLAMELESS LIVES," LOUGHRAN
V. LOUGHRAN, 292 U.S. 216, 229, AS TO OTHER MATTERS, IT DOES REQUIRE
THAT THEY SHALL HAVE ACTED FAIRLY AND WITHOUT FRAUD OR DECEIT AS TO THE
CONTROVERSY IN ISSUE.  KEYSTONE DRILLER CO. V. GENERAL EXCAVATOR CO.,
290 U.S. 240, 245; JOHNSON V. YELLOW CAB CO., 321 U.S. 383, 387; 2
POMEROY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE (5TH ED.)  SECS.  379-399.    THIS MAXIM
NECESSARILY GIVES WIDE RANGE TO THE EQUITY COURT'S USE OF DISCRETION IN
REFUSING TO AID THE UNCLEAN LITIGANT.  IT IS "NOT BOUND BY FORMULA OR
RESTRAINED BY ANY LIMITATION THAT TENDS TO TRAMMEL THE FREE AND JUST
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION."  KEYSTONE DRILLER CO. V. GENERAL EXCAVATOR
CO., SUPRA, 245, 246.  ACCORDINGLY ONE'S MISCONDUCT NEED NOT
NECESSARILY HAVE BEEN OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO BE PUNISHABLE AS A CRIME
OR AS TO JUSTIFY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OF ANY CHARACTER.  ANY WILLFUL ACT
CONCERNING THE CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH RIGHTFULLY CAN BE SAID TO
TRANSGRESS EQUITABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE
INVOCATION OF THE MAXIM BY THE CHANCELLOR. 

MOREOVER, WHERE A SUIT IN EQUITY CONCERNS THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL
AS THE PRIVATE INTERESTS OF THE LITIGANTS THIS DOCTRINE ASSUMES EVEN
WIDER AND MORE SIGNIFICANT PROPORTIONS.  FOR IF AN EQUITY COURT
PROPERLY USES THE MAXIM TO WITHHOLD ITS ASSISTANCE IN SUCH A CASE IT
NOT ONLY PREVENTS A WRONGDOER FROM ENJOYING THE FRUITS OF HIS
TRANSGRESSION BUT AVERTS AN INJURY TO THE PUBLIC.  THE DETERMINATION OF
WHEN THE MAXIM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO BAR THIS TYPE OF SUIT THUS BECOMES
OF VITAL SIGNIFICANCE.  SEE MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S.
488, 492-494. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE AUTOMOTIVE HAS SOUGHT TO ENFORCE SEVERAL PATENTS
AND RELATED CONTRACTS.  CLEARLY THESE ARE MATTERS CONCERNING FAR MORE
THAN THE INTERESTS OF THE ADVERSE PARTIES.  THE POSSESSION AND
ASSERTION OF PATENT RIGHTS ARE "ISSUES OF GREAT MOMENT TO THE PUBLIC." 
HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., 322 U.S. 238, 246.  SEE
ALSO MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S. 661, 665;
MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. MASONITE
CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 278.  A PATENT BY ITS VERY NATURE IS AFFECTED WITH
A PUBLIC INTEREST.  AS RECOGNIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS A SPECIAL
PRIVILEGE DESIGNED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE
"PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS."  AT THE SAME TIME, A PATENT IS
AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE AGAINST MONOPOLIES AND TO THE RIGHT TO
ACCESS TO A FREE AND OPEN MARKET.  THE FAR-REACHING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES OF A PATENT, THEREFORE, GIVE THE PUBLIC A PARAMOUNT
INTEREST IN SEEING THAT PATENT MONOPOLIES SPRING FROM BACKGROUNDS FREE
FROM FRAUD OR OTHER INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AND THAT SUCH MONOPOLIES ARE
KEPT WITHIN THEIR LEGITIMATE SCOPE.  THE FACTS OF THIS CASE MUST
ACCORDINGLY BE MEASURED BY BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STANDARDS OF
EQUITY.  AND WHEN SUCH MEASUREMENTS ARE MADE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINTS AND COUNTERCLAIMS
"FOR WANT OF EQUITY" WAS MORE THAN JUSTIFIED. 

THE HISTORY OF THE PATENTS AND CONTRACTS IN ISSUE IS STEEPED IN
PERJURY AND UNDISCLOSED KNOWLEDGE OF PERJURY.  LARSON'S APPLICATION WAS
ADMITTEDLY BASED UPON FALSE DATA WHICH DESTROYED WHATEVER JUST CLAIM IT
MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE HAD TO THE STATUS OF A PATENT.  YET AUTOMOTIVE,
WITH AT LEAST MORAL AND ACTUAL CERTAINTY IF NOT ABSOLUTE PROOF OF THE
FACTS CONCERNING THE PERJURY, CHOSE TO ACT IN DISREGARD OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  INSTEAD OF DOING ALL WITHIN ITS POWER TO REVEAL AND EXPOSE
THE FRAUD, IT PROCURED AN OUTSIDE SETTLEMENT OF THE INTERFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS, ACQUIRED THE LARSON APPLICATION ITSELF, TURNED IT INTO A
PATENT AND BARRED THE OTHER PARTIES FROM EVER QUESTIONING ITS
VALIDITY.  SUCH CONDUCT DOES NOT CONFORM TO MINIMUM ETHICAL STANDARDS
AND DOES NOT JUSTIFY AUTOMOTIVE'S PRESENT ATTEMPT TO ASSERT AND ENFORCE
THESE PERJURY-TAINTED PATENTS AND CONTRACTS. 

AUTOMOTIVE CONTENDS THAT IT DID NOT HAVE POSITIVE AND CONCLUSIVE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERJURY UNTIL THE PLEADINGS IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS
WERE FILED AND UNTIL LARSON ADMITTED HIS PERJURY ON PRE-TRIAL
EXAMINATION.  IT CLAIMS THAT PRIOR THERETO IT ONLY HAD THOMASMA'S
AFFIDAVIT AND STATEMENTS, WHICH WERE UNCORROBORATED AND LIKELY TO CARRY
LITTLE WEIGHT AS AGAINST LARSON AND HIS EIGHT WITNESSES.  IT IS FURTHER
POINTED OUT THAT FIDLER SUBMITTED WHAT HE KNEW OF THE FACTS TO AT LEAST
TWO INDEPENDENT ATTORNEYS, BOTH OF WHOM ADVISED HIM THAT THE EVIDENCE
OF PERJURY THAT HE POSSESSED WAS INSUFFICIENT.  FROM THIS IT IS ARGUED,
AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THAT WHILE AUTOMOTIVE WAS
"MORALLY CERTAIN THAT THOMASMA'S STORY WAS TRUE" THERE WAS NO DUTY TO
REPORT THIS UNCORROBORATED INFORMATION TO EITHER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OR THE PATENT OFFICE. 

BUT AUTOMOTIVE'S HANDS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY CLEANSED BY ITS ALLEGED
FAILURE TO POSSESS SUFFICIENTLY TRUSTWORTHY EVIDENCE OF PERJURY TO
WARRANT SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR TO THE
PATENT OFFICE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS.  THE
IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT AUTOMOTIVE HAD EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE AND DID
BELIEVE THAT LARSON'S APPLICATION WAS FRAUDULENT AND HIS STATEMENTS
PERJURED.  YET IT ACTED IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF THAT BELIEF.  NEVER
FOR A MOMENT DID AUTOMOTIVE OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES DOUBT THE EXISTENCE
OF THIS FRAUD.  FIDLER SUSPECTED IT SOON AFTER HE KNEW OF LARSON'S
CLAIMS.  HIS SUSPICIONS WERE CONFIRMED BY HIS HIRED INVESTIGATORS. 
THEN THOMASMA REVEALED SUCH INTIMATE AND DETAILED FACTS CONCERNING THE
PERJURY AS TO CONVINCE ALL WHO HEARD HIM, DESPITE CERTAIN RESERVATIONS
ENTERTAINED BY SOME PERSONS CONCERNING HIS TRUSTWORTHINESS.  MOREOVER,
FIDLER WAS WELL AWARE THAT ALBERTS THREATENED TO WITHDRAW AS LARSON'S
COUNSEL IF HE DISCOVERED FROM LARSON THAT THOMASMA'S STORY WAS TRUE AND
THAT ALBERTS IN FACT DID SO WITHDRAW.  THE SUSPECTED PERJURY WAS
FURTHER CONFIRMED BY LARSON'S SUDDEN WILLINGNESS TO CONCEDE PRIORITY
AFTER HE LEARNED OF THOMASMA'S STORY AND BY THE ADMISSIONS BY ALBERTS
AND SNAP-ON THAT ZIMMERMAN "WAS THE PRIOR INVENTOR."  AND THE VERY FACT
THAT FIDLER SAW FIT TO SUBMIT HIS PROOF TO OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS FOR ADVICE
IS AN INDICATION OF THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF HIS BELIEF AS TO LARSON'S
PERJURY.  WITH ALL THIS EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, HOWEVER, AUTOMOTIVE PURSUED
THE FOLLOWING COURSE OF ACTION: 

1.  IT CHOSE TO KEEP SECRET ITS BELIEF AND ALLEGEDLY UNSUBSTANTIAL
PROOF OF THE FACTS CONCERNING LARSON'S PERJURY.  WE NEED NOT SPECULATE
AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PROOF TO PRESENT THE MATTER TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY.  BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT AUTOMOTIVE KNEW AND SUPPRESSED
FACTS THAT, AT THE VERY LEAST, SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN SOME WAY TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE PATENT OFFICE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT BECAME EVIDENT
THAT THE INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS WOULD CONTINUE NO LONGER.  THOSE WHO
HAVE APPLICATIONS PENDING WITH THE PATENT OFFICE OR WHO ARE PARTIES TO
PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS HAVE AN UNCOMPROMISING DUTY TO REPORT TO IT
ALL FACTS CONCERNING POSSIBLE FRAUD OR INEQUITABLENESS UNDERLYING THE
APPLICATIONS IN ISSUE.  CF. CRITES, INC. V. PRUDENTIAL CO., 322 U.S.
408, 415.  THIS DUTY IS NOT EXCUSED BY REASONABLE DOUBTS AS TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOF OF THE INEQUITABLE CONDUCT NOR BY RESORT TO
INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE.  PUBLIC INTEREST DEMANDS THAT ALL FACTS
RELEVANT TO SUCH MATTERS BE SUBMITTED FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY TO THE
PATENT OFFICE, WHICH CAN THEN PASS UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE.  ONLY IN THIS WAY CAN THAT AGENCY ACT TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AGAINST FRAUDULENT PATENT MONOPOLIES.  ONLY IN
THAT WAY CAN THE PATENT OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC ESCAPE FROM BEING CLASSED
AMONG THE "MUTE AND HELPLESS VICTIMS OF DECEPTION AND FRAUD."  HAZEL
ATLAS GLASS CO. V. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., SUPRA, 246. 

2.  INSTEAD OF PURSUING THE INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS AND PROVING THE
FACT THAT ZIMMERMAN'S CLAIMS HAD PRIORITY OVER THOSE ASSERTED BY
LARSON, AUTOMOTIVE CHOSE TO ENTER INTO AN OUTSIDE SETTLEMENT WITH
LARSON, PRECISION AND SNAP-ON, WHEREBY LARSON CONCEDED PRIORITY. 
OUTSIDE SETTLEMENTS OF INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT ORDINARILY
ILLEGAL.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE SETTLEMENT IS GROUNDED UPON KNOWLEDGE
OR REASONABLE BELIEF OF PERJURY WHICH IS NOT REVEALED TO THE PATENT
OFFICE OR TO ANY OTHER PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE, THE SETTLEMENT LACKS THAT
EQUITABLE NATURE WHICH ENTITLES IT TO BE ENFORCED AND PROTECTED IN A
COURT OF EQUITY. 

3.  BY THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT, AUTOMOTIVE SECURED THE PERJURED
LARSON APPLICATION AND EXACTED PROMISES FROM THE OTHER PARTIES NEVER TO
QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF ANY PATENT THAT MIGHT BE ISSUED ON THAT
APPLICATION.  AUTOMOTIVE THEN MADE NUMEROUS CHANGES AND EXPANSIONS AS
TO THE CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION AND EVENTUALLY SECURED A PATENT ON IT
WITHOUT EVER ATTEMPTING TO REVEAL TO THE PATENT OFFICE OR TO ANYONE
ELSE THE FACTS IT POSSESSED CONCERNING THE APPLICATION'S FRAUDULENT
ANCESTRY.  AUTOMOTIVE THUS ACTED TO COMPOUND AND ACCENTUATE THE EFFECTS
OF LARSON'S PERJURY. 

THESE FACTS ALL ADD UP TO THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT AUTOMOTIVE
HAS NOT DISPLAYED THAT STANDARD OF CONDUCT REQUISITE TO THE MAINTENANCE
OF THIS SUIT IN EQUITY.  THAT THE ACTIONS OF LARSON AND PRECISION MAY
HAVE BEEN MORE REPREHENSIBLE IS IMMATERIAL.  THE PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST
THE ASSERTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PATENT CLAIMS INFECTED WITH FRAUD AND
PERJURY IS TOO GREAT TO BE OVERRIDDEN BY SUCH A CONSIDERATION. 
AUTOMOTIVE KNEW OF AND SUSPECTED THE PERJURY AND FAILED TO ACT SO AS TO
UPROOT IT AND DESTROY ITS EFFECTS.  INSTEAD, AUTOMOTIVE ACTED
AFFIRMATIVELY TO MAGNIFY AND INCREASE THOSE EFFECTS.  SUCH INEQUITABLE
CONDUCT IMPREGNATED AUTOMOTIVE'S ENTIRE CAUSE OF ACTION AND JUSTIFIED
DISMISSAL BY RESORT TO THE UNCLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE.  KEYSTONE DRILLER
CO. V. GENERAL EXCAVATOR CO., SUPRA. 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SUPPORTED THE
DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND THAT THESE FINDINGS JUSTIFIED ITS
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN REVERSING ITS JUDGMENT. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE THREE PATENTS INVOLVED ARE NO. 2,279,792, ISSUED ON APRIL
14, 1942, TO KENNETH R. LARSON; NO. 2,283,888, ISSUED ON MAY 19, 1942,
TO H. W. ZIMMERMAN; AND REISSUE NO. 22,219, ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 3, 1942,
TO H. W. ZIMMERMAN, BASED ON ORIGINAL NO. 2,269,503. 

FN2  SNAP-ON AGREED TO FILE THE PATENT APPLICATION FOR LARSON, WHO
WAS WITHOUT FUNDS, AND TOOK AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE LARSON APPLICATION AS
SECURITY FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SUPPLY WRENCHES. 

FN3  ALBERTS APPARENTLY NEVER WITHDREW FORMALLY AS LARSON'S ATTORNEY
IN THE INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS BY FILING A DOCUMENT TO THAT EFFECT IN
THE PATENT OFFICE. 

FN4  BOTH LARSON AND CARLSEN TESTIFIED THAT THEY TOLD HOBBS OF THE
PERJURY AND OF THE PREDICAMENT THEY WERE IN, STATING TO HIM THAT THEY
DID NOT WANT TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.  HOBBS,
HOWEVER, DENIED THAT THEY INFORMED HIM OF THESE MATTERS.  IT WAS AT THE
REQUEST OF HOBBS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORAL OPINION WAS WITHDRAWN
IN ORDER THAT, IN THE WORDS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, IT WOULD NOT BE
"CONSTRUED AS IMPLYING THAT MR. HOBBS HAD WILLFULLY GIVEN FALSE
TESTIMONY OR HAD BEEN GUILTY OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT."  THE COURT
FURTHER SAID THAT THE RECORD DEMONSTRATED "THAT THE WITNESS HOBBS DID
NOT TESTIFY FALSELY."  ASSUMING THAT HOBBS GAVE NO FALSE TESTIMONY,
HOWEVER, WE DO NOT CONSIDER THAT FACT TO BE OF CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE
IN THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I THINK THE WRIT SHOULD BE DISMISSED OR THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  THE CASE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY
THIS COURT.  IT INVOLVES MERELY THE APPLICATION OF ACKNOWLEDGED
PRINCIPLES OF LAW TO THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  DECISION HERE
SETTLES NOTHING SAVE THE MERITS OR DEMERITS OF THE CONDUCT OF THE
RESPECTIVE PARTIES.  IN MY VIEW IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO
WEIGH THE FACTS FOR THE THIRD TIME IN ORDER TO CHOOSE BETWEEN
LITIGANTS, WHERE APPRAISAL OF THE CONDUCT OF EACH MUST AFFECT THE
RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED, AS HE TAKES THE VIEW OF THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF
THE COURT BELOW.  143 F.2D 332.  332. 
..END :








CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1 


NO. 13.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1944.  REARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 1944.  - DECIDED
APRIL 23, 1945.  - 137 F.2D 888, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A PROSECUTION UPON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING TREASON BY ADHERING
TO ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, THE OVERT ACT RELIED ON, OF
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES PROOF BY TWO WITNESSES, MUST BE AT
LEAST AN ACT OF THE ACCUSED SUFFICIENT, IN ITS SETTING, TO SUSTAIN A
FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED ACTUALLY GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY. 
P. 34. 

2.  THE PROTECTION OF THE TWO-WITNESS RULE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN
SUCH CASE EXTENDS AT LEAST TO ALL ACTS OF THE DEFENDANT WHICH ARE USED
TO DRAW INCRIMINATING INFERENCES THAT AID AND COMFORT HAVE BEEN GIVEN. 
P. 33. 

3.  IN A PROSECUTION UPON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING TREASON BY ADHERING
TO ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, TWO OF THE OVERT ACTS ALLEGED
AND RELIED ON WERE: 

"1.  ANTHONY CRAMER, THE DEFENDANT HEREIN, ON OR ABOUT JUNE 23, 1942,
AT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT, DID MEET WITH WERNER THIEL AND EDWARD JOHN KERLING, ENEMIES
OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TWIN OAKS INN AT LEXINGTON AVENUE AND 44TH
STREET, IN THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, AND DID CONFER, TREAT, AND
COUNSEL WITH SAID WERNER THIEL AND EDWARD JOHN KERLING FOR A PERIOD OF
TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING AND WITH INTENT TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT
TO SAID ENEMIES, WERNER THIEL AND EDWARD JOHN KERLING. 

"2.  ANTHONY CRAMER, THE DEFENDANT HEREIN, ON OR ABOUT JUNE 23, 1942,
AT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT, DID ACCOMPANY, CONFER, TREAT, AND COUNSEL WITH WERNER
THIEL, AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AT THE TWIN
OAKS INN AT LEXINGTON AVENUE AND 44TH STREET, AND AT THOMPSON'S
CAFETERIA ON 42ND STREET BETWEEN LEXINGTON AND VANDERBILT AVENUES, BOTH
IN THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING AND WITH
INTENT TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO SAID ENEMY, WERNER THIEL." 

BY DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TWO OR MORE WITNESSES IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT
CRAMER MET THIEL AND KERLING ON THE OCCASIONS AND AT THE PLACES
CHARGED; THAT THEY DRANK TOGETHER; AND THAT THEY ENGAGED LONG AND
EARNESTLY IN CONVERSATION.  THERE WAS NO PROOF BY TWO WITNESSES OF WHAT
THEY SAID OR IN WHAT LANGUAGE THEY CONVERSED; NO SHOWING THAT CRAMER
GAVE THEM ANY INFORMATION WHATEVER OF VALUE TO THEIR MISSION OR THAT HE
HAD ANY TO GIVE; NO SHOWING OF ANY EFFORT AT SECRECY, THEY HAVING MET
IN PUBLIC PLACES; AND NO EVIDENCE THAT CRAMER FURNISHED THEM SHELTER,
SUSTENANCE OR SUPPLIES, OR THAT HE GAVE THEM ENCOURAGEMENT OR COUNSEL,
OR EVEN PAID FOR THEIR DRINKS. 

HELD THAT OVERT ACTS 1 AND 2 AS PROVED WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A
FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED HAD GIVEN AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY, AND
THEREFORE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  PP. 36-37,
48. 

CRAMER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 730, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION OF TREASON. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ANTHONY CRAMER, THE PETITIONER, STANDS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SECTION
1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, WHICH PROVIDES:  "WHOEVER, OWING ALLEGIANCE TO
THE UNITED STATES, LEVIES WAR AGAINST THEM OR ADHERES TO THEIR ENEMIES,
GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ELSEWHERE, IS
GUILTY OF TREASON."  FN1 

CRAMER OWED ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES.  A GERMAN BY BIRTH, HE
HAD BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1925 AND WAS NATURALIZED
IN 1936.  PROSECUTION RESULTED FROM HIS ASSOCIATION WITH TWO OF THE
GERMAN SABOTEURS WHO IN JUNE 1942 LANDED ON OUR SHORES FROM ENEMY
SUBMARINES TO DISRUPT INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHOSE CASES WE
CONSIDERED IN EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1.  ONE OF THOSE, SPARED FROM
EXECUTION, APPEARED AS A GOVERNMENT WITNESS ON THE TRIAL OF CRAMER.  HE
TESTIFIED THAT WERNER THIEL AND EDWARD KERLING WERE MEMBERS OF THAT
SABOTAGE CREW, DETAILED THEIR PLOT, AND DESCRIBED THEIR PREPARATIONS
FOR ITS CONSUMMATION. 

CRAMER WAS CONSCRIPTED INTO AND SERVED IN THE GERMAN ARMY AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES IN 1918.  AFTER THE WAR HE CAME TO THIS COUNTRY,
INTENDING TO REMAIN PERMANENTLY.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, HE HAS BEEN OF
GOOD BEHAVIOR, NEVER BEFORE IN TROUBLE WITH THE LAW.  HE WAS STUDIOUS
AND INTELLIGENT, EARNING $45 A WEEK FOR WORK IN A BOILER ROOM AND
LIVING ACCORDINGLY. 

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, AND THE GOVERNMENT MAKES NO CLAIM, THAT HE HAD
FOREKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SABOTEURS WERE COMING TO THIS COUNTRY OR THAT HE
CAME INTO ASSOCIATION WITH THEM BY PREARRANGEMENT.  CRAMER, HOWEVER,
HAD KNOWN INTIMATELY THE SABOTEUR WERNER THIEL WHILE THE LATTER LIVED
IN THIS COUNTRY.  THEY HAD WORKED TOGETHER, ROOMED TOGETHER, AND
JOINTLY HAD VENTURED IN A SMALL AND LUCKLESS DELICATESSEN ENTERPRISE. 
THIEL EARLY AND FRANKLY AVOWED ADHERENCE TO THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST
MOVEMENT IN GERMANY; HE FORESAW THE WAR AND RETURNED IN 1941 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF HELPING GERMANY.  CRAMER DID NOT DO SO.  HOW MUCH HE
SYMPATHIZED WITH THE DOCTRINES OF THE NAZI PARTY IS NOT CLEAR.  HE
BECAME AT ONE TIME, IN INDIANA, A MEMBER AND OFFICER OF THE FRIENDS OF
NEW GERMANY, WHICH WAS A PREDECESSOR OF THE BUND.  HOWEVER, HE WITHDREW
IN 1935 BEFORE IT BECAME THE BUND.  HE SAYS THERE WAS SOME SWINDLE
ABOUT IT THAT HE DID NOT LIKE AND ALSO THAT HE DID NOT LIKE THEIR
DRILLING AND "RADICAL ACTIVITIES."  IN 1936 HE MADE A TRIP TO GERMANY,
ATTENDED THE OLYMPIC GAMES, AND SAW SOME OF THE BUNDSMEN FROM THIS
COUNTRY WHO WENT THERE AT THAT TIME FOR CONFERENCES WITH NAZI PARTY
OFFICIALS.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT CRAMER WHILE THERE HAD ANY SUCH
ASSOCIATIONS.  HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN REGARDED AS A PERSON OF
THAT CONSEQUENCE.  HIS FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES IN THIS COUNTRY WERE
LARGELY GERMAN.  HIS SOCIAL LIFE IN NEW YORK CITY, WHERE HE RECENTLY
HAD LIVED, SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN CENTERED AROUND KOLPING HOUSE, A GERMAN
CATHOLIC RECREATIONAL CENTER. 

CRAMER RETAINED A STRONG AFFECTION FOR HIS FATHERLAND.  HE
CORRESPONDED IN GERMAN WITH HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS THERE.  BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES ENTERED THE WAR HE EXPRESSED STRONG SYMPATHY WITH GERMANY
IN ITS CONFLICT WITH OTHER EUROPEAN POWERS.  BEFORE THE ATTACK UPON
PEARL HARBOR, CRAMER OPENLY OPPOSED PARTICIPATION BY THIS COUNTRY IN
THE WAR AGAINST GERMANY.  HE REFUSED TO WORK ON WAR MATERIALS.  HE
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT BEING DRAFTED INTO OUR ARMY AND "MISUSED" FOR
PURPOSES OF "WORLD CONQUEST."  THERE IS NO PROOF, HOWEVER, EXCEPT FOR
THE MATTER CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, OF ANY ACT OR UTTERANCE DISLOYAL
TO THIS COUNTRY AFTER WE ENTERED THE WAR. 

COMING DOWN TO THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED TREASON, THE MAIN FACTS, AS
RELATED ON THE WITNESS STAND BY CRAMER, ARE NOT SERIOUSLY IN DISPUTE. 
HE WAS LIVING IN NEW YORK; AND IN RESPONSE TO A CRYPTIC NOTE LEFT UNDER
HIS DOOR, WHICH DID NOT MENTION THIEL, HE WENT TO THE GRAND CENTRAL
STATION.  THERE THIEL APPEARED.  CRAMER HAD SUPPOSED THAT THIEL WAS IN
GERMANY, KNOWING THAT HE HAD LEFT THE UNITED STATES SHORTLY BEFORE THE
WAR TO GO THERE.  TOGETHER THEY WENT TO PUBLIC PLACES AND HAD SOME
DRINKS.  CRAMER DENIES THAT THIEL REVEALED HIS MISSION OF SABOTAGE. 
CRAMER SAID TO THIEL THAT HE MUST HAVE COME TO AMERICA BY SUBMARINE,
BUT THIEL REFUSED TO CONFIRM IT, ALTHOUGH HIS ATTITUDE INCREASED
CRAMER'S SUSPICION.  THIEL PROMISED TO TELL LATER HOW HE CAME TO THIS
COUNTRY.  THIEL ASKED ABOUT A GIRL WHO WAS A MUTUAL ACQUAINTANCE AND
WHOM THIEL HAD ENGAGED TO MARRY PREVIOUS TO HIS GOING TO GERMANY. 
CRAMER KNEW WHERE SHE WAS, AND OFFERED TO AND DID WRITE TO HER TO COME
TO NEW YORK, WITHOUT DISCLOSING IN THE LETTER THAT THIEL HAD ARRIVED. 
THIEL SAID THAT HE HAD IN HIS POSSESSION ABOUT $3,600, BUT DID NOT
DISCLOSE THAT IT WAS PROVIDED BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT, SAYING ONLY
THAT ONE COULD GET MONEY IN GERMANY IF HE HAD THE RIGHT CONNECTIONS. 
THIEL OWED CRAMER AN OLD DEBT OF $200.  HE GAVE CRAMER HIS MONEY BELT
CONTAINING SOME $3,600, FROM WHICH CRAMER WAS TO BE PAID.  CRAMER
AGREED TO AND DID PLACE THE REST IN HIS OWN SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX, EXCEPT A
SUM WHICH HE KEPT IN HIS ROOM IN CASE THIEL SHOULD WANT IT QUICKLY. 

AFTER THE SECOND OF THESE MEETINGS THIEL AND KERLING, WHO WAS PRESENT
BRIEFLY AT ONE MEETING, WERE ARRESTED.  CRAMER'S EXPECTATION OF MEETING
THIEL LATER AND OF BRINGING HIM AND HIS FIANCEE TOGETHER WAS FOILED. 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER CRAMER WAS ARRESTED, TRIED, AND FOUND GUILTY.  THE
TRIAL JUDGE AT THE TIME OF SENTENCING SAID: 

"I SHALL NOT IMPOSE THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF DEATH.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR
THAT THIS DEFENDANT CRAMER WAS AWARE THAT THIEL AND KERLING WERE IN
POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVES OR OTHER MEANS FOR DESTROYING FACTORIES AND
PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES OR PLANNED TO DO THAT. 

"FROM THE EVIDENCE IT APPEARS THAT CRAMER HAD NO MORE GUILTY
KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SUBVERSIVE PURPOSES ON THE PART OF THIEL OR KERLING
THAN A VAGUE IDEA THAT THEY CAME HERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ORGANIZING PRO
GERMAN PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION.  IF THERE WERE ANY PROOF THAT THEY HAD
CONFIDED IN HIM WHAT THEIR REAL PURPOSES WERE, OR THAT HE KNEW OR
BELIEVED WHAT THEY REALLY WERE, I SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO IMPOSE THE
DEATH PENALTY." 

CRAMER'S CASE RAISES QUESTIONS AS TO APPLICATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT "TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SHALL
CONSIST ONLY IN LEVYING WAR AGAINST THEM, OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR
ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT.  NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF
TREASON UNLESS ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT,
OR ON CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT."  FN2 

CRAMER'S CONTENTION MAY BE WELL STATED IN WORDS OF JUDGE LEARNED HAND
IN UNITED STATES V. ROBINSON:  FN3 

"NEVERTHELESS A QUESTION MAY INDEED BE RAISED WHETHER THE PROSECUTION
MAY LAY AS AN OVERT ACT A STEP TAKEN IN EXECUTION OF THE TRAITOROUS
DESIGN, INNOCENT IN ITSELF, AND GETTING ITS TREASONABLE CHARACTER ONLY
FROM SOME COVERT AND UNDECLARED INTENT.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN
PROSECUTIONS FOR CONSPIRACY UNDER OUR FEDERAL STATUTE IT IS WELL
SETTLED THAT ANY STEP IN PERFORMANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY IS ENOUGH,
THOUGH IT IS INNOCENT EXCEPT FOR ITS RELATION TO THE AGREEMENT.  I
DOUBT VERY MUCH WHETHER THAT RULE HAS ANY APPLICATION TO THE CASE OF
TREASON, WHERE THE REQUIREMENT AFFECTED THE CHARACTER OF THE PLEADING
AND PROOF, RATHER THAN ACCORDED A SEASON OF REPENTANCE BEFORE THE CRIME
SHOULD BE COMPLETE.  LORD READING IN HIS CHARGE IN CASEMENT'S CASE USES
LANGUAGE WHICH ACCORDS WITH MY UNDERSTANDING: 

"'OVERT ACTS ARE SUCH ACTS AS MANIFEST A CRIMINAL INTENTION AND TEND
TOWARDS THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE CRIMINAL OBJECT.  THEY ARE ACTS BY
WHICH THE PURPOSE IS MANIFESTED AND THE MEANS BY WHICH IT IS INTENDED
TO BE FULFILLED.'"  FN4 

THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, CONTENDS FOR, AND THE COURT BELOW HAS
AFFIRMED, THIS CONVICTION UPON A CONTRARY PRINCIPLE N5.  IT SAID:  "WE
BELIEVE IN SHORT THAT NO MORE NEED BE LAID FOR AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON
THAN FOR AN OVERT ACT OF CONSPIRACY  ...  HENCE WE HOLD THE OVERT ACTS
RELIED ON WERE SUFFICIENT TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, EVEN THOUGH THEY
PERHAPS MAY HAVE APPEARED AS INNOCENT ON THEIR FACE."  A SIMILAR
CONCLUSION WAS REACHED IN UNITED STATES V. FRICKE; FN6  IT IS:  "AN
OVERT ACT IN ITSELF MAY BE A PERFECTLY INNOCENT ACT STANDING BY ITSELF;
IT MUST BE IN SOME MANNER IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CRIME." 

AS LOWER COURTS THUS HAVE TAKEN CONFLICTING POSITIONS, OR, WHERE THE
ISSUE WAS LESS CLEARLY DRAWN, HAVE DEALT WITH THE PROBLEM AMBIGUOUSLY,
FN7  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI  FN8  AND AFTER ARGUMENT AT THE OCTOBER 1943
TERM WE INVITED REARGUMENT ADDRESSED TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.  FN9 SINCE
OUR PRIMARY QUESTION HERE IS THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION, WE TURN TO ITS SOLUTION BEFORE CONSIDERING ITS APPLICATION
TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 

       I 

WHEN OUR FOREFATHERS TOOK UP THE TASK OF FORMING AN INDEPENDENT
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION FOR NEW WORLD SOCIETY, NO ONE OF THEM APPEARS TO
HAVE DOUBTED THAT TO BRING INTO BEING A NEW GOVERNMENT WOULD ORIGINATE
A NEW ALLEGIANCE FOR ITS CITIZENS AND INHABITANTS.  NOR WERE THEY
RELUCTANT TO PUNISH AS TREASON ANY GENUINE BREACH OF ALLEGIANCE, AS
EVERY GOVERNMENT TIME OUT OF MIND HAD DONE.  THE BETRAYAL OF WASHINGTON
BY ARNOLD WAS FRESH IN MIND.  THEY WERE FAR MORE AWAKE TO POWERFUL
ENEMIES WITH DESIGNS ON THIS CONTINENT THAN SOME OF THE INTERVENING
GENERATIONS HAVE BEEN.  ENGLAND WAS ENTRENCHED IN CANADA TO THE NORTH
AND SPAIN HAD REPOSSESSED FLORIDA TO THE SOUTH, AND EACH HAD BEEN THE
SCENE OF INVASION OF THE COLONIES; THE KING OF FRANCE HAD BUT LATELY
BEEN DISPOSSESSED IN THE OHIO VALLEY; SPAIN CLAIMED THE MISSISSIPPI
VALLEY; AND, EXCEPT FOR THE SEABOARD, THE SETTLEMENTS WERE SURROUNDED
BY INDIANS - NOT NEGLIGIBLE AS ENEMIES THEMSELVES, AND ESPECIALLY
THREATENING WHEN ALLIED TO EUROPEAN FOES.  THE PROPOSED NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT COULD NOT FOR SOME YEARS BECOME FIRMLY SEATED IN THE
TRADITION OR IN THE HABITS OF THE PEOPLE.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
THE FOREFATHERS INTENDED TO WITHDRAW THE TREASON OFFENSE FROM USE AS AN
EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT OF THE NEW NATION'S SECURITY AGAINST TREACHERY
THAT WOULD AID EXTERNAL ENEMIES. 

THE FOREFATHERS ALSO HAD SUFFERED FROM DISLOYALTY.  SUCCESS OF THE
REVOLUTION HAD BEEN THREATENED BY THE ADHERENCE OF A CONSIDERABLE PART
OF THE POPULATION TO THE KING.  THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS ADOPTED A
RESOLUTION AFTER A REPORT BY ITS "COMMITTEE ON SPIES"  FN10  WHICH IN
EFFECT DECLARED THAT ALL PERSONS RESIDING WITHIN ANY COLONY OWED
ALLEGIANCE TO IT, AND THAT IF ANY SUCH PERSONS ADHERED TO THE KING OF
GREAT BRITAIN, GIVING HIM AID AND COMFORT, THEY WERE GUILTY OF TREASON,
AND WHICH URGED THE COLONIES TO PASS LAWS FOR PUNISHMENT OF SUCH
OFFENDERS "AS SHALL BE PROVABLY ATTAINTED OF OPEN DEED."  FN11  MANY OF
THE COLONIES COMPLIED, AND A VARIETY OF LAWS, MOSTLY MODELED ON ENGLISH
LAW, RESULTED.  FN12  SOME OF THE LEGISLATION IN LATER YEARS BECAME SO
BROAD AND LOOSE AS TO MAKE TREASON OF MERE UTTERANCE OF OPINION.  FN13
MANY A CITIZEN IN A TIME OF UNSETTLED AND SHIFTING LOYALTIES WAS THUS
THREATENED UNDER ENGLISH LAW WHICH MADE HIM GUILTY OF TREASON IF HE
ADHERED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIS COLONY AND ALSO UNDER COLONIAL LAW
WHICH MADE HIM GUILTY OF TREASON IF HE ADHERED TO HIS KING.  FN14  NOT
A FEW OF THESE PERSONS WERE SUBJECTED TO CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY OR
OTHER HARSH TREATMENT BY THE REVOLUTIONISTS UNDER LOCAL LAWS; NONE,
HOWEVER, SO FAR AS APPEARS, TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.  FN15 

BEFORE THIS REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCE THERE WERE SCATTERED TREASON
PROSECUTIONS IN THE COLONIES, FN16  USUALLY NOT WELL REPORTED.  SOME
COLONIES HAD ADOPTED TREASON STATUTES MODELED ON ENGLISH LEGISLATION. 
FN17  BUT THE EARLIER COLONIAL EXPERIENCE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN REGARDED
AS OF A PIECE WITH THAT OF ENGLAND AND APPEARS NOT TO HAVE MUCH
INFLUENCED THE FRAMERS IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH THE SUBJECT. 

HOWEVER, THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH TREASON ACCUSATIONS HAD BEEN MANY
SIDED.  MORE THAN A FEW OF THEM WERE DESCENDANTS OF THOSE WHO HAD FLED
FROM MEASURES AGAINST SEDITION AND ITS ECCLESIASTIC COUNTERPART,
HERESY.  NOW THE TREASON OFFENSE WAS UNDER REVISION BY A CONVENTION
WHOSE MEMBERS ALMOST TO A MAN HAD THEMSELVES BEEN GUILTY OF TREASON
UNDER ANY INTERPRETATION OF BRITISH LAW.  FN18  THEY NOT ONLY HAD
LEVIED WAR AGAINST THEIR KING THEMSELVES, BUT THEY HAD CONDUCTED A
LIVELY EXCHANGE OF AID AND COMFORT WITH FRANCE, THEN ENGLAND'S ANCIENT
ENEMY.  EVERY STEP IN THE GREAT WORK OF THEIR LIVES FROM THE FIRST MILD
PROTESTS AGAINST KINGLY MISRULE TO THE FINAL ACT OF SEPARATION HAD BEEN
TAKEN UNDER THE THREAT OF TREASON CHARGES.  FN19  THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE MAY SEEM CRYPTIC IN DENOUNCING GEORGE III "FOR
TRANSPORTING US BEYOND SEAS TO BE TRIED FOR PRETENDED OFFENSES" BUT THE
SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE WAS RECITED BY THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS NEARLY TWO
YEARS BEFORE IN SAYING THAT "...  IT HAS LATELY BEEN RESOLVED IN
PARLIAMENT, THAT BY FORCE OF A STATUTE, MADE IN THE THIRTY-FIFTH YEAR
OF THE REIGN OF KING HENRY THE EIGHTH, COLONISTS MAY BE TRANSPORTED TO
ENGLAND, AND TRIED THERE UPON ACCUSATIONS FOR TREASONS, AND
MISPRISIONS, OR CONCEALMENTS OF TREASONS COMMITTED IN THE COLONIES; AND
BY A LATE STATUTE, SUCH TRIALS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED IN CASES THEREIN
MENTIONED."  FN20    THE CONVENTION NUMBERED AMONG ITS MEMBERS MEN
FAMILIAR WITH GOVERNMENT IN THE OLD WORLD, AND THEY LOOKED BACK UPON A
LONG HISTORY OF USE AND ABUSE OF THE TREASON CHARGE.  FN21  THE ENGLISH
STREAM OF THOUGHT CONCERNING TREASONS BEGAN TO FLOW IN FAIRLY DEFINABLE
CHANNELS IN 1351 WITH THE ENACTMENT OF THE GREAT TREASON ACT, 25 EDW. 
III, STAT. 5, CH. 2.  FN22  THAT WAS A MONUMENTAL PIECE OF LEGISLATION
SEVERAL TIMES REFERRED TO IN THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE CONVENTION.  IT
CUT A BENCH-MARK BY WHICH THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD TESTED THE LEVEL
OF ITS THOUGHT ON THE SUBJECT FN23  UNTIL OUR OWN ABRUPT DEPARTURE FROM
IT IN 1789, AND AFTER 600 YEARS IT STILL IS THE LIVING LAW OF TREASON
IN ENGLAND.  ROGER CASEMENT IN 1917 FORFEITED HIS LIFE FOR VIOLATING
IT.  FN24  WE, OF COURSE, CAN MAKE NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO THE
INWARD MEANINGS OF THE TERMS USED IN A SIX-CENTURY-OLD STATUTE, WRITTEN
IN A FORM OF NORMAN FRENCH THAT HAD BECOME OBSOLETE LONG BEFORE OUR
REVOLUTION.  WE CAN READ THIS STATUTE ONLY AS OUR FOREBEARS READ IT -
THROUGH THE EYES OF SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS OF ENGLISH JUDGES, TO WHOM
IT HAS BEEN THE CORE OF ALL DECISION, AND OF COMMON-LAW COMMENTATORS,
TO WHOM IT HAS BEEN THE TEXT.  FN25 

ADJUDICATED CASES IN ENGLISH HISTORY GENERALLY HAVE DEALT WITH THE
OFFENSE OF COMPASSING THE MONARCH'S DEATH; ONLY ELEVEN REPORTED ENGLISH
CASES ANTEDATING THE CONSTITUTION ARE CITED AS INVOLVING DISTINCT
CHARGES OF ADHERENCE TO THE KING'S ENEMIES.  FN26  WHEN CONSTRUCTIVE
TREASONS WERE NOT JOINED ON THE FACE OF THE INDICTMENT, IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE TO SAY HOW FAR THEY WERE JOINED IN THE MINDS OF THE JUDGES. 
NO DECISION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A FACTOR IN THE DELIBERATIONS OF OUR
OWN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.  NOR DOES ANY SQUARELY MEET OUR ISSUE
HERE, AND FOR GOOD REASON - THE ACT OF EDWARD III DID NOT CONTAIN THE
TWO-WITNESSES-TO-THE-SAME-OVERT-ACT REQUIREMENT WHICH PRECIPITATES THE
ISSUE HERE. 

HISTORICAL MATERIALS ARE, THEREFORE, OF LITTLE HELP; NECESSITY AS
WELL AS DESIRE TAUGHT A CONCEPT THAT DIFFERED FROM ALL HISTORICAL
MODELS IN THE DRAFTING OF OUR TREASON CLAUSE.  TREASON STATUTES
THERETOFORE HAD BEEN ADAPTED TO A SOCIETY IN WHICH THE STATE WAS
PERSONIFIED BY A KING, ON WHOSE PERSON WERE FOCUSED THE ALLEGIANCES AND
LOYALTIES OF THE SUBJECT.  WHEN GOVERNMENT WAS MADE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE WHOLE BODY OF THE GOVERNED, THERE WAS NONE TO SAY "I AM THE STATE"
AND A CONCEPT OF TREASON AS COMPASSING OR IMAGINING A RULER'S DEATH WAS
NO LONGER FITTING.  NOR CAN IT BE GAINSAID THAT THE REVOLUTIONARY
DOCTRINE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALTER OR ABOLISH THEIR
GOVERNMENT RELAXED THE LOYALTY WHICH GOVERNMENTS THERETOFORE HAD
DEMANDED - DANGEROUSLY DILUTED IT, AS THE RULING CLASSES OF EUROPE
THOUGHT, FOR IN THEIR EYES THE COLONISTS NOT ONLY COMMITTED TREASON,
THEY EXALTED IT.  FN27  THE IDEA THAT LOYALTY WILL ULTIMATELY BE GIVEN
TO A GOVERNMENT ONLY SO LONG AS IT DESERVES LOYALTY AND THAT OPPOSITION
TO ITS ABUSES IS NOT TREASON FN28  HAS MADE OUR GOVERNMENT TOLERANT OF
OPPOSITION BASED ON DIFFERENCES OF OPINION THAT IN SOME PARTS OF THE
WORLD WOULD HAVE KEPT THE HANGMAN BUSY.  BUT THE BASIC LAW OF TREASON
IN THIS COUNTRY WAS FRAMED BY MEN WHO, AS WE HAVE SEEN, WERE TAUGHT BY
EXPERIENCE AND BY HISTORY TO FEAR ABUSE OF THE TREASON CHARGE ALMOST AS
MUCH AS THEY FEARED TREASON ITSELF.  THE INTERPLAY IN THE CONVENTION OF
THEIR TWO FEARS ACCOUNTS FOR THE PROBLEM WHICH FACES US TODAY. 

   II 

WE TURN THEN TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF
1787 SO FAR AS WE HAVE RECORD OF THEM.  THE PLAN PRESENTED BY PINCKNEY
EVIDENTLY PROPOSED ONLY THAT CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE POWER TO
DECLARE WHAT SHOULD BE TREASON AND MISPRISION OF TREASON AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES.  FN29  THE COMMITTEE ON DETAIL, APPARENTLY NOT
SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED ON THE SUBJECT, REPORTED A DRAFT CONSTITUTION
WHICH LEFT NO SUCH LATITUDE TO CREATE NEW TREASONS.  IT PROVIDED THAT:
"TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSIST ONLY IN LEVYING WAR
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY OF THEM; AND IN ADHERING TO THE
ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY OF THEM.  THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE POWER TO DECLARE THE PUNISHMENT OF TREASON. 
NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF TREASON, UNLESS ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO
WITNESSES.  NO ATTAINDER OF TREASON SHALL WORK CORRUPTION OF BLOODS,
NOR FORFEITURE, EXCEPT DURING THE LIFE OF THE PERSON ATTAINTED."  FN30 

THIS CLAUSE WAS DISCUSSED ON AUGUST 20, 1787.  MR. MADISON, WHO
OPENED THE DISCUSSION, "THOUGHT THE DEFINITION TOO NARROW.  IT DID NOT
APPEAR TO GO AS FAR AS THE STAT.  OF EDWD.  III.  HE DID NOT SEE WHY
MORE LATITUDE MIGHT NOT BE LEFT TO THE LEGISLATURE.  IT WD. BE AS SAFE
IN THE HANDS OF STATE LEGISLATURES; AND IT WAS INCONVENIENT TO BAR A
DISCRETION WHICH EXPERIENCE MIGHT ENLIGHTEN, AND WHICH MIGHT BE APPLIED
TO GOOD PURPOSES AS WELL AS BE ABUSED."  FN31  MR. MASON WAS IN FAVOR
OF FOLLOWING THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE OF EDWARD III.  THE DISCUSSION
SHOWS SOME CONFUSION AS TO THE EFFECT OF ADDING THE WORDS "GIVING THEM
AID AND COMFORT," SOME THINKING THEIR EFFECT RESTRICTIVE AND OTHERS
THAT THEY GAVE A MORE EXTENSIVE MEANING.  HOWEVER, "COL.  MASON MOVED
TO INSERT THE WORDS 'GIVING (THEM) AID COMFORT' AS RESTRICTIVE OF
'ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, &C' - THE LATTER HE THOUGHT WOULD BE
OTHERWISE TOO INDEFINITE."  THE MOTION PREVAILED. 

MR. DICKENSON "WISHED TO KNOW WHAT WAS MEANT BY THE 'TESTIMONY OF TWO
WITNESSES', WHETHER THEY WERE TO BE WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT OR
TO DIFFERENT OVERT ACTS.  HE THOUGHT ALSO THAT PROOF OF AN OVERT ACT
OUGHT TO BE EXPRESSED AS ESSENTIAL TO THE CASE."  DOCTOR JOHNSON ALSO
"CONSIDERED ...  THAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE INSERTED IN THE DEFINITION
CONCERNING OVERT ACTS." 

WHEN IT WAS MOVED TO INSERT "TO THE SAME OVERT ACT" AFTER THE TWO
WITNESSES REQUIREMENT, MADISON NOTES THAT "DOC'R FRANKLIN WISHED THIS
AMENDMENT TO TAKE PLACE - PROSECUTIONS FOR TREASON WERE GENERALLY
VIRULENT; AND PERJURY TOO EASILY MADE USE OF AGAINST INNOCENCE."  JAMES
WILSON OBSERVED THAT "MUCH MAY BE SAID ON BOTH SIDES.  TREASON MAY
SOMETIMES BE PRACTICED IN SUCH A MANNER, AS TO RENDER PROOF EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT - AS IN A TRAITOROUS CORRESPONDENCE WITH AN ENEMY."  FN32
BUT THE MOTION CARRIED. 

BY THIS SEQUENCE OF PROPOSALS THE TREASON CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
TOOK ITS PRESENT FORM.  THE TEMPER AND ATTITUDE OF THE CONVENTION
TOWARD TREASON PROSECUTIONS IS UNMISTAKABLE.  IT ADOPTED EVERY
LIMITATION THAT THE PRACTICE OF GOVERNMENTS HAD EVOLVED OR THAT
POLITICO-LEGAL PHILOSOPHY TO THAT TIME HAD ADVANCED.  FN33  LIMITATION
OF THE TREASON OF ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY TO CASES WHERE AID AND COMFORT
WERE GIVEN AND THE REQUIREMENT OF AN OVERT ACT WERE BOTH FOUND IN THE
STATUTE OF EDWARD III, PRAISED IN THE WRITINGS OF COKE AND BLACKSTONE,
AND ADVOCATED IN MONTESQUIEU'S SPIRIT OF LAWS.  LIKEWISE, THE TWO
WITNESS REQUIREMENT HAD BEEN USED IN OTHER STATUTES,  FN34  WAS
ADVOCATED BY MONTESQUIEU IN ALL CAPITAL CASES,  FN35  AND WAS A
FAMILIAR PRECEPT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT  FN36  AND OF MOSAIC LAW.  FN37
THE FRAMERS COMBINED ALL OF THESE KNOWN PROTECTIONS AND ADDED TWO OF
THEIR OWN WHICH HAD NO PRECEDENT.  THEY WROTE INTO THE ORGANIC ACT OF
THE NEW GOVERNMENT A PROHIBITION OF LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL CREATION OF
NEW TREASONS.  AND A VENERABLE SAFEGUARD AGAINST FALSE TESTIMONY WAS
GIVEN A NOVEL APPLICATION BY REQUIRING TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT
ACT. 

DISTRUST OF TREASON PROSECUTIONS WAS NOT JUST A TRANSIENT MOOD OF THE
REVOLUTIONISTS.  IN THE CENTURY AND A HALF OF OUR NATIONAL EXISTENCE
NOT ONE EXECUTION ON A FEDERAL TREASON CONVICTION HAS TAKEN PLACE. 
NEVER BEFORE HAS THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW A CONVICTION.  IN
THE FEW CASES THAT HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED THE TREASON CLAUSE HAS HAD ITS
ONLY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION BY INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES OF THIS COURT
PRESIDING AT TRIALS ON CIRCUIT OR BY DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT JUDGES.  FN38
AFTER CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, AND AFTER JURIES
HAVE CONVICTED AND COURTS HAVE SENTENCED, PRESIDENTS AGAIN AND AGAIN
HAVE INTERVENED TO MITIGATE JUDICIAL SEVERITY OR TO PARDON ENTIRELY. 
WE HAVE MANAGED TO DO WITHOUT TREASON PROSECUTIONS TO A DEGREE THAT
PROBABLY WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE EXCEPT WHILE A PEOPLE WAS SINGULARLY
CONFIDENT OF EXTERNAL SECURITY AND INTERNAL STABILITY.  FN39

   III 

HISTORICAL MATERIALS AID INTERPRETATION CHIEFLY IN THAT THEY SHOW TWO
KINDS OF DANGERS AGAINST WHICH THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED TO GUARD THE
TREASON OFFENSE:  (1) PERVERSION BY ESTABLISHED AUTHORITY TO REPRESS
PEACEFUL POLITICAL OPPOSITION; AND (2) CONVICTION OF THE INNOCENT AS A
RESULT OF PERJURY, PASSION, OR INADEQUATE EVIDENCE.  THE FIRST DANGER
COULD BE DIMINISHED BY CLOSELY CIRCUMSCRIBING THE KIND OF CONDUCT WHICH
SHOULD BE TREASON - MAKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION EXCLUSIVE,
MAKING IT CLEAR, AND MAKING THE OFFENSE ONE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING
INFERRED FROM ALL SORTS OF INSUBORDINATIONS.  THE SECOND DANGER LAY IN
THE MANNER OF TRIAL AND WAS ONE WHICH WOULD BE DIMINISHED MAINLY BY
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS - MAINLY BUT NOT WHOLLY, FOR THE HAZARDS OF
TRIAL ALSO WOULD BE DIMINISHED BY CONFINING THE TREASON OFFENSE TO
KINDS OF CONDUCT SUSCEPTIBLE OF REASONABLY SURE PROOF.  THE CONCERN
UPPERMOST IN THE FRAMERS' MINDS, THAT MERE MENTAL ATTITUDES OR
EXPRESSIONS SHOULD NOT BE TREASON, INFLUENCED BOTH DEFINITION OF THE
CRIME AND PROCEDURE FOR ITS TRIAL.  IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION THE
FIRST SENTENCE OF THE TREASON ARTICLE UNDERTOOK TO DEFINE THE OFFENSE;
THE SECOND, TO SURROUND ITS TRIAL WITH PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS. 

"COMPASSING" AND LIKE LOOSE CONCEPTS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE OFFENSE
HAD BEEN USEFUL TOOLS FOR TYRANNY.  SO ONE OF THE OBVIOUS THINGS TO BE
PUT INTO THE DEFINITION OF TREASON NOT CONSISTING OF ACTUAL LEVYING OF
WAR WAS THAT IT MUST CONSIST OF DOING SOMETHING.  THIS THE DRAFT
CONSTITUTION FAILED TO PROVIDE, FOR, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, IT DEFINED
TREASON  FN40  AS MERELY "ADHERING TO THE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
OR ANY OF THEM." 

TREASON OF ADHERENCE TO AN ENEMY WAS OLD IN THE LAW.  IT CONSISTED OF
BREAKING ALLEGIANCE TO ONE'S OWN KING BY FORMING AN ATTACHMENT TO HIS
ENEMY.  ITS SCOPE WAS COMPREHENSIVE, ITS REQUIREMENTS INDETERMINATE. 
IT MIGHT BE PREDICATED ON INTELLECTUAL OR EMOTIONAL SYMPATHY WITH THE
FOE, OR MERELY LACK OF ZEAL IN THE CAUSE OF ONE'S OWN COUNTRY.  THAT
WAS NOT THE KIND OF DISLOYALTY THE FRAMERS THOUGHT SHOULD CONSTITUTE
TREASON.  THEY PROMPTLY ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL TO RESTRICT IT TO CASES
WHERE ALSO THERE WAS CONDUCT WHICH WAS "GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT." 

"AID AND COMFORT" WAS DEFINED BY LORD READING IN THE CASEMENT TRIAL
COMPREHENSIVELY, AS IT SHOULD BE, AND YET PROBABLY WITH AS MUCH
PRECISION AS THE NATURE OF THE MATTER WILL PERMIT:  "... AN ACT WHICH
STRENGTHENS OR TENDS TO STRENGTHEN THE ENEMIES OF THE KING IN THE
CONDUCT OF A WAR AGAINST THE KING, THAT IS IN LAW THE GIVING OF AID AND
COMFORT" AND "AN ACT WHICH WEAKENS OR TENDS TO WEAKEN THE POWER OF THE
KING AND OF THE COUNTRY TO RESIST OR TO ATTACK THE ENEMIES OF THE KING
AND THE COUNTRY  ...  IS  ...  GIVING OF AID AND COMFORT."  LORD
READING EXPLAINED IT, AS WE THINK ONE MUST, IN TERMS OF AN "ACT."  IT
IS NOT EASY, IF INDEED POSSIBLE, TO THINK OF A WAY IN WHICH "AID AND
COMFORT" CAN BE "GIVEN" TO AN ENEMY EXCEPT BY SOME KIND OF ACTION.  ITS
VERY NATURE PARTAKES OF A DEED OR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AS OPPOSED TO A
MENTAL OPERATION. 

THUS THE CRIME OF TREASON CONSISTS OF TWO ELEMENTS:  ADHERENCE TO THE
ENEMY; AND RENDERING HIM AID AND COMFORT.  A CITIZEN INTELLECTUALLY OR
EMOTIONALLY MAY FAVOR THE ENEMY AND HARBOR SYMPATHIES OR CONVICTIONS
DISLOYAL TO THIS COUNTRY'S POLICY OR INTEREST, BUT SO LONG AS HE
COMMITS NO ACT OF AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY, THERE IS NO TREASON. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, A CITIZEN MAY TAKE ACTIONS WHICH DO AID AND COMFORT
THE ENEMY - MAKING A SPEECH CRITICAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OR OPPOSING ITS
MEASURES, PROFITEERING, STRIKING IN DEFENSE PLANTS OR ESSENTIAL WORK,
AND THE HUNDRED OTHER THINGS WHICH IMPAIR OUR COHESION AND DIMINISH OUR
STRENGTH - BUT IF THERE IS NO ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY IN THIS, IF THERE
IS NO INTENT TO BETRAY, THERE IS NO TREASON. 

HAVING THUS BY DEFINITION MADE TREASON CONSIST OF SOMETHING OUTWARD
AND VISIBLE AND CAPABLE OF DIRECT PROOF, THE FRAMERS TURNED TO
SAFEGUARDING PROCEDURES OF TRIAL AND ORDAINED THAT "NO PERSON SHALL BE
CONVICTED OF TREASON UNLESS ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE
SAME OVERT ACT, OR ON CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT."  THIS REPEATS IN
PROCEDURAL TERMS THE CONCEPT THAT THOUGHTS AND ATTITUDES ALONE CANNOT
MAKE A TREASON.  IT NEED NOT TROUBLE US THAT WE FIND SO DOMINANT A
PURPOSE EMPHASIZED IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.  BUT DOES THE PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENT ADD SOME LIMITATION NOT ALREADY PRESENT IN THE DEFINITION
OF THE CRIME, AND IF SO, WHAT? 

WHILE TO PROVE GIVING OF AID AND COMFORT WOULD REQUIRE THE
PROSECUTION TO SHOW ACTIONS AND DEEDS, IF THE CONSTITUTION STOPPED
THERE, SUCH ACTS COULD BE INFERRED FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  THIS
THE FRAMERS THOUGHT WOULD NOT DO.  FN41  SO THEY ADDED WHAT IN EFFECT
IS A COMMAND THAT THE OVERT ACTS MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY DIRECT
EVIDENCE, AND THE DIRECT TESTIMONY MUST BE THAT OF TWO WITNESSES
INSTEAD OF ONE.  IN THIS SENSE THE OVERT ACT PROCEDURAL PROVISION ADDS
SOMETHING, AND SOMETHING IMPORTANT, TO THE DEFINITION. 

OUR PROBLEM BEGINS WHERE THE CONSTITUTION ENDS.  THAT INSTRUMENT
OMITS TO SPECIFY WHAT RELATION THE INDISPENSABLE OVERT ACT MUST SUSTAIN
TO THE TWO ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE AS DEFINED:  VIZ., ADHERENCE AND
GIVING AID AND COMFORT.  IT REQUIRES THAT TWO WITNESSES TESTIFY TO THE
SAME OVERT ACT, AND CLEARLY ENOUGH THE ACT MUST SHOW SOMETHING TOWARD
TREASON, BUT WHAT?  MUST THE ACT BE ONE OF GIVING AID AND COMFORT?  IF
SO, HOW MUST ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY, THE DISLOYAL STATE OF MIND, BE
SHOWN?    THE DEFENDANT ESPECIALLY CHALLENGES THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
OVERT ACTS TO PROVE TREASONABLE INTENTION.  QUESTIONS OF INTENT IN A
TREASON CASE ARE EVEN MORE COMPLICATED THAN IN MOST CRIMINAL CASES
BECAUSE OF THE PECULIARITY OF THE TWO DIFFERENT ELEMENTS WHICH TOGETHER
MAKE THE OFFENSE.  OF COURSE THE OVERT ACTS OF AID AND COMFORT MUST BE
INTENTIONAL AS DISTINGUISHED FROM MERELY NEGLIGENT OR UNDESIGNED ONES. 
INTENT IN THAT LIMITED SENSE IS NOT IN ISSUE HERE.  BUT TO MAKE TREASON
THE DEFENDANT NOT ONLY MUST INTEND THE ACT, BUT HE MUST INTEND TO
BETRAY HIS COUNTRY BY MEANS OF THE ACT.  IT IS HERE THAT CRAMER
DEFENDS.  THE ISSUE IS JOINED BETWEEN CONFLICTING THEORIES AS TO HOW
THIS TREACHEROUS INTENTION AND TREASONABLE PURPOSE MUST BE MADE TO
APPEAR. 

BEARING IN MIND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT IN EFFECT IS ONE
OF DIRECT RATHER THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WE MUST GIVE IT A
REASONABLE EFFECT IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSE BOTH TO PRESERVE THE
OFFENSE AND TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM ITS ABUSE.  WHAT IS DESIGNED IN
THE MIND OF AN ACCUSED NEVER IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF PROOF BY DIRECT
TESTIMONY.  IF WE WERE TO HOLD THAT THE DISLOYAL AND TREACHEROUS
INTENTION MUST BE PROVED BY THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES, IT
WOULD BE TO HOLD THAT IT IS NEVER PROVABLE.  IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT
ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY, IN THE SENSE OF A DISLOYAL STATE OF MIND,
CANNOT BE, AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE, PROVED BY DEPOSITION OF TWO
WITNESSES. 

SINCE INTENT MUST BE INFERRED FROM CONDUCT OF SOME SORT, WE THINK IT
IS PERMISSIBLE TO DRAW USUAL REASONABLE INFERENCES AS TO INTENT FROM
THE OVERT ACTS.  THE LAW OF TREASON, LIKE THE LAW OF LESSER CRIMES,
ASSUMES EVERY MAN TO INTEND THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCES WHICH ONE STANDING
IN HIS CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSSESSING HIS KNOWLEDGE WOULD REASONABLY
EXPECT TO RESULT FROM HIS ACTS.  PROOF THAT A CITIZEN DID GIVE AID AND
COMFORT TO AN ENEMY MAY WELL BE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE THAT HE ADHERED TO THAT ENEMY AND INTENDED AND PURPOSED TO
STRIKE AT HIS OWN COUNTRY.  FN42  IT MAY BE DOUBTED WHETHER IT WOULD BE
WHAT THE FOUNDERS INTENDED, OR WHETHER IT WOULD WELL SERVE ANY OF THE
ENDS THEY CHERISHED, TO HOLD THE TREASON OFFENSE AVAILABLE TO PUNISH
ONLY THOSE WHO MAKE THEIR TREACHEROUS INTENTIONS MORE EVIDENT THAN MAY
BE DONE BY RENDERING AID AND COMFORT TO AN ENEMY.  TREASON - INSIDIOUS
AND DANGEROUS TREASON - IS THE WORK OF THE SHREWD AND CRAFTY MORE OFTEN
THAN OF THE SIMPLE AND IMPULSIVE. 

WHILE OF COURSE IT MUST BE PROVED THAT THE ACCUSED ACTED WITH AN
INTENTION AND PURPOSE TO BETRAY OR THERE IS NO TREASON, WE THINK THAT
IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES AT LEAST THE OVERT ACT ITSELF WILL BE EVIDENCE OF
THE TREASONABLE PURPOSE AND INTENT.  BUT THAT STILL LEAVES US WITH
EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT PROBLEMS.  HOW DECISIVELY MUST TREACHEROUS
INTENTION BE MADE MANIFEST IN THE ACT ITSELF?  WILL A SCINTILLA OF
EVIDENCE OF TRAITOROUS INTENT SUFFICE?  OR MUST IT BE SUFFICIENT TO
CONVINCE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?  OR NEED IT SHOW ONLY THAT
TREASONABLE INTENT WAS MORE PROBABLE THAN NOT?  MUST THE OVERT ACT BE
APPRAISED FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ONLY AS SUPPORTED BY THE TESTIMONY OF
TWO WITNESSES, OR MAY OTHER EVIDENCE BE THROWN INTO THE SCALES TO
CREATE INFERENCES NOT OTHERWISE REASONABLY TO BE DRAWN OR TO REINFORCE
THOSE WHICH MIGHT BE DRAWN FROM THE ACT ITSELF? 

IT IS ONLY OVERT ACTS BY THE ACCUSED WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
EXPLICITLY REQUIRES TO BE PROVED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES.  IT
DOES NOT MAKE OTHER COMMON-LAW EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE NOR DENY ITS
INHERENT POWERS OF PERSUASION.  IT DOES NOT FORBID JUDGING BY THE USUAL
PROCESS BY WHICH THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CONDUCT OFTEN WILL BE DETERMINED
BY FACTS WHICH ARE NOT ACTS.  ACTIONS OF THE ACCUSED ARE SET IN TIME
AND PLACE IN MANY RELATIONSHIPS.  ENVIRONMENT ILLUMINATES THE MEANING
OF ACTS, AS CONTEXT DOES THAT OF WORDS.  WHAT A MAN IS UP TO MAY BE
CLEAR FROM CONSIDERING HIS BARE ACTS BY THEMSELVES; OFTEN IT IS MADE
CLEAR WHEN WE KNOW THE RECIPROCITY AND SEQUENCE OF HIS ACTS WITH THOSE
OF OTHERS, THE INTERCHANGE BETWEEN HIM AND ANOTHER, THE GIVE AND TAKE
OF THE SITUATION. 

IT WOULD BE NO CONTRIBUTION TO CERTAINTY OF JUDGMENT, WHICH IS THE
OBJECT OF THE PROVISION, TO CONSTRUE IT TO DEPRIVE A TRIAL COURT OF THE
AID OF TESTIMONY UNDER THE ORDINARY SANCTIONS OF VERITY, PROVIDED, OF
COURSE, RESORT IS NOT HAD TO EVIDENCE OF LESS THAN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARD TO SUPPLY DEFICIENCIES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE OF PROOF
OF OVERT ACTS.  FOR IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION ESTABLISHES A MINIMUM OF PROOF OF INCRIMINATING ACTS, WITHOUT
WHICH THERE CAN BE NO CONVICTION, BUT IT IS NOT OTHERWISE A LIMITATION
ON THE EVIDENCE WITH WHICH A JURY MAY BE PERSUADED THAT IT OUGHT TO
CONVICT.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXCLUDE OR SET UP STANDARDS TO TEST
EVIDENCE WHICH WILL SHOW THE RELEVANT ACTS OF PERSONS OTHER THAN THE
ACCUSED OR THEIR IDENTITY OR ENEMY CHARACTER OR OTHER SURROUNDING
CIRCUMSTANCES.  NOR DOES IT PRECLUDE ANY PROPER EVIDENCE OF NON
INCRIMINATING FACTS ABOUT A DEFENDANT, SUCH FOR EXAMPLE AS HIS
NATIONALITY, NATURALIZATION, AND RESIDENCE. 

FROM DULY PROVEN OVERT ACTS OF AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY IN THEIR
SETTING, IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE NATURAL AND REASONABLE INFERENCE OF
INTENTION TO BETRAY WILL BE WARRANTED.  THE TWO-WITNESS EVIDENCE OF THE
ACTS ACCUSED, TOGETHER WITH COMMON-LAW EVIDENCE OF ACTS OF OTHERS AND
OF FACTS WHICH ARE NOT ACTS, WILL HELP TO DETERMINE WHICH AMONG
POSSIBLE INFERENCES AS TO THE ACTOR'S KNOWLEDGE, MOTIVATION, OR INTENT
ARE THE TRUE ONES.  BUT THE PROTECTION OF THE TWO-WITNESS RULE EXTENDS
AT LEAST TO ALL ACTS OF THE DEFENDANT WHICH ARE USED TO DRAW
INCRIMINATING INFERENCES THAT AID AND COMFORT HAVE BEEN GIVEN. 

THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US HAS BEEN WAGED IN TERMS OF INTENTIONS, BUT
THIS, WE THINK, IS THE REFLECTION OF A MORE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE AS TO
WHAT IS THE REAL FUNCTION OF THE OVERT ACT IN CONVICTING OF TREASON. 
THE PRISONER'S CONTENTION THAT IT ALONE AND ON ITS FACE MUST MANIFEST A
TRAITOROUS INTENTION, APART FROM AN INTENTION TO DO THE ACT ITSELF,
WOULD PLACE ON THE OVERT ACT THE WHOLE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING A
COMPLETE TREASON.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT
IT MAY PROVE BY TWO WITNESSES AN APPARENTLY COMMONPLACE AND
INSIGNIFICANT ACT AND FROM OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES CREATE AN INFERENCE THAT
THE ACT WAS A STEP IN TREASON AND WAS DONE WITH TREASONABLE INTENT
REALLY IS A CONTENTION THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE OVERT ACT IN A TREASON
PROSECUTION IS ALMOST ZERO.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FUNCTION WE ASCRIBE
TO THE OVERT ACT IS SIGNIFICANT CHIEFLY BECAUSE IT MEASURES THE TWO
WITNESS RULE PROTECTION TO THE ACCUSED AND ITS HANDICAP TO THE
PROSECUTION.  IF THE OVERT ACT OR ACTS MUST GO ALL THE WAY TO MAKE OUT
THE COMPLETE TREASON, THE DEFENDANT IS PROTECTED AT ALL POINTS BY THE
TWO-WITNESS REQUIREMENT.  IF THE ACT MAY BE AN INSIGNIFICANT ONE, THEN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS ARE SHRUNKEN SO AS TO BE APPLICABLE ONLY
AT A POINT WHERE THEY ARE LEAST NEEDED. 

THE VERY MINIMUM FUNCTION THAT AN OVERT ACT  FN43  MUST PERFORM IN A
TREASON PROSECUTION IS THAT IT SHOW SUFFICIENT ACTION BY THE ACCUSED,
IN ITS SETTING, TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED ACTUALLY GAVE
FN44  AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY.  EVERY ACT, MOVEMENT, DEED, AND
WORD OF THE DEFENDANT CHARGED TO CONSTITUTE TREASON MUST BE SUPPORTED
BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES.  THE TWO-WITNESS PRINCIPLE IS TO
INTERDICT IMPUTATION OF INCRIMINATING ACTS TO THE ACCUSED BY
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY THE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS.  THE
PROSECUTION CANNOT RELY ON EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL TEST FOR OVERT ACTS TO CREATE ANY INFERENCE THAT THE
ACCUSED DID OTHER ACTS OR DID SOMETHING MORE THAN WAS SHOWN IN THE
OVERT ACT, IN ORDER TO MAKE A GIVING OF AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY. 
THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE CHOSEN, NOT TO MAKE IT HARD TO PROVE
MERELY ROUTINE AND EVERYDAY ACTS, BUT TO MAKE THE PROOF OF ACTS THAT
CONVICT OF TREASON AS SURE AS TRIAL PROCESSES MAY.  WHEN THE
PROSECUTION'S CASE IS THUS ESTABLISHED, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
PREVENT PRESENTATION OF CORROBORATIVE OR CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE OF ANY
ADMISSIBLE CHARACTER EITHER TO STRENGTHEN A DIRECT CASE OR TO REBUT THE
TESTIMONY OR INFERENCES ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT.  THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT
PREVENTED FROM MAKING A STRONG CASE; IT IS DENIED A CONVICTION ON A
WEAK ONE. 

IT MAY BE THAT IN SOME CASES THE OVERT ACTS, SUFFICIENT TO PROVE
GIVING OF AID AND COMFORT, WILL FALL SHORT OF SHOWING INTENT TO BETRAY
AND THAT QUESTIONS WILL THEN BE RAISED AS TO PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF
PROOF THAT WE DO NOT REACH IN THIS CASE.  BUT IN THIS AND SOME CASES WE
HAVE CITED WHERE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE OVERT ACTS HAS BEEN CHALLENGED
BECAUSE THEY WERE COLORLESS AS TO INTENT, WE ARE PERSUADED THE REASON
INTENT WAS LEFT IN QUESTION WAS THAT THE ACTS WERE REALLY INDECISIVE AS
A GIVING OF AID AND COMFORT.  WHEN WE DEAL WITH ACTS THAT ARE TRIVIAL
AND COMMONPLACE AND HENCE ARE DOUBTFUL AS TO WHETHER THEY GAVE AID AND
COMFORT TO THE ENEMY, WE ARE MOST PUT TO IT TO FIND IN OTHER EVIDENCE A
TREACHEROUS INTENT. 

WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO
CRAMER'S CASE. 

                 IV 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED CRAMER WITH ADHERING TO THE ENEMIES OF THE
UNITED STATES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT, AND SET FORTH TEN OVERT
ACTS.  THE PROSECUTION WITHDREW SEVEN, AND THREE WERE SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY.  THE OVERT ACTS WHICH PRESENT THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE  FN45  ARE
ALLEGED IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: 

"1.  ANTHONY CRAMER, THE DEFENDANT HEREIN, ON OR ABOUT JUNE 23, 1942,
AT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT, DID MEET WITH WERNER THIEL AND EDWARD JOHN KERLING, ENEMIES
OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TWIN OAKS INN AT LEXINGTON AVENUE AND 44TH
STREET, IN THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, AND DID CONFER, TREAT, AND
COUNSEL WITH SAID WERNER THIEL AND EDWARD JOHN KERLING FOR A PERIOD OF
TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING AND WITH INTENT TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT
TO SAID ENEMIES, WERNER THIEL AND EDWARD JOHN KERLING. 

"2.  ANTHONY CRAMER, THE DEFENDANT HEREIN, ON OR ABOUT JUNE 23, 1942,
AT THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT, DID ACCOMPANY, CONFER, TREAT, AND COUNSEL WITH WERNER
THIEL, AN ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AT THE TWIN
OAKS INN AT LEXINGTON AVENUE AND 44TH STREET, AND AT THOMPSON'S
CAFETERIA ON 42ND STREET BETWEEN LEXINGTON AND VANDERBILT AVENUES, BOTH
IN THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING AND WITH
INTENT TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO SAID ENEMY, WERNER THIEL." 

AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE CASE WE NEED NOT WEIGH THEIR SUFFICIENCY
AS A MATTER OF PLEADING.  WHATEVER THE AVERMENTS MIGHT HAVE PERMITTED
THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE, WE NOW CONSIDER THEIR ADEQUACY ON THE PROOF AS
MADE. 

IT APPEARED UPON THE TRIAL THAT AT ALL TIMES INVOLVED IN THESE ACTS
KERLING AND THIEL WERE UNDER SURVEILLANCE OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION.  BY DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TWO OR MORE AGENTS IT WAS
ESTABLISHED THAT CRAMER MET THIEL AND KERLING ON THE OCCASIONS AND AT
THE PLACES CHARGED AND THAT THEY DRANK TOGETHER AND ENGAGED LONG AND
EARNESTLY IN CONVERSATION.  THIS IS THE SUM OF THE OVERT ACTS AS
ESTABLISHED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES.  THERE IS NO TWO-WITNESS
PROOF OF WHAT THEY SAID NOR IN WHAT LANGUAGE THEY CONVERSED.  THERE IS
NO SHOWING THAT CRAMER GAVE THEM ANY INFORMATION WHATEVER OF VALUE TO
THEIR MISSION OR INDEED THAT HE HAD ANY TO GIVE.  NO EFFORT AT SECRECY
IS SHOWN, FOR THEY MET IN PUBLIC PLACES.  CRAMER FURNISHED THEM NO
SHELTER, NOTHING THAT CAN BE CALLED SUSTENANCE OR SUPPLIES, AND THERE
IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE GAVE THEM ENCOURAGEMENT OR COUNSEL, OR EVEN PAID
FOR THEIR DRINKS. 

THE GOVERMENT RECOGNIZES THE WEAKNESS OF ITS PROOF OF AID AND
COMFORT, BUT ON THIS SCORE IT URGES:  "LITTLE IMAGINATION IS REQUIRED
TO PERCEIVE THE ADVANTAGE SUCH MEETING WOULD AFFORD TO ENEMY SPIES NOT
YET DETECTED.  EVEN APART FROM THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COMFORT WHICH THE
MEETINGS FURNISHED THIEL AND KERLING BY WAY OF SOCIAL INTERCOURSE WITH
ONE WHO THEY WERE CONFIDENT WOULD NOT REPORT THEM TO THE AUTHORITIES,
AS A LOYAL CITIZEN SHOULD, THE MEETINGS GAVE THEM A SOURCE OF
INFORMATION AND AN AVENUE FOR CONTACT.  IT ENABLED THEM TO BE SEEN IN
PUBLIC WITH A CITIZEN ABOVE SUSPICION AND THEREBY TO BE MINGLING
NORMALLY WITH THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY WITH WHICH THEY WERE AT
WAR."  THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT TREASON CONVICTION
SHALL REST ON DIRECT PROOF OF TWO WITNESSES AND NOT ON EVEN A LITTLE
IMAGINATION.  AND WITHOUT THE USE OF SOME IMAGINATION IT IS DIFFICULT
TO PERCEIVE ANY ADVANTAGE WHICH THIS MEETING AFFORDED TO THIEL AND
KERLING AS ENEMIES OR HOW IT STRENGTHENED GERMANY OR WEAKENED THE
UNITED STATES IN ANY WAY WHATEVER.  IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE SABOTEURS
WERE CULTIVATING CRAMER AS A POTENTIAL "SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND AN
AVENUE FOR CONTACT."  BUT THERE IS NO PROOF EITHER BY TWO WITNESSES OR
BY EVEN ONE WITNESS OR BY ANY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CRAMER GAVE THEM
INFORMATION OR ESTABLISHED ANY "CONTACT" FOR THEM WITH ANY PERSON OTHER
THAN AN ATTEMPT TO BRING ABOUT A RENDEZVOUS BETWEEN THIEL AND A GIRL,
OR THAT BEING "SEEN IN PUBLIC WITH A CITIZEN ABOVE SUSPICION" WAS OF
ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE ENEMY.  MEETING WITH CRAMER IN PUBLIC DRINKING
PLACES TO TIPPLE AND TRIFLE WAS NO PART OF THE SABOTEURS' MISSION AND
DID NOT ADVANCE IT.  IT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN A DIGRESSION WHICH
JEOPARDIZED ITS SUCCESS.    THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE OVERT ACT SUBMITTED
ARE EMPHASIZED BY CONTRAST WITH OTHERS WHICH THE INDICTMENT CHARGED BUT
WHICH THE PROSECUTION WITHDREW FOR ADMITTED INSUFFICIENCY OF PROOF.  IT
APPEARS THAT CRAMER TOOK FROM THIEL FOR SAFEKEEPING A MONEY BELT
CONTAINING ABOUT $3,600, SOME $160 OF WHICH HE HELD IN HIS ROOM
CONCEALED IN BOOKS FOR THIEL'S USE AS NEEDED.  AN OLD INDEBTEDNESS OF
THIEL TO CRAMER OF $200 WAS PAID FROM THE FUND, AND THE REST CRAMER PUT
IN HIS SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX IN A BANK FOR SAFEKEEPING.  ALL OF THIS WAS AT
THIEL'S REQUEST.  THAT THIEL WOULD BE AIDED BY HAVING THE SECURITY OF A
SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX FOR HIS FUNDS, PLUS AVAILABILITY OF SMALLER AMOUNTS,
AND BY BEING RELIEVED OF THE RISKS OF CARRYING LARGE SUMS ON HIS PERSON
- WITHOUT DISCLOSING HIS PRESENCE OR IDENTITY TO A BANK - SEEMS
OBVIOUS.  THE INFERENCE OF INTENT FROM SUCH ACT IS ALSO VERY DIFFERENT
FROM THE INTENT MANIFEST BY DRINKING AND TALKING TOGETHER.  TAKING WHAT
MUST HAVE SEEMED A LARGE SUM OF MONEY FOR SAFEKEEPING IS NOT A USUAL
AMENITY OF SOCIAL INTERCOURSE.  THAT SUCH RESPONSIBILITIES ARE
UNDERTAKEN AND SUCH TRUST BESTOWED WITHOUT THE SCRATCH OF A PEN TO SHOW
IT, IMPLIES SOME DEGREE OF MUTUALITY AND CONCERT FROM WHICH A JURY
COULD SAY THAT AID AND COMFORT WAS GIVEN AND WAS INTENDED.  IF THESE
ACTS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED AS OVERT ACTS OF TREASON, AND WE WERE NOW
REQUIRED TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AS REQUIRED, WE
WOULD HAVE A QUITE DIFFERENT CASE.  WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO DECIDE
WHETHER STATEMENTS ON THE WITNESS STAND BY THE DEFENDANT ARE EITHER
"CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT" OR MAY BE COUNTED AS THE TESTIMONY OF ONE OF
THE REQUIRED TWO WITNESSES TO MAKE OUT OTHERWISE INSUFFICIENTLY PROVED
"OVERT ACTS."  BUT THIS TRANSACTION WAS NOT PROVEN AS THE GOVERNMENT
EVIDENTLY HOPED TO DO WHEN THE INDICTMENT WAS OBTAINED.  THE OVERT ACTS
BASED ON IT WERE EXPRESSLY WITHDRAWN FROM THE JURY, AND CRAMER HAS NOT
BEEN CONVICTED OF TREASON ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH ACTS.  WE CANNOT SUSTAIN A
CONVICTION FOR THE ACTS SUBMITTED ON THE THEORY THAT, EVEN IF
INSUFFICIENT, SOME UNSUBMITTED ONES MAY BE RESORTED TO AS PROOF OF
TREASON.  EVIDENCE OF THE MONEY TRANSACTION SERVES ONLY TO SHOW HOW
MUCH WENT OUT OF THE CASE WHEN IT WAS WITHDRAWN. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT OUTSIDE OF THE OVERT ACTS, AND BY LESSER
DEGREE OF PROOF, IT HAS SHOWN A TREASONABLE INTENT ON CRAMER'S PART IN
MEETING AND TALKING WITH THIEL AND KERLING.  BUT IF IT SHOWED HIM
DISPOSED TO BETRAY, AND SHOWED THAT HE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, IT
STILL HAS NOT PROVED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED THAT HE DID ANY ACTS
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A BASIS FOR CONVICTION WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF
BETRAYING BY GIVING AID AND COMFORT.  TO TAKE THE INTENT FOR THE DEED
WOULD CARRY US BACK TO CONSTRUCTIVE TREASONS. 

IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE COMMONPLACE OVERT ACTS AS PROVED THAT WE MUST
FIND ALL THAT CONVICTS OR CONVINCES EITHER THAT CRAMER GAVE AID AND
COMFORT OR THAT HE HAD A TRAITOROUS INTENTION.  THE PROSECUTION RELIED
CHIEFLY UPON THE TESTIMONY OF NORMA KOPP, THE FIANCEE OF THIEL, AS TO
INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE BY CRAMER TO HER,  FN46  UPON ADMISSIONS
MADE BY CRAMER AFTER HIS ARREST TO AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,  FN47  UPON LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS FOUND ON SEARCH OF HIS
ROOM BY PERMISSION AFTER HIS ARREST,  FN48  AND UPON TESTIMONY THAT
CRAMER HAD CURTLY REFUSED TO BUY GOVERNMENT BONDS.  FN49  AFTER DENIAL
OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AT THE CLOSE OF THE PROSECUTION'S
CASE, DEFENDANT BECAME A WITNESS IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND THE GOVERNMENT
OBTAINED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION SOME ADMISSIONS OF WHICH IT HAD THE
BENEFIT ON SUBMISSION.  FN50 

IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO OUR ISSUE TO APPRAISE WEIGHT OR CREDIBILITY OF
THE EVIDENCE APART FROM DETERMINING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL SUFFICIENCY. 
NOR IS IT NECESSARY, IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUES, TO DISCUSS THE RESERVATIONS WHICH ALL OF US ENTERTAIN AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF SOME OF IT OR THOSE WHICH SOME ENTERTAIN AS TO OTHER
OF IT.  WE COULD CONCLUDE IN FAVOR OF AFFIRMANCE ONLY IF ALL QUESTIONS
OF ADMISSIBILITY WERE RESOLVED AGAINST THE PRISONER.  AT ALL EVENTS
MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE IS OF THE GENERAL CHARACTER WHOSE INFIRMITIES WERE
FEARED BY THE FRAMERS AND SOUGHT TO BE SAFEGUARDED AGAINST. 

MOST DAMAGING IS THE TESTIMONY OF NORMA KOPP, A FRIEND OF CRAMER'S
AND ONE WITH WHOM, IF SHE IS TO BE BELIEVED, HE HAD BEEN MOST
INDISCREETLY CONFIDENTIAL.  HER TESTIMONY WENT CONSIDERABLY BEYOND THAT
OF THE AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AS TO ADMISSIONS
OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF THIEL'S HOSTILE MISSION AND OF CRAMER'S SYMPATHY
WITH IT.  TO THE EXTENT THAT HIS CONVICTION RESTS UPON SUCH EVIDENCE,
AND IT DOES TO AN UNKNOWN BUT CONSIDERABLE EXTENT, IT RESTS UPON THE
UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS NOT WITHOUT STRONG EMOTIONAL
INTEREST IN THE DRAMA OF WHICH CRAMER'S TRIAL WAS A PART.  OTHER
EVIDENCE RELATES STATEMENTS BY CRAMER BEFORE THE UNITED STATES WAS AT
WAR WITH GERMANY.  AT THE TIME THEY WERE UTTERED, HOWEVER, THEY WERE
NOT TREASONABLE.  TO USE PRE-WAR EXPRESSIONS OF OPPOSITION TO ENTERING
A WAR TO CONVICT OF TREASON DURING THE WAR IS A DANGEROUS PROCEDURE AT
BEST.  THE SAME MAY BE SAID ABOUT THE INFERENCE OF DISLOYAL ATTITUDE
CREATED BY SHOWING THAT HE REFUSED TO BUY BONDS AND CLOSED THE DOOR IN
THE SALESMAN'S FACE.  ANOTHER CLASS OF EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF ADMISSIONS
TO AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.  THEY ARE, OF COURSE,
NOT "CONFESSIONS IN OPEN COURT."  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEND AND
COULD NOT WELL CONTEND THAT ADMISSIONS MADE OUT OF COURT, IF OTHERWISE
ADMISSIBLE, CAN SUPPLY A DEFICIENCY IN PROOF OF THE OVERT ACT ITSELF. 

          V 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS URGED THAT OUR INITIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
TREASON CLAUSE SHOULD BE LESS EXACTING, LEST TREASON BE TOO HARD TO
PROVE AND THE GOVERNMENT DISABLED FROM ADEQUATELY COMBATING THE
TECHNIQUES OF MODERN WARFARE.  BUT THE TREASON OFFENSE IS NOT THE ONLY
NOR CAN IT WELL SERVE AS THE PRINCIPAL LEGAL WEAPON TO VINDICATE OUR
NATIONAL COHESION AND SECURITY.  IN DEBATING THIS PROVISION, RUFUS KING
OBSERVED TO THE CONVENTION THAT THE "CONTROVERSY RELATING TO TREASON
MIGHT BE OF LESS MAGNITUDE THAN WAS SUPPOSED; AS THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT
PUNISH CAPITALLY UNDER OTHER NAMES THAN TREASON."  FN51  HIS STATEMENT
HOLDS GOOD TODAY.  OF COURSE WE DO NOT INTIMATE THAT CONGRESS COULD
DISPENSE WITH THE TWO-WITNESS RULE MERELY BY GIVING THE SAME OFFENSE
ANOTHER NAME.  BUT THE POWER OF CONGRESS IS IN NO WAY LIMITED TO ENACT
PROHIBITIONS OF SPECIFIED ACTS THOUGHT DETRIMENTAL TO OUR WARTIME
SAFETY.  THE LOYAL AND THE DISLOYAL ALIKE MAY BE FORBIDDEN TO DO ACTS
WHICH PLACE OUR SECURITY IN PERIL, AND THE TRIAL THEREOF MAY BE
FOCUSSED UPON DEFENDANT'S SPECIFIC INTENT TO DO THOSE PARTICULAR ACTS
FN52  THUS ELIMINATING THE ACCUSATION OF TREACHERY AND OF GENERAL
INTENT TO BETRAY WHICH HAVE SUCH PASSION-ROUSING POTENTIALITIES. 
CONGRESS REPEATEDLY HAS ENACTED PROHIBITIONS OF SPECIFIC ACTS THOUGHT
TO ENDANGER OUR SECURITY  FN53  AND THE PRACTICE OF FOREIGN NATIONS
WITH DEFENSE PROBLEMS MORE ACUTE THAN OUR OWN AFFORDS EXAMPLES OF
OTHERS.  FN54 

THE FRAMERS' EFFORT TO COMPRESS INTO TWO SENTENCES THE LAW OF ONE OF
THE MOST INTRICATE OF CRIMES GIVES A SUPERFICIAL APPEARANCE OF CLARITY
AND SIMPLICITY WHICH PROVES ILLUSORY WHEN IT IS PUT TO PRACTICAL
APPLICATION.  THERE ARE FEW SUBJECTS ON WHICH THE TEMPTATION TO UTTER
ABSTRACT INTERPRETATIVE GENERALIZATIONS IS GREATER OR ON WHICH THEY ARE
MORE TO BE DISTRUSTED.  THE LITTLE CLAUSE IS PACKED WITH CONTROVERSY
AND DIFFICULTY.  THE OFFENSE IS ONE OF SUBTLETY, AND IT IS EASY TO
DEMONSTRATE LACK OF LOGIC IN ALMOST ANY INTERPRETATION BY HYPOTHETICAL
CASES, TO WHICH REAL TREASONS RARELY WILL CONFORM.  THE PROTECTION OF
THE TWO-WITNESS REQUIREMENT, LIMITED AS IT IS TO OVERT ACTS, MAY BE
WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE REAL CONTROVERSIAL FACTORS IN A CASE.  WE WOULD
BE UNDERSTOOD AS SPEAKING ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE
ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, ALTHOUGH THAT LEAVES
MANY UNDETERMINED GROUNDS OF DISPUTE WHICH, AFTER THE METHOD OF THE
COMMON LAW, WE MAY DEFER UNTIL THEY ARE PRESENTED BY FACTS WHICH MAY
THROW GREATER LIGHT ON THEIR SIGNIFICANCE.  ALTHOUGH NOTHING IN THE
CONDUCT OF CRAMER'S TRIAL EVOKES IT, A REPETITION OF CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL'S WARNING CAN NEVER BE UNTIMELY: 

"AS THERE IS NO CRIME WHICH CAN MORE EXCITE AND AGITATE THE PASSIONS
OF MEN THAN TREASON, NO CHARGE DEMANDS MORE FROM THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE
WHICH IT IS MADE, A DELIBERATE AND TEMPERATE INQUIRY.  WHETHER THIS
INQUIRY BE DIRECTED TO THE FACT OR TO THE LAW, NONE CAN BE MORE SOLEMN,
NONE MORE IMPORTANT TO THE CITIZEN OR TO THE GOVERNMENT; NONE CAN MORE
AFFECT THE SAFETY OF BOTH. 

"...  IT IS, THEREFORE, MORE SAFE, AS WELL AS MORE CONSONANT TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF OUR CONSTITUTION, THAT THE CRIME OF TREASON SHOULD NOT BE
EXTENDED BY CONSTRUCTION TO DOUBTFUL CASES; AND THAT CRIMES NOT CLEARLY
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION, SHOULD RECEIVE SUCH PUNISHMENT AS
THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM MAY PROVIDE."  EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 4 CRANCH
75, 125, 127. 

IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO FIND GROUNDS UPON WHICH TO QUARREL WITH THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  PERHAPS THE FRAMERS PLACED RATHER MORE
RELIANCE ON DIRECT TESTIMONY THAN MODERN RESEARCHES IN PSYCHOLOGY
WARRANT.  OR IT MAY BE CONSIDERED THAT SUCH A QUANTITATIVE MEASURE OF
PROOF, SUCH A MECHANICAL CALIBRATION OF EVIDENCE IS A CRUDE DEVICE AT
BEST OR THAT ITS PROTECTION OF INNOCENCE IS TOO FORTUITOUS TO WARRANT
SO UNSELECTIVE AN OBSTACLE TO CONVICTION.  CERTAINLY THE TREASON RULE,
WHETHER WISELY OR NOT, IS SEVERELY RESTRICTIVE.  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WAS WARNED BY JAMES WILSON
THAT "TREASON MAY SOMETIMES BE PRACTICED IN SUCH A MANNER, AS TO RENDER
PROOF EXTREMELY DIFFICULT - AS IN A TRAITOROUS CORRESPONDENCE WITH AN
ENEMY."  FN55  THE PROVISION WAS ADOPTED NOT MERELY IN SPITE OF THE
DIFFICULTIES IT PUT IN THE WAY OF PROSECUTION BUT BECAUSE OF THEM.  AND
IT WAS NOT BY WHIM OR BY ACCIDENT, BUT BECAUSE ONE OF THE MOST
VENERATED OF THAT VENERATED GROUP CONSIDERED THAT "PROSECUTIONS FOR
TREASON WERE GENERALLY VIRULENT."  TIME HAS NOT MADE THE ACCUSATION OF
TREACHERY LESS POISONOUS, NOR THE TASK OF JUDGING ONE CHARGED WITH
BETRAYING THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING HIS TRIERS, LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE
INFLUENCE OF SUSPICION AND RANCOR.  THE INNOVATIONS MADE BY THE
FOREFATHERS IN THE LAW OF TREASON WERE CONCEIVED IN A FAITH SUCH AS
PAINE PUT IN THE MAXIM THAT "HE THAT WOULD MAKE HIS OWN LIBERTY SECURE
MUST GUARD EVEN HIS ENEMY FROM OPPRESSION; FOR IF HE VIOLATES THIS DUTY
HE ESTABLISHES A PRECEDENT THAT WILL REACH HIMSELF."  FN56  WE STILL
PUT TRUST IN IT. 

WE HOLD THAT OVERT ACTS 1 AND 2 ARE INSUFFICIENT AS PROVED TO SUPPORT
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, WHICH ACCORDINGLY IS REVERSED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. SEC. 1, DERIVED FROM ACT OF APRIL 30, 1790, C. 9, SEC.
1, 1 STAT. 112. 

FN2  ARTICLE III, SEC. 3. 

FN3  259 F. 685, 690(S.D.N.Y. 1919). 

FN4  THIS VIEW WAS RECENTLY FOLLOWED BY JUDGE CLANCY IN DISTRICT
COURT, IN DISMISSING AN INDICTMENT FOR TREASON.  UNITED STATES V.
LEINER, S.D.N.Y. 1943(UNREPORTED). 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. CRAMER, 137 F.2D 888, 896. 

FN6  259 F. 673, 677(S.D.N.Y. 1919). 

FN7  "AN OVERT ACT, IN CRIMINAL LAW, IS AN OUTWARD ACT DONE IN
PURSUANCE AND IN MANIFESTATION OF AN INTENT OR DESIGN; AN OVERT ACT IN
THIS CASE MEANS SOME PHYSICAL ACTION DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING
OUT OR AFFECTING THE TREASON."  UNITED STATES V. HAUPT, 47 F.SUPP. 
836, 839(N.D. ILL. 1942), REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 136 F.2D
661(C.C.A.7TH, 1943). 

"THE OVERT ACT IS THE DOING OF SOME ACTUAL ACT, LOOKING TOWARDS THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE CRIME."  UNITED STATES V. STEPHAN, 50 F.SUPP. 
738, 742-43 N. (E.D. MICH. 1943). 

FN8  320 U.S. 730. 

FN9  MAY 22, 1944.  COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER, ALTHOUGH ASSIGNED BY THE
TRIAL COURT, HAS RESPONDED WITH EXTENDED RESEARCHES.  THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL ENGAGED SCHOLARS NOT OTHERWISE INVOLVED IN CONDUCT OF THE CASE
TO COLLECT AND IMPARTIALLY TO SUMMARIZE STATUTES, DECISIONS, AND TEXTS
FROM ROMAN, CONTINENTAL, AND CANON LAW AS WELL AS FROM ENGLISH,
COLONIAL, AND AMERICAN LAW SOURCES.  THE PART OF THE STUDY DEALING WITH
AMERICAN MATERIALS HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH PUBLICATION IN 58
HARV. L. REV. 226 ET SEQ. COUNSEL HAVE LIGHTENED OUR BURDEN OF
EXAMINATION OF THE CONSIDERABLE ACCUMULATION OF HISTORICAL MATERIALS. 

FN10  THE COMMITTEE INCLUDED JOHN ADAMS, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JOHN
RUTLEDGE, JAMES WILSON, AND ROBERT LIVINGSTON.  SEE C. F. ADAMS, LIFE
OF JOHN ADAMS IN 1 WORKS OF JOHN ADAMS (1856) 224-25. 

FN11  "RESOLVED, THAT ALL PERSONS ABIDING WITHIN ANY OF THE UNITED
COLONIES, AND DERIVING PROTECTION FROM THE LAWS OF THE SAME, OWE
ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAID LAWS, AND ARE MEMBERS OF SUCH COLONY; AND THAT
ALL PERSONS PASSING THROUGH, VISITING, OR MAKE A TEMPORARY STAY IN ANY
OF THE SAID COLONIES, BEING ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
DURING THE TIME OF SUCH PASSAGE, VISITATION OR TEMPORARY STAY, OWE,
DURING THE SAME TIME, ALLEGIANCE THERETO: 

"THAT ALL PERSONS, MEMBERS OF, OR OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY OF THE
UNITED COLONIES, AS BEFORE DESCRIBED, WHO SHALL LEVY WAR AGAINST ANY OF
THE SAID COLONIES WITHIN THE SAME, OR BE ADHERENT TO THE KING OF GREAT
BRITAIN, OR OTHERS THE ENEMIES OF THE SAID COLONIES, OR ANY OF THEM,
WITHIN THE SAME, GIVING TO HIM OR THEM AID AND COMFORT, ARE GUILTY OF
TREASON AGAINST SUCH COLONY: 

"THAT IT BE RECOMMENDED TO THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL UNITED
COLONIES, TO PASS LAWS FOR PUNISHING, IN SUCH MANNER AS TO THEM SHALL
SEEM FIT, SUCH PERSONS BEFORE DESCRIBED, AS SHALL BE PROBABLY ATTAINTED
OF OPEN DEED, BY PEOPLE OF THEIR CONDITION, OF ANY OF THE TREASONS
BEFORE DESCRIBED."  5 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS (1906) 475. 
FN12  NINE STATES SUBSTANTIALLY ADOPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CONGRESS:  DELAWARE, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW
YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, VIRGINIA.  (THE
VIRGINIA LAW, THOUGH IT DID NOT COPY IN FULL THE RECOMMENDATION OF
CONGRESS, WAS DRAWN BY JEFFERSON, AMONG OTHERS, AND HENCE PROBABLY CAN
BE REGARDED AS ORIGINATING IN THE SAME SOURCE AS THE OTHERS.)  THREE
STATES HAD BASIC TREASON STATUTES NOT PATTERNED ON THE CONGRESSIONAL
MODEL, ONE ANTEDATING THE LATTER:  CONNECTICUT, MARYLAND, SOUTH
CAROLINA.  GEORGIA IS NOT FOUND TO HAVE ENACTED ANY GENERAL TREASON
STATUTE, ALTHOUGH IT PASSED A NUMBER OF SEPARATE ACTS OF ATTAINDER. 

THE MARYLAND ACT DECLARED THAT "THE SEVERAL CRIMES AFORESAID SHALL
RECEIVE THE SAME CONSTRUCTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO SUCH OF THE SAID
CRIMES AS ARE ENUMERATED IN THE STATUTE OF EDWARD THE THIRD, COMMONLY
CALLED THE STATUTE OF TREASONS."  NONE OF THE STATUTES CONTAINED
NEGATIVE LANGUAGE, LIMITING THE DEFINITION OF TREASON EXPRESSLY TO THAT
SET FORTH IN THE STATUTE.  IN GENERAL, TOO, THEY ADDED TO THE
DEFINITION OF THE MODEL RECOMMENDED BY CONGRESS OTHER SPECIFIC KINDS OF
TREASON.  THUS A NUMBER DEFINED TREASON AS INCLUDING CONSPIRACY TO LEVY
WAR.  CONSPIRACY TO ADHERE TO THE ENEMY AND GIVE AID AND COMFORT WAS
ALSO INCLUDED IN SEVERAL, OR INCORPORATED BY SEPARATE ACTS.  MUCH
EXPLICIT ATTENTION WAS GIVEN TO THE PROBLEM OF CONTACT WITH THE ENEMY. 
CONVEYING OF INTELLIGENCE OR CARRYING ON OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE
ENEMY WERE EXPRESSLY MENTIONED.  ONE TYPICAL PROVISION DECLARED GUILTY
OF TREASON THOSE PERSONS WHO WERE "ADHERENT TO ...  THE ENEMIES OF THIS
STATE WITHIN THE SAME, OR TO THE ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES  ...
GIVING TO  ...  THEM AID OR COMFORT, OR BY GIVING TO  ...  THEM ADVICE
OR INTELLIGENCE EITHER BY LETTERS, MESSAGES, WORDS, SIGNS OR TOKENS, OR
IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, OR BY PROCURING FOR, OR FURNISHING TO  ...  THEM
ANY KIND OF PROVISIONS OR WARLIKE STORES  ..."  OTHER PROVISIONS
REFERRED TO "JOINING THEIR ARMIES," "INLISTING OR PERSUADING OTHERS TO
INLIST FOR THAT PURPOSE," "FURNISHING ENEMIES WITH ARMS OR AMMUNITION,
PROVISION OR ANY OTHER ARTICLES FOR SUCH THEIR AID OR COMFORT,"
"WILFULLY BETRAYING, OR VOLUNTARILY YIELDING OR DELIVERING ANY VESSEL
BELONGING TO THIS STATE OR THE UNITED STATES TO THE ENEMIES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"; AND TO PERSONS WHO "HAVE JOINED, OR SHALL
HEREAFTER JOIN THE ENEMIES OF THIS STATE, OR PUT THEMSELVES UNDER THE
POWER AND PROTECTION OF THE SAID ENEMIES, WHO SHALL COME INTO THIS
STATE AND ROB OR PLUNDER ANY PERSON OR PERSONS OF THEIR GOODS AND
EFFECTS, OR SHALL BURN ANY DWELLING HOUSE OR OTHER BUILDING, OR BE
AIDING OR ASSISTING THEREIN," OR WHO SHOULD MALICIOUSLY AND WITH AN
INTENT TO OBSTRUCT THE SERVICE DISSUADE OTHERS FROM ENLISTING, OR
MALICIOUSLY SPREAD FALSE RUMORS CONCERNING THE FORCES OF EITHER SIDE
SUCH AS TO ALIENATE THE AFFECTIONS OF THE PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT
"OR TO TERRIFY OR DISCOURAGE THE GOOD SUBJECTS OF THIS STATE, OR TO
DISPOSE THEM TO FAVOR THE PRETENSIONS OF THE ENEMY," OR WHO "SHALL TAKE
A COMMISSION OR COMMISSIONS FROM THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, OR ANY
UNDER HIS AUTHORITY, OR OTHER THE ENEMIES OF THIS STATE, OR THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA." 

A NUMBER OF THE STATUTES REQUIRED "THE TESTIMONY OF TWO LAWFUL AND
CREDIBLE WITNESSES."  BUT THE REQUIREMENT WAS NOT LINKED TO THE PROOF
OF OVERT ACTS, AND THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION OF THE TYPE OF PROVISION
LATER EMBODIED IN THE CONSTITUTION.  SUPPLEMENTARY ACTS CREATING
SPECIAL TREASONABLE OFFENSES TENDED TO OMIT ANY REQUIREMENT AS TO
QUANTUM OF PROOF. 

SEE HURST, OP. CIT. SUPRA, 58 HARV. L. REV. AT 248 ET SEQ. 

FN13  FOR EXAMPLE, THE NEW YORK ACT OF MARCH 30, 1781, AFTER RECITING
THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE FURTHER PROVISION RESPECTING TREASON IN
ORDER TO PREVENT ADHERENCE TO THE KING, MADE IT A FELONY TO DECLARE OR
MAINTAIN "THAT THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN HATH, OR OF RIGHT OUGHT TO
HAVE, ANY AUTHORITY, OR DOMINION, IN OR OVER THIS STATE, OR THE
INHABITANTS THEREOF," OR TO PERSUADE OR ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE ANY
INHABITANT TO RENOUNCE ALLEGIANCE TO THE STATE OR ACKNOWLEDGE
ALLEGIANCE TO THE KING, OR TO AFFIRM ONE'S OWN ALLEGIANCE TO THE KING. 
A PERSON CONVICTED WAS TO "SUFFER THE PAINS AND PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY
LAW IN CASES OF FELONY WITHOUT BENEFIT OF CLERGY," EXCEPT THAT THE
COURT MIGHT, INSTEAD OF PRESCRIBING DEATH, SENTENCE TO THREE YEARS'
SERVICE ON AN AMERICAN WARSHIP.  LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW-YORK
(POUGHKEEPSIE, 1782) 4TH SESS., CH. XLVIII.  VIRGINIA IMPOSED A FINE
NOT EXCEEDING 20,000 POUNDS, AND IMPRISONMENT UP TO FIVE YEARS "IF ANY
PERSON RESIDING OR BEING WITHIN THIS COMMONWEALTH SHALL  ...  BY ANY
WORD, OPEN DEED, OR ACT, ADVISEDLY AND WILLINGLY MAINTAIN AND DEFEND
THE AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, OR POWER, OF THE KING OR PARLIAMENT OF
GREAT BRITAIN, HERETOFORE CLAIMED AND EXERCISED WITHIN THIS COLONY, OR
SHALL ATTRIBUTE ANY SUCH AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, OR POWER, TO THE KING
OR PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN  ..."  LAWS, OCTOBER, 1776, CH. V, 9
HENING, STATUTES AT LARGE (1823) 170.  SEE ALSO HURST, OP. CIT. SUPRA,
58 HARV. L. REV. AT 265-67. 

FN14  A SIMILAR SITUATION PREVAILED DURING THE CIVIL WAR, WHEN
TREASON PROSECUTIONS WERE INSTITUTED AGAINST CITIZENS OF SOME SOUTHERN
STATES FOR TREASON TO THE STATE, CONSISTING OF ADHERENCE TO THE UNITED
STATES.  SEE ROBINSON, JUSTICE IN GREY, PP. 176, 199, 201, 202, 270,
289, 380, 385, 408. 

FN15  SEE HURST, TREASON IN THE UNITED STATES (1944), 58 HARV. L.
REV. 226, 268-71.  ALTHOUGH THESE ACTS, DEALING WITH WITHDRAWAL TO
ENEMY TERRITORY, IMPOSED IN GENERAL ONLY FORFEITURE AND BANISHMENT,
SOME DID REINFORCE THESE PENALTIES WITH THE THREAT OF DEATH IF THE
PERSON SHOULD LATER BE FOUND WITHIN THE STATE.  ID., 272. 

FN16  THE ONLY PRE-REVOLUTIONARY TREASON TRIAL OF WHICH THERE IS AN
EXTENSIVE RECORD IS KING V. BAYARD (1702), A NEW YORK PROSECUTION UNDER
AN ACT OF MAY 6, 1691, WHICH MADE IT TREASON "BY FORCE OF ARMS OR
OTHERWISE TO DISTURB THE PEACE GOOD AND QUIET OF THIS THEIR MAJESTYES
GOVERNMENT AS IT IS NOW ESTABLISHED."  (THE ACT WAS THOUGHT BY THE HOME
AUTHORITIES TO BE OBJECTIONABLY BROAD AND VAGUE AND WAS LATER
REPEALED.)  SEE THE TRIAL OF NICHOLAS BAYARD, 14 HOWELL'S STATE TRIALS
471; 10 LAWSON, AMERICAN STATE TRIALS, 518; HURST, OP. CIT. SUPRA, 58
HARV. L. REV. AT 233.  FOR OTHER MATERIAL ON COLONIAL TREASON
PROSECUTIONS, SEE HURST, OP. CIT. SUPRA, 58 HARV. L. REV. AT 234, N.
15. 

FN17  IN THE EARLY PART OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD, CHARTERS AND GRANTS
GAVE ROYAL GOVERNORS AUTHORITY TO USE MARTIAL LAW FOR SUPPRESSION OF
"REBELLION," "SEDITION," AND "MUTINY," AND REFERENCES TO TREASON WERE
NOT IN THE TRADITIONAL LANGUAGE.  A PROVISION OF THE GENERAL LAWS OF
NEW PLIMOUTH COLONY, 1671, IS REPRESENTATIVE: 

"3.  TREASON AGAINST THE PERSON OF OUR SOVERAIGN LORD THE KING, THE
STATE AND COMMON-WEALTH OF ENGLAND, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY DEATH. 

"4.  THAT WHOSOEVER SHALL CONSPIRE AND ATTEMPT ANY INVASION,
INSURRECTION, OR PUBLICK REBELLION AGAINST THIS JURISDICTION, OR THE
SURPRIZAL OF ANY TOWN, PLANTATION, FORTIFICATION OR AMMUNITION, THEREIN
PROVIDED FOR THE SAFETY THEREOF, OR SHALL TREACHEROUSLY AND
PERFIDIOUSLY ATTEMPT AND ENDEAVOR THE ALTERATION AND SUBVERSION OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL FRAME AND CONSTITUTIONS OF THIS GOVERNMENT; EVERY SUCH
PERSON SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH." 

BUT THE BULK OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION DREW
EXTENSIVELY ON ENGLISH LAW, ESPECIALLY THE STATUTE 25 EDWARD III.  SOME
OF THE ACTS SUBSTANTIALLY ADOPTED THE LANGUAGE OF THE LATTER STATUTE,
WITH ADDITIONS, AND SOME SIMPLY DECLARED THAT THE OFFENSE OF TREASON
SHOULD FOLLOW THE ENGLISH LAW.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF GEORGIA AND NEW
JERSEY, ALL THE COLONIES EVENTUALLY ADOPTED ONE OR THE OTHER TYPE
STATUTE.  IN ADDITION, THE ENGLISH LAW OF TREASON ITSELF APPLIED, TO AN
UNDEFINED EXTENT, AND SEVERAL COLONIAL ACTS WERE DISALLOWED ON THE
THEORY THAT THEY COVERED GROUND ALREADY OCCUPIED BY THE MOTHER
COUNTRY'S LEGISLATION.  THE COLONIES WHICH ENACTED THEIR OWN STATUTES
PATTERNED AFTER 25 EDWARD III DID NOT NARROW ITS TERMS.  SEVERAL
EXPRESSLY INCLUDED THE TREASON OF COMPASSING THE DEATH OF THE KING, AND
A COUPLE EVEN MADE AN ANALOGOUS OFFENSE OF COMPASSING THE DEATH OF THE
PROPRIETOR.  THE OFFENSE OF LEVYING WAR AGAINST THE KING WAS GIVEN A
BROAD DEFINITION; SOME OF THE COLONIES EXPRESSLY INCLUDED VARIOUS FORMS
OF "CONSTRUCTIVE" LEVYING OF WAR WHICH HAD BEEN PUT INTO THE ENGLISH
STATUTE BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, IN GENERAL EXTENDING THE CRIME TO
DOMESTIC DISTURBANCES; AND SOME OF THE STATUTES MADE CONSPIRACY TO LEVY
WAR SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE THE CRIME OF LEVYING WAR.  SOME SPECIFIC
ATTENTION WAS GIVEN IN SEPARATE LEGISLATION AT VARIOUS TIMES TO CONTACT
WITH THE ENEMY, LEGISLATION COMPARABLE TO THAT SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED
DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD. 

MOST OF THE COLONIAL TREASON ACTS CONTAINED TWO-WITNESS REQUIREMENTS,
WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATION LATER ADOPTED IN THE CONSTITUTION,
THAT THEY MUST BE WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT, ALTHOUGH IT WAS
REQUIRED THAT THEY BE WITNESSES TO THE SAME GENERAL KIND OF TREASON. 

SEE GENERALLY HURST, OP. CIT. SUPRA, 58 HARV. L. REV. AT 226-45. 

FN18  "THE MEN WHO FRAMED THAT INSTRUMENT REMEMBERED THE CRIMES THAT
HAD BEEN PERPETRATED UNDER THE PRETENSE OF JUSTICE; FOR THE MOST PART
THEY HAD BEEN TRAITORS THEMSELVES, AND HAVING RISKED THEIR NECKS UNDER
THE LAW THEY FEARED DESPOTISM AND ARBITRARY POWER MORE THAN THEY FEARED
TREASON."  3 ADAMS, HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, 468. 

"EVERY MEMBER OF THAT CONVENTION - EVERY OFFICER AND SOLDIER OF THE
REVOLUTION FROM WASHINGTON DOWN TO PRIVATE, EVERY MAN OR WOMAN WHO HAD
GIVEN SUCCOR OR SUPPLIES TO A MEMBER OF THE PATRIOT ARMY, EVERYBODY WHO
HAD ADVOCATED AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE  ...  COULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED
AND MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED AS 'TRAITORS' UNDER THE BRITISH LAW OF
CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON."  3 BEVERIDGE, LIFE OF JOHN MARSHALL, 402, 403. 

FN19  THIS WAS DOUBTLESS THE MEANING OF FRANKLIN'S QUIP AT THE
SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE THAT IF THE SIGNERS DID NOT
HANG TOGETHER THEY SHOULD HANG SEPARATELY.  IT WAS ALSO THE MEANING OF
THE CRIES OF "TREASON" WHICH INTERRUPTED PATRICK HENRY IN THE SPEECH IN
THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF BURGESSES EVOKING THE FAMOUS REPLY "IF THIS BE
TREASON, MAKE THE MOST OF IT." 

FN20  1 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 65.  SEE ALSO 1
BURNETT, ED., LETTERS OF MEMBERS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS (1921) 43,
44, N. 36. 

FN21  THE MEN WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR FRAMING OUR CONSTITUTION WERE
INFLUENCED BY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY LIBERAL THOUGHT FROM BOTH FRENCH AND
ENGLISH SOURCES.  FRENCH INFLUENCES, MORE PHILOSOPHICAL THAN LEGAL IN
CHARACTER, WERE PARTICULARLY STRONG WITH FRANKLIN, WHO TOOK A
SIGNIFICANT PART IN FRAMING THE TREASON CLAUSE.  FRANKLIN HAD BEEN A
MEMBER OF THE FRENCH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES SINCE 1772 AND HAD MANY
FRIENDS AMONG FRENCH INTELLECTUALS.  HE SPENT MUCH TIME IN ENGLAND AND
IN FRANCE, TO WHICH HE WAS SENT BY THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AS
COMMISSIONER IN 1776.  HE REMAINED UNTIL 1783, WHEN HE SIGNED THE
TREATY OF PEACE WITH ENGLAND, AND THEREAFTER UNTIL 1785 AS MINISTER TO
FRANCE.  BECKER, FRANKLIN, 6 DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY 585; 9
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA (14TH ED.)  693.  JEFFERSON, A STRONG INFLUENCE
WITH THE MEN OF THAT PERIOD, WAS SENT TO FRANCE BY THE CONTINENTAL
CONGRESS TO ASSIST FRANKLIN, REMAINING THERE FROM 1784 TO 1789,
SUCCEEDING FRANKLIN IN 1785 AS MINISTER.  JEFFERSON WAS SO CLOSELY IN
TOUCH WITH FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT THAT IN JULY 1789 HE WAS
INVITED TO ASSIST IN THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE FRENCH
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY TO DRAFT A CONSTITUTION, BUT DECLINED OUT OF RESPECT
FOR HIS POSITION.  SEE MALONE, JEFFERSON, 10 DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN
BIOGRAPHY 17; 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA (14TH ED.)  988.  SEE ALSO,
GENERALLY, CHINARD, THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE APOSTLE OF AMERICANISM.  BEST
KNOWN IN AMERICA OF THE FRENCH WRITINGS WAS MONTESQUIEU'S L'ESPRIT DES
LOIS, WHICH APPEARED IN FRENCH IN 1748.  (AN ENGLISH EDITION WAS
PUBLISHED IN LONDON IN 1750.)  BOOK 12 THEREOF WAS DEVOTED TO HIS
PHILOSOPHICAL REACTIONS TO THE ABUSES OF TREASON.  IT IS HARDLY A
COINCIDENCE THAT THE TREASON CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION EMBODIES EVERY
ONE OF THE PRECEPTS SUGGESTED BY MONTESQUIEU IN DISCUSSING THE EXCESSES
OF ANCIENT AND EUROPEAN HISTORY. 

SOME OF HIS PRECEPTS WERE:  "IF THE CRIME OF HIGH TREASON BE
INDETERMINATE, THIS ALONE IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE GOVERNMENT
DEGENERATE INTO ARBITRARY POWER."  (BOOK 12, CH. 7, OF THE CRIME OF
HIGH TREASON.)  "THE LAWS DO NOT TAKE UPON THEM TO PUNISH ANY OTHER
THAN OVERT ACTS."  (BOOK 12, CH. 11, OF THOUGHTS.)  "NOTHING RENDERS
THE CRIME OF HIGH TREASON MORE ARBITRARY THAN DECLARING PEOPLE GUILTY
OF IT FOR INDISCREET SPEECHES  ....  WORDS DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OVERT
ACT; THEY REMAIN ONLY IN IDEA  ....  OVERT ACTS DO NOT HAPPEN EVERY
DAY; THEY ARE EXPOSED TO THE EYE OF THE PUBLIC; AND A FALSE CHARGE WITH
REGARD TO MATTERS OF FACT MAY BE EASILY DETECTED.  WORDS CARRIED INTO
ACTION ASSUME THE NATURE OF THAT ACTION.  THUS A MAN WHO GOES INTO A
PUBLIC MARKET-PLACE TO INCITE THE SUBJECT TO REVOLT, INCURS THE GUILT
OF HIGH TREASON, BECAUSE THE WORDS ARE JOINED TO THE ACTION, AND
PARTAKE OF ITS NATURE.  IT IS NOT THE WORDS THAT ARE PUNISHED BUT AN
ACTION IN WHICH THE WORDS ARE EMPLOYED."  (BOOK 12, CH. 12, OF
INDISCREET SPEECHES.)  "THOSE LAWS WHICH CONDEMN A MAN TO DEATH ON THE
DEPOSITION OF A SINGLE WITNESS, ARE FATAL TO LIBERTY."  (BOOK 12, CH.
3, OF THE LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT.) 

BOTH FRENCH AND ENGLISH INFLUENCES ON AMERICAN THOUGHT AS SHOWN BY
JEFFERSON'S WRITINGS ARE TRACED BY PERRY, PURITANISM AND DEMOCRACY
(1945) 126, 130, 134, 158, 182, 184, 185. 

FN22  "DECLARATION WHAT OFFENCES SHALL BE ADJUDGED TREASON.  ITEM,
WHEREAS DIVERS OPINIONS HAVE BEEN BEFORE THIS TIME IN WHAT CASE TREASON
SHALL BE SAID, AND IN WHAT NOT; THE KING, AT THE REQUEST OF THE LORDS
AND OF THE COMMONS, HATH MADE A DECLARATION IN THE MANNER AS HEREAFTER
FOLLOWETH, THAT IS TO SAY; WHEN A MAN DOTH COMPASS OR IMAGINE THE DEATH
OF OUR LORD THE KING, OR OF OUR LADY HIS QUEEN OR OF THEIR ELDEST SON
AND HEIR; OR IF A MAN DO VIOLATE THE KING'S COMPANION, OR THE KING'S
ELDEST DAUGHTER UNMARRIED, OR THE WIFE THE KING'S ELDEST SON AND HEIR;
OR IF A MAN DO LEVY WAR AGAINST OUR LORD THE KING IN HIS REALM, OR BE
ADHERENT TO THE KING'S ENEMIES IN HIS REALM, GIVING TO THEM AID AND
COMFORT IN THE REALM, OR ELSEWHERE, AND THEREOF BE PROBABLY ATTAINTED
OF OPEN DEED BY THE PEOPLE OF THEIR CONDITION:  AND IF A MAN
COUNTERFEIT THE KING'S GREAT OR PRIVY SEAL, OR HIS MONEY; AND IF A MAN
BRING FALSE MONEY INTO THIS REALM, COUNTERFEIT TO THE MONEY OF ENGLAND,
AS THE MONEY CALLED LUSHBURGH, OR OTHER, LIKE TO THE SAID MONEY OF
ENGLAND, KNOWING THE MONEY TO BE FALSE, TO MERCHANDISE OR MAKE PAYMENT
IN DECEIT OF OUR SAID LORD THE KING AND OF HIS PEOPLE; AND IF A MAN
SLEA THE CHANCELLOR, TREASURER, OR THE KING'S JUSTICES OF THE ONE BENCH
OR THE OTHER, JUSTICES IN EYRE, OR JUSTICES OF ASSISE, AND ALL OTHER
JUSTICES ASSIGNED TO HEAR AND DETERMINE, BEING IN THEIR PLACES, DOING
THEIR OFFICES:  AND IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD, THAT IN THE CASES ABOVE
REHEARSED, THAT OUGHT TO BE JUDGED TREASON WHICH EXTENDS TO OUR LORD
THE KING, AND HIS ROYAL MAJESTY:  AND OF SUCH TREASON THE FORFEITURE OF
THE ESCHEATS PERTAINETH TO OUR SOVEREIGN LORD, AS WELL AS OF THE LANDS
AND TENEMENTS HOLDEN OF OTHER, AS OF HIMSELF:  AND MOREOVER THERE IS
ANOTHER MANNER OF TREASON, THAT IS TO SAY, WHEN A SERVANT SLAYETH HIS
MASTER, OR A WIFE HER HUSBAND, OR WHEN A MAN SECULAR OR RELIGIOUS
SLAYETH HIS PRELATE, TO WHOM HE OWETH FAITH AND OBEDIENCE; AND OF SUCH
TREASON THE ESCHEATS OUGHT TO PERTAIN TO EVERY LORD OF HIS OWN FEE. 
AND BECAUSE THAT MANY OTHER LIKE CASES OF TREASON MAY HAPPEN IN TIME TO
COME, WHICH A MAN CANNOT THINK OR DECLARE AT THIS PRESENT TIME; IT IS
ACCORDED, THAT IF ANY OTHER CASE, SUPPOSED TREASON, WHICH IS NOT ABOVE
SPECIFIED, DOTH HAPPEN BEFORE ANY JUSTICES, THE JUSTICES SHALL TARRY
WITHOUT ANY GOING TO JUDGEMENT OF THE TREASON, TILL THE CAUSE BE SHEWED
AND DECLARED BEFORE THE KING AND HIS PARLIAMENT, WHETHER IT OUGHT TO BE
JUDGED TREASON OR OTHER FELONY.  AND IF PERCASE ANY MAN OF THIS REALM
RIDE ARMED COVERTLY OR SECRETLY WITH MEN OF ARMS AGAINST ANY OTHER, TO
SLAY HIM, OR ROB HIM, OR TAKE HIM, OR RETAIN HIM TILL HE HATH MADE FINE
OR RANSOM FOR TO HAVE HIS DELIVERANCE, IT IS NOT THE MIND OF THE KING
NOR HIS COUNCIL, THAT IN SUCH CASE IT SHALL BE JUDGED TREASON BUT SHALL
BE JUDGED FELONY OR TRESPASS, ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE LAND OF OLD
TIME USED, AND ACCORDING AS THE CASE REQUIRETH."  4 HALSBURY'S STATUTES
OF ENGLAND 273. 

FN23  STEPHEN SAID OF IT:  "IN QUIET TIMES IT IS SELDOM PUT IN FORCE,
AND IF BY ANY ACCIDENT IT IS NECESSARY TO APPLY IT, THE NECESSITY FOR
DOING SO IS OBVIOUS.  FOR REVOLUTIONARY PERIODS IT IS OBVIOUSLY AND
ALWAYS INSUFFICIENT, AND AT SUCH TIMES IT IS USUALLY SUPPLEMENTED BY
ENACTMENTS WHICH OUGHT TO BE REGARDED IN THE LIGHT OF WAR MEASURES, BUT
WHICH ARE USUALLY REPRESENTED BY THOSE AGAINST WHOM THEY ARE DIRECTED
AS MONSTROUS INVASIONS OF LIBERTY.  THE STRUGGLE BEING OVER, THE
STATUTE OF 25 EDW.  3 IS REINSTATED AS THE SOLE DEFINITION OF TREASON,
AND IN THIS WAY IT HAS BECOME THE SUBJECT OF A SORT OF SUPERSTITIOUS
REVERENCE."  2 STEPHEN, HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND (1883)
250-51; SEE ALSO 3 HOLDSWORTH (4TH ED. 1935) 287. 

BLACKSTONE SAYS:  "BUT AFTERWARDS, BETWEEN THE REIGN OF HENRY THE
FOURTH AND QUEEN MARY, AND PARTICULARLY IN THE BLOODY REIGN OF HENRY
THE EIGHTH, THE SPIRIT OF INVENTING NEW AND STRANGE TREASONS WAS
REVIVED; AMONG WHICH WE MAY RECKON THE OFFENCES OF CLIPPING MONEY;
BREAKING PRISON OR RESCUE, WHEN THE PRISONER IS COMMITTED FOR TREASON;
BURNING HOUSES TO EXTORT MONEY; STEALING CATTLE BY WELSHMEN;
COUNTERFEITING FOREIGN COIN; WILFUL POISONING; EXECRATIONS AGAINST THE
KING; CALLING HIM OPPROBRIOUS NAMES BY PUBLIC WRITING; COUNTERFEITING
THE SIGN MANUAL OR SIGNET; REFUSING TO ABJURE THE POPE; DEFLOWERING, OR
MARRYING WITHOUT THE ROYAL LICENCE, ANY OF THE KING'S CHILDREN,
SISTERS, AUNTS, NEPHEWS, OR NIECES; BARE SOLICITATION OF THE CHASTITY
OF THE QUEEN OR PRINCESS, OR ADVANCES MADE BY THEMSELVES; MARRYING WITH
THE KING, BY A WOMAN NOT A VIRGIN, WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY DISCOVERING TO
HIM SUCH HER UNCHASTE LIFE; JUDGING OR BELIEVING (MANIFESTED BY ANY
OVERT ACT) THE KING TO HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY MARRIED TO ANNE OF CLEVE;
DEROGATING FROM THE KING'S ROYAL STILE AND TITLE; IMPUGNING HIS
SUPREMACY; AND ASSEMBLING RIOTOUSLY TO THE NUMBER OF TWELVE, AND NOT
DISPERSING UPON PROCLAMATION  ..."  4 BLACKSTONE 86-87. 

FN24  REX V. CASEMENT, 1 K.B. 98(1917); KNOTT, TRIAL OF ROGER
CASEMENT, 184, 185. 

FN25  CHIEF AMONG THESE WERE COKE AND BLACKSTONE.  COKE EMPHASIZED
THE SALUTARY EFFECTS OF THE STATUTE OF EDWARD III IN LIMITING TREASON
PROSECUTION AND STRONGLY EMPHASIZED THE OVERT-ACT REQUIREMENT, PROBABLY
QUOTING BRACTION.  INSTITUTES OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, 5TH ED. (1971)
PART III, 14.  HE USED AS EXAMPLES OVERT ACTS WHICH OF THEMSELVES
APPEAR TO EVIDENCE TREASONABLE INTENT.  ID., 2, 3, AND 14.  SEE 1 HALE,
HISTORY OF THE PLEAS OF THE CROWN (1736) 86, 259.  BUT WE CANNOT BE
SURE WHETHER THIS WAS INTENDED TO IMPLY THAT ACTS FROM WHICH INTENT
WOULD BE LESS EVIDENT WOULD SUFFICE.  OTHER AUTHORS KNOWN ON THIS SIDE
OF THE WATER LEAVE US WITH LITTLE LIGHT ON OUR PARTICULAR PROBLEM. 

HALE (HISTORY OF THE PLEAS OF THE CROWN, EMLYN ED. LONDON, 1736)
FREQUENTLY USES TERMINOLOGY, FOUND IN COKE AND EARLIER WRITERS, WHICH
MIGHT MEAN THAT THE FUNCTION OF AN OVERT ACT IS TO PROVE INTENT, SAYING
THAT THE OVERT ACT IS TO "MANIFEST" OR "DECLARE" THE COMPASSING OF THE
KING'S DEATH, AND SO FORTH.  ID., 109.  BUT, AS IN THE OTHER WRITERS,
THE STATEMENTS ARE USUALLY OPEN AS WELL TO THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE
ACT MUST SHOW TRANSLATION OF THOUGHT INTO ACTION.  IN THE LATTER SENSE,
THE ACT "DECLARES" INTENT IN THAT IT SHOWS, IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER
EVIDENCE, THAT THE DEFENDANT'S THOUGHTS WERE NOT MERE IDLE DESIRES. 
THIS IS A DIFFERENT THING FROM SAYING THAT THE OVERT ACT MUST OF ITSELF
DISPLAY AN UNAMBIGUOUSLY TRAITOROUS CHARACTER.  ELSEWHERE HALE GIVES
SOME SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT THE ACT MAY ITSELF BE OF AN INNOCENT
CHARACTER.  DEALING WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT WORDS ALONE CANNOT BE AN
OVERT ACT, HE SAYS THAT "WORDS MAY EXPOUND AN OVERT-ACT TO MAKE GOOD AN
INDICTMENT OF TREASON OF COMPASSING THE KING'S DEATH, WHICH OVERT-ACT
POSSIBLY OF ITSELF MAY BE INDIFFERENT AND UNAPPLICABLE TO SUCH AN
INTENT; AND THEREFORE IN THE INDICTMENT OF TREASON THEY MAY BE JOINED
WITH SUCH AN OVERT-ACT, TO MAKE THE SAME APPLICABLE AND EXPOSITIVE OF
SUCH A COMPASSING."  ID., 115.  HE ALSO DECLARES THAT THE MERE MEETING
OF PERSONS WITH THE INTENT OF PLOTTING THE KING'S DEATH IS A SUFFICIENT
OVERT-ACT FOR THE TREASON OF COMPASSING THE KING'S DEATH.  ID., 108,
109.  THESE REMARKS, HOWEVER, DEAL ONLY WITH COMPASSING THE KING'S
DEATH, AND LITTLE LIGHT IS GIVEN AS TO THE OVERT ACT IN CONNECTION WITH
LEVYING WAR AND ADHERING TO THE ENEMY.  WITH COKE, HALE TAKES THE
POSITION THAT A MERE MEETING OF PERSONS TO CONSPIRE, THOUGH SUFFICIENT
UNDER THE COMPASSING CLAUSE, IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE LEVYING-OF-WAR
CLAUSE.  ID., 130. 

FOSTER'S VIEW OF THE OVERT ACT DOES NOT SEEM MATERIALLY DIFFERENT
FROM HALE'S.  (A REPORT OF SOME PROCEEDINGS ON THE COMMISSION FOR THE
TRIAL OF THE REBELS IN THE YEAR 1746 IN THE COUNTY OF SURRY; AND OF
OTHER CROWN CASES, 2D ED. 1791.)  "OVERT ACTS UNDOUBTEDLY DO DISCOVER
THE MAN'S INTENTIONS; BUT, I CONCEIVE, THEY ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
MERELY AS EVIDENCE, BUT AS THE MEANS MADE USE OF TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THE HEART  ...  THOUGH IN THE CASE OF THE KING OVERTACTS OF
LESS MALIGNITY, AND HAVING A MORE REMOTE TENDENCY TO HIS DESTRUCTION,
ARE, WITH GREAT PROPRIETY, DEEMED TREASONABLE; YET STILL THEY ARE
CONSIDERED AS MEANS TO AFFECTUATE, NOT BARELY AS EVIDENCE OF THE
TREASONABLE PURPOSE."  FOSTER ALSO REPEATS THE ASSERTION THAT THE MERE
MEETING OF PERSONS WITH INTENT TO PLAN THE KING'S DEATH IS A SUFFICIENT
OVERT ACT.  ID., 195.  HOWEVER, HIS DISCUSSION, TOO, IS CONFINED TO THE
TREASON OF COMPASSING, AND HE SAYS LITTLE THAT IS HELPFUL ABOUT LEVYING
WAR AND ADHERING. 

FN26  THESE ARE:  TRIAL OF SIR NICHOLAS THROCKMORTON, 1 HOW.  ST. TR.
869(1 MARY, 1554); TRIAL OF SIR RICHARD GRAHME (LORD PRESTON'S CASE),
12 HOW.  ST. TR. 645(2 WILLIAM & MARY, 1691); TRIAL OF SIR JOHN FREIND,
13 HOW.  ST. TR. 1, 4, 11(8 WILLIAM III, 1696); TRIAL OF SIR WILLIAM
PARKYNS, 13 HOW.  ST. TR. 63, 67(8 WILLIAM III, 1696); TRIAL OF PETER
COOK, 13 HOW.  ST. TR. 311, 346(8 WILLIAM III, 1696); TRIAL OF CAPTAIN
VAUGHAN, 13 HOW.  ST. TR. 485(8 WILLIAM III, 1696); TRIAL OF WILLIAM
GREGG, 14 HOW.  ST. TR. 1371(6 ANNE, 1708); TRIAL OF JAMES BRADSHAW, 18
HOW.  ST. TR. 415(20 GEORGE II, 1746); TRIAL OF DR. HENSEY, 19 HOW. 
ST. TR. 1341(32 GEORGE II, 1758); TRIAL OF FRANCIS DE LA MOTTE, 21
HOW.  ST. TR. 687(21 GEORGE III, 1781); AND THE TRIAL OF DAVID TYRIE,
21 HOW.  ST. TR. 815(22 GEORGE III, 1782). 

FN27  PHILIP GUEDALLA CHARACTERIZES THE FIGURES OF THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION AS THEY OCCUR IN BRITISH LEGEND:  "THERE THEY ARE ODDLY
SHRUNKEN; THEY DWINDLE INTO A PROVINCIAL PETTINESS; AND THEIR VOICES
MONOTONOUSLY INTONE THE DREARY FORMULA OF SEDITION."  FATHERS OF THE
REVOLUTION, P. 8. 

FN28  MR. JEFFERSON HAD REFERRED TO THE STATUTE OF EDWARD III AS
"DONE TO TAKE OUT OF THE HANDS OF TYRANNICAL KINGS, AND OF WEAK AND
WICKED MINISTERS, THAT DEADLY WEAPON, WHICH CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON HAD
FURNISHED THEM WITH, AND WHICH HAD DRAWN THE BLOOD OF THE BEST AND
HONESTEST MEN IN THE KINGDOM."  1 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (LIBRARY
ED. 1903) 215. 

LATER, AS SECRETARY OF STATE, HE WROTE:  "TREASON  ...  WHEN REAL,
MERITS THE HIGHEST PUNISHMENT.  BUT MOST CODES EXTEND THEIR DEFINITIONS
OF TREASON TO ACTS NOT REALLY AGAINST ONE'S COUNTRY.  THEY DO NOT
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ACTS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, AND ACTS AGAINST THE
OPPRESSIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT; THE LATTER ARE VIRTUES; YET THEY HAVE
FURNISHED MORE VICTIMS TO THE EXECUTIONER THAN THE FORMER; BECAUSE REAL
TREASONS ARE RARE; OPPRESSIONS FREQUENT.  THE UNSUCCESSFUL STRUGGLERS
AGAINST TYRANNY, HAVE BEEN THE CHIEF MARTYRS OF TREASON LAWS IN ALL
COUNTRIES."  8 JEFFERSON'S WRITINGS 332.  COMPARE 7TH ANNUAL MESSAGE,
1807, 3 JEFFERSON'S WRITINGS 451, 452. 

FN29  2 FARRAND, RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 136. 

FN30  ART. VII, SEC. 2, OF DRAFT REPORTED AUGUST 6, 1787.  2 FARRAND
182. 

FN31  THE DEBATES ARE AT 2 FARRAND 345-50. 

FN32  JAMES WILSON WAS NOT UNLIKELY ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE TREASON
CLAUSE, AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON DETAIL.  HE HAD PARTICIPATED IN
THE PENNSYLVANIA TREASON TRIALS IN 1778 AS ONE OF THE DEFENSE COUNSEL
(RESPUBLICA V. MALIN, 1 DALL.  33(PA. O. & T.), RESPUBLICA V. CARLISLE,
ID. 35, RESPUBLICA V. ROBERTS, ID. 39).  IN THE PENNSYLVANIA RATIFYING
CONVENTION HE MADE DETAILED STATEMENTS IN PRAISE OF THE CLAUSE WITHOUT
ITS HAVING BEEN CHALLENGED.  2 ELLIOTT, DEBATES, 469, 487.  LATER, HE
DEVOTED A LECTURE TO THE CLAUSE IN HIS LAW COURSE DELIVERED AT THE
COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA IN 1790 AND 1791.  3 WORKS OF HON. JAMES WILSON
(BIRD WILSON, ED. 1804) 95-107. 

FN33  THE CONVENTION DID REJECT PROPOSALS THAT THE STATES HE DENIED
AUTHORITY TO DEFINE TREASON AGAINST THEMSELVES AND THAT PARTICIPATION
IN A CIVIL WAR BETWEEN A STATE AND THE UNITED STATES BE EXCEPTED.  SEE
2 FARRAND 345, 348-49; 3 ID. 223. 

FN34  SEE NOTE 16, SUPRA; SEE ALSO 9 HOLDSWORTH (2D ED. 1938) 203
211. 

FN35  L'ESPRIT DES LOIS, BOOK XII, CHAP. III. 

FN36 "...  TAKE WITH THEE ONE OR TWO MORE, THAT IN THE MOUTH OF TWO
OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY WORD MAY BE ESTABLISHED."  MATT.  XVIII, 16. 

FN37  "ONE WITNESS SHALL NOT RISE UP AGAINST A MAN FOR ANY INIQUITY,
OR FOR ANY SIN, IN ANY SIN THAT HE SINNETH:  AT THE MOUTH OF TWO
WITNESSES, OR AT THE MOUTH OF THREE WITNESSES, SHALL THE MATTER BE
ESTABLISHED."  DEUT.  XIX, 15. 

FN38  THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY, TAKEN FROM THE APPENDIX TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF, OF ALL CASES IN WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREASON
CLAUSE HAS BEEN INVOLVED, OMITTING GRAND JURY CHARGES AND CASES IN
WHICH INTERPRETATION OF THE CLAUSE WAS INCIDENTAL: 

WHISKEY REBELLION CASES:  UNITED STATES V. VIGOL, 28 FED. CAS. 376,
NO. 16,621(C.C.D. PA. 1795), UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 26 FED. CAS.
1277, NO. 15,788(C.C.D. PA. 1795)(CONSTRUCTIVE LEVYING OF WAR, BASED ON
FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO EXECUTION OF A STATUTE; DEFENDANTS CONVICTED AND
LATER PARDONED).  HOUSE TAX CASE:  CASE OF FRIES, 9 FED. CAS. 826, 924,
NOS. 5126, 5127(C.C.D. PA. 1799, 1800)(CONSTRUCTIVE LEVYING OF WAR,
BASED ON FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO EXECUTION OF A STATUTE; DEFENDANT
CONVICTED AND LATER PARDONED).  THE BURR CONSPIRACY:  EX PARTE BOLLMAN,
4 CRANCH 75(1807), UNITED STATES V. BURR, 25 FED. CAS. 2, 55, NOS.
14,692A, 14,693(C.C.D. VA. 1807)(CONSPIRACY TO LEVY WAR HELD NOT AN
OVERT ACT OF LEVYING WAR).  UNITED STATES V. LEE, 26 FED. CAS. 907, NO.
15,584(C.C.D.C. 1814)(SALE OF PROVISIONS A SUFFICIENT OVERT ACT;
ACQUITTAL).  UNITED STATES V. HODGES, 26 FED. CAS. 332, NO.
15,374(C.C.D. MD. 1815)(OBTAINING RELEASE OF PRISONERS TO THE ENEMY IS
ADHERING TO THE ENEMY, THE ACT SHOWING THE INTENT; ACQUITTAL).  UNITED
STATES V. HOXIE, 26 FED. CAS. 397, NO. 15,407(C.C.D. VT. 1808)(ATTACK
OF SMUGGLERS ON TROOPS ENFORCING EMBARGO IS RIOT AND NOT LEVYING OF
WAR).  UNITED STATES V. PRYOR, 27 FED. CAS. 628, NO. 16,096(C.C.D. PA.
1814)(PROCEEDING UNDER FLAG OF TRUCE WITH ENEMY DETACHMENT TO HELP BUY
PROVISIONS IS TOO REMOTE AN ACT TO ESTABLISH ADHERING TO THE ENEMY). 
UNITED STATES V. HANWAY, 26 FED. CAS. 105, NO. 15,299(C.C.E.D. PA.
1851)(FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO EXECUTION OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW NO LEVYING
OF WAR).  UNITED STATES V. GREINER, 26 FED. CAS. 36, NO. 15,262(E.D.
PA. 1861)(PARTICIPATION AS MEMBER OF STATE MILITIA COMPANY IN SEIZURE
OF A FEDERAL FORT IS A LEVYING OF WAR).  UNITED STATES V. GREATHOUSE,
26 FED. CAS. 18, NO. 15,254(C.C.N.D. CAL. 1863)(FITTING OUT AND SAILING
A PRIVATEER IS A LE      OF WAR; DEFENDANTS CONVICTED, LATER
PARDONED).  CASES OF CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY OR REFUSAL TO ENFORCE
OBLIGATIONS GIVEN IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF PROVISIONS TO THE
CONFEDERACY:  HANAUER V. DOANE, 12 WALL.  342(1871); CARLISLE V. UNITED
STATES, 16 WALL.  147(1873); SPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 20 WALL. 
459(1874); UNITED STATES V. ATHENS ARMORY, 24 FED. CAS. 878, NO.
14,473(N.D. GA. 1868)(MIXED MOTIVE, INVOLVING COMMERCIAL PROFIT, DOES
NOT BAR FINDING OF GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY).  UNITED STATES
V. CATHCART AND UNITED STATES V. PARMENTER, 25 FED. CAS. 344, NO.
14,756(C.C.S.D. OHIO, 1864).  CHENOWETH'S CASE (UNREPORTED:  SEE EX
PARTE VALLANDIGHAM, 28 FED. CAS. 874, NO. 16,816, AT 888(S.D. OHIO,
1863))(INDICTMENT BAD FOR ALLEGING AIDING AND ABETTING REBELS, INSTEAD
OF DIRECTLY CHARGING LEVYING OF WAR).  CASE OF JEFFERSON DAVIS, 7 FED.
CAS. 63, NO. 3621A (C.C.D. VA. 1867-71)(ARGUMENT THAT REBELS WHOSE
GOVERNMENT ACHIEVED STATUS OF A RECOGNIZED BELLIGERENT COULD NOT BE
HELD FOR TREASON; DAVIS WAS NOT TRIED ON THE INDICTMENT); SEE 2 WARREN,
SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY (1934 ED.)  485-87; WATSON,
TRIAL OF JEFFERSON DAVIS (1915) 25 YALE L.J. 669.  PHILIPPINE
INSURRECTIONS:  UNITED STATES V. MAGTIBAY, 2 PHIL.  703(1903), UNITED
STATES V. DE LOS REYES, 3 PHIL.  349(1904)(MERE POSSESSION OF REBEL
COMMISSIONS INSUFFICIENT OVERT ACTS; STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF TWO-WITNESS
REQUIREMENT; CONVICTIONS REVERSED); UNITED STATES V. LAGNASON, 3 PHIL. 
472(1904)(ARMED EFFORT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT IS LEVYING WAR). 
UNITED STATES V. FRICKE, 259 F. 673(S.D.N.Y. 1919)(ACTS "INDIFFERENT"
ON THEIR FACE HELD SUFFICIENT OVERT ACTS).  UNITED STATES V. ROBINSON,
259 F. 685(S.D.N.Y. 1919)(DICTUM, ACTS HARMLESS ON THEIR FACE ARE
INSUFFICIENT OVERT ACTS).  UNITED STATES V. WERNER, 247 F. 708(E.D. PA.
1918), AFF'D, 251 U.S. 466(1919)(ACT INDIFFERENT ON ITS FACE MAY BE
SUFFICIENT OVERT ACT).  UNITED STATES V. HAUPT, 136 F.2D 661(C.C.A.7TH,
1943)(REVERSAL OF CONVICTION ON STRICT APPLICATION OF TWOWITNESS
REQUIREMENT AND OTHER GROUNDS; INFERENTIALLY APPROVES ACTS HARMLESS ON
THEIR FACE AS OVERT ACTS).  STEPHAN V. UNITED STATES, 133 F.2D
87(C.C.A.6TH, 1943)(ACTS HARMLESS ON THEIR FACE MAY BE SUFFICIENT OVERT
ACTS; CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT SENTENCE COMMUTED).  UNITED STATES V.
CRAMER, 137 F.2D 888(C.C.A.2D, 1943). 

FN39  IN 1942 THE OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION SUGGESTED TO MR. STEPHEN
VINCENT BENET A SHORT INTERPRETATIVE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
TRANSLATION INTO MANY LANGUAGES.  IN IT HE SAYS: 

"IT HAD BEEN A REAL REVOLUTION - A LONG AND DIFFICULT TRAVAIL, FULL
OF HARDSHIP, STRUGGLE, BITTERNESS, AND THE OVERTURNING OF OLD HABITS
AND CUSTOMS.  BUT IT DID NOT EAT ITS CHILDREN AND IT HAD NO AFTERMATH
OF VENGEANCE.  THE HESSIANS WHO STAYED IN THE COUNTRY WERE NOT HUNTED
DOWN AND ANNIHILATED.  SOME LOYALISTS WHO RETURNED WERE HARSHLY TREATED
- OTHERS CAME BACK AND SETTLED DOWN PEACEFULLY AS CITIZENS OF THE NEW
STATE.  THERE WAS NEITHER BLOOD BATH NOR PURGE.  THERE WAS BITTER
POLITICAL DISPUTE - BUT NO SMALL GROUP OF MEN PLOTTED IN SECRET TO
OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OF ARMS.  THERE WERE A COUPLE OF
MINOR AND LOCAL REVOLTS, BASED ON GENUINE GRIEVANCES - SHAYS' REBELLION
IN 1786 - THE WHISKY REBELLION IN 1794.  BOTH COLLAPSED WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT SHOWED ITSELF ABLE TO PUT DOWN REBELLION - AND NOBODY WAS
HANGED FOR EITHER OF THEM.  SHAYS AND HIS TEMPORARY REBELS RECEIVED A
GENERAL AMNESTY - THE LEADERS OF THE WHISKY REBELLION WERE CONVICTED OF
TREASON AND THEN PARDONED BY THE PRESIDENT."  BENET, AMERICA, PP. 49
50. 

SPEAKING OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES HE SAYS: 

"AGAIN, THERE WAS NO BLOOD PURGE.  THERE WERE NO MASS EXECUTIONS.  NO
HEADS ROLLED. 

"THE HANDFUL OF FANATICS WHO HAD PLOTTED THE ASSASSINATION OF LINCOLN
AND OTHER GOVERNMENT LEADERS WERE EXECUTED.  HIS ACTUAL MURDERER WAS
TRACKED DOWN AND SHOT.  THE HALF-CRAZY OFFICER WHO COMMANDED A
NOTORIOUS SOUTHERN PRISON CAMP WAS HANGED.  THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE
CONFEDERACY, JEFFERSON DAVIS, WAS KEPT FOR A WHILE IN PRISON WITH
CERTAIN OF HIS ASSOCIATES AND THEN RELEASED.  BUT THAT WAS ALL. 

"NOT ONE OF THE GREAT SOUTHERN GENERALS OR STATESMEN, LEE, JOHNSON,
STEPHENS, HAMPTON, LONGSTREET - WAS EVEN TRIED FOR TREASON."  ID., 78. 

FN40  APART, OF COURSE, FROM LEVYING WAR, WHICH IS NOT CHARGED IN
THIS CASE AND IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY. 

FN41  HALLAM IN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND (1827) SAID:
"NOTHING HAD BROUGHT SO MUCH DISGRACE ON THE COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT,
AND ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, NOTHING MORE FORCIBLY SPOKEN THE
NECESSITY OF A GREAT CHANGE, THAN THE PROSECUTIONS FOR TREASON DURING
THE LATTER YEARS OF CHARLES II, AND IN TRUTH DURING THE WHOLE COURSE OF
OUR LEGAL HISTORY.  THE STATUTES OF EDWARD III AND EDWARD VI, ALMOST
SET ASIDE BY SOPHISTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS, REQUIRED THE CORROBORATION OF
SOME MORE EXPLICIT LAW; AND SOME PECULIAR SECURITIES WERE DEMANDED FOR
INNOCENCE AGAINST THAT CONSPIRACY OF THE COURT WITH THE PROSECUTOR,
WHICH IS SO MUCH TO BE DREADED IN ALL TRIALS FOR POLITICAL CRIMES."  V.
2, P. 509. 

CONTINUING, AFTER COMMENT ON PARTICULAR CASES, HE SAID:  "IN THE VAST
MASS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL TESTIMONY WHICH OUR MODERN TRIALS FOR HIGH
TREASON DISPLAY, IT IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO DISCERN, WHETHER THE
GREAT PRINCIPLE OF OUR LAW, REQUIRING TWO WITNESSES TO OVERT ACTS, HAS
BEEN ADHERED TO; FOR CERTAINLY IT IS NOT ADHERED TO, UNLESS SUCH
WITNESSES DEPOSE TO ACTS OF THE PRISONER, FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF
HIS GUILT IS IMMEDIATELY DEDUCIBLE."  V. 2, P. 516. 

FN42  THERE ARE, OF COURSE, RARE CASES WHERE ADHERENCE MIGHT BE
PROVED BY AN OVERT ACT SUCH AS SUBSCRIBING AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE OR
ACCEPTING PAY FROM AN ENEMY.  THESE MIGHT SUPPLEMENT PROOF OF OTHER
ACTS OF AID AND COMFORT, BUT NO SUCH OVERT ACTS OF ADHERENCE ARE
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

FN43  OF COURSE, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A TREASON TO BE
PROVED BY ANY SINGLE OVERT ACT.  IT MAY BE GROUNDED UPON ANY NUMBER,
EACH TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES.  WE SPEAK IN
THE SINGULAR BUT WHAT WE SAY APPLIES AS WELL TO A SERIES OF ACTS OR TO
THE SUM OF MANY ACTS. 

FN44  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH ANY QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE
MAY BE AN OFFENSE OF ATTEMPTED TREASON. 

FN45  THE VERDICT IN THIS CASE WAS A GENERAL ONE OF GUILTY, WITHOUT
SPECIAL FINDINGS AS TO THE ACTS ON WHICH IT RESTS.  SINCE IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY THE GROUNDS ON WHICH CRAMER WAS CONVICTED, THE
VERDICT MUST BE SET ASIDE IF ANY OF THE SEPARABLE ACTS SUBMITTED WAS
INSUFFICIENT.  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368; WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 292.  THE TENTH ACT CHARGED, THE THIRD
SUBMITTED, WAS BASED ON FIVE FALSEHOODS TOLD BY CRAMER AFTER HIS ARREST
TO AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ADMITTEDLY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SHIELDING WERNER THIEL.  AFTER SOME TIME HE RECANTED THE
FALSEHOODS AND TOLD THE TRUTH.  THIEL HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO
CUSTODY WHEN THE INTERVIEWS OCCURRED.  THE PRISONER CONTENDS THAT LYING
TO HIS JAILER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TREASON, THAT IN THE WHOLE HISTORY OF
TREASON NO PRECEDENT CAN BE OR IS CITED FOR HOLDING A FALSE STATEMENT
WHILE UNDER INTERROGATION AFTER IMPRISONMENT IS TREASON, THAT IN ANY
EVENT IT AMOUNTED TO NO MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT WHICH WAS NOT CONSUMMATED,
THAT THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO INTERROGATE CRAMER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
AND THAT ADMISSIONS MADE OUT OF COURT ARE RENDERED INADMISSIBLE AS
PROOF OF OVERT ACTS IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ACT BE PROVED
BY TWO WITNESSES OR BY "CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT."  THE USE OF THIS
EVIDENCE AS AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON IS COMPLICATED, AND WE INTIMATE NO
VIEWS UPON IT IN VIEW OF REVERSAL ON OTHER GROUNDS.  WERE WE TO AFFIRM
WE SHOULD HAVE FIRST TO RESOLVE THESE QUESTIONS AGAINST THE PRISONER. 

FN46  THE TESTIMONY OF NORMA KOPP WAS PROBABLY THE MOST DAMAGING TO
THE PRISONER.  SHE WAS A GERMAN ALIEN WHO HAD BEEN IN THE UNITED STATES
SINCE 1928, BUT HAD NEVER BECOME A CITIZEN.  SHE HAD LONG AND
INTIMATELY KNOWN BOTH CRAMER AND THIEL AND BECAME ENGAGED TO MARRY
THIEL FOUR DAYS BEFORE HE LEFT FOR GERMANY.  SHE KNEW HIM TO BE A
NAZI.  SHE RECEIVED AT WESTPORT, CONN., WHERE SHE WAS WORKING AS A
LAUNDRY AND KITCHEN MAID, A NOTE FROM CRAMER, ASKING HER TO COME TO NEW
YORK FOR AN UNDISCLOSED REASON.  SHE CAME AND CRAMER THEN, SHE SAYS,
TOLD HER THAT THIEL WAS BACK, THAT HE CAME WITH OTHERS, THAT SIX OF
THEM LANDED FROM A SUBMARINE IN A RUBBER BOAT IN FLORIDA, THAT THEY
BROUGHT MUCH MONEY "FROM GERMANY FROM THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT," THAT
CRAMER WAS KEEPING IT FOR THIEL IN HIS SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX, THAT THESE
MEN GOT INSTRUCTIONS FROM A "SITZ" IN THE BRONX AS TO WHERE TO GO, BUT
CRAMER SAID HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT HE MEANT BY "SITZ."  CRAMER SAID HE
EXPECTED THIEL THAT EVENING AT HIS APARTMENT, BUT THIEL DID NOT COME. 
CRAMER FAILED TO BRING ABOUT HER MEETING WITH THIEL, AS HE HAD PROMISED
HER.  SHE WAS AT KOLPING HOUSE WHEN CRAMER WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY.  THE
FOLLOWING DAY PICTURES OF THE SABOTEURS AND THE STORY OF THEIR LANDING
AND ARREST WAS IN THE NEWSPAPERS.  SHE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND
QUESTIONED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. 

FN47  CRAMER LEFT A NOTE FOR "WILLIAM THOMAS," THE NAME UNDER WHICH
THIEL WAS GOING, AT THE COMMODORE HOTEL, WHERE HE WAS STAYING, SAYING
THAT MISS KOPP HAD COME AND ASKING THIEL TO MEET THEM AT THOMPSON'S
CAFETERIA AT 4:00 THAT AFTERNOON OR CALL THEM AT 7:00 THAT EVENING AT
KOLPING HOUSE.  THIEL HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND DID NOT KEEP THE RENDEZVOUS
NOR MAKE THE CALL.  ABOUT 10:50 P.M. JUNE 27, CRAMER WAS TAKEN INTO
CUSTODY AT KOLPING HOUSE AND TAKEN TO THE BUREAU'S HEADQUARTERS IN NEW
YORK.  HE TOLD THE AGENTS THAT THE MAN HE HAD BEEN WITH AT THOMPSON'S
CAFETERIA WAS WILLIAM THOMAS, THAT THOMAS HAD WORKED IN A FACTORY ON
THE WEST COAST SINCE MARCH OF 1941 AND HAD NOT BEEN OUT OF THE UNITED
STATES.  WHEN ASKED IF THE TRUE NAME OF WILLIAM THOMAS WAS NOT WERNER
THIEL, HE REPLIED THAT IT WAS, AND THAT THIEL WAS USING AN ASSUMED NAME
BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTIES WITH HIS DRAFT BOARD.  HE STATED THAT THE MONEY
BELT WHICH THIEL HAD GIVEN HIM CONTAINED ONLY $200, WHICH THIEL OWED
HIM, AND THAT THE $3,500 IN THE SAFETY DEPOSIT BOX BELONGED TO HIM AND
HAD BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE SALE OF SECURITIES.  THE GRAVITY OF THE
OFFENSE WITH WHICH HE MIGHT BE CONFRONTED WAS INTIMATED TO CRAMER, AND
HE ASKED IF HE MIGHT SPEAK WITH AGENT OSTHOLTHOFF ALONE.  TO HIM HE
RECANTED HIS PREVIOUS FALSE STATEMENTS AND ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW THIEL
HAD COME FROM GERMANY, PROBABLY ON A MISSION FOR THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT,
WHICH HE THOUGHT WAS "TO STIR UP UNREST AMONG THE PEOPLE AND PROBABLY
SPREAD PROPAGANDA."  HE REPEATED THIS IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHER AGENTS
AND STATED THAT HE HAD LIED IN ORDER TO PROTECT THIEL.  CRAMER
AUTHORIZED THE AGENTS TO SEARCH HIS ROOM AND TO OPEN HIS SAFE-DEPOSIT
BOX AT THE CORN EXCHANGE BANK AND REMOVE THE CONTENTS THEREOF. 

FN48  AS SUMMARIZED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
THESE ARE:  "WRITING THIEL IN GERMANY, NOVEMBER 25, 1941, APPELLANT
SAID THAT 'DEFIANCE, BOLDNESS, WILL, AND SHARP WEAPONS WILL DECIDE THE
WAR, AND THE GERMANY ARMY AND THE GERMAN PEOPLE ARE NOT LACKING IN
THESE,' THAT HE WAS 'VERY DISCONTENT' AND SAT HERE 'IN PITIABLE
COMFORT,' AND THAT HE HAD REFUSED A JOB IN DETROIT AT $100 PER WEEK
BECAUSE 'I DO NOT WANT TO SOIL MY HANDS WITH WAR WORK.'  TO HIS FAMILY
IN GERMANY HE WROTE DECEMBER 3, 1941, OF 'THE GIGANTIC SACRIFICES WHICH
THE GLORIOUS, DISCIPLINED GERMAN ARMY IS MAKING FROM DAY TO DAY FOR THE
HOMELAND,' THAT 'EVERY DAY HERE I HEAR THE SHRIEKS OF HATRED AND THE
CLAMOR FOR ANNIHILATION FROM THE HOSTILE FOREIGNERS,' AND THAT A LOST
WAR 'MEANS TODAY A COMPLETE EXTIRPATION OF THE GERMAN NATION.'  TO A
FRIEND IN CHICAGO HE WROTE APRIL 21, 1942, OBJECTING TO CONSCRIPTION
'AFTER ONE HAS SPENT ALMOST HALF A LIFETIME HERE IN THE STATES,' AND
SAYING 'PERSONALLY I SHOULD NOT CARE AT ALL TO BE MISUSED BY THE
AMERICAN ARMY AS A WORLD CONQUEROR.'  ALL THE LETTERS WERE WRITTEN IN
GERMAN." 

FN49  ON THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE A WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT HE WENT TO
CRAMER'S APARTMENT, TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT ON A PLEDGE DRIVE AND ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD LIKE TO
SIGN A PLEDGE FOR A BOND.  CRAMER SAID HE WAS NOT INTERESTED AND, IN
REPLY TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HE WOULD SIGN UP FOR A STAMP, HE SAID HE
WAS NOT EVEN INTERESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF A 10-CENT STAMP.  HE THEN
CLOSED THE DOOR.  THE WITNESS RANG AGAIN AND CRAMER OPENED THE DOOR
AGAIN AND THEN CLOSED IT. 

NORMA KOPP TESTIFIED THAT CRAMER TOLD HER THAT THE "MINUTE MAN"
CALLED AT HIS DOOR "AND HE GOT KIND OF FRESH AND HE CLOSED THE DOOR AT
HIM."  MISS KOPP'S TESTIMONY WAS OBJECTED TO AND WAS OFFERED AS
"SHOWING THE GENERAL MOTIVE AND DISPOSITION, IN SO FAR AS LOYALTY TO
THE COUNTRY IS CONCERNED, OF THIS DEFENDANT," AND AS PROBATIVE ON THE
ISSUE OF INTENT.  THE COURT RECEIVED IT ON THE THEORY THAT INCIDENTS OF
THAT SORT MIGHT CORROBORATE OR THE JURY MIGHT FIND IT CORROBORATED
CERTAIN OTHER TESTIMONY OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT INDICATING A MOTIVE
OR INTENT. 

FN50  THE DEFENDANT, HAVING TESTIFIED IN HIS OWN BEHALF, WAS UNDER
CROSS-EXAMINATION.  HE WAS ASKED:  "Q.  NOW, SIR, ISN'T IT THE FACT
THAT YOU DID WRITE TO GERMANY IN THE YEAR 1941 SEVERAL LETTERS IN WHICH
YOU DISCUSSED THE UNITED STATES IN AN UNFRIENDLY MANNER?  A. I DO NOT
KNOW UNFRIENDLY.  I WOULD SAY THAT I HAVE CRITICIZED A FEW PERSONS.  I
HAVE NEVER CRITICIZED THE UNITED STATES AS SUCH."  HE WAS THEN ASKED
WHETHER IN 1941 HE DID NOT RECEIVE LETTERS FROM HIS NEPHEW NORBERT AND
WHETHER IT WAS NOT THE FACT THAT CRAMER'S BROTHER, NORBERT'S FATHER,
"THROUGH NORBERT WARNED YOU THAT YOUR LETTERS DISCUSSED THE UNITED
STATES IN SUCH AN UNFRIENDLY FASHION THAT NORBERT'S FATHER FEARED THAT
YOU WOULD BE PUT ON THE BLACKLIST, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM THE LETTERS
WENT THROUGH AN AMERICAN CENSORSHIP?"  OBJECTION WAS DULY MADE THAT THE
LETTERS REFERRED TO WERE FROM SOMEONE ELSE AND COULD NOT BIND THE
DEFENDANT.  THE OBJECTION WAS OVERRULED, AND THE WITNESS ANSWERED:
"WELL, I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MY NEPHEW NORBERT WHICH MENTIONS
THAT, I ADMIT THAT."  A MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER WAS DENIED, AND
EXCEPTIONS TO BOTH RULINGS WERE DULY TAKEN.    THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OBSERVED THAT, "OF COURSE, THESE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION COULD
NOT PROPERLY BIND APPELLANT; AND THE OBJECTION MIGHT WISELY HAVE BEEN
SUSTAINED."  BUT IT CONCLUDED THAT THE RULING WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY
PREJUDICIAL TO CALL FOR REVERSAL. 

WHILE DEFENDANT WAS UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION, HE WAS ASKED, "BY THE
WAY, MR. WITNESS, YOU HAVE TESTIFIED AT LENGTH HERE ABOUT YOUR VARIOUS
STUDIES AND YOUR VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS AND INTERESTS.  WERE YOU EVER
INTERESTED IN LAW?  A. NO, SIR; I WAS NOT.  Q. ISN'T IT A FACT, SIR,
THAT AT ONE TIME YOU WERE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE LAW OF
TREASON?  A. NO, SIR; I HAVE NEVER BEEN INTERESTED IN THAT."  THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY THEN OFFERED A COMPLETE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES AS PRINTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES IN 1937.  IT HAD
BEEN FOUND IN CRAMER'S ROOM AND ON IT WERE MARKS WHICH HE ADMITTED
MAKING.  ONE OF THE MARKS WAS OPPOSITE THE PARAGRAPH WHICH DEFINES
TREASON.  THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFERED IT FOR IMPEACHMENT AND ALSO
CONTENDED IT TO BE OF PROBATIVE FORCE TO SHOW "THAT THIS WITNESS HAD IN
MIND AT THE TIME THESE EVENTS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE INDICTMENT
HERE OCCURRED, WHAT THE LAW OF TREASON WAS."  AGAINST OBJECTION THE
COURT ADMITTED IT AS MATERIAL AND RELEVANT AND DECLINED TO LIMIT THE
GROUNDS ON WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED. 

IT APPEARS WITHOUT DISPUTE THAT THE MARKS ON THIS COPY OF THE
CONSTITUTION WERE MADE AT A TIME NOT DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED BUT CLEARLY
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES ENTERED THE WAR AND WHEN THE POLICY OF THE
GOVERNMENT WAS DECLARED TO BE ONE OF NEUTRALITY. 

THE TREASON PARAGRAPH OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS ONE OF SIX PROVISIONS
WHICH HE MARKED.  ANOTHER WAS THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 1 OF SEC. 7,
THAT IF ANY BILL PASSED BY THE CONGRESS SHALL NOT BE RETURNED BY THE
PRESIDENT WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO HIM, THE SAME
SHALL BE A LAW.  ANOTHER, THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 1, SEC. 8, THAT
CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO DECLARE WAR, GRANT LETTERS OF MARQUE
AND REPRISAL AND MAKE RULES CONCERNING CAPTURES ON LAND AND WATER.  A
THIRD WAS ARTICLE 1, SEC. 9, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NO BILL OF ATTAINDER
OR EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED.  A FOURTH WAS THAT PROVISION OF
ARTICLE 1, SEC. 9, THAT NO TITLE OF NOBILITY SHALL BE GRANTED BY THE
UNITED STATES.  ANOTHER WAS THE PORTION OF ARTICLE 2, SEC. 1, WHICH
SETS FORTH THE PRESIDENT'S OATH. 

THE PETITIONER WAS NATURALIZED IN 1936 AND, SO FAR AS APPEARS, CAME
INTO POSSESSION OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1937. 

FN51  2 FARRAND 347. 

FN52  E.G., HARTZEL V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 680. 

FN53  CONGRESS HAS PROHIBITED OBTAINING DEFENSE INFORMATION IN
CERTAIN WAYS, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 31; CERTAIN DISCLOSURES OF INFORMATION, 50
U.S.C. SEC. 32; CERTAIN SEDITIOUS AND DISLOYAL ACTS IN WARTIME, 50
U.S.C. SEC. 33; AND HAS ENACTED SUCH STATUTES AS THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 3. 

FN54  THE GOVERNMENT'S APPENDIX INCLUDES SUCH EXAMPLES AS THE
FOLLOWING: 

DANISH PENAL CODE.  - "SEC.  105.  ONE WHO COMMITS AN ACT BY VIRTUE
OF WHICH A FOREIGN SERVICE OF MILITARY INTELLIGENCE IS SET UP, OR WHO
ASSISTS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ITS FUNCTIONING ON THE TERRITORY OF
THE STATE OF DENMARK, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT UP TO TWO YEARS
AND IN CASES OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES BY DETENTION." 

POLISH CODE.  - "ART.  100.  SEC. 1.  WHOEVER IN TIME OF WAR ACTS IN
FAVOR OF THE ENEMY OR TO THE DAMAGE OF THE POLISH ARMED FORCES OR
ALLIED FORCES SHALL BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT NOT UNDER TEN YEARS OR
FOR LIFE. 

"ART. 100.  SEC. 2.  IF THE OFFENDER UNINTENTIONALLY ACTED, HE SHALL
BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT NOT TO EXCEED THREE YEARS OR BY DETENTION
NOT TO EXCEED THREE YEARS." 

FRENCH CODE OF 1939.  - "ART.  103.  WHOEVER, KNOWING ABOUT THE PLANS
OF AN ACT OF TREASON OR ESPIONAGE, DOES NOT REPORT THEM TO THE
MILITARY, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES AS SOON AS HE
ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE SHALL BE PUNISHED BY PENALTIES PROVIDED BY ART. 83
FOR THE ATTACK ON THE EXTERIOR SAFETY OF THE STATE." 

THE FRENCH CODE (HARBORING) PROVIDES IN ARTICLE 85 THAT EVERY
FRENCHMAN AND EVERY FOREIGNER SHALL BE PUNISHED AS AN ACCOMPLICE OR FOR
HARBORING: 

"(1)  WHO, KNOWING THE INTENTIONS OF THE PERPETRATORS OF MAJOR CRIMES
AND MINOR CRIMES AGAINST THE EXTERIOR SAFETY OF THE STATE, FURNISHES
THEM SUBSIDIES, MEANS OF EXISTENCE, LODGING, PLACE OF ASYLUM OR MEETING
PLACE. 

"(2)  WHO, KNOWINGLY CARRIES THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE PERPETRATORS
OF A MAJOR OR MINOR CRIME OR KNOWINGLY FACILITATES THEM IN ANY MANNER
WHATSOEVER IN FINDING, HARBORING, TRANSPORTING, OR TRANSMITTING, THE
OBJECTS OF A MAJOR OR MINOR CRIME; 

"(3)  WHO HARBORS KNOWINGLY THE OBJECTS OR INSTRUMENTS WHICH SERVED
OR SHOULD SERVE FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OR OFFENSE OR MATERIAL
OBJECTS OR DOCUMENTS OBTAINED THROUGH A CRIME OR OFFENSE." 

FN55  2 FARRAND 348. 

FN56  SEE BROOKS, THE WORLD OF WASHINGTON IRVING, 73 N. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK
AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT IS WRITTEN ON A HYPOTHETICAL STATE OF FACTS,
NOT ON THE FACTS PRESENTED BY THE RECORD.  IT STATES A RULE OF LAW
BASED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS NOT ONLY
UNTENABLE BUT IS ALSO UNNECESSARY FOR THE DECISION.  IT DISREGARDS
FACTS ESSENTIAL TO A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED FOR
DECISION.  IT OVERLOOKS THE BASIC ISSUE ON WHICH OUR DISPOSITION OF THE
CASE MUST TURN.  IN ORDER TO REACH THAT ISSUE WE MUST HAVE A MORE EXACT
APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS THAN CAN BE GLEANED FROM THE OPINION OF THE
COURT. 

                          I 

CRAMER IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, BORN IN
GERMANY.  HE SERVED IN THE GERMAN ARMY IN THE LAST WAR, COMING TO THIS
COUNTRY IN 1925.  IN 1929 HE MET THIEL WHO HAD COME TO THIS COUNTRY IN
1927 FROM A PLACE IN GERMANY NOT FAR FROM PETITIONER'S BIRTHPLACE.  THE
TWO BECAME CLOSE FRIENDS; THEY WERE INTIMATE ASSOCIATES DURING A TWELVE
YEAR PERIOD.  IN 1933 CRAMER FOUND WORK IN INDIANA.  THIEL JOINED HIM
THERE.  BOTH BECAME MEMBERS OF THE FRIENDS OF NEW GERMANY, PREDECESSOR
OF THE GERMAN-AMERICAN BUND.  CRAMER WAS AN OFFICER OF THE INDIANA
LOCAL.  HE RESIGNED IN 1935 BUT THIEL REMAINED A MEMBER AND WAS KNOWN
AS A ZEALOUS NAZI.  IN 1936 CRAMER VISITED GERMANY.  ON HIS RETURN HE
RECEIVED HIS FINAL CITIZENSHIP PAPERS.  HE AND THIEL RETURNED TO NEW
YORK IN 1937 AND LIVED EITHER TOGETHER OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY FOR ABOUT
FOUR YEARS.  THIEL LEFT FOR GERMANY IN THE SPRING OF 1941, FEELING THAT
WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY WAS IMMINENT.  ACCORDING TO
CRAMER, THIEL WAS "UP TO HIS EARS" IN NAZI IDEOLOGY.  CRAMER
CORRESPONDED WITH THIEL IN GERMANY.  PRIOR TO OUR DECLARATION OF WAR,
HE WAS SYMPATHETIC WITH THE GERMAN CAUSE AND CRITICAL OF OUR ATTITUDE. 
THUS IN NOVEMBER, 1941, HE WROTE THIEL SAYING HE HAD DECLINED A JOB IN
DETROIT, "AS I DON'T WANT TO DIRTY MY FINGERS WITH WAR MATERIAL"; THAT
"WE SIT HERE IN PITIABLE COMFORT, WHEN WE SHOULD BE IN THE BATTLE - AS
NIETZSCHE SAYS - I WANT THE MAN, I WANT THE WOMAN, THE ONE FIT FOR WAR,
THE OTHER FIT FOR BEARING."  IN THE SPRING OF 1942 HE WROTE ANOTHER
FRIEND IN REFERENCE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING DRAFTED:  "PERSONALLY I
SHOULD NOT CARE AT ALL TO BE MISUSED BY THE AMERICAN ARMY AS A WORLD
CONQUEROR."  CRAMER LISTENED TO SHORT-WAVE BROADCASTS OF LORD HAW-HAW
AND OTHER GERMAN PROPAGANDISTS.  HE KNEW THAT THE THEME OF GERMAN
PROPAGANDA WAS THAT ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES WERE FIGHTING A WAR
OF AGGRESSION AND SEEKING TO CONQUER THE WORLD. 

SO MUCH FOR THE BACKGROUND.  WHAT FOLLOWED IS A SEQUEL TO EX PARTE
QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1. 

THIEL ENTERED THE GERMAN ARMY AND IN 1942 VOLUNTEERED WITH SEVEN
OTHER GERMAN SOLDIERS WHO HAD LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR A SPECIAL
MISSION TO DESTROY THE AMERICAN ALUMINUM INDUSTRY.  THEY WERE BROUGHT
HERE BY GERMAN SUBMARINES IN TWO GROUPS.  KERLING WAS THE LEADER AND
THIEL A MEMBER OF ONE GROUP WHICH LANDED BY RUBBER BOAT NEAR
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA ON JUNE 17, 1942.  THEY BURIED THEIR EXPLOSIVES
AND PROCEEDED TO NEW YORK CITY, WHERE ON JUNE 21ST THEY REGISTERED AT
THE HOTEL COMMODORE UNDER THE ASSUMED NAMES OF EDWARD KELLY AND WILLIAM
THOMAS. 

THE NEXT MORNING A STRANGE VOICE CALLED CRAMER'S NAME FROM THE HALL
OF THE ROOMING HOUSE WHERE HE LIVED.  ON HIS FAILURE TO REPLY AN
UNSIGNED NOTE WAS SLIPPED UNDER HIS DOOR.  IT READ, "BE AT THE GRAND
CENTRAL STATION TONIGHT AT 8 O'CLOCK, THE UPPER PLATFORM NEAR THE
INFORMATION BOOTH, FRANZ FROM CHICAGO HAS COME INTO TOWN AND WANTS TO
SEE YOU; DON'T FAIL TO BE THERE."  CRAMER SAID HE KNEW NO FRANZ FROM
CHICAGO.  BUT NEVERTHELESS HE WAS ON HAND AT THE APPOINTED HOUR AND
PLACE.  THIEL SHORTLY APPEARED.  THEY WENT TO THE TWIN OAKS INN WHERE
THEY TALKED FOR TWO HOURS.  CRAMER ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW THIEL HAD COME
FROM GERMANY; AND OF COURSE, HE KNEW THAT AT THAT TIME MEN WERE NOT
FREELY ENTERING THIS COUNTRY FROM GERMANY.  HE ASKED THIEL, "SAY, HOW
HAVE YOU COME OVER, HAVE YOU COME BY SUBMARINE?"  THIEL LOOKED
STARTLED, SMILED, AND SAID, "SOME OTHER TIME I AM GOING TO TELL YOU ALL
ABOUT THIS."  THIEL TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD TAKEN THE ASSUMED NAME OF
WILLIAM THOMAS AND HAD A FORGED DRAFT CARD.  THIEL ADMONISHED HIM TO
REMEMBER THAT HE, THIEL, WAS "ANTI-NAZI"  - A STATEMENT CRAMER DOUBTED
BECAUSE HE KNEW THIEL WAS A MEMBER OF THE NAZI PARTY.  THIEL INDICATED
HE HAD COME FROM THE COAST OF FLORIDA.  CRAMER INQUIRED IF HE HAD USED
A RUBBER BOAT.  WHEN THIEL SAID THAT THE ONLY TIME HE WAS "SCARED TO
DEATH WAS WHEN I CAME OVER HERE WE GOT BOMBED," CRAMER REPLIED, "THEN
YOU HAVE COME OVER BY SUBMARINE, HAVEN'T YOU?"  THIEL TOLD CRAMER THAT
HE HAD "THREE AND A HALF OR FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS" WITH HIM AND THAT
"IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT KIND OF CONNECTION YOU CAN EVEN GET DOLLARS IN
GERMANY."  CRAMER OFFERED TO KEEP THIEL'S MONEY FOR HIM.  THIEL AGREED
BUT NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT THAT EVENING.  CRAMER ADMITTED HE HAD A
"HUNCH" THAT THIEL WAS HERE ON A MISSION FOR THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT.  HE
ASKED THIEL "WHETHER HE HAD COME OVER HERE TO SPREAD RUMORS AND INCITE
UNREST."  CRAMER AFTER HIS ARREST TOLD AGENTS OF THE F.B.I. THAT HE HAD
SUSPECTED THAT THIEL HAD RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT,
THAT THIEL IN FACT HAD TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS ON A MISSION FOR GERMANY,
AND THAT "WHATEVER HIS MISSION WAS, I THOUGHT THAT HE WAS SERIOUS IN
HIS UNDERTAKING."  THIEL FROM THE BEGINNING CLOTHED HIS ACTIONS WITH
SECRECY; WAS UNWILLING TO BE SEEN AT CRAMER'S ROOM ("BECAUSE I HAVE TOO
MANY ACQUAINTANCES THERE AND I DON'T WANT THEM TO SEE ME"); AND
CAUTIONED CRAMER AGAINST CONVERSING LOUDLY WITH HIM IN THE PUBLIC
TAVERN. 

SO THEY AGREED TO MEET AT THE TWIN OAKS INN AT 8 P.M. ON THE
FOLLOWING EVENING, JUNE 23, 1942.  AT THIS MEETING KERLING JOINED
THEM.  CRAMER HAD MET KERLING IN THIS COUNTRY AND KNEW HE HAD RETURNED
TO GERMANY.  KERLING AND THIEL TOLD CRAMER THAT THEY HAD COME OVER
TOGETHER.  CRAMER HAD A "HUNCH" THAT KERLING WAS HERE FOR THE SAME
PURPOSE AS THIEL.  KERLING LEFT THIEL AND CRAMER AFTER ABOUT AN HOUR
AND A HALF.  KERLING WAS FOLLOWED AND ARRESTED.  CRAMER AND THIEL
STAYED ON AT THE TAVERN FOR ABOUT ANOTHER HOUR.  AFTER KERLING LEFT,
THIEL AGREED TO ENTRUST HIS MONEY TO CRAMER FOR SAFEKEEPING.  HE TOLD
CRAMER TO TAKE OUT $200 WHICH THIEL OWED HIM.  BUT HE ASKED CRAMER NOT
TO PUT ALL OF THE BALANCE IN THE SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX - THAT HE SHOULD KEEP
SOME OF IT OUT "IN THE EVENT I NEED IT IN A HURRY."  THIEL WENT TO THE
WASHROOM TO REMOVE THE MONEY BELT.  HE HANDED IT TO CRAMER ON THE
STREET WHEN THEY LEFT THE TAVERN.  FROM THE TWIN OAKS THIEL AND CRAMER
WENT TO THOMPSON'S CAFETERIA WHERE THEY CONVERSED FOR ABOUT FIFTEEN
MINUTES.  THEY AGREED TO MEET THERE AT 8 P.M. ON JUNE 25TH.  THEY
PARTED.  THIEL WAS FOLLOWED AND ARRESTED. 

CRAMER RETURNED HOME.  HE PUT THIEL'S MONEY BELT IN A SHOE BOX.  HE
PUT SOME OF THE MONEY BETWEEN THE PAGES OF A BOOK.  LATER HE PUT THE
BALANCE IN HIS BANK, SOME IN A SAVINGS ACCOUNT, MOST OF IT IN HIS SAFE
DEPOSIT BOX.  HE AND THIEL HAD TALKED OF THIEL'S FIANCEE, NORMA KOPP. 
AT THE FIRST MEETING CRAMER HAD OFFERED TO WRITE HER ON THIEL'S
BEHALF.  HE DID SO.  HE DID NOT MENTION THIEL'S NAME BUT ASKED HER TO
COME TO HIS ROOM, SAYING HE HAD "SENSATIONAL" NEWS FOR HER.  CRAMER
APPEARED AT THOMPSON'S CAFETERIA AT 8 P.M. JUNE 25TH TO KEEP HIS
APPOINTMENT WITH THIEL.  HE WAITED ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF.  HE
RETURNED THE NEXT NIGHT, JUNE 26TH, AND DEFINITELY SUSPECTED THIEL HAD
BEEN ARRESTED.  THOUGH HE KNEW THIEL WAS REGISTERED AT THE HOTEL
COMMODORE, HE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM THERE.  WHEN HE
RETURNED TO HIS ROOM THAT NIGHT, NORMA KOPP WAS WAITING FOR HIM.  SHE
TESTIFIED THAT HE TOLD HER THAT THIEL WAS HERE; THAT "THEY CAME ABOUT
SIX MEN WITH A U-BOAT, IN A RUBBER BOAT, AND LANDED IN FLORIDA"; THAT
THEY "BROUGHT SO MUCH MONEY ALONG FROM GERMANY, FROM THE GERMAN
GOVERNMENT" HE WAS KEEPING IT IN A SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX; AND THAT THEY "GET
INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE SITZ (HIDEOUT) IN THE BRONX WHAT TO DO, AND WHERE
TO GO."  THE NEXT MORNING CRAMER LEFT A NOTE FOR "WILLIAM THOMAS" AT
THE COMMODORE SAYING THAT NORMA KOPP HAD ARRIVED AND SUGGESTED A
RENDEZVOUS.  LATER IN THE DAY CRAMER WAS ARRESTED.  HE TOLD THE AGENTS
OF THE F.B.I. THAT THE NAME OF THE MAN WHO HAD BEEN WITH HIM AT
THOMPSON'S CAFETERIA ON THE EVENING OF JUNE 23RD WAS "WILLIAM THOMAS,"
THAT "THOMAS" HAD BEEN WORKING IN A FACTORY ON THE WEST COAST SINCE
MARCH, 1941, AND HAD NOT BEEN OUT OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE THEN.  HE
WAS ASKED IF "THOMAS" WAS NOT THIEL.  HE THEN ADMITTED HE WAS, SAYING
THAT THIEL HAD USED AN ASSUMED NAME, AS HE WAS HAVING DIFFICULTIES WITH
HIS DRAFT BOARD.  HE ALSO STATED THAT THE MONEY BELT THIEL GAVE HIM
CONTAINED ONLY $200 WHICH THIEL OWED HIM AND THAT THE $3,500 IN HIS
SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX BELONGED TO HIM AND WERE THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF
SECURITIES.  AFTER ABOUT AN HOUR OR SO OF THE FALSEHOODS, CRAMER ASKED
TO SPEAK TO ONE OF THE AGENTS ALONE.  THE REQUEST WAS GRANTED.  HE THEN
RECANTED HIS PREVIOUS FALSE STATEMENTS AND STATED THAT HE FELT SURE
THAT THIEL HAD COME FROM GERMANY BY SUBMARINE ON A MISSION FOR THE
GERMAN GOVERNMENT AND THAT HE THOUGHT THAT MISSION WAS "TO STIR UP
UNREST AMONG THE PEOPLE AND PROBABLY SPREAD PROPAGANDA."  HE STATED HE
HAD LIED IN ORDER TO PROTECT THIEL. 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT THIS EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE
CONVICTION OF CRAMER UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  WE
DISAGREE. 

II 

ARTICLE III, SEC. 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES TREASON AS FOLLOWS:
"TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, SHALL CONSIST ONLY IN LEVYING WAR
AGAINST THEM, OR IN ADHERING TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND
COMFORT.  NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF TREASON UNLESS ON THE
TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT, OR ON CONFESSION IN
OPEN COURT." 

THE CHARGE AGAINST CRAMER WAS THAT OF ADHERING.  THE ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME ARE THAT CRAMER (1) WITH TREASONABLE INTENT (2)
GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY.  FN1 

THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE FOR THE JURY THAT CRAMER HAD A TREASONABLE
INTENT.  THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT "CRIMINAL INTENT AND
KNOWLEDGE, BEING A MENTAL STATE, ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING PROVED BY
DIRECT EVIDENCE, AND THEREFORE YOU MUST INFER THE NATURE OF THE
DEFENDANT'S INTENT AND KNOWLEDGE FROM ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  IT
CHARGED THAT PROOF OF CRIMINAL INTENT AND KNOWLEDGE IS SUFFICIENT IF
PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND THAT THE TWO WITNESSES ARE NOT
NECESSARY FOR ANY OF THE FACTS OTHER THAN THE OVERT ACTS.  ON THAT
THERE APPARENTLY IS NO DISAGREEMENT.  IT ALSO CHARGED:  "NOW,
GENTLEMEN, MOTIVE SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH INTENT.  IF THE DEFENDANT
KNOWINGLY GIVES AID AND COMFORT TO ONE WHO HE KNOWS OR BELIEVES IS AN
ENEMY, THEN HE MUST BE TAKEN TO INTEND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OWN
VOLUNTARY ACT, AND THE FACT THAT HIS MOTIVE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN TO AID
THE ENEMY IS NO DEFENSE.  IN OTHER WORDS, ONE CANNOT DO AN ACT WHICH HE
KNOWS WILL GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO A PERSON HE KNOWS TO BE AN ENEMY OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND THEN SEEK TO DISCLAIM CRIMINAL INTENT AND
KNOWLEDGE BY SAYING THAT ONE'S MOTIVE WAS NOT TO AID THE ENEMY.  SO IF
YOU BELIEVE THAT THE DEFENDANT PERFORMED ACTS WHICH BY THEIR NATURE
GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY, KNOWING OR BELIEVING HIM TO BE AN
ENEMY, THEN YOU MUST FIND THAT HE HAD CRIMINAL INTENT, SINCE HE
INTENDED TO DO THE ACT FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW.  THE FACT THAT YOU MAY
BELIEVE THAT HIS MOTIVE IN SO DOING WAS, FOR EXAMPLE, MERELY TO HELP A
FRIEND, OR POSSIBLY FOR FINANCIAL GAIN, WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT
HE HAD A CRIMINAL INTENT."  ON THAT THERE APPARENTLY IS NO
DISAGREEMENT.  A MAN WHO VOLUNTARILY ASSISTS ONE KNOWN OR BELIEVED TO
BE AN ENEMY AGENT MAY NOT DEFEND ON THE GROUND THAT HE BETRAYED HIS
COUNTRY FOR ONLY THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER.  SEE HANAUER V. DOANE, 12
WALL.  342, 347; SPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 20 WALL.  459, 463.  "THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTS ARE TOO SERIOUS AND ENORMOUS TO ADMIT OF SUCH
A PLEA.  HE MUST BE TAKEN TO INTEND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OWN
VOLUNTARY ACT."  HANAUER V. DOANE, SUPRA.  FOR THE SAME REASONS A MAN
CANNOT SLIP THROUGH OUR TREASON LAW BECAUSE HIS AID TO THOSE WHO WOULD
DESTROY HIS COUNTRY WAS PROMPTED BY A DESIRE TO "ACCOMMODATE A
FRIEND."  FN2  LOYALTY TO COUNTRY CANNOT BE SUBORDINATED TO THE
AMENITIES OF PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP. 

CRAMER HAD A TRAITOROUS INTENT IF HE KNEW OR BELIEVED THAT THIEL AND
KERLING WERE ENEMIES AND WERE WORKING HERE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE
GERMAN REICH.  THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THAT MERE SUSPICION WAS NOT
ENOUGH; BUT THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR CRAMER TO HAVE KNOWN ALL
THEIR PLANS.  THERE APPARENTLY IS NO DISAGREEMENT ON THAT.  BY THAT
TEST THE EVIDENCE AGAINST CRAMER WAS OVERWHELMING.  THE CONCLUSION IS
IRRESISTIBLE THAT CRAMER BELIEVED, IF HE DID NOT ACTUALLY KNOW, THAT
THIEL AND KERLING WERE HERE ON A SECRET MISSION FOR THE GERMAN REICH
WITH THE OBJECT OF INJURING THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THE MONEY WHICH
THIEL GAVE HIM FOR SAFEKEEPING HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY GERMANY TO
FACILITATE THE PROJECT OF THE ENEMY.  THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THAT IF
THE JURY FOUND THAT CRAMER HAD NO PURPOSE OR INTENTION OF ASSISTING THE
GERMAN REICH IN ITS PROSECUTION OF THE WAR OR IN HAMPERING THE UNITED
STATES IN ITS PROSECUTION OF THE WAR BUT ACTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ASSISTING KERLING AND THIEL AS INDIVIDUALS, CRAMER SHOULD BE
ACQUITTED.  THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE FOR THE JURY'S CONCLUSION THAT THE
ASSISTANCE CRAMER RENDERED WAS ASSISTANCE TO THE GERMAN REICH, NOT
MERELY ASSISTANCE TO KERLING AND THIEL AS INDIVIDUALS. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE STATED WHEN HE SENTENCED CRAMER THAT IT DID NOT
APPEAR THAT CRAMER KNEW THAT THIEL AND KERLING WERE IN POSSESSION OF
EXPLOSIVES OR OTHER MEANS FOR DESTROYING FACTORIES IN THIS COUNTRY OR
THAT THEY PLANNED TO DO THAT.  HE STATED THAT IF THERE HAD BEEN DIRECT
PROOF OF SUCH KNOWLEDGE HE WOULD HAVE SENTENCED CRAMER TO DEATH RATHER
THAN TO FORTY-FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.  BUT HOWEVER RELEVANT SUCH
PARTICULAR KNOWLEDGE MAY HAVE BEEN TO FIXING THE PUNISHMENT FOR
CRAMER'S ACTS OF TREASON, IT SURELY WAS NOT ESSENTIAL TO PROOF OF HIS
TRAITOROUS INTENT.  A DEFENDANT WHO HAS AIDED AN ENEMY AGENT IN THIS
COUNTRY MAY NOT ESCAPE CONVICTION FOR TREASON ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS
NOT AWARE OF THE ENEMY'S PRECISE OBJECTIVES.  KNOWING OR BELIEVING THAT
THE AGENT WAS HERE ON A MISSION ON BEHALF OF A HOSTILE GOVERNMENT, HE
COULD NOT, BY SIMPLE FAILURE TO ASK TOO MANY QUESTIONS, ASSUME THAT
THIS MISSION WAS ONE OF CHARITY AND BENEVOLENCE TOWARD THE UNITED
STATES.  BUT THE PRESENT CASE IS MUCH STRONGER.  FOR CRAMER CLAIMS HE
BELIEVED THE ENEMY AGENT'S OBJECTIVE WAS TO DESTROY NATIONAL MORALE BY
PROPAGANDA AND NOT TO BLOW UP WAR FACTORIES.  PROPAGANDA DESIGNED TO
CAUSE DISUNITY AMONG ADVERSARIES IS ONE OF THE OLDER WEAPONS KNOWN TO
WARFARE, AND UPON OCCASION ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE.  NO ONE CAN READ
THIS RECORD WITHOUT CONCLUDING THAT THE DEFENDANT CRAMER KNEW THIS.  HE
IS AN INTELLIGENT, IF MISGUIDED, MAN.  HE HAS A QUICK WIT SHARPENED BY
CONSIDERABLE LEARNING OF ITS KIND.  HE IS WIDELY READ AND A STUDENT OF
HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY, PARTICULARLY RANKE AND NIETZSCHE.  HE HAD BEEN
AN OFFICER OF A PRO-GERMAN ORGANIZATION, AND HIS CLOSEST ASSOCIATE HAD
BEEN A ZEALOUS NAZI.  HE ALSO HAD LISTENED TO GERMAN PROPAGANDISTS OVER
THE SHORT WAVE.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER CRAMER WAS
ACQUAINTED WITH THE EFFICACY OF PROPAGANDA IN MODERN WARFARE. 
UNDOUBTEDLY HE KNEW THAT THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT THOUGHT IT EFFICACIOUS. 
WHEN HE WAS SHOWN CONSCIOUSLY AND VOLUNTARILY TO HAVE ASSISTED THIS
ENEMY PROGRAM HIS TRAITOROUS INTENT WAS THEN AND THERE SUFFICIENTLY
PROVED. 

THE COURT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION FOR LACK OF
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF TRAITOROUS INTENT.  IT FREES CRAMER FROM THIS
TREASON CHARGE SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE OVERT ACTS CHARGED ARE
INSUFFICIENT UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT. 

          III 

THE OVERT ACTS ALLEGED WERE (1) THAT CRAMER MET WITH THIEL AND
KERLING ON JUNE 23RD, 1942, AT THE TWIN OAKS INN AND "DID CONFER,
TREAT, AND COUNSEL" WITH THEM "FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING AND WITH THE
INTENT TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT" TO THE ENEMY; (2) THAT CRAMER "DID
ACCOMPANY, CONFER, TREAT, AND COUNSEL WITH" THIEL AT THE TWIN OAKS INN
AND AT THOMPSON'S CAFETERIA ON JUNE 23RD, 1942, "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
GIVING AND WITH INTENT TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT" TO THE ENEMY; AND (3)
THAT CRAMER GAVE FALSE INFORMATION OF THE CHARACTER WHICH HAS BEEN
ENUMERATED TO AGENTS OF THE F.B.I. "FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING THE
IDENTITY AND MISSION" OF THIEL AND "FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING AND WITH
INTENT TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT" TO THE ENEMY. 

THE COURT CONCEDES THAT AN OVERT ACT NEED NOT MANIFEST ON ITS FACE A
TRAITOROUS INTENTION.  BY THAT CONCESSION IT REJECTS THE DEFENSE BASED
ON THE TREASON CLAUSE WHICH CRAMER HAS MADE HERE.  THE COURT SAYS AN
OVERT ACT MUST "SHOW SUFFICIENT ACTION BY THE ACCUSED, IN ITS SETTING,
TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED ACTUALLY GAVE AID AND COMFORT TO
THE ENEMY."  IT SAYS, HOWEVER, THAT THE "PROTECTION OF THE TWO-WITNESS
RULE EXTENDS AT LEAST TO ALL ACTS OF THE DEFENDANT WHICH ARE USED TO
DRAW INCRIMINATING INFERENCES THAT AID AND COMFORT HAVE BEEN GIVEN." 
IT ADDS, "EVERY ACT, MOVEMENT, DEED, AND WORD OF THE DEFENDANT CHARGED
TO CONSTITUTE TREASON MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO
WITNESSES.  THE TWO-WITNESS PRINCIPLE IS TO INTERDICT IMPUTATION OF
INCRIMINATING ACTS TO THE ACCUSED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY THE
TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS.  THE PROSECUTION CANNOT RELY ON EVIDENCE
WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST FOR OVERT ACTS TO CREATE
ANY INFERENCE THAT THE ACCUSED DID OTHER ACTS OR DID SOMETHING MORE
THAN WAS SHOWN IN THE OVERT ACT, IN ORDER TO MAKE A GIVING OF AID AND
COMFORT TO THE ENEMY."  AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE OVERT ACTS OF MEETING
AND CONFERRING WITH THIEL AND KERLING THE COURT HOLDS THAT THEY ARE
INADEQUATE SINCE THERE WAS "NO TWO-WITNESS PROOF OF WHAT THEY SAID NOR
IN WHAT LANGUAGE THEY CONVERSED."  THAT IS TO SAY, REVERSIBLE ERROR IS
FOUND BECAUSE THE TWO WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED TO THE FACT THAT CRAMER
MET TWICE WITH THE SABOTEURS DID NOT TESTIFY THAT CRAMER GAVE THEM
INFORMATION OF "VALUE TO THEIR MISSION" SUCH AS SHELTER, SUSTENANCE,
SUPPLIES, ENCOURAGEMENT OR COUNSEL. 

THAT CONCLUSION, WE SUBMIT, LEADS TO LUDICROUS RESULTS.  THE PRESENT
CASE IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT IF THE TWO WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED NOT ONLY THAT
THEY SAW CRAMER CONFERRING WITH THIEL AND KERLING BUT ALSO HEARD HIM
AGREE TO KEEP THIEL'S MONEY AND SAW HIM TAKE IT, THE RESULT WOULD BE
DIFFERENT.  BUT THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT SINCE THE TWO WITNESSES COULD
NOT TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE MEETINGS, WE MUST APPRAISE THE
MEETINGS IN ISOLATION FROM THE OTHER FACTS OF THE RECORD.  THEREIN LIES
THE FALLACY OF THE ARGUMENT. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE FULLY AGREE THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION THERE CAN BE NO CONVICTION OF TREASON WITHOUT PROOF OF TWO
WITNESSES OF AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON.  WE ALSO AGREE THAT THE ACT SO
PROVED NEED NOT ITSELF MANIFEST ON ITS FACE THE TREASONABLE INTENT. 
AND AS THE COURT STATES, SUCH INTENT NEED NOT BE PROVED BY TWO
WITNESSES.  IT MAY EVEN BE ESTABLISHED BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  FOR
IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE OVERT ACT AND THE INTENT ARE SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME.  FN3  THE "INTENT MAY BE PROVED BY
ONE WITNESS, COLLECTED FROM CIRCUMSTANCES, OR EVEN BY A SINGLE FACT." 
CASE OF FRIES, 9 FED. CAS. 826, 909, NO. 5126; RESPUBLICA V. ROBERTS, 1
DALLAS 39; UNITED STATES V. LEE, 26 FED. CAS. 907, NO. 15,584; TRIAL OF
DAVID MACLANE, 26 HOW.  ST. TR. 721, 795-798.  ACTS INNOCENT ON THEIR
FACE, WHEN JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR PURPOSE AND OF RELATED EVENTS,
MAY TURN OUT TO BE ACTS OF AID AND COMFORT COMMITTED WITH TREASONABLE
PURPOSE.  IT IS THE OVERT ACT CHARGED AS SUCH IN THE INDICTMENT WHICH
MUST BE PROVED BY TWO WITNESSES AND NOT THE RELATED EVENTS WHICH MAKE
MANIFEST ITS TREASONABLE QUALITY AND PURPOSE.  THIS, WE THINK, IS THE
CORRECT AND NECESSARY CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN FROM THE CONCESSION THAT
THE OVERT ACT NEED NOT ON ITS FACE MANIFEST THE GUILTY PURPOSE.  THE
GROSSEST AND MOST DANGEROUS ACT OF TREASON MAY BE, AS IN THIS CASE, AND
OFTEN IS, INNOCENT ON ITS FACE.  BUT THE RULING OF THE COURT THAT THE
RELATED ACTS AND EVENTS WHICH SHOW THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE OVERT ACT
CHARGED MUST BE PROVED BY TWO WITNESSES IS WITHOUT WARRANT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, AND IS SO REMOTE FROM THE PRACTICAL
REALITIES OF PROVING THE OFFENSE, AS TO RENDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMAND UNWORKABLE.  THE TREASONABLE INTENT OR PURPOSE WHICH IT IS SAID
MAY BE PROVED BY A SINGLE WITNESS OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, MUST, IN
THE ABSENCE OF A CONFESSION OF GUILT IN OPEN COURT, BE INFERRED FROM
ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SURROUND AND RELATE TO THE OVERT
ACT.  INFERENCE OF THE TREASONABLE PURPOSE FROM EVENTS AND ACTS RELATED
TO OR SURROUNDING THE OVERT ACT NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE INFERENCE THAT
THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE OVERT ACT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING
OF ITS TREASONABLE CHARACTER.  TO SAY THAT THE TREASONABLE PURPOSE WITH
WHICH THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE OVERT ACT MAY BE INFERRED FROM RELATED
EVENTS PROVED BY A SINGLE WITNESS, AND AT THE SAME TIME TO SAY THAT SO
FAR AS THEY SHOW THE TREASONABLE CHARACTER OF THE OVERT ACT, THEY MUST
BE PROVED BY TWO WITNESSES, IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS.  THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF SUCH A DOCTRINE IS TO REQUIRE PROOF BY TWO WITNESSES, NOT
ONLY OF THE OVERT ACT CHARGED WHICH THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES BUT OF
EVERY OTHER FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE RELIED UPON TO SHOW THE TREASONABLE
CHARACTER OF THE OVERT ACT AND THE TREASONABLE PURPOSE WITH WHICH IT
WAS COMMITTED WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PLAINLY DOES NOT REQUIRE.  HERE,
AS IN PRACTICALLY ALL CASES WHERE THERE IS NO CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT,
THE TWO ARE INSEPARABLE, SAVE ONLY IN THE SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE THE
OVERT ACT MANIFESTS ITS TREASONABLE CHARACTER ON ITS FACE.  THE COURT
THUS IN SUBSTANCE ADOPTS THE CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT, WHICH IT HAS
REJECTED IN WORDS, AND FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES REQUIRES PROOF BY TWO
WITNESSES, NOT ONLY OF THE OVERT ACT BUT OF ALL OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE
CRIME SAVE ONLY IN THE CASE WHERE THE ACCUSED CONFESSES IN OPEN COURT. 
IT THUS CONFUSES PROOF OF THE OVERT ACT WITH PROOF OF THE PURPOSE OR
INTENT WITH WHICH THE OVERT ACT WAS COMMITTED AND, WITHOUT HISTORICAL
SUPPORT, EXPANDS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT SO AS TO INCLUDE AN
ELEMENT OF PROOF NOT EMBRACED BY ITS WORDS.    WE HAVE DEVELOPED IN THE
APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION THE HISTORIC FUNCTION OF THE OVERT ACT IN
TREASON CASES.  IT IS PLAIN FROM THOSE MATERIALS THAT THE REQUIREMENT
OF AN OVERT ACT IS DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE PUNISHMENT FOR TREASONABLE
PLANS OR SCHEMES OR HOPES WHICH HAVE NEVER MOVED OUT OF THE REALM OF
THOUGHT OR SPEECH.  IT IS MADE A NECESSARY INGREDIENT OF THE CRIME TO
FORECLOSE PROSECUTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON.  THE TREASONABLE
PROJECT IS COMPLETE AS A CRIME ONLY WHEN THE TRAITOROUS INTENT HAS
RIPENED INTO A PHYSICAL AND OBSERVABLE ACT.  THE ACT STANDING ALONE MAY
APPEAR TO BE INNOCENT OR INDIFFERENT, SUCH AS JOINING A PERSON AT A
TABLE, STEPPING INTO A BOAT, OR CARRYING A PARCEL OF FOOD.  THAT ALONE
IS INSUFFICIENT.  IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
THE ACT WAS PART OF THE TREASONABLE PROJECT AND DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF
IT. ITS CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE ARE TO BE JUDGED BY ITS PLACE IN THE
EFFECTUATION OF THE PROJECT.  THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHERE THE
TREASONABLE SCHEME INVOLVES SEVERAL TREASONABLE ACTS, AND THE OVERT ACT
WHICH IS CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVED BY TWO WITNESSES, THAT ALL THE OTHER
ACTS WHICH TEND TO SHOW THE TREASONABLE CHARACTER OF THE OVERT ACT AND
THE TREASONABLE PURPOSE WITH WHICH IT WAS COMMITTED MUST BE PROVED BY
TWO WITNESSES.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SO DECLARE.  THERE IS NO
HISTORICAL SUPPORT FOR SAYING THAT THE PHRASE "TWO WITNESSES TO THE
SAME OVERT ACT" MAY BE OR CAN BE READ AS MEANING TWO WITNESSES TO ALL
THE ACTS INVOLVED IN THE TREASONABLE SCHEME OF THE ACCUSED.  OBVIOUSLY
ONE OVERT ACT PROVED BY TWO WITNESSES IS ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION
EVEN THOUGH THE ACCUSED HAS COMMITTED MANY OTHER ACTS WHICH CAN BE
PROVED BY ONLY ONE WITNESS OR BY HIS OWN ADMISSION IN OPEN COURT. 
HENCE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE OVERT ACT WHICH IS CHARGED BE PROVED BY
TWO WITNESSES.  AS THE COURT CONCEDES, ITS TREASONABLE CHARACTER NEED
NOT BE MANIFEST UPON ITS FACE.  WE SAY THAT ITS TRUE CHARACTER MAY BE
PROVED BY ANY COMPETENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT OF A
JURY.  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION LEADS TO SUCH ABSURD RESULTS AS TO PRECLUDE
THE SUPPOSITION THAT THE TWO-WITNESS RULE WAS INTENDED TO HAVE THE
MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO IT. 

WHEN WE APPLY THAT TEST TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IT IS CLEAR TO US
THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST CRAMER SHOULD NOT BE SET
ASIDE.  THE HISTORICAL MATERIALS WHICH WE HAVE SET FORTH IN THE
APPENDIX TO THIS OPINION ESTABLISH THAT A MEETING WITH THE ENEMY MAY BE
ADEQUATE AS AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON.  HALE, KELYNG AND FOSTER ESTABLISH
THAT BEYOND PERADVENTURE OF DOUBT.  SUCH A MEETING MIGHT BE INNOCENT ON
ITS FACE.  IT MIGHT ALSO BE INNOCENT IN ITS SETTING, AS HALE, KELYNG
AND FOSTER POINT OUT, WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WAS ACCIDENTAL.  WE WOULD
HAVE SUCH A CASE HERE IF CRAMER'S FIRST MEETING WITH THIEL WAS CHARGED
AS AN OVERT ACT.  FOR, AS WE HAVE SEEN, CRAMER WENT TO THE MEETING
WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WOULD MEET AND CONFER WITH THIEL.  BUT THE
SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS WERE ARRANGED BETWEEN THEM.  THEY WERE ARRANGED IN
FURTHERANCE OF THIEL'S DESIGNS.  CRAMER WAS NOT ONLY ON NOTICE THAT
THIEL WAS HERE ON A MISSION INIMICAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THIS NATION. 
HE HAD AGREED AT THE FIRST MEETING TO HIDE THIEL'S MONEY.  HE HAD
AGREED TO CONTACT NORMA KOPP.  HE KNEW THAT THIEL WANTED HIS IDENTITY
AND PRESENCE IN NEW YORK CONCEALED.  THIS WAS THE SETTING IN WHICH THE
LATER MEETINGS WERE HELD.  THE MEETINGS TAKE ON THEIR TRUE CHARACTER
AND SIGNIFICANCE FROM THAT SETTING.  THEY CONSTITUTE ACTS.  THEY
DEMONSTRATE THAT CRAMER HAD A LIKING FOR THIEL'S DESIGN TO THE EXTENT
OF AIDING HIM IN IT.  THEY SHOW BEYOND DOUBT THAT CRAMER HAD MORE THAN
A TREASONABLE INTENT; THAT THAT INTENT HAD MOVED FROM THE REALM OF
THOUGHT INTO THE REALM OF ACTION.  SINCE TWO WITNESSES PROVED THAT THE
MEETINGS TOOK PLACE, THEIR CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE MIGHT BE PROVED
BY ANY COMPETENT EVIDENCE. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THIS JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD BE SUSTAINED
EVEN THOUGH WE ASSUME, ARGUENDO, THAT CRAMER'S MOTION TO DISMISS AT THE
END OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  THE CONCERN OF
THE COURT IS THAT ACTS INNOCENT ON THEIR FACE MAY BE TRANSFORMED INTO
SINISTER OR GUILTY ACTS BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BY INFERENCE, BY
SPECULATION.  THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT IS BASED ON A DESIRE FOR
TRUSTWORTHY EVIDENCE IN DETERMINING THE CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE OVERT ACTS.  BUT THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE AN ACT INNOCENT ON ITS
FACE IS GIVEN A SINISTER ASPECT AND MADE A PART OF A TREASONOUS DESIGN
BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BY INFERENCE, OR BY THE TESTIMONY OF A
SINGLE WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION.  WE KNOW FROM CRAMER'S OWN
TESTIMONY - FROM HIS ADMISSIONS AT THE TRIAL - EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. 

WE KNOW THE CHARACTER OF THE MEETINGS FROM CRAMER'S OWN ADMISSIONS. 
WE KNOW FROM HIS OWN LIPS THAT THEY WERE NOT ACCIDENTAL OR CASUAL
CONFERENCES, OR INNOCENT, SOCIAL MEETINGS.  HE ARRANGED THEM WITH
THIEL.  WHEN HE DID SO HE BELIEVED THAT THIEL WAS HERE ON A SECRET
MISSION FOR THE GERMAN REICH WITH THE OBJECT OF INJURING THIS NATION. 
HE ALSO KNEW THAT THIEL WAS LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO HIDE HIS MONEY. 
CRAMER HAD OFFERED TO KEEP IT FOR THIEL AND THIEL HAD ACCEPTED THE
OFFER.  CRAMER HAD ALSO OFFERED TO WRITE NORMA KOPP, THIEL'S FIANCEE,
WITHOUT MENTIONING THIEL'S NAME.  CRAMER ALSO KNEW THAT THIEL WANTED
HIS IDENTITY AND HIS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK CONCEALED.  CRAMER'S
ADMISSIONS AT THE TRIAL GAVE CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE TO THOSE
MEETINGS.  THOSE ADMISSIONS PLUS THE FINDING OF TREASONABLE INTENT
PLACE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE CONCLUSION THAT THOSE MEETINGS WERE
STEPS IN AND PART AND PARCEL OF THE TREASONABLE PROJECT. 

NOR NEED WE GUESS OR SPECULATE FOR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE
MEETINGS.  WE NEED NOT RELY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DRAW INFERENCES
FROM OTHER FACTS, OR RESORT TO SECONDARY SOURCES.  AGAIN WE KNOW FROM
CRAMER'S TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL - FROM HIS OWN ADMISSIONS - PRECISELY
WHAT TRANSPIRED. 

CRAMER TOLD THE WHOLE STORY IN OPEN COURT.  HE ADMITTED HE AGREED TO
ACT AND DID ACT AS CUSTODIAN OF THE SABOTEUR THIEL'S MONEY.  HE AGREED
TO HOLD IT AVAILABLE FOR THIEL'S USE WHENEVER THIEL MIGHT NEED IT.  IT
IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE WHAT GREATER AID ONE COULD GIVE A SABOTEUR
UNLESS HE PARTICIPATED IN THE SABOTAGE HIMSELF.  FUNDS WERE AS
ESSENTIAL TO THIEL'S PLANS AS THE EXPLOSIVES HE BURIED IN THE SANDS OF
FLORIDA.  WITHOUT FUNDS THE MISSION OF ALL THE SABOTEURS WOULD HAVE
SOON ENDED OR BEEN SERIOUSLY CRIPPLED.  CRAMER DID NOT STOP HERE. 
PRESERVATION OF SECRECY WAS ESSENTIAL TO THIS INVASION OF THE ENEMY. 
IT WAS VITAL IF THE PROJECT WAS TO BE SUCCESSFUL.  IN THIS RESPECT
CRAMER ALSO ASSISTED THIEL.  HE COOPERATED WITH THIEL IN THE
CONCEALMENT OF THIEL'S IDENTITY AND PRESENCE IN NEW YORK CITY.  HE DID
HIS BEST TO THROW FEDERAL OFFICERS OFF THE TRAIL AND TO MISLEAD THEM. 
HE MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THEM, SAYING THAT THIEL'S TRUE NAME WAS
"THOMAS" AND THAT THIEL HAD NOT BEEN OUT OF THE COUNTRY SINCE THE WAR
BEGAN. 

IF CRAMER HAD NOT TESTIFIED, WE WOULD THEN BE CONFRONTED WITH THE
QUESTIONS DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  BUT HE TOOK THE STAND
AND TOLD THE WHOLE STORY.  IT IS TRUE THAT AT THE END OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CASE CRAMER MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE CRIME
CHARGED HAD NOT BEEN MADE OUT.  THAT MOTION WAS DENIED AND AN EXCEPTION
TAKEN.  IF CRAMER HAD RESTED THERE, THE CASE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AND
A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION RENDERED, WE WOULD HAVE BEFORE US THE PROBLEM
PRESENTED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  BUT CRAMER DID NOT REST ON THAT
MOTION.  HE TOOK THE STAND AND TOLD THE WHOLE STORY.  ANY DEFECT IN THE
PROOF WAS CURED BY THAT PROCEDURE.  AS STATED IN BOGK V. GASSERT, 149
U.S. 17, 23, "A DEFENDANT HAS AN UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO STAND UPON HIS
MOTION FOR A NONSUIT, AND HAVE HIS WRIT OF ERROR IF IT BE REFUSED; BUT
HE HAS NO RIGHT TO INSIST UPON HIS EXCEPTION, AFTER HAVING SUBSEQUENTLY
PUT IN HIS TESTIMONY AND MADE HIS CASE UPON THE MERITS, SINCE THE COURT
AND JURY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONSIDER THE WHOLE CASE AS MADE BY THE
TESTIMONY.  IT NOT INFREQUENTLY HAPPENS THAT THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, BY
HIS OWN EVIDENCE, SUPPLIES THE MISSING LINK."  AND SEE SIGAFUS V.
PORTER, 179 U.S. 116, 121; MCCABE & STEEN CO. V. WILSON, 209 U.S. 275,
276; BATES V. MILLER, 133 F.2D 645, 647-648; 9 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D
ED. 1940) SEC. 2496.  AND THE RULE OBTAINS IN CRIMINAL AS WELL AS IN
CIVIL CASES.  SHERIDAN V. UNITED STATES, 112 F.2D 503, 504, REV'D ON
OTHER GROUNDS 312 U.S. 654; EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 7 F.2D 357, 359;
BALDWIN V. UNITED STATES, 72 F.2D 810, 812. 

WHY THEN MUST WE DISREGARD CRAMER'S ADMISSIONS AT THE TRIAL?  WHY
MUST WE ASSUME, AS DOES THIS COURT, THAT THOSE ADMISSIONS ARE OUT OF
THE CASE AND THAT OUR DECISION MUST DEPEND SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT? 

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT A "CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT" IS SUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION OF TREASON.  IT WAS HELD IN UNITED STATES V.
MAGTIBAY, 2 PHILIPPINE REP. 703, THAT A CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT TO THE
OVERT ACTS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR
THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES WHERE THE ACCUSED DENIED TREASONABLE
PURPOSE.  WE NEED NOT GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT IF THE WHOLE CRIME MAY
BE PROVED BY AN ADMISSION BY THE ACCUSED IN OPEN COURT, ONE OF THE
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENSE MAY BE ESTABLISHED IN LIKE MANNER.  SEE
RESPUBLICA V. ROBERTS, SUPRA.  WE DO NOT SAY THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT
COMPLETELY FAILS TO PROVE AN OVERT ACT OR PROVES IT BY ONE WITNESS
ONLY, THE DEFECT CAN BE CURED BY THE TESTIMONY OF OTHER WITNESSES OR BY
THE ADMISSIONS OF THE ACCUSED.  WE DO SAY THAT A MEETING WITH THE ENEMY
IS AN ACT AND MAY IN ITS SETTING BE AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON.  WE AGREE
THAT OVERT ACTS INNOCENT ON THEIR FACE SHOULD NOT BE LIGHTLY
TRANSFORMED INTO INCRIMINATING ACTS.  BUT SO LONG AS OVERT ACTS OF
TREASON NEED NOT MANIFEST TREASON ON THEIR FACE, AS THE COURT CONCEDES,
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE TREASONABLE CHARACTER
OF THE ACT, LIKE THE EVIDENCE OF TREASONABLE INTENT, DEPENDS ON THE
QUALITY OF THAT EVIDENCE WHATEVER THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHO SUPPLIED
IT.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT IN THIS CASE ON THAT SCORE.  CERTAINLY A
PERSON WHO TAKES THE STAND IN DEFENSE OF A TREASON CHARGE AGAINST HIM
WILL NOT BE PRESUMED TO COMMIT PERJURY WHEN HE MAKES ADMISSIONS AGAINST
SELF-INTEREST.  ADMISSIONS AGAINST SELF-INTEREST HAVE INDEED ALWAYS
BEEN CONSIDERED AS THE HIGHEST CHARACTER OF EVIDENCE.  WHEN TWO
WITNESSES TESTIFY TO THE OVERT ACTS, WHY THEN ARE NOT ADMISSIONS OF THE
ACCUSED IN OPEN COURT ADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH THEIR TRUE CHARACTER? 
COULD THE TESTIMONY OF ANY NUMBER OF WITNESSES MORE CERTAINLY OR
CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT WAS DONE?  TAKE THE
CASE WHERE TWO WITNESSES TESTIFY THAT THE ACCUSED DELIVERED A PACKAGE
TO THE ENEMY, THE ACCUSED ADMITTING IN OPEN COURT THAT THE PACKAGE
CONTAINED GUNS OR AMMUNITION.  OR TWO WITNESSES TESTIFY THAT THE
ACCUSED SENT THE ENEMY A MESSAGE, INNOCUOUS ON ITS FACE, THE ACCUSED
ADMITTING IN OPEN COURT THAT THE MESSAGE WAS A CODE CONTAINING MILITARY
INFORMATION.  MUST A CONVICTION BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE TWO WITNESSES
DID NOT TESTIFY TO WHAT THE ACCUSED ADMITTED IN OPEN COURT?  WE SAY NO.
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE NO EXAMPLES OF CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON.  THE
INTENT IS NOT TAKEN FOR THE DEED.  PROOF OF THE OVERT ACT PLUS PROOF OF
A TREASONABLE INTENT MAKE CLEAR THAT THE TREASONABLE DESIGN HAS MOVED
OUT OF THE REALM OF THOUGHT INTO THE FIELD OF ACTION.  AND ANY
POSSIBILITY THAT AN ACT INNOCENT ON ITS FACE HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED INTO
A SINISTER OR GUILTY ACT IS FORECLOSED.  FOR THE SIGNIFICANCE AND
CHARACTER OF THE ACT ARE SUPPLIED BY THE ADMISSIONS FROM THE LIPS OF
THE ACCUSED IN OPEN COURT.  THE CONTRARY RESULT COULD BE REACHED ONLY
IF IT WERE NECESSARY THAT THE OVERT ACT MANIFEST TREASON ON ITS FACE. 
THAT THEORY IS REJECTED BY THE COURT.  BUT ONCE REJECTED IT IS FATAL TO
THE DEFENSE. 

CRAMER'S COUNSEL COULD NOT DEFEND ON THE GROUNDS ADVANCED BY THE
COURT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAVING PROVED BY TWO
WITNESSES THAT CRAMER MET AND CONFERRED WITH THE SABOTEURS, ANY
POSSIBLE INSUFFICIENCY IN THE EVIDENCE WHICH IT ADDUCED TO SHOW THE
CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MEETINGS WAS CURED BY CRAMER'S OWN
TESTIMONY.  CRAMER CAN DEFEND ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE OVERT ACT
MUST MANIFEST TREASON, WHICH THE COURT REJECTS, OR ON THE GROUND THAT
HE HAD NO TREASONABLE INTENT, WHICH THE JURY FOUND AGAINST HIM ON AN
ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE.  THOSE ARE THE ONLY ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE
CONCEDEDLY CONFERENCES WITH SABOTEURS HERE ON A MISSION FOR THE ENEMY
MAY BE WHOLLY ADEQUATE AS OVERT ACTS UNDER THE TREASON CLAUSE.  THEY
WERE PROVED BY TWO WITNESSES AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ANY
POSSIBLE DOUBT AS TO THEIR CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE AS PARTS OF A
TREASONABLE PROJECT WERE REMOVED BY THE DEFENDANT'S OWN ADMISSIONS IN
OPEN COURT.  TO SAY THAT WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM CONSIDERING THOSE
ADMISSIONS IN WEIGHING THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUE
CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OVERT ACTS IS NEITHER GOOD SENSE NOR
GOOD LAW.  SUCH A RESULT MAKES THE WAY EASY FOR THE TRAITOR, DOES
VIOLENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND MAKES JUSTICE TRULY BLIND.    FN1  IT
IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE OVERT ACT AND THE INTENT ARE SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF TREASON UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE
EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 4 CRANCH 75, 126; UNITED STATES V. BURR, 25 FED. CAS.
2, 13-14, NO. 14,692A; UNITED STATES V. LEE, 26 FED. CAS. 907, NO.
15,584; UNITED STATES V. VIGOL, 28 FED. CAS. 376, NO. 16,621; UNITED
STATES V. HANWAY, 26 FED. CAS. 105, 126, NO. 15,299; UNITED STATES V.
GREINER, 26 FED. CAS. 36, 39, NO. 15,262; UNITED STATES V. GREATHOUSE,
26 FED. CAS. 18, 22, NO. 15,254; UNITED STATES V. WERNER, 247 F. 708,
709-710; UNITED STATES V. FRICKE, 259 F. 673, 677; UNITED STATES V.
ROBINSON, 259 F. 685, 690; UNITED STATES V. STEPHAN, 50 F.SUPP.  738,
742-743, AFF'D 133 F.2D 87, 99.  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL RULED IN UNITED
STATES V. BURR, 25 FED. CAS. 52, 54, NO. 14,692H, THAT IT WAS IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE PROSECUTOR TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT BEFORE
PROOF OF AN OVERT ACT.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA. 

FN2  CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 16 WALL.  147, 150-151; SPROTT V.
UNITED STATES, 20 WALL.  459, 463-464; UNITED STATES V. HODGES, 26 FED.
CAS. 332, 334, NO. 15,374; CHARGE TO GRAND JURY - TREASON, 30 FED. CAS.
1032, 1034, NO. 18,270; SEE ALSO 1 EAST, PLEAS OF THE CROWN (1806) PP.
77-81; WARREN, WHAT IS GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY (1918), 27
YALE L.J. 331, 343-345; HAZARD AND STERN, "EXTERIOR TREASON" (1938), 6
U. OF CHI.  L. REV. 77, 84-85.  BUT A MERE SHOWING OF AID AND
ASSISTANCE TO AN ALIEN ENEMY PERMANENTLY RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES
WITHOUT ANY SHOWING THAT THE ENEMY ALIEN HAS DESIGNS AGAINST THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES, DOES NOT WITHOUT MORE ESTABLISH AN ACT
OF TREASON.  SEE UNITED STATES V. FRICKE, 259 F. 673, 682. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.

                               APPENDIX 

THE MOST RELEVANT SOURCE OF MATERIALS FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE
TREASON CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS THE STATUTE OF 25 EDW.  III,
STAT. 5, CH. 2(1351) AND THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS GIVEN IT.  IT WAS
WITH THAT BODY OF LAW AND THE ENGLISH AND COLONIAL EXPERIENCE UNDER IT
THAT THE FRAMERS WERE ACQUAINTED.  THAT STATUTE SPECIFIED SEVEN
OFFENSES AS CONSTITUTING TREASON.  AS RESPECTS THE THREE OFFENSES
RELEVANT TO OUR PRESENT DISCUSSION, IT PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:  IF A MAN
"DOTH COMPASS OR IMAGINE THE DEATH" OF THE KING, OR "IF A MAN DO LEVY
WAR" AGAINST THE KING IN HIS REALM, OR IF HE "BE ADHERENT TO THE KING'S
ENEMIES IN HIS REALM, GIVING TO THEM AID AND COMFORT IN THE REALM, OR
ELSEWHERE, AND THEREOF BE PROBABLY ATTAINTED OF OPEN DEED," HE SHALL BE
GUILTY OF TREASON. 

COKE MAKES CLEAR THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF AN OVERT ACT UNDER THE
STATUTE APPLIES TO ALL OF THE OFFENSES INCLUDED IN THE CATEGORY OF
TREASON.  SEE COKE, INSTITUTES OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, THIRD PART (5TH
ED., LONDON, 1671), P. 5.  THERE ARE INDICATIONS BY COKE THAT THE OVERT
ACT WAS A SEPARATE ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE AND THAT ITS FUNCTION WAS TO
SHOW THAT THE TREASONABLE DESIGN HAD MOVED FROM THOUGHT TO ACTION. 
ID., PP. 5, 12, 14, 38.  HALE IS SOMEWHAT MORE EXPLICIT.  IN DISCUSSING
THE OFFENSE OF COMPASSING THE KING'S DEATH HE INDICATES THAT THE OVERT
ACT MAY BE "INDIFFERENT" IN CHARACTER.  HE SAYS, "THAT WORDS MAY
EXPOUND AN OVERT-ACT TO MAKE GOOD AN INDICTMENT OF TREASON OF
COMPASSING THE KING'S DEATH, WHICH OVERT-ACT POSSIBLY OF ITSELF MAY BE
INDIFFERENT AND UNAPPLICABLE TO SUCH AN INTENT."  1 HALE, HISTORY OF
THE PLEAS OF THE CROWN (EMLYN ED., LONDON, 1736), P. 115.  AND HE NOTED
THAT "IF THERE BE AN ASSEMBLING TOGETHER TO CONSIDER HOW THEY MAY KILL
THE KING, THIS ASSEMBLING IS AN OVERT-ACT TO MAKE GOOD AN INDICTMENT OF
COMPASSING THE KING'S DEATH."  ID., P. 119.  KELYING STATES THE SAME
VIEW.  HE CITES SIR EVERARD DIGBY'S CASE, 1 ST. TR. 234, FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT THE MEETING OF PERSONS AND THEIR CONSULTING TO DESTROY
THE KING WAS ITSELF AN OVERT ACT.  "IT WAS RESOLVED THAT WHERE A PERSON
KNOWING OF THE DESIGN DOES MEET WITH THEM, AND HEAR THEM DISCOURSE OF
THEIR TRAITOROUS DESIGNS, AND SAY OR ACT NOTHING; THIS IS HIGH-TREASON
IN THAT PARTY, FOR IT IS MORE THAN A BARE CONCEALMENT, WHICH IS
MISPRISION, BECAUSE IT SHEWETH HIS LIKING AND APPROVING OF THEIR
DESIGN."  HE SAYS THAT IF A PERSON NOT KNOWING THEIR INTENT MET WITH
THEM, HEARD THEIR PLANS, BUT SAID NOTHING AND NEVER MET AGAIN, THAT
WOULD BE ONLY MISPRISION OF TREASON.  "BUT IF HE AFTER MEET WITH THEM
AGAIN, AND HEAR THEIR CONSULTATIONS, AND THEN CONCEAL IT, THIS IS HIGH
TREASON.  FOR IT SHEWETH A LIKING, AND AN APPROVING OF THEIR DESIGN." 
KELYING, A REPORT OF DIVERS CASES IN PLEAS OF THE CROWN (3D ED.,
LONDON, 1873), P.*  17.  AND SEE P.*  21. 

FOSTER IS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT.  LIKE COKE HE ASSERTS THAT AN OVERT ACT
IS REQUIRED FOR EACH BRANCH OF TREASON COVERED BY THE STATUTE OF EDWARD
III.  FOSTER, A REPORT OF SOME PROCEEDINGS ON THE COMMISSION FOR THE
TRIAL OF THE REBELS IN THE YEAR 1746 IN THE COUNTY OF SURRY, AND OF
OTHER CROWN CASES (2D ED., LONDON, 1791), PP. 207, 237.  HE MAKES CLEAR
THAT AN OVERT ACT IS REQUIRED NOT TO CORROBORATE THE PROOF OF A
TRAITOROUS INTENT BUT TO SHOW THAT THE TREASONABLE PROJECT HAS LEFT THE
REALM OF THOUGHT AND MOVED INTO THE REALM OF ACTION.  AS RESPECTS THE
OFFENSE OF COMPASSING THE DEATH OF THE KING, HE SAYS THAT THE
INDICTMENT "MUST CHARGE, THAT THE DEFENDANT DID TRAITOROUSLY COMPASS
AND IMAGINE &C, AND THEN GO ON AND CHARGE THE SEVERAL OVERT-ACTS AS THE
MEANS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENDANT FOR EXECUTING HIS TRAITOROUS PURPOSES. 
FOR THE COMPASSING IS CONSIDERED AS THE TREASON, THE OVERT-ACTS AS THE
MEANS MADE USE OF TO EFFECTUATE THE INTENTIONS AND IMAGINATIONS OF THE
HEART."  ID., P. 194.  HE REFERS TO CROHAGAN'S CASE (CRO.  CAR.  332)
WHERE THE DEFENDANT SAID "I WILL KILL THE KING OF ENGLAND, IF I CAN
COME AT HIM" AND THE INDICTMENT ADDED THAT HE CAME TO ENGLAND FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  "THE TRAITOROUS INTENTION, PROVED BY HIS WORDS, CONVERTED AN
ACTION, INNOCENT IN ITSELF, INTO AN OVERT-ACT OF TREASON."  ID., P.
202.  AND HE ALSO POINTS OUT THAT "OVERT-ACTS UNDOUBTEDLY DO DISCOVER
THE MAN'S INTENTIONS; BUT, I CONCEIVE, THEY ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED
MERELY AS EVIDENCE, BUT AS THE MEANS MADE USE OF TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THE HEART."  ID., P. 203.  AND HE ADDS, "UPON THIS
PRINCIPLE WORDS OF ADVICE OR ENCOURAGEMENT, AND, ABOVE ALL,
CONSULTATIONS FOR DESTROYING THE KING, VERY PROPERLY COME UNDER THE
NOTION OF MEANS MADE USE OF FOR THAT PURPOSE.  BUT LOOSE WORDS NOT
RELATIVE TO FACTS ARE, AT THE WORST, NO MORE THAN BARE INDICATIONS OF
THE MALIGNITY OF THE HEART."  ID., P. 204.  HE FOLLOWS KELYING IN
SAYING THAT ATTENDANCE AT A MEETING WITH PREVIOUS NOTICE OF THE DESIGN
TO PLOT THE DEATH OF THE KING OR A RETURN TO A MEETING AFTER KNOWLEDGE
IS GAINED OF ITS TREASONABLE PURPOSE IS TREASON, THOUGH BARE
CONCEALMENT WOULD NOT BE IF THE DEFENDANT MET THE CONSPIRATORS
"ACCIDENTALLY OR UPON SOME INDIFFERENT OCCASION."  ID., P. 195. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS RELATED TO THE OFFENSE OF
COMPASSING OR IMAGINING THE DEATH OF THE KING.  BUT FOSTER INDICATES
THAT THE SAME TEST APPLIES TO MAKE OUT THE OFFENSE OF ADHERENCE TO THE
KING'S ENEMIES.  HE SAYS, "THE OFFENCE OF INCITING FOREIGNERS TO INVADE
THE KINGDOM IS A TREASON OF SIGNAL ENORMITY.  IN THE LOWEST ESTIMATION
OF THINGS AND IN ALL POSSIBLE EVENTS, IT IS AN ATTEMPT, ON THE PART OF
THE OFFENDER, TO RENDER HIS COUNTRY THE SEAT OF BLOOD AND DESOLATION." 
ID., PP. 196-197.  THIS WAS SAID IN CONNECTION WITH HIS DISCUSSION OF
LORD PRESTON'S CASE, 12 HOW.  ST. TR. 645, A LANDMARK IN THE LAW OF
TREASON.  LORD PRESTON WAS INDICTED BOTH FOR COMPASSING THE DEATH OF
THE KING AND FOR ADHERENCE TO HIS ENEMIES.  ENGLAND WAS AT WAR WITH
FRANCE.  THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED AS AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON THAT ON
DECEMBER 30, 1690, LORD PRESTON AND OTHERS HIRED A SMALL BOAT IN THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX TO TAKE THEM TO ANOTHER VESSEL WHICH WOULD CARRY
THEM TO FRANCE.  THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE EN
ROUTE TO FRANCE TO COMMUNICATE MILITARY INFORMATION TO THE ENEMY. 
AFTER THE VESSEL SET SAIL FOR FRANCE AND WHEN THE VESSEL WAS IN THE
COUNTY OF KENT, THE DEFENDANTS WERE ARRESTED.  PAPERS CONTAINING
INFORMATION OF VALUE TO THE ENEMY WERE FOUND ON THE PERSON OF LORD
PRESTON'S SERVANT.  LORD PRESTON CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE INDICTMENT
LAID THE TREASON IN MIDDLESEX THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT A LEGALLY
SUFFICIENT OVERT ACT OF TREASON HAD BEEN COMMITTED IN THAT COUNTY.  THE
COURT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE ACT OF BOARDING THE BOAT IN MIDDLESEX WAS
A SUFFICIENT OVERT ACT OF TREASON.  LORD CHIEF JUSTICE HOLT RULED, "NOW
THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER YOUR LORDSHIP HAD A DESIGN TO GO TO FRANCE
WITH THESE PAPERS?  IF YOU HAD, AND IF YOUR LORDSHIP DID GO ON SHIP
BOARD IN ORDER TO IT, YOUR TAKING BOAT IN MIDDLESEX IN ORDER TO GO ON
SHIP-BOARD, IS A FACT DONE IN THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX."  12 HOW.  ST.
TR., P. 728. 

FOSTER IN HIS ANALYSIS OF THAT CASE MAKES CLEAR THAT TAKING THE BOAT
WAS AN OVERT ACT SUFFICIENT NOT ONLY TO THE CRIME OF COMPASSING THE
DEATH OF THE KING BUT ALSO ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMIES OF THE KING. 
FOSTER, OP. CIT., PP. 197-198.  YET ON ITS FACE AND STANDING ALONE THE
OVERT ACT OF TAKING THE BOAT WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT AND HARMLESS. 
ONLY WHEN IT WAS RELATED TO OTHER ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS DID IT ACQUIRE
A TREASONABLE SIGNIFICANCE.  FOSTER GIVES OTHER INDICATIONS THAT IN
CASE OF ADHERENCE TO THE ENEMY THE FUNCTION OF THE OVERT ACT IS NO
DIFFERENT THAN WHEN THE OFFENSE OF COMPASSING IS CHARGED.  THE CRIME OF
ADHERENCE IS MADE OUT WHERE THE DEFENDANT ATTEMPTS TO SEND MONEY,
PROVISIONS, OR INFORMATION TO THE ENEMY "THOUGH THE MONEY OR
INTELLIGENCE SHOULD HAPPEN TO BE INTERCEPTED.  FOR THE PARTY IN SENDING
DID ALL HE COULD:  THE TREASON WAS COMPLETE ON HIS PART, THOUGH IT HAD
NOT THE EFFECT HE INTENDED."  ID., P. 217. 

BLACKSTONE EMPHASIZES THE DESIRABILITY OF A RESTRICTIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE OFFENSE OF TREASON, CONDEMNING "CONSTRUCTIVE"
TREASON AND "NEWFANGLED TREASONS" WHICH IMPERIL THE LIBERTY OF THE
PEOPLE.  4 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES (6TH ED. DUBLIN 1775), PP. 75, 83,
85, 86.  BLACKSTONE RECOGNIZES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EVIDENCE OF
INTENT AND THE OVERT ACT:  "BUT, AS THIS COMPASSING OR IMAGINATION IS
AN ACT OF THE MIND, IT CANNOT POSSIBLY FALL UNDER ANY JUDICIAL
COGNIZANCE, UNLESS IT BE DEMONSTRATED BY SOME OPEN, OR OVERT, ACT.  AND
YET THE TYRANT DIONYSIUS IS RECORDED TO HAVE EXECUTED A SUBJECT, BARELY
FOR DREAMING THAT HE HAD KILLED HIM; WHICH WAS HELD FOR A SUFFICIENT
PROOF, THAT HE HAD THOUGHT THEREOF IN HIS WAKING HOURS.  BUT SUCH IS
NOT THE TEMPER OF THE ENGLISH LAW; AND THEREFORE, IN THIS, AND THE
THREE NEXT SPECIES OF TREASON, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE APPEAR AN
OPEN OR OVERT ACT OF A MORE FULL AND EXPLICIT NATURE, TO CONVICT THE
TRAITOR UPON."  ID., P. 79.  WHEN IT COMES TO THE OFFENSE OF ADHERENCE
TO THE ENEMY HE GIVES EXAMPLES OF ADEQUATE OVERT ACTS, SOME OF WHICH
MAY BE INNOCENT STANDING BY THEMSELVES.  "THIS MUST LIKEWISE BE PROVED
BY SOME OVERT ACT, AS BY GIVING THEM INTELLIGENCE, BY SENDING THEM
PROVISIONS, BY SELLING THEM ARMS, BY TREACHEROUSLY SURRENDERING A
FORTRESS, OR THE LIKE."  ID., PP. 82-83.  HIS ANALYSIS SUPPORTS THE
VIEWS OF FOSTER THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE OVERT ACT IS TO SHOW THAT THE
TRAITOROUS PROJECT HAS MOVED OUT OF THE REALM OF THOUGHT INTO THE REALM
OF ACTION. 

THE ENGLISH CASES PRIOR TO 1790 SUPPORT THIS THESIS.  WE HAVE
MENTIONED LORD PRESTON'S CASE.  IN THE CASE OF CAPTAIN VAUGHAN, 13
HOW.  ST. TR. 485, THE PRINCIPAL CHARGE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WAS
ADHERING TO THE ENEMY, THOUGH LEVYING WAR WAS ALSO ALLEGED.  THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE OVERT ACT OF ADHERENCE WAS THAT WHEN FRANCE AND
ENGLAND WERE AT WAR THE DEFENDANT CRUISED IN A SMALL SHIP OF WAR, IN
ENGLISH WATERS, IN THE SERVICE OF FRANCE WITH INTENT TO TAKE THE KING'S
SHIPS.  IT WAS OBJECTED THAT THE OVERT ACT ALLEGED WAS INSUFFICIENT
"FOR IT IS SAID ONLY HE WENT A-CRUISING; WHEREAS THEY OUGHT TO HAVE
ALLEDGED THAT HE DID COMMIT SOME ACTS OF HOSTILITY, AND ATTEMPTED TO
TAKE SOME OF THE KING'S SHIPS; FOR CRUISING ALONE CANNOT BE AN OVERT
ACT; FOR HE MIGHT BE CRUISING TO SECURE THE FRENCH MERCHANT-SHIPS FROM
BEING TAKEN, OR FOR MANY OTHER PURPOSES, WHICH WILL NOT BE AN OVERT-ACT
OF TREASON."  P. 531.  BUT LORD CHIEF JUSTICE HOLT RULED:  "I BEG YOUR
PARDON.  SUPPOSE THE FRENCH KING, WITH FORCES, SHOULD COME TO DUNKIRK
WITH A DESIGN TO INVADE ENGLAND; IF ANY ONE SHOULD SEND HIM VICTUALS,
OR GIVE HIM INTELLIGENCE, OR BY ANY OTHER WAY CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR
ASSISTANCE, IT WOULD BE HIGH-TREASON IN ADHERING TO THE KING'S
ENEMIES."  P. 531.  AND LORD CHIEF JUSTICE TREBY ADDED:  "THE
INDICTMENT IS LAID FOR ADHERING TO, AND COMFORTING AND AIDING THE
KING'S ENEMIES.  YOU WOULD TAKE THAT TO BE CAPABLE TO BE CONSTRUED
ADHERING TO THE KING'S ENEMIES IN OTHER RESPECTS; BUT I TAKE IT TO BE A
REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICTMENT, TO BE ADHERING TO THE KING'S
ENEMIES IN THEIR ENMITY.  WHAT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY SUBJECT?  IT IS TO
FIGHT WITH, SUBDUE, AND WEAKEN THE KING'S ENEMIES:  AND CONTRARY TO
THIS, IF HE CONFEDERATE WITH, AND STRENGTHEN THE KING'S ENEMIES, HE
EXPRESSLY CONTRADICTS THIS DUTY OF HIS ALLEGIANCE, AND IS GUILTY OF
THIS TREASON OF ADHERING TO THEM.  BUT THEN YOU SAY HERE IS NO AIDING
UNLESS THERE WERE SOMETHING DONE, SOME ACT OF HOSTILITY.  NOW HERE IS
GOING ABOARD WITH AN INTENTION TO DO SUCH ACTS; AND IS NOT THAT
COMFORTING AND AIDING?  CERTAINLY IT IS.  IS NOT THE FRENCH KING
COMFORTED AND AIDED, WHEN HE HAS GOT SO MANY ENGLISH SUBJECTS TO GO A
CRUISING UPON OUR SHIPS?"  PP. 532-533.  AND HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT
ACTS WHICH "GIVE THE ENEMY HEART AND COURAGE TO GO ON WITH THE WAR" ARE
ACTS OF ADHERENCE EVEN THOUGH THE WHOLE PROJECT WAS "AN UNPROSPEROUS
ATTEMPT."  P. 533.  HE EMPHASIZED THAT THE LACK OF SUCCESS WAS
IMMATERIAL, FOR "IF THEY HAVE SUCCESS ENOUGH, IT WILL BE TOO LATE TO
QUESTION THEM."  P. 533.  THIS IS PLAIN RECOGNITION NOT ONLY THAT THE
AID AND COMFORT MAY BE GIVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT IS THWARTED,  FN1  BUT
ALSO THAT AID AND COMFORT IS GIVEN WHEN THE ENEMY IS ENCOURAGED AND HIS
MORALE BOLSTERED AS WELL AS WHEN MATERIALS ARE FURNISHED.    THE CASE
OF FRANCIS DE LA MOTTE, 21 HOW.  ST. TR. 687, IS ALSO SOMEWHAT
ILLUMINATING.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED COMPASSING AND ADHERING.  THE
OVERT ACTS INCLUDED WRITING AND CAUSING TO BE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS
CONVEYING INTELLIGENCE TO THE ENEMY, PROCURING A MESSENGER TO CARRY THE
DOCUMENTS, AND HIRING A PERSON TO GATHER AND TO SEND THE INTELLIGENCE. 
MR. JUSTICE BULLER IN HIS CHARGE TO THE JURY SAID:  "THE SENDING
INTELLIGENCE, OR COLLECTING INTELLIGENCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENDING IT
TO AN ENEMY, TO ENABLE THEM TO ANNOY US OR TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, THOUGH
IT BE NEVER DELIVERED TO THE ENEMY; OR THE HIRING A PERSON FOR THAT
PURPOSE, IS AN OVERT ACT OF BOTH THE SPECIES OF TREASON WHICH I AM
STATING TO YOU FROM THIS INDICTMENT."  P. 808. 

THESE MATERIALS INDICATE THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE OVERT ACT WAS TO
MAKE CERTAIN THAT BEFORE A CONVICTION FOR THE HIGH CRIME OF TREASON MAY
BE HAD MORE THAN A TREASONABLE DESIGN MUST BE ESTABLISHED; IT MUST BE
SHOWN THAT ACTION PURSUANT TO THAT DESIGN HAS BEEN TAKEN.  THE TREASON
OF ADHERENCE WAS DEFINED ESSENTIALLY IN TERMS OF CONDUCT FOR IT
INVOLVED GIVING AID AND COMFORT.  YET THE ATTEMPT ALONE WAS SUFFICIENT;
THE AID AND COMFORT NEED NOT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ENEMY.  CONDUCT
AMOUNTING TO AID AND COMFORT MIGHT BE INNOCENT BY ITSELF - SUCH AS
COLLECTING INFORMATION OR STEPPING INTO A BOAT.  IT WAS SUFFICIENT IF
IN ITS SETTING IT REFLECTED A TREASONABLE PROJECT.  IT NEED NOT ENTAIL
MATERIAL AID; COMFORT OR ENCOURAGEMENT WAS SUFFICIENT.  THE ONLY
REQUIREMENT WAS THAT IT DEFINITELY TRANSLATE TREASONABLE THOUGHT INTO
ACTION WHICH PLAINLY TENDED TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY. 

THESE MATERIALS LIKEWISE SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
THAT THE OVERT ACT NEED NOT MANIFEST TREASON ON ITS FACE. 

THE HISTORY OF TREASON IN THIS COUNTRY DOWN TO THE CONSTITUTION HAS
BEEN RECENTLY DEVELOPED IN HURST, TREASON IN THE UNITED STATES, (1944)
58 HARV. L. REV. 226.  WE DO NOT STOP TO EXPLORE THAT FIELD.  BUT
PROFESSOR HURST'S RESEARCHES MAKE PLAIN THAT PRIOR TO THE REVOLUTION
THE INFLUENCE OF 25 EDW.  III WAS STRONG IN THE COLONIES AND THAT, IF
ANYTHING, THE SCOPE OF THE OFFENSE WAS SOMEWHAT BROADENED.  THE
REVOLUTION CHANGED MATTERS.  THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS RECOMMENDED MORE
RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION TO THE COLONIES WHICH LIMITED TREASON TO
LEVYING WAR AND ADHERING TO THE ENEMY, GIVING HIM AID AND COMFORT. 
ID., P. 247.  NO FORM OF TREASON BY COMPASSING WAS RETAINED.  ID., P.
252.  DISTRUST OF CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON WAS BEGINNING TO BE VOICED (ID.,
PP. 253, 254) THOUGH IN SOME COLONIES TREASON WAS SO BROADLY DEFINED AS
TO INCLUDE MERE UTTERANCES OF OPINIONS.  ID., PP. 266 ET SEQ. 

THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787 HAVE BEEN
RELATED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  AND SEE HURST, TREASON IN THE
UNITED STATES, 58 HARV. L. REV. 395.  AS THE COURT POINTS OUT THE
FRAMERS WERE ANXIOUS TO GUARD AGAINST CONVICTIONS OF THE INNOCENT BY
PERJURY AND TO REMOVE TREASON FROM THE REALM OF DOMESTIC, POLITICAL
DISPUTES.  FRANKLIN EXPRESSED CONCERN ON THE FIRST IN HIS STATEMENT
THAT "PROSECUTIONS FOR TREASON WERE GENERALLY VIRULENT; AND PERJURY TOO
EASILY MADE USE OF AGAINST INNOCENCE."  2 FARRAND, RECORDS OF THE
FEDERAL CONVENTION, P. 348.  MADISON AND JEFFERSON  FN2  BOTH EXPRESSED
DISTRUST OF TREASON FOR ITS LONG HISTORY OF ABUSE IN THE POLITICAL
FIELD.  MADISON SAID IN LANGUAGE SOMEWHAT REMINISCENT OF BLACKSTONE:
"AS TREASON MAY BE COMMITTED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THE AUTHORITY
OF THE UNITED STATES OUGHT TO BE ENABLED TO PUNISH IT.  BUT AS
NEWFANGLED AND ARTIFICIAL TREASONS HAVE BEEN THE GREAT ENGINES BY WHICH
VIOLENT FACTIONS, THE NATURAL OFFSPRING OF FREE GOVERNMENT, HAVE
USUALLY WREAKED THEIR ALTERNATE MALIGNITY ON EACH OTHER, THE CONVENTION
HAVE, WITH GREAT JUDGMENT, OPPOSED A BARRIER TO THIS PECULIAR DANGER,
BY INSERTING A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF THE CRIME, FIXING THE PROOF
NECESSARY FOR CONVICTION OF IT, AND RESTRAINING THE CONGRESS, EVEN IN
PUNISHING IT, FROM EXTENDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF GUILT BEYOND THE
PERSON OF ITS AUTHOR."  THE FEDERALIST, NO. XLIII. 

THE REQUIREMENT OF TWO WITNESSES WAS NOT NOVEL.  ENGLAND HAD LONG HAD
THAT RULE.  9 HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW (2D ED. 1938) P.
207.  THE NOVELTY WAS IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE TWO WITNESSES TO
THE "SAME" OVERT ACT.  MOREOVER, THERE WAS NO NOVELTY IN THE OFFENSES
WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF TREASON.  ADHERING TO THE
ENEMY, GIVING HIM AID AND COMFORT, LIKE LEVYING WAR, HAD LONG BEEN
EMBRACED IN THE ENGLISH CRIME OF TREASON, AS WE HAVE SEEN.  BUT THERE
WAS NOVELTY IN THE NARROW DEFINITION OF TREASON WHICH WAS ADOPTED - A
RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION BORN OF THE FEAR OF CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON AND
DISTRUST OF TREASON AS A POLITICAL INSTRUMENT. 

THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER THAT THE OFFENSE OF ADHERING
TO THE ENEMY GIVING HIM AID AND COMFORT WAS DESIGNED TO ENCOMPASS A
NARROWER FIELD THAN THAT INDICATED BY ITS ACCEPTED AND SETTLED
MEANING.  NOR IS THERE THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION THAT THE KIND OR
CHARACTER OF OVERT ACTS REQUIRED WERE ANY DIFFERENT THAN THOSE WHICH
HAD LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED OR ACCEPTED AS ADEQUATE.  THE OVERT ACT WAS OF
COURSE "INTENDED AS A DISTINCT ELEMENT OF PROOF OF THE OFFENSE IN
ADDITION TO INTENT."  HURST, OP. CIT., PP. 415-416.  BUT ANY SUGGESTED
DIFFERENCE FROM THE BODY OF LAW WHICH PRECEDED VANISHES WHEN TWO
WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT ARE PRODUCED.  AS RESPECTS THE POINT
VITAL FOR OUR DECISION IT IS THEREFORE QUITE INACCURATE FOR THE COURT
TO CONCLUDE THAT OUR TREASON CLAUSE "TAUGHT A CONCEPT THAT DIFFERED
FROM ALL HISTORICAL MODELS."  THAT WOULD BE TRUE ONLY IF THERE WAS A
PURPOSE TO DEPART FROM THE CONCEPT OF ADHERING TO THE ENEMY OR THE
CONCEPT OF OVERT ACTS WHICH HAD BECOME INGRAINED IN THE ANTECEDENT
ENGLISH LAW.  WE FIND NO SUCH PURPOSE. 

FN1  ACCORD:  WILLIAM GREGG, 14 HOW.  ST. TR. 1371; TRIAL OF DR.
HENSEY, 19 HOW.  ST. TR. 1341.  BOTH OF THESE INVOLVED INDICTMENTS FOR
COMPASSING AND ADHERING, THE OVERT ACTS BEING LETTERS OF INTELLIGENCE
INTERCEPTED BEFORE THEY REACHED THE ENEMY. 

FN2  IN A LETTER OF APRIL 24, 1792, JEFFERSON, THEN SECRETARY OF
STATE, WROTE:  "TREASON,  ... WHEN REAL, MERITS THE HIGHEST
PUNISHMENT.  BUT MOST CODES EXTEND THEIR DEFINITIONS OF TREASON TO ACTS
NOT REALLY AGAINST ONE'S COUNTRY.  THEY DO NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ACTS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND ACTS AGAINST THE OPPRESSIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT; THE LATTER ARE VIRTUES; YET THEY HAVE FURNISHED MORE
VICTIMS TO THE EXECUTIONER THAN THE FORMER; BECAUSE REAL TREASONS ARE
RARE; OPPRESSIONS FREQUENT.  THE UNSUCCESSFUL STRUGGLERS AGAINST
TYRANNY, HAVE BEEN THE CHIEF MARTYRS OF TREASON LAWS IN ALL
COUNTRIES."  SEE 8 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (LIBRARY ED. WASH.
1903) P. 332. 
..END :







HERB V. PITCAIRN, 325 U.S. 77 


DECIDED APRIL 23, 1945.  - 384 ILL. 237, 281-51 N.E.2D 277, 282,
REVERSED. 


FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WHICH PROVIDES
THAT "NO ACTION SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNDER THIS CHAPTER UNLESS COMMENCED
WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DAY THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED," AN ACTION
IS "COMMENCED" WHEN INSTITUTED BY SERVICE OF PROCESS ISSUED OUT OF A
STATE COURT WHICH IS ITSELF UNABLE TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT BUT WHICH BY
THE STATE LAW OR PRACTICE IS DIRECTED OR PERMITTED TO TRANSFER THE
PROCEEDING, BY CHANGE OF VENUE OR OTHERWISE, TO A COURT WHICH DOES HAVE
JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CAUSE.  P. 78. 

HERB V. PITCAIRN ET AL., RECEIVERS FOR WABASH RAILWAY CO. 

NO. 24.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 25, BELCHER V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD
CO., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 759, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS AFFIRMING DISMISSALS OF
TWO SUITS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  AN EARLIER
OPINION OF THIS COURT IN THIS CASE IS REPORTED IN 324 U.S. 117. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES WERE HERETOFORE CONSIDERED AND DISPOSITION WAS DEFERRED
TO ENABLE PETITIONERS TO APPLY FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE GROUNDS UPON
WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS INTENDED TO REST ITS JUDGMENTS. 
HERB V. PITCAIRN, 324 U.S. 117. 

THAT COURT, RESPONDING TO PETITIONERS' REQUEST, HAS MADE CLEAR THAT
ITS JUDGMENT RESULTED SOLELY FROM ITS INTERPRETATION OF A FEDERAL
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WHICH PROVIDED:  "NO ACTION SHALL BE
MAINTAINED UNDER THIS CHAPTER UNLESS COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM
THE DAY THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED."  35 STAT. 66, 45 U.S.C. 56;
AMENDED TO THREE YEARS, AUGUST 11, 1939, 53 STAT. 1404.  THAT COURT
SAID (MARCH 21, 1945) THAT IT "DID NOT PASS UPON ANY OF THE QUESTIONS
CERTIFIED EXCEPT TO APPLY THE LIMITATION OF TWO YEARS FIXED IN THE LAST
MENTIONED STATUTE AFTER DECIDING WHETHER SAID CAUSE HAD BEEN COMMENCED
WHEN IT WAS FILED IN THE CITY COURT OF GRANITE CITY, ILLINOIS."  AND IT
ADDED: "WE OBSERVED THAT SECTION 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT REQUIRED THE PLAINTIFF TO COMMENCE AN ACTION WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM
THE DATE OF THE INJURY; THAT THE CITY COURT OF GRANITE CITY HAD NO
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION, AND
THAT, UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, COMMENCING AN ACTION MEANS STARTING IT IN A
COURT THAT HAS THE POWER TO DECIDE THE MATTER INVOLVED, TO ISSUE
PROCESS, TO BRING THE PARTIES TO THE PARTICULAR CAUSE BEFORE IT AND TO
RENDER AND ENFORCE A JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS OF SAID CAUSE." 

WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE TO AN INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE BY
WHICH A CASE IS NOT "COMMENCED" FOR ITS PURPOSES UNLESS INSTITUTED IN A
COURT WITH POWER TO PROCEED TO FINAL JUDGMENT.  AN ACTION IS
"COMMENCED" FOR THESE PURPOSES AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW WHEN
INSTITUTED BY SERVICE OF PROCESS ISSUED OUT OF A STATE COURT, EVEN IF
ONE WHICH ITSELF IS UNABLE TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT, IF THE STATE LAW OR
PRACTICE DIRECTS OR PERMITS THE TRANSFER THROUGH CHANGE OF VENUE OR
OTHERWISE TO A COURT WHICH DOES HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR, TRY, AND
OTHERWISE DETERMINE THAT CAUSE.  WHETHER THE ACTION WOULD BE BARRED IF
STATE LAW MADE NEW OR SUPPLEMENTAL PROCESS NECESSARY IS A QUESTION NOT
INVOLVED HERE AND NOT DECIDED.  CLEARLY, HOWEVER, WHEN PROCESS HAS BEEN
ADEQUATE TO BRING IN THE PARTIES AND TO START THE CASE ON A COURSE OF
JUDICIAL HANDLING WHICH MAY LEAD TO FINAL JUDGMENT WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF
NEW INITIAL PROCESS, IT IS ENOUGH TO COMMENCE THE ACTION WITHIN THE
FEDERAL STATUTE.  AS THESE CASES WERE DISMISSED SOLELY BECAUSE OF A
CONTRARY VIEW, THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES REMANDED TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH OUR OPINIONS HEREIN. 
..END :



HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652 


NO. 38.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 8, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1945.  - 142
OHIO ST. 235, 51 N.E.2D 723, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE, UPON REVIEW HERE OF STATE COURT DECISIONS, THE EXISTENCE OF
AN ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT OR IMMUNITY DEPENDS UPON THE APPRAISAL OF
UNDISPUTED FACTS OF RECORD, OR WHERE REFERENCE TO THE FACTS IS
NECESSARY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE PRECISE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL
RIGHT OR IMMUNITY, AS APPLIED, THIS COURT IS FREE TO REEXAMINE THE
FACTS AS WELL AS THE LAW IN ORDER TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF WHETHER THE
ASSERTED RIGHT OR IMMUNITY IS TO BE SUSTAINED.  P. 659. 

2.  SINCE IT APPEARS ON CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S COURSE OF
BUSINESS AND OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE IMPORTATION THAT
PETITIONER WAS THE INDUCING AND EFFICIENT CAUSE OF BRINGING THE FIBERS
INTO THE COUNTRY, WHICH IS IMPORTATION, PETITIONER, NOT THE FOREIGN
SELLERS OR THE AGENTS, WAS THE IMPORTER OF FIBERS BROUGHT FROM THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND OTHER PLACES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION OF THE IMPORTED FIBERS
SURVIVED THEIR DELIVERY TO PETITIONER.  PP. 659, 664. 

3.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER WAS THE
IMPORTER IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER TITLE TO
THE MERCHANDISE VESTED IN THE PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF SHIPMENT OR
ONLY AFTER ITS ARRIVAL IN THIS COUNTRY.  P. 662. 

4. WHEN MERCHANDISE IS BROUGHT HERE FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY, THE EXTENT
OF ITS IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION TURNS ON THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF
THE TRANSACTION, CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE,
AND NOT ON THE FORMALITIES WITH WHICH THE IMPORTATION IS CONDUCTED OR
ON THE TECHNICAL PROCEDURES BY WHICH IT IS EFFECTED.  P. 663. 

5.  THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION OF STATE TAXES ON
IMPORTS IS TO PROTECT THE EXCLUSIVE POWER OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO
TAX IMPORTS AND TO PREVENT WHAT IN MATTER OF SUBSTANCE WOULD AMOUNT TO
THE IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL IMPORT DUTIES BY STATES IN WHICH THE
PROPERTY MIGHT BE FOUND OR STORED BEFORE ITS SALE OR USE.  P. 664. 

6.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE IMPORTS FROM STATE TAXATION
WAS NOT LOST BY THEIR STORAGE (IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES) IN WAREHOUSES
AT PETITIONER'S FACTORY, PENDING THEIR USE IN PETITIONER'S
MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS FOR WHICH THEY WERE IMPORTED.  PP. 664, 668. 

7.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, IT IS IMMATERIAL
WHETHER THE IMPORTED MERCHANDISE IS STORED (IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES)
IN THE IMPORTER'S WAREHOUSE AT THE PORT OF ENTRY OR IN AN INTERIOR
STATE.  P. 664. 

8.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO REASON TO CONSIDER
WHETHER, FOR PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, THE MERE PRESENCE
OF SOME FIBERS IN THE FACTORY WAS SO ESSENTIAL TO CURRENT MANUFACTURING
REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY COULD BE SAID TO HAVE ENTERED THE PROCESS OF
MANUFACTURE, AND HENCE WERE ALREADY PUT TO THE USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE
IMPORTED.  P. 667. 

9.  SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS AS THERE MAY BE AGAINST DOMESTIC AND IN
FAVOR OF FOREIGN PRODUCERS OF GOODS IN THIS SITUATION ARE IMPLICIT IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND IN ITS PURPOSE TO PROTECT IMPORTS FROM
STATE TAXATION.  P. 667. 

10.  THE DIFFICULTY OF ASCERTAINING IN PARTICULAR CASES WHEN AN
ORIGINAL PACKAGE IS BROKEN ARISES OUT OF THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE RULE
ITSELF.  P. 668. 

11.  RECONCILIATION OF THE COMPETING DEMANDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY OF IMPORTS AND OF THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX IS AN EXTREMELY
PRACTICAL MATTER.  P. 668. 

12.  IN VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO CONSENT
TO STATE TAXATION OF IMPORTS AND HENCE TO LAY DOWN ITS OWN TEST FOR
DETERMINING WHEN THE IMMUNITY ENDS, THERE IS NO CONVINCING PRACTICAL
REASON FOR ABANDONING THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE RULE, OR, IF IT IS TO BE
RETAINED IN THE CASE OF IMPORTS FOR SALE, FOR REJECTING IT IN THE CASE
OF IMPORTS FOR MANUFACTURE.  P. 668. 

13.  ARTICLES BROUGHT FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS INTO THE UNITED
STATES ARE IMPORTS SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO
IMPORTS, - BOTH BECAUSE THEY ARE BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES AND
BECAUSE THE PLACE WHENCE THEY ARE BROUGHT IS NOT A PART OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT
TO IMPORTS ARE APPLICABLE.  PP. 668, 679. 

HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. V. EVATT, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 762, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING AN
ASSESSMENT OF STATE TAXES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, A TAX OFFICIAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO, HAS ASSESSED FOR
STATE AD VALOREM TAXES CERTAIN BALES OF HEMP AND OTHER FIBERS BELONGING
TO PETITIONER.  THE FIBERS HAD BEEN BROUGHT FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
OR FROM OTHER PLACES OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.  WHEN ASSESSED FOR THE
TAX, THEY WERE STORED IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES IN WHICH THEY HAD BEEN
IMPORTED, IN PETITIONER'S WAREHOUSE AT ITS FACTORY AT XENIA, OHIO,
PRELIMINARY TO THEIR USE BY PETITIONER IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CORDAGE
AND SIMILAR PRODUCTS. 

THE STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE THREE
YEARS IN QUESTION, 1938, 1939, AND 1940.  PETITIONER THEN BROUGHT THE
PRESENT PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO TO REVIEW THE BOARD'S
DETERMINATION.  THAT COURT REJECTED PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE
FIBERS ARE IMPORTS, IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION UNDER ARTICLE I, SEC.
10, CL. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROHIBITS STATE TAXATION OF
IMPORTS OR EXPORTS; AND IT SUSTAINED THE TAX.  142 OHIO ST. 235, 51
N.E.2D 723. 

THE STATE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419,
ESTABLISHED THE RULE THAT IMPORTS IN THEIR ORIGINAL PACKAGES MAY NOT BE
TAXED BY A STATE.  BUT IT THOUGHT THAT THE PRESENT CASE FELL WITHIN THE
QUALIFICATION UPON THAT RULE LAID DOWN IN WARING V. THE MAYOR, 8 WALL. 
110.  THE WARING CASE HELD THAT SINCE A PURPOSE OF IMPORTATION IS SALE,
IMPORTS ARE IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION ONLY SO LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE
HANDS OF THE IMPORTER, AND LOSE THEIR IMMUNITY UPON BEING SOLD BY HIM. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HELD THAT PETITIONER ACQUIRED TITLE TO THE
MERCHANDISE HERE TAXED AFTER ITS ARRIVAL IN THIS COUNTRY.  IT CONCLUDED
FROM THIS THAT THE FOREIGN SELLERS OR THEIR AGENTS, AND NOT PETITIONER,
WERE THE IMPORTERS, AND THAT THE MERCHANDISE, AFTER THE SALE TO
PETITIONER, HAD CEASED TO BE AN IMPORT CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM
STATE TAXATION. 

IN ANY CASE, THE OHIO COURT THOUGHT THAT EVEN IF PETITIONER WERE THE
IMPORTER AND THE MERCHANDISE WERE IMMUNE FROM TAXATION ON ITS RECEIPT
BY PETITIONER, IT NEVERTHELESS CEASED TO BE AN IMPORT, AND LOST ITS
IMMUNITY AS SUCH, UPON ITS STORAGE AT PETITIONER'S WAREHOUSE, AWAITING
ITS USE IN MANUFACTURING.  THE COURT THOUGHT THAT BROWN V. MARYLAND,
SUPRA, LAID DOWN A RULE APPLICABLE ONLY TO IMPORTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SALE, AND THAT IMPORTS FOR USE BECAME, UPON STORAGE, EVEN IF STILL IN
THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE, SO INTERMINGLED WITH THE COMMON MASS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE STATE AS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE STATE POWER OF TAXATION.  FN1
THE COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER THE FIBERS BROUGHT
FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, WHICH ARE NOT A FOREIGN COUNTRY, COULD BE
IMPORTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, SINCE THEY
WOULD BE TAXABLE IN ANY EVENT UPON THE TWO GROUNDS ALREADY STATED. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 762, BECAUSE OF THE NOVELTY AND
IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED.  THE QUESTIONS FOR
DECISION ARE (1) WHETHER, WITH RESPECT TO THE FIBERS BROUGHT FROM
FOREIGN COUNTRIES, PETITIONER WAS THEIR IMPORTER; IF SO, (2) WHETHER,
AS STORED IN PETITIONER'S WAREHOUSE, THEY CONTINUED TO BE IMPORTS AT
THE TIME OF THE TAX ASSESSMENT; AND (3) WHETHER THE FIBERS BROUGHT FROM
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, DESPITE THE PLACE OF THEIR ORIGIN, ARE LIKEWISE
IMPORTS RENDERED IMMUNE FROM TAXATION BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 

THE CONSTITUTION CONFERS ON CONGRESS THE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT
IMPORT DUTIES, ART. I, SEC. 8, AND PROVIDES THAT "NO STATE SHALL,
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON
IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR
EXECUTING IT'S INSPECTION LAWS ..."  ART. I, SEC. 10, CL. 2.  THESE
PROVISIONS WERE INTENDED TO CONFER ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT THE
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO TAX IMPORTATIONS OF GOODS INTO THE UNITED STATES. 
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION NECESSARILY EXTENDS TO STATE
TAXATION OF THINGS IMPORTED, AFTER THEIR ARRIVAL HERE AND SO LONG AS
THEY REMAIN IMPORTS, SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ITSELF AND ITS EXPOSITION BY CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA.  WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANYONE TO
CHALLENGE THAT RULE IN THIS CASE. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IF THE STATES WERE LEFT FREE TO TAX THINGS
IMPORTED AFTER THEY ARE INTRODUCED INTO THE COUNTRY AND BEFORE THEY ARE
DEVOTED TO THE USE FOR WHICH THEY ARE IMPORTED, THE PURPOSE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION WOULD BE DEFEATED.  THE FEARS OF THE
FRAMERS, THAT IMPORTATION COULD BE SUBJECTED TO THE BURDEN OF UNEQUAL
LOCAL TAXATION BY THE SEABOARD, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INTERIOR STATES,
WOULD BE REALIZED, AS EFFECTIVELY AS THOUGH THE STATES HAD BEEN
AUTHORIZED TO LAY IMPORT DUTIES.  FN2  IT IS EVIDENT, TOO, THAT IF THE
TAX IMMUNITY OF IMPORTS, COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IS TO BE
RECONCILED WITH THE RIGHT OF THE STATES TO TAX GOODS AFTER THEIR
IMPORTATION HAS BECOME COMPLETE AND THEY HAVE BECOME A PART OF THE
COMMON MASS OF PROPERTY WITHIN A STATE, "THERE MUST BE A POINT OF TIME
WHEN THE PROHIBITION CEASES, AND THE POWER OF THE STATE TO TAX
COMMENCES."  BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, 441. 

IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, THE STATE SOUGHT TO IMPOSE A LICENSE TAX
ON THE SALE BY THE IMPORTER OF GOODS STORED IN HIS WAREHOUSE IN THE
ORIGINAL PACKAGES IN WHICH THEY WERE IMPORTED.  IN HOLDING THE LEVY TO
BE A PROHIBITED TAX ON IMPORTS, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL SAID (PP. 441
442): 

"IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PRESENT TO SAY, GENERALLY, THAT WHEN THE
IMPORTER HAS SO ACTED UPON THE THING IMPORTED, THAT IT HAS BECOME
INCORPORATED AND MIXED UP WITH THE MASS OF PROPERTY IN THE COUNTRY, IT
HAS, PERHAPS, LOST ITS DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER AS AN IMPORT, AND HAS
BECOME SUBJECT TO THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE; BUT WHILE REMAINING
THE PROPERTY OF THE IMPORTER, IN HIS WAREHOUSE, IN THE ORIGINAL FORM OR
PACKAGE IN WHICH IT WAS IMPORTED, A TAX UPON IT IS TOO PLAINLY A DUTY
ON IMPORTS, TO ESCAPE THE PROHIBITION IN THE CONSTITUTION." 

ALTHOUGH ONE JUSTICE DISSENTED IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, FROM THAT
DAY TO THIS, THIS COURT HAS HELD, WITHOUT A DISSENTING VOICE, THAT
THINGS IMPORTED ARE IMPORTS ENTITLED TO THE IMMUNITY CONFERRED BY THE
CONSTITUTION; THAT THAT IMMUNITY SURVIVES THEIR ARRIVAL IN THIS COUNTRY
AND CONTINUES UNTIL THEY ARE SOLD, REMOVED FROM THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE,
OR PUT TO THE USE FOR WHICH THEY ARE IMPORTED.  WARING V. THE MAYOR,
SUPRA, 122-123; LOW V. AUSTIN, 13 WALL.  29, 32-33; COOK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 97 U.S. 566, 573; MAY V. NEW ORLEANS, 178 U.S. 496, 501,
507-508; BURKE V. WELLS, 208 U.S. 14, 21-22, 24; GULF FISHERIES CO. V.
MACINERNEY, 276 U.S. 124, 126-127; MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP., 309
U.S. 414, 423. 

ALL THE TAXED FIBERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE BROUGHT FROM THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, WHICH WILL PRESENTLY BE SEPARATELY CONSIDERED, WERE
BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY FROM FOREIGN LANDS AND WERE UNDOUBTEDLY
IMPORTS, CLOTHED AS SUCH WITH A TAX IMMUNITY WHICH SURVIVED THEIR
IMPORTATION, UNTIL THE HAPPENING OF SOME EVENT SUFFICIENT TO ALTER
THEIR CHARACTER AS IMPORTS.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
FOUND SUCH EVENTS IN WHAT IT DEEMED TO BE A SALE OF THE MERCHANDISE TO
PETITIONER AFTER IT HAD BEEN LANDED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND IN THE
FURTHER CIRCUMSTANCE THAT BY STORING THE MERCHANDISE IN THE WAREHOUSE
AT PETITIONER'S FACTORY, IT HAD BECOME A PART OF THE COMMON MASS OF
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION AND SO COULD NO LONGER BE REGARDED
AS AN IMPORT. 

RESOLUTION OF EITHER POINT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT IS DECISIVE OF THE
CASE.  HENCE WE MUST FIRST CONSIDER WHETHER PETITIONER, RATHER THAN THE
FOREIGN PRODUCERS OR SHIPPERS ACTING THROUGH THEIR AMERICAN AGENTS, WAS
THE IMPORTER.  IF SO, THE TAX IMMUNITY OF THE IMPORTED MERCHANDISE
SURVIVED ITS RECEIPT BY PETITIONER AND WE MUST DETERMINE THE FURTHER
QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER'S SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT OF THE MERCHANDISE
DEPRIVED IT OF ITS CHARACTER, AND HENCE ITS IMMUNITY, AS AN IMPORT. 

                    I 

PETITIONER'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE MERCHANDISE AT THE TIME OF
IMPORTATION AND AFTERWARD IS OF SIGNIFICANCE ONLY IN DETERMINING
WHETHER, AS THE STATE COURT HAS FOUND, THE RELATIONSHIP WAS SO ALTERED
AFTER IMPORTATION THAT IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
IMPORTATION HAD BEEN FULFILLED.  IF IT HAD, THERE WAS NO LONGER EITHER
OCCASION OR REASON FOR THE FURTHER SURVIVAL OF THE IMMUNITY FROM
TAXATION.  THAT RELATIONSHIP IS TO BE ASCERTAINED BY REFERENCE TO ALL
THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE IMPORTATION, PARTICULARLY AS SHOWN BY
THE LONG ESTABLISHED COURSE OF BUSINESS BY WHICH PETITIONER'S SUPPLY OF
FIBERS HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY FOR USE IN MANUFACTURING ITS
FINISHED PRODUCT. 

THE STATE INTRODUCED NO EVIDENCE, AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN POINT OF
SUBSTANCE AS TO PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE.  THE LATTER CONSISTS OF THE ORAL
TESTIMONY OF PETITIONER'S GENERAL MANAGER, SOME EXAMPLES OF THE
CONTRACTS BY WHICH PETITIONER PROCURED THE MERCHANDISE TO BE BROUGHT TO
THIS COUNTRY, AND TWO STIPULATIONS CONTAINING STATEMENTS, ADMITTED TO
BE TRUE, WHICH WERE MADE BY THE AMERICAN AGENTS OF THE PRODUCERS AND
SHIPPERS OF THE MERCHANDISE. 

BOTH THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND THE STATE COURT, WITHOUT SPECIALLY
FINDING SOME OF THE FACTS WHICH WE REGARD AS OF CONTROLLING
SIGNIFICANCE, CONTENTED THEMSELVES WITH STATING THE FACTS GENERALLY. 
THEY INFERRED FROM THESE FACTS THAT PETITIONER TECHNICALLY WAS BUT A
PURCHASER OF THE MERCHANDISE, AFTER IT HAD BEEN IMPORTED INTO THIS
COUNTRY.  THEY CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT THE IMPORTER, AND THE
FIBERS HAD CEASED TO BE IMPORTS AFTER THE SALE TO PETITIONER. 

IN ALL CASES COMING TO US FROM A STATE COURT, WE PAY GREAT DEFERENCE
TO ITS DETERMINATIONS OF FACT.  BUT WHEN THE EXISTENCE OF AN ASSERTED
FEDERAL RIGHT OR IMMUNITY DEPENDS UPON THE APPRAISAL OF UNDISPUTED
FACTS OF RECORD, OR WHERE REFERENCE TO THE FACTS IS NECESSARY TO THE
DETERMINATION OF THE PRECISE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL RIGHT OR IMMUNITY,
AS APPLIED, WE ARE FREE TO REEXAMINE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE LAW IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE FOR OURSELVES WHETHER THE ASSERTED RIGHT OR IMMUNITY
IS TO BE SUSTAINED.  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN R. CO. V. ALBERS COMMISSION
CO., 223 U.S. 573, 591; TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 325; FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. HARTFORD, 273 U.S. 548, 552, AND CASES CITED; FISKE V.
KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380, 385-386; NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 589
590. 

IN THIS CASE IT APPEARS WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT PETITIONER, IN THE
REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, CONTRACTS FOR ITS MANUFACTURING
REQUIREMENTS OF HEMP, JUTE, SISAL AND OTHER FIBERS, BEFORE THEIR
SHIPMENT TO THIS COUNTRY, AND SOMETIMES EVEN BEFORE THEY ARE PRODUCED
IN THE VARIOUS FOREIGN COUNTRIES OF THEIR ORIGIN.  PETITIONER'S
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE ARE CARRIED ON WITH BROKERS LOCATED IN
NEW YORK CITY, WHO REPRESENT THE FOREIGN PRODUCERS.  AFTER AN AGREEMENT
AS TO PRICE, PETITIONER ENTERS INTO A FIRM CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE
FIBERS.  A STANDARD FORM OF CONTRACT IS EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE OR
TRIPLICATE BY PETITIONER AND THE BROKER WHO SIGNS AS AGENT FOR OR "FOR
ACCOUNT OF" HIS NAMED PRINCIPAL.  THE CONTRACT SPECIFIES THE KIND AND
AMOUNT OF FIBERS PURCHASED, THE TIME OF SHIPMENT, THE AMERICAN PORT TO
WHICH THE SHIPMENT IS TO BE MADE, AND FREQUENTLY THE STEAMSHIP COMPANY,
DESIGNATED BY PETITIONER, UPON WHOSE VESSEL THE MERCHANDISE IS TO BE
SHIPPED.  WHILE THE CONTRACT GAVE THE SELLER THE OPTION TO MAKE
DELIVERIES FROM MERCHANDISE WAREHOUSED IN THE UNITED STATES, NO SUCH
DELIVERIES WERE MADE OF ANY OF THE MERCHANDISE HERE IN QUESTION. 

THE PRICE IS A "LANDED PRICE," WHICH INCLUDES AS ITS COMPONENTS THE
CONTRACT COST OF THE GOODS AT POINT OF ORIGIN, THE NORMAL CHARGES FOR
OCEAN FREIGHT, MARINE AND WAR RISK INSURANCE AND UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
CLEARANCE (INCLUDING CUSTOMS DUTIES IN THE CASE OF HEMP, WHICH ALONE OF
THE PURCHASED MERCHANDISE IS SUBJECT TO IMPORT DUTIES), AND THE EXPENSE
OF ARRANGING FOR TRANSSHIPMENT FROM THE PORT OF ENTRY TO PETITIONER AT
XENIA, OHIO.  ANY VARIATION FROM THE NORMAL RATES FOR THESE COMPONENTS
(OTHER THAN THE CONTRACT COST OF THE GOODS AT POINT OF ORIGIN) IS FOR
ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER.  "EXTRA VALUE" INSURANCE COVERING ANY INCREASE
IN VALUE OF THE MERCHANDISE OVER THE CONTRACT PRICE DURING THE VOYAGE,
IS EFFECTED, IF PETITIONER REQUESTS, AT ITS EXPENSE. 

UPON SHIPMENT THE MERCHANDISE IS CONSIGNED TO THE BROKER IN THIS
COUNTRY OR TO A BANKER, EITHER ON AN ORDER OR A STRAIGHT BILL OF
LADING, IN EITHER CASE WITH DIRECTIONS TO "NOTIFY THE HOOVEN & ALLISON
CO."  WHEN THE BALES OF PURCHASED MERCHANDISE ARE LOADED FOR SHIPMENT
ON BOARD VESSEL AT THE POINT OF ORIGIN, THEY ARE GIVEN DISTINCTIVE
MARKINGS REFERABLE TO PETITIONER'S CONTRACT.  A DECLARATION IS THEN
CABLED TO THE NEW YORK BROKER REFERRING TO THE CONTRACT UPON WHICH THE
SHIPMENT IS MADE, STATING THE NAME OF THE VESSEL, THE APPROXIMATE
NUMBER OF BALES SHIPPED, THEIR IDENTIFICATION MARKS, AND THE
APPROXIMATE DATE OF ARRIVAL IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE BROKER
COMMUNICATES THIS INFORMATION TO PETITIONER AND SOMETIMES FOLLOWS IT
BEFORE ARRIVAL OF THE SHIPMENT AT THE PORT OF ENTRY, WITH A PRO FORMA
INVOICE, WHICH STATES THE APPROXIMATE TONNAGE AND VALUE OF THE
SHIPMENT.  PETITIONER THEN GIVES INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BROKER FOR THE
SHIPMENT FROM THE PORT TO XENIA.    THE BROKER ENTERS THE SHIPMENT AT
THE CUSTOM HOUSE IN ITS OWN NAME AS AN ACCOMMODATION TO THE PETITIONER,
WHICH HAS NO FACILITIES FOR CLEARANCE OF THE GOODS THROUGH THE
CUSTOMS.  THE BROKER THEN SHIPS THE MERCHANDISE UPON A STRAIGHT BILL OF
LADING TO XENIA, WHERE IT IS DELIVERED BY THE CARRIER TO PETITIONER. 
AT THAT TIME PETITIONER PAYS THE FREIGHT, AND TEN TO FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER
THE RECEIPT OF THE FINAL INVOICE, IT PAYS THE PURCHASE PRICE TO THE
BROKER.  IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE SALE IS UPON THE UNSECURED CREDIT OF
PETITIONER AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE IS ANY RETENTION OF A
SECURITY TITLE EITHER BY THE FOREIGN SELLER, THE BROKER, OR ANY
INTERVENING BANKER, TO SECURE PAYMENT BY PETITIONER OF THE PURCHASE
PRICE. 

FROM ALL THIS IT IS CLEAR THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, AFTER THE CONTRACT
OF PURCHASE IS SIGNED, THE FOREIGN PRODUCER IS OBLIGATED TO SELL THE
MERCHANDISE ON CREDIT, TO SHIP IT TO AN AMERICAN PORT AND TO DELIVER IT
TO PETITIONER, WHICH IS OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT AND PAY FOR IT.
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR, AND NECESSARILY RESULTS IN,
IMPORTATION OF THE MERCHANDISE FROM ITS COUNTRY OF ORIGIN TO THE UNITED
STATES.  PETITIONER'S CONTRACTS OF PURCHASE ARE THE INDUCING AND
EFFICIENT CAUSE OF BRINGING THE MERCHANDISE INTO THE COUNTRY, WHICH IS
IMPORTATION.  EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE
COURSE OF BUSINESS CAN LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE PETITIONER NOT ONLY
CAUSES THE IMPORTATION BUT THAT THE PURPOSE AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE
OF IT ARE TO SUPPLY PETITIONER WITH THE RAW MATERIAL FOR ITS
MANUFACTURE OF CORDAGE AT ITS FACTORY IN OHIO. 

FROM THE MOMENT OF SHIPMENT THE TAXED MERCHANDISE WAS IDENTIFIED AND
APPROPRIATED TO THE PURCHASE CONTRACT AND TO THAT ULTIMATE PURPOSE, BY
BOTH THE SELLER AND THE BUYER.  PETITIONER COULD RESELL THE MERCHANDISE
WHILE IT WAS IN TRANSIT.  THE RISK OF LOSS FROM CHANGE IN MARKET VALUE
WAS ON PETITIONER, SAVE AS IT MIGHT INSURE AGAINST SUCH LOSS AT ITS OWN
EXPENSE.  THE RIGHT TO DEMAND, RECEIVE AND USE THE MERCHANDISE, SUBJECT
ONLY TO THE PAYMENT OF THE CONTRACT "LANDED PRICE," WAS IN PETITIONER. 
AND OBVIOUSLY IF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE SELLER'S RIGHT OF STOPPAGE IN
TRANSITU, THE CARRIER'S LIEN OR THE NECESSITY OF PAYMENT OF CUSTOMS
DUTIES ARE TO BE REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH IMPORTATION, THERE WOULD
BE FEW IMPORTATIONS AND FEW IMPORTERS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  FOR
THERE ARE FEW WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO SOME OR ALL OF THESE
CONTINGENCIES. 

HERE IT IS AGREED THAT THE SALE WAS ON CREDIT.  SO FAR AS APPEARS IN
THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THE MERCHANDISE WAS CONSIGNED TO A BANKER, IT WAS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE PRODUCER OR SHIPPER, PENDING RECEIPT
OF THE MERCHANDISE AND PAYMENT FOR IT BY PETITIONER, WHICH APPEARS
ALWAYS TO HAVE PURCHASED ON CREDIT AND TO HAVE RECEIVED THE MERCHANDISE
BEFORE PAYMENT, AND NEVER TO HAVE GIVEN SECURITY FOR ITS PAYMENT. 
THERE WAS THEREFORE NO OCCASION FOR AN IMPLIED RESERVATION OF A
SECURITY "TITLE" AS AGAINST PETITIONER IN EITHER THE SELLERS OR THEIR
AGENTS, OR THE BANKER IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE GOODS WERE CONSIGNED ON
SHIPMENT TO A BANKER. 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER WAS THE IMPORTER IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE TITLE TO THE
MERCHANDISE IMPORTED VESTED IN HIM WHO CAUSED IT TO BE BROUGHT TO THIS
COUNTRY AT THE TIME OF SHIPMENT OR ONLY AFTER ITS ARRIVAL HERE.  FN3
DECISION IN WARING V. THE MAYOR, SUPRA, UPON WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF
OHIO RELIED, DID NOT TURN ON TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF PASSAGE OF TITLE. 
FN4  FOR IN DETERMINING THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE,
NOT OF FORM.  WHEN THE MERCHANDISE IS BROUGHT FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY TO
THIS, THE EXTENT OF ITS IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION TURNS ON THE
ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION, CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE, AND NOT ON THE FORMALITIES WITH WHICH THE
IMPORTATION IS CONDUCTED OR ON THE TECHNICAL PROCEDURES BY WHICH IT IS
EFFECTED.  IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO LAWYERS AND BUSINESSMEN THAT VAST
QUANTITIES OF MERCHANDISE ARE ANNUALLY IMPORTED INTO THIS COUNTRY BY
PURCHASERS RESIDENT HERE, FOR SALE OR MANUFACTURE HERE.  SOMETIMES THE
BUYER COMPLETES THE PURCHASE ABROAD, IN PERSON, AND SHIPS TO THIS
COUNTRY; SOMETIMES, AS IN THIS CASE, THE PURCHASE IS ON UNSECURED
CREDIT, BUT MORE OFTEN IT IS UNDER CONTRACTS BY WHICH THE VENDOR
RESERVES IN HIMSELF OR HIS AGENT OR A BANKER A LIEN OR TITLE AS
SECURITY FOR PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE ON OR AFTER ARRIVAL.  TO SAY
THAT THE PURCHASER IS ANY THE LESS AN IMPORTER IN THE ONE CASE THAN IN
THE OTHERS, IS TO IGNORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE AND SUBSTITUTE FORM
FOR SUBSTANCE. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT THE
EXCLUSIVE POWER OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX IMPORTS AND TO
PREVENT WHAT IN MATTER OF SUBSTANCE WOULD AMOUNT TO THE IMPOSITION OF
ADDITIONAL IMPORT DUTIES BY STATES IN WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE FOUND
OR STORED BEFORE ITS SALE OR USE.  IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ENVISAGES THE PRESENT TRANSACTION, QUITE AS
MUCH AS IF THE PETITIONER HAD SENT HIS OWN AGENT ABROAD WHERE HE HAD
PURCHASED AND PAID FOR THE MERCHANDISE AND SHIPPED IT TO PETITIONER IN
THIS COUNTRY.  THE PURPOSE AND RESULT OF THE TRANSACTION ARE THE SAME
IN EITHER CASE.  THE APPREHENDED EVILS OF THE LOCAL TAXATION OF IMPORTS
AFTER THEIR ARRIVAL HERE ARE THE SAME. 

IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE MERCHANDISE IN THIS CASE
WAS IMPORTED; AND THAT PETITIONER WAS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF ITS
IMPORTATION, THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF WHICH WAS PETITIONER'S
ACQUISITION OF THE MERCHANDISE FOR ITS MANUFACTURE INTO FINISHED
GOODS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER WAS THE IMPORTER, AND THAT THE
MERCHANDISE IN ITS HANDS WAS ENTITLED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL TAX
IMMUNITY, SURVIVING DELIVERY OF THE IMPORTS TO IT.

                                  II 

WE TURN NOW TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE IMMUNITY WAS LOST BY THE
STORAGE OF THE MERCHANDISE IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES IN PETITIONER'S
WAREHOUSE AT ITS FACTORY, PENDING ITS USE IN PETITIONER'S MANUFACTURING
OPERATIONS.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE IMMUNITY IT HAS NOT BEEN THOUGHT,
NOR IS THERE REASON FOR SUPPOSING, THAT IT MATTERS WHETHER THE IMPORTED
MERCHANDISE IS STORED IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE IN THE IMPORTER'S
WAREHOUSE AT THE PORT OF ENTRY OR IN AN INTERIOR STATE.  THE REASON FOR
THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE DOCTRINE, AS FULLY EXPOUNDED IN BROWN V. MARYLAND,
SUPRA, IS THAT UNLESS THE IMMUNITY SURVIVES TO SOME EXTENT THE ARRIVAL
OF THE MERCHANDISE IN THE UNITED STATES, THE IMMUNITY ITSELF WOULD BE
DESTROYED.  FOR THERE IS NO PURPOSE OF TAXING IMPORTATION, ITSELF, EVEN
ITS ULTIMATE SUPPRESSION, WHICH COULD NOT BE EQUALLY ACCOMPLISHED BY
LAYING A LIKE TAX ON THINGS IMPORTED AFTER THEIR ARRIVAL AND WHILE THEY
ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE IMPORTER. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE IMMUNITY IS ADEQUATELY PROTECTED AND THE STATE
POWER TO TAX IS ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED IF, AS HAS BEEN THE CASE EVER
SINCE BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, AN IMPORT IS DEEMED TO RETAIN ITS
CHARACTER AS SUCH "WHILE REMAINING THE PROPERTY OF THE IMPORTER, IN HIS
WAREHOUSE, IN THE ORIGINAL FORM OR PACKAGE IN WHICH IT WAS IMPORTED,"
SEE BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, 442, OR UNTIL PUT TO THE USE FOR WHICH IT
WAS IMPORTED.  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, PP.
442-443, REJECTED THE SUGGESTION THAT "AN IMPORTER MAY BRING IN GOODS,
AS PLATE, FOR HIS OWN USE, AND THUS RETAIN MUCH VALUABLE PROPERTY
EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  PLAINLY IF AND WHEN REMOVED FROM THE PACKAGE IN
WHICH THEY ARE IMPORTED OR WHEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE
IMPORTED, THEY CEASE TO BE IMPORTS AND THEIR TAX EXEMPTION IS AT AN
END.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER TO SAY, AND CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL DID
NOT SAY, THAT BECAUSE THEY MAY BE TAXED WHEN USED, THE IMPORTER MAY NOT
HOLD THEM TAX FREE UNTIL THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES ARE BROKEN OR UNTIL THEY
ARE PUT TO THE USE FOR WHICH THEY ARE IMPORTED.  HE SAID, P. 443:  "THE
SAME OBSERVATIONS (I.E., THE IMPORTER HAS MIXED THE GOODS WITH THE
COMMON MASS OF PROPERTY, RENDERING THEM TAXABLE) APPLY TO PLATE, OR
OTHER FURNITURE USED BY THE IMPORTER." 

WE HAVE OFTEN INDICATED THE DIFFERENCE IN THIS RESPECT BETWEEN THE
LOCAL TAXATION OF IMPORTS IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE AND THE LIKE TAXATION
OF GOODS, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THEIR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IN THE ONE CASE THE IMMUNITY DERIVES FROM THE PROHIBITION
UPON TAXATION OF THE IMPORTED MERCHANDISE ITSELF.  IN THE OTHER THE
IMMUNITY IS ONLY FROM SUCH LOCAL REGULATION BY TAXATION, AS INTERFERES
WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE COMMERCE,
WHETHER THE TAXED MERCHANDISE IS IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE OR NOT.  THE
REGULATORY EFFECT OF A TAX, OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE, IS NOT IN GENERAL
AFFECTED BY RETENTION OF THE MERCHANDISE IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE IN
WHICH IT HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED.  WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123; BROWN
V. HOUSTON, 114 U.S. 622; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED, 192 U.S.
500, 521; SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S. 506, 508-513; BALDWIN V.
SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 526-527. 

THIS COURT HAS POINTED OUT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT IMPORTS FOR
MANUFACTURE CEASE TO BE SUCH AND LOSE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY
FROM STATE TAXATION WHEN THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO THE MANUFACTURE FOR
WHICH THEY WERE IMPORTED, MAY V. NEW ORLEANS, SUPRA, 501; GULF
FISHERIES CO. V. MACINERNEY, SUPRA, 126; MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP.,
SUPRA, 423, OR WHEN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES IN WHICH THEY WERE IMPORTED
ARE BROKEN, LOW V. AUSTIN, SUPRA, 34; MAY V. NEW ORLEANS, SUPRA, 508
509.  BUT NO OPINION OF THIS COURT HAS EVER SAID OR INTIMATED THAT
IMPORTS HELD BY THE IMPORTER IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE AND BEFORE THEY
WERE SUBJECTED TO THE MANUFACTURE FOR WHICH THEY WERE IMPORTED, ARE
LIABLE TO STATE TAXATION.  ON THE CONTRARY, CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, IN
AFFIRMING THE DOCTRINE OF BROWN V. MARYLAND, IN WHICH HE APPEARED AS
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE, DECLARED, AS WE NOW AFFIRM:  "INDEED, GOODS
IMPORTED, WHILE THEY REMAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE IMPORTER, IN THE FORM
AND SHAPE IN WHICH THEY WERE BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY, CAN IN NO JUST
SENSE BE REGARDED AS A PART OF THAT MASS OF PROPERTY IN THE STATE
USUALLY TAXED FOR THE SUPPORT OF STATE GOVERNMENT."  LICENSE CASES, 5
HOW.  504, 575. 

IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, THE IMPORTED MERCHANDISE HELD IN
ORIGINAL PACKAGES IN THE IMPORTER'S WAREHOUSE FOR SALE, WAS DEEMED TAX
IMMUNE.  WE DO NOT PERCEIVE UPON WHAT GROUNDS IT CAN BE THOUGHT THAT
IMPORTS FOR MANUFACTURE LOSE THEIR CHARACTER AS IMPORTS ANY SOONER OR
MORE READILY THAN IMPORTS FOR SALE.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY THAT
THE IMMUNITY, IF IT IS TO BE PRESERVED AT ALL, SURVIVE THE LANDING OF
THE MERCHANDISE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CONTINUE UNTIL A POINT IS
REACHED, CAPABLE OF PRACTICAL DETERMINATION, WHEN IT CAN FAIRLY BE SAID
THAT IT HAS BECOME A PART OF THE MASS OF TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN A
STATE, IS THE SAME IN BOTH CASES. 

IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE FIBERS WERE SUBJECTED TO MANUFACTURE WHEN
THEY WERE PLACED IN PETITIONER'S WAREHOUSE IN THEIR ORIGINAL PACKAGES. 
AND IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER, FOR PURPOSES OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, THE PRESENCE OF SOME FIBERS IN THE FACTORY WAS
SO ESSENTIAL TO CURRENT MANUFACTURING REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY COULD BE
SAID TO HAVE ENTERED THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE, AND HENCE WERE ALREADY
PUT TO THE USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE IMPORTED, BEFORE THEY WERE REMOVED
FROM THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES.  EVEN THOUGH THE INVENTORY OF RAW MATERIAL
REQUIRED TO BE KEPT ON HAND TO MEET THE CURRENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF A
MANUFACTURING BUSINESS COULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE THEN ENTERED THE
MANUFACTURING PROCESS, THE DECISION OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT DID NOT
REST ON THAT GROUND, AND THE RECORD AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT
ANY PART OF PETITIONER'S FIBERS, STORED IN ITS WAREHOUSE, WERE REQUIRED
TO MEET SUCH IMMEDIATE CURRENT NEEDS.  HENCE WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO
CONSIDER THAT QUESTION. 

IT IS SAID THAT OUR DECISION WILL RESULT IN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
DOMESTIC AND IN FAVOR OF FOREIGN PRODUCERS OF GOODS.  BUT SUCH
DISCRIMINATIONS AS THERE MAY BE ARE IMPLICIT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION AND IN ITS PURPOSE TO PROTECT IMPORTS FROM STATE TAXATION. 
IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN IN
PARTICULAR CASES WHEN AN ORIGINAL PACKAGE IS BROKEN, A DIFFICULTY WHICH
ARISES, NOT OUT OF THE PRESENT DECISION, BUT OUT OF THE ORIGINAL
PACKAGE RULE ITSELF, WHICH WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND TO BE CHALLENGED HERE. 
MOREOVER, THIS SUPPOSED DIFFICULTY DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BAFFLED
JUDICIAL DECISION IN ANY CASE IN THE MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS WHICH
HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA. 

AS WAS EMPHASIZED IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, THE RECONCILIATION OF
THE COMPETING DEMANDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY AND OF THE STATE'S
POWER TO TAX, IS AN EXTREMELY PRACTICAL MATTER.  IN VIEW OF THE FACT
THAT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS AUTHORITY TO CONSENT TO STATE
TAXATION OF IMPORTS AND HENCE TO LAY DOWN ITS OWN TEST FOR DETERMINING
WHEN THE IMMUNITY ENDS, WE SEE NO CONVINCING PRACTICAL REASON FOR
ABANDONING THE TEST WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY, OR
WHY, IF WE ARE TO RETAIN IT IN THE CASE OF IMPORTS FOR SALE, WE SHOULD
REJECT IT IN THE CASE OF IMPORTS FOR MANUFACTURE.  UNLESS WE ARE TO
IGNORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION WE CANNOT SAY THAT IMPORTS FOR
MANUFACTURE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE IMMUNITY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
COMMANDS, AND WE SEE NO THEORETICAL OR PRACTICAL GROUNDS FOR SAYING,
MORE THAN IN THE CASE OF GOODS IMPORTED FOR SALE, THAT THE IMMUNITY
ENDS WHILE THEY ARE IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE AND BEFORE THEY ARE DEVOTED
TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE IMPORTED. 
       III 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FIBERS WHICH PETITIONER
BROUGHT FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND STORED IN ITS WAREHOUSE IN THE
ORIGINAL PACKAGES ARE ALSO IMPORTS, CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM STATE
TAXATION. 

RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ARE NOT A FOREIGN
COUNTRY AND THAT ONLY ARTICLES BROUGHT HERE FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES ARE
IMPORTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  GOODS
TRANSPORTED FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER ARE NOT IMPORTS, SINCE THEY ARE
ARTICLES ORIGINATING IN THE UNITED STATES AND NOT BROUGHT INTO IT.
WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, SUPRA; SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, SUPRA; BALDWIN
V. SEELIG, SUPRA.  IT IS PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT MERCHANDISE BROUGHT
FROM THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED STATES IS AN IMPORT BECAUSE IT IS
BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM A PLACE WITHOUT, EVEN THOUGH NOT
FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY.  IMPLICIT IN THIS ARGUMENT IS THE CONTENTION
THAT THE PHILIPPINES, WHILE BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES AS A
SOVEREIGN, ARE NOT PART OF IT; AND THAT MERCHANDISE BROUGHT FROM THE
PHILIPPINES IS AN IMPORT BECAUSE IT ORIGINATES OUTSIDE OF AND IS
BROUGHT INTO THE TERRITORY COMPRISING THE SEVERAL STATES WHICH ARE
UNITED UNDER AND BY THE CONSTITUTION, TERRITORY IN WHICH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST THE STATE TAXATION OF IMPORTS, IS
ALONE APPLICABLE. 

THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES US WITH NO DEFINITION OF THE TERM "IMPORTS"
OTHER THAN SUCH AS IS IMPLICIT IN THE WORD ITSELF.  IMPORTS WERE
DEFINED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, 437, AS
"THINGS IMPORTED" AND "ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO A COUNTRY."  HE ADDED:
"IF WE APPEAL TO USAGE FOR THE MEANING OF THE WORD, WE SHALL RECEIVE
THE SAME ANSWER.  THEY ARE THE ARTICLES THEMSELVES WHICH ARE BROUGHT
INTO THE COUNTRY." 

HE THUS DEFINED IMPORTS BY REFERENCE NOT TO THEIR FOREIGN ORIGIN BUT
TO THE PHYSICAL FACT THAT THEY ARE ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY
FROM SOME PLACE WITHOUT IT.  SINCE MOST IMPORTS ORIGINATE IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES, COURTS HAVE NOT UNNATURALLY FALLEN INTO THE HABIT OF
REFERRING TO IMPORTS AS THINGS BROUGHT INTO THIS COUNTRY FROM A FOREIGN
COUNTRY.  WARING V. THE MAYOR, SUPRA; WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, SUPRA;
PITTSBURGH & SOUTHERN COAL CO. V. LOUISIANA, 156 U.S. 590, 600;
PATAPSCO GUANO CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA, 171 U.S. 345, 350; MAY V. NEW
ORLEANS, SUPRA.  FN5  BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS NOTHING OF THE FOREIGN
ORIGIN OF IMPORTS, AND IN NONE OF THESE CASES WAS IT NECESSARY TO
DECISION TO FORMULATE THE RULE IN TERMS OF ORIGIN IN A FOREIGN
COUNTRY.  IN EACH CASE THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME IF THE COURT
HAD TREATED IMPORTS MERELY AS ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY FROM A
POINT WITHOUT. 

CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL'S DEFINITION HAS RECEIVED SUPPORT IN CASES
HOLDING OR SUGGESTING THAT FISH CAUGHT IN THE OPEN SEA AND BROUGHT INTO
THIS COUNTRY ARE IMPORTS ENTITLED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION,
ALTHOUGH THEY DID NOT COME FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY.  GULF FISHERIES CO.
V. DARROUZET, 17 F.2D 374, 376; BOOTH FISHERIES CORP. V. CASE, 182
WASH. 392, 395, 47 P.2D 834.  IN GULF FISHERIES CO. V. MACINERNEY,
SUPRA, WE FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE THE POINT.  IN THAT CASE THE
FISH HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO A MANUFACTURING PROCESS AFTER THEIR ARRIVAL
IN PORT AND BEFORE THEY WERE TAXED.  HENCE, EVEN IF ORIGINALLY IMPORTS,
THEY HAD CEASED TO BE SUCH AND WERE NO LONGER IMMUNE FROM THE
CHALLENGED STATE TAX.  SEE ALSO FISHERMEN'S COOPERATIVE ASSN. V. STATE,
198 WASH. 413, 88 P.2D 593.  THE DEFINITION OF IMPORTS AS ARTICLES
BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY FINDS SUPPORT ALSO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT
HAS NEVER BEEN SERIOUSLY DOUBTED THAT MERCHANDISE BROUGHT INTO THE
UNITED STATES FROM WITHOUT IS SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
IMPOSE CUSTOMS DUTIES, EVEN THOUGH THE MERCHANDISE IS NOT OF FOREIGN
ORIGIN.  AND THE OCCASION FOR PROTECTING THE POWER OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT TO LAY AND COLLECT CUSTOMS DUTIES UPON SUCH MERCHANDISE, IS
PRECISELY THE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF THAT OF FOREIGN ORIGIN.  HENCE IT
IS PLAIN THAT SUCH IMPORTATIONS, ALTHOUGH NOT OF FOREIGN ORIGIN, ARE
WITHIN THE DESIGN AND PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST
THE LOCAL TAXATION OF IMPORTS. 

WE FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT MERELY BECAUSE MERCHANDISE, BROUGHT
INTO THE COUNTRY FROM A PLACE WITHOUT, DOES NOT COME FROM A FOREIGN
COUNTRY, IT IS NOT AN IMPORT ENVISAGED BY THE WORDS AND PURPOSE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION.  THE INTERPRETATION IN BROWN V. MARYLAND,
SUPRA, THE OCCASIONAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS THAT FOREIGN ORIGIN IS NOT A
NECESSARY CHARACTERISTIC OF IMPORTS SO LONG AS THEY ARE BROUGHT INTO
THE COUNTRY FROM A PLACE WITHOUT IT, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION, ARE ALIKE PERSUASIVE THAT THERE MAY BE
IMPORTS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE WHICH DO NOT HAVE A FOREIGN
ORIGIN. 

THE FACT THAT THE MERCHANDISE HERE IN QUESTION DID NOT COME FROM A
FOREIGN COUNTRY, IF THE CONTENTION BE ACCEPTED THAT THE PHILIPPINES ARE
NOT TO BE REGARDED AS SUCH, IS THEREFORE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  IT IS
MATERIAL ONLY WHETHER IT CAME FROM A PLACE WITHOUT THE "COUNTRY." 
HENCE, IN DETERMINING WHAT ARE IMPORTS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, WE
MUST ASCERTAIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE "COUNTRY" INTO WHICH THEY
ARE BROUGHT.  OBVIOUSLY, IF THE PHILIPPINES ARE TO BE REGARDED AS A
PART OF THE UNITED STATES IN THIS SENSE, MERCHANDISE BROUGHT FROM THE
PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED
STATES FROM A PLACE WITHOUT, AND WOULD NOT BE IMPORTS, MORE THAN
ARTICLES TRANSPORTED FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER. 

THE TERM "UNITED STATES" MAY BE USED IN ANY ONE OF SEVERAL SENSES. 
IT MAY BE MERELY THE NAME OF A SOVEREIGN OCCUPYING THE POSITION
ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF OTHER SOVEREIGNS IN THE FAMILY OF NATIONS.  IT MAY
DESIGNATE THE TERRITORY OVER WHICH THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES
EXTENDS, OR IT MAY BE THE COLLECTIVE NAME OF THE STATES WHICH ARE
UNITED BY AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  FN6 

WHEN BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, WAS DECIDED, THE UNITED STATES WAS
WITHOUT DEPENDENCIES OR TERRITORIES OUTSIDE ITS THEN TERRITORIAL
BOUNDARIES ON THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT, AND THE COURT HAD BEFORE IT
ONLY THE QUESTION WHETHER FOREIGN ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO THE STATE OF
MARYLAND COULD BE SUBJECTED TO STATE TAXATION.  IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, IN HIS REFERENCE TO IMPORTS AS ARTICLES BROUGHT
INTO THE COUNTRY, COULD HAVE HAD REFERENCE ONLY TO ARTICLES BROUGHT
INTO A STATE WHICH IS ONE OF THE STATES UNITED BY AND UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, AND IN WHICH ALONE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION HERE
INVOLVED IS APPLICABLE. 

THE RELATION OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED STATES, TAKEN AS THE
COLLECTIVE NAME OF THE STATES WHICH ARE UNITED BY AND UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, IS IN MANY RESPECTS DIFFERENT FROM THE STATUS OF THOSE
AREAS WHICH, WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED, WERE BROUGHT UNDER THE
CONTROL OF CONGRESS AND WHICH WERE ULTIMATELY ORGANIZED INTO STATES OF
THE UNITED STATES.  SEE BALZAC V. PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298, 304-305,
AND CASES CITED.  HENCE WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE WHETHER ARTICLES
BROUGHT INTO SUCH TERRITORIES OR BROUGHT FROM SUCH TERRITORIES INTO A
STATE, COULD HAVE BEEN REGARDED AS IMPORTS, CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE
FROM STATE TAXATION.  WE CONFINE THE PRESENT DISCUSSION TO THE QUESTION
WHETHER SUCH ARTICLES, BROUGHT FROM THE PHILIPPINES AND INTRODUCED INTO
THE UNITED STATES, ARE IMPORTS SO IMMUNE. 

WE HAVE ADVERTED TO THE FACT THAT THE REASONS FOR PROTECTING FROM
INTERFERENCE, BY STATE TAXATION, THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO COLLECT CUSTOMS DUTIES, APPLY EQUALLY WHETHER
THE MERCHANDISE BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY IS OF FOREIGN ORIGIN OR NOT. 
THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT MADE THE FOREIGN ORIGIN OF ARTICLES IMPORTED
THE TEST OF IMPORTATION, BUT ONLY THEIR ORIGIN IN A PLACE OVER WHICH
THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT EXTENDED ITS COMMANDS WITH RESPECT TO IMPORTS
AND THEIR TAXATION.  HENCE OUR QUESTION MUST BE DECIDED, NOT BY
DETERMINING WHETHER THE PHILIPPINES ARE A FOREIGN COUNTRY, AS INDEED
THEY HAVE BEEN HELD NOT TO BE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GENERAL TARIFF
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, FOURTEEN DIAMOND RINGS V. UNITED STATES, 183
U.S. 176; CF. DE LIMA V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 1; DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES,
182 U.S. 222, AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OTHER GENERAL LAWS, FABER V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 649; CF. HUUS V. NEW YORK & P.R. S.S. CO., 182
U.S. 392; GONZALES V. WILLIAMS, 192 U.S. 1; WEST INDIA OIL CO. V.
DOMENECH, 311 U.S. 20, BUT BY DETERMINING WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN UNITED
GOVERNMENTALLY WITH THE UNITED STATES BY AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 

THAT OUR DEPENDENCIES, ACQUIRED BY CESSION AS THE RESULT OF OUR WAR
WITH SPAIN, ARE TERRITORIES BELONGING TO, BUT NOT A PART OF, THE UNION
OF STATES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, WAS LONG SINCE ESTABLISHED BY A
SERIES OF DECISIONS IN THIS COURT BEGINNING WITH THE INSULAR TAX CASES
IN 1901; DE LIMA V. BIDWELL, SUPRA; DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 182
U.S. 222; DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244; DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 183
U.S. 151; AND SEE ALSO PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS V. YNCHAUSTI & CO.,
251 U.S. 401, 406-407; BALZAC V. PORTO RICO, SUPRA.  THIS STATUS HAS
EVER SINCE BEEN MAINTAINED IN THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION BY ALL THE AGENCIES OF OUR GOVERNMENT IN DEALING WITH OUR
INSULAR POSSESSIONS.  IT IS NO LONGER DOUBTED THAT THE UNITED STATES
MAY ACQUIRE TERRITORY BY CONQUEST OR BY TREATY, AND MAY GOVERN IT
THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS CONFERRED BY SEC. 3 OF
ARTICLE IV OF THE CONSTITUTION "TO DISPOSE OF AND MAKE ALL NEEDFUL
RULES AND REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES."  DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 183
U.S. AT 157; DORR V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 138, 149; BALZAC V. PORTO
RICO, SUPRA, 305; CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 308,
323. 

IN EXERCISING THIS POWER, CONGRESS IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, AS WHEN IT IS LEGISLATING FOR THE UNITED
STATES.  SEE DOWNES V. BIDWELL, SUPRA; HAWAII V. MANKICHI, 190 U.S.
197; DORR V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; DOWDELL V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S.
325, 332; OCAMPO V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 91, 98; PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSIONERS V. YNCHAUSTI & CO., SUPRA, 406-407; BALZAC V. PORTO RICO,
SUPRA.  AND IN GENERAL THE GUARANTIES OF THE CONSTITUTION, SAVE AS THEY
ARE LIMITATIONS UPON THE EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE POWER
WHEN EXERTED FOR OR OVER OUR INSULAR POSSESSIONS, EXTEND TO THEM ONLY
AS CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER TERRITORY
BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES, HAS MADE THOSE GUARANTIES APPLICABLE. 
SEE BALZAC V. PORTO RICO, SUPRA.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO OR SENT OUT OF
THE UNITED STATES, DO NOT APPLY TO ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO OR SENT OUT OF
THE PHILIPPINES.  DESPITE THE RESTRICTIONS OF SECS. 8 AND 9 OF ARTICLE
I OF THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH ARTICLES MAY BE TAXED BY CONGRESS AND
WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT.  DOWNES V. BIDWELL, SUPRA.  IT FOLLOWS THAT
ARTICLES BROUGHT FROM THE PHILIPPINES INTO THE UNITED STATES ARE
IMPORTS IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE BROUGHT FROM TERRITORY, WHICH IS NOT
A PART OF THE UNITED STATES, INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES,
ORGANIZED BY AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, WHERE ALONE THE IMPORT CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION IS APPLICABLE. 

THE STATUS OF THE PHILIPPINES AS TERRITORY BELONGING TO THE UNITED
STATES, BUT NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY UNITED WITH IT, HAS BEEN MAINTAINED
CONSISTENTLY IN ALL THE GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PHILIPPINES
AND THE UNITED STATES.  FOLLOWING THE CONQUEST OF THE PHILIPPINES, THEY
WERE GOVERNED FOR A PERIOD UNDER THE WAR POWER.  AFTER ANNEXATION BY
THE TREATY OF PARIS OF DECEMBER 10, 1898, MILITARY GOVERNMENT WAS
SUCCEEDED BY A FORM OF EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT.  BY THE SPOONER AMENDMENT
TO THE ARMY APPROPRIATION BILL OF MARCH 2, 1901, C. 803, 31 STAT. 895,
910, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT "ALL MILITARY, CIVIL, AND JUDICIAL POWERS
NECESSARY TO GOVERN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS  ...  SHALL, UNTIL OTHERWISE
PROVIDED BY CONGRESS, BE VESTED IN SUCH PERSON AND PERSONS AND SHALL BE
EXERCISED IN SUCH MANNER AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL
DIRECT, FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND FOR MAINTAINING
AND PROTECTING THE INHABITANTS OF SAID ISLANDS IN THE FREE ENJOYMENT OF
THEIR LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND RELIGION  ..."  ON JULY 1, 1902 CONGRESS
PROVIDED FOR A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT BY THE ORIGINAL
PHILIPPINE ORGANIC ACT, C. 1369, 32 STAT. 691.  STEP BY STEP CONGRESS
HAS CONFERRED GREATER POWERS UPON THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT, AND THOSE
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN DIMINISHED CORRESPONDINGLY,
ALTHOUGH CONGRESS RETAINS PLENARY POWER OVER THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PHILIPPINES ARE MADE INDEPENDENT.  THIS PROCESS
CULMINATED IN THE ACT OF MARCH 24, 1934, C. 84, 48 STAT. 456, PROVIDING
FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE ISLANDS.  THE ADOPTION BY THE PHILIPPINES
AND APPROVAL BY THE UNITED STATES OF A CONSTITUTION FOR THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT, HAVE
PREPARED THE WAY FOR THEIR COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE. 

THE ACT OF 1934 MADE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
TWO GOVERNMENTS PENDING THE FINAL WITHDRAWAL OF SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
UNITED STATES FROM THE PHILIPPINES AND IN PARTICULAR PROVIDED FOR A
LIMIT ON THE NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF ARTICLES PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED IN
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS THAT MIGHT BE "EXPORTED" TO THE UNITED STATES
FREE OF DUTY.  SEC. 6.  IT PROVIDED FOR THE COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL AND
SURRENDER OF ALL RIGHT OF POSSESSION, SUPERVISION, JURISDICTION,
CONTROL OR SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER THE PHILIPPINES ON THE
4TH OF JULY FOLLOWING THE EXPIRATION OF TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE
INAUGURATION OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT, ORGANIZED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
PROVIDED FOR BY THE INDEPENDENCE ACT.  FN7  SEC. 10(A).  THE NEW
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 8, 1935, AND THE NEW
GOVERNMENT UNDER IT WAS INAUGURATED ON NOVEMBER 14, 1935.  BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INDEPENDENCE ACT, THE UNITED STATES RETAINED CERTAIN
POWERS WITH RESPECT TO OUR TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE ISLANDS, WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR FINANCIAL OPERATIONS AND CURRENCY, AND THE CONTROL OF
THEIR FOREIGN RELATIONS.  THE POWER OF REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF
PHILIPPINE CASES IS CONTINUED AND EXTENDED TO ALL CASES INVOLVING THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  SEC.
7(6).  THUS BY THE ORGANIZATION OF THE NEW PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF 1935, THE ISLANDS HAVE BEEN GIVEN, IN MANY ASPECTS,
THE STATUS OF AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT, WHICH HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN
ITS RELATIONS AS SUCH WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD.  FN8 

IN THE MEANTIME, AND EVER SINCE THE INSULAR TAX CASES, SUPRA,
CONGRESS HAS OFTEN TREATED AS IMPORTS, ARTICLES BROUGHT TO THE UNITED
STATES FROM THE PHILIPPINES.  BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 29, 1916, C. 416, 39
STAT. 548, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 1042, THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES WAS AUTHORIZED TO ENACT TARIFF LAWS.  THE SUGAR QUOTA LAW,
7 U.S.C. SEC. 608A (1), DEFINED AS IMPORTS THE AMOUNTS OF SUGAR
PERMITTED TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PHILIPPINES,
AND PROHIBITED SUCH IMPORTATION IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED QUOTAS.  THE
ACT OF JUNE 14, 1935, C. 240, 49 STAT. 340, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 1236A,
PROVIDED FOR RESTRICTION OF THE AMOUNT OF HARD FIBERS AND ITS PRODUCTS
WHICH COULD BE BROUGHT ANNUALLY FROM THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED
STATES.  SEE ALSO 48 U.S.C. SEC. 1236.  AND THE INDEPENDENCE ACT,
SUPRA, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 1236(A)(B), ALSO REGULATED THE AMOUNT OF "EXPORT
TAX" WHICH MIGHT BE LEVIED BY THE PHILIPPINES ON ARTICLES SHIPPED TO
THE UNITED STATES FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  FN9 

THE INDEPENDENCE ACT, WHILE IT DID NOT RENDER THE PHILIPPINES FOREIGN
TERRITORY, CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 318-320, TREATS
THE PHILIPPINES AS A FOREIGN COUNTRY FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.  IN 48
U.S.C. SEC. 1238(A)(1), IT ESTABLISHED IMMIGRATION QUOTAS FOR FILIPINOS
COMING TO THE UNITED STATES, AS IF THE PHILIPPINES WERE A SEPARATE
COUNTRY, AND IN THAT CONNECTION EXTENDED TO FILIPINOS THE IMMIGRATION
LAWS RELATING TO THE EXCLUSION OR EXPULSION OF ALIENS.  IT ALSO
PROVIDED, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 1238(A)(2), THAT CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE CONSIDERED
AS IF THEY WERE ALIENS.  FOR PURPOSES OF 8 U.S.C. SECS. 154 AND 156,
RELATING TO DEPORTATION, THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ARE DECLARED TO BE A
FOREIGN COUNTRY.  48 U.S.C. SEC. 1238(A)(4).  FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAY BE ASSIGNED TO THE PHILIPPINES, AND ARE TO BE
CONSIDERED AS STATIONED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.  48 U.S.C. SEC. 1238A. 
AND THE INDEPENDENCE ACT, SEC. 6, 48 STAT. 456, 460, PROVIDES THAT
"WHEN USED IN THIS SECTION IN A GEOGRAPHICAL SENSE, THE TERM 'UNITED
STATES' INCLUDES ALL TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES,
EXCEPT THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, AMERICAN SAMOA, AND
THE ISLAND OF GUAM."  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE PHILIPPINES HAVE FREQUENTLY
DEALT WITH OTHER COUNTRIES AS A SOVEREIGNTY DISTINCT FROM THE UNITED
STATES. 

THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED THE PHILIPPINES BY CESSION WITHOUT
OBLIGATION TO ADMIT THEM TO STATEHOOD OR INCORPORATE THEM IN THE UNION
OF STATES OR TO MAKE THEM A PART OF THE UNITED STATES, AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM MERELY BELONGING TO IT.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THEY ARE NOT A PART OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO AND ENJOY THE
BENEFITS OR PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AS DO THE STATES WHICH ARE
UNITED BY AND UNDER IT.  IN PARTICULAR, THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
GOVERNING IMPORTS AND EXPORTS AND THEIR TAXATION, DO NOT EXTEND TO
ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO OR OUT OF THE PHILIPPINES.  THE SEVERAL ACTS OF
CONGRESS PROVIDING FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES HAVE NOT
ALTERED THEIR STATUS IN THESE RESPECTS, AND CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION
GOVERNING TRADE RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH THE PHILIPPINES HAS
NOT ONLY BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THAT STATUS, BUT HAS OFTEN TREATED
ARTICLES BROUGHT FROM THE PHILIPPINES TO THE UNITED STATES AS IMPORTS. 
OUR TARIFF LAWS IN THEIR PRACTICAL OPERATION HAVE IN GENERAL PLACED
MERCHANDISE BROUGHT FROM THE PHILIPPINES INTO THE UNITED STATES IN THE
SAME RELATIONSHIP TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL TAXING POWER OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES AS ARTICLES BROUGHT HERE FROM FOREIGN
COUNTRIES. 

THE NATIONAL CONCERN IN PROTECTING NATIONAL COMMERCIAL RELATIONS, BY
EXEMPTING IMPORTS FROM STATE TAXATION, WOULD SEEM NOT TO BE ESSENTIALLY
DIFFERENT OR LESS IN THE CASE OF MERCHANDISE BROUGHT FROM THE
PHILIPPINES, WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TERRITORY ORGANIZED UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION, BUT FOR WHICH WE HAVE ASSUMED A NATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY, THAN IN THE CASE OF ARTICLES ORIGINATING ON THE HIGH
SEAS OR IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE REASONS FOR
PROTECTING FROM STATE TAXATION ARTICLES THUS BROUGHT INTO THE
TERRITORIAL UNITED STATES ARE THE SAME IN EITHER CASE.  THE ADVANTAGES
AND DISADVANTAGES, IF ANY, WHICH RESULT FROM THE TAX IMMUNITY, ARE
INHERENT IN THE IMPORT CLAUSE.  BUT THOSE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
IN THE CASE OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE NO MORE BEYOND THE REACH OF CONGRESS
THAN IN THE CASE OF OTHER IMPORTS.  CONGRESS IS LEFT FREE BY THE TERMS
OF THE IMPORT CLAUSE TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION OF STATE TAXATION OF
IMPORTS AND WITH IT THE ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES, WHATEVER THEY MAY
BE, ARISING FROM THE TAX IMMUNITY.  CONGRESS, THROUGH THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, POSSESSES THE SAME POWER OF CONTROL OF STATE TAXATION OF ALL
MERCHANDISE MOVING IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  AND CONGRESS IS
FREE, AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER IMPORTS, TO REGULATE THE FLOW OF
MERCHANDISE FROM THE PHILIPPINES INTO THE UNITED STATES BY THE
IMPOSITION OF EITHER CUSTOMS DUTIES OR INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT PRACTICAL AS WELL AS THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND
THE STRUCTURE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM REQUIRE US TO HOLD THAT
ARTICLES BROUGHT FROM THE PHILIPPINES INTO THE UNITED STATES ARE
IMPORTS, SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO IMPORTS
BOTH BECAUSE, AS WAS SAID IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, THEY ARE BROUGHT INTO
THE UNITED STATES, AND BECAUSE THE PLACE FROM WHENCE THEY ARE BROUGHT
IS NOT A PART OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE TO WHICH
THE PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO IMPORTS ARE APPLICABLE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON HAS HELD CONTRARY TO THE
DECISION OF THE OHIO COURT.  SEE WASHINGTON CHOCOLATE CO. V. KING
COUNTY, 21 WASH.2D 630, 152 P.2D 981. 

FN2  SEE MADISON, DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, AUGUST
28, 1787(HUNT & SCOTT ED.). 

FN3  SECTION 1483(1) OF 19 U.S.C. PROVIDES THAT MERCHANDISE IMPORTED
INTO THE UNITED STATES "SHALL BE HELD TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE PERSON
TO WHOM THE SAME IS CONSIGNED."  WE DO NOT DEEM THIS PROVISION TO BE
SIGNIFICANT HERE, SINCE IT IS DESIGNED MERELY TO IDENTIFY THE PERSON
LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF CUSTOMS DUTIES, AND SINCE, AS WE HAVE SAID,
THE TIME WHEN TITLE PASSES TO PETITIONER IS IMMATERIAL TO DECISION. 

FN4  IN THE WARING CASE, THE PURCHASER, CLAIMING TAX IMMUNITY AS THE
IMPORTER, PURCHASED THE MERCHANDISE, AFTER ITS SHIPMENT FROM ABROAD,
FROM THE AMERICAN CONSIGNEE, SOMETIMES BEFORE AND SOMETIMES AFTER ITS
ARRIVAL IN THE PORT OF ENTRY.  RISK OF LOSS WAS TO BE ON THE SELLER
UNTIL THE MERCHANDISE WAS ENTERED AT THE CUSTOMHOUSE AND DELIVERED FROM
THE VESSEL INTO THE PURCHASER'S LIGHTERS ALONGSIDE.  THE COURT THOUGHT
IT IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO BEFORE OR
AFTER ARRIVAL.  SINCE THE RISK OF LOSS REMAINED ON THE SHIPPER UNTIL
THE CUSTOMHOUSE ENTRY AND DELIVERY TO THE PURCHASER, IT HELD THAT THE
SHIPPER OR THE CONSIGNEE WAS THE IMPORTER; THAT THE PURCHASER'S SALE OF
THE GOODS, WHICH WAS TAXED, WAS THE SECOND SALE AFTER IMPORTATION, AND
FOR THAT REASON WAS NOT FREE OF TAX.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE PURCHASER WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF THE IMPORTATION, THAT THE
PURCHASER HAD NO CONTROL OVER OR RIGHT TO DEMAND THE MERCHANDISE BEFORE
ARRIVAL IN PORT AND THAT THE FOREIGN SHIPPER, WHO BORE THE RISK OF LOSS
AND RETAINED CONTROL OF THE MERCHANDISE AND THE RIGHT TO CONTROL IT
UNTIL ITS DELIVERY TO PETITIONER, WAS THE IMPORTER. 

FN5  IN DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 183 U.S. 151, THE COURT SUSTAINED
UNDER THE FORAKER ACT OF APRIL 12, 1900, C. 191, 31 STAT. 77, THE LEVY
AND COLLECTION OF A TAX IN PUERTO RICO UPON GOODS BROUGHT THERE FROM
NEW YORK.  THE TAX WAS HELD TO BE A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT LAWS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF A DEPENDENCY ACQUIRED BY
TREATY, SEE DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244.  THE COURT STATED ALSO AS
AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND, BUT ONE UNNECESSARY FOR DECISION, THAT THE LEVY
WAS NOT A PROHIBITED TAX ON EXPORTS, SINCE PUERTO RICO WAS NOT A
FOREIGN COUNTRY. 

FN6  SEE LANGDELL, "THE STATUS OF OUR NEW TERRITORIES," 12 HARV. L.
REV. 365, 371; SEE ALSO THAYER, "OUR NEW POSSESSIONS," 12 HARV. L. REV.
464; THAYER, "THE INSULAR TARIFF CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT," 15 HARV.
L. REV. 164; LITTLEFIELD, "THE INSULAR CASES," 15 HARV. L. REV. 169,
281. 

FN7  SINCE THE WAR WITH JAPAN AND THAT COUNTRY'S TEMPORARY OCCUPATION
OF THE PHILIPPINES, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT THE DATE OF THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES MAY BE ADVANCED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, UPON HIS PROCLAMATION OF THEIR LIBERATION AND THE
RESTORATION OF THE NORMAL FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  ACT OF JUNE 29,
1944, C. 322, 58 STAT. 625. 

FN8  THE PHILIPPINE COMMONWEALTH PARTICIPATED AS A SIGNATORY IN THE
FOLLOWING:  AGREEMENT AND PROTOCOL REGARDING PRODUCTION AND MARKETING
OF SUGAR OF MAY 6, 1937; UNIVERSAL POSTAL CONVENTION OF MAY 23, 1939;
DECLARATION BY UNITED NATIONS OF JANUARY 1, 1942(THE PHILIPPINES SIGNED
THE DECLARATION ON JUNE 14, 1942); AGREEMENT FOR UNITED NATIONS RELIEF
AND REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1943; UNITED NATIONS
MONETARY AND FINANCIAL CONFERENCE AT BRETTON WOODS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, OF
JULY 1 TO 22, 1944; THE PROTOCOL PROLONGING THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT
REGARDING THE REGULATION OF PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF SUGAR OF AUGUST
31, 1944; THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION CONFERENCE OF NOVEMBER 1 TO
DECEMBER 7, 1944. 

FN9  THIS COURT HAS REFERRED TO GOODS BROUGHT HERE FROM THE
PHILIPPINES AS "IMPORTS."  SEE CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES,
301 U.S. 308, 320. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING IN PART. 

MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE COURT IS CONFINED TO THAT PORTION OF THE
OPINION WHICH DETERMINES THAT THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS IS NOT A PART OF
THIS "COUNTRY" AS THAT WORD IS DEFINED IN THE OPINION. 

THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE DECISION IS TO PLACE THE PRODUCTS OF
THOSE TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN INCORPORATED INTO
OUR "COUNTRY" AS INTEGRAL PARTS THEREOF - PUERTO RICO, THE PHILIPPINES,
GUAM, CANAL ZONE, AND PERHAPS OTHER TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS - AT A
CONSIDERABLE ADVANTAGE OVER THE COMPETING PRODUCTS OF STATES OF THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.  IT ENABLES IMPORTERS, WHETHER FOR
MANUFACTURE OR SALE, FROM THESE POSSESSIONS TO KEEP ON HAND, TAX FREE,
QUANTITIES OF NON-TAXABLE ORIGINAL PACKAGES OF IMPORTED GOODS, SUCH AS
CLOTHING, EMBROIDERIES, LIQUORS, TOBACCO, SUGARS, VEGETABLE OILS AND
FIBRES.  FREEDOM FROM TAXATION HAS TODAY BECOME AN APPRECIABLE
ADVANTAGE.  FURTHERMORE THIS FREEDOM FROM STATE TAXATION IS GAINED
THROUGH AN INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND THEREFORE IS
BEYOND THE REACH OF EQUALIZATION BY THE STATES ALONE IN ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES AND BY THE CONGRESS EXCEPT BY COMPLEX TARIFF LEGISLATION
WHICH WOULD ONLY REACH WAREHOUSED IMPORTS FROM DEPENDENCIES.  THE
CONGRESSIONAL RELIEF TO PRODUCERS OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION,
THEREFORE, IS AN AWKWARD APPROACH, WHICH WILL CREATE IRRITATION WITH
THE IMPORTING TERRITORIES BY REASON OF COUNTERVAILING TARIFF
INCREASES. 

THESE ARE ONLY PRACTICAL DISADVANTAGES OF TODAY'S DECISION WHICH
SHOULD NOT OVERRIDE A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT; BUT AS IT DOES NOT
SEEM TO ME THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY CALLS FOR THIS SACRIFICE OF MARKETS
BY PRODUCERS IN THE STATES, I WOULD NOT CONSTRUE THE CONSTITUTION TO
PUT THE PHILIPPINES ENTIRELY BEYOND THE PALE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC
UNION.  I DO NOT SEE THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH A RULING AND, IN FACT, I
THINK THE CONSTITUTION CALLS FOR PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION FOR
THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 

(1)  IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE TAXABILITY BY OHIO OF SHIPMENTS FROM
THE PHILIPPINES WHICH HAVE COMPLETED THEIR JOURNEY FROM THE PHILIPPINES
BUT REMAIN INTACT IN THEIR ORIGINAL PACKAGES, THE SIGNIFICANT
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, CLAUSE 2, WHICH READS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO STATE SHALL, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, LAY ANY IMPOSTS
OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY FOR EXECUTING IT'S INSPECTION LAWS:  AND THE NET PRODUCE OF
ALL DUTIES AND IMPOSTS, LAID BY ANY STATE ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, SHALL
BE FOR THE USE OF THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES; AND ALL SUCH LAWS
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE REVISION AND CONTROUL OF THE CONGRESS." 

THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS NO DEFINITION OF THE WORD "IMPORTS" AND
NOTHING APPEARS IN ITS HISTORY OR IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH
INDICATES THAT THE WORD WAS USED OTHERWISE IN THIS SECTION THAN IN ITS
NORMAL MEANING OF A THING BROUGHT INTO THE LIMITS OF THE NATION WHICH
POSSESSES POWER OVER THE EXTERNAL COMMERCE WHICH MAY FLOW INTO A STATE
OR STATES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION OF THE QUOTED
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  NORMALLY THESE IMPORTS ARE FROM FOREIGN
COUNTRIES AND HENCE THERE ARE MANY REFERENCES TO IMPORTS IN LEGISLATION
AND DECISIONS WHICH INDICATE THAT THE SOURCE OF IMPORTS IS FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.  FN1    LANDS ARE EITHER WITHIN THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES OR ARE OUTSIDE AND BEYOND THAT POWER.  WHEN CONQUEST
RIPENS INTO CESSION, LANDS LOSE THEIR FOREIGN CHARACTER AND BECOME A
PART OF THE TERRITORIES OF THE VICTOR.  FN2  THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN
CONTENT TO LEAVE ITS POSSESSIONS WITH A LARGE MEASURE OF SELF
GOVERNMENT.  TO THE PHILIPPINES IT HAS PROMISED FULL INDEPENDENCE BUT
THE TIME FOR FULFILLMENT OF THAT PROMISE HAS NOT ARRIVED.  UNTIL THAT
DATE, THE UNITED STATES HAS RESPONSIBILITIES TOWARD THE PHILIPPINES AND
HAS EXERCISED POWER UNILATERALLY TO MAKE FURTHER CONCESSIONS TO THE
ISLANDS.  FN3  UNTIL COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE IS REACHED, THE CITIZENS OF
THE PHILIPPINES OWE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND EVERY
PHILIPPINE OFFICIAL RECOGNIZES THIS DUTY.  48 STAT. 456.  THE
INTERRELATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE PHILIPPINES IS FOR BOTH
A BASIS FOR AMICABLE RELATIONS AFTER COMPLETE DISSOLUTION OF THE
EXISTING TIES.  FN4 

(2)  THIS COURT, HOWEVER, DETERMINES THAT AN IMPORT UNDER ARTICLE I,
SEC. 10, CLAUSE 2, IS A COMMODITY BROUGHT INTO THIS "COUNTRY" AND THAT
THE PHILIPPINES IS NOT A PART OF THIS "COUNTRY" WITHIN THE MEANING
WHICH THE COURT ATTRIBUTES TO THAT WORD.  THE COURT IS OF THE VIEW THAT
THIS "COUNTRY" INCLUDES ONLY THOSE SECTIONS OF THE LANDS UNDER OUR
JURISDICTION WHICH HAVE BEEN SO INCORPORATED INTO OUR SYSTEM BY ACT OF
CONGRESS AS TO BE ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENT UNDER ALL PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION RATHER THAN BY CLAUSE 2, SEC. 3, ARTICLE IV, REGARDING
"TERRITORY ...  BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES."  DOWNES V. BIDWELL,
182 U.S. 244.  AS A BASIS FOR THIS DISTINCTION, THE COURT DEPENDS UPON
A STATEMENT IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  AT 437, THAT A "DUTY ON
IMPORTS IS A CUSTOM OR A TAX LEVIED ON ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO A
COUNTRY."  THE COURT MUST MAKE THIS ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT ITS POSITION AS
OF COURSE THE PHILIPPINES IS NOT A FOREIGN COUNTRY.  CINCINNATI SOAP
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 308, 319. 

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY I THINK THAT THIS RELIANCE ON THIS
LANGUAGE OF BROWN V. MARYLAND LEAVES THE OPINION WITHOUT SUPPORT IN ITS
CONCLUSION THAT SHIPMENTS FROM THE PHILIPPINES ARE IMPORTS.  IN THE
FIRST PLACE, IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY AND ARTICLES BROUGHT FROM
FOREIGN PLACES.  THE WORDS USED ARE DESCRIPTIVE OF COMMERCE FROM
FOREIGN LANDS.  SECONDLY, WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123, INTERPRETS
THE MEANING OF "BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY" AS USED IN BROWN V. MARYLAND
AS FOLLOWS, PP. 131-32: 

"IN THE CASE OF BROWN V. MARYLAND, THE WORD IMPORTS, AS USED IN THE
CLAUSE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION, IS DEFINED, BOTH ON THE AUTHORITY OF
THE LEXICONS AND OF USAGE, TO BE ARTICLES BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY; AND
IMPOST IS THERE SAID TO BE A DUTY, CUSTOM, OR TAX LEVIED ON ARTICLES
BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY.  IN THE ORDINARY USE OF THESE TERMS AT THIS
DAY, NO ONE WOULD, FOR A MOMENT, THINK OF THEM AS HAVING RELATION TO
ANY OTHER ARTICLES THAN THOSE BROUGHT FROM A COUNTRY FOREIGN TO THE
UNITED STATES, AND AT THE TIME THE CASE OF BROWN V. MARYLAND WAS
DECIDED - NAMELY, IN 1827 - IT IS REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT THE
GENERAL USAGE WAS THE SAME, AND THAT IN DEFINING IMPORTS AS ARTICLES
BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE USED THE WORD COUNTRY AS A
SYNONYME FOR UNITED STATES." 

SEE ALSO AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED, 192 U.S. 500, 520. 
THIRDLY, THE WRITER OF THE OPINION IN BROWN V. MARYLAND REFERRED, P.
439, TO THE PURPOSE OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST STATE TAXATION OF
IMPORTS AS A THING DESIRABLE "TO PRESERVE  ...  OUR COMMERCIAL
CONNEXIONS WITH FOREIGN NATIONS."  THE DISSENT REFERRED REPEATEDLY TO
FOREIGN MERCHANDISE AS DID COUNSEL IN THEIR ARGUMENT.  FOURTHLY, THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE COURT'S VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIONS THAT SEA
PRODUCTS ARE IMPORTS SEEMS TO ME UNFOUNDED.  DEEP-SEA PRODUCTS COME
FROM WATERS BEYOND THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OR JURISDICTION AND HENCE
ARE IMPORTS UNDER ANY DEFINITION.  AMERICAN FISHERIES EVEN MAY REQUIRE,
UNLESS AMERICAN BOTTOMS ARE AMERICAN TERRITORY, LEGISLATION TO RELIEVE
THEIR CATCH OF GENERAL TARIFF CHARGES.  PROCTER & GAMBLE MFG. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 19 C.C.P.A. (CUSTOMS) 415.  THE REQUIRED CONCLUSION, IT
SEEMS TO ME, IS THAT AN IMPORT IS AN ARTICLE BROUGHT FROM BEYOND THE
SOVEREIGNTY OR JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  DE LIMA V. BIDWELL,
182 U.S. 1, 180. 

(3)  LAND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES CANNOT EXPORT
TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 10, ARTICLE I, ANY MORE THAN ONE STATE
CAN EXPORT TO OR IMPORT FROM ANOTHER STATE.  192 U.S. AT 520.  WHEN THE
INSULAR CASES DETERMINED THAT ARTICLES FROM THE LANDS SPAIN CEDED TO US
WERE SUBJECT TO TARIFF DUTIES AT THE WILL OF CONGRESS, THE DECISIONS
WERE BASED ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO IMPOSE DUTIES UNEQUALLY, I E.,
WITHOUT UNIFORMITY, DESPITE ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 1, OF THE
CONSTITUTION,  FN5  ON COMMODITIES FROM LANDS UNDER OUR FLAG BECAUSE
THESE LANDS HAD NOT BEEN INCORPORATED BY ACT OF CONGRESS INTO THE UNION
AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNITED STATES.  DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S.
244, 298 ET SEQ.; DORR V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 138, 149; BALZAC V.
PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298, 305.  THE QUESTION AS TO THE MEANING OF
IMPORTS OR IMPORTED WAS NOT DISCUSSED.  WHETHER OR NOT THE ARTICLES
WERE IMPORTS, SO LONG AS THE LANDS OF THEIR ORIGIN WERE NOT AN INTEGRAL
PART OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CONGRESS COULD PUT SUCH DUTIES AS IT
CHOSE ON THE PRODUCTS.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE THE PHILIPPINES
IS NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNITED STATES ITS SHIPMENTS ARE IMPORTS
UNDER ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, UNLESS THE VIEW OF THE COURT'S OPINION OF
TODAY IS ADOPTED THAT AN IMPORT IS AN ARTICLE BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED
STATES AS THAT COUNTRY IS DEFINED IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  THE ARGUMENT
ADVANCED BY THE COURT TO SUSTAIN ITS DECLARATION THAT THE ARTICLES
BROUGHT FROM THE PHILIPPINES ARE IMPORTS WOULD HAVE MADE SHIPMENTS FROM
THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE, DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244, 322-33;
FLORIDA, ID. PP. 333-34, AND HAWAII, HAWAII V. MANKICHI, 190 U.S. 197,
219, ALSO IMPORTS UNTIL THESE TERRITORIES WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE
UNITED STATES.  HISTORY REFUTES SUCH A POSITION. 

WE ARE THUS LEFT TO DEFINE THE WORD IMPORT AS USED IN SEC. 10,
ARTICLE I, IN ITS NORMAL SENSE TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OF THE
AT P. 439.  WHETHER IT WAS TO GRANT THE UNION A SOURCE OF REVENUE, TO
PRESERVE HARMONY AMONG ITS MEMBERS OR TO AVOID STATE TARIFFS WHICH
WOULD AFFECT RELATIONS WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, THE PURPOSE IS NOT
ADVANCED BY MOLDING PHILIPPINE SHIPMENTS INTO IMPORTS IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  REVENUE MAY BE EXACTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
FROM PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS BROUGHT INTO THE STATES AND A STATE CANNOT
COLLECT A DUTY FROM SUCH ARTICLES IF THEY ARE NOT IMPORTS.  DOWNES V.
BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244; WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123, 133; COE V.
ERROL, 116 U.S. 517, 526.  NO LIGHT CAN COME FROM THE HISTORY OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE SECTION.  THE IDEA OF AN AMERICAN POSSESSION WAS NOT IN
BEING.  BUT SINCE THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE CREATING A COMMERCIAL AS
WELL AS A POLITICAL ENTITY, IT SEEMS MORE CONSONANT WITH THEIR PURPOSE
TO DEFINE IMPORTS UNDER THE SECTION AS THINGS BROUGHT INTO THE
TERRITORY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OR SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT. 

(4)  SUCH A CONCLUSION PROBABLY MEANT LITTLE TO THE PHILIPPINES. 
CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR THEIR EARLY INDEPENDENCE.  BUT THE PRINCIPLE
ESTABLISHED BY THIS DECISION WILL PERSIST FOR THE OTHER LANDS WHICH
BECAME AMERICAN BY THE TREATY OF PARIS.  THE COURT'S OPINION DISCLAIMS
DETERMINATION OF ANY RIGHTS BEYOND THE PHILIPPINES BUT THE BASIS UPON
WHICH THE DECISION RESTS SUPPORTS SIMILAR RIGHTS FOR ALL LANDS COVERED
BY THE TREATY OF PARIS.  SIMILAR ARTICLES COVERED ALL THE CEDED LANDS. 
FN6  PUERTO RICO IS IN THE SAME STATUS AS THE PHILIPPINES.  BALZAC V.
PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298, 305.  TODAY'S DECISION THUS ASSUMES A
CONTINUING IMPORTANCE WHICH JUSTIFIES SETTING OUT MY REASONS FOR
DISSENTING. 

FN1  PRODUCTS OF THE SEA BROUGHT IN AS IMPORTS ARE A MINOR
VARIATION. 

TARIFF ACT OF 1930, 46 STAT. 590, PROVIDES THAT DUTIABLE ARTICLES ARE
THOSE "IMPORTED FROM ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY."  THE PHILIPPINES IS NOT A
FOREIGN COUNTRY UNDER A TARIFF ACT WHICH PROHIBITS IMPORTATION FROM A
FOREIGN COUNTRY OF GOODS MADE BY CONVICT LABOR.  28 OP. ATTY. GEN.
422.  THE PHILIPPINES IS NOT FOREIGN COUNTRY UNDER THE TARIFF LAWS.  DE
LIMA V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 1, 197; FOURTEEN DIAMOND RINGS V. UNITED
STATES, 183 U.S. 176; DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 222, 234;
DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 183 U.S. 151; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V.
SPEED, 192 U.S. 500, 520. 

FN2  AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. V. CANTER, 1 PET. 511, 542; FLEMING V.
PAGE, 9 HOW.  603, 614; DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 222, 223. 

FN3  PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE ACT OF MARCH 24, 1934, 48 STAT. 456;
AMENDING THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE ACT AS TO TRADE AND FINANCIAL
RELATIONS AND RIGHTS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENS IN THE UNITED STATES AND
ALL PLACES SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION, ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1939, 53 STAT.
1226; SUSPENDING THE EXPORT TAX ON PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS, ACT OF DECEMBER
22, 1941, 55 STAT. 852; FILIPINO REHABILITATION COMMISSION ACT OF JUNE
29, 1944, 58 STAT. 626. 

FN4  ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT SERGIO OSMENA ON THE OCCASION OF THE
REESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT IN MANILA, FEBRUARY 27,
1945. 

FN5  ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 1:  "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO
LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES, TO PAY THE DEBTS
AND PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED
STATES; BUT ALL DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES SHALL BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES; ..." 

FN6  TREATY OF PARIS, DECEMBER 10, 1898, 30 STAT. 1754: 

"ARTICLE II. SPAIN CEDES TO THE UNITED STATES THE ISLAND OF PORTO
RICO AND OTHER ISLANDS NOW UNDER SPANISH SOVEREIGNTY IN THE WEST
INDIES, AND THE ISLAND OF GUAM IN THE MARIANAS OR LADRONES. 

"ARTICLE III.  SPAIN CEDES TO THE UNITED STATES THE ARCHIPELAGO KNOWN
AS THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AND COMPREHENDING THE ISLANDS LYING WITHIN
THE FOLLOWING LINE:..." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419, 442, MARSHALL, C.J., POINTEDLY
REJECTED THE ARGUMENT THAT THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN THAT CASE WOULD PERMIT
AN IMPORTER "TO BRING IN GOODS  ...  FOR HIS OWN USE, AND THUS RETAIN
MUCH VALUABLE PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  FN1  TODAY, THIS COURT,
IN HOLDING THAT AN OHIO MANUFACTURER MAY ESCAPE PAYMENT OF A NON
DISCRIMINATORY STATE AD VALOREM TAX ON GOODS IMPORTED FROM ABROAD AND
HELD FOR USE IN ITS FACTORY, INTERPRETS MARSHALL'S OPINION IN A MANNER
WHICH SQUARELY CONFLICTS WITH HIS OWN INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE HE
ANNOUNCED. 

IT HAS, FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT "...  THERE
MUST BE A POINT OF TIME WHEN THE PROHIBITION (TO TAX) CEASES, AND THE
POWER OF THE STATE TO TAX COMMENCES"; ALTHOUGH THE TASK OF DRAWING THIS
LINE IS SO DIFFICULT THAT NO GENERAL RULE "UNIVERSAL IN ITS
APPLICATION" CAN BE STATED, YET THAT LINE NEVERTHELESS "...  EXISTS,
AND MUST BE MARKED AS THE CASES ARISE."  BROWN V. MARYLAND, SUPRA,
441.  THE COURT DID THERE DRAW AN ARBITRARY LINE OF DEMARCATION MARKING
THE BOUNDARY OF A STATE'S POWER TO TAX PROPERTY "IMPORTED FOR SALE." 
IT HELD THAT, AS TO PROPERTY IMPORTED FOR SALE, "WHILE REMAINING THE
PROPERTY OF THE IMPORTER, IN HIS WAREHOUSE, IN THE ORIGINAL FORM OR
PACKAGE IN WHICH IT WAS IMPORTED, A TAX UPON IT IS TOO PLAINLY A DUTY
ON IMPORTS TO ESCAPE THE PROHIBITION IN THE CONSTITUTION."  BROWN V.
MARYLAND, SUPRA, AT 442.  THE RIGHT TO SELL, IT WAS THERE SAID, WAS AN
ELEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO IMPORT, AND THUS A STATE TAX IMPOSED BEFORE, OR
AS A CONDITION UPON, THE SALE, WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR THE RIGHT OF
SALE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPORTERS.  THE COURT REINFORCED ITS
CONCLUSION BY REFERRING TO ITS BELIEF THAT A STATE TAX ON THE IMPORTER
WOULD INCREASE THE COST TO THE ULTIMATE DOMESTIC PURCHASERS, AND THAT
THE EFFECT OF THIS WOULD BE TO ENABLE THE GREAT SEAPORT STATES
INDIRECTLY TO LEVY TRIBUTE UPON CONSUMERS OF IMPORTED ARTICLES LIVING
IN THE NONSEAPORT STATES, A PRACTICE WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE
HERE INVOKED WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT.  FN2 

WHILE THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN BROWN V. MARYLAND HAS AT TIMES BEEN
SEVERELY CRITICIZED, SEE E.G. LICENSE CASES, 5 HOW.  504, OPINION OF
MR. JUSTICE DANIEL, 615-617, AND HAS IN SOME CASES BEEN NARROWLY
RESTRICTED IN ITS APPLICATION,  FN3  IT HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS, THE
GENERAL RULE OF DECISION IN THIS COURT, AS REGARDS IMPORTS FOR SALE
FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  BUT NEITHER THE RULE NOR THE REASONING IN
BROWN V. MARYLAND, NOR ANY OF THE CASES WHICH FOLLOWED IT, SUPPORT THE
COURT'S HOLDING THAT ONE WHO IMPORTS AN ARTICLE FOR HIS OWN USE OR
CONSUMPTION CAN ENJOY THE FULL BENEFITS OF OWNERSHIP, AND
SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIM AN IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION ON THE GROUND THAT
IT IS STILL AN IMPORT.  THE COURT, IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, WAS IN REALITY
TREATING GOODS IN THE HANDS OF AN IMPORTER FOR SALE, AS THOUGH THEY
WERE STILL IN TRANSIT UNTIL THE FIRST SALE HAD BEEN MADE.  THIS WAS IN
ACCORD WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE BY CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY IN
THE LICENSE CASES, SUPRA, 575.  HE THERE SAID THAT WHILE IMPORTED
ARTICLES "ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE IMPORTER FOR SALE  ...  THEY MAY BE
REGARDED AS MERELY IN TRANSITU, AND ON THEIR WAY TO THE DISTANT CITIES,
VILLAGES AND COUNTRY FOR WHICH THEY ARE DESTINED, AND WHERE THEY ARE
EXPECTED TO BE USED AND CONSUMED, AND FOR THE SUPPLY OF WHICH THEY WERE
IN TRUTH IMPORTED."    BUT THE FIBERS HERE WERE NOT IN TRANSITU IN ANY
POSSIBLE SENSE OF THE PHRASE.  EVERY CONCEIVABLE RELATIONSHIP THEY HAD
ONCE BORNE TO THE PROCESS OF IMPORTATION HAD ENDED.  THEY WERE AT REST
IN THE PETITIONER'S FACTORY ALONG WITH ITS OTHER RAW MATERIALS, HAVING
ARRIVED AT THE POINT WHERE THEY WERE "TO BE USED AND CONSUMED" IN
CURRENT PRODUCTION, AND KEPT AS A "BACKLOG" TO ASSURE CONSTANT
OPERATION OF THE PLANT. 

BROWN V. MARYLAND AND THE CASES WHICH FOLLOWED IT STAND FOR THE RULE
THAT ONE WHO PAYS IMPORT DUTIES ON GOODS INTENDED FOR SALE THEREBY
PURCHASES THE RIGHT TO SELL THE GOODS, FREE FROM STATE TAXATION SO LONG
AS THE GOODS ARE HELD IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE.  UNTIL TODAY, NONE OF
THIS COURT'S DECISIONS HAVE EVER HELD OR EVEN INTIMATED THAT ONE WHO
IMPORTS GOODS FOR HIS OWN USE PURCHASES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BY
PAYMENT OF IMPORT DUTIES, A RIGHT TO HOLD THEM FREE FROM LIABILITY FOR
STATE TAXES, AFTER THEY HAVE REACHED THE END OF THEIR IMPORT JOURNEY
AND ARE BEING HELD FOR USE IN THE IMPORTER'S FACTORY.  NEITHER THE
"PURCHASE-OF-A-RIGHT-TO-SELL" ARGUMENT NOR ANY OF THE OTHER REASONS
DEEMED RELEVANT TO SUPPORT THE "IMPORT-FOR-SALE-ORIGINAL-PACKAGE"
DOCTRINE CALL FOR ITS EXTENSION TO GOODS IMPORTED FOR USE. 

IT IS CLEAR UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF BROWN V. MARYLAND, THAT AFTER SALE
BY AN IMPORTER, IMPORTED GOODS ARE SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION.  THE
OPINION OF THE COURT TODAY, HOLDING THAT GOODS HELD FOR USE ARE IMMUNE
FROM STATE TAXATION, RESULTS IN THIS RATHER ODD SITUATION:  ONE WHO
IMPORTS GOODS HIMSELF AND HOLDS THEM FOR HIS OWN USE IN HIS FACTORY IS
NOT LIABLE TO STATE TAXES ON SUCH GOODS; BUT IF HE BOUGHT THE GOODS
FROM ONE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORTING, HE WOULD BE LIABLE TO
TAXATION ON THE SAME GOODS.  THE ARTIFICIALITY OF THIS TAX DISTINCTION
SUGGESTS GRAVE REASONS TO QUESTION THE SOUNDNESS OF THE COURT'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE.  FURTHERMORE, IMPLICIT IN MARSHALL'S
OPINION IS A RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING GOODS IMPORTED
FOR SALE FROM DISCRIMINATION IN THE FORM OF TAXES.  THE NET EFFECT OF
TODAY'S OPINION IS TO ACCOMPLISH JUST SUCH DISCRIMINATION, IN FAVOR OF
GOODS IMPORTED FOR USE, AND AGAINST GOODS IMPORTED FOR SALE. 

AGAIN, STATE TAXATION OF PREVIOUSLY IMPORTED GOODS HELD FOR USE IN
MANUFACTURING DOES NOT AFFORD THE GREAT SEAPORT STATES AN OPPORTUNITY
TO TAX IMPORTS TO THE DETRIMENT OF OTHER STATES.  THIS WAS ONE OF THE
APPREHENDED EVILS WHICH THE "IMPORT FOR SALE" RULE IN BROWN V. MARYLAND
WAS FASHIONED TO PREVENT.  THE MOST FERTILE IMAGINATION WOULD BE HARD
PUT TO PROVE THAT IT WOULD INJURE OR THREATEN ANY OTHER STATE FOR OHIO
TO COLLECT ITS NON-DISCRIMINATORY AD VALOREM TAX ON FIBERS HELD FOR USE
IN THAT STATE.  CERTAINLY THE COURT ADVANCES NO PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT IN
THIS RESPECT.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT DOES APPEAR THAT OHIO, AS WELL AS
OTHER STATES, WILL BE INJURED BY A CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION WHICH
DENIES OHIO THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE TAX.  OHIO IS INJURED BY THE
COURT'S NEW RULE BECAUSE IT CANNOT APPORTION ITS TAX FAIRLY UPON ALL
WHO CARRY ON BUSINESS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF OHIO'S LAWS. 

THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT ALSO DISCRIMINATES AGAINST OTHER
STATES.  THEIR PRODUCTS HELD FOR USE ARE SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION. 
PRODUCTS FROM ABROAD ARE NOT.  WINES OFFER AN ILLUSTRATION.  WINES,
STOCKED IN ONE'S PRIVATE CELLAR, PRODUCED FROM CALIFORNIA OR NEW YORK
GRAPES, AND HELD FOR FUTURE USE IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE OR OTHERWISE,
ARE SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION.  TODAY'S RULE RENDERS A STATE WHOLLY
POWERLESS TO TAX WINES IMPORTED FROM ABROAD AND HELD FOR FUTURE USE
SIDE BY SIDE WITH TAXABLE WINES MADE IN THE UNITED STATES.  THUS,
THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION, ALL FOREIGN PRODUCTS ARE GRANTED
A TAX SUBSIDY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES AFFECTED.  IF I
THOUGHT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED SUCH TAX DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST
AMERICAN PRODUCTS, I SHOULD AGREE TO THE COURT'S OPINION.  THE WHOLE
HISTORY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE CONSTITUTION, AND THIS COURT'S
OPINIONS IN CONSTRUING IT, PERSUADE ME THAT NO SUCH CONSEQUENCE WAS
EVER CONTEMPLATED BY THOSE WHO WROTE OR APPROVED OUR CONSTITUTION. 

A FINAL WORD AS TO TODAY'S NEW CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE.  PRECISELY
HOW IT IS TO BE APPLIED THE COURT DOES NOT TELL US.  FROM ONE PART OF
THE COURT'S OPINION IT APPEARS THAT THE STATE CAN NEVER TAX THESE
FIBERS AT ALL, SINCE IT SEEMS TO BE SAID THE STATE CAN NEVER TAX UNTIL
THEY "ARE SUBJECTED TO THE MANUFACTURE FOR WHICH THEY WERE IMPORTED." 
ANOTHER PART OF THE OPINION INDICATES THEY CAN BE TAXED WHEN THE
ORIGINAL PACKAGE IS BROKEN.  PREVIOUS OPINIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE
INDICATED THE DIFFICULTIES AND DEFECTS OF AN ORIGINAL PACKAGE
DOCTRINE.  FN4  ARE THESE FIBERS TO BE TAXED WHEN THE "REED" WHICH
COVERS THEM IS REMOVED.  OR MUST THE STATE WAIT UNTIL IT CAN PROVE ONE
OF THE STEEL BANDS HAS BEEN BROKEN?  OTHER QUESTIONS SUGGEST THEMSELVES
IN REGARD TO WINE IMPORTED FOR USE AND STORED IN ONE'S PRIVATE CELLAR
FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION.  WHEN, IF AT ALL, CAN A STATE TAX IT?  IS
IT WHEN THE WINE REACHES THE CELLAR OR MUST THE STATE WITHHOLD ITS
TAXING HAND UNTIL THE WINE IS "SUBJECTED TO THE (CONSUMPTION) FOR WHICH
IT WAS IMPORTED"?  OR CAN THE STATE TAX EACH CRATE WHEN THE OWNER, OR
SOMEONE FOR HIM, REMOVES THE CRATE'S TOP WITH A CROWBAR?  IF THE WINE
IS IMPORTED IN LARGE CASKS, DOES IT BECOME TAXABLE WHEN THE STOPPER IS
REMOVED FROM THE BUNGHOLE OR ONLY WHEN A PART OR ALL OF IT HAS BEEN
CONSUMED?  THE STATES ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE A DEFINITE ANSWER TO THESE
PRACTICAL QUESTIONS. 

FN1  COUNSEL FOR MARYLAND HAD ARGUED THAT TO PERMIT STATE TAX
IMMUNITY IN THAT CASE WOULD RESULT IN GRANTING IMMUNITY TO "AN IMPORTER
WHO MAY BRING IN GOODS, AS PLATE, FOR HIS OWN USE, AND THUS RETAIN MUCH
VALUABLE PROPERTY EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  IN REPLY TO THIS ARGUMENT,
MARSHALL REJECTED THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PRINCIPLES THEN ANNOUNCED
WOULD GRANT STATE TAX EXEMPTIONS TO IMPORTS THAT HAD REACHED THEIR
ULTIMATE DESTINATION AND WERE BEING USED OR HELD FOR USE BY THE
IMPORTER.  "THE TAX," HE SAID, "FINDS THE ARTICLE ALREADY INCORPORATED
WITH THE MASS OF PROPERTY BY THE ACT OF THE IMPORTER.  HE HAS USED THE
PRIVILEGE (I.E., OF SALE) HE HAD PURCHASED, AND HAS HIMSELF MIXED THEM
UP WITH THE COMMON MASS, AND THE LAW MAY TREAT THEM AS IT FINDS THEM. 
THE SAME OBSERVATIONS APPLY TO PLATE, OR OTHER FURNITURE USED BY THE
IMPORTER."  P. 443. 

FN2  TO THE SAME EFFECT, SEE WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123, 134
136. 

FN3  SEE E.G. MAY V. NEW ORLEANS, 178 U.S. 496; BURKE V. WELLS, 208
U.S. 14; SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S. 506; GULF FISHERIES CO.
V. MACINERNEY, 276 U.S. 124; BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 526.  SEE
ALSO MEXICAN PETROLEUM CORP. V. SOUTH PORTLAND, 121 MAINE 128, 115 A.
900, 23 A.L.R. 965, 971-980; TRES RITOS RANCH CO. V. ABBOTT, 44 N.
MEX.  556, 105 P.2D 1070. 

FN4  NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
JOIN IN THIS OPINION.  MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS IS OF THE VIEW THAT,
ACCEPTING THE COURT'S RULING THAT THESE PRODUCTS ARE "IMPORTS," THE
RULE SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE PHILIPPINES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING IN PART. 

WITH MR. JUSTICE BLACK'S VIEW THAT WHATEVER CONSTITUTIONAL TAX
IMMUNITY THE MERCHANDISE IN QUESTION MAY HAVE HAD WAS LOST BY VIRTUE OF
ITS STORAGE IN PETITIONER'S WAREHOUSE PENDING ITS USE IN PETITIONER'S
MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS I AGREE.  BUT THE COURT HOLDS OTHERWISE ON
THAT ISSUE.  WE THEREFORE ARE MET WITH THE FURTHER ISSUE AS TO WHETHER
THE FACT THAT THE MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED FROM THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
TO THE UNITED STATES MADE THE MERCHANDISE AN IMPORT WITHIN THE MEANING
OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, CLAUSE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE
IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION.  AS TO THAT PROBLEM I AM CONVINCED THAT THE
AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS THE CORRECT ONE AND I
CONCUR IN THAT PORTION OF HIS OPINION. 

THAT AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER, IN MY ESTIMATION, IS COMPELLED IN GOOD
MEASURE BY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.  THE MORAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
OWED THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS BY THE UNITED STATES ARE, SO FAR AS I AM
AWARE, MATCHLESS AND UNIQUE.  THE UNITED STATES IS COMMITTED TO A
POLICY OF GRANTING COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE TO THE PHILIPPINES.  IT HAS
ALREADY GRANTED THEIR PEOPLE AND THEIR OFFICIALS A LARGE MEASURE OF
AUTONOMY.  BUT UNTIL THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES IS FINALLY
WITHDRAWN, THE UNITED STATES RETAINS PLENARY AND UNRESTRICTED POWERS
OVER THEM AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR WELFARE. 

WE HAVE AS A NATION EXHIBITED AN IDEAL AND A SELFLESS CONCERN FOR THE
WELL-BEING OF THE PHILIPPINE PEOPLE, A CONCERN THAT HAS BEEN DEEPENED
BY THE DEVASTATION THAT WAR HAS BROUGHT TO THEIR LAND.  SINCE THE
ISLANDS WERE CEDED TO US, WE HAVE AT ONCE FOSTERED THEIR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PREFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ENCOURAGED THEIR
DESIRES FOR FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE.  THEIR INDUSTRIES AND THEIR
AGRICULTURE HAVE GRADUALLY BEEN ADJUSTED IN CONTEMPLATION OF THEIR
EVENTUAL SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENCE.  BUT WAR HAS STRICKEN THEIR LAND AND
THEIR PEOPLES.  THEIR GROWING ECONOMY HAS BEEN LARGELY DECIMATED BY
OVER THREE YEARS OF RUTHLESS INVASION AND OCCUPATION.  FILIPINOS IN
COUNTLESS NUMBERS HAVE YIELDED UP NOT ONLY THEIR PROPERTY BUT THEIR
LIVES AND THEIR LIBERTIES.  THEIR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE HAS
FALLEN ABOUT THEM IN RUINS. 

NOW, WITH THE ISLANDS LIBERATED, OUR MORAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS ARE
GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE.  OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING URGENT
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION HAS BEEN READILY ASSUMED.  BUT THE MORE
COMPLEX AND DIFFICULT DUTY OF HELPING TO RECONSTRUCT THE PHILIPPINE
ECONOMIC STRUCTURE REMAINS TO BE FULFILLED.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
PHILIPPINES CANNOT SAFELY BE THROWN INTO THE WORLD MARKET AND LEFT TO
SHIFT FOR THEMSELVES.  FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, AT LEAST, THEIR
ECONOMY MUST BE CLOSELY LINKED TO THAT OF THE UNITED STATES, WITHOUT
EITHER COUNTRY ABANDONING OR RETREATING FROM THE COMMON IDEAL OF
INDEPENDENCE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 

ACCORDINGLY IT IS MY VIEW THAT IF IT IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO DO SO
WE SHOULD AVOID A CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM "IMPORTS," AS USED IN
ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, CLAUSE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THAT WOULD PLACE
PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS AT A DISADVANTAGE ON THE AMERICAN MARKET TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF PRODUCTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES OR THAT MIGHT BE A MEANS OF
IMPEDING THE ECONOMIC REHABILITATION OF THE PHILIPPINES.  IF WE CAN
JUSTIFIABLY CONSTRUE THAT TERM TO PROHIBIT STATE TAXATION ON SHIPMENTS
FROM THE PHILIPPINES WE SHALL TO THAT EXTENT HAVE CONFORMED TO THE
NATIONAL POLICY OF AIDING THE PHILIPPINE RECONSTRUCTION.  ANY TAXATION
OR TARIFF ON PHILIPPINE SHIPMENTS THAT MAY BE FELT TO BE NECESSARY FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD THEN BECOME A MATTER SOLELY
FOR CONGRESS, WHICH COULD PROPERLY BALANCE ANY CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF
THE TWO NATIONS. 

SUCH A CONSTRUCTION, IN MY ESTIMATION, IS ENTIRELY FAIR AND
REASONABLE.  THERE ARE, TO BE SURE, STATEMENTS BY THIS COURT TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE TERM "IMPORTS" REFERS ONLY TO THOSE GOODS BROUGHT IN
FROM A COUNTRY FOREIGN TO THE UNITED STATES.  WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8
WALL.  123, 136; DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 183 U.S. 151, 154.  BUT SUCH
STATEMENTS, AS POINTED OUT BY THE COURT TODAY, WERE UNNECESSARY TO THE
DECISION OF THE ISSUES THERE INVOLVED AND CANNOT CONTROL THE PROBLEM
PRESENTED HERE.  IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD THAT THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ARE
NOT A FOREIGN COUNTRY WITHIN THE MEANING OF TARIFF LAWS SPECIFICALLY
REFERRING TO ANY "FOREIGN COUNTRY."  FOURTEEN DIAMOND RINGS V. UNITED
STATES, 183 U.S. 176; DE LIMA V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 1.  THE
INAPPLICABILITY OF THESE CASES IS OBVIOUS. 

IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT CONGRESS HAS USUALLY AVOIDED THE USE OF THE
TERM "IMPORTS" IN THE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION AFFECTING TRADE WITH THE
PHILIPPINES AND OTHER DEPENDENCIES AND THAT THE TERM HAS BEEN REGARDED
BY CERTAIN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AS INAPPLICABLE TO ARTICLES COMING FROM
THE PHILIPPINES.  BUT SUCH USAGE CLEARLY CANNOT AFFECT OUR
INTERPRETATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 

AS APPEARS MORE FULLY IN THE COURT'S OPINION, THERE IS THUS NO
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY REQUIRING US TO HOLD THAT SHIPMENTS FROM THE
PHILIPPINES ARE NOT IMPORTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 10,
CLAUSE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE
INTERPRETATION OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ADOPTED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE IS A PERMISSIBLE ONE.  AND, IN VIEW OF WHAT I CONCEIVE TO BE
THE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS A HIGHLY NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE
ONE.  ONLY UNDER THAT INTERPRETATION CAN THIS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION
BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR DUTIES AS TRUSTEE FOR THE PHILIPPINES. 
..END :











COMMISSIONER V. SMITH, 324 U.S. 695 


NO. 371.  DECIDED APRIL 9, 1945.  - REHEARING DENIED. 


THE CONCLUSION OF THE TAX COURT UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THAT THE
OPTION TO PURCHASE STOCK WAS EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED AND TAXABLE
COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED, NOT WHEN THE OPTIONEE MADE HIS ELECTION AND
PAID THE OPTION PRICE, BUT WHEN THE SHARES WERE DELIVERED TO HIM, IS
SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  P. 696. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. SMITH. 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING. 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING OF COMMISSIONER V. SMITH, 324 U.S. 177. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, ON MOTION FOR REHEARING IN THIS COURT, FOR THE FIRST TIME
CONTENDS THAT IF HE IS TAXABLE AT ALL AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE OPTION
IN 1934, HE IS TAXABLE AS OF THE DATE IN MARCH, 1938, WHEN HE EXERCISED
HIS OPTION, AND NOT WHEN HE RECEIVED THE STOCK IN LATER YEARS.  THE
ONLY LATER YEAR IN QUESTION IS 1939 IN WHICH THE RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF THE STOCK.  BEFORE THE DELIVERY IN 1939 AND AFTER THE EXERCISE
OF THE OPTION IN 1938 THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF
THE STOCK.  HE ARGUES THAT THE TAX SHOULD BE MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF
THE STOCK IN 1938 LESS THE OPTION PRICE.  CF. PALMER V. COMMISSIONER,
302 U.S. 63, 73. 

IT IS TRUE THAT RESPONDENT GAVE NOTICE OF HIS EXERCISE OF THE OPTION
AND PAID THE OPTION PRICE IN 1938.  BUT AT THAT TIME WESTERN, UNDER ITS
CONTRACT WITH HAWLEY, HAD A RIGHT TO RECEIVE BUT A PART OF THE STOCK
SUBJECT TO RESPONDENT'S OPTION; ITS RIGHT TO THE REMAINDER WAS
CONDITIONED UPON ITS MAKING FURTHER PAYMENTS OF HAWLEY'S INDEBTEDNESS. 
RESPONDENT'S OPTION CONTEMPLATED DELIVERY TO HIM OF HAWLEY'S STOCK ONLY
IF AND WHEN WESTERN BECAME ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE STOCK FROM HAWLEY. 
IN FACT DELIVERIES OF THE STOCK WERE MADE TO RESPONDENT UPON EACH
OCCASION ONLY A DAY OR TWO AFTER WESTERN RECEIVED IT FROM HAWLEY. 

THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT RESPONDENT RECEIVED COMPENSATION "WHEN (HE)
EXERCISED HIS OPTION AND RECEIVED THE STOCK."  WE TAKE IT THAT THE TAX
COURT REGARDED FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS UPON THE RIGHT OF WESTERN
TO RECEIVE THE STOCK, AND THEREFORE OF THE CONDITIONS UPON THE
DERIVATIVE RIGHT OF RESPONDENT TO RECEIVE IT UNDER HIS OPTION, AS
PREREQUISITE TO THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION; AND THAT THE
TAXABLE COMPENSATION TO RESPONDENT INTENDED TO BE SECURED BY THE OPTION
WAS IN FACT RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT AS AND WHEN THE SHARES OF STOCK WERE
DELIVERED TO HIM, SINCE PRIOR TO THAT TIME THERE WAS NO CERTAINTY THAT
HE WOULD RECEIVE THE STOCK.  THIS CONCLUSION OF THE TAX COURT FINDS
AMPLE SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, AND WE CONCUR IN IT. 

WE DO NOT HAVE BEFORE US A CASE WHERE BY THE EXERCISE OF AN OPTION IN
ONE YEAR THE TAXPAYER ACQUIRES AN UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE
STOCK IN A LATER YEAR.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON THE QUESTION
WHETHER, IN SUCH A CASE, COMPENSATION WOULD BE RECEIVED AND WOULD BE
TAXABLE IN THE EARLIER OR THE LATER YEAR. 

THE PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ADHERES TO HIS DISSENT. 
..END :













BROOKLYN BANK V. O'NEIL, 324 U.S. 697 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 6, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1945.  - 293 N.Y. 666,
56 N.E.2D 259, AFFIRMED.  - 144F.2D 584, AFFIRMED.  - 144F.2D 292,
REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A BONA FIDE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE
EMPLOYEE AS TO LIABILITY, AN EMPLOYEE'S WRITTEN WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
DOES NOT BAR A SUBSEQUENT ACTION BY THE EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER SUCH
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  P. 707. 

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY BEHIND THE PROVISION OF SEC. 16(B) FOR
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AS EVIDENCED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
PROVISION AND BY OTHER PROVISIONS AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACT, SHOWS
THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT AN EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  P. 706. 

3.  EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE KIND HELD TO JUSTIFY A WAIVER
AGREEMENT SUCH AS WAS UPHELD IN FORT SMITH & WESTERN R. CO. V. MILLS,
253 U.S. 206, ARE NOT HERE INVOLVED.  P. 709. 

4.  THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEE TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 16(B)
DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE IS COMPELLED TO SUE FOR MINIMUM
WAGES DUE.  P. 711. 

5.  ABSENCE FROM THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF A SPECIFIC PROVISION
PROHIBITING WAIVERS OF RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS
PERMITTING SUCH WAIVERS.  P. 712. 

6.  AN EMPLOYEE'S RELEASE AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO MINIMUM WAGES AND
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, IN CONSIDERATION
OF A SUM KNOWN BY BOTH EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE TO BE LESS THAN THE
STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGES DUE, IS VOID.  P. 713. 

7.  IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF THE VALIDITY AND
EFFECT OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IN SETTLEMENT OF
CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE ACT WHERE THERE IS A BONA FIDE DISPUTE BETWEEN
THE PARTIES.  P. 714. 

8.  THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT TO INTEREST ON SUMS RECOVERABLE UNDER
SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS ONE OF FEDERAL, NOT
LOCAL, LAW.  P. 715. 

9.  AN EMPLOYEE RECOVERING MINIMUM WAGES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER
SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST
ON THE SUMS SO RECOVERED.  P. 715. 

BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V. O'NEIL. 

NO. 445.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 554, DIZE V. MADDRIX, ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1945, AND
NO. 421, ARSENAL BUILDING CORP. ET AL. V. GREENBERG, ON CERTIORARI TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, ARGUED FEBRUARY 2,
5, 1945. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 698, 702, TO REVIEW DECISIONS IN THREE CASES
UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI GRANTED IN THESE THREE CASES PRESENT
QUESTIONS AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, AT 1069, WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN
EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE MINIMUM WAGE AND MAXIMUM HOUR PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT "...  SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES AFFECTED IN
THE AMOUNT OF THEIR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OR THEIR UNPAID OVERTIME
COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IN AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL AMOUNT AS
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES...."  FN1  CASES NO. 445 AND NO. 554 RAISE THE
QUESTION WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE ACT CAN WAIVE
OR RELEASE HIS RIGHT TO RECEIVE FROM HIS EMPLOYER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
UNDER SEC. 16(B).  CASE NO. 421 PRESENTS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER IN A SUIT
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 16(B) THE EMPLOYEE IS
ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON SUMS RECOVERED AS WAGES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
UNDER THAT SECTION.  SINCE THESE THREE CASES INVOLVE SIMILAR PROBLEMS
RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 16(B) AND THE CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY BEHIND ITS ADOPTION, ALL THREE CASES WILL BE DEALT WITH IN ONE
OPINION.  SEE ALSO NO. 462, POST, P. 720. 

                               NO. 445. 

THE PETITIONER, BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK, OWNED AND OPERATED AN ELEVEN
STORY OFFICE BUILDING IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT WAS EMPLOYED AS A NIGHT
WATCHMAN DURING A TWO-YEAR PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 5, 1938, TO AUGUST 30,
1940.  SINCE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THAT BUILDING WAS DEVOTED TO THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE,  FN2  THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO
OVERTIME COMPENSATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  FN3  52 STAT. 1063.  NO SUCH COMPENSATION WAS PAID AT
THAT TIME.  HOWEVER, IN NOVEMBER, 1942, OVER TWO YEARS AFTER THE
RESPONDENT HAD LEFT PETITIONER'S SERVICE, THE PETITIONER COMPUTED THE
STATUTORY OVERTIME COMPENSATION DUE THE RESPONDENT AND OFFERED HIM A
CHECK FOR $423.16 IN RETURN FOR A RELEASE OF ALL OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER
THE ACT.  THE RESPONDENT SIGNED THE RELEASE AND TOOK THE CHECK.  SINCE
THIS SUM DID NOT INCLUDE ANY PAYMENT FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVIDED
FOR IN SEC. 16(B) OF THE ACT, THE RESPONDENT SUBSEQUENTLY INSTITUTED
THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IN A NEW YORK CITY MUNICIPAL COURT TO RECOVER
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES DUE HIM UNDER SEC. 16(B).  THE COMPLAINT WAS
DISMISSED ON THE GROUNDS THAT RESPONDENT FAILED TO PROVE A CAUSE OF
ACTION AND ALSO THAT THE RESPONDENT "RELEASED ANY CLAIM FOR LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES OR COUNSEL FEES."  THE APPELLATE TERM REVERSED, PER CURIAM,
HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS EMPLOYED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND WAS
ENTITLED THEREFORE TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES BY REASON OF
PETITIONER'S DEFAULT IN MAKING OVERTIME PAYMENTS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 7
OF THE ACT.  FN4  THIS DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE NEW YORK APPELLATE
DIVISION,  FN5  AND BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  FN6  SINCE THE
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A FEDERAL QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT
HERETOFORE DETERMINED BY THIS COURT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI  FN7
LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE RESPONDENT'S RELEASE OF ALL
CLAIMS AND DAMAGES UNDER THE ACT, GIVEN AT THE TIME HE RECEIVED PAYMENT
OF THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION DUE UNDER THE ACT, IS A DEFENSE TO AN
ACTION SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT SOLELY TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT RESTS ON SEC. 237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

                        NO. 554. 

THE PETITIONER IN THIS SECOND CASE OPERATED A BOX FACTORY IN WHICH HE
EMPLOYED THE RESPONDENT DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER, 1938, THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, TO NOVEMBER, 1942, WHEN
RESPONDENT WAS DISCHARGED.  DURING THIS PERIOD THE RESPONDENT WORKED
HOURS IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUMS IN EFFECT DURING THIS
PERIOD.  PETITIONER FAILED TO PAY RESPONDENT TIME AND ONE-HALF FOR
OVERTIME AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT.  IN SEPTEMBER, 1942, THE WAGE AND HOUR
ADMINISTRATION PROCURED AN INJUNCTION, BY CONSENT, PROHIBITING THE
PETITIONER FROM VIOLATING THE ACT.  IN NOVEMBER, 1942, THE PETITIONER
TENDERED THE RESPONDENT $500 FOR WAGES DUE AND OWING UNDER THE ACT, THE
LATTER ACCEPTING THE MONEY AND SIGNING A GENERAL RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS
AGAINST PETITIONER UNDER THE ACT.  BOTH PARTIES KNEW AT THIS TIME THAT
MORE THAN $500 WAS DUE TO RESPONDENT FOR MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME PAY
UNDER THE ACT.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT ENGAGED COUNSEL TO
RECOVER THE BALANCE DUE HIM UNDER THE ACT.  PETITIONER, BEFORE SUIT WAS
FILED, TENDERED THE BALANCE OF THE STATUTORY WAGES DUE, BUT RESPONDENT
REFUSED TO ACCEPT IT BECAUSE IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN EQUAL SUM FOR
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  THEREUPON THE RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT FOR $276.05,
THE BALANCE OF THE STATUTORY WAGES DUE RESPONDENT, AND $776.05, BEING
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES EQUAL TO THE WHOLE AMOUNT ($500 PLUS $276.05) WHICH
HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN UNLAWFULLY WITHHELD.  IN HIS ANSWER, THE PETITIONER
PLEADED SETTLEMENT OF RESPONDENT'S CLAIM FOR $500, THE RELEASE GIVEN BY
RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO SUCH SETTLEMENT, AND THE PETITIONER'S SUBSEQUENT
TENDER OF A CHECK FOR THE DEFICIENCY IN STATUTORY MINIMUM AND OVERTIME
WAGES DUE.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT
RELYING ON GUESS V. MONTAGUE, 140 F.2D 500, WHICH HELD INVALID A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON THE PART OF EMPLOYEES TO ACCEPT LESS THAN THE
STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE.  FN8 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  FN9 

BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN, BUT SHOULD BE,
SETTLED BY THIS COURT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI  FN10  LIMITED TO THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A COMPROMISE OF RESPONDENT'S CLAIM. 
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT RESTS ON SEC. 240(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

THE PETITION IN NO. 445 RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE,
ACCEPTING FROM HIS EMPLOYER A DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE BASIC STATUTORY
WAGES DUE UNDER THE ACT, CAN VALIDLY RELEASE AND WAIVE ANY FURTHER
RIGHT TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
16(B).  FN11  A PRELIMINARY QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER RESPONDENT'S
RELEASE WAS GIVEN IN SETTLEMENT OF A BONA FIDE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGE OR AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE ACT OR WHETHER
IT CONSTITUTED A MERE WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  THE
STATE COURTS MADE NO FINDINGS OF FACT ON THIS ISSUE.  WHERE A STATE
COURT FAILS TO PASS ON EVIDENCE OR MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT BECAUSE UNDER
THEIR RESPECTIVE VIEWS THE FACTS REFERRED TO ARE IMMATERIAL, WE ARE NOT
RELIEVED FROM THE DUTY OF EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING WHAT FACTS REASONABLY MIGHT BE AND PRESUMABLY WOULD BE
FOUND THEREFROM BY THE STATE COURT.  MERCHANTS' NATIONAL BANK V.
RICHMOND, 256 U.S. 635, 638; CARLSON V. CURTISS, 234 U.S. 103, 105. 
CF. UNITED GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123, 143; CRESWILL V. KNIGHTS OF
PYTHIAS, 225 U.S. 246, 261.  WE THINK THE RECORD IN THIS CASE SHOWS
THAT THE RELEASE WAS NOT GIVEN IN SETTLEMENT OF A BONA FIDE DISPUTE
BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  PETITIONER UNDERTOOK TO PAY THE
RESPONDENT AFTER OUR DECISION IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S.
517, WHICH DETERMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
TO BUILDING OPERATORS LIKE THE PETITIONER.  PETITIONER'S ANSWER IN THE
MUNICIPAL COURT MERELY RELIED UPON PAYMENT OF THE STATUTORY LIABILITY
AND THE RELEASE OF OTHER CLAIMS.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE RECITAL IN
THE RELEASE, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD WHICH SHOWS THAT THE
RESPONDENT'S RELEASE WAS OBTAINED AS THE RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT OF A
BONA FIDE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO COVERAGE OR
AMOUNT.  FN12  MOREOVER, THE DECISION BY THE NEW YORK APPELLATE
DIVISION WAS BASED ON RIGOPOULOS V. KERVAN, 140 F.2D 506, WHICH
INVOLVED WAIVER OF RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN THE ABSENCE OF A BONA
FIDE DISPUTE AND WHICH EXPRESSLY RESERVED DECISION ON THE QUESTION OF
VALIDITY OF A SETTLEMENT WHERE THERE WAS SUCH A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES.  THE ISSUE PRESENTED IN NO. 445 THEREFORE IS WHETHER IN THE
ABSENCE OF A BONA FIDE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO LIABILITY,
RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER
SEC. 16(B) BARS A SUBSEQUENT ACTION TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  WE
ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT DOES NOT BAR SUCH CLAIM.  FN13 

IT HAS BEEN HELD IN THIS AND OTHER COURTS THAT A STATUTORY RIGHT
CONFERRED ON A PRIVATE PARTY, BUT AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MAY
NOT BE WAIVED OR RELEASED IF SUCH WAIVER OR RELEASE CONTRAVENES THE
STATUTORY POLICY.  MIDSTATE HORTICULTURAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.,
320 U.S. 356, 361; PHILLIPS V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 236 U.S. 662, 667. 
CF. YOUNG V. HIGBEE CO., 324 U.S. 204, 212.  WHERE A PRIVATE RIGHT IS
GRANTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO EFFECTUATE A LEGISLATIVE POLICY,
WAIVER OF A RIGHT SO CHARGED OR COLORED WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL
NOT BE ALLOWED WHERE IT WOULD THWART THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY WHICH IT
WAS DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE.  FN14 WITH RESPECT TO PRIVATE RIGHTS
CREATED BY A FEDERAL STATUTE, SUCH AS SEC. 16(B), THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE STATUTORY RIGHT MAY BE WAIVED DEPENDS UPON THE INTENTION OF
CONGRESS AS MANIFESTED IN THE PARTICULAR STATUTE.  AS WAS STATED IN
MIDSTATE HORTICULTURAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 320 U.S. 356, 360,
"...  WHETHER THE POLICY OF  ...  (THE) LEGISLATION CONTEMPLATES THE
ONE RESULT OR THE OTHER  ...  IS THE CONTROLLING QUESTION." 

NEITHER THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, THE LEGISLATIVE REPORTS  FN15  NOR
THE DEBATES  FN16  INDICATES THAT THE QUESTION AT ISSUE WAS
SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED AND RESOLVED BY CONGRESS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
EVIDENCE OF SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO
RESORT TO A BROADER CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY BEHIND THIS
PROVISION AS EVIDENCED BY ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE PROVISIONS IN
AND STRUCTURE OF THE ACT.  SEE TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321
U.S. 590, 597; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 117-18, 122-23. 
SUCH CONSIDERATION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT AN
EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT SHOWS AN
INTENT ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT CERTAIN GROUPS OF THE
POPULATION FROM SUB-STANDARD WAGES AND EXCESSIVE HOURS WHICH ENDANGERED
THE NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING AND THE FREE FLOW OF GOODS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE N17.  THE STATUTE WAS A RECOGNITION OF THE FACT
THAT DUE TO THE UNEQUAL BARGAINING POWER AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE, CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION REQUIRED FEDERAL
COMPULSORY LEGISLATION TO PREVENT PRIVATE CONTRACTS ON THEIR PART WHICH
ENDANGERED NATIONAL HEALTH AND EFFICIENCY AND AS A RESULT THE FREE
MOVEMENT OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN18  TO ACCOMPLISH THIS
PURPOSE STANDARDS OF MINIMUM WAGES AND MAXIMUM HOURS WERE PROVIDED. 
NEITHER PETITIONER NOR RESPONDENT SUGGESTS THAT THE RIGHT TO THE BASIC
STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE COULD BE WAIVED BY ANY EMPLOYEE SUBJECT TO THE
ACT.  NO ONE CAN DOUBT BUT THAT TO ALLOW WAIVER OF STATUTORY WAGES BY
AGREEMENT WOULD NULLIFY THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT THE SAME POLICY CONSIDERATIONS WHICH FORBID WAIVER OF BASIC
MINIMUM AND OVERTIME WAGES UNDER THE ACT ALSO PROHIBIT WAIVER OF THE
EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 

WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE PROVISION IS NOT
PENAL IN ITS NATURE BUT CONSTITUTES COMPENSATION FOR THE RETENTION OF A
WORKMAN'S PAY WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN DAMAGES TOO OBSCURE AND DIFFICULT
OF PROOF FOR ESTIMATE OTHER THAN BY LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  OVERNIGHT
MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572.  IT CONSTITUTES A CONGRESSIONAL
RECOGNITION THAT FAILURE TO PAY THE STATUTORY MINIMUM ON TIME MAY BE SO
DETRIMENTAL TO MAINTENANCE OF THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING "NECESSARY
FOR HEALTH, EFFICIENCY AND GENERAL WELL-BEING OF WORKERS"  FN19  AND TO
THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, THAT DOUBLE PAYMENT MUST BE MADE IN THE
EVENT OF DELAY IN ORDER TO INSURE RESTORATION OF THE WORKER TO THAT
MINIMUM STANDARD OF WELL-BEING.  FN20  EMPLOYEES RECEIVING LESS THAN
THE STATUTORY MINIMUM ARE NOT LIKELY TO HAVE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO
MAINTAIN THEIR WELL-BEING AND EFFICIENCY UNTIL SUCH SUMS ARE PAID AT A
FUTURE DATE.  THE SAME POLICY WHICH FORBIDS WAIVER OF THE STATUTORY
MINIMUM AS NECESSARY TO THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE REQUIRES THAT
REPARATIONS TO RESTORE DAMAGE DONE BY SUCH FAILURE TO PAY ON TIME MUST
BE MADE TO ACCOMPLISH CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSES.  MOREOVER, THE SAME
POLICY WHICH FORBIDS EMPLOYEE WAIVER OF THE MINIMUM STATUTORY RATE
BECAUSE OF INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER, PROHIBITS THESE SAME
EMPLOYEES FROM BARGAINING WITH THEIR EMPLOYER IN DETERMINING WHETHER SO
LITTLE DAMAGE WAS SUFFERED THAT WAIVER OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGE IS CALLED
FOR.  THIS CONCLUSION IS IN ACCORD WITH DECISIONS OF THE MAJORITY OF
THE FEDERAL COURTS THAT HAVE CONSIDERED THIS QUESTION.  FN21  THIS
RESULT, MOREOVER, AVOIDS THE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS OF ALLOCATION THAT
WOULD ARISE IN NUMEROUS CASES WHERE A LUMP SUM WAS PAID FOR BACK WAGES
AND WAIVER OF RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND WHERE ISSUE WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY RAISED AS TO WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN FULL PAYMENT OF THE
BASIC MINIMUM AND OVERTIME WAGES SPECIFIED IN THE ACT.  NOR DOES THE
INSTANT CASE INVOLVE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE KIND HELD TO
JUSTIFY A WAIVER AGREEMENT SUCH AS WAS UPHELD IN FORT SMITH & WESTERN
R. CO. V. MILLS, 253 U.S. 206. 

THE PRIVATE-PUBLIC CHARACTER OF THIS RIGHT IS FURTHER BORNE OUT BY AN
EXAMINATION OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  ALTHOUGH THE
DIFFICULTIES OF ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE ACT WERE RECOGNIZED,  FN22  THE
ADMINISTRATOR WAS GIVEN LIMITED ENFORCEMENT POWERS.  CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION WAS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS - DIFFICULT TO
PROVE.  SEC. 16(A).  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S CIVIL REMEDY LAY BY WAY OF
SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION, WHICH BY ITS NATURE TENDS TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN
OPERATION.  NO POWER WAS VESTED IN THE ADMINISTRATOR TO BRING AN ACTION
AT LAW TO OBTAIN PAYMENT OF MINIMUM WAGES LEFT UNPAID AND TO RECOVER
DAMAGES ARISING FROM DELAY IN PAYMENT.  SOLE RIGHT TO BRING SUCH SUIT
WAS VESTED IN THE EMPLOYEE UNDER SEC. 16(B).  ALTHOUGH THIS RIGHT TO
SUE IS COMPENSATORY, IT IS NEVERTHELESS AN ENFORCEMENT PROVISION.  FN23
AND NOT THE LEAST EFFECTIVE ASPECT OF THIS REMEDY IS THE POSSIBILITY
THAT AN EMPLOYER WHO GAMBLES ON EVADING THE ACT WILL BE LIABLE FOR
PAYMENT NOT ONLY OF THE BASIC MINIMUM ORIGINALLY DUE BUT ALSO DAMAGES
EQUAL TO THE SUM LEFT UNPAID.  TO PERMIT AN EMPLOYER TO SECURE A
RELEASE FROM THE WORKER WHO NEEDS HIS WAGES PROMPTLY WILL TEND TO
NULLIFY THE DETERRENT EFFECT WHICH CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED THAT SEC.
16(B) SHOULD HAVE.  KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER THAT HE
CANNOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
THE NEEDS OF HIS EMPLOYEES TENDS TO INSURE COMPLIANCE IN THE FIRST
PLACE.  TO ALLOW CONTRACTS FOR WAIVER OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
APPROXIMATES SITUATIONS WHERE COURTS HAVE UNIFORMLY HELD THAT CONTRACTS
TENDING TO ENCOURAGE VIOLATION OF LAWS ARE VOID AS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
POLICY.  FN24 

PROHIBITION OF WAIVER OF CLAIMS FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ACCORDS WITH
THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF UNIFORMITY IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO ALL EMPLOYERS SUBJECT THERETO, UNLESS
EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  AN EMPLOYER IS NOT TO
BE ALLOWED TO GAIN A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT
HIS EMPLOYEES ARE MORE WILLING TO WAIVE CLAIMS FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
THAN ARE THOSE OF HIS COMPETITOR.  FN25  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS
CALLING FOR EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WHICH WE FOUND SO COMPELLING IN
MIDSTATE HORTICULTURAL CO., SUPRA, EXIST HERE. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE REFLECT THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
DISCUSSED ABOVE WHICH PROHIBIT WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES.  SECTIONS 7(A) AND 16(B) ARE MANDATORY IN FORM.  IN TERMS THEY
DIRECT THAT THE EMPLOYER SHALL NOT EMPLOY A WORKER LONGER THAN THE
SPECIFIED TIME WITHOUT PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND THAT, UPON
VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION, THE EMPLOYER SHALL BE LIABLE FOR STATUTORY
WAGES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ONE SECTION, SEC. 16(B), CREATES THE
OBLIGATION FOR THE ENTIRE REMEDY.  COLLECTION OF BOTH WAGES AND DAMAGES
IS LEFT TO THE EMPLOYEE.  FN26 

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT SEC. 16(B) INDICATES THAT THE RIGHT TO
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ARISES ONLY IF THE EMPLOYEE IS COMPELLED TO SUE FOR
MINIMUM WAGES DUE.  SECTION 16(B) IN NO WAY BEARS OUT THIS
INTERPRETATION.  FN27  IT PROVIDES ABSOLUTELY THAT THE EMPLOYER SHALL
BE LIABLE FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO MINIMUM WAGES
OVERDUE; LIABILITY IS NOT CONDITIONED ON DEFAULT AT THE TIME SUIT IS
BEGUN.  IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ELIMINATION FROM A PREDECESSOR BILL
OF A PROVISION PROHIBITING WAIVER OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO ALLOW AN EMPLOYEE TO WAIVE HIS
CLAIM TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  FN28  BUT SUCH A CONTENTION PROVES TOO
MUCH.  IT APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE TO THE RIGHT TO MINIMUM WAGES.  SUCH
AN INTERPRETATION WOULD NULLIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ACT.  IT IS
ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE FAILURE TO IMPOSE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR THE
VIOLATION OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE PROVISIONS OR TO AUTHORIZE AN
INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THEIR VIOLATION MANIFESTS A DIFFERENCE IN
CONGRESS' ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WAIVER OF THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO THE
BASIC STATUTORY WAGE AS COMPARED WITH HIS RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 
BUT THERE IS NO REASON FOR MAKING AN EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL
PENALTY OR AN INJUNCTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  THEY
ARE COLLECTIBLE AS PRIVATE DAMAGES BY THE EMPLOYEE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY
THE SAME REQUIREMENTS AS TO WAGES WHICH ARE PUNISHED AND CONTROLLED, SO
FAR AS THE PURELY PUBLIC INTEREST IS CONCERNED, BY CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
AND INJUNCTION. 

PETITIONER RELIES ON THE FACT THAT VARIOUS OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES
AUTHORIZING EMPLOYEES TO SUE FOR WAGES OR FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM
INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT CONTAIN SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS PROHIBITING WAIVER OF RIGHTS UNDER THE ACTS INVOLVED, OR
PROVIDE MEANS BY WHICH COMPROMISES AND SETTLEMENTS CAN BE APPROVED. 
FN29  THERE IS NO INDICATION WHY CONGRESS DID NOT EMBODY A SIMILAR
PROVISION IN THE ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE.  ABSENCE OF SUCH
PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, HAS NOT PREVENTED THE COURTS FROM INVALIDATING
WAIVERS WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY WOULD BE THWARTED BY PERMITTING
SUCH CONTRACTS.  FN30  THE DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS BASED ON THE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY BEHIND THIS ENACTMENT AND ISSUES ARISING UNDER OTHER
ACTS HAVING DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUNDS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE IN
DETERMINING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WITH RESPECT TO THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  FAILURE TO PROVIDE A METHOD OF WAIVING CLAIMS UNDER THE
ACT CAN SUPPORT CONTRARY INFERENCES, THAT SUCH WAIVERS WERE TO BE
ALLOWED OR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT STATE A SETTLED POLICY WHICH
CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY PRIVATE CONTRACTS.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SUPPORT A VIEW
PROHIBITING SUCH WAIVER.  AS WAS STATED IN WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379, 397, "'WHILE IN INDIVIDUAL CASES HARDSHIP MAY
RESULT, THE RESTRICTION WILL ENURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL CLASS
OF EMPLOYEES IN WHOSE INTEREST THE LAW IS PASSED AND SO TO THAT OF THE
COMMUNITY AT LARGE.'  (ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525.) 
ID., P. 563." 

THE INVALIDITY OF THE RELEASE OR WAIVER IN NO. 445 MAKES THE RELEASE
AND WAIVER INVOLVED IN NO. 554 A FORTIORI INVALID.  IN THE LATTER CASE
BOTH THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT  FN31  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FN32  FOUND "THAT BOTH PARTIES KNEW MORE THAN $500.00 WAS DUE  ..." 
AT THE TIME THE PETITIONER TENDERED $500 TO THE RESPONDENT IN RETURN
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE RELEASE COVERING ALL OF THE RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER EMPLOYER.  THUS IN THAT CASE THE EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE ATTEMPTED BY MEANS OF THAT RELEASE TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO THE
BASIC STATUTORY MINIMUM AS WELL AS THE RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 
THIS ATTEMPTED RELEASE AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT WAS
ABSOLUTELY VOID.  SEE SMITH V. MCCULLOUGH, 270 U.S. 456, 465.  WHEN
PETITIONER ATTEMPTED TO PAY THE ADDITIONAL SUM DUE AS A STATUTORY
MINIMUM, THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO ACCEPT PAYMENT, THUS THERE WAS NO
VALID SETTLEMENT WHICH WOULD OPERATE TO BAR THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYEE'S
RIGHT TO RECOVER THE BALANCE OF THE STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE STILL DUE
AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES EQUAL IN AMOUNT TO THE ENTIRE SUM OF WAGES WHICH
THE EMPLOYER HAD NOT PAID PROMPTLY. 

OUR DECISION OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN NO. 445 AND NO. 554 HAS NOT
NECESSITATED A DETERMINATION OF WHAT LIMITATION, IF ANY, SEC. 16(B) OF
THE ACT PLACES ON THE VALIDITY OF AGREEMENTS BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE TO SETTLE CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE ACT IF THE SETTLEMENT IS
MADE AS THE RESULT OF A BONA FIDE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES, IN
CONSIDERATION OF A BONA FIDE COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT.  NEITHER OF THE
ABOVE-MENTIONED CASES PRESENTED SUCH ISSUES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION.  CF.
DUNCAN V. THOMPSON, 315 U.S. 1, 7; GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317
U.S. 239; TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, 603. 

THERE REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE
RECOVERING MINIMUM WAGES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 16(B) IS ALSO ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE SUMS SO RECOVERED.  FN33
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN NO. 421  FN34  TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE
PROPRIETY OF ALLOWING INTEREST ON RECOVERIES OF UNPAID OVERTIME
COMPENSATION AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE ACT.  CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED BECAUSE THAT COURT DECIDED AN IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION OF
SUBSTANCE WHICH HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN DETERMINED BY THIS COURT.  THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IN NO. 421 RESTS ON SEC. 240(A) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT TO INTEREST ON
SUMS RECOVERABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 16(B) OF THE ACT
CONSTITUTES A QUESTION OF FEDERAL, NOT LOCAL, LAW.  BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343, 349-50; SEE PRUDENCE
CORP. V. GEIST, 316 U.S. 89, 95; GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317
U.S. 239.  INTEREST IS NOT RECOVERABLE IN JUDGMENTS OBTAINED UNDER SEC.
16(B).  AS WAS INDICATED IN OUR DECISION IN OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V.
MISSEL, SUPRA, SEC. 16(B) AUTHORIZES THE RECOVERY OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
AS COMPENSATION FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT OF SUMS DUE UNDER THE ACT.  SINCE
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO FIX THE SUMS RECOVERABLE FOR DELAY, IT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO GRANT RECOVERY OF INTEREST ON
SUCH SUMS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT INTEREST IS CUSTOMARILY ALLOWED AS
COMPENSATION FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT.  TO ALLOW AN EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER THE
BASIC STATUTORY WAGE AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, WITH INTEREST, WOULD HAVE
THE EFFECT OF GIVING AN EMPLOYEE DOUBLE COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES
ARISING FROM DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF THE BASIC MINIMUM WAGES.  SEE
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 289, 296.  ALLOWANCE OF
INTEREST ON MINIMUM WAGES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES RECOVERABLE UNDER SEC.
16(B) TENDS TO PRODUCE THE UNDESIRABLE RESULT OF ALLOWING INTEREST ON
INTEREST.  SEE CHEROKEE NATION V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 476, 490. 
CONGRESS BY ENUMERATING THE SUMS RECOVERABLE IN AN ACTION UNDER SEC.
16(B) MEANT TO PRECLUDE RECOVERY OF INTEREST ON MINIMUM WAGES AND
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  FN35 

THE JUDGMENTS IN NO. 445 AND NO. 554 ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED.  THE
JUDGMENT IN NO. 421 IS REVERSED IN SO FAR AS IT INCLUDED INTEREST. 

FN1  SECTION 16(B) PROVIDES: 

"ANY EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR SECTION 7
OF THIS ACT SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES AFFECTED IN
THE AMOUNT OF THEIR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OR THEIR UNPAID OVERTIME
COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IN AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL AMOUNT AS
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ACTION TO RECOVER SUCH LIABILITY MAY BE MAINTAINED
IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BY ANY ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES FOR
AND IN BEHALF OF HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AND OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY
SITUATED, OR SUCH EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES MAY DESIGNATE AN AGENT OR
REPRESENTATIVE TO MAINTAIN SUCH ACTION FOR AND IN BEHALF OF ALL
EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE COURT IN SUCH ACTION SHALL, IN
ADDITION TO ANY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFFS, ALLOW
A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE TO BE PAID BY THE DEFENDANT, AND COSTS OF
THE ACTION." 

FN2  THE NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM HELD THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER'S OPERATION OF ITS BUILDING.  THIS
HOLDING WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  SEE NOTES 5 AND 6.  PETITIONER DID NOT RAISE THIS ISSUE IN
HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

FN3  SECTION 7(A) PROVIDES: 

"NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION,
EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

(1)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, 

(2) FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-TWO HOURS DURING THE SECOND YEAR
FROM SUCH DATE, OR 

(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED
AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED." 

FN4  O'NEIL V. BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK, 180 MISC. 542, 43 N.Y.S.2D 25. 

FN5  O'NEIL V. BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK, 267 APP. DIV. 317, 46 N.Y.S.2D
631. 

FN6  AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION, 293 N.Y. 666, 56 N.E.2D 259. 

FN7  323 U.S. 698. 

FN8  MADDRIX V. DIZE, 7 WAGE HOUR REP. 313(JAN.  31, 1944, NOT
OFFICIALLY REPORTED). 

FN9  DIZE V. MADDRIX, 144 F.2D 584. 

FN10  323 U.S. 702. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 1 SUPRA. 

FN12  THE RESPONDENT, EMPLOYEE, WAS INFORMED BY A THIRD PERSON SOME
TWO YEARS AFTER HE LEFT THE PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT THAT PETITIONER HAD
SOME MONEY FOR HIM.  RESPONDENT WENT TO PETITIONER'S OFFICES. 
ACCORDING TO RESPONDENT'S TESTIMONY, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OR DISPUTE
PRIOR TO HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHECK GIVEN HIM BY THE PETITIONER EITHER
AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF LIABILITY UNDER THE ACT OR AS TO THE AMOUNT OF
SUCH LIABILITY.  VIEWED MOST FAVORABLY PETITIONER'S WITNESS' TESTIMONY
WAS MERELY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PETITIONER HAD SUBJECTIVE DOUBTS AS
TO THE EXISTENCE AND AMOUNT OF ITS LIABILITY.    FN13  FOR A GENERAL
DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THIS CASE, SEE HERMAN, THE
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 6 LAW
AND CONTEMP.  PROBS.  368; TEPPER, CONSENT JUDGMENTS AND CONTEMPT CASES
UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 22 BOSTON UNIV.  L. REV.
390; DETERMINATION OF WAGES UNDER FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 43 COL. L.
REV. 355; 57 HARV. L. REV. 257. 

FN14  SEE UNITED STATES V. MORLEY CONSTRUCTION CO., 98 F.2D 781, 788;
LABOR BOARD V. AMERICAN POTASH & CHEMICAL CORP., 113 F.2D 232, 118 F.2D
630; LABOR BOARD V. STACKPOLE CARBON CO., 128 F.2D 188, 190; WATERMAN
S.S. CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 119 F.2D 760; PERRY V. W.L. HUFFMAN
AUTOMOBILE CO., 104 NEB. 211, 175 N.W. 1021, REVERSED ON REHEARING, 104
NEB. 214, 179 N.W. 501; HARRINGTON V. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, 252
MICH. 87, 233 N.W. 361. 

FN15  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 16(B) APPEARED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE
BILL REPORTED BY A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OF BOTH HOUSES.  THE COMMITTEE
REPORT SIMPLY STATED, H. REP. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 33: 

"SECTION 16 OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PROVIDES A FINE OF NOT MORE
THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, OR BOTH, FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  NO PERSON IS TO BE IMPRISONED UPON CONVICTION
FOR A FIRST OFFENSE.  THIS SECTION ALSO PROVIDES FOR CIVIL REPARATIONS
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE WAGES AND HOURS PROVISIONS.  IF AN EMPLOYEE IS
EMPLOYED FOR LESS THAN THE LEGAL MINIMUM WAGE, OR IF HE IS EMPLOYED IN
EXCESS OF THE SPECIFIED HOURS WITHOUT RECEIVING THE PRESCRIBED PAYMENT
FOR OVERTIME, HE MAY RECOVER FROM HIS EMPLOYER TWICE THE AMOUNT BY
WHICH THE COMPENSATION HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED EXCEEDS THAT WHICH HE
ACTUALLY RECEIVED." 

THERE WERE THREE LEGISLATIVE REPORTS ON PREDECESSOR BILLS BUT THESE
BILLS DID NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION ANALOGOUS TO SEC. 16(B).  S. REP.
NO. 884, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 1452, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; H. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 

FN16  AS INDICATED IN NOTE 15, SUPRA, SEC. 16(B) WAS FIRST
INCORPORATED INTO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 IN THE BILL
REPORTED OUT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OF BOTH HOUSES.  THE DEBATES
IN BOTH HOUSES PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT WERE QUITE
BRIEF, 83 CONG. REC. 9158-78, 9246-67.  THE ONLY REFERENCE TO SEC.
16(B) WAS BY REPRESENTATIVE KELLER WHO STATED, 83 CONG. REC. P. 9264; 

"AMONG THE PROVISIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT AN OLD PRINCIPLE
HAS BEEN ADOPTED AND WILL BE APPLIED TO NEW USES.  IF THERE SHALL OCCUR
VIOLATIONS OF EITHER THE WAGES OR HOURS, THE EMPLOYEES CAN THEMSELVES,
OR BY DESIGNATED AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVES, MAINTAIN AN ACTION IN ANY
COURT TO RECOVER THE WAGES DUE THEM AND IN SUCH A CASE THE COURT SHALL
ALLOW LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN ADDITION TO THE WAGES DUE EQUAL TO SUCH
DEFICIENT PAYMENT AND SHALL ALSO ALLOW A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
ASSESS THE COURT COSTS AGAINST THE VIOLATOR OF THE LAW SO THAT
EMPLOYEES WILL NOT SUFFER THE BURDEN OF AN EXPENSIVE LAWSUIT.  THE
PROVISION HAS THE FURTHER VIRTUE OF MINIMIZING THE COST OF ENFORCEMENT
BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS BOTH A COMMON-SENSE AND ECONOMICAL METHOD OF
REGULATION.  THE BILL HAS OTHER PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS AND OTHER
JUDICIAL REMEDIES, BUT THE PROVISION WHICH I HAVE MENTIONED PUTS
DIRECTLY INTO THE HANDS OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE AFFECTED BY VIOLATION
THE MEANS AND ABILITY TO ASSERT AND ENFORCE THEIR OWN RIGHTS, THUS
AVOIDING THE ASSUMPTION BY GOVERNMENT OF THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO
ENFORCE THE ACT." 

FN17  H. REP. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 1, 13, 21 AND 28. 

FN18  THE LEGISLATIVE DEBATES INDICATE THAT THE PRIME PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION WAS TO AID THE UNPROTECTED, UNORGANIZED AND LOWEST PAID OF
THE NATION'S WORKING POPULATION; THAT IS, THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO LACKED
SUFFICIENT BARGAINING POWER TO SECURE FOR THEMSELVES A MINIMUM
SUBSISTENCE WAGE.  81 CONG. REC. 7652, 7672, 7885; 82 CONG. REC. 1386,
1395, 1491, 1505, 1507; 83 CONG. REC. 7283, 7298, 9260, 9265.  SEE ALSO
H. REP. NO. 1452, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 9; S. REP. NO. 884, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 3-4. 

FN19  SEC. 2(A), 52 STAT. 1060. 

FN20  THE NECESSITY OF PROMPT PAYMENT TO WORKERS OF WAGES HAS LONG
BEEN RECOGNIZED BY CONGRESS AS WELL AS BY STATE LEGISLATURES.  NUMEROUS
STATUTORY PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED TO INSURE PROMPT PAYMENT.  SEE
FOR EXAMPLE, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 914(E) AND (F); 46 U.S.C. SEC. 596; WIS.
REV. STAT. 1941, SEC. 103.39; N.Y. LABOR LAW, C. 31, SEC. 196; CALIF.
LABOR CODE, 1937, SECS. 204, 205, 219. 

AS TO THE IMPORTANCE TO THE WORKER OF RECEIVING PROMPT PAYMENT, SEE
LABOR LAWS AND THEIR ADMINISTRATION, 1936 BULL.  NO. 629, U.S. DEPT. OF
LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, P. 139. 

FN21  FLEMING V. POST, 146 F.2D 441; SENECA COAL & COKE CO. V.
LOFTON, 136 F.2D 359; RIGOPOULOS V. KERVAN, 140 F.2D 506; BIRBALAS V.
CUNEO PRINTING INDUSTRIES, 140 F.2D 826; TRAVIS V. RAY, 41 F.SUPP.  6;
HUTCHINSON V. WILLIAM C. BARRY, INC., 44 F.SUPP.  829.  CONTRA:  GUESS
V. MONTAGUE, 140 F.2D 500. 

THERE HAS BEEN LESS UNANIMITY OVER THE RIGHT TO COMPROMISE CLAIMS
UNDER THE STATUTE IN CASES INVOLVING A BONA FIDE DISPUTE.  SEE ATLANTIC
CO. V. BROUGHTON, 146 F.2D 480; FLEMING V. POST, SUPRA; FLEMING V.
WARSHAWSKY & CO., 123 F.2D 622; DONAHUE V. SUSQUEHANNA COLLIERIES CO.,
138 F.2D 3; RIGOPOULOS V. KERVAN, SUPRA; DAVID V. ATLANTIC CO., 69 GA.
APP. 643, 26 S.E.2D 650.  FOR DISCUSSION OF THE RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT
PROBLEM AS IT HAS ARISEN UNDER THE STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS,
SEE DODD, ADMINISTRATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, 186 ET SEQ. 

FOR LOWER FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS HOLDING THAT RIGHTS TO UNPAID
MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION CONSTITUTE A SINGLE RIGHT, SEE
FLEMING V. POST, SUPRA; BIRBALAS V. CUNEO PRINTING INDUSTRIES, SUPRA.
CF. BUCKLEY V. OCEANIC S.S. CO., 5 F.2D 545. 

FN22  SEE STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF LABOR, JOINT HEARINGS, COMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, UNITED STATES SENATE, AND COMMITTEE ON LABOR OF
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON S. 2475 AND H.R.
7200, PART 1, P. 181.  SEE ALSO NOTE 16, SUPRA. 

FN23  JOINT HEARINGS, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 22, PART 2, P. 457.  SEE
ALSO NOTE 16, SUPRA. 

FN24  SEE SAGE V. HAMPE, 235 U.S. 99, 105; SMITH V. MCCULLOUGH, 270
U.S. 456, 465; MUSCHANY V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 49, 64. 

FN25  H. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 6-7, STATES: "
THERE ARE TO BE NO DIFFERENTIALS EITHER BETWEEN SECTIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES, BETWEEN INDUSTRIES, OR BETWEEN EMPLOYERS.  NO EMPLOYER IN ANY
PART OF THE UNITED STATES IN ANY INDUSTRY AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE
NEED FEAR THAT HE WILL BE REQUIRED BY LAW TO OBSERVE WAGE AND HOUR
STANDARDS HIGHER THAN THOSE APPLICABLE TO HIS COMPETITORS.  NO EMPLOYEE
IN ANY PART OF THE UNITED STATES IN ANY INDUSTRY AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE NEED FEAR THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS MAINTAINED BY HIS
EMPLOYER WILL BE JEOPARDIZED BY OPPRESSIVE LABOR STANDARDS MAINTAINED
BY THOSE WITH WHOM HIS EMPLOYER COMPETES." 

FN26  SEC. 16, 52 STAT. 1069. 

FN27  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN28  SECTION 20(A) AND (B) OF THE ORIGINAL BILLS INTRODUCED INTO THE
HOUSE AND SENATE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 20.  (A)  ANY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING FOR THE
EMPLOYMENT OF ANY PERSON IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT OR
OF A REGULATION OR ORDER THEREUNDER SHALL BE NULL AND VOID. 

"(B)  ANY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDING, CONDITION, STIPULATION,
OR PROVISION BINDING ANY PERSON TO WAIVE COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PROVISION
OF THIS ACT OR WITH ANY REGULATION OR ORDER THEREUNDER SHALL BE NULL
AND VOID." 

S. 2475, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., INTRODUCED MAY 24, 1937; H.R. 7200,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., INTRODUCED MAY 24, 1937. 

EXCEPT FOR RENUMBERING OF THE SECTION AND ONE SLIGHT CHANGE IN
LANGUAGE, THIS PROVISION REMAINED IN THE BILL AND ITS VARIOUS
AMENDMENTS, APPARENTLY UNTIL IT WAS ELIMINATED BY THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE.  SECTION 17, S. 2475, CALENDAR NO. 905(REPORT NO. 884), 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., REPORTED WITH AN AMENDMENT, JULY 6, 1937; SEC. 17, S.
2475, UNION CALENDAR NO. 535(REPORT NO. 1452), 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
REPORTED WITH AMENDMENT, AUG. 6, 1937; SEC. 16, S. 2475, 75TH CONG., 2D
SESS., AMENDED AND RECOMMITTED, DEC. 17, 1937.  THE REASON FOR
ELIMINATING THIS PROVISION FROM THE FINAL BILL DOES NOT APPEAR.  IT WAS
DONE IN THE COURSE OF THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE BILL IN THE
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. 

FN29  THE FOLLOWING FEDERAL STATUTES CONTAIN EXPRESS PROVISIONS
RELATING TO THE WAIVER OR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS UNDER THEM:
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMP. ACT, 33 U.S.C. SECS. 908(I),
915(B), 916; FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 55; JONES
ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688; SETTLEMENT OF WAGE CLAIMS OF MERCHANT SEAMEN,
46 U.S.C. SECS. 597, 644.  THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED THESE
PROVISIONS STRICTLY SO AS TO PROTECT THE EMPLOYEE.  GARRETT V. MOORE
MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239; DUNCAN V. THOMPSON, 315 U.S. 1; PACIFIC
MAIL S.S. CO. V. LUCAS, 258 U.S. 266; ARROW STEVEDORE CO. V. PILLSBURY,
88 F.2D 446; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. PILLSBURY, 130 F.2D 21;
HENDERSON V. GLENS FALLS INDEMNITY CO., 134 F.2D 320; WESTENRIDER V.
UNITED STATES, 134 F.2D 772. 

FN30  SEE NOTE 14, SUPRA. 

FN31  7 WAGE HOUR REP. 313. 

FN32  144 F.2D 584, 585. 

FN33  IN NO. 445 THE NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM ALLOWED INTEREST ON
UNPAID LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  O'NEIL V. BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK, 180 MISC.
542, 43 N.Y.S.2D 25.  THIS WAS AFFIRMED ON SUBSEQUENT APPEALS TO HIGHER
STATE COURTS.  SEE NOTES 5 AND 6 SUPRA.  SINCE PETITIONER IN NO. 445
DID NOT SEEK CERTIORARI ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED IT.
CONNECTICUT RY. CO. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493, 495. 

THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NO. 554
DID NOT AWARD THE EMPLOYEE IN THAT CASE INTEREST ON SUMS ADJUDGED DUE
AS UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 

FN34  323 U.S. 698. 

FN35  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING IN NO. 445 AND CONCURRING IN NO.
554. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND I THINK THE JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE REVERSED IN BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V. O'NEIL, NO. 445, AND
AFFIRMED IN DIZE V. MADDRIX, NO. 554. 

                               NO. 445. 

RESPONDENT WAS EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER IN NEW YORK, AND IN NEW YORK
GAVE TO PETITIONER, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, A PURPORTED WRITTEN RELEASE
OF ITS OBLIGATION TO PAY THE STATUTORY LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PRESCRIBED BY
SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  SECTION 243 OF THE DEBTOR
AND CREDITOR LAW OF NEW YORK DECLARES A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT PURPORTING
TO RELEASE "ALL CLAIMS, DEBTS, DEMANDS OR OBLIGATIONS  ...  SHALL NOT
BE INVALID BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF CONSIDERATION OR OF A SEAL." 
COUNSEL ARE AGREED THAT, UNLESS THE WORDS OR POLICY OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT PRECLUDE, THE WRITTEN RELEASE WAS AS EFFECTIVE TO
DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AS WAS THE RELEASE
UNDER SEAL AT COMMON LAW. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO PREVENT THE
EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF SUCH A RELEASE UPON THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES MORE THAN ANY OTHER.  SECTION 16(B) OF THE ACT
AUTHORIZES THE EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FROM AN EMPLOYER
WHO VIOLATES THE DUTY IMPOSED BY SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE ACT TO PAY THE
PRESCRIBED MINIMUM AND OVERTIME WAGES.  THAT DUTY IS EXPRESSED IN SECS.
6 AND 7 IN TERMS OF A COMMAND TO THE EMPLOYER.  WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY
IT IS MADE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BY SECS. 15(A)(2) AND 16(A), AND
AUTHORITY TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 6 AND 7 IS GIVEN BY SECS. 15
AND 17. 

THESE PROVISIONS AND THESE ALONE AFFORD SOME BASIS FOR INFERRING A
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AGAINST THE RELEASE OF MINIMUM AND OVERTIME
WAGES.  BUT THE ACT PLACES THE RIGHT TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 16(B) ON A VERY DIFFERENT FOOTING.  THAT SECTION
EXPRESSES NO COMMAND.  IT MERELY IMPOSES A CIVIL LIABILITY ON THE
EMPLOYER AND GIVES AN ACTION TO THE EMPLOYEE TO ENFORCE THE LIABILITY. 
FAILURE BY THE EMPLOYER TO PAY THE PRESCRIBED LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IS NOT
MADE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BY SECS. 15 AND 16 AND MAY NOT BE ENJOINED
UNDER SECS. 15 AND 17. 

THE STUDIOUS AVOIDANCE OF ANY PROVISION MAKING THE NON-PAYMENT OF THE
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES A PUBLIC WRONG, BY THE OMISSIONS OF SANCTIONS WHICH
THE STATUTE DOES IMPOSE FOR THE FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM AND OVERTIME
WAGES, IS THE MOST PERSUASIVE KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED THE GENERAL POLICY OF THE
LAW THAT A MERE PRIVATE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES MAY BE RELEASED AT THE WILL
OF THE CLAIMANT.  IT IS NOT AN ANSWER TO SAY THAT "THERE IS NO REASON
FOR MAKING AN EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO A CRIMINAL PENALTY OR AN INJUNCTION
FOR FAILURE TO PAY LIQUIDATED DAMAGES," SINCE THEY ARE "COLLECTIBLE AS
PRIVATE DAMAGES."  IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THE STATUTE IN THIS CASE HAS
IN EVERY RESPECT TREATED THE CLAIM FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AS A PRIVATE
CLAIM WHILE IMPOSING SANCTIONS, AS FOR A PUBLIC WRONG, FOR NON-PAYMENT
OF MINIMUM AND OVERTIME WAGES, THAT WE MUST INFER THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT THE CLAIM FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE THE STATUS
OF PRIVATE CLAIMS, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO RELEASE, A STATUS WHICH THE
STATUTE DENIED TO MINIMUM AND OVERTIME WAGES. 

THIS POINTED DIFFERENCE IN THE TREATMENT OF THE TWO CLASSES OF CLAIMS
IS UNDERSCORED BY THE COMPLETE LACK OF ANY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS ANY CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO TREAT ALIKE THE
TWO CLASSES OF CLAIMS WHICH IT TREATED SO DIFFERENTLY IN THE STATUTE. 
IN ITS PROGRESS THROUGH CONGRESS THERE WAS STRICKEN FROM THE BILL,
WHICH WAS FINALLY ENACTED AS THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, A CLAUSE
PROVIDING THAT ANY AGREEMENT FOR WAIVER OF COMPLIANCE WITH ANY
PROVISION OF THE ACT SHOULD BE VOID.  SECTION 17(B), S. 2475, AS PASSED
BY SENATE, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 1937.  WITH THIS PROVISION
ELIMINATED, THE MANDATORY TERMS OF SECS. 6 AND 7, THE CRIMINAL
PENALTIES OF THE ACT, AND ITS PROVISION FOR RELIEF IN EQUITY, AFFORD
THE SOLE GROUND TO BE FOUND EITHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATUTE FOR
ANY INFERENCE OF A CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AGAINST THE RELEASE OF CLAIMS
ARISING UNDER THE ACT.  THESE FACTORS CONCERN ONLY THE MINIMUM AND
OVERTIME WAGES.  THEY NEITHER SUPPORT NOR SUGGEST ANY CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY AGAINST RELEASE OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO WHICH THEY ARE
INAPPLICABLE AND WHOLLY UNRELATED.    IF SUCH AN UNDECLARED POLICY IS
TO BE INFERRED, IT MUST BE INFERRED FROM THE STATUTE, READ IN ITS
APPROPRIATE SETTING.  THE STATUTE IS SILENT AS TO ANY EXCEPTIONAL
POLICY WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS FOR UNLIQUIDATED DAMAGES - A SILENCE
WHICH IS GIVEN MEANING BY THE PROVISIONS AFFIRMATIVELY MAKING NON
PAYMENT OF MINIMUM AND OVERTIME WAGES A PUBLIC WRONG.  ANY INFERENCE
THAT A RELEASE OF MINIMUM AND OVERTIME WAGES IS INVALID MUST BE BECAUSE
THE RELEASE IS AN AGGRAVATION OF THE PUBLIC WRONG.  BUT TO DRAW THAT
INFERENCE IS TO FORECLOSE THE POSSIBILITY OF A LIKE INFERENCE WITH
RESPECT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, THE NON-PAYMENT OF WHICH IS NOT MADE A
PUBLIC WRONG. 

WE HELD IN OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, THAT THE
PROVISION FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IS NOT PUNITIVE.  HENCE IT CANNOT IN
ITSELF BE SAID EITHER TO HAVE CREATED OR SANCTIONED A PUBLIC RIGHT OR
INTEREST IN THE RECOVERY OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  IN VIEW OF THE
UNCERTAIN COVERAGE OF THE ACT WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE
STATUTORY LIABILITY MAY BE HARSH IN ITS APPLICATION AND ENABLE THE
EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER AN AMOUNT FAR IN EXCESS OF ANY DAMAGE WHICH HE HAS
IN FACT SUFFERED.  ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS PERSUASIVELY SUGGEST THAT
CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED NO POLICY WHICH PRECLUDES THE EMPLOYEE FROM
RELEASING, AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER CLAIMS, THE CLAIM FOR LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES WHEN THE RELEASE CONFORMS TO LOCAL LAW AND IS PROCURED WITHOUT
OVERREACHING OR UNFAIRNESS. 

ON THE CONTRARY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHOW, AND THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY EMPHASIZES, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO TREAT THE LIQUIDATED
DAMAGE OBLIGATION DIFFERENTLY FROM ITS COMMAND TO PAY MINIMUM AND
OVERTIME WAGES.  BECAUSE OF THIS DIFFERENCE WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT
INTENDED TO PLACE THE EMPLOYEE SO FAR IN TUTELAGE AS NOT TO BE FREE TO
GIVE, AND THE EMPLOYER TO OBTAIN, A RELEASE OF WHAT IS BY THE TERMS OF
THE STATUTE NOTHING MORE THAN A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES WHICH IN
FACT HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SUFFERED. 

                               NO. 554. 

THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO ACCORD AND SATISFACTION IN THIS CASE,
AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINION IN BROOKLYN SAVINGS BANK V.
O'NEIL, NO. 445, THE ATTEMPTED RELEASE BY RESPONDENT OF HIS CLAIM FOR
OVERTIME WAGES WAS VOID AS AGAINST THE POLICY OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  BECAUSE OF PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME WAGES
AS DIRECTED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 16(B), AND THE JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :











FITZGERALD CO. V. PEDERSEN, 324 U.S. 720 


NO. 462.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 9, 1945.  - 293 N.Y.
126, 56 N.E.2D 77, AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  AN EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON SUMS RECOVERED IN AN
ACTION FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER SEC.
16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  ARSENAL BLDG. CORP. V.
GREENBERG, ANTE, P. 697.  P. 724. 

2.  THE UNCONTESTED FACTS OF RECORD SHOW THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN
QUESTION WERE ENGAGED IN REPAIRING ABUTMENTS AND SUBSTRUCTURES OF
BRIDGES WHICH WERE PART OF THE LINE OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD,
SUSTAINING THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY WERE "ENGAGED IN (INTERSTATE)
COMMERCE" AND COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P. 724. 

J.F. FITZGERALD CONSTRUCTION CO. V. PEDERSEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 698, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFFS IN A SUIT FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE INSTANT CASE RAISES TWO QUESTIONS FOR
CONSIDERATION:  THE FIRST, WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE WHO OBTAINS A JUDGMENT
FOR UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 7(A)  FN1
AND SEC. 16(B)  FN2  OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 IS
ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON SUCH SUMS; THE SECOND, A NARROW QUESTION WITH
RESPECT TO THE INTERPRETATION OF A JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, WHICH WAS
ENTERED IN ITS PER CURIAM OPINION ON A PRIOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
REVERSING A PRIOR STATE COURT JUDGMENT IN THIS SAME CASE. 

THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE FIRST WRIT BEGAN WHEN THE RESPONDENT,
PEDERSEN, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PETITIONER, A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INSTITUTED AN ACTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHER EMPLOYEES, TO RECOVER OVERTIME COMPENSATION
AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ALLEGED TO BE DUE BY VIRTUE OF SECS. 7 AND 16(B)
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE ACTION WAS TRIED ON AN AGREED
STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH STATED THAT THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY OPERATED INTERSTATE TRAINS OVER FOUR BRIDGES LOCATED ON ITS
RIGHT OF WAY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THAT ABUTMENTS SUPPORTING TWO
BRIDGES WERE DESTROYED AND THAT THE SUBSTRUCTURES OF THE TWO OTHER
BRIDGES WERE DAMAGED BY A FLOOD.  THE STIPULATION ALSO STATED: 

"THEREAFTER, THE RAILROAD COMPANY ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE
DEFENDANT, AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
WORK, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ENTIRELY NEW ABUTMENTS UNDER THE TWO
BRIDGES WHERE THE ABUTMENTS HAD BEEN WASHED OUT AND DESTROYED, AS
AFORESAID, AND FOR REPAIRING THE SUBSTRUCTURES OF THE OTHER TWO BRIDGES
WHICH HAD BEEN DAMAGED, AS AFORESAID. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"DEFENDANT EMPLOYED PLAINTIFFS, TOGETHER WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS, AS
ITS EMPLOYEES IN DOING WORK UNDER SAID CONTRACT AND PAID THEM AT THE
RATES PER HOUR, AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE 'A' ANNEXED HERETO." 

AFTER MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STIPULATION, THE
TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE RESPONDENTS' COMPLAINT.  FN3  THE APPELLATE
DIVISION  FN4  AND COURT OF APPEALS  FN5  AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURT
DECISION ON THE THEORY THAT THE NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER'S GENERAL
BUSINESS ACTIVITY - NOT THE ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES ON A PARTICULAR JOB
- DETERMINED WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE WAS "ENGAGED IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT.  SINCE THE PETITIONER, AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT ITSELF ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WAS
EMPLOYED BY THE RAILROAD TO PERFORM WORK LOCAL IN CHARACTER, IT WAS
FELT PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  ON PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI, THIS COURT REVERSED  FN6  THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE
COURTS DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, ON THE AUTHORITY OF OVERSTREET V.
NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125, IN WHICH THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
WAS HELD TO APPLY TO EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE ACTUAL REPAIR OF A
FACILITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ON PETITION FOR REHEARING BY THE
PETITIONER IN THE INSTANT CASE, OUR JUDGMENT WAS AMENDED BY ADDING: 

"AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO A DETERMINATION OF THE NATURE OF THE
EMPLOYMENT OF ANY MEMBERS OF THE CLASS ON WHOSE BEHALF THIS SUIT HAS
BEEN BROUGHT."  318 U.S. 742. 

THIS LEFT OPEN FOR TRIAL THE QUESTION OF WHETHER EACH MEMBER OF THE
CLASS WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION. 

AFTER REMAND TO THE STATE COURTS, THE PETITIONER MOVED IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE RECORD OF THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
APPARENTLY ON THE THEORY THAT THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS IN THE
PRIOR PROCEEDINGS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE RESPONDENTS,
EMPLOYEES, WERE "ENGAGED IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE."  PETITIONER DID NOT
ATTEMPT TO INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REBUTTING ANY INFERENCE TO THE
CONTRARY THAT MIGHT BE DRAWN FROM THE STIPULATION OF FACTS IN THE
RECORD.  RESPONDENTS THEREUPON MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE
113 OF THE NEW YORK RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE.  THE LOWER COURT ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS, EMPLOYEES, FOR STATUTORY WAGES AND
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, WITH INTEREST ON SUCH SUMS FROM APRIL 1, 1939.  FN7
THE APPELLATE DIVISION  FN8  AND COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THIS
DECISION.  FN9  BECAUSE THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS RAISED A FEDERAL QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT HERETOFORE
DETERMINED BY THIS COURT, AND IN ORDER TO CLARIFY DOUBTS AS TO THE
MEANING OF OUR PREVIOUS JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
FN10  JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT RESTS ON SEC. 237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE. 

IN ARSENAL BUILDING CORP. V. GREENBERG, NO. 421, ANTE, P. 697, WE
HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON SUMS RECOVERED IN
AN ACTION BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 
THIS QUESTION IS DISCUSSED IN THAT OPINION AND FOR THE REASONS SET
FORTH THEREIN, WE HOLD THAT THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
ALLOWING INTEREST ON THE SUMS RECOVERED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE
INSTANT CASE. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE STATE COURTS ERRED IN SUSTAINING A
JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE LATTER FAILED TO
SATISFY THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES OF THE
RESPONDENTS CONSTITUTED ENGAGING "IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE."  WE ARE OF
A CONTRARY OPINION.  THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS, WHICH WAS PART OF
THE RECORD BOTH FOR PURPOSES OF PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE STATE COURTS' RULING IN THIS MATTER.  FN11  THE
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS STATES THAT THE PETITIONER ENTERED INTO A
CONTRACT WITH THE RAILROAD "FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ENTIRELY NEW
ABUTMENTS UNDER THE TWO BRIDGES  ...  AND FOR REPAIRING THE
SUBSTRUCTURES OF THE OTHER TWO BRIDGES," ALL FOUR OF THESE BRIDGES
BEING PART OF THE RAILROAD'S INTERSTATE LINE.  IT WAS ALSO STIPULATED
THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE "DOING WORK UNDER SAID CONTRACT."  IT IS
CLEAR THAT EMPLOYEES WHO ACTUALLY REPAIR ABUTMENTS OR SUBSTRUCTURES OF
BRIDGES ON WHICH ARE LAID TRACKS USED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION ARE
"ENGAGED IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE."  OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP.,
318 U.S. 125, 130; MCLEOD V. THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491, 494.  THE
STIPULATION OF FACTS IN THIS CASE RECITES SPECIFICALLY AND PRECISELY
THAT THE CONTRACT WAS FOR SUCH WORK AND ALSO THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE
ENGAGED IN DOING WORK UNDER SAID "CONTRACT."  THE STIPULATION OF FACTS
WOULD NOT SEEM TO EMBRACE ACTIVITIES NOT ESSENTIAL AND A PART OF THE
MAIN WORK OF REPAIR.  THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION ACCORDS
WITH THAT ADOPTED BY THE STATE TRIAL COURT.  FN12  IN AMENDING OUR
JUDGMENT ON REHEARING  FN13  WHEN THIS CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE US ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, THE WAY WAS OPENED TO PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER EACH RESPONDENT WAS HIMSELF ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  A DOUBT HAD ARISEN AS TO WHETHER THIS COULD BE
DONE BECAUSE OUR JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL WAS BASED EXPLICITLY ON THE
OVERSTREET CASE, AND IN THAT DECISION WE CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED THAT
THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES THERE INVOLVED WERE COVERED BY THE ACT.  ON
THE REMAND TO THE STATE COURTS, PETITIONER DID NOT CONTEST RESPONDENTS'
CLAIM ON THIS ISSUE ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS IT COULD HAVE DONE SO WHEN THE
RESPONDENTS MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  FN14  SINCE THE UNCONTESTED
FACTS IN THE RECORD ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE
ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN REPAIRING THE ABUTMENTS AND SUBSTRUCTURE, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT MUST BE SUSTAINED IN THIS RESPECT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT IS AFFIRMED EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS IT
PROVIDES FOR RECOVERY OF INTEREST ON THE SUMS ADJUDGED TO BE DUE
RESPONDENTS UNDER THE ACT; IN THIS LATTER RESPECT THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 7(A), 52 STAT. 1063, PROVIDES: 

"NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION,
EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

(1)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, 

(2)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-TWO HOURS DURING THE SECOND
YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, OR 

(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED
AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED." 

FN2  SECTION 16(B), 52 STAT. 1069, PROVIDES: 

"ANY EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR SECTION 7
OF THIS ACT SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES AFFECTED IN
THE AMOUNT OF THEIR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OR THEIR UNPAID OVERTIME
COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IN AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL AMOUNT AS
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ACTION TO RECOVER SUCH LIABILITY MAY BE MAINTAINED
IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BY ANY ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES FOR
AND IN BEHALF OF HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AND OTHER EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY
SITUATED, OR SUCH EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES MAY DESIGNATE AN AGENT OR
REPRESENTATIVE TO MAINTAIN SUCH ACTION FOR AND IN BEHALF OF ALL
EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE COURT IN SUCH ACTION SHALL, IN
ADDITION TO ANY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFFS, ALLOW
A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE TO BE PAID BY THE DEFENDANT, AND COSTS OF
THE ACTION." 

FN3  PEDERSEN V. FITZGERALD CONSTRUCTION CO., 173 MISC. 188, 18
N.Y.S.2D 920. 

FN4  ID., 262 APP. DIV. 665, 30 N.Y.S.2D 989. 

FN5  ID., 288 N.Y. 687, 43 N.E.2D 83, AFFIRMING WITHOUT OPINION. 

FN6  ID., 318 U.S. 740. 

FN7  OPINION UNREPORTED. 

FN8  PEDERSEN V. FITZGERALD CONSTRUCTION CO., 266 APP. DIV. 1032, 44
N.Y.S.2D 595. 

FN9  ID., 29 N.Y. 126, 56 N.E.2D 77. 

FN10  323 U.S. 698. 

FN11  SEE SUPRA, P. 722. 

FN12  THE NEW YORK TRIAL COURT STATED IN ITS OPINION (UNREPORTED): 

"THE FAIR IMPORT OF THESE CONCEDED FACTS IS THAT DEFENDANT WAS
ENGAGED IN CERTAIN WORK, AND THAT PLAINTIFF AND HIS ASSOCIATES WERE ITS
EMPLOYEES, NOT GENERALLY, BUT IN DOING THIS PARTICULAR WORK ....  BUT
IN ANY EVENT THE CONCEDED FACTS, IN MY JUDGMENT, EMBRACE NO ACTIVITIES
NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE MAIN WORK OF REPAIR (PEDERSEN V. DELAWARE, L. &
W.R. CO., 229 U.S. 146).  SUCH I THINK, WAS THE FAIR IMPORT OF THE
FACTS AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES WHEN THE AGREED STATEMENT WAS MADE
...." 

FN13  318 U.S. 742. 

FN14 THE TRIAL COURT STATED IN ITS OPINION (UNREPORTED): 

"IT WAS NO MORE A DIRECTION TO THE PLAINTIFF THAN IT WAS A PERMISSION
TO THE DEFENDANT TO REOPEN THE MATTER, IF EITHER SO DESIRED, AND COULD
SO DO UNDER OUR PRACTICE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING FURTHER PROOF AS
TO THE PRECISE ACTIVITIES OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS ASSOCIATES." 
..END :






















HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. U.S., 324 U.S. 570 


DECIDED APRIL 2, 1945. 


1.  UPON REVIEW OF A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY
THE UNITED STATES FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THIS COURT, THOUGH
IT AFFIRMS THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS AS TO VIOLATION OF THE ACT,
MAY MODIFY PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE.  P. 571. 

2.  THE OPINION HERETOFORE RENDERED BY THIS COURT IN THESE CASES
(HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386) IS HERE ADDED TO
AND CLARIFIED IN SEVERAL PARTICULARS.  P. 571. 

HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 2.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO* . 

UPON PETITION BY THE UNITED STATES FOR CLARIFICATION OR
RECONSIDERATION OF HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386. 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 3, CORNING GLASS WORKS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES;
NO. 4, OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 5, HAZEL
ATLAS GLASS CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 6, THATCHER MANUFACTURING
CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; AND NO. 7, LYNCH CORPORATION ET AL. V.
UNITED STATES, ALSO ON APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SUBSEQUENT TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN THE
ABOVE CASES, THE UNITED STATES FILED A PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION OR
RECONSIDERATION. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO RECONSIDER THE OPINION AS RESPECTS THE
NECESSITY FOR MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  IN THE MANY CASES WHICH HAVE COME HERE FOR REVIEW OF DECREES IN
SUITS BROUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW, IT
HAS NEVER BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THIS COURT MUST ACCEPT THE DECREE
FASHIONED BY THE TRIAL COURT, IF WE AFFIRM THAT COURT'S FINDINGS AS TO
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, AND CANNOT MODIFY THE TERMS OF RELIEF AS
DRAFTED BY THE COURT BELOW.  THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN THE CONTRARY.  FN1
THIS IS NOT ONLY IN CONFORMITY TO THE UNQUESTIONED POWER OF AN
APPELLATE COURT IN AN EQUITY CAUSE, BUT BECAUSE IN SUITS UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT, IT IS UNTHINKABLE THAT CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE OF SUCH FAR-REACHING IMPORTANCE TO THE
JUDGMENT OF A SINGLE JUDGE, WITHOUT REVIEW OF THE RELIEF GRANTED OR
DENIED BY HIM. 

IN ORDER THAT THERE MAY BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING WE THINK IT WELL TO
ADD TO THE OPINION IN THE FOLLOWING PARTICULARS. 

1.  THE OPINION STATES (P. 411): 

"THE ROYALTIES PAID TO THE RECEIVER BY HARTFORD'S LESSEES MAY, UNLESS
THE DISTRICT COURT FINDS THAT HARTFORD HAS, SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE
RECEIVERSHIP DECREE, VIOLATED THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, OR ACTED CONTRARY TO
THE TERMS OF THE FINAL DECREE AS MODIFIED BY THIS OPINION, BE PAID OVER
TO HARTFORD.  IN ANY EVENT HARTFORD SHOULD RECEIVE OUT OF THESE
ROYALTIES COMPENSATION ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS, FOR SERVICES RENDERED
TO LESSEES." 

THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE RECEIVERSHIP,
MANY OF THE LICENSEES (MOST OF WHOM WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING)
WOULD HAVE PAID NO FURTHER ROYALTIES TO HARTFORD, AND THAT THEY MAY BE
ABLE TO JUSTIFY REFUSAL OF PAYMENT OF ANY ROYALTIES FROM THE DATE OF
THE RECEIVERSHIP, AND OUGHT NOT TO BE PUT INTO THE POSITION OF
RECOVERING ROYALTIES PAID TO THE RECEIVER, FROM HARTFORD. 

IT HAS BEEN OPEN TO EACH OF THESE LICENSEES AT ANY TIME TO REPUDIATE
ITS LEASE AND LICENSE, TO RETURN THE LEASED MACHINERY, TO REFUSE TO PAY
FURTHER RENTALS OR ROYALTIES, AND TO DEFEND ANY SUIT ARISING OUT OF
SUCH REFUSAL TO PAY, EITHER FOR INFRINGEMENT OR OTHERWISE.  IT MAY BE
THAT LICENSEES HAVE NOT TAKEN THIS COURSE BECAUSE THEY RELIED ON THE
DECREE AS ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  IN SUCH RELIANCE THEY MAY
HAVE EXPECTED THAT THE MONEYS PAID THE RECEIVER WOULD BE REPAID TO
THEM. 

IN VIEW OF THE MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE OPINION OF THIS COURT,
SUCH LICENSEES MUST PAY REASONABLE RENTAL AND SERVICE CHARGES ON A
QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS (LEAVING OUT OF CONSIDERATION ANY AMOUNT OTHERWISE
PAYABLE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF PRACTICING THE PATENTED INVENTIONS
INVOLVED) IN RESPECT OF THE MACHINES USED IN THE INTERIM.  UNLESS
HARTFORD, SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE DECREE BY THE DISTRICT COURT, HAS BEEN
GUILTY OF SOME ADDED VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, LICENSEES MUST
ELECT (A) TO REMAIN LICENSEES ON SUCH REASONABLE RENTAL AND ROYALTY
BASIS FOR THE FUTURE AS THE DISTRICT COURT MAY FIX, OR (B) REPUDIATE
THE LEASES AND LITIGATE THEIR RIGHTS AS AGAINST HARTFORD TO RETAIN ANY
PORTION OF THE RENTS AND ROYALTIES PAID.  DEPENDING UPON SUCH ELECTION
OF EACH OF THE LESSEES, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY, ON THE APPLICATION OF
EACH, MAKE AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE FUND IN THE
LIGHT OF THE LICENSEES' ELECTION AND THE PRINCIPLES STATED IN THE
OPINION OF THIS COURT. 

2.  THE GOVERNMENT EXPRESSES APPREHENSION LEST THE STATEMENT IN THE
OPINION THAT THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WOULD RESULT IN THE EXISTENCE OF NO
JUDGMENT IN EFFECT IN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE ISSUE OF THIS COURT'S
MANDATE AND THE FORMULATION OF A NEW DECREE BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE
NEED ONLY SAY THAT THE DECREE FROM WHICH THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN STANDS
UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS ARE ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
PURSUANT TO MANDATE. 

3.  IN VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE OPINION DIRECTION IS GIVEN FOR
PROVISIONS IN THE DECREE RELATING TO "FEEDERS, FORMERS, STACKERS AND
LEHRS, AND PATENTS COVERING THESE OR IMPROVEMENTS OF THEM, OR METHODS
OR PROCESSES USED IN CONNECTION WITH THEM  ..."  IT IS SAID THAT THIS
PHRASEOLOGY MAY OMIT THE OWENS AND HARTFORD SUCTION MACHINE PATENTS,
INCLUDING O'NEILL SUCTION PATENTS ACQUIRED BY OWENS.  THE LANGUAGE USED
WAS INTENDED TO COVER SUCH SUCTION MACHINES. 

4. THE OPINION STATES (P. 419): 

"HARTFORD AND THE OTHER CORPORATE DEFENDANTS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH
24 SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LEASE OR LICENSE GLASS MAKING MACHINERY OF THE
CLASSES EACH NOW MANUFACTURES TO ANY WHO MAY DESIRE TO TAKE LICENSES
..." 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS LANGUAGE MIGHT PERMIT HARTFORD TO CANCEL ALL
ITS LEASES AND RETAKE THE LEASED MACHINERY. 

THAT WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE LANGUAGE USED.  IT WAS INTENDED THAT IF
PERSONS DESIRED TO TAKE A LICENSE INSTEAD OF TAKING A LEASE, AND
HARTFORD WERE WILLING TO LICENSE WITHOUT LEASING MACHINERY, THIS MIGHT
BE DONE ON REASONABLE TERMS.  HARTFORD SHOULD OF COURSE BE COMPELLED TO
LEASE MACHINERY COVERED BY ITS PATENTS ACCORDING TO ITS PAST PRACTICE,
ON REASONABLE TERMS, AND SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LICENSE THE PATENTS
INVOLVED FOR MANUFACTURE AND USE OR SALE, ALSO ON REASONABLE TERMS. 

5.  THE GOVERNMENT FINDS SOME DUBIETY IN THE PHRASE, RELATING TO
REVISION OF PARAGRAPH 24(A) OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE, VIZ.,
"SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LEASE OR LICENSE GLASS MAKING MACHINERY OF THE
CLASSES EACH NOW MANUFACTURES TO ANY WHO MAY DESIRE TO TAKE LICENSES." 
THE LANGUAGE IS AMENDED TO ADD AFTER THE WORD "MANUFACTURES" THE WORDS
"OR LEASES." 

6.  THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT THE OPINION SHOULD BE CLARIFIED TO
PERMIT INDEPENDENT MACHINERY MANUFACTURERS TO OBTAIN LICENSES.  THE
OPINION IS SO MODIFIED, AND THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS ARE REQUIRED TO
LICENSE ALL APPLICANTS TO MAKE, USE, OR SELL THE PATENTED MACHINES AT
REASONABLE ROYALTIES. 

7.  THE GOVERNMENT APPREHENDS THAT THE USE OF THE WORD "STANDARD"
WITH RESPECT TO THE ROYALTIES TO BE CHARGED BY HARTFORD MAY BE TAKEN AS
A DETERMINATION THAT PRESENT ROYALTIES ARE REASONABLE.  TO AVOID ANY
MISUNDERSTANDING WE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PHRASE "STANDARD ROYALTIES" THE
PHRASE "UNIFORM REASONABLE ROYALTIES."  SUCH UNIFORM REASONABLE
ROYALTIES MAY INCLUDE RENTAL OF THE MACHINES, THE SERVICING OF THE
MACHINES, OR THE USE OF THE PATENTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF GLASSWARE ON
THE LEASED MACHINES, THE LICENSEE TO HAVE THE OPTION AT HIS ELECTION TO
TAKE AND PAY FOR ANY OR ALL OF THESE PRIVILEGES.  HARTFORD SHOULD ALSO
BE REQUIRED TO LICENSE THE PATENTS FOR MANUFACTURE FOR USE OR SALE, BUT
WITH THE LIMITATION THAT SIMILAR LICENSES AT UNIFORM REASONABLE
ROYALTIES MUST BE AVAILABLE TO ALL WHO DESIRE THEM. 

8.  THE GOVERNMENT DESIRES THAT POWER BE RESERVED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT TO DISSOLVE HARTFORD. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, IN ITS OPINION, CONCLUDED, AND WE THINK PROPERLY,
THAT IN THE SITUATION PRESENTED A DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD AND A
DISTRIBUTION OF ITS PATENTS INTO VARIOUS HANDS WOULD CREATE A WORSE
SITUATION THAN THAT ENVISAGED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE.  WE THINK
THIS IS EQUALLY TRUE OF THE STATUS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE
MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE REQUIRED BY OUR OPINION.  THE OPINION DID
NOT DISTURB PARAGRAPH 57(A) OF THE DECREE ENTERED BELOW.  IF IT BE
FOUND THAT A DECREE ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT'S OPINION HAS
FAILED TO BRING ABOUT A CORRECTION OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAW WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THE RELIEF GRANTED, IT WILL OF COURSE BE
OPEN TO THE GOVERNMENT, ON A PROPER SHOWING, TO APPLY FOR FURTHER OR
OTHER RELIEF. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

THE NECESSITY FOR A SECOND OPINION, IN EFFECT A FURTHER DETAILED
WRITING OF THE DECREE IN THIS CASE, GIVES ADDED POINT TO THE VIEW
EXPRESSED IN AN EARLIER DISSENT, 323 U.S. 438, THAT THIS COURT SHOULD
NOT UNDERTAKE THE LONG DISTANCE WRITING OF THE DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR
RELIEF, AMOUNTING TO A FRAMING OF THE DECREE, IN SHERMAN ACT
PROCEEDINGS.  I DO NOT SAY THAT CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED ENFORCEMENT OF
THE SHERMAN ACT "TO THE JUDGMENT OF A SINGLE JUDGE."  FN1  I DO SAY
THAT HIS JUDGMENT UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IS NECESSARILY BETTER
INFORMED THAN THAT OF APPELLATE JUDGES, HOWEVER CONSCIENTIOUS OR
INDUSTRIOUS; AND ACCORDINGLY HIS FINDINGS, WHEN THEY ARE SUSTAINED
WITHOUT QUALIFICATION UPON THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF THE VIOLATION,
ARE ENTITLED TO SIMILAR WEIGHT UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE RELIEF
REQUIRED, UNLESS THEY EXCEED THE LIMITS IMPOSED BY LAW OR AMOUNT TO A
CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  MANY OF THE DETAILED REVISIONS MADE HERE IN
THE DECREE CANNOT QUALIFY IN EITHER CATEGORY.  A COURT WHICH SO
ACCURATELY FOUND THE FACTS AND MADE CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE
VIOLATION HARDLY CAN HAVE ERRED SO CONSISTENTLY OR SO GROSSLY AS THIS
COURT'S ACTION NECESSARILY IMPLIES WAS THE CASE. 

FURTHER ELABORATION OF THIS VIEW IS NOT NOW REQUIRED, EXCEPT TO SAY
THAT IF THE COURT IS THUS TO TAKE OVER THE BUSINESS OF THE TRIAL
COURTS, ACTUALLY IF NOT IN FORM COMMINGLING ITS APPELLATE WITH ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION, OF COURSE IT SHOULD SPARE NO PAINS TO MAKE ITS MANDATE
CLEAR OR TO CORRECT MINUTE ERRORS INEVITABLE IN PERFORMING THE TASK
WITHOUT HAVING HEARD THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER GREAT THE CARE GIVEN TO IT. 

THIS REMINDER ALONE PERHAPS WOULD NOT JUSTIFY FURTHER OBJECTION BY
DISSENTING JUSTICES.  IT CANNOT BE CAPTIOUS, HOWEVER, IF THEY FIND
THEMSELVES UNABLE TO ACCEPT, THROUGH ACQUIESCENCE BY SILENCE, STATED
VIEWS OF THE RECORD AT VARIANCE WITH THEIR OWN.  IT IS STATED IN THE
REVISED OPINION THAT "THE DISTRICT COURT, IN ITS OPINION, CONCLUDED,
AND WE THINK PROPERLY, THAT IN THE SITUATION PRESENTED A DISSOLUTION OF
HARTFORD AND A DISTRIBUTION OF ITS PATENTS INTO VARIOUS HANDS WOULD
CREATE A WORSE SITUATION THAN THAT ENVISAGED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DECREE."  I AM UNABLE TO LOCATE SUCH A FINDING OR CONCLUSION IN THE
RECORD. 

A FORMER DISSENTING OPINION POINTED OUT (323 U.S. 445) THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT DID NOT DENY THE GOVERNMENT'S PRAYER FOR DISSOLUTION. 
IT ONLY DEFERRED ACTION ON THAT REQUEST AND THIS WAS EXPRESSLY UPON THE
CONDITION THAT HARTFORD MEET THE CONDITIONS OF ITS DECREE, INCLUDING
COMPULSORY LICENSING, ROYALTY FREE, AND TRANSFER OF ITS MANAGEMENT TO
COURT OFFICERS, NOT ONLY PENDING APPEAL BUT UNTIL THE COURT SHOULD
FIND, AFTER A REASONABLE TIME, THAT COMPETITION HAD BEEN RESTORED TO
THE INDUSTRY.  THE COURT EXPRESSLY STATED:  "IF AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
A REASONABLE TIME, IT APPEARS TO THE COURT THAT THE STEPS HE IS NOW
TAKING ARE INSUFFICIENT TO RESTORE A FREE AND COMPETITIVE STATUS TO THE
INDUSTRY, THE RECEIVERS SHALL BE ORDERED TO SUBMIT A PLAN OR PLANS FOR
THE DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD."  THE COURT FURTHER SAID, "DISSOLUTION IS
NOT RESORTED TO BY THE COURT UNLESS HARTFORD WILLS IT SO.  THE MEASURES
HEREIN ADOPTED BY THE COURT ARE DEEMED NECESSARY TO INSTALL COMPETITION
TO THE INDUSTRY  ..."  IT PREVIOUSLY HAD STATED THAT "NO HALF-WAY
MEASURES WILL SUFFICE," THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD REQUESTED DISSOLUTION,
BUT THAT "THE COURT, HOWEVER, IS FIRST GOING TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO
AVOID THAT, IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO AND AT THE SAME TIME RESTORE
COMPETITION TO THE INDUSTRY.  IF THIS CANNOT BE WORKED OUT TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE COURT, DISSOLUTION WILL BE ORDERED."  46 F.SUPP. 
621, 622, 620.  FN2 

THE DISTRICT COURT HAS MADE NO FINDING THAT COMPETITION HAS BEEN
RESTORED TO THE INDUSTRY.  THIS COURT DOES NOT PURPORT TO MAKE ONE, AND
HAS NO POWER TO MAKE ONE, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT
COMPETITION HAS BEEN RESTORED.  NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN TAKEN.  YET,
AS I READ ITS TERMS, THIS COURT'S DECREE, INCLUDING THE PRESENT
REVISIONS, FORBIDS THE DISTRICT COURT TO MAKE ONE UPON REMAND OF THIS
CAUSE. 

CLEARLY COMPETITION HAD NOT BEEN RESTORED TO THE INDUSTRY WHEN THE
DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE WAS ENTERED IN AUGUST, 1942.  THE ONLY OCCASION
FOR ITS DECREE THEN, OR FOR CONTINUANCE NOW OF THE RELIEF AS MODIFIED,
WAS AND IS TO BRING ABOUT SUCH A RESTORATION.  THIS COURT'S ORIGINAL
DECREE DECLARED, "THE RECEIVERSHIP SHOULD BE WOUND UP AND THE BUSINESS
RETURNED TO HARTFORD."  323 U.S. 411.  THAT DIRECTION WAS MADE UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD CONCLUDED "THAT A CONTINUANCE OF
CERTAIN OF HARTFORD'S ACTIVITIES WOULD BE OF ADVANTAGE TO THE GLASS
INDUSTRY AND DENIED, FOR THE TIME BEING, THAT FORM OF RELIEF," I.E.,
DISSOLUTION.  323 U.S. 408.  THAT ASSUMPTION HAS NOW BEEN STATED IN THE
PRESENT OPINION AS ONE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT "CONCLUDED, AND WE THINK
PROPERLY, THAT IN THE SITUATION PRESENTED A DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD AND
A DISTRIBUTION OF ITS PATENTS INTO VARIOUS HANDS WOULD CREATE A WORSE
SITUATION THAN THAT ENVISAGED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE."  THE
FURTHER CONCLUSION IS EXPRESSED THAT "THIS IS EQUALLY TRUE OF THE
STATUS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE REQUIRED BY
OUR OPINION."  UNLESS THIS LANGUAGE IS AT ONCE A RULING THAT
DISSOLUTION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED, IF
ORDERED IN 1942, AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT NOW BE DECREED, I AM UNABLE TO
UNDERSTAND ITS MEANING.  THAT IT IS SO EFFECTIVE APPEARS FROM THE
FURTHER DIRECTION, "IF IT BE FOUND THAT A DECREE ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS COURT'S OPINION HAS FAILED TO BRING ABOUT A CORRECTION OF THE
VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAW WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THE RELIEF
GRANTED, IT WILL OF COURSE BE OPEN TO THE GOVERNMENT, ON A PROPER
SHOWING, TO APPLY FOR FURTHER OR OTHER RELIEF." 

IN MY JUDGMENT THIS EFFECTIVELY MODIFIES, IF IT DOES NOT NULLIFY,
PARAGRAPH 57A OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE IN SO FAR AS IT RESERVED
THE POWER TO ORDER DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD, IF AFTER A REASONABLE TIME
COMPETITION SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPARENT
DISCLAIMER OF THIS EFFECT.  NO FINDING CAN NOW BE MADE, NOR CAN ONE BE
MADE FOR SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE, THAT "A DECREE ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS COURT'S OPINION HAS FAILED TO BRING ABOUT A CORRECTION OF THE
VIOLATIONS," MUCH LESS THAT COMPETITION HAS BEEN RESTORED IN THE
INDUSTRY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT NO SUCH DECREE HAS BEEN ENTERED. 
IF ONLY SUCH A FINDING CAN SUSTAIN AN ORDER FOR DISSOLUTION, OBVIOUSLY
NO SUCH ORDER CAN BE MADE UPON THE REMAND OF THIS CASE, WHETHER OR NOT
THE DISTRICT COURT THEN MIGHT FIND, UPON CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, THAT
COMPETITION HAD NOT BEEN RESTORED, EVEN UNDER THE MORE STRINGENT TERMS
OF ITS DECREE.  ONLY AT SOME INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME COULD SUCH AN ORDER
BE ENTERED, BASED UPON EVIDENCE THAT THE MILDER TERMS OF THIS COURT'S
DECREE HAD FAILED TO RESTORE COMPETITION. 

IN MY OPINION, THEREFORE, THE DISTRICT COURT IS FORECLOSED FROM
FINDING THAT COMPETITION HAS NOT BEEN RESTORED, EVEN UNDER THE MORE
STRINGENT PROVISIONS OF ITS DECREE, DURING THE NEARLY THREE YEARS IT
HAS BEEN IN FORCE.  IF IN THAT TIME THOSE MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN
EFFECTIVE TO RESTORE COMPETITION, AS THE COURT CLEARLY THOUGHT MIGHT
PROVE TO BE TRUE, THE GREATLY SOFTENED MEASURES OF THIS COURT'S DECREE
HARDLY CAN BE EXPECTED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT OBJECT.  YET IT EFFECTUALLY
FORBIDS THE DISTRICT COURT TO EXAMINE THE EFFECTS OF ITS DECREE UPON
THE RESTORATION OF COMPETITION, TO MAKE A PRESENT FINDING, IF THE
EVIDENCE SHOULD JUSTIFY IT, THAT COMPETITION HAS NOT BEEN, OR CANNOT
BE, RESTORED, AND TO DECREE DISSOLUTION ACCORDINGLY. 

IN EFFECT THIS COURT FINDS THE FACT FOR ITSELF, WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND,
IN MY OPINION, WITHOUT RIGHT.  THAT IS TRUE UNLESS THE PURPOSE IS TO
RULE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT HARTFORD CANNOT NOW BE DISSOLVED AND IS
ENTITLED TO CONTINUE IN BUSINESS, THUS DOMINATING THE INDUSTRY, EVEN
THOUGH COMPETITION HAS NOT BEEN RESTORED.  THIS COMES NEAR, IF NOT
ENTIRELY, TO DESTROYING THE LONG-ESTABLISHED POWER TO ORDER
DISSOLUTION. 

I THINK ALSO THAT THE ROYALTIES COLLECTED AND IMPOUNDED BY THE COURT
FOR HARTFORD'S PROTECTION IN THE EVENT OF REVERSAL OF ITS JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THOSE FROM WHOM THEY WERE COLLECTED.  APART FROM
THE VIEW, PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED, THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING
SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED TO THE EFFECT THAT FREE LICENSING WAS REQUIRED
TO RESTORE COMPETITION IF HARTFORD WERE TO CONTINUE IN BUSINESS AND IN
CONTROL OF ITS MORE THAN 600 PATENTS, THESE FUNDS WERE COLLECTED ONLY
BY REASON OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER REQUIRING THIS IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO PENDING APPEAL.  NO ONE CAN TELL NOW WHETHER OR
NOT THE LICENSEES, BUT FOR THIS ORDER, WOULD HAVE ELECTED TO REFUSE TO
PAY THE ROYALTIES AND LITIGATE THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO.  THOSE FUNDS
SHOULD NOT BE RETURNED TO HARTFORD, TO BE RETAINED BY IT AS THE PRODUCT
OR CONSEQUENCE NOT ONLY OF ITS VIOLATION BUT ALSO OF THE COURT'S
ORDER. 

MOREOVER, UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS COURT'S REVISED DECREE, IF THE
LICENSEES WHO HAVE PAID IN THE ROYALTIES ELECT TO REMAIN LICENSEES, AND
PAY THE REASONABLE ROYALTIES REQUIRED "FOR THE FUTURE," IT IS NOT CLEAR
THAT PROVISION IS MADE FOR REPAYMENT TO THEM OF ANY PORTION OF THE
ROYALTIES COLLECTED WHICH MAY BE IN EXCESS OF THE REASONABLE ROYALTIES
THIS COURT'S DECREE REQUIRES BE PAID FOR THE FUTURE.  THE OPPOSITE
APPEARS TO BE THE COURSE DIRECTED.  THE REVISED OPINION REQUIRES THE
LICENSEES TO ELECT "TO REMAIN LICENSEES ON SUCH REASONABLE RENTAL AND
ROYALTY BASIS FOR THE FUTURE AS THE DISTRICT COURT MAY FIX" OR TO
REPUDIATE THE LEASES AND LITIGATE WITH HARTFORD THEIR RIGHTS "TO RETAIN
ANY PORTION OF THE RENTS AND ROYALTIES PAID."  UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE, THE RECEIVERS HAVE COLLECTED RENTS AND
ROYALTIES "UNDER THE PRESENT CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS OF HARTFORD IN
ITS LICENSING AND LEASE SYSTEM."  HARTFORD HAS NO MORE RIGHT TO RETAIN
UNREASONABLE ROYALTIES COLLECTED WHILE THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE HAS
REMAINED OR CONTINUES TO BE IN EFFECT THAN IT HAS TO COLLECT SUCH
ROYALTIES FOR THE FUTURE. 

FN1  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF THIS COURT'S POWER TO REVIEW AND
MODIFY TERMS OF RELIEF IN SHERMAN ACT SUITS, WHEN THEY EXCEED THE
LIMITS IMPOSED BY LAW OR AMOUNT TO AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  AS THE
COURT'S OPINION INDICATES, THIS POWER HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY EXERCISED,
MOST OFTEN IN THE CASES CITED TO STRENGTHEN RATHER THAN TO WEAKEN THE
REMEDY WHERE VIOLATION HAS BEEN FOUND, UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN
TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, 184; UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO.,
226 U.S. 470; UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 286 U.S. 106; UNITED STATES
V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241; AND IN NO INSTANCE SUBSTANTIALLY TO
THE EXTENT OF REWRITING THE DETAILED PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE IN
EXTENSO, AS IS DONE IN THIS CASE; CF. SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196
U.S. 375, 396; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; SUGAR
INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553; UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH &
LOMB OPTICAL CO., 321 U.S. 707.  IN LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291
U.S. 293, THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE WERE AFFIRMED WITHOUT CHANGE, THE
COURT OBSERVING, AT 299:  "THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO EFFECTIVE
RELIEF  ....  IN FRAMINING ITS (THE DECREE'S) PROVISIONS DOUBTS SHOULD
BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND AGAINST THE CONSPIRATORS." 

FN2  IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO POINT OUT SPECIFICALLY THE LARGE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FINDING THAT COMPETITION HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE
INDUSTRY AND ONE THAT "A DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD AND A DISTRIBUTION OF
ITS PATENTS INTO VARIOUS HANDS WOULD CREATE A WORSE SITUATION THAN THAT
ENVISAGED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
















COLORADO INTERSTATE CO. V. COMM'N, 324 U.S. 581 


ARGUED JANUARY 29, 30, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 2, 1945.  - 142 F.2D 943,
AFFIRMED. 


THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT ORDERED
REDUCTIONS IN PETITIONERS' INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES.  THOUGH SEPARATE
COMPANIES, PETITIONERS OPERATED THEIR PROPERTIES AS AN INTEGRATED
SYSTEM.  THEIR BUSINESS CONSISTED OF INTRASTATE SALES, DIRECT
INDUSTRIAL SALES, AND INTERSTATE WHOLESALES, OF WHICH ONLY INTERSTATE
WHOLESALES ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  HELD: 

1.  IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE REDUCTIONS IN THE INTERSTATE
WHOLESALE RATES, THE COMMISSION WAS NOT BOUND TO MAKE A SEPARATION OF
THE PROPERTIES USED IN THE REGULATED BUSINESS FROM THOSE IN THE
UNREGULATED, AND ITS FORMULA FOR ALLOCATION OF COSTS BETWEEN REGULABLE
AND NON-REGULABLE SALES DID NOT CONTRAVENE THE ACT.  P. 586. 

(A)  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, AND SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL
TELEPHONE CO., 282 U.S. 133, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 589. 

(B)  UNDER THE ACT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ALLOCATION FORMULA USED
BY THE COMMISSION IS A QUESTION OF FACT, NOT OF LAW.  P. 590. 

(C)  THE COMMISSION'S FORMULA DID NOT IGNORE OR FAIL TO GIVE FULL
EFFECT TO THE PRIORITY - RECOGNIZED IN THE CONTRACTS WITH INDUSTRIAL
USERS AND IN MUNICIPAL FRANCHISES - WHICH THE WHOLESALE GAS HAD OVER
DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES.  P. 590. 

(D)  THE COMMISSION'S TREATMENT OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE AS A UNIT -
THOUGH SOME LATERALS AND EQUIPMENT WERE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR INTERSTATE
WHOLESALES, SOME EXCLUSIVELY FOR INTRASTATE OR DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES,
AND SOME IN COMMON IN VARYING DEGREES BY THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF
BUSINESS - WAS NOT UNFAIR.  P. 590. 

(E)  THE COMMISSION HAVING FOUND THAT BUT FOR THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
MARKET AT PUEBLO AND THE WHOLESALE MARKET AT DENVER THE PIPELINE WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT, IT WAS FAIR TO DETERMINE TRANSMISSION COSTS FOR
THE PIPELINE AS A WHOLE AND NOT TO COMPUTE THEM ON A MILEAGE DEMAND
BASIS.  P. 591. 

(F)  CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS, NOT MERE MATHEMATICS, GOVERN
ALLOCATION OF COSTS.  P. 591. 

(G)  THE CONTENTION THAT CERTAIN INTRASTATE WHOLESALES ARE BURDENED
WITH TOO LARGE A SHARE OF TRANSMISSION COSTS IS REJECTED.  P. 591. 

(H)  THE COMMISSION'S INCLUSION IN THE TOTAL COST OF PETITIONERS'
SERVICE OF A 6 1/2% RETURN ON THE RATE BASE WAS NOT INAPPROPRIATE,
INASMUCH AS THE RATE REDUCTION ORDERED WAS BASED SOLELY ON THE EXCESS
OF REVENUES OVER COSTS (INCLUDING RETURN) DERIVED FROM THE REGULATED
BUSINESS.  P. 593. 

(I)  THE 6 1/2% RETURN ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION ON THE RATE BASE
DOES NOT LIMIT THE EARNINGS OF THE WHOLE ENTERPRISE TO 6 1/2%, BUT
MERELY MEASURES THE EARNINGS ALLOWED FROM THE REGULATED BUSINESS.  P.
594. 

(J)  THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS,
THOUGH THEY LEAVE MUCH TO BE DESIRED, ARE NOT SO VAGUE AS TO MAKE THE
JUDICIAL REVIEW CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT A PERFUNCTORY PROCESS, AND THE
CASE NEED NOT BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER FINDINGS.  P. 595. 

2.  INTERSTATE SALES OF GAS FOR RESALE, INCLUDING THAT SOLD FOR
RESALE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE, ARE SUBJECT TO RATE REGULATION UNDER THE
ACT.  P. 595. 

(A)  IN SEC. 1(A) OF THE ACT THE WORDS "ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION TO THE
PUBLIC" DO NOT IMPLY DISTRIBUTION TO DOMESTIC USERS ALONE.  P. 596. 

(B)  THE DECLARATION OF POLICY IN SEC. 1(A) OF THE ACT MAY NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS TAKING OUT OF SEC. 1(B) THE EXPRESS PROVISION SUBJECTING
TO REGULATION GAS SOLD FOR RESALE FOR "INDUSTRIAL USE."  P. 596. 

(C)  FROM THE PROVISO OF SEC. 4(E) OF THE ACT THAT THE COMMISSION
SHALL NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND THE RATE "FOR THE SALE OF NATURAL
GAS FOR RESALE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY," IT MAY NOT BE INFERRED THAT
SUCH RATES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  P. 596. 

(D)  THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE TREATED AS AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ALLOCATION OF COSTS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT INTERSTATE SALES
BY ONE TO THE OTHER FOR RESALE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE BE REGARDED AS NON
REGULABLE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES.  P. 596. 

3.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 1(B) THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT APPLY "TO THE
PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS" DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE
COMMISSION FROM TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PRODUCTION PROPERTIES AND
GATHERING FACILITIES OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES IN DETERMINING THE
REASONABLENESS OF RATES SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION.  PP. 597, 604. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION IS NOT PRECLUDED UNDER THE ACT FROM INCLUDING
PRODUCTION AND GATHERING FACILITIES IN THE RATE BASE, AND IS NOT
REQUIRED INSTEAD TO MAKE AN ALLOWANCE IN OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE
FAIR FIELD PRICE OF THE GAS AS A COMMODITY.  P. 600. 

4.  THE COMMISSION'S INCLUSION OF PRODUCTION PROPERTIES IN THE RATE
BASE AT ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST WAS NOT ERRONEOUS AS MATTER OF LAW. 
ERROR IN THIS RESPECT COULD BE DETERMINED ONLY ON CONSIDERATION OF THE
END RESULT OF THE RATE ORDER, A QUESTION NOT PRESENTED ON THE LIMITED
REVIEW GRANTED IN THIS CASE.  P. 604. 

5.  GAS LEASES AND PRODUCING PROPERTIES WHICH WERE TRANSFERRED AT A
WRITE-UP FROM ONE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY TO ANOTHER WERE PROPERLY
INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE AT THE ORIGINAL COST TO THE TRANSFEROR, WHERE
NO ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT WAS SHOWN TO EXIST.  A.T. & T. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 299 U.S. 232, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 607. 

COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL. 

NO. 379.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 380, CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.  ARGUED JANUARY 30, 1945. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 807, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF RATE ORDERS OF
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AFTER AN INVESTIGATION AND HEARING
ENTERED ORDERS UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938(52 STAT.
823, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717D) FINDING THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES OF
PETITIONERS TO BE EXCESSIVE BY SPECIFIED AMOUNTS PER YEAR AND REQUIRING
PETITIONERS TO REDUCE THE RATES ACCORDINGLY.  43 P.U.R. (N.S.)  205. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS.  142 F.2D 943.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON PETITIONS
FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED, LIMITED TO THE FEW QUESTIONS TO WHICH
WE WILL PRESENTLY ADVERT. 

PETITIONERS (TO WHOM WE WILL REFER AS CANADIAN AND AS COLORADO
INTERSTATE) HAD THEIR ORIGIN IN AN AGREEMENT MADE IN 1927 BETWEEN
SOUTHWESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO. (SOUTHWESTERN), STANDARD OIL CO.
(N.J.)(STANDARD) AND CITIES SERVICE CO. (CITIES SERVICE).  IT WAS THE
PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT TO BRING NATURAL GAS FROM THE PANHANDLE FIELD
IN TEXAS TO THE COLORADO MARKETS, INCLUDING DENVER AND PUEBLO. 
SOUTHWESTERN AGREED TO TRANSFER THROUGH A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY,
AMARILLO OIL CO. (AMARILLO), CERTAIN GAS LEASEHOLDS AND PRODUCING
PROPERTIES TO A NEW SUBSIDIARY (CANADIAN) WHICH IT WOULD ORGANIZE FOR
THAT PURPOSE.  STANDARD AGREED TO FORM A NEW CORPORATION (COLORADO
INTERSTATE) AND TO FINANCE ITS CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE FACILITIES
WHICH WOULD CONNECT WITH CANADIAN'S FACILITIES AND TRANSPORT GAS FROM
THOSE POINTS IN THE PANHANDLE FIELD TO THE COLORADO MARKETS.  CITIES
SERVICE AGREED TO USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO OBTAIN FRANCHISES THROUGH ITS
SUBSIDIARIES UNDER WHICH THE NATURAL GAS COULD BE DISTRIBUTED IN
CERTAIN CITIES IN COLORADO INCLUDING DENVER AND PUEBLO.  THE GAS WAS TO
BE SOLD TO COLORADO INTERSTATE BY CANADIAN AT COST (AS DEFINED IN THE
CONTRACT) FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS FROM 1928.  WE WILL RETURN TO OTHER
DETAILS OF THIS TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT AND OF THE ORGANIZATION AND
FINANCING OF CANADIAN AND COLORADO INTERSTATE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE
TO SAY THAT THE COMPANIES WERE INCORPORATED, THE PIPELINE WAS BUILT,
AND THE BUSINESS PUT INTO OPERATION.  ALTHOUGH CANADIAN AND COLORADO
INTERSTATE ARE SEPARATE COMPANIES, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THEIR
PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN OPERATED AS A SINGLE ENTERPRISE. 

CANADIAN PRODUCES FROM ITS OWN PROPERTIES ALL THE GAS WHICH IT
SELLS.  IT HAS ABOUT 300,000 ACRES OF NATURAL GAS LEASEHOLDS AND ON
DECEMBER 31, 1939, WAS OPERATING 94 WELLS.  ITS GATHERING SYSTEM
CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 144 MILES OF PIPE.  IT OWNS AND OPERATES A
TRANSMISSION LINE WHICH CONNECTS WITH ITS GATHERING SYSTEM IN THE
PANHANDLE FIELD AND ENDS ABOUT 85 MILES DISTANT AT A POINT NEAR
CLAYTON, NEW MEXICO.  CANADIAN SELLS SOME OF ITS GAS AT THE WELLHEAD
AND ALONG THE TEXAS PORTION OF ITS TRANSMISSION LINE FOR CONSUMPTION IN
TEXAS.  IT ALSO SELLS GAS FOR RESALE IN CLAYTON, NEW MEXICO.  BUT THE
CHIEF PORTION OF THE GAS IN ITS TRANSMISSION LINE IS SOLD AT THAT POINT
TO COLORADO INTERSTATE.  THE PIPELINE OF COLORADO INTERSTATE EXTENDS TO
DENVER.  IT SELLS THE GAS TO VARIOUS DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES FOR RESALE
BY THEM IN COLORADO AND IN A FEW POINTS IN WYOMING.  FN1  COLORADO
INTERSTATE ALSO SELLS GAS FROM THIS PIPELINE DIRECT TO INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS IN COLORADO FOR THEIR OWN USE. 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE PIPELINE FROM TEXAS TO COLORADO SERVES
THREE DIFFERENT USES:  (A) INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE IN TEXAS;
(B) INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE TO INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS; AND (C)
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION TO DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES FOR RESALE.  ONLY
SOME OF THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION.  FOR SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT PROVIDES: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY
OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH
DISTRIBUTION OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS."  IT IS
AROUND THE MEANING AND IMPLICATIONS OF THAT PROVISION THAT MOST OF THE
PRESENT CONTROVERSY TURNS. 

ALLOCATION OF COST OF SERVICE.  THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY COLORADO
INTERSTATE AND SOME OF THOSE RAISED BY CANADIAN RELATE TO THE FAILURE
OF THE COMMISSION (1) TO SEPARATE THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY USED IN COMMON
IN THE INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE BUSINESS; (2) TO SEPARATE THAT USED IN
COMMON IN THE SALES OF GAS TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS AND THE SALES OF GAS
FOR RESALE; AND (3) TO SEPARATE THE PROPERTY USED EXCLUSIVELY IN
INTRASTATE BUSINESS OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR INDUSTRIAL SALES.  THE
COMMISSION THOUGHT IT UNNECESSARY TO MAKE SUCH A SEPARATION OF THE
PROPERTIES.  IT NOTED THAT NOWHERE IN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY
PETITIONERS WAS THERE "A COMPLETE PRESENTATION OF THE ENTIRE OPERATIONS
OF THE COMPANY BROKEN DOWN BETWEEN JURISDICTIONAL AND NON
JURISDICTIONAL OPERATIONS."  43 P.U.R. (N.S.), P. 232.  AND IT
CONCLUDED, "ALL THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY AN ALLOCATION OF PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES CAN BE ATTAINED BY ALLOCATING COSTS INCLUDING THE RETURN. 
THE LATTER METHOD IS BY FAR THE MOST PRACTICAL AND BUSINESSLIKE."  ID.,
P. 232.  THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE SO-CALLED "DEMAND AND COMMODITY"
METHOD FOR ALLOCATING COSTS.  CF. ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO. V.
TEXARKANA, 96 F.2D 179, 185.  IT TOOK THE COSTS AND DIVIDED THEM INTO
THREE CLASSES - VOLUMETRIC, CAPACITY, DISTRIBUTION.  FN2  COSTS
RELATING TO THE PRODUCTION SYSTEM WERE TREATED AS VOLUMETRIC.  FN3
THESE INCLUDED RATE OF RETURN AND DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION ON LEASES
AND WELLS.  THESE VOLUMETRIC COSTS WERE ALLOCATED TO THE CUSTOMERS IN
PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER OF MCF'S DELIVERED TO EACH CUSTOMER IN 1939. 
THE LARGER SHARE OF THE TRANSMISSION COSTS OF THE DENVER PIPELINE WERE
CLASSIFIED AS CAPACITY COSTS.  SUPPLIES AND EXPENSES OF COMPRESSING
SYSTEMS, MAINTENANCE OF COMPRESSING SYSTEM EQUIPMENT AND ACCRUALS FOR
ITS DEPRECIATION WERE CLASSED AS VOLUMETRIC.  AND ONE-HALF OF THE
RETURN AND INCOME TAXES ON THE DENVER PIPELINE AND ONE-HALF OF
OPERATING LABOR ON THE COMPRESSING SYSTEM WERE CLASSED AS VOLUMETRIC,
THE OTHER HALF BEING CLASSED AS CAPACITY.  CAPACITY COSTS WERE
ALLOCATED TO THE CUSTOMERS IN THE RATIO THAT THE MCF SALES TO EACH
CUSTOMER ON THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY OF FEBRUARY 9, 1939, BORE TO THE TOTAL
SALES TO ALL CUSTOMERS ON THAT DAY.  DISTRIBUTION COSTS WERE COMPOSED
IN PART OF DEPRECIATION, TAXES, AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN METERING
AND REGULATING EQUIPMENT THROUGH WHICH GAS IS DELIVERED AT INDIVIDUAL
STATIONS TO EACH CUSTOMER.  THESE WERE ALLOCATED TO EACH CUSTOMER IN
THE RATIO WHICH THE INVESTMENT FOR EACH CUSTOMER BORE TO THE TOTAL
INVESTMENT IN SUCH FACILITIES WHICH WERE AVAILABLE TO SERVE ALL
CUSTOMERS.  DISTRIBUTION COSTS ALSO INCLUDED OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE
EXPENSES INCURRED IN OPERATING THE METERING AND REGULATING STATIONS. 
THESE WERE ALLOCATED ON THE BASIS OF THE NUMBER OF STATIONS. 

THE FUNCTION WHICH AN ALLOCATION OF COSTS (INCLUDING RETURN) IS
DESIGNED TO PERFORM IN A RATE CASE OF THIS CHARACTER IS CLEAR.  THE
AMOUNT OF GROSS REVENUE FROM EACH CLASS OF BUSINESS IS KNOWN.  SOME OF
THOSE REVENUES ARE DERIVED FROM SALES AT RATES WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS
NO POWER TO FIX.  THE OTHER PART OF THE GROSS REVENUES COMES FROM THE
INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES WHICH ARE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION.  THE PROBLEM IS TO ALLOCATE TO EACH CLASS OF THE BUSINESS
ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE COSTS.  IT IS OF COURSE IMMATERIAL THAT THE
REVENUES FROM THE INTRASTATE SALES OR THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES MAY
EXCEED THEIR COSTS, SINCE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THOSE PHASES OF THE
BUSINESS IS LACKING.  TO THE EXTENT, HOWEVER, THAT THE REVENUES FROM
THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE BUSINESS EXCEED THE COSTS ALLOCABLE TO THAT
PHASE OF THE BUSINESS, THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES ARE EXCESSIVE. 
THE USE OF THAT METHOD IN THESE CASES PRODUCED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS:

    CANADIAN

          EXCESS REVENUE

                    REVENUES     COSTS         OVER COSTS 

REGULATED............ $2,151,000    $1,590,000          $561,000 

UNREGULATED..........  242,000       188,000             54,00

      COLORADO INTERSTATE

                EXCESS REVENUE

                    REVENUES      COSTS         OVER COSTS 

REGULATED............ $4,438,000    $2,373,000        $2,065,000 

UNREGULATED..........  1,335,000     1,204,000           131,000 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE RATE REDUCTIONS WHICH IT
ORDERED ANY OF THE EXCESS REVENUES OVER COSTS FROM THE UNREGULATED
BUSINESS.  THE REDUCTIONS ORDERED WERE MEASURED SOLELY BY THE EXCESS
REVENUES OVER COSTS IN THE REGULATED BUSINESS, VIZ., $2,065,000 IN CASE
OF COLORADO INTERSTATE AND $561,000 IN CASE OF CANADIAN. 

COLORADO INTERSTATE AND CANADIAN MAKE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS TO THAT
METHOD.  THEY MAINTAIN IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT A SEGREGATION OF THE
PHYSICAL PROPERTY BASED UPON USE IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE PAYMENT DUE
FOR THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY WHICH IS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE MAY BE
DETERMINED.  RELIANCE FOR THAT POSITION IS RESTED ON THE MINNESOTA RATE
CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 435, AND SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., 282
U.S. 133, 146.  THOSE WERE CASES WHICH INVOLVED STATE REGULATION OF
INTRASTATE RATES OF COMPANIES DOING BOTH AN INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE
BUSINESS.  BUT THE RULE FASHIONED BY THIS COURT FOR USE IN THOSE
SITUATIONS WAS NOT WRITTEN INTO THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  CONGRESS INDEED
PRESCRIBED NO FORMULA FOR DETERMINING HOW THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE
BUSINESS, WHOSE RATES ARE REGULATED, SHOULD BE SEGREGATED FROM THE
OTHER PHASES OF THE BUSINESS WHOSE RATES ARE NOT REGULATED.  RATE
MAKING IS ESSENTIALLY A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION.  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94
U.S. 113.  CONGRESS, TO BE SURE, HAS PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS.  SEC. 19.  BUT THAT REVIEW IS LIMITED TO
KEEPING THE COMMISSION WITHIN THE BOUNDS WHICH CONGRESS HAS CREATED. 
WHEN CONGRESS, AS HERE, FAILS TO PROVIDE A FORMULA FOR THE COMMISSION
TO FOLLOW, COURTS ARE NOT WARRANTED IN REJECTING THE ONE WHICH THE
COMMISSION EMPLOYS UNLESS IT PLAINLY CONTRAVENES THE STATUTORY SCHEME
OF REGULATION.  IF CONGRESS HAD PRESCRIBED A FORMULA IT WOULD BE THE
DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO FOLLOW IT.  BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS ACT THE COMMISSION CAN EMPLOY ONLY ONE ALLOCATION FORMULA
AND THAT THAT FORMULA MUST ENTAIL A SEGREGATION OF PROPERTY.  A
SEPARATION OF PROPERTIES IS MERELY A STEP IN THE DETERMINATION OF COSTS
PROPERLY ALLOCABLE TO THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF SERVICES RENDERED BY A
UTILITY.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, SEVERAL CLASSES OF SERVICES HAVE A COMMON
USE OF THE SAME PROPERTY, DIFFICULTIES OF SEPARATION ARE OBVIOUS. 
ALLOCATION OF COSTS IS NOT A MATTER FOR THE SLIDE-RULE.  IT INVOLVES
JUDGMENT ON A MYRIAD OF FACTS.  IT HAS NO CLAIM TO AN EXACT SCIENCE. 
HAMILTON, COST AS A STANDARD FOR PRICE, 4 LAW & CONT.  PROB.  321.  BUT
NEITHER DOES THE SEPARATION OF PROPERTIES WHICH ARE NOT IN FACT
SEPARABLE BECAUSE THEY FUNCTION AS AN INTEGRATED WHOLE.  MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN GROESBECK V. DULUTH, S.S. & A.R.
CO., 250 U.S. 607, 614-615, NOTED THAT "IT IS MUCH EASIER TO REJECT
FORMULAS PRESENTED AS BEING MISLEADING THAN TO FIND ONE APPARENTLY
ADEQUATE."  UNDER THIS ACT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE FORMULA EMPLOYED
BY THE COMMISSION IN A GIVEN CASE RAISES QUESTIONS OF FACT, NOT OF
LAW. 

COLORADO INTERSTATE CLAIMS THAT THE COMMISSION'S FORMULA IGNORED OR
AT LEAST FAILED TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO THE PRIORITY WHICH THE WHOLESALE
GAS HAS OVER DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES - A PRIORITY RECOGNIZED IN THE
CONTRACTS WITH INDUSTRIAL USERS AND IN THE MUNICIPAL FRANCHISES.  BUT
OVER THE YEARS THE INTERRUPTIONS OR CURTAILMENTS IN SERVICE TO DIRECT
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SLIGHT.  FN4  MOREOVER, TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE PRIORITY ACCORDED WHOLESALE GAS WAS ACTUALLY EXERCISED
DURING THE TEST YEAR (1939) THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS MADE BY THE
COMMISSION GAVE FULL EFFECT TO IT.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, VOLUMETRIC COSTS
WERE ALLOCATED TO THE CUSTOMERS IN PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER OF MCF'S
DELIVERED TO EACH CUSTOMER DURING THE YEAR; CAPACITY COSTS WERE
ALLOCATED IN THE RATIO THAT THE MCF SALES TO EACH CUSTOMER ON THE
SYSTEM PEAK DAY BORE TO THE TOTAL SALES ON THAT DAY.  THE FORMULA USED
REFLECTED ALL ACTUAL CURTAILMENTS OF LOAD TO EACH CUSTOMER DURING THE
YEAR AND ON THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY.    COLORADO INTERSTATE OBJECTS BECAUSE
THE COMMISSION TREATED THE TRANSMISSION LINE AS A UNIT.  IT POINTS OUT
THAT SOME LATERALS AND EQUIPMENT (SUCH AS METERING STATIONS) ARE USED
EXCLUSIVELY FOR MAKING WHOLESALE SALES, SOME ARE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR
MAKING INTRASTATE SALES OR DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES, AND SOME ARE USED
IN COMMON IN VARYING DEGREES BY THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF BUSINESS.  IT IS
POINTED OUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE LINE NORTH OF PUEBLO IS USED ALMOST
EXCLUSIVELY BY THE REGULATED BUSINESS BUT THAT UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
FORMULA THE PIPELINE WAS TREATED AS IF ALL THE GAS WENT INTO THE PIPE
IN TEXAS AND CAME OUT AT THE DENVER CITY GATE.  THESE OBJECTIONS ARE
PARTIALLY MET BY THE MANNER IN WHICH DISTRIBUTION COSTS, TO WHICH WE
HAVE REFERRED, WERE ALLOCATED.  BUT THAT IS NO MORE THAN A PARTIAL
ANSWER SINCE THEY PERTAINED ONLY TO METERING AND REGULATING EQUIPMENT. 
THE LATERALS WERE NOT SEGREGATED.  THEY, HOWEVER, APPEAR TO BE USED
MORE COMMONLY FOR DIRECT INDUSTRIAL RATHER THAN FOR WHOLESALE SALES;
AND WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES WERE SADDLED
WITH GREATER COSTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE LATERALS BEEN
SEGREGATED.  THE GRAVAMEN OF THIS COMPLAINT IS THAT THE INDUSTRIAL
SALES ARE BEING BURDENED WITH COSTS OF A PART OF THE SYSTEM WHICH THE
DIRECT INDUSTRIAL GAS NEVER USES.  THAT CONTENTION POINTS UP OUR
EARLIER OBSERVATION THAT JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION CONTROL BOTH THE
SEPARATION OF PROPERTY AND THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS WHEN IT IS SOUGHT TO
REDUCE TO ITS COMPONENT PARTS A BUSINESS WHICH FUNCTIONS AS AN
INTEGRATED WHOLE.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT BUT FOR THE DIRECT
INDUSTRIAL MARKET AT PUEBLO, COLORADO AND THE WHOLESALE MARKET AT
DENVER, THE PIPELINE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED.  43 P.U.R.
(N.S.)  P. 210.  IT IS THEREFORE OBVIOUSLY FAIR TO DETERMINE
TRANSMISSION COSTS FOR THE PIPELINE AS A WHOLE AND NOT TO COMPUTE THEM
ON A MILEAGE DEMAND BASIS.  IN THAT WAY THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE ENTIRE
PROJECT SHARE EQUITABLY IN THE COST.  TO ALLOW THE COSTS TO ACCUMULATE
THE CLOSER THE GAS GETS TO DENVER WOULD BE TO ASSUME THAT THE EXTENSION
TO DENVER WAS A SEPARATE PROJECT ON WHICH THE EARLIER CUSTOMERS WERE IN
NO WAY DEPENDENT.  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ILLUSTRATE THAT CONSIDERATIONS
OF FAIRNESS, NOT MERE MATHEMATICS, GOVERN THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS.  CF.
WABASH VALLEY ELECTRIC CO. V. YOUNG, 287 U.S. 488, 499.  WHAT WE HAVE
SAID ALSO ANSWERS CANADIAN'S COMPLAINT THAT THE WHOLESALE SALES IN
TEXAS FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE TOWNS OF DALHART, HARTLEY, AND TEXLINE,
TEXAS, ARE BURDENED WITH TOO LARGE A SHARE OF TRANSMISSION COSTS.  WE
CAN SEE IN THIS SITUATION NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE CUSTOMERS AND THE
ONES LOCATED AT MORE DISTANT POINTS ON THE PIPELINE.  FN5 

COLORADO INTERSTATE OBJECTS TO THAT PART OF THE COMMISSION'S
TREATMENT OF TRANSMISSION COSTS WHEREBY IT ASSIGNED 50% OF THE RETURN
TO CAPACITY COSTS AND 50% TO VOLUMETRIC COSTS.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT
THE ENTIRE RETURN ON THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES SHOULD BE APPORTIONED
TO CAPACITY COSTS ON THE THEORY THAT THE VOLUMETRIC COSTS HAVE NO
RELATION TO THE PROPERTY REQUIRED FOR MEETING THE MAXIMUM DEMANDS OF
THE WHOLESALE BUSINESS AND THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED DEPARTS FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF A FAIR RETURN ON THE PROPERTY DEVOTED TO THE PUBLIC
SERVICE.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, CAPACITY COSTS WERE ALLOCATED TO
CUSTOMERS IN THE RATIO THAT THE MCF SALES TO EACH CUSTOMER ON THE
SYSTEM PEAK DAY BORE TO THE TOTAL SALES TO ALL CUSTOMERS ON THAT DAY. 
IT IS NOT APPARENT WHY DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES SHOULD CARRY A LIGHTER
SHARE OF THE COSTS MERELY BECAUSE THEIR USE OF THE PIPELINE MAY BE LESS
ON THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY.  AS THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT, IF THE METHOD
ADVANCED BY COLORADO INTERSTATE WERE USED, THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE GAS THROUGH THE PIPELINE
WOULD BE MEASURED NOT BY THE CUSTOMER'S USE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WHICH
MIGHT BE SUBSTANTIAL, BUT BY ITS USE ON THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY WHICH MIGHT
BE SLIGHT.  IN THAT EVENT THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER WOULD OBTAIN TO AN
EXTENT FREE TRANSPORTATION OF GAS. 

COLORADO INTERSTATE ALSO MAKES OBJECTION TO THE SELECTION AND USE OF
FEBRUARY 9, 1939, AS THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY AND THE ALLOCATION OF THE
CAPACITY COST COMPONENT OF THE TRANSMISSION COSTS ON THE BASIS OF USE
ON THAT DAY.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE MEAN TEMPERATURE FOR THAT DAY WAS 8
DEGREE FAHRENHEIT ABOVE ZERO, THAT MUCH LOWER MEAN TEMPERATURES ARE
EXPERIENCED IN THE COLORADO AREA, THAT AS THE TEMPERATURE DROPS THE
LOAD OF RESALE GAS RAPIDLY INCREASES, AND THAT IF THESE CAPACITY COSTS
WERE ALLOCATED ON THE BASIS OF USE DURING THE COLDEST DAY THE RESALE
GAS WOULD CARRY A GREATER PORTION OF THEM.  WE DO NOT STOP TO DEVELOP
THE POINT.  WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED COLORADO INTERSTATE'S
CONTENTION.  AS WE READ THE RECORD, IF EITHER OF THE DAYS SELECTED BY
COLORADO INTERSTATE WERE TAKEN AS THE SYSTEM PEAK DAYS, THERE WOULD BE
ALLOCATED TO THE INDUSTRIAL GAS A LARGER PORTION OF THESE CAPACITY
COSTS THAN THE COMMISSION ALLOCATED.  ON THAT SHOWING WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE CHOICE OF FEBRUARY 9, 1939, WAS UNFAIR. 

COLORADO INTERSTATE AND CANADIAN OBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S USE OF
THE RETURN.  THE COMMISSION INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL COST OF SERVICE FOR
THESE COMPANIES A 6 1/2 PER CENT RETURN ON THE RATE BASE.  FN6  IN
OTHER WORDS, THE 6 1/2 PER CENT RETURN WAS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF ALL
THE PROPERTY USED BY PETITIONERS IN THEIR VARIOUS CLASSES OF BUSINESS -
INTRASTATE SALES, DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES, AND INTERSTATE WHOLESALE
SALES.  FN7  NOW IT IS APPARENT THAT IF THE REDUCTION ORDERED WAS BASED
ON THE EXCESS OF REVENUES FROM ALL CLASSES OF BUSINESS OVER THE
AGGREGATE COSTS, THE RESULT WOULD BE TO REDUCE TO A COMMON LEVEL THE
PROFITS FROM EACH CLASS.  IN THAT CASE, WHENEVER A COMPANY WAS MAKING A
HIGHER RETURN ON ITS UNREGULATED BUSINESS THAN THE RATE OF RETURN
ALLOWED FOR THE REGULATED BUSINESS, THE EXCESS EARNINGS FROM THE
UNREGULATED PART WOULD BE APPROPRIATED TO THE ENTIRE BUSINESS.  WHEN
THE UNREGULATED BUSINESS WAS BEING OPERATED AT A LOSS OR AT LESS THAN
THE RETURN WHICH WAS ALLOWED, EXCESS EARNINGS FROM THE REGULATED
BUSINESS WOULD BE APPROPRIATED TO THE UNREGULATED BUSINESS.  A LOW RATE
MIGHT THEREFORE BE CONCEALED BY SIPHONING EARNINGS FROM THE UNREGULATED
BUSINESS; A HIGH RATE MIGHT BE BUILT UP BY MAKING THE REGULATED
BUSINESS SHARE THE LOSSES OF THE UNREGULATED ONE. 

IT IS SAID THAT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED HERE.  BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE. 
AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE COMMISSION ORDERED A RATE REDUCTION BASED SOLELY
ON THE EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER COSTS (INCLUDING RETURN) DERIVED FROM
THE REGULATED BUSINESS.  NONE OF THE EXCESS REVENUES OVER COSTS
(INCLUDING RETURN) FROM THE UNREGULATED BUSINESS WAS INCLUDED IN THAT
REDUCTION.  IF THE COMMISSION IN DETERMINING COSTS OF THE UNREGULATED
BUSINESS HAD USED A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN, IT WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE
COSTS OF THAT BUSINESS AND REDUCED THE EXCESS REVENUES ALLOCABLE TO IT.
BUT SINCE UNDER THE COMMISSION'S METHOD OF ALLOCATION THE AMOUNT OF
THAT EXCESS WOULD NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE REDUCTION ORDERED, THERE
WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE IN RESULT. 

THE CASES ARE PRESENTED AS IF THE 6 1/2 PER CENT ALLOWED BY THE
COMMISSION ON THE RATE BASE LIMITS THE EARNINGS FROM THE WHOLE
ENTERPRISE TO 6 1/2 PER CENT.  THAT ALSO IS NOT TRUE.  THE RETURN
MERELY MEASURES THE EARNINGS ALLOWED FROM THE REGULATED BUSINESS.  AS
WE HAVE NOTED, THE EXCESS OF EARNINGS WHICH COLORADO INTERSTATE MAKES
FROM DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES (ON THE BASIS OF 6 1/2 PER CENT RETURN) IS
$131,000 ANNUALLY.  THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT (43 P.U.R. (N.S.)  P.
230) THAT IF COLORADO INTERSTATE "RETAINS THESE EARNINGS IN EXCESS OF A
6 1/2 PER CENT RATE OF RETURN ON ITS SALES TO THESE CUSTOMERS, ITS RATE
OF RETURN ON ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS IS INCREASED TO APPROXIMATELY 8 PER
CENT AFTER PLACING INTO EFFECT THE REDUCTIONS IN RATES ORDERED
HEREIN." 

OF THE OTHER OBJECTIONS MADE BY CANADIAN AND COLORADO INTERSTATE ON
THIS PHASE OF THE CASE, WE NEED MENTION ONLY ONE.  FN8  IT IS CONTENDED
THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS ARE
INADEQUATE AND THAT THE CASES SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION SO
THAT APPROPRIATE FINDINGS MAY BE MADE.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION
IN THIS REGARD LEAVE MUCH TO BE DESIRED SINCE THEY ARE QUITE SUMMARY
AND INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THE COMMISSION'S STAFF'S EXHIBITS ON
ALLOCATION OF COST.  BUT THE PATH WHICH IT FOLLOWED CAN BE DISCERNED. 
AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE ITS FINDINGS ARE SO VAGUE AND OBSCURE AS TO MAKE
THE JUDICIAL REVIEW CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT A PERFUNCTORY PROCESS.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499; UNITED
STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475. 

CANADIAN'S SALES TO COLORADO INTERSTATE.  THE COMMISSION ORDERED A
BLANKET REDUCTION OF $561,000 IN THE SALES PRICE OF ALL TYPES OF GAS
SOLD BY CANADIAN TO COLORADO INTERSTATE.  A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THAT
GAS IS SOLD TO COLORADO INTERSTATE FOR RESALE TO DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS.  CANADIAN MAINTAINS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY TO
FIX THE RATE ON THE SALE OF THAT PORTION OR CLASS OF GAS TO COLORADO
INTERSTATE.  SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, PROVIDES, AS WE HAVE NOTED,
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT APPLY "TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR
DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE."  CANADIAN,
HOWEVER, SEEKS SUPPORT FOR ITS POSITION IN THE DECLARATION IN SEC. 1(A)
OF THE ACT THAT "THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS
FOR ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC IS AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC
INTEREST."  BUT WE FIND NO WARRANT FOR SAYING THAT THE WORDS "ULTIMATE
DISTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC" IMPLY DISTRIBUTION TO DOMESTIC USERS
ALONE.  INDUSTRIAL USERS ARE AS MUCH A PART OF THE "PUBLIC" AS DOMESTIC
USERS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USERS.  AND THE DISTRIBUTION TO ONE IS AS
"ULTIMATE" AS THE DISTRIBUTION TO THE OTHER.  MOREOVER, THAT
DECLARATION OF POLICY MAY NOT BE USED TO TAKE OUT OF SEC. 1(B) OF THE
ACT THE EXPRESS PROVISION SUBJECTING TO REGULATION GAS SOLD FOR RESALE
FOR "INDUSTRIAL USE."  FURTHERMORE, THE DECLARATION OF POLICY CONTAINED
IN SEC. 1(A) IS NOT AS NARROW AS CANADIAN SUGGESTS.  FOR SEC. 1(A) GOES
ON TO SAY THAT FEDERAL REGULATION IN MATTERS RELATING TO "THE
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS AND THE SALE THEREOF IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE IS NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  SALES FOR
RESALE TO INDUSTRIAL USERS IS EMBRACED IN THE BROAD SWEEP OF THAT
LANGUAGE.  CANADIAN ALSO SEEKS SUPPORT FOR ITS POSITION FROM THE
PROVISO IN SEC. 4(E) OF THE ACT THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT HAVE
AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND THE RATE "FOR THE SALE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE
FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY."  CANADIAN INFERS FROM THAT PROVISION THAT
SUCH RATES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  THE SHORT
ANSWER, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO SUSPEND
RATES IS RESTRICTED TO RATES OVER WHICH IT HAS JURISDICTION.  IF THE
COMMISSION HAD NO AUTHORITY OVER THE RATES IN QUESTION, THE PROVISO IN
SEC. 4(E) WOULD BE UNNECESSARY.  ACCORDINGLY, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT ALL
OF THE GAS SOLD BY CANADIAN TO COLORADO INTERSTATE FOR RESALE,
INCLUDING THAT SOLD FOR RESALE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE, IS SUBJECT TO RATE
REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION. 

THERE IS THE FURTHER SUGGESTION IN CANADIAN'S ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE
COMMISSION TREATED CANADIAN AND COLORADO INTERSTATE AS AN INTEGRATED
SYSTEM FOR PURPOSES OF ALLOCATION OF COSTS, IT SHOULD HAVE LIMITED ITS
RATE REDUCTION TO THOSE RATES OVER WHICH IT WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION IF
THE TWO COMPANIES WERE IN FACT ONE.  IT IS ARGUED THAT IN SUCH EVENT
THERE WOULD BE NO SALES BETWEEN CANADIAN AND COLORADO INTERSTATE AND
THE LATTER'S DIRECT SALES TO INDUSTRIAL USERS WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT COLORADO
INTERSTATE PURCHASES ITS GAS FROM CANADIAN AND THE PURCHASE PRICE IS
THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATE WHICH IS AN OPERATING EXPENSE ON WHICH
COLORADO INTERSTATE'S RESALE RATES ARE COMPUTED.  MOREOVER, CANADIAN AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 4(C) OF THE ACT HAS ITS RATE TO COLORADO INTERSTATE IN
A RATE SCHEDULE ON FILE WITH THE COMMISSION.  UNLESS AND UNTIL A NEW
RATE SCHEDULE WAS FILED OR THE OLD SCHEDULE CHANGED BY THE COMMISSION,
THAT RATE WOULD HAVE TO BE EXACTED BY CANADIAN AND PAID BY COLORADO
INTERSTATE.  SEC. 4(D).  THAT RATE THEREFORE COULD HARDLY BE MAINTAINED
IF COLORADO INTERSTATE WERE ALLOWED AS AN OPERATING EXPENSE A LESSER
AMOUNT FOR THE GAS IT PURCHASES FROM CANADIAN. 

PRODUCING AND GATHERING FACILITIES.  SEC. 1(B) WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY
QUOTED STATES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT "SHALL NOT APPLY  ...  TO
THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS."  THE COMMISSION DETERMINED
A RATE BASE WHICH INCLUDES CANADIAN'S PRODUCTION AND GATHERING
PROPERTIES AS WELL AS ITS INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM.  THE RETURN
ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION WAS LIMITED TO 6 1/2 PER CENT OF THE RATE
BASE SO COMPUTED.  THE COMMISSION MADE AN ALLOWANCE FOR WORKING CAPITAL
TO ENABLE CANADIAN TO CARRY ON ITS PRODUCTION AND GATHERING
OPERATIONS.  THE COMMISSION MADE AN ALLOWANCE FOR CANADIAN'S OPERATING
EXPENSES WHICH INCLUDED THE COST OF PRODUCING AND GATHERING NATURAL
GAS.  THE COMMISSION APPLIED ITS FORMULA FOR ALLOCATION OF COSTS TO
CANADIAN'S PRODUCTION AND GATHERING PROPERTIES AS WELL AS TO ITS OTHER
FACILITIES.  THUS CANADIAN CONTENDS THAT CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF
SEC. 1(B) THE COMMISSION HAS UNDERTAKEN TO REGULATE THE PRODUCTION AND
GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS.  RELIANCE FOR THAT POSITION IS SOUGHT FROM
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT SEC. 1(A) DECLARES
THAT "THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS" FOR
ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC IS AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST
AND THAT FEDERAL REGULATION "IN MATTERS RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION
OF NATURAL GAS AND THE SALE THEREOF" IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  TRANSPORTATION AND SALE DO NOT
INCLUDE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING.  OTHER SECTIONS EMPHASIZE THAT
DISTINCTION.  THUS SEC. 4 AND SEC. 5, THE RATE REGULATING PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT, REFER TO CHARGES FOR THE "TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL
GAS, SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION."  SEC. 7(A) RELATES
TO THE EXTENSION OR IMPROVEMENT OF "TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES"; SEC.
7(B) TO THE ABANDONMENT OF "FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COMMISSION"; SEC. 7(C) TO THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF
FACILITIES FOR THE "TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS, SUBJECT TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION."  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT APART FROM
SEC. 1(B) ONLY A FEW SECTIONS OF THE ACT REFER TO "PRODUCTION."  SEC.
5(B) GIVES THE COMMISSION POWER TO INVESTIGATE "THE COST OF THE
PRODUCTION OR TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS BY A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY IN
CASES WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A RATE
GOVERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF SUCH NATURAL GAS."  THIS GOES
NO FURTHER, IT IS SAID, THAN TO AID STATE REGULATION.  SEC. 9(A)
AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO ASCERTAIN AND DETERMINE AND BY ORDER FIX
"THE PROPER AND ADEQUATE RATES OF DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION OF THE
SEVERAL CLASSES OF PROPERTY OF EACH NATURAL-GAS COMPANY USED OR USEFUL
IN THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS."  SEC. 9(A)
FURTHER PROVIDES THAT NO NATURAL-GAS COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION SHALL CHARGE TO OPERATING EXPENSES "ANY
DEPRECIATION OR AMORTIZATION CHARGES ON CLASSES OF PROPERTY OTHER THAN
THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION, OR CHARGE WITH RESPECT TO ANY CLASS
OF PROPERTY A PERCENTAGE OF DEPRECIATION OR AMORTIZATION OTHER THAN
THAT PRESCRIBED THEREFOR BY THE COMMISSION."  THESE ARE SAID, HOWEVER,
TO BE NO MORE THAN ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS AND DISTINCT FROM THE FIXING
OF RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR PUBLIC UTILITY OR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. 
THAT DISTINCTION IS EMPHASIZED, IT IS SAID, BY THE PROVISO IN SEC. 9(A)
THAT "NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL LIMIT THE POWER OF A STATE
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION, WITH
RESPECT TO ANY NATURAL-GAS COMPANY, THE PERCENTAGE RATES OF
DEPRECIATION OR AMORTIZATION TO BE ALLOWED, AS TO ANY CLASS OF PROPERTY
OF SUCH NATURAL-GAS COMPANY, OR THE COMPOSITE DEPRECIATION OR
AMORTIZATION RATE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING RATES OR CHARGES." 
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(A) WHICH GIVE THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO
REQUIRE REPORTS FROM NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES AS TO THEIR ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES, THE "COST OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF FACILITIES FOR
THE PRODUCTION" OF NATURAL GAS AND THE LIKE ARE SAID TO BE MERE
INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS QUITE CONSISTENT WITH THE ABSENCE OF POWER TO
REGULATE THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS.  FN9  SEE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. GOODRICH TRANSIT CO., 224 U.S. 194. 
AND THE AUTHORITY GIVEN THE COMMISSION BY SEC. 14(B) IS SAID MERELY TO
SUPPLEMENT THE COMMISSION'S POWERS UNDER SECTIONS OF THE ACT.  SEC.
14(B) GRANTS THE COMMISSION POWER TO DETERMINE "THE ADEQUACY OR
INADEQUACY OF THE GAS RESERVES HELD OR CONTROLLED BY ANY NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY" AND "THE PROPRIETY AND REASONABLENESS OF THE INCLUSION IN
OPERATING EXPENSES, CAPITAL, OR SURPLUS OF ALL DELAY RENTALS OR OTHER
FORMS OF RENTAL OR COMPENSATION FOR UNOPERATED LANDS AND LEASES."  THIS
IS SAID TO SUPPLEMENT THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY OVER THE CONSTRUCTION,
EXTENSION, OR ABANDONMENT OF FACILITIES OR SERVICE UNDER SEC. 7, THE
DETERMINATION OF AMORTIZATION RATES UNDER SEC. 9(A), AND THE ACCOUNTING
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 8. 

SUPPORT FOR CANADIAN'S POSITION IS ALSO SOUGHT IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE ACT.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION WAS TO OCCUPY THE FIELD IN WHICH THIS COURT HAD HELD THE
STATES MIGHT NOT ACT.  SEE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS
CO., 320 U.S. 591, 609-610.  AND IT IS NOTED THAT SENATOR WHEELER, WHO
SPONSORED THE LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE, SAID DURING THE DEBATE IN
ANSWER TO AN INQUIRY WHETHER THE BILL UNDERTOOK TO REGULATE THE
PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS OR THE PRODUCERS OF NATURAL GAS:  "IT DOES
NOT ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE PRODUCERS OF NATURAL GAS OR THE
DISTRIBUTORS OF NATURAL GAS; ONLY THOSE WHO SELL IT WHOLESALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  81 CONG. REC. P. 9312. 

FROM THESE VARIOUS MATERIALS IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE PRODUCING OR GATHERING FACILITIES IN A RATE BASE
OR TO INCLUDE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING EXPENSES IN OPERATING EXPENSES. 
IT IS SAID THAT WHEN THE COMMISSION FOLLOWS THAT COURSE, IT REGULATES
THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CORRECT PROCEDURE IS
FOR THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW IN THE OPERATING EXPENSES OF A NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY, WHOSE RATES IT IS EMPOWERED TO FIX, THE "FAIR FIELD PRICE" OR
"FAIR MARKET VALUE, AS A COMMODITY, OF THE GAS" WHICH FINDS ITS WAY
INTO THE TRANSMISSION LINES FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE. 

THIS IS PRECISELY THE ARGUMENT WHICH WEST VIRGINIA, APPEARING AS
AMICUS CURIAE, ADVANCED IN THE HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. CASE.  WE REJECTED
THE ARGUMENT IN THAT CASE.  320 U.S. PP. 607-615, PARTICULARLY P. 614,
N. 25.  WE HAVE REVIEWED IT HERE AT THIS LENGTH IN VIEW OF THE
SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH IT HAS BEEN URGED NOT ONLY BY CANADIAN BUT ALSO
BY THE INDEPENDENT NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA WHICH APPEARED
AMICUS CURIAE.  BUT WE ADHERE TO OUR DECISION IN THE HOPE NATURAL GAS
CO. CASE AND WILL BRIEFLY STATE OUR REASONS. 

A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(6) OF THE ACT IS "A PERSON
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR
THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF SUCH GAS FOR RESALE."  CANADIAN IS
SUCH A COMPANY.  IT IS PLAIN THEREFORE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS
AUTHORITY TO FIX ITS INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES.  SEC. 5.  IT IS
OBVIOUS THAT WHEN RATES OF A UTILITY ARE FIXED THE VALUE OF ITS
PROPERTY IS AFFECTED.  FOR AS WE STATED IN THE HOPE NATURAL GAS CO.
CASE, VALUE IS "THE END PRODUCT OF THE PROCESS OF RATE-MAKING NOT THE
STARTING POINT."  320 U.S. P. 601.  WHEN A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY WHICH
OWNS PRODUCING PROPERTIES OR A GATHERING SYSTEM IS RESTRICTED IN ITS
EARNINGS BY A RATE ORDER, THE VALUE OF ALL OF ITS PROPERTY IS
AFFECTED.  CONGRESS OF COURSE MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED THAT PRODUCING OR
GATHERING FACILITIES BE EXCLUDED FROM THE RATE BASE AND THAT AN
ALLOWANCE BE MADE IN OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE FAIR FIELD PRICE OF THE
GAS AS A COMMODITY.  SOME HAVE THOUGHT THAT TO BE THE WISER COURSE. 
BUT WE SEARCH THE ACT IN VAIN FOR ANY SUCH MANDATE.  THE COMMITTEE
REPORT STATED THAT THE ACT PROVIDED "FOR REGULATION ALONG RECOGNIZED
AND MORE OR LESS STANDARDIZED LINES" AND THAT THERE WAS "NOTHING NOVEL
IN ITS PROVISIONS."  H. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3. 
CERTAINLY THE USE OF A RATE BASE WHICH REFLECTS THE PROPERTY OF THE
UTILITY WHOSE RATES ARE BEING FIXED HAS BEEN CUSTOMARY.  2 BONBRIGHT,
VALUATION OF PROPERTY (1937) CH. XXX; SMITH, THE CONTROL OF POWER RATES
IN THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND (1932), 159 ANNALS 101.  PRIOR TO THE
ACT THAT METHOD WAS EMPLOYED IN THE FIXING OF THE RATES OF GAS, AS WELL
AS ELECTRIC, UTILITIES.  SEE WILLCOX V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S.
19; CEDAR RAPIDS GAS CO. V. CEDAR RAPIDS, 223 U.S. 655; NEWARK NATURAL
GAS & FUEL CO. V. NEWARK, 242 U.S. 405; RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PACIFIC
GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 302 U.S. 388; LONE STAR GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 304 U.S.
224.  WE DO NOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION LACKS THE AUTHORITY TO DEPART
FROM THE RATE-BASE METHOD.  WE ONLY HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION IS NOT
PRECLUDED FROM USING IT.  THERE ARE AMPLE INDICATIONS THROUGHOUT THE
ACT TO SUPPORT THAT VIEW.  SEC. 6(A) EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO
INVESTIGATE AND ASCERTAIN THE "ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST OF THE PROPERTY
OF EVERY NATURAL-GAS COMPANY, THE DEPRECIATION THEREIN, AND, WHEN FOUND
NECESSARY FOR RATE-MAKING PURPOSES, OTHER FACTS WHICH BEAR ON THE
DETERMINATION OF SUCH COST OR DEPRECIATION AND THE FAIR VALUE OF SUCH
PROPERTY."  AS WE HAVE NOTED, SEC. 9(A) GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY
NOT ONLY TO REQUIRE NATURAL GAS COMPANIES TO CARRY PROPER AND ADEQUATE
DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION ACCOUNTS BUT ALSO TO FIX SUCH RATES FOR
"THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF PROPERTY OF EACH NATURAL-GAS COMPANY USED OR
USEFUL IN THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS."  AND
SEC. 14(B), AS ALREADY STATED, NOT ONLY GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY
TO DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OR INADEQUACY OF GAS RESERVES OF A NATURAL
GAS COMPANY BUT ALSO EMPOWERS IT TO DETERMINE THE "PROPRIETY AND
REASONABLENESS OF THE INCLUSION IN OPERATING EXPENSES, CAPITAL, OR
SURPLUS OF ALL DELAY RENTALS OR OTHER FORMS OF RENTAL OR COMPENSATION
FOR UNOPERATED LANDS AND LEASES."  SEC. 9(A) AND SEC. 14(B), THOUGH
DESIGNED NOT TO LIMIT THE POWER OF STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES, PLAINLY
WERE DESIGNED TO AID THE COMMISSION IN ITS RATE-MAKING FUNCTIONS. 
THESE PROVISIONS N10 ALL SUGGEST THAT WHEN CONGRESS DESIGNED THIS ACT
IT WAS THINKING IN TERMS OF THE INGREDIENTS OF A RATE BASE, THE
DEDUCTIONS WHICH MIGHT BE MADE, AND THE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE
CONTEMPLATED.  NO EXCLUSION OF PROPERTY USED OR USEFUL IN PRODUCTION OF
NATURAL GAS WAS MADE.  THAT TYPE OF PROPERTY WAS NOT SINGLED OUT FOR
SPECIAL TREATMENT; IT WAS TREATED THE SAME AS ALL OTHER PROPERTY.  WE
MUST READ SEC. 1(B) IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE ACT.  IT MUST BE
RECONCILED WITH THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS WHICH DESCRIBE THE NORMAL
CONVENTIONS OF RATE-MAKING. 

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PART OF SEC. 1(B) WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE
ACT SHALL NOT APPLY "TO THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS" IS
GIVEN NO MEANING.  CERTAINLY THAT PROVISION PRECLUDES THE COMMISSION
FROM ANY CONTROL OVER THE ACTIVITY OF PRODUCING OR GATHERING NATURAL
GAS.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAKES PLAIN THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NO CONTROL
OVER THE DRILLING AND SPACING OF WELLS AND THE LIKE.  IT MAY PUT OTHER
LIMITATIONS ON THE COMMISSION.  WE ONLY DECIDE THAT IT DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE COMMISSION FROM REFLECTING THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING
FACILITIES OF A NATURAL GAS COMPANY IN THE RATE BASE AND DETERMINING
THE EXPENSES INCIDENT THERETO FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE
REASONABLENESS OF RATES SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION. 

THAT TREATMENT OF PRODUCING PROPERTIES AND GATHERING FACILITIES HAS
OF COURSE AN INDIRECT EFFECT ON THEM.  AS WE HAVE SAID, RATE-MAKING
LIKE OTHER FORMS OF PRICE FIXING MAY REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
WHICH IS BEING REGULATED.  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS
CO., SUPRA, P. 601.  BUT THAT WOULD BE TRUE WHETHER OR NOT A RATE BASE
WAS USED.  CANADIAN WOULD BE THE FIRST TO OBJECT IF THE GAS WHICH IT
OWNS WAS GIVEN NO VALUATION IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.  OBVIOUSLY IT HAS
VALUE.  THE ACT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO VALUE IT
AT THE FAIR FIELD PRICE IF THE COMMISSION ABANDONED THE RATE-BASE
METHOD OF REGULATION.  WE HELD IN THE HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. CASE THAT
UNDER THE ACT IT IS "THE RESULT REACHED NOT THE METHOD EMPLOYED WHICH
IS CONTROLLING....  IT IS NOT THEORY BUT THE IMPACT OF THE RATE ORDER
WHICH COUNTS.  IF THE TOTAL EFFECT OF THE RATE ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO
BE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE, JUDICIAL INQUIRY UNDER THE ACT IS AT AN
END."  320 U.S. P. 602.  IF THE COMMISSION FOLLOWED CANADIAN'S METHOD,
EXCLUDED THE PRODUCING PROPERTIES AND GATHERING FACILITIES FROM THE
RATE BASE, VALUED THE GAS AT A PRICE WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE EARNINGS TO
THE LEVEL OF THE PRESENT ORDER, THE EFFECT ON THE PRODUCING PROPERTIES
AND GATHERING FACILITIES WOULD BE PRECISELY THE SAME AS IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  SINCE THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE
COMMISSION TO VALUE THE GAS AT THE PRICE URGED BY CANADIAN, THE PROBLEM
ON REVIEW WOULD BE WHETHER THE END RESULT WAS UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE. 
THE POINT IS THAT WHATEVER METHOD FOR RATE-MAKING IS TAKEN THE FIXING
OF RATES AFFECTS THE VALUE OF THE UNDERLYING PROPERTY.  HENCE SEC. 1(B)
COULD BE READ AS PETITIONERS READ IT ONLY IF CONGRESS HAD PUT A FLOOR
UNDER PRODUCING PROPERTIES AND GATHERING FACILITIES AND FIXED A MINIMUM
RETURN ON THEM. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT SEC. 1(B) DOES NOT
PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PRODUCTION
PROPERTIES AND GATHERING FACILITIES OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES WHEN IT
FIXES THEIR RATES. 

ORIGINAL COST OF PRODUCTION AND GATHERING FACILITIES.  THE COMMISSION
FOUND THE ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST OF CANADIAN'S PROPERTY, INCLUDING ITS
PRODUCING PROPERTIES AND GATHERING FACILITIES, TO BE $10,784,464 AS OF
DECEMBER 31, 1939.  IT DEDUCTED $2,134,629 FOR ACCRUED DEPRECIATION AND
DEPLETION.  IT ADDED $150,738 FOR WORKING CAPITAL AND $571,923 FOR
GROSS PLANT ADDITIONS TO DECEMBER 31, 1941.  THE RESULT WAS A RATE BASE
OF $9,372,496 WHICH THE COMMISSION ROUNDED TO $9,375,000.  THE
COMMISSION REJECTED ESTIMATES OF REPRODUCTION COST NEW LESS OBSERVED
DEPRECIATION BECAUSE THEY WERE "TOO CONJECTURAL TO HAVE PROBATIVE
VALUE" AND ADOPTED ORIGINAL COST AS "THE BEST AND ONLY RELIABLE
EVIDENCE AS TO PROPERTY VALUES."  43 P.U.R. (N.S.)  PP. 213, 214. 
CANADIAN MAINTAINS THAT IF ITS LEASEHOLDS ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
RATE BASE, IT WAS IMPROPER TO VALUE THEM AS THE COMMISSION DID. 
CANADIAN OFFERED EVIDENCE THAT THEIR PRESENT MARKET VALUE WAS MUCH
HIGHER.  IT ALSO OFFERED EVIDENCE OF A COMMODITY MARKET VALUE OF
NATURAL GAS PER MCF WHICH WOULD GIVE A MUCH HIGHER VALUE TO THE
PRODUCTION PHASE OF CANADIAN'S BUSINESS.  WE DO NOT STOP TO DEVELOP THE
DETAILS OF THESE LINES OF EVIDENCE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION
WAS UNDER A DUTY TO PUT THE LEASEHOLDS INTO THE RATE BASE AT THE
VALUATION URGED BY CANADIAN UNLESS WE REVISE WHAT WE SAID IN FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575, 586, AND
OVERRULE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., SUPRA.  WE
HELD IN THOSE CASES THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT BOUND TO THE USE OF ANY
SINGLE FORMULA IN DETERMINING RATES.  AND IN THE HOPE NATURAL GAS CO.
CASE WE SUSTAINED A RATE ORDER BASED ON ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST AGAINST
AN INSISTENT CLAIM THAT THE PRODUCING PROPERTIES SHOULD BE GIVEN A
VALUATION WHICH REFLECTED THE MARKET PRICE OF THE GAS.  IN THOSE CASES
WE HELD THAT THE QUESTION FOR THE COURTS WHEN A RATE ORDER IS
CHALLENGED IS WHETHER THE ORDER VIEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND MEASURED BY
ITS END RESULTS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  THAT IS NOT A
STANDARD SO VAGUE AND DEVOID OF MEANING AS TO RENDER JUDICIAL REVIEW A
PERFUNCTORY PROCESS.  IT IS A STANDARD OF FINANCE RESTING ON STUBBORN
FACTS.  FN11  "FROM THE INVESTOR OR COMPANY POINT OF VIEW IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE ENOUGH REVENUE NOT ONLY FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
BUT ALSO FOR THE CAPITAL COSTS OF THE BUSINESS.  THESE INCLUDE SERVICE
ON THE DEBT AND DIVIDENDS ON THE STOCK.  CF. CHICAGO & GRAND TRUNK R.
CO. V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339, 345-346.  BY THAT STANDARD THE RETURN TO
THE EQUITY OWNER SHOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS IN
OTHER ENTERPRISES HAVING CORRESPONDING RISKS.  THAT RETURN, MOREOVER,
SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO ASSURE CONFIDENCE IN THE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF
THE ENTERPRISE, SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS CREDIT AND TO ATTRACT CAPITAL. 
SEE MISSOURI EX REL. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, 262 U.S. 276, 291(MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS CONCURRING)." 
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., SUPRA, P. 603. 

HENCE, WE CANNOT SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE COMMISSION ERRED IN
INCLUDING THE PRODUCTION PROPERTIES IN THE RATE BASE AT ACTUAL
LEGITIMATE COST.  THAT COULD BE DETERMINED ONLY ON CONSIDERATION OF THE
END RESULT OF THE RATE ORDER, A QUESTION NOT HERE UNDER THE LIMITED
REVIEW GRANTED THE CASE. 

COST TO CANADIAN'S AFFILIATE.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, CANADIAN AND COLORADO
INTERSTATE HAD THEIR ORIGIN IN AN AGREEMENT MADE IN 1927 BETWEEN
SOUTHWESTERN, STANDARD, AND CITIES SERVICE.  PURSUANT TO THAT AGREEMENT
SOUTHWESTERN ORGANIZED CANADIAN, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY, TO WHICH
WERE TRANSFERRED THE GAS LEASEHOLDS AND PRODUCING PROPERTY OWNED BY
AMARILLO, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF SOUTHWESTERN.  THE CASH
CONSIDERATION FOR THIS TRANSFER WAS $5,000,000, WHICH WAS ADVANCED BY
STANDARD AT 6 PER CENT INTEREST.  COLORADO INTERSTATE WAS ORGANIZED BY
STANDARD TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE PIPELINE TO CONNECT WITH
CANADIAN'S FACILITIES AND TO TRANSPORT THE GAS TO THE DENVER MARKET AND
INTERMEDIATE POINTS. 

CANADIAN ISSUED $11,000,000 OF 6% TWENTY-YEAR BONDS TO FINANCE ITS
PORTION OF THE TOTAL PROJECT.  COLORADO INTERSTATE PURCHASED THOSE
BONDS WITH PART OF THE PROCEEDS OF $19,200,000 OF ITS OWN 6% TWENTY
YEAR SINKING FUND BONDS WHICH STANDARD HAD PURCHASED AT PAR. CANADIAN
REPAID THE $5,000,000 ADVANCE MADE BY STANDARD OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF
THE SALE OF ITS BONDS TO COLORADO INTERSTATE.  CANADIAN'S STOCK WAS
ISSUED TO SOUTHWESTERN AND IS CARRIED ON CANADIAN'S BOOKS AT $1.00. 
CANADIAN ENTERED INTO A "COST" CONTRACT WITH COLORADO INTERSTATE
WHEREBY CANADIAN AGREED TO PRODUCE AND SELL GAS TO COLORADO INTERSTATE
AT "COST" FOR TWENTY YEARS WHICH MIGHT BE EXTENDED BY COLORADO
INTERSTATE.  UNDER THE CONTRACT, "COST" INCLUDED CANADIAN'S OPERATING
EXPENSES, INTEREST AT 6%, AND AMORTIZATION (IN LIEU OF DEPRECIATION,
DEPLETION AND RETIREMENTS) OF ALL OF CANADIAN'S INDEBTEDNESS OVER THE
TWENTY-YEAR PERIOD.  IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT CANADIAN'S "COST" UNDER
THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE DECREASED BY ANY PROFITS WHICH IT MIGHT OBTAIN
FROM OTHER SOURCES INCLUDING ANY LOCAL SALES.  THUS IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT
CANADIAN UNDER THIS "COST" CONTRACT WOULD HAVE NO PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR
DIVIDENDS ON ITS STOCK. 

BUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT COLORADO INTERSTATE ISSUED
$2,000,000 PAR VALUE 6% PREFERRED STOCK AND 1,250,000 SHARES OF NO PAR
COMMON.  CITIES SERVICE RECEIVED 15% OF THE COMMON STOCK.  THE REST OF
THE COMMON STOCK AND ALL OF THE PREFERRED WAS DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN
SOUTHWESTERN AND STANDARD.  THE LATTER PAID $2,000,000 IN CASH FOR ITS
SHARE OF PREFERRED AND COMMON.  SOUTHWESTERN RECEIVED NOT ONLY
PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK, BUT ALSO $5,000,000 IN CASH FROM THE
PROCEEDS OF THE $11,000,000 OF BONDS WHICH CANADIAN ISSUED AND WHICH
WERE TO BE AMORTIZED OVER TWENTY YEARS AS PART OF THE "COST" OF GAS
SOLD TO COLORADO INTERSTATE BY CANADIAN. 

CANADIAN CONTENDS THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED $5,000,000
IN THE RATE BASE FOR THE GAS LEASES AND PRODUCING PROPERTIES ACQUIRED
FROM AMARILLO.  THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE PROPERTIES TO AMARILLO WAS
$1,879,504.  THAT IS ALL THE COMMISSION ALLOWED.  IT SAID, "ANY
TREATMENT WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE CAPITALIZATION OF SUCH AMOUNTS WOULD
OPEN THE DOOR TO THE RENEWAL OF PAST PRACTICES OF THE UTILITY INDUSTRY
WHEN PROPERTIES WERE TRADED BETWEEN AFFILIATED INTERESTS AT INFLATED
PRICES WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD FOOT THE BILL."  43
P.U.R. (N.S.)  P. 215.  WE AGREE.  SOUTHWESTERN OWNED THE PRODUCING
PROPERTIES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRANSACTION THROUGH ONE SUBSIDIARY;
IT OWNED THEM AT THE END OF THE TRANSACTION THROUGH ANOTHER
SUBSIDIARY.  AS BETWEEN SOUTHWESTERN AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES THERE WAS NO
MORE THAN AN INTERCOMPANY PROFIT.  IF AMARILLO RATHER THAN CANADIAN HAD
ENTERED THE PROJECT, HAD SOLD A BOND ISSUE TO SOUTHWESTERN AND WITH
PART OF THE PROCEEDS PAID OFF A $5,000,000 LOAN TO STANDARD, CERTAINLY
THE AMOUNT OF THAT PAYMENT WOULD NOT BE PROPERLY INCLUDED IN ITS RATE
BASE.  WE FAIL TO SEE A DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE WHEN ANOTHER WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY IS UTILIZED BY SOUTHWESTERN.  THE FACT THAT THE
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN SOUTHWESTERN AND STANDARD WERE AT ARM'S LENGTH HAS
NO BEARING ON THE PRESENT PROBLEM.  THE END RESULT IS THAT PROPERTY HAS
BEEN TRANSFERRED AT A WRITE-UP FROM ONE OF SOUTHWESTERN'S POCKETS TO
ANOTHER.  THE IMPACT ON CONSUMERS OF UTILITY SERVICE OF WRITE-UPS AND
INFLATION OF CAPITAL ASSETS THROUGH INTERCOMPANY TRANSACTIONS OR
OTHERWISE IS OBVIOUS.  THE PREVALENCE OF THE PRACTICE IN THE HOLDING
COMPANY FIELD GAVE RISE TO AN INSISTENT DEMAND FOR FEDERAL REGULATION. 
SEE S. DOC. NO. 92, PT. 84-A, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., UTILITY
CORPORATIONS, FINAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (1936);
BONBRIGHT & MEANS, THE HOLDING COMPANY (1932), CH. VI; BARNES, THE
ECONOMICS OF PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION (1942) PP. 95 ET SEQ. 

AMERICAN T. & T. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232, IS NOT OPPOSED
TO OUR POSITION.  IT MERELY INDICATES A PROPER TREATMENT FOR AN
INTERCOMPANY TRANSACTION WHERE IN FACT AN ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IS
SHOWN TO EXIST.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE LATTER RESALES ARE MADE BY COLORADO-WYOMING GAS CO. WHICH
TRANSPORTS THE GAS FROM A POINT NEAR LITTLETON, COLORADO TO CHEYENNE,
WYOMING.  THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS COMPANY WERE CONSOLIDATED WITH
THOSE AGAINST CANADIAN AND COLORADO INTERSTATE.  THE COMMISSION ALSO
ORDERED A REDUCTION IN THE RATES CHARGED BY COLORADO-WYOMING GAS CO.
THAT ORDER IS HERE FOR REVIEW ON CERTAIN POINTS IN NO. 575, POST, P.
626. 

FN2  THE COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT CHARACTERIZED VOLUMETRIC COSTS AS
VARIABLE COSTS AND CAPACITY COSTS AS FIXED COSTS.  43 P.U.R. (N.S.)  P.
232. 

FN3  A RESIDUAL REFINING CREDIT WAS DETERMINED AND DEDUCTED FROM
PRODUCTION COSTS. 

FN4  FIFTEEN TIMES IN SOME 12 YEARS. 

FN5  SO FAR AS APPEARS CANADIAN PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE SHOWING THE
COST OF THESE INTRASTATE SALES. 

FN6  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE RETURN ON LEASES AND WELLS WAS TREATED AS
VOLUMETRIC COSTS; 50 PER CENT OF THE RETURN ON THE DENVER PIPELINE WAS
TREATED AS VOLUMETRIC AND 50 PER CENT AS CAPACITY COSTS; AND RETURN ON
INVESTMENT IN METERING AND REGULATING EQUIPMENT WAS TREATED AS
DISTRIBUTION COSTS. 

FN7 AS RESPECTS THE ACCOUNTING FOR THE COST OF MONEY INVESTED IN THE
ENTERPRISE SEE SCHLATTER, ADVANCED COST ACCOUNTING (1939), CH. XII;
NEUNER, COST ACCOUNTING (1942), P. 277; LAWRENCE, COST ACCOUNTING
(1930), CH. 22. 

FN8  IT IS OBJECTED THAT THE ALLOCATION MADE BY THE COMMISSION
RESULTS IN DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PURCHASERS OF GAS FROM COLORADO
INTERSTATE AS INDICATED BY THE FACT THAT COSTS ALLOCATED TO ONE
CUSTOMER WHO IS DISTANT FROM DENVER ARE GREATER THAN COSTS ALLOCATED TO
ANOTHER CUSTOMER AT DENVER.  BUT ALL THE COMMISSION DID WAS TO ORDER AN
AGGREGATE REDUCTION IN THE WHOLESALE RATES OF $2,065,000 SO AS TO
PRODUCE A FAIR RETURN.  THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE RATE SCHEDULES FOR
VARIOUS DELIVERY POINTS HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE.  SEE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575, 584. 

FN9  ANOTHER SECTION OF THE ACT WHICH REFERS TO "PRODUCTION" IS SEC.
11(A).  IT GIVES THE COMMISSION CERTAIN FUNCTIONS TO PERFORM WHERE TWO
OR MORE STATES PROPOSE COMPACTS DEALING WITH THE CONSERVATION,
PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, OR DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS. 

FN10  SECS. 5(B), 6(A), 9(A), 10(A), AND 14(B). 

FN11  CF. THE BRITISH STANDARDS DESCRIBED IN SMITH, THE CONTROL OF
POWER RATES IN THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND, 159 ANNALS 101, 103,
104. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENT FROM SO MUCH OF THE
OPINION AS APPROVES THE ALLOCATION BY THE COMMISSION OF INVESTMENTS AND
EXPENSES TO THE NON-REGULABLE TRANSMISSION PROPERTIES.  THEY CONCUR IN
THE DISSENT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, POST, P. 615. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN UPHOLDING ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IN THIS
AND COMPANION CASES.  THE COURT CANNOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, DO OTHERWISE. 

THE OPINION IN THE HOPE CASE LAID DOWN FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
DECISION IN THIS LANGUAGE: "UNDER THE STATUTORY STANDARD OF 'JUST AND
REASONABLE' IT IS THE RESULT REACHED NOT THE METHOD EMPLOYED WHICH IS
CONTROLLING.  IT IS NOT THEORY BUT THE IMPACT OF THE RATE ORDER WHICH
COUNTS.  IF THE TOTAL EFFECT OF THE RATE ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE
UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE, JUDICIAL INQUIRY UNDER THE ACT IS AT AN END. 
THE FACT THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED TO REACH THAT RESULT MAY CONTAIN
INFIRMITIES IS NOT THEN IMPORTANT."  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE
NATURAL GAS CO., SUPRA, 602.  THIS CASE INTRODUCED INTO JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THE PHILOSOPHY THAT THE END JUSTIFIES THE
MEANS.  I HAD BEEN TAUGHT TO REGARD THAT AS A QUESTIONABLE PHILOSOPHY,
SO I DISSENTED AND STILL ADHERE TO THE DISSENT.  BUT IT IS THE LAW OF
THIS COURT, AND I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ANY MAJORITY IS READY TO
RECONSIDER IT. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE ACT EXCLUDES "PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL
GAS" FROM JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  IF THE COMMISSION HAD
IMPOSED ANY DIRECT REGULATION UPON THAT ACTIVITY, I WOULD JOIN IN
HOLDING IT TO HAVE EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION.  BUT THE ORDERS IN
QUESTION HAVE NO IMMEDIATE "IMPACT" UPON PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF
GAS. 

THE STATUTE COMMANDS THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE THE PRICE OF NATURAL
GAS TRANSPORTED AND SOLD AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR
RESALE.  THE COMMISSION HAS INVESTIGATED THE FISCAL ASPECTS OF
PRODUCTION AND GATHERING BECAUSE OF THEIR BEARING ON THE REASONABLENESS
OF INTERSTATE RATES.  I SUPPOSE A COMMISSION IS FREE TO TAKE EVIDENCE
AS TO CONDITIONS AND EVENTS QUITE BEYOND ITS REGULATORY JURISDICTION
WHERE THEY ARE THOUGHT TO AFFECT THE COST OF THAT WHOSE PRICE IT IS
DIRECTED TO DETERMINE.  THIS, AS I SEE IT, IS ALL THAT HAS BEEN DONE
HERE. 

OF COURSE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, WHOSE PRIMARY IMPACT IS ON RATES IN
THE INTERSTATE MARKETS, HAS A VERY IMPORTANT SECONDARY EFFECT ON
PRODUCTION AND ON PRODUCERS OF GAS.  AS THE INDUSTRY IS ORGANIZED THE
COMMISSION COULD NOT FIX AN INTERSTATE PRICE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE SOME
SUCH REACTION.  INDEED, I THINK THE COMMISSION CANNOT WISELY FIX A
REASONABLE PRICE WITHOUT CONSIDERING ITS INCIDENTAL EFFECT ON
PRODUCTION. 

TO LET RATE-BASE FIGURES, COMPILED ON ANY OF THE CONVENTIONAL
THEORIES OF RATE-MAKING, GOVERN A RATE FOR NATURAL GAS SEEMS TO ME
LITTLE BETTER THAN TO DRAW FIGURES OUT OF A HAT.  THESE CASES CONFIRM
AND STRENGTHEN ME IN THE VIEW I STATED IN THE HOPE CASE THAT THE ENTIRE
RATE-BASE METHOD SHOULD BE REJECTED IN PRICING NATURAL GAS, THOUGH IT
MIGHT BE USED TO DETERMINE TRANSPORTATION COSTS.  THESE CASES VIVIDLY
DEMONSTRATE THE DELIRIOUS RESULTS PRODUCED BY THE RATE-BASE METHOD. 
THESE ORDERS IN SOME INSTANCES RESULT IN THREE DIFFERENT PRICES FOR GAS
FROM THE SAME WELL.  THE REGULATED COMPANY IS A PART OWNER, AN
UNREGULATED COMPANY IS A PART OWNER, AND THE LAND OWNER HAS A ROYALTY
SHARE OF THE PRODUCTION FROM CERTAIN WELLS.  THE REGULATED COMPANY BUYS
ALL OF THE GAS FOR ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  IT IS ALLOWED TO PAY AS
OPERATING EXPENSES AN UNREGULATED CONTRACT PRICE FOR ITS CO-OWNER'S
SHARE AND A DIFFERENT UNREGULATED CONTRACT PRICE FOR THE ROYALTY
OWNER'S SHARE, BUT FOR ITS OWN SHARE IT IS ALLOWED SUBSTANTIALLY LESS
THAN EITHER.  ANY METHOD OF RATE-MAKING BY WHICH AN IDENTICAL PRODUCT
FROM A SINGLE WELL, GOING TO THE SAME CONSUMERS, HAS THREE PRICES
DEPENDING ON WHO OWNS IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME. 

THESE CASES FURNISH ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CAPRICIOUS RESULTS OF THE
RATE-BASE METHOD IN THIS KIND OF CASE.  THE COMMISSION HAS PUT FIVE OF
THE MOST IMPORTANT LEASEHOLDS, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 47,000 ACRES,
IN THE RATE BASE AT $4,244.24, SOMETHING UNDER 10 CENTS PER ACRE. 
THREE SUCH LEASES ARE PUT IN THE RATE BASE AT ZERO.  THIS IS BECAUSE
ORIGINAL COST WAS USED, AND THESE WERE BOUGHT BEFORE DISCOVERY OF GAS
THEREON.  THE COMPANY WHICH TOOK THE HIGH RISK OF WILDCAT EXPLORATION
IS THUS ALLOWED A RETURN OF 6 1/2 PER CENT ON NOTHING FOR THE THREE
LEASES AND A RETURN OF LESS THAN $300 A YEAR ON THE OTHERS.  THEIR
PRESENT MARKET VALUE IS SHOWN BY TESTIMONY TO BE OVER 3 MILLION
DOLLARS. 

I CANNOT FAIRLY SAY THAT THE COMMISSION EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN
OBTAINING THIS EVIDENCE AND MAKING THESE CALCULATIONS, EVEN THOUGH THE
EVIDENCE RELATED TO PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF GAS.  BUT I DO THINK IT
IS A FANTASTIC METHOD OF FIXING A "JUST AND REASONABLE" PRICE FOR GAS. 
FN1  ALL OF THAT, HOWEVER, WAS THRASHED OUT IN THE HOPE CASE.    I DO
NOT RECEDE FROM THE VIEWS THEREIN STATED THAT HOPE PROVIDES NO WORKABLE
BASIS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, NO KEY BY WHICH COMMISSIONS CAN ANTICIPATE
WHAT RULE, IF ANY, WILL CONTROL OUR REVIEW, AND NO GUIDANCE TO COUNSEL
AS TO WHAT ISSUES THEY SHOULD TRY OR HOW THEY SHOULD TRY THEM.  I
THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE MAJORITY WHICH PROMULGATED THAT DECISION, OR A
MAJORITY OF THAT MAJORITY, SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CONTINUE TO SPELL OUT
ITS APPLICATION TO SPECIFIC PROBLEMS UNTIL WE SEE WHERE IT LEADS. 

IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME IN THESE CASES, AND IN SOME IT MIGHT BE
IMPOSSIBLE, TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF HOPE IN REACHING A DECISION.  I HAVE
NO INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHETHER A GIVEN PRICE IS REASONABLE, AND
MY FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF REASONABLE PRICE IN THIS INDUSTRY AND HOW TO
FIND IT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURT.  BUT IT HAPPENS THAT THIS CASE
ILLUSTRATES SOME ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM OF PRICING GAS, AS WILL APPEAR
FROM THE REASONS I SHALL STATE FOR THE FAILURE OF THE COMPANY IN THIS
CASE TO CONVINCE ME THAT IT IS WRONGED BY THE REDUCTION OF PRICES
ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION. 

FAR-SIGHTED GAS-RATE REGULATION WILL CONCERN ITSELF WITH THE PRESENT
AND FUTURE, RATHER THAN WITH THE PAST, AS THE RATE-BASE FORMULA DOES. 
IT WILL TAKE ACCOUNT OF CONDITIONS AND TRENDS AT THE SOURCE OF THE
SUPPLY BEING REGULATED.  IT WILL USE PRICE AS A TOOL TO BRING GOODS TO
MARKET - TO OBTAIN FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE THE NEEDED AMOUNT OF GAS. 
ONCE A PRICE IS REACHED THAT WILL DO THAT, THERE IS NO LEGAL OR
ECONOMIC REASON TO GO HIGHER; AND ANY RATE ABOVE ONE THAT WILL PERFORM
THIS FUNCTION IS UNWARRANTED.  IF THE SUPPLY COMES FROM A REGION WHERE
THERE IS SUCH OVERPRODUCTION THAT OWNERS ARE READY TO SELL FOR LESS
THAN A FAIR RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE
PUBLIC SHOULD PAY MORE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE SUPPLY IS NOT TOO
PLENTIFUL AND THE PRICE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT INCENTIVE TO EXPLOIT IT AND
FAILS TO BRING FORTH THE QUANTITY NEEDED, THE PRICE IS UNWISELY LOW,
EVEN IF IT DOES SQUARE PERFECTLY WITH SOMEBODY'S IDEA OF RETURN ON A
"RATE BASE."  THE PROBLEM, OF COURSE, IS TO KNOW WHAT PRICE LEVEL WILL
BE ADEQUATE TO PERFORM THIS ECONOMIC FUNCTION. 

THIS CASE THROWS LIGHT ON A SUBJECT WHICH IN HOPE I WAS TRYING TO
DISCUSS MORE ABSTRACTLY.  THE EVIDENCE HERE SHOWS FACTS FROM WHICH WE
CAN LEARN, IN THE WAY ANY PRACTICAL BUYER WOULD SEEK TO LEARN, AT WHICH
PRICE THIS COMPANY IS ABLE, WILLING, AND READY TO BRING GAS INTO THE
INTERSTATE WHOLESALE MARKET.  IT IS WHAT MIGHT BE CALLED THE MOST
FAVORED-CUSTOMER TEST, A TEST OF COURSE NOT AVAILABLE IN A FULLY
REGULATED INDUSTRY BUT PECULIARLY ADAPTED TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE
NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY AS IT HAS DEVELOPED.  THIS PETITIONER, COLORADO
INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY, SELLS TO COLORADO FUEL AND IRON COMPANY A LARGE
QUANTITY OF GAS FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.  ITS CONSUMPTION APPROXIMATES THAT
OF ALL THE INHABITANTS OF DENVER.  COLORADO FUEL AND IRON USED IN
PLANTS 7,257,379 M.C.F.'S, WHILE DENVER WAS SUPPLIED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
6,196,882 M.C.F.'S.  THE RATES TO THE FUEL AND IRON COMPANY ARE NOT AND
NEVER HAVE BEEN REGULATED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY.  IN MAY 1938, THE GAS
COMPANY CONTRACTED TO EXTEND THE FUEL AND IRON SUPPLY CONTRACT FOR FIVE
YEARS AT 9 1/2 CENTS PER M.C.F. FOR BOILER FUEL AND 16 CENTS PER M.C.F.
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  THE SAME GAS IS SOLD WHOLESALE BY THE SAME COMPANY
AT THE DENVER CITY GATE TO THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY AT 40 CENTS
PER M.C.F. 

OF COURSE DIFFERENCES IN CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY MUST BE ALLOWED FOR. 
GAS FROM THE FIELD IS TRANSMITTED ROUGHLY 200 MILES FROM THE FIELD TO
COLORADO FUEL AND IRON AND ABOUT ANOTHER 100 MILES TO DENVER.  IF 50
PER CENT MORE TRANSPORTATION ADDED 50 PER CENT TO THE ENTIRE PRICE OF
THE FUEL AND IRON COMPANY GAS, WHICH WOULD MEAN ATTRIBUTING A ZERO
VALUE TO IT IN THE FIELD AND ITS ENTIRE SELLING PRICE TO
TRANSPORTATION, IT WOULD BRING GAS TO THE CITY GATE OF DENVER AT ABOUT
14 CENTS BASED ON BOILER GAS AND 24 CENTS BASED ON OTHER GAS, INSTEAD
OF THE 40 CENTS BEING CHARGED. 

ANOTHER DIFFERENCE MUST BE ALLOWED FOR.  THE DENVER PUBLIC SERVICE
HAS PRIORITY OVER THE INDUSTRIAL GAS IN TIME OF SHORTAGE.  THIS IS AN
IMPRESSIVE LEGAL ADVANTAGE, BUT ONE WHOSE REAL WORTH DEPENDS ON THE
NUMBER AND DURATION OF INTERRUPTIONS IT CAUSES IN ACTUAL PRACTICE. 
FROM THE TABULATION OF REDUCTIONS AND SUSPENSIONS OF SERVICE THE FUEL
AND IRON COMPANY APPEARS TO HAVE SUFFERED 5 INTERRUPTIONS FROM 1932 TO
DECEMBER 31, 1940 - THE SHORTEST FOR FIFTEEN HOURS, THE LONGEST FOR
FIFTY HOURS.  I DO NOT BELITTLE THESE INTERRUPTIONS - THEY MAY BE VERY
COSTLY TO AN INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER - BUT NOTHING INDICATES THAT THEY
ACCOUNT FOR ANY SUCH DIFFERENCE IN PRICE AS WE HAVE HERE. 

THERE IS EVERY INDICATION THAT THE COLORADO FUEL AND IRON PRICE WAS
REALLY A BARGAINED ONE.  THE GAS COMPANY'S POSITION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN
THE SAME AS THAT STATED BY ONE OF THE WITNESSES IN THE PANHANDLE CASE,
"IT MAY BE HERESY TO SAY SO BUT WE TRY TO CHARGE OUR NONREGULATED
CUSTOMERS ALL THE TRAFFIC WILL BEAR."  THIS MAY HAVE BEEN CANDOR; IT IS
NOT HERESY.  SUCH IS THE NORMAL SPIRIT OF THE MARKET PLACE.  BUT THE
RECORD SHOWS THAT COLORADO FUEL AND IRON WAS NOT AT THE MERCY OF THE
GAS COMPANY, WAS BARGAINING AT ARM'S LENGTH, HAD A GOOD BARGAINING
POSITION.  IT HAD BEEN USING OTHER FUELS AND THE GAS COMPANY HAD TO BID
FOR ITS BUSINESS AS AGAINST FUEL COMPETITION.  UNDER THIS PRESSURE THE
GAS COMPANY WAS ABLE, READY, AND WILLING TO PART WITH ITS GAS,
DELIVERED 200 MILES FROM THE FIELD, AT 9 1/2 TO 16 CENTS PER M.C.F. 

WHAT ABOUT THE DENVER RATE?  THERE THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY,
WHICH WAS THE PURCHASER, WAS A SUBSIDIARY OF CITIES SERVICE, ONE OF THE
THREE COMPANIES THAT OWNED THE PIPE LINE AND GAS SUPPLY AND WERE THE
SELLERS OF THE GAS.  THAT LOCAL COMPANY HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTING
MANUFACTURED GAS, BY COMPARISON WITH WHICH 40-CENT NATURAL GAS WOULD
LOOK CHEAP, AND IS CHEAP.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DRAW ANY INVIDIOUS
INFERENCES FROM INTERCORPORATE RELATIONSHIPS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE 40
CENT RATE AT THE DENVER GATE WAS NOT A VIGOROUSLY BARGAINED ONE AND WAS
NOT MUCH INFLUENCED BY COMPETITIVE CONSIDERATIONS.  THE GREAT ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGES OF NATURAL GAS TO HOUSEHOLDERS AND THE RELATIVE WASTEFULNESS
OF ITS INDUSTRIAL USE ARE DEVELOPED IN MY OPINION IN HOPE. 

I STRONGLY SUSPECT FROM THE HISTORY OF THIS TRANSACTION THAT THERE IS
AN EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE - ONE WHICH IS NOT AN
UNCOMMON ARGUMENT USED TO JUSTIFY A LOWER PRICE TO INDUSTRIAL THAN TO
HOUSEHOLD USERS.  TO SUPPLY DENVER REQUIRED LAYING A 20-INCH PIPE LINE,
REQUIRES OPERATING IT, AND REQUIRES MOST OF THE OVERHEAD OF THE
BUSINESS.  TO CARRY THE ADDITIONAL FUEL AND IRON BUSINESS REQUIRED ONLY
TO LAY THE FIRST 200 MILES OF PIPE OF 22-INCH DIAMETER INSTEAD OF 20,
AND THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM INDUSTRIAL SALES DOES NOT ADD THE SAME
PROPORTION OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT, OVERHEAD, OR OPERATING EXPENSE. 
THUS, CHARGING TO DENVER AND OTHER WHOLESALE PURCHASERS FOR RESALE TO
THE PUBLIC NO MORE THAN WOULD BE CHARGED IF THAT SERVICE STOOD ALONE,
THE COMPANY MAY JUSTIFY ITS INDUSTRIAL SALES AT LOW RATES AS GOOD
BUSINESS FROM PETITIONER'S MANAGEMENT POINT OF VIEW. 

BUT I DO NOT THINK IT CAN BE ACCEPTED AS A PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC
REGULATION THAT INDUSTRIAL GAS MAY HAVE A FREE RIDE BECAUSE THE PIPE
LINE AND COMPRESSOR HAVE TO OPERATE ANYWAY, ANY MORE THAN WE CAN SAY
THAT A BIG CONSUMER SHOULD HAVE A FREE RIDE FOR HIS COAL BECAUSE THE
TRAINS RUN ANYWAY.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE NATURAL GAS ACT FORBIDS
DISCRIMINATION ONLY AS BETWEEN REGULATED RATES AND DOES NOT FORBID
DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN THE REGULATED AND UNREGULATED ONES.  15 U.S.C.
SEC. 717C (B).  BUT I DO NOT THINK IT PRECLUDES USE OF A VOLUNTARY,
FAIRLY BARGAINED SELLING PRICE AS A STANDARD OF WHAT IS A "JUST AND
REASONABLE" PRICE.  BY USE OF THE UNREGULATED PRICE AS A BASIS FOR
COMPARISON I THINK A REDUCTION IN THE WHOLESALE RATES FOR RESALE TO THE
PUBLIC IS IN ORDER.  IF THIS MAKES LOW PRICE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS LESS
DESIRABLE, IT WILL BE IN THE LONG-RANGE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR REASONS
MORE FULLY STATED BY ME IN HOPE. 

I SHOULD LIKE TO REVERSE THIS CASE, NOT BECAUSE I THINK THE RATE
REDUCTION IS WRONG, BUT BECAUSE I THINK THE REAL INWARDNESS OF THE GAS
BUSINESS AS AFFECTS THE FUTURE HAS BEEN OBSCURED BY THE COMMISSION'S
PREOCCUPATION WITH BOOKKEEPING AND HISTORICAL MATTER.  SUCH
CONSIDERATIONS MAY BE RELEVANT TO RATE-BASE THEORIES, BUT WILL NOT BE
VERY SATISFYING TO A COMING GENERATION THAT WILL LOOK BACK AND JUDGE
OUR PRESENT REGULATORY METHOD IN THE LIGHT OF AN EXHAUSTED AND LARGELY
WASTED GAS SUPPLY.  BUT AS THE MATTER STANDS I SEE NO LEGAL GROUNDS FOR
REVERSAL. 

FN1  IT DOES NOT HELP ME TO KNOW WHAT IS A REASONABLE PRICE FOR GAS
TO LEARN WHAT IT DOES TO OUTSTANDING SECURITIES.  MANY GAS COMPANIES
WERE ORGANIZED AND OPERATED IN CARE-FREE DAYS WHEN THEY ISSUED STOCKS
AND BONDS WITHOUT SUPERVISION.  IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT A GAS RATE IS
TOO LOW TO SHOW THAT IT DOES NOT PAY DIVIDENDS ON INFLATED VALUES.  NOR
IS A RATE PROVED EXCESSIVE BY THE FACT THAT IT PAYS A LARGE DIVIDEND
UPON AN EXCEEDINGLY CONSERVATIVE CAPITALIZATION.  I THINK HOPE'S USE OF
RETURN ON STOCK OR BOND ISSUES, REPEATED IN THESE CASES, IS ONE OF THE
LEAST RELIABLE OF POSSIBLE TESTS OF RATES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING IN NO. 380. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND I
ARE OF OPINION THAT THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, IN MAKING THE RATE
ORDER HERE UNDER ATTACK, EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION AND REACHED A RESULT
WHICH MUST BE REJECTED BECAUSE UNAUTHORIZED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE. 

IN FIXING RATES FOR PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING
AND SELLING NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE, THE COMMISSION INCLUDED
PETITIONER'S GAS WELLS AND GAS GATHERING FACILITIES TOGETHER WITH ALL
ITS TRANSPORTATION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES IN A SINGLE RATE BASE. 
IT VALUED THE WELLS AND GATHERING FACILITIES AT THEIR PRUDENT
INVESTMENT COST OF MANY YEARS AGO, A VALUATION DRASTICALLY LESS THAN
THEIR PRESENT MARKET VALUE.  IT THEN RESTRICTED PETITIONER'S RETURN TO
6 1/2% OF THE RATE BASE, INCLUDING THE WELLS AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES,
CONSTITUTING APPROXIMATELY TWO-THIRDS OF THE TOTAL RATE BASE.  IT THUS
SUBJECTED PETITIONER'S PRODUCTION AND GATHERING PROPERTY TO THE SAME
REGULATION AS THAT WHICH THE STATUTE IMPOSES UPON PETITIONER'S PROPERTY
USED AND USEFUL IN THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF GAS FOR
RESALE.  THIS, WE THINK, THE NATURAL GAS ACT IN PLAIN TERMS PROHIBITS. 

THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717, ET
SEQ., AS AMENDED FEBRUARY 7, 1942, 56 STAT. 83, DECLARES, SEC. 1(A):
"THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS FOR ULTIMATE
DISTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC IS AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST, AND  ...
FEDERAL REGULATION IN MATTERS RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS AND THE SALE THEREOF IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IS
NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  IN THE EXECUTION OF THIS POLICY
SECS. 4 AND 5 OF THE ACT SET UP A COMPLETE SCHEME OF REGULATION OF
RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF NATURAL GAS BY
"NATURAL GAS COMPANIES" AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SECTION
2(6) DEFINES A NATURAL GAS COMPANY AS "A PERSON ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR THE SALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF SUCH GAS FOR RESALE."  SECTION 1(B) PROVIDES:
"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE  ..., BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER
TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS  ...  OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR
GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS." 

THE COURT REJECTS PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS THAT THESE PROVISIONS
PRECLUDE THE COMMISSION FROM INCLUDING THE GAS WELLS AND GATHERING
FACILITIES IN THE RATE BASE FOR PETITIONER'S REGULATED BUSINESS; THAT
REGULATION BEGINS ONLY WITH THE DELIVERY OF GAS INTO PETITIONER'S
TRANSMISSION PIPE LINE AND INCLUDES, AS THE STATUTE PROVIDES, ONLY THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF THE GAS FOR RESALE.  PETITIONER
INSISTS THAT, SINCE THE WELLS AND GATHERING FACILITIES ARE NOT SUBJECT
TO COMMISSION REGULATION, THE COST OR VALUE OF THE GAS UPON ITS
DELIVERY TO PETITIONER'S TRANSMISSION LINE MUST, FOR PURPOSES OF RATE
REGULATION OF THE REGULATED BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION AND SALE, BE
TAKEN AT ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. 

THIS ISSUE IS NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME PRESENTED TO THIS COURT FOR
DECISION.  NO SUCH QUESTION WAS RAISED OR DECIDED IN FEDERAL POWER
COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 610-614.  ALTHOUGH IT WAS
MENTIONED IN THE AMICUS BRIEF OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, WHICH WAS
NOT A PARTY TO THE SUIT, NO SUCH ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE PARTIES IN THE
CASE.  THERE THE GAS WELLS AND GATHERING PROPERTY WERE INCLUDED IN THE
RATE BASE VALUED AT ITS PRUDENT INVESTMENT COST, AND THE ALLOWED RETURN
WAS RESTRICTED TO 6 1/2%.  BUT NO OBJECTION WAS TAKEN TO THE INCLUSION
OF THE PRODUCTION PROPERTY IN THE RATE BASE, EITHER IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS OR, SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, IN THE APPLICATION TO
THE COMMISSION FOR REHEARING.  SECTION 19(B) PROVIDES THAT NO OBJECTION
TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT UNLESS RAISED
IN THE APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR REHEARING.  THE PRODUCTION
PROPERTY HAVING BEEN INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE
COULD CONSIDER ONLY THE QUESTION WHICH WAS RAISED WITH RESPECT TO
PROPERTY ADMITTED TO BE PROPERLY A PART OF THE RATE BASE, NAMELY,
WHETHER ITS VALUATION BY THE COMMISSION AND THE ALLOWED RATE OF RETURN
WERE WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS.  CF. COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT. 
264, 399. 

THE ACT SPEAKS IN TERMS OF ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE REGULATED AND THOSE
WHICH ARE NOT.  IT SUBJECTS THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF
NATURAL GAS, AN ACTIVITY, TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH
INCLUDES THE EXERCISE OF ITS RATE-MAKING FUNCTION AS PRESCRIBED BY
SECS. 4 AND 5, AND WHICH CONCEDEDLY EXTENDS TO THE VALUATION OF
PROPERTY USED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF NATURAL GAS AND
TO THE DETERMINATION OF A FAIR RATE OF RETURN UPON THAT VALUE.    EVEN
THOUGH PRODUCTION AND GATHERING COULD BE THOUGHT TO BE A PART OF THE
REGULATED TRANSPORTATION AND SALE, THAT POSSIBILITY IS PRECLUDED BY THE
WORDS OF SEC. 1(B) WHICH SAY:  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT (INCLUDING
THOSE OF SECS. 4 AND 5 WHICH PRESCRIBE RATE MAKING FOR THE ACTIVITY OF
TRANSPORTING AND SELLING WHOLESALE) SHALL NOT APPLY" TO ANOTHER
ACTIVITY, "THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS."    IT DOES NOT
SEEM POSSIBLE TO SAY IN PLAINER OR MORE UNMISTAKABLE LANGUAGE THAT THE
ONE ACTIVITY, INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE, IS TO BE SUBJECTED
TO, AND THAT THE OTHER, PRODUCTION OR GATHERING, IS TO BE EXCLUDED
FROM, THE VALUATION AND RATE-MAKING POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.  TO
INTERPRET THE WORDS "PRODUCTION OR GATHERING" IN SEC. 1(B) IN THE ONLY
WAY WHICH THE COURT OR THE GOVERNMENT IS ABLE TO SUGGEST, AS REFERRING
ONLY TO THE PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES OF DRILLING AND SPACING THE GAS WELLS,
AND THUS EXCLUDING SUCH ACTIVITIES ALONE FROM REGULATION, SEEMS HARDLY
PLAUSIBLE.  IT IS TRUE THAT "PRODUCTION OR GATHERING" ARE ACTIVITIES
WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE DRILLING AND SPACING OF GAS WELLS.  BUT THE
"TRANSPORTATION AND SALE" REFERRED TO IN THE PHRASE OF SEC. 1(B) "BUT
SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS  ...
OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS," IS ALSO AN
ACTIVITY.  YET THE COURT AND THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDE THAT BY THE COMMAND
OF THE ACT THAT IT "SHALL NOT APPLY" TO THE ACTIVITY OF "ANY OTHER
TRANSPORTATION OR SALE," PETITIONER'S PROPERTY USED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF GAS TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IS EXCLUDED FROM
THE RATE BASE.  THEY THUS REACH THE SURPRISING CONCLUSION THAT PROPERTY
USED IN ONE SORT OF ACTIVITY TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE
DECLARED NOT TO APPLY, MAY NEVERTHELESS BE INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE,
WHILE HOLDING THAT ANOTHER SORT OF PROPERTY, ALSO USED IN AN ACTIVITY
TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE BY THE SAME PHRASE DECLARED NOT
TO APPLY, IS NEVERTHELESS EXCLUDED FROM THE RATE BASE. 

NOR IS THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSTRUCTION AIDED BY
REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT  FN1  GIVING THE COMMISSION
POWER TO MAKE INVESTIGATIONS, TO REGULATE ACCOUNTS, TO GATHER
INFORMATION AND TO FIND VALUES OF PROPERTY OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES AND
THEIR DEPRECIATION.  THESE PROVISIONS ARE OBVIOUSLY DIRECTED AT AIDING
THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF VARIOUS POWERS WHICH ARE CONFERRED
UPON IT BUT WHICH ARE UNRELATED TO THE REGULATION OF THE PRODUCTION OR
GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS.  SECTION 5(B), FOR EXAMPLE, AUTHORIZES THE
COMMISSION TO PROCURE THE INFORMATION OF COSTS OF PRODUCTION OR
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN AID OF STATE COMMISSIONS, AND SUCH WAS
ITS PURPOSE.  H. REP. NO. 709, P. 5, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R.
6586.  SECTIONS 9(A) AND 10(A) GIVE AUTHORITY ESSENTIAL TO THE
COMMISSION'S ADMITTED POWER TO REGULATE THE INTERSTATE SALE OF GAS AT
WHOLESALE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COST OF OR CHARGE FOR THE GAS
ACQUIRED BY A NATURAL GAS COMPANY, WHOSE RATES ARE REGULATED, ARE
EXCESSIVE BECAUSE UNRELATED TO FAIR OR MARKET VALUE, ESPECIALLY WHERE
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PRODUCER AND THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE
DISTRIBUTOR ARE NOT AT ARM'S LENGTH.  UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD
COMM'N, 278 U.S. 300, 320; SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL TEL. CO., 282 U.S.
133, 144; WESTERN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 285 U.S.
119; DAYTON POWER CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290; NATURAL
GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300, 306-308; ARKANSAS GAS CO. V. DEPT.,
304 U.S. 61; CF. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. GOODRICH TRANSIT CO.,
224 U.S. 194, 211.  AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION PERMITTED
BY SEC. 14(A) WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF GAS RESERVE IS ESSENTIAL TO
THE DETERMINATION OF THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION OF THE
GAS COMPANY'S REGULATED TRANSMISSION LINE, SINCE ITS USEFUL LIFE IS
NORMALLY LIMITED BY THE AVAILABLE GAS SUPPLY. 

NO REASON, FOUNDED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE OR ITS PURPOSE,
IS ADVANCED FOR DISREGARDING THE PLAIN COMMAND OF SEC. 1(B) EXCLUDING
THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF THE GAS FROM THOSE OTHER ACTIVITIES, THE
TRANSPORTING AND SELLING, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 4 AND 5.  THE LANGUAGE WAS WELL CHOSEN TO
ACCOMPLISH EXACTLY WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS WAS INTENDED TO
BE ACCOMPLISHED.  THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE (H. REP. NO. 709,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.), RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE BILL WHICH BECAME
THE NATURAL GAS ACT, SHOWS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION WAS TO BRING UNDER FEDERAL REGULATORY CONTROL THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF NATURAL GAS WHICH HAD BEEN HELD
NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION, IN MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO.,
265 U.S. 298; CF. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. ATTLEBORO CO., 273 U.S.
83, BUT TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED ALL OTHER MATTERS WHICH WERE THEN SUBJECT
TO STATE REGULATION, WHICH INCLUDED RATE-MAKING FOR PRODUCTION AND
GATHERING.  SEE ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS CO., 314
U.S. 498, 506; FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., SUPRA,
609.  AND UPON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL
DECLARED:  "IT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE PRODUCERS OF NATURAL
GAS OR THE DISTRIBUTORS OF NATURAL GAS; ONLY THOSE WHO SELL IT
WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  81 CONG. REC., P. 9312.  THAT THE
EXEMPTION OF THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS FROM REGULATION WAS THOUGHT
BY THE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES TO EXCLUDE REGULATION, BY THE
COMMISSION, OF THE PRICE OF GAS IN THE PRODUCING FIELD, APPEARS FROM
THE HEARINGS UPON THE PREDECESSOR BILL,  FN2  WHICH CONTAINED
PROVISIONS IDENTICAL WITH OR SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO SECS. 5(B),
6(A), 9(A), AND 10(A) OF THE ACT AS FINALLY PASSED, AND SEC. 1(B) OF
WHICH DECLARED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL SHOULD NOT APPLY "TO THE
PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS." 

THE EXCLUSION OF PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS FROM THE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION IS A COMMAND TO THE COMMISSION
NOT TO REGULATE THAT WHICH IS EXCLUDED.  OTHERWISE POWERS RESERVED TO
THE STATES WOULD BE ENCROACHED UPON CONTRARY TO THE WORDS AND PURPOSE
OF THE ACT, AND A PRETENDED GOVERNMENT WOULD BE SET UP BY COMMISSION
ACTION, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT DENY THE COMMAND, BUT JUSTIFIED DISREGARD OF
IT ONLY BY SAYING THAT "CANADIAN'S PRODUCTION AND GATHERING OPERATIONS
ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF ITS TOTAL OPERATIONS, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE SALE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  AND IT ADDED:  "THE INVESTIGATION OF CANADIAN'S
PRODUCTION AND GATHERING PROPERTY AND OPERATIONS IS INDISPENSABLE IN
REGULATING CANADIAN'S RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE SALE OF NATURAL GAS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE."  SUCH AN INVESTIGATION WAS UNDOUBTEDLY
PROPER AND NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR UNREGULATED VALUE
OF THE NATURAL GAS PRODUCED IN AN UNREGULATED FIELD, ON ITS DELIVERY
INTO PETITIONER'S TRANSMISSION PIPE LINE, IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE
COMMISSION TO REGULATE APPROPRIATELY THE SALES PRICE OF THE GAS. 

BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN FIXING RATES FOR A REGULATED BUSINESS
WHICH DERIVES ITS DISTRIBUTED PRODUCT FROM AN UNREGULATED BUSINESS THAT
THE PROPERTY OF THE LATTER IS NOT TO BE SEGREGATED FROM THE REGULATED
PROPERTY, OR THAT THERE CAN RIGHTLY BE APPLIED TO IT STANDARDS OF
VALUATION AND RATE OF RETURN WHICH ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO A REGULATED
BUSINESS.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. GOODRICH TRANSIT CO., SUPRA,
211; SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL TEL. CO., SUPRA, 151; WESTERN DISTRIBUTING
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, SUPRA, 123-124.  OTHERWISE ITS EXCLUSION
FROM REGULATION WOULD BE MEANINGLESS.  THE STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED IN
ORDER TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE REGULATED BUSINESS IS NOT PAYING TOO
MUCH FOR THE PRODUCT ARE THOSE WHICH CURRENTLY APPLY IN THE UNREGULATED
BUSINESS.  THIS, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE
SOLICITOR OF THE COMMISSION IN THE HEARINGS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION
CULMINATING IN THE PRESENT ACT.  HE SAID THAT THE UNREGULATED FIELD
PRICE WAS CONTROLLING UPON THE COMMISSION "IF THE TRANSACTION IS AT
ARM'S LENGTH.  IF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT AT ARM'S LENGTH, OF COURSE,
ITS REASONABLENESS MAY BE INQUIRED INTO, UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT."  FN3 

IT IS ONE THING TO SAY THAT SUCH INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY TO
ASCERTAIN THE FAIR UNREGULATED VALUE OF PETITIONER'S GAS WHEN
PRODUCED.  BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO SAY, AND THE COMMISSION DID NOT
SAY, THAT IT IS NECESSARY OR PERMISSIBLE FOR THE COMMISSION TO FIX THE
VALUE OF PETITIONER'S PRODUCTION PROPERTY AND THE GAS WHICH IT PRODUCES
FAR BELOW THEIR MARKET VALUE, AND TO RESTRICT PETITIONER'S RETURN FROM
ITS UNREGULATED BUSINESS BELOW THAT WHICH WOULD BE PRODUCED IF THE GAS
PRODUCTION WERE UNREGULATED.  SUCH RESTRICTIONS CAN BE JUSTIFIED ONLY
BY AUTHORIZED RATE REGULATION.  FROM SUCH REGULATION PETITIONER'S GAS
WELLS AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED BY
COMMAND OF THE STATUTE. 

WHERE A REGULATED UTILITY PROCURES FROM AN UNREGULATED SOURCE THE
PRODUCT WHICH IT DISTRIBUTES, THE PROPER COST WHICH THE REGULATED
COMPANY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PAY FOR IT, WHEN THE COMMISSION IS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE THE PRODUCTION, PRESENTS A PROBLEM NOT FREE FROM
DIFFICULTIES.  BUT HERE THE COMMISSION HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO MEET THESE
DIFFICULTIES, IF SUCH THERE BE, EXCEPT BY THE ONE COURSE WHICH THE
STATUTE FORBIDS, BY SUBJECTING THE PRODUCTION PROPERTY TO REGULATION. 

A FAMILIAR AND PERMISSIBLE WAY OF MEETING THEM, AS PETITIONER POINTS
OUT, IS BY TREATING THE PROPERTY UNREGULABLE IN LAW AS UNREGULABLE IN
FACT, AND APPLYING TO IT THOSE STANDARDS OF VALUE AND RETURN WHICH
CURRENTLY PREVAIL IN AN UNREGULATED BUSINESS WHEN IT IS CONDUCTED AT
ARM'S LENGTH.  PETITIONER URGES THAT THERE ARE OTHER COURSES OPEN TO
THE COMMISSION WHICH WILL NOT VIOLATE THE STATUTE, AND THAT THERE IS
UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SHOWING THAT NATURAL GAS HAS A
MARKET VALUE AT THE WELLHEAD AND AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY INTO
PETITIONER'S TRANSMISSION LINE.  THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD INDICATE THAT
GAS PRODUCTION PROPERTY IN THE AREA IN QUESTION HAS AN ASCERTAINABLE
MARKET VALUE ON WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF REGULATION, PETITIONER IS FREE
TO RECEIVE THE RETURN CURRENTLY PRODUCED BY SUCH PROPERTY. 

WITHOUT AN APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION WE CANNOT KNOW THE FACT, WHICH
IS FOR THE COMMISSION AND NOT FOR US TO DETERMINE.  IF INVESTIGATION
DISCLOSES DIFFICULTIES WHICH ONLY LEGISLATION CAN COPE WITH, THE ANSWER
IS FURTHER LEGISLATION, NOT DISREGARD OF EXISTING LEGISLATION.  BUT THE
COMMISSION HAS MADE NO SUCH DETERMINATION OR INVESTIGATION AND, SO FAR
AS APPEARS, HAS GIVEN NO CONSIDERATION TO THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING
PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION SO TO
CONDUCT ITS PROCEEDINGS AS TO RESTRICT ITS ACTION WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON IT.  IT IS PLAIN THAT IT HAS NOT PERFORMED
THAT DUTY HERE, AND THAT IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO SO.  WHETHER THE
FACILITIES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS SHOULD BE REGULATED AND,
IF SO, WHETHER THE REGULATION SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE STATES, AS WE THINK
CONGRESS HAS LEFT IT, ARE MATTERS FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE.  IF IT BE
THOUGHT THAT PETITIONER'S PROFITS FROM PRODUCTION OF GAS ARE TOO GREAT
BECAUSE THEY ARE UNREGULATED, AND IF IT BE THOUGHT TO BE IMPORTANT THAT
THEY BE REDUCED, IT IS IMMENSELY MORE IMPORTANT THAT THAT BE NOT
ACCOMPLISHED BY LAWLESS ACTION. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO CITE OUR AUTHORITIES INVOLVING STATE REGULATION,
FN4  IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT THE COMMISSION HERE HAS ACTED WITHIN ITS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  IN REVIEWING SUCH CASES WE ACCEPT THE STATE'S
CONSTRUCTION OF ITS STATUTES FIXING THE JURISDICTION OF STATE
REGULATORY BODIES.  NOR IS IT ANY JUSTIFICATION OF THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO SAY, APPLYING THE HOPE CASE, THAT THE END RESULT OF THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION IS THAT PETITIONER'S UNREGULATED PROPERTY IS NOT
BEING CONFISCATED.  AUTHORIZED UTILITY REGULATION MAY, OF COURSE,
RESULT IN A PERMISSIBLE DIMINUTION OF PROPERTY VALUES AND INCOME,
PROVIDED THE REGULATION DOES NOT SO EXCEED CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
AS TO BE "CONFISCATORY."  HENCE, LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY AUTHORIZED
UTILITY REGULATION GIVES RISE TO NO ACTIONABLE WRONG IF THE REGULATION
IS WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  SUCH WAS THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN
IN THE HOPE CASE. 

BUT ANY SUCH DIMINUTION IN VALUE OR RETURN, CAUSED BY UNAUTHORIZED
REGULATION, IS UNLAWFUL WITHOUT REFERENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES.  IN THE HOPE CASE THERE WAS NO CONTENTION THAT THE
UTILITY'S PRODUCTION PROPERTY WAS NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION.  THE ONLY
QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE RETURN UPON IT, AS ALLOWED BY STATUTORY
AUTHORITY, WAS CONFISCATORY BECAUSE IT WENT BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITS OF THE POWER TO REGULATE.  HERE THE QUESTION IS ONLY OF THE
DEPRIVATION OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY BY THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN
EXCESS OF ITS STATUTORY POWER TO REGULATE.  THAT POWER, IN THE CASE OF
PETITIONER'S PRODUCTION PROPERTY, WE THINK DOES NOT EXIST.  SO FAR AS
THE UNAUTHORIZED REGULATION DEPRIVES PETITIONER OF ITS PROPERTY, THE
DEPRIVATION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY SAYING THAT, IF AUTHORIZED, IT WOULD
NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.  ABSENCE OF CONFISCATION BY AUTHORIZED
COMMISSION REGULATION DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE. 

FN1  SECTION 5(B) AUTHORIZES INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
COST OF PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS, WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A RATE GOVERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF
SUCH NATURAL GAS.  SECTION 6(A) EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO ASCERTAIN
THE COST OF THE PROPERTY OF EVERY NATURAL GAS COMPANY AND OTHER FACTS
BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH COST "WHEN FOUND NECESSARY FOR
RATE MAKING PURPOSES."  SECTION 9(A) AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE THE PROPER "RATES OF DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION" OF THE
SEVERAL CLASSES OF PROPERTY OF EACH NATURAL GAS COMPANY "USED OR USEFUL
IN THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS."  SECTION
10(A) GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE REPORTS FROM NATURAL
GAS COMPANIES OF THEIR "COST OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF FACILITIES
FOR THE PRODUCTION" OF NATURAL GAS.  SECTION 14(A) GIVES THE COMMISSION
POWER TO DETERMINE THE "ADEQUACY OR INADEQUACY OF THE GAS RESERVES HELD
OR CONTROLLED" BY THEM.    FN2  IN THE HEARINGS UPON THE EARLIER BILL,
MR. DEVANE, SOLICITOR OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, STATED:
"SECTION 1(B) ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE NO
JURISDICTION OVER THE GATHERING OR GATHERING RATES FOR NATURAL GAS." 
"GATHERING RATES," HE EXPLAINED AS "THE RATES THAT ARE PAID IN THE
GATHERING FIELD."  HE FURTHER STATED, "THERE IS NO CONTROL OF THE
GATHERING RATE; THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT HAVE JURISDICTION.  THAT PRICE
IS FIXED BY COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST IN THE FIELD."  HE SAID
THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER OVER THE PRICE "THAT IS
PAID TO THE GATHER, TO THE MAN THAT PRODUCES IT; THAT IS BINDING IF THE
TRANSACTION IS AT ARM'S LENGTH.  IF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT AT ARM'S
LENGTH, OF COURSE, ITS REASONABLENESS MAY BE INQUIRED INTO, UNDER THE
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT."  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SUBSEQUENT
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO INDICATE THAT THIS UNDERSTANDING WITH RESPECT TO
SEC. 1(B) IN THE EARLIER ACT WAS CHANGED AT A LATER STAGE, AND SEC.
1(B) AS FINALLY ADOPTED INDICATES NO SUCH CHANGE.  HEARINGS ON H.R.
11662, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 28, 42-3. 

FN3  SEE FOOTNOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN4  WILLCOX V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S. 19; CEDAR RAPIDS GAS
CO. V. CEDAR RAPIDS, 223 U.S. 655; NEWARK NATURAL GAS CO. V. NEWARK,
242 U.S. 405; PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. LANDON, 249 U.S. 236;
PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 252 U.S. 23; RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 302 U.S. 388; LONE STAR GAS
CO. V. TEXAS, 304 U.S. 224. 
..END :



COLORADO-WYOMING CO. V. COMM'N, 324 U.S. 626 


NO. 575.  ARGUED JANUARY 30, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 2, 1945.  - 142 F.2D
943, AFFIRMED IN PART - REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  WHOLESALES TO DISTRIBUTORS WITHIN A STATE OF NATURAL GAS WHICH THE
WHOLESALER PURCHASES WITHIN THE STATE, BUT WHICH MOVES IN A CONTINUOUS
STREAM ACROSS STATE LINES TO THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS, ARE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  P. 630. 

2.  THE RATE REDUCTION ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE IS
SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT REFLECTS A VALID REDUCTION IN THE RATES
OF A COMPANY FROM WHICH THE PETITIONER PURCHASES GAS; BUT AS TO THE
BALANCE OF THE RATE REDUCTION, THE JUDGMENT APPROVING THE RATE
REDUCTION ORDER IS REVERSED BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE FINDINGS BY THE
COMMISSION.  P. 634. 

COLORADO-WYOMING GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 701, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A RATE ORDER OF
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS A COMPANION CASE TO COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AND CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, ANTE, P. 581.  PETITIONER BEGAN OPERATIONS IN 1925.  UNTIL
1929 PETITIONER OBTAINED ITS ENTIRE SUPPLY FROM THE WELLINGTON FIELD OF
THE CONTINENTAL OIL CO., NEAR FT. COLLINS, COLORADO.  ITS TRANSMISSION
LINE RAN FROM THAT POINT NORTH TO CHEYENNE, WYOMING.  THE WELLINGTON
FIELD BEGAN TO DIMINISH.  SO PETITIONER, IN OCTOBER, 1929, ENTERED INTO
A TWENTY-YEAR CONTRACT WITH COLORADO INTERSTATE TO PURCHASE GAS FROM
IT, THE GAS TO BE DELIVERED TO PETITIONER AT ITS METERING STATION NEAR
LITTLETON, COLORADO.  ACCORDINGLY, IN 1929 AND 1930 PETITIONER
CONSTRUCTED A PIPELINE BETWEEN FT. COLLINS, COLORADO, AND LITTLETON,
COLORADO, WHERE CONNECTION WAS MADE WITH COLORADO INTERSTATE'S
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM.  BETWEEN 1929 AND 1939 BRANCH LINES WERE
CONSTRUCTED TO SERVE VARIOUS CITIES, TOWNS, AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN
COLORADO.  AT THE PRESENT TIME ALL BUT TWO PER CENT OF ITS GAS IS
OBTAINED FROM COLORADO INTERSTATE.  PETITIONER SELLS GAS AT THE
CHEYENNE CITY GATE TO ITS AFFILIATE CHEYENNE LIGHT, FUEL AND POWER CO.
IT ALSO SELLS DIRECTLY TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN COLORADO AND TO SOME
EXTENT IN WYOMING.  AND IT SELLS GAS AT VARIOUS CITY GATES IN COLORADO
FOR RESALE. 

THE INVESTIGATION AND HEARINGS ON THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES OF
CANADIAN, COLORADO INTERSTATE AND PETITIONER WERE CONSOLIDATED.  AS WE
HAVE SEEN, THE COMMISSION ORDERED CANADIAN TO REDUCE ITS RATES BY
$561,000 PER YEAR.  THAT AMOUNT MADE UP PART OF THE $2,065,000 ANNUAL
REDUCTION WHICH THE COMMISSION ORDERED IN THE RATES OF COLORADO
INTERSTATE.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT PETITIONER'S
REVENUES WERE $159,000 IN EXCESS OF COSTS AND A FAIR RETURN AND THAT
$119,000 OF THAT EXCESS WERE ALLOCABLE TO PETITIONER'S SALES FOR
RESALE.  THE COMMISSION ORDERED PETITIONER TO REDUCE ITS WHOLESALE
RATES BY $119,000 A YEAR (43 P.U.R. (N.S.)  205, 234).  THAT DOES NOT
REPRESENT THE NET DECREASE IN REVENUE, SINCE THE COMMISSION ORDERED
COLORADO INTERSTATE TO REDUCE ITS RATES TO PETITIONER BY $98,000 A
YEAR.  ACCORDINGLY, THE NET DECREASE IN REVENUES OF PETITIONER WILL BE
$21,000 IF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER STANDS.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION (142 F.2D 943) WAS LIMITED TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE ALLOCATION OF COST OF SERVICE USED BY THE
COMMISSION IS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD AND CONTRARY TO LAW. 

THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE AS IN COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AND CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE A SEPARATION OF PROPERTIES USED IN THE
REGULATED BUSINESS FROM THOSE USED IN THE UNREGULATED.  IT USED INSTEAD
THE SAME METHOD OF ALLOCATION OF COSTS AS IT DID IN THOSE OTHER CASES. 
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE COMMISSION'S METHOD OF ALLOCATION OF COSTS
INCLUDED IN THE REGULATED BUSINESS A PART OF ITS BUSINESS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS NOT SUBJECTED TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  AS WE HAVE
NOTED, PETITIONER'S TRANSMISSION LINE COMMENCES IN COLORADO NEAR
LITTLETON WHERE IT CONNECTS WITH THE PIPELINE OF COLORADO INTERSTATE. 
PETITIONER SELLS SOME OF ITS GAS IN COLORADO FOR RESALE TO DOMESTIC
USERS IN CERTAIN TOWNS IN COLORADO.  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THOSE
WHOLESALE SALES WERE SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION.  PETITIONER CONTENDS
THAT THOSE SALES ARE MADE IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
THE COMMISSION'S RATE-MAKING POWERS.  ITS POSITION IS THAT THE ONE AND
ONLY SALE FOR RESALE BY IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS THE SALE AT THE
CITY GATE IN CHEYENNE, SINCE NONE OF THE COLORADO SALES INVOLVE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. 

THE ANSWER TURNS ON THE MEANING OF SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT (52 STAT.
821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717) WHICH PROVIDES: 

"(B) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION
OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR
DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURAL-GAS
COMPANIES ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY
TO ANY OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH
DISTRIBUTION OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS." 

THE COMMISSION RELIED ON ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS CO.,
314 U.S. 498, IN CONCLUDING THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE WHOLESALE
SALES IN COLORADO.  THAT CASE PRESENTED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
ILLINOIS COMMISSION OR THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO
AUTHORIZE A PIPELINE EXTENSION WHOLLY WITHIN ILLINOIS.  THE COMPANY
PROPOSING THE EXTENSION (ILLINOIS GAS CO.)  OWNED A PIPELINE SYSTEM
WHOLLY IN ILLINOIS WHICH WAS CONNECTED AT VARIOUS POINTS IN THAT STATE
WITH THE PIPELINE OF ITS PARENT COMPANY, PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE
CO., WHICH OWNED AND OPERATED A NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SYSTEM FROM GAS
FIELDS IN TEXAS, KANSAS AND OKLAHOMA ACROSS ILLINOIS AND INTO INDIANA. 
THE ILLINOIS COMPANY PURCHASED ITS GAS UNDER A LONG TERM CONTRACT FROM
PANHANDLE EASTERN AND TRANSPORTED IT THROUGH ITS OWN LINES TO LOCAL GAS
DISTRIBUTING UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS TO WHICH IT SOLD THE GAS FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO CONSUMERS IN VARIOUS ILLINOIS CITIES.  WE HELD THAT THE
ILLINOIS COMPANY BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 7(C) OF THE ACT  FN1  COULD BUILD AN
EXTENSION TO CONNECT WITH THE FACILITIES OF A COMPANY DISTRIBUTING GAS
TO CONSUMERS IN ILLINOIS ONLY AFTER OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  WE HELD
THAT THE ILLINOIS COMPANY AND PANHANDLE EASTERN WERE ENGAGED "IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE NATURAL GAS WHICH
MOVES IN A CONTINUOUS STREAM FROM POINTS WITHOUT THE STATE" INTO THE
PIPES OF THE ILLINOIS COMPANY; AND THAT "THE PARTICULAR POINT AT WHICH
THE TITLE AND CUSTODY OF THE GAS PASS TO THE PURCHASER, WITHOUT
ARRESTING ITS MOVEMENT TO THE INTENDED DESTINATION, DOES NOT AFFECT THE
ESSENTIAL INTERSTATE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS."  314 U.S. PP. 503, 504. 
WE POINTED OUT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO PROVIDE "AN AGENCY
FOR REGULATING THE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANIES
OF NATURAL GAS MOVING INTERSTATE, WHICH THIS COURT HAD DECLARED TO BE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TYPES OF STATE REGULATION." 
ID., P. 506.  WE REVIEWED THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE COURT WHICH
ADOPTED THE MECHANICAL TEST FOR DETERMINING WHEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ENDS AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE BEGINS, VIZ., WHEN THE GAS IS INTRODUCED
INTO THE SERVICE PIPES OF THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTOR.  WE NOTED THAT IT WAS
TO FIT THE PATTERN OF STATE REGULATION REFLECTED IN THOSE DECISIONS
THAT THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS PASSED. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCLUDE THAT IF PETITIONER'S PIPELINE WERE TO BE
CONSTRUCTED TODAY FROM LITTLETON, COLORADO TO THE CITY GATES OF THE
COLORADO TOWNS WHERE PETITIONER'S GAS IS RESOLD, SEC. 7(C) WOULD
REQUIRE THAT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BE
OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSION.  FOR IN THIS CASE AS IN ILLINOIS GAS CO.
V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS CO., SUPRA, THE GAS WHICH PETITIONER PURCHASES FROM
COLORADO INTERSTATE MOVES IN A CONTINUOUS STREAM ACROSS STATE LINES TO
LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES IN COLORADO AS WELL AS WYOMING.  IF
PETITIONER IS ENGAGED IN "THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" TO THOSE COLORADO TOWNS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
1(B), ITS WHOLESALE SALES IN COLORADO ARE ALSO SALES "IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION" AS
THOSE WORDS ARE USED IN SEC. 1(B).  THAT COMMERCE DOES NOT END UNTIL
THE GAS ENTERS THE SERVICE PIPES OF THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES. 

MOST OF THE OTHER OBJECTIONS WHICH PETITIONER RAISES TO THE
COMMISSION'S METHOD OF ALLOCATION OF COSTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE
CASES OF COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AND
CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  WE NEED NOT REPEAT
WHAT WE SAID THERE.  BUT THERE ARE A FEW DISTINCT PHASES OF THIS CASE
WHICH MUST BE SEPARATELY STATED. 

PETITIONER SAYS THAT THE COMMISSION TREATED IT ALONG WITH CANADIAN
AND COLORADO INTERSTATE AS AN INTEGRATED UNIT FOR PURPOSES OF THE
ALLOCATION OF COSTS.  THE INFERENCE IS THAT THE COMMISSION COMBINED
PETITIONER'S COSTS WITH THOSE OF THE OTHER TWO COMPANIES AND ALLOCATED
THE COMBINED COSTS THREE WAYS.  THAT IS NOT THE FACT.  PETITIONER IS
INDEPENDENT IN MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL FROM THE OTHER TWO.  ITS SYSTEM
WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF CANADIAN'S AND COLORADO INTERSTATE'S
SYSTEM BUT WAS STARTED INDEPENDENTLY AND CONNECTED WITH THE OTHERS AT A
LATER STAGE.  THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THAT IN OPERATION THE THREE
COMPANY PROJECT WAS A SINGLE ONE IN THE SENSE THAT AN ALTERATION IN
CANADIAN'S RATES AFFECTED THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES OF COLORADO
INTERSTATE AND IN TURN THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES OF PETITIONER. 
BUT WHEN IT CAME TO AN ALLOCATION OF COSTS AMONG PETITIONER'S CLASSES
OF BUSINESS THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED PETITIONER'S COSTS ALONE. 

HERE AS IN THE CASES OF CANADIAN AND COLORADO INTERSTATE THE FINDINGS
OF THE COMMISSION LEAVE MUCH TO BE DESIRED.  THE FINDINGS ARE GENERAL
AND INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THE STAFF EXHIBITS, ON WHICH RELIANCE IS
PUT FOR THE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS.  BUT IN THIS CASE THERE ARE ADDED
DIFFICULTIES.  THE STAFF USED ONE SYSTEM, THE COMMISSION ANOTHER.  AS
THE COMMISSION SAID, THE STAFF "DEPARTED FROM THE USE OF THE SYSTEM
PEAK DAY FOR ALLOCATING DEMAND (FIXED) COSTS AND COMBINED THE SEPARATE
CLASS PEAKS OF RESALE CUSTOMERS AND OF MAIN LINE INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS."  43 P.U.R. (N.S.)  P. 233.  THE COMMISSION THOUGHT A
DIFFERENT METHOD WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH PETITIONER'S OPERATIONS.  IT
SAID:  "THE COLORADO PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY, THE PRINCIPAL MAIN LINE
INDUSTRIAL USER, IS CURTAILED REGULARLY DURING SYSTEM PEAK DAYS.  ITS
DEMAND ON THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY IS, IN OUR OPINION, A PROPER MEASURE OF
ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF DEMAND COSTS THAN ITS HIGHEST OFF-PEAK
DEMAND.  ACCORDINGLY, THE PRINCIPLES AND METHODS OF COST ALLOCATION
PRESENTED BY COMMISSION STAFF ARE ADOPTED WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT
THE COINCIDENT DEMANDS OF ALL CUSTOMERS ON THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY ARE
USED, AND WITH EXCEPTION OF DELIVERIES TO HIGHWAY GAS COMPANY."  43
P.U.R. (N.S.)  P. 234.  WHEN WE READ THAT FINDING AGAINST THE RECORD
THERE ARE AMBIGUITIES WHICH WE ARE UNABLE TO RESOLVE WERE IT OUR
PROVINCE TO DO SO. 

(1)  THE "SYSTEM PEAK DAY" IS FEBRUARY 9, 1939 - THE SAME DAY CHOSEN
FOR CANADIAN AND COLORADO INTERSTATE.  WE KNOW FROM OUR SEARCH OF THE
RECORD THAT IS NOT THE ACTUAL PEAK DAY IN 1939 FOR PETITIONER'S
BUSINESS.  WE ARE TOLD BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS BRIEF THAT IT IS THE
RATIO OF DELIVERIES TO THE REGULABLE AND NON-REGULABLE CUSTOMERS RATHER
THAN TOTAL DELIVERIES THAT DETERMINES THE ALLOCATION OF CAPACITY
COSTS.  BUT THERE ARE NO FINDINGS WHICH INDICATE WHY THE SYSTEM PEAK
DAY FOR OTHER COMPANIES SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY FOR THIS
COMPANY.  NOR ARE THERE ANY FINDINGS WHICH INDICATE THAT THE RATIO ON
THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY IS A MORE RELIABLE GUIDE IN THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS
THAN THE RATIO ON THE ACTUAL PEAK DAY OF THIS COMPANY. 

(2)  THE COMMISSION SAYS IT ALLOCATED CAPACITY COSTS ON THE BASIS OF
THE "COINCIDENT DEMANDS OF ALL CUSTOMERS ON THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY."  IT
SAID THAT COLORADO PORTLAND CEMENT CO. IS "CURTAILED REGULARLY DURING
SYSTEM PEAK DAYS" AND THAT ITS "DEMAND" ON THAT DAY IS THE PROPER
MEASURE OF ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF CAPACITY COSTS.  WE ASSUME IT
MEANT BY "COINCIDENT DEMANDS" ON THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY, THE AMOUNT OF GAS
ACTUALLY DELIVERED ON THAT DAY, NOT THE CUSTOMERS' RESPECTIVE NEEDS FOR
GAS ON THAT DAY.  BUT WHEN WE TURN TO THE RECORD THERE ARE
AMBIGUITIES.  THE STAFF EXHIBIT ON WHICH THE COMMISSION APPARENTLY
RELIED DESIGNATES AS ONE CLASSIFICATION THE "MAXIMUM DAY DELIVERIES ON
COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. PEAK DAY - THURS., FEB. 9, 1939."  UNDER
THAT HEADING WE COMPUTE 1,777 MCF TO DIRECT-SALE CUSTOMERS AND 9,009
MCF TO RESALE CUSTOMERS ON FEBRUARY 9, 1939.  THE COMMISSION IN ITS
BRIEF TELLS US THAT THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH IT ALLOCATED CAPACITY
COSTS, VIZ. 83.5 PER CENT TO THE RESALE GAS, 16.5 PER CENT TO THE
DIRECT-SALE GAS.  BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE DIRECT
SALE CUSTOMERS RECEIVED ON FEBRUARY 9, 1939 NOT 1,777 MCF BUT ONLY 522
MCF.  IF WE USE 522 MCF RATHER THAN 1,777 MCF IN OUR COMPUTATIONS WE
SHIFT TO THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE SALES ALMOST $21,000 ADDITIONAL
COSTS.  NOW THE NET RATE DECREASE ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS
CASE AMOUNTED TO $21,000.  HENCE THAT NET DECREASE SUBSTANTIALLY
DISAPPEARS IF WE TAKE 522 MCF RATHER THAN 1,777 MCF AS THE AMOUNT OF
DIRECT SALES ON FEB. 9, 1939.  THE CHOICE OF THE LOWER FIGURE WOULD
THUS BE FATAL TO THE COMMISSION'S CASE.    WE DO NOT KNOW WHY THE LOWER
FIGURE WAS REJECTED.  THERE ARE NO FINDINGS TO GUIDE US.  IN THE RECORD
THERE IS TESTIMONY WHICH MAY SUFFICE AS A PARTIAL RECONCILIATION OF THE
DIFFERENCE AND WHICH CASTS SOME DOUBTS ON THE ACCURACY OF THE LOWER
FIGURE.  BUT WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE COMPLETELY TO RECONCILE THE
DIFFERENCE.  WE DO KNOW FROM A READING OF THE RECORD THAT THE STAFF
EXHIBIT FROM WHICH THE 1,777 MCF ITEM WAS OBTAINED WAS BASED AT LEAST
IN PART ON AVERAGES OR ESTIMATES, NOT ON ACTUAL DELIVERIES.  IT IS NOT
CLEAR WHETHER 1,777 MCF RESTED ON ESTIMATES OR REFLECTED ACTUAL
DELIVERIES BY PETITIONER ON FEB. 9, 1939.  THE CAPTION "MAXIMUM DAY
DELIVERIES ON COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. PEAK DAY - THURS., FEB. 9,
1939" IS AMBIGUOUS.  IT MAY MEAN THAT THE GAS DELIVERED TO PETITIONER
BY COLORADO INTERSTATE ON THAT DAY WAS APPORTIONED AMONG THE SEVERAL
CLASSES OF CUSTOMERS ACCORDING TO THEIR ACTUAL USE ON THAT DAY.  IT MAY
MEAN ACTUAL DELIVERIES BY PETITIONER DURING THAT DAY.  THE FIGURES MAY
OR MAY NOT BE THE SAME. 

THE REVIEW WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR THESE RATE ORDERS IS
LIMITED.  SEC. 19(B) SAYS THAT THE "FINDING OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE
FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  BUT
WE MUST FIRST KNOW WHAT THE "FINDING" IS BEFORE WE CAN GIVE IT THAT
CONCLUSIVE WEIGHT.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR CLARITY
AND COMPLETENESS IN THE BASIC OR ESSENTIAL FINDINGS ON WHICH
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS REST.  FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194,
215; UNITED STATES V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 293 U.S. 454, 464;
UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 504-505,
510-511; UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475, 488
489.  THEIR ABSENCE CAN ONLY CLOG THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION AND ADD
TO THE DELAYS IN RATE-MAKING.  WE CANNOT DISPENSE WITH THEM FOR
CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THE STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THIS
ACT.  SEC. 19(B).  THE COURTS CANNOT PERFORM THE FUNCTION WHICH
CONGRESS ASSIGNED TO THEM IN ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE FINDINGS.  NOR ARE
THEY AUTHORIZED UNDER SEC. 19(B) TO MAKE FINDINGS AND SUBSTITUTE THEM
FOR THOSE OF THE COMMISSION. 

WE THINK IT IS PLAIN THAT $98,000 OF THE RATE DECREASE ORDERED BY THE
COMMISSION IN THIS CASE IS VALID SINCE IT REFLECTS THE REDUCTION IN THE
RATES OF COLORADO INTERSTATE FROM WHOM PETITIONER PURCHASES PRACTICALLY
ALL OF ITS GAS.  BUT THE BALANCE OF THE $119,000 RATE DECREASE WHICH
WAS ORDERED, VIZ. $21,000, IS SO SHROUDED IN DOUBT THAT FURTHER
FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION ARE NECESSARY. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW INSOFAR AS IT SUSTAINED THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DIRECTING PETITIONER TO REDUCE ITS RATES BY
$98,000.  AS TO THE BALANCE OF THE RATE REDUCTION, WE REVERSE THE
JUDGMENT BELOW, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, AND REMAND THE
CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  SEE
SEC. 19(B).  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SEC. 7(C) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"NO NATURAL-GAS COMPANY SHALL UNDERTAKE THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION
OF ANY FACILITIES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS TO A MARKET IN
WHICH NATURAL GAS IS ALREADY BEING SERVED BY ANOTHER NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY, OR ACQUIRE OR OPERATE ANY SUCH FACILITIES OR EXTENSIONS
THEREOF, OR ENGAGE IN TRANSPORTATION BY MEANS OF ANY NEW OR ADDITIONAL
FACILITIES, OR SELL NATURAL GAS IN ANY SUCH MARKET, UNLESS AND UNTIL
THERE SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE
THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE OR
WILL REQUIRE SUCH NEW CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF ANY SUCH FACILITIES
OR ESTENSIONS THEREOF:..." 

A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY IS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(6) AS A "PERSON ENGAGED IN
THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR THE SALE
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF SUCH GAS FOR RESALE." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, AND MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED
TO THE COMMISSION FOR SEPARATE ALLOCATION OF INVESTMENT AND OPERATING
COST BETWEEN THE REGULABLE AND NONREGULABLE PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS FOR
THE CLARIFICATION OF FINDINGS DIRECTED IN THE OPINION.  THEY AGREE THAT
THE DELIVERIES TO WHOLESALERS IN COLORADO ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
..END :
















PANHANDLE CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S. 635 


NO. 296.  ARGUED JANUARY 29, 1945.  - DECIDED APRIL 2, 1945.  - 143 F.2D
488, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 19(B) OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF
ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, AN OBJECTION
THAT THE NATURAL GAS COMPANY IS NOT LOCATED AND DOES NOT HAVE ITS
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH THE PROCEEDING WAS
BROUGHT GOES NOT TO THE JURISDICTION BUT ONLY TO THE VENUE, AND IS TOO
LATE WHEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER JUDGMENT.  P. 638. 

2.  IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, IN DETERMINING REDUCTIONS IN INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES OF
A NATURAL GAS COMPANY WHOSE BUSINESS CONSISTED OF DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
SALES (UNREGULATED) AS WELL AS INTERSTATE WHOLESALES (REGULATED), DID
NOT EXCEED THE LIMITS OF ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ALLOCATED TO THE
REGULATED BUSINESS ALL EXCESS EARNINGS OF THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OVER 6
1/2 PER CENT.  P. 646. 

3.  IT WAS NOT ERROR FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A NATURAL GAS
COMPANY'S RATE BASE ON THE ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST OF THE COMPANY'S
PROPERTY, OR TO INCLUDE IN THE RATE BASE THE COMPANY'S PRODUCING
PROPERTIES AND GATHERING FACILITIES.  CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMM'N, ANTE, P. 581.  P. 648. 

4.  HAVING FAILED TO OBJECT IN ITS APPLICATION FOR REHEARING BEFORE
THE COMMISSION TO THE INCLUSION OF ITS PRODUCING PROPERTIES AND
GATHERING FACILITIES IN THE RATE BASE, PETITIONER IS PRECLUDED BY SEC.
19(B) OF THE ACT FROM ATTACKING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED.  P. 649. 

5.  SINCE THE ISSUE IN A RATE CASE UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT IS
WHETHER THE RATE FIXED IS "JUST AND REASONABLE," THE QUESTION ON REVIEW
IS NOT THE METHOD OF VALUATION BUT THE END RESULT OBTAINED.  P. 649. 

6.  UPON THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE COURT CAN NOT SAY
THAT THE RATE OF RETURN ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION IS NOT COMMENSURATE
WITH THE RISKS, THAT CONFIDENCE IN THE COMPANY'S FINANCIAL INTEGRITY
HAS BEEN IMPAIRED, OR THAT THE COMPANY'S ABILITY TO ATTRACT CAPITAL, TO
MAINTAIN ITS CREDIT, AND TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY AND EFFICIENTLY HAS
BEEN IMPEDED.  FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S.
591.  P. 650. 

PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. ET AL. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 808, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. (WHOM WE WILL CALL PANHANDLE EASTERN)
OWNS PROPERTIES WHICH CONSTITUTE A NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION,
TRANSPORTATION, AND MARKETING SYSTEM.  FN1  THE SYSTEM EXTENDS FROM GAS
FIELDS IN TEXAS, OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS THROUGH MISSOURI, ILLINOIS,
INDIANA AND OHIO AND INTO MICHIGAN.  FN2  THE CITY OF DETROIT AND THE
COUNTY OF WAYNE, MICHIGAN, FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION ALLEGING THAT PANHANDLE EASTERN'S RATES ON GAS SOLD TO A
DISTRIBUTING COMPANY IN MICHIGAN FOR RESALE THERE WERE UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE.  THE COMMISSION ON ITS OWN MOTION INSTITUTED AN
INVESTIGATION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 821, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 717, OF ALL OF THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES OF PANHANDLE
EASTERN.  FN3  FOLLOWING EXTENDED HEARINGS THE COMMISSION ENTERED AN
INTERIM ORDER, HERE UNDER REVIEW, FINDING PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE
WHOLESALE RATES TO BE EXCESSIVE AND REQUIRING PETITIONER TO REDUCE THEM
ON AND AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 1942, AS TO REFLECT, WHEN APPLIED TO
PETITIONER'S 1941 TRANSPORTATION AND SALES, A REDUCTION OF NOT LESS
THAN $5,094,384 PER ANNUM BELOW THE 1941 CONSOLIDATED GROSS OPERATING
REVENUES OF $17,789,573.  SEE 45 P.U.R. (N.S.)  203, 223.  THAT ORDER
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING IN PART.  143 F.2D 488.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED LIMITED TO THE TWO
QUESTIONS WHICH WE WILL DISCUSS.  BUT BEFORE WE REACH THEM WE MUST
DISPOSE OF A CHALLENGE MADE BY THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, AS AMICUS CURIAE,
TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS LITIGATION.  PANHANDLE EASTERN
SOUGHT REVIEW IN THAT COURT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER UNDER SEC. 19(B)
OF THE ACT WHICH SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE PROVIDES: 

"ANY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS CHAPTER AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER
ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION IN SUCH PROCEEDING MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH
ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ANY
CIRCUIT WHEREIN THE NATURAL-GAS COMPANY TO WHICH THE ORDER RELATES IS
LOCATED OR HAS ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR IN THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  ..." 

THE PETITION FOR REVIEW STATED THAT PETITIONER HAD ITS PRINCIPAL
PLACE OF BUSINESS IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.  THAT WAS NOT DENIED BY THE
COMMISSION AND AT NO TIME PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT AFFIRMING
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS CHALLENGED.  AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE HAD BEEN ENTERED,
HOWEVER, THE CITY OF CLEVELAND FILED A MOTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THAT
COURT ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN THAT CIRCUIT.  THE SAME OBJECTION IS PRESSED HERE. 

IF THE OBJECTION IS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, IT DOES NOT
COME TOO LATE.  INDUSTRIAL ADDITION ASSN. V. COMMISSIONER, 323 U.S.
310.  BUT WE THINK IT GOES TO VENUE, NOT TO JURISDICTION.  WE READ SEC.
19(B) TO INVEST ALL INTERMEDIATE FEDERAL COURTS WITH THE POWER TO
REVIEW ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF A CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, RATHER THAN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, IS CHOSEN, THE PARTIES MAY OBJECT THAT THE PARTICULAR CIRCUIT
LACKS THE SPECIFIED QUALIFICATIONS.  VENUE RELATES TO THE CONVENIENCE
OF LITIGANTS.  NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 308 U.S. 165.  THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 19(B) PLAINLY ARE OF THAT CHARACTER.  REVIEW IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WHERE THE COMMISSION MUST
MAINTAIN ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND HOLD ITS GENERAL SESSIONS (46 STAT.
797, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 792) IS CONVENIENT FOR THE COMMISSION.  REVIEW IN
ANY CIRCUIT WHERE THE NATURAL GAS COMPANY IS LOCATED OR HAS ITS
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS DESIGNED TO SERVE THE CONVENIENCE OF THE
COMPANY.  THE GENERAL GRANT OF AUTHORITY IN SEC. 19(B) TO ALL THE
COURTS OF APPEAL SUGGESTS THAT THE QUESTION OF WHICH ONE SHOULD
EXERCISE THE POWER IN A PARTICULAR CASE IS A QUESTION OF VENUE.  NONE
OF THE RESPONDENTS OBJECTED AT ANY TIME TO THE VENUE OF THE COURT
BELOW.  THE RIGHT TO HAVE A CASE HEARD IN THE COURT OF PROPER VENUE MAY
BE LOST UNLESS SEASONABLY ASSERTED.  INDUSTRIAL ADDITION ASSN. V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  IT MAY BE WAIVED BY ANY PARTY, INCLUDING THE
GOVERNMENT.  PEORIA & P.U.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 528, 535
536; INDUSTRIAL ADDITION ASSN. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  THE OBJECTION
OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, WHICH CAME AFTER JUDGMENT HAD BEEN RENDERED,
CAME TOO LATE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA CANNERIES, 279 U.S.
553, 556.  HENCE, WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN
THE PROPER CIRCUIT. 

SEGREGATION OF THE REGULATED AND UNREGULATED BUSINESSES.  PANHANDLE
EASTERN MAKES DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES AS WELL AS SALES TO DISTRIBUTING
COMPANIES FOR RESALE.  THE COMMISSION MADE NO SEGREGATION OR SEPARATION
OF THE PROPERTIES USED IN THESE TWO CLASSES OF BUSINESS.  NOR DID IT
MAKE AN ALLOCATION OF COSTS BETWEEN THE REGULATED AND UNREGULATED
PHASES OF THE BUSINESS AS IT DID IN COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, AND COLORADO-WYOMING GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
ANTE, PP. 581, 626.  THE REASONS WHICH THE COMMISSION ADVANCED FOR ITS
FAILURE TO MAKE ANY ALLOCATION ARE SO CRUCIAL TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE
CASE THAT WE QUOTE FROM THE OPINION: 

"UPON THE RECORD BEFORE US, WE CONSIDER IT UNNECESSARY TO MAKE AN
ALLOCATION OF THE RESPONDENTS' BUSINESS AS BETWEEN SALES FOR RESALE AND
DIRECT SALES.  THE DIRECT SALES ARE MADE TO NINETEEN INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS ON AN INTERRUPTIBLE BASIS AND AT PRICES FIXED IN COMPETITION
WITH OTHER FUELS. 

"ACCORDING TO RESPONDENTS' OWN EVIDENCE, NO CAPACITY HAS EVER BEEN
CONSTRUCTED OR PROVIDED IN THEIR GAS PLANT FOR THESE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS.  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT DELIVERIES ARE MADE TO THEM ONLY
WHEN THERE IS AVAILABLE EXCESS OFF-PEAK CAPACITY NOT REQUIRED BY THE
OTHER WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS.  AS EVIDENCE OF THIS FACT, IN 1941 THE
VOLUME OF GAS SOLD TO THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS AMOUNTED TO 13.2
PER CENT OF THE TOTAL SYSTEM SALES, WHEREAS ON THE SYSTEM PEAK DAY OF
THE 1941-1942 WINTER THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES CONSTITUTED ONLY 2.69
PER CENT OF THE TOTAL DELIVERIES, DUE TO INTERRUPTIONS AND CURTAILMENTS
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE NECESSITY FOR MEETING THE WHOLESALE CUSTOMER
REQUIREMENTS. 

"TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENTS' WITNESSES DISCLOSES THAT ONLY $128,848 OF
THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN PLANT (LESS THAN ONE-SIXTH OF ONE PER CENT) IS
USED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE SERVICE OF THE DIRECT INDUSTRIALS.  MOREOVER,
THE RESPONDENTS THEMSELVES TREAT THEIR ENTIRE BUSINESS AS A UNIT AND
MAKE NO SEGREGATION OF COSTS OR PROFITS ON THEIR BOOKS AS BETWEEN THE
TWO CLASSES OF SALES.  INDEED, PANHANDLE EASTERN'S PRESIDENT TESTIFIED
QUITE CLEARLY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO ALLOCATE WOULD
BE 'THEORETICAL,' 'UNREALISTIC,' AND 'NOT PRACTICAL' BECAUSE OF THE
UNIFIED CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS. 

"DELIVERIES TO THE DIRECT INDUSTRIALS ARE MADE ONLY WHEN THE PLANT IS
NOT FULLY USED IN SERVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WHOLESALE BUSINESS,
AND ARE CURTAILED OR INTERRUPTED WHEN THE CAPACITY IS REQUIRED BY THE
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS.  IT IS APPARENT THAT THE INCIDENTAL DIRECT
INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS IS IN REALITY A BY-PRODUCT OF THE WHOLESALE
BUSINESS, COMPARABLE TO THE RESPONDENTS' GASOLINE EXTRACTION BUSINESS. 
ALL PARTIES ARE AGREED THAT THE EXPENSES AND REVENUES IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SALE OF GASOLINE EXTRACTED FROM THE NATURAL GAS SHOULD BE
TREATED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RESPONDENTS' ENTIRE OPERATIONS. 
THUS, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES
ARE PURELY INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN OR PRINCIPAL ENTERPRISE, VIZ.:  THE
WHOLESALE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS."  45 P.U.R. (N.S.)  P. 218. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THESE REASONS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE FAILURE OF
THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A FORMAL ALLOCATION EITHER OF THE PROPERTY OR
THE COSTS BETWEEN THE REGULATED AND UNREGULATED BUSINESS.  IT SAYS THAT
THE DIRECT SALES ARE BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION EVEN
THOUGH THEY ARE COMPARATIVELY SMALL.  IT ASSERTS THAT THE FACT THAT THE
DIRECT SALES ARE ON AN INTERRUPTIBLE BASIS MERELY EMPHASIZES THE
RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH SALES.  IT SAYS THAT NO WAIVER OF THE STATUTORY
RIGHT TO HAVE THE DIRECT SALES FREE FROM REGULATION CAN BE INFERRED AND
THAT IN ANY EVENT THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION CANNOT BE ENLARGED BY
WAIVER.  AND IT CONTENDS THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE DIRECT
INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS IS "IN REALITY A BY-PRODUCT OF THE WHOLESALE
BUSINESS" IS NOT SUPPORTED IN REASON OR IN FACT. 

WE AGREE THAT THE COMMISSION MUST MAKE A SEPARATION OF THE REGULATED
AND UNREGULATED BUSINESS WHEN IT FIXES THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES
OF A COMPANY WHOSE ACTIVITIES EMBRACE BOTH.  OTHERWISE THE PROFITS OR
LOSSES, AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF THE UNREGULATED BUSINESS WOULD BE
ASSIGNED TO THE REGULATED BUSINESS AND THE COMMISSION WOULD TRANSGRESS
THE JURISDICTIONAL LINES WHICH CONGRESS WROTE INTO THE ACT.  FN4  THE
COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THIS NECESSITY.  AS IT STATED IN RE CITIES
SERVICE GAS CO., 50 P.U.R. (N.S.)  65, 89:  "THE COMPANY'S FACILITIES
AND OPERATIONS ARE DEVOTED IN PART TO NATURAL GAS SERVICE WHICH IS NOT
SUBJECT TO OUR JURISDICTION.  THIS SERVICE CONSISTS PRINCIPALLY OF GAS
SALES MADE DIRECTLY TO LARGE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS.  THE NECESSITY
ARISES, THEREFORE, FOR MAKING AN ALLOCATION OF COSTS AS BETWEEN THE
JURISDICTIONAL AND NON-JURISDICTIONAL SALES."  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
A FORMAL ALLOCATION WAS NECESSARY UNDER THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE. 

WE STATE THE QUESTION THAT NARROWLY BECAUSE THE DISPUTE IN THIS CASE
REFLECTS NOT A REJECTION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
ALLOCATION BUT A DISAGREEMENT OVER THE PROPRIETY OF THE PROCEDURE
FOLLOWED HERE. 

WHAT THE COMMISSION DID WAS TO ALLOCATE TO THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE
BUSINESS ALL OF THE EARNINGS FROM THE ENTIRE BUSINESS IN EXCESS OF A 6
1/2 PER CENT RETURN.  INSOFAR AS THAT PROCEDURE ALLOCATED TO THE
INTERSTATE WHOLESALE BUSINESS ANY EARNINGS FROM THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
SALES IN EXCESS OF 6 1/2 PER CENT, IT IS SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE
USE WHICH THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS MADE OF THE MAIN TRANSMISSION
LINE AND ITS FACILITIES.  IF THAT WAS UNFAIR, THE ORDER MUST BE SET
ASIDE.  IF IT WAS FAIR, NO REVERSIBLE ERROR IS SHOWN. 

A WITNESS FOR PETITIONER TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING THAT UNDER
PETITIONER'S ALLOCATION OF COSTS THE UNREGULATED BUSINESS HAS THE USE
OF FACILITIES OF THE COMPANY WITHOUT ANY CHARGE.  HE TESTIFIED THAT
THERE SHOULD BE A CHARGE AGAINST THE UNREGULATED BUSINESS FOR THE USE
OF THAT PROPERTY.  ANOTHER WITNESS FOR PETITIONER STATED THAT THE
COMPANY DID NOT MAKE ANY ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE REGULATED AND
UNREGULATED BUSINESS - "THAT IS, ALLOCATION OF JOINTLY USED ASSETS" -
IN DETERMINING WHAT WOULD BE CHARGED TO THE UNREGULATED SALES.  HE
STATED, "IT MAY BE HERESY TO SAY SO BUT WE TRY TO CHARGE OUR
NONREGULATED CUSTOMERS ALL THE TRAFFIC WILL BEAR."  IT WAS CONCEDED
THAT THE COMPANY ATTEMPTS NO ALLOCATION IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS
BUSINESS.  THE BUSINESS IS OPERATED AS A UNIT.  AND ONE OF PETITIONER'S
OFFICERS TESTIFIED: 

"Q.  THAT IS, ANY ATTEMPT TO ALLOCATE RETURN, AS BETWEEN REGULATED
BUSINESS AND UNREGULATED BUSINESS:  IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT WAS
UNREALISTIC? 

"A.  THAT IS CORRECT  ...  IF YOU ARE GOING TO ALLOCATE IT
THEORETICALLY YOU SHOULD ALLOCATE IT ON THE BASIS OF THE INVESTMENT AND
THE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO EACH PART OF THE BUSINESS. 

"Q.  BUT IT IS THEORETICAL? 

"A.  THAT IS CORRECT. 

"Q.  AND NOT PRACTICAL? 

"A.  THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY." 

PETITIONER PRESENTED EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT IN THE TEST YEAR 91.57 PER
CENT OF ITS TOTAL REVENUES, OR $16,289,045, WAS RECEIVED FROM ITS
WHOLESALE SALES AND 8.43 PER CENT, OR $1,500,527, WAS RECEIVED FROM ITS
DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES.  IT PRESENTED A STUDY SHOWING TOTAL OPERATING
EXPENSES OF ABOUT $7,900,000(NOT INCLUDING FEDERAL INCOME TAXES AND
RETURN) AND ASSIGNING $499,699 TO THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES.  THUS AN
APPARENT PROFIT OF $1,000,828 BEFORE INCOME TAXES WAS SHOWN FOR THE
DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES.  BUT THAT STUDY DID NOT ALLOCATE ANY OF THE
ANNUAL DEPRECIATION EXPENSE OF THE MAIN TRANSMISSION LINE ($2,238,589)
TO THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES.  OF THE $633,270 AD VALOREM TAXES ON
TRANSMISSION LINES, ONLY $1,738 APPLICABLE TO THE LATERALS USED
EXCLUSIVELY FOR DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES WERE ALLOCATED TO THEM.  NONE
OF THE MAIN TRANSMISSION LINE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS WAS
CHARGED TO THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES. 

PETITIONER RECOGNIZED THE UNFAIRNESS OF ATTRIBUTING TO THE DIRECT
INDUSTRIAL SALES ALL OF THE APPARENT PROFIT OF $1,000,828.  ONE OF
PETITIONER'S WITNESS TESTIFIED:    "Q.  IS THERE ANY ENGINEERING BASIS
FOR A DIVISION, FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT? 

"A.  NOT AS AN ENGINEERING MATTER.  I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY BASIS.  AS A
BUSINESS MATTER, I THINK THERE ARE WAYS IN WHICH IT COULD BE FAIRLY
DECIDED.  I THINK IT REQUIRES SOME JUDGMENT BASED UPON BUSINESS
EXPERIENCE TO MAKE A FAIR ALLOCATION OF IT BUT THERE IS A LITTLE OVER A
MILLION DOLLARS, SOME PORTION OF WHICH COULD, IN ALL FAIRNESS, BE SET
ASIDE AS A CHARGE AGAINST OPERATIONS ON THE NON-REGULATED SALES AND A
CREDIT AGAINST OPERATIONS ON THE REGULATED SALES."  HE WENT ON TO
INDICATE WHAT HE THOUGHT A FAIR ALLOCATION WOULD BE:    "A. IT IS MY
OPINION THAT THAT $1,000,828.98 SHOULD BE DIVIDED FIFTY-FIFTY. 

"Q.  WHY? 

"A.  IT IS JUST MY JUDGMENT AS A BUSINESSMAN THAT THAT WOULD BE A
FAIR ALLOCATION OF IT. 

"Q.  YOU MEAN FIFTY-FIFTY AS BETWEEN REGULATED AND NON-REGULATED
BUSINESS? 

"A.  THAT IS CORRECT.  I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FAIR ALLOCATION. 

"Q.  THAT IS A BUSINESS JUDGMENT ESTIMATE, NOT A MATHEMATICAL
ESTIMATE? 

"A.  THAT IS RIGHT.  IN THAT WAY, THIS NON-REGULATED BUSINESS HAS
CONTRIBUTED HALF A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR TOWARDS THE REDUCTION IN COST
OF THE REGULATED BUSINESS AND IF IT DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING, I DO
NOT THINK THERE IS ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR HAVING THE BUSINESS." 

PETITIONER REQUESTED THE COMMISSION TO FIND THAT IT HAD BUILT NO
CAPACITY FOR ITS DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES WHICH WERE "INCREMENTAL" IN
NATURE AND THAT IT WAS REASONABLE TO ALLOCATE "50 PER CENT OF THE NET
EARNINGS FROM NONREGULATED SALES AS A CREDIT TO NET EARNINGS FROM
REGULATED SALES, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE TEMPORARY USE OF SUCH
FACILITIES PROVIDED FOR REGULATED SALES BUT USED FROM TIME TO TIME IN
TRANSPORTING THE GAS FOR DIRECT, INTERRUPTIBLE, NONREGULATED SALES,
WHEN NOT REQUIRED FOR REGULATED SALES."  PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT IT
ALSO REQUESTED THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A SEGREGATION OF THE PROPERTIES
USED IN THE TWO CLASSES OF BUSINESS.  NO SUCH REQUEST, HOWEVER, WAS
INCLUDED IN THE PETITION FOR REHEARING.  AT THAT STAGE THE PETITIONER
MERELY ASSERTED THAT THE COMMISSION ERRED (1) IN TAKING THE PROCEEDS
FROM THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE
AMOUNT OF ITS PROFITS AND IN ORDERING THE RATE REDUCTION; AND (2) IN
FAILING REASONABLY TO ALLOCATE PETITIONER'S EARNINGS BETWEEN REGULATED
SALES AND UNREGULATED SALES.  THAT PRECLUDES AN ATTACK IN THE COURTS ON
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER FOR FAILURE TO MAKE A SEGREGATION OF PROPERTY. 
FOR SEC. 19(B) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "NO OBJECTION TO THE ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT UNLESS SUCH OBJECTION
SHALL HAVE BEEN URGED BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN THE APPLICATION FOR
REHEARING UNLESS THERE IS REASONABLE GROUND FOR FAILURE SO TO DO."  NO
SUCH EXCUSE HAS BEEN TENDERED. 

ON THESE FACTS WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION TRANSGRESSED THE
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT WHEN IT FAILED TO MAKE A FORMAL
ALLOCATION OF COSTS OR OF PROPERTY.  ALL AGREED THAT AN ALLOCATION ON
THE BASIS OF INVESTMENT OR COSTS WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL.  ALL AGREED THAT
SOME DIVISION OF THE APPARENT PROFIT FROM THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
BUSINESS HAD TO BE MADE.  ALL AGREED THAT THE FAIR DIVISION WAS A
MATTER OF JUDGMENT, NOT MATHEMATICS.  IN VIEW OF THOSE CONCESSIONS BY
PETITIONER, THE MANNER IN WHICH IT CONDUCTED ITS BUSINESS, ITS FAILURE
TO INSIST ON A SEGREGATION OF PROPERTY IN ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING,
AND ITS OWN FAILURE TO KEEP ACCOUNTS WHICH REFLECTED A SEGREGATION OF
THE PROPERTIES OR AN ALLOCATION OF COSTS AMONG THE TWO CLASSES OF
BUSINESS, WE DO NOT THINK IT CAN NOW BE ASSERTED THAT THE COMMISSION
ERRED IN FORSAKING A FORMULA AND USING ITS INFORMED JUDGMENT INSTEAD. 

WE DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT SUCH CONCESSIONS WOULD WARRANT A
DEPARTURE OF THE COMMISSION FROM THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF REGULATION. 
THE ISSUE IS A MUCH NARROWER ONE.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO
FIX INDUSTRIAL RATES.  THE COMMISSION, AS WAS ITS DUTY, MERELY
DETERMINED WHAT EARNINGS WERE PROPERLY ALLOCABLE TO THE UNREGULATED
BUSINESS.  PETITIONER DISAGREES WITH THE RESULT.  THE USE OF A FORMULA
FOR AN ALLOCATION OF COSTS OR A SEGREGATION OF PROPERTY MIGHT OR MIGHT
NOT HAVE BEEN MORE FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER.  BUT ONCE THE USE OF SUCH A
FORMULA IS WAIVED OR IS CONCEDED TO BE IMPRACTICAL OR THEORETICAL,
THERE MUST BE SOME DISCRETION IN THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THAT
DETERMINATION THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF ITS INFORMED JUDGMENT.  WE CANNOT
SAY THAT THE COMMISSION ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY CONCLUDING ON THE
BASIS OF THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENTED THAT EARNINGS OF THE
ENTIRE BUSINESS IN EXCESS OF A 6 1/2 PER CENT RETURN SHOULD BE
ALLOCATED TO THE INTERSTATE WHOLESALE BUSINESS.  THE SMALL INVESTMENT
IN THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS, THE INCREMENTAL NATURE OF IT, THE
EXTENT OF THE INTERRUPTIONS IN SERVICE TO THE DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOMERS, THE MANNER IN WHICH THE MANAGEMENT HAS TREATED IT AFFORD A
BASIS FOR THE REFUSAL OF THE COMMISSION TO CREDIT IT WITH A LARGER
SHARE OF THE EARNINGS THAN 6 1/2 PER CENT. 

THE COMMISSION, WHILE IT LACKS AUTHORITY TO FIX RATES FOR DIRECT
INDUSTRIAL SALES, MAY TAKE THOSE RATES INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN IT FIXES
THE RATES FOR INTERSTATE WHOLESALE SALES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO ITS
JURISDICTION.  FOR SEC. 5(A) PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER THE COMMISSION
"SHALL FIND THAT ANY RATE, CHARGE, OR CLASSIFICATION DEMANDED,
OBSERVED, CHARGED, OR COLLECTED BY ANY NATURAL-GAS COMPANY IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS, SUBJECT TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, OR THAT ANY RULE, REGULATION,
PRACTICE, OR CONTRACT AFFECTING SUCH RATE, CHARGE, OR CLASSIFICATION IS
UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY, OR PREFERENTIAL, THE
COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATE."  IT IS CLEAR
THAT CONTRACTS COVERING DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES COME WITHIN THAT
ITALICIZED CLAUSE OF SEC. 5(A).  FN5  THE INDUSTRIAL RATES IN FORCE
HERE PRODUCE REVENUES OF $1,500,527 WITH EXPENSES OF $499,699 WHICH,
ACCORDING TO PETITIONER, RESULT IN EARNINGS OF $1,000,828 BEFORE INCOME
TAXES.  THAT IS AN APPARENT PROFIT OF MORE THAN 200 PER CENT.  IT IS A
FAIRLY OBVIOUS INDICATION THAT THE REGULATED BUSINESS IS BEING SADDLED
WITH COSTS WHICH IN FAIRNESS SHOULD BE BORNE BY DIRECT INDUSTRIAL
SALES.  THAT IS AN EXTREMELY RELEVANT CONSIDERATION FOR THE COMMISSION
TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN IT DETERMINES WHAT COSTS ARE FAIRLY
ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH BUSINESS AND WHAT THE RESULTANT RATE FOR THE
WHOLESALE BUSINESS SHOULD BE.  SEC. 5(A) DOES NOT OF COURSE GIVE THE
COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO DISREGARD THE JURISDICTIONAL LINES WHICH
CONGRESS HAS DRAWN BETWEEN INTERSTATE WHOLESALE SALES AND DIRECT
INDUSTRIAL SALES SO AS TO LEVEL THE PROFITS BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES OF
BUSINESS.  BUT SEC. 5(A) REINFORCES OUR CONCLUSION THAT IN THE
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE COMMISSION DID NOT EXCEED
THE LIMITS OF ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT ALLOCATED TO THE REGULATED
BUSINESS ALL EXCESS EARNINGS OF THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OVER 6 1/2 PER
CENT. 

PRODUCING AND GATHERING FACILITIES.  THE COMMISSION CONSTRUCTED A
RATE BASE ON THE ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY IN
SERVICE ON DECEMBER 31, 1941, WHICH IT FOUND TO BE $78,814,292.  IT
DEDUCTED $12,596,987 FOR ACCRUED DEPRECIATION, DEPLETION AND
AMORTIZATION.  IT ADDED $920,000 FOR WORKING CAPITAL.  THE RESULT WAS A
RATE BASE OF $67,137,305 ON WHICH THE COMMISSION ALLOWED A RETURN OF 6
1/2 PER CENT WHICH IT FOUND TO BE "FAIR AND LIBERAL."  IT INCLUDED IN
THE RATE BASE PETITIONER'S PRODUCING PROPERTIES  FN6  AND GATHERING
FACILITIES.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT WAS ERROR.  IT CONTENDS THAT IT WAS
INCUMBENT ON THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE FIELD PRICE OR ACTUAL
FIELD VALUE OF NATURAL GAS IN THE AREAS IN WHICH PETITIONER PRODUCES
GAS, TO ELIMINATE PETITIONER'S LEASEHOLDS AND PRODUCING AND GATHERING
FACILITIES FROM THE RATE BASE, TO DISALLOW EXPENSES OF GATHERING AND
PRODUCTION, AND TO ALLOW PETITIONER AS AN EXPENSE ITEM THE FIELD PRICE
OR ACTUAL FIELD VALUE FOR ALL GAS PRODUCED BY IT AND TAKEN INTO THE
PIPELINE SYSTEM.  EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO SHOW WHAT THE MARKET PRICE OR
ACTUAL FIELD VALUE OF THE GAS WAS.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PROCEDURE
FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSION EXTENDS ITS JURISDICTION OVER "THE
PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS" CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF SEC.
1(B).  FN7  PETITIONER SUGGESTS MOREOVER THAT IF ITS LEASEHOLDS ARE TO
BE INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE THEY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED AT COST BUT AT
WHAT PETITIONER CLAIMS TO BE THE MARKET VALUE.  FN8 

THIS PHASE OF THE CASE IS CONTROLLED BY CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, SUPRA.  WE NEED NOT REPEAT WHAT WE SAID
THERE.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE VALUE OF PRODUCING PROPERTIES AND
GATHERING FACILITIES IS AFFECTED WHENEVER RATES ARE FIXED.  THAT IS
INEVITABLY TRUE WHETHER THE LEASEHOLDS ARE PUT INTO THE RATE BASE OR
WHETHER AS PETITIONER URGES THE GAS IS VALUED AS A COMMODITY.  THAT
RESULT IS NOT AVOIDED UNLESS CONGRESS PUTS A FLOOR UNDER PRODUCTION
PROPERTIES AND GATHERING FACILITIES OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES AND FIXES
A MINIMUM RETURN ON THEM.  THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE.  AS JUDGE
SANBORN APTLY STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS:
"IF THERE IS AN INFIRMITY IN THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF THE
AMOUNT WHICH SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE AS THE COST OR VALUE
OF SUCH FACILITIES, WE THINK THE INFIRMITY ARISES FROM THE METHOD USED
IN MAKING THE VALUATION, AND NOT FROM ANY LACK OF JURISDICTION."  143
F.2D 495.  PETITIONER, MOREOVER, FAILED TO OBJECT IN ITS APPLICATION
FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO THE INCLUSION OF ITS PRODUCING
PROPERTIES AND GATHERING FACILITIES IN THE RATE BASE.  IT IS
ACCORDINGLY PRECLUDED BY SEC. 19(B) OF THE ACT FROM ATTACKING THE ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, HOLDS
THAT THE COMMISSION IS NOT BOUND TO USE ANY SINGLE FORMULA FOR THE
FIXING OF RATES.  IT IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM USING ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST
AS IT DID HERE.  THE QUESTION ON REVIEW IS NOT THE METHOD OF VALUATION
WHICH WAS USED BUT THE END RESULT OBTAINED SINCE THE ISSUE IS WHETHER
THE RATE FIXED IS "JUST AND REASONABLE."  SEC. 5.  IN THE PRESENT CASE
THE 6 1/2 PER CENT RETURN ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION WILL PERMIT
PETITIONER TO EARN $4,363,925 ANNUALLY ON THE BASIS OF THE TEST YEAR
AFTER MEETING ALL OPERATING EXPENSES WHICH INCLUDE DEPRECIATION,
EXPLORATORY AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS, AND FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.  THE COST
OF SERVICING PETITIONER'S LONG-TERM DEBT IS $957,786 OR 2.88 PER CENT.
THE COST OF MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PREFERRED STOCK IS $939,000
OR 5.8 PER CENT.  THAT LEAVES $2,467,139 FOR $20,184,175 OF COMMON
STOCK - A RETURN OF 12 PER CENT.  THE RETURN WOULD BE 9 PER CENT
FIGURED ON THE BASIS OF COMMON STOCK AND SURPLUS OF $27,650,000.  WE
ARE UNABLE TO SAY ON THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE RETURN IS NOT
COMMENSURATE WITH THE RISKS, THAT CONFIDENCE IN PETITIONER'S FINANCIAL
INTEGRITY HAS BEEN IMPAIRED, OR THAT PETITIONER'S ABILITY TO ATTRACT
CAPITAL, TO MAINTAIN ITS CREDIT, AND TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY AND
EFFICIENTLY HAS BEEN IMPEDED.  FN9  SEE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V.
HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., SUPRA, P. 603.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE OTHER PETITIONERS, ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. AND MICHIGAN GAS
TRANSMISSION CORP., WERE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF PANHANDLE
EASTERN.  THEY SOLD ALL OF THEIR PROPERTIES TO PANHANDLE EASTERN AFTER
THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED AND WERE THEN DISSOLVED. 
ACCORDINGLY, WE WILL REFER THROUGHOUT TO THE THREE COMPANIES AS
"PETITIONER." 

FN2  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE AGGREGATE LINES IN THIS SYSTEM
CONSTITUTE "THE LONGEST NATURAL-GAS PIPE LINE IN THE WORLD, SERVING
MORE THAN 200 CITIES, TOWNS, AND COMMUNITIES WITH MORE THAN 700,000
RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN TEXAS, KANSAS, MISSOURI, ILLINOIS, INDIANA,
MICHIGAN, AND OHIO."  45 P.U.R. (N.S.)  203, 208. 

FN3  THE INVESTIGATION ALSO INCLUDED ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. AND
MICHIGAN GAS TRANSMISSION CORP.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN4  SEC. 1(B) PROVIDES: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURALGAS COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY
OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH
DISTRIBUTION OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS." 

FN5  THERE MUST BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION NOT ONLY SCHEDULES OF
RATES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION BUT "THE
CLASSIFICATIONS, PRACTICES, AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING SUCH RATES AND
CHARGES, TOGETHER WITH ALL CONTRACTS WHICH IN ANY MANNER AFFECT OR
RELATE TO SUCH RATES, CHARGES, CLASSIFICATIONS, AND SERVICES."  SEC.
4(C).  BY RULE 54.30 THE COMMISSION REQUIRES THE FILING WITH IT OF ALL
CONTRACTS FOR DIRECT INDUSTRIAL SALES INVOLVING SALES IN EXCESS OF
100,000 MCF PER YEAR.  SEE 8 FED. REG. 16101. 

FN6  PETITIONER PRODUCES APPROXIMATELY 50 PER CENT OF THE GAS WHICH
IT TRANSPORTS AND SELLS, THE REMAINDER BEING PURCHASED.  THE PAYMENTS
FOR GAS PURCHASED WERE ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION AS AN OPERATING
EXPENSE. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN8  THE MARKET VALUE IS ALLEGED TO BE ABOUT $8,400,000 AS COMPARED
WITH SOME $955,000 WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND TO BE THE ACTUAL
LEGITIMATE COST. 

FN9  THE COMMISSION STATED ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE: 

"THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSES THAT THE RESPONDENTS' BUSINESS IS
EXCEPTIONALLY FREE FROM SERIOUS BUSINESS HAZARDS.  THE GAS SUPPLY IS
ASSURED FOR AT LEAST THIRTY TO THIRTY-FIVE MORE YEARS.  WE HAVE MADE
AMPLE PROVISION IN THE ANNUAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR THE
RESTORATION OF THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY OVER THE CLAIMED
LIFE OF THE GAS SUPPLY.  THE RESPONDENTS' MARKETS ARE RAPIDLY EXPANDING
AND EMBRACE THE LARGE METROPOLITAN AREA OF DETROIT, WHICH ALONE TAKES
40 PER CENT OF THE ENTIRE OUTPUT UNDER A LONG-TERM CONTRACT.  PANHANDLE
EASTERN'S PRESIDENT TESTIFIED THAT THE DEMAND FOR SERVICE IS SO GREAT
THAT WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR THE RESPONDENTS WILL BE CALLED UPON TO SELL
EVERY CUBIC FOOT OF GAS THAT CAN POSSIBLY BE DELIVERED THROUGH THE
LINES, AND THAT THE CAPACITY FACTOR WILL INCREASE FROM 70 PER CENT TO
90 PER CENT.    "IT IS LIKEWISE APPARENT FROM RESPONDENTS' OWN EVIDENCE
THAT PANHANDLE EASTERN HAS BEEN ABLE TO RAISE CONSIDERABLE CAPITAL AT
LOW COST.  ONLY RECENTLY IT SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED A FINANCING PROGRAM
AT REMARKABLY LOW RATES WHICH RESULTED IN A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN
ITS ANNUAL COST OF CAPITAL.  IN FEBRUARY, 1941, PANHANDLE EASTERN SOLD
$18,250,000 OF FIRST MORTGAGE AND FIRST LIEN BONDS AND $5,000,000 OF
SERIAL NOTES AT AN AVERAGE ANNUAL INTEREST COST OF 2.74 PER CENT.  IN
FEBRUARY, 1942, IT SOLD AN ADDITIONAL $10,000,000 OF FIRST MORTGAGE
BONDS AT AN INTEREST COST OF 3.13 PER CENT AND $15,000,000 OF PREFERRED
STOCK AT A COST OF 5.86 PER CENT.  AFTER THE FINANCING, PANHANDLE
EASTERN'S ANNUAL COST OF LONG-TERM DEBT WAS 2.88 PER CENT AND PREFERRED
STOCK WAS 5.87 PER CENT, A COMBINED ANNUAL COST OF ONLY 3.85 PER CENT
FOR THESE SECURITIES. 

"PANHANDLE EASTERN HAS EARNED AN AVERAGE OF 10.64 PER CENT ON ITS NET
INVESTMENT OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, AND MICHIGAN GAS AN AVERAGE OF 8.5
PER CENT DURING APPROXIMATELY THE SAME PERIOD."  45 P.U.R. (N.S.)  P.
215. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND I
CONCUR FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS ONLY. 

PETITIONERS DID NOT RAISE OBJECTIONS IN THEIR APPLICATION FOR
REHEARING TO THE COMMISSION TO THE INCLUSION OF THEIR PRODUCING AND
GATHERING FACILITIES IN THE RATE BASE.  BY SEC. 19(B) OF THE NATURAL
GAS ACT "NO OBJECTION TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT UNLESS SUCH OBJECTION SHALL HAVE BEEN URGED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN THE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING UNLESS THERE IS
REASONABLE GROUND FOR FAILURE SO TO DO."  NO REASON APPEARS FOR THE
FAILURE OF PETITIONERS HERE TO MAKE OBJECTION ON REHEARING TO THE
INCLUSION OF THE PRODUCTION AND GATHERING FACILITIES IN THE RATE BASE. 

..END :





SPECIAL EQUIPMENT CO. V. COE, 324 U.S. 370 


NO. 469.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 5, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945.  - 144
F.2D 497, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT IN EQUITY UNDER R.S. SEC. 4915 TO COMPEL THE
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS TO ISSUE A PATENT UPON AN APPLICATION FOR A
SUBCOMBINATION OF THE ELEMENTS OF A MACHINE, ASSUMED TO BE A USEFUL
INVENTION, FOR WHICH THE CLAIMANT HAD PREVIOUSLY FILED A PATENT
APPLICATION, THE RECORD FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CLAIMANT INTENDED
TO MISUSE THE PATENT ON THE SUBCOMBINATION OR TO MAKE NO USE OF THE
ALLEGED INVENTION, AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW REFUSING ON THAT
GROUND TO ORDER ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT WAS THEREFORE ERRONEOUS.  PP.
374, 380. 

2.  A SUBCOMBINATION PATENT MAY LEGITIMATELY BE USED AS A MEANS OF
PREVENTING APPROPRIATION BY OTHERS OF A COMBINATION INVENTION WHICH THE
CLAIMANT IS USING, WHERE THERE IS ABSENT ANY PURPOSE TO ENLARGE THE
PATENT MONOPOLY OF EITHER INVENTION.  P. 376. 

A PATENT ON A COMBINATION EMBODIED IN AN INVENTOR'S COMPLETE MACHINE,
WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF SUBCOMBINATION CLAIMS, WOULD NOT PREVENT FREE USE
OF THE SUBCOMBINATION.  HENCE DENIAL OF A PATENT ON THE SUBCOMBINATION
WOULD DEPRIVE THE INVENTOR OF THE BENEFIT OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE
THE SUBCOMBINATION IN THE WAYS SPECIFIED BY THE PATENT LAWS.  IT WOULD
ALSO LEAVE THE PUBLIC FREE TO USE, AND THUS TO APPROPRIATE A PART,
HOWEVER IMPORTANT, OF THE INVENTOR'S COMPLETE MACHINE, EVEN THOUGH
PATENTED. 

3.  THE STATUTES PERMIT, AND IT IS THE SETTLED PRACTICE OF THE PATENT
OFFICE TO ALLOW, SUBCOMBINATION AS WELL AS COMBINATION CLAIMS.  P.
377. 

4.  THE PATENT GRANT IS NOT OF A RIGHT TO THE PATENTEE TO USE THE
INVENTION, BUT OF THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM USING IT.  P. 378. 

5.  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, LENDS NO
SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTION THAT A PATENTEE MAY NOT USE HIS PATENT AS A
PROTECTION AGAINST MISAPPROPRIATION OF HIS INVENTION, EVEN THOUGH THE
INVENTION IS NOT USED.  P. 379. 

6.  PETITIONER'S INTENDED USE OF THE SUBCOMBINATION PATENT TO PREVENT
OTHERS FROM APPROPRIATING THE ALLEGED INVENTION AND BY THAT MEANS FROM
APPROPRIATING AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE COMPLETE MACHINE IS IN NO WAY
INCONSISTENT WITH PETITIONER'S MAKING OTHER PERMISSIBLE USES OF THE
SUBCOMBINATION PATENT.  P. 379. 

SPECIAL EQUIPMENT CO. V. COE, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 697, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT UNDER R.S. SEC. 4915 TO COMPEL THE
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS TO ISSUE A PATENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT IN EQUITY, BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNDER R.S. SEC. 4915, TO COMPEL RESPONDENT, THE
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, TO ISSUE A PATENT UPON AN APPLICATION FOR A
SUBCOMBINATION OF THE ELEMENTS OF A MACHINE FOR WHICH THE INVENTOR HAD
PREVIOUSLY FILED A PATENT APPLICATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
AFFIRMED, 144 F.2D 497, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 697.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY RESTED ITS DECISION
UPON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER DID NOT INTEND TO MAKE OR USE THE
INVENTION AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING THE PATENT WAS TO EXPLOIT AND
PROTECT THE COMBINATION INVENTION EMBODIED IN THE COMPLETE MACHINE, OF
WHICH THE SUBCOMBINATION IS A PART. 

EWALD, THE PLAINTIFF IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN WHOSE STEAD PETITIONER,
HIS ASSIGNEE, WAS LATER SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY, MADE APPLICATION FOR A
PATENT ON A "FRUIT-TREATING APPARATUS" EMBRACING THE COMBINATION
EMBODIED IN HIS COMPLETE MACHINE.  CERTAIN CLAIMS OF HIS APPLICATION
WERE ALLOWED OCTOBER 27, 1938, BUT A PATENT HAS NOT YET ISSUED.  THE
FOLLOWING YEAR HE MADE A RENEWED APPLICATION FOR THE SUBCOMBINATION,
WITH WHICH THE PRESENT SUIT IS CONCERNED.  THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION DISCLOSED MECHANISMS FOR AUTOMATICALLY PERFORMING
THE SUCCESSIVE OPERATIONS OF BOBBING (CUTTING OFF THE STEMS),
SPLITTING, PARING, AND CORING PEARS, IN PREPARATION FOR CANNING OR
OTHER PROCESSING. 

THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION SPECIFIED AND CLAIMED AN APPARATUS
CONSISTING OF TWO SPACED, HORIZONTALLY MOUNTED TURRETS OR TURNTABLES,
COMBINED WITH MEANS FOR CONTINUOUSLY, BUT INTERMITTENTLY, ROTATING BOTH
IN THE SAME DIRECTION.  FIXED UPON AND ROTATABLE WITH THE TABLE OF THE
FIRST TURRET ARE A PLURALITY OF PEAR RECEIVING AND CLAMPING MEANS,
SPACED UPON THE UPPER SURFACE OF THE TURNTABLE, ADAPTED TO RECEIVE AND
CLAMP EITHER A PRE-SPLIT OR A WHOLE PEAR.  AT THE FIRST INTERMITTENT
STOP A SWINGING KNIFE SHEARS OFF (BOBS) THE STEM OF THE FRUIT, WHICH
EXTENDS BEYOND THE CLAMPS.  AT THE NEXT INTERMITTENT STOP, OVERHEAD
TRAVELING JAWS OR CLAMPS GRASP THE FRUIT CONCURRENTLY WITH ITS RELEASE
FROM THE FIRST CLAMP AND CARRY THE FRUIT LONGITUDINALLY TO A POINT OVER
THE SECOND TURNTABLE. 

AS THE PEAR IS THUS CARRIED FROM THE FIRST TURRET TO A POSITION OVER
THE SECOND, IT IS SPLIT BY A FIXED VERTICALLY POSITIONED KNIFE
STRADDLED BY THE OVERHEAD TRAVELING CLAMPS.  AS THE CLAMPS FORCE THE
PEAR AGAINST AND PAST THE KNIFE, IT CLEAVES THE PEAR INTO SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUAL HALF SECTIONS.  THE PEAR SECTIONS ARE THEN AUTOMATICALLY,
SUCCESSIVELY DEPOSITED IN SPACED CUPS FIXED ON THE SECOND REVOLVING
TURNTABLE.  AT THE NEXT STOP OF THAT TURNTABLE THE PEAR SECTION RESTING
IN ITS CUP IS PEELED BY AN AUTOMATICALLY OPERATED PARING KNIFE.  AT THE
NEXT SUCCESSIVE STOP THE CORE IS REMOVED FROM THE PEAR SECTION BY AN
AUTOMATICALLY OPERATED CORING DEVICE.  AFTER COMPLETING THE CORING, THE
MECHANISM AUTOMATICALLY SEPARATES THE PEAR SECTION FROM THE CORE AND
THE PEELING AND DISCHARGES THEM AND THE PEAR SECTION INTO APPROPRIATE
RECEPTACLES. 

IN THE OPERATION OF THE MACHINE WHOLE OR SPLIT PEARS MAY BE FED BY
HAND TO THE HOLDING AND CLAMPING DEVICES ON THE FIRST TURRET WHERE THE
PEARS ARE BOBBED.  THE WHOLE PEAR IS THEN SPLIT AS IT IS CARRIED BY THE
OVERHANGING JAWS FROM THE FIRST TURRET TO THE SECOND.  THE PEELING AND
CORING OF BOTH PRE-SPLIT AND WHOLE PEARS ARE THEN CARRIED THROUGH BY
THE OPERATION OF THE SECOND TURRET. 

THE PATENT APPLICATION FOR THE COMPLETE MACHINE DISCLOSES A HIGHLY
INGENIOUS DEVICE, WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE ACHIEVED A GREAT ADVANCE IN THE
ART BY INCREASING THE SPEED AND SKILL WITH WHICH PEARS ARE PREPARED FOR
CANNING, AND TO RESULT IN A GREAT SAVING OF MANPOWER.  THE RENEWED
APPLICATION FOR THE SUBCOMBINATION SPECIFIES AND CLAIMS THE APPARATUS
WHICH WE HAVE DESCRIBED BUT WITHOUT THE SPLITTING KNIFE.  IN THE
OPERATION OF THE DEVICE THUS CLAIMED THE PEARS ARE PRE-SPLIT BY HAND. 
THE SPLIT SECTIONS ARE PLACED FACE TO FACE IN THE RECEIVING AND
CLAMPING MEANS UPON THE FIRST TURNTABLE, AFTER WHICH THE OPERATION,
EXCEPT THE SPLITTING BY THE SPLITTING KNIFE, PROCEEDS IN EXACTLY THE
SAME WAY AND ACCOMPLISHES THE SAME RESULT AS WHEN THE SPLITTING KNIFE
IS PRESENT. 

ADDITIONAL CLAIMS, WHICH ARE THOSE SUED ON, COVERING ALL THE ELEMENTS
OF THE COMBINATION EXCEPT THE SPLITTING KNIFE, WERE DULY PRESENTED TO
THE PATENT OFFICE.  THERE THEY WERE REJECTED AS INCOMPLETE, BROADER
THAN THE INVENTION DISCLOSED BY THE PETITIONER IN HIS APPLICATION, AND
MISLEADING, AND AS COVERING CONSTRUCTIONS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION.  RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER, ALLEGING NO PRIOR
ART AGAINST THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIMS, SET UP THESE OBJECTIONS IN HIS
ANSWER IN THE DISTRICT COURT AS THE SOLE GROUNDS OF DEFENSE TO THE
SUIT.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER ON THE GROUNDS
ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR REJECTION OF THE CLAIMS, AND FOR THE FURTHER REASON
THAT THE SUBCOMBINATION CLAIMS DID NOT "COMBINE TO PRODUCE ANY USEFUL
RESULT." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, AFTER OBSERVING THE OPERATION OF PETITIONER'S
SUBCOMBINATION WITHOUT THE CUTTING KNIFE, AS SHOWN BY MOVING PICTURES,
CONCLUDED THAT THE DEVICE WAS FAR MORE USEFUL IN ITS OPERATION THAN THE
OLD METHOD OF PREPARING FRUIT BY HAND, AND, WITHOUT DECIDING THE POINT,
ADDED THAT IT WAS PLAUSIBLE TO SAY "THAT TWO DISTINCT INVENTIONS ARE
DISCLOSED IN THE APPLICATION." 

WITHOUT FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS, IT
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE NEW AND
INDEPENDENT GROUND THAT A PATENT ON THE SUBCOMBINATION SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF "THE DANGERS OF APPROVING A PRINCIPLE WHICH PERMITS
A PATENT MONOPOLY TO BE EXTENDED BY GRANTING CLAIMS ON DISTINCT
INVENTIONS, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS NO INTENTION OF EXPLOITING AS
DISTINCT INVENTIONS."  IT SAID:  "THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IT (THE
SUBCOMBINATION PATENT) IS TO BE USED TO EXPLOIT AND PROTECT THE PATENT
MONOPOLY OF ANOTHER RELATED INVENTION, TO-WIT:  THE COMPLETE MACHINE. 
THERE IS NO INTENTION TO MAKE OR LICENSE OTHERS TO MAKE THE PARTIAL
MACHINE BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE TO USE IT WITHOUT THE CUTTING
KNIFE, IT IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SUCH INDEPENDENT USE."  IT THOUGHT THAT
THE GRANT OF A PATENT WHICH THE PATENTEE HAS NO INTENTION OF EXPLOITING
AS A DISTINCT INVENTION "FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLOCKING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
MACHINES WHICH MIGHT BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS," IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE PATENT GRANT MUST "PROMOTE THE
PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS." 

WE ARE POINTED TO NO FACTUAL BASIS IN THE RECORD FOR THE ASSERTION
THAT PETITIONER CONTEMPLATES EITHER THE MISUSE OR NON-USE OF THE
COMBINATION PATENT, OTHER THAN THAT SUGGESTED IN THE COURT'S OPINION
THAT THE COMPLETE MACHINE DOES THE WORK BETTER THAN THE SUBCOMBINATION,
WITHOUT THE KNIFE, CAN DO IT AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO
MANUFACTURE THE PARTIAL MACHINE WHEN THE COMPLETE MACHINE WAS
AVAILABLE.  A SEPARATE OPINION IN WHICH ALL THE JUDGES CONCURRED ALSO
STATES THAT PETITIONER "ADMITTED, BOTH ON ARGUMENT AND IN ITS BRIEF IN
THE PRESENT CASE, THAT ITS PURPOSE IN FILING THE DISPUTED CLAIMS WAS TO
'PROTECT' THE MAIN INVENTION AND THAT IT HAD NO INTENTION OF
MANUFACTURING THE SUBCOMBINATION MACHINE."  THE REFERENCE, AS AGREED BY
COUNSEL ON THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US, IS TO A STATEMENT IN PETITIONER'S
BRIEF IN THE COURT BELOW THAT:  "THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE ARE SOUGHT PURELY
TO PREVENT APPROPRIATION OF THE  ...  MACHINE BY THE OBVIOUS EXPEDIENT
OF ELIMINATING THE SPLITTING MECHANISM."  IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THIS
STATEMENT OF PETITIONER IS NOT OF A PURPOSE EITHER TO SUPPRESS THE USE
OF THE PATENTED INVENTION OR TO USE IT OR THE PATENT TO EXPLOIT OR
ENLARGE THE PATENT MONOPOLY OF THE COMPLETE MACHINE. 

THE COURT BELOW FOUND SUPPORT FOR ITS CONCLUSION IN OUR DECISIONS
HOLDING THAT A PATENTEE MAY NOT ENLARGE THE MONOPOLY OF HIS PATENT BY
LICENSING HIS INVENTION ON TERMS OR CONDITIONS WHICH TIE TO ITS USE THE
USE OF MATERIAL OR DEVICES WHICH THE LICENSED INVENTION DOES NOT
EMBRACE, WHETHER THEY ARE PATENTED, ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 459; STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
226 U.S. 20, OR UNPATENTED, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL
FILM MFG. CO., 243 U.S. 502; UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 258 U.S. 451; CARBICE CORPORATION V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP.,
283 U.S. 27; LEITCH MANUFACTURING CO. V. BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT NO SUCH CASE IS PRESENTED HERE.  WE FIND NOTHING IN
THE STATEMENT QUOTED FROM PETITIONER'S BRIEF IN THE COURT BELOW OR IN
THE RECORD TO INDICATE THAT PETITIONER PROPOSES TO MAKE ANY SUCH USE OF
THE PATENT WHICH IT NOW SEEKS, EITHER BY THE METHOD OF LICENSING IT OR
OTHERWISE.  THE STATEMENT EXPRESSES ONLY A PURPOSE TO PREVENT
APPROPRIATION OF THE COMPLETE MACHINE BY THE APPROPRIATION OF A PART OF
IT EMBODIED IN THE SUBCOMBINATION FOR WHICH THE PATENT IS ASKED.  THERE
IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST ANY PURPOSE OR REASON FOR A PURPOSE TO ENLARGE
THE MONOPOLY EITHER OF THE SUBCOMBINATION OR OF THE COMPLETE MACHINE BY
TYING TOGETHER THEIR USES.  CONTROL OF A PART COULD NOT BE USED AS A
MEANS OF ENLARGING AN ALREADY ACQUIRED CONTROL OF THE WHOLE.  AND,
OBVIOUSLY, LICENSING THE SUBCOMBINATION, WHICH IS LESS USEFUL THAN THE
WHOLE, WOULD NOT, IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD, BE A
PRACTICAL MEANS OF ENLARGING THE USE OF THE WHOLE.  FAILURE TO ACQUIRE
CONTROL OF THE WHOLE WOULD BE A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR WISHING TO
ACQUIRE AND RETAIN CONTROL OF A PART, IF IT INVOLVES A PATENTABLE
INVENTION.  AND WE THINK IT PLAINLY IS LEGITIMATE TO USE A PATENT ON
THE SUBCOMBINATION AS A MEANS OF PREVENTING APPROPRIATION BY OTHERS OF
PETITIONER'S MORE IMPORTANT COMPLETE INVENTION WHICH HE IS USING, WHERE
THERE IS ABSENT, AS THERE IS HERE, ANY PURPOSE TO ENLARGE THE MONOPOLY
OF EITHER INVENTION. 

A PATENT ON THE COMBINATION EMBODIED IN THE COMPLETE MACHINE, WITHOUT
THE ALLOWANCE OF THE SUBCOMBINATION CLAIMS, WOULD NOT, AS THE COURT
BELOW THOUGHT, PREVENT THE FREE USE OF THE SUBCOMBINATION.  CORN
PLANTER PATENT, 23 WALL.  181, 224; SCHUMACHER V. CORNELL, 96 U.S. 549,
554; ROWELL V. LINDSAY, 113 U.S. 97, 101; MERCOID CORP. V. MID
CONTINENT CO., 320 U.S. 661, 668.  HENCE DENIAL OF A PATENT ON THE
SUBCOMBINATION WOULD DEPRIVE THE INVENTOR OF THE BENEFIT OF THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE THE SUBCOMBINATION IN THE WAYS SPECIFIED BY THE
PATENT LAWS.  IT WOULD ALSO LEAVE THE PUBLIC FREE TO USE, AND THUS TO
APPROPRIATE A PART, HOWEVER IMPORTANT, OF THE INVENTOR'S COMPLETE
MACHINE, EVEN THOUGH PATENTED. 

IF, AS WE MUST ASSUME, PETITIONER HAS TWO INVENTIONS, BOTH OF WHICH
ARE USEFUL AND ONE OF WHICH INCLUDES THE OTHER IN ITS ENTIRETY, IT IS
EVIDENT THAT THE VALUE OF THE FORMER WOULD BE GREATLY IMPAIRED IF THE
SUBCOMBINATION INVENTION COULD BE FREELY USED BY OTHERS.  SEE DEERING
V. WINONA HARVESTER WORKS, 155 U.S. 286, 302.  BUT SUCH APPROPRIATION
OR IMPAIRMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE FULL COMBINATION COULD BE ACHIEVED
ONLY BY APPROPRIATION OF THE UNPATENTED SUBCOMBINATION WHICH IS BY
HYPOTHESIS ALSO A USEFUL INVENTION, ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT AND
PROTECTION OF THE PATENT LAWS. 

THE STATUTES PERMIT, AND IT IS THE SETTLED PRACTICE OF THE PATENT
OFFICE, MANY TIMES SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT, TO ALLOW, CLAIMS TO A
COMBINATION AND ALSO ITS SUBCOMBINATIONS.  PHILADELPHIA, W. & B.R. CO.
V. DUBOIS, 12 WALL.  47, 60; DEERING V. WINONA HARVESTER WORKS, SUPRA;
LEEDS & CATLIN CO. V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO., 213 U.S. 301, 318;
ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477, 487; MERCOID CORP.
V. MID-CONTINENT CO., SUPRA, 667.  THE QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER,
WITHOUT MORE, THE USE OF THE SUBCOMBINATION PATENT TO PREVENT
APPROPRIATION OF THE COMPLETE MACHINE SO INFRINGES ANY PROVISIONS OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE PATENT LAWS, OR IS SO CONTRARY TO PRINCIPLES
GOVERNING THE AWARD OF EQUITABLE RELIEF, AS TO PERMIT THE COURT TO
REFUSE THE JUDGMENT, WHICH THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES, DIRECTING THAT THE
PATENT ISSUE. 

IN ANSWERING IT THE COURT BELOW ASSUMED THAT SUCH PURPOSE TO PROTECT
THE WHOLE INVENTION WAS TO BE ACHIEVED BY COMPLETE SUPPRESSION OF THE
USE OF THE SUBCOMBINATION INVENTION AND THAT THE SUPPRESSION FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE COMPLETE MACHINE WOULD INVALIDATE THE PATENT BECAUSE
IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE AND TO THE SPIRIT IF
NOT THE LETTER OF THE PATENT LAWS.  WE THINK BOTH ASSUMPTIONS ARE
UNWARRANTED.  SECTION 4886 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AUTHORIZED "ANY
PERSON WHO HAS INVENTED  ...  ANY NEW AND USEFUL  ...  MACHINE" TO
"OBTAIN A PATENT."  THE PATENT GRANT IS NOT OF A RIGHT TO THE PATENTEE
TO USE THE INVENTION, FOR THAT HE ALREADY POSSESSES.  IT IS A GRANT OF
THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM USING IT.  AS THE STATUTE, R.S. SEC.
4884, PROVIDES, THE GRANT IS OF THE "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE, AND
VEND" THE INVENTION, AND THIS INCLUDES THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO LICENSE
OTHERS TO MAKE, USE AND VEND IT.  BY THE VERY TERMS OF THE STATUTE THE
GRANT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MEANS OF PREVENTING OTHERS, EXCEPT UNDER
LICENSE FROM THE PATENTEE, FROM APPROPRIATING HIS INVENTION.    IT BY
NO MEANS FOLLOWS THAT SUCH A GRANT IS AN INCONSISTENT OR INAPPROPRIATE
EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS "TO PROMOTE THE
PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS" BY SECURING TO INVENTORS "THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR  ...  DISCOVERIES."  CONGRESS, IN THE CHOICE
OF MEANS OF PROMOTING THE USEFUL ARTS BY PATENT GRANTS, COULD HAVE
PROVIDED THAT THE GRANT SHOULD BE CONDITIONED UPON THE USE OF THE
PATENTED INVENTION, AS IN FACT IT DID PROVIDE BY THE ACT OF 1832(4
STAT. 577) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF PATENTS TO ALIENS CONDITIONED UPON
THE USE OF THE INVENTION, WHICH PROVISION WAS LATER REPEALED (5 STAT.
117, 125).  BUT CONGRESS WAS AWARE THAT AN UNPATENTED INVENTION COULD
BE SUPPRESSED AND THE PUBLIC THUS DEPRIVED OF ALL KNOWLEDGE OR BENEFIT
OF IT.  IT COULD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE USEFUL ARTS WOULD BE BEST
PROMOTED BY COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE STATUTES WHICH IT DID
ENACT, WHICH REQUIRE THAT PATENTS BE GRANTED ONLY FOR A LIMITED TERM
UPON AN APPLICATION FULLY DISCLOSING THE INVENTION AND THE MANNER OF
MAKING AND USING IT.  IT THUS GAVE TO THE INVENTOR LIMITED OPPORTUNITY
TO GATHER MATERIAL REWARDS FOR HIS INVENTION AND SECURED TO THE PUBLIC
THE BENEFITS OF FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INVENTION AND THE RIGHT TO USE IT
UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE PATENT. 

THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT FAILURE OF THE PATENTEE TO MAKE
USE OF A PATENTED INVENTION DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE
PATENT.  CONTINENTAL PAPER BAG CO. V. EASTERN PAPER BAG CO., 210 U.S.
405; CROWN DIE & TOOL CO. V. NYE TOOL WORKS, 261 U.S. 24, 34;
WOODBRIDGE V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 50, 55; FOX FILM CORP. V. DOYAL,
286 U.S. 123, 127; HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 386,
433.  NO QUESTION OF NON-USE WAS INVOLVED IN ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 459, ON WHICH THE COURT BELOW RELIED, AND IT
LENDS NO SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTION THAT A PATENTEE MAY NOT RIGHTLY USE
HIS PATENT AS A PROTECTION AGAINST MISAPPROPRIATION OF HIS INVENTION,
EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT USED.  THERE IT WAS HELD ONLY THAT THE MONOPOLY
OF A PATENT AFFORDED NO DEFENSE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT WHICH
THE PATENTEE HAD EFFECTED BY USING HIS PATENT TO ENLARGE THE PATENT
MONOPOLY BEYOND THE GRANT AND AS A MEANS OF INCREASING THE USE OF AN
INDEPENDENT PATENTED INVENTION. 

CONGRESS HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN ASKED TO CHANGE THE POLICY OF THE
STATUTES AS INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT BY IMPOSING A FORFEITURE  FN1  OR
PROVIDING FOR COMPULSORY LICENSING  FN2  IF THE PATENT IS NOT USED
WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME, BUT HAS NOT DONE SO. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER HERE WHETHER A BETTER RULE GOVERNING
THE GRANT OF PATENTS COULD BE DEVISED THAN THAT PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS,
AS THIS COURT HAS INTERPRETED IT; OR WHETHER THE COURTS ON EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES SHOULD DECLINE TO ENJOIN PATENT INFRINGEMENTS OR DECLINE TO
COMPEL THE ISSUE OF A PATENT IF AND WHEN IT APPEARS THAT THE PATENTEE
OR INVENTOR INTENDS TO MAKE NO USE OF THE INVENTION.  THE RECORD
NEITHER CALLS UPON NOR PERMITS US TO DECIDE ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS, FOR
IT FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT PETITIONER HAS ANY SUCH INTENTION. 
PETITIONER'S INTENDED USE OF THE PATENT TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM
APPROPRIATING IT AND BY THAT MEANS FROM APPROPRIATING AN ESSENTIAL PART
OF HIS COMPLETE MACHINE IS IN NO WAY INCONSISTENT WITH PETITIONER'S
MAKING OTHER PERMISSIBLE USES OF THE SUBCOMBINATION PATENT.  IN FACT,
HE DOES USE THE SUBCOMBINATION AS A PART OF HIS COMPLETED MACHINE AND
PROPOSES TO CONTINUE TO USE IT.  EXECUTION OF HIS DECLARED PURPOSE TO
PREVENT APPROPRIATION OF EITHER OF HIS INVENTIONS, WHETHER USED
SEPARATELY OR TOGETHER, WOULD NOT PREVENT HIS LICENSING OTHERS TO MAKE,
USE AND VEND THE SUBCOMBINATION, ON TERMS WHICH WOULD ADEQUATELY
PROTECT THE VALUE OF THE MONOPOLY OF BOTH HIS INVENTIONS TO WHICH HE IS
ENTITLED BY THE PATENT LAWS.  AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT OTHERS, WHO COULD
NOT SECURE A LICENSE TO USE THE COMPLETE MACHINE, WOULD NOT FIND IT
PROFITABLE TO SECURE, OR THAT PETITIONER WOULD NOT FIND IT PROFITABLE
TO GRANT, LICENSES TO USE THE SUBCOMBINATION WHICH THE COURT BELOW HAS
FOUND TO BE A USEFUL DEVICE WHICH HAS ADVANCED THE ART. 

THE RECORD ESTABLISHES NO INTENTION BY PETITIONER NOT TO USE HIS
INVENTION, AND NO PROPOSED USE OF IT DISCLOSED OR SUGGESTED BY THE
RECORD AFFORDS ANY BASIS FOR WITHHOLDING THE GRANT OF THE PATENT.  THE
JUDGMENT BELOW MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS
OPINION TO ENABLE IT TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE
PLEADINGS.  SEE BATES V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 15, 17 AND CASES
CITED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 433, N. 26. 

FN2  SEE HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, N. 27. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE RIGHT OF SUPPRESSION OF A PATENT CAME INTO THE LAW OVER A CENTURY
AFTER THE FIRST PATENT ACT WAS PASSED.  IN 1886 JUDGE BLODGETT HAD
RULED THAT A PATENTEE "IS BOUND EITHER TO USE THE PATENT HIMSELF OR
ALLOW OTHERS TO USE IT ON REASONABLE OR EQUITABLE TERMS."  HOE V. KNAP,
27 F. 204, 212.  IN 1896 THAT RULE WAS REPUDIATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN HEATON-PENINSULAR BUTTON-FASTENER
CO. V. EUREKA SPECIALTY CO., 77 F. 288, 295, WHERE THE COURT STATED
THAT A PATENTEE'S "TITLE IS EXCLUSIVE, AND SO CLEARLY WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT HE IS
NEITHER BOUND TO USE HIS DISCOVERY HIMSELF, NOR PERMIT OTHERS TO USE
IT."  THAT THEORY WAS ADOPTED BY THIS COURT IN CONTINENTAL PAPER BAG
CO. V. EASTERN PAPER BAG CO., 210 U.S. 405, DECIDED IN 1908.  THAT WAS
AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT.  ONE DEFENSE WAS THAT THE PATENTEE HAD SUPPRESSED
THE PATENT.  THE COURT HELD, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN DISSENTING, THAT
SUPPRESSION OF THE PATENT WAS NO DEFENSE; THAT THE PATENTEE'S "RIGHT
CAN ONLY RETAIN ITS ATTRIBUTE OF EXCLUSIVENESS BY A PREVENTION OF ITS
VIOLATION."  ID., P. 430. 

I THINK IT IS TIME TO BE RID OF THAT RULE.  IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PATENT LEGISLATION WHICH CONGRESS HAS
ENACTED. 

ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS CONGRESS THE POWER "TO
PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS, BY SECURING FOR
LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR
RESPECTIVE WRITINGS AND DISCOVERIES."  OF THE VARIOUS ENUMERATED POWERS
IT IS THE ONLY ONE WHICH STATES THE PURPOSE OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED
CONGRESS.  "THE CONGRESS IS GIVEN NO GENERAL POWER TO ISSUE LETTERS
PATENT OR TO REWARD INVENTORS AS IT WILL.  AN EXPERIENCE WITH GRANTS OF
MONOPOLY IN ENGLAND WAS FRESH IN THE MINDS OF THE FATHERS; THE LESSON
HAD BEEN UNDERLINED IN RECENT DIFFERENCES WITH THE CROWN."  HAMILTON,
PATENTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE (1941), P. 152, TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE, MONOGRAPH NO. 31, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.  THE PURPOSE "TO
PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS" ACCORDINGLY PROVIDES
THE STANDARDS FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER AND SETS THE LIMITS BEYOND
WHICH IT MAY NOT GO.  THAT PURPOSE ALSO PROVIDES THE GUIDE FOR THE
INTERPRETATION OF PATENT LAWS ENACTED PURSUANT TO THAT POWER. 

IT IS A MISTAKE THEREFORE TO CONCEIVE OF A PATENT AS BUT ANOTHER FORM
OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.  THE PATENT IS A PRIVILEGE "CONDITIONED BY A
PUBLIC PURPOSE."  MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT CO., 320 U.S. 661,
666.  THE PUBLIC PURPOSE IS "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND
USEFUL ARTS."  THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE INVENTOR IS BUT THE MEANS TO
THAT END.  THAT WAS EARLY RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT.  SEE PENNOCK V.
DIALOGUE, 2 PET. 1, 19; KENDALL V. WINSOR, 21 HOW.  322, 327-328;
SEYMOUR V. OSBORNE, 11 WALL.  516, 533-534.  BUT THE PAPER BAG CASE
MARKED A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THAT THEORY.  IT TREATED THE
"EXCLUSIVE" RIGHT OF THE INVENTOR AS SOMETHING AKIN TO AN "ABSOLUTE"
RIGHT.  IT SUBORDINATED THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF THE GRANT TO THE SELF
INTEREST OF THE PATENTEE. 

THE RESULT IS THAT SUPPRESSION OF PATENTS HAS BECOME COMMONPLACE. 
PATENTS ARE MULTIPLIED TO PROTECT AN ECONOMIC BARONY OR EMPIRE, NOT TO
PUT NEW DISCOVERIES TO USE FOR THE COMMON GOOD.  FN1 "IT IS COMMON
PRACTICE TO MAKE AN INVENTION AND TO SECURE A PATENT TO BLOCK OFF A
COMPETITOR'S PROGRESS.  BY STUDYING HIS WARE AND DEVELOPING AN
IMPROVEMENT UPON IT, A CONCERN MAY 'FENCE IN' ITS RIVAL; BY A SERIES OF
SUCH MOVES, IT MAY PIN THE TRADE ENEMY WITHIN A TECHNOLOGY WHICH
RAPIDLY BECOMES OBSOLETE.  AS OFTEN AS NOT SUCH MANEUVERS RETARD,
RATHER THAN PROMOTE, THE PROGRESS OF THE USEFUL ARTS.  INVARIABLY THEIR
EFFECT IS TO ENLARGE AND TO PROLONG PERSONAL PRIVILEGE WITHIN THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN."  HAMILTON, OP. CIT., SUPRA, P. 161.  ONE PATENT IS USED
MERELY TO PROTECT ANOTHER.  THE USE OF A NEW PATENT IS SUPPRESSED SO AS
TO PRECLUDE EXPERIMENTATION WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN FURTHER INVENTION BY
COMPETITORS.  FN2  A WHOLE TECHNOLOGY IS BLOCKED OFF.  THE RESULT IS A
CLOG TO OUR ECONOMIC MACHINE AND A BARRIER TO AN ECONOMY OF ABUNDANCE. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THAT USE OF PATENTS CAN BE RECONCILED WITH
THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND
THE USEFUL ARTS."  CAN THE SUPPRESSION OF PATENTS WHICH ARRESTS THE
PROGRESS OF TECHNOLOGY BE SAID TO PROMOTE THAT PROGRESS?  IT IS
LIKEWISE DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW SUPPRESSION OF PATENTS CAN BE RECONCILED
WITH THE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZES A GRANT OF THE
"EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE, AND VEND THE INVENTION OR DISCOVERY." 
REV. STAT. SEC. 4884, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 40.  HOW MAY THE WORDS "TO MAKE,
USE, AND VEND" BE READ TO MEAN "NOT TO MAKE, NOT TO USE, AND NOT TO
VEND"?  TAKE THE CASE OF AN INVENTION OR DISCOVERY WHICH UNLOCKS THE
DOORS OF SCIENCE AND REVEALS THE SECRETS OF A DREAD DISEASE.  IS IT
POSSIBLE THAT A PATENTEE COULD BE PERMITTED TO SUPPRESS THAT INVENTION
FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS (THE TERM OF THE LETTERS PATENT) AND WITHHOLD FROM
HUMANITY THE BENEFITS OF THE CURE?  BUT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN
PRINCIPLE BETWEEN THAT CASE AND ANY CASE WHERE A PATENT IS SUPPRESSED
BECAUSE OF SOME IMMEDIATE ADVANTAGE TO THE PATENTEE. 

I THINK IT IS TIME TO RETURN TO THE EARLIER, AND I THINK THE TRUE,
PHILOSOPHY OF THE PATENT SYSTEM.  WE SHOULD NOT PASS ON TO CONGRESS THE
DUTY TO REMOVE THE PRIVATE PERQUISITES WHICH WE HAVE ENGRAFTED ON THE
PATENT LAWS.  THIS COURT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CREATION.  THIS
COURT SHOULD TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR REMOVAL.  I WOULD ADOPT
THE VIEW OF HOE V. KNAP, SUPRA. IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT (BUTTERWORTH
V. HOE, 112 U.S. 50, 61), AS IN INFRINGEMENT SUITS (MORTON SALT CO. V.
SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488, 492-494), THE COURT SITS AS A COURT OF
EQUITY.  IT SHOULD WITHHOLD ITS AID FROM A PATENTEE WHO HAS EMPLOYED OR
PLANS TO EMPLOY THE PATENT NOT TO EXPLOIT THE INVENTION BUT TO SUPPRESS
IT IN ORDER TO PROTECT ANOTHER PATENT OR OTHERWISE N3.  CF. ETHYL
GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 459.  IF THAT PURPOSE
WERE CLEAR, A PATENT SHOULD NOT ISSUE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  IF IT HAS
BEEN ISSUED AND NOT CANCELLED AND THE PATENT HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED, ANY
ONE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO USE IT AT LEAST ON PAYMENT OF REASONABLE
ROYALTIES.  IN THAT WAY THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIVE WILL BE MORE
NEARLY REALIZED - THE PRODUCT OF THE INVENTIVE GENIUS OF THE HUMAN MIND
WILL BE PUT TO WORK IN THE ECONOMY. 

FN1  FOR ILLUSTRATIONS SEE INVESTIGATION OF CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC
POWER, HEARINGS, TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, PT. 2(1939),
PP. 345, 776; HAMILTON, OP. CIT., SUPRA, PP. 46-47, 59. 

FN2  THE VICE IS THE SAME AS THE PRACTICE, CONSISTENTLY CONDEMNED BY
THIS COURT, OF WRITING INTO THE CLAIMS BROAD, GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS. 
AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY IN CARLTON V. BOKEE, 17 WALL.  463,
471-472, "WE THINK IT PROPER TO REITERATE OUR DISAPPROBATION OF THESE
INGENIOUS ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND A SIMPLE INVENTION OF A DISTINCT DEVICE
INTO AN ALL-EMBRACING CLAIM, CALCULATED BY ITS WIDE GENERALIZATIONS AND
AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE TO DISCOURAGE FURTHER INVENTION IN THE SAME
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY  ..." 

FN3  THESE SITUATIONS ARE TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE CASE OF THE
INVENTOR WHO THOUGH HE HAS AN EXPECTATION OF EXPLOITING THE PATENT HAS
NOT YET ARRANGED THE NECESSARY FINANCING, OR, FOR OTHER REASONS, HAS
NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO GO INTO PRODUCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.  BUT I DO NOT REACH THE INTERESTING AND
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS DEBATED BY THE COURT'S OPINION AND MY DISSENTING
BRETHREN.  THEY ARE OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT, IN MY OPINION, THEY
SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED IN THE ABSENCE OF A RECORD PRESENTING FACTS
AND ISSUES MAKING THIS NECESSARY.  IN THIS CASE THE FACTS DO NOT SO
CLEARLY PRESENT THE ISSUES OF "FENCING" AND "BLOCKING" THAT DECISION
UPON THEM IS REQUIRED OR APPROPRIATE. 

THOSE ISSUES WERE NOT RAISED OR CONSIDERED UNTIL THE CASE REACHED THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  EVIDENCE CONCERNING INTENT TO SUPPRESS WAS NOT
RECEIVED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO ITS DAY IN
COURT UPON THAT QUESTION, UNLESS IT HAS CONCEDED IT.  THE RECORD, AS
THIS COURT'S OPINION INDICATES, IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE CONCESSION HAS
BEEN MADE WITH THE EFFECT OF ADMITTING THAT PETITIONER HAD NO INTENTION
TO EXPLOIT THE PATENT.  IF, AS THE TRIAL COURT FOUND, THE MACHINE
WITHOUT THE SPLITTING KNIFE WOULD NOT "PRODUCE ANY USEFUL RESULT," THIS
FACT TOGETHER WITH THE ASSERTION OF THE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE FULL
COMBINATION, OR WITH IT AND THE CONCESSIONS APPARENTLY MADE IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS, MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THAT COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION WAS TO
"FENCE" OR "BLOCK."  BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS EXPRESSLY REJECTED THE
TRIAL COURT'S FINDING IN THIS RESPECT; AND A SHOWING OF MOTION PICTURES
HERE, SUCH AS TOOK PLACE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, APPEARED TO
DEMONSTRATE CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE MACHINE NOT ONLY WORKS WITHOUT THE
CUTTING KNIFE, BUT PRODUCES A HIGHLY USEFUL RESULT IF THE PEARS ARE
SPLIT BEFORE BEING PLACED IN THE MACHINE FOR BOBBING, PEELING AND
CORING.  WHATEVER FOUNDATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOUND, THEREFORE, TO
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION OF INTENT TO FENCE OR BLOCK, IN THE MACHINE'S
LACK OF CAPACITY TO PRODUCE ANY USEFUL RESULT, DISAPPEARS FROM THE
CASE.    THE RECORD, HOWEVER, DISCLOSES ANOTHER GROUND WHICH WAS
CONSIDERED IN THE PATENT OFFICE AND THE DISTRICT COURT, WHOLLY
SUFFICIENT TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE AND REQUIRING AFFIRMANCE OF THE
JUDGMENT.  THIS WAS THAT THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE ARE TOO BROAD TO COVER THE
INVENTION.  NO ONE OF THE CLAIMS SPECIFIES OR INDICATES THAT THE PEARS
MUST BE PRESPLIT IN ORDER FOR THE INVENTION TO BE USED OR TO PRODUCE A
USEFUL RESULT.  WITH COMMENDABLE CANDOR, COUNSEL CONCEDED THIS IN THE
ARGUMENT HERE, AND INDEED THE CLAIMS ON THEIR FACE REQUIRE THE
CONCESSION.  PATENTS ARE NOT TO BE GRANTED UPON CLAIMS WHICH DO NOT
ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE INVENTION AND ALL OF ITS ESSENTIAL FEATURES. 
THESE CLAIMS ARE STATED IN LANGUAGE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE WHOLE
PEARS.  ADMITTEDLY THE MACHINE WILL NOT WORK, WITHOUT THE KNIFE, AS TO
THEM.  IN MY JUDGMENT THEREFORE THE CLAIMS ARE TOO BROAD.  THE PATENT
OFFICE AND THE DISTRICT COURT SO FOUND.  THE QUESTION IS OPEN AND WAS
PRESENTED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HERE.  ACCORDINGLY I WOULD AFFIRM
THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :














U.S. V. COMMODORE PARK, 324 U.S. 386 


NO. 495.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945.  - 143
F.2D 720, REVERSED. 


1.  AN OWNER OF LAND IN THE BED OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM BETWEEN HIGH AND
LOW WATER MARK, THOUGH HIS TITLE IS RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE, IS NOT
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR A DECREASE IN THE
VALUE OF THE LAND RESULTING FROM OPERATIONS BY THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION.  P. 390. 

2.  A RIPARIAN OWNER WHOSE FAST LANDS WERE NOT INVADED IS NOT
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR A DECREASE,
RESULTING FROM OPERATIONS BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
NAVIGATION, IN SUCH VALUE AS HIS LANDS MAY HAVE HAD BY REASON OF THEIR
PROXIMITY TO NAVIGABLE WATERS.  P. 390. 

3.  A PROJECT PURSUANT TO WHICH A NAVIGABLE WATER WAS DREDGED AND THE
DREDGED MATERIAL WAS DEPOSITED IN A CONNECTING NAVIGABLE WATER, THOUGH
ORIGINATED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SHORE FACILITIES AND THOUGH
NAVIGATION OF THE CONNECTING WATER WAS THEREBY BLOCKED, WAS AN
INTEGRATED PROJECT WHICH BORE A SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO COMMERCE OR
NAVIGATION, AND THE RULE OF GOVERNMENTAL NON-LIABILITY WAS APPLICABLE. 
P. 391. 

4.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE
COMMERCE MAY BE EXERCISED TO BLOCK NAVIGATION AT ONE PLACE IN ORDER TO
AID IT AT ANOTHER.  P. 393. 

UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 698, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TUCKER
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES DREDGED A TIDEWATER NAVIGABLE BAY AND DEPOSITED THE
DREDGED MATERIALS IN A NAVIGABLE ARM OF THE BAY CALLED MASON CREEK,
THEREBY DESTROYING ITS NAVIGABILITY, AND IMPAIRING CERTAIN BENEFITS
ALLEGED TO INHERE IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE LAND TO A NAVIGABLE TIDEWATER
CREEK.  THE BROAD QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPENSATE AN OWNER OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
CONTIGUOUS TO THE CREEK, WHOSE FAST LANDS, THOUGH NOT PHYSICALLY
INVADED, WERE DECREASED IN MARKET VALUE. 

COMMODORE PARK, INC., AN OWNER OF LANDS ON THE CREEK ABOUT A MILE
AWAY FROM THE FILLED-IN SEGMENT, BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, 24 STAT. 505, 28 U.S.C. 41(20) FOR DAMAGES
RESULTING FROM A "TAKING" BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ITS PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC
USE, IN CONNECTION WITH A NAVAL FACILITIES EXPANSION PROGRAM.  AS THE
CASE COMES TO US,  FN1  THE MATERIAL FINDINGS, WHICH WE ACCEPT, ARE
THAT THE GOVERNMENT (1) CAUSED MUD AND SILT TO SETTLE ON THAT PART OF
THE LAND IN QUESTION LYING IN THE BED OF WHAT HAD BEEN A NAVIGABLE
TIDEWATER CREEK BEFORE THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED, AND (2) DESTROYED THE
NAVIGABILITY OF THE CREEK, THEREBY DEPRIVING RESPONDENT OF THAT PART OF
THE MARKET VALUE OF ITS FAST LAND ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS PROXIMITY AND
ACCESSIBILITY TO A FRESH TIDEWATER CREEK IN ITS NATURAL AND NAVIGABLE
STATE.  THE GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER, SO FAR AS MATERIAL TO OUR DECISION, IS
THAT RESPONDENT'S ALLEGED OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW
WATER MARKS AND ITS "RIPARIAN RIGHTS" OF ACCESS TO THE NAVIGABLE WATERS
BOTH WERE SUBORDINATE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PLENARY AUTHORITY OVER
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT ITS PROGRAM WAS EFFECTUATED
PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORITY, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THERE HAD BEEN NO
"TAKING" OF "PRIVATE PROPERTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT HAD NO SUBSTANTIAL
RELATION TO NAVIGATION OR COMMERCE, AND FOUND THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF
THE LAND LYING BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER MARKS HAD BEEN DECREASED BY
THE MUD AND SILT DEPOSITS, AND THAT RESPONDENT'S FAST LAND HAD BEEN
REDUCED IN VALUE BECAUSE OF THE LOSS OF THE RIPARIAN RIGHTS OF ACCESS
FOR NAVIGATION, FISHING, BOATING, AND THE LIKE.  IT ACCORDINGLY
RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT "FOR THE DAMAGES IT  ...  SUSTAINED AS
A RESULT OF THE TAKING OF ITS RIPARIAN RIGHTS AND LANDS  ..."  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT THE DREDGING OPERATION
WAS DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF NAVIGATION AND COMMERCE, BUT A MAJORITY HELD
THAT THE DEPOSITING OF THE DREDGED MATERIAL IN THE CREEK WAS NOT IN AID
OF NAVIGATION, AND THEREFORE AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT.  143 F.2D
720.  BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO ENGAGE IN
PROJECTS IN AID OF NAVIGATION AND COMMERCE BE CLEARLY DEFINED, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 698. 

A FEW ADDITIONAL FACTS DRAWN FROM THE RECORD WILL SERVE TO CLARIFY
THE ISSUES. 

IN 1940, THE RESPONDENT OWNED A RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
IN NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MASON CREEK, A
NAVIGABLE TIDEWATER WHICH EXTENDED INLAND ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE MILES FROM
THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF WILLOUGHBY BAY.  WEST OF MASON CREEK, AND
ADJACENT TO WILLOUGHBY BAY, WAS LOCATED THE HAMPTON ROADS NAVAL
OPERATING BASE, WHICH MAINTAINED A NAVAL AIR STATION WITH SHORE
FACILITIES FOR SEAPLANES.  IT WAS THIS STATION WHICH, UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS,  FN2  THE NAVY DEPARTMENT ENLARGED AND
IMPROVED.  IN ORDER TO PROVIDE SUITABLE WATERS FOR THE OPERATION OF
LARGE SEAPLANES, THE NAVY, ACTING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WAR
DEPARTMENT, 30 STAT. 1121, 1151-1155, DREDGED WILLOUGHBY BAY TO A DEPTH
OF 10 TO 15 FEET BELOW MEAN LOW WATER.  ADDITIONAL LANDS, ADJACENT TO
THE BASE, WERE BOUGHT OR CONDEMNED BY THE GOVERNMENT, ON BOTH THE EAST
AND WEST SIDES OF MASON CREEK.  THE MATERIALS DREDGED FROM THE BAY WERE
IN PART DEPOSITED IN MASON CREEK BETWEEN THE SHORES OF LANDS OWNED BY
THE GOVERNMENT ADJACENT TO THE BAY.  BY THIS PROCESS, THE BED OF MASON
CREEK WAS AT THAT POINT RAISED TO THE LEVEL OF ITS SHORES, THEREBY
BECOMING INCORPORATED AS AN INTEGRAL AND USEFUL PART OF THE NAVAL
OPERATING BASE.  THIS FILL, REINFORCED BY BULWARKS, DYKES AND RETAINING
WALLS, CUT OFF THE REMAINDER OF MASON CREEK, ALONG WHICH RESPONDENT'S
LAND BORDERED, FROM ANY NAVIGABLE OUTLET TO WILLOUGHBY BAY AND THE
SEA.  IT ALSO BLOCKED OFF THE TIDAL MOVEMENTS WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD
PROVIDED AN ELEMENT OF FRESHNESS IN MASON CREEK'S WATERS, THEREBY
RESULTING IN A STANDING AND STAGNANT POOL.  THIS CONDITION, AT THE
REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS, WAS LATER ALLEVIATED BY DIGGING A CHANNEL
IN THE STREAM'S BED, AND CONNECTING IT WITH THE BAY BY A CULVERT, MUCH
SMALLER IN AREA THAN THE ORIGINAL BED.  AN IRON GRATE, PLACED WHERE THE
CULVERT EMPTIED ITS WATERS INTO THE BAY, CLOSED IT TO NAVIGATION.  WE
MUST TAKE IT FROM THE FINDINGS BELOW THAT THE SIZE AND CONSTRUCTION OF
THE CULVERT WERE INADEQUATE TO AFFORD A COMPLETELY FREE TIDAL MOVEMENT,
AND THAT AS A RESULT, THE WATERS OF MASON CREEK BECAME "SEMI-STAGNANT,"
DEPRIVING THEM OF THE SAME FRESHNESS THEY HAD POSSESSED BEFORE THE WORK
WAS DONE. 

FIRST.  THE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT INVOLVES NO PHYSICAL INVASION OF
ITS FAST LANDS.  ITS PROPERTY WAS MORE THAN A MILE FROM THE FILL MADE
IN MASON CREEK.  THE ONLY LAND FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED
BECAUSE OF MUD AND SILT DEPOSITS WAS THAT PART OF THE CREEK'S BED
BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER MARKS.  THAT VIRGINIA RECOGNIZES
RESPONDENT'S TITLE TO SUCH LAND  FN3  CANNOT GIVE RESPONDENT A RIGHT TO
COMPENSATION IF ITS MARKET VALUE IS IMPAIRED AS A RESULT OF WORK DONE
BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE INTEREST OF IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION. 
UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 312 U.S. 592, 596-598,
SET AT REST ANY REMAINING DOUBT CONCERNING THE DOMINANT POWER OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL AND REGULATE NAVIGABLE WATERS IN THE INTEREST OF
COMMERCE,  FN4 WITHOUT PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO ONE WHO UNDER STATE
LAW MAY HOLD "TECHNICAL" LEGAL TITLE (AS BETWEEN HIMSELF AND OTHERS
THAN THE GOVERNMENT) TO A PART OF THE NAVIGABLE STREAM'S BED. 

SECOND.  NOR DOES A RIPARIAN OWNER ACQUIRE A UNIQUE PRIVATE RIGHT
DISTINCT FROM THAT HELD BY ALL OTHERS, TO HAVE ACCESS TO AND ENJOYMENT
OF NAVIGABLE WATERS AND TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT
BECAUSE DEPRIVED OF THAT PRIVILEGE BY AN AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENTAL CHANGE
IN A STREAM.  FN5  RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY WAS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO A
DOMINANT SERVITUDE; IT DID NOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT TO HAVE THIS
NAVIGABLE STREAM REMAIN FIXED AND UNALTERED SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE
CONSEQUENT REFLECTED ADDITIONAL MARKET VALUE TO ADJACENT LANDS. 
WHATEVER MARKET VALUE OF RIPARIAN LANDS MAY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR
CLOSENESS TO NAVIGABLE WATERS, DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S
"ABSOLUTE" POWER,  FN6  IN THE INTERESTS OF COMMERCE, TO MAKE NECESSARY
CHANGES IN A STREAM.  IN SHORT, AS AGAINST THE DEMANDS OF COMMERCE, AN
OWNER OF LAND ADJACENT TO NAVIGABLE WATERS, WHOSE FAST LANDS ARE LEFT
UNINVADED, HAS NO PRIVATE RIPARIAN RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO THE WATERS TO DO
SUCH THINGS AS "FISHING AND BOATING AND THE LIKE," FOR WHICH RIGHTS THE
GOVERNMENT MUST PAY.  FN7 RIPARIAN RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO NAVIGABLE WATERS
CANNOT, AS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO CONTROL COMMERCE, BE
BOUGHT AND SOLD. 

THIRD.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE FOREGOING RULE OF GOVERNMENTAL NON
LIABILITY IS INAPPLICABLE TO THIS CASE.  SINCE THE NAVY DEPARTMENT
ORIGINATED THIS PLAN WITH A VIEW TO IMPROVEMENT OF SHORE FACILITIES, WE
ARE ASKED TO HOLD THAT NEITHER THE DREDGING IN WILLOUGHBY BAY NOR THE
DEPOSIT OF THE DREDGED MATERIAL IN MASON CREEK BORE ANY REAL OR
SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO COMMERCE OR NAVIGATION.  SUCH A HOLDING WAS THE
BASIS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD THAT
THE DREDGING IN WILLOUGHBY BAY WAS, BUT THE DEPOSIT IN MASON CREEK WAS
NOT, RELATED TO COMMERCE OR NAVIGATION.  WE CANNOT AGREE.  THE "FACT
THAT PURPOSES OTHER THAN NAVIGATION WILL ALSO BE SERVED COULD NOT
INVALIDATE THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED, EVEN IF THOSE OTHER
PURPOSES WOULD NOT ALONE HAVE JUSTIFIED AN EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL
POWER."  ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 456. 

ALL THE WATERS AFFECTED WERE NAVIGABLE.  THE CONSTITUTION ENTRUSTED
TO CONGRESS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING WHAT OBSTRUCTIONS MAY, OR
MAY NOT, BE PLACED IN SUCH WATERS.  FN8 THIS POWER CONGRESS MAY
EXERCISE ITSELF OR THROUGH ITS DULY AUTHORIZED AGENTS.  FN9  HERE, THE
WAR DEPARTMENT, SELECTED BY CONGRESS TO PASS UPON WHEN, AND TO WHAT
EXTENT, NAVIGABLE WATERS MAY BE ALTERED OR OBSTRUCTED, PERMITTED, AND
ACTUALLY SUPERVISED, THE PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHED.  EVEN THOUGH CASES MIGHT
ARISE IN WHICH THE COURTS WOULD LOOK BEHIND THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
SPECIALLY AUTHORIZED AGENCY,  FN10  THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE. 

WHILE THIS PROJECT TOUCHED TWO SEPARATE, ALTHOUGH CLOSELY RELATED,
BODIES OF NAVIGABLE WATERS, AND LOOKED TO IMPROVEMENT OF SHORE AS WELL
AS WATER FACILITIES, THE ENTIRE PROGRAM AS TO THE WATERS WAS DESIGNED
TO ACHIEVE ONE CLOSELY INTEGRATED UNIT.  THAT THERE WERE TWO BODIES OF
NAVIGABLE WATERS TO WHICH THE ONE PROGRAM RELATED, DOES NOT DETRACT
FROM CONGRESSIONAL POWER AS TO EITHER, FOR ITS POWERS ARE BROAD ENOUGH
TO JUSTIFY ONE UNIFIED PROGRAM FOR THE CONNECTED BODY OF WATERS TO THE
END THAT COMMERCE IN GENERAL MAY BE FOSTERED.  FN11 

THUS, HAVING POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO OBSTRUCT NAVIGATION
BY DEPOSITING THE DREDGED SOIL IN WILLOUGHBY BAY, THE GOVERNMENT WAS
LIKEWISE AUTHORIZED TO DEPOSIT IN MASON CREEK FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. 
THERE IS POWER TO BLOCK NAVIGATION AT ONE PLACE TO FOSTER IT AT ANOTHER
N12.  WHETHER THIS BLOCKING BE DONE BY ALTERING THE STREAM'S COURSE, BY
LIGHTHOUSES, JETTIES, PIERS, OR A DAM MADE OF DREDGED MATERIAL, THE
GOVERNMENT'S POWER IS THE SAME AND IN THE INSTANT CASE IS DERIVED FROM
THE SAME SOURCE - ITS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE COMMERCE.  SINCE THE
JUDGMENT AWARDED RESTED ENTIRELY UPON THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT'S
PROPERTY HAD BEEN TAKEN BY "FILLING AND CLOSING MASON CREEK," AND SINCE
ALL OF RESPONDENT'S "RIPARIAN RIGHTS" WERE SUBORDINATE TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO CLOSE THE STREAM, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  IN THE DISTRICT COURT RESPONDENT ALSO CLAIMED THAT MUD AND SILT
HAD BEEN CAST ON HIS FAST LANDS.  THIS PART OF THE CLAIM WAS DENIED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, AND WE NEED NOT CONSIDER IT. WITH REFERENCE TO IT
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID:  "THIS RELIEF DREDGING GAVE RISE TO
THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM ON THE PART OF THE PLAINTIFF THAT MUD AND SILT HAD
BEEN DEPOSITED ON ITS LAND, NOT ONLY BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER MARK
BUT ALSO ABOVE HIGH WATER MARK.  BUT THE DISTRICT JUDGE DISALLOWED THIS
PART OF THE CLAIM AS HE FOUND THAT NO MATERIAL DAMAGE HAD BEEN SUFFERED
IN EXCESS OF THE BENEFIT WHICH THE PLAINTIFF HAD DERIVED FROM THE
PARTIAL FILLING OF LOW MARSHES, INLETS AND COVES ON ITS PROPERTY.  NO
APPEAL WAS TAKEN BY THE PLAINTIFF."  UNITED STATES V. COMMODORE PARK,
143 F.2D 720, 722. 

FN2  48 STAT. 957; 53 STAT. 590-592; 53 STAT. 757, 772-773. 

FN3  SCOTT V. DOUGHTY, 124 VA. 358, 97 S.E. 802; HITE V. TOWN OF
LURAY, 175 VA. 218, 8 S.E.2D 369. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 60, 62, 68,
72; SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141, 163. 

FN5  SCRANTON V. WHEELER, SUPRA, 159-160; STOCKTON V. BALTIMORE &
N.Y.R. CO., 32 F. 9, 20. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. RIVER ROUGE CO., 269 U.S. 411, 419; GILMAN V.
PHILADELPHIA, 3 WALL.  713, 724-5. 

FN7  GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 166 U.S. 269; SCRANTON V. WHEELER,
SUPRA. 

FN8  UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., SUPRA, 62-67; PENNSYLVANIA
V. WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 18 HOW.  421. 

FN9  UNION BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 204 U.S. 364, 377-388;
GREENLEAF-JOHNSON LUMBER CO. V. GARRISON, 237 U.S. 251, 268; SOUTH
CAROLINA V. GEORGIA, 93 U.S. 4, 13. 

FN10  SEE GREENLEAF-JOHNSON LUMBER CO. V. GARRISON, SUPRA, 268;
UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377, 424;
ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 456. 

FN11  UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., SUPRA, 426-437;
OKLAHOMA V. ATKINSON CO., 313 U.S. 508, 527-528. 

FN12  SOUTH CAROLINA V. GEORGIA, SUPRA; SCRANTON V. WHEELER, SUPRA;
ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 451-452. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, 143 F.2D 721. 
..END :



















ESTATE OF PUTNAM V. COMM'R, 324 U.S. 393 


NO. 534.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945.  - 144
F.2D 756, REVERSED. 


1.  WHETHER AT THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF A TAXPAYER A DIVIDEND HAS
"ACCRUED," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 42 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, SO
AS TO BE INCLUDIBLE IN COMPUTING INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER, IS A QUESTION
OF FEDERAL LAW.  P. 395. 

2.  A DIVIDEND WHICH WAS DECLARED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF A
TAXPAYER (ASSUMED TO BE ON THE CASH RECEIPTS BASIS), BUT WHICH BY THE
TERMS OF THE DECLARATION WAS PAYABLE TO STOCKHOLDERS OF RECORD ON A
DATE SUBSEQUENT TO HIS DEATH, WAS NOT AT THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF THE
TAXPAYER "ACCRUED," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 42 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1938, AND WAS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN COMPUTING NET INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER. 
P. 398. 

ESTATE OF PUTNAM; GUARANTY TRUST CO., EXECUTOR, V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 702, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF TWO ORDERS OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (45 B.T.A. 517) INVOLVING THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY
OF A TAXPAYER AND OF HIS ESTATE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH APPLIES SECTION 42,
REVENUE ACT OF 1938,  FN1 SO AS TO "ACCRUE" CORPORATE DIVIDENDS ON THE
DATE OF THEIR DECLARATION RATHER THAN THE LATER RECORD OR PAYMENT
DATES.  THE RESULT IS THAT THE DIVIDENDS ARE TAXABLE AS INCOME TO A
DECEDENT TAXPAYER INSTEAD OF TO HIS ESTATE. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED  FN2  BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT IN CONCLUSION
BETWEEN TAR PRODUCTS CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 130 F.2D 866, AND THIS CASE
AS TO THE DATE OF ACCRUAL OF CORPORATE DIVIDENDS.  THE RESOLUTION OF
THIS CONFLICT IS COMPLICATED BY FURTHER CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE DECISION
BELOW AND THOSE IN OTHER CIRCUITS AS TO WHETHER THE GOVERNING RULE IS
TO BE DRAWN FROM FEDERAL OR STATE LAW.  HELVERING V. MCGLUE'S ESTATE,
119 F.2D 167, 171; COMMISSIONER V. COHEN, 121 F.2D 348, 349. 

THE DECEDENT, HENRY W. PUTNAM, DIED ON MARCH 30, 1938.  PRIOR TO HIS
DEATH SEVERAL CORPORATIONS IN WHICH HE OWNED STOCK DECLARED DIVIDENDS
WHICH BY THE RESOLUTIONS WERE PAYABLE AND WERE PAID TO STOCKHOLDERS OF
RECORD ON DATES WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENT TO HIS DEATH.  EACH OF THESE
DIVIDENDS, AGGREGATING IN ALL $24,051.75, WAS HELD BY THE COMMISSIONER
TO CONSTITUTE INCOME TO THE DECEDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 42. 
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DECIDED THAT THE TIME OF ACCRUAL DEPENDS UPON
THE VARYING STATE DECISIONS AS TO WHEN A CORPORATE DEBT ARISES UPON A
DECLARATION OF DIVIDEND WITH A PROVISION FOR ITS PAYMENT TO
STOCKHOLDERS OF RECORD ON SOME FUTURE DATE.  45 B.T.A. 517.  THIS
RESULTED IN AN AGREEMENT IN PART WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT FEDERAL LAW
CONTROLLED THE DISPOSITION OF THE CONTROVERSY AND THAT THE DIVIDEND
ACCRUED ON ITS DECLARATION.  COMMISSIONER V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 144
F.2D 756. 

WE THINK THE FEDERAL LAW CONTROLS.  A FEDERAL REVENUE ACT APPLICABLE
THROUGHOUT THE NATION FIXES LIABILITY ON THE DECEDENT TAXPAYER UNDER
SEC. 42 IF THE DIVIDEND IS "ACCRUED."  THE MEANING OF THAT WORD IN THIS
PERMIT ITS MEANING TO BE VARIED BY STATE LAW.  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287
U.S. 103, 110; PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 555; UNITED STATES V.
PELZER, 312 U.S. 399, 402-3.  SECTION 42 LAYS DOWN THE TEST OF ACCRUAL
FOR THE TAXATION OF A DECEDENT'S INCOME AND THE DEFINITION OF THE
MEANING AND EXTENT OF THAT TEST IS A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY.  THE
PRESENT PROBLEM IS CLOSELY AKIN TO THAT RESOLVED IN LYETH V. HOEY, 305
U.S. 188, 193.  IN THAT CASE AN HEIR RECEIVED A SUM IN SETTLEMENT OF
LITIGATION OVER A WILL.  ITS TAXABILITY AS INCOME UNDER THE FEDERAL
STATUTE DEPENDED UPON THE MEANING OF THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION "ACQUIRED
BY INHERITANCE."  THE LAW OF THE TESTATOR'S DOMICILE HELD SUMS PAID AS
WILL COMPROMISES WERE NOT INHERITANCES.  ACTING ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT,
IN THE INTEREST OF UNIFORMITY, EXEMPTIONS UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES SHOULD
BE DETERMINED BY FEDERAL COURTS, WE REACHED A CONTRARY FEDERAL RULE. 
THE SAME PRINCIPLE LEADS TO OUR CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE.  FN3 

WE RECENTLY EXAMINED THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IN THE ENACTMENT OF
SEC. 42.  HELVERING V. ENRIGHT, 312 U.S. 636.  THAT PURPOSE WAS TO
COVER INTO INCOME THE "ACCRUALS" THERETOFORE UNREPORTED AS INCOME OF A
DECEDENT TAXPAYER WHO REPORTED ON A CASH BASIS.  BY "ACCRUAL" THE
INCOME SO ACCRUED BECAME SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX AS DECEDENT'S INCOME. 
THESE "ACCRUALS" HAD THERETOFORE ESCAPED TAXATION AS THE INCOME OF
DECEDENT, BECAUSE NO CASH WAS RECEIVED DURING DECEDENT'S LIFE. 
MOREOVER, SUCH PAYMENTS WERE HELD NOT TO BE THE INCOME OF DECEDENT'S
ESTATE ON THE THEORY THAT THE "ACCRUAL" WAS A PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE
ESTATE AT DEATH AND THEREFORE THE ESTATE'S SUBSEQUENT RECEIPT OF THE
"ACCRUALS" AS CASH WAS NOT INCOME TO THE ESTATE.  HELVERING V. ENRIGHT,
SUPRA, P. 639.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO AVOIDANCE OF INCOME
TAXES SUCH AS SEC. 42 WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.  IF THE DIVIDEND DOES
NOT "ACCRUE" TO DECEDENT ON THE DATE OF DECLARATION SO AS TO BE TAXABLE
AS INCOME TO HIM, IT WILL APPEAR AS AN ITEM OF INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX
RETURN OF THE ESTATE OR OF THE STOCKHOLDER WHO OWNS THE STOCK ON THE
RECORD DATE.  FN4  TAXWISE, IT MAY BE IMPORTANT UPON WHOM THE TAX FALLS
AS THE SUM ASSESSED MAY VARY ACCORDING TO THE TAX BRACKET OF THE
TAXPAYER.  THIS RESULT, HOWEVER, IS APART FROM THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS
IN ENACTING SEC. 42 AND IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE

WE ASSUME THAT DECEDENT WAS A TAXPAYER ON THE CASH RECEIPTS BASIS. 
COMPARE 144 F.2D 756, 757.  FN6  OUR INQUIRY LEADS US ONLY TO A
DECISION AS TO WHETHER A DIVIDEND ACCRUES AS INCOME ON ITS DECLARATION
WITH A SUBSEQUENT RECORD DATE, NOT TO WHETHER IT ACCRUES ON ITS RECORD
DATE OR ITS PAYMENT DATE.  A DECLARATION OF A DIVIDEND TO STOCKHOLDERS
OF RECORD ON THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION BUT PAYABLE IN THE FUTURE IS
NOT INVOLVED.  THIS COURT HAS SUGGESTED THAT A TAX BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE
AS A CHARGE AGAINST A TAXPAYER WHEN EVENTS "OCCUR WHICH FIX THE AMOUNT
OF THE TAX AND DETERMINE THE LIABILITY OF THE TAXPAYER TO PAY IT." 
UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, 269 U.S. 422, 441.  IT HAS SAID ALSO THAT
ACCRUAL IMPORTS "THAT IT IS THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE AND NOT THE ACTUAL
RECEIPT THAT DETERMINES THE INCLUSION OF THE AMOUNT IN GROSS INCOME." 
SPRING CITY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 292 U.S. 182, 184.  THE DECLARATION OF
THE DIVIDENDS HERE IN QUESTION FIXES THEIR AMOUNT BUT DOES NOT
DETERMINE THE DISTRIBUTEE.  HE CANNOT BE KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY UNTIL THE
RECORD DATE.  NOR DOES THE STOCKHOLDER HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE
PAYMENT UPON THE DECLARATION.  THE WORDS OF THE CORPORATE RESOLUTION
WHICH ARRANGES FOR THE PAYMENT FROM THE STOCK RECORD OF A CERTAIN DAY
DETERMINE THE EARLIEST TIME FOR POSSIBLE RECEIPT. 

UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACTS NO STOCKHOLDER HAS A SEPARATE AND DIVISIBLE
TAXABLE INTEREST IN THE ASSETS OF A CORPORATION EVEN THOUGH THOSE
ASSETS HAVE BEEN INCREASED BY EARNINGS.  EARNINGS, BEFORE DECLARATION
OF DIVIDENDS, WHILE INCREASING THE VALUE OF HIS STOCK, HAVE NEVER BEEN
TREATED AS AN EVENT TO MARK TAXABLE INCOME TO THE STOCKHOLDER.  MERE
DECLARATION OF A DIVIDEND DOES NOT ALTER THE STOCKHOLDER'S INTEREST IN
THE CORPORATE ASSETS.  IF NO OTHER FACTORS WERE INVOLVED IN VALUE
EXCEPT EARNINGS AND DIVIDENDS, THE VALUE OF THE STOCK WOULD ADVANCE
PARI PASSU WITH EARNINGS AND THE DECLARATION OF A DIVIDEND WITH A
SUBSEQUENT RECORD DATE FOR PAYMENT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE STOCK'S VALUE. 
UNITED STATES V. PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156, 171.  SEE SCHABACKER, STOCK
MARKET, 353.  THE STOCKHOLDER CAN ACQUIRE NO INTEREST IN A DIVIDEND,
AMOUNTING TO AN ACCRUAL UNDER SEC. 42, BEFORE THE AMOUNT OF THE
DIVIDEND AND THE DISTRIBUTEE IS DETERMINED. 

IN APPLYING TO THE PRESENT DIVIDENDS OUR DESCRIPTION OF ACCRUALS
UNDER SEC. 42 AS "ASSETS OF DECEDENTS, EARNED DURING THEIR LIFE AND
UNREPORTED AS INCOME, WHICH ON A CASH RETURN, WOULD APPEAR IN THE
ESTATE RETURNS,"  FN7  THE COURT OF APPEALS MAY HAVE TREATED THE WORDS
"EARNED DURING" THE DECEDENT'S LIFE AS THOUGH THEY INCLUDED, PRIOR TO A
DECLARATION OF DIVIDENDS, THE PROPORTIONATE PART OF CORPORATE EARNINGS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO DECEDENT'S STOCK.  IF SO, IT IS A MORE EXTENDED MEANING
THAN WAS INTENDED, SINCE STOCK DOES NOT EARN AN IDENTIFIABLE SEPARATE
TAXABLE SHARE OF CORPORATE PROFITS FOR ITS OWNER BEFORE THE CORPORATION
MAKES THOSE PROFITS AVAILABLE TO THE STOCKHOLDER.  IT IS NOT THE
EARNINGS OF A CORPORATION BUT THE SEPARATION OF THOSE EARNINGS BY A
COMPLETED DIVIDEND WHICH ASSIGNS A PART OF THOSE EARNINGS TO A
STOCKHOLDER.  THE PRICE A STOCKHOLDER WOULD RECEIVE ON A STOCK SALE
AFTER DECLARATION AND BEFORE THE RECORD DATE WOULD REFLECT CORPORATE
EARNINGS BUT WOULD NOT REFLECT THE DECLARATION OR NON-DECLARATION OF A
DIVIDEND.  AS THE SAME VALUE WOULD BE IN THE STOCK WITH OR WITHOUT THE
DECLARATION, THE PRICE WOULD BE THE SAME.  ONLY AN EX-DIVIDEND SALE
WOULD AFFECT PRICE. 

FOR THE EARNINGS OF A CORPORATION TO PASS INTO THE EARNINGS OF ITS
STOCKHOLDER, SO AS TO BE SUBJECT TO ACCRUAL TO THE STOCKHOLDER UNDER
SEC. 42, SOMETHING MORE THAN A DECLARATION OF DIVIDENDS WITH A
SUBSEQUENT RECORD DATE TO IDENTIFY THE DISTRIBUTEE IS REQUIRED.  SUCH A
DECLARATION LEAVES THE IDENTITY OF THE RECIPIENT AT LARGE.  SUCH
UNCERTAINTY DESTROYS ANY CONCEPTION OF ACCRUED AS INVOLVING A RIGHT TO
RECEIVE OR AN OBLIGATION TO PAY, ELEMENTS WHICH WE THINK ARE ESSENTIAL
FOR ACCRUALS UNDER OUR DECISIONS.  FN8  REVERSED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 447, 473, SEC. 42: 

"THE AMOUNT OF ALL ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE
GROSS INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYER,
UNLESS, UNDER METHODS OF ACCOUNTING PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 41, ANY
SUCH AMOUNTS ARE TO BE PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR AS OF A DIFFERENT
PERIOD.  IN THE CASE OF THE DEATH OF A TAXPAYER THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED
IN COMPUTING NET INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE PERIOD IN WHICH FALLS THE DATE
OF HIS DEATH, AMOUNTS ACCRUED UP TO THE DATE OF HIS DEATH IF NOT
OTHERWISE PROPERLY INCLUDIBLE IN RESPECT OF SUCH PERIOD OR A PRIOR
PERIOD." 

FN2  323 U.S. 702.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 240(A), AS AMENDED. 

FN3 THE GOVERNMENT CALLS ATTENTION TO THE CONFLICT IN STATE DECISIONS
AS TO THE EVENT WHICH VESTS TITLE ACCORDING TO STATE LAW TO A CORPORATE
DIVIDEND.  SOME SPECIFY THE DECLARATION AND SOME COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENT OF BEING A STOCKHOLDER OF RECORD ON A SUBSEQUENT DATE. 

DECLARATION DATE:  FORD V. SNOOK, 205 APP. DIV. 194, 196, 199 N.Y.S.
630, AFF'D 240 N.Y. 624, 148 N.E. 732; BEATTIE V. GEDNEY, 99 N.J. EQ.
207, 132 A. 652; WESTERN SECURITIES CO. V. SILVER KING MINING CO., 57
UTAH 88, 113, 192 P. 664; 27 GEORGETOWN L.J. 74; 38 HARV. L. REV. 245. 

RECORD DATE; SMITH V. TAECKER, 133 CAL. APP. 351, 24 P.2D 182;
RICHTER & CO. V. LIGHT, 97 CONN. 364, 116 A. 600; FORD V. FORD
MANUFACTURING CO., 222 ILL. APP. 76, 84; NUTTER V. ANDREWS, 246 MASS.
224, 142 N.E. 67. 

ACCRUAL UNDER SEC. 42, HOWEVER, IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON THESE VARYING
CONCEPTS OF WHEN DIVIDENDS VEST.  DESPITE POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
STATE AND FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION OF DIVIDEND ITEMS, THE PRESUMED
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO HAVE THE NATIONAL REVENUE ACTS UNIFORMLY
ADMINISTERED LEADS TO A FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF ACCRUALS UNDER SEC.
42. 

SUCH INCONSISTENCY WOULD NOT OCCUR IF THE FEDERAL ACCRUAL DATE UNDER
SEC. 42 IS HELD EVENTUALLY TO BE THE SAME FOR TAXPAYERS ON THE ACCRUED
AND CASH BASIS.  CF. AVERY V. COMMISSIONER, 292 U.S. 210; TAR PRODUCTS
CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 130 F.2D 866. 

FN4  RESPONDENT ARGUES FOR THE JUDGMENT BELOW ON THE GROUND THAT THE
DIVIDENDS COULD NOT PROPERLY BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ESTATE WHEN
RECEIVED, SINCE THE RECEIPT OF THE DIVIDENDS IN CASH BY THE ESTATE WAS
MERELY A CONVERSION INTO MONEY OF ONE OF THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE,
CITING VANDERBILT V. COMMISSIONER, 11 B.T.A. 291; NICHOLS V. UNITED
STATES, 64 CT. CLS. 241; 80 TREAS. REG., ART. 13.  THE TRUTH OR ERROR
OF THIS POSITION DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THOSE DIVIDENDS ARE INCOME, BY
VIRTUE OF THE ACCRUAL PROVISION OF SEC. 42, TO THE DECEDENT.  IF THEY
ARE INCOME TO THE DECEDENT, THEY CANNOT BE INCOME ALSO TO THE ESTATE. 
IF THEY ARE NOT INCOME TO THE DECEDENT, THEY ARE INCOME TO THE ESTATE. 
THE VANDERBILT AND NICHOLS CASES WERE APPARENTLY DECIDED ON THE THEORY
THAT THE ITEMS IN CONTROVERSY CONSTITUTED INCOME TO THE DECEDENT AND
ASSETS OF THE ESTATE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES AND THEREFORE COULD NOT
LATER BE INCOME TO THE ESTATE.  THE REGULATION DOES NOT PURPORT TO
DIRECT THE RETURN AS CORPUS OF THE ESTATE OF DIVIDENDS DECLARED BUT
WITH A RECORD DATE SUBSEQUENT TO THE STOCKHOLDER'S DEATH.  NEITHER DO
THE PRESENT REGULATIONS.  105 TREAS. REG., SEC. 81.13; CF. UNITED
STATES V. PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156, 171. 

CONGRESS HAS MODIFIED SEC. 42 BY AN AMENDMENT WHICH IS INAPPLICABLE
TO THIS CASE.  REVENUE ACT OF 1942, SEC. 134, 56 STAT. 798, 830; H.
REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., SEC. 125, P. 83; S. REP. 1631,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS., SEC. 135, P. 100. 

FN5  A REFERENCE TO DIVIDENDS APPEARS IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BUT
CASTS NO LIGHT ON THE PROBLEM OF THE EVENT WHICH ACCRUES A CORPORATE
DIVIDEND.  SEE H.R. 7835, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PRINTED WITH SENATE
AMENDMENTS, MARCH 28(CALENDAR DAY, APRIL 13), 1934; I.R.B., C.B. 1939
1(PART 2), P. 629, AMENDMENT 27; SEC. 43, REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT.
694; SEC. 43, REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 473. 

FN6  THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ACCRUED ACCORDING TO THE
TAXPAYER'S METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, WHICH IS DIRECTED IN SEC. 48(C), 52
STAT. 476, IS NOT OF USE.  HELVERING V. ENRIGHT, 312 U.S. 636, 644. 
AVERY V. COMMISSIONER, 292 U.S. 210, HOLDS THAT DIVIDENDS OF A LIVING
TAXPAYER ON THE CASH BASIS WOULD NOT BECOME HIS INCOME ON MERE
DECLARATION BUT ONLY WHEN "RECEIVED," THAT IS, UNQUALIFIEDLY MADE
SUBJECT TO THE STOCKHOLDER'S DEMAND AS BY CHECK.  "RECEIVED" IN THE
AS INCOME OF SUMS ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY COLLECTED, INCLUDING
DIVIDENDS, AS IT IS IN THE SECTION OF THE STATUTE HERE INVOLVED.  THIS
RULE HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY APPLIED.    SEE MASON V. ROUTZAHN, 275 U.S.
175, 178; 65 TREAS. REG., ART. 1541; 101 TREAS. REG., ART. 42-3; 111
TREAS. REG., SEC. 29.42-3; 53 HARV. L. REV. 853; 2 MERTENS, FEDERAL
INCOME TAXATION, 17. 

SEE TAR PRODUCTS CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 130 F.2D 866, FOR AN INSTANCE
OF THE APPLICATION OF THIS RULE TO A TAXPAYER ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS. 
COMPARE 94 TREAS. REG., ART. 115-1 AND 22(A)(1) FOR APPRAISAL OF
POSITION OF THOSE REGULATIONS AS TO DATE WHEN DIVIDENDS ARE RECEIVED BY
A TAXPAYER.  AMERICAN LIGHT & TRACTION CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 3 T.C.
1048. 

FN7  312 U.S. AT 644-45; 144 F.2D AT 758. 

FN8  THIS ACCORDS WITH THE ORIGINAL HOLDING OF THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS ON THIS QUESTION IN ESTATE OF MCGLUE, 41 B.T.A. 1186, 1193. 
AFTER THAT CASE WAS REVERSED ON THE LAW OF NEW YORK, HELVERING V.
MCGLUE'S ESTATE, 119 F.2D 167, THE BOARD FOLLOWED THE CIRCUIT COURT
DECISION.  ESTATE OF LEDYARD, 44 B.T.A. 1056, 1065.  RECENTLY THE TAX
COURT HAS HELD THAT A TAXPAYER ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR
A DIVIDEND WHEN RECEIVED.  AMERICAN LIGHT & TRACTION CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 3 T.C. 1048. 
..END :
























MALINSKI V. NEW YORK, 324 U.S. 401 


NO. 367.  ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 5, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945.  - 292
N.Y. 360, 55 N.E.2D 353, AFFIRMED IN PART-REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  UPON REVIEW OF A STATE COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMING CONVICTIONS OF
CODEFENDANTS MALINSKI AND RUDISH ON A CHARGE OF MURDER, DENIAL OF
RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BEING
CLAIMED, THE JUDGMENT AGAINST MALINSKI IS REVERSED AND THAT AGAINST
RUDISH IS AFFIRMED.  PP. 402, 412. 

2.  THE CASE AGAINST THE CO-DEFENDANT RUDISH, BOTH AS TRIED AND AS
SUSTAINED ON APPEAL, WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON A SUBSEQUENT CONFESSION OF
MALINSKI (THOUGH ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN COERCED); ON THE RECORD, THE
QUESTIONS RAISED INVOLVE MATTERS OF STATE PROCEDURE BEYOND THE PROVINCE
OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW; AND THE JUDGMENT AGAINST RUDISH IS THEREFORE
AFFIRMED.  ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 350, AND ASHCRAFT V.
TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 410, 412. 

OPINION OF DOUGLAS, J., IN WHICH BLACK, MURPHY AND RUTLEDGE, JJ.,
JOIN: 

3.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY THE INTRODUCTION OF AN
INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION IS ONE UPON WHICH THIS COURT MUST MAKE AN
INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION ON THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE.  P. 404. 

4.  IF ALL THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE CONFESSION
WAS COERCED OR COMPELLED, IT MAY NOT BE USED TO CONVICT A DEFENDANT. 
P. 404. 

5.  A CONVICTION OBTAINED BY USE OF A COERCED CONFESSION WILL BE SET
ASIDE EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE APART FROM THE CONFESSION MIGHT HAVE
BEEN SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT.  P. 404. 

6.  THE EVIDENCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH MALINSKI MADE THE
FIRST OF SEVERAL CONFESSIONS, TOGETHER WITH THE COMMENTS OF THE
PROSECUTOR IN HIS SUMMATION TO THE JURY, SHOW THAT THAT CONFESSION WAS
COERCED; AND, UPON THE RECORD, THE CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED AS ONE IN
WHICH A COERCED CONFESSION WAS USED TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.  P. 406. 

7.  THE JUDGMENT AGAINST MALINSKI, RESTING IN PART ON A COERCED
CONFESSION, MUST BE REVERSED.  A MAJORITY OF THE COURT DO NOT REACH THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE SUBSEQUENT CONFESSIONS WERE FREE FROM THE
INFIRMITIES OF THE FIRST.  P. 410. 

MALINSKI ET AL. V. NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 694, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS OF
MURDER. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MALINSKI AND RUDISH WERE CONVICTED ALONG WITH ONE INDOVINO OF THE
MURDER OF LEON FOX, A POLICE OFFICER WHO, LATE AT NIGHT, WAS ESCORTING
A MANAGER OF A THEATRE TO A BANK DEPOSITORY.  THE DETAILS WILL BE FOUND
IN 292 N.Y. 360.  THERE WERE NO EYE WITNESSES TO THE CRIME WHO COULD
IDENTIFY THE ROBBERS.  MALINSKI WAS IMPLICATED BY VARIOUS WITNESSES -
BY SPIELFOGEL, AN OLD FRIEND AND A CRIMINAL SERVING A SENTENCE OF
THIRTY TO SIXTY YEARS IN SING SING; BY MALINSKI'S GIRL FRIEND; BY
MALINSKI'S BROTHER-IN-LAW.  EACH TESTIFIED THAT MALINSKI CONFESSED THE
CRIME TO HIM OR HER.  THE CONFESSIONS TO THE GIRL FRIEND AND TO THE
BROTHER-IN-LAW WERE MADE A FEW HOURS AFTER THE CRIME AND WERE MERELY
THAT MALINSKI HAD SHOT A COP; BUT THE CONFESSION TO SPIELFOGEL
DISCLOSED IN DETAIL THE PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF THE CRIME.  MALINSKI
DENIED MAKING THESE CONFESSIONS.  YET AS THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
POINTED OUT (292 N.Y. P. 370) THOSE CONFESSIONS AND OTHER EVIDENCE OF
THE STATE WERE SUFFICIENT, IF BELIEVED, TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION,
WHOLLY APART FROM ANOTHER CONFESSION AROUND WHICH THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSY TURNS.  BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE LATTER
CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED RAISED THE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH
PROMPTED US TO GRANT THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

                                   I 

MALINSKI WAS ARRESTED WHILE ON HIS WAY TO WORK ON THE MORNING OF
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1942.  THE POLICE DID NOT THEN ARRAIGN HIM BUT TOOK
HIM TO A ROOM IN THE BOSSERT HOTEL IN BROOKLYN WHERE HE ARRIVED ABOUT 8
A.M.  HE WAS IMMEDIATELY STRIPPED AND KEPT NAKED UNTIL ABOUT 11 A.M.
AT THAT TIME HE WAS ALLOWED TO PUT ON HIS SHOES, SOCKS AND UNDERWEAR
AND WAS GIVEN A BLANKET IN WHICH TO WRAP HIMSELF.  HE REMAINED THAT WAY
UNTIL ABOUT 6 P.M.  MALINSKI CLAIMS HE WAS BEATEN BY THE POLICE DURING
THAT PERIOD.  THE POLICE DENIED THIS.  THERE WAS NO VISIBLE SIGN OF ANY
BEATING, SUCH AS BRUISES OR SCARS; AND MALINSKI MADE NO COMPLAINT TO
THE JUDGE ON ARRAIGNMENT NOR TO THE JAIL AUTHORITIES WHERE HE WAS LATER
HELD.  SOMETIME DURING FRIDAY MORNING SPIELFOGEL WAS BROUGHT TO THE
HOTEL.  HE AND MALINSKI WERE PUT ALONE TOGETHER IN A ROOM SOMETIME THAT
AFTERNOON.  SHORTLY AFTER THEIR CONFERENCE - APPARENTLY AROUND 5:30
P.M. OR 6:00 P.M. - MALINSKI CONFESSED TO THE POLICE.  AFTER IT WAS
MADE MALINSKI WAS ALLOWED TO DRESS.  MALINSKI WAS KEPT AT THE HOTEL
THAT NIGHT AND THE NEXT THREE DAYS.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW EXACTLY
HOW LONG AND FREQUENT THE QUESTIONING WAS AFTER THE FIRST CONFESSION. 
BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT MALINSKI WAS QUESTIONED IN THE EARLY HOURS OF
SATURDAY, THE 24TH, AND AT OTHER TIMES DURING THAT DAY.  HE WAS FURTHER
QUESTIONED ON SUNDAY, THE 25TH, AND TAKEN WITH SPIELFOGEL FROM THE
HOTEL TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME WHERE HE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL PLACES
WHICH HAD A RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME AND WHERE HE
POINTED OUT HOW THE CRIME WAS EXECUTED.  ON MONDAY, THE 26TH, HE WAS
TAKEN FROM THE HOTEL TO THE POLICE GARAGE WHERE HE IDENTIFIED THE
AUTOMOBILE USED IN THE ROBBERY.  AT ABOUT 5:00 P.M. ON MONDAY HE WAS
TAKEN TO A POLICE STATION AND QUESTIONED.  ON TUESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER
27TH, ABOUT 2 A.M. HE MADE A CONFESSION AT THE POLICE STATION.  THAT
CONFESSION WAS INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER - ABOUT
4:00 A.M. - HE WAS BOOKED AND PUT IN A CELL AND SOON ARRAIGNED. 

THE TRIAL COURT HELD A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER
OF THE CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 27TH BEFORE ALLOWING IT TO BE INTRODUCED
IN EVIDENCE.  THERE IS A QUESTION IN THE CASE WHETHER THE CONFESSION OF
OCTOBER 23RD AS WELL AS THAT OF OCTOBER 27TH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY,
A QUESTION TO WHICH WE WILL RETURN.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE TO NOTE THAT
THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT A CONFESSION SHOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERED BY THEM UNLESS THEY FOUND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IT
WAS VOLUNTARY.  AND THEY WERE TOLD THAT ALTHOUGH THE DELAY IN
ARRAIGNMENT WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE, THEY MIGHT CONSIDER IT IN PASSING ON
THE QUESTION OF VOLUNTARINESS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY A DIVIDED VOTE.  FN1  BUT THE QUESTION
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY THE INTRODUCTION OF AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION
IS ONE ON WHICH WE MUST MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION ON THE
UNDISPUTED FACTS.  CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; LISENBA V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143. 

IF ALL THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE CONFESSION WAS
COERCED OR COMPELLED, IT MAY NOT BE USED TO CONVICT A DEFENDANT. 
ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, SUPRA, P. 154.  AND IF IT IS INTRODUCED AT THE
TRIAL, THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WILL BE SET ASIDE EVEN THOUGH THE
EVIDENCE APART FROM THE CONFESSION MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THE JURY'S VERDICT.  LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596, 597. 

IF THE EVIDENCE ALONE IS CONSIDERED, THERE IS SERIOUS DOUBT WHETHER
THE CONFESSION MADE ON THE LATE AFTERNOON OF FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23RD (THE
FIRST DAY OF MALINSKI'S DETENTION) WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE RULE OF
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, AND ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE,
SUPRA. IF THE CONFESSION HAD BEEN THE PRODUCT OF PERSISTENT QUESTIONING
WHILE MALINSKI STOOD STRIPPED AND NAKED, WE WOULD HAVE A CLEAR CASE. 
BUT IT WAS NOT.  MALINSKI WAS STRIPPED WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE HOTEL SO
THAT HE MIGHT BE EXAMINED FOR BULLET WOUNDS.  FN2  HE REMAINED IN THAT
CONDITION SEVERAL HOURS - MUCH LONGER THAN ANY SUCH PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION COULD POSSIBLY JUSTIFY.  BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HE WAS
SUBJECTED TO MORE THAN OCCASIONAL QUESTIONING DURING THAT PERIOD.  NO
CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED FROM HIM AT THAT TIME.  HE SAID HE WAS BEATEN;
BUT THAT WAS DISPUTED.  AND THE ASSERTION HAS SUCH A DUBIOUS CLAIM TO
VERACITY THAT WE LAY IT ASIDE.  IN ANY EVENT, HE SOON HAD HIS SHOES,
SOCKS, AND UNDERWEAR BACK ON AND A BLANKET IN WHICH TO WRAP HIMSELF. 
HE COMPLAINED OF THAT TREATMENT IN HIS TESTIMONY.  THE POLICE JUSTIFIED
IT WITH THE DUBIOUS EXPLANATION THAT IT WAS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT
MALINSKI DID NOT ESCAPE.  YET THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW ANY PERSISTENT
AND INCESSANT - LET ALONE GRUELLING - QUESTIONING BY THE POLICE WHILE
MALINSKI WAS ONLY PARTIALLY CLOTHED.  THERE ARE MANY GAPS IN THE
CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE OF WHAT TRANSPIRED THAT DAY.  BUT SEVERAL
CIRCUMSTANCES STAND OUT.  MALINSKI WAS HELD INCOMMUNICADO; HE WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO SEE A LAWYER, THOUGH HE ASKED FOR ONE, AND HE WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO SEE FRIENDS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION.  FN3 THAT EXCEPTION WAS
SPIELFOGEL.  FN4  AS WE HAVE NOTED, HE AND MALINSKI HAD A PRIVATE
CONFERENCE THAT AFTERNOON.  MALINSKI WAS TOLD THAT SPIELFOGEL WAS
THERE.  MALINSKI ASKED TO SEE HIM.  SPIELFOGEL'S VERSION OF WHAT
TRANSPIRED VARIES FROM MALINSKI'S.  THE FORMER SAYS THAT MALINSKI TOLD
HIM THE POLICE KNEW SO MUCH THAT MALINSKI FIGURED HE "MIGHT AS WELL GO
OUT THERE AND TELL THEM THE REST."  MALINSKI SAID THAT HE ASKED
SPIELFOGEL, "WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH ME?"; AND THAT SPIELFOGEL REPLIED,
"DON'T LET THEM HIT YOU.  YOU KNOW YOU DIDN'T DO IT.  GO OUT AND SAY I
TOLD YOU TO TELL THE TRUTH."  SHORTLY THEREAFTER MALINSKI MADE HIS
CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 23RD.  IF THAT EVIDENCE ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT
TO SHOW THAT THAT CONFESSION WAS COERCED, THE COMMENTS OF THE
PROSECUTOR PLACE IT BEYOND DOUBT.  FOR IN HIS SUMMATION TO THE JURY HE
MADE CERTAIN STATEMENTS WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID WERE
"INDEFENSIBLE" (292 N.Y. P. 373) AND WHICH WE THINK ARE SUFFICIENT TO
FILL IN ANY GAPS ON THE RECORD BEFORE US AND TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS
CONFESSION WAS NOT MADE VOLUNTARILY.  HE SAID THAT MALINSKI "WAS NOT
HARD TO BREAK"; THAT "HE DID NOT CARE WHAT HE DID.  HE KNEW THE COPS
WERE GOING TO BREAK HIM DOWN."  AND HE ADDED: 

"WHY THIS TALK ABOUT BEING UNDRESSED?  OF COURSE, THEY HAD A RIGHT TO
UNDRESS HIM TO LOOK FOR BULLET SCARS, AND KEEP THE CLOTHES OFF HIM. 
THAT WAS QUITE PROPER POLICE PROCEDURE.  THAT IS SOME MORE PSYCHOLOGY -
LET HIM SIT AROUND WITH A BLANKET ON HIM, HUMILIATE HIM THERE FOR A
WHILE; LET HIM SIT IN THE CORNER, LET HIM THINK HE IS GOING TO GET A
SHELLACKING." 

IF WE TAKE THE PROSECUTOR AT HIS WORD, THE CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 23RD
WAS THE PRODUCT OF FEAR - ONE ON WHICH WE COULD NOT PERMIT A PERSON TO
STAND CONVICTED FOR A CRIME. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THIS COERCED CONFESSION WAS NOT INTRODUCED IN
EVIDENCE, THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ONLY INSOFAR AS IT THREW
LIGHT ON THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE SUBSEQUENT CONFESSIONS, AND
THAT UNDER THE RULE OF LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, P. 601, THE ADEQUACY
OF THAT INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY IS SOLELY FOR THE STATE COURTS TO
DETERMINE.  WE DO NOT THINK, HOWEVER, THAT LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA,
FITS THIS CASE. 

THE CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 23RD WAS ORAL.  ITS DETAILS WERE NOT PUT IN
EVIDENCE.  BUT SPIELFOGEL, A WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, ADVERTED TO
IT IN HIS TESTIMONY, SAYING THAT MALINSKI TOLD "EVERYTHING" AT THAT
TIME.  A POLICE OFFICER TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION TO THE
SAME EFFECT.  THE PROSECUTOR REFERRED TO IT IN HIS SUMMATION IN
LANGUAGE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY QUOTED.  HE ADDED THAT "SIX O'CLOCK IN
THE EVENING AFTER HE (MALINSKI) WAS PICKED UP, HE TOLD THE WHOLE
THING."  WHEN THE CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 27TH (WHICH WAS A DETAILED
CONFESSION TAKEN DOWN BY A STENOGRAPHER) WAS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE, A
PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS HAD.  THAT HEARING COVERED THE VOLUNTARY
CHARACTER OF THE OCTOBER 23RD CONFESSION AS WELL AS THE OCTOBER 27TH
CONFESSION.  THE TRIAL COURT IN ITS CHARGE TO THE JURY REVIEWED THE
EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 23RD - THE PROSECUTOR'S
VERSION, MALINSKI'S VERSION.  IT THEN REFERRED TO THE DELAY IN
ARRAIGNING MALINSKI, STATING THAT THE POLICE CLAIMED THEY WERE WILLING
TO ARRAIGN MALINSKI ON THE DAY OF HIS ARREST BUT THAT MALINSKI
PREFERRED TO STAY AT THE HOTEL WITH SPIELFOGEL.  IT THEN CHARGED: 

"BE THAT AS IT MAY, I CHARGE YOU THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE POLICE
TO ARRAIGN THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THE NEAREST MAGISTRATE WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY DELAY, AND, FURTHER, THAT IF A POLICE OFFICER FAILED OR
REFUSED TO PERFORM SUCH DUTY, HE IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. 

"BUT, GENTLEMEN, YOU WILL BEAR IN MIND THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS
NOT ON TRIAL IN THIS CASE.  THIS TESTIMONY WAS ADDUCED SOLELY ON THE
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED CONFESSION LATER MADE WAS THE
RESULT OF THE COERCION, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, WHICH IS PROHIBITED
BY THE STATUTE, AND WHICH INVALIDATES A CONFESSION IF MADE.  IF YOU
SHOULD FIND THAT THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE DEFENDANT WAS DELAYED, YOU MAY
CONSIDER THAT ON THE QUESTION OF THE VOLUNTARINESS OF ANY CONFESSION
MADE BY MALINSKY, INCLUDING THE ONE MADE IN THE EARLY HOURS OF OCTOBER
27TH AT THE BATH BEACH STATION HOUSE. 

"HOWEVER, I AM CHARGING YOU THAT THE FAILURE TO ARRAIGN, IN AND OF
ITSELF, IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AGAINST THE PEOPLE, AND DOES NOT IN AND OF
ITSELF, STANDING ALONE, DESTROY THE VALIDITY OF THE CONFESSION.  IS
THAT CLEAR? 

"ON THE QUESTION WHETHER MALINSKI WAS COERCED, YOU MAY CONSIDER THAT
HE MADE NO COMPLAINT TO THE MAGISTRATE WHEN ARRAIGNED AND DID NOT SEEK
THE SERVICES OF THE JAIL PHYSICIAN.  THAT EVIDENCE, IF TRUE, IS NOT,
HOWEVER, CONCLUSIVE AGAINST MALINSKI, BUT MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY
ON THE ISSUE OF THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE CONFESSION." 

MALINSKI MADE NO OBJECTIONS TO THESE REFERENCES TO HIS CONFESSION OF
OCTOBER 23RD.  AND WHILE HE ASKED FOR A MISTRIAL BECAUSE OF THE
PROSECUTOR'S COMMENTS, HE MADE ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE NO REQUESTS TO
CHARGE WHICH WERE REFUSED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, DID NOT HOLD
THAT MALINSKI WAS PRECLUDED FROM OBJECTING  FN5  TO THE USE MADE AT THE
TRIAL OF HIS CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 23RD.  IT CONSIDERED HIS OBJECTION
THAT "IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY THE CONFESSION
MADE BY MALINSKI ORALLY ON OCTOBER 23RD" AS WELL AS THE OTHER THREE
CONFESSIONS MADE TO THE POLICE.  292 N.Y. P. 370.  AND IT MADE PLAIN,
WHEN IT HELD THAT MALINSKI'S "CONFESSION" SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED
AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT IT MEANT "NOT ONLY THE CONFESSION MADE ORALLY
TO A POLICE OFFICER ON THE FRIDAY NIGHT OF THE ARREST BUT ALSO THE TWO
AUTOMOBILE TRIPS ON SUNDAY AND MONDAY, ONE TO THE POLICE GARAGE TO
PERMIT MALINSKI TO IDENTIFY THE AUTOMOBILE USED IN THE CRIME AND THE
OTHER TO CONEY ISLAND TO REVISIT A RESTAURANT AND THE SCENE OF THE
CRIME, AND THE CONFESSION TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHICH WAS TAKEN
STENOGRAPHICALLY IN THE EARLY MORNING OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27TH."  292
N.Y. PP. 373-374.  ITS RULING WAS THAT NONE OF THE FOUR CONFESSIONS WAS
INVOLUNTARY AS A MATTER OF LAW.  THUS AS WE READ THE OPINION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS, IT REVIEWED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ON THE BASIS
THAT ALL FOUR CONFESSIONS TO THE POLICE HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY.  WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT IT CONSTRUED THE RECORD TO BE LIKE
THE ONE IN LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, WHERE CONSIDERATION OF THE FIRST
COERCED CONFESSION WAS STRICTLY LIMITED TO THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF
SUBSEQUENT CONFESSIONS.  NOR DO WE THINK THAT THE RECORD BEFORE US CAN
BE FAIRLY CONSTRUED IN THAT MANNER.    THERE WERE REPEATED REFERENCES
AT THE TRIAL TO THE CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 23RD.  THE PROSECUTOR MADE
EMPHATIC REFERENCES TO IT IN HIS SUMMATION.  ON THIS RECORD THE FACT
THAT MALINSKI CONFESSED TO THE CRIME SHORTLY AFTER HE WAS ARRESTED
STANDS OUT IN BOLD RELIEF.  THE USE MADE OF THE CONFESSION COULD HARDLY
HAVE BEEN MORE EFFECTIVE HAD ITS DETAILS BEEN PUT IN EVIDENCE.  IT WAS
NOT INSULATED FROM THE TRIAL.  THE PART OF THE CHARGE TO THE JURY WHICH
WE HAVE QUOTED MAY POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN AN EFFORT IN THAT DIRECTION.  BUT
IT IS MORE SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE DELAY IN
ARRAIGNMENT, NOT THE FIRST CONFESSION, WAS TO BE CONSIDERED "SOLELY ON
THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED CONFESSION LATER MADE WAS
THE RESULT OF THE COERCION."  THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE
INTERPRETATION GIVEN THE CHARGE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  292 N.Y. P.
374.  NO MORE EXPLICIT CHARGE WAS GIVEN.  THE JURY AT NO TIME WAS
ADMONISHED THAT IT COULD NOT CONVICT ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST
CONFESSION NOR CONSIDER IT AS EVIDENCE AGAINST MALINSKI.  WE MUST
CONSIDER THE CASE, THEREFORE, AS ONE IN WHICH A COERCED CONFESSION WAS
EMPLOYED TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.  COERCED CONFESSIONS WOULD FIND A WAY
OF CORRUPTING THE TRIAL IF WE SANCTIONED THE USE MADE OF THE OCTOBER
23RD CONFESSION IN THIS CASE.  CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MAY SUFFER AS MUCH
FROM SUBTLE INTRUSIONS AS FROM DIRECT DISREGARD. 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE JUDGMENT BEFORE US RESTS IN PART ON A
CONFESSION OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF COERCION.  ACCORDINGLY A MAJORITY OF
THE COURT DO NOT COME TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SUBSEQUENT
CONFESSIONS WERE FREE FROM THE INFIRMITIES OF THE FIRST ONE.  FN6

                                  II 

WE HAVE NOT MENTIONED RUDISH.  HE DID NOT CONFESS TO THE POLICE.  HE
WAS TRIED JOINTLY WITH MALINSKI, HIS COUNSEL ELECTING NOT TO ASK FOR A
SEVERANCE.  WE ARE ASKED TO REVERSE AS TO RUDISH BECAUSE THE CONFESSION
OF OCTOBER 27TH WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST MALINSKI WAS
PREJUDICIAL TO RUDISH.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THAT COURSE IS INDICATED BY
ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 350.  IN THAT CASE WE REVERSED A
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS THOUGH THE
CONFESSIONS WHICH HAD BEEN INTRODUCED WERE THE CONFESSIONS OF ONLY SOME
OF THEM.  BUT IN THAT CASE WE WERE REVIEWING A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OVER WHICH WE HAVE MORE CONTROL THAN WE DO OVER
CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE STATE COURTS.  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S.
332.  MOREOVER, IN THE ANDERSON CASE THE JURY WAS TOLD THAT IN
CONSIDERING THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF EACH DEFENDANT THEY COULD
CONSIDER THE WHOLE PROOF MADE AT THE TRIAL.  AND IT APPEARED THAT THE
PROSECUTION LEANED HEAVILY ON THE CONFESSIONS TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE
AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS.  THE FURTHEST WE HAVE GONE IN A COMPARABLE
CASE FROM A STATE COURT IS TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CO
DEFENDANT WHO DID NOT CONFESS AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE STATE COURT
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  THUS IN ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S.
143, 155, WE FOLLOWED THAT PROCEDURE, AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE, WHERE THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CO-DEFENDANT WHO
DID NOT CONFESS WAS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE COURT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THE CONFESSION WHICH WE HELD TO BE COERCED WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AND
THAT THE CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT WHO DID CONFESS WAS VALID. 

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PROCEDURE IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE EVEN
THOUGH IT BE ASSUMED ARGUENDO THAT THE CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 27TH WAS
INVOLUNTARY.  IT IS TRUE THAT THAT CONFESSION REFERRED BOTH TO RUDISH
AND TO INDOVINO.  BUT BEFORE THAT CONFESSION WAS OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
THE TRIAL COURT WITH THE COMPLETE APPROVAL OF COUNSEL FOR RUDISH WORKED
OUT A PROCEDURE FOR PROTECTING RUDISH AND INDOVINO.  "X" WAS
SUBSTITUTED FOR RUDISH, "Y" FOR INDOVINO.  THE JURY WERE PLAINLY
INSTRUCTED THAT THE CONFESSION WAS ADMITTED AGAINST MALINSKI ALONE AND
THAT THEY WERE NOT TO SPECULATE CONCERNING THE IDENTITY OF "X" OR "Y." 
WHEN IT CAME TO THE CHARGE, THE TRIAL COURT SUBMITTED THE CASE AGAINST
RUDISH SEPARATELY FROM THE ONE AGAINST MALINSKI.  FN7  THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN SUSTAINING THE JUDGMENT AGAINST RUDISH IN NO RESPECT RELIED
ON ANY CONFESSION TO THE POLICE WHICH MALINSKI MADE.  AND WHEN IT
TURNED TO THE COMMENTS OF THE PROSECUTOR, WHICH WE HAVE QUOTED, IT
NOTED THAT THEY CONCERNED MALINSKI, NOT RUDISH.  292 N.Y. P. 373. 

ON THIS RECORD THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY RUDISH INVOLVE MATTERS OF
STATE PROCEDURE BEYOND OUR PROVINCE TO REVIEW.  BARRINGTON V. MISSOURI,
205 U.S. 483.  SINCE THE CASE AGAINST HIM, BOTH AS TRIED AND AS
SUSTAINED ON REVIEW, WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON MALINSKI'S CONFESSION OF
OCTOBER 27TH, WE THINK IT INAPPROPRIATE TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AS WE
DID IN ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, SUPRA, THOUGH WE ASSUME THAT THAT
CONFESSION WAS COERCED.  WHETHER OUR REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST
MALINSKI WOULD AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW AFFECT THE JUDGMENT AGAINST
RUDISH IS NOT FOR US TO SAY.  IN EACH CASE OUR MANDATE WILL PROVIDE FOR
A REMAND TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION. 

THE JUDGMENT AGAINST RUDISH IS AFFIRMED. 

THE JUDGMENT AGAINST MALINSKI IS REVERSED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT DIVIDE ON THE ISSUE WHICH IS BEFORE
US.  THE DISSENTING JUDGES THOUGHT (1) THAT SPIELFOGEL WAS AN
ACCOMPLICE AND THAT THE CONVICTION OF RUDISH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE; AND (2) THAT THE INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE
VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE CONFESSION WAS NOT ADEQUATE. 

FN2  WHILE THE ROBBERS WERE ESCAPING, THE WOUNDED POLICEMAN FIRED
SEVERAL SHOTS, SOME OF WHICH HIT THE CAR IN WHICH THEY MADE THEIR
ESCAPE. 

FN3  THE MATTER WAS DESCRIBED BY THE PROSECUTOR IN A RATHER SHOCKING
MANNER: 

"THEY HOLD MEN FOR SEVERAL DAYS.  ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THAT?  THEY
ARE NOT GOING TO LET HIM GO HOME, OR LET HIM GET HOLD OF A SMART
MOUTHPIECE TO PREACH ABOUT HIS RIGHTS AND SUE OUT WRITS.  YOU WANT A
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THIS COUNTY THAT IS WORTH HIS SALT, NOT A
POWDERPUFF DISTRICT ATTORNEY.  WHEN YOU ARE TRYING A CASE OF MURDER,
ESPECIALLY MURDER OF A POLICE OFFICER, YOU DON'T GO OVER AND GIVE HIM A
PAT ON THE BACK AND SAY, 'DO YOU WANT ANYTHING?  DO YOU WANT TO HAVE
YOUR LAWYER OR YOUR WIFE OR SOMEBODY ELSE?'  IN FACT AFTER THAT THEY
WOULD NOT EVEN LET HIM SEE MR. MATH, AN ASSISTANT IN OUR OFFICE; THEY
WOULD NOT EVEN LET HIM TALK TO A RABBI.  DO YOU THINK MCNALLY, 17 YEARS
IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, IS GOING TO LET THIS JERK FROM THE EAST SIDE
TELL HIM HIS BUSINESS?" 

FN4  AS THE COURT OF APPEALS POINTS OUR (292 N.Y. P. 375), SPIELFOGEL
AND MALINSKI HAD AN AGREEMENT THAT IF EITHER WENT TO PRISON THE ONE WHO
WAS FREE WOULD HELP TAKE CARE OF THE OTHER'S FAMILY.  AFTER SPIELFOGEL
WENT TO SING SING, MALINSKI CONTRIBUTED FOR A WHILE TO THE SUPPORT OF
SPIELFOGEL'S WIFE.  WHEN MALINSKI REFUSED TO PAY ANY MORE, SPIELFOGEL
UNBURDENED HIMSELF TO TWO OTHER CONVICTS, YELLIN AND KOVNER, "BUT WITH
NO INTENTION OF ACTING AGAINST MALINSKI FOR, CURIOUSLY ENOUGH,
TESTIMONY IS IN THIS RECORD THAT, AFTER KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAD OCCURRED
IN THE SHOOTING OF FOX REACHED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND A LIEUTENANT
OF POLICE WAS SENT TO SING SING PRISON TO INTERVIEW SPIELFOGEL, HE
REFUSED TO TALK TO THE POLICE OFFICER.  EVEN AFTER THAT POLICE OFFICER
HAD TOLD HIM ALL THAT SPIELFOGEL MUST HAVE TOLD TO YELLIN AND KOVNER HE
STILL EVINCED NO INTEREST IN HELPING THE POLICE.  IT WAS ONLY LATER
THAT HE CONSENTED TO TALK." 

FN5  NEW YORK HAS THE RULE THAT IN CAPITAL CASES A NEW TRIAL MAY BE
ORDERED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE THOUGH NO EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN IN
THE TRIAL COURT.  GILBERT'S ANNO.  CRIMINAL CODE & PENAL LAW (1943)
SEC. 528; PEOPLE V. JUNG HING, 212 N.Y. 393, 405, 106 N.E. 105; PEOPLE
V. LYTTON, 257 N.Y. 310, 313, 178 N.E. 290. 

FN6  MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
JOIN IN PART I OF THIS OPINION. 

FN7  THIS TREATMENT OF THE MATTER SEEMS TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE
PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN NEW YORK IN CASE OF JOINT TRIALS.  SEE PEOPLE V.
SNYDER, 246 N.Y. 491, 497, 159 N.E. 408; PEOPLE V. FISHER, 249 N.Y.
419, 424, 427, 164 N.E. 336. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

IT IS ALSO MY VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT AS TO MALINSKI CALLS FOR
REVERSAL, LEAVING THE DISPOSITION OF RUDISH'S CONVICTION IN THE LIGHT
OF SUCH REVERSAL TO THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS. 

APART FROM PERMITTING CONGRESS TO USE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AS MEANS FOR
CARRYING INTO EXECUTION POWERS GRANTED TO IT, THE CONSTITUTION LEFT THE
DOMAIN OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE TO THE STATES.  THE CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING
THE BILL OF RIGHTS, PLACED NO RESTRICTION UPON THE POWER OF THE STATES
TO CONSULT SOLELY THEIR OWN NOTIONS OF POLICY IN FORMULATING PENAL
CODES AND IN ADMINISTERING THEM, EXCEPTING ONLY THAT THEY WERE
FORBIDDEN TO PASS ANY "BILL OF ATTAINDER" OR "EX POST FACTO LAW,"
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ART. I, SEC. 10.  THIS FREEDOM OF
ACTION REMAINED WITH THE STATES UNTIL 1868.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SEVERELY MODIFIED THE SITUATION.  IT DID SO NOT BY CHANGING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF POWER AS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT.  CRIMINAL JUSTICE WAS NOT WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATES AND
MADE THE BUSINESS OF FEDERAL LAWMAKING.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
MERELY RESTRICTED THE FREEDOM THERETOFORE POSSESSED BY THE STATES IN
THE MAKING AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR CRIMINAL LAWS. 

UNLIKE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS UPON THE USE OF CRIMINAL
PENALTIES BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PLACED NO
SPECIFIC RESTRICTION UPON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR CRIMINAL LAW BY
THE STATES.  CONGRESS IN PROPOSING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE
STATES IN RATIFYING IT LEFT TO THE STATES THE FREEDOM OF ACTION THEY
HAD BEFORE THAT AMENDMENT EXCEPTING ONLY THAT AFTER 1868 NO STATE COULD
"ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES"
NOR "DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW," NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON THE "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS."  THESE ARE ALL PHRASES OF LARGE GENERALITIES.  BUT THEY ARE NOT
GENERALITIES OF UNILLUMINED VAGUENESS; THEY ARE GENERALITIES
CIRCUMSCRIBED BY HISTORY AND APPROPRIATE TO THE LARGENESS OF THE
PROBLEMS OF GOVERNMENT WITH WHICH THEY WERE CONCERNED.  "THE PRIVILEGES
OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES" DERIVED FROM THE TWO
ASPECTS OF CITIZENSHIP IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  THE SAFEGUARDS OF "DUE
PROCESS OF LAW" AND "THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS" SUMMARIZE THE
HISTORY OF FREEDOM OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES RUNNING BACK TO MAGNA
CARTA AND REFLECTED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF OUR PEOPLE. 
THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN FREEDOM IS, IN NO SMALL MEASURE, THE HISTORY OF
PROCEDURE. 

HERE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" IN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE'S CRIMINAL LAW.  EXPERIENCE HAS CONFIRMED
THE WISDOM OF OUR PREDECESSORS IN REFUSING TO GIVE A RIGID SCOPE TO
THIS PHRASE.  IT EXPRESSES A DEMAND FOR CIVILIZED STANDARDS OF LAW.  IT
IS THUS NOT A STAGNANT FORMULATION OF WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE
PAST BUT A STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT IN THE PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTION OF THE
INSTITUTIONS OF A FREE SOCIETY.  THE SUGGESTION THAT "DUE PROCESS OF
LAW," AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IS A COMPENDIOUS
EXPRESSION OF THE ORIGINAL FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS (AMENDMENTS I TO
VIII) HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THIS COURT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AFTER
IMPRESSIVE CONSIDERATION.  SEE, E.G., HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S.
516; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S.
278; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319. 

IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STATESMEN FORMULATED
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST THE RECURRENCE OF WELLDEFINED HISTORIC GRIEVANCES. 
SOME OF THESE SAFEGUARDS, SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY A JURY OF
TWELVE AND IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION UNLESS INITIATED BY A GRAND JURY,
WERE BUILT ON EXPERIENCE OF RELATIVE AND LIMITED VALIDITY.  "FEW WOULD
BE SO NARROW OR PROVINCIAL AS TO MAINTAIN THAT A FAIR AND ENLIGHTENED
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THEM."  PALKO V.
CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 325.  OTHERS, LIKE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS OR
THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION OR FREEDOM FROM CONDEMNATION WITHOUT A
FAIR TRIAL, EXPRESS RIGHTS THE DENIAL OF WHICH IS REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSCIENCE OF A FREE PEOPLE.  THEY EXPRESS THOSE "FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR
CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS," HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312,
316, AND ARE IMPLIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE CONCEPT OF "DUE PROCESS OF
LAW." 

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THUS HAS POTENCY
DIFFERENT FROM AND INDEPENDENT OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  APART FROM ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, HOW COULD IT
BE OTHERWISE WITHOUT CHARGING MADISON AND HIS GREAT CONTEMPORARIES IN
THE FRAMING AND ADOPTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS WITH WRITING INTO IT A
MEANINGLESS CLAUSE?  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS
PROSECUTION OF AN "INFAMOUS CRIME" EXCEPT BY INDICTMENT; IT FORBIDS
DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND SELF-INCRIMINATION, AS WELL AS DEPRIVATION OF
"LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  NOT TO
ATTRIBUTE TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AN INDEPENDENT FUNCTION BUT TO CONSIDER
IT A SHORTHAND STATEMENT OF OTHER SPECIFIC CLAUSES IN THE SAME
AMENDMENT IS TO CHARGE THOSE WHO SECURED THE ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT
WITH MERETRICIOUS REDUNDANCY BY INDIFFERENCE TO A PHRASE - "DUE PROCESS
OF LAW" - WHICH WAS ONE OF THE GREAT INSTRUMENTS IN THE VERY ARSENAL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM WHICH THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS TO PROTECT AND
STRENGTHEN.  OF COURSE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT HAS THE SAME MEANING.  TO SUPPOSE THAT "DUE PROCESS OF LAW"
MEANT ONE THING IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND ANOTHER IN THE FOURTEENTH IS
TOO FRIVOLOUS TO REQUIRE ELABORATE REJECTION.    A CONSTRUCTION WHICH
GIVES DUE PROCESS NO INDEPENDENT FUNCTION BUT MAKES OF IT A SUMMARY OF
THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS WOULD TEAR UP BY THE
ROOTS MUCH OF THE FABRIC OF LAW IN THE SEVERAL STATES.  THUS, IT WOULD
REQUIRE ALL THE STATES TO PROSECUTE SERIOUS CRIMES THROUGH THE GRAND
JURY SYSTEM LONG AGO ABANDONED BY MANY OF THEM, SEE HURTADO V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, TO TRY SUCH CRIMES BY A JURY OF TWELVE WHICH SOME OF
THE STATES HAVE SEEN FIT TO MODIFY OR ABANDON, SEE MAXWELL V. DOW, 176
U.S. 581, TO ENFORCE THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WITH THE
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS PREVAILING IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WHEN STATES,
CONSISTENTLY WITH FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS OF JUSTICE, HAVE SEEN FIT TO MAKE
OTHER ARRANGEMENTS, SEE TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, AND TO HAVE JURY
TRIALS "IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL
EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS," A REQUIREMENT WHICH THIS COURT HAS HELD OVER
AND OVER AGAIN FOR MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS DOES NOT APPLY TO
PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS, SEE LIVINGSTON V. MOORE, 7 PET. 469, 551;
WALKER V. SAUVINET, 92 U.S. 90; PEARSON V. YEWDALL, 95 U.S. 294, 296. 
AND WE CAN HARDLY SELECT ONE PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND REJECT
ANOTHER, AS FOR INSTANCE THE PROVISION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.  SUCH A VIEW WOULD NOT ONLY DISREGARD
THE HISTORIC MEANING OF "DUE PROCESS."  IT LEADS INEVITABLY TO A WARPED
CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO BRING
WITHIN THEIR SCOPE CONDUCT CLEARLY CONDEMNED BY DUE PROCESS BUT NOT
EASILY FITTING INTO THE PIGEONHOLES OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.  BUT
FOR CONTRARY SUGGESTIONS, IT WOULD SEEM TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO TREAT
SERIOUSLY THE ARGUMENT THAT A PHRASE SO LADEN WITH HISTORIC MEANING AS
IS "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" CAN BE GIVEN AN IMPROVISED CONTENT OF SOME
SELECTED PROVISION OF THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS. 

AND SO, WHEN A CONVICTION IN A STATE COURT IS PROPERLY HERE FOR
REVIEW, UNDER A CLAIM THAT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN DENIED, THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE RECORD CAN
BE FOUND TO DISCLOSE AN INFRACTION OF ONE OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF
THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS.  TO COME CONCRETELY TO THE PRESENT CASE,
THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE RECORD PERMITS A FINDING, BY A TENUOUS
PROCESS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND REASONING, THAT MALINSKI BY
MEANS OF A CONFESSION WAS FORCED TO SELF-INCRIMINATION IN DEFIANCE OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE EXACT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS WHICH RESULTED IN HIS CONVICTION DEPRIVED HIM OF THE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW BY WHICH HE WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS
GUILT DETERMINED.  JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THAT GUARANTY OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT INESCAPABLY IMPOSES UPON THIS COURT AN EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT
UPON THE WHOLE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
THEY OFFEND THOSE CANONS OF DECENCY AND FAIRNESS WHICH EXPRESS THE
NOTIONS OF JUSTICE OF ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES EVEN TOWARD THOSE
CHARGED WITH THE MOST HEINOUS OFFENSES.  THESE STANDARDS OF JUSTICE ARE
NOT AUTHORITATIVELY FORMULATED ANYWHERE AS THOUGH THEY WERE
PRESCRIPTIONS IN A PHARMACOPOEIA.  BUT NEITHER DOES THE APPLICATION OF
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IMPLY THAT JUDGES ARE WHOLLY AT LARGE.  THE
JUDICIAL JUDGMENT IN APPLYING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE MUST MOVE WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF ACCEPTED NOTIONS OF JUSTICE AND IS NOT TO BE BASED UPON
THE IDIOSYNCRASIES OF A MERELY PERSONAL JUDGMENT.  THE FACT THAT JUDGES
AMONG THEMSELVES MAY DIFFER WHETHER IN A PARTICULAR CASE A TRIAL
OFFENDS ACCEPTED NOTIONS OF JUSTICE IS NOT DISPROOF THAT GENERAL RATHER
THAN IDIOSYNCRATIC STANDARDS ARE APPLIED.  AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD
AGAINST SUCH MERELY INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT IS AN ALERT DEFERENCE TO THE
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT UNDER REVIEW.  BUT THERE CANNOT BE BLIND
ACCEPTANCE EVEN OF SUCH WEIGHTY JUDGMENT WITHOUT DISREGARDING THE
HISTORIC FUNCTION OF CIVILIZED PROCEDURE IN THE PROGRESS OF LIBERTY. 

AND SO, WITH EVERY RESPECT FOR THE CONTRARY VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY OF
THE JUDGES BELOW AND OF SOME OF MY BRETHREN HERE, I CANNOT ESCAPE
AGREEMENT WITH THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AND TWO
OF HIS ASSOCIATES THAT THERE WAS NOT IN THIS CASE A FAIR TRIAL OF
ISSUES VITAL TO THE DETERMINATION OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE.  CONSIDERING
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF MALINSKI'S DETENTION, THE LONG AND CONTINUOUS
QUESTIONING, THE WILLFUL AND WRONGFUL DELAY IN HIS ARRAIGNMENT AND THE
OPPORTUNITY THAT THAT GIVES FOR SECURING, BY EXTORTION, CONFESSIONS
SUCH AS WERE HERE INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE,  FN1  THE FLAGRANT
JUSTIFICATION BY THE PROSECUTOR OF THIS ILLEGALITY AS A NECESSARY
POLICE PROCEDURE, INEVITABLY CALCULATED TO EXCITE THE JURY - ALL THESE
IN COMBINATION ARE SO BELOW THE STANDARDS BY WHICH THE CRIMINAL LAW,
ESPECIALLY IN A CAPITAL CASE, SHOULD BE ENFORCED AS TO FALL SHORT OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

IN REVIEWING A STATE CRIMINAL CONVICTION WE MUST BE DEEPLY MINDFUL OF
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STATES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL
LAWS, AND EXERCISE WITH DUE HUMILITY OUR MERELY NEGATIVE FUNCTION IN
SUBJECTING CONVICTIONS FROM STATE COURTS TO THE VERY NARROW SCRUTINY
WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE DISCHARGE OF THAT DUTY WE MUST GIVE NO EAR TO
THE LOOSE TALK ABOUT SOCIETY BEING "AT WAR WITH THE CRIMINAL" IF BY
THAT IT IS IMPLIED THAT THE DECENCIES OF PROCEDURE WHICH HAVE BEEN
ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION MUST NOT BE TOO FASTIDIOUSLY INSISTED
UPON IN THE CASE OF WICKED PEOPLE.  DESPITE THE FACT THAT ENGLISH
CRIMINAL JUSTICE HAS SERIOUS INADEQUACIES AND LAGS BEHIND SOME OF OUR
PENOLOGICAL ADVANCES, IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT ON THE WHOLE IT IS MUCH
MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OURS.  YET THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT, AS ENGLISH
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AND THE REPORTS OF THE ENGLISH COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL AMPLY PROVE, THAT PRACTICES SUCH AS THIS RECORD REVEALS
ARE NOT THERE TOLERATED.  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, INQUIRY IN REGARD TO THE
INTERROGATION BY THE POLICE OF MISS SAVIDGE (1928), CMD.  3147; 217
H.C. DEB.  (5TH SER.  1928), MAY 17, 1928, 1303 ET SEQ. WHATEVER
DIFFERENCES THERE MAY BE BETWEEN THE SITUATIONS IN ENGLAND AND IN THIS
COUNTRY IN THE TASK OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, IT IS INTOLERABLE TO SUGGEST
THAT WE CANNOT HAVE EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT WITHOUT CONDUCT SUCH AS
THIS RECORD SPREADS BEFORE US.  THE NOTION THAT WE MUST RESORT TO SUCH
METHODS IN ORDER TO CHECK CRIME OR TO CONVICT CRIMINALS HAS BEEN
REJECTED BY THOSE WHO HAVE HAD MOST TO DO WITH THE CRIMINAL LAW.  AFTER
CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM, A COMMITTEE OF EMINENT LAWYERS REPORTED
THIS CONCLUSION: 

"THE REMEDY FOR THE ILLS WHICH AFFLICT THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, WHATEVER THAT REMEDY MAY BE, WILL NOT BE FOUND IN MEASURES
WHICH VIOLATE LAW.  SUCH EXPEDIENTS, SO FAR FROM RESTORING HEALTH AND
VIGOR TO THE SYSTEM, ONLY AGGRAVATE AND PROTRACT THE DISORDER.  UNDER
OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT THE MACHINERY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEPENDS FOR
ITS FORCE AND EFFICIENCY UPON THE ENLIGHTENED MORAL SENSE OF THE
INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM THE PUBLIC BY THEIR CONSTITUTION AND LAWS HAVE
TEMPORARILY ENTRUSTED ITS OPERATION.  AND IT IS AS UNWISE AS IT IS
UNWARRANTED FOR THESE SERVANTS OF THE PUBLIC TO VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS IN THE VAIN HOPE OF ACCOMPLISHING USEFUL OR
BENEFICIAL RESULTS."  YEARBOOK (1928) ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, 235, 255. 

THESE WERE THE VIEWS OF THREE FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND THREE FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR
NEW YORK COUNTY WHOSE EXPERIENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS AS PROSECUTORS WOULD
HARDLY COUNTENANCE DOCTRINAIRE OR SENTIMENTAL VIEWS. 

FN1  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT "THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS UNANIMOUSLY
SUSTAINED THE JURY'S VERDICT THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE NOT COERCED."  I
DO NOT SO INTERPRET THE VIEWS OF THE MINORITY OF THAT COURT.  THE
OPINION OF CHIEF JUDGE LEHMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE THREE DISSENTING
JUDGES, WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF: 

"HERE WE ARE AGREED THAT A FINDING BY THE JURY THAT THE DEFENDANT'S
CONFESSION, THOUGH OBTAINED WHILE HE WAS UNLAWFULLY DETAINED WITHOUT
ARRAIGNMENT, IS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.  THE OFFICERS
OF THE LAW DENY THAT THEY BEAT THE DEFENDANT OR THREATENED HIM. 
WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE MOTIVE OF THE POLICE IN TAKING MALINSKI TO
THE HOTEL BOSSERT INSTEAD OF TO A POLICE STATION OR JAIL, WE FIND NO
BASIS FOR ANY INFERENCE THAT THE POLICE BELIEVED THAT THE HOTEL WAS AN
APPROPRIATE PLACE WHERE A PERSON COULD, WITHOUT TOO MUCH RISK OF
DISCOVERY, BE BEATEN IN ORDER TO COMPEL A CONFESSION.  NONETHELESS, IN
THIS CASE, AS IN PEOPLE V. MUMMIANI (SUPRA (258 N.Y. 394), PP. 399
400), 'THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE' THAT THE POLICE DELAYED THE
ARRAIGNMENT OF THE DEFENDANT 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBJECTING HIM TO AN
INQUISITION IMPOSSIBLE THEREAFTER' AT WHICH HE MIGHT HE INDUCED TO MAKE
A CONFESSION BY RESORT TO WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HAS DESCRIBED AS 'THOSE REPREHENSIBLE PRACTICES KNOWN AS THE "THIRD
DEGREE" WHICH, THOUGH UNIVERSALLY REJECTED AS INDEFENSIBLE, STILL FIND
THEIR WAY INTO USE.'  THERE CAN BE NO FAIR TRIAL OF THE ISSUE WHETHER
THE CONFESSION IS VOLUNTARY WHERE THE JURY IS NOT PROPERLY INFORMED
THAT THE DETENTION WAS UNLAWFUL AND THAT THEY MUST TAKE THAT FACT INTO
CONSIDERATION.  THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE."  PEOPLE V.
MALINSKI, 292 N.Y. 360, 387-388. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I CONCUR IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AGAINST MALINSKI, BUT DISSENT FROM
AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST RUDISH. 

I AGREE THAT MALINSKI'S ORAL CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 23, 1942, WAS
COERCED, WAS USED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AND THAT THIS REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.  I THEREFORE JOIN IN THE COURT'S
OPINION IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO HIM.  BUT I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT
WE SHOULD STOP WITH THE RULING GROUNDED UPON THE CONFESSION OF OCTOBER
23 ALONE.  I THINK THE SUBSEQUENT CONFESSIONS, INCLUDING THE WRITTEN
ONE OF OCTOBER 27, WERE VITIATED WITH ALL THE COERCION WHICH DESTROYS
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE FIRST ONE.  ACCORDINGLY THEIR USE IN EVIDENCE ALSO
REQUIRES REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST MALINSKI.  FURTHERMORE, SINCE
THE WRITTEN CONFESSION ALSO AFFECTED RUDISH AND IN MY OPINION THE
DEVICES EMPLOYED WERE INEFFECTIVE TO PREVENT ITS INFLUENCING THE
VERDICT AND THE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM, I THINK THAT JUDGMENT LIKEWISE
SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

 I 

HOWEVER GREAT THE PROOF AGAINST HIM OTHERWISE MAY BE, UNDER OUR
SYSTEM NO MAN SHOULD BE PUNISHED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT INDUCED WHOLLY
OR IN PART BY A COERCED CONFESSION.  IN MY OPINION THE ENTIRE
PROCEDURE, FROM THE TIME MALINSKI WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY UNTIL HIS
WRITTEN CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED NEARLY FIVE DAYS LATER, WAS A SINGLE
AND CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF COERCION OF THE TYPE COMMONLY KNOWN AS "THE
THIRD DEGREE."  I DO NOT THINK THE CONSTITUTION HAS ROOM FOR THIS IN
COMPANY WITH ALL THE PROTECTIONS IT THROWS AROUND THE INDIVIDUAL
CHARGED WITH CRIME. 

THE STATE'S SUMMATION BOLDLY ADMITTED THE CASE WAS OF THAT
CHARACTER.  IT CHARACTERIZED MALINSKI'S TREATMENT AS "QUITE PROPER
POLICE PROCEDURE."  IT WAS "SOME MORE PSYCHOLOGY - LET HIM SIT AROUND
WITH A BLANKET ON HIM, HUMILIATE HIM THERE FOR A WHILE; LET HIM SIT IN
THE CORNER, LET HIM THINK HE IS GOING TO GET A SHELLACKING."  THE COURT
OF APPEALS CHARACTERIZED "THE REMARKS" AS "INDEFENSIBLE."  NOT ONLY THE
REMARKS, BUT ALSO THE CONDUCT THEY ACCURATELY DEPICT MUST BEAR THAT
CONDEMNATION, AS THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES. 

THE "PSYCHOLOGY" GOT RESULTS.  IT PRODUCED A CONFESSION N1, THE FIRST
IN A SERIES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS TREATED THEM AS ONE, THOUGH ITS
OPINION EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THERE WERE THREE OR MORE.  FN2  THE FIRST
CAME AT THE END OF TEN HOURS OF APPLIED "PSYCHOLOGY."  FN3  THE OTHERS
FOLLOWED LATER IN THE COURSE OF AND AT THE END OF FOUR DAYS OF ILLEGAL
DETENTION. 

BY ANY TEST THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS "INVOLUNTARY."  IT WAS UNWORTHY
OF CREDENCE IN ANY COURT.  NO OTHER CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN ON THE
RECORD.  THE UNDISPUTED FACTS  FN4  BEAR OUT THIS VIEW AND THE STATE'S
ADMISSION THAT IT WAS OBTAINED BY THREAT OF "SHELLACKING."  THE
EVIDENCE IS IN CONFLICT ON WHETHER PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED.  FN5  THERE
IS NO CONFLICT THAT IT WAS THREATENED.  NOR IS THERE ROOM FOR INFERENCE
THAT THE THREAT DID NOT BRING ABOUT THE CONFESSION.  "MALINSKI WAS NOT
HARD TO BREAK."  NO CONVICTION TAINTED WITH THIS CONFESSION'S INFLUENCE
CAN STAND. 

MOREOVER, THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS USED TO SECURE THE DEFENDANTS'
CONVICTION.  IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT WAS USED
DIRECTLY IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS
EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED WHEN IT SUSTAINED THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION IN
SUBMITTING THAT CONFESSION, TOGETHER WITH THE LATER ONES, TO THE JURY,
FN6  AND AS WE NOW HOLD.  FURTHER, WE WOULD BE INNOCENT INDEED IF WE
DID NOT BELIEVE THAT "LEADS" FURNISHED WERE FOLLOWED AND THAT THE
EVIDENCE THUS PROCURED AND PRESENTED, AS AN IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE OF
THE INITIAL COERCION, HAD PART IN BRINGING ABOUT THE VERDICT.  THE
RECORD BEARS OUT THAT BELIEF.  ELSE WHY WAS MALINSKI ILLEGALLY
DETAINED, INCOMMUNICADO, AT THE HOTEL FOR THREE DAYS AFTER HE HAD TOLD
"THE WHOLE THING"?  WHATEVER MAY BE THE RULE AS TO THE USE OF EVIDENCE
SECURED BY MEANS MERELY UNLAWFUL,  FN7 IN MY JUDGMENT THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT TOLERATE THE USE OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
METHODS, INCLUDING COERCIVE ONES, TO BRING ABOUT A CONVICTION FOR CRIME
WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  FN8  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT THUS NULLIFY
ITS OWN TERMS, SETTING THEM AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER.  THE "LEADS" THUS
SECURED IN VIOLATION OF BOTH THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW AND THE LAW OF THE
STATE  FN9 LED DIRECTLY TO THE LATER CONFESSIONS, INCLUDING THE WRITTEN
ONE, AND VITIATED THEM WITH EVERY VICE INFECTING THE FIRST.  IN MY
JUDGMENT, ALL THAT FOLLOWED THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS THE PRODUCT OF IT
AND THEREFORE OF THE INITIAL COERCION WHICH INDUCED IT.  BEYOND THIS,
THE COERCIVE INFLUENCES THEMSELVES CONTINUED THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD
BETWEEN THE FIRST CONFESSION AND THE LAST, WITH THE SINGLE EXCEPTION
THAT MALINSKI WAS GIVEN BACK HIS CLOTHING.    THIS FACT IS HIGHLY
MATERIAL AS SHOWING THE INITIAL COERCION.  WITHOUT MORE, IT BELIES THE
EXPLANATION THAT THE PRISONER WAS STRIPPED AND KEPT NAKED OR PARTLY SO
FOR TEN HOURS BECAUSE OTHERWISE HE MIGHT TRY TO ESCAPE.  FN10  THAT
DANGER, IF IT EXISTED, CONTINUED AS MUCH AFTER THE FIRST CONFESSION AS
BEFORE IT. IT CONTINUED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE TIME HE WAS DETAINED AT
THE HOTEL.  MALINSKI WAS STRIPPED AND HELD NAKED OR PARTLY SO, NOT TO
PREVENT HIS ESCAPE, BUT TO DO JUST WHAT THE PROSECUTION SAYS WAS
INTENDED, TO "BREAK" A MAN "WHO WAS NOT HARD TO BREAK" BY INDUCING THE
FEAR OF A "SHELLACKING." 

BUT THE FACT THAT MALINSKI WAS GIVEN BACK HIS CLOTHING, WHEN AND ONLY
WHEN HE CONFESSED, DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE COERCION CEASED THEN OR
BEFORE THE LAST CONFESSION WAS SECURED.  IT SHOWS ONLY THAT ONE OF THE
COERCIVE TACTICS USED HAD BECOME NO LONGER NECESSARY AND THEREFORE NO
LONGER WAS EMPLOYED.  OTHERWISE, WHY WAS MALINSKI NOT PROMPTLY BOOKED
AND ARRAIGNED, AS HE WAS FOUR NIGHTS LATER WHEN THE WRITTEN CONFESSION
WAS SECURED.  WHY WAS HE DETAINED ILLEGALLY AT THE HOTEL FOR THREE DAYS
AND FOUR NIGHTS  FN11  AFTER HE ADMITTEDLY HAD TOLD "EVERYTHING"?  WHY,
FURTHER, WAS HE HELD INCOMMUNICADO DURING ALL THIS TIME, SEEING ONLY
THE POLICE, THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, AND SPIELFOGEL?  WHY
ALSO WAS HE SUBJECTED TO EXAMINATION, INTERRUPTED NOW AND THEN IT IS
TRUE, IN SOME INSTANCES BECAUSE HE FELL ASLEEP, BUT CONTINUING
THROUGHOUT MOST OF EACH DAY, INCLUDING THE TIME OF THE TRIPS TO THE
SCENE OF THE CRIME AND THE POLICE GARAGE, AND TO THE EARLY HOURS OF
EACH MORNING?  FN12 

ALL THIS, THE STATE ASKS US TO BELIEVE, WAS CONSISTENT WITH
MALINSKI'S MAKING A "CLEAN BREAST" ENTIRELY VOLUNTARILY.  ALL THIS
COMPORTS WITH THE VIEW THAT THE COERCION HAD WORN OFF AND THE WRITTEN
CONFESSION WAS THE ACT OF A MAN FREED FROM THE FEARS AND THE PRESSURES
WHICH FORCED OUT THE FIRST ONE, OR SO A JURY COULD FIND.  SUCH IS THE
CLAIM MADE IN THE VIEW THAT THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS NOT USED IN
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED. 

I CANNOT ACCEPT THIS VIEW.  ON THE CONTRARY, I THINK ONLY ONE
CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS, NAMELY, THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS
WHICH FORCED OUT MALINSKI'S FIRST CONFESSION CONTINUED IN FULL EFFECT
UNTIL THEY EXTORTED ALSO THE WRITTEN ONE, EXCEPTING ONLY THAT HE WAS
GIVEN BACK HIS CLOTHING.  THAT FACT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT
THE COERCIVE CONDITIONS WERE WHOLLY ABATED AND THE INFLUENCES THEY
GENERATED HAD NO PART IN BRINGING ABOUT THE LATER CONFESSIONS. 

TAKING AWAY MALINSKI'S CLOTHES IS NOT THE CONTROLLING FACT IN THIS
CASE.  IT WAS ONLY ONE FEATURE OF THE INITIAL DURESS.  THE DETAILS OF
THIS NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.  TAKEN ALTOGETHER, THE FIRST DAY'S
PROCEEDINGS WEAVE INTO A PATTERN TYPICAL OF "THIRD DEGREE" METHOD. 

THIS PATTERN WAS NOT TORN APART WHEN IT "BROKE" MALINSKI AND HE
CONFESSED FOR THE FIRST TIME.  WITH THAT EVENT HE WAS NOT ARRAIGNED OR
RELEASED.  HIS UNLAWFUL DETENTION CONTINUED FOR THREE DAYS AND FOUR
NIGHTS.  THE QUESTIONING CONTINUED AT FREQUENT INTERVALS EACH DAY AND
EACH NIGHT.  FN13 SPIELFOGEL  FN14  CONTINUED TO SEE HIM DAILY.  NO ONE
ELSE EXCEPT HIS IMPRISONERS WAS ALLOWED TO SEE HIM AT ANY TIME.  THAT
HE DID NOT ASK AGAIN TO SEE COUNSEL OR OTHERS IS BUT EVIDENCE THAT HE
HAD BEEN "BROKEN."  HE AND SPIELFOGEL WERE TAKEN TO THE SCENE OF THE
CRIME AND TO THE POLICE GARAGE TO IDENTIFY THE AUTOMOBILE USED IN THE
CRIME.  THESE TWO INCIDENTS, I THINK, SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE
COERCION CONTINUED AFTER, AND DID NOT ABATE WITH, THE FIRST
CONFESSION.  THEY WERE IN THEMSELVES CONFESSIONS, AS THE COURT OF
APPEALS RECOGNIZED.  IN MY VIEW THEY WERE AT ONCE THE PRODUCTS OF THE
FIRST CONFESSION AND IMMEDIATELY CONNECTING LINKS BETWEEN IT AND THE
WRITTEN ONE.  THEY WERE THE CONSEQUENCE OF CONTINUING, THOUGH
INTERRUPTED, EXAMINATION EXTENDING FROM THE TIME OF THE FIRST
CONFESSION TO THE LAST, AND CARRIED WITHIN THEMSELVES THAT CONFESSION'S
VICE, TRANSMITTING IT TO THE WRITTEN ONE.  THEY WERE THE PROCESS, WITH
ALL ELSE THAT WENT ON DURING THE PERIOD, BY WHICH WHATEVER HAD BEEN
OBTAINED AT THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS CHECKED, ELABORATED, VERIFIED AND
DISTILLED UNTIL THE FINAL ESSENCE WAS SEPARATED AND BOTTLED IN THE
WRITTEN CONFESSION, A PROCESS TYPICAL OF "THIRD DEGREE" PROCEDURE. 
THAT THEY BROUGHT FORTH STRONG CORROBORATING EVIDENCE DOES NOT NEGATIVE
OR NULLIFY THE EXISTENCE OF THE COERCIVE CONDITIONS WHICH PRODUCED BOTH
THE INDUCING ORIGINAL CONFESSION AND THE CORROBORATION THUS SECURED. 
FN15  FINALLY WHEN MALINSKI CONFESSED THE LAST TIME, IT WAS IN THE
EARLY HOURS OF THE MORNING, AFTER A NIGHT AND A DAY OF QUESTIONING. 
ONLY AFTER THIS CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED, BUT SIGNIFICANTLY VERY SHORTLY
THEREAFTER, WAS MALINSKI BOOKED, ARRAIGNED AND TAKEN TO THE JAIL. 

ALL THESE FACTS STAND UNDISPUTED ON THE RECORD.  WITH THE FACTS OF
THE FIRST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS, THEY ESTABLISH BEYOND QUESTION THE PATTERN
OF THE "THIRD DEGREE."  THEY ESTABLISH ITS APPLICATION FROM THE TIME OF
THE ARREST THROUGHOUT THE FIRST DAY UNTIL THE FIRST CONFESSION.  THEY
PROVE WITH EQUAL CLARITY, IN MY JUDGMENT, THAT EVERY THREAD IN THAT
PATTERN BUT ONE, NO LONGER NEEDED, CONTINUED TO HOLD THROUGH EVERY
MOMENT FROM THE FIRST CONFESSION TO THE LAST.  NO SINGLE OCCURRENCE,
NOT EXCLUDING THE RETURN OF THE CLOTHING, TOOK PLACE WHICH GIVES BASIS
TO CONCLUDE THAT THE INITIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURES WERE RELAXED OR
THEIR COERCIVE INFLUENCE AND EFFECTS WERE NULLIFIED. 

IF AFTER THE CLOTHING WAS RETURNED, MALINSKI NO LONGER FEARED A
"SHELLACKING," AN INFERENCE THERE IS BROAD ROOM TO DOUBT, HE KNEW THERE
WERE OTHER PRESSURES TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THIS THREAT, PRESSURES MADE
POSSIBLE BY ITS SUCCESS IN FORCING FROM HIM THE FIRST CONFESSION.  HE
KNEW THAT ALL OF THE SUBSEQUENT EXAMINATION, AS IT TURNED OUT THROUGH
FOUR NIGHTS AND THREE DAYS, WOULD BE FOUNDED ON THIS CONFESSION AND
THAT HE WOULD BE FORCED TO SQUARE EVERY STATEMENT, BOTH IN IT AND MADE
LATER, NOT ONLY WITH EVERY OTHER STATEMENT BUT ALSO WITH EVERY FACT TO
THE DISCOVERY OF WHICH ANY STATEMENT MIGHT LEAD.  THIS IN FACT WAS WHAT
HE WAS BEING REQUIRED TO DO, AMONG OTHER INCIDENTS, AT THE SCENE OF THE
CRIME AND AT THE POLICE GARAGE.  IN SHORT, HE KNEW THAT HE WAS "ON THE
GRILL" AND WOULD CONTINUE SO UNTIL HE MADE WHATEVER STATEMENT MIGHT
SATISFY THE OFFICIALS WHO HAD HIM IN CHARGE.  CF. CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA,
309 U.S. 227, 240. 

TO SAY THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE COERCIVE INFLUENCES HAD ENDED
BEFORE THEY PRODUCED THE RESULT AT WHICH THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE WAS AIMED
AND WITH WHICH IT STOPPED, IS, IN MY OPINION, A CONCLUSION WE CANNOT
DRAW AND THE FACTS ALLOW NO ROOM FOR PERMITTING A JURY TO MAKE SUCH AN
INFERENCE. 

WERE THE QUESTION WHOLLY FRESH, THE CONCLUSION WOULD SEEM DOUBTFUL IN
ANY CASE THAT A LATER CONFESSION COULD BE ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY AND
UNCOERCED, WHERE AN EARLIER ONE HAD BEEN COMPELLED.  A MAN ONCE BROKEN
IN WILL DOES NOT READILY, IF EVER, RECOVER FROM THE BREAKING.  CF. MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING IN LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596, 606.  NO
CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES CAN WHOLLY WIPE OUT ITS EFFECTS UPON HIMSELF OR
UPON OTHERS.  THEREAFTER HE ACTS WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE DAMAGE HAS
BEEN DONE.  OTHERS DO LIKEWISE.  HE IS SUSPECT BY HIS OWN MOUTH AND
MUST CONTINUE SO, WHETHER HE REPUDIATES OR CONFIRMS THE CONFESSION.  IF
HE REPUDIATES, HE INCURS THE ADDITIONAL SUSPICION OF LYING, AND HIS
CREDIBILITY AS A WITNESS IN HIS OWN BEHALF IS IMPAIRED, IF NOT
DESTROYED.  IF HE CONFIRMS, HE DOES SO WITH THE KNOWLEDGE HE HAS
ALREADY CONFESSED AND ANY OTHER COURSE WILL BRING UPON HIM THE
SUSPICIONS AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF THEY ENTAIL. 

FOR THESE REASONS A STRICTER STANDARD IS NECESSARY WHERE THE
CONFESSION TENDERED FOLLOWS A PRIOR COERCED ONE THAN IN THE CASE OF A
SINGLE CONFESSION ASSERTED TO HAVE BEEN COERCED.  IT WOULD SEEM
CONSISTENT THEREFORE WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION THAT ONCE A
COERCED CONFESSION HAS BEEN OBTAINED ALL LATER ONES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
FROM EVIDENCE, WHEREVER THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE COERCED ONE HAS BEEN
USED TO SECURE THE LATER ONES.  IN NO OTHER WAY CAN THE EFFECTS OF THE
COERCION BE WHOLLY EXCLUDED FROM THE TRIAL.  IN NO OTHER WAY CAN ONE
WHO HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO USE OF FORCE OR COERCIVE "PSYCHOLOGY" BE PUT
UPON AN EQUAL PLANE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE
WITH OTHERS WHO HAVE ESCAPED SUCH UNLAWFUL ACTION OR BE PUT BACK IN THE
POSITION HE IS ENTITLED BY LAW TO OCCUPY UNTIL HIS TRIAL AND A VERDICT
OF GUILTY, THAT OF A MAN PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS
PROVED BY LEGAL MEANS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  CF. LEHMAN, CH. J.,
DISSENTING IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, 292 N.Y. AT 383. 

IN ANY EVENT, WHERE THERE IS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF COERCION SUCH AS
EXISTED IN THIS CASE, RESULTING IN A SERIES OF CONFESSIONS OF WHICH THE
FIRST IS THE CREATIVE PRECURSOR OF THE LATER ONES, AND THEY MOREOVER
ARE OBTAINED UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPT FOR RELAXATION IN ONE
OF THE INITIAL PRESSURES, THERE HARDLY CAN BE ROOM FOR SAYING, AS WAS
SAID IN THE LYONS CASE, THAT THE LATTER CONFESSIONS ARE NOT COERCED. 
FN16  ACCORDINGLY I THINK MALINSKI'S CONVICTION WAS VITIATED AS MUCH BY
ADMISSION OF THE LATTER CONFESSIONS AS BY ADMITTING THE EARLIER ORAL
ONE.  IF SO, HE SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO STAND ANOTHER TRIAL AT WHICH
THOSE CONFESSIONS MAY BE USED AGAINST HIM.  NOR SHOULD THE STATE
OFFICIALS BE PERMITTED TO THINK THEY MAY BE USED AGAIN, THOUGH THE
FIRST ONE MUST BE EXCLUDED. 

                                II 

THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE.  RUDISH HAS BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH.  THE
WRITTEN CONFESSION INVOLVED HIM.  IT WAS USED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST
MALINSKI.  THE COURT AND COUNSEL ATTEMPTED WHAT I THINK IS AND PROVED
TO BE THE IMPOSSIBLE, NAMELY, TO KEEP RUDISH'S IDENTITY AS ONE OF THE
PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE CONFESSION FROM THE JURY BY DEVICES SIMILAR TO
THOSE EMPLOYED IN ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 350, 356, WITH
THE SAME RESULT.  THE DEVICES WERE SO OBVIOUS AS PERHAPS TO EMPHASIZE
THE IDENTITY OF THOSE THEY PURPORTED TO CONCEAL.  TRUE, THE CHARGE IN
THE ANDERSON CASE WAS NOT METICULOUS AS WAS THE ONE GIVEN HERE TO
SEPARATE THE DEFENDANTS AND APPLY THE CONFESSION ONLY AGAINST THE ONE
AS TO WHOM TECHNICALLY IT WAS ADMITTED.  NEVERTHELESS, I THINK THE LINE
TOO FINE TO DRAW, IN CAPITAL CASES AT ANY RATE, BETWEEN THAT CASE AND
THIS ONE IN THIS RESPECT.  THERE COULD BE NO VALID BASIS FOR ADMITTING
THIS CONFESSION AGAINST RUDISH IN A SEPARATE TRIAL.  DUE PROCESS DOES
NOT PERMIT ONE TO BE CONVICTED UPON HIS OWN COERCED CONFESSION.  IT
SHOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO BE CONVICTED UPON A CONFESSION WRUNG FROM
ANOTHER BY COERCION.  FN17  A CONVICTION SUPPORTED ONLY BY SUCH A
CONFESSION COULD BE BUT A VARIATION OF TRIAL BY ORDEAL.  CF. BROWN V.
MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278, 285; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, AT 236,
237.  THE EFFECT IS NOT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE TWO, CONFESSOR AND THE
PERSON IMPLICATED, ARE TRIED TOGETHER OR BECAUSE THE TORTURE IS APPLIED
TO OTHER WITNESSES BUT NOT TO THE ACCUSED.  NOR IS IT DIFFERENT, IN
THIS RESPECT, BECAUSE TRIAL IS IN A STATE RATHER THAN A FEDERAL COURT. 
ACCORDINGLY I THINK THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN THE ANDERSON CASE AND IN
ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THIS ONE,
AND THE JUDGMENT AGAINST RUDISH SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

IN LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, THE COURT STATED:  "LIKE THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA WE DISAPPROVE THE VIOLATIONS OF LAW
INVOLVED IN THE TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONER, AND WE THINK IT RIGHT TO
ADD THAT WHERE A PRISONER, HELD INCOMMUNICADO, IS SUBJECTED TO
QUESTIONING BY OFFICERS FOR LONG PERIODS, AND DEPRIVED OF THE ADVICE OF
COUNSEL, WE SHALL SCRUTINIZE THE RECORD WITH CARE TO DETERMINE WHETHER,
BY THE USE OF HIS CONFESSION, HE IS DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY OR LIFE THROUGH
TYRANNICAL OR OPPRESSIVE MEANS.  OFFICERS OF THE LAW MUST REALIZE THAT
IF THEY INDULGE IN SUCH PRACTICES THEY MAY, IN THE END, DEFEAT RATHER
THAN FURTHER THE ENDS OF JUSTICE."  314 U.S. AT 240. 

THE WARNING EXACTLY FITS THIS CASE, AS DO ALSO THE REPEATED WARNINGS
REFERRED TO BY THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  FN18  I
THINK THEY SHOULD BE MADE EFFECTIVE.  THAT CAN BE DONE FULLY IN THIS
CASE ONLY IF THE JUDGMENTS AGAINST BOTH OF THE PETITIONERS ARE
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTED THAT MALINSKI ARRIVED AT THE HOTEL AT
ABOUT 8:15 A.M., WAS IMMEDIATELY STRIPPED, AND WAS NOT GIVEN BACK HIS
CLOTHING, EXCEPT HIS SHORTS, UNTIL AFTER HE CONFESSED THAT EVENING. 
THE SUMMATION ADDED TO THE STATEMENT QUOTED ABOVE IN THE TEXT:
"MCNALLY (A POLICE OFFICER) TOOK ONE LOOK AT HIM AND SAID, 'COME HERE'
JUST A LITTLE TOUGH TALK - 'WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT?'  SIX O'CLOCK
IN THE EVENING AFTER HE WAS PICKED UP HE TOLD THE WHOLE THING." 

FN2  "COUNSEL HAVE URGED UPON US, HOWEVER, THAT IT WAS ERROR FOR THE
COURT TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY THE CONFESSION MADE BY MALINSKI ORALLY ON
OCTOBER 23RD, BY WORD AND DEED ON OCTOBER 25TH AND 26TH AND TO AN
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND A STENOGRAPHER IN THE EARLY MORNING
HOURS OF OCTOBER 27TH  .... 

"WHEN WE HAVE SPOKEN OF MALINSKI'S CONFESSION WE INCLUDE, OF COURSE,
NOT ONLY THE CONFESSION MADE ORALLY TO A POLICE OFFICER ON THE FRIDAY
NIGHT OF THE ARREST BUT ALSO THE TWO AUTOMOBILE TRIPS ON SUNDAY AND
MONDAY, ONE TO THE POLICE GARAGE TO PERMIT MALINSKI TO IDENTIFY THE
AUTOMOBILE USED IN THE CRIME AND THE OTHER TO CONEY ISLAND TO REVISIT A
RESTAURANT AND THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, AND THE CONFESSION TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHICH WAS TAKEN STENOGRAPHICALLY IN THE EARLY MORNING
OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27TH."  292 N.Y. 360, 370, 373-374.    FN3  CF.
NOTE 1. 

FN4  THEY ARE STATED FULLY IN THE COURT'S OPINION. 

FN5  MALINSKI TESTIFIED TO VIOLENCE BY TWO OFFICERS WHO CONTRADICTED
HIM IN THIS RESPECT.  THE MAJORITY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
CHARACTERIZED THE TESTIMONY AS TO VIOLENCE AS BEING "NOT VERY STRONG." 

FN6  CF. NOTE 2. 

FN7  COMPARE PEOPLE V. ADAMS, 176 N.Y. 351, 68 N.E. 636, AFF'D SUB
NOM. ADAMS V. NEW YORK, 192 U.S. 585; PEOPLE V. DEFORE, 242 N.Y. 13,
150 N.E. 585, CERT. DENIED, 270 U.S. 657; WITH BOYD V. UNITED STATES,
116 U.S. 616; WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383; SILVERTHORNE LUMBER
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S.
298; DISSENTING OPINIONS OF JUSTICES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS, OLMSTEAD V.
UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 469, 471; MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318
U.S. 332; ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 350.  SEE FRAENKEL,
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE (1928) 13 MINN. L.
REV. 1; ATKINSON, ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURE (1925) 25 COL. L. REV. 11; CHAFEE,
PROGRESS OF THE LAW (1922) 35 HARV. L. REV. 673, 694. 

FN8  CF. BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616; WEEKS V. UNITED STATES,
232 U.S. 383. 

FN9  THIS FORMED ONE OF THE CHIEF GROUNDS OF THE STRONG DISSENTING
OPINION, CONCURRED IN BY THREE JUDGES, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  292
N.Y. 376.  CF. NOTE 18 INFRA. 

FN10  THE OFFICERS ALSO "EXPLAINED" THEIR FAILURE TO TAKE MALINSKI
BEFORE A MAGISTRATE "WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DELAY" AS THE NEW YORK LAW
REQUIRES (CODE CRIM. PROC. SEC. 165) BY SAYING THAT THOUGH HE WAS
SEIZED ON OCTOBER 23RD HE WAS NOT "ARRESTED" UNTIL OCTOBER 26TH.  CF.
THE DISSENTING OPINION OF LEHMAN, CH. J., 292 N.Y. AT 381-382. 

FN11  THE FOURTH NIGHT WAS DEVOTED TO FINAL INTERROGATION AT THE BATH
BEACH POLICE STATION. 

FN12  THE QUESTIONING OF THE FIRST DAY AND EVENING, FRIDAY, OCTOBER
23, CONTINUED AFTER THE ORAL CONFESSION AND WAS STILL IN PROGRESS AT
3:00 A.M. ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24.  TEN TO TWELVE PERSONS WERE USUALLY
PRESENT AND MANY PARTICIPATED IN THE QUESTIONING.  INVESTIGATORS STAYED
FOR A TIME AND LEFT TO RETURN LATER.  ONE DETECTIVE LEFT THE HOTEL AT
10:00 OR 11:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 23 AND, ON HIS RETURN AT 3:00 A.M.,
FOUND THE QUESTIONING STILL CONTINUING.  THE INTERROGATION, ON AND OFF,
HAD THEN PROCEEDED FOR NINETEEN HOURS. 

THROUGHOUT OCTOBER 24, A POLICE LIEUTENANT TESTIFIED, MANY OF THE
DETECTIVES "CONTINUOUSLY" EXAMINED AND TALKED TO MALINSKI.  THE LATTER
SAID, "THEY KEPT QUESTIONING ME ALL THAT DAY AND NIGHT."  AGAIN ON
OCTOBER 25 HE WAS QUESTIONED "TO CLEAR UP CERTAIN POINTS," THOUGH AN
OFFICER DENIED THAT THIS "WENT ON FOR HOURS AND HOURS."  ON THAT DAY
MALINSKI WAS TAKEN ON A TOUR OF THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.  THE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND A STENOGRAPHER ACCOMPANIED THE PARTY.  MALINSKI
TESTIFIED WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT HE "WAS BEING QUESTIONED RIDING
ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE HOTEL," AND THAT THE QUESTIONING CONTINUED
THERE UNTIL 2:00 A.M. 

ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, TEN OR TWELVE DETECTIVES WERE STILL PRESENT
WITH MALINSKI AT THE HOTEL.  DURING THE COURSE OF THAT DAY HE WAS
QUESTIONED AND TAKEN TO A POLICE GARAGE TO IDENTIFY THE AUTOMOBILE USED
IN THE CRIME.  THERE IS MUCH CONFUSION IN THE OFFICERS' TESTIMONY AS TO
THE TIME OF THIS TRIP AND WHETHER IT PRECEDED OR FOLLOWED ONE TO THE
BATH BEACH POLICE STATION.  THE WEIGHT OF THEIR EVIDENCE PERHAPS IS
THAT THEY WENT TO THE POLICE GARAGE FIRST, THEN TO THE POLICE STATION,
ARRIVING THERE ABOUT 5:00 P.M.  THE STATE'S SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF
SUPPORTS THIS VIEW AND THE VIEW THAT ON ARRIVAL AT THE STATION
QUESTIONING BY THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND OTHERS BEGAN.  THERE
IS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE FINAL QUESTIONING OF MALINSKI,
LEADING TO A WRITTEN CONFESSION AT 2:10 A.M., OCTOBER 27, HAD PROCEEDED
FOR SOME NINE HOURS.  AT THE VERY LEAST, WE KNOW THAT THE QUESTIONING
BY A BATTERY OF INVESTIGATORS (EIGHT POLICE OFFICERS IN ADDITION TO THE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY) WAS IN PROGRESS AT 7:00 P.M., OCTOBER 26,
AND CONTINUED TO MIDNIGHT. 

FN13  CF. NOTE 12 SUPRA. 

FN14  SPIELFOGEL WAS AS MUCH A TOOL TO SECURE MALINSKI'S CONFESSION
AS ANY MEMBER OF THE POLICE.  HE WAS BROUGHT DOWN FROM SING SING ON
OCTOBER 14, 1942, BY THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND OTHERS BECAUSE
OF WHAT HE HAD REVEALED ABOUT THE CRIME.  HE MADE A STATEMENT TO THE
POLICE BEFORE MALINSKI WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND WAS PRESENT AT THE
HOTEL SHORTLY AFTER MALINSKI WAS BROUGHT THERE.  HE AT FIRST REFUSED TO
DISCUSS THE CASE WITH THE STATE OFFICIALS.  NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION
IS OFFERED OF HIS CHANGE IN ATTITUDE. 

FN15  AT THE POLICE GARAGE, ALTHOUGH MALINSKI HAD "CONFESSED," HE
STILL SOUGHT TO PROTECT HIMSELF BY USING HIS HANDKERCHIEF TO OPEN THE
CAR DOOR BECAUSE, HE SAID AT THE TRIAL, HE "DID NOT WANT TO BE FRAMED"
BY LEAVING HIS FINGERPRINTS. 

FN16  THAT THE WRITTEN CONFESSION DID NOT FOLLOW ON THE HEELS OF THE
FIRST, IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, ONLY AGGRAVATED THE ORIGINAL
COERCION.  THE SIGNIFICANT FACT IN LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, NOT PRESENT IN
THIS CASE, WAS THAT THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS MADE UNDER AUSPICES
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SURROUNDING THE FIRST.  THE PRISONER WAS
IN THE CUSTODY OF DIFFERENT OFFICIALS, MEN SHOWN BY THE RECORD TO BE
PERSONS WHOM HE HAD NO REASON TO FEAR.  AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT
THEY SHARED IN OR AT ANY TIME APPLIED THE BRUTAL METHODS BY WHICH IT
WAS CHARGED, AND DENIED, THE FIRST CONFESSION HAD BEEN OBTAINED.  THE
PRINCIPAL QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE LAPSE OF TIME BETWEEN THE TWO
CONFESSIONS, ONLY SOME TWELVE HOURS, WAS SUFFICIENT SO THAT THE SECOND
COULD BE TAKEN AS HAVING BEEN MADE FREE OF THE COMPULSIONS WHICH
INDUCED THE FIRST, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CHANGE IN OFFICIALS HAVING
CUSTODY.  A MAJORITY HELD THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME WAS SUFFICIENT TO
PERMIT THE QUESTION TO GO TO THE JURY.  BUT THE DECISION ALSO TOOK INTO
ACCOUNT THE CHANGE IN CUSTODIANS.  322 U.S. AT 604.  THE LYONS CASE
THEREFORE IS NOT AUTHORITY FOR THE VIEW THAT THE JURY MIGHT HAVE FOUND
THE SECOND CONFESSION VOLUNTARY, IF THERE HAD BEEN NO SUCH CHANGE.  NOR
DOES IT RULE THAT THE COERCING OFFICIALS, BY PROLONGING THE PERIOD OF
COERCION, THOUGH RELAXING IT IN SOME OF THE TACTICS USED, CAN ESCAPE
ITS CONSEQUENCES AND NULLIFY ITS CONTINUING EFFECTS. 

FN17  THE MATTER GOES BEYOND AND DEEPER THAN MERE VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, TO WHATEVER EXTENT
THIS MAY HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE STATES BY ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  COMPARE TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, AND SNYDER V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, WITH BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278;
CF. HYSLER V. FLORIDA, 315 U.S. 411, STATING AT 413:  "HOWEVER, IF
FLORIDA THROUGH HER RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS KNOWINGLY USED FALSE
TESTIMONY WHICH WAS EXTORTED FROM A WITNESS 'BY VIOLENCE AND TORTURE,'
ONE CONVICTED MAY CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
AGAINST A CONVICTION BASED UPON SUCH TESTIMONY."  ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY
THOUGHT THE TENDER OF PROOF INSUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A TRIAL ON A WRIT
OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, THREE DISSENTING JUSTICES DEEMED IT IRRELEVANT
WHETHER THE STATE OFFICIALS KNEW THE COERCED CONFESSIONS WERE FALSE,
315 U.S. AT 424, AND INTERPRETED BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, SUPRA, AND
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, AS BARRING "CONFESSIONS WRUNG FROM THE
ACCUSED OR HIS ACCOMPLICES ..."  CF. ALSO MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S.
103, AND PYLE V. KANSAS, 317 U.S. 213. 

FN18  "WE CANNOT CLOSE OUR EYES TO THE FACT THAT OUR FREQUENTLY AND
SOLEMNLY REPEATED ADMONITIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT THEY ARE
NOT ABOVE THE LAW AND MAY NOT IN THEIR ZEAL TO OBTAIN CONVICTIONS HOLD,
WITHOUT ARRAIGNMENT, PERSONS SUSPECTED OF CRIME IN ORDER TO HAVE
OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN CONFESSIONS, ARE OFTEN UNHEEDED."  292 N.Y. AT
386. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING IN PART. 

AS POINTED OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, MALINSKI'S ORAL CONFESSION
OF OCTOBER 23 WAS INVOLUNTARY IN CHARACTER AND HENCE ITS ADMISSION
INVALIDATED HIS CONVICTION.  BUT IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR TO ME THAT THE
PATTERN OF MENTAL FEAR CONTINUED UNTIL HIS ARRAIGNMENT ON OCTOBER 27,
THEREBY VOIDING AS WELL HIS CONFESSIONS BY WORD AND DEED ON OCTOBER 25
AND 26 AND THE WRITTEN CONFESSION MADE DURING THE EARLY HOURS OF
OCTOBER 27.  IT IS INCONCEIVABLE, MOREOVER, THAT THE ADMISSION OF THESE
TAINTED CONFESSIONS WAS WITHOUT INFLUENCE IN THE CONVICTION OF THE CO
DEFENDANT RUDISH.  ACCORDINGLY, I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE THAT
THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED ALSO AS TO RUDISH. 

THE SUBHUMAN PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED BY THE POLICE TO MALINSKI BEGAN SOON
AFTER HIS ARREST ON OCTOBER 23.  HE WAS STRIPPED, HUMILIATED AND
THREATENED WITH A SHELLACKING.  HE WAS QUESTIONED THROUGHOUT THE DAY
AND WAS DENIED THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL, RELATIVES OR FRIENDS.  THIS
SUCCEEDED IN BREAKING MALINSKI'S WILL, WHICH THE PROSECUTOR BOASTED
"WAS NOT HARD TO BREAK," AND THE POLICE WERE ABLE TO EXTRACT AN ORAL
CONFESSION FROM HIM.  BUT THIS WAS NOT ENOUGH; THE POLICE WANTED A
WRITTEN CONFESSION.  SO THEY CONTINUED TO HOLD THE "BROKEN" MALINSKI
UNTIL SUCH A CONFESSION WAS FORTHCOMING ON OCTOBER 27.  DURING THIS
PERIOD HE WAS ILLEGALLY HELD WITHOUT BEING ARRAIGNED, WAS QUESTIONED AT
FREQUENT INTERVALS AND SAW NO ONE SAVE HIS QUESTIONERS AND SPIELFOGEL. 
THE ONLY CONCESSION MADE TO HIM WAS THE PRIVILEGE OF WEARING ALL HIS
CLOTHES. 

THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE "BROKEN" MALINSKI
REGAINED HIS FREE INDEPENDENT WILL DURING THE ILLEGAL DETENTION OR THAT
THE EFFECTS OF THE HUMILIATION AND THREATENED SHELLACKING, WHICH CAUSED
HIM TO "BREAK," WORE OFF PRIOR TO THE WRITTEN CONFESSION ON OCTOBER
27.  THERE WAS NOT EVEN A TWELVE-HOUR INTERVAL BETWEEN THE
INTERROGATIONS OR A CHANGE OF INTERROGATORS WHICH THIS COURT IN LYONS
V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596, THOUGHT SUFFICIENT TO BREAK THE PATTERN OF
COERCION.  THE REIGN OF MENTAL FEAR AND TERROR HERE WAS CONTINUOUS FOR
FOUR DAYS AND MALINSKI'S WILL WAS IN A SHATTERED STATE ON THE OCCASION
OF MAKING EACH CONFESSION.  SUCH CONFESSIONS CANNOT BE DIGNIFIED WITH
THE ADJECTIVE "VOLUNTARY," HOWEVER NON-COERCIVE MAY HAVE BEEN THE
IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

ONCE AN ATMOSPHERE OF COERCION OR FEAR IS CREATED, SUBSEQUENT
CONFESSIONS SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE INVALIDATED UNLESS THERE IS PROOF
BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT THAT SUCH AN ATMOSPHERE HAS BEEN DISPELLED
AND THAT THE ACCUSED HAS COMPLETELY REGAINED HIS FREE INDIVIDUAL WILL. 
OTHERWISE WE MIGHT AS WELL DISCARD ALL PRETENSE TO A CIVILIZED AND
HUMANE SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND ADOPT WITHOUT FURTHER ADO THE
TERRORISTIC POLICE PRACTICES OF CERTAIN PAST AND PRESENT TYRANNIES IN
OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.  SINCE ALL THE CONFESSIONS HERE WERE MADE IN
A CONTINUING BACKGROUND OF THREATENED COERCION, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY
ALL WERE VOID. 

ONE OTHER MATTER IS WORTHY OF COMMENT.  MALINSKI, AS WELL AS HIS CO
DEFENDANT RUDISH, IS AN AMERICAN OF JEWISH ANCESTRY.  THE PROSECUTOR
MADE CERTAIN REMARKS IN HIS STATEMENT TO THE JURY THAT MAY HAVE BEEN
INTENDED AND WERE INDICATIVE OF A DESIRE TO APPEAL TO RACIAL AND
RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY.  HE SPOKE OF MALINSKY AS A "JERK FROM THE EAST SIDE"
AND REFERRED TO HIS RESIDENCE IN "THE LOWER EAST SIDE OF MANHATTAN,
WHERE YOUR LIFE IS NOT WORTH A PRETZEL."  THIS IS A CHARACTERIZATION OF
A TERRITORY CONTAINING A LARGE PROPORTION OF AMERICANS OF LIKE ORIGIN. 

THOSE CLOTHED WITH AUTHORITY IN COURT ROOMS OF THIS NATION HAVE THE
DUTY TO CONDUCT AND SUPERVISE PROCEEDINGS SO THAT AN ACCUSED PERSON MAY
BE ADJUDGED SOLELY ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF JUSTICE AND REASON. 
THIS DUTY IS AN ESPECIALLY HIGH ONE IN CAPITAL CASES.  INSTEAD OF AN
ATTITUDE OF INDIFFERENCE AND CARELESSNESS IN SUCH MATTERS, JUDGES AND
OFFICERS OF THE COURT SHOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO CREATE AN
ATMOSPHERE FREE FROM UNDUE PASSION AND EMOTIONALISM.  THIS NECESSARILY
REQUIRES THE EXCLUSION OF ATTACKS OR APPEALS MADE BY COUNSEL TENDING TO
REFLECT UPON THE RACE, CREED OR COLOR OF THE DEFENDANT.  HERE THE
DEFENDANTS' VERY LIVES WERE AT STAKE AND IT WAS OF THE UTMOST
IMPORTANCE THAT THE TRIAL BE CONDUCTED IN SURROUNDINGS FREE FROM
POISONOUS AND DANGEROUS IRRELEVANCIES THAT MIGHT INFLAME THE JURY TO
THE DETRIMENT OF THE DEFENDANTS.  BRAZEN APPEALS RELATING TO THEIR RACE
OR FAITH HAD NO RELEVANCE WHATEVER TO THE GRAVE ISSUE FACING THE JURY
AND COULD ONLY BE DESIGNED TO INFLUENCE THE JURY UNFAIRLY; AND SUBTLE
AND INDIRECT ATTACKS WERE EVEN MORE DANGEROUS AND EFFECTIVE. 
STATEMENTS OF THIS CHARACTER ARE THE DIRECT ANTITHESIS OF EVERY
PRINCIPLE OF AMERICAN JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY.  THEY ALONE ARE ENOUGH TO
CAST GRAVE DOUBTS UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND I
THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AS TO BOTH PETITIONERS. 

MALINSKI, CHARGED WITH MURDER, MADE SEVERAL CONFESSIONS OF GUILT,
WHICH WERE INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE AT HIS TRIAL.  TWO, MADE TO THE
POLICE, ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COERCED, THE FIRST ON OCTOBER 23RD AND
THE OTHER FOUR DAYS LATER ON OCTOBER 27TH.  DURING THAT TIME HE
ADMITTED TO THE POLICE OTHER ISOLATED FACTS WHICH TENDED TO FASTEN
GUILT UPON HIM.  THREE FRIENDS OF MALINSKI ALSO TESTIFIED THAT ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS SHORTLY AFTER THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME AND LONG
BEFORE HIS ARREST, HE VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED TO THEM AND TO HIS SISTER
THAT HE HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME. 

THE TESTIMONY AS TO WHETHER THE FIRST CONFESSION TO THE POLICE WAS
COERCED WAS SHARPLY CONFLICTING.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER
WAS SUBJECTED TO ANY COERCION AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OF THE SECOND
CONFESSION TO THE POLICE, SAVE AS THE JURY COULD FIND THAT THE
COERCION, IF ANY, ATTENDING THE FIRST CONFESSION CONTINUED TO OPERATE
SO AS TO INDUCE THE SECOND.    THE TRIAL COURT, AFTER REVIEWING FULLY
THE EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER'S DETENTION AND THE COERCION BY THE POLICE
WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE ATTENDED HIS FIRST CONFESSION, AND OF THE DELAY
IN HIS ARRAIGNMENT, INSTRUCTED THE JURY:  "THIS TESTIMONY WAS ADDUCED
SOLELY ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED CONFESSION
LATER MADE WAS THE RESULT OF THE COERCION, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED,
WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE STATUTE, AND WHICH INVALIDATES A CONFESSION
IF MADE.  IF YOU SHOULD FIND THAT THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE DEFENDANT WAS
DELAYED, YOU MAY CONSIDER THAT ON THE QUESTION OF THE VOLUNTARINESS OF
ANY CONFESSION MADE BY MALINSKI, INCLUDING THE ONE MADE IN THE EARLY
HOURS OF OCTOBER 27  ..." 

THE TRIAL COURT ALSO CORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION WAS THAT THE CONFESSION OF OCTOBER 27 WAS TAINTED BY THE
DETENTION AND COERCION WHICH HAD PRECEDED IT, AND THAT "YOU MUST FIND
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THIS CONFESSION WAS A VOLUNTARY ONE
BEFORE YOU WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONSIDER IT."  WITH RESPECT TO THIS
LATER CONFESSION, THE JURY WAS FURTHER INSTRUCTED: 

"IF YOU FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE CONFESSION IS A
VOLUNTARY ONE, YOU WILL THEN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE STATEMENTS
INCULPATING THE DEFENDANT, THEREIN CONTAINED, ARE TRUE.  IF YOU SHALL
HAVE RESOLVED BOTH OF THESE QUESTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION, THEN
AND ONLY THEN WILL YOU CONSIDER THE CONFESSION IN DETERMINING THE GUILT
OR INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANT  ..."  THERE WERE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THESE
INSTRUCTIONS AND NO REQUESTS FOR A FURTHER CHARGE ON THIS SUBJECT. 

AFTER A PAINSTAKING REVIEW OF THE FACTS, THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS UNANIMOUSLY SUSTAINED THE JURY'S VERDICT THAT THE CONFESSIONS
WERE NOT COERCED.  FN1  THAT COURT, ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF DEATH,
HAS POWER, WHICH WE ARE NOT FREE TO EXERCISE IN A CASE COMING FROM A
STATE COURT, TO MAKE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT, ART. 6, SEC. 7 OF THE NEW
YORK CONSTITUTION OF 1939; FN2  PEOPLE V. MCGRATH, 202 N.Y. 445, 450;
96 N.E. 92, AND ALSO TO GIVE JUDGMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO TECHNICAL
ERRORS, DEFECTS OR EXCEPTIONS NOT AFFECTING SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.  N.Y.
CODE CRIM. PROC., SEC. 542. 

IT SEEMS TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
SECOND CONFESSION WAS COERCED WAS PROPERLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  BUT
IT HOLDS THAT THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS COERCED AND WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY AS ITSELF PROOF OF GUILT, AND THAT FOR THAT REASON THE VERDICT
MUST BE SET ASIDE ALTHOUGH THE JURY FOUND UNDER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE
COURT, WHICH WE HAVE QUOTED, THAT THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS NOT
COERCED. 

EVEN THOUGH THE FIRST CONFESSION WERE THE PRODUCT OF COERCION, THE
TRIAL COURT, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE
EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS ADDUCED ONLY TO SHOW
THAT THE SECOND WAS COERCED.  AND THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED THAT IT COULD
CONSIDER THE SECOND CONFESSION, ONLY IF IT FOUND IT VOLUNTARY, AND THAT
IT COULD CONVICT IN THAT CASE.  IN VIEW OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, OR
THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXCEPTION OR REQUEST TO CHARGE MORE
PARTICULARLY, THERE WAS ANY ERROR OF WHICH PETITIONER CAN COMPLAIN. 
HENCE THE JURY'S VERDICT MUST BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHING
THAT THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY AND WAS NOT INDUCED BY ANY
COERCION ATTENDING THE FIRST.  LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596. 

BUT EVEN IF IT COULD BE SAID, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS SEEMS TO HAVE
THOUGHT, THAT THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS A DETERMINATION THAT THE FIRST
CONFESSION WAS NOT COERCED, WE PERCEIVE NO GROUND ON WHICH THAT
DETERMINATION CAN BE DISREGARDED.  THIS COURT RECOGNIZES THAT IF ONLY
THE TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY BE CONSIDERED, THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE FIRST CONFESSION WAS COERCED WAS FOR THE JURY.  THE COURT SETS
ASIDE THE JURY'S VERDICT SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE INTERPRETATION IT PLACES
UPON THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY IN THE LIGHT OF CERTAIN REMARKS, WHICH
THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS QUOTES, MADE BY THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY IN THE COURSE OF HIS SUMMATION TO THE JURY.  BUT THE
PROSECUTOR DID NOT TESTIFY IN THE CASE, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HE
WAS PRESENT AT ANY OF THE INTERVIEWS OF PETITIONER BY THE POLICE, OR
HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED COERCION.  AT MOST, HIS REMARKS WERE
AN ILL-ADVISED ATTEMPT AT JUSTIFICATION OF THE COERCION WHICH THE
DEFENSE HAD ALLEGED.  HE ADDED NO WORD BY WAY OF PROOF OR ADMISSION TO
THE EVIDENCE ALREADY BEFORE THE JURY.  THE JURY, ACTING WITHIN ITS
PROVINCE, COULD HAVE CONCLUDED, AS IT EVIDENTLY DID, THAT THE
PROSECUTOR'S REMARKS DID NOT TEND TO PROVE ANYTHING MORE THAN HIS OWN
INEPTITUDE.  THE COURT'S DECISION THUS SETS ASIDE THE CONVICTION BY THE
PROCESS OF RE-WEIGHING THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY AS TO THE ALLEGED
COERCION, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED TO THE JURY. 

IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT, IN REVIEWING, ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS, CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS BY STATE COURTS, TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE ON
WHICH THE JURY HAS PRONOUNCED ITS VERDICT, ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, OR TO SIT AS A SUPER-JURY.  WE HAVE, IN
APPROPRIATE CASES, SET ASIDE STATE CONVICTIONS AS VIOLATING DUE PROCESS
WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO SAY THAT THE CASE WAS IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY OR THAT THE UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE PLAINLY SHOWED A VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED.  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297
U.S. 278; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; WARD V. TEXAS, 316 U.S.
547.  BUT WE HAVE NOT HITHERTO OVERTURNED THE VERDICT OF A STATE COURT
JURY BY WEIGHING THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ON WHICH IT WAS BASED. 

THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THEIR OWN CRIMINAL LAWS IN THEIR OWN COURTS REQUIRES THAT IN SUCH CASES
WE SCRUPULOUSLY AVOID RETRYING THE FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO
THE JURY, EXCEPT ON A CLEAR SHOWING OF ERROR SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTING
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED.  WE AGREE THAT THE
CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THIS COURT REVIEWS ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS A STATE COURT CONVICTION FOR CRIME, ARE AS STATED IN THE
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.  BUT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED WITH MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE.  IT CANNOT
RIGHTLY BE MADE THE INSTRUMENT OF REFORM OF THE MANNERS OF STATE
OFFICIALS.  AND HOWEVER REPREHENSIBLE OR EVEN CRIMINAL THE ACTS OF
STATE OFFICIALS MAY BE, IN SO FAR AS THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL IS
CONCERNED, THEY DO NOT INFRINGE DUE PROCESS UNLESS THEY RESULT IN THE
USE AGAINST THE ACCUSED OF EVIDENCE WHICH IS COERCED OR KNOWN TO THE
STATE TO BE FRAUDULENT OR PERJURED, OR UNLESS THEY OTHERWISE DENY TO
HIM THE SUBSTANCE OF A FAIR TRIAL, WHICH IS DUE PROCESS.  SEE LISENBA
V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 235-238; BUCHALTER V. NEW YORK, 319 U.S.
427, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

JUDGED BY THESE STANDARDS, WE THINK THAT THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS IN SUBMITTING PETITIONER MALINSKI'S CONFESSION TO THE JURY IN
THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY WERE IN FACT SUBMITTED, AND THAT THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND FOR SETTING ASIDE THE JURY'S VERDICT AGAINST
HIM.  WE CANNOT SAY ON THIS RECORD THAT THE JURY WAS NOT RIGHTLY
PERMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER PETITIONER'S CONFESSIONS OF GUILT TO THE
POLICE WERE COERCED, OR THAT THE VERDICT WAS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE, OR THAT THE INSTRUCTION THAT THE JURY COULD FIND THE
DEFENDANT GUILTY IF IT FOUND THAT THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS NOT THE
RESULT OF THE ALLEGED COERCION AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST, WAS NOT
PROPERLY GIVEN. 

PETITIONER RUDISH HAS RAISED NO SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION
REVIEWABLE HERE, AND HIS CONVICTION, AS WELL AS MALINSKI'S, SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CHIEF JUDGE AND TWO OTHERS, DISSENTING, THOUGHT THAT THE
CONVICTION SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE
CHARGE AS TO THE DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT; THEY APPARENTLY RELIED ON STATE
GROUNDS, AND NOT ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

FN2  THE AMENDMENT TO ART. 6, SEC. 7, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1944,
RETAINS THIS POWER IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :







GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 324 U.S. 439 


NO. 11, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945.  -
MOTION GRANTED. 


1.  LEAVE IS GRANTED THE STATE OF GEORGIA TO FILE IN THIS COURT
AGAINST TWENTY RAILROADS A BILL OF COMPLAINT IN WHICH THE STATE, SUING
AS PARENS PATRIAE AND IN ITS PROPRIETARY CAPACITY, AND SEEKING
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CHARGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE CONSPIRED TO FIX
FREIGHT RATES WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE STATE AND THAT THE
NORTHERN ROADS USE COERCION ON THE SOUTHERN ROADS IN THE FIXING OF
JOINT THROUGH RATES.  CONST., ART. III, SEC. 2; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 341;
CLAYTON ACT, SEC. 16.  PP. 443, 452. 

2.  THE BILL STATES A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  MASSACHUSETTS V.
MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, AND FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 445. 

3.  THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY BRING CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS OR SUITS
FOR INJUNCTIONS UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE STATE
FROM MAINTAINING THE SUIT.  P. 447. 

4.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STATE MAY INVOKE THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IN A DISPUTE WHICH IS JUSTICIABLE, THE
INTERESTS OF THE STATE ARE NOT CONFINED TO THOSE WHICH ARE PROPRIETARY,
BUT EMBRACE ALSO THE SO-CALLED QUASI-SOVEREIGN INTERESTS.  P. 447. 

5.  THE STATE MAY MAINTAIN THE SUIT AS PARENS PATRIAE ACTING ON
BEHALF OF ITS CITIZENS, AND THE INJURY TO THE STATE IN ITS PROPRIETARY
CAPACITY MAY BE TREATED AS MAKEWEIGHT.  P. 450. 

6.  A STATE IS A "PERSON" ENTITLED TO SUE FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER
SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  P. 452. 

7.  THE STATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER DAMAGES, EVEN IF THE
CONSPIRACY BE PROVED.  KEOGH V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 260 U.S. 156.  P.
453. 

8.  THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE STATE AGAINST THE ALLEGED
RATE-FIXING COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY AMONG THE DEFENDANT CARRIERS IS
NOT A MATTER OVER WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS
JURISDICTION, AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS THEREFORE NOT SUCH AS IS
AVAILABLE UNDER SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT ONLY IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY
THE UNITED STATES.  P. 454. 

9.  RATE-FIXING COMBINATIONS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
ANTITRUST LAWS.  P. 456. 

10.  THERE IS NO WARRANT IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE
SHERMAN ACT FOR SAYING THAT THE AUTHORITY TO FIX JOINT THROUGH RATES
CLOTHES WITH LEGALITY A CONSPIRACY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A STATE OR A
REGION, TO USE COERCION IN THE FIXING OF RATES, OR TO PUT IN THE HANDS
OF A COMBINATION OF CARRIERS A VETO POWER OVER RATES PROPOSED BY A
SINGLE CARRIER.  P. 458. 

11.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AUTHORIZING RELIEF
BY INJUNCTION "WHEN AND UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AND PRINCIPLES AS
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THREATENED CONDUCT THAT WILL CAUSE LOSS OR
DAMAGE IS GRANTED BY COURTS OF EQUITY," IS HERE SUFFICIENTLY SATISFIED
TO JUSTIFY FILING OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  P. 460. 

12.  THAT THE RATES WHICH HAVE BEEN FIXED BY THE ALLEGED COMBINATION
MAY OR MAY NOT BE HELD UNLAWFUL BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
IS IMMATERIAL TO THE ISSUE HERE PRESENTED.  P. 460. 

13.  A COMBINATION TO FIX REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY RATES MAY
NEVERTHELESS BE ILLEGAL.  P. 460. 

14. DAMAGE MUST BE PRESUMED TO FLOW FROM A CONSPIRACY TO MANIPULATE
RATES WITHIN THAT ZONE OF REASONABLENESS (BETWEEN MAXIMA AND MINIMA)
WITHIN WHICH A CARRIER IS ORDINARILY FREE TO ADJUST ITS CHARGES FOR
ITSELF.  P. 461. 

15.  CONSTRUED AS CHARGING A CONSPIRACY AMONG THE DEFENDANTS TO USE
COERCION IN THE FIXING OF RATES AND TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GEORGIA IN
THE RATES WHICH ARE FIXED, THE BILL STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE
ANTITRUST LAWS.  P. 462. 

16.  THE BILL IS HERE CONSTRUED WITH THAT LIBERALITY ACCORDED THE
COMPLAINT OF A SOVEREIGN STATE AS PRESENTING A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION
WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY AND SPECIFICITY AS TO REQUIRE A JOINDER OF
ISSUES.  P. 463. 

17.  A STATE MAY NOT INVOKE THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
IN A SUIT AGAINST ONE OF ITS CITIZENS.  P. 463. 

18.  SINCE THE TWO DEFENDANT CORPORATIONS WHICH CLAIM TO BE CITIZENS
OF GEORGIA ARE NOT INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE SUIT, IT IS UNNECESSARY
AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE CITIZENS
OF GEORGIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE TWO DEFENDANTS IN QUESTION MAY BE CHALLENGED BY
A MOTION TO STRIKE; AND, IF THEY ARE STRICKEN, THIS COURT WOULD NOT
LOSE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN GEORGIA AND THE
OTHER DEFENDANTS.  P. 463. 

19.  IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW FROM THE GRANT OF LEAVE TO FILE
THE BILL OF COMPLAINT THAT THIS COURT MUST EXERCISE ITS ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION.  P. 464. 

20.  CLAUSE 2 OF SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH
CONFERS ON THIS COURT JURISDICTION OF THOSE CASES INTER ALIA "IN WHICH
A STATE SHALL BE PARTY," DOES NOT GRANT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THIS
COURT IN THE CLASSES OF CASES ENUMERATED, AND THE EXERCISE OF THE
JURISDICTION IS NOT MANDATORY IN EVERY CASE.  P. 464. 

21. THIS COURT CAN NOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE DISTRICT OR
DISTRICTS WHEREIN ALL OF THE DEFENDANT RAILROADS ARE "FOUND" OR
"TRANSACT BUSINESS," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE VENUE PROVISION OF SEC.
12 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  P. 466. 

22.  NO SHOWING HAVING BEEN MADE HERE THAT ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS CAN
BE "FOUND" IN SOME CONVENIENT FORUM, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT GEORGIA
HAS A PROPER AND ADEQUATE REMEDY APART FROM THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
OF THIS COURT.  ONCE A STATE MAKES OUT A CASE WITHIN THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, ITS RIGHT TO COME HERE IS ESTABLISHED; THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE STATE GO FURTHER AND SHOW THAT
NO OTHER FORUM IS AVAILABLE TO IT.  P. 466. 

23.  APART FROM SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS CREATED BY CONGRESS, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS IS TERRITORIAL.  P. 467. 

24.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 5 OF THE SHERMAN ACT EMPOWERING THE COURT
BEFORE WHOM PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 4 ARE PENDING TO BRING IN PARTIES
WHO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT IS LIMITED, AS IS SEC. 4, TO SUITS
BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES.  P. 467. 

25.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION THIS COURT DOES NOT REMIT
GEORGIA TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS FOR RELIEF BUT GRANTS LEAVE TO
FILE THE AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT.  P. 468. 

GEORGIA V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT. 

ON MOTION BY THE STATE OF GEORGIA FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED BILL
OF COMPLAINT AGAINST TWENTY RAILROADS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATE OF GEORGIA BY THIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BILL OF
COMPLAINT  FN1  SEEKS TO INVOKE THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT
UNDER ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
233, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 341.  THE DEFENDANTS ARE SOME TWENTY RAILROAD
COMPANIES.  ON NOVEMBER 6, 1944, WE ISSUED A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
GEORGIA SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO FILE ITS BILL OF COMPLAINT.  RETURNS
TO THE RULE HAVE BEEN MADE AND ORAL ARGUMENT HAD. 

GEORGIA SUES IN FOUR CAPACITIES, ONLY TWO OF WHICH WE NEED MENTION:
(1) IN HER CAPACITY AS A QUASI-SOVEREIGN OR AS AGENT AND PROTECTOR OF
HER PEOPLE AGAINST A CONTINUING WRONG DONE TO THEM; AND (2) IN HER
CAPACITY AS A PROPRIETOR TO REDRESS WRONGS SUFFERED BY THE STATE AS THE
OWNER OF A RAILROAD AND AS THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF VARIOUS
INSTITUTIONS OF THE STATE. 

THE ESSENCE OF THE COMPLAINT IS A CHARGE OF A CONSPIRACY AMONG THE
DEFENDANTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  IT
ALLEGES THAT THEY HAVE FIXED ARBITRARY AND NONCOMPETITIVE RATES AND
CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BY RAILROAD TO AND FROM GEORGIA
SO AS TO PREFER THE PORTS OF OTHER STATES OVER THE PORTS OF GEORGIA. 
IT CHARGES THAT SOME SIXTY RATE BUREAUS, COMMITTEES, CONFERENCES,
ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER PRIVATE RATE-FIXING AGENCIES HAVE BEEN UTILIZED
BY DEFENDANTS TO FIX THESE RATES; THAT NO ROAD CAN CHANGE JOINT THROUGH
RATES WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THESE PRIVATE AGENCIES; THAT THIS PRIVATE
RATE-FIXING MACHINERY WHICH IS NOT SANCTIONED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AND WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS HAS PUT THE
EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF RATES TO AND FROM GEORGIA IN THE HANDS OF THE
DEFENDANTS.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THESE PRACTICES IN PURPOSE AND
EFFECT GIVE MANUFACTURERS, SELLERS AND OTHER SHIPPERS IN THE NORTH AN
ADVANTAGE OVER MANUFACTURERS, SHIPPERS AND OTHERS IN GEORGIA.  IT
ALLEGES THAT THE RATES SO FIXED ARE APPROXIMATELY 39 PER CENT HIGHER
THAN THE RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF LIKE COMMODITIES FOR
LIKE DISTANCES BETWEEN POINTS IN THE NORTH.  IT ALLEGES THAT THE
DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE LINES WHOLLY OR PRINCIPALLY IN THE SOUTH ARE
GENERALLY DOMINATED AND COERCED BY THE DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE NORTHERN
ROADS, AND THEREFORE THAT, EVEN WHEN THE SOUTHERN DEFENDANTS DESIRE,
THEY CANNOT PUBLISH JOINT THROUGH RATES BETWEEN GEORGIA AND THE NORTH
WHEN THE NORTHERN CARRIERS REFUSE TO JOIN IN SUCH RATES. 

IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE RATES AS A RESULT OF THE CONSPIRACY ARE SO
FIXED AS 

"(A)  TO DENY TO MANY OF GEORGIA'S PRODUCTS EQUAL ACCESS WITH THOSE
OF OTHER STATES TO THE NATIONAL MARKET; 

(B)  TO LIMIT IN A GENERAL WAY THE GEORGIA ECONOMY TO STAPLE
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, TO RESTRICT AND CURTAIL OPPORTUNITY IN
MANUFACTURING, SHIPPING AND COMMERCE, AND TO PREVENT THE FULL AND
COMPLETE UTILIZATION OF THE NATURAL WEALTH OF THE STATE; 

(C)  TO FRUSTRATE AND COUNTERACT THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE STATE TO
PROMOTE A WELL-ROUNDED AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM, ENCOURAGE MANUFACTURE AND
SHIPPING, PROVIDE FULL EMPLOYMENT, AND PROMOTE THE GENERAL PROGRESS AND
WELFARE OF ITS PEOPLE; AND 

(D)  TO HOLD THE GEORGIA ECONOMY IN A STATE OF ARRESTED
DEVELOPMENT." 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS ARE NOT CITIZENS OF
GEORGIA; THAT GEORGIA IS WITHOUT REMEDY IN HER OWN COURTS, AS THE
DEFENDANTS ARE OUTSIDE HER JURISDICTION; THAT SHE HAS NO ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAVING NO POWER TO AFFORD
RELIEF AGAINST SUCH A CONSPIRACY; THAT THE ISSUES PRESENTED CONSTITUTE
A JUSTICIABLE QUESTION. 

THE PRAYER IS FOR DAMAGES AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. 

WE WILL RETURN LATER TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH GEORGIA SEEKS TO
ALLEGE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT AT THIS POINT TO SAY THAT FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WE CONSTRUE THE ALLEGATION THAT
DEFENDANTS HAVE CONSPIRED TO FIX THE RATES SO AS TO "PREFER" THE PORTS
OF OTHER STATES OVER THE PORTS OF GEORGIA AS A CHARGE THAT DEFENDANTS
HAVE CONSPIRED TO FIX RATES SO AS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GEORGIA.  AND
WE CONSTRUE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE SOUTHERN DEFENDANTS ARE DOMINATED
AND COERCED BY THE NORTHERN ROADS AND CANNOT PUBLISH JOINT THROUGH
RATES WHEN THE NORTHERN ROADS REFUSE TO JOIN AS A CHARGE THAT THE
NORTHERN ROADS USE COERCION ON THE SOUTHERN ROADS IN THE FIXING OF
JOINT THROUGH RATES. 

DEFENDANTS IN THEIR RETURNS PRAY THAT THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BE
DENIED ON THREE GROUNDS: (1) THAT THE COMPLAINT PRESENTS NO JUSTICIABLE
CONTROVERSY; (2) THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION;
AND (3) THAT TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS ARE CITIZENS OF GEORGIA.  LEAVE TO
FILE SHOULD OF COURSE BE DENIED IF IT IS PLAIN THAT NO RELIEF MAY BE
GRANTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT. 
SEE ALABAMA V. ARIZONA, 291 U.S. 286, 291-292; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA,
298 U.S. 558, 572. 

JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  IT IS SAID THAT THE BILL DOES NOT SET FORTH
A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE RULE OF MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON,
262 U.S. 447, AND FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12.  WE TAKE THE OTHER
VIEW, FOR WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT GEORGIA AS PARENS PATRIAE AND AS
PROPRIETOR OF VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS ASSERTS A CLAIM WITHIN JUDICIAL
COGNIZANCE.  THE COMPLAINT OF GEORGIA IN THOSE RESPECTS IS NOT OF A
POLITICAL OR GOVERNMENTAL CHARACTER.  THERE IS INVOLVED NO QUESTION OF
DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AS
IN MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON AND IN FLORIDA V. MELLON, SUPRA.  AND, AS WE
SHALL DEVELOP MORE FULLY WHEN WE TURN TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE
ASSERTION THAT NO CAUSE OF ACTION HAS BEEN STATED, WE ARE NOT ASKED TO
RESOLVE A DISPUTE WHICH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE JUDICIARY OR WHICH
BY THE CHARTER OF OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN REPOSED IN DEPARTMENTS OTHER
THAN THE JUDICIARY.  CF. COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, 456, 460. 
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE AND COMMERCE
THROUGH THE FIXING OF RATES.  THE HISTORY OF RESTRAINTS OF TRADE MAKES
IT PLAIN THAT THESE PROBLEMS PRESENT JUDICIAL QUESTIONS WITH WHICH
COURTS HAVE LONG DEALT.  FN2 

IT IS OF COURSE TRUE THAT GEORGIA DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO INVOKE THE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT MERELY BECAUSE THERE MAY BE INVOLVED
A JUDICIAL QUESTION.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT A STATE IS PLAINTIFF.  THE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IS CONFINED TO CIVIL SUITS WHERE DAMAGE HAS BEEN
INFLICTED OR IS THREATENED, NOT TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF PENAL STATUTES OF
A STATE.  WISCONSIN V. PELICAN INS. CO., 127 U.S. 265, 297-300.  AND
THOUGH THE SUIT IS CIVIL, LEAVE TO FILE WILL BE DENIED WHERE IT APPEARS
THAT THE SUIT BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE STATE IS IN REALITY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS.  OKLAHOMA V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R.
CO., 220 U.S. 277; OKLAHOMA V. COOK, 304 U.S. 387; JONES V. BOWLES, 322
U.S. 707.  MOREOVER, MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON AND FLORIDA V. MELLON,
SUPRA, MAKE PLAIN THAT THE UNITED STATES, NOT THE STATE, REPRESENTS THE
CITIZENS AS PARENS PATRIAE IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY, HOWEVER, DOES NOT FALL WITHIN ANY OF THOSE
CATEGORIES.  THIS IS A CIVIL, NOT A CRIMINAL, PROCEEDING.  NOR IS THIS
A SITUATION WHERE THE UNITED STATES RATHER THAN GEORGIA STANDS AS
PARENS PATRIAE TO THE CITIZENS OF GEORGIA.  THIS IS NOT A SUIT LIKE
THOSE IN MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, AND FLORIDA V. MELLON, SUPRA, WHERE A
STATE SOUGHT TO PROTECT HER CITIZENS FROM THE OPERATION OF FEDERAL
STATUTES.  HERE GEORGIA ASSERTS RIGHTS BASED ON THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 
THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY BRING CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS OR
SUITS FOR INJUNCTIONS UNDER THOSE LAWS DOES NOT MEAN THAT GEORGIA MAY
NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESENT SUIT.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, GEORGIA SUES AS A
PROPRIETOR TO REDRESS WRONGS SUFFERED BY IT AS THE OWNER OF A RAILROAD
AND AS THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF VARIOUS PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.  GEORGIA,
SUING FOR HER OWN INJURIES, IS A "PERSON" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 16
OF THE CLAYTON ACT; SHE IS AUTHORIZED TO MAINTAIN SUITS TO RESTRAIN
VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS OR TO RECOVER DAMAGES BY REASON
THEREOF.  GEORGIA V. EVANS, 316 U.S. 159.  BUT GEORGIA IS NOT CONFINED
TO SUITS DESIGNED TO PROTECT ONLY HER PROPRIETARY INTERESTS.  THE
RIGHTS WHICH GEORGIA ASSERTS, PARENS PATRIAE, ARE THOSE ARISING FROM AN
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY OF PRIVATE PERSONS WHOSE PRICE-FIXING SCHEME, IT IS
SAID, HAS INJURED THE ECONOMY OF GEORGIA.  THOSE RIGHTS ARE OF COURSE
BASED ON FEDERAL LAWS.  THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS OF
THESE ACTS HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
SEE GEORGIA V. EVANS, SUPRA, P. 162.  BUT WHEN IT CAME TO OTHER
SANCTIONS CONGRESS FOLLOWED A DIFFERENT COURSE AND AUTHORIZED CIVIL
SUITS NOT ONLY BY THE UNITED STATES BUT BY OTHER PERSONS AS WELL.  AND
WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT, WHEN CONGRESS FASHIONED THOSE CIVIL
REMEDIES, IT RESTRICTED THE STATES TO SUITS TO PROTECT THEIR
PROPRIETARY INTERESTS.  SUITS BY A STATE, PARENS PATRIAE, HAVE LONG
BEEN RECOGNIZED.  THERE IS NO APPARENT REASON WHY THOSE SUITS SHOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STATE MAY INVOKE OUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IN A DISPUTE WHICH IS JUSTICIABLE (OKLAHOMA V. COOK, SUPRA, P. 393) THE
INTERESTS OF THE STATE ARE NOT CONFINED TO THOSE WHICH ARE PROPRIETARY;
THEY EMBRACE THE SO-CALLED "QUASI-SOVEREIGN" INTERESTS WHICH IN THE
WORDS OF GEORGIA V. TENNESSEE COPPER CO., 206 U.S. 230, 237, ARE
"INDEPENDENT OF AND BEHIND THE TITLES OF ITS CITIZENS, IN ALL THE EARTH
AND AIR WITHIN ITS DOMAIN."  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT ENJOINED
MANUFACTURING COMPANIES FROM DISCHARGING NOXIOUS GAS FROM THEIR WORKS
IN TENNESSEE OVER GEORGIA'S TERRITORY.  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT "IT IS
A FAIR AND REASONABLE DEMAND ON THE PART OF A SOVEREIGN THAT THE AIR
OVER ITS TERRITORY SHOULD NOT BE POLLUTED ON A GREAT SCALE BY
SULPHUROUS ACID GAS, THAT THE FORESTS ON ITS MOUNTAINS, BE THEY BETTER
OR WORSE, AND WHATEVER DOMESTIC DESTRUCTION THEY HAVE SUFFERED, SHOULD
NOT BE FURTHER DESTROYED OR THREATENED BY THE ACT OF PERSONS BEYOND ITS
CONTROL, THAT THE CROPS AND ORCHARDS ON ITS HILLS SHOULD NOT BE
ENDANGERED FROM THE SAME SOURCE."  206 U.S. P. 238.  THAT CASE FOLLOWED
MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, 180 U.S. 208, WHERE MISSOURI WAS GRANTED LEAVE TO
FILE A BILL SEEKING TO ENJOIN THE DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE INTO THE
MISSISSIPPI.  FN3 THE COURT OBSERVED THAT "IF THE HEALTH AND COMFORT OF
THE INHABITANTS OF A STATE ARE THREATENED, THE STATE IS THE PROPER
PARTY TO REPRESENT AND DEFEND THEM."  180 U.S. P. 241.  AND SEE NEW
YORK V. NEW JERSEY, 256 U.S. 296, 301-302.  IN KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206
U.S. 46, KANSAS WAS ALLOWED TO SUE TO RESTRAIN THE DIVERSION OF WATER
FROM THE ARKANSAS RIVER, AN INTERSTATE STREAM.  THE COURT IN UPHOLDING
THE RIGHT OF KANSAS TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT STATED:  "IT IS NOT ACTING
DIRECTLY AND SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO
PROTECT HIS RIPARIAN RIGHTS.  BEYOND ITS PROPERTY RIGHTS IT HAS AN
INTEREST AS A STATE IN THIS LARGE TRACT OF LAND BORDERING ON THE
ARKANSAS RIVER.  ITS PROSPERITY AFFECTS THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE
STATE.  THE CONTROVERSY RISES, THEREFORE, ABOVE A MERE QUESTION OF
LOCAL PRIVATE RIGHT AND INVOLVES A MATTER OF STATE INTEREST, AND MUST
BE CONSIDERED FROM THAT STANDPOINT."  206 U.S. P. 99.  AND SEE COLORADO
V. KANSAS, 320 U.S. 383; NORTH DAKOTA V. MINNESOTA, 263 U.S. 365.  IN
PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262 U.S. 553, PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO WERE
ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN SUITS WHICH SOUGHT TO ENJOIN WEST VIRGINIA FROM
INTERFERING WITH THE FLOW OF NATURAL GAS FROM WEST VIRGINIA TO THE
OTHER STATES.  THE COURT SAID: 

"THE ATTITUDE OF THE COMPLAINANT STATES IS NOT THAT OF MERE
VOLUNTEERS ATTEMPTING TO VINDICATE THE FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OR TO REDRESS PURELY PRIVATE GRIEVANCES.  EACH SUES TO PROTECT A TWO
FOLD INTEREST - ONE AS THE PROPRIETOR OF VARIOUS PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
AND SCHOOLS WHOSE SUPPLY OF GAS WILL BE LARGELY CURTAILED OR CUT OFF BY
THE THREATENED INTERFERENCE WITH THE INTERSTATE CURRENT, AND THE OTHER
AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONSUMING PUBLIC WHOSE SUPPLY WILL BE
SIMILARLY AFFECTED.  BOTH INTERESTS ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND BOTH ARE
THREATENED WITH SERIOUS INJURY. 

"EACH STATE USES LARGE AMOUNTS OF THE GAS IN HER SEVERAL INSTITUTIONS
AND SCHOOLS,  - THE GREATER PART IN THE DISCHARGE OF DUTIES WHICH ARE
RELATIVELY IMPERATIVE.  A BREAK OR CESSATION IN THE SUPPLY WILL
EMBARRASS HER GREATLY IN THE DISCHARGE OF THOSE DUTIES AND EXPOSE
THOUSANDS OF DEPENDENTS AND SCHOOL CHILDREN TO SERIOUS DISCOMFORT, IF
NOT MORE.  TO SUBSTITUTE ANOTHER FORM OF FUEL WILL INVOLVE VERY LARGE
PUBLIC EXPENDITURES. 

"THE PRIVATE CONSUMERS IN EACH STATE NOT ONLY INCLUDE MOST OF THE
INHABITANTS OF MANY URBAN COMMUNITIES BUT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL
PORTION OF THE STATE'S POPULATION.  THEIR HEALTH, COMFORT AND WELFARE
ARE SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZED BY THE THREATENED WITHDRAWAL OF THE GAS FROM
THE INTERSTATE STREAM.  THIS IS A MATTER OF GRAVE PUBLIC CONCERN IN
WHICH THE STATE, AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PUBLIC, HAS AN INTEREST
APART FROM THAT OF THE INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED.  IT IS NOT MERELY A REMOTE
OR ETHICAL INTEREST BUT ONE WHICH IS IMMEDIATE AND RECOGNIZED BY LAW." 
262 U.S. PP. 591-592.    IT SEEMS TO US CLEAR THAT UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF THESE CASES GEORGIA MAY MAINTAIN THIS SUIT AS PARENS PATRIAE ACTING
ON BEHALF OF HER CITIZENS THOUGH HERE, AS IN GEORGIA V. TENNESSEE
COPPER CO., SUPRA, P. 237, WE TREAT THE INJURY TO THE STATE AS
PROPRIETOR MERELY AS A "MAKEWEIGHT."  THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT IS ONE OF THE MIGHTY INSTRUMENTS WHICH THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION PROVIDED SO THAT ADEQUATE MACHINERY MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR
THE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN STATES AND BETWEEN A STATE
AND CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE.  SEE MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA, PP.
219-224; VIRGINIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 246 U.S. 565, 599.  TRADE BARRIERS,
RECRIMINATIONS, INTENSE COMMERCIAL RIVALRIES HAD PLAGUED THE COLONIES. 
FN4  THE TRADITIONAL METHODS AVAILABLE TO A SOVEREIGN FOR THE
SETTLEMENT OF SUCH DISPUTES WERE DIPLOMACY AND WAR.  SUIT IN THIS COURT
WAS PROVIDED AS AN ALTERNATIVE.  MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA, P. 241;
GEORGIA V. TENNESSEE COPPER CO., SUPRA, P. 237. 

IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL ARE TAKEN AS TRUE, THE ECONOMY OF
GEORGIA AND THE WELFARE OF HER CITIZENS HAVE SERIOUSLY SUFFERED AS THE
RESULT OF THIS ALLEGED CONSPIRACY.  DISCRIMINATORY RATES ARE BUT ONE
FORM OF TRADE BARRIERS.  THEY MAY CAUSE A BLIGHT NO LESS SERIOUS THAN
THE SPREAD OF NOXIOUS GAS OVER THE LAND OR THE DEPOSIT OF SEWAGE IN THE
STREAMS.  THEY MAY AFFECT THE PROSPERITY AND WELFARE OF A STATE AS
PROFOUNDLY AS ANY DIVERSION OF WATERS FROM THE RIVERS.  THEY MAY
STIFLE, IMPEDE, OR CRIPPLE OLD INDUSTRIES AND PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF NEW ONES.  THEY MAY ARREST THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE OR PUT IT AT A
DECIDED DISADVANTAGE IN COMPETITIVE MARKETS.  SUCH A CHARGE AT LEAST
EQUALS IN GRAVITY THE ONE WHICH PENNSYLVANIA AND OHIO HAD WITH WEST
VIRGINIA OVER THE CURTAILMENT OF THE FLOW OF NATURAL GAS FROM THE WEST
VIRGINIA FIELDS.  THERE ARE SUBSTITUTE FUELS TO WHICH THE ECONOMY OF A
STATE MIGHT BE ADJUSTED.  BUT DISCRIMINATORY RATES FASTENED ON A REGION
HAVE A MORE PERMANENT AND INSIDIOUS QUALITY.  GEORGIA AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PUBLIC IS COMPLAINING OF A WRONG WHICH, IF
PROVEN, LIMITS THE OPPORTUNITIES OF HER PEOPLE, SHACKLES HER
INDUSTRIES, RETARDS HER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELEGATES HER TO AN INFERIOR
ECONOMIC POSITION AMONG HER SISTER STATES.  THESE ARE MATTERS OF GRAVE
PUBLIC CONCERN IN WHICH GEORGIA HAS AN INTEREST APART FROM THAT OF
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE AFFECTED.  GEORGIA'S INTEREST IS NOT
REMOTE; IT IS IMMEDIATE.  IF WE DENIED GEORGIA AS PARENS PATRIAE THE
RIGHT TO INVOKE THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN A MATTER OF
THAT GRAVITY, WE WOULD WHITTLE THE CONCEPT OF JUSTICIABILITY DOWN TO
THE STATURE OF MINOR OR CONVENTIONAL CONTROVERSIES.  THERE IS NO
WARRANT FOR SUCH A RESTRICTION. 

OKLAHOMA V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., SUPRA, IS NOT OPPOSED TO THIS
VIEW.  IN THAT CASE, THE DEFENDANT RAILROAD COMPANY HAD OBTAINED A
GRANT FROM CONGRESS TO LOCATE AND MAINTAIN A RAILWAY LINE THROUGH THE
INDIAN TERRITORY OUT OF WHICH THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA WAS LATER FORMED. 
THE FEDERAL ACT PROVIDED CERTAIN MAXIMUM TRANSPORTATION RATES WHICH THE
COMPANY MIGHT CHARGE.  OKLAHOMA SUED TO CANCEL THE GRANT, TO HAVE THE
PROPERTY GRANTED DECREED TO BE IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AS CESTUI QUE
TRUST, TO ENJOIN THE DEFENDANT FROM OPERATING A RAILROAD IN THE STATE,
AND TO ENJOIN PENDENTE LITE THE EXACTION OF GREATER RATES THAN THE
MAXIMUM RATES SPECIFIED.  THE COURT CONSTRUED THE ACT OF CONGRESS AS
SUBJECTING THE RATES TO FEDERAL CONTROL UNTIL THE TERRITORY BECAME A
PART OF A STATE, AT WHICH TIME THE RATES BECAME SUBJECT TO STATE
CONTROL.  THE COURT HELD THAT OUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION COULD NOT BE
INVOKED BY A STATE MERELY BECAUSE ITS CITIZENS WERE INJURED.  WE ADHERE
TO THAT DECISION.  IT DOES NOT CONTROL THE PRESENT ONE.  THIS IS NO
ATTEMPT TO UTILIZE OUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE
ESTABLISHED METHODS OF ENFORCING LOCAL LAW.  THIS IS NOT A SUIT IN
WHICH A STATE IS A MERE NOMINAL PLAINTIFF, INDIVIDUAL SHIPPERS BEING
THE REAL COMPLAINANTS.  THIS IS A SUIT IN WHICH GEORGIA ASSERTS CLAIMS
ARISING OUT OF FEDERAL LAWS AND THE GRAVAMEN OF WHICH RUNS FAR BEYOND
THE CLAIM OF DAMAGE TO INDIVIDUAL SHIPPERS. 

SINCE THE CLAIM WHICH GEORGIA ASSERTS AS PARENS PATRIAE AS WELL AS
PROPRIETOR MEETS THE STANDARDS OF JUSTICIABILITY AND SINCE GEORGIA IS A
"PERSON" ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE CIVIL SANCTIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS, THE REASONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADVANCED FOR DENYING GEORGIA THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HER CAUSE OF ACTION TO THIS COURT FAIL. 

CAUSE OF ACTION.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION.  (1) IT IS POINTED OUT THAT UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF THE
ABILENE CASE NO ACTION FOR DAMAGES ON THE BASIS OF UNJUST,
UNREASONABLE, OR DISCRIMINATORY RAILROAD RATES MAY BE MAINTAINED
WITHOUT PRIOR RESORT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  TEXAS &
PACIFIC R. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426; GREAT NORTHERN
R. CO. V. MERCHANTS ELEVATOR CO., 259 U.S. 285.  (2) IT IS SAID THAT AN
INJUNCTION MAY NOT BE GRANTED TO RESTRAIN RATES ALLEGED TO BE
UNREASONABLE OR DISCRIMINATORY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO PRIOR
DETERMINATION OF THE MATTER BY THE COMMISSION AND THAT THE ONLY WAY A
STATE OR ANY OTHER PERSON MAY OBTAIN A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE
LEGALITY OF A RATE IS BY REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO. V. PITCAIRN COAL CO., 215 U.S. 481; NORTH DAKOTA V. CHICAGO
& N.W.R. CO., 257 U.S. 485; TEXAS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
258 U.S. 158.  (3) IT IS SAID THAT DAMAGES UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS
MAY NOT BE RECOVERED AGAINST RAILROAD CARRIERS THOUGH THE RATES
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WERE FIXED PURSUANT TO A CONSPIRACY.  KEOGH
V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 260 U.S. 156.  (4) IT IS SAID THAT PERSONS
OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES ARE BARRED FROM ENJOINING VIOLATIONS OF
THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  38 STAT.
737, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 26.  SEE CENTRAL TRANSFER CO. V. TERMINAL R. ASSN.,
288 U.S. 469, 473-475; TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.,
297 U.S. 500, 513.  (5) IT IS ARGUED THAT GEORGIA CANNOT MAINTAIN AN
ACTION ON COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES BASED UPON A CONSPIRACY AMONG CARRIERS
TO FIX RATES. 

WE THINK IT IS CLEAR FROM THE KEOGH CASE ALONE THAT GEORGIA MAY NOT
RECOVER DAMAGES EVEN IF THE CONSPIRACY ALLEGED WERE SHOWN TO EXIST. 
THAT WAS A SUIT FOR DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  26 STAT.
210.  THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT ALTHOUGH THE RATES FIXED HAD BEEN FOUND
REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY BY THE COMMISSION, THE UNITED STATES
WAS NOT BARRED FROM ENFORCING THE REMEDIES OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  260
U.S. PP. 161-162.  IT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT FOR PURPOSES OF A SUIT FOR
DAMAGES A RATE WAS NOT NECESSARILY ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS THE RESULT OF
A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF A SHIPPER
AGAINST A CARRIER IN RESPECT TO A RATE ARE TO BE MEASURED BY THE
PUBLISHED TARIFF.  THAT RATE UNTIL SUSPENDED OR SET ASIDE WAS FOR ALL
PURPOSES THE LEGAL RATE AS BETWEEN SHIPPER AND CARRIER AND MAY NOT BE
VARIED OR ENLARGED EITHER BY THE CONTRACT OR TORT OF THE CARRIER.  AND
IT ADDED:  "THIS STRINGENT RULE PREVAILS, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE
PARAMOUNT PURPOSE OF CONGRESS - PREVENTION OF UNJUST DISCRIMINATION -
MIGHT BE DEFEATED.  IF A SHIPPER COULD RECOVER UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE ANTI
TRUST ACT FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE EXACTION OF A RATE HIGHER THAN
THAT WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE PREVAILED, THE AMOUNT RECOVERED MIGHT,
LIKE A REBATE, OPERATE TO GIVE HIM A PREFERENCE OVER HIS TRADE
COMPETITORS."  260 U.S. P. 163.  THE REASONING AND PRECEDENT OF THAT
CASE APPLY WITH FULL FORCE HERE.  BUT IT DOES NOT DISPOSE OF THE MAIN
PRAYER OF THE BILL, STRESSED AT THE ARGUMENT, WHICH ASKS FOR RELIEF BY
WAY OF INJUNCTION. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT A SUIT COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED HERE TO REVIEW,
ANNUL, OR SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED THE METHOD FOR OBTAINING THAT RELIEF.  IT IS
EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHER REMEDIES, INCLUDING A SUIT BY A STATE IN THIS
COURT.  NORTH DAKOTA V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., SUPRA; TEXAS V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, SUPRA.  THE SAME RESULT OBTAINS WHERE
THE BASIS FOR ATTACKING AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS A VIOLATION OF
THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, SAVE IN THE CASE WHERE THE UNITED STATES IS THE
COMPLAINANT.  FOR SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT WHICH GIVES RELIEF BY WAY
OF INJUNCTION AGAINST THREATENED LOSS OR DAMAGE THROUGH VIOLATION OF
THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS PROVIDES THAT NO ONE EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES SHALL
BE ENTITLED TO BRING SUCH SUITS AGAINST COMMON CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT "IN RESPECT OF ANY MATTER SUBJECT TO THE
REGULATION, SUPERVISION, OR OTHER JURISDICTION" OF THE COMMISSION. 
CENTRAL TRANSFER CO. V. TERMINAL R. ASSN., SUPRA, INDICATES THAT IF
GEORGIA IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE RATES OF THE
DEFENDANTS, LEAVE TO FILE WOULD HAVE TO BE DENIED.  IN THAT CASE THE
COMMISSION HAD APPROVED CERTAIN RATE SCHEDULES WHICH ENTAILED
ABANDONING CERTAIN "OFF-TRACK" STATIONS AND THE EMPLOYMENT BY THE
CARRIERS OF A SINGLE TRANSFER COMPANY TO DO INTERSTATION HAULING.  THE
CARRIERS PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT TO CARRY OUT THE PROGRAM WHICH
HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION AND WHICH WAS LATER APPROVED BY
IT.  SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY A PRIVATE COMPANY TO ENJOIN PERFORMANCE OF THE
CONTRACT ON THE GROUND THAT IT CREATED A MONOPOLY IN VIOLATION OF THE
ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE SUIT WAS BARRED BY SEC. 16 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT.  THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 16 WAS
"TO PRECLUDE ANY INTERFERENCE BY INJUNCTION WITH ANY BUSINESS OR
TRANSACTIONS OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS OF SUFFICIENT PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE
AND IMPORTANCE TO BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, EXCEPT
WHEN THE SUIT IS BROUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF."  288 U.S. P. 475. 
IT ADDED (P. 476):  "TRUE, A CONTRACT MAY PRECEDE AND HAVE EXISTENCE
APART FROM THE SEVERAL ACTS REQUIRED TO PERFORM IT, AND CONCEIVABLY ALL
OF THOSE ACTS MIGHT BE DONE IF NO CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT TO PERFORM THEM
HAD EVER EXISTED.  BUT WHEN THEY ARE DONE IN PERFORMANCE OF AN
AGREEMENT, THERE IS NO WAY BY WHICH THE AGREEMENT ITSELF CAN BE
ASSAILED BY INJUNCTION EXCEPT BY RESTRAINING ACTS DONE IN PERFORMANCE
OF IT.  THAT, IN THIS CASE, THE STATUTE FORBIDS, NOT BECAUSE THE
CONTRACT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, BUT BECAUSE THE ACTS DONE IN PERFORMANCE OF IT, WHICH MUST
NECESSARILY BE ENJOINED IF ANY RELIEF IS GIVEN, ARE MATTERS SUBJECT TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION."  THE POLICY BEHIND THESE
RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON SUITORS BY THE CONGRESS WAS APTLY STATED IN
TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., SUPRA, P. 513, AS
FOLLOWS:  "IF A SUFFERER FROM THE DISCRIMINATORY ACTS OF CARRIERS BY
RAIL OR BY WATER MAY SUE FOR AN INJUNCTION UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT
WITHOUT RESORT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO THE REGULATORY COMMISSION, THE
UNITY OF THE SYSTEM OF REGULATION BREAKS DOWN BEYOND REPAIR."  WE
ADHERE TO THESE DECISIONS.  BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE THEY OR THE
PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH THEY STAND ARE A BARRIER TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
THIS SUIT BY GEORGIA. 

THE RELIEF WHICH GEORGIA SEEKS IS NOT A MATTER SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  GEORGIA IN THIS PROCEEDING IS NOT
SEEKING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE CONTINUANCE OF ANY TARIFF; NOR DOES
SHE SEEK TO HAVE ANY TARIFF PROVISION CANCELLED.  SHE MERELY ASKS THAT
THE ALLEGED RATE-FIXING COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY AMONG THE DEFENDANT
CARRIERS BE ENJOINED.  AS WE SHALL SEE, THAT IS A MATTER OVER WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION.  AND AN INJUNCTION DESIGNED TO PUT AN
END TO THE CONSPIRACY NEED NOT ENJOIN OPERATION UNDER ESTABLISHED RATES
AS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE HAD AN INJUNCTION ISSUED IN CENTRAL
TRANSFER CO. V. TERMINAL R. ASSN., SUPRA. 

THESE CARRIERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  UNITED STATES V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 259 U.S. 214.  CONSPIRACIES AMONG CARRIERS TO FIX
RATES WERE INCLUDED IN THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  UNITED
STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290; UNITED STATES V.
JOINT TRAFFIC ASSN., 171 U.S. 505.  CONGRESS BY SEC. 11 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT ENTRUSTED THE COMMISSION WITH AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH
CERTAIN OF ITS PROVISIONS "WHERE APPLICABLE TO COMMON CARRIERS" UNDER
THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  FN5  IT HAS THE POWER TO LIFT THE BAN
OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IN FAVOR OF CARRIERS WHO MERGE OR CONSOLIDATE
(NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 25
26) AND THE DUTY TO GIVE WEIGHT TO THE ANTI-TRUST POLICY OF THE NATION
BEFORE APPROVING MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS.  MCLEAN TRUCKING CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 67.  BUT CONGRESS HAS NOT GIVEN THE COMMISSION
COMPARABLE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE RATE-FIXING COMBINATIONS FROM THE
PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  IT HAS NOT PLACED THESE
COMBINATIONS UNDER THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE COMMISSION.  NOR
HAS IT EMPOWERED THE COMMISSION TO PROCEED AGAINST SUCH COMBINATIONS
AND THROUGH CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS OR OTHERWISE TO PUT AN END TO THEIR
ACTIVITIES.  REGULATED INDUSTRIES ARE NOT PER SE EXEMPT FROM THE
SHERMAN ACT.  UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 198 ET SEQ. IT
IS TRUE THAT THE COMMISSION'S REGULATION OF CARRIERS HAS GREATLY
EXPANDED SINCE THE SHERMAN ACT.  SEE ARIZONA GROCERY CO. V. ATCHISON,
T. & S.F.R. CO., 284 U.S. 370, 385-386.  BUT IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT
REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED.  ONLY A CLEAR REPUGNANCY
BETWEEN THE OLD LAW AND THE NEW RESULTS IN THE FORMER GIVING WAY AND
THEN ONLY PRO TANTO TO THE EXTENT OF THE REPUGNANCY.  UNITED STATES V.
BORDEN, SUPRA, PP. 198, 199.  NONE OF THE POWERS ACQUIRED BY THE
COMMISSION SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE SHERMAN ACT RELATES TO THE
REGULATION OF RATE-FIXING COMBINATIONS.  TWICE CONGRESS HAS BEEN
TENDERED PROPOSALS TO LEGALIZE RATE-FIXING COMBINATIONS.  FN6  BUT IT
HAS NOT ADOPTED THEM.  IN VIEW OF THIS HISTORY WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE
THAT THEY HAVE NO IMMUNITY FROM THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.    IT IS POINTED
OUT, HOWEVER, THAT UNDER SEC. 1(4) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (54
STAT. 900, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(4)) IT IS "THE DUTY OF EVERY COMMON CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER TO PROVIDE AND FURNISH TRANSPORTATION UPON
REASONABLE REQUEST THEREFOR, AND TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE THROUGH ROUTES
WITH OTHER SUCH CARRIERS, AND JUST AND REASONABLE RATES, FARES,
CHARGES, AND CLASSIFICATIONS APPLICABLE THERETO."  AND IT IS NOTED THAT
AGREEMENT AMONG CARRIERS IS PROVIDED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT
RATES.  SEC. 6.  THAT IS TRUE.  BUT IT WOULD BE A PERVERSION OF THOSE
CHARACTER ALLEGED TO EXIST HERE.  THE COLLABORATION CONTEMPLATED IN THE
FIXING OF THROUGH AND JOINT RATES IS OF A RESTRICTIVE NATURE.  WE DO
NOT STOP AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO DELINEATE THE LEGITIMATE
AREA IN WHICH THAT COLLABORATION MAY OPERATE.  IN THE KEOGH CASE (260
U.S. 156) THE SUIT WAS ONE FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE
CHARGE WAS THAT THE DEFENDANT CARRIERS HAD FORMED A RATE BUREAU OR
COMMITTEE TO SECURE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT TO FREIGHT RATES AMONG THE
CONSTITUENT RAILROAD COMPANIES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE COMPETING
CARRIERS.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE COURT HELD THAT DAMAGES COULD NOT BE
RECOVERED.  BUT MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT
STATED THAT A CONSPIRACY TO FIX RATES MIGHT BE ILLEGAL THOUGH THE RATES
FIXED WERE REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY.  HE SAID (260 U.S. PP.
161-162):  "ALL THE RATES FIXED WERE REASONABLE AND NON
DISCRIMINATORY.  THAT WAS SETTLED BY THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION....  BUT UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST ACT, A COMBINATION OF CARRIERS
TO FIX REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY RATES MAY BE ILLEGAL; AND IF
SO, THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE REDRESS BY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.
3, BY INJUNCTION UNDER SEC. 4, AND BY FORFEITURE UNDER SEC. 6.  THAT
WAS SETTLED BY UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSOCIATION, 166
U.S. 290, AND UNITED STATES V. JOINT TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION, 171 U.S.
505.  THE FACT THAT THESE RATES HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION
WOULD NOT, IT SEEMS, BAR PROCEEDINGS BY THE GOVERNMENT."  THE TRANS
MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN. CASE AND THE JOINT TRAFFIC ASSN. CASE HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWED IN OTHER FIELDS.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310
U.S. 150, AND THE CASES WHICH PRECEDED IT INDICATE THE EXTENT OF THE
BAN ON PRICE-FIXING UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  BUT WE NEED NOT AT THIS
JUNCTURE DETERMINE THE FULL EXTENT TO WHICH THAT PRINCIPLE IS
APPLICABLE IN THE FIXING OF JOINT THROUGH RATES.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE
TO NOTE THAT WE FIND NO WARRANT IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE
SHERMAN ACT FOR SAYING THAT THE AUTHORITY TO FIX JOINT THROUGH RATES
CLOTHES WITH LEGALITY A CONSPIRACY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A STATE OR A
REGION, TO USE COERCION IN THE FIXING OF RATES, OR TO PUT IN THE HANDS
OF A COMBINATION OF CARRIERS A VETO POWER OVER RATES PROPOSED BY A
SINGLE CARRIER.  THE TYPE OF REGULATION WHICH CONGRESS CHOSE DID NOT
ELIMINATE THE EMPHASIS ON COMPETITION AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF ACTION
IN RATE-MAKING.  1 SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (1931),
P. 81.  THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PRESERVE PRIVATE INITIATIVE IN RATE
MAKING AS INDICATED BY THE DUTY OF EACH COMMON CARRIER TO INITIATE ITS
OWN RATES.  ARIZONA GROCERY CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., SUPRA.
IF A COMBINATION OF THE CHARACTER DESCRIBED IN THIS BILL OF COMPLAINT
IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT, THAT FREEDOM OF ACTION DISAPPEARS.  THE COERCIVE
AND COLLUSIVE INFLUENCES OF GROUP ACTION TAKE ITS PLACE.  FN7 A
MONOPOLY POWER IS CREATED UNDER THE AEGIS OF PRIVATE PARTIES WITHOUT
CONGRESSIONAL SANCTION AND WITHOUT GOVERNMENTAL SUPERVISION OR
CONTROL. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS EMPHASIZE THE IRRELEVANCY TO THE PRESENT PROBLEM
OF THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATORY
RATES OF THE CHARACTER ALLEGED TO EXIST HERE.  UNDER SEC. 3(1) OF THE
ACT RATES ARE DECLARED UNLAWFUL WHICH GIVE "ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE" TO ANY PORT, REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY AND
THE LIKE.  AND THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN SOME ACTION IN THAT REGARD. 
SEE ALABAMA V. NEW YORK C.R. CO., 235 I.C.C. 255; 237 I.C.C. 515; LIVE
STOCK TO AND FROM THE SOUTH, 253 I.C.C. 241.  THE PRESENT BILL DOES NOT
SEEK TO HAVE THE COURT ACT IN THE PLACE OF THE COMMISSION.  IT SEEKS TO
REMOVE FROM THE FIELD OF RATE-MAKING THE INFLUENCES OF A COMBINATION
WHICH EXCEED THE LIMITS OF THE COLLABORATION AUTHORIZED FOR THE FIXING
OF JOINT THROUGH RATES.  IT SEEKS TO PUT AN END TO DISCRIMINATORY AND
COERCIVE PRACTICES.  THE AIM IS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR INDIVIDUAL
CARRIERS TO PERFORM THEIR DUTY UNDER THE ACT, SO THAT WHATEVER TARIFFS
MAY BE CONTINUED IN EFFECT OR SUPERSEDED BY NEW ONES MAY BE TARIFFS
WHICH ARE FREE FROM THE RESTRICTIVE, DISCRIMINATORY, AND COERCIVE
INFLUENCES OF THE COMBINATION.  THAT IS NOT TO UNDERCUT OR IMPAIR THE
PRIMARY JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION OVER RATES.  IT IS TO FREE THE
RATE-MAKING FUNCTION OF THE INFLUENCES OF A CONSPIRACY OVER WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY BUT WHICH IF PROVEN TO EXIST CAN ONLY
HINDER THE COMMISSION IN THE TASKS WITH WHICH IT IS CONFRONTED. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID DISPOSES FOR THE MOST PART OF THE ARGUMENT THAT
RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY PREVENT US FROM GRANTING THE RELIEF
WHICH IS ASKED.  SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT PROVIDES FOR RELIEF BY
INJUNCTION "WHEN AND UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AND PRINCIPLES AS
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THREATENED CONDUCT THAT WILL CAUSE LOSS OR
DAMAGE IS GRANTED BY COURTS OF EQUITY."  THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE
SUFFICIENTLY SATISFIED TO JUSTIFY A FILING OF THIS BILL.  IT MUST BE
REMEMBERED THAT THIS IS A SUIT TO DISSOLVE AN ILLEGAL COMBINATION OR TO
CONFINE IT TO THE LEGITIMATE AREA OF COLLABORATION.  THAT RELIEF CANNOT
BE OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSION FOR IT HAS NO SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY
OVER THE COMBINATION.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE INJURY TO GEORGIA IS NOT IN
THE EXISTENCE OF THE COMBINATION PER SE BUT IN THE RATES WHICH ARE
FIXED BY THE COMBINATION.  THE FACT THAT THE RATES WHICH HAVE BEEN
FIXED MAY OR MAY NOT BE HELD UNLAWFUL BY THE COMMISSION IS IMMATERIAL
TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US.  THE KEOGH CASE INDICATES THAT EVEN A
COMBINATION TO FIX REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY RATES MAY BE
ILLEGAL.  260 U.S. P. 161.  THE REASON IS THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE REMEDIES FOR THE CORRECTION OF ALL THE ABUSES OF
RATE-MAKING WHICH MIGHT CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 
THUS A "ZONE OF REASONABLENESS EXISTS BETWEEN MAXIMA AND MINIMA WITHIN
WHICH A CARRIER IS ORDINARILY FREE TO ADJUST ITS CHARGES FOR ITSELF." 
UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 506. 
WITHIN THAT ZONE THE COMMISSION LACKS POWER TO GRANT RELIEF EVEN THOUGH
THE RATES ARE RAISED TO THE MAXIMA BY A CONSPIRACY AMONG CARRIERS WHO
EMPLOY UNLAWFUL TACTICS.  IF THE RATE-MAKING FUNCTION IS FREED FROM THE
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, THE RATES OF THE FUTURE
WILL THEN BE FIXED IN THE MANNER ENVISIONED BY CONGRESS WHEN IT ENACTED
THIS LEGISLATION.  DAMAGE MUST BE PRESUMED TO FLOW FROM A CONSPIRACY TO
MANIPULATE RATES WITHIN THAT ZONE. 

MOREOVER, THE RELIEF SOUGHT FROM THIS COURT IS NOT AN UPROOTING OF
ESTABLISHED RATES.  WE ARE NOT ASKED FOR A DECREE WHICH WOULD BE AN
IDLE GESTURE.  WE ARE NOT ASKED TO ENJOIN WHAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT
LATER APPROVE OR CONDONE.  WE ARE NOT ASKED TO TRENCH ON THE DOMAIN OF
THE COMMISSION; NOR NEED ANY DECREE WHICH MAY BE ULTIMATELY ENTERED IN
THIS CAUSE HAVE THAT EFFECT.  GEORGIA ALLEGES, "NO ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING DIRECTED AGAINST A PARTICULAR SCHEDULE OF RATES WOULD AFFORD
RELIEF TO THE STATE OF GEORGIA SO LONG AS THE DEFENDANTS REMAINED FREE
TO PROMULGATE RATES BY COLLUSIVE AGREEMENT.  UNTIL THE CONSPIRACY IS
ENDED, THE CORROSION OF NEW SCHEDULES, ESTABLISHED BY THE COLLUSIVE
POWER OF THE DEFENDANT CARRIERS ACTING IN CONCERT, WOULD FRUSTRATE ANY
ACTION SOUGHT TO BE TAKEN BY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO REDRESS THE
GRIEVANCES FROM WHICH THE STATE OF GEORGIA SUFFERS."  RATE-MAKING IS A
CONTINUOUS PROCESS.  GEORGIA IS SEEKING A DECREE WHICH WILL PREVENT IN
THE FUTURE THE KIND OF HARMFUL CONDUCT WHICH HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST. 
TAKE THE CASE OF COERCION.  IF IT IS SHOWN THAT THE ALLEGED COMBINATION
EXISTS AND USES COERCION IN THE FIXING OF JOINT THROUGH RATES, ONLY AN
INJUNCTION AIMED AT FUTURE CONDUCT OF THAT CHARACTER CAN GIVE ADEQUATE
RELIEF.  INDEED, SO LONG AS THE COLLABORATION WHICH EXISTS EXCEEDS
LAWFUL LIMITS AND CONTINUES IN OPERATION, THE ONLY EFFECTIVE REMEDY
LIES IN DISSOLVING THE COMBINATION OR IN CONFINING IT WITHIN LEGITIMATE
BOUNDARIES.  ANY DECREE WHICH IS ENTERED WOULD LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND
WOULD FREE TOMORROW'S RATE-MAKING FROM THE COERCIVE AND COLLUSIVE
INFLUENCES ALLEGED TO EXIST.  IT CANNOT OF COURSE BE DETERMINED IN
ADVANCE WHAT RATES MAY BE LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED.  BUT COERCION CAN BE
ENJOINED.  AND SO CAN A COMBINATION WHICH HAS AS ITS PURPOSE AN
INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A REGION OR LOCALITY.  DISSOLUTION OF
ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR A RESTRICTION OF THEIR CONDUCT TO LAWFUL
CHANNELS IS A CONVENTIONAL FORM OF RELIEF ACCORDED IN ANTI-TRUST
SUITS.  NO MORE IS ENVISAGED HERE.  IF THE ALLEGED COMBINATION IS SHOWN
TO EXIST, THE DECREE WHICH CAN BE ENTERED WILL BE NO IDLE OR FUTILE
GESTURE.  IT WILL RESTORE THAT DEGREE OF COMPETITION ENVISAGED BY
CONGRESS WHEN IT ENACTED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  IT WILL
ELIMINATE FROM RATE-MAKING THE COLLUSIVE PRACTICES WHICH THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS CONDEMN AND WHICH ARE NOT SANCTIONED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  IT WILL SUPPLY AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY WITHOUT WHICH THERE CAN BE
ONLY AN ENDLESS EFFORT TO RECTIFY THE CONTINUOUS INJURY INFLICTED BY
THE UNLAWFUL COMBINATION.  THE THREATENED INJURY IS CLEAR.  THE DAMAGE
ALLEGED IS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
MOTION TO FILE.  THERE IS NO ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OVER THE
COMBINATION.  AND NO ADEQUATE OR EFFECTIVE REMEDY OTHER THAN THIS SUIT
IS SUGGESTED WHICH GEORGIA CAN EMPLOY TO ELIMINATE FROM RATE-MAKING THE
INFLUENCES OF THE UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY ALLEGED TO EXIST HERE. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, WE CONSTRUE THE BILL TO CHARGE A CONSPIRACY AMONG
DEFENDANTS TO USE COERCION IN THE FIXING OF RATES AND TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST GEORGIA IN THE RATES WHICH ARE FIXED.  WE HOLD THAT UNDER THAT
CONSTRUCTION OF THE BILL A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IS
ALLEGED.  FN8  WE INTIMATE NO OPINION WHETHER THE BILL MIGHT BE
CONSTRUED TO CHARGE MORE THAN THAT OR WHETHER A RATEFIXING COMBINATION
WOULD BE LEGAL UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE SHERMAN ACT
BUT FOR THE FEATURES OF DISCRIMINATION AND COERCION CHARGED HERE.  WE
ARE DEALING WITH THE CASE ONLY IN A PRELIMINARY MANNER.  CF. MISSOURI
V. ILLINOIS, 200 U.S. 496, 517, 518.  THE COMPLAINT MAY HAVE TO BE
AMPLIFIED AND CLARIFIED AS RESPECTS THE COERCION AND DISCRIMINATION
CHARGED, THE DAMAGE SUFFERED, OR OTHERWISE.  WE DO NOT TEST IT AGAINST
THE VARIOUS TYPES OF MOTIONS AND PLEADINGS WHICH MAY BE FILED.  WE
CONSTRUE IT WITH THAT LIBERALITY ACCORDED THE COMPLAINT OF A SOVEREIGN
STATE AS PRESENTING A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY AND
SPECIFICITY AS TO REQUIRE A JOINDER OF ISSUES. 

ALLEGED MISJOINDER OF PARTIES DEFENDANT.  TWO OF THE DEFENDANT
CORPORATIONS CLAIM TO BE CITIZENS OF GEORGIA.  GEORGIA ASSERTS THEY ARE
NOT.  THAT ISSUE IS AN INVOLVED ONE.  GEORGIA MAY NOT OF COURSE INVOKE
THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN A SUIT AGAINST ONE OF HER
CITIZENS.  IF EITHER OF THE DEFENDANTS WHO ASSERT THIS DEFENSE IS A
CITIZEN OF GEORGIA AND IS A NECESSARY PARTY, LEAVE TO FILE WOULD HAVE
TO BE DENIED.  PENNSYLVANIA V. QUICKSILVER MINING CO., 10 WALL.  553;
CALIFORNIA V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 157 U.S. 229; MINNESOTA V. NORTHERN
SECURITIES CO., 184 U.S. 199; LOUISIANA V. CUMMINS, 314 U.S. 577.  WE
DO NOT, HOWEVER, HAVE TO DECIDE AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
WHETHER THE CORPORATIONS IN QUESTION ARE CITIZENS OF GEORGIA WITHIN THE
MEANING OF ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THEY ARE NOT
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES.  IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN A CONSPIRACY NOT ALL THE
CONSPIRATORS ARE NECESSARY PARTIES DEFENDANT.  FN9  IT IS AVERRED AND
NOT CHALLENGED THAT THE OTHER DEFENDANTS ARE CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES. 
THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE TWO DEFENDANTS IN QUESTION MAY BE CHALLENGED BY
A MOTION TO STRIKE.  LOUISIANA V. CUMMINS, 314 U.S. 580.  BUT IF THEY
ARE STRICKEN, THE COURT WOULD NOT LOSE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN GEORGIA AND THE OTHER DEFENDANTS. 

EXERCISE OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.  IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW
THAT THIS COURT MUST EXERCISE ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.  IT HAS AT
TIMES BEEN HELD THAT THIS COURT IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUNAL IN
WHICH TO MAINTAIN SUITS BROUGHT BY A STATE. 

BY CLAUSE 1 OF SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE
JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES EXTENDS "TO ALL CASES, IN LAW AND
EQUITY, ARISING UNDER  ...  THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES" AND "TO
CONTROVERSIES  ...  BETWEEN A STATE AND CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE." 
FN10  CLAUSE 2 OF SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III CONFERS ON THIS COURT
JURISDICTION OF THOSE CASES "IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY."  BUT
CLAUSE 2 OF SEC. 2 MERELY DISTRIBUTES THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY
CLAUSE 1 OF SEC. 2.  LOUISIANA V. TEXAS, 176 U.S. 1, 16; MASSACHUSETTS
V. MISSOURI, 308 U.S. 1, 19.  CLAUSE 2 DOES NOT GRANT EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO THIS COURT IN THE CASES ENUMERATED BY IT.  AMES V.
KANSAS, 111 U.S. 449, 469; PLAQUEMINES FRUIT CO. V. HENDERSON, 170 U.S.
511.  AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE EXERCISE OF THAT JURISDICTION IS
NOT MANDATORY IN EVERY CASE.  NORTH DAKOTA V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO.,
SUPRA; GEORGIA V. CHATTANOOGA, 264 U.S. 472, 483; OKLAHOMA V. COOK,
SUPRA, P. 396; MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA.  THE COURT IN ITS
DISCRETION HAS WITHHELD THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION WHERE THERE
HAS BEEN NO WANT OF ANOTHER SUITABLE FORUM TO WHICH THE CAUSE MAY BE
REMITTED IN THE INTERESTS OF CONVENIENCE, EFFICIENCY AND JUSTICE. 
GEORGIA V. CHATTANOOGA, SUPRA; MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA. 
THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION THAT THE ISSUES TENDERED BY THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT PRESENT QUESTIONS WHICH A DISTRICT COURT IS QUITE COMPETENT
TO DECIDE.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE REMEDY IS ONE NORMALLY PURSUED
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS WHOSE FACILITIES AND PRESCRIBED JUDICIAL DUTIES
ARE BETTER ADAPTED TO THE EXTENDED TRIAL OF ISSUES OF FACT THAN ARE
THOSE OF THIS COURT.  AND IT IS SAID THAT NO REASON APPEARS WHY THE
PRESENT SUIT MAY NOT CONVENIENTLY PROCEED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
PROPER VENUE OR WHY THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES, AS
WELL AS OF THE COURTS, WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY A TRIAL BEFORE A
MASTER APPOINTED BY THIS COURT THAN BY A TRIAL IN A DISTRICT COURT WITH
THE CUSTOMARY APPELLATE REVIEW.  FN11  THE SUGGESTION IS THAT WE DENY
THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
THE SUIT IN AN APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT.  SEE MASSACHUSETTS V.
MISSOURI, SUPRA, PP. 17-18. 

THERE IS, HOWEVER, A REASON WHY WE SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE
HERE THOUGH IN OTHER RESPECTS WE ASSUME IT WOULD BE WHOLLY
APPROPRIATE.  SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT (15 U.S.C. SEC. 26), WITH THE
EXCEPTIONS ALREADY NOTED, PROVIDES THAT "ANY PERSON  ...  SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO SUE FOR AND HAVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES, AGAINST THREATENED
LOSS OR DAMAGE BY A VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS."  SEC. 12 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT (15 U.S.C. SEC. 22) PROVIDES THAT "ANY SUIT, ACTION, OR
PROCEEDING UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS AGAINST A CORPORATION MAY BE
BROUGHT NOT ONLY IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHEREOF IT IS AN INHABITANT,
BUT ALSO IN ANY DISTRICT WHEREIN IT MAY BE FOUND OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS;
AND ALL PROCESS IN SUCH CASES MAY BE SERVED IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH IT
IS AN INHABITANT, OR WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND." 

FROM THESE PROVISIONS IT IS APPARENT THAT GEORGIA MIGHT SUE THE
DEFENDANTS ONLY IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHERE THEY ARE INHABITANTS OR
WHERE THEY MAY BE FOUND OR TRANSACT BUSINESS.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT,
HOWEVER, ALLEGES AND (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TWO DEFENDANTS ALREADY
MENTIONED) IT IS NOT DENIED THAT "THE PARTIES DEFENDANT ARE NOT
CITIZENS OF GEORGIA, OR WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ITS COURTS."  IF
THAT ALLEGATION IS TAKEN AS TRUE, IT IS APPARENT THAT GEORGIA COULD NOT
FIND ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS IN ONE OF THE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS OF GEORGIA
SO AS TO MAINTAIN A SUIT OF THIS CHARACTER AGAINST ALL OF THEM IN A
DISTRICT COURT IN GEORGIA.  CERTAINLY WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR ASSUMING
THAT ALL OF THE SOCALLED NORTHERN ROADS, INCORPORATED IN SUCH STATES AS
PENNSYLVANIA, MARYLAND, INDIANA, OHIO, NEW YORK AND ILLINOIS, ARE DOING
BUSINESS IN GEORGIA.  IT IS SAID THAT MOST OF THE DEFENDANTS CAN BE
FOUND IN GEORGIA, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR IN OTHER DISTRICTS. 
BUT NO SUCH FACTS APPEAR IN THE RECORD BEFORE US.  AND WE CANNOT TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE DISTRICT OR DISTRICTS WHEREIN ALL OF THE
DEFENDANTS ARE "FOUND" OR "TRANSACT BUSINESS."  WE WOULD NOT BE
WARRANTED IN DEPRIVING GEORGIA OF THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT MERELY BECAUSE EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS COULD BE FOUND IN SOME
JUDICIAL DISTRICT.  UNLESS IT WERE CLEAR THAT ALL OF THEM COULD BE
FOUND IN SOME CONVENIENT FORUM WE COULD NOT SAY THAT GEORGIA HAD A
"PROPER AND ADEQUATE REMEDY" APART FROM THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT.  MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, P. 19.  NO SUCH SHOWING
HAS BEEN MADE.  ONCE A STATE MAKES OUT A CASE WHICH COMES WITHIN OUR
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, ITS RIGHT TO COME HERE IS ESTABLISHED.  THERE IS
NO REQUIREMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT IT GO FURTHER AND SHOW THAT NO
OTHER FORUM IS AVAILABLE TO IT. 

IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 5 OF THE SHERMAN ACT EMPOWERS THE COURT BEFORE
WHOM PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 4 ARE PENDING TO BRING IN PARTIES WHO
RESIDE OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE COURT IS HELD.  FN12  THAT
PROCEDURE IS AVAILABLE IN CIVIL SUITS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES. 
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 46.  BUT SINCE SEC. 4 IS
LIMITED TO SUITS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES, SEC. 5 IS SIMILARLY
CONFINED.  SEE GREER, MILLS & CO. V. STOLLER, 77 F. 1; HANSEN PACKING
CO. V. ARMOUR & CO., 16 F.SUPP.  784, 787.  APART FROM SPECIFIC
EXCEPTIONS CREATED BY CONGRESS THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS
IS TERRITORIAL.  AS STATED IN ROBERTSON V. RAILROAD LABOR BOARD, 268
U.S. 619, 622-623: 

"IN A CIVIL SUIT IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM VENUE, IMPLIES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, EITHER VOLUNTARY
APPEARANCE BY HIM OR SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON HIM AT A PLACE WHERE THE
OFFICER SERVING IT HAS AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE A WRIT OF SUMMONS.  UNDER
THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF LAW, A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CANNOT
ISSUE PROCESS BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE DISTRICT, HARKNESS V. HYDE, 98
U.S. 476; EX PARTE GRAHAM, 3 WASH. 456; AND A DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL SUIT
CAN BE SUBJECTED TO ITS JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM ONLY BY SERVICE WITHIN
THE DISTRICT.  TOLAND V. SPRAGUE, 12 PET. 300, 330.  SUCH WAS THE
GENERAL RULE ESTABLISHED BY THE JUDICIARY ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, C.
20, SEC. 11, 1 STAT. 73, 79, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRACTICE AT THE
COMMON LAW.  PIQUET V. SWAN, 5 MASON 35, 39 ET SEQ. AND SUCH HAS BEEN
THE GENERAL RULE EVER SINCE.  MUNTER V. WEIL CORSET CO., 261 U.S. 276,
279." 

IT FOLLOWS THAT WE SHOULD NOT IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR DISCRETION REMIT
GEORGIA TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS FOR RELIEF AGAINST THE INJURIES
OF WHICH SHE COMPLAINS. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT IS
GRANTED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE ORIGINAL BILL OF COMPLAINT DATED JUNE 12, 1944 WAS FOLLOWED
BY AN AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1944.  OUR
REFERENCES THROUGHOUT ARE TO THE AMENDED BILL. 

FN2  SEE MCLAUGHLIN, CASES ON THE FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST LAWS (1933), PP.
7-42; THORNTON, COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE (1928), CHS.  II,
III. 

FN3  AND SEE MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, 200 U.S. 496; WISCONSIN V.
ILLINOIS, 278 U.S. 367. 

FN4  SEE 1 BEVERIDGE, THE LIFE OF JOHN MARSHALL (1916), PP. 310-311;
BANCROFT, HISTORY OF THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION (1885), PP. 27,
130, 183, 187, 454. 

FN5  THESE PROVISIONS ARE THOSE RELATING TO DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICE,
SERVICES, OR FACILITIES (SEC. 2); CERTAIN SALES OF GOODS, WARES,
MERCHANDISE AND THE LIKE (SEC. 3); ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION OF
THE STOCK OF ANOTHER (SEC. 7); INTERLOCKING DIRECTORATES AND OFFICERS
(SEC. 8).  SEE 15 U.S.C. SECS. 13, 14, 18, AND 19.  THE ENFORCEMENT
MACHINERY IS COMPOSED OF CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS ENFORCEABLE IN THE
COURTS.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 21. 

FN6  SEE (1) 51 CONG. RECORD, 63D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 9582, 9583;
(2) S. 942, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 2720, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
THESE LATTER PROPOSALS WERE DESIGNED (1) TO MAKE LAWFUL THE FIXING OF
RATES BY CARRIERS THROUGH RATE BUREAUS, CONFERENCES, OR ASSOCIATIONS;
AND (2) TO PUT THOSE GROUP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
COMMISSION.  THE HISTORY AND ACTIVITIES OF RATE BUREAUS ARE EXTENSIVELY
REVIEWED IN HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S.
942, REGULATION OF RATE BUREAUS, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN7  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT THAT CERTIFICATE NO. 44, ISSUED
MARCH 20, 1943 UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 11, 1942(56 STAT. 357)
BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD (8 FED. REG. 3804) PROTECTS
THIS ALLEGED COMBINATION FROM THE CHARGES CONTAINED IN THE BILL.  THAT
CERTIFICATE APPROVES JOINT ACTION BY COMMON CARRIERS THROUGH RATE
BUREAUS AND THE LIKE IN THE INITIATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES.  WE
DO NOT STOP TO ANALYZE IT BEYOND OBSERVING THAT IN NO RESPECT WOULD IT
BE A BAR TO THE PRESENT ACTION.  IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE
RETROACTIVE.  IT DOES NOT SANCTION THE USE OF COERCION.  IT DOES NOT
AUTHORIZE ANY COMBINATION TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A REGION IN THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES.  MOREOVER, LEGAL MEANS MAY BE EMPLOYED FOR AN
ILLEGAL END. 

FN8  WE THEREFORE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER AN ACTION BASED
ON COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES COULD BE MAINTAINED. 

FN9  SEE WATERMAN V. CANAL-LOUISIANA BANK CO., 215 U.S. 33, 49;
UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451, 456;
HOPKINS V. OXLEY STAVE CO., 83 F. 912, 915-916; ROCKY MOUNTAIN BELL
TEL. CO. V. MONTANA FEDERATION OF LABOR, 156 F. 809, 811-812.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 247. 

FN10  BY REASON OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES DOES NOT EXTEND TO SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST A STATE BY A
CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE. 

FN11  IN A PROPER CASE APPELLATE REVIEW MAY BE HAD DIRECTLY IN THIS
COURT BY CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 240(A), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 347(A). 

FN12  SEC. 4 READS: 

"THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE INVESTED WITH
JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 1-7 AND 15
OF THIS TITLE; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SEVERAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN
EQUITY TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS.  SUCH PROCEEDINGS MAY
BE BY WAY OF PETITION SETTING FORTH THE CASE AND PRAYING THAT SUCH
VIOLATION SHALL BE ENJOINED OR OTHERWISE PROHIBITED.  WHEN THE PARTIES
COMPLAINED OF SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY NOTIFIED OF SUCH PETITION THE COURT
SHALL PROCEED, AS SOON AS MAY BE, TO THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF
THE CASE; AND PENDING SUCH PETITION AND BEFORE FINAL DECREE, THE COURT
MAY AT ANY TIME MAKE SUCH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR PROHIBITION AS
SHALL BE DEEMED JUST IN THE PREMISES."  SEC. 5 READS: 

"WHENEVER IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COURT BEFORE WHICH ANY PROCEEDING
UNDER SECTION 4 OF THIS TITLE MAY BE PENDING, THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
REQUIRE THAT OTHER PARTIES SHOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT, THE
COURT MAY CAUSE THEM TO BE SUMMONED, WHETHER THEY RESIDE IN THE
DISTRICT IN WHICH THE COURT IS HELD OR NOT; AND SUBPOENAS TO THAT END
MAY BE SERVED IN ANY DISTRICT BY THE MARSHAL THEREOF." 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON,
AND I THINK THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA FOR LEAVE TO
FILE ITS AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THIS COURT SHOULD BE DENIED (1)
BECAUSE IN ITS JUDICIAL DISCRETION, THIS COURT SHOULD, WITHOUT DECIDING
THE MERITS, LEAVE THE STATE TO ITS REMEDY, IF ANY, IN THE DISTRICT
COURT; (2) BECAUSE THE STATE LACKS STANDING TO PRESENT THE ONLY
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE IN THE CASE; AND (3) BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT POSTURE
OF THE CASE, THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, FOR SEVERAL REASONS, FAILS TO STATE
A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY CAN GIVE EFFECTIVE
RELIEF. 

AS THE COURT CONCEDES AND FOR REASONS WHICH WILL PRESENTLY BE MORE
FULLY CONSIDERED, THE STATE, UNDER THE RULE LAID DOWN IN KEOGH V.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN R. CO., 260 U.S. 156, CANNOT MAINTAIN ITS SUIT
FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO FIX UNLAWFUL
INTERSTATE RAILROAD FREIGHT RATES.  BUT THE COURT GRANTS GEORGIA'S
APPLICATION TO FILE ON THE GROUND THAT ITS BILL OF COMPLAINT, AS NOW
AMENDED, STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, C.
323, 38 STAT. 737, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 26, FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST A
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  THE COURT HOLDS THAT
SUCH A SUIT IS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT,
CONFERRED BY ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, CLS. 1 AND 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
CLAUSE 1 PROVIDES THAT THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES EXTENDS
"TO ALL CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY, ARISING UNDER  ... THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES" AND "TO CONTROVERSIES  ...  BETWEEN A STATE AND CITIZENS
OF ANOTHER STATE...."  CLAUSE 2 CONFERS ON THIS COURT ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THOSE CASES OR CONTROVERSIES "IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE
PARTY." 

THE COURT DISREGARDS THE FAINTHEARTED AND UNCONVINCING ASSERTION OF
THE STATE THAT IT HAS A "COMMON LAW" CAUSE OF ACTION ENTITLING IT,
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CLAYTON ACT AND THE FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS, TO
MAINTAIN THE PRESENT SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO FIX AND
MAINTAIN RATES OR CHARGES FOR THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF
FREIGHT.  WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THIS CONTENTION, FOR WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT THE OBJECTIONS TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRESENT SUIT ARE
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, WHETHER IT BE REGARDED AS A SUIT UPON A CAUSE OF
ACTION ARISING UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT OR AS ONE MAINTAINABLE UPON THE
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES GENERALLY APPLICABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CLAYTON ACT. 

                    I 

IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE STATE MAY MAINTAIN THIS ACTION, EITHER AS
PARENS PATRIAE OR FOR THE INJURY TO ITSELF AS A SHIPPER AND CONSIGNEE
OF INTERSTATE FREIGHT, THE RIGHT SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED IS IN POINT
OF SUBSTANCE LIKE THAT OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION, AND THE REMEDY ASKED
IS ONE NORMALLY PURSUED IN DISTRICT COURTS WHOSE FACILITIES AND
PRESCRIBED JUDICIAL DUTIES ARE BETTER ADAPTED TO THE TRIAL OF ISSUES OF
FACT THAN ARE THOSE OF THIS COURT.  IN AN ORIGINAL SUIT, EVEN WHEN THE
CASE IS FIRST REFERRED TO A MASTER, THIS COURT HAS THE DUTY OF MAKING
AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, A TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS
WHICH SERIOUSLY INTERFERES WITH THE DISCHARGE OF OUR EVER-INCREASING
APPELLATE DUTIES.  NO REASON APPEARS WHY THE PRESENT SUIT MAY NOT BE AS
CONVENIENTLY PROCEEDED WITH IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE PROPER VENUE
AS IN THIS COURT, OR WHY THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES AND WITNESSES,
AS WELL AS OF THE COURTS CONCERNED, WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY A TRIAL
BEFORE A MASTER APPOINTED BY THIS COURT THAN BY A TRIAL IN THE
APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT WITH THE CUSTOMARY APPELLATE REVIEW.  THE
CASE SEEMS PREEMINENTLY ONE WHERE THIS COURT MAY AND SHOULD, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION AND IN THE INTEREST OF A MORE EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION, AND
REMIT THE PARTIES TO THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PROPER
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE THERE.  NORTH DAKOTA V. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN
R. CO., 257 U.S. 485; GEORGIA V. CHATTANOOGA, 264 U.S. 472, 483;
OKLAHOMA EX REL. JOHNSON V. COOK, 304 U.S. 387, 396; MASSACHUSETTS V.
MISSOURI, 308 U.S. 1, 17-20.    IT IS SAID THAT GEORGIA SHOULD NOT BE
DEPRIVED OF THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT UNLESS IT CAN BRING SUIT
AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS IN ONE CONVENIENT DISTRICT; AND THAT THERE
IS NO REASON FOR ASSUMING THAT ALL THE DEFENDANTS ARE AMENABLE TO SUIT
IN ANY ONE JUDICIAL DISTRICT.  BUT THIS PUTS THE SHOE ON THE WRONG
FOOT.  IT IS GEORGIA WHICH SEEKS TO INVOKE OUR EQUITY JURISDICTION TO
HEAR THIS CASE, AND WHEN THE QUESTION OF OUR DISCRETIONARY POWER TO
REMIT THE PARTIES TO AN ADEQUATE REMEDY IN SOME OTHER COURT IS RAISED,
IT IS INCUMBENT UPON IT TO SHOW THAT IT WILL BE UNABLE TO REACH ALL THE
DEFENDANTS IN A CONVENIENT DISTRICT.  AND GEORGIA, ALTHOUGH INVITED ON
THE ARGUMENT OF THIS MOTION TO DO SO, HAS MADE NO SHOWING THAT THE SUIT
CANNOT BE PROCEEDED WITH IN A DISTRICT COURT AS READILY AS IN THIS
COURT.  IT MADE NO SUCH ALLEGATION IN THE AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT
WHICH IT TENDERS.  FN1  HENCE WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO
SUCH OBSTACLE. 

FURTHER, IT MAY BE READILY DETERMINED FROM STANDARD WORKS OF
REFERENCE, SUCH AS THE OFFICIAL GUIDE OF THE RAILWAYS, MOODY'S STEAM
RAILROADS, RAILROAD TIMETABLES, AND TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES, THAT THE
SUPPOSED DIFFICULTY IS NOT A REAL ONE.  UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 22, THESE DEFENDANTS MAY BE SUED IN ANY DISTRICT IN
WHICH THEY ARE "FOUND" OR "TRANSACT BUSINESS."  A CORPORATION BOTH IS
"FOUND" AND "TRANSACTS BUSINESS" IN A DISTRICT IN WHICH IT OPERATES A
RAILROAD OR IN WHICH IT MAINTAINS AN OFFICE FOR THE SOLICITATION OF
FREIGHT OR PASSENGER TRAFFIC.  SEE EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO
CO., 273 U.S. 359, 370-374; UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S.
241, 246.  THESE FACTS MAY BE ASCERTAINED READILY FROM THE SOURCES WE
HAVE MENTIONED.  IT APPEARS FROM THEM THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL DISTRICTS
WHICH WOULD BE AS CONVENIENT FOR A TRIAL AS WASHINGTON, D.C., WHERE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT WOULD BE HAD, AND IN WHICH GEORGIA MAY
OBTAIN SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON AT LEAST AS MANY OF THE DEFENDANTS NAMED
IN THE COMPLAINT, AS IT MAY SUE IN THIS COURT.  FOR GEORGIA, ITSELF, AS
WELL AS THIS COURT, SEEMS RECONCILED TO THE SUIT'S CONTINUING HERE WITH
BUT EIGHTEEN OF THE TWENTY DEFENDANTS, SINCE TWO MAY BE REQUIRED TO BE
DISMISSED FROM THE SUIT AS CITIZENS OF GEORGIA.  FN2 

OF THE TWENTY DEFENDANTS, AT LEAST 18, NOT INCLUDING THE NEW YORK,
CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS R. CO. AND THE RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG & POTOMAC
R. CO. (R.F. & P.), ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.  OF THESE DEFENDANTS, AT LEAST 19, ALL BUT THE
R.F. & P., TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AND
IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  AT LEAST 18, NOT INCLUDING THE
R.F. & P. AND THE NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RY., ARE AMENABLE
TO SUIT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AND IN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.  AT LEAST 18, ALL BUT THE R.F. & P. AND THE
CAROLINA, CLINCHFIELD AND OHIO RAILWAY,  FN3  ARE SUABLE IN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.  THUS, THERE IS NO WANT OF A SUITABLE FORUM IN
WHICH GEORGIA CAN REACH AT LEAST THE SAME NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS AS SHE
MAY SUE IN THIS COURT.  AND IT MAY BE THAT SERVICE CAN BE HAD ON THE
OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THE DISTRICTS NAMED. 

                               II 

IF LEAVE TO FILE WERE DENIED, AS WE THINK IT SHOULD BE, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO A SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT, IT WOULD BE UNNECESSARY AT
THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
SUIT IS ONE WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY COULD ENTERTAIN.  BUT IN ASSUMING
JURISDICTION OF THE CASE, THE COURT PASSES ON THAT QUESTION.  HENCE IT
BECOMES NECESSARY TO STATE THE REASONS WHY, IN THE PRESENT POSTURE OF
THE CASE, THE STATE DOES NOT STATE A CASE FOR RELIEF WITHIN OUR
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. 

THE GIST OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION ASSERTED BY THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IS
THE INJURY VISITED UPON THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA BY THE
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY AMONG THE DEFENDANT RAILROADS TO FIX AND MAINTAIN
UNLAWFULLY EXCESSIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY RATES UPON FREIGHT MOVING BY
INTERSTATE RAIL TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM GEORGIA.  IT IS FURTHER
ALLEGED THAT THE CONSPIRACY VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT, AND THAT ITS
EFFECT IS TO RETARD THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF THE STATE.  TO THIS IS ADDED
WHAT THE COURT CONCEDES IS A MERE "MAKEWEIGHT" ALLEGATION OF INJURY TO
THE STATE IN ITS CAPACITY AS AN OWNER OF A RAILROAD, AND AS A SHIPPER
AND CONSIGNEE OF FREIGHT. 

BUT THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE WHO HAVE SUFFERED INJURY OR WHO ARE
THREATENED WITH INJURY BY THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT ARE ALONE ENTITLED TO SEEK A LEGAL REMEDY FOR THEIR INJURY,
AND ARE THE PROPER PARTIES PLAINTIFF IN ANY SUIT TO ENFORCE THEIR
RIGHTS WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INFRINGED.  IT HAS LONG BEEN
SETTLED BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT A STATE IS WITHOUT STANDING
TO MAINTAIN SUIT FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED BY ITS CITIZENS AND INHABITANTS
FOR WHICH THEY MAY SUE IN THEIR OWN BEHALF.  NEW HAMPSHIRE V.
LOUISIANA, 108 U.S. 76; LOUISIANA V. TEXAS, 176 U.S. 1; OKLAHOMA V.
ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 220 U.S. 277, 289; OKLAHOMA EX REL. JOHNSON
V. COOK, SUPRA, 395-396; JONES EX REL. LOUISIANA V. BOWLES, 322 U.S.
707.  AND MANY YEARS AGO IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,
WHOSE AUTHORITY HAS REMAINED UNIMPAIRED UNTIL DISCARDED BY THE OPINION
OF THE COURT JUST ANNOUNCED, THAT A STATE DOES NOT STAND IN SUCH
RELATION TO ITS CITIZENS AND INHABITANTS AS TO ENABLE IT TO MAINTAIN AN
ORIGINAL SUIT IN THIS COURT TO PROTECT THEM BY INJUNCTION FROM INJURIES
TO THE STATE'S ECONOMY RESULTING FROM THE MAINTENANCE OF UNLAWFUL
INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES.  OKLAHOMA V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO.,
SUPRA; CF. OKLAHOMA V. GULF, C. & S.F.R. CO., 220 U.S. 290, 301. 

IN THE ATCHISON RAILWAY CASE THE PLAINTIFF STATE ALLEGED AS THE BASIS
FOR ITS CAPACITY TO SUE FOR RELIEF, SEE 220 U.S. AT 283-284, AS DOES
GEORGIA HERE, THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL STRUCTURE OF FREIGHT
RATES ON COMMODITIES WIDELY USED BY INHABITANTS OF THE STATE WAS "'A
MENACE TO THE FUTURE OF SAID STATE'...  (AND) A HINDRANCE TO THE GROWTH
OF THE STATE."  THIS COURT NEVERTHELESS HELD THAT THE WRONG WAS TO THE
INDIVIDUALS OF THE STATE, AND THAT THE STATE WAS THEREFORE NOT IN A
POSITION TO BRING THE SUIT AS PARENS PATRIAE. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PARENS PATRIAE WITH RESPECT OF THE CAUSE OF
ACTION HERE ALLEGED, AND NOT THE STATE.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALONE
STANDS IN SUCH RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITIZENS AND INHABITANTS OF THE
UNITED STATES, AS TO PERMIT THE BRINGING OF SUIT IN THEIR BEHALF, TO
PROTECT THEM FROM THE VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 485-486; FLORIDA
V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12, 18; JONES EX REL. LOUISIANA V. BOWLES, SUPRA.
THE SHERMAN ACT, SECS. 1-4, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1-4, RECOGNIZED THAT IT IS
THE UNITED STATES WHICH IS PARENS PATRIAE, WHEN IT AUTHORIZED THE
UNITED STATES, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, TO BRING CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS OR SUITS FOR INJUNCTIONS UNDER THE ACT. 

WHEN THE UNITED STATES BRINGS SUCH A SUIT IT IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST.  THE
AUTHORITY TO BRING SUCH SUITS INCLUDES THE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY NOT
TO BRING THEM, IF THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT A SUIT IS NOT WARRANTED OR WOULD BE OF DISSERVICE TO THE
NATIONAL INTEREST.  TO PERMIT A STATE TO BRING A SHERMAN ACT SUIT IN
BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC IS TO FLY IN THE FACE OF THE NATIONAL POLICY
ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DETERMINE
WHEN SUCH A SUIT IS TO BE BROUGHT AND HOW IT SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. 

THUS THE SHERMAN ACT ENTRUSTED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT THE DUTY TO
REPRESENT THE PEOPLE IN THE VINDICATION OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE
ANTITRUST LAWS.  AND THIS IS CONFIRMED BY SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT,
WHICH PERMITS INJUNCTION SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST COMMON
CARRIERS IN RESPECT OF MATTERS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, WHILE PROHIBITING SUCH SUITS TO ALL OTHERS,
INCLUDING A STATE. 

                            III 

BUT EVEN IF, AS THE COURT DECIDES, GEORGIA HAS STANDING TO MAINTAIN
THIS SUIT, EITHER IN ITS OWN RIGHT OR AS PARENS PATRIAE, AND THIS COURT
HAS JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT AND SHOULD, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
DISCRETION, ENTERTAIN IT RATHER THAN REMIT THE PARTIES TO THE DISTRICT
COURT, THE MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE PRESENT SUIT IS
ONE IN WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY CAN GIVE ANY EFFECTIVE RELIEF. 

THE SUIT, SO FAR AS THE COURT ALLOWS ITS PROSECUTION, IS IN EQUITY TO
RESTRAIN AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY BY THE DEFENDANT RAIL CARRIERS TO FIX
AND MAINTAIN UNJUST, UNLAWFUL, EXCESSIVE, AND DISCRIMINATORY FREIGHT
RATES IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  SECTION 16 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 26, AUTHORIZES "ANY PERSON" TO MAINTAIN A SUIT TO
RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, AND THE STATE OF GEORGIA,
SUING FOR ITS OWN INJURIES, IS A PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT
THE RELIEF TO BE GIVEN IS AN INJUNCTION "AGAINST THREATENED LOSS OR
DAMAGE BY A VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, ...  WHEN AND UNDER THE
SAME CONDITIONS AND PRINCIPLES AS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THREATENED
CONDUCT THAT WILL CAUSE LOSS OR DAMAGE IS GRANTED BY COURTS OF EQUITY,
UNDER THE RULES GOVERNING SUCH PROCEEDINGS  ..."  AND EVEN THOUGH, AS
ASSERTED, THE SUIT BE MAINTAINABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS INDEPENDENTLY
OF THE CLAYTON ACT, THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT ARE THE SAME IN EITHER CASE.  THE PLAINTIFF
MUST SHOW THREATENED INJURY, VICKSBURG WATERWORKS CO. V. VICKSBURG, 185
U.S. 65, 82; PAINE LUMBER CO. V. NEAL, 244 U.S. 459, 471; DUPLEX CO. V.
DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 464-465; COMPARE TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398,
406-412 WITH MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, 15-16, FOR WHICH HE IS
WITHOUT OTHER ADEQUATE REMEDY, MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525
526, AND CASES CITED; SCHOENTHAL V. IRVING TRUST CO., 287 U.S. 92, 94;
MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 50-52, AND CASES CITED, AND FOR
WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY IS ABLE TO PROVIDE A REMEDY. 

GEORGIA IS THREATENED WITH INJURY ONLY AS THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY WILL
RESULT IN THE DEFENDANTS' CHARGING FREIGHT RATES OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH
WOULD EXIST IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY.  THAT IS, GEORGIA IS NOT
INJURED UNLESS OTHER RATES THAN THOSE NOW IN FORCE WOULD BE CHARGED IF
THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY WERE TO CEASE.  WHILE THREATENED DAMAGE IN THAT
SENSE COULD BE ASSUMED IN A FREE COMPETITIVE MARKET, FREIGHT RATES ARE
NOT, UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, ARRIVED AT BY THE PROCESSES OF
FREE COMPETITION.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT ARE, AS WE WILL SEE,
THAT THE RATES BE JUST AND REASONABLE AND THAT THEY ACCORD WITH THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY; THE DETERMINATION, IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, WHETHER THE RATES CONFORM TO THOSE STANDARDS IS LEFT BY
CONGRESS TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, NOT TO THE COURTS.  AND
UNLESS GEORGIA CAN SHOW THAT THE PRESENT RATES ARE UNLAWFUL, OR THAT
SOME OTHER RATE STRUCTURE, WHICH COULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT NOW IN
FORCE, WOULD BE JUST AND REASONABLE, WHICH GEORGIA CANNOT DO WITHOUT
PRIOR RESORT TO THE COMMISSION, IT CAN NOT SHOW THAT ANY OTHER
STRUCTURE COULD LAWFULLY EXIST OR THAT ANY INJURY TO IT IS THREATENED
BY THE CONSPIRACY. 

IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT THE PREREQUISITES TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
PRESENT SUIT ARE LACKING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:  FIRST, THE STATE
HAS NOT AVAILED ITSELF OF OR EXHAUSTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
PROVIDED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHICH MAY AFFORD AN ADEQUATE
REMEDY AND WHICH MUST IN ANY CASE PRECEDE THE INSTITUTION OF THE
PRESENT SUIT IN EQUITY.  SECOND, THE SUIT AS NOW FRAMED FALLS WITHIN
THE PROVISO OF SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT DENYING TO ANY "PERSON,"
EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES, AUTHORITY "TO BRING SUIT IN EQUITY FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF" THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, "IN RESPECT OF ANY MATTER SUBJECT TO
THE REGULATION, SUPERVISION, OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION."  AND THIRD, IN THE ABSENCE OF A DETERMINATION BY
THE COMMISSION OF THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THE INTERSTATE FREIGHT TARIFFS
FILED OR PROPOSED TO BE FILED BY THE SEVERAL DEFENDANT CARRIERS, NO
COURT OF EQUITY COULD, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY, FRAME A
DECREE EFFECTIVELY ENJOINING AN AGREEMENT OR "CONSPIRACY" TO FILE
TARIFFS ESTABLISHING INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES. 

FIRST.  THE FACT THAT A STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY INVOKE THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY IT AGAINST CITIZENS OF
ANOTHER STATE, DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH THE FURTHER REQUISITE THAT IF
EQUITABLE RELIEF IS SOUGHT, THE BILL OF COMPLAINT MUST STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION COGNIZABLE IN EQUITY, OF SUCH A NATURE THAT THE COURT CAN GIVE
RELIEF.  TEXAS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, 405.  IT IS, AS WE HAVE SAID, A
FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF EQUITY JURISDICTION OF
FEDERAL COURTS THAT EQUITABLE RELIEF MAY BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE
PLAINTIFF IS WITHOUT OTHER ADEQUATE REMEDY.  AND IT IS A COROLLARY OF
THIS THAT A SUITOR MAY NOT SEEK SUCH RELIEF UNTIL HE HAS EXHAUSTED HIS
AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., SUPRA,
51, N. 9, AND CASES CITED; NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300,
310-311.    HERE, BY THE TERMS OF SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AS WELL
AS THE PRINCIPLES GENERALLY GOVERNING EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS, THE STATE, IN ORDER TO SECURE THE AID OF EQUITY, MUST SHOW
INJURY CAUSED OR THREATENED BY THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL ACTS OF WHICH IT
COMPLAINS.  SINCE THE WRONGFUL ACTS RELIED UPON ARE A CONSPIRACY TO
ADOPT AND MAINTAIN UNJUST, UNLAWFUL, EXCESSIVE OR DISCRIMINATORY
FREIGHT RATES, THE ONLY THREATENED INJURY TO THE STATE OR ITS
INHABITANTS, RESULTING FROM THE CONSPIRACY, IS THAT WHICH IS OR MAY BE
CAUSED BY SUCH UNLAWFUL RATES. 

BUT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT REQUIRES ALL INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIERS,
BEFORE PUTTING INTO EFFECT RATES OR CHARGES FOR INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION TO ADOPT AND FILE WITH THE COMMISSION JUST AND
REASONABLE RATES.  SECS. 1(4)(5)(6), 6(1)(3), 49 U.S.C. SECS.
1(4)(5)(6), 6(1)(3).  IT CONFERS ON THE COMMISSION EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE LAWFULNESS OF ALL RATES APPEARING IN THE
FILED TARIFFS, AND AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND RATES, AND TO ORDER THE
RAILROAD TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CHARGING OTHER THAN THE LAWFUL
RATES.  SECS. 15(1)(7), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(1)(7).  THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION IS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
POLICY," TO DEVELOP AND PRESERVE A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, SEE
WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563,
585; NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 189-190; RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 264 U.S. 331, 341-342, AND TO
ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN "REASONABLE CHARGES  ..., WITHOUT  ...  UNFAIR
OR DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES  ..."  TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940,
C. 722, 54 STAT. 899, SEC. 1. 

THE COMMISSION IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF RATES ON THE
MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC, AND THE NEED OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAILWAY
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AT LOW COST, AS WELL AS THE CARRIERS' NEED OF
REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THEM TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.  INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED, SEC. 15A, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15A.  IN FIXING
RATES OR DIVISIONS, THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION MAY TAKE ACCOUNT OF
THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF THE WEAKER CARRIERS, BY GIVING THEM A LARGER
SHARE OF DIVISIONS, OR BY A GENERAL RATE INCREASE.  FN4  NEW ENGLAND
DIVISIONS CASE, SUPRA, 189-195; BEAUMONT, S.L. & W.R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 282 U.S. 74; CF. ANN ARBOR R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S.
658.  IT MAY FIX MINIMUM AS WELL AS MAXIMUM RATES, SEC. 15, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 15, THUS PERMITTING IT TO PREVENT CUT-THROAT COMPETITION AND TO
PROTECT WEAKER COMPETITORS.  IT MAY CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF COMPETING
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, OR OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS
ATTENDING THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  SEE BARRINGER & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 1, AND AUTHORITIES CITED; AND ON THE CONSIDERATIONS
UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION FIXES RATES, SEE SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, VOLUME III-B.  THESE AND MANY OTHER CONTROLLING
FACTORS, WHICH ENTER THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF RATES, MAY BE
IRRELEVANT TO DECISION IN AN ORDINARY SHERMAN ACT CASE, BUT ARE
INEXTRICABLY INTERWOVEN WITH THE PRESENT SUIT, IN WHICH THE STATE MUST
ESTABLISH THAT INJURY TO IT IS THREATENED BY THE CONSPIRACY TO FIX
FREIGHT RATES. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS ARE ENFORCEABLE BY INJUNCTIONS IN THE
DISTRICT COURTS.  SEC. 16(12), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(12).  AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY IS EXCLUSIVE OF ANY WHICH MAY BE AFFORDED BY
COURTS, AT LEAST UNTIL THE COMMISSION HAS PASSED UPON THE VALIDITY OF
THE RATES AND CLASSIFICATIONS INVOLVED.  TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V.
ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426; ROBINSON V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO., 222 U.S. 506; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. SOLUM, 247 U.S. 477;
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS V. VISCOSE CO., 254 U.S. 498; MIDLAND
VALLEY R. CO. V. BARKLEY, 276 U.S. 482.  UNTIL THE COMMISSION ACTS, NO
COURT CAN SAY THAT THE RATES ARE NOT LAWFUL AND REASONABLE OR THAT THEY
ARE NOT WITHIN THE LOWEST RANGE OF THE ZONE OF REASONABLENESS.  NOR CAN
EITHER BE ASSUMED, THE BURDEN BEING UPON GEORGIA TO SHOW THAT IT IS
INJURED BY THE ACTS OF WHICH IT COMPLAINS.  AND IF THE PRESENT RATES
ARE AT THE LOWEST POINT OF REASONABLENESS, AS THEY WELL MAY BE, GEORGIA
IS NOT INJURED, FOR IN THAT EVENT NO LOWER RATES COULD BE LAWFULLY
ENFORCED BY THE COMMISSION OR THE COURTS. 

IT IS NOT WITHOUT PERTINENCE TO THE PRESENT APPLICATION THAT THE
STATE OF GEORGIA AND SEVEN OTHER SOUTHERN STATES ARE PARTIES TO
PROCEEDINGS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
DOCKET NO. 28300, CLASS RATE INVESTIGATION, AND DOCKET NO. 28310,
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION, IN WHICH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAS APPEARED AS THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE.  IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THE WITNESS URGED
UNIFORMITY OF RATES IN SOUTHERN AND OFFICIAL CLASSIFICATION
TERRITORIES, IN CONFORMITY TO THE OFFICIAL TERRITORY SYSTEM OF RATES. 
THE WITNESS RELIED ON SEC. 3(1) OF THE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 3(1), MAKING
IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY RAIL CARRIER TO MAKE OR GIVE UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, LOCALITY OR
PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC; ON SEC. 1(4)(5)(6), 49 U.S.C. SEC.
1(4)(5)(6), REQUIRING COMMON CARRIERS BY RAIL TO ESTABLISH JUST AND
REASONABLE RATES, FARES, CHARGES AND CLASSIFICATIONS; AND ON SEC. 5(B)
OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, WHICH REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO
INVESTIGATE THE LAWFULNESS OF RATES BETWEEN POINTS IN DIFFERENT
CLASSIFICATION TERRITORIES AND TO ENTER SUCH ORDERS AS MAY BE
APPROPRIATE FOR THE REMOVAL "OF ANY UNLAWFULNESS WHICH MAY BE FOUND TO
EXIST." 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION IN THESE PROCEEDINGS
TO SET ASIDE SUCH UNLAWFUL RATES AS MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM THE
CONSPIRACIES ALLEGED IN THE STATE'S AMENDED COMPLAINT.  IF THE
COMMISSION ORDERS THEM SET ASIDE, NOTHING FURTHER REMAINS FOR ANY COURT
TO DO, FOR REASONS WHICH WILL PRESENTLY MORE FULLY APPEAR, SAVE ONLY AS
IT MAY BE ASKED TO REVIEW OR ENFORCE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  WITHOUT
PRIOR RESORT TO THE COMMISSION, GEORGIA DOES NOT AND CANNOT ESTABLISH
IN A COURT PROCEEDING THAT IT IS THREATENED WITH INJURY BY THE
CONSPIRACY OR THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR IT TO RESORT TO THE COURTS TO
SECURE THE RELIEF WHICH IT SEEKS IN THE PRESENT SUIT. 

THE STATE SEEKS TO AVOID THESE PLAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON AND
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS BY ITS INSISTENCE THAT BY ITS AMENDED
COMPLAINT IT ASKS RELIEF NOT FROM THE UNLAWFUL RATES WHICH HAVE BEEN OR
WILL BE ESTABLISHED AS A RESULT OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, BUT FROM THE
CONSPIRACY ITSELF, OVER WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS
SAID TO HAVE NO JURISDICTION, AND FROM WHICH IT CAN GIVE NO RELIEF.  IN
THE STATE'S BILL OF COMPLAINT, AS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED, IT SOUGHT AN
INJUNCTION SETTING ASIDE THE UNLAWFUL RATES.  EVIDENTLY REALIZING THAT
ALL COURTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING SUCH ACTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION
HAS DETERMINED THE VALIDITY OF THE RATES, THE STATE SOUGHT TO OVERCOME
THE DIFFICULTY BY AN AMENDMENT TO ITS BILL OF COMPLAINT, PURPORTING TO
WITHDRAW ITS ATTACK ON THE RATES AND ASSAILING THE CONSPIRACY ALONE. 
BUT, AS THE COURT SEEMS TO RECOGNIZE, EVEN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
CONTAINS ALLEGATIONS AND RAISES ISSUES AS TO WHETHER THE RATES CHARGED
BY THE DEFENDANTS ARE DISCRIMINATORY.  THE COMPLAINT THEREFORE RAISES
QUESTIONS AS TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE
PRESENTED BY THE ORIGINAL BILL. 

THIS VERBAL MANEUVER, AS A MEANS OF CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THIS
COURT, IS FUTILE, FOR THE REASON, AS WE HAVE SAID, THAT THE STATE
CANNOT MAINTAIN ITS SUIT IN EQUITY EITHER UNDER SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT OR UPON GENERAL EQUITY PRINCIPLES, WITHOUT ESTABLISHING A
THREATENED INJURY TO IT OR THOSE WHOM IT REPRESENTS.  AND THIS IS
EQUALLY TRUE WHETHER IT SUES AS PARENS PATRIAE OR AS OWNER OF A
RAILROAD, AND A SHIPPER AND CONSIGNEE OF FREIGHT.  THE THREATENED
INJURY CAN ENSUE ONLY FROM THE MAINTENANCE OF THE UNLAWFUL RATES AND
PRACTICES, WHICH ARE SPECIALLY CHARGED TO BE DISCRIMINATORY.  BUT "A
RATE IS NOT NECESSARILY ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS THE RESULT OF A
CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT. 
WHAT RATES ARE LEGAL IS DETERMINED BY THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE" AND
NOT BY THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  KEOGH V. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN R. CO.,
SUPRA, 162.  HENCE IT FOLLOWS IN THIS CASE THAT THE SUIT CAN BE
MAINTAINED ONLY BY SHOWING THAT THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY HAS RESULTED OR
WILL RESULT IN UNLAWFUL RATES, OR THAT WITHOUT THE CONSPIRACY, LAWFUL
RATES, OTHER THAN THOSE NOW IN FORCE, WOULD PREVAIL, DETERMINATIONS
WHICH CAN BE MADE ONLY BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND WHICH
MUST BE MADE BY IT, BEFORE THIS COURT CAN TAKE ANY JUDICIAL ACTION
BASED UPON SUCH DETERMINATIONS. 

WE ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT A CONSPIRACY TO FIX LAWFUL RATES
MAY BE A VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, AS WAS INTIMATED IN THE KEOGH
CASE.  BUT AS THIS COURT THERE POINTED OUT, PAGES 161-162, THE REMEDY
IS NOT TO BE HAD BY THE SUIT OF A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL; "THE GOVERNMENT
MAY HAVE REDRESS BY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 3, BY INJUNCTION
UNDER SEC. 4, AND BY FORFEITURE UNDER SEC. 6."  THE STATE CANNOT, MORE
THAN A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, BRING A SUIT UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT TO
RESTRAIN THE CONSPIRACY UNLESS IT BE A CONSPIRACY TO DO SOMETHING
INJURIOUS TO THE PLAINTIFF.  THE ONLY SUCH INJURY ALLEGED IN A GREAT
VARIETY OF WAYS IS THAT CAUSED BY UNLAWFUL AND DISCRIMINATORY FREIGHT
RATES ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSPIRACY.  NO SUCH INJURY CAN BE PRESUMED
FROM A CONSPIRACY TO FIX LAWFUL RATES OR TO FIX ANY RATE UNLESS IT CAN
BE KNOWN WITH WHAT NEW RATES THOSE NOW IN FORCE WILL BE REPLACED BY
COMMISSION ACTION. 

FOR THIS AND LIKE REASONS, THIS COURT HAS UNIFORMLY REFUSED TO PERMIT
A PARTY UNDER GUISE OF SUING UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS, TO SEEK IN THE
COURTS BY INDIRECTION, DETERMINATIONS WHICH ARE RESERVED FOR THE
COMMISSION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  KEOGH V. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN R.
CO., SUPRA; CENTRAL TRANSFER CO. V. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN., 288 U.S.
469, 476; TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 297 U.S. 500;
AND COMPARE UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD S.S. CO., 284 U.S.
474; ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 312 U.S. 195.  AS THESE CASES SHOW,
THE STATE CANNOT MAKE ITS ASSAULT ON A MATTER SAID NOT TO BE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, WHEN ADJUDICATION MUST TURN UPON
MATTERS WHICH ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.  HERE THE COURT CANNOT
ASCERTAIN AND ENJOIN THREATENED INJURY RESULTING FROM A CONSPIRACY TO
FIX UNLAWFUL FREIGHT RATES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THEIR LAWFULNESS AND
REASONABLENESS, AND THUS ENCROACHING UPON THE AUTHORITY WHICH CONGRESS
HAS GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION ALONE.  THE CASE IS THEREFORE PECULIARLY
ONE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE THAT EQUITY WILL NOT UNDERTAKE TO
GIVE RELIEF UNTIL THE PLAINTIFF HAS EXHAUSTED HIS ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES, FOR UNTIL THAT HAS OCCURRED, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN THAT THE
PLAINTIFF IS WITHOUT ADEQUATE RELIEF OR, IN THE EVENT THAT IT IS NOT,
WHAT RELIEF EQUITY MAY APPROPRIATELY GIVE. 

SECOND.  INDEPENDENT OF, BUT SUPPLEMENTING THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
INDICATE THE UNMISTAKABLE INTENTION OF CONGRESS THAT A SUIT LIKE THE
PRESENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE MEANS OF BREAKING DOWN THE REGULATORY
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION, ARE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT.  AS ALREADY NOTED, A PROVISO TO THE SECTION WITHHOLDS FROM "ANY
PERSON" OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT "TO BRING SUIT IN EQUITY
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF" THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT "IN RESPECT OF ANY MATTER
SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION, SUPERVISION, OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF THE
INTERSTATE STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION." 

WHEN THE CLAYTON ACT WAS ADOPTED IN 1914, THE COMMISSION HAD ALREADY
BEEN GIVEN BROAD POWERS TO FIX AND REGULATE RATES BY THE HEPBURN ACT OF
JUNE 29, 1906, C. 3591, 34 STAT. 584, AND THE MANN-ELKINS ACT OF JUNE
18, 1910, C. 309, 36 STAT. 539.  CONGRESS REALIZED THE DANGER THAT
INDISCRIMINATE SUITS FOR INJUNCTIONS UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS, IN MANY
CASES AFFECTING INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIERS, WOULD SUBSTITUTE THE MANY
DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE COMMISSION, THE SINGLE RATE-MAKING AUTHORITY, A
RETROGRESSION FROM THE CONSISTENT CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO AVOID
CONFUSION AND CONFLICT IN THIS FIELD.  HENCE, WHEN CONGRESS, BY SEC. 16
OF THE CLAYTON ACT, FOR THE FIRST TIME AUTHORIZED PRIVATE SUITORS TO
SEEK RELIEF BY INJUNCTION UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS, IT WAS AT PAINS TO
BAR SUCH SUITS AGAINST CARRIERS WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTERS WITHIN THE
PROVINCE OF THE COMMISSION.  THUS IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 16 TO
PRECLUDE THE BREAKDOWN OF THE UNIFIED RATE STRUCTURE ESTABLISHED FOR
THE NATION BY THE COMMISSION, AS WOULD INEVITABLY RESULT FROM THE
MAINTENANCE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT OF NUMEROUS INDIVIDUAL SUITS, LIKE
THE PRESENT ONE, AFFECTING RATES WHICH CONGRESS HAD LEFT WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S EXCLUSIVE CONTROL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. 

THE STATUTORY COMMAND CAN NO MORE BE EVADED THAN MAY THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE RATES, BY SAYING THAT THE
"RELIEF" WHICH GEORGIA SEEKS IS NOT A MATTER SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  SECTION 16 DOES NOT FORECLOSE A SUIT
MERELY WHERE THE "RELIEF" IS A MATTER SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COMMISSION.  ITS WORDS ARE MUCH BROADER.  THEY DENY THE REMEDY,
EXCEPT TO THE UNITED STATES, "IN RESPECT OF ANY MATTER SUBJECT TO ...
THE JURISDICTION" OF THE COMMISSION.  AS WE HAVE SAID, GEORGIA CANNOT
SHOW DAMAGE SAVE BY SHOWING THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD APPROVE SOME RATE
STRUCTURE OTHER THAN THAT PRESENTLY EXISTING.  THAT IS CERTAINLY A
"MATTER SUBJECT TO THE  ...  JURISDICTION" OF THE COMMISSION,
SUFFICIENT TO PRECLUDE A SUIT UNDER SEC. 16. 

THE INSEPARABILITY OF EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST A RATE-MAKING
CONSPIRACY FROM THAT AGAINST THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THE RATES WHICH ARE OR
MAY BE ITS FRUITS, HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY
HERE THAT PRECISELY THE ARGUMENT NOW MADE FOR DISREGARDING THE
PROHIBITION OF SEC. 16 WAS REJECTED BY THIS COURT IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY
AN INJURED PRIVATE PARTY TO RESTRAIN AGREEMENTS OR CONSPIRACIES TO DO
ACTS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  CENTRAL TRANSFER CO.
V. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN., SUPRA.  AND COMPARE UNITED STATES
NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD S.S. CO., SUPRA, WHERE THIS COURT GAVE THE
LIKE CONSTRUCTION TO SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, IN ITS COMPARABLE
RELATION TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE SHIPPING BOARD TO FIX RATES UNDER THE
SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, C. 451, 39 STAT. 728, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 801-842, AS
AMENDED BY THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920, C. 250, 41 STAT. 988.    IN
THE CENTRAL TRANSFER CO. CASE IT WAS URGED THAT SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT, SINCE THE COMMISSION DID NOT
HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE AGREEMENTS OR CONTRACTS COMPLAINED OF, BUT
ONLY OVER THE ACTS INVOLVED IN THEIR PERFORMANCE.  THIS COURT GAVE THE
CONCLUSIVE ANSWER WHICH WE THINK SHOULD BE GIVEN NOW, THAT NO
INJUNCTION COULD BE EFFECTIVELY GIVEN AGAINST THE AGREEMENT OR
CONSPIRACY WITHOUT IN SOME MANNER RELATING IT TO THE LAWFULNESS OF THE
ACTS DONE OR TO BE DONE IN EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT, AND
THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE LAWFULNESS OF THOSE ACTS AND THEIR
REGULATION WERE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY.  IN THAT CASE, AS WELL AS IN THE UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO.
CASE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION WOULD DEFEAT THE
PLAIN PURPOSE OF SEC. 16 TO PRECLUDE, EXCEPT IN SUITS BY THE
GOVERNMENT, JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH OR PREJUDGMENT OF THE LAWFULNESS
OF MATTERS WHICH CONGRESS HAS INDUBITABLY PLACED WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. 

EQUITABLE RELIEF UNDER SEC. 16 IN THE PRESENT CASE MUST BE DENIED
UPON THE PRINCIPLE IDENTICAL WITH THAT UPON WHICH THE COURT HAS RELIED
IN DENYING THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE SUIT WHICH
IT PROPOSES HERE.  THE FACT THAT IN THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE, AS IN
KEOGH V. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN R. CO., SUPRA, AND TERMINAL WAREHOUSE
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., SUPRA, THE SUIT IS FOR DAMAGES RESULTING
FROM UNLAWFUL RATES, INSTEAD OF AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THREATENED
DAMAGE OR INJURY, IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  FOR IN EITHER CASE, DAMAGE
CANNOT ENSUE UNLESS THE AGREEMENT OR CONSPIRACY RESULTS IN AN UNLAWFUL
RATE OR PRACTICE OF WHOSE LAWFULNESS THE COMMISSION IS THE SOLE
ARBITER.  AND IN BOTH, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SUIT CANNOT BE
MAINTAINED WITHOUT FIRST RESORTING TO THE COMMISSION. 

CONGRESS DID NOT SEE FIT BY ITS EXTENSIVE REVISION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT IN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, TO ALTER THE
APPLICATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FOR US TO ALTER IT NOW TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF
A PARTICULAR CASE, WHICH PRESENTS NO PLAUSIBLE RELEVANT DIFFERENCES
FROM THOSE WHICH WE HAVE HERETOFORE DECIDED, IS AN ASSUMPTION OF POWER
WHICH ONLY CONGRESS COULD RIGHTLY EXERCISE, AND A POWER WHICH IT HAS
PLAINLY DECLINED TO EXERCISE. 

THIRD.  EVEN ASSUMING, AS THE STATE DOES, AND AS THE COURT IS
PERSUADED, THAT A COURT OF EQUITY COULD BE CALLED UPON TO ENJOIN A
CONSPIRACY TO ESTABLISH RATES IN ANTICIPATION OF A DETERMINATION OF
THEIR UNLAWFULNESS, IT WOULD PLAINLY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO FRAME A DECREE
FOR RELIEF IN ADVANCE OF A DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE
PRESENT RATES ARE UNLAWFUL, OR THAT THOSE RESULTING FROM THE DECREE
WOULD BE LAWFUL.  COURTS CANNOT ENJOIN, IN GENERAL TERMS, VIOLATIONS OF
THE SHERMAN ACT, WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHAT ACTS ARE TO BE ENJOINED AS
VIOLATIONS, OR AS AIDING OR INDUCING VIOLATIONS.  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 396; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 311,
328; CF. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 200
U.S. 361, 404; LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426. 
NOR CAN IT DETERMINE IN ADVANCE WHAT RATES MAY BE LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED
SINCE THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IS RESERVED
EXCLUSIVELY TO THE COMMISSION. 

HENCE THE SUGGESTION, WHICH THE COURT HAS BEEN PERSUADED TO ACCEPT,
THAT THIS COURT CAN FIND A WAY TO ENJOIN THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO FIX
RATES, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT RATES ARE OR MAY BE AGREED UPON AND
WHETHER THE COMMISSION FINDS THEM TO BE LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL, IS AN
INVITATION TO A COURSE OF THE VERIEST FUTILITY.  ANY INJUNCTION WHICH
THIS COURT COULD PROPERLY FRAME MUST NOT BE AN IDLE GESTURE.  IT MUST
BE ONE TO PREVENT THE THREATENED INJURY.  AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT A
CONSPIRACY WITHOUT RELATION TO ITS INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES COULD NOT
HAVE THAT EFFECT, AND THE INJUNCTION COULD BE RELATED TO THOSE
CONSEQUENCES IN THIS CASE ONLY BY DEFINING RATES AND PRACTICES WHICH
THE COMMISSION HAS NOT DECLARED, AND MAY OR MAY NOT DECLARE, TO BE
UNLAWFUL. 

IT IS FUTILE TO ATTEMPT TO ENJOIN A CONSPIRACY TO FIX RATES BECAUSE
OF THEIR INJURIOUS EFFECT ON THE PLAINTIFF, UNLESS IT IS KNOWN THAT
THEY ARE UNLAWFUL OR WILL BE AND UNLESS THE COURT IS FREE TO DETERMINE
THE POINT.  AND IT IS FUTILE FOR THIS COURT TO ATTEMPT TO PRESCRIBE
WHAT RATES WILL BE LAWFUL SINCE ITS DETERMINATION WILL NOT BE BINDING
UPON THE COMMISSION, AND MAY BE IGNORED BY IT.  INDEED, EVEN AFTER THE
COMMISSION HAS MADE SUCH A DETERMINATION THIS COURT, IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, IS WITHOUT POWER TO SET IT ASIDE, NORTH DAKOTA V. CHICAGO &
NORTHWESTERN R. CO., SUPRA; TEXAS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 258
U.S. 158, 164-165, FOR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION IS VESTED IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES UNDER THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, C. 32, 38 STAT. 219, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C.
SECS. 41(28), 43. 

IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO DISMISS AN ORIGINAL SUIT IN WHICH IT
CANNOT MAKE AN EFFECTIVE DECREE.  SEE ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 298 U.S.
558, 572, AND CASES CITED.  A FORTIORI, IT IS ITS DUTY NOT TO ENTERTAIN
SUCH A SUIT. 

THE SOUNDNESS AND THE COMPELLING NECESSITY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH
THE COURT HAS HITHERTO GIVEN TO SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT COULD NOT BE
BETTER ILLUSTRATED AND EMPHASIZED THAN BY REFERENCE TO THE SITUATION
EXHIBITED BY THE CASE WHICH IS NOW BEFORE US.  ANY DECREE, EFFECTIVE TO
PREVENT THE INJURY OF WHICH THE STATE COMPLAINS, WOULD NECESSARILY
RESULT IN FURTHER INEQUALITIES IN RATES, SUCH AS ARE NOW ALLEGED TO
EXIST.  THE COURT CANNOT ENJOIN AS UNLAWFUL THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO
ESTABLISH RATES WITHOUT UNDERTAKING TO SAY WHAT RATES AND PRACTICES ARE
TO BE DEEMED LAWFUL AND WHAT UNLAWFUL.  BUT BY THIS DETERMINATION THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WOULD NOT BE BOUND, NOR WOULD THE UNITED
STATES OR ANY RAILROAD OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH ARE PARTIES DEFENDANT. 

ONLY GEORGIA WOULD SECURE RELIEF APPROXIMATING THAT SOUGHT BY THE
BILL.  IF RELIEF ENJOINING THE CONSPIRACY COMPLAINED OF WERE EFFECTIVE
TO RELIEVE THE STATE OF THE INJURY FROM UNLAWFUL RATES TO WHICH IT
OBJECTS, AND WITHOUT WHICH IT COULD NOT MAINTAIN THE SUIT UNDER SEC.
16, THE DECREE MUST RESULT IN A NEW RATE STRUCTURE APPLICABLE TO THE
RAILROADS WHICH ARE PARTIES DEFENDANT.  PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION
WOULD BE CREATED AS TO EVERY OTHER STATE IN SOUTHERN TERRITORY AND AS
TO SHIPPERS AND CONSIGNEES OF FREIGHT IN THOSE STATES WHO WOULD STILL
BE GOVERNED BY THE PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES, AGAINST WHICH ONLY GEORGIA
AND ITS CITIZENS WOULD HAVE SECURED SOME MEASURE OF RELIEF.  THERE
WOULD BE TWO SETS OF RATES BETWEEN THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH, ONE,
EFFECTED AS A RESULT OF THIS COURT'S DECREE, APPLICABLE TO SHIPPERS IN
GEORGIA OVER THE RAILROADS WHICH ARE DEFENDANTS HERE, AND ANOTHER
GOVERNED BY PUBLISHED TARIFFS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND APPLICABLE
TO ALL OTHER SHIPPERS AND RAILROADS IN THE SOUTH.  SINCE ILLEGALITY IN
EXISTING RATES IS AVERRED BECAUSE OF DISPARITY IN THE LEVEL OF RATES IN
TWO RATE-MAKING AREAS, WITH NO ALLEGATION THAT SOUTHERN CARRIERS
RECEIVE MORE THAN A FAIR CHARGE FOR THEIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, THE
COURT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DISCRIMINATION SHOULD
BE REMOVED BY INCREASING RATES IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY OR ESTABLISHING AN
INTERMEDIATE LEVEL OF NEW RATES, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 385, 392 - A DETERMINATION WHICH COULD BE
ARRIVED AT ONLY BY THE PERFORMANCE BY THIS COURT OF THE LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTION OF RATE MAKING WHICH HAS HITHERTO BEEN RESERVED TO THE
COMMISSION. 

IF ALL THIS IS TO BE AVOIDED BY THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ALLEGED
CONSPIRACY, BUT WITHOUT ENJOINING ANY OF ITS ASSERTED EVIL CONSEQUENCES
IN RATE MAKING, THE ISSUE ORIGINALLY TENDERED WOULD, BY THE AMENDMENT
TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, SEEM TO AMOUNT TO LITTLE IF ANYTHING MORE
THAN A POLITICAL ISSUE.  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT "THE WRONG
DONE TRANSCENDS THAT EXPERIENCED BY INDIVIDUALS.  FOR AS MEN, FIRMS,
AND CORPORATIONS HAVE COME AND GONE, THE CONSPIRACY HAS CONTINUED OVER
THE DECADES."  WHILE TRIAL UPON THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT MIGHT HAVE
REDUCED THIS GRIEVANCE TO THE DIMENSIONS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENJOIN
ILLEGAL FREIGHT RATES INJURIOUS TO THE STATE, IT NOW APPEARS AS THE
GRIEVANCE OF A SECTION OF THE COUNTRY AGAINST AN EXISTING FEDERAL
SYSTEM OF RATE MAKING, WHICH SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO CONGRESS RATHER
THAN TO THIS COURT. 

THE SUPPORT WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LENDS TO GEORGIA'S
CONTENTIONS BY THE BRIEF AMICUS, FILED IN THIS COURT IN BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES, REMOVES ANY EVIDENT NEED FOR ENTERTAINING THIS SUIT. 
THE GOVERNMENT IS CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS,
AND IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND SEC. 16 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT TO MAINTAIN SUITS FOR THAT PURPOSE, WHICH OTHERS CANNOT
BRING.  IF IT BELIEVES THAT THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY EXISTS AND SHOULD BE
STOPPED BY THE REMEDIAL ACTION OF COURTS, WITHOUT RESORT TO THE
COMMISSION, THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO REASON WHY, AVOIDING THE MANY
TECHNICAL OBSTACLES TO THE PRESENT SUIT, IT SHOULD NOT PROCEED TO
REMEDY IN THE USUAL MANNER THE GRIEVANCES OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES INCLUDING CITIZENS OF GEORGIA. 

OTHER OBJECTIONS ASIDE, IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THIS COURT CANNOT GIVE
ANY EFFECTIVE RELIEF REMOVING THE THREAT OF INJURY TO THE STATE
RESULTING FROM A RAILROAD RATE CONSPIRACY WITHOUT BREAKING DOWN THE
SYSTEM OF RATE REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION - A SYSTEM WHICH CONGRESS
HAS PAINSTAKINGLY BUILT UP SINCE THE DECISIONS, MORE THAN FORTY-FIVE
YEARS AGO, IN UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S.
290, AND UNITED STATES V. JOINT TRAFFIC ASSN., 171 U.S. 505, WHEN THE
COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT POWER TO PRESCRIBE RATES.  SEE TEXAS & PACIFIC
R. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., SUPRA; TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., SUPRA, 513. 

THE REASONING OF THE COURT IS NOT AND CANNOT BE RESTRICTED TO THIS
CASE.  IF GEORGIA MAY PROSECUTE THE PRESENT SUIT, EVERY SHIPPER OR
CONSIGNEE OF FREIGHT WHO ASSERTS INJURY BY A CONSPIRACY RESPECTING
RAILROAD RATES IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS MAY MAINTAIN A LIKE
SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT.  THE PROSECUTION OF SUCH SUITS CANNOT FAIL TO
BRING CHAOS INTO THE FIELD OF INTERSTATE RATE MAKING.  THE ENTRY OF
DECREES FOR THE PLAINTIFFS COULD ONLY MEAN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE UNIFIED
SYSTEM OF FIXING RATES BY COMMISSION ACTION, WHICH CONGRESS HAS
ORDAINED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 16
OF THE CLAYTON ACT TO PRECLUDE SUCH A BREAKDOWN.  ITS PURPOSE CAN AND
SHOULD BE EFFECTED BY THE REFUSAL OF THIS COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE
PROPOSED SUIT. 

FN1  SOME RELIANCE IS PLACED ON AN ALLEGATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED
COMPLAINT, WHICH, IN ITS CONTEXT, IS THAT THE MATTERS OF WHICH
COMPLAINT IS MADE ARE NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURTS
OF GEORGIA; BUT THAT HAS NO BEARING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THEY ARE
WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN GEORGIA OR IN ANY
OTHER STATE. 

FN2  THESE TWO DEFENDANTS ARE THE SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY CO., AND
THE NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RY., TWO OF THE LARGEST OF THE
SOUTHERN DEFENDANTS. 

FN3  THIS DEFENDANT HAS BEEN OPERATING SINCE 1924 AS THE CLINCHFIELD
RAILROAD COMPANY, UNDER LEASE TO THE ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. AND THE
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. 

FN4  UNDER THE RECAPTURE CLAUSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, C.
91, 41 STAT. 488, SEC. 422, ADDING SEC. 15A TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, PROFITS OF CARRIERS IN EXCESS OF A FAIR RETURN WERE HELD IN TRUST
FOR PURPOSES OF IMPROVING RAILROAD SERVICE.  DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456.  THE RECAPTURE CLAUSE WAS REPEALED BY
THE ACT OF JUNE 16, 1933, C. 91, 48 STAT. 220, SEC. 205.  BUT ITS
UNDERLYING PURPOSE TO PERMIT RATES SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE
AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WAS REAFFIRMED BY THE DECLARATION
OF A "NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY" WHICH THE COMMISSION IS COMMANDED
TO OBSERVE, BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, C. 722, 54 STAT. 899,
SEC. 1. 
..END :
























PHILLIPS CO. V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 490 


NO. 608.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
102, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT GRANTING EXEMPTIONS
FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT ARE TO BE NARROWLY CONSTRUED.  P. 493. 

2.  SECTION 13(A)(2) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, EXEMPTING FROM
THE OPERATION OF THE ACT EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN ANY RETAIL  ...
ESTABLISHMENT," HELD INAPPLICABLE TO WAREHOUSE AND CENTRAL OFFICE
EMPLOYEES OF AN INTERSTATE RETAIL CHAIN STORE SYSTEM.  P. 493. 

A.H. PHILLIPS, INC. V. WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 704, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE, 50
F.SUPP.  749, ENJOINING THE PETITIONER FROM VIOLATING THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

1060, 1067, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 213(A)(2), STATES THAT THE WAGE AND HOUR
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL NOT APPLY WITH RESPECT TO "ANY EMPLOYEE
ENGAGED IN ANY RETAIL OR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF
WHOSE SELLING OR SERVICING IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE."  THE ISSUE POSED
BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE WAREHOUSE AND CENTRAL
OFFICE OF AN INTERSTATE GROCERY CHAIN STORE SYSTEM ARE "ENGAGED IN ANY
RETAIL  ...  ESTABLISHMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 13(A)(2) SO AS
TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE WAGE AND HOUR PROVISIONS. 

THE PETITIONER CORPORATION OPERATES A CHAIN OF 49 RETAIL GROCERY
STORES IN CITIES AND TOWNS WITHIN A 35-MILE RADIUS FROM SPRINGFIELD,
MASSACHUSETTS.  OF THESE STORES, 40 ARE IN MASSACHUSETTS AND 9 ARE IN
CONNECTICUT.  QUITE APART FROM THESE RETAIL STORES, PETITIONER
MAINTAINS A SEPARATE WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE BUILDING IN SPRINGFIELD IN
WHICH WORK THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

THE WAREHOUSE IS THE ONLY ONE MAINTAINED BY PETITIONER AND IT
SERVICES ALL THE 49 STORES.  EXCEPT FOR BREAD, PASTRY AND MILK, WHICH
ARE SECURED FROM LOCAL SOURCES, ALL OF PETITIONER'S MERCHANDISE IS
DELIVERED BY RAIL AND TRUCK TO THE WAREHOUSE WHERE IT IS DIVIDED AND
THEN DELIVERED BY PETITIONER'S TRUCKS TO THE INDIVIDUAL STORES
ACCORDING TO NEED.  ABOUT 80% OF THE MERCHANDISE PASSING THROUGH THE
WAREHOUSE IS RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE MASSACHUSETTS, WHILE ABOUT 18% OF
THE TOTAL SALES BY DOLLAR VOLUME OF THE MERCHANDISE SHIPPED FROM THIS
WAREHOUSE IS ACCOUNTED FOR BY PETITIONER'S CONNECTICUT STORES.  EACH
WEEK A REGULAR ORDER IS DELIVERED TO EACH STORE FROM THE WAREHOUSE AND
ADDITIONAL DELIVERIES ARE MADE AS REQUIRED.  MERCHANDISE IS SUPPLIED ON
THE BASIS OF REQUISITIONS PREPARED BY INDIVIDUAL STORE MANAGERS,
SUBJECT TO REVISION BY ONE OF THE THREE SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE CENTRAL
OFFICE.  ALL OF PETITIONER'S SALES ARE MADE EXCLUSIVELY AT THE RETAIL
STORES AND NO DELIVERIES TO CUSTOMERS ARE MADE FROM THE WAREHOUSE. 

EMPLOYEES IN THE CENTRAL OFFICE, WHICH IS LOCATED IN THE SAME
BUILDING AS THE WAREHOUSE, PERFORM THE USUAL FUNCTIONS OF CHECKING
INVOICES, PAYING BILLS, MAKING OUT PAYROLLS, KEEPING INVENTORY RECORDS,
CHECKING STORE DELIVERIES AND THE LIKE.  THE VARIOUS EMPLOYEES IN THE
WAREHOUSE AND THE TRUCK DRIVERS HANDLE THE PHYSICAL WORK CONNECTED WITH
THE RECEIPT, STORAGE AND SHIPMENT OF MERCHANDISE.  NONE OF THESE
EMPLOYEES SEGREGATES HIS TIME AS BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE
SHIPMENTS; BOTH TYPES OF SHIPMENTS ARE HANDLED INDISCRIMINATELY TO AND
FROM THE WAREHOUSE. 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION SOUGHT TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM VIOLATING THE OVERTIME AND
RECORD PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE
INJUNCTION, HOLDING (1) THAT THE WAREHOUSE AND CENTRAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES
WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT AND
(2) THAT THEY WERE NOT EXEMPTED FROM THE WAGE AND HOUR PROVISIONS BY
REASON OF SEC. 13(A)(2) SINCE THE WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE BUILDING DID NOT
CONSTITUTE A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT.  50 F.SUPP.  749.  THE FIRST CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED AS TO BOTH POINTS.  144 F.2D 102. 
PETITIONER, HOWEVER, HAS SOUGHT REVIEW HERE ONLY AS TO THE SECOND
POINT.  AND CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING VIEWS
EXPRESSED ON THIS ISSUE BY LOWER APPELLATE COURTS.  FN1 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS DESIGNED "TO EXTEND THE FRONTIERS OF
SOCIAL PROGRESS" BY "INSURING TO ALL OUR ABLE-BODIED WORKING MEN AND
WOMEN A FAIR DAY'S PAY FOR A FAIR DAY'S WORK."  MESSAGE OF THE
PRESIDENT TO CONGRESS, MAY 24, 1934.  ANY EXEMPTION FROM SUCH
HUMANITARIAN AND REMEDIAL LEGISLATION MUST THEREFORE BE NARROWLY
CONSTRUED, GIVING DUE REGARD TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF STATUTORY LANGUAGE
AND THE INTENT OF CONGRESS.  TO EXTEND AN EXEMPTION TO OTHER THAN THOSE
PLAINLY AND UNMISTAKABLY WITHIN ITS TERMS AND SPIRIT IS TO ABUSE THE
INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS AND TO FRUSTRATE THE ANNOUNCED WILL OF THE
PEOPLE.  WE ACCORDINGLY AGREE WITH THE TWO COURTS BELOW THAT THE
EXEMPTION CONTAINED IN SEC. 13(A)(2) IS INAPPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AND
THAT THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE WAGE
AND HOUR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  WE HOLD, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THE
WAREHOUSE AND CENTRAL OFFICE OF PETITIONER'S CHAIN STORE SYSTEM CANNOT
PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 13(A)(2). 

IT IS NECESSARY, IN THE FIRST PLACE, TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUE NATURE OF
PETITIONER'S WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE.  THE PRIME FUNCTION OF PETITIONER'S
CHAIN STORE SYSTEM IS TO SELL GROCERIES AT RETAIL.  LIKE MOST LARGE
CHAINS, HOWEVER, PETITIONER HAS FOUND IT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE TO
PERFORM AND INTEGRATE BOTH THE RETAIL AND WHOLESALE FUNCTIONS OF THE
GROCERY BUSINESS.  THE INDEPENDENT WHOLESALER OR MIDDLEMAN HAS BEEN
ELIMINATED FROM THE CHANNEL OF DISTRIBUTION OF PETITIONER'S
MERCHANDISE.  PETITIONER NOT ONLY OPERATES THE RETAIL OUTLETS BUT
PURCHASES THE MERCHANDISE IN QUANTITY FROM PRODUCERS, STORES IT IN A
WAREHOUSE AND SYSTEM-ATICALLY ALLOTS IT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STORES. 
CERTAIN ECONOMIES IN OPERATION RESULT FROM THE DIRECT MASS BUYING AND
CENTRALIZED MERCHANDISING CONTROL WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE IMPOSSIBLE
TO ACHIEVE.  FN2  A WAREHOUSE AND A CENTRAL OFFICE SUCH AS PETITIONER
MAINTAINS ARE VITAL FACTORS IN THIS INTEGRATION OF THE RETAIL AND
WHOLESALE FUNCTIONS.  THEY ARE NECESSARY INSTRUMENTS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL
PERFORMANCE OF THE WHOLESALE ASPECTS OF A MULTI-FUNCTION BUSINESS OF
THIS TYPE. 

THERE ARE, TO BE SURE, CERTAIN DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE WHOLESALE
ACTIVITIES OF A CHAIN STORE SYSTEM AND THOSE OF AN INDEPENDENT
WHOLESALER.  THUS A CHAIN STORE ENTERPRISE DOES NOT CUSTOMARILY SELL
MERCHANDISE IN ITS WAREHOUSE TO RETAILERS OR OTHER WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS
AS DOES AN INDEPENDENT WHOLESALER.  FN3  THE GOODS STORED IN A CHAIN
STORE WAREHOUSE ARE MERELY DISTRIBUTED RATHER THAN SOLD TO THE RETAIL
STORES.  SEE LIGGETT CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. 517, 537, 538.  BUT THIS AND
OTHER DIFFERENCES THAT CAN BE FOUND ARISE FROM THE FACT THAT THE CHAIN
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE COMPLETELY MESHED THE RETAIL AND WHOLESALE
FUNCTIONS.  MANY OF THE COSTS AND RISKS NORMALLY ASSUMED BY THE
WHOLESALE MERCHANT BECAUSE OF HIS INDEPENDENT AND COMPETITIVE NATURE
ARE ELIMINATED BY THE CHAIN STORE ORGANIZATION.  THE RESULTING SAVINGS
AND SIMPLIFICATIONS SERVE ONLY TO EMPHASIZE SOME OF THE MAJOR EFFECTS
OF THE APPARENT TREND AWAY FROM THE INDEPENDENT MIDDLEMAN IN OUR
ECONOMY OF DISTRIBUTION N4.  THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE INDEPENDENT
MIDDLEMAN, TOGETHER WITH MANY OF HIS SEPARATE OPERATIONS AND CHARGES,
DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT HIS ESSENTIAL INTERMEDIARY OR WHOLESALE
FUNCTION OF MOVING GOODS FROM PRODUCER TO RETAILER HAS BEEN ABOLISHED. 
IN THIS INSTANCE IT HAS ONLY BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE RETAILER, ACTING
THROUGH ITS OWN DISTINCT WHOLESALE UNITS.  FN5 

IN A REALISTIC SENSE, THEREFORE, MOST CHAIN STORE ORGANIZATIONS ARE
MERCHANDISING INSTITUTIONS OF A HYBRID RETAIL-WHOLESALE NATURE.  THEY
POSSESS THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BOTH THE RETAILER AND THE
WHOLESALER.  THEIR WHOLESALE FUNCTIONS, WHICH ARE INTEGRATED WITH BUT
ARE PHYSICALLY DISTINCT FROM THEIR RETAIL FUNCTIONS, ARE PERFORMED
THROUGH THEIR WAREHOUSES AND CENTRAL OFFICES.  THAT FACT IS THE
ESSENTIAL KEY TO THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THIS CASE.  IT SERVES TO MAKE
CLEAR THE INAPPLICABILITY OF SEC. 13(A)(2) TO PETITIONER'S WAREHOUSE
AND CENTRAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES. 

ENGAGED IN A RETAIL OR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT OPERATING PRIMARILY IN
LOCAL COMMERCE.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT ITS RETAIL STORES, WAREHOUSE
AND CENTRAL OFFICE TOGETHER CONSTITUTE A "RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THIS EXEMPTION.  THE LACK OF MERIT IN THIS CLAIM IS
OBVIOUS.  EVEN IF, AS PETITIONER URGES, THE WORD "ESTABLISHMENT"
REFERRED TO AN ENTIRE BUSINESS OR ENTERPRISE, THE COMBINED RETAIL
WHOLESALE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE BUSINESS WOULD PREVENT IT
FROM PROPERLY BEING CLASSIFIED AS A LOCAL "RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT."  BUT
IF, AS WE BELIEVE, CONGRESS USED THE WORD "ESTABLISHMENT" AS IT IS
NORMALLY USED IN BUSINESS AND IN GOVERNMENT  FN6  - AS MEANING A
DISTINCT PHYSICAL PLACE OF BUSINESS - PETITIONER'S ENTERPRISE IS
COMPOSED OF 49 RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS AND A SINGLE WHOLESALE
ESTABLISHMENT.  SINCE THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION WORK IN THE WHOLESALE
ESTABLISHMENT, SEC. 13(A)(2) IS PLAINLY IRRELEVANT. 

MOREOVER, IT IS QUITE APPARENT FROM THE SPARSE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
SEC. 13(A)(2) THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO EXEMPT AS A "RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENT" THE WAREHOUSE AND CENTRAL OFFICE OF AN INTERSTATE CHAIN
STORE SYSTEM.  FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE ANCESTRY, SEC.
13(A)(2) IS THE OFFSPRING OF A MANIFEST DESIRE TO EXCLUDE FROM THE
SCOPE OF THE ACT "BUSINESS IN THE SEVERAL STATES THAT IS OF A PURELY
LOCAL NATURE."  SEN. REP. 884, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5.  CONGRESS
WAS INTERESTED IN EXEMPTING THOSE REGULARLY ENGAGED IN LOCAL RETAILING
ACTIVITIES AND THOSE EMPLOYED BY SMALL LOCAL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS,
EPITOMIZED BY THE CORNER GROCERY, THE DRUG STORE AND THE DEPARTMENT
STORE.  FN7  IT FELT THAT RETAIL CONCERNS OF THIS NATURE DO NOT
SUFFICIENTLY INFLUENCE THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO WARRANT
IMPOSING THE WAGE AND HOUR REQUIREMENTS ON THEM.  IBID. P. 5.  SECTION
13(A)(2) IS A PART OF THE ACT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FEAR THAT SEC.
13(A)(1), IN EXEMPTING EMPLOYEES REGULARLY ENGAGED IN A "LOCAL
RETAILING CAPACITY," DID NOT CLEARLY EXCLUDE THOSE EMPLOYED BY LOCAL
RETAILERS WHO ARE SITUATED NEAR STATE LINES AND WHO MAKE OCCASIONAL
INTERSTATE SALES.  WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564,
571. 

HERE PETITIONER'S WAREHOUSE AND CENTRAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES ARE
PERFORMING WHOLESALE DUTIES IN THE VERY MIDST OF THE STREAM OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THEY CONSTANTLY DEAL WITH BOTH INCOMING AND
OUTGOING INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS.  SUCH TASKS ARE COMPLETELY UNLIKE THOSE
PURSUED BY EMPLOYEES OF THE SMALL LOCAL RETAILERS, WHO WERE THE SOLE
CONCERN OF CONGRESS IN SEC. 13(A)(2).  THESE DUTIES, RATHER, ARE
ECONOMICALLY, FUNCTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY LIKE THOSE OF THE INDEPENDENT
WHOLESALER'S EMPLOYEES WHO, WHEN ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ARE
ADMITTEDLY ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT.  WE FAIL TO PERCEIVE IN
SEC. 13(A)(2) OR IN ITS CONGRESSIONAL BACKGROUND ANY INTENT TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CHAIN STORE EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN WHOLESALE
ACTIVITIES OR TO GIVE TO CHAIN STORE WAREHOUSES A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
IN LABOR COSTS OVER INDEPENDENT WHOLESALERS. 

WE ARE THUS UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE WAREHOUSE AND CENTRAL OFFICE
EMPLOYEES OF PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE CHAIN STORE SYSTEM PLAINLY AND
UNMISTAKABLY FALL WITHIN EITHER THE TERMS OR THE SPIRIT OF THE
EXEMPTION SPECIFIED IN SEC. 13(A)(2).  ECONOMIC FACTS, LEGAL PRINCIPLES
AND CONSISTENT AND THOROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION  FN8  OF THE
EXEMPTION ALL COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 13(A)(2) IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BELOW.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE DECISION BELOW IN THIS CASE IS IN ACCORD WITH THE REASONING
OF WALLING V. AMERICAN STORES CO., 133 F.2D 840(C.C.A.3), BUT IS IN
CONFLICT WITH ALLESANDRO V. C.F. SMITH CO., 136 F.2D 75(C.C.A.6),
WALLING V. L. WIEMANN CO., 138 F.2D 602(C.C.A.7), AND WALLING V. BLOCK,
139 F.2D 268(C.C.A.9). 

FN2  SEE BECKMAN AND NOLEN, THE CHAIN STORE PROBLEM (1938), PP. 48
50. 

FN3  ALTHOUGH PETITIONER'S WAREHOUSE APPARENTLY DOES NO WHOLESALE
BUSINESS WITH INDEPENDENT RETAILERS, MANY CHAIN STORE WAREHOUSES SELL
CERTAIN QUANTITIES OF MERCHANDISE TO OUTSIDE RETAILERS IN ADDITION TO
SUPPLYING THEIR OWN RETAIL OUTLETS.  BECKMAN AND NOLEN, THE CHAIN STORE
PROBLEM (1938), P. 8. 

FN4  DOES DISTRIBUTION COST TOO MUCH?, TWENTIETH CENTURY FUND (1939),
PP. 81-85, 100-110, 178-181, 345-346; BECKMAN AND NOLEN, THE CHAIN
STORE PROBLEM (1938), PP. 7-9, 42-61; 15 ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE SOCIAL
SCIENCES (1935), PP. 411-416. 

FN5  "WHILE IT IS FREQUENTLY SAID THAT THE FUNCTION OF WHOLESALING IS
VITAL EVEN THOUGH THE WHOLESALER MAY NOT BE IN EVERY LINE, SOME
AMPLIFICATION OF THIS REMARK SEEMS ADVISABLE.  SOME AGENCY MUST PROVIDE
THE MACHINERY TO MOVE ALL MERCHANDISE FROM THE PRODUCER TO THE
RETAILER.  REGARDLESS OF WHAT THIS FUNCTION IS CALLED, IT IS
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS WHOLESALING  ....  CHAIN STORES, ONCE THEY
ASSUME ENOUGH IMPORTANCE TO JUSTIFY A WAREHOUSE, ARE ENGAGED IN
WHOLESALING AS WELL AS RETAILING.  WHATEVER GOODS ARE HANDLED AT RETAIL
OUTLETS MUST BE BOUGHT IN QUANTITY, HANDLED IN THE WAREHOUSE AND
ALLOTTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL STORES IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT WHOLESALERS
WOULD SERVE THE INDEPENDENT DEALERS."  CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE
UNITED STATES, NATIONAL WHOLESALE CONFERENCE, REPORT OF COMMITTEE I,
WHOLESALERS' FUNCTIONS AND SERVICES (1929), PP. 13-14.    FN6  PRIOR TO
THE ADOPTION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT THE TERM "ESTABLISHMENT"
WAS USED IN THE SENSE OF PHYSICAL PLACE OF BUSINESS BY MANY CENSUS
REPORTS, BUSINESS ANALYSES, ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, AND STATE
TAXING AND REGULATORY STATUTES.  AS APPLIED TO CHAIN STORE SYSTEMS,
"ESTABLISHMENT" THUS DESCRIBED EACH UNIT IN THE CHAIN.  FOR EXAMPLE,
UNDER THE N.R.A. CODES OF FAIR COMPETITION, PREPARED BY COMMITTEES FROM
THE INDUSTRIES CONCERNED, RETAIL STORES OF A GROCERY CHAIN WERE SUBJECT
TO THE RETAIL FOOD AND GROCERY TRADE CODE, WHILE THE CHAIN STORE
WAREHOUSES AND CENTRAL OFFICES WERE TREATED AS SEPARATE
"ESTABLISHMENTS" SUBJECT TO THE WHOLESALE FOOD AND GROCERY TRADE CODE. 
SEE N.R.A. CODES OF FAIR COMPETITION, VOL. IV, PP. 460-1, 470, AND VOL.
V, PP. 5-6, 13-14. 

FN7  THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 13(A)(2), INTRODUCED AS AN
AMENDMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE CELLER, APPLIED TO ANY RETAIL "INDUSTRY." 
REPRESENTATIVE CELLER STATED THAT IF THE AMENDMENT WERE ACCEPTED
"RETAIL DRY GOODS, RETAIL BUTCHERING, GROCERS, RETAIL CLOTHING STORES,
DEPARTMENT STORES WILL ALL BE EXEMPT."  SEVERAL OTHER CONGRESSMEN
EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE TO ASSURE THE EXEMPTION OF "THE CORNER GROCERY
STORE MAN OR THE FILLING STATION MAN" AND "THE LOCAL GROCERYMAN,
DRUGGIST, CLOTHING STORE, MEAT DEALER - ANY MERCHANT IN FACT."  83
CONG. REC. 7299, 7436-7438.  THE EXEMPTION AS IT FINALLY EMERGED FROM
THE JOINT HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE APPLIED TO ANY RETAIL
"ESTABLISHMENT" RATHER THAN "INDUSTRY."  THE USE OF THE WORD
"ESTABLISHMENT" IS MORE APPROPRIATE TO THE SMALL LOCAL RETAILERS WHICH
CONGRESS HAD IN MIND AND CLEARLY INDICATES THAT CONGRESS MEANT BY IT
SOMETHING LESS OR DIFFERENT THAN "INDUSTRY" OR "ENTERPRISE." 

FN8  SEE INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 6, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, ORIGINALLY ISSUED IN DECEMBER, 1938, AND
REVISED IN JUNE, 1941.  SEE ALSO FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR (1940), P. 21, INFORMING CONGRESS THAT "EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATED STORE OF A CHAIN OF STORES WILL BE CONSIDERED A SEPARATE
'RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT.'  THE WAREHOUSES AND CENTRAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES
OF THE CHAIN ARE NOT 'RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS.'" 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 
..END :














U.S. V. WILLOW RIVER CO., 324 U.S. 499 


NO. 312.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 9, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945.  - 101
CT. CLS. 222, REVERSED. 


1.  AN OWNER OF A DAM AND HYDROELECTRIC PLANT NEAR THE CONFLUENCE OF
NAVIGABLE AND NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS, AND EMBRACING LANDS RIPARIAN TO
THE NAVIGABLE STREAM, IS NOT ENTITLED UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO
COMPENSATION FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR A REDUCTION IN THE GENERATING
CAPACITY OF THE PLANT, WHICH RESULTED FROM AN AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION
IMPROVEMENT THAT RAISED THE LEVEL OF THE WATER OF THE NAVIGABLE STREAM
ABOVE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK.  UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 504, 506. 

2.  THE RESULTING DAMAGE TO THE RIPARIAN OWNER IN THIS CASE DID NOT
CONSTITUTE SUCH A TAKING OF PROPERTY AS IS REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO BE COMPENSATED.  P. 510. 

UNITED STATES V. WILLOW RIVER POWER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 694, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A
SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR AN ALLEGED
TAKING OF PROPERTY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE WILLOW RIVER POWER COMPANY HAS BEEN AWARDED $25,000 BY THE COURT
OF CLAIMS AS JUST COMPENSATION FOR IMPAIRED EFFICIENCY OF ITS
HYDROELECTRIC PLANT CAUSED BY THE ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN
RAISING THE WATER LEVEL OF THE ST. CROIX RIVER.  REALITY OF DAMAGE AND
REASONABLENESS OF THE AWARD ARE NOT IN ISSUE.  OUR QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE DAMAGE IS THE RESULT OF A "TAKING" OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, FOR WHICH
JUST COMPENSATION IS REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

WILLOW RIVER IN ITS NATURAL STATE WAS A NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM, WHICH
FLOWED TO WITHIN A FEW RODS OF THE ST. CROIX RIVER, TURNED AND ROUGHLY
PARALLELED IT FOR SOMETHING LESS THAN A MILE, AND THEN EMPTIED INTO THE
ST. CROIX.  MANY YEARS AGO AN EARTH DAM WAS THROWN ACROSS THE WILLOW
ABOUT A HALF-MILE ABOVE ITS NATURAL MOUTH.  A NEW MOUTH WAS CUT ACROSS
THE NARROW NECK WHICH SEPARATED THE TWO RIVERS AND A DAM WAS BUILT
ACROSS THE ARTIFICIAL CHANNEL CLOSE TO OR UPON THE BANKS OF THE ST.
CROIX.  HERE ALSO WAS BUILT A MILL, WHICH OPERATED UNDER THE HEAD
PRODUCED IN THE POOL BY THE TWO DAMS, WHICH OBSTRUCTED BOTH THE NATURAL
AND THE ARTIFICIAL CHANNEL OF THE WILLOW RIVER. 

THESE LANDS AND APPURTENANT RIGHTS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE WILLOW RIVER
POWER COMPANY, A PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN,
AND WERE DEVOTED TO HYDROELECTRIC GENERATION FOR SUPPLY OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.  THE PLANT WAS THE LOWEST OF FOUR ON WILLOW RIVER
OPERATED BY THE COMPANY AS AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM.  THE POWERHOUSE WAS
LOCATED ON LAND OWNED BY THE COMPANY ABOVE ORDINARY HIGH WATER OF THE
ST. CROIX.  MECHANICAL ENERGY FOR GENERATION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY WAS
DEVELOPED BY WATER IN FALLING FROM THE ARTIFICIAL LEVEL OF NON
NAVIGABLE WILLOW RIVER TO THE NATURAL LEVEL OF NAVIGABLE ST. CROIX
RIVER.  THE ELEVATION OF THE HEAD WATER WHEN AT THE CREST OF THE GATES
WAS 689 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL.  THE OPERATING HEAD VARIED BECAUSE
ELEVATION OF THE TAIL WATER WAS GOVERNED BY THE FLUCTUATING LEVEL OF
THE ST. CROIX.  WHEN THAT RIVER WAS LOW, THE MAXIMUM HEAD WAS
DEVELOPED, AND WAS 22.5 FEET; WHEN THE RIVER WAS AT FLOOD STAGE, THE
OPERATING HEAD DIMINISHED TO AS LITTLE AS EIGHT FEET.  THE ORDINARY
HIGH-WATER MARK IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN 672 FEET, AND THE HEAD AVAILABLE
ABOVE THAT WAS SEVENTEEN FEET. 

THE GOVERNMENT, IN PURSUANCE OF A CONGRESSIONAL PLAN TO IMPROVE
NAVIGATION, IN AUGUST OF 1938 HAD COMPLETED WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE RED
WING DAM IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI, INTO WHICH THE ST. CROIX FLOWS. 
THIS DAM WAS SOME THIRTY MILES DOWNSTREAM, BUT IT CREATED A POOL WHICH
EXTENDED UPSTREAM ON THE ST. CROIX BEYOND RESPONDENT'S PLANT AT AN
ORDINARY ELEVATION OF 675 FEET.  THUS THE WATER LEVEL MAINTAINED BY THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE ST. CROIX WAS APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET ABOVE ITS
ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LEVEL AT CLAIMANT'S PROPERTY.  BY THUS RAISING THE
LEVEL AT WHICH TAIL WATERS MUST FLOW OFF FROM CLAIMANT'S PLANT, THE
GOVERNMENT REDUCED THE OPERATING HEAD BY THREE FEET, USING ORDINARY
HIGH WATER AS THE STANDARD, AND DIMINISHED THE PLANT'S CAPACITY TO
PRODUCE ELECTRIC ENERGY.  THE COMPANY WAS OBLIGED TO SUPPLEMENT ITS
PRODUCTION BY PURCHASE FROM OTHER SOURCES. 

LOSS OF POWER WAS MADE THE ONLY BASIS OF THE AWARD.  THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FOUND AS A FACT THAT "THE VALUE OF THE LOSS IN POWER AS A RESULT
OF THE RAISING OF THE LEVEL OF THE ST. CROIX RIVER BY THREE FEET ABOVE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER WAS $25,000 AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF TAKING," AND
IT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THAT AMOUNT.  THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY
FAST LANDS WERE FLOODED OR THAT OTHER INJURY WAS DONE TO PROPERTY OR
THAT CLAIMANT OTHERWISE WAS DEPRIVED OF ANY USE OF ITS PROPERTY.  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE WATER LEVEL WAS ABOVE HIGH-WATER MARK ON THE ST. CROIX
RIVER BANKS AND ON CLAIMANT'S STRUCTURES, BUT DAMAGE TO LAND AS LAND OR
TO STRUCTURES AS SUCH IS NOT SHOWN TO BE MORE THAN NOMINAL AND ACCOUNTS
FOR NO PART OF THE AWARD.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT "HAD A
RIGHT TO RAISE THE LEVEL OF THE RIVER TO ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK WITH
IMPUNITY, BUT IT IS LIABLE FOR THE TAKING OR DEPRIVATION OF SUCH
PROPERTY RIGHTS AS MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM RAISING THE LEVEL BEYOND THAT
POINT."  TURNING, THEN, TO ASCERTAIN WHAT PROPERTY RIGHT HAD BEEN
"TAKEN," THE COURT REFERRED TO UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316,
329, 330, WHICH IT SAID WAS IDENTICAL IN FACTS, AND HELD IT HAD NO
OPTION BUT TO FOLLOW IT AND THAT "IT RESULTS THAT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED
TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF THE DECREASE IN THE HEAD OF ITS DAM."  FN1 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, WHICH REQUIRES JUST COMPENSATION WHERE PRIVATE
PROPERTY IS TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, UNDERTAKES TO REDISTRIBUTE CERTAIN
ECONOMIC LOSSES INFLICTED BY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT THEY WILL FALL
UPON THE PUBLIC RATHER THAN WHOLLY UPON THOSE WHO HAPPEN TO LIE IN THE
PATH OF THE PROJECT.  IT DOES NOT UNDERTAKE, HOWEVER, TO SOCIALIZE ALL
LOSSES, BUT THOSE ONLY WHICH RESULT FROM A TAKING OF PROPERTY.  IF
DAMAGES FROM ANY OTHER CAUSE ARE TO BE ABSORBED BY THE PUBLIC, THEY
MUST BE ASSUMED BY ACT OF CONGRESS AND MAY NOT BE AWARDED BY THE COURTS
MERELY BY IMPLICATION FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  THE COURT
BELOW THOUGHT THAT DECREASE OF HEAD UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS A
"TAKING" OF SUCH A "PROPERTY RIGHT," AND THAT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE
CLAIMANT HERE. 

IT IS CLEAR, OF COURSE, THAT A HEAD OF WATER HAS VALUE AND THAT THE
COMPANY HAS AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN KEEPING THE ST. CROIX AT THE LOWER
LEVEL.  BUT NOT ALL ECONOMIC INTERESTS ARE "PROPERTY RIGHTS"; ONLY
THOSE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES ARE "RIGHTS" WHICH HAVE THE LAW BACK OF THEM,
AND ONLY WHEN THEY ARE SO RECOGNIZED MAY COURTS COMPEL OTHERS TO
FORBEAR FROM INTERFERING WITH THEM OR TO COMPENSATE FOR THEIR
INVASION.  THE LAW LONG HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP IN
LAND MAY CARRY WITH IT A LEGAL RIGHT TO ENJOY SOME BENEFITS FROM
ADJACENT WATERS.  BUT THAT A CLOSED CATALOGUE OF ABSTRACT AND ABSOLUTE
"PROPERTY RIGHTS" IN WATER HOVERS OVER A GIVEN PIECE OF SHORE LAND,
GOOD AGAINST ALL THE WORLD, IS NOT IN THIS DAY A PERMISSIBLE
ASSUMPTION.  WE CANNOT START THE PROCESS OF DECISION BY CALLING SUCH A
CLAIM AS WE HAVE HERE A "PROPERTY RIGHT"; WHETHER IT IS A PROPERTY
RIGHT IS REALLY THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED.  SUCH ECONOMIC USES ARE
RIGHTS ONLY WHEN THEY ARE LEGALLY PROTECTED INTERESTS.  WHETHER THEY
ARE SUCH INTERESTS MAY DEPEND ON THE CLAIMANT'S RIGHTS IN THE LAND TO
WHICH HE CLAIMS THE WATER RIGHTS TO BE APPURTENANT OR INCIDENTAL; ON
THE NAVIGABLE OR NON-NAVIGABLE NATURE OF THE WATERS FROM WHICH HE
ADVANTAGES; ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ENJOYMENT THEREOF FOR WHICH HE
CLAIMS LEGAL PROTECTION; ON THE LEGAL RELATIONS OF THE ADVERSARY
CLAIMED TO BE UNDER A DUTY TO OBSERVE OR COMPENSATE HIS INTERESTS; AND
ON WHETHER THE CONFLICT IS WITH ANOTHER PRIVATE RIPARIAN INTEREST OR
WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST IN NAVIGATION.  THE CLAIMANT'S ASSERTION THAT
ITS INTEREST IN A POWER HEAD AMOUNTS TO A "PROPERTY RIGHT" IS MADE
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT IN ANY CASE BEFORE CONSIDERED BY THIS
COURT. 

CLAIMANT IS THE OWNER OF LANDS RIPARIAN TO THE ST. CROIX RIVER, AND
UNDER THE LAW OF WISCONSIN, IN WHICH THE LANDS LIE, THE SHORE OWNER
ALSO HAS TITLE TO THE BED OF THE STREAM.  KAUKAUNA CO. V. GREEN BAY
CANAL CO., 142 U.S. 254, 271; JONES V. PETTIBONE, 2 WIS. 308; WILLOW
RIVER CLUB V. WADE, 100 WIS. 86, 76 N.W. 273.  THE CASE SEEMS TO HAVE
BEEN TRIED ON THE THEORY THAT THE COMPANY MAY ALSO CLAIM BECAUSE OF
INTERFERENCE WITH ITS RIGHTS AS A RIPARIAN OWNER ON THE WILLOW.  BUT
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT INTERFERED WITH ANY NATURAL FLOW OF THE WILLOW
PAST CLAIMANT'S LANDS.  WHERE IT WAS RIPARIAN OWNER ALONG WILLOW'S
NATURAL CHANNEL CLAIMANT ALREADY HAD CREATED AN ARTIFICIAL LEVEL MUCH
ABOVE THE GOVERNMENT LEVEL.  IF CLAIMANT'S LAND ALONG THE WILLOW WAS AT
ALL AFFECTED IT WAS AT THE POINT WHERE THE LAND WAS RIPARIAN TO THE
ARTIFICIAL CHANNEL, JUST BACK OF THE SHORE LINE OF THE ST. CROIX, WHERE
THE LAND HAD BEEN CUT AWAY TO INSTALL THE DAM AND POWER PLANT AND TO
UTILIZE THE ADVANTAGES OF BEING RIPARIAN TO THE ST. CROIX.  WE THINK
THE CLAIMANT'S MAXIMUM AND ONLY INTEREST IN THE LEVEL OF THE ST. CROIX
ARISES FROM ITS RIPARIAN POSITION THEREON AND IS NOT HELPED BY THE FACT
THAT ITS UTILIZATION OF RIPARIAN LANDS ON THE ST. CROIX INVOLVES
CONDUCTING OVER THEM AT ARTIFICIAL LEVELS WATERS FROM THE WILLOW. 

THE PROPERTY RIGHT ASSERTED TO BE APPURTENANT TO CLAIMANT'S LAND IS
THAT DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316, 330, AS "THE
RIGHT TO HAVE THE WATER FLOW AWAY FROM THE MILL DAM UNOBSTRUCTED,
EXCEPT AS IN THE COURSE OF NATURE" AND HELD IN THAT CASE TO BE AN
"INSEPARABLE PART" OF THE LAND.  THE ARGUMENT HERE IS PUT THAT THE
WATERS OF THE ST. CROIX WERE BACKED UP INTO CLAIMANT'S TAILRACE,
CAUSING DAMAGE.  BUT IF A DYKE KEPT THE WATERS OF THE ST. CROIX OUT OF
THE TAILRACE ENTIRELY IT WOULD NOT HELP.  THE WATER FALLING FROM THE
WILLOW MUST GO SOMEWHERE, AND THE HEAD MAY BE PRESERVED ONLY BY HAVING
THE ST. CROIX CHANNEL SERVE AS A RUN-OFF FOR THE TAIL WATERS.  THE RUN
OFF OF CLAIMANT'S WATER MAY BE SAID TO BE OBSTRUCTED BY THE PRESENCE OF
AN INCREASED LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT-IMPOUNDED WATER AT THE END OF
CLAIMANT'S DISCHARGE PIPES.  THE RESULTING DAMAGE MAY BE PASSED ON TO
THE GOVERNMENT ONLY IF THE RIPARIAN OWNER'S INTEREST IN "HAVING THE
WATER FLOW AWAY" UNOBSTRUCTED ABOVE THE HIGH-WATER LINE IS A LEGALLY
PROTECTED ONE. 

THE BASIC DOCTRINE OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS IN FLOWING STREAMS PREVAILS
WITH MINOR VARIATIONS IN THIRTY-ONE STATES OF THE UNION.  FN2  IT
CHIEFLY WAS EVOLVED TO SETTLE CONFLICTS BETWEEN PARTIES, BOTH OF WHOM
WERE RIPARIAN OWNERS.  EQUALITY OF RIGHT BETWEEN SUCH CLAIMANTS WAS THE
ESSENCE OF THE RESULTING WATER LAW.  "THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THIS
SYSTEM IS THAT EACH RIPARIAN PROPRIETOR HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO MAKE A
REASONABLE USE OF THE WATERS OF THE STREAM, SUBJECT TO THE EQUAL RIGHT
OF THE OTHER RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS LIKEWISE TO MAKE A REASONABLE USE." 
FN3  WITH THIS BASIC PRINCIPLE AS A BENCH MARK, PARTICULAR RIGHTS TO
USE FLOWING WATER ON RIPARIAN LANDS FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES AND FOR POWER
WERE DEFINED, EACH RIGHT IN EVERY RIPARIAN OWNER SUBJECT TO THE SAME
RIGHT IN OTHERS ABOVE AND TO A CORRESPONDING DUTY TO THOSE BELOW. 

THE DOCTRINE OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS ATTAINED ITS MAXIMUM AUTHORITY ON NON
NAVIGABLE STREAMS.  NO OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST CHILLED THE CONTEST
BETWEEN OWNERS TO GET THE UTMOST IN BENEFITS FROM FLOWING STREAMS. 
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS USUALLY FAVORED PRACTICAL UTILIZATION OF
THEORETICAL RIGHTS.  IN GENERAL NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS WERE SMALL,
SHIFTED THEIR COURSES EASILY AND WERE NOT STABLE ENOUGH TO SERVE AS
PROPERTY LINES AS LARGER STREAMS OFTEN DO.  THEY WERE SHALLOW, COULD BE
FORDED AND WERE NO GREAT OBSTACLE TO TILLAGE OR PASTURAGE ON TWO SIDES
OF THE STREAM AS A SINGLE OPERATION.  SUCH STREAMS, LIKE THE LANDS,
WERE FENCED IN, AND WHILE THE WATERS MIGHT SHOW RESENTMENT BY CARRYING
AWAY A FEW SPANS OF FENCE IN THE SPRING, THE RIPARIAN OWNER'S RIGHTS IN
SUCH STREAMS WERE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CUSTOM OF THE COUNTRYSIDE AS WELL
AS RECOGNIZED BY THE LAW.  IN SUCH SURROUNDINGS AND AS BETWEEN SUCH
OWNERS EQUALITY OF BENEFITS FROM FLOWING WATERS WAS SOUGHT IN THE RULE
THAT EACH WAS ENTITLED TO THEIR NATURAL FLOW, SUBJECT ONLY TO A
REASONABLE RIPARIAN USE WHICH MUST NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH THEIR
QUANTITY OR IMPAIR THEIR QUALITY.  IT WAS IN SUCH A STREAM THAT THIS
COURT FOUND CRESS AS A LANDOWNER UNDER THE LAW OF KENTUCKY POSSESSED
"THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE WATER FLOW AWAY FROM THE MILL DAM UNOBSTRUCTED,
EXCEPT AS IN THE COURSE OF NATURE."  243 U.S. 316, 330. 

CRESS OWNED RIPARIAN LANDS AND THE BED AS WELL OF A NON-NAVIGABLE
CREEK IN KENTUCKY.  HE BUILT A DAM WHICH POOLED THE WATER AND DIVERTED
IT TO HIS HEADRACE; AFTER IT TURNED THE WHEEL OF HIS MILL, IT WAS
RETURNED TO THE STREAM BY HIS TAILRACE.  THE GOVERNMENT BUILT A DAM IN
THE NAVIGABLE KENTUCKY RIVER WHICH BACKED UP THE WATER IN THIS NON
NAVIGABLE TRIBUTARY TO A POINT ONE FOOT BELOW THE CREST OF THE MILL
DAM, LEAVING AN UNWORKABLE HEAD.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT CRESS WAS
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AS FOR A TAKING.  IT FOUND THAT CRESS HAD THE
RIGHT AS A RIPARIAN OWNER TO THE NATURAL FLOW-OFF OF THE WATER IN THIS
NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM.  THE CRESS CASE IS SIGNIFICANT IN THAT IT
MEASURED THE RIGHTS OF A RIPARIAN OWNER AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN
IMPROVING NAVIGATION BY THE STANDARD WHICH HAD BEEN EVOLVED TO MEASURE
THE RIGHTS OF RIPARIAN OWNERS AGAINST EACH OTHER.  THE RIGHTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT AT THAT LOCATION WERE HELD TO BE NO GREATER THAN THOSE OF A
RIPARIAN OWNER, AND THEREFORE, OF COURSE, NOT PARAMOUNT TO THE RIGHTS
OF CRESS. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CRESS CASE DOES NOT GOVERN THIS ONE AND
THAT THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR APPLYING IT, AS THE CLAIMANT ASKS, OR FOR
OVERRULING IT, AS THE GOVERNMENT INTIMATES WOULD BE DESIRABLE.  THE
GOVERNMENT THERE WAS CHARGED WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHANGING THE
LEVEL OF A NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM; HERE IT IS SOUGHT TO BE CHARGED WITH
THE SAME CONSEQUENCES FROM CHANGING THE LEVEL IN A NAVIGABLE ONE.  IN
THE FORMER CASE THE NAVIGATION INTEREST WAS HELD NOT TO BE A DOMINANT
ONE AT THE PROPERTY DAMAGED; HERE DOMINANCE OF THE NAVIGATION INTEREST
AT THE ST. CROIX IS CLEAR.  AND THE CLAIMANT IN THIS CASE CANNOT STAND
IN THE CRESS SHOES UNLESS IT CAN ESTABLISH THE SAME RIGHT TO HAVE THE
NAVIGABLE ST. CROIX FLOW TAIL WATERS AWAY AT NATURAL LEVELS THAT CRESS
HAD TO HAVE THE NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM RUN OFF HIS TAIL WATERS AT NATURAL
LEVELS.  THIS COULD ONLY BE DONE BY AN EXTENSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE
CRESS CASE.  AS WE HAVE ALREADY SAID, IT "MUST BE CONFINED TO THE FACTS
THERE DISCLOSED."  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 312
U.S. 592, 597. 

ON NAVIGABLE STREAMS A DIFFERENT RIGHT INTERVENES.  WHILE RIPARIAN
OWNERS ON NAVIGABLE STREAMS USUALLY WERE HELD TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS
TO BE FREE FROM INTERFERENCES OF OTHER RIPARIAN OWNERS AS ON NON
NAVIGABLE STREAMS, IT WAS RECOGNIZED FROM THE BEGINNING THAT ALL
RIPARIAN INTERESTS WERE SUBJECT TO A DOMINANT PUBLIC INTEREST IN
NAVIGATION.  THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE LATTER UPON THE FORMER HAVE BEEN
THE SUBJECT OF FREQUENT LITIGATION. 

WITHOUT DETAILING THE LONG STRUGGLE BETWEEN SUCH CONFLICTING
INTERESTS ON NAVIGABLE STREAMS, IT MAY POINT OUT THAT BY 1909 THE LINES
HAD BECOME SHARPLY DRAWN AND WERE THEN SUMMARIZED BY A LEADING AUTHOR:
FN4  "THE OLDER AUTHORITIES HOLD THAT SUCH AN OWNER HAS NO PRIVATE
RIGHTS IN THE STREAM OR BODY OF WATER WHICH ARE APPURTENANT TO HIS
LAND, AND, IN SHORT, NO RIGHTS BEYOND THAT OF ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE
PUBLIC, AND THAT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT HE IS MORE CONVENIENTLY
SITUATED TO ENJOY THE PRIVILEGES WHICH ALL THE PUBLIC HAVE IN COMMON,
AND THAT HE HAS ACCESS TO THE WATERS OVER HIS OWN LAND, WHICH THE
PUBLIC DO NOT."  "ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE STREAM BY THE RIPARIAN OWNER
IS REGARDED AS MERELY PERMISSIVE ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC AND LIABLE
TO BE CUT OFF ABSOLUTELY IF THE PUBLIC SEES FIT TO DO SO."  AND HE
QUOTED ANOTHER WRITER OF STANDING N5:  "THE OWNER OF THE BANK HAS NO
JUS PRIVATUM, OR SPECIAL USUFRUCTUARY INTEREST, IN THE WATER.  HE DOES
NOT, FROM THE MERE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HE IS THE OWNER OF THE BANK,
ACQUIRE ANY SPECIAL OR PARTICULAR INTEREST IN THE STREAM, OVER ANY
OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, EXCEPT THAT, BY HIS PROXIMITY THERETO, HE
ENJOYS GREATER CONVENIENCES THAN THE PUBLIC GENERALLY.  TO HIM,
RIPARIAN OWNERSHIP BRINGS NO GREATER RIGHTS THAN THOSE INCIDENT TO ALL
THE PUBLIC, EXCEPT THAT HE CAN APPROACH THE WATER MORE READILY, AND
OVER LANDS WHICH THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAVE NO RIGHT TO USE FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  BUT THIS IS A MERE CONVENIENCE, ARISING FROM HIS OWNERSHIP OF
THE LANDS ADJACENT TO THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK, AND DOES NOT
PREVENT THE STATE FROM DEPRIVING HIM ENTIRELY OF THIS CONVENIENCE, BY
ITSELF MAKING ERECTIONS UPON THE SHORE, OR AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE
SHORE BY OTHERS, IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THIS CONVENIENCE
ALTOGETHER, AND THE INJURY RESULTING TO HIM THEREFROM, ALTHOUGH GREATER
THAN THAT SUSTAINED BY THE REST OF THE PUBLIC, IS 'DAMNUM ABSQUE
INJURIA.'"  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AUTHOR POINTED OUT, THERE WERE CASES
HOLDING THAT THE RIPARIAN OWNERS ON NAVIGABLE STREAMS "HAVE VALUABLE
RIGHTS APPURTENANT TO THEIR ESTATES, OF WHICH THEY CANNOT BE DEPRIVED
WITHOUT COMPENSATION."  HE CONSIDERED THIS THE BETTER RULE, AND
SUGGESTED THAT THE COURTS INDICATED SOME TENDENCY TO ADOPT IT. 

HOWEVER, IN 1913 THIS COURT DECIDED UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR
CO., 229 U.S. 53.  IT INVOLVED THE CLAIM THAT WATER POWER INHERENT IN A
NAVIGABLE STREAM DUE TO ITS FALL IN PASSING RIPARIAN LANDS BELONGS TO
THE SHORE OWNER AS AN APPURTENANT TO HIS LANDS.  THE COURT SET ASIDE
QUESTIONS AS TO THE RIGHT OF RIPARIAN OWNERS ON NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS
AND ALL QUESTIONS AS TO THE RIGHTS OF RIPARIAN OWNERS ON EITHER
NAVIGABLE OR NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS AS BETWEEN EACH OTHER.  AND IT LAID
ASIDE AS IRRELEVANT WHETHER THE SHORE OWNER DID OR DID NOT HAVE A
TECHNICAL TITLE TO THE BED OF THE RIVER WHICH WOULD PASS WITH IT "AS A
SHADOW FOLLOWS A SUBSTANCE."  IT DECLARED THAT "IN NEITHER EVENT CAN
THERE BE SAID TO ARISE ANY OWNERSHIP OF THE RIVER.  OWNERSHIP OF A
PRIVATE STREAM WHOLLY UPON THE LANDS OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS CONCEIVABLE;
BUT THAT THE RUNNING WATER IN A GREAT NAVIGABLE STREAM IS CAPABLE OF
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IS INCONCEIVABLE."  229 U.S. AT 62, 69.  THIS COURT
THEN TOOK A VIEW QUITE IN LINE WITH THE TREND OF FORMER DECISIONS THERE
REVIEWED, THAT A STRATEGIC POSITION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF POWER DOES
NOT GIVE RISE TO RIGHT TO MAINTAIN IT AS AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY THE
UNITED STATES IN AID OF NAVIGATION.  WE HAVE ADHERED TO THAT POSITION. 
UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377, 424. 
THE CHANDLER-DUNBAR CASE HELD THAT THE SHORE OWNER HAD NO APPURTENANT
PROPERTY RIGHT IN TWO NATURAL LEVELS OF WATER IN FRONT OF ITS LANDS OR
TO THE USE OF THE NATURAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AS A HEAD FOR POWER
PRODUCTION.  IN THIS CASE THE CLAIMANT ASSERTS A SIMILAR RIGHT TO ONE
NATURAL LEVEL IN FRONT OF HIS LANDS AND A RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP IN THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE ARTIFICIAL LEVEL OF THE IMPOUNDED WATER
OF THE WILLOW RIVER.  IT CONSTITUTED A PRIVILEGE OR A CONVENIENCE,
ENJOYED FOR MANY YEARS, PERMISSIBLE SO LONG AS COMPATIBLE WITH
NAVIGATION INTERESTS, BUT IT IS NOT AN INTEREST PROTECTED BY LAW WHEN
IT BECOMES INCONSISTENT WITH PLANS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS FOR
IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE RIPARIAN OWNER HAS NO RIGHT AS AGAINST
IMPROVEMENTS OF NAVIGATION TO MAINTENANCE OF A LEVEL BELOW HIGH-WATER
MARK, BUT IT IS CLAIMED THAT THERE IS A RIPARIAN RIGHT TO USE THE
STREAM FOR RUN-OFF OF WATER AT THIS LEVEL.  HIGH-WATER MARK BOUNDS THE
BED OF THE RIVER.  LANDS ABOVE IT ARE FAST LANDS AND TO FLOOD THEM IS A
TAKING FOR WHICH COMPENSATION MUST BE PAID.  BUT THE AWARD HERE DOES
NOT PURPORT TO COMPENSATE A FLOODING OF FAST LANDS OR IMPAIRMENT OF
THEIR VALUE.  LANDS BELOW THAT LEVEL ARE SUBJECT ALWAYS TO A DOMINANT
SERVITUDE IN THE INTERESTS OF NAVIGATION AND ITS EXERCISE CALLS FOR NO
COMPENSATION.  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 312
U.S. 592; WILLINK V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 572.  THE DAMAGE HERE IS
THAT THE WATER CLAIMANT CONTINUES TO BRING ONTO ITS LANDS THROUGH AN
ARTIFICIAL CANAL FROM THE WILLOW RIVER HAS TO LEAVE ITS LANDS AT AN
ELEVATION OF 675 INSTEAD OF AN ELEVATION OF 672 FEET.  NO CASE IS CITED
AND WE FIND NONE WHICH HOLDS A RIPARIAN OWNER ON NAVIGABLE WATERS TO
HAVE SUCH A LEGAL RIGHT.  THE CRESS CASE WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS
RELIED UPON DOES NOT SO HOLD AND DOES NOT GOVERN HERE. 

RIGHTS, PROPERTY OR OTHERWISE, WHICH ARE ABSOLUTE AGAINST ALL THE
WORLD ARE CERTAINLY RARE, AND WATER RIGHTS ARE NOT AMONG THEM. 
WHATEVER RIGHTS MAY BE AS BETWEEN EQUALS SUCH AS RIPARIAN OWNERS, THEY
ARE NOT THE MEASURE OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS ON A NAVIGABLE STREAM RELATIVE
TO THE FUNCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN IMPROVING NAVIGATION.  WHERE THESE
INTERESTS CONFLICT THEY ARE NOT TO BE RECONCILED AS BETWEEN EQUALS, BUT
THE PRIVATE INTEREST MUST GIVE WAY TO A SUPERIOR RIGHT, OR PERHAPS IT
WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT AS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT SUCH
PRIVATE INTEREST IS NOT A RIGHT AT ALL. 

OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN AID OF NAVIGATION OFTTIMES INFLICT
SERIOUS DAMAGE OR INCONVENIENCE OR INTERFERE WITH ADVANTAGES FORMERLY
ENJOYED BY RIPARIAN OWNERS, BUT DAMAGE ALONE GIVES COURTS NO POWER TO
REQUIRE COMPENSATION WHERE THERE IS NOT AN ACTUAL TAKING OF PROPERTY. 
CF. GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 166 U.S. 269; SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179
U.S. 141; BEDFORD V. UNITED STATES, 192 U.S. 217; JACKSON V. UNITED
STATES, 230 U.S. 1; HUGHES V. UNITED STATES, 230 U.S. 24; CUBBINS V.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION, 241 U.S. 351.  SUCH LOSSES MAY BE
COMPENSATED BY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, NOT BY FORCE OF THE CONSTITUTION
ALONE. 

THE UNCOMPENSATED DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THIS RIPARIAN OWNER ON A
PUBLIC WATERWAY ARE NOT DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OFTEN SUFFERED WITHOUT
INDEMNIFICATION BY OWNERS ABUTTING ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS BY LAND.  IT HAS
BEEN HELD IN NEARLY EVERY STATE IN THE UNION THAT "THERE CAN BE NO
RECOVERY FOR DAMAGES TO ABUTTING PROPERTY RESULTING FROM A MERE CHANGE
OF GRADE IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF IT, THERE BEING NO PHYSICAL INJURY
TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF, AND THE CHANGE BEING AUTHORIZED BY LAW."  FN6
THIS APPEARS TO BE THE LAW OF WISCONSIN.  SMITH V. EAU CLAIRE, 78 WIS.
457, 47 N.W. 830; WALISH V. MILWAUKEE, 95 WIS. 16, 69 N.W. 818;
MCCULLOUGH V. CAMPBELLSPORT, 123 WIS. 334, 101 N.W. 709; CF. SMITH V.
WASHINGTON, 20 HOW.  135; TRANSPORTATION CO. V. CHICAGO, 99 U.S. 635. 
IT WOULD BE STRANGE IF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN IS FREE TO RAISE AN
ADJACENT LAND HIGHWAY WITHOUT COMPENSATION BUT THE UNITED STATES MAY
NOT EXERCISE AN ANALOGOUS POWER TO RAISE A HIGHWAY BY WATER WITHOUT
MAKING COMPENSATION WHERE NEITHER TAKES CLAIMANT'S LANDS, BUT EACH CUTS
OFF ACCESS TO AND USE OF A NATURAL LEVEL. 

WE HOLD THAT CLAIMANT'S INTEREST OR ADVANTAGE IN THE HIGH-WATER LEVEL
OF THE ST. CROIX RIVER AS A RUN-OFF FOR TAIL WATERS TO MAINTAIN ITS
POWER HEAD IS NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY LAW AND THAT THE AWARD BELOW
BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE LOSS IN VALUE THEREOF MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  101 CT. CLS. 222, CERTIORARI GRANTED, 323 U.S. 694. 

FN2  THE OTHER 17 HAVE SOME FORM OF THE APPROPRIATIVE SYSTEM.  IT IS
BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY OR SENIORITY, UNDER WHICH RIGHTS
ACCRUE TO USERS IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY FIRST PUT WATERS TO
BENEFICIAL USE.  THE PRINCIPLE IS NOT EQUAL RIGHT OF USE BUT PARAMOUNT
RIGHT IN THE EARLIER USER.  THE USE IS NOT LIMITED TO RIPARIAN TRACTS
BUT MAY BE DIVERTED TO SITES REMOTE FROM THE STREAM, THUS SPREADING THE
BENEFITS BEYOND RIPARIAN LANDS, A CONSIDERABLE ADVANTAGE TO SOME ARID
REGIONS.  THE BENEFICIAL USE IS MORE EXTENSIVE AND INCLUDES USE FOR
IRRIGATION, MINING, MANUFACTURING AS WELL AS DOMESTIC USES, AND THE
WATER MAY BE PERMANENTLY DIVERTED AND THE STREAM THEREBY DIMINISHED TO
AN EXTENT NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE RIPARIAN RIGHTS THEORY.  SEE
BANNISTER, INTERSTATE RIGHTS IN INTERSTATE STREAMS IN THE ARID WEST
(1923) 36 HARV. L. REV. 960. 

FN3  BANNISTER, SUPRA, AT 960.  CHOICE OF THE ARID SECTIONS OF THE
COUNTRY OF THE APPROPRIATIVE IN PREFERENCE TO THE RIPARIAN SYSTEM IS
CITED IN CARDOZO, GROWTH OF THE LAW, 118, 119-20, AS AN EXAMPLE OF
"CONSCIOUS DEPARTURE FROM A KNOWN RULE, AND THE DELIBERATE ADOPTION OF
A NEW ONE, IN OBEDIENCE TO THE PROMPTINGS OF A SOCIAL NEED SO OBVIOUS
AND SO INSISTENT AS TO OVERRUN THE ANCIENT CHANNEL AND CUT A NEW ONE
FOR ITSELF." 

FN4  1 LEWIS ON EMINENT DOMAIN (3D ED. 1909) 116, 119. 

FN5  WOOD ON NUISANCES (1ST ED.)  SEC.  592. 

FN6  1 LEWIS ON EMINENT DOMAIN (3D ED. 1909) 210. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THE RESULT ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNITED
STATES HAS NOT TAKEN PROPERTY OF THE RESPONDENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  THE
FINDINGS OF FACT BY THAT COURT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  THEY ARE
TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT. 

THE ST. CROIX RIVER IS NAVIGABLE.  THE WILLOW RIVER IS A NON
NAVIGABLE STREAM EMPTYING INTO THE ST. CROIX AT HUDSON, WISCONSIN.  THE
RESPONDENT HAS CONSTRUCTED SEVERAL DAMS IN THE WILLOW RIVER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF GENERATING POWER.  THE ONE FARTHEST DOWN STREAM IS "LOCATED
NEAR THE CONFLUENCE OF THE WILLOW RIVER AND THE ST. CROIX RIVER IN THE
CITY OF HUDSON, WISCONSIN, ON LAND OWNED BY (RESPONDENT) ABOVE ORDINARY
HIGH WATER OF THE ST. CROIX RIVER."  AT THE TIME OF THE ERECTION OF THE
RESPONDENT'S DAM, ORDINARY HIGH WATER IN THE ST. CROIX AT HUDSON WAS
672 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL.  THE RESPONDENT'S DAM RAISED THE WATER LEVEL
IN WILLOW RIVER TO A HEIGHT OF 694.5 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL, THUS
AFFORDING A POWER HEAD OF 22.5 FEET.  FN1 

BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ERECTION OF RED WING DAM THE WATER LEVEL IN THE
ST. CROIX AT HUDSON WAS RAISED TO 675.3 FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL.  THE
BACKING UP OF THE WATER REDUCED THE POWER HEAD OF RESPONDENT'S DAM BY
APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET, AND DIMINISHED ITS SUPPLY OF POWER
ACCORDINGLY. 

IN THE COURT BELOW, THE UNITED STATES DENIED THAT THE RED WING DAM
HAD RAISED THE LEVEL OF THE ST. CROIX AT HUDSON TO THE EXTENT CLAIMED
BY THE RESPONDENT, AND CONTENDED THAT WILLOW RIVER WAS A NAVIGABLE
STREAM AND THE RESPONDENT'S DAM WAS, THEREFORE, AN OBSTRUCTION IN THE
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR INTERFERENCE WITH OR INJURY
TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE.  THESE CONTENTIONS WERE
OVERRULED AND ARE NOW ABANDONED.  THERE WAS NO CLAIM BY THE GOVERNMENT
THAT ANY PORTION OF THE RESPONDENT'S CONSTRUCTION WAS BELOW ORDINARY
HIGH-WATER MARK IN THE ST. CROIX.  IN FACT THE GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER
ADMITTED AVERMENTS OF THE PETITION THAT THE DAM AND POWER PLANT WERE
LOCATED NEAR A POINT WHERE THE WILLOW RIVER DISCHARGES INTO THE ST.
CROIX RIVER, AND UPON THE RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
PETITION.  THE ANSWER FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE "DAM SO CONSTRUCTED BY
THE PLAINTIFF NEAR THE POINT WHERE THE WILLOW RIVER DISCHARGES INTO THE
ST. CROIX RIVER  ...  WAS CONSTRUCTED UPON A CONCRETE FOUNDATION
EXTENDING ACROSS OR OCCUPYING THE FULL WIDTH OF THE MOUTH OF A
NAVIGABLE STREAM" (MEANING THE WILLOW RIVER, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT THEN
CLAIMED WAS NAVIGABLE).  THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW STATES THAT
RESPONDENT'S TAILRACE EMPTIED INTO THE ST. CROIX RIVER BELOW ORDINARY
HIGH-WATER LEVEL, AND THIS SEEMS TO BE TRUE.  BUT THE FACT IS
IRRELEVANT. 

THE RESPONDENT OWNED THE LAND ON EITHER SIDE OF THE WILLOW RIVER AT
AND ABOVE THE POINT WHERE ITS DAM WAS CONSTRUCTED.  UNDER THE LAW OF
WISCONSIN THE RESPONDENT OWNED THE BED OF WILLOW RIVER, AND BOTH BY
COMMON AND STATUTE LAW OF WISCONSIN IT HAD THE RIGHT TO ERECT AND USE
THE DAM.  FN2 THAT RIGHT WAS PROPERTY; AND SUCH A RIGHT RECOGNIZED AS
PRIVATE PROPERTY BY THE LAW OF A STATE IS ONE WHICH UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO RECOGNIZE.  MONONGAHELA
NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 312; FOX RIVER PAPER CO. V.
RAILROAD COMMISSION, 274 U.S. 651, 654, 655.  COMPARE FORD & SON V.
LITTLE FALLS FIBRE CO., 280 U.S. 369, 375, 377.    UNLESS UNITED STATES
V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316, IS TO BE DISREGARDED OR OVERRULED, THE
RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN BY THE
REDUCTION OF THE EFFICIENCY OF ITS DAM DUE TO THE RAISING OF THE HIGH
WATER MARK.  IF THE RESPONDENT'S POWER DAM HAD BEEN IN WILLOW RIVER AT
A DISTANCE OF ONE HUNDRED YARDS OR MORE ABOVE THE CONFLUENCE OF THE TWO
STREAMS, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT THE DECISION IN THE CRESS CASE
WOULD REQUIRE PAYMENT FOR THE INJURY DONE TO ITS WATER POWER.  SINCE
UNDER LOCAL LAW THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND THE DAM WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE
THE WATER OF THE NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM FLOW BELOW HIS DAM AT THE NATURAL
LEVEL OF THE WILLOW RIVER, WHICH IS AFFECTED BY THE NATURAL LEVEL OF
THE ST. CROIX, THE RAISING OF THAT LEVEL BY NAVIGATION WORKS IN THE ST.
CROIX INVADED THE RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS.  THIS IS THE BASIS OF DECISION
IN THE CRESS CASE.  THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT'S DAM IS CLOSE TO THE
HIGH-WATER MARK OF THE ST. CROIX RIVER CAN NOT CALL FOR A DIFFERENT
RESULT. 

THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE CRESS CASE IS INAPPLICABLE BY IGNORING
THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE INCREASE IN LEVEL OF THE ST.
CROIX ABOVE HIGH-WATER MARK HAS DIMINISHED THE HEAD OF RESPONDENT'S DAM
BY THREE FEET.  BUT TO REACH ITS CONCLUSION THE COURT MUST ALSO
DISREGARD THE NATURAL LAW OF HYDRAULICS THAT WATER SEEKS ITS OWN
LEVEL.  AT THE CONFLUENCE OF THE TWO RIVERS AT NORMAL HIGH WATER OF THE
ST. CROIX, BOTH THE ST. CROIX AND THE WILLOW ARE AT THE SAME LEVEL. 
ANY INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF THE ST. CROIX ABOVE HIGH-WATER MARK MUST
RESULT IN RAISING THE NATURAL LEVEL OF THE WILLOW TO SOME EXTENT.  THE
COURT BELOW HAS FOUND THAT THE INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF THE ST. CROIX
OPERATES TO DIMINISH THE HEAD AT RESPONDENT'S DAM BY THE SPECIFIED
AMOUNT.  THE FACTS THUS ESTABLISHED ARE IN ALL RELEVANT RESPECTS
PRECISELY THOSE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE RECOVERY
OF DAMAGES IN THE CRESS CASE. 

IF THE FACT IS THAT RESPONDENT DISCHARGES THE WATER FROM ITS POWER
PLANT THROUGH A TAILRACE EXTENDING BELOW HIGH-WATER MARK OF THE ST.
CROIX, THAT FACT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM PRESENTED.  RESPONDENT
CLAIMS, AND THE COURT BELOW HAS SUSTAINED, ONLY THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE
FLOW OF THE WILLOW MAINTAINED AT ITS NATURAL LEVEL.  THAT LEVEL HAS
BEEN INCREASED BY RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE ST. CROIX ABOVE ITS HIGH
WATER MARK.  THE INCREASE IN THE LEVEL OF THE ST. CROIX ABOVE HIGH
WATER MARK HAS OPERATED TO RAISE THE LEVEL BELOW THE RESPONDENT'S DAM
TO AN EXTENT WHICH HAS DAMAGED RESPONDENT BY DIMINISHING THE POWER
HEAD.  TO THAT EXTENT RESPONDENT HAS SUFFERED DAMAGE AND IS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER ON PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE CRESS CASE. 

UNITED STATES V. CRESS HAS STOOD FOR TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS AS A
DECLARATION OF THE LAW APPLICABLE IN CIRCUMSTANCES PRECISELY SIMILAR TO
THOSE HERE DISCLOSED.  I THINK IT IS A RIGHT DECISION IF THE UNITED
STATES, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, MUST PAY FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF A
PROPERTY RIGHT ARISING OUT OF THE LAWFUL USE OF WATERS NOT REGULABLE BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT NAVIGABLE. 

FN1  THE COURT'S OPINION REFERS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE DAM IN
QUESTION IS NOT BUILT ACROSS THE NATURAL CHANNEL OF WILLOW RIVER. 
NEITHER THE COURT BELOW NOR THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON THIS PHASE OF THE
CASE, AND I TAKE IT THAT DECISION DOES NOT DEPEND UPON IT.  THE FACTS
ARE THAT THE ST. CROIX RUNS SUBSTANTIALLY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH.  WILLOW
RIVER, WHICH RUNS WESTWARD, FORMERLY TURNED SOUTHWARD A SHORT DISTANCE
FROM THE ST. CROIX AND SUBSTANTIALLY PARALLELED THE LATTER BEFORE
EMPTYING INTO IT.  THE RESPONDENT DAMMED THE NATURAL CHANNEL TO FORM A
POOL JUST EAST OF THE ST. CROIX, AND THEN BUILT ITS POWERHOUSE, DAM AND
SPILLWAY AT A POINT AT THE EDGE OF THE POOL NEAREST THE ST. CROIX. 

FN2  REVISED STATUTES WISCONSIN 1858, CHAP. XLI, SECS. 2, 3; CHAP.
LVI, SEC. 1; WISCONSIN STATS. 1943, SECS. 30.01(2)(3C, 31.07; WISCONSIN
LAWS, PRIVATE & LOCAL, 1866, CH. 122; 1872, CH. 115; MABIE V. MATTESON,
17 WIS. 1; A.C. CONN CO. V. LITTLE SUAMICO LUMBER MFG. CO., 74 WIS.
652, 43 N.W. 660; KAUKAUNA WATER POWER CO. V. GREEN BAY & M. CANAL CO.,
75 WIS. 385, 390-391, 44 N.W. 638; WATER POWER CASES, 148 WIS. 124, 134
N.W. 330; MCDONALD V. APPLE RIVER POWER CO., 164 WIS. 450, 160 N.W.
156; APFELBACHER V. STATE, 167 WIS. 233, 167 N.W. 244. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



















CONNECTICUT CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 324 U.S. 515 


NO. 189.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945.  - 141 F.2D
14, REVERSED. 


1.  THE DECLARATION OF POLICY IN SEC. 201(A) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT,
THAT FEDERAL REGULATION IS "TO EXTEND ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE
NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES," IS RELEVANT IN RESOLVING
AMBIGUITY IN SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH PURPORT TO EFFECTUATE
THAT POLICY.  P. 527. 

2.  IN THE PROVISION OF SEC. 201(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, THAT
THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL FACILITIES FOR THE
TRANSMISSION OR WHOLESALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
"BUT SHALL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN
THIS PART AND THE PART NEXT FOLLOWING, OVER FACILITIES USED  ...  IN
LOCAL DISTRIBUTION," THE PHRASE "FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION"
DELIMITS THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION AND ESTABLISHES A LEGAL
STANDARD WHICH MUST BE OBSERVED IN DETERMINING WHETHER A COMPANY IS A
"PUBLIC UTILITY" UNDER THE ACT.  P. 530. 

3.  THE EXEMPTION FROM THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OF "FACILITIES
USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION" IS NOT LIMITED TO FACILITIES WHICH
DISTRIBUTE NO OUT-OF-STATE ENERGY.  FACILITIES MAY CARRY OUT-OF-STATE
ENERGY EXCLUSIVELY AND STILL BE EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT.  THE TEST IS
WHETHER THEY ARE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.  P. 531. 

4.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT TO
REGULATE ACCOUNTING PRACTICES EXTENDS ONLY TO COMPANIES WHICH ARE
"PUBLIC UTILITIES" UNDER THE ACT, I.E., COMPANIES WHICH OWN OR OPERATE
FACILITIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  P.
531. 

5.  THE COURT BELOW HAVING CONSIDERED IRRELEVANT THE APPROPRIATE TEST
OF THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION UNDER THE ACT, ITS INQUIRY ON REVIEW
DID NOT PROCEED UNDER A CORRECT RULE OF LAW AND ITS JUDGMENT MUST BE
REVERSED.  P. 532. 

6.  WHERE A FEDERAL AGENCY IS AUTHORIZED TO INVOKE AN OVERRIDING
FEDERAL POWER EXCEPT IN CERTAIN PRESCRIBED SITUATIONS AND THEN TO LEAVE
THE PROBLEM TO TRADITIONAL STATE CONTROL, THE EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL
AUTHORITY TO ACT SHOULD APPEAR AFFIRMATIVELY AND NOT REST ON INFERENCE
ALONE.  P. 532. 

7.  THE BUSINESS OF LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY DOES NOT AS
A MATTER OF LAW EXCLUDE THE PROCESS OF REDUCING OUT-OF-STATE ELECTRIC
ENERGY FROM HIGH TO LOW VOLTAGE IN SUBDIVIDING IT TO SERVE ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS.  P. 534. 

8.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE
COMMISSION APPLIED THE CORRECT LAW, AND THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO
THE COMMISSION FOR APPROPRIATE JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS.  THIS COURT
DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO DECIDE AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER WHETHER THE
FACILITIES IN QUESTION ARE FACILITIES WHICH SUBJECT THE COMPANY TO THE
ACT, NOR WHETHER THERE WAS BASIS FOR JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION
DURING SOME PAST PERIOD BY REASON OF THE COMPANY'S OPERATION OF
FACILITIES SINCE ABANDONED.  P. 534. 

9.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT,
OVER FACILITIES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHICH ARE NOT USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION, DOES NOT DEPEND UPON
WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR VOLUME OR PROPORTION OF INTERSTATE ENERGY IS
INVOLVED; AND SUCH A JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION IS NOT TO BE SUPPLIED BY
CONSTRUCTION.  P. 536. 

CONNECTICUT LIGHT & POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 687, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO COMPLY WITH
THE UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS ASSERTED JURISDICTION TO REGULATE
THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICES OF THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY. 
THE FEDERAL POWER ACT AS AMENDED IN 1935, 49 STAT. 838, 16 U.S.C. SEC.
792 ET SEQ., DECLARES A CONGRESSIONAL POLICY CONCERNING THE BUSINESS OF
TRANSMITTING AND SELLING ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION TO
THE PUBLIC, AND STATES THAT REGULATION OF "THAT PART OF SUCH BUSINESS
WHICH CONSISTS OF THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THE SALE OF SUCH ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SUCH FEDERAL REGULATION,
HOWEVER, TO EXTEND ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
REGULATION BY THE STATES."  SEC. 201(A), 49 STAT. 847, 16 U.S.C. SEC.
824(A). 

THE COMPANY, INCORPORATED BY CONNECTICUT, SERVING CUSTOMERS ONLY IN
CONNECTICUT AND OWNING NO UTILITIES PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THAT STATE, IS
COMPREHENSIVELY REGULATED BY THE CONNECTICUT PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION IN ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AS IN MANY OTHER MATTERS, AND IT
CHALLENGES THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, APPEARING AMICUS CURIAE, THROUGH ITS
ATTORNEY GENERAL AVERS THAT THIS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE
FEDERAL COMMISSION "REPRESENTS AN UNWARRANTED AND ILLEGAL INVASION OF
THE POWERS OF THE STATE TO REGULATE ITS LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY,
WHICH POWERS WERE CLEARLY TO BE PRESERVED TO THE STATE UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT."  THE CONNECTICUT PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION JOINS WITH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND
UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS, ALSO APPEARING AS AMICI CURIAE, AND THEY
CONTEND THAT THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION'S ORDER REGULATING ACCOUNTING
PRACTICES EXCEEDS ANY AUTHORITY GIVEN BY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT AND
INTRUDES UPON THE FIELD WHICH THAT ACT EXPRESSLY RESERVED TO LOCAL
REGULATION. 

THE BASIC FACTS ARE NOT SERIOUSLY IN DISPUTE.  THE COMPANY FOR SOME
TIME PRIOR TO AUGUST 26, 1935, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT, OPERATED AS A MEMBER OF THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY POWER EXCHANGE, AN
INTERSTATE POWER POOL WHICH INTERCHANGED ENERGY AMONG CERTAIN SYSTEMS
IN NEW YORK, MASSACHUSETTS, AND CONNECTICUT.  HAD SUCH OPERATION
CONTINUED, THE COMPANY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ACT AND TO THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  TWO DAYS BEFORE ITS EFFECTIVE DATE AND FRANKLY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING FEDERAL REGULATION THE COMPANY REARRANGED ITS
OPERATIONS WITH INTENT TO CUT EVERY CONNECTION AND DISCONTINUE EVERY
FACILITY WHOSE CONTINUED OPERATION WOULD RENDER IT SUBJECT TO THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION'S CONTROL.  THE COMMISSION CONCEDED IN ITS
OPINION AND THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS HERE THE COMPANY'S RIGHT TO DO SO.
FN1  BUT THE COMMISSION SAID PETITIONER'S EFFORT WAS "ONLY A GESTURE,"
FOR WHILE IT CUT CERTAIN CONNECTIONS "IT DID NOT CUT OTHER
INTERCONNECTIONS OVER WHICH INTERSTATE ENERGY FLOWED."  OF THOSE
FACILITIES WHICH THE COMMISSION HELD SUBJECTED THE COMPANY TO THE POWER
ACT AT THE TIME IT BECAME EFFECTIVE, THE COMPANY HAS SINCE DIVESTED
ITSELF OF ALL BUT ONE, AND ON THAT ONE THE COMMISSION RESTS ITS PRESENT
JURISDICTION TO CONTROL PETITIONER'S ACCOUNTING.  BUT IT ALSO CLAIMS
THAT ITS ACCOUNTING ORDERS WERE ENTITLED TO OBEDIENCE UP TO THE TIME OF
THE ABANDONMENT OF THE OTHER FACILITIES AND BECAUSE OF THEM. 

THE FACILITIES ON WHICH JURISDICTION IS PREDICATED ARE FOR TWO
GENERAL TYPES OF OPERATION, ONE BEING USED IN RECEIPT OF INTERSTATE
POWER, THE OTHER FOR TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY SOLD TO A MUNICIPALITY
WHICH IN TURN SOLD SOME PART OF IT FOR EXPORT FROM THE STATE. 

THE ONLY PRESENTLY EXISTING FACILITIES SAID TO CONFER JURISDICTION
ARE AT BRISTOL.  HERE THE PETITIONING COMPANY PURCHASES ENERGY FROM THE
CONNECTICUT POWER COMPANY, WHICH DESPITE A CONFUSING SIMILARITY OF NAME
IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND UNAFFILIATED CONCERN.  THE PETITIONING
COMPANY RECEIVES POWER AT 66,000 VOLTS FROM THE LINES OF THE
CONNECTICUT POWER COMPANY OVER A SHORT TAP LINE, OWNED BY THE
CONNECTICUT POWER COMPANY, WHICH LEADS TO PETITIONER'S SUBSTATION. 
THERE THE ENERGY IS STEPPED DOWN TO 4,600 AND 13,800 VOLTS AND
TRANSMITTED THENCE OVER MANY CIRCUITS TO CONSUMERS IN AND AROUND
BRISTOL.  THE SUBSTATION INCLUDES ALL OF THE USUAL EQUIPMENT, LIGHTNING
ARRESTERS, DISCONNECTS, OIL CIRCUIT BREAKERS, BUSSES, STEP-DOWN
TRANSFORMERS, AND APPURTENANT STRUCTURES OF AN OUTDOOR SUBSTATION; AND
IN THE SUBSTATION BUILDING A SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSER IS OWNED AND
OPERATED, AS REQUIRED BY THE SUPPLY CONTRACT, TO MAINTAIN THE POWER
FACTOR. 

WHAT IS CALLED THE EAST HAMPTON CONNECTION, SEVERED JULY 1, 1939,
CONSISTED OF FACILITIES BY WHICH THE PETITIONER RECEIVED ENERGY FROM
THE CONNECTICUT POWER COMPANY AT 13,800 VOLTS AND TRANSMITTED IT
SEVERAL MILES TO ITS LEESVILLE SUBSTATION WHERE IT WAS REDUCED TO 4,600
VOLTS AND TO OTHER SUBSTATIONS WHERE IT WAS REDUCED TO 2,300 VOLTS AND
SUPPLIED TO CUSTOMERS.  WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS THE TORRINGTON-WINSTED
DISTRICT CONNECTION, DISCONTINUED IN JUNE OF 1941, WAS DIFFERENTLY
OPERATED.  ENERGY WAS PURCHASED FROM THE TORRINGTON ELECTRIC LIGHT
COMPANY, WHICH IN TURN HAD PURCHASED IT FROM THE CONNECTICUT POWER
COMPANY.  DELIVERY WAS ACCEPTED BY PETITIONER AT THE BUS BAR OF THE
TORRINGTON COMPANY AT LOW VOLTAGE, 2,300 VOLTS, PETITIONER MAINTAINED A
SUBSTATION WHICH STEPPED THIS VOLTAGE UP TO 27,600, AT WHICH IT WAS
TRANSMITTED ABOUT TEN MILES OVER ITS LINES TO A SUBSTATION AT WINSTED
WHERE FACILITIES WERE OPERATED TO LOWER THE VOLTAGE TO 4,600, WHENCE IT
WAS PUT ON DISTRIBUTION LINES. 

THE COMMISSION HELD IN ALL THREE INSTANCES THAT SUCH FACILITIES OF
PETITIONER WERE "FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY  ...  AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM LOCAL DISTRIBUTION THEREOF."  IT FOUND THAT THE
ENERGY RECEIVED FROM THE CONNECTICUT POWER COMPANY AND TORRINGTON
COMPANY "REGULARLY, FREQUENTLY AND FOR SUBSTANTIAL PERIODS OF TIME
INCLUDED ELECTRIC ENERGY IN SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS TRANSMITTED FROM
MASSACHUSETTS."  HENCE IT CONCLUDED PETITIONER OWNED FACILITIES FOR
TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WAS A "PUBLIC
UTILITY" UNDER ITS JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE ACT. 

THE OTHER TYPE OF OPERATION ON WHICH IT PREDICATED JURISDICTION WAS
TERMINATED IN FEBRUARY 1941.  IT CONSISTED OF SALE OF ENERGY AT
WHOLESALE TO THE BOROUGH OF GROTON, WHICH OPERATED A MUNICIPAL
DISTRIBUTION PLANT.  THE BOROUGH, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPANY, RESOLD
A PORTION OF THIS ENERGY TO A CORPORATION WHICH TRANSMITTED IT TO
FISHERS ISLAND, A SMALL ISLAND OFF CONNECTICUT SHORE BUT TERRITORY OF
NEW YORK.  THERE IT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THAT SMALL COMMUNITY AT RETAIL. 
WHEN THE GROTON CONTRACT EXPIRED IN 1940 PETITIONER REFUSED TO RENEW IT
UNLESS THE BOROUGH DISCONTINUED SALES OF ENERGY DESTINED FOR FISHERS
ISLAND.  THIS CHANGE WAS REQUIRED BY THE COMPANY AVOWEDLY TO ELIMINATE
FLOW OF ITS ENERGY TO NEW YORK AND THUS TO REMOVE ONE OF THE GROUNDS ON
WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS ASSERTED JURISDICTION. 

THE COMMISSION HELD THAT FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT TO
FEBRUARY 28, 1941, FACILITIES OWNED BY THE COMPANY WERE USED TO CONVEY
ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE BOROUGH OF GROTON "FOR THE TRANSMISSION AND SALE
AT WHOLESALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AND THAT SUCH
FACILITIES WERE FOR TRANSMISSION OF SUCH ENERGY "AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
LOCAL DISTRIBUTION THEREOF."  HENCE THE COMPANY WAS HELD TO HAVE BEEN A
PUBLIC UTILITY DURING THE PERIOD OF SUCH OPERATION AND SUBJECT FOR THAT
PERIOD TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION. 

IT IS NOT DENIED, ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND OPINION MAKE
NO MENTION OF THE FACT AND APPEAR TO HAVE GIVEN IT NO WEIGHT, THAT THE
PREDOMINANT CHARACTERISTIC OF THE COMPANY'S OVER-ALL OPERATION IS THAT
OF A LOCAL AND INTRASTATE SERVICE.  IT SERVES ONE HUNDRED SEVEN TOWNS,
CITIES, AND BOROUGHS OF CONNECTICUT WITH A TOTAL POPULATION OF ABOUT
660,000 AND IN ADDITION SUPPLIES SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE POWER USED BY
LOCAL COMPANIES WHICH SERVE COMMUNITIES OF CONNECTICUT HAVING A
POPULATION OF 130,000.  IT OWNS NO LINES CROSSING THE CONNECTICUT
BOUNDARY AND DOES NOT CONNECT WITH ANY OTHER COMPANY AT THE BOUNDARY. 
IT HAS NO BUSINESS OTHER THAN CONNECTICUT SERVICE FOR WHICH IT NEEDS
ANY FACILITIES WHATEVER, AND IF LOCAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICE WERE
TERMINATED, NO REMAINING PURPOSE OR USE OF ANY KIND IS SUGGESTED FOR
THE FACILITIES IN QUESTION.  ITS PURCHASES AND SALES, ITS RECEIPTS AND
DELIVERIES OF POWER, ARE ALL WITHIN THE STATE.  ITS RATES AND ITS
FISCAL AND ACCOUNTING AFFAIRS ARE FULLY AND SO FAR AS APPEARS
EFFECTIVELY REGULATED BY THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ON JANUARY 7, 1941 ISSUED ITS ORDER
REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO BE A
"PUBLIC UTILITY" SUBJECT TO THE ACT AND WHY IT SHOULD NOT RECLASSIFY
AND KEEP ITS ACCOUNTS ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL COMMISSION'S UNIFORM
SYSTEM.  ON MAY 15, 1942 IT ISSUED FINDINGS AND DECISION.  REHEARING
WAS DENIED.  THE COMPANY THEN APPLIED FOR THE REVIEW BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO WHICH THE STATUTE ENTITLES IT.
SEC. 313(B) OF THE ACT, 49 STAT. 860. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE ORDERS.  141 F.2D 14.  IT HELD
THAT "THE FEDERAL POWER ACT OBVIOUSLY INTENDS TO CONFER FEDERAL
JURISDICTION UPON ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS WHICH NORMALLY WOULD
OPERATE AS INTERSTATE BUSINESSES."  IT CONSTRUED THE "BUT" CLAUSE OF
THE ACT, WHICH WE SHALL LATER CONSIDER, AS "INTENDED TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT THIS (THE COMMISSION'S) JURISDICTION EXTENDS EVEN TO LOCAL
FACILITIES WHERE THE ACT PROVIDES FOR THEIR REGULATION, AS IT DOES IN
THE CASE OF ACCOUNTING PRACTICES."  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT
"THEREFORE, WHETHER OR NOT THE FACILITIES BY WHICH PETITIONER
DISTRIBUTES ENERGY FROM MASSACHUSETTS SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS 'LOCAL'
IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE.  THE SOLE TEST OF JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION OVER ACCOUNTS IS WHETHER THESE FACILITIES, 'LOCAL' OR
OTHERWISE, ARE USED FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY FROM A
POINT IN ONE STATE TO A POINT IN ANOTHER."  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  323
U.S. 687. 

THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THE REVIEWING COURT ACTED UNDER A
MISAPPREHENSION AS TO THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE. 

THE JURISDICTIONAL AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
APPLY ONLY TO "PUBLIC UTILITIES," AND THE ACT PROVIDES THAT BY "PUBLIC
UTILITIES" IT "MEANS ANY PERSON WHO OWNS OR OPERATES FACILITIES SUBJECT
TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION."  SEC. 201(E), 49 STAT. 848. 
THESE FACILITIES ARE CAREFULLY DEFINED.  "THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER ALL FACILITIES FOR SUCH TRANSMISSION OR SALE OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY, BUT SHALL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, EXCEPT AS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS PART AND THE PART NEXT FOLLOWING, OVER
FACILITIES USED FOR THE GENERATION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY OR OVER
FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OR ONLY FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, OR OVER FACILITIES FOR THE
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMED WHOLLY BY THE TRANSMITTER." 
SEC. 201(B).  TRANSMISSION AND SALE AS USED IN THIS PROVISION ARE
FURTHER DEFINED TO MEAN RESPECTIVELY "TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AND "SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  AND THE ACT GOES ON TO SAY:  "ELECTRIC ENERGY
SHALL BE HELD TO BE TRANSMITTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IF TRANSMITTED
FROM A STATE AND CONSUMED AT ANY POINT OUTSIDE THEREOF" AND THAT SALE
OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AT WHOLESALE MEANS "A SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO ANY
PERSON FOR RESALE."  SECS. 201(C), (D).  OF COURSE AS PREAMBLE TO ALL
OF THESE PROVISIONS STANDS THE POLICY DECLARATION THAT FEDERAL
REGULATION "OF THAT PART OF SUCH BUSINESS WHICH CONSISTS OF THE
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE SALE OF
SUCH ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NECESSARY IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, SUCH FEDERAL REGULATION, HOWEVER, TO EXTEND ONLY TO
THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES."  SEC.
201(A). 

CAN IT BE SAID IN THAT STATE OF THE STATUTE THAT WHETHER FACILITIES
ARE LOCAL IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CASE?  THE COURT OF APPEALS IN
RETURNING AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION NOTED THAT "THERE IS A
SUPERFICIAL INCONSISTENCY" BETWEEN ITS POSITION AND THE LAST QUOTED
PROVISION OF THE ACT.  BUT IT SAID THAT WE, IN JERSEY CENTRAL POWER &
LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 319 U.S. 61, HELD THIS
"LIMITATION" "NOT TO APPLY TO THE SECTIONS OF THE ACT WHICH
SPECIFICALLY GIVE THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION JURISDICTION OVER
MATTERS OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT, SUCH AS THE ACCOUNTING SECTION WHICH
WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE."  THIS MISAPPREHENDS OUR HOLDING IN THE JERSEY
CENTRAL CASE.  THE LINE DID NOT CROSS STATE BORDERS AND SINCE IT WAS
WHOLLY WITHIN ONE STATE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LINE WAS USED FOR
INTRASTATE TRANSMISSION AND THAT THE ACT DID NOT APPLY ALTHOUGH THE
LINE WAS USED TO TRANSMIT POWER IN ITS COURSE OF EXPORTATION FROM THE
STATE.  WE DENIED THIS CONTENTION AND SAID, "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO
CONCLUDE THAT THIS DEFINITION MEANS LESS THAN IT SAYS AND APPLIES ONLY
TO THE ENERGY AT THE INSTANT IT CROSSES THE STATE LINE AND SO ONLY TO
THE FACILITIES WHICH CROSS THE LINE AND ONLY TO THE COMPANY WHICH OWNS
THE FACILITIES WHICH CROSS THE LINE.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT WAS
PRIMARILY TO REGULATE THE RATES AND CHARGES OF THE INTERSTATE ENERGY. 
IF INTERVENING COMPANIES MIGHT PURCHASE FROM PRODUCERS IN THE STATE OF
PRODUCTION, FREE OF FEDERAL CONTROL, COST WOULD BE FIXED PRIOR TO THE
INCIDENCE OF FEDERAL REGULATION AND FEDERAL RATE CONTROL WOULD BE
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED, IF NOT RENDERED FUTILE."  319 U.S. AT 71-72. 
WE HELD THAT THE "PRIMARY PURPOSE" OF THE 1935 AMENDMENTS TO THE POWER
ACT WAS TO GIVE THE POWER COMMISSION CONTROL OF SALES OF ENERGY ACROSS
STATE LINES WHICH HAD BEEN HELD TO BE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE STATE
OF EXPORT IN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELECTRIC
CO., 273 U.S. 83.  HERE, HOWEVER, THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO FIX THE SALE
PRICE OF THE ENERGY COMING FROM MASSACHUSETTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ATTACHES AND PRESUMABLY HAS BEEN OR AT LEAST MAY BE EXERCISED PURSUANT
TO THE JERSEY CENTRAL HOLDING BEFORE THE ENERGY REACHES THIS COMPANY. 
WHAT PETITIONER DOES OR FAILS TO DO IS ONLY AFTER THE INCIDENCE OF
FEDERAL REGULATION AND CAN IN NO WAY FRUSTRATE IT. 

IN THE JERSEY CENTRAL CASE ON CONSIDERATION OF ITS FACTS WE SAID, "WE
CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT JERSEY CENTRAL IS A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THIS
ACT."  319 U.S. AT 73.  SUCH A FINDING MADE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
APPLY TO IT.  BUT THE COMPANY CONTENDED, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS STATUS AS
A PUBLIC UTILITY, THAT IT WAS CARRIED OUT OF THAT PARTICULAR FEDERAL
REGULATION BY THE FACT THAT THE STATE REGULATED ITS SECURITY ISSUES. 
WE HELD THAT STATE REGULATION DOES NOT OPERATE TO EXEMPT FROM THE
SECURITY PROVISIONS A COMPANY OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION BUT THAT "THE SOUNDER CONCLUSION, IT SEEMS TO US, IS THAT
THE LIMITATION IS DIRECTED AT GENERATION, TRANSMISSION AND SALE RATHER
THAN THE CORPORATE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE UTILITIES ENGAGED IN
SUCH PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION."  ID. AT 74-75.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE
POLICY ADMONITION IS TO BE HEEDED IN DETERMINING WHETHER PARTICULAR
FACILITIES MAKE THEIR OWNER A "PUBLIC UTILITY" RATHER THAN IN EXEMPTING
FROM SPECIFIC REGULATORY PROVISIONS A COMPANY FOUND TO BE A PUBLIC
UTILITY.  THE JERSEY CENTRAL CASE DOES NOT READ THE POLICY DECLARATION
OUT OF THE ACT AS THE COURT BELOW ASSUMED IT TO DO. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS ILLUMINATING AS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE
IN PUTTING THESE PROVISIONS INTO THE ACT.  AS FREQUENTLY IS THE CASE,
THIS ORIGINAL BILL WAS DRAFTED BY THE COUNSEL AND AIDES OF THE AGENCY
CONCERNED.  FN2  IN ITS SUPPORT COMMISSIONER SEAVEY OF THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION SAID TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, "THE NEW TITLE II OF THE
ACT IS DESIGNED TO SECURE COORDINATION ON A REGIONAL SCALE OF THE
NATION'S POWER RESOURCES AND TO FILL THE GAP IN THE PRESENT STATE
REGULATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES.  IT IS CONCEIVED ENTIRELY AS A
SUPPLEMENT TO, AND NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR, STATE REGULATION."  FN3
PROGRESS OF THE BILL THROUGH VARIOUS STAGES SHOWS CONSTANT PURPOSE TO
PROTECT RATHER THAN TO SUPERVISE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES.  IN REPORTING
A REVISED BILL TO THE SENATE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE SAID,
"SUBSECTION (A)  ...  DECLARES THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO EXTEND THAT
REGULATION TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH CANNOT BE REGULATED BY THE STATES AND
TO ASSIST THE STATES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR REGULATORY POWERS, BUT
NOT TO IMPAIR OR DIMINISH THE POWERS OF ANY STATE COMMISSION."  N4  THE
REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN
PRESENTING THE AMENDED BILL CALLED ATTENTION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELECTRIC CO., 273 U.S. 83, HOLDING THAT
RATES CHARGED IN INTERSTATE WHOLESALE TRANSACTIONS MAY NOT BE REGULATED
CONSTITUTIONALLY BY THE STATES, AND EXPRESSED THE PURPOSE TO GIVE
FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO REGULATE RATES OF WHOLESALE TRANSACTIONS, BUT
NOT TO GIVE JURISDICTION OVER LOCAL RATES.  IT SAID: 

"THE BILL TAKES NO AUTHORITY FROM STATE COMMISSIONS AND CONTAINS
PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE FEDERAL COMMISSION TO AID THE STATE
COMMISSIONS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO ASCERTAIN AND FIX REASONABLE
CHARGES....  THE NEW PARTS ARE SO DRAWN AS TO BE A COMPLEMENT TO AND IN
NO SENSE A USURPATION OF STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND CONTAIN
THROUGHOUT DIRECTIONS TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION TO RECEIVE AND
CONSIDER THE VIEWS OF STATE COMMISSIONS.  PROBABLY, NO BILL IN RECENT
YEARS HAS SO RECOGNIZED THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE REGULATORY
COMMISSIONS AS DOES TITLE II OF THIS BILL." 

.         .         .         .         . 

"SUBSECTION (B) CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE COMMISSION OVER THE
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE SALE OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT DOES NOT APPLY
TO ANY OTHER SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY OR DEPRIVE A STATE OF ANY LAWFUL
AUTHORITY NOW EXERCISED OVER THE EXPORTATION OF HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY
TRANSMITTED OUT OF THE STATE.  AS IN THE SENATE BILL NO JURISDICTION IS
GIVEN OVER LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY, AND THE AUTHORITY OF
STATES TO FIX LOCAL RATES IS NOT DISTURBED EVEN IN THOSE CASES WHERE
THE ENERGY IS BROUGHT IN FROM ANOTHER STATE."  FN5 

IF WE CONSIDER THE PROFESSIONS OF THE SPONSORS OF THIS BILL TO HAVE
BEEN IN GOOD FAITH, WHERE ARE WE TO FIND THEM WRITTEN INTO THE ACT? 

THE POLICY DECLARATION THAT FEDERAL REGULATION IS "TO EXTEND ONLY TO
THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES" IS ONE
OF GREAT GENERALITY.  IT CANNOT NULLIFY A CLEAR AND SPECIFIC GRANT OF
JURISDICTION, EVEN IF THE PARTICULAR GRANT SEEMS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
BROADLY EXPRESSED PURPOSE.  BUT SUCH A DECLARATION IS RELEVANT AND
ENTITLED TO RESPECT AS A GUIDE IN RESOLVING ANY AMBIGUITY OR
INDEFINITENESS IN THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WHICH PURPORT TO CARRY OUT
ITS INTENT.  IT CANNOT BE WHOLLY IGNORED. 

THE DECLARED PURPOSE MIGHT ALSO BE LOOKED FOR IN SPECIFIC DENIALS OF
POWER TO THE COMMISSION, SUCH AS THAT FOUND IN SEC. 204(F), WHICH
PROVIDES THAT ITS CONTROLS, RELATING TO ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES, SHALL
NOT EXTEND TO A PUBLIC UTILITY OPERATING IN A STATE UNDER THE LAWS OF
WHICH ITS SECURITIES ARE REGULATED BY A STATE COMMISSION.  BUT SUCH
EXEMPTIONS FROM PARTICULAR REGULATIONS APPLY ONLY TO COMPANIES FOUND IN
GENERAL TO BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION AND DO NOT PROTECT THE
STATE'S GENERAL CONTROL OVER ITS LOCAL UTILITIES. 

THE ASSURANCE WHICH THE SPONSORS OF THIS LEGISLATION EXPRESSED AS TO
PROTECTION OF THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF A STATE OVER ELECTRIC
UTILITIES OF THIS CHARACTER EITHER IS NOT GIVEN EFFECT BY THIS ACT AT
ALL, OR IT IS TO BE FOUND IN THE WORDS OF SEC. 201(B), "BUT SHALL NOT
HAVE JURISDICTION, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS PART AND THE
PART NEXT FOLLOWING,  ...  OVER FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION
..."  THE COURT BELOW, FOLLOWING A STATEMENT IN HARTFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT
CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 131 F.2D 953(C.C.A.2D, 1942), HELD
THAT THIS "BUT" CLAUSE "IS INTENDED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS
JURISDICTION EXTENDS EVEN TO LOCAL FACILITIES WHERE THE ACT PROVIDES
FOR THEIR REGULATION, AS IT DOES IN THE CASE OF ACCOUNTING PRACTICES." 
THIS SEEMS TO GET THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, FOR WHETHER THE ACT
PROVIDES FOR SUCH REGULATION DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE FACILITIES ARE
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION; THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION
DOES NOT DEPEND ON SOME INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF THE REGULATORY
PROVISIONS.  BUT THE CITED DECISION, POINTING OUT THAT ONE OF THE
SEVERAL TYPES OF FACILITIES MENTIONED AS EXEMPT IN THE "BUT" CLAUSE,
I.E., THOSE "USED ONLY FOR TRANSMISSION IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE," COULD
NOT POSSIBLY BE USED FOR INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION, REJECTED THE WHOLE
PROVISION TO AVOID A "FOOLISH INTERPRETATION."  IT CONCLUDED, "THE
'BUT' CLAUSE THEN SHOWS UP NOT AS ONE REDUCING JURISDICTION BUT AS A
NEGATIVELY WORDED CONFIRMATION OF THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, OVER THE FACILITIES MENTIONED IN THE 'BUT'
CLAUSE."  FN6  THE COMMISSION TAKES MUCH THE SAME POSITION HERE. 

IT IS HARD FOR US TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS MEANT US TO READ "SHALL
HAVE JURISDICTION" WHERE IT HAD CAREFULLY WRITTEN "BUT SHALL NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION."  THE COMMAND "THOU SHALT NOT" IS USUALLY RENDERED AS TO
FORBID AND WE THINK HERE IT WAS EMPLOYED WITHOUT SUBTLETY OR CONTORTION
AND IN ITS USUAL SENSE.  IF OTHERWISE IN DOUBT THIS PROVISION SHOULD BE
READ IN HARMONY WITH THE POLICY PROVISION.  SO READ, ITS TERMS SEEM
PLAINLY TO STATE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT
HAVE JURISDICTION.  AS SUCH IT IS THE PROVISION WHICH LOOMED
IMPORTANTLY IN THE MINDS AND SPEECH OF ITS SPONSORS, PERHAPS WAS
NECESSARY TO GET THE BILL PASSED, AND IS ONE WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST
OBSERVE AND THE COURTS MUST ENFORCE. 

THIS BILL CAME BEFORE CONGRESS AS PREPARED BY THE STAFF OF THE
COMMISSION, COUCHED LARGELY IN THE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE OF THE ELECTRIC
ART. FEDERAL JURISDICTION WAS TO FOLLOW THE FLOW OF ELECTRIC ENERGY, AN
ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC, RATHER THAN A LEGALISTIC OR GOVERNMENTAL,
TEST.  TECHNOLOGY OF THE BUSINESS IS SUCH THAT IF ANY PART OF A SUPPLY
OF ELECTRIC ENERGY COMES FROM OUTSIDE OF A STATE IT IS, OR MAY BE,
PRESENT IN EVERY CONNECTED DISTRIBUTION FACILITY.  EVERY FACILITY FROM
GENERATOR TO THE APPLIANCE FOR CONSUMPTION MAY THUS BE CALLED ONE FOR
TRANSMITTING SUCH INTERSTATE POWER.  BY THIS TEST THE CORD FROM A LIGHT
PLUG TO A TOASTER ON THE BREAKFAST TABLE IS A FACILITY FOR TRANSMISSION
OF INTERSTATE ENERGY IF ANY PART OF THE LOAD IS GENERATED WITHOUT THE
STATE.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED THAT TECHNOLOGICALLY GENERATION,
TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMPTION ARE SO FUSED AND
INTERDEPENDENT THAT THE WHOLE ENTERPRISE IS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE
COMMERCE POWER OF CONGRESS, EITHER ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS, OR THAT IT
AFFECTS, INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IF AT ANY POINT IT CROSSES A STATE LINE. 
SUCH A BROAD AND UNDIVIDED BASE FOR JURISDICTION OF THE POWER
COMMISSION WOULD BE QUITE UNOBJECTIONABLE AND PERHAPS HIGHLY SALUTARY
IF THE UNITED STATES WERE A UNITARY GOVERNMENT AND THE ONLY CONFLICTING
INTERESTS TO BE CONSIDERED WERE THOSE OF THE REGULATED COMPANY. 

BUT STATE LINES AND BOUNDARIES CUT ACROSS AND SUBDIVIDE WHAT
SCIENTIFICALLY OR ECONOMICALLY VIEWED MAY BE A SINGLE ENTERPRISE. 
CONGRESS IS ACUTELY AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE AND VITALITY OF THESE STATE
GOVERNMENTS.  IT SOMETIMES IS MOVED TO RESPECT STATE RIGHTS AND LOCAL
INSTITUTIONS EVEN WHEN SOME DEGREE OF EFFICIENCY OF A FEDERAL PLAN IS
THEREBY SACRIFICED.  CONGRESS MAY THINK IT EXPEDIENT TO AVOID CLASHES
BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS IN ADMINISTERING AN ACT SUCH AS WE
HAVE HERE.  CONFLICTS WHICH LEAD STATE OFFICIALS TO STAND SHOULDER TO
SHOULDER WITH PRIVATE CORPORATIONS MAKING COMMON CAUSE OF RESISTANCE TO
FEDERAL AUTHORITY MAY BE THOUGHT TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE ENDS SOUGHT
BY AN ACT AND REGULATION MORE LIKELY TO BE SUCCESSFUL, EVEN THOUGH MORE
LIMITED, IF IT HAS LOCAL SUPPORT.  CONGRESS MAY THINK COMPLETE
CENTRALIZATION OF CONTROL OF THE ELECTRIC INDUSTRY LIKELY TO OVERTAX
ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY OF A FEDERAL COMMISSION.  IT MAY, TOO, THINK IT
WISE TO KEEP THE HAND OF STATE REGULATORY BODIES IN THIS BUSINESS, FOR
THE "INSULATED CHAMBERS OF THE STATES" ARE STILL LABORATORIES WHERE
MANY LESSONS IN REGULATION MAY BE LEARNED BY TRIAL AND ERROR ON A SMALL
SCALE WITHOUT INVOLVING A WHOLE NATIONAL INDUSTRY IN EVERY EXPERIMENT. 

BUT WHATEVER REASON OR COMBINATION OF REASONS LED CONGRESS TO PUT THE
PROVISION IN THE ACT, WE THINK IT MEANT WHAT IT SAID BY THE WORDS "BUT
SHALL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS
PART OR THE PART NEXT FOLLOWING  ...  OVER FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION."  CONGRESS BY THESE TERMS PLAINLY WAS TRYING TO RECONCILE
THE CLAIMS OF FEDERAL AND OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TO APPORTION FEDERAL
AND STATE JURISDICTION OVER THE INDUSTRY.  TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF STATE
CONTROLS, CONGRESS EMPLOYED TERMS OF LIMITATION PERHAPS LESS
SCIENTIFIC, LESS PRECISE, LESS DEFINITE THAN THE TERMS OF THE GRANT OF
FEDERAL POWER.  THE EXPRESSION "FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION"
IS ONE OF RELATIVE GENERALITY.  BUT AS USED IN THIS ACT IT IS NOT A
MEANINGLESS GENERALITY IN THE LIGHT OF OUR HISTORY AND THE STRUCTURE OF
OUR GOVERNMENT.  WE HOLD THE PHRASE TO BE A LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION
AND A LEGAL STANDARD THAT MUST BE GIVEN EFFECT IN THIS CASE IN ADDITION
TO THE TECHNOLOGICAL TRANSMISSION TEST. 

NOR DO WE THINK THE EXEMPTION OF "FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION" EXEMPTS ONLY THOSE WHICH DO NOT CARRY ANY TRACE OF OUT-OF
STATE ENERGY.  CONGRESS HAS SAID WITHOUT QUALIFICATION THAT THE
COMMISSION SHALL NOT, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE
ACT, HAVE JURISDICTION "OVER FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION." 
TO CONSTRUE THIS AS MEANING THAT, EVEN IF LOCAL, FACILITIES COME UNDER
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION BECAUSE POWER FROM OUT OF STATE,
HOWEVER TRIFLING, COMES INTO THE SYSTEM, WOULD NULLIFY THE EXEMPTION
AND AS A PRACTICAL MATTER WOULD TRANSFER TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION THE
REGULATION OF MANY LOCAL COMPANIES THAT WE THINK CONGRESS INTENDED TO
LEAVE IN STATE CONTROL.  IT DOES NOT SEEM IMPORTANT WHETHER OUT-OF
STATE ENERGY GETS INTO LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.  THEY MAY CARRY
NO ENERGY EXCEPT EXTRA-STATE ENERGY AND STILL BE EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT. 
THE TEST IS WHETHER THEY ARE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.  THERE IS
NO SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER ACCOUNTING EXCEPT
AS TO "PUBLIC UTILITIES."  THE ORDER MUST STAND OR FALL ON WHETHER THIS
COMPANY OWNED FACILITIES THAT WERE USED IN TRANSMISSION OF INTERSTATE
POWER AND WHICH WERE NOT FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION. 
SINCE THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED IRRELEVANT THE JURISDICTIONAL
TEST WHICH WE FIND TO BE IMPOSED BY CONGRESS, THE INQUIRY ON REVIEW HAS
NOT PROCEEDED UNDER A CORRECT RULE OF LAW AND IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED. 

WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS REACHED UNDER THE SAME
MISAPPREHENSION OF THE LAW OF ITS JURISDICTION IS NOT MADE SO CLEAR
FROM ITS FINDINGS OR OPINION.  OF COURSE UNDER THE ACT "THE FINDING OF
THE COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  SEC. 313(B).  THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT EACH
OF THE FACILITIES IN QUESTION IS "USED FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY PURCHASED AS AFORESAID FROM THE CONNECTICUT POWER COMPANY, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM LOCAL DISTRIBUTION THEREOF."  IT HAS NOT, HOWEVER,
MADE AN EXPLICIT FINDING THAT THESE FACILITIES ARE NOT USED IN LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION; AND WE ARE IN DOUBT WHETHER BY APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
AS HEREIN CONSTRUED IT COULD HAVE DONE SO.  WE HAVE SAID, AND IT IS
APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE, THAT "WHERE A FEDERAL AGENCY IS AUTHORIZED TO
INVOKE AN OVERRIDING FEDERAL POWER EXCEPT IN CERTAIN PRESCRIBED
SITUATIONS AND THEN TO LEAVE THE PROBLEM TO TRADITIONAL STATE CONTROL,
THE EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO ACT SHOULD APPEAR AFFIRMATIVELY
AND NOT REST ON INFERENCE ALONE."  YONKERS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S.
685, 692; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 211-12; CF. PALMER V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79, 84; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BUNTE
BROS., 312 U.S. 349, 351.  NOTHING EXCEPT EXPLICIT FINDINGS EXCLUDING
THE GROUNDS OF STATE CONTROL GIVES ASSURANCE THAT THE BOUNDS OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION HAVE BEEN ACCURATELY UNDERSTOOD AND FULLY RESPECTED, AND
THAT STATE POWER HAS BEEN CONSIDERATELY AND DELIBERATELY OVERLAPPED. 

THE FINDINGS AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION LEAVE US IN DOUBT, TO SAY
THE LEAST, AS TO WHETHER WHAT WE CONSIDER LIMITATIONS ON THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION WERE SO CONSIDERED BY IT.  THE ONLY
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT IS THE STATEMENT THAT "RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTIONS THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
REGULATION PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT MUST BE REJECTED," CITING
NORTHWESTERN ELECTRIC CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 125 F.2D 882,
AND IN THE MATTER OF HARTFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., 2 F.P.C. 502, AFF'D,
131 F.2D 953.  IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES FACTUAL DIFFERENCES IN REFERENCE
TO THE STATUS OF THE COMPANY AS A PUBLIC UTILITY WERE INVOLVED, AND WE
AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION THAT ONCE A COMPANY IS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE A
"PUBLIC UTILITY" UNDER THE ACT THE FACT THAT A LOCAL COMMISSION MAY
ALSO HAVE REGULATORY POWER DOES NOT PRECLUDE EXERCISE OF THE
COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS.  CF. NORTHWESTERN ELECTRIC CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, 321 U.S. 119.  BUT SUCH A REJECTION OF STATE CONTROL AS
GROUNDS OF EXEMPTION MUST BE PRECEDED BY THE FINDING, GIVING DUE WEIGHT
TO THE POLICY DECLARATION IN DOUBTFUL CASES, THAT THE COMPANY IN
QUESTION IS A "PUBLIC UTILITY" BY REASON OF OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES NOT
USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION. 

IN DETERMINING THIS THE COMMISSION ANNOUNCED AND APPLIED A RULE WHICH
APPEARS TO BE ONE OF LAW AS TO INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION:  "SUCH
TRANSMISSION, IN OUR OPINION, EXTENDS FROM THE GENERATOR, WHERE
GENERATION IS COMPLETE (CITING UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286
U.S. 165, 181) TO THE POINT WHERE THE FUNCTION OF CONVEYANCE IN BULK
OVER A DISTANCE, WHICH IS THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF
'TRANSMISSION,' IS COMPLETED AND THE PROCESS OF SUBDIVIDING THE ENERGY
TO SERVE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, WHICH IS THE CHARACTERISTIC OF 'LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION,' IS BEGUN (CITING SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S.
148, 155; AND EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 465,
471)." 

THE SOUTHERN AND EAST OHIO CASES BOTH INVOLVED NATURAL GAS
TRANSPORTATION INTO A STATE AND SALES OF GAS AT RETAIL THEREIN.  EACH
WAS A TAX CASE IN WHICH THE STATE ASSERTED THAT THE SALES WITHIN THE
STATE CONSTITUTED AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS WHICH IN ONE CASE WOULD
SUPPORT A STATE LEVY OF AN ANNUAL FRANCHISE TAX BASED ON THE ACTUAL
AMOUNT OF CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN THE STATE; AND IN THE OTHER, AN EXCISE
TAX BASED ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE.  THE
COMPANIES EACH CONTENDED THAT SALES MADE TO CONSUMERS WITHIN THE STATE
WERE STILL WITHIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND HENCE THERE WAS NO STATE
JURISDICTION TO TAX.  IN NEITHER CASE WAS THIS COURT REQUIRED TO
DETERMINE THE EXACT POINT AT WHICH INTERSTATE COMMERCE CEASED AND
INTRASTATE COMMENCED.  IT WAS REQUIRED TO FIND ONLY SOME "DOING OF
BUSINESS" WITHIN THE STATE IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE STATUTES INVOLVED.  IN BOTH CASES IT UPHELD THE POWER OF THE STATE
TO TAX AND IN BOTH HELD THAT THE DISTRIBUTION AT LOW PRESSURE WAS A
LOCAL BUSINESS FOR TAXATION PURPOSES AS DISTINGUISHED FROM TRANSMISSION
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT A HOLDING THAT DISTRIBUTING GAS AT LOW
PRESSURE TO CONSUMERS IS A LOCAL BUSINESS IS NOT A HOLDING THAT THE
PROCESS OF REDUCING IT FROM HIGH TO LOW PRESSURE IS NOT ALSO PART OF
SUCH LOCAL BUSINESS.  IN SO FAR AS THE COMMISSION FOUND IN THESE CASES
A RULE OF LAW WHICH EXCLUDED FROM THE BUSINESS OF LOCAL DISTRIBUTION
THE PROCESS OF REDUCING ENERGY FROM HIGH TO LOW VOLTAGE IN SUBDIVIDING
IT TO SERVE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, THE COMMISSION HAS MISREAD THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  NO SUCH RULE OF LAW HAS BEEN LAID DOWN. 

BUT FOR SUCH AN ERRONEOUS VIEW OF THE LAW ESTABLISHED BY OUR
DECISIONS IT SEEMS DOUBTFUL IF THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE REACHED THE
CONCLUSION THAT IT DID UPON THIS RECORD.  NOR IS IT CLEAR THAT IF IT
WERE REACHED IT WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  EXPERT
TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION ON THE SUBJECT FROM THE
COMMISSION'S OWN EXPERTS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN PREDICATED UPON THE
COMMISSION'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO MAKE AN
ORIGINAL APPRAISAL OF THE FACTS.  WE DO NOT THEREFORE UNDERTAKE TO
DECIDE AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER WHETHER THE FACILITIES IN QUESTION ARE OR
ARE NOT FACILITIES WHICH CAN SUBJECT THE COMPANY TO THE ACT. 

NOR DO WE UNDERTAKE TO PASS UPON THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
THAT EVEN IF THE PRESENT FACILITIES DO NOT CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT
BASIS FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION THE OPERATION OF OTHER FACILITIES SINCE
ABANDONED SUBJECTS THE COMPANY TO THE ACCOUNTING ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1937, WHEN IT BECAME EFFECTIVE,
UNTIL JUNE 1, 1941 OR SOME OTHER DATE, DEPENDING ON THE FACILITY FOUND
TO BE THE BASIS OF JURISDICTION.  THE COMPANY CONTENDS THAT TO MAKE IT
INSTALL AN EXPENSIVE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR A PERIOD THAT WAS SHORT
AND HAS ALREADY EXPIRED WOULD BE A MERE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY AND
WOULD BE OF NO PRACTICAL BENEFIT.  THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT THE
ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION WOULD TEND TO DISCOURAGE
FURTHER WRITE-UPS AND INFLATION OF ACCOUNTS AND WOULD AMOUNT TO
"REGULATION BY THE INFORMATORY PROCESS."  IT CONTENDS THAT THIS COMPANY
HAS BEEN GUILTY OF ACCOUNTING ABUSES IN THE NATURE OF WRITE-UPS AND THE
CREATION OF FICTITIOUS SURPLUSES WHICH WOULD BE ELIMINATED OR AT LEAST
DISCOURAGED BY AN APPLICATION OF ITS UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS.  THE
COMPANY DENIES THAT SUCH ABUSES EXIST.  IT IS NOT, HOWEVER, CONTENDED
THAT CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED ANY JURISDICTION UPON THE COMMISSION TO
REACH ACCOUNTING ABUSES WHEN AND IF THEY EXIST EXCEPT AS TO COMPANIES
WHICH OWN FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  IN
OTHER COMPANIES THE CORRECTION OF THESE ABUSES, IF THEY EXIST, IS LEFT
TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT, WHICH HAS THIS COMPANY COMPLETELY WITHIN ITS
POWER AND WHOSE CONSTITUENTS ARE THE SUFFERERS BY ANY ABUSES THAT MAY
EXIST.  WE WILL NOT UNDERTAKE TO MAKE AN ORIGINAL FINDING AS TO
JURISDICTION FOR A PERIOD, ANY MORE THAN AS TO JURISDICTION AT THE
PRESENT TIME. 

ANOTHER CONTENTION MADE BY THE COMPANY MAY BE SHORTLY DISPOSED OF.
IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE VOLUME OF ENERGY PASSING OVER CERTAIN OF THESE
FACILITIES IS INSIGNIFICANT IN PROPORTION TO THE TOTAL.  ONLY ABOUT ONE
FIFTH OF ONE PER CENT OF ALL THE ENERGY RECEIVED AND GENERATED BY THE
COMPANY THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT WAS TRANSMITTED OUT OF THE
STATE DURING THE TIME OF THE CONNECTION OF FISHERS ISLAND WITH THE
BOROUGH OF GROTON.  CONGRESS APPEARS TO HAVE LEFT TO THE COMMISSION'S
SOUND ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO ASSERT
ITS AUTHORITY IN SUCH SITUATIONS.  CONGRESS ANNUALLY RECEIVES A REPORT
OF THE COMMISSION'S WORK AND APPROPRIATES THE FUNDS FOR ITS
CONTINUANCE.  IF IT THINKS THE COMMISSION IS OVER-EXTENDING ITS
ATTENTION TO TRIVIAL SITUATIONS IT HAS READY MEANS OF CONTROL IN ITS
HANDS.  THE WISDOM OF ITS WORK IS NOT OUR CONCERN, BUT ONLY ITS LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION.  WE DO NOT FIND THAT CONGRESS HAS CONDITIONED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UPON ANY PARTICULAR VOLUME OR PROPORTION
OF INTERSTATE ENERGY INVOLVED, AND WE DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE TO SUPPLY SUCH A JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION BY
CONSTRUCTION. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
REVERSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  CF. RE TWIN STATE GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 33 P.U.R. (NS) 39, WHERE
THE COMMISSION APPROVED A PUBLIC UTILITY'S SALE OF CERTAIN FACILITIES
EVEN THOUGH THE SALE MIGHT HAVE BEEN "A STEP IN THE DIRECTION THAT
EVENTUALLY RESULTS IN THE VENDOR COMPANY OBTAINING A STATUS OTHER THAN
THAT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMISSION." 

FN2  HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 1725,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 223. 

FN3  HEARINGS ON H.R. 5423, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 384. 

FN4  SEN. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN5  H.R. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 7, 8, 27. 

FN6  THE STATEMENT WAS NOT DECISIVE OF THE RESULT, WHICH RESTED ON AN
ALTERNATIVE GROUND; AND THE COURT DID RECOGNIZE NEED FOR THE FURTHER
STEP OF FINDING THAT THE GENERATING FACILITIES WERE USED AS FACILITIES
FOR INTERSTATE WHOLESALE SALES, AND THEREFORE WERE WITHIN SEC. 201(B). 
THE COURT BELOW FAILED EXPRESSLY TO FIND EXISTENCE OF JURISDICTIONAL
FACILITIES UNDER SEC. 201(B).  THE QUOTED STATEMENT READS IN FULL: 

"MOREOVER, AMONG THE FACILITIES DESCRIBED IN THE 'BUT' CLAUSE OF SEC.
201(B), ARE THOSE USED 'ONLY FOR THE TRANSMISSION  ... IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE'; AS SUCH FACILITIES COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE AMONG THOSE USED
FOR INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION OR INTERSTATE WHOLESALE SALES, THE 'BUT'
CLAUSE BECOMES FOOLISH IF INTERPRETED AS CARVING OUT OF THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE SAME SENTENCE THE FACILITIES
DESCRIBED IN THE 'BUT' CLAUSE.  SUCH A FOOLISH INTERPRETATION IS
AVOIDED BY GIVING EFFECT TO A PHRASE IN THE 'BUT' CLAUSE, I.E., 'EXCEPT
AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS PART OR THE PART NEXT FOLLOWING
(SECTIONS 824-825R OF THIS TITLE).'  THE 'BUT' CLAUSE THEN SHOWS UP NOT
AS ONE REDUCING JURISDICTION BUT AS A NEGATIVELY WORDED CONFIRMATION OF
THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, OVER THE
FACILITIES MENTIONED IN THE 'BUT' CLAUSE.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE 'BUT'
CLAUSE IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS IF IT READ:  'WHEREVER IT IS SO
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN PARTS II AND III, THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE FACILITIES USED FOR GENERATION, FOR LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION, FOR INTRASTATE TRANSMISSION, ETC.'" HARTFORD ELECTRIC
LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 131 F.2D 953, 962. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THE FINDINGS AND OPINION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IN THIS CASE
MAKE CLEAR THAT THEY ARE SUBSTANTIALLY AND REASONABLY ROOTED IN FACT
AND LAW AND THAT PROPER RESPECT HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR JURISDICTIONAL
LIMITATIONS.  REMAND OF THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION THUS CAN ONLY SERVE TO PRODUCE NEEDLESS DELAY AND TO
FORCE THE COMMISSION TO MAKE CERTAIN MINOR AND UNNECESSARY CHANGES IN
ITS WRITTEN OPINION.  CF. DISSENTING OPINION IN SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION V. CHENERY CORP., 318 U.S. 80, 95. 

THE BASIC JURISDICTIONAL FACT NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN THE IMPOSITION ON
PETITIONER OF THE COMMISSION'S ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IS THAT PETITIONER
BE A PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  IN
THE SETTING OF THIS CASE PETITIONER MUST THUS BE FOUND TO OWN OR
OPERATE FACILITIES FOR THE "TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  SEC. 201(B).  NOWHERE IN THE ACT HAS CONGRESS
DEFINED "TRANSMISSION" OR "FACILITIES" OTHER THAN TO SAY IN SEC. 201(C)
THAT "ELECTRIC ENERGY SHALL BE HELD TO BE TRANSMITTED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IF TRANSMITTED FROM A STATE AND CONSUMED AT ANY POINT OUTSIDE
THEREOF."  THE COMMISSION THEREFORE HAS THE DUTY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
OF INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THESE TERMS TO THE FACTUAL SITUATION
CONFRONTING IT.  A COURT'S FUNCTION IN REVIEWING THIS JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION IS NECESSARILY LIMITED TO ASCERTAINING WHETHER THAT
DETERMINATION HAS WARRANT IN THE RECORD AND A REASONABLE BASIS IN LAW,
GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION IS AN EXPERT BODY
DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS AND SPECIALLY EQUIPPED TO GRAPPLE WITH THE
HIGHLY TECHNICAL PROBLEMS ARISING IN THIS FIELD.  LABOR BOARD V. HEARST
PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 130, 131. 

THE COMMISSION HERE HAS FOUND THAT PETITIONER OWNS AND OPERATES AN
ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEM IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT.  IT IS UNDISPUTED
THAT ELECTRIC ENERGY GENERATED IN MASSACHUSETTS IS TRANSMITTED OVER THE
WIRES OF OTHER COMPANIES TO PETITIONER'S FACILITIES AT BRISTOL,
CONNECTICUT.  IN ORDER TO TRANSMIT POWER ECONOMICALLY FOR SUCH A LONG
DISTANCE, IT IS NECESSARY TO RAISE THE VOLTAGE AND REDUCE THE CURRENT
IN MASSACHUSETTS AS THE ENERGY STARTS ITS INTERSTATE JOURNEY.  BUT THE
HIGH VOLTAGE NEEDED FOR TRANSIT PURPOSES CANNOT BE UTILIZED BY
CONSUMERS.  IT THEREFORE IS NECESSARY TO EMPLOY APPARATUS AT THE
RECEIVING END OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION TO LOWER THE VOLTAGE. 
PETITIONER ACCORDINGLY MAINTAINS STEP-DOWN TRANSFORMERS AND SUBSTATION
FACILITIES AT BRISTOL FOR THAT PURPOSE.  AFTER THE VOLTAGE IS LOWERED,
THE ENERGY IS SUBDIVIDED AND DISTRIBUTED OVER PETITIONER'S WIRES TO
CONSUMERS IN AND AROUND BRISTOL.    THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE BRISTOL STEP-DOWN TRANSFORMERS AND SUBSTATION
FACILITIES CONSTITUTE TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
SINCE IT FELT THAT, IN ITS OPINION, SUCH TRANSMISSION "EXTENDS FROM THE
GENERATOR, WHERE GENERATION IS COMPLETE, TO THE POINT WHERE THE
FUNCTION OF CONVEYANCE IN BULK OVER A DISTANCE, WHICH IS THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTERISTIC OF 'TRANSMISSION,' IS COMPLETED AND THE PROCESS OF
SUBDIVIDING THE ENERGY TO SERVE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, WHICH IS THE
CHARACTERISTIC OF 'LOCAL DISTRIBUTION,' IS BEGUN."  IN OTHER WORDS, THE
COMMISSION VIEWED THE INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION AS COMPLETE ONLY AFTER
THE ENERGY IS CONVERTED BACK INTO A FORM SUITABLE FOR LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION AND USE AND THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH CONVERSION
PURPOSES ARE NECESSARILY FACILITIES FOR INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION. 

THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION MUST THEREFORE
STAND OR FALL UPON THE VALIDITY OF ITS ANALYSIS OF WHEN LONG-DISTANCE
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY ACROSS STATE LINES IS AT AN END. 
ONLY IF WE CAN POINT TO AN ABSENCE OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S VIEW OR IF WE CAN FIND LEGAL OR STATUTORY
PRINCIPLES COMPELLING THE OPPOSITE VIEW CAN WE JUSTIFIABLY SAY THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE OR THAT REMAND SHOULD BE
MADE TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  BUT THE COMMISSION'S
VIEW CANNOT BE UNDERMINED ON EITHER BASIS AND IT SHOULD THEREFORE BE
AFFIRMED. 

CERTAINLY THERE IS AMPLE TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE BY ENGINEERS TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE BRISTOL SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTES "FACILITIES
FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE," AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM "FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION."  AND THE
VERY FACT THAT THE COMMISSION, WITH ALL ITS ACCUMULATED WISDOM AND
EXPERIENCE, IS OF THE OPINION THAT INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION CEASES ONLY
AFTER THE TRANSMITTED ENERGY HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO A FORM SUITABLE
FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION AND USE IS NOT WITHOUT WEIGHT AND SIGNIFICANCE. 

FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, THE COMMISSION MADE NO PLAIN ERROR.  CLEARLY
NO OPINION IN THIS COURT HAS PURPORTED TO DECIDE AT WHAT PRECISE POINT
INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY ENDS AND LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION COMMENCES.  THIS SEEMS TO BE A NOVEL POINT INSOFAR AS
LEGAL PRECEDENT IS CONCERNED.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION IN THIS
RESPECT HARDLY SEEMS SO UNREASONABLE AND UNSOUND AS TO REQUIRE US TO
HOLD, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION ENDS JUST BEFORE
THE VOLTAGE IS DECREASED.  AND THIS COURT DOES NOT PRETEND SO TO HOLD
IN THIS CASE. 

THE COURT CRITICIZES THE COMMISSION AND REMANDS THE CASE TO IT,
HOWEVER, MAINLY BECAUSE IT CITED SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301
U.S. 148, 155, AND EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 465,
471, IN A FOOTNOTE IN SUPPORT OF ITS PROPOSITION THAT INTERSTATE
TRANSMISSION ENDS ONLY AFTER THE ENERGY IS CONVERTED BACK INTO A FORM
SUITABLE FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION.  IT IS SAID THAT THE COMMISSION
ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED THAT THOSE CASES SET FORTH A RULE OF LAW WHICH
EXCLUDED THE PROCESS OF REDUCING ENERGY FROM HIGH TO LOW VOLTAGE IN
SUBDIVIDING IT TO SERVE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS FROM THE BUSINESS OF LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION.  BUT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THESE TWO CASES DO NOT ENUNCIATE
SUCH A RULE AND DO NOT DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSITION,
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE COMMISSION COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY
CITING THEM IN A FOOTNOTE.  THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSITION WAS GROUNDED
NOT ON THESE TWO CASES BUT UPON THE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD AND ITS OWN
KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE PERTAINING TO ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION.  THIS
IS PLAINLY REVEALED BY THE USE OF THE PHRASE "IN OUR OPINION" IN THE
SENTENCE SETTING FORTH THE COMMISSION'S DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTERSTATE
TRANSMISSION AND LOCAL DISTRIBUTION.  THE SLIGHT REFERENCE TO THE
SOUTHERN GAS AND EAST OHIO CASES WAS AT MOST FOR PURPOSES OF ANALOGY
AND CANNOT SERVE TO IMPAIR THE TRUE UNDERLYING BASIS OF THE
COMMISSION'S PROPOSITION.  PRESUMABLY ALL THE COMMISSION NEED DO ON
REMAND IN THIS RESPECT IS TO REMOVE THE FOOTNOTE REFERENCE TO THESE
CASES - A FACT THAT MAKES OBVIOUS THE PROPOSITION THAT MORE THAN AN
IRRELEVANT OR EVEN ERRONEOUS CITATION OF A CASE SHOULD BE REQUIRED
BEFORE WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN REVERSING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
AND SENDING IT BACK FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 

THE COURT ALSO DEALS AT GREAT LENGTH WITH THE POLICY DECLARATION IN
SEC. 201(A) OF THE ACT THAT FEDERAL REGULATION IS "TO EXTEND ONLY TO
THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES" AND
WITH THE "BUT" CLAUSE IN SEC. 201(B), WHICH STATES THAT THE COMMISSION
SHALL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, EXCEPT AS SPECIALLY PROVIDED, OVER CERTAIN
FACILITIES, INCLUDING THOSE USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION.  BUT NEITHER OF
THESE PROVISIONS IS CONTROLLING IN THIS CASE WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS
MADE A CLEAR AND SUPPORTABLE FINDING THAT PETITIONER IS A PUBLIC
UTILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT AND WHERE THE ONLY FEDERAL
REGULATION SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED IS THE ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
301(A). 

IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT THIS COURT IN JERSEY CENTRAL CO. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, 319 U.S. 61, DID NOT READ OUT OF THE ACT THE POLICY
DECLARATION IN SEC. 201(A).  BUT IT DID MAKE CLEAR THAT THE
DECLARATION, WHICH SPEAKS SOLELY IN TERMS OF "REGULATION," WAS DIRECTED
SOLELY AT PROPOSED FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE GENERATION, TRANSMISSION
AND SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY RATHER THAN AT PROPOSED FEDERAL REGULATION
OF THE CORPORATE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS OF UTILITIES, SUCH AS THEIR
ACCOUNTING METHODS.  319 U.S. AT 74, 75.  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND, IN
OTHER WORDS, TO INTRUDE UPON STATE REGULATION OF GENERATION,
TRANSMISSION AND SALE OF ENERGY BUT IT DID INTEND TO IMPOSE FINANCIAL
REGULATIONS ON PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION OF
ENERGY EVEN THOUGH STATES MIGHT ALSO IMPOSE FINANCIAL REGULATIONS. 
THIS MEANS, UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION
OF ENERGY IS A PROPER TEST OF WHETHER FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS MAY
BE IMPOSED.  WHAT SORT OF TRANSMISSION MAY BE A PROPER SUBJECT OF
FEDERAL REGULATION IN AND OF ITSELF IF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT ALREADY
REGULATES THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES IS NOT IN ISSUE.  THE COMMISSION
CLEARLY DID NOT MISCONCEIVE THE MEANING OF THIS POLICY DECLARATION AND,
IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S OPINION, IT APPARENTLY NEED DO NO MORE THAN
SPELL OUT ITS RECOGNITION OF THE SCOPE AND PRESENT INAPPLICABILITY OF
THE DECLARATION. 

NOR DID THE COMMISSION DO VIOLENCE TO THE "BUT" CLAUSE OF SEC.
201(B).  HERE THE COMMISSION, FOLLOWING THE RULE STATED IN THE JERSEY
CENTRAL CASE, 319 U.S. AT 73, THAT "THE DETERMINATIVE FACT IS THE
OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES USED IN TRANSMISSION," HAS FOUND THAT
PETITIONER IS A PUBLIC UTILITY SINCE IT OWNS AND OPERATES FACILITIES
USED IN INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY.  THE COMMISSION THUS HAS
JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONER FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES.  THE DENIAL OF
JURISDICTION IN THE "BUT" CLAUSE WHERE FACILITIES ARE USED FOR
TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY IN LOCAL COMMERCE HAS NO RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE,
AN OBVIOUS FACT WHICH THE COMMISSION APPARENTLY NOW MUST MAKE EXPLICIT
ON REMAND. 

THE COMMISSION IS DEALING HERE WITH A DIFFICULT MARGINAL CASE.  THE
PRECISE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION AND LOCAL
DISTRIBUTION CAN ONLY BE DRAWN BY THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE ENGINEERING
AND ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS INVOLVED.  THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE, MOREOVER,
IS A RELATIVELY UNIQUE ONE.  AN INFORMAL SURVEY BY THE COMMISSION HAS
SHOWN THAT OUT OF A TOTAL OF ABOUT 1,000 PRIVATELY OWNED ELECTRIC
UTILITIES THERE ARE ONLY 12 WHICH OWN OR OPERATE STEP-DOWN SUBSTATION
FACILITIES FOR TAKING OUT-OF-STATE ENERGY AND WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE
BE PUBLIC UTILITIES UNDER THE ACT.  THE PROBLEM IS THUS ONE PECULIARLY
WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH HAS SHOWN NO DESIRE TO
USE THE PRINCIPLE IT HAS ENUNCIATED IN THIS CASE AND COULD NOT USE IT
AS A VEHICLE FOR ASSUMING UNJUSTIFIED JURISDICTION OVER THE FACILITIES
OF ALL THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES IN THE NATION.  IT HAS GIVEN
PROPER RESPECT TO THE DICTATES OF CONGRESS RELATIVE TO STATE
REGULATION.  WE SHOULD THEREFORE AFFIRM ITS ACTION IN THIS CASE WITHOUT
BURDENING IT WITH REQUIREMENTS OF ARTISTIC REFINEMENT AND OF NEGATIONS
OF THE APPLICABILITY OF IRRELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :












COMMISSIONER V. WHEELER, 324 U.S. 542 


NO. 354.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945.  - 143
F.2D 162, REVERSED. 


ARTICLE 115-3 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, PROMULGATED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1938, REQUIRES THAT, FOR COMPUTING UNDER SEC.
112(B)(7)(E) THE AMOUNT OF "EARNINGS AND PROFITS" DISTRIBUTED BY A
CORPORATION AS LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS, WITH RESPECT TO SECURITIES WHICH
THE CORPORATION HAD ACQUIRED BY TAX-FREE EXCHANGES FOR ITS OWN STOCK
AND HAD LATER SOLD, THE BASIS BE THE TRANSFEROR'S COST RATHER THAN THE
VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THEIR ACQUISITION BY THE
CORPORATION.  HELD: 

1.  THE REGULATION WAS REASONABLE AND A VALID EXERCISE OF THE RULE
MAKING POWER.  P. 546. 

2.  THOUGH THE TAX COURT RELIED ON SEC. 501 OF THE SECOND REVENUE ACT
OF 1940, IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
APPLYING THAT SECTION RETROACTIVELY.  P. 547. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. WHEELER ET AL., EXECUTORS, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 694, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT, 1 T.C. 640, WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION
OF DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS HELD SECTION
501(A) OF THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF 1940 TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FN1
THIS OF COURSE CALLED FOR GRANT OF CERTIORARI.  FN2 

SINCE OUR PROBLEM IS NOT COMPUTATION OF A TAX, THE FACTS RELEVANT TO
THE ISSUES IN THE FIVE CASES, CONSOLIDATED ON APPEAL, MAY BE SHORTLY
STATED.  IN 1925, JOHN H. WHEELER AND HIS WIFE, FRANCES, ORGANIZED
UNDER THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA THE JOHN H. WHEELER COMPANY.  THEN AND
THEREAFTER THEY TRANSFERRED AN ASSORTMENT OF SECURITIES TO IT IN
EXCHANGE FOR SHARES OF ITS COMMON STOCK.  THE SECURITIES HAD COST THEM
$304,684.49 AND AT TRANSFER HAD A FAIR MARKET VALUE OF $491,800.  IN
EXCHANGE THE WHEELERS RECEIVED 4,918 SHARES WITH A PAR VALUE OF $100
EACH.  NO GAIN BY THEM WAS RECOGNIZED FOR INCOME-TAX PURPOSES BY REASON
OF THE EXCHANGE.  CF. INT. REV. CODE SEC. 112(B)(5). 

FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ITS INCOME-TAX LIABILITY ON SUBSEQUENT
DISPOSITION OF THE SECURITIES, THE CORPORATION WAS OBLIGED TO AND DID
USE AS A COST BASE THE COST OF THE SECURITIES TO THE TRANSFERORS,
$304,684.49.  CF. INT. REV. CODE SEC. 113(A)(8).  BUT FOR ITS CORPORATE
ACCOUNTING THE CORPORATION SET UP A COST OF $491,800, MARKET VALUE AT
THE TIME OF ACQUISITION IN EXCHANGE FOR COMMON STOCK OF EQUAL PAR
VALUE.  THE WHOLE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHICH OF THESE BASES IS TO
BE USED TO COMPUTE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 112(B)(7)(E) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1938, 52 STAT. 447, 488, THE AMOUNT OF "EARNINGS AND PROFITS"
DISTRIBUTED AS LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS.  THE ACT OF 1938, TO INDUCE
CORPORATE LIQUIDATIONS, PERMITTED A QUALIFIED STOCKHOLDER TO ELECT
POSTPONEMENT OF A PORTION OF THE GAIN REALIZED ON A DECEMBER 1938
LIQUIDATION AND TO BE TAXED, AS FOR A DIVIDEND, ON "SO MUCH OF THE GAIN
AS IS NOT IN EXCESS OF HIS RATABLE SHARE OF THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF
THE CORPORATION  ..."  IF THE MARKET-VALUE BASIS IS USED FOR THE
SECURITIES ACQUIRED FROM THE WHEELERS AND LATER SOLD, THE OPERATIONS OF
THE COMPANY SHOWED A DEFICIT ON NOVEMBER 30, 1938, WHEN THE BOOKS WERE
CLOSED.  IF THE COST-TO-TRANSFERORS BASIS IS USED, "EARNINGS AND
PROFITS" WERE DISTRIBUTED TO RESPONDENTS, THE STOCKHOLDERS, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $132,813.48, AS COMPUTED BY THE COMMISSIONER.  FN3 

AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 112(B)(7), THE
STOCKHOLDERS DULY DISSOLVED THE CORPORATION AND DISTRIBUTED ITS ASSETS
DURING DECEMBER 1938.  THEY ELECTED TO BE TAXED ON THE GAINS ON THEIR
SHARES PURSUANT TO SEC. 112(B)(7), AND THEY REPORTED, OF COURSE,
ACCORDING TO THE HIGHER OR MARKET-VALUE BASIS FOR THE SECURITIES
ACQUIRED AND DISPOSED OF BY THE COMPANY.  THE COMMISSIONER ASSERTED A
DEFICIENCY BASED ON THE LOWER COST TO THE TRANSFERORS.  IN EXPLAINING
HIS DETERMINATION HE RELIED ON SEC. 501(A) OF THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF
1940, 54 STAT. 974, 1004, WHICH PROVIDES THAT EARNINGS AND PROFITS ON
THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY SHALL BE DETERMINED BY USING
THE ADJUSTED BASIS FOR DETERMINING GAINS AND BY RECOGNIZING SUCH GAINS
TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE RECOGNIZED FOR COMPUTING NET INCOME, AND ON
SEC. 501(C), WHICH MAKES THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 501(A) APPLICABLE TO
PRIOR YEARS. 

THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER.  FN4  IT HELD SEC. 501(A)
OF THE ACT OF 1940 A "COMPLETE ANSWER" TO TAXPAYERS' CONTENTION, AND IT
OVERRULED THEIR CLAIM THAT IF THE SECTION WAS APPLICABLE TO INCREASE
THEIR 1938 LIABILITY IT WAS RETROACTIVE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AGREED
THAT THE SECTION WAS APPLICABLE, BUT HELD THAT SUCH RETROACTIVITY
RENDERED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

ALTHOUGH THE TERM "EARNINGS AND PROFITS" HAS LONG BEEN IN THE REVENUE
ACTS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEFINITION OF DIVIDENDS, IT HAS NEVER BEEN
DEFINED BY THE STATUTES  FN5  (EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS SEC. 501(A) OF THE
SECOND ACT OF 1940 HAS NOW DONE SO).  BUT UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934
AND SUCCEEDING ACTS, THE COMMISSIONER DEALT BY REGULATION WITH THAT
PORTION OF THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION RELEVANT HERE.  ARTICLE 115-3 OF
TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1938 ACT, PROVIDED IN
PART AS FOLLOWS:  "GAINS AND LOSSES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 112
OR CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF PRIOR ACTS ARE BROUGHT INTO THE EARNINGS
AND PROFITS AT THE TIME AND TO THE EXTENT SUCH GAINS AND LOSSES ARE
RECOGNIZED UNDER THAT SECTION."  FN6  THIS REGULATION, IF VALID,
DISPOSES OF THE CONTROVERSY, FOR WHEN THE CORPORATION SOLD ITS
SECURITIES ACQUIRED FROM THE WHEELERS IT REALIZED GAIN, BASED ON
TRANSFEROR'S COST, WHICH WAS FULLY RECOGNIZED UNDER SEC. 112. 

THE ONLY REASON TO DOUBT THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION IS FOUND IN
CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND LOWER COURTS,
MENTIONED IN THE TAX COURT'S OPINION.  DESPITE THESE ADVERSE DECISIONS,
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER PERSISTED IN APPLYING THE REGULATION.  THE
QUESTION WAS NEVER REVIEWED HERE.  BEFORE IT WAS FINALLY JUDICIALLY
CONSIDERED, CONGRESS ENACTED SEC. 501 OF THE SECOND REVENUE ACT OF
1940, AS THE COMMITTEE REPORTS SHOW,  FN7  TO "CLARIFY THE LAW" BY
ENACTING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE REGULATION.  BUT IF THE REGULATION ITSELF
WAS VALID AND EFFECTIVE, THE CLARIFYING AMENDMENT OF 1940 ADDED NOTHING
TO THE LIABILITY OF THESE TAXPAYERS, AND EVEN THOUGH THE TAX COURT
RELIED ON IT RATHER THAN ON THE REGULATION, NO QUESTION OF
RETROACTIVITY IS PRESENTED. 

WE THINK THE REGULATION IS REASONABLE AND A VALID EXERCISE OF THE
RULE-MAKING POWER.  THE TAXPAYERS ARE INSISTING ON USING AS A BASE FOR
TAX PURPOSES A FIGURE THAT IN ITSELF HAD NO RELATION TO TAXATION.  IT
WAS NO DOUBT PERMISSIBLE AND PERHAPS THE CORRECT ACCOUNTING, FOR
DETERMINING EARNED SURPLUS FOR DIVIDENDS AND SUCH CORPORATE PURPOSES,
FOR THE CORPORATION TO SET UP ITS BOOKS ON THE MARKET VALUE OF ITS
PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION, WHICH DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE
STOCK IT ISSUED.  BUT "EARNINGS AND PROFITS" IN THE TAX SENSE, ALTHOUGH
IT DOES NOT CORRESPOND EXACTLY TO TAXABLE INCOME, DOES NOT NECESSARILY
FOLLOW CORPORATE ACCOUNTING CONCEPTS EITHER.  FN8  CONGRESS HAS
DETERMINED THAT IN CERTAIN TYPES OF TRANSACTION THE ECONOMIC CHANGES
ARE NOT DEFINITIVE ENOUGH TO BE GIVEN TAX CONSEQUENCES, AND HAS CLEARLY
PROVIDED THAT GAINS AND LOSSES ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS SHALL NOT BE
RECOGNIZED FOR INCOME-TAX LIABILITY BUT SHALL BE TAKEN ACCOUNT OF
LATER.  SECS. 112, 113.  IT IS SENSIBLE TO CARRY THROUGH THE THEORY IN
DETERMINING THE TAX EFFECT OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS ON EARNINGS AND
PROFITS.  COMPARE COMMISSIONER V. SANSOME, 60 F.2D 931, AND SEE SEN.
REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 19; H.R. REP. NO. 2894, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS., P. 41.  INDEED, CONGRESS APPEARS TO HAVE PROVIDED FOR
THIS RESULT IN THE STATUTE ITSELF (SEC. 111(C) OF THE 1938 ACT), WHICH
DECLARES:  "IN THE CASE OF A SALE OR EXCHANGE, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
GAIN OR LOSS DETERMINED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE RECOGNIZED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS TITLE, SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
RECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS TO THE CORPORATION AT THE TIME OF THE
EXCHANGE WITH THE WHEELERS, BECAUSE IT WAS ISSUING ITS OWN STOCK AND SO
REALIZED NO GAIN OR LOSS.  BUT TO RECOGNIZE THE INCREMENT IN VALUE AS
AFFECTING EARNINGS AND PROFITS WOULD NO MORE HARMONIZE WITH THE TAXLESS
CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION THAN TO TREAT A REALIZED GAIN AS DOING SO.
THE SAME POLICY WHICH CARRIES OVER THE TRANSFEROR'S BASIS FOR PURPOSES
OF THE CORPORATION'S INCOME TAX (SEC. 113(A)(8)) REQUIRES CARRYING IT
OVER FOR DETERMINING THE TAXABILITY OF ITS DISTRIBUTIONS, AS THE
COMMISSIONER'S REGULATION DIRECTS:  GAINS AND LOSSES ARE TO BE BROUGHT
INTO EARNINGS AND PROFITS AT THE TIME AND "TO THE EXTENT" THAT THEY ARE
RECOGNIZED UNDER SEC. 112.  FINALLY, NO DOUBT OF THE REASONABLENESS OF
THE RULE CAN LINGER IN THE PRESENCE OF SEC. 501(A), BY WHICH CONGRESS
HAS INDICATED ITS EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE BASIS FOR
DETERMINING EARNINGS AND PROFITS SHALL BE THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING
GAIN. 

WE THEREFORE THINK THAT ON PRINCIPLES OFTEN REITERATED  FN10  THE
REGULATION IS VALID AND DECISIVE OF THIS ISSUE.  THERE IS NO NECESSITY
TO PREDICATE THE DETERMINATION OF DEFICIENCY ON THE 1940 AMENDMENT. 
THE 1940 AMENDMENT CONSEQUENTLY HAS NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT ON THE
LIABILITY OF THESE TAXPAYERS AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT WARRANTED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE TAX COURT IS AFFIRMED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  143 F.2D 162. 

FN2  323 U.S. 694. 

FN3  THIS WAS SLIGHTLY MODIFIED BY THE TAX COURT IN AN ASPECT NOT
MATERIAL HERE. 

FN4  1 T.C. 640. 

FN5  SEE PAUL, SELECTED STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION (SECOND SERIES,
1938) 140, 155 ET SEQ. 

FN6  THE PROVISION APPEARS IN REG. 94, ART. 115-3, UNDER THE ACT OF
1936; REG. 86, ART. 115-1, UNDER THE ACT OF 1934; AND IN REG. 103, SEC.
19.115-3 AND REG. 111, SEC. 29.115-3 UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

FN7  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2894, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 41; SEN. REP.
NO. 2114, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 22. 

FN8  SEE 1 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1942) SEC. 9.33. 

FN9  SEE PAUL, SELECTED STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION (SECOND SERIES,
1938) 193-95. 

FN10  BOSKE V. COMINGORE, 177 U.S. 459, 470; BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280
U.S. 327, 336; UNITED STATES V. KIRBY LUMBER CO., 284 U.S. 1, 3; FAWCUS
MACHINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 375, 378.  IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED
THAT THE REGULATION HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE DOCTRINE THAT REENACTMENT OF
THE STATUTE WITHOUT DISAPPROVAL OF REGULATIONS THEREUNDER GIVES THEM
ADDED SANCTION.  UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA-MONTANA OIL CO., 288 U.S. 459,
466; HELVERING V. WINMILL, 305 U.S. 79, 83; HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318
U.S. 371, 395, 397. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR
THE REASONS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 143 F.2D 162. 
..END :



MARKET STREET R. CO. V. COMM'N, 324 U.S. 548 


NOS. 510 AND 511.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 26, 1945. 
- 24 CAL.2D 378, 150 P.2D 196, AFFIRMED. 


1.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPEAL TO THIS COURT, THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HERE INVOLVED BECAME FINAL UPON THAT
COURT'S DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR REHEARING; AND AN APPEAL WAS NOT
PREMATURE THOUGH TAKEN BEFORE EXPIRATION OF THE 30-DAY PERIOD IN WHICH,
UNDER THE STATE LAW AND PRACTICE, THE STATE COURT COULD HAVE MODIFIED
THE JUDGMENT.  P. 551. 

2.  AN ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION REQUIRING THE APPELLANT STREET
RAILWAY COMPANY TO REDUCE ITS BASE CASH FARE FROM SEVEN TO SIX CENTS,
HELD, UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, NOT A
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP. 553, 569. 

(A)  THERE IS NO FOUNDATION IN THE RECORD FOR THE COMPANY'S
CONTENTION THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION IT WAS GIVEN
NO ADEQUATE NOTICE THAT ITS RATES WERE UNDER ATTACK AND THEREFORE NO
OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING ON THE REASONABLENESS OF ITS RATES.  P. 558. 

(B)  THE ORDER WAS NOT UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT RENDERED
INVALID BY THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION EVALUATED THE COMPANY'S
EXPERIENCE FOR ITSELF WITHOUT THE AID OF EXPERT TESTIMONY.  P. 559. 

(C)  THE ORDER WAS NOT INVALID AS BASED ON MATTERS OUTSIDE THE
RECORD.  THE COMMISSION'S INCIDENTAL REFERENCE TO THE COMPANY'S OWN
REPORTS, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE NOT FORMALLY IN EVIDENCE IN THE PROCEEDING,
DID NOT DENY DUE PROCESS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING OF ERROR OR
PREJUDICE.  P. 561. 

(D)  AS THE RATE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION IS NOT HERE FOUND TO BE
CONFISCATORY, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER "VALUE OF SERVICE"
WOULD JUSTIFY A RATE WHICH DOES NOT YIELD A FAIR RETURN.  TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE COMMISSION WAS INFLUENCED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF THE VALUE OF
THE SERVICE IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO DENIAL TO THE COMPANY OF ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  P. 562. 

(E)  IN VIEW OF THE COMPANY'S ECONOMIC PLIGHT, THE ORDER WAS NOT
INVALID EVEN THOUGH UNDER THE PRESCRIBED RATE THE COMPANY WOULD OPERATE
AT A LOSS.  THAT THE COMMISSION USED AS A RATE BASE THE PRICE AT WHICH
THE COMPANY HAD OFFERED TO SELL ITS PROPERTIES TO THE MUNICIPALITY, AND
DISREGARDED THEORETICAL REPRODUCTION COSTS, DID NOT VITIATE THE ORDER. 
P. 564. 

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT INSURE VALUES NOR REQUIRE RESTORATION
OF VALUES THAT HAVE BEEN LOST BY THE OPERATION OF ECONOMIC FORCES. 

(F)  THAT THE TEST OF EXPERIENCE WHICH THE ORDER CONTEMPLATED WAS
UNAVAILABLE CAN NOT AFFECT ITS CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY, WHERE THE
COMPANY ITSELF, BY LITIGATION AND SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE PROPERTY, HAD
FRUSTRATED SUCH TEST.  P. 568. 

MARKET STREET RAILWAY CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. 

APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEALS FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION
WHICH DIRECTED THE RAILWAY TO REDUCE ITS FARES FROM SEVEN TO SIX
CENTS.  BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHETHER THE FIRST APPEAL WAS
PREMATURE, A SECOND APPEAL WAS TAKEN; THE SECOND APPEAL IS HERE
DISMISSED AND THE FIRST HEARD ON THE MERITS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM A SINGLE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA BECAUSE COUNSEL WAS UNCERTAIN WHEN THE JUDGMENT
BECAME FINAL FOR OUR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES.  THE DECISION WAS
RENDERED JULY 1, 1944; IT CONCLUDED, "THE ORDER IS AFFIRMED"; A
PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS DENIED JULY 27, 1944.  THE FIRST APPEAL WAS
APPLIED FOR AND ALLOWED ON JULY 31, 1944.  IF THE JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL
ON DENIAL OF REHEARING, THIS APPEAL WAS TIMELY.  HOWEVER, THE
CALIFORNIA RULES ON APPEAL EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT A DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT "BECOMES FINAL THIRTY DAYS AFTER FILING UNLESS OTHERWISE
ORDERED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF SAID 30-DAY PERIOD."  FN1
REMITTITUR DOES NOT ISSUE UNTIL THE END OF THE 30-DAY PERIOD.  FN2  IT
ISSUED ON AUGUST 1 AND CERTIFIED, ACCORDING TO PRACTICE, THAT "THE
FOREGOING IS A TRUE COPY OF AN ORIGINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE ABOVE
ENTITLED CAUSE ON THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 1944; AND NOW REMAINING OF
RECORD IN MY OFFICE."  IF THE DATE OF ITS ISSUE, BEING ALSO THE DATE OF
FINALITY FIXED BY THE RULE, GOVERNS FINALITY FOR PURPOSES OF OUR
JURISDICTION, THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT A FINAL ONE AT THE TIME THE FIRST
APPEAL WAS GRANTED.  ON THE CHANCE THAT IT MIGHT BE DISMISSED AS
PREMATURE, A SECOND APPEAL WAS PRESENTED AND ALLOWED ON SEPTEMBER 21. 

OUR JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A STATE COURT JUDGMENT IS CONFINED BY LONG
STANDING STATUTE TO ONE WHICH IS FINAL.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 237, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 344.  FINAL IT MUST BE IN TWO SENSES:  IT MUST BE SUBJECT
TO NO FURTHER REVIEW OR CORRECTION IN ANY OTHER STATE TRIBUNAL; IT MUST
ALSO BE FINAL AS AN EFFECTIVE DETERMINATION OF THE LITIGATION AND NOT
OF MERELY INTERLOCUTORY OR INTERMEDIATE STEPS THEREIN.  IT MUST BE THE
FINAL WORD OF A FINAL COURT. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT FINALITY OF A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT FOR
DETERMINING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH OUR JURISDICTION TO REVIEW MAY BE
INVOKED IS NOT CONTROLLED BY THE DESIGNATION APPLIED IN STATE
PRACTICE.  DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK, 317 U.S. 264; COLE V.
VIOLETTE, 319 U.S. 581.  THE JUDGMENT FOR OUR PURPOSES IS FINAL WHEN
THE ISSUES ARE ADJUDGED.  SUCH FINALITY IS NOT DEFERRED BY THE
EXISTENCE OF A LATENT POWER IN THE RENDERING COURT TO REOPEN OR REVISE
ITS JUDGMENT.  THE WAITING PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE HERE SEEMS
TO RESERVE A POWER OF THAT CHARACTER.  THE DECISION DURING THIS PERIOD
DOES NOT LACK THE ATTRIBUTES OF AN ADJUDICATION, IT IS NOT AWAITING
LAPSE OF TIME TO BECOME A JUDGMENT, IT MERELY IS SUBJECT TO
MODIFICATION.  WHEN THIS PERIOD RUNS, UNLESS THE COURT HAS MOVED
MEANWHILE, IT BECOMES POWERLESS TO CHANGE OR MODIFY THE JUDGMENT. 
OAKLAND V. PACIFIC COAST LUMBER CO., 172 CAL. 332, 337, 156 P. 468;
ESTATE OF ROSS, 189 CAL. 317, 318, 207 P. 1014.  THE RULE IS THUS A
LIMITATION ON THE TIME DURING WHICH THE COURT MAY RECONSIDER, WHICH IN
ABSENCE OF SUCH RULE MIGHT EXPIRE ONLY WITH THE END OF THE TERM OR SOME
OTHER EVENT DETERMINATIVE UNDER LOCAL LAW.  SUCH LATENT POWERS OF STATE
COURTS OVER THEIR JUDGMENTS ARE TOO VARIABLE AND INDETERMINATE TO SERVE
AS TESTS OF OUR JURISDICTION.  OUR TEST IS A PRACTICAL ONE.  WHEN THE
CASE IS DECIDED, THE TIME TO SEEK OUR REVIEW BEGINS TO RUN.  A TIMELY
PETITION FOR REHEARING DEFERS FINALITY FOR OUR PURPOSES UNTIL IT IS
ACTED UPON OR UNTIL POWER TO ACT UPON IT HAS EXPIRED AS HERE IT WOULD
APPEAR TO DO AT THE END OF THE 30-DAY PERIOD.  FN3  IF REHEARING IS
GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT IS OPENED, AND DOES NOT BECOME FINAL AS A
PREREQUISITE TO APPLICATION FOR REVIEW BY US UNTIL DECISION IS RENDERED
UPON REHEARING. 

WE POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF JURISDICTION UNTIL HEARING ON THE
MERITS.  FN4  WE HOLD THAT THIS JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL ON DENIAL OF
REHEARING, THAT THE FIRST APPEAL WAS TIMELY AND THAT THE PRECAUTIONARY
SECOND APPEAL IS DUPLICATION.  ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IN NO. 511 IS
DISMISSED AND THAT IN NO. 510 IS ENTERTAINED UPON ITS MERITS. 

THE MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS OPERATED A SYSTEM OF PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION BY STREET CAR
AND BY BUS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND ITS ENVIRONS.  THE RAILROAD COMMISSION
OF CALIFORNIA INSTITUTED ON ITS OWN MOTION AN INQUIRY INTO THE
COMPANY'S RATES AND SERVICE.  AFTER HEARINGS, AN ORDER WAS PROMULGATED
REDUCING THE FARE FROM SEVEN TO SIX CENTS.  FN5 THE COMPANY, AFTER
REHEARING WAS DENIED,  FN6  OBTAINED REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA.  IT ALSO OBTAINED A STAY OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER,
CONDITIONED UPON IMPOUNDING THE DISPUTED ONE CENT PER PASSENGER TO
ABIDE SETTLEMENT OF THE ISSUES UPON WHICH ITS OWNERSHIP WOULD DEPEND. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AFFIRMED THE ORDER  FN7  AND APPEAL IS
TAKEN TO THIS COURT.  MEANWHILE THE COMPANY SOLD ITS OPERATIVE
PROPERTIES TO THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO.  THE CASE IS SAVED FROM BEING
MOOT ONLY BECAUSE ITS DECISION IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO THE IMPOUNDED PORTION OF THE FARES OR WHETHER
THE MONEY SHALL BE REFUNDED TO PASSENGERS MAKING CLAIMS AND UNCLAIMED
AMOUNTS THEREOF BE PAID OVER TO THE STATE, AS REQUIRED BY CONDITIONS OF
THE STAY ORDER. 

THE APPEAL RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ONLY.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT
THE ORDER DEPRIVES THE APPELLANT OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW, CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  APPELLANT CLAIMS DENIALS OF
DUE PROCESS IN MATTERS OF PROCEDURE IN THAT IT HAD NO ADEQUATE NOTICE
THAT ITS RATES WERE UNDER ATTACK OR ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING
THEREON, THAT THE ORDER IN SEVERAL VITAL PARTICULARS IS NOT SUPPORTED
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY ANY EVIDENCE, AND THAT IT WAS IMPROPERLY
BASED ON MATTERS OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD ON WHICH THERE WAS NO
OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE OR TO BE HEARD.  IT CLAIMS A TAKING OF ITS
PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD FORCE THE
COMPANY TO OPERATE AT A LOSS BECAUSE THE COMMISSION USED A RATE BASE OF
$7,950,000, THE PRICE AT WHICH APPELLANT HAD OFFERED TO SELL ITS
OPERATIVE PROPERTIES TO THE CITY, AND DID NOT CONSIDER REPRODUCTION
COST, HISTORICAL COST, PRUDENT INVESTMENT, OR CAPITALIZATION BASES, ON
ANY OF WHICH UNDER CONVENTIONAL ACCOUNTING THE SIX-CENT FARE WOULD
PRODUCE NO RETURN ON ITS PROPERTY AND WOULD FORCE A SUBSTANTIAL
OPERATING DEFICIT UPON THE COMPANY. 

THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS THAT IT HAS BEEN DENIED
DUE PROCESS IN PROCEDURE AND HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
TAKING OF ITS PROPERTY INVOKES MANY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN WHICH
STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT SEEM TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS.  BUT IT
SHOULD BE NOTED AT THE OUTSET THAT MOST OF OUR CASES DEAL WITH
UTILITIES WHICH HAD EARNING OPPORTUNITIES, AND PUBLIC REGULATION
CURTAILED EARNINGS OTHERWISE POSSIBLE.  BUT IF THERE WERE NO PUBLIC
REGULATION AT ALL, THIS APPELLANT WOULD BE A PARTICULARLY AILING UNIT
OF A GENERALLY SICK INDUSTRY.  THE PROBLEM OF RECONCILING THE PATRONS'
NEEDS AND THE INVESTORS' RIGHTS IN AN ENTERPRISE THAT HAS PASSED ITS
ZENITH OF OPPORTUNITY AND USEFULNESS, WHOSE INVESTMENT ALREADY IS
IMPAIRED BY ECONOMIC FORCES, AND WHOSE EARNING POSSIBILITIES ARE
ALREADY INVADED BY COMPETITION FROM OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION, IS
QUITE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM.  THE COMPANY'S PRACTICAL SITUATION THROWS
IMPORTANT LIGHT BOTH ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RATE REDUCTION HAS
TAKEN ITS PROPERTY AND ALSO UPON THE CRITICISMS IT MAKES OF THE CONDUCT
OF THE HEARINGS. 

TRANSPORTATION HISTORY OF SAN FRANCISCO FOLLOWS A PATTERN NOT
UNFAMILIAR.  THIS PROPERTY HAS PASSED THROUGH CYCLES OF COMPETITION,
CONSOLIDATION AND MONOPOLY, AND NEW FORMS OF COMPETITION; IT HAS SEEN
DAYS OF PROSPERITY, DECLINE, AND SALVAGE.  IN THE 1850'S AN OMNIBUS
SERVICE BEGAN TO OPERATE IN SAN FRANCISCO.  IN THE 1860'S CAME THE
HORSE CAR.  THE 1870'S SAW THE BEGINNING OF THE CABLE CAR, FOR WHICH
THE CONTOUR OF THE CITY WAS PECULIARLY ADAPTED.  THE MARKET STREET
RAILWAY COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN 1893 AND TOOK OVER 11 OF THE 17
STREET CAR LINES THEN INDEPENDENTLY OPERATED IN THE CITY.  IN 1902,
UNITED RAILROADS OF SAN FRANCISCO WAS ORGANIZED.  THIS CONSOLIDATED
UNDER ONE OPERATING CONTROL PROPERTIES OF THE MARKET STREET COMPANY AND
FIVE OTHER LINES, COMPRISING 229 MILES OF TRACK, MUCH OF WHICH WAS
CABLE-OPERATED.  IT SUFFERED GREATLY FROM THE EARTHQUAKE AND FIRE OF
1906, BUT CARRIED OUT A CONSIDERABLE PROGRAM OF RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN
1906 AND 1910.  IN 1921 IT FAILED TO PAY INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING
BONDS.  BONDHOLDERS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTIES AND REVIVED THE MARKET
STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, WHICH HAD BEEN A DORMANT SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED,
TO OPERATE THEM. 

IN 1912 THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BEGAN OPERATION OF A
MUNICIPAL STREET RAILWAY LINE.  THIS LINE IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN
UNDER THE RAILROAD COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  IT EXPANDED RAPIDLY, ITS
ROUTES IN SOME INSTANCES PARALLEL THOSE OF APPELLANT, AND ITS
COMPETITION HAS BEEN SERIOUS.  THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF COMPETITION THE
MUNICIPAL LINES HAVE OPERATED ON A FIVE-CENT FARE.  THE MARKET STREET
LINE ALSO OPERATED ON A FIVE-CENT FARE UNTIL JULY 6, 1937.  IN THAT
YEAR IT APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION FOR AN INCREASE TO A SEVEN-CENT
FARE.  THIS WAS DENIED, BUT A TWO-CENT TRANSFER CHARGE AND OTHER
ADJUSTMENTS WERE AUTHORIZED.  IN MARCH 1938 THE COMPANY AGAIN
PETITIONED FOR A SEVEN-CENT FARE, WITH REDUCTION FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN. 
THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED A SEVEN-CENT FARE, BUT REQUIRED SOME
CONCESSION TO TOKEN BUYERS.  A FEW MONTHS LATER THE COMPANY AGAIN ASKED
A STRAIGHT SEVEN-CENT FARE AND RELIEF FROM THE TOKEN RATE.  THE
COMMISSION DIRECTED THE COMPANY TO APPLY TO THE CITY FOR PERMISSION TO
ABANDON CERTAIN LINES AND TO PROTECT IT AGAINST "JITNEY COMPETITION,"
STIPULATING THAT THE SEVEN-CENT FARE COULD BE MADE EFFECTIVE IF THE
CITY FAILED TO RESPOND.  THE CITY DID NOT ACT, AND THE SEVEN-CENT FARE
BECAME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1939. 

BUT THE INCREASE OF FARE BROUGHT NO INCREASE OF REVENUE.  BOTH
TRAFFIC AND REVENUE CONTINUED TO DECLINE, AND IN 1941 REACHED THE
LOWEST POINT IN TWENTY YEARS.  THEN CAME WAR, BRINGING ACCELERATED
ACTIVITY, INCREASE OF POPULATION OF THE CITY, RUBBER AND GAS SHORTAGE,
RESTRICTIONS ON PURCHASE OF NEW AND RETIREMENT OF MANY OLD
AUTOMOBILES.  TRAFFIC AND REVENUES SHOWED A SUDDEN INCREASE.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT THE SERVICE HAD CONSTANTLY DETERIORATED
AND WAS WORSE UNDER THE SEVEN-CENT FARE THAN UNDER THE FORMER FIVE-CENT
RATE.  IT RECOGNIZED THAT SOME OF THE CAUSES WERE BEYOND THE COMPANY'S
CONTROL.  BUT AFTER ALLOWANCE FOR THOSE CAUSES, IT ALSO FOUND EVIDENCE
OF LONG-TIME NEGLECT, MISMANAGEMENT, AND INDIFFERENCE TO URGENT PUBLIC
NEED.  IT FOUND THE COMPANY'S SERVICE INFERIOR TO THE SERVICE OF THE
MUNICIPAL LINES, ALTHOUGH APPELLANT CHARGED A 40 PER CENT HIGHER FARE. 
DEFECTS IN SERVICE CONSISTED OF FAILURE TO OPERATE ON SCHEDULE, LONG
INTERVALS BETWEEN CARS, FOLLOWED BY SEVERAL CARS OPERATING WITH LITTLE
HEADWAY, OVERLOADING, INADEQUATE INSPECTION, AND INADEQUATELY
MAINTAINED ROLLING STOCK.  THE COMPANY HAD SOME 70 CARS OUT OF
OPERATION AND IN STORAGE BECAUSE OF SHORTAGE OF MANPOWER.  ITS STREET
CAR ROLLING STOCK WAS OBSOLETE, 73 ELECTRIC CARS AND 12 CABLE CARS
BEING OUT OF SERVICE.  NONE OF THE CARS WAS MODERN.  THE MUNICIPAL
LINES HAD TRIED TO LEASE THE UNUSED CARS FOR OPERATION ON ITS LINES,
BUT THE COMPANY REFUSED.  THE CITY WAS DENIED PRIORITIES FOR PURCHASE
OF NEW BUSSES BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES BECAUSE OF IDLE ROLLING STOCK IN
THE CITY.  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE REASON FOR THE COMPANY'S
DECLINING TO LEASE FOR A FAIR RENTAL ROLLING STOCK IT COULD NOT USE WAS
FEAR OF COMPETITION.  THE COMPANY WAS HANDICAPPED IN MANPOWER, THE
MUNICIPAL LINES OFFERING SOMEWHAT BETTER WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS
THAT SEEMED MORE ATTRACTIVE.  THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WAS SUFFERING FROM
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, THE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR WAY AND STRUCTURES
MAINTENANCE HAVING BEEN STEADILY REDUCED, BOTH IN DOLLARS AND IN
PROPORTION OF TOTAL OPERATING COSTS. 

THE COMMISSION DISAGREED WITH THE COMPANY AS TO THE USE TO BE MADE OF
WAR-TIME INCREASE IN REVENUES.  THE COMPANY SAID IT HAD NO DEFINITE
PLAN FOR SETTING ASIDE ANYTHING FOR MAINTENANCE.  THE MANAGEMENT
THOUGHT ITS FIRST OBLIGATION WAS TO DISCHARGE ITS DEBTS.  THE
COMMISSION TOOK THE VIEW THAT ALLOWANCES FOR DEPRECIATION AS PART OF
THE COSTS OF OPERATION SHOULD BE SPENT IN REPLACEMENT OF DEPRECIATED
PROPERTY, AND NOT FOR PAYMENT OF DEBTS. 

REVIEWING THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF FARE INCREASES, THE COMMISSION
CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANY WOULD REAP NO LASTING BENEFIT FROM RATES IN
EXCESS OF FIVE CENTS, DUE TO THE TENDENCY OF A HIGHER RATE TO
DISCOURAGE PATRONAGE.  THE WAR TRAFFIC THE COMMISSION THOUGHT
TEMPORARY.  BUT IT CONCLUDED THAT A SIX-CENT FARE WOULD SUFFICIENTLY
STIMULATE TRAFFIC TO LEAVE AFTER OPERATING EXPENSES APPROXIMATELY A SIX
PER CENT RETURN ON A RATE BASE OF $7,950,000.  THIS WAS THE FIGURE AT
WHICH THE COMPANY HAD OFFERED TO SELL ITS OPERATIVE PROPERTIES TO THE
CITY.  ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION FOUND THE SIX CENTS TO BE A
REASONABLE RATE TO THE COMPANY AND TO BE ALL OR MORE THAN THE
REASONABLE VALUE OF THE SERVICES BEING RENDERED TO PATRONS.  IT
CONSIDERED THIS RATE TO BE EXPERIMENTAL AND KEPT THE PROCEEDING OPEN
FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDERS AS MIGHT BE JUST AND REASONABLE.  THE COMPANY
APPLIED FOR REHEARING ON SUBSTANTIALLY THE GROUNDS IT URGES HERE.  ITS
ARGUMENTS WERE CONSIDERED AT LENGTH IN AN OPINION WHICH DENIED
REHEARING.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA OVERRULED ALL OF THE
COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND AFFIRMED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.    THE
REDUCED RATE NEVER TOOK EFFECT.  THE COMPANY OBTAINED DELAY FROM THE
COMMISSION AND A STAY ORDER FROM THE COURT.  IT THEN SOLD ITS
PROPERTIES TO THE CITY, WHICH TOOK OVER AND CONTINUED THE SEVEN-CENT
FARE.  SO THE ANTICIPATIONS OF THE COMMISSION AS TO INCREASED PATRONAGE
FROM THE RATE REDUCTION NEVER HAVE BEEN PUT TO THE TEST OF EXPERIENCE. 
OUR REVIEW CONSIDERS ONLY WHETHER THE ORDER WAS VALID WHEN AND AS
MADE. 

1.  APPELLANT SAYS THAT THE ORDER IS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS DENIED A
FAIR HEARING, GIVEN NO ADEQUATE NOTICE THAT ITS RATES WERE UNDER
ATTACK, AND HENCE WAS AFFORDED NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING ON THE
REASONABLENESS OF ITS RATES.  WE FIND THIS CONTENTION TO HAVE NO
FOUNDATION IN THE RECORD.  THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION INSTITUTING THE
PROCEEDING RECITED ITS BELIEF "THAT PUBLIC INTEREST DEMANDS AN INQUIRY
INTO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES, AS WELL AS THE SUFFICIENCY AND
ADEQUACY OF THE SERVICE RENDERED" BY APPELLANT, AND INVESTIGATION WAS
ORDERED OF BOTH.  DUE NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDING WAS GIVEN AND IT WAS
ENTITLED AN INVESTIGATION "INTO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES AND
CHARGES, AND INTO THE SUFFICIENCY AND ADEQUACY OF THE" SERVICE.  THE
HEARING WAS OPENED WITH A SIMILAR STATEMENT BY THE COMMISSION.  THE
RECORD IS REPLETE WITH EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON THE
QUESTIONS OF SERVICE EXCEPT AS FARES WERE INVOLVED.  EXPERTS OF THE
COMMISSION TESTIFIED AT LENGTH AS TO FINANCIAL HISTORY AND RATE
EXPERIENCE OF THE COMPANY.  THE COMPANY'S PRESIDENT TESTIFIED
CONCERNING THE RATE SITUATION AND THE COMPANY'S EXPERIENCE WITH THE
SEVEN-CENT FARE.  ITS COUNSEL PUT IN EVIDENCE THE COMMISSION'S FORMER
DECISIONS AUTHORIZING INCREASES IN FARES. 

THE COMPANY PARTICULARLY COMPLAINS THAT IT HAD NO NOTICE THAT THE
COMMISSION WAS RECEIVING EVIDENCE OF ITS OFFER TO SELL ITS PROPERTIES
FOR $7,950,000 FOR USE AS A RATE BASE.  THE OFFER WAS RECEIVED IN
EVIDENCE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR STATEMENT OF ITS PURPOSE.  NOTHING
APPEARS TO MISLEAD OR ENTRAP THE COMPANY OR TO LULL IT INTO A SENSE OF
SECURITY.  IT SEEMS SIMPLY TO HAVE ASSUMED THAT NO EXPLANATION OF THE
OFFER WAS NECESSARY.  DOUBTLESS THE DECISION AND THE GROUNDS OF
DECISION WERE UNEXPECTED.  BUT SURPRISE IS NOT NECESSARILY WANT OF DUE
PROCESS. 

WE FIND THAT THE COMPANY HAD REASONABLE NOTICE THAT ITS RATES WERE
UNDER ATTACK AND WAS NOT DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THEREON.  WE
CAN WELL UNDERSTAND HOW COUNSEL'S ATTENTION BECAME DIVERTED TO MORE
SHARPLY CONTESTED ASPECTS OF THE CASE.  BUT EVEN IF A MORE CONVINCING
SHOWING WERE MADE THAT THE COMPANY HAD RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO BE HEARD,
WE FIND NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO OFFER IT IN THE
PROCEEDING.  NO OFFER WAS REJECTED, NO REQUEST FOR TIME TO OBTAIN SUCH
EVIDENCE WAS DENIED.  A MISAPPREHENSION BY A LITIGANT OF THE STEPS
WHICH ITS BEST INTERESTS REQUIRE DURING A TRIAL MAY BE APPEALING
GROUNDS FOR A PLEA TO THE DISCRETION OF THE HEARING TRIBUNAL FOR
ANOTHER CHANCE, BUT IT IS NOT GROUNDS FOR OUR INTERFERENCE AS A DENIAL
OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

2.  IT IS NEXT CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER IS INVALID UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE BECAUSE IT IS UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND IS BASED ON
THE COMMISSION'S SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE.  THIS CHARGE RELATES
PARTICULARLY TO THOSE FINDINGS WHICH PREDICT THE EFFECT OF A RATE
REDUCTION IN STIMULATING TRAFFIC.  THE COMMISSION'S ESTIMATES AND
PREDICTIONS DO NOT FOLLOW ANY PARTICULAR TESTIMONY.  APPELLANT URGES
THAT SUCH PREDICTIVE FINDINGS MAY BE MADE ONLY ON EXPERT TESTIMONY,
SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, EXPLANATION, AND REBUTTAL, AND MAY NOT BE
BASED ON THE COMMISSION'S OWN EXPERT KNOWLEDGE.  VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS
ARE ADVANCED TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION'S PREDICTIONS WERE BASED ON
INNOCENT ANALYSIS AND WERE IMPROBABLE. 

APPELLANT RELIES UPON OUR HOLDING IN OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 301 U.S. 292.  IN THAT CASE THE COMMISSION
ORDERED REFUNDS "UPON THE STRENGTH OF EVIDENTIAL FACTS NOT SPREAD UPON
THE RECORD."  THIS CONSISTED "OF INFORMATION SECRETLY COLLECTED AND
NEVER YET DISCLOSED.  THE COMPANY PROTESTED.  IT ASKED DISCLOSURE OF
THE DOCUMENTS INDICATIVE OF PRICE TRENDS, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE
THEM, TO ANALYZE THEM, TO EXPLAIN AND TO REBUT THEM.  THE RESPONSE WAS
A CURT REFUSAL.  UPON THE STRENGTH OF THESE UNKNOWN DOCUMENTS REFUNDS
HAVE BEEN ORDERED FOR SUMS MOUNTING INTO MILLIONS, THE COMMISSION
REPORTING ITS CONCLUSION, BUT NOT THE UNDERLYING PROOFS.  THE PUTATIVE
DEBTOR DOES NOT KNOW THE PROOFS TODAY.  THIS IS NOT THE FAIR HEARING
ESSENTIAL TO DUE PROCESS.  IT IS CONDEMNATION WITHOUT TRIAL."  ID. AT
300.  NOTHING OF THAT KIND OCCURRED IN THIS CASE.  THE BASIS FOR A
JUDGMENT IS HERE IN THE RECORD.  THE COMPANY ITSELF PUT IN EVIDENCE
DECISIONS BY THE COMMISSION IN WHICH BY CAUTIOUS STEPS IT PERMITTED
ADVANCE OF THE RATES FROM FIVE TO SEVEN CENTS.  TRAFFIC RECORDS BEFORE
AND AFTER EACH ADVANCE ARE IN EVIDENCE.  ALSO IN THE RECORD IS THE
TRAFFIC EXPERIENCE OF THE COMPETING MUNICIPAL LINE, WHICH DID NOT
INCREASE ITS FARES AND WHICH DID NOT SUFFER DECLINES IN TRAFFIC AND
REVENUES COMPARABLE TO THOSE WHICH FOLLOWED THIS COMPANY'S INCREASE OF
FARES.  THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE DATA BASIC TO A JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN
WITHHELD FROM THE RECORD.  THE COMPLAINT IS THAT THE COMMISSION FORMED
ITS OWN CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT THE AID OF EXPERT OPINIONS.  IT IS
CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM THESE FACTS
ONLY UPON HEARING TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS AS TO THE CONCLUSIONS THEY WOULD
DRAW FROM THE FACTS OF RECORD.  EXPERTS' JUDGMENTS, HOWEVER, WOULD NOT
BIND THE COMMISSION.  THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF
ARGUMENT OR OPINION, AND THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN IT WOULD DEPEND UPON
THE COMMISSION'S ESTIMATE OF THE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS
AND THE FORCE OF THEIR REASONING.  THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT
ANY CONSIDERATION WHICH COULD BE ADVANCED BY AN EXPERT HAS NOT BEEN
ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY IN ARGUMENT AND FULLY WEIGHED. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR A COMMISSION SO
EXPERIENCED AS THE RECORD SHOWS THIS COMMISSION TO HAVE BEEN WITH THE
AFFAIRS OF THIS PARTICULAR APPELLANT TO DRAW INFERENCES AS TO THE
PROBABLE EFFECT ON TRAFFIC OF A GIVEN RATE DECREASE ON SUCH A RECORD AS
WE HAVE HERE.  PARTICULARLY WOULD A CONCLUSION OF DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
BE UNWARRANTED WHERE, AS HERE, THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THE INFIRMITY
OF ANY PREDICTIONS, REGARDED ITS RATE ORDER AS A TEMPORARY EXPERIMENT
FOR WHICH NO FIXED PERIOD WAS SET, AND HELD OPEN THE PROCEEDING TO
RECEIVE WHATEVER LESSONS EXPERIENCE MIGHT TEACH.  ITS STEP HERE IS
AFTER ALL ONLY RECEDING, ON EXPERIENCE, FROM STEPS IT EARLIER HAD TAKEN
TO ADVANCE THE RATE, WHICH ALSO HAD BEEN REGARDED AS EXPERIMENTAL AND
AS TO WHICH EXPERIENCE HAD DISAPPOINTED EXPECTATIONS.  WE FIND NO
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THE FACT THAT THE
COMMISSION EVALUATED THE COMPANY'S EXPERIENCE FOR ITSELF WITHOUT THE
AID OF EXPERT TESTIMONY. 

3.  IT ALSO IS URGED THAT THE ORDER IS INVALID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON MATTERS OUTSIDE THE RECORD.  THE DECISION
OF THE COMMISSION STATED THAT "IN THE EIGHT MONTHS' PERIOD, JANUARY TO
AUGUST, INCLUSIVE, OF 1943 THE OPERATING REVENUES OF THE COMPANY
AMOUNTED TO $5,689,775," AND COMPARED THIS WITH THE OPERATING REVENUES
FOR THE SAME PERIOD OF 1942 AND FOUND AN INCREASE OF 20 PER CENT.  ON
THIS BASIS IT ESTIMATED THE TOTAL FOR THE FULL YEAR OF 1943 UNDER THE
PREVAILING SEVEN-CENT FARE.  CHALLENGED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
OPERATING REVENUES FROM JANUARY TO AUGUST OF 1943 WERE NOT IN THE
RECORD, THE COMMISSION ADMITTED THAT THESE FIGURES WERE TAKEN FROM THE
APPELLANT'S MONTHLY REPORTS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION.  IT CONTENDED
THAT EVEN IF IT WAS IN ERROR TO REFER TO SUCH REPORTS, THE ERROR WAS
HARMLESS, SINCE THE RECORD WITHOUT THE FIGURES SUPPORTED THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE SIX-CENT FARE AND IT WAS THEREFORE IMMATERIAL
THAT THE COMMISSION USED SOME ADDITIONAL FIGURES.  NO CONTENTION IS
MADE HERE THAT THE INFORMATION WAS ERRONEOUS OR WAS MISUNDERSTOOD BY
THE COMMISSION, AND NO CONTENTION IS MADE THAT THE COMPANY COULD HAVE
DISPROVED IT OR EXPLAINED AWAY ITS EFFECT FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE
COMMISSION USED IT. THE MOST THAT CAN BE SAID IS THAT THE COMMISSION IN
MAKING ITS PREDICTIVE FINDINGS WENT OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD TO VERIFY ITS
JUDGMENT BY REFERENCE TO ACTUAL TRAFFIC FIGURES THAT BECAME AVAILABLE
ONLY AFTER THE HEARINGS CLOSED.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE COMPANY
WAS IN ANY WAY PREJUDICED THEREBY, AND IT MAKES NO SHOWING THAT, IF A
REHEARING WERE HELD TO INTRODUCE ITS OWN REPORTS, IT WOULD GAIN MUCH BY
CROSS-EXAMINATION, REBUTTAL, OR IMPEACHMENT OF ITS OWN AUDITORS OR THE
REPORTS THEY HAD FILED.  DUE PROCESS, OF COURSE, REQUIRES THAT
COMMISSIONS PROCEED UPON MATTERS IN EVIDENCE AND THAT PARTIES HAVE
OPPORTUNITY TO SUBJECT EVIDENCE TO THE TEST OF CROSS-EXAMINATION AND
REBUTTAL.  BUT DUE PROCESS DEALS WITH MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE AND IS NOT
TO BE TRIVIALIZED BY FORMAL OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE NO SUBSTANTIAL BEARING
ON THE ULTIMATE RIGHTS OF PARTIES.  THE PROCESS OF KEEPING INFORMED AS
TO REGULATED UTILITIES IS A CONTINUOUS MATTER WITH COMMISSIONS.  WE ARE
UNWILLING TO SAY THAT SUCH AN INCIDENTAL REFERENCE AS WE HAVE HERE TO A
PARTY'S OWN REPORTS, ALTHOUGH NOT FORMALLY MARKED IN EVIDENCE IN THE
PROCEEDING, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING OF ERROR OR PREJUDICE
CONSTITUTES A WANT OF DUE PROCESS. 

4.  THE ORDER IS SAID TO BE INVALID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
BECAUSE IT IS BASED IN PART ON THE SO-CALLED "VALUE OF SERVICE"
THEORY.  IT IS URGED THAT "A CONFISCATORY RATE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON
THE THEORY THAT IT IS AN ADEQUATE PRICE FOR THE SERVICE INDEPENDENTLY
VALUED" AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING A RATE REDUCTION ON THE
THEORY OF THE VALUE OF THE SERVICE. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER A CONFISCATORY RATE CAN BE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE
SERVICE IS BAD CAN ONLY BE REACHED WHEN WE FIND A PRESCRIBED RATE TO BE
CONFISCATORY.  AS WE DO NOT FIND THIS RATE TO BE SUCH, WE DO NOT NEED
TO PRONOUNCE UPON THE ABSTRACT DOCTRINE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
"VALUE OF SERVICE" THEORY AS JUSTIFYING RATES THAT DO NOT YIELD A FAIR
RETURN.  THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE DID NOT MAKE AN INDEPENDENT
VALUATION OF THE SERVICE TO PATRONS AND FIX RATES ACCORDINGLY. 

THE CONSIDERATION OF SERVICE AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR RATES ARISES IN
THIS CASE UPON A COMPARISON OF THE SERVICE OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE
FIVE-CENT RATE AND UNDER THE SEVEN-CENT RATE.  THE COMMISSION FOUND
THAT THE 40 PER CENT INCREASE OF RATE HAD BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY A
DETERIORATION OF SERVICE.  SOME FACTORS IN THE BAD SERVICE WERE BEYOND
THE COMPANY'S CONTROL; OTHERS WERE FOUND NOT TO BE WITHOUT REMEDY BY
GOOD MANAGEMENT.  CERTAINLY IF THE INCREASED FARE HAD BEEN ACCOMPANIED
BY AN IMPROVED SERVICE, IT WOULD BE USED AS AN ARGUMENT BY THE COMPANY,
AND A POWERFUL ONE IT WOULD BE, FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE HIGHER
RATE.  THAT HIGHER RATES FAILED TO IMPROVE, FAILED EVEN TO MAINTAIN,
SERVICE CERTAINLY REMOVED ONE OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE INCREASE
WHICH THE COMPANY WAS ENJOYING.  IT MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT THE
INCREASES THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ALLOWED WERE ALSO EXPERIMENTAL.  SO
FAR AS THE PUBLIC WAS CONCERNED THE EXPERIMENT WITH THE SEVEN-CENT RATE
YIELDED THEM NO BETTER IMMEDIATE SERVICE AND, BECAUSE OF THE COMPANY'S
POLICIES, GAVE THEM NO PROSPECT OF MORE PERMANENT SERVICE.  IN FACT, BY
DISCOURAGEMENT OF PATRONAGE IT THREATENED THE CONTINUANCE OF THE
SERVICE. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION DID NOT PUT A MONETARY VALUE
ON A STREET CAR RIDE AS THE BASIS OF THE FARE.  USING THE COMPANY'S
SERVICE UNDER THE FIVE-CENT FARE AS A STANDARD, IT FOUND THAT THE
PUBLIC - ASIDE FROM THE SERVICE TO WAR PLANTS, WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY
GOOD - WAS RECEIVING NO MORE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FOR SEVEN CENTS
THAN IT HAD RECEIVED AT FIVE, AND AT THE SAME TIME THE COMPANY WAS NOT
RECEIVING INCREASED REVENUES BECAUSE THE PRICE OF THE SERVICE HAD
EXCEEDED THE VALUE THAT THE PUBLIC PUT UPON IT AND IT HAD THEREBY
WITHDRAWN ITS PATRONAGE. 

CERTAINLY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT VIOLATED
WHEN A COMMISSION TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION PRACTICAL RESULTS TO THE
PUBLIC OF ADVANCES WHICH IT HAS ALLOWED IN RATES.  TO THE EXTENT THAT
THE COMMISSION WAS INFLUENCED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF THE VALUE OF THE
SERVICE IN THIS CASE, WE FIND NOTHING THAT DENIES THE COMPANY ANY
RIGHTS POSSESSED UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

5.  THE ORDER IS ASSERTED TO BE INVALID BECAUSE IT IS SAID TO BE
CONFISCATORY AND TO COMPEL APPELLANT TO OPERATE AT A LOSS.  THE
COMMISSION USED A RATE BASE OF $7,950,000, THE PRICE AT WHICH THE
PROPERTY HAD BEEN OFFERED TO THE CITY, AND THE SIX-CENT RATE IS NOT
CALCULATED TO PERMIT ANY RETURN ON A GREATER VALUATION.  BEFORE WE
CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THIS RATE BASE, WE MAY WELL CONSIDER WHAT
ALTERNATIVES THE CASE PRESENTS.  NO STUDY OF THE PRESENT COST OF
REPRODUCTION IS SHOWN, NO PRESENT FAIR VALUE IS SUGGESTED.  NOR DO WE
THINK IT IMPORTANT.  APART FROM FAMILIAR OBJECTIONS TO THE REPRODUCTION
COST METHOD, NO RESPONSIBLE PERSON WOULD THINK OF REPRODUCING THE
PRESENT PLANT, CONSISTING IN SUBSTANTIAL PART OF CABLE CARS AND
OBSOLETE EQUIPMENT.  THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ASSUMING THAT ANYONE, IN THE
LIGHT OF CONDITIONS WHICH PREVAIL IN THE STREET-SURFACE RAILROAD
INDUSTRY GENERALLY, WOULD CONSIDER REPRODUCING ANY STREET RAILWAY
SYSTEM.  IT WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR TO PROCEED TO FIX A RATE IN
DISREGARD OF THEORETICAL REPRODUCTION COSTS.    THE COMMISSION IN 1920
MADE A VALUATION STUDY OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTIES AND FOUND AN
HISTORICAL REPRODUCTION COST OF ROAD AND EQUIPMENT TO BE $29,715,147. 
THIS VALUATION, BROUGHT FORWARD BY ADDING ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS AND
DEDUCTING RETIREMENTS, SHOWS A TOTAL AMOUNT FOR ROAD AND EQUIPMENT AS
OF DECEMBER 31, 1942 OF $25,343,543. 

ACTUAL INVESTMENT IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  IT DOES DISCLOSE
THAT THE BOOK VALUE OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1942
WAS $41,768,505.20. 

THE COMPANY'S OUTSTANDING SECURITIES AT THE END OF 1942, ISSUED WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION, TOTALED $37,921,323.96 AT FACE VALUE. 
THEY CONSISTED OF COMMON STOCK OF OVER $10,000,000; 3 DIFFERENT CLASSES
OF PREFERRED STOCK OF $21,000,000; FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OF $4,217,500;
EQUIPMENT NOTES OF $735,748.28; AND ADDITIONAL LONG-TERM DEBT OF
$1,041,625.68. 

NOT ONE OF THESE NOR ANY COMBINATION OF THEM AFFORDS A PRACTICAL OR
POSSIBLE RATE BASE, NOR DOES THE COMPANY SUGGEST THAT ALLOWANCE OF ANY
RATE WILL EARN IT A RETURN UPON ANY OF THESE.  IT HAS NOT ITSELF
VENTURED TO ASK A RATE HIGHER THAN SEVEN CENTS, ALTHOUGH THE INADEQUACY
OF ITS YIELD TO TAKE CARE OF THE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPANY
HAS FOR SOME TIME BEEN APPARENT.  THIS COMPANY OBVIOUSLY IS UP AGAINST
A SORT OF LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS; THE GREATER AMOUNT IT COLLECTS
PER RIDE, THE LESS AMOUNT IT COLLECTS PER CAR MILE.  IT HAS LONG BEEN
RECOGNIZED THAT THIS FORM OF TRANSPORTATION COULD BE PRESERVED ONLY BY
THE MOST COMPLETE COOPERATION BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC AND THE
MOST ENLIGHTENED EFFORTS TO MAKE THE SERVICE ATTRACTIVE TO PATRONS. 
FN8  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT, FOR WHATEVER CAUSE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT
SUCCEEDED IN MAINTAINING ITS SERVICE ON A PAYING BASIS. 

IT IS IDLE TO DISCUSS HOLDINGS OF CASES OR TO DISTINGUISH QUOTATIONS
IN DECISIONS OF THIS OR OTHER COURTS WHICH HAVE DEALT WITH UTILITIES
WHOSE ECONOMIC SITUATION WOULD YIELD A PERMANENT PROFIT, DENIED OR
LIMITED ONLY BY PUBLIC REGULATION.  WHILE THE COMPANY DOES NOT ASSERT
THAT IT WOULD BE ECONOMICALLY PRACTICABLE TO OBTAIN A RETURN ON ITS
INVESTMENT, IT STRONGLY CONTENDS THAT THE ORDER IS CONFISCATORY BY THE
TESTS OF FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S.
591, 603, 605, FROM WHICH IT CLAIMS TO BE ENTITLED TO A RETURN
"SUFFICIENT TO ASSURE CONFIDENCE IN THE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF THE
ENTERPRISE, SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS CREDIT AND TO ATTRACT CAPITAL" AND TO
"ENABLE THE COMPANY TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY, TO MAINTAIN ITS FINANCIAL
INTEGRITY, TO ATTRACT CAPITAL, AND TO COMPENSATE ITS INVESTORS FOR THE
RISKS ASSUMED."  THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, ADVANCED IN THAT CASE (WHICH WAS
REVIEWED PURSUANT TO STATUTE RATHER THAN UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT), CONCERNED A COMPANY WHICH HAD ADVANTAGE OF AN ECONOMIC
POSITION WHICH PROMISED TO YIELD WHAT WAS HELD TO BE AN EXCESSIVE
RETURN ON ITS INVESTMENT AND ON ITS SECURITIES.  THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE
INAPPLICABLE TO A COMPANY WHOSE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY ALREADY IS
HOPELESSLY UNDERMINED, WHICH COULD NOT ATTRACT CAPITAL ON ANY POSSIBLE
RATE, AND WHERE INVESTORS RECOGNIZE AS LOST A PART OF WHAT THEY HAVE
PUT IN.  IT WAS NOTED IN THE HOPE NATURAL GAS CASE THAT REGULATION DOES
NOT ASSURE THAT THE REGULATED BUSINESS MAKE A PROFIT.  320 U.S. AT 603;
SEE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575,
590.  ALL THAT WAS HELD WAS THAT A COMPANY COULD NOT COMPLAIN IF THE
RETURN WHICH WAS ALLOWED MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE COMPANY TO OPERATE
SUCCESSFULLY.  THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION THAT LESS MIGHT NOT BE ALLOWED
WHEN THE AMOUNT ALLOWED WAS ALL THAT THE COMPANY COULD EARN.  WITHOUT
ANALYZING RATE CASES IN DETAIL, IT MAY BE SAFELY GENERALIZED THAT THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE NEVER HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT TO REQUIRE A
COMMISSION TO FIX RATES ON THE PRESENT REPRODUCTION VALUE OF SOMETHING
NO ONE WOULD PRESENTLY WANT TO REPRODUCE, OR ON THE HISTORICAL
VALUATION OF A PROPERTY WHOSE HISTORY AND CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
SHOWED THE VALUE NO LONGER TO EXIST, OR ON AN INVESTMENT AFTER IT HAS
VANISHED, EVEN IF ONCE PRUDENTLY MADE, OR TO MAINTAIN THE CREDIT OF A
CONCERN WHOSE SECURITIES ALREADY ARE IMPAIRED.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
HAS BEEN APPLIED TO PREVENT GOVERNMENTAL DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING
ECONOMIC VALUES.  IT HAS NOT AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO INSURE VALUES OR
TO RESTORE VALUES THAT HAVE BEEN LOST BY THE OPERATION OF ECONOMIC
FORCES. 

THE OWNERS OF A PROPERTY DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE CANNOT BE
SAID TO SUFFER INJURY IF A RATE IS FIXED FOR AN EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD,
WHICH PROBABLY WILL PRODUCE A FAIR RETURN ON THE PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF
THEIR PROPERTY.  IF IT HAS LOST ALL VALUE EXCEPT SALVAGE, THEY SUFFER
NO LOSS IF THEY EARN A RETURN ON SALVAGE VALUE.  IF THE PROPERTY HAS NO
PROSPECT OF SALVAGE EXCEPT THROUGH DISMANTLING AND SALE FOR SCRAP, THE
SCRAP VALUE FOR SUCH OF IT AS IS TO BE SCRAPPED MAY REPRESENT ITS
PRESENT WORTH.  IN THIS CASE THE OWNERS WERE FORTUNATE IN HAVING A
POTENTIAL BUYER.  NEGOTIATIONS HAD LONG BEEN UNDER WAY.  THE OPERATIVE
PROPERTIES WERE TWICE OFFERED TO THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO FOR
$7,950,000 AND TWICE THE VOTERS REJECTED THE PROPOSITION.  ULTIMATELY
THE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD FOR $7,500,000.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY REPORTED TO THE DIRECTORS "THAT THE PRICE
MENTIONED IS THE AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN AGREED UPON FOR THE PURCHASE BY
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OF THE OPERATIVE PROPERTIES OF THE
COMPANY AFTER NEGOTIATIONS IN RESPECT THERETO WHICH COVERED A
CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME AND, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, IS THE BEST
PRICE OBTAINABLE THEREFOR."  UPON THIS UNDERSTANDING THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS RATIFIED THE OFFER AND DIRECTED THE OFFICERS TO CONSUMMATE
IT. 

IT IS NOW CONTENDED THAT THIS OFFER WAS CALCULATED BY A
CAPITALIZATION OF EARNING POWER AND THAT THIS COURT CONDEMNED SUCH A
BASIS OF VALUATION IN FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO.,
320 U.S. 591, 601, WHEN IT SAID, "THE HEART OF THE MATTER IS THAT RATES
CANNOT BE MADE TO DEPEND UPON 'FAIR VALUE' WHEN THE VALUE OF THE GOING
ENTERPRISE DEPENDS ON EARNINGS UNDER WHATEVER RATES MAY BE
ANTICIPATED."  THE PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE HOPE CASE WAS DIRECTED TO A
SITUATION WHERE THE DEMAND FOR THE SERVICE PERMITTED SUCH A RANGE OF
CHOICE IN RATES AS WOULD GREATLY AFFECT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  NO
SUCH CHOICE APPEARS OPEN TO THE APPELLANT.  APART FROM A LITTLE BRIEF
WAR-TIME PROSPERITY, IT SEEMS DOUBTFUL WHETHER ANY RATE WOULD YIELD
APPELLANT'S OPERATING EXPENSES. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND THAT ANYTHING HAS BEEN TAKEN
FROM THE APPELLANT BY THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC REGULATION.  IF THE
EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMISSION AS TO TRAFFIC INCREASE WERE WELL
FOUNDED, IT WOULD EARN UNDER THIS RATE ON THE SALVAGE VALUE OF ITS
PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE ONLY VALUE IT IS SHOWN TO HAVE.  IF EXPECTATIONS
OF INCREASED TRAFFIC WERE UNFOUNDED, IT COULD PROBABLY NOT EARN A
RETURN FROM ANY RATE THAT COULD BE DEVISED.  WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT
THE ORDER IN THIS CASE IS IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS,
HOWEVER UNFORTUNATE THE PLIGHT OF THE APPELLANT. 

6.  THE COMPANY ALSO CONTENDS THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO REVERSAL BECAUSE
THE ORDER CONTEMPLATED A TEST OF EXPERIENCE, AND THE EXPERIMENT HAS NOT
TAKEN PLACE, AND THE COMMISSION'S PREDICTIONS CANNOT BE VERIFIED. 
HOWEVER, IT WAS THE COMPANY WHICH DEFEATED THE EXPERIMENT.  A VERY
SHORT TRIAL - A PERIOD MUCH SHORTER THAN IS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A
LITIGATION - WOULD HAVE INDICATED THE EFFECT OF THE RATE REDUCTION IN
STIMULATING TRAFFIC.  BUT AT THE COMPANY'S REQUEST THE EXPERIMENT WAS
STAYED AND THEN TOTALLY FRUSTRATED BY THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY.  UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE UNAVAILABILITY OF EXPERIENCE TO TEST THE ORDER
CANNOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY.  IT MIGHT BE GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL TO THE
DISCRETION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH RENDERED THE ORDER.  IT CERTAINLY IS
NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO BE ENFORCED BY US. 

THE FIXING OF FUTURE RATES ALWAYS INVOLVES AN ELEMENT OF PREDICTION. 
EVEN MONOPOLIES MUST SELL THEIR SERVICES IN A MARKET WHERE THERE IS
COMPETITION FOR THE CONSUMER'S DOLLAR AND THE PRICE OF A COMMODITY
AFFECTS ITS DEMAND AND USE.  THIS EFFECT MAY BE PREDICTED OR PROJECTED,
BUT IT CAN BE KNOWN ONLY FROM EXPERIENCE.  THE MANY DETAILED OBJECTIONS
WHICH THE COMPANY MAKES TO THE COMMISSION'S COMPUTATIONS OF PROBABLE
YIELD WOULD BE ANSWERED BY EXPERIENCE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ORDER
WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE TEST PERIOD SHOULD BE A YEAR OR ANY DEFINITE
TIME, AND THERE IS NO GROUND FOR ASSUMING THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD
HAVE REJECTED AN APPLICATION TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES IN THE SCHEDULE AS
EXPERIENCE MIGHT SHOW TO BE NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO PRODUCE, IF
POSSIBLE, THE REVENUE WHICH IT FOUND TO BE NEEDED.  THE COMMISSION HAD
NOT IN THE PAST BEEN INDIFFERENT TO APPELLANT'S FISCAL PROBLEMS.  UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE THINK IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION
THAT THERE BE A PRAGMATIC TEST OF MATTERS WHICH EVEN THE MOST EXPERT
COULD NOT KNOW IN ADVANCE.  CF. CLARK'S FERRY BRIDGE CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, 291 U.S. 227. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED APPELLANT'S COMPLAINTS IN CONSIDERABLE DETAIL
BECAUSE THE CASE IN SO MANY WAYS DEPARTS FROM THE USUAL RATE CASE.  WE
FIND NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IN THE RESULT OR IN THE PROCEDURE BY
WHICH IT IS REACHED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  RULE 24(A) PROVIDES:  "(WHEN DECISIONS BECOME FINAL)  ALL
DECISIONS OF THE REVIEWING COURTS SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK.  A
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT BECOMES FINAL 30 DAYS AFTER FILING UNLESS
OTHERWISE ORDERED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF SAID 30-DAY PERIOD. 
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VI, SECTION 4C, OF THE CONSTITUTION, A DECISION OF
A DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL BECOMES FINAL AS TO THAT COURT, 30 DAYS IN
CIVIL CASES AND 15 DAYS IN CRIMINAL CASES AFTER FILING, AND THEREAFTER
IS NOT SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR REHEARING BY SAID COURT.  WHERE AN
OPINION IS MODIFIED WITHOUT CHANGE IN THE JUDGMENT, DURING THE TIME
ALLOWED FOR REHEARING, SUCH MODIFICATION SHALL NOT POSTPONE THE TIME
THAT THE DECISION BECOMES FINAL AS ABOVE PROVIDED; BUT IF THE JUDGMENT
IS MODIFIED DURING THAT TIME, THE PERIOD SPECIFIED HEREIN BEGINS TO RUN
ANEW, AS OF THE DATE OF MODIFICATION."  RULES ON APPEAL FOR THE SUPREME
COURT AND DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1943.  SEE 22 CAL.2D 1. 

FN2  RULE 25 SO PROVIDES.  "A REMITTITUR SHALL ISSUE AFTER THE FINAL
DETERMINATION OF ANY APPEAL, OR OF ANY ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN REVIEW IN
WHICH AN ALTERNATIVE WRIT OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HAS BEEN ISSUED. 
UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED, THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT SHALL ISSUE
THE REMITTITUR WHEN A JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT BECOMES FINAL  ..."  RULE
25(A).  "FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, OR ON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, THE
SUPREME COURT MAY DIRECT THE IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE OF A REMITTITUR."  RULE
25(B).  FOR DISCUSSION OF THIS RULE SEE WITKIN, NEW CALIFORNIA RULES ON
APPEAL (1944) 17 SO. CALIF. L. REV. 248 ET SEQ. 

FN3  "THE SUPREME COURT OR A DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL MAY GRANT A
REHEARING IN ANY CAUSE AFTER ITS OWN DECISION; AND ANY CAUSE PENDING IN
A DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT MAY BE ORDERED HEARD BY THE SUPREME
COURT IN BANK.  A REHEARING OR HEARING IN BANK MAY BE GRANTED ON
PETITION, AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (B) OF THIS RULE, OR ON THE
COURT'S OWN MOTION, PRIOR TO THE TIME THE DECISION BECOMES FINAL
THEREIN."  RULE 27(A). 

"AN ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT GRANTING A REHEARING SHALL BE SIGNED
BY AT LEAST 4 JUSTICES ASSENTING THERETO, AND FILED WITH THE CLERK; AND
A HEARING IN BANK AFTER DECISION IN DEPARTMENT MAY BE ORDERED AS
PROVIDED IN ARTICLE VI, SECTION 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IF NO ORDER IS
MADE BEFORE THE DECISION BECOMES FINAL, THE PETITION SHALL BE DEEMED
DENIED, AND THE CLERK SHALL ENTER A NOTATION IN THE REGISTER TO THAT
EFFECT."  RULE 27(E). 

FN4 NOVEMBER 13, 1944. 

FN5  THE OPINIONS ARE REPORTED IN 45 CAL. R.C. DEC. 53. 

FN6  THE OPINION ON REHEARING IS REPORTED IN 45 CAL. R.C. DEC. 162. 

FN7  THE COURT'S OPINION IS REPORTED IN 24 CAL.2D 378, 150 P.2D 196. 

FN8  IN MAY OF 1919 THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND THE SECRETARY OF
LABOR JOINED IN A LETTER TO PRESIDENT WILSON, ADVISING HIM THAT 50 OR
MORE URBAN STREET RAILWAY SYSTEMS REPRESENTING A CONSIDERABLE
PERCENTAGE OF THE ELECTRIC RAILWAY MILEAGE WAS IN THE HANDS OF
RECEIVERS, AFFECTING SOME OF THE LARGEST CITIES OF THE COUNTRY, AND
THAT OTHER SYSTEMS WERE ON THE VERGE OF INSOLVENCY AND THE INDUSTRY AS
A WHOLE WAS VIRTUALLY BANKRUPT.  THEY URGED THE APPOINTMENT OF A
COMMISSION TO STUDY AND REPORT UPON THE PROBLEM.  PRESIDENT WILSON ON
JUNE 1, 1919 NAMED A COMMISSION WHICH HELD EXTENSIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS. 
THE FIRST WITNESS WAS EX-PRESIDENT WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT, SPEAKING FOR
THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD, AND OTHERS, INCLUDING LEADING MUNICIPAL
AND RAILWAY OFFICIALS AND SUCH EXPERIENCED PERSONS IN THE PROBLEM OF
REGULATION AS NEWTON D. BAKER, MILO R. MALTBIE, MORRIS L. COOK, JOSEPH
B. EASTMAN, AND MANY OTHERS.  PROCEEDINGS OF THE FEDERAL ELECTRIC
RAILWAYS COMMISSION, V. 1.  AN EXHAUSTIVE REPORT WITH MANY
RECOMMENDATIONS WAS MADE.  SEE ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTRIC RAILWAY PROBLEM
PREPARED FOR THE FEDERAL ELECTRIC RAILWAYS COMMISSION BY DE LOS F.
WILCOX, NEW YORK CITY, 1921.  ITS RECOMMENDATIONS WERE EXTENSIVE,
INCLUDING CERTAIN CHANGES BOTH BY THE MUNICIPALITIES AND BY THE
COMPANIES AFFECTED.  THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE NOT GENERALLY HEEDED BY
EITHER. 
..END :















COMM'R V. COURT HOLDING CO., 324 U.S. 331 


NO. 581.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 12, 1945.  - 143
F.2D 823, REVERSED. 


1.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE TAX COURT THAT
THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION - FORMALLY A SALE BY STOCKHOLDERS OF
PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THEM AS A "LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND" - WAS A SALE BY
THE CORPORATION RATHER THAN BY THE STOCKHOLDERS, WHICH FINDING MUST
THEREFORE BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS; AND THE TAX COURT'S CONCLUSION
THAT, UNDER SEC. 22 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, THE CORPORATION WAS
TAXABLE ON THE GAIN FROM THE SALE IS SUSTAINED.  P. 333. 

2.  THAT THE CORPORATION NEVER EXECUTED A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, AND THAT
AN ORAL AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF REALTY WAS UNENFORCIBLE UNDER THE
STATE LAW, DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT, IN VIEW OF THE TAX
COURT'S FINDING THAT THE EXECUTED SALE WAS IN SUBSTANCE A SALE BY THE
CORPORATION.  P. 334. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. COURT HOLDING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 702, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT, 2 T.C. 531, SUSTAINING THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN APARTMENT HOUSE, WHICH WAS THE SOLE ASSET OF THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION, WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE FORM OF A LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND TO
THE CORPORATION'S TWO SHAREHOLDERS.  THEY IN TURN FORMALLY CONVEYED IT
TO A PURCHASER WHO HAD ORIGINALLY NEGOTIATED FOR THE PURCHASE FROM THE
CORPORATION.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
PROPERLY REVERSED  FN1  THE TAX COURT'S CONCLUSION  FN2  THAT THE
CORPORATION WAS TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 22 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE  FN3
FOR THE GAIN WHICH ACCRUED FROM THE SALE.  THE ANSWER DEPENDS UPON
WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE TAX COURT THAT THE WHOLE TRANSACTION SHOWED
A SALE BY THE CORPORATION RATHER THAN BY THE STOCKHOLDERS WERE FINAL
AND BINDING UPON THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO SET OUT IN DETAIL THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BEFORE
THE TAX COURT OR ITS FINDINGS.  DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE TAX COURT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD: 

THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION WAS ORGANIZED IN 1934 SOLELY TO BUY AND
HOLD THE APARTMENT BUILDING WHICH WAS THE ONLY PROPERTY EVER OWNED BY
IT.  ALL OF ITS OUTSTANDING STOCK WAS OWNED BY MINNIE MILLER AND HER
HUSBAND.  BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 1939 AND FEBRUARY, 1940, WHILE THE
CORPORATION STILL HAD LEGAL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, NEGOTIATIONS FOR ITS
SALE TOOK PLACE.  THESE NEGOTIATIONS WERE BETWEEN THE CORPORATION AND
THE LESSEES OF THE PROPERTY, TOGETHER WITH A SISTER AND BROTHER-IN
LAW.  AN ORAL AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AS TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
SALE, AND ON FEBRUARY 22, 1940, THE PARTIES MET TO REDUCE THE AGREEMENT
TO WRITING.  THE PURCHASER WAS THEN ADVISED BY THE CORPORATION'S
ATTORNEY THAT THE SALE COULD NOT BE CONSUMMATED BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT
IN THE IMPOSITION OF A LARGE INCOME TAX ON THE CORPORATION.  THE NEXT
DAY, THE CORPORATION DECLARED A "LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND," WHICH INVOLVED
COMPLETE LIQUIDATION OF ITS ASSETS, AND SURRENDER OF ALL OUTSTANDING
STOCK.  MRS. MILLER AND HER HUSBAND SURRENDERED THEIR STOCK, AND THE
BUILDING WAS DEEDED TO THEM.  A SALE CONTRACT WAS THEN DRAWN, NAMING
THE MILLERS INDIVIDUALLY AS VENDORS, AND THE LESSEES' SISTER AS VENDEE,
WHICH EMBODIED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS PREVIOUSLY
AGREED UPON.  ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, WHICH A MONTH AND A HALF EARLIER
HAD BEEN PAID TO THE CORPORATION BY THE LESSEES, WAS APPLIED IN PART
PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.  THREE DAYS LATER, THE PROPERTY WAS
CONVEYED TO THE LESSEES' SISTER. 

THE TAX COURT CONCLUDED FROM THESE FACTS THAT, DESPITE THE
DECLARATION OF A "LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND" FOLLOWED BY THE TRANSFERS OF
LEGAL TITLE, THE CORPORATION HAD NOT ABANDONED THE SALES NEGOTIATIONS;
THAT THESE WERE MERE FORMALITIES DESIGNED "TO MAKE THE TRANSACTION
APPEAR TO BE OTHER THAN WHAT IT WAS" IN ORDER TO AVOID TAX LIABILITY. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DRAWING DIFFERENT INFERENCES FROM THE
RECORD, HELD THAT THE CORPORATION HAD "CALLED OFF" THE SALE, AND
TREATED THE STOCKHOLDERS' SALE AS UNRELATED TO THE PRIOR NEGOTIATIONS. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE TAX COURT, AND ITS
FINDINGS MUST THEREFORE BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS.  DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489; COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467;
COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT CO., 323 U.S. 119.  ON THE
BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS, THE TAX COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN ATTRIBUTING THE
GAIN FROM THE SALE TO RESPONDENT CORPORATION.  THE INCIDENCE OF
TAXATION DEPENDS UPON THE SUBSTANCE OF A TRANSACTION.  THE TAX
CONSEQUENCES WHICH ARISE FROM GAINS FROM A SALE OF PROPERTY ARE NOT
FINALLY TO BE DETERMINED SOLELY BY THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO TRANSFER LEGAL
TITLE.  RATHER, THE TRANSACTION MUST BE VIEWED AS A WHOLE, AND EACH
STEP, FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE
SALE, IS RELEVANT.  A SALE BY ONE PERSON CANNOT BE TRANSFORMED FOR TAX
PURPOSES INTO A SALE BY ANOTHER BY USING THE LATTER AS A CONDUIT
THROUGH WHICH TO PASS TITLE.  FN4  TO PERMIT THE TRUE NATURE OF A
TRANSACTION TO BE DISGUISED BY MERE FORMALISMS, WHICH EXIST SOLELY TO
ALTER TAX LIABILITIES, WOULD SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX POLICIES OF CONGRESS. 

IT IS URGED THAT RESPONDENT CORPORATION NEVER EXECUTED A WRITTEN
AGREEMENT, AND THAT AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO SELL LAND CANNOT BE ENFORCED
IN FLORIDA BECAUSE OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, COMP. GEN. LAWS OF
FLORIDA, 1927, VOL. 3, SEC. 5779.  BUT THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT
CORPORATION ITSELF NEVER EXECUTED A WRITTEN CONTRACT IS UNIMPORTANT,
SINCE THE TAX COURT FOUND FROM THE FACTS OF THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION THAT
THE EXECUTED SALE WAS IN SUBSTANCE THE SALE OF THE CORPORATION.  THE
DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THAT OF THE
TAX COURT AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  143 F.2D 823. 

FN2  2 T.C. 531. 

FN3  PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY ARE TAXABLE AS INCOME UNDER
SEC. 22(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. 22.  THE TREASURY
REGULATIONS HAVE LONG PROVIDED THAT GAINS ACCURING FROM THE SALES OF A
CORPORATION'S ASSETS, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, CONSTITUTE INCOME TO IT, BUT
THAT A CORPORATION REALIZES NO TAXABLE GAIN BY A MERE DISTRIBUTION OF
ITS ASSETS IN KIND, IN PARTIAL OR IN COMPLETE LIQUIDATION, HOWEVER MUCH
THEY MAY HAVE APPRECIATED IN VALUE SINCE ACQUISITION.  SECS. 19.22(A)
19, 19.22(A)-21, TREASURY REGULATIONS 103. 

FN4  GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465; MINNESOTA TEA CO. V.
HELVERING, 302 U.S. 609; GRIFFITHS V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 355;
HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473. 
..END :


















SHOSHONE INDIANS V. U.S., 324 U.S. 335 


NO. 63.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 13, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 12, 1945.  - 100
CT. CLS. 455, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TREATY OF JULY 30, 1863 WITH THE NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF THE
SHOSHONE INDIANS WAS NOT A RECOGNITION OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE UNITED
STATES OF THE INDIAN TITLE TO THE LANDS THEREIN MENTIONED; THEREFORE A
CLAIM TO COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF THE LANDS IS NOT ONE "ARISING
UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF" THE TREATY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SPECIAL
JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1929, AND NO RECOVERY UPON SUCH
CLAIM CAN BE HAD UNDER THAT ACT.  PP. 340, 354. 

(A)  THE FINDING OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT THE UNITED STATES DID
NOT BY THE TREATY INTEND TO RECOGNIZE OR ACKNOWLEDGE INDIAN TITLE TO
THE LANDS, WHICH FINDING WAS THE BASIS OF THAT COURT'S DECISION, PLACES
THE BURDEN ON PETITIONERS TO OVERTHROW THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  P. 346. 

(B)  RECOGNITION OF THE INDIAN TITLE IS NOT TO BE IMPLIED FROM THE
GRANT BY THE INDIANS OF PERMISSION FOR TRAVEL OR MINING AND FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.  P. 348. 

(C)  THAT INDIAN TITLE WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE FORT LARAMIE TREATY DOES
NOT REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT INDIAN TITLE WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE
TREATY OF JULY 30, 1863.  P. 349. 

(D)  USE IN THE TREATY OF THE WORD "CLAIM" OR THE PHRASE "COUNTRY
CLAIMED," THOUGH DESIGNATING THE AREA OVER WHICH THE INDIANS ASSERTED
INDIAN TITLE, DID NOT CONSTITUTE ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE UNITED STATES OF
SUCH TITLE.  P. 350. 

(E)  THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE TREATY - "NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED
SHALL BE CONSTRUED OR TAKEN TO ADMIT ANY OTHER OR GREATER TITLE OR
INTEREST IN THE LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN THE TERRITORIES DESCRIBED IN SAID
TREATY IN SAID TRIBES OR BANDS OF INDIANS THAN EXISTED IN THEM UPON THE
ACQUISITION OF SAID TERRITORIES FROM MEXICO BY THE LAWS THEREOF" - WAS
NOT INTENDED TO GIVE RECOGNITION TO INDIAN TITLES BUT ONLY TO AVOID
FURTHER COMPLICATIONS IN THE MEXICAN CESSION TITLE SITUATION.  P. 351. 

2.  INDIAN TREATIES ARE TO BE CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO THEIR TENOR; AND
THEIR TERMS ARE NOT TO BE VARIED BY CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO AVOID
ALLEGED INJUSTICES.  P. 353. 

NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF SHOSHONE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 721, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF A PROCEEDING
BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF SHOSHONE INDIANS, PETITIONERS HERE, SEEK TO
RECOVER FROM THE UNITED STATES DAMAGES ESTIMATED AT FIFTEEN MILLION
DOLLARS FOR THE TAKING OF SOME FIFTEEN MILLION ACRES OF THE LANDS HELD
BY THESE INDIANS BY ABORIGINAL OR IMMEMORIAL TITLE.  THIS TITLE WAS
ALLEGED BY THE INDIANS TO HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES BY
THE TREATY BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE UNITED STATES AT BOX ELDER,
UTAH TERRITORY, JULY 30, 1863. 

THE SUIT WAS BEGUN IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BY
THE BANDS PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF CONGRESS OF
FEBRUARY 28, 1929, 45 STAT. 1407.  THE ACT CONSENTED TO SUIT AND
RECOVERY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
"THAT JURISDICTION BE, AND HEREBY IS, CONFERRED UPON THE COURT OF
CLAIMS, NOTWITHSTANDING LAPSE OF TIME OR STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, TO
HEAR, ADJUDICATE, AND RENDER JUDGMENT IN ANY AND ALL CLAIMS WHICH THE
NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF SHOSHONE INDIANS MAY HAVE AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE TREATY OF JULY 2,
1863(EIGHTEENTH STATUTES, PAGE 685 - 2 KAPPLER, 848); TREATY OF JULY
30, 1863(THIRTEENTH STATUTES, PAGE 863(663) - 2 KAPPLER, 850); ACT OF
CONGRESS APPROVED DECEMBER 15, 1874(EIGHTEENTH STATUTES, PAGE 291), AND
ANY SUBSEQUENT TREATY ACT OF CONGRESS, OR EXECUTIVE ORDER, WHICH CLAIMS
HAVE NOT HERETOFORE BEEN DETERMINED AND ADJUDICATED ON THEIR MERITS BY
THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN1 

THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GRANT CERTIORARI UNDER THE
JURISDICTIONAL ACT AND SEC. 3(B), ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT.
939, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF MAY 22, 1939, 53 STAT. 752; SEE COLGATE V.
UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 43.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN VIEW OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN INDIAN AFFAIRS. 

THE SUIT IS BASED UPON THE UNLAWFUL TAKING AFTER THE ALLEGED
RECOGNITION OF THE INDIAN TITLE BY THE BOX ELDER TREATY.  WE DO NOT
READ THE PETITION AS CLAIMING ANY RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR THE
EXTINGUISHMENT OF AN INDIAN ABORIGINAL TITLE, WHICH WAS UNRECOGNIZED OR
UNACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BOX ELDER TREATY.  UNDER THE WORDS OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL ACT, "ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE TREATY," SUIT
IS AUTHORIZED ONLY FOR RIGHTS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE TREATY.  THE ACT DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE A SUIT FOR LOSS OF INDIAN TRIBAL RIGHTS ARISING FROM ANY
OTHER ACTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  IF THE TREATY RECOGNIZED THE
ABORIGINAL OR INDIAN TITLE, THE AUTHORITY TO SUE FOR THE TAKING UNDER
THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT IS NOT QUESTIONED.  FN2  NO CLAIM IS BROUGHT
FORWARD BY PETITIONERS ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE OTHER
TREATIES, ACTS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE REFERRED TO IN THE JURISDICTIONAL
ACT.  SEE NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF SHOSHONE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 95
CT. CLS. 642, 680.  FN3 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS DETERMINED THAT THE CLAIM FOR THE TAKING OF LAND
SUED UPON BY PETITIONERS DID NOT GROW OUT OF THE BOX ELDER TREATY. 
CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT AND GRANTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS
"RECOGNITION" OR "ACKNOWLEDGMENT" OF THE INDIAN TITLE BY THIS TREATY
THROUGH THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED OR BY THE ACT OF ENTERING INTO A TREATY
WITH THE INDIANS AS TO THE USE BY THE UNITED STATES OF LANDS WHICH WERE
CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONERS. 

EVEN WHERE A RESERVATION IS CREATED FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF INDIANS,
THEIR RIGHT AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN A TREATY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY. 
SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 496.  PRIOR TO THE
CREATION OF ANY SUCH AREA, FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE UNITED STATES
AS SUBJECT TO SUCH RIGHT OF INDIAN OCCUPANCY, A CERTAIN NATION, TRIBE
OR BAND OF INDIANS MAY HAVE CLAIMED THE RIGHT BECAUSE OF IMMEMORIAL
OCCUPANCY TO ROAM CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY OTHER
INDIANS AND IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE CUSTOM OF THE EARLY NOMADS TO
WANDER AT WILL IN THE SEARCH FOR FOOD.  UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE
PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339, 345.  THIS CLAIM HAS COME TO BE KNOWN AS
INDIAN TITLE AND IS LIKEWISE OFTEN SPOKEN OF AS THE RIGHT OF
OCCUPANCY.  TO DISTINGUISH FROM A RECOGNIZED RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY, WE
SHALL REFER TO THE ABORIGINAL USAGE WITHOUT DEFINITE RECOGNITION OF THE
RIGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AS INDIAN TITLE. 

SINCE JOHNSON V. M'INTOSH, 8 WHEAT.  543, DECIDED IN 1823, GAVE
RATIONALIZATION TO THE APPROPRIATION OF INDIAN LANDS BY THE WHITE MAN'S
GOVERNMENT, THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF INDIAN TITLE BY THAT SOVEREIGNTY HAS
PROCEEDED, AS A POLITICAL MATTER, WITHOUT ANY ADMITTED LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITY IN THE SOVEREIGN TO COMPENSATE THE INDIAN FOR HIS LOSS. 
EXCLUSIVE TITLE TO THE LANDS PASSED TO THE WHITE DISCOVERERS, SUBJECT
TO THE INDIAN TITLE WITH POWER IN THE WHITE SOVEREIGN ALONE TO
EXTINGUISH THAT RIGHT BY "PURCHASE OR CONQUEST."  8 WHEAT.  AT 574, 585
88.  THE WHITES ENFORCED THEIR CLAIMS BY THE SWORD AND OCCUPIED THE
LANDS AS THE INDIANS ABANDONED THEM.  FN4  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED
SUITS ON THE ORIGINAL INDIAN TITLE BUT NO RECOVERY HAS AS YET BEEN
OBTAINED ON THAT GROUND.  SEE COOS BAY INDIAN TRIBE V. UNITED STATES,
87 CT. CLS. 143; CF. WICHITA INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 89 CT. CLS. 378,
413, 414.  IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE SUCCESS OF THE CLAIM DEPENDS NOT
UPON PROOF OF THE INDIAN TITLE, WHICH MAY BE ADMITTED, 95 CT. CLS. AT
690, BUT UPON RECOGNITION OF THAT TITLE BY THE BOX ELDER TREATY.  IT IS
QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF BOTH PETITIONERS AND
CONGRESS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD LIMIT ITS SUBMISSION TO SUITS TO
CLAIMS UNDER THE BOUNDARIES IF ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE TREATY RATHER THAN
TO CONSENT TO JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OF CLAIMS FOR TAKING THE UNKNOWN
AREA OF THEIR POSSIBLE INDIAN TITLE.  FN5  THE SHOSHONE INDIAN TITLE
WAS IN INDIAN COUNTRY (ACT TO REGULATE TRADE AND INTERCOURSE WITH THE
INDIAN TRIBES, 4 STAT. 729; BATES V. CLARK, 95 U.S. 204, 206-208) AND
AS A CONSEQUENCE SUBJECT TO ALL THE UNCERTAINTIES OF DEFINITION OF
BOUNDARIES AND DIFFICULTIES OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH ABORIGINAL TITLE FOR
TRIBES WITH A SHIFTING HABITAT. 

THE DECISIVE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER IT WAS INTENDED BY THE
NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE OR BOX ELDER TREATY OF JULY 30, 1863, TO
RECOGNIZE OR ACKNOWLEDGE BY IMPLICATION THE INDIAN TITLE TO THE LANDS
MENTIONED IN THAT TREATY.  UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO.,
314 U.S. 339, 347.  FROM SUCH RECOGNITION OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THIS
TREATY WOULD FLOW A RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY WHICH WOULD BE COMPENSABLE UNDER
THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT. 

FULL FINDINGS OF FACT APPEAR WITH THE OPINION BELOW IN NORTHWESTERN
BANDS OF SHOSHONE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 95 CT. CLS. 642.  THESE
FINDINGS SHOW THAT PETITIONERS HERE, THE NORTHWESTERN BANDS, WERE AT
THE TIME OF THE TREATY A PART OF THE SHOSHONE TRIBE, A NOMADIC INDIAN
NATION OF LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE WHICH ROAMED OVER EIGHTY
MILLION ACRES OF PRAIRIE, FOREST AND MOUNTAIN IN THE PRESENT STATES OF
WYOMING, COLORADO, UTAH, IDAHO AND NEVADA.  THE GROUP WITH WHICH WE ARE
CONCERNED WAS COMPRISED OF SOME FIFTEEN OR EIGHTEEN HUNDRED PERSONS AND
CLAIMED, BY THE TREATY, INDIAN TITLE TO SOME TEN MILLION ACRES AND NOW
CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR OVER SIX MILLION ADDITIONAL ACRES. 

AFTER THE DISCOVERY OF GOLD IN CALIFORNIA, WHITE TRAVELERS AND
SETTLERS BEGAN TO TRAVERSE AND PEOPLE THE SHOSHONE DOMAIN WITH THE
RESULT THAT THE INDIANS' GAME DISAPPEARED FROM THEIR HUNTING GROUNDS. 
RACIAL RELATIONS DEGENERATED TO THE POINT THAT INDIAN DEPREDATIONS
INTERFERED WITH TRAVEL AND SETTLEMENT, THE OVERLAND MAILS AND THE NEW
TELEGRAPH LINES.  BY THE TIME OF THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, THE AGENTS AND SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE
SHOSHONE TERRITORY WERE AWARE OF THE MISERY OF THE SHOSHONES, THE
DANGERS TO THE EMIGRANT TRAINS AND NEED FOR PEACE TO ENABLE TRAVEL AND
SETTLEMENT IN THE AREA.  WORD HAD REACHED THE COMMISSIONER FROM HIS
SUPERINTENDENT IN UTAH THAT THE SHOSHONE WERE INCLINED TOWARD ACCEPTING
SUPPORT ON LIMITED RESERVATIONS AND WERE WILLING IN RETURN TO CEDE
THEIR OTHER LANDS TO THE UNITED STATES. 

ON JULY 5, 1862, 12 STAT. 512, 529, CONGRESS APPROPRIATED $20,000 FOR
DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF NEGOTIATING A TREATY WITH THE SHOSHONES.  THE
APPROPRIATION FOLLOWED A LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS EXPRESSING THE
VIEW THAT THE LANDS OWNED BY THE INDIANS OF UTAH WERE LARGELY UNFIT FOR
CULTIVATION AND THAT IT WAS "NOT PROBABLE THAT ANY CONSIDERABLE PORTION
OF THEM WILL BE REQUIRED FOR SETTLEMENT FOR MANY YEARS."  A SPECIAL
COMMISSION WAS PROMPTLY APPOINTED AND INSTRUCTED THAT IT WAS NOT
EXPECTED THAT THE PROPOSED TREATY WOULD EXTINGUISH INDIAN TITLE TO THE
LANDS BUT ONLY SECURE FREEDOM FROM MOLESTATION FOR THE ROUTES OF TRAVEL
AND "ALSO A DEFINITE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AS WELL OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
ENTIRE COUNTRY THEY CLAIM AS OF THE LIMITS WITHIN WHICH THEY WILL
CONFINE THEMSELVES, WHICH LIMITS IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO STATE SHOULD
BE AS REMOTE FROM SAID ROUTES AS PRACTICABLE." 

AS THE DISTANCES MADE IT IMPRACTICABLE TO GATHER THE SHOSHONE NATION
INTO ONE COUNCIL FOR TREATY PURPOSES, THE COMMISSIONERS MADE FIVE
TREATIES IN AN ENDEAVOR TO CLEAR UP THE DIFFICULTIES IN THE SHOSHONE
COUNTRY.  THESE ARE SET OUT IN FULL IN THE REPORT BELOW.  95 CT. CLS.
642.  FOUR WILL BE FOUND ALSO IN 13 STAT. 663, 681, AND 18 STAT. 685,
689.  THE FIFTH OR MIXED BAND TREATY WAS NOT PROCLAIMED.  IT IS AT 5
KAPPLER 693.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE TO SAY THAT BY THE TREATIES THE
INDIANS AGREED NOT TO MOLEST TRAVELERS, STAGE COACHES, TELEGRAPH LINES
OR PROJECTED RAILROADS.  FN6  ALL THE SHOSHONE TREATIES WERE SIMILAR IN
FORM.  THEY SHOW THAT THE BOUNDARIES CLAIMED, AS PETITIONER POINTS OUT,
COVERED THE ENTIRE SHOSHONE COUNTRY.  AFTER ALL FIVE WERE NEGOTIATED
COMMISSIONER DOTY WAS ABLE TO TRACE A ROUGH MAP OF THE SHOSHONE COUNTRY
TO SHOW THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS "THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF
THE TERRITORIES CLAIMED BY THE SHOSHONEES IN THEIR RECENT TREATIES, AS
ALSO THE LINES OF THE COUNTRY OCCUPIED BY DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE
TRIBE INDICATED UPON IT AS CORRECTLY AS THE MAP WILL ALLOW."  HE HAD
ASKED INDIAN AFFAIRS FOR THE MAP UPON WHICH THIS INFORMATION WAS TRACED
"TO SHOW THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COUNTRY CEDED BY THE SHOSHONES." 

PETITIONERS' TREATY, THE NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE TREATY, NEEDS TO BE
SET OUT IN FULL FOR READY EXAMINATION.  IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT MADE AT BOX ELDER, IN UTAH TERRITORY, THIS
30TH DAY OF JULY, A.D., 1863, BY AND BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, REPRESENTED BY BRIGADIER-GENERAL P. EDWARD CONNOR, COMMANDING
THE MILITARY DISTRICT OF UTAH, AND JAMES DUANE DOTY, COMMISSIONER, AND
THE NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF THE SHOSHONEE INDIANS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR
CHIEFS AND WARRIORS: 

ARTICLE I. IT IS AGREED THAT FRIENDLY AND AMICABLE RELATIONS SHALL BE
REESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE BANDS OF THE SHOSHONEE NATION, PARTIES
HERETO, AND THE UNITED STATES; AND IT IS DECLARED THAT A FIRM AND
PERPETUAL PEACE SHALL BE HENCEFORTH MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE SAID BANDS
AND THE UNITED STATES. 

ARTICLE II.  THE TREATY CONCLUDED AT FORT BRIDGER ON THE 2ND DAY OF
JULY, 1863, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE SHOSHONEE NATION, BEING
READ AND FULLY INTERPRETED AND EXPLAINED TO THE SAID CHIEFS AND
WARRIORS, THEY DO HEREBY GIVE THEIR FULL AND FREE ASSENT TO ALL OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SAID TREATY, AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AS A PART OF
THIS AGREEMENT, AND THE SAME SHALL BE BINDING UPON THE PARTIES HERETO. 

ARTICLE III.  IN CONSIDERATION OF THE STIPULATIONS IN THE PRECEDING
ARTICLES, THE UNITED STATES AGREE TO INCREASE THE ANNUITY TO THE
SHOSHONEE NATION FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, TO BE PAID IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED IN SAID TREATY.  AND THE SAID NORTHWESTERN BANDS HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGE TO HAVE RECEIVED OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE SIGNING OF
THESE ARTICLES, PROVISIONS AND GOODS TO THE AMOUNT OF TWO THOUSAND
DOLLARS, TO RELIEVE THEIR IMMEDIATE NECESSITIES, THE SAID BANDS HAVING
BEEN REDUCED BY THE WAR TO A STATE OF UTTER DESTITUTION. 

ARTICLE IV.  THE COUNTRY CLAIMED BY POKATELLO, FOR HIMSELF AND HIS
PEOPLE, IS BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY RAFT RIVER AND ON THE EAST BY THE
PORTENEUF MOUNTAINS."  13 STAT. 663.  BEFORE IT OR THE OTHER TREATIES
WERE RATIFIED BY THE SENATE AN ADDITIONAL ARTICLE WAS ADDED TO EACH
AND, EXCEPT FOR ONE TREATY NOT FURTHER INVOLVED HERE, ACCEPTED BY THE
INDIANS.  THE ADDITION READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED OR TAKEN TO ADMIT ANY
OTHER OR GREATER TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN THE
TERRITORIES DESCRIBED IN SAID TREATY IN SAID TRIBES OR BANDS OF INDIANS
THAN EXISTED IN THEM UPON THE ACQUISITION OF SAID TERRITORIES FROM
MEXICO BY THE LAWS THEREOF." 

THE PORTIONS OF THE FORT BRIDGER TREATY OF JULY 2, 1863, OF ANY
POSSIBLE EFFECT WILL BE FOUND IN NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

SUBSEQUENT TO THE RATIFICATION OF THE TREATIES, AN ACT OF CONGRESS
WAS PASSED ON FEBRUARY 23, 1865, 13 STAT. 432, FOR THE EXTINCTION OF
INDIAN TITLE TO LANDS IN UTAH TERRITORY; AND ANOTHER ACT ON JULY 20,
1867, 15 STAT. 17, FOR DEALING WITH HOSTILE INDIANS AND CHOOSING
RESERVATIONS FOR INDIANS DWELLING EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS.  NONE OF
THE SHOSHONES ENTERED INTO TREATIES UNDER EITHER OF THESE ACTS EXCEPT
THE EASTERN SHOSHONES WHO HAD SIGNED THE FORT BRIDGER TREATY OF JULY 2,
1863.  ON JULY 3, 1868, THEY RELINQUISHED ALL CLAIM TO UNITED STATES
TERRITORY EXCEPT A RESERVATION IN WYOMING OF 3,047,730 ACRES.  15 STAT.
673.  NO OTHER TREATY OR OTHER FORMAL ARRANGEMENT HAS BEEN MADE BETWEEN
PETITIONERS AND THE UNITED STATES DEALING WITH THEIR LANDS.  FN7 
WITHOUT SEEKING ANY CESSION OR RELINQUISHMENT OF CLAIM FROM THE
SHOSHONE, EXCEPT THE EASTERN SHOSHONE RELINQUISHMENT OF JULY 3, 1868,
JUST REFERRED TO, THE UNITED STATES HAS TREATED THE REST OF THE
SHOSHONE TERRITORY AS A PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  SCHOOL LANDS WERE
GRANTED.  13 STAT. 32; 26 STAT. 216; 28 STAT. 109.  NATIONAL FORESTS
WERE FREELY CREATED.  33 STAT. 2307; 34 STAT. 3099, 3198, 3206, 3247,
3251; 37 STAT. 1678.  THE LANDS WERE OPENED TO PUBLIC SETTLEMENT UNDER
THE HOMESTEAD LAWS.  REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND
OFFICE (1868), PP. 55, 59, 63; REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE
GENERAL LAND OFFICE (1869), PP. 163, 168, 177.  THUS WE HAVE
ADMINISTRATION OF THIS TERRITORY BY THE UNITED STATES PROCEEDING AS
THOUGH NO INDIAN LAND TITLES WERE INVOLVED. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE IT AND
REACHED THE CONCLUSION AS A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES "DID
NOT INTEND THAT IT (THE TREATY) SHOULD BE A STIPULATION OF RECOGNITION
AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANY EXCLUSIVE USE AND OCCUPANCY RIGHT OR TITLE
OF THE INDIANS, PARTIES THERETO....  THE TREATY WAS INTENDED TO BE, AND
WAS, A TREATY OF PEACE AND AMITY WITH STIPULATED ANNUITIES FOR THE
PURPOSES OF ACCOMPLISHING THOSE OBJECTS AND ACHIEVING THAT END."  95
CT. CLS. AT 676.  THIS FINDING MOLDED THE OPINION AND JUDGMENT BELOW. 
WHETHER THE ISSUE AS TO ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY A TREATY OF INDIAN TITLE TO
LAND IS TREATED AS A QUESTION OF FACT, LIKE INDIAN RIGHT TO OCCUPANCY
ITSELF, UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339, 345; 53
STAT. 752, OR AS A MATTER OF INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN BY THE TRIER OF FACT
FROM THE TREATY AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OR AS A CONCLUSION OF LAW
TO BE REVIEWED BY THIS COURT UPON THE RECORD, THIS FINDING PLACES THE
BURDEN ON PETITIONERS TO OVERTHROW THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION, THE LOWER COURT POINTED OUT IN ITS
OPINION THAT NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATION OR OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS,
COMMUNICATIONS OR INSTRUCTIONS WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE TREATY INDICATED
ANY PURPOSE TO RECOGNIZE INDIAN TITLE TO THE TERRITORY OVER WHICH THE
SHOSHONE ROAMED AND HUNTED.  THE COMMISSIONERS WERE INSTRUCTED
SPECIFICALLY ON JULY 22, 1862, THAT THEY WERE NOT EXPECTED TO NEGOTIATE
FOR THE EXTINCTION OF THE INDIAN TITLE BUT FOR THE SECURITY OF ROUTES
OVER THE LANDS AND "A DEFINITE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AS WELL OF THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY THEY (THE INDIANS) CLAIM."  THE LETTER SHOWS
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE BANDS.  THE COMMISSIONER OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS WROTE OF THE SHOSHONE NATION AS ROAMING UTAH AND EASTERN
WASHINGTON BUT THE VERY INDEFINITENESS OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED A
STATEMENT FROM THE INDIANS OF THEIR CLAIMS.  95 CT. CLS. AT 690.  THE
COMMISSIONER LEARNED FROM THE TREATIES THAT THE SHOSHONES CLAIMED
TERRITORY IN COLORADO, WYOMING, IDAHO, AND NEVADA AGGREGATING SEVERAL
TIMES THE ACREAGE IN UTAH.  THERE APPARENTLY WAS NO CLAIM TO WASHINGTON
LAND.  COMMISSIONER DOTY'S LETTER TRANSMITTING THE MAP DESCRIBING THE
TERRITORIES CLAIMED BY THE SHOSHONES AND TELLING OF THE NEGOTIATIONS
HAS NOTHING THAT INDICATES THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE
UNITED STATES OF THE INDIAN TITLE TO ANY OF THE LANDS.  SEE NOTE 5,
SUPRA. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE TEXT OF THE NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE TREATY AND
THE OTHERS WHICH WERE ENTERED INTO WITH THE OTHER SHOSHONE TRIBES, 95
CT. CLS. 642, SHOWS THE COMMISSIONERS CAREFULLY FOLLOWED THEIR
INSTRUCTIONS.  IN THE EASTERN SHOSHONE TREATY, THE BOUNDARIES ARE
SPOKEN OF "AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED BY SAID NATION," NOTE 6, SUPRA.  IN
THE NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE TREATY THE LAND IS DESCRIBED AS "THE COUNTRY
CLAIMED BY POKATELLO, FOR HIMSELF AND HIS PEOPLE."  IN THE WESTERN
SHOSHONE TREATY PERMISSION WAS GIVEN FOR MINERAL PROSPECTING AND
EXTRACTING AND THE BOUNDARIES ARE SAID TO DEFINE "THE COUNTRY CLAIMED
AND OCCUPIED."  THE SAME LANGUAGE IS USED AS TO THE BOUNDARIES IN THE
SHOSHONEE-GOSHIP TREATY.  THIS TREATY ALSO PERMITTED PROSPECTING FOR
AND THE WORKING OF MINES.  THE MIXED BANDS TREATY DESCRIBED A COUNTRY
"CLAIMED BY THE SAID BANDS" AND "AS DESCRIBED BY THEM."  NOWHERE IN ANY
OF THE SERIES OF TREATIES IS THERE A SPECIFIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDIAN
TITLE OR RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY.  IT SEEMS TO US A REASONABLE INFERENCE
THAT HAD EITHER THE INDIANS OR THE UNITED STATES UNDERSTOOD THAT THE
TREATIES RECOGNIZED THE INDIAN TITLE TO THESE DOMAINS, SUCH PURPOSE
WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY EXPRESSED BY INSTRUCTION, BY
TREATY TEXT OR BY THE REPORTS OF THE TREATY COMMISSIONERS, TO THEIR
SUPERIORS OR IN THE TRANSMISSION OF THE TREATIES TO THE SENATE FOR
RATIFICATION. 

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE PERMISSION FROM THE INDIANS FOR TRAVEL OR
MINING AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES BY THE UNITED STATES FOR ITS CITIZENS IMPLY A RECOGNITION BY
THE UNITED STATES OF THE INDIAN TITLE.  THEY QUOTE, AS PERSUASIVE,
THESE WORDS FROM AN EARLY INDIAN CASE:  "THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE
CESSIONS IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RIGHT OF THE CHEROKEES TO MAKE OR
WITHOLD THEM."  WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, 556.  AN EXAMINATION
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THIS COURT MADE THE JUST-QUOTED
STATEMENT ILLUSTRATES HOW INAPPOSITE ITS USE BY PETITIONERS IS TO THE
PRESENT QUESTION.  THE QUOTATION WAS WRITTEN IN EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS
OF PASSAGE WHICH WERE GRANTED BY THE CHEROKEES THROUGH LANDS WHICH BY
OTHER ARTICLES OF THE TREATY HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY SET APART AND
SOLEMNLY GUARANTEED TO THE CHEROKEES.  7 STAT. 39.  NO SUCH SPECIFIC
RECOGNITION IS IN THE BOX ELDER TREATY.  BUT WE SEE NOTHING
INCONSISTENT WITH NON-RECOGNITION OF THE INDIAN TITLE AND THE INSERTION
OF THESE PROVISIONS AGAINST MOLESTATION OF STRUCTURES, TRAVELERS OR
EXPLOITERS OF MINERAL DEPOSITS WITHIN THE TERRITORIES.  THE UNITED
STATES UNDOUBTEDLY MIGHT HAVE ASSERTED, AT THE TIME OF THE TREATY, ITS
PURPOSE TO EXTINGUISH INDIAN TITLE OR IT MIGHT HAVE RECOGNIZED INDIAN
TITLE OR IT MIGHT, AS THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD, HAVE SOUGHT ONLY
FREEDOM FROM HOSTILE ACTS FROM ROVING BANDS BY THE COMMITMENTS FOR
SUPPLIES.  THE TREATIES WERE MADE IN THE MIDST OF CIVIL WAR AND BEFORE
THE OUTCOME OF THAT CONFLICT WAS CLEAR. 

PETITIONERS URGE THAT RECOGNITION OF THE INDIAN TITLE WAS INFERRED
FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE FORT LARAMIE TREATY OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1851, 11
STAT. 749, FORT BERTHOLD INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 71 CT. CLS. 308;
ASSINIBOINE INDIAN TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 77 CT. CLS. 347, 370; CROW
NATION V. UNITED STATES, 81 CT. CLS. 238, 272, AND THAT A DIFFERENT
INFERENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE HOLDINGS. 
APART FROM THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT TREATIES ARE INVOLVED, THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE EXECUTION OF THE FORT LARAMIE TREATY
INDICATE A PURPOSE TO RECOGNIZE THE INDIAN TITLE TO THE LANDS DESCRIBED
IN THE FORT LARAMIE TREATY, WHICH MAY WELL HAVE INDUCED THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO REACH ONE CONCLUSION IN THOSE CASES AND ANOTHER IN THIS.  FOR
EXAMPLE, THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE FORT LARAMIE
NEGOTIATIONS CONTAINED THIS DIRECTION: 

"IT IS IMPORTANT, IF PRACTICABLE, TO ESTABLISH FOR EACH TRIBE SOME
FIXED BOUNDARIES WITHIN WHICH THEY SHOULD STIPULATE GENERALLY TO
RESIDE, AND EACH SHOULD AGREE NOT TO INTRUDE WITHIN THE LIMITS ASSIGNED
TO ANOTHER TRIBE WITHOUT ITS CONSENT."  71 CT. CLS. 312.  FURTHER IN
REPORTING THE TREATY, IT WAS SAID: 

"THE LAYING OFF OF THE COUNTRY INTO GEOGRAPHICAL, OR RATHER NATIONAL
DOMAINS, I REGARD AS A VERY IMPORTANT MEASURE, INASMUCH AS IT WILL TAKE
AWAY A GREAT CAUSE OF QUARREL AMONG THEMSELVES, AND AT THE SAME TIME
ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO ASCERTAIN WHO ARE THE DEPREDATORS, SHOULD
DEPREDATIONS HEREAFTER BE COMMITTED."  71 CT. CLS. 313. 

FURTHERMORE, THE WORDS OF THE FORT LARAMIE TREATY ARE MORE APT TO
EXPRESS RECOGNITION OF INDIAN TITLE THAN THOSE OF BOX ELDER.  ARTICLE 5
SAYS: 

"THE AFORESAID INDIAN NATIONS DO HEREBY RECOGNIZE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE
FOLLOWING TRACTS OF COUNTRY, INCLUDED WITHIN THE METES AND BOUNDARIES
HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED, AS THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES, VIZ:..."  71
CT. CLS. 315.  IN CONSIDERATION OF THE TREATY STIPULATIONS THE UNITED
STATES BOUND ITSELF TO FURNISH SUPPLIES AND TO PROTECT THE INDIAN
NATIONS AGAINST DEPREDATIONS BY ITS CITIZENS.  SUCH DISTINCTIONS MAY
QUITE JUSTIFIABLY HAVE LED THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS
THAN IT REACHED FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE
TREATY.  FN8 

PETITIONERS POINT OUT THAT THE WORD "CLAIM" OR THE PHRASE "COUNTRY
CLAIMED" WAS OFTEN USED ON THE FRONTIER TO INDICATE TITLE OR RIGHT.  WE
KNOW THIS MEANING IN MINING LAW AND IN ENTRIES FOR LAND PATENTS.  THE
MEANING OF THE WORD OR PHRASE DEPENDS UPON ITS USE.  IN THESE TREATIES
IT SEEMS CLEARLY TO DESIGNATE THE BOUNDARIES OVER WHICH THE INDIANS
ASSERTED INDIAN TITLE BUT THAT FALLS SHORT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SUCH
RIGHT BY THE UNITED STATES. 

RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED BY PETITIONERS UPON THE SENATE'S AMENDMENT TO
THE TREATY  FN9  AS A LIMITATION OF THE TREATY'S RECOGNITION OF INDIAN
TITLE TO THE DESCRIBED LANDS.  THIS LIMITATION, PETITIONERS ARGUE,
DEMONSTRATES THAT NO OTHER LIMITATION WAS INTENDED.  PETITIONERS TAKE
THE POSITION THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THIS LIMITATION "IF THE TREATY
RECOGNIZED NO RIGHTS."  WHILE SUCH A LIMITATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
NEEDED IF THE SENATE OF THAT DAY WERE POSITIVE, ON WEIGHING THE ISSUE
AS WE NOW DO, THAT THE TREATY WAS INEFFECTIVE TO GIVE ANY ADDITIONAL
COLOR TO INDIAN TITLES WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE MEXICAN CESSION, IT IS
UNLIKELY THAT THE RATIFYING BODY COULD OR DID APPRAISE THE SEVERAL
POSSIBILITIES WHICH ARE NOW PRESENTED.  THE SENATE WAS WELL ACQUAINTED
WITH THE COMPLICATIONS OF MEXICAN LAND TITLES IN THE CESSION.  A
PORTION OF THE LANDS LAY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FORMER MEXICAN
STATE OF ALTA CALIFORNIA.  THE SENATE WAS FAMILIAR, TOO, WITH THE LEGAL
POSITION OF INDIAN TITLES IN THE SHOSHONE COUNTRY OUTSIDE THE MEXICAN
CESSION.  FN10  SUCH TITLES WERE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES AS SIMILAR
TITLES IN ALL INDIAN COUNTRY.  4 STAT. 729.  THE STATUS OF INDIAN
TITLES WITHIN THE MEXICAN CESSION OF 1848, HOWEVER, HAD NOT THEN BEEN
JUDICIALLY DETERMINED.  FN11  THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO
GUARANTEED THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF MEXICANS IN THE CESSION.  FN12
CONTROVERSIES OVER THESE RIGHTS HAD CAUSED THE REJECTION BY THE SENATE
OF ARTICLE X OF THE TREATY AS SUBMITTED.  FN13  THE REJECTION WAS
FOLLOWED BY THE PROTOCOL OF QUERETARO OF 1848 IN WHICH OUR
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE EXCHANGE OF RATIFICATIONS UNDERTOOK TO MAKE
EXPLANATION TO MEXICO OF THE REJECTION OF ARTICLE X. FN14  THE PROTOCOL
ITSELF WAS A SUBJECT OF HOUSE AND SENATE DEBATE AND OF EXTENSIVE
DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.  FN15  THERE HAD BEEN, ALSO, THE ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1851, 9 STAT. 631, TO SETTLE THE PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS IN
CALIFORNIA, AFTER ITS ADMISSION AS A STATE.  LITIGATION OVER LAND
TITLES IN THE MEXICAN CESSION HAD ALREADY REACHED THIS COURT.  UNITED
STATES V. NYE, 21 HOW.  408; UNITED STATES V. BASSETT, 21 HOW.  412;
UNITED STATES V. ROSE, 23 HOW.  262.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE
AMENDMENT INDICATES MORE THAN AN INTENTION TO BE SURE THE NEW TREATY
DID NOT ADD TO THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE MEXICAN CESSION TITLE
SITUATION.  CF. BARKER V. HARVEY, 181 U.S. 481, 491; UNITED STATES V.
TITLE INS. CO., 265 U.S. 472, 484. 

PETITIONERS SUGGEST THAT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF INDIAN TREATIES WE,
AS A SELF-RESPECTING NATION, HESITATE TO CONSTRUE LANGUAGE, WHICH IS
SELECTED BY US AS GUARDIAN OF THE INDIANS, TO OUR WARD'S PREJUDICE. 
"ALL DOUBTS," SAY PETITIONERS, "MUST BE RESOLVED IN THEIR (THE
INDIANS') FAVOR."  MR. JUSTICE MCLEAN, CONCURRING IN WORCESTER V.
GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515 AT 582, SAID, "THE LANGUAGE USED IN TREATIES WITH
THE INDIANS SHOULD NEVER BE CONSTRUED TO THEIR PREJUDICE."  BUT THE
CONTEXT SHOWS THAT THE JUSTICE MEANT NO MORE THAN THAT THE LANGUAGE
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TENOR OF THE TREATY.  FN16
THAT, WE THINK, IS THE RULE WHICH THIS COURT HAS APPLIED CONSISTENTLY
TO INDIAN TREATIES.  WE ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE PARTIES MEANT BY
THE TREATY.  WE STOP SHORT OF VARYING ITS TERMS TO MEET ALLEGED
INJUSTICES.  SUCH GENEROSITY, IF ANY MAY BE CALLED FOR IN THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE INDIANS, IS FOR THE CONGRESS.  FN17 

IT SEEMS TO US CLEAR FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO AND
FOLLOWING THE EXECUTION OF THE BOX ELDER TREATY THAT THE PARTIES DID
NOT INTEND TO RECOGNIZE OR ACKNOWLEDGE BY THAT TREATY THE INDIAN TITLE
TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION.  WHETHER THE LANDS WERE IN FACT HELD BY THE
SHOSHONES BY INDIAN TITLE FROM OCCUPANCY OR OTHERWISE OR WHAT RIGHTS
FLOW TO THE INDIANS FROM SUCH TITLE IS NOT INVOLVED.  SINCE THE RIGHTS,
IF ANY THE SHOSHONES HAVE, DID NOT ARISE UNDER OR GROW OUT OF THE BOX
ELDER TREATY, NO RECOVERY MAY BE HAD UNDER THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT ARE ROUTINE AND NOT
HERE INVOLVED.  THEY PROVIDE FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR THE
INDIANS, FOR SET-OFFS TO THE UNITED STATES, FOR REVIEW IN THIS COURT,
PROCESS, SERVICE ON AND APPEARANCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
DISPOSITION OF SUMS RECOVERED. 

FN2  THE CLAIM UPON WHICH THE INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
BASED ITS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PASSAGE OF AN IDENTICAL JURISDICTIONAL
ACT WAS A CLAIM FOR THE TAKING OF THIS ABORIGINAL TITLE WHICH THE
COMMITTEE SAID WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE BOX ELDER TREATY.  H. REP. NO.
1030, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; CF. UNITED STATES V. CREEK NATION, 295
U.S. 103, 108.    FN3  IN A SIMILAR JURISDICTIONAL ACT FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE EASTERN SHOSHONE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THEIR CLAIM AROSE UNDER
OR GREW OUT OF A CERTAIN TREATY WAS NOT INVOLVED.  THAT TREATY, FORT
BRIDGER, JULY 3, 1868, SPECIFICALLY RECOGNIZED AND SET APART A
RESERVATION FOR THE EASTERN SHOSHONE.  ART. II, 15 STAT. 673; 44 STAT.
1349; SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476. 

FN4  BEECHER V. WETHERBY, 95 U.S. 517, 525; BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC
R. CO., 119 U.S. 55, 70; LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK, 187 U.S. 553, 564;
UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339, 347.    FN5
LETTER OF COMMISSIONER DOTY, TRANSMITTED BY MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT,
JANUARY, 1864, EXECUTIVE K, L, M, N, O, 38TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 17: 

"AS NONE OF THE INDIANS OF THIS COUNTRY HAVE PERMANENT PLACES OF
ABODE, IN THEIR HUNTING EXCURSIONS THEY WANDER OVER AN IMMENSE REGION,
EXTENDING FROM THE FISHERIES AT AND BELOW SALMON FALLS, ON THE
SHOSHONEE RIVER, NEAR THE OREGON LINE, TO THE SOURCES OF THAT STREAM,
AND TO THE BUFFALO COUNTRY BEYOND." 

FN6  ARTICLES II AND III FROM THE FORT BRIDGER TREATY OF JULY 2,
1863, THE ONE FIRST MADE, WILL ILLUSTRATE THE TYPE OF AGREEMENT: 

"ARTICLE II.  THE SEVERAL ROUTES OF TRAVEL THROUGH THE SHOSHONEE
COUNTRY, NOW OR HEREAFTER USED BY WHITE MEN, SHALL BE AND REMAIN
FOREVER FREE AND SAFE FOR THE USE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND OF ALL EMIGRANTS AND TRAVELLERS UNDER ITS AUTHORITY AND
PROTECTION, WITHOUT MOLESTATION OR INJURY FROM ANY OF THE PEOPLE OF
SAID NATION.  AND IF DEPREDATIONS SHOULD AT ANY TIME BE COMMITTED BY
BAD MEN OF THEIR NATION, THE OFFENDERS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY SEIZED AND
DELIVERED UP TO THE PROPER OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES, TO BE
PUNISHED AS THEIR OFFENCES SHALL DESERVE; AND THE SAFETY OF ALL
TRAVELLERS PASSING PEACEABLY OVER SAID ROUTES IS HEREBY GUARANTEED BY
SAID NATION.  MILITARY AGRICULTURAL SETTLEMENTS AND MILITARY POSTS MAY
BE ESTABLISHED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ALONG SAID ROUTES;
FERRIES MAY BE MAINTAINED OVER THE RIVERS WHEREVER THEY MAY BE
REQUIRED; AND HOUSES ERECTED AND SETTLEMENTS FORMED AT SUCH POINTS AS
MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF TRAVELLERS. 

"ARTICLE III.  THE TELEGRAPH AND OVERLAND STAGE LINES HAVING BEEN
ESTABLISHED AND OPERATED THROUGH A PART OF THE SHOSHONEE COUNTRY, IT IS
EXPRESSLY AGREED THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONTINUED WITHOUT HINDRANCE,
MOLESTATION, OR INJURY FROM THE PEOPLE OF SAID NATION; AND THAT THEIR
PROPERTY, AND THE LIVES OF PASSENGERS IN THE STAGES, AND OF THE
EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES, SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THEM. 

"AND FURTHER, IT BEING UNDERSTOOD THAT PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RAILWAY FROM
THE PLAINS WEST TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN, IT IS STIPULATED BY SAID NATION
THAT SAID RAILWAY, OR ITS BRANCHES, MAY BE LOCATED, CONSTRUCTED, AND
OPERATED, WITHOUT MOLESTATION FROM THEM, THROUGH ANY PORTION OF THE
COUNTRY CLAIMED BY THEM." 

ARTICLE IV RELATING TO BOUNDARIES IN THIS FORT BRIDGER TREATY READS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT IS UNDERSTOOD THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SHOSHONEE COUNTRY, AS DEFINED
AND DESCRIBED BY SAID NATION, IS AS FOLLOWS:  ON THE NORTH, BY THE
MOUNTAINS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE VALLEY OF SHOSHONEE OR SNAKE RIVER;
ON THE EAST, BY THE WIND RIVER MOUNTAINS, PEENAHPAH RIVER, THE NORTH
FORK OF PLATTE OR KOO-CHIN-AGAH, AND THE NORTH PARK OR BUFFALO HOUSE;
AND ON THE SOUTH, BY YAMPAH RIVER AND THE UINTAH MOUNTAINS.  THE
WESTERN BOUNDARY IS LEFT UNDEFINED, THERE BEING NO SHOSHONEES FROM THAT
DISTRICT OF COUNTRY PRESENT; BUT THE BANDS NOW PRESENT CLAIM THAT THEIR
OWN COUNTRY IS BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY SALT LAKE."  18 STAT. 685-6. 

FN7  THE COURT OF CLAIMS SUMMARIZED THE HISTORY OF THE PETITIONER
BANDS, SUBSEQUENT TO THE BOX ELDER TREATY, IN THIS WAY: 

"AFTER THE MAKING OF THE TREATY OF JULY 30, 1863, THE PLAINTIFF BANDS
BECAME WIDELY SCATTERED OVER NORTHERN UTAH AND NEVADA, AND SOUTHERN
IDAHO.  IN 1873 THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS APPOINTED A
COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE ALL TRIBES AND BANDS IN THIS REGION AND TO
ASCERTAIN THEIR NUMBER AND THE PROBABILITY OF GATHERING THEM UPON ONE
OR MORE RESERVATIONS WHERE THEY COULD BE MORE IMMEDIATELY UNDER THE
CARE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE COMMISSION MADE AN EXHAUSTIVE
INVESTIGATION INTO THE MATTERS ENTRUSTED TO IT AND REPORTED THAT IT HAD
NO TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION AS TO THE NUMBER OF BANDS OF THE
NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS.  THE COMMISSION FURTHER REPORTED THAT A
PART OF THE NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONES UNDER POCATELLO (WHO SIGNED THE
TREATY OF JULY 30, 1863) HAD ALREADY GONE TO THE FORT HALL (IDAHO)
RESERVATION IN SOUTHEAST IDAHO, AND THAT CHIEF TAV-I-WUN-SHEA, WITH HIS
SMALL BAND, HAD GONE TO THE WIND RIVER (WYOMING) RESERVATION CREATED
AND SET APART UNDER THE TREATY WITH THE EASTERN SHOSHONES IN 1868. 
TOOMONTSO (WHO HAD SIGNED THE NORTHWESTERN TREATY OF JULY 30) AND HIS
BAND AT ABOUT THIS TIME TOOK UP THEIR ABODE ON THE FORT HALL INDIAN
RESERVATION AND AN INDEFINITE NUMBER OF INDIANS OF THIS BAND HAD GONE
TO THE WIND RIVER RESERVATION.  EVENTUALLY THE REMNANTS OF THE BANDS OF
INDIANS UNDER SAN PITZ (A SIGNER OF THE NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE TREATY OF
JULY 30), AND SAIGWITS, ALSO A PARTY TO THE TREATY, WERE INDUCED BY THE
COMMISSION TO REMOVE TO THE FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION, THUS MAKING A
TOTAL OF 400 NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS ON THE FORT HALL
RESERVATION.  THE COMMISSION FURTHER REPORTED THAT A CAREFUL
ENUMERATION DISCLOSED THAT THERE WERE 400 NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS
IN SOUTHERN IDAHO.  IN 1873 A NUMBER OF NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE INDIANS
HAD GATHERED IN NORTHEASTERN NEVADA AND WERE ASSIGNED BY THE INDIAN
AGENT IN NEVADA TO A SMALL AREA IN THAT SECTION AS A HOME.  ON MAY 10,
1877, THIS TRACT, BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, WAS WITHDRAWN FROM SALE OR
SETTLEMENT AND SET APART AS A RESERVATION FOR THE NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE
INDIANS.  HOWEVER, IN 1879, ALL THE INDIANS THEREON, NUMBERING ABOUT
300, WERE REMOVED TO THE WESTERN SHOSHONE INDIAN RESERVATION KNOWN AS
THE DUCK VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION IN SOUTHWESTERN IDAHO AND NORTHERN
NEVADA."  95 CT. CLS. AT 677. 

FN8  WE NOTE BUT CONSIDER UNIMPORTANT, BECAUSE THIS ISSUE WAS NOT
INVOLVED, CAUSAL REFERENCES BY THIS AND OTHER COURTS THAT THE SHOSHONE
TREATIES RECOGNIZED INDIAN TITLE IN THE SHOSHONES.  SHOSHONE TRIBE V.
UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 485; UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304
U.S. 111, 113; SHOSHONE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 85 CT. CLS. 331, 335;
UNITED STATES V. BOARD OF COMM'RS, 145 F.2D 329. 

WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE REFERENCES OF THE ADMINISTRATORS IN ROUTINE
COMMUNICATIONS CALLED FOR IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS CASE BEFORE THE
COURT OF CLAIMS TO THE "SHOSHONI INDIAN RESERVATION (NORTHWESTERN
BAND)" TO THE FACT THAT THE TERRITORY OF THE SHOSHONES "WAS RECOGNIZED
BY THE UNITED STATES" OR "SET APART FOR THE SHOSHONE INDIANS" OF ANY
MORE WEIGHT.  NOTHING IN THESE STATEMENTS SHOWS THAT THE ATTENTION OF
THE ADMINISTRATORS WAS FOCUSED ON THE PROBLEM OF RECOGNITION OR THAT
THEY REFLECTED A CONTEMPORANEOUS INTERPRETATION. 

IT DOES NOT SEEM IMPORTANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COURT OF CLAIMS
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING ADMISSION TO SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE
LETTERS WRITTEN IN 1939, RELATING TO PREPARATION FOR THIS SUIT, OF MAPS
OF THE TERRITORY.  WE HAVE EXAMINED THE TENDERED EVIDENCE.  IT WAS ALSO
SEEN BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND IF IT HAD BEEN ADMITTED IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN MERELY CUMULATIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE CONCLUSION
BELOW. 

FN9  "NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED OR TAKEN TO ADMIT
ANY OTHER OR GREATER TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN THE
TERRITORIES DESCRIBED IN SAID TREATY IN SAID TRIBES OR BANDS OF INDIANS
THAN EXISTED IN THEM UPON THE ACQUISITION OF SAID TERRITORIES FROM
MEXICO BY THE LAWS THEREOF." 

FN10  SPANISH CLAIMS NORTH OF THE 42ND PARALLEL OF LATITUDE, THEN THE
NORTHERN LINE OF MEXICO, WERE CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1821,
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS OF THE UNITED STATES, VOL. 3, P.
3, AND ART. 8; RUSSIAN CLAIMS SOUTH OF 45 DEGREES 40' NORTH LATITUDE IN
1824, OP. CIT. P. 151 AND ART. 3; AND THE BRITISH CLAIMS SOUTH OF NORTH
LATITUDE 49 DEGREES IN 1846, OP. CIT., VOL. 5, P. 3 AND ART. III. 

FN11  BARKER V. HARVEY, 181 U.S. 481, CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, 261
U.S. 219; UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339. 

FN12  5 TREATIES OP. CIT., SUPRA, 207, ART. VIII AND IX.  UNITED
STATES V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 501, 504. 

FN13  TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS OF THE UNITED STATES,
VOL. 5, PP. 242, 245: 

"ARTICLE X. ALL GRANTS OF LAND MADE BY THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT OR BY
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES, IN TERRITORIES PREVIOUSLY APPERTAINING TO
MEXICO, AND REMAINING FOR THE FUTURE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE UNITED
STATES, SHALL BE RESPECTED AS VALID, TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT THE SAME
GRANTS WOULD BE VALID, IF THE SAID TERRITORIES HAD REMAINED WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF MEXICO  ...." 

FN14  THE EXPLANATION IN THE SECOND ARTICLE OF THE PROTOCOL WAS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"SECOND.  THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT BY SUPPRESSING THE XTH ARTICLE OF
THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE DID NOT IN ANY WAY INTEND TO ANNUL THE GRANTS
OF LANDS MADE BY MEXICO IN THE CEDED TERRITORIES.  THESE GRANTS,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE SUPPRESSION OF THE ARTICLE OF THE TREATY, PRESERVE
THE LEGAL VALUE WHICH THEY MAY POSSESS; AND THE GRANTEES MAY CAUSE
THEIR LEGITIMATE TITLES TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE THE AMERICAN
TRIBUNALS. 

"CONFORMABLY TO THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, LEGITIMATE TITLES TO
EVERY DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PERSONAL AND REAL, EXISTING IN THE CEDED
TERRITORIES, ARE THOSE WHICH WERE LEGITIMATE TITLES UNDER THE MEXICAN
LAW IN CALIFORNIA AND NEW MEXICO UP TO THE 13TH OF MAY 1846, AND IN
TEXAS UP TO THE 2D MARCH 1836."  TREATIES, ID., VOL. 5, P. 381. 

FN15  SEE TREATIES, ID., VOL. 5, PP. 380-406, PARTICULARLY P. 387. 

FN16  THIS IS THE MEANING OF THE OTHER CASES WHICH ARE CITED BY
PETITIONERS UPON THIS POINT, JONES V. MEEHAN, 175 U.S. 1, 10-12; UNITED
STATES V. WINANS, 198 U.S. 371, 380; MARLIN V. LEWALLEN, 276 U.S. 58,
64; UNITED STATES V. PAYNE, 264 U.S. 446, 448-49; NORTHERN PACIFIC R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 355, 366; SEUFERT BROS. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 249 U.S. 194, 198; UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304 U.S.
111, 116; SEE ALSO TULEE V. WASHINGTON, 315 U.S. 681, 684. 

FN17  UNITED STATES V. CHOCTAW NATION, 179 U.S. 494, 534-36; CHOCTAW
NATION V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 423, 432. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND I THINK IT MAY BE DESIRABLE TO STATE SOME OF
THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH UNDERLIE EFFORTS TO LEAVE SUCH AN INDIAN
GRIEVANCE AS THIS TO SETTLEMENT BY A LAWSUIT. 

IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW ANY JUDICIAL DECISION UNDER SUCH A
JURISDICTIONAL ACT CAN MUCH ADVANCE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF THE
SHOSHONES.  ANY JUDGMENT THAT WE MAY RENDER GIVES TO THESE INDIANS
NEITHER THEIR LANDS NOR MONEY.  THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT PROVIDES THAT
THE PROCEEDS ABOVE ATTORNEYS' FEES SHALL "BE DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY
OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE CREDIT OF THE INDIANS" AT 4 PER CENT
INTEREST AND "SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION BY CONGRESS ONLY FOR
THE HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND INDUSTRIAL ADVANCEMENT OF SAID INDIANS." 
THE ONLY CASH PAYMENT IS ATTORNEYS' FEES.  SECTION 7 PROVIDES THAT THE
COURT OF CLAIMS SHALL DETERMINE A REASONABLE FEE, NOT TO EXCEED 10 PER
CENT OF THE RECOVERY, TOGETHER WITH EXPENSES, TO BE PAID TO THE
ATTORNEYS FOR THE NORTHWESTERN BANDS OUT OF THE SUMS FOUND DUE.  AFTER
COUNSEL ARE THUS PAID, NOT A CENT IS PUT INTO THE REACH OF THE INDIANS;
ALL THAT IS DONE FOR THEM BY A JUDGMENT IS TO EARMARK SOME FUNDS IN THE
TREASURY FROM WHICH CONGRESS MAY AS IT SEES FIT FROM TIME TO TIME MAKE
APPROPRIATIONS "FOR THE HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND INDUSTRIAL ADVANCEMENT
OF SAID INDIANS."  CONGRESS COULD DO THIS, OF COURSE, WITHOUT ANY
JUDGMENT OR EARMARKING OF FUNDS, AS IT OFTEN HAS DONE.  CONGRESS, EVEN
AFTER JUDGMENT, STILL MUST DECIDE THE AMOUNT AND TIMES OF PAYMENT TO
THE INDIANS ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS. 

WE WOULD NOT BE SECOND TO ANY OTHER IN RECOGNIZING THAT - JUDGMENT OR
NO JUDGMENT - A MORAL OBLIGATION OF A HIGH ORDER RESTS UPON THIS
COUNTRY TO PROVIDE FOR DECENT SHELTER, CLOTHING, EDUCATION, AND
INDUSTRIAL ADVANCEMENT OF THE INDIAN.  NOTHING IS GAINED BY DWELLING
UPON THE UNHAPPY CONFLICTS THAT HAVE PREVAILED BETWEEN THE SHOSHONES
AND THE WHITES - CONFLICTS WHICH SOMETIMES LEAVES ONE IN DOUBT WHICH
SIDE COULD MAKE THE BETTER CLAIM TO BE CIVILIZED.  THE GENERATION OF
INDIANS WHO SUFFERED THE PRIVATIONS, INDIGNITIES, AND BRUTALITIES OF
THE WESTWARD MARCH OF THE WHITES HAVE GONE TO THE HAPPY HUNTING GROUND,
AND NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO CAN SQUARE THE ACCOUNT WITH THEM.  WHATEVER
SURVIVES IS A MORAL OBLIGATION RESTING ON THE DESCENDANTS OF THE WHITES
TO DO FOR THE DESCENDANTS OF THE INDIANS WHAT IN THE CONDITIONS OF THIS
TWENTIETH CENTURY IS THE DECENT THING. 

IT IS MOST UNFORTUNATE TO TRY TO MEASURE THIS MORAL DUTY IN TERMS OF
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND ASK THE COURT TO SPELL OUT INDIAN LEGAL RIGHTS
FROM WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS MADE AND PROBABLY BROKEN LONG AGO AND TO PUT
OUR MORAL DUTY IN FIGURES AS LEGAL DAMAGES.  THE INDIAN PROBLEM IS
ESSENTIALLY A SOCIOLOGICAL PROBLEM, NOT A LEGAL ONE.  WE CAN MAKE ONLY
A PRETENSE OF ADJUDICATION OF SUCH CLAIMS, AND THAT ONLY BY INDULGING
THE MOST UNREALISTIC AND FICTIONAL ASSUMPTIONS. 

HERE WE ARE ASKED TO GO BACK OVER THREE QUARTERS OF A CENTURY TO
SPELL OUT THE MEANING OF A MOST AMBIGUOUS WRITING MADE IN 1863.  ONE OF
THE PARTIES DID NOT KEEP, OR KNOW HOW TO KEEP, WRITTEN RECORDS OF
NEGOTIATIONS.  WRITTEN EVIDENCE BEARING ON INTENTION IS ONLY THAT WHICH
THE WHITES CHOSE TO MAKE.  IT DOES NOT TAKE A PARTICULARLY DISCERNING
EYE TO SEE THAT THESE RECORDS, WRITTEN USUALLY BY INDIAN AGENTS, ARE
QUITE APT TO SPEAK WELL OF THE WRITER'S VIRTUE AND GOOD INTENTION. 
EVIDENCE FROM THE MEMORY OF MAN IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE.  EVEN IF BOTH
PARTIES TO THESE AGREEMENTS WERE OF OUR OWN STOCK, WE BEING A RECORD
KEEPING PEOPLE, A COURT WOULD STILL HAVE THE GRAVEST DIFFICULTY
DETERMINING WHAT THEIR MOTIVES AND INTENTIONS AND MEANINGS WERE. 
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS CUT OFF MOST SUCH INQUIRIES, NOT BECAUSE A
CLAIM BECOMES LESS JUST THE LONGER IT IS DENIED, BUT BECAUSE ANOTHER
POLICY INTERVENES - THE POLICY TO LEAVE IN REPOSE MATTERS WHICH CAN NO
LONGER BE THE SUBJECT OF INTELLIGENT ADJUDICATION.    EVEN IF THE
HANDICAP OF TIME COULD BE OVERCOME, WE COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY APPLY
LEGAL TECHNIQUES TO INTERPRETATION OF THIS TREATY.  THE INDIAN PARTIES
TO THE TREATY WERE A BAND OF SIMPLE, RELATIVELY PEACEFUL, AND EXTREMELY
PRIMITIVE MEN.  THE POPULATION OF THE BAND WAS ONLY ABOUT 1,500, AND
THE TERRITORIES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED AS THEIR HOME CONSISTED
OF OVER 15,000,000 ACRES OF LAND IN IDAHO, UTAH, AND NEVADA - ABOUT
10,000 ACRES FOR EVERY INDIVIDUAL IN THE BAND.  OF COURSE SO FEW COULD
NOT PATROL AND DEFEND SO VAST A TERRITORY AGAINST INROADS BY THE MORE
AGGRESSIVE AND EFFICIENT WHITES.  THE WHITE WAS A BETTER KILLER.  THE
GAME DISAPPEARED, THE LANDS WERE NOT PRODUCTIVE, AND IN PEACE THE
INDIANS BECAME DESTITUTE.  DESPERATION STIMULATED OR PERHAPS PRODUCED
PREDATORY TENDENCIES AND THEY BEGAN TO FALL UPON THE OVERLAND CARAVANS
AND TO STEAL AND ROB.  THE WHITES BROUGHT FORTH THEIR ARMIES AND
REDUCED THE INDIANS TO SUBMISSION.  THEN THE WHITES "NEGOTIATED" A
TREATY. 

WE REALIZE THAT FOR OVER A CENTURY IT HAS BEEN A JUDICIAL PRACTICE TO
CONSTRUE THESE "AGREEMENTS" WITH INDIANS, AS IF THEY WERE CONTRACTS
BETWEEN WHITE MEN.  IN SOME CASES, WHERE THE PROVISIONS ARE SIMPLE AND
DEFINITE AND DEAL WITH CONCRETE LANDS OR MATTERS, THIS MAY BE
PRACTICABLE.  BUT DESPITE ANTIQUITY OF THE CUSTOM, TO APPLY THE
LITIGATION PROCESS TO SUCH A PROBLEM AS WE HAVE HERE SEEMS FAR
FETCHED.  THE MOST ELEMENTAL CONDITION OF A BARGAIN WAS NOT PRESENT,
FOR THERE WAS NOTHING LIKE EQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER.  ON ONE SIDE
WERE DOMINANT, POWERFUL, SHREWD, AND EDUCATED WHITES, WHO KNEW EXACTLY
WHAT THEY WANTED.  ON THE OTHER SIDE WERE DESTITUTE, ILLITERATE INDIANS
WHO PRIMARILY WANTED TO BE LET ALONE AND WHO WANTED BY SOME MEANS TO
CONTINUE TO LIVE THEIR OWN ACCUSTOMED LIVES.  HERE WE ARE ASKED TO
DECIDE WHETHER THEIR INTENT WAS TO RELINQUISH TITLES OR MAKE
RESERVATIONS OF TITLES OR RECOGNITION OF TITLES.  THE INDIAN PARTIES
DID NOT KNOW WHAT TITLES WERE, HAD NO SUCH CONCEPT AS THAT OF
INDIVIDUAL LAND TITLE, AND HAD NO SENSE OF PROPERTY IN LAND.  HERE WE
ARE ASKED TO ATTRIBUTE LEGAL MEANINGS TO SUBSCRIBERS OF A WRITTEN
INSTRUMENT WHO HAD NO WRITTEN LANGUAGE OF THEIR OWN IN WHICH TO EXPRESS
ANY MEANING.  WE DOUBT IF ANY INTERPRETER COULD INTELLIGENTLY TRANSLATE
THE CONTENTS OF A WRITING THAT DEALS WITH THE PROPERTY CONCEPT, FOR THE
INDIANS DID NOT HAVE A WORD FOR IT.  PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE WORDS TO FIT
IDEAS THAT HAVE NEVER OCCURRED TO THEM.  OWNERSHIP MEANT NO MORE TO
THEM THAN TO ROAM THE LAND AS A GREAT COMMON, AND TO POSSESS AND ENJOY
IT IN THE SAME WAY THAT THEY POSSESSED AND ENJOYED SUNLIGHT AND THE
WEST WIND AND THE FEEL OF SPRING IN THE AIR.  ACQUISITIVENESS, WHICH
DEVELOPS A LAW OF REAL PROPERTY, IS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT ONLY OF THE
"CIVILIZED." 

OF COURSE THE INDIANS MAY HAVE HAD SOME VAGUE IDEA THAT THEREAFTER
THEY WERE TO STAY OFF CERTAIN LANDS AND THE WHITE MEN IN RETURN WERE TO
STAY OFF CERTAIN OTHER LAND.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK IT IS POSSIBLE NOW TO
REDUCE SUCH A NEBULOUS ACCORD TO TERMS OF COMMON-LAW CONTRACT AND
CONVEYANCING.  THE TREATY WAS A POLITICAL DOCUMENT.  IT WAS INTENDED TO
PACIFY THE INDIANS AND TO LET THE WHITES TRAVEL IN PEACE A ROUTE THEY
SOMEHOW WERE GOING TO TRAVEL ANYWAY. 

HOW SHOULD WE TURN INTO MONEY'S WORTH THE RIGHTS, IF ANY, OF WHICH
THE INDIANS HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED?  SHOULD WE MEASURE IT IN TERMS OF WHAT
WAS LOST TO A PEOPLE WHO NEEDED 10,000 ACRES APIECE TO SUSTAIN
THEMSELVES THROUGH HUNTING AND NOMADIC LIVING, WHO HAD NO SYSTEM OR
STANDARD OF EXCHANGE, AND WHOSE REPRESENTATIVES IN MAKING THE TREATY
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SOFTENED FOR THE JOB BY GIFTS OF BLANKETS AND
TRINKETS?  SHOULD WE MEASURE IT IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS GAINED TO OUR
PEOPLE, WHO SUSTAIN THEMSELVES IN LARGE NUMBERS ON FEW ACRES BY GREATER
EFFICIENCY AND UTILIZATION?  OF COURSE AMENDS CAN BE MADE ONLY TO
PROGENY IN TERMS OF THEIR PRESENT NEEDS AS THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT
RECOGNIZES WILL ULTIMATELY BE DONE.  THE INDIANS' GRIEVANCE CALLS FOR
SYMPATHETIC, INTELLIGENT, AND GENEROUS HELP IN DEVELOPING THE LATENT
TALENTS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE LIVING GENERATION, AND THERE IS LITTLE
ENLIGHTENMENT FOR THAT TASK FROM ENDLESS AND POINTLESS LAWSUITS OVER
THE NEGOTIATION OF GENERATIONS LONG GONE TO THEIR REST. 

WE AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE REED THAT NO LEGAL RIGHTS ARE TODAY TO BE
RECOGNIZED IN THE SHOSHONES BY REASON OF THIS TREATY.  WE AGREE WITH
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AS TO THEIR MORAL DESERTS. 
WE DO NOT MEAN TO LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TWO HAVE ANY RELATION
TO EACH OTHER.  THE FINDING THAT THE TREATY CREATES NO LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS DOES NOT RESTRICT CONGRESS FROM SUCH APPROPRIATIONS AS ITS
JUDGMENT DICTATES "FOR THE HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND INDUSTRIAL
ADVANCEMENT OF SAID INDIANS," WHICH IS THE POSITION IN WHICH CONGRESS
WOULD FIND ITSELF IF WE FOUND THAT IT DID CREATE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND
TRIED TO PUT A VALUE ON THEM. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE CLAIMS WHICH THESE INDIANS ASSERT ARE CLAIMS "ARISING
UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE TREATY OF JULY 30, 1863." 

HE WHO COMES TO MY ABODE AND BARGAINS FOR FREE TRANSIT OR A RIGHT OF
WAY ACROSS THE LAND ON WHICH I LIVE AND WHICH I PROCLAIM TO BE MY OWN
CERTAINLY RECOGNIZES THAT I HAVE A CLAIM TO IT. THAT AND MORE WAS DONE
HERE.  ROUTES OF TRAVEL THROUGH THIS SHOSHONE COUNTRY, THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF MILITARY AGRICULTURAL SETTLEMENTS AND MILITARY POSTS,
THE MAINTENANCE OF FERRIES OVER THE RIVERS, THE ERECTION OF HOUSES AND
SETTLEMENTS, THE LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A RAILROAD,
THE MAINTENANCE OF TELEGRAPH AND OVERLAND STAGE LINES WERE ALL
NEGOTIATED.  THESE PROVISIONS ALONE CONSTITUTE PLAIN RECOGNITION BY THE
UNITED STATES THAT IT WAS DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAD THE POWER TO
GRANT THESE RIGHTS OF TRAVEL AND SETTLEMENT.  THE UNITED STATES, OF
COURSE, DID NOT NEED TO FOLLOW THAT COURSE.  IT COULD HAVE INVADED THIS
INDIAN COUNTRY AND EXTINGUISHED INDIAN TITLE BY THE SWORD OR BY
APPROPRIATION.  UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339,
347, AND CASES CITED.  BUT IT DID NOT CHOOSE THAT COURSE.  IT CHOSE TO
NEGOTIATE A TREATY.  AND THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THE TREATY IT OBTAINED
FROM THESE INDIANS RIGHTS OF WAY, RIGHTS TO SETTLE, RIGHTS OF TRANSIT. 
IT WAS STATED IN WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, 556, THAT "THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CESSIONS IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RIGHT OF THE
CHEROKEES TO MAKE OR WITHHOLD THEM."  THAT IS GOOD LAW.  IT IS AS
APPLICABLE HERE AS IT WAS IN THAT EARLY CASE.  THERE, TO BE SURE, LANDS
HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY SET APART FOR THE CHEROKEES.  BUT THAT IS NOT A
MATERIAL DIFFERENCE.  INDIAN TITLE IS THE RIGHT TO OCCUPANCY BASED ON
ABORIGINAL POSSESSION.  UNITED STATES V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO.,
SUPRA.  IT HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE BEGINNING
TO RESPECT THAT RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY.  ID., P. 345.  AS STATED IN MITCHEL
V. UNITED STATES, 9 PET. 711, 746, THE INDIAN "RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY IS
CONSIDERED AS SACRED AS THE FEE SIMPLE OF THE WHITES."  THUS WE MAY NOT
SAY THAT BECAUSE THESE INDIANS HAD ONLY INDIAN TITLE THIS CASE CAN BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, SUPRA.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES
OBTAINED THESE CESSIONS IT ACKNOWLEDGED WHATEVER CLAIM TO THE LAND
THESE INDIANS HAD.  THE INDIANS ASK NO MORE NOW. 

MOREOVER, THE SENATE IN RATIFYING THE TREATY MADE CLEAR THAT IT
CONSTRUED THE TREATY AS RECOGNIZING THE TITLE OR CLAIM OF THESE INDIANS
TO THIS LAND.  THE AMENDMENT ADDED IN THE SENATE PROVIDED:  "NOTHING
HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED OR TAKEN TO ADMIT ANY OTHER OR
GREATER TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN THE TERRITORIES
DESCRIBED IN SAID TREATY IN SAID TRIBES OR BANDS OF INDIANS THAN
EXISTED IN THEM UPON THE ACQUISITION OF SAID TERRITORIES FROM MEXICO BY
THE LAWS THEREOF."  THAT SHOULD PUT BEYOND DISPUTE THAT THE SENATE
UNDERSTOOD THE TREATY TO ACCORD RECOGNITION OF THE TITLE WHICH THE
INDIANS HAD UNDER MEXICAN LAW.  TO SAY IT GIVES NO RECOGNITION TO ANY
CLAIM IS TO ERASE THIS PROVISION FROM THE TREATY. 

BUT IF THERE IS STILL ANY DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OF THE TREATY IT
SHOULD BE WHOLLY REMOVED BY ANOTHER OF ITS PROVISIONS.  THE TREATY
STATED THAT "THE COUNTRY CLAIMED BY POKATELLO, FOR HIMSELF AND HIS
PEOPLE, IS BOUNDED ON THE WEST BY RAFT RIVER AND ON THE EAST BY THE
PORTENEUF MOUNTAINS." 

THAT IS NOW BRUSHED ASIDE AS IRRELEVANT.  BUT WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT
NO COUNSEL SAT AT THE ELBOW OF POKATELLO WHEN THE TREATY WAS DRAFTED. 
IT WAS WRITTEN IN A LANGUAGE FOREIGN TO HIM.  HE WAS NOT A
CONVEYANCER.  HE WAS NOT COGNIZANT OF DISTINCTIONS IN TITLE.  HE
NEITHER HAD NOR GAVE DEEDS TO HIS LAND.  THERE WAS NO RECORDING
OFFICE.  BUT HE KNEW THE LAND WHERE HE LIVED AND FOR WHICH HE WOULD
FIGHT.  IF THE STANDARDS OF THE FRONTIER ARE TO GOVERN, HIS ASSERTION
OF OWNERSHIP AND ITS RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES COULD HARDLY HAVE
BEEN PLAINER. 

WE SHOULD REMEMBER THE ADMONITION IN JONES V. MEEHAN, 175 U.S. 1, 11,
THAT IN CONSTRUING A TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND AN INDIAN
TRIBE IT MUST ALWAYS BE BORNE IN MIND "THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE
TREATY ARE CONDUCTED, ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES, AN ENLIGHTENED
AND POWERFUL NATION, BY REPRESENTATIVES SKILLED IN DIPLOMACY, MASTERS
OF A WRITTEN LANGUAGE, UNDERSTANDING THE MODES AND FORMS OF CREATING
THE VARIOUS TECHNICAL ESTATES KNOWN TO THEIR LAW, AND ASSISTED BY AN
INTERPRETER EMPLOYED BY THEMSELVES; THAT THE TREATY IS DRAWN UP BY THEM
AND IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE; THAT THE INDIANS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE A
WEAK AND DEPENDENT PEOPLE, WHO HAVE NO WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND ARE WHOLLY
UNFAMILIAR WITH ALL THE FORMS OF LEGAL EXPRESSION, AND WHOSE ONLY
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TERMS IN WHICH THE TREATY IS FRAMED IS THAT IMPARTED
TO THEM BY THE INTERPRETER EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES; AND THAT THE
TREATY MUST THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TECHNICAL
MEANING OF ITS WORDS TO LEARNED LAWYERS, BUT IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THEY
WOULD NATURALLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE INDIANS." 

WHEN THE STANDARD IS NOT OBSERVED, WHAT THESE INDIANS DID NOT LOSE TO
THE RAILROADS AND TO THE LAND COMPANIES THEY LOSE IN THE FINE WEB OF
LEGAL NICETIES. 

AS STATED BY THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF IDAHO AND UTAH WHO APPEAR HERE
AS AMICI CURIAE:  "THE RESULT IS THAT A PEACEFUL AND FRIENDLY PEOPLE,
LULLED INTO A SENSE OF SECURITY BY THE PROFFERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
PEACE AND AMITY, HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM A NATION ABLE TO WREST THEIR
LIVING FROM THEIR PRIMITIVE ANCESTRAL HOME TO A NONDESCRIPT, HOMELESS,
AND POVERTY-STRICKEN AGGREGATION OF BANDS OF INDIANS, WITHOUT THE MEANS
TO COMPETE IN THE MODERN CIVILIZATION WHICH HAD DISSEISED THEM.  UNTIL
THE TREATY WITH PETITIONERS, PETITIONERS WERE SO STRONG AND FORMIDABLE
THAT THE TROUBLE AND EXPENSE OF TAKING THEIR LANDS BY WAR - LEAVING OUT
OF ACCOUNT THE DISHONOR THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN PROCEEDING
AGAINST A NATION WHICH HAD GIVEN NO CAUSE FOR WAR - WOULD HAVE FAR
OUTWEIGHED THE EXPENSE OF SETTLING WITH THEM FOR THEIR LANDS AT
WHATEVER THE COST IN MONEY.  BUT THE UNITED STATES DID NEITHER. 
CONGRESS FELT IT COULD NOT AT THAT TIME AFFORD TO EXTINGUISH
PETITIONERS' TITLE BY PURCHASE.  CONSEQUENTLY, FOR A MEAGER
CONSIDERATION, THE PETITIONERS GRANTED RESPONDENT CERTAIN VALUABLE
RIGHTS IN THOSE LANDS.  FOR RESPONDENT, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO
ATTEMPT TO DENY PETITIONERS' TITLE IS UNWORTHY OF OUR COUNTRY.  THE
FAITH OF THIS NATION HAVING BEEN PLEDGED IN THE TREATIES, THE HONOR OF
THE NATION DEMANDS, AND THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT REQUIRES, THAT THESE
LONG-UNSETTLED GRIEVANCES BE SETTLED BY THIS COURT IN SIMPLE JUSTICE TO
A DOWNTRODDEN PEOPLE." 

THE STORY HAS BEEN TOLD BEFORE.  CHESTER FEE, CHIEF JOSEPH (1936);
HOWARD FAST, THE LAST FRONTIER (1944). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

IT IS A WELL-SETTLED RULE THAT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF INDIAN
TREATIES ALL AMBIGUITIES ARE TO BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE INDIANS. 
WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, 582; WINTERS V. UNITED STATES, 207
U.S. 564, 576; CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363, 367.  WHILE THIS
PRINCIPLE DOES NOT JUSTIFY IGNORING THE PLAIN MEANING OF WORDS IN ORDER
TO PREVENT WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN INJUSTICE TO THE INDIANS, IT DOES MEAN
THAT A COURT IS BOUND TO GIVE TO DOUBTFUL EXPRESSIONS THAT MEANING
LEAST PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIANS, GIVING FULL WEIGHT
TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE TREATY WAS DRAWN.  THE APPLICATION OF
THIS PRINCIPLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE MAKES MANIFEST THE ERROR OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE ISSUE HERE CENTERS ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE BOX ELDER TREATY OF
JULY 30, 1863, 13 STAT. 663, ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
THE NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF SHOSHONE INDIANS.  DID THE UNITED STATES BY
THAT TREATY ACKNOWLEDGE OR RECOGNIZE THE CLAIM OF THE INDIANS TO THE
LAND IN QUESTION SO AS TO MAKE IT A CLAIM "ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT
OF" THE TREATY FOR PURPOSES OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF FEBRUARY 28,
1929, 45 STAT. 1407?  AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS
DICTATED BY BOTH THE TREATY PROVISIONS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THE MAKING OF THE TREATY.    1.  EVENTS PRECEDING THE BOX
ELDER TREATY.  THE GREAT WESTWARD SURGE OF THE WHITE MEN FROM 1849 TO
1863 THROUGH THE COUNTRY CLAIMED BY THE VARIOUS SHOSHONE TRIBES AROUSED
RESENTMENT AND HOSTILITY AMONG THE INDIANS.  GAME WAS DRIVEN AWAY AND
VEGETATION DESTROYED, FORCING THE INDIANS TO STEAL OR STARVE. 
TELEGRAPH AND OVERLAND DAILY MAIL LINES WERE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THEIR
TERRITORY IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF ANY RIGHTS THEY MIGHT HAVE.  THE
GOVERNMENT DID LITTLE OR NOTHING TO SUPPLY THE INDIANS WITH FOOD OR
SUPPLIES DURING THIS PERIOD.  WHITE EMIGRANTS AND THE GOVERNMENT WERE
CAUSED CONSIDERABLE TROUBLE BY DEPREDATIONS AND WARLIKE ACTS OF THESE
OPPRESSED INDIANS.  SOME AGREEMENT WHEREBY WHITE EMIGRANTS COULD TRAVEL
AND THE GOVERNMENT COULD MAINTAIN A COMMUNICATION SYSTEM THROUGH THE
SHOSHONE AREA WAS IMPERATIVE. 

LITTLE WAS DONE BEFORE 1861, WHEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
RECOMMENDED THAT A TREATY BE NEGOTIATED WITH THE SHOSHONE INDIANS WHICH
WOULD GRANT THEM ANNUITIES "IN CONSIDERATION OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY ACROSS
THEIR COUNTRY."  IN THE SAME YEAR THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
FOR THE UTAH TERRITORY ALSO RECOMMENDED THE NEGOTIATION OF A TREATY,
STATING THAT THE SHOSHONES "EXPRESS THEIR WILLINGNESS TO CEDE TO THE
UNITED STATES ALL THE LANDS THEY CLAIM IN THIS TERRITORY," WITH CERTAIN
RESERVATIONS. 

IN FEBRUARY, 1862, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN A LETTER TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE
LANDS WERE "OWNED BY THE INDIANS" BUT REPORTED THAT LITTLE WAS FIT FOR
CULTIVATION AND WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE "REQUIRED FOR SETTLEMENT FOR MANY
YEARS."  HE THUS DID NOT RECOMMEND THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND.  IN LIGHT
OF THIS LETTER, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS RECOMMENDED TO
CONGRESS THAT IT AUTHORIZE THE NEGOTIATION OF A TREATY FOR PASSAGEWAYS
OVER THE LAND CLAIMED BY THE SHOSHONES AND NOT TRY TO PURCHASE THE
LAND. 

ACCORDINGLY ON JULY 5, 1862, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE APPOINTMENT OF A
TREATY COMMISSION TO NEGOTIATE SUCH A TREATY.  12 STAT. 512, 529.  ON
JULY 22 THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS INSTRUCTED THE TREATY
COMMISSIONERS WHO HAD BEEN APPOINTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE
SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE TO STATE DEFINITELY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COUNTRY
INHABITED AND CLAIMED BY THE SHOSHONES BUT THAT IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT
THEY INHABITED "THE COUNTRY IN THE NORTHERN PART OF UTAH AND EASTERN
PORTION OF WASHINGTON TERRITORIES, THROUGH WHICH LIES THE ROUTE OF THE
OVERLAND MAIL, AND THE EMIGRANT ROUTE THROUGH UTAH AND INTO WASHINGTON
TERRITORY AND IT IS MAINLY TO SECURE THE SAFETY OF THE TRAVEL ALONG
THESE ROUTES THAT A TREATY IS DESIRABLE."  HE FURTHER TOLD THEM THAT IT
WAS NOT EXPECTED THAT THE TREATY WOULD BE NEGOTIATED "WITH A VIEW TO
THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE INDIAN TITLE TO THE LAND."  THEY WERE TOLD
THAT THE UNITED STATES' ASSURANCES OF AMICABLE RELATIONS AND THE
CONTEMPLATED PAYMENT OF $20,000 IN ANNUITIES SHOULD ENABLE THEM TO
PROCURE FROM THE INDIANS AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SECURITY OF THE OVERLAND
MAIL AND EMIGRANT ROUTES, IN ADDITION TO A "DEFINITE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AS
WELL OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY THEY CLAIM, AS OF THE
LIMITS WITHIN WHICH THEY WILL CONFINE THEMSELVES." 

THUS PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL NEGOTIATION OF THE TREATY, THE UNITED STATES
RECOGNIZED THAT THE SHOSHONE TRIBES CLAIMED AND INHABITED CERTAIN
TERRITORY, THE EXACT BOUNDARIES OF WHICH WERE UNCERTAIN.  THE FACT THAT
THE UNITED STATES THOUGHT IT NECESSARY TO MAKE A TREATY CONCERNING
RIGHTS OF WAY AND THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES EXPRESSLY DID NOT
DESIRE TO NEGOTIATE "WITH A VIEW TO THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE INDIAN
TITLE TO THE LAND" STRONGLY INDICATE THAT THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERED
THE INDIANS AS THE OWNERS OF THIS ILL-DEFINED AREA OF LAND.  THE
SECURING OF RIGHTS OF WAY, WHICH WAS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE TREATY,
WOULD HAVE BEEN A NEEDLESS FORMALITY HAD TITLE TO THE UNDERLYING LAND
BEEN THOUGHT TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES.  AND THE SECURING
OF AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND CLAIMED BY THE
SHOSHONES, WHICH WAS A SUBSIDIARY PURPOSE OF THE TREATY, WOULD LIKEWISE
HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARY IF THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERED ITSELF THE OWNER
OF ALL THE LAND.  THE STAGE WAS THUS SET FOR A DELINEATION OF THE
SHOSHONE LAND TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS PREPARED TO ACKNOWLEDGE
INDIAN TITLE. 

2.  THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR AND THE CONTENTS OF THE BOX ELDER TREATY. 
THE TREATY COMMISSIONERS FOUND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ASSEMBLE ALL THE
SHOSHONE TRIBES AT ONE TIME.  THEY THUS NEGOTIATED FIVE SEPARATE
TREATIES WITH THE FIVE SHOSHONE NATIONS.  THEY MET FIRST WITH THE
EASTERN SHOSHONES AT FT. BRIDGER, WYOMING, WHERE THEY NEGOTIATED THE
TREATY OF JULY 2, 1863, 18 STAT. 685.  THIS TREATY PLEDGED PEACE
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE INDIANS AND PLEDGED THE UNITED STATES
TO PAY ANNUAL ANNUITIES.  THE SHOSHONES IN TURN AGREED THAT ROUTES OF
TRAVEL THROUGH "SHOSHONE COUNTRY" SHOULD REMAIN FOREVER FREE AND SAFE
FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS EMIGRANTS AND TRAVELLERS. 
THEY ALSO AGREED THAT THE UNITED STATES MIGHT ESTABLISH MILITARY
AGRICULTURAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND MILITARY POSTS ALONG SAID ROUTES,
MAINTAIN FERRIES OVER RIVERS, ERECT HOUSES AND SETTLEMENTS WHEREVER
NECESSARY FOR THE COMFORT OF THE TRAVELLERS, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN
EXISTING TELEGRAPH AND OVERLAND STAGE COACH LINES, AND OPERATE A
TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY "THROUGH ANY PORTION OF THE COUNTRY CLAIMED
BY" THE SHOSHONES.  THE TREATY FURTHER SET FORTH A DESCRIPTION OF "THE
SHOSHONEE COUNTRY, AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED BY SAID NATION," LEAVING
THE WESTERN BOUNDARY UNDEFINED SINCE THERE WERE NO SHOSHONES PRESENT
FROM THAT AREA. 

ON JULY 30, 1863, THE COMMISSIONERS MET WITH THE NORTHWESTERN BANDS
OF SHOSHONE INDIANS AT BOX ELDER, UTAH.  THE RESULTING TREATY ALSO
STIPULATED FOR PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP AND THEN INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
ALL THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE FT. BRIDGER TREATY.  THE
NORTHWESTERN BANDS THUS GRANTED THE SAME RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS
OVER THEIR LANDS AS THE EASTERN BANDS HAD GRANTED.  THE BOX ELDER
TREATY DID NOT PURPORT TO DESCRIBE ALL THE LAND OF THE NORTHWESTERN
BANDS, BUT ONLY THE "COUNTRY CLAIMED BY POKATELLO (ONE OF THEIR CHIEFS)
FOR HIMSELF AND HIS PEOPLE."  THIS AREA WAS DESCRIBED AS BEING BOUNDED
ON THE WEST BY THE RAFT RIVER AND ON THE EAST BY THE PORTENEUF
MOUNTAINS. 

SIMILAR TREATIES WERE ENTERED INTO WITH THE WESTERN SHOSHONES ON
OCTOBER 1, 1863, THE SHOSHONEE-GOSHIP BANDS ON OCTOBER 12, 1863, AND
THE MIXED BANDS OF SHOSHONE AND BANNOCK INDIANS ON OCTOBER 14, 1863. 
ALL THESE TREATIES WERE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME INSOFAR AS THE GRANTING
OF RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS WERE CONCERNED.  AND EACH OF THEM SET
FORTH "THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COUNTRY CLAIMED AND OCCUPIED BY SAID
BANDS." 

THUS BY THESE FIVE TREATIES THE UNITED STATES SECURED (A) FREEDOM OF
TRAVEL AND COMMUNICATION THROUGH THE SHOSHONE COUNTRY AND (B) DEFINITE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE AREAS CLAIMED BY THE SHOSHONES.  WHILE THE BOX
ELDER TREATY DID NOT DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NORTHWESTERN SHOSHONE
LANDS COMPLETELY, REFERENCE TO AND COLLOCATION OF THE TERRITORIAL
DESCRIPTIONS IN THE OTHER FOUR TREATIES, AS WELL AS REFERENCE TO THE
MAP PREPARED AT THE TIME BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TREATY COMMISSION,
SUPPLY THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF THESE LANDS. 

THE VERY ACCEPTANCE IN THE BOX ELDER TREATY OF THESE RIGHTS OF WAY
AND EASEMENTS CONSTITUTED A RECOGNITION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE
UNITED STATES THAT THE NORTHWESTERN BANDS HAD TITLE TO THE LAND
CLAIMED.  WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, 556; FORT BERTHOLD INDIANS
V. UNITED STATES, 71 CT. CLS. 308, 332.  SUCH RECOGNITION AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT NEED NOT BE INDICATED BY ANY PARTICULAR WORD OR PHRASE. 
THEY MAY BE IMPLIED AS WELL AS EXPRESSED.  THAT IS THE CASE HERE.  THE
BOX ELDER TREATY AND THE FOUR OTHER TREATIES WOULD HAVE BEEN
MEANINGLESS HAD THE UNITED STATES NOT THEREBY RECOGNIZED THE INDIAN
TITLE TO THE LAND CLAIMED.  WITHOUT SUCH TITLE, THE INDIANS WOULD HAVE
LACKED POWER TO BARGAIN CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL AND COMMUNICATE
OVER THE LAND.  RECOGNITION OF THIS POWER TO BARGAIN AND ACCEPTANCE OF
THE FRUITS OF THAT BARGAINING IMPLIED RECOGNITION OF THE UNDERLYING
INDIAN TITLE TO THE LAND.  OTHERWISE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON
FOR THE UNITED STATES BOTHERING TO NEGOTIATE.  UNILATERAL ASSERTION OF
RIGHTS WOULD HAVE BEEN RESORTED TO HAD THE UNITED STATES NOT RECOGNIZED
INDIAN TITLE TO THESE LANDS.  THIS IS TRUE WHETHER THE INDIANS HELD
TITLE BASED ON ABORIGINAL POSSESSION OR WHETHER THEY HELD LANDS
SPECIFICALLY SET ASIDE FOR THEM.  IT IS LIKEWISE IMMATERIAL THAT THE
MAIN PURPOSE OF THE TREATIES WAS TO SECURE RIGHTS IN THE LAND RATHER
THAN TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR SECURE TITLE.  THE SECURING OF THOSE RIGHTS
NECESSARILY PRESUPPOSES INDIAN TITLE AND NECESSARILY RECOGNIZES SUCH
TITLE. 

THUS BY ITS ACTION IN NEGOTIATING FOR AND SECURING RIGHTS OF PASSAGE
AND COMMUNICATION, THE UNITED STATES INDICATED ITS RECOGNITION AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDIAN TITLE TO THE LAND.  THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE
LANDS CLAIMED BY THE VARIOUS TRIBES WERE INSERTED MERELY TO GIVE THE
UNITED STATES KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRECISE BOUNDARIES TO THE LAND HELD BY
THE INDIANS.  THE FACT THAT THESE TREATIES AND THE BOX ELDER TREATY IN
PARTICULAR SPEAK IN TERMS OF LAND "CLAIMED" BY THE INDIANS DOES NOT
NEGATE RECOGNITION OF TITLE TO THE LAND SO CLAIMED.  IN THE CONTEXT OF
THESE TREATIES AND IN LIGHT OF THE IGNORANCE OF THE INDIANS OF LEGAL
NICETIES, THE TERM "CLAIM" NEED NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN BARE ASSERTION TO
TITLE.  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THESE INDIANS HELD TITLE BY
ABORIGINAL POSSESSION AND THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS IN NO POSITION TO
BARGAIN AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE LAND SO HELD.  A BONA FIDE INDIAN CLAIM
OF THIS TYPE IS SYNONYMOUS WITH OWNERSHIP UNLESS IT CONFLICTS WITH SOME
OTHER OWNERSHIP OR UNLESS SUCH AN INDIAN TITLE IS UNRECOGNIZED IN LAW. 
HERE, HOWEVER, THE UNITED STATES DID RECOGNIZE THIS TYPE OF OWNERSHIP
AND WAS ANXIOUS MERELY TO ASCERTAIN THE SCOPE OF THE LAND SO CLAIMED OR
OWNED.  THE PLACING OF THESE DESCRIPTIONS IN A BILATERAL TREATY IS AT
LEAST CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZED
TITLE TO THE EXTENT OF THE LANDS CLAIMED.  AND UNDER THE RULE THAT
AMBIGUITIES ARE TO BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE INDIANS, WE MUST ADOPT
THAT CONCLUSION. 

3.  EVENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE BOX ELDER TREATY.  ANY DOUBT AS TO
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES BY THESE TREATIES RECOGNIZED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
INDIAN TITLE TO THE LAND CLAIMED IS REMOVED BY ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS
OF THE GOVERNMENT SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAKING OF THESE TREATIES. 

THE SENATE RATIFIED EACH OF THE TREATIES.  TO FOUR OF THEM, INCLUDING
THE BOX ELDER TREATY, THE SENATE ADDED AN AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT
NOTHING IN THE TREATY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO ADMIT "ANY OTHER OR
GREATER TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN THE TERRITORIES
DESCRIBED IN SAID TREATY IN SAID TRIBES OR BANDS OF INDIANS THAN
EXISTED IN THEM UPON THE ACQUISITION OF SAID TERRITORIES FROM MEXICO BY
THE LAWS THEREOF."  SEE 13 STAT. 664.  WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE
COMPLEXITIES OF THE MEXICAN CESSION TITLE SITUATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE
OPINION OF THIS COURT, THE SENATE BY THIS AMENDMENT CLEARLY INDICATED
THAT IT UNDERSTOOD EACH TREATY TO CONSTITUTE A RECOGNITION OF INDIAN
TITLE TO THE LAND CLAIMED, AT LEAST AS TO LANDS OUTSIDE THE MEXICAN
CESSION.  HAD THE SENATE BEEN UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT NO TITLE RIGHTS
WERE INVOLVED IN THE TREATIES IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MEANINGLESS TO ADD
THIS AMENDMENT.  RESOLVING ANY DOUBTS ON THIS SCORE IN FAVOR OF THE
INDIANS COMPELS US TO INTERPRET THIS AMENDMENT AS ANOTHER RECOGNITION
OF INDIAN TITLE. 

IN 1863 THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RECOMMENDED THAT FURTHER
TREATIES WITH THE SHOSHONES BE NEGOTIATED TO EXTINGUISH THEIR TITLE TO
THE SOIL.  AND CONGRESS IN 1865 AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO ENTER INTO
TREATIES WITH INDIANS IN THE UTAH TERRITORY FOR THE SURRENDER TO THE
UNITED STATES OF THEIR POSSESSORY RIGHT TO ALL AGRICULTURAL AND MINERAL
LAND AND FOR THEIR SEGREGATION ON RESERVATIONS.  13 STAT. 432. 
ACCORDINGLY A TREATY WAS MADE WITH THE EASTERN SHOSHONES IN 1868
WHEREBY THEY GAVE UP THE TERRITORY CLAIMED BY THEM IN THE FT. BRIDGER
TREATY IN EXCHANGE FOR OTHER LANDS.  15 STAT. 673.  HERE AGAIN IS CLEAR
PROOF THAT THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERED TITLE TO THE LAND TO BELONG TO
THE INDIANS, MAKING EVEN MORE COMPELLING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 1863
TREATIES CONSTITUTED A NECESSARY RECOGNITION OF THAT TITLE. 

AND AS LATE AS 1934 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ADMITTED THAT THE
TERRITORY OF THE SHOSHONES "WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES AS
BELONGING TO THE VARIOUS BANDS OF SHOSHONE INDIANS" BY THE 1863
TREATIES AND THAT THE "GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED ALL THE LAND AS BELONGING
TO THE NORTHWESTERN BANDS OF SHOSHONES."  SUCH STATEMENTS ARE MORE THAN
JUSTIFIED BY THE HISTORY AND CONTENTS OF THE TREATIES. 

ONE FINAL MATTER REMAINS.  IT IS SAID THAT ANY MONEY RECOVERED BY THE
INDIANS IN THIS SUIT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY OF THE
UNITED STATES, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION BY CONGRESS FOR THEIR BENEFIT,
AND THAT THE ONLY POSSIBLE CASH PAYMENT INVOLVES ATTORNEY FEES.  THAT
MAY BE TRUE.  BUT IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY IGNORING THE RIGHTS OF THE
SHOSHONE INDIANS RECOGNIZED UNDER SOLEMN TREATIES ENTERED INTO WITH THE
UNITED STATES.  IT DOES NOT COMMAND US TO OVERTHROW THE MORAL
OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES TO FULFILL ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS.  AND
IT DOES NOT WARRANT THE APPLICATION OF NARROW PRINCIPLES OF
CONSTRUCTION TO THE INJURY OF THE INDIANS' INTERESTS.  IF CONGRESS
DESIRES TO PLACE IN THE TREASURY ANY MONEY THAT MIGHT BE RECOVERED BY
THE INDIANS IN THIS SUIT THAT IS THE BUSINESS OF CONGRESS, NOT OURS. 
OUR FUNCTION HERE IS AT AN END WHEN WE HAVE DETERMINED IF THE
NORTHWESTERN BANDS HAVE ANY CLAIM "ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF" THE
BOX ELDER TREATY.  BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY HAVE SUCH A CLAIM I WOULD
REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW.    MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






ROBINSON V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 282 


NO. 514.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 5, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
392, AFFIRMED. 


THE FEDERAL KIDNAPPING ACT AUTHORIZES A SENTENCE OF DEATH WHEN
RECOMMENDED BY THE JURY, "PROVIDED THAT THE DEATH SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE
IMPOSED BY THE COURT IF, PRIOR TO ITS IMPOSITION, THE KIDNAPPED PERSON
HAS BEEN LIBERATED UNHARMED."  HELD: 

1.  THE FACT THAT THE INJURIES INFLICTED ON THE KIDNAPPED PERSON WERE
NOT PERMANENT, OR WERE HEALED BEFORE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE, DID NOT
BAR THE DEATH PENALTY.  P. 285. 

2.  IN THE CASE OF A DEFENDANT WHO TWICE VIOLENTLY STRUCK HIS VICTIM
ON THE HEAD WITH AN IRON BAR, INFLICTING INJURIES FROM WHICH SHE WAS
STILL SUFFERING WHEN LIBERATED, AND UPON WHOM THE DEATH SENTENCE WAS
IMPOSED, THE PROVISO WAS NOT INVALID FOR UNCERTAINTY IN THE MEANING OF
THE WORDS "UNHARMED" AND "LIBERATED UNHARMED."  P. 286. 

ROBINSON V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 808, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE OF DEATH FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL KIDNAPPING ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS INDICTED AND CONVICTED IN A DISTRICT COURT FOR
VIOLATING THE FEDERAL KIDNAPPING ACT, 47 STAT. 326, 48 STAT. 781, BY
TRANSPORTING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE A PERSON WHOM HE HAD KIDNAPPED AND
HELD FOR A REWARD.  THE JURY RECOMMENDED AND THE COURT IMPOSED THE
DEATH PENALTY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 144 F.2D 392. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE SOLE QUESTION OF THE COURT'S
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THE DEATH SENTENCE. 

THE ACT AUTHORIZES THE DEATH SENTENCE WHEN RECOMMENDED BY A JURY
"PROVIDED THAT THE SENTENCE OF DEATH SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED BY THE COURT
IF, PRIOR TO ITS IMPOSITION, THE KIDNAPPED PERSON HAS BEEN LIBERATED
UNHARMED."  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED, AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE
JURY, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE KIDNAPPING VICTIM YIELDED TO CAPTURE ONLY
AFTER THE PETITIONER HAD TWICE VIOLENTLY STRUCK HER ON THE HEAD WITH AN
IRON BAR; THAT WHILE HELD IN CUSTODY HER LIPS WERE ABRASED AND MADE
SWOLLEN BY REPEATED APPLICATIONS OF TAPE ON HER MOUTH; AND THAT WOUNDS
RESULTING FROM THESE ASSAULTS WERE NOT HEALED WHEN SHE WAS LIBERATED
AFTER SIX DAYS' CAPTIVITY.  NO EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED, NOR DID THE
INDICTMENT CHARGE, THAT THE INJURIES INFLICTED WERE PERMANENT, OR THAT
THE VICTIM STILL SUFFERED FROM THEM WHEN THE PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED,
NINE YEARS AFTER COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.  FN1  THE TRIAL COURT
CHARGED THE JURY THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN
"LIBERATED UNHARMED" THEY WERE LIMITED TO A CONSIDERATION OF HER
CONDITION AT THE TIME SHE WAS LIBERATED, AND THAT THEY WERE NOT
AUTHORIZED TO RECOMMEND THE DEATH PENALTY IF AT THE TIME OF HER
LIBERATION SHE HAD RECOVERED FROM HER INJURIES.  PETITIONER TOOK NO
EXCEPTION TO THE CHARGE, AND ASKED NO OTHER.  ITS CORRECTNESS IS BEFORE
US ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE ASKED TO SAY THAT THE INJURIES
INFLICTED MUST BE PERMANENT OR THEY MUST BE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF
SENTENCE IN ORDER TO AUTHORIZE THE INFLICTION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE. 

THE SCANT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT IS OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE TO
US IN INTERPRETING THIS PROVISO.  TWO POSSIBLE REASONS SUGGEST
THEMSELVES, HOWEVER, AS TO THE MOTIVATION OF CONGRESS IN MAKING THE
SEVERITY OF A KIDNAPPER'S PUNISHMENT DEPEND UPON WHETHER HIS VICTIM HAS
BEEN INJURED.  THE FIRST REASON IS THE OLD BELIEF THAT THE SEVERITY OF
THE INJURY SHOULD MEASURE THE RIGOR OF THE PUNISHMENT.  IF THIS BE THE
REASONING IMPLICIT IN THE STATUTE, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT FOR A KIDNAPPER TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISO HE
MUST BOTH LIBERATE AND REFRAIN FROM INJURING HIS VICTIM.  CONGRESS MAY
EQUALLY HAVE INTENDED THIS PROVISION AS A DETERRENT, ON THE THEORY THAT
KIDNAPPERS WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO INFLICT VIOLENCE UPON THEIR VICTIMS
IF THEY KNEW THAT SUCH ABSTENTION WOULD SAVE THEM FROM THE DEATH
PENALTY.  THIS ASSUMPTION FINDS SOME SLIGHT SUPPORT IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY,  FN2  IS NOT CONTESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN
ONE CASE  FN3  AND IS THE CHIEF PROP FOR THE INTERPRETATION WHICH THE
PETITIONER URGES.  HE ARGUES UPON THIS ASSUMPTION THAT THE WIDER THE
SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION FROM THE DEATH PENALTY, THE GREATER THE
INDUCEMENT FOR THE KIDNAPPER TO RELEASE THE VICTIM.  TO MAGNIFY THE
INDUCEMENT, WE ARE ASKED TO INTERPRET THE PROVISO AS GRANTING IMMUNITY
FROM THE DEATH SENTENCE TO ANY KIDNAPPER WHO DOES NOT PERMANENTLY
INJURE HIS VICTIM.  WE CANNOT EXPAND THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE ON SUCH
A HYPOTHESIS AND WE TURN TO ITS LANGUAGE. 

WE ACCEPT THE WORD "UNHARMED" APPEARING IN THE PROVISO AS MEANING
UNINJURED.  NEITHER THE WORD "PERMANENT" NOR ANY OTHER WORD SUSCEPTIBLE
OF THAT MEANING WAS USED BY CONGRESS.  THE QUALITY OF THE INJURY TO
WHICH CONGRESS REFERRED IS NOT DEFINED.  IT MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT SOME
TYPES OF INJURY WOULD BE OF SUCH TRIFLING NATURE AS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM
THE CATEGORY OF INJURIES WHICH CONGRESS HAD IN MIND.  WE NEED INDULGE
IN NO SPECULATION IN REGARD TO SUCH A CATEGORY.  THE INJURIES INFLICTED
UPON THIS VICTIM WERE OF SUCH DEGREE THAT THEY CAN NOT BE READ OUT OF
THE ACT'S SCOPE WITHOUT CONTRACTING IT TO THE POINT WHERE ALMOST ALL
INJURIES WOULD BE EXCLUDED.  WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION WHATEVER FOR
GRAFTING THE WORD "PERMANENT" ONTO THE LANGUAGE WHICH CONGRESS
ADOPTED. 

NOR CAN WE CONSTRUE THE PROVISO AS PRECLUDING THE DEATH SENTENCE
WHERE THE KIDNAPPED PERSON'S INJURIES HAVE BEEN HEALED AT THE TIME
SENTENCE IS IMPOSED.  IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED A
MATTER OF SUCH GRAVE CONSEQUENCE TO DEFENDANTS AND THE PUBLIC TO TURN
ON THE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT A CASE IS
PENDING IN THE COURTS.  FAR TOO MANY CONTINGENCIES ARE INVOLVED, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE TIME IT TAKES TO APPREHEND A CRIMINAL, THE CONDITION OF
THE TRIAL DOCKET, AND THE UNCERTAINTIES OF APPEALS.  WE WOULD LONG
HESITATE BEFORE INTERPRETING THE ACT SO AS TO MAKE THE SEVERITY OF
SENTENCE TURN UPON THE DATE SENTENCE IS ULTIMATELY IMPOSED, EVEN IF THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT MORE READILY LENT ITSELF TO SUCH A CONSTRUCTION
THAN THIS ONE DOES.  AT THE VERY LEAST, THE PROVISO'S LANGUAGE MUST
MEAN THAT THE KIDNAPPED PERSON SHALL NOT BE SUFFERING FROM INJURIES
WHEN LIBERATED; THE KIDNAPPED PERSON HERE WAS STILL SUFFERING FROM HER
INJURIES WHEN LIBERATED. 

NEVERTHELESS IT IS ARGUED THAT THE DEATH PENALTY PROVISO SHOULD BE
HELD INVALID ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE PRECISE
MEANING AND SCOPE OF THE WORD "UNHARMED" AND THE PHRASE "LIBERATED
UNHARMED."  IN MOST ENGLISH WORDS AND PHRASES THERE LURK
UNCERTAINTIES.  THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS USED IN THIS ACT PRESENTS NO
EXCEPTION TO THIS GENERAL TRUTH.  ONE THING ABOUT THIS ACT IS NOT
UNCERTAIN, AND THAT IS THE CLEAR PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE
JURIES TO RECOMMEND AND JUDGES TO INFLICT THE DEATH PENALTY, UNDER
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR KIDNAPPERS WHO HARMED THEIR VICTIMS.  AND WE
CANNOT DOUBT THAT A KIDNAPPER WHO VIOLENTLY STRUCK THE HEAD OF HIS
VICTIM WITH AN IRON BAR, AS EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THIS PETITIONER DID,
COMES WITHIN THE GROUP CONGRESS HAD IN MIND.  THIS PURPOSE TO AUTHORIZE
A DEATH PENALTY IS CLEAR EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS DID NOT UNMISTAKABLY MARK
SOME BOUNDARY BETWEEN A PIN PRICK AND A PERMANENTLY MUTILATED BODY.  IT
IS FOR CONGRESS AND NOT FOR US TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS WISE PUBLIC
POLICY TO INFLICT THE DEATH PENALTY AT ALL.  WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT
PROVISION OF LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY, GIVES US POWER WHOLLY TO
NULLIFY THE CLEARLY EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE THE
DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE OF A DOUBT AS TO THE PRECISE CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE IN REGARD TO HYPOTHETICAL CASES THAT MAY NEVER ARISE. 

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED NO ERROR OF WHICH THIS PETITIONER CAN
COMPLAIN.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY TO THE OFFENSE IN 1936.  IN AUGUST,
1943, A DISTRICT COURT HELD HIS PLEA OF GUILTY INVALID ON THE GROUND
THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED COUNSEL.  THIS APPEAL IS FROM A TRIAL WHICH
TOOK PLACE IN OCTOBER, 1943.  SEE ROBINSON V. JOHNSTON, 118 F.2D 998;
316 U.S. 649; 130 F.2D 202; 50 F.SUPP.  774. 

FN2  WHEN THE ORIGINAL KIDNAPPING BILL WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE IT
DID NOT PROVIDE FOR A DEATH PENALTY.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY REPORTED IT TO THE FLOOR WITH AN AMENDMENT WHICH AUTHORIZED A
DEATH PENALTY UNLESS THE JURY RECOMMENDED MERCY.  75 CONG. REC., PART
12, 13294.  CONSIDERABLE OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH SENTENCE DEVELOPED IN
THE ENSUING DEBATE.  IB. PP. 13282-13304.  SOME OF THE OPPOSITION
RESTED ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD CAUSE KIDNAPPERS TO
KILL THEIR VICTIMS RATHER THAN RELEASE THEM BECAUSE OF FEAR THAT A
LIBERATED VICTIM COULD SEND A KIDNAPPER TO THE ELECTRIC CHAIR.  IB. PP.
13285 ,13304.  THE BILL AS PASSED DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE DEATH PENALTY,
47 STAT. 326.  TWO YEARS LATER AN AMENDMENT WAS PASSED CONTAINING THE
PRESENT PROVISO.  48 STAT. 781.  ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THROWS NO
ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON ITS PURPOSE. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. PARKER, 19 F.SUPP.  450, 103 F.2D 857. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

THE PENALTY OF DEATH SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON CONDITIONS DEFINED SO
UNCERTAINLY THAT THEIR IDENTITY CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED OR IS LEFT OPEN
TO GRAVE DOUBT.  IF WORDS EVER NEED TO BE CLEAR, THEY DO WHEN THEY
PERFORM THIS FUNCTION.  I DO NOT KNOW WHAT CONGRESS MEANT WHEN IT
COMMANDED THAT "THE SENTENCE OF DEATH SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED BY THE COURT
IF, PRIOR TO ITS IMPOSITION, THE KIDNAPPED PERSON HAS BEEN LIBERATED
UNHARMED."  48 STAT. 781. 

THE WORDS HAVE THE SOUND OF CERTAINTY WHICH SIMPLE, EVERYDAY LANGUAGE
GIVES FORTH.  THE CERTAINTY IS ONLY ILLUSION.  WHAT DOES "LIBERATED
UNHARMED" MEAN?  THE STATUTE DOES NOT TELL US. NOR DOES THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.  FN1  NEITHER DOES THE COURT'S OPINION.  IT RATHER
DEMONSTRATES THE STATUTE'S AMBIGUITY.  IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT CONGRESS
MEANT.  IT SAYS ONLY THAT CONGRESS MEANT ONE OF TWO THINGS, AND EITHER
WOULD COVER THIS CASE.  FN2  A THIRD POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION, PUT FORWARD
BY PETITIONER, IS REJECTED.  THE STATUTE, IT IS HELD, DOES NOT MEAN
THAT THE DEATH PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ONLY WHEN THE INJURIES INFLICTED
ARE PERMANENT OR, PRESUMABLY, ONLY WHEN THEY REMAIN AT THE TIME OF
SENTENCE, THOUGH NOT PERMANENT.  THE COURT DOES NOT SAY WHAT
"LIBERATED" MEANS.  NOR DOES IT DEFINE "UNHARMED," EXCEPT THAT IT
EXCLUDES THE INJURY INFLICTED IN THIS CASE. 

WHAT ACT IS POINTED TO BY "LIBERATED"?  DOES IT REFER ONLY TO RELEASE
BY THE KIDNAPPER OR DOES IT INCLUDE A CASE OF RESCUE OVERCOMING HIS
WILL AND PURPOSE?  DOES IT COVER HIS ABANDONMENT OF THE VICTIM IN
FLIGHT, LEAVING HIM PERHAPS GAGGED AND BOUND IN SOME LONELY SPOT OR
CELL, NOT FREE BUT NO LONGER IN THE KIDNAPPER'S POWER?  OR MUST HE,
BEFORE THE PRESSURES BECOME TOO GREAT, CHANGE HIS MIND, EXERCISE
DISCRETION AND SET THE VICTIM FREE BEFORE HE IS FORCED TO DO SO? 

SIMILARLY, WHAT IS "UNHARMED"?  A SCRATCH, A CUT, ABRASIONS LEFT BY
REMOVAL OF TAPE OR ROPE, BRUISES, NERVOUS SHOCK, DISTURBANCE OF
DIGESTION, ALL OF A KIND WHICH HEALS OR PASSES BEFORE "LIBERATION"
OCCURS?  FEW KIDNAPPINGS TAKE PLACE WITHOUT HARM OF SOME KIND TO THE
VICTIM.  THEY MAY BE EXECUTED BY FORCE OR BY MERE THREATS.  ONE
PRODUCES TRAUMATIC INJURY, FROM MINOR ABRASION TO DEATH, THE OTHER
NERVOUS OR MENTAL SHOCK OF MOMENTARY OR LIFETIME DURATION.  HOW MUCH
INJURY, AND WHAT KIND, DID CONGRESS HAVE IN MIND? 

IS THE DEATH PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED FOR THE IDENTICAL CUT OR ABRASION,
WHETHER MINOR OR SERIOUS, INFLICTED DURING THE ACT OF TAKING THE
VICTIM, MERELY BECAUSE IN ONE CASE THE KIDNAPPER RELEASES OR ABANDONS
HIM QUICKLY, PERHAPS BECAUSE FORCED TO DO SO, BUT FORBIDDEN IN ANOTHER
BECAUSE HE HOLDS THE VICTIM UNTIL THE INJURY HEALS?  IS REWARD THUS TO
BE GIVEN FOR PROLONGING THE AGONY? 

IS THE JURY TO RANGE THROUGHOUT THE CATEGORY OF HUMAN ILLS, NOT ONLY
TO FIND THAT INJURY HAS BEEN INFLICTED BUT TO EVALUATE WHETHER THOSE
ILLS ARE "INJURIES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE?  OR IS THIS A
QUESTION OF LAW TO BE DETERMINED BY THE JUDGE UPON SOME VAGUE CRITERION
OF "TRIFLING NATURE" SUCH AS THE OPINION APPEARS TO SUGGEST?  WHETHER
CONGRESS MEANT ALL INJURIES, SLIGHT, SUBSTANTIAL, SERIOUS OR PERMANENT,
OR ONLY SOME OF THESE, THE STATUTE DOES NOT SAY AND THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY GIVES NO GUIDE.  THE JUDGE, OR THE JURY, OR BOTH TOGETHER NOT
ONLY MUST APPLY, THEY MUST DETERMINE AND WRITE THE LAW IN THIS RESPECT,
UNTIL AT ANY RATE THIS COURT, EQUALLY WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE GUIDANCE,
TELLS THEM WHAT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND. 

THERE ARE STILL OTHER UNCERTAINTIES.  WAS IT THE INTENT (1) THAT THE
KIDNAPPER MUST BOTH LIBERATE AND REFRAIN FROM INJURING HIS VICTIM OR
(2) MERELY THAT HE MUST NOT INFLICT HARM, HOWEVER THE LIBERATION MAY
OCCUR?  WE ARE NOT TOLD WHAT WAS CONGRESS' PURPOSE, WHETHER TO MEASURE
THE RIGOR OF THE PUNISHMENT BY THE SEVERITY OF THE INJURY OR TO INDUCE
KIDNAPPERS NOT TO USE VIOLENCE AT ALL, DETERRING THEM BY THE THREAT OF
DEATH FOR ITS USE IN WHATEVER DEGREE.  FN3 NEITHER THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY NOR THE OPINION GIVES LIGHT ON THIS QUESTION.  IF CONGRESS
WISHED TO INDUCE GENTLE KIDNAPPINGS, INJURIES INFLICTED IN THE COURSE
OF THE ACT OF KIDNAPPING ARE COVERED, PROVIDED THEY REMAIN AT THE TIME
OF "LIBERATION."  THEY WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED, IF HEALED BEFORE IT,
HOWEVER GRAVE WHEN INFLICTED OR HOWEVER DISTANT LIBERATION FROM
INFLICTION.  WHAT IF THE KIDNAPPER, KNOWING THAT TIME IS CRUCIAL, KEEPS
HIS VICTIM UNTIL THE INJURIES ARE HEALED?  WAS IT CONGRESS' PURPOSE TO
INDUCE LONGER DETENTION, THE MORE SERIOUS THE INJURY INFLICTED DURING
THE ORIGINAL ACT?  WHAT IF IT IS INFLICTED AFTERWARD, BUT DURING THE
COURSE OF THE DETENTION?  ONCE INJURY HAS TAKEN PLACE, THE INDUCEMENT
HELD OUT BY THE STATUTE NECESSARILY IS EITHER TO HOLD THE VICTIM UNTIL
CURE IS EFFECTED OR TO DO AWAY WITH HIM SO THAT EVIDENCE, BOTH OF THE
INJURY AND OF THE KIDNAPPING, IS DESTROYED.  FN4  THE MORE SERIOUS THE
INJURY THE STRONGER THESE INDUCEMENTS.  IT IS ONLY UPON SUCH
CONSIDERATIONS, AFFECTING THE VICTIM'S SAFETY, THAT CONGRESS'
QUALIFICATION OF THE POWER TO IMPOSE THE SENTENCE OF DEATH CAN BE
ACCOUNTED FOR.  FN5    FINALLY, WAS CONGRESS ATTEMPTING TO OFFER THE
MAXIMUM INDUCEMENT TO LIBERATION?  IF THIS WAS THE PURPOSE,
PETITIONER'S CONSTRUCTION, REJECTED BY THE COURT, HAS MORE FORCE THAN
THE OTHER POSSIBLE ONES AMONG WHICH IT DECLINES TO CHOOSE.  FOR IN THAT
EVENT THE KIDNAPPER WOULD HAVE INDUCEMENT, ONCE INJURY IS INFLICTED,
THOUGH SERIOUS, TO SURRENDER THE VICTIM IN THE HOPE THAT CARE AFTER
SURRENDER MIGHT BRING ABOUT CURE BEFORE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE.  IF THE
SINGLE AND VAGUE WORD "UNHARMED" IS CONSTRUED TO MEAN ABSENCE OF
PERMANENT INJURY OR GRAVE INJURY, THOUGH NOT PERMANENT, HE WOULD HAVE
THE HOPE, THE INDUCEMENT THAT SURRENDER MIGHT GIVE ESCAPE FROM THE
MAXIMUM SENTENCE.  CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S VIEW THAT THIS
INTERPRETATION IS IMPOSSIBLE, IT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE UNANSWERED
QUESTIONS, HOW MUCH AND WHAT KINDS OF INJURY CONGRESS HAD IN MIND; AND
TO ADOPT IT WOULD ACCORD WITH THE RULE THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES SHOULD BE
STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  MOREOVER IT WOULD APPLY IN THIS CASE, SINCE THERE
IS NO EVIDENCE OF PERMANENT INJURY OR EVEN THAT THE INJURIES INFLICTED
WERE CRITICAL AT THE TIME OF THE VICTIM'S RELEASE.  SHE TESTIFIED AT
THE TRIAL. 

IT IS TRUE THIS CONSTRUCTION WOULD MAKE IMPOSITION OF THAT PENALTY
DEPEND UPON FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN
RELEASE AND SENTENCE, AS WELL AS THE CHANCES OF THE VICTIM TO RECOVER
AND THEIR SUCCESSFUL WORKING OUT IN THAT PERIOD.  BUT ANY OTHER
CONSTRUCTION EITHER MAKES IT DEPEND UPON CIRCUMSTANCES EQUALLY
FORTUITOUS OR HAS THE INEVITABLE EFFECT, IN MANY CASES, OF HOLDING OUT
INDUCEMENT TO THE KIDNAPPER TO INFLICT THE ULTIMATE HARM RATHER THAN TO
REFRAIN FROM INFLICTING HARM AT ALL.  PETITIONER'S CONSTRUCTION MORE
THAN ANY OTHER TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE VICTIM'S SAFE SURRENDER.  ONCE
THE VICTIM IS HURT, THE KIDNAPPER'S PROBLEM OF WHAT TO DO WITH HIM
BECOMES INESCAPABLE AND THE PROVISION FOR THE EXTREME PENALTY CAN WORK
ONLY TO DEFEAT OR DEFER LIBERATION.  WAS THIS WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED,
KNOWING THAT FEW KIDNAPPINGS CAN OCCUR IN WHICH SOME SUBSTANTIAL HARM
WILL NOT BE DONE? 

I DOUBT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THESE CONSEQUENCES.  I DO NOT KNOW
FROM ITS WORDS WHAT IT DID INTEND.  THE OPINION DOES NOT ENLIGHTEN ME,
EXCEPT THAT THIS CASE IS ONE OF POSSIBLY MANY, VAGUELY INDICATED, WHICH
MAY HAVE BEEN IN MIND.  CONGRESS HAS BROAD POWER TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES
FOR CRIME, INCLUDING DEATH.  IT MAY GIVE WIDE DISCRETION TO COURTS IN
SELECTING FROM A BROAD RANGE OF DEFINED PENALTIES TO FIT THE INDIVIDUAL
CASE.  WITHIN LIMITS THIS DISCRETION MAY INCLUDE THE DEATH PENALTY. 

IT IS ONE THING, HOWEVER, FOR CONGRESS TO CONFER THE DISCRETION
CONFINED BY SPECIFIED AND ASCERTAINABLE LIMITS.  IT IS ANOTHER THING
FOR CONGRESS ITSELF TO TURN THE EXERCISE OF THE CONFERRED DISCRETION
UPON CONDITIONS WHICH CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED FROM ITS MANDATE OR CAN BE
LOCATED ONLY WITH THE GREATEST UNCERTAINTY. 

TWO THINGS ARE CLEAR.  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE DEATH PENALTY TO
APPLY TO ALL CONVICTIONS UNDER THE STATUTE.  NOR WAS ITS IMPOSITION
INTENDED TO REST ABSOLUTELY OR EXCLUSIVELY EITHER UPON THE JURY'S
RECOMMENDATION OR IN THE COURT'S DISCRETION.  THE PURPOSE OBVIOUSLY WAS
TO FORBID IT IN SOME CASES.  BUT THESE CAN BE DETERMINED ONLY BY CHOICE
AMONG CONFLICTING INFERENCES WHICH SET ONE PURPOSE CONGRESS MAY HAVE
HAD IN MIND AT WAR WITH OTHERS EQUALLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE LAW'S EXTREME PENALTY.  THAT PENALTY SHOULD
NOT REST ON DOUBTFUL COMMAND OR VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN CONDITIONS.  THE
WORDS USED HERE, FOR ITS IMPOSITION, ARE TOO GENERAL AND UNPRECISE, THE
PURPOSES CONGRESS HAD IN USING THEM TOO OBSCURE AND CONTRADICTORY, THE
CONSEQUENCES OF APPLYING THEM ARE TOO CAPRICIOUS, WHETHER FOR THE
VICTIM OR FOR THE KIDNAPPER, TO PERMIT THEIR GIVING FOUNDATION FOR
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH OVER THE CITIZEN, THOUGH HE BE
A CONVICTED CRIMINAL.  OTHER PENALTIES MIGHT BE RECTIFIED WITH TIME, IF
WRONG.  THIS ONE CANNOT BE. 

MOREOVER, THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO RESOLVE THE STATUTE'S ADMITTED
AMBIGUITY LEAVES HANGING OVER THE HEADS OF FUTURE VICTIMS THE DANGER
WHICH FLOWS FROM "A DEATH PENALTY PROVISION WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE" THE
SAME IRREPARABLE FATE FOR THEM.  WHEN THAT FATE FALLS IT WILL NOT BE
"HYPOTHETICAL" AND THERE WILL BE NOTHING EITHER WE OR CONGRESS CAN DO
TO REVOKE IT. 

I THINK THE STATUTE TURNS THE POWER TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY UPON
FACTS SO VAGUELY DEFINED THAT ONLY JUDICIAL LEGISLATION CAN REMEDY THE
DEFECT.  THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF THING COURTS SHOULD BE LEFT TO WORK
OUT CASE BY CASE THROUGH THE "GRADUAL PROCESS OF INCLUSION AND
EXCLUSION."  THIS BUSINESS RATHER BELONGS TO CONGRESS, NOT TO THE
COURTS.  AS THE COURT'S OPINION STATES, THOUGH I THINK IN CONTRADICTION
OF ITS JUDGMENT, "IT IS FOR CONGRESS AND NOT FOR US TO DECIDE WHETHER
IT IS WISE PUBLIC POLICY TO INFLICT THE DEATH PENALTY AT ALL." 
CONGRESS' MANDATE IN SUCH MATTERS MUST BE CLEAR; OTHERWISE WE, NOT
CONGRESS, DECIDE.  IN THIS ONE IT IS BEYOND UNDERSTANDING. 

I WOULD VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CAUSE FOR THE PETITIONER
TO BE RESENTENCED. 

FN1  THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF CANDIDLY STATES:  "THE INTERPRETATION OF
THE PROVISO HERE INVOLVED MUST BE DETERMINED FROM THE FACE OF THE
STATUTE ITSELF SINCE NEITHER THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY NOR PRIOR STATE
LEGISLATION OFFERS GUIDANCE."  NO HEARINGS WERE HELD ON THE 1934
AMENDMENTS, PROVIDING FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.  THEY WERE ACCEPTED UPON
CONFERENCE REPORTS BY BOTH HOUSES WITHOUT DEBATE.  H. REP. NO. 1595,
73D CONG., 2D SESS.; 78 CONG. REC. 8775, 8856-8857.  NEITHER H. REP.
NO. 1595 NOR H. REP. NO. 1457, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., GIVES LIGHT ON THE
MEANING OF THE LIMITATION. 

FN2  CF. NOTE 3. 

FN3  AT ONE POINT THE OPINION DECLINES TO EXPRESS A CHOICE BETWEEN
THESE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES.  AT ANOTHER IT STATES "THE CLEAR PURPOSE
OF CONGRESS" WAS TO AUTHORIZE "THE DEATH PENALTY, UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR KIDNAPPERS WHO HARMED THEIR VICTIMS."  IS THIS TO BE
TAKEN AS DECIDING THAT "LIBERATED UNHARMED" MEANS "LIBERATED NOT HAVING
BEEN HARMED AT ALL"?  IF SO, THE COURT'S VIEW DIFFERS FROM THE
GOVERNMENT'S, WHICH IS THAT THE WORDS MEAN "UNHARMED AT THE TIME OF
LIBERATION."  CF. NOTE 5.  MOREOVER, THE OPINION, IF SO EFFECTIVE,
INVITES FOR THE VICTIM THE VERY DANGER CONGRESS SOUGHT TO AVOID BY
PLACING THE LIMITATION UPON THE POWER TO IMPOSE THE SENTENCE. 

FN4  THESE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE VICTIM, RECENTLY
DRAMATIZED BY THE LINDBERGH CASE, WERE INFLUENTIAL IN BRINGING ABOUT
THE OMISSION FROM THE ORIGINAL KIDNAPPING ACT OF 1932(47 STAT. 326) OF
ANY PROVISION FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.  REPRESENTATIVE CELLER STATED THEM
THUS: 

"IF YOU INSIST UPON THE DEATH PENALTY, I WAGER THAT YOU WILL INFLICT
A PENALTY ON THE VICTIM WHO IS KIDNAPPED.  THE VICTIM MAY BE MURDERED
OR SLAIN BECAUSE THE PRISONER HAS NOTHING TO GAIN BY THE VICTIM BEING
KEPT ALIVE, BECAUSE HE FORFEITS HIS OWN LIFE, IN ANY EVENT  ....  THE
PERSON KIDNAPPED IS THE WITNESS WHO, EVEN WHEN RESCUED, CAN ALWAYS
POINT THE ACCUSING FINGER AT THE GUILTY.  DOING AWAY WITH THE VICTIM
WOULD SAVE THE LIFE OF THE GUILTY."  75 CONG. REC. 13285.  SEE 75 CONG.
REC. 13282-13304 FOR OTHER STATEMENTS OPPOSING THE EXTREME PENALTY. 

FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF POSSIBLE EFFECTIVENESS IN SECURING THE VICTIM'S
SAFETY, THE QUALIFICATION IMPOSED BY THE 1934 ACT WOULD SEEM TO BE
DIRECTED MORE TOWARD THE KINDS OF DANGER CONGRESS HAD IN MIND DURING
THE 1932 DEBATE THAN TOWARD PREVENTING ALL USE OF FORCE IN THE
KIDNAPPING ACT ITSELF.  CF. NOTE 5 AND UNITED STATES V. PARKER, 19
F.SUPP.  450, AFFIRMED, 103 F.2D 857, CERT. DENIED, 307 U.S. 642. 

FN5  THE GOVERNMENT HAS URGED ADOPTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH
TAKES ACCOUNT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS.  THE BRIEF STATES: 

"THE WORDS 'LIBERATED UNHARMED'...  ARE SUBJECT TO TWO
INTERPRETATIONS.  THEY MAY BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN LIBERATED WITHOUT
HAVING BEEN HARMED AT ANY TIME IN THE COURSE OF DETENTION, OR  ...
LIBERATED IN AN UNHARMED CONDITION AT THE TIME OF LIBERATION.  THE
FIRST CONSTRUCTION ATTRIBUTES TO CONGRESS THE INTENTION TO CAUSE
KIDNAPPERS NOT TO HARM THE VICTIM BUT WITHOUT TENDING TO SECURE
LIBERATION OF A VICTIM WHO HAS BEEN HARMED.  THE SECOND CONSTRUCTION
OFFERS THE KIDNAPPER AN INDUCEMENT, IN ADDITION TO THE INDUCEMENT NOT
TO HARM, TO CARE FOR AND TO CURE AN INJURED VICTIM SO THAT HE MAY BE
UNHARMED WHEN LIBERATED.  THE SECOND CONSTRUCTION ENCOURAGES KIDNAPPERS
NOT TO MURDER AN INJURED VICTIM, AN INDUCEMENT NOT PRESENT UNDER THE
FIRST CONSTRUCTION.  IN VIEW OF THE TEMPTATION TO KIDNAPPERS TO MURDER
THEIR VICTIMS IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OF WITNESSES TO THEIR CRIME, AND IN
VIEW OF THE INTEREST DISCLOSED IN CONGRESS TO AVOID A DEATH PENALTY
PROVISION WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS RESULT, THE GOVERNMENT SUBMITS
THAT THE SECOND CONSTRUCTION MORE PROPERLY REFLECTS THE INTENTION OF
CONGRESS AND SHOULD BE ADOPTED." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :








U.S. V. FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES, 324 U.S. 293 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 5, 1945.  - 144 F.2D 824,
REVERSED. 


1.  A CONSPIRACY OF PRODUCERS, WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS TO FIX AND
MAINTAIN RETAIL PRICES OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SHIPPED INTO A STATE, BY
ADOPTION OF A SINGLE COURSE IN MAKING CONTRACTS OF SALE AND BOYCOTTING
OTHERS WHO WOULD NOT CONFORM, HELD A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST
ACT.  P. 296. 

2.  NEITHER THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT OF THE SHERMAN ACT NOR THE
COLORADO FAIR TRADE ACT PERMITS COMBINATIONS OF BUSINESSMEN TO COERCE
OTHERS INTO MAKING "FAIR TRADE" CONTRACTS.  P. 296. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE ULTIMATE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS THE
FIXING OR MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL RETAIL PRICES DID NOT RENDER THE SHERMAN
ACT INAPPLICABLE.  P. 298. 

4.  THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE
PROSECUTION OF THE VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT HERE ALLEGED.  P. 299. 

5.  THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT CONFERRED UPON THE STATES BROAD
REGULATORY POWER OVER THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES, BUT
DID NOT GIVE THE STATES PLENARY AND EXCLUSIVE POWER TO REGULATE THE
CONDUCT OF PERSONS DOING AN INTERSTATE LIQUOR BUSINESS.  P. 299. 

UNITED STATES V. FRANKFORT DISTILLERIES, INC. 

NO. 523.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 524, UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS
CORP.; NO. 525, UNITED STATES V. BROWN FORMAN DISTILLERS CORP.; NO.
526, UNITED STATES V. HIRAM WALKER, INC.; NO. 527, UNITED STATES V.
SCHENLEY DISTILLERS CORP.; NO. 528, UNITED STATES V. SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS
CORP.; NO. 529, UNITED STATES V. MCKESSON & ROBBINS, INC.; AND NO. 530,
UNITED STATES V. SPEEGLE, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 699, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A CONVICTION, 47
F.SUPP.  160, OF VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS ARE PRODUCERS, WHOLESALERS, AND RETAILERS, OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES, WHO WERE INDICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR HAVING
CONSPIRED AND COMBINED TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT AS AMENDED.  26 STAT. 209; 50 STAT. 693.  THEIR
DEMURRERS AND MOTION TO QUASH HAVING BEEN OVERRULED, RESPONDENTS
PLEADED NOLO CONTENDERE TO ONE COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT.  ON THESE PLEAS
THEY WERE ADJUDGED GUILTY BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND FINED.  47 F.SUPP. 
160.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
INDICTMENT FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED WAS IN RESTRAINT
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  144 F.2D 824.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVED PROMPTED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  FN1 

THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT 98% OF THE SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS AND 80% OF
THE WINES CONSUMED IN COLORADO WERE SHIPPED THERE FROM OTHER STATES. 
THE ANNUAL SHIPMENTS INTO THE STATE WERE 1,150,000 GALLONS OF LIQUORS
AND 800,000 GALLONS OF WINE.  SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THESE BEVERAGES
WERE HANDLED BY THE DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS.  RESPONDENTS WERE CHARGED
WITH CONSPIRING, IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, TO RAISE, FIX AND
MAINTAIN THE RETAIL PRICES OF ALL THESE BEVERAGES BY RAISING, FIXING,
AND STABILIZING RETAIL MARKUPS AND MARGINS OF PROFIT. 

TO ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTS OF THE CONSPIRACY, IT IS ALLEGED THAT THEY
ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING COURSE OF ACTION.  ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS AGREED
AMONGST THEMSELVES TO (1) DISCUSS, AGREE UPON AND ADOPT ARBITRARY NON
COMPETITIVE RETAIL PRICES, MARKUPS, AND MARGINS OF PROFIT; (2)
DEFENDANT RETAILERS AND WHOLESALERS AGREED TO PERSUADE AND COMPEL
PRODUCERS TO ENTER INTO FAIR TRADE CONTRACTS ON EVERY TYPE AND BRAND OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SHIPPED INTO THE STATE, THEREBY TO ESTABLISH
ARBITRARILY HIGH AND NON-COMPETITIVE RETAIL MARKUPS AND MARGINS OF
PROFIT, AGREED UPON BY DEFENDANTS; (3) THE RETAILERS WERE TO PREPARE
AND ADOPT FORMS OF FAIR TRADE CONTRACTS, AND AGREE WITH PRODUCERS AND
WHOLESALERS UPON THESE FORMS; (4) A BOYCOTT PROGRAM WAS ADOPTED BY ALL
OF THE DEFENDANTS UNDER WHICH RETAILERS WOULD REFUSE TO BUY ANY OF THE
BEVERAGES SOLD BY WHOLESALERS OR PRODUCERS WHO REFUSED TO ENTER INTO OR
ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS, AND
NON-COMPLYING RETAILERS WOULD BE DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY THE GOODS
OF THE DEFENDANT PRODUCERS AND WHOLESALERS.  MACHINERY WAS SET UP TO
MAKE THE BOYCOTT PROGRAM EFFECTIVE. 

THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT, WHICH STAND ADMITTED ON
DEMURRER, AND ON THE PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE, INDICATE A PATTERN WHICH
BEARS ALL THE EARMARKS OF A TRADITIONAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  THE
PARTICIPANTS ARE PRODUCERS, MIDDLEMEN, AND RETAILERS.  THEY HAVE AGREED
AMONG THEMSELVES TO ADOPT A SINGLE COURSE IN MAKING CONTRACTS OF SALE
AND TO BOYCOTT ALL OTHERS WHO WOULD NOT ADOPT THE SAME COURSE. 

THE EFFECT, AND IF IT WERE MATERIAL, THE PURPOSE OF THE COMBINATION
CHARGED, WAS TO FIX PRICES AT AN ARTIFICIAL LEVEL.  SUCH COMBINATIONS,
AFFECTING COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES, TEND TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION, AND
VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT PER SE.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY VACUUM CO.,
310 U.S. 150, 223-224.  PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS FALL UNDER THE SAME
BAN, ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 458, EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED BY THE 1937 MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT TO THE SHERMAN ACT. 
50 STAT. 693.  THE COMBINATION CHARGED AGAINST RESPONDENTS DOES NOT
FALL WITHIN THIS EXCEPTION.  IT PERMITS THE SELLER OF AN ARTICLE WHICH
BEARS HIS TRADE MARK, BRAND, OR NAME, TO PRESCRIBE A MINIMUM RESALE
PRICE BY CONTRACT, IF SUCH CONTRACTS ARE LAWFUL IN THE STATE WHERE THE
RESALE IS TO BE MADE AND IF THE TRADE-MARKED ARTICLE IS IN FREE AND
OPEN COMPETITION WITH OTHER ARTICLES OF THE SAME COMMODITY.  THIS TYPE
OF "FAIR TRADE" PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT IS LAWFUL IN COLORADO. 
SESSION LAWS OF COLORADO, 1937, CHAP. 146.  BUT THE MILLER-TYDINGS
AMENDMENT TO THE SHERMAN ACT DOES NOT PERMIT COMBINATIONS OF
BUSINESSMEN TO COERCE OTHERS INTO MAKING SUCH CONTRACTS, AND COLORADO
HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO GRANT SUCH PERMISSION.  BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE
"FAIR TRADE" ACTS EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT THEY SHALL NOT APPLY TO PRICE
MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS AMONG PRODUCERS, WHOLESALERS AND COMPETITORS.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT WHATEVER MAY BE THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL PRODUCER UNDER
THE MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT TO MAKE PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS OR TO
REFUSE TO SELL HIS GOODS TO THOSE WHO WILL NOT MAKE SUCH CONTRACTS, A
COMBINATION TO COMPEL PRICE MAINTENANCE IN COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES
VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT.  UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S.
707, 719-723.  UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241, 252
253.  CONSEQUENTLY, RESPONDENTS WERE PROPERLY CONVICTED, UNLESS AS THEY
ARGUE, THEIR CONDUCT IS NOT COVERED BY THE SHERMAN ACT, EITHER BECAUSE
THE PRICE FIXING APPLIED ONLY TO RETAIL SALES WHICH WERE WHOLLY
INTRASTATE, OR BECAUSE THE STATE'S POWER TO CONTROL THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES MAKES THE SHERMAN ACT INAPPLICABLE. 

THESE TWO QUESTIONS THUS POSED RELATE TO THE EXTENT OF THE SHERMAN
ACT'S APPLICATION TO TRADE RESTRAINTS RESULTING FROM ACTIONS WHICH TAKE
PLACE WITHIN A STATE.  IN RESOLVING THEM, THERE IS AN OBVIOUS
DISTINCTION TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHOLLY WITHIN A
STATE AND CONDUCT WHICH IS AN INSEPARABLE ELEMENT OF A LARGER PROGRAM
DEPENDENT FOR ITS SUCCESS UPON ACTIVITY WHICH AFFECTS COMMERCE BETWEEN
THE STATES.  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT HAS ON OCCASION DETERMINED THAT
LOCAL CONDUCT COULD BE INSULATED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS ON THE BASIS OF THE PURELY LOCAL AIMS OF A COMBINATION, INSOFAR AS
THOSE AIMS WERE NOT MOTIVATED BY THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING COMMERCE,
AND WHERE THE MEANS USED TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE DID NOT DIRECTLY TOUCH
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE CASES RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENTS  FN2
FALL WITHIN THIS CATEGORY.  ALL OF THEM INVOLVED THE APPLICATION OF THE
ANTI-TRUST LAWS TO COMBINATIONS OF BUSINESSMEN OR WORKERS IN LABOR
DISPUTES, AND NOT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE SOLE ULTIMATE OBJECT OF RESPONDENTS' COMBINATION IN THE
INSTANT CASE WAS PRICE FIXING OR PRICE MAINTENANCE.  AND WITH REFERENCE
TO COMMERCIAL TRADE RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THESE, CONGRESS, IN PASSING THE
SHERMAN ACT, LEFT NO AREA OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER UNOCCUPIED; IT
"EXERCISED ALL THE POWER IT POSSESSED."  APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER,
310 U.S. 469, 495. 

THE FACT THAT THE ULTIMATE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED WAS THE
FIXING OR MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL RETAIL PRICES, DOES NOT OF ITSELF REMOVE
IT FROM THE SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN ACT; RETAIL OUTLETS HAVE ORDINARILY
BEEN THE OBJECT OF ILLEGAL PRICE MAINTENANCE.  FN3  WHATEVER WAS THE
ULTIMATE OBJECT OF THIS CONSPIRACY, THE MEANS ADOPTED FOR ITS
ACCOMPLISHMENT REACHED BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF COLORADO.  THE
COMBINATION CONCERNED ITSELF WITH THE TYPE OF CONTRACT USED IN MAKING
INTERSTATE SALES; ITS COERCIVE POWER WAS USED TO COMPEL THE PRODUCERS
OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES OUTSIDE OF COLORADO TO ENTER INTO PRICE
MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS.  NOR DID THE BOYCOTT USED MERELY AFFECT LOCAL
RETAIL BUSINESS.  LOCAL PURCHASING POWER WAS THE WEAPON USED TO FORCE
PRODUCERS MAKING INTERSTATE SALES TO FIX PRICES AGAINST THEIR WILL.  IT
MAY BE TRUE, AS HAS BEEN ARGUED, THAT UNDER COLORADO LAW, RETAILERS ARE
PROHIBITED FROM BUYING FROM OUT-OF-STATE PRODUCERS, BUT THIS FACT HAS
NO RELEVANCY.  THE POWER OF RETAILERS TO COERCE OUT-OF-STATE PRODUCERS
CAN BE JUST AS EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED THROUGH PRESSURE BROUGHT TO BEAR
UPON WHOLESALERS AS THOUGH THE RETAILERS BROUGHT SUCH PRESSURE TO BEAR
DIRECTLY UPON THE PRODUCERS.  AND COMBINATIONS TO RESTRAIN, BY A
BOYCOTT OF THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THROUGH SUCH INDIRECT
COERCION IS PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN4 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BARS
THIS PROSECUTION.  THAT AMENDMENT BESTOWED UPON THE STATES BROAD
REGULATORY POWER OVER THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITHIN THEIR TERRITORIES.  FN5
IT HAS NOT GIVEN THE STATES PLENARY AND EXCLUSIVE POWER TO REGULATE
THE CONDUCT OF PERSONS DOING AN INTERSTATE LIQUOR BUSINESS OUTSIDE
THEIR BOUNDARIES.  GRANTING THE STATE'S FULL AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE
CONDITIONS UPON WHICH LIQUOR CAN COME INTO ITS TERRITORY AND WHAT WILL
BE DONE WITH IT AFTER IT GETS THERE, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THAT FACT
THAT THE UNITED STATES IS WHOLLY WITHOUT POWER TO REGULATE THE CONDUCT
OF THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE TRADE OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE
STATE OF COLORADO. 

THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED IN THIS CASE IN SUCH MANNER AS
TO CONFLICT WITH THE LAW OF COLORADO.  THOSE COMBINATIONS WHICH THE
SHERMAN ACT MAKES ILLEGAL AS TO PRODUCERS, WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS
ARE EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED FROM THE SCOPE OF THE FAIR TRADE ACT OF
COLORADO, AND THUS HAVE NO LEGAL SANCTION UNDER STATE LAW EITHER.  FN6
WE THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE HERE A CASE IN WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT IS
APPLIED TO DEFEAT THE POLICY OF THE STATE.  THAT WOULD RAISE QUESTIONS
OF MOMENT WHICH NEED NOT BE DECIDED UNTIL THEY ARE PRESENTED.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  323 U.S. 699. 

FN2  INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO V. UNITED STATES, 268
U.S. 64; LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103; UNITED
LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT & MEISEL TRUNK CO., 265 U.S. 457; CF. LOCAL
167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 297, AND UNITED STATES V.
HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219. 

FN3  SEE, E.G., DR. MILES MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S.
373, 404; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436; UNITED
STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241, 244, 245. 

FN4  FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S.
457, 465; LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274. 

FN5  CARTER V. VIRGINIA, 321 U.S. 131; ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, 308
U.S. 132, 138; STATE BOARD V. YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59. 

FN6  THE COLORADO FAIR TRADE ACT, 1937 COL. SESSION LAWS, CH. 146,
PROVIDES THAT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS SELLERS OF COMMODITIES CAN
CONTRACT WITH BUYERS NOT TO RESELL, AND TO REQUIRE SUBSEQUENT
PURCHASERS NOT TO RESELL, AT LESS THAN THE MINIMUM PRICE STIPULATED BY
THE SELLER.  BUT THAT ACT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL NOT APPLY
TO HORIZONTAL AGREEMENTS, "TO ANY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN OR
AMONG PRODUCERS OR BETWEEN OR AMONG WHOLESALERS OR BETWEEN OR AMONG
RETAILERS AS TO SALE OR RESALE PRICES."  THE COLORADO UNFAIR PRACTICES
ACT, 1941 COL. SESSION LAWS, CH. 227, AMENDING AND REENACTING 1937 COL.
SESSION LAWS, CH. 261, MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO SELL GOODS BELOW COST TO
INJURE OR DESTROY COMPETITION, AND STATES THAT THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF
THE ACT IS "TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC AGAINST  ...  MONOPOLIES AND TO
FOSTER AND ENCOURAGE COMPETITION." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT MADE A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE, AS TO CONTROL
OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC, IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
STATES AND NATIONAL AUTHORITY.  BEFORE THAT AMENDMENT - DISREGARDING
THE INTERLUDE OF THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT - ALCOHOL WAS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES TREATED IN THE ABSTRACT AS AN ARTICLE OF
COMMERCE JUST LIKE PEANUTS AND POTATOES.  AS A RESULT, THE POWER OF THE
STATES TO CONTROL THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC WAS SUBORDINATED TO THE RIGHT OF
FREE TRADE ACROSS STATE LINES AS EMBODIED IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE
TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT REVERSED THIS LEGAL SITUATION BY SUBORDINATING
RIGHTS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO THE POWER OF A STATE TO CONTROL,
AND TO CONTROL EFFECTIVELY, THE TRAFFIC IN LIQUOR WITHIN ITS BORDERS. 
THE COURSE OF LEGAL HISTORY WHICH MADE NECESSARY THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE STATES TO CONTROL THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC,
ACCORDING TO THEIR NOTIONS OF POLICY FREED FROM THE RESTRICTIONS UPON
STATE POWER WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IMPLIES AS TO ORDINARY ARTICLES
OF COMMERCE, WAS SUMMARIZED IN MY CONCURRING OPINION IN CARTER V.
VIRGINIA, 321 U.S. 131, 139. 

AS A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE RESULT OF THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT IS THAT A STATE MAY ERECT ANY BARRIER IT PLEASES TO THE ENTRY
OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.  ITS BARRIER MAY BE LOW, HIGH, OR
INSURMOUNTABLE.  OF COURSE, IF A STATE CHOOSES NOT TO EXERCISE THE
POWER GIVEN IT BY THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT AND TO CONTINUE TO TREAT
INTOXICATING LIQUORS LIKE OTHER ARTICLES, THE OPERATION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE CONTINUES.  SINCE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS SUBORDINATE TO THE
EXERCISE OF STATE POWER UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, THE SHERMAN
LAW, DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, CAN HAVE NO
GREATER POTENCY THAN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ITSELF.  IT MUST EQUALLY YIELD
TO STATE POWER DRAWN FROM THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT.  AND SO, THE
VALIDITY OF A CHARGE UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW RELATING TO INTOXICATING
LIQUORS DEPENDS UPON THE UTILIZATION BY A STATE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT.  IF A STATE FOR ITS OWN
SUFFICIENT REASONS DEEMS IT A DESIRABLE POLICY TO STANDARDIZE THE PRICE
OF LIQUOR WITHIN ITS BORDERS EITHER BY A DIRECT PRICE-FIXING STATUTE OR
BY PERMISSIVE SANCTION OF SUCH PRICE-FIXING IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE THE
TEMPTATIONS OF CHEAP LIQUOR DUE TO CUTTHROAT COMPETITION, THE TWENTY
FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES IT THAT POWER AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT
GAINSAY IT.  SUCH STATE POLICY CAN NOT OFFEND THE SHERMAN LAW EVEN
THOUGH DISTILLERS OR MIDDLEMEN AGREE WITH LOCAL DEALERS TO RESPECT THIS
POLICY.  IF AN AGREEMENT AMONG LOCAL DEALERS NOT TO BUY LIQUOR THROUGH
CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT OFFEND THE SHERMAN LAW THOUGH
A LIKE AGREEMENT AS TO OTHER COMMODITIES WOULD, AN AGREEMENT AMONG
LIQUOR DEALERS TO ABIDE BY STATE POLICY FOR A UNIFORM PRICE - WHICH IS
FAR LESS RESTRICTIVE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN A COMPREHENSIVE
BOYCOTT - CAN HARDLY BE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW. 

THUS THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE, AS I SEE IT, IS WHETHER IN FACT THE
POLICY OF COLORADO SANCTIONS SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT AS THE INDICTMENT
CHARGES.  SUCH A POLICY MAY BE EXPRESSED EITHER FORMALLY BY LEGISLATION
OR BY IMPLIED PERMISSION.  UNLESS STATE POLICY IS VOICED EITHER BY
LEGISLATION OR BY STATE COURT DECISIONS, IT IS PRECARIOUS BUSINESS FOR
AN OUTSIDER TO BE CONFIDENT ABOUT THE LEGAL POLICY OF A STATE.  SO FAR
AS OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED TO MATERIALS RELEVANT FOR ASCERTAINING
THE POLICY OF COLORADO TOWARD SUCH A PRICE ARRANGEMENT AS IS HERE
CHARGED, IT WOULD BE TEMERARIOUS TO SUGGEST THAT COLORADO DOES SANCTION
IT.  INDEED, THE LEGISLATION OF COLORADO LOOKS IN THE OPPOSITE
DIRECTION.  AND WE HAVE NO GUIDANCE FROM STATE DECISIONS TO SUGGEST
THAT THE APPARENT CONDEMNATION OF SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT UNDER THE
COLORADO FAIR TRADE ACT, SEC. 2, COLO. STAT. ANN., CH. 165, SEC. 20(2),
DOES NOT CONDEMN THE PRICE ARRANGEMENTS BEFORE US.  ALTHOUGH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF COLORADO HAS FILED A BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE ON THE
SIDE OF THE RESPONDENTS, HIS ARGUMENT IS NOT BASED ON THE CONTENTION
THAT THE POLICY OF COLORADO SANCTIONS THAT WHICH IT IS CLAIMED THE
SHERMAN LAW FORBIDS.  IN THE VIEW I TAKE OF THE MATTER, IF A STATE
AUTHORIZED THE TRANSACTIONS HERE COMPLAINED OF, THE SHERMAN LAW COULD
NOT OVERRIDE SUCH EXERCISE OF STATE POWER.  FOR, IN ANY EVENT, IF STATE
POLICY DID SO AUTHORIZE IT, CONFORMITY WITH THE STATE POLICY COULD NOT
BE DEEMED AN "UNREASONABLE" RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT I DO
NOT FIND THAT COLORADO HAS DONE SO. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW IS NOT WITHOUT SUPPORT IN WHAT HAS
BEEN SAID IN THE PAST IN HOLDING THAT, APART FROM THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT, THIS WAS A RESTRAINT LOCAL IN ITS NATURE AND THEREFORE
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  BUT PRICE-FIXING IS SUCH AN
IMMEDIATE RESTRAINT UPON TRADE THAT I DO NOT THINK THAT THE REACH OF
THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN OBVIOUS RESTRAINT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY
DRAWING TOO NICE LINES AS A MATTER OF PLEADING.  THE CASE IS BEFORE US,
IN EFFECT, ON DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT AND JUDGED ABSTRACTLY, AS A
MATTER OF PLEADING, I CANNOT SAY THAT THE INDICTMENT WAS DEMURRABLE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :








COMMISSIONER V. WEMYSS, 324 U.S. 303 


NO. 629.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 5, 1945.  - 144 F.2D
78, REVERSED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO AN ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, RESPONDENT MADE A TRANSFER
OF PROPERTY TO HIS PROSPECTIVE WIFE IN CONSIDERATION OF HER PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE AND TO COMPENSATE FOR HER LOSS OF TRUST INCOME WHICH UPON HER
MARRIAGE WOULD GO TO A CHILD BY A FORMER MARRIAGE.  HELD THAT, UNDER
SECS. 501 AND 503 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AND APPLICABLE TREASURY
REGULATIONS, THE TRANSFER WAS A TAXABLE GIFT IN ITS ENTIRETY.  P. 306. 

2.  THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT MADE FOR
A "CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
503, IS BINDING ON REVIEW.  P. 307. 

3.  TO RELIEVE A TRANSFER FROM THE GIFT TAX UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932 THERE MUST BE A CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH OF BENEFIT
TO THE TRANSFEROR; DETRIMENT TO THE TRANSFEREE IS INSUFFICIENT.  P.
307. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. WEMYSS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 703, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT, 2 T.C. 876, SUSTAINING THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY IN FEDERAL GIFT TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1939 TAXPAYER PROPOSED MARRIAGE TO MRS. MORE, A WIDOW WITH ONE
CHILD.  HER DECEASED HUSBAND HAD SET UP TWO TRUSTS, ONE HALF THE INCOME
OF WHICH WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF MRS. MORE AND THE OTHER HALF FOR THAT
OF THE CHILD WITH PROVISION THAT, IN THE EVENT OF MRS. MORE'S
REMARRIAGE, HER PART OF THE INCOME CEASED AND WENT TO THE CHILD.  THE
CORPUS OF THE TWO TRUSTS CONSISTED OF STOCK WHICH BROUGHT TO MRS. MORE
FROM THE DEATH OF HER FIRST HUSBAND TO HER REMARRIAGE, ABOUT FIVE YEARS
LATER, AN AVERAGE INCOME OF $5,484 A YEAR.  ON MRS. MORE'S
UNWILLINGNESS TO SUFFER LOSS OF HER TRUST INCOME THROUGH REMARRIAGE THE
PARTIES ON MAY 24, 1939, ENTERED UPON AN AGREEMENT WHEREBY TAXPAYER
TRANSFERRED TO MRS. MORE A BLOCK OF SHARES OF STOCK.  WITHIN A MONTH
THEY MARRIED.  THE COMMISSIONER RULED THAT THE TRANSFER OF THIS STOCK,
THE VALUE OF WHICH, $149,456.13, TAXPAYER DOES NOT CONTROVERT, WAS
SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL GIFT TAX, SECS. 501 AND 503 OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 245, 247, 26 U.S.C. SECS. 1000, 1002. 
ACCORDINGLY, HE ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY WHICH THE TAX COURT UPHELD, 2
T.C. 876, BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE TAX COURT, 144
F.2D 78.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO SETTLE UNCERTAINTIES IN TAX
ADMINISTRATION ENGENDERED BY SEEMINGLY CONFLICTING DECISIONS.  323 U.S.
703. 

THE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEM TURNS ON THE PROPER APPLICATION OF SECS.
501(A) AND 503 SUPRA TO THE IMMEDIATE FACTS.  THESE PROVISIONS ARE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 501.  IMPOSITION OF TAX. 

(A)  FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1932 AND EACH CALENDAR YEAR THEREAFTER A
TAX, COMPUTED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 502, SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE
TRANSFER DURING SUCH CALENDAR YEAR BY ANY INDIVIDUAL  ... OF PROPERTY
BY GIFT." 

"SEC. 503.  TRANSFER FOR LESS THAN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION. 

WHERE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED FOR LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH, THEN THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION SHALL,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE, BE DEEMED A GIFT, AND
SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF GIFTS MADE DURING THE
CALENDAR YEAR." 

IN VIEW OF THE MAJOR ROLE WHICH THE TAX COURT PLAYS IN FEDERAL TAX
LITIGATION, IT BECOMES IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER HOW THAT COURT DEALT WITH
THIS PROBLEM.  FUSING, AS IT WERE, SECS. 501 AND 503, THE TAX COURT
READ THEM AS NOT BEING LIMITED BY ANY COMMON LAW TECHNICAL NOTIONS
ABOUT "CONSIDERATION."  AND SO, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT MARRIAGE WAS OF
COURSE A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION TO SUPPORT A CONTRACT, THE TAX COURT
DID NOT DEEM MARRIAGE TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 503 IN THAT IT
WAS NOT A CONSIDERATION REDUCIBLE TO MONEY VALUE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
COURT FOUND THE WHOLE VALUE OF THE STOCK TRANSFERRED TO MRS. MORE
TAXABLE UNDER THE STATUTE AND THE RELEVANT TREAS. REG. 79(1936 ED.) 
ART.  8:  "A CONSIDERATION NOT REDUCIBLE TO A MONEY VALUE, AS LOVE AND
AFFECTION, PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, ETC., IS TO BE WHOLLY DISREGARDED, AND
THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED CONSTITUTES THE AMOUNT OF
THE GIFT."  IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE TAX COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IF
MRS. MORE'S LOSS OF HER TRUST INCOME RATHER THAN THE MARRIAGE WAS
CONSIDERATION FOR THE TAXPAYER'S TRANSFER OF HIS STOCK TO HER, HE IS
NOT RELIEVED FROM THE TAX BECAUSE HE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY MONEY'S WORTH
FROM MRS. MORE'S RELINQUISHMENT OF HER TRUST INCOME, AND, IN ANY EVENT,
THE ACTUAL VALUE OF HER INTEREST IN THE TRUST, SUBJECT TO FLUCTUATIONS
OF ITS STOCK EARNINGS, WAS NOT PROVED.  ONE MEMBER OF THE TAX COURT
DISSENTED, DEEMING THAT THE GIFT TAX LEGISLATION INVOKED ORDINARY
CONTRACT CONCEPTIONS OF "CONSIDERATION." 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED THIS LINE OF REASONING.  IT
FOUND IN THE MARRIAGE AGREEMENT AN ARM'S LENGTH BARGAIN AND AN ABSENCE
OF "DONATIVE INTENT" WHICH IT DEEMED ESSENTIAL: "A DONATIVE INTENT
FOLLOWED BY A DONATIVE ACT IS ESSENTIAL TO CONSTITUTE A GIFT; AND NO
STRAINED AND ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF A SUPPLEMENTARY STATUTE SHOULD
BE INDULGED TO TAX AS A GIFT A TRANSFER ACTUALLY LACKING DONATIVE
INTENT."  144 F.2D 78, 82. 

THEM TO THE SAME PURPOSE, AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED IN
APPLICATION.  HAD CONGRESS TAXED "GIFTS" SIMPLICITER, IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE TO ASSUME THAT THE TERM WAS USED IN ITS COLLOQUIAL SENSE,
AND A SEARCH FOR "DONATIVE INTENT" WOULD BE INDICATED.  BUT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO USE THE TERM "GIFTS" IN ITS BROADEST AND MOST COMPREHENSIVE
SENSE.  H. REP. NO. 708, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 27; S. REP. NO. 665,
72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 39; CF. SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY, 318 U.S. 176;
ROBINETTE V. HELVERING, 318 U.S. 184.  CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO REQUIRE AN
ASCERTAINMENT OF WHAT TOO OFTEN IS AN ELUSIVE STATE OF MIND.  FOR
PURPOSES OF THE GIFT TAX IT NOT ONLY DISPENSED WITH THE TEST OF
"DONATIVE INTENT."  IT FORMULATED A MUCH MORE WORKABLE EXTERNAL TEST,
THAT WHERE "PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED FOR LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH," THE EXCESS IN SUCH MONEY
VALUE "SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE, BE
DEEMED A GIFT  ..."  AND TREASURY REGULATIONS HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT
COMMON LAW CONSIDERATIONS WERE NOT EMBODIED IN THE GIFT TAX.  FN1 

TO REINFORCE THE EVIDENT DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO HIT ALL THE PROTEAN
ARRANGEMENTS WHICH THE WIT OF MAN CAN DEVISE THAT ARE NOT BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ORDINARY SPEECH, THE TREASURY
REGULATIONS MAKE CLEAR THAT NO GENUINE BUSINESS TRANSACTION COMES
WITHIN THE PURPORT OF THE GIFT TAX BY EXCLUDING "A SALE, EXCHANGE, OR
OTHER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS (A
TRANSACTION WHICH IS BONA FIDE, AT ARM'S LENGTH, AND FREE FROM ANY
DONATIVE INTENT)."  TREAS. REG. 79(1936 ED.)  ART.  8.  THUS ON FINDING
THAT A TRANSFER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR CASE IS NOT MADE
IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE TRANSFER BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE
GIFT TAX TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS NOT MADE "FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  SEE 2 PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE
AND GIFT TAXATION (1942) P. 1113. 

THE TAX COURT IN EFFECT FOUND THE TRANSFER OF THE STOCK TO MRS. MORE
WAS NOT MADE AT ARM'S LENGTH IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS.  IT
NOTED THAT THE INDUCEMENT WAS MARRIAGE, TOOK ACCOUNT OF THE DISCREPANCY
BETWEEN WHAT SHE GOT AND WHAT SHE GAVE UP, AND ALSO OF THE BENEFIT THAT
HER MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT BROUGHT TO HER SON.  THESE WERE CONSIDERATIONS
THE TAX COURT COULD JUSTIFIABLY HEED, AND HEEDING, DECIDE AS IT DID. 
ITS CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUE BEFORE IT WAS NO LESS TO BE RESPECTED THAN
WERE THE ISSUES WHICH WE DEEMED IT WAS ENTITLED TO DECIDE AS IT DID IN
DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320
U.S. 467, COMMISSIONER V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN CO., 323 U.S. 119. 

IF WE ARE TO ISOLATE AS AN INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWABLE QUESTION OF LAW
THE VIEW OF THE TAX COURT THAT MONEY CONSIDERATION MUST BENEFIT THE
DONOR TO RELIEVE A TRANSFER BY HIM FROM BEING A GIFT, WE THINK THE TAX
COURT WAS CORRECT.  SEE COMMISSIONER V. BRISTOL, 121 F.2D 129.  TO BE
SURE, THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 DOES NOT SPELL OUT A REQUIREMENT OF
BENEFIT TO THE TRANSFEROR TO AFFORD RELIEF FROM THE GIFT TAX.  ITS
FORERUNNER, SEC. 320 OF THE 1924 ACT, 43 STAT. 253, 314, WAS MORE
EXPLICIT IN THAT IT PROVIDED THAT THE EXCESS OF THE TRANSFER OVER "THE
CONSIDERATION RECEIVED SHALL  ... BE DEEMED A GIFT."  IT WILL HARDLY BE
SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT IN RE-IMPOSING THE GIFT TAX IN 1932 CONGRESS
MEANT TO EXCLUDE TRANSFERS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED UNDER THE 1924
ACT.  THE SECTION TAXING AS GIFTS TRANSFERS THAT ARE NOT MADE FOR
"ADEQUATE AND FULL (MONEY) CONSIDERATION" AIMS TO REACH THOSE TRANSFERS
WHICH ARE WITHDRAWN FROM THE DONOR'S ESTATE.  TO ALLOW DETRIMENT TO THE
DONEE TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF "ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION"
WOULD VIOLATE THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE AND OPEN WIDE THE DOOR FOR
EVASION OF THE GIFT TAX.  SEE 2 PAUL, SUPRA, AT 1114.  REVERSED. 

FN1  TREAS. REG. 79(1936 ED.)  ART.  1:  "IMPOSITION OF TAX.  -  ...
THE TAX IS NOT LIMITED IN ITS IMPOSITION TO TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY
WITHOUT A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, WHICH AT COMMON LAW ARE TREATED AS
GIFTS, BUT EXTENDS TO SALES AND EXCHANGES FOR LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE AND
FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS, AND WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT FOR THE
REASONS GIVEN IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :











MERRILL V. FAHS, 324 U.S. 308 


NO. 126.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 5, 1945.  - 142 F.2D
651, AFFIRMED. 


1.  BY SEC. 503 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY ARE
RELIEVED FROM THE GIFT TAX TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE FOR AN
"ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION."  HELD, IN THE CASE OF A TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO AN ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, THAT THE RELINQUISHMENT
OF MARITAL RIGHTS CAN NOT TO ANY EXTENT CONSTITUTE "ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION."  P. 312. 

2.  PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL GIFT AND ESTATE TAX STATUTES ARE TO BE
CONSTRUED HARMONIOUSLY; AND, WHERE OBVIOUS REASONS DO NOT COMPEL
DIVERGENT TREATMENT, IDENTICAL PHRASES CONCERNING THE SAME SUBJECT
MATTER ARE TO BE GIVEN IDENTICAL CONSTRUCTION.  P. 313. 

MERRILL V. FAHS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 686, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TAXPAYER, 51 F.SUPP.  120, IN A SUIT FOR A
REFUND OF GIFT TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO COMMISSIONER V. WEMYSS, ANTE, P. 303. 

ON MARCH 7, 1939, TAXPAYER, THE PETITIONER, MADE AN ANTENUPTIAL
AGREEMENT WITH KINTA DESMARE.  TAXPAYER, A RESIDENT OF FLORIDA, HAD
BEEN TWICE MARRIED AND HAD THREE CHILDREN AND TWO GRANDCHILDREN.  HE
WAS A MAN OF LARGE RESOURCES, WITH CASH AND SECURITIES WORTH MORE THAN
$5,000,000, AND FLORIDA REAL ESTATE VALUED AT $135,000.  MISS DESMARE'S
ASSETS WERE NEGLIGIBLE.  BY THE ARRANGEMENT ENTERED INTO THE DAY BEFORE
THEIR MARRIAGE, TAXPAYER AGREED TO SET UP WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER
MARRIAGE AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST FOR $300,000, THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH
WERE TO CONFORM TO MISS DESMARE'S WISHES.  THE TAXPAYER WAS ALSO TO
PROVIDE IN HIS WILL FOR TWO ADDITIONAL TRUSTS, ONE, LIKEWISE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $300,000, TO CONTAIN THE SAME LIMITATIONS AS THE INTER VIVOS
TRUST, AND THE OTHER, ALSO IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000, FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THEIR SURVIVING CHILDREN.  IN RETURN MISS DESMARE RELEASED ALL
RIGHTS THAT SHE MIGHT ACQUIRE AS WIFE OR WIDOW IN TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY,
BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL, EXCEPTING THE RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND
SUPPORT.  THE INDUCEMENTS FOR THIS AGREEMENT WERE STATED TO BE THE
CONTEMPLATED MARRIAGE, DESIRE TO MAKE FAIR REQUITAL FOR THE RELEASE OF
MARITAL RIGHTS, FREEDOM FOR THE TAXPAYER TO MAKE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS
FOR HIS CHILDREN AND OTHER DEPENDENTS, THE UNCERTAINTY SURROUNDING HIS
FINANCIAL FUTURE AND MARITAL TRANQUILLITY.  THAT SUCH AN ANTENUPTIAL
AGREEMENT IS ENFORCEABLE IN FLORIDA IS NOT DISPUTED, NORTH V. RINGLING,
149 FLA. 739, 7 SO.2D 476, NOR THAT FLORIDA GIVES A WIFE AN INCHOATE
INTEREST IN ALL THE HUSBAND'S PROPERTY, CONTINGENT DURING HIS LIFE BUT
ABSOLUTE UPON DEATH.  FLORIDA STATUTES (1941) SEC. 731.34; SMITH V.
HINES, 10 FLA. 258; HENDERSON V. USHER, 125 FLA. 709, 170 SO. 846.  THE
PARTIES MARRIED, AND THE AGREEMENT WAS FULLY CARRIED OUT. 

ON THEIR GIFT TAX RETURN FOR 1939, BOTH REPORTED THE CREATION OF THE
TRUST BUT CLAIMED THAT NO TAX WAS DUE.  THE COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER,
DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY OF $99,000 IN TAXPAYER'S RETURN IN RELATION TO
THE TRANSFER OF THE $300,000.  UPON THE COMMISSIONER'S REJECTION OF THE
TAXPAYER'S CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE ASSESSMENT PAID BY HIM, THE PRESENT
SUIT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR WAS FILED.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE
TAXPAYER, 51 F.SUPP.  120, BUT WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  142 F.2D 651.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI IN CONNECTION WITH COMMISSIONER V. WEMYSS, SUPRA,
AND HEARD THE TWO CASES TOGETHER.  323 U.S. 686. 

THIS CASE, UNLIKE THE WEMYSS CASE, DOES NOT COME HERE BY WAY OF THE
TAX COURT.  NO AID CAN THEREFORE BE DRAWN FROM A PRIOR DETERMINATION BY
THE TRIBUNAL SPECIALLY ENTRUSTED WITH TAX ADJUDICATIONS.  (SEE
GRISWOLD, THE NEED FOR A COURT OF TAX APPEALS (1944) 57 HARV. L. REV.
1153, 1173.)  BUT LIKE THE WEMYSS CASE, THIS CASE TURNS ON THE PROPER
APPLICATION OF SEC. 503 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 247,
26 U.S.C. SEC. 1002.  IN THE INTEREST OF CLARITY WE REPRINT IT HERE:
"WHERE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED FOR LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH, THEN THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION SHALL,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE, BE DEEMED A GIFT, AND
SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF GIFTS MADE DURING THE
CALENDAR YEAR."  TAXPAYER CLAIMS THAT MISS DESMARE'S RELINQUISHMENT OF
HER MARITAL RIGHTS CONSTITUTED "ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN
MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  THE COLLECTOR, RELYING ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A LIKE PHRASE IN THE ESTATE TAX, CONTENDS THAT RELEASE OF MARITAL
RIGHTS DOES NOT FURNISH SUCH "ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION." 

WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE ARGUMENT THAT IN ANY EVENT MISS DESMARE'S
CONTINGENT INTEREST IN HER HUSBAND'S PROPERTY HAD TOO MANY VARIABLES TO
BE REDUCIBLE TO DOLLARS AND CENTS, AND THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO TRANSLATE IT
INTO "MONEY'S WORTH" WAS "MERE SPECULATION BEARING THE DELUSIVE
APPEARANCE OF ACCURACY."  HUMES V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 487, 494. 
WE SHALL GO AT ONCE TO THE MAIN ISSUE. 

THE GUIDING LIGHT IS WHAT WAS SAID IN ESTATE OF SANFORD V.
COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 39, 44:  "THE GIFT TAX WAS SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE
ESTATE TAX.  THE TWO ARE IN PARI MATERIA AND MUST BE CONSTRUED
TOGETHER."  THE PHRASE ON THE MEANING OF WHICH DECISION MUST LARGELY
TURN - THAT IS, TRANSFERS FOR OTHER THAN "AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH" - CAME INTO THE GIFT TAX BY
WAY OF ESTATE TAX PROVISIONS.  IT FIRST APPEARED IN THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926.  SECTION 303(A)(1) OF THAT ACT, 44 STAT. 9, 72, ALLOWED
DEDUCTIONS FROM THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE
ESTATE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WERE BONA FIDE AND INCURRED "FOR AN
ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LANGUAGE OF PREVIOUS ACTS WHICH MADE THE
TEST "FAIR CONSIDERATION" WAS THUS CHANGED AFTER COURTS HAD GIVEN "FAIR
CONSIDERATION" AN EXPANSIVE CONSTRUCTION. 

THE FIRST MODERN ESTATE TAX LAW HAD INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE
TRANSFERS IN CONTEMPLATION OF, OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION
OR ENJOYMENT AT, DEATH, EXCEPT "A BONA FIDE SALE FOR A FAIR
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  SEC. 202(B), REVENUE ACT OF
1916, 39 STAT. 756, 777.  DOWER RIGHTS AND OTHER MARITAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS WERE INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE, SINCE THEY
WERE CONSIDERED MERELY AN EXPECTATION, AND IN 1918 CONGRESS
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED THEM.  SEC. 402(B), 40 STAT. 1057, 1097.  THIS
PROVISION WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING THE EXISTING LAW.  H. REP.
NO. 767, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 21.  IN 1924 CONGRESS LIMITED
DEDUCTIBLE CLAIMS AGAINST AN ESTATE TO THOSE SUPPORTED BY "A FAIR
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH," SEC. 303(A)(1), 43 STAT. 253,
305, EMPLOYING THE SAME STANDARD APPLIED TO TRANSFERS IN CONTEMPLATION
OF DEATH, H. REP. NO. 179, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 28, 66.  SIMILAR
LANGUAGE WAS USED IN THE GIFT TAX, FIRST IMPOSED BY THE 1924 ACT, BY
PROVIDING, "WHERE PROPERTY IS SOLD OR EXCHANGED FOR LESS THAN A FAIR
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH" THE EXCESS SHALL BE DEEMED A
GIFT.  SEC. 320, 43 STAT. 253, 314. 

THE TWO TYPES OF TAX THUS FOLLOWED A SIMILAR COURSE, LIKE PROBLEMS
AND PURPOSES BEING EXPRESSED IN LIKE LANGUAGE.  IN THIS SITUATION,
COURTS HELD THAT "FAIR CONSIDERATION" INCLUDED RELINQUISHMENT OF DOWER
RIGHTS.  FERGUSON V. DICKSON, 300 F. 961; AND SEE MCCAUGHN V. CARVER,
19 F.2D 126; STUBBLEFIELD V. UNITED STATES, 6 F.SUPP.  440.  CONGRESS
WAS THUS LED, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, TO SUBSTITUTE IN THE 1926 REVENUE
ACT, THE WORDS "ADEQUATE AND FUL CONSIDERATION" IN ORDER TO NARROW THE
SCOPE OF TAX EXEMPTIONS.  SEE TAFT V. COMMISSIONER, 304 U.S. 351, 356. 
WHEN THE GIFT TAX WAS RE-ENACTED IN THE 1932 REVENUE ACT, THE
RESTRICTIVE PHRASE "ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION" AS FOUND IN THE
ESTATE TAX WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE DRAFTSMAN. 

TO BE SURE, IN THE 1932 ACT CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT
RELINQUISHMENT OF MARITAL RIGHTS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ESTATE TAX SHALL
NOT CONSTITUTE "CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  THE
COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS REPORTED THAT IF THE VALUE OF RELINQUISHED
MARITAL INTERESTS 'MAY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, CONSTITUTE A CONSIDERATION
FOR AN OTHERWISE TAXABLE TRANSFER (AS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE SO), OR AN
OTHERWISE UNALLOWABLE DEDUCTION FROM THE GROSS ESTATE, THE EFFECT
PRODUCED AMOUNTS TO A SUBVERSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT  ..."  H.
REP. NO. 708, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 47; S. REP. NO. 665, 72D CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 50.  PLAINLY, THE EXPLICITNESS WAS ONE OF CAUTIOUS
REDUNDANCY TO PREVENT "SUBVERSION OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT."  WITHOUT
THIS SPECIFIC PROVISION, CONGRESS UNDOUBTEDLY INTENDED THE REQUIREMENT
OF "ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION" TO EXCLUDE RELINQUISHMENT OF DOWER
AND OTHER MARITAL RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE ESTATE TAX.  COMMISSIONER
V. BRISTOL, 121 F.2D 129; SHEETS V. COMMISSIONER, 95 F.2D 727. 

WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS EVERY REASON FOR GIVING THE SAME WORDS IN
THE GIFT TAX THE SAME READING.  CORRELATION OF THE GIFT TAX AND THE
ESTATE TAX STILL REQUIRES LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION.  COMMISSIONER V.
PROUTY, 115 F.2D 331, 337; WARREN, CORRELATION OF GIFT AND ESTATE TAXES
(1941) 55 HARV. L. REV. 1; GRISWOLD, A PLAN FOR THE COORDINATION OF THE
INCOME, ESTATE AND GIFT TAX PROVISIONS (1942) 56 HARV. L. REV. 337. 
BUT TO INTERPRET THE SAME PHRASES IN THE TWO TAXES CONCERNING THE SAME
SUBJECT MATTER IN DIFFERENT WAYS WHERE OBVIOUS REASONS DO NOT COMPEL
DIVERGENT TREATMENT IS TO INTRODUCE ANOTHER AND NEEDLESS COMPLEXITY
INTO THIS ALREADY IRKSOME SITUATION.  HERE STRONG REASONS URGE
IDENTICAL CONSTRUCTION.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD ENCOURAGE TAX
AVOIDANCE.  COMMISSIONER V. BRISTOL, SUPRA AT 136; 2 PAUL, ESTATE AND
GIFT TAXATION (1942) P. 1118.  AND IT WOULD NOT FULFILL THE PURPOSE OF
THE GIFT TAX IN DISCOURAGING FAMILY SETTLEMENTS SO AS TO AVOID HIGH
INCOME SURTAXES.  H. REP. NO. 708, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 28; S. REP.
NO. 665, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 40.  THERE IS THUS EVERY REASON IN
THIS CASE TO CONSTRUE THE PROVISIONS OF BOTH TAXES HARMONIOUSLY. 
ESTATE OF SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  FN1 AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TREASURY REGULATIONS 79(1936 ED.)  ART.  8 IS INAPPLICABLE.  TO
FIND THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS "MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS"
IS TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE TREASURY A STRANGE USE OF ENGLISH. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE DIFFERS FROM COMMISSIONER V. WEMYSS, ANTE, P. 303.  WHETHER
THE TRANSFEROR OF THE SUMS PAID FOR THE RELEASE OF DOWER AND OTHER
MARITAL RIGHTS, RECEIVED ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY AND
MONEY'S WORTH IS A QUESTION OF FACT.  THE AGREEMENT RECITES THAT THE
PARTIES CONTEMPLATE MARRIAGE AND PROVIDES THAT THE TRUST SHALL BE SET
UP ONLY IN THE EVENT OF AND FOLLOWING THE MARRIAGE.  PETITIONER WAS
OBLIGATED TO CREATE THE TRUST UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE RELINQUISHMENT
OF MARITAL RIGHTS AND DID SO, AND HENCE THIS IS NOT A CASE INVOLVING
MARRIAGE ALONE AS CONSIDERATION.  THROUGH THE TABLES OF MORTALITY, THE
VALUE OF A SURVIVOR'S RIGHT IN A FIXED SUM RECEIVABLE AT THE DEATH OF A
SECOND PARTY MAY BE ADEQUATELY CALCULATED.  BY ADOPTING PRESENT VALUE
AS THE ACCEPTED FUTURE VALUE, THE UNCERTAINTY INHERENT IN FLUCTUATIONS
OF AN ESTATE'S VALUE IS THEORETICALLY ELIMINATED.  THE TRIAL COURT THUS
FOUND THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE RELEASE OF THE TAXPAYER'S ESTATE FROM
THE WIFE'S SURVIVORSHIP RIGHTS LARGELY EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE
TAXPAYER AND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES WERE MADE IN
GOOD FAITH FOR BUSINESS REASONS AND NOT AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR AVOID
TAXES.  THUS THE DISTRICT COURT FINDINGS BRING THIS TRANSACTION WITHIN
THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF THE APPLICABLE TREASURY REGULATION.  FN1
MERRILL V. FAHS, 51 F.SUPP.  120.  ITS DETERMINATION, WE THINK, ALSO
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE HUSBAND'S ESTATE RECEIVED PRACTICAL ADVANTAGES
OF VALUE IN EXCESS OF THE COST PAID.  SEE HENDERSON V. USHER, 125 FLA.
709, 727, 170 SO. 846. 

THE QUESTION OF THE TAXABILITY AS GIFTS OF TRANSFERS TO SPOUSES IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEASE OF MARITAL RIGHTS HAD BEEN A MATTER OF
DISPUTE IN COURTS BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC.
503, 47 STAT. 169, 247.  FN2  CONGRESS IN THE 1932 ACT, SEC. 804,
DECLARED THAT A TRANSFER OF MARITAL RIGHTS SHOULD NOT BE "CONSIDERATION
IN 'MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH'" UNDER THE ESTATE TAX PROVISIONS.  THUS
CONGRESS PUT BEYOND ANY QUESTION THE LIABILITY OF TRANSFERORS FOR
ESTATE TAXES WHERE MARITAL RIGHTS WERE THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE
TRANSFER.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE SAME 1932 REVENUE ACT THE LANGUAGE
OF THE GIFT TAX SECTION, SEC. 503, DID NOT HAVE A PROVISION FORBIDDING
THE VALUATION OF MARITAL RIGHTS.  CONSEQUENTLY, SEC. 503 AS INTERPRETED
BY REGULATIONS 79, ART. 8, PERMITS THE TREATMENT OF THE RELINQUISHMENT
OF SUCH RIGHTS, NOT DONATIVE IN INTENT OR EFFECT, AS "MONEY'S WORTH"
CONSIDERATION FOR PROPERTY TRANSFERRED.  IT SEEMS TO US CLEAR THAT WITH
THE JUDICIAL HISTORY OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES AS TO
THE TRANSFER OF MARITAL RIGHTS, WHEN CONGRESS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT
RELINQUISHMENT OF DOWER, CURTESY OR OTHER STATUTORY ESTATE WAS NOT
"CONSIDERATION" FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES AND LEFT THE GIFT TAX PROVISION
WITHOUT SUCH A LIMITATION, IT INTENDED THAT THESE RIGHTS BE ACCORDED A
DIFFERENT TREATMENT UNDER THESE SECTIONS.  THIS HAS BEEN THE
DETERMINATION OF THE TAX COURT.  FN3 

IN OUR VIEW THIS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  TREASURY REGULATIONS 79(1936 ED.): 

"ART. 8.  TRANSFERS FOR A CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  -
TRANSFERS REACHED BY THE STATUTE ARE NOT CONFINED TO THOSE ONLY WHICH,
BEING WITHOUT A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, ACCORD WITH THE COMMON LAW
CONCEPT OF GIFTS, BUT EMBRACE AS WELL SALES, EXCHANGES, AND OTHER
DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE DONOR
EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN THEREFOR.  HOWEVER, A
SALE, EXCHANGE, OR OTHER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY MADE IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF BUSINESS (A TRANSACTION WHICH IS BONA FIDE, AT ARM'S LENGTH,
AND FREE FROM ANY DONATIVE INTENT), WILL BE CONSIDERED AS MADE FOR AN
ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  A
CONSIDERATION NOT REDUCIBLE TO A MONEY VALUE, AS LOVE AND AFFECTION,
PROMISE OF MARRIAGE, ETC., IS TO BE WHOLLY DISREGARDED, AND THE ENTIRE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED CONSTITUTES THE AMOUNT OF THE GIFT." 

FN2  FERGUSON V. DICKSON, 300 F. 961; MCCAUGHN V. CARVER, 19 F.2D
126; STUBBLEFIELD V. UNITED STATES, 79 CT. CLS. 268, 6 F.SUPP.  440. 

FN3  BRISTOL V. COMMISSIONER, 42 B.T.A. 263; JONES V. COMMISSIONER, 1
T.C. 1207; WEMYSS V. COMMISSIONER, 2 T.C. 876, 881. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :


















DRUMMOND V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 316 


NO. 520.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 8, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 5, 1945.  - 144
F.2D 375, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE RESTRICTIONS ON INDIAN
LANDS IS NOT BARRED BY A PRIOR JUDGMENT IN PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE
UNITED STATES WAS NOT FORMALLY A PARTY, BUT IN WHICH THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR HAD AUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT AND APPROVED THE FEES OF COUNSEL
FOR THE INDIAN.  P. 317. 

2.  A MORTGAGE OF LANDS INHERITED FROM AN OSAGE ALLOTTEE, GIVEN BY
THE HEIR PRIOR TO THE STATE COURT DECREE ADJUDGING HEIRSHIP, WAS
INVALID UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 18, 1912, EVEN THOUGH THE HEIR
HAD A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE
MORTGAGE.  P. 318. 

3.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 18, 1912, LANDS
INHERITED FROM AN OSAGE ALLOTTEE, THOUGH AN INCOMPETENT, ARE "TURNED
OVER" TO THE HEIR WHEN THE PROBATE COURT DECREES HEIRSHIP.  P. 319. 

DRUMMOND V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 699, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY IT TO CANCEL A MORTGAGE
AND TO QUIET TITLE TO LANDS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MAMIE FLETCHER PITTS, A FULL-BLOOD OSAGE INDIAN, DIED ON MAY 24,
1937, LEAVING LAND ALLOTTED TO HER AS A MEMBER OF HER TRIBE.  HER
HUSBAND, GEORGE PITTS, ALSO A FULLBLOOD OSAGE, WAS APPOINTED
ADMINISTRATOR OF HER ESTATE IN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS IN AN OKLAHOMA
COURT.  HIS CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY WHICH HAD BEEN GRANTED HIM IN
1910, SEC. 2, SEVENTH, ACT OF JUNE 28, 1906, 34 STAT. 539, 542, WAS
REVOKED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON JUNE 24, 1938.  ON
SEPTEMBER 9, 1938, HE WAS ADJUDGED TO BE THE SOLE HEIR BY THE OKLAHOMA
COURT, WHICH ENTERED AN ORDER DIRECTING DISTRIBUTION OF MAMIE'S ESTATE
TO HIM.  PRIOR TO THAT ORDER, HOWEVER, ON JULY 12, 1937, PITTS HAD
EXECUTED A MORTGAGE OF HIS WIFE'S LAND TO DRUMMOND, THE PETITIONER, TO
SECURE A CONTEMPORANEOUS PROMISSORY NOTE.  IT IS THE VALIDITY OF THIS
MORTGAGE, UNDER THE RELEVANT INDIAN LEGISLATION, WHICH IS IN
CONTROVERSY. 

PETITIONER IN 1939 INSTITUTED A SUIT AGAINST PITTS IN THE STATE COURT
TO RECOVER JUDGMENT ON THE NOTE AND TO FORECLOSE THE MORTGAGE.  IN THAT
LITIGATION PITTS, ASSERTING THE INVALIDITY OF THE MORTGAGE, WAS
REPRESENTED BY A PRIVATE ATTORNEY.  FORECLOSURE WAS DECREED, AND THIS
WAS UPHELD IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.  PITTS V. DRUMMOND, 189
OKLA. 574, 118 P.2D 244.  FN1  THEREAFTER, THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT
THE PRESENT ACTION IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND ON BEHALF OF PITTS TO CANCEL
THE MORTGAGE AND TO QUIET TITLE.  THE PETITIONER SUCCEEDED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, BUT THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.  144 F.2D 375.  THE CONFLICT IN RESULT
BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE OKLAHOMA
SUPREME COURT LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 699. 

A CLAIM OF RES JUDICATA MEETS US AT THE OUTSET.  PETITIONER CONTENDS
THAT THE ADJUDICATION IN PITTS V. DRUMMOND, SUPRA, BINDS THE UNITED
STATES.  TO ESCAPE FROM THE RULE THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT
PRECLUDED FROM ENFORCING RESTRICTIONS ON INDIAN LANDS BY ANY PRIOR
JUDGMENT IN PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH IT WAS A STRANGER, BOWLING V. UNITED
STATES, 233 U.S. 528, 534-535; UNITED STATES V. HELLARD, 322 U.S. 363,
366; AND SEE COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW (1941) 369,
PETITIONER RELIES ON THE AUTHORIZATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF PITTS' ATTORNEY AND THE APPROVAL OF THE LATTER'S
FEE.  IF THE UNITED STATES IN FACT EMPLOYS COUNSEL TO REPRESENT ITS
INTEREST IN A LITIGATION OR OTHERWISE ACTIVELY AIDS IN ITS CONDUCT, IT
IS PROPERLY ENOUGH DEEMED TO BE A PARTY AND NOT A STRANGER TO THE
LITIGATION AND BOUND BY ITS RESULTS.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V.
CANDELARIA, 271 U.S. 432; 16 F.2D 559, WITH LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 58
F.2D 697.  BUT TO BIND THE UNITED STATES WHEN IT IS NOT FORMALLY A
PARTY, IT MUST HAVE A LABORING OAR IN A CONTROVERSY.  THIS IS NOT TO BE
INFERRED MERELY BECAUSE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ENABLES AN
INCOMPETENT INDIAN TO PROTECT HIS INTERESTS. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY - THE VALIDITY OF THE
MORTGAGE GIVEN BY PITTS AS SECURITY FOR A LOAN BEFORE THE OKLAHOMA
COURT ADJUDGED HIM TO BE HIS WIFE'S HEIR.  THE DECISION TURNS ON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT OF APRIL 18, 1912, AND MORE PARTICULARLY ON
SECS. 6 AND 7, 37 STAT. 86.  SECTION 6, SO FAR AS HERE RELEVANT,
REMOVES RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION OF LAND INHERITED BY HEIRS WHO HAVE
CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY OR WHO ARE NOT TRIBAL MEMBERS.  AFTER
PROVIDING THAT ALLOTMENT LANDS OR FUNDS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE OR
SUBJECTED TO ANY CLAIM ARISING PRIOR TO THE GRANTING OF A CERTIFICATE
OF COMPETENCY, SEC. 7 CONTINUES:  "THAT NO LANDS OR MONEYS INHERITED
FROM OSAGE ALLOTTEES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO OR BE TAKEN OR SOLD TO SECURE
THE PAYMENT OF ANY INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED BY SUCH HEIR PRIOR TO THE TIME
SUCH LANDS AND MONEYS ARE TURNED OVER TO SUCH HEIRS."  THESE PROVISIONS
HAVE THE CHARACTERISTIC INFELICITY OF DRAFTSMANSHIP IN INDIAN
LEGISLATION WHICH IS SUCH A FERTILE BREEDER OF WASTEFUL LITIGATION. 
BUT THE LANGUAGE, TOGETHER WITH THE LIGHT SHED BY THE RELEVANT SENATE
REPORT, MAKES THE MEANING CLEAR ENOUGH. 

SINCE PITTS INCURRED THE DEBT TO PETITIONER BEFORE THE PROBATE COURT
ADJUDGED HIM TO BE THE HEIR, THE TRANSACTION COMES CLEARLY WITHIN THE
INVALIDATION OF SEC. 7.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT EVEN THOUGH PITTS
INCURRED THE DEBT TO HIM BEFORE THE PROBATE COURT DECREED HEIRSHIP,
POWER TO MORTGAGE THE LAND IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 6 WHICH REMOVED
RESTRICTIONS ON LAND INHERITED BY AN HEIR HAVING A CERTIFICATE OF
COMPETENCY WHICH PITTS DID HAVE AT THE TIME OF THE MORTGAGE
TRANSACTION.  BUT THIS RESULT WOULD RENDER MEANINGLESS THE SENTENCE WE
HAVE QUOTED FROM SEC. 7 AND DISREGARD THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 7 AS
AUTHORITATIVELY STATED IN THE SENATE REPORT PROPOSING THE LEGISLATION. 
THE OBJECT OF SEC. 7, ACCORDING TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE, WAS THAT "NO
LAND OR MONEY INHERITED SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ANY PRIOR INDEBTEDNESS." 
S. REP. NO. 127, 62D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.  SINCE THE SENTENCE
DEALING WITH THE INVALIDATION IS PRECEDED BY ONE WHICH GIVES FULL
PROTECTION AGAINST DEBTS INCURRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY, THE SECOND SENTENCE WOULD HAVE NO FUNCTION
WHATEVER UNLESS IT BE CONSTRUED TO RENDER UNENFORCEABLE ANY CLAIMS
AGAINST INHERITED PROPERTY ARISING AT ANY TIME BEFORE IT WAS "TURNED
OVER" TO AN HEIR.  AND THIS BRINGS US TO THE FINAL ARGUMENT. 

IT IS URGED THAT SEC. 7 IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE MAMIE'S LAND WAS
NEVER "TURNED OVER" TO PITTS BUT CAME TO HIM AUTOMATICALLY ON THE DEATH
OF HIS WIFE.  THE BASIS OF THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT, INASMUCH AS MAMIE WAS
AN INCOMPETENT, HER ESTATE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CLAIMS AGAINST HER
AND THEREFORE NECESSARILY WOULD COME TO HER HEIR UNBURDENED.  BUT SEC.
7, IN SPEAKING OF TURNING OVER LANDS TO AN HEIR, WAS SURELY NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE MYSTERIES OF SEISIN.  IT DEALT WITH THE
PRACTICALITIES OF ASCERTAINING OWNERSHIP THROUGH INHERITANCE BY
APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS.  TO THAT END SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF 1912
CONFERRED PROBATE JURISDICTION UPON THE STATE COURTS.  IN RE THOMPSON'S
ESTATE, 179 OKLA. 240, 65 P.2D 442.  THE STATUTE, THAT IS, HAD IN MIND
THE JUDICIAL PROCESS OF ASCERTAINING THE HEIR AND THE COMPLETION OF
THAT PROCESS BY COURT ACTION WHEREBY THE LAND WAS "TURNED OVER" TO THE
ASCERTAINED HEIR.  AND SO HERE, WHEN THE OKLAHOMA COURT DECREED THAT
PITTS WAS MAMIE'S HEIR, THE LAND IN THE SENSIBLE USE OF THE PHRASE
"TURNED OVER" WAS TURNED OVER TO PITTS. 

OTHER ARGUMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN OVERLOOKED BUT THEY NEED NOT BE
SEPARATELY CONSIDERED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TO COMPLETE THE HISTORY OF THIS LITIGATION WE NOTE THAT
CERTIORARI WAS DENIED, 315 U.S. 814. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 
..END :





















DOW CO. V. HALLIBURTON CO., 324 U.S. 320 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1945.  - DECIDED MARCH 5, 1945.  - 139 F.2D 473,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF A PATENT, THIS COURT WILL DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY THE
FACTUAL ISSUE OF VALIDITY.  P. 322. 

2.  GREBE AND SANFORD PATENT NO. 1,877,504, CLAIMS 1, 5, 7, 8 AND 9,
FOR A METHOD OF TREATING DEEP WELLS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION, HELD
INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  PP. 324, 331. 

IN THE DESCRIBED PROCESS THERE WAS NO PATENTABLE INVENTION IN ANY OF
THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS OR ANY COMBINATION THEREOF:  (1) ADDITION OF AN
INHIBITING AGENT TO THE HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION TO PREVENT
CORROSION; (2) USE OF A DILUTE RATHER THAN A CONCENTRATED HYDROCHLORIC
ACID SOLUTION; (3) USE OF THE ORDINARY PUMP TUBE INSTEAD OF A SPECIALLY
PROTECTED SUPPLY PIPE TO INTRODUCE THE ACID INTO THE WELL. 

3.  THE APPLICATION OF AN OLD PROCESS TO A NEW AND ANALOGOUS USE
LACKS THE VERY ESSENCE OF AN INVENTION.  P. 327. 

4.  THE MERE ADDITION OF WATER TO DILUTE A KNOWN CHEMICAL SOLUTION
DOES NOT ENTITLE ONE TO A PATENT MONOPOLY, AT LEAST UNLESS A DEFINITE
DILUTION POINT OR RANGE IS DISCOVERED CORRESPONDING TO A PHYSICAL
PHENOMENON.  P. 329. 

5.  THE MERE SUBSTITUTION OF EQUIVALENTS WHICH DO SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME THING IN THE SAME WAY, EVEN THOUGH BETTER RESULTS MAY BE PRODUCED,
IS NOT SUCH AN INVENTION AS WILL SUSTAIN A PATENT.  P. 330. 

6.  THAT A CLAIMED INVENTION FILLED A LONG FELT WANT AND HAS BEEN A
COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS RELEVANT ONLY WHEN THE QUESTION OF INVENTION IS
OTHERWISE IN DOUBT.  P. 330. 

DOW CHEMICAL CO. V. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. 

NO. 50.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 61, HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. V. DOW
CHEMICAL CO., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 719, ON CROSS-PETITIONS BY A PATENT OWNER
(PETITIONER IN NO. 50) AND AN ALLEGED INFRINGER (CROSS-PETITIONER IN
NO. 61), TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE HOLDING INVALID CERTAIN
CLAIMS OF A PATENT AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT FOR
INFRINGEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN ISSUE HERE IS THE VALIDITY OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 1,877,504,
RELATING TO "THE TREATMENT OF DEEP WELLS, SUCH AS OIL, GAS, BRINE OR
WATER WELLS, TO INCREASE THE OUTPUT THEREFROM," ISSUED TO JOHN J. GREBE
AND ROSS T. SANFORD ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1932. 

PETITIONER, THE OWNER OF THE PATENT, BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST
RESPONDENT FOR ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT.  BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN AND THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HELD THE PATENT INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION AND DENIED RELIEF.  139
F.2D 473.  PREVIOUSLY THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN REVERSING
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OKLAHOMA, HAD HELD THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY
PETITIONER AGAINST ANOTHER PARTY.  DOW CHEMICAL CO. V. WILLIAMS BROS.
WELL TREATING CORP., 81 F.2D 495, CERT. DENIED, 298 U.S. 690.  THE
CONFLICTING VIEWS OF THE APPELLATE COURTS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF
THE SAME PATENT LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE, 322 U.S. 719,
AND OBLIGE US TO DECIDE INDEPENDENTLY THE FACTUAL ISSUE OF VALIDITY. 
UNIVERSAL OIL CO. V. GLOBE CO., 322 U.S. 471, 473. 

THE STATED OBJECT OF THE GREBE-SANFORD PATENT IS "TO COUNTERACT SOME
PREVENTABLE NATURAL CAUSES FOR THE DECLINE OF YIELD OF A WELL" WHERE
THE WELL HAS BEEN DRILLED INTO A LIMESTONE OR OTHER CALCAREOUS
FORMATION.  AS OIL IS PUMPED FROM A WELL, THE UNDERGROUND FLOW TO THE
WELL DECREASES AND THE YIELD DECLINES UNTIL PUMPING IS NO LONGER
PROFITABLE.  YET IT IS KNOWN THAT WHEN THAT POINT IS REACHED THERE
OFTEN REMAINS EMBEDDED IN THE ROCK FORMATION A GREAT DEAL OF OIL
UNRECOVERABLE BY ORDINARY PROCESSES.  MANY METHODS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED
TO RECOVER THIS HIDDEN OIL.  THE FORCING OF WATER OR GAS INTO THE ROCK
FORMATION, THE HEATING OF THE SURROUNDING ROCK AND THE USE OF
EXPLOSIVES HAVE ALL BEEN PROPOSED BUT FOUND WANTING IN ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER. 

EVENTUALLY, HOWEVER, THE IDEA WAS CONCEIVED OF USING ACID TO DISSOLVE
THE LIMESTONE, THUS OPENING CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH THE OIL COULD FLOW
INTO THE WELL.  THIS IDEA FIRST APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN
UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 556,669, ISSUED ON MARCH 17, 1896, TO HERMAN
FRASCH, WITH A HALF INTEREST BEING ASSIGNED TO JOHN W. VAN DYKE.  THE
ESSENCE OF THIS PATENT WAS THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE OIL WELL OF A
LARGE SOLUTION OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID UNDER PRESSURE, WITH FRESH WATER
BEING ADDED LATER TO FORCE THE ACID FURTHER INTO THE LIMESTONE.  FRASCH
RECOMMENDED THE USE OF COMMERCIAL HYDROCHLORIC ACID CONTAINING FROM 30%
TO 40% BY WEIGHT OF THE ACID GAS HCL; HE FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT THE
ACID REMAIN IN THE WELL FOR TWELVE HOURS.  A SUITABLY ARRANGED PACKER
WAS TO BE USED TO CONFINE THE ACID TO THE LOWER OR OIL-YIELDING PORTION
OF THE WELL HOLE. 

FRASCH ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THE HYDROCHLORIC ACID WAS LIKELY TO
CORRODE THE METAL WELL EQUIPMENT.  HENCE THE PATENT SUGGESTED THAT THE
REGULAR WELL TUBING BE REMOVED AND THAT AN ENAMELED OR LEAD-LINED PIPE
BE INSERTED TO CONDUCT THE ACID DOWN INTO THE WELL, "OR IT MAY BE
OTHERWISE MADE PROOF AGAINST CORROSION."  AN ADDITIONAL SUGGESTION WAS
THAT AN ALKALINE LIQUID BE INTRODUCED TO NEUTRALIZE THE ACID AFTER IT
HAD PERFORMED ITS FUNCTION. 

FRASCH'S METHOD PROVED SUCCESSFUL IN DISINTEGRATING LIMESTONE ROCK
AND INCREASING THE FLOW OF OIL.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AT LEAST
FOURTEEN COMMERCIAL WELLS NEAR LIMA, OHIO, WERE TREATED WITH THIS
PROCESS IN 1895 AND 1896, RESULTING IN SUBSTANTIAL PRODUCTION INCREASES
IN MOST INSTANCES.  WIDE PUBLICITY WAS GIVEN TO THESE OPERATIONS.  BUT
DESPITE THIS SUCCESS, FRASCH AND VAN DYKE SOON DISCONTINUED THEIR WORK
ALONG THESE LINES.  THE REASONS FOR THIS ABANDONMENT ARE NOT CLEARLY
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  RESPONDENT SUGGESTS PERSONAL REASONS ON THE
PART OF FRASCH AND VAN DYKE AND CLAIMS THAT THE RELATIVELY UNDEVELOPED
OIL INDUSTRY AT THAT TIME HAD LITTLE USE FOR SUCH AN INVENTION. 
PETITIONER, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT FRASCH'S METHOD WAS SO CUMBERSOME
AND EXPENSIVE THAT IT WAS COMMERCIALLY IMPRACTICABLE; FN1  SUCH IS ALSO
THE REASON ADVANCED BY THE COURT IN THE WILLIAMS BROS. CASE, 81 F.2D AT
496. 

WHATEVER THE REASON FOR THE FAILURE OF THE FRASCH METHOD TO ACHIEVE
WIDE-SPREAD USE, THE GREBE-SANFORD PATENT IN ISSUE CLAIMS TO BE AN
IMPROVED METHOD OF TREATING WELLS WITH A HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION. 
THE PATENT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZES THE FRASCH TREATMENT BUT STATES THAT IT
WAS NEVER GENERALLY ADOPTED "DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ACID ATTACKS THE
METALLIC CASING, PUMP TUBE, ETC. ABOUT AS ACTIVELY AS THE ROCK, AND
CAUSES SERIOUS DAMAGE THERETO."  TO MEET THIS ALLEGED DEFECT, THE GREBE
SANFORD PATENT PROPOSES THE USE OF A HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION
CONTAINING "A SMALL AMOUNT OF A SUBSTANCE CAPABLE OF INHIBITING ATTACK
OF THE ACID UPON METAL SURFACES  ...  WITH WHICH IT COMES IN CONTACT." 
THE PREFERRED INHIBITING AGENT IS ONE OF SEVERAL SPECIFIED ARSENIC
COMPOUNDS, TO BE ADDED IN THE AMOUNT OF FROM 1% TO 5% OF THE WEIGHT OF
THE SOLUTION.  NUMEROUS OTHER INHIBITORS ARE ALSO SUGGESTED.  THE
PATENT FURTHER STATES THAT "THE STRENGTH OF THE AQUEOUS HYDROCHLORIC
ACID SOLUTION, IN GENERAL BEST ADAPTED TO THE PURPOSE IN HAND, MAY BE
BETWEEN ABOUT 5 PER CENT AND ABOUT 20 PER CENT, AND PREFERABLY SHOULD
BE BETWEEN 10 AND 15 PER CENT ALTHOUGH OTHER CONCENTRATIONS MAY BE
USED, IF DESIRED."  CLAIM 8(CLAIMS 1, 5, 7, 8 AND 9 ARE IN ISSUE) BEST
SUMS UP THE PREFERRED FORM OF THE GREBE-SANFORD PROCESS: 

"THE METHOD FOR INCREASING THE OUTPUT OF AN OIL WELL WHICH COMPRISES
CHARGING INTO THE PUMP TUBE A QUANTITY OF A 5 TO 20 PER CENT
HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION CONTAINING A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF A
CORROSION INHIBITOR, EXPELLING THE ACID FROM THE TUBE INTO THE BORE OF
THE WELL BY APPLYING PRESSURE THEREON, PERMITTING THE ACID TO ACT UPON
THE ROCK FORMATION SURROUNDING THE WELL CAVITY AND WITHDRAWING THE
SPENT ACID." 

THE PARTIES DIFFER AS TO THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THE ALLEGED PATENTABLE
IMPROVEMENT OVER THE FRASCH METHOD OF ACIDIZING WELLS.  RESPONDENT
URGES, AND THE TWO COURTS BELOW HELD, THAT THE SOLE OBJECT OF THE GREBE
SANFORD PROCESS IS SIMPLY TO PROTECT THE WELL EQUIPMENT FROM CORROSION
BY ADDING AN INHIBITING AGENT TO THE HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION.  FN2
PETITIONER HAS CONSISTENTLY CLAIMED, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE PATENT
SPECIFIES THREE NOVEL POINTS WHICH ELEVATE THE DESCRIBED PROCESS TO THE
LEVEL OF AN INVENTION:  (1) THE ADDITION OF AN INHIBITING AGENT TO THE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION TO PREVENT CORROSION; (2) THE USE OF A
DILUTE RATHER THAN A CONCENTRATED HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION; AND (3)
THE USE OF THE ORDINARY PUMP TUBE INSTEAD OF A SPECIALLY PROTECTED
SUPPLY PIPE TO INTRODUCE THE ACID INTO THE WELL.  ASSUMING WITHOUT
DECIDING THAT PETITIONER'S VERSION OF THE ALLEGED IMPROVEMENT IS
CORRECT, HOWEVER, WE HOLD THAT NO ONE OF THESE THREE CLAIMS AND NO
COMBINATION THEREOF EVIDENCES THAT DEGREE OF SKILL AND INGENUITY WHICH
CONSTITUTES THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF A TRUE INVENTION. 

(1)  THE ADDITION OF AN INHIBITING AGENT.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE GREBE
SANFORD SUGGESTION THAT AN INHIBITING AGENT, PREFERABLY AN ARSENIC
COMPOUND, BE ADDED TO THE HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION PRESENTS NO
PATENTABLE ADVANCE OVER THE PRIOR ART. PETITIONER MAKES NO CLAIM THAT
THE INHIBITING AGENT IN ANY WAY AFFECTS THE CHEMICAL ACTION OF THE ACID
ON THE LIMESTONE ROCK; IT STATES MERELY THAT THE INHIBITOR ACTS SO AS
TO PREVENT OR RESTRICT THE CORROSIVE EFFECT OF THE ACID ON THE METAL
WELL TUBING AND EQUIPMENT.  BUT LONG BEFORE THE GREBE-SANFORD PROCESS
WAS PATENTED IT HAD BEEN KNOWN THAT INHIBITING AGENTS COULD BE USED TO
PROTECT METALS FROM ACID SOLUTIONS.  MORE PARTICULARLY, IT WAS WELL
KNOWN THAT ARSENIC COMPOUNDS MIXED WITH HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTIONS
ACTED AS EFFECTIVE INHIBITORS AND NUMEROUS PATENTS EMBODYING THAT
PRINCIPLE HAD BEEN GRANTED.  FN3 VARIOUS INHIBITORS WERE AVAILABLE ON
THE MARKET AT THE TIME OF THE CONCEPTION OF THE GREBE-SANFORD PROCESS
AND WERE USED EXTENSIVELY IN THE COMMERCIAL PICKLING OF IRON AND STEEL
PRODUCTS IN ACID SOLUTIONS AND IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF ACIDS IN METAL
CONTAINERS. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE, MOREOVER, THAT IN 1928 AND 1929 THE GYPSY OIL
COMPANY HAD SUCCESSFULLY USED INHIBITED HYDROCHLORIC ACID TO REMOVE
SCALE FROM CERTAIN OF ITS OIL WELLS DRILLED IN SANDSTONE FORMATIONS. 
THIS PROCESS WAS BASED UPON A REPORT MADE ON BEHALF OF THE MELLON
INSTITUTE AT PITTSBURGH AT THE REQUEST OF THE GYPSY OIL COMPANY, WHICH
HAD BEEN BOTHERED BY THE FORMATION OF SCALE ON THE METAL WELL
EQUIPMENT.  THE REPORT, AFTER NOTING THAT "THE SELECTION OF A SOLVENT
WAS A SIMPLE MATTER" AND THAT "THE COMMERCIAL USE OF INHIBITORS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF METALS IN ACID SOLUTIONS IS NOT NEW," RECOMMENDED THE
REMOVAL OF THE SCALE BY THE USE OF A HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION TREATED
WITH AN INHIBITOR OBTAINABLE ON THE MARKET.  EVEN IF PETITIONER BE
CORRECT IN LABELING THIS GYPSY OIL COMPANY USE AS AN ABANDONED
EXPERIMENT NOT AMOUNTING TO ANTICIPATION, IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE
USE OF AN INHIBITOR TO CHECK THE HYDROCHLORIC ACID FROM CORRODING THE
METAL WELL EQUIPMENT WHILE ATTACKING THE SCALE SUGGESTED ITSELF WITHOUT
TROUBLE. 

THUS PRIOR TO THE PATENTING OF THE GREBE-SANFORD PROCESS IN 1932 THE
FOLLOWING FACTS WERE MANIFEST AND ELEMENTARY TO ANY ONE SKILLED IN THE
ART:  (A) HYDROCHLORIC ACID WOULD DISSOLVE LIMESTONE AND INCREASE THE
PRODUCTION OF OIL WELLS, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FRASCH PATENT; (B)
HYDROCHLORIC ACID WOULD ALSO CORRODE METAL WITH WHICH IT CAME IN
CONTACT; (C) ARSENIC COMPOUNDS AND OTHER CHEMICALS COULD BE ADDED TO
HYDROCHLORIC ACID TO INHIBIT THIS CORROSIVE EFFECT; AND (D) INHIBITED
HYDROCHLORIC ACID COULD EFFECTIVELY BE UTILIZED TO REMOVE SCALE FROM
METAL WELL EQUIPMENT WITHOUT CORRODING THE METAL.  A REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE PURE OIL COMPANY THEN SUGGESTED TO GREBE AND SANFORD THE
POSSIBILITY OF ACIDIZING OIL WELLS TO INCREASE PRODUCTION.  THE LATTER,
FROM THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF BRINE WELL ACIDIZING AND OF CORROSION
INHIBITION, IMMEDIATELY RECOMMENDED THE USE OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID
CONTAINING AN INHIBITOR.  GREBE AND SANFORD AT THIS TIME APPARENTLY DID
NOT KNOW ABOUT THE FRASCH PATENT.  BUT SPURRED BY THE SUGGESTION OF THE
PURE OIL COMPANY, THEY WORKED OUT THE PROCESS IN ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF
KNOWN FACTS AND REACTIONS. 

ALL THE GREBE-SANFORD PROCESS TAUGHT WAS THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT
HYDROCHLORIC ACID COULD BE INHIBITED TO PREVENT CORROSION WHILE BEING
USED TO DISSOLVE LIMESTONE ROCK PURSUANT TO THE FRASCH METHOD OF
ACIDIZING WELLS.  NO NEW MENTAL OR PHYSICAL OPERATION WAS REQUIRED TO
ADD, AS SUGGESTED BY THE GREBE-SANFORD PROCESS, AN ARSENIC COMPOUND OF
FROM 1% TO 5% OF THE WEIGHT OF A HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION.  NO NEW OR
UNEXPECTED RESULTS WERE OBTAINED BY THE ADDITION OF SUCH AN INHIBITOR. 
IT WAS PERFECTLY PLAIN TO AN EXPERT THAT THE METAL WELL EQUIPMENT WOULD
THEREBY BE PROTECTED FROM CORROSION.  THE GREBE-SANFORD METHOD, IN
SHORT, INVOLVED IN THIS RESPECT NO MORE THAN A MERE APPLICATION OF AN
OLD PROCESS OF INHIBITION TO A NEW AND ANALOGOUS USE OF PROTECTING
METAL WELL EQUIPMENT FROM CORROSION WHEN THE WELL IS BEING ACIDIZED TO
INCREASE PRODUCTION.  SUCH A PROCESS LACKS THE VERY ESSENCE OF AN
INVENTION.  SEE ELECTRIC CABLE CO. V. BROOKLYN EDISON CO., 292 U.S. 69,
79, 80; PARAMOUNT PUBLIX CORP. V. AMERICAN TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S.
464, 473; CUNO ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., 314 U.S.
84, 89. 

THE FACT THAT PRIOR TO 1932 NO ONE HAD APPARENTLY THOUGHT TO USE AN
INHIBITOR WHILE ACIDIZING AN OIL WELL TO INCREASE PRODUCTION CANNOT
INJECT INTO THE GREBE-SANFORD PROCESS THE ATTRIBUTES OF AN INVENTION. 
ESPECIALLY IS THIS SO SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ONE TRYING
UNSUCCESSFULLY TO INHIBIT HYDROCHLORIC ACID FOR SUCH PURPOSES.  HE WHO
IS MERELY THE FIRST TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING FUND OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
FOR NEW AND OBVIOUS PURPOSES MUST BE SATISFIED WITH WHATEVER FAME,
PERSONAL SATISFACTION OR COMMERCIAL SUCCESS HE MAY BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE. 
PATENT MONOPOLIES, WITH ALL THEIR SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
CONSEQUENCES, ARE NOT RESERVED FOR THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE SO
INSUBSTANTIALLY TO THAT FUND OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. 

(2)  THE USE OF A DILUTE RATHER THAN A CONCENTRATED HYDROCHLORIC ACID
SOLUTION.  PETITIONER LAYS GREAT STRESS ON THE FACT THAT THE GREBE
SANFORD PROCESS SUGGESTS THE USE OF A DILUTE HYDROCHLORIC ACID SOLUTION
CONTAINING ONLY 5% TO 20% HCL (PREFERABLY 10% TO 15%).  IT IS POINTED
OUT THAT FRASCH'S PATENT CALLED FOR THE USE OF COMMERCIAL HYDROCHLORIC
ACID, WHICH CONTAINS FROM 30% TO 40% OF HCL, AND THAT IN SOME OF HIS
TREATMENTS FROM 27% TO 28% WAS ACTUALLY USED.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT
THE DILUTION RECOMMENDED BY THE GREBE-SANFORD PROCESS SUBSTANTIALLY
REDUCES THE VISCOSITY OF THE ACID, GREATLY SLOWS ITS REACTION ON
LIMESTONE (THUS ALLOWING THE ACID TO OPEN UP CHANNELS DISTANT FROM THE
WELL HOLE INSTEAD OF SPENDING ITSELF IMMEDIATELY AND ENTIRELY ON THE
NEARBY ROCK) AND GREATLY REDUCES ITS CORROSIVE ACTION ON IRON AND
STEEL.  FN4    NOTHING APPEARS IN THE GREBE-SANFORD PATENT CLAIMS,
HOWEVER, TO SUPPORT THE THESIS THAT DILUTION IS PART OF THE ALLEGED
INVENTION.  THE MAIN CONCERN SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AT THE FAILURE
OF FRASCH TO RECOMMEND THE USE OF AN INHIBITING AGENT.  THE SUGGESTED
STRENGTH OF THE GREBE-SANFORD SOLUTION IS MERELY THE ONE "IN GENERAL
BEST ADAPTED TO THE PURPOSE IN HAND" AND IT IS SAID THAT "OTHER
CONCENTRATIONS MAY BE USED, IF DESIRED."  APPARENTLY DILUTION IS
RECOMMENDED SINCE THE INHIBITING AGENT CAN ACT MORE EFFECTIVELY WITH A
WEAKER ACID, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY LESS CORROSIVE THAN A MORE CONCENTRATED
ACID.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE RECOMMENDED DILUTION ALLOWS THE SOLUTION
TO BE OF A STRENGTH SUCH THAT THE SOLUBLE SALTS FORMED BY ITS ACTION ON
THE ROCK WILL REMAIN DISSOLVED THEREIN.  THE PATENT DOES NOT STATE THAT
AN ACID OUTSIDE THE RANGE OF 5% TO 20% STRENGTH WILL FAIL AND NO
AFFIRMATIVE ADVANTAGE OVER THE FRASCH METHOD IS CLAIMED INSOFAR AS THE
STRENGTH OF THE ACID IS CONCERNED. 

BUT EVEN ASSUMING THAT A DILUTE SOLUTION IS AN INGREDIENT OF THE
ALLEGED INVENTION, WE CAN FIND NONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF TRUE INVENTION
ADHERING THERETO.  THE MERE ADDITION OF WATER TO DILUTE A KNOWN
CHEMICAL SOLUTION DOES NOT ENTITLE ONE TO A PATENT MONOPOLY, AT LEAST
UNLESS A DEFINITE DILUTION POINT OR RANGE IS DISCOVERED CORRESPONDING
TO A PHYSICAL PHENOMENON.  KWIK SET, INC. V. WELCH GRAPE JUICE CO., 86
F.2D 945, 947.  NO SUCH DISCOVERY WAS MADE HERE.  THE ADVANTAGES SAID
TO ACCOMPANY A DILUTE SOLUTION DO NOT CORRESPOND TO ANY PARTICULAR
DILUTION POINT OR RANGE.  THE PATENT RECOMMENDS THAT THE ACID BE
DILUTED TO A 5% TO 20% STRENGTH BUT IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT "OTHER
CONCENTRATIONS MAY BE USED, IF DESIRED," TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE AT
HAND.  SUCH A BROAD AND INDEFINITE SPECIFICATION AS TO DILUTION IS
FATAL TO A CLAIMED INVENTION. 

(3)  THE USE OF THE ORDINARY PUMP TUBE.  THE GREBE-SANFORD PATENT
MENTIONS THE USE OF THE ORDINARY PUMP TUBE TO CONVEY THE ACID TO THE
BOTTOM OF THE WELL HOLE, WHEREAS THE FRASCH PATENT HAD CONTEMPLATED
WITHDRAWAL OF THE ORDINARY PUMP TUBE IN FAVOR OF A SMALLER AND
SPECIALLY PROTECTED SUPPLY TUBE.  BUT THIS IS AT MOST AN INCIDENTAL AND
UNIMPORTANT PART OF THE GREBE-SANFORD METHOD, AS IS RECOGNIZED BY THE
STATEMENT IN THE PATENT THAT "IT IS NOT NECESSARY, HOWEVER, TO ADD THE
ACID SOLUTION THROUGH THE PUMP TUBE, AS ANY OTHER CONVENIENT WAY MAY BE
EMPLOYED."  NO NEW FUNCTION IS PERFORMED BY THE PUMP TUBE THAT IS NOT
PERFORMED BY THE FRASCH SUPPLY TUBE; BOTH MERELY CONVEY THE ACID TO THE
BOTTOM OF THE WELL HOLE.  ANY ADVANTAGE IN COST OR SIMPLICITY WHICH THE
USE OF THE ORDINARY PUMP TUBE MAY GIVE IS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF AN
INHIBITOR IN THE ACID RATHER THAN ANY INTRINSIC MERIT OF THE PUMP
TUBE.  IT IS ELEMENTAL THAT THE MERE SUBSTITUTION OF EQUIVALENTS WHICH
DO SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME THING IN THE SAME WAY, EVEN THOUGH BETTER
RESULTS MAY BE PRODUCED, IS NOT SUCH AN INVENTION AS WILL SUSTAIN A
PATENT.  DUNBAR V. MYERS, 94 U.S. 187, 199; SMITH V. NICHOLS, 21 WALL. 
112, 119. 

FINALLY, PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE GREBE-SANFORD PROCESS HAS FILLED
A LONG FELT WANT AND HAS BEEN A COMMERCIAL SUCCESS.  BUT THESE
CONSIDERATIONS ARE RELEVANT ONLY IN A CLOSE CASE WHERE ALL OTHER PROOF
LEAVES THE QUESTION OF INVENTION IN DOUBT.  SMITH V. HALL, 301 U.S.
216, 233; MCCLAIN V. ORTMAYER, 141 U.S. 419, 428, 429.  HERE THE LACK
OF INVENTION IS BEYOND DOUBT AND CANNOT BE OUTWEIGHED BY SUCH FACTORS. 
MOREOVER, THERE IS AN ABSENCE IN THIS CASE OF ANY LONG FELT WANT OR OF
ANY RECOGNIZED PROBLEM THAT HAD BAFFLED THE CONTEMPORARY ART. THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY ONE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRASCH METHOD AND WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE USE OF INHIBITORS IN HYDROCHLORIC ACID EVER TRIED
UNSUCCESSFULLY TO USE THE FRASCH METHOD WITH INHIBITED HYDROCHLORIC
ACID.  NOR IS THERE ANY PROOF OF FRUITLESS DEMANDS AND EFFORTS TO
PREVENT CORROSION WHILE ACIDIZING OIL WELLS.  WHENEVER THE NEED AROSE
TO PREVENT CORROSION IN THE USE OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID, WHETHER FOR
PURPOSES OF PICKLING, SCALE REMOVAL OR OIL WELL ACIDIZING, THE ADDITION
OF INHIBITORS WAS SUGGESTED IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT EFFORT.  THE GREAT
FUND OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE WAS SIMPLY DRAWN UPON THE FIRST TIME THE
PROBLEM WAS CONSIDERED, RESULTING IN THE OBVIOUS PROCESS DESCRIBED IN
THE GREBE-SANFORD PATENT. 

SINCE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE GREBE-SANFORD PATENT IS INVALID FOR WANT
OF INVENTION, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER RESPONDENT'S CROSS-PETITION RAISING
QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER RESPONDENT'S PROCESS INFRINGED THE PATENT. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PETITIONER ARGUES THAT (1) FRASCH USED CONCENTRATED SCID THAT
WAS SO CORROSIVE AS TO COMPEL THE USE OF THE COSTLY AND CUMBERSOME
EXPEDIENT OF REMOVING THE ORDINARY WELL TUBE AND INSERTING A SPECIAL
ACID SUPPLY PIPE; (2) CONCENTRATED ACID BEING LESS EFFECTIVE THAN
DILUTED ACID IN REACTING ON THE LIMESTONE ROCK, THE PRODUCTION
INCREASES ACHIEVED BY FRASCH WERE TOO SMALL TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSE OF
THE TREATMENT; AND (3) VISCOUS SPENT ACID WAS DIFFICULT TO REMOVE UNDER
THE FRASCH METHOD FROM THE PORES OF THE ROCK AND HENCE BLOCKED OR
LESSENED THE FLOW OF OIL TO THE WELL HOLE. 

FN2  ONE OF PETITIONER'S EXPERTS TESTIFIED THAT THE MAIN CLAIM OF THE
GREBE-SANFORD PATENT IS THE ADDITION TO THE HYDROCHLORIC ACID OF SOME
MATERIAL WHICH WILL INHIBIT THE ACTION OF THE ACID AND THAT THE CLAIMED
RESULT "WOULD BE LIMITED APPARENTLY TO THE EQUIPMENT, RATHER THAN TO
THE WELL ITSELF."  HE STATED FURTHER THAT THE SUGGESTED INHIBITORS
"WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE ACID, IN CONNECTION WITH ITS REACTION UPON
LIMESTONE" AND THAT THEY "HAVE A SPECIFIC FUNCTION ON THE METAL
EQUIPMENT USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE WELL TREATMENT." 

FN3  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, PATENT TO BENEKER, NO. 914,916(1909); PATENT
TO GRAVELL, NO. 1,678,775(1928).  FOR PATENTS INVOLVING THE USE OF
INHIBITORS OTHER THAN ARSENIC COMPOUNDS, SEE PATENT TO HOLMES, NO.
1,470,225(1923); PATENT TO RHODES, NO. 1,746,677(1930); PATENT TO
RHODES, NO. 1,746,678(1930); PATENT TO VIGNOS, NO. 1,750,651(1930);
PATENT TO HARRISON, NO. 1,766,902(1930); PATENT TO CORSON, NO.
1,773,953(1930); PATENT TO CALCOTT, NO. 1,785,513(1930); PATENT TO
BURKE, NO. 1,789,805(1931). 

FN4  THERE WAS EVIDENCE INTRODUCED TO THE EFFECT THAT A HYDROCHLORIC
ACID SOLUTION IS MUCH MORE CORROSIVE WHEN IT CONTAINS 30% HCI THAN WHEN
IT CONTAINS FROM 5% TO 20%.
..END :














COMMISSIONER V. SMITH, 324 U.S. 177 


NO. 371.  ARGUED JANUARY 30, 31, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  -
142 F.2D 818, REVERSED. 


AN EMPLOYER GAVE TO ITS EMPLOYEE AS COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES AN
OPTION TO PURCHASE SHARES OF STOCK AT A PRICE NOT LESS THAN THE THEN
VALUE OF THE STOCK.  THE OPTION HAD NO VALUE AT THAT TIME, AND THE
COMPENSATION CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES WAS THE TRANSFER TO THE
EMPLOYEE OF THE SHARES OF STOCK AFTER THEIR VALUE HAD INCREASED TO MORE
THAN THE OPTION PRICE.  HELD, UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1938 AND OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, THE EMPLOYEE RECEIVED
"COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE" AND HENCE TAXABLE INCOME IN EACH
YEAR IN WHICH STOCK WAS ACQUIRED, THROUGH EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE
OPTION IN THAT YEAR, IN THE AMOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OPTION
PRICE AND THE THEN MARKET VALUE OF THE STOCK.  P. 181. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. SMITH. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 696, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYER GAVE TO HIM, AS COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES,
AN OPTION TO PURCHASE FROM THE EMPLOYER CERTAIN SHARES OF STOCK OF
ANOTHER CORPORATION AT A PRICE NOT LESS THAN THE THEN VALUE OF THE
STOCK.  IN TWO LATER TAX YEARS, WHEN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE STOCK WAS
GREATER THAN THE OPTION PRICE, RESPONDENT EXERCISED THE OPTION,
PURCHASING LARGE AMOUNTS OF THE STOCK IN EACH YEAR.  THE QUESTION FOR
DECISION IS WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MARKET VALUE AND THE
OPTION PRICE OF THE STOCK WAS COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES OF THE
EMPLOYEE, TAXABLE AS INCOME IN THE YEARS WHEN HE RECEIVED THE STOCK,
UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, C. 289, 52 STAT. 447, AND
SEC. 22(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 22(A). 

UPON A PETITION TO REVIEW THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDING OF A TAX
DEFICIENCY AGAINST RESPONDENT FOR THOSE YEARS, THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED
THE COMMISSIONER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSED,
142 F.2D 818, HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO FINDING AND NO EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT A FINDING, THAT THE OPTION WAS INTENDED TO ENABLE RESPONDENT TO
MAKE A "BARGAIN PURCHASE" OR THAT THE STOCK WAS ISSUED TO HIM AS
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE
OPTION WAS A MERE PURCHASE OF A CAPITAL INVESTMENT WHICH COULD RESULT
IN TAXABLE INCOME ONLY UPON SALE OF THE STOCK.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
323 U.S. 696, ON A PETITION WHICH ASSERTED CONFLICT OF THE DECISION
BELOW WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
IN CONNOLLY'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 135 F.2D 64. 

THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT FOR MANY YEARS, AND AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES,
RESPONDENT WAS EMPLOYED BY THE WESTERN COOPERAGE COMPANY.  IN 1934
WESTERN TOOK OVER THE MANAGEMENT OF THE HAWLEY PULP AND PAPER CO.
PURSUANT TO A PLAN FOR ITS REORGANIZATION.  HAWLEY WAS THEN IN
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, WITH AN INDEBTEDNESS AMOUNTING TO $2,790,150. 
UNDER ITS CONTRACT WITH HAWLEY, WESTERN WAS TO RETIRE ANNUALLY A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF HAWLEY'S INDEBTEDNESS.  IN THE EVENT OF SUCCESS IN
THIS UNDERTAKING, AND WHEN THE AMOUNT OF HAWLEY'S INDEBTEDNESS HAD BEEN
REDUCED BY THE SUM OF $1,400,000, WESTERN WAS TO RECEIVE SPECIFIED
AMOUNTS OF THE HAWLEY COMPANY'S CAPITAL STOCK AS COMPENSATION FOR THE
SERVICES THUS RENDERED. 

RESPONDENT, IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BY WESTERN, WAS ACTIVE IN
THE REORGANIZATION OF THE HAWLEY COMPANY.  AS COMPENSATION FOR HIS
SERVICES, THE PRESIDENT OF WESTERN, IN DECEMBER 1934, GAVE RESPONDENT
AN ORAL OPTION TO PURCHASE A PART OF THE HAWLEY STOCK, TO BE ACQUIRED
BY WESTERN UNDER ITS CONTRACT.  THIS ACTION WAS CONFIRMED BY RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WESTERN, PURSUANT TO WHICH WESTERN, AS OF
DECEMBER 10, 1934, AND "IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICES RENDERED" BY
RESPONDENT PRIOR TO THAT DATE, AGREED IN WRITING TO SELL TO RESPONDENT
AT HIS OPTION, AT TEN CENTS A SHARE, A SPECIFIED PROPORTION OF SUCH
SHARES OF COMMON STOCK AS IT MIGHT BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UNDER ITS
CONTRACT WITH HAWLEY.  ON MARCH 18, 1938, WESTERN BECAME ENTITLED TO
THE STIPULATED NUMBER OF SHARES OF THE HAWLEY STOCK AS PROVIDED BY THE
CONTRACT WITH HAWLEY.  IN THAT AND THE FOLLOWING YEAR RESPONDENT, BY
THE EXERCISE OF HIS OPTION, ACQUIRED FROM WESTERN LARGE AMOUNTS OF THE
STOCK ON PAYMENT OF THE OPTION PRICE. 

THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT AT THE DATE OF THE OPTION THE MARKET PRICE
OF THE STOCK DID NOT EXCEED THE OPTION PRICE, BUT THAT IN 1938 THE
MARKET VALUE OF THE STOCK THEN ACQUIRED BY RESPONDENT EXCEEDED ITS
OPTION PRICE BY $81,021, AND THE VALUE OF THAT ACQUIRED IN 1939
EXCEEDED THE OPTION PRICE BY $71,663.  THE COURT FOUND FROM THE OPTION
ITSELF, THE RESOLUTION OF WESTERN'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND FROM
PETITIONER'S OWN TESTIMONY, THAT "WESTERN GAVE THE OPTION TO PETITIONER
(RESPONDENT HERE) AS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN EFFECTING
THE REORGANIZATION PLAN OF HAWLEY."  IT HELD THAT THE EXCESS OF THE
MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARES OVER THE OPTION PRICE IN THE YEARS WHEN THE
SHARES WERE RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT, WAS COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES,
TAXABLE AS INCOME IN THOSE YEARS. 

SINCE THE TAX COURT FOUND THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF THE STOCK ON THE
DATE OF THE OPTION DID NOT EXCEED THE OPTION PRICE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT
ITS FINDING THAT THE OPTION WAS GIVEN AS COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENT'S
SERVICES, HAD REFERENCE TO THE COMPENSATION TO BE DERIVED FROM EXERCISE
OF THE OPTION AFTER THE ANTICIPATED ADVANCE IN MARKET PRICE OF THE
STOCK.  RESPONDENT TESTIFIED THAT IF THE OPTION COULD HAVE BEEN SOLD AT
THE TIME HE RECEIVED IT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR ONLY A "NEGLIGIBLE" OR
"NOMINAL" AMOUNT.  HE HAS NEVER CONTENDED THAT THE OPTION ITSELF HAD
VALUE WHEN GIVEN AND THERE WAS NO FINDING BY THE TAX COURT THAT IT THEN
HAD VALUE.  THE TAX COURT, IN STATING THE PRINCIPLE WHICH IT DEEMED
APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE, QUOTED FROM ESTATE OF EDWARD J.
CONNOLLY, 45 B.T.A. 374, AS FOLLOWS:  "IF THE OPTIONS HAD NEVER BEEN
EXERCISED THE OPTIONEES WOULD NEVER HAVE RECEIVED ANY ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION."  THE OPTION COULD BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN WESTERN'S
CONTRACT WITH HAWLEY HAD BEEN SUCCESSFULLY PERFORMED BY THE REDUCTION
OF A LARGE PART OF HAWLEY'S INDEBTEDNESS, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN
INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF HAWLEY'S CAPITAL STOCK TO BE RECEIVED BY
WESTERN SUBJECT TO RESPONDENT'S OPTION.  MOREOVER, THE TAX COURT
CONCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE FACTS WHICH IT FOUND, AND WHICH
WE HAVE DETAILED, BROUGHT THE CASE, FOR THE TAX YEAR 1938, WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, AND OF THE
INTERPRETATIVE TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, ART. 22(A)-1; AND FOR THE TAX
YEAR 1939, WITHIN THE IDENTICAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 22(A) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AND TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, ART. 19.22(A)-1. 

THE ACT AS INCLUDING "GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES,
WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN
WHATEVER FORM PAID  ...."  TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, ART. 22(A)-1
PROVIDES: "IF PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED  ...  BY AN EMPLOYER TO AN
EMPLOYEE, FOR AN AMOUNT SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE TRANSFER IS IN THE GUISE OF A SALE OR
EXCHANGE, SUCH  ...  EMPLOYEE SHALL INCLUDE IN GROSS INCOME THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE PROPERTY AND THE AMOUNT OF
ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DIFFERENCE IS IN THE
NATURE OF (1) COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED  ..." 

TAXABLE INCOME ANY ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL BENEFIT CONFERRED ON THE
EMPLOYEE AS COMPENSATION, WHATEVER THE FORM OR MODE BY WHICH IT IS
EFFECTED.  SEE OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716,
729.  THE REGULATION SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES IN INCOME, PROPERTY
"TRANSFERRED  ...  BY AN EMPLOYER TO AN EMPLOYEE, FOR AN AMOUNT
SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE," EVEN THOUGH THE
TRANSFER TAKES THE FORM OF A SALE OR EXCHANGE, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
EMPLOYEE RECEIVES COMPENSATION. 

IN CERTAIN ASPECTS AN OPTION MAY BE SPOKEN OF AS "PROPERTY" IN THE
HANDS OF THE OPTION HOLDER.  CF. HELVERING V. SAN JOAQUIN FRUIT CO.,
297 U.S. 496, 498; SHUSTER V. HELVERING, 121 F.2D 643, 645.  WHEN THE
OPTION PRICE IS LESS THAN THE MARKET PRICE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE
PURCHASE OF WHICH THE OPTION IS GIVEN, IT MAY HAVE PRESENT VALUE AND
MAY BE FOUND TO BE ITSELF COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED.  BUT IT
IS PLAIN THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE OPTION WHEN
GIVEN DID NOT OPERATE TO TRANSFER ANY OF THE SHARES OF STOCK FROM THE
EMPLOYER TO THE EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 22(A) AND ART.
22(A)-1.  CF. PALMER V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 63, 71.  AND AS THE
OPTION WAS NOT FOUND TO HAVE ANY MARKET VALUE WHEN GIVEN, IT COULD NOT
ITSELF OPERATE TO COMPENSATE RESPONDENT.  IT COULD DO SO ONLY AS IT
MIGHT BE THE MEANS OF SECURING THE TRANSFER OF THE SHARES OF STOCK FROM
THE EMPLOYER TO THE EMPLOYEE AT A PRICE LESS THAN THEIR MARKET VALUE,
OR POSSIBLY, WHICH WE DO NOT DECIDE, AS THE OPTION MIGHT BE SOLD WHEN
THAT DISPARITY IN VALUE EXISTED.  HENCE THE COMPENSATION FOR
RESPONDENT'S SERVICES, WHICH THE PARTIES CONTEMPLATED, PLAINLY WAS NOT
CONFINED TO THE MERE DELIVERY TO RESPONDENT OF AN OPTION OF NO PRESENT
VALUE, BUT INCLUDED THE COMPENSATION OBTAINABLE BY THE EXERCISE OF THE
OPTION GIVEN FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IT OF COURSE DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IN
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT HERE PRESENT THE OPTION ITSELF, RATHER THAN THE
PROCEEDS OF ITS EXERCISE, COULD NOT BE FOUND TO BE THE ONLY INTENDED
COMPENSATION. 

THE TAX COURT THUS FOUND THAT THE OPTION WAS GIVEN TO RESPONDENT AS
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES, AND IMPLICITLY THAT THE COMPENSATION
REFERRED TO WAS THE EXCESS IN VALUE OF THE SHARES OF STOCK OVER THE
OPTION PRICE WHENEVER THE OPTION WAS EXERCISED.  FROM THESE FACTS IT
CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS TAXABLE AS SUCH BY THE PROVISIONS
OF THE APPLICABLE REVENUE ACTS AND REGULATIONS.  WE FIND NO BASIS FOR
DISTURBING ITS FINDINGS, AND WE CONCLUDE IT CORRECTLY APPLIED THE LAW
TO THE FACTS FOUND.  ITS DECISION IS AFFIRMED, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS BELOW, REVERSING IT, IS REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 142
F.2D 818. 
..END :






CHARLESTON ASSN. V. ALDERSON, 324 U.S. 182 


NO. 400.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  - 126
W. VA. 506, 30 S.E.2D 513, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN QUESTION IN THIS SUIT IN THE
STATE COURTS CHALLENGING TAX ASSESSMENTS, AND AN APPEAL UNDER SEC.
237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED IS UNAUTHORIZED; BUT UNDER SEC.
237(C) CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, SINCE APPELLANTS PROPERLY RAISED THE
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 184, 187. 

2.  EVEN WHERE THE FEDERAL QUESTION HAS BEEN PROPERLY RAISED AND
DECIDED IN THE STATE COURTS, AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) MAY BE
DISMISSED WHERE APPELLANTS FAIL TO ATTACK A STATUTE EXPLICITLY IN THEIR
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR HERE.  P. 187. 

3.  SINCE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
DOES NOT OPERATE TO BAR TAXATION WHICH DOES NOT IN FACT BEAR UNEQUALLY
ON PERSONS OR PROPERTY OF THE SAME CLASS, MERE DIFFERENCES IN MODES OF
ASSESSMENT NOT SHOWN TO PRODUCE SUCH INEQUALITY ARE NOT FORBIDDEN.  P.
190. 

4.  NOR DOES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE PROHIBIT INEQUALITY IN
TAXATION WHICH RESULTS FROM MERE MISTAKE OR ERROR IN JUDGMENT OF TAX
OFFICIALS, OR WHICH IS NOT SHOWN TO BE THE RESULT OF INTENTIONAL OR
SYSTEMATIC UNDERVALUATION OF SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE TAXED PROPERTY IN
A SINGLE CLASS.  P. 190. 

5.  THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF ASSESSMENTS
FOR TAXATION IS UPON THE PROTESTANT.  P. 191. 

6.  APPELLANT LOAN ASSOCIATIONS FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF
SHOWING THAT STATE TAX OFFICIALS, WHO ASSESSED APPELLANTS' PROPERTY FOR
STATE TAXATION AT ITS FULL VALUE, DENIED TO APPELLANTS THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BY
THEIR MODE OF VALUATION, FOR TAXATION, OF PROPERTY OF THE SAME CLASS
BELONGING TO OTHER TAXPAYERS.  P. 192. 

CHARLESTON FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION ET AL. V. ALDERSON,
STATE TAX COMMISSIONER. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
STATE TAXATION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE TAX OFFICIALS OF WEST VIRGINIA, WHO HAVE
ASSESSED APPELLANTS' PROPERTY FOR STATE TAXATION AT ITS FULL VALUE,
HAVE DENIED TO APPELLANTS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, GUARANTEED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BY THEIR MODE OF VALUATION, FOR TAXATION,
OF PROPERTY OF THE SAME CLASS BELONGING TO OTHER TAXPAYERS. 

APPELLANTS ARE THREE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, ORGANIZED
UNDER FEDERAL LAWS, AND ONE BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZED
UNDER STATE LAWS.  THEY FILED PETITIONS WITH THE COUNTY COURT OF
KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA, SEEKING A REVIEW AND REDUCTION OF THE
1941 ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY FOR TAXATION BY THE COUNTY ASSESSOR. 
THEY ALLEGED THAT THEIR PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED AT A PROPORTIONATELY
HIGHER ASSESSMENT VALUATION THAN THE PROPERTY OF OTHER TAXPAYERS AND
THAT SUCH ASSESSMENT WAS UNEQUAL AND DISCRIMINATORY, IN CONTRAVENTION
OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

THE COUNTY COURT, SITTING AS A BOARD OF REVIEW, REDUCED THE
ASSESSMENTS AFTER A HEARING.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR KANAWHA
COUNTY REVERSED THE DETERMINATION OF THE COUNTY COURT, AND
REESTABLISHED THE ASSESSMENTS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST
VIRGINIA, THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, AFFIRMED, 126 W. VA. 506, 30
S.E.2D 513, HOLDING THAT APPELLANTS HAD FAILED TO MAKE SUCH A CLEAR
SHOWING OF THE UNEQUAL EFFECT OF THE TAX AS TO JUSTIFY THEIR
COMPLAINT. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA, PURPORTING TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN UNDER SEC.
237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), WHICH
AUTHORIZES AN APPEAL FROM THE "FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE IN ANY SUIT IN
THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE IN WHICH A DECISION IN THE SUIT COULD BE
HAD,  ...  WHERE IS DRAWN IN QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF ANY
STATE, ON THE GROUND OF ITS BEING REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION,  ...
AND THE DECISION IS IN FAVOR OF ITS VALIDITY."  IN THEIR PROTESTS
AGAINST THE ASSESSMENTS, FILED WITH THE COUNTY COURT, APPELLANTS DID
NOT DRAW IN QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF ANY STATUTE.  THEY ALLEGED ONLY
THAT THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT UNIFORM AND EQUAL WITH THE ASSESSMENTS OF
OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS AND THAT THEY VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
AND IN THEIR PETITION FOR APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
WEST VIRGINIA APPELLANTS CONTENDED ONLY THAT THE ASSESSMENTS DENIED TO
THEM EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

IT IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR JURISDICTION ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) THAT
THERE BE AN EXPLICIT AND TIMELY INSISTENCE IN THE STATE COURTS THAT A
STATE STATUTE, AS APPLIED, IS REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
TREATIES OR LAWS.  LOEBER V. SCHROEDER, 149 U.S. 580, 585; ERIE R. CO.
V. PURDY, 185 U.S. 148, 153-4; FULLERTON V. TEXAS, 196 U.S. 192, 193;
CORKRAN OIL CO. V. ARNAUDET, 199 U.S. 182, 193; WALL V. CHESAPEAKE &
OHIO R. CO., 256 U.S. 125, 126; CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. DURR, 257
U.S. 99, 106; THORNTON V. MISSISSIPPI, 323 U.S. 668; CARTER V. GENERAL
AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO., 323 U.S. 676; PUTZIER V. RICHARDSON, 323 U.S.
677.  AND IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT AN ATTACK UPON A TAX ASSESSMENT
OR LEVY, SUCH AS APPELLANTS HERE MADE, ON THE GROUND THAT IT INFRINGES
A TAXPAYER'S FEDERAL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES, WILL NOT
SUSTAIN AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A).  JETT BROS. CO. V. CITY OF
CARROLLTON, 252 U.S. 1; CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. DURR, SUPRA; INDIAN
TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 287 U.S. 573;
MILLER V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS, 290 U.S. 586; BALTIMORE NATIONAL
BANK V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 296 U.S. 538; IRVINE V. SPAETH, 314 U.S. 575;
MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. BEELER, 315 U.S. 649, 650; COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO. V.
O'BRIEN, 323 U.S. 665; SEE EX PARTE WILLIAMS, 277 U.S. 267, 272; CF.
REEVES V. WILLIAMSON, 317 U.S. 593. 

WHERE IT APPEARS FROM THE OPINION OF THE STATE COURT OF LAST RESORT
THAT A STATE STATUTE WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION, AS REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT WAS IN FAVOR OF ITS
VALIDITY, WE HAVE JURISDICTION ON APPEAL.  FOR WE NEED NOT INQUIRE HOW
AND WHEN THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE WAS RAISED WHEN
SUCH QUESTION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY
THAT COURT.  MANHATTAN LIFE INS. CO. V. COHEN, 234 U.S. 123, 134;
CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. PERRY, 259 U.S. 548, 551; SALTONSTALL V.
SALTONSTALL, 276 U.S. 260, 267; HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397,
407; NICKEY V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 393, 394; WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297
U.S. 431, 435-6.  BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE OPINION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS PRESENTED TO OR
CONSIDERED BY THAT COURT.  WHILE THE OPINION INTIMATES THAT APPELLANTS'
OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATUTE, IT NOWHERE
INDICATES THAT THEY CONTENDED THAT, AS APPLIED, THE STATUTE WAS INVALID
AS REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FN1 

APPELLANTS IN THEIR ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS IN THIS COURT HAVE FAILED TO
ATTACK THE STATE STATUTE AS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, STATING ONLY
THAT THE FINDING AND JUDGMENT BELOW SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT VIOLATE
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  EVEN WHERE THE FEDERAL QUESTION HAS BEEN
PROPERLY RAISED BELOW, AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) MAY BE DISMISSED
WHERE APPELLANTS FAIL TO ATTACK A STATUTE EXPLICITLY IN THEIR
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR HERE.  CADY V. GEORGIA, 323 U.S. 676; CF. HERBRING
V. LEE, 280 U.S. 111, 117; SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S.
86, 91; FLOURNOY V. WIENER, 321 U.S. 253. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE GRANT APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL. 
TREATING THE PAPERS ON WHICH THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED AS A PETITION FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 237(C) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS
AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(C), CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, SINCE APPELLANTS
HAVE PROPERLY ATTACKED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND WE PROCEED TO
CONSIDER THE MERITS. 

1941, PROVIDES THAT "THE CAPITAL OF EVERY BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
AND FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, AS REPRESENTED OR EVIDENCED
BY THE INVESTMENT SHARES AND INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS IN SUCH ASSOCIATION,
SHALL BE ASSESSED AT ITS TRUE AND ACTUAL VALUE....  THE REAL AND ACTUAL
VALUE OF SUCH CAPITAL, REPRESENTED BY THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH
INVESTMENT SHARES AND INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS AS AFORESAID, SHALL BE
ASCERTAINED ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION WHICH THE ASSESSOR MAY BE
ABLE TO OBTAIN ..." 

SHALL BE ASSESSED ANNUALLY AS OF THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY AT ITS TRUE
AND ACTUAL VALUE; ..."  AND ARTICLE 10, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
WEST VIRGINIA PROVIDES:  "...  TAXATION SHALL BE EQUAL AND UNIFORM
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND ALL PROPERTY, BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL, SHALL
BE TAXED IN PROPORTION TO ITS VALUE TO BE ASCERTAINED AS DIRECTED BY
LAW.  NO ONE SPECIES OF PROPERTY FROM WHICH A TAX MAY BE COLLECTED
SHALL BE TAXED HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER SPECIES OF PROPERTY OF EQUAL
VALUE."  THIS SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE
DIVISION OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY INTO FOUR CLASSES, WITH A PRESCRIBED
LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX WHICH MAY BE LEVIED UPON EACH CLASS. 
CLASS I CONSISTS OF "PERSONAL PROPERTY EMPLOYED EXCLUSIVELY IN
AGRICULTURE,  ...  PRODUCTS OF AGRICULTURE  ..., INCLUDING LIVESTOCK,
WHILE OWNED BY THE PRODUCER" AND INCLUDES "MONEY, NOTES, BONDS, BILLS
AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, STOCKS AND OTHER SIMILAR INTANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY," WHICH IS THE CLASS OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH APPELLANTS ARE
TAXED. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THESE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES OF
THE STATE, IT APPEARS FROM THE EVIDENCE, AND THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS
FOUND, THAT IN 1941, AND SINCE, THE ASSESSOR OF KANAWHA COUNTY,
FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYED A
DIFFERENT METHOD IN THE VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF
BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS, INCLUDING APPELLANTS, FROM THAT EMPLOYED IN ASSESSING
CLASS I PROPERTY OF OTHER TAXPAYERS.  IT IS THIS DIFFERENCE IN THE MODE
OF ASSESSING THE PROPERTY OF DIFFERENT TAXPAYERS WHICH PETITIONERS
CONTEND HAS RESULTED IN TAXING THE PROPERTY OF APPELLANTS AT ITS FULL
VALUE AND LIKE PROPERTY OF OTHER TAXPAYERS AT LESS THAN ITS FULL
VALUATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. 

IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSOR IN 1941 FOR THE FIRST
TIME FOLLOWED THE UNIFORM PRACTICE OF ASSESSING THE CAPITAL OF BUILDING
AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND FEDERAL LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AS EVIDENCED BY
THEIR INVESTMENT SHARES AND INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS, CONSTITUTING THEIR
CLASS I INTANGIBLES, AT THEIR FULL VALUE.  BUT IT ALSO APPEARS THAT IN
ASSESSING OTHER TAXPAYERS ON THEIR CLASS I PROPERTY, THE ASSESSOR
VARIED HIS METHOD OF ASSESSMENT AS TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROPERTY
INCLUDED IN THE CLASS.  AS TO THEM HE VALUED MONEY AT 100%, BONDS,
NOTES AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, EXCEPT INSTALLMENT ACCOUNTS, AT ABOUT
70% OF THEIR FACE VALUE AND INSTALLMENT ACCOUNTS AT 65% OF THEIR FACE
VALUE.  LIVESTOCK AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WERE VALUED AT
APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THEIR "PURCHASE VALUE."  THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
AND NOTES OF SMALL LOAN COMPANIES WERE ASSESSED AT ABOUT 85% OF THEIR
FACE VALUE.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR HOW COMMERCIAL BANKS AND TRUST
COMPANIES WERE ASSESSED, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION THE STATE COURT
ASSUMED THAT THEIR CLASS I INTANGIBLES WERE ASSESSED AT THEIR FULL FACE
VALUE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT SMALL LOAN COMPANIES AND OTHER
TAXPAYERS WHOSE CLASS I INTANGIBLES WERE TAXED AT LESS THAN THEIR FACE
VALUE ARE ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS DIFFERENT FROM AND INVOLVING A GREATER
RISK THAN THAT IN WHICH BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS ARE ENGAGED.  IT FOUND THAT THERE WAS A
BASIS FOR THE DISCOUNT FROM FACE VALUE EMPLOYED IN ASSESSING NOTES AND
ACCOUNTS OF SMALL LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH WAS LACKING IN THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE HIGHER GRADE SECURITIES, HELD BY BUILDING AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS AND FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, WHOSE
INVESTMENTS ARE GENERALLY MORE CAREFULLY MADE AND BETTER SECURED THAN
THOSE OF OTHER CLASSES OF TAXPAYERS. 

THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT AND VALUATION
EMPLOYED WAS NOT ADOPTED WITH THE PURPOSE OF TAXING SOME BUT NOT ALL
CLASS I PROPERTY AT LESS THAN ITS TRUE VALUE, BUT AS A MEANS OF
ARRIVING AT ITS TRUE VALUE.  IT SAID:  "WE DO NOT HAVE A CASE WHERE THE
TRUE AND ACTUAL VALUE WAS ASCERTAINED AND A DISCOUNT ALLOWED FROM THAT
VALUE; BUT RATHER A CASE WHERE THE DISCOUNT WAS ALLOWED, PARTICULARLY
AS TO INTANGIBLES, IN AN EFFORT TO REACH THE TRUE VALUE."  WHILE THE
COURT THOUGHT THAT THIS METHOD OF ASSESSMENT MIGHT IN SOME INSTANCES BE
AN ERRONEOUS PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES OF THE ASSESSOR, IT HELD THAT A
MERE ERROR OF JUDGMENT AS TO THE MODE OF ASSESSMENT ADOPTED WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION "WHERE THE PLAN,
THOUGH IMPERFECT, IS ADOPTED IN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SECURE FAIR AND
EQUITABLE ASSESSMENT, AND EQUALITY AND UNIFORMITY IN TAXATION." 

APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT DENIAL TO THEM OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS IS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROOF OF THE ASSESSOR'S DISCRIMINATION IN
HIS MODE OF ASSESSMENT OF THE SAME KIND OF CLASS I PROPERTY BELONGING
TO DIFFERENT TAXPAYERS, AND THAT THIS DISCRIMINATION IS SHOWN TO BE
"INTENTIONAL AND SYSTEMATIC."  BUT THIS ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS THE WELL
ESTABLISHED RULE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION APPLIES ONLY TO
TAXATION WHICH IN FACT BEARS UNEQUALLY ON PERSONS OR PROPERTY OF THE
SAME CLASS AND THAT MERE DIFFERENCES IN MODES OF ASSESSMENT DO NOT DENY
EQUAL PROTECTION UNLESS THEY ARE SHOWN TO PRODUCE SUCH INEQUALITY. 
BELL'S GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 134 U.S. 232, 236; HOME INS. CO. V.
NEW YORK, 134 U.S. 594, 600; ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. OHIO, 165 U.S. 194,
229; MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO. V. POWERS, 201 U.S. 245, 298-300; CF.
HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610; GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V.
DAY, 270 U.S. 367; INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. HOLYOKE STREET R. CO.,
273 U.S. 45, 51; INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, 276 U.S. 245,
251.  NOR DOES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE PROHIBIT INEQUALITY IN
TAXATION WHICH RESULTS FROM MERE MISTAKE OR ERROR IN JUDGMENT OF TAX
OFFICIALS, PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. BACKUS, 154 U.S. 421,
435; COULTER V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 196 U.S. 599, 609; BROOKLYN CITY
R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 199 U.S. 48, 52; SIOUX CITY BRIDGE V. DAKOTA
COUNTY, 260 U.S. 441, 447; SOUTHERN R. CO. V. WATTS, 260 U.S. 519, 527;
BAKER V. DRUESEDOW, 263 U.S. 137, 142; CUMBERLAND COAL CO. V. BOARD,
284 U.S. 23, 25; ROWLEY V. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN R. CO., 293 U.S. 102,
111; GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. WEEKS, 297 U.S. 135, 139; OR WHICH IS NOT
SHOWN TO BE THE RESULT OF INTENTIONAL OR SYSTEMATIC UNDERVALUATION OF
SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE TAXED PROPERTY IN A SINGLE CLASS.  NEW YORK V.
BARKER, 179 U.S. 279, 284, 285; COULTER V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO.,
SUPRA; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. BABCOCK, 204 U.S. 585, 597; SUNDAY
LAKE IRON CO. V. WAKEFIELD, 247 U.S. 350, 353; SIOUX CITY BRIDGE V.
DAKOTA COUNTY, SUPRA, 447; SOUTHERN R. CO. V. WATTS, SUPRA; SNOWDEN V.
HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1, 9.    IN ALL THESE RESPECTS APPELLANTS HAVE THE
BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH
THEY ASSAIL, SUNDAY LAKE IRON CO. V. WAKEFIELD, SUPRA, 353, AND CASES
CITED; SOUTHERN R. CO. V. WATTS, SUPRA, 526; CHICAGO G.W.R. CO. V.
KENDALL, 266 U.S. 94, 99; LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276,
284; GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. WEEKS, SUPRA, 139; SNOWDEN V. HUGHES,
SUPRA, 9; AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO SUSTAIN THAT BURDEN. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE A STATE
FROM PLACING NOTES AND RECEIVABLES IN A DIFFERENT CLASS FROM PERSONAL
PROPERTY USED IN AGRICULTURE AND THE PRODUCTS OF AGRICULTURE, INCLUDING
LIVESTOCK, AND TAXING THE TWO CLASSES DIFFERENTLY, EVEN THOUGH THE
STATE PLACES THEM IN A SINGLE CLASS FOR OTHER PURPOSES OF TAXATION. 
BELL'S GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 237; HOME INS. CO. V. NEW
YORK, SUPRA, 606; COULTER V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., SUPRA, 608-9; KLEIN
V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 282 U.S. 19. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE STATE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE DISCOUNT FROM
FACE VALUE ALLOWED IN ASSESSING CLASS I INTANGIBLES OF VARIOUS
TAXPAYERS, OTHER THAN APPELLANTS, WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT
THE TRUE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSED.  IN VIEW OF THAT CONCLUSION
AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING OR PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ALLOWANCE OF THE DISCOUNTS HAS IN FACT
RESULTED IN THE ACTUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE INTANGIBLES OF TAXPAYERS,
OTHER THAN APPELLANTS, AT LESS THAN THEIR TRUE VALUE.  NOR CAN WE SAY
THAT THE DISCOUNTS WHICH WERE DENIED TO APPELLANTS ON THEIR CLASS I
INTANGIBLES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 1941 WERE INTENDED TO PRODUCE
INEQUALITY IN TAXATION, OR WERE PART OF A SYSTEMATIC EFFORT TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT END, OR IN FACT WERE MORE THAN ERRORS IN JUDGMENT, IF
THAT, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX LAWS. 

WE FIND NO PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND ARE POINTED TO NONE
FROM WHICH IT COULD BE INFERRED THAT THE VALUE OF CLASS I INTANGIBLES
OF SMALL LOAN COMPANIES AND OTHER TAXPAYERS IN WEST VIRGINIA, NOT
SUBJECT TO THE SAME SUPERVISION AS APPELLANTS, IS NOT GENERALLY LESS
THAN FACE VALUE, OR THAT THE DISCOUNT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSOR ON THE
INTANGIBLES OF ANY GIVEN TAXPAYER OR CLASS OF TAXPAYERS HAS IN FACT
RESULTED IN AN ASSESSMENT AT LESS THAN THEIR TRUE VALUE.  IT FOLLOWS
THAT APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE
ASSESSMENTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISCRIMINATORY, AND THE JUDGMENT
MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS, IN ALLOWING THE
APPEAL TO THIS COURT, WROTE A MEMORANDUM OPINION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WAS
RAISED AND DECIDED THERE.  APPELLANTS URGE THAT THIS INDICATES THAT THE
APPEAL IS PROPER.  WHILE A CERTIFICATE OF THE STATE COURT, MADE PART OF
THE RECORD, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION IN ISSUE WAS
DECIDED THERE IS GENERALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN OUR JURISDICTION, WHEN
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORD, CAPITAL CITY DAIRY V. OHIO, 183 U.S.
238, 244; MARVIN V. TROUT, 199 U.S. 212, 222-4; CINCINNATI PACKET CO.
V. BAY, 200 U.S. 179, 182; CONSOLIDATED TURNPIKE V. NORFOLK & O.V.R.
CO., 228 U.S. 596, 599; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 360-2;
HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14, 22, A CERTIFICATE TO THE SAME EFFECT BY
THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE STATE APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT SUFFICE,
ALTHOUGH IT MAY SERVE TO INTERPRET INDEFINITE OR AMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE IN
THE RECORD, RELIED UPON TO SHOW THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS RAISED. 
FELIX V. SCHARNWEBER, 125 U.S. 54, 59, 60; HENKEL V. CINCINNATI, 177
U.S. 170; GULF & SHIP ISLAND R. CO. V. HEWES, 183 U.S. 66; HOME FOR
INCURABLES V. NEW YORK, 187 U.S. 155, 158; FULLERTON V. TEXAS, 196 U.S.
192, 194; SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. DUVALL, 225 U.S. 477, 481;
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 296 U.S. 535; PURCELL V.
NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 296 U.S. 545; HONEYMAN V. HANAN, SUPRA, 18,
AND CASES CITED; LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219.  THE MEMORANDUM
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE WEST VIRGINIA COURT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT OF
ITSELF TO ESTABLISH THAT APPELLANTS ATTACKED A STATUTE BELOW, NOR DOES
THE RECORD CONTAIN ANY EVIDENCE WHICH COULD BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW THAT
THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPEAL RAISES NO
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION AND THEREFORE CONCURS IN ITS DISMISSAL. 
FOR THE SAME REASON HE THINKS CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I AM OF OPINION THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED.  I THINK THE
EVIDENCE IS NOT ONLY WITHOUT CONTRADICTION BUT IS PERSUASIVE THAT
PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS WHOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PRECISELY SIMILAR TO
THOSE OF THE COMPLAINING TAXPAYERS, AND PERSONS COMPETING IN THE
INVESTMENT FIELD WITH THEM AND HOLDING SIMILAR SECURITY, HAVE BEEN
BENEFITED BY ASSESSMENTS PURPOSELY INTENDED TO DISCRIMINATE IN THEIR
FAVOR, AND AGAINST THE COMPLAINANTS.  I THINK THE DECISION BELOW
PLAINLY RUNS COUNTER TO DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  CUMBERLAND COAL CO.
V. BOARD OF REVISION, 284 U.S. 23; IOWA-DES MOINES NATIONAL BANK V.
BENNETT, 284 U.S. 239, 245; CONCORDIA FIRE INS. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 292
U.S. 535. 
..END :









UNITED STATES V. BEACH, 324 U.S. 193 


NO. 620.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  - 144
F.2D 533, REVERSED. 


THE MANN ACT IS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION TAKING PLACE WHOLLY
WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  P. 195. 

UNITED STATES V. BEACH. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 705, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A CONVICTION FOR
VIOLATION OF THE MANN ACT. 

PER CURIAM. 

RESPONDENT WAS INDICTED AND CONVICTED UPON A JURY TRIAL, IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OF
TRANSPORTING ANOTHER WOMAN IN WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROSTITUTION, IN VIOLATION OF THE MANN ACT.  36 STAT. 825, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 397, ET SEQ. SECTION 2, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 398, MAKES IT A PENAL
OFFENSE KNOWINGLY TO "TRANSPORT OR CAUSE TO BE TRANSPORTED, OR AID OR
ASSIST IN OBTAINING TRANSPORTATION FOR, OR IN TRANSPORTING, IN
INTERSTATE  ...  COMMERCE, OR  ...  IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANY
WOMAN  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION  ...  OR WITH THE INTENT
AND PURPOSE TO INDUCE, ENTICE, OR COMPEL SUCH WOMAN  ... TO GIVE
HERSELF UP TO DEBAUCHERY, OR TO ENGAGE IN ANY OTHER IMMORAL PRACTICE
..."  THE PROHIBITED TRANSPORTATION WITH THE INTENT OR PURPOSE TO
INDUCE OR ENTICE THE WOMAN TRANSPORTED TO PRACTICE PROSTITUTION
VIOLATES THE STATUTE.  HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 308; ATHANASAW
V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 326; HARRIS V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 340,
341; WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 563, 571; CF. MORTENSEN V.
UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 369, 374. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION ON THE
GROUND THAT THE MANN ACT WAS INAPPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION TAKING
PLACE WHOLLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT 144 F.2D 533.  THAT COURT FOUND
SUPPORT FOR ITS CONCLUSION IN THE NUMEROUS ACTS OF CONGRESS ENACTING
LOCAL LAWS FOR THE DISTRICT, WHICH MAKE IT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE FOR "ANY
PROSTITUTE" TO INVITE OR PERSUADE ANY PERSON TO GO WITH HER TO ANY
BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION, OR FOR ANY PERSON TO ENTICE
OR FORCE ANY WOMAN TO GO TO A HOUSE OF ASSIGNATION, OR FOR ANY PERSON
TO INVITE, INDUCE, OR PROCURE ANOTHER TO ENGAGE IN PROSTITUTION OR TO
GO TO ANY PLACE FOR PURPOSES OF PROSTITUTION.  FN1 THE COURT THOUGHT
THAT THE ADDITION OF THE PROHIBITION OF THE MANN ACT TO THIS
LEGISLATION, SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE DISTRICT, WAS SO
USELESS AND UNNECESSARY AS TO INDICATE THAT THE MANN ACT WAS NOT
DESIGNED TO APPLY TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA "EXCEPT IN ITS INTERSTATE
ASPECT."  NO OTHER QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED OR DECIDED BELOW OR
DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEFS AND ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL HERE, AND WE DECIDE NO
OTHER. 

BUT NONE OF THESE ENACTMENTS OF LOCAL APPLICATION SPEAK OF
"TRANSPORTATION" FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES, WHICH IS THE ACT CONDEMNED BY
THE MANN ACT.  THE MANN ACT NOT ONLY PENALIZES SUCH TRANSPORTATION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH IS DEFINED IN SEC. 1, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 397, AS
INCLUDING ANY COMMERCE INTO OR OUT OF THE DISTRICT, BUT IT SPECIFICALLY
AND REPEATEDLY INCLUDES IN ITS PROHIBITION, SUCH TRANSPORTATION "IN ANY
TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE MANN
ACT, MADE IT PERFECTLY PLAIN BY ITS COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO TRANSPORTATION TAKING
PLACE WHOLLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  H. REP. NO. 47, 61ST
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2; S. REP. NO. 886, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2. 
BOTH REPORTS DECLARE:  "ALL OF THE PROVISIONS WHICH MAKE THE CRIME
DEPEND UPON TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE ARE MADE
APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE, WITHOUT REGARD
TO THE CROSSING OF DISTRICT, TERRITORIAL, OR STATE LINES  ..."  THIS
WAS RECOGNIZED BOTH BY THE PROPONENTS AND BY THE OPPONENTS OF THE BILL
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.  45 CONG. REC. 812-813, 816; 45 CONG. REC.
APP. 14.  (THE POINT WAS NOT DEBATED IN THE SENATE.)  CONGRESS THUS,
THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER OVER THE DISTRICT, FOLLOWED
ITS USUAL POLICY OF EXTENDING LEGISLATION BASED ON THE COMMERCE POWER
TO THE SAME SUBSTANTIVE ACTS TAKING PLACE WHOLLY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. 
FN2 

WHETHER THE DISTRICT WAS ALREADY ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM THE EVILS
OF PROSTITUTION WITHOUT THE ADDED PROHIBITION OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
THAT PURPOSE, WAS FOR CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS, TO DECIDE.  THE
PROHIBITION WAS DELIBERATELY ADOPTED BY CONGRESS, AND IT CONFLICTS WITH
NO OTHER LEGISLATION APPLICABLE IN THE DISTRICT.  HENCE THE PRESENT
REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION FOR ITS VIOLATION WAS ERRONEOUS. 

AS THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT PASS UPON OTHER GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL
URGED BY RESPONDENT, THE CASE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  BATES V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S.
15, 17, AND CASES CITED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  D.C. CODE (1929) TIT. 6, SECS. 177, 179; D.C. CODE (1940) SECS.
22-2701, 22-2702, 22-2705 TO 22-2712. 

FN2  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SHERMAN ACT (15 U.S.C. SEC. 12), THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT (15 U.S.C. SEC. 44), THE FEDERAL DENTURE
ACT (18 U.S.C. SUPP. III, 1943, SEC. 420G), THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT
(18 U.S.C. SEC. 420B), AND THE FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT (21 U.S.C.
SEC. 16). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A STATUTE KNOWN AND REFERRED TO BY CONGRESS
IN SEC. 8 AS THE "WHITE-SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT."  36 STAT. 825, 827.  THE
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE LEGISLATION MAKE IT
PLAIN THAT THE ACT WAS DESIGNED AND INTENDED SOLELY TO PREVENT
"WHITESLAVE" TRAFFIC AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE SITUATION
PRESENT IN THIS CASE.  SEE 45 CONG. REC. 805, 821, 1035, 1037; H. REP.
NO. 47, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 886, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS. 

PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT IN 1910, NUMEROUS INVESTIGATIONS HAD
DISCLOSED THE EXISTENCE OF A SYSTEMATIC, CONTINUOUS INTERNATIONAL AND
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC IN WOMEN AND GIRLS, WHO WERE BEING FORCED AGAINST
THEIR WILL TO PRACTICE PROSTITUTION.  FN1  FRAUD, TRICKERY, DECEIT,
FORCE AND LIQUOR WERE USED BY PANDERERS AND PROCURERS TO FORCE THEM
INTO LIVES OF SHAMELESS, IMMORAL AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.  MANY MEN
EARNED THEIR LIVELIHOOD FROM THE SALE AND EXPLOITATION OF THESE WOMEN. 
STATE LAWS WERE FOUND ENTIRELY INADEQUATE TO COPE WITH SUCH AN
EXTENSIVE INTERNATIONAL AND INTERSTATE TRAFFIC. 

CONGRESS, HOWEVER, WAS CAREFUL TO DISTINGUISH THIS VICIOUS TRAFFIC
FROM IMMORALITY AND PROSTITUTION IN GENERAL.  IT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE
ACT WAS AIMED SOLELY AT THE WHITE-SLAVE TRAFFIC, WHICH WAS EXPLICITLY
DEFINED AS "THE BUSINESS OF SECURING WHITE WOMEN AND GIRLS AND OF
SELLING THEM OUTRIGHT, OR OF EXPLOITING THEM FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES."  H.
REP. NO. 47, P. 11; S. REP. NO. 886, P. 11.  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT
"THE WOMEN WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF THE TRAFFIC ARE UNWILLINGLY FORCED TO
PRACTICE PROSTITUTION" AND THAT "THESE WOMEN ARE PRACTICALLY SLAVES IN
THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD; THAT MANY OF THEM ARE KEPT IN HOUSES OF ILL
FAME AGAINST THEIR WILL; AND THAT FORCE, IF NECESSARY, IS USED TO
DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR LIBERTY."  H. REP. NO. 47, P. 10; S. REP. NO.
886, P. 11.  "THE TERM 'WHITE SLAVE' INCLUDES ONLY THOSE WOMEN AND
GIRLS WHO ARE LITERALLY SLAVES - THOSE WOMEN WHO ARE OWNED AND HELD AS
PROPERTY AND CHATTELS - WHOSE LIVES ARE LIVES OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE;
THOSE WHO PRACTICE PROSTITUTION AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
PROCURER, AND WHO, FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD AT LEAST, CONTINUE TO LEAD
THEIR DEGRADED LIVES BECAUSE OF THE POWER EXERCISED OVER THEM BY THEIR
OWNERS."  H. REP. NO. 47, PP. 10, 11; S. REP. NO. 886, P. 11.  FN2 AT
THE SAME TIME, THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES WERE CAREFUL TO EXPLAIN
THAT THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT, BY INVADING THE PROVINCE OF THE STATES, TO
SUPPRESS OR REGULATE IMMORALITY IN GENERAL OR "TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE
OF VOLUNTARY PROSTITUTION."  NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO PROHIBIT OR PUNISH
THE PRACTICE OF PROSTITUTION OR THE KEEPING OF HOUSES OF ILL FAME. 
THESE MATTERS WERE RECOGNIZED TO BE WITHIN THE PROPER AND EXCLUSIVE
DOMAIN OF STATE LAW.  H. REP. NO. 47, PP. 1, 2. 

THIS RICH BACKGROUND OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND THE CLEAR AND
OBVIOUS TITLE OF THE ACT GIVE MEANING AND BOUNDARIES TO THE BROAD
LANGUAGE USED IN THE STATUTE.  IT WAS THE PERNICIOUS WHITE-SLAVE
TRAFFIC THAT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND WHEN IT PROVIDED IN SEC. 2, UNDER
WHICH RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED, FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF ANY PERSON
TRANSPORTING IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR IN ANY TERRITORY OR
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ANY WOMAN OR GIRL FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROSTITUTION, DEBAUCHERY OR ANY OTHER IMMORAL PURPOSE.  THAT COURTS IN
THE PAST HAVE IGNORED THE PLAIN CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND HAVE APPLIED
THESE STATUTORY WORDS IN A LITERAL SENSE, SO AS TO PUNISH ANYONE
TRANSPORTING A WOMAN FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES QUITE APART FROM ANY
CONNECTION WITH WHITE-SLAVERY, DOES NOT COMMAND US TO CONTINUE SUCH AN
ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF THE ACT. 

THEREFORE I AGREE WITH THE COURT TO THE EXTENT THAT ITS JUDGMENT
MEANS THAT THE ACT APPLIES TO WHITE-SLAVE TRAFFIC SOLELY WITHIN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, A RESULT REQUIRED BY THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND
BY THE CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY.  BUT THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO
TRANSPORTATION SOLELY WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR PURPOSES
QUITE UNRELATED TO WHITE-SLAVERY SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED.  THE COURT
DOES NOT PASS UPON THAT ISSUE DIRECTLY AND, IN ITS DISCRETION, MAY
IGNORE IT.  BUT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE SPEAK OUT BOLDLY AND CANNOT BE
UNHEEDED.  TO DO SO IS TO IMPOSE A CRIMINAL STATUTE UNFAIRLY UPON A
CITIZEN BY DISREGARDING ITS TRUE INTENT AND PURPOSE, THEREBY ADDING
ANOTHER INSTANCE OF TORTURED AND GROTESQUE APPLICATION TO ITS ALREADY
UNHAPPY HISTORY. 

THE EVIDENCE HERE DISCLOSES THAT THE RESPONDENT OPERATED A DRESS SHOP
IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON AND EMPLOYED A GIRL AS AN ASSISTANT.  THE
GIRL AT THE SAME TIME BEGAN TO LIVE WITH RESPONDENT AT THE LATTER'S
APARTMENT.  THREE DAYS LATER RESPONDENT SUGGESTED TO THE GIRL THAT SHE
COULD EARN MORE MONEY BY "SELLING HERSELF."  ALTHOUGH SHE HAD NEVER
PRACTICED PROSTITUTION BEFORE, THE GIRL THOUGHT IT OVER AND FINALLY
AGREED TO WORK FOR RESPONDENT AS A PROSTITUTE.  THE GIRL PRACTICED
PROSTITUTION IN RESPONDENT'S APARTMENT AND IN VARIOUS HOTEL ROOMS TO
WHICH RESPONDENT SENT HER.  ON THE DAY IN QUESTION, RESPONDENT
ACCOMPANIED THE GIRL TO A HOTEL SOME FOUR BLOCKS FROM THE APARTMENT FOR
PURPOSES OF PROSTITUTION.  THE TRIP WAS MADE BY TAXICAB, RESPONDENT
PAYING HER OWN AND THE GIRL'S FARE.  THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT THE
RESPONDENT IN NO WAY COMPELLED, ENTICED OR INDUCED THE GIRL TO ENGAGE
IN THE BUSINESS OF PROSTITUTION THROUGH FRAUD, DECEIT OR FORCE; IT WAS
A PURELY VOLUNTARY MATTER ON THE PART OF THE GIRL. 

THUS THE COURT TODAY APPLIES THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT TO A CASE OF
VOLUNTARY PROSTITUTION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF
WHITE-SLAVERY IS PRESENT.  EQUALLY DISREGARDED IS THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS CLEARLY INTENDED SUCH CONDUCT TO REMAIN PUNISHABLE UNDER LOCAL
LAWS AND THAT ADEQUATE LOCAL LAWS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE
BEEN PROVIDED BY CONGRESS TO COPE WITH THE REAL EVILS PRESENT IN THIS
INSTANCE.  SUCH FACTS MAKE IT UNNECESSARY TO INVOKE THE WHITE SLAVE
TRAFFIC ACT AS A MEANS OF CONTROLLING VOLUNTARY VICE IN THE DISTRICT. 

THE ACT IS APPLIED HERE NOT BECAUSE WHITE-SLAVERY IS PRESENT BUT
BECAUSE ACTS OF VOLUNTARY PROSTITUTION FOLLOWED THE PAYMENT FOR A FOUR
BLOCK TAXICAB RIDE, ACTS WHICH ARE PUNISHABLE UNDER LOCAL LAW.  SUCH
DISTORTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE IS NOT REQUIRED TO SAFEGUARD
SOUND RULES OF INTERPRETATION.  IT CAN ONLY SERVE TO SUBJECT RESIDENTS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THE EVILS OF BLACKMAIL AND PERSECUTION
AND TO PUNISH UNJUSTLY THOSE WHOSE IMMORAL ACTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE WHITE
SLAVERY.  NO PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS AND NO RULE OF STATUTE OR
REASON CAN JUSTIFY SUCH A RESULT. 

FN1  "THE TESTIMONY WHICH HAS BEEN COLLECTED, INCLUDING
CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS CAPTURED AT
THE TIME OF THE ARREST OF CERTAIN NOTORIOUS CRIMINALS, CLEARLY REVEALS
THAT AN ORGANIZED SOCIETY EXISTS BOTH IN THIS COUNTRY, AND ABROAD,
FORMED FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO EXPLOIT INNOCENT GIRLS FOR IMMORAL
PURPOSES.  THIS SYNDICATE HAS HEADQUARTERS, AND DISTRIBUTING CENTERS,
IN NEW YORK, CHICAGO, SAN FRANCISCO, DENVER, AND MANY OTHER AMERICAN
CITIES, EXTENDING EVEN AS FAR NORTH AS NOME IN ALASKA.  FROM THE DATA
ACCUMULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS, IT APPEARS THAT WITHIN THE LAST
TEN YEARS, HUNDREDS OF GIRLS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO VARIOUS PORTIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE PERNICIOUS ACTIVITIES OF THE AGENTS
OF THIS SYNDICATE."  45 CONG. REC. 1037. 

FN2  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2D ED., DEFINES "WHITE
SLAVE" AS "A WOMAN HELD UNWILLINGLY FOR PURPOSES OF COMMERCIAL
PROSTITUTION." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





















GARBER V. CREWS, 324 U.S. 200 


NO. 518.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 7, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  -
144 F.2D 665, AFFIRMED. 


THE DOUBLE LIABILITY IMPOSED ON STOCKHOLDERS OF NATIONAL BANKS BY SEC.
23 OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 23, 1913, HELD ENFORCIBLE AGAINST ONE WHO
SOLD HIS SHARES WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE CLOSING OF THE BANK WHILE
INSOLVENT, EVEN THOUGH THE SALE WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND THOUGH THE
BANK'S CLOSING WAS VOLUNTARY.  P. 202. 

GARBER V. CREWS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 701, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER HERE IN AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A NATIONAL BANK
STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE THE APPLICATION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE OF SEC. 23 OF THE ACT OF DEC. 23, 1913,  FN1  WHICH
IMPOSES LIABILITY UPON STOCKHOLDERS OF A CLOSED NATIONAL BANK. 

NOVEMBER 25, 1929, THE AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF ENID, OKLAHOMA,
PURSUANT TO A RESOLUTION OF ITS DIRECTORS, WHICH RECITED THAT IT
CONTEMPLATED "DISPOSING OF ITS CURRENT BUSINESS AND THEREAFTER GOING
INTO VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION," SOLD ITS BUSINESS AND TRANSFERRED ITS
ASSETS TO THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF THE SAME CITY IN CONSIDERATION OF
THE PAYMENT OF $350,000 AND THE ASSUMPTION OF ITS LIABILITIES AS
DISCLOSED BY ITS BOOKS.  THE PURCHASING BANK RETAINED $110,000 TO
GUARANTEE THE COLLECTION OF NEGOTIABLE PAPER TAKEN OVER AND TO COVER
CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TEMPORARILY RETAINED BY THE SELLER.  AMERICAN
CLOSED ITS BUSINESS AND PROMPTLY DISTRIBUTED THE $240,000 CASH RECEIVED
RATABLY AMONGST ITS STOCKHOLDERS. 

THE RESPONDENTS WERE PARTIES TO AN AGREEMENT, MADE IN 1922, WHEREBY
LARGE SUMS WERE DEPOSITED IN A BANK TO AWAIT THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
RELATIVE TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FUNDS DEPOSITED.  IN 1930 SETTLEMENT
WAS REACHED AND DEMAND MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE
DEPOSIT.  IT WAS THEN DISCOVERED THAT THE FUND HAD BEEN DISSIPATED AND
THAT OFFICERS OF AMERICAN, WHICH WAS A CORRESPONDENT OF THE BANK OF
DEPOSIT, HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE EMBEZZLEMENTS.  THE RESPONDENTS
THEREUPON BROUGHT ACTION IN A STATE COURT AGAINST AMERICAN, ITS
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, TO FASTEN LIABILITY ON THE BANK AND THE
INDIVIDUALS.  A JUDGMENT AGAINST AMERICAN FOR $249,000 WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.  FN2 

THE RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
WESTERN OKLAHOMA TO ESTABLISH A TRUST IN THE LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND OF
$240,000 PAID BY AMERICAN TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS AND TO RECOVER FROM THE
STOCKHOLDERS THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE BALANCE OF THE
JUDGMENT REMAINING AFTER RESTITUTION BY STOCKHOLDERS OF THE LIQUIDATING
DIVIDEND; THAT IS, TO ENFORCE THE DOUBLE LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS. 
RECOVERY WAS HAD ON EACH CAUSE OF ACTION, AND ALSO ON A THIRD AGAINST
THE FORMER DIRECTORS OF AMERICAN.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT ON THE FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION AND
ORDERED DISMISSAL OF THE THIRD.  FN3 

ON NOVEMBER 14, 1929, THE PETITIONER SOLD HIS STOCK IN AMERICAN IN
GOOD FAITH AND FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION TO ONE OVEN.  DECEMBER 20,
1929, THE STOCKHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF AMERICAN HELD THE NECESSARY
MEETINGS AND TOOK APPROPRIATE ACTION UNDER THE NATIONAL BANK ACT  FN4
TO GO INTO VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION, AND THEREAFTER SUCH LIQUIDATION WENT
FORWARD.  IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE SALE OF PETITIONER'S STOCK WAS
WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF NOVEMBER 25TH AND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF DECEMBER
20TH.  THE PETITIONER WAS A DEFENDANT IN THE PRESENT ACTION TO ENFORCE
STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY AND JUDGMENT WENT AGAINST HIM AS A
STOCKHOLDER.  IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HE URGED A NUMBER OF
DEFENSES WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD OVERRULED.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER HIS SALE OF HIS STOCK
RELIEVED HIM OF LIABILITY.  FN5 

DOES SEC. 23 OF THE ACT OF 1913 JUSTIFY THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER?  THE STATUTE READS IN PART: 

"THE STOCKHOLDERS IN ANY NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION WHO SHALL HAVE
TRANSFERRED THEIR SHARES OR REGISTERED THE TRANSFER THEREOF WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS NEXT BEFORE THE DATE OF THE FAILURE OF SUCH ASSOCIATION TO
MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS, OR WITH KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH IMPENDING FAILURE,
SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THEY HAD MADE NO SUCH
TRANSFER." 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE PETITIONER IS WITHIN THE PLAIN TERMS OF
THE LAW.  ON ITS FACE, THE ACT GRANTS NO EXEMPTION DUE TO THE FACTS
THAT THE SALE WAS MADE FOR CONSIDERATION AND IN GOOD FAITH; THAT, AT
THE TIME, AMERICAN WAS BELIEVED TO BE SOLVENT; OR THAT THE EXISTENCE OF
THE CLAIM ULTIMATELY ESTABLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS WAS THEN NOT KNOWN
TO THE RESPONDENTS OR TO THE PETITIONER. 

PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 23 AS A PART OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT
OF 1913,  FN6  THE LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS IN A NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATION HAD BEEN IMPOSED BY R.S. 5151.  SECTION 23 OF THE ACT OF
1913 REENACTED, WITH SLIGHT VERBAL CHANGES, THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE
FIRST SENTENCE OF R.S. 5151, WHICH PROVIDED: 

"THE SHAREHOLDERS OF EVERY NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION SHALL BE HELD
INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE, EQUALLY AND RATABLY, AND NOT ONE FOR ANOTHER,
FOR ALL CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS OF SUCH ASSOCIATION, TO THE
EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF THEIR STOCK THEREIN, AT THE PAR VALUE THEREOF,
IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN SUCH SHARES; ..." 

R.S. 5151 HAD BEEN BEFORE THIS AND OTHER COURTS FOR INTERPRETATION
AND, UNDER IT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE GIST OF ANY ACTION TO IMPOSE
LIABILITY UPON A STOCKHOLDER WHO HAD TRANSFERRED HIS SHARES PRIOR TO
THE ACTUAL CLOSING OF THE BANK WAS THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT A REAL ONE
OR WAS FRAUDULENT; THAT IS, MADE WITH THE PURPOSE TO AVOID THE
STATUTORY LIABILITY.  FN7  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHEN CONGRESS CAME TO
WRITE THE ACT OF 1913 IT INTENDED, WHILE LEAVING THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY
FOR TRANSFERS NOT FALLING WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE BANK'S CLOSING TO BE
ADJUDGED ACCORDING TO THE OLD STANDARD OF FRAUD OR INTENDED EVASION OF
LIABILITY, TO ANNOUNCE A DRASTIC NEW RULE DENYING EFFECT TO ALL
TRANSFERS MADE WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE BANK'S CESSATION OF BUSINESS. 
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO READ THE NEW ENACTMENT OF 1913 IN ANY OTHER SENSE. 
THE ONLY CASES DEALING WITH THE QUESTION IN LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE
SO HELD.  FN8 

THE PETITIONER INSISTS THAT, AS THE INITIATION OF THE LIQUIDATION OF
AMERICAN WAS VOLUNTARY, NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS AROSE
BY REASON OF THIS ACTION.  BUT WE THINK THAT WHERE A BANK CLOSES ITS
DOORS AND CEASES TO TRANSACT BUSINESS THE RIGHT OF CREDITORS OR OF A
RECEIVER TO ENFORCE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY MATURES AT THE TIME OF SUCH
CLOSING WHETHER AS A RESULT OF VOLUNTARY ACTION OR OF ADVERSE ACTION BY
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, OR OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER,
IF AT THAT TIME THE BANK WAS INSOLVENT, AS AMERICAN UNDOUBTEDLY WAS, IF
THE RESPONDENTS' CLAIM WAS TAKEN INTO THE RECKONING.  FN9 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT AND MUST BE AFFIRMED. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 6, 38 STAT. 251, 273, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 64. 

FN2  AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK V. CREWS, 191 OKLA. 53, 126 P.2D 733. 

FN3  HOEHN V. CREWS, 144 F.2D 665. 

FN4  12 U.S.C. SEC. 181. 

FN5  323 U.S. 701. 

FN6  SUPRA, NOTE 1. 

FN7  NATIONAL BANK V. CASE, 99 U.S. 628; BOWDEN V. JOHNSON, 107 U.S.
251; WHITNEY V. BUTLER, 118 U.S. 655; STUART V. HAYDEN, 169 U.S. 1;
EARLE V. CARSON, 188 U.S. 42; MCDONALD V. DEWEY, 202 U.S. 510. 

FN8  FLETCHER V. PORTER, 20 F.2D 23, AND COLLINS V. CALDWELL, 29 F.2D
329, ARE IN ACCORD WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
THE INSTANT CASE. 

FN9  COMPARE RICHMOND V. IRONS, 121 U.S. 27, 48, 50. 
..END :









YOUNG V. HIGBEE CO., 324 U.S. 204 


NO. 342.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  - 142
F.2D 1004, REVERSED. 


FROM A DECREE CONFIRMING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER CHAPTER X OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN BY P AND B, HOLDERS OF
PREFERRED STOCK.  THE APPEAL WAS BASED LARGELY UPON OBJECTIONS TO
ALLOWANCES MADE TO JUNIOR CLAIMANTS; AND, HAD IT BEEN SUCCESSFUL, THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS AS A CLASS WOULD HAVE BENEFITED.  FOR A
CONSIDERATION PAID TO THEM, P AND B TRANSFERRED THEIR STOCK TO JUNIOR
CLAIMANTS AND AGREED TO ABANDON THE APPEAL.  PETITIONER, ALSO A HOLDER
OF PREFERRED STOCK, SOUGHT TO INTERVENE AND PROSECUTE THE APPEAL.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED LEAVE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 
PETITIONER THEREUPON FILED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT A PETITION, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, SEEKING AN
ACCOUNTING BY P AND B TO THE DEBTOR OR TO THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS,
FOR THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT WHICH THEY HAD RECEIVED OVER THE FAIR
VALUE OF THEIR STOCK.  HELD: 

1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL OVER
PETITIONER'S ATTEMPT TO INTERVENE DID NOT BAR PETITIONER'S SUBSEQUENT
PETITION FOR AN ACCOUNTING.  P. 208. 

2.  THE FRUIT OF THE APPEAL BY P AND B BELONGS TO ALL OF THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  P. 213. 

3.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO AWARD THE RELIEF
PRAYED.  P. 214. 

4.  THE ALLEGED IMPROPER MOTIVE OF THE PETITIONER DOES NOT WARRANT
DENIAL OF THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF, WHICH WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF ALL THE
STOCKHOLDERS.  P. 214. 

YOUNG V. HIGBEE COMPANY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 689, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT'S DISMISSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS
WHO OBJECTED TO THE CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT,  FN1  AND ABANDONED THEIR APPEAL FOR A CONSIDERATION TO
THEMSELVES, WHERE THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL WAS THAT, IF SUCCESSFUL, IT
WOULD BENEFIT THE ENTIRE CLASS. 

THE HIGBEE COMPANY, A DEPARTMENT STORE WITH ASSETS OF MORE THAN SIX
MILLION DOLLARS, FILED A VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION.  IT HAD
THREE TYPES OF STOCKS:  COMMON, AND FIRST AND SECOND PREFERRED.  TWO OF
ITS DIRECTORS, BRADLEY AND MURPHY, CLAIMED THAT THEY HAD ACQUIRED BY
PURCHASE A JUNIOR DEBT AGAINST THE COMPANY OF $1,952,000.00.  A PLAN
FOR REORGANIZATION WAS PRESENTED UNDER WHICH THE OWNERS OF THIS JUNIOR
DEBT WERE TO BE AWARDED $600,000.00 IN NEW NOTES AND A LARGE BLOCK OF
COMMON STOCK.  POTTS AND BOAG, RESPONDENTS HERE, AND OWNERS OF SOME
SHARES OF FIRST PREFERRED, OBJECTED TO CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN.  THEY
CONTENDED, ON SEVERAL GROUNDS, THAT UNLESS THE JUNIOR DEBT WAS
SUBORDINATED TO THE PREFERRED STOCK CLAIMS, THE PLAN ALLOTTED THAT
INDEBTEDNESS TOO GREAT A SHARE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BANKRUPT'S
ASSETS.  FN2  WHEN THE STOCKHOLDERS' COMMITTEE OF WHICH THEY WERE
MEMBERS APPROVED THE PLAN, POTTS AND BOAG RESIGNED AND ANNOUNCED THE
FORMATION OF A NEW COMMITTEE TO PRESS THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE JUNIOR
DEBT ALLOWANCE.  NOTWITHSTANDING THESE OBJECTIONS, THE SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE PLAN'S ACCEPTANCE, 8 S.E.C. 777,
AND THE DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMED IT.  50 F.SUPP.  114.  POTTS AND BOAG
APPEALED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE CONFIRMING THE PLAN. 
ALTHOUGH APPEALING AS INDIVIDUALS, THEIR APPEAL WAS BASED ALMOST
ENTIRELY ON OBJECTIONS TO ALLOWANCES FOR THE JUNIOR INDEBTEDNESS WHICH
LEFT LESS FOR DISTRIBUTION AMONG ALL THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  THEIR
APPEAL SOUGHT NO SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL RELIEF FOR THEMSELVES; THEY
APPEALED ONLY TO HAVE THE CONFIRMATION SET ASIDE.  HAD THEIR APPEAL
SUCCEEDED, THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE
VALUE OF JUNIOR CLAIMS ASSERTED BY BRADLEY AND MURPHY, THEREBY
INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE CLAIMS OF THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS AS A
CLASS. 

IN THIS SITUATION, POTTS AND BOAG SOLD THEIR STOCK AND THEIR APPEAL
FN3  TO BRADLEY AND MURPHY, CLAIMANTS UNDER THE JUNIOR DEBT; THE
CONSIDERATION PAID WAS $115,000.00.  THE PAR VALUE OF THIS STOCK WAS
$26,000.00.  ITS ADMITTED MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME, AS THE COURT BELOW
FOUND, WAS $17,000.00.  PURSUANT TO THIS CONTRACT FOR SALE OF THE
APPEAL A STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WAS FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  PETITIONER YOUNG, A PREFERRED STOCKHOLDER OF THE SAME CLASS,
SOUGHT TO INTERVENE AND PROSECUTE THE APPEAL.  HIS PETITION WAS DENIED
AND THE CASE WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT OPINION.  YOUNG THEN, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, FILED A PETITION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT SETTING UP THESE FACTS AND PRAYING THAT HE BE AUTHORIZED
TO EMPLOY COUNSEL TO COMPEL POTTS AND BOAG TO ACCOUNT TO THE DEBTOR FOR
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THEY RECEIVED AND THE FAIR VALUE OF THEIR
STOCK, OR PRAYING IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT POTTS AND BOAG BE REQUIRED TO
PAY OVER THAT AMOUNT TO THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  FN4  AFTER A
HEARING, A SPECIAL MASTER FOUND AS A FACT THAT POTTS AND BOAG HAD
APPEALED IN BEHALF OF THEMSELVES ONLY AND HAD NOT ACTED AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS.  THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THIS FINDING,
THOUGHT IT DETERMINATIVE OF THE CASE, AND DISMISSED YOUNG'S PETITION. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  142 F.2D 1004.  BECAUSE
CONSIDERATIONS OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE TO THE EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS ARE INVOLVED, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 689.  FN5 

FIRST.  IT IS ARGUED THAT SINCE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF POTTS AND BOAG OVER YOUNG'S ATTEMPT TO
INTERVENE, YOUNG IS ESTOPPED FROM PROSECUTING THE PRESENT PETITION. 
THIS CONTENTION HAS NO MERIT, FOR THE REASON, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE
DETERMINATIVE ISSUES IN THE TWO PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT THE SAME.  THE
FIRST PETITION DID NOT PRAY FOR AN ACCOUNTING BY POTTS AND BOAG.  THE
COURT ONLY DECIDED THEN THAT YOUNG COULD NOT INTERVENE AND CONTINUE
THAT APPEAL, AND THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  NOW, ACCEPTING
THE COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL AS FINAL, YOUNG SEEKS AN ACCOUNTING
FOR THE CONSIDERATION PAID POTTS AND BOAG FOR AGREEING TO DISMISS. 

SECOND.  IT IS ARGUED THAT SINCE POTTS AND BOAG DID NOT EXPRESSLY
SPECIFY THAT THEY APPEALED IN THE INTEREST OF THE WHOLE CLASS OF
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, BUT APPEALED ONLY IN THEIR OWN NAMES, THEY OWED
NO DUTY TO ANY STOCKHOLDERS BUT THEMSELVES.  THE APPEAL HERE, HOWEVER,
WAS NOT FROM A DENIAL OF ANY INDIVIDUAL CLAIM OF POTTS AND BOAG.  ITS
BASIS WAS THAT EVERY OTHER PREFERRED STOCKHOLDER, AS WELL AS
THEMSELVES, WOULD BE INJURED BY CONFIRMATION.  SO FAR AS THE ISSUES
RAISED BY THE APPEAL ARE CONCERNED, THE RIGHTS OF POTTS AND BOAG AND
THE OTHER PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WERE INSEPARABLE.  THUS, EVEN THOUGH
THEIR OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION CONTAINED NO FORMAL CLASS SUIT
ALLEGATIONS, THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THE APPEAL WAS BOUND TO HAVE A
SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE INTERESTS OF ALL OTHER PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS.  THE LIABILITY OF ONE WHO ASSUMES A DETERMINING POSITION
OVER THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS MUST TURN ON SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN
MERE FORMAL ALLEGATIONS IN A COMPLAINT.  FN6  EQUITY LOOKS TO THE
SUBSTANCE AND NOT MERELY TO THE FORM. 

FURTHERMORE, THE RIGHT OF APPEAL GRANTED BY A STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE
INTERPRETED IN SUCH WAY AS TO DEFEAT RIGHTS CLEARLY GRANTED IN OTHER
PARTS OF THE SAME ACT.  PECK V. JENNESS, 7 HOW.  612, 623.  POTTS AND
BOAG APPEALED UNDER SEC. 206 OF THE CHANDLER ACT, WHICH, CONTRARY TO
THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE, GRANTS ANY STOCKHOLDER OR CREDITOR
THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD ON ALL MATTERS RELATING TO CORPORATE
REORGANIZATIONS.  COURTS HAVE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED THIS LANGUAGE AS
AUTHORIZING APPEALS.  FN7  WE ARE NOW ASKED TO SAY THAT THE PRIVILEGE
OF APPEAL GRANTED TO POTTS AND BOAG BY THE ACT VESTED THEM WITH AN
INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO SELL THE PRIVILEGE TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF ALL
OTHER STOCKHOLDERS IN THEIR CLASS.  BUT, HISTORICALLY ONE OF THE PRIME
PURPOSES OF THE BANKRUPTCY LAW HAS BEEN TO BRING ABOUT A RATABLE
DISTRIBUTION AMONG CREDITORS OF A BANKRUPT'S ASSETS; TO PROTECT THE
CREDITORS FROM ONE ANOTHER.  FN8  AND THE CORPORATE REORGANIZATION
STATUTES LOOK TO A RATABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS AMONG CLASSES OF
STOCKHOLDERS AS WELL AS CREDITORS.  THERE WOULD BE NO RATABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF THIS BANKRUPT ESTATE IF POTTS AND BOAG COULD UTILIZE
THEIR STATUTORY RIGHT OF APPEAL TO GET FOR THEIR PREFERRED STOCK $7.00
FOR EVERY $1.00 PAID TO OTHER PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  WE ARE ASKED TO
SAY THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SUCH A CONSEQUENCE, AND TO CONSTRUE THE
RIGHT OF A STOCKHOLDER TO BE HEARD ON A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AS
CARRYING WITH IT THE RIGHT TO "SELL" THE VERY APPEAL WHICH THE ACT
GRANTS HIM. 

POTTS AND BOAG, BY APPEALING FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFECTED A WHOLE
CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS, OWED AN OBLIGATION TO THEM, THE FULL EXTENT OF
WHICH WE NEED NOT NOW DELINEATE.  CERTAINLY, AT THE VERY LEAST THEY
OWED THEM AN OBLIGATION TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH.  IF POTTS AND BOAG HAD
DECLINED TO ACCEPT THIS PLAN IN BAD FAITH, THE COURT, UNDER SEC. 203,
FN9  COULD HAVE DENIED THEM THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON THE PLAN AT ALL.  THE
HISTORY OF THIS PROVISION MAKES CLEAR THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO
THOSE STOCKHOLDERS WHOSE SELFISH PURPOSE WAS TO OBSTRUCT A FAIR AND
FEASIBLE REORGANIZATION IN THE HOPE THAT SOMEONE WOULD PAY THEM MORE
THAN THE RATABLE EQUIVALENT OF THEIR PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE BANKRUPT
ASSETS.  FN10  IF POTTS' AND BOAG'S OPPOSITION TO CONFIRMATION SPRANG
FROM SUCH A PURPOSE (AND POTTS AND BOAG DID OBSTRUCT CONFIRMATION UNTIL
THEY WERE ABLE TO "SELL" THEIR APPEAL) THEY WERE ACTING IN BAD FAITH
WITHIN THE STATUTORY MEANING OF THAT TERM.  AND ACCEPTING MONEY AS THE
END RESULT OF SUCH A STATUTORY VIOLATION CANNOT VEST THEM WITH A RIGHT
TO KEEP IT.  PAYMENT TO THEM OF THIS MONEY SIMPLY MEANT THAT THE
DISTRIBUTION OF BANKRUPT ASSETS TO THE JUNIOR DEBT CLAIMANTS, WHO PAID
POTTS AND BOAG, WOULD REPRESENT A SMALLER NET VALUE.  THE STATUTE
CONTEMPLATES, AND THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN ON THE ASSUMPTION, THAT THE LESS
THE JUNIOR CLAIMANTS WERE AWARDED THE MORE ALL THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS WOULD RECEIVE.  THEREFORE, THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE
WHICH POTTS AND BOAG MADE WAS NOT MERELY THEIR OWN INTEREST IN THE
BANKRUPT ESTATE, BUT THE INTEREST OF ALL THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS. 
THE SITUATION WHICH ENABLED THEM TO TRAFFIC IN THE INTERESTS OF OTHERS
WAS CREATED BY A STATUTE PASSED TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ALL OF
THEM.  FN11  THE STATUTE NEITHER COMPELS THEM TO APPEAL NOR TO
PROSECUTE AN APPEAL ALREADY TAKEN CONTRARY TO THEIR OWN INTERESTS; IT
DOES IMPOSE UPON THEM THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH TO ALL OTHER STOCKHOLDERS
WHOSE INTERESTS THEY TEMPORARILY CONTROL BECAUSE THEY ARE NECESSARILY
INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL.  THIS CONTROL OF THE COMMON RIGHTS OF ALL THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS IMPOSED ON POTTS AND BOAG A DUTY FAIRLY TO
REPRESENT THOSE COMMON RIGHTS.  FN12  THIS REPRESENTATIVE
RESPONSIBILITY IS EMPHASIZED BY THE FACT THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN
AWARDED COMPENSATION FOR THEIR SERVICES HAD THEY SUCCEEDED IN REDUCING
THE CLAIM OF THE JUNIOR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  SEC. 243; CF. SEC. 249.  IN RE KEYSTONE REALTY
HOLDING CO., 117 F.2D 1003, 1006.  THEY CANNOT AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE
STATUTORY PRIVILEGE OF LITIGATING FOR THE INTEREST OF A CLASS AND THEN
SHAKE OFF THEIR SELF-ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITIES TO OTHERS BY A SIMPLE
ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HENCEFORTH THEY WILL TRADE IN THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS
FOR THEIR OWN AGGRANDIZEMENT.  TO HOLD THAT THE CHANDLER ACT PERMITS
THIS, WOULD BE TO SAY THAT CONGRESS, WHICH SOUGHT MORE EFFECTIVELY TO
ACCOMPLISH FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF INVESTORS, HAD, BY GRANTING
A RIGHT OF APPEAL TO STOCKHOLDERS, DEFEATED ITS PURPOSE, AND HAD
SUBSTANTIALLY MODIFIED THE WHOLE BODY OF LAW IMPOSING THE MOST RIGOROUS
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR FAIR DEALING UPON THOSE WHO REPRESENT THE RIGHTS
OF OTHERS.  FN13 

THE MONEY POTTS AND BOAG RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THEIR OWN INTEREST AS
STOCKHOLDERS WAS NOT PAID FOR ANYTHING THEY OWNED.  IT CAME TO THEM IN
SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION WHICH IF CARRIED TO A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION
WOULD HAVE ADDED TO THE VALUE OF OTHER PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
COMMON DEBTOR.  THAT THE SUIT WAS SETTLED AND DISMISSED DOES NOT ALTER
THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES AS TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE FRUITS OF THE
SETTLEMENT.  A DISTINCTION AS TO RIGHTS ARISING FROM LITIGATION, WHICH
RESTS UPON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A JUDGMENT AND A SETTLEMENT OF A
LAWSUIT, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS IN OTHERS, IS "TOO FORMAL TO BE
SOUND."  LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 195, 196; HELVERING V. SAFE
DEPOSIT & TRUST CO., 316 U.S. 56, 63-67.  THE APPEAL OF POTTS AND BOAG
WAS ALLEGED TO BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  IN
THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZED THE APPEAL, ITS FRUIT
PROPERLY BELONGS TO ALL THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  ONE CREDITOR,
THEREFORE, CANNOT MAKE THAT FRUIT HIS OWN BY A SIMPLE APPROPRIATION OF
IT.  CF. TERRY V. LITTLE, 101 U.S. 216, 218. 

THIRD. IT IS ARGUED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE MONEY PAID IN EXCESS OF THE
STOCK VALUE DOES IN EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE BELONG TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO AWARD THE RELIEF
PRAYED.  COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY ARE COURTS OF EQUITY AND EXERCISE ALL
EQUITABLE POWERS UNLESS PROHIBITED BY THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMM'N V. UNITED STATES REALTY CO., 310 U.S. 434, 455.  THE
DISTRICT COURT STILL HAS JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE ITS POWERS UNDER THE
ACT BOTH BECAUSE OF ITS EXPRESS RESERVATION AND BECAUSE OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 222.  FN14  THAT POWER IS AMPLE TO AUTHORIZE THE
COURT TO ORDER AN ACCOUNTING FOR THE FUNDS IN DISPUTE HERE.  PEPPER V.
LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, 303-310; AMERICAN UNITED INS. CO. V. AVON PARK,
311 U.S. 138, 145-147; CONSOLIDATED ROCK CO. V. DUBOIS, 312 U.S. 510,
521-523. 

NOR CAN WE SUSTAIN THE CONTENTION THAT RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED ON THE
ALLEGATIONS THAT YOUNG'S MOTIVE IN BRINGING THE PROCEEDING IS AN
UNWORTHY ONE.  HIS PETITION SOUGHT RELIEF FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE
STOCKHOLDERS.  THE RIGHTS OF THESE STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT TO BE IGNORED
BECAUSE OF SOME MOTIVE ATTRIBUTABLE TO YOUNG.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGUN IN 1935 UNDER SEC. 77B, 11 U.S.C.
207.  JUNE 22, 1938, CONGRESS PASSED THE CHANDLER ACT, AND THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10 OF THE ACT WERE THEREAFTER APPLICABLE TO THESE
PROCEEDINGS.  52 STAT. 883-905, 11 U.S.C. 501-676. 

FN2  THIS $1,952,000.00 JUNIOR INDEBTEDNESS CONSISTED OF SUBORDINATED
NOTES OF THE HIGBEE COMPANY WHICH HAD BEEN BOUGHT BY MIDAMERICA
CORPORATION FOR $100,000.00 AT AN AUCTION SALE IN 1935.  POTTS AND BOAG
CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED THAT THE JUNIOR DEBT'S PARTICIPATION IN
HIGBEE'S ASSETS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO $100,000.00.  THEY CHARGED THAT
BRADLEY WAS A DIRECTOR OF HIGBEE AND OF MIDAMERICA, AND THUS OCCUPIED
TWO CONFLICTING FIDUCIARY POSITIONS.  THEY INSISTED THAT THE COURT
SHOULD FIND THIS JUNIOR DEBT TO BE "INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE IN WHOLE
OR IN PART" AND "SUBORDINATED TO THE FIRST AND SECOND PREFERRED
STOCK."    FN3  POTTS' TESTIMONY AS TO THE SALE WAS: 

"Q.  SO THAT IN A SENSE YOU WERE SELLING SOMETHING MORE THAN YOUR
STOCK, I TAKE IT?  A. I THINK SO.    "Q.  YOU WERE SELLING THE APPEAL
WHICH YOU HAD TAKEN IN BEHALF OF YOURSELF AND MR. BOAG; THAT IS A FAIR
STATEMENT, ISN'T IT?  A. I THINK SO." 

THE WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN POTTS AND BOAG AND BRADLEY AND MURPHY
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR SALE OF THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE STOCK.  IT
READS IN PART: 

"I HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN, TRANSFER AND SET OVER UNTO CHARLES L. BRADLEY
AND JOHN P. MURPHY, AND THEIR ASSIGNS, 260 SHARES OF FIRST PREFERRED
STOCK OF THE HIGBEE COMPANY, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, ...  TOGETHER WITH ALL
RIGHTS, TITLE AND INTEREST, BENEFITS OR PRIVILEGES WE, OR EITHER OF US,
HAVE OR MAY HAVE IN AND TO OR BY VIRTUE OF OR ARISING FROM THE MATTER
OF THE HIGBEE COMPANY, DEBTOR, J. FRED POTTS AND WILLIAM W. BOAG,
APPELLANTS, VS.  THE HIGBEE COMPANY, APPELLEE, AND A CERTAIN APPEAL
TAKEN BY J. FRED POTTS AND WILLIAM W. BOAG IN SAID PROCEEDINGS, WHICH
SAID APPEAL IS NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT  ..." 

FN4  IN BOTH COURTS BELOW YOUNG SOUGHT AN ORDER AGAINST BRADLEY AND
MURPHY AS WELL AS POTTS AND BOAG BUT BRADLEY AND MURPHY HAVE NOT BEEN
MADE RESPONDENTS IN THIS COURT. 

FN5  THE PETITIONER HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO THIS COURT
WITH REFERENCE TO THE RESPONDENT BOAG: 

"DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IT
FIRST CAME TO PETITIONER'S ATTENTION THAT RESPONDENT BOAG HAD ENTERED
THE ARMED SERVICES.  NO ONE REPRESENTING BOAG HAS APPEARED TO REQUEST A
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING HIS RETURN.  HOWEVER, PETITIONER HAS NO
DESIRE TO CAUSE JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED AGAINST BOAG UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY TO HAVE THE
PROCEEDINGS STAYED AS TO BOAG PENDING HIS RETURN, ALTHOUGH NO RIGHTS
AGAINST HIM ARE WAIVED." 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NO JUDGMENT AGAINST BOAG WILL BE ENTERED IN
THIS CASE AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE
STAYED AS TO HIM.  SOLDIERS' & SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT OF 1940, 54
STAT. 1178. 

FN6  SPRAGUE V. TICONIC BANK, 307 U.S. 161.  SEE ATLAS BANK V. NAHANT
BANK, 23 PICK.  (MASS.) 480; WHITTEN V. DABNEY, 171 CAL. 621, 154 P.
312; HONESDALE CO. V. MONTGOMERY, 56 W. VA. 397, 49 S.E. 434; RAWNSLEY
V. TRENTON MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 9 N.J. EQ. 95; WOOD V. DUMMER, 30 FED.
CAS. 435, NO. 17,944. 

FN7  IN RE KEYSTONE REALTY HOLDING CO., 117 F.2D 1003; DANA V.
S.E.C., 125 F.2D 542; CF. AMICK V. MORTGAGE SECURITY CORP., 30 F.2D
359. 

FN8  BOESE V. KING, 108 U.S. 379, 385-386; SAMPSELL V. IMPERIAL PAPER
CORP., 313 U.S. 215, 219; CF. CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER CO., 308 U.S.
106.  SEE ALSO 66 PA. L. REV. 224; SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 65, 72ND CONG.,
1ST SESS., 6, 10, 49-93. 

FN9  "SEC.  203.  IF THE ACCEPTANCE OR FAILURE TO ACCEPT A PLAN BY
THE HOLDER OF ANY CLAIM OR STOCK IS NOT IN GOOD FAITH, IN THE LIGHT OF
OR IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIME OF ACQUISITION THEREOF, THE JUDGE MAY,
AFTER HEARING UPON NOTICE, DIRECT THAT SUCH CLAIM OR STOCK BE
DISQUALIFIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE REQUISITE MAJORITY FOR
THE ACCEPTANCE OF A PLAN."  52 STAT. 894. 

FN10  A YEAR BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HELD ITS
EXTENSIVE HEARINGS ON THE CHANDLER ACT, A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD
THAT A CREDITOR COULD NOT BE DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF VOTING ON A
REORGANIZATION PLAN UNDER SEC. 77B, ALTHOUGH HE BOUGHT THE VOTES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING CONFIRMATION UNLESS CERTAIN DEMANDS OF HIS
SHOULD BE MET.  TEXAS HOTEL CORP. V. WACO DEVELOPMENT CO., 87 F.2D
395.  THE HEARINGS MAKE CLEAR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMITTEE TO PASS
LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD BAR CREDITORS FROM A VOTE WHO WERE PROMPTED BY
SUCH A PURPOSE.  TO THIS END THEY ADOPTED THE "GOOD FAITH" PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 203.  ITS PURPOSE WAS TO PREVENT CREDITORS FROM PARTICIPATING
WHO "BY THE USE OF OBSTRUCTIVE TACTICS AND HOLD-UP TECHNIQUES EXACT FOR
THEMSELVES UNDUE ADVANTAGES FROM THE OTHER STOCKHOLDERS WHO ARE
COOPERATING."  BAD FAITH WAS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO CLAIMANTS WHO OPPOSED
A PLAN FOR A TIME UNTIL THEY WERE "BOUGHT OFF"; THOSE WHO "REFUSED TO
VOTE IN FAVOR OF A PLAN UNLESS  ...  GIVEN SOME PARTICULAR PREFERENTIAL
ADVANTAGE."  HEARINGS ON REVISION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., ON H.R. 6439, SERIAL 9, PP. 180-182. 

SEE ALSO, ON THE SAME GENERAL TOPIC, MCLAUGHLIN, CAPACITY OF
PLAINTIFF-STOCKHOLDER TO TERMINATE A STOCKHOLDER'S SUIT, 46 YALE L.J.
421; HORNSTEIN, PROBLEMS OF PROCEDURE IN STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE
SUITS, 42 COL. L. REV. 574, RODGERS AND GROOM, REORGANIZATION OF
RAILROAD CORPORATIONS UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 33 COL.
L. REV. 571, 588-601. 

FN11  SEE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309
U.S. 470, 476-7; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R.
CO., 288 U.S. 14, 25-7. 

FN12  BY VIRTUE OF THEIR STANDING AS SOLE APPELLANTS, POTTS AND BOAG,
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL, DOMINATED THE FATE OF THE
REORGANIZATION AS COMPLETELY AS THOUGH THEY HAD BEEN THE MAJORITY
STOCKHOLDERS OF A GOING CORPORATION.  CF. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
BOGERT, 250 U.S. 483, 492:  "BUT THE DOCTRINE BY WHICH THE HOLDERS OF A
MAJORITY OF THE STOCK OF A CORPORATION WHO DOMINATE ITS AFFAIRS ARE
HELD TO ACT AS TRUSTEES FOR THE MINORITY, DOES NOT REST UPON SUCH
TECHNICAL DISTINCTIONS.  IT IS THE FACT OF CONTROL OF THE COMMON
PROPERTY HELD AND EXERCISED, NOT THE PARTICULAR MEANS BY WHICH OR
MANNER IN WHICH THE CONTROL IS EXERCISED, THAT CREATES THE FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATION  ....  THE ESSENTIAL OF THE LIABILITY TO ACCOUNT SOUGHT TO
BE ENFORCED IN THIS SUIT LIES NOT IN FRAUD OR MISMANAGEMENT, BUT IN THE
FACT THAT, HAVING BECOME A FIDUCIARY THROUGH TAKING CONTROL OF THE OLD
HOUSTON COMPANY, THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC HAS SECURED FRUITS WHICH IT HAS
NOT SHARED WITH THE MINORITY.  THE WRONG LAY NOT IN ACQUIRING THE
STOCK, BUT IN REFUSING TO MAKE A PRO RATA DISTRIBUTION ON EQUAL TERMS
AMONG THE OLD HOUSTON COMPANY SHAREHOLDERS. 

FN13  CF. WOODS V. CITY BANK, 312 U.S. 262, 267-269; MEINHARD V.
SALMON, 249 N.Y. 458, 164 N.E. 545. 

FN14  THIS SECTION GIVES THE JUDGE POWER, UNDER CONDITIONS APPLICABLE
HERE, TO ALTER AND MODIFY A REORGANIZATION PLAN EVEN AFTER
CONFIRMATION 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 
..END :





CANADIAN AVIATOR, LTD. V. U.S., 324 U.S. 215 


NO. 279.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  - 421
F.2D 709, REVERSED. 


THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT PROVIDES THAT "A LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY
MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES  ...  FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A
PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  HELD: 

1.  THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE ACT IS NOT CONFINED TO CASES WHERE THE
PUBLIC VESSEL IS THE "PHYSICAL INSTRUMENT" BY WHICH THE "PHYSICAL
DAMAGE" IS DONE.  P. 222. 

2.  DAMAGE "CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL" EMBRACES DAMAGE RESULTING FROM
NEGLIGENCE OF PERSONNEL IN THE OPERATION OF THE VESSEL.  P. 224. 

3.  THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158; THE VERA CRUZ, NO. 2, 9 L.R., PROB. 
DIV.  96(1884); DOBSON V. UNITED STATES, 27 F.2D 807; AND O'NEAL V.
UNITED STATES, 11 F.2D 869, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 225. 

4.  THE ACT AUTHORIZES THE COURTS TO APPLY PRINCIPLES OF IN REM AS
WELL AS IN PERSONAM LIABILITY IN ADMIRALTY, EVEN THOUGH IT DENIES A
MARITIME LIEN; WHICH IS IN ACCORD WITH THE BROAD PURPOSE OF THE ACT AS
EVIDENCED IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  P. 227. 

5.  A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT, WHILE FOLLOWING DIRECTLY ASTERN OF A
PUBLIC VESSEL AS ORDERED BY NAVAL AUTHORITIES, COMPLAINANT'S VESSEL WAS
DAMAGED WHEN IT STRUCK A SUBMERGED WRECK, AND THAT THE ACCIDENT
RESULTED SOLELY FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PUBLIC VESSEL AND ITS CREW,
STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ACT.  P. 228. 

CANADIAN AVIATOR, LIMITED V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 688, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE
DISMISSAL OF A LIBEL, 52 F.SUPP.  211, UNDER THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW A LIBEL FILED BY THE PETITIONER, A
CANADIAN CORPORATION AND OWNER OF THE STEAMSHIP CAVELIER, AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, TO RECOVER, UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, 1925, 43 STAT. 1112,  FN1
DAMAGES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED BY THE CAVELIER DUE TO THE
NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE LIBEL ON THE GROUND THAT IT
FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, 1925,
FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAD CONSENTED TO BE SUED.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT. 
FN3 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IS BASED ON SEC.
24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 323
U.S. 688, BECAUSE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF
GENERAL IMPORTANCE RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE. 
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT RESTS ON SEC. 240(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

ON AUGUST 4, 1942, THE PETITIONER, THE OWNERS OF THE STEAMSHIP
CAVELIER, FILED A LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER FOR DAMAGES TO ITS SHIP, THE
CAVELIER, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF THE
UNITED STATES NAVAL PATROL BOAT, YP 249, A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE LIBEL AVERRED THAT ON JULY 7, 1942, THE CAVELIER, WHILE EN
ROUTE FROM CANADA TO JAMAICA, WAS ORDERED BY UNITED STATES NAVAL
AUTHORITIES TO ENTER DELAWARE BAY.  UPON APPROACHING THE BAY, THE
CAVELIER RECEIVED FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE NAVAL AUTHORITIES THAT
IN HER TRANSIT OF THE WATERS CONSTITUTING THE ENTRANCE TO THE BAY, THE
CAVELIER WAS TO FOLLOW DIRECTLY ASTERN OF THE PATROL BOAT, YP 249, A
PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES.  WHILE FOLLOWING DIRECTLY ASTERN OF
THE YP 249, AS ORDERED, THE CAVELIER STRUCK A SUBMERGED WRECK AND
SUSTAINED SERIOUS DAMAGES.  IT WAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE COLLISION
WITH THE WRECK WAS DUE "SOLELY TO THE FAULT AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES VESSEL YP 249 AND THOSE IN CHARGE OF HER."  FN4  THE
LIBEL ALSO STATED THAT PETITIONER, A CANADIAN CORPORATION, ELECTED TO
HAVE ITS SUIT PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF LIBELS IN
PERSONAM AND IN REM; THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE DOMINION OF CANADA ALLOWS NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES TO SUE IN
ITS COURTS. 

THE RESPONDENT, UNITED STATES, APPEARED SPECIALLY AND SOUGHT TO HAVE
THE LIBEL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAD CONSENTED TO BE SUED.  PETITIONER, THE
LIBELANT, OPPOSED THIS ACTION, RELYING ON SEC. 1 OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS
ACT, 1925, WHICH PROVIDED THAT A "LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY MAY BE
BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ...  FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC
VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  FN5  THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE LIBEL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACCIDENT ALLEGED IN THE
LIBEL WAS NOT CAUSED BY THE "NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF THE VESSEL," THAT
THE VESSEL WAS NOT THE "EFFICIENT CAUSE" OF THE ACCIDENT BUT THAT THE
ACCIDENT AROSE FROM THE "PERSONAL AND INDEPENDENT NEGLIGENCE OF ITS
OFFICERS."  THE COURT HELD THAT THE ACT AUTHORIZED SUIT ONLY WHERE THE
PUBLIC VESSEL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT ON THE THEORY THAT THE PHRASE IN THE ACT "CAUSED BY A PUBLIC
VESSEL" MEANT CAUSED BY THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE VESSEL, WITH THE VESSEL
AS THE "NOXIOUS INSTRUMENT," THE "PHYSICAL INSTRUMENT," BY WHICH THE
PHYSICAL DAMAGE WAS DONE; THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PHYSICAL CAUSE
WAS THE SUBMERGED WRECK.  THE CIRCUIT COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE ACT DID
NOT AUTHORIZE RECOVERY ON THE ADMIRALTY PRINCIPLES OF IN REM
LIABILITY. 

THE DISMISSAL BY THE LOWER COURT OF PETITIONER'S LIBEL RAISES THREE
QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT:  DOES THE PUBLIC VESSELS
ACT, 1925, AUTHORIZE SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WHERE THE PUBLIC
VESSEL IS NOT THE PHYSICAL CAUSE, THE "PHYSICAL INSTRUMENT" BY WHICH
THE DAMAGE IS DONE; THAT IS, IS THE ACT CONFINED TO CASES INVOLVING THE
COLLISION SITUATION?  IF NOT, DOES THE ACT, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE FILING
OF A LIBEL IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, AUTHORIZE RECOVERY IN
SUCH SUIT ON ADMIRALTY PRINCIPLES OF IN REM AS WELL AS IN PERSONAM
LIABILITY?  FINALLY, IF THE ACT AUTHORIZES RECOVERY ON ADMIRALTY
PRINCIPLES IN REM AND IN PERSONAM, DOES PETITIONER'S LIBEL STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THOSE PRINCIPLES OF ADMIRALTY LAW? 

THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, 1925, WAS THE LAST IN A SERIES OF STATUTES
DIRECTED GENERALLY AT AFFORDING PRIVATE VESSEL OWNERS AN ADEQUATE AND
EFFICIENT REMEDY FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF SHIPS
OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES.  FN6  PRIOR TO 1916 A PRIVATE OWNER WHOSE
SHIP WAS DAMAGED BY NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A VESSEL OWNED OR OPERATED
BY THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT RECOVER FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR
DAMAGES SUFFERED DUE TO THE UNITED STATES' IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, THE UNITED STATES COULD SUE PRIVATE OWNERS FOR DAMAGES
ARISING FROM THEIR NEGLIGENCE.  RECOGNIZING THE INEQUITIES OF THIS
SITUATION, CONGRESS PASSED NUMEROUS PRIVATE ACTS GRANTING RELIEF IN A
PARTICULAR CASE WHERE A PRIVATE VESSEL WAS DAMAGED BY NEGLIGENT
OPERATION OF A GOVERNMENT SHIP.  THE DELAYS, COUPLED WITH THE
INCONVENIENCE TO CONGRESS OF HANDLING EACH CLAIM BY SEPARATE BILL, LED
CONGRESS TO PROVIDE IN THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, 39 STAT. 728, THAT
SHIPPING BOARD VESSELS WHILE EMPLOYED AS MERCHANT VESSELS WERE SUBJECT
TO "ALL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND LIABILITIES GOVERNING MERCHANT VESSELS"
REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES OWNED OR HAD AN INTEREST
IN THEM.  FN7 

IN THE LAKE MONROE, 250 U.S. 246, THIS COURT HELD THAT THIS STATUTORY
WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT SUBJECTED SHIPPING BOARD
MERCHANT VESSELS TO PROCEEDINGS IN REM IN ADMIRALTY.  SINCE THE ARREST
AND SEIZURE OF A VESSEL INCIDENT TO AN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING IN REM
PROVED EMBARRASSING, CONGRESS, IN 1920, ADOPTED THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY
ACT, 41 STAT. 525, FN8  WHICH PROVIDED GENERALLY THAT A "LIBEL IN
PERSONAM" FOR DAMAGES COULD BE FILED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY CASE
WHERE IF THE GOVERNMENT MERCHANT VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR
OPERATED A "PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY" COULD BE MAINTAINED, SEC. 2; BUT
THAT VESSELS SUBJECT TO SUIT UNDER THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO
SEIZURE OR ARREST, SEC. 1.  ALTHOUGH SEC. 2 OF THE ACT LIMITED SUIT TO
THE "FILING OF A LIBEL IN PERSONAM," THIS COURT INTERPRETED THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT TO AUTHORIZE RECOVERY IN SUCH SUIT ON
ADMIRALTY PRINCIPLES OF IN REM AS WELL AS IN PERSONAM LIABILITY.  FN9
EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 675.  THE ACT
ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS
OF ALL EXEMPTIONS AND OF ALL LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ACCORDED BY LAW
TO OWNERS, CHARTERERS, OPERATORS OR AGENTS OF VESSELS, SEC. 6.  FN10 

AT THE TIME THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT WAS BEING CONSIDERED BY
CONGRESS, IT WAS PROPOSED TO EXTEND ITS COVERAGE TO INCLUDE "PUBLIC
VESSELS" AS WELL AS MERCHANT VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES.  APPARENTLY
FEARING THAT SUCH AN EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE OF THE BILL WOULD DELAY
PASSAGE, THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT WAS ADOPTED, ITS PROVISIONS BEING
CONFINED TO "MERCHANT VESSELS."  FN11 

AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF SEVERAL BILLS  FN12  DEALING WITH SUITS
AGAINST PUBLIC VESSELS, CONGRESS, IN 1925, ADOPTED THE PUBLIC VESSELS
ACT, 43 STAT. 1112.  IT PROVIDED THAT A "LIBEL IN PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY
MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES  ...  FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A
PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES."  SEC. 1.  FN13  VENUE OF SUCH
SUITS IS LAID IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT "IN WHICH THE
VESSEL OR CARGO CHARGED WITH CREATING THE LIABILITY IS FOUND WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES."  FN14  SEC. 2.  IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT SUITS UNDER
THE ACT "SHALL BE SUBJECT TO AND PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF  ...  (SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, 1920, 41 STAT. 525) OR ANY
AMENDMENT THEREOF, IN SO FAR AS THE SAME ARE NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH
..."  FN15  THE ACT ALSO SPECIFIED THAT NO SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT BY A
NATIONAL OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT UNLESS SAID FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, UNDER
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, ALLOWS NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES TO SUE IN
ITS COURTS, SEC. 5; SECS. 8 AND 9 OF THE ACT CONTAIN PROVISIONS SIMILAR
TO THOSE IN THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, PROVIDING THAT THE STATUTE
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF A LIEN AGAINST A
PUBLIC VESSEL AND CONFERRING ON THE UNITED STATES ALL EXEMPTIONS AND
LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ACCORDED BY LAW TO OWNERS OF PRIVATE VESSELS. 
FN16 

FIRST.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT SEC. 1 OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT
AUTHORIZING SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES "FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A
PUBLIC VESSEL" SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE
PUBLIC VESSEL IS THE "PHYSICAL INSTRUMENT" BY WHICH THE "PHYSICAL
DAMAGE" IS DONE, E.G. COLLISION; THAT THEREFORE PETITIONER'S LIBEL DOES
NOT LIE UNDER THE ACT.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION NARROWLY LIMITS THE ACT'S
RELIEF.  WE CONCLUDE THAT SUCH A NARROW INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT IS
NOT JUSTIFIABLE.  WHILE THE GENERAL HISTORY OF THE ACT AS OUTLINED
ABOVE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE STATUTE NECESSARILY EXTENDS TO THE
NON-COLLISION CASES IN VIEW OF THE RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF
STATUTORY WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, UNITED STATES V. SHERWOOD, 312
U.S. 584, 586; EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WE
THINK CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF BROAD STATUTORY LANGUAGE AUTHORIZING
SUIT WAS DELIBERATE AND IS NOT TO BE THWARTED BY AN UNDULY RESTRICTIVE
INTERPRETATION.  SEE THE LAKE MONROE, 250 U.S. 246; NAHMEH V. UNITED
STATES, 267 U.S. 122, 125-26; EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229, 231. 

IN 1924, H.R. 6989 WAS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
ITS PROVISIONS BEING SIMILAR FN17  TO THOSE OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT
AS ADOPTED, WITH THIS MATERIAL DIFFERENCE:  SECTION 1 OF THAT BILL
AUTHORIZED SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES "FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY
COLLISION BY A PUBLIC VESSEL."  ON REFERENCE TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
CLAIMS, A SUBSTITUTE BILL, H.R. 9535, WAS REPORTED TO THE HOUSE.  FN18
THIS BILL PROVIDED FOR SUITS "FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF
THE UNITED STATES."  THIS BILL WITH THE LATTER PHRASE INCLUDED
SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  THIS CHANGE IN THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT PRIOR TO ITS ADOPTION CONVINCES US THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE SUITS IN OTHER THAN COLLISION CASES.  THE
SPONSORS OF THE BILL IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT
EXTENDED TO CASES WHERE DAMAGE WAS DONE "BY COLLISION, OR OTHER FAULT
OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS AND GOVERNMENT AGENTS."  FN19  MOREOVER,
CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS ON THIS BILL AND THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION IN THE
NUMEROUS HEARINGS HELD ON PREDECESSOR MEASURES TO THE PRESENT BILL,
INDICATES THAT AUTHORITY TO SUE WAS NOT TO BE LIMITED TO CASES WHERE
THE VESSEL WAS THE PHYSICAL INSTRUMENT THAT CAUSED THE PHYSICAL
DAMAGE.  FN20 

THE USE OF THE PHRASE "CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL" CONSTITUTES AN
ADOPTION BY CONGRESS OF THE CUSTOMARY LEGAL TERMINOLOGY OF THE
ADMIRALTY LAW WHICH REFERS TO THE VESSEL AS CAUSING THE HARM ALTHOUGH
THE ACTUAL CAUSE IS THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PERSONNEL IN THE OPERATION OF
THE SHIP.  SUCH PERSONIFICATION OF THE VESSEL, TREATING IT AS A
JURISTIC PERSON WHOSE ACTS AND OMISSIONS, ALTHOUGH BROUGHT ABOUT BY HER
PERSONNEL, ARE PERSONAL ACTS OF THE SHIP FOR WHICH, AS A JURISTIC
PERSON, SHE IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE, HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THIS
COURT.  UNITED STATES V. BRIG MALEK ADHEL, 2 HOW.  210, 233-34; THE
CHINA, 7 WALL.  53, 68; RALLI V. TROOP, 157 U.S. 386, 402-3; THE JOHN
G. STEVENS, 170 U.S. 113, 120; THE BARNSTABLE, 181 U.S. 464, 467.  THAT
SUCH WAS THE MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO THIS PHRASE IS FURTHER EVIDENCED BY
SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, RELATING TO VENUE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT VENUE SHALL
LIE IN THE DISTRICT "IN WHICH THE VESSEL OR CARGO CHARGED WITH CREATING
THE LIABILITY IS FOUND."  43 STAT. 1112.  THE CONSENT TO SUIT EMBODIED
IN THE ACT THUS EXTENDS TO CASES WHERE THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PERSONNEL
OF A PUBLIC VESSEL IN THE OPERATION OF THE VESSEL CAUSES DAMAGE TO
OTHER SHIPS, THEIR CARGOES, AND PERSONNEL, REGARDLESS OF PHYSICAL
CONTACT BETWEEN THE TWO SHIPS,  FN21  AND WHERE PRINCIPLES OF ADMIRALTY
LAW IMPOSE LIABILITY ON PRIVATE PARTIES.  THERE SEEMS NO LOGICAL REASON
FOR ALLOWING RECOVERY FOR COLLISION AND REFUSING RECOVERY FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED BY OTHER MOVEMENTS OF THE OFFENDING VESSEL. 

THE FACT THAT THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE BILL STATE THAT THE "CHIEF
PURPOSE" OF THE ACT IS TO AUTHORIZE RECOVERY IN COLLISION CASES, THAT
THE DEPARTMENTAL LETTERS ATTACHED TO THE REPORT CONSIDER PRINCIPALLY
THE "COLLISION" SITUATION, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD BE
SO LIMITED.  FN22  RESPONDENT RELIES ON THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158, IN
WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT A WISCONSIN STATUTE IMPOSING LIABILITY "FOR ALL
DAMAGES  ...  DONE TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY BY SUCH SHIP," DID NOT APPLY
TO INJURIES SUFFERED BY A MEMBER OF A SHIP'S CREW ARISING FROM THE
NEGLIGENCE OF THE MASTER OF THE VESSEL, SINCE THE DAMAGE WAS NOT "DONE
BY THE SHIP HERSELF, AS THE OFFENDING THING,  ..."  189 U.S. 158, 176. 
SINCE THAT CASE INVOLVED A SUIT BY A MEMBER OF THE CREW AGAINST HIS
EMPLOYER-OWNER OF THE VESSEL, THE HOLDING IN THAT DECISION ON ITS FACTS
IS CLEARLY INAPPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE.  MOREOVER, THE LANGUAGE IN
THE WISCONSIN STATUTE IS NARROWER IN SCOPE THAN THAT IN THE PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT, 1925, WHICH REFERS GENERALLY TO "DAMAGES CAUSED BY A
PUBLIC VESSEL."  FURTHERMORE, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT REQUIRES A DIFFERENT RESULT IN SO FAR AS THE OSCEOLA CASE
INTERPRETS THE WISCONSIN STATUTE TO APPLY ONLY TO CASES WHERE THE
VESSEL IS ITSELF THE PHYSICAL CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE.  THESE LATTER TWO
CONSIDERATIONS SERVE ALSO TO DISTINGUISH THE VERA CRUZ, NO. 2, 9 L.R.,
PROB.  DIV.  96(1884). RESPONDENT ALSO RELIES ON DOBSON V. UNITED
STATES, 27 F.2D 807, AND O'NEAL V. UNITED STATES, 11 F.2D 869.  THESE
CASES ARE NOT APPOSITE ON THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THEY
ALSO INVOLVED SUITS FOR DAMAGES, FOR PERSONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY A
SEAMAN EMPLOYEE ABOARD HIS OWN SHIP, AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AS
EMPLOYER. 

SECOND.  PETITIONER, EVIDENTLY RELYING ON SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, STATES
IN ITS LIBEL THAT IT ELECTS TO HAVE THE ACTION PROCEED ON PRINCIPLES OF
IN REM AS WELL AS IN PERSONAM LIABILITY.  FN23  AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS APPARENTLY HOLDS THAT THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE RECOVERY ON
PRINCIPLES OF IN REM LIABILITY BECAUSE OF THE STATUTORY DENIAL OF A
MARITIME LIEN, WE TURN TO A CONSIDERATION OF THIS HOLDING.  DOES THE
PUBLIC VESSELS ACT WHICH AUTHORIZES FILING OF A "LIBEL IN PERSONAM"
AUTHORIZE THE COURTS TO APPLY PRINCIPLES OF IN REM AS WELL AS IN
PERSONAM LIABILITY IN ADMIRALTY?  FN24  AS WAS INDICATED, P. 219 SUPRA,
THIS COURT HELD THAT THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, WHICH ALSO AUTHORIZES
FILING OF A "LIBEL IN PERSONAM" AUTHORIZES THE COURTS TO GRANT JUDGMENT
ON IN REM AS WELL AS IN PERSONAM PRINCIPLES, EXCEPT THAT THE GOVERNMENT
VESSEL WAS NOT SUBJECT TO SEIZURE OR ARREST.  SECTION 3 OF THAT ACT,
"PROCEDURE IN CASES OF LIBEL IN PERSONAM," N25 SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES
A LIBELANT, IF HE SO ELECTS, TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES
OF LIBELS IN REM IF IT APPEARS THAT HAD THE VESSEL BEEN PRIVATELY OWNED
A LIBEL IN REM MIGHT BE MAINTAINED; ELECTION TO SO PROCEED IS NOT TO
PRECLUDE THE LIBELANT FROM SEEKING RELIEF IN PERSONAM IN THE SAME
SUIT.  ALTHOUGH THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT DOES NOT HAVE A SIMILAR
PROVISION, SEC. 2 OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT
"SUITS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO AND PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS" OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, "IN SO FAR AS THE SAME ARE
NOT INCONSISTENT" WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT.  FN26
SINCE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT THAT IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS PROVISION OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, WE HOLD THAT THE
INCORPORATION CLAUSE APPLIES.  OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS
ACT SUPPORT SUCH INCORPORATION.  AUTHORITY IS GIVEN TO SUE GENERALLY
"IN ADMIRALTY"; THIS BROAD GENERIC TERM IMPLIES A RIGHT TO INVOKE
PRINCIPLES OF IN REM AND IN PERSONAM LIABILITY.  FURTHERMORE, IN
EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT
AUTHORITY TO RESORT TO BOTH TYPES OF PRINCIPLES OF ADMIRALTY LIABILITY
WAS BORNE OUT BY THE FACT THAT THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT PROVIDED THAT
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ALL THE EXEMPTIONS ACCORDED TO
PRIVATE PERSONS UNDER ADMIRALTY LAW.  WE THERE HELD: 

"THE NECESSARY IMPLICATION IS THAT IF, UNDER THE HARTER ACT  ...  OR
THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY ACT,  ...  THE UNITED STATES AS OWNER OF A
MERCHANT VESSEL SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SHOW PERFORMANCE OF THE
CONDITIONS UPON WHICH SUCH STATUTORY LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ARE
GRANTED, IT MUST ASSUME THE PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE IN SUCH
CASES EXACTLY AS A PRIVATE OWNER WOULD."  (272 U.S. 675, 690-91.) 

THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT CONTAINS THE SAME EXEMPTION PROVISION AS THAT
IN THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  FN27  THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT
ACCORDS WITH THE BROAD PURPOSE EXPRESSED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS
AND REPORTS ON THE ACT.  FN28  IN ADDITION, SUCH AN INTERPRETATION
ACCOMPLISHES CONGRESS' PURPOSE TO GRANT FOREIGN NATIONALS THE SAME
RIGHTS AS WOULD BE ACCORDED OUR NATIONALS IN FOREIGN COURTS IN A
SIMILAR SITUATION; A NARROWER INTERPRETATION WOULD LIMIT THE RECIPROCAL
EFFECT OF THIS ACT.  FN29 

THIRD.  SINCE WE HOLD THAT THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT WAS INTENDED TO
IMPOSE ON THE UNITED STATES THE SAME LIABILITY (APART FROM SEIZURE OR
ARREST UNDER A LIBEL IN REM) AS IS IMPOSED BY THE ADMIRALTY LAW ON THE
PRIVATE SHIPOWNER, IT REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER PETITIONER
STATES A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMIRALTY
LAW, IN REM AND IN PERSONAM.  PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT'S
VESSEL, HAVING UNDERTAKEN TO GUIDE PETITIONER'S BOAT, THE CAVELIER,
THROUGH THE WATERS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE BAY, DID SO IN A NEGLIGENT
FASHION CAUSING PETITIONER TO STRIKE A SUBMERGED WRECK; THAT THE
ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED SOLELY BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF YP 249 AND ITS CREW. 
IT NEEDS NO EXTENDED CITATION OF AUTHORITY TO SHOW THAT WHERE A TUG
NEGLIGENTLY GROUNDS ITS TOW, THE TUG AND ITS OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE
DAMAGES RESULTING THEREFROM.  THE QUICKSTEP, 9 WALL.  665; THE JOHN G.
STEVENS, 170 U.S. 113; THE TEMPLE EMERY, 122 F. 180; THE W. G. MASON,
142 F. 913; SEE, THE CASPIAN, 14 F.2D 1013; THE MURRELL, 200 F. 826;
THE SALLY MCDEVITT V. THE J. W. PAXON, 24 F. 302; THE RESCUE, 74 F.
847.  FN30  THE FACT THAT THE CAVELIER WAS NOT FASTENED TO THE YP 249
BY A TOW ROPE IS IRRELEVANT.  FN31  THE LIBEL AVERS THAT SHE WAS UNDER
ORDERS BY THE NAVAL AUTHORITIES TO PROCEED DIRECTLY ASTERN OF THE YP
249; FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES SHE WAS AS FIRMLY FASTENED TO THE STERN
OF THE YP 249 AS IF SHE HAD BEEN IN TOW. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE REMANDED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH CONSIDERATION OF
THE CASE ON THE MERITS. 

FN1  43 STAT. 1112.  SECTION 1 PROVIDES:  "THAT A LIBEL IN PERSONAM
IN ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES  ...  FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR COMPENSATION
FOR TOWAGE AND SALVAGE SERVICES, INCLUDING CONTRACT SALVAGE, RENDERED
TO A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES  ..." 

FN2  CANADIAN AVIATOR, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 52 F.SUPP.  211. 

FN3  CANADIAN AVIATOR, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 709. 

FN4  THE PETITIONER'S LIBEL ALLEGED THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC ACTS OF
NEGLIGENCE: 

"1.  SHE WAS NOT IN CHARGE OF A COMPETENT PERSON. 

"2.  SHE FAILED TO KEEP A GOOD LOOK-OUT. 

"3.  SHE FAILED TO GUIDE THE CAVELIER SAFELY THROUGH THE WATERS
CONSTITUTING THE ENTRANCE TO DELAWARE BAY. 

"4.  SHE LED THE CAVELIER DIRECTLY OVER A SUBMERGED WRECK. 

"5.  SHE FAILED TO GIVE THE CAVELIER PROPER OR ADEQUATE GUIDANCE AS
TO MAKING A SAFE ENTRANCE INTO DELAWARE BAY." 

FN5  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN6  BENEDICT, ADMIRALTY (6TH ED.)  VOL.  1, 437; ROBINSON,
ADMIRALTY, 266; LORD, ADMIRALTY CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, 19
COLUMBIA L. REV. 467; BORCHARD, GOVERNMENT LIABILITY IN TORT, 34 YALE
L.J. 1, 35-41; 39 YALE L.J. 1189. 

FN7  SECTION 9 PROVIDES, IN PART, 39 STAT. 730-31: 

"EVERY VESSEL PURCHASED, CHARTERED, OR LEASED FROM THE BOARD  ...
WHILE EMPLOYED SOLELY AS MERCHANT VESSELS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS,
REGULATIONS, AND LIABILITIES GOVERNING MERCHANT VESSELS, WHETHER THE
UNITED STATES BE INTERESTED THEREIN AS OWNER, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR
HOLD ANY MORTGAGE, LIEN, OR OTHER INTEREST THEREIN." 

FN8  41 STAT. 525-26, SEC. 1:  "THAT NO VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES  ...  OR IN THE POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  AND NO
CARGO OWNED OR POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES  ... SHALL HEREAFTER, IN
VIEW OF THE PROVISION HEREIN MADE FOR A LIBEL IN PERSONAM, BE SUBJECT
TO ARREST OR SEIZURE BY JUDICIAL PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS
POSSESSIONS  ... 

"SEC. 2.  THAT IN CASES WHERE IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR
OPERATED, OR IF SUCH CARGO WERE PRIVATELY OWNED AND POSSESSED, A
PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY COULD BE MAINTAINED AT THE TIME OF THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, A LIBEL IN PERSONAM MAY
BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST SUCH CORPORATION, AS
THE CASE MAY BE, PROVIDED THAT SUCH VESSEL IS EMPLOYED AS A MERCHANT
VESSEL OR IS A TUG BOAT OPERATED BY SUCH CORPORATION.  SUCH SUITS SHALL
BE BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
IN WHICH THE PARTIES SO SUING, OR ANY OF THEM, RESIDE OR HAVE THEIR
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES, OR IN WHICH THE
VESSEL OR CARGO CHARGED WITH LIABILITY IS FOUND  ...." 

FN9  41 STAT. 526:  "THAT SUCH SUITS SHALL PROCEED AND SHALL BE HEARD
AND DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND TO THE RULES OF
PRACTICE OBTAINING IN LIKE CASES BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES  ....  IF THE
LIBELANT SO ELECTS IN HIS LIBEL THE SUIT MAY PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBELS IN REM WHEREVER IT SHALL APPEAR THAT HAD THE
VESSEL OR CARGO BEEN PRIVATELY OWNED AND POSSESSED A LIBEL IN REM MIGHT
HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED.  ELECTION SO TO PROCEED SHALL NOT PRECLUDE THE
LIBELANT IN ANY PROPER CASE FROM SEEKING RELIEF IN PERSONAM IN THE SAME
SUIT  ...." 

FN10  41 STAT. 527:  "SEC.  6.  THAT THE UNITED STATES OR SUCH
CORPORATION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF ALL EXEMPTIONS AND OF
ALL LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ACCORDED BY LAW TO THE OWNERS, CHARTERERS,
OPERATORS, OR AGENTS OF VESSELS." 

FN11  HEARINGS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, S. 3076 AND H.R.
7124, NOV. 13, 1919, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AT P. 7. 

FN12  H.R. 13591, APRIL 13, 1920, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H.R. 6989,
FEBRUARY 14, 1924, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 9075, MAY 5, 1924, 68TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 9535, MAY 29, 1924, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN14  THE ACT ALSO CONTAINED A SPECIAL VENUE PROVISION FOR CASES
WHERE THE VESSEL WAS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  43 STAT. 1112. 

FN15  43 STAT. 1112:  "SEC.  2.  THAT SUCH SUIT SHALL BE BROUGHT IN
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE
VESSEL OR CARGO CHARGED WITH CREATING THE LIABILITY IS FOUND WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES,  ...  SUCH SUITS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO AND PROCEED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT ENTITLED 'AN ACT AUTHORIZING
SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN ADMIRALTY, SUITS FOR SALVAGE
SERVICES, AND PROVIDING FOR THE RELEASE OF MERCHANT VESSELS BELONGING
TO THE UNITED STATES FROM ARREST AND ATTACHMENT IN FOREIGN
JURISDICTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' APPROVED MARCH 9, 1920, OR ANY
AMENDMENT THEREOF, IN SO FAR AS THE SAME ARE NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH,
EXCEPT THAT NO INTEREST SHALL BE ALLOWED ON ANY CLAIM UP TO THE TIME OF
THE RENDITION OF JUDGMENT UNLESS UPON A CONTRACT EXPRESSLY STIPULATING
FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST." 

FN16  43 STAT. 1113:  "SEC.  8.  NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT SHALL
BE CONSTRUED TO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF OR AS CREATING A LIEN
AGAINST ANY PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"SEC. 9.  THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF ALL
EXEMPTIONS AND OF ALL LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ACCORDED BY LAW TO THE
OWNERS, CHARTERERS, OPERATORS OR AGENTS OF VESSELS." 

FN17  H.R. 6989, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., PROVIDED:  "THAT A LIBEL IN
PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,  ...
FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY COLLISION BY A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE UNITED
STATES,  ..." 

THIS BILL WAS HIGHLY SIMILAR TO THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT, 1925, 43
STAT. 1112, AS FINALLY ADOPTED.  A MATERIAL VARIANCE, OTHER THAN THE
ONE MENTIONED ABOVE, WAS A PROVISION MAKING THE CONSENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT UNDER THE BILL. 

FN18  H. REP. NO. 913, MAY 31, 1924, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN19  66 CONG. REC. 2087.  REPRESENTATIVE UNDERHILL, THE SPONSOR OF
THE BILL, STATED: 

"THE BILL I HAVE INTRODUCED SIMPLY ALLOWS SUITS IN ADMIRALTY TO BE
BROUGHT BY OWNERS OF VESSELS WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY
COLLISION OR OTHER FAULT OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS AND GOVERNMENT AGENTS." 

SIMILARLY, SENATOR BAYARD, IN DISCUSSING THE MEASURE IN THE SENATE,
SAID, 66 CONG. REC. 3560: 

"IT WOULD GIVE A PERSON AGGRIEVED BECAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT BY REASON OF
THE SHORTCOMINGS OF A UNITED STATES SHIP THE RIGHT TO GO INTO A
DISTRICT COURT AND PROSECUTE HIS ACTION.  IT PROVIDES FOR THE
APPEARANCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ALL
MARITIME ACCIDENTS OF ANY KIND RESULTING FROM COLLISION, AND SO ON, ARE
TAKEN CARE OF.  A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY WOULD BE SAVED TO THE
GOVERNMENT." 

FN20  H. REP. NO. 913, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AT P. 63; S. REP. NO.
941, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., AT P. 3; SEE ALSO H. REP. NO. 1301, 66TH
CONG., 3RD SESS., FEB. 7, 1921, SEE ESPECIALLY LETTER OF THE ACTING
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, P. 8; HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 9075, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., MAY
21, 1924, PP. 6, 19, 21, 23, 28, 30. 

FN21  SEE COASTWISE TRANSPORTATION CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 43 F.2D
401; THE HARDING HIGHWAY, 53 F.2D 938. 

FN22  H. REP. 913, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1, 6; S. REP. NO. 941,
68TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1, 6. 

FN23  SEE ADMIRALTY RULES, SUPREME COURT, RULE 14: 

"IN ALL SUITS FOR PILOTAGE OR DAMAGE BY COLLISION, THE LIBELLANT MAY
PROCEED IN REM AGAINST THE SHIP AND/OR IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE MASTER
AND/OR THE OWNER."    FN24  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.  AT THE TIME OF THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS ON H.R. 9535(WHICH WHEN ADOPTED BECAME THE PUBLIC
VESSELS ACT), THE COURTS HAD NOT YET INTERPRETED THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY
ACT, 41 STAT. 525, TO AUTHORIZE RECOVERY ON ADMIRALTY PRINCIPLES OF
BOTH IN REM AND IN PERSONAM LIABILITY.  SEE EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 675(1927).  WE FIND NO DISCUSSION OF WHETHER
SEC. 2 OF THE PUBLIC VESSELS ACT IMPORTED BOTH PRINCIPLES INTO ITS
TEXT.  THE PROBLEM HAD BEEN ADVERTED TO IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
LETTERS OF OPINION TO THE COMMITTEES CONSIDERING THE PROBLEM.  H. REP.
NO. 913, P. 12, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 941, P. 12, 68TH
CONG., 2D SESS.; HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 9075, MAY 21, 1924, PP. 30, 31 AND
34. 

FN25 46 U.S.C. SEC. 743; SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN26  SEE NOTE 15, SUPRA. 

FN27  SEE NOTE 16, SUPRA. 

FN28  SEE NOTE 20, SUPRA. 

FN29  SEE NOTE 16, SUPRA. 

FN30  BENEDICT, ADMIRALTY (6TH ED.), VOL. 1, PP. 363-5, 367-69. 

FN31  IT IS CLEAR THAT TORT LIABILITY IN ADMIRALTY DOES NOT REQUIRE
PHYSICAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE OFFENDING VESSEL AND ITS VICTIM.  SEE
LEATHERS V. BLESSING, 105 U.S. 626, 630:  "NOR IS THE TERM 'TORT,' WHEN
USED IN REFERENCE TO ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, CONFINED TO WRONGS OR
INJURIES COMMITTED BY DIRECT FORCE, BUT IT INCLUDES WRONGS SUFFERED IN
CONSEQUENCE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OR MALFEASANCE OF OTHERS, WHERE THE
REMEDY AT COMMON-LAW IS BY AN ACTION ON THE CASE."  SEE ALSO EASTERN
TRANSPORTATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 675; IN RE FASSETT, 142
U.S. 479, 485; PHILADELPHIA, W. & B.R. CO. V. PHILADELPHIA & H. DE G.
TOWBOAT CO., 23 HOW.  209, 215-16; THE LYNDHURST, 92 F. 681; THE
KRONPRINZESSIN CECILIE, 192 F. 27; THE CAMPANIA, 203 F. 855; THE
WASHINGTON IRVING, 250 F. 797; THE LUKE, 19 F.2D 923, AFF'D, 19 F.2D
925; COASTWISE TRANSPORTATION CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 43 F.2D 401; THE
J. C. HART, 43 F.2D 566; THE FAVORITA, 43 F.2D 569. 
..END :















CATLIN V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 229 


NO. 419.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 2, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  -
142 F.2D 781, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY A PETITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND UNDER THE WAR PURPOSES ACT OF 1917, A
"JUDGMENT" ENTERED UPON A DECLARATION OF TAKING FILED PURSUANT TO THE
DECLARATION OF TAKING ACT OF 1931, AND A SUBSEQUENT ORDER DENYING THE
LANDOWNER'S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND TO DISMISS THE PETITION,
HELD NOT "FINAL DECISIONS" UNDER SEC. 128 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AND
THEREFORE NOT APPEALABLE.  P. 232. 

2.  THE RIGHT OF THE LANDOWNER TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE
TAKING, FOR NONCONFORMITY WITH THE PRESCRIBED STATUTORY PURPOSES, WAS
NOT ABROGATED BY THE DECLARATION OF TAKING ACT; BUT THE RIGHT OF APPEAL
IN THIS RELATION MAY BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT, DISPOSING
OF THE CAUSE IN ITS ENTIRETY, HAS BEEN RENDERED.  P. 240. 

CATLIN ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 696, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FROM A
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PROCEEDING IS FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND IN MADISON COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, UNDER THE WAR PURPOSES ACT OF 1917.  FN1  THE QUESTION FOR
REVIEW IS WHETHER ORDERS ENTERED IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ARE
APPEALABLE AS "FINAL DECISIONS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 128 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 225(A).  FN2 

THE PETITION FOR CONDEMNATION WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT MARCH
31, 1942.  THE SAME DAY AN ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE POSSESSION WAS ENTERED
EX PARTE.  ON NOVEMBER 12, 1942, PURSUANT TO THE DECLARATION OF TAKING
ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1931,  FN3  THE SECRETARY OF WAR FILED A
DECLARATION AND DEPOSITED IN COURT $43,579.00 AS THE ESTIMATED
COMPENSATION FOR TRACT ED-7, TO WHICH PETITIONERS ASSERT OWNERSHIP AS
TRUSTEES.  THE COURT THEREUPON ENTERED "JUDGMENT," LIKEWISE EX PARTE,
DECREEING THAT TITLE HAD VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES UPON THE FILING OF
THE DECLARATION AND MAKING OF THE DEPOSIT, ALSO DECLARING THE RIGHT OF
JUST COMPENSATION "NOW VESTED IN THE PERSONS ENTITLED THERETO," AND
HOLDING THE CAUSE OPEN FOR FURTHER "ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES." 

THEREAFTER, ON AUGUST 2, 1943, AN ORDER FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS BY
PUBLICATION WAS ENTERED, AND IN OCTOBER FOLLOWING PETITIONERS MOVED TO
VACATE THE "JUDGMENT" AND TO DISMISS THE PETITION AS TO TRACT ED-7. 
AFTER THIS THE GOVERNMENT AMENDED ITS PETITION  FN4  AND PETITIONERS
FILED AN AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE AND DISMISS,  FN5  WHICH THE COURT
DENIED.  FROM THIS ORDER AND THE ORDER ENTERING THE "JUDGMENT" ON THE
DECLARATION OF TAKING, PETITIONERS APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HELD THE ORDERS NOT FINAL DECISIONS WITHIN SEC. 128 AND
DISMISSED THE APPEAL.  142 F.2D 781.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 323 U.S.
696, IN ORDER TO RESOLVE CONFLICT UPON THIS QUESTION AMONG SEVERAL
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  FN6 

WE THINK THE JUDGMENT WAS RIGHT.  PETITIONERS' MOTIONS RAISED ISSUES
GROUNDED IN CONTENTIONS THAT THE TAKING WAS NOT FOR A PURPOSE
AUTHORIZED BY THE WAR PURPOSES ACT.  FN7  ACCORDINGLY THEY URGED THAT
NEITHER PETITION STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE COURT ACQUIRED NO
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE OR TO ENTER THE ORDER RELATING TO TITLE, AND
IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE MOTION TO VACATE AND TO DISMISS.  SINCE THE
ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE ORDERS ARE FINAL, FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL, WE
ASSUME, THOUGH WE DO NOT DECIDE, THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES HAVE
SUFFICIENT MERIT TO WARRANT DETERMINATION UPON REVIEW.  EVEN SO, WE
THINK PETITIONERS HAVE MISTAKEN THEIR REMEDY. 

THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL RESTS UPON SEC. 128 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THIS
LIMITS REVIEW TO "FINAL DECISIONS" IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  A "FINAL
DECISION" GENERALLY IS ONE WHICH ENDS THE LITIGATION ON THE MERITS AND
LEAVES NOTHING FOR THE COURT TO DO BUT EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT.  ST.
LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO. V. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO., 108 U.S. 24, 28. 
HENCE, ORDINARILY IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS APPELLATE REVIEW MAY BE
HAD ONLY UPON AN ORDER OR JUDGMENT DISPOSING OF THE WHOLE CASE, AND
ADJUDICATING ALL RIGHTS, INCLUDING OWNERSHIP AND JUST COMPENSATION, AS
WELL AS THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE PROPERTY.  THIS HAS BEEN THE REPEATED
HOLDING OF DECISIONS HERE.  FN8  THE RULE APPLIES TO REVIEW BY THIS
COURT OF JUDGMENTS OF STATE COURTS, IN ADVANCE OF DETERMINATION OF JUST
COMPENSATION, ALTHOUGH BY LOCAL STATUTE "JUDGMENTS OF CONDEMNATION,"
I.E., OF THE RIGHT TO CONDEMN PARTICULAR PROPERTY, ARE REVIEWABLE
BEFORE COMPENSATION IS FOUND AND AWARDED.  WICK V. SUPERIOR COURT, 278
U.S. 574, 575; PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. LEBANON, 305 U.S. 558, 671; CF.
DIECKMANN V. UNITED STATES, 88 F.2D 902.  THE FOUNDATION OF THIS POLICY
IS NOT IN MERELY TECHNICAL CONCEPTIONS OF "FINALITY."  IT IS ONE
AGAINST PIECEMEAL LITIGATION.  "THE CASE IS NOT TO BE SENT UP IN
FRAGMENTS...."  LUXTON V. NORTH RIVER BRIDGE CO., 147 U.S. 337, 341. 
REASONS OTHER THAN CONSERVATION OF JUDICIAL ENERGY SUSTAIN THE
LIMITATION.  ONE IS ELIMINATION OF DELAYS CAUSED BY INTERLOCUTORY
APPEALS. 

THE RULE APPLIES TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE WAR PURPOSES ACT OF 1917. 
FN9  THAT ACT DOES NOT PURPORT TO CHANGE OR DEPART FROM THE GENERALLY
PREVAILING RULE CONCERNING APPEALS IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS
AN AMENDED VERSION OF THE 1890 ACT, UNDER WHICH FROM ITS ENACTMENT TO
NOW THAT RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED, EXCEPT IN THE THREE DECISIONS OF
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS REACHING THE CONTRARY RESULT, WHERE, HOWEVER,
THE DECLARATION OF TAKING ACT OF 1931 ALSO WAS INVOLVED.  FN10 THE 1917
ACT PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE NO JUDGMENT EXCEPT ONE "FOR THE ACQUIREMENT
BY CONDEMNATION OF ANY LAND," ETC., FOR THE PURPOSES SPECIFIED OR,
NECESSARILY, ONE FINALLY DENYING THIS.  THE PROVISION FOR THE
PROCEEDINGS "TO BE PROSECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS RELATING TO
SUITS FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY OF THE STATES WHEREIN THE
PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INSTITUTED  ..."  HAD NO PURPOSE TO MAKE THE RIGHT
OF APPEAL IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS DEPEND UPON AND VARY WITH THE LOCAL
PROCEDURE IN THIS RESPECT, CF. WICK V. SUPERIOR COURT, SUPRA; PUBLIC
SERVICE CO. V. LEBANON, SUPRA, OR TO INCORPORATE LOCAL IDEAS OF
"FINALITY" IN THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 128 TO SUCH SUITS.  THE LANGUAGE
MAY BE APPLIED IN OTHER WAYS WITHOUT INTRODUCING SO MUCH LACK OF
UNIFORMITY INTO THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 128, IF INDEED THE QUOTED
PROVISION HAS NOT BEEN LARGELY NULLIFIED BY THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE IN ALL RESPECTS CONCERNING APPEALS.  FN11 

FURTHERMORE, THE 1917 ACT CONTEMPLATED EMERGENCY ACTION, TO THE
EXTENT THAT UPON THE FILING OF THE PETITION IMMEDIATE POSSESSION MIGHT
BE TAKEN AND THE LANDS OCCUPIED "FOR MILITARY PURPOSES" DURING WAR "OR
THE IMMINENCE THEREOF."  THIS PURPOSE, IT SEEMS CLEAR, WOULD BE LARGELY
DEFEATED, IF ENTRY MUST BE DEFERRED UNTIL SPECIFIC CHALLENGES TO
JURISDICTION AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PETITION ARE DETERMINED
SERIATIM, NOT ONLY BY RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT BUT BY SEPARATE APPEALS
FROM EACH RULING WHICH, IF SUSTAINED N12, WOULD END THE LITIGATION, BUT
IF LACKING IN MERIT COULD ONLY PROLONG IT.  WE FIND NEITHER IN THE
LANGUAGE NOR IN THE PURPOSES OF THE 1917 ACT AN INTENT TO AUTHORIZE
DEPARTURE FROM THE GENERAL COURSE OF APPLYING SEC. 128 IN CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS. 

INDEED, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND PETITIONERS TO URGE THAT THE 1917 ACT
WITHOUT MORE ACCOMPLISHES THE DEPARTURE.  THEY SAY RATHER THAT IT DOES
SO WHEN USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DECLARATION OF TAKING ACT OF
1931.  IT IS THE "JUDGMENT UPON A DECLARATION OF TAKING" AND THE
SUBSEQUENT ORDER DENYING THEIR MOTION TO VACATE THIS "JUDGMENT" AND TO
DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH THEY CONTEND ARE "FINAL DECISIONS" WITHIN
SEC. 128 AND THEREFORE APPEALABLE.  IT IS "JUDGMENTS" OF THIS CHARACTER
WHICH THE DECISIONS OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, UPON WHICH
PETITIONERS RELY, HAVE INVOLVED.  ONE OF THEM RELIED EXPRESSLY UPON THE
1931 ACT AS BEING INTENDED "TO SEVER THE TAKING OF TITLE AND POSSESSION
FROM CONTROVERSIES AS TO VALUATION, AND TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE WHEREBY
THE UNITED STATES MIGHT BE SPEEDILY AND CONCLUSIVELY VESTED WITH TITLE
AND POSSESSION" AND THEREFORE AS HAVING A "FINAL AND IMMEDIATE EFFECT
ON PROPERTY RIGHTS" WHICH "OBVIOUSLY SHOULD BE REVIEWABLE AT ONCE,
WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AWAITING THE OUTCOME OF LONG DRAWN OUT
CONTROVERSIES AS TO VALUATION."  PUERTO RICO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
131 F.2D 491, 494.  THE REASON STATED MIGHT AFFORD GROUND FOR CONGRESS
TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL APPEAL.  HOWEVER, WE DO NOT THINK THE REASON
ACCORDS WITH THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS OR THEIR EFFECT.  CONSEQUENTLY IT
GIVES NO GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED A SEPARATE
APPEAL. 

WE DISPOSE SHORTLY OF THE MOTION, OR THAT PART OF IT, WHICH WAS
DIRECTED AT DISMISSAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS, IN SO FAR AS IT MAY REQUIRE
TREATMENT SEPARATELY FROM THE MOTION TO VACATE THE "JUDGMENT," IF IT
DOES SO AT ALL.  HAD THIS MOTION BEEN GRANTED AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL
BEEN ENTERED, CLEARLY THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN END OF THE LITIGATION
AND APPEAL WOULD LIE WITHIN SEC. 128.  UNITED STATES V. CAREY, 143 F.2D
445; UNITED STATES V. MARIN, 136 F.2D 388.  BUT DENIAL OF A MOTION TO
DISMISS, EVEN WHEN THE MOTION IS BASED UPON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS, IS
NOT IMMEDIATELY REVIEWABLE.  CF. ROCHE V. EVAPORATED MILK ASSN., 319
U.S. 21.  SEE ALSO DIECKMANN V. UNITED STATES, 88 F.2D 902.  CERTAINLY
THIS IS TRUE WHENEVER THE QUESTION MAY BE SAVED FOR DISPOSITION UPON
REVIEW OF FINAL JUDGMENT DISPOSING OF ALL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE
LITIGATION OR IN SOME OTHER ADEQUATE MANNER.  AS WILL APPEAR, WE THINK
SUCH A REMEDY IS AVAILABLE IN THIS CASE. 

THE "JUDGMENT" AND THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO VACATE IT STAND NO
BETTER.  THE 1931 ACT, LIKE THAT OF 1917, CONTAINS NO LANGUAGE
PURPORTING TO CHANGE THE GENERAL RULE RELATING TO APPEALS IN
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.  SECTION 1, WHICH IS THE BASIC SECTION, MAKES
NO EXPRESS REFERENCE TO APPEALS.  FN13  SECTION 2 IMPLIES THE CONTRARY
EFFECT.  IT PROVIDES:  "NO APPEAL IN ANY SUCH CAUSE NOR ANY BOND OR
UNDERTAKING GIVEN THEREIN SHALL OPERATE TO PREVENT OR DELAY THE VESTING
OF TITLE TO SUCH LANDS IN THE UNITED STATES."  WHILE THE SECTION DOES
NOT IN TERMS DENY THE RIGHT OF APPEAL CONTENDED FOR, NEITHER DOES IT
CONFER THAT RIGHT.  THE POSSIBILITY OF DELAYING OR PREVENTING THE
VESTING OF TITLE BY APPEALS WAS EXPLICITLY IN THE MIND OF CONGRESS,
WHEN IT INCLUDED THIS SECTION.  IF IT HAD THOUGHT GRANTING AN EARLIER
APPEAL THAN THE EXISTING PROCEDURE ALLOWED, UPON THE SEVERED ISSUE OF
THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE PROPERTY, WOULD EXPEDITE THE TAKING OR THE
VESTING OF TITLE OR THE PROCEEDINGS IN ANY OTHER MANNER, SLIGHT
ADDITIONAL WORDS WOULD HAVE MADE PROVISION FOR SUCH AN APPEAL.  THE
OMISSION, AND THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE LANGUAGE USED, ARE AGAINST THE
IMPLICATION THAT SEPARATE APPEALS WERE TO BE ALLOWED. 

THIS SEEMS REINFORCED BY SEC. 4.  IT MAKES THE RIGHT TO TAKE
POSSESSION AND TITLE "IN ADVANCE OF FINAL JUDGMENT" ADDITIONAL TO OTHER
RIGHTS, POWERS OR AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY FEDERAL OR LOCAL LAW, AND
EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THIS RIGHT "SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ABROGATING,
LIMITING, OR MODIFYING ANY SUCH RIGHT, POWER, OR AUTHORITY."  ONE OF
THE RIGHTS OF THE GOVERNMENT UNDER PREEXISTING FEDERAL LAW WAS THE
RIGHT NOT TO HAVE THE PROCEEDING, OR THE TAKING OF POSSESSION,  FN14
DELAYED BY SEPARATE APPEALS OVER ISSUES OF TITLE OR TAKING.  FN15  ITS
RIGHT WAS RATHER TO HAVE THESE ISSUES DETERMINED WITH OTHERS IN THE
FINAL JUDGMENT DISPOSITIVE OF THE WHOLE CAUSE.  THIS RIGHT, WE THINK,
WAS GUARDED BY SEC. 4 AGAINST BEING CONSTRUED AS HAVING BEEN ABROGATED,
LIMITED OR MODIFIED, BY VIRTUE OF THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT CONFERRED "TO
TAKE POSSESSION AND TITLE IN ADVANCE OF FINAL JUDGMENT."  OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, AS WILL APPEAR, SUPPORT THE SAME
CONCLUSION. 

MOREOVER, THE STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT IN TERMS TO AUTHORIZE SUCH A
"JUDGMENT" AS WAS ENTERED IN THIS CAUSE OR TO MAKE ITS ENTRY THE EVENT
UPON WHICH TITLE IS CHANGED, IF SO SUMMARY A PROCEDURE COULD BE VALID. 
THE "JUDGMENT" APPARENTLY WAS ENTERED EX PARTE, PRIOR TO SERVICE OF
PROCESS OR PUBLICATION OF NOTICE.  CF. PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714. 
BY THE TERMS OF SEC. 1, "UPON THE FILING SAID DECLARATION OF TAKING (IN
THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING) AND OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE COURT ...  TITLE
...  SHALL VEST IN THE UNITED STATES  ...  AND SAID LANDS SHALL BE
DEEMED TO BE CONDEMNED AND TAKEN FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
THE RIGHT TO JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE SAME SHALL VEST IN THE PERSONS
ENTITLED THERETO; AND SAID COMPENSATION SHALL BE ASCERTAINED AND
AWARDED IN SAID PROCEEDING AND ESTABLISHED BY JUDGMENT THEREIN  ..." 
FN16 

THE EXACT EFFECT OF THESE PROVISIONS IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR.  BUT WE
FIND NOTHING IN THE STATUTE TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF ALL OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE
TAKING FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE STATUTORY LIMITS.  SUCH A PURPOSE CANNOT
BE IMPLIED FROM THE PROVISION FOR TRANSFER OF TITLE ITSELF AND THE FACT
THAT THE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN SEC. 1 SPEAK ONLY
CONCERNING COMPENSATION.  THOSE REFERENCES, WE THINK, ARE
COUNTERBALANCED BY OTHER PROVISIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS, IN SO FAR AS
THEY MAY BE THOUGHT TO EXCLUDE MATTERS OF TITLE FROM THE FINAL
ADJUDICATION. 

WE THINK THE PURPOSE WAS TO LEAVE INTACT THE OWNER'S REMEDY EXISTING
BEFORE THE STATUTE WAS ADOPTED.  FOR ONE THING, THE STATUTE IS NOT AN
INDEPENDENT ONE FOR CONDEMNATION.  IT PROVIDES FOR NO NEW CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDING.  IT MERELY AFFORDS STEPS ANCILLARY OR INCIDENTAL TO SUITS
BROUGHT UNDER OTHER STATUTES; AND WAS SO USED IN THIS CASE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUIT BROUGHT UNDER THE ACT OF 1917.  ITS DECLARED
PURPOSE IS TO EXPEDITE, IN THE CASES TO WHICH IT APPLIES, THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS "BY ENABLING POSSESSION AND
TITLE OF SITES TO BE TAKEN IN ADVANCE OF FINAL JUDGMENT IN PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN," AS THE
TITLE STATES, AND IT APPLIES TO "ANY PROCEEDING  ...  INSTITUTED  ...
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ANY
LAND  ...  FOR THE PUBLIC USE  ..."  SEC. 1.  THE PROCEDURE CLEARLY IS
ANCILLARY TO THE MAIN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, CF. UNITED STATES V.
17,280 ACRES OF LAND, 47 F.SUPP.  267, 269, IS INTENDED TO DOVETAIL
WITH IT AND BY SEC. 4 IS DECLARED EXPRESSLY TO PROVIDE RIGHTS WHICH ARE
TO BE "IN ADDITION TO" PREEXISTING RIGHTS AND ARE NOT TO "BE CONSTRUED
AS ABROGATING, LIMITING, OR MODIFYING" THEM.  THIS PROVISION, INSERTED
PRIMARILY TO SAFEGUARD THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST, IS NOT EXPRESSLY SO
LIMITED; AND WE THINK IT MAY BE APPLIED ALSO TO SAFEGUARD THE OWNER'S
PREEXISTING RIGHTS WHERE DOING THIS WILL NOT BE IN ESSENTIAL CONFLICT
WITH THE ADDITIONAL RIGHTS VALIDLY CONFERRED ON THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS
WOULD BE DONE BY PRESERVING HIS PREEXISTING RIGHT OF APPEAL. 

WHILE THE LANGUAGE AND THE WORDING OF THE ACT ARE NOT WHOLLY FREE
FROM DOUBT, WE SEE NO NECESSARY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS
FOR TRANSFER OF TITLE UPON FILING OF THE DECLARATION AND MAKING OF THE
DEPOSIT AND AT THE SAME TIME PRESERVING THE OWNER'S PREEXISTING RIGHT
TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE TAKING AS NOT BEING FOR A PURPOSE
AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE MAIN PROCEEDING IS BROUGHT. 
THAT RESULT MAY BE REACHED IF THE STATUTE IS CONSTRUED TO CONFER UPON
THE GOVERNMENT, UPON OCCURRENCE OF THE EVENTS SPECIFIED, ONLY A
DEFEASIBLE TITLE IN CASES WHERE AN ISSUE CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF THE
TAKING ARISES.  SO TO CONSTRUE THE ACT WOULD ACCOMPLISH FULLY THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS ADOPTED IN THE LARGE NUMBER OF CASES WHERE NO
SUCH ISSUE IS MADE.  IN OTHERS THIS WOULD GO FAR TOWARD DOING SO, FOR
NOT ALL SUCH ISSUES WILL BE FOLLOWED THROUGH TO FINAL DECISION OR, IF
SO FOLLOWED, WILL TURN OUT ADVERSELY TO THE GOVERNMENT.  THE
ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION, THAT TITLE PASSES IRREVOCABLY, LEAVING THE
OWNER NO OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE TAKING'S VALIDITY OR ONE FOR WHICH
THE ONLY REMEDY WOULD BE TO ACCEPT THE COMPENSATION WHICH WOULD BE JUST
IF THE TAKING WERE VALID, WOULD RAISE SERIOUS QUESTION CONCERNING THE
STATUTE'S VALIDITY.  IN ANY EVENT WE THINK IT WOULD RUN COUNTER TO WHAT
REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES. 

SOME STRESS IS PLACED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 3 AND 5 RELATING
TO IRREVOCABLE COMMITMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PAY THE AMOUNT
ULTIMATELY TO BE AWARDED,  FN17  TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISION OF SEC. 1
AUTHORIZING AWARD OF MORE THAN THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED AS ESTIMATED
COMPENSATION, AS INDICATING A PURPOSE TO MAKE THE TRANSFER OF TITLE
IRREVOCABLE UPON THE FILING OF THE DECLARATION AND THE MAKING OF THE
DEPOSIT.  FN18  FROM THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY BECOME
IRREVOCABLY COMMITTED TO PAY, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE OWNER IS
IRREVOCABLY COMMITTED TO SUBMIT TO THE TAKING, SINCE THE STATUTE'S
TERMS ARE NOT IN PARI MATERIA IN THIS RESPECT.  NEITHER SEC. 3 NOR SEC.
5 PURPORTS TO BIND THE OWNER IRREVOCABLY.  ON THE CONTRARY, SEC. 5
DEALS ONLY WITH AUTHORITY TO EXPEND APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR DEMOLITION
OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ONES; AND THE CONCLUDING
PROVISO, REQUIRING THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT "TITLE HAS
BEEN VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES OR ALL PERSONS HAVING AN INTEREST
THEREIN HAVE BEEN MADE PARTIES TO SUCH PROCEEDING AND WILL BE BOUND BY
THE FINAL JUDGMENT THEREIN," BEFORE THE FUNDS ARE EXPENDED, SEEMS
CLEARLY TO CONTEMPLATE THAT TITLE IS NOT INDEFEASIBLY VESTED IN THE
UNITED STATES MERELY BY FOLLOWING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  FINAL
JUDGMENT IN "SUCH PROCEEDING," THAT IS, THE MAIN CONDEMNATION SUIT, IS
NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE OPERATION OF SECS. 3 AND 5 IS TO CUT
OFF THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO ABANDON THE PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS NOT TO
COMPEL THE OWNER TO SUBMIT TO UNAUTHORIZED TAKINGS. 

ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR OPINION THE RIGHT OF THE OWNER TO CHALLENGE THE
VALIDITY OF THE TAKING, FOR NONCONFORMITY WITH THE PRESCRIBED STATUTORY
PURPOSES, WAS NOT DESTROYED BY THE 1931 ACT.  NOR WAS THE RIGHT TO DO
THIS UPON APPEAL, EXISTING BEFORE THAT ACT WAS ADOPTED, AFFECTED.  NO
SUCH "SEVERANCE" WAS MADE AS THE COURT DECIDING THE PUERTO RICO CASE
THOUGHT WAS CREATED.  NO NEW RIGHT OF SEPARATE APPEAL WAS GIVEN.  THE
PREEXISTING RIGHT OF APPEAL, INCLUDING APPEAL ON GROUNDS RELATING TO
VALIDITY OF THE TAKING, REMAINED IN FORCE TO BE EXERCISED WHEN AND ONLY
WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT, DISPOSING OF THE CAUSE IN ITS ENTIRETY, HAS BEEN
RENDERED.  THE STATUTE MAKES NO OTHER EXPLICIT PROVISION.  NOR IS ONE
SO CLEARLY IMPLIED THAT WE CAN MAKE IT.  THE WEIGHTIER IMPLICATIONS ARE
THE OTHER WAY. 

WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED OTHER ISSUES PRESENTED OR SUGGESTED IN THE
BRIEFS OR ARGUMENT, SINCE THAT HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARY TO THE
DISPOSITION OF THIS CAUSE.  THESE INCLUDE THE QUESTION WHETHER, WHEN
POSSESSION HAS BEEN TAKEN AND DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE TO THE PREMISES IN
THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS NOT AUTHORIZED, THE REMEDY BY APPEAL IS
ADEQUATE.  THAT ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE GROUNDS
URGED REST UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1931 ACT RELATING TO TITLE AND
THEIR EFFECT, THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS HAD, UPON THE PETITIONERS RIGHT. 
THEY DO NOT RELATE SIMPLY TO THE TAKING OF POSSESSION, THE RIGHT TO
TAKE IT OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT, APART FROM
THE QUESTION OF TITLE.  POSSESSION IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN TAKEN,
PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE 1917 ACT, PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE
PURPORTED TRANSFER OF TITLE.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE
QUESTION CONCERNING ADEQUACY OF THE APPEAL OR POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF
OTHER REMEDY AFFECTING SUCH A CASE WHEN IT ARISES. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF AUGUST 18, 1890, 26 STAT. 316, AS AMENDED BY THE ACTS OF
JULY 2, 1917, 40 STAT. 241, AND APRIL 11, 1918, 40 STAT. 518, 50 U.S.C.
SEC. 171.  THE ACT PROVIDES: 

"THAT HEREAFTER THE SECRETARY OF WAR MAY CAUSE PROCEEDINGS TO BE
INSTITUTED IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ANY COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ACQUIREMENT BY CONDEMNATION OF
ANY LAND, TEMPORARY USE THEREOF OR OTHER INTEREST THEREIN, OR RIGHT
PERTAINING THERETO, NEEDED FOR THE SITE, LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION, OR
PROSECUTION OF WORKS FOR FORTIFICATIONS, COAST DEFENSES, MILITARY
TRAINING CAMPS, AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF PLANTS FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF NITRATE AND OTHER COMPOUNDS AND THE MANUFACTURE OF
EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER MUNITIONS OF WAR AND FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND
TRANSMISSION OF POWER FOR THE OPERATIONS OF SUCH PLANTS; SUCH
PROCEEDINGS TO BE PROSECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS RELATING TO
SUITS FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY OF THE STATES WHEREIN THE
PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INSTITUTED  ...  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT WHEN
SUCH PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED IN TIME OF WAR, OR THE IMMINENCE THEREOF,
UPON THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF ANY LAND,
TEMPORARY USE THEREOF OR OTHER INTEREST THEREIN OR RIGHT PERTAINING
THERETO TO BE ACQUIRED FOR ANY OF THE PURPOSES AFORESAID, IMMEDIATE
POSSESSION THEREOF MAY BE TAKEN TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST TO BE
ACQUIRED AND THE LANDS MAY BE OCCUPIED AND USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES
..." 

FN2  SECTION 128 IS IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW BY APPEAL FINAL DECISIONS - 

"FIRST.  IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, IN ALL CASES SAVE WHERE A DIRECT
REVIEW OF THE DECISION MAY BE HAD IN THE SUPREME COURT UNDER SECTION
345 OF THIS TITLE." 

FN3  46 STAT. 1421, 40 U.S.C. SECS. 258A-258E.  MATERIAL PORTIONS OF
THE STATUTE ARE SET FORTH IN THE TEXT OF THIS OPINION AND THE NOTES. 

FN4  PETITIONERS ATTACKED THE ORIGINAL PETITION FOR FAILURE TO SET
FORTH (1) THE PURPOSE OF THE ACQUISITION OR THAT IT WAS FOR ANY PURPOSE
AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT; (2) THAT THE SECRETARY OF WAR HAD FOUND THAT THE
LAND WAS NEEDED OR (3) HAD REQUESTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INSTITUTE
THE PROCEEDING TO ACQUIRE IT FOR SUCH A PURPOSE.  CONSIDERING THESE
OBJECTIONS JURISDICTIONAL, PETITIONERS REGARD "ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
BASED UPON THE SAID PETITION" AS "INEFFECTIVE," INCLUDING THE FILING OF
THE FIRST DECLARATION OF TAKING AND THE "JUDGMENT" ENTERED PURSUANT TO
IT. 

THE AMENDMENT ADDED A NEW PARAGRAPH TO THE PETITION STATING THE LANDS
WERE BEING TAKEN FOR PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE
AND INCORPORATED IN THE PETITION THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR
REQUESTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INSTITUTE THE PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE
THE LAND "FOR USE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GRANITE CITY ENGINEER
BRANCH DEPOT."  THIS IS THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE WHICH PETITIONERS SAY DOES
NOT COME WITHIN ANY SET FORTH IN THE STATUTE, FOR WHICH SEE NOTE 1. 

FN5  THE AMENDED MOTION URGED THAT THE AMENDMENT OF THE PETITION, BY
INCORPORATING THE SECRETARY'S STATEMENT OF INTENDED USE FOR AN ENGINEER
DEPOT, CAUSED THE PETITION TO SHOW ON ITS FACE THAT THE USE WAS NOT
WITHIN THOSE AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  PETITIONERS ASSERT THE AMENDMENT
"CAME TOO LATE TO VALIDATE" THE "JUDGMENT." 

FN6  DADE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 230(C.C.A. 5), ACCORDS
WITH THE DECISION IN THIS CASE.  CONTRARY DECISIONS WERE RENDERED IN
CITY OF OAKLAND V. UNITED STATES, 124 F.2D 959(C.C.A. 9), CERT. DENIED,
316 U.S. 679; UNITED STATES V. 243.22 ACRES OF LAND, 129 F.2D
678(C.C.A. 2), CERT. DENIED, 317 U.S. 698; PUERTO RICO R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 131 F.2D 491(C.C.A. 2). 

UNDER THE COMPARABLE PROVISION OF THE 1929 ACT APPLICABLE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHERE SPECIAL APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED UPON
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 17-101, COMPARE LEE V.
UNITED STATES, 58 F.2D 879, WITH KEYES V. UNITED STATES, 119 F.2D 444. 

FN7  SEE NOTES 1, 4 AND 5. 

FN8  LUXTON V. NORTH RIVER BRIDGE CO., 147 U.S. 337, 341; SOUTHERN R.
CO. V. POSTAL TELEGRAPH CO., 179 U.S. 641, 643; GRAYS HARBOR CO. V.
COATS-FORDNEY CO., 243 U.S. 251, 256; WASHINGTON EX REL. MCPHERSON
BROS. CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 274 U.S. 726; ORNSTEIN V. CHESAPEAKE &
OHIO R. CO., 284 U.S. 572; CF. COLLINS V. MILLER, 252 U.S. 364, 370;
UNITED STATES V. FLORIAN, 312 U.S. 656. 

FN9  NO CASE HAS BEEN FOUND IN WHICH APPEAL WAS TAKEN, OR ATTEMPTED
TO BE TAKEN, UNDER THE 1890 AND 1917 ACTS, FROM AN ORDER OTHER THAN THE
FINAL JUDGMENT DISPOSING OF ALL ISSUES RAISED IN THE PROCEEDING,
INCLUDING COMPENSATION.  THE UNIFORM PRACTICE UNDER THOSE ACTS APPEARS
TO HAVE BEEN THEREFORE TO CONFINE APPEALS TO SUCH ORDERS.  ONLY THREE
CASES APPEAR TO HAVE SOUGHT TO RAISE, IN APPEALS FROM FINAL JUDGMENTS,
THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT TO CONDEMN.  SEE FORBES V. UNITED STATES, 268
F. 273; CHAPPELL V. UNITED STATES, 81 F. 764, 160 U.S. 499; HENRY V.
UNITED STATES, 46 F.2D 640.  NUMEROUS OTHER CASES INVOLVED APPEALS ON
QUESTIONS AFFECTING COMPENSATION WITHOUT RAISING QUESTION CONCERNING
TITLE OR AUTHORITY TO CONDEMN. 

FN10  CF. NOTE 6 AND TEXT BEGINNING WITH THE PARAGRAPH FOLLOWING NOTE
12. 

FN11  "IN PROCEEDINGS FOR CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY UNDER THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN, THESE RULES GOVERN APPEALS BUT ARE NOT OTHERWISE
APPLICABLE."  RULE 81(A)(7). 

FN12  SEE UNITED STATES V. CAREY, 143 F.2D 445; UNITED STATES V.
MARIN, 136 F.2D 388. 

FN13  BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE, THE SECTION IS SET FORTH HERE IN
FULL, EXCEPT FOR THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH WHICH IS QUOTED IN NOTE 14: 

"AN ACT TO EXPEDITE THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS
OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY ENABLING POSSESSION AND TITLE OF
SITES TO BE TAKEN IN ADVANCE OF FINAL JUDGMENT IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN. 

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT IN ANY PROCEEDING
IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WHICH HAS BEEN OR MAY BE INSTITUTED BY AND IN THE NAME OF AND UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ANY LAND OR
EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY IN LAND FOR THE PUBLIC USE, THE PETITIONER MAY
FILE IN THE CAUSE, WITH THE PETITION OR AT ANY TIME BEFORE JUDGMENT, A
DECLARATION OF TAKING SIGNED BY THE AUTHORITY EMPOWERED BY LAW TO
ACQUIRE THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THE PETITION, DECLARING THAT SAID LANDS
ARE THEREBY TAKEN FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES.  SAID DECLARATION
OF TAKING SHALL CONTAIN OR HAVE ANNEXED THERETO - 

"(1)  A STATEMENT OF THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH AND THE PUBLIC USE FOR
WHICH SAID LANDS ARE TAKEN. 

"(2)  A DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS TAKEN SUFFICIENT FOR THE
IDENTIFICATION THEREOF. 

"(3)  A STATEMENT OF THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN SAID LANDS TAKEN FOR
SAID PUBLIC USE. 

"(4)  A PLAN SHOWING THE LANDS TAKEN. 

"(5)  A STATEMENT OF THE SUM OF MONEY ESTIMATED BY SAID ACQUIRING
AUTHORITY TO BE JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND TAKEN. 

"UPON THE FILING SAID DECLARATION OF TAKING AND OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE
COURT, TO THE USE OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED THERETO, OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
ESTIMATED COMPENSATION STATED IN SAID DECLARATION, TITLE TO THE SAID
LANDS IN FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, OR SUCH LESS ESTATE OR INTEREST THEREIN
AS IS SPECIFIED IN SAID DECLARATION, SHALL VEST IN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, AND SAID LANDS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE CONDEMNED AND TAKEN FOR
THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE RIGHT TO JUST COMPENSATION FOR
THE SAME SHALL VEST IN THE PERSONS ENTITLED THERETO; AND SAID
COMPENSATION SHALL BE ASCERTAINED AND AWARDED IN SAID PROCEEDING AND
ESTABLISHED BY JUDGMENT THEREIN, AND THE SAID JUDGMENT SHALL INCLUDE,
AS PART OF THE JUST COMPENSATION AWARDED, INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PER
CENTUM PER ANNUM ON THE AMOUNT FINALLY AWARDED AS THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY AS OF THE DATE OF TAKING, FROM SAID DATE TO THE DATE OF
PAYMENT; BUT INTEREST SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED ON SO MUCH THEREOF AS SHALL
HAVE BEEN PAID INTO THE COURT.  NO SUM SO PAID INTO THE COURT SHALL BE
CHARGED WITH COMMISSIONS OR POUNDAGE.    "UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE
PARTIES IN INTEREST, THE COURT MAY ORDER THAT THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN
THE COURT, OR ANY PART THEREOF, BE PAID FORTHWITH FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF
THE JUST COMPENSATION TO BE AWARDED IN SAID PROCEEDING.  IF THE
COMPENSATION FINALLY AWARDED IN RESPECT OF SAID LANDS, OR ANY PARCEL
THEREOF, SHALL EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE MONEY SO RECEIVED BY ANY PERSON
ENTITLED, THE COURT SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIENCY." 

FN14  THIS WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF 1917, CF. NOTE 1 ABOVE, AS
WELL AS BY THE ACT OF 1931 IN THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 1, WHICH
IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"UPON THE FILING OF A DECLARATION OF TAKING, THE COURT SHALL HAVE
POWER TO FIX THE TIME WITHIN WHICH AND THE TERMS UPON WHICH THE PARTIES
IN POSSESSION SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SURRENDER POSSESSION TO THE
PETITIONER.  THE COURT SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE SUCH ORDERS IN RESPECT
OF ENCUMBRANCES, LIENS, RENTS, TAXES, ASSESSMENTS, INSURANCE, AND OTHER
CHARGES, IF ANY, AS SHALL BE JUST AND EQUITABLE." 

FN15  SEE NOTE 9. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 13 FOR THE COMPLETE TEXT. 

FN17  SECTION 3 IS SET FORTH IN NOTE 18.  SECTION 5 IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN ANY CASE IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS TAKEN OR MAY TAKE
POSSESSION OF ANY REAL PROPERTY DURING THE COURSE OF CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS AND IN ADVANCE OF FINAL JUDGMENT THEREIN AND THE UNITED
STATES HAS BECOME IRREVOCABLY COMMITTED TO PAY THE AMOUNT ULTIMATELY TO
BE AWARDED AS COMPENSATION, IT SHALL BE LAWFUL TO EXPEND MONEYS DULY
APPROPRIATED FOR THAT PURPOSE IN DEMOLISHING EXISTING STRUCTURES ON
SAID LAND AND IN ERECTING PUBLIC BUILDINGS OR PUBLIC WORKS THEREON,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 355 OF THE REVISED STATUTES
OF THE UNITED STATES:  PROVIDED, THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE TITLE HAS BEEN VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES OR ALL PERSONS
HAVING AN INTEREST THEREIN HAVE BEEN MADE PARTIES TO SUCH PROCEEDING
AND WILL BE BOUND BY THE FINAL JUDGMENT THEREIN." 

FN18  INCLUDING OR FOLLOWING THE FINDING REQUIRED BY SEC. 3, WHICH
PROVIDES: 

"ACTION UNDER THIS STATUTE IRREVOCABLY COMMITTING THE UNITED STATES
TO THE PAYMENT OF THE ULTIMATE AWARD SHALL NOT BE TAKEN UNLESS THE
CHIEF OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OR BUREAU OF THE GOVERNMENT
EMPOWERED TO ACQUIRE THE LAND SHALL BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ULTIMATE
AWARD PROBABLY WILL BE WITHIN ANY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS ON THE
PRICE TO BE PAID." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :








GEMSCO, INC. V. WALLING, 324 U.S. 244 


ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1945.  - 144 F.2D 608,
AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SEC. 8(F) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS
AUTHORITY, AS A NECESSARY MEANS OF MAKING EFFECTIVE A MINIMUM WAGE
ORDER FOR THE EMBROIDERIES INDUSTRY, TO PROHIBIT INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK. 
PP. 254, 269. 

GEMSCO, INC. ET AL. V. WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 

NO. 368.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 369, MARETZO ET AL. V. WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND NO. 370,
GUISEPPI ET AL. V. WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 695, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A WAGE ORDER
PROMULGATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THESE CASES IS NARROW.  IT IS WHETHER
RESPONDENT, AS ADMINISTRATOR, HAS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 8(F) OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060, TO PROHIBIT INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK AS
A NECESSARY MEANS OF MAKING EFFECTIVE A MINIMUM WAGE ORDER FOR THE
EMBROIDERIES INDUSTRY.  THE QUESTION ARISES IN PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT TO
REVIEW THE ORDER PURSUANT TO SEC. 10.  THE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR
HEARING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH SUSTAINED THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  GUISEPPI V. WALLING, 144
F.2D 608.  BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION AND ITS
IMPORTANCE FOR PURPOSES OF ADMINISTERING THE STATUTE, CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED, 323 U.S. 695, LIMITED TO THE STATED ISSUE.  FN1 

ONE OF THE ACT'S PRIMARY OBJECTIVES WAS "A UNIVERSAL MINIMUM WAGE OF
40 CENTS AN HOUR IN EACH INDUSTRY ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" AND TO REACH THIS LEVEL AS RAPIDLY AS
WAS "ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING
EMPLOYMENT."  SEC. 8(A).  ACCORDINGLY, SEC. 6 ESTABLISHED BASIC MINIMUM
STATUTORY WAGES, TO BE STEPPED UP FROM 25 CENTS AN HOUR TO 40 CENTS
GENERALLY  FN2  DURING THE SEVEN YEARS FROM THE SECTION'S EFFECTIVE
DATE, OCTOBER 23, 1938.  LIMITED FLEXIBILITY WAS PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE DECLARED PURPOSE TO REACH THE 40-CENT LEVEL EARLIER IF
"ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE."  CF. 83 CONG. REC. 9256.  SECTION 8 EMPOWERS
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CONVENE INDUSTRY COMMITTEES WHICH, AFTER
INVESTIGATION, REPORT TO HIM THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING MINIMUM
WAGES  FN3  AND REASONABLE CLASSIFICATIONS.  SEC. 8(A), (B), (C), (D). 
THE ADMINISTRATOR IS THEN REQUIRED BY ORDER TO APPROVE AND CARRY INTO
EFFECT THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AFTER NOTICE TO INTERESTED
PERSONS AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, IF HE FINDS THEY "ARE MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE  ...  AND ...  WILL
CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES" OF THE SECTION; OTHERWISE HE MUST DISAPPROVE
THEM.  SEC. 8(D). 

THE ACT'S SCHEME IS THEREFORE A COMBINATION OF "STATUTORY" MINIMUM
WAGES FIXED BY SEC. 6 AND WHAT MAY BE TERMED "COMMITTEE" WAGES,  FN4
FIXED BY ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO SEC. 8.  THE FORMER PREVAIL IN THE
ABSENCE OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION; THE LATTER, WHEN SUCH ACTION
HAS BEEN TAKEN TO PRESCRIBE FOR A SPECIFIC INDUSTRY A HIGHER LEVEL THAN
THE GENERALLY PREVAILING STATUTORY FLOOR.  THE ORDER IN THIS CASE,
ENTERED ON APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS, AFTER NOTICE
AND EXTENSIVE HEARINGS, FN5  PRESCRIBED A MINIMUM WAGE OF 40 CENTS AN
HOUR, AN INCREASE OF 2 1/2 CENTS OVER THE PREVIOUSLY PREVAILING
"COMMITTEE" RATE.  FN6  PETITIONERS HAVE NOT CONTESTED THIS, THE
PRIMARY, TERM OF THE ORDER. 

IN THIS STATUTORY SETTING STANDS SEC. 8(F), THE CRUCIAL PROVISION
WHICH IN MATERIAL PART IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(F)  ORDERS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL DEFINE THE INDUSTRIES AND
CLASSIFICATIONS THEREIN TO WHICH THEY ARE TO APPLY, AND SHALL CONTAIN
SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE ADMINISTRATOR FINDS NECESSARY TO CARRY
OUT THE PURPOSES OF SUCH ORDERS, TO PREVENT THE CIRCUMVENTION OR
EVASION THEREOF, AND TO SAFEGUARD THE MINIMUM WAGE RATES ESTABLISHED
THEREIN.  NO SUCH ORDER SHALL TAKE EFFECT UNTIL AFTER DUE NOTICE IS
GIVEN  ..." 

                       I 

THE NARROW ISSUE TURNS UPON THE SCOPE PROPERLY TO BE GIVEN THE
EMPHASIZED PORTIONS OF THE SECTION.  RESPONDENT SAYS THAT THIS
AUTHORIZES HIM TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION HE FINDS NECESSARY TO PREVENT
CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION OF THE ORDER SO THAT THE WAGE RATE IT
ESTABLISHES MAY BE SAFEGUARDED; AND THAT IN THIS CASE HIS FINDINGS,
AMPLY SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE, SHOW PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL
HOMEWORK IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS END.  AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE,
HE HAS CONSTRUED "NECESSARY" NOT AS MEANING "HELPFUL," "CONSISTENT," OR
"CONVENIENT,"  FN7  BUT AS CONNOTING THAT THE PROHIBITION IS ABSOLUTELY
ESSENTIAL TO ACHIEVE THOSE PURPOSES.  HE SAYS THE WAGE RATE CANNOT BE
MAINTAINED UNLESS INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK IS PROHIBITED, WITH THE
COMPARATIVELY MINOR EXCEPTIONS THE ORDER ALLOWS N8.  HIS FINDINGS AND
INDEED HIS EXPRESS CONCLUSIONS THEREFORE NECESSARILY DETERMINE THAT
REGULATION, BY MEASURES SHORT OF PROHIBITION, CANNOT ACCOMPLISH THE
RELEVANT PURPOSES OF THE ORDER AND OF THE STATUTE.  FN9 

PETITIONERS DO NOT DISPUTE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS OF FACT OR
THAT THE EVIDENCE FULLY SUSTAINS THEM.  NOR INDEED DO THEY QUESTION HIS
CONCLUSIONS IN ANY RESPECT EXCEPT THAT HE HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO
MAKE THE PROHIBITION N10.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI CONCEDED, AS
DOES ALSO THE BRIEF, THAT THE PROHIBITION WAS INCLUDED SOLELY BECAUSE
RESPONDENT FOUND "HE COULD NOT (OTHERWISE) ENFORCE THE MINIMUM WAGE
RATE AS TO THE HOME WORKERS EMPLOYED IN THE INDUSTRY."  THE BRIEF
STATES FURTHER THAT PETITIONERS, "DURING THE ENTIRE COURSE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS,  ... CHALLENGED ONLY THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY" OF THE
RESPONDENT TO INCLUDE THE PROHIBITION. 

IN THIS SHARPLY CHISELED STATE OF THE ISSUE, THE ACCURACY OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THEM MUST BE TAKEN NOT ONLY AS TRUE BUT AS
CONCEDED, APART FROM THE SINGLE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE THE
PROHIBITION NOTWITHSTANDING IT IS SO BUTTRESSED IN FACT.  FN11  THE
POSTURE OF THE CASE THEREFORE COMPELS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
POSITION THAT, WITHOUT THE PROHIBITION, THE WAGE RATE CANNOT BE
MAINTAINED, AND THAT CIRCUMVENTION AND EVASION CANNOT BE PREVENTED. 

FURTHERMORE, UPON THE FINDINGS THAT IS TRUE NOT ONLY WITH REFERENCE
TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE THEMSELVES HOMEWORKERS.  IT IS TRUE ALSO AS TO
ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE INDUSTRY N12.  ACCORDING TO THE BEST
AVAILABLE ESTIMATES, THE NUMBER OF HOMEWORKERS AT PEAK EMPLOYMENT
(APRIL 1, 1939, TO JULY 15, 1942) RANGED FROM 8,500 TO 12,000, WHEREAS
THE NUMBER OF FACTORY WORKERS AS OF JUNE, 1942, WAS 18,500.  THE NUMBER
OF WAGE EARNERS PER FACTORY IN 1939 EMPLOYED IN SOME 1,431
ESTABLISHMENTS AVERAGED BETWEEN 12 AND 13 WORKERS.  FN13  NOT ONLY
THEREFORE IS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR, WITHOUT THE
PROHIBITION, TO FOLLOW THE STATUTE'S MANDATE (SEC. 8(D)) TO "CARRY INTO
EFFECT" THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AS TO 8,500 TO 12,000
HOMEWORKERS, WHO GENERALLY ARE PART-TIME PIECE-WORKERS N14.  HE NEITHER
CAN DO SO AS TO FACTORY WORKERS, WHO GENERALLY ARE FULL-TIME WORKERS. 

HENCE, IF THE PROHIBITION CANNOT BE MADE, THE FLOOR FOR THE ENTIRE
INDUSTRY FALLS AND THE RIGHT OF THE HOMEWORKERS AND THE EMPLOYERS TO BE
FREE FROM THE PROHIBITION DESTROYS THE RIGHT OF THE MUCH LARGER NUMBER
OF FACTORY WORKERS TO RECEIVE THE MINIMUM WAGE.  THIS IS TRUE NOT
MERELY AS A MATTER OF INFERENCE FROM EVIDENCE HAVING ONLY PROSPECTIVE
AND PREDICTIVE VALUE.  IT IS PROVED CONCLUSIVELY BY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
EXPERIENCE IN ATTEMPTING BY REGULATORY METHODS TO SECURE COMPLIANCE
WITH THE PREVIOUSLY PREVAILING  FN15  LOWER "COMMITTEE" RATE.  FN16
HIS EXPERIENCE IS BORNE OUT BY THAT OF STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES
PRIOR TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FN17 ATTEMPTS TO MAINTAIN
MINIMUM WAGES BY REGULATING HOMEWORK HAVE FAILED GENERALLY OF THEIR
PURPOSE.  THIS FAILURE, AFTER FAIR TRIAL, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S RESORT TO PROHIBITION IN THE PRESENT ORDER. 

THE CASE THEREFORE COMES DOWN SQUARELY TO WHETHER OR NOT MINIMUM
WAGES MAY BE EFFECTIVELY PRESCRIBED AND REQUIRED IN THIS INDUSTRY.  IF
HOMEWORK CAN BE PROHIBITED, THIS IS POSSIBLE.  IF IT CANNOT, THE FLOOR
PROVIDED BY THE ORDER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED AND, FURTHER, WHAT IS MORE
IMPORTANT, IT INEVITABLY FOLLOWS THAT NO FLOOR, WHETHER OF "STATUTORY"
OR OF "COMMITTEE" WAGES, CAN BE MAINTAINED.  FN18 

IN THIS LIGHT PETITIONERS' POSITION IS, IN EFFECT, THAT THE STATUTE
CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THIS INDUSTRY.  THEIR ARGUMENT IS NOT PUT IN THESE
TERMS.  IT COMES TO THAT.  SO TO STATE IT IS TO ANSWER IT.  THE
INDUSTRY IS COVERED BY THE ACT.  THIS IS NOT DISPUTED.  THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS WAS TO PROVIDE THE AUTHORIZED MINIMUM WAGE FOR EACH EMPLOYEE
SO COVERED.  NEITHER IS THIS QUESTIONED.  YET IT IS SAID IN SUBSTANCE
THAT CONGRESS AT THE SAME TIME INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ONLY MEANS AVAILABLE TO MAKE ITS MANDATE EFFECTIVE.  THE
CONSTRUCTION SOUGHT WOULD MAKE THE STATUTE A DEAD LETTER FOR THIS
INDUSTRY. 

THE STATUTE ITSELF THUS GIVES THE ANSWER.  IT DOES SO IN TWO WAYS, BY
NECESSITY TO AVOID SELF-NULLIFICATION AND BY ITS EXPLICIT TERMS.  THE
NECESSITY SHOULD BE ENOUGH.  BUT THE ACT'S TERMS REINFORCE THE
NECESSITY'S TEACHING.  SECTION 8(D) REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
"CARRY INTO EFFECT" THE COMMITTEE'S APPROVED RECOMMENDATIONS.  SECTION
8(F) COMMANDS HIM TO INCLUDE IN THE ORDER "SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS"
AS HE "FINDS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT" ITS PURPOSES.  THESE DUTIES ARE
BACKED UP BY OTHER PROVISIONS.  FN19  WHEN COMMAND IS SO EXPLICIT AND,
MOREOVER, IS REINFORCED BY NECESSITY IN ORDER TO MAKE IT OPERATIVE,
NOTHING SHORT OF EXPRESS LIMITATION OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN FINDING
THAT THE NECESSITY EXISTS SHOULD UNDERMINE THE ACTION TAKEN TO EXECUTE
IT. WHEN NEITHER SUCH LIMITATION NOR SUCH ABUSE EXISTS, BUT THE
NECESSITY IS CONCEDED TO BE WELL FOUNDED IN FACT, THERE WOULD SEEM TO
BE AN END OF THE MATTER. 

   II 

PETITIONERS' OBJECTIONS ARE NOT PROCEDURAL.  THEY HAVE NOT CONTENDED
THAT THE PROVISION OF THE ORDER FORBIDDING HOMEWORK IS A DEFINITION OR
CLASSIFICATION OF THE INDUSTRY OR, EITHER FOR THAT REASON OR ANY OTHER,
MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE AND MADE ONLY UPON ITS
RECOMMENDATION.  SUCH A POSITION WOULD HAVE NULLIFIED THEIR ARGUMENT
THAT THE STATUTE CONFERS NO AUTHORITY IN ANY CASE TO PROHIBIT
HOMEWORK.  THE PROVISION IS NEITHER A DEFINITION NOR A CLASSIFICATION
OF AN INDUSTRY.  IT RELATES MERELY TO A MODE OR METHOD OF CONDUCTING
THE INDUSTRY.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE COMMITTEE SHALL RECOMMEND
MINIMUM WAGE RATES AND REASONABLE CLASSIFICATIONS, AND THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR, IF HE DISAPPROVES "SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS," SHALL REFER
THEM EITHER TO THE COMMITTEE OR TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE.  SEC. 8(A), (B),
(C), (D).  NOTHING IN THE ACT REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO TAKE THE
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOUND
NECESSARY TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION AND THE ORDER BASED ON IT
EFFECTIVE.  HE MUST FIND THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HE IMPOSES ARE
NECESSARY FOR THIS PURPOSE.  HE DID SO IN THIS CASE, AFTER EXTENDED
HEARINGS, UPON AMPLE EVIDENCE AND UPON FINDINGS OF NECESSITY NOT
QUESTIONED.  TO SAY THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HE CAN ADOPT NO TERM OR
CONDITION WHICH MATERIALLY ALTERS THE INDUSTRY IS ONLY TO SAY CONGRESS
DID NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAID AND THAT THE INDUSTRY CANNOT BE MADE SUBJECT
TO THE STATUTE'S REGULATION.  IT IS ALSO TO IGNORE "THE DISTINCT
SEPARATION OF THE FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED BY THE COMMITTEE UNDER SEC.
8(A), (B), (C), (D), FROM THAT TO BE PERFORMED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
AFTER SUBMISSION OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT  ..."  OPP COTTON MILLS V.
ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 147. 

PETITIONERS' ARGUMENTS REST CHIEFLY ON THEIR VIEWS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY AND THE CHARACTER OF THE PROHIBITION.  THE LATTER, THEY SAY, IS
NOT A "METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT" BUT IS RATHER A FORM OF "EXPERIMENTAL
SOCIAL LEGISLATION" TOUCHING A MATTER NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE ORDER, BUT
IN THE NATURE OF A WHOLLY INDEPENDENT SUBJECT BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THE
STATUTE AND THEREFORE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POWER. 

THIS ARGUMENT IS CLOSELY INTERLACED WITH THE CONTENTIONS DRAWN FROM
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE STATUTE'S ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS,
PRESENTLY TO BE NOTED.  IN SO FAR AS IT IS INDEPENDENT OF THESE,
HOWEVER, IT RESTS ON WHOLLY UNTENABLE PREMISES.  ONE IS THAT THE
PROHIBITION IS MERELY AN "ENFORCEMENT" MEASURE.  IT IS RATHER PRIMARILY
PREVENTIVE IN CHARACTER, INTENDED TO AID IN MAKING THE ORDER EFFECTIVE
AND TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR ENFORCEMENT.  BUT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THEIR "ENFORCEMENT" CONCEPTION, PETITIONERS' LARGER FALLACY IS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR CAN TAKE NO ACTION TOWARD MAKING HIS ORDER EFFECTIVE
WHICH, IF TAKEN AS A MATTER OF INDEPENDENT LEGISLATION NOT EXPRESSLY
RELATED TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT'S OBJECTS, WOULD PRODUCE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS, APART FROM THOSE
OBJECTS.  IN THIS VIEW THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POWER IS SO RESTRICTED THAT
HE CAN DO NOTHING IF, IN ADDITION TO MAKING THE RATE EFFECTIVE AND
SAFEGUARDING IT AGAINST CIRCUMVENTION, OTHER SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES WOULD RESULT.    THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS.  SECTION 8(F), IN
DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO INCLUDE "SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS" AS
HE "FINDS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF SUCH ORDERS," DID NOT
FORBID HIM TO TAKE THE ONLY MEASURES WHICH WOULD BE EFFECTIVE, MERELY
BECAUSE OTHER CONSEQUENCES NECESSARILY WOULD FOLLOW.  THE LANGUAGE
NEITHER STATES EXPRESSLY NOR IMPLIES THAT HE IS TO DO ONLY WHAT WILL
ACHIEVE THE STATED ENDS AND NOTHING MORE.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT DIRECT
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE THE RATE EFFECTIVE BY ALL NECESSARY MEANS
EXCEPT THOSE WHICH MAY HAVE OTHER SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. 
HIS POWER, IT IS TRUE, IS NOT ONE OF SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC REFORM, EXCEPT
AS THAT POWER RELATES TO MAINTAINING AUTHORIZED MINIMUM WAGES AND THE
STATUTORY HOURS OF LABOR.  BUT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS NOT EXERCISED HIS
AUTHORITY FOR SUCH AN EXTRANEOUS PURPOSE.  HE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED ANY
SUCH OBJECT.  FN20  THE ENTIRE RECORD SUPPORTS THE DISCLAIMER.  THE
WHOLE BEARING OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE FINDINGS WAS TOWARD THE EFFECTS
OF HOMEWORK UPON THE WAGE RATE AND ITS MAINTENANCE, NOT UPON OTHER
EVILS IT MAY GENERATE.  PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT, NOT QUESTIONING THE
NECESSITY FOR THE PROHIBITION OR THE FINDING THAT IT EXISTS, WOULD
ACCOMPLISH INDIRECTLY WHAT DIRECT CHALLENGE WHICH THEY DO NOT ATTEMPT
WOULD ACHIEVE, IF SUCCESSFUL.  ABSENT THE NECESSITY, THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S POWER WOULD NOT GO TO THIS LENGTH.  PRESENT THAT
NECESSITY, TO DENY IT, BECAUSE OTHER EFFECTS NECESSARILY BUT
INCIDENTALLY MUST FOLLOW HIS ACTION, WOULD BE TO NULLIFY BOTH HIS POWER
AND THE STATUTE.  NOTHING IN THE STATUTE, WHETHER OF LETTER OR OF
SUBSTANCE, WARRANTS SUCH A LIMITATION.  WHAT IS "INCIDENTAL," WHAT
"INDEPENDENT" OF STATED STATUTORY ENDS OFTEN PRESENTS A DIFFICULT
ISSUE.  BUT THAT IS SELDOM IF EVER TRUE WHEN TO DENY THE AUTHORITY OR
OTHER FEATURE QUESTIONED WOULD NULLIFY THE ACT BY READING OUT OF ITS
PURVIEW THE ONLY MEANS FOR MAKING IT EFFECTIVE.  FN21 

HOMEWORK IN THIS CASE IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT INDUSTRY.  IT IS
CONDUCTED LARGELY BY THE SAME EMPLOYERS WHO MAINTAIN FACTORY
ESTABLISHMENTS OR BY "CONTRACTORS" WHO ARE IN COMPETITION WITH SUCH
EMPLOYERS.  HOMEWORKERS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SINGLE INDUSTRY. 
THEIR LABOR COMPETES WITH THE LABOR OF FACTORY WORKERS, WITHIN THE SAME
ESTABLISHMENT, BETWEEN ESTABLISHMENTS, AND BETWEEN REGIONS WHERE THE
INDUSTRY IS CONCENTRATED.  THE EFFECTS OF THEIR COMPETITION WITH
FACTORY WORKERS ARE, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, TO DESTROY THE LATTERS' RIGHT
AS WELL AS THEIR OWN TO HAVE, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THE BENEFIT OF THE
MINIMUM WAGE GUARANTEED BY THE ACT.  THEY REPRESENT THE SMALLER
FRACTION OF THE INDUSTRY, BOTH IN NUMBERS AND IN WORKING TIME.  SUCH
ARE THE UNCONTESTED FINDINGS OF FACT.  FN22 

WHEN ALL OF THESE FACTS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE CASE IS CLEARLY
NOT AN INSTANCE OF EFFORT TO ACHIEVE ENDS BEYOND OR INDEPENDENT OF THE
STATUTORY OBJECTS.  IT RATHER EXHIBITS BUT AN EXERCISE OF THE NECESSARY
MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THOSE OBJECTS.  THIS IS CONFIRMED, FURTHER, BY THE
EVIDENCE AND THE FINDINGS WHICH SHOW THAT THE PROHIBITION WILL NOT
ELIMINATE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF HOMEWORKERS FROM THE INDUSTRY; BUT ON
THE CONTRARY WILL RESULT ONLY IN TRANSFER OF THE SCENE OF THEIR WORK
FROM THE HOME TO THE FACTORY AND WILL DO THIS WITHOUT UNDUE HARDSHIP. 
FN23  FOR THE LARGER NUMBER OF WORKERS UNABLE TO MAKE THE TRANSFER, THE
EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED BY THE ORDER WILL PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE MODE FOR
PERMITTING CONTINUANCE OF WORK AT HOME.  FN24 

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY UNDERTAKES, IN EFFECT, TO
CONTRADICT THE TERMS OF SEC. 8(F) BY NEGATIVE INFERENCES DRAWN FROM
INCONCLUSIVE EVENTS OCCURRING IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE
VARIOUS AND WIDELY DIFFERING BILLS WHICH FINALLY, BY COMPROMISE AND
ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS, EMERGED FROM THE
CONFERENCE AS THE ACT.  THE PLAIN WORDS AND MEANING OF A STATUTE CANNOT
BE OVERCOME BY A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH, THROUGH STRAINED PROCESSES
OF DEDUCTION FROM EVENTS OF WHOLLY AMBIGUOUS SIGNIFICANCE, MAY FURNISH
DUBIOUS BASES FOR INFERENCE IN EVERY DIRECTION.  THIS IS SUCH A CASE. 

PETITIONERS' MOST INSISTENT EMPHASIS IS UPON TWO THINGS.  ONE IS THAT
THE COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF THE ORIGINAL SENATE BILL REPORTED THAT IT
WAS LIMITED TO TWO OBJECTIVES, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM WAGES AND
MAXIMUM HOURS AND THE PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL CHILD LABOR.  FN25  THE
OTHER, THAT AT VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSIDERATION THE SENATE BILL
CONTAINED, IN THE SECTION (9(6)) COMPARABLE TO WHAT IS NOW SEC. 8(F), A
PARENTHETICAL CLAUSE WHICH EXPRESSLY INCLUDED HOMEWORK AMONG OTHER
SPECIFIED PRACTICES THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS AUTHORIZED TO RESTRICT OR
PROHIBIT,  FN26 AND THIS CLAUSE WAS OMITTED FROM THE FINAL CONFERENCE
DRAFT. 

THE FIRST OBJECTION MERELY REPEATS IN ANOTHER GUISE THE ARGUMENT THAT
HOMEWORK IS AN INDEPENDENT SUBJECT MATTER WHOLLY WITHOUT THE STATUTE'S
PURVIEW, BUT BOLSTERS THIS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT BECAUSE OPPRESSIVE
CHILD LABOR WAS COVERED EXPRESSLY, HOMEWORK AND ALL OTHER FACTORS
AFFECTING MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM WAGES WERE LEFT ENTIRELY UNTOUCHED, IF
THEY PRODUCE OTHER EVILS WHICH INDEPENDENT LEGISLATION MIGHT REACH,
MERELY BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ALSO SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED.  THE
ASSUMPTION IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS ARE
THEMSELVES INDEPENDENT PROHIBITIONS, NOT LIMITED TO OPERATION IN
SITUATIONS WHERE CHILD LABOR HAS HARMFUL EFFECTS ON MAINTAINING THE
MINIMUM WAGE RATE BUT WORKING ENTIRELY INDEPENDENTLY OF SUCH
CONSEQUENCES.  FN27 THOSE PROVISIONS ARE THEREFORE NOT MERELY MEANS OF
PUTTING INTO EFFECT AND MAINTAINING THE WAGES REQUIRED BY THE ACT, AS
IS THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PROHIBITION OF HOMEWORK.  THE FORMER WOULD APPLY
REGARDLESS OF ANY EFFECT UPON THE WAGE STRUCTURE.  THE LATTER CAN APPLY
ONLY WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT SUCH EFFECTS REQUIRE THIS IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN AND SAFEGUARD THAT STRUCTURE. 

THIS DIFFERENCE IS IN FACT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN END AND MEANS, MADE
SUCH BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE ITSELF.  CONGRESS BY STATING EXPRESSLY
ITS PRIMARY ENDS DOES NOT DENY RESORT TO THE MEANS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE
THEM.  MENTION OF CHILD LABOR THEREFORE GIVES NO GROUND TO INFER, FROM
FAILURE EXPRESSLY TO MENTION HOMEWORK, THAT THE LATTER WAS NOT INCLUDED
WITHIN THE GENERAL LANGUAGE WHICH COMPREHENDS ALL NECESSARY MEANS TO
ACHIEVE THE ACT'S PRIMARY OBJECTS.  EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION
MUST BE DRAWN ON THE RECORD, IN VIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S UNCONTESTED
FINDINGS CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF HOMEWORK IN PRODUCING HIDDEN CHILD
LABOR AT SUBSTANDARD WAGES, THUS CIRCUMVENTING THE ACT IN TWO OF ITS
PRIMARY OBJECTS.  FN28  THESE FINDINGS THEREFORE GIVE ADDED REASON TO
SUSTAIN HIS CONCLUSION THAT HOMEWORK WAS NOT PUT BEYOND HIS POWER TO
PRESCRIBE THE MEANS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES OF THE ORDER AND
OF THE ACT. 

THE SECOND OBJECTION FARES NO BETTER.  IT IS MERE NEGATIVE INFERENCE
DRAWN FROM THE BARE FACT THAT THE ILLUSTRATIVE PARENTHETICAL CLAUSE WAS
OMITTED FROM THE FINAL CONFERENCE DRAFT WHICH BECAME THE ACT.  NOTHING
IN THE COMMITTEE OR CONFERENCE REPORTS OR IN THE DEBATES INDICATES A
PURPOSE TO PUT HOMEWORK, OR THE OTHER PRACTICES ENUMERATED AT ONE TIME
OR ANOTHER WITHIN THE PARENTHESES, BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT OR OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POWER WHEREVER THESE PRACTICES ARE SHOWN TO PREVENT
ACHIEVEMENT OF THE STATUTE'S ENDS. 

THE ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT MICROSCOPICALLY MADE FROM THE LONG COURSE
OF LEGISLATIVE EVENTS IS OBVIOUS.  FROM THE BEGINNING THE PARENTHETICAL
CLAUSE WAS BUT ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE GENERAL AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE
PROVISION OF WHICH IT WAS A PART.  FN29  IT "GREW UP THROUGH STEP BY
STEP ADDITIONS, AMONG WHICH 'HOMEWORK' WAS ONE," 144 F.2D 624, UNTIL
THE PARENTHETICAL ILLUSTRATIONS THREATENED TO SWALLOW UP THE GENERAL
AUTHORITY.  IF NOTHING MORE HAD OCCURRED THAN ELIMINATION OF THE
ILLUSTRATIONS FROM A BILL OTHERWISE ACCEPTED, THE CHANGE WELL MIGHT BE
PUT DOWN, AS JUDGE HAND SUGGESTS, 144 F.2D 624, "TO THE BELIEF THAT IT
WAS UNWISE TO SPECIFY SO MUCH, LEST THE SPECIFICATION BE TAKEN AS
EXHAUSTIVE." 

HOWEVER, AS HE POINTS OUT, THE COURSE OF EVENTS WAS QUITE DIFFERENT,
AND EVEN MORE CONCLUSIVE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS' VIEW.  THE SECTION
CONTAINING THE PARENTHESIS BEGAN, AND CONTINUED, AS A FEATURE OF THE
SENATE BILL.  THIS FOLLOWED AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PLAN FROM THE ONE
EVENTUALLY ADOPTED, WHICH WAS A COMPROMISE OF SENATE AND HOUSE
PROPOSALS.  THE SENATE BILL PLACED ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT IN THE
HANDS OF A BOARD, WHICH WAS BY ORDER TO FIX ALL MINIMUM WAGES.  IN THIS
FORM, INCLUDING THE PARENTHETICAL REFERENCE TO HOMEWORK,  FN30  THE
SENATE ADOPTED THE BILL.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE TO WHICH THE MEASURE WAS
REFERRED LIKEWISE APPROVED IT.  BUT THE HOUSE ITSELF DECLINED TO DO SO.
IT ADOPTED A DIFFERENT SCHEME, SUBSTITUTING STATUTORY WAGES FOR WAGES
FIXED BY ORDER AS THE SENATE BILL PROPOSED.  FN31  THERE WAS THEREFORE
NO NEED FOR, AND THE HOUSE BILL DID NOT CONTAIN, THE PARENTHESIS OR THE
GENERAL PROVISION OF WHICH IT FORMED A PART. 

WHEN THE TWO BILLS CAME TO CONFERENCE, COMPROMISE WAS WORKED OUT BY
WRITING AROUND THE CONFERENCE TABLE THE FINAL MEASURE COMBINING
FEATURES OF BOTH BILLS.  FN32  THE HOUSE PROVISIONS FOR AN
ADMINISTRATOR AND FOR STATUTORY WAGES WERE RETAINED.  BUT THE LATTER
WERE MODIFIED BY PROVIDING FOR "COMMITTEE" WAGES, TO BE FIXED BY ORDER
OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, BY INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8, INCLUDING
8(F), AND ALSO OF SEC. 6(A)(3) AND (4). 

INTO THE FINAL FORM OF THE MEASURE, THOUGH WITHOUT THE PARENTHESIS. 
THE CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REP. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.) CONTAINS
NO REFERENCE TO THE ELISION AND NONE APPEARS IN THE RECORD OF THE
ENSUING DEBATE.  83 CONG. REC. 9158, 9246.  THE HISTORY, ACCORDINGLY,
DOES NOT SUSTAIN THE NEGATIVE INFERENCE PETITIONERS WOULD DRAW FROM THE
OMISSION.  THE PARENTHESIS WAS INSERTED, IN THE SENATE, WITHOUT
DISCUSSION OR CONTROVERSY.  IT WAS LIKEWISE ELIMINATED WITHOUT
DISCUSSION OR CONTROVERSY.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, IT WAS NEVER SEPARATELY
CONSIDERED.  NOT THE CLAUSE ALONE OR PARTICULARLY, BUT THE ENTIRE BILL
CONTAINING IT WAS REJECTED BY THE HOUSE. 

THAT REJECTION IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS SINGLE FEATURE HAD SPECIAL
SIGNIFICANCE.  REJECTION OF AN ENTIRE BILL CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE A
SPECIFIC REJECTION OF EACH AND EVERY FEATURE, MORE ESPECIALLY OF THOSE
LATER REINTRODUCED IN THE FINAL DRAFT.  FN33  THE MOST TENABLE
CONCLUSION IS DRAWN BY JUDGE HAND, THAT "THE SECTION, WHICH HAD
APPARENTLY DIED WITH THE SENATE PLAN, WAS LIFTED OUT OF THAT SETTING,
AND WAS PUT INTO THE COMPROMISE BILL AS IT HAD STOOD ORIGINALLY."  AS
HE SAYS, "IT WOULD BE INDEED A FAR CRY TO INFER FROM THAT THAT ALL THE
ITEMS WHICH BY ACCRETION HAD MADE THEIR WAY INTO THE PARENTHESES WERE
IN THIS WAY EXCISED FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POWERS.  INDEED, IF SO -
AS HE ARGUES - HE COULD NOT EVEN REGULATE LABELS  ..."  144 F.2D AT
624. 

THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 6, RELATING TO HOMEWORK IN PUERTO RICO AND THE
VIRGIN ISLANDS, ADOPTED IN 1940,  FN34  AND CONGRESS' FAILURE IN 1939
AND 1940 TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
AUTHORIZE EXPLICITLY PROHIBITION OF HOMEWORK  FN35  CANNOT OPERATE
RETROACTIVELY, AS IS URGED, TO GIVE THE STATUTE ENACTED IN 1938 A
DIFFERENT MEANING FROM WHAT IT THEN ACQUIRED.  FN36  AND PETITIONERS'
CONTENTIONS DRAWN FROM THE ACT'S ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS MISCONCEIVE
THEIR EFFECT. 

THE IDEA SEEMS TO BE TWOFOLD, FIRST, THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS NO
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS UNDER THIS ACT; OR, IN ANY EVENT, THAT THE ACT
PROVIDES NO MEANS FOR ENFORCING THE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS," INCLUDING
RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION OF HOMEWORK, WHICH HE MAY INCLUDE IN HIS
ORDER.  FN37 

THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FUNCTION UNDER SEC. 8(F), THOUGH PRIMARILY
PREVENTIVE, OBVIOUSLY IS RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT.  AND FURTHER, HE IS
EXPRESSLY GRANTED POWERS BEARING DIRECTLY TO THAT END.  APART FROM HIS
INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 11, HE HAS POWER ALSO BY EXPRESS
PROVISION OF THAT SECTION TO BRING SUITS UNDER SEC. 17 TO RESTRAIN
VIOLATIONS OF WAGE ORDERS.  FN38 

WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THIS INCLUDES AUTHORITY TO SUE
INDEPENDENTLY TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" PROPERLY
INCLUDED IN SUCH AN ORDER OR TO ASK FOR THIS RELIEF AS INCIDENTAL TO
ENJOINING VIOLATIONS OF THE RATE SPECIFIED.  CF. HECHT CO. V. BOWLES,
321 U.S. 321, 330; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436,
461; UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 194; WARNER & CO. V. LILLY
& CO., 265 U.S. 526, 532.  BUT CERTAINLY THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AUTHORITY
CANNOT BE ASSUMED, CLOSELY RELATED AS IT WOULD BE TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER'S PRIMARY TERM.  CONGRESS DID NOT INCLUDE AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS" MERELY AS A PREACHMENT.  CF. CALIFORNIA DRIVE-IN
RESTAURANT ASSN. V. CLARK, 22 CAL.2D 287, 140 P.2D 657.  WE DO NOT
THEREFORE CONSIDER FURTHER THESE ASSUMPTIONS. 

FINALLY, PETITIONERS INSIST THAT POWER TO PROHIBIT HOMEWORK COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN INTENDED BECAUSE THE AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE "TERMS AND
CONDITIONS" APPLIES ONLY TO "COMMITTEE," NOT TO "STATUTORY" WAGES AND
WILL EXPIRE, BY THE TERMS OF SEC. 8(E),  FN39  ON OCTOBER 23, 1945,
SEVEN YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SEC. 8.  THIS ARGUMENT INVOLVES
A MEDLEY OF ASSUMPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS, SOME CONTRARY TO THE FACT,
OTHERS OF DOUBTFUL VALIDITY.  AMONG THEM ARE THE IDEAS:  (1) THAT THE
POWER TO PRESCRIBE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" APPLIES ONLY TO "COMMITTEE"
WAGES; (2) THAT THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE OR MAINTAIN SUCH WAGES EXPIRES
ALTOGETHER AT THE END OF THE SEVEN YEARS; AND (3), UPON THESE
HYPOTHESES, THAT IT WOULD BE "ABSURD TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR COULD MAKE SO DISRUPTIVE BUT TEMPORARY A
REGULATION AS THE PROHIBITION OF HOMEWORK WOULD ENTAIL."    THE LAST
CONCLUSION MIGHT BE ACCEPTED, IF ITS FOUNDATIONS WERE SOLID.  BUT THEY
CRUMBLE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY SEC. 8(F) IS TO
BE READ, NOT AS IF IT WERE GIVEN AS OF THE DATE OF THE ORDER (AUGUST,
1943) OR THE TIME WHEN IT MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE,  FN40  BUT AS OF 1938,
WHEN THE SECTION TOOK EFFECT.  ACCORDINGLY, AT THE MINIMUM, THE
AUTHORITY GIVEN WAS TO APPLY OVER A PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS.  AND THESE
WERE THE MOST CRUCIAL, BECAUSE THE INITIAL, YEARS IN THE STATUTE'S
ANTICIPATED LIFE.  THE SCOPE OF THE POWER WAS NOT CUT DOWN BECAUSE THE
ADMINISTRATOR CHOSE TO TRY FIRST THE LESS EFFECTIVE, BUT SIMILARLY
CONFERRED THOUGH LESS EXTENSIVE POWER OF REGULATION.    BEYOND THIS, IT
IS NOT TRUE THAT THE POWER EITHER TO PRESCRIBE "COMMITTEE" WAGES OR TO
INCLUDE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" IN THE ORDER EXPIRES ALTOGETHER AT THE
END OF THE FIRST SEVEN YEARS.  SECTION 8(E) EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR
CONTINUANCE OR ISSUANCE OF WAGE ORDERS AFTER THAT TIME, WHENEVER THE
INDUSTRY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR FINDS "BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE  ...  THAT THE CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS OR
THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL CURTAILMENT OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDUSTRY."  AND
SEC. 6(A)(3), PERHAPS ALSO 6(A)(4), EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATES CONTINUANCE
OF WAGE ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SEC. 8 AFTER THE INITIAL SEVEN YEARS.  THE
EXACT SCOPE OF THESE PROVISIONS NEED NOT NOW BE DETERMINED.  IT IS
ENOUGH, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THAT THEY LEAVE SOME ROOM, AND IT MAY BE
CONSIDERABLE, FOR THE ISSUANCE OR CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS OF WAGE
ORDERS AFTER OCTOBER 23, 1945. 

FINALLY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE POWER
TO PRESCRIBE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" APPLIES ONLY TO "COMMITTEE" WAGES
AND NOT TO "STATUTORY" WAGES.  STRONG REASONS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED FOR
BELIEVING IT APPLIES TO BOTH.  FN41  BUT THIS CASE INVOLVES ONLY
"COMMITTEE" WAGES.  THE POWER TO MAKE THEM EFFECTIVE AND TO PREVENT
EVASION WOULD NOT BE CUT DOWN, WERE IT MORE CLEAR THAN IT IS THAT THERE
IS NO AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" FOR "STATUTORY"
WAGES OR WERE IT TRUE THAT AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE "COMMITTEE" WAGES WOULD
EXPIRE ALTOGETHER WITH THE INITIAL SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD.  THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" APPLIES TO
"STATUTORY" WAGES MAY BE LEFT FOR DECISION WHEN IT ARISES.  UNCERTAIN
AS THE ANSWER NOW IS, IT CANNOT GIVE SOLID GROUND FOR INFERENCE THAT
THE POWER TO PROHIBIT HOMEWORK WAS NOT A NECESSARY MEANS OF MAKING
EFFECTIVE THE MINIMUM WAGE PRESCRIBED BY THE ORDER. 

PETITIONERS' ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED CHIEFLY TO THE POWER TO
PROHIBIT.  IF VALID, THEY WOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO THE AUTHORITY TO
RESTRICT OR REGULATE.  THEY WOULD NULLIFY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POWER TO
ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN MINIMUM WAGES IN THE EMBROIDERIES INDUSTRY.  THEY
CAN HAVE NO SUCH POTENCY. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE PETITION SOUGHT REVIEW ALSO ON QUESTIONS OF DUE PROCESS AND
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  CF. NOTE 10 INFRA. 

FN2  SECTION 6(A)(3), CF. ALSO SEC. 8(E) AND TEXT INFRA PAGE 267,
PROVIDES FOR ISSUANCE AND CONTINUANCE IN EFFECT OF WAGE ORDERS, TO SOME
EXTENT AT LEAST, AFTER THE SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD: "SEC.  6(A).  EVERY
EMPLOYER SHALL PAY TO EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES  ...  (3) AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF SEVEN YEARS  ...  NOT LESS THAN 40 CENTS AN HOUR, OR THE
RATE (NOT LESS THAN 30 CENTS AN HOUR) PRESCRIBED IN THE APPLICABLE
ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED UNDER SECTION 8, WHICHEVER IS LOWER
..." 

FN3  "THE COMMITTEE SHALL RECOMMEND TO THE ADMINISTRATOR THE HIGHEST
MINIMUM WAGE RATES FOR THE INDUSTRY WHICH IT DETERMINES, HAVING DUE
REGARD TO ECONOMIC AND COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY
CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDUSTRY."  SEC. 8(B).  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
CLASSIFICATIONS ARE COVERED BY SEC. 8(C). 

FN4  CF. THE CONCURRING OPINION OF L. HAND, C.J., 144 F.2D 608, 623. 
THE COMBINATION IS THE RESULT OF A COMPROMISE, REACHED IN CONFERENCE,
OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE AS TO THE STRUCTURE OF
THE BILL.  CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 32. 

FN5  THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE (NO. 45) WAS APPOINTED JUNE 6, 1942, AND
ON JUNE 30 FOLLOWING SUBMITTED ITS UNANIMOUS REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, FOR THE 40-CENT RATE, TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  PUBLISHED
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING WAS GIVEN SEPTEMBER 16.  THE HEARING EXTENDED
OVER TEN DAYS OF THE FOLLOWING NOVEMBER.  THE ADMINISTRATOR BROADENED
ITS SCOPE TO INCLUDE THE QUESTION "WHAT, IF ANY, PROHIBITION,
RESTRICTION, OR REGULATION OF HOME WORK IN THIS INDUSTRY IS NECESSARY
TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF SUCH ORDER," ETC. 

INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, WHO APPEARED, WERE UNANIMOUS, WITH ONE
EXCEPTION, IN SUPPORTING THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT DIVIDED ON
RESTRICTING OR PROHIBITING INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK.  LABOR REPRESENTATIVES
SUPPORTED BOTH PROPOSALS, AS DID REPRESENTATIVES OF FEDERAL AND STATE
AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR OF THE UNITED STATES AND
OF THE STATES OF NEW YORK AND RHODE ISLAND. 

EXTENSIVE TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN AND MANY EXHIBITS WERE RECEIVED IN
EVIDENCE.  IN MANY OF ITS ASPECTS THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND THE EVIDENCE
REPETITIOUS OF THAT UPON WHICH PREVIOUS FINDINGS WERE BASED APPROVING
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF AN EARLIER INDUSTRY COMMITTEE (NO. 15), WHICH
RESULTED IN ESTABLISHING THE 37 1/2-CENT RATE BY ORDER EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 27, 1941.  ORAL ARGUMENT WAS RESTRICTED TO THE QUESTION OF
HOMEWORK, TO WHICH THE GREATER PART OF THE RECORD OF 1,691 PAGES
RELATES.  THE PROCEDURE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THAT WHICH HAD BEEN FOLLOWED,
UPON THE SAME QUESTION, IN THE CASES OF SIX OTHER INDUSTRIES.  SEE THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS AND OPINION ON THE MINIMUM WAGE RECOMMENDATION
OF INDUSTRY COMMITTEE NO. 26 FOR, AND INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK IN, THE
JEWELRY MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY, DATED OCTOBER 16, 1941, AND IN RELATION
TO THE KNITTED OUTERWEAR INDUSTRY (MARCH 30, 1942), WOMEN'S APPAREL
INDUSTRY (JULY 8, 1942), GLOVES AND MITTENS INDUSTRY (AUGUST 22, 1942),
BUTTON AND BUCKLE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (SEPTEMBER 19, 1942), AND
HANDKERCHIEF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (JANUARY 22, 1943). 

FN6  THE PROVISION FOR THE 40-CENT RATE BECAME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER
20, 1943.  THE ORDER PROVIDED THE PROHIBITION OF HOMEWORK SHOULD BECOME
EFFECTIVE AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1943.  BUT THE DATE WAS POSTPONED,
SUCCESSIVELY, UNTIL JULY 26, 1944, WHEN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
STAYED ENFORCEMENT UNTIL THIS COURT SHOULD ACT ON THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND THAT "THE ESTIMATED DIRECT INCREASE IN THE
WAGE BILL RESULTING FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MINIMUM WAGE RATE OF 40
CENTS AN HOUR WOULD BE 1.2 PER CENT IN THE THREE MAIN AREAS AND 2.6 PER
CENT IN THE OTHER AREAS."  THESE FINDINGS ARE RELATED TO OTHERS TO THE
EFFECT THAT "ALMOST 90 PERCENT OF THE EMBROIDERY ESTABLISHMENTS ARE
LOCATED IN THE NEW YORK CITY (INCLUDING NORTHERN NEW JERSEY), CHICAGO,
AND PHILADELPHIA METROPOLITAN AREAS  ...."  THE ADMINISTRATOR CONCLUDED
THAT "THE INSIGNIFICANT RISE IN OPERATING COSTS WHICH WILL RESULT FROM
THE RECOMMENDED MINIMUM WILL NOT CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL CURTAILMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT."  CF. SEC. 8(B), (D). 

FN7  CF. ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126. 

FN8  THE EXCEPTIONS RELATE TO PERSONS OBTAINING SPECIAL HOMEWORK
CERTIFICATES WHO ARE "UNABLE TO ADJUST TO FACTORY WORK BECAUSE OF" AGE,
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY OR ARE UNABLE TO LEAVE HOME BECAUSE THEIR
PRESENCE IS REQUIRED TO CARE FOR AN INVALID; AND WERE ENGAGED IN
INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK IN THE INDUSTRY PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 2, 1942(EXCEPT
THAT THIS REQUIREMENTS IS NOT TO BE APPLIED IN CASES OF UNUSUAL
HARDSHIP) OR ARE ENGAGED IN SUCH HOMEWORK UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A
STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCY OR A SHELTERED WORKSHOP AS
DEFINED IN THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. 

FN9  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OPINION REVIEWS AT LENGTH THE CONDITIONS
SURROUNDING HOMEWORK IN THE INDUSTRY INEVITABLY TENDING TO PRODUCE
VIOLATION OF MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS; AND THE EFFORTS PREVIOUSLY MADE
UNDER BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO OVERCOME THESE TENDENCIES
BY REGULATORY MEASURES. 

HIS CONCLUSIONS, UPON THE EVIDENCE, WERE IN GENERAL THAT BOTH STATE
AND FEDERAL EFFORTS AT REGULATION HAD BEEN INEFFECTIVE; THAT VIOLATIONS
WERE WIDESPREAD, OF GREAT VARIETY AND IN GREAT PART CONCEALED; AND THAT
THESE WERE DUE TO FACTORS INHERENT IN THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK IS PERFORMED AND IMPOSSIBLE TO CORRECT BY THE
REGULATORY MEASURES APPLIED. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REVIEW OF EFFORTS AT REGULATION, BY BOTH STATE,
CF. NOTE 17 INFRA, AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, LED HIM TO CONCLUDE "THAT LABOR CONDITIONS IN INDUSTRIAL
HOME WORK ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO REGULATION," AND THAT, ACCORDING TO
"THE NEARLY UNANIMOUS VIEWPOINT OF FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICIALS HAVING
EXPERIENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF LABOR LAWS,  ...  REGULATION,
RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK MUST BE ON A NATION
WIDE BASIS IF MINIMUM WAGE STANDARDS ARE TO BE PRESERVED AND UPHELD." 

LIKEWISE, "EXPERIENCE UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938(TO
NOVEMBER, 1942) HAS ALSO INDICATED THAT LABOR CONDITIONS IN INDUSTRIAL
HOMEWORK IN THIS INDUSTRY ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO REGULATION THAT WILL
GUARANTEE THAT THE HOME WORKER WILL BE PAID THE ESTABLISHED MINIMUM
RATE ....  COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT HAS BEEN THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN
THE RULE."  CF. NOTE 16 INFRA.  SUCH HOMEWORK, IT IS FURTHER CONCLUDED,
"FURNISHES A READY MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING OR EVADING THE MINIMUM WAGE
ORDER FOR THIS INDUSTRY" AND "MERE REGULATION  ...  INCLUDING
REGULATION OF THE RECORD-KEEPING PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS OR GOVERNMENTAL
ESTABLISHMENT OF PIECE RATES WILL NOT BE ADEQUATE TO SECURE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE MINIMUM WAGE ORDER FOR THE EMBROIDERIES INDUSTRY." 

FN10  IN THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI THE ONLY QUESTIONS
PRESENTED WERE (1) WHETHER THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES INCLUSION OF THE
PROHIBITION AS A "TERM AND CONDITION" OF THE WAGE ORDER; (2) WHETHER,
IF SO, THIS DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY IS CONFINED BY ADEQUATE STANDARDS;
AND (3) WHETHER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE THE
PROHIBITION "SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY TO ENFORCE THE MINIMUM
WAGE RATE APPLICABLE TO HOMEWORKERS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC CHARACTER OF SUCH EMPLOYMENT."  CF. NOTE 1 AND TEXT SUPRA. 

FN11  BY SEC. 10, "THE REVIEW BY THE COURT SHALL BE LIMITED TO
QUESTIONS OF LAW, AND FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR WHEN
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE." 

FN12  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT STATED:  "IT WAS TESTIFIED AT THE
HEARING THAT HOME WORK IS CHEAPER IN TERMS OF LABOR COSTS THAN FACTORY
WORK AND IS USED BY EMPLOYERS TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS, DESPITE THE
ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OVER PRODUCTION,
STANDARDIZATION, AND SPECIALIZATION WHICH ARE POSSIBLE IN THE FACTORY. 
THE EVIDENCE  ... CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THAT LARGE PROPORTIONS OF HOME
WORK EMPLOYEES  ... ARE PAID LESS THAN THE APPLICABLE MINIMUM.  IT IS
APPARENT THAT IF SOME EMPLOYERS ARE ALLOWED TO UTILIZE HOME WORKERS AT
SUBMINIMUM WAGE SCALES, OTHER EMPLOYERS COMPELLED TO PAY A 40-CENT
MINIMUM WILL BE PLACED AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE." 

FN13  THE NATURE OF HOMEWORK, IT WAS SAID, IS SUCH THAT ESTIMATES OF
THE NUMBER OF HOMEWORKERS IN THIS INDUSTRY ARE DIFFICULT, WHEREAS BY
CONTRAST EMPLOYMENT FIGURES FOR FACTORY WORKERS MAY BE ASCERTAINED WITH
EASE AND DEFINITENESS.  THE ESTIMATES STATED ARE FROM DATA SUBMITTED BY
THE ECONOMICS BRANCH, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR.  THE FIGURES CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND OF
FACTORY WORKERS WERE DERIVED FROM THE CENSUS OF MANUFACTURES. 

FN14  ACCORDING TO THE REPORT OF THE ECONOMICS BRANCH, CF. NOTE 13
SUPRA, ENTITLED THE CURRENT STATUS OF HOME WORK IN THE EMBROIDERIES
INDUSTRY, OCTOBER, 1942, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS AFFECTING
EARNINGS OF HOMEWORKERS IS "THE GREAT MULTIPLICITY OF DESIGNS AND
STYLES."  VARIATIONS ARE CONSTANT AND SHORT LIVED.  PIECE RATES MUST BE
DETERMINED AND APPLIED WITH EVERY CHANGE.  FEW OPERATIONS LEND
THEMSELVES TO STANDARDIZATION, ESPECIALLY FOR HOMEWORK.  IN ONE
INSTANCE, DURING A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, A "LACE-CUTTING FIRM RECEIVED
WORK REQUIRING THE CUTTING OF 300 DIFFERENT DESIGNS, EACH OF WHICH HAD
A DIFFERENT PIECE RATE."  THE REPORT FURTHER STATES:  "PIECE RATES FOR
PLANT WORKERS CAN READILY BE CHECKED  ...  THE SETTING OF PIECE RATES
TO YIELD THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR HOME WORKERS IS A MUCH MORE COMPLEX
PROBLEM THAN FOR PLANT WORKERS." 

THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OPINION STATES THE MOST COMMON PRACTICE IN
SETTING PIECE RATES FOR HOME OPERATIONS IS BY THE TIMING OF A SAMPLE
WORKER IN THE FACTORY AND THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THIS WORKER MAY BE A VERY
SKILLED AND EXPERIENCED ONE.  OF THE FIRMS INSPECTED BY THE WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION JUNE 1, 1939, TO JULY 1, 1942, "A REVIEW OF 211 SHOWED
THAT 80, OR 37.9 PERCENT, FIXED PIECE RATES FOR HOME WORKERS UPON THE
BASIS OF ARBITRARY ESTIMATES; 73, OR 34.6 PERCENT, BASED THE RATES FOR
HOME WORKERS ON TIME TESTS OF PLANT SAMPLE WORKERS; AND ONLY 40, OR 19
PERCENT, BASED THE RATES FOR HOME WORKERS ON TIME TESTS OF SOME OF THE
HOME WORKERS THEMSELVES."  CF. ALSO NOTE 16 INFRA. 

FN15  CF. NOTE 6 SUPRA. 

FN16  CF. NOTE 9 SUPRA.  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT STATED:  "THE
ECONOMICS BRANCH FOUND THAT EVEN DURING THE BOOM PERIOD FROM JANUARY
27, 1941 TO JULY 1942, 61.2 PERCENT OF THE HOME WORKERS IN THE INDUSTRY
AS A WHOLE WERE PAID LESS THAN 37 1/2 CENTS AN HOUR, IN VIOLATION OF
THE APPLICABLE MINIMUM WAGE ORDER.  IT WAS FOUND THAT 52.6 PERCENT OF
THE HOME WORKERS RECEIVED LESS THAN 35 CENTS AN HOUR; NEARLY 30 PERCENT
LESS THAN 25 CENTS; AND 17.4 PERCENT LESS THAN 20 CENTS.  FIFTEEN HOME
WORKERS, OR 1.8 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER, WERE PAID AS LITTLE AS 10
CENTS AN HOUR OR LESS.  THE PERCENTAGE RECEIVING LESS THAN 37 1/2 CENTS
AN HOUR WAS HIGHEST, 90.2 PERCENT, IN LACE CUTTING AND LOWEST, 23.3
PERCENT, IN CROCHET BEADING.  MISCELLANEOUS EMBROIDERY HAD 81.3 PERCENT
OF THE HOME WORKERS RECEIVING LESS THAN THE WAGE ORDER MINIMUM,
PASSEMENTERIE, 74.1 PERCENT, HAND EMBROIDERY, 72.6 PERCENT, AND
SCHIFFLI AND SWISS HAND-MACHINE EMBROIDERY, 31.1 PERCENT."    MUCH
OTHER EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY OF INDIVIDUAL HOMEWORKERS AND OF
THE DIRECTOR OF THE WOMEN'S DIVISION, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
RELATING TO INSPECTIONS MADE IN 1941 AND 1942 INVOLVING 1,582
HOMEWORKERS, SUSTAINED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S STATEMENT, "THE EVIDENCE IN
THE RECORD, INCLUDING THE REPORT OF THE ECONOMICS BRANCH, WHICH SHOWED
LOW SUBMINIMUM EARNINGS FOR THE BULK OF THE HOMEWORKERS IN THIS
INDUSTRY, WAS NOT SERIOUSLY CONTESTED AT THE HEARING," AND HIS FURTHER
CONCLUSIONS THAT, IN VIEW OF COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIPS, MERE REGULATION
OF HOMEWORK WOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE TO SECURE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE ORDER AND, LIKEWISE, THAT THIS COULD NOT BE HAD BY APPLYING THE
PROHIBITION TO ONLY PART OF THE INDUSTRY. 

FN17  HE FOUND SPECIFICALLY THAT THE EFFORTS OF NEW YORK AND NEW
JERSEY IN PROHIBITING DISTRIBUTORS WHO OPERATE NO SHOPS FROM
DISTRIBUTING HOMEWORK AND IN RESTRICTING SUCH CONTRACTORS, THOUGH
HAVING A BENEFICIAL EFFECT, HAD NOT "CHANGED THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF
THE INDUSTRY AS PRESENTLY CARRIED ON"; THAT HIDDEN CHILD LABOR IS A
WIDESPREAD CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SYSTEM, DISCOVERABLE ONLY AFTER
EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION PRESENTING AN ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM FOR
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, EMPLOYERS AND HOMEWORKERS THEMSELVES; THAT
VIOLATIONS OF RECORD KEEPING REGULATIONS BY EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS ARE
CONSISTENT AND WIDESPREAD; AND THAT "IN VIEW OF THE COMPETITIVE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF EMBROIDERY, ANY REGULATORY,
RESTRICTIVE, OR PROHIBITORY ORDER AFFECTING ONLY CERTAIN OPERATIONS
WOULD CREATE A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE FOR THE EMPLOYERS ENGAGED IN
THOSE OPERATIONS." 

NOTING THAT TWELVE STATES HAD LEGISLATED, BEFORE 1900, TO REGULATE
TENEMENT WORKSHOPS, THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND THAT "EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
WAS IMPOSSIBLE, HOWEVER, AND HOME WORK REMAINED A SERIOUS PROBLEM." 
THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD OF LEGISLATION BY A FEW STATES "ACHIEVED LITTLE
EFFECTIVE CONTROL PRIOR TO 1930."  NEW STATE LAWS, ENACTED DURING THE
1930'S, PROVIDING FOR ABOLITION OF HOMEWORK BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER,
"BECAME THE ONLY EFFECTIVE STATUTORY APPROACH TO A PROBLEM GENERALLY
CONSIDERED BEYOND REGULATION."  UNDER THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY
ADMINISTRATION, 118 OF THE 556 CODES INCLUDED HOMEWORK PROVISIONS; AND
86 PERCENT OF THE 118 PROHIBITED HOMEWORK.  HOMEWORK IN CONSEQUENCE WAS
GREATLY REDUCED, BUT ITS VOLUME TURNED SHARPLY UPWARD WHEN THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN SCHECHTER
POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495(1935). 

FN18  NO REASON IS APPARENT WHICH WOULD MAKE ANY FACTOR IN THE
HOMEWORK SITUATION EFFECTIVE TO NULLIFY THE 40-CENT RATE THAT WOULD NOT
APPLY ALSO TO THE 37 1/2-CENT RATE OR ANY OTHER MINIMUM, HOWEVER FIXED,
EXCEPT ONE PLACED SO LOW THAT EVEN HOMEWORKERS WOULD SEEK OTHER KINDS
OF EMPLOYMENT OR ACCEPT IDLENESS IN PREFERENCE.  THE ADMINISTRATOR MADE
NO FINDINGS OR CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THIS SELF-EVIDENT MATTER. 

FN19  CF. TEXT AT NOTE 38FF INFRA. 

FN20  HIS OPINION EXPRESSLY STATES:  "THIS PROCEEDING IS NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER HOME WORK IS DESIRABLE OR
UNDESIRABLE FROM A SOCIAL POINT OF VIEW OR AS A FORM OF ECONOMIC
ORGANIZATION.  IT IS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH WHETHER THE HOME WORK SYSTEM
IN THE EMBROIDERIES INDUSTRY FURNISHES A MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING OR
EVADING A WAGE ORDER PUTTING INTO EFFECT THE MINIMUM WAGE
RECOMMENDATION OF INDUSTRY COMMITTEE NO. 45 SO THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO
PROVIDE IN THE WAGE ORDER FOR ITS REGULATION, RESTRICTION OR
PROHIBITION IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF SUCH ORDER AND TO
SAFEGUARD THE MINIMUM WAGE RATE ESTABLISHED THEREIN." 

FN21  CF. SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 392;
UNITED STATES V. POWERS, 307 U.S. 214, 217; ARMSTRONG PAINT & VARNISH
WORKS V. NU-ENAMEL CORP., 305 U.S. 315, 333; BIRD V. UNITED STATES, 187
U.S. 118, 124. 

FN22  CF. NOTES 12, 13 AND TEXT AT NOTES 14 AND 16 SUPRA.  OTHER
RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR NEED NOT BE QUOTED OR NOTED
SPECIFICALLY, REFERENCE BEING MADE TO HIS OPINION FOR THEM. 

FN23  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OPINION DEVOTES SOME SEVENTEEN PAGES TO
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE, INCLUDING PREVIOUS
EXPERIENCE WITH ABILITY OF BOTH EMPLOYERS AND HOMEWORKERS TO ADJUST TO
THE PROHIBITION.  THIS EXPERIENCE RELATED TO THE EFFECTS OF
PROHIBITIONS UNDER VARIOUS STATE LAWS AND THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT.  WITH REFERENCE TO THE LATTER, OF 75 FIRMS INVESTIGATED
BY THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ONLY ONE DISCONTINUED
THE LINE OF GOODS ON WHICH HOMEWORKERS HAD BEEN EMPLOYED AND OF 3,135
HOMEWORK EMPLOYEES PRIOR TO THE PROHIBITION, 2,588 OR 82 PERCENT WERE
EMPLOYED IN FACTORIES AFTER THE PROHIBITION.  SIMILAR RESULTS WERE
SHOWN IN THE EXPERIENCE WITH STATE LAWS IN NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND
RHODE ISLAND. 

PETITIONERS PRESENTED CONTRARY EVIDENCE, LARGELY STATEMENTS OF
INDIVIDUAL HOMEWORKERS IN EMBROIDERY THAT THEY COULD NOT OR WOULD NOT
MAKE THE TRANSFER, FOR VARIOUS REASONS, IF THE PROHIBITION WERE
ADOPTED.  THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND SOME OF THIS EVIDENCE UNACCEPTABLE
"AS FURNISHING A SOUND BASIS FOR PREDICATING THEIR ACTUAL CONDUCT WHEN
FACED WITH ACTUAL PROHIBITION" AND CONCLUDED THAT REASONABLE ADJUSTMENT
COULD BE MADE TO THE PROHIBITION BOTH BY EMPLOYEES AND BY THE
EMPLOYERS. 

FN24  CF. NOTE 8 SUPRA.  BECAUSE "RELATIVELY FEW HOME WORKERS WILL BE
ELIGIBLE TO CONTINUE HOME WORK UNDER THIS EXCEPTION," THE ADMINISTRATOR
FOUND THAT "NO THREAT TO THE STANDARDS OF THE WAGE ORDER" WOULD BE
PRESENTED BY MAKING IT. 

FN25  S. REP. NO. 884, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; CF. 81 CONG. REC. 7658,
7659. 

FN26  THE CLAUSE ASSUMED VARIOUS FORMS IN THE COURSE OF CONSIDERATION
OF THE SENATE BILL.  THE SECTION COMPARABLE TO SEC. 8(F) WAS 9(6).  THE
ORIGINAL PARENTHESIS, APPARENTLY, WAS INSERTED IN COMMITTEE IN THE
FORM, "(INCLUDING THE RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION OF SUCH ACTS OR
PRACTICES)."  S. REP. NO. 884, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 8.  THIS WAS
AMENDED ON THE FLOOR, WITHOUT DEBATE OR RECORD VOTE, TO READ,
"(INCLUDING THE RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK OR
OF SUCH OTHER ACTS OR PRACTICES)," THUS INTRODUCING THE FIRST SPECIFIC
REFERENCE TO HOMEWORK.  81 CONG. REC. 7891.  THE BILL PASSED THE SENATE
WITH THE CLAUSE IN THIS FORM.  81 CONG. REC. 7957. 

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR APPROVED AND REPORTED THE SENATE BILL
WITH THIS VERSION OF THE PARENTHESIS, WHICH WAS RETAINED THROUGH MANY
REVISIONS OF THE BILL AFTER IT WAS RECOMMITTED.  EVENTUALLY THE CLAUSE
WAS EXPANDED IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE TO READ, "(INCLUDING THE
RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK OR SUCH OTHER ACTS
OR PRACTICES AND SUCH REQUIREMENTS AS THE KEEPING OF RECORDS, LABELING,
PERIODIC REPORTING AND POSTING OF ORDERS AND SCHEDULES)."  HOUSE
CONFIDENTIAL SUBCOMMITTEE PRINT "A" OF FEBRUARY 18, 1938.  THE CLAUSE
DISAPPEARED ENTIRELY FROM THE HOUSE BILL WHEN, SHORTLY BEFORE PASSAGE,
THAT BODY CHANGED THE ENTIRE SCHEME BY SUBSTITUTING "STATUTORY" FOR
"COMMITTEE" WAGES.  CF. H. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.; CF.
ALSO TEXT INFRA AT NOTES 32, 33. 

FN27  CF. SEC. 12 AND SEC. 3(1).  THE LATTER DEFINES "OPPRESSIVE
CHILD LABOR."  THE FORMER PROHIBITS PRODUCERS, MANUFACTURERS AND
DEALERS TO "SHIP OR DELIVER FOR SHIPMENT IN COMMERCE ANY GOODS PRODUCED
IN AN ESTABLISHMENT SITUATED IN THE UNITED STATES IN OR ABOUT WHICH
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF SUCH GOODS THEREFROM ANY
OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR HAS BEEN EMPLOYED ..."  SEE ALSO NOTE 17 SUPRA. 

FN28  THE ADMINISTRATOR, REFERRING TO THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 12, CF.
NOTE 27 SUPRA, NOTED THAT THE EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN EITHER
FACTORIES OR HOMES, IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, MUST BE
HIDDEN AND COMMENTED:  "THIS IN ITSELF CONTRIBUTES TO THE DETERIORATION
OF MINIMUM WAGE STANDARDS." 

FN29  CF. NOTE 26 SUPRA; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S.
177, 188FF, 211; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S. 95, 100. 

FN30  CF. NOTE 26 SUPRA. 

FN31  THE HOUSE BILL ALSO SUBSTITUTED AN ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE
SENATE'S BOARD.  PETITIONERS ARGUE FROM THE FACT THAT SUBSTITUTION OF
"STATUTORY" FOR "COMMITTEE" WAGES WAS MADE BECAUSE THE HOUSE OBJECTED
TO THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS GIVEN THE BOARD IN THE SENATE BILL, H. REP.
NO. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., AND BECAUSE IT LATER REJECTED
SUBSTITUTE BILLS PATTERNED AFTER THE SENATE MEASURE, CF. 83 CONG. REC.
7389, 7378, 7373, THAT CONGRESS, IN EFFECT, REJECTED EVERY FEATURE OF
THE BILLS WHICH THE HOUSE REFUSED TO ENACT.  THE NON SEQUITUR IS
APPARENT.  BUT IT MAY BE NOTED THE CONTENTION IGNORES ENTIRELY THE
SENATE'S PART IN LEGISLATION, AS WELL AS THE COMPROMISE EFFECTED IN
CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO BODIES AND THE FACT THAT THIS REINTRODUCED
SOME OF THE DISCRETIONARY FEATURES CONTAINED IN THE BILLS THE HOUSE
REJECTED. 

FN32  CF. 83 CONG. REC. 9256; H. REP. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.
(CONFERENCE REPORT). 

FN33  CF. NOTE 31 SUPRA. 

FN34  SECTIONS 6(A)(5), 6(C), 5(E), ADDED BY ACT OF JUNE 26, 1940, 54
STAT. 615, 616.  SECTION 6(A)(5) DEALS IN DETAIL WITH HOMEWORKERS IN
PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. 

FN35  CF. H.R. 5435, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 4; H. REP. NO. 522,
76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 8; 84 CONG. REC. 3498; 86 CONG. REC. 5122. 

FN36  IT IS NOT ALTOGETHER CLEAR, FROM THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT, CF. NOTE 35 SUPRA, WHETHER ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT WERE TO
CLARIFY PREEXISTING PROVISIONS OR TO EXTEND THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
AUTHORITY.  THE DEBATE, 84 CONG. REC. 6620-6622, INDICATES THAT
OPPOSITION IN THE HOUSE WAS DUE PRIMARILY TO BELIEF THAT THE AMENDMENT,
IF ADOPTED, WOULD "TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE EXEMPTIONS THAT SO-CALLED FARM
PEOPLE ENJOY UNDER THE ACT." 

FN37  IT IS SAID THAT SEC. 8(F) DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A HEARING WITH
REFERENCE TO THE "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" OF A WAGE ORDER AND THE FAILURE
OF THE ACT TO PROVIDE EXPRESSLY FOR THEIR ENFORCEMENT, AS IT DOES FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SECS. 11(C), 12 AND 14, INDICATES
"THE STATUTE DID NOT INCLUDE THE PROHIBITION OF HOMEWORK AS A 'TERM AND
CONDITION' OF A WAGE ORDER."  THE ARGUMENT, IT MAY BE NOTED, APPLIES TO
ALL "TERMS AND CONDITIONS."  IN EFFECT IT URGES THAT ALL ARE
UNENFORCEABLE; AND THEREFORE NONE WAS INTENDED. 

FN38  SECTION 11(A) PROVIDES:  "THE ADMINISTRATOR  ...  MAY
INVESTIGATE  ...  SUCH FACTS, CONDITIONS, PRACTICES, OR MATTERS AS HE
MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY PERSON HAS
VIOLATED ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR WHICH MAY AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT  ....  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12,
THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL BRING ALL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 17 TO RESTRAIN
VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT."  CF., E.G., WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323
U.S. 37; WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624. 

FN39  "NOT ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY
INDUSTRY PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF SEVEN YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF SECTION 6 SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT AFTER SUCH EXPIRATION, AND NO ORDER
SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY INDUSTRY ON OR
AFTER SUCH EXPIRATION, UNLESS THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE BY A PREPONDERANCE
OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT RECOMMENDS, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING FINDS, THAT THE
CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS OR THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER, AS THE CASE MAY
BE, IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL CURTAILMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDUSTRY." 

FN40  CF. NOTE 6 SUPRA. 

FN41  CF. THE OPINION OF L. HAND, C.J., 144 F.2D 608, 623, AND THE
RESERVATION IN THAT OF FRANK, C.J., AT 614, WITH THE AUTHORITIES HE
CITES IN NOTE 7. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT GIVES THE ADMINISTRATOR CHARGED WITH ITS
ENFORCEMENT POWER TO FIX WAGES SO THAT THEY ATTAIN A BASIC MINIMUM
RATE.  IN VIEW OF THE VAST AND VARIED RANGE OF SITUATIONS THUS PLACED
UNDER HIS WAGEFIXING AUTHORITY, THE ADMINISTRATOR NATURALLY ENOUGH WAS
GIVEN BY CONGRESS THE POWER TO ISSUE THESE WAGE ORDERS ON "SUCH TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AS THE ADMINISTRATOR FINDS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES OF SUCH ORDERS, TO PREVENT THE CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION
THEREOF, AND TO SAFEGUARD THE MINIMUM WAGE RATES ESTABLISHED THEREIN." 
SEC. 8(F), 52 STAT. 1060, 1065, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 208(F).  IT WOULD
DISREGARD THE AUTHORITY THUS GIVEN BY CONGRESS TO DENY THAT THE POWER
TO FIX MINIMUM WAGES CARRIES WITH IT THE SUBSIDIARY POWER TO FORBID AND
TO PREVENT EVASION OF WAGES SO FIXED.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE SHOWING MADE
ON THIS RECORD CONCERNING THE EMBROIDERIES INDUSTRY FOR WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATOR CONCEDEDLY FIXED VALID WAGE RATES, THE MEASURES THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR TOOK THROUGH PROVISIONS DEALING WITH HOMEWORK IN THE
EMBROIDERIES INDUSTRY WERE RELEVANT TO, AND IN ENFORCEMENT OF, THE
SUBSIDIARY POWER GRANTED BY CONGRESS TO PREVENT EVASION OF THE RATES
FIXED FOR THAT INDUSTRY. 

AND SO I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

WITH DEFERENCE I VENTURE TO THINK THAT THE COURT HERE ESSAYS TO READ
INTO THE LAW WHAT ITS WORDS, FAIRLY CONSTRUED, DO NOT IMPORT.  THE
COURT ARRIVES AT THAT RESULT BY FORMING A JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT CONGRESS
PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE SAID, AND WOULD HAVE SAID, IF IT HAD CONSIDERED
THE MATTER, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE STATUTE WHAT THE COURT DEEMS A MORE
PERFECT INSTRUMENT FOR ATTAINING THE GENERAL OBJECTIVE WHICH CONGRESS
SOUGHT TO ATTAIN, AND THEN MAKES THE NECESSARY ADDITIONS TO THE
LANGUAGE CONGRESS HAS USED.  THE PRINCIPAL, IF NOT THE ONLY ARGUMENT I
FIND IN THE OPINION FOR READING SOMETHING INTO THE STATUTE, IS THAT
OTHERWISE IT CANNOT BE MOST EFFECTIVELY APPLIED TO CERTAIN INDUSTRIES
UNLESS THE INDUSTRIES THEMSELVES ARE MADE OVER.    SECTION 8(F)
PROVIDES THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDERS ISSUED UNDER THE SECTION
"SHALL DEFINE THE INDUSTRIES  ...  TO WHICH THEY ARE TO APPLY."  IT IS
NOT SUGGESTED THAT THE ORDER IN QUESTION IS OF THIS DESCRIPTION.  THAT
WITH WHICH THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION DEALT WAS A SINGLE
INDUSTRY IN WHICH TWO METHODS OF WORK WERE PURSUED.  OBVIOUSLY IT IS
NOT A DEFINITION OF THE INDUSTRY TO EXCLUDE FROM IT SOME OF THOSE WHO
LABOR IN IT. 

THE SECTION ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDERS "SHALL
CONTAIN SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE ADMINISTRATOR FINDS NECESSARY
TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF SUCH ORDERS, TO PREVENT THE CIRCUMVENTION
OR EVASION THEREOF, AND TO SAFEGUARD THE MINIMUM WAGE RATES ESTABLISHED
THEREIN."  THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE COURT'S OPINION CAN BE NOTHING LESS
THAN THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY, IF HE FINDS IT NECESSARY, REWRITE THE
STATUTE.  SUPPOSE HE FINDS THAT, IN A GIVEN INDUSTRY, IT IS, AS HE PUTS
IT, IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE THE MINIMUM WAGE PROVISION.  MAY HE THEREUPON
ISSUE AN ORDER PROHIBITING THE FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THAT INDUSTRY AND
REQUIRING ALL THOSE WHO PURSUE IT TO FOLLOW SOME OTHER CALLING?  IT MAY
BE SAID THAT THE SUPPOSITION IS, ON ITS FACE, RIDICULOUS.  BUT IS IT
ANY MORE SO THAN WHAT WAS HERE ACCOMPLISHED?  FORTY PER CENT OF THE
WORKERS IN AN INDUSTRY, UNDER PAIN OF OTHERWISE LOSING THEIR
OCCUPATION, ARE COMPELLED TO GIVE UP WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TIME OUT OF
MIND, AND IF THEY DESIRE TO PURSUE THEIR CALLING TO DO SO UNDER
COMPLETELY CHANGED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, NOT IN THEIR HOMES BUT IN
FACTORIES WHICH, IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE AT ALL, MAY BE REMOTE FROM THEIR
HOMES. 

THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 8(F) HAS A REASONABLE AND PROPER OFFICE IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE ACT.  THE PROVISIONS PERMITTED BY THAT SECTION TO BE
INSERTED IN AN ORDER ARE OBVIOUSLY SUCH AS ARE INCIDENTAL TO
ADMINISTRATION, SUCH AS PERTAIN TO KEEPING RECORDS OR FILING REPORTS;
NOT EXORBITANT OR EXCESSIVE SO AS TO AMOUNT TO A REGULATION OR
SUPPRESSION OF AN EXISTING AND RECOGNIZED INDUSTRY. 

IN MY VIEW, ONE NEED NOT GO OUTSIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO BE
CONVINCED THAT CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED TO GRANT THE ADMINISTRATOR THE
POWER HE HAS ASSUMED.  IF IT BE THOUGHT, HOWEVER, THAT THE PHRASEOLOGY
OF SEC. 8(F) IS OF DOUBTFUL IMPORT, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SEEMS TO ME
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT CONGRESS PURPOSELY, AND NOT BY INADVERTENCE, DENIED
THE ASSERTED POWER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

THE STATUTE AIMED AT THREE THINGS - THE LIMITATION OF THE HOURS OF
WORK, THE FIXING OF MINIMUM COMPENSATION PER HOUR, AND THE PROHIBITION
OF CHILD LABOR.  WE MAY ELIMINATE FROM CONSIDERATION THE FIRST AND
THIRD OF THESE OBJECTS, AND THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS IMPLEMENTING THEM,
SINCE WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH MINIMUM WAGES.  THE ACT CREATES A WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND AUTHORIZES THE
APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR TO BE IN CHARGE OF IT (SEC. 4).  IT
REQUIRES THE APPOINTMENT OF INDUSTRY COMMITTEES REPRESENTING THOSE
ENGAGED IN ANY INDUSTRY (SEC. 5).  IT REQUIRES EVERY EMPLOYER TO PAY
EVERY EMPLOYE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE, AT THE RATE OF NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FIVE CENTS AN HOUR FOR
THE FIRST YEAR, NOT LESS THAN THIRTY CENTS AN HOUR DURING THE NEXT SIX
YEARS, AND NOT LESS THAN FORTY CENTS AN HOUR AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
SEVEN YEARS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS GIVEN NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ANY
ORDERS CONCERNING THESE PRESCRIBED RATES OR THEIR APPLICATION IN
INDUSTRY, WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION ABOUT TO BE MENTIONED. 

PROVISION IS MADE TO RAISE WAGES ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED MINIMA DURING
THE SEVEN YEAR PERIOD AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, WITHOUT
CURTAILING EMPLOYMENT OR DISRUPTING THE ECONOMY OF AN INDUSTRY. 
THIS.  THE LATTER SECTION PROVIDES FOR THE CONVENING OF INDUSTRY
COMMITTEES TO WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL REFER THE QUESTION WHAT
MINIMUM WAGE RATE SHALL BE SET FOR THE INDUSTRY.  THE COMMITTEE IS TO
INVESTIGATE CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY, HOLD HEARINGS, AND RECOMMEND
THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE RATES WHICH IT DETERMINES, HAVING REGARD TO
ECONOMIC AND COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL
EMPLOYMENT. 

UPON RECEIVING THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THE ADMINISTRATOR,
AFTER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, MAY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE
COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION.  IF HE APPROVES, HE SHALL DO SO BY AN ORDER
THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO PUT INTO FORCE THE RECOMMENDED WAGE SCALE. 
SUCH ORDERS ARE NOT TO CONTINUE IN FORCE AFTER SEVEN YEARS FROM THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE UNLESS THE COMMITTEE AND THE
ADMINISTRATOR CONCLUDE, AND SO DECLARE, THAT IT IS WITHIN THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT THAT THE WAGE FIXED BY THE ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT
AFTER EXPIRATION OF THAT PERIOD NOTWITHSTANDING THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC.
6 THAT ALL WAGES SHALL REACH THE MINIMUM OF FORTY CENTS AN HOUR AT THAT
TIME. 

NOW IT IS ONLY IN ENFORCEMENT OF A COMMITTEE'S REPORT THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAS POWER TO ISSUE AN ORDER WITH RESPECT TO WAGES, AND IT
IS IN THIS CONTEXT THAT SEC. 8(F) PERMITS HIM TO INCLUDE IN HIS ORDER
"SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS" AS HE "FINDS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES" OF THE ORDER, TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION, AND TO
SAFEGUARD THE WAGE RATES THEREBY ESTABLISHED. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE MINIMA FIXED BY SEC. 6, WHICH APPLY UNIVERSALLY
(EXCEPT WHERE THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 8 IS INVOKED),
THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS SUCH AS THAT ISSUED
IN THIS CASE.  HE CANNOT, BECAUSE HE FINDS IT DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE THE
ACT IN AN INDUSTRY, EITHER REMAKE OR SUPPRESS THE INDUSTRY.  THE RESULT
OF THE DECISION IS THAT, IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE WHERE A SPECIAL RATE
OF WAGES IS SET IN ADVANCE OF THE PRESCRIBED RATE, THE ADMINISTRATOR
MAY DO WHAT, IN THE GENERALITY OF CASES, HE MAY NOT DO.  THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE GAVE ONE OF THE JUDGES BELOW SO MUCH TROUBLE THAT HE WAS
WILLING TO HOLD, IN THE TEETH OF SEC. 6, THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MIGHT
IN ALL CASES MAKE SUCH ORDERS AS THAT HERE IN QUESTION.  THUS, INSTEAD
OF WRITING IN ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN SEC. 8(F), AS DOES THIS COURT,
HE WAS PREPARED TO WRITE IN A NEW PROVISION IN SEC. 6 TO MAKE THE ACT A
COMPLETE AND LOGICAL STATUTE. 

WE HAVE, THEN, THIS SITUATION:  WITH RESPECT TO ANY INDUSTRY WHICH
HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 6 BY AN INDUSTRY
COMMITTEE'S REPORT AND AN ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER, THE ADMINISTRATOR
CANNOT FORBID HOME WORK.  AS RESPECTS AN INDUSTRY IN WHICH WAGES HAVE
BEEN FIXED BY A COMMITTEE, THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS THESE SWEEPING AND
DESTRUCTIVE POWERS.  AND THIS, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE COMMITTEE
IS AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH THE WAGES OF THE INDUSTRY AS A
WHOLE, AND DID SO DEAL WITH THEM HERE.  THE COMMITTEE NEVER CONSIDERED
THE QUESTION OF AN APPROPRIATE WAGE FOR THE INDUSTRY, UNDER THE
CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD PREVAIL, AFTER THE SUPPRESSION OF A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF IT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER.  THE INTERPRETATION NOW
SANCTIONED OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE ORDERS
"TO PREVENT THE CIRCUMVENTION OR EVASION" OF THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT,
AS INCLUDING THE POWER TO MAKE OVER THE INDUSTRY TO WHICH A WAGE ORDER
IS TO APPLY, THUS DEFEATS ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF THE
ACT.  BY SEC. 8 NO WAGE ORDER IS TO BE PROMULGATED WITH RESPECT TO AN
INDUSTRY UNLESS THE QUESTION OF THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR THE INDUSTRY HAS
BEEN REFERRED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE, AND THE
CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY AND THE APPROPRIATE WAGE FOR IT HAVE BEEN
THE SUBJECTS OF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE.  THE
COMMITTEE IS SPECIFICALLY ENJOINED TO RECOMMEND TO THE ADMINISTRATOR
"THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE RATES FOR THE INDUSTRY WHICH IT DETERMINES,
HAVING DUE REGARD TO ECONOMIC AND COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, WILL NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDUSTRY."  AND BY SEC. 8(D)
THE ADMINISTRATOR, BEFORE HE PROMULGATES A WAGE ORDER, IS REQUIRED TO
FIND, AFTER "TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAME FACTORS AS ARE REQUIRED
TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE," THAT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS
WILL CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 8.  THESE REQUIREMENTS MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH SEC. 8 PERMIT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
ATTACH TO HIS WAGE ORDERS DO NOT INCLUDE THOSE WHICH MATERIALLY ALTER
THE CONDITIONS OF THE INDUSTRY WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED AND REPORTED
UPON BY THE COMMITTEE.  SUCH REQUIREMENTS ARE FUTILE IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR, UNDER GUISE OF PREVENTING EVASION OF A MINIMUM WAGE
ORDER, WHICH THE COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED, HAS POWER, ON PROMULGATING
A WAGE ORDER, TO CHANGE THE INDUSTRY INTO ONE WHICH THE COMMITTEE HAS
NEVER INVESTIGATED.  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION IS IN EFFECT A
SUBVERSION OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT, WHEREAS THE ACT CONTEMPLATES A
RESUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE IN SUCH A CASE.  OPP COTTON MILLS V.
ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 146-149. 

SURELY, IF ANY SUCH SWEEPING CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE GIVEN WORDS HAVING
A NARROWER IMPORT, INQUIRY INTO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS OF CAPITAL
IMPORTANCE.  THAT HISTORY, INSTEAD OF BEING "WHOLLY AMBIGUOUS" AND
FURNISHING A "DUBIOUS BASIS" FOR CONFLICTING INFERENCES, SEEMS TO ME TO
BE LETTER-CLEAR. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE URGING ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION STATES
TWO OBJECTS:  "TO REDUCE THE LAG IN THE PURCHASING POWER OF INDUSTRIAL
WORKERS" AND TO PUT AN END TO "THE EXISTENCE OF CHILD LABOR."  BOTH
PURPOSES WERE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED "WITHOUT CREATING ECONOMIC
DISLOCATION."  FN1 PURSUANT TO THIS RECOMMENDATION, SENATE BILL NO.
2475 WAS INTRODUCED AND A SIMILAR BILL, H.R. 7200, WAS INTRODUCED IN
THE HOUSE.  JOINT HEARINGS WERE HELD BY SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES. 
SENATE BILL NO. 2475 WAS REPORTED TO THE SENATE.  THOSE IN CHARGE OF IT
ON THE FLOOR REPEATEDLY STATED THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO LIMIT THE BILL
STRICTLY TO MINIMUM WAGES, MAXIMUM HOURS, AND CHILD LABOR.  THERE IS NO
QUESTION THAT MANY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD FELT THAT THE PROHIBITION OF
HOME WORK WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE
LEGISLATION.  IN THE JOINT HEARINGS, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TESTIFIED
THAT POWER SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO "PROHIBIT
ENTIRELY THE USE OF INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK."  FN2  IN THIS CONNECTION THE
SECRETARY ALSO ADVISED THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS TO BE GRANTED
SHOULD BE CAREFULLY DEFINED BY THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE ACT WOULD
CLEARLY STATE THEM.  FN3  THE QUESTION OF HOME WORK WAS AGAIN BROACHED
AT THE HEARINGS AT VARIOUS POINTS.  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, THE BILL, AS
REPORTED TO THE SENATE, CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR THE PROHIBITION OF
HOME WORK.  THE MEASURE WAS DEBATED AT LENGTH IN THAT BODY.  AS IT THEN
STOOD, SEC. 9(6), DEALING WITH ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS, WHICH BECAME SEC.
8(F) IN THE BILL AS ENACTED, PROVIDED THAT AN ORDER MIGHT CONTAIN TERMS
AND CONDITIONS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY SHOULD FIND NECESSARY TO
CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE ORDER TO PREVENT CIRCUMVENTION OR
EVASION, OR TO "SAFEGUARD THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS THEREIN
ESTABLISHED."  IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT MATERIALLY
DIFFERENT IN MEANING FROM THAT FINALLY EMBODIED IN SEC. 8(F).  AN
AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED FROM THE FLOOR TO ADD THE WORDS "INCLUDING THE
RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK" AND WAS AGREED TO. 

IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THE ADOPTION OF THE LEGISLATION, THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE LIMITED ITS CONSIDERATION TO THE BILL PASSED BY THE SENATE
AND REPORTED IT FAVORABLY WITH AMENDMENTS.  WITHOUT DETAILING THE HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS, IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT ULTIMATELY A BILL WAS PRESENTED
LARGELY EMBODYING THE PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL NO. 2475 BUT CREATING
AN ADMINISTRATOR IN LIEU OF A BOARD.  SECTION 9(6), WHICH RELATED TO
WAGE ORDERS, CONTAINED THE SAME PROVISIONS RESPECTING PROHIBITION OF
HOME WORK AS THE SENATE BILL.  FN4 

THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SENATE BILL IN THE HOUSE WERE SUCH THAT A NEW
MEASURE WAS REPORTED ESTABLISHING FIXED MINIMUM WAGES AND MAXIMUM HOURS
AND GRANTING THE SECRETARY OF LABOR ONLY THE POWER TO DECLARE THAT A
PARTICULAR INDUSTRY WAS "AN INDUSTRY AFFECTING COMMERCE" AND SO SUBJECT
TO THE ACT.  IT CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS. 
DURING DEBATE ON THIS PROPOSED BILL A SUBSTITUTE WAS PRESENTED
CONTAINING A SECTION RELATING TO WAGE ORDERS, WITH PROVISIONS
RESPECTING HOME WORK THE SAME AS WERE CONTAINED IN THE SENATE BILL AS
PASSED AND IN THE SUBSTITUTE THERETOFORE OFFERED TO THE HOUSE.  THE
BILL THUS OFFERED WAS REJECTED AND THE NEWLY REPORTED HOUSE BILL WAS
PASSED.  CONFEREES WERE APPOINTED AMONGST WHOM WERE THE SENATOR WHO HAD
FIRST PROPOSED THE AMENDMENT RESPECTING ORDERS PROHIBITING HOME WORK
AND TWO OF THE REPRESENTATIVES WHO HAD PRESENTED BILLS CONTAINING
SIMILAR PROVISIONS.  THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE DELIBERATED FOR A MATTER
OF TWELVE DAYS AND EVIDENTLY GAVE THE MOST METICULOUS CARE TO EACH
MEASURE.  THE CONFERENCE REPORT SHOWS THAT THE COMMITTEE ADOPTED THE
THEORY OF THE HOUSE BILL FIXING DEFINITE MINIMUM STANDARD WAGES TO STEP
UP PERIODICALLY IN THE FUTURE AND ALSO, AS RESPECTS INDUSTRY COMMITTEES
AND INTERIM ORDERS BASED ON INDUSTRY COMMITTEES' REPORTS, ADOPTED THE
MORE FLEXIBLE SYSTEM EMBODIED IN THE SENATE BILL. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT IN REDRAFTING SEC. 8(F), WHICH WAS SEC. 9(6) OF THE
SENATE BILL, THE CONFEREES CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY REJECTED THE
CLAUSE "INCLUDING THE RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION OF INDUSTRIAL HOME
WORK OR OF SUCH OTHER ACTS OR PRACTICES."  THE CONFERENCE REPORT WAS
ACCEPTED, THE BILL PASSED BOTH HOUSES, AND WAS SIGNED BY THE
PRESIDENT. 

THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RECOGNIZED THAT
IT HAD NO POWER TO ABOLISH HOME WORK.  IN ITS FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, THAT
DIVISION STATED (P. 14) THAT IT WAS TREATING HOME WORKERS AS EMPLOYES
AND NOT AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  IN THE SAME REPORT (P. 31) THE
DIVISION WENT INTO DETAIL WITH RESPECT TO REGULATIONS FOR RECORD
KEEPING IN RESPECT OF HOME WORK.  AT PAGE 46, THE DIVISION SAID:  "A
DIFFICULT PROBLEM WHICH HAS REQUIRED THE USE OF SPECIAL INSPECTORS AND
SPECIAL TECHNIQUES IS THAT OF INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK.  IT HAS BEEN
NECESSARY TO MAKE ELABORATE AND TIME-CONSUMING INVESTIGATIONS AT THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EMPLOYER AND IN THE HOMES OF THE WORKERS."  THAT
DIVISION COOPERATED IN THE DRAFTING OF A BILL (H.R. 5435)  FN5
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE NORTON OF THE LABOR COMMITTEE, WHICH
PROVIDED, INTER ALIA:  "THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL HAVE POWER TO MAKE,
ISSUE, AMEND, AND RESCIND SUCH REGULATIONS AND ORDERS AS ARE NECESSARY
OR APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  WITHOUT
LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, SUCH REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
MAY  ...  MAKE SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO, INCLUDING THE
RESTRICTION OF, HOME WORK SUBJECT TO THIS ACT TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY
TO SAFEGUARD THE MINIMUM STANDARDS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT OR IN ANY
REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO, ..."  THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT WAS DEBATED AT LENGTH AND WAS DEFEATED.  WITH RESPECT TO IT
REPRESENTATIVE NORTON SAID:  FN6 

"I AM SURE THAT BUSINESS WOULD BE LESS JITTERY ABOUT THIS LAW IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAD THE RIGHT TO DEFINE THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW. 
WITHOUT THIS AMENDMENT HE MAY NOT DO SO AND SOME BUSINESS HAS SUFFERED
AS A RESULT.  I BELIEVE THAT HE FURTHER NEEDS THE POWER TO DEFINE
TECHNICAL AND TRADE TERMS USED IN THE ACT AND THE POWER TO MAKE SPECIAL
PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK AND MAKE SPECIAL
PROVISION FOR CONSTANT-WAGE PLANS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 7 RELATING TO
HOURS OF WORK.  HOME WORK HAS LONG BEEN A BLOT ON THE ECONOMIC PICTURE
OF THIS COUNTRY, AND I REGRET TO SAY THAT IN SOME CASES EMPLOYERS HAVE
RESORTED TO THIS MEANS OF EMPLOYMENT TO ESCAPE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
LAW." 

AGAIN SHE STATED TO THE HOUSE:  FN7 

"...  WE ARE PROPOSING IN SECTION 4 OF H.R. 5435 TO AUTHORIZE THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO CARRY OUT ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  THIS SECTION WILL ALSO GIVE HIM THE RIGHT TO
DEFINE TERMS USED IN THE ACT AND MAKE SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT
TO INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK. 

"AS THE ACT IS NOW WRITTEN IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE WAGE
AND HOUR STANDARDS WHICH IT ESTABLISHES CAN BE ENFORCED AS TO
INDUSTRIAL HOME WORKERS.  UNDER PRESENT PRACTICE IN INDUSTRIAL HOME
WORK INDUSTRIES, THE ADMINISTRATOR IS UNABLE TO SECURE PROPER RECORDS
ON WAGES AND HOURS OF HOME WORKERS.  BUSINESS CONCERNS RELYING ON HOME
WORK FOR THEIR LABOR DO NOT ORDINARILY DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE HOME
WORKERS BUT TURN OVER THE GOODS OR ARTICLES ON WHICH THE WORK IS TO BE
DONE TO CONTRACTORS WHO EMPLOY THE HOME WORKERS.  IF TIME PERMITTED, I
COULD GIVE YOU CONCRETE EXAMPLES OF CRUELTY IN THIS FIELD.  SECTION 4
OF THE AMENDMENTS WOULD GIVE THE ADMINISTRATOR THE NECESSARY AUTHORITY
TO COPE WITH THIS SITUATION." 

IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION FOR 1940
INDUSTRIAL HOME WORK WAS DISCUSSED AT PAGE 89 AND STATEMENTS MADE AS TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF RECORD KEEPING IN RESPECT OF IT. 

AFTER THE WAGE AND HOUR ACT HAD BECOME LAW IT DEVELOPED THAT IF THE
PRESCRIBED MINIMUM HOURLY WAGES WERE ENFORCED IN PUERTO RICO CERTAIN
INDUSTRIES THERE, WHICH CONSISTED ALMOST ENTIRELY OF HOME WORK, WOULD
BE DESTROYED.  IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE ONLY RELIEF WHICH WOULD CORRECT
THE SITUATION WOULD BE TO AMEND THE STATUTE TO ABROGATE THE FIXED
MINIMA NAMED IN SEC. 6 TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDUSTRY COMMITTEE TO FIX
LOWER STANDARD WAGES FOR INDUSTRIES CONSISTING LARGELY OF HOME WORKERS
IN THE ISLAND.  SUCH MINIMA WOULD BE RECOMMENDED BY AN INDUSTRY
COMMITTEE AND IMPLEMENTED BY ORDERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  FN8  THE
AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1940.  FAR FROM INDICATING ANY THOUGHT ON THE
PART OF CONGRESS OR THE DIVISION THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS EMPOWERED
TO BAN HOME WORK, THIS LEGISLATION, TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEFEAT
OF H.R. 5435, INDICATES QUITE CLEARLY THAT NO ONE CONCERNED EITHER IN
THE PASSAGE OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW HAD ANY NOTION THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR WAS AUTHORIZED TO DEAL WITH THE ECONOMIC PROBLEM INVOLVED
IN HOME WORK. 

A SECTION OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION'S REPORT FOR 1940 CONTAINED A
DISCUSSION OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO HOME WORK, WITHOUT
ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR COULD DEAL WITH IT BY ABOLISHING
IT.  (P. 89) 

IN THE REPORT FOR 1941 THE DIVISION, FOR THE FIRST TIME, SUGGESTED
THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD BEEN CONSIDERING, IN CONNECTION WITH WAGE
ORDERS, THE QUESTION:  "MUST HOMEWORK BE ABOLISHED AS ONE OF THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF A WAGE ORDER IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD AND EFFECTUATE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER."  (P. 64) 

THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR, HAVING FAILED TO OBTAIN
EXPLICIT AUTHORITY FROM CONGRESS, BEGAN CONTEMPLATING THE EFFORT TO
PERSUADE THE COURTS THAT HE HAD IMPLIED AUTHORITY IN THE PREMISES. 

IN THE REPORT FOR 1942(P. 19) ALL THAT APPEARS IS THE FOLLOWING: 

"THE PROBLEM OF INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE DATA
WERE PRESENTED FOR THE JEWELRY AND KNITTED OUTERWEAR INDUSTRIES,
SHOWING CONDITIONS OF INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK, THE AVERAGE EARNINGS OF
HOMEWORKERS, THE DIFFICULTIES OF ENFORCEMENT OF MINIMUM WAGE PROVISIONS
FOR HOMEWORKERS, AND THE METHODS OF EVASION OF MINIMUM WAGE REGULATIONS
BY WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS." 

THOUGH THERE WAS NO DECLARATION OF A PURPOSE TO ENTER THE SORT OF
ORDER NOW IN QUESTION, IT WAS, IN FACT, ENTERED AUGUST 21, 1943. 

IN THE REPORT FOR 1943, FOR THE FIRST TIME, CONGRESS WAS APPRISED OF
ACTION BEING TAKEN (P. 19) THUS: 

"ENFORCEMENT MEASURES ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT THE STANDARDS OF THE ACT
FOR FACTORY EMPLOYEES HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE IN CONTROLLING HOURS AND
WAGES OF HOMEWORKERS.  THIS FAILURE PROMPTED REGULATION OF INDUSTRIAL
HOMEWORK UNDER WAGE ORDERS IN INDUSTRIES IN WHICH HOMEWORK IS
PREVALENT.  THESE REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT FACTORY EMPLOYEES
AGAINST UNFAIR WAGE COMPETITION. 

"INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK IN THESE INDUSTRIES IS RESTRICTED TO PERSONS WHO
ARE UNABLE TO ADJUST TO FACTORY WORK BECAUSE OF AGE OR PHYSICAL OR
MENTAL DISABILITY OR WHO ARE HOME-BOUND BECAUSE OF AN INVALID IN THE
HOME AND WHO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PARTICULAR INDUSTRY PRIOR TO A
SPECIFIED DATE.  THIS LATTER REQUIREMENT MAY BE WAIVED IN UNUSUAL
HARDSHIP CASES.  THESE RESTRICTIONS WERE ADOPTED AFTER SEARCHING
EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECT WHICH INCLUDED THE OPINIONS AND CONVICTIONS
OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MANAGEMENT AND LABOR.  A TOTAL OF 4,451
APPLICATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED
AND 3,701 CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN GRANTED." 

BUT, BY THAT TIME, THIS CASE HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER HERE UNDER REVIEW. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  H.R. REPORT NO. 1452, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 6-7. 

FN2  TESTIMONY AT JOINT HEARINGS, PP. 184, 190, 196, 197. 

FN3  IBID., P. 195. 

FN4  82 CONG. REC. 1511-1516, 1572-1577, 1580, 1585. 

FN5  FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, 1939, P. 160. 

FN6  84 CONG. REC. 3498. 

FN7  86 CONG. REC. 5122. 

FN8  SEE ANNUAL REPORT, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, 1940, P. 113;
HEARINGS SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, EMERGENCY RELIEF
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1941, P. 3; S.R. 1754, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 5FF;
H.R. NO. 2186, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 15. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :











CENTRAL STATES CO. V. MUSCATINE, 324 U.S. 138 


NO. 85.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 1945.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH, UPON REVIEW OF A VALID RATE
ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT, HAD
IMPOUNDED PENDENTE LITE AMOUNTS PAID TO THE NATURAL GAS COMPANY BY THE
PETITIONER (A LOCAL DISTRIBUTOR) IN EXCESS OF LAWFUL RATES, WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS OF CONSUMERS IN THE FUND OR TO
ORDER PAYMENT OF THE FUND TO OFFICERS OF MUNICIPALITIES FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THOSE ULTIMATELY FOUND ENTITLED.  P. 145. 

2.  IN THIS SITUATION, THE MOST THAT THE COURT BELOW SHOULD DO, IN
VIEW OF THE APPARENT CONTROVERSY AS TO THE CONSUMERS' RIGHT TO A REFUND
OF RATES PAID TO THE PETITIONER, IS TO ORDER THAT THE FUND BE HELD FOR
A REASONABLE TIME TO PERMIT INTERESTED PERSONS TO LITIGATE THE ISSUE IN
A TRIBUNAL HAVING JURISDICTION, THE ORDER TO BE CONDITIONED THAT IF
SUCH LITIGATION IS NOT INSTITUTED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, AND
PROSECUTED TO FINAL ADJUDICATION, THE FUND SHALL BE PAID OVER TO THE
PETITIONER, AND THAT, IF IT BE ADJUDGED AS A RESULT OF SUCH LITIGATION
THAT THE PETITIONER IS INDEBTED TO ITS CONSUMERS BECAUSE OF THE
REDUCTION OF WHOLESALE RATES IN THIS PROCEEDING, FURTHER APPLICATION
MAY BE MADE TO THE COURT AS TO DISPOSITION OF THE FUND.  P. 145. 

3.  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, AND INLAND STEEL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 145. 

CENTRAL STATES ELECTRIC CO. V. CITY OF MUSCATINE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 724, TO REVIEW ORDERS OF THE COURT BELOW WHICH
DIRECTED PAYMENT TO CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OF IMPOUNDED FUNDS
CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CONCERNED IN THIS CASE WITH THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE
POWERS OF A FEDERAL COURT SITTING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW DENIED THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION
FOR PAYMENT TO IT OF A FUND OF SOME $25,000 DEPOSITED IN COURT, AND
DIRECTED ITS PAYMENT TO PERSONS NOT PRIVIES TO THE TRANSACTION WHICH
CREATED THE FUND.  A DETAILED RECITATION OF EVENTS IS REQUIRED TO SHOW
HOW THE QUESTION ARISES. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION (HEREINAFTER CALLED COMMISSION),
PROCEEDING UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT,  FN1  ENTERED AN ORDER AGAINST
THE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA (HEREINAFTER CALLED
PIPELINE) REQUIRING IT TO CUT ITS RATES ON NATURAL GAS TO EFFECT AN
ANNUAL REDUCTION IN REVENUE OF NOT LESS THAN $3,750,000, EFFECTIVE
SEPTEMBER 1, 1940. 

THE PETITIONER, CENTRAL STATES ELECTRIC COMPANY (HEREINAFTER
SOMETIMES CALLED CENTRAL), AN IOWA CORPORATION DOING A PUBLIC UTILITY
BUSINESS IN THAT STATE AND ELSEWHERE, PURCHASED GAS AT WHOLESALE FROM
PIPELINE AND DISTRIBUTED IT IN IOWA. 

PIPELINE SOUGHT A REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  THE COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER BUT, ON CERTIORARI, WE
REVERSED AND SUSTAINED IT.  FN2  AT THE INCEPTION OF THE CASE PIPELINE
HAD PETITIONED FOR A TEMPORARY STAY AND THE COURT BELOW HAD GRANTED A
STAY ON CONDITION THAT A BOND BE FILED TO SECURE THE REFUND TO
PURCHASERS AT WHOLESALE OF THE AMOUNTS RESPECTIVELY DUE THEM IF THE
COURT SHOULD SUSTAIN THE REDUCTION OF RATES ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION. 
ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE TEMPORARY STAY ANOTHER WAS ENTERED TO
CONTINUE UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, CONDITIONED THAT
PIPELINE SHOULD ENTER A SECOND BOND IN THE SAME TERMS.  THIS WAS DONE. 

WHEN THIS COURT RENDERED ITS JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE RATE ORDER,
PIPELINE BECAME LIABLE TO MAKE REFUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOND. 
THE COURT BELOW, PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE BOND,
FILED AN OPINION HOLDING THAT IT WAS ITS DUTY TO TAKE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL
OVER THE REFUND WHEN MADE AND TO DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF ALL CLAIMANTS
IN THE FUND, AND MADE AN ORDER ENJOINING CLAIMANTS TO THE FUND FROM
FURTHER PROCEEDING IN ANY OTHER COURT.  THIS ACTION WAS PURSUANT TO A
PETITION OF PIPELINE SHOWING THAT SUITS WERE BEING FILED AGAINST IT IN
OTHER COURTS BY THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS OF THE GAS SOLD BY PIPELINE TO
THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES AND ALLEGING THAT UNLESS THE COURT
RETAINED JURISDICTION OF THE FUND PIPELINE WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO
NUMEROUS SIMILAR SUITS.  ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN AN ANSWER,
STATED THAT THE RATES CHARGED BY DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES IN ILLINOIS
WERE FIXED BY IT AND REFLECTED THE PRICES PAID BY DISTRIBUTORS TO
PIPELINE AND THAT THE REFUND, REPRESENTING EXCESSIVE RATES PAID BY
DISTRIBUTORS, HAD BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS AND WAS
EQUITABLY DUE THEM.  THE ILLINOIS LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS THEN BEFORE THE
COURT AGREED THAT THE REFUND SHOULD BE RATABLY PAID TO THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS. 

CENTRAL WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, BUT, ON JUNE 29, 1942, IT SENT A LETTER TO THE CLERK, IN
RESPONSE TO ONE FROM HIM, ASSERTING THAT THE PORTION OF THE REFUND
REPRESENTING EXCESSIVE RATES PAID BY CENTRAL DURING THE REFUND PERIOD
SHOULD BE REPAID TO IT AND NOT TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS.  JUNE 30,
1942, THE COURT RENDERED AN OPINION IN WHICH IT DISCUSSED THE RELATIVE
RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS AND ULTIMATE CONSUMERS.  THE
COURT FOUND THAT, SINCE THE RATES CHARGED TO LOCAL CONSUMERS INCLUDED
THE EXCESS CHARGES PAID BY DISTRIBUTORS TO PIPELINE, THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS WERE IN EQUITY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE REFUND.  JULY 1, 1942,
PIPELINE PAID INTO COURT A SUM REPRESENTING THAT PORTION OF THE RATES
PAID TO IT IN EXCESS OF THE RATE PERMITTED BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 
THE COURT THEREUPON ENTERED AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH SPECIFIED THE
REFUND PERIOD, DETERMINED THAT THE AMOUNT PAID INTO COURT WAS THE
PROPERTY OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, AND ALLOCATED THE FUND TO THE
CUSTOMERS OF THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS, INCLUDING CENTRAL'S CUSTOMERS (TO
WHOM THERE WAS ALLOCATED $25,708.54), RESERVED JURISDICTION OF THE FUND
FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS HAVING RIGHTS THEREIN, AND DIRECTED
ALL CLAIMANTS TO THE FUND TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ORDER SHOULD NOT BE
BINDING ON THEM.  LATER THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER IN WHICH IT FOUND
THAT CENTRAL HAD RAISED AN ISSUE CONCERNING THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF
ITSELF AND ITS CUSTOMERS TO THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION.  CENTRAL, WHICH, AS
WE HAVE SAID, HAD NOT BECOME A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS, THEN FILED A
PETITION IN INTERVENTION PRAYING THAT THE SUM BE PAID TO IT, AND LEAVE
TO INTERVENE WAS GRANTED.  CENTRAL'S PETITION SET FORTH THAT IT
PURCHASED NATURAL GAS FROM PIPELINE DURING THE REFUND PERIOD, PURSUANT
TO A CONTRACT; THAT THE SUM IN QUESTION REPRESENTED AMOUNTS PAID BY
CENTRAL DURING THE REFUND PERIOD IN EXCESS OF THE RATES FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER; THAT CENTRAL SOLD MORE THAN 81% OF THE GAS IN
QUESTION WITHOUT PROFIT TO IOWA ELECTRIC COMPANY, WHICH RESOLD THE SAME
TO SOME 2,400 CONSUMERS IN MUSCATINE, IOWA, AND THAT CENTRAL SOLD THE
BALANCE DIRECTLY TO SOME 320 CONSUMERS IN GREENFIELD, IOWA, 597 IN
KNOXVILLE, IOWA, AND 366 IN PELLA, IOWA; THAT LESS THAN 12 1/2% OF THE
GAS SOLD IN KNOXVILLE AND PELLA WAS NATURAL GAS; THAT IOWA ELECTRIC
COMPANY HAD TRANSFERRED ALL ITS RIGHTS IN AND TO THE FUND TO CENTRAL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS; THAT, BY THE LAW OF IOWA, THE
POWER TO FIX RATES FOR GAS SERVICE IS VESTED IN ITS MUNICIPALITIES, AND
THE UTILITY RATES IN THAT STATE ARE NOT REGULATED BY ANY STATE AGENCY
OR COMMISSION; THAT RATES TO CONSUMERS HAD BEEN VOLUNTARILY REDUCED TO
MEET COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS AND THAT SUCH RATES HAD BEEN APPROVED BY
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF MUSCATINE; AND THAT, DUE TO CONDITIONS IN
THE COMMUNITIES SERVICED, THE RATES CHARGED CONSUMERS WERE INSUFFICIENT
TO PRODUCE A FAIR RETURN. 

THEREAFTER THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF IOWA AND THE PURCHASERS OF GAS FROM CENTRAL, AND THEIR
RESPECTIVE MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES IN MUSCATINE AND GREENFIELD, BE
NOTIFIED OF CENTRAL'S CLAIM TO THE FUND AND THAT THEY SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY CENTRAL SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.  NO SUCH ORDER WAS
MADE WITH RESPECT TO CONSUMERS IN KNOXVILLE AND PELLA NOR TO ANY
OFFICIALS OF THOSE CITIES.  THE CITY OF MUSCATINE AND THE MAYOR OF
GREENFIELD, PURPORTING TO REPRESENT THE CONSUMERS IN THOSE CITIES,
FILED SEPARATE PLEADINGS IN WHICH THEY ASSERTED THAT THE FUND IN
QUESTION BELONGED TO THE CONSUMERS. 

THE COURT, WITHOUT HEARING EVIDENCE, DENIED THE RELIEF PRAYED BY
CENTRAL BY AN ORDER WHICH WAS STATED TO BE "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" TO
CENTRAL'S "MAKING CLAIM OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE CITIES OF MUSCATINE,
GREENFIELD, KNOXVILLE AND PELLA  ...  OR WITH THE CONSUMERS OF GAS
FURNISHED BY IT IN SAID CITIES."  THE REASON STATED FOR MAKING THE
ORDER WAS THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HEAR CENTRAL'S
CLAIM SINCE IT INVOLVED A DETERMINATION OF "THE REASONABLENESS OF
PETITIONER'S RATES" AND FURTHER SINCE THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY RULED
THAT THE REFUND BELONGED TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS.  IN A SEPARATE
ORDER ENTERED THE SAME DAY, THE COURT DIRECTED PAYMENT OF THE SUM IN
QUESTION TO THE TREASURERS OF THE SEVERAL CITIES IN SPECIFIED AMOUNTS. 
IT FIXED THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO MUSCATINE AT 81% OF THE FUND,
APPARENTLY RELYING UPON THE ALLEGATION OF THE PETITION THAT MORE THAN
81% OF THE GAS PURCHASED FROM PIPELINE WAS DELIVERED TO CONSUMERS IN
THAT CITY.  IT APPARENTLY FAILED TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE
ALLEGATION THAT LESS THAN 12 1/2% OF THE GAS SOLD IN KNOXVILLE AND
PELLA WAS NATURAL GAS.  THE ORDER RECITED THAT THE FUND BELONGED TO THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS AND THAT THE COURT DESIRED TO PAY IT AT THE EARLIEST
POSSIBLE TIME TO "SUCH PARTIES AS ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME, AND TO
PERMIT OF A DETERMINATION OF SAID RIGHTS BY A COURT OR BODY HAVING
JURISDICTION THEREOF."  THEREAFTER CENTRAL FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL
PETITION SETTING FORTH THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE STAY ORDER, CENTRAL WOULD
HAVE RETAINED THE SUM IN QUESTION; THAT CENTRAL WAS THE ONLY PARTY IN
PRIVITY WITH PIPELINE AND WAS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF
THE RATE REDUCTION, AND THAT THE BOND FILED PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S
ORDER CALLED FOR PAYMENT OF THE REFUND TO PURCHASERS AT WHOLESALE, ONE
OF WHOM WAS CENTRAL.  IT FURTHER ATTACKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
TO AWARD THE SUM TO CENTRAL'S ULTIMATE CONSUMERS SINCE SUCH AN AWARD
AMOUNTED TO A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION OF LOCAL RATES TO WHICH THE NATURAL
GAS ACT, BY EXPRESS TERMS, DID NOT APPLY, AND, FINALLY, ASSERTED THAT
THE COURT OUGHT NOT TO MAKE THE AWARD BASED ON A CONCLUSION OF FACT
UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE BURDEN OF THE EXCESSIVE RATES HAD
BEEN PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMERS WHEREAS THE COURT, AT THE SAME TIME,
DISCLAIMED JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF LOCAL RATES
AND, THEREFORE, REFUSED TO HEAR EVIDENCE OF CENTRAL'S EQUITABLE RIGHT
TO THE FUND.  MUSCATINE AND THE MAYOR OF GREENFIELD RESPONDED.  THE
COURT DENIED THE PETITION WITHOUT HEARING OR ARGUMENT. 

THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT IN ITS VIEW THAT AS A FEDERAL COURT IT HAD
NO POWER, AT LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION PURPORTING TO
CONFER SUCH POWER UPON IT, TO FIX OR ADJUST CENTRAL'S RATES, THAT BEING
A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA.  THIS WOULD BE SO WHERE
THE FUND IN DISPUTE CAME INTO ITS POSSESSION IN A PROCEEDING TO ENJOIN
THE OPERATION OF AN ORDER AFFECTING STATE RATES,  FN3  AND MUST BE
EQUALLY TRUE WHERE THE PROCEEDING WAS ONE TO ENJOIN COLLECTION OF A
RATE FOR INTERSTATE SERVICE.  THIS, BECAUSE THE COURT BELOW HAD NO
POWER AS A COURT OF EQUITY TO FIX RATES, AND AS A FEDERAL COURT HAD NO
POWER TO ADJUDICATE A MATTER WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF
IOWA.  THE COURT BELOW SO HELD IN THIS CASE, AND HAS DEALT WITH THE
MATTER MORE FULLY AND TO THE SAME EFFECT IN ANOTHER.  FN4 

THE NATURAL GAS ACT CLEARLY DISCLOSES THAT, THOUGH ITS PURPOSE MAY
HAVE BEEN TO PROTECT THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER AT RETAIL, THE MEANS ADOPTED
WAS LIMITED TO THE REGULATION OF SALES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT
WHOLESALE, LEAVING TO THE STATES THE FUNCTION OF REGULATING THE
INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF THE COMMODITY.  THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO LEAVE INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS TO STATE REGULATION IS CLEAR,
NOT ONLY FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT,  FN5  BUT FROM THE EXCEPTIONALLY
EXPLICIT LEGISLATIVE RECORD,  FN6  AND FROM THIS COURT'S DECISIONS. 
FN7 

THE SHOWING MADE BY THE PETITIONER'S PLEADINGS, AND NOT DENIED, IS
THAT IN IOWA RATES ARE SET BY MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE; THAT THE RATES
COLLECTED FROM CONSUMERS DURING THE REFUND PERIOD WERE THE LAWFUL
RATES, SO FIXED; AND THAT THE SUMS IMPOUNDED WERE DEDUCTED FROM THE
PAYMENTS TO PIPELINE BY CENTRAL OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS.  THE ONLY REPLY
MADE BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE FUND BELONGS TO THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS.  WHETHER THIS IS SO, WHETHER UNDER IOWA LAW
REPARATION MAY BE DEMANDED FOR SUMS PAID BY CONSUMERS UNDER A STANDING
RATE, WE DO NOT KNOW.  NOR DO WE KNOW WHO ARE PROPER PARTIES UNDER IOWA
LAW TO ANY PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF PETITIONER
AND ITS CUSTOMERS.  CERTAINLY THESE ARE QUESTIONS OF IOWA, NOT OF
FEDERAL, LAW. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE COURT BELOW LACKED JURISDICTION TO
ADJUDICATE THE QUESTION OF THE CONSUMERS' RIGHTS IN THE FUND IN
DISPUTE.  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, ON WHICH THE
RESPONDENTS RELY, IS OBVIOUSLY DISTINGUISHABLE.  THERE THE FUND
IMPOUNDED WAS PART OF THE CHARGES PAID TO THE STOCKYARD MERCHANTS BY
PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN CHARGED THE RATES FOUND BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE TO BE EXCESSIVE.  HERE, SINCE THE FUND REPRESENTS A PORTION
OF SUMS PAID BY CENTRAL TO PIPELINE OUT OF CENTRAL'S FUNDS AND PURSUANT
TO CONTRACT WITH PIPELINE, THE MORGAN CASE WOULD BE AUTHORITY FOR
REPAYMENT TO CENTRAL.  THIS IS TRUE ALSO OF INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 306 U.S. 153.  MOREOVER, IF CENTRAL HAD PAID PIPELINE THE
EXCESSIVE RATES, THE LATTER COULD NOT HAVE DEFENDED A SUIT BY CENTRAL
TO RECOVER THE EXCESS ON THE GROUND THAT CENTRAL HAD PASSED ON THE
BURDEN TO ITS CUSTOMERS.  FN8 

THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS' RIGHTS BEING SUCH AS THE LAW OF IOWA AFFORDS,
THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE FUND TO MUNICIPALITIES OR
MUNICIPAL OFFICERS UNDER A QUASI TRUST FOR THOSE FOUND ULTIMATELY
ENTITLED, THUS PLACING THE BURDEN ON CENTRAL TO PURSUE THE CITIES OR
THEIR OFFICERS FOR ITS RECOVERY.  AN ORDER TO THIS EFFECT IS CERTAINLY
NOT WITHIN THE COURT'S JURISDICTION AS A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY.  THE
MOST THE COURT BELOW SHOULD DO, IN VIEW OF THE APPARENT CONTROVERSY AS
TO THE CONSUMERS' RIGHT TO A REFUND OF RATES HERETOFORE PAID TO
CENTRAL, IS TO ORDER THAT THE FUND BE HELD FOR A REASONABLE TIME TO
PERMIT INTERESTED PERSONS TO LITIGATE THE ISSUE IN A TRIBUNAL HAVING
JURISDICTION, THE ORDER TO BE CONDITIONED THAT IF SUCH LITIGATION IS
NOT INSTITUTED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, AND PROSECUTED TO FINAL
ADJUDICATION, THE FUND SHALL BE PAID OVER TO CENTRAL, AND THAT IF IT BE
ADJUDGED AS A RESULT OF SUCH LITIGATION THAT CENTRAL IS INDEBTED TO ITS
CONSUMERS BECAUSE OF THE REDUCTION OF WHOLESALE RATES IN THIS
PROCEEDING, FURTHER APPLICATION MAY BE MADE TO THE COURT AS TO ITS
DISPOSITION.    THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 821; 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717.    FN2  FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575. 

FN3  CENTRAL KENTUCKY NATURAL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 290
U.S. 264, 271, 272. 

FN4  NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 141 F.2D
27. 

FN5  SEE, E.G., SEC. 2(8), 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717(A)(8); SEC. 5(A), 15
U.S.C. SEC. 717DA); SEC. 13, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717L; SEC. 14A, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 717MA); SEC. 15A, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717NA); SEC. 17(A), 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 717(P). 

FN6  H.R. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1-3. 

FN7  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO., 317 U.S. 456,
467; FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 609
610. 

FN8  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. DARNELL-TAENZER LUMBER CO., 245 U.S.
531. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN PASSING THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS TO
PROTECT ULTIMATE CONSUMERS OF GAS FROM EXCESSIVE PRICES.  FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 610, 612.  THE
COURT'S DECISION TODAY DEFEATS THAT CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, FOR UNDER
ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT THE PETITIONER, A RETAIL GAS DISTRIBUTOR,
IS AWARDED A WINDFALL,  FN1 AT THE EXPENSE OF THE VERY CONSUMERS THE
ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT. 

ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1938, A PETITION PRAYING FOR REDUCTION OF THE
WHOLESALE GAS RATES OF THE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY WAS FILED WITH
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  JULY 23, 1940, THE COMMISSION ORDERED
THE COMPANY TO MAKE REDUCTIONS IN ITS FUTURE RATES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, UPON THE COMPANY'S PETITION, THEN GRANTED A STAY PENDING
LITIGATION.  LATER, IT STAYED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  120 F.2D 625. 
AS A CONDITION OF ITS STAY, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRED THE
COMPANY TO EXECUTE A MILLION DOLLAR BOND RUNNING TO THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION AND THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION.  ON MARCH 16, 1942,
THIS COURT REVERSED THE CAUSE AND SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 
315 U.S. 575. 

SUBSEQUENTLY, $6,377,913.57 WAS PAID INTO THE COURT BY THE PIPELINE
COMPANY, THIS BEING THE AMOUNT IT HAD COLLECTED, PENDING THE
LITIGATION, FROM ILLINOIS, NEBRASKA, AND IOWA GAS DISTRIBUTING
COMPANIES, IN EXCESS OF THE RATES FIXED BY THE COMMISSION. 

THE PIPELINE COMPANY, AND ALL OF THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES EXCEPT
PETITIONER HERE AND ONE SMALL COMPANY IN NEBRASKA,  FN2  ACQUIESCED IN
THE HOLDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE FUNDS THUS IMPOUNDED PROPERLY
BELONGED TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, AND SHOULD BE REFUNDED TO THEM. 
ALL OF THIS AMOUNT, $6,377,913.57, EXCEPT FOR THE $25,708.54 NOW
ORDERED BY THIS COURT TO BE PAID TO THE PETITIONER, HAS BEEN
DISTRIBUTED TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS.  FN3 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH FUNDS MUST BE MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW AND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DISPOSE OF THEM AS IT DID.  UNTIL TODAY, THIS
COURT SEEMS NEVER TO HAVE DOUBTED THAT "IT IS A POWER 'INHERENT IN
EVERY COURT OF JUSTICE SO LONG AS IT RETAINS CONTROL OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER AND OF THE PARTIES, TO CORRECT THAT WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY
DONE BY VIRTUE OF ITS PROCESS'."  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S.
183, 197.  HERE, CONSUMERS OF GAS HAVE BEEN INJURED BY A FEDERAL COURT
ORDER STAYING THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION'S 1940 RATE CUT.  IN 1942,
THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  315 U.S. 575.  AT THAT
TIME, THE PIPELINE COMPANY CONTENDED BEFORE THIS COURT THAT IF THE
COMMISSION'S RATE ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED, THE FUND ACCUMULATED AS A
RESULT OF THE STAY SHOULD BE RETAINED BY IT, AND SHOULD NOT BE TURNED
OVER TO THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES BECAUSE "THE PURPOSE OF THE RATE
REGULATION IS THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS AND  ...  WILL NOT BE
EFFECTUATED BY REFUNDS TO WHOLESALERS" OF THEIR "PROFITS FOR PAST
BUSINESS."  UPON OUR REMAND OF THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, THE
PIPELINE COMPANY PETITIONED THE COURT BELOW TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF THE
EXCESS FUNDS.  THAT COURT HELD, IN IMPOUNDING THE FUND HERE INVOLVED,
THAT SINCE IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY SECS. 19(B) AND (C) OF THE ACT TO ISSUE
A STAY PENDING REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S RATE ORDER, IT HAD A
MANDATORY OBLIGATION AS A COURT OF EQUITY "TO DETERMINE TO WHOM AND IN
WHAT AMOUNTS THE DISTRIBUTION SHALL BE MADE."  THIS HOLDING WAS IN
ACCORD WITH "THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF A COURT OF
EQUITY GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO DO SO UPON CONDITIONS THAT WILL
PROTECT ALL - INCLUDING THE PUBLIC - WHOSE INTERESTS THE INJUNCTION MAY
AFFECT."  INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153, 157. 

THE INJURY TO THE CONSUMERS HERE DID NOT STEM FROM STATE LAW OR THE
ACTION OF A STATE COURT; IT WAS THE DIRECT RESULT OF STAY ORDERS MADE
BY A FEDERAL COURT.  THESE ORDERS, WHICH PERMITTED THE PIPELINE COMPANY
TO CONTINUE TO CHARGE RATES WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD DETERMINED TO BE
EXCESSIVE, TO THE DETRIMENT OF ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, WERE ISSUED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  THE INJURIES HERE WERE
THEREFORE OCCASIONED BY THE APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAW IN A FEDERAL
COURT, AND RAISED FEDERAL, AND NOT STATE LAW QUESTIONS.  FOR A FEDERAL
COURT TO REMEDY THIS INJURY BY AFFORDING THAT PROTECTION TO CONSUMERS
WHICH THE ACT CONTEMPLATED, CANNOT, IN MY JUDGMENT, BE SAID TO AMOUNT
TO A REGULATION OF LOCAL GAS RATES. 

THE NATURAL GAS ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT FEDERAL REDUCTION OF WHOLESALE
GAS RATES TO DISTRIBUTORS WILL BE REFLECTED IN REDUCTION OF RETAIL
RATES TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS.  INFORMATION BEFORE THE CONGRESS WHEN
IT PASSED THE NATURAL GAS ACT SHOWED THAT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE
RETAIL COST OF GAS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WHOLESALE COST.  FN4  THUS
THE WHOLESALE COST IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT IN A STATE PROCEEDING TO
REGULATE RETAIL COST.  AN EFFECTIVE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION REDUCING WHOLESALE COSTS AFFORDS LOCAL CONSUMERS A BASIS FOR
A CORRESPONDING RETAIL REDUCTION.  BUT A FEDERAL RATE REDUCTION ORDER
CANNOT BE UTILIZED BEFORE STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES WHERE THE FEDERAL
REDUCTION ORDER HAS BEEN STAYED BY A FEDERAL COURT.  THUS, DURING THE
THREE YEARS THAT THE POWER COMMISSION'S RATE REDUCTION WAS HELD IN
ABEYANCE PURSUANT TO THE STAY ORDERS, THE IOWA CONSUMERS WERE DEPRIVED
OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN A REDUCTION OF THEIR RATES FROM THE LOCAL
REGULATORY AGENCIES.  THE CITY OF MUSCATINE, IOWA, PROMPTLY PASSED AN
ORDINANCE REDUCING LOCAL GAS RATES AFTER VACATION OF THE ORDERS STAYING
ENFORCEMENT OF THE POWER COMMISSION'S RATE REDUCTION. 

ULTIMATE CONSUMERS CAN SECURE BENEFITS FROM A FEDERAL RATE REDUCTION
IN TWO WAYS:  (1) BY USING THE ORDER TO GET REDUCED RATES BEFORE THEIR
LOCAL REGULATORY BODIES; (2) BY THE IMPOUNDING OF FUNDS FOR THEIR
BENEFIT IF A JUDICIAL STAY OF THE FEDERAL REDUCTION ORDER IS GRANTED. 
THE STAY DEPRIVED THESE LOCAL CONSUMERS OF A CHANCE TO USE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER TO OBTAIN A LOCAL RATE REDUCTION.  THE HOLDING OF
THIS COURT PARTIALLY, IF NOT COMPLETELY, DEPRIVES THEM OF THE BENEFITS
OF THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS.  CF. FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. FLERSHEM, 290 U.S.
504, 520. 

TO DENY PETITIONER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY A REFUND OF THE IMPOUNDED
MONIES WOULD IMPOSE NO DEPRIVATION UPON IT.  PETITIONER'S LOCAL RATES
WERE FIXED BY A MUSCATINE CITY ORDINANCE, TO WHICH RATES THE PETITIONER
ALLEGES IT VOLUNTARILY AGREED.  THAT SCHEDULE OF RATES, PETITIONER
ARGUES, WAS "PRESUMPTIVELY REASONABLE."  FN5  PETITIONER ADMITS THAT
IOWA LAW REQUIRES THE WHOLESALE COST OF GAS TO BE ONE OF THE FACTORS
CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF RATES.  FN6  THE
PETITIONER'S RATES MUST THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED REASONABLE ON THE BASIS
OF THE OLD WHOLESALE PRICE OF GAS, AND ANY INCREMENT ABOVE THOSE RATES
IS A "WINDFALL." 

FURTHERMORE, THE PETITIONER SAYS IT WAS FREE UNDER IOWA LAW TO ATTACK
THE RATES AT ANY TIME AS TOO LOW.  THIS IT NEVER DID.  INSTEAD, IT
REFRAINED FROM DOING SO UNTIL THIS COURT HAD SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER REDUCING WHOLESALE RATES, AND UNTIL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HAD ADJUDGED THAT THE MONIES BELONGED TO THE CONSUMERS.  NOT UNTIL THEN
DID IT FILE ITS INTERVENTION CLAIM FOR THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS.  THE REASON
FOR THIS DELAY IS NOT DIFFICULT TO FIND.  PETITIONER, IN ARGUING HERE
THAT IT SHOULD GET THIS IMPOUNDED FUND, ASSERTS THAT UNDER IOWA LAW
"MUNICIPALITIES MAY ONLY FIX RATES PROSPECTIVELY."  IOWA CASES CITED BY
THE PETITIONER  FN7  SEEM TO GIVE SOME SUPPORT TO THIS CONTENTION,
ESPECIALLY WHEN CONSIDERED WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT DEALING WITH
ANALOGOUS STATUTORY SITUATIONS.  FN8  I AM THEREFORE UNABLE TO SEE MUCH
LIKELIHOOD OF THESE CONSUMERS OBTAINING RELIEF IN THE IOWA STATE COURTS
FOR THE INJURY THEY HAVE SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THE FEDERAL COURT'S
ACTION IN GRANTING A STAY OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

IF MY PREVIOUS ANALYSIS IS CORRECT, THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT
TODAY MEANS SIMPLY THIS:  SO LONG AS LITIGATION CAN BE KEPT PENDING IN
THE COURTS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION RATE
REDUCTION ORDER, THE BENEFITS OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT WILL BE SUSPENDED
AS TO ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, AND WILL BE LARGELY, IF NOT EXCLUSIVELY,
RESTRICTED TO RETAIL DISTRIBUTORS.  FN9  THUS, BY A STRANGE QUIRK OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, THE EFFORT OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS
FROM EXCESSIVE RATES IS TRANSFORMED, WHERE LITIGATION IS PENDING, INTO
AN ACT WHICH EXPLOITS CONSUMERS AND UNJUSTLY ENRICHES DISTRIBUTING
COMPANIES.  THIS COMPANY HAS ALREADY RECEIVED A REASONABLE COMPENSATION
FOR ITS SERVICES.  IT IS ENTITLED TO NO MORE UNDER IOWA OR FEDERAL
LAW. 

FN1  THE COURT BELOW REFUSED TO CONSTRUE THE NATURAL GAS ACT SO AS TO
MAKE THIS PETITIONER "THE BENEFICIARY OF A WINDFALL, TO WHICH IT
INTENDS TO HOLD ON, ONCE IT CAN GET POSSESSION OF IT." 

FN2  THIS COMPANY SUBSEQUENTLY SETTLED WITH ITS CONSUMERS BY TURNING
OVER TO THEM APPROXIMATELY 70% OF THE FUNDS ALLOCABLE TO ITS
PURCHASES. 

FN3  JUNE 30, 1972, AFTER A NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED TO PETITIONER
CENTRAL, THE COURT HELD THAT ALL REFUNDS "BELONG TO THE CONSUMERS, FOR
WHOSE BENEFIT THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED."  CENTRAL DID NOT
ACTUALLY INTERVENE UNTIL FOURTEEN MONTHS LATER.  WITH REFERENCE TO THIS
DELAY OF CENTRAL'S THE COURT BELOW SAID IN ITS JUNE 30, 1942 ORDER THAT
"NEBRASKA CITY AND ALL OTHER UTILITIES STOOD BY AND ACCEPTED THE
SITUATION AS IT WAS TENDERED BY THE PLEADINGS AND THE PARTIES.  NOW ONE
OR TWO OF THESE UTILITIES LOCATED WHERE NO STATE SUPERVISORY COMMISSION
EXISTS, ARE ENDEAVORING TO SEIZE THE FRUITS OF THE LITIGATION BROUGHT
FOR THE CONSUMERS AND RETAIN THE MONEY FOR THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL GAIN. 
IT WOULD BE A GROSS TRAVESTY UPON THE PROCEEDINGS, THE OUTCOME, IF THEY
WERE TO SUCCEED.  WITH THEIR EFFORTS IN THIS RESPECT, WE HAVE NO
SYMPATHY."  WITHOUT GOING INTO A NARRATION OF WHAT LATER OCCURRED, I AM
OF OPINION THAT THE COURT RIGHTFULLY DENIED CENTRAL'S INTERVENTION ON
THE GROUND THAT IT HAD LONG SINCE DECIDED THE QUESTION.  THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT, HOWEVER, PROMPTS ME TO DISCUSS IT. 

FN4  SEE FINAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION TO THE SENATE,
SEN. DOC. 92, PART 84-A, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 611, 612; CONG.
RECORD, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. 81, PP. 6723, 6725, 6728; HEARINGS
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 4008, PP. 27, 38-39, 56-57; HEARING ON H.R.
11662, HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE, 74TH CONG.,
2D SESS., PP. 25, 34-35, 81. 

FN5  PETITIONER CITES IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENT, IOWA RAILWAY &
LIGHT CO. V. JONES AUTO CO., 182 IOWA 982, 164 N.W. 780; TOWN OF
WILLIAMS V. IOWA FALLS ELECTRIC CO., 185 IOWA 493, 170 N.W. 815; KNOTTS
V. NOLLEN, 206 IOWA 261, 218 N.W. 563; MAPLETON V. IOWA PUBLIC SERVICE
CO., 209 IOWA 400, 223 N.W. 476. 

FN6  SEE CEDAR RAPIDS GAS CO. V. CEDAR RAPIDS, 144 IOWA 426, 120 N.W.
966, AFF'D 223 U.S. 655. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN8  CF. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO., 317 U.S.
456; ARIZONA GROCERY CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 284 U.S. 370,
389. 

FN9  WHEN A RATE SCHEDULE EMBODYING A PROPOSED INCREASE IN WHOLESALE
RATES BECOMES EFFECTIVE, PENDING A DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION OF
THE REASONABLENESS OF SUCH INCREASE, THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO
REQUIRE APPROPRIATE GUARANTEES BY SEC. 4(E) OF THE ACT.  THE COMMISSION
MAY REQUIRE THE NATURAL GAS COMPANIES  "...  TO FURNISH A BOND, TO BE
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, TO REFUND ANY AMOUNTS ORDERED BY THE
COMMISSION, TO KEEP ACCURATE ACCOUNTS IN DETAIL OF ALL AMOUNTS RECEIVED
BY REASON OF SUCH INCREASE, SPECIFYING BY WHOM AND IN WHOSE BEHALF SUCH
AMOUNTS WERE PAID ..."  THIS WOULD APPEAR TO BE BROAD ENOUGH TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS WHERE THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID IN THEIR BEHALF.  SURELY THE ACT
GIVES NO LESS POWER TO A COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR IN THIS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THAT THE CLAIMS TO THE FUND IN POSSESSION OF THE COURT BELOW
ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY STATE LAW.  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE RATES WHICH PETITIONER MAY CHARGE IN THESE
IOWA CITIES.  UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT THAT IS FOR IOWA AND IOWA ALONE
TO DETERMINE.  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO., 317
U.S. 456, 467; FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 320
U.S. 591, 610.  IN THAT RESPECT THIS CASE DIFFERS MARKEDLY FROM UNITED
STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183.  IF THERE HAD BEEN NO STAY ORDER
ENTERED AND THE INTERSTATE RATE FROM THE PIPELINE COMPANY TO PETITIONER
HAD BEEN REDUCED WHEN THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ENTERED ITS ORDER,
IT STILL WOULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO REDUCE THE
RATES IN THESE IOWA CITIES.    BUT THE FEDERAL COURT WHICH HAS THIS
FUND HAS CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION IN ITS MANAGEMENT.  UNITED STATES V.
MORGAN, SUPRA.  I FAIL TO SEE HOW IT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HANDING
THE FUND OVER TO THE LOCAL OFFICIALS.  IT IS ONLY FAIR TO ASSUME THAT A
REDUCTION IN THE INTERSTATE RATE WOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY A
REDUCTION IN LOCAL RATES.  FN1  THAT INDEED WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE NATURAL GAS
CO., SUPRA.  WE ARE POINTED TO NO PROVISION OF LOCAL LAW WHICH RAISES
ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION CONCERNING THE POWER OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES
TO MAKE A READJUSTMENT OF RATES THROUGH THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
IMPOUNDED UNDER A STAY ORDER.  FN2  AND THE CLAIM OF PETITIONER THAT
THE LOCAL LAW WOULD PREVENT A REDUCTION IN ITS RATES FOR THE PERIOD
WHILE THE STAY ORDER WAS IN EFFECT IS FAR TOO VAGUE TO ACQUIRE THE
DIGNITY OF A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION.  FN3  HE WHO MAINTAINS THAT POSITION
HAS THE DISTINCT BURDEN OF OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AS A MATTER
OF LOCAL LAW THE CONSUMERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THIS RATE
REDUCTION.  PETITIONER FAILS TO CARRY THAT BURDEN.  THE RECORD IS VOID
OF ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT A REDUCTION IN THE INTERSTATE RATE WOULD
NOT HAVE WARRANTED A REDUCTION IN LOCAL RATES. 

PETITIONER IS ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE COURT
BELOW.  THAT COURT DID NOT UNDERTAKE FINALLY TO DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF
THE PARTIES IN THE FUND.  IT HAS TURNED THE FUND OVER TO RESPONDENTS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PETITIONER'S RIGHTS IN IT.  THOSE RIGHTS ARE
DETERMINABLE UNDER IOWA LAW.  THAT PROCEDURE DOES NOT PRECLUDE
PETITIONER FROM ITS DAY IN AN IOWA COURT IF ITS CLAIM TO THE FUND TURNS
OUT TO BE LESS FRIVOLOUS AND MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN IT APPEARS TO BE.  I
THINK THE COURT BELOW SELECTED THE MOST EQUITABLE AND JUST METHOD OF
RECTIFYING THE INJURY DONE BY ITS STAY ORDER. 

FN1  THE CITY OF MUSCATINE DID IN FACT REDUCE THE RATES AFTER THE
STAY ORDER HAD BEEN VACATED. 

FN2  PETITIONER ASSERTS, AND I ASSUME, THAT UNDER THE IOWA LAW RATES
CAN BE MADE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY.  BUT IT APPEARS FROM TOWN OF WILLIAMS
V. IOWA FALLS ELECTRIC CO., 185 IOWA 493, 500, 170 N.W. 815, THAT THE
IOWA COURTS UNDER THEIR "BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE" RULE WILL IMPOUND
ALLEGED EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS COLLECTED BY A UTILITY COMPANY PENDING THE
OUTCOME OF RATE LITIGATION SO AS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS BOTH OF THE
UTILITY AND THE CONSUMERS.  IF THE RATE INCREASE IS ULTIMATELY
DISALLOWED, THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS WILL BE RETURNED TO THE CUSTOMERS;
OTHERWISE THEY WILL BE TURNED OVER TO THE COMPANY.  WE ARE POINTED TO
NO AUTHORITY WHICH SUGGESTS THAT IOWA WOULD NOT SANCTION THE USE OF
SUCH A METHOD OF READJUSTMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

FN3  SO FAR AS APPEARS THE RATES WHICH PETITIONER WAS CHARGING DURING
THE PERIOD OF THE STAY ORDER HAD BEEN VOLUNTARILY PROPOSED BY IT.
..END :















STATE FARM INS. CO. V. DUEL, 324 U.S. 154 


NO. 115.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 1945.  - 244
WIS. 429, 12 N.W.2D 696, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF WISCONSIN REQUIRES THAT THE UNEARNED PREMIUM RESERVE OF
EVERY INSURANCE COMPANY DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE SHALL BE
COMPUTED BY A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF PREMIUMS RECEIVED AND SHALL BE
SHOWN AS A LIABILITY IN THE ANNUAL STATEMENT REQUIRED TO BE FILED.  AS
APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT - A FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH OPERATED
IN SOME STATES ON A MEMBERSHIP FEE PLAN (UNLAWFUL IN WISCONSIN) - THE
STATUTE AS CONSTRUED REQUIRES THAT IN COMPUTING THE RESERVE THERE BE
INCLUDED MEMBERSHIP FEES AS WELL AS PREMIUMS RECEIVED IN ALL STATES. 
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE, APPELLANT WAS DENIED A LICENSE
TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE.  HELD: 

1.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 157. 

(A)  THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT WAS RELEVANT TO THE FINANCIAL STABILITY
OF INSURANCE COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, AND WAS
THEREFORE WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ITS
CITIZENS.  P. 158. 

(B)  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT DEMAND UNIFORMITY IN THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATES WITH RESPECT TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF
COMPANIES DOING A MULTI-STATE BUSINESS.  P. 159. 

(C)  THE STATUTE DOES NOT REGULATE OUT-OF-STATE ACTIVITIES.  P. 159. 

2.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 159. 

(A)  THAT THE STATE OF INCORPORATION DOES NOT TREAT MEMBERSHIP FEES
AS PREMIUMS DOES NOT PRECLUDE WISCONSIN'S DOING SO.  P. 159. 

(B)  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT BAR A STATE FROM
IMPOSING STRICTER FINANCIAL STANDARDS FOR CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS
WITHIN ITS BORDERS THAN ARE IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF INCORPORATION.  P.
159. 

(C)  THE APPELLANT, CHALLENGING THE POWER OF WISCONSIN TO ENFORCE ITS
OWN STATUTES IN ITS OWN COURTS, DID NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT
THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION WERE SUPERIOR.  P. 160. 

3.  AS TO THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED
AND APPLIED VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION - WHICH
QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED OR PASSED UPON BELOW, BUT EMERGED AFTER THIS
COURT'S DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSN.,
322 U.S. 533 - IT APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT FORECLOSED UNDER
WISCONSIN PROCEDURE FROM OBTAINING A DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION IN
THE WISCONSIN COURTS, EITHER IN THE PRESENT SUITS OR IN ANOTHER PENDING
PROCEEDING, SO IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW IN
ORDER THAT THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN THE RULING. 
PP. 160, 163. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. V. DUEL, COMMISSIONER OF
INSURANCE. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE
STATUTE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 344(A) FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT WHICH
SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED TO APPELLANT
OF SEC. 201.18 OF THE WISCONSIN STATUTES, 1943.  244 WIS. 429, 12
N.W.2D 696. 

SEC. 201.18 READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"RESERVES, BASIS FOR.  (1)  THE UNEARNED PREMIUM OR REINSURANCE
RESERVE FOR EVERY INSURANCE COMPANY WHEN NO OTHER STATUTORY PROVISION
IS MADE THEREFOR, SHALL BE COMPUTED BY THE COMMISSIONER BY SETTING UP
FIFTY PER CENT OF THE PREMIUMS RECEIVED ON ALL RISKS THAT HAVE ONE YEAR
OR LESS TO RUN, AND PRO RATA OF ALL PREMIUMS ON RISKS THAT HAVE MORE
THAN ONE YEAR TO RUN.  IN THE CASE OF PERPETUAL RISKS OR POLICIES, THE
WHOLE AMOUNT OF PREMIUM PAID SHALL BE SET UP AS A RESERVE.  EVERY SUCH
COMPANY SHALL SHOW ITS RESERVE, COMPUTED UPON THIS BASIS, AS A
LIABILITY IN THE ANNUAL STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 201.50. 

"(2)  WHERE NO OTHER PROVISION IS MADE THEREFOR BY LAW, THE RESERVES
OF ANY INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL BE CALCULATED UPON SUCH BASIS, METHOD
AND PLAN AS SHALL FULLY PROVIDE FOR ALL LIABILITIES, AND ANY BASIS,
METHOD AND PLAN FIXED BY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER SHALL BE PRIMA
FACIE JUST, REASONABLE AND PROPER." 

THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF WISCONSIN REFUSED APPELLANT A LICENSE
IN 1942 AND ALSO IN 1943 FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THAT PROVISION. 
APPELLANT ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT SUITS TO ENJOIN THE COMMISSIONER FROM
INTERFERING WITH ITS BUSINESS AND TO REQUIRE HIM TO ISSUE IT A LICENSE
TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION.  THE FACTS MAY
BE BRIEFLY STATED. 

APPELLANT IS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN MANY STATES. 
IT STARTED DOING BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN IN 1939.  IT WRITES VARIOUS
FORMS OF AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ON THE MUTUAL PLAN.  WHEN IT WRITES A
POLICY FOR A NEW CUSTOMER, IT CHARGES HIM A MEMBERSHIP FEE IN ADDITION
TO A PREMIUM.  THE MEMBERSHIP FEE IS NOT RETURNABLE BUT ENTITLES THE
INSURED TO INSURE ONE AUTOMOBILE SO LONG AS HE REMAINS A DESIRABLE RISK
AND SO LONG AS THE COMPANY CONTINUES TO WRITE SUCH COVERAGE.  IT IS
SAID THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEE GIVES A LIFE OPTION TO THE INSURED TO
PURCHASE INSURANCE AT A SAVING OF FROM TWENTY TO THIRTY-FIVE PER CENT
OF THE USUAL COST.  APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE MEMBERSHIP FEES
ARE NO PART OF THE PREMIUMS, FURNISH NO INSURANCE PROTECTION, AND
MERELY REIMBURSE IT FOR THE EXPENSE OF OBTAINING THE NEW BUSINESS. 
WISCONSIN TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW.  THE COMMISSIONER REFUSED RENEWAL OF
APPELLANT'S LICENSE FOR THE YEARS ENDING MAY 1, 1940, AND MAY 1, 1941. 
LITIGATION FOLLOWED WHICH RESULTED IN THE DECISION OF DUEL V. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., 240 WIS. 161, 1 N.W.2D 887.  THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE MEMBERSHIP
FEES WERE PART OF APPELLANT'S PREMIUMS AND THAT 50 PER CENT OF THEM
MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE RESERVE REQUIRED BY SEC. 201.18.  THEREUPON
APPELLANT ADOPTED AND SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER A NEW SCHEME FOR
DOING BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN.  THE PLAN WAS TO ABANDON THE MEMBERSHIP
FEE IN WISCONSIN, TO REQUIRE NONE OF ITS WISCONSIN POLICYHOLDERS, AND
TO DO BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN ON A LEVEL PREMIUM BASIS.  THE RESULT WAS
THAT THE PREMIUMS REQUIRED TO BE PAID IN WISCONSIN WERE 27 PER CENT
HIGHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED IN STATES WHICH CONSTRUED PREMIUMS AS NOT
INCLUDING MEMBERSHIP FEES.  THE COMMISSIONER REFUSED TO GRANT APPELLANT
THE LICENSES FOR THESE LATER YEARS BECAUSE ITS RESERVE REQUIRED BY SEC.
201.18 DID NOT INCLUDE 50 PER CENT OF THE MEMBERSHIP FEES OBTAINED ON
BUSINESS WRITTEN IN OTHER STATES.  THE PRESENT LITIGATION ENSUED.  THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER, HOLDING (1) THAT
SEC. 201.18 REQUIRED A RESERVE WHICH COVERED THE OVER-ALL LIABILITY OF
THE APPELLANT AND (2) THAT SEC. 201.18 AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED DID NOT
CONTRAVENE APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

OF THE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARGUED HERE TWO WERE RAISED
BELOW.  THEY ARE THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATES (1) THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND (2) THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT PROVISION
OF ART. IV, SEC. 1.  WE THINK NEITHER OF THE TWO HAS MERIT. 

I. SO FAR AS DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS CONCERNED, THIS CASE IS GOVERNED
BY THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, AND
HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313.  IN OSBORN V. OZLIN,
SUPRA, P. 62, WE STATED THAT "THE MERE FACT THAT STATE ACTION MAY HAVE
REPERCUSSIONS BEYOND STATE LINES IS OF NO JUDICIAL SIGNIFICANCE SO LONG
AS THE ACTION IS NOT WITHIN THAT DOMAIN WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
FORBIDS."  WE SUSTAINED IN THAT CASE VIRGINIA LEGISLATION WHICH FORBADE
A LICENSED COMPANY TO WRITE INSURANCE IN VIRGINIA EXCEPT THROUGH A
RESIDENT AGENT AND WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE RESIDENT AGENT COULD NOT
RETAIN LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF THE CUSTOMARY COMMISSION EVEN THOUGH THE
BUSINESS ORIGINATED WITH AN OUT-OF-STATE BROKER, THE RESIDENT AGENT
RENDERING ONLY A PERFUNCTORY SERVICE.  WE HELD THAT BY SUCH MEASURES
VIRGINIA WAS SEEKING TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF HER CITIZENS, NOT TO
PROHIBIT THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS BEYOND HER BORDERS.  IN HOOPESTON
CANNING CO. V. CULLEN, SUPRA, WE SUSTAINED PROVISIONS OF THE NEW YORK
INSURANCE LAW AS APPLIED TO RECIPROCAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS LICENSED
TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK BUT WITH HEADQUARTERS IN ILLINOIS.  THE
REGULATIONS WHICH NEW YORK HAD IMPOSED INCLUDED STIPULATED OPERATING
RESERVES FOR PAYMENT OF LOSSES, A CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF SUBSCRIBERS
OF NOT LESS THAN ONE NOR MORE THAN TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL
PREMIUM EXPRESSED IN THE CONTRACT, AND A REQUIREMENT FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF AN UNIMPAIRED SURPLUS.  WE SAID, "NEITHER NEW YORK NOR
ILLINOIS LOSES THE POWER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ITS CITIZENS
BECAUSE THESE ASSOCIATIONS CARRY ON ACTIVITIES IN BOTH PLACES....  WE
THINK THE REGULATIONS THEMSELVES, SINCE THEY ARE AIMED AT THE
PROTECTION OF THE SOLVENCY OF THE RECIPROCALS OR AT PROMOTING THE
CONVENIENCE WITH WHICH NEW YORK RESIDENTS MAY DO THEIR INSURANCE
BUSINESS, ARE ALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF STATE POWER."  318 U.S. P. 321. 

WISCONSIN HAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN WITH THE FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS OF
COMPANIES WRITING INSURANCE CONTRACTS WITH ITS CITIZENS.  THE RESERVE
WHICH IT REQUIRES UNDER SEC. 201.18 IS DESIGNED TO MEASURE THE ENTIRE
FUTURE CONTINGENT LIABILITY ON UNEXPIRED RISKS.  THAT CONTINGENT
LIABILITY IS OBVIOUSLY RELEVANT IN ANY APPRAISAL OF THE FINANCIAL
SOUNDNESS AND STABILITY OF THE COMPANY.  IT IS, TO BE SURE, A
BOOKKEEPING REQUIREMENT.  BUT IT IS MORE THAN THAT:  IT IS ONE OF
WISCONSIN'S MEASURING RODS OF FINANCIAL STABILITY AND STRENGTH.  ANY
FINANCIAL STATEMENT REQUIRED BY WISCONSIN OR ANY OTHER STATE WOULD NEED
REFLECT ALL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE COMPANY IN THE INTERESTS OF
TRUTH.  THEIR INCLUSION DOES NOT MEAN THAT OUT-OF-STATE ACTIVITIES ARE
BEING REGULATED BY WISCONSIN.  IT ONLY MEANS THAT SOLVENCY OF A MULTI
STATE BUSINESS CAN HARDLY BE DETERMINED ON A SINGLE STATE BASIS. 
ACCOUNTING IS NO EXACT SCIENCE.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE CERTAINLY DOES
NOT REQUIRE UNIFORMITY IN REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF
COMPANIES DOING A MULTI-STATE BUSINESS.  EACH STATE MUST NECESSARILY
HAVE LEEWAY IN PROVIDING ITS OWN ACCOUNTING STANDARDS FOR COMPANIES
DOING BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  IF A STATE UNDERTOOK TO REGULATE
OUT-OF-STATE ACTIVITIES THROUGH SUCH A REQUIREMENT, DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
WOULD BE POSED.  BUT WE FAIL TO SEE THAT WISCONSIN HAS DONE THAT HERE. 
WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE RESERVE REQUIRED BY WISCONSIN HAS ANY PURPOSE
BUT THE PROTECTION OF ITS OWN CITIZENS.  ITS ADEQUACY OR
APPROPRIATENESS AS A STANDARD FOR QUALIFICATION TO DO BUSINESS IN
WISCONSIN IS THEREFORE A QUESTION FOR WISCONSIN TO DETERMINE. 

II.  LITTLE NEED BE SAID IN REPLY TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE
WISCONSIN STATUTE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED VIOLATES THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT COMES DOWN
TO THIS:  ILLINOIS, THE STATE OF INCORPORATION, DOES NOT TREAT THE
MEMBERSHIP FEES AS A PART OF THE PREMIUMS.  THEREFORE, WISCONSIN MAY
NOT DO SO.  THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT NO STATE COULD IMPOSE STRICTER
FINANCIAL STANDARDS FOR FOREIGN CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN ITS
BORDERS THAN WERE IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF INCORPORATION.  THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT PROVISION REQUIRES NO SUCH RESULT.  THIS COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT "IN THE CASE OF STATUTES, THE EXTRA-STATE EFFECT OF
WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT PRESCRIBED, WHERE THE POLICY OF ONE STATE
STATUTE COMES INTO CONFLICT WITH THAT OF ANOTHER, THE NECESSITY OF SOME
ACCOMMODATION OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF THE TWO STATES" IS
IMPERATIVE.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION,
294 U.S. 532, 547.  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT PROVISION MAY NOT BE USED
TO COMPEL ONE STATE "TO SUBSTITUTE THE STATUTES OF OTHER STATES FOR ITS
OWN STATUTES DEALING WITH A SUBJECT MATTER CONCERNING WHICH IT IS
COMPETENT TO LEGISLATE."  PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL
ACCIDENT COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493, 501.  HE WHO CHALLENGES THE POWER OF
ONE STATE TO ENFORCE IN ITS OWN COURTS ITS OWN STATUTES ON SUCH GROUNDS
CARRIES THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT "OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS
INVOLVED THOSE OF THE FOREIGN STATE ARE SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF THE
FORUM."  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, SUPRA,
P. 548.  THAT BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED HERE.  WISCONSIN OBVIOUSLY
HAS A CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN THE FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS AND STABILITY OF
FOREIGN AS WELL AS DOMESTIC COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN.  IT
IS NOT APPARENT HOW ILLINOIS HAS A SUPERIOR INTEREST.  AS AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES IT IS WISCONSIN'S PREROGATIVE TO SELECT THE APPROPRIATE
MEANS OF PROTECTING ITS OWN CITIZENS BY ESTABLISHING FINANCIAL
STANDARDS FOR COMPANIES WHICH EXPLOIT THE OPPORTUNITIES WHICH WISCONSIN
AFFORDS. 

III.  APPELLANT'S REMAINING CONTENTION IS THAT THIS WISCONSIN STATUTE
AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  ART. I, SEC. 8.  THIS QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED BELOW.  IT
EMERGED AFTER THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT WAS FILED HERE ON JUNE 1,
1944.  FOR ON JUNE 5, 1944, WE DECIDED UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN
UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533, HOLDING THAT THE FIRE INSURANCE
BUSINESS WAS COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE
SHERMAN ACT.  26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1 AND SEC. 2.  SINCE THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT DID NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION, WE MAY NOT DO SO.
MCGOLDRICK V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 309 U.S. 430, 434. 
BUT OUR DECISION IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS CASE WAS A
SUPERVENING EVENT ARISING IN THE COURSE OF THIS LITIGATION.  WE DO NOT
THINK APPELLANT SHOULD BE PREJUDICED BY THE FACT THAT THE DECISION CAME
TOO LATE FOR IT TO OBTAIN A RULING BY THE WISCONSIN COURT.  THE
QUESTION IS WHAT DISPOSITION WE SHOULD MAKE OF THIS APPEAL SO THAT IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE APPELLANT MAY HAVE A HEARING ON THE COMMERCE
POINT. 

A CUSTOMARY PROCEDURE HAS BEEN FOR THE COURT TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT
OF THE STATE COURT WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A SUPERVENING EVENT SINCE ITS
RENDITION WHICH ALTERS THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE JUDGMENT RESTS, AND TO
REMAND THE CASE SO THAT THE COURT FROM WHICH IT CAME MIGHT RECONSIDER
THE QUESTION IN LIGHT OF THE CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES.  GULF, C. & S.F.R.
CO. V. DENNIS, 224 U.S. 503; MISSOURI V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 273
U.S. 126; PAGEL V. MACLEAN, 283 U.S. 266; PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294
U.S. 600, 607; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 156.  SEE DORCHY V.
KANSAS, 264 U.S. 286, 291.  IN THOSE CASES THE SUPERVENING EVENT HAD
RAISED QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW WHICH MIGHT HAVE WARRANTED A REVERSAL OF
THE JUDGMENT.  IF THEY WERE ADEQUATE, IT WOULD BE UNNECESSARY TO REACH
THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS WHICH WERE PRESENTED.  MOREOVER, IT APPEARED IN
SOME OF THOSE CASES THAT UNLESS THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT WERE
VACATED, THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE NEW QUESTIONS WHICH HAD EMERGED
MIGHT BE LOST.  SEE GULF, C. & S.F.R. CO. V. DENNIS, SUPRA; PAGEL V.
MACLEAN, SUPRA.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THAT COURSE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED
HERE SO THAT THIS ADDITIONAL FEDERAL QUESTION MAY BE PASSED UPON BY THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.  WE WOULD NOT HESITATE TO ADOPT THAT PROCEDURE
IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE IF IT APPEARED THAT OTHERWISE APPELLANT
WOULD BE FORECLOSED FROM AN ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE.  APPELLANT DOES
NOT SHOW THAT IT WOULD BE.  RESPONDENT ASSUMES IN ITS BRIEF THAT
APPELLANT WILL NOT BE FORECLOSED.  AND WE THINK THAT ASSUMPTION IS
WARRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 

WE ARE ADVISED THAT APPELLANT HAS PENDING IN THE WISCONSIN COURTS
ANOTHER SUIT IN RESPECT TO THE LICENSE YEAR COMMENCING MAY 1, 1944. 
WISCONSIN HAS THE FAMILIAR RULE THAT THOUGH THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW IN
QUESTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED IN AN EARLIER SUIT, THE PRIOR
JUDGMENT IS NOT RES JUDICATA WHERE THE SECOND SUIT IS ON A DIFFERENT
CAUSE OF ACTION IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE QUESTION WAS
ACTUALLY PRESENTED TO THE COURT AND DECIDED IN THE EARLIER LITIGATION. 
WENTWORTH V. RACINE COUNTY, 99 WIS. 26, 31, 74 N.W. 551; GRUNERT V.
SPALDING, 104 WIS. 193, 213-214, 79 N.W. 606, 80 N.W. 589; LINDEMANN V.
RUSK, 125 WIS. 210, 237, 104 N.W. 119.  BUT IF THAT PRINCIPLE IS
INAPPLICABLE HERE IT IS NEVERTHELESS THE GENERAL RULE THAT RES JUDICATA
IS NO DEFENSE WHERE BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE FIRST JUDGMENT AND THE
SECOND THERE HAS BEEN AN INTERVENING DECISION OR A CHANGE IN THE LAW
CREATING AN ALTERED SITUATION.  2 FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS (5TH ED. 1925)
SEC. 713; BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 9; WEST COAST LIFE INS.
CO. V. MERCED IRRIGATION DIST., 114 F.2D 654, 662; IN RE POMEROY, 51
MONT. 119, 151 P. 333; HURD V. ALBERT, 214 CAL. 15, 26, 3 P.2D 545.  WE
CANNOT FIND THAT WISCONSIN HAS A DIFFERENT RULE. 

THE WISCONSIN STATUTE, MOREOVER, GIVES THE COURT POWER TO ALLOW AN
AMENDMENT "AT ANY STAGE OF ANY ACTION OR SPECIAL PROCEEDING BEFORE OR
AFTER JUDGMENT, IN FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE AND UPON SUCH TERMS AS MAY BE
JUST" PROVIDED THAT "THE AMENDED PLEADING STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION
ARISING OUT OF THE CONTRACT, TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE OR IS CONNECTED
WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTION UPON WHICH THE ORIGINAL PLEADING IS
BASED."  WIS. STAT. 1943, SEC. 269.44.  THAT POWER HAS BEEN CONSTRUED
VERY LIBERALLY.  KENNEDY V. WAUGH, 23 WIS. 468; POST V. CAMPBELL, 110
WIS. 378, 85 N.W. 1032; MALLON V. TONN, 163 WIS. 366, 157 N.W. 1098;
MICEK V. WAMKA, 165 WIS. 97, 161 N.W. 367; TURNER MFG. CO. V. GMEINDER,
183 WIS. 664, 198 N.W. 611; KAEGI V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 232 WIS.
16, 285 N.W. 845.  AND IT EXISTS AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED TO
THE TRIAL COURT FOLLOWING AN AFFIRMANCE BY THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT.  SEE ANGERS V. SABATINELLI, 235 WIS. 422, 293 N.W. 173; 239 WIS.
364, 1 N.W.2D 765. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT APPELLANT IS NOT FORECLOSED UNDER WISCONSIN
PROCEDURE FROM OBTAINING A DETERMINATION IN THE WISCONSIN COURTS OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE QUESTION EITHER IN THE PRESENT SUITS OR IN THE OTHER
PENDING ONE.  ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT BELOW IN ORDER THAT APPELLANT MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
OBTAIN THE RULING.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. 

I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE VACATED RATHER THAN
AFFIRMED AND DO NOT, THEREFORE, REACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
DEALT WITH IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  I DOUBT THAT THE WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT CAN OPEN AND RE-EXAMINE A JUDGMENT AFTER IT IS AFFIRMED BY THIS
COURT.  AS THE COURT RECOGNIZES, TO VACATE IS THE PROCEDURE THAT HAS
BEEN FOLLOWED WHEN SIMILAR SITUATIONS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED HERETOFORE. 
..END :





















WEBRE STEIB CO. V. COMM'R, 324 U.S. 164 


NO. 148.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 1945.  - 140
F.2D 768, MODIFIED. 


1.  IN A PROCEEDING UNDER TITLE VII OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 FOR A
REFUND OF PROCESSING TAXES PAID UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT
OF 1933, THE PRESUMPTION FROM MARGIN EVIDENCE THAT THE CLAIMANT BORE
THE BURDEN OF THE TAX REQUIRES, IN THE ABSENCE OF OPPOSING EVIDENCE, A
REFUND PRO TANTO.  P. 169. 

2.  THE PRESUMPTION ARISING FROM MARGIN EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE
CLAIMANT PLACES UPON THE COMMISSIONER THE BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD WITH
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE CLAIMANT DID NOT BEAR
THE BURDEN OF THE TAX.  P. 170. 

3.  THE COMMISSIONER'S EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE CLAIMANT HAD NOT BORNE THE BURDEN OF ANY
PART OF THE TAX, AND THE PRESUMPTION FROM THE CLAIMANT'S MARGIN
EVIDENCE WAS THEREBY RENDERED INOPERATIVE.  P. 171. 

4.  ON REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS, THIS COURT MUST DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE IS EVIDENCE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION,
BUT MAY NOT WEIGH IT.  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489.  P. 173. 

5.  ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSIONER'S REBUTTAL EVIDENCE RENDERED THE
PRESUMPTION INOPERATIVE, THE RECORD - THE MARGIN EVIDENCE BEING STILL
IN THE CASE FOR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE WORTH APART FROM THE PRESUMPTION -
IS NOT DEVOID OF RATIONAL SUPPORT FOR A FINDING THAT THE CLAIMANT
ABSORBED SOME OF THE TAX; AND THE CAUSE MUST BE REMANDED TO THE TAX
COURT FOR A WEIGHING OF THE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING SUCH FURTHER EVIDENCE
AS THAT COURT MAY PROPERLY ADMIT.  P. 174. 

6.  EVIDENCE AS TO MARGINS IN A PERIOD LATER THAN THE BASE PERIOD,
THOUGH IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESUMPTION CREATED BY SEC. 907(A), WAS
ADMISSIBLE FOR WHATEVER PROBATIVE VALUE IT MIGHT HAVE INDEPENDENTLY. 
P. 175. 

WEBRE STEIB CO., LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 686, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, REVERSING A
DECISION OF THE PROCESSING TAX BOARD OF REVIEW, HELD THAT A CLAIM FOR
REFUND OF PROCESSING TAXES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED IN ITS
ENTIRETY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A PROCEEDING BROUGHT FOR RECOVERY OF SUGAR PROCESSING TAXES
PAID UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933.  THE COMMISSIONER
HAVING DENIED IN ENTIRETY THE TAXPAYER'S CLAIM FOR $8,169.97, THE TOTAL
TAX PAID BY IT, TAXPAYER PETITIONED FOR REVIEW BY THE PROCESSING TAX
BOARD OF REVIEW, AS PROVIDED BY STATUTE.  49 STAT. 1749.  THE BOARD
AWARDED REFUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,655.82, AND MOTIONS FOR REHEARING
MADE BY BOTH PARTIES WERE DENIED BY THE TAX COURT, WHICH HAD SUCCEEDED
TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE PROCESSING TAX BOARD OF REVIEW.  56 STAT.
798.  ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED
AND HELD THAT THE CLAIM SHOULD BE DENIED.  140 F.2D 768.  WE TOOK THE
CASE TO REVIEW QUESTIONS OF APPLICATION OF THE "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE"
AND "PRESUMPTION" SECTIONS OF TITLE VII, REVENUE ACT OF 1936, ON WHICH
THERE WAS CONFLICT IN THE CIRCUITS.  COMMISSIONER V. BAIN PEANUT CO.,
134 F.2D 853, CERT. GRANTED, 320 U.S. 721, DISMISSED ON MOTION OF
PETITIONER, 321 U.S. 800; HELVERING V. INSULAR SUGAR REFINING CORP.,
141 F.2D 713; CF. E. REGENSBURG & SONS V. HELVERING, 130 F.2D 507. 

A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY OF TAXES PAID UNDER THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT WAS PROVIDED BY TITLE VII OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1936, SECS. 901-917, 49 STAT. 1747, 7 U.S.C. SECS. 644-59,
REPEALING SECS. 21(D), (E), AND (G) OF THE 1935 AMENDMENTS TO THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, 49 STAT. 771-73.  THE PROVISIONS WERE
REVIEWED AT LENGTH AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY UPHELD IN ANNISTON MFG.
CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337.  IN OUTLINE, SO FAR AS RELEVANT TO THIS
CASE, THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:  THE CLAIMANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT HE
BORE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX.  SEC. 902.  AVERAGE "MARGINS" PER UNIT OF
THE COMMODITY PROCESSED, CONSISTING OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST OF
THE COMMODITY (PLUS TAX PAID, IF ANY) AND GROSS SALES VALUE OF THE
ARTICLES RESULTING FROM THE PROCESSING, ARE TO BE COMPUTED FOR THE TAX
PERIOD AND A BASE PERIOD; THE BASE PERIOD IS THE PERIOD TWO YEARS
PRECEDING IMPOSITION OF THE TAX AND THE SIX MONTHS THEREAFTER (FEBRUARY
TO JULY, 1936).  SECS. 907(B), (C).  IF THE MARGINS FOR THE TAX PERIOD
ARE LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE BASE PERIOD, IT IS "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE"
THAT, TO THAT EXTENT, THE CLAIMANT BORE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX; IF THEY
ARE NOT LOWER, IT IS "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE" THAT NONE OF THE BURDEN WAS
BORNE BY THE CLAIMANT.  SEC. 907(A).  BUT THIS "PRESUMPTION" MAY BE
REBUTTED EITHER BY THE CLAIMANT OR BY THE COMMISSIONER, BY PROOF OF
"THE ACTUAL EXTENT" TO WHICH THE CLAIMANT SHIFTED THE TAX TO OTHERS. 
SUCH PROOF MAY INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, CERTAIN TYPES OF
EVIDENCE DESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE.  SEC. 907(E). 

FOR OUR PURPOSES THE MATERIAL FACTS MUST BE GLEANED FROM THE FINDINGS
AND MEMORANDUM OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW AND A STIPULATION FILED BY THE
PARTIES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

PETITIONER IS A GROWER AND PURCHASER OF SUGAR CANE, WHICH IT
PROCESSES INTO DIRECT-CONSUMPTION SUGAR AND EDIBLE MOLASSES.  FN1  IT
OPERATES DURING THE MONTHS OF OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER OF EACH
YEAR.  THE TAX WENT INTO EFFECT ON JUNE 8, 1934 AND PETITIONER PAID
TAXES UNTIL NOVEMBER 8, 1935, SO THAT IT PAID PROCESSING TAXES -
$7,067.12 ON SUGAR AND $1,102.85 ON MOLASSES - FOR THE MONTHS OF
OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 1934 AND OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 1935.  ITS
AVERAGE STATUTORY MARGIN FOR THIS PERIOD WAS $.01192, AND THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF UNITS PROCESSED WAS 2,256,676 POUNDS OF SUGAR.  PETITIONER'S
BASE PERIOD CONSISTED ONLY OF THE TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE TAX BECAUSE IT
DID NO PROCESSING IN THE SIX MONTHS FEBRUARY TO JULY 1936.  ITS AVERAGE
STATUTORY MARGIN PER UNIT FOR THE BASE PERIOD WAS $.01354.  THUS THE
MARGIN DURING THE TAX PERIOD WAS $.00162 PER UNIT LOWER THAN THAT
DURING THE BASE PERIOD, CREATING "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE" THAT PETITIONER
HAD BORNE THE TAX TO THE EXTENT OF $3,655.82, THE AMOUNT OF REFUND
ALLOWED BY THE BOARD.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THIS AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN INCREASED BY INCLUDING IN THE MARGINS ITS FIRST PROCESSING AFTER
INVALIDATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, WHICH WAS ITS
PROCESSING OF THE 1936 CROP, OCTOBER 1936 TO JANUARY 1937.  THE AVERAGE
MARGIN PER UNIT FOR THIS PERIOD, COMPUTED AS FOR THE BASE PERIOD, WAS
$.01582, OR $.00228 MORE THAN THE BASE-PERIOD MARGIN. 

EVIDENCE THAT THE TAX WAS NOT BORNE BY PETITIONER WAS AS FOLLOWS:
UNIVERSAL INCREASES IN THE SALE PRICE OF SUGAR WERE EFFECTED ON THE
DATE OF IMPOSITION OF THE PROCESSING TAX IN THE AMOUNT OF $.55 PER
HUNDRED POUNDS, TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX.  ALL OF THE ACCOUNTS
STATED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ITS BROKER, E. A. RAINOLD, INC.,
RESPECTING SALES OF MOLASSES MADE THROUGH THAT BROKER, INCLUDING THE
PROCESSING TAX AS A SEPARATE ITEM AND AS AN ADDITION TO THE SALE PRICE
OF THE ARTICLE.  "AN ACCOUNT SALE, TYPICAL OF ALL SUCH ACCOUNTS,
RESPECTING THE SALES OF SUGAR, MADE THROUGH ITS SAID BROKER" BORE THE
NOTATION, "GOLDEN RIDGE, 100 PKTS.  10,000#  3.71[ $371.00.  F.O.B.
PLTN.  TAX PD. TAX 0.526[," $.526 BEING THE PREVAILING RATE OF
PROCESSING TAX AT THE TIME THE PARTICULAR ACCOUNT WAS RENDERED.  A
LETTER FROM THE BROKER RAINOLD TO PETITIONER, DATED JANUARY 17, 1936,
CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING:  "ACCORDING TO MEMORANDUM YOU FURNISHED US ON
PROCESSING TAX YOU PAID ON 298,017 POUNDS OF SUGAR, AND WE HAVE
ACCOUNTED TO YOU FOR THERE (THREE) CARS OF 800 POCKETS AND PART CAR OF
300 POCKETS AND WHEN WE GET PAID FOR THE BALANCE OF THIS PART CAR, OR
500 POCKETS, IT WILL TOTAL 3200 POCKETS OR 320,000# ON WHICH THE
PROCESSING TAX WAS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE.  THEREFORE YOU HAVE NOT PAID
ANY MORE TAX THAN YOU COLLECTED AND THESE SUGARS IN WAREHOUSE HERE AND
ELSEWHERE, THAT IS CHICAGO, OR (ARE) REALLY TAX FREE." 

ON THE FOREGOING FACTS THE BOARD OF REVIEW FOUND THAT "THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THE PROCESSING TAX (WAS) PAID AND BORNE BY THE PETITIONER AND NOT
SHIFTED TO OTHERS IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER IS $3,655.82," AND IT
AWARDED REFUND IN THAT AMOUNT.  THIS AWARD WAS BASED, THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS THOUGHT, "UPON THE THEORY THAT THE CLAIMANT HAD ESTABLISHED
FACTS SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT IT HAD BORNE
THE BURDEN OF THE TAX" TO THAT EXTENT.  IN THE VIEW OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE "CLEARLY WAS SUFFICIENT TO DISSOLVE THE
PRESUMPTION, AND SINCE THERE WAS NO OTHER PROOF TO SUPPORT ANY REFUND,
THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY." 

OUR FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THE BOARD WAS ENTITLED TO BASE AN AWARD
UPON THE STATUTORY "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE" OR "PRESUMPTION," OR WHETHER
THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE REMOVED THE PRESUMPTION FROM THE CASE AS A
MATTER OF LAW.  FOR, ALTHOUGH THE BOARD DID NOT STATE HOW IT ARRIVED AT
ITS AWARD, IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT IT RELIED UPON THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
PROVISIONS AND NOT UPON A WEIGHING OF THE EVIDENCE; PETITIONER DOES NOT
ASSIGN ERROR TO THE CONTRARY, ALTHOUGH IT CONTENDS THAT THE EVIDENCE
SUPPORTS THE BOARD'S AWARD. 

THE STATUTE, UNFORTUNATELY, IS BESET BY THE AMBIGUITY AND THE
IMPRECISION OF DEFINITION WHICH ARE NOT UNCOMMON WITH RESPECT TO
PRESUMPTIONS.  BUT THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE SUBJECT WILL NOT EXCUSE US
FROM THE DUTY TO APPLY AS BEST WE MAY A STATUTE CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT
TO ENACT.  AT ONE POINT IT SPEAKS ONLY OF "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE" AND AT
ANOTHER IT REFERS TO THE PRIOR SECTION AS CREATING A "PRESUMPTION." 
"PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE" ALONE MIGHT BE TAKEN TO SIGNIFY ONLY A
PERMISSIVE INFERENCE, INDICATING THAT THE COMMISSIONER OR THE COURTS
MIGHT, IF THEY SAW FIT, PERMIT A RECOVERY SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE
MARGIN EVIDENCE.  SEE CRANE V. MORRIS, 6 PET. 598, 621; BAILEY V.
ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219, 234; 9 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED. 1940) SEC.
2494.  BUT THE STATUTE'S LATER USE OF THE WORD "PRESUMPTION" AND THE
CAREFUL DETAIL WITH WHICH THE MARGIN EVIDENCE AND REBUTTAL EVIDENCE ARE
DESCRIBED ARGUE AGAINST SUCH AN INTERPRETATION, AS DOES THE LEGISLATIVE
BACKGROUND.  A COMMITTEE REPORT ON TITLE VII, EXPLAINING THE NECESSITY
FOR AMENDING THE EXISTING REFUND PROVISIONS, STATED:  "IT HAS BEEN
CONTENDED THAT WHILE THAT SECTION (SEC. 21(D) OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT) STATES THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSIONER MAY
DENY A REFUND OF TAXES PAID, IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH AFFIRMATIVELY ANY
CONDITIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH WILL ENABLE THE CLAIMANT TO SECURE A
REFUND."  SEN. REP. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 33.  FROM THIS IT
SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE NEW PROVISION WAS MEANT TO PRESCRIBE A MINIMUM OF
PROOF WHICH WOULD REQUIRE REFUND IN THE ABSENCE OF OPPOSING EVIDENCE. 
THEREFORE THE INFERENCE ARISING FROM THE MARGIN EVIDENCE MUST BE A
COMPELLED ONE. 

THE STATUTE DOES NOT TELL, HOWEVER, ON WHAT EVENT THE EXISTENCE OF
THE PRESUMED FACT MUST CEASE TO BE ASSUMED BY THE TRIER.  DOES THE
PRESUMPTION CEASE TO OPERATE AS SOON AS THE COMMISSIONER HAS MET THE
BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE TO SHOW SHIFTING OF THE TAX, OR
DOES IT PLACE ON HIM THE BURDEN OF PROOF?  THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COURT
BELOW, TAKING THE FORMER VIEW, SUPPORT IT WITH THE CONTENTION THAT "IT
IS NEVER THE FUNCTION OF A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION TO SHIFT THE BURDEN
OF PROOF."  COMMISSIONER V. BAIN PEANUT CO., 134 F.2D 853, 857.  IT IS
UNNECESSARY FOR US TO TAKE SO BROAD A GROUND, EVEN IF IT IS CORRECT. 
FN2  DEALING ONLY WITH THE PARTICULAR PRESUMPTION NOW BEFORE US, WE
FIND NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS ATTACHED EXCEPTIONAL PROBATIVE
VALUE TO THE MARGIN EVIDENCE, OR THAT IT DESIRED FOR ANY OTHER REASON
TO TILT THE SCALES SHARPLY AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER RATHER THAN MERELY
TO EVEN THEM SOMEWHAT IN BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS.  THERE IS, FOR EXAMPLE,
NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THE COMMISSIONER IS BETTER ABLE THAN THE
PROCESSOR TO PROVE WHERE THE TAX BURDEN FELL.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
SPECIAL PROBLEM HERE OF PREVENTING UNJUST ENRICHMENT, ADDED TO THE
USUAL STRICT EXAMINATION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, CONVINCES
THAT CONGRESS PROBABLY INTENDED TO LEAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE
CLAIMANT.  CF. UNITED STATES V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 291 U.S.
386. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLEARER STATEMENT IN THE STATUTE, THEREFORE, WE
THINK THE PRESUMPTION IS GIVEN ADEQUATE EFFECT IF THE BURDEN IS PLACED
ON THE COMMISSIONER OF GOING FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE CLAIMANT DID NOT ABSORB THE TAX.  ONCE SUCH
EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED, THE PRESUMPTION BECOMES INOPERATIVE AND THE
ISSUE IS TO BE DETERMINED AS IF THERE HAD NEVER BEEN A PRESUMPTION. 
THE STATUTE DECLARES, HOWEVER, THAT THE PRESUMPTION MAY BE REBUTTED BY
PROOF OF "THE ACTUAL EXTENT" TO WHICH THE BURDEN OF THE TAX WAS
SHIFTED.  THIS LANGUAGE APPEARS TO MEAN THAT THE PRESUMPTION MAY BE
REBUTTED PRO TANTO, AND NOT NECESSARILY ALL AT ONCE OR NOT AT ALL. 
THUS IT DOES NOT CEASE TO OPERATE ON INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE MERELY
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT SOME OF THE TAX WAS SHIFTED.  IT
MUST BE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE ENTIRE TAX
WAS SHIFTED.  SHORT OF THAT, THE PRESUMPTION IS NOT ELIMINATED BUT ONLY
DIMINISHED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE REBUTTAL EVIDENCE WILL SUPPORT A
CONTRADICTORY FINDING.  SEE REGENSBURG & SONS V. HELVERING, 130 F.2D
507, 509.  WHEN THE MARGINS ARE UNFAVORABLE TO THE TAXPAYER AND
FAVORABLE TO THE COMMISSIONER, IT IS UNNECESSARY, OF COURSE, TO PLACE A
BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE ON THE CLAIMANT, FOR HE HAS THAT
BURDEN ANYWAY, AS WELL AS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  WHETHER THIS MEANS THAT
THE STATUTE'S LANGUAGE MAKING THE PRESUMPTION OPERATE IN FAVOR OF THE
COMMISSIONER IS SUPERFLUOUS, OR THAT IN SUCH A CASE THE PRESUMPTION
MUST BE GIVEN A DIFFERENT EFFECT THAN WHEN IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANT, WE
DO NOT NOW DECIDE.  CF. REGENSBURG & SONS V. HELVERING, SUPRA. 

ON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE STATUTE, THE PROOF INTRODUCED BY THE
COMMISSIONER MADE THE PRESUMPTION INOPERATIVE.  WE CERTAINLY COULD NOT
SAY THAT, VIEWED BY ITSELF, THE COMMISSIONER'S EVIDENCE WOULD NOT
PERMIT A FINDING THAT PETITIONER SHIFTED THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF THE TAX. 
IT TENDED TO SHOW THAT IN ALL DEALINGS WITH ITS BROKER THE PETITIONER
ADDED THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX TO THE SALE PRICE AND ITEMIZED IT
SEPARATELY.  THAT THIS WAS TRUE AS TO ALL SALES OF MOLASSES SEEMS TO BE
CONCEDED.  IT WAS ALSO TRUE, OR SO IT MIGHT BE FOUND, AS TO A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE SUGAR SALES AND THEREFORE INFERENTIALLY AS TO
ALL SUCH SALES.  PETITIONER RAISES SOME QUESTION AS TO THE PROPER
INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE SUGAR ACCOUNT AND THE BROKER'S LETTER
QUOTED ABOVE.  BUT AT LEAST THE BROKER'S REMARKS THAT "THE PROCESSING
TAX WAS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE" AND "THEREFORE YOU HAVE NOT PAID ANY
MORE TAX THAN YOU COLLECTED" ARE UNMISTAKABLE IN THEIR MEANING.  ALL OF
THIS EVIDENCE IS AMONG THE KINDS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED BY THE STATUTE AS
TENDING TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION.  MORE IMPORTANT, THE STATUTE APPEARS
SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE THAT INTRODUCTION OF ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS
PARTICULAR KIND SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE ENTIRE PRESUMPTION. 
IT STATES THAT THE PRESUMPTION MAY BE REBUTTED BY RPOOF THAT THE
CLAIMANT MODIFIED SALES CONTRACTS TO REFLECT THE INITIATION,
TERMINATION, OR CHANGE IN AMOUNT OF THE TAX, OR "AT ANY SUCH TIME"
CHANGED THE SALE PRICE OF THE ARTICLE, OR "AT ANY TIME" BILLED THE TAX
AS A SEPARATE ITEM, OR INDICATED "BY ANY WRITING" THAT THE SALE PRICE
INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX.  IT THEN DECLARES, "BUT THE CLAIMANT
MAY ESTABLISH THAT SUCH ACTS  ...  DO NOT REPRESENT HIS PRACTICE AT
OTHER TIMES."  SEC. 907(2).  THIS SEEMS CLEARLY TO MEAN THAT WHEN ANY
EXAMPLES OF THE NAMED PRACTICES ARE PROVED, IT MAY BE INFERRED THAT
THEY REPRESENT THE UNIFORM PRACTICE OF THE CLAIMANT AND THE BURDEN
BECOMES HIS TO PROVE THAT THEY DO NOT.  SINCE THE COMMISSIONER PROVED
THAT NOT ONLY IN A FEW CASES BUT IN A GREAT NUMBER THE TAX WAS
INDICATED IN WRITING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SALE PRICE, WE THINK THERE
IS NO DOUBT THAT HE FULLY REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE STATUTE. 

THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHETHER, WITH THE PRESUMPTION OUT OF THE CASE,
THERE IS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE TAX COURT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO AWARD A
REFUND TO PETITIONER IN ANY AMOUNT.  THE COURT BELOW, ALTHOUGH IT
REMANDED THE CAUSE, APPARENTLY MEANT FOR IT TO BE DISMISSED, FOR IT
SAID, THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY." 
LITERALLY, OF COURSE, THIS CANNOT BE TRUE, FOR THE MARGIN EVIDENCE
REMAINED IN THE CASE FOR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE WORTH APART FROM THE
PRESUMPTION.  WITH THIS THE GOVERNMENT AGREES, AND IT CONCEDES THAT,
UNLESS WE CAN SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT RATIONALLY SUPPORT A
FINDING IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER, THE CASE MUST GO BACK TO THE TAX COURT
FOR DECISION ON THE EVIDENCE RATHER THAN ON THE PRESUMPTION.  WE MUST
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS EVIDENCE WHICH IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, BUT WE MAY NOT WEIGH IT.  DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489. 

THE FACT THAT MARGINS FOR THE TAX PERIOD ARE LOWER THAN THOSE FOR THE
BASE PERIOD HAS SOME LOGICAL TENDENCY TO ESTABLISH THAT THE BURDEN OF
THE TAX WAS BORNE BY THE PROCESSOR.  SEE ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS,
301 U.S. 337, 354.  THERE ARE, TO BE SURE, OTHER AND CONFLICTING
INFERENCES WHICH MAY ALSO BE DRAWN.  AS THE MARGINS ARE DEFINED, THE
DROP MIGHT BE DUE TO A DECLINE IN THE DEMAND FOR THE PROCESSED GOODS,
OR TO A DECREASE IN THE YIELD OF THE RAW COMMODITY, OR TO AN INCREASE
IN THE PRICE OF THE RAW COMMODITY.  BUT WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR SAYING
THAT THE MARGIN THUS DEFINED DOES NOT TEND TO BE COMPARATIVELY STABLE
AND THAT A FALL COINCIDENT WITH IMPOSITION OF A TAX WOULD NOT MORE
LIKELY REFLECT THE TAX THAN A CHANGE IN OTHER FACTORS.  WE SUPPOSE THE
TAKING OF AVERAGE MARGINS OVER A BASE PERIOD HAS SOME TENDENCY TO
PRODUCE THAT RESULT.  AND THE TAX COURT'S SPECIAL EXPERIENCE MIGHT
SUPPORT SUCH AN INFERENCE.  CF. DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA. CONGRESS
APPARENTLY BELIEVED THAT THE RATIONAL CONNECTION WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO
JUSTIFY BASING A FINDING OF ABSORPTION ON THE MARGIN EVIDENCE ALONE. 
FOR, AS WE HAVE SEEN, CONGRESS INTENDED THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE
MARGINS WERE FAVORABLE TO THE CLAIMANT AND NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS
INTRODUCED THE CLAIMANT SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO A REFUND, AND THERE
APPEARS NO REASON OF CONVENIENCE OR POLICY WHICH WOULD LEAD TO SUCH A
RULE IN THE ABSENCE OF RATIONAL CONNECTION.  FOR ALL THESE REASONS WE
THINK A FINDING OF ABSORPTION WHICH WAS BASED SOLELY ON THE MARGIN
COMPARISONS WOULD NOT BE IRRATIONAL. 

NOR IS THE COMMISSIONER'S EVIDENCE SO CONCLUSIVE AS TO DEPRIVE THE
MARGIN EVIDENCE OF ALL SIGNIFICANCE.  IT PERMITS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE A
FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD A UNIFORM PRACTICE OF BILLING THE TAX AS A
SEPARATE ITEM.  EVEN THOUGH SUCH A PRACTICE BE INFERRED, THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW FAR PETITIONER SUCCEEDED IN ITS EFFORT TO PASS THE
TAX ON, EXCEPT FOR THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A GENERAL RISE IN THE
MARKET ON A DATE SOME MONTHS BEFORE PETITIONER'S PROCESSING BEGAN.  THE
MARGINS ARE SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE PRICE MAY NOT HAVE RESPONDED
CONTINUOUSLY TO THE EFFORT TO SHIFT THE TAX.  THE FACT MAY BE THAT
NEITHER SIDE'S EVIDENCE GOES VERY FAR TOWARD DEMONSTRATING WHERE THE
BURDEN OF THE TAX FELL; FN3  THE INQUIRY IS AT BEST A DIFFICULT ONE. 
BUT WE DO NOT THINK IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE RECORD IS DEVOID OF
RATIONAL SUPPORT FOR A FINDING THAT PETITIONER ABSORBED SOME OF THE
TAX.  ACCORDINGLY WE MUST REMAND THE CASE FOR A WEIGHING OF THE
EVIDENCE, INCLUDING, OF COURSE, SUCH FURTHER EVIDENCE AS THE TAX COURT
MAY THINK IT PROPER TO RECEIVE IN VIEW OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE CASE HAS
BEEN TRIED.  IN DOING SO WE INTIMATE NO OPINION, OF COURSE, AS TO
WHETHER PETITIONER HAS SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF PROOF PLACED UPON IT BY
THE STATUTE. 

SINCE THE CASE MUST GO BACK, IT IS NECESSARY TO PASS UPON A FURTHER
QUESTION RAISED BY PETITIONER.  PETITIONER, AS WE HAVE NOTED, WAS NOT
PROCESSING DURING THE SIX MONTHS, FEBRUARY TO JULY 1936, DESIGNATED BY
THE STATUTE FOR COMPUTING MARGINS AFTER THE TAX PERIOD.  FOR SUCH A
CASE THE STATUTE PROVIDES:  "IF DURING ANY PART OF SUCH PERIOD THE
CLAIMANT WAS NOT IN BUSINESS  ... THE AVERAGE PRICES PAID OR RECEIVED
BY REPRESENTATIVE CONCERNS ENGAGED IN A SIMILAR BUSINESS AND SIMILARLY
CIRCUMSTANCED MAY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER, WHERE
NECESSARY FOR A FAIR COMPARISON, BE SUBSTITUTED IN MAKING THE NECESSARY
COMPUTATIONS."  SEC. 907(C).  CONTENDING THAT THERE WERE NO SIMILARLY
CIRCUMSTANCED CONCERNS, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO USE THE FIGURES OF A LATER
PERIOD, THAT OF ITS OWN 1936 PRODUCTION, IN COMPUTING THE BASE-PERIOD
MARGINS, WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE THOSE MARGINS HIGHER.  WE THINK THE
BOARD AND THE COURT BELOW WERE CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE STATUTORY
METHOD OF MAKING A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS EXCLUSIVE AND THAT THE 1936
EVIDENCE MIGHT NOT BE SO USED.  THE STATUTE'S RESTRICTIONS, HOWEVER,
HAVE REFERENCE ONLY TO THE PRESUMPTION; THEY DO NOT EXCLUDE OTHER
EVIDENCE GENERALLY RELEVANT ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE TAX BURDEN WAS
SHIFTED.  THE 1936 EXPERIENCE, THOUGH IT COULD NOT HELP PETITIONER TO
CREATE A FAVORABLE PRESUMPTION, WAS ENTITLED TO BE GIVEN WHATEVER
PROBATIVE VALUE IT MIGHT INDEPENDENTLY HAVE HAD AND, SUBJECT TO THE
USUAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMISSIBILITY, WAS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE.  ANNISTON
MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337, 355-56. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS MODIFIED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE TAX COURT FOR
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  THIS PROCESSING WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX BY THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1934,
C. 263, 48 STAT. 670, AMENDING THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.  SEE
ESPECIALLY SEC. 9(D)(6)(A) AND (B) OF THE ACT AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C.
SECS. 609(D)(6)(A), (B). 

FN2  BUT SEE, E.G., MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 82, 88-91; PAGE
V. PHELPS, 108 CONN. 572, 143 A. 890; WEBER V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R.
CO., 175 IOWA 358, 151 N.W. 852; BOND V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO R.
CO., 315 MO. 987, 288 S.W. 777; HOLZHEIMER V. LIT BROTHERS, 262 PA.
150, 105 A. 73; MORGAN, INSTRUCTING THE JURY UPON PRESUMPTIONS AND
BURDEN OF PROOF (1933) 47 HARV. L. REV. 59, 77-83, SOME OBSERVATIONS
CONCERNING PRESUMPTIONS (1931) 44 HARV. L. REV. 906; BOHLEN, STUDIES IN
THE LAW OF TORTS (1926) 636, 637, 648-53; AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, MODEL
CODE OF EVIDENCE, RULE 703. 

FN3  SEE JOHNSON, AAA REFUNDS:  A STUDY IN TAX INCIDENCE (1937) 37
COL. L. REV. 910. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I DOUBT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO INVOLVE THE AWARD OF REFUNDS OF
PROCESSING TAXES IN THE ABSTRUSE LEARNING OF "DISAPPEARING
PRESUMPTIONS."  IN MY OPINION THE TERMS "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE" AND
"PRESUMPTION" MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN USED INTERCHANGEABLY IN THE
STATUTE.  I THINK NO MORE WAS INTENDED THAN TO AUTHORIZE A FINDING IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MARGIN EVIDENCE, IF NO OTHER WERE PRESENTED; AND IN
CASE OPPOSING EVIDENCE SHOULD BE OFFERED, TO ALLOW INFERENCE EITHER WAY
ACCORDING TO THE WEIGHT OF THE PROOF, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE MARGIN
EVIDENCE.  HENCE, IN THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE, I WOULD REST ON THE
DECISION OF THE PROCESSING TAX BOARD OF REVIEW, WHICH ON THE RECORD
REASONABLY MAY BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN REACHED IN THIS MANNER. 

I ALSO THINK THE STATUTE FORBIDS GOING OUTSIDE THE BASE PERIODS
PRESCRIBED FOR COMPARATIVE DATA.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD NULLIFY THE
BASE PERIOD PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WHICH I THINK ARE VALID.  THE CAUSE
OF ACTION HERE RESTS ON A WAIVER OF THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY TO SUIT
WHICH CONGRESS MAY MAKE UPON SUCH CONDITIONS AS IT CHOOSES.  NICHOLS V.
UNITED STATES, 7 WALL.  122; LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272
U.S. 533, 536; MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 388.  ALLOWING
IN THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING OTHER PERIODS, THOUGH NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COMPUTING MARGINS, ACCOMPLISHES INDIRECTLY WHAT THE BASE PERIOD
PROVISIONS WERE DESIGNED TO PROHIBIT. 

ACCORDINGLY, I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE REVERSED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE
PROCESSING TAX BOARD OF REVIEW. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THESE VIEWS. 
..END :



MEXICO V. HOFFMAN, 324 U.S. 30 


NO. 455.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 12, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  -
143 F.2D 854, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE DECISIONS OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW THAT THE VESSEL IN QUESTION
WAS NOT IN THE POSSESSION OR SERVICE OF THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT ARE
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 33. 

2.  A MERCHANT VESSEL OWNED BUT NOT POSSESSED BY A FRIENDLY FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT HELD NOT IMMUNE FROM A SUIT IN REM IN ADMIRALTY, WHERE THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS REFRAINED FROM CERTIFYING THAT IT ALLOWS THE
IMMUNITY OR RECOGNIZES OWNERSHIP OF THE VESSEL WITHOUT POSSESSION BY
THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AS A GROUND FOR IMMUNITY.  PP. 36, 38. 

3.  SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS LONG AND CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED
THE POLICY OF RECOGNIZING IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OF A VESSEL IN THE
POSSESSION AND SERVICE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED
SUCH IMMUNITY UPON PROOF OF SUCH POSSESSION AND USE EVEN WHEN NOT
CERTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.  P. 36. 

4.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURTS, IN A MATTER SO INTIMATELY
ASSOCIATED WITH OUR FOREIGN POLICY AND WHICH MAY PROFOUNDLY AFFECT IT,
NOT TO ENLARGE AN IMMUNITY TO AN EXTENT WHICH THE GOVERNMENT, THOUGH IT
HAS HAD NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES, HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO RECOGNIZE.  P. 38. 

REPUBLIC OF MEXICO ET AL. V. HOFFMAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 697, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE LIBELLANT IN A SUIT IN REM IN ADMIRALTY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ADOPTION OF ANY
GUIDING POLICY BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE FEDERAL
COURTS SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE IMMUNITY FROM A SUIT IN REM IN ADMIRALTY OF
A MERCHANT VESSEL SOLELY BECAUSE IT IS OWNED THOUGH NOT POSSESSED BY A
FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. 

RESPONDENT, OWNER AND MASTER OF THE LOTTIE CARSON, AN AMERICAN
FISHING VESSEL, FILED A LIBEL IN REM IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AGAINST THE BAJA CALIFORNIA, HER ENGINES, MACHINERY, TACKLE
AND FURNITURE, FOR DAMAGE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED WHEN THE BAJA
CALIFORNIA NEGLIGENTLY CAUSED HER TOW TO COLLIDE WITH THE LOTTIE CARSON
IN MEXICAN WATERS.  THE MEXICAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES, ACTING
IN BEHALF OF HIS GOVERNMENT, THEREUPON FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A
SUGGESTION THAT THE BAJA CALIFORNIA AT ALL TIMES MENTIONED IN THE LIBEL
AND AT THE TIME OF HER SEIZURE WAS OWNED BY THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO AND
IN ITS POSSESSION, AND ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF CARGOES BETWEEN
THE PORTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO AND ELSEWHERE.  LIBELLANT PUT IN
ISSUE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE SUGGESTION THAT TITLE TO THE BAJA
CALIFORNIA WAS AT ANY TIME IN THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT AND DENIED THAT
SHE WAS IN THAT GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION, PUBLIC SERVICE OR USE.  TRIAL
OF THESE ISSUES PROCEEDED UPON STIPULATED EVIDENCE. 

IN THE MEANTIME THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT, ACTING
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FILED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT A COMMUNICATION FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, IN WHICH THE STATE DEPARTMENT CALLED ATTENTION TO THE CLAIM OF
THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, ALREADY DETAILED.  THE DEPARTMENT TOOK NO
POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSERTED IMMUNITY OF THE VESSEL FROM SUIT
OTHER THAN TO CITE ERVIN V. QUINTANILLA, 99 F.2D 935, AND COMPANIA
ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR, 303 U.S. 68.  IN ERVIN V. QUINTANILLA, SUPRA,
THE ASSERTED IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OF THE SAN RICARDO, A VESSEL OF THE
MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, WAS ALLOWED BY THE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT AT THE
TIME OF HER SEIZURE UPON A LIBEL IN REM SHE WAS IN THE POSSESSION AND
SERVICE OF THAT GOVERNMENT.  AND IN COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR,
SUPRA, THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVING FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE CLAIMED
IMMUNITY OF THE SPANISH VESSEL NAVEMAR, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
EXPROPRIATED BY AND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE FRIENDLY REPUBLIC OF SPAIN
AT THE TIME OF HER SEIZURE UPON A LIBEL IN REM, THIS COURT DENIED THE
CLAIMED IMMUNITY ON THE GROUND THAT THE LIBELLED VESSEL WAS NOT SHOWN
TO HAVE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION AND PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS UNABLE TO FIND, UNDER THE RULE OF THE NAVEMAR,
SUPRA, ANY GROUND FOR RELINQUISHING THE JURISDICTION OVER THE VESSEL,
AND ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF IMMUNITY.  THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT
THEN FILED AN ANSWER TO THE LIBEL BY WHICH IT PUT IN ISSUE THE MATERIAL
ALLEGATIONS OF THE LIBEL ON THE MERITS AND RENEWED ITS CLAIM OF
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM THE SUIT.  THE COURT THEN PROCEEDED WITH THE
TRIAL ON THE MERITS. 

A SECOND SUGGESTION WAS THEN FILED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AT
THE DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TRANSMITTING A COMMUNICATION
FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT, STATING THAT IT ACCEPTED AS TRUE THE
CONTENTION THAT THE BAJA CALIFORNIA WAS THE PROPERTY OF THE MEXICAN
GOVERNMENT AND THAT IT RECOGNIZED A STATEMENT BY THE MEXICAN AMBASSADOR
THAT HIS GOVERNMENT WOULD MEET ANY LIABILITY DECREED AGAINST THE VESSEL
AS A BINDING INTERNATIONAL UNDERTAKING.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
CLAIM OF IMMUNITY, FINDING THAT THE SHIP WAS IN "THE POSSESSION,
OPERATION, AND CONTROL" OF THE COMPANIA MEXICANA DE NAVIGACION DEL
PACIFICO, S. DE R.L.  THIS WAS A PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED MEXICAN
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE COMMERCIAL CARRIAGE OF CARGOES FOR HIRE FOR
PRIVATE SHIPPERS.  ON THE MERITS THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
THE LIBELLANT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 143 F.2D
854, HOLDING ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE NAVEMAR, SUPRA, AND THE KATINGO
HADJIPATERA, 119 F.2D 1022, THAT THE BAJA CALIFORNIA, ALTHOUGH OWNED BY
THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, WAS NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT BECAUSE NOT IN ITS
POSSESSION AND SERVICE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 697, ON A
PETITION WHICH PRESENTED THE QUESTION WHETHER TITLE OF THE VESSEL
WITHOUT POSSESSION IN THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO CALL FOR
JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF THE ASSERTED IMMUNITY. 

THE DECISIONS OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW THAT THE VESSEL WAS NOT IN THE
POSSESSION OR SERVICE OF THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT ARE SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE AND CALL FOR NO EXTENDED REVIEW HERE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT
IT APPEARS THAT BEFORE THE INJURY TO THE LOTTIE CARSON THE BAJA
CALIFORNIA WAS DELIVERED BY THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT TO THE PRIVATELY
OWNED AND OPERATED MEXICAN CORPORATION UNDER A CONTRACT FOR A TERM OF
FIVE YEARS.  AS PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACT THE CORPORATION WAS TO OPERATE
THE VESSEL AT ITS OWN EXPENSE IN A PRIVATE FREIGHTING VENTURE ON THE
HIGH SEAS BETWEEN MEXICAN PORTS AND BETWEEN THEM AND FOREIGN PORTS, AND
DID SO OPERATE THE VESSEL UNTIL HER SEIZURE UPON THE LIBEL.  THE
OFFICERS AND CREW WERE SELECTED, CONTROLLED AND PAID BY THE
CORPORATION.  FOR THE USE OF THE VESSEL THE CORPORATION AGREED TO PAY
TO THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT FIFTY PER CENT OF THE NET PROFITS OF
OPERATIONS BUT UNDERTOOK TO BEAR ALL NET LOSSES. 

THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTION OF PETITIONER IS THAT OUR COURTS SHOULD
RECOGNIZE THE TITLE OF THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT AS A GROUND FOR IMMUNITY
FROM SUIT EVEN THOUGH THE VESSEL WAS NOT IN THE POSSESSION AND PUBLIC
SERVICE OF THAT GOVERNMENT.  EVER SINCE THE EXCHANGE, 7 CRANCH 116,
THIS GOVERNMENT HAS RECOGNIZED SUCH IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, OF A VESSEL IN
THE POSSESSION AND SERVICE OF A FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT,
L'INVINCIBLE, 1 WHEAT.  238, 252; THE DIVINA PASTORA, 4 WHEAT.  52, 64;
UNITED STATES V. CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO., 202 U.S. 184, 190; EX PARTE
MUIR, 254 U.S. 522, 531-533; THE PESARO, 255 U.S. 216, 219; EX PARTE
NEW YORK, 256 U.S. 503, 510; COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR, SUPRA,
74; EX PARTE PERU, 318 U.S. 578, 588, A PRACTICE WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE
BEEN FOLLOWED WITHOUT SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES TO THE COURTS OR
EMBARRASSMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.  AND IN THE
EXCHANGE, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL INTRODUCED THE PRACTICE, SINCE
FOLLOWED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, THAT THEIR JURISDICTION IN REM ACQUIRED
BY THE JUDICIAL SEIZURE OF THE VESSEL OF A FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT,
WILL BE SURRENDERED ON RECOGNITION, ALLOWANCE AND CERTIFICATION OF THE
ASSERTED IMMUNITY BY THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED
WITH THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS WHEN ITS CERTIFICATE TO THAT EFFECT
IS PRESENTED TO THE COURT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  UNITED STATES V.
LEE, 106 U.S. 196, 209; EX PARTE MUIR, SUPRA, 533; THE PESARO, SUPRA,
217; COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR, SUPRA, 74; EX PARTE PERU, SUPRA,
588.  THIS PRACTICE IS FOUNDED UPON THE POLICY RECOGNIZED BOTH BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE COURTS THAT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS WILL BE
BEST SERVED WHEN CONTROVERSIES GROWING OUT OF THE JUDICIAL SEIZURE OF
VESSELS OF FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ARE ADJUSTED THROUGH DIPLOMATIC
CHANNELS RATHER THAN BY THE COMPULSION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. 
COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR, SUPRA; EX PARTE PERU, SUPRA. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF RECOGNITION OF THE CLAIMED IMMUNITY BY THE POLITICAL
BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE COURTS MAY DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER
ALL THE REQUISITES OF IMMUNITY EXIST.  THAT IS TO SAY, IT IS FOR THEM
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE VESSEL WHEN SEIZED WAS THAT OF A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT AND WAS OF A CHARACTER AND OPERATED UNDER CONDITIONS
ENTITLING IT TO THE IMMUNITY IN CONFORMITY TO THE PRINCIPLES ACCEPTED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH THE CONDUCT OF OUR
FOREIGN RELATIONS.  SEE EX PARTE PERU, SUPRA, 588. 

EVERY JUDICIAL ACTION EXERCISING OR RELINQUISHING JURISDICTION OVER
THE VESSEL OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HAS ITS EFFECT UPON OUR RELATIONS
WITH THAT GOVERNMENT.  HENCE IT IS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN DETERMINING
WHETHER A COURT SHOULD EXERCISE OR SURRENDER ITS JURISDICTION IN SUCH
CASES, THAT THE COURTS SHOULD NOT SO ACT AS TO EMBARRASS THE EXECUTIVE
ARM IN ITS CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  "IN SUCH CASES THE JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT OF THIS GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE ACTION OF THE POLITICAL
BRANCH, AND WILL NOT EMBARRASS THE LATTER BY ASSUMING AN ANTAGONISTIC
JURISDICTION."  UNITED STATES V. LEE, SUPRA, 209; EX PARTE PERU, SUPRA,
588. 

IT IS THEREFORE NOT FOR THE COURTS TO DENY AN IMMUNITY WHICH OUR
GOVERNMENT HAS SEEN FIT TO ALLOW, OR TO ALLOW AN IMMUNITY ON NEW
GROUNDS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO RECOGNIZE.  FN1  THE
JUDICIAL SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY OF A FRIENDLY STATE MAY BE REGARDED AS
SUCH AN AFFRONT TO ITS DIGNITY AND MAY SO AFFECT OUR RELATIONS WITH IT,
THAT IT IS AN ACCEPTED RULE OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW GOVERNING THE EXERCISE
OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS THAT THEY ACCEPT AND FOLLOW THE
EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE VESSEL SHALL BE TREATED AS IMMUNE.  EX
PARTE PERU, SUPRA, 588.  BUT RECOGNITION BY THE COURTS OF AN IMMUNITY
UPON PRINCIPLES WHICH THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT HAS NOT
SANCTIONED MAY BE EQUALLY EMBARRASSING TO IT IN SECURING THE PROTECTION
OF OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS AND THEIR RECOGNITION BY OTHER NATIONS. 

WHEN SUCH A SEIZURE OCCURS THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT MAY ADOPT
THE PROCEDURE OF ASKING THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW IT.  BUT THE
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT MAY ALSO PRESENT ITS CLAIM OF IMMUNITY BY APPEARANCE
IN THE SUIT AND BY WAY OF DEFENSE TO THE LIBEL.  IN SUCH A CASE THE
COURT WILL INQUIRE WHETHER THE GROUND OF IMMUNITY IS ONE WHICH IT IS
THE ESTABLISHED POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO RECOGNIZE.  EX PARTE MUIR,
SUPRA, 533; COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR, SUPRA, 74.  SUCH A
POLICY, LONG AND CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED AND OFTEN CERTIFIED BY THE
STATE DEPARTMENT AND FOR THAT REASON ACTED UPON BY THE COURTS EVEN WHEN
NOT SO CERTIFIED, IS THAT OF ALLOWING THE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OF A
VESSEL IN THE POSSESSION AND SERVICE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. 

IT HAS BEEN HELD BELOW, AS IN THE NAVEMAR, TO BE DECISIVE OF THE CASE
THAT THE VESSEL WHEN SEIZED BY JUDICIAL PROCESS WAS NOT IN THE
POSSESSION AND SERVICE OF THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.  HERE BOTH COURTS
HAVE FOUND THAT THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO IS THE OWNER OF THE SEIZED
VESSEL.  THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS CERTIFIED THAT IT RECOGNIZES SUCH
OWNERSHIP, BUT IT HAS REFRAINED FROM CERTIFYING THAT IT ALLOWS THE
IMMUNITY OR RECOGNIZES OWNERSHIP OF THE VESSEL WITHOUT POSSESSION BY
THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT AS A GROUND FOR IMMUNITY.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR
THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS EVER ALLOWED A CLAIM OF IMMUNITY ON THAT
GROUND, AND WE ARE CITED TO NO CASE IN WHICH A FEDERAL COURT HAS DONE
SO.  IN THE DAVIS, 10 WALL.  15, THIS COURT HELD THAT A SALVAGE LIEN
WAS ENFORCIBLE AGAINST PROPERTY BELONGING TO BUT NOT IN ACTUAL
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IN THIS IT FOLLOWED A DECISION OF
JUDGE STORY IN UNITED STATES V. WILDER, FED. CAS. NO. 16,694.  AND IN
THE FIDELITY, FED. CAS. NO. 4,758, CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE SAID OF THE
RULING OF THE DAVIS:  "PROPERTY DOES NOT NECESSARILY BECOME A PART OF
THE SOVEREIGNTY BECAUSE IT IS OWNED BY THE SOVEREIGN.  TO MAKE IT SO IT
MUST BE DEVOTED TO THE PUBLIC USE AND MUST BE EMPLOYED IN CARRYING ON
THE OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT." 

IN THE CASE OF THE NAVEMAR, SUPRA, THE SPANISH AMBASSADOR ASSERTED ON
BEHALF OF THE SPANISH REPUBLIC THAT THE SEIZED VESSEL WAS THE PROPERTY
OF THE REPUBLIC, ACQUIRED BY EXPROPRIATION FROM A SPANISH NATIONAL, BUT
THE CLAIM OF IMMUNITY WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED BY OUR GOVERNMENT
WAS REJECTED BY THE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT WAS
NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL AT THE TIME OF HER ARREST.  FN2 

THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO ALLOW CLAIMS OF
IMMUNITY BASED ON TITLE OF THE CLAIMANT FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WITHOUT
POSSESSION, BOTH BEFORE THE NAVEMAR, SUPRA, LONG V. THE TAMPICO, 16 F.
491, 493, 494(OPINION BY JUDGE ADDISON BROWN); THE JOHNSON LIGHTERAGE
CO. NO. 24, 231 F. 365; THE ATTUALITA, 238 F. 909; THE CARLO POMA, 259
F. 369, 370, REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 255 U.S. 219; THE BEAVERTON,
273 F. 539, 540; AND SINCE, ERVIN V. QUINTANILLA, SUPRA, 941; THE
UXMAL, 40 F.SUPP.  258, 260; THE KATINGO HADJIPATERA, 40 F.SUPP.  546,
119 F.2D 1022; THE LJUBICA MATKOVIC, 49 F.SUPP.  936. 

WHETHER THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN POSSESSION AND TITLE MAY BE THOUGHT
TO DEPEND UPON THE AGGRAVATION OF THE INDIGNITY WHERE THE INTERFERENCE
WITH THE VESSEL OUSTS THE POSSESSION OF A FOREIGN STATE, SULLIVAN V.
SAO PAULO, 122 F.2D 355, 360, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE DISTINCTION IS
SUPPORTED BY THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.  MORE IMPORTANT, AND
WE THINK CONTROLLING IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, IS THE FACT THAT,
DESPITE NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THE PRESENT TO RECOGNIZE IMMUNITY
FROM SUIT OF A VESSEL OWNED AND NOT POSSESSED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT,
THIS GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO DO SO.  WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT IT IS
THE NATIONAL POLICY NOT TO EXTEND THE IMMUNITY IN THE MANNER NOW
SUGGESTED, AND THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURTS, IN A MATTER SO
INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED WITH OUR FOREIGN POLICY AND WHICH MAY PROFOUNDLY
AFFECT IT, NOT TO ENLARGE AN IMMUNITY TO AN EXTENT WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT, ALTHOUGH OFTEN ASKED, HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO RECOGNIZE.  WE
HAVE CONSIDERED BUT DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS OTHER
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER, AS THEY ARE WITHOUT MERIT.  AFFIRMED.    FN1
THIS SALUTARY PRINCIPLE WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN BERIZZI BROS. CO. V. THE
PESARO, 271 U.S. 562, WHERE THE COURT ALLOWED THE IMMUNITY, FOR THE
FIRST TIME, TO A MERCHANT VESSEL OWNED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND IN
ITS POSSESSION AND SERVICE, ALTHOUGH THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD DECLINED
TO RECOGNIZE THE IMMUNITY.  THE PROPRIETY OF THUS EXTENDING THE
IMMUNITY WHERE THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT HAD REFUSED TO
ACT WAS NOT CONSIDERED. 

SINCE THE VESSEL HERE, ALTHOUGH OWNED BY THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, WAS
NOT IN ITS POSSESSION AND SERVICE, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE BERIZZI CASE.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT WE FIND NO
PERSUASIVE GROUND FOR ALLOWING THE IMMUNITY IN THIS CASE, AN IMPORTANT
REASON BEING THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS DECLINED TO RECOGNIZE IT. 

FN2  THE CRISTINA, (1938) A.C. 485, IN WHICH THE IMMUNITY WAS
RECOGNIZED, SEEMS TO HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE POSSESSION
TAKEN IN BEHALF OF THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WAS ACTUAL. 
SIMILARLY IN THE ARANTZAZU MENDI, (1939) A.C. 256, 263, THE SOVEREIGN
WAS "IN FACT IN POSSESSION OF THE SHIP."  IN THE JUPITER, (1924) P.
236, 241, 244(CF. THE JUPITER NO. 2, (1925) P. 69; THE JUPITER NO. 3,
(1927) P. 122, 125), IT APPEARED THAT BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT THE
MASTER HAD REPUDIATED THE POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE PLAINTIFFS
AND HELD THE VESSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT GOVERNMENT.  AND IN THE PORTO
ALEXANDRE, (1920) P. 30, 34, THE VESSEL HAD BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER
THE ORDER OF THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND ON THE PARTICULAR VOYAGE WAS
CARRYING FREIGHT FOR THAT GOVERNMENT.  IN THE ANNETTE; THE DORA, (1919)
P. 105, 111, AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF DECISION WAS THAT THE SOVEREIGN
HAD PARTED WITH POSSESSION.  THE COURT SAID:  "IF IT IS NOT IN
POSSESSION, THE COURT INTERFERES WITH NO SOVEREIGN RIGHT OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY ARRESTING THE VESSEL, NOR DOES IT, BY ARRESTING THE
VESSEL, COMPEL THE GOVERNMENT TO SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OR TO
ABANDON ITS POSSESSION." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

IN BERIZZI BROS. CO. V. THE PESARO, 271 U.S. 562, THIS COURT HELD FOR
THE FIRST TIME THAT "MERCHANT SHIPS OWNED AND OPERATED BY A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT HAVE THE SAME IMMUNITY THAT WARSHIPS HAVE."  IT DID SO NOT
BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY APPROPRIATE SUGGESTION OR THROUGH
ITS ESTABLISHED POLICY HAD INDICATED THAT DUE REGARD FOR OUR
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COUNSELED SUCH AN ABNEGATION OF JURISDICTION
OVER GOVERNMENT-OWNED MERCHANTMEN.  ON THE CONTRARY.  IN ANSWER TO AN
INQUIRY BY JUDGE MACK, BEFORE WHOM THE PESARO'S CLAIM TO IMMUNITY WAS
FIRST RAISED, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TOOK THIS POSITION:  "IT IS THE
VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT GOVERNMENT-OWNED MERCHANT VESSELS OR
VESSELS UNDER REQUISITION OF GOVERNMENTS WHOSE FLAG THEY FLY EMPLOYED
IN COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS ENTITLED TO THE IMMUNITIES
ACCORDED PUBLIC VESSELS OF WAR.  THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT CLAIMED
IMMUNITY FOR AMERICAN VESSELS OF THIS CHARACTER."  THE PESARO, 277 F.
473, 479-480, NOTE 3; AND SEE 2 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW,
PP. 429-430, 438-439.  THUS, IN BERIZZI BROS. CO. V. THE PESARO, SUPRA,
THIS COURT FELT FREE TO REJECT THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS ON
INTERNATIONAL POLICY AND TO FORMULATE ITS OWN JUDGMENT ON WHAT WISE
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEMANDED.  THE COURT NOW SEEMS TO INDICATE,
HOWEVER, THAT WHEN, UPON THE SEIZURE OF A VESSEL OF A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS CLAIMED, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE
VESSEL "WAS OF A CHARACTER AND OPERATED UNDER CONDITIONS ENTITLING IT
TO THE IMMUNITY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLES ACCEPTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN
RELATIONS." 

IF THIS BE AN IMPLIED RECESSION FROM THE DECISION IN BERIZZI BROS.
CO. V. THE PESARO, I HEARTILY WELCOME IT.  ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT
BORROW TROUBLE BY WORRYING ABOUT A CASE NOT CALLING FOR DECISION.  IT
IS FOR ME NOT BORROWING TROUBLE TO RAISE THE RELATION OF THE PESARO
DECISION TO THE SITUATION NOW BEFORE THE COURT.  I APPRECIATE THAT THE
DISPOSITION OF THE PRESENT CASE TURNS ON THE WANT OF POSSESSION BY THE
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO.  MY DIFFICULTY IS THAT "POSSESSION" IS TOO TENUOUS
A DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT-OWNED VESSELS ENGAGED MERELY IN TRADE THAT ARE IMMUNE FROM
SUIT AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT.  POSSESSION, ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, IS A
LEGAL CONCEPT FULL OF PITFALLS.  EVEN WHERE ONLY PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE
INVOLVED THE DETERMINATION OF POSSESSION, AS BANKRUPTCY CASES, FOR
INSTANCE, ABUNDANTLY PROVE, ENGENDERS MUCH CONFUSION AND CONFLICT. 
ASCERTAINMENT OF WHAT CONSTITUTES POSSESSION OR WHERE IT IS, IS TOO
SUBTLE AND PRECARIOUS A TASK FOR TRANSFER TO A FIELD IN WHICH
INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS AND SUSCEPTIBILITIES ARE INVOLVED. 

IF THE REPUBLIC OF MEXICO NOW SAW FIT TO PUT ONE JUNIOR NAVAL OFFICER
ON MERCHANTMEN WHICH IT OWNS BUT ARE OPERATED BY A PRIVATE AGENCY UNDER
ARRANGEMENTS GIVING THAT GOVERNMENT A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE
VENTURE, IT WOULD, I SHOULD SUPPOSE, BE EMBARRASSING TO FIND THAT
MEXICO HERSELF DID NOT INTEND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF SUCH SHIPS.  AND,
CERTAINLY, THE TERMS OF THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT BY WHICH THE
COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE BEFORE THE COURT IS CARRIED ON CAN READILY BE
VARIED WITHOUT MUCH CHANGE IN SUBSTANCE TO MANIFEST A RELATION TO THE
SHIP BY MEXICO WHICH COULD NOT EASILY BE DEEMED TO DISCLOSE A WANT OF
POSSESSION BY MEXICO. 

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE RESULT IN BERIZZI BROS. CO. V. THE
PESARO, SUPRA, WAS REACHED WITHOUT SUBMISSION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE OF ITS RELEVANT POLICIES IN THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS
AND LARGELY ON THE BASIS OF CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE STEADILY LOST
WHATEVER VALIDITY THEY MAY THEN HAVE HAD.  COMPARE THE OVERRULING OF
THE THOMAS JEFFERSON, 10 WHEAT.  428(1825), BY THE GENESEE CHIEF, 12
HOW.  443(1851).  THE VIEWS OF OUR STATE DEPARTMENT AGAINST IMMUNITY
FOR COMMERCIAL SHIPS OWNED BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN STRONGLY
SUPPORTED BY INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES, SOME HELD AFTER THE DECISION IN
THE PESARO CASE.  SEE LORD MAUGHAM IN COMPANIA NAVIERA VASCONGADO V.
THE CRISTINA (1938) A.C. 485, 521-523.  BUT THE REAL CHANGE HAS BEEN
THE ENORMOUS GROWTH, PARTICULARLY IN RECENT YEARS, OF "ORDINARY
MERCHANDISING" ACTIVITY BY GOVERNMENTS.  SEE THE WESTERN MAID, 257 U.S.
419, 432.  LORD MAUGHAM IN THE CRISTINA THUS PUT THE MATTER: 

"HALF A CENTURY AGO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS VERY SELDOM EMBARKED IN TRADE
WITH ORDINARY SHIPS, THOUGH THEY NOT INFREQUENTLY OWNED VESSELS
DESTINED FOR PUBLIC USES, AND IN PARTICULAR HOSPITAL VESSELS, SUPPLY
SHIPS AND SURVEYING OR EXPLORING VESSELS.  THESE WERE DOUBTLESS VERY
STRONG REASONS FOR EXTENDING THE PRIVILEGE LONG POSSESSED BY SHIPS OF
WAR TO PUBLIC SHIPS OF THE NATURE MENTIONED; BUT THERE HAS BEEN A VERY
LARGE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE-OWNED COMMERCIAL SHIPS SINCE THE GREAT WAR,
AND THE QUESTION WHETHER THE IMMUNITY SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE GIVEN TO
ORDINARY TRADING SHIPS HAS BECOME ACUTE.  IS IT CONSISTENT WITH
SOVEREIGN DIGNITY TO ACQUIRE A TRAMP STEAMER AND TO COMPETE WITH
ORDINARY SHIPPERS AND SHIP-OWNERS IN THE MARKETS OF THE WORLD?  DOING
SO, IS IT CONSISTENT TO SET UP THE IMMUNITY OF A SOVEREIGN IF, OWING TO
THE WANT OF SKILL OF CAPTAIN AND CREW, SERIOUS DAMAGE IS CAUSED TO THE
SHIP OF ANOTHER COUNTRY?  IS IT ALSO CONSISTENT TO REFUSE TO PERMIT
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF SALVAGE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES
RENDERED, PERHAPS AT GREAT RISK, BY THE VESSEL OF ANOTHER COUNTRY?" 
(1938) A.C. 485, 521-522. 

AND SO, SENSIBLE AS I AM OF THE WEIGHT TO WHICH THE DECISION IN THE
PESARO IS ENTITLED, ITS IMPLICATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE IMPORTANT
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE THAT TWENTY YEARS HAVE BROUGHT
CALL FOR ITS RECONSIDERATION.  THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, IN ACTING UPON
VIEWS SUCH AS THOSE EXPRESSED BY LORD MAUGHAM, SHOULD NO LONGER BE
EMBARRASSED BY HAVING THE DECISION IN THE PESARO REMAIN UNQUESTIONED,
AND THE LOWER COURTS SHOULD BE RELIEVED FROM THE DUTY OF DRAWING
DISTINCTIONS THAT ARE TOO NICE TO DRAW. 

IT IS MY VIEW, IN SHORT, THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT DISCLAIM JURISDICTION
WHICH OTHERWISE BELONGS TO THEM IN RELATION TO VESSELS OWNED BY FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS HOWEVER OPERATED EXCEPT WHEN "THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS," OR OF
COURSE CONGRESS, EXPLICITLY ASSERTS THAT THE PROPER CONDUCT OF THESE
RELATIONS CALLS FOR JUDICIAL ABSTENTION.  THEREBY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS WILL BE PLACED WHERE POWER LIES. 
AND UNLESS CONSTRAINED BY THE ESTABLISHED POLICY OF OUR STATE
DEPARTMENT, COURTS WILL BEST DISCHARGE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY BY
ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULAR JUDICIAL PROCESSES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :










HOUSE V. MAYO, 324 U.S. 42 


NO. 921.  DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  - CERTIORARI GRANTED - DECISIONS
BELOW REVERSED. 


A PETITION TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
BY ONE CONFINED UNDER A STATE COURT SENTENCE FOR BURGLARY, ALLEGED THAT
THE TRIAL COURT, WITHOUT WARNING AND OVER THE PETITIONER'S PROTESTS,
FORCED HIM TO PLEAD TO THE INFORMATION WITHOUT THE AID AND ADVICE OF
HIS COUNSEL, WHOSE PRESENCE HE REQUESTED.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE DENIED
THE PETITION AND ALSO DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN
APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 466.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED A
TIMELY APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL.  HELD: 

1.  THE CASE IS REVIEWABLE HERE BY CERTIORARI NOT UNDER SEC. 240(A)
BUT UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 44. 

2.  REVIEW HERE BY CERTIORARI UNDER SEC. 262 EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
REFUSING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BUT ALSO TO QUESTIONS ON THE MERITS SOUGHT
TO BE RAISED BY THE APPEAL.  P. 44. 

3.  THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A DENIAL OF
THE PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.  P. 46. 

4.  THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING HABEAS CORPUS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE QUESTIONS SOUGHT TO BE RAISED HAD BEEN FAIRLY
ADJUDICATED BY THE STATE COURTS WAS UNSUPPORTED, SINCE THE BASIS OF THE
STATE COURT DECISIONS RELIED ON WAS IN EACH INSTANCE THAT THE
PARTICULAR REMEDY SOUGHT WAS NOT ONE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW.  P. 47. 

5.  WHERE A STATE COURT ADJUDICATES THE MERITS OF A STATE PRISONER'S
FEDERAL QUESTIONS, AND THIS COURT EITHER REVIEWS OR DECLINES TO REVIEW
ITS DECISION, A FEDERAL COURT WILL NOT ORDINARILY REEXAMINE ON HABEAS
CORPUS THE QUESTIONS THUS ADJUDICATED.  BUT THAT RULE IS INAPPLICABLE
WHEN THE BASIS OF THE STATE COURT'S DECISION IS THAT THE PARTICULAR
REMEDY SOUGHT IS ONE WHICH THE STATE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE.  P. 48. 

6.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING WHETHER THE
CASE WAS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE UNDER
28 U.S.C. SEC. 466, AND ALSO IN NOT ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE.  P. 48. 

7.  THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS
COURT IS DENIED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT.  P.
48. 

HOUSE V. MAYO, STATE PRISON CUSTODIAN. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER IS CONFINED IN THE FLORIDA STATE PRISON UNDER SENTENCE FOR
BURGLARY.  HE FILED A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN FLORIDA, WHICH DENIED THE PETITION WITHOUT
CALLING FOR A RETURN AND WITHOUT A HEARING.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE ALSO
DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 466.  SECTION 466 REQUIRES SUCH A
CERTIFICATE FOR AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DENYING A PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS WHEN THE PETITION COMPLAINS OF "DETENTION  ...  BY VIRTUE OF
PROCESS ISSUED OUT OF A STATE COURT."  SINCE THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES
EITHER THE DISTRICT COURT OR "A JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS"
TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE, THE DISTRICT JUDGE, IN HIS ORDER, STATED THAT
PETITIONER MIGHT APPLY TO A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
CERTIFICATE AND FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF HIS APPEAL. 

PETITIONER THEREUPON FILED WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS A TIMELY
APPLICATION FOR AN APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, ADDRESSED TO THE "CHIEF
JUSTICE" OF THAT COURT.  THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AND
BY IT DENIED ON THE GROUNDS THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT PRESENTED THE
CERTIFICATE OR PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIRED BY SEC. 466, AND THAT THE
DISTRICT JUDGE, ON THE CONTRARY, HAD FOUND THAT NO PROBABLE CAUSE
EXISTED.  THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE CASE WAS ONE REQUIRING
IT OR A CIRCUIT JUDGE TO MAKE THE CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI AND A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS.  THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE:  (1) WHETHER THIS COURT HAS
THE POWER TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI; (2) IF IT HAS, WHETHER IT MAY
REVIEW THE MERITS OF THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT; AND (3)
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS ON THE GROUNDS IT ASSIGNED FOR ITS DECISION. 

THIS COURT CANNOT ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE PRESENT CASE
UNDER SEC. 240(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 347(A). 
FERGUSON V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 270 U.S. 633.  OUR AUTHORITY UNDER
THAT SECTION EXTENDS ONLY TO CASES "IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, OR
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." 
HERE THE CASE WAS NEVER "IN" THE COURT OF APPEALS, FOR WANT OF A
CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE. 

BUT SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 377, AUTHORIZES
THIS COURT "TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY
STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF (ITS JURISDICTION),
AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  BY VIRTUE OF THAT
COURT OF APPEALS IN DECLINING TO ALLOW AN APPEAL TO IT.  IN RE 620
CHURCH ST. CORP., 299 U.S. 24, 26, AND CASES CITED; HOLIDAY V.
JOHNSTON, 313 U.S. 342, 348, N. 2; WELLS V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S.
257; STEFFLER V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 38.  AND NOT ONLY DOES OUR
REVIEW EXTEND TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL, BUT IF
SO, IT EXTENDS ALSO TO QUESTIONS ON THE MERITS SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY
THE APPEAL.  SEE HOLIDAY V. JOHNSTON, SUPRA; STEFFLER V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.  WE HOLD THAT THE SAME PRINCIPLES ARE APPLICABLE HERE.  HENCE WE
ARE BROUGHT TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT RIGHTLY DENIED
THE PETITION. 

PETITIONER ALLEGES IN HIS PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS AND IN
SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT HAVING COMPLETED
THE SERVICE OF TWO EARLIER SENTENCES, HE IS NOW CONFINED IN THE FLORIDA
PENITENTIARY SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF A TWENTY-YEAR SENTENCE FOR BURGLARY. 
THE SENTENCE WAS ORIGINALLY IMPOSED IN 1925 UPON HIS PLEA OF GUILTY TO
AN INFORMATION CHARGING THE OFFENSE.  HE ALLEGES THAT HE WAS
REPRESENTED BY HIS OWN ATTORNEY AT THE TRIAL OF THE TWO PRIOR OFFENSES;
THAT HIS ATTORNEY THEN WENT TO HIS OFFICE IN ANOTHER CITY, AND WAS TO
RETURN ON SEPTEMBER 30 OR OCTOBER 1, 1925; THAT PETITIONER WAS BROUGHT
BEFORE THE COURT TO BE SENTENCED FOR THOSE OFFENSES ON SEPTEMBER 11,
1925, WHEN HIS ATTORNEY WAS ABSENT; THAT WITHOUT PREVIOUS WARNING AN
INFORMATION WAS HANDED UP MAKING THE PRESENT CHARGE OF BURGLARY. 
PETITIONER ALLEGES FURTHER THAT HE ASKED FOR TIME TO COMMUNICATE AND
CONSULT WITH HIS ATTORNEY, BUT THAT THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED; THAT HE
WAS FORCED TO PLEAD GUILTY WITHIN A FEW MINUTES AFTER RECEIVING A COPY
OF THE INFORMATION; THAT AT THAT TIME HE WAS IN HIS TWENTIES,
UNEDUCATED, AND A STRANGER IN THE TOWN.  THE PETITION ALSO ALLEGED THAT
PETITIONER HAD "EXHAUSTED ALL LEGAL REMEDIES  ...  TO OBTAIN HIS
FREEDOM" IN THE STATE COURTS.  IN SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS FILED WITH THE
DISTRICT COURT, HE MADE PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE SEVERAL PROCEEDINGS
IN WHICH HE HAD SOUGHT UNSUCCESSFULLY TO RAISE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION IN THE STATE COURTS. 

SINCE THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS DENIED WITHOUT REQUIRING THE
RESPONDENT TO ANSWER AND WITHOUT A HEARING, WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE
PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE.  WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471,
473-474.  FROM THEM IT APPEARS THAT THE TRIAL COURT, WITHOUT WARNING,
AND OVER PETITIONER'S PROTESTS, FORCED HIM TO PLEAD TO THE INFORMATION
WITHOUT THE AID AND ADVICE OF HIS COUNSEL, WHOSE PRESENCE HE
REQUESTED.  THIS WAS A DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL, WITH THE AID AND ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHOM HE HAD
RETAINED.  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45; EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114,
115-116.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE STATE WOULD HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER ON THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE
PETITION.  COMPARE BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, WITH WILLIAMS V.
KAISER, SUPRA, AND TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485.  IT IS ENOUGH
THAT PETITIONER HAD HIS OWN ATTORNEY AND WAS NOT AFFORDED A REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH HIM.  THE FACT THAT PETITIONER PLEADED
GUILTY AFTER THE DENIAL OF HIS REQUEST FOR TIME TO CONSULT WITH HIS
COUNSEL, DOES NOT DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL. 
WILLIAMS V. KAISER, SUPRA; TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA. 

IN DENYING THE PETITION, THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER
THIS DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS REMEDIABLE IN A FEDERAL
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING.  CF. EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA.  IN WALEY V.
JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101, 104-105, AND CASES CITED, WE POINTED OUT THAT
THE WRIT IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IN "THOSE
EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE THE CONVICTION HAS BEEN IN DISREGARD OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED, AND WHERE THE WRIT IS THE ONLY
EFFECTIVE MEANS OF PRESERVING HIS RIGHTS," AT LEAST WHERE "THE FACTS
RELIED ON ARE DEHORS THE RECORD AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE JUDGMENT WAS
NOT OPEN TO CONSIDERATION AND REVIEW ON APPEAL."  NOR DID THE DISTRICT
COURT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER HAD EXHAUSTED HIS STATE
REMEDIES, WHICH IS PREREQUISITE TO RELIEF BY HABEAS CORPUS IN THE
FEDERAL COURT.  EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, 117.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO
PASS ON EITHER QUESTION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, OR TO CONSIDER WHETHER
THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE CALLED FOR AN ANSWER AND SET THE CASE
FOR A HEARING.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON THESE QUESTIONS, SINCE THE
DISTRICT COURT RESTED ITS DECISION WHOLLY ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS, WHICH
WE ALONE CONSIDER HERE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT "PETITIONER HAS HAD A
FULL, COMPLETE, AND COMPETENT CONSIDERATION AND DECISION IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA OF ALL THE VARIOUS MATTERS HERE SOUGHT AGAIN TO BE
PRESENTED."  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD REFERENCE TO THE DECISIONS OF THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO BY PETITIONER IN HIS PAPERS FILED
WITH THE DISTRICT COURT.  THEY WERE:  HOUSE V. STATE, 127 FLA. 145, 172
SO. 734, A WRIT OF ERROR FROM PETITIONER'S CONVICTION N1; HOUSE V.
STATE, 130 FLA. 400, 177 SO. 705, AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
CORAM NOBIS PROCEEDING; AND THE DENIAL BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
WITHOUT OPINION OF THREE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY
PETITIONER.  BY EACH FORM OF PROCEEDING PETITIONER ATTEMPTED TO RAISE
THE QUESTIONS HE NOW RAISES IN THE PRESENT PETITION; BUT IN EACH
INSTANCE, SO FAR AS APPEARS, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, WITHOUT
CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS AND WITHOUT
AFFORDING A HEARING ON THE MERITS, DENIED RELIEF TO PETITIONER, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE PARTICULAR REMEDY SOUGHT WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE ONE
UNDER FLORIDA LAW TO RAISE THOSE CONTENTIONS.  SEE HOUSE V. STATE, 127
FLA. 145, 148; HOUSE V. STATE, 130 FLA. 400, 406; CF. SKIPPER V.
SCHUMACHER, 124 FLA. 384, 401-404, 169 SO. 58. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO REFERRED TO A DENIAL BY THIS COURT OF A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, FILED HERE AFTER THE DENIAL BY THE FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT OF ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  SEE HOUSE
V. MAYO, 322 U.S. 710.  THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS AN
EXPRESSION "OF THE OPINION THAT NO MERITORIOUS QUESTION IS PRESENTED BY
THE MATTERS OF WHICH PETITIONER HERE COMPLAINS."  BUT AS WE HAVE OFTEN
SAID, A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI BY THIS COURT IMPORTS NO EXPRESSION OF
OPINION UPON THE MERITS OF A CASE.  SEE HAMILTON-BROWN SHOE CO. V. WOLF
BROTHERS, 240 U.S. 251, 258; SENEY V. SWIFT & CO., 260 U.S. 146, 151;
UNITED STATES V. CARVER, 260 U.S. 482, 490; ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
V. POWE, 283 U.S. 401, 403-404.  IT IS TRUE THAT WHERE A STATE COURT
HAS CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED THE MERITS OF A PETITIONER'S
CONTENTIONS, AND THIS COURT HAS EITHER REVIEWED OR DECLINED TO REVIEW
THE STATE COURT'S DECISION, A FEDERAL COURT WILL NOT ORDINARILY
REEXAMINE UPON WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS THE QUESTIONS THUS ADJUDICATED. 
SEE EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA, 118.  BUT THAT RULE IS INAPPLICABLE WHERE, AS
HERE, THE BASIS OF THE STATE COURT DECISION IS THAT THE PARTICULAR
REMEDY SOUGHT IS NOT ONE ALLOWED BY STATE LAW, FOR IN SUCH A CASE THIS
COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE DECISION.  WOOLSEY V. BEST, 299
U.S. 1, 2; NEW YORK EX REL. WHITMAN V. WILSON, 318 U.S. 688, 690;
WILLIAMS V. KAISER, SUPRA, 473, 476-479. 

THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS THUS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
GROUNDS ASSIGNED FOR IT, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  AND THE JUDGES OF THAT COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING WHETHER
THE CASE WAS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AS
THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO DO BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 466.  WE THINK THAT THEY
ALSO ERRED IN NOT ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE. 

THE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND FOR LEAVE TO
FILE THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ARE GRANTED.  THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS
COURT IS DENIED.  EX PARTE ABERNATHY, 320 U.S. 219; EX PARTE HAWK,
SUPRA.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DECIDED
THAT THE JUDGMENT AGAINST PETITIONER, ENTERED IN 1927, WAS DEFECTIVE IN
THAT IT DID NOT CONTAIN AND ADJUDICATION OF GUILT.  STATE EX REL. HOUSE
V. MAYO, 122 FLA. 23, 164 SO. 673.  THE COURT REMANDED PETITIONER TO
THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A PROPER SENTENCE.  ON FEBRUARY
22, 1936, THE TRIAL COURT RESENTENCED PETITIONER TO THE SAME TERM
ORIGINALLY IMPOSED.  THE OPINION REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT, 127 FLA. 145,
WAS ON A WRIT OF ERROR FROM PETITIONER'S CONVICTION, TAKEN AFTER THE
RESENTENCE IN 1936. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD
BE DENIED. 
..END :







MUSCHANY V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 49 


ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  - 139 F.2D 661,
REVERSED. 


OPTION CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE UNITED STATES FROM
THE PETITIONERS PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT BY PETITIONERS OF A 5% COMMISSION
TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OPTIONING AGENT AND STIPULATED THAT IF CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE INSTITUTED THE OPTION PRICE SHOULD CONSTITUTE
JUST COMPENSATION.  IN SUBSEQUENT CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS THE
GOVERNMENT DISAFFIRMED THE CONTRACTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE
CONTRACTS; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  ON REVIEW HERE,
HELD: 

1.  THE CONTRACTS CONTEMPLATED THAT THE AGENT'S COMMISSION SHOULD BE
ADDED TO THE VENDORS' NET PRICE.  P. 56. 

2.  ISSUES OF FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND DURESS ARE NOT BEFORE THIS
COURT, SINCE THE TRIAL COURT MADE FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ON THOSE ISSUES; THE FINDINGS WERE NOT
REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; AND THE ISSUES WERE NOT
ARGUED HERE.  P. 57. 

3.  EVIDENCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASING AGENT ENGAGED IN
QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT IN SECURING OPTIONS FROM OTHER VENDORS WAS NOT
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE PETITIONERS' CONTRACTS. 
P. 58. 

4.  MERE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE LANDS TO THE
SELLER AND THE SALE PRICE TO THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RENDER THE
CONTRACTS INVALID.  P. 58. 

5.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, PROHIBITING
USE OF THE "COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING," IS
APPLICABLE TO PURCHASES OF LANDS.  P. 60. 

6.  THE CONTRACTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISION OF SEC. 1 OF THE ACT
OF JULY 2, 1940, FORBIDDING USE (UNDER THAT SECTION) OF THE "COST-PLUS
A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING."  P. 61. 

7.  THE CONTRACTS WERE NOT INVALID AS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.  P.
64. 

(A)  THE NATURE OF THE AGENT'S INTEREST AND THE CONTINGENT CHARACTER
OF HIS FEE ARE NOT SUCH AS TO VITIATE THE CONTRACTS.  P. 65. 

(B)  IN THE ABSENCE OF A PLAIN INDICATION OF PUBLIC POLICY THROUGH
LONG GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICE OR STATUTORY ENACTMENTS, OR OF VIOLATIONS OF
OBVIOUS ETHICAL OR MORAL STANDARDS, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT ASSUME TO
DECLARE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.  P. 66. 

(C)  THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 41, 112 AND 113 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AND
OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1917, DO NOT MANIFEST A PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST
THE USE OF CONTRACTS OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED.  P. 67. 

(D)  NOR DOES THE ACTION OF CONGRESS ON SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION
INDICATE THAT THE CONTRACTS ARE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.  P. 68. 

MUSCHANY ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 31.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 32, ANDREWS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 760, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF JUDGMENTS IN TWO
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WHICH INVOLVED THE VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURCHASE OF LANDS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WRITS OF CERTIORARI WERE ALLOWED TO PETITIONERS BY THIS COURT IN
THESE TWO CASES TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.  FN1  THAT APPELLATE COURT REVERSED THE ACTION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WHICH HAD
UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR THE WELDON SPRINGS, MISSOURI,
ORDNANCE PLANT.  FN2  THE CONTRACTS WERE PLEADED BY PETITIONERS AS
DEFENDANTS IN EMINENT DOMAIN SUITS TO ESTABLISH THE PROPER CONDEMNATION
AWARD. 

THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI WERE GRANTED, 321 U.S. 760, BECAUSE OF
ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH UNITED STATES V. GRACE EVANGELICAL CHURCH, 132
F.2D 460.  JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT RESTS ON SEC. 240 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE. 

UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE
APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1941, 54 STAT. 872, THE PRESIDENT APPROVED THE
WELDON SPRINGS PROJECT ON OCTOBER 17, 1940.  PURSUANT TO THIS APPROVAL,
THE WAR DEPARTMENT CLAIMS THAT IT PROCEEDED TO ACQUIRE THE NECESSARY
LAND UNDER THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1917, 40 STAT. 241, AS RESTRICTED BY THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, 54 STAT. 712.  THE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO PROCEED AS IT DID IS NOT QUESTIONED
EXCEPT ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE PURCHASE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO IN
ACQUIRING THE NEEDED LAND VIOLATE THE FIRST SECTION OF THE ACT OF JULY
2, 1940, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST SYSTEM OF
CONTRACTING SHALL NOT BE USED UNDER THIS SECTION; BUT THIS PROVISO
SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE
FORM OF CONTRACT WHEN SUCH USE IS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE SECRETARY OF
WAR."  54 STAT. 713. 

THE DUTY TO ACT FOR THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN OBTAINING THE LAND LAY IN
THE OFFICE OF THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL AND SPECIFICALLY IN THE REAL
ESTATE BRANCH OF THAT OFFICE.  IN AN EFFORT TO EXPEDITE THE ACQUISITION
OF THE NEEDED LAND, THE HEAD OF THAT BRANCH, COLONEL R.D. VALLIANT,
CONTRACTED WITH R. NEWTON MCDOWELL TO ACT AS THE AGENT FOR THE
GOVERNMENT IN SECURING OPTIONS, ON FORMS APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES
AND ATTACHED TO THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, FROM THE OWNERS FOR SUBMISSION
TO AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE UNITED STATES.  MR. MCDOWELL'S COMPENSATION
FOR ACTING AS AGENT WAS A "FIVE PER CENT (5%) COMMISSION  ...  TO BE
PAID BY THE VENDOR."  FN3 

THE EMPLOYMENT OF MCDOWELL AS AGENT TO SECURE OPTIONS FOR THE UNITED
STATES WAS CONFIRMED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE,
AN INFORMAL ORGANIZATION OF THOSE WHO OWNED PROPERTY WHICH WAS NEEDED
FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT.  MCDOWELL WENT TO WORK TO CARRY OUT HIS
CONTRACT.  HE HELD MEETINGS AT WHICH HE EXPLAINED TO THE LANDOWNERS THE
PLAN TO SECURE OPTIONS AND THE OPTION FORM ITSELF.  FROM HIS
EXPLANATION THE LANDOWNERS MUST HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEIR SALE PRICE
WOULD HAVE DEDUCTED FROM IT MCDOWELL'S COMMISSION AND OTHER EXPENSES. 
THIS WAS ALSO THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS IS SHOWN NOT ONLY
BY THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES WHICH WERE APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT BUT
ALSO SPECIFICALLY BY THE TESTIMONY OF COLONEL VALLIANT.  WHILE MCDOWELL
WAS EMPLOYED AND HIS COMMISSION SET BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT WAS ARRANGED
THAT MCDOWELL SHOULD COLLECT HIS MONEY FROM THE VENDOR SO THAT A SINGLE
VOUCHER WOULD COVER THE PURCHASE PRICE AND THE EXPENSES. 

THE APPROVED FORM OF OPTION, WHICH WAS A PART OF MCDOWELL'S CONTRACT
WITH THE GOVERNMENT, WAS USED BY MCDOWELL IN THE PARTICULAR
TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE UNDER EXAMINATION IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.  THE
OPTION ACCORDS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MCDOWELL CONTRACT AND IN
ADDITION PROVIDES FOR AN AGREED VALUATION AT THE OPTION PRICE IN CASE
OF CONDEMNATION.  FN4  THE OFFER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF LANDOWNERS IN THE REQUIRED AREA. 
OPTIONS WERE OBTAINED FROM 270, INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS, AND WITH ONE
EXCEPTION THE OPTIONS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AT THE OPTIONED
PRICE.  ALMOST HALF OF THE CONTRACTS WERE CLOSED BY ACCEPTANCE OF DEEDS
AND PAYMENT OF THE PRICE.  CRITICISM OF THE PRICES AND MANNER OF
PURCHASE DEVELOPED AND THE WAR DEPARTMENT REPUDIATED THE REMAINING
CONTRACTS AND TURNED TO CONDEMNATION.  THE REPUDIATION FOLLOWED UPON
THE CONCLUSION AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT THE CONTRACTS VIOLATED THE
STATUTORY PROVISION AGAINST THE COST-PLUS-A-PERCENT-AGE-OF-COST SYSTEM
OF CONTRACTING, PAGE 52, SUPRA, AND WERE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY
BECAUSE OF THE CONTINGENT INTEREST OF MCDOWELL, WHICH WAS ANTAGONISTIC
TO THE GOVERNMENT. 

PETITIONERS' OPTIONS WERE AMONG THOSE ACCEPTED ONLY TO BE REPUDIATED
LATER, THE GOVERNMENT THEN INSTITUTING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS TO
OBTAIN PETITIONERS' LANDS.  IN THE TWO CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
INSTITUTED AGAINST PETITIONERS, JUDGMENTS WERE ENTERED UPON A
DECLARATION OF TAKING WHICH VESTED TITLES IN THE UNITED STATES.  46
STAT. 1421.  THEREAFTER THE PETITIONERS HERE FILED THEIR ANSWERS IN
WHICH THEY CONSENTED TO THE CONDEMNATION AND DEMANDED THAT THE PRICE
WHICH WAS FIXED IN THE OPTION, ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, BE ADOPTED
BY THE TRIAL COURT AS JUST COMPENSATION.  IN REPLY THE GOVERNMENT SET
UP ITS REPUDIATION OF THE CONTRACTS ON NUMEROUS GROUNDS INCLUDING
FRAUD, SUCH UNFAIRNESS TO THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF GROSS OVERVALUATION
THAT THE CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED IN EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE
AS WELL AS THE DISREGARD OF THE STATUTORY PROSCRIPTION AND PUBLIC
POLICY, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH AS THE GROUND
FOR REPUDIATION. 

THE TWO CASES WERE DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACTS
AND THE COMPENSATION WAS FIXED AT THE PRICE STATED IN THE CONTRACT
WITHOUT REVALUATION.  CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE TRIAL
COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER VALUATION MEASURED BY JUST COMPENSATION
WOULD HAVE VARIED FROM THE AGREED PRICE.  THE GOVERNMENT MAKES NO
OBJECTION TO THIS MANNER OF DETERMINING COMPENSATION IF THE ACCEPTED
OPTIONS (CONTRACTS) ARE VALID.  COMPARE DANFORTH V. UNITED STATES, 308
U.S. 271, 282.  IN ONE CASE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND A COMMENT APPEAR
AS A MEMORANDUM OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN LAND, 46 F.SUPP. 
921.  IN THE OTHER CASE, THE DECREE WAS ENTERED WITHOUT SEPARATE
FINDINGS OF FACT OR OPINION AFTER ADOPTION OF THE MEMORANDUM IN THE
FIRST CASE.  WE PERCEIVE NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO DISTINGUISH THE CASES
HERE AND SHALL DISPOSE OF THEM IN A SINGLE OPINION.  FN5 

THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION APPEARS IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT
FOR THESE CASES, 46 F.SUPP.  AT PAGE 928: 

"THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT FACTS WERE CONCEALED, THAT
MISREPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE, OR THAT DURESS WAS USED.  THE PRICE
STATED IN THE OPTION CONTRACT IS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE.  THERE IS NO
FRAUD, ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, IN THIS CASE."  FN6 

AS A RESULT OF THIS CONCLUSION, THE ISSUES OF CORRUPT ACTION IN THESE
TWO INSTANCES ARE DECIDED CONTRARY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION AT
THE TRIAL.  NO SUCH CONTENTION WAS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT HERE.  THE
FINDINGS ALSO STATED, AT PAGE 925: 

"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE OPTION PRICE OF FORTY-FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS INCLUDED THE AMOUNT THE DEFENDANTS ASKED FOR THE LAND PLUS
MCDOWELL'S FEE OF 5% OF SALE PRICE, THE KANSAS CITY TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY'S FEE OF 1 1/2% FOR EXAMINING TITLE, THE STAMP TAX OR THE
RECORDING FEE."  WE TREAT THE FINDING AND DETERMINATION AS APPLICABLE
TO BOTH CASES. 

ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND, CONTRARY TO THE TRIAL
COURT'S FINDING QUOTED ABOVE, THAT THE COMMISSION AND EXPENSES WERE
ADDED TO THE VENDORS' NET PRICE.  WE AGREE WITH THE APPELLATE COURT. 
WHILE NO DIRECT EVIDENCE APPEARS AS TO THE ADDITION OF THE EXPENSES TO
THE VENDORS' NET PRICE, IT SEEMS CLEAR FROM THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND MCDOWELL, THE OPTION CONTRACT, THE STATEMENTS OF
MCDOWELL AT PUBLIC MEETINGS, THE ADVICE GIVEN BY THE CITIZENS'
COMMITTEE AND COLONEL VALLIANT'S TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS GENERALLY
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE OPTION PRICE WAS TO BE CALCULATED IN THIS WAY. 
ALTHOUGH MESSRS.  MUSCHANY AND ANDREWS WERE NOT ASKED SPECIFICALLY AS
TO HOW THEY FIGURED THEIR GROSS PRICES STATED IN THE OPTIONS, BOTH WERE
PRESENT AT A MEETING AT WHICH MCDOWELL EXPLAINED HIS CONTRACT.  SINCE
THE VENDORS AGREED BY THE CONTRACT TO PAY ALL COMMISSIONS AND EXPENSES,
THEY MUST HAVE ADDED THESE EXPENSES TO WHAT THEY EXPECTED TO RECEIVE
NET FOR THEIR LAND.  WHETHER THE ADDITION WAS BY PRECISE ARITHMETICAL
COMPUTATION OR BY INTUITIVE ACTION IS IMMATERIAL.  THE MERE FACT THAT
NO SEPARATE STATEMENT OF THE ITEMS APPEARS IN THE EVIDENCE IN THESE
CASES WOULD NOT OVERTURN THE FORCE OF THIS GENERAL AND DEFINITE
UNDERSTANDING. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONTRACTS WITH THE
LANDOWNERS WERE COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST AND THEREFORE INVALID. 
ANY FURTHER EXAMINATION BY IT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE
CONTRACT WAS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY WAS UNNECESSARY.  PETITIONERS
HERE ATTACK THE FIRST CONCLUSION.  THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDS THE ACTION OF
THE APPELLATE COURT ON THIS GROUND AND ALSO BECAUSE, INDEPENDENTLY OF
THE COST-PLUS PROHIBITION, THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE LANDOWNERS AND THE
GOVERNMENT WERE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY. 

PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF THE TWO PRINCIPAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE
PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT IN THEIR ARGUMENTS BEFORE THIS COURT, IT
SEEMS NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD, UNCONSCIONABLE
DEALING, BAD FAITH AND MISREPRESENTATION ON WHICH RESPONDENT RELIED IN
THE TRIAL COURT AS INVALIDATING PETITIONERS' CONTRACTS.  AS IS
INDICATED, ANTE, PP. 55-56, THE TRIAL COURT SPECIFICALLY FOUND AGAINST
THE RESPONDENT ON THESE ISSUES.  NOR DID THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSE THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS.  FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND
DURESS WERE NOT ARGUED BEFORE THIS COURT.  SINCE THE TRIAL COURT'S
FINDINGS ON THESE ISSUES ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IT IS
NOT FOR THIS COURT TO UNDERTAKE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THESE
ISSUES AS SUCH, OR UNDER THE GUISE OF DETERMINING "JUST COMPENSATION." 
FN7  ONLY RECENTLY THIS COURT RESTATED THE RULES RELATING TO THE WEIGHT
TO BE GIVEN FACT DETERMINATIONS BY INFERIOR JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL
BODIES.  UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S. 289, 297-98;
DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, 321 U.S. 231.  THEREFORE THIS
CASE COMES BEFORE THIS COURT WITHOUT ANY SUGGESTION OF FRAUD OR
UNFAIRNESS SUCH AS WOULD JUSTIFY HOLDING THE CONTRACTS INVALID.  SINCE
THESE MATTERS ARE NOT BEFORE US, WE NEED EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THIS
ASPECT OF THE CASE. 

THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ADMITTED EVIDENCE WHICH INDICATED THAT
MCDOWELL ENGAGED IN QUESTIONABLE CONDUCT IN SECURING OPTIONS FROM
SELLERS OTHER THAN THE PETITIONERS IN THE INSTANT CASE.  SUCH EVIDENCE
IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF PETITIONERS'
CONTRACTS.  THE ENFORCEABILITY OF PETITIONERS' CONTRACTS IS NOT TO BE
DETERMINED OR COLORED BY MCDOWELL'S ALLEGED DEALINGS WITH OTHER
PARTIES; THESE OTHER CONTRACTS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE AND
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MIGHT URGE A DIFFERENT RESULT WITH RESPECT TO THEM
MUST BE CAREFULLY ELIMINATED LEST PETITIONERS BE PENALIZED FOR ILLEGAL
ACTS OF OTHERS. 

THERE REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER MERE DISPARITY
BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL COST OF THESE LANDS TO THE SELLER AND THE SALE
PRICE TO THE GOVERNMENT MAKES THE CONTRACTS ILLEGAL - WHETHER A
CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT IS INVALID ON A MERE SHOWING THAT IT WAS
HIGHLY PROFITABLE BUT NOT UNCONSCIONABLE.  CONGRESS' ADOPTION OF
STATUTES PROVIDING FOR THE RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS INDICATES
THAT IN CERTAIN INSTANCES THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO RECOVER ABNORMALLY
HIGH CONTRACT PROFITS.  THAT CONGRESS COULD HAVE EXTENDED THE COVERAGE
OF THESE PROVISIONS TO THESE CONTRACTS IS UNQUESTIONED; THE FACT THAT
IT DID NOT DO SO CANNOT BE DISREGARDED BY THIS COURT.  FN8 

IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT IN ALL DEALINGS WITH THE GOVERNMENT,
CONTRACTORS AND AGENTS ALIKE ARE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DEAL STRICTLY
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE STATUTES AND WITH ABSOLUTE HONESTY.  CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS ENFORCE THIS RULE.  SIMILARLY, THE DOCTRINES OF FRAUD,
UNCONSCIONABLE DEALING AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ARE TO BE STRICTLY APPLIED
TO INSURE FAIR AND HONEST DEALING BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS
CITIZENS.  THESE REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE WHENEVER AND WHEREVER
TRANSGRESSIONS TAKE PLACE.  HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE
POLICIES OR METHODS BY WHICH PROPERTY IS TO BE ACQUIRED RESTS WITH
CONGRESS. 

APPLICABILITY OF COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST CLAUSE.  PRIOR TO THE
PRESENT WAR EMERGENCY THE SECRETARY OF WAR HAD BROAD POWERS TO ACQUIRE
LAND FOR MILITARY PURPOSES BY PURCHASE AT PRICES DEEMED REASONABLE BY
HIM OR BY CONDEMNATION.  FN9  THERE WERE NO RESTRICTIONS AS TO THE
MANNER IN WHICH HE SHOULD EXERCISE THIS POWER TO PURCHASE, BUT HIS
POWER TO CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS SHARPLY LIMITED BY
STATUTE.  FN10  THESE RESTRICTIONS, IF CONTINUED, WOULD HAVE SERIOUSLY
IMPEDED THE WAR DEPARTMENT'S PREPARATION FOR WAR.  THEREUPON CONGRESS
PASSED THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1940, WHICH REMOVED CERTAIN OF THESE PRIOR
STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS.  THE ACT DID, HOWEVER, RESTRICT THE BROAD
POWERS CONFERRED THEREIN BY PROHIBITING THE USE OF COST-PLUS-A
PERCENTAGE-OF-COST CONTRACTS; USE OF COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE CONTRACTS
WAS EXPRESSLY APPROVED BY THE ACT.  FN11  THE QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO
WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST CONTRACTS
APPLIES TO THE WAR DEPARTMENT'S PURCHASE OF THESE LANDS WITH
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1941. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FIRST SECTION OF THE ACT OF JULY 2,
1940, SEE FOOTNOTE 11, INDICATES THAT THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE WAR
DEPARTMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION; THEREFORE, THE
PROVISO IN THE SECTION WHICH PROHIBITS USE OF THE COST-PLUS-A
PERCENTAGE-OF-COST SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING MUST BE TAKEN TO APPLY TO
PURCHASES OF LAND.  THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1917, 40 STAT. 241, 518,
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF LAND, IS LIMITED BY THE QUOTED SECTION FROM
54 STAT. 712. 

OUR NEXT INQUIRY IS AS TO WHETHER THE CONTRACT WITH THE VENDORS, NOTE
4, SUPRA, VIOLATES THIS PROHIBITION AGAINST COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF
COST CONTRACTS.  EVIDENTLY THE PROVISO WAS INSERTED TO AVOID THE ABUSES
WHICH WERE PREVALENT BEFORE AND DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR FROM THE
GOVERNMENT'S GUARANTEE OF COST PLUS A PROFIT TO CONTRACTORS.  FN12 

THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE
SORT OF EXPLOITATION SO EASILY ACCOMPLISHED UNDER COST-PLUS-A
PERCENTAGE-OF-COST CONTRACTS UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND
IS BOUND TO PAY COSTS, UNDETERMINED AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS MADE
AND TO BE INCURRED IN THE FUTURE, PLUS A COMMISSION BASED ON A
PERCENTAGE OF THESE FUTURE COSTS.  THE EVIL OF SUCH CONTRACTS IS THAT
THE PROFIT OF THE OTHER PARTY TO THE CONTRACT INCREASES IN PROPORTION
TO THAT OTHER PARTY'S COSTS EXPENDED IN THE PERFORMANCE.  THE DANGER
GUARDED AGAINST BY THE CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION WAS THE INCENTIVE TO A
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR WHO ALREADY HAD A BINDING CONTRACT WITH THE
GOVERNMENT FOR PAYMENT OF UNDETERMINED FUTURE COSTS TO PAY LIBERALLY
FOR REIMBURSABLE ITEMS BECAUSE HIGHER COSTS MEANT A HIGHER FEE TO HIM,
HIS PROFIT BEING DETERMINED BY A PERCENTAGE OF COST.  CONGRESS
CERTAINLY DID NOT INTEND TO PREVENT A PARTY WHO WAS MERELY SUBMITTING A
BID TO THE GOVERNMENT FROM COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF HIS BID BY TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION HIS COSTS AND THEN ADDING A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF
THE COST AS HIS PROFIT, THE RESULTING SUM BID BEING FIXED IN AMOUNT AND
NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE.  CONGRESS, BY CHANGING THE ORIGINAL PROHIBITION
IN THE ACT FROM ONE OUTLAWING ANY "COST-PLUS" SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING SO
AS TO EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZE USE OF A "COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE" FORM OF
CONTRACT, INDICATED IT DID NOT CARE HOW THE CONTRACTOR COMPUTED HIS FEE
OR PROFIT SO LONG AS THE FEE OR PROFIT WAS FINALLY AND CONCLUSIVELY
FIXED IN AMOUNT AT THE TIME WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BECAME BOUND TO PAY IT
BY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE BID.  BY ELIMINATING THE RISK OF LOSS AND
PERMITTING THE GUARANTEE OF A SATISFACTORY BUT FIXED FEE, CONGRESS
SOUGHT PROMPT PERFORMANCE AND LOWER OVER-ALL EXPENDITURES FOR CONTRACTS
IN A RISING LABOR AND COMMODITY MARKET THAN WOULD BE OFFERED BY
CONTRACTORS WHO WERE COMPELLED THEMSELVES TO ASSUME THE RISK OF THESE
UNPREDICTABLE COSTS. 

THE VENDORS' CONTRACT, WHEN READ WITH THE MCDOWELL CONTRACT, SHOWS
THAT THE GOVERNMENT ARRANGED FOR A FEE TO ITS AGENT BASED ON A
PERCENTAGE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.  THIS DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE
LANGUAGE OF COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST.  THE OFFER WAS TO SELL TO
THE GOVERNMENT AT A FIXED, DEFINITE PRICE.  THE GOVERNMENT WHEN IT
ACCEPTED THIS OFFER AGREED TO PAY THIS SET AMOUNT AND NO MORE.  THE
CONTRACT CONTAINS NO PROVISION ALLOWING ADJUSTMENT OF PRICE BASED ON
POSSIBLE FUTURE INDETERMINATE EXPENSES.  THE VICE OF COST-PLUS
CONTRACTS IS NOT INHERENT IN THE VENDORS' CONTRACT.  THAT VICE
BASICALLY IS THE INCENTIVE TO THE CONTRACTOR TO INFLATE HIS FUTURE
COSTS TO INCREASE HIS PROFITS SINCE THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY BOUND TO
PAY ANY FUTURE UNDETERMINED "COSTS."  THE AMOUNTS TO BE PAID UNDER
PETITIONERS' CONTRACTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY FUTURE ACTION OF
THE VENDOR.  THE GOVERNMENT KNEW THE TOTAL COST WHEN IT BECAME BOUND ON
THE CONTRACT.  IF WE READ THE VENDORS' CONTRACT AS AFFECTED BY THE
MCDOWELL CONTRACT, NO COST-PLUS CONTRACT EMERGES.  THE UNITED STATES
KNEW ITS AGENT'S FEE TO THE PENNY WHEN IT ACCEPTED THE OPTION.  IT WAS
FIVE PER CENT OF THE GROSS SALE PRICE.  NOTES 3 AND 4 SUPRA.  THAT IS
TO SAY, THE PRICE TO BE PAID FOR THE LAND WAS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL
OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE WAR DEPARTMENT COULD ACCEPT OR REJECT THE
OFFERS SUBMITTED BY MCDOWELL.  WHEN THE WAR DEPARTMENT APPROVED EACH
OFFER, IT FIXED THE PRECISE FEE WHICH MCDOWELL WAS TO RECEIVE.  THE
ARRANGEMENT MAY HAVE BEEN IMPROVIDENT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  BUT THAT QUESTION GOES TO THE QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT BY ITS
PROCUREMENT OFFICERS.  THE FACT THAT THE PROCUREMENT SYSTEM IS
IMPROVIDENT OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL.  ILLEGALITY DOES NOT
EMERGE FROM INADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF PRICES BY THE REAL ESTATE
BRANCH.  SUCH OFFICIAL FAILURES ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO A THIRD PARTY
DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN GOOD FAITH.  IT MAY BE UNWISE FOR THE
GOVERNMENT TO PAY ITS PURCHASING AGENT A COMMISSION WHICH IS FIGURED ON
COST OF PURCHASES TO THE GOVERNMENT BUT THERE IS NO STATUTORY
PROHIBITION.  SINCE THE UNITED STATES IS THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND AT
THE OPTION PRICE, NO ONE CAN RECEIVE COST PLUS ANYTHING.  NEITHER THE
VENDORS NOR MCDOWELL AGREES TO BUY FROM A THIRD PARTY AND SELL TO THE
GOVERNMENT AT AN ADVANCE.  THE VENDORS' CONTRACT HAS NEITHER THE FORM
NOR THE VICE OF A COST-PLUS CONTRACT.  FN13 

PUBLIC POLICY.  THE GOVERNMENT ADVANCES A FURTHER AND DISTINCT
ARGUMENT FOR AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
THAT THE VENDORS' CONTRACT IS INVALID.  THIS IS THAT THE CONTRACTS OF
MUSCHANY AND ANDREWS ARE INVALID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE OF
THE INTEREST OF MCDOWELL WHICH IS ANTAGONISTIC TO THE UNITED STATES AND
BECAUSE OF THE CONTINGENT CHARACTER OF THE MCDOWELL FEE WHICH, IT IS
ASSERTED, IS PAID BY THE VENDORS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF THE CONTRACT OF
SALE.  WE THINK THAT IT IS INADMISSIBLE TO VIEW THE MCDOWELL CONTRACT
AND THE VENDORS' CONTRACTS AS UNRELATED.  ON ACCOUNT OF THE VENDORS'
THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF MCDOWELL'S AGENCY, AS DISCUSSED IN THE
PRECEDING DIVISION OF THIS OPINION, THEIR CONTRACTS MUST BE READ AS
THOUGH THE MCDOWELL CONTRACT WAS WRITTEN INTO THEM TO SHOW HIS AGENCY
FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 

WHEN THIS IS DONE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTION TO THE VENDORS'
PAYING A FEE CONTINGENT ON THE SECURING OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT
DISAPPEARS.  WHILE IN FORM THE MCDOWELL FEE AND OTHER EXPENSES ARE PAID
BY THE VENDORS, IT WAS SO HANDLED, AS IS SHOWN BY THE FINDING OF THE
TRIAL COURT, THAT "THE SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS (MIGHT BE) CLOSED WITH THE
ISSUANCE OF ONE, INSTEAD OF SEVERAL VOUCHERS, FOR EACH TRACT."  46
F.SUPP.  AT 925-26.  THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT IN REALITY MCDOWELL
WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S AGENT AND THAT HIS COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH NOMINALLY
PAID BY THE VENDOR, AMOUNTED TO A PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO HIM AS
ITS AGENT.  CONTINGENT FEE CONTRACTS TO SECURE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS FOR
THE EMPLOYER OF THE RECIPIENT HAVE BEEN HELD INVALID BECAUSE OF THEIR
TENDENCY TO INDUCE IMPROPER SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND THE
EXERCISE OF POLITICAL PRESSURE.  STEELE V. DRUMMOND, 275 U.S. 199,
206.  FN14  FOR THE MOST PART THESE CASES HAVE INVOLVED SITUATIONS
WHERE A WOULD-BE CONTRACTOR HAS HIRED A THIRD PERSON ON A CONTINGENT
FEE BASIS TO PROCURE FOR THE FORMER A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT. 
BUT NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF THESE CASES NOR THE POLICY BEHIND THEM
APPLIES TO THE SITUATION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT,
NOT THE WOULD-BE CONTRACTOR, HIRES AN AGENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SOLICITING OFFERS FROM OWNERS OF NEEDED LAND, THE AGENT'S COMPENSATION
TO BE CONTINGENT ON SUBMISSION OF OFFERS ACCEPTABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT. 
WE HAVE HERE A CONTINGENT FEE CONTRACT OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TYPE. 
IT IS THE GOVERNMENT HERE WHO PAYS THE CONTINGENT FEE AND PAYS IT NOT
FOR SECURING A CONTRACT FROM THE GOVERNMENT BUT A CONTRACT FOR THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE AGENT ACTS UNDER THE HIGHEST LEGAL AND MORAL
RESPONSIBILITIES TO HIS PRINCIPAL, THE GOVERNMENT.  THERE IS NO PLACE
FOR FINANCIAL TEMPTATION OR POLITICAL PRESSURE TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC
OFFICIALS.  TENDENTIOUS FRAUD DOES NOT EXIST IN SUCH A CONTINGENT
CONTRACT.  IT MAY BE MOST DESIRABLE TO PAY AGENTS ONLY IN THE EVENT
THAT THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL IN ACCOMPLISHING THEIR PURPOSE.  WE ARE
DEALING HERE WITH PUBLIC POLICY.  CONGRESS MAY THINK THAT IT IS WISE TO
OUTLAW CONTINGENT CONTRACTS SUCH AS THIS BUT UNTIL IT DOES WE CANNOT
SAY THAT THEY ARE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, ANY MORE THAN WE COULD SAY
COST-PLUS CONTRACTS ARE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY IN THE ABSENCE OF
LEGISLATION TO THAT EFFECT. 

IN REACHING THE FOREGOING CONCLUSION ON THE CONTINGENT FEE ASPECT OF
THE PROBLEM, WE LAID ASIDE CONSIDERATION, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PUBLIC
POLICY, OF THE FACT THAT THE CONTINGENT FEE IS TO BE MEASURED BY A
CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.  WE NOW CONSIDER THAT.  THE
RECORD GIVES NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THE APPARENTLY INGENUOUS
ACTION OF THE REAL ESTATE BRANCH OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN PAYING A
COMMISSION ON THE PURCHASE PRICE TO ITS SOLICITING AGENT.  CERTAINLY
THE OFFICERS REALIZED THE POSSIBILITY OF AND TEMPTATION TO PRICE
INFLATION.  NECESSITY FOR SPEEDY ACQUISITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THEIR
MOTIVE IN VIEW OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF A DECLARATION OF TAKING.  46
STAT. 1421.  IT WELL MAY BE THAT EXPERIENCE WITH CONDEMNATION AWARDS
AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION BY SALARIED GOVERNMENT SERVANTS APPEARED TO
FORESHADOW MORE EXPENSE THAN THE PLAN ADOPTED.  FN15 

IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE DEPARTMENT'S CONCLUSION THAT ITS OFFICERS COULD
REGULATE THE OFFER OF PRICES ABOVE THE MARKET BY A REFUSAL TO ACCEPT
THE OPTIONS.  COLONEL VALLIANT VISITED THE AREA TO GATHER INFORMATION
DURING THE PURCHASES.  OUR INQUIRY AT THIS POINT, SINCE CORRUPTION IS
NOT SHOWN, IS AS TO WHETHER THE LIKELIHOOD OF DISADVANTAGE TO THE
GOVERNMENT IS SO MENACING AS TO PROHIBIT SUCH CONTRACTS REGARDLESS OF
THE EFFECT IN A PARTICULAR CASE. 

NO OTHER CASE HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION WHICH HAS DECLARED THAT A
COMMISSION OR PURCHASE CONTRACT IS INVALID ON THE GROUND OF PUBLIC
POLICY.  PUBLIC POLICY IS TO BE ASCERTAINED BY REFERENCE TO THE LAWS
AND LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND NOT FROM GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS OF SUPPOSED
PUBLIC INTERESTS.  VIDAL V. PHILADELPHIA, 2 HOW.  127, 197-98.  AS THE
TERM "PUBLIC POLICY" IS VAGUE, THERE MUST BE FOUND DEFINITE INDICATIONS
IN THE LAW OF THE SOVEREIGNTY TO JUSTIFY THE INVALIDATION OF A CONTRACT
AS CONTRARY TO THAT POLICY.  TWIN CITY PIPE LINE CO. V. HARDING GLASS
CO., 283 U.S. 353; FROST & CO. V. COEUR D'ALENE MINES CORP., 312 U.S.
38.  IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE THAT GOOD FAITH CONTRACTS OF
THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT BE LIGHTLY INVALIDATED.  ONLY DOMINANT
PUBLIC POLICY WOULD JUSTIFY SUCH ACTION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A PLAIN
INDICATION OF THAT POLICY THROUGH LONG GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICE OR
STATUTORY ENACTMENTS, OR OF VIOLATIONS OF OBVIOUS ETHICAL OR MORAL
STANDARDS, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT ASSUME TO DECLARE CONTRACTS OF THE WAR
DEPARTMENT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.  FN16  THE COURTS MUST BE CONTENT
TO AWAIT LEGISLATIVE ACTION. 

THE GOVERNMENT CALLS ATTENTION TO CRIMINAL CODE, SECS. 41, 112 AND
113, AND THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1917, 39 STAT. 1106,  FN17  AS INDICATIVE
OF A DECLARED PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST AN AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES BEING
PERMITTED TO HAVE A PECUNIARY INTEREST IN A CONTRACT WHEN THAT INTEREST
WOULD BE ENHANCED IN VALUE AT AN EXPENSE TO THE UNITED STATES.  BUT
THESE SECTIONS RELATE TO A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S REPRESENTATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN MATTERS INVOLVING A PRIVATE CORPORATION OR FIRM IN WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT AGENT HAS AN INTEREST, OR A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S
RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION FOR PROCURING A CONTRACT FROM THE GOVERNMENT
FOR ANY PERSON OR FOR ANY SERVICE RENDERED IN RELATION TO ANY SUCH
CONTRACT, OR RECEIPT OF ANY SALARY OR SUPPLEMENT TO SALARY IN
CONNECTION WITH HIS GOVERNMENT SERVICES FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THUS THESE SECTIONS MANIFEST A
LEGISLATIVE INTENTION TO BAR A GOVERNMENT AGENT FROM RECEIVING PAY FROM
A THIRD PARTY FOR ASSISTING THAT THIRD PARTY TO SECURE A GOVERNMENT
CONTRACT. 

HERE THE PAY WAS FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO THE GOVERNMENT.  IN FORM
THE VENDORS AGREED TO PAY THE COMPENSATION BUT ACTUALLY THE UNITED
STATES WAS THE PAYOR.  AS STATED ABOVE IT WAS MERELY A CONVENIENT WAY
IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT'S PROMISE TO PAY ITS AGENT COULD BE MET. 

IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THESE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST RECEIPT OF
COMPENSATION FROM THIRD PARTIES FOR SECURING CONTRACTS WERE DIRECTED AT
THE CRIME OF BRIBERY IN ITS OPEN OR SUBTLE FORM.  WE DO NOT SEE THAT
THESE STATUTES MANIFEST A PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST THE USE OF A COMMISSION
SYSTEM FOR PUBLIC PURCHASES.  THE CHANGE AFTER EXPERIENCE, FROM THE
COMMISSION SYSTEM OF LAND PURCHASES TO THE SOLICITATION OF OPTIONS BY
SALARIED EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT OR FIXED FEE CONTRACTORS,
INDICATES ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT OF DESIRABILITY, NOT ADMINISTRATIVE
CONDEMNATION OF THE LEGALITY OF THE METHOD.  FN18 

SINCE IT IS CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS WHICH DETERMINE PUBLIC POLICY,
ANY DOUBT WHICH MIGHT EXIST AS TO THE LEGALITY OF SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT
AS WAS ADOPTED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT FOR THIS AND A FEW OTHER PROJECTS
IS DISSIPATED BY THE ACTION OF CONGRESS ON THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT
APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1942.  APPARENTLY A LIMITATION OF COMMISSIONS ON
LAND PURCHASES WAS OMITTED FROM THE BILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUGGESTIONS
OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT.  FN19  THE COMMISSION TYPE OF CONTRACT WAS
RECOGNIZED AS APPROPRIATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE NAVAL
APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1942, 55 STAT. 151, 177.  FN20  A SIMILAR
PROVISION APPEARS IN THE MILITARY APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1944, SEC. 12,
57 STAT. 347, 369.  FN21    WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION THAT THE TWO PER CENT LIMITATION MEANS THAT NOT MORE THAN
TWO PER CENT OF THE ESTIMATED PRICE MAY BE PAID AS A FIXED FEE.  FN22
THERE IS NOTHING THAT INDICATES TO US THAT THE PROVISION IS NOT
INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE CONTRACTS FOR COMMISSION ON THE PURCHASE PRICE
OF LAND.  THIS WAS THE SYSTEM WHICH THE WITNESSES CONSIDERED
DANGEROUS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. MUSCHANY, 139 F.2D 661. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN LAND, 46 F.SUPP.  921. 

FN3  THE PERTINENT PARTS OF THE MCDOWELL AGENCY CONTRACT ARE: 

"3.  THE OPTIONER SHALL DILIGENTLY ENDEAVOR TO ACQUIRE SUCH OPTIONS,
NOT ONLY WITHIN SUCH TIME, BUT AT THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE LAND TO
BE ACQUIRED, AND SUBJECT AT ALL TIME TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE FORM OF OPTION CONTRACTED TO BE EXECUTED, AND ALL
TERMS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF, SHALL BE ON THE FORM APPROVED
BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND A COPY OF WHICH IS TO BE ATTACHED HERETO AND
MADE A PART HEREOF.  IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS TO HAVE
THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO TAKE UP OR REJECT ANY OPTION TO ANY PARCEL OF
LAND OPTIONED BY SAID OPTIONER HEREUNDER, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED. 

"4....  THE OPTIONER SHALL PROCURE FROM THE VENDORS IN ALL CASES WHERE
OPTIONS ARE ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, AN ORDER TO THE
KANSAS CITY TITLE AND INSURANCE COMPANY, TO PREPARE CERTIFICATES OF
TITLE AND DEEDS AND IT SHALL BE HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT SAID
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AND DEEDS ARE TRANSMITTED TO THE PROPER
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FOR EXAMINATION.  THE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE TO BE
FURNISHED BY THE KANSAS CITY TITLE AND INSURANCE COMPANY WILL BE ON
FORMS SIMILAR TO THE ONE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AND
FUNDS TO EFFECT CLOSING OF PURCHASES BY THE TITLE COMPANY WILL BE
FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE TITLE COMPANY IN FORM OF CHECKS
PAYABLE TO EACH VENDOR IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE SET FORTH IN
THE ACCEPTED OPTIONS." 

"8.  FOR ALL SERVICES HEREUNDER THE COMPENSATION OF THE OPTIONER
SHALL CONSIST SOLELY OF THE FIVE PER CENT (5%) COMMISSION IN EACH
PURCHASE, TO BE PAID BY THE VENDOR, AS MORE SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN
THE FORM OF OPTION ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF." 

FN4  "UPON EXERCISE OF THIS OPTION BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE UNDERSIGNED
AGREES TO PAY TO R. NEWTON MCDOWELL A COMMISSION OF FIVE PER CENT (5%)
OF THE GROSS SALES PRICE AS FULL PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICES OF SAID R.
NEWTON MCDOWELL IN PROCURING SUCH SALE, PREPARING THE DEED OR DEEDS FOR
THE CONVEYANCE OF SAID LAND AND ARRANGING FOR SETTLEMENT AND CLOSING OF
THE TRANSACTION. 

"UPON FURNISHING OF FINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE AS ABOVE SHOWING TITLE
TO BE VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE AGREED PURCHASE PRICE
ABOVE MENTIONED WILL BE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE UNDERSIGNED. 

"IF FOR ANY REASON THE TITLE TO THE LAND IS NOT APPROVED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE GOVERNMENT WILL PROCEED TO ACQUIRE THE LAND BY
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES IN WHICH SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED, UNDER A CONSENT VERDICT
FIXING THE AWARD AT THE AGREED VALUATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL THE
TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS OPTION AND WILL UPON FILING ITS PETITION
IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS DEPOSIT SAID AGREED PURCHASE PRICE WITH THE CLERK
OF SAID COURT, SAME TO BE DISBURSED BY SAID OFFICER PURSUANT TO THE
DECREE ENTERED IN SUCH CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS." 

FN5  A STIPULATION CONSOLIDATES THE RECORD OF THE TWO CASES BEFORE US
AND A THIRD CASE, NOT HERE INVOLVED, UNITED STATES V. 94.68 ACRES OF
LAND, 45 F.SUPP.  1016, AND AUTHORIZES ITS USE "AS A PART OF THE RECORD
IN EACH OF THE TWO" CASES HERE ON REVIEW.  WHILE THE CASES HAVE NOT
BEEN CONSOLIDATED, ONE WAS SET ON OUR DOCKET FOR HEARING FOLLOWING THE
OTHER, THE UNITED STATES HAS FILED A SINGLE BRIEF AND PETITIONERS A
JOINT REPLY BRIEF. 

FN6  IN THE MUSCHANY CASE, THE AVERAGE VALUATION OF EIGHT GOVERNMENT
WITNESSES, FOR LAND UPON WHICH THE OPTION WAS TAKEN AT $4,500, WAS
$1,972.  THE AVERAGE VALUATION OF SEVEN OF RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES WAS
$4,546.  46 F.SUPP.  925. 

NO FINDING OF VALUE APPEARS FOR THE ANDREWS CASE BUT THE EVIDENCE
SHOWS AN AVERAGE VALUATION BY GOVERNMENT WITNESSES OF $3,114 AND BY THE
VENDOR AND ONE OF HIS WITNESSES OF $12,000. 

FN7  PETITIONERS IN NO. 31 CONTRACTED TO SELL THE GOVERNMENT CERTAIN
LAND FOR $4,500, WHICH THEY HAD PURCHASED IN 1939 FOR $1,000.  THE
RECORD INDICATES THAT SINCE PURCHASING THIS LAND IN 1939, VARIOUS
IMPROVEMENTS HAD BEEN MADE.  AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE THERE WAS NO
HIGHWAY LEADING FROM THE MAIN ROAD TO THE PROPERTY; A THICKET WAS
CLEARED AND A ROAD CONSTRUCTED WHICH PASSED OVER AN ADJOINING PIECE OF
PROPERTY.  THE CULTIVABLE AREA OF LAND WAS INCREASED BY CLEARING TIMBER
THICKETS FROM PART OF THE PROPERTY.  A LOCAL DRAINAGE DISTRICT SURFACED
WITH ROCK THE RIVER FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY, PRESUMABLY TO STOP
EROSION.  THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT PETITIONERS IN NO. 31
MADE A VERY GOOD BUY WHEN THEY PURCHASED THIS LAND FOR $1,000.  IT WAS
IN THE HANDS OF PRIOR OWNERS WHO HAD ALLOWED $800 IN BACK TAXES TO
ACCUMULATE ON THE PROPERTY.  AS TO PETITIONERS IN NO. 32, THEY SOLD
LAND TO THE GOVERNMENT IN 1940 AT A PRICE OF $12,000 FOR WHICH THEY
PAID $2,250 IN 1934.  THE LAPSE OF A SIX-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, THE
CHANGE IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FROM THOSE OF A SEVERE AGRICULTURAL
DEPRESSION TO ONE OF WARTIME AGRICULTURAL PROSPERITY FURNISHES SOME
EXPLANATION FOR THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE PRICE PAID FOR THE LAND IN
1934 AND THE PRICE AT WHICH IT WAS VALUED IN 1940. 

FN8  LEGISLATION IN REGARD TO THE RENEGOTIATION OF WAR CONTRACTS IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO EITHER OF THE CONTRACTS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  SEE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, CH. 619, 56 STAT. 798, TITLE VIII - RENEGOTIATION
OF WAR CONTRACTS - SEC. 801(C)(6); REVENUE ACT OF 1943, C. 63, 58 STAT.
21, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS., TITLE VII, SEC. 701(B), SEC. 403(C)(6). 

FN9  ACT OF JULY 2, 1917, 40 STAT. 241; ACT OF APRIL 11, 1918, 40
STAT. 518. 

FN10  R.S. SEC. 1136; R.S. SEC. 3734; 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1336; THE WALSH
HEALEY OR PREVAILING MINIMUM WAGE ACT, 49 STAT. 2036. 

FN11  54 STAT. 712:  "THAT (A) IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THE BUILDING UP
OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF WAR IS AUTHORIZED, OUT OF THE
MONEYS APPROPRIATED FOR THE WAR DEPARTMENT FOR NATIONAL-DEFENSE
PURPOSES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1941, WITH OR WITHOUT
ADVERTISING, (1) TO PROVIDE FOR THE NECESSARY CONSTRUCTION,
REHABILITATION, CONVERSION, AND INSTALLATION AT MILITARY POSTS, DEPOTS,
STATIONS, OR OTHER LOCALITIES, OF PLANTS, BUILDINGS, FACILITIES,
UTILITIES, AND APPURTENANCES THERETO (INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED
FACILITIES AT PRIVATELY OWNED PLANTS AND THE EXPANSION OF SUCH PLANTS,
AND THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH LAND, AND THE PURCHASE OR LEASE OF SUCH
STRUCTURES, AS MAY BE NECESSARY), FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURE,
MAINTENANCE, AND STORAGE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT, MUNITIONS, AND
SUPPLIES, AND FOR SHELTER; ...  PROVIDED, THAT THE LIMITATIONS
CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 1136 AND 3734 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, AS
AMENDED, AND ANY STATUTORY LIMITATION WITH RESPECT TO THE COST OF ANY
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION, SHALL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL AND
INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1942, WITH RESPECT TO ANY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED BY
THIS ACT:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NO CONTRACT ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO PROVIDE CONDITIONS FOR THE
PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES AND THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS BY THE UNITED STATES,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES', APPROVED JUNE 30, 1936(49 STAT. 2036; U.S.C.,
SUPP. V, TITLE 41, SECS. 35-45), SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
SUCH ACT SOLELY BECAUSE OF BEING ENTERED INTO WITHOUT ADVERTISING
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE
COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING SHALL NOT BE USED
UNDER THIS SECTION; BUT THIS PROVISO SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT
THE USE OF THE COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE FORM OF CONTRACT WHEN SUCH USE IS
DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR." 

FN12  86 CONG. REC. 7839, 7841, 7843.  THE PROVISO AS ADOPTED BY THE
SENATE READ:  "THAT WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE COST-PLUS SYSTEM OF
CONTRACTING SHALL NOT BE USED UNDER THIS SECTION."  WE DO NOT KNOW THE
PRECISE REASON FOR THE CHANGE FROM THIS LANGUAGE TO THE PRESENT, AS IT
TOOK PLACE IN CONFERENCE.  THE STATEMENT FROM THE MANAGERS ON THE PART
OF THE HOUSE READS: 

"(THE CONFERENCE BILL) SUBSTITUTES FOR THE LIMITATION UPON THE USE OF
THE COST-PLUS SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING A PROVISION WHICH BARS THE USE OF
THE COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST SYSTEM BUT ALLOWS THE SECRETARY OF
WAR, WHEN HE DEEMS IT NECESSARY, TO USE THE COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE FORM
OF CONTRACT."  H. REP. NO. 2578, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 6.  IT MIGHT
BE INFERRED THAT THE CHANGE WAS MADE TO ACCORD WITH THE CLAUSE ALLOWING
COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE.  WHATEVER THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE THE FINAL
FORM IS LESS RESTRICTIVE ON THE WAR DEPARTMENT THAN THE "COST-PLUS"
SYSTEM WHICH WAS FIRST FORBIDDEN. 

FN13  BUT SEE UNITED STATES V. TWO ACRES OF LAND, 144 F.2D 207. 

FN14  CF. PROVIDENCE TOOL CO. V. NORRIS, 2 WALL.  45; TRIST V. CHILD,
21 WALL.  441, 449-52; HAZELTON V. SHECKELLS, 202 U.S. 71, 78, 79;
CROCKER V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 74, 78-81. 

FN15 TESTIMONY OF UNDER SECRETARY PATTERSON, APRIL 29, 1941, BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, ON THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT APPROPRIATION BILL FOR
1942, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 106. 

FN16  CF. CHICAGO, ST. L. & N.O.R. CO. V. PULLMAN CAR CO., 139 U.S.
79, 89; BALTIMORE & OHIO S.W.R. CO. V. VOIGT, 176 U.S. 498, 513-520. 

AS EXAMPLES OF CONTRACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD INVALID AS ACTS OR
CONTRACTS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, SEE SPROTT V. UNITED STATES, 20 WALL. 
459; MCMULLEN V. HOFFMAN, 174 U.S. 639; BURT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS.
CO., 187 U.S. 362. 

FN17  SEE ALSO EXECUTIVE ORDER 9001, TITLE I, SEC. 1, TITLE II, SECS.
5, 6, 6 FED. REG. 6787; 50 U.S.C. SEC. 611, N. (APPENDIX). 

FN18  SEE THE TESTIMONY OF UNDER SECRETARY PATTERSON, HEARINGS BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, ON THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT APPROPRIATION BILL FOR
1942, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 106. 

FN19  HEARINGS, SUPRA, N. 18, P. 106; HEARINGS BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, UNITED STATES SENATE,
77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 4965, PP. 47-48. 

FN20  55 STAT. 177:  "SEC.  7.  NO PART OF ANY MONEY APPROPRIATED
HEREIN OR INCLUDED UNDER ANY CONTRACT AUTHORITY HEREIN GRANTED SHALL BE
EXPENDED FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY COMMISSION ON ANY LAND PURCHASE
CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF 2 PER CENTUM OF THE PURCHASE PRICE." 

FN21  SEE ALSO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9001, TITLE I, 6 FED. REG. 6787,
50 U.S.C. SEC. 611, N. (APPENDIX). 

FN22  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON THE
NAVY DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1942, PP. 502-504, 505-509;
HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
U.S. SENATE, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT
APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1942, PP. 46-50, 53. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT TAKE PRIVATE
PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION. 
THE PROBLEM HERE IS WHETHER THE ARRANGEMENTS NOW BEFORE US GIVE RISE TO
ENFORCIBLE AGREEMENTS OR WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES ARE TO BE
GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR "JUST COMPENSATION" FOR
THE LAND NEEDED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER IN THE SITUATION REVEALED BY THIS RECORD THE LAW DEMANDS THAT
CERTAIN PROPERTY HOLDERS SHALL RECEIVE IN PAYMENT FOR THEIR PROPERTIES
AMOUNTS WHICH, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING OF FRAUD, MAY WELL BE
FAR IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS "JUST COMPENSATION," THEREBY IMPOSING AN
UNJUST BURDEN ON THE PUBLIC.  THE COURT SAYS "YES"; I SAY "NO." 

THE AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED UNDER THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES.  A
WAR DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE AGREED THAT ONE MCDOWELL SHOULD UNDERTAKE
TO SECURE OPTIONS TO BUY 18,000 ACRES OF LAND AT WELDON SPRINGS,
MISSOURI, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT WAS ABOUT TO BUILD A WAR MUNITIONS
PLANT.  UNDER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, MCDOWELL WAS TO RECEIVE FROM THE
GOVERNMENT A COMMISSION OF 5% OF THE GROSS SALE PRICE OF EACH PARCEL OF
LAND.  LATER, MCDOWELL, PRESUMABLY WITH THE ACQUIESCENCE OF THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER, ADOPTED A PLAN UNDER WHICH THE LANDOWNERS EXECUTED
OPTIONS FOR A PRICE WHICH INCLUDED THE 5% COMMISSION.  THUS, THE LESS
THE COST OF THE LANDS THE LESS MCDOWELL WOULD MAKE; THE GREATER THE
COST, THE GREATER HIS COMMISSION. 

THE ENSUING RESULTS WERE, IF NOT INEVITABLE, AT LEAST NOT
SURPRISING.  WITH PHENOMENAL SPEED MCDOWELL OBTAINED 270 SEPARATE
OPTIONS AND PROMPTLY RECOMMENDED THEIR PURCHASE TO THE DEPARTMENT AT
THE STIPULATED PRICES.  ON WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO MORE THAN AN
INESCAPABLY FORMAL EXAMINATION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS,  FN1  129
OPTIONS WERE ACCEPTED AND CONTRACTS OF PURCHASE WERE EXECUTED AT AN
EXPENSE OF APPROXIMATELY A MILLION DOLLARS TO THE GOVERNMENT.  AFTER AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE WHOLE AFFAIR BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THE
REMAINING 149 CONTRACTS WERE REPUDIATED BY THE GOVERNMENT, CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS WERE FILED, AND IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS
AWARDED THE GOVERNMENT.  SEE 46 STAT. 1421.  IN THE CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT, AS TO THE UNCOMPLETED MCDOWELL
TRANSACTIONS, TO PAY NO MORE THAN JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE
PROPERTIES.    THIS COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS IRREVOCABLY
BOUND BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S "ACCEPTANCE" OF THE MCDOWELL
OPTIONS.  AND WHILE THE IMMEDIATE JUDGMENT DIRECTLY AFFECTS ONLY THE
TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY HERE INVOLVED, THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED UPHOLD
THE VALIDITY OF ALL THE MCDOWELL-PROCURED AGREEMENTS, EVEN THOUGH THE
AGREED COST STIPULATED IN THOSE AGREEMENTS MIGHT IN CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS BE JUDICIALLY DETERMINED TO EXCEED JUST COMPENSATION.  THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THESE TWO CASES DID NOT DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE JUST
COMPENSATION.  IT FOUND NO MORE THAN THAT THE OPTION AGREED PRICE OF
THESE PARTICULAR LANDS WAS NOT "UNREASONABLY EXCESSIVE."  THE DISTRICT
COURT DID NOT FIND THAT THE AGREED PRICES REPRESENT A FAIR MARKET
VALUE; THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAKES IT CLEAR
BEYOND DOUBT THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE SUCH A FINDING.  THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOW BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE PETITIONERS
IN NO. 31 A VALUE, AS OF 1940, OF $4,500.00, OR $165.00 PER ACRE, FOR
LAND WHICH PETITIONERS BOUGHT IN 1939 FOR $1,000.00, OR $33.33 PER
ACRE.  THE OTHER PETITIONERS ARE TO BE THE BENEFICIARIES OF A SIMILAR
"CONTRACT" BOUNTY.  FOR LANDS AND IMPROVEMENTS WHICH COST THEM
$2,250.00 IN 1934, OR ABOUT $24.00 PER ACRE, THE GOVERNMENT MUST PAY
$12,000.00, OR $127.00 PER ACRE.  FN2 

THE DETAILS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN MCDOWELL AND THE LANDOWNERS
ARE SET OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND NEED NOT
BE REPEATED AT LENGTH HERE.  REFERENCE IS THERE MADE TO SUCCESSIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS BY MCDOWELL ON THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND FOR PURCHASE AT
$4,500.00, $10,000.00 AND $4,900.00.  IN ANOTHER INSTANCE A LANDOWNER
REFUSED THE REQUEST OF ONE OF MCDOWELL'S REPRESENTATIVES TO UP THE
PRICE OF HIS PROPERTY $50.00 PER ACRE.  STILL OTHER ILLUSTRATIVE ITEMS
INCLUDED IN AGREED PRICES, SUCH AS THOSE WHICH THE COURT TODAY HOLDS
INVULNERABLE, ARE "ONE YEAR'S LOSS IN SALARY OF EACH PARTNER" AND
$6,500.00 FOR "LOSS OF BUSINESS." 

NOTHING BUT THE CLEAREST AND MOST UNEQUIVOCAL CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT
COULD IN MY JUDGMENT BIND THE GOVERNMENT TO SUCH ARRANGEMENTS.  THERE
IS NO SUCH ENACTMENT.  AND EVEN IF CONGRESS HAD NOT ITSELF CONDEMNED
SUCH CONTRACTS AS THESE, CONCEIVABLY, THEY ARE WITHIN THE BAN OF
PRINCIPLES PREVIOUSLY ENUNCIATED BY THIS COURT.  FN3  FOR THE TERMS OF
MCDOWELL'S CONTRACT, WHICH WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PURCHASING
SYSTEM HERE INVOLVED, WERE SUCH THAT THE HARDER HE WORKED TO REDUCE THE
PRICE OF THE LAND HE BOUGHT, THE LESS HE MADE.  HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY
SERVE MOST PROFITABLY HIS OWN INTEREST AND THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT AT
THE SAME TIME.  ONLY BY ACTING TO THE FINANCIAL DISADVANTAGE OF THE
GOVERNMENT COULD HE ACT FOR THE FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE OF HIMSELF. 

IT WAS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM THE DANGEROUS TENDENCY OF THE
EXCESSES OF JUST SUCH CONTRACTS THAT CONGRESS HAS REPEATEDLY PROHIBITED
FN4  THE WAR DEPARTMENT FROM USING "THE COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST
SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING."  CONGRESS HAD IN 1936 RECEIVED A REPORT FROM A
SPECIAL SENATE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE MUNITIONS INDUSTRY POINTING
OUT THE EVILS OF THAT CONTRACTING SYSTEM.  THAT REPORT SAID:  "IT IS
GENERALLY ADMITTED THAT EXORBITANT PROFITS WERE MADE UNDER COST PLUS A
PERCENTAGE OF COST CONTRACTS IN THE WORLD WAR....  THE PROFITEERING
UNDER COST PLUS A PERCENTAGE OF COST CONTRACTS IN THE LAST WAR WAS SO
FLAGRANT THAT CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY DISAPPROVED OF THEIR USE FOR
GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT."  FN5 

THE SAME SENATOR WHO MADE THIS REPORT, INITIATED A SENATE DISCUSSION
WHICH LED TO THE IMMEDIATE ADOPTION OF THE PROHIBITION OF "COST-PLUS-A
PERCENTAGE-OF-COST" CONTRACTING IN THE ACT HERE INVOLVED.  HE
EXCORIATED THE COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE SYSTEM AS A "VICIOUS" ONE.  FN6
IT WAS THIS "SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING" WHICH CONGRESS FORBADE, A SYSTEM
WHICH FROM ITS VERY NATURE KEEPS CONSTANTLY DANGLING BEFORE THE EYES OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTRACTUAL AGENT HOPE OF A PROGRESSIVELY INCREASING
REWARD FOR HIMSELF FOR EVERY ADDED DOLLAR OF COST HE CAN GET THE
GOVERNMENT TO PAY.  THIS SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING WAS NOT DEEMED "VICIOUS"
FOR LACK OF "CERTAINTY" AS TO COSTS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE "CERTAINTY" OF
ITS INEXORABLE TENDENCY TO ELEVATE THOSE COSTS TO HEIGHTS WHICH WOULD
IMPOSE UNFAIR BURDENS ON THE PUBLIC TREASURY. 

THAT THIS WAS THE MOVING PURPOSE IN PROHIBITING SUCH A CONTRACT
SYSTEM IS FURTHER SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT CONGRESS AT THE SAME TIME
PERMITTED A "COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE FORM OF CONTRACT."  CERTAINLY
CONGRESS COULD NOT THEREBY HAVE INTENDED TO REDUCE THE SCOPE OF ITS
SWEEPING CONDEMNATION OF "COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST SYSTEM."  ON
THE CONTRARY, PERMISSION TO USE THE FIXED FEE CONTRACT BUT UNDERLINES
THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT ABSOLUTELY TO PROHIBIT ANY WAR DEPARTMENT
AGENT FROM USING A SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING WHICH WOULD IMPOSE UPON THE
GOVERNMENT INFLATED COSTS BY PROVIDING AN INCENTIVE TO PAD COSTS OR TO
TAKE TOO ROSY A VIEW OF VALUE.  WHATEVER OTHER DISADVANTAGES THE COST
PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE SYSTEM MAY HAVE, NO INCENTIVE TO RAISE THE COST ARISES
FROM THE FIXED FEE.  BUT WHEN A PERCENTAGE FEE OR COMPENSATION IS
PROVIDED FOR, WHICH DIMINISHES OR INCREASES IN PROPORTION TO COSTS,
THERE IS AMPLE MOTIVE OR AT LEAST TENDENCY TO INCREASE SUCH COSTS. 
FN7 

THAT INCENTIVE LOOMS LARGE IN THE CONTRACTS HERE INVOLVED.  FN8  IT
MATTERS NOT INTO WHAT FORM THE ARRANGEMENT IS CAST.  IT IS CONCEDED
THAT HAD THIS CONTRACT REQUIRED MCDOWELL HIMSELF OT BUY AND TAKE TITLE
TO THE LANDS, THE ARRANGEMENT WITH HIM WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE
CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION AS A "COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST"
CONTRACT.  BUT THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT TAKE TITLE HIMSELF DID NOT
LESSEN THE TENDENCY OF THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT TO INVITE HIM TO
INCREASE HIS REWARD BY INDUCING THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY A HIGH PRICE FOR
THE LAND.  THE DIFFERENCE CREATED BY THIS SLIGHT DEVIATION IN THE
STRUCTURE OF THE ARRANGEMENTS DID NOT ALTER THEIR EFFECT.  THE
"VICIOUS" TENDENCY AT WHICH CONGRESS HIT WAS STILL PRESENT.  THE
GOVERNMENT WAS STILL OBLIGATED TO PAY THE LANDOWNER'S PRICE - THE
LAND'S COST PLUS A PERCENTAGE TO MCDOWELL OF THAT COST.  FURTHERMORE,
THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF MCDOWELL'S NOT TAKING TITLE HIMSELF, WAS TO
AGGRAVATE THE GOVERNMENT'S PERIL, FOR MCDOWELL DID NOT TAKE ANY RISKS
OF PURCHASE.  TO HOLD THAT THESE ARRANGEMENTS ARE LEGAL IS TO LEAVE
UNCHECKED A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASING WHICH CONGRESS HAS DECLARED
TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

IT IS SAID THAT STATUTES PROVIDING FOR THE RENEGOTIATION OF WAR
CONTRACTS INDICATE THAT IN "CERTAIN INSTANCES THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO
RECOVER ABNORMALLY HIGH CONTRACT PROFITS."  THESE EFFORTS OF CONGRESS
TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC INTEREST AGAINST UNJUST EXACTIONS PROVIDE NO
EXCUSE FOR THE NARROW CONSTRUCTION THE COURT TODAY GIVES THE "COST-PLUS
A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST" PROHIBITION.  THEY BUT EMPHASIZE THE INTENTION OF
CONGRESS TO DEVISE MANY SAFEGUARDS AGAINST UNFAIR PROCUREMENT PRICES
WHICH MIGHT UNJUSTLY ENRICH SOME FEW PEOPLE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
MANY.  I SHOULD THINK THAT IF THESE STATUTES COULD BE GIVEN ANY EFFECT,
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES, THEY WOULD BUT PROVIDE AN ADDED
REASON WHY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THESE
LANDOWNERS MORE THAN "JUST COMPENSATION."  CERTAINLY, IN THE LIGHT OF
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY ARTICULATED IN THE RENEGOTIATION STATUTES, I CAN
SEE NO REASON WHY THIS COURT SHOULD WORK OVERTIME TO SHRINK THE SCOPE
OF THE COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST STATUTORY PROHIBITION. 

THE COURT'S JUDGMENT IN EFFECT UPHOLDS MCDOWELL'S PERCENTAGE
AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE OPTION AGREEMENTS WITH THE
LANDOWNERS MADE PURSUANT THERETO.  IT REQUIRES FULL PAYMENT NOT ONLY OF
THE STIPULATED LAND PRICES BUT OF MCDOWELL'S COMMISSIONS AS WELL.  THIS
IS SO BECAUSE THE $4,500.00 AND $12,000.00 INCLUDED THE COST OF THE
LAND PLUS THE PERCENTAGE OF THAT COST WHICH WAS MCDOWELL'S COMMISSION. 
THUS, AFFIRMANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENTS NECESSARILY MUST IMPLY
THAT MCDOWELL'S COMMISSION AGREEMENTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT ARE VALID. 

THE LANDOWNERS' RIGHTS ARE INDISSOLUBLY INTERTWINED WITH MCDOWELL'S.
FN9  BOTH MUST STAND OR FALL TOGETHER ON THE VALIDITY OF MCDOWELL'S AND
THE LANDOWNERS' ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  AND UNDER THOSE
ARRANGEMENTS THE GOVERNMENT WAS TO PAY COST OF THE LANDS FOR WHICH
MCDOWELL NEGOTIATED PLUS FIVE PERCENT OF THAT COST.  THIS WAS A "COST
PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE OF COST SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING."  SUCH AN INTEGRATED
SCHEME OF ILLEGAL ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO SUPPORT THESE
JUDGMENTS.  THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY NO MORE THAN JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE LANDS IT HAS CONDEMNED.  FN10 

FINALLY, I CANNOT AGREE TO THE COURT'S STATEMENT THAT THIS CASE COMES
TO US "WITHOUT ANY SUGGESTION OF FRAUD OR UNFAIRNESS SUCH AS WOULD
JUSTIFY HOLDING THE CONTRACT INVALID."  THE COURT'S OPINION STATES THAT
THOSE WHO DEAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO SO "WITH ABSOLUTE HONESTY,"
AND THAT "THE DOCTRINES OF FRAUD, UNCONSCIONABLE DEALING AND UNJUST
ENRICHMENT ARE TO BE STRICTLY APPLIED TO INSURE FAIR AND HONEST DEALING
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS CITIZENS."  IN MY JUDGMENT, WE ARE
SQUARELY CONFRONTED WITH THE ISSUES OF FRAUD, UNCONSCIONABLE DEALING,
AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT.  I THINK WE SHOULD REMAND THE CASE TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT SO THAT IT CAN PASS UPON THOSE QUESTIONS. 

WE ARE NOT FACED HERE WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH FINDINGS, UPON "AMPLE
EVIDENCE," HAVE BEEN CLEARLY MADE BY A MASTER AND UNEQUIVOCALLY AND
JOINTLY AFFIRMED BY BOTH A DISTRICT COURT AND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AS IN UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., 315 U.S. 289, 297-9.  FN11
THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT, IN THE
INSTANT CASE, BOTH CONCURRENTLY FIND AN ABSENCE OF FRAUD,
UNCONSCIONABLENESS AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DID STATE IN ITS OPINION THAT THERE WAS "NO
FRAUD," AND THAT THE OPTION PRICES WERE "NOT UNCONSCIONABLE."  THIS
FINDING OF THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD WAS, HOWEVER, UNSUPPORTED BY THE
PRIMARY FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY IT, AND THAT COURT'S CONCLUSION RESTED
UPON LEGAL ASSUMPTIONS WHICH I THINK CONTRARY TO MANY DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE FINDING OF UNCONSCIONABILITY.  AS TO
"UNJUST ENRICHMENT," THE DISTRICT COURT MADE NO FINDING AT ALL, AND I
BELIEVE THAT ITS PRIMARY FINDINGS OF FACT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH ANY
HOLDING THAT THESE LANDHOLDERS WOULD NOT BE "UNJUSTLY ENRICHED" IF THE
GOVERNMENT IS FORCED TO PAY THE OPTION PRICES. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON EITHER
OF THESE QUESTIONS.  IT REFUSED TO INDULGE IN WHAT IT TERMED A
"JUDICIAL PARING" OF THE COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST STATUTORY
PROHIBITION, AND HELD THE CONTRACTS VOID UNDER THAT STATUTE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT REQUIRED
IT AFFIRMATIVELY TO FIND THE FOLLOWING THREE FACTS IN ORDER TO HOLD
THAT THERE WAS FRAUD:  "(1) THE AGENT'S COMMISSION WAS ADDED TO THE
PURCHASE PRICE, (2) THE PRICE DID NOT REPRESENT THE REASONABLE MARKET
VALUE OF THE LAND, AND (3) MCDOWELL MISREPRESENTED THE VALUE OF THE
LAND TO COL. VALLIANT." 

AS TO THE LATTER POINT, THE DISTRICT COURT, IN ITS OPINION, STATED
THAT THERE WAS NO MISREPRESENTATION BY MCDOWELL.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DID NOT AFFIRM THIS FINDING.  IT DID SAY THAT THE RECORD AND
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT LEFT NO QUESTION "AS TO THE ACTUAL GOOD
FAITH OF THE QUARTERMASTER DEPARTMENT IN THE MATTER."  BUT AFTER
NARRATING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF MCDOWELL, IT OBSERVED THAT "THESE
INCONSISTENCIES AND DISGUISINGS CAN HARDLY BE COMMENDED AS DESIRABLE
METHODS OF HANDLING EXPENDITURES OF PUBLIC FUNDS.  THE EXCUSE MADE BY
THE QUARTERMASTER DEPARTMENT ON THE TRIAL WAS ITS DESIRE TO GET THE JOB
DONE AS SPEEDILY AS POSSIBLE AND 'BECAUSE IN ONE SINGLE VOUCHER WE
COULD PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SERVICES.'  THE
RESULT REACHED IN THE OPINION REQUIRES NO FURTHER PURSUIT HERE OF THESE
PARTICULAR MATTERS."  THE CIRCUIT COURT'S OPINION, TAKEN IN ITS
ENTIRETY, SHOWS BEYOND DOUBT THAT IT DID NOT APPROVE THE DISTRICT
COURT'S FINDINGS AS TO MCDOWELL'S DEALINGS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FURTHER BASED ITS CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO
FRAUD ON A FINDING THAT THE AGENT'S COMMISSION WAS NOT ADDED TO THE
PURCHASE PRICE.  THIS FINDING THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS EXPRESSLY
REJECTED.  THIS COURT HAS DONE LIKEWISE. 

THE THIRD AND LAST ELEMENT WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POSED
CONCERNING THE PRESENCE OF FRAUD WAS WHETHER "THE PRICE DID NOT
REPRESENT THE REASONABLE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND."  NEITHER THE
DISTRICT COURT NOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE PRICE
DID REPRESENT SUCH A VALUE.  IF SUCH A HOLDING HAS BEEN MADE AT ALL, IT
IS BY THIS COURT, AND I CANNOT AGREE TO IT. THE DISTRICT COURT ESCAPED
THE NECESSITY OF MAKING A FINDING AS TO MARKET VALUE BY HOLDING THAT
MARKET VALUE WAS IMMATERIAL SINCE "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE SHOW
THAT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WERE IN THE MINDS OF THE PARTIES WHEN THE
OPTION WAS TAKEN.  THE NECESSITY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE HAD FLASHED UPON
THE COUNTRY.  THE IMMINENCE OF THE PERIL WAS IMPRESSIVE.  THE LAND MUST
BE ACQUIRED AT ONCE, WITHOUT THE DELAY INCIDENT TO CONDEMNATION....
THE LAND WAS SOUGHT, BUT MORE WAS DEMANDED; IMMEDIATE POSSESSION WAS
ESSENTIAL TO ITS UNDERTAKING." 

I CAN ACCEPT NEITHER THE COURT'S CONCLUSION, NOR ITS REASONING.  IN
THE FIRST PLACE, THIS COURT HAS LONG HELD "MARKET VALUE" TO BE THE
PROPER STANDARD OF VALUE IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS, AND IN
CONSIDERING MARKET VALUE IT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN HELD THAT LANDOWNERS
ARE NOT ENTITLED TO INCREASED AMOUNTS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES
THAT IT NEEDS PROPERTY IN A VICINITY.  UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317
U.S. 369, 374, 376-377.  SECONDLY, IT IS NOVEL DOCTRINE THAT WHEN
NATIONAL PERIL REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY, THE OWNERS
ARE AS A MATTER OF LAW ENTITLED TO GET MORE THAN MARKET VALUE BECAUSE
MORE IS "DEMANDED."  FURTHERMORE, THE COURT'S ASSUMPTION THAT THE
GOVERNMENT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO GET IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF THE LAND BY
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WAS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS.  DECLARATION OF TAKING
ACT, 46 STAT. 1421.    HAVING THUS PUT ASIDE CONSIDERATION OF THE FAIR
OR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THE COURT LIMITED ITSELF TO FINDING
THAT THE OPTION PRICES DID NOT REPRESENT AN "UNREASONABLY EXCESSIVE
VALUE."  WHAT LINE MARKS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN REASONABLE EXCESS AND
UNREASONABLE EXCESS DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION
NOR FROM THIS COURT'S OPINION TODAY.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE PARTICULAR
FACTS IN NO. 31 SUGGESTS THE DIFFICULTY OF EVER ASCERTAINING WHAT WOULD
BE AN UNREASONABLY EXCESSIVE VALUE.  IN 1939, $800 BACK TAXES HAD
ACCUMULATED ON 33 ACRES OF LAND.  THE MUSCHANYS BOUGHT IT, PAYING THE
$800 TAXES, $100 TO THE OWNERS, AND APPROXIMATELY $100 WAS ALLEGEDLY
EXPENDED FOR ATTORNEY'S FEE, ABSTRACT OF TITLE, ETC.  IN 1940, THE
"NECESSITY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE HAD FLASHED UPON THE COUNTRY."  THE
FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, IS APPARENTLY APPROVED BY THIS COURT TODAY TO THE
EFFECT THAT 350% PROFIT ON THIS PURCHASE OF LAND IS NOT "UNREASONABLY
EXCESSIVE," EVEN THOUGH THE PURCHASER HAS HELD IT FOR ONLY ONE YEAR. 
THE ONLY SUBSIDIARY FINDING OF FACT WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT MADE TO
SUPPORT THIS PHENOMENAL RISE IN VALUE WAS THAT IN 1937 A ROAD HAD BEEN
BUILT WHICH SHORTENED THE DISTANCE TO ST. LOUIS BY ABOUT 15 MILES.  BUT
THIS ROAD HAD BEEN BUILT TWO YEARS BEFORE THE MUSCHANYS PAID OFF THE
BACK TAXES AND TOOK THE PROPERTY INTO THEIR POSSESSION.  THE COURT
TODAY, HOWEVER, REFERS TO CERTAIN OTHER EVENTS WHICH HAD OCCURRED, AND
WHICH ARE EVIDENTLY RELIED UPON AS JUSTIFYING THIS INCREASE IN VALUE
FROM $1,000 TO $4,500 IN THE SHORT SPAN OF A SINGLE YEAR.  IT IS CLEAR
THAT THERE WAS ONE REASON, AND ONE REASON ONLY, FOR THE $4,500 PRICE. 
THAT REASON WAS THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDED THE LAND TO HELP WIN THE WAR
AND MCDOWELL HAD A COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST CONTRACT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN DISCUSSING THIS QUESTION OF VALUE
SAID, "THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO OCCASION FOR US HERE TO REVIEW EITHER THE
GOVERNMENT'S OR THE LANDOWNERS' EVIDENCE AS TO THE VALUE IN THE TWO
CASES.  IF THE VALUE OF THE LAND WERE THE ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED, WE
MIGHT HESITATE TO REJECT THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS IN EITHER CASE,
UNDER RULE 52(A), FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 U.S.C.A.
FOLLOWING SEC. 723C.  BUT THE FINDINGS REFERRED TO ARE NOT
DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUE HERE BEING CONSIDERED."  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS THEN WENT ON TO DECIDE THE ONLY QUESTION THAT IT DID DECIDE,
WHICH WAS WHETHER MCDOWELL'S CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATED THE
COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST STATUTE. 

AT THE VERY LEAST, I THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PASS ON THE QUESTIONS OF FRAUD,
UNCONSCIONABILITY, AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT WHICH THIS COURT SAYS "ARE
AVAILABLE WHENEVER AND WHEREVER TRANSGRESSIONS TAKE PLACE." 

FN1 AT THE TIME OF THESE PURCHASES, THE REAL ESTATE SECTION OF THE
QUARTERMASTER CORPS WAS IN CHARGE OF LAND PROCUREMENT.  BECAUSE OF
INTENSIVE NATIONAL DEFENSE ACTIVITY, THIS SECTION HAD UNDER WAY
PURCHASE OF LANDS FOR ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT SEPARATE PROJECTS,
INVOLVING BETWEEN TWELVE AND FIFTEEN THOUSAND INDIVIDUAL PARCELS, WITH
AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF ABOUT FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS.  THE COLONEL IN
CHARGE OF THE SECTION HAD AT HIS DISPOSAL A STAFF OF THREE COMMISSIONED
OFFICERS AND ABOUT FORTY-ONE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.  THIS ARMY OFFICE, IN
CHARGE OF NATION-WIDE LAND PURCHASES, WAS THEREFORE COMPELLED TO RELY
CHIEFLY UPON MCDOWELL'S VALUATIONS. 

THE MUSCHANY TRANSACTION IS A TYPICAL ONE.  NOVEMBER 29, 1940,
MCDOWELL SENT THE OPTION AGREEMENT TO THE WASHINGTON PURCHASING OFFICE
RECOMMENDING ITS "ACCEPTANCE AS A FAIR VALUE TO THE UNITED STATES." 
FOUR DAYS LATER, DECEMBER 3, WITHOUT SEPARATE APPRAISAL OF ANY KIND,
THE WASHINGTON CONTRACTING OFFICER MARKED IT "ACCEPTED."  THIS WAS THE
ONLY CONTRACT EXECUTED WITH THE LANDOWNER BY THE GOVERNMENT, IF SUCH AN
ACTION CAN BE CALLED A CONTRACT AT ALL. 

FN2  IN REFERRING TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT $12,000.00 WAS
"NOT AN UNREASONABLY EXCESSIVE VALUATION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION," THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MADE THIS COMMENT: 

"THE LATTER FINDING IS PERHAPS A BIT STRAINED, SINCE THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE LANDOWNERS WAS SIMPLY THAT THE LAND HAD A
FARM VALUE OF ONLY $50 AN ACRE (A TOTAL OF $4,725), BUT, AS THE
LANDOWNERS' ONLY VALUE-WITNESS PUT IT, 'I THINK SOMEONE FROM ST. LOUIS
THAT WANTS A SITE WOULD PAY AS HIGH AS $125 AN ACRE (A TOTAL OF
$11,800) FOR THAT GROUND.'" 

FN3  MARSH V. WHITMORE, 21 WALL.  178; MICHOUD V. GIROD, 4 HOW.  503;
PROVIDENCE TOOL CO. V. NORRIS, 2 WALL.  45; HUME V. UNITED STATES, 132
U.S. 406; UNITED STATES V. CARTER, 217 U.S. 286; CROCKER V. UNITED
STATES, 240 U.S. 74; SEE ALSO THE OPINION OF DISTRICT JUDGE COLLET IN
45 F.SUPP.  1016. 

FN4  "AS A RESULT OF EXPERIENCES WITH COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST
CONTRACTS DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR AND THE EARLY PART OF THIS WAR,
USE OF THIS TYPE OF CONTRACT IS NOW ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION PROHIBITED
BY STATUTE."  C.C.H., WAR LAW SERVICE, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, PAR.
1015.  SEE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, SEC. 2(A), 54 STAT. 676, 677; ACT OF
MAY 2, 1941, SEC. 2(C), 55 STAT. 148; ACT OF DECEMBER 18, 1941, TITLE
II, SEC. 201, 55 STAT. 839.  SEE ALSO ACT OF JUNE 30, 1941, SEC. 9, 55
STAT. 393, AND ACT OF JUNE 5, 1942, SEC. 13, 56 STAT. 317.  THE
REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT OF
1941, APPLICABLE TO THE WAR DEPARTMENT, THE NAVY DEPARTMENT, AND THE
UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, LIKEWISE EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT COST
PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST CONTRACTING.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9001,
DECEMBER 27, 1941, AS AMENDED, TITLE II, SEC. 6. 

FN5  SENATE REPORT NO. 944, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., SPECIAL COMMITTEE
INVESTIGATING THE MUNITIONS INDUSTRY, PART 4, AT PAGE 22. 

FN6  "SO THERE IS NOTHING TO HINDER THE PRESENT SECRETARY OF WAR, OR
ANY OTHER SECRETARY OF WAR, IF HE DECIRES TO DO SO, FROM GOING BACK TO
THE OLD, VICIOUS COST-PLUS SYSTEM WHICH WE HAD DURING THE WORLD WAR,
WHEN, IN ONE INSTANCE WHICH FELL UNDER MY OBSERVATION - NOT IN THE WAR
DEPARTMENT, BUT IN THE NAVY DEPARTMENT - IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL
VESSELS ON A COST-PLUS 10-PERCENT BASIS, IN MAKING UP THE COST BASE ON
WHICH THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WERE REQUIRED NOT ONLY TO PAY
COST BUT TO PAY 10 PERCENT ADDITIONAL, ONE GREAT SHIPBUILDING COMPANY
IN THIS COUNTRY ADDED IN THE COST OF WINES, LIQUORS, AND CIGARS USED ON
THE TRIAL TRIP, AND THE COST OF THE PRIZE GIVEN TO THE LADY WHO
CHRISTENED THE SHIP.  THEY EVEN ADDED IN THE COST OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAINTAINED BY THE COMPANY IN CHINA AND IN JAPAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROMOTING OTHER BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY ON THE THEORY THAT IF THEY
SECURED ANY OUTSIDE BUSINESS IT WOULD REDUCE THE OVERHEAD CHARGEABLE TO
THE GOVERNMENT."  CONG. RECORD, VOL. 86, PART 7, P. 7839, 76TH CONG.,
3D SESS.  ANOTHER SENATOR, IN THE SAME DISCUSSION, SAID WITH REFERENCE
TO THIS SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING, "A MAN WILL SAY, 'I HAVE A RETURN OF 10
PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE, AND I WILL GET WHAT I CAN UNDER IT, PILE
UP EXPENSES, AND SO FORTH.'"  CONG. RECORD, VOL. 86, PART 7, P. 7841,
76TH CONG., 3D SESS. 

FN7  "THERE ARE TWO GENERAL CLASSES OF 'COST-PLUS' CONTRACTS.  ONE
CLASS IS GENERALLY KNOWN AS 'COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE' CONTRACTS AND THE
OTHER AS 'COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE' CONTRACTS.  THEY ARE MATERIALLY
DIFFERENT.  UNDER THOSE IN THE FIRST CLASS THE FEE OR PROFIT OF THE
CONTRACTOR IS MADE DEPENDENT ON THE COST OF THE WORK WITH THE IDEA THAT
THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE WILL AUTOMATICALLY ADJUST ITSELF TO THE
VARIATIONS IN THE COST OF THE WORK RESULTING FROM CHANGING CONDITIONS
AND REQUIREMENTS DURING THE LIFE OF THE JOB.  IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT
UNDER THIS CLASS OF CONTRACT IT IS TO THE FINANCIAL INTEREST OF THE
CONTRACTOR TO HAVE THE COST OF WORK RUN HIGH.  UNDER THE SECOND CLASS,
THE FEE IS NOT AFFECTED BY VARIATIONS IN COSTS, BUT ONLY BY CHANGES IN
THE SCOPE OF THE WORK.  FROM THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT IT IS TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ACCOMPLISH THE WORK AT AS LOW COSTS AS
POSSIBLE."  THE LAW OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, GRASKE (1941) PP. 122-3. 

FN8 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN DISCUSSING THE GENERAL TENDENCY
OF THIS SYSTEM OF CONTRACTING TO INCREASE COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT SAID:
"THE PROBABILITY OF THAT GENERAL RESULT IN THE WELDON SPRINGS
TRANSACTIONS IS, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, QUITE COGENTLY SUGGESTED (AND
INDEED DEMONSTRATED) BY THE RECORD." 

FN9  THE DIFFICULTY OF AN ATTEMPT TO SEGREGATE MCDOWELL'S COMMISSIONS
FROM THE LAND COSTS IS INDICATED BY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOUND HE COMPUTED HIS COMMISSIONS.  IT SAID THAT THE
OPTION AGREEMENTS INCLUDED "COMMISSIONS UPON HIS OWN COMMISSIONS,
COMMISSIONS UPON THE COMMISSIONS OF THE KANSAS CITY TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY FOR CLOSING THE TRANSACTIONS, AND COMMISSIONS UPON THE AMOUNTS
INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACTS FOR REVENUE STAMPS AND RECORDING FEES ....
WHAT PARTICULAR ELEMENTS MCDOWELL HAD FUSED INTO THE REAL ESTATE VALUES
RECOMMENDED BY HIM IN ANY SPECIFIC TRANSACTION WERE APPARENTLY NOT
KNOWN TO THE QUARTERMASTER DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME THE CONTRACTS WERE
APPROVED."  THE MUSCHANYS' OPTION AGREEMENT, IN CASE NO. 31, WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING OFFICER MARKED "ACCEPTED," DID NOT SHOW THE
AMOUNT OF MCDOWELL'S COMMISSION; IT SHOWED ONLY THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE
WAS $4,500.00.  THERE IS NEITHER FINDING NOR EVIDENCE FROM WHICH IT CAN
BE DETERMINED WHAT PART OF THIS PURCHASE PRICE, IF ANY, REPRESENTS
MCDOWELL'S COMMISSION.  IN FACT, PETITIONERS STRANGELY ENOUGH CONTEND
THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCCE TO SHOW THAT MCDOWELL IS TO GET ANY PART OF
THE $4,500.00 AS A COMMISSION.  THE SAME SITUATION EXISTS IN NO. 32. 

FN10  WERE THIS CONTRACT NOT INVALID AS VIOLATING THE CONGRESSIONAL
PROHIBITION AGAINST THE COST-PLUS-A-PERCENTAGE-OF-COST SYSTEM, THERE
WOULD STILL REMAIN THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WAS
COMPELLED TO PAY MORE THAN "JUST COMPENSATION" IN THESE CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS.  WE HAVE NEVER DECIDED THAT THERE MAY NOT BE CIRCUMSTANCES
SHORT OF THOSE NECESSARY TO HOLD PRIVATE CONTRACTS ILLEGAL, UNDER WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT MAY, IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, OBTAIN JUDICIAL
ASCERTAINMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION, DESPITE A SINGLE CONTRACTING
OFFICER'S AGREEMENT TO PAY MORE, AND DESPITE HIS ATTEMPTED WAIVER OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEED ONLY PAY "JUST
COMPENSATION" FOR LAND IT TAKES FOR PUBLIC USE.  DANFORTH V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 271, ACTUALLY DECIDED QUITE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS UNDER
A DIFFERENT STATUTE, DIFFERENT PLEADINGS, AND QUITE DIFFERENT
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, DANFORTH FILED A
COUNTERCLAIM SEEKING JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR A PRICE
STIPULATED IN AN AGREEMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT ATTACKED THE COUNTERCLAIM
AND IT WAS STRICKEN IN DISTRICT COURT ON TWO GROUNDS ONLY:  (1) THE
GOVERNMENT HAD NOT CONSENTED TO THE SUIT; (2) THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE MORE THAN $10,000 WAS INVOLVED. 

FN11  EVEN IF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
BOTH PASSED UPON THESE QUESTIONS, - AND I DO NOT THINK THEY DID - IT
DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT WE WOULD NOT REVIEW THEM.  SEE CITY
BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. V. MCGOWAN, 323 U.S. 594, 600; CF. CITY BANK
FARMERS TRUST CO. V. MCGOWAN, 142 F.2D 599, 601, AND 43 F.SUPP.  790,
795-6. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE  RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS
DISSENT. 
..END :
















BARR V. UNITED STATES, 324 U.S. 83 


NO. 287.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  - 143
F2D 132, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROPER RATE AT WHICH THE CURRENCY OF THE INVOICE OF THE
IMPORTED GOODS HERE INVOLVED SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED INTO UNITED
STATES DOLLARS UNDER SEC. 522(C) OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 WAS THE
"FREE" RATE AND NOT THE "OFFICIAL" RATE.  PP. 84, 94. 

2.  SECTION 522(C) IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING
CERTIFICATION BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK OR PROCLAMATION
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OF ONLY ONE BUYING RATE FOR A
SPECIFIED FOREIGN CURRENCY.  P. 89. 

3.  WHERE UNDER SEC. 522(C) DUAL BUYING RATES HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED,
THAT RATE SHOULD BE USED WHICH IS IN FACT APPLICABLE TO THE PARTICULAR
TRANSACTION, AND THE USE OF A RATE BY WHICH THE COST OF THE GOODS WILL
BE DISTORTED AND AN INFLATED VALUE FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES PLACED UPON
THEM SHOULD BE AVOIDED.  P. 90. 

4.  THE RESULT HERE REACHED IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 402 OF THE ACT WHICH REQUIRE THAT THE VALUE OF IMPORTED
MERCHANDISE SHALL BE THE "FOREIGN VALUE OR THE EXPORT VALUE, WHICHEVER
IS HIGHER."  P. 92. 

5.  THE GENERAL AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OVER THE
COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS AND OVER COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS, AND HIS
AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 624 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 TO MAKE RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, CAN NOT DETRACT
FROM THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK
UNDER SEC. 522(C) TO DETERMINE AND CERTIFY THE BUYING RATE.  P. 92. 

6. THE FUNCTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY UNDER SEC. 522(C) IN
RESPECT OF THE PUBLISHING OF THE RATES CERTIFIED BY THE BANK IS PURELY
MINISTERIAL.  P. 94. 

7.  THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IN PUBLISHING ONLY
ONE OF THE RATES CERTIFIED BY THE BANK, AND THE DECISION OF THE
COLLECTOR PURSUANT THERETO, WERE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  P. 94. 

8.  AS TO THE CONTENTION THAT CONFUSION AND COMPLEXITY IN
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TARIFF ACT WILL RESULT IF MORE THAN ONE BUYING
RATE MAY BE MADE APPLICABLE TO IMPORTS FROM ONE COUNTRY, THE SHOWING
WOULD HAVE TO BE FAR MORE CLEAR THAN IT IS HERE AND THE MEANING OF THE
ACT MUCH MORE DUBIOUS IN ORDER THAT THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
SHOULD BE GIVEN WEIGHT IN THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS.  P. 94. 

BARR V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 689, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
CUSTOMS COURT WHICH SUSTAINED A PROTEST OF A DECISION OF THE COLLECTOR
OF CUSTOMS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS THE PROPER RATE AT WHICH THE CURRENCY OF
THE INVOICE OF IMPORTED GOODS SHOULD BE CONVERTED INTO UNITED STATES
DOLLARS UNDER SEC. 522(C) OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930.  46 STAT. 739, 31
U.S.C. SEC. 372(C). 

ON MAY 13, 1940, PETITIONER IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES AT THE
PORT OF NEW YORK CERTAIN WOOLEN FABRICS WHICH HAD BEEN EXPORTED FROM
ENGLAND ON MAY 3, 1940.  PAYMENT FOR THE MERCHANDISE WAS MADE WITH
POUNDS STERLING PURCHASED THROUGH THE GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK IN
THE NEW YORK MARKET FOR CABLE TRANSFER.  THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
CONVERTED THE POUNDS STERLING OF THE INVOICE INTO DOLLARS AT THE
"OFFICIAL" RATE OF EXCHANGE OF $4.035.  PETITIONER CLAIMED THAT THE
CURRENCY OF HIS INVOICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED AT THE "FREE" RATE
OF EXCHANGE OF $3.475138.  HE PAID THE HIGHER RATE AND FILED HIS
PROTEST AGAINST THE COLLECTOR'S ACTION UNDER SEC. 514 OF THE TARIFF ACT
OF 1930.  THE CUSTOMS COURT SUSTAINED THE PROTEST.  79 TREAS. DEC., NO.
7, 14.  THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS REVERSED.  143 F.2D
132.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 

THE "FREE" RATE AND THE "OFFICIAL" RATE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ORIGIN. 

SEC. 522(A) OF THE TARIFF ACT PROVIDES THAT THE VALUE OF FOREIGN COIN
AS EXPRESSED IN THE MONEY OF ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE THAT
OF THE PURE METAL OF SUCH COIN OF STANDARD VALUE, AND THAT IT SHALL BE
ESTIMATED QUARTERLY BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE MINT AND PROCLAIMED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  THE VALUE OF THE POUND STERLING AT ALL
TIMES RELEVANT HERE WAS PROCLAIMED TO BE $8.2397.  SEC. 522(B) PROVIDES
THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF DUTIES UPON
MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES, FOREIGN CURRENCY SHALL BE
CONVERTED, WHEREVER NECESSARY, INTO CURRENCY OF THE UNITED STATES AT
THE VALUES PROCLAIMED BY THE SECRETARY UNDER SEC. 522(A) FOR THE
QUARTER IN WHICH THE MERCHANDISE WAS EXPORTED.  SEC. 522(B) PROVIDES,
HOWEVER, FOR AN EXCEPTION.  THAT EXCEPTION IS CONTAINED IN SEC. 522(C)
WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF NO SUCH VALUE HAS BEEN PROCLAIMED, OR IF THE VALUE SO PROCLAIMED
VARIES BY 5 PER CENTUM OR MORE FROM A VALUE MEASURED BY THE BUYING RATE
IN THE NEW YORK MARKET AT NOON ON THE DAY OF EXPORTATION, CONVERSION
SHALL BE MADE AT A VALUE MEASURED BY SUCH BUYING RATE.  IF THE DATE OF
EXPORTATION FALLS UPON A SUNDAY OR HOLIDAY, THEN THE BUYING RATE AT
NOON ON THE LAST PRECEDING BUSINESS DAY SHALL BE USED.  FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION SUCH BUYING RATE SHALL BE THE BUYING RATE
FOR CABLE TRANSFERS PAYABLE IN THE FOREIGN CURRENCY SO TO BE CONVERTED;
AND SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK AND
CERTIFIED DAILY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, WHO SHALL MAKE IT
PUBLIC AT SUCH TIMES AND TO SUCH EXTENT AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY.  IN
ASCERTAINING SUCH BUYING RATE SUCH FEDERAL RESERVE BANK MAY IN ITS
DISCRETION (1) TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE LAST ASCERTAINABLE
TRANSACTIONS AND QUOTATIONS, WHETHER DIRECT OR THROUGH EXCHANGE OF
OTHER CURRENCIES, AND (2) IF THERE IS NO MARKET BUYING RATE FOR SUCH
CABLE TRANSFERS, CALCULATE SUCH RATE FROM ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS AND
QUOTATIONS IN DEMAND OR TIME BILLS OF EXCHANGE." 

AT ALL TIMES PRIOR TO MARCH 25, 1940, THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW
YORK PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 522(C) CERTIFIED DAILY TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ONE BUYING RATE FOR THE POUND STERLING.  WHEN
THE PRESENT WAR BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY WAS DECLARED, THE
BRITISH GOVERNMENT INAUGURATED A DETAILED SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING
FOREIGN EXCHANGE.  IT REQUIRED AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT ALL PERSONS
RESIDENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM SELL TO THE BRITISH TREASURY AT PRICES
FIXED BY IT ALL FOREIGN CURRENCY WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED TO SELL, AND
PROHIBITED, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, EXPORTATION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY
FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY
IN THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM OR TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN AN AUTHORIZED
DEALER AND AT PRICES FIXED BY THE BRITISH TREASURY.  ON MARCH 7, 1940,
AN ORDER IN COUNCIL, EFFECTIVE MARCH 25, 1940, WAS ISSUED BY THE
BRITISH GOVERNMENT WHICH PROVIDED THAT CERTAIN CLASSES OF MERCHANDISE
FN1  (WHISKEY, FURS, TIN, RUBBER AND JUTE) MIGHT NOT BE EXPORTED FROM
THE UNITED KINGDOM TO THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER COUNTRIES
EXCEPT WHEN PAYMENT HAD BEEN OR WOULD BE MADE TO PERSONS RESIDENT IN
THE UNITED KINGDOM IN SPECIFIED CURRENCIES.  THESE CURRENCIES INCLUDED
UNITED STATES DOLLARS OR ENGLISH POUNDS PURCHASED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
AFTER SEPTEMBER 3, 1939, FROM AN AUTHORIZED DEALER IN FOREIGN
CURRENCY.  AUTHORIZED DEALERS SOLD ENGLISH POUNDS ONLY AT THE RATE OF
$4.035, PRESCRIBED BY THE BRITISH TREASURY, FROM JANUARY 8, 1940, TO
SEPTEMBER 30, 1942, WHEN THE PRESENT CASE WAS TRIED. 

ON MARCH 19, 1940, THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK NOTIFIED THE
SECRETARY THAT BECAUSE OF THE ORDER OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT OF MARCH
7, 1940, IT WOULD CERTIFY, BEGINNING MARCH 25, 1940, TWO RATES FOR THE
POUND STERLING - ONE TO BE DESIGNATED AS THE "FREE" RATE, THE OTHER AS
THE "OFFICIAL" RATE.  THE LATTER WAS THE RATE FIXED BY THE BRITISH
TREASURY.  ON APRIL 15, 1940, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY NOTIFIED
THE COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS THAT UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE HE WOULD PUBLISH
ONLY THE "OFFICIAL" RATE; AND HE DIRECTED THEM TO USE THAT RATE FOR
ASSESSING AND COLLECTING DUTIES ON IMPORTED MERCHANDISE WHENEVER IT
VARIED BY MORE THAN 5 PER CENT FROM THE VALUE OF THE POUND PROCLAIMED
BY THE SECRETARY UNDER SEC. 522(A) OF THE ACT.  FN2  T.D. 50134, 75
TREAS. DEC. 370, 371, 5 FED. REG. 1447. 

ON THE DATE PETITIONER EXPORTED HIS MERCHANDISE FROM ENGLAND, THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY THAT AT NOON ON THAT DAY THE "FREE" RATE FOR THE ENGLISH POUND
WAS $3.475138 AND THE "OFFICIAL" RATE WAS $4.035.  THE SECRETARY, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH HIS NOTIFICATION OF APRIL 15, 1940, TO THE COLLECTORS
OF CUSTOMS PUBLISHED ONLY THE "OFFICIAL" RATE.  T.D. 50146, 75 TREAS.
DEC. 388.  SINCE THE "OFFICIAL" RATE VARIED BY MORE THAN 5 PER CENT
FROM THE PROCLAIMED VALUE OF THE POUND FOR THAT QUARTER, THE COLLECTOR
USED THE "OFFICIAL" RATE IN CONVERTING POUNDS INTO DOLLARS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ASSESSING AND COLLECTING DUTIES UPON THE VALUE OF THE WOOLEN
FABRICS.  THE POUNDS STERLING WHICH PETITIONER USED IN THE PURCHASE OF
THE WOOLENS WERE NOT OBTAINED FROM AN AUTHORIZED DEALER AS DEFINED IN
THE BRITISH ORDER OF MARCH 7, 1940, BUT, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THROUGH THE
GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK IN THE NEW YORK MARKET FOR CABLE
TRANSFER.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE INVOICE CURRENCY SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CONVERTED AT THE "FREE" RATE OF $3.475138 AS DETERMINED AND CERTIFIED
BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK FOR THE DATE OF THIS
EXPORTATION. 

IT WAS NOTED IN UNITED STATES V. WHITRIDGE, 197 U.S. 135, 142, THAT
THE ASSESSMENT OF AN AD VALOREM TAX ON IMPORTS INVOLVED AN
ASCERTAINMENT OF THE TRUE VALUE OF THE ARTICLE TAXED AS OF THE DATE OF
THE TAX AND THAT THE INVOICE PRICE WAS AN APPROXIMATE MEASUREMENT OF
THAT VALUE.  AS POINTED OUT IN THAT CASE, THE HISTORY OF THE STATUTES
SHOWS A CLOSER APPROXIMATION TO THAT VALUE AS THE LEGISLATION HAS
EVOLVED.  AND THE ENACTMENTS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION IN THE
WHITRIDGE CASE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THAT TREND.  IN THE BEGINNING
CONGRESS PRESCRIBED SPECIFIC DOLLAR VALUES OF SPECIFIED COINS.  ACT OF
JULY 31, 1789, SEC. 18, 1 STAT. 29, 41.  NOT LONG AFTER, THE PRESIDENT
WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS FOR COMPUTING DUTIES ON
IMPORTS WHERE THE ORIGINAL COST WAS EXHIBITED IN A DEPRECIATED CURRENCY
OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1799, SEC. 61, 1 STAT. 627,
673.  IN 1873 CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR AN ANNUAL ESTIMATE BY THE DIRECTOR
OF THE MINT OF THE FULL METAL VALUE OF STANDARD COINS OF THE VARIOUS
NATIONS AND A PROCLAMATION OF THE VALUE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY.  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1873, 17 STAT. 602.  THAT ESTIMATE WAS
REQUIRED TO BE MADE QUARTERLY RATHER THAN ANNUALLY BY THE ACT OF
OCTOBER 1, 1890, SEC. 52, 26 STAT. 567, 624.  THEN CAME THE ACT OF
AUGUST 27, 1894, SEC. 25, 28 STAT. 509, 552, WHICH RETAINED THE
PROVISION FOR THE ESTIMATE AND PROCLAMATION OF METALLIC VALUES AND GAVE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY POWER TO ORDER A RELIQUIDATION AT A
DIFFERENT VALUE ON A SHOWING THAT THE VALUE OF THE INVOICE CURRENCY IN
UNITED STATES CURRENCY WAS 10 PER CENT MORE OR LESS THAN THE PROCLAIMED
VALUE.  UNITED STATES V. WHITRIDGE, SUPRA.  THE PROCEDURE UNDER THE
LATTER PROVISION DEPENDED ON A CONSULAR CERTIFICATE TO ESTABLISH THE
PERCENTAGE OF DEPRECIATION OF THE CURRENCY.  T.D. NO. 23725, 5 TREAS.
DEC. 396.  THERE WAS THUS NO SINGLE SOURCE (AND NONE AT ALL IN THE
UNITED STATES) TO WHICH CUSTOMS OFFICIALS COULD LOOK TO DETERMINE THE
EXTENT TO WHICH FOREIGN CURRENCY HAD DEPRECIATED.  MOREOVER, VIOLENT
FLUCTUATIONS IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES HAD OCCURRED AFTER THE FIRST
WORLD WAR.  IT WAS FOR THOSE REASONS THAT SEC. 403(C) WAS ADDED TO THE
EMERGENCY TARIFF ACT OF 1921, 42 STAT. 9, 17.  SEE S. REP. NO. 16, 67TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 16; H. REP. NO. 79, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 12;
FRY & FRIEDSAM V. UNITED STATES, 12 CUST.  APP.  486, 489.  AND SEC.
403(C) OF THE 1921 ACT NOW APPEARS AS SEC. 522(C) OF THE 1930 ACT ON
WHOSE MEANING THE PRESENT DECISION TURNS. 

THIS HISTORY MAKES CLEAR THE SEARCH WHICH HAS BEEN MADE FOR A MEASURE
OF THE TRUE DOLLAR VALUES OF IMPORTED MERCHANDISE FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES
WHICH WAS ACCURATE (SEE CRAMER V. ARTHUR, 102 U.S. 612, 617) AND AT THE
SAME TIME ADMINISTRATIVELY FEASIBLE AND EFFICIENT.  THE FORMULA FINALLY
SELECTED IS DEPENDENT ON THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE FOREIGN CURRENCY IN
OUR OWN MONEY.  THE RATE FOR THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE WITH WHICH THE
IMPORTED GOODS ARE PURCHASED IS RECOGNIZED AS THE MEASURE OF VALUE OF
THE FOREIGN CURRENCY; THE USE OF THAT RATE REFLECTS VALUES IN UNITED
STATES CURRENCY WHICH ARE DEEMED SUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE TO SERVE AS THE
MEASURE OF THE VALUATION OF THE GOODS FOR PURPOSES OF THE AD VALOREM
TAX.  AS NOTED IN UNITED STATES V. WHITRIDGE, SUPRA, P. 144, THE ACTUAL
"UNIT OF COST" CONFORMS WITH THE TRUTH AND THE MEANING OF THE INVOICE. 

WE WOULD DEPART FROM THAT SCHEME IF WE READ SEC. 522(C) AS SAYING
THAT ON A GIVEN DATE ONLY ONE BUYING RATE FOR A SPECIFIED FOREIGN
CURRENCY COULD BE CERTIFIED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK OR
PROCLAIMED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  DUAL OR MULTIPLE EXCHANGE
RATES HAVE RESULTED IN RECENT YEARS FROM MEASURES FOR THE CONTROL AND
RESTRICTION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND EXPORT TRANSACTIONS.  FN3  IN THE
PRESENT CASE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT FIXED THE "OFFICIAL" RATE FOR THE
PURCHASE OF SPECIFIED COMMODITIES FOR EXPORT.  ONE WHO PURCHASED
WOOLENS FOR EXPORT NEED NOT ACQUIRE POUNDS AT THAT RATE.  A LOWER RATE
WAS AVAILABLE AND WAS INDEED TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY PETITIONER WHEN HE
PURCHASED POUNDS TO PAY FOR THE WOOLENS.  IF THE HIGHER "OFFICIAL" RATE
IS USED IN THE VALUATION OF THE WOOLENS, THE COST OF THE GOODS WILL BE
DISTORTED AND AN INFLATED VALUE FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES WILL BE PLACED
UPON THEM.  SUCH A RESULT WOULD BE QUITE OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE
HISTORY OF THESE STATUTES AND SHOULD BE AVOIDED UNLESS THE RESULT IS
PLAINLY REQUIRED BY THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 522(C).  WE DO NOT THINK IT
IS. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE DUAL OR MULTIPLE EXCHANGE RATES WHICH HAVE
EMERGED WERE NOT IN CONTEMPLATION WHEN THE 1930 ACT WAS PASSED.  AS WE
HAVE NOTED, THEY ARE PARTS OF RATHER RECENT MEASURES FOR THE CONTROL
AND RESTRICTION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND EXPORT TRANSACTIONS.  BUT IF
CONGRESS HAS MADE A CHOICE OF LANGUAGE WHICH FAIRLY BRINGS A GIVEN
SITUATION WITHIN A STATUTE, IT IS UNIMPORTANT THAT THE PARTICULAR
APPLICATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED BY THE LEGISLATORS.  PUERTO
RICO V. SHELL CO., 302 U.S. 253, 257; BROWDER V. UNITED STATES, 312
U.S. 335, 339, AND CASES CITED.  SEC. 522(C) CONTAINS NO LANGUAGE
INDICATING THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY HAS ANY FUNCTION TO
PERFORM EXCEPT THE PUBLICATION OF ANY BUYING RATE WHICH IS CERTIFIED. 
THE DETERMINATION OF THE RATE IS LEFT EXCLUSIVELY TO THE FEDERAL
RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK.  IT ALONE IS GIVEN DISCRETION IN COMPUTING
IT.  THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY TO PUBLISH THE CERTIFIED RATE IS AS
CLEAR AS THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK TO DETERMINE
AND CERTIFY IT.  IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 522(C) SPEAKS ONLY OF THE "BUYING
RATE."  AND THAT USE OF THE SINGULAR RATHER THAN THE PLURAL IS STRESSED
BY RESPONDENT.  WE MAY NOTE, HOWEVER, IN PASSING THAT SEC. 1 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES, 1 U.S.C. SEC. 1, PROVIDES THAT "WORDS IMPORTING THE
SINGULAR NUMBER MAY EXTEND AND BE APPLIED TO SEVERAL PERSONS OR
THINGS."  BEYOND THAT IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE CONSTRUING A PROVISION OF
A TARIFF ACT DESIGNED, AS WE HAVE SAID, TO VALUE IMPORTS FOR CUSTOMS
PURPOSES BY MEANS OF THE BUYING RATE OF THE INVOICE CURRENCY.  THE USE
OF THE SINGULAR IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE SINCE THERE IS A BUYING RATE FOR
THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE USED TO PURCHASE EACH SEPARATE IMPORT.  WE ASSUME
THAT THE "OFFICIAL" RATE WAS THE ALL-INCLUSIVE RATE AND COULD HAVE BEEN
USED IN PAYMENT OF EXPORTED GOODS OF ALL KINDS.  BUT SEC. 522(C) MEANS
TO US THAT THAT BUYING RATE IS TO BE USED WHICH IS IN FACT APPLICABLE
TO THE PARTICULAR TRANSACTION.  TO LOOK TO OTHER TRANSACTIONS FOR THE
BUYING RATE IS TO MAKE A VALUATION OF A WHOLLY HYPOTHETICAL IMPORT, NOT
A VALUATION OF THE ACTUAL ONE BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS. 
CONGRESS COULD, OF COURSE, CHOOSE ANY STANDARD OF VALUATION, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF DUTIES.  BUT CONGRESS IN
THIS SITUATION ENDEAVORED TO PROVIDE A FLEXIBLE AND REALISTIC, NOT AN
ARBITRARY, STANDARD.  WE CAN INDEED SEE NO DIFFERENCE IN PRINCIPLE
BETWEEN THE USE OF ONE OF SEVERAL RATES FOR THE CURRENCY OF A SINGLE
COUNTRY AND THE USE OF ONE OF SEVERAL RATES EACH OF WHICH IS FOR THE
CURRENCY OF A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.  IN EACH DIFFERENT RATES ARE USED TO
ASCERTAIN THE VALUE OF SPECIFIC IMPORTS.  THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 522(C)
READ AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THESE STATUTES INDICATES TO US THAT
CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO PROVIDE IN EACH CASE THE RATE WHICH GIVES THE
CLOSEST APPROXIMATION TO THE VALUE IN DOLLARS OF THE IMPORTED
MERCHANDISE.  THAT PURPOSE WOULD BE THWARTED IF IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE ONLY ONE BUYING RATE COULD BE USED IN MAKING THE VALUATION OF
THE GOODS.  THE APPLICATION OF THE "OFFICIAL" RATE TO THIS PARTICULAR
TRANSACTION WOULD ASSUME THAT PETITIONER IMPORTED WHISKEY, FURS, TIN,
RUBBER, OR JUTE RATHER THAN WOOLENS.  THE VALUATION OF THE WOOLENS
WOULD BE INFLATED AND A HIGHER DUTY WOULD BE PAID THAN A FAIR READING
OF SEC. 522(C) NECESSITATES. 

IT IS SAID THAT THIS RESULT RUNS COUNTER TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
402 OF THE ACT WHICH REQUIRE THAT THE VALUE OF IMPORTED MERCHANDISE
SHALL BE THE "FOREIGN VALUE OR THE EXPORT VALUE, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER." 
BUT IT IS NOT APPARENT HOW THAT POLICY NEED IN ANY WAY BE DEFEATED OR
IMPAIRED BY THE USE OF THE "FREE" RATE OF EXCHANGE WHERE IT IS IN FACT
APPLICABLE. 

RELIANCE FOR THE OTHER CONCLUSION IS ALSO PLACED ON THE GENERAL
AUTHORITY GIVEN THE SECRETARY OVER THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS
FN4  AND OVER COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS.  FN5  IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT
SEC. 624 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 PROVIDES THAT "IN ADDITION TO THE
SPECIFIC POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS ACT, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IS
AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO
CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  FN6  BUT THESE PROVISIONS
MERELY IMPLEMENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS GRANTED THE SECRETARY AND MAKE
CLEAR THE EXISTENCE OF AUTHORITY WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT BE ONLY
IMPLIED.  THEY MAY NOT BE USED TO DETRACT FROM THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY
GIVEN THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK UNDER SEC. 522(C).  BUT THIS
RESULT IS CRITICIZED ON THE GROUND THAT IT INTERFERES WITH THE CONTROL
OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE, WHICH FISCAL FUNCTION HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO THE
SECRETARY, NOT TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK.  IT HARDLY NEED
BE POINTED OUT IN REPLY, HOWEVER, THAT OUR DECISION, LIKE SEC. 522(C),
IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF DUTIES UPON
IMPORTS THROUGH THE USE OF A FORMULA WHICH CONGRESS DESIGNED.  IF THE
USE OF THAT FORMULA UNDER THE CHANGED CONDITIONS OF THESE WAR YEARS IS
DISADVANTAGEOUS OR UNDESIRABLE, CONGRESS, OF COURSE, CAN CHANGE IT.
BUT WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN WHAT IT SAID WHEN IT
SELECTED THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK RATHER THAN THE SECRETARY
TO PERFORM A RESTRICTED FUNCTION ON THIS SINGLE PHASE OF THE
COMPLICATED FOREIGN EXCHANGE PROBLEM. 

NOR IS THERE SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SECRETARY'S ACTION IN
PUBLISHING ONLY ONE OF THE RATES CERTIFIED BY THE BANK IS NON
REVIEWABLE.  SEC. 522(C) PLAINLY GIVES DISCRETION TO THE BANK TO
DETERMINE THE BUYING RATE.  AND FOR THE REASONS STATED WE CANNOT SAY
THAT ONLY ONE BUYING RATE MUST BE DETERMINED AND CERTIFIED.  FN7  THE
EXERCISE OF THE BANK'S DISCRETIONARY POWER UNDER SEC. 522(C) IS IN THE
CATEGORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXECUTIVE ACTION WHICH THIS COURT HELD
NON-REVIEWABLE IN CRAMER V. ARTHUR, SUPRA, AND IN HADDEN V. MERRITT,
115 U.S. 25, 27-28.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. BUSH & CO., 310 U.S. 371,
380.  BUT THE FUNCTION OF THE SECRETARY IN THIS REGARD IS PURELY
MINISTERIAL AND IS TO BE CONTRASTED TO OTHER SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE
SECRETARY IS EXERCISING DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY.  CF. BOSKE V.
COMINGORE, 177 U.S. 459.  THE POWER TO PUBLISH THE CERTIFIED RATE MAY
NOT BE EXERCISED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DEFEAT THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED.  CF. CAMPBELL V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S.
407.  CONGRESS HAS GRANTED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE
COLLECTOR INCLUDING THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDERS AND FINDINGS ENTERING
INTO THE PROTESTED DECISION.  SECS. 514-517.  IF THE DECISION OF THE
COLLECTOR CONTRAVENES THE STATUTORY SCHEME AND DISREGARDS RIGHTS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS BESTOWED, THE FACT THAT HE ACTS PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS
OF THE SECRETARY DOES NOT SAVE HIS DECISION FROM REVIEW.  CAMPBELL V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  WE THINK THAT THE USE OF THE "OFFICIAL" RATE OF
EXCHANGE IN ASSESSING AND COLLECTING DUTIES UPON THESE IMPORTS
TRANSCENDED THE AUTHORITY OF THE COLLECTOR AND OF THE SECRETARY AND
THAT THE "FREE" RATE OF EXCHANGE CERTIFIED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF NEW YORK SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED. 

IT IS FINALLY SAID THAT IF MORE THAN ONE BUYING RATE MAY BE MADE
APPLICABLE TO IMPORTS FROM ONE COUNTRY,  FN8  CONFUSION AND COMPLEXITY
IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE TARIFF ACT WILL RESULT.  BUT THAT SHOWING
WOULD HAVE TO BE FAR MORE CLEAR AND THE MEANING OF THE ACT MUCH MORE
DUBIOUS FOR US TO GIVE THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS WEIGHT IN
THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXPORTATION OF THE MERCHANDISE INVOLVED IN THE
PRESENT CASE THIS ORDER WAS AMENDED, EFFECTIVE JUNE 10, 1940, TO
INCLUDE GOODS OF ANY CLASS OR DESCRIPTION. 

FN2  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE VALUE OF THE POUND STERLING AT ALL TIMES
PERTINENT TO THIS CASE WAS PROCLAIMED TO BE $8.2397. 

FN3  SEE UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION, REGULATION OF TARIFFS IN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (1934); TWENTY-SECOND ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION (1938) P. 1; SOUTHARD,
FOREIGN EXCHANGE PRACTICE AND POLICY (1940) PP. 185 ET SEQ. 

FN4  "THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL DIRECT THE SUPERINTENDENCE
OF THE COLLECTION OF THE DUTIES ON IMPORTS AS HE SHALL JUDGE BEST." 
REV. STAT. SEC. 249, 19 U.S.C. SEC. 3.  AND SEE REV. STAT. SEC. 248, 5
U.S.C. SEC. 242. 

FN5  "THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL PRESCRIBE FORMS OF ENTRIES,
OATHS, BONDS, AND OTHER PAPERS, AND RULES AND REGULATIONS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH LAW, TO BE USED IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF LAW
RELATING TO RAISING REVENUE FROM IMPORTS, OR TO DUTIES ON IMPORTS, OR
TO WAREHOUSING, AND SHALL GIVE SUCH DIRECTIONS TO COLLECTORS AND
PRESCRIBE SUCH RULES AND FORMS TO BE OBSERVED BY THEM AS MAY BE
NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE LAW."  REV. STAT. SEC. 251,
19 U.S.C., SUPP. III, SEC. 66.  AND SEE REV. STAT. SEC. 161, 5 U.S.C.
SEC. 22. 

FN6  SEC. 502(C) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF
ALL OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS TO EXECUTE AND CARRY INTO EFFECT ALL
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY RELATIVE TO THE EXECUTION
OF THE REVENUE LAWS; AND IN CASE ANY DIFFICULTY ARISES AS TO THE TRUE
CONSTRUCTION OR MEANING OF ANY PART OF THE REVENUE LAWS, THE DECISION
OF THE SECRETARY SHALL BE BINDING UPON ALL OFFICERS OF THE CUSTOMS." 

FN7  THE CASE IS THEREFORE DIFFERENT FROM COLLECTOR V. RICHARDS, 23
WALL.  246.  IN THAT CASE THE DIRECTOR OF THE MINT CERTIFIED TWO VALUES
OF THE FRANC - ONE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1873, 17
STAT. 602, THE OTHER UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1846, 9 STAT. 14.  THE
DIRECTOR OF THE MINT WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER THE LATTER ACT HAD BEEN
REPEALED BY THE FORMER.  THE SECRETARY PROCLAIMED THE RATE ESTIMATED BY
THE DIRECTOR UNDER THE 1873 ACT.  THIS COURT SUSTAINED A COLLECTION OF
DUTIES ON THAT BASIS, HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1873 ACT
CONTROLLED.  THUS THE DECISION WAS THAT ONLY ONE VALUE OF THE FRANC
CONTROLLED, NOT THAT THE POWER OF THE SECRETARY TO PROCLAIM THE VALUE
INCLUDED THE POWER TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO AVAILABLE ONES. 

FN8  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WHERE TWO OR MORE CURRENCIES OF
DIFFERENT CHARACTER CIRCULATE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY THE TREASURY HAS
PROVIDED FOR THE USE OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE FOR EACH, THE RATE
USED BEING THE RATE FOR THE CURRENCY IN WHICH THE SAME OR SIMILAR
MERCHANDISE IS USUALLY BOUGHT AND SOLD IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
TRADE.  SEE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS OF 1937, ART. 776(A) AND (E), AS
AMENDED BY TREAS. DEC. 50251(I) AND (J), OCTOBER 10, 1940. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

AS PART OF THE EFFECTIVE FINANCIAL CONDUCT OF THE WAR, THE UNITED
KINGDOM BROUGHT STERLING UNDER CONTROL BY FIXING ITS EXCHANGE VALUE.  A
LIMITED SUPPLY OF STERLING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES PRESENTED A SPECIAL
PROBLEM.  BUT THOUGH THAT SUPPLY WAS OUT OF ITS BOUNDS, GREAT BRITAIN
BY VARIOUS MECHANISMS COULD BRING IT UNDER CONTROL.  APPARENTLY IT
MOVED TO DO SO AS QUICKLY AS ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
PERMITTED.  SEE THE STATEMENT OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER ON
APRIL 9, 1940, IN REPLY TO VARIOUS QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
359 H.C. DEB.  (5TH SER.  1940) 461-463.  THUS, WHILE "THE VAST BULK OF
TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN STERLING AND OTHER CURRENCIES" WAS CONDUCTED AT
THE EXCHANGE RATE FIXED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF
STERLING ABROAD CREATED A MARKET.  BY VIRTUE OF VARIOUS BRITISH
RESTRICTIONS THIS FREE STERLING MARKET BECAME INCREASINGLY THIN.  SEE
26 FED. RES. BULL.  (JULY, 1940) 638; THE COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL
CHRONICLE, APRIL 20, 1940, VOL. 150, PT. 2, PP. 2478-79.  NEVERTHELESS,
UNTIL THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY CLAMPED DOWN ON THE USE OF THIS
FREE STERLING IN PAYMENT OF EXPORTS, IT WAS POSSIBLE TO PAY FOR SUCH
EXPORTS IN STERLING PURCHASED AT A LOWER RATE THAN THAT WHICH THE
BRITISH GOVERNMENT BELIEVED TO BE A REFLECTION OF THE TRUE VALUE OF THE
POUND AND OFFICIALLY FIXED AS SUCH. 

PLAINLY ENOUGH, A SINGLE CURRENCY HAVING MULTIPLE VALUES HAS
IMPORTANT BEARINGS UPON THE FLOW OF GOODS AND UPON INTERNATIONAL
ECONOMIC RELATIONS.  IN THE CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN, THE SITUATION MAY
HAVE NOT BEEN SERIOUS BECAUSE, AS WE NOTED, FREE STERLING PLAYED A
RELATIVELY SMALL SHARE IN THE ECONOMIC INTERCHANGE BETWEEN THE TWO
COUNTRIES.  THE "FREE" RATE WAS EMPLOYED ONLY IN LIMITED TRANSACTIONS
AND EVIDENTLY REPRESENTED ON THE PART OF GREAT BRITAIN MERELY A
TRANSITORY COMPROMISE WITH CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN SHORT, THE OFFICIAL RATE
WAS NOT AN UNREALITY.  BUT IN THE CASE OF SOME COUNTRIES, A DUAL SYSTEM
OF RATES OF EXCHANGE MAY HAVE DECISIVE ECONOMIC EFFECTS THROUGH HIGHLY
ORGANIZED MANIPULATION OF EXCHANGE, WITH ALL THE EVILS THAT RESULT FROM
CONFUSION AND FROM DEPRECIATED CURRENCIES. 

TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT MERELY INVOLVES
ENFORCEMENT OF A CONGRESSIONAL POLICY FOR ASSURING APPROXIMATE ACCURACY
IN DETERMINING THE TRUE DOLLAR VALUE OF A PARTICULAR IMPORTATION IS TO
THROW THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE OUT OF FOCUS.  THE PROBLEM, AS I SEE
IT, IS WHETHER CONGRESS BY SEC. 522(C) OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, 46
STAT. 590, 739, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 372(C), PROHIBITED THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY FROM SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS HE DID, IN RELATION
TO DISLOCATIONS IN THE MONEY MARKETS FOLLOWING THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR
AND TO THEIR REPERCUSSIONS BOTH UPON OUR DOMESTIC ECONOMY AND OUR
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS.  THAT THE TREASURY'S INSTRUCTION TO THE
COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS TO ASSESS TARIFF DUTIES ON THE BASIS OF THE
STERLING RATE FIXED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WAS NOT AN ORDINARY
TREASURY ORDER AFFECTING THE COLLECTION OF REVENUE IS ATTESTED BY THE
FACT THAT THE INSTRUCTION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONFERENCE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  SEE NEW YORK TIMES, APRIL 17, 1940,
P. 4, COL. 5; THE COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL CHRONICLE, APRIL 20, 1940,
VOL. 150, PT. 2, PP. 2478-79. 

IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT APART FROM SEC. 522(C) THIS GOVERNMENT COULD
NOT PROTECT ITS INTERESTS IN RELATION TO THE ABNORMAL CURRENCY
SITUATIONS PRECIPITATED BY THE WAR THROUGH SUCH ACTION AS THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY HERE TOOK.  THE WIDE DUTIES OF FINANCIAL SUPERVISION
POSSESSED BY THE SECRETARY BY VIRTUE OF HIS OFFICE AND THE BROAD POWERS
IMPLIED IN VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF LAW, SEE FOR INSTANCE:  5 U.S.C. SEC.
242, 19 U.S.C. SEC. 3; SEC. 624 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, 46 STAT.
590, 759, 19 U.S.C. SEC. 1624, AND BOSKE V. COMINGORE, 177 U.S. 459,
WOULD GIVE HIM AMPLE WARRANT TO FIX A RATE FOR DOLLAR CONVERSIONS OF
FOREIGN CURRENCIES ON A UNIFORM BASIS REFLECTING THE DOMINANT VALUE
AMONG MULTIPLE VALUES OF A FOREIGN CURRENCY AND ONE NOT SUBJECT TO
MANIPULATIONS OR INFLUENCES ADVERSE TO OUR INTERESTS. 

WITHDRAWAL OF THIS POWER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IMPLIES A
RADICAL CURTAILMENT OF HIS HISTORIC AND APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO
PROTECT THE NATION'S FISCAL INTERESTS.  IF IT CHOSE, OF COURSE CONGRESS
COULD SO CURTAIL THE SECRETARY'S POWERS.  BUT SUCH AN IMPORTANT CHANGE
IN THE EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR FISCAL AFFAIRS OUGHT TO BE
DISCLOSED THROUGH SOME UNEQUIVOCAL CONGRESSIONAL EXPRESSION.  TO FIND
SUCH DESTRUCTIVE FORCE IN SEC. 522(C) IS TO ATTRIBUTE TO IT A POTENCY
NOT DESIGNED BY CONGRESS.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT IN THE LEGISLATION WHICH
IS NOW SEC. 522(C) CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH FLUCTUATIONS IN A
SINGLE EXCHANGE RATE, A PROBLEM THROWN UP AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR. 
AND SO CONGRESS DESIGNATED THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AS A FACT-FINDING
AGENCY TO ASCERTAIN THE MOST DURABLE AMONG FLUCTUATING QUOTATIONS.  BUT
MULTIPLE RATES FOR A SINGLE CURRENCY - WITH THEIR EFFECTS UPON THE FLOW
OF GOODS AND UPON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS AND THE
OPPORTUNITIES THEY AFFORD FOR HIGHLY ORGANIZED MANIPULATIONS OF
EXCHANGE - PRESENT A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROBLEM.  THAT PROBLEM, AS IS
ADMITTED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK APPEARING BEFORE US AS AMICUS
CURIAE, WAS NOT AT ALL IN THE CONTEMPLATION OF CONGRESS.  THAT PROBLEM
WAS NOT DEALT WITH BY CONGRESS BECAUSE IT DID NOT CONFRONT CONGRESS. 
AS A PROBLEM IT DID NOT EMERGE UNTIL, IN 1940, THE PRESENT WAR
CONFRONTED THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
WITH IT.    THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
HAVING DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS, NATURALLY DEALT WITH IT DIFFERENTLY. 
ALTHOUGH, TO BE SURE, SEC. 522(C) CHARGED THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK WITH
THE ASCERTAINMENT OF A SINGLE EXCHANGE RATE, THE BANK NATURALLY ENOUGH
SOLVED THE DILEMMA WHICH CONFRONTED IT WHEN THERE WERE TWO RATES FOR
STERLING BY REPORTING BOTH, ALTHOUGH THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TWO RATES
AND THE RANGE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS VARIED GREATLY.  IT WAS NOT FOR THE
BANK TO PICK ONLY ONE RATE, FOR THE BANK IS MERELY A REPORTING AGENCY
AND NOT A POLICY-MAKING AGENCY.  BUT THE DETERMINATION WHETHER ONE OF
THE TWO RATES IS THE RATE, AND IF SO WHICH SHOULD HAVE THAT FISCAL
FUNCTION, IS A POLICY PROBLEM, AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IS THE
AGENCY VESTED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR FISCAL POLICIES. 

FOR THE SELECTION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OF AN EXCHANGE RATE
IN A SITUATION LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US HAS IMPLICATIONS FAR BEYOND
TRANSLATING INTO DOLLARS THE VALUE AT WHICH A PARTICULAR IMPORTER
ACTUALLY SETTLED FOR THE FOREIGN PRICE OF HIS GOODS.  THE SELECTION OF
THE GOVERNING RATE OF EXCHANGE IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLE RATES AFFECTS AT
LEAST THREE VERY IMPORTANT PHASES OF OUR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
RELATIONS.  BY SEC. 402 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, 46 STAT. 590, 708,
19 U.S.C. SEC. 1402, IN THE ASSESSMENT OF AD VALOREM DUTIES IT IS
NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN THE FOREIGN MARKET VALUE, WHICH NORMALLY MEANS
THE FOREIGN HOME VALUE.  COMMODITIES SUBJECT TO THE "OFFICIAL" RATE AND
COMMODITIES AVAILABLE THROUGH "FREE" STERLING MAY WELL HAVE AN
IDENTICAL HOME VALUE AND YET, ACCORDING TO THE CONTENTION OF THE
IMPORTER, ONE VALUATION WOULD HAVE TO BE REACHED ACCORDING TO SEC.
522(C) AND ANOTHER ACCORDING TO SEC. 402.  AGAIN, THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY MAY IMPOSE COUNTERVAILING DUTIES WHENEVER HE FINDS THAT
IMPORTED GOODS ENJOY A BOUNTY, DIRECT OR INDIRECT.  SECTION 303 OF THE
TARIFF ACT OF 1930, 46 STAT. 590, 687, 19 U.S.C. SEC. 1303.  SUCH
BOUNTIES MAY READILY TAKE THE FORM OF FAVORABLE EXCHANGE RATES.  AN
UNWARRANTABLY RIGID DENIAL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE DETERMINATION OF AN
EXCHANGE RATE WHICH IN SUBSTANCE CORRESPONDS TO THE REALITIES OF
INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE MAY FORCE HIM TO EXERCISE THE PENALIZING POWER
OF IMPOSING COUNTERVAILING DUTIES.  FINALLY, FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES
AFFECT THE FRUITFUL USE OF FOREIGN TRADE AGREEMENTS.  SECTION 350 OF
THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AS AMENDED BY 48 STAT. 943, 19 U.S.C. SEC. 1351
ET SEQ. 

ALL THESE DANGEROUS POTENTIALITIES WOULD OF COURSE BE IRRELEVANT IF
CONGRESS HAD DEALT WITH THE PROBLEM OF MULTIPLE RATES IN A RIGID WAY
AND PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY UPON THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK TO SELECT ONE
OF SUCH MULTIPLE RATES.  BUT THE HAND OF THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT NOT TO BE
TIED TOO CLOSELY WHERE, TO PUT IT MILDLY, THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE HAS
BEEN AMBIGUOUSLY EXPRESSED.  WE CANNOT FIND SUCH PURPOSE FROM A READING
OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN.  WE ARE HARDLY JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING THAT
IF CONGRESS HAD ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THIS PROBLEM IT WOULD HAVE TIED THE
HANDS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND BROUGHT INTO PLAY ALL THE
DIFFICULTIES THAT HAVE BEEN INDICATED IN THE ASCERTAINMENT OF FOREIGN
HOME VALUE, IN THE IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAILING DUTIES, AND IN
EMBARRASSING THE POLICY OF TRADE AGREEMENTS.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
PASS NEW LEGISLATION IS HARDLY A REASON FOR GIVING OLD LEGISLATION A
CONSTRUCTION THAT DISREGARDS ITS HISTORY AND ITS CONTEXT AND THE
UNHAPPY CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH DISREGARD. 

OF COURSE, GENERAL CONDEMNATION OF A PRACTICE COVERS ANY SPECIFIC
MANIFESTATION OF IT, EVEN THOUGH THE LATTER WAS "UNFORESEEN" BY
CONGRESS, PUERTO RICO V. SHELL CO., 302 U.S. 253, JUST AS A GENERAL
OUTLAWRY OF THE USE OF A FALSE DOCUMENT HITS ALSO A USE TO WHICH THE
DOCUMENT WAS NOT "ORDINARILY" PUT WHEN THE LEGISLATION WAS PASSED. 
BROWDER V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 335.  BUT THESE ARE INSTANCES OF
PROPER STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION QUITE IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE.  IT
IS ONE THING FOR JUDGES NOT TO EXCISE A PARTICULAR SITUATION FROM
LANGUAGE APPROPRIATELY DESCRIBING A GENERAL PROBLEM.  JUDICIAL
INTERPOLATION INTO A STATUTE OF A WHOLLY UNRELATED PROBLEM NOT
ENVISAGED BY CONGRESS IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER.  IN THIS CASE WE HAVE
NOT AN UNFORESEEN SITUATION FITTING INTO A GENERAL CONTEXT.  HERE WE
HAVE AN UNFORESEEN PROBLEM WITH WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT DEAL AND YET, BY
NOT DEALING WITH IT, IS SAID TO HAVE TAKEN AWAY AUTHORITY THERETOFORE
BELONGING TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  IF THE PROBLEM ITSELF WAS
NOT IN THE CONTEMPLATION OF CONGRESS, AS THIS PROBLEM WAS NOT, HOW CAN
IT BE SAID THAT CONGRESS LEGISLATED CONCERNING THAT PROBLEM? 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :





PRICE V. GURNEY, 324 U.S. 100 


NO. 410.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  - 142
F.2D 404, REVERSED. 


1.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A
CHAPTER X PETITION FILED ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATION (ORGANIZED UNDER
STATE LAW) BY STOCKHOLDERS WHO UNDER THE LOCAL LAW ARE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE SUCH PROCEEDINGS, EVEN THOUGH THAT AUTHORITY
MIGHT HAVE BEEN OBTAINABLE UNDER THE LOCAL LAW BY PROCEEDINGS IN
ANOTHER FORUM.  P. 106. 

2.  UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE POWER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OVER
THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PETITION DOES
NOT EXTEND TO THIS SITUATION.  P. 106. 

PRICE, TRUSTEE, ET AL. V. GURNEY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 696, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT DISMISSING A PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE WESTERN TOOL & MANUFACTURING CO. IS AN OHIO CORPORATION.  IT HAS
OUTSTANDING SOME 1,100 SHARES OF STOCK AND ALSO BONDS WHICH TOTAL IN
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $73,000 WITH LARGE ARREARAGES OF INTEREST.  SOME
TWENTY YEARS AGO, FOLLOWING A DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE
BONDS, MORE THAN 50 PER CENT OF THE SHARES OF STOCK WERE PLACED IN A
VOTING TRUST, THE VOTING TRUSTEES BEING DESIGNATED BY THE BONDHOLDERS. 
THE BONDS WERE DEPOSITED WITH A BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE.  THE VOTING
TRUSTEES WERE MEMBERS OF THE BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE; AND SOME OF THE
VOTING TRUSTEES WERE ALSO DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY.  SINCE
THE VOTING TRUST WAS FORMED THE BONDHOLDERS HAVE BEEN IN CONTROL OF THE
COMPANY.  DIRECTORS HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY THE VOTING TRUSTEES.  IN 1942
THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE MORTGAGE DEED OF TRUST FILED A PETITION TO
FORECLOSE THE LIEN OF THE BONDHOLDERS IN AN OHIO COURT.  THE COURT
APPOINTED ONE OF THE VOTING TRUSTEES RECEIVER; AND HE HAS OPERATED THE
COMPANY AS A GOING CONCERN SINCE THAT TIME.  THE COMPANY FILED ITS
ANSWER IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, ADMITTING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
BILL AND CONSENTING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER.  THEREAFTER A
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON THE MORTGAGE FOR SOME $134,000.  RESPONDENT
ACTING ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHER HOLDERS OF SHARES OR OF VOTING
TRUST RECEIPTS MOVED TO SET THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT ASIDE.  WE
ARE TOLD THAT THAT MOTION WAS DENIED.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THERE
WAS AN APPEAL FROM THAT DENIAL OR WHETHER RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO
INTERVENE IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.  RESPONDENT AS OWNER OF 7
SHARES OF STOCK AND AS AGENT FOR OWNERS OF SOME 675 SHARES (INCLUDING
CERTAIN SHARES DEPOSITED UNDER THE VOTING TRUST) ALSO FILED A PETITION
IN THE NAME OF WESTERN TOOL & MANUFACTURING CO. IN THE DISTRICT COURT
ASKING THAT THE COMPANY BE GIVEN RELIEF UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  52 STAT. 883, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 501.  THE PETITION
STATED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY
WAS GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE INDEBTEDNESS AND THAT THAT VALUE WOULD BE
LOST TO THE STOCKHOLDERS IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION.  RESPONDENT
ACCOMPANIED THE PETITION WITH AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH STATED THAT AN
UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT HAD BEEN MADE TO HAVE THE CORPORATION FILE THE
PETITION.  THE AFFIDAVIT SET FORTH RATHER SERIOUS CHARGES AGAINST THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY.  IT ALLEGED THAT THE DIRECTORS WERE
UNLAWFULLY ELECTED AND THAT THE CORPORATION WAS WITHOUT A DE JURE
BOARD.  IT ALLEGED THAT CERTAIN OF THE DIRECTORS WERE OCCUPYING
CONFLICTING AND INCONSISTENT FIDUCIARY POSITIONS, I.E. AS MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO THE BONDHOLDERS, AS
VOTING TRUSTEES THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTIES WERE TO THE DEPOSITING
STOCKHOLDERS, AS DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION WAS
TO ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS, DEPOSITING AND NON-DEPOSITING.  IT CHARGED
THEM WITH ACTS OF MISMANAGEMENT, WITH DISSIPATION OF THE ASSETS OF THE
COMPANY, AND WITH MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE BONDHOLDERS AND AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.  IT
ALLEGED THAT THE VOTING TRUST WAS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND WAS NO LONGER IN
EFFECT SINCE IT HAD BY ITS TERMS EXPIRED.  AND IT ASSERTED THAT THE
ONLY WAY IN WHICH THE VALUE OF THE STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY IN THE COMPANY
COULD BE PRESERVED WAS BY REORGANIZATION IN BANKRUPTCY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FIRST APPROVED THE PETITION AS PROPERLY FILED. 
LATER THE BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE AND THE CORPORATION FILED MOTIONS TO
DISMISS THE PETITION ON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY HAD NOT AUTHORIZED IT.  A HEARING WAS HELD,
FOLLOWING WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  142 F.2D 404.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

CHAPTER X PROVIDES IN SEC. 126 THAT 

"A CORPORATION, OR THREE OR MORE CREDITORS WHO HAVE CLAIMS AGAINST A
CORPORATION OR ITS PROPERTY AMOUNTING IN THE AGGREGATE TO $5,000 OR
OVER, LIQUIDATED AS TO AMOUNT AND NOT CONTINGENT AS TO LIABILITY, OR AN
INDENTURE TRUSTEE WHERE THE SECURITIES OUTSTANDING UNDER THE INDENTURE
ARE LIQUIDATED AS TO AMOUNT AND NOT CONTINGENT AS TO LIABILITY, MAY, IF
NO OTHER PETITION BY OR AGAINST SUCH CORPORATION IS PENDING UNDER THIS
CHAPTER, FILE A PETITION UNDER THIS CHAPTER."  A CREDITOR IS DEFINED IN
SEC. 106(4) AS THE HOLDER OF ANY "CLAIM."  A CLAIM IS DEFINED IN SEC.
106(1) SO AS TO EXCLUDE STOCK.  AND A PETITION IS DEFINED AS ONE FILED
UNDER CHAPTER X BY A DEBTOR, CREDITORS, OR INDENTURE TRUSTEE.  SEC.
106(9).  IT IS THEREFORE APPARENT THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT GIVEN TO
STOCKHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO FILE PETITIONS UNDER CHAPTER X. THE ABSENCE
OF THAT RIGHT IS EMPHASIZED WHEN WE TURN TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
CHAPTER WHICH DEFINE THE RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS IN THESE REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS.  WHEN A DEBTOR IS CONTINUED IN POSSESSION, A PLAN MAY BE
FILED "BY ANY STOCKHOLDER, IF THE DEBTOR IS NOT FOUND TO BE
INSOLVENT."  SEC. 170(3).  ANY STOCKHOLDER HAS THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD
"ON ALL MATTERS ARISING IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS CHAPTER."  SEC.
206.  AND DETAILED PROVISIONS ARE INCLUDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF SUCH
EQUITY AS THE STOCKHOLDERS MAY HAVE IN THE BUSINESS.  SEE FOR EXAMPLE
SEC. 179, SEC. 180, SEC. 196, SEC. 197, SEC. 216, SEC. 221.  THUS THE
RIGHTS WHICH THE STOCKHOLDERS ARE GRANTED BY THE ACT ARISE AFTER THE
PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED.  THEREAFTER THEY NEED NOT BE
REPRESENTED SOLELY BY THE DEBTOR CORPORATION.  THEY MAY APPEAR IN THEIR
OWN RIGHT.  INDEED, THE ACT CONTEMPLATES THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PROTECTION OF SUCH EQUITY AS THEY MAY HAVE.  BUT
THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS, LIKE THE RUN OF CORPORATE
ACTIVITIES, IS LEFT TO THE CORPORATION ITSELF, I.E. TO THOSE WHO HAVE
THE POWER OF MANAGEMENT. 

THESE PRINCIPLES ARE NOT SERIOUSLY QUESTIONED.  AND RESPONDENTS MAKE
NO PRETENSE OF SAYING THAT THEY IN FACT HAVE THE POWER OF MANAGEMENT
OVER THIS OHIO CORPORATION OR THAT SEC. 8623-55 OF OHIO'S GENERAL
CORPORATION ACT WHICH VESTS THE MANAGEMENT OF OHIO CORPORATIONS IN THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS  FN1  IS INAPPLICABLE HERE.  THEIR THEORY RATHER IS
THAT THE DIRECTORS HAVE BREACHED THEIR TRUST AND HAVE CAUSED THE
CORPORATION TO COMMIT ACTS WHICH ARE CONFISCATORY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS'
INTERESTS, THAT THE CORPORATION HAS A DEFENSE AGAINST OR A REMEDY IN
ALLEVIATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH THE DIRECTORS REFUSE TO
INVOKE, AND THAT THEREFORE THE STOCKHOLDERS UNDER THE FAMILIAR RULES
GOVERNING DERIVATIVE ACTIONS (DODGE V. WOOLSEY, 18 HOW.  331; DAVENPORT
V. DOWS, 18 WALL.  626; HAWES V. OAKLAND, 104 U.S. 450) MAY PROCEED ON
BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION.  THAT WAS THE VIEW WHICH PREVAILED IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK IT STANDS ANALYSIS. 

THERE IS A MISCONCEPTION RUNNING THROUGH THE PRESENTATION OF THIS
CASE WHICH SHOULD BE NOTED AT THE OUTSET.  IT IS A MISNOMER TO SPEAK OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION AS A DERIVATIVE
ACTION.  A DERIVATIVE ACTION IS A SUIT BY A SHAREHOLDER TO ENFORCE A
CORPORATE CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE CORPORATION IS A NECESSARY PARTY TO THE
SUIT.  AND THE RELIEF WHICH IS GRANTED IS A JUDGMENT AGAINST A THIRD
PERSON IN FAVOR OF THE CORPORATION.  THAT IS THE RULE IN OHIO AS WELL
AS ELSEWHERE.  10 OHIO JURIS.  SECS.  244 ET SEQ.; DODGE V. WOOLSEY,
SUPRA; DAVENPORT V. DOWS, SUPRA; HILL V. MURPHY, 212 MASS. 1, 98 N.E.
781; GROEL V. UNITED ELECTRIC CO., 70 N.J. EQ. 616, 61 A. 1061;
CONTINENTAL SECURITIES CO. V. BELMONT, 206 N.Y. 7, 99 N.E. 138. 
SIMILARLY IF A CORPORATION HAS A DEFENSE TO AN ACTION AGAINST IT AND IS
NOT ASSERTING IT, A STOCKHOLDER MAY INTERVENE AND DEFEND ON BEHALF OF
THE CORPORATION.  10 OHIO JURIS.  SEC.  257; EGGERS V. NATIONAL RADIO
CO., 208 CAL. 308, 281 P. 58; FITZWATER V. NATIONAL BANK, 62 KAN. 163,
61 P. 684.  MOREOVER, EQUITY HAS EVOLVED NUMEROUS REMEDIES TO PROTECT
NOT ONLY THE RIGHTS OF THE CORPORATION BUT THE INTERESTS OF THE
STOCKHOLDERS AS SUCH AGAINST VARIOUS ACTS OF MISMANAGEMENT.  SEE 10
OHIO JURIS.  SECS.  260 ET SEQ.; BERLE, STUDIES IN THE LAW OF
CORPORATION FINANCE (1928).  BUT RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT PURSUED EITHER
COURSE.  THE PETITION WHICH THEY HAVE FILED WITH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
IS NOT A SUIT TO ENFORCE OR PROTECT A CORPORATE RIGHT.  NOR IS IT A
SUIT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF RESPONDENTS AS STOCKHOLDERS.  YET IF
IT WERE EITHER ONE, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT ENTERTAIN IT.
NO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP IS SHOWN AND NO OTHER BASIS OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION IS APPARENT.  THE QUESTION THEREFORE IS WHETHER THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT AS AN INCIDENT OF ITS BANKRUPTCY POWERS CAN GIVE
RESPONDENTS THE RELIEF WHICH, IF THEIR CHARGES ARE TAKEN AS TRUE, THEY
MIGHT OBTAIN IN ANOTHER FORUM.  WE DO NOT THINK IT CAN. 

THE DISTRICT COURT IN PASSING ON PETITIONS FILED BY CORPORATIONS UNDER
CHAPTER X MUST OF COURSE DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE FILED BY THOSE WHO
HAVE AUTHORITY SO TO ACT.  IN ABSENCE OF FEDERAL INCORPORATION, THAT
AUTHORITY FINDS ITS SOURCE IN LOCAL LAW.  IF THE DISTRICT COURT FINDS
THAT THOSE WHO PURPORT TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION HAVE NOT
BEEN GRANTED AUTHORITY BY LOCAL LAW TO INSTITUTE THE PROCEEDINGS, IT
HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISMISS THE PETITION.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT
THOSE WHO SEEK TO SPEAK FOR THE CORPORATION MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO
OBTAIN THAT AUTHORITY.  THE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT OVER THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL
OF THE PETITION (SEE SEC. 111, SEC. 112, AND SEC. 113) DOES NOT EXTEND
TO THIS SITUATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION WOULD OF COURSE HAVE THE POWER TO ENFORCE DERIVATIVE
ACTIONS,  FN2  TO MAKE FAITHLESS DIRECTORS ACCOUNT, AND THE LIKE, WHERE
LOCAL LAW PERMITS.  BUT UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT THE POWER OF THE COURT
TO SHIFT THE MANAGEMENT OF A CORPORATION FROM ONE GROUP TO ANOTHER, TO
SETTLE INTRACORPORATE DISPUTES, AND TO ADJUST INTRACORPORATE CLAIMS IS
STRICTLY LIMITED TO THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE A PETITION HAS BEEN
APPROVED.  THUS SEC. 156 PROVIDES FOR THE DISPLACEMENT OF THE
MANAGEMENT AND THE APPOINTMENT OF A DISINTERESTED TRUSTEE  FN3  IN CASE
OF CERTAIN COMPANIES AFTER APPROVAL OF THE PETITION.  IN OTHER
SITUATIONS THE COURT MAY CONTINUE THE DEBTOR IN POSSESSION.  SEC. 156. 
THE PLAN MUST INCLUDE PROVISIONS "WHICH ARE EQUITABLE, COMPATIBLE WITH
THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS, AND CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC
POLICY" WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER OF SELECTION OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS
AND THE LIKE.  SEC. 216(11).  AND THE PLAN MUST LIKEWISE PROVIDE FOR
THE RETENTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CLAIMS, NOT SETTLED OR ADJUSTED IN THE
PLAN, WHICH THE CORPORATION MAY HAVE AGAINST OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND
OTHERS.  SEC. 216(13).  BUT NOWHERE IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT
CONGRESS BESTOWED ON THE BANKRUPTCY COURT JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
THAT THOSE WHO IN FACT DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SPEAK FOR THE
CORPORATION AS A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW ARE ENTITLED TO BE GIVEN SUCH
AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE EMPOWERED TO FILE A PETITION ON
BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION.  RESPONDENTS MAY HAVE A MERITORIOUS CASE FOR
RELIEF.  ON THAT WE INTIMATE NO OPINION.  BUT IF THEY ARE TO BE ALLOWED
TO PUT THEIR CORPORATION INTO BANKRUPTCY, THEY MUST PRESENT CREDENTIALS
TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOWING THEIR AUTHORITY. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT CIRCUITY OF ACTION WILL BE AVOIDED AND THE ADEQUACY
OF STOCKHOLDERS' REMEDIES WILL BE ENHANCED IF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS
AUTHORIZED TO ENTERTAIN PETITIONS LIKE THE PRESENT ONE.  THAT MAY WELL
BE TRUE.  BUT ANY SUCH ENLARGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURTS IS FOR CONGRESS.  IT HAS CHOSEN TO WITHHOLD FROM
STOCKHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO INSTITUTE THESE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  IN
ABSENCE OF FEDERAL INCORPORATION, INTRACORPORATE DISPUTES OF THE
CHARACTER PRESENTED HERE ARE, AS WE HAVE SAID, GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. 
THE CREATION OF A NEW BASIS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO HEAR THEM, PASS
ON THEIR MERITS, AND ADJUDICATE THEM IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT. 

A DIFFERENT QUESTION IS PRESENTED WHERE STOCKHOLDERS APPEAR IN
OPPOSITION TO A PETITION FILED BY THE CORPORATION.  SEE SEC. 206.  CF.
IN RE BEAVER COTTON MILLS, 275 F. 498; WHITTAKER V. BRICTSON MFG. CO.,
43 F.2D 485.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THAT SECTION READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"ALL THE CAPACITY OF A CORPORATION SHALL BE VESTED IN AND ALL ITS
AUTHORITY, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ACT OR IN THE ARTICLES
IN REGARD TO ACTION REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN, AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY
SHAREHOLDERS, SHALL BE EXERCISED BY A BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NOT LESS
THAN THREE PERSONS, WHICH SHALL MANAGE AND CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF THE
CORPORATION." 

FN2  SEE RULE 23(B), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.    FN3  AS DEFINED IN
SEC. 158. 
..END :





















FIDELITY CO. V. ROTHENSIES, 324 U.S. 108 


NO. 263.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 5, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  - 142
F.2D 838, AFFIRMED. 


DECEDENT MADE A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN TRUST TO PAY THE INCOME TO
HERSELF FOR LIFE, THENCE TO HER TWO DAUGHTERS, WITH REMAINDERS TO THE
DAUGHTERS' SURVIVING DESCENDANTS; BUT IF BOTH DAUGHTERS SHOULD DIE
WITHOUT DESCENDANTS SURVIVING, THE CORPUS WAS TO GO TO SUCH PERSONS AS
THE DECEDENT SHOULD APPOINT BY WILL.  DECEDENT EXERCISED THE POWER OF
APPOINTMENT BY WILL AND PREDECEASED THE DAUGHTERS.  HELD: 

1.  THE TRANSFER WAS "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER (DECEDENT'S) DEATH," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  P. 110. 

2.  THE VALUE AT THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT OF THE ENTIRE
CORPUS OF THE TRUST WAS INCLUDIBLE IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ESTATE TAX UNDER THE 1926 ACT.  P. 111. 

UNDER SEC. 302(C) THE TAXABLE GROSS ESTATE MUST INCLUDE THOSE
PROPERTY INTERESTS THE ULTIMATE POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF WHICH IS
HELD IN SUSPENSE UNTIL THE MOMENT OF THE GRANTOR'S DEATH OR
THEREAFTER. 

3. THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEDUCTION FROM THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE
OF THE VALUES OF THE ESTATES OF THE DAUGHTERS OR THEIR DESCENDANTS.  P.
112. 

FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. ROTHENSIES,
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 693, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DENYING RECOVERY IN A SUIT FOR REFUND OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OUR ATTENTION HERE IS DIRECTED TOWARD THE PROPER VALUATION FOR
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES OF THE CORPUS OF AN INTER VIVOS TRUST WHERE
THE TRANSFER WAS INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT
OR AFTER DEATH AND WHERE THE SETTLOR RETAINED A LIFE ESTATE IN THE
TRUST INCOME AND A REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN THE CORPUS. 

ON MARCH 26, 1928, THE DECEDENT, ANNA C. STINSON OF BRYN MAWR, PA.,
TRANSFERRED CERTAIN PROPERTY IN TRUST, THE VALUE OF WHICH AT THE TIME
OF HER DEATH WAS $84,443.49.  THE INCOME OF THE TRUST WAS TO BE PAID TO
THE SETTLOR DURING HER LIFE AND AT HER DEATH TO HER DAUGHTERS (AGED 12
AND 10 AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION OF THE TRUST) DURING THEIR
RESPECTIVE LIVES.  AT THE DEATH OF EACH DAUGHTER, THE CORPUS SUPPORTING
HER SHARE OF THE INCOME WAS TO BE PAID TO HER DESCENDANTS.  IF EITHER
DAUGHTER DIED WITHOUT LEAVING SURVIVING DESCENDANTS, THE CORPUS OF HER
SHARE WAS TO BE ADDED TO THE SHARE OF THE OTHER DAUGHTER OR OF THE
SURVIVING DESCENDANTS OF THE OTHER DAUGHTER.  BUT IF BOTH DAUGHTERS
DIED WITHOUT LEAVING SURVIVING DESCENDANTS, THE CORPUS WAS TO BE PAID
TO SUCH PERSONS AS THE SETTLOR MIGHT APPOINT BY WILL.  IN DEFAULT OF
SUCH APPOINTMENT, THE CORPUS WAS TO GO TO CERTAIN NAMED CHARITIES. 

THE DECEDENT EXERCISED THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT IN A WILL MADE IN
1930.  SHE DIED IN 1934 AT THE AGE OF 51, LEAVING TWO UNMARRIED
DAUGHTERS.  THE LATTER HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY MARRIED AND BOTH HAVE
CHILDREN. 

THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS A TRANSFER IN
TRUST INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER
DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44
STAT. 9, 70, AND THAT THE NET VALUE OF ALL THE PROPERTY COMPRISING THE
CORPUS OF THE TRUST SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE
FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  THE EXECUTORS, HOWEVER, DENIED THAT THE
TRANSFER FELL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 302(C); THEY FURTHER CLAIMED
THAT EVEN IF SEC. 302(C) DID APPLY THE VALUE OF THE LIFE ESTATES OF THE
SETTLOR'S DAUGHTERS AND THE VALUE OF THE REMAINDERS TO THEIR SURVIVING
DESCENDANTS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE VALUE OF THE TRUST ASSETS FOR
TAX PURPOSES. 

THE EXECUTORS PAID A TAX ON THE FULL VALUE OF THE TRUST ASSETS AND
FILED THIS CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE TAX.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED
RECOVERY AND THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED.  142 F.2D 838.  CONFLICT WITH
FIELD'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 144 F.2D 62, LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI
LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE CORPUS OF
THE TRUST AT THE TIME OF DECEDENT'S DEATH SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN
THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE. 

THE COURTS BELOW, UTILIZING THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN KLEIN V.
UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 231, AND HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106,
CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE DECEDENT'S TRANSFER IN TRUST IN 1928 WAS ONE
INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER DEATH
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, PRIOR TO
THE AMENDMENTS OF 1931 AND 1932.  WHILE THE MATTER OF VALUATION WAS NOT
ARGUED AND WAS NOT DIRECTLY IN ISSUE IN THOSE CASES, THE INESCAPABLE
CONSEQUENCE OF THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED THERE AND IN THE DISSENTING
OPINION IN HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 39, 46, IS
TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE TRUST CORPUS IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

ESTATE OF PROPERTY "TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE
DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, IN
CONTEMPLATION OF OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH."  AS WE SAID IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK, SUPRA,
110, 111, THIS PROVISION "DEALS WITH PROPERTY NOT TECHNICALLY PASSING
AT DEATH BUT WITH INTERESTS THERETOFORE CREATED.  THE TAXABLE EVENT IS
A TRANSFER INTER VIVOS.  BUT THE MEASURE OF THE TAX IS THE VALUE OF THE
TRANSFERRED PROPERTY AT THE TIME WHEN DEATH BRINGS IT INTO ENJOYMENT." 
CF. REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339, 347.  THE TAXABLE
GROSS ESTATE, IN OTHER WORDS, MUST INCLUDE THOSE PROPERTY INTERESTS THE
ULTIMATE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF WHICH IS HELD IN SUSPENSE UNTIL THE
MOMENT OF THE GRANTOR'S DEATH OR THEREAFTER. 

TESTED BY THAT STANDARD, THE ENTIRE CORPUS OF THE TRUST SHOULD HAVE
BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE AND AN ESTATE TAX LEVIED
ON ITS NET VALUE AT THE DATE OF DECEDENT'S DEATH.  THE ULTIMATE
DISPOSITION OF ALL THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS SUSPENDED DURING THE LIFE OF
THE DECEDENT.  ONLY AT OR AFTER HER DEATH WAS IT CERTAIN WHETHER THE
PROPERTY WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT OR AS
PROVIDED IN THE TRUST INSTRUMENT.  THE LIFE ESTATES OF THE DAUGHTERS
WERE CONTINGENT UPON THEIR SURVIVING THEIR MOTHER AND TOOK EFFECT IN
ENJOYMENT ONLY AT THE DEATH OF THE LATTER.  THE REMAINDER INTERESTS OF
THE DESCENDANTS OF THE DAUGHTERS WERE CONTINGENT UPON THEIR SURVIVING
BOTH THE DECEDENT AND THE DAUGHTERS AND TOOK EFFECT IN POSSESSION ONLY
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.  THUS UNTIL THE MOMENT OF HER DEATH OR
UNTIL AN UNDETERMINED TIME THEREAFTER THE DECEDENT HELD A STRING OR
CONTINGENT POWER OF APPOINTMENT OVER THE TOTAL CORPUS OF THE TRUST. 
THE RETENTION OF SUCH A STRING, WHICH MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN ALTERING
COMPLETELY THE PLAN CONTEMPLATED BY THE TRUST INSTRUMENT FOR THE
TRANSMISSION OF DECEDENT'S PROPERTY, SUBJECTED THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE
CORPUS TO ESTATE TAX LIABILITY. 

IT IS FRUITLESS TO SPECULATE ON THE PROBABILITIES OF THE PROPERTY
BEING DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE CONTINGENT POWER OF APPOINTMENT.  INDEED,
SUCH SPECULATION IS IRRELEVANT TO THE MEASUREMENT OF ESTATE TAX
LIABILITY.  THE APPLICATION OF THIS TAX DOES NOT DEPEND UPON "ELUSIVE
AND SUBTLE CASUISTRIES."  HELVERING V. HALLOCK, SUPRA, 118.  NO MORE
SHOULD THE MEASURE OF THE TAX DEPEND UPON CONJECTURES AS TO THE
PROPINQUITY OR CERTAINTY OF THE DECEDENT'S REVERSIONARY INTERESTS.  IT
IS ENOUGH IF HE RETAINS SOME CONTINGENT INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY UNTIL
HIS DEATH OR THEREAFTER, DELAYING UNTIL THEN THE RIPENING OF FULL
DOMINION OVER THE PROPERTY BY THE BENEFICIARIES.  THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE CONTINGENCY, RATHER THAN THE ACTUARIAL OR
THEORETICAL VALUE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE
CONTINGENCY, IS THE MEASURE OF THE TAX.  THAT VALUE IS DEMONSTRATED BY
THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD FLOW IN THIS INSTANCE FROM THE DECEDENT'S
SURVIVAL OF HER DAUGHTERS AND ANY OF THE LATTER'S SURVIVING
DESCENDANTS. 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH DETERMINING WHETHER THE VALUES OF ANY
PROPERTY INTERESTS OR INTERVENING ESTATES NOT AFFECTED BY THE
DECEDENT'S DEATH AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONTINGENT POWER OF APPOINTMENT
SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS.  THE VALUE OF THE LIFE
ESTATE RETAINED BY THE DECEDENT OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE DEDUCTED.  AND THE
LIFE ESTATES OF THE DAUGHTERS AND THE REMAINDER INTERESTS OF THEIR
SURVIVING DESCENDANTS WERE ALL SUBJECT TO DIVESTMENT BY THE CONTINGENT
POWER OF APPOINTMENT AND WERE FREED FROM THIS CONTINGENCY ONLY AT OR
AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH.  THERE IS THUS NO BASIS FOR DEDUCTING THEIR
VALUES AS SUGGESTED BY PETITIONERS.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THIS TRUST WAS "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT
IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER" THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AGREED.  CERTIORARI WAS NOT GRANTED ON THAT
QUESTION BUT ONLY ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE
CORPUS OF THE TRUST AT THE TIME OF DECEDENT'S DEATH SHOULD BE INCLUDED
IN HER GROSS ESTATE.  SO IN THIS CASE, AS IN COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF
FIELD, POST, P. 113, WE ARE NOT FACED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER MAY V.
HEINER, 281 U.S. 238, SHOULD SURVIVE HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S.
106.  ON THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE
ENTIRE CORPUS MUST BE INCLUDED IN DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE BY VIRTUE OF
SEC. 302(C) OF THE 1926 ACT UNLESS THE VALUE OF THE LIFE ESTATE MUST BE
DEDUCTED.  THE VALUE OF THE LIFE ESTATE DEDUCTED IN THE HALLOCK CASE
WAS THE LIFE ESTATE IN THE SETTLOR'S WIFE.  IT WAS EXCLUDED BECAUSE IT
TOOK EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT WHEN THE TRUST WAS CREATED.  THE
LIFE ESTATE WHICH THE DECEDENT RESERVED TO HERSELF IS OBVIOUSLY IN A
DIFFERENT CATEGORY.  IT IS NOT AN "OUTSTANDING LIFE ESTATE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 80, ART. 17. 

I WOULD REST THE DECISION THERE AND RESERVE JUDGMENT ON THE OTHER
QUESTIONS ADVERTED TO IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 
..END :




COMMISSIONER V. ESTATE OF FIELD, 324 U.S. 113 


NO. 578.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1945.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  - 144
F.2D 62, REVERSED. 


1.  DECEDENT MADE A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN TRUST LIMITED IN DURATION
TO THE LIVES OF TWO NIECES.  IF DECEDENT SURVIVED BOTH NIECES THE
CORPUS WAS TO GO TO THE DECEDENT RATHER THAN TO THE BENEFICIARIES NAMED
IN THE TRUST INSTRUMENT.  THE NIECES SURVIVED THE DECEDENT.  HELD THAT,
UNDER SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE
CORPUS OF THE TRUST PROPERTY AT THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT WAS
INCLUDIBLE IN THE GROSS ESTATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE
TAX.  FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. ROTHENSIES, ANTE, P. 108.  P.
115. 

2. SINCE THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST DID NOT SHED THE POSSIBILITY OF
REVERSION UNTIL THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE CORPUS ON
THE DATE OF DEATH WAS TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 302(C).  P. 116. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. ESTATE OF FIELD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 704, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT, 2 T.C. 21, WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION
OF A DEFICIENCY IN ESTATE TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V.
ROTHENSIES, ANTE, P. 108.  IT TOO PRESENTS A QUESTION AS TO THE PROPER
VALUATION OF THE CORPUS OF AN INTER VIVOS TRUST UNDER SEC. 302(C) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 9, 70. 

ON JUNE 8, 1922, THE DECEDENT TRANSFERRED TO A TRUSTEE CERTAIN ASSETS
VALUED AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH AT THE SUM OF $157,452.82.  THE
MATERIAL PORTIONS OF THE TRUST PROVIDED: 

1.  THE TRUST WAS TO CONTINUE FOR THE JOINT LIVES OF TWO NIECES AND
THE LIFE OF THE SURVIVOR OF THEM UNLESS TERMINATED EARLIER UNDER 4,
INFRA. 

2. THE INCOME WAS TO BE PAID TO THE DECEDENT FOR HIS LIFE UNLESS THE
TRUST TERMINATED BEFORE HIS DEATH. 

3.  IF THE DECEDENT DIED PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OF THE TRUST
LEAVING ISSUE, THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE
CHILDREN OR THEIR ISSUE, SUBJECT TO DECEDENT'S RIGHT TO REDUCE OR
CANCEL THE AMOUNTS OF THE GIFTS BY WILL OR WRITTEN INSTRUMENT. 
PROVISIONS WERE ALSO MADE FOR A $150,000 TRUST FOR THE WIDOW WHICH IS
NOT IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE. 

4.  DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF THE TRUSTS THE INCOME WAS TO BE PAID TO
THE BENEFICIARY NAMED AND UPON THE DEATH OF THE BENEFICIARY DURING THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE TRUST THE CORPUS WAS TO BE PAID TO THE BENEFICIARY'S
ISSUE SURVIVING, BUT IF THERE BE NONE, TO THE ISSUE OF THE DECEDENT
SURVIVING; IF NONE, THEN TO DECEDENT'S BROTHER OR SISTER OR THEIR
ISSUE. 

5.  UPON TERMINATION OF THE TRUST BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT
THE CORPUS WAS TO BE PAID OVER TO DECEDENT. 

6.  UPON TERMINATION OF THE TRUST AFTER THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT BUT
DURING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY TRUST THE CORPUS WAS TO BE PAID TO THE LIFE
BENEFICIARY. 

THE DECEDENT AT NO TIME HAD ANY ISSUE.  AT HIS DEATH IN 1937 AT THE
AGE OF 52, HE WAS SURVIVED BY THE TWO NIECES WHOSE LIVES WERE TO
MEASURE THE MAXIMUM LIFE OF THE TRUST.  THESE NIECES WERE THEN AGED 18
AND 25 RESPECTIVELY.  HE WAS ALSO SURVIVED BY HIS WIDOW, A SISTER AND
ISSUE OF A DECEASED BROTHER. 

THE TAX COURT HELD THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF $157,452.82 WAS
INCLUDABLE IN THE GROSS ESTATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE ESTATE TAX.  2 T.C.
21.  BUT THE COURT BELOW REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE TAX
COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO INCLUDE IN THE GROSS ESTATE ONLY $24,930.76 -
THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF DECEDENT'S DEATH OF A REMAINDER IN THE SUM OF
$157,452.82 PAYABLE AT ALL EVENTS UPON THE DEATH OF THE SURVIVOR OF TWO
FEMALES, AGED 18 AND 25 RESPECTIVELY.  144 F.2D 62. 

THE ERROR OF THE COURT BELOW IS SELF-EVIDENT FROM OUR DISCUSSION IN
THE FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. CASE.  THE TRUST HERE WAS LIMITED
IN DURATION TO THE LIVES OF THE DECEDENT'S TWO NIECES.  BUT IF BOTH
NIECES DIED BEFORE THE DECEDENT, THE CORPUS WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE
DECEDENT RATHER THAN TO THE BENEFICIARIES NAMED IN THE TRUST INSTRUMENT
(IN THIS INSTANCE THE DECEDENT'S SISTER AND THE ISSUE OF HIS DECEASED
BROTHER).  THUS UNTIL DECEDENT'S DEATH IT WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER ANY OF
THE CORPUS WOULD PASS TO THE BENEFICIARIES OR WHETHER IT WOULD REVERT
TO THE DECEDENT.  DECEDENT RETAINING A STRING ATTACHED TO ALL THE
PROPERTY UNTIL DEATH SEVERED IT, THE ENTIRE CORPUS WAS SWEPT INTO THE
GROSS ESTATE AND WAS TAXABLE ACCORDINGLY. 

THERE IS NO BASIS EVIDENT FOR DEDUCTING THE VALUE OF THE CORPUS FOR
THE PERIOD OF THE LIFE EXPECTANCIES OF THE TWO MEASURING LIVES, AS WAS
DONE BY THE COURT BELOW.  THE ESTATE TAX IS NOT BASED ON THE VALUE OF
THE REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF THE DECEDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH BUT
ON THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THAT
REVERSIONARY INTEREST RELATES.  IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE HOW VESTED MAY
BE THE REMAINDER INTERESTS IN THE CORPUS OR HOW REMOTE OR UNCERTAIN MAY
BE THE DECEDENT'S REVERSIONARY INTEREST.  IF THE CORPUS DOES NOT SHED
THE POSSIBILITY OF REVERSION UNTIL AT OR AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH,
THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE CORPUS ON THE DATE OF DEATH IS TAXABLE. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

IF THE TRUST GAVE A LIFE ESTATE TO THE DECEDENT AND THE REMAINDER TO
HIS CHILDREN, SEC. 302(C) OF THE 1926 ACT WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE PAYMENT
OF A TAX UNDER THE RULE OF MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238; BURNET V.
NORTHERN TRUST CO., 283 U.S. 782; MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 784;
AND HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303.  THE THEORY OF MAY V. HEINER WAS
THAT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED FROM
THE GRANTOR TO THE REMAINDERMAN ON THE GRANTOR'S DEATH, SINCE THE TITLE
OF THE REMAINDERMAN HAD BEEN DEFINITELY FIXED BY THE TRUST DEED.  WE
NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE RULE OF MAY V. HEINER SHOULD SURVIVE
HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106.  SEE PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE & GIFT
TAXATION (1942) SEC. 7.15.  FOR IN THIS CASE THE GRANTOR RETAINED THE
RIGHT TO REDUCE OR CANCEL BY WILL OR WRITTEN INSTRUMENT THE INTERESTS
OF THE CHILDREN; AND THE CORPUS WOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO THE GRANTOR
IF HE SURVIVED HIS NIECES.  HENCE IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT THE GIFTS OVER
WOULD TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT ONLY AT OR AFTER THE DEATH
OF THE GRANTOR. 
..END :

















HERB V. PITCAIRN, 324 U.S. 117 


ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 18, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1945.  - 384 ILL.
237, 281, 51 N.E.2D 277, 282, CONSIDERED. 


THE RECORDS IN THESE CASES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
BEING AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHETHER THE STATE COURT JUDGMENTS OF DISMISSAL
REST ON A FEDERAL GROUND OR ON AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, IT IS
APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE CAUSES BE CONTINUED FOR SUCH
PERIOD AS WILL ENABLE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS WITH ALL CONVENIENT SPEED
TO APPLY TO THE STATE COURT FOR AMENDMENT, OR CERTIFICATE, WHICH WILL
SHOW WHETHER THAT COURT INTENDED TO REST THE JUDGMENTS ON AN ADEQUATE
AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND OR WHETHER DECISION OF THE FEDERAL
QUESTION WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED.  P. 128. 

HERB V. PITCAIRN ET AL., RECEIVERS FOR WABASH RAILWAY CO. 

NO. 24.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 25, BELCHER V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD
CO., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 759, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS AFFIRMING DISMISSALS OF
TWO SUITS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

EACH OF THESE PETITIONERS HAS MADE AN ABORTIVE ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN AN
ACTION IN A CITY COURT OF ILLINOIS ON A CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED UNDER
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  AS THEIR CALLS UPON US FOR
RELIEF PRESENT THE SAME QUESTIONS, IN GRANTING CERTIORARI WE
CONSOLIDATED THE CASES FOR ARGUMENT.  321 U.S. 759. 

HERB ALLEGED INJURY WHILE EMPLOYED AS A SWITCHMAN ON THE WABASH
RAILROAD AT OR NEAR THE CITY OF DECATUR, MASON COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ON
NOVEMBER 23, 1936.  HE FILED COMPLAINT UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT IN THE
CITY COURT OF GRANITE CITY, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS, IN DECEMBER OF
1937.  A VERDICT OF $30,000 WAS RETURNED, WHICH THE TRIAL COURT SET
ASIDE.  FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE APPELLATE COURT AND THE SUPREME
COURT RESULTED IN REMAND TO THE CITY COURT.  377 ILL. 405, 36 N.E.2D
555.  ON MARCH 16, 1942, IN OTHER CASES, THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
DECIDED THAT, UNDER THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION, A CITY COURT IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION IN ANY CASE WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE OUTSIDE THE
CITY WHERE THE COURT IS LOCATED.  WERNER V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO.,
379 ILL. 559, 42 N.E.2D 82; MITCHELL V. L. & N.R. CO., 379 ILL. 522, 42
N.E.2D 86.  WHEN THESE DECISIONS WERE RENDERED, PLAINTIFF MOVED IN THE
CITY COURT FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE, UNDER THE ILLINOIS VENUE STATUTE, TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION. 
MEANWHILE THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD WITHIN WHICH AN ACTION COULD BE
INSTITUTED UNDER THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT HAD LONG EXPIRED.  THE
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE WAS GRANTED AND THE PAPERS CERTIFIED AND
TRANSFERRED ACCORDINGLY.  THE DEFENDANT, LIMITING APPEARANCE FOR THE
SOLE AND ONLY PURPOSE OF THE MOTION, MOVED, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, TO
DISMISS ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CITY COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION EITHER
TO ENTERTAIN OR TO TRANSFER THE CASE; THAT, SINCE ALL PROCEEDINGS
THERETOFORE WERE UTTERLY VOID, NO ACTION WAS PENDING OR PROPERLY
COMMENCED BY THE CITY COURT PROCESS, NOR BY THE TRANSFER; THAT, SINCE
NO ACTION HAD BEEN COMMENCED IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, ANY
RIGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT HAD EXPIRED BY ITS LIMITATION, WHICH
PROVIDED THAT "NO ACTION SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNDER THIS ACT UNLESS
COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DAY THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED." 
35 STAT. 66, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 56.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT GRANTED THE
MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AFFIRMED.  384 ILL.
237, 51 N.E.2D 277.  ITS AFFIRMANCE IS HERE CLAIMED TO INVOLVE A
FEDERAL QUESTION, ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED. 

BELCHER ALLEGED THAT HE WAS A SWITCHMAN ON THE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
RAILROAD IN ITS YARDS AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, WHERE HE WAS INJURED ON
FEBRUARY 15, 1939.  HE FILED HIS COMPLAINT ON JUNE 22, 1940, IN THE
CITY COURT OF EAST ST. LOUIS, ILLINOIS.  THE ANSWER JOINED ISSUE
GENERALLY AND PLEADED A RELEASE AND SATISFACTION.  REPLY ADMITTED
EXECUTION IN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, OF THE DOCUMENT WHICH DEFENDANT
PLEADED, BUT SET UP FACTS IN AVOIDANCE.  ON TRIAL A VERDICT OF $20,000
WAS RETURNED.  THE TRIAL COURT SET IT ASIDE, HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE
DID NOT WARRANT THE VERDICT.  THIS WAS ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1941, AND AT
THIS STAGE OF THE LITIGATION THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HANDED DOWN
ITS DECISIONS OF MARCH 16, 1942 HOLDING CITY COURTS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OF CAUSES ARISING OUTSIDE THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. 
THE PLAINTIFF MOVED IN CITY COURT THAT VENUE BE CHANGED TO CIRCUIT
COURT OF ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS, AND THE MOTION WAS GRANTED.  THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION AT THIS TIME
HAD RUN.  DEFENDANT MADE APPEARANCE LIMITED TO THE PURPOSE OF MOVING TO
DISMISS.  THE CASE WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND THE
DISMISSAL WAS SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, IN AN OPINION
WHICH ADOPTED THE OPINION IN THE COMPANION CASE.  384 ILL. 281, 51
N.E.2D 282. 

FIRST.  WHETHER ANY CASE IS PENDING IN THE ILLINOIS COURTS IS A
QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED BY ILLINOIS LAW, AS INTERPRETED BY THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT.  FOR AS WE HAVE SAID OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, "WE DEEM IT WELL TO OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NOT HERE
INVOLVED ANY ATTEMPT BY CONGRESS TO ENLARGE OR REGULATE THE
JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS OR TO CONTROL OR AFFECT THEIR MODES OF
PROCEDURE, BUT ONLY A QUESTION OF THE DUTY OF SUCH A COURT, WHEN ITS
ORDINARY JURISDICTION AS PRESCRIBED BY LOCAL LAWS IS APPROPRIATE TO THE
OCCASION AND IS INVOKED IN CONFORMITY WITH THOSE LAWS, TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A RIGHT OF CIVIL RECOVERY ARISING
UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS AND SUSCEPTIBLE OF ADJUDICATION ACCORDING TO
THE PREVAILING RULES OF PROCEDURE."  MONDOU V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R.
CO., 223 U.S. 1, 56-57.  "AS TO THE GRANT OF JURISDICTION IN THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THAT STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO REQUIRE
STATE COURTS TO ENTERTAIN SUITS ARISING UNDER IT, BUT ONLY TO EMPOWER
THEM TO DO SO, SO FAR AS THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS
CONCERNED....  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT OF CONGRESS THAT
PURPORTS TO FORCE A DUTY UPON SUCH COURTS AS AGAINST AN OTHERWISE VALID
EXCUSE."  DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377, 387-88. 
AND SEE CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 207 U.S. 142, 148-49; ST.
LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO. V. TAYLOR, 210 U.S. 281; JOHN V. PAULLIN, 231
U.S. 583. 

THE PLIGHT OF PETITIONERS IS NOT DUE TO ANY FAILURE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS TO PROVIDE FORUMS ADEQUATE FOR THE HEARING OF THEIR CASES
UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  THE STATE PROVIDES A SYSTEM OF CIRCUIT
COURTS SITTING IN EACH OF ITS COUNTIES WHICH HAVE GENERAL AND UNLIMITED
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AT LAW AND IN EQUITY.  THESE WERE OPEN TO THE
PETITIONERS, BUT THEY CHOSE INSTEAD TO FILE THEIR COMPLAINTS IN CITY
COURTS.  IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN FOR US TO SAY THAT THE STATE IN SETTING
UP A LOCAL COURT COULD NOT LIMIT ITS JURISDICTION TO ACTIONS ARISING
WITHIN THE CITY FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED. 

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT HELD THESE COURTS WITHOUT JURISDICTION,
PLAINTIFFS MOVED IN CITY COURT UNDER THE ILLINOIS VENUE ACT (ILLINOIS
REVISED STATUTES, 1941, CH. 146, SEC. 36) TO CHANGE VENUE TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT.  THE CITY COURTS GRANTED THE MOTION AND TRANSFERRED THE
PAPERS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE SERVED WITH NO
PROCESS ISSUING FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, ENTERED NO GENERAL APPEARANCE
IN CIRCUIT COURT.  INSTEAD, APPEARING SPECIALLY, THEY MOVED TO
DISMISS.  IN EACH CASE THE MOTION WAS GROUNDED IN A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF
JURISDICTION IN THE CITY COURTS TO BEGIN, HEAR, OR TRANSFER THE CASE. 
EACH DEFENDANT DENIED THAT THE VENUE ACT GAVE ANY POWER TO THE CITY
COURT TO TRANSFER, AND EACH CLAIMED THAT IF IT DID, IT WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  BOTH ALSO ASSERTED THAT
THE FEDERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN AT THE TIME OF PURPORTED
CHANGE OF VENUE BECAUSE NO SUIT HAD BEEN "COMMENCED" IN CITY COURT
WITHIN ITS MEANING. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DID NOT DECIDE WHETHER UNDER THE STATE
CONSTITUTION THE VENUE ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, APPARENTLY BECAUSE IT
HELD THE ACT NOT TO APPLY.  IT POINTED OUT THAT "BOTH THE SUBJECT
MATTER AND THE PARTIES MUST BE BEFORE THE COURT, AND JURISDICTION OF
THE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER WILL NOT SUFFICE; THE TWO MUST CONCUR OR THE
JUDGMENT WILL BE VOID IN ANY CASE IN WHICH THE COURT ASSUMES TO ACT." 
THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD SERVED NO SUMMONS ON DEFENDANTS, AND THEY MADE NO
GENERAL APPEARANCE THEREIN.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CITY COURT
ADMITTEDLY HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.  THE SUPREME
COURT USED LANGUAGE WHICH CAN MEAN THAT NO VALID PROCEEDING WAS PENDING
IN EITHER COURT AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW.  FN2  WE THINK THAT THE
SUPREME COURT PROBABLY HAS DECIDED THAT AS MATTER OF ILLINOIS LAW NO
ACTION IS PENDING AGAINST THESE DEFENDANTS IN ANY COURT AND THAT ALL OF
THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN OF NO EFFECT WHATEVER. 

THE FREEDOM OF THE STATE COURTS SO TO DECIDE IS, OF COURSE, SUBJECT
TO THE QUALIFICATION THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION MUST NOT BE DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST BECAUSE IT IS A FEDERAL ONE.  MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R.
CO., 292 U.S. 230.  BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COURT BELOW, IN SO FAR
AS IT DID HOLD THE CITY COURTS WITHOUT POWER, CONSTRUED THE STATE
JURISDICTION AND VENUE LAWS IN A DISCRIMINATORY FASHION.  IN CENTRAL
ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 293 ILL. 62, 127
N.E. 80, AND GILL V. LYNCH, 367 ILL. 203, 10 N.E.2D 812, WHICH ARE
CITED TO US BY PETITIONERS, THE ILLINOIS COURT DID UPHOLD THE POWER OF
ONE COURT TO TRANSFER A CAUSE TO ANOTHER COURT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. 
ONE CASE, HOWEVER, INVOLVED A PROCEEDING BEGUN IN A CIRCUIT COURT, A
COURT OF GENERAL AND UNLIMITED JURISDICTION.  IT ISSUED A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE STATE COMPENSATION COMMISSION;
TRANSFER WAS MADE UNDER THE VENUE STATUTE TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT COURT
BECAUSE THE REVIEW STATUTE REQUIRED THE PROCEEDING TO BE IN A COUNTY
WHERE THE DEFENDANT RESIDED OR COULD BE FOUND.  IN THE OTHER CASE A
RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDING WAS TRANSFERRED FROM COUNTY COURT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT BECAUSE THE COUNTY COURT WAS WITHOUT EQUITABLE
JURISDICTION.  THUS NEITHER CASE INVOLVED THE JURISDICTION OF A CITY
COURT NOR THE APPLICATION OF THE VENUE STATUTES TO A CITY COURT. 
THEREFORE, THE CASES ARE TOO DISSIMILAR IN THEIR FACTS TO MAKE THIS ONE
APPEAR TO BE A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A FEDERAL RIGHT WHETHER OR NOT
THEY ARE WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  AND THERE IS NO OTHER BASIS, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT OR
ELSEWHERE, FOR THE INTIMATION THAT IF PETITIONERS' CASES HAD BEEN
BROUGHT UNDER STATE STATUTES OR COMMON LAW THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES AS THOSE HERE PRESENT. 

HAD THE SUPREME COURT RESTED UPON ITS OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE
JURISDICTION OF ILLINOIS COURTS AND THE ADEQUACY OF THEIR PROCEDURES TO
BRING AN ACTION INTO EXISTENCE, WE SHOULD BE WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT
THESE COURTS TO TRY CASES WHICH AS MATTER OF LOCAL LAW ARE NOT
PENDING.  BUT THE COURT DID NOT STOP AT THAT. 

SECOND.  THE CASE WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS WITH A
CERTIFICATION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS
INVOLVED.  THE FEDERAL QUESTION, WHETHER THE ACTION WAS BARRED BY THE
FEDERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WAS RAISED BY RESPONDENTS IN THEIR
MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.  IN THE COURSE OF ITS OPINION
THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT USED LANGUAGE FROM WHICH IT SEEMS REASONABLY
CLEAR THAT THE QUESTION WAS DECIDED,  FN3  EITHER NECESSARILY, BECAUSE
THE COURT HAD NOT DISPOSED OF THE CASE ON STATE LAW GROUNDS, OR
HYPOTHETICALLY.  FOR PURPOSES OF PASSING ON THIS QUESTION THE COURT
SEEMS TO HAVE ASSUMED THAT AN ACTION IS PENDING UNDER STATE LAW; FOR
ONLY IF ONE IS PENDING IS THERE OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE CAUSE
OF ACTION IS BARRED. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THEREFORE THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW DOES NOT REST
UPON A STATE GROUND BUT UPON AN ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED FEDERAL GROUND -
NAMELY, THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CITY COURT HAD POWER TO TRANSFER THE CASE,
THE ACTION IS BARRED BECAUSE NOT "COMMENCED" UNTIL IT ARRIVED IN
CIRCUIT COURT. 

THIRD.  THIS COURT FROM THE TIME OF ITS FOUNDATION HAS ADHERED TO THE
PRINCIPLE THAT IT WILL NOT REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF STATE COURTS THAT REST
ON ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUNDS.  MURDOCK V. MEMPHIS, 20
WALL.  590, 636; BEREA COLLEGE V. KENTUCKY, 211 U.S. 45, 53; ENTERPRISE
IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. FARMERS MUTUAL CANAL CO., 243 U.S. 157, 164; FOX
FILM CORP. V. MULLER, 296 U.S. 207.  THE REASON IS SO OBVIOUS THAT IT
HAS RARELY BEEN THOUGHT TO WARRANT STATEMENT.  IT IS FOUND IN THE
PARTITIONING OF POWER BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
AND IN THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR OWN JURISDICTION.  OUR ONLY POWER OVER
STATE JUDGMENTS IS TO CORRECT THEM TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY INCORRECTLY
ADJUDGE FEDERAL RIGHTS.  AND OUR POWER IS TO CORRECT WRONG JUDGMENTS,
NOT TO REVISE OPINIONS.  WE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO RENDER AN ADVISORY
OPINION, AND IF THE SAME JUDGMENT WOULD BE RENDERED BY THE STATE COURT
AFTER WE CORRECTED ITS VIEWS OF FEDERAL LAWS, OUR REVIEW COULD AMOUNT
TO NOTHING MORE THAN AN ADVISORY OPINION.  IF THE ILLINOIS COURT MEANS
TO HOLD THAT THE CITY COURTS COULD NOT ADJUDGE, TRANSFER, OR BEGIN
THESE CASES AND THAT NO CASE IS PENDING IN ITS COURTS AT THE PRESENT
TIME, IT IS MANIFEST THAT NO VIEW WE MIGHT EXPRESS OF THE FEDERAL ACT
WOULD REQUIRE ITS COURTS TO PROCEED TO THE TRIAL OF THESE ACTIONS. 

BUT WHAT TO DO WITH CASES IN WHICH THE RECORD IS AMBIGUOUS BUT
PRESENTS REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGMENT MAY REST ON
DECISION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION HAS LONG VEXED THE COURT.  IN MANY CASES
THE ANSWER HAS BEEN A STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE RULE THAT IT MUST
AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS DECIDED AND THAT ITS
DECISION WAS ESSENTIAL TO DISPOSITION OF THE CASE; AND THAT WHERE IT IS
NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE JUDGMENT RESTS ON A FEDERAL GROUND OR AN ADEQUATE
STATE ONE, THIS COURT WILL NOT REVIEW.  KLINGER V. MISSOURI, 13 WALL. 
257, 263; DE SAUSSURE V. GAILLARD, 127 U.S. 216, 234; JOHNSON V. RISK,
137 U.S. 300, 307; WOOD MOWING MACHINE CO. V. SKINNER, 139 U.S. 293;
ADAMS V. RUSSELL, 229 U.S. 353, 358-61; LYNCH V. NEW YORK, 293 U.S.
52.    IN OTHER CASES WHERE JUSTICE SEEMED TO REQUIRE IT, FOR EXAMPLE
BECAUSE OF SUPERVENING EVENTS, THE COURT HAS SAID THAT TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE STATE COURT FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION IS NOT TO REVIEW, IN ANY PROPER SENSE OF THE TERM, THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT.  PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600, 607;
STATE TAX COMM'N V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511, 515.  AND IN MINNESOTA V.
NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551, UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE GROUNDS OF THE
DECISION BELOW LED THE COURT TO VACATE AND REMAND FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION.  NATIONAL TEA CO. V. STATE, 205 MINN. 443, 286 N.W. 360;
208 MINN. 607, 294 N.W. 230.  IN LYNCH V. NEW YORK, 293 U.S. 52, THE
COURT STRONGLY INTIMATED THAT HAD PETITIONERS REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE
IN THIS COURT TO PERMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE STATE COURT FOR AMENDMENT
OR CLARIFICATION OF ITS REMITTITUR, THERE WOULD BE POWER AND
WILLINGNESS TO GRANT IT.  LATER, IN INTERNATIONAL STEEL & IRON CO. V.
NATIONAL SURETY CO., 297 U.S. 657, 662, THE RECORD FAILED TO DISCLOSE
THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION HAD BEEN PRESENTED OR DECIDED.  COUNSEL
REQUESTED AT THE BAR CONTINUANCE TO APPLY FOR AMPLIFICATION, AND IT WAS
GRANTED.  REARGUMENT WAS HAD IN THE STATE COURT UPON THE FEDERAL
QUESTION, THE COURT DID PASS ON IT, THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE
CERTIFIED, AND THIS COURT ASSERTED JURISDICTION AND PROCEEDED TO
DECISION.  THE PRACTICE HAS BECOME COMMON BY WHICH SOME STATE COURTS,
SUCH AS THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, PROVIDE COUNSEL ON MOTION WITH A
CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT OR OF THE CHIEF JUDGE THAT A STATED FEDERAL
QUESTION WAS PRESENTED AND NECESSARILY PASSED UPON IF SUCH WAS THE
CASE.  SEE, E.G., CASES CITED IN ROBERTSON AND KIRKHAM, JURISDICTION OF
THE SUPREME COURT, SEC. 75. 

IT IS NO CRITICISM OF A STATE COURT THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY IN A
CASE WHERE BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED, DISCUSSED,
AND PERHAPS DECIDED, THAT THE JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME HAD
ONLY ONE OF THE GROUNDS BEEN PRESENT.  THOSE COURTS MAY ADJUDICATE BOTH
KINDS OF QUESTIONS AND BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO THEIR FUNCTIONS
TO MAKE A SHARP SEPARATION OF THE TWO THEIR DISCUSSION IS OFTEN
INTERLACED.  BUT WE CANNOT PERFORM OUR DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM INTERFERING
IN STATE LAW QUESTIONS AND ALSO TO REVIEW FEDERAL ONES WITHOUT MAKING A
DETERMINATION WHETHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER CONTROLS THE JUDGMENT.  AND
IN CASES WHERE THE ANSWER IS NOT CLEAR TO US, IT SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH
THE RESPECT DUE THE HIGHEST COURTS OF STATES OF THE UNION THAT THEY BE
ASKED RATHER THAN TOLD WHAT THEY HAVE INTENDED.  IF THIS IMPOSES AN
UNWELCOME BURDEN IT SHOULD BE MITIGATED BY THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS TO
PROTECT THEIR JURISDICTION FROM UNWITTING INTERFERENCE AS WELL AS TO
PROTECT OUR OWN FROM UNWITTING RENUNCIATION. 

IT IS OUR PURPOSE SCRUPULOUSLY TO OBSERVE THE LONG STANDING RULE THAT
WE WILL NOT REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT THAT RESTS ON AN
ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT GROUND IN STATE LAW.  NOR WILL WE REVIEW ONE
UNTIL THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT DO SO APPEARS OF RECORD.  BUT BECAUSE
WE WILL NOT PROCEED WITH A REVIEW WHILE OUR JURISDICTION IS CONJECTURAL
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT WE SHOULD NOT TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT OUR
JURISDICTION WHEN WE ARE GIVEN REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE IT
EXISTS.  WE THINK THE SIMPLEST PROCEDURE TO DO SO, WHERE THE RECORD IS
DEFICIENT, IS TO HOLD THE CASE PENDING APPLICATION TO THE STATE COURT
FOR CLARIFICATION OR AMENDMENT.  IT NEED NOT BE ELABORATE OR FORMAL IF
IT IS CLEAR AND DECISIVE IN STATING WHETHER A FEDERAL QUESTION, AND IF
SO, WHAT FEDERAL QUESTION, WAS DECIDED AS A NECESSARY GROUND FOR
REACHING THE JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW.  IN PROPER CASES WE MAY GRANT
COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR THE PURPOSE.  IN PROPER CASES WE
WILL IMPOSE THE DUTY OF APPLYING FOR IT UPON PETITIONER OR APPELLANTS
UPON OUR OWN MOTION. 

THESE CAUSES ARE CONTINUED FOR SUCH PERIOD AS WILL ENABLE COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONERS WITH ALL CONVENIENT SPEED TO APPLY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS FOR AMENDMENT, OR CERTIFICATE, WHICH WILL SHOW WHETHER IT
INTENDED TO REST THE JUDGMENTS HEREIN ON AN ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT
STATE GROUND OR WHETHER DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS NECESSARY
TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED. 

FN1  AN AMENDMENT ADOPTED AFTER THE PRESENT CAUSES OF ACTION ACCRUED
EXTENDED THE LIMITATION PERIOD TO THREE YEARS, 53 STAT. 1404, BUT NO
QUESTION OF ITS APPLICABILITY IS RAISED AND, IN ANY EVENT, IN EACH CASE
THE TRANSFER TO THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS MADE MORE THAN THREE YEARS AFTER
THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED. 

FN2  "THE QUESTION INVOLVED RELATES TO THE EFFECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
HAD IN A COURT WHOLLY INCOMPETENT TO RENDER A VALID JUDGMENT, BECAUSE
IF THE JUDGMENT TO BE RENDERED WOULD BE VOID IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THE
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT, NECESSARY TO RENDITION OF
JUDGMENT, MUST LIKEWISE BE VOID.  IF THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER FOR JUDGMENT THERE CAN BE NO JURISDICTION GIVING
EFFECT TO PROCESS OR PLEADINGS. 

     .         .      .         .         . 

"THE FALLACY OF (PLAINTIFF'S) ARGUMENT RESTS IN THE FACT THAT IT
BECOMES NECESSARY TO GIVE VALIDITY TO PROCEEDINGS IN A COURT, THE
JUDGMENT OF WHICH, IF RENDERED UPON SUCH PROCEEDINGS, WOULD BE WHOLLY
VOID.  IF THE ULTIMATE OBJECT TO BE OBTAINED IN A SUIT AT LAW, VIZ., A
JUDGMENT, IS UTTERLY VOID, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW ANY OF THE
PRELIMINARIES TO SUCH A JUDGMENT, SUCH AS SUMMONS, PLEADINGS,
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS AND THE LIKE HAVE ANY EFFECT, WHEN THE RESULT, HAD
SUCH PROCEEDING BEEN CONCLUDED IN THE FIRST COURT, WOULD HAVE BEEN A
NULLITY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"...  IF APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS SUSTAINED, A VALID JUDGMENT COULD
BE OBTAINED BY TRANSFERRING THE CAUSE TO THE PROPER COURT UPON A
SUMMONS OR NOTICE THAT DEFENDANTS COULD SAFELY DISREGARD WHEN SERVED
UPON THEM.  THIS WOULD GIVE THE ORDER OF TRANSFER BY THE CITY COURT THE
EFFECT OF VITALIZING PROCESS THAT WAS VOID AND CONSIDERING A CASE
COMMENCED AND PENDING IN A PROPER COURT DURING A PERIOD WHEN, IN LEGAL
CONTEMPLATION, NO JUDICIAL CONTROL OF DEFENDANTS HAD YET BEEN
EXERCISED. 

   .         .         .         .         . 

"IT IS CLEAR A SUIT WAS NOT COMMENCED BY FILING THE PRESENT SUIT IN
THE CITY COURT OF GRANITE CITY, OR BY ISSUING SUMMONS OR FILING A
COMPLAINT.  LACKING REQUISITE JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION LIMITING IT TO CASES ARISING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE
CITY, SUCH COURT WAS WHOLLY INCOMPETENT TO RENDER ANY JUDGMENT OR TO
AUTHORIZE ANY PROCEEDINGS WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A JUDGMENT." 

FN3  "THE MATERIAL POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF
HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE DATE OF HIS INJURY IN A
COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE SAME, AS REQUIRED
BY SECTION 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT  ... 

     .         .       .         .         . 

"...  WE OBSERVE RECOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
IS CONDITIONED UPON TWO THINGS:  (1) COMMENCING AN ACTION WITHIN TWO
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE INJURY; AND (2) COMMENCING SUCH ACTION IN A
COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE SAME  ....  THE
PLAINTIFF HAVING PREDICATED HIS CASE UPON THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT MUST COMPLY WITH ITS PROVISIONS, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THE
TIME OF COMMENCING THE SUIT AND OF BRINGING IT IN A COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE IT. 

     .     .         .         .         . 

"CONCEDING, BUT NOT DECIDING, THAT IN PROPER CASES A COURT WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER COULD BY STATUTE BE AUTHORIZED TO
TRANSFER ITS PROCEEDINGS  ...  STILL THE CONDITION THAT THE ACTION BE
COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS IS NOT MET  ...  SUCH STATUTES CANNOT
RECREATE A RIGHT GIVEN UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT HAS CEASED TO EXIST
BY THE TERMS OF THE (FEDERAL) STATUTE. 

     .   .         .         .         . 

"IN THIS CASE JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT WAS WHOLLY LACKING UNTIL JULY
31, 1942(IF WE CONSIDER THE CHANGE-OF-VENUE ACT VALID), AND AT THIS
TIME THE CONDITION IMPOSED UPON THE PLAINTIFF WITH RESPECT TO BRINGING
HIS SUIT HAD EXPIRED BY LAPSE OF TIME.  THIS DETERMINATION MAKES IT
UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON EITHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION INVOLVED OR
THE VALIDITY OF THE CHANGE-OF-VENUE STATUTE." 

IN THE BELCHER CASE THE COURT SAID: 

"UPON PARALLEL FACTS, HERB V. PITCAIRN,  ...  DECIDED THIS DAY, HOLDS
THAT AN ACTION IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE DATE OF INJURY
IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 6 OF THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, BY TRANSFERRING THE CAUSE FROM A CITY
COURT HAVING NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AT A DATE WHEN THE
ACTION, IF INSTITUTED ORIGINALLY ON SUCH DATE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT,
COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE NOT COMMENCED WITHIN THE STATUTORY
TIME.  OUR DISPOSITION OF THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN HERB V. PITCAIRN IS
DECISIVE HERE." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS OF THE COURT'S ACTION IN BOTH THESE CASES
IMPEL ME TO STATE THE REASONS FOR MY DISAGREEMENT. 

IN NOVEMBER, 1936, HERB (THE PETITIONER IN NO. 24) LOST A LEG AND
SUFFERED OTHER SEVERE INJURIES.  HE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST THE
RAILROAD IN AN ILLINOIS CITY COURT, WAS AWARDED A VERDICT, THE TRIAL
JUDGE ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE RAILROAD NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT,
AND AN ILLINOIS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED AND DIRECTED THAT
JUDGMENT BE ENTERED FOR HERB.  306 ILL. APP. 583, 29 N.E.2D 543.  THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE APPELLATE COURT'S JUDGMENT INSOFAR
AS IT HAD DIRECTED THAT A JUDGMENT BE ENTERED FOR HERB, AND REMANDED
THE CASE TO THE CITY COURT FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE TO PASS UPON A MOTION
FOR NEW TRIAL SHOULD ONE BE MADE.  377 ILL. 405, 36 N.E.2D 555. 
ALTHOUGH FIVE YEARS HAD ALREADY ELAPSED SINCE HERB'S INJURIES, HIS
EFFORTS TO SECURE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL
LAW HAD JUST BEGUN. 

APPARENTLY, AS THE LENGTHY HISTORY OF HERB'S CASE SHOWS, IT HAD LONG
BEEN ASSUMED BY THE COURTS AS WELL AS BY THE LEGAL PROFESSION, THAT
ILLINOIS CITY COURTS HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY RAILROAD EMPLOYEES' CASES
ARISING UNDER FEDERAL LAW.  BUT AFTER REMAND OF HIS CASE TO THE CITY
COURT, THE STATE SUPREME COURT HANDED DOWN OPINIONS IN TWO OTHER CASES
HOLDING THAT CITY COURTS DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE ACTIONS FOR INJURIES WHICH OCCURRED OUTSIDE THEIR TERRITORIAL
LIMITS.  FN1  IN VIEW OF THIS NEW OBSTACLE TO HIS ACTION, THE
PETITIONER THEN MOVED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, UNDER
AN ILLINOIS STATUTE AUTHORIZING TRANSFER FROM A "WRONG COURT OR COUNTY"
TO A "PROPER COURT OR COUNTY."  CH. 146, ILL. REV. STAT. 1941, PAR.
36.  THE MOTION WAS GRANTED, AND IN THE CIRCUIT COURT THE RAILROAD
MOVED TO DISMISS THE CAUSE ON THE GROUND THAT (1) ALL OF THE ORDERS OF
THE CITY COURT, INCLUDING THE CHANGE OF VENUE, WERE INVALID; (2) THE
STATUTE AUTHORIZING TRANSFER WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; (3) THE SUIT HAD NOT
BEEN "COMMENCED" WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF THE INJURY AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS SUSTAINED AND HERB APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT JUDGE'S CERTIFICATION TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RECITED THAT
THE JUDGMENT INVOLVED CONSTRUCTION OF THE ILLINOIS AND UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTIONS, THE VALIDITY OF AN ILLINOIS STATUTE, AND THE VALIDITY
AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

THE COURT BELOW IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE AFTER RECITING THE FACTS,
STATED THAT "THE MATERIAL POINT FOR CONSIDERATION" WAS WHETHER THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT HAD BEEN
MET.  THROUGHOUT ITS ENTIRE OPINION, THE COURT CONSTRUED SEC. 6 AND THE
CITY COURT'S JURISDICTION AS RELATED TO ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THAT
MET.  THEN, HAVING DECIDED THAT THE ACTION WAS NOT "COMMENCED" WITHIN
THE FEDERAL STATUTORY PERIOD, IT SUMMARILY DISPOSED OF THE STATE
QUESTIONS RAISED WITH THIS ONE SENTENCE:  "THIS DETERMINATION MAKES IT
UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON EITHER THE (ILLINOIS) CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
INVOLVED OR THE VALIDITY OF THE (ILLINOIS) CHANGE-OF-VENUE STATUTE." 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT "PROCEEDINGS IN THE CITY
COURT WERE OF NO EFFECT."  IN SO HOLDING, IT DID NOT DECIDE THAT THIS
FACT ALONE AUTHORIZED DISMISSAL OF THE CASES FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT,
WHICH ADMITTEDLY HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY CASES ARISING UNDER THE
FEDERAL ACT.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS HOLDING
PROVIDES AN INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT'S
DISMISSAL.  THE ONLY REASON WHY THE CIRCUIT COURT COULD DISMISS UNDER
THE STATE COURT'S VIEW WAS BECAUSE SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL ACT REQUIRED A
SUIT TO BE "COMMENCED" IN TWO YEARS.  THIS MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THE
COURT TO INTERPRET THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF "COMMENCED."  IT CONSTRUED
THE WORD AS MEANING NOT ONLY THAT A SUIT SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN TWO
YEARS OF AN INJURY, BUT THAT SUCH SUIT MUST BE FILED IN A COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CAUSE.  HAVING THUS BY
CONSTRUCTION SUPERIMPOSED THIS CONDITION ON THE FEDERAL ACT, IT
PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CITY COURT HAD SUCH POWER.  IT HELD
THAT THE CITY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUCH POWER (A STATE QUESTION).  THEN
APPLYING ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE, IT DECIDED THAT THE
ACTION HAD NOT BEEN "COMMENCED" WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE
INJURIES (A FEDERAL QUESTION).  ALL OF THIS SHOWS A DETERMINATION OF
FEDERAL QUESTIONS WHICH WE SHOULD DECIDE.    BUT THIS COURT SAYS THAT
OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE STATE COURT'S OPINION INDICATES THAT ITS JUDGMENT
MIGHT REALLY HAVE BEEN RESTED ON A STATE PROCEDURAL GROUND, ADEQUATE TO
SUPPORT THE DISMISSALS.  SO NOW, MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS AFTER HERB WAS
INJURED, BOTH CASES ARE TO BE HELD HERE TO GIVE COUNSEL AN OPPORTUNITY
TO ASK THE STATE SUPREME COURT IF IT "INTENDED TO REST THE JUDGMENTS
HEREIN ON AN ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND OR WHETHER DECISION
OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS NECESSARY TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED."  I
WOULD NOT THUS LIGHTLY ABDICATE OUR ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS.  TO "ADMIT THAT THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW THE
ACTION OF A STATE COURT WHERE IT HAS DECIDED A FEDERAL QUESTION CAN BE
RENDERED UNAVAILING BY A SUGGESTION 'THAT THE COURT BELOW MAY HAVE
RESTED ITS JUDGMENT' ON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND, WOULD SIMPLY AMOUNT TO
DEPRIVING THIS COURT OF ALL POWER TO REVIEW FEDERAL QUESTIONS IF ONLY A
PARTY CHOSE TO MAKE SUCH A SUGGESTION."  ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO. V.
MCWHIRTER, 229 U.S. 265, 275, 276. 

FURTHERMORE, EVEN A FINAL DETERMINATION THAT THERE WAS AN ADEQUATE
STATE PROCEDURAL GROUND FOR DISMISSAL OF THESE PARTICULAR SUITS WOULD
NOT END THE CONTROVERSIES, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT PROTRACT LITIGATION FOR
FIVE MORE YEARS.  THIS IS TRUE, BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND BELIEF THAT
DISMISSALS ON THESE PROCEDURAL GROUNDS WOULD BAR NEW ACTIONS BASED ON
THE INJURIES.  AND THE FEDERAL QUESTION SO CLEARLY PRESENTED HERE AND
NOW, COULD HARDLY BE ESCAPED IN NEW ACTIONS.  THAT QUESTION IS, "ARE
THESE SUITS BARRED BY SECTION 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT?"  THIS QUESTION PRESENTS A TWOFOLD PROBLEM:  (1) DOES SEC. 6 HAVE
ANY APPLICATION TO THESE ACTIONS; (2) IF SO, SHOULD THE WORD
"COMMENCED" BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO MAKE THE BEGINNING OF THE SUIT IN THE
CITY COURT SUCH A COMMENCEMENT? 

AS TO (1), IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT BOTH COMPLAINANTS CLAIM DAMAGES FOR
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.  27 STAT. 531 ET SEQ.;
45 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, EVEN
WITHOUT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, GIVES RISE TO A CAUSE OF
ACTION ON THE PART OF AN EMPLOYEE INJURED AS THE PROXIMATE RESULT OF
THAT VIOLATION.  LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. LAYTON, 243 U.S. 617,
620; TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. RIGSBY, 241 U.S. 33, 39.  THAT ACT
CONTAINS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  NO AUTHORITY HAS BEEN CITED TO
SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT THE CONDITION OF LIABILITY IMPOSED BY SEC.
6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT APPLIES TO ACTIONS FOR
DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.  THE RULE OF THIS
COURT HAS BEEN TO GIVE THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, UNDER WHICH THESE
CLAIMS WERE FILED, A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION, AND ONE WHICH WILL PROMOTE,
NOT DEFEAT, ITS PURPOSE.  SWINSON V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O.R. CO.,
294 U.S. 529, 531. 

ASSUMING THAT PETITIONERS HERE ARE TO BE REQUIRED TO FILE NEW SUITS,
AND THAT THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION OF SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT APPLIES TO INJURIES RESULTING FROM VIOLATION OF THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, IT STILL MUST BE DETERMINED WHETHER FILING THESE
SUITS IN THE CITY COURTS "COMMENCED" ACTIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT
WORD AS USED IN SEC. 6. 

CERTAINLY THE RAILROADS HAD NOTICE OF THE SUITS.  THEY EVIDENTLY
THOUGHT THEY HAD BEEN "COMMENCED" WHEN THEY CONTESTED THEM IN ALL THE
COURTS OF ILLINOIS.  THE LAWYERS FOR ALL THE LITIGANTS UNDOUBTEDLY FELT
SURE THAT THEY WERE TRYING LAW SUITS IN PROPER FORUMS.  NEITHER THE
ILLINOIS COURT OF APPEALS NOR THE STATE SUPREME COURT WHICH REMANDED
HERB'S CASE TO THE CITY COURT HAD ANY DOUBT AT THAT TIME THAT SUITS HAD
BEEN "COMMENCED." 

THE PLAINEST PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE DEMAND THAT THESE EMPLOYEES BE
AFFORDED A TRIAL.  NO REASON THAT CAN BE CONCEIVED FOR ERECTING A
STATUTORY BAR OF TWO YEARS JUSTIFIES AN INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT EMPLOYEES WHO MADE BONA FIDE EFFORTS TO PROSECUTE THEIR
CLAIMS IN A COURT SHOULD BE BARRED BECAUSE OF UNANTICIPATED DECISIONS
AS TO JURISDICTION.  THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE JUSTIFY THE CONSTRUCTION
THAT THESE ACTIONS WERE "COMMENCED" WHEN THEY WERE FILED IN THE CITY
COURTS.  ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION RESULTS IN A FRUSTRATION OF THE BROAD
OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT. 

FINALLY, I CAN FIND NO WARRANT WHATEVER FOR SAYING THAT THE STATE
SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE SUSTAINED DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUITS
AT ALL WERE "PENDING" IN THE STATE CIRCUIT COURT.  THAT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO TRY THEM.  THE COMPLAINTS WERE THERE.  TRUE, THEY MIGHT
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT THERE BY A CITY COURT CLERK, ALTHOUGH SO FAR AS THE
RECORD SHOWS, PETITIONER'S ATTORNEYS MAY HAVE TAKEN THEM TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT.  BUT THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S OPINIONS DO NOT INDICATE THAT
ILLINOIS LAW REQUIRES THAT A COMPLAINT BE PHYSICALLY FILED BY THE HANDS
OF NO ONE EXCEPT AN INJURED PERSON.  I SHALL NOT BELIEVE THE STATE
COURT WOULD MAKE SUCH A HOLDING UNTIL IT DOES SO. 

FOR SPECIAL REASONS, IN ADDITION TO THOSE ABOVE STATED, I THINK THAT
THIS COURT'S ACTION IN REQUIRING BELCHER (PETITIONER IN NO. 25) TO
OBTAIN SOME KIND OF CERTIFICATE OF "INTENTION" FROM THE ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT IS WITHOUT ANY CONCEIVABLE JUSTIFICATION.  THE ARGUMENT
OF PARTIES BEFORE US AND THE COURT'S OPINION HAVE TREATED THE BELCHER
CASE AS THOUGH THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HAD SUSTAINED ITS
DISMISSAL AND THE HERB DISMISSAL, IN NO. 24, ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS. 
THIS TREATMENT OF THE TWO CASES IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNLESS THE STATE
COURT'S OPINION IN BELCHER'S CASE IS GIVEN A STRAINED INTERPRETATION. 
THE BELCHER OPINION DID CITE THE HERB OPINION AS PRESENTING "PARALLEL
FACTS" TO THOSE OF THE BELCHER CASE.  BUT THE "PARALLEL FACTS" IN THE
TWO CASES UPON WHICH THE BELCHER DISMISSAL WAS PREMISED, WERE CAREFULLY
LIMITED BY THE BELCHER OPINION'S STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE TO THIS
EFFECT: 

"DEFENDANT, APPEARING SPECIALLY, MADE A MOTION TO QUASH THE SUMMONS
ISSUED BY THE CITY COURT AND TO DISMISS THE CAUSE FOR THE REASON, AMONG
OTHERS, THAT THE CAUSE HAVING BEEN ORDERED TRANSFERRED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT ON JULY 17, 1942, MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE PLAINTIFF
SUFFERED HIS INJURIES, NAMELY, FEBRUARY 15, 1939, HE COULD NEITHER
INSTITUTE NOR MAINTAIN HIS ACTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT SINCE IT HAD NOT
BEEN COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DAY THE CAUSE OF ACTION
ACCRUED, CONFORMABLY TO SECTION 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT."  BELCHER V. L. & N.R. CO., 384 ILL. 281, 282. 

AFTER STATING THE ISSUE IN THIS LIMITED FASHION, THE BELCHER OPINION
THEN WENT ON TO SAY: 

"UPON PARALLEL FACTS, HERB V. PITCAIRN,  ...  DECIDED THIS DAY, HOLDS
THAT AN ACTION IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE DATE OF INJURY
IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, AS PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 6 OF THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, BY TRANSFERRING THE CAUSE FROM A CITY
COURT HAVING NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AT A DATE WHEN THE
ACTION, IF INSTITUTED ORIGINALLY ON SUCH DATE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT,
COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE NOT COMMENCED WITHIN THE STATUTORY
TIME.  OUR DISPOSITION OF THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN HERB V. PITCAIRN IS
DECISIVE HERE."  BELCHER V. L. & N.R. CO., SUPRA, 282-283. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE BELCHER OPINION SUSTAINING DISMISSAL RESTED
SQUARELY AND EXCLUSIVELY ON THE STATE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE CAUSE
OF ACTION WAS BARRED BY SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT.  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, THE COURT NOW, SIX YEARS AFTER BELCHER'S
INJURIES, DELAYS A FINAL DECISION ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL
ACT, TO AWAIT A STATEMENT FROM THE STATE COURT AS TO WHETHER IT WOULD
HAVE DECIDED IT ON A HYPOTHETICAL STATE GROUND HAD THAT GROUND BEEN
CONSIDERED BY IT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. 

FN1  WERNER V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 379 ILL. 559, 42 N.E.2D 82;
MITCHELL V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 379 ILL. 522, 42 N.E.2D 86. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING. 

I CONCUR WITH MR. JUSTICE BLACK'S OPINION IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
THE FAILURE OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF
PETITIONERS' CLAIMS BASED ON THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.  CLEARLY
SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO CAUSES
ARISING UNDER THE FORMER ACT AND, ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE JUDGMENTS
SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

I AGREE ALSO THAT THE ILLINOIS COURT HAS DETERMINED THE CAUSES UNDER
THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SOLELY BY ITS VIEW OF FEDERAL LAW AND THAT
IT HAS DONE SO ERRONEOUSLY.  IT HAS HELD THAT NEITHER ACTION WAS
"COMMENCED" IN TIME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 6 AND IN DOING SO HAS
INTERPRETED "COMMENCED" TO MEAN BEGUN IN A COURT COMPETENT TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE THE CAUSE.  UNDER THIS DECISION, THE CAUSES WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN COMMENCED, EVEN IF SIMILAR CAUSES ARISING UNDER STATE LAW WERE
HELD SUFFICIENTLY BEGUN, FOR SIMILAR PURPOSES, IN IDENTICAL
CIRCUMSTANCES.  WE DO NOT KNOW AND CANNOT KNOW WHETHER LOCAL ACTIONS SO
FILED AND TRANSFERRED WOULD BE BARRED.  WE DO NOT KNOW THIS BECAUSE, AS
MR. JUSTICE BLACK POINTS OUT, THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT EXPRESSLY
DISAVOWED THAT IT HAD APPLIED OR DETERMINED THE VALIDITY OF THE
ILLINOIS VENUE STATUTES, WHICH ON THEIR FACE PURPORT TO AUTHORIZE JUST
SUCH TRANSFERS AS OCCURRED IN THESE CAUSES.  FN1 CONSEQUENTLY UNTIL THE
VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF THOSE STATUTES ARE DETERMINED, THE ILLINOIS
COURT'S DECISION IN THESE CASES MUST BE TAKEN TO REST WHOLLY UPON ITS
VIEW OF THE MEANING OF SEC. 6, ENTIRELY INDEPENDENTLY OF THE MEANING OF
THE STATE VENUE STATUTES, AND TO BE FOUNDED SOLELY UPON A FEDERAL
GROUND. 

THAT GROUND AS THE ILLINOIS COURT DECIDED IT IS, IN MY OPINION,
CLEARLY WRONG.  IT WAS, APPARENTLY, THAT "COMMENCED" IN SEC. 6 ALWAYS
MEANS "COMMENCED IN A COURT COMPETENT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CAUSE,"
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER LOCAL CAUSES MAY BE SUFFICIENTLY COMMENCED, FOR
SIMILAR PURPOSES, IN A COURT OF LIMITED JURISDICTION CAPABLE OF
TRANSFERRING BUT NOT OF HEARING AND DECIDING THEM.  NOTHING IN SEC. 6
OR THE ACT SO STATES.  ON THE CONTRARY, WHEN THE SUIT IS IN A STATE
COURT, IT IS TO BE TAKEN, BY FAIR IMPLICATION, THAT WHATEVER IS
SUFFICIENT GENERALLY TO CONSTITUTE BEGINNING OF SUIT FOR OTHER ACTIONS
IS BEGINNING OF SUIT FOR THESE.  IF FOR INSTANCE IT SHOULD BE THE STATE
LAW THAT LOCAL CAUSES ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMMENCED FROM THE TIME OF
FILING THE COMPLAINT, THOUGH IN THE WRONG COURT FOR REASONS OF
JURISDICTION RELATING TO TRIAL AND DECISION, IF NEVERTHELESS UPON
DISCOVERY OF THE ERROR THE CAUSE IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER COURT HAVING
COMPLETE JURISDICTION, NOTHING IN SEC. 6 OR THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT REQUIRES OR PERMITS SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THAT ACT TO BE
TREATED DIFFERENTLY.  A STATE MAY CONFER UPON ITS COURTS OF LIMITED
JURISDICTION LIMITED POWERS OVER CAUSES THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT TO HEAR
AND DECIDE.  A SALUTARY INSTANCE WOULD BE TO SAFEGUARD LITIGANTS
AGAINST UNWITTING LOSS OF THEIR RIGHTS OF ACTION THROUGH STUMBLING INTO
JURISDICTIONAL PITFALLS, BY PROVIDING THAT ACTIONS FILED IN THE WRONG
COURT SHOULD NOT BE DEFEATED THROUGH LAPSE OF TIME MERELY BECAUSE THE
PLAINTIFF HAD MISTAKEN HIS COURT, IF UPON DISCOVERY OF THE ERROR,
THOUGH AFTER THE PERIOD, THE CAUSE WERE TRANSFERRED PROMPTLY TO A FULLY
COMPETENT COURT.  SUCH A PROVISION WOULD MERELY CREATE EITHER AN
EXCEPTION TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR A MEANS OF SUSPENDING THE
TIME OF ITS RUNNING.  ON THEIR FACE, THAT IS WHAT THE ILLINOIS VENUE
STATUTES PURPORT TO DO, THOUGH WHETHER THIS IS THEIR EFFECT IS OF
COURSE FOR THE STATE COURTS TO DECIDE. 

IN ANY EVENT, SUCH A STATUTE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO OR INCONSISTENT
WITH SEC. 6 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT.  ON THE CONTRARY, LITIGANTS IN THE STATE COURTS UNDER THAT ACT
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SUCH A PROVISION IF THIS WERE GIVEN
TO LITIGANTS HAVING CAUSES ARISING UNDER STATE LAW. 

ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE ILLINOIS COURT HAS HELD THAT SEC. 6 BY ITS OWN
TERMS REQUIRES THAT THE COMMENCING EVENT TAKE PLACE IN A COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION NOT ONLY TO BEGIN AND TRANSFER, BUT ALSO TO HEAR AND TO
DECIDE, THE JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE ILLINOIS VENUE STATUTES ARE AS
FOLLOWS:  "THAT WHEREVER ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING SHALL HEREAFTER BE
COMMENCED, IN ANY COURT OF RECORD IN THIS STATE, AND IT SHALL APPEAR TO
THE COURT WHERE THE SAME IS PENDING, THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN COMMENCED
IN THE WRONG COURT OR COUNTY, THEN UPON MOTION OF EITHER OR ANY OF THE
PARTIES TO SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING, THE COURT SHALL CHANGE THE VENUE OF
SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING TO THE PROPER COURT OR COUNTY, AND THE SAME
WHEN THE VENUE SHALL BE SO CHANGED, SHALL BE THEN PENDING AND TRIABLE
IN SUCH COURT OR COUNTY TO WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE SO CHANGED THE SAME
AS IN OTHER CASES OF CHANGE OF VENUE:  PROVIDED, THAT WHERE EITHER
PARTY TO SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING SHALL PROCURE THE CHANGE OF VENUE AS
HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, THAT THE COURT SHALL REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF IN SAID
SUIT TO PAY ALL COSTS IN SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING, UP TO AND INCLUDING
THE COSTS OF THE CHANGE OF VENUE EXCEPT SUCH COSTS, IF ANY THERE ARE,
AS SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE OR OCCASIONED BY ANSWER TO THE MERITS AND A
TRIAL THEREON, IF ANY SUCH SHALL HAVE BEEN HAD OR MADE, AND SUCH COSTS,
IF ANY, CAUSED BY ANSWER TO THE MERITS AND TRIAL THEREON SHALL ABIDE
THE FINAL RESULT OF SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING THE SAME AS IN OTHER CASES
OF CHANGE OF VENUE."  ILL. REV. STAT., 1943, C. 146, SEC. 36. 

"CHANGE OF VENUE FROM CITY COURTS, FOR THE SAME CAUSES AND IN THE
SAME MANNER, MAY BE TAKEN AS FROM CIRCUIT COURTS, AND THE CASES SENT TO
ANY OTHER CITY COURT, OR TO ANY CIRCUIT COURT, OR TO ANY OTHER COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION WHERE THE CAUSE COMPLAINED OF DOES NOT
EXIST:..."  ILL. REV. STAT., 1943, C. 37, SEC. 346.    "THE CLERK OF
THE COURT TO WHICH THE CHANGE OF VENUE IS GRANTED SHALL FILE THE
TRANSCRIPT AND PAPERS TRANSMITTED TO HIM AND DOCKET THE CAUSE, AND SUCH
CAUSE SHALL BE PROCEEDED IN AND DETERMINED IN ALL THINGS, AS WELL
BEFORE AS AFTER JUDGMENT, AS IF IT HAD ORIGINATED IN SUCH COURT."  ILL.
REV. STAT., 1943, C. 146, SEC. 16. 
..END :









PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. U.S., 323 U.S. 588 


NO. 182.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  - 54
F.SUPP.  381, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 15(4)(B) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT EMPOWERS THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A THROUGH ROUTE WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE A CARRIER TO SHORT-HAUL ITSELF WHERE SUCH ROUTE IS NEEDED IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE "ADEQUATE, AND MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE ECONOMIC,
TRANSPORTATION."  HELD THAT, IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PROPOSED
THROUGH ROUTE IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE "ADEQUATE, AND MORE
EFFICIENT OR MORE ECONOMIC, TRANSPORTATION," THE COMMISSION MAY
CONSIDER THE INTERESTS OF THE SHIPPER AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE CARRIER. 
P. 592. 

2.  THE ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REQUIRING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THROUGH ROUTES WAS SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS AND THE
EVIDENCE.  P. 593. 

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MARYLAND. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES REFUSING TO
SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 255 I.C.C.
333. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECREE  FN1  OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES DISMISSING THE PETITION OF THE APPELLANTS, THIRTEEN TRUNK LINE
RAILROADS, FOR AN INJUNCTION ANNULLING AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION,  FN2  WHICH REQUIRED THE RAILROADS TO ESTABLISH
AND MAINTAIN TWO THROUGH ROUTES. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS MADE AFTER HEARING UPON A COMPLAINT OF D.
A. STICKELL & SONS, INC., A MANUFACTURER OF MIXED FEEDS AT HAGERSTOWN,
MD.  THIS CONCERN OBTAINS ITS INBOUND RAW MATERIAL OF GRAIN AND GRAIN
PRODUCTS, ETC., FROM MANUFACTURING PLANTS LOCATED IN SO-CALLED CENTRAL
TERRITORY.  THESE ARE MIXED AND THE MIXED AGGREGATE MOVES FROM THE
PLANT AT HAGERSTOWN TO POINTS EASTWARD, BUT PRINCIPALLY TO THE SO
CALLED DEL-MAR-VA PENINSULA, A PORTION OF DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND
VIRGINIA, WHICH IS SERVED SOLELY BY THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD. 
HAGERSTOWN LIES ON THE MAIN LINE OF THE WESTERN MARYLAND RAILWAY.  THE
PENNSYLVANIA SERVES IT BY A BRANCH LINE RUNNING FROM HARRISBURG, PA.,
TO WINCHESTER, VA., AND THE BALTIMORE & OHIO BY A BRANCH LINE RUNNING
NORTH FROM ITS MAIN LINE AT WEVERTON, MARYLAND.  THE RAILROADS ACCORD
TRANSIT FACILITIES AT HAGERSTOWN WHEREBY STICKELL MAY RECEIVE THE
INBOUND MATERIALS, MIX THEM, AND SHIP THE PRODUCTS TO DESTINATION ON A
THROUGH RATE PLUS A TRANSIT CHARGE AS IF THE MOVEMENT HAD BEEN A
THROUGH ONE FROM ORIGIN TO DESTINATION.  THE HANDLING OF FREIGHT MOVING
OVER THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD WILL ILLUSTRATE THE PROBLEM.  THE SO
CALLED BACK-HAUL, OR OUT-OF-LINE HAUL, REQUIRED TO REACH HAGERSTOWN
FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA'S MAIN LINE IS 74.5 MILES IN EACH DIRECTION AND
THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR IT IS 4.5 CENTS PER CWT., OR ABOUT 17% OF THE
THROUGH RATE.  INTERCHANGE AND SWITCHING OPERATIONS TO REACH THE
STICKELL PLANT ARE PERFORMED BY THE WESTERN MARYLAND AND THE
PENNSYLVANIA ABSORBS THESE CHARGES.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ESTABLISHED
TWO NEW THROUGH ROUTES WHICH INCLUDED THE WESTERN MARYLAND, THE LINE
WHICH SERVES THE STICKELL PLANT.  BOTH REDUCED THE PENNSYLVANIA'S LINE
HAUL TO THAT PORTION OF THE ROUTES EASTWARD OF YORK, PA., OR FULTON
JUNCTION (BALTIMORE), MARYLAND, IN RESPECT OF SHIPMENTS TO THE DEL-MAR
VA PENINSULA, THUS DEPRIVING THE PENNSYLVANIA OF A LONG HAUL FROM
POINTS WEST OF PITTSBURGH, PA., THROUGH HARRISBURG, PA. 

THE GRAVAMEN OF STICKELL'S COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS THAT
THE BACK-HAULS INVOLVED IN EXISTING ROUTES DELAYED ITS SHIPMENTS AND,
WHILE THE CHARGE FOR SUCH BACK-HAULS WAS REASONABLE, THE ADDITION OF
THIS CHARGE TO THE THROUGH RATE CUT INTO ITS MARGIN OF PROFIT, WHICH IS
SMALL.  THESE FACTORS, IT CLAIMED, DEPRIVED IT OF ITS RIGHTFUL
COMPETITIVE RELATION TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS OF MIXED FEED. 

THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO GRANT RELIEF IS BOTTOMED ON SEC. 15(3)
AND (4) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED.  FN3  THE SUBSECTION
FIRST MENTIONED AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION, WHEN IT DEEMS IT TO BE
"NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" TO ESTABLISH THROUGH
ROUTES AND JOINT RATES.  THE SUCCEEDING SUBSECTION IS A LIMITATION ON
THE COMMISSION'S POWER, DERIVED IN PART FROM EARLIER ENACTMENTS,
PROHIBITING THE COMMISSION FROM REQUIRING A LINE-HAUL CARRIER TO SHORT
HAUL ITSELF AS A PARTICIPANT IN A PRESCRIBED THROUGH ROUTE.  THE
EARLIER PART OF THE PARAGRAPH RETAINS THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SHORT
HAULING BUT CONTAINS EXCEPTIONS, ONE OF WHICH, DESIGNATED (B), IS
"UNLESS THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE THROUGH ROUTE PROPOSED TO BE
ESTABLISHED IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE, AND MORE EFFICIENT
OR MORE ECONOMIC, TRANSPORTATION:..."  THE PRINCIPAL CONTROVERSY IN THE
CAUSE TURNS ON THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE QUOTED EXEMPTION FROM
THE GENERAL PROHIBITION OF THROUGH ROUTES WHICH INVOLVE SHORT HAULING. 
THERE ARE CERTAIN SUBSIDIARY ISSUES WHICH WILL BE NOTICED. 

THE OPPOSING VIEWS OF THE PARTIES MAY BE SUMMARIZED.  THE APPELLANTS
ARGUE THAT THE PHRASE "ADEQUATE, AND MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE ECONOMIC,
TRANSPORTATION" REFERS TO CARRIER OPERATIONS AND EXPENSE AND HAS NO
REFERENCE TO THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH EMBRACES SERVICE TO
SHIPPERS AND THE RATES THEY PAY.  THE APPELLEES URGE THAT THE PHRASE
COMPREHENDS THE ADEQUACY OF SERVICE, ITS COST TO THE SHIPPER, AND THE
CONVENIENCE, EFFICIENCY, AND COST OF THE CARRIERS' OPERATIONS.  THE
COMMISSION TOOK THE LATTER VIEW.  IN ITS DECISION IT PURPORTED TO
CONSIDER ALL THESE ELEMENTS AND, ON APPRAISAL OF THEM, CONCLUDED THE
TWO ROUTES IT PRESCRIBED WERE JUSTIFIED BY SEC. 15(4).  THE COURT BELOW
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION.  WE THINK ITS JUDGMENT WAS RIGHT. 

WITHOUT RECITING IN DETAIL THE STATUTORY HISTORY, WHICH IS GIVEN IN
FULL IN THE OPINION BELOW, IT WILL SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION
ORIGINALLY CONSTRUED THE SHORT-HAUL PROVISION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE LAW AS PROTECTING ONLY THE HAUL OF THE ORIGINATING CARRIER. 
IN UNITED STATES V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 278 U.S. 269, THIS
CONSTRUCTION WAS OVERRULED.  DECISION WAS HANDED DOWN AFTER THE
COMMISSION HAD MADE AN ORDER ON AN EARLIER COMPLAINT OF STICKELL,
SIMILAR TO THE ORDER HERE INVOLVED; FN4  BUT, AFTER THIS COURT'S
DECISION, THE COMMISSION SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CONFORMITY TO OUR
OPINION.  SEVERAL UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS WERE THEREUPON MADE TO INDUCE
CONGRESS TO REPEAL THE SHORT-HAUL PROHIBITION.  WHEN THE 1940 AMENDMENT
TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WAS ON ITS PASSAGE, THE SHORT-HAUL
PROHIBITION WAS ELIMINATED BY THE SENATE.  THE HOUSE RETAINED THE
PROVISION WITHOUT CHANGE. 

IN CONFERENCE SEC. 15(4) WAS AMENDED BY PERMITTING THE COMMISSION TO
REQUIRE A CARRIER TO SHORT-HAUL ITSELF UNDER THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED
IN THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE QUOTED.  THUS THE TWO SECTIONS - 15(3) AND (4)
SINCE 1940 HAVE PROVIDED THAT THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH A THROUGH
ROUTE IF FOUND TO BE "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST" BUT MAY NOT ESTABLISH
SUCH A ROUTE WHICH REQUIRES A CARRIER TO SHORT-HAUL ITSELF UNLESS IT
FINDS THAT THE ROUTE WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE, AND MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE
ECONOMIC, TRANSPORTATION.  THE APPELLANTS SUGGEST THAT IF THE LATTER
PHRASE BE CONSTRUED AS THE COMMISSION HAS CONSTRUED IT THE TWO SECTIONS
TAKEN TOGETHER WILL BE REDUNDANT FOR SUBSECTION (3) PERMITS THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A THROUGH ROUTE ONLY IF IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
AND THE SHORT-HAUL PROVISION MAY BE DISREGARDED ONLY IF SO TO DO WOULD
BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  BUT WE THINK THIS IS NOT A FAIR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT THE COMMISSION
MIGHT REFUSE TO ESTABLISH MANY THROUGH ROUTES AS NOT REQUIRED IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST WHERE SHORT HAULING IS NOT INVOLVED.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, IF THE COMMISSION IS ASKED TO ABROGATE THE GENERAL RULE WITH
REGARD TO THE SHORT-HAUL, THE STATUTE SAYS IT MUST HAVE REGARD TO
SEVERAL MATTERS.  THE FIRST OF THESE IS ADEQUACY OF TRANSPORTATION. 
THE EXPRESSION WOULD SEEM TO APPLY ONLY TO THE INTEREST OF THE SHIPPING
PUBLIC.  THE SECOND AND THIRD MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED ARE EFFICIENT
AND ECONOMIC TRANSPORTATION.  THESE EXPRESSIONS MAY WELL EMBRACE BOTH
SHIPPERS' AND CARRIERS' INTERESTS.  CONGRESS HAD A PURPOSE IN AMENDING
THE PROVISION, AND WE THINK THE COMMISSION WAS NOT IN ERROR IN
CONSTRUING THE LANGUAGE USED AS EVINCING AN INTENT THAT BOTH INTERESTS
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND A FAIR BALANCE FOUND. 

THE APPELLANTS REFER TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, TO THE POLICY DECLARED
IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE LEGISLATION, TO THE DEFINITION OF
TRANSPORTATION IN THE STATUTE, AND OTHER AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION, IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR ARGUMENT.  THESE WERE, IN OUR VIEW, ADEQUATELY
DISCUSSED BY THE COURT BELOW.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THEM BUT THEY DO NOT
PERSUADE US THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT WERE WRONG IN
THEIR INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 15(4). 

THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT EVEN IF THE COMMISSION WAS RIGHT IN ITS
INTERPRETATION OF ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY, ITS OVER-ALL CONCLUSION IS
NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OR BY THE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS.  THE CLAIM IS
THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE FINDINGS THAT THE EXPENSE AND
INCONVENIENCE TO THE CARRIERS CONCERNED OF RENDERING SERVICES OVER
ROUTES INVOLVING FOUR, FIVE, OR SIX RAILROADS, WITH THE CONSEQUENT
INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC, WOULD NOT BE INORDINATELY EXPENSIVE AND
BURDENSOME, AND THEY POINT TO CERTAIN EVIDENCE OFFERED BEFORE THE
COMMISSION WHICH THEY SAY THE COMMISSION IGNORED.  IN THE COURT BELOW
THE SAME CONTENTION WAS CONSIDERED AND OVERRULED.  TRUE, THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ARE NOT SHARP AND CLEAR ON THE POINT, BUT THE
MATTER WAS NOT IGNORED AND THE COMMISSION'S DECISION REFERS TO IT.  WE
ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT IN THE RECORD BEFORE
THE COMMISSION, AND IN ITS FINDINGS, TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
COMMISSION, AS IT SAYS IT DID, WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE AND FOUND THAT THE
BALANCE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE ORDER MADE.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  54 F.SUPP.  381. 

FN2  STICKELL & SONS V. ALTON R. CO., 255 I.C.C. 333. 

FN3  49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(3)(4). 

FN4  STICKELL & SONS V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 146 I.C.C. 609. 
..END :







CITY BANK CO. V. MCGOWAN, 323 U.S. 594 


NO. 294.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  - 142
F.2D 599, REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  SECTION 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED, WHICH, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, REQUIRES INCLUSION, IN THE GROSS
ESTATE OF A DECEDENT, OF ANY INTEREST IN PROPERTY OF WHICH "THE
DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER  ...  IN CONTEMPLATION OF  ...
HIS DEATH," HELD APPLICABLE TO A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OF AN
INCOMPETENT PERSON, EFFECTED BY ORDER OF A COURT ACTING IN LIEU OF THE
INCOMPETENT.  P. 598. 

2.  A TRANSFER IS "IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH," WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 302(C), WHERE THE THOUGHT OF DEATH IS THE IMPELLING CAUSE OF THE
TRANSFER.  UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S. 102.  P. 599. 

3.  WHERE BY COURT ORDER ANNUAL ALLOWANCES WERE MADE OUT OF THE
SURPLUS INCOME OF AN INCOMPETENT PERSON, OVER SEVENTY YEARS OF AGE AND
INCURABLY INSANE, TO DESCENDANTS WHO WOULD INHERIT THE INCOMPETENT'S
PROPERTY, AND WHERE THE DOMINATING REASON FOR THE ALLOWANCES WAS THAT
THE BENEFICIARIES WOULD EVENTUALLY DIVIDE THE ESTATE, HELD THAT THE
ANNUAL ALLOWANCES - TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY EXCEEDED AN AMOUNT WHICH
THE INCOMPETENT, FOR SOME YEARS PRIOR TO ADJUDICATION OF INCOMPETENCY,
HAD REGULARLY ALLOWED - WERE MADE "IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH," WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 302(C).  P. 599. 

4.  ALLOWANCES MADE BY COURT ORDER OUT OF THE SURPLUS INCOME OF AN
INCOMPETENT PERSON TO COLLATERAL RELATIONS, WHO WOULD INHERIT NO PART
OF THE INCOMPETENT'S PROPERTY AND WHO WERE IN NEED OF FUNDS FOR THEIR
MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, HELD NOT MADE "IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 302(C).  P. 600. 

CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. (FORMERLY FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO.),
ADMINISTRATOR, V. MCGOWAN, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 689, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, 43
F.SUPP.  790, WHICH ALLOWED RECOVERY IN PART IN A SUIT FOR REFUND OF
FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE PRESENTS AN ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE ARISING UNDER SEC. 302(C) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED,  FN1  WHICH REQUIRES INCLUSION, IN
THE GROSS TAXABLE ESTATE OF A DECEDENT, OF ANY INTEREST IN PROPERTY OF
WHICH THE "DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER  ...  IN
CONTEMPLATION OF  ...  HIS DEATH  ..."  MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE INQUIRY
IS WHETHER THE SECTION REACHES ALLOWANCES OUT OF THE INCOME OF AN
INCOMPETENT PERSON. 

HELEN HALL VAIL DIED IN 1935 INTESTATE.  FOR NINE YEARS SHE HAD BEEN
INCURABLY INSANE.  IN 1926 AN ADJUDICATION OF INCOMPETENCY WAS ENTERED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND A COMMITTEE WAS
APPOINTED TO CARE FOR HER PROPERTY, WHICH CONSISTED OF INCOME-PRODUCING
REALTY AND PERSONALTY.  IN ADDITION, SHE WAS IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME
OF A TRUST.  DURING THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE ADJUDICATION
HER ANNUAL INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES HAD AVERAGED $300,000.  SHE WAS OVER
70 YEARS OF AGE BUT IN GOOD PHYSICAL HEALTH.  SHE HAD A LIVING DAUGHTER
AND THREE GRANDSONS, CHILDREN OF A DECEASED DAUGHTER.  APPLICATION WAS
MADE TO THE COURT TO MAKE ALLOWANCES OUT OF INCOME TO MRS. VAIL'S ISSUE
AND TO A BROTHER AND SISTERS.  THE COURT REFERRED THE MATTER TO A
REFEREE BEFORE WHOM IT WAS SHOWN THAT SHE HAD, OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS,
ALLOWED EACH OF HER DAUGHTERS $6,000, AND ONE OF HER SISTERS $500, PER
ANNUM, AND HAD MADE GIFTS TO HER DAUGHTERS, BUT NOT WITH REGULARITY. 
AS SHE WAS CONFINED IN AN INSTITUTION, HER TOTAL NEEDS, INCLUDING
MAINTENANCE AND TAXES, DID NOT EXCEED $50,000 PER ANNUM.  ACCUMULATED
INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMITTEE AMOUNTED TO OVER $750,000. 

THE COURT, ON THE BASIS OF THE REFEREE'S REPORT, ENTERED AN ORDER
WHICH, AFTER RECITING THAT MRS. VAIL HAD MADE NO WILL, THAT THE
DAUGHTER AND GRANDCHILDREN, OR THEIR ISSUE, WOULD, UPON HER DEATH, BE
HER ONLY HEIRS AT LAW AND NEXT OF KIN, AND THE ONLY PERSONS ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN HER ESTATE, AND THAT, IF SHE WERE IN POSSESSION OF HER MENTAL
FACULTIES, "SHE WOULD DESIRE THAT THE ALLOWANCE HEREINAFTER FIXED BE
MADE  ..., AND WOULD MAKE SUCH ALLOWANCES TO SUCH PERSONS OUT OF HER
PROPERTY," DIRECTED THE COMMITTEE TO PAY YEARLY, IN QUARTERLY
INSTALLMENTS, $50,000 TO THE LIVING DAUGHTER AND $50,000 TO THE
GUARDIAN OF THE CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED DAUGHTER, $2,000 EACH TO ALL
BUT ONE OF THE BROTHER AND SISTERS; AND $3,000 TO THE REMAINING
SISTER. 

SOME SIX YEARS LATER AN APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR AN INCREASE IN THE
ALLOWANCE.  THE MATTER WAS AGAIN REFERRED FOR HEARING AND, ON THE
COMING IN OF THE REFEREE'S REPORT SHOWING THAT ACCUMULATED INCOME IN
MRS. VAIL'S ACCOUNT HAD INCREASED TO OVER $1,000,000, THAT INCOME HAD
AVERAGED, FOR OVER FIVE YEARS, APPROXIMATELY $395,000 PER ANNUM, AND,
AFTER PAYING ALLOWANCES AND ALL EXPENSES, THE SURPLUS AVERAGED ABOUT
$191,000 A YEAR, THE COURT MADE AN ORDER RECITING THAT SHE WAS THEN 77
YEARS OF AGE AND INCURABLE, ENUMERATED THE ISSUE WHO WOULD BE ENTITLED
TO HER ESTATE AT DEATH, THAT SHE HAD NO WILL, AND THAT IF SHE WERE
COMPETENT SHE WOULD HAVE DESIRED THAT THE SUMS NAMED IN THE EARLIER
DECREE BE AUGMENTED, RAISED THE ALLOWANCES TO THE DAUGHTERS AND TO THE
GRANDCHILDREN COLLECTIVELY TO $75,000, RETROACTIVE TO THE DATE OF THE
ORIGINAL ORDER.  IT WAS NEVER CLAIMED, AND IS NOT CONTENDED, THAT THE
NEXT OF KIN NEEDED ANY SUCH ALLOWANCES FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE AND
SUPPORT IN THEIR STATION IN LIFE.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE BROTHER AND
SISTERS TO WHOM ALLOWANCES WERE MADE WERE DESTITUTE AND IN NEED OF
MAINTENANCE. 

AT MRS. VAIL'S DEATH THE ALLOWANCES THERETOFORE PAID TOTALED
$1,377,866.67.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE INCLUDED THE SUM
IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE AND DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY.  THE
PETITIONER, AS ADMINISTRATOR, PAID THE SUM DEMANDED, CLAIMED A REFUND
AND, ON DENIAL, INSTITUTED THIS ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT
COURT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FOUND THAT THE TOTAL OF THE ALLOWANCES WAS
PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE, EXCEPT SO MUCH AS
REPRESENTED ANNUAL PAYMENTS TO THE DAUGHTER AND THE GRANDCHILDREN'S
GUARDIAN OF $6,000 EACH AND $500 PER ANNUM OF THE GIFTS TO COLLATERALS,
AND ENTERED JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
BY A DIVIDED COURT, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  FN3  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK IS EMPOWERED BY STATUTE TO ACT AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE, AS PARENS PATRIAE, IN CARING FOR THE
PERSONS AND THE ESTATES OF ITS INCOMPETENT CITIZENS.  THAT COURT MAY
GRANT ALLOWANCES OUT OF INCOME ONLY IF IT DETERMINES THAT THE
INCOMPETENT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE GRANTED SUCH ALLOWANCES HIMSELF HAD HE
BEEN SANE.  THE COURT DOES NOT, IN ANY PROPER SENSE, ACT AS THE
INCOMPETENT'S AGENT.  IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER THE PRIMARY
CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE INCOMPETENT'S PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE WASTED
BUT PRESERVED AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF RESTORATION TO SANITY.  ON
THESE PROPOSITIONS THE PARTIES ARE IN ACCORD. 

THE PETITIONER URGES THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT WITHIN THE TERMS OF
THE STATUTE AND THAT, IN ENACTING SEC. 302, CONGRESS DID NOT
CONTEMPLATE ANY SUCH CONTINGENCY AS THAT HERE INVOLVED.  IT INSISTS
THAT MRS. VAIL MADE NO TRANSFER BUT, IF ANY WAS MADE, THE COURT MADE
IT; THAT SHE HAD AND COULD HAVE NO MOTIVE IN RESPECT OF THE GIFT.  IN
ADDITION, IT URGES THAT, UNDER THE STATE LAW, THE COURT'S CONTROL OVER
THE ESTATE CEASES AT THE INCOMPETENT'S DEATH, AND THE COURT CANNOT MAKE
A WILL FOR HER OR IN ANY WISE INTERFERE WITH THE DEVOLUTION OF HER
ESTATE.  HENCE, IT CONCLUDES THAT TO SUGGEST THE COURT SANCTIONED
TRANSFERS OF A TESTAMENTARY CHARACTER IS TO ASSUME THAT IT EXCEEDED ITS
POWERS.  SUCH AN ASSUMPTION, SO PETITIONER SAYS, OUGHT NOT TO BE
INDULGED.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED THAT THE COURT ACTED
WITHIN ITS GRANTED POWERS; THAT IS, AUTHORIZED TRANSFERS INTER VIVOS,
WITH NO TESTAMENTARY MOTIVE. 

THE GOVERNMENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, TAKES THE POSITION THAT NOTHING IN
THE LAW OF NEW YORK, AND NO AUTHORITY CITED BY THE PETITIONER,
PRECLUDES THE STATE COURT FROM MAKING AN ALLOWANCE IN CONTEMPLATION OF
DEATH IF, UPON THE RECORD MADE, THE COURT, PLACING ITSELF IN THE
INCOMPETENT'S POSITION ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT SHE WERE SANE AND
COMPETENT, CONCLUDES THAT SHE WOULD HAVE MADE THE TRANSFERS.  AND, IT
ADDS, THAT WHAT WAS DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE WAS NOT
APPEALED AND IS NOW BEYOND CORRECTION, IF ERRONEOUS, AND THAT THE
RECORDS AND ORDERS EVINCE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CERTAINTY OF
CONTINUANCE OF DISABILITY UNTIL DEATH, THE FACT OF INTESTACY, AND THE
NATURAL EXPECTATIONS OF THE DISTRIBUTEES UNDER THE INTESTATE LAWS WERE
PREVALENT FACTORS IN MOVING THE COURT TO MAKE THE ORDERS IN QUESTION,
AND CHARACTERIZE THE COURT'S ACTION AS TAKEN IN CONTEMPLATION OF
DEATH.  THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT, AS THE COURT WAS REQUIRED TO, AND
DID, ACT AS THE DECEDENT WOULD HAVE ACTED IF COMPETENT, THIS CASE IS
NOT OUTSIDE THE TERMS OF SEC. 302(C) BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, IN
CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, THE DECEDENT DID MAKE THE TRANSFERS IN QUESTION. 

THE ISSUE IS A NARROW ONE.  LITERALLY MRS. VAIL NEITHER MADE THE
TRANSFERS NOR DID SHE HAVE ANY MOTIVE WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  BUT A
COURT STOOD IN HER PLACE AND UNQUESTIONABLY HAD THE FUNCTION OF
EFFECTUATING A TRANSFER OF HER PROPERTY AND OF DETERMINING WHAT MOTIVE
OR PURPOSE WOULD HAVE ACTUATED HER HAD SHE BEEN COMPETENT TO ACT.  IT
SEEMS TO US THAT IT IS STICKING IN THE BARK TO SAY THAT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRANSFERS ARE NOT WITHIN THE SECTION BECAUSE
CONGRESS DID NOT ADD A PHRASE TO THE EFFECT THAT WHERE A COURT MADE THE
TRANSFER, ACTING IN LIEU OF THE INCOMPETENT OWNER, SUCH A TRANSFER
SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE STATUTE. 

WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT WHERE, AS IN NEW YORK, THE COURT IS TO
SUBSTITUTE ITSELF AS NEARLY AS MAY BE FOR THE INCOMPETENT, AND TO ACT
UPON THE SAME MOTIVES AND CONSIDERATIONS AS WOULD HAVE MOVED HER, THE
TRANSFER IS, IN LEGAL EFFECT, HER ACT AND THE MOTIVE IS HERS. 

THIS BEING SO, THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PROOF WAS
SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION ARISING FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE TRANSFERS WERE MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH. 
THE APPLICABLE TEST IS THAT STATED IN UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S.
102.  THIS IS WHETHER THE THOUGHT OF DEATH IS THE IMPELLING CAUSE OF
THE TRANSFER.  AS RESPECTS THE DESCENDANTS OF MRS. VAIL, IT WOULD SEEM
CLEAR ENOUGH THAT THERE WAS NO DOMINANT MOTIVE FOR THE TRANSFER OTHER
THAN THE THOUGHT THAT, AS THEY WOULD INHERIT HER ESTATE, AND AS THERE
WAS A LARGE ACCUMULATION OF UNNEEDED INCOME, THEY MIGHT AS WELL RECEIVE
SUBSTANTIAL PORTIONS NOW AS AWAIT HER DEATH TO ENJOY THEIR
INHERITANCE.  THE FACT THAT THESE BENEFICIARIES DID NOT STAND IN NEED
OF THE MONEY, THE FACT THAT THE INCREASE GRANTED AT THE SECOND HEARING
WAS MADE RETROACTIVE, AND THAT THE PAST INSTALMENTS WERE PAID IN A LUMP
SUM, THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL IN BOTH HEARINGS THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR
GRANTING THE ALLOWANCES TO MRS. VAIL'S DESCENDANTS WAS THAT THEY
INEVITABLY WOULD DIVIDE HER ESTATE AMONGST THEM, AND THE RECITALS OF
THE COURT ORDERS, TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE, ALL GO TO CONFIRM,
RATHER THAN TO UNDERMINE, THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION. 

WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT, TO THE EXTENT
OF $6,000 PER ANNUM, WHICH WAS THE SUM MRS. VAIL, WHEN COMPETENT, HAD
REGULARLY ALLOWED EACH OF HER DAUGHTERS, THE TRANSFERS FALL WITHOUT THE
TERMS OF SEC. 302(C), BUT THAT THE BALANCE OF THE PAYMENTS TO HER
DESCENDANTS FALLS WITHIN ITS SWEEP. 

A DIFFERENT QUESTION IS PRESENTED RESPECTING THE ALLOWANCES TO
COLLATERALS.  IT APPEARS THAT THEY WERE IN NEED OF FUNDS FOR THEIR
MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NO PAYMENTS TO THEM
COULD BE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY SHARE OF THEIR SISTER'S INTESTATE ESTATE. 
THE ALLOWANCES HAVE THE COLOR OF CURRENT PAYMENTS FOR SUPPORT AND THEY
WERE AUTHORIZED BECAUSE THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT, IF SANE AND COGNIZANT
OF THE SITUATION, MRS. VAIL WOULD HAVE MADE THEM.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS
LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION CONCERNING
THEM IS REBUTTED AND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE.  TO THE EXTENT INDICATED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SEC. 811(C), 26 U.S.C. SEC. 811(C). 

FN2  43 F.SUPP.  790. 

FN3  142 F.2D 599. 
..END :










BLAIR V. B. & O.R. CO., 323 U.S. 600 


NO. 265.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 3, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  - 349
PA. 436, 37 A.2D 736, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES ALLEGED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM NEGLIGENCE
OF THE EMPLOYER IN FAILING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT AND SUFFICIENT
COMPETENT HELP, AND FROM NEGLIGENCE OF FELLOW SERVANTS, THE EVIDENCE
WAS SUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE JURY ON THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE, AND THE
ISSUE SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE JURY AND NOT BY THE COURT.  P. 604. 

2.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE, THE EMPLOYER'S
CONDUCT MAY BE VIEWED AS A WHOLE, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE SEVERAL ELEMENTS
FROM WHICH NEGLIGENCE MIGHT BE INFERRED ARE SO CLOSELY INTERWOVEN AS TO
FORM A SINGLE PATTERN AND WHERE EACH IMPARTS CHARACTER TO THE OTHERS. 
P. 604. 

3.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WHERE THE EMPLOYEE
RECOGNIZED THE DANGER IN THE MANNER OF MOVING HEAVY PIPE BUT WAS
COMMANDED TO GO AHEAD, HE CAN NOT BE HELD TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISK.  P.
605. 

4.  IT IS UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE AMENDMENT
OF THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WHICH ABOLISHED THE DEFENSE OF
ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS APPLICABLE TO CAUSES OF ACTION WHICH AROSE PRIOR
TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT.  P. 605. 

BLAIR V. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 688, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, UPON APPEALS
FROM ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT, DENIED RECOVERY IN A SUIT UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A JURY IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,
AWARDED THE PETITIONER A VERDICT FOR $12,000 DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES IN HIS ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C., SEC. 51 ET SEQ. THAT ACT
AUTHORIZES AN EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER FOR SUCH INJURIES IF THEY RESULT "IN
WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR
EMPLOYEES OF SUCH CARRIER, OR BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT OR INSUFFICIENCY,
DUE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS  ...  APPLIANCES  ...  OR OTHER
EQUIPMENT."  THE COMPLAINT SET OUT IN GREAT DETAIL THE EVENTS LEADING
TO THE INJURY AND ALLEGED THAT THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE
DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED, TO
PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH REASONABLY SUITABLE TOOLS AND APPLIANCES, A
REASONABLY SAFE PLACE IN WHICH TO WORK, REASONABLY SUFFICIENT AND
COMPETENT HELP TO DO THE WORK, AND THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RESPONDENT'S
EMPLOYEES WHO ASSISTED HIM IN DOING THE WORK.  RESPONDENT MOVED FOR
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE TO PROVE ANY NEGLIGENCE ON ITS PART.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED. 
ALTHOUGH THE TRIAL JUDGE THOUGHT THE VERDICT WAS "JUST AND REASONABLE,"
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS GRANTED, ON THE GROUND THAT WHILE
THE TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE NEGLIGENCE
OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURY, IT WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE INJURY RESULTED FROM DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT, OR SUFFICIENT AND COMPETENT HELP.  BOTH
PARTIES APPEALED TO THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT, WHICH REVERSED,
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY BY REMAINING IN
THE EMPLOYMENT AND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT NEGLIGENCE IN
ANY RESPECT.  349 PA. 436, 37 A.2D 736. 

TO DEPRIVE RAILROAD "WORKERS OF THE BENEFIT OF A JURY TRIAL IN CLOSE
OR DOUBTFUL CASES IS TO TAKE AWAY A GOODLY PORTION OF THE RELIEF WHICH
CONGRESS HAS AFFORDED THEM."  BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO., 319
U.S. 350, 354.  BECAUSE IMPORTANT RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT WERE INVOLVED,
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

DESPITE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
JUSTIFY THE JURY IN FINDING THAT THE INJURY WAS INFLICTED UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  PETITIONER'S DUTIES WERE TO LOAD AND UNLOAD INBOUND AND
OUTBOUND FREIGHT.  IN UNLOADING A CAR STANDING AT THE PLATFORM ADJACENT
TO RESPONDENT'S WAREHOUSE, PETITIONER CAME TO THREE 10-INCH SEAMLESS
STEEL TUBES, APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET LONG AND WEIGHING SLIGHTLY MORE THAN
A THOUSAND POUNDS EACH.  THE PIPES WERE GREASED AND SLICK.  THE
PETITIONER WENT TO HIS SUPERIOR, INFORMED HIM THAT THE PIPES WERE TOO
HEAVY FOR HIM TO MOVE AND SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS NOT CUSTOMARY FOR THE
RAILROAD TO UNLOAD PIPES OF THIS KIND AT ITS WAREHOUSE, BUT TO SEND THE
CAR DIRECTLY TO THE CONSIGNEE'S PLACE OF BUSINESS WHERE IT HAD PROPER
EQUIPMENT FOR UNLOADING HEAVY MATERIAL.  THIS SUGGESTION WAS REJECTED
AND PETITIONER WAS THEN TOLD TO GET MR. MILLER, THE CAR INSPECTOR, AND
MR. FANNO, THE SECTION MAN, TO HELP HIM UNLOAD. 

PETITIONER'S INSISTENCE THAT THE THREE COULD NOT UNLOAD THE HEAVY
PIPES WAS OVERRIDDEN, AND HE WAS THEN TOLD TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE WORK
OR THEY "WOULD GET SOMEBODY ELSE THAT WOULD."  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, PETITIONER UNDERTOOK TO UNLOAD THE PIPES AND CARRY THEM
THROUGH THE WAREHOUSE TO PLACE IN THE CONSIGNEE'S TRUCK WHICH HAD
BACKED UP TO THE WAREHOUSE PLATFORM ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE FROM THE
RAILROAD CAR.  THE BEST EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MOVING THE PIPES WAS A
"NOSE TRUCK" OF THE KIND COMMONLY USED IN RAILROAD STATIONS TO MOVE
FREIGHT AND LUGGAGE.  IT WAS ABOUT FIVE FEET LONG AND TWO FEET HIGH,
CONSISTING OF A FLAT METAL FRAME, WITH AN UPRIGHT FLANGE AND TWO WHEELS
AT ONE END AND WHEELBARROW HANDLES AT THE OTHER.  THE PROBLEM WAS TO
BALANCE THREE GREASED, 1000-POUND, 30-FOOT STEEL TUBES ON THIS TRUCK,
MOVE THEM ACROSS TWO PLATFORMS THROUGH THE WAREHOUSE AND PLACE THEM IN
THE CONSIGNEE'S TRUCK.  THE MEN TOOK THE NOSE TRUCK INTO THE CAR,
MANAGED TO GET THE FIRST PIPE LENGTHWISE ON IT, WORKED IT THROUGH THE
CAR DOOR TO THE PLATFORM OVER A STEEL BRIDGE CONNECTING THE CAR AND THE
PLATFORM, AND THEN CARRIED IT TO THE WAITING TRUCK.  PETITIONER HELD
ONE HANDLE OF THE NOSE TRUCK WITH ONE HAND AND THE STEEL TUBE WITH THE
OTHER.  MILLER OCCUPIED THE SAME POSITION AS TO THE OTHER HANDLE AND
THE PIPE.  FANNO HELD THE PIPE AND THE TRUCK AT ITS WHEEL END.  THEY
WERE ALL NECESSARILY CROUCHING, SINCE THE TRUCK WAS ONLY TWO FEET HIGH
WHEN MOVED IN A LEVEL POSITION, AS IT HAD TO BE, TO KEEP THE TUBE FROM
SLIPPING OFF.  THE FIRST TUBE WAS SUCCESSFULLY MOVED.  WHILE THEY WERE
ATTEMPTING TO MOVE THE SECOND TUBE IN THE SAME MANNER, IT SLIPPED. 
FANNO AND MILLER RELEASED THEIR HOLDS, BUT PETITIONER DID NOT.  THE
HEAVY TUBE IN SLIPPING CAUSED THE TRUCK TO KICK BACK RESULTING IN
PETITIONER'S INJURY. 

IN THE PETITIONER'S FOUR-YEAR SERVICE THIS WAS THE FIRST OCCASION
THAT SUCH HEAVY PIPE HAD BEEN MOVED AT THE WAREHOUSE.  FANNO, AGED 60,
AND MILLER, AGED 68, HAD NEVER BEFORE ASSISTED PETITIONER IN SUCH A
MOVEMENT; THEIR DUTIES WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.  THE EVIDENCE INDICATED
THAT THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE GREASY PIPE'S SLIPPING AS IT DID WAS
EITHER (1) AN UNEVEN PLACE ON THE WAREHOUSE FLOOR DUE TO ITS HAVING
SUNKEN IN; OR (2) PUSHING THE NOSE TRUCK AGAINST THE STANDING COMPANY
TRUCK WITH SUCH FORCE AS TO MAKE THE TUBE MOVE WITH GREAT SUDDENNESS. 
THE FACT THAT FANNO AND MILLER RELEASED THEIR GRIPS AFTER IT BEGAN TO
SLIP ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUDDENNESS AND FORCE OF THE KICKBACK OF
THE NOSE TRUCK WHICH CAUSED THE PETITIONER'S INJURY. 

WE THINK THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY THE
QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE POSED BY THE COMPLAINT.  THE DUTY OF THE
EMPLOYER "BECOMES 'MORE IMPERATIVE' AS THE RISK INCREASES."  BAILEY V.
CENTRAL VERMONT R. CO., 319 U.S. 350, 352, 353.  SEE ALSO TILLER V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 318 U.S. 54, 67.  THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE EMPLOYER
MAY BE DETERMINED BY VIEWING ITS CONDUCT AS A WHOLE.  UNION PACIFIC R.
CO. V. HADLEY, 246 U.S. 330, 332, 333.  AND ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE IN
A CASE SUCH AS THIS, WHERE THE SEVERAL ELEMENTS FROM WHICH NEGLIGENCE
MIGHT BE INFERRED ARE SO CLOSELY INTERWOVEN AS TO FORM A SINGLE
PATTERN, AND WHERE EACH IMPARTS CHARACTER TO THE OTHERS. 

THE NATURE OF THE DUTY WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS COMMANDED TO
UNDERTAKE, THE DANGERS OF MOVING A GREASED, 1000-POUND STEEL TUBE, 30
FEET IN LENGTH, ON A 5-FOOT TRUCK, THE AREA OVER WHICH THAT TRUCK WAS
COMPELLED TO BE MOVED, THE SUITABLENESS OF THE TOOLS USED IN AN
EXTRAORDINARY MANNER TO ACCOMPLISH A NOVEL PURPOSE, THE NUMBER OF MEN
ASSIGNED TO ASSIST HIM, THEIR EXPERIENCE IN SUCH WORK AND THEIR ABILITY
TO PERFORM THE DUTIES AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY PERFORMED THOSE
DUTIES - ALL OF THESE RAISED QUESTIONS APPROPRIATE FOR A JURY TO
APPRAISE IN CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF
NEGLIGENCE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.  WE CANNOT SAY AS A MATTER OF
LAW THAT THE RAILROAD COMPLIED WITH ITS DUTIES IN A REASONABLY CAREFUL
MANNER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, NOR THAT THE CONDUCT WHICH THE
JURY MIGHT HAVE FOUND TO BE NEGLIGENT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO
PETITIONER'S INJURY "IN WHOLE OR IN PART."  CONSEQUENTLY WE THINK THE
JURY, AND NOT THE COURT, SHOULD FINALLY DETERMINE THESE ISSUES. 

THE COURT BELOW, HOWEVER, THOUGHT THAT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT
RECOVER BECAUSE HE HAD ASSUMED THE RISK OF THIS DANGER.  IT IS TO BE
NOTED THAT AT THE TIME THIS CASE WAS TRIED CONGRESS HAD PASSED AN ACT
WHICH COMPLETELY ABOLISHED THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  53 STAT.
1404.  TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, SUPRA.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER
WHETHER THIS STATUTE APPLIES TO THIS CASE, SINCE WE ARE OF OPINION THAT
IT CANNOT BE HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE PETITIONER ASSUMED THE
RISKS INCIDENT TO MOVING THE STEEL TUBES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE PETITIONER UNDERTOOK TO DO THE WORK AFTER HE HAD
COMPLAINED TO THE COMPANY THAT THE PIPE SHOULD NOT BE MOVED IN THE
MANNER IT WAS.  BUT HE WAS COMMANDED TO GO AHEAD BY HIS SUPERIOR. 
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT HE
VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED ALL THE RISKS OF INJURY.  THE COURT BELOW CITED BY
WAY OF COMPARISON ITS HOLDING IN A FORMER DECISION, GUERIERRO V.
READING CO., 346 PA. 187, 29 A.2D 510.  THERE IT HAD ANNOUNCED THE RULE
THAT AN EMPLOYEE HAS A DUTY TO QUIT HIS JOB RATHER THAN TO DO SOMETHING
WHICH HE KNOWS, OR OUGHT TO KNOW, IS DANGEROUS.  THIS COURT DOES NOT
APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK SO RIGOROUSLY.  IN GREAT
NORTHERN R. CO. V. LEONIDAS, 305 U.S. 1, WE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA, 105 MONT. 302, 72 P.2D 1007.  IN ITS
OPINION THE MONTANA COURT STATED: "WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SAY THAT THE
HAZARD OF CARRYING THE (RAILROAD) TIE WAS SO OPEN AND OBVIOUS THAT THE
PLAINTIFF, AS A MATTER OF LAW, MUST BE HELD TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISK OF
INJURY BY YIELDING OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMAND OF THE FOREMAN."  SO HERE,
WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS PETITIONER CAN BE HELD TO HAVE ASSUMED THE
RISK BY OBEYING THE COMMAND OF HIS EMPLOYER'S FOREMAN TO GO ON WITH HIS
JOB.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IS REVERSED,
AND REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :


















WEILER V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 606 


NO. 340.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 11, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  -
143 F.2D 204, REVERSED. 


1.  THE COURT ADHERES TO THE RULE WHICH BARS A CONVICTION OF PERJURY
ON THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS.  HAMMER V. UNITED
STATES, 271 U.S. 620.  P. 609. 

2.  IN A PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN
REFUSING THE DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED INSTRUCTION TO THE EFFECT THAT, IN
ORDER TO CONVICT, THE FALSITY OF THE STATEMENT MADE UNDER OATH MUST BE
ESTABLISHED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO INDEPENDENT WITNESSES OR BY ONE
WITNESS AND CORROBORATING CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 610. 

3.  THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE ERROR OF THE DISTRICT COURT
IN REFUSING THE REQUESTED INSTRUCTION WAS HARMLESS.  GOINS V. UNITED
STATES, 99 F.2D 147, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 611. 

WEILER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 694, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION OF
PERJURY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS COURT STATED IN HAMMER V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 620, 626, THAT
"THE GENERAL RULE IN PROSECUTIONS FOR PERJURY IS THAT THE
UNCORROBORATED OATH OF ONE WITNESS IS NOT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE
FALSITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT." 
THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO REFUSE TO CHARGE
THE JURY TO THIS EFFECT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF PERJURY IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
FN1  IN A PRIOR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING FOR VIOLATION OF OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS HE HAD TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NEITHER BOUGHT
NOR HAD IN HIS POSSESSION IN MARCH, 1942, CERTAIN AUTOMOBILE TIRES.  HE
FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAD SIGNED A NOTARIZED LETTER IN
WHICH HE STATED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE TIRES, HE WAS NOT IN REALITY
THE PURCHASER, BUT HAD MERELY LENT THE MONEY FOR THEIR PURCHASE, AND
HAD SIGNED THE LETTER AS AN ACCOMMODATION.  THE JURY ACQUITTED HIM AND
HE WAS THEN INDICTED FOR PERJURY.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT HIS
TESTIMONY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TIRE TRANSACTION WAS FALSE.  IN THE
PERJURY TRIAL THE PETITIONER REITERATED HIS FORMER TESTIMONY AS TO THE
TIRE TRANSACTION.  SEVERAL GOVERNMENT WITNESSES GAVE TESTIMONY FROM
WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT PETITIONER WAS IN FACT THE
PURCHASER. 

WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS COMPLETED, PETITIONER REQUESTED THE TRIAL JUDGE
TO GIVE THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY: 

"THE GOVERNMENT MUST ESTABLISH THE FALSITY OF THE STATEMENT ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER OATH, BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES OR ONE WITNESS AND CORROBORATING CIRCUMSTANCES. 
UNLESS THAT HAS BEEN DONE, YOU MUST FIND (THE) DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY." 
THIS INSTRUCTION WAS REFUSED, AND THE TRIAL JUDGE IN HIS ORAL CHARGE
COMPLETELY OMITTED ANY REFERENCE TO THE "TWO WITNESS RULE" IN PERJURY
CASES.  THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE QUANTITATIVE RULE OF EVIDENCE IN PERJURY HAD BEEN SATISFIED, THAT
IT HAD BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS CASE, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD PROPERLY REFUSED THE REQUESTED CHARGE.  143 F.2D 204.  OTHER
CIRCUITS HAVE HELD THAT SIMILAR CHARGES SHOULD BE GIVEN.  PAWLEY V.
UNITED STATES, 47 F.2D 1024, 1026, (C.C.A. 9); ALLEN V. UNITED STATES,
194 F. 664, 668, (C.C.A. 4). 

IN GRANTING CERTIORARI WE LIMITED REVIEW SOLELY TO THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THIS CHARGE. 

FIRST.  THE GOVERNMENT ASKS THAT WE REEXAMINE AND ABANDON THE RULE
WHICH BARS A CONVICTION OF PERJURY ON THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF A
SINGLE WITNESS.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT WHILE THIS QUANTITATIVE RULE AS
PARTICULARLY APPLIED TO PERJURY CASES MAY HAVE BEEN SUITED TO THE NEEDS
OF THE 18TH CENTURY, IT HAS LONG SINCE OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS, THAT IT
IS AN INCONGRUITY IN OUR MODERN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, AND THAT IT RAISES
AN UNJUSTIFIABLE BARRIER TO CONVICTIONS FOR PERJURY. 

OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE RESTS ON THE GENERAL ASSUMPTION THAT THE TRUTH
IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED MERELY BY THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES ON EACH SIDE
OF A CONTROVERSY.  IN GAUGING THE TRUTH OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, A JURY
HAS NO SIMPLE FORMULATION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES UPON WHICH TO RELY. 
THE TOUCHSTONE IS ALWAYS CREDIBILITY; THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF
TESTIMONIAL WORTH IS QUALITY AND NOT QUANTITY.  TRIERS OF FACT IN OUR
FACT-FINDING TRIBUNALS ARE, WITH RARE EXCEPTIONS, FREE IN THE EXERCISE
OF THEIR HONEST JUDGMENT TO PREFER THE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS TO
THAT OF MANY. 

THE SPECIAL RULE WHICH BARS CONVICTION FOR PERJURY SOLELY UPON THE
EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE WITNESS IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN PAST CENTURIES.  FN2
THAT IT RENDERS SUCCESSFUL PERJURY PROSECUTION MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT
OTHERWISE WOULD BE IS OBVIOUS, AND MOST CRITICISM OF THE RULE HAS
STEMMED FROM THIS RESULT.  IT IS ARGUED THAT SINCE EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS LARGELY DEPENDENT UPON TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY,
SOCIETY IS ILL-SERVED BY AN "ANACHRONISTIC" RULE WHICH TENDS TO BURDEN
AND DISCOURAGE PROSECUTIONS FOR PERJURY.  PROPONENTS OF THE RULE, ON
THE OTHER HAND, CONTEND THAT SOCIETY IS WELL-SERVED BY SUCH
CONSEQUENCE.  LAWSUITS FREQUENTLY ENGENDER IN DEFEATED LITIGANTS SHARP
RESENTMENTS AND HOSTILITIES AGAINST ADVERSE WITNESSES, AND IT IS
ARGUED, NOT WITHOUT PERSUASIVENESS, THAT RULES OF LAW MUST BE SO
FASHIONED AS TO PROTECT HONEST WITNESSES FROM HASTY AND SPITEFUL
RETALIATION IN THE FORM OF UNFOUNDED PERJURY PROSECUTIONS. 

THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF WITNESSES COMPELLED TO TESTIFY IN TRIALS AT LAW
HAS IMPELLED THE LAW TO GRANT THEM SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.  IN ORDER
THAT WITNESSES MAY BE FREE TO TESTIFY WILLINGLY, THE LAW HAS
TRADITIONALLY AFFORDED THEM THE PROTECTION OF CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, SUCH
AS, FOR EXAMPLE, IMMUNITY FROM SUITS FOR LIBEL SPRINGING FROM THEIR
TESTIMONY N3.  SINCE EQUALLY HONEST WITNESSES MAY WELL HAVE DIFFERING
RECOLLECTIONS OF THE SAME EVENT, WE CANNOT REJECT AS WHOLLY
UNREASONABLE THE NOTION THAT A CONVICTION FOR PERJURY OUGHT NOT TO REST
ENTIRELY UPON "AN OATH AGAINST AN OATH."  THE RULE MAY ORIGINALLY HAVE
STEMMED FROM QUITE DIFFERENT REASONING, BUT IMPLICIT IN ITS EVOLUTION
AND CONTINUED VITALITY HAS BEEN THE FEAR THAT INNOCENT WITNESSES MIGHT
BE UNDULY HARASSED OR CONVICTED IN PERJURY PROSECUTIONS IF A LESS
STRINGENT RULE WERE ADOPTED. 

WHETHER IT LOGICALLY FITS INTO OUR TESTIMONIAL PATTERN OR NOT, THE
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ADVANCED SUFFICIENTLY COGENT REASONS TO CAUSE US TO
REJECT THE RULE.  AS WE SAID IN HAMMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 626
627, "THE APPLICATION OF THAT RULE IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IS WELL
NIGH UNIVERSAL.  THE RULE HAS LONG PREVAILED, AND NO ENACTMENT IN
DEROGATION OF IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION.  THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
LEGISLATION INDICATES THAT IT IS SOUND AND HAS BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY
IN PRACTICE."  FN4 

SECOND.  THE COURT BELOW HELD, AND THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES HERE, THAT
IT IS SOLELY THE FUNCTION OF THE JUDGE FINALLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
SINGLE WITNESS AND SUFFICIENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION.  TWO ELEMENTS MUST ENTER INTO A
DETERMINATION THAT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT:  (1) THAT THE
EVIDENCE, IF TRUE, SUBSTANTIATES THE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS WHO
HAS SWORN TO THE FALSITY OF THE ALLEGED PERJURIOUS STATEMENT; (2) THAT
THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS TRUSTWORTHY.  TO RESOLVE THIS LATTER
QUESTION IS TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CORROBORATIVE
TESTIMONY, A FUNCTION WHICH BELONGS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE JURY.  FN5 THUS,
TO PERMIT THE JUDGE FINALLY TO PASS UPON THIS QUESTION WOULD ENABLE A
JURY TO CONVICT ON THE EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE WITNESS, EVEN THOUGH IT
BELIEVED, CONTRARY TO THE BELIEF OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, THAT THE
CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY WAS WHOLLY UNTRUSTWORTHY.  SUCH A RESULT WOULD
DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE RULE, WHICH IS TO BAR A JURY FROM
CONVICTING FOR PERJURY ON THE UNCORROBORATED OATH OF A SINGLE WITNESS. 
IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, WHEN PROPERLY REQUESTED, TO INSTRUCT
THE JURY ON THIS ASPECT OF ITS FUNCTION, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY REACH A
VERDICT IN THE EXERCISE OF AN INFORMED JUDGMENT.  CF. BRUNO V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 287.  THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIAL JUDGE TO INSTRUCT THE
JURY AS REQUESTED WAS ERROR. 

THIRD.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THIS ERROR DID NOT PREJUDICE THE
DEFENDANT.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT DID NOT.  THE JURY CONVICTED WITHOUT
BEING INSTRUCTED THAT MORE THAN THE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS WAS
REQUIRED TO JUSTIFY THEIR VERDICT.  THIS WAS NO MERE "TECHNICAL" ERROR
RELATING TO THE "FORMALITIES AND MINUTIAE" OF THE TRIAL.  BRUNO V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 293, 294.  WE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO LOOK AT THE
PRINTED RECORD, RESOLVE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, AND REACH THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS BECAUSE WE THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY. 
THAT WOULD BE TO SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE JURY AND,
UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, JURIES ALONE HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THAT
RESPONSIBILITY.  NOR ARE WE COMPELLED TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS ERROR WAS
HARMLESS BECAUSE OF OUR ACTION IN GOINS V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 622,
BY WHICH WE LEFT UNDISTURBED A HOLDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
THAT GOINS, CONVICTED FOR PERJURY, HAD NOT BEEN PREJUDICED BY THE
REFUSAL OF A CHARGE ON THE TWO WITNESS RULE.  GOINS V. UNITED STATES,
99 F.2D 147.  THAT CASE WAS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF ITS OWN PECULIAR
FACTS AND CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE FACTS OF THIS ONE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. 231 DEFINES THE FEDERAL OFFENSE OF PERJURY. 

FN2  WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (THIRD EDITION) SECS. 2030-2044. 

FN3  SEE ALSO 8 WIGMORE, SUPRA, SEC. 2195G. 

FN4  AFTER A CAREFUL STUDY MADE BY A JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE,
LOOKING TO A CODIFICATION OF ENGLISH CRIMINAL LAWS, IT UNANIMOUSLY
RECOMMENDED AND PARLIAMENT PASSED THE FOLLOWING LAW: 

"A PERSON SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO BE CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENCE AGAINST
THIS ACT, OR OF ANY OFFENCE DECLARED BY ANY OTHER ACT TO BE PERJURY OR
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY, OR TO BE PUNISHABLE AS PERJURY OR SUBORNATION
OF PERJURY SOLELY UPON THE EVIDENCE OF ONE WITNESS AS TO THE FALSITY OF
ANY STATEMENT ALLEGED TO BE FALSE."  PERJURY ACT, 1911, 1 & 2 GEO. V,
C. 6, SEC. 13, PUBLIC GENERAL ACTS, 1ST & 2ND GEO. V, 1911;
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, LORDS, VOL. VII, 1911, PP. 143-146; REPORTS FROM
THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE HOUSE OF
COMMONS ON THE LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL AND THE PERJURY BILL
(H.L.), 1910, NO. 321, P. 62.  CF. STATE V. STOREY, 148 MINN. 398, 182
N.W. 613; MARVEL V. STATE, 33 DEL. 110, 131 A. 317. 

FN5  SEE STATE V. HILL, 223 N.C. 711, 28 S.E.2D 100; BROWN V. STATE,
101 TEX. CRIM. REP. 639, 644, 276 S.W. 929; CLOWER V. STATE, 151 ARK.
359, 236 S.W. 265; MADDEN V. STATE, 26 OKLA. CR. 251, 223 P. 716. 
..END :













U.S. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 323 U.S. 612 


ARGUED JANUARY 8, 9, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  - 55 F.SUPP. 
473, REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY, IN CONNECTION WITH THROUGH RAIL-WATER ROUTES,
TO REQUIRE A RAILROAD TO INTERCHANGE ITS CARS WITH A WATER CARRIER AND
TO ABROGATE A RULE OF AN ASSOCIATION OF RAILROADS PROHIBITING SUCH
INTERCHANGE.  PP. 615, 619. 

2.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE A
RAILROAD TO INTERCHANGE ITS CARS WITH A WATER CARRIER EXTENDS TO
INTERSTATE MOVEMENTS OVER ROUTES WHICH ARE PARTLY OUTSIDE THE
TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 620, 622. 

3.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FIXING, AS
REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE USE BY A WATER CARRIER OF CARS OF
CONNECTING RAILROADS, $1.00 PER CAR PER DAY FOR SUCH PERIOD AS THE CARS
ARE IN THE WATER CARRIER'S ACTUAL POSSESSION, WAS SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND IS SUSTAINED.  P. 623. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

NO. 47.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 48, PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. 

CROSS APPEALS FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES
SETTING ASIDE IN PART AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEATRAIN LINES, INC., IS A COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS BY WATER.  IN
1929, ITS PREDECESSOR BEGAN TO CARRY GOODS FROM BELLE CHASSE,
LOUISIANA, TO HAVANA, CUBA.  EACH OF THE VESSELS USED WAS SO
CONSTRUCTED THAT IT COULD CARRY A NUMBER OF RAILROAD CARS, AND SPECIAL
EQUIPMENT WAS PROVIDED TO HOIST THESE CARS FROM ADJACENT TRACKS ON THE
DOCKS AND MOVE THEM BODILY INTO THE VESSELS.  IT WAS THEREBY RENDERED
UNNECESSARY FOR GOODS CARRIED TO THE PORTS IN RAILROAD CARS TO BE
UNLOADED FROM THE CARS AND CARRIED PIECEMEAL INTO THE VESSELS.  THIS
NEW METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION, SO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS
FOUND, WAS A GREAT IMPROVEMENT OVER THE OLD PRACTICE, LESS DESTRUCTIVE
TO THE GOODS, MORE ECONOMICAL AND MORE EFFICIENT.  226 I.C.C. 7, 20
21.  IN 1932, SEATRAIN DECIDED TO INITIATE A NEW INTERSTATE SERVICE
BETWEEN HOBOKEN, N. J. AND BELLE CHASSE, LOUISIANA, VIA HAVANA, CUBA,
AND THUS ENTERED INTO DIRECT COMPETITION WITH THE INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BY RAILROADS.  DURING THE TIME SEATRAIN HAD
LIMITED ITS BUSINESS TO FOREIGN TRANSPORTATION, I.E., LOUISIANA TO
CUBA, THE NON-COMPETING RAILROADS FREELY PERMITTED IT THE USE OF THEIR
CARS.  SHORTLY AFTER IT BEGAN ITS INTERSTATE SERVICE, HOWEVER, THE
FOLLOWING RULE WAS PROMULGATED BY THE AMERICAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION:
FN1  "CARS OF RAILWAY OWNERSHIP MUST NOT BE DELIVERED TO A STEAMSHIP,
FERRY OR BARGE LINE FOR WATER TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
OWNER FILED WITH THE CAR SERVICE DIVISION."  THEREAFTER, SOME RAILROADS
CONTINUED TO PERMIT SEATRAIN TO USE THEIR CARS BUT OTHERS, INCLUDING
THE PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING, REFUSED TO DO SO.  NO RAILROADS
"REFUSED TO PERMIT DELIVERY OF THEIR CARS TO ANY OF THE OTHER ELEVEN
WATER LINES LISTED IN A CIRCULAR OF THE ASSOCIATION AS COMING WITHIN
THE INTENDMENT OF THE RULE."  206 I.C.C. 328, 337. 

A COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
APPROPRIATE HEARINGS WERE CONDUCTED AND A SERIES OF FINDINGS AND
OPINIONS WERE ENTERED.  THE FINDINGS WERE THAT THE SOLE OBJECT OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF RAILROADS' RULE WAS TO PREVENT DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC FROM
THE RAILROADS TO SEATRAIN; THAT SEATRAIN, AS AN INTERSTATE WATER
CARRIER, WAS SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION; THAT ITS
INTERSTATE OPERATIONS WERE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND OF ADVANTAGE TO
THE CONVENIENCE AND COMMERCE OF THE PUBLIC; THAT THE COMMISSION HAD
JURISDICTION TO REQUIRE THROUGH RAIL-WATER INTERSTATE ROUTES, AND,
WHERE SUCH THROUGH ROUTES WERE ESTABLISHED, TO REQUIRE RAILROADS TO
INTERCHANGE CARS WITH WATER CARRIERS, 195 I.C.C. 215; 206 I.C.C. 328. 
AN INITIAL ORDER OF THE COMMISSION REQUIRED THE RAILROADS TO ESTABLISH
CERTAIN THROUGH JOINT RAIL-WATER ROUTES WITH SEATRAIN.  SUCH THROUGH
INTERSTATE ROUTES TOGETHER WITH JOINT RATES WERE ESTABLISHED.  226
I.C.C. 7; 243 I.C.C. 199.  THE COMMISSION THEN HEARD EVIDENCE AND FOUND
THAT A PAYMENT OF $1.00 PER DAY WOULD BE A REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR
SEATRAIN TO PAY THE RAILROADS FOR THEIR CARS WHILE THEY WERE IN
SEATRAIN'S POSSESSION.  237 I.C.C. 97; 248 I.C.C. 109.  BASED ON ITS
FINDINGS THE COMMISSION ORDERED THE RAILROADS TO ABSTAIN FROM OBSERVING
AND ENFORCING RULES AND PRACTICES WHICH PROHIBITED THE INTERCHANGE OF
THEIR FREIGHT CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION BY SEATRAIN IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE RAILROADS PROMPTLY BROUGHT THIS ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C.
41(28), 47, TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE DISTRICT COURT
SET ASIDE THE ORDER INSOFAR AS IT REQUIRED RAILROADS TO INTERCHANGE
CARS DESTINED FOR CARRIAGE BY SEATRAIN OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL WATERS
OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT SUSTAINED IT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS.  55
F.SUPP.  473.  BOTH SIDES APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT AS AUTHORIZED
BY THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 28 U.S.C. 47, 47A,
AND SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. 345, PAR. (4). 

FIRST.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE RAILROADS ARE UNDER NO DUTY TO
DELIVER THEIR CARS TO SEATRAIN AND THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THEM TO DO SO.  IT HAS LONG
BEEN HELD, AND IT IS NOT DENIED HERE, THAT SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, RAILROADS MAY BE COMPELLED TO ESTABLISH
THROUGH ROUTES  FN2  AND TO INTERCHANGE THEIR CARS WITH EACH OTHER,
FN3  BOTH SUBJECT TO REASONABLE TERMS.  NOR IS IT DENIED THAT THE
RAILROADS ARE UNDER A LEGAL DUTY, ENFORCEABLE BY PROPER COMMISSION
ORDERS, TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES WITH CONNECTING WATER CARRIERS. 
FN4  THE NARROW CONTENTION IS THAT THE POWER GRANTED THE COMMISSION TO
REQUIRE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THROUGH RAIL-WATER ROUTES
DOES NOT EMPOWER IT TO REQUIRE A RAILROAD TO INTERCHANGE ITS CARS WITH
A WATER CARRIER.  SINCE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS ENTERED AFTER
PASSAGE OF THE 1940 TRANSPORTATION ACT, 54 STAT. 898, THE QUESTION MUST
BE DECIDED UNDER THAT ACT.  ZIFFRIN, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S.
73, 78. 

THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE PRESENT ACT WHICH SPECIFICALLY COMMANDS
THAT RAILROADS MUST INTERCHANGE THEIR CARS WITH CONNECTING WATER
LINES.  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE ABSENCE OF
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE INDICATES A PURPOSE OF CONGRESS NOT TO REQUIRE SUCH
AN INTERCHANGE.  TRUE, CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED WITH PRECISE LANGUAGE
SOME OBLIGATIONS WHICH RAILROADS MUST ASSUME.  BUT ALL LEGISLATION
DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM SINCE THE FIRST ACT IN 1887, 24 STAT. 379,
HAS CONTAINED BROAD LANGUAGE TO INDICATE THE SCOPE OF THE LAW.  THE
VERY COMPLEXITIES OF THE SUBJECT HAVE NECESSARILY CAUSED CONGRESS TO
CAST ITS REGULATORY PROVISIONS IN GENERAL TERMS.  CONGRESS HAS, IN
GENERAL, LEFT THE CONTENTS OF THESE TERMS TO BE SPELLED OUT IN
PARTICULAR CASES BY ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTION, AND IN THE
LIGHT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO FOSTER AN EFFICIENT AND FAIR
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  CF. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 274 U.S. 29, 36; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. RAILWAY
LABOR EXECUTIVES ASSN., 315 U.S. 373, 376-377. 

THE 1940 TRANSPORTATION ACT IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS, THE FIRST
RELATING TO RAILROADS, THE SECOND TO MOTOR VEHICLES, AND THE THIRD TO
WATER CARRIERS.  THAT ACT, AS HAD EACH PREVIOUS AMENDMENT OF THE
ORIGINAL 1887 ACT, EXPANDED THE SCOPE OF REGULATION IN THIS FIELD AND
CORRELATIVELY BROADENED THE COMMISSION'S POWERS.  THE INTERRELATIONSHIP
OF THE THREE PARTS OF THE ACT WAS MADE MANIFEST BY ITS DECLARATION OF A
"NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE
THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH."  THE DECLARED OBJECTIVE WAS THAT OF
"DEVELOPING, COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM BY WATER, HIGHWAY, AND RAIL,  ...  ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  CONGRESS FURTHER ADMONISHED
THAT "ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ADMINISTERED AND
ENFORCED WITH A VIEW TO CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE DECLARATION OF POLICY." 
54 STAT. 899. 

THIS POLICY CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT AS TO SEATRAIN'S INTERSTATE
CARRIAGE UNLESS RAILROADS INTERCHANGE THEIR CARS WITH IT.  THE
PARTICULAR TYPE OF SERVICE INTRODUCED BY SEATRAIN, AND FOUND BY THE
COMMISSION TO BE QUALITATIVELY SUPERIOR, CANNOT BE RENDERED WITHOUT THE
PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING THE VERY RAILROAD CARS WHICH CARRY FREIGHT TO ITS
PORTS.  THE "INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF THIS SERVICE" WOULD BE LOST TO THE
PUBLIC WITHOUT RAILROAD CAR INTERCHANGE. 

FURTHERMORE, THE ACT CALLS FOR "FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION."  THE
RAILROAD ASSOCIATION'S RULE HOWEVER IS CONSTRUCTED ON THE PREMISE THAT
THE RAILROADS CAN AT THEIR DISCRETION DETERMINE WHICH WATER CARRIER
MAY, AND WHICH MAY NOT, TRANSPORT THEIR CARS.  SEATRAIN ALONE, OF ALL
THE WATER CARRIERS, ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, HAS BEEN
REFUSED CAR INTERCHANGE.  THIS MEANS THAT THE ASSOCIATION'S RULE, IF
VALID, ENABLES THE RAILROADS TO DECLINE TO DEAL WITH SEATRAIN AS IT
DOES WITH OTHER CARRIERS.  AS EARLY AS 1914, THE COMMISSION HAD
DECLARED THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS THEN IN EFFECT,
PROHIBITED RAILROAD PRACTICES WHICH LENT THEMSELVES TO SUCH PURPOSE. 
THE COMMISSION SAID AT THAT TIME: 

"IF THE RAIL CARRIERS ARE PERMITTED TO CHOOSE THE PARTICULAR BOAT
LINES WITH WHICH THEY WILL ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES,
THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DICTATE WHO SHALL OPERATE ON THE WATER AND WHO
SHALL NOT, FOR A BOAT LINE WHICH IS ACCORDED A MONOPOLY OF THE THROUGH
RAIL-AND-WATER TRAFFIC WILL SOON BE ABLE TO DRIVE ITS COMPETITORS OUT
OF BUSINESS."  PACIFIC NAVIGATION CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 31
I.C.C. 472, 479. 

WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION HAS LESS
POWER NOW TO PROTECT WATER CARRIERS THAN IT HAD IN 1914.  FN5  THE 1940
ACT WAS INTENDED, TOGETHER WITH THE OLD LAW, TO PROVIDE A COMPLETELY
INTEGRATED INTERSTATE REGULATORY SYSTEM OVER MOTOR, RAILROAD, AND WATER
CARRIERS.  IN THE LIGHT OF ITS DECLARED POLICY, AND BECAUSE OF ITS
PROVISIONS HEREAFTER NOTED, WE THINK RAILROADS ARE UNDER A DUTY TO
PROVIDE INTERCHANGE OF CARS WITH WATER CARRIERS TO THE END THAT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY MOVE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR DELAY.  CF. FLOUR
CITY S.S. CO. V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 24 I.C.C. 179, 184. 

SEC. 1(4) OF PART I OF THE ACT IMPOSES A DUTY ON RAILROADS TO
ESTABLISH REASONABLE THROUGH ROUTES WITH OTHER CARRIERS, INCLUDING
WATER CARRIERS, AND TO "PROVIDE REASONABLE FACILITIES FOR OPERATING
SUCH ROUTES"  FN6  UNDER "REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS." 

SEC. 3(4) MAKES IT THE DUTY OF RAILROADS TO "AFFORD ALL REASONABLE,
PROPER, AND EQUAL FACILITIES FOR THE INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC BETWEEN
THEIR  ...  LINES AND CONNECTING LINES, AND FOR THE  ... FORWARDING
...  OF  ...  PROPERTY TO AND FROM CONNECTING LINES," AND A "CONNECTING
LINE" IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE A WATER CARRIER. 

SEC. 15(3) SUPPLEMENTS THESE SECTIONS BY PROVIDING THAT THE
COMMISSION MAY HOLD HEARINGS, AND "SHALL," IF IT DEEMS IT "NECESSARY OR
DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,  ...  ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES  ...
AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH THROUGH ROUTES SHALL BE
OPERATED." 

THESE SECTIONS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER.  IT WAS FROM ITS POWER TO REQUIRE THROUGH ROUTES THAT THE
COMMISSION ORIGINALLY DERIVED ITS POWER TO REQUIRE INTERCHANGE OF
RAILROAD CARS AMONG CONNECTING RAILROADS.  FN7  SINCE A RAIL-WATER
THROUGH ROUTE WITH SEATRAIN CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT AN INTERCHANGE OF
CARS, THE UNQUESTIONED POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE ESTABLISHMENT
OF SUCH ROUTES WOULD BE WHOLLY FRUITLESS, WITHOUT THE CORRELATIVE POWER
TO ABROGATE THE ASSOCIATION'S RULE WHICH PROHIBITS THE INTERCHANGE. 

SECOND.  IT IS CONTENDED, AND THE COURT BELOW HELD, THAT IF THE
COMMISSION HAS POWER TO REQUIRE RAILROADS TO INTERCHANGE CARS WITH
THROUGH ROUTE CONNECTING WATER CARRIERS, IT IS WITHOUT POWER TO DO SO
IF A ROUTE TRAVERSES, IN PART, FOREIGN WATERS, AS SEATRAIN'S DOES. 
THIS CONTENTION BASICALLY RESTS ON PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2) OF SEC. 1 OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 400 OF THE 1920 ACT, 41
STAT. 474, LEFT UNCHANGED BY PART I OF THE 1940 ACT.  THE LANGUAGE
RELIED UPON IN THESE PARAGRAPHS DECLARES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF PART I,
RELATING TO RAILROADS AND THEIR TRANSPORTATION, SHALL APPLY "ONLY
INSOFAR AS SUCH TRANSPORTATION  ...  TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES."  LIMITING LANGUAGE TO THE SAME EFFECT IS CONTAINED IN THE
WATER CARRIER REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF PART III OF THE 1940 ACT.  FN8 

THIS COURT HAS STATED THAT THE 1920 ACT, CONTAINING THIS LIMITING
CLAUSE, "APPLIES TO INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE
TRANSPORTATION TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES."  LEWIS-SIMAS
JONES CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 283 U.S. 654, 660.  THE QUESTION IN
THAT CASE WAS AS TO JOINT THROUGH RAILROAD RATES OVER A RAILROAD ROUTE
PARTLY IN THE UNITED STATES AND PARTLY IN MEXICO.  THE COURT FURTHER
SAID AS TO THIS SITUATION THAT "THE ACT DOES NOT EMPOWER THE COMMISSION
TO PRESCRIBE OR REGULATE SUCH RATES."  FN9  IN ST. LOUIS, B. & M.R. CO.
V. BROWNSVILLE DISTRICT, 304 U.S. 295, THIS COURT WAS CALLED UPON TO
CONSIDER WHETHER, UNDER THE 1920 ACT, THERE WAS A DUTY ON THE PART OF
AMERICAN RAILROADS TO FURNISH CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION ON A MEXICAN
RAILROAD.  IT WAS THERE HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST SHIPPERS, PLACES, OR CLASSES OF TRAFFIC WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES, AMERICAN RAILROADS WERE "NOT BOUND BY ANY LAW, REGULATION, OR
TARIFF TO FURNISH CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION IN MEXICO."  THESE DECISIONS
SIMPLY MEANT THAT WHATEVER POWER CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE TO REGULATE THE
CONDUCT OF ITS DOMESTIC COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS ABROAD, FN10  IT HAD,
BY THE LIMITING PROVISIONS OF THE 1920 ACT, EXPRESSED ITS PURPOSE NOT
TO EMPOWER THE COMMISSION WITH GENERAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE RAIL
TRANSPORTATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.    BUT THESE INTERPRETATIONS OF
THE 1920 ACT CONCERNING RAIL TRANSPORTATION OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
ARE OF DUBIOUS RELEVANCE TO THE INSTANT CASE.  FOR CONGRESS HAS, IN
SEC. 15(3) OF THE 1940 ACT, UNEQUIVOCALLY GRANTED TO THE COMMISSION THE
POWER TO ESTABLISH THROUGH JOINT RAILWATER ROUTES, AND SEC. 302(I)(2)
MAKES THIS POWER APPLICABLE TO SUCH ROUTES "FROM A PLACE IN THE UNITED
STATES TO ANOTHER PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES."  FN11  CF. CORNELL
STEAMBOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 634.  THE REASON FOR THIS
GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO THE COMMISSION IS APPARENT.  IT IS WELL KNOWN
THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF INTERCOASTAL AND LAKE TRANSPORTATION AMONG
THE STATES, IN WHICH AMERICAN COMPANIES ENGAGE, TRAVERSES WATERS
OUTSIDE OF THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES.  FOREIGN
COUNTRIES HAVE NOT THE SAME INTEREST IN THIS PURELY DOMESTIC CARRIAGE
OF GOODS AS THEY HAVE IN CONTROLLING THE MOVEMENT OF RAILROADS IN THEIR
TERRITORY.  FN12  SUCH TRANSPORTATION MUST BE REGULATED BY THIS COUNTRY
IF IT IS TO BE EFFECTIVELY REGULATED.  CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THIS FACT
WHEN IT MADE SPECIAL PROVISION IN SEC. 15(3) FOR THE COMMISSION TO
REGULATE WATER TRANSPORTATION FROM ONE TO ANOTHER PLACE IN THE UNITED
STATES, EVEN THOUGH THAT TRANSPORTATION TOOK PLACE "PARTLY OUTSIDE" THE
UNITED STATES.  IT IS THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION, MADE ESPECIALLY
APPLICABLE TO INTERSTATE RAIL-WATER TRANSPORTATION, BY WHICH THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY OVER SUCH MOVEMENTS MUST BE MEASURED, RATHER
THAN BY THE LIMITING CLAUSE OF SEC. 1, WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE
COMMISSION'S POWER OVER RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION.  THERE IS THEREFORE
NOTHING IN THE ACT TO DENY THE COMMISSION THE SAME POWER OVER
INTERSTATE WATER-RAIL TRANSPORTATION WHICH PASSES THROUGH FOREIGN
WATERS, AS WE HAVE JUST HELD IT ENJOYS WHERE THE TRANSIT IS WHOLLY
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE THEREFORE HOLD
THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION REQUIRING CAR INTERCHANGES WAS WITHIN
ITS AUTHORITY AS TO INTERSTATE MOVEMENTS WHICH TAKE PLACE WITHIN OR
WITHOUT THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN13 

THIRD.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT $1.00 PER CAR PER DAY, TO BE PAID
TO THE CAR OWNERS WHILE SEATRAIN ACTUALLY HAD CARS IN ITS POSSESSION,
WAS A REASONABLE COMPENSATION.  ALTHOUGH, IN PRACTICE, CARS BROUGHT TO
THE PORTS MUST SOMETIMES WAIT SEVERAL DAYS FOR SEATRAIN'S SAILING, THE
COMMISSION DID NOT REQUIRE SEATRAIN TO MAKE PER DIEM PAYMENTS DURING
THIS WAITING PERIOD.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD
REQUIRE SEATRAIN TO PAY FOR THE CARS FROM THE TIME THEY ARE MADE
AVAILABLE TO IT; THAT THE RATE OF COMPENSATION WAS TOO LOW; AND THAT IN
BOTH RESPECTS, THE RESULT IS TO REQUIRE RAILROADS TO AFFORD SEATRAIN
THE "FREE USE" OF THEIR PROPERTY, THEREBY IMPOSING A BURDEN UPON THE
RAILROADS WHICH CONGRESS NEITHER DID NOR COULD HAVE AUTHORIZED. 
CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 80, 97. 

THE QUESTIONS THUS RAISED DEPEND UPON A DETERMINATION OF FACTS.  THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, DISCUSSED AT LENGTH IN ITS OPINIONS,
ILLUSTRATE THE COMPLEX NATURE OF THE FACTS INVOLVED.  237 I.C.C. 97,
101-102; 248 I.C.C. 109.  THOSE FACTS NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.  THE
COMMISSION NOT ONLY HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE TESTIMONY OFFERED IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS, BUT WAS POSSESSED OF WIDE EXPERIENCE WITH THE GENERAL
PROBLEM OF CAR HIRE.  SEE E.G. RULES FOR CAR-HIRE SETTLEMENT, 160
I.C.C. 369.  WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RECORD AND FIND SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR THE COMMISSION'S FINDING "THAT THE CURRENT CODE
OF PER DIEM RULES GOVERNING THE INTERCHANGE OF FREIGHT CARS BETWEEN THE
DEFENDANTS ABOVE REFERRED TO AND OTHER RAIL CARRIERS, INCLUDING THE
CURRENT RATE OF $1 PER DAY PAYABLE BY SEATRAIN FOR SUCH PERIOD AS THE
CARS ARE IN ITS ACTUAL POSSESSION, WOULD BE REASONABLE FOR APPLICATION
TO THE INTERCHANGE OF CARS BETWEEN DEFENDANTS AND COMPLAINANTS FOR USE
BY SEATRAIN."  248 I.C.C. AT 119.  THIS BEING TRUE WE SUSTAIN THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THIS RESPECT.  FN14 

WE FIND NO MERIT IN ANY OF THE OTHER CONTENTIONS RAISED AGAINST THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 47 IS REVERSED, AND THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 48 IS
AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  LATER THE AMERICAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION AND OTHER RAILROAD
ORGANIZATIONS CONSOLIDATED THEIR ACTIVITIES UNDER THE NAME OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS.  THE NEW ASSOCIATION ADOPTED THE
SAME RULE. 

FN2  ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 136, 142-144. 

FN3  MISSOURI & ILLINOIS COAL CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 22
I.C.C. 39, 44; CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 80,
91, 101-102; CF. ST. LOUIS, S.W.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 217 U.S. 136, 145
146. 

FN4  SUCH HAS LONG BEEN THE RULING OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  CHATTANOOGA PACKET CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 33
I.C.C. 384, 391-392; FLOUR CITY S.S. CO. V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 24
I.C.C. 179; DECATUR NAVIGATION CO. V. L. & N.R. CO., 31 I.C.C. 281,
288; PACIFIC NAVIGATION CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 31 I.C.C. 472,
479. 

FN5  THIS ARGUMENT RESTS ON A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS IN
THE ORIGINAL ACT AND LATER AMENDMENTS WHICH IMPOSE SPECIFIC DUTIES AS
TO CAR INTERCHANGES.  A DETAILED AND CLEAR NARRATIVE OF THE HISTORY
APPEARS IN THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  55 F.SUPP., SUPRA, 479
483.  IN SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT IS THIS.  THE ORIGINAL 1887 ACT APPLYING
ONLY TO RAILROADS, 24 STAT. 379, REQUIRED IN SEC. 3, AN "INTERCHANGE OF
TRAFFIC" BUT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR AN INTERCHANGE OF CARS. 
THE HEPBURN AMENDMENT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 584, SUBJECTED WATER CARRIERS
TO THE ACT SO FAR AS THEY CONNECTED WITH RAILROADS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, DEFINED TRANSPORTATION TO INCLUDE "CARS" AND "FACILITIES,"
AND MADE IT THE DUTY OF RAILROADS TO ESTABLISH THROUGH ROUTES.  THE
MANN-ELKINS AMENDMENT OF 1910, 36 STAT. 539, 545, REQUIRED CARRIERS TO
MAKE REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR "EXCHANGE,
INTERCHANGE, AND RETURN OF CARS" USED ON THROUGH ROUTES.  THE ESCH CAR
SERVICE ACT OF 1917, 40 STAT. 101, AGAIN REQUIRED INTERCHANGE OF CARS,
AND SPECIFICALLY GAVE THE COMMISSION POWER TO ESTABLISH RULES TO
ENFORCE THE REQUIREMENT.  THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 456,
476, OMITTED THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE CAR INTERCHANGE REQUIREMENT
WHICH HAD APPEARED IN THE 1910 MANN-ELKINS AMENDMENT, BUT SUBSTITUTED
FOR IT SECS. 1(10)(11)(13) AND (14) WHICH CONTAINED MORE ELABORATE
LANGUAGE IMPOSING STILL MORE SPECIFIC DUTIES IN THIS RESPECT.  THESE
"CAR SERVICE" PROVISIONS WERE NOT CHANGED BY THE 1940 TRANSPORTATION
ACT.  THE MANN-ELKINS AND THE ESCH CAR SERVICE AMENDMENTS, HOWEVER, HAD
MADE THE CAR INTERCHANGE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO EVERY "CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  THE 1920 ACT MADE THE CAR
SERVICE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO "CARRIERS BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THIS
ACT"; THE 1940 ACT MADE THEM APPLICABLE TO A "CARRIER BY RAILROAD
SUBJECT TO THIS PART."  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THESE CHANGES, MADE IN THE
1920 AND CARRIED INTO THE 1940 ACT, SHOW A CONTINUING PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS TO DEPRIVE THE COMMISSION OF THE POWER TO REQUIRE INTERCHANGE
OF CARS WITH WATER CARRIERS - TO DETRACT FROM ITS AUTHORITY.  BUT WE
HAVE ALREADY HAD OCCASION TO SAY THAT THE 1920 ACT "MATERIALLY EXTENDS
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF LAND AND WATER
TRANSPORTATION AND THE CARRIERS ENGAGED IN IT, WHENEVER PROPERTY MAY BE
OR IS TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY RAIL AND WATER BY A COMMON
CARRIER OR CARRIERS  ..."  CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
274 U.S. 29, 35.  THIS CONCLUSION AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE 1920 ACT IS
FULLY JUSTIFIED BY ITS HISTORY, 206 I.C.C. SUPRA, 339-343. 
CONSEQUENTLY, THE 1920 CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CAR SERVICE
REQUIREMENTS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE NARROW INTERPRETATION OF THE 1940 ACT
WHICH IS HERE URGED. 

FN6  AS TO CARS BEING "FACILITIES," SEE SEC. 1(3)(A) OF THE ACT, AND
ASSIGNED CAR CASES, 274 U.S. 564, 575, 580; GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR
CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422, 428. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 3. 

FN8  SEC. 302(I)(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE TRANSPORTATION
SUBJECT TO REGULATION IS THAT "...  PARTLY BY WATER AND PARTLY BY
RAILROAD OR MOTOR VEHICLE, FROM A PLACE IN THE STATE TO A PLACE IN ANY
OTHER STATE; EXCEPT THAT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSPORTATION TAKING
PLACE PARTLY IN THE UNITED STATES AND PARTLY OUTSIDE THEREOF, SUCH
TERMS SHALL INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION BY RAILROAD OR MOTOR VEHICLE ONLY
INSOFAR AS IT TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES  ..." 

FN9  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, HOWEVER, THE COURT HELD THAT WHERE SUCH
JOINT RATES WERE VOLUNTARILY FIXED AND CHARGED BY AN AMERICAN RAILROAD,
THE COMMISSION COULD, UNDER THE POWER GIVEN IT BY THE 1920 ACT, PASS
UPON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE JOINT INTERNATIONAL RATE. 

FN10  SEE KNOTT V. BOTANY MILLS, 179 U.S. 69; CUNARD S.S. CO. V.
MELLON, 262 U.S. 100, 129. 

FN11  THE COMMISSION DENIED SEATRAIN'S PETITION INSOFAR AS IT ASKED
AN ORDER REQUIRING RAILROADS TO INTERCHANGE THEIR CARS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF HANDLING FREIGHT TO CUBA.  206 I.C.C. SUPRA, 337; 248 I.C.C. SUPRA,
118-119. 

FN12  SECTION 1(1)(A) OF PART I OF THE ACT WHICH CONTAINS THE GENERAL
CLAUSE LIMITING THE ACT'S APPLICATION TO RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES, ALSO DECLARES ITS APPLICATION TO TRANSPORTATION
"FROM ANY PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES THROUGH A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO ANY
OTHER PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES."  THIS LATTER CLAUSE, AS THE DISTRICT
COURT RECOGNIZED, 55 F.SUPP.  SUPRA, 487, WOULD HAVE LITTLE MEANING, IF
THE LIMITING CLAUSE WERE GIVEN THE INTERPRETATION FOR WHICH THE
RAILROADS HERE CONTEND. 

FN13  WE HAVE NOT OVERLOOKED THE ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
TAKE AWAY PART OF THE COMMISSION'S POWER OVER CAR INTERCHANGES BY
REPEALING SUBDIVISION (B) OF SEC. 6(13) OF THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE
AS AMENDED, 37 STAT. 560, 568, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:  "TO ESTABLISH
THROUGH ROUTES AND MAXIMUM JOINT RATES BETWEEN AND OVER SUCH RAIL AND
WATER LINES, AND TO DETERMINE ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
SUCH LINES SHALL BE OPERATED IN THE HANDLING OF THE TRAFFIC EMBRACED." 

THIS REPEALED PROVISION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY EMBODIED IN 15(3) OF THE
1940 ACT.  WE THINK COMMISSIONER EASTMAN, THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BUREAU, MADE AN ACCURATE STATEMENT WHEN, IN WRITING THE
SENATE-HOUSE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE CONSIDERING THE 1940 ACT, HE STATED
THAT HE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE REPEAL OF 13(B) SINCE "OTHER PROVISIONS
OF THE BILL ADEQUATELY COVER THIS MATTER."  OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION
LEGISLATION, HOUSE COMMITTEE PRINT, 76TH CONGRESS, 3D SESSION, P. 23. 

FN14  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS NOT FORECLOSED FUTURE
CONSIDERATION OF THE CAR HIRE COMPENSATION PROBLEM, INSOFAR AS IT MAY
BE INVOLVED IN DETERMINING RAILROAD RATES OR A PROPER DIVISION OF
THROUGH RAIL-WATER RATES BETWEEN SEATRAIN AND THE RAILROADS.  248
I.C.C. 117; CF. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 97,
109, NOTE 11. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 
..END :

















OTIS & CO. V. S.E.C., 323 U.S. 624 


NO. 81.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  - 142
F.2D 411, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHETHER A PROVISION OF A CORPORATE CHARTER GRANTING THE PREFERRED
STOCK A SPECIFIED PREFERENCE UPON LIQUIDATION APPLIES TO A LIQUIDATION
IN A SIMPLIFICATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 11(B)(2) AND (E) OF THE PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935 IS A QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW.  P.
636. 

2.  A PROVISION OF A CORPORATE CHARTER GRANTING THE PREFERRED STOCK A
SPECIFIED PREFERENCE UPON LIQUIDATION, ADOPTED SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, HELD
INOPERATIVE IN A SIMPLIFICATION BY LIQUIDATION UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) OF
THAT ACT.  P. 637. 

CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT ITS EXERCISE OF POWER TO SIMPLIFY
HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEMS SHOULD MATURE RIGHTS WHICH WERE CREATED WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH EXERCISE OF POWER AND WHICH OTHERWISE
WOULD MATURE ONLY BY VOLUNTARY ACTION OF STOCKHOLDERS OR INVOLUNTARILY
THROUGH ACTION OF CREDITORS. 

3.  CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 156,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 638. 

4.  IN A LIQUIDATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 11(B)(2) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, ALLOCATION OF THE ASSETS AS BETWEEN
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF SECURITIES MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DOLLAR VALUATION SO
LONG AS EACH SECURITY HOLDER IN THE ORDER OF HIS PRIORITY RECEIVES THE
EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF RIGHTS SURRENDERED.  P. 639. 

OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 724, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
APPROVING A PLAN FOR THE LIQUIDATION AND DISSOLUTION OF A HOLDING
COMPANY PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN IMPORTANT ALTHOUGH NARROW LEGAL POINT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935  FN1  IS INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE.  THIS IS WHETHER A PLAN UNDER SEC. 11(E) OF THAT ACT MAY BE "FAIR
AND EQUITABLE" TO PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THOSE
WORDS AS USED IN THAT SECTION, WHICH ALLOWS A PARTICIPATION BY JUNIOR
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS OF A REGISTERED
HOLDING COMPANY, WHICH IS LIQUIDATED IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 11(B)(2),
BEFORE THE SENIOR PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS RECEIVE SECURITIES WHOSE
PRESENT VALUE EQUALS THE PREFERRED'S FULL LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES. 

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION APPROVED THE PLAN, HOLDING
COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 4215, APRIL 5, 1943.  THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE APPROVED THE PLAN, 51 F.SUPP.  217, AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THIS ACTION.  THIS COURT HAS
JURISDICTION UNDER JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 240 AND SECTION 25 OF THE
HOLDING COMPANY ACT.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE QUESTION RAISED IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  322 U.S. 724. 

THE UNITED LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY, A MARYLAND CORPORATION, IS A
REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY UNDER THE ACT.  SEC. 5.  IT IS THE TOP
HOLDING COMPANY OF A LARGE SYSTEM WITH TWENTY-FOUR OTHER CORPORATE
ASSOCIATES.  SEC. 2A (10).  ITS PLACE IN THE SYSTEM VIOLATES THE
PROHIBITION OF THE ACT AGAINST A REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY BEING A
"HOLDING COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO (ANY) OF ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
(SEC. 2A (8)) WHICH ITSELF HAS A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH IS A HOLDING
COMPANY."  SEC. 11(B)(2).  THIS PROHIBITION IS KNOWN AS THE "GREAT
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE." 

IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE SYSTEM, AFTER FINDING
THAT POWER VIOLATED THE GREAT-GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, AN ORDER WAS ENTERED
ON MARCH 20, 1941, DIRECTING THAT POWER BE LIQUIDATED AND DISSOLVED. 
FN2  THE ORDER AUTHORIZED POWER TO SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION A PLAN FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER "ON A BASIS WHICH IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO
ITS SECURITY HOLDERS."  POWER WITH ITS REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY
SUBSIDIARY, THE UNITED LIGHT AND RAILWAYS COMPANY, A DELAWARE
CORPORATION, ALL OF WHOSE COMMON STOCK WAS OWNED BY POWER, SUBMITTED
SUCH A PLAN AND AFTER EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSION AND MODIFICATION IT
WAS APPROVED BY ORDER OF APRIL 5, 1943.  THE PLAN WAS HELD SPECIFICALLY
TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO ALL SECURITY HOLDERS.  BY THE APPLICATION
AND ORDER RAILWAYS' PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN WAS ACCEPTED.  HOLDING
COMPANY ACT RELEASE NO. 4215.  THIS IS THE ORDER WHICH IS BEFORE US. 

IT APPROVED THE PLAN FOR THE LIQUIDATION AND DISSOLUTION OF POWER AS
"NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(B) OF THE" ACT. 
FN3  IT DIRECTED COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION TO APPLY TO AN APPROPRIATE
FEDERAL COURT FOR AN ORDER ENFORCING THE PLAN.  FN4  THE CENTRAL
FEATURE OF THE PLAN AND THE ONE HERE IN ISSUE WAS POWER'S PROPOSED
DISTRIBUTION OF ITS ASSETS TO ITS PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKHOLDERS. 
POWER'S CHIEF ASSET WAS ITS HOLDINGS OF COMMON STOCK IN ITS SUBSIDIARY,
RAILWAYS.  IT REPRESENTED OVER $72,000,000 OF ITS TOTAL GROSS ASSETS OF
A LITTLE MORE THAN $81,000,000.  ALL OTHER PROPERTY OF POWER WHICH
REMAINED AFTER THE SATISFACTION OF ITS OBLIGATIONS WAS TO BE
DISTRIBUTED BY POWER TO RAILWAYS.  THUS THIS RESIDUAL PROPERTY OF POWER
WOULD INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF RAILWAYS' NEW COMMON STOCKHOLDERS, THE
FORMER STOCKHOLDERS OF POWER. 

DISTRIBUTION OF POWER'S COMMON STOCK HOLDINGS IN RAILWAYS WAS TO BE
EFFECTED ON THE BASIS OF 5 SHARES OF RAILWAYS' COMMON STOCK FOR ONE
SHARE OF POWER'S PREFERRED AND ONE SHARE OF RAILWAYS' COMMON FOR 20
SHARES OF POWER'S COMMON, AN ALLOCATION OF 94.52% TO POWER'S PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS AND 5.48% TO POWER'S COMMON STOCKHOLDERS.  AS RAILWAYS WAS
THE ONLY COMPANY IN THE TIER BELOW POWER OF THE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM,
IT WOULD BECOME BY THE DISSOLUTION OF POWER THE TOP HOLDING COMPANY AND
POWER'S PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKHOLDERS, BY THE DISTRIBUTION TO THEM
OF ALL OF RAILWAYS' COMMON, WOULD HAVE IN THE AGGREGATE THE SAME RIGHTS
IN RAILWAYS AND IN THE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM THAT POWER HAD.  THE
RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF POWER'S STOCKHOLDERS WOULD OF COURSE
DISAPPEAR WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF RAILWAYS' COMMON AND THE DISSOLUTION
OF POWER.  AS HOLDERS OF RAILWAYS' SINGLE CLASS OF COMMON, A NEW
RELATIONSHIP OF EQUALITY WOULD ARISE BETWEEN POWER'S PREFERRED AND
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS. 

THIS ORDER WAS PRECEDED BY AN EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSION INTO THE
SITUATION OF THIS HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM N5.  FOR A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING
OF THE SINGLE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER, IN THE LIQUIDATION OF A HOLDING
COMPANY BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 11(E), A PARTICIPATION BY
JUNIOR SECURITY HOLDERS IN THE ASSETS IS PERMISSIBLE BEFORE PREFERRED
SECURITY HOLDERS HAVE RECEIVED THE ENTIRE LIQUIDATING PREFERENCE
SECURED TO THEM BY THE COMPANY'S CHARTER, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO STATE
ONLY THE FOLLOWING FACTS ABOUT WHICH THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
THE LITIGANTS.  POWER IS A SOLVENT COMPANY.  AS OF APRIL 30, 1942, AND
THERE IS NO INTIMATION THAT ITS CONDITION HAS WORSENED, ITS BALANCE
SHEET SHOWED ASSETS OF $81,159,075 AND LIABILITIES OF ONLY $6,132,976,
WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK STRUCTURE.  ITS PRINCIPAL
ASSET, THE RAILWAYS COMMON STOCK HERETOFORE REFERRED TO, HAS A BOOK
VALUE IN EXCESS OF THE $72,000,000 PLUS AT WHICH IT IS CARRIED ON
POWER'S BALANCE SHEET AND AN ACTUAL VALUE WHICH MAKES POWER
UNQUESTIONABLY SOLVENT WITH LARGE EQUITY VALUES IN ITS STOCK. 

POWER HAS OUTSTANDING 600,000 SHARES OF CLASS A PREFERRED.  THIS
PREFERRED STOCK HAS A LIQUIDATION VALUE OF $100 PER SHARE OR
$60,000,000, PLUS ARREARAGES OF $38,700,000 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1942, OR
A TOTAL LIQUIDATING VALUE AHEAD OF THE COMMON, AS OF THE TIME OF THE
ORDER, OF $98,700,000.  FN6  THERE ARE 2,421,192 SHARES OF CLASS A
COMMON AND 1,055,576 SHARES OF CLASS B COMMON.  FN7 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THE BALANCE SHEET VALUE OF ALL RAILWAYS' COMMON
ON A PRO FORMA CORPORATE BASIS TO BE $77,954,874 AND, WHEN USING A PRO
FORMA CONSOLIDATED BASIS FOR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, TO BE $81,554,330.  ON
A CAPITALIZATION OF REASONABLY ANTICIPATED EARNINGS OF THE SYSTEM, THE
COMMISSION WAS UNABLE TO FIND A VALUE FOR RAILWAYS' COMMON "WHICH
APPROACHES $98,700,000.00."  FN8 IF THE LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE OF
POWER'S PREFERRED STOCK IS APPLICABLE, UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
CONCLUSIONS ON PRESENT VALUATIONS ALL OF THE RAILWAYS' COMMON WOULD GO
ON DISTRIBUTION TO POWER'S PREFERRED.  THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT
THE LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE WAS NOT APPLICABLE AND FOR THESE REASONS. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF MARCH 20, 1941, FOR THE LIQUIDATION AND
DISSOLUTION OF POWER WAS A STEP IN THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE HOLDING
COMPANY SYSTEM WHICH SIMPLIFICATION WAS ENJOINED BY SEC. 11(B)(2) OF
THE ACT.  SATISFACTION OF THE GREAT-GRANDFATHER CLAUSE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
OBTAINED IN THIS OR OTHER HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS BY AN ORDER FOR
MERGER, CONSOLIDATION OR RECAPITALIZATION BETWEEN TOP HOLDING COMPANIES
OR BETWEEN ASSOCIATE COMPANIES IN THE LOWER TIERS OF THE CORPORATE
HIERARCHY.  SUCH PROCEDURE WOULD AVOID THE LIQUIDATION OF POWER.  CF.
WINDHURST V. CENTRAL LEATHER CO., 105 N.J. EQ. 621, 149 A. 36; PORGES
V. VADSCO SALES CORP., 32 A.2D 148, 151.  THE SELECTION BY THE
COMMISSION OF ONE METHOD OF SYSTEM ADJUSTMENT TO ACCOMPLISH
SIMPLIFICATION RATHER THAN ANOTHER IS AN INCIDENT WHICH OUGHT NOT TO
AFFECT RIGHTS.  THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY CONGRESS THROUGH
SEC. 11(B)(2) TO ACCOMPLISH SIMPLIFICATION AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY
AND THE COMMISSION'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT BY DISSOLUTION OF THIS
PARTICULAR COMPANY RESULTS IN A TYPE OF LIQUIDATION WHICH IS ENTIRELY
DISTINCT FROM THE "LIQUIDATION OF THE CORPORATION, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR
INVOLUNTARY" ENVISAGED BY THE CHARTER PROVISIONS OF POWER FOR
PREFERENCES TO THE SENIOR STOCK.  FN9 

THIS CONCLUSION PERMITTED THE COMMISSION TO EXAMINE THE INVESTMENT
VALUES OF THE COMMON AND PREFERRED STOCKS OF POWER.  THE RIGHTS OF THE
PREFERRED STOCK TO $6 ANNUAL CUMULATIVE DIVIDENDS IN THE GOING BUSINESS
FN10  AND TO FULL PRIORITY IN LIQUIDATION OTHER THAN BY OPERATION OF
THE ACT WERE TREATED AS FACTORS IN VALUATION RATHER THAN DETERMINATIVE
OF AMOUNTS PAYABLE IN A TRADITIONAL DISSOLUTION.  UPON ANALYSIS OF THE
HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM'S EXPERIENCE AND UPON AN ESTIMATE OF FUTURE
EARNINGS, THE COMMISSION ASSUMED EARNINGS OF $6,185,000 ANNUALLY WHICH
WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO RAILWAYS' COMMON AND, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE
DISTRIBUTION, TO POWER'S PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKHOLDERS.  SINCE THE
ANNUAL PREFERRED DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS WERE $3,600,000, THERE APPEARED
A BALANCE OF $2,585,000 AVAILABLE FOR THE REDUCTION OF PREFERRED STOCK
ARREARAGES OF $38,700,000 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1942.  THE COMMISSION
NOTED THAT IF ALL THE ASSUMED EARNINGS MATERIALIZED AND WERE APPLIED TO
LIQUIDATING THE PREFERRED CURRENT AND DEFERRED DIVIDENDS, IN
APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN YEARS THE ARREARAGES WOULD BE PAID AND THE COMMON
WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO RECEIVE DIVIDENDS.  FN11  FURTHERMORE, ONLY
BY FORCED LIQUIDATION COULD THE COMMON STOCK BE DEPRIVED OF ITS
POSSIBILITY FOR FUTURE EARNINGS.  ONLY BY MEANS OF FORCED LIQUIDATION
AND THE RECEIPT OF ALL RAILWAYS' COMMON, COULD POWER'S PREFERRED GAIN A
RIGHT TO PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS ABOVE ITS GUARANTEED DIVIDENDS.  THE
DEFERRED DIVIDENDS DO NOT BEAR INTEREST.  WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THE
COMMON STOCK PARTICIPATION WAS REMOTE, THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT
IN ITS "OVER-ALL JUDGMENT" POWER'S COMMON HAD A LEGITIMATE INVESTMENT
VALUE OF A PROPORTION OF 5.48 PER CENT OF POWER'S ASSETS TO THE
PREFERRED'S VALUE OF 94.52 PER CENT.  SUCH A CONCLUSION IS NOT
"SUSCEPTIBLE OF MATHEMATICAL DEMONSTRATION,"  FN12  ANY MORE THAN ANY
OTHER VALUATION OF A UTILITY'S WORTH.  THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THIS
ALLOCATION WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE WITHIN SEC. 11(E). 

PETITIONER DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE ABOVE ALLOCATION OF VALUES BETWEEN
THE PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK OF POWER, IF THE COMMISSION IS CORRECT
IN TREATING THE STOCK RIGHTS AS THOUGH IN A CONTINUING ENTERPRISE
INSTEAD OF IN LIQUIDATION.  PETITIONER RELIES UPON THE CHARTER RIGHTS
WHICH ON LIQUIDATION OF POWER GIVE TO THE PREFERRED $100 AND THE
CUMULATED AND ACCRUED DIVIDENDS.  NOTE 6, SUPRA.  IT RELIES UPON THE
AUTHORITIES OF THIS AND OTHER COURTS WHICH HOLD THAT UNDER A FULL
PRIORITY RULE JUNIOR SECURITIES IN BANKRUPTCY OR EQUITY REORGANIZATIONS
MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSETS UNTIL THE RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF
SENIOR SECURITIES ARE SATISFIED IN FULL.  FN13 PETITIONER SAYS: 

"WHEN THE PLAN, WHATEVER THE DEVICE USED, CONTEMPLATES THE SURRENDER
OF OUTSTANDING SECURITIES FOR NEW SECURITIES, EITHER IN THE SAME OR A
DIFFERENT COMPANY, IT IS NOT 'FAIR AND EQUITABLE' TO FORCE SENIOR
SECURITY HOLDERS TO ACCEPT LESS THAN THAT WHICH THEY ARE CONTRACTUALLY
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE." 

TO PETITIONER, NO DISTINCTION IS TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN LIQUIDATION UNDER
BANKRUPTCY OR REORGANIZATION AND LIQUIDATION UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT BY VIRTUE OF SECS. 11(B)(2) AND 11(E). 

WE REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
APPLIED THE CORRECT RULE OF LAW AS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS
INTER SESE.  THAT IS TO SAY, WHEN THE COMMISSION PROCEEDS IN THE
SIMPLIFICATION OF A HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM, THE RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS
OF A SOLVENT COMPANY WHICH IS ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE
ITS ASSETS AMONG ITS STOCKHOLDERS MAY BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF A
GOING BUSINESS AND NOT AS THOUGH A LIQUIDATION WERE TAKING PLACE. 

THE MANIFEST SOLVENCY OF POWER SIMPLIFIES THE PROBLEM OF
STOCKHOLDERS' RIGHTS WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED.  THE CREDITORS
ARE SATISFIED.  FN14  NO POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT SIMPLIFICATION OF
STRUCTURE IS EMPLOYED HERE TO EVADE OR NULLIFY CREDITORS' RIGHTS IN
REORGANIZATION OR TO TAKE THE PLACE OF TRADITIONAL REORGANIZATION. 
FN15 

LIKE THE BANKRUPTCY AND REORGANIZATION STATUTES, THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT, IN PROVIDING THAT PLANS FOR SIMPLIFICATION BE
"FAIR AND EQUITABLE," INCORPORATES THE PRINCIPLE OF FULL PRIORITY IN
THE TREATMENT TO BE ACCORDED VARIOUS CLASSES OF SECURITY INTERESTS. 
THIS RIGHT TO PRIORITY IN ASSETS WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN CREDITORS AND
STOCKHOLDERS, EXISTS ALSO BETWEEN VARIOUS CLASSES OF STOCKHOLDERS. 
WHEN BY CONTRACT AS EVIDENCED BY CHARTER PROVISIONS ONE CLASS OF
STOCKHOLDERS IS SUPERIOR TO ANOTHER IN ITS CLAIM AGAINST EARNINGS OR
ASSETS, THAT SUPERIOR POSITION MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY COURTS OR AGENCIES
WHICH DEAL WITH THE EARNINGS OR ASSETS OF SUCH A COMPANY.  FAIRNESS AND
EQUITY REQUIRE THIS CONCLUSION.  EVEN BEFORE OUR DECISION IN CASE V.
LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO. ON NOVEMBER 6, 1939, RECENT FEDERAL
CASES HAD RECOGNIZED THIS PRIORITY.  FN16  THAT HAS BEEN THEIR VIEW
SINCE THE CASE DECISION, IN RE PORTO RICAN AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 112
F.2D 655, 656-57.  THIS IS THE RULE APPLIED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE
SIMPLIFICATION OF CORPORATE STRUCTURE.  THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES AND
APPLIES THE DOCTRINE OF FULL PRIORITY BY GIVING VALUE TO THE RIGHTS OF
THE PREFERRED IN A GOING CONCERN RATHER THAN AS IF BY SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION.  ITS VIEWS ARE STATED BELOW.  FN17  THE ISSUE IN THIS
CASE IS NOT WHETHER FULL PRIORITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO PREFERRED OVER
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS BUT WHETHER THE PRIORITY WHICH IS ESTABLISHED BY
THE CHARTER, NOTE 6, IS APPLICABLE TO A SIMPLIFICATION BY LIQUIDATION
UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2) AND (E).  THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT IF THE CHARTER
PROVISION APPLIES TO THIS SITUATION, IT CANNOT BE DISREGARDED AND THAT
IN SUCH A LIQUIDATION "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" WOULD REQUIRE THE
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS ONLY TO THE PREFERRED.  WE DO NOT REACH THAT
QUESTION.  THE POINT AT ISSUE IS WHETHER THIS CHARTER PROVISION
APPLIES. 

THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CHARTER PROVISION UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935 IS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW.  FN18 

WHEN THE PRESIDENT SENT TO CONGRESS THE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL POWER
POLICY COMMITTEE WHICH PLACED THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE ON
HOLDING COMPANIES BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, HE SAID OF THE PENDING
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY BILL: 

"SUCH A MEASURE WILL NOT DESTROY LEGITIMATE BUSINESS OR WHOLESOME AND
PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENT.  IT WILL NOT DESTROY A PENNY OF ACTUAL VALUE OF
THOSE OPERATING PROPERTIES WHICH HOLDING COMPANIES NOW CONTROL AND
WHICH HOLDING COMPANY SECURITIES REPRESENT INSOFAR AS THEY HAVE ANY
VALUE.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT WILL SURROUND THE NECESSARY REORGANIZATION
OF THE HOLDING COMPANY WITH SAFEGUARDS WHICH WILL IN FACT PROTECT THE
INVESTOR."  S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

THAT REPORT URGED THE SAME CARE TO INVESTORS: 

"SIMPLIFICATION AND REORGANIZATION OF HOLDING-COMPANY STRUCTURES,
MAKING POSSIBLE WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD THE PRACTICAL ELIMINATION OF
THE HOLDING COMPANY, SHOULD BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
SUPERVISION OVER A PERIOD OF TIME TO PREVENT UNDUE LOSSES TO SECURITY
HOLDERS FROM INVESTMENT DISLOCATIONS."  ID., P. 60.  OF COURSE,
CONGRESS WOULD WISH, IN SIMPLIFYING A HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM CAPITAL
STRUCTURE, TO PRESERVE VALUES TO INVESTORS, NOT TO DESTROY THEM.  FN19
CONSEQUENTLY, WHILE GIVING THE COMMISSION POWER TO COMPEL THE
ELIMINATION OF HOLDING COMPANIES DEEMED UNECONOMIC, IT ALLOWED THE
AFFECTED COMPANIES TO PROPOSE PLANS TO THE COMMISSION TO EFFECTUATE THE
OBJECTS AND THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE SUCH PLANS WHEN THEY WERE
CONSIDERED "FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  SECS. 11(B)(2) AND (E), NOTES 3 AND
4. 

IT MAY BE THAT IF THE CHARTER LIQUIDATION PREFERENCE WERE HELD TO
COVER THIS SITUATION IT WOULD NOT FRUSTRATE THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE
HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM, TO THE SAME DEGREE THAT THE GOLD CLAUSE
AGREEMENTS INTERFERED WITH THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE GOLD
CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR.  NORMAN V. B. & O.R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, 306, ET
SEQ., AND CASES CITED.  DISTRIBUTION TO PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS ONLY
WITH DISREGARD OF COMMON'S INTEREST WOULD ELIMINATE POWER AND CURE THE
SYSTEM'S PRESENT INCONSISTENCY WITH THE GREAT-GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.  WE
THINK, HOWEVER, THE CHARTER PREFERENCE IS INOPERATIVE IN SIMPLIFICATION
UNDER SEC. 11(B)(2).  THE PROVISION HAVING BEEN ADOPTED IN 1929, SIX
YEARS PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT, A
"SIMPLIFICATION" UNDER THIS ACT, HAVING AS AN INCIDENT TO IT THE
DISSOLUTION OF ONE COMPANY IN A HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM, WAS NOT AN
ANTICIPATED "LIQUIDATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF POWER'S CHARTER
PROVISION.  ENFORCEMENT OF AN OVERRIDING PUBLIC POLICY SHOULD NOT HAVE
ITS EFFECT VISITED ON ONE CLASS WITH A CORRESPONDING WINDFALL TO
ANOTHER CLASS OF SECURITY HOLDERS.  NOR SHOULD COMMON STOCK VALUES BE
MADE TO DEPEND ON WHETHER THE COMMISSION, IN ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE ACT, RESORTS TO DISSOLUTION OF A PARTICULAR COMPANY IN THE HOLDING
COMPANY SYSTEM, OR RESORTS INSTEAD TO THE DEVICES OF MERGER OR
CONSOLIDATION, WHICH WOULD NOT RUN AFOUL OF A CHARTER PROVISION
FORMULATED YEARS BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE ACT IN QUESTION.  THE
COMMISSION IN ITS ENFORCEMENT OF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE
HAMPERED IN ITS DETERMINATION OF THE PROPER TYPE OF HOLDING COMPANY
STRUCTURE BY CONSIDERATIONS OF AVOIDANCE OF HARSH EFFECTS ON VARIOUS
STOCK INTERESTS WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM ENFORCEMENT OF CHARTER
PROVISIONS OF DOUBTFUL APPLICABILITY TO THE PROCEDURES UNDERTAKEN. 
WHERE PRE-EXISTING CONTRACT PROVISIONS EXIST WHICH PRODUCE RESULTS AT
VARIANCE WITH A LEGISLATIVE POLICY WHICH WAS NOT FORESEEABLE AT THE
TIME THE CONTRACT WAS MADE, THEY CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE. 
COMPARE NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 131
F.2D 274; IN RE LACLEDE GAS LIGHT CO., 57 F.SUPP.  997.  THE REASON
DOES NOT LIE IN THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF POWER CONTINUES IN
ANOTHER FORM.  THAT IS TRUE OF BANKRUPTCY AND EQUITY REORGANIZATION. 
IT LIES IN THE FACT THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT ITS EXERCISE OF
POWER TO SIMPLIFY SHOULD MATURE RIGHTS, CREATED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF SIMPLIFICATION OF SYSTEM STRUCTURE, WHICH OTHERWISE
WOULD ONLY ARISE BY VOLUNTARY ACTION OF STOCKHOLDERS OR, INVOLUNTARILY,
THROUGH ACTION OF CREDITORS.  WE MUST ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
EXERCISE ITS POWER WITH THE LEAST POSSIBLE HARM TO CITIZENS. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT SUCH A CONCLUSION IS AT VARIANCE WITH THIS
COURT'S RULING IN CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S.
156.  IN THAT CASE A LIQUIDATION OF THE READING COMPANY, A HOLDER OF
INTERESTS IN RAILROADS AND COAL MINES, WAS COMPELLED BY GOVERNMENTAL
PROSECUTION SO THAT IT WOULD NOT BE OPERATING IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT OR THE HEPBURN ACT.  FN20  ITS COAL PROPERTIES,
CORPORATE ASSETS, WERE PASSED TO A NEWLY ORGANIZED COAL COMPANY, THE
VALUE OF WHOSE STOCK, BY NEGOTIABLE CERTIFICATES OF INTEREST, CAME INTO
POSSESSION OF READING'S OLD STOCKHOLDERS INDIVIDUALLY.  THE
DISTRIBUTION GAVE EQUAL PARTICIPATION IN THE COAL PROPERTIES TO THE
COMMON AND PREFERRED STOCK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER AGREEMENT AS
TO ASSETS ON LIQUIDATION, PAGES 177-181.  THE COMMON STOCK CONTENDED
THAT AS THE VALUE OF THE COAL PROPERTIES WAS SURPLUS, ALL OF THE COAL
CERTIFICATES SHOULD GO TO THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS AS IN A CONTINUING
BUSINESS.  THUS, BY ITS APPROVAL OF THE DISTRIBUTION, THIS COURT
HANDLED THE LIQUIDATION, WHICH WAS FORCED BY LAW, SAYS PETITIONER, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER PROVISIONS AND NOT AS THOUGH IT WERE A
CONTINUING BUSINESS. 

THE CONTINENTAL OR READING CASE TURNED, HOWEVER, ON THE CHARTER
RIGHTS OF THE PREFERRED TO SHARE EQUALLY WITH THE COMMON IN EARNINGS
WHICH HAD BECOME ASSETS, PAGES 179-80, NOT ON WHETHER A RIGHT TO SHARE
WAS MATURED OR VARIED BY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION.  CONTRARY TO THE
SITUATION IN THIS PRESENT CASE, THE CHARTER PROVISIONS OF THE READING
COMPANY WERE ADOPTED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE SANCTIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT
AGAINST MONOPOLY.  259 U.S. 177 AND 171.  WE DO NOT FEEL CONSTRAINED BY
ITS DEALING WITH CHARTER RIGHTS AS IN A NORMAL LIQUIDATION TO HOLD THAT
WHERE LIQUIDATION IS ADOPTED AS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINE, THE
PREFERENCES ARE THEREBY MATURED. 

AS INDICATED EARLIER IN THIS OPINION, WE HAVE NOT UNDERTAKEN TO
REVIEW THE FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ALLOCATION OF STOCK BETWEEN
THE PREFERRED AND COMMON IS IN PROPER PROPORTION.  THAT ISSUE IS NOT
MADE.  IT WAS VIGOROUSLY DISCUSSED BY COMMISSIONER HEALY IN THE
DISSENTING OPINION.  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE 4215, P. 39 ET SEQ.
SEE DODD, HOLDING COMPANY ACT RECAPITALIZATIONS, 57 HARV. L. REV. 295,
319.  THE ALLOCATION PROPERLY MAY BE MADE WITHOUT DOLLAR VALUATION SO
LONG AS "EACH SECURITY HOLDER IN THE ORDER OF HIS PRIORITY RECEIVES
FROM THAT WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR THE SATISFACTION OF HIS CLAIM THE
EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE RIGHTS SURRENDERED."  GROUP OF INVESTORS V.
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 565; CONSOLIDATED ROCK
PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 529-30; ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC
R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448, 482; KANSAS CITY TERMINAL R. CO. V. CENTRAL
UNION TRUST CO., 271 U.S. 445, 455. 

AS THE PARTIES HAVE NOT CHALLENGED THEM, WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED IN
ANY WAY THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SECTIONS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY
ACT INVOLVED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 803. 

FN2  THE FINDINGS AND OPINION WHICH LED TO THIS ORDER ARE FOUND IN IN
THE MATTER OF THE UNITED LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY, 8 S.E.C. 837. 

FN3  "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE
AFTER JANUARY 1, 1938: 

     .         .         .         . . 

"(2)  TO REQUIRE BY ORDER, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING,
THAT EACH REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY, AND EACH SUBSIDIARY COMPANY
THEREOF, SHALL TAKE SUCH STEPS AS THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND NECESSARY
TO ENSURE THAT THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OR CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF ANY
COMPANY IN THE HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM DOES NOT UNDULY OR UNNECESSARILY
COMPLICATE THE STRUCTURE, OR UNFAIRLY OR INEQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE VOTING
POWER AMONG SECURITY HOLDERS, OF SUCH HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM.  IN
CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH THE COMMISSION SHALL
REQUIRE EACH REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY (AND ANY COMPANY IN THE SAME
HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM WITH SUCH HOLDING COMPANY) TO TAKE SUCH ACTION
AS THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT SUCH HOLDING
COMPANY SHALL CEASE TO BE A HOLDING COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF ITS
SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES WHICH ITSELF HAS A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH IS A
HOLDING COMPANY  ...."  49 STAT. 820-21, SEC. 11(B)(2). 

FN4  "(E)  IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS OR ORDER AS
THE COMMISSION MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
OR FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS, ANY REGISTERED HOLDING
COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF A REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY MAY,
AT ANY TIME AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936, SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE COMMISSION FOR
THE DIVESTMENT OF CONTROL, SECURITIES, OR OTHER ASSETS, OR FOR OTHER
ACTION BY SUCH COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENABLING SUCH COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF TO
COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B).  IF, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND SUCH PLAN, AS
SUBMITTED OR AS MODIFIED, NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTION (B) AND FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED BY SUCH
PLAN, THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE AN ORDER APPROVING SUCH PLAN; AND THE
COMMISSION, AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMPANY, MAY APPLY TO A COURT, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (F) OF SECTION 18, TO
ENFORCE AND CARRY OUT THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF SUCH PLAN.  IF, UPON
ANY SUCH APPLICATION, THE COURT, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING, SHALL APPROVE SUCH PLAN AS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND AS
APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11, THE COURT AS A
COURT OF EQUITY MAY, TO SUCH EXTENT AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF SUCH PLAN, TAKE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND POSSESSION OF THE COMPANY OR COMPANIES AND
THE ASSETS THEREOF, WHEREVER LOCATED; AND THE COURT SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO APPOINT A TRUSTEE, AND THE COURT MAY CONSTITUTE AND
APPOINT THE COMMISSION AS SOLE TRUSTEE, TO HOLD OR ADMINISTER, UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN THERETOFORE
APPROVED BY THE COURT AND THE COMMISSION, THE ASSETS SO POSSESSED."  49
STAT. 822, SEC. 11(E). 

FN5  THE DETAILS ARE FULLY COVERED IN 8 S.E.C. 837 AND APPLICATION
14, RELEASE NO. 4215. 

FN6  POWER'S CHARTER PROVIDES:  "UPON THE DISSOLUTION OR LIQUIDATION
OF THE CORPORATION, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY, THE HOLDERS OF
THE CLASS A PREFERRED STOCK SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE OUT OF THE NET
ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION, WHETHER CAPITAL OR SURPLUS, FOR EACH SHARE
OF SUCH STOCK, ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND A SUM OF MONEY EQUIVALENT TO ALL
CUMULATIVE DIVIDENDS ON SUCH SHARE, BOTH ACCRUED AND IN ARREARS
(WHETHER OR NOT THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN DECLARED OR EARNED), INCLUDING
THE FULL DIVIDEND FOR THE THEN CURRENT QUARTERLY PERIOD, BEFORE ANY
PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE HOLDERS OF ANY STOCK OTHER THAN THE CLASS A
PREFERRED STOCK.  ANY ASSETS THEREAFTER REMAINING SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTABLE AMONG HOLDERS OF STOCK OTHER THAN THE CLASS A PREFERRED
STOCK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RIGHTS AT THE TIME OF THE
DISTRIBUTION." 

THE AMENDED CHARTER (1929) ALSO CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: 

"THE COMMON STOCK OF THE COMPANY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF
THE HOLDERS OF THE CLASS A PREFERRED STOCK." 

FN7  THE TWO CLASSES ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME RIGHTS, EXCEPT THE B
HAS VOTES.  AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE BEFORE US AS TO THE RELATIVE RIGHTS
OR PRIORITIES OF THE COMMON, THE TWO CLASSES WILL BE TREATED IN THIS
OPINION AS A SINGLE CLASS OF COMMON. 

FN8  "IN ORDER TO SHOW A VALUE OF AS MUCH AS $98,700,000, IT WOULD BE
NECESSARY TO CAPITALIZE 1942 CONSOLIDATED NET EARNINGS APPLICABLE TO
THE COMMON STOCK OF RAILWAYS (THE HIGHEST EARNINGS SINCE 1931) AT A
RATE OF 6.9%, A TIMES-EARNINGS RATIO OF 14.5.  EVEN IF THE MOST LIBERAL
ESTIMATE OF EARNINGS MADE BY THE MANAGEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$7,000,000, BE TAKEN AS THE MEASURE OF PROSPECTIVE EARNING POWER,
CAPITALIZATION OF SUCH EARNINGS AT A RATE PRODUCING A TIMES-EARNINGS
RATIO OF 14.1 IS NECESSARY TO REACH AN OVER-ALL VALUE OF $98,700,000." 
RELEASE NO. 4215, PP. 7-8. 

THE COMMISSION ILLUSTRATED THE MARKET VALUATION BY TIMES-EARNINGS
RATIO BY POINTING OUT THAT FOR NINE REPRESENTATIVE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANIES IT HAD AVERAGED FROM A HIGH OF 12.5 IN 1937 TO A LOW
OF 5.1 IN 1942 WITH 1943 AT 7.1.  ID. 

FN9  RELEASE NO. 4215, PP. 9-12. 

FN10  8 S.E.C. 842.    FN11  RELEASE NO. 4215, P. 18. 

FN12  ID., P. 19. 

FN13  NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482; CASE V. LOS
ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308 U.S. 106; CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS
CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510; MARINE PROPERTIES V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST
CO., 317 U.S. 78; ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448;
GROUP OF INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523. 

FN14  CREDITORS' CONTRACTS ALSO HAVE BEEN DECLARED SUBJECT TO
EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT IN CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS SO LONG AS THEY
RECEIVE "FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT" WHETHER THE REORGANIZATION IS IN
BANKRUPTCY (KANSAS CITY TERMINAL R. CO. V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., 271
U.S. 445, 455; CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510,
528-30; GROUP OF INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S.
523, 565-66) OR IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATORY STATUTES.  CONTINENTAL
INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 156, 170-76.  THE FULL PRIORITY
RULE APPLIES TO REORGANIZATIONS OF SOLVENT COMPANIES.  CONSOLIDATED
ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 527. 

FN15  SEE IN THE MATTER OF JACKSONVILLE GAS COMPANY, HOLDING COMPANY
ACT RELEASE NO. 3570, IN RE JACKSONVILLE GAS CO., 46 F.SUPP.  852,
856. 

FN16  IN RE NEW YORK RAILWAYS CORP., 82 F.2D 739, 743-44; IN RE
NATIONAL FOOD PRODUCTS CORP., 23 F.SUPP.  979, 985; IN RE UTILITIES
POWER & LIGHT CORP., 29 F.SUPP.  763, 769. 

FN17  "IT IS POINTED OUT IN COMMISSIONER HEALY'S SEPARATE OPINION
THAT THE WORDS 'FAIR AND EQUITABLE' EMBODIED IN SECTION 11 HAVE A
SETTLED MEANING, AS DETERMINED BY THE COURTS, AND THAT AN APPLICATION
OF THE 'ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES' DOCTRINE MUST RESULT IN NO DISTRIBUTION TO
POWER'S COMMON STOCK IN THIS CASE.  BUT THAT IS BECAUSE HE MEASURES THE
RIGHTS OF THE PREFERRED STOCK AS THEY WOULD BE MEASURED IN BANKRUPTCY
CASES, AND NOT MERELY BECAUSE HE FOLLOWS THE 'ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES'
DOCTRINE IN DETERMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE MEASUREMENT.  IN OTHER
WORDS, WE CAN AGREE WITH HIM WHEN HE SAYS THAT ABSOLUTE PRIORITIES MUST
BE RESPECTED, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT DOCTRINE SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE
COMMON STOCK MUST NOT BE ACCORDED ANY PARTICIPATION UNLESS THE
PREFERRED STOCK HAS BEEN FULLY COMPENSATED FOR ITS RIGHTS AND
PRIORITIES.  BUT THERE THE AREA OF AGREEMENT STOPS, BECAUSE HE SAYS
FURTHER THAT THE RIGHTS AND PRIORITIES OF THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS
ARE THE SAME HERE AS IN BANKRUPTCY CASES, WHERE THEIR CLAIMS TO
LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES (INCLUDING DIVIDEND ARREARAGES) ARE TREATED AS
MATURED.  IN OUR VIEW IT WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE AND CONTRARY TO THE
PLAIN INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO SO HOLD."  HOLDING COMPANY ACT RELEASE
NO. 4215, P. 12. 

"UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FAIR AND EQUITABLE COMPENSATION WILL BE
GIVEN TO ALL OF THE CLAIMANTS IF THEIR RIGHTS ARE MEASURED NOT IN TERMS
OF THE SITUATION CREATED BY THE STATUTE BUT RATHER IN TERMS OF THE
SITUATION TERMINATED BY IT - I.E., AS THOUGH NO LIQUIDATION WERE TO
TAKE PLACE.  IN THIS WAY, EACH CLASS OF STOCK WILL BE ACCORDED ITS
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE BENEFITS TO BE GAINED FROM THE ELIMINATION
OF A USELESS AND EXPENSIVE CORPORATE ENTITY AND FROM THE RECEIPT OF A
SECURITY REPRESENTING A MORE DIRECT INVESTMENT IN THE UNDERLYING ASSETS
AND EARNINGS OF THE SYSTEM."  ID., P. 13. 

FN18  JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 101, 104; WRAGG V. FEDERAL
LAND BANK, 317 U.S. 325, 328; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. JOHNSON, 264
U.S. 1, 10; SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON CO., 317 U.S. 173, 176;
LABOR BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111, 120, 129; CLEARFIELD
TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363, 366; O'BRIEN V. WESTERN UNION
TELEGRAPH CO., 113 F.2D 539, 541. 

FN19  "SUCH DISPOSITION AS MAY BE NECESSARY CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
REORGANIZATION WHICH WILL EQUITABLY REDISTRIBUTE SECURITIES AMONG
EXISTING SECURITY HOLDERS."  S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
16; H. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 49-50. 

FN20  259 U.S. 156 AT 177; UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26;
26 STAT. 209; 34 STAT. 584. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND I THINK THE JUDGMENT
BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE UNITED LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY, THE SUBJECT OF THIS LITIGATION,
IS A HOLDING COMPANY SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1935, 49 STAT. 803.  IT HAS
$60,000,000 PAR VALUE OF CLASS A PREFERRED STOCK, OF WHICH PETITIONER
HOLDS SOME SHARES, AND TWO CLASSES OF COMMON STOCK.  THE CORPORATE
CHARTER PROVIDES: 

"UPON THE DISSOLUTION OR LIQUIDATION OF THE CORPORATION, WHETHER
VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY, THE HOLDERS OF THE CLASS A PREFERRED STOCK
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE OUT OF THE NET ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION,
WHETHER CAPITAL OR SURPLUS, FOR EACH SHARE OF SUCH STOCK, ONE HUNDRED
DOLLARS AND A SUM OF MONEY EQUIVALENT TO ALL CUMULATIVE DIVIDENDS ON
SUCH SHARE, BOTH ACCRUED AND IN ARREARS (WHETHER OR NOT THE SAME SHALL
HAVE BEEN DECLARED OR EARNED), INCLUDING THE FULL DIVIDEND FOR THE THEN
CURRENT QUARTERLY PERIOD, BEFORE ANY PAYMENT IS MADE TO THE HOLDERS OF
ANY STOCK OTHER THAN THE CLASS A PREFERRED STOCK." 

THE DIVIDENDS ON THE PREFERRED STOCK ACCRUED AND UNPAID AMOUNT TO
$64.50 PER SHARE, AND THE TOTAL PRIORITY OF THE PREFERRED STOCK AS
PROVIDED BY THE CORPORATE CHARTER IS $98,700,000. 

COMMISSION, AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THEIR CORPORATE STRUCTURES, "TO
COMPEL THE SIMPLIFICATION OF PUBLICUTILITY HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEMS" AND
TO REQUIRE ANY SUCH HOLDING COMPANY "TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS THE
COMMISSION SHALL FIND NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT SUCH HOLDING COMPANY
SHALL CEASE TO BE A HOLDING COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF ITS
SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES WHICH ITSELF HAS A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH IS A
HOLDING COMPANY."  SECTION 11(E) REQUIRES ANY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS
AFFECTED BY SUCH PLAN." 

ACTING UNDER THESE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 THE COMMISSION HAS ORDERED
THAT UNITED BE "LIQUIDATED AND DISSOLVED" AS A STEP IN THE
SIMPLIFICATION OF THE HOLDING COMPANY STRUCTURE, SO THAT UNITED SHALL
CEASE TO BE A HOLDING COMPANY AS COMMANDED BY SEC. 11(B)(2), AND ITS
STOCKHOLDERS SHALL BECOME STOCKHOLDERS IN ITS SUBSIDIARY, RAILWAYS CO.
THE COMMISSION, IN ORDERING DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION OF THE COMPANY,
AND PROVIDING FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ITS ASSETS, FOUND THAT THE
STIPULATED PRIORITY OF THE PREFERRED STOCK IS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE
PRESENT VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S ASSETS.  IT SAID THAT IF THE STIPULATED
PRIORITY "IS CONTROLLING, OUR INQUIRY MUST PERFORCE BE ENDED AT THIS
POINT IN A DECISION THAT THE PREFERRED STOCK IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE
ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE COMMON." 

NEVERTHELESS, THE COMMISSION HAS ORDERED, AND THIS COURT SUSTAINS THE
ORDER, THAT ONLY 94.52% OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY BE ALLOCATED TO
THE PREFERRED STOCK UPON LIQUIDATION AND 5.48% TO THE COMMON.  FOR
PURPOSES OF LIQUIDATION THE COMMISSION MEASURED THE RIGHTS OF THE
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF STOCKHOLDERS IN TERMS OF THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF
THEIR INTERESTS AS THOUGH THE LIQUIDATION WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD
ORDERED WERE NOT TO TAKE PLACE AND THE CORPORATION WERE TO CONTINUE AS
A GOING CONCERN.  IN SHORT, IN LIQUIDATING THE CORPORATION IT
DETERMINED, AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT DECLARES, THAT IN DISTRIBUTING
THE ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION AMONG ITS STOCKHOLDERS THE RIGHTS OF THE
STOCKHOLDERS "MAY BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF A GOING BUSINESS AND NOT
AS THOUGH A LIQUIDATION WERE TAKING PLACE." 

PEERING INTO THE FUTURE WITH ALMOST CLAIRVOYANT PERCIPIENCE THE
COMMISSION PROPHESIED THAT IF THE COMPANY NOW BEING LIQUIDATED AND
DISSOLVED WERE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE ITS OPERATIONS IT WOULD, FIFTEEN
YEARS HENCE, HAVE PAID ALL ARREARS OF DIVIDENDS ON THE PREFERRED AND
WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO PAY AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL RETURN ON THE COMMON
STOCK IN EXCESS OF $2,500,000.  THIS PROPHECY ASSUMED AVERAGE FUTURE
EARNINGS IN EXCESS OF $6,000,000 A YEAR, A SUM WHICH "ACTUAL EARNINGS
...  HAVE NEVER IN THE PAST TEN YEARS EXCEEDED  ..., EXCEPT IN 1942." 
THIS PROGNOSIS, THE COMMISSION THOUGHT, AFFORDED JUSTIFICATION FOR
DISTRIBUTING THE ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION UPON ITS LIQUIDATION AND
DISSOLUTION, NOT ACCORDING TO THE STIPULATED PRIORITY OF THE PREFERRED
STOCK UPON LIQUIDATION, WHICH IS IN FACT TAKING PLACE, OR INDEED IN
CONFORMITY TO ITS PRIORITY RIGHT TO CURRENT EARNINGS IF THE COMPANY
WERE TO CONTINUE UNLIQUIDATED.  FOR BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER THE
PREFERRED IS REQUIRED TO SURRENDER TO THE COMMON WHAT IS THE EQUIVALENT
OF MORE THAN 5% OF ITS FIXED PRIORITY RIGHT TO THE ANNUAL EARNINGS FROM
THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY, WHICH EARNINGS OF A "GOING BUSINESS" WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO SATISFY DIVIDENDS ON THE PREFERRED BEFORE ANY PAYMENT OF
DIVIDENDS ON THE COMMON.  THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS ARE THUS DENIED
THE PRIORITY FOR WHICH THEY HAVE STIPULATED ON LIQUIDATION, AND ALSO
THE PRIORITY WITH RESPECT TO CURRENT EARNINGS TO WHICH THEY WOULD BE
ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR POSITION AS PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS IF THE
COMPANY, WHICH HAS BEEN IN FACT CONDEMNED TO DEATH BY THE COMMISSION,
IS, AS THE COMMISSION AT THE SAME TIME SUPPOSES, TO BE REGARDED AS
LIVING AND FUNCTIONING AS "A GOING BUSINESS." 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW SUSTAINING SO EXTRAORDINARY A RESULT
SHOULD, IN OUR OPINION, BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE COMMISSION, WITHOUT
AUTHORITY IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE COMMAND OF THE STATUTE, HAS
DISREGARDED THE PLAIN TERMS OF THE CORPORATE CHARTER CONTROLLING
PRIORITY OF THE PREFERRED STOCK UPON LIQUIDATION OF THE COMPANY WHETHER
VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT ADOPTS FOR ITS SUPPORT A GROUND WHICH THE
COMMISSION DECLINED TO ADOPT, AND THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION RESTED
UPON A SECOND GROUND ON WHICH THE COURT APPEARS NOT TO RELY.  WE THINK
IT CLEAR THAT NEITHER GROUND IS SUPPORTABLE.  THE FIRST IS THAT THE
CHARTER PROVISION FIXING THE PRIORITY OF THE PREFERRED STOCK IN THE
EVENT OF "LIQUIDATION" WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY AND IS INAPPLICABLE TO
A "LIQUIDATION" LIKE THE PRESENT.  FOR HERE, IT IS INSISTED, THE
LIQUIDATION, WHICH HAS IN FACT BEEN ORDERED AND IS BEING ENFORCED, IS
NEVERTHELESS TO BE REGARDED AS A FICTION, AND THE INTERESTS OF THE
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF STOCKHOLDERS ARE TO BE MEASURED BY RESORT TO THE
FICTION THAT THEY ARE CONTINUING INTERESTS IN A CORPORATION WHICH IS
NOT TO BE LIQUIDATED, BUT IS TO BE CONTINUED AS A GOING CONCERN.  THE
OTHER GROUND, ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION, IS THAT IF THE CHARTER
PROVISION DOES APPLY THE COMMISSION IS FREE TO OVERRIDE IT BY ANY PLAN
OF DISTRIBUTION WHICH IT FINDS TO BE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE." 

AS TO THE FIRST IT IS PLAIN THAT THE COMPANY IS NOW BEING LIQUIDATED
AND DISSOLVED; THAT THE LIQUIDATION IS INVOLUNTARY; AND THAT SOME OF
THE CORPORATION'S ASSETS ARE BEING DISTRIBUTED TO THE COMMON STOCK
BEFORE SATISFACTION OF THE STIPULATED PRIORITY OF THE PREFERRED, AND
THIS WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF ALL CONCERNED THAT THE COMPANY IS WITHOUT
ASSETS TO SATISFY THE PRIORITY.  SINCE THESE ARE THE PRECISE CONDITIONS
ON WHICH THE PRIORITY PROVISION WAS, ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS, TO
OPERATE, IT IS NOT APPARENT WHY THIS "LIQUIDATION" IS NOT A
"LIQUIDATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CHARTER PROVISION. 

IT IS SAID THAT ALTHOUGH THE LIQUIDATION IS INVOLUNTARY, IT IS NOT
WITHIN THE CHARTER PROVISION, AND THAT THE STIPULATION FOR PRIORITY ON
LIQUIDATION MAY BE DISREGARDED BECAUSE THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT WAS
ENACTED AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CHARTER, AND HENCE THE PARTIES TO THE
INCORPORATION COULD NOT HAVE CONTEMPLATED A COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION
UNDER ITS PROVISIONS.  WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SUPPOSE THAT A
STOCKHOLDER WHO STIPULATES FOR PRIORITY UPON LIQUIDATION, WHETHER
VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY, IS AT ALL CONCERNED WITH THE PARTICULAR
SOURCE OF THE POWER WHICH MAY COMPEL THE LIQUIDATION OF HIS INVESTMENT
OR WITH THE PURPOSE OF ITS EXERCISE.  UNLESS WORDS HAVE LOST THEIR
MEANING, THE STIPULATION FOR PRIORITY IN THIS CASE CANNOT FAIRLY BE
TAKEN NOT TO INCLUDE ANY KIND OF A LIQUIDATION WHICH WOULD COMPEL THE
SURRENDER OF THE STOCKHOLDER'S INVESTMENT AND FORCE HIM TO SEVER HIS
CONNECTION WITH THE CORPORATION IN WHICH HE HAS INVESTED. 

WHEN THE PREFERRED STOCK OF THE UNITED WAS ISSUED IN 1929 THERE WERE
NUMEROUS STATUTES, STATE AND FEDERAL, WHICH AUTHORIZED LIQUIDATION AND
DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATIONS BY GOVERNMENT COMPULSION.  SEE FOR EXAMPLE
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 156.  IT IS THE
VERIEST FICTION TO SAY THAT INVESTORS IN CORPORATE SECURITIES AT THAT
TIME COULD NOT OR DID NOT CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ADDITION OF A
SINGLE STATUTE TO THIS LIST, OR THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS OF UNITED BY THE
STIPULATION FOR PRIORITY UPON LIQUIDATION, VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY,
INTENDED TO EXCLUDE FROM ITS OPERATION ANY METHOD OF INVOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION WHICH WOULD AFFECT THEIR INTERESTS.  TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
PRESENT STIPULATION FOR PRIORITY UPON INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION DID NOT
ENVISAGE A LIQUIDATION SUCH AS THIS ONE SEEMS LIKE SAYING THAT AN
INSURANCE POLICY PAYABLE ON THE DEATH OF THE INSURED CREATES NO
OBLIGATION IF THE INSURED DIES FROM A DISEASE WHICH WAS UNKNOWN WHEN
THE POLICY WAS WRITTEN.    WE CANNOT ASSENT TO THE PROPOSITION ADVANCED
BY THE COMMISSION THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PRIORITY STIPULATION WAS
INTENDED TO BE APPLICABLE TO ANY KIND OF AN INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION,
INCLUDING ONE SUCH AS THE PRESENT, THE COMMISSION CAN NEVERTHELESS
OVERRIDE IT.  SUCH PROVISIONS FOR PRIORITY IN A CORPORATE CHARTER
CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT AMONG THE STOCKHOLDERS, WHICH IS ENTITLED TO
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, BEDFORD V. EASTERN BUILDING & LOAN ASSN.,
181 U.S. 227; HOPKINS FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN. V. CLEARY, 296 U.S.
315; TREIGLE V. ACME HOMESTEAD ASSN., 297 U.S. 189, 194-6, IMPAIRMENT
OF WHICH IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO CONGRESS.  NO
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS RAISED HERE, BUT WE FIND NO PROVISION OF THE
STATUTE WHICH PURPORTS TO CONFER ON THE COMMISSION, IN THE EXERCISE OF
ITS POWER TO LIQUIDATE A CORPORATION, ANY AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDE A
LAWFUL STIPULATION IN WHICH THE STOCKHOLDERS HAVE JOINED FIXING THEIR
RELATIVE RIGHTS IN THE EVENT OF LIQUIDATION. 

ON THE ARGUMENT OF THIS CASE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT REFERRED TO
THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN SETTING ASIDE THE CONTRACT AS AN EXERCISE OF
ITS POWER TO "REMOLD" THE CONTRACT.  WHETHER THIS CHARACTERIZATION OF
THE COMMISSION'S ACTION MAY BE THOUGHT TO RENDER IT MORE PALATABLE TO
THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WHOSE LAWFUL CONTRACT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY
THE COMMISSION, IT IS PLAIN THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME CONTROLLING
DIRECTION OF THE STATUTE THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES HERE WHICH CALL FOR
THE EXERCISE OF ANY IMPLIED POWER OF THE COMMISSION OR COURT TO
READJUST OR RESTATE THE RIGHTS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS WITHOUT REGARD TO
THEIR CONTRACT.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE PRESENT STIPULATION IS
UNLAWFUL, OPPRESSIVE OR INEQUITABLE, OR SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER INFIRMITY;
OR THAT IT IS INCAPABLE OF BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE PRESENT LIQUIDATION
TO WHICH IT APPLIES.  HENCE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE OF
EQUITY POWERS TO ADJUST THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAS
BEEN SET ASIDE; OR FOR THE COMMISSION'S ARGUMENT, WHICH THE COURT OF
APPEALS BELOW SEEMS TO HAVE SUSTAINED, 142 F.2D 411, 419, THAT THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IS SUPPORTABLE AS AN EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL
POWER TO MAKE AN EQUITABLE DISPOSITION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES TO
A FRUSTRATED CONTRACT.  CF. NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, 131 F.2D 274. 

SO FAR AS THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO LIQUIDATE ANY CORPORATION,
LIQUIDATION IS ONLY A STEP IN THE SIMPLIFICATION OF A HOLDING COMPANY
SYSTEM OR THE ELIMINATION OF AN UNDESIRABLE HOLDING COMPANY, WHICH ARE
THE AVOWED PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  THE COMMISSION DOES NOT REVEAL HOW THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPORATE ASSETS, UPON WHICH THE STOCKHOLDERS HAVE
AGREED, WOULD HAMPER THE SIMPLIFICATION OR THE ELIMINATION OF THE
LIQUIDATED COMPANY; OR HOW THE DIFFERENT DISTRIBUTION ORDERED BY THE
COMMISSION WOULD FACILITATE THEM.  IT SEEMS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE
ACHIEVEMENT OF THESE, WHICH ARE THE AVOWED PURPOSES OF THE ACT, WHETHER
THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE DISSOLVED CORPORATION SHARE IN ITS ASSETS IN
ONE PROPORTION OR ANOTHER.  NEITHER THE COMMISSION, THE PUBLIC, NOR THE
STOCKHOLDERS HAVE ANY GROUND FOR COMPLAINT SO LONG AS THE AGREED
PRIORITY RIGHTS TO THE DISTRIBUTED ASSETS REMAIN UNALTERED. 

THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND ITS AUTHORITY FOR SETTING ASIDE THE PRIORITY
STIPULATION IN THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 11(E) THAT THE COMMISSION MUST
FIND THAT ANY PLAN IT APPROVES FOR ELIMINATION OF A HOLDING COMPANY IS
"FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  AS WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, THE COMMISSION HAS
SAID THAT IT IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" TO DEPRIVE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS,
IN THE EVENT OF LIQUIDATION, OF THE RIGHTS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE
STIPULATED AND PAID IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS FOR
RIGHTS WHICH THEY ARE SAID TO HAVE LOST BECAUSE OF THE LIQUIDATION. 
BUT SUCH COMPENSATION OF THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
PREFERRED IS CONTRARY TO THE PRIORITY STIPULATION BY WHICH BOTH ARE
BOUND.  THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS, LIKE THE PREFERRED, HAVE NO RIGHT NOT
TO HAVE THE COMPANY LIQUIDATED AND ARE ENTITLED TO NO COMPENSATION
MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LIQUIDATED.  THEIR RIGHTS AS STOCKHOLDERS CANNOT
SURVIVE LIQUIDATION AND DISSOLUTION OF THE COMPANY, AND IN THAT EVENT
AND BECAUSE OF IT AND BECAUSE OF THE STIPULATION NEITHER CAN ASSERT
RIGHTS WHICH THEY COULD ENJOY ONLY IF THE CORPORATION WERE TO CONTINUE
AS A GOING CONCERN. 

WE CAN FIND NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT IT IS NOT FAIR AND EQUITABLE,
BOTH IN A TECHNICAL AS WELL AS A GENERAL AND NONTECHNICAL SENSE, TO
REQUIRE THE STOCKHOLDERS TO ABIDE BY THEIR AGREEMENT IN THE VERY
CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH IT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY, AND WHERE, AS WE HAVE
SAID, THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE CONTRACT WHEN MADE WAS OR IS NOW
OPPRESSIVE, UNFAIR, INEQUITABLE OR ILLEGAL.  BUT BEYOND THIS WE THINK
IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 11(E) THAT THE PLAN BE
"FAIR AND EQUITABLE," INSTEAD OF FURNISHING AUTHORITY FOR THE
DEPRIVATION OF SHAREHOLDERS OF THEIR PRIORITY IN LIQUIDATION, IS A
PROHIBITION AGAINST IT. 

THE PHRASE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" AS APPLIED TO ANY FORM OF CORPORATE
REORGANIZATION HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS SIGNIFYING THE REQUIREMENT
OF THE RULE SANCTIONED BY THIS COURT IN NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V.
BOYD, 228 U.S. 482, AND THE MANY CASES FOLLOWING IT.  THE RULE IS THAT
ANY ARRANGEMENT OR PLAN ENFORCED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES
AFFECTED BY IT, BY WHICH THE SUBORDINATE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF
STOCKHOLDERS ARE ATTEMPTED TO BE SECURED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PRIOR
RIGHTS OF OTHER SECURITY HOLDERS, IS UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE AND WILL
NOT BE JUDICIALLY SANCTIONED.  SEE CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER CO., 308
U.S. 106, AND CASES CITED.  THIS RULE IS APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE
PRIORITIES OF DIFFERENT CLASSES OF STOCKHOLDERS AS WELL AS TO
PRIORITIES BETWEEN CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS, AND FOR THE SAME
REASONS.  CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER CO., SUPRA, 119, NOTE 14. 

IN THE LOS ANGELES CASE, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT THE WORDS "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" HAD SO LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED AS SIGNIFYING THIS
RULE OF PRIORITY AMONG SECURITY HOLDERS IN CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS AS
TO HAVE BECOME WORDS OF ART, AND THAT THEIR ADOPTION BY SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS APPLICABLE TO REORGANIZATIONS UNDER THAT SECTION,
MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE INCORPORATED THE RULE OF THE BOYD CASE IN THE
STATUTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTEXT REQUIRING A CONTRARY
CONSTRUCTION.  WE THINK NO OTHER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 11(E) OF THE
PRESENT ACT CAN BE SUSTAINED.  NEITHER THE CONTEXT OF THE STATUTE NOR
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUGGESTS ANY OTHER.  THE COMMISSION HINTS AT NO
REASON FOR NOT GIVING THESE TERMS OF ART, "FAIR AND EQUITABLE," OTHER
THAN THEIR LONG SETTLED AND HITHERTO ACCEPTED MEANING. 

THE COMMISSION JUSTIFIES ITS DEPARTURE FROM THE RULE HERE ONLY BY
RECURRENCE IN ITS BRIEF TO THE PROPOSITION THAT "THE ESSENCE OF THE
REORGANIZATION PROCESS IS THE REMOLDING OF CONTRACT RIGHTS AND THE
SUBSTITUTION THEREFOR OF EQUITABLE EQUIVALENTS."  TO THIS THE ANSWER IS
THAT THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE IS LIQUIDATING AND DISSOLVING, NOT
REORGANIZING, UNITED, AND THAT IT IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN SUCH A CASE
MORE THAN IN A REORGANIZATION TO ALTER OR DISREGARD A CONTRACT FIXING
THE PRIORITIES OF STOCKHOLDERS, AND THAT IN DEPRIVING THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS OF THEIR PRIORITY RIGHTS THE COMMISSION HAS SUBSTITUTED NO
EQUIVALENT FOR THEM, EITHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE.  IN FACT IT HAS
SUBSTITUTED NOTHING FOR THE PRIORITY RIGHTS WHICH ITS ORDER DESTROYS. 

THE GOLD CLAUSE CASES, NORMAN V. B. & O.R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, AFFORD
NO ANALOGY AND LEND NO SUPPORT TO WHAT IS NOW ADJUDGED.  THERE
CONGRESS, WITH THE AUTHORITY OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, EXPLICITLY ALTERED EXISTING CONTRACTS.  HERE CONGRESS HAS
COMMANDED THE COMMISSION TO RESPECT CONTRACT RIGHTS BY REQUIRING THAT
ITS ACTION CONFORM TO THE WELL DEFINED MEANING OF THE PHRASE "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE."  CONGRESS SEEMS TO HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE STIPULATED
PRIORITIES OF STOCKHOLDERS WERE NOT TO BE DISTURBED IN LIQUIDATIONS
ORDERED UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT.  THE REPORT OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE (S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 33)
RECOMMENDING THE ENACTMENT OF THE PRESENT STATUTE AND PROPONENTS OF THE
BILL (H.R. REP. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 49-50; 79 CONG. REC.
4607, 8432) REPEATEDLY CITED CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISTRIBUTION IN A
LIQUIDATION COMPELLED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SHERMAN AND HEPBURN
ACTS MUST PRESERVE THE STIPULATED PRIORITIES OF THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE OFFENDING CORPORATION. 

THE INTIMATION THAT THE PRIORITY STIPULATION CAN BE DISREGARDED IN
THE PRESENT LIQUIDATION BECAUSE THE COMMISSION COULD HAVE EFFECTED THE
SIMPLIFICATION OF THE HOLDING COMPANY STRUCTURE BY MERGER,
CONSOLIDATION OR RECAPITALIZATION, IS MERELY TO SAY THAT SUCH PROCEDURE
WOULD NOT INVOLVE LIQUIDATION, VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY, OR, WHAT COMES
TO THE SAME THING, THAT THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS COULD NOT CLAIM THE
PROTECTION OF THE PRIORITY STIPULATION IN SITUATIONS TO WHICH IT DOES
NOT AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY.  BY BUYING PREFERRED STOCK THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS PAID FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE
CORPORATION AND FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE FRUITS OF THE CORPORATE
ENTERPRISE, TO CONTINUE, WITH FULL PRIORITY OF DIVIDENDS SO LONG AS THE
CORPORATION SHOULD CONTINUE AS A GOING CONCERN.  BUT IN THE EVENT OF
LIQUIDATION THEY STIPULATED AND PAID FOR THE SPECIFIED PRIORITY OVER
THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NET CORPORATE
ASSETS.  THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS HERE ASSERT ONLY THE RIGHTS TO
WHICH THAT STOCK IS ENTITLED ON LIQUIDATION BY THE TERMS OF THE
PRIORITY STIPULATION.  CALLING THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS' RIGHT OF
PRIORITY A "WINDFALL" WILL NOT SERVE AS AN APOLOGY, EXPLANATION, OR
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN APPROPRIATING THE PRIORITY
OF THE PREFERRED IN ORDER TO GIVE A WINDFALL TO THE COMMON.  IT IS NO
ANSWER TO SAY THAT THEIR CLAIM ON LIQUIDATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED
BY NOT LIQUIDATING OR TO SAY, AS THE COMMISSION HAS ORDERED, THAT THEY
MUST ACCEPT ON LIQUIDATION LESS THAN THEIR STIPULATED PRIORITY ON
LIQUIDATION AND LESS THAN THE RIGHTS TO WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN
ENTITLED IF THE CORPORATION HAD CONTINUED AS A GOING CONCERN. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :










PRUDENCE CORP. V. FERRIS, 323 U.S. 650 


NO. 137.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 11, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  -
292 N.Y. 210, 54 N.E.2D 367, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAVING CLOSED A SEC. 77B PROCEEDING FOR THE
REORGANIZATION OF AN ISSUE OF MORTGAGE PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES,
WITHOUT DETERMINING OR RETAINING JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION
OF RELATIVE PRIORITY AS BETWEEN A GUARANTOR AND OTHER HOLDERS, AND
HAVING REMITTED THE PARTIES TO "A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION" FOR
THE DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION, THE STATE COURT AS SUCH A COURT
PROPERLY DETERMINED THE QUESTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE
STATE.  PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, 316 U.S. 89, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 654
656. 

2.  NO APPEAL HAVING BEEN TAKEN FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S FAILURE
TO RETAIN JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF RELATIVE PRIORITY,
THE ORDER CONFIRMING THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION IS RES JUDICATA.  P.
654. 

PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORPORATION V. FERRIS ET AL., TRUSTEES, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 686, TO REVIEW A DETERMINATION OF THE RELATIVE
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN A DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS UNDER A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN ONE OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
TO ADJUDICATE CONFLICTING CLAIMS AGAINST PROPERTY HELD TO SATISFY A
MORTGAGE DEBT.  THE IMMEDIATE CONTROVERSY ARISES OUT OF THE
REORGANIZATION IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF A LARGE NEW YORK
GUARANTY COMPANY, ANOTHER PHASE OF WHICH WAS BEFORE US IN PRUDENCE
CORP. V. GEIST, 316 U.S. 89. 

PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR, THE PRUDENCE COMPANY, INC., LOANED MONEY ON
REAL ESTATE AND ISSUED GUARANTEED MORTGAGE PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES. 
(FOR AN EXPOSITION OF THE BUSINESS DETAILS SEE IN RE THE WESTOVER,
INC., 82 F.2D 177.)  THE ENTERPRISE WAS ON A VAST SCALE, RUNNING INTO
THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.  OUR IMMEDIATE CONCERN IS WITH CERTIFICATES
OF PARTICIPATION ISSUED BY PRUDENCE IN A BOND AND MORTGAGE MADE BY
BURNSIDE IMPROVEMENT COMPANY.  PRUDENCE GUARANTEED THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL WHEN DUE OR WITHIN
EIGHTEEN MONTHS THEREAFTER.  BURNSIDE, THE MORTGAGOR, DEFAULTED IN THE
PAYMENT OF AN INSTALMENT OF PRINCIPAL DUE JANUARY, 1932.  AFTER THIS
DEFAULT, PRUDENCE ITSELF PURCHASED, EITHER DIRECTLY FROM THE HOLDERS OR
THROUGH A CONCEALED BROKERAGE ACCOUNT AND USUALLY AT A DISCOUNT,
CERTIFICATES AGGREGATING $431,212.86, APPROXIMATELY 42% OF THE AMOUNT
OF OUTSTANDING CERTIFICATES.  IN JUNE, 1932, THE MORTGAGED PREMISES
SECURING THE BURNSIDE CERTIFICATES WERE CONVEYED TO AMALGAMATED
PROPERTIES, INC., A WHOLLYOWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PRUDENCE. 

IN 1935 PRUDENCE WENT INTO REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, 48 STAT. 912, AND WAS ADJUDICATED INSOLVENT IN 1938. 
AS PART OF THE PRUDENCE PROCEEDINGS, AMALGAMATED, IN 1936, FILED A
VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION, BUT THE TWO WERE LATER SEVERED. 
THEREAFTER, UNDER A REORGANIZATION PLAN CONFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, ALL THE ASSETS OF PRUDENCE, INCLUDING THE BURNSIDE CERTIFICATES
REACQUIRED BY IT, WERE TRANSFERRED TO PETITIONER, PRUDENCE REALIZATION
CORPORATION. 

IN THE AMALGAMATED PROCEEDING PRUDENCE CLAIMED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
MORTGAGE ON A PARITY WITH OTHER BURNSIDE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS.  THE
CLAIM WAS OPPOSED ON THE GROUND THAT PRUDENCE, HAVING DEFAULTED ON ITS
GUARANTY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PARITY WITH OTHER HOLDERS OF
CERTIFICATES.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT NEITHER DECIDED THIS QUESTION OF
PARITY NOR RESERVED IT FOR DECISION.  IT "TERMINATED AND FINALLY
CLOSED" THE AMALGAMATED PROCEEDING BY CONFIRMING A PLAN WHICH LEFT THE
CLAIM OF PARTICIPATION BY PRUDENCE IN THE BURNSIDE BOND AND MORTGAGE
FOR ADJUDICATION BY A "COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION."  THERE WERE
PROVISIONS, WITH WHICH WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED, FOR HOLDING IN
ESCROW, PENDING SUCH AN ADJUDICATION, THE SHARE CLAIMED BY PETITIONER. 

THEREAFTER, RESPONDENTS, THE TRUSTEES UNDER THE BURNSIDE PLAN, AND
VARIOUS CERTIFICATE HOLDERS BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE NEW YORK SUPREME
COURT TO DETERMINE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AS HOLDER OF
CERTIFICATES ACQUIRED BY THE INSOLVENT GUARANTOR.  PETITIONER'S CLAIM
FOR PARITY OF TREATMENT WAS DENIED, BUT THIS DENIAL WAS REVERSED BY THE
APPELLATE DIVISION, 266 APP. DIV. 543, 42 N.Y.S.2D 528, WHICH IN TURN
WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  IT HELD THAT STATE LAW GOVERNED
AND THAT NEW YORK SUBORDINATED THE GUARANTOR'S CERTIFICATES.  292 N.Y.
210, 54 N.E.2D 367.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE CONFLICT WITH
PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, SUPRA, WAS STRONGLY PRESSED.  PRECISE
APPRECIATION IS THEREFORE REQUIRED OF THE RECORD NOW BEFORE US COMPARED
WITH THAT ON WHICH THE GEIST DECISION WAS BASED. 

IN THE GEIST CASE, THE CLAIM OF PARITY BY THE SAME PETITIONER AROSE
IN CONNECTION WITH DIFFERENT PROPERTY AND ANOTHER CERTIFICATE ISSUE,
THE ZO-GALE ISSUE.  IN THAT CASE ALSO THE QUESTION OF PARITY WAS NOT
SETTLED IN THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION.  BUT, WHILE IT WAS RESERVED FOR A
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, THE CONFIRMATION ORDER CLEARLY
INDICATED THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WAS RESERVING JURISDICTION IN
ITSELF.  "THE COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ALL
QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER PARAGRAPH 7 OF THIS ORDER" - SO RAN THE TERMS
OF THE RESERVATION OF THE PARITY QUESTION IN THE GEIST CASE - AND THE
TRUSTEES "ARE HEREBY GRANTED LEAVE TO APPLY AT ANY TIME AT THE FOOT OF
THIS ORDER FOR SUCH ADJUDICATION."  THE TRUSTEE, GEIST, ACCORDINGLY
APPLIED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR AN ORDER ADJUDICATING THE RIGHTS OF
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS AND THAT COURT, "IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION OF AMALGAMATED PROPERTIES, INC., DEBTOR, IN RESPECT OF
THE ZO-GALE FIRST MORTGAGE PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES" ISSUED AN ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE.  WHEN THE AMALGAMATED PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO THE ZO
GALE PROPERTY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSED, THE ORDER PROVIDED THAT "THESE
PROCEEDINGS SHALL HEREAFTER BE TREATED AS DISMISSED FOR ALL PURPOSES,
EXCEPT THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE PENDING MOTION
BY A. GEIST  ...  FOR DETERMINATION OF THE RELATIVE PRIORITIES  ..." 
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAD PATENTLY RETAINED FOR DECISION THE QUESTION
AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH IN ALL
OTHER RESPECTS IT HAD WOUND UP THE PROCEEDINGS.  "THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
PRESCRIBES ITS OWN CRITERIA FOR DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS  ...  THE
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IS A COURT OF EQUITY TO WHICH THE JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE IS COMMITTED,  ...  AND IT IS
FOR THAT COURT - NOT WITHOUT APPROPRIATE REGARD FOR RIGHTS ACQUIRED
UNDER RULES OF STATE LAW - TO DEFINE AND APPLY FEDERAL LAW IN
DETERMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INEQUITABLE CONDUCT OF A CLAIMANT
IN ACQUIRING OR ASSERTING HIS CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY REQUIRES ITS
SUBORDINATION TO OTHER CLAIMS WHICH, IN OTHER RESPECTS, ARE OF THE SAME
CLASS."  PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, SUPRA AT 95.  ACCORDINGLY WE HELD
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT, SITTING AS A BANKRUPTCY COURT, WAS UNDER DUTY
TO APPLY FEDERAL AND NOT STATE LAW, AND THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE GEIST CASE, THERE WAS "NO AGREEMENT AND NO EQUITABLE BASIS FOR
DEPRIVING THE PRUDENCE COMPANY AND ITS CREDITORS OF THE BENEFITS OF THE
USUAL BANKRUPTCY RULE OF EQUALITY."  PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, SUPRA AT
97. 

THIS CASE IS NOT THE GEIST CASE.  HERE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT NEITHER
CONSIDERED THE QUESTION OF PARITY NOR RETAINED JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER
IT.  THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR RETENTION OF
JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE PARITY QUESTION AS DID THE GEIST ORDER.  NOR
DID THE CLOSING OF THE REORGANIZATION RESERVE JURISDICTION, AS DID THE
GEIST CLOSING ORDER.  THE PROVISIONS FOR DISPOSITION OF THE IMPOUNDED
FUNDS IN CASE SUBORDINATION BE DETERMINED ARE MUCH MORE ELABORATE THAN
THE GEIST CASE DISCLOSES.  IN SHORT, WHILE THE PROVISIONS FOR
ADJUDICATION OF THE PARITY QUESTION IN THE GEIST CASE CLEARLY
CONTEMPLATED DETERMINATION OF IT AS PART OF THE REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ITSELF, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT WASHED ITS HANDS OF THE PROBLEM AND LEFT THE PARTIES
TO LITIGATE THE QUESTION IN ANOTHER FORUM.  FOR IT IS NOT QUESTIONED
THAT THE STATE COURT WAS A "COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION" FOR
ADJUDICATING THE CLAIM OF PARITY. 

TO BE SURE, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AS AMICUS CURIAE,
SUGGESTS THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WAS IN ERROR IN FAILING TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION FOR DETERMINING THIS ASPECT OF DISTRIBUTION.  BUT THE
DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF THE SAME PROBLEM BY THE SAME COURT IN THE GEIST
CASE AND IN THIS, TOGETHER WITH ACQUIESCENCE BY THE PETITIONER IN THE
CLOSING ORDER WITHOUT SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE NONRETENTION OF
JURISDICTION, GIVE GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS THE
PRODUCT OF BARGAINING BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  IN ANY EVENT, SINCE NO
APPEAL WAS TAKEN, IT IS NOT NOW OPEN TO FIND ERROR BY THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT IN FAILING TO RETAIN JURISDICTION.  THE ORDER CONFIRMING THE PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION IS RES JUDICATA.  CHICOT COUNTY DIST. V. BAXTER STATE
BANK, 308 U.S. 371, 378. 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT ALTHOUGH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SPECIFICALLY
REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AND REMITTED THEM,
PLAINLY ENOUGH, TO THE STATE COURTS FOR THEIR DETERMINATION, THE RIGHTS
WERE TO BE DETERMINED IN THE STATE COURTS BY FEDERAL LAW BECAUSE THE
PARTIES HAD PASSED THROUGH FEDERAL REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  IN
SPITE OF AN ORDER OF FINAL TERMINATION, THE AUTHORITY OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT, IT IS ARGUED, SOMEHOW CONTINUES TO BE EFFECTIVE.  DESPITE THE
FACT THAT NEITHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT NOR THE REORGANIZATION STATUTE
PROFESSES TO ALTER RIGHTS UNLESS DISCLOSED IN THE PLAN OR IN AN ORDER,
WE ARE ASKED TO RECOGNIZE SOME ENVELOPING CLOUD OF AMENABILITY TO THE
LAW GOVERNING BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. 

WE FIND NO WARRANT IN THE STATUTE FOR SO HOLDING.  SECTION 77B, UNDER
WHICH THIS REORGANIZATION WAS ACCOMPLISHED, PROVIDES IN SUBSECTION (G)
THAT UPON CONFIRMATION "THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN AND OF THE ORDER OF
CONFIRMATION SHALL BE BINDING."  THE RIGHTS ARE THUS FIXED AS THE PLAN
AND THE ORDER PROVIDE AND ARE NOT OTHERWISE AFFECTED.  SUBSECTION (H)
PROVIDES THAT UPON FINAL CONFIRMATION THE DEBTOR OR ITS SUCCESSOR
CORPORATION "SHALL PUT INTO EFFECT AND CARRY OUT THE PLAN AND THE
ORDERS OF THE JUDGE RELATIVE THERETO  ...  AND THE PROPERTY DEALT WITH
BY THE PLAN  ... SHALL BE FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEBTOR,
ITS STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS, EXCEPT SUCH AS MAY CONSISTENTLY WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN BE RESERVED IN THE ORDER CONFIRMING THE PLAN
..."  THE FINAL DECREE, DISCHARGING THE TRUSTEES AND CLOSING THE CASE,
"SHALL DISCHARGE THE DEBTOR FROM ITS DEBTS AND LIABILITIES, AND SHALL
TERMINATE AND END ALL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS, EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED IN THE PLAN OR AS MAY BE RESERVED AS AFORESAID."  HERE THE
COURT ENTERED APPROPRIATE ORDERS TO SECURE THE EXECUTION OF THE PLAN
AND THE TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  BUT THE RELATIVE PRIORITY OF
PARTICIPATION WAS PASSED UPON NEITHER IN THE PLAN NOR BY THE COURT. 
INSTEAD, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY RESERVED.  AND IT WAS RESERVED FOR
DETERMINATION, AS THE PARTIES SAW FIT TO HAVE IT DETERMINED, BY THE NEW
YORK COURTS WITHOUT RESTRICTION BY THE FEDERAL ADJUDICATION.  THE
PARTIES WERE OUT OF THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT WITH THEIR ORIGINAL
RIGHTS MODIFIED BY THE TERMS OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN.  WHEN THEY
CAME BEFORE A NEW YORK COURT SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THEIR PRESENT
RIGHTS, THAT COURT WAS OBLIGED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY RIGHTS HAD BEEN
FIXED BY THE REORGANIZATION PLAN AND, IF SO, TO ENFORCE THEM.  RIGHTS
NOT AFFECTED BY THE FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS THE NEW YORK COURT WAS FREE TO
DECIDE ACCORDING TO NEW YORK LAW.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAD REFUSED TO
FIX THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AS TO THE PARTICIPATION OF PRUDENCE-OWNED
BURNSIDE PARTICIPATIONS, AND EXPRESSLY LEFT THEM TO BE FIXED BY THE NEW
YORK COURT AS A "COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION."  ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS
FOR THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS TO DEFINE THE GOVERNING NEW YORK
LAW. 

AND SINCE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, NEW YORK LAW GOVERNS,
WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO INDICATE, IT HARDLY NEEDS TO BE ADDED,
WHETHER THE RESULT WOULD BE DIFFERENT WERE THE FEDERAL RULE FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS APPLICABLE.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

THE RELATIVE PRIORITY OF PRUDENCE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE BANKRUPT'S
ESTATE IN A 77B REORGANIZATION IS A FEDERAL RIGHT GOVERNED BY FEDERAL
NOT STATE LAW.  PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, 316 U.S. 89, 95.  AS THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN DID NOT PURPORT TO ALTER THAT RIGHT, BUT MERELY
PROVIDED THAT IT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY A COURT OF "COMPETENT
JURISDICTION," I CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN
CONTEMPLATED OR EFFECTED THE ALTERATION OF THE FEDERAL RIGHT BY
REQUIRING IT TO BE REDEFINED IN TERMS OF THE LAW OF NEW YORK, OR OF ANY
OTHER JURISDICTION, WHERE THE PARTIES MIGHT HAPPEN TO SEEK ITS
ADJUDICATION. 

THE FACT THAT A FEDERAL RIGHT IS TO BE ASCERTAINED IN A STATE RATHER
THAN IN A FEDERAL COURT DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS THE DUTY OF THE COURT
TO APPLY FEDERAL LAW.  CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V. MARTIN, 283 U.S.
209, 212-213; AWOTIN V. ATLAS EXCHANGE BANK, 295 U.S. 209; BRADY V.
SOUTHERN R. CO., 320 U.S. 476, 479, AND CASES CITED; ILLINOIS STEEL CO.
V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 320 U.S. 508, 511, AND CASES CITED; STEELE
V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 204.  AND A MERE GRANT
BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF PERMISSION TO THE PARTIES TO LITIGATE A FEDERAL
QUESTION IN A STATE COURT, IS NOT A DIRECTION THAT THE QUESTION BE
DETERMINED BY STATE LAW, MORE THAN IS A GENERAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION
FOR A SUIT IN THE STATE COURT ON A FEDERAL RIGHT. 

THE STATE COURT HAS HELD THAT PETITIONER, THE HOLDER OF MORTGAGE
PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES, IS NOT ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE MORTGAGE
UNTIL THE HOLDERS OF OTHER CERTIFICATES, WHICH PETITIONER HAS
GUARANTEED, ARE PAID IN FULL.  ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED, NOT
BECAUSE THE PLAN CALLED FOR DETERMINATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHTS IN THE
BANKRUPT'S ESTATE BY STATE RATHER THAN FEDERAL LAW, BUT BECAUSE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW IS THE SAME AS
THAT WHICH THE STATE COURT HAS APPLIED.  PETITIONER DID NOT, AS IN THE
GEIST CASE, ACQUIRE ITS INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGE AS AN ORIGINAL
INVESTMENT BEFORE IT SOLD AND GUARANTEED CERTIFICATED SHARES IN THE
MORTGAGE, NOR DID IT ACQUIRE ITS OWN CERTIFICATES INDEPENDENTLY OF THE
PERFORMANCE OF ITS OBLIGATION AS A GUARANTOR OF THE CERTIFICATES. 
PETITIONER IS HERE IN THE POSITION OF A SUBROGEE OF A CLAIM WHOSE
PAYMENT IT HAS GUARANTEED.  FOR IT ACQUIRED ITS CLAIM TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE MORTGAGE THROUGH PERFORMANCE OF ITS GUARANTY, BY PURCHASE, AFTER
DEFAULT, OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION WHICH IT HAD GUARANTEED. 

AS WE RECOGNIZED IN THE GEIST CASE, AND WERE AT PAINS TO POINT OUT,
316 U.S., AT P. 96, SUCH A CASE IS WITHIN THE RULE OF UNITED STATES V.
NATIONAL SURETY CO., 254 U.S. 73, 76; JENKINS V. NATIONAL SURETY CO.,
277 U.S. 258; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO., 296
U.S. 133, "THAT A SOLVENT GUARANTOR OR SURETY OF AN INSOLVENT'S
OBLIGATION WILL NOT BE PERMITTED, EITHER BY TAKING INDEMNITY FROM HIS
PRINCIPAL OR BY VIRTUE OF HIS RIGHT OF SUBROGATION, TO COMPETE WITH
OTHER CREDITORS PAYMENT OF WHOSE CLAIMS HE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO ASSURE,
UNTIL THEY ARE PAID IN FULL." 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :









ROSENMAN V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 658 


NO. 207.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  - 101
CT. CLS. 437, 53 F.SUPP.  722, REVERSED. 


OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, PROVIDES THAT A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF A
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX "ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY
ASSESSED OR COLLECTED MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSIONER WITHIN
THREE YEARS NEXT AFTER THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX."  HELD: 

1.  THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE TIME OF A
REMITTANCE WHICH IN EFFECT WAS A DEPOSIT AND WHICH THE COLLECTOR PLACED
IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT TO THE CREDIT OF THE ESTATE.  PP. 661-662. 

2.  AS TO A BALANCE OF THE REMITTANCE WHICH WAS APPLIED UPON A
DEFICIENCY SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER, A CLAIM FOR
REFUND FILED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF SUCH APPLICATION OF THE BALANCE,
THOUGH MORE THAN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL REMITTANCE,
WAS TIMELY.  P. 661. 

ROSENMAN ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 691, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING IN PART A
REFUND OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION UPON A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF A FEDERAL ESTATE TAX,
AND THE SPECIFIC QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE CLAIM WAS ASSERTED
TOO LATE.  THE MATTER IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 319(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926, 44 STAT. 9, 84, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 810(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932, 47 STAT. 169, 282, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 910, READING AS FOLLOWS:  "ALL
CLAIMS FOR THE REFUNDING OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED MUST BE
PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSIONER WITHIN THREE YEARS NEXT AFTER THE PAYMENT
OF SUCH TAX.  THE AMOUNT OF THE REFUND SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PORTION OF
THE TAX PAID DURING THE THREE YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF
THE CLAIM, OR IF NO CLAIM WAS FILED, THEN DURING THE THREE YEARS
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ALLOWANCE OF THE REFUND." 

PETITIONERS ARE EXECUTORS OF THE WILL OF LOUIS ROSENMAN, WHO DIED ON
DECEMBER 25, 1933.  UNDER APPROPRIATE STATUTORY AUTHORITY, THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE EXTENDED THE TIME FOR FILING THE
ESTATE TAX RETURN TO FEBRUARY 25, 1935.  BUT THERE WAS NO EXTENSION OF
THE TIME FOR PAYMENT OF THE TAX WHICH BECAME DUE ONE YEAR AFTER THE
DECEDENT'S DEATH, ON DECEMBER 25, 1934.  THE DAY BEFORE, PETITIONERS
DELIVERED TO THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE A CHECK FOR $120,000,
THE PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS THUS DEFINED IN A LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL:  "WE
ARE DELIVERING TO YOU HEREWITH, BY MESSENGER, AN ESTATE CHECK PAYABLE
TO YOUR ORDER, FOR $120,000, AS A PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX  ....  THIS PAYMENT IS MADE UNDER PROTEST AND DURESS, AND
SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING PENALTIES AND INTEREST, SINCE IT IS
CONTENDED BY THE EXECUTORS THAT NOT ALL OF THIS SUM IS LEGALLY OR
LAWFULLY DUE."  THIS AMOUNT WAS PLACED BY THE COLLECTOR IN A SUSPENSE
ACCOUNT TO THE CREDIT OF THE ESTATE.  IN THE BOOKS OF THE COLLECTOR THE
SUSPENSE ACCOUNT CONCERNS MONEYS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL
ESTATE TAXES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS TAXES IF, AS HERE, NO ASSESSMENT
FOR TAXES IS OUTSTANDING AT THE TIME.  ON FEBRUARY 25, 1935,
PETITIONERS FILED THEIR ESTATE TAX RETURN ACCORDING TO WHICH THERE WAS
DUE FROM THE ESTATE $80,224.24.  ON MARCH 28, 1935, THE COLLECTOR
ADVISED PETITIONERS THAT $80,224.24 OF THE $120,000 TO THEIR CREDIT IN
THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT HAD BEEN APPLIED IN SATISFACTION OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE TAX ASSESSED UNDER THEIR RETURN.  ON THE BASIS OF THIS NOTICE,
PETITIONERS, ON MARCH 26, 1938, FILED A CLAIM FOR $39,775.76, THE
BALANCE BETWEEN THE $120,000 PAID BY THEM UNDER PROTEST AND THE
ASSESSED TAX OF $80,224.24. 

UPON COMPLETION, AFTER NEARLY THREE YEARS, OF THE AUDIT OF THE
RETURN, THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THE TOTAL NET TAX DUE WAS
$128,759.08.  NO APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAVING BEEN TAKEN,
A DEFICIENCY OF $48,534.84 WAS ASSESSED.  THE COLLECTOR THEREUPON
APPLIED THE BALANCE OF $39,775.76 STANDING TO THE CREDIT OF PETITIONERS
IN THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT IN PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF THIS DEFICIENCY, AND
ON APRIL 22, 1938, PETITIONERS PAID TO THE COLLECTOR THE ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT OF $10,497.34, WHICH COVERED THE REMAINDER OF THE DEFICIENCY
PLUS INTEREST.  THE COMMISSIONER THEN REJECTED THE PETITIONERS' CLAIM
FOR REFUND FILED IN MARCH OF THAT YEAR.  ON MAY 20, 1940, PETITIONERS
FILED WITH THE COLLECTOR A CLAIM, BASED ON ADDITIONAL DEDUCTIONS, FOR
REFUND OF $24,717.12.  THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND, SO FAR AS
NOW RELEVANT, THAT THE TAX CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY EXACTED HAD
BEEN PAID MORE THAN THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE CLAIM,
EXCEPT AS TO THE AMOUNT OF $10,497.34 PAID BY PETITIONERS IN 1938. 
PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS WHICH HELD THAT
RECOVERY FOR THE AMOUNT HERE IN DISPUTE WAS BARRED BY STATUTE, 53
F.SUPP.  722.  TO RESOLVE AN ASSERTED CONFLICT OF DECISIONS IN THE
LOWER COURTS WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE. 

CLAIMS FOR TAX REFUNDS MUST CONFORM STRICTLY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
CONGRESS.  A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF AN ESTATE TAX "ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE
COMMISSIONER WITHIN THREE YEARS NEXT AFTER THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX." 
ON THE FACE OF IT, THIS REQUIREMENT IS COUCHED IN ORDINARY ENGLISH,
AND, SINCE NO EXTRANEOUS RELEVANT AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN CALLED
TO OUR ATTENTION, CONGRESS HAS EVIDENTLY MEANT WHAT THESE WORDS
ORDINARILY CONVEY.  THE CLAIM IS FOR REFUND OF A TAX "ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED," AND THE CLAIM
MUST HAVE BEEN FILED "AFTER THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX," THAT IS, WITHIN
THREE YEARS AFTER PAYMENT OF A TAX WHICH ACCORDING TO THE CLAIM WAS
ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY COLLECTED.  THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS THE
ALLEGED ILLEGAL ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION, AND "PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX"
PLAINLY PRESUPPOSES CHALLENGED ACTION BY THE TAXING OFFICIALS. 

THE ACTION HERE COMPLAINED OF WAS THE ASSESSMENT OF A DEFICIENCY BY
THE COMMISSIONER IN APRIL 1938.  BEFORE THAT TIME THERE WERE NO TAXES
"ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED" FOR THE COLLECTION OF
WHICH PETITIONERS COULD HAVE FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND.  THE AMOUNT THEN
DEMANDED AS A DEFICIENCY BY THE COMMISSIONER WAS, SO THE PETITIONERS
CLAIMED, ERRONEOUSLY ASSESSED.  IT IS THIS ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT THAT
GAVE RISE TO A CLAIM FOR REFUND.  NOT UNTIL THEN WAS THERE SUCH A CLAIM
AS COULD START THE TIME RUNNING FOR PRESENTING THE CLAIM.  IN ANY
RESPONSIBLE SENSE PAYMENT WAS THEN MADE BY THE APPLICATION OF THE
BALANCE CREDITED TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AND BY THE
ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF $10,497.34 ON APRIL 22, 1938.  BOTH THESE EVENTS
OCCURRED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF MAY 20, 1940, WHEN THE PETITIONERS'
PRESENT CLAIM WAS FILED. 

BUT THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS "PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX" WAS MADE ON
DECEMBER 24, 1934, WHEN PETITIONERS TRANSFERRED TO THE COLLECTOR A
CHECK FOR $120,000.  THIS STOPPED THE RUNNING OF PENALTIES AND
INTEREST, SAYS THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEREFORE IS TO BE TREATED AS A
PAYMENT BY THE PARTIES.  BUT ON DECEMBER 24, 1934, THE TAXPAYER DID NOT
DISCHARGE WHAT HE DEEMED A LIABILITY NOR PAY ONE THAT WAS ASSERTED. 
THERE WAS MERELY AN INTERIM ARRANGEMENT TO COVER WHATEVER CONTINGENCIES
THE FUTURE MIGHT DEFINE.  THE TAX OBLIGATION DID NOT BECOME DEFINED
UNTIL APRIL 1938.  AND THIS IS THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAS PLACED UPON SUCH ARRANGEMENTS.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT
CONSIDER SUCH ADVANCES OF ESTIMATED TAXES AS TAX PAYMENTS.  THEY ARE,
AS IT WERE, PAYMENTS IN ESCROW.  THEY ARE SET ASIDE, AS WE HAVE NOTED,
IN SPECIAL SUSPENSE ACCOUNTS ESTABLISHED FOR DEPOSITING MONEY RECEIVED
WHEN NO ASSESSMENT IS THEN OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE TAXPAYER.  THE
RECEIPT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MONEYS UNDER SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT CARRIES
NO MORE SIGNIFICANCE THAN WOULD THE GIVING OF A SURETY BOND.  MONEY IN
THESE ACCOUNTS IS HELD NOT AS TAXES DULY COLLECTED ARE HELD BUT AS A
DEPOSIT MADE IN THE NATURE OF A CASH BOND FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAXES
THEREAFTER FOUND TO BE DUE.  SEE RULING OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, A
48307, APRIL 14, 1933, 1(1935) PRENTICE-HALL TAX SERVICE, SPECIAL
REPORTS, PARAGRAPH 45.  ACCORDINGLY, WHERE TAXPAYERS HAVE SUED FOR
INTEREST ON THE "OVERPAYMENT" OF MONEYS RECEIVED UNDER SIMILAR
CONDITIONS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS INSISTED THAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS MERELY
A "DEPOSIT" AND NOT A "PAYMENT" INTEREST ON WHICH IS DUE FROM THE
GOVERNMENT IF THERE IS AN EXCESS BEYOND THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX
EVENTUALLY ASSESSED.  SEE BUSSER V. UNITED STATES, 130 F.2D 537, 538;
ATLANTIC OIL PRODUCING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 35 F.SUPP.  766; MOSES V.
UNITED STATES, 28 F.SUPP.  817; CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 45 F.SUPP.  323; ESTATE OF ROGERS V. COMMISSIONER, 1942
PRENTICE-HALL B.T.A. MEMORANDUM DECISIONS, PARAGRAPH 42,275.  IF IT IS
NOT PAYMENT IN ORDER TO RELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT FROM PAYING INTEREST ON
A SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED EXCESS, IT CANNOT BE PAYMENT TO BAR SUIT BY
THE TAXPAYER FOR ITS ILLEGAL RETENTION.  IT WILL NOT DO TO TREAT THE
SAME TRANSACTION AS PAYMENT AND NOT AS PAYMENT, WHICHEVER FAVORS THE
GOVERNMENT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. WURTS, 303 U.S. 414. 

EXACTION OF INTEREST FROM THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES STATUTORY
AUTHORITY, AND IT MERELY CARRIES OUT THE TRUE NATURE OF AN ARRANGEMENT
SUCH AS THIS TO TREAT IT AS AN ESTIMATED DEPOSIT AND NOT AS A PAYMENT
WHICH, IF IN EXCESS OF WHAT SHOULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN EXACTED, ENTITLED
THE TAXPAYER TO INTEREST AS THE RETURN ON THE USE THAT THE GOVERNMENT
HAS HAD OF MONEYS THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXACTED.  (WE NEED NOT HERE
CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE CURRENT TAX PAYMENT ACT OF 1943, SEC. 4(D),
57 STAT. 126, 140.)  ON THE OTHER HAND, BY ALLOWING SUCH A DEPOSIT
ARRANGEMENT, THE GOVERNMENT SAFEGUARDS COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT OF
WHATEVER AMOUNT TAX OFFICIALS MAY EVENTUALLY FIND OWING FROM A
TAXPAYER, WHILE THE TAXPAYER IN TURN IS SAVED THE DANGER OF PENALTIES
ON AN ASSESSMENT MADE, AS IN THIS CASE, YEARS AFTER A FAIRLY ESTIMATED
RETURN HAS BEEN FILED.  THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IN OUR VIEW THE STATUTE
COMPELS SAFEGUARDS THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, INTERPRETS A
BUSINESS TRANSACTION ACCORDING TO ITS TENOR, AND AVOIDS GRATUITOUS
RESENTMENT IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN TREASURY AND TAXPAYER.  REVERSED. 
..END :












CHOATE V. COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 1 


NO. 93.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  - 141
F.2D 641, REVERSED. 


1.  A TAXPAYER WHO TRANSFERRED AN OIL LEASE AND EQUIPMENT FOR CASH AND
A ROYALTY INTEREST, HELD ENTITLED, UPON A RETURN OF INCOME TAX, TO AN
ALLOWANCE FOR THE UNRECOVERED COST OF THE EQUIPMENT.  P. 3. 

2.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, DEPLETION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO
EQUIPMENT USED IN THE OPERATION OF AN OIL LEASE.  P. 3. 

3.  THE TAX COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION
INVOLVED AN ABSOLUTE SALE OF THE EQUIPMENT WAS CONCLUSIVE ON REVIEW. 
DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489; WILMINGTON CO. V. HELVERING, 316
U.S. 164.  P. 3. 

CHOATE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 692, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, UPON AN APPEAL
BY THE COMMISSIONER, REVERSED A DECISION OF THE TAX COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1936 CHOATE AND HOGAN, A PARTNERSHIP OF WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS A
MEMBER, ACQUIRED AN OIL AND GAS LEASE.  THEY DRILLED SIX PRODUCING
WELLS ON THE LEASED LAND AND OPERATED THE PROPERTY UNTIL AUGUST 1938. 
AT THAT TIME THEY SOLD TO SYLVA OIL CO. FOR A CASH CONSIDERATION OF
$110,000 ALL THEIR RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE LEASE "TOGETHER
WITH ALL WELLS AND THE EQUIPMENT THEREOF, INCLUDING PUMPS, CASING,
PIPING, TANKS, LEASE HOUSE, AND ALL OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY ON OR USED
IN CONNECTION" WITH THE PREMISES.  BUT THEY EXPRESSLY RESERVED TO
THEMSELVES "1/8 OF THE 8/8THS OF ALL OIL AND GAS AND CASINGHEAD GAS
WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED AND SAVED" FROM THE LAND.  THEREAFTER SYLVA OIL
CO. DRILLED ADDITIONAL WELLS AND OPERATED THE LEASE.  CHOATE AND HOGAN
IN THEIR PARTNERSHIP RETURN FOR 1938 REPORTED THE TRANSACTION AS A
SALE.  RESPONDENT IN HIS DEFICIENCY NOTICE RULED THAT THE TRANSACTION
CONSTITUTED A SUBLEASE.  THE TAX COURT TOOK THE SAME VIEW, HOLDING THAT
THE PARTNERS MUST LOOK TO DEPLETION FOR THE RETURN OF THEIR CAPITAL. 
IT HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RECOVERY BY DEPLETION WAS APPLICABLE
WHERE A ROYALTY INTEREST WAS RETAINED AND THAT A CASH BONUS WAS TO BE
REGARDED AS IN THE NATURE OF AN ADVANCE ROYALTY.  IT HELD, HOWEVER,
THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN ABSOLUTE SALE OF THE EQUIPMENT, THAT ITS COST
WAS NOT RECOVERABLE BY DEPLETION, AND THAT THE PARTNERS WERE ENTITLED
TO AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE UNRECOVERED COST OF THE EQUIPMENT TRANSFERRED. 
THE COMMISSIONER CHALLENGED THE LATTER RULING - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AS RESPECTS CHOATE, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AS RESPECTS HOGAN.  THE COMMISSIONER
WON IN THE TENTH CIRCUIT (141 F.2D 641) AND LOST IN THE FIFTH.  HOGAN
V. COMMISSIONER, 141 F.2D 92.  IT WAS TO RESOLVE THAT CONFLICT THAT WE
GRANTED THE PETITION IN THE PRESENT CASE LIMITED TO THAT SINGLE
QUESTION. 

THE COMMISSIONER MAKES AN ELABORATE ARGUMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THERE WAS NO SALE OF THE EQUIPMENT.  THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT AFTER
THE PARTNERSHIP TRANSFERRED ITS INTEREST IN THE LEASE ITS INVESTMENT
WAS NO LONGER IN THE LEASEHOLD AND EQUIPMENT AS SUCH BUT WAS AN
ECONOMIC INTEREST IN AN OIL PRODUCING ENTERPRISE - AN INTEREST WHICH IS
DEPLETABLE SINCE IT IS MEASURED BY THE PRODUCTION OF OIL.  BUT THERE
ARE TWO DIFFICULTIES WITH THAT ARGUMENT.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE FIND
NOTHING IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 447, OR IN THE TREASURY
REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDES FOR DEPLETION OF EQUIPMENT USED IN THE
OPERATION OF OIL AND GAS WELLS.  A DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED FOR
DEPRECIATION BY SEC. 23(1) WHICH PERMITS A "REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR
THE EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR OF PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR
BUSINESS."  AND SEE TREASURY REGULATIONS 101, ART. 23(M)-18.  SEC.
23(M) PROVIDES THAT IN THE CASE OF "MINES, OIL AND GAS WELLS, OTHER
NATURAL DEPOSITS, AND TIMBER, A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION AND
FOR DEPRECIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS
IN EACH CASE" MAY BE TAKEN AS A DEDUCTION.  AND SEE TREASURY
REGULATIONS 101, ART. 23(M)-10.  DEPLETION IS APPLICABLE TO WASTING
ASSETS - TO THE EXHAUSTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, NOT OF PROPERTY USED
IN A BUSINESS.  SEE 4 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1942)
SEC. 24.02.  THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION RUNS
THROUGH THE BASIS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  SEE SEC. 111(A), SEC. 113(A)
AND (B), SEC. 114(A) AND (B).  AND THE HISTORY OF THE DEPLETION
PROVISIONS INDEED MAKES CLEAR THAT ONLY INTANGIBLE DRILLING AND
DEVELOPMENT COSTS, NOT COSTS REPRESENTED BY PHYSICAL PROPERTY, ARE
RETURNABLE BY WAY OF DEPLETION.  SEE UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA-MONTANA
OIL CO., 288 U.S. 459; 4 MERTENS, OP. CIT., SEC. 24.48; TREASURY
REGULATIONS 101, ART. 23(M)-16(A).  IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE TAX COURT
FOUND THAT THE PARTIES INTENDED A CASH SALE OF THE EQUIPMENT.  THAT
QUESTION IS ARGUED HERE AS IF IT WERE OPEN FOR REDETERMINATION BY US.
IT IS NOT.  IT IS THE KIND OF ISSUE RESERVED FOR THE TAX COURT UNDER
DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, AND WILMINGTON TRUST CO. V.
HELVERING, 316 U.S. 164, 167-168.  ONCE A SALE OF THE EQUIPMENT IS
CONCEDED, IT IS NOT DENIED THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO AN ALLOWANCE
FOR THE UNRECOVERED COST OF THE EQUIPMENT TRANSFERRED.  SEC. 111(A),
SEC. 113(A) AND (B).  NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED CONCERNING THE
ALLOCATION OF A PORTION OF THE PURCHASE PRICE TO THE EQUIPMENT. 
REVERSED. 
..END :
























HERGET V. CENTRAL BANK CO., 324 U.S. 4 


NO. 322.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 10, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  -
141 F.2D 150, AFFIRMED. 


OF ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY TO SET ASIDE AND RECOVER A PREFERENTIAL TRANSFER; AND A
STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CAN NOT OPERATE TO EXTEND THE PERIOD.  P.
8. 

HERGET, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 691, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT BY A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY TO SET
ASIDE AND RECOVER AN ALLEGED PREFERENTIAL TRANSFER. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE NARROW ISSUE OF WHETHER SEC. 11E OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 29E, BARS AT THE END OF TWO YEARS FROM
THE DATE OF ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE TRUSTEE
IN BANKRUPTCY TO SET ASIDE AND RECOVER A PREFERENTIAL TRANSFER. 

ON APRIL 11, 1938, N.L. ROGERS & COMPANY, INC., FILED A VOLUNTARY
PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY AND WAS DULY ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT ON THE SAME
DAY.  ON MARCH 3, 1943, THE PETITIONER TRUSTEE FILED A COMPLAINT UNDER
SEC. 60 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 96, AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT BANK TO SET ASIDE AND RECOVER PAYMENTS TOTALLING OVER
$300,000 ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN ILLEGALLY BY THE BANKRUPT TO THE
RESPONDENT WITHIN FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE BANKRUPTCY
PETITION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND
THAT THE SUIT HAD BEEN INSTITUTED MORE THAN TWO YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE
DATE OF ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY AND HENCE WAS BARRED BY SEC. 11E. 
IT THUS OVERRULED THE TRUSTEE'S CONTENTION THAT ILLINOIS LAW ALLOWED
HIM FIVE YEARS IN WHICH TO BRING THIS ACTION AND THAT THIS FIVE-YEAR
LIMITATION WAS CONTROLLING SINCE IT FELL WITHIN THE PROVISION OF SEC.
11E ALLOWING SUITS "WITHIN SUCH FURTHER TIME AS THE FEDERAL OR STATE
LAW MAY PERMIT."  53 F.SUPP.  265.  THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED THIS
JUDGMENT.  141 F.2D 150.  IN OUR VIEW, SUCH A RESULT IS PLAINLY RIGHT. 

TWO-YEAR LIMITATIONS ON SUITS BY AND AGAINST TRUSTEES HAVE LONG BEEN
INTEGRAL PARTS OF FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STATUTES.  SECTION 8 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1841, 5 STAT. 440, 446, 447, APPLIED A TWO-YEAR
LIMITATION ON ANY "SUIT AT LAW OR IN EQUITY" BY OR AGAINST ANY ASSIGNEE
OF THE BANKRUPT.  COURTS HELD THAT THIS RELATED ONLY TO SUITS INVOLVING
CLAIMS HELD BY THE BANKRUPT BEFORE ASSIGNMENT, RATHER THAN TO SUITS ON
CLAIMS ARISING AFTER THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS BEGAN,  FN1 BUT ITS
APPLICABILITY AS TO RIGHTS ACCRUING TO THE ASSIGNEE ON THE DATE OF THE
ASSIGNMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT APPARENTLY WAS NOT RAISED OR
DETERMINED. 

REENACTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM IN REVISED STATUTES SEC. 5057,
PLACED A SIMILAR LIMITATION ON ANY "SUIT AT LAW OR IN EQUITY  ...  BY
OR AGAINST SUCH ASSIGNEE  ...  TOUCHING THE PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF
PROPERTY" OF THE BANKRUPT.  HERE AGAIN THE LIMITATION WAS HELD TO APPLY
ONLY TO SUITS GROWING OUT OF DISPUTES AND TRANSACTIONS PRIOR TO
ASSIGNMENT.  FN2  DUSHANE V. BEALL, 161 U.S. 513.  BUT IN BAILEY V.
GLOVER, 21 WALL.  342, 346, THIS COURT STATED THAT THIS LIMITATION
"APPLIES TO ALL JUDICIAL CONTESTS BETWEEN THE ASSIGNEE AND OTHER
PERSONS TOUCHING THE PROPERTY OR RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT
TRANSFERABLE TO OR VESTED IN THE ASSIGNEE."  SEE ALSO GIFFORD V. HELMS,
98 U.S. 248, 252; JENKINS V. INTERNATIONAL BANK, 106 U.S. 571, 575. 
THE INFERENCE SEEMS CLEAR FROM THIS THAT SUITS TO SET ASIDE
PREFERENTIAL TRANSFERS MADE PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
HELD TO FALL WITHIN THE REACH OF THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION. 

PROVIDED THAT "SUITS SHALL NOT BE BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST A TRUSTEE OF A
BANKRUPT ESTATE SUBSEQUENT TO TWO YEARS AFTER THE ESTATE HAS BEEN
CLOSED."  STATE AND LOWER FEDERAL COURTS EXPLICITLY AND UNIFORMLY HELD
THAT THIS TWO-YEAR LIMITATION CONTROLLED THE TRUSTEE'S RIGHT TO SET
ASIDE AND RECOVER PREFERENTIAL TRANSFERS UNDER SEC. 60 OF THE ACT.  FN3
BUT COURTS DIFFERED AS TO WHETHER SEC. 11D OR STATE STATUTES OF
LIMITATION APPLIED TO CAUSES OF ACTION INHERITED BY THE TRUSTEE FROM
THE BANKRUPT OR THE BANKRUPT'S CREDITORS.  FN4 

IT WAS THIS CONFLICT UNDER SEC. 11D OF THE 1898 ACT THAT WAS
PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FRAMING OF THE NEW SEC. 11E IN 1938. 
THIS LATTER PROVISION, WHICH IS CONTROLLING IN THIS CASE, SETTLES THE
PROBLEM BY STATING IN PART THAT "A RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE MAY, WITHIN TWO
YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF ADJUDICATION OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER
PERIOD OF TIME AS THE FEDERAL OR STATE LAW MAY PERMIT, INSTITUTE
PROCEEDINGS IN BEHALF OF THE ESTATE UPON ANY CLAIM AGAINST WHICH THE
PERIOD OF LIMITATION FIXED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW HAD NOT EXPIRED AT
THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY." 

IN LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF ANALOGOUS
PROVISIONS IN EARLIER BANKRUPTCY ACTS, IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT CONGRESS
IN SEC. 11E FAILED TO ENLARGE THE TIME FOR BRINGING SUITS ARISING UNDER
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BY MAKING STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION OF LONGER
DURATION APPLICABLE TO SUCH FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION.  NONE OF THE
PRIOR PROVISIONS HAD BEEN CONSTRUED SO AS TO APPLY STATE STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS TO ACTIONS BY TRUSTEES BASED ON CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE
BANKRUPTCY STATUTES.  AND THE COURTS HAD FRANKLY AND UNMISTAKABLY
IMPOSED THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION OF SEC. 11D OF THE 1898 ACT, WHICH IS
THE IMMEDIATE PREDECESSOR OF SEC. 11E, TO SUITS BY TRUSTEES TO SET
ASIDE AND RECOVER PREFERENTIAL TRANSFERS.  THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
AND HISTORY, AS WELL AS THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 11E, ARE BARREN OF ANY
BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE SUITS OF THIS
NATURE SUBJECT TO LONGER LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY STATE LAWS.  FN5
CONGRESS COULD HAVE EXPRESSLY RESTRICTED THE FIELD WITHIN WHICH THE TWO
YEAR LIMITATION WAS TO BE OPERATIVE HAD IT SO WISHED.  ITS FAILURE TO
DO SO CANNOT BE IGNORED. 

THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE USED IN SEC. 11E IS CLEARLY APPROPRIATE TO AN
ACTION UNDER SEC. 60.  SECTION 11E IS NOT LIMITED BY ITS WORDS TO
ACTIONS INHERITED BY THE TRUSTEE; NOR DOES IT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
ACTIONS BY THE TRUSTEE ACCRUING TO HIM UNDER THE ACT.  IT PROVIDES
SIMPLY THAT THE TRUSTEE MUST BRING ACTION ON ANY CLAIM IN BEHALF OF THE
ESTATE WITHIN TWO YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF ADJUDICATION OR
WITHIN SUCH FURTHER TIME AS THE FEDERAL OR STATE LAW PERMITS, PROVIDED
THAT SUCH LAW DID NOT BAR THE ACTION ON THE DATE WHEN THE PETITION WAS
FILED. 

HERE THE ONLY APPLICABLE LAW IS SEC. 60 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH
GENERATES THE CAUSE OF ACTION AND WHICH CONTAINS NO TIME LIMITATIONS AS
TO ACTIONS BROUGHT PURSUANT THERETO.  AND SINCE THE TRUSTEE'S RIGHT TO
SET ASIDE AND RECOVER PREFERENTIAL TRANSFERS RELATES TO TRANSACTIONS
OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND SINCE THIS RIGHT DID
NOT ACCRUE BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE PETITION WAS FILED, SUCH AN
ACTION OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIMITATION ON THE GROUND
THAT IT WAS BARRED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW AT THE TIME THE PETITION WAS
FILED.  HENCE THE TRUSTEE WAS BOUND TO "INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN BEHALF
OF THE ESTATE" TO SET ASIDE AND RECOVER ANY PREFERENTIAL TRANSFERS
"WITHIN TWO YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF ADJUDICATION."  MORE THAN
TWO YEARS HAVING ELAPSED BETWEEN THE DATE OF ADJUDICATION AND THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE SUIT IN THIS INSTANCE, THE COURTS BELOW PROPERLY
HELD THAT THE ACTION WAS BARRED UNDER SEC. 11E. 

INASMUCH AS THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT HAS CREATED THE LIABILITY AND
HAS ALSO FIXED THE LIMITATION OF TIME FOR COMMENCING ACTIONS TO ENFORCE
IT, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE TRUSTEE'S ARGUMENTS CONCERNING
THE APPLICABILITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ILLINOIS STATUTES OF
LIMITATION.  CF. CAMPBELL V. HAVERHILL, 155 U.S. 610; MCCLAINE V.
RANKIN, 197 U.S. 154; RAWLINGS V. RAY, 312 U.S. 96; DAVIES WAREHOUSE
CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 144, 155, 156. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE IN RE CONANT, 5 BLATCH.  54, FED. CAS. NO. 3086; STEVENS V.
HAUSER, 39 N.Y. 302.  CF. BANKS V. OGDEN, 2 WALL.  57, 70. 

FN2  SEE BOWEN V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 153 N.Y. 476, 47 N.E.
907.  CF. PHELAN V. O'BRIEN, 13 F. 656. 

FN3  DAVIS V. WILLEY, 273 F. 397; MEIKLE V. DRAIN, 69 F.2D 290;
ARNOLD GROCERY CO. V. SHACKELFORD, 140 GA. 585, 79 S.E. 470. 

FN4  AMONG THOSE CASES HOLDING THAT SEC. 11D APPLIED ARE ISAACS V.
NEECE, 75 F.2D 566, ENGEBRETSON V. WEST, 133 NEB. 846, 277 N.W. 433,
AND CALLAGHAN V. BAILEY, 293 N.Y. 396, 57 N.E.2D 729.  CASES HOLDING
THAT THE STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION APPLIED INCLUDE DAVIS V. WILLEY,
273 F. 397, AND SILVERMAN V. CHRISTIAN, 123 N.J. EQ. 506, 198 A. 832. 
SEE ALSO CHARLESWORTH V. HIPSH, INC., 84 F.2D 834; NAIRN V. MCCARTHY,
120 F.2D 910. 

FN5  H. REP. NO. 1409(75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 20, STATED THAT "A
NEW PROVISION IN SUBDIVISION E PERMITS RECEIVERS AND TRUSTEES WITHIN 2
YEARS AFTER THE ADJUDICATION TO INSTITUTE SUITS ON CLAIMS AGAINST WHICH
THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FIXED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW HAD NOT EXPIRED
AT THE TIME OF THE BANKRUPTCY OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER TIME AS THE
FEDERAL OR STATE LAW MAY PERMIT." 

S. REP. NO. 1916(75TH CONG., 3D SESS.) P. 13, STATED:  "THE
PROVISIONS OF THE EXISTING LAW IN REGARD TO SUITS BY OR AGAINST
TRUSTEES HAVE BEEN REVISED AND MODIFIED, AND RECEIVERS ARE INCLUDED. 
THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS IN RESPECT TO SUCH SUITS HAS BEEN RESTRICTED
IN THE BILL TO 2 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF ADJUDICATION INSTEAD OF 2
YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF THE CLOSING OF THE ESTATE." 

SEE ALSO JOINT HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEES ON
THE JUDICIARY (72D CONG., 1ST SESS.) ON S. 3866, PART 4, PP. 932-933; 6
JOURNAL OF NAT. ASSOC. OF REFEREES IN BANKRUPTCY 65; 1 COLLIER ON
BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  1186. 
..END :





REGAL KNITWEAR CO. V. BOARD, 324 U.S. 9 


NO. 86.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  - 140
F.2D 746, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND
AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT MAY
VALIDLY PROVIDE THAT THE ORDER SHALL APPLY TO THE EMPLOYER'S
"SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS."  P. 16. 

2.  AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER OF THE BOARD, THOUGH APPLYING IN TERMS TO
"SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS," WOULD HAVE A SCOPE NO BROADER THAN THAT
PRESCRIBED BY RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT
COURTS - "EVERY ORDER GRANTING AN INJUNCTION AND EVERY RESTRAINING
ORDER  ...  IS BINDING ONLY UPON THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION, THEIR
OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, AND ATTORNEYS, AND UPON THOSE
PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH THEM WHO RECEIVE ACTUAL
NOTICE OF THE ORDER BY PERSONAL SERVICE OR OTHERWISE."  P. 14. 

3.  WHETHER ONE BRINGS HIMSELF IN CONTEMPT OF AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER AS
A "SUCCESSOR" OR "ASSIGN" DEPENDS ON AN APPRAISAL OF HIS RELATIONS AND
BEHAVIOR, NOT UPON MERE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERMS OF THE ORDER.  P.
15. 

REGAL KNITWEAR CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 692, TO REVIEW A DECREE GRANTING ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AFTER APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS,
ISSUED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AGAINST THE PETITIONER, 49 N.L.R.B.
560, AND THEREAFTER OBTAINED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT AN ORDER FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  140 F.2D 746.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO A SINGLE QUESTION ON WHICH THERE WAS A CONFLICT
IN PRACTICE BETWEEN DIFFERENT CIRCUITS.  323 U.S. 692.  THE BOARD HAS
FOLLOWED THE FORMULA WHICH ORDERS NOT ONLY A PARTICULAR RESPONDENT, BUT
ALSO "ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS" TO CEASE AND
DESIST.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER ENFORCEMENT WILL BE GRANTED WITHOUT
DELETING "SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS" FROM THOSE ENJOINED.  THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, AND EIGHTH
CIRCUITS, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVE
UPHELD THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO INCLUDE SUCH A PROVISION.  FN1  IN
SOME OF THESE CASES CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP WAS SHOWN TO BE PROBABLE AND IN
OTHER CASES THERE WAS NO SUCH PROOF.  THE SECOND CIRCUIT, IN REFUSING
TO DELETE THE PROVISION, SAID:  "IN ALLOWING THESE WORDS TO STAND WE
WISH TO MAKE IT CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT WE DO NOT HOLD THAT A 'SUCCESSOR'
OR AN 'ASSIGN' WILL BE IN CONTEMPT OF OUR ORDER IF IT SHOULD (EVEN
AFTER NOTICE OF THE ORDER, BUT WITHOUT PARTICIPATING WITH THE
RESPONDENT IN ANY DISOBEDIENCE BY IT) DO EXACTLY THOSE THINGS WHICH THE
ORDER FORBIDS.  IN OTHER WORDS, WE DO NOT HOLD THAT THOSE WORDS IMPOSE
ANY LIABILITY WHICH WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT THEM."  LABOR BOARD V.
BLACKSTONE MFG. CO., 123 F.2D 633, 635; SEE ALSO BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 120 F.2D 641, 650-51(APP.  D.C.).  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONSISTENTLY
ELIMINATES THE PROVISION AS TO SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS FROM THE ORDER,
FN2  BUT RECOGNIZES THAT SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES
ARE BOUND BY THE BOARD'S ORDER, EVEN WITHOUT THE WORDS.  FN3 

WHEN ONE COURT OF APPEALS STRIKES OUT THE PROVISION BUT SAYS ITS
ABSENCE MAY IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS IF IT WERE
THERE, AND ANOTHER COURT OF APPEALS APPROVES THE PROVISION BUT SAYS ITS
PRESENCE MAY HAVE NO MORE EFFECT THAN IF IT WERE OUT, THERE IS MORE
THAN A FAINT SUGGESTION THAT THE CONFLICT IS OVER SEMANTICS RATHER THAN
OVER PRACTICAL REALITIES. 

THE FORMULA THAT INCLUDES SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, AMONG OTHERS, IS
ONE PROBABLY BORROWED FROM THE JARGON OF CONVEYANCING.  DOUBTLESS THESE
WORDS OFTEN ARE USED, NOT OUT OF CONSIDERATION OF THEIR
APPROPRIATENESS, BUT BECAUSE OF THEIR FAMILIARITY.  COURTS OF EQUITY
SOMETIMES HAVE USED THIS FORMULA IN THEIR DECREES.  FN4  BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ISSUED ORDERS CONTAINING THESE FAMILIAR PROVISIONS.  FN5  THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION HAS DONE THE SAME.  FN6  THE
BITUMINOUS COAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DOES
LIKEWISE.  FN7  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS EMPLOYED THIS
FORMULA CONSISTENTLY SINCE 1937,  FN8  AND SOME STATE LABOR BOARDS HAVE
FOLLOWED THE EXAMPLE.  FN9  NOT ONLY HAVE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS,
EXCEPT OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, GENERALLY ENFORCED ORDERS CONTAINING
THIS PROVISION, BUT THIS COURT HAS SEVERAL TIMES DONE SO.  SOUTHPORT
PETROLEUM CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 315 U.S. 100, 106, NOTE 6.  FN10 

THE DEARTH OF CASES IN WHICH ACTUAL CONTROVERSIES HAVE BEEN
PRECIPITATED BY THIS MORE GENERAL THAN DISCRIMINATING USE OF THIS
RITUAL INDICATES THAT ITS SIGNIFICANCE BOTH FOR GOOD AND ILL IS GREATER
IN ANTICIPATION THAN IN RETROSPECT. 

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES HAVE CONSIDERABLE LATITUDE TO SHAPE THEIR
REMEDIES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND, WHERE THE
INFIRMITY IS INADEQUACY OF FINDINGS TO SHOW APPROPRIATENESS OF THE
CHOICE MADE IN THE PARTICULAR CASE, ARE ORDINARILY ENTITLED TO HAVE THE
CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194; ADDISON V. HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUCTS, 322
U.S. 607, 616.  THE COURTS, NEVERTHELESS, MAY NOT GRANT AN ENFORCEMENT
ORDER OR INJUNCTION SO BROAD AS TO MAKE PUNISHABLE THE CONDUCT OF
PERSONS WHO ACT INDEPENDENTLY AND WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUDGED
ACCORDING TO LAW.  CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. NORWALK, 291 U.S. 431, 436
37; HITCHMAN COAL & COKE CO. V. MITCHELL, 245 U.S. 229, 234; SCOTT V.
DONALD, 165 U.S. 107, 117; ALEMITE MFG. CORP. V. STAFF, 42 F.2D 832. 

THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDE THAT:  "EVERY ORDER
GRANTING AN INJUNCTION AND EVERY RESTRAINING ORDER  ...  IS BINDING
ONLY UPON THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION, THEIR OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS,
EMPLOYEES, AND ATTORNEYS, AND UPON THOSE PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR
PARTICIPATION WITH THEM WHO RECEIVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE ORDER BY
PERSONAL SERVICE OR OTHERWISE."  FN11  THIS IS DERIVED FROM THE COMMON
LAW DOCTRINE THAT A DECREE OF INJUNCTION NOT ONLY BINDS THE PARTIES
DEFENDANT BUT ALSO THOSE IDENTIFIED WITH THEM IN INTEREST, IN "PRIVITY"
WITH THEM, REPRESENTED BY THEM OR SUBJECT TO THEIR CONTROL.  IN ESSENCE
IT IS THAT DEFENDANTS MAY NOT NULLIFY A DECREE BY CARRYING OUT
PROHIBITED ACTS THROUGH AIDERS AND ABETTORS, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE NOT
PARTIES TO THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. 

THE TERM "SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS" IN AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER OF COURSE
MAY NOT ENLARGE ITS SCOPE BEYOND THAT DEFINED BY THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE.  SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS MAY, HOWEVER, BE
INSTRUMENTALITIES THROUGH WHICH DEFENDANT SEEKS TO EVADE AN ORDER OR
MAY COME WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION OF PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR
PARTICIPATION WITH THEM IN THE VIOLATION OF AN INJUNCTION.  IF THEY
ARE, BY THAT FACT THEY ARE BROUGHT WITHIN SCOPE OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
BY THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  WE HAVE INDICATED THAT LABOR BOARD
ORDERS ARE BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS WHO OPERATE AS "MERELY A
DISGUISED CONTINUANCE OF THE OLD EMPLOYER."  SOUTHPORT PETROLEUM CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 315 U.S. AT 106.  WE HAVE ALSO SAID OF AN INJUNCTION TO
RESTRAIN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT
ANALOGOUS TO LABOR BOARD ORDERS, THAT "NOT ONLY IS SUCH AN INJUNCTION
ENFORCIBLE BY CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CORPORATION, ITS AGENTS
AND OFFICERS AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH IT IN THE CONDUCT OF
ITS BUSINESS, BUT IT MAY ALSO, IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, BE
ENFORCED AGAINST THOSE TO WHOM THE BUSINESS MAY HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED,
WHETHER AS A MEANS OF EVADING THE JUDGMENT OR FOR OTHER REASONS." 
WALLING V. REUTER CO., 321 U.S. 671, 674.  IN BOTH OF THESE CASES THE
REFERENCE IS NOT MERELY TO SUCCESSION, BUT TO A RELATION BETWEEN THE
DEFENDANT AND THE SUCCESSOR WHICH MIGHT OF ITSELF ESTABLISH LIABILITY
WITHIN THE TERMS OF RULE 65. 

WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ANY
KIND OF SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGN WILL BE LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF A LABOR
BOARD ORDER.  IT IS TRUE THAT WE HAVE SAID THAT "QUESTIONS OF
CONSTRUCTION HAD BETTER BE IRONED OUT BEFORE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS ISSUE
THAN UPON CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS."  (J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321
U.S. 332, 341.)  BUT IT IS APPARENT FROM RULE 65, AND FROM THE VIEWS OF
ONE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS TO THE NARROW EFFECT OF THE WORDS IN
THE ORDER AND OF ANOTHER AS TO THE BROAD EFFECT OF THE ORDER WITHOUT
THE WORDS, THAT WHETHER ONE BRINGS HIMSELF IN CONTEMPT AS A "SUCCESSOR
OR ASSIGN" DEPENDS ON AN APPRAISAL OF HIS RELATIONS AND BEHAVIOR AND
NOT UPON MERE CONSTRUCTION OF TERMS OF THE ORDER.  IF DEFENDANTS ENTER
UPON TRANSACTIONS WHICH RAISE DOUBTS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
INJUNCTION, THEY MAY PETITION THE COURT GRANTING IT FOR A MODIFICATION
OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORDER.  CF. NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK CITY, 296
U.S. 259.  WHILE SUCH RELIEF WOULD BE IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE
COURT, WE THINK COURTS WOULD NOT BE APT TO WITHHOLD A CLARIFICATION IN
THE LIGHT OF A CONCRETE SITUATION THAT LEFT PARTIES OR "SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS" IN THE DARK AS TO THEIR DUTY TOWARD THE COURT.  ENFORCEMENT
ORDERS ARE ISSUED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, NOT FOR THE
ENTRAPMENT OF PARTIES, AND COURTS NO LESS THAN PARTIES DESIRE TO AVOID
UNWITTING CONTEMPTS AS WELL AS TO PUNISH DELIBERATE ONES. 

NO CONCRETE CASE IS BEFORE US.  WE HAVE HERE AN ABSTRACT CONTROVERSY
OVER THE USE OF THESE WORDS, AND IT IS AS STERILE AS ABSTRACT
CONTROVERSIES USUALLY ARE.  THE EMPLOYER OBJECTS TO THE WORDS OF THE
ORDER MERELY AS WORDS.  THEY DO NOT ENLARGE ITS OWN OBLIGATION, AND IF
IT COMPLIES WITH THE ORDER, LITTLE BY WAY OF OBLIGATION COULD BE PASSED
TO A SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGN BY THE ORDER THAT IS NOT IN ANY EVENT IMPOSED
BY STATUTE.  THE BOARD IS NOT HERE ATTEMPTING TO REACH OR TO HOLD
ANYONE IN CONTEMPT BY VIRTUE OF SUCH ORDERS.  NO SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGN
APPEARS BEFORE US COMPLAINING THAT THESE WORDS PUT HIM IN JEOPARDY.  NO
ONE CAN BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT BECAUSE OF THESE WORDS UNTIL AFTER A
JUDICIAL HEARING, IN WHICH THEIR OPERATION COULD BE DETERMINED ON A
CONCRETE SET OF FACTS.  ALL THAT IS BEFORE US IS THE QUESTION WHETHER
WE WILL HOLD ABSTRACTLY THAT THIS PROVISION IS AN ILLEGAL ONE TO
INCLUDE IN A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER OF THE LABOR BOARD OR AN
ENFORCEMENT ORDER OF THE COURT. 

WHETHER IT IS WISE THAT AN ORDER ATTEMPT TO DEFINE ITS OWN EFFECT ON
OTHERS THAN PARTIES TO THE ACTION WHEN THE LAW HAS ALREADY DONE SO IS
NOT FOR US TO SAY.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT "SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS" AS WELL
AS "OFFICERS AND AGENTS" MAY NOT UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES BE AMONG
THOSE REACHED BY THE ORDER WITHIN THE SCOPE OF RULE 65 AND HENCE CANNOT
SAY THAT IT IS NOT A PERMISSIBLE PROVISION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  LABOR BOARD V. BREZNER TANNING CO., 141 F.2D 62, 65(C.C.A. 1ST);
LABOR BOARD V. BLACKSTONE MFG. CO., 123 F.2D 633, 635(C.C.A.2D); LABOR
BOARD V. WEIRTON STEEL CO., 135 F.2D 494, 498-99(C.C.A.3D); LABOR BOARD
V. LANDIS TOOL CO., 145 F.2D 152, 157(C.C.A.3D); LABOR BOARD V.
FEINBERG HOSIERY MILL, 134 F.2D 620(C.C.A.4TH); LABOR BOARD V. GLUEK
BREWING CO., 144 F.2D 847, 857(C.C.A.8TH); BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 120 F.2D 641, 650-51(APP.  D.C.). 

FN2  LABOR BOARD V. BACHELDER, 125 F.2D 387, 388; LABOR BOARD V.
STONE, 125 F.2D 752, 757.  THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HAS ALSO REFUSED IN ONE
CASE TO INCLUDE THE PHRASE.  LABOR BOARD V. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON CO.,
133 F.2D 295, 302. 

FN3  SEE ALSO IN RE LENNON, 166 U.S. 548; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS V. KEYSTONE FREIGHT LINES, 123 F.2D 326, 329; LABOR BOARD
V. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS IRON CO., 133 F.2D 295, 302. 

FN4  SEE DECREES IN UNITED STATES V. PULLMAN CO., CIVIL ACTION NO.
994, E.D. PA. 1944; UNITED STATES V. VEHICULAR PARKING, LTD., CIVIL
ACTION NO. 259, D. DEL. 1944; ALUMINUM COLORS, INC. V. EMPIRE PLATING
CO., 5 F.SUPP.  687; UNITED STATES V. GREAT LAKES TOWING CO., 1 DECREES
AND JUDGMENTS IN FEDERAL ANTITRUST CASES, 253-54(N.D. OHIO, 1915);
UNITED GILPIN CORP. V. WILMORE, 100 COLO. 453, 456, 68 P.2D 34, 35. 

FN5  MATTER OF SUPERIOR WOOLEN MILLS, 8 F.T.C. 283, 288(1924); MATTER
OF AMERICAN SNUFF CO., 11 F.T.C. 144, 160(1927); MATTER OF SHERWIN
WILLIAMS CO., 36 F.T.C. 25, 72, 74(1943). 

FN6  SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. ALDRICH BLAKE, INC., 1
S.E.C. JUD.  DEC.  19, 21. 

FN7  MATTER OF COVE HILL COAL CO., 7 F.R. 7572, 7574; MATTER OF
WALTRIP & SONS, 7 F.R. 7864. 

FN8  MATTER OF HILL BUS CO., 2 N.L.R.B. 781, 800. 

FN9  MATTER OF THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO., CASE NO. CU-333,
NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; MATTER OF W.T. GRANT CO., CASE
NO. 82, PENNSYLVANIA LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

FN10  CITING CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197,
ENFORCING, AS MODIFIED, 4 N.L.R.B. 71, 108; LABOR BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS
SHIPBUILDING CO., 308 U.S. 241, ENFORCING 8 N.L.R.B. 866, 877; LABOR
BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453, ENFORCING 6 N.L.R.B. 654, 666; LABOR
BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP., 309 U.S. 206, ENFORCING 7 N.L.R.B.
237, 252; LABOR BOARD V. LINK-BELT CO., 311 U.S. 584, ENFORCING 12
N.L.R.B. 854, 883; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177,
ENFORCING, AS MODIFIED, AND REMANDING 19 N.L.R.B. 547, 603. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, AT LEAST INFERENTIALLY, THAT LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS
PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426, IS AUTHORITY AGAINST THE POSITION OF THE
COURT IN THE CASE AT BAR.  HOWEVER, THE ORDER THERE UNDER REVIEW
CONTAINED THESE SAME WORDS.  MATTER OF EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 13
N.L.R.B. 1213, 1226.  WHILE THIS COURT LIMITED THE ENFORCEMENT ORDER IN
CERTAIN OTHER RESPECTS, IT DID NOT STRIKE THE WORDS "SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS."  THE ISSUE WAS NOT PASSED ON, BUT ITS VERY ABSENCE FROM A
CASE CONCERNING PERMISSIBLE BREADTH OF ORDERS SUGGESTS THE INNOCUOUS
CHARACTER OF THE PROVISION AS COMPARED WITH THAT PASSED ON IN THE
EXPRESS CASE. 

FN11  RULE 65(D), WHICH IS DERIVED FROM SEC. 19 OF THE CLAYTON ACT,
38 STAT. 738; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 383.    MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE,
DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR. 

AN INJUNCTION IS A CONTINUING THREAT TO THOSE NAMED AS SUBJECT TO IT,
OF THE PAINS OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IF THEY DISOBEY ITS PROVISIONS. 
THE OPINION OF THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT THE PRESENT INJUNCTION RUNNING
AGAINST THE EMPLOYER'S "SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS" PURPORTS TO INCLUDE
WITHIN ITS SWEEP SOME WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ITS COMMAND AND IS THUS A
THREAT TO THOSE OVER WHOM THE COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY.  THE OPINION ALSO
ADMITS THAT THE PERSONS WHO ARE BOUND BY THE PRESENT DECREE WOULD BE AS
EFFECTIVELY BOUND IF THE DECREE WERE TO OMIT THE WORDS "SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS."  SEE WALLING V. REUTER CO., 321 U.S. 671, 674-675, AND CASES
CITED. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN DEEMED TO BE AN ABUSE OF POWER FOR A FEDERAL COURT
TO ENJOIN PRACTICES IN WHICH A DEFENDANT HAS NOT ENGAGED AND WHICH ARE
UNRELATED TO THOSE WHICH MAY BE PROPERLY ENJOINED.  SEE LABOR BOARD V.
EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426, AND CASES CITED.  TO ME IT SEEMS
NO LESS A MISUSE OF AUTHORITY FOR A COURT, AS WELL AS FOR THE LABOR
BOARD ITSELF, TO THREATEN THOSE WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ITS COMMAND. 
THIS IS THE MORE SO WHERE THE TENDENCY OF THE THREAT IS TO INFLICT AN
UNAUTHORIZED PENALTY ON THE EMPLOYER BY DETERRING THIRD PERSONS FROM
DEALING WITH HIM TO ACQUIRE HIS PROPERTY AND BUSINESS, IN CIRCUMSTANCES
IN WHICH THAT MAY LAWFULLY BE DONE. 

THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS CASES BEFORE THIS COURT WHERE THE
BOARD'S ORDER HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED IN THIS RESPECT, IS SIGNIFICANT
ONLY AS SHOWING HOW EXTENSIVE THE ABUSE HAS BECOME AND HOW READY
EMPLOYERS AND THE LOWER COURTS HAVE BEEN TO ACQUIESCE IN THREATENED
WRONG WHEN THE INJURY SEEMED NOT TO BE IMMEDIATE.  BUT THESE ARE NOT
REASONS FOR OUR ACQUIESCENCE, WHEN THE QUESTION IS BROUGHT TO US FOR
DECISION FOR THE FIRST TIME.  IT IS NO PART OF THE FUNCTION OF THE
BOARD OR OF COURTS TO MAKE UNWARRANTED THREATS AGAINST SUITORS OR
INNOCENT THIRD PERSONS.  SUCH MISLEADING AND UNWARRANTED USE OF THE
PHRASE SHOULD BE AVOIDED, EITHER BY STRIKING IT FROM THE DECREE OR SO
QUALIFYING IT AS TO DESIGNATE THE CLASS OF "SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS" TO
WHOM IT MAY BE LAWFULLY APPLIED.  CF. SOUTHPORT CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 315
U.S. 100, 107. 
..END :









FONDREN V. COMMISSIONER, 324 U.S. 18 


NO. 88.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 12, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1945.  -
141 F.2D 419, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF MINORS PROVIDED FOR
DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIFIED PERCENTAGES WHEN THE BENEFICIARIES REACHED
THE AGES OF 25 AND 30 AND OF THE REMAINDER WHEN THEY REACHED 35.  THE
TRUSTEE WAS AUTHORIZED TO APPLY INCOME AND CORPUS TOWARD MAINTENANCE
AND EDUCATION OF THE BENEFICIARIES IF, CONTRARY TO EXPECTATIONS,
NECESSITY THEREFOR SHOULD ARISE.  HELD THAT GIFTS TO THE TRUSTS WERE
GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
504(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AND TREASURY REGULATIONS 79, SO THAT
THE $5,000 EXCLUSION PRESCRIBED BY THAT SECTION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE.  P.
24. 

2.  TO BRING THE STATUTORY EXCLUSION INTO FORCE, IT IS NOT ENOUGH
THAT THE DONEE HAS ACQUIRED VESTED RIGHTS; HE MUST HAVE THE RIGHT
PRESENTLY TO USE, POSSESS, OR ENJOY THE PROPERTY.  P. 20. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE BENEFICIARY IS SPECIFIED AND IN ESSE, OR THAT
THE AMOUNT OF THE GIFT IS DEFINITE AND CERTAIN, DOES NOT RENDER THE
STATUTORY EXCLUSION APPLICABLE, WHERE ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY IS
POSTPONED.  P. 26. 

4.  SECTION 504(B) MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN GIFTS FOR THE BENEFIT
OF MINORS AND GIFTS TO ADULTS.  P. 28. 

5.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE RESULT HERE REACHED THAT THE
STATUTORY EXCLUSION WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN ANY CASE TO GIFTS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF MINORS.  P. 29. 

6.  A SETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE, WHICH CONGRESS HAS
REENACTED, SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.  P. 29. 

FONDREN ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 323 U.S. 685, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE TAX COURT, 1 T.C. 1036, SUSTAINING THE COMMISSIONER'S ASSESSMENT OF
A DEFICIENCY IN GIFT TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1935, 1936 AND 1937 PETITIONER, ELLA F. FONDREN, AND HER HUSBAND,
SINCE DECEASED, CREATED SEVEN SEPARATE IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS, EACH IN
FAVOR OF A GRANDCHILD OF TENDER YEARS; AND EACH OF THEM MADE GIFTS TO
EACH TRUST OF CORPORATE STOCK HAVING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF $5,975. 
THE DONORS MADE GIFT TAX RETURNS FOR 1937, CLAIMING THE STATUTORY
EXCLUSION OF $5,000 FOR EACH GIFT, AND ACCORDINGLY REPORTED TAXABLE
GIFTS FOR EACH TRUST OF $975.  GIFT TAXES WERE PAID ON THIS BASIS. 

THE COMMISSIONER MADE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS, DISALLOWING THE
EXCLUSIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE GIFTS WERE OF "FUTURE INTERESTS IN
PROPERTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47
STAT. 169, AND TREASURY REGULATIONS 79(1936 ED.).  FN1  THE TAX COURT
UPHELD THE COMMISSIONER, THE CASES BEING CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING AND
DECISION.  1 T.C. 1036.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE TAX
COURT'S DECISION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  141 F.2D 419.  CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED, 323 U.S. 685, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION AS
AFFECTING THE TAXABILITY OF GIFTS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF MINOR
CHILDREN AND BECAUSE OF ALLEGED OR APPARENT CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF
OTHER COURTS.  FN2 

THE SOLE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE GIFTS WERE OF "FUTURE INTERESTS" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE AND THE REGULATION.  THE LATTER PROVIDES: 

"ART. 11  ....  'FUTURE INTERESTS' IS A LEGAL TERM, AND INCLUDES
REVERSIONS, REMAINDERS, AND OTHER INTERESTS OR ESTATES, WHETHER VESTED
OR CONTINGENT, AND WHETHER OR NOT SUPPORTED BY A PARTICULAR INTEREST OR
ESTATE, WHICH ARE LIMITED TO COMMENCE IN USE, POSSESSION, OR ENJOYMENT
AT SOME FUTURE DATE OR TIME  ...."  UPON THE FACTS THE ISSUE TURNS ON
WHETHER THE INTERESTS ACQUIRED BY THE MINOR BENEFICIARIES WERE "LIMITED
TO COMMENCE IN USE, POSSESSION, OR ENJOYMENT AT SOME FUTURE DATE OR
TIME."  RYERSON V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 405; UNITED STATES V.
PELZER, 312 U.S. 399. 

UNDER THESE DECISIONS IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BRING THE EXCLUSION INTO
FORCE THAT THE DONEE HAS VESTED RIGHTS.  IN ADDITION HE MUST HAVE THE
RIGHT PRESENTLY TO USE, POSSESS OR ENJOY THE PROPERTY.  THESE TERMS ARE
NOT WORDS OF ART, LIKE "FEE" IN THE LAW OF SEIZIN, UNITED STATES V.
PELZER, SUPRA, AT 403, BUT CONNOTE THE RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIAL PRESENT
ECONOMIC BENEFIT.  THE QUESTION IS OF TIME, NOT WHEN TITLE VESTS, BUT
WHEN ENJOYMENT BEGINS.  WHATEVER PUTS THE BARRIER OF A SUBSTANTIAL
PERIOD BETWEEN THE WILL OF THE BENEFICIARY OR DONEE NOW TO ENJOY WHAT
HAS BEEN GIVEN HIM AND THAT ENJOYMENT MAKES THE GIFT ONE OF A FUTURE
INTEREST WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REGULATION. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE INCOME OF A TRUST IS
REQUIRED TO BE DISTRIBUTED PERIODICALLY, AS ANNUALLY, BUT DISTRIBUTION
OF THE CORPUS IS DEFERRED, THE GIFT OF THE INCOME IS ONE OF A PRESENT
INTEREST, THAT OF THE CORPUS ONE IN FUTURO.  FISHER V. COMMISSIONER,
132 F.2D 383; SENSENBRENNER V. COMMISSIONER, 134 F.2D 883.  A FORTIORI,
IF INCOME IS TO BE ACCUMULATED AND PAID OVER WITH THE CORPUS AT A LATER
TIME, THE ENTIRE GIFT IS OF A FUTURE INTEREST,  FN3  ALTHOUGH UPON
SPECIFIED CONTINGENCY SOME PORTION OR ALL OF THE FUND MAY BE PAID OVER
EARLIER.  FN4  THE CONTINGENCY MAY BE THE EXERCISE OF THE TRUSTEE'S
DISCRETION, EITHER ABSOLUTE OR CONTINGENT.  FN5 IT MAY ALSO BE THE NEED
OF THE BENEFICIARY, NOT EXISTING WHEN THE TRUST OR GIFT TAKES EFFECT
LEGALLY, BUT ARISING LATER UPON ANTICIPATED THOUGH UNEXPECTED
CONDITIONS, EITHER TO CREATE A DUTY IN THE TRUSTEE TO PAY OVER OR TO
PERMIT HIM TO DO SO IN HIS DISCRETION.  FN6 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PRINCIPLES AND DECISIONS, IT IS NECESSARY TO
CONSIDER THE TERMS OF THE TRUSTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE
GIFTS WERE MADE.  THE TRUST INSTRUMENTS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY UNIFORM
EXCEPT FOR VARIATIONS IN THE NAMES OF THE BENEFICIARIES AND, IN CASE OF
DEATH, THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST.  THE TRUSTS WERE IRREVOCABLE, THE
DONORS RETAINING NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE ESTATES.  EACH
INSTRUMENT NAMED THE DONOR, W. W. FONDREN, AS TRUSTEE, AND ELLA F.
FONDREN, THE OTHER DONOR, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE.  THEY RESERVED THE
RIGHTS AS DONORS TO REMOVE ANY TRUSTEE, EXCEPT MR. FONDREN, AND TO NAME
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES.  SUBJECT TO THESE RESERVATIONS AND THE DIRECTIONS
SET FORTH BELOW, THE TRUSTEE WAS GIVEN SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE CONTROL. 

THE TRUSTS' STATED PURPOSE WAS "TO PROVIDE FOR THE PERSONAL COMFORT,
SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE, AND WELFARE" OF THE GRANDCHILDREN.  BUT FROM THE
EXPLICIT RECITALS OF THE INSTRUMENTS,  FN7  AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE,
INCLUDING A STIPULATION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PARENTS OF EACH CHILD
WERE SO SITUATED THAT, WHEN THE GIFTS WERE MADE, THEY WERE FULLY ABLE
TO PROVIDE FOR AND EDUCATE HIM.  AND, FROM THE SAME RECITALS, IT IS
CLEAR THERE WAS LITTLE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY PARENT WOULD NOT
CONTINUE SO UNTIL THE CHILD'S MAJORITY.  ACCORDINGLY, IN EACH INSTANCE,
THE TRUST WAS TO CONTINUE UNTIL THE CHILD SHOULD ATTAIN THE AGE OF
THIRTY-FIVE.  HENCE ALSO THE INCOME WAS TO BE ACCUMULATED, EXCEPT UPON
THE CONTINGENCIES SPECIFIED BELOW, AND EACH BENEFICIARY WAS TO RECEIVE
25 PER CENT OF THE CORPUS AND ACCUMULATIONS AT AGE TWENTY-FIVE, 33 1/3
PER CENT AT AGE THIRTY, AND THE REMAINDER AT AGE THIRTY-FIVE. 

AWARE OF THE UNCERTAINTIES OF OUR WORLD, HOWEVER, THE DONORS DIRECTED
IN ARTICLE 3: 

"...  THE TRUSTEE SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE AND
EDUCATION OF OUR SAID GRANDSON, USING ONLY THE INCOME OF SAID ESTATE
FOR THE PURPOSE IF IT BE SUFFICIENT.  IF IT BE NECESSARY TO USE ANY OF
THE CORPUS OF THE ESTATE FOR THAT PURPOSE AND IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
TRUSTEE IT IS BEST TO DO SO, SAID TRUSTEE MAY MAKE ADVANCEMENTS OUT OF
THE CORPUS OF SAID TRUST ESTATE FOR SUCH PURPOSE FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR
SAID GRANDSON. 

"IT IS CONTEMPLATED, HOWEVER, THAT OUR SAID GRANDSON WILL HAVE OTHER
ADEQUATE AND SUFFICIENT MEANS OF SUPPORT, AND THAT IT WILL NOT BE
NECESSARY TO USE EITHER THE INCOME OR THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST ESTATE
HEREBY CREATED TO PROPERLY PROVIDE FOR HIS EDUCATION, MAINTENANCE AND
SUPPORT; AND, IF THE INCOME FROM THE TRUST ESTATE BE NOT NEEDED FOR
THESE PURPOSES, THEN ALL OF THE INCOME FROM SAID TRUST ESTATE NOT SO
NEEDED SHALL BE BY THE TRUSTEE PASSED TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SAID TRUST
ESTATE, AND SHALL BE AND BECOME A PART OF SAID TRUST ESTATE, IT BEING
OUR HOPE THAT ALL OF THE EARNINGS AND INCOME OF SAID TRUST ESTATE
DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS TRUST MAY BE USED TO AUGMENT THE TRUST ESTATE
AND BE DELIVERED TO OUR SAID GRANDSON AT THE PERIODS HEREIN PROVIDED
FOR.  IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT OUR SAID GRANDSON SHALL
BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED, EDUCATED AND SUPPORTED, AND IF IT BE NECESSARY
TO USE ALL OF THE INCOME AND EVEN ALL OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST ESTATE
HEREBY CREATED AND ALL AUGMENTATIONS THEREOF, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF
THE TRUSTEE TO SEE THAT THIS OBLIGATION SHALL BE PROPERLY AND
REASONABLY DISCHARGED  ...." 

IN VIEW OF THE APPARENTLY CONFLICTING TERMS OF THIS ARTICLE FOR USE
OF THE CORPUS, THE EXACT SCOPE OF THE TRUSTEE'S DISCRETION IS BY NO
MEANS CLEAR.  BUT THIS NEED NOT BE DETERMINED.  WHETHER THE DISPOSITION
IS IN HIS JUDGMENT ENTIRELY, AS THE FIRST CLAUSE INDICATES, OR UNDER
THE SECOND IS SO ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO HOW MUCH OF THE FUND MAY BE
NEEDED,  FN8  THE TRUSTEE CANNOT ACT IN ANY CASE TO APPLY CORPUS OR
INCOME FOR THE SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE AND EDUCATION OF THE BENEFICIARY
UNTIL NECESSITY ARISES. 

UNDER THE PARTICULAR FACTS, THIS REQUIREMENT IS IMPORTANT IN TWO
RESPECTS.  IT IS, AS PETITIONERS URGE, A LIMITATION UPON THE TRUSTEE'S
DISCRETION.  HIS POWER IS NOT UNCONFINED.  EVEN THOUGH THE EXISTENCE
AND AMOUNT OF NEED MAY BE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE FOR HIS DETERMINATION,
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT, NEED EXISTING, THE TRUSTEE ARBITRARILY COULD
REFUSE TO MAKE THE APPLICATION.  THE CASE THEREFORE IS NOT ONE IN WHICH
PRESENT ENJOYMENT IS DEPENDENT UPON AN EXERCISE OF THE TRUSTEE'S
ABSOLUTE DISCRETION. 

BUT THIS DOES NOT SHOW, AS PETITIONERS SEEM TO THINK, THAT THE MINOR
BENEFICIARIES HAD, AT THE MOMENT OF THE GIFT, A PRESENT RIGHT OF
ENJOYMENT.  IT RATHER SHOWS THE CONTRARY - THAT THEIR RIGHT WAS NOT
ABSOLUTE AND IMMEDIATE, BUT WAS CONDITIONED, DURING MINORITY AND
AFTERWARD UNTIL THE TIMES SPECIFIED FOR DISTRIBUTION, UPON A
CONTINGENCY WHICH MIGHT NEVER ARISE.  THAT CONTINGENCY, BY THE EXPLICIT
TERMS OF THE TRUST, WAS THE EXISTENCE OF NEED WHICH WAS THEN
NONEXISTENT AND, IN THE STATED CONTEMPLATION OF THE DONORS, WAS NOT
LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, AT ANY RATE DURING THE CHILD'S
MINORITY.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DONORS AND THE DONEES
CONFIRM THESE RECITALS.  THE CASE IS ONE THEREFORE IN WHICH THE GIFT,
IF PRESENTLY VESTED, MADE ENJOYMENT CONTINGENT UPON THE OCCURRENCE OF
FUTURE EVENTS, NOT ONLY UNCERTAIN, BUT BY THE RECITALS OF THE
INSTRUMENT ITSELF IMPROBABLE OF OCCURRENCE.  THE GIFTS CONSEQUENTLY
WERE OF "FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
504(B). 

PETITIONERS' CONTRARY ARGUMENT, APART FROM THE MISCONCEPTION THAT
LEGAL VESTING OF THE INTEREST WITHOUT MORE SATISFIES THE STATUTE,  FN9
RESTS CHIEFLY UPON CONSIDERATIONS ARISING FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
AND FROM THE FACT THAT GIFTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHILDREN UNDER LEGAL
DISABILITY TO MANAGE THEIR OWN PROPERTY MUST MAKE PROVISION FOR ITS
CONTROL BY TRUSTEES OR OTHERWISE. 

SPECIAL STRESS IS PLACED ON THE FACT THAT EACH GIFT WAS MADE TO OR
FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SPECIFICALLY NAMED BENEFICIARY THEN IN ESSE AND
FOR A DEFINITE AMOUNT.  AS THE PELZER OPINION NOTED, 312 U.S. AT 403,
THE COMMITTEE REPORTS RECOMMENDING THE LEGISLATION STATED:  "THE
EXEMPTION BEING AVAILABLE ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DONEES ARE
ASCERTAINABLE, THE DENIAL OF THE EXEMPTION IN THE CASE OF GIFTS OF
FUTURE INTERESTS IS DICTATED BY THE APPREHENDED DIFFICULTY, IN MANY
INSTANCES, OF DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF EVENTUAL DONEES AND THE VALUES
OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GIFTS."  FN10  AND IN THE PELZER CASE THE COURT
FOUND THAT THE GIFT INVOLVED THESE DIFFICULTIES, AS WELL AS
POSTPONEMENT OF ENJOYMENT TO THE HAPPENING OF A FUTURE UNCERTAIN EVENT,
SINCE THE RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT WAS CONTINGENT IN ANY EVENT UPON THE
BENEFICIARIES' SURVIVING THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD SPECIFIED FOR ACCUMULATION
OF INCOME.  312 U.S. AT 404. 

BOTH CONCLUSIONS WOULD SEEM APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, THE CHIEF
DIFFERENCE BEING THAT THE PERIOD OF POSTPONEMENT, WHICH THE
BENEFICIARIES MUST SURVIVE BEFORE ENJOYMENT BEGINS, IS INDEFINITE
RATHER THAN FOR A SPECIFIED TIME.  THAT IS TRUE IN ANY CASE WHERE THE
LENGTH OF THE PERIOD IS GOVERNED BY A CONTINGENCY.  BUT THE REGULATION,
ADOPTED ALMOST IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COMMITTEE REPORTS,  FN11  DOES
NOT LIMIT THE DENIAL OF THE EXEMPTION TO INSTANCES WHERE THE DEFERMENT
OF ENJOYMENT IS AT ALL EVENTS FOR A PERIOD WHICH IS DEFINITE AND
CERTAIN.  CF. COMMISSIONER V. GLOS, 123 F.2D 548, 550.  CLEARLY THE
STATUTE IS NOT TO BE APPLIED DIFFERENTLY, TO GRANT OR DENY THE
EXEMPTION, IF THERE IS POSTPONEMENT, MERELY BECAUSE IN ONE CASE THE
PERIOD IS UNDER ANY EVENTUALITY FOR A CERTAIN, SPECIFIED LENGTH OF
TIME, WHEREAS IN ANOTHER IT IS OF UNCERTAIN OR INDEFINITE LENGTH.  THE
IMPORTANT THING IS THE CERTAINTY OF POSTPONEMENT, NOT CERTAINTY OF THE
LENGTH OF ITS DURATION. 

FURTHERMORE, IF THERE IS POSTPONEMENT, THE EXEMPTION IS DENIED
WHETHER OR NOT THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES ANTICIPATED IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS INHERE IN THE PARTICULAR GIFT.  COMMISSIONER V. GLOS,
SUPRA; WELCH V. PAINE, 120 F.2D 141.  THOSE REPORTS SPECIFICALLY STATE
THESE DIFFICULTIES ARE PRESENT "IN MANY INSTANCES."  BUT THEY ALSO
STATE THAT "THE TERM 'FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY' REFERS TO ANY
INTEREST OR ESTATE, WHETHER VESTED OR CONTINGENT, LIMITED TO COMMENCE
IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT A FUTURE DATE."  FN12  THEY THUS
CONTEMPLATE, AS DOES THE REGULATION FRAMED IN SIMILAR TERMS, VESTED AS
WELL AS CONTINGENT INTERESTS AND ESTATES.  AND THERE IS NOTHING TO
INDICATE THAT GIFTS TO SPECIFIED DONEES IN ESSE AND IN DEFINITE AMOUNTS
ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DENIAL, IF BY THE TERMS OF THE GIFT
ENJOYMENT IS DEFERRED TO A FUTURE TIME.  AGAIN, THE CRUCIAL THING IS
POSTPONEMENT OF ENJOYMENT, NOT THE FACT THAT THE BENEFICIARY IS
SPECIFIED AND IN ESSE OR THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE GIFT IS DEFINITE AND
CERTAIN.  FN13 

THE CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH PETITIONERS ADVANCE TO SUPPORT THEIR
POSITION, FROM THE MINORITY OF THE BENEFICIARIES AND THEIR CONSEQUENT
LEGAL DISABILITY TO MANAGE AND CONTROL THEIR PROPERTY ARE INTERMINGLED
WITH OTHERS RELATING TO THE MOTIVES OF THE DONORS IN MAKING THE GIFTS. 
IT IS SAID THAT THEIR PURPOSE WAS TO PROVIDE FOR THE "COMFORT, SUPPORT,
MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE," INCLUDING EDUCATION, OF THE GRANDCHILDREN;
THAT THE LATTER WERE INCAPABLE OF TAKING OVER THE MANAGEMENT AND
CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY; THAT ACCORDINGLY IT WAS NECESSARY FOR SOME
ARRANGEMENT TO BE MADE FOR VESTING THIS POWER IN TRUSTEES OR OTHERS
CAPABLE OF EXERCISING IT; THAT THE TRUSTEES WERE GIVEN NO POWER TO
WITHHOLD EITHER INCOME OR CORPUS IN CASE OF NEED; AND CONSEQUENTLY THE
WHOLE FUND BECAME AVAILABLE TO THE BENEFICIARY FOR HIS MAINTENANCE
"IMMEDIATELY UPON THE CONSUMMATION OF THE GIFT," SO THAT HE WAS VESTED
AT ONCE WITH THE RIGHT OF PRESENT ENJOYMENT AS FULLY AS ANY CHILD OF
TENDER YEARS COULD BE AND IN NO WAY DIFFERENTLY, TAKING ACCOUNT OF HIS
DISABILITY, THAN ANY OWNER OF PROPERTY BY TITLE IN FEE SIMPLE.    SO
FAR AS THE ARGUMENT TURNS ON THE MOTIVE OF THE DONORS, IT MAY BE
ANSWERED THAT THE STATUTE AND THE REGULATION MAKE NO SUCH TEST.  IF
MOTIVE HAS BEARING, IT IS ONLY BY REASON OF ITS EFFECT UPON THE ELEMENT
OF TIME AND WHATEVER RELATION MAY BE GIVEN, BY THE PARTICULAR TERMS OF
THE GIFT, TO IT AND THE DISCLOSING OF A PURPOSE TO PROVIDE FOR OR
AGAINST IMMEDIATE ENJOYMENT.  THE STATUTE IN THIS RESPECT PURPORTS TO
MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN GIFTS TO MINORS AND GIFTS TO ADULTS.  IF
THERE IS DEFERMENT IN EITHER CASE THE EXEMPTION IS DENIED. 
CONSEQUENTLY IN THIS CASE THE DONORS' LAUDABLE DESIRE TO MAKE PROVISION
FOR THEIR GRANDCHILDREN IN CASE OF FUTURE NEED CANNOT NULLIFY THE
DEFERMENT WHICH THE RECITED ABSENCE OF PRESENT NEED, COUPLED WITH THE
TERMS OF THE TRUST, BROUGHT ABOUT.  AGAIN, CONTINGENCY OF NEED IN THE
FUTURE IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE FACT OF NEED PRESENTLY EXISTING.  AND
A GIFT EFFECTIVE ONLY FOR THE FORMER SITUATION IS NOT EFFECTIVE, FOR
PURPOSES OF RELIEF FROM THE TAX, AS IF THE LATTER WERE SPECIFIED,
WHETHER THE DONEE IS AN ADULT OR A MINOR. 

UPON THE FACTS, FURTHERMORE, THE TRUSTS HARDLY CAN BE TAKEN AS
DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR THE PERIODS COVERED BY THE CHILDREN'S MINORITY. 
THEY DID NOT TERMINATE WITH THE ENDING OF THAT PERIOD.  THE GRADUATED
SCALE OF PAYMENTS, BEGINNING AT AGE TWENTY-FIVE AND ENDING AT THIRTY
FIVE, TOGETHER WITH THE PROHIBITION OF PAYMENT EARLIER EXCEPT IN CASE
OF NECESSITY, SHOWS PRINCIPAL CONCERN FOR A PERIOD OF ADULT LIFE.  AND,
FROM THE FACT THAT THIS WOULD BE THE PERIOD WHEN THE GRANDCHILDREN
NORMALLY WOULD BE ASSUMING FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES OF THEIR OWN, THE
INFERENCE WELL MIGHT BE DRAWN THAT THE CHIEF PURPOSE WAS TO GIVE AID
AND SOME SECURITY IN THAT TIME.  THE CONTINGENT PROVISION, IN CASE OF
EARLIER NEED, CANNOT BE TAKEN THEREFORE TO REPRESENT THE DONORS'
PRIMARY CONCERN AS EXPRESSED IN THE INSTRUMENTS.  CF. FISHER V.
COMMISSIONER, 132 F.2D 383, 386.  BUT, WHETHER SO OR NOT, IN THE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT NEED WAS BUT A CONTINGENCY TO BE
REALIZED, IF AT ALL, IN THE FUTURE.  AND, UNTIL REALIZED, THE
CONTINGENCY STOOD SQUARELY IN THE WAY OF ANY CHILD'S RECEIVING A SINGLE
DOLLAR FROM THE FUND. 

FINALLY IT IS URGED THAT UNLESS THESE GIFTS ARE TO BE TAKEN AS
CONFERRING THE RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE ENJOYMENT, NO GIFT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
A CHILD OF TENDER YEARS CAN BE SO REGARDED SINCE IN ANY SUCH CASE "SOME
COMPETENT PERSON MUST BE THE PRIMARY JUDGE AS TO THE NECESSITY AND
EXTENT OF REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BENEFICIARY."  THE ARGUMENT IS
APPEALING, IN SO FAR AS IT SEEKS TO AVOID IMPUTING TO CONGRESS THE
INTENTION TO "PENALIZE GIFTS TO MINORS MERELY BECAUSE THE LEGAL
DISABILITY OF THEIR YEARS PRECLUDES THEM FOR A TIME FROM RECEIVING
THEIR INCOME IN HAND CURRENTLY."  CF. DISSTON V. COMMISSIONER, 144 F.2D
115, 119.  BUT WE THINK IT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE,
SINCE BY THE TERMS OF THE TRUSTS AND THE FACTS RECITED IN THE
INSTRUMENTS NONE OF THE FUND, WHETHER INCOME OR CORPUS, COULD BE
APPLIED IMMEDIATELY FOR THE CHILD'S USE OR ENJOYMENT. 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, AS PETITIONERS SAY, THAT IF THE EXEMPTION DOES
NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE IT CAN APPLY IN NO OTHER MADE FOR A MINOR'S
BENEFIT.  WHENEVER PROVISION IS MADE FOR IMMEDIATE APPLICATION OF THE
FUND FOR SUCH A PURPOSE, WHETHER OF INCOME OR OF CORPUS, THE EXEMPTION
APPLIES.  WHETHER, IN THE CASE OF A GIFT REQUIRING SUCH AN APPLICATION
OF THE INCOME, BUT PROVIDING FOR RETENTION OF A CORPUS NO MORE THAN
REASONABLY SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE THE INCOME REQUIRED FOR THIS PURPOSE
AND TO INSURE ITS CONTINUED PAYMENT DURING MINORITY, THE DONATION WOULD
FALL WITHIN THE EXEMPTION, AS TO CORPUS AS WELL AS INCOME, IS A
QUESTION NOT PRESENTED ON THIS RECORD AND THEREFORE NOT DETERMINED. 

THE REGULATION HAS RECEIVED THE CONSTRUCTION NOW REAFFIRMED WITH
SUBSTANTIAL CONSISTENCY.  THE STATUTE, WITH THE MEANING THUS SETTLED,
HAS BEEN REENACTED BY CONGRESS.  FN14  THE CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE
FOLLOWED UNTIL CONGRESS SEES FIT TO CHANGE IT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE STATUTE IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 504.  NET GIFTS. 

"(A)  GENERAL DEFINITION.  - THE TERM 'NET GIFTS' MEANS THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF GIFTS MADE DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR, LESS THE DEDUCTIONS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 505. 

"(B)  GIFTS LESS THAN $5,000.  - IN THE CASE OF GIFTS (OTHER THAN OF
FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY) MADE TO ANY PERSON BY THE DONOR DURING
THE CALENDAR YEAR, THE FIRST $5,000 OF SUCH GIFTS TO SUCH PERSON SHALL
NOT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBSECTION (A), BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF GIFTS MADE DURING SUCH YEAR." 

THE PERTINENT PART OF THE REGULATION IS QUOTED IN THE TEXT BELOW. 

FN2  THE PETITION ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH SMITH V. COMMISSIONER, 131
F.2D 254(C.C.A.8TH); SENSENBRENNER V. COMMISSIONER, 134 F.2D
883(C.C.A.7TH); AND KINNEY V. ANGLIM, 43 F.SUPP.  431(N.D. CALIF.). 
CF. ALSO DISSTON V. COMMISSIONER, 144 F.2D 115(C.C.A.3     THE
DECISION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, OVERRULED THE PRIOR DECISION IN
COMMISSIONER V. TAYLOR, 122 F.2D 714, CERT. DENIED, 314 U.S. 699.  A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS FILED IN THE DISSTON CASE ON
OCTOBER 12, 1944, AND NOW IS PENDING. 

FN3  WELCH V. PAINE, 120 F.2D 141; COMMISSIONER V. TAYLOR, 122 F.2D
714, 715, CERT. DENIED, 314 U.S. 699; COMMISSIONER V. BRANDEGEE, 123
F.2D 58; COMMISSIONER V. PHILLIPS' ESTATE, 126 F.2D 851; COMMISSIONER
V. GARDNER, 127 F.2D 929; WELCH V. PAINE, 130 F.2D 990; COMMISSIONER V.
WELLS, 132 F.2D 405; FRENCH V. COMMISSIONER, 138 F.2D 254; ROBERTS V.
COMMISSIONER, 143 F.2D 657; HOWE V. UNITED STATES, 142 F.2D 310;
HUTCHINGS-SEALY NATIONAL BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 141 F.2D 422; HELVERING
V. BLAIR, 121 F.2D 945. 

FN4  IBID. 

FN5  WELCH V. PAINE, 120 F.2D 141; COMMISSIONER V. TAYLOR, 122 F.2D
714, 715, CERT. DENIED, 314 U.S. 699; COMMISSIONER V. BRANDEGEE, 123
F.2D 58; COMMISSIONER V. PHILLIPS' ESTATE, 126 F.2D 851; COMMISSIONER
V. GARDNER, 127 F.2D 929; WINTERBOTHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 46 B.T.A. 972;
CF. RYERSON V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 405, 408. 

FN6  CF. AUTHORITIES CITED NOTE 3 SUPRA. 

FN7  CF. THE RECITALS QUOTED IN THE TEXT BELOW. 

FN8  PETITIONER PRESENTS THE CASE AS IF NO DISCRETION WHATEVER WERE
VESTED IN THE TRUSTEE AS TO MAKING THE PAYMENTS OVER.  HOWEVER, IN THE
FIRST PROVISION FOR USE OF THE CORPUS SUCH USE IS AUTHORIZED "IF IT BE
NECESSARY  ...  AND IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRUSTEE IT IS BEST TO DO
SO"; IN THE OTHER PROVISION THE DUTY IMPOSED, "IF IT BE NECESSARY TO
USE ALL OF THE INCOME AND EVEN ALL OF THE CORPUS," IS ONE "TO SEE THAT
THIS OBLIGATION SHALL BE PROPERLY AND REASONABLY DISCHARGED."  IF THE
FIRST CLAUSE LIMITS THE SECOND, THE TRUSTEE'S DISCRETION IS BOUNDED
ONLY BY WHAT HE THINKS "IT IS BEST TO DO," AND IN ANY EVENT UNDER THE
LATTER HIS DUTY IS ONLY TO SEE THAT THE OBLIGATION IS "PROPERLY AND
REASONABLY" DISCHARGED.  PRESUMABLY ALSO THE TRUSTEE WOULD HAVE SOME
ROOM FOR JUDGMENT ON WHETHER PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD AMOUNT TO
NECESSITY AND PARTICULAR MEASURES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET IT. 

FN9  SEVERAL OF PETITIONERS' STATEMENTS OF THEIR CONTENTIONS IGNORE
THE CONTINGENCY UPON WHICH ENJOYMENT IS DEFERRED IN THIS CASE, NAMELY
THE OCCURRENCE AT SOME FUTURE TIME OF THE NEED OR NECESSITY OF THE
BENEFICIARY WHICH WOULD BRING THE TRUSTEE'S POWER OR DUTY TO PROVIDE
FOR SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE FROM THE TRUST FUND INTO PLAY.  IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO NOTE THESE CONTENTIONS SPECIFICALLY FURTHER THAN TO SAY,
IN ADDITION TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ALREADY, THAT THEY ASSUME AS THE
ANSWER TO IT THE VERY ISSUE IN THE CASE. 

FN10  H. REP. NO. 708, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., 29; S. REP. NO. 665, 72D
CONG., 1ST SESS., 41. 

FN11  CF. TEXT AT NOTE 12 INFRA. 

FN12  CF. NOTE 10 SUPRA. 

FN13  THE ABSENCE OF THESE FACTORS IS RELEVANT AS SHOWING THE MORE
CLEARLY THAT POSTPONEMENT EXISTS AND THEREFORE THE EXEMPTION DOES NOT
APPLY.  THEIR PRESENCE DOES NOT SHOW THAT THERE IS NO POSTPONEMENT OR
THAT THE EXEMPTION APPLIES.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES RELATING
TO THESE MATTERS "IN MANY INSTANCES" WERE REASONS FOR DENYING THE
EXEMPTION.  THEY DO NOT AND WERE NOT INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS THE FULL
SCOPE OF THE DENIAL.  AS THE STATUTE EXTENDED THE EXEMPTION "IN THE
SPECIFIED AMOUNT, TO ALL GIFTS, WHETHER LARGE OR SMALL, 'MADE TO ANY
PERSON,'" HELVERING V. HUTCHINGS, 312 U.S. 393, 397, SO IT DENIED THE
EXEMPTION TO ALL GIFTS, WHETHER LARGE OR SMALL, VESTED OR CONTINGENT,
MADE TO ANY PERSON, WHETHER SPECIFIED AND IN ESSE OR ASCERTAINABLE ONLY
IN THE FUTURE, AND WHETHER FOR A SPECIFIC OR A PRESENTLY
UNASCERTAINABLE AMOUNT, IF THE GIFT IS ONE OF A "FUTURE INTEREST IN
PROPERTY," THAT IS, ONE AS TO WHICH ENJOYMENT IS POSTPONED TO SOME
FUTURE TIME. 

FN14  CONGRESS WITHDREW THE EXCLUSION, AS TO GIFTS IN TRUST, IN THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1938, C. 289, 52 STAT. 447, SEC. 505, AMENDING SEC.
504(B) OF THE 1932 ACT.  BUT IT WAS RESTORED, THOUGH REDUCED TO $3,000,
BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, C. 619, 56 STAT. 798, SEC. 454. 
..END :



















UNITED STATES V. TOWNSLEY, 323 U.S. 557 


NO. 134.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1945.  - 101
CT. CLS. 237, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 23 OF THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1935, SO
FAR AS IT PROVIDES FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES IN EXCESS OF
40 HOURS PER WEEK, APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OF THE PANAMA CANAL
WHOSE COMPENSATION IS FIXED ON A MONTHLY BASIS.  P. 565. 

2.  IN THE CASE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE NORMAL WORK WEEK WAS SIX 8-HOUR
DAYS, OVERTIME COMPENSATION WAS PROPERLY COMPUTED BY MULTIPLYING THE
EMPLOYEE'S MONTHLY SALARY BY TWELVE AND DIVIDING THE RESULT BY FIFTY
TWO TO ASCERTAIN HIS WEEKLY SALARY; THEN DIVIDING THE WEEKLY SALARY BY
FIVE TO OBTAIN HIS PAY FOR AN 8-HOUR DAY; AND THEN MULTIPLYING THE
NUMBER OF WEEKS IN WHICH HE HAD WORKED A SIXTH DAY BY THE DAILY WAGE
PLUS ONE-HALF.  P. 573. 

UNITED STATES V. TOWNSLEY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 686, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A
SUIT TO RECOVER OVERTIME COMPENSATION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER
SO FAR AS IT PROVIDES FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES IN EXCESS
OF 40 HOURS PER WEEK, APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES OF THE CANAL ZONE
WHOSE COMPENSATION IS FIXED ON A MONTHLY BASIS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS
ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  FN2 IF WE TAKE THE SAME VIEW, A
SUBSIDIARY INQUIRY IS WHETHER THAT COURT ADOPTED THE RIGHT METHOD FOR
CALCULATING THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION. 

THE SECTION, IN FULL, IS: 

"THE WEEKLY COMPENSATION, MINUS ANY GENERAL PERCENTAGE REDUCTION
WHICH MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY ACT OF CONGRESS, FOR THE SEVERAL TRADES AND
OCCUPATIONS, WHICH IS SET BY WAGE BOARDS OR OTHER WAGE-FIXING
AUTHORITIES, SHALL BE REESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED AT RATES NOT LOWER
THAN NECESSARY TO RESTORE THE FULL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF SUCH EMPLOYEES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FULL-TIME WEEKLY EARNINGS UNDER THE RESPECTIVE WAGE
SCHEDULES IN EFFECT ON JUNE 1, 1932:  PROVIDED, THAT THE REGULAR HOURS
OF LABOR SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN FORTY PER WEEK; AND ALL OVERTIME SHALL
BE COMPENSATED FOR AT THE RATE OF NOT LESS THAN TIME AND ONE HALF." 

BETWEEN MARCH 28, 1934, AND AUGUST 31, 1939, THE RESPONDENT WAS
EMPLOYED BY THE PANAMA CANAL SUCCESSIVELY AS OPERATOR, CHIEF OPERATOR,
AND MASTER OF A DREDGE, AND WAS PAID ON A MONTHLY BASIS AT RATES FIXED
BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE CANAL ZONE UPON RECOMMENDATION OF A WAGE BOARD. 
THE RESPONDENT'S NORMAL WORK WEEK CONSISTED OF SIX 8-HOUR DAYS.  HE
RETIRED AUGUST 29, 1939, AND THEN, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ASSERTED THAT
UNDER THE ACT HE WAS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF TIME AND
ONE-HALF FOR ALL HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40 PER WEEK.  IN PROSECUTION
OF HIS CLAIM HE INSTITUTED THIS SUIT MARCH 14, 1940. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN ONE OF THE "TRADES
AND OCCUPATIONS" WHOSE COMPENSATION "IS SET BY WAGE BOARDS OR OTHER
WAGE-FIXING AUTHORITIES" COVERED BY THE ACT.  WE THINK THIS CONCLUSION
IS RIGHT AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE PETITIONER NOW TO CONTEST IT.  THE
COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE STATUTE EMBRACED THOSE EMPLOYES OF THE
CANAL ZONE WHOSE WAGES ARE PAID ON A MONTHLY BASIS.  THIS THE
GOVERNMENT CONTESTS, RELYING ON THE WORDS OF THE ACT, ON ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE AND ON LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  A STATEMENT OF THE BACKGROUND OF
THE LEGISLATION AND ITS APPLICATION SEEMS NECESSARY TO DECISION. 

IN 1923 CONGRESS ADOPTED THE "CLASSIFICATION ACT"  FN3  CLASSIFYING
THE EMPLOYMENT AND FIXING THE COMPENSATION FOR DIFFERENT CLASSES OF
EMPLOYES OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  IT EXCLUDED FROM
THE TERMS OF THE ACT CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS, INCLUDING APPRENTICES,
HELPERS OR JOURNEYMEN IN A RECOGNIZED TRADE OR CRAFT AND SKILLED OR
SEMI-SKILLED LABORERS, AMONG OTHERS.  ADMITTEDLY, CERTAIN EMPLOYES OF
THE PANAMA CANAL, INCLUDING THE RESPONDENT, WERE NOT COVERED BY THIS
ACT.  THEIR COMPENSATION WAS TO BE FIXED BY THE PRESIDENT, OR BY HIS
AUTHORITY, UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912; FN4  SPECIFICALLY IT WAS
SET BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE PANAMA CANAL ON THE ADVICE OF A WAGE BOARD. 

THE ACT OF MARCH 28, 1934, WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED, WAS THE
LAST OF THE SO-CALLED ECONOMY ACTS INTENDED TO DECREASE EXPENSES BY
REDUCTION OF COMPENSATION AND SUSPENSION OF PRIVILEGES OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYES.  BY THE FIRST SUCH ACT, APPROVED JUNE 30, 1932,  FN5  A
REGULAR SCHEDULE OF REDUCTION OF SALARIES, BY A SYSTEM OF FURLOUGHS OR
REDUCTION OF THE WORK WEEK, WAS ESTABLISHED. 

BY THE ACT OF MARCH 20, 1933,  FN6  CONGRESS SUPERSEDED THE FURLOUGH
SYSTEM AND PROVIDED FOR A REDUCTION, NOT TO EXCEED 15%, IN THE
COMPENSATION OF ALL EMPLOYES.  BY THE ACT OF MARCH 28, 1934, THIS
REDUCTION WAS CUT TO 10% FOR A PORTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 1934, AND TO
5% FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1935.  POSSIBLE REDUCTIONS IN COMPENSATION
IMPOSED ON FEDERAL EMPLOYES WERE NOT, HOWEVER, LIMITED TO THOSE
PRESCRIBED IN THE CITED STATUTES.  MEN WERE DISCHARGED AND REHIRED IN
LOWER CLASSIFICATIONS AT THE LOWER WAGES APPLICABLE AND WERE FURLOUGHED
WITHOUT PAY, IN ORDER TO KEEP WITHIN APPROPRIATIONS. 

WHEN THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF MARCH 28, 1934 WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION, A REPRESENTATIVE OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION APPEARED BEFORE
A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AND ADVOCATED
LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN DISCRIMINATORY REDUCTIONS IN THE WAGES
OF PER DIEM NAVY YARD WORKERS.  HE POINTED TO THE CONTINUANCE OF THE
PRACTICE OF FURLOUGHING THEM ONE DAY IN EACH TWO WEEKS, THUS REDUCING
THE HOURS WORKED TO 40 PER WEEK, AND SHOWED THAT THIS, IN ADDITION TO
THE 15% REDUCTION OF PAY REQUIRED BY THE ECONOMY ACT THEN IN FORCE,
ACTUALLY CUT THEIR BASE PAY OVER 22%.  HE ALSO COMPLAINED OF OTHER
PRACTICES WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF REDUCING THEIR COMPENSATION.  HE
EXPRESSED THE FEAR THAT IF CONGRESS ABOLISHED THE 15% LEVEL CUT, WAGE
BOARDS WOULD AT ONCE TAKE ACTION TO REDUCE EXISTING WAGE SCALES.  HE
PROPOSED A PROVISION WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT REDUCTION OF WAGES BELOW THE
WAGE SCALES WHICH WERE IN EFFECT JUNE 1, 1932, BUT SUGGESTED NO
PROVISION CONCERNING HOURS OF WORK OR OVERTIME PAY.  THE DRAFT HE
SUBMITTED WAS NOT EMBODIED IN THE BILL AS REPORTED. 

SENATOR THOMAS OFFERED THE PRESENT SEC. 23 ON THE FLOOR OF THE
SENATE, STATING MERELY  FN7 "THIS AMENDMENT IS OFFERED TO HELP THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE NAVY YARDS, THE ARSENALS, THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE, THE
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, AND THE BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING. 
IT SIMPLY PROPOSES TO PUT THEM BACK ON THE SAME STATUS THEY OCCUPIED IN
JULY OF 1932  ...  THE AMENDMENT ADOPTED THIS AFTERNOON RESTORES THEIR
PAY CUT, IT IS TRUE, PROVIDED THAT AMENDMENT REMAINS IN THE LAW.  THIS
AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO GIVE THE EMPLOYEES OF THESE SEVERAL BUREAUS AN
INCREASE IN THEIR PAY EVEN THOUGH THEY DO NOT HAVE TO WORK AN INCREASED
NUMBER OF HOURS.  AT THE PRESENT TIME THEY WORK 40 HOURS AND GET 44
HOURS' PAY.  UNDER THE AMENDMENT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE BOARD THAT HAS
CONTROL OF THESE EMPLOYEES WILL LET THEM WORK 40 HOURS AND THEY WILL
POSSIBLY GET 48 HOURS' PAY, PROVIDED THEY GET AN INCREASE OF THEIR
HOURLY PAY." 

THE AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED WITHOUT FURTHER REFERENCE TO IT IN EITHER
HOUSE OF CONGRESS.  THE PRESIDENT VETOED THE BILL, WHICH WAS PASSED
OVER HIS VETO.  ON THAT OCCASION A SENATOR INQUIRED WHETHER CERTAIN
LANGUAGE IN THE PRESIDENT'S VETO MESSAGE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 23 AND THE REPLY WAS THAT THE SENATOR INTERROGATED DID NOT KNOW
WHETHER THIS WAS SO.  WE SHALL SHORTLY SEE THAT THE SECTION DID
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN SENATOR THOMAS STATED IN HIS BRIEF
EXPLANATION. 

PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, THE RESPONDENT'S REGULAR
HOURS OF WORK WERE 48 PER WEEK, THOUGH HE WAS OFTEN REQUIRED TO WORK
52.  SHORTLY AFTER SEC. 23 BECAME LAW, THE GOVERNOR OF THE PANAMA CANAL
REQUESTED THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SECTION APPLIED
TO EMPLOYES OF THE CANAL AND WHETHER IT REQUIRED PAYMENT OF OVERTIME TO
CERTAIN CLASSES OF EMPLOYES, INCLUDING THE CLASS TO WHICH RESPONDENT
BELONGED.  THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL RULED THAT THE SECTION WAS
APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYES PAID BY THE MONTH AS WELL AS TO THOSE PAID BY
THE HOUR.  FN8  HE DID NOT DIRECTLY RULE ON THE RIGHT OF MONTHLY
EMPLOYES TO BE PAID FOR OVERTIME BUT HIS OPINION INDICATES THE VIEW
THAT THEY WERE NOT TO BE SO PAID SINCE HE STATED:  "...  NO CHANGE IN
THE MONTHLY OR ANNUAL RATE OF COMPENSATION OTHER THAN THAT REQUIRED TO
PAY A RATE NOT LOWER THAN THE RATE PER ANNUM OR PER MONTH PAID JUNE 1,
1932, LESS ANY APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE REDUCTIONS, WOULD BE AUTHORIZED. 
THAT IS TO SAY, THEY ARE TO RECEIVE THE SAME MONTHLY OR ANNUAL
COMPENSATION ALTHOUGH THEIR REGULAR HOURS OF DUTY MAY BE REDUCED." 

NOTWITHSTANDING THIS RULING, THE GOVERNOR ATTEMPTED TO REDUCE THE
MONTHLY EMPLOYES' COMPENSATION BY PUTTING THEM ON AN HOURLY BASIS. 
THIS HE DID BY DIVIDING THE MONTHLY SALARY PAID JUNE 1, 1932, BY 224,
THE NUMBER OF HOURS HE ESTIMATED THEY WORKED PER MONTH MADE UP OF EIGHT
HOURS PER DAY FOR SIX DAYS PER WEEK, SIXTEEN HOURS PER MONTH FOR
OCCASIONAL OVERTIME AND AN ALLOWANCE FOR OCCASIONAL WORK ON SUNDAYS AND
HOLIDAYS.  THIS COMPUTATION SHOWED THEY HAD BEEN WORKED 52 HOURS PER
WEEK.  HAVING THUS ASCERTAINED WHAT HE DEEMED THEIR HOURLY WAGES, HE
ADDED 20% TO THE HOURLY WAGE, SO THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE THE SAME
AMOUNT FOR A 40-HOUR WEEK AS THEY WOULD THERETOFORE HAVE RECEIVED FOR A
48-HOUR WEEK, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY HAD BEEN WORKING AND HAD BEEN
PAID FOR MORE THAN 48 HOURS ACCORDING TO HIS COMPUTATION OF THEIR PRIOR
HOURLY EARNINGS.  THE NET RESULT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY TO REDUCE THEIR
MONTHLY EARNINGS.  AFTER COMPLAINT BY THE EMPLOYES, THE GOVERNOR
SUBMITTED HIS ACTION TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL AND REQUESTED
RECONSIDERATION OF THE EARLIER DECISION.  FN9  THAT OFFICIAL REAFFIRMED
HIS PRIOR DECISION AND DISAPPROVED THE RECOMPUTATION OF MONTHLY WAGES
WHICH THE GOVERNOR HAD ADOPTED.  HE RULED THAT THE PROPER PROCEDURE WAS
"TO CONTINUE THE PAYMENT OF THE SAME MONTHLY RATES OF COMPENSATION EVEN
THOUGH THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK
AND NO OVERTIME COMPENSATION IS AUTHORIZED," AND ADDED THAT "THIS IS
THE GENERAL RULE THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED UNDER THE 40-HOUR WEEK STATUTORY
PROVISION FOR ALL EMPLOYEES PAID ON A MONTHLY OR ANNUAL BASIS."  THE
GOVERNOR'S SUBMISSION AND THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S RULING MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT BOTH UNDERSTOOD THAT EMPLOYES PAID ON A MONTHLY BASIS COULD
NOT BE REGULARLY WORKED MORE THAN 40 HOURS A WEEK.  SEVERAL PASSAGES IN
HIS DECISIONS ALSO INDICATE THAT THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL WAS OF OPINION
THAT MONTHLY EMPLOYES SHOULD NOT BE PAID OVERTIME.  THE RULINGS WERE
DEFINITELY THAT EMPLOYES WHOSE WEEKLY WAGES WOULD BE REDUCED BY
REDUCING THEIR WORK HOURS MUST HAVE THOSE WAGES RESTORED TO THE 1932
WAGE LEVEL, AND THAT EMPLOYES WHO HAD NOT HAD THEIR WEEKLY WAGES CUT
BECAUSE THEY WERE PAID BY THE MONTH AND WERE WORKED 52 HOURS PER WEEK
SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR WAGES CUT AS A RESULT OF SEC. 23 BY THE REDUCTION
OF THEIR WORK WEEK TO 40 HOURS. 

APPARENTLY RELYING ON THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S STATEMENT THAT
EMPLOYES ON A MONTHLY WAGE BASIS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO OVERTIME, THE
GOVERNOR CONTINUED TO WORK THE RESPONDENT 48 HOURS A WEEK BUT PAID HIM
NO OVERTIME.  THIS IN SPITE OF HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE 40-HOUR WEEK
LIMITATION WAS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE RESPONDENT IF OTHER PARTS OF SEC.
23 WERE SO APPLICABLE.  IN HIS SECOND SUBMISSION TO THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL HE STATED HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE LATTER'S DECISION THAT
MONTHLY EMPLOYES COULD NOT BE WORKED MORE THAN 40 HOURS A WEEK.  THERE
IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE QUESTION OF THE LEGALITY OF WORKING THE
RESPONDENT OVERTIME WITHOUT PAYING HIM FOR IT WAS EVER SUBMITTED TO THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL. 

IT SEEMS EVIDENT THAT THE GOVERNOR'S ACTION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED.  IF
SEC. 23 APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT, HIS WORK WEEK SHOULD
HAVE BEEN 40 HOURS.  IF, IN SPITE OF SEC. 23, HIS MONTHLY STIPEND
COVERED EVERY DAY AND EVERY HOUR OF THE MONTH WHETHER SERVICE WAS
RENDERED OR NOT, AS THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL HAD SAID, SO THAT
RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE PAID FOR OVERTIME, THEN HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
REGULARLY WORKED OVERTIME. 

WITH THIS OUTLINE OF THE SITUATION, WE ARE BROUGHT TO A CONSIDERATION
OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT SEC. 23 HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE
RESPONDENT'S COMPENSATION. 

WE TURN FIRST TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE EXPRESSIONS "WEEKLY
COMPENSATION" AND "WEEKLY EARNINGS" CONTROL ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE SECTION AND THAT HENCE BOTH THE AFFIRMATIVE PROVISIONS AND THE
PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN THE PROVISO APPLY ONLY TO THOSE EMPLOYES WHO
RECEIVE WEEKLY WAGES.  AS THE RECORD, HOWEVER, FAILS TO INDICATE THAT
ANY OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES WERE PAID BY THE WEEK, IT IS SAID THAT
THE TERM "WEEKLY" WAS USED AS A METHOD OF ADJUSTING THE WAGES OF PER
HOUR OR PER DIEM EMPLOYES BECAUSE A 40-HOUR WORK WEEK COULD EASILY BE
CALCULATED IN THEIR CASE AS THE MEASURE OF WEEKLY WORK AND COMPENSATION
WHEREAS IT COULD NOT SO READILY BE APPLIED TO MONTHLY EMPLOYES.  BUT WE
THINK THIS SUGGESTION DOES NOT COMPORT EITHER WITH THE PROVISIONS OR
THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION.  THE SECTION COMMANDED NOT ONLY
THAT WAGES REDUCED AS A RESULT OF FURLOUGHS AND UNCOMPENSATED OVERTIME
SHOULD BE REESTABLISHED BUT ALSO THAT, FOR THE FUTURE, SUCH WAGES
SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AT THE JUNE 1, 1932, LEVEL, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE REDUCTIONS PROVIDED BY THE ECONOMY ACTS.  IT
SOUGHT TO FORBID INDIRECT REDUCTION OF WAGES BY THE PROVISION THAT A
WORK WEEK SHOULD CONSIST OF 40 HOURS AND THAT OVERTIME, AT ONE AND ONE
HALF THE REGULAR HOURLY PAY, SHOULD BE PAID FOR ANY HOURS WORKED BEYOND
THAT WEEKLY LIMIT.  AS THE TEST OF WHAT SHOULD CONSTITUTE OVERTIME WAS
MORE CONVENIENTLY CALCULATED BY USING A WORK WEEK, AND THE HOURS WORKED
DURING ANY WEEK, IT WAS QUITE NATURAL THAT CONGRESS SHOULD USE THE
PHRASES "WEEKLY COMPENSATION" AND "WEEKLY EARNINGS" IN SETTING A FLOOR
UNDER WAGES.  FN10    IF THE GOVERNMENT IS RIGHT, SEC. 23 HAD NO
APPLICATION TO RESPONDENT AND THOSE IN LIKE CASE AND THE GOVERNOR COULD
HAVE MAINTAINED A 52-HOUR WORK WEEK AT THE OLD RATE OF PAY OR COULD
HAVE CUT THE WORK WEEK WITH A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN PAY.  THE
RESULT WOULD BE, AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT, THAT AN ACT OF
CONGRESS, ON ITS FACE APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYES, INCLUDING MONTHLY
EMPLOYES, WHICH DECLARED THAT THE WEEKLY WAGES OF EMPLOYES "SHALL BE
REESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED AT RATES NOT LOWER THAN" THE 1932 RATE
WOULD FOR THE FIRST TIME HAVE AUTHORIZED THE CUTTING OF THE WAGES OF
MONTHLY EMPLOYES BELOW THE 1932 LEVEL WHILE THE WAGES OF ALL OTHERS
WERE BEING RESTORED TO THAT LEVEL.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL RULED THAT SUCH A CUT IN RESPONDENT'S PAY WAS "IN CONTRAVENTION
OF THE PLAIN TERMS OF THE STATUTE." 

WE ARE CLEAR THAT THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL WAS RIGHT IN RULING THAT
THE STATUTE APPLIED NOT ONLY TO PER DIEM OR HOURLY EMPLOYES BUT ALSO TO
EMPLOYES PAID ON A MONTHLY BASIS, SUCH AS RESPONDENT, WHOSE
COMPENSATION WAS FIXED BY A WAGE BOARD.  WE ARE ALSO CLEAR THAT, ON THE
FACE OF THE STATUTE, IF THE GOVERNOR, IN THE TEETH OF THE STATUTORY
PROVISION, WORKED SUCH EMPLOYEES MORE THAN 40 HOURS A WEEK, THE
OVERTIME PROVISION OF SEC. 23 REQUIRED PAYMENT AT ONE AND ONE-HALF
STRAIGHT TIME PAY FOR THE EXTRA HOURS WORKED. 

THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO AVOID SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT BY
INVOKING ASSERTED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  IT
RELIES HEAVILY ON THE STATEMENT MADE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE, TO WHICH WE
HAVE HERETOFORE REFERRED.  WITH RESPECT TO THIS STATEMENT, WE THINK IT
ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE SPOKESMAN WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT DISCRIMINATIONS
AGAINST EMPLOYES PAID BY THE DAY OR THE HOUR BUT HE NOWHERE SUGGESTS
THE PROPRIETY OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SUCH EMPLOYES AND THOSE PAID ON
A MONTHLY BASIS BUT WORKED MORE THAN 40 HOURS PER WEEK.  HE ADVOCATES
SETTING THE JUNE 1, 1932, STANDARD AS A MINIMUM SUBJECT ONLY TO
PERCENTAGE REDUCTIONS PROVIDED BY THE ECONOMY ACT.  HE ENVISAGES THE
FACT THAT IF THE WORK WEEK IS REDUCED TO 40 HOURS AND THE JUNE 1932
STANDARD IS THUS REESTABLISHED, THE RESULT WILL BE AN INCREASE IN WAGES
TO THE EMPLOYES CONCERNED.  THE CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY ON WHICH HE
RELIES APPLY QUITE AS MUCH TO EMPLOYES PAID BY THE MONTH AS TO THOSE
PAID BY THE DAY OR HOUR.  MOREOVER, AS ABOVE STATED, THE DRAFT HE
SUBMITTED WAS NOT ADOPTED.  ON THE CONTRARY, ONE DIFFERENTLY WORDED
BECAME SEC. 23 OF THE STATUTE. 

THE GOVERNMENT NEXT RELIES ON THE FACT THAT, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF
SEC. 23, NO OVERTIME WAS PAID TO EMPLOYES WHO WERE ON A MONTHLY OR
ANNUAL BASIS.  BUT, AS WE SHALL SEE, THE FULL APPLICATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF A WORK WEEK LIMITED TO SPECIFIED HOURS, AND PAYMENT OF
OVERTIME FOR EXTRA HOURS, WAS GRADUALLY ADOPTED BY THE CONGRESS, AND
THE FACT THAT THE OLD PRACTICE WAS ABOLISHED PIECEMEAL CAN HAVE LITTLE
WEIGHT IN DETERMINING WHETHER, AS RESPECTS THE EMPLOYES EMBRACED IN ITS
TERMS, SEC. 23 ABOLISHED THE DISTINCTION AMONGST THOSE EMBRACED IN
TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS WHOSE COMPENSATION WAS FIXED BY WAGE BOARDS. 
MOREOVER, THE SECTION ESSAYED TO DEAL ONLY WITH A SPECIAL CLASS OF
EMPLOYES WHOSE WORKING CONDITIONS ARE MORE NEARLY COMPARABLE TO THOSE
OF MEN EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY.  THEY MAY, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN
VALID REASON FOR ESTABLISHING, AS RESPECTS ALL OF THESE EMPLOYES, A
DIFFERENT RULE FROM THAT GENERALLY FOLLOWED IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. 

THE GOVERNMENT ALSO RELIES ON THE PRIOR PRACTICE IN THE CANAL ZONE,
BUT WE THINK THIS INCONCLUSIVE.  BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912,  FN11
THE PRESIDENT WAS EMPOWERED TO APPOINT EMPLOYES OF THE CANAL ZONE.  THE
ACT PROVIDED THAT "THE COMPENSATION OF SUCH PERSONS SHALL BE FIXED BY
THE PRESIDENT, OR BY HIS AUTHORITY, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS CONGRESS MAY BY
LAW REGULATE THE SAME" (SEC. 4).  BY EXECUTIVE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 2,
1914, THE PRESIDENT ESTABLISHED OVERTIME FOR PER DIEM AND HOURLY
WORKERS BUT FORBADE OVERTIME FOR THOSE PAID ON A MONTHLY OR ANNUAL
BASIS.  CONGRESS DID UNDOUBTEDLY LEGISLATE FURTHER ON THE SUBJECT IN
SEC. 23 OF THE ACT OF 1934.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE SECTION IS, THEREFORE, OF NO MOMENT. 

THE GOVERNOR'S ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE COMPENSATION OF THE RESPONDENT
BY WORKING HIM OVERTIME AND NOT PAYING HIM FOR HIS OVERTIME, IN THE
TEETH OF THE STATUTE AND THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S RULING, CERTAINLY
CANNOT BE ACCORDED WEIGHT IN CONSTRUING THE STATUTE. 

THE GOVERNMENT PRODUCED AT THE TRIAL OF THE CASE IN THE COURT BELOW
CERTAIN LETTERS FROM THE NAVY DEPARTMENT, THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING
OFFICE, AND THE BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING OF THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT STATING THAT THEY HAD INTERPRETED SEC. 23 AS APPLYING ONLY
TO PER DIEM AND HOURLY EMPLOYES, AND THAT NO OVERTIME HAD BEEN PAID TO
EMPLOYES WORKING ON A MONTHLY OR YEARLY BASIS.  THESE LETTERS DO NOT
STATE, HOWEVER, THAT THESE BRANCHES REGULARLY WORKED SUCH EMPLOYES
OVERTIME, AS DID THE GOVERNOR OF THE CANAL ZONE, WITHOUT PAYING FOR
OVERTIME WORK.  SUCH EVIDENCE AS THERE IS IN THE RECORD WOULD SEEM TO
INDICATE THE CONTRARY. 

THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY SUBMITTED CERTAIN QUESTIONS RESPECTING SEC.
23 TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE
EXCESS OF 40 HOURS A WEEK "BECAUSE OF AN EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY"
SHOULD BE PAID OVERTIME.  THE COMPTROLLER ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE,
REFERRING TO HIS DECISION RENDERED THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE  FN12
IN WHICH HE SAID THAT THE REGULAR HOURS OF WORK OF EMPLOYES ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS WERE REQUIRED BY SEC. 23 TO BE FIXED AT NOT TO EXCEED 40
PER WEEK.  IN THE SAME OPINION RENDERED TO THE PUBLIC PRINTER HE HAD
RULED THAT SUCH EMPLOYES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO OVERTIME.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY OR THE PUBLIC PRINTER CONCEIVED
THAT THEY COULD WORK PER ANNUM AND PER MONTH EMPLOYES MORE THAN 40
HOURS A WEEK WITHOUT EXTRA COMPENSATION EXCEPT IN CASES OF
EXTRAORDINARY EMERGENCY OR THAT THEY EVER PURSUED A PRACTICE LIKE THAT
OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE PANAMA CANAL.  IT WOULD SEEM, THEREFORE, THAT
THE HOURS OF MONTHLY PAID MECHANICAL EMPLOYES IN THE DEPARTMENTS IN
QUESTION WERE REDUCED TO 40 WITHOUT ANY PAY CUT.  SUCH ACTION WOULD BE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULINGS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.  THUS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GOVERNOR SEEMS TO STAND ALONE AND IN
CONTRADICTION TO THAT OF OTHER HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICES OF THE
GOVERNMENT, AND, IN THIS RESPECT, WORKED A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT AND THOSE IN HIS CLASS AS CONTRASTED WITH OTHER EMPLOYES WHO
STOOD IN THE SAME RELATION.  CERTAIN IT IS THAT THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
NEVER RULED THAT THE STANDARD OF 40 HOURS A WEEK WITH OVERTIME COULD BE
DISREGARDED IN PRACTICE. 

FINALLY, THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT RELATED LEGISLATION INDICATES
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND SEC. 23 TO APPLY TO EMPLOYES PAID BY THE MONTH
OR BY THE YEAR.  WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT, ON ANALYSIS, THE COURSE OF
LEGISLATION, CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, FAILS TO SUSTAIN THE CONTENTION. 
AS WE HAVE SAID, ADOPTION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LIMITATION OF WORKING
TIME AND EXTRA PAY FOR OVERTIME, IN RESPECT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT,
HAS BEEN OF GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT. 

AS EARLY AS 1883 CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE PUBLIC PRINTER TO PAY EXTRA
PRICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOMS OF THE TRADE AND THE JUSTICE OF
THE CASE FOR EXTRA WORK ORDERED IN EMERGENCIES, PERFORMED ON SUNDAYS OR
LEGAL HOLIDAYS OR AT NIGHT, IF PERFORMED BY OTHER THAN REGULAR NIGHT
FORCES.  FN13  IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE EMPLOYES EMBRACED IN THIS
LEGISLATION WERE PAID PER DIEM OR PER HOUR.  THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT
OF OVERTIME IN THE PUBLIC PRINTER'S OFFICE HAS BEEN CONTINUED IN THE
SUCCESSIVE STATUTES.  FN14 

IN 1888 CONGRESS PRESCRIBED AN 8-HOUR DAY WITH PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME
FOR LETTER CARRIERS OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,  FN15  WHO
RECEIVE ANNUAL SALARIES. 

IN 1911 PROVISION WAS MADE FOR OVERTIME PAY OF EMPLOYES OF THE
CUSTOMS SERVICE REQUIRED BY THE NATURE OF THEIR SERVICE TO WORK AFTER 5
P.M.  FN16  SUCH OVERTIME PAY WAS TO BE REIMBURSED THE GOVERNMENT BY
THE STEAMSHIP COMPANIES WHOSE BUSINESS REQUIRED SUCH SERVICES. 

IN 1919 THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WAS AUTHORIZED TO PAY EMPLOYES
OF THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, EMPLOYED IN INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS
IN THE INSPECTION OF MEAT, FOR OVERTIME WORK.  FN17  HERE AGAIN THE
GOVERNMENT WAS TO BE REIMBURSED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT WHICH REQUIRED THE
WORKING OF OVERTIME, BUT THE COMPENSATION PAID THE INSPECTORS WAS ON AN
ANNUAL SALARY BASIS. 

IN 1940 AN ACT WAS PASSED  FN18  MAKING THE REGULAR WORKING HOURS OF
THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AND THE COAST GUARD, AND THEIR FIELD SERVICES
"EIGHT HOURS A DAY OR FORTY HOURS PER WEEK" DURING THE PERIOD OF THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  THE ACT SET A DIFFERENT METHOD OF PAYING THE
OVERTIME TO MONTHLY, PER DIEM, HOURLY AND PIECEWORK EMPLOYES THAN THAT
APPLIED TO EMPLOYES PAID BY THE YEAR, BUT IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE 40
HOUR WEEK AND THE OVERTIME RATE OF ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR
RATE WAS APPLIED TO MONTHLY EMPLOYES. 

THE GOVERNMENT LAYS GREAT STRESS ON A REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
NAVAL AFFAIRS REPORTING THIS LEGISLATION TO THE SENATE.  FN19  IN THAT
REPORT THE COMMITTEE SAID, REFERRING TO THE 40-HOUR PER WEEK LIMIT, AND
THE PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME:  "IN THIS REGARD, THE PROVISION FOR THE
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION (FOR OVERTIME) TO PER ANNUM AND PER MONTH
EMPLOYEES IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE PRACTICE HERETOFORE FOLLOWED...."  A
SIMILAR STATEMENT WAS MADE IN THE HOUSE REPORT.  FN20  THE DIFFICULTY
THAT ARISES IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THESE STATEMENTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES IS THAT THE FACTS ALREADY RECITED SHOW THE REPORTS WERE
WRONG IN FACT AND APPARENTLY WERE BASED UPON AN INACCURATE STATEMENT
WHICH WAS CREDITED BY THE COMMITTEES. 

IN THE SAME YEAR CONGRESS PASSED ANOTHER ACT ON THE SUBJECT OF
OVERTIME.  FN21  IN THIS IT WAS PROVIDED: 

"NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER LAW, COMPENSATION FOR
EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF FORTY HOURS IN ANY ADMINISTRATIVE WORKWEEK
COMPUTED AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR
RATE IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO BE PAID AT SUCH PLACES AND TO SUCH
MONTHLY, PER DIEM, HOURLY, AND PIECEWORK EMPLOYEES OF THE FIELD
SERVICES OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT AND THE FIELD SERVICES OF THE PANAMA
CANAL WHOSE WAGES ARE SET BY WAGE BOARDS OR OTHER WAGE FIXING
AUTHORITIES,  ..." 

SUCH LIGHT AS WE GAIN FROM THE DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS INDICATES THAT
CONGRESS ALREADY UNDERSTOOD THAT OVERTIME WAS PAYABLE TO CERTAIN
EMPLOYES OF THE PANAMA CANAL BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 23 OF THE ACT OF 1934,
BUT THAT IT WAS DESIRED TO EXTEND THE LIMITATION OF HOURS PER WEEK AND
THE PAYMENT OF OVERTIME TO EMPLOYES OF THE FIELD SERVICES OF THE ARMY
AND THE FIELD SERVICES OF THE PANAMA CANAL.  THUS, IN THE DEBATE, MR.
RAMSPECK, OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON CIVIL SERVICE, SAID.  FN22 

"THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF WAR  ...  SAY
THAT THEY HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY NOW TO PAY OVERTIME TO CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN THE ARSENALS AND AT THE PANAMA
CANAL, BUT AS TO OTHERS THEY HAVE NOT THIS AUTHORITY AND THIS CREATES A
BAD ADMINISTRATIVE SITUATION.  THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED THIS BILL, WHICH
HAS PASSED THE SENATE, AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE GIVEN THE
SAME AUTHORITY TO THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AS TO THE NAVY YARDS." 

FINALLY, IN 1942, BY JOINT RESOLUTION, CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR OVERTIME
PAY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES GENERALLY  FN23  INCLUDING EMPLOYES OF
GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED ORGANIZATIONS AND THOSE OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA WHOSE POSITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF
1923.  THE RESOLUTION EMBODIES A PROVISO EXCLUDING "THOSE WHOSE WAGES
ARE FIXED ON A DAILY OR HOURLY BASIS AND ADJUSTED FROM TIME TO TIME IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING RATES BY WAGE BOARDS OR SIMILAR
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY SERVING THE SAME PURPOSE,  ..."  FROM THIS
PROVISO THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT CONGRESS BELIEVED THAT UP TO THAT
TIME THOSE WHOSE MONTHLY COMPENSATION WAS FIXED BY WAGE BOARDS HAD NOT
BEEN ENTITLED TO OVERTIME AND THAT THE RESOLUTION GRANTED IT TO THEM
FOR THE FIRST TIME.  WHATEVER CONGRESS MAY HAVE THOUGHT OR INTENDED IN
RESPECT OF THE PROVISO, WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT SEC. 23 OF THE
ACT OF MARCH 28, 1934, ON ITS FACE, APPLIED TO SUCH MONTHLY EMPLOYES,
THAT THE COMPTROLLER HAD SO RULED, AND THAT, SO FAR AS APPEARS, THE
DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED HAD ACTED WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, SAVE ONLY THE
GOVERNOR OF THE PANAMA CANAL WHO, ALTHOUGH SO ADVISED, HAD ACTED IN THE
TEETH OF THE STATUTE. 

THE SAME MISAPPREHENSION WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT OF 1934 SEEMS TO HAVE PREVAILED WHEN THE WAR
OVERTIME PAY ACT OF 1943  FN24  WAS ADOPTED.  THAT ACT, BY A SWEEPING
PROVISION, GRANTED OVERTIME PAY TO ALL CIVIL EMPLOYES OF THE GOVERNMENT
AND ALL EMPLOYES OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS, EXCEPT
THOSE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE AND THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY.  IT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYES WHOSE WAGES
ARE FIXED ON A MONTHLY OR YEARLY BASIS BY WAGE BOARDS OR SIMILAR
AUTHORITIES, AND EXCLUDED EMPLOYES WHOSE WAGES ARE FIXED ON A DAILY OR
HOURLY BASIS BY WAGE BOARDS. 

WE THINK THIS SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT IS NOT
CONCLUSIVE OR EVEN STRONGLY PERSUASIVE AS AN AID TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION AS OF THE TIME WHEN CONGRESS ADOPTED IT.
IT SEEMS THAT THERE WAS NO VERY CLEAR AND GENERAL POLICY WITH RESPECT
TO THE PAYMENT OF OVERTIME UNTIL THE EXIGENCIES OF THE WAR CALLED FOR
COMPENSATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES AS A CLASS ON A BASIS SIMILAR TO
THAT ADOPTED IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY.  WHEN THE TIME CAME TO MAKE SUCH
GENERAL PROVISION, THE MORE OR LESS HAPHAZARD DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT
THERETOFORE SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN CLEARLY IN MIND.    WE CONCLUDE THAT
THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY HELD THAT SEC. 23 APPLIES IN RESPONDENT'S
CASE AND THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER FOR THE OVERTIME HE WAS
REQUIRED TO WORK. 

WE REACH THEN THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT ADOPTED THE CORRECT
METHOD OF CALCULATING THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION.  THE RESPONDENT
SUBMITTED A COMPUTATION WHEREBY HE MULTIPLIED HIS MONTHLY SALARY BY
TWELVE AND DIVIDED THE RESULT BY FIFTY-TWO TO ASCERTAIN HIS WEEKLY
SALARY.  HE DIVIDED THE WEEKLY SALARY BY FIVE TO OBTAIN HIS DAILY PAY
FOR AN 8-HOUR DAY FOR EACH WEEK THAT HE HAD WORKED A SIXTH DAY.  HE
TOOK THE NUMBER OF WEEKS IN WHICH HE HAD WORKED A SIXTH DAY AND
MULTIPLIED THAT NUMBER BY THE ASCERTAINED DAILY WAGE, PLUS ONE-HALF. 
THE GOVERNMENT ARGUED IN THE COURT BELOW, AND ARGUES IN THIS COURT,
THAT THE MONTHLY WAGE OF THE RESPONDENT COVERED EVERY DAY OF THE MONTH
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HIRED HIS FULL TIME.  AS A RESULT, IT IS SAID,
HIS DAILY PAY SHOULD BE ONE-THIRTIETH OF HIS MONTHLY PAY.  FN25  IN
THIS VIEW, HE HAS BEEN PAID STRAIGHT TIME NOT ONLY FOR THE FIVE DAYS,
OR THE FORTY HOURS, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN WORKED UNDER SEC. 23 BUT ALSO
FOR THE SIXTH DAY HE WAS REQUIRED TO SERVE.  THE RESULT IS THAT HE
SHOULD BE GRANTED ONLY ADDITIONAL HALF PAY FOR THE SIXTH DAY OF EACH
WEEK.  BUT, ACCORDING TO THIS CONTENTION, THE RESPONDENT WILL ALREADY
HAVE BEEN OVERPAID FOR, ACCORDING TO THE ARGUMENT, HE HAS BEEN PAID
STRAIGHT TIME FOR THE SEVENTH DAY OF EACH WEEK ALTHOUGH HE ONLY WORKED
SIX DAYS AND HAS, THEREFORE, RECEIVED ADDITIONAL OVERTIME PAY FOR THE
SIXTH DAY.  THE COURT BELOW APPROVED THE RESPONDENT'S METHOD OF
RECKONING AND WE THINK ITS DECISION CORRECT.  AFTER THE ADOPTION OF
SEC. 23 THE RESPONDENT WAS IN EFFECT HIRED FOR A WORK WEEK OF FORTY
HOURS, OR A FIVE-DAY WEEK, AND HIS DAILY WAGE WAS TO BE DETERMINED ON
THAT BASIS.  HE HAS NOT BEEN PAID FOR THE SIXTH DAY OF EACH WEEK AND
SHOULD RECOVER STRAIGHT TIME AND ONE-HALF FOR THE SIXTH DAY.  THIS
COMPUTATION ACCOMPLISHES THIS, AND THERE IS AUTHORITY FOR RESORT TO IT.
FN26 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 28, 1934, C. 102, 48 STAT. 522; 5 U.S.C. 673C. 

FN2  101 CT. CLS. 237. 

FN3  42 STAT. 1488(5 U.S.C. 661, ET SEQ.). 

FN4  C. 390, 37 STAT. 561, 48 U.S.C. 1305. 

FN5  47 STAT. 382. 

FN6  48 STAT. 8, 13. 

FN7  78 CONG. REC. 2977. 

FN8  SEE 14 COMP. GEN. 158. 

FN9  SEE 14 COMP. GEN. 165. 

FN10  COMPARE OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572; WALLING V.
HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37; ST. JOHN V. BROWN, 38 F.SUPP.  385;
ALLEN V. MOE, 39 F.SUPP.  5; NELSON V. ST. JOSEPH & G.I.R. CO., 199 MO.
APP. 635, 205 S.W. 870. 

FN11  SUPRA NOTE 4. 

FN12  13 COMP. GEN. 265. 

FN13  ACT OF JANUARY 13, 1883, 22 STAT. 402. 

FN14  SEE 44 U.S.C. 40. 

FN15  ACT OF MAY 24, 1888, 25 STAT. 157; CF. UNITED STATES V. POST,
148 U.S. 124.  SEE ALSO 39 U.S.C. 117. 

FN16  ACT OF FEB. 13, 1911, SEC. 5, 36 STAT. 901.  SEE UNITED STATES
V. MYERS, 320 U.S. 561. 

FN17  ACT OF JULY 24, 1919, 41 STAT. 241, 7 U.S.C. 394. 

FN18  ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, 54 STAT. 676, 678.  THIS ACT EXPIRED JUNE
30, 1942. 

FN19  S. REP. NO. 1863, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 11-12. 

FN20  H. REP. NO. 2257, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 3-4. 

FN21  ACT OF OCTOBER 21, 1940, 54 STAT. 1205.  THIS ACT EXPIRED JUNE
30, 1942. 

FN22  86 CONG. REC. 13557. 

FN23  56 STAT. 1068. 

FN24  ACT OF MAY 7, 1943, 57 STAT. 75, SEC. 1. 

FN25  THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906, 34 STAT.
763, 5 U.S.C. 84.  THAT STATUTE, HOWEVER, WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE
PROBLEM OF A STANDARD WORK WEEK OF A LIMITED NUMBER OF HOURS AND THE
CALCULATION OF OVERTIME FOR HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT. 

FN26  SEE ST. JOHN V. BROWN; ALLEN V. MOE, SUPRA, NOTE 10. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
DISSENT. 
..END :











TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 323 U.S. 574 


NO. 335.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1945.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1945.  - 142
F.2D 718, REVERSED. 


1.  WHETHER THE RAILROAD'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE LOCOMOTIVE WITH A
LIGHT ON THE REAR, AS REQUIRED BY RULES PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, PROXIMATELY
CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT IN THIS CASE - THOUGH IF THE
LIGHT HAD BEEN PROVIDED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OBSCURED BY THE CARS WHICH
THE LOCOMOTIVE WAS PUSHING IN REVERSE - WAS A QUESTION FOR THE JURY. 
P. 578. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CHARGED THE JURY IN THIS CASE THAT
THEIR VERDICT SHOULD BE FOR THE PLAINTIFF IF THEY FOUND THAT THE BACK
UP MOVEMENT WAS UNUSUAL AND UNEXPECTED, THAT IT WAS MADE WITHOUT
ADEQUATE WARNING TO THE DECEDENT, AND THAT FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE
WARNING WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.  P. 579. 

3.  IN A SUIT AGAINST A RAILROAD UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT FOR A DEATH RESULTING FROM NEGLIGENCE, AN AMENDMENT OF
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, HELD
NOT BARRED BY THE THREE YEARS' LIMITATION OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  P. 580. 

4.  THE CLAIM ASSERTED BY THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AROSE OUT OF THE SAME
CONDUCT, TRANSACTION AND OCCURRENCE SET FORTH IN THE ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT; THERE WAS THEREFORE NO DEPARTURE.  RULE 15(C) OF THE RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  P. 581. 

5.  THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE.  P. 581. 

TILLER, EXECUTOR, V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 689, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER'S HUSBAND WAS KILLED WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS
DUTIES AS AN EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENT RAILROAD.  SHE FILED SUIT UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ., ALLEGING
THAT HER HUSBAND'S DEATH WAS CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A
RAILROAD CAR WHICH STRUCK AND KILLED HIM, AND BECAUSE OF RESPONDENT'S
FAILURE TO PROVIDE HIM A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE TO WORK.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DIRECTED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE RAILROAD AND THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  128 F.2D 420.  WE REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THERE
WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE RAILROAD'S NEGLIGENCE TO REQUIRE
SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY.  TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R.
CO., 318 U.S. 54, 68, 73.  ON REMAND, PETITIONER AMENDED HER COMPLAINT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT, OVER RESPONDENT'S OBJECTION, BY CHARGING THAT,
IN ADDITION TO THE NEGLIGENCE PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED, THE DECEDENT'S DEATH
WAS CAUSED BY THE RAILROAD'S VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL BOILER INSPECTION
ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 22 ET SEQ., AND RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THAT
ACT.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER, AND THE
DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO SET IT ASIDE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, 142 F.2D 718, AND CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT AND THE FEDERAL
BOILER INSPECTION ACT. 

HERE, AS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT HAS AGAIN ARGUED
THAT THE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE CHARGED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY.  SLIGHT
VARIATIONS IN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE TWO TRIALS ARE SAID TO
REQUIRE A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN THAT WHICH WE REACHED ON THE FIRST
REVIEW OF THIS CASE. 

AS TO THIS CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SAID ON THE SECOND APPEAL THAT 

"SINCE THE EVIDENCE AT THE SECOND TRIAL IN RESPECT TO THE MOVEMENT OF
THE CARS WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS AT THE FIRST, THIS DECISION
(I.E. OUR DECISION IN 318 U.S. 54) REQUIRED THE DISTRICT JUDGE
NOTWITHSTANDING THE OPPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT THE CASE TO
THE JURY.  OUR DUTY UPON THIS APPEAL TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT  ...  WOULD
HAVE BEEN EQUALLY CLEAR IF THE PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN CONTENT AT THE SECOND
TRIAL TO REST UPON THE LEGAL THEORY OUTLINED IN THE OPINION OF THE
SUPREME COURT; BUT THE PLAINTIFF AMENDED THE COMPLAINT BY SPECIFYING A
NEW ITEM OF NEGLIGENCE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS AN
ALTERNATIVE GROUND FOR RECOVERY.  SINCE THE VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF
WAS GENERAL AND DID NOT SPECIFY THE GROUND ON WHICH IT RESTED, IT
BECOMES NECESSARY FOR US TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE SUBMISSION OF THIS NEW THEORY TO THE JURY OVER
THE DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION." 

WE REAFFIRM OUR PREVIOUS HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIED
SUBMISSION TO THE JURY OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ORIGINAL ALLEGATIONS
OF NEGLIGENCE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT WAS
"THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT IN WHOLE OR IN PART," AND THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE DIRECTED THAT THIS ISSUE BE FOUND
IN FAVOR OF THE RAILROAD.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED, IN THIS RESPECT, THAT
THE DECEDENT'S DEATH WAS CAUSED BY VIOLATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  THAT ACT BROADLY
AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS "TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY
PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB."  FN1  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A VIOLATION OF RULE
131 OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"LOCOMOTIVES USED IN YARD SERVICE.  - EACH LOCOMOTIVE USED IN YARD
SERVICE BETWEEN SUNSET AND SUNRISE SHALL HAVE TWO LIGHTS, ONE LOCATED
ON THE FRONT OF THE LOCOMOTIVE AND ONE ON THE REAR, EACH OF WHICH SHALL
ENABLE A PERSON IN THE CAB OF THE LOCOMOTIVE UNDER THE CONDITIONS,
INCLUDING VISUAL CAPACITY, SET FORTH IN RULE 129, TO SEE A DARK OBJECT
SUCH AS THERE DESCRIBED FOR A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 300 FEET AHEAD AND
IN FRONT OF SUCH HEADLIGHT; AND SUCH HEADLIGHTS MUST BE MAINTAINED IN
GOOD CONDITION." 

THE LOCOMOTIVE WHICH PUSHED BACKWARDS THE STRING OF CARS ONE OF WHICH
STRUCK AND KILLED THE DECEASED WAS OPERATED IN VIOLATION OF THE LITERAL
WORDS OF THIS REGULATION.  IT WAS BEING USED IN "YARD SERVICE" AT
RESPONDENT'S CLOPTON YARDS "BETWEEN SUNSET AND SUNRISE."  THERE WAS NO
LIGHT ON THE REAR OF THE LOCOMOTIVE, WHICH WAS MOVING IN REVERSE
TOWARDS THE DECEASED.  FN2 

IT WAS FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THIS
REQUIRED LIGHT ON THE REAR OF THE LOCOMOTIVE PROXIMATELY CONTRIBUTED TO
THE DECEASED'S DEATH.  THE RULING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT IT WAS NOT A
PROXIMATE CAUSE WAS BASED ON THIS REASONING:  THE GENERAL RAILROAD
PRACTICE IN YARD MOVEMENTS IS TO PUSH CARS ATTACHED TO THE REAR OF AN
ENGINE; NO EXPRESS REGULATION OF THE COMMISSION PROHIBITS THIS; IN THE
INSTANT CASE THE CARS ATTACHED TO THE ENGINE NECESSARILY WOULD HAVE
OBSCURED ANY LIGHT ON THE REAR OF THAT ENGINE; THE LIGHT SO OBSCURED
WOULD NOT HAVE ENABLED THE ENGINEER TO SEE 300 FEET BACKWARDS SO AS TO
AVOID INJURING THE DECEASED NOR WOULD THE LIGHT HAVE BEEN VISIBLE TO
THE DECEASED STANDING AT OR NEAR THE TRACK AHEAD OF THE BACKWARD
MOVEMENT.  THEREFORE, THE COURT CONCLUDED, THE FAILURE TO FURNISH THE
LIGHT WAS NOT PROXIMATELY RELATED TO THE DEATH OF TILLER. 

ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE RAILROAD COULD CONSISTENTLY WITH
RULE 131 OBSCURE THE REQUIRED LIGHT ON THE REAR OF THE ENGINE, IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, FAILURE TO HAVE THE LIGHT DID NOT
CONTRIBUTE TO TILLER'S DEATH.  THE DECEASED MET HIS DEATH ON A DARK
NIGHT, AND THE DIFFUSED RAYS OF A STRONG HEADLIGHT EVEN THOUGH DIRECTLY
OBSCURED FROM THE FRONT, MIGHT EASILY HAVE SPREAD THEMSELVES SO THAT
ONE STANDING WITHIN THREE CAR-LENGTHS OF THE APPROACHING LOCOMOTIVE
WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN WARNING OF ITS PRESENCE, OR AT LEAST SO THE JURY
MIGHT HAVE FOUND.  THE BACKWARD MOVEMENT OF CARS ON A DARK NIGHT IN AN
UNLIT YARD WAS POTENTIALLY PERILOUS TO THOSE COMPELLED TO WORK IN THE
YARD.  TENNANT V. PEORIA & P.U.R. CO., 321 U.S. 29, 33.  AND "THE
STANDARD OF CARE MUST BE COMMENSURATE TO THE DANGERS OF THE BUSINESS." 
TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., SUPRA, 67. 

AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE REVERSAL OF THIS CAUSE BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WAS THAT PART OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S CHARGE TO THE
JURY SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN3 IT INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT IF THEY
BELIEVED THAT THE BACK-UP MOVEMENT WAS AN UNUSUAL AND UNEXPECTED ONE,
AND A DEPARTURE FROM THE GENERAL PRACTICE IN MAKING UP THAT PARTICULAR
TRAIN, AND THAT TILLER HAD NO REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH A
MOVEMENT WOULD BE MADE, IT BECAME THE DUTY OF THE DEFENDANT TO GIVE HIM
ADEQUATE WARNING OF THAT MOVEMENT AND IF THE JURY FOUND THAT THE
DEFENDANT FAILED TO PERFORM THIS DUTY, AND THAT FAILURE WAS THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, ITS VERDICT SHOULD BE FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.  THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ALLEGED THIS AS ONE OF THE GROUNDS
OF NEGLIGENCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THERE WAS
SUBSTANTIAL TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE MOVEMENT WAS AN
UNUSUAL ONE.  NEVERTHELESS, BECAUSE NO RAILROAD RULE OR CUSTOM
PROHIBITED SUCH AN UNUSUAL MOVEMENT, BECAUSE SOME OF THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED THAT THE SAME MOVEMENT HAD BEEN PERFORMED ON OTHER OCCASIONS,
AND BECAUSE TILLER WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCAL SITUATION, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE RAILROAD OWED NO DUTY TO WARN HIM OF
SUCH AN UNUSUAL MOVEMENT.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT A JURY COULD NOT
REASONABLY FIND NEGLIGENCE FROM THE EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWED SUCH AN
UNPRECEDENTED DEPARTURE FROM THE USUAL CUSTOM AND PRACTICE IN BACKING
CARS, WITHOUT GIVING "ADEQUATE WARNING OF THE MOVEMENT."  COMPARE
TOLEDO, ST. L. & W.R. CO. V. ALLEN, 276 U.S. 165, 171.  FN4  THE CHARGE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS RESPECT WAS CORRECT. 

RESPONDENT SEEKS TO SUPPORT THE CIRCUIT COURT'S REVERSAL OF THE CAUSE
ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY PERMITTED PETITIONER
TO AMEND HER ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.  THE INJURY OCCURRED MARCH 21, 1940. 
SUIT WAS FILED UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT ON JANUARY 17,
1941.  THE AMENDMENT ALLEGING VIOLATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT
WAS FILED JUNE 1, 1943, WHICH WAS MORE THAN THREE YEARS AFTER THE
DEATH.  FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT, SEC. 6, PROVIDES THAT A SUIT
UNDER THAT ACT MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER INJURY.  THE
CONTENTION IS THAT THE THREE-YEAR LIMITATION STATUTE PROVIDED IN THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT BARRED THE AMENDMENT WHICH RESTED ON
THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS PROPERLY PERMITTED. 
"WHENEVER THE CLAIM OR DEFENSE ASSERTED IN THE AMENDED PLEADING AROSE
OUT OF THE CONDUCT, TRANSACTION, OR OCCURRENCE SET FORTH OR ATTEMPTED
TO BE SET FORTH IN THE ORIGINAL PLEADING, THE AMENDMENT RELATES BACK TO
THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PLEADING."  THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN THIS
CASE ALLEGED A FAILURE TO PROVIDE A PROPER LOOKOUT FOR DECEASED, TO
GIVE HIM PROPER WARNING OF THE APPROACH OF THE TRAIN, TO KEEP THE HEAD
CAR PROPERLY LIGHTED, TO WARN THE DECEASED OF AN UNPRECEDENTED AND
UNEXPECTED CHANGE IN THE MANNER OF SHIFTING CARS.  THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT CHARGED THE FAILURE TO HAVE THE LOCOMOTIVE PROPERLY LIGHTED. 
BOTH OF THEM RELATED TO THE SAME GENERAL CONDUCT, TRANSACTION AND
OCCURRENCE WHICH INVOLVED THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED.  THERE WAS
THEREFORE NO DEPARTURE.  THE CAUSE OF ACTION NOW, AS IT WAS IN THE
BEGINNING, IS THE SAME - IT IS A SUIT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE
ALLEGED WRONGFUL DEATH OF THE DECEASED.  "THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT
HERE WAS TO FACILITATE A FAIR TRIAL OF THE EXISTING ISSUES BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT."  MATY V. GRASSELLI CO., 303 U.S. 197, 201. 
THERE IS NO REASON TO APPLY A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHEN, AS HERE, THE
RESPONDENT HAS HAD NOTICE FROM THE BEGINNING THAT PETITIONER WAS TRYING
TO ENFORCE A CLAIM AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE
DEATH OF THE DECEASED IN THE RESPONDENT'S YARD.  FN5 

WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  LILLY V. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN R. CO., 317 U.S. 481, 486; UNITED
STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., 293 U.S. 454. 

FN2  THE CONTENTION IS MADE THAT SINCE THIS LOCOMOTIVE WAS USED IN
ROAD SERVICE AS WELL AS YARD SERVICE THE RULE SHOULD BE HELD
INAPPLICABLE TO IT AS A MATTER OF LAW.  SUCH A NARROW INTERPRETATION OF
THE REGULATION WOULD BE WHOLLY OUT OF KEEPING WITH THE LIBERAL
CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE HAVE CONSTANTLY SAID MUST BE GIVEN TO THIS AND
THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, 45 U.S.C.A., SEC. 1 ET SEQ. LILLY V. GRAND
TRUNK WESTERN R. CO., SUPRA, 486. 

WE THINK THE COURT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY ON THIS POINT WAS CONSISTENT
WITH A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE.  THAT CHARGE WAS: 

"IF THE JURY BELIEVES FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE ROAD ENGINE, ON THE
NIGHT MR. TILLER WAS INJURED, IN MAKING THE MOVEMENTS IT MADE IN SAID
YARD WAS BEING USED BY THE DEFENDANT TO CLASSIFY ITS CARS AND MAKE UP
ITS TRAIN, THEN THE SAID ENGINE WAS THEN BEING USED IN YARD SERVICE. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE JURY BELIEVES FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE SAID
ROAD ENGINE WAS BACKING INTO SLOW SIDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING OUT
OF THE WAY OF THE YARD ENGINE SO THAT SAID YARD ENGINE COULD CLASSIFY
CARS AND MAKE UP TRAINS, THEN SAID LOCOMOTIVE IN MAKING SAID MOVEMENT
WAS NOT BEING USED IN YARD SERVICE." 

FN3  "THE COURT CHARGES THE JURY THAT IF YOU BELIEVE FROM THE
EVIDENCE THAT MR. TILLER WAS STRUCK WHILE THE ENGINE AND CARS OF THE
DEFENDANT WERE MAKING A BACK-UP MOVEMENT ON THE NIGHT OF MARCH 20TH,
1940; THAT SUCH MOVEMENT WAS AN UNUSUAL AND AN UNEXPECTED ONE AND A
DEPARTURE FROM THE GENERAL PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN MAKING UP TRAIN NO.
209; THAT MR. TILLER ON THE OCCASION IN QUESTION WAS WORKING ON OR NEAR
THE SLOW SIDING WITHOUT KNOWING OR HAVING REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE
THAT SUCH A MOVEMENT WOULD BE MADE, THEN IT BECAME AND WAS THE DUTY OF
THE DEFENDANT IN MAKING SUCH MOVEMENT TO GIVE ADEQUATE WARNING OF THE
SAME, AND IF THE JURY BELIEVE FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT
FAILED TO PERFORM SUCH DUTY AND AS A PROXIMATE RESULT OF SUCH FAILURE,
MR. TILLER RECEIVED THE INJURIES FROM WHICH HE DIED, THEN THE JURY
SHOULD RETURN A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF." 

FN4  SEE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V. DE ATLEY, 241 U.S. 310;
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V. PEYTON, 253 F. 734(C.C.A. 4); FERRINGER V.
CROWLEY OIL & MINERAL CO., 122 LA. 441, 47 SO. 763; LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE R. CO. V. ASHER'S ADM'R, 178 KY. 67, 198 S.W. 548; DIRECTOR
GENERAL V. HUBBARD'S ADM'R, 132 VA. 193, 111 S.E. 446; 2 SHEARMAN &
REDFIELD ON NEGLIGENCE (REV. ED.), 566, 607; CF. DAVIS V. PHILADELPHIA
& READING R. CO., 276 F. 187.    FN5  SEE FRIEDERICHSEN V. RENARD, 247
U.S. 207; UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288 U.S. 62; UNITED
STATES V. POWELL, 93 F.2D 788, 790. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :







FITCH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 582 


NO. 181.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1945.  - 141
F.2D 380, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 603 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, WHICH IMPOSED ON TOILET
PREPARATIONS SOLD BY MANUFACTURERS OR PRODUCERS AN EXCISE TAX OF A
STATED PERCENTAGE OF THE SELLING PRICE, HELD THAT ADVERTISING AND
SELLING EXPENSES WERE NOT EXCLUDABLE FROM THE SELLING PRICE IN
COMPUTING THE TAX.  P. 584. 

2.  IN COMPUTING THE SELLING PRICE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX LEVIED BY
SEC. 603 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC. 619(A) PROVIDES ON CERTAIN
CONDITIONS FOR THE EXCLUSION OF "A TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY, INSURANCE,
INSTALLATION, OR OTHER CHARGE  ..."  HELD THAT THE TERM "OTHER CHARGE"
DOES NOT EMBRACE ADVERTISING AND SELLING EXPENSES.  P. 584. 

3.  BY THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS, APPLICABLE HERE SINCE IT DOES NOT
CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE, THE TERM "OTHER
CHARGE" IN SEC. 619(A) IS LIMITED TO EXPENSES SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO
THOSE INCURRED FOR TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY, INSURANCE, AND
INSTALLATION - ALL OF WHICH ARE INCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE PREPARATION
OF AN ARTICLE FOR SHIPMENT AND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S
F.O.B. SELLING PRICE.  P. 585. 

4.  THE CONSTRUCTION HERE GIVEN THE ACT ACCORDS WITH THE CONSISTENT
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION AND IS REQUIRED BY ACCEPTED RULES OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  P. 586. 

5.  IT IS NOT FOR THE COURTS TO AFFORD RELIEF FROM SUCH INEQUALITIES
AND DISCRIMINATIONS AS INEVITABLY RESULT WHERE A FLAT TAX IS MEASURED
BY WHOLESALE SELLING PRICES.  P. 586. 

6.  SECTION 619(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 IS INAPPLICABLE WHERE
SALES WERE MADE AT WHOLESALE, AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT
FROM THAT HERE REACHED.  P. 587. 

F.W. FITCH CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 690, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE TAXPAYER, 52 F.SUPP.  292, IN A SUIT FOR A TAX REFUND. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SEC. 3401, IMPOSES ON TOILET PREPARATIONS SOLD BY
MANUFACTURERS OR PRODUCERS AN EXCISE TAX EQUIVALENT TO STATED
PERCENTAGES "OF THE PRICE FOR WHICH SO SOLD."  PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT
TO THIS TAX FROM OCTOBER 1, 1936, TO JUNE 30, 1939, AND HAS SOUGHT A
REFUND OF A PORTION OF THE TAX PAID ON THE GROUND THAT ITS SELLING AND
ADVERTISING EXPENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE SELLING PRICES
IN COMPUTING THE TAX.  THE DISTRICT COURT AFTER TRIAL UPHELD THIS CLAIM
AND AWARDED A REFUND, 52 F.SUPP.  292, BUT THE COURT BELOW REVERSED
THAT JUDGMENT, 141 F.2D 380.  THE ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN CAMPANA
CORP. V. HARRISON, 114 F.2D 400, AND CAMPANA CORP. V. HARRISON, 135
F.2D 334, LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE CONTROVERSY HERE CENTERS ABOUT SEC. 619(A) OF THE ACT, WHICH
PROVIDES FOR THE INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ITEMS IN COMPUTING
THE SELLING PRICE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX LEVIED BY SEC. 603 AS WELL AS
VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS.  SECTION 619(A) STATES THAT, IN COMPUTING THE
SALES PRICE, 

"...  THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED ANY CHARGE FOR COVERINGS AND CONTAINERS
OF WHATEVER NATURE, AND ANY CHARGE INCIDENT TO PLACING THE ARTICLE IN
CONDITION PACKED READY FOR SHIPMENT, BUT THERE SHALL BE EXCLUDED THE
AMOUNT OF TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE, WHETHER OR NOT STATED AS A
SEPARATE CHARGE.  A TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY, INSURANCE, INSTALLATION,
OR OTHER CHARGE (NOT REQUIRED BY THE FOREGOING SENTENCE TO BE INCLUDED)
SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PRICE ONLY IF THE AMOUNT THEREOF IS
ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE REGULATIONS." 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT ADVERTISING AND SELLING EXPENSES FALL WITHIN
THE TERM "OTHER CHARGE" APPEARING IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF SEC. 619(A)
AND HENCE ARE EXCLUDABLE IN DETERMINING THE SELLING PRICE FOR TAX
PURPOSES.  THIS CLAIM, HOWEVER, IS REFUTED BY BOTH THE SPIRIT AND THE
LETTER OF THIS STATUTORY PROVISION. 

CONGRESS SOUGHT IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 TO USE THE MANUFACTURER'S
OR WHOLESALER'S SELLING PRICE, RATHER THAN THE RETAIL PRICE, AS THE
MEASURE OF THE EXCISE TAXES IMPOSED BY SEC. 603.  75 CONG. REC. 11383,
11657.  SECTION 619(A) WAS DESIGNED TO LAY DOWN SPECIFIC RULES FOR
DETERMINING THIS SELLING PRICE, ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO COSTS
INCURRED AFTER THE ARTICLE ITSELF HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED.  IT PROVIDES
FOR THE USE OF THE MANUFACTURER'S OR PRODUCER'S F.O.B. PRICE AT THE
FACTORY OR PLACE OF PRODUCTION.  IN ESSENCE, ALL MANUFACTURING AND
OTHER CHARGES INCURRED PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL SHIPMENT OF AN ARTICLE AND
REFLECTED SEPARATELY OR OTHERWISE IN THE F.O.B. WHOLESALE PRICE ARE TO
BE INCLUDED IN THE SALE PRICE UNDERLYING THE TAX, WHILE ALL CHARGES
INCURRED SUBSEQUENT THERETO ARE TO BE EXCLUDED.  HENCE ANY ADDITIONAL
CHARGE WHICH A PURCHASER WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY IF HE ACCEPTED
DELIVERY OF THE ARTICLE AT THE FACTORY OR PLACE OF PRODUCTION MAY BE SO
EXCLUDED.  SEE H. REP. NO. 708(72D CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 37; S. REP. NO.
665, PART 3(72D CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 3; H. CONF. REP. NO. 1492(72D
CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 22. 

ADVERTISING AND SELLING EXPENSES INCURRED BY A MANUFACTURER SUCH AS
PETITIONER CLEARLY FALL WITHIN THE CLASS OF CHARGES WHICH CONGRESS
INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TAX BASE.  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE
CONSIDER SUCH EXPENSES TECHNICALLY AS MANUFACTURING COSTS, IT IS
OBVIOUS THAT THEY ARE INCURRED PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL SHIPMENT OF ARTICLES
TO WHOLESALE PURCHASERS AND THAT THEY ENTER INTO THE COMPOSITION OF THE
WHOLESALE SELLING PRICE.  EVEN IF THE PURCHASER ACCEPTS DELIVERY AT THE
FACTORY, HE PAYS FOR THE ADVERTISING AND SELLING EXPENSES.  THUS THEY
MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE SALES PRICE. 

THE INCLUSION OF THESE EXPENSES IS PLAINLY WARRANTED BY THE LANGUAGE
OF SEC. 619(A).  PRE-SHIPMENT CHARGES RELATIVE TO COVERINGS, CONTAINERS
AND PLACING AN ARTICLE IN CONDITION FOR SHIPMENT ARE SPECIFICALLY
INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE SELLING PRICE.  BUT A SUBSEQUENT
"TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY, INSURANCE, INSTALLATION, OR OTHER CHARGE" IS
TO BE EXCLUDED IF PROPERLY ESTABLISHED.  IN THE SETTING OF THIS CASE,
NO RULE OF REASON OR GRAMMAR JUSTIFIES PLACING ADVERTISING AND SELLING
EXPENSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS EXCLUSIONARY SENTENCE. 

TO BEGIN WITH, ADVERTISING AND SELLING EXPENSES ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT
COMPARABLE TO THE SPECIFIED CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY,
INSURANCE OR INSTALLATION - ALL OF WHICH ARE INCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
PREPARATION OF AN ARTICLE FOR SHIPMENT AND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
MANUFACTURER'S F.O.B. SELLING PRICE.  HENCE ADVERTISING AND SELLING
EXPENSES CANNOT BE ENCOMPASSED BY THE TERM "OTHER CHARGE" UNLESS THAT
TERM BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE CHARGES ENTIRELY DISSIMILAR TO THOSE
SPECIFIED.  THIS TERM, HOWEVER, WAS UNDERSTOOD BY ITS FRAMERS TO MEAN
"LIKE CHARGES" OR "SIMILAR CHARGES" TO THOSE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN
THE SAME SENTENCE.  H. REP. NO. 708(72D CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 37; S.
REP. NO. 665, PART 3(72D CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 3; H. CONF. REP. NO.
1492(72D CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 22.  WHEN THIS FACT IS ADDED TO THE
GENERAL INTENT OF CONGRESS TO INCLUDE ALL COSTS OR CHARGES INCURRED
PRIOR TO SHIPMENT, THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE TO THE
TERM "OTHER CHARGE" BECOMES CLEAR.  THIS RULE, WHICH APPROPRIATELY MAY
BE INVOKED HERE SINCE IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF
THE STATUTE, COMPARE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. JOINER CORP.,
320 U.S. 344, 350, 351, WITH SMITH V. DAVIS, 323 U.S. 111, LIMITS THE
"OTHER CHARGE" TO EXPENSES SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO THOSE INCURRED FOR
TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY, INSURANCE AND INSTALLATION.  SINCE
ADVERTISING AND SELLING EXPENSES ARISE PRIOR TO SHIPMENT AND ARE
NECESSARILY COMPONENTS OF THE F.O.B. SELLING PRICE, THE TERM "OTHER
CHARGE" CANNOT COVER THEM.  FN1  THEY MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE TAX
BASE.  SUCH HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE, G.C.M. 21114, 1939-1 CUM. BULL.  351, 353.  AND SUCH IS THE
RESULT MADE NECESSARY BY THE ACCEPTED RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. 
FN2 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THIS CONCLUSION RESULTS IN A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
A MANUFACTURER WHO INDULGES IN HIS OWN ADVERTISING AND SELLING
CAMPAIGNS IN FAVOR OF ONE WHOSE PRODUCTS ARE ADVERTISED BY HIS
CUSTOMERS AND THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED SUCH A
DISCRIMINATION.  BUT THIS DISCRIMINATION, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT MAY
EXIST, IS AN UNAVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE OF AN EXCISE TAX BASED ON THE
WHOLESALE SELLING PRICE.  SUCH COST FACTORS AS LABOR, MATERIALS AND
ADVERTISING NATURALLY VARY AMONG COMPETING MANUFACTURERS; DIFFERENT
COSTS AND DIFFERENT METHODS OF DOING BUSINESS IN TURN MAY CAUSE THE
WHOLESALE SELLING PRICES TO LACK UNIFORMITY.  AND IF THESE PRICES ARE
TAXED WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT FOR DIFFERING COST FACTORS, TAX INEQUALITIES
AND DISCRIMINATIONS INEVITABLY RESULT.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, A FLAT TAX
IS PLACED ON THE WHOLESALE SELLING PRICES AND NO STATUTORY PROVISIONS
ARE MADE FOR RELIEF FROM THE RESULTING NATURAL TAX INEQUALITIES, COURTS
ARE POWERLESS TO SUPPLY IT THEMSELVES BY IMPUTING TO CONGRESS AN
UNEXPRESSED INTENT TO ACHIEVE TAX UNIFORMITY AMONG MANUFACTURERS
SELLING AT WHOLESALE.  FN3 

FINALLY, PETITIONER URGES THAT SEC. 619(B) MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED IN
ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND IN ORDER TO GIVE
SEC. 619(A) ITS PROPER CONSTRUCTION.  BUT SEC. 619(B) MERELY PROVIDES
THAT WHERE THE MANUFACTURER SELLS AT RETAIL, ON CONSIGNMENT OR
OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH AN ARM'S LENGTH TRANSACTION, THE TAX SHALL BE
BASED UPON A FIGURE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER WITH REFERENCE TO
THE PRICES AT WHICH SIMILAR ARTICLES ARE SOLD IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
TRADE.  INASMUCH AS PETITIONER'S SALES WERE MADE AT WHOLESALE, SEC.
619(B) HAS NO DIRECT APPLICATION TO THIS CASE.  BUT IT DOES SERVE TO
EMPHASIZE THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO MAKE SIMILAR PROVISIONS FOR TAX
EQUALIZATION UNDER SEC. 619(A) WHERE THE MANUFACTURER'S SALES ARE AT
WHOLESALE.  IT CANNOT, HOWEVER, VARY THE PLAIN INTENT AND LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 619(A) AND CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENTS  FN4  RELATING TO THE
DESIRABILITY OF ELIMINATING DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS
MAKING RETAIL SALES CANNOT BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE OF A DESIRE TO PREVENT
THE NATURAL INEQUALITIES THAT RESULT WHEN A TAX IS PLACED ON THE
WHOLESALE SELLING PRICE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE PARENTHETICAL MATTER FOLLOWING THE TERM "OTHER CHARGE" IN
THE LAST SENTENCE OF SEC. 619(A) - "(NOT REQUIRED BY THE FOREGOING
SENTENCE TO BE INCLUDED)" - IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN THIS CASE.  IT SERVES
SIMPLY TO PROVIDE THAT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR INCLUSION
AND EXCLUSION MAY OVERLAP, THE FORMER SHALL CONTROL. 

FN2  SECTION 3(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1939, 53 STAT. 862, 863,
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SEC. 3401, EXCLUDED FROM THE SALE PRICE "A
TRANSPORTATION, DELIVERY, INSURANCE, OR OTHER CHARGE, AND THE
WHOLESALER'S SALESMEN'S COMMISSIONS AND COSTS AND EXPENSES OF
ADVERTISING AND SELLING."  SECTION 3(B) MADE THIS AMENDMENT PROSPECTIVE
ONLY AND HENCE SEC. 3(A) CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION
THAT THE ADVERTISING AND SELLING EXPENSES WERE INTENDED TO BE EXCLUDED
FROM THE SELLING PRICE UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  ON THE CONTRARY,
THE VERY FACT THAT CONGRESS FOUND IT NECESSARY IN 1939 TO EXCLUDE SUCH
EXPENSES SPECIFICALLY IS PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE THAT PRIOR THERETO
ADVERTISING AND SELLING EXPENSES WERE NOT MEANT TO BE EXCLUDED. 

FN3  CONGRESS HAS SUBSEQUENTLY REALIZED THAT THE EXCISE TAX ON THE
WHOLESALE SELLING PRICE CREATED TAX INEQUALITIES AMONG MANUFACTURERS. 
IN SEC. 552 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1941, 55 STAT. 687, 718, CONGRESS
SUBSTITUTED A RETAIL EXCISE TAX FOR THE MANUFACTURER'S EXCISE TAX ON
TOILET PREPARATIONS.  THE REASONS ASSIGNED FOR THE CHANGE WERE THAT
UNDER THE EARLIER LAW "EVASION IS SUBSTANTIAL AND INEQUITABLE
COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS ARE CREATED."  H. REP. NO. 1040(77TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.), P. 33. 

FN4  SEE H. REP. NO. 708(72D CONG., 1ST SESS.), PP. 32-33; 75 CONG.
REC. 5693, 5694. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :













MCKENZIE V. IRVING TRUST CO., 323 U.S. 365 


NO. 188.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1945.  - 292
N.Y. 347, 55 N.E.2D 192, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54
STAT. 1029, IS THE PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE REGULATION
OF EQUITIES OF CLAIMANTS AS BETWEEN THEMSELVES.  P. 369. 

2.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER A TRANSFER IS A PREFERENCE
UNDER SEC. 60A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE
TRANSFER SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE "WHEN IT BECAME SO FAR
PERFECTED THAT NO BONA FIDE PURCHASER FROM THE DEBTOR AND NO CREDITOR
COULD THEREAFTER HAVE ACQUIRED ANY RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY SO
TRANSFERRED SUPERIOR TO THE RIGHTS OF THE TRANSFEREE THEREIN."  SINCE,
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTROLLING FEDERAL STATUTE, A CREDITOR OR BONA
FIDE PURCHASER COULD ACQUIRE RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE
DEBTOR ONLY BY VIRTUE OF STATE LAW, SEC. 60A THUS ADOPTS STATE LAW AS
THE RULE OF DECISION FOR DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A TRANSFER
AND THE TIME WHEN A TRANSFER IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE OR PERFECTED. 
P. 370. 

3.  IN DETERMINING IN THIS CASE THAT THE TRANSFER OF A CHECK WAS
COMPLETED NOT LATER THAN WHEN THE DEBTOR ENDORSED AND MAILED THE CHECK
TO ITS ASSIGNEE - RATHER THAN WHEN THE ASSIGNEE RECEIVED THE CHECK AND
CREDITED THE PROCEEDS UPON AN ANTECEDENT DEBT - THE STATE COURT APPLIED
THE PROPER TEST UNDER SEC. 60A, AND ITS CONCLUSION THAT UNDER STATE LAW
THE TRANSFER WAS PERFECTED MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS BEFORE BANKRUPTCY IS
ACCEPTED.  HENCE THE TRANSFER WAS NOT A PREFERENCE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 60A.  P. 371. 

4.  IN THIS PROCEEDING BY THE TRUSTEE TO SET ASIDE AN ALLEGED
PREFERENCE, THE COURT CAN NOT ADJUDICATE UPON THE PRESENT RECORD THE
CLAIM OF A SURETY WHOSE CLAIM, IF IT HAS ONE, IS ADVERSE AND SUPERIOR
TO THAT OF THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AND THE OTHER CREDITORS, AND WHO
IS NOT A PARTY TO THE SUIT.  P. 372. 

5.  UNDER THE FEDERAL RULE, A SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNEE IS ENTITLED TO
RETAIN ASSIGNED MONEYS WHICH IT RECEIVES WITHOUT NOTICE OF A PRIOR
ASSIGNMENT.  MARTIN V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 588,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 373. 

MCKENZIE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. IRVING TRUST CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 687, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
WHICH DISMISSED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN A COMPLAINT BY THE TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY SEEKING TO SET ASIDE AN ALLEGED PREFERENCE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF GRAVES-QUINN CORPORATION, THE
DEBTOR, BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK TO RECOVER
THE SUM OF $150,000 PAID BY THE DEBTOR TO RESPONDENT, ITS CREDITOR. 
THE PAYMENT WAS ALLEGED TO BE AN UNLAWFUL PREFERENCE UNDER SEC. 60A OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 96.  RESPONDENT MOVED FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 113 OF THE NEW YORK RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE TRANSFER DID NOT OCCUR WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF
BANKRUPTCY, AND HENCE WAS NOT A PREFERENCE UNDER SEC. 60A.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEW YORK DENIED THE MOTION, BUT THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT REVERSED, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.  266 APP. DIV. 599,
42 N.Y.S.2D 551.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 292 N.Y. 347,
55 N.E.2D 192, HOLDING THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT MADE WITHIN FOUR
MONTHS OF BANKRUPTCY. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON A PETITION RAISING QUESTIONS IMPORTANT TO
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, ONLY ONE OF WHICH WE FIND IT
NECESSARY TO DECIDE.  THAT QUESTION IS WHETHER A CHECK, MADE PAYABLE TO
THE BANKRUPT AND ENDORSED AND MAILED BY IT TO RESPONDENT MORE THAN FOUR
MONTHS BEFORE BANKRUPTCY, BUT RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT AND CREDITED UPON
THE BANKRUPT'S ANTECEDENT DEBT WITHIN THE FOUR MONTHS, IS, BY THE
APPLICABLE LAW, A TRANSFER WITHIN THE FOUR MONTHS PERIOD, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 60A. 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1940, THE GRAVES-QUINN CORPORATION, LATER ADJUDICATED A
BANKRUPT, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, ACTING
THROUGH THE WAR DEPARTMENT, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MILITARY HOUSING. 
THE REQUIRED PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND WAS GIVEN BY A SURETY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, AND AT THE SAME TIME, OCTOBER 2, 1940, THE SURETY TOOK FROM
THE DEBTOR AS SECURITY AN ASSIGNMENT OF ALL SUMS PAYABLE ON THE
CONTRACT. 

BEGINNING IN OCTOBER, 1940, RESPONDENT, A TRUST COMPANY, MADE LOANS
FROM TIME TO TIME TO THE DEBTOR TO FINANCE ITS OPERATIONS UNDER THE
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.  IT WAS AGREED THAT THE LOANS WERE TO BE REPAID
FROM THE MONEY TO BE RECEIVED UNDER THE CONTRACT.  ON NOVEMBER 20,
1940, THE DEBTOR EXECUTED AND ON NOVEMBER 22 DELIVERED TO RESPONDENT A
WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT OF THESE MONEYS TO BECOME DUE.  THE ASSIGNMENT WAS
MADE WITHOUT AT THAT TIME GIVING THE NOTICES AND PROCURING THE CONSENT
OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR, WHICH, BY THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS ACT OF
OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 1029, AMENDING R.S. SEC. 3477, 31 U.S.C. SEC.
203, WERE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GIVE VALIDITY TO THE ASSIGNMENT.  FN1 

ON NOVEMBER 27, 1940, AFTER THE ASSIGNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT DELIVERED
TO THE DEBTOR ITS CHECK FOR $155,865.50 AS A PROGRESS PAYMENT THEN DUE
UPON THE CONTRACT.  THE DEBTOR ON THAT DATE ENDORSED THE CHECK AND
MAILED IT TO RESPONDENT, ACCOMPANIED BY ITS OWN CHECK FOR THE SUM OF
$150,000, MADE PAYABLE TO RESPONDENT AND DRAWN UPON THE DEBTOR'S
ACCOUNT WITH RESPONDENT.  ON NOVEMBER 28TH, WHICH WAS EXACTLY FOUR
MONTHS BEFORE THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED ON MARCH 28, 1941,
RESPONDENT RECEIVED THE CHECKS AND CREDITED $150,000 OF THE PROCEEDS OF
THE GOVERNMENT CHECK ON FOUR PROMISSORY NOTES OF THE DEBTOR,
AGGREGATING $150,000. 

ON NOVEMBER 27 RESPONDENT SENT TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR ITS ASSIGNMENT
OF THE SUMS DUE AND TO BECOME DUE ON THE CONTRACT, AND ON DECEMBER 2,
GAVE THE OTHER NOTICES REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE REGULATING ASSIGNMENTS
OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  ON DECEMBER 5, THE ASSIGNMENT WAS
APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR, AND ON THAT DATE THE CONDITIONS OF A
VALID ASSIGNMENT, PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE, HAD BEEN FULLY SATISFIED. 

BY SEC. 60A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT "A TRANSFER  ...  OF ANY OF THE
PROPERTY OF A DEBTOR TO  ... A CREDITOR FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF AN
ANTECEDENT DEBT, MADE OR SUFFERED BY SUCH DEBTOR WHILE INSOLVENT AND
WITHIN FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE FILING BY OR AGAINST HIM OF THE PETITION
IN BANKRUPTCY 

..., THE EFFECT OF WHICH TRANSFER WILL BE TO ENABLE SUCH CREDITOR TO
OBTAIN A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF HIS DEBT THAN SOME OTHER CREDITOR OF THE
SAME CLASS" IS DECLARED TO BE AN UNLAWFUL PREFERENCE.  ONLY A SINGLE
ISSUE WAS RAISED BY RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHETHER
THE DEBTOR'S TRANSFER TO RESPONDENT OF $150,000 OF THE PROGRESS PAYMENT
BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS MADE AND PERFECTED MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS BEFORE
THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS RESOLVED THIS QUESTION IN RESPONDENT'S FAVOR
UPON TWO INDEPENDENT GROUNDS.  ONE IS THAT WHILE THE ASSIGNMENT WAS NOT
PERFECTED UNTIL DECEMBER 5, 1940, WITHIN THE FOUR MONTHS PERIOD, WHEN
THE NECESSARY NOTICES HAD BEEN GIVEN AND CONSENT OBTAINED, THE
ASSIGNMENT WAS TO BE REGARDED AS THEN RETROACTIVELY VALIDATED AS OF ITS
DATE OF NOVEMBER 22, 1940, WHICH WAS MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE
BANKRUPTCY.  THE OTHER GROUND IS THAT THE TRANSFER BECAME COMPLETE ON
THE DEBTOR'S ENDORSEMENT AND MAILING OF THE GOVERNMENT CHECK TO
RESPONDENT ON NOVEMBER 27, MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE
BANKRUPTCY. 

AS WE SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT ON THE SECOND GROUND WE HAVE NO OCCASION
TO CONSIDER THE FIRST OR TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION UPON IT.  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ADEQUACY OF THE SECOND GROUND, IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE ASSIGNMENT UPON THE RIGHT OF
RESPONDENT, AS AN ASSIGNEE, TO DEMAND PAYMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR
THE ASSIGNOR OF THE AMOUNTS DUE ON THE CONTRACT.  FOR HERE THE PAYMENT
WAS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE ASSIGNOR, WHICH PAID IT TO RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE ASSIGNMENT WAS VALIDATED BY THE REQUISITE NOTICES AND
CONSENT.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE GOVERNING ASSIGNMENTS OF CLAIMS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ARE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT
FOR THE REGULATION OF THE EQUITIES OF THE CLAIMANTS AS BETWEEN
THEMSELVES.  MARTIN V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 588, 594-595. 
HERE, THE PAYMENT HAVING BEEN MADE TO THE CONTRACTOR AND BY IT
DELIVERED TO RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ASSIGNMENT WAS PERFECTED, THE
GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION WAS DISCHARGED; AND THE SITUATION WAS NO
DIFFERENT THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF NO ASSIGNMENT HAD BEEN MADE.  THE
QUESTION IS THUS PRESENTED WHETHER THE ENDORSEMENT AND MAILING OF THE
CHECK TO RESPONDENT OPERATED AS A TRANSFER ON THE DATE OF MAILING,
RATHER THAN ON THE DATE OF ITS RECEIPT, SO THAT THE TRANSFER WAS MADE
AND PERFECTED BEFORE THE FOUR MONTHS PERIOD. 

WHAT CONSTITUTES A TRANSFER AND WHEN IT IS COMPLETE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 60A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS NECESSARILY A FEDERAL
QUESTION, SINCE IT ARISES UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE INTENDED TO HAVE
UNIFORM APPLICATION THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  PRUDENCE CORP. V.
GEIST, 316 U.S. 89, 95, AND CASES CITED; STEELE V. LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE R. CO., 323 U.S. 192, 204.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES ITS OWN
DEFINITIONS.  SECTION 1(30) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT DECLARES THAT
"'TRANSFER' SHALL INCLUDE THE SALE AND EVERY OTHER  ...  MODE  ...  OF
DISPOSING OF OR OF PARTING WITH PROPERTY ...  OR WITH THE POSSESSION
THEREOF  ..."  AND SEC. 60A PROVIDES THAT A "TRANSFER SHALL BE DEEMED
TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME WHEN IT BECAME SO FAR PERFECTED THAT NO
BONA FIDE PURCHASER FROM THE DEBTOR AND NO CREDITOR COULD THEREAFTER
HAVE ACQUIRED ANY RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY SO TRANSFERRED SUPERIOR TO THE
RIGHTS OF THE TRANSFEREE THEREIN  ..." 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTROLLING FEDERAL STATUTE, A CREDITOR OR BONA
FIDE PURCHASER COULD ACQUIRE RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE
DEBTOR, ONLY BY VIRTUE OF A STATE LAW.  AND HENCE SEC. 60A'S "APPARENT
COMMAND IS TO TEST THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A TRANSFER, AS AGAINST THE
TRUSTEE, BY THE STANDARDS WHICH APPLICABLE STATE LAW WOULD ENFORCE
AGAINST A GOOD FAITH PURCHASER."  CORN EXCHANGE BANK V. KLAUDER, 318
U.S. 434, 436-7.  SEE ALSO BENEDICT V. RATNER, 268 U.S. 353, 359, AND
CASES CITED.  SECTION 60A IN THIS RESPECT, AS DO NUMEROUS OTHER FEDERAL
STATUTES, SEE DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 144, 155-156,
AND NOTE 20, AND CASES CITED, THUS ADOPTS STATE LAW AS THE RULE OF
DECISION.  THE STATE STANDARDS WHICH CONTROL THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A
TRANSFER LIKEWISE DETERMINE THE PRECISE TIME WHEN A TRANSFER IS DEEMED
TO HAVE BEEN MADE OR PERFECTED. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, SEC. 1(30) INCLUDES IN THE TERM "TRANSFER" "EVERY
... MODE OF  ...  PARTING WITH PROPERTY  ...  OR WITH THE POSSESSION
THEREOF."  WHEN THE DEBTOR ENDORSED THE GOVERNMENT CHECK AND PLACED IT
IN THE MAILS, HE PARTED WITH THE POSSESSION AND INTENDED TO PART WITH
THE PROPERTY IN IT, AT A TIME (BEFORE THE FOUR MONTHS' PERIOD) WHEN THE
TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO RESPONDENT WOULD NOT BE AN UNLAWFUL
PREFERENCE.  WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS PERFECTED ON MAILING THE CHECK
THUS TURNS ON A QUESTION OF STATE LAW, TO WHICH THE HIGHEST COURT OF
THE STATE HAS HERE GIVEN AN AUTHORITATIVE ANSWER.  FN2  THE COURT OF
APPEALS RECOGNIZED THAT ONLY SUCH A "PARTING WITH PROPERTY" IN THE
CHECK, AS WOULD PRECLUDE THE DEBTOR FROM TRANSFERRING ANY INTEREST IN
THE CHECK TO A CREDITOR OR BONA FIDE PURCHASER, WOULD PERFECT THE
TRANSFER TO RESPONDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 60A.  THE COURT ALSO
RECOGNIZED THAT IN THIS RESPECT STATE LAW CONTROLLED DECISION.  IT
FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER A CREDITOR OR BONA FIDE
PURCHASER COULD HAVE OBTAINED RIGHTS IN THE $150,000, PRIOR TO THE
ENDORSEMENT AND MAILING OF THE GOVERNMENT CHECK ON NOVEMBER 27, SINCE
IT THOUGHT THAT THE "DELIVERY OF THE MONEYS TO THE ASSIGNEE WAS
COMPLETE" AT THAT TIME.  FN3  THE STATE COURT HAVING APPLIED THE PROPER
TEST UNDER SEC. 60A, WE ACCEPT ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSFER WAS
MADE MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS BEFORE BANKRUPTCY. 

PETITIONER, RELYING ON MARTIN V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., SUPRA, ARGUES
THAT AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW THE SURETY COMPANY, WHICH IS A
CREDITOR, HAS RIGHTS TO THE PROCEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT,
SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF RESPONDENT, AND SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE RESPONDENT
TO RELINQUISH THE PAYMENT MADE TO IT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
SURETY HAS MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM.  THE SURETY, WHOSE CLAIM, IF IT HAS
ONE, IS ADVERSE AND SUPERIOR TO THAT OF PETITIONER AND THE OTHER
CREDITORS, IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS SUIT.  THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED ON
THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DO NOT FRAME ANY SUCH ISSUE, AND WE ARE
NOT POINTED TO ANY ALLEGATION IN THEM THAT ANY AMOUNT IS DUE AND OWING
FROM THE BANKRUPT TO THE SURETY.  HENCE THE CLAIM, IF IT EXISTS, IS NOT
ONE WHICH COULD BE ADJUDICATED HERE. 

IN ANY EVENT THE AFFIDAVITS FAIL TO ESTABLISH THE ASSERTED PRIORITY
OF THE SURETY OVER RESPONDENT.  THE SURETY DID NOT PERFECT ITS
ASSIGNMENT BY GIVING THE NOTICES AND PROCURING THE CONSENT REQUIRED BY
THE STATUTE.  IT DID NOT RECEIVE THE PROCEEDS OF THE CONTRACT HERE IN
QUESTION.  THEY WERE PAID TO RESPONDENT WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE
HAD ANY NOTICE OF THE PRIOR ASSIGNMENT OF THE SURETY.  UNDER THE
FEDERAL RULE, RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO RETAIN THE ASSIGNED MONEY WHICH
IT RECEIVED WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE PRIOR ASSIGNMENT TO THE SURETY. 
JUDSON V. CORCORAN, 17 HOW.  612; CF. SALEM TRUST CO. V. MANUFACTURERS'
CO., 264 U.S. 182, 192-193.  THE MARTIN CASE DOES NOT CONTROL HERE,
SINCE THE SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNEE IN THAT CASE TOOK WITH NOTICE OF AN
EARLIER ASSIGNMENT AND AS PART OF AN OBVIOUSLY FRAUDULENT SCHEME. 
THESE FACTS, WHICH WERE SUFFICIENT IN THAT CASE TO REQUIRE THAT THE
SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNEE RELINQUISH THE TRANSFERRED FUNDS, ARE LACKING
HERE.  HENCE IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER, AS THE COURT OF
APPEALS HELD, THE TRUSTEE IS WITHOUT STANDING TO ASSERT ALLEGED RIGHTS
OF THE SURETY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 3477 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 203,
DECLARES THAT THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY CLAIM UPON THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE
"ABSOLUTELY NULL AND VOID" UNLESS MADE AFTER THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM
AND THE ISSUE OF A WARRANT FOR ITS PAYMENT.  BUT BY THE AMENDMENT OF
OCTOBER 9, 1940, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT SUCH ASSIGNMENTS OF CLAIMS IN
EXCESS OF $1,000 FOR MONEY DUE OR TO BECOME DUE FROM AN AGENCY OR
DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT UPON CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO WITH THE
GOVERNMENT BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE VALID WHEN MADE
TO A BANK OR TRUST COMPANY UPON NOTICE TO THE SURETY ON THE
CONTRACTOR'S BOND, AND TO CERTAIN SPECIFIED OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT,
INCLUDING THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED,
AND UPON CONSENT OF THE HEAD OF THAT AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT. 

FN2  THE ENDORSEMENT AND MAILING OF THE GOVERNMENT CHECK TOOK PLACE
IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE
LAW OF MASSACHUSETTS DETERMINES THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THESE ACTS, NOR
THAT THAT LAW DIFFERS FROM THE LAW OF NEW YORK.  HENCE IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PROBLEM OF CHOICE OF LAW UNDER SEC.
60A IS TO BE RESOLVED BY FEDERAL STANDARDS, OR WHETHER THAT SECTION
ALSO ADOPTS THE CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES OF THE FORUM.  IF THE FORMER BE
THE CASE, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THIS COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED MASSACHUSETTS LAW; AND
IF SO THIS COURT WOULD BE UNDER THE DUTY OF MAKING AN INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS LAW.  CF. BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S.
77, 81; ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59, 64, AND CASES CITED.  BUT IF THE
STATUTE ADOPTS THE LOCAL CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES, THE PRESENT CASE WOULD
TURN ON NEW YORK LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICABLE RULE ADOPTED BY NEW
YORK WERE THE SAME AS THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF MASSACHUSETTS.  FOR "EVEN
WHERE THE STATE OF THE FORUM ADOPTS AND APPLIES AS ITS OWN THE LAW OF
THE STATE WHERE THE INJURY WAS INFLICTED, THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT SHALL
APPLY IN ITS OWN COURTS A RULE OF LAW OF ANOTHER STATE IS ITSELF A
QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW OF THE FORUM."  SEE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V.
HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 445, AND CASES CITED. 

FN3  THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID, 292 N.Y. 347, 358-359:  "THE TEST
UNDER THE STATUTE AS AMENDED IN 1938 IS, AS I HAVE SAID, WHETHER NO
'BONA FIDE PURCHASER FROM THE DEBTOR AND NO CREDITOR COULD THEREAFTER
HAVE ACQUIRED ANY RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY SO TRANSFERRED SUPERIOR TO THE
RIGHTS OF THE TRANSFEREE THEREIN.'  THE 'STANDARDS WHICH APPLICABLE
STATE LAW WOULD ENFORCE AGAINST A GOOD FAITH PURCHASERS' OR AGAINST A
CREDITOR MUST BE APPLIED HERE  ....  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE  ...
WHETHER A PURCHASER FOR VALUE OR A CREDITOR COULD HAVE OBTAINED ANY
RIGHTS IN THE MONEYS UNTIL THEY WERE PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR AND THE
CHECK MAILED TO THE (RESPONDENT) ON NOVEMBER 27TH.  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT
AT LEAST FROM THAT TIME THE TRANSFER WAS PERFECTED  .... (FROM) THE
TIME THAT THE CHECK WAS DEPOSITED IN THE MAIL  ..., DELIVERY OF THE
MONEYS TO THE ASSIGNEE WAS COMPLETE." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 
..END :




U.S. V. GENERAL MORTORS CORP., 323 U.S. 373 


NO. 76.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 17, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1945.  -
140 F.2D 873, AFFIRMED. 


IN PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE THE MEASURE OF JUST COMPENSATION REQUIRED
BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO BE MADE TO A LEASEHOLDER WHERE THE GOVERNMENT
HAS TAKEN, FOR PART OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF A LEASE, THE OCCUPANCY OF
A WAREHOUSE WHICH WAS EQUIPPED FOR AND USED IN THE LEASEHOLDER'S
BUSINESS, HELD: 

1.  THE VALUE OF THE OCCUPANCY IS TO BE ASCERTAINED NOT BY TREATING
WHAT HAS BEEN TAKEN AS AN EMPTY WAREHOUSE TO BE LEASED FOR A LONG TERM,
BUT BY WHAT WOULD BE THE MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE BUILDING ON A LEASE
BY THE LONG-TERM TENANT TO A TEMPORARY OCCUPANT.  P. 381. 

THE LONG-TERM RENTAL VALUE IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE OF THE MARKET
RENTAL VALUE OF THE TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY. 

2.  THE REASONABLE COST OF REMOVING THE LEASEHOLDER'S STORED PROPERTY
AND PREPARING THE SPACE FOR OCCUPANCY BY THE GOVERNMENT - INCLUDING
LABOR, MATERIALS, TRANSPORTATION, AND POSSIBLY THE COST OF TEMPORARY
STORAGE AND RETURNING THE GOODS TO THE PREMISES - MAY BE PROVED, NOT AS
INDEPENDENT ITEMS OF DAMAGE BUT AS ELEMENTS AFFECTING THE PRICE WHICH
WOULD BE ASKED AND PAID FOR TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY.  P. 383. 

3.  THE LEASEHOLDER IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE DESTRUCTION,
DAMAGE OR DEPRECIATION IN VALUE OF FIXTURES AND PERMANENT EQUIPMENT,
NOT AS PART OF BUT IN ADDITION TO THE VALUE OF THE OCCUPANCY.  P. 383. 

UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 722, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, ON AN APPEAL BY
THE COMPANY, REVERSED A JUDGMENT IN A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS ONE OF FIRST IMPRESSION IN THIS COURT.  IT PRESENTS A
QUESTION ON WHICH THE DECISIONS OF FEDERAL COURTS ARE IN CONFLICT.  FN1
THE PROBLEM INVOLVED IS THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE JUST COMPENSATION
REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHERE, IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF A
PORTION OF A LEASED BUILDING IS TAKEN FROM A TENANT WHO HOLDS UNDER A
LONG TERM LEASE. 

1942,  FN2  PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT THE SECRETARY OF WAR MAY CAUSE
PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED, IN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION, TO
ACQUIRE, BY CONDEMNATION, ANY REAL PROPERTY, TEMPORARY USE THEREOF, OR
OTHER INTEREST THEREIN WHICH SHALL BE DEEMED NECESSARY FOR MILITARY OR
OTHER WAR PURPOSES.  THE ACT PROVIDES FURTHER THAT, ON OR AFTER THE
FILING OF THE CONDEMNATION PETITION, IMMEDIATE POSSESSION MAY BE TAKEN
AND THE PROPERTY MAY BE OCCUPIED, USED, OR IMPROVED. 

IN 1928 THE RESPONDENT LEASED A ONE-STORY WAREHOUSE BUILDING IN
CHICAGO FOR A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS, FOR THE STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
AUTOMOBILE PARTS, AND FITTED THE PREMISES FOR THIS USE.  IN 1942 THE
UNITED STATES BECAME SUBTENANTS OF A PORTION OF THE FLOOR SPACE IN THE
BUILDING.  THERE REMAINED IN THE POSSESSION OF THE RESPONDENT SOME
93,000 SQUARE FEET.  IN THE SPRING OF 1942 THE SECRETARY OF WAR
REQUESTED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR
CONDEMNATION OF THE OCCUPANCY OF THE REMAINING SPACE FOR A TERM ENDING
JUNE 30, 1943.  PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST, THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 8,
1942, FILED A PETITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ORDER CONDEMNING
SUCH TEMPORARY USE AND GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT OF IMMEDIATE
POSSESSION, USE, AND IMPROVEMENT FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.  ON THE SAME
DAY THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER DECLARING THE PROPERTY CONDEMNED FOR A
TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 1943, AND GRANTING THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT OF
IMMEDIATE POSSESSION.  THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT AND
SHORTLY THEREAFTER IT BEGAN REMOVING ITS PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM THE
AREA AND DISMANTLING AND DEMOLISHING BINS AND FIXTURES, SO THAT THE
SPACE WAS AVAILABLE FOR GOVERNMENT USE BY JUNE 19. 

AT THE TRIAL FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE COMPENSATION DUE THE
RESPONDENT, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AFTER PROVING THE
AUTHORITY FOR THE TAKING, CALLED A REAL ESTATE EXPERT WHO GAVE HIS
OPINION THAT THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE SPACE WAS 35 CENTS PER YEAR
PER SQUARE FOOT.  THE GOVERNMENT THEN RESTED. 

THE RESPONDENT CALLED EXPERT WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED THAT, IN THEIR
OPINION, THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE WAS 43 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT, AND A
WITNESS WAS PERMITTED TO TESTIFY THAT THE RENT PAID BY THE RESPONDENT
TO ITS LANDLORD HAD VARIED DURING THE YEARS 1940 TO 1942, INCLUSIVE,
FROM 41.9 TO 43.24 CENTS. 

THE RESPONDENT THEN OFFERED TO PROVE VARIOUS ITEMS OF COST CAUSED BY
REMOVAL OF THE CONTENTS.  THESE CONSISTED, INTER ALIA, OF SALARIES OF
EMPLOYES ENGAGED IN THE WORK, COMPENSATION DUE EMPLOYES PUT OUT OF WORK
BY THE REMOVAL, WAGES OF JANITORS AND WATCHMEN FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE BUILDING DURING THE MOVING, THE COST OF SHIPPING THE CONTENTS OF
THE BUILDING TO OTHER POINTS, COMPENSATION TO EXECUTIVES AND EMPLOYES
WHOSE TIME WAS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MOVING OF THE PROPERTY,
FREIGHT AND HAULAGE CHARGES, RENTAL OF STORAGE SPACE FOR ARTICLES MOVED
OUT, THE VALUE OF THE BIN EQUIPMENT DESTROYED AND THE ESTIMATED
ORIGINAL COST OF THE INSTALLATION OF FIXED EQUIPMENT COMPLETELY LOST AS
A RESULT OF THE DISMANTLING OF THE AREA.  THE COURT SUSTAINED AN
OBJECTION TO THE OFFER.  THE JURY AWARDED COMPENSATION IN A LUMP SUM AT
A RATE OF APPROXIMATELY 40 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT FOR THE TERM OF ONE
YEAR.  FN3 

THE RESPONDENT APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ASSIGNING AS
ERROR THE REFUSAL OF ITS OFFER OF PROOF.  THAT COURT MIGHT HAVE
SUSTAINED THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULING ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO PROVE CERTAIN OF THE EXPENDITURES AND LOSSES IN
QUESTION AS INDEPENDENT ITEMS OF DAMAGES ADDITIONAL TO THE VALUE OF THE
INTEREST TAKEN BY CONDEMNATION.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING
SUBSTANCE RATHER THAN FORM, BY A VOTE OF 2 TO 1, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT,
HOLDING THAT ITEMS OF ACTUAL LOSS WHICH WERE THE DIRECT AND NECESSARY
RESULT OF THE RESPONDENT'S EXCLUSION FROM THE LEASED AREA MIGHT BE
PROVED, NOT AS INDEPENDENT ITEMS BUT AS ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN
ARRIVING AT THE SUM WHICH WOULD BE JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE INTEREST
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONDEMNED.  THE CAUSE WAS REMANDED FOR TRIAL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  WE THINK
WE SHOULD REVIEW THAT RULING INASMUCH AS IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE
FURTHER CONDUCT OF THE CASE.  THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION OF THE
COURT BELOW DEPENDS UPON THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION:  "NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE,
WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION," WHICH CONDITIONS THE OTHERWISE UNRESTRAINED
POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN TO EXPROPRIATE, WITHOUT COMPENSATION, WHATEVER
IT NEEDS. 

THE CRITICAL TERMS ARE "PROPERTY," "TAKEN" AND "JUST COMPENSATION." 
IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT THE FIRST WAS USED IN ITS VULGAR AND UNTECHNICAL
SENSE OF THE PHYSICAL THING WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE CITIZEN EXERCISES
RIGHTS RECOGNIZED BY LAW.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MAY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED
IN A MORE ACCURATE SENSE TO DENOTE THE GROUP OF RIGHTS INHERING IN THE
CITIZEN'S RELATION TO THE PHYSICAL THING, AS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS, USE
AND DISPOSE OF IT.  IN POINT OF FACT, THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE PHRASE
HAS BEEN THE LATTER.  FN4  WHEN THE SOVEREIGN EXERCISES THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN IT SUBSTITUTES ITSELF IN RELATION TO THE PHYSICAL THING
IN QUESTION IN PLACE OF HIM WHO FORMERLY BORE THE RELATION TO THAT
THING, WHICH WE DENOMINATE OWNERSHIP.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT DEALS WITH
WHAT LAWYERS TERM THE INDIVIDUAL'S "INTEREST" IN THE THING IN
QUESTION.  THAT INTEREST MAY COMPRISE THE GROUP OF RIGHTS FOR WHICH THE
SHORTHAND TERM IS "A FEE SIMPLE" OR IT MAY BE THE INTEREST KNOWN AS AN
"ESTATE OR TENANCY FOR YEARS," AS IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS ADDRESSED TO EVERY SORT OF INTEREST THE
CITIZEN MAY POSSESS. 

IN ITS PRIMARY MEANING, THE TERM "TAKEN" WOULD SEEM TO SIGNIFY
SOMETHING MORE THAN DESTRUCTION, FOR IT MIGHT WELL BE CLAIMED THAT ONE
DOES NOT TAKE WHAT HE DESTROYS.  BUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PHRASE HAS
NOT BEEN SO NARROW.  THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE DEPRIVATION OF THE
FORMER OWNER RATHER THAN THE ACCRETION OF A RIGHT OR INTEREST TO THE
SOVEREIGN CONSTITUTES THE TAKING.  GOVERNMENTAL ACTION SHORT OF
ACQUISITION OF TITLE OR OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN HELD, IF ITS EFFECTS ARE SO
COMPLETE AS TO DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF ALL OR MOST OF HIS INTEREST IN THE
SUBJECT MATTER, TO AMOUNT TO A TAKING.  FN5 

BUT IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT WHETHER THE SOVEREIGN SUBSTITUTES
ITSELF AS OCCUPANT IN PLACE OF THE FORMER OWNER, OR DESTROYS ALL HIS
EXISTING RIGHTS IN THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CONCERNS
ITSELF SOLELY WITH THE "PROPERTY," I.E., WITH THE OWNER'S RELATION AS
SUCH TO THE PHYSICAL THING AND NOT WITH OTHER COLLATERAL INTERESTS
WHICH MAY BE INCIDENT TO HIS OWNERSHIP. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PRINCIPLES IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE
COMPENSATION TO BE PAID IS THE VALUE OF THE INTEREST TAKEN.  ONLY IN
THE SENSE THAT HE IS TO RECEIVE SUCH VALUE IS IT TRUE THAT THE OWNER
MUST BE PUT IN AS GOOD POSITION PECUNIARILY AS IF HIS PROPERTY HAD NOT
BEEN TAKEN.  IN THE ORDINARY CASE, FOR WANT OF A BETTER STANDARD,
MARKET VALUE, SO CALLED, IS THE CRITERION OF THAT VALUE.  IN SOME CASES
THIS CRITERION CANNOT BE USED EITHER BECAUSE THE INTEREST CONDEMNED HAS
NO MARKET VALUE OR BECAUSE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, MARKET VALUE
FURNISHES AN INAPPROPRIATE MEASURE OF ACTUAL VALUE. 

IN THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE THE PARTIES PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF THE
MARKET VALUE OF THE OCCUPANCY OF BARE FLOOR SPACE FOR THE TERM TAKEN. 
THE RESPONDENT'S OFFER TO PROVE ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR WHICH IT CLAIMED
COMPENSATION WAS OVERRULED.  THE AWARD WAS THEREFORE LIMITED TO THE
MARKET VALUE OF THE OCCUPANCY OF A VACANT BUILDING.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER ANY OTHER ELEMENT OF VALUE INHERED IN THE INTEREST TAKEN. 

THE SOVEREIGN ORDINARILY TAKES THE FEE.  THE RULE IN SUCH A CASE IS
THAT COMPENSATION FOR THAT INTEREST DOES NOT INCLUDE FUTURE LOSS OF
PROFITS, THE EXPENSE OF MOVING REMOVABLE FIXTURES AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
FROM THE PREMISES, THE LOSS OF GOOD-WILL WHICH INHERES IN THE LOCATION
OF THE LAND, OR OTHER LIKE CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES WHICH WOULD ENSUE THE
SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE SOVEREIGN.  NO DOUBT ALL
THESE ELEMENTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY AN OWNER IN DETERMINING WHETHER,
AND AT WHAT PRICE, TO SELL.  NO DOUBT, THEREFORE, IF THE OWNER IS TO BE
MADE WHOLE FOR THE LOSS CONSEQUENT ON THE SOVEREIGN'S SEIZURE OF HIS
PROPERTY, THESE ELEMENTS SHOULD PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED.  BUT THE COURTS
HAVE GENERALLY HELD THAT THEY ARE NOT TO BE RECKONED AS PART OF THE
COMPENSATION FOR THE FEE TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FN6  WE ARE NOT TO
BE TAKEN AS DEPARTING FROM THE RULE THEY HAVE LAID DOWN, WHICH WE THINK
SOUND.  EVEN WHERE STATE CONSTITUTIONS COMMAND THAT COMPENSATION BE
MADE FOR PROPERTY "TAKEN OR DAMAGED" FOR PUBLIC USE, AS MANY DO, IT HAS
GENERALLY BEEN HELD THAT THAT WHICH IS TAKEN OR DAMAGED IS THE GROUP OF
RIGHTS WHICH THE SOCALLED OWNER EXERCISES IN HIS DOMINION OF THE
PHYSICAL THING, AND THAT DAMAGE TO THOSE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP DOES NOT
INCLUDE LOSSES TO HIS BUSINESS OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE.  FN7 

THE QUESTION POSED IN THIS CASE THEN IS, SHALL A DIFFERENT MEASURE OF
COMPENSATION APPLY WHERE THAT WHICH IS TAKEN IS A RIGHT OF TEMPORARY
OCCUPANCY OF A BUILDING EQUIPPED FOR THE CONDEMNEE'S BUSINESS, FILLED
WITH HIS COMMODITIES, AND PRESUMABLY TO BE REOCCUPIED AND USED, AS
BEFORE, TO THE END OF THE LEASE TERM ON THE TERMINATION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S USE?  THE RIGHT TO OCCUPY, FOR A DAY, A MONTH, A YEAR, OR
A SERIES OF YEARS, IN AND OF ITSELF AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE ACTUAL
USE, NEEDS, OR COLLATERAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE OCCUPIER, HAS A VALUE. 
THE VALUE OF THAT INTEREST IS AFFECTED, OF COURSE, BY THE KIND OF
BUILDING TO BE OCCUPIED, BY ITS LOCATION, BY ITS SUSCEPTIBILITY TO
VARIOUS USES, BY ITS CONVENIENCES, OR THE REVERSE, AND BY MANY OTHER
FACTORS WHICH GO TO SET THE VALUE OF THE OCCUPANCY.  THESE WERE TAKEN
INTO CONSIDERATION IN FIXING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE FLOOR SPACE TAKEN,
AS IF THAT SPACE WERE BARE AND IN THE MARKET FOR RENT. 

WHILE, AS HAS BEEN SAID, THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO TAKE FOR A SHORT
PERIOD, AND TO DEMAND POSSESSION OF THE SPACE TAKEN FREED OF ALL
EQUIPMENT OR PERSONAL PROPERTY THEREIN, CANNOT BE DENIED, THREE
QUESTIONS EMERGE WHICH ARE NOT PRESENTED WHEN WHAT IS TAKEN IS A FEE
INTEREST IN LAND.  THEY ARE:  1.  IS THE LONG-TERM RENTAL VALUE THE
SOLE MEASURE OF THE VALUE OF SUCH SHORT-TERM OCCUPANCY CARVED OUT OF
THE LONG TERM?  2.  IF THE TAKING NECESSITATES THE REMOVAL OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY STORED IN THE BUILDING IN CONFORMITY TO THE NORMAL USE OF SUCH
A BUILDING, IS THE NECESSARY EXPENSE OF THE REMOVAL TO BE CONSIDERED IN
COMPUTING COMPENSATION?  3.  IF A TENANT'S EQUIPMENT AND FIXTURES ARE
TAKEN OR DESTROYED, OR REDUCED IN VALUE, BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTION,
MUST IT COMPENSATE FOR THE VALUE THUS TAKEN OR DESTROYED IN ADDITION TO
PAYING THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE OCCUPANCY? 

1.  IF THE GOVERNMENT NEED ONLY PAY THE LONG-TERM RENTAL OF AN EMPTY
BUILDING FOR A TEMPORARY TAKING FROM THE LONG-TERM TENANT A WAY WILL
HAVE BEEN FOUND TO DEFEAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S MANDATE FOR JUST
COMPENSATION IN ALL CONDEMNATIONS EXCEPT THOSE IN WHICH THE
CONTEMPLATED PUBLIC USE REQUIRES THE TAKING OF THE FEE SIMPLE TITLE. 
IN ANY CASE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT MAY NEED PRIVATE PROPERTY, IT CAN
DEVISE ITS CONDEMNATION SO AS TO SPECIFY A TERM OF A DAY, A MONTH, OR A
YEAR, WITH OPTIONAL CONTINGENT RENEWAL FOR INDEFINITE PERIODS, AND WITH
THE CERTAINTY THAT IT NEED PAY THE OWNER ONLY THE LONG-TERM RENTAL RATE
OF AN UNOCCUPIED BUILDING FOR THE SHORT TERM PERIOD, IF THE PREMISES
ARE ALREADY UNDER LEASE OR, IF NOT, THEN A MARKET RENTAL FOR WHATEVER
MINIMUM TERM IT MAY CHOOSE TO SELECT, FIXED ACCORDING TO THE USUAL
MODES OF ARRIVING AT RENTAL RATES.  AND THIS, THOUGH THE OWNER MAY BE
DAMAGED BY THE OUSTER TEN, A SCORE, OR PERHAPS A HUNDRED TIMES THE
AMOUNT FOUND DUE HIM AS "FAIR RENTAL VALUE."  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE
RESPONDENT OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENSE OF MOVING ITS
PROPERTY EXCEEDED SEC. 46,000, AND THE LOSS DUE TO DESTRUCTION AND
REMOVAL OF FIXTURES AND FIXED EQUIPMENT EXCEEDED $31,000, IN ADDITION
TO ITS CONTINUING LIABILITY TO PAY RENT FOR THE YEAR OF APPROXIMATELY
$40,000; WHEREAS THE AWARD WAS $38,597.86.  IF SUCH A RESULT BE
SUSTAINED WE CAN SEE NO LIMIT TO UTILIZATION OF SUCH A DEVICE; AND, IF
THERE IS NONE, THE AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY BECOMES, NOT ONE OF JUST
COMPENSATION FOR WHAT IS TAKEN, BUT AN INSTRUMENT OF CONFISCATION
FICTIONALIZING "JUST COMPENSATION" INTO SOME SUCH CONCEPT AS THE COMMON
LAW IDEA OF A PEPPERCORN IN THE LAW OF SEIZIN OR THE LATER ONE OF
"VALUE RECEIVED" IN THAT OF CONTRACTUAL CONSIDERATION.  IF THE VALUE TO
BE PAID IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT IS CONFINED, AS MATTER OF LAW, TO
THE LONG-TERM RENTAL OF BARE SPACE, THE OWNER WILL NOT BE SECURE,
EITHER IN HIS RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, OR IN HIS RIGHT TO JUST COMPENSATION
AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR IT, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TAKES IT FOR THE USE AND
BENEFIT OF ALL.  HERE THE USE OF A WAREHOUSE FOR A SHORT TIME WAS
TAKEN.  THE PROPERTY MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE GENERAL MOTORS FACTORY.  OR
SEVERAL PLANTS.  OR A MODEST STORE OR HOME.  WHATEVER OF PROPERTY THE
CITIZEN HAS THE GOVERNMENT MAY TAKE.  WHEN IT TAKES THE PROPERTY, THAT
IS, THE FEE, THE LEASE, WHATEVER HE MAY OWN, TERMINATING ALTOGETHER HIS
INTEREST, UNDER THE ESTABLISHED LAW IT MUST PAY HIM FOR WHAT IS TAKEN,
NOT MORE; AND HE MUST STAND WHATEVER INDIRECT OR REMOTE INJURIES ARE
PROPERLY COMPREHENDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF "CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE" AS
THAT CONCEPTION HAS BEEN DEFINED IN SUCH CASES.  EVEN SO THE
CONSEQUENCES OFTEN ARE HARSH.  FOR THESE WHATEVER REMEDY MAY EXIST LIES
WITH CONGRESS. 

IT IS ALTOGETHER ANOTHER MATTER WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT TAKE HIS
ENTIRE INTEREST, BUT BY THE FORM OF ITS PROCEEDING CHOPS IT INTO BITS,
OF WHICH IT TAKES ONLY WHAT IT WANTS, HOWEVER FEW OR MINUTE, AND LEAVES
HIM HOLDING THE REMAINDER, WHICH MAY THEN BE ALTOGETHER USELESS TO HIM,
REFUSING TO PAY MORE THAN THE "MARKET RENTAL VALUE" FOR THE USE OF THE
CHIPS SO CUT OFF.  THIS IS NEITHER THE "TAKING" NOR THE "JUST
COMPENSATION" THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CONTEMPLATES.  THE VALUE OF SUCH AN
OCCUPANCY IS TO BE ASCERTAINED, NOT BY TREATING WHAT IS TAKEN AS AN
EMPTY WAREHOUSE TO BE LEASED FOR A LONG TERM, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE
MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF SUCH A BUILDING ON A LEASE BY THE LONG-TERM
TENANT TO THE TEMPORARY OCCUPIER.  THE CASE SHOULD BE RETRIED ON THIS
PRINCIPLE.  IN SO RULING WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT THE LONG-TERM RENTAL
VALUE MAY NOT BE SHOWN AS BEARING ON THE MARKET RENTAL VALUE OF THE
TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY TAKEN.  IT MAY BE EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF WHAT IS
TAKEN BUT IT IS NOT THE CRITERION OF VALUE IN SUCH A CASE AS THIS. 

2.  SOME OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY AND DIRECTLY AFFECT
THE MARKET PRICE AGREED UPON BY A TENANT AND A SUBLESSEE IN SUCH AN
EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL TRANSACTION WOULD BE THE REASONABLE COST OF
MOVING OUT THE PROPERTY STORED AND PREPARING THE SPACE FOR OCCUPANCY BY
THE SUBTENANT.  THAT COST WOULD INCLUDE LABOR, MATERIALS, AND
TRANSPORTATION.  AND IT MIGHT ALSO INCLUDE THE STORAGE OF GOODS AGAINST
THEIR SALE OR THE COST OF THEIR RETURN TO THE LEASED PREMISES.  SUCH
ITEMS MAY BE PROVED, NOT AS INDEPENDENT ITEMS OF DAMAGE BUT TO AID IN
THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT WOULD BE THE USUAL - THE MARKET - PRICE WHICH
WOULD BE ASKED AND PAID FOR SUCH TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING
THEN IN USE UNDER A LONG-TERM LEASE.  THE RESPONDENT OFFERED DETAILED
PROOF OF AMOUNTS ACTUALLY AND NECESSARILY PAID FOR THESE PURPOSES.  WE
THINK THAT THE PROOF SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH
THE LIMITATION INDICATED.  FN8  PROOF OF SUCH COSTS AS AFFECTING MARKET
VALUE IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM PROOF OF VALUE PECULIAR TO THE
RESPONDENT, OR THE VALUE OF GOOD-WILL OR OF INJURY TO THE BUSINESS OF
THE RESPONDENT WHICH, IN THIS CASE, AS IN THE CASE OF THE CONDEMNATION
OF A FEE, MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE RECKONING. 

3.  FOR FIXTURES AND PERMANENT EQUIPMENT DESTROYED OR DEPRECIATED IN
VALUE BY THE TAKING, THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.  AN
OWNER'S RIGHTS IN THESE ARE NO LESS PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT THAN HIS RIGHTS IN LAND AND THE STRUCTURES THEREON
ERECTED.  AND IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER THEY WERE TAKEN OVER BY THE
GOVERNMENT OR DESTROYED, SINCE, AS HAS BEEN SAID, DESTRUCTION IS
TANTAMOUNT TO TAKING.  FN9  THIS IS TRUE WHETHER THE FIXTURES AND
EQUIPMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SUCH AS BETWEEN VENDOR AND VENDEE,  FN10
OR AS A TENANT'S TRADE FIXURES.  FN11  IN RESPECT OF THEM, THE TENANT
WHOSE OCCUPANCY IS TAKEN IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR DESTRUCTION,
DAMAGE OR DEPRECIATION IN VALUE.  FN12  AND SINCE THEY ARE PROPERTY
DISTINCT FROM THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY SUCH COMPENSATION SHOULD BE
AWARDED NOT AS PART OF BUT IN ADDITION TO THE VALUE OF THE OCCUPANCY AS
SUCH.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  COMPARE WITH THE DECISION BELOW, 140 F.2D 873, GERSHON BROS. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 284 F. 849; NATIONAL LABORATORY & SUPPLY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 275 F. 218; UNITED STATES V. ENTIRE FIFTH FLOOR, 54
F.SUPP.  258; UNITED STATES V. IMPROVED PREMISES, 54 F.SUPP.  469;
UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND, 54 F.SUPP.  561; UNITED
STATES V. 0.64 ACRES OF LAND, 54 F.SUPP.  562; UNITED STATES V.
BUILDING KNOWN AS 651 BRANNAN STREET, 55 F.SUPP.  667; WM. WRIGLEY JR.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 75 CT. CLS. 569; HOWARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 81
CT. CLS. 646. 

FN2  C. 199, 56 STAT. 176, 177, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 632. 

FN3  AFTER JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE VERDICTS, THE COURT, ON
THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION, OPENED THE JUDGMENT AND PERMITTED THE
GOVERNMENT TO AMEND ITS PETITION FOR CONDEMNATION TO DESCRIBE THE
INTEREST TAKEN AS "A TERM FOR YEARS  ...  EXPIRING JUNE 30, 1943,
RENEWABLE FOR ADDITIONAL YEARLY PERIODS THEREAFTER  ...  AT THE
ELECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR," ON SPECIFIED NOTICE OF INTENT SO TO
RENEW.  THE COURT THEN ENTERED A NEW JUDGMENT AWARDING THE AMOUNT OF
THE VERDICT TO RESPONDENT AND RETAINING JURISDICTION FOR THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY, IF
ANY, BEYOND ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR, DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OCCUPANCY. 
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THESE FACTS ALTER THE QUESTION BEFORE US.
THE CASE NOW PRESENTED INVOLVES ONLY THE ORIGINAL TAKING FOR ONE YEAR. 
IF, ON REMAND, THE CASE BE TREATED AS INVOLVING THE GOVERNMENT'S OPTION
OF RENEWAL, THE ADDITIONAL VALUE OF THAT INTEREST MUST BE INCLUDED IN
THE COMPENSATION AWARDED.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
POWER TO CONDEMN SERVICE, SUCH AS THE FURNISHING OF HEAT AND LIGHT. 

FN4  LEWIS, EMINENT DOMAIN, 3D ED., SECS. 63, 64. 

FN5  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. WELCH, 217 U.S. 333; RICHARDS V.
WASHINGTON TERMINAL CO., 233 U.S. 546. 

FN6  BOTHWELL V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 231; MITCHELL V. UNITED
STATES, 267 U.S. 341; MULLEN BENEVOLENT CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 290
U.S. 89; ORGEL, VALUATION UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN, CHAP. V, PP. 220-252. 

FN7  ORGEL, OP. CIT., P. 253. 

FN8  PATTERSON V. BOSTON, 23 PICK.  (MASS.)  425; GETZ V.
PHILADELPHIA & READING R. CO., 105 PA. 547; PHILADELPHIA & READING R.
CO. V. GETZ, 113 PA. 214, 6 A. 356; MCMILLIN PRINTING CO. V.
PITTSBURGH, C. & W.R. CO., 216 PA. 504, 65 A. 1091; NORTH COAST R. CO.
V. KRAFT CO., 63 WASH. 250, 115 P. 97; NATIONAL LABORATORY & SUPPLY CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 275 F. 218. 

FN9  SUPRA, NOTE 5. 

FN10  JACKSON V. NEW YORK, 213 N.Y. 34, 106 N.E. 758. 

FN11  MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK, 66 MISC. REP. 488, 122 N.Y.S. 321;
MATTER OF WILCOX, 165 APP. DIV. 197, 151 N.Y.S. 141; BALES V. WICHITA
MIDLAND VALLEY R. CO., 92 KAN. 771, 141 P. 1009; MATTER OF CITY OF NEW
YORK, 219 APP. DIV. 27, 219 N.Y.S. 353; MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK, 256
N.Y. 236, 176 N.E. 377; IN RE WIDENING OF GRATIOT AVE., 294 MICH. 569,
293 N.W. 755; CF. PAUSE V. ATLANTA, 98 GA. 92, 26 S.E. 489. 

FN12  UNITED STATES V. SEAGREN, 50 F.2D 333; MATTER OF CITY OF NEW
YORK, 118 APP. DIV. 865, 103 N.Y.S. 908; ST. LOUIS V. ST. LOUIS, I.M. &
S.R. CO., 266 MO. 694, 182 S.W. 750; PEOPLE V. GANAHL LUMBER CO., 10
CAL.2D 501, 75 P.2D 1067; AND CASES CITED IN NOTE 11. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING IN PART. 

I AGREE THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR FIXTURES AND
PERMANENT EQUIPMENT DESTROYED OR DEPRECIATED IN VALUE BY THE TAKING.  I
LIKEWISE AGREE THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO A FURTHER INCREASE IN ITS
AWARD.  THE AWARD GRANTED IS LESS THAN THE RENTAL WHICH IT IS UNDER A
CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO PAY THE LESSOR.  THE UNITED STATES IS
OCCUPYING THE PREMISES AND PAYING ABOUT 40[ A SQUARE FOOT WHILE
RESPONDENT CONTINUES TO PAY 42[ TO THE LANDLORD.  IN THESE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW A LESSEE RECEIVES THAT JUST
COMPENSATION TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNLESS THE UNITED STATES PAYS THE
FULL RENTAL.  IT WOULD INDEED BE A NOVEL RULE OF LAW WHICH ALLOWED THE
GOVERNMENT TO OUST A PERSON FROM A PORTION OF HIS LEASEHOLD, OCCUPY THE
PREMISES, BUT PAY ONLY A PART OF THE RENT, LEAVING THE BALANCE TO BE
PAID BY HIM WHO THOUGH OUSTED HOLDS THE BALANCE OF THE TERM.  BUT I DO
NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD ALLOW THE COST OF REMOVING PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM
THE PREMISES TO BE REFLECTED IN THE AWARD.  IF THIS WERE A FEE INTEREST
WHICH WAS BEING CONDEMNED, WE WOULD EXCLUDE ALL SUCH EXPENSES FROM THE
AWARD.  CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES OR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE TAKING ARE
NOT COMPENSABLE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES,
267 U.S. 341; UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 369, 376; UNITED STATES
V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266, 281-283.  IT TAKES AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO
MAKE THEM SO.  WE SHOULD ADHERE TO THAT RULE.  IF WE ALLOW
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES TO BE SHOWN HERE, I DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN REFUSE
SUCH AN OFFER OF PROOF WHEN A 10-YEAR LEASE, A 99-YEAR LEASE, OR A FEE
INTEREST IS CONDEMNED.  IF COST OF MOVING IS RELEVANT TO MARKET PRICE
IN ONE CASE, I CANNOT SAY IT IS IRRELEVANT IN THE OTHER.  AND IF ONE
TYPE OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE IS RELEVANT TO MARKET PRICE, I DO NOT SEE
WHY ALMOST ANY TYPE MAY NOT BE.  IF WE ALLOW THE OFFER OF PROOF IN THE
PRESENT CASE, THE RESULT WILL BE TO LET CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN UNDER
A NEW GUISE.  IF WE TAKE THAT STEP WE DEMONSTRATE THAT HARD CASES DO
INDEED MAKE BAD LAW.  WE GIVE THE CONSTITUTION AN INTERPRETATION WHICH
PROMISES SWOLLEN VERDICTS WHICH NO ACT OF CONGRESS CAN CURE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :








HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. V. U.S., 323 U.S. 386 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 16, 17, 18, 1943.  REARGUED OCTOBER 9, 10, 1944.  -
DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1945.  - 46 F.SUPP.  541, MODIFIED. 


1.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS AND CERTAIN
INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS AGREED, CONSPIRED AND COMBINED TO MONOPOLIZE, AND
DID RESTRAIN AND MONOPOLIZE, INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, BY
ACQUIRING PATENTS COVERING THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASSMAKING MACHINERY AND
BY EXCLUDING OTHERS FROM A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCE IN
SUCH MACHINERY AND IN THE MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF GLASS
PRODUCTS, IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, IS SUPPORTED BY THE
FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE.  SHERMAN ACT, SECS. 1 AND 2; CLAYTON ACT,
SEC. 3.  PP. 401-403. 

(A)  THE CONCLUSION THAT ONE OF THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS HAD NOT
ABANDONED THE UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY - IN VIEW OF ITS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT
AND ITS CONTINUING TO SHARE IN THE FRUITS OF THE CONSPIRACY - IS
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 407. 

(B)  THE DECREE AGAINST FOUR OF THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS, WHO WERE
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF A CORPORATION AS TO WHICH THE COMPLAINT WAS
DISMISSED, MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL ARE
INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DECREE AGAINST THEM; THE FINDINGS DO NOT
SUPPORT THE DECREE AS TO THEM; THE REFUSAL OF FINDINGS REQUESTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT EXCULPATES THEM OF PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSPIRACY; AND THE
PROOFS FAIL TO CONNECT THEM WITH THE CONSPIRACY.  P. 403. 

(C)  USE BY THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS OF THEIR JOINT PATENT POSITION
TO ALLOCATE FIELDS OF MANUFACTURE AND TO MAINTAIN PRICES OF UNPATENTED
GLASSWARE VIOLATED THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  P. 406. 

2.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS TO PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, THE
DECREE IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT.  PP. 408, 435. 

(A)  A DECREE ENJOINING VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS MAY NOT
IMPOSE PENALTIES IN THE GUISE OF PREVENTING FUTURE VIOLATIONS.  P.
409. 

(B)  A DECREE OF INJUNCTION AGAINST VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS
MUST NOT BE SO VAGUE AS TO PUT THE WHOLE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS'
BUSINESS AT THE PERIL OF A SUMMONS FOR CONTEMPT; MUST NOT ENJOIN ALL
POSSIBLE BREACHES OF THE LAW; AND MUST NOT WITHDRAW FROM THE DEFENDANTS
THE PROTECTION OF THE LAW OF THE LAND.  P. 410. 

(C)  THE ACTS RESTRAINED BY A DECREE OF INJUNCTION MUST BE DESCRIBED
SPECIFICALLY THEREIN AND NOT BY REFERENCE TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  P.
410. 

(D)  THOUGH USEFUL PENDENTE LITE, THE RECEIVERSHIP AND THE IMPOUNDING
OF FUNDS, ORDERED IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS, WERE
NOT NECESSARY TO THE PRESCRIPTION OF APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  THE
RECEIVERSHIP SHOULD BE TERMINATED AND THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS DISPOSED OF
AS HEREIN DIRECTED.  P. 411. 

(E)  OUT OF THE ROYALTIES PAID IN BY LESSEES OF ONE OF THE CORPORATE
APPELLANTS, THE LATTER SHOULD RECEIVE COMPENSATION ON A QUANTUM MERUIT
BASIS FOR SERVICES WHICH IT RENDERED TO THE LESSEES.  P. 411. 

(F)  PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE REQUIRING EACH OF THE APPELLANTS TO
ABSTAIN FOREVER FROM LEASING PATENTED GLASSMAKING MACHINERY, AND
COMPELLING EACH OF THEM IF HE DESIRES TO DISTRIBUTE PATENTED MACHINERY
TO SELL THE MACHINE WHICH EMBODIES THE PATENT TO EVERYONE WHO APPLIES,
AT A PRICE TO BE FIXED BY THE COURT, ARE CONFISCATORY IN EFFECT AND ARE
UNWARRANTED.  P. 412. 

(G)  PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ENJOINING EACH OF THE APPELLANTS FROM
ENGAGING IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF GLASSMAKING MACHINERY OR IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF GLASSWARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNLESS HE AGREES (1)
TO GRANT ROYALTY-FREE LICENSES UNDER PATENTS NOW OWNED; (2) TO GRANT
LICENSES AT REASONABLE ROYALTIES UNDER AFTER-ACQUIRED PATENTS; AND (3)
TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO ANY LICENSEE, AT COST PLUS A REASONABLE PROFIT,
ALL DRAWINGS AND PATTERNS RELATING TO THE MACHINERY OR METHODS USED IN
THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASSWARE EMBODIED IN THE LICENSED INVENTIONS, ARE
CONFISCATORY IN EFFECT AND ARE UNWARRANTED.  P. 413. 

(H)  FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT ARISING FROM THE USE OF PATENT
LICENSES, AGREEMENTS, AND LEASES, THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN MORTON
SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488, AND B.B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS,
314 U.S. 495, DO NOT AUTHORIZE FORFEITURE OF THE PATENTS.  P. 415. 

(I)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE WHICH IS VAGUE AND WOULD BE DIFFICULT
OF APPLICATION, AND WHICH SEEMS NOT TO BE ADDRESSED TO ANY PRACTICE
INDULGED IN OR THREATENED BY ANY OF THE APPELLANTS, SHOULD BE MODIFIED
OR ELIMINATED.  P. 418. 

(J)  THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM FURTHER
PROSECUTION OF INFRINGEMENT SUITS PENDING AT THE TIME THIS SUIT WAS
BROUGHT; ANY ALLEGED INFRINGERS WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE
NONDISCRIMINATORY AND NONRESTRICTIVE LICENSES AT STANDARD ROYALTIES
SHOULD BE RELEASED; AND THE PATENT OWNER SHOULD BE DENIED DAMAGES AND
PROFITS WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE CLAIMED FOR PAST INFRINGEMENT.  BUT THE
DECREE SHOULD BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FUTURE INFRINGEMENT SUITS AGAINST
PERSONS REFUSING TO TAKE LICENSES AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECREE.  THE
DECREE SHOULD NOT FORBID ANY DEFENDANT FROM SEEKING RECOVERY FOR
INFRINGEMENT, OCCURRING AFTER THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECREE, OF PATENTS
NOT COVERING FEEDERS, FORMERS, STACKERS, LEHRS OR PROCESSES OR METHODS
APPLICABLE TO ANY OF THEM.  P. 419. 

(K)  LICENSE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS WHICH ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEWS HERE EXPRESSED SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAND;
THOSE FOUND TO BE INCONSISTENT SHOULD BE ORDERED REFORMED; AND THE
APPELLANTS SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM ALTERING THE AGREEMENTS, OR ANY
HEREAFTER MADE IN LIKE TERMS, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT.  P.
420. 

(1)  THE DECREE SHOULD PERMIT ANY CORPORATE APPELLANT, ACTING ALONE,
TO LEASE OR SELL PATENTED MACHINERY OR LICENSE THE USE OF PATENTS, IF
IT SO ELECTS, PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT NO DISCRIMINATION IS PRACTICED AND
THAT NO RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS BE ATTACHED SAVE WITH THE APPROVAL OF
THE COURT.  P. 420. 

(M)  THE DECREE SHOULD ORDER DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF A PATENT
WHICH ONE OF THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS, TO BE FREE FROM THE POSSIBLE
THREAT OF SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT, HAD ACQUIRED BY ASSIGNMENT FROM
ANOTHER.  P. 421. 

(N)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE ENJOINING CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE
PROVISIONS IN LICENSE AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE AMENDED TO PERMIT ANY
APPELLANT, CORPORATE OR INDIVIDUAL, TO RETAIN AND REFUSE TO LICENSE, TO
USE AND REFUSE TO LICENSE, OR TO LICENSE WITH RESTRICTIONS, ANY PATENT
HEREAFTER APPLIED FOR OR ACQUIRED, EXCEPT THOSE APPLICABLE TO FEEDERS,
FORMERS, STACKERS AND LEHRS AND PROCESSES AND METHODS APPLICABLE
THERETO.  P. 424. 

(O)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE REQUIRING COURT APPROVAL OF "ANY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS" AND "OF ANY LICENSE AGREEMENT
MADE PURSUANT TO THIS JUDGMENT" IS TOO BROAD.  IF RETAINED, IT SHOULD
BE RESTRICTED TO LEASE OR LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS RESPECTING
PATENTS AND TRADE PRACTICES, PRODUCTION, AND TRADE RELATIONS.  P. 424. 

(P)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE ENJOINING INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS FROM
OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES OR EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS OF MORE THAN ONE
CORPORATION IN THE INDUSTRY SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PROHIBIT ACQUISITION
OF STOCKS OR BONDS OF ANY CORPORATE APPELLANT BY ANY OTHER SUCH
APPELLANT, AND TO PROHIBIT ANY INDIVIDUAL APPELLANT FROM ACQUIRING A
MEASURE OF CONTROL, THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF STOCKS OR BONDS OR OTHERWISE,
IN A COMPANY COMPETING WITH THAT WITH WHICH HE IS OFFICIALLY CONNECTED
OR IN A SUBSIDIARY OR AFFILIATE OF SUCH COMPETING COMPANY.  P. 425. 

(Q)  AS TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WHO OWN SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS
OF STOCK OF TWO OF THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS, A PERIOD LONGER THAN TWO
YEARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR DIVESTITURE OF THE STOCK OF ONE OR THE
OTHER OF THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS; AND A PROVISO DEPRIVING THEM OF THE
RIGHT TO VOTE THE STOCK OF ONE COMPANY OR THE OTHER, OR TO TRUSTEE THE
STOCK OF ONE OF THE CORPORATIONS, IF BOTH STOCKS ARE HELD LONGER THAN
THE TERM FIXED, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.  P. 426. 

(R)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE ENJOINING INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS FROM
HOLDING AN OFFICE OR DIRECTORSHIP IN MORE THAN ONE CORPORATION WHICH
MANUFACTURES AND SELLS GLASSWARE OR MANUFACTURES OR DISTRIBUTES
GLASSMAKING MACHINERY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO SUCH RELATIONSHIPS IN
COMPETING COMPANIES.  P. 426. 

(S)  PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ENJOINING ACQUISITION BY ANY OF THE
CORPORATE APPELLANTS OF THE BUSINESS OR ASSETS OF ANY OTHER CORPORATION
(OTHER THAN A SUBSIDIARY), AND BY ANY INDIVIDUAL APPELLANT OF THE
BUSINESS OR ASSETS OF CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN THAT OF WHICH HE IS AN
OFFICER OR DIRECTOR, SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ACQUISITION OF THE BUSINESS
OR ASSETS OF COMPETING COMPANIES.  P. 426. 

(T)  THE APPELLANT TRADE ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAD BEEN AN IMPORTANT
INSTRUMENT OF RESTRAINT AND MONOPOLY, SHOULD BE ORDERED DISSOLVED, AND
THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS RESTRAINED FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM
FORMING OR JOINING ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION.  P. 428. 

(U)  AN INJUNCTION BINDING THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS, THEIR OFFICERS,
AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES, IS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTRAIN THE INDIVIDUAL
APPELLANTS SO LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN OFFICIAL RELATIONS, AND TO BIND
THEIR SUCCESSORS; IT IS UNNECESSARY TO ENJOIN THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS
AS INDIVIDUALS.  P. 428. 

(V)  A REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TRADE INFORMATION BE GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC
IS DISAPPROVED.  P. 429. 

(W)  THE INJUNCTION SHOULD PERMIT, AS HERE INDICATED, USUAL BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS NOT RELATED TO VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  P. 430. 

(X)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE WHICH IN EFFECT PROHIBITS THE
ACQUISITION BY ANY APPELLANT OF ANY PATENT, OR OF A RESTRICTED LICENSE
UNDER ANY PATENT, IS INAPPROPRIATE.  P. 431. 

(Y)  THE DECREE MAY PROPERLY RESTRAIN AGREEMENTS AND COMBINATIONS
WHEREBY PATENTS ARE APPLIED FOR AND ACQUIRED TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM
OBTAINING PATENTS ON IMPROVEMENTS WHICH MIGHT AFFECT ROYALTIES ON BASIC
PATENTS; BUT THE DECREE MAY NOT PROHIBIT CORPORATE APPELLANTS FROM
APPLYING FOR PATENTS COVERING THEIR OWN INVENTIONS IN THE ART OF
GLASSMAKING.  P. 432. 

(Z)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE ENJOINING EACH OF THE APPELLANTS FROM
APPLYING FOR A PATENT "WITH THE INTENTION OF NOT MAKING USE OF THE
INVENTION WITHIN FOUR YEARS" FROM DATE OF ISSUE CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. 
P. 432. 

(AA)  THE OWNER OF A PATENT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO USE THE PATENT
OR TO GRANT ITS USE TO OTHERS.  P. 432. 

(BB)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE REQUIRING THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS TO
SUBMIT TO SURVEILLANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND TO FURNISH
INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THEIR BUSINESS SHOULD BE MODIFIED AS WAS A
SIMILAR PROVISION IN UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707. 
P. 433. 

(CC)  WHERE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS HAVE OFFENDED AGAINST THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS BY ACTING SOLELY ON BEHALF OF, OR IN THE NAME OF, A
CORPORATE APPELLANT, THE DECREE NEED NOT RUN AGAINST THEM AS
INDIVIDUALS.  P. 434. 

(DD)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE REQUIRING ONE OF THE CORPORATE
APPELLANTS TO CANCEL CERTAIN AGREEMENTS WHICH EXCLUDED THE PARTIES
NAMED FROM ENTERING THE GLASS CONTAINER BUSINESS FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS,
WHICH RESTRICTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN RELEASED, IS UNNECESSARY.  P.
435. 

HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 2.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 3, CORNING GLASS WORKS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES;
NO. 4, OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 5, HAZEL
ATLAS GLASS CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 6, THATCHER MANUFACTURING
CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 7, LYNCH CORPORATION ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES; NO. 8, BALL BROTHERS CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 9, GLASS
CONTAINER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; NO. 10,
COLLINS V. UNITED STATES; AND NO. 11, FULTON ET AL. V. UNITED STATES,
ALSO ON APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

APPEALS UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT FROM A DECREE ENJOINING VIOLATIONS
OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE APPEALS FROM A DECREE  FN1  AWARDING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AS AMENDED,  FN2  AND
SEC. 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  FN3 TWO QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED.  WERE
VIOLATIONS PROVED?  IF SO, ARE THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE RIGHT? 

THE COMPLAINT NAMED AS DEFENDANTS 12 CORPORATIONS AND 101 INDIVIDUALS
ASSOCIATED WITH THEM AS OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS.  IT WAS DISMISSED AS TO
3 CORPORATIONS AND 40 INDIVIDUALS.  THE CORPORATIONS ARE THE LEADERS IN
AUTOMATIC GLASSMAKING MACHINERY AND IN THE GLASSWARE INDUSTRY.  THE
CHARGE IS THAT ALL THE DEFENDANTS AGREED, CONSPIRED, AND COMBINED TO
MONOPOLIZE, AND DID MONOPOLIZE AND RESTRAIN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE BY ACQUIRING PATENTS COVERING THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASSMAKING
MACHINERY, AND BY EXCLUDING OTHERS FROM A FAIR OPPORTUNITY FREELY TO
ENGAGE IN COMMERCE IN SUCH MACHINERY AND IN THE MANUFACTURE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF GLASS PRODUCTS.  THE GRAVAMEN OF THE CASE IS THAT THE
DEFENDANTS HAVE COOPERATED IN OBTAINING AND LICENSING PATENTS COVERING
GLASSMAKING MACHINERY, HAVE LIMITED AND RESTRICTED THE USE OF THE
PATENTED MACHINERY BY A NETWORK OF AGREEMENTS, AND HAVE MAINTAINED
PRICES FOR UNPATENTED GLASSWARE. 

THE TRIAL LASTED 112 DAYS.  THE COURT FILED AN OPINION OF 160 PAGES,
628 FINDINGS OF FACT AND 89 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ENTERED A DECREE
COVERING 46 PRINTED PAGES AND COMPRISING 60 NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS.  THE
PRINTED RECORD CONTAINS OVER 16,500 PAGES.  AN OPINION OF REASONABLE
LENGTH MUST DEAL IN SUMMARY FASHION WITH THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE
PROOFS AND LEAVE MUCH OF THE DETAILED HISTORY OF THE TRANSACTIONS TO BE
GLEANED FROM THE OPINION BELOW. 

IN 1912 HARTFORD-FAIRMONT COMPANY WAS ORGANIZED TO COMBINE THE
ACTIVITIES OF TWO EXISTING COMPANIES INTERESTED IN GLASS MANUFACTURE
WITH THOSE OF A GROUP OF ENGINEERS WHO DESIRED TO OBTAIN AND EXPLOIT
PATENTS FOR AUTOMATIC GLASSMAKING MACHINERY.  THE DEFENDANT CORNING
GLASS WORKS WAS, AT THAT TIME, ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN THE PRODUCTION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF INCANDESCENT BULBS, SIGN AND OPTICAL WARE, HEAT
RESISTING WARE AND OTHER SPECIALTY GLASSWARE.  ITS FIELD MAY BE DEFINED
ROUGHLY AS THE PRESSED AND BLOWN FIELD, OR THE NONCONTAINER FIELD.  IT
HAS NOT MADE, AND DOES NOT NOW MAKE, CONTAINERS SAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT
OF TUMBLERS.  IN 1909 PERSONS INTERESTED IN CORNING ORGANIZED EMPIRE
MACHINE COMPANY AS A PATENT HOLDING AND DEVELOPING COMPANY. 

THE DEFENDANT OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY (HEREINAFTER CALLED OWENS)
IS A LARGE MANUFACTURER OF GLASS.  MR. OWENS OF THAT COMPANY PRODUCED
THE FIRST FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE FOR BLOWING BOTTLES, WHICH IS KNOWN
AS A SUCTION TYPE MACHINE.  HE WAS INTERESTED IN COMPANIES ENGAGED IN
DEVELOPING AND MANUFACTURING THIS TYPE OF MACHINE AND EXERCISING THE
RIGHTS REPRESENTED BY THE OWENS AND RELATED PATENTS.  FROM ABOUT 1904
THE OWENS GROUP FOLLOWED THE POLICY OF GRANTING EXCLUSIVE LICENSES, IN
LIMITED FIELDS, FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASSWARE BY THE SUCTION
PROCESS.  OWENS ITSELF WAS, AND IS, MAINLY INTERESTED IN WHAT IS KNOWN
AS NARROW NECK CONTAINER WARE.  PRIOR TO THE OWENS INVENTIONS
GLASSMAKING HAD BEEN LARGELY A HAND PROCESS.  THEREAFTER, DUE TO OWENS'
RESTRICTIVE LICENSING POLICY, MANY GLASS MANUFACTURERS WERE THREATENED
WITH EXTINCTION UNLESS SOME OTHER COMPETING MACHINE COULD BE DEVISED. 
ULTIMATELY A PROCESS, CALLED SUSPENDED GOB FEEDING, WAS INVENTED, WHICH
WAS MORE ECONOMICAL FOR CERTAIN WARE THAN THE SUCTION PROCESS, AND
COULD BE APPLIED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF DIVERSIFIED GLASSWARE.  THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE GOB FEEDER MACHINE THREATENED OWENS' DOMINATION OF
THE GLASS MACHINERY FIELD AND OWENS, IN SELF-PROTECTION, OBTAINED
PATENTS AND PATENT RIGHTS ON GOB FEEDERS AND LICENSED SOME COMPANIES
FOR THEIR USE. 

HARTFORD-FAIRMONT WAS INTERESTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GOB
FEEDER.  IT APPLIED FOR SOME PATENTS AND ACQUIRED OTHERS.  IN THE
MEANTIME, IT LICENSED GOB FEEDER MACHINERY, AS OWENS HAD DONE WITH THE
WARE.  EMPIRE OWNED CERTAIN PATENT APPLICATIONS WHICH WERE IN
INTERFERENCE WITH HARTFORD-FAIRMONT GOB FEEDER APPLICATIONS. 

JUNE 30, 1916, HARTFORD-FAIRMONT AND EMPIRE MADE AN AGREEMENT WHEREBY
EMPIRE WAS GIVEN AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO USE HARTFORD-FAIRMONT'S
PATENTS FOR PRESSED AND BLOWN GLASSWARE AND HARTFORD-FAIRMONT WAS GIVEN
AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO USE EMPIRE'S PATENTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
CONTAINERS.  THUS CORNING OBTAINED EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS, UNDER THE PATENTS,
FOR CORNING'S LINE OF WARE,  - PRESSED AND BLOWN GLASS,  - AND HARTFORD
OBTAINED THE PATENT RIGHTS OF BOTH COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF OTHER
GLASSWARE.  NEGOTIATIONS LED TO AGREEMENTS, OCTOBER 6, 1922, WHEREBY
HARTFORD-EMPIRE (HEREINAFTER CALLED HARTFORD) WAS FORMED AND TOOK OVER
ALL ASSETS OF HARTFORD-FAIRMONT AND OF EMPIRE RELATING TO GLASS
MACHINERY.  EMPIRE RECEIVED 43% OF THE STOCK OF THE COMPANY AND CORNING
RETAINED APPROXIMATELY THE SAME EXCLUSIVE INTEREST THAT EMPIRE HAD
ENJOYED UNDER THE 1916 AGREEMENT.  HARTFORD RETAINED APPROXIMATELY THE
SAME RIGHTS IT HAD OBTAINED FROM EMPIRE IN 1916 SUBJECT TO A SHOP RIGHT
IN CORNING WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXERCISED.  EMPIRE WAS DISSOLVED IN
1941. 

AFTER 1916 HARTFORD-FAIRMONT (AND ITS SUCCESSOR HARTFORD) AND OWENS
WERE COMPETITORS IN THE GOB FEEDING FIELD; THEIR APPLICATIONS WERE IN
INTERFERENCE IN THE PATENT OFFICE WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH THOSE OF
OTHER APPLICANTS; AND THEY WERE IN LITIGATION.  AS A RESULT OF
NEGOTIATIONS FOR A SETTLEMENT OF THEIR DISPUTES, THEY ENTERED INTO AN
AGREEMENT APRIL 9, 1924, WHEREBY OWENS GRANTED HARTFORD AN EXCLUSIVE
LICENSE UNDER OWENS' PATENTS FOR GOB FEEDER AND FORMING MACHINES AND
HARTFORD GRANTED OWENS A NONEXCLUSIVE, NONASSIGNABLE, AND NONDIVISIBLE
LICENSE TO MAKE AND USE MACHINES AND METHODS EMBODYING PATENTS THEN OR
THEREAFTER OWNED OR ACQUIRED BY HARTFORD FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF
GLASSWARE, BUT OWENS WAS NOT TO SELL OR LICENSE GOB FEEDING MACHINERY
AND WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE PRESSED AND BLOWN FIELD PREVIOUSLY RESERVED
TO CORNING.  OWENS WAS TO RECEIVE ONE-HALF OF HARTFORD'S DIVISIBLE
INCOME FROM LICENSES OVER AND ABOVE $600,000 PER ANNUM.  OWENS RETAINED
A VETO POWER ON HARTFORD'S GRANTING NEW LICENSES ON MACHINES EMBODYING
OWENS' INVENTIONS.  THIS PROVISION WAS ELIMINATED IN 1931.  THE
AGREEMENT LEFT OWENS IN FULL CONTROL OF ITS PATENTED SUCTION PROCESS. 

AS SOON AS THE AGREEMENT HAD BEEN MADE, HARTFORD AND OWENS COMBINED
TO GET CONTROL OF ALL OTHER FEEDER PATENTS.  IN THIS ENDEAVOR THEY
POOLED THE EFFORTS OF THEIR LEGAL STAFFS AND CONTRIBUTED EQUALLY TO THE
PURCHASE OF PATENTS AND THE EXPENSES OF LITIGATION. 

WHILE PATENT CLAIMS UPON APPLICATIONS CONTROLLED BY HARTFORD AND
OWENS WERE PENDING IN THE PATENT OFFICE, HARTFORD PURCHASED, UNDER THE
JOINT ARRANGEMENT, CERTAIN FEEDER PATENTS AND APPLICATIONS BELONGING TO
OUTSIDERS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM FEEDERS HAD BEEN SOLD OR LICENSED BY
SUCH OUTSIDERS WERE PERSUADED TO TAKE LICENSES FROM HARTFORD.  AS A
RESULT OF HARTFORD'S AND OWENS' JOINT EFFORTS IN CONNECTION WITH PATENT
APPLICATIONS AND PURCHASES OF APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS OF OTHERS,
HARTFORD OBTAINED WHAT IT CONSIDERED CONTROLLING PATENTS ON GOB FEEDERS
IN 1926. 

HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS COMPANY (HEREINAFTER CALLED HAZEL) WAS SECOND TO
OWENS IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GLASS CONTAINERS.  IT HAD BEEN
USING FEEDERS OF ITS OWN DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE.  TO BUILD UP FURTHER
PATENT CONTROL, TO DISCOURAGE USE OF MACHINERY NOT COVERED BY THEIR
PATENTS, AND TO INFLUENCE GLASSMAKERS TO TAKE LICENSES UNDER HARTFORD'S
INVENTIONS, HARTFORD AND OWENS DESIRED THAT HAZEL SHOULD BECOME A
PARTNER-LICENSEE.  IN 1924 THEY NEGOTIATED WITH HAZEL TO THIS END AND
OFFERED TO RETURN TO HAZEL A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF ANY ROYALTIES IT
WOULD HAVE TO PAY AS A LICENSEE.  NO AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AND HARTFORD
BROUGHT INFRINGEMENT SUITS AGAINST HAZEL AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  ONE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED FAVORABLY TO HAZEL; ANOTHER FAVORABLY
TO HARTFORD.  SHORTLY AFTER THE LATTER DECISION, HARTFORD AND OWENS, IN
ORDER TO BUTTRESS THE PATENT SITUATION, PERSUADED HAZEL TO MAKE A
SETTLEMENT. 

AS OF JUNE 1, 1932, HARTFORD, OWENS, AND HAZEL EXECUTED A SERIES OF
AGREEMENTS.  HARTFORD LICENSED HAZEL UNDER HARTFORD'S PATENTS,
EXCLUDING FROM THE LICENSE THE PRESSED AND BLOWN FIELD RESERVED TO
CORNING AND WITH RESTRICTIONS AGAINST SALE OR LICENSE BY HAZEL TO
ANYONE ELSE.  HAZEL LICENSED HARTFORD UNDER ALL ITS GLASS MACHINERY
PATENTS, PRESENT AND FUTURE, TO JANUARY 3, 1945.  HAZEL PAID HARTFORD
$1,000,000 AND AGREED TO PAY HARTFORD ROYALTIES, AND HARTFORD AGREED
THAT HAZEL AND OWENS SHOULD EACH RECEIVE ONE-THIRD OF HARTFORD'S NET
INCOME FROM ROYALTIES AND LICENSE FEES OVER AND ABOVE $850,000 PER
ANNUM.  HARTFORD AND OWENS READJUSTED THEIR CONTRACTUAL STATUS TO
CONFORM IT TO THE AGREEMENTS WITH HAZEL.  OWENS MAINTAINED CONTROL OF
ITS OWN SUCTION INVENTIONS.  IT CONFIRMED TO HAZEL ITS EXISTING RIGHTS
UNDER EARLIER AGREEMENTS TO USE THESE.  OWENS OBTAINED AN OPTION EITHER
TO PURCHASE, OR TO BECOME LICENSEE, OF ANY SUCTION INVENTIONS
CONTROLLED BY HARTFORD AND AGREED, IN EVENT OF SUCH ACQUISITION, TO
PERMIT HAZEL TO USE THEM.  OWENS AND HAZEL HAD THE OPTION, ON NOTICE,
TO TERMINATE THEIR CONTRACTS WITH HARTFORD BUT AGREED MUTUALLY TO
PROTECT EACH OTHER IN SUCH EVENT.  THE RESULT OF THIS COMBINATION WAS
THAT RESISTANCE TO HARTFORD'S LICENSING CAMPAIGN DISAPPEARED AND
PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY TOOK LICENSES FROM HARTFORD. 

THATCHER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A LARGE MANUFACTURER OF MILK BOTTLES,
EARLY OBTAINED AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE THEM ON THE OWENS
MANUFACTURE MILK BOTTLES ON HARTFORD'S PADDLE NEEDLE FEEDER AND MILK
BOTTLE FORMING MACHINE.  IT PRESSED FOR LIKE RIGHTS UNDER HARTFORD'S
LATER DEVICE, THE SINGLE FEEDER.  THOUGH REFUSING THE GRANT, HARTFORD
ASSURED THATCHER THAT IT WOULD BE GIVEN EVERY CONSIDERATION IN THE
GRANT OF FURTHER LICENSES.  BY A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER 1,
1925, HARTFORD, IN VIEW OF ITS "MORAL OBLIGATION" TO THATCHER, AGREED
TO PAY AND, UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1936, ALLOWED THATCHER A REBATE ON A
CERTAIN PORTION OF THATCHER'S PRODUCTION, AND, IN 1928, AGREED TO GIVE
THATCHER THE REFUSAL OF ANY EXCLUSIVE LICENSE ON FEEDERS AND FORMERS
FOR PRODUCTION OF MILK BOTTLES.  IN 1936 A NEW AGREEMENT WAS MADE
WHEREBY HARTFORD AGREED THAT, SO LONG AS THATCHER MANUFACTURED 750,000
GROSS PER ANNUM, HARTFORD WOULD GRANT NO OTHER LICENSE FOR MANUFACTURE
OF MILK BOTTLES. 

BALL BROTHERS, THE LARGEST MANUFACTURER OF DOMESTIC FRUIT JARS, HAD
USED MACHINES OF ITS OWN DESIGN AS WELL AS THE OWENS SUCTION MACHINES
UNDER LICENSE, BUT HAD NEVER TAKEN ANY LICENSE FROM HARTFORD.  IN 1933
BALL TOOK A LICENSE FROM HARTFORD, OBTAINING ALL THE RESIDUAL RIGHTS OF
HARTFORD FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF FRUIT JARS, AND, INTER ALIA, GRANTED
HARTFORD AN OPTION TO TAKE LICENSES ON ALL BALL'S PATENTS FOR GLASS
MACHINERY THEN OWNED OR THEREAFTER ACQUIRED.  AFTER DISCUSSION AS TO
THE RIGHTS OF HAZEL AND OWENS TO MANUFACTURE FRUIT JARS, IT WAS
PROPOSED THAT THEY BE LIMITED BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT, HAZEL TO 300,000
GROSS AND OWENS TO 100,000 GROSS ANNUALLY.  IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO HAVE
A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BUT BOTH HAVE GENERALLY KEPT WITHIN THESE LIMITS. 
WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED BALL BROTHERS MANUFACTURED APPROXIMATELY
54.5% OF ALL THE FRUIT JARS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES,
HAZEL 17.6%, OWENS 6.4%, AND AN OUTSIDER, USING A MACHINE ON WHICH THE
PATENTS HAD EXPIRED, 21.5%. 

IN GRANTING LICENSES UNDER THE POOLED PATENTS HARTFORD ALWAYS
RESERVED THE RIGHTS WITHIN CORNING'S FIELD.  FURTHER, IT NOT ONLY
LIMITED ITS LICENSEES TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE CONTAINER FIELD BUT,
IN MANY INSTANCES, LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF GLASSWARE WHICH MIGHT BE
PRODUCED BY THE LICENSEE AND, IN NUMEROUS INSTANCES, AS A RESULT OF
CONFERENCES WITH OWENS, HAZEL, THATCHER AND BALL, REFUSED LICENSES TO
PREVENT OVERSTOCKING THE GLASSWARE MARKET AND TO "STABILIZE" THE PRICES
AT WHICH SUCH WARE WAS SOLD. 

IN THE AUTOMATIC MANUFACTURE OF GLASSWARE, OTHER MACHINES ARE USED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE FEEDERS.  THESE ARE KNOWN AS FORMING MACHINES,
STACKERS, AND LEHRS.  THE PURPOSE OF HARTFORD AND OWENS, PARTICIPATED
IN BY THE OTHER THREE LARGE MANUFACTURERS MENTIONED, WAS THAT THERE
SHOULD BE GATHERED INTO THE POOL PATENTS COVERING AND MONOPOLIZING
THESE ADJUNCT MACHINES SO THAT AUTOMATIC GLASS MANUFACTURE, WITHOUT
CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO THE POOL, WOULD BECOME DIFFICULT IF NOT
IMPOSSIBLE.    SEVERAL FORMING MACHINES NOT COVERED BY HARTFORD PATENTS
WERE ON THE MARKET.  WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY
THAT, BY PURCHASES OF PATENTS AND MANUFACTURING PLANTS, AND BY AN
AGREEMENT WITH HARTFORD'S PRINCIPAL COMPETITOR, LYNCH MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, THE FIELD WAS DIVIDED BETWEEN HARTFORD AND LYNCH UNDER
RESTRICTIONS WHICH GAVE HARTFORD CONTROL.  IN THE UPSHOT IT BECAME
IMPOSSIBLE TO USE HARTFORD FEEDERS WITH ANY OTHER FORMING MACHINE THAN
ONE LICENSED BY HARTFORD OR USED BY ITS CONSENT, AND, AS RESPECTS
STACKERS AND LEHRS, HARTFORD ATTAINED A SIMILAR DOMINANT STATUS. 

IN 1935 CERTAIN NEW AGREEMENTS WERE MADE.  THOUGH THE 1932 AGREEMENT
BETWEEN HARTFORD AND HAZEL WAS SUBSTANTIALLY UNAFFECTED, THE CONTRACT
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HARTFORD AND OWENS WERE ALTERED.  THE LATTER
SURRENDERED ITS RIGHT TO ONE-THIRD OF HARTFORD'S DIVISIBLE ROYALTY AND
LICENSE INCOME IN CONSIDERATION OF HARTFORD'S PROMISE TO PAY $2,500,000
IN QUARTERLY INSTALMENTS.  OWENS EXTENDED THE TERM OF HARTFORD'S
LICENSE UNDER CERTAIN OWENS INVENTIONS AND HARTFORD GRANTED OWENS A
ROYALTY-FREE, NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE UNDER ALL HARTFORD'S SUCTION PATENTS
FOR THE LIFE OF THE PATENTS, EXCLUDING, HOWEVER, GLASSWARE IN CORNING'S
FIELD.  OTHER UNIMPORTANT CHANGES WERE MADE IN EXISTING CONTRACTS. 
OWENS AND HAZEL THEREUPON AMENDED THEIR AGREEMENTS SO AS TO PROTECT
HAZEL IN EVENT THE CONTRACT RELATIONS BETWEEN OWENS AND HARTFORD SHOULD
BE ALTERED. 

OWENS INSISTS THAT, BY THE 1935 AGREEMENTS, IT TERMINATED ALL ITS
RELATIONS WITH OTHERS WHICH COULD VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST STATUTES.  BUT
THE 1935 AGREEMENTS LEFT HARTFORD IN UNDISPUTED CONTROL OF THE GOB
FEEDER FIELD, AND OWENS IN LIKE CONTROL OF THE SUCTION FIELD.  AND THEY
EVIDENTLY RELIED ON THE SITUATION WHICH HAD BEEN BUILT UP, THEIR MUTUAL
INTERESTS, AND OTHER FACTORS, AS SUFFICIENT TO GUARANTEE CONTINUANCE OF
EXISTING RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF FORMAL
CONTRACTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND OWENS DID NOT ABANDON THE
CONSPIRACY IN 1935 AND THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION. 

IN 1919 THE GLASS CONTAINER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA WAS FORMED.  PRIOR
TO 1933 ITS MEMBERS PRODUCED 82% OF THE GLASS CONTAINERS MADE IN THE
UNITED STATES AND SINCE HAVE PRODUCED 92%.  SINCE 1931(EXCEPT WHILE THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT WAS IN FORCE) THE ASSOCIATION HAS HAD
A STATISTICAL COMMITTEE OF SEVEN, ON WHICH OWENS, HAZEL, THATCHER, AND,
SINCE 1933, BALL WERE REPRESENTED.  THESE APPELLANTS ALSO WERE
REPRESENTED IN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.  HARTFORD, THOUGH NOT A MEMBER,
HAS CLOSELY COOPERATED WITH THE OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION IN EFFORTS
TO DISCOURAGE OUTSIDERS FROM INCREASING PRODUCTION OF GLASSWARE AND
NEWCOMERS FROM ENTERING THE FIELD.  THE COURT BELOW, ON SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE, HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSOCIATION, THROUGH ITS STATISTICAL
COMMITTEE, ASSIGNED PRODUCTION QUOTAS TO ITS MEMBERS AND THAT THEY AND
HARTFORD WERE ZEALOUS IN SEEING THAT THESE WERE OBSERVED. 

IN SUMMARY, THE SITUATION BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE GLASS INDUSTRY, AND
EXISTING IN 1938, WAS THIS: HARTFORD, WITH THE TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL
AID OF OTHERS IN THE CONSPIRACY, HAD ACQUIRED, BY ISSUE TO IT OR
ASSIGNMENT FROM THE OWNERS, MORE THAN 600 PATENTS.  THESE, WITH OVER
100 CORNING CONTROLLED PATENTS, OVER 60 OWENS PATENTS, OVER 70 HAZEL
PATENTS, AND SOME 12 LYNCH PATENTS, HAD BEEN, BY CROSSLICENSING
AGREEMENTS, MERGED INTO A POOL WHICH EFFECTUALLY CONTROLLED THE
INDUSTRY.  THIS CONTROL WAS EXERCISED TO ALLOT PRODUCTION IN CORNING'S
FIELD TO CORNING, AND THAT IN RESTRICTED CLASSES WITHIN THE GENERAL
CONTAINER FIELD TO OWENS, HAZEL, THATCHER, BALL, AND SUCH OTHER SMALLER
MANUFACTURERS AS THE GROUP AGREED SHOULD BE LICENSED.  THE RESULT WAS
THAT 94% OF THE GLASS CONTAINERS MANUFACTURED IN THIS COUNTRY ON
FEEDERS AND FORMERS WERE MADE ON MACHINERY LICENSED UNDER THE POOLED
PATENTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT INVENTION OF GLASSMAKING MACHINERY HAD
BEEN DISCOURAGED, THAT COMPETITION IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OR
LICENSING OF SUCH MACHINERY HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED, AND THAT THE SYSTEM OF
RESTRICTED LICENSING HAD BEEN EMPLOYED TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF UNPATENTED GLASSWARE AND TO MAINTAIN PRICES OF THE
MANUFACTURED PRODUCT.  THE FINDINGS ARE FULL AND ADEQUATE AND ARE
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, MUCH OF IT CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS OF CORPORATE
DEFENDANTS OR THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS. 

IN 1938 THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE INVESTIGATED THE
GLASSMAKING INDUSTRY.  MANY OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED IN THIS RECORD WERE
DEVELOPED.  SUBSEQUENTLY THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT AND, IN PRETRIAL
CONFERENCES, THE GOVERNMENT STATED ITS VIEW AS TO THE TERMS OF
AGREEMENTS AND THE PRACTICES IT DEEMED ILLEGAL.  THE PRINCIPAL
CORPORATE APPELLANTS HAD MADE SOME ALTERATIONS IN THEIR ARRANGEMENTS
AND, AFTER INSTITUTION OF SUIT,  - AND ON OCCASIONS UP TO SUBMISSION OF
THE CASE ON THE PROOFS,  - MADE FURTHER MODIFICATIONS ON THEIR OWN
RESPONSIBILITY, AND WITHOUT CONCURRENCE OF THE APPELLEE OR THE JUDGE,
IN AN EFFORT TO REMEDY ALLEGED ILLEGAL CONDITIONS. 

AS A CONSEQUENCE, WHEN THE CASE STOOD FOR DECISION, THE SITUATION WAS
AS FOLLOWS:  THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE 1935 AGREEMENT BETWEEN HARTFORD
AND OWENS WERE REMOVED, THE EXCLUSIVE PROVISION, AND THE EXCLUSIONS OF
THE MANUFACTURE OF CERTAIN GLASSWARE EMBODIED IN THE 1935 AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN OWENS AND HAZEL WERE WAIVED BY OWENS.  BALL HAD SURRENDERED ITS
RESIDUAL EXCLUSIVE RIGHT FOR FRUIT JARS AND RELEASED A CLAIM AGAINST
HARTFORD THEREUNDER FOR $425,000 IN CONSIDERATION OF HARTFORD
SURRENDERING ITS OPTION TO ACQUIRE ANY BALL FEEDER INVENTIONS. 
HARTFORD WITHDREW THE EXCLUSIVE FEATURES OF ALL ITS LICENSES OF GLASS
MACHINERY.  HARTFORD RETAINED DOMINANCE OF THE GOB FEEDER FIELD. 
OWENS, ALTHOUGH ITS BASIC PATENT HAD EXPIRED, CONTINUED, BY VIRTUE OF
IMPROVEMENT PATENTS, TO DOMINATE THE SUCTION FIELD.  OWENS, LYNCH, AND
HARTFORD WERE THE LEADERS, IF NOT ALTOGETHER DOMINANT IN THE FORMING
MACHINE FIELD. 

IN JULY 1939 THE ASSOCIATION CHANGED THE NATURE OF ITS STATISTICAL
REPORTS WHICH THE COURT FOUND WERE IN REALITY ASSIGNMENTS OF QUOTAS,
AND PROFESSED TO HAVE ABANDONED A VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE OF STATISTICAL
DATA WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY TAKEN PLACE AT COMMITTEE OR GENERAL
MEETINGS.  IT THEN ADOPTED A FORM OF STATISTICAL STATEMENT ELIMINATING
ALL FORECASTS AND CONFINED ITS REPORTS TO PAST PERFORMANCES OF THE
MEMBERS. 

WE AFFIRM THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT THE
CORPORATE APPELLANTS COMBINED IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THAT
HARTFORD AND LYNCH CONTRACTED IN VIOLATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT, AND THAT
THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WITH EXCEPTIONS TO BE NOTED PARTICIPATED IN
THE VIOLATIONS IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE
CORPORATIONS. 

CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS INSIST THAT THE FINDING THAT THEY WERE
PARTIES TO THE CONSPIRACY MUST BE SET ASIDE.  IN NO. 10, ISAAC J.
COLLINS APPEALS FROM THAT PORTION OF THE DECREE WHICH ADJUDGES HIM A
PARTY TO THE CONSPIRACY AND GRANTS RELIEF AGAINST HIM, AND, IN NO. 11,
FULTON, FISHER, AND DILWORTH CHALLENGE THEIR INCLUSION IN THE DECREE. 

WHEN SUIT WAS INSTITUTED COLLINS WAS PRESIDENT OF, AND FULTON,
FISHER, AND DILWORTH WERE OFFICIALLY CONNECTED WITH, ANCHOR HOCKING
GLASS COMPANY.  ALL HAD BEEN OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND STOCKHOLDERS OF
COMPANIES WHICH ANCHOR HOCKING ABSORBED.  ANCHOR HOCKING IS, AND ITS
PREDECESSORS WERE, MANUFACTURERS OF GLASSWARE.  NONE WERE HOLDERS OF
MACHINE PATENTS OR IN THE GLASS MACHINE BUSINESS.  IN THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT THE CHARGES AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WERE MADE BY ALLEGING THAT A
COMPANY, AND CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS CONNECTED WITH IT, HAD
BECOME PARTIES TO THE CONSPIRACY.  THE BILL CHARGED THAT IN 1937 ANCHOR
HOCKING AND CERTAIN DEFENDANTS, BEING ITS OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS,
JOINED THE CONSPIRACY.  THE APPELLANTS IN QUESTION WERE NAMED AS
AMONGST THESE ANCHOR HOCKING DEFENDANTS AND WERE NOT ELSEWHERE IN THE
BILL SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH OTHERWISE PARTICIPATING IN THE
CONSPIRACY. 

AT THE CLOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE MOTIONS WERE MADE TO DISMISS
THE BILL AS TO ANCHOR HOCKING AND ALL THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF
THAT COMPANY, INCLUDING COLLINS, FULTON, FISHER, AND DILWORTH, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD FAILED TO PROVE ANY PARTICIPATION BY
THEM IN THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY.  THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION WITH
RESPECT TO ALL OF THEM EXCEPT COLLINS.  THEREUPON THESE DEFENDANTS
WITHDREW AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE FURTHER IN THE TRIAL.  SOME MONTHS
LATER, ON A MOTION OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR REHEARING OF THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL, THE COURT REFUSED TO ALTER ITS ORDER WITH RESPECT TO ANCHOR
HOCKING OR THE DEFENDANTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, SAVE ONLY FULTON, FISHER,
AND DILWORTH.  AS TO THEM, IT GRANTED REHEARINGS AND RESTORED THEM AS
DEFENDANTS OF RECORD.  WHEN THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WERE ENTERED
THESE APPELLANTS WERE NAMED AS PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSPIRACY AND WERE
INCLUDED IN THE INJUNCTIONS EMBODIED IN VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE
DECREE. 

WE THINK THE DECREE AGAINST THEM MUST BE REVERSED FOR WANT OF
ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILL SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A DECREE AGAINST THEM;
BECAUSE THE FINDINGS MADE DO NOT SUPPORT THE DECREE AS TO THEM; BECAUSE
THE REFUSAL OF FINDINGS REQUESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT EXCULPATES THEM OF
PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSPIRACY; AND, FINALLY, BECAUSE THE PROOFS FAIL
TO CONNECT THEM WITH IT. 

FULTON, FISHER, AND DILWORTH EACH HOLD STOCK OF HARTFORD WHICH THEY
ACQUIRED MANY YEARS AGO.  A COMPANY IN WHICH THEY WERE INTERESTED OWNED
HARTFORD STOCK AND PLEDGED IT UNDER A MORTGAGE.  THE COMPANY GOT INTO
DIFFICULTIES, THE MORTGAGE WAS IN DEFAULT, AND THEY AND OTHERS TOOK
OVER THE PLEDGED HARTFORD STOCK FOR CASH SO AS TO PUT THE COMPANY IN
FUNDS TO REFINANCE ITS MORTGAGE. 

THE THREE APPELLANTS ARE AMONGST THE TWO HUNDRED OR MORE STOCKHOLDERS
OF HARTFORD.  THE BILL DOES NOT, AND COULD NOT, CHARGE THEM IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS STOCKHOLDERS OF HARTFORD, AS PARTIES TO THE CONSPIRACY, AND
THEY ARE NOT TO BE ENJOINED BY REASON OF THEIR STOCK HOLDINGS IN
HARTFORD. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THEY WERE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF CERTAIN
PREDECESSOR COMPANIES TAKEN OVER BY ANCHOR HOCKING, WHICH WERE NOT
CHARGED IN THE BILL AS PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSPIRACY.  ANCHOR HOCKING
WAS SO CHARGED AND THESE APPELLANTS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS WERE CHARGED
IN THE BILL TO HAVE BEEN, AND THEN TO BE, OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
PARTICIPATING IN THE DIRECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF ANCHOR HOCKING.  THE
COMPLAINT ADDS:  "SUCH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS HAVE APPROVED, AUTHORIZED,
ORDERED, AND DONE SOME OR ALL THE ACTS HEREIN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
PERFORMED BY DEFENDANT ANCHOR HOCKING."  THEY ARE NOT OTHERWISE
SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH PARTICIPATING IN THE CONSPIRACY.  IT WOULD
SEEM, THEREFORE, THAT WHEN ANCHOR HOCKING WAS FOUND NOT TO HAVE
PARTICIPATED THE ONLY BASIS FOR CHARGING THEM DISAPPEARED.  MOREOVER,
THE GOVERNMENT'S PROOFS WENT NO FARTHER THAN TO SHOW THAT THESE
APPELLANTS ACTED IN THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF ANCHOR HOCKING.  THERE IS
NO PROOF THAT THEY CONSPIRED OR COOPERATED WITH OTHER COMPANIES PARTIES
TO THE CONSPIRACY, OR WITH OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS OF SUCH CORPORATIONS.  THE ONLY FINDINGS AS TO ALL ARE TO THE
EFFECT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF ANCHOR HOCKING AND
ITS PREDECESSORS, AND STOCKHOLDERS OF HARTFORD AND, AS TO ONE, THAT, IN
ADDITION, AS A HARTFORD-FAIRMONT STOCKHOLDER, HE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT
IN 1922 FOR THE FORMATION OF HARTFORD-EMPIRE.  THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED
THE COURT TO FIND, WITH RESPECT TO THEM, A NUMBER OF FACTS WHICH, IF
FOUND, WOULD HAVE CONNECTED THEM WITH THE CONSPIRACY.  THE COURT
REFUSED THE REQUESTS.  NOWHERE IN THE FINDINGS OR IN THE OPINION IS ANY
REASON GIVEN WHY THESE APPELLANTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
INJUNCTION.  AS TO THEM, THE DECREE MUST BE REVERSED. 

ANCHOR HOCKING WAS A LICENSEE OF HARTFORD MACHINERY.  THE APPELLANT
COLLINS THOUGHT THE ROYALTY CHARGED WAS EXCESSIVE AND COMPLAINED
REPEATEDLY ABOUT IT; AND, BELIEVING THAT HIS COMPANY WAS FREE TO MAKE
GLASS OF ANY CHARACTER ON ANY KIND OF MACHINERY, HE COMPLAINED ABOUT
THE EXCLUSIVE FEATURES OF THE LICENSE.  HE REPEATEDLY AROUSED THE
RESENTMENT OF HARTFORD AND SOME OF THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE
CONSPIRACY BY HIS ASSERTION OF THE PURPOSE TO USE MACHINERY AND TO
MANUFACTURE GLASSWARE IN WAYS THEY THOUGHT CONTRARY TO HIS COMPANY'S
RIGHTS AS A LICENSEE.  THERE WERE EVEN DISCUSSIONS AS TO WHETHER THE
COMPANY SHOULD BE SUED.  THIS EVIDENCE IS UNCONTRADICTED. 

COLLINS IS A STOCKHOLDER OF HARTFORD.  HE ACQUIRED HIS ORIGINAL STOCK
INTEREST IN THE SAME WAY THAT FULTON, FISHER, AND DILWORTH DID.  IN
1926 HE WAS ELECTED A DIRECTOR, AND REMAINED SUCH UNTIL 1937, WHEN HE
RESIGNED.  THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE T.N.E.C. HEARING IN WHICH THE HARTFORD
LICENSING SYSTEM WAS INVESTIGATED AND PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF
SUIT.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR FINDING OF ANY REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
THAT HE WILL RESUME THE DIRECTORSHIP.  MOREOVER, THE BILL CHARGES THAT
ANCHOR HOCKING AND THE INDIVIDUALS CONNECTED WITH IT ENTERED THE
CONSPIRACY IN 1937. 

THE BILL DOES NOT CHARGE COLLINS WITH ANY ACT AS OFFICER OR DIRECTOR
OF, OR AS PARTICIPANT IN THE DIRECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF, HARTFORD. 
THE ONLY CHARGE AGAINST HIM IS IN RESPECT OF HIS CONNECTION WITH ANCHOR
HOCKING.  THE EVIDENCE IS THAT COLLINS WAS AN IRREGULAR ATTENDANT AT
DIRECTORS' MEETINGS OF HARTFORD; THAT HE WAS NOT ON ANY COMMITTEE OF
THE BOARD WHICH HAD DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE MANAGEMENT AND PATENT
AFFAIRS OF HARTFORD; THAT HE DID NOT KNOW OF THE PREFERRED TERMS UNDER
WHICH OWENS AND HAZEL WERE LICENSED BY HARTFORD UNTIL THE MATTER WAS
DISCLOSED IN THE T.N.E.C. HEARINGS AND THEN CRITICIZED THE
ARRANGEMENT.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT, AS A DIRECTOR OF HARTFORD, HE
KNEW, APPROVED, OR VOTED IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT
TO THE CONSPIRACY.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVIDENCE IS UNCONTRADICTED
THAT HE REPEATEDLY ADVOCATED MORE LIBERAL LICENSING BY HARTFORD AND
THOUGHT ITS ROYALTIES TOO HIGH.  AS IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER APPELLANTS
MENTIONED, THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH, IF MADE,
WOULD HAVE SPELLED OUT A CONNECTION BETWEEN COLLINS AND THE OTHER
CONSPIRATORS BUT THESE WERE REFUSED BY THE JUDGE.  COLLINS IS FOUND TO
HAVE BEEN, AND STILL TO BE, A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION'S STATISTICAL
COMMITTEE, BUT THE BILL DOES NOT CHARGE HIM INDIVIDUALLY WITH ANY
CONDUCT IN THAT RELATION.  OF COURSE, ANY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
ASSOCIATION AND ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS WILL BIND HIM SO LONG AS HE
REMAINS IN THAT RELATIONSHIP.  TWO OTHER FINDINGS AS TO HIS ACTIVITIES
AS A DIRECTOR OF HARTFORD, AND AS PRESIDENT OF GENERAL GLASS COMPANY,
TOUCH MATTERS AS TO WHICH THE BILL OF COMPLAINT IS SILENT AND
CONCERNING WHICH THE EVIDENCE IS NOT PERSUASIVE OF PARTICIPATION IN ANY
CONSPIRACY CHARGED OR PROVED.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT AS TO COLLINS,
THE BILL SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

                          I 

LITTLE NEED BE SAID CONCERNING THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES WHICH VINDICATE
THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE CORPORATE
APPELLANTS AND THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WHO AS OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS
PARTICIPATED IN THE CORPORATE ACTS WHICH FORWARDED THE OBJECTS OF THE
CONSPIRACY.  AS WAS SAID IN STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 49: 

"RIGHTS CONFERRED BY PATENTS ARE INDEED VERY DEFINITE AND EXTENSIVE,
BUT THEY DO NOT GIVE ANY MORE THAN OTHER RIGHTS AN UNIVERSAL LICENSE
AGAINST POSITIVE PROHIBITIONS.  THE SHERMAN LAW IS A LIMITATION OF
RIGHTS, RIGHTS WHICH MAY BE PUSHED TO EVIL CONSEQUENCES AND THEREFORE
RESTRAINED." 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGITIMATE USE AND PROHIBITED ABUSE OF THE
RESTRICTIONS INCIDENT TO THE OWNERSHIP OF PATENTS BY THE POOLING OF
THEM IS DISCUSSED IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163. 
APPLICATION OF THE TESTS THERE ANNOUNCED SUSTAINS THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DECISION.  IT IS CLEAR THAT, BY COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS AND BINDING
AGREEMENTS, THE APPELLANT CORPORATIONS, OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS,
REGULATED AND SUPPRESSED COMPETITION IN THE USE OF GLASSMAKING
MACHINERY AND EMPLOYED THEIR JOINT PATENT POSITION TO ALLOCATE FIELDS
OF MANUFACTURE AND TO MAINTAIN PRICES OF UNPATENTED GLASSWARE. 

THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANTS ARE UNCONVINCING.  IT IS
SAID, ON BEHALF OF HARTFORD, THAT ITS BUSINESS, IN ITS INCEPTION, WAS
LAWFUL AND WITHIN THE PATENT LAWS; AND THAT, IN ORDER TO PROTECT ITS
LEGITIMATE INTERESTS AS HOLDER OF PATENTS FOR AUTOMATIC GLASS
MACHINERY, IT WAS JUSTIFIED IN BUYING UP AND FENCING OFF IMPROVEMENT
PATENTS, THE GRANT OF WHICH, WHILE LEAVING THE FUNDAMENTAL INVENTIONS
UNTOUCHED, WOULD HAMPER THEIR USE UNLESS TRIBUTE WERE PAID TO THE
OWNERS OF THE SO-CALLED IMPROVEMENTS WHICH, OF THEMSELVES, HAD ONLY A
NUISANCE VALUE. 

THE EXPLANATION FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE
ALLIANCE OF PATENT OWNERS WITH ITS CONCOMITANT STIFLING OF INITIATIVE,
INVENTION, AND COMPETITION. 

NOR CAN OWENS' CONTENTION PREVAIL THAT IT LONG AGO ABANDONED ANY
COOPERATION WITH THE OTHER CORPORATE DEFENDANTS AND HAS BEEN FREE OF
ANY TRAMMEL TO UNRESTRICTED COMPETITION EITHER IN THE MACHINERY OR
GLASS FIELD.  OWENS REMAINED ACTIVE IN THE ASSOCIATION.  IT REMAINED
DOMINANT IN THE SUCTION FIELD.  IT CONTINUED IN CLOSE TOUCH WITH
HARTFORD AND WITH OTHER LARGE MANUFACTURERS OF GLASSWARE WHO WERE
PARTIES TO THE CONSPIRACY.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING
THAT THE MERE CANCELLATION OF THE WRITTEN WORD WAS NOT ENOUGH, IN THE
LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT, TO ACQUIT OWENS OF FURTHER PARTICIPATION
IN THE CONSPIRACY. 

INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS, EXCEPT COLLINS, FULTON, FISHER, AND DILWORTH,
WHO WERE OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS OF CORPORATE APPELLANTS EACH DID ONE OR
MORE ACTS, SUCH AS NEGOTIATING, VOTING FOR, OR EXECUTING AGREEMENTS
WHICH CONSTITUTED STEPS IN THE PROGRESS OF THE CONSPIRACY.  TO THIS
EXTENT THEY PARTICIPATED IN VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTES.  SOME WERE MORE
ACTIVE AND PLAYED A MORE RESPONSIBLE ROLE THAN OTHERS. 

                         II 

THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT THE DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD.  THE COURT,
HOWEVER, DECIDED THAT A CONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN OF HARTFORD'S ACTIVITIES
WOULD BE OF ADVANTAGE TO THE GLASS INDUSTRY AND DENIED, FOR THE TIME
BEING, THAT FORM OF RELIEF.  THE COURT WAS OF OPINION, HOWEVER, THAT
THE LONG SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS AND THE PERSISTENT MANIFESTATIONS OF A
PURPOSE TO VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST STATUTES REQUIRED THE ENTRY OF A
DECREE WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE THE RESUMPTION OF UNLAWFUL PRACTICES.  IT
WAS FACED, THEREFORE, WITH THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF AWARDING AN
INJUNCTION WHICH WOULD INSURE THE DESIRED END WITHOUT IMPOSING
PUNISHMENTS OR OTHER SANCTIONS FOR PAST MISCONDUCT, A PROBLEM
ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT IN VIEW OF THE STATUS AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE
PARTIES. 

AT THE TRIAL THE GOVERNMENT STATED THAT IN THIS SUIT IT WAS NOT
ATTACKING THE VALIDITY OF ANY PATENT OR CLAIMING ANY PATENT HAD BEEN
AWARDED AN IMPROPER PRIORITY. 

AT THE TIME OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION, HARTFORD HAD REDUCED
THE ROYALTIES OF ALL ITS LICENSEES TO ITS THEN SCHEDULE OF STANDARD
ROYALTIES SO THAT ALL STOOD ON AN EQUAL BASIS SO FAR AS LICENSE FEES
WERE CONCERNED.  GOVERNMENT COUNSEL DID NOT ASSERT, OR ATTEMPT TO
PROVE, THAT THESE ROYALTIES WERE NOT REASONABLE IN AMOUNT. 

OWENS, AS RESPECTS SUCTION INVENTION LICENSES, HAD REMOVED ALL
RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES; HARTFORD HAD DONE THE SAME WITH RESPECT TO ALL ITS
GLASS MACHINERY LICENSES AND SO HAD HARTFORD AND LYNCH WITH RESPECT TO
FORMING MACHINE LICENSES.  AT THE MOMENT, THEREFORE, NO LICENSEE WAS
RESTRICTED EITHER AS TO KIND OR QUANTITY OF GLASSWARE IT MIGHT
MANUFACTURE BY USE OF THE PATENTED MACHINES, AND NO PATENT OWNER WAS
RESTRICTED BY FORMAL AGREEMENT AS TO THE USE OR LICENSING OF ITS
PATENTS. 

JUST BEFORE THE TRIAL, HARTFORD CONVEYED THREE PATENTS TO CORNING AND
COMPLAINT WAS MADE OF THIS TRANSACTION.  CORNING PAID A SUBSTANTIAL SUM
FOR THE TRANSFER, EVIDENTLY TO PREVENT HARTFORD'S OBSTRUCTING CORNING'S
FREE AND UNTRAMMELED USE OF ITS OWN PATENTS.  TWO OF THE ASSIGNED
PATENTS HAVE EXPIRED AND CORNING PROFESSES ITS WILLINGNESS TO DEDICATE
THE THIRD TO THE PUBLIC. 

THE ASSOCIATION HAD CEASED TO ALLOT QUOTAS AMONGST THE GLASS
MANUFACTURERS OR TO FURNISH ADVANCE INFORMATION OR MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
TO ITS MEMBERS.  THE LICENSING SYSTEM OF HARTFORD REMAINED THAT OF
LEASING MACHINERY BUILT FOR IT EMBODYING THE PATENTED INVENTIONS. 
RENTALS CONSISTED OF STANDARD ROYALTIES ON PRODUCTION.  UNDER THIS
SYSTEM HARTFORD RENDERED A SERVICE IN THE REPAIR, MAINTENANCE, AND
PROTECTION OF THE MACHINES, WHICH IS VALUABLE, IF NOT ESSENTIAL, TO THE
USERS.  THIS WAS THE STATUS WITH WHICH THE COURT HAD TO DEAL. 

THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES ARE NOT DOUBTFUL.  THE SHERMAN ACT PROVIDES
CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND AUTHORIZES THE RECOVERY OF A
PENAL SUM IN ADDITION TO DAMAGES IN A CIVIL SUIT BY ONE INJURED BY
VIOLATION.  IT ALSO AUTHORIZES AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT CONTINUING
VIOLATIONS BY THOSE ACTING CONTRARY TO ITS PROSCRIPTIONS.  THE PRESENT
SUIT IS IN THE LAST NAMED CATEGORY AND WE MAY NOT IMPOSE PENALTIES  FN4
IN THE GUISE OF PREVENTING FUTURE VIOLATIONS.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT
A DECREE NEED DEAL ONLY WITH THE EXACT TYPE OF ACTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED  FN5  OR THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT, IN FRAMING ITS DECREE,
RESOLVE ALL DOUBTS IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT, FN6  OR MAY NOT PROHIBIT
ACTS WHICH IN ANOTHER SETTING WOULD BE UNOBJECTIONABLE.  BUT, EVEN SO,
THE COURT MAY NOT CREATE, AS TO THE DEFENDANTS, NEW DUTIES,
PRESCRIPTION OF WHICH IS THE FUNCTION OF CONGRESS, OR PLACE THE
DEFENDANTS, FOR THE FUTURE, "IN A DIFFERENT CLASS THAN OTHER PEOPLE,"
AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS SUGGESTED.  THE DECREE MUST NOT BE "SO VAGUE AS
TO PUT THE WHOLE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS' BUSINESS AT THE PERIL OF A
SUMMONS FOR CONTEMPT"; ENJOIN "ALL POSSIBLE BREACHES OF THE LAW"; FN7
OR CAUSE THE DEFENDANTS HEREAFTER NOT "TO BE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF
THE LAW OF THE LAND."  FN8  WITH THESE PRINCIPLES IN MIND WE PROCEED TO
EXAMINE THE TERMS OF THE DECREE ENTERED.  NO REFERENCE WILL BE MADE TO
PARAGRAPHS AS TO WHICH THE APPELLANTS DO NOT OBJECT IF ANY DECREE IS TO
BE ENTERED, NOR TO THOSE CONCERNING WHICH WE THINK OBJECTION IS NOT
WELL FOUNDED. 

THE DECREE MUST BE MODIFIED TO ELIMINATE THE APPELLANTS COLLINS,
DILWORTH, FULTON, AND FISHER. 

PARAGRAPH 1(D) SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO LIMIT ITS COVERAGE TO THE UNITED
STATES, AND CLAUSE (A) SHOULD BE STRICKEN AS TOO INDEFINITE FOR
ENFORCEMENT. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT PARAGRAPH 5 SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO
CONFINE TO HEAT-RESISTANT WARE THE ADJUDICATION THAT CORNING, HARTFORD,
AND EMPIRE, AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH, HAVE
MONOPOLIZED AND ATTEMPTED TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT.  THIS INVOLVES EXCLUSION FROM THE PARAGRAPH OF
REFERENCE TO LABORATORY, PASTE MOLD, AND ELECTRICAL WARE.  TO COMPORT
WITH THE RECORD THE PHRASE "OVENWARE" SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR "HEAT
RESISTANT WARE." 

THE GOVERNMENT ALSO AGREES TO THE ELIMINATION OF PARAGRAPH 9, WHICH
GENERALLY ENJOINS THE APPELLANTS FROM VIOLATIONS "AS CHARGED IN THE
COMPLAINT."  THIS CONCESSION IS REQUIRED BY STATUTE, BY THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, AND BY OUR DECISIONS.  FN9 

THE COURT APPOINTED A RECEIVER FOR HARTFORD PENDENTE LITE.  BY
PARAGRAPHS 10 TO 20 OF THE FINAL DECREE IT CONTINUED HIM IN OFFICE AND
GAVE DIRECTIONS AS TO HIS ADMINISTRATION OF HARTFORD'S AFFAIRS,
INCLUDING CERTAIN ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO EFFECTUATE FEATURES OF THE
DECREE AFFECTING HARTFORD'S BUSINESS AND LICENSES, WHICH WILL LATER BE
DESCRIBED, AND MEANTIME TO CONTINUE THE RECEIPT OF ROYALTIES UNDER
EXISTING LICENSES, THESE TO BE REPAID TO THE LICENSEES ON THE DECREE
BECOMING FINAL.  THE COURT ALSO ORDERED THE IMPOUNDING OF THE SUMS
PAYABLE BY HAZEL TO HARTFORD, AND BY HARTFORD TO HAZEL, UNDER THE 1932
AGREEMENT, UNTIL THE DECREE SHOULD BECOME FINAL.  BALL BROTHERS WAS
ORDERED TO PAY INTO COURT THE $425,000 RECEIVED FROM HARTFORD PURSUANT
TO THE AMENDMENT, AUGUST 1, 1940, OF BALL'S FEEDER LICENSE AGREEMENT,
BUT NO DISPOSITION OF THE FUND WAS DIRECTED (PARAGRAPH 44).  CORNING
WAS DIRECTED TO PAY INTO COURT THE MONEYS RECEIVED BY IT FROM HARTFORD
IN CONNECTION WITH THE AMENDING AGREEMENTS OF SEPTEMBER 23 AND DECEMBER
1, 1940, AND THAT FUND IS HELD BY THE CLERK PENDING THE FURTHER ORDER
OF THE COURT (PARAGRAPH 45-A). 

WHILE USEFUL FOR THE PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS PENDING THE DETERMINATION
OF THIS LITIGATION, IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS HEREAFTER SAID AS TO THE
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE, THE RECEIVERSHIP AND THE
IMPOUNDING OF FUNDS WERE NOT NECESSARY TO THE PRESCRIPTION OF
APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  THE RECEIVERSHIP SHOULD BE WOUND UP AND THE
BUSINESS RETURNED TO HARTFORD.  THE ROYALTIES PAID TO THE RECEIVER BY
HARTFORD'S LESSEES MAY, UNLESS THE DISTRICT COURT FINDS THAT HARTFORD
HAS, SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE RECEIVERSHIP DECREE, VIOLATED THE ANTITRUST
LAWS, OR ACTED CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF THE FINAL DECREE AS MODIFIED BY
THIS OPINION, BE PAID OVER TO HARTFORD.  IN ANY EVENT HARTFORD SHOULD
RECEIVE OUT OF THESE ROYALTIES COMPENSATION ON A QUANTUM MERUIT BASIS,
FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO LESSEES.  THE OTHER FUNDS PAID INTO COURT AND
IMPOUNDED IN THE REGISTRY SHOULD BE REPAID TO THOSE WHO PAID THEM INTO
COURT. 

PARAGRAPHS 21, 22, AND 23 APPLY TO THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS AND TO
ANY OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS WHO SHALL HEREAFTER ENGAGE IN THE
BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTING GLASSWARE MACHINERY.  THEY FORBID ANY
DISPOSITION OR TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF SUCH MACHINERY BY ANY MEANS
OTHER THAN AN OUTRIGHT SALE, AND REQUIRE HARTFORD TO OFFER IN WRITING
TO SELL EACH OF THE PRESENT LESSEES ALL THE MACHINERY NOW UNDER LEASE
TO SUCH LESSEE AT A REASONABLE PRICE TO BE FIXED IN CONSIDERATION OF
THE FEES AND ROYALTIES HERETOFORE PAID, ANY DISPUTE AS TO PRICE TO BE
SETTLED BY THE COURT.  ALL OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS AND THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE REQUIRED, IF THEY ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF
DISTRIBUTING GLASSMAKING MACHINERY, TO FILE A WRITING WITH THE COURT
AGREEING TO OFFER, AND TO CONTINUE TO OFFER, TO SELL ANY MACHINERY USED
IN THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASSWARE TO ANY APPLICANT AT REASONABLE AND
EQUAL PRICES AND UPON REASONABLE AND EQUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

ALL OF THE APPELLANTS ATTACK THESE PROVISIONS.  A COMMON GROUND IS
THAT THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE LEASE OF A PATENTED MACHINE IS A
LAWFUL METHOD OF EXERCISING THE EXCLUSIVE PATENT RIGHT OF PRACTICING OR
USING THE INVENTION N10, AND THAT EFFECTIVE RELIEF MAY BE AFFORDED
WITHOUT DESTROYING THE APPELLANTS' PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE PATENTS THEY
OWN. 

HAZEL, THATCHER, AND BALL OBJECT TO THE INJUNCTION DIRECTED TO THEM
ON THE GROUND THAT NONE OF THEM HAS EVER BEEN IN THE BUSINESS OF
SELLING, LICENSING, OR DISTRIBUTING SUCH MACHINERY.  THE GOVERNMENT
REPLIES THAT THE INJUNCTION IS INTENDED ONLY TO PREVENT THEM FROM AGAIN
SETTING UP A PATENT POOL AND MONOPOLIZING THE PATENTED INVENTIONS.  THE
DECREE SHOULD ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM SETTING UP SUCH A POOL OR
COMBINING OR HEREAFTER AGREEING TO MONOPOLIZE THE GLASS MACHINERY OR
THE GLASSWARE INDUSTRY, AS WE THINK IT DOES IN OTHER PARAGRAPHS.  BUT
THE DECREE AS ENTERED REQUIRES THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS MUST
HEREAFTER FOREVER ABSTAIN FROM LEASING A PATENTED MACHINE, NO MATTER
WHAT THE DATE OF THE INVENTION, AND COMPELS EACH OF THEM IF HE DESIRES
TO DISTRIBUTE PATENTED MACHINERY TO SELL THE MACHINE WHICH EMBODIES THE
PATENT TO EVERYONE WHO APPLIES, AT A PRICE TO BE FIXED BY THE COURT. 
THE INJUNCTION AS DRAWN IS NOT DIRECTED AT ANY COMBINATION, AGREEMENT
OR CONSPIRACY.  IT BINDS EVERY DEFENDANT FOREVER IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS
CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER OR OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF HIS ACTION. 
PARAGRAPH 24 ENJOINS EACH OF THE CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS
FROM ENGAGING IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MACHINERY USED IN GLASS
MANUFACTURE OR IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF GLASSWARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
UNLESS EACH FILES WITH THE COURT AN AGREEMENT (A) TO LICENSE, WITHOUT
ROYALTY OR CHARGE OF ANY KIND, AND FOR THE LIFE OF ALL PATENTS, ANY
APPLICANT TO MAKE, TO HAVE MADE FOR IT, AND TO USE ANY NUMBER OF
MACHINES AND METHODS EMBODIED IN INVENTIONS COVERED BY ANY PATENT OR
PATENT APPLICATION NOW OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY SUCH DEFENDANT; (B) TO
LICENSE, AT A REASONABLE ROYALTY (TO BE FIXED BY THE COURT, IN CASE OF
DISPUTE) ANY APPLICANT TO MAKE, HAVE MADE FOR IT, AND TO USE ANY NUMBER
OF MACHINES AND METHODS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASSWARE EMBODYING
INVENTIONS COVERED BY PATENTS HEREAFTER APPLIED FOR OR OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY ANY DEFENDANTS; (C) TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO ANY LICENSEE,
UNDER "(A)" AND "(B)," AT COST, PLUS A REASONABLE PROFIT, ALL DRAWINGS
AND PATTERNS "RELATING TO THE MACHINERY OR METHODS USED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF GLASSWARE" EMBODIED IN THE LICENSED INVENTIONS (WITH
IMMATERIAL EXCEPTIONS). 

SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 21 TO 24 INCLUSIVE, IN EFFECT
CONFISCATE CONSIDERABLE PORTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS' PROPERTY, WE THINK
THEY GO BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED TO DISSOLVE THE COMBINATION AND PREVENT
FUTURE COMBINATIONS OF LIKE CHARACTER.  IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT, IN THIS LITIGATION, ATTACKED THE VALIDITY OF
ANY PATENT OR THE PRIORITY ASCRIBED TO ANY BY THE PATENT OFFICE, NOR
HAS IT ATTACKED, AS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE, THE STANDARD ROYALTIES
HERETOFORE EXACTED BY HARTFORD.  HARTFORD HAS REDUCED ALL OF ITS
ROYALTIES TO A UNIFORM SCALE AND HAS WAIVED AND ABOLISHED AND AGREED TO
WAIVE AND ABOLISH ALL RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS IN ITS OUTSTANDING
LEASES SO THAT EVERY LICENSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO USE THE MACHINERY
FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ANY KIND OR QUANTITY OF GLASSWARE COMPREHENDED
WITHIN THE DECREE.  MOREOVER, IF LICENSES OR ASSIGNMENTS BY ANY ONE OF
THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS TO ANY OTHER STILL CONTAIN ANY OFFENSIVE
PROVISION, SUCH PROVISION CAN, BY APPROPRIATE INJUNCTION, BE CANCELLED,
SO THAT THE OWNER OF EACH PATENT WILL HAVE UNRESTRICTED FREEDOM TO USE
AND TO LICENSE, AND EVERY LICENSEE EQUALLY WITH EVERY OTHER WILL BE
FREE OF RESTRICTION AS TO THE USE OF THE LEASED OR LICENSED MACHINERY,
METHOD OR PROCESS, OR THE ARTICLES MANUFACTURED THEREON OR THEREUNDER. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS NOT CONFISCATION SINCE HARTFORD MIGHT,
WITH THE LATER CONSENT OF THE COURT, SELL ITS PATENTS.  UNDER THE
DECREE AS ENTERED BELOW NOTHING CAN BE OBTAINED BY HARTFORD FOR THE USE
OF ITS PATENTS AND WE CANNOT SPECULATE AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE THE ULTIMATE
ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT IN THE DECREE. 

IF, AS SUGGESTED, SOME OF HARTFORD'S PATENTS WERE IMPROPERLY
OBTAINED, OR IF SOME OF THEM WERE AWARDED A PRIORITY TO WHICH THE
INVENTION WAS NOT ENTITLED, AVENUES ARE OPEN TO THE GOVERNMENT TO RAISE
THESE QUESTIONS AND TO HAVE THE PATENTS CANCELLED.  BUT IF, AS WE MUST
ASSUME ON THIS RECORD, A DEFENDANT OWNS VALID PATENTS, IT IS DIFFICULT
TO SAY THAT, HOWEVER MUCH IN THE PAST SUCH DEFENDANT HAS ABUSED THE
RIGHTS THEREBY CONFERRED, IT MUST NOW DEDICATE THEM TO THE PUBLIC. 

THAT A PATENT IS PROPERTY, PROTECTED AGAINST APPROPRIATION BOTH BY
INDIVIDUALS AND BY GOVERNMENT, HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED.  FN11  IN
RECOGNITION OF THIS QUALITY OF A PATENT THE COURTS, IN ENJOINING
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT ARISING FROM THE USE OF PATENT LICENSES,
AGREEMENTS, AND LEASES, HAVE ABSTAINED FROM ACTION WHICH AMOUNTED TO A
FORFEITURE OF THE PATENTS.  FN12 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT SUCH FORFEITURE IS JUSTIFIED BY OUR RECENT
DECISIONS IN MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488, AND
B.B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS, 314 U.S. 495.  BUT THOSE CASES MERELY APPLY
THE DOCTRINE THAT, SO LONG AS THE PATENT OWNER IS USING HIS PATENT IN
VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, HE CANNOT RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENT OF IT
BY OTHERS.  WE WERE NOT THERE CONCERNED WITH THE PROBLEM WHETHER, WHEN
A VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS WAS TO BE RESTRAINED AND
DISCONTINUED, THE COURT COULD, AS PART OF THE RELIEF, FORFEIT THE
PATENTS OF THOSE WHO HAD BEEN GUILTY OF THE VIOLATION.  LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS HAVE RIGHTLY REFUSED TO EXTEND THE DOCTRINE OF THOSE CASES TO
ANTITRUST DECREES BY INSERTING FORFEITURE PROVISIONS.  FN13 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS ALSO ENLIGHTENING UPON THIS POINT.  REPEATEDLY
SINCE 1908 LEGISLATION HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN CONGRESS TO GIVE THE COURTS
POWER TO CANCEL A PATENT WHICH HAS BEEN USED AS AN INSTRUMENT TO
VIOLATE ANTITRUST LAWS.  FN14  CONGRESS HAS NOT ADOPTED SUCH
LEGISLATION.  THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED
IMPOSITION OF SUCH A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS.  FN15
BUT ITS RECOMMENDATION WAS NOT ADOPTED BY CONGRESS. 

THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT CERTAIN EARLIER DECISIONS UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT, BY ANALOGY, SUPPORT THESE PORTIONS OF THE DECREE.  FN16
THE CASES CITED, HOWEVER, DO NOT SUSTAIN THE SUGGESTION.  IN ALL OF
THEM THE COURT REFRAINED FROM ORDERING COMPULSORY DEALING WITH THE
ASSETS OF THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT COMPENSATION AND, IN MOST OF THEM, THE
DECREES MERELY CALLED FOR REARRANGEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, NOT FOR ITS
DESTRUCTION. 

UNDER PARAGRAPH 24(B) A DEFENDANT HEREAFTER ACQUIRING A PATENT CANNOT
SET THE PRICE FOR ITS USE BY OTHERS, ELECT TO USE IT HIMSELF AND REFUSE
TO LICENSE IT, OR TO RETAIN IT AND NEITHER USE NOR LICENSE IT.  THESE
ARE OPTIONS PATENT OWNERS HAVE ALWAYS ENJOYED.  FN17 

CONGRESS WAS ASKED AS EARLY AS 1877, AND FREQUENTLY SINCE, TO ADOPT A
SYSTEM OF COMPULSORY LICENSING OF PATENTS N18.  IT HAS FAILED TO ENACT
THESE PROPOSALS INTO LAW.  IT HAS ALSO REJECTED THE PROPOSAL THAT A
PATENTEE FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS SHOULD BE
COMPELLED, AS A PENALTY, TO LICENSE ALL HIS FUTURE INVENTIONS AT
REASONABLE ROYALTIES.  FN19  THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF SUCH A SYSTEM,  FN20  BUT
CONGRESS TOOK NO ACTION TO THAT END. 

PARAGRAPH 24(A) OF THE DECREE SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PERMIT THE
RESERVATION OF REASONABLE ROYALTIES AND ITS PROVISIONS SHOULD BE
RESTRICTED TO FEEDERS, FORMERS, STACKERS AND LEHRS AND PATENTS COVERING
THESE OR IMPROVEMENTS OF THEM, OR METHODS OR PROCESSES USED IN
CONNECTION WITH THEM. 

PARAGRAPH 24(B) SHOULD BE LIMITED IN RESPECT OF FUTURE APPLICATIONS
AND RESULTING PATENTS OR PATENTS HEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY ASSIGNMENT, TO
THOSE COVERING FEEDERS, FORMERS, STACKERS AND LEHRS, OR PARTS THEREOF
OR IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, AND METHODS AND PROCESSES INVOLVED IN THEIR
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION.  FOR EXAMPLE, IF BALL OR THATCHER SHOULD
PROCURE A PATENT ON A BOTTLE-CAPPING MACHINE OR FOR A COMPOSITION OF
GLASS, THERE IS NO REASON TO COMPEL A LICENSE TO HARTFORD OR HAZEL OR
ANYONE ELSE.  OTHER PARAGRAPHS OF THE DECREE PRECLUDE A MISUSE OF THE
PATENT IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS. 

PARAGRAPH 24(C) SHOULD BE DELETED. 

PARAGRAPH 25 RESTRAINS ALL THE CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS,
WHENEVER REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASSWARE FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FROM DISCRIMINATION "BY MEANS OF WHOLLY EXCLUSIVE
OR PARTIALLY EXCLUSIVE REQUIREMENT CONTRACTS" "OR OTHERWISE" AGAINST
ANY SUCH MANUFACTURE, PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE; OR IN THE FILLING OF
ORDERS FOR MACHINERY ON THE BASIS OF THE SIZE OF THE ORDER OR CREDIT
RATING OF THE CUSTOMER, IF HE IS WILLING TO PAY CASH, HIS STANDING IN
THE INDUSTRY OR OTHERWISE; AND FROM CONSPIRING WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR
CORPORATION TO OBSTRUCT OR DELAY THE FURNISHING OF ANY SUCH MACHINERY. 

THE EARLIER PORTION OF THE PARAGRAPH IS VAGUE AND WOULD BE DIFFICULT
OF APPLICATION.  IT SEEMS NOT TO BE ADDRESSED TO ANY PRACTICE INDULGED
IN OR THREATENED BY ANY OF THE APPELLANTS.  IT SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE
MODIFIED OR ELIMINATED.  THE LAST FIVE LINES OF THE PARAGRAPH ARE
APPROPRIATE ALTHOUGH THE MATTERS COVERED BY THEM ARE APPARENTLY
EMBRACED IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE DECREE. 

THATCHER AND BALL INSIST THAT NO SUCH INJUNCTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO THEM FOR THE REASON THAT THEY ARE NOT NOW, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN, IN
THE BUSINESS OF OWNING MACHINERY PATENTS OR SELLING OR LICENSING
GLASSMAKING MACHINERY.  WE THINK, HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT
THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE CONSPIRED WITH HARTFORD AND THE OTHER
APPELLANTS IN DENYING AND OBSTRUCTING COMPETITORS FROM OBTAINING
MACHINERY, THE INJUNCTION, MODIFIED AS SUGGESTED, MAY STAND AGAINST
THEM. 

PARAGRAPH 26 ENJOINS ALL OF THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS, AND ALL OF THE
INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, UNTIL THE ENTRY OF A FINDING BY THE
COURT ON THE PETITION OF ANY DEFENDANT THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS HAVE BEEN
FULLY DISSIPATED, FROM THE FOLLOWING ACTS:  (A) BRINGING, MAINTAINING,
OR TAKING ANY ACTION IN ANY SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ANY PATENT OWNED
OR CONTROLLED OR HEREAFTER ISSUED ON PENDING APPLICATIONS COVERING
GLASSWARE MACHINERY; (B) ATTEMPTING TO INTERFERE, BY SUIT OR OTHERWISE,
WITH THE POSSESSION OF ANY MACHINERY OWNED, OR CLAIMED TO BE OWNED, BY
ANY APPELLANT WHICH IS IN THE POSSESSION OF ANY LICENSEE EXCEPT SALE TO
THE LICENSEE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 21; (C) ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT
ROYALTIES OR LICENSE FEES FOR THE USE OF ANY INVENTIONS COVERED BY
EXISTING PATENTS OR APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS FOR GLASSWARE MACHINERY. 

SINCE PARAGRAPHS 21 TO 24(A) INCLUSIVE ARE TO BE ELIMINATED, THIS
PARAGRAPH, WHICH IS ANCILLARY TO THEM, SHOULD ALSO BE DELETED FROM THE
DECREE, BUT IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE CONSPIRACY FOUND, AN
INJUNCTION SHOULD GO AGAINST THE FURTHER PROSECUTION OF ALL
INFRINGEMENT SUITS PENDING AT THE DATE THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  HARTFORD
AND THE OTHER CORPORATE DEFENDANTS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 24 SHOULD BE
REQUIRED TO LEASE OR LICENSE GLASSMAKING MACHINERY OF THE CLASSES EACH
NOW MANUFACTURES TO ANY WHO MAY DESIRE TO TAKE LICENSES (UNDER PATENTS
ON SUCH MACHINERY OR ON IMPROVEMENTS, METHODS OR PROCESSES APPLICABLE
THERETO), AT STANDARD ROYALTIES AND WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OR
RESTRICTION, AND IF AT THE TIME OF ENTRY OF THE DECREE THERE ARE ANY
ALLEGED INFRINGERS WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE SUCH LICENSES THEY SHOULD BE
RELEASED, AND THE PATENT OWNER DEPRIVED OF ALL DAMAGES AND PROFITS
WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE CLAIMED FOR PAST INFRINGEMENT.  THE DECREE SHOULD,
HOWEVER, BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FUTURE INSTITUTION OF ANY SUIT OR
SUITS FOR ASSERTED INFRINGEMENTS AGAINST PERSONS REFUSING TO TAKE
LICENSES UNDER ANY OF THE PRESENTLY LICENSED INVENTIONS ARISING OUT OF
THEIR USE AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECREE.  THE DECREE SHOULD NOT FORBID
ANY DEFENDANT FROM SEEKING RECOVERY FOR INFRINGEMENT, OCCURRING AFTER
THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECREE, OF PATENTS NOT COVERING FEEDERS, FORMERS,
STACKERS, LEHRS OR PROCESSES OR METHODS APPLICABLE TO ANY OF THEM. 

PARAGRAPH 27 CANCELS ALL OUTSTANDING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CORPORATE
APPELLANTS, INCLUDING ALL MODIFICATIONS MADE PRIOR TO OR PENDING
TRIAL.  THIS IS CONSONANT WITH THE TERMS OF THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS
WHICH REQUIRE CORPORATE APPELLANTS TO LICENSE ALL INVENTIONS INVOLVED,
ROYALTY FREE, AND TO SELL MACHINES EMBODYING SUCH INVENTIONS. 

IN VIEW OF WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID ABOUT THESE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS,
THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS AS MODIFIED BY THE PARTIES AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE VIEWS HERE EXPRESSED, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAND.  AS HAS BEEN
NOTED, THESE ARE ALL AT UNIFORM ROYALTIES, AND ALL WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS
OR DISCRIMINATORY FEATURES.  WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT, AS MODIFIED,
ANY OF THESE AGREEMENTS IS ATTACKED AS CONTAINING IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL
PROVISIONS.  IF, HOWEVER, ANY OF THEM IS FOUND STILL TO EMBODY
PROVISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FORM OF RELIEF WE HAVE OUTLINED, ITS
REFORMATION SHOULD BE DECREED.  THE APPELLANTS SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM
HEREAFTER ALTERING THESE AGREEMENTS, OR ANY HEREAFTER MADE IN LIKE
TERMS, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT.  IF THE EXISTING ROYALTIES
ARE EXCESSIVE THESE MAY BE REDUCED TO A FAIR AND REASONABLE BASIS.  THE
DECREE SHOULD PERMIT ANY CORPORATE APPELLANT, ACTING ALONE, TO LEASE OR
SELL PATENTED MACHINERY OR LICENSE THE USE OF PATENTS, IF IT SO ELECTS,
PROVIDED ALWAYS THAT NO DISCRIMINATION BE PRACTICED AND THAT NO
RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS BE ATTACHED (EXCEPT AS STATED IN CONNECTION WITH
PARAGRAPH 29) SAVE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT. 

A WORD SHOULD BE SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT OF THIS PARAGRAPH IN
CANCELLING THE AGREEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1940, BETWEEN HARTFORD-EMPIRE
AND CORNING, AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF THREE PATENTS TO CORNING PURSUANT
THERETO. 

IT WILL BE RECALLED THAT, PRIOR TO THE TRIAL, CORNING AND HARTFORD
CANCELLED THE 1916 AND 1922 AGREEMENTS WHICH THE COURT FOUND ILLEGAL
AND WHICH THE DECREE ORDERED CANCELLED NOTWITHSTANDING THE PARTIES'
PRIOR ACTION.  FURTHER, CORNING WAS GIVEN AN UNRESTRICTED LICENSE BY
HARTFORD WHICH WILL REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF INCREASED ROYALTIES BY
CORNING FOR USE OF HARTFORD'S INVENTIONS.  IN CONSIDERATION OF THE
CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENTS, HARTFORD AGREED TO PAY CORNING
$1,125,000, IN INSTALLMENTS, AND TO TRANSFER TO CORNING THREE PATENTS
OWNED BY HARTFORD.  THE DECREE ORDERS THESE PAYMENTS IMPOUNDED, BUT
MAKES NO DISPOSITION OF THE IMPOUNDED FUND.  IT ALSO REQUIRES CORNING
TO REASSIGN THE PATENTS TO HARTFORD. 

TWO OF THE PATENTS HAVE EXPIRED.  THE REASON FOR CORNING'S DESIRE TO
OBTAIN TITLE TO THE PATENTS WAS THAT TWO OF THEM WERE ALLEGED TO
CONFLICT WITH CERTAIN FEATURES OF CORNING'S RIBBON MACHINE FN21
ALTHOUGH THE CLAIM WAS ALWAYS CONTESTED AND NEVER ESTABLISHED.  THESE
ARE THE TWO EXPIRED PATENTS.  THE THIRD WAS ALLEGED TO INFRINGE UPON A
FEATURE OF A CORNING PATENTED MACHINE KNOWN AS A TURRET CHAIN MACHINE. 
CONTINUED OWNERSHIP OF THE PATENT BY HARTFORD WOULD CONSTITUTE A THREAT
AGAINST THE USE BY CORNING OF THE MACHINE.  THE ASSIGNED PATENT WILL
EXPIRE SIX YEARS BEFORE CORNING'S PATENT ON THE TURRET CHAIN MACHINE. 
NATURALLY CORNING DESIRED TO BE FREE FROM THE POSSIBLE THREAT OF
INFRINGEMENT SUITS.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS
PATENT BY CORNING WOULD TEND TO PERPETUATE OR CREATE ANY IMPROPER
MONOPOLY OR PATENT POOL.  IN ANY EVENT, CORNING HAS AGREED, IF SUCH
DANGER IS FOUND TO EXIST, TO DEDICATE THE PATENT TO THE PUBLIC, SINCE
ALL IT DESIRES IS TO BE FREE OF RESTRAINT ON THE PART OF HARTFORD IN
THE USE OF ITS TURRET CHAIN MACHINE.  SUCH DEDICATION SHOULD BE
ORDERED.    IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE SETTLEMENT MADE BY
HARTFORD AND CORNING OUGHT NOT TO BE SET ASIDE NOR OUGHT THE PAYMENT TO
BE MADE BY HARTFORD TO CORNING THEREUNDER BE ENJOINED.  THE MONEY PAID
INTO COURT BY CORNING SHOULD BE RETURNED TO IT. 

THE PARAGRAPH ORDERS CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENTS OF JUNE 30, 1916
BETWEEN HARTFORD-FAIRMONT AND EMPIRE, AND THAT OF OCTOBER 26, 1922
BETWEEN HARTFORD, CORNING AND OTHERS.  THESE HAVE BEEN CANCELLED, BUT
THE DECREE SHOULD ENJOIN THEIR REINSTATEMENT, OR THE MAKING OF LIKE
CONTRACTS IN THE FUTURE. 

PARAGRAPH 28 ORDERS CANCELLATION OF ALL HARTFORD MACHINERY LEASES NOW
OUTSTANDING AND REQUIRES THAT EACH LESSEE BE OFFERED A NEW LICENSE
(WITHOUT ROYALTY, PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 24) AND OFFERED THE RIGHT TO
PURCHASE ALL OF THE MACHINERY NOW HELD UNDER LEASE (AS REQUIRED BY
PARAGRAPH 23).  IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID THIS PROVISION SHOULD NOT
STAND. 

PARAGRAPH 29 ENJOINS THE INSERTION OR ENFORCEMENT OF ANY PROVISION IN
ANY AGREEMENT HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER MADE BY ANY OF THE APPELLANTS
WHICH (A) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY LIMITS OR RESTRICTS (1) THE TYPE OR
KIND OF PRODUCT, WHETHER GLASSWARE OR ANY OTHER, WHICH CAN BE PRODUCED
ON MACHINES OR EQUIPMENT OR BY PROCESSES EMBODYING INVENTIONS LICENSED
UNDER PATENTS OR PATENT APPLICATIONS, (2) THE USE OF THE PRODUCT SO
PRODUCED, (3) THE CHARACTER, WEIGHT, COLOR, CAPACITY, OR COMPOSITION OF
THE PRODUCT, (4) THE QUANTITY, (5) THE MARKET, EITHER AS TO TERRITORY
OR CUSTOMERS IN OR TO WHICH THE PRODUCT MAY BE SOLD OR DISTRIBUTED, (6)
THE PRICE OR TERMS OF SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE PRODUCT, OR (7)
THE USE OF THE MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTED OR THE INVENTIONS
LICENSED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT, OR THE
USE OF IT IN ANY SPECIFIED PLANT OR LOCALITY; (B) AUTHORIZES
TERMINATION OF THE LICENSE FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE; (C) PROVIDES THAT THE
LICENSEE SHALL NOT CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF ANY PATENT OR PATENTS OF THE
LICENSOR; (D) PROVIDES THAT IMPROVEMENTS BY THE LICENSEE ON MACHINERY
LEASED AND SOLD SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE LESSOR; (E) PROVIDES
THAT RIGHTS TO IMPROVEMENTS AND INVENTIONS COVERING LICENSED MACHINERY
OR PROCESSES OR METHODS SHALL BECOME THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE
LESSOR OR VENDOR; OR (F) GRANTS TO ANY LICENSEE A PREFERENTIAL POSITION
BY LOWER RATES OF ROYALTY, BY DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF LICENSING,
LEASING, OR SALE, BY EXCLUSIVE LICENSING, REBATE, DISCOUNTS OR
REQUIRING A SHARE IN NET OR GROSS INCOME, OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS. 

THE PARAGRAPH NOW COVERS EVERY KIND OF INVENTION AND EVERY PATENT,
PRESENT OR FUTURE, IN ANY FIELD IF OWNED OR CONTROLLED OR DISTRIBUTED
BY AN APPELLANT. 

THE INJUNCTION WILL STOP ALL INVENTIONS OR ACQUIREMENT OF PATENTS IN
ANY FIELD BY ANY APPELLANT UNLESS FOR ITS OWN USE IN ITS BUSINESS, FOR
IT SETS SUCH LIMITATIONS UPON THE REWARD OF A PATENT AS TO MAKE IT
PRACTICALLY WORTHLESS EXCEPT FOR USE BY THE OWNER.  IT IS UNLIMITED IN
TIME.  IT IS NOT LIMITED TO ANY JOINT ACTION OR CONSPIRACY VIOLATIVE OF
THE ANTITRUST LAWS; IT COVERS INVENTIONS IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE FIELD. 

THE GOVERNMENT NOW AGREES THAT THIS INJUNCTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
GLASSMAKING MACHINERY AND GLASSWARE AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS HAVE AMENDED, OR AGREED TO AMEND, EXISTING
LEASES AND LICENSES TO REMOVE ALL SUCH RESTRICTIONS AS ARE ENJOINED. 
FN22  WE HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THE DECREE SHOULD ENFORCE CONFORMITY OF
ALL LEASE AND LICENSE AGREEMENTS TO THIS STANDARD, AND FORBID THE
REINSTATEMENT OR EMBODIMENT OF ANY SUCH RESTRICTIONS IN EXISTING OR
FUTURE AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE MACHINERY, METHODS OR PROCESSES
RESPECTING FEEDERS, FORMERS, STACKERS OR LEHRS OR INVOLVED IN THEIR
USE, COVERED BY PATENTS NOW OWNED OR APPLIED FOR OR THOSE HEREAFTER
ACQUIRED BY ANY CORPORATE APPELLANT. 

PARAGRAPH 29 SHOULD BE AMENDED TO PERMIT ANY APPELLANT, CORPORATE OR
INDIVIDUAL, TO RETAIN AND REFUSE TO LICENSE, TO USE AND REFUSE TO
LICENSE, OR TO LICENSE WITH RESTRICTIONS, ANY PATENT HEREAFTER APPLIED
FOR OR ACQUIRED EXCEPT THOSE APPLICABLE TO FEEDERS, FORMERS, STACKERS
AND LEHRS AND PROCESSES AND METHODS APPLICABLE THERETO.  ITS RESTRAINTS
SHOULD BE LIMITED AS WE HAVE INDICATED THOSE OF PARAGRAPH 24(B) SHOULD
BE LIMITED. 

PARAGRAPH 30 APPLIES ALL THE TERMS OF PARAGRAPH 29 TO AGREEMENTS
HEREAFTER MADE BETWEEN ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS.  THIS SHOULD BE MODIFIED
TO CONFORM TO THE ALTERATIONS TO BE MADE IN PARAGRAPH 29. 

PARAGRAPH 31 REQUIRES COURT APPROVAL OF "ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN ANY OF
THE DEFENDANTS" AND "OF ANY LICENSE AGREEMENT MADE PURSUANT TO THIS
JUDGMENT."  THIS IS TOO SWEEPING.  THE PROVISION IS WITHOUT LIMIT OF
TIME AND NOT TERMINABLE UPON FULFILMENT OF ANY CONDITION.  MANY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE EMPLOYEES OF ONE OF THE CORPORATE
DEFENDANTS.  AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT COULD NOT BE MADE WITH SUCH AN ONE
WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL.  NOR CAN ANY DEFENDANT ENTER INTO THE MOST
INNOCENT AND USUAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH ANY OTHER, HOWEVER
UNRELATED TO THE CONSPIRACY, WITHOUT SIMILAR APPROVAL.  THIS PARAGRAPH,
IF RETAINED, SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN APPLICATION TO LEASE OR LICENSE
AGREEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS RESPECTING PATENTS AND TRADE PRACTICES,
PRODUCTION AND TRADE RELATIONS. 

BY PARAGRAPH 33 EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS IS ENJOINED FROM
"HOLDING, CONTROLLING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OR THROUGH CORPORATIONS,
AGENTS, TRUSTEES, REPRESENTATIVES, OR NOMINEES, ANY OF THE ISSUED AND
OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK, BONDS, OR OTHER EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF
MORE THAN ONE CORPORATION ENGAGED EITHER IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF
GLASSWARE OR IN THE MANUFACTURE OR DISTRIBUTION OF MACHINERY USED IN
THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASSWARE OR IN BOTH...."  THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
THUS ENJOINED ARE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS. 
THE PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH STOCK OWNERSHIP IS TO PREVENT AGGREGATION
OF CONTROL TO THE END OF ESTABLISHING A MONOPOLY OR STIFLING
COMPETITION.  THE OWNERSHIP OF A FEW, OR EVEN A FEW HUNDRED, SHARES OF
STOCK OF A GLASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY NOT IN COMPETITION WITH THE
COMPANY OF WHICH A DEFENDANT HAPPENS TO BE A DIRECTOR OR OFFICER CAN
HAVE NO TENDENCY TOWARDS SUCH A RESULT.  MANY FOOD PACKERS AND MAKERS
OF PROPRIETARY ARTICLES MANUFACTURE PART OR ALL OF THE GLASSWARE IN
WHICH THEIR GOODS ARE SOLD.  THE DECREE WOULD REQUIRE ALL OF THE
DEFENDANTS, AT THEIR PERIL, TO PART WITH ANY STOCK WHICH THEY OWN IN
SUCH A CONCERN AND TO REFRAIN FROM BUYING ANY.  OWENS IS IN THE GLASS
CONTAINER BUSINESS.  IT HAS NEVER MANUFACTURED PRESSED OR BLOWN WARE OR
LIGHT BULBS, YET THE DECREE WOULD FORBID ANY DEFENDANT CONNECTED WITH
OWENS FROM INVESTING IN ANY CONCERN MANUFACTURING THESE ARTICLES.  IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO MULTIPLY INSTANCES OF THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE
PARAGRAPH. 

MOREOVER, THE INJUNCTION IS AGAINST OWNERSHIP OF BONDS OF ANY SUCH
COMPANY.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW SUCH OWNERSHIP IN ANY REASONABLE
AMOUNT BY ANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN QUESTION COULD TEND TOWARDS A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE PHRASE "EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS" IS
ALSO USED.  THIS WOULD INDICATE COMPLETE PROHIBITION AGAINST MAKING A
LOAN HOWEVER REASONABLE, OR HOWEVER PROPER THE PURPOSE, EVIDENCED BY A
PROMISSORY NOTE. 

THE DECREE SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PROHIBIT ACQUISITION OF STOCKS OR
BONDS OF ANY CORPORATE APPELLANT BY ANY OTHER SUCH APPELLANT, AND TO
PROHIBIT ONLY THE ACQUISITION OF A MEASURE OF CONTROL THROUGH OWNERSHIP
OF STOCKS OR BONDS OR OTHERWISE, BY ANY INDIVIDUAL IN A COMPANY
COMPETING WITH THAT WITH WHICH HE IS OFFICIALLY CONNECTED OR A
SUBSIDIARY OR AFFILIATE OF SUCH COMPETING COMPANY. 

THE APPELLANTS FALCK, HOUGHTON, HOUGHTON JR. AND LEVIS OWN
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF STOCK OF CORNING AND OF HARTFORD.  BY THE DECREE
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO DIVEST THEMSELVES OF THEIR STOCK IN THE ONE OR THE
OTHER WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT.  IN VIEW OF THE
EFFECT OF THE DECREE ON HARTFORD, IT MAY PROVE DIFFICULT FOR THESE
DEFENDANTS TO COMPLY WITHIN THE PERIOD STATED WITHOUT SEVERE LOSS.  WE
ARE OF OPINION THAT A LONGER TIME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND THAT AN
ALTERNATIVE PROVISION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE DEPRIVING THESE DEFENDANTS
OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE THE STOCK OF ONE COMPANY OR THE OTHER OR TO
TRUSTEE THE STOCK OF ONE OF THE CORPORATIONS IF BOTH STOCKS ARE HELD
LONGER THAN THE TERM FIXED. 

PARAGRAPH 34 WHICH DEALS WITH PRESENT HOLDINGS OF INDIVIDUAL
APPELLANTS SHOULD BE REVISED TO COMPORT WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED AS TO
PARAGRAPH 33. 

PARAGRAPH 35 ENJOINS EACH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT FROM HOLDING, AT THE
SAME TIME, AN OFFICE OR DIRECTORSHIP IN MORE THAN ONE CORPORATION WHICH
MANUFACTURES AND SELLS GLASSWARE OR MANUFACTURES OR DISTRIBUTES
GLASSMAKING MACHINERY.  THE INJUNCTION IS NOT LIMITED TO DIRECTORSHIPS
IN MORE THAN ONE OF THE DEFENDANT CORPORATIONS.  THE SAME COMMENT
APPLIES AS HAS BEEN MADE WITH RESPECT TO PARAGRAPH 33.  THERE MAY BE
MANY INSTANCES WHEN THE NORMAL FREEDOM TO ACT AS A DIRECTOR OF MORE
THAN ONE COMPANY WILL IN NO WISE CONFLICT WITH THE POLICIES OF THE
ANTITRUST LAWS OR TEND TO THE FOSTERING OF PRACTICES WHICH THOSE LAWS
FORBID.  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS APPLY TO PARAGRAPH 36-A AND 36-B,
WHICH SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE BUSINESS OR ASSETS OF
A COMPETING CORPORATION BY A CORPORATE DEFENDANT, AND BY ANY OFFICER OF
A CORPORATE DEFENDANT, OF THE BUSINESS OR ALL THE ASSETS OF A COMPETING
CONCERN, UNLESS THE ACQUISITION IS APPROVED BY THE COURT. 

PARAGRAPHS 37 TO 39 ARE DIRECTED AT THE GLASS CONTAINER ASSOCIATION,
ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYES AND MEMBERS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
FOUND THAT FROM 1928 TO 1937 THE ASSOCIATION, THROUGH THE
INSTRUMENTALITY OF ITS STATISTICAL COMMITTEE, ON WHICH THE PRINCIPAL
CORPORATE DEFENDANTS WERE REPRESENTED, FURNISHED FORECASTS OF PROBABLE
FUTURE PRODUCTION OF EACH OF THE GLASS MANUFACTURERS CONCERNED AND THAT
THESE FORECASTS WERE COMMUNICATED AT MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION BY ONE
MANUFACTURER TO ANOTHER SO THAT THERE WAS GENERAL KNOWLEDGE AMONGST THE
MEMBERS OF THE FORECASTED FUTURE PRODUCTION OF EACH OF THEM.  THESE
FORECASTS, THE COURT FOUND, WERE TREATED BY THE CORPORATE APPELLANTS
AND THEIR OFFICERS AS IN FACT QUOTAS, DEVIATION FROM SUCH QUOTAS WAS
DISCOURAGED, AND IT WAS THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH
MANUFACTURER SHOULD RESTRICT HIS PRODUCTION TO ACCORD WITH HIS QUOTA. 
THE COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSOCIATION, WORKING IN CLOSE
COOPERATION WITH HARTFORD, WHICH WAS NOT A MEMBER, ENDEAVORED TO
DISCOURAGE EXPANSION OF THE INDUSTRY AND TO PREVENT INCREASED
COMPETITION THROUGH THE ENTRY OF NEW UNITS INTO THE VARIOUS FIELDS OF
MANUFACTURE OF GLASS CONTAINERS. 

THE COURT, IN ITS OPINION, INDICATES THAT IT DOES NOT FIND IT
NECESSARY TO DISSOLVE THE ASSOCIATION AND FURTHER INDICATES THAT IT MAY
SERVE A VALUABLE PURPOSE TO THE INDUSTRY "AS A STATISTICAL AND RESEARCH
BODY" AND IN THE PROMOTION OF BETTER METHODS OF MANUFACTURE AND
DISTRIBUTION. 

THE INJUNCTIONS ENTERED IN PARAGRAPHS 37 TO 39, INCLUSIVE, COMPEL THE
ASSOCIATION TO ABOLISH ITS STATISTICAL COMMITTEE AND TO REFRAIN FROM
ESTABLISHING ANY COMMITTEE WITH SIMILAR FUNCTIONS; ENJOIN IT FROM
RETAINING ANY OF ITS PRESENT OFFICERS OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHO ARE
DEFENDANTS AND ALSO DIRECTORS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYES OF ANY DEFENDANT
CORPORATION, AND ORDER IT TO SUBMIT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TO THE
COURT THE NAMES OF DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS TO BE ELECTED OR APPOINTED TO
SUCCEED PRESENT INCUMBENTS.  THE ASSOCIATION IS ENJOINED FROM ELECTING,
EMPLOYING, OR CONTINUING IN OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, ANYONE WHO IS, AT THE
TIME, AN OFFICER, DIRECTOR, AGENT OR EMPLOYE OF THE CORPORATE
APPELLANTS, AND IS REQUIRED TO AMEND ITS CHARTER AND BY-LAWS TO PREVENT
SUCH EMPLOYMENT. 

WE THINK THE INJUNCTION AS RESPECTS THE ASSOCIATION, WHILE LEAVING IT
IN EXISTENCE, PRACTICALLY DESTROYS ITS FUNCTIONING, EVEN AS AN INNOCENT
TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR WHAT HAVE BEEN HELD LAWFUL ENDS.  FN23  THE
ASSOCIATION HAS UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN AN IMPORTANT INSTRUMENT OF RESTRAINT
AND MONOPOLY.  IT MAY BE MADE SUCH AGAIN, AND DETECTION AND PREVENTION
AND PUNISHMENT FOR SUCH RESUMPTION OF VIOLATIONS OF LAW MAY BE
DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORD, WE THINK IT
BETTER TO ORDER ITS DISSOLUTION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE CORPORATE
DEFENDANTS BE RESTRAINED FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM FORMING OR
JOINING ANY SUCH TRADE ASSOCIATION, AND THAT THEREAFTER THEY MAY APPLY
FOR LEAVE TO DO SO, AND HAVE SUCH LEAVE ON SHOWING TO THE COURT THAT
THE PURPOSES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PROPOSED BODY WILL NOT BE VIOLATIVE
OF LAW. 

PARAGRAPH 40 IS A GENERAL INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE CONDUCT.  IT IS
DESIGNED TO PREVENT COMBINATIONS, IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST
STATUTES.  IT NAMES EACH CORPORATE DEFENDANT "AND THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS ASSOCIATED THEREWITH" MEANING THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF
EACH WHO ARE FOUND TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY.  BUT AN
INJUNCTION BINDING THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS, THEIR OFFICERS, AGENTS AND
EMPLOYES, IS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTRAIN THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SO LONG
AS THEY REMAIN IN OFFICIAL RELATION, AND TO BIND THEIR SUCCESSORS.  IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO ENJOIN THEM PERSONALLY, WHEN THAT RELATION IS
SEVERED.    SUB-PARAGRAPH (1) PROHIBITS COMBINING WITH ANY OTHER
DEFENDANT OR WITH ANY OTHER MANUFACTURER OR "SELLER" OF GLASSWARE OR
GLASS MACHINERY.  THE APPELLANTS OBJECT TO THE INCLUSION OF THE WORD
"SELLER," CLAIMING THAT THE USE OF THIS TERM MAY PRECLUDE NORMAL
BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS WITH AGENTS AND CONSIGNEES.  WE SHALL LATER
INDICATE THE PROVISO WE THINK NECESSARY IN THIS CONNECTION.  WE ARE OF
OPINION THAT THE SUB-PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE AMENDED BY EXSCINDING THE
PHRASE "ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES" IN BOTH
CLAUSES, AND INSERTING THE WORDS "WHETHER A NATURAL PERSON, PARTNERSHIP
OR CORPORATION" AFTER THE WORD "GLASSWARE" APPEARING IN THE LAST LINE
OF THE PRINTED DRAFT OF THE DECREE FURNISHED THIS COURT BY THE
APPELLANTS.    SUB-PARAGRAPH (B) SHOULD BE AMENDED BY INSERTING THE
WORD "A" BETWEEN "OF" AND "MANUFACTURERS" (WHICH SHOULD BE IN THE
SINGULAR) IN THE FIRST LINE OF THE SAME DRAFT, DELETING THE WORDS "OR
EFFECT THEREOF" IN THE SIXTH LINE AND INSERTING IN LIEU THEREOF "OF
SUCH ASCERTAINMENT, ESTIMATE OR FORECAST" AND BY INSERTING IN THE NEXT
LINE BETWEEN THE WORDS "PERSUADE" AND "ANY" THE WORDS "OR AGREE WITH". 

SUB-PARAGRAPH (C) SHOULD BE AMENDED TO SUBSTITUTE IN THE SIXTH LINE
OF THE SAME DRAFT FOR "OR WHERE" THE WORD "WITH" AND FOR "OR EFFECT IS"
THE WORDS "OR AGREEMENT". 

SUB-PARAGRAPH (D) SHOULD BE DELETED.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL TRADE
INFORMATION BE GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC WOULD RENDER THE ASSEMBLY OF IT FOR
THE INFORMATION OF MEMBERS USELESS AND INDEED DETRIMENTAL TO
COMPETITION.  THE INCLUSION OF SUCH A PROVISION IN AN ANTITRUST DECREE
HAS BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THIS COURT. 

PARAGRAPH (2) SHOULD BE MODIFIED BY ADDING AT THE END "IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF GLASSWARE OR MACHINERY FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF
GLASSWARE". 

PARAGRAPH (3) WHICH DEALS WITH DISTRIBUTION OF DATA CONCERNING THE
BUSINESS OF GLASSMAKING AND GLASS MACHINERY DISTRIBUTION IS APPROVED
WITH THESE ALTERATIONS:  AFTER THE WORD "OTHERWISE" IN THE SEVENTH LINE
OF THE DRAFT THERE SHOULD BE INSERTED THE WORDS "PURSUANT TO ANY
AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING OR WITH THE PURPOSE OR INTENT" AND THERE
SHOULD BE DELETED THE WORDS "IN SUCH FORM OR MANNER AS TO INDICATE";
AFTER THE WORD "MACHINERY" IN THE NEXT TO LAST LINE, THE SENTENCE
SHOULD READ, "SHALL LIMIT HIS OR ITS OUTPUT TO ANY PRODUCTION QUOTA OR
SHALL ADHERE OR CONFORM TO ANY PRICE". 

IN ORDER TO PERMIT USUAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS NOT RELATED TO
VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST STATUTES THERE SHOULD BE ADDED AT THE END
OF PARAGRAPH 40 A PROVISO THAT NOTHING IN THE PARAGRAPH IS TO BE
CONSTRUED TO FORBID NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF ANY OF THE
CORPORATE DEFENDANTS WITH ITS SELLING AGENTS OR CONSIGNEES, PERSONS OR
CORPORATIONS RENDERING SERVICES TO IT, OR CUSTOMERS; OR TO PROHIBIT
TRANSACTIONS WITH CITIZENS OR CORPORATIONS OF FOREIGN NATIONS; OR TO
PREVENT ANY DEFENDANT FROM AVAILING OF THE BENEFITS OF THE WEBB
POMERENCE ACT, THE SMALL BUSINESS MOBILIZATION ACT OR (SAVE AS
ELSEWHERE IN THE DECREE PROVIDED) OF THE BENEFITS OF THE PATENT LAWS. 

PARAGRAPHS 41 AND 42 ARE DUPLICATIONS OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
DECREE.  THEY SHOULD BE DELETED. 

PARAGRAPH 51 ENJOINS ALL DEFENDANTS FROM DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
ACQUIRING, OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH DIRECT ISSUE FROM THE PATENT OFFICE,
ANY PATENT, PATENT APPLICATION, OR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS THEREUNDER,
COVERING ANY INVENTION EMBODIED OR EMPLOYED IN A MACHINE OR PROCESS
USED, OR TO BE USED, IN GLASSWARE MANUFACTURE ("WHETHER OR NOT THE
MACHINE OR PROCESS EMBODYING OR EMPLOYING THE INVENTION COVERED BY THE
PATENT CAN BE USED WITHOUT INFRINGING ANOTHER PATENT OR PATENTS") WHICH
CONSTITUTES OR EMPLOYS, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, A METHOD, MEANS, OR
PROCESS TO OBTAIN RESULTS IN THE GLASSMAKING ART WHICH IS IDENTICAL
WITH, SIMILAR OR ALTERNATIVE TO, THOSE OBTAINED OR OBTAINABLE BY THE
MACHINERY, METHODS, OR PROCESSES EMBODYING INVENTIONS COVERED BY
PATENTS THEN OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY ANY DEFENDANT, EXCEPT NON-EXCLUSIVE
RIGHTS OR PATENTS ON INVENTIONS OF ITS OR HIS EMPLOYES OR THOSE OF A
SUBSIDIARY, MADE DURING THE TIME OF EMPLOYMENT. 

THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION IS NOT CLEAR.  WHETHER IT APPLIES TO AN
IMPROVEMENT UPON AN EXISTING PATENTED INVENTION SEEMS DOUBTFUL. 
PERHAPS IT DOES NOT PREVENT AN OWNER OF A PATENT UPON A FEEDER FROM
ACQUIRING ONE UPON A FORMER, OR AN OWNER OF A PATENT UPON A STACKER
FROM ACQUIRING ONE UPON A LEHR, BUT, AS THE PROVISION IS FRAMED, THIS
IS NOT CLEAR.  THE INJUNCTION SEEMS IN EFFECT TO FORBID ACQUISITION BY
ANY DEFENDANT OF ANY PATENT RIGHT IN ANY GLASSMAKING FIELD, FOR MOST OF
THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS, AND PERHAPS SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS, NOW OWN
SOME SUCH PATENT. 

IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THE PARAGRAPH ENJOINS ALL ACQUISITION OF
PATENT RIGHTS OTHER THAN NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSES.  IN THIS RESPECT, IT
IS THE REVERSE OF PARAGRAPH 29 WHICH OUTLAWS ALL GRANTS EXCEPT
UNRESTRICTED NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENCES.  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE
INJUNCTION RUNS AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT INDIVIDUALLY AND IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO JOINT ACQUISITIONS OR TO COMBINATIONS OR AGREEMENTS
RESPECTING ACQUISITION.  IT SEEMS TO PROHIBIT THE ACQUISITION OF ANY
PATENT, OR OF A RESTRICTED LICENSE UNDER ANY PATENT BY ANY DEFENDANT. 
IN THIS RESPECT THE PARAGRAPH IS INAPPROPRIATE TO RESTRAIN FUTURE
VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST STATUTES.  THE PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE
DELETED. 

PARAGRAPH 52 DEALS WITH THE PROBLEM OF SUPPRESSED OR UNWORKED
PATENTS.  MUCH IS SAID IN THE OPINION BELOW, AND IN THE BRIEFS, ABOUT
THE PRACTICE OF THE APPELLANTS IN APPLYING FOR PATENTS TO "BLOCK OFF"
OR "FENCE IN" COMPETING INVENTIONS.  IN THE COOPERATIVE EFFORT OF
CERTAIN OF THE APPELLANTS TO OBTAIN DOMINANCE IN THE FIELD OF PATENTED
GLASSMAKING MACHINERY, MANY PATENTS WERE APPLIED FOR TO PREVENT OTHERS
FROM OBTAINING PATENTS ON IMPROVEMENTS WHICH MIGHT, TO SOME EXTENT,
LIMIT THE RETURN IN THE WAY OF ROYALTY ON ORIGINAL OR FUNDAMENTAL
INVENTIONS.  THE DECREE SHOULD RESTRAIN AGREEMENTS AND COMBINATIONS
WITH THIS OBJECT.  BUT IT IS ANOTHER MATTER TO RESTRAIN EVERY
DEFENDANT, FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE, FROM ATTEMPTING TO PATENT
IMPROVEMENTS OF MACHINES OR PROCESSES PREVIOUSLY PATENTED AND THEN
OWNED BY SUCH DEFENDANT.  THIS PARAGRAPH IS, IN OUR JUDGMENT, TOO
BROAD.  IN EFFECT IT PROHIBITS SEVERAL OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS FROM
APPLYING FOR PATENTS COVERING THEIR OWN INVENTIONS IN THE ART OF
GLASSMAKING.  FOR REASONS ELSEWHERE ELABORATED IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 
IT SHOULD BE LIMITED AS WE HAVE SUGGESTED THAT PARAGRAPHS 24(B) AND 29
BE LIMITED.  IN ADDITION, IT ENJOINS EVERY DEFENDANT FROM APPLYING FOR
A PATENT "WITH THE INTENTION OF NOT MAKING COMMERCIAL USE OF THE
INVENTION WITHIN FOUR YEARS" FROM ISSUE OF THE PATENT AND MAKES THE
FAILURE COMMERCIALLY TO USE THE INVENTION PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENTION.  FN24  THIS PROVISION IS ALSO LEGISLATIVE
RATHER THAN REMEDIAL.  UNLESS WE ARE TO OVERTURN SETTLED PRINCIPLES THE
PARAGRAPH IN QUESTION MUST BE ELIMINATED. 

A PATENT OWNER IS NOT IN THE POSITION OF A QUASI-TRUSTEE FOR THE
PUBLIC OR UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO SEE THAT THE PUBLIC ACQUIRES THE FREE
RIGHT TO USE THE INVENTION.  HE HAS NO OBLIGATION EITHER TO USE IT OR
TO GRANT ITS USE TO OTHERS.  IF HE DISCLOSES THE INVENTION IN HIS
APPLICATION SO THAT IT WILL COME INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THE END OF
THE 17-YEAR PERIOD OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHT HE HAS FULFILLED THE ONLY
OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE.  FN25  THIS HAS BEEN SETTLED
DOCTRINE SINCE AT LEAST 1896.  CONGRESS HAS REPEATEDLY BEEN ASKED, AND
HAS REFUSED, TO CHANGE THE STATUTORY POLICY BY IMPOSING A FORFEITURE
FN26  OR BY A PROVISION FOR COMPULSORY LICENSING N27 IF THE PATENT IS
NOT USED WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME.  THE GOVERNING RULE IS QUOTED IN
CHAPMAN V. WINTROATH, 252 U.S. 126, AT 137: 

"'A PARTY SEEKING A RIGHT UNDER THE PATENT STATUTES MAY AVAIL HIMSELF
OF ALL THEIR PROVISIONS, AND THE COURTS MAY NOT DENY HIM THE BENEFIT OF
A SINGLE ONE.  THESE ARE QUESTIONS NOT OF NATURAL BUT OF PURELY
STATUTORY RIGHT.  CONGRESS, INSTEAD OF FIXING SEVENTEEN, HAD THE POWER
TO FIX THIRTY YEARS AS THE LIFE OF A PATENT.  NO COURT CAN DISREGARD
ANY STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN RESPECT TO THESE MATTERS ON THE GROUND THAT
IN ITS JUDGMENT THEY ARE UNWISE OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE
PUBLIC.'  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE CO., 167 U.S. 224,
247." 

PARAGRAPH 55 REQUIRES SUBMISSION TO CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FURNISHING OF INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO
THE BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IN THE FUTURE.  IT SHOULD BE
MODIFIED TO ACCORD WITH OUR OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB
CO., 321 U.S. 707, WHICH INVOLVED A SIMILAR PROVISION. 

A WORD SHOULD BE SAID CONCERNING THE INCLUSION IN MANY PARAGRAPHS OF
THE DECREE, AND IN MANY OF THE INJUNCTIONS IMPOSED, OF VARIOUS
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS WHO IN THE PAST HAVE ACTED AS, AND WHO AT PRESENT
ARE, OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS.  THEY OFFENDED
AGAINST THE ANTITRUST LAWS BY ACTING ON BEHALF OF, OR IN THE NAME OF, A
CORPORATE DEFENDANT.  THERE ARE NO FINDINGS, AND WE ASSUME THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE, THAT ANY OF THEM HAVE APPLIED FOR, OWNED, DEALT IN, AND
LICENSED PATENTS APPERTAINING TO THE GLASSWARE ART. NOR IS THERE
EVIDENCE OR FINDING THAT, AS INDIVIDUALS ACTING FOR THEIR OWN ACCOUNT,
ANY OF THEM, AS A PRINCIPAL, HAS ENTERED INTO ANY OF THE ARRANGEMENTS
FOUND UNLAWFUL BY THE COURT.  DESPITE THESE FACTS, IN PRACTICALLY EVERY
INSTANCE WHERE A CORPORATE DEFENDANT IS RESTRAINED FROM DESCRIBED
ACTION OR CONDUCT, THESE INDIVIDUALS, AS INDIVIDUALS, ARE LIKEWISE
RESTRAINED.  ANY INJUNCTION ADDRESSED TO A CORPORATE DEFENDANT MAY, AS
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE DECREE DO, INCLUDE ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS.  IF
THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE OFFICERS OR AGENTS THEY WILL BE
COMPREHENDED AS SUCH BY THE TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION.  IF ANY OF THEM
CEASE TO BE SUCH, NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY HE MAY NOT PROCEED, LIKE
OTHER INDIVIDUALS, TO PROSECUTE WHATEVER LAWFUL BUSINESS HE CHOOSES
FREE OF THE RESTRAINT OF AN INJUNCTION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF NEW
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS TAKE THE PLACES OF THESE DEFENDANTS, SUCH NEW
AGENTS WILL AUTOMATICALLY COME UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION. 
THERE IS NO APPARENT NECESSITY FOR INCLUDING THEM INDIVIDUALLY IN EACH
PARAGRAPH OF THE DECREE WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS
WHOSE AGREEMENTS AND COOPERATION CONSTITUTE THE GRAVAMEN OF THE
COMPLAINT.  THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS MAY HAVE RENDERED THEMSELVES LIABLE
TO PROSECUTION  FN28  BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT  FN29  IS BESIDE THE POINT, SINCE RELIEF IN EQUITY IS
REMEDIAL, NOT PENAL.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS, HOWEVER, DO NOT APPLY TO
THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS 3 TO 7 AND 33 TO 35 INCLUSIVE, AS THE SAME
ARE TO BE MODIFIED. 

PARAGRAPH 42 REQUIRES BALL TO CANCEL CERTAIN AGREEMENTS WITH THE KNOX
GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY AND UNDERWOOD, AND WITH BROCKWAY MACHINE BOTTLE
COMPANY AND ROBERT L. WARREN, WHICH EXCLUDED THE PARTIES NAMED FROM
ENTERING THE GLASS CONTAINER BUSINESS FOR PERIODS OF YEARS.  AS IT
APPEARS WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT THESE RESTRICTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN
RELEASED BY BALL, THE PARAGRAPH SEEMS UNNECESSARY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AS TO THE APPELLANTS
IN NOS. 10 AND 11; ITS DECISION THAT THE APPELLANTS IN THE OTHER
APPEALS HAVE VIOLATED THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM
FUTURE SIMILAR VIOLATIONS IS AFFIRMED, BUT THE DECREE ENTERED IS
VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
TO THIS OPINION. 

FN1  46 F.SUPP.  541. 

FN2  15 U.S.C. SECS. 1 AND 2. 

FN3  15 U.S.C. SEC. 14. 

FN4  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 77-78. 

FN5  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 461. 

FN6  LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 299. 

FN7  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 396; LABOR BOARD V.
EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426, 433, 435-6. 

FN8  NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 200
U.S. 361, 404; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 80. 

FN9  RULE 65(D), 28 U.S.C.A. FOLLOWING SEC. 723C; SEC. 19 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 738, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 383; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 396, 401. 

FN10  UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO., 247 U.S. 32; UNITED
SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451, 462.  IN THIS CASE
THE COURT DIVIDED ON THE QUESTION OF THE LEGALITY OF CERTAIN TERMS OF
THE LEASES IN QUESTION, BUT THE DISSENTING JUSTICES DID NOT SUGGEST
THAT A LEASE WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE METHOD OF EXERCISING RIGHTS UNDER
THE PATENT.  CF. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 298 U.S. 131. 

FN11  JAMES V. CAMPBELL, 104 U.S. 356, 357, 358; HOLLISTER V.
BENEDICT & BURNHAM MFG. CO., 113 U.S. 59, 67; WM. CRAMP & SONS CO. V.
INTERNATIONAL CURTIS MARINE CO., 246 U.S. 28, 39-40; UNITED STATES V.
DUBILIER CONDENSER CORP., 289 U.S. 178, 189. 

FN12  SEE STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20. 
DECREES AND JUDGMENTS IN FEDERAL ANTITRUST CASES (1918) P. 265; UNITED
STATES V. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO., 225 F. 800, APPEAL DISMISSED 247
U.S. 524.  DECREES AND JUDGMENTS IN FEDERAL ANTITRUST CASES (1918) PP.
379-380; UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451;
ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436; UNITED STATES V.
UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241. 

FN13  AMERICAN LECITHIN CO. V. WARFIELD CO., 105 F.2D 207, 211;
NOVADEL-AGENE CORP. V. PENN, 119 F.2D 764, 766-7; SYLVANIA INDUSTRIAL
CORP. V. VISKING CORP., 132 F.2D 947, 958; UNIVERSAL SEWER PIPE CORP.
V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 42 F.SUPP.  132, 134; AMERICAN LECITHIN
CO. V. WARFIELD CO., 42 F.SUPP.  270, 272. 

FN14  H.R. 20388, 60TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1908); H.R. 11796, 61ST
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1909); H.R. 2930, 62D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1911); H.R.
16828, 62D CONG., 2D SESS. (1912); H.R. 23417, AS AMENDED, 62D CONG.,
2D SESS. (1912); H.R. 1700, 63D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1913); H.R. 14865,
63D CONG., 2D SESS. (1914); S. 2783, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1928); S.
2491, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942).    FN15  FINAL REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, SEN. DOC.
NO. 35, PP. 36-7(1941), 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  SEE ALSO PRELIMINARY
REPORT SEN. DOC. NO. 95, PP. 16-17(1939), 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106; UNITED
STATES V. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION, 224 U.S. 383; UNITED STATES V.
GREAT LAKES TOWING CO., 217 F. 656, APPEAL DISMISSED 245 U.S. 675;
UNITED STATES V. NEW ENGLAND FISH EXCHANGE, 258 F. 732; UNITED STATES
V. PULLMAN CO., 50 F.SUPP.  123. 

FN17  PAPER BAG PATENT CASE, 210 U.S. 405, 424; MOTION PICTURE
PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO., 243 U.S. 502, 510, 514; CROWN
DIE & TOOL CO. V. NYE TOOL & MACHINE WORKS, 261 U.S. 24, 34-35. 

FN18  H.R. 8776, 62D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1911); S. 2116, 62D CONG., 1ST
SESS. (1911); H.R. 26185, 62D CONG., 2D SESS. (1912); S. 2303, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS. (1942); S. 2730, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942); H.R.
1371, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1943); CF. S. 300, 45TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1877). 

FN19  S. 2783, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1928). 

FN20  FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL
ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, SENATE DOC. NO. 35, PP. 36-7(1941), 77TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN21  THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT THE RIBBON MACHINE PATENT WAS EVER PART
OF A COMBINATION OF PATENTS. 

FN22  THE GOVERNMENT CALLS ATTENTION TO FINDINGS WHICH SHOW THAT
THOUGH HARTFORD ADVISED CERTAIN LICENSEES OF THE REMOVAL OF
RESTRICTIONS IN THEIR LICENSES, THESE LICENSEES HAVE NOT FORMALLY
ACCEPTED THE MORE LIBERAL TERMS.  HARTFORD CAN BE ENJOINED FROM
ENFORCING THE RESTRICTIONS IF THAT IS FOUND NECESSARY. 

FN23  SEE MAPLE FLOORING MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES,
268 U.S. 563, 582, 583; CEMENT MANUFACTURERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION V.
UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588, 606; APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED STATES,
288 U.S. 344, 374; SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553,
598. 

FN24  THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT THE PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE REVISED TO
READ:  "WITH THE INTENTION OF NEVER MAKING COMMERCIAL USE OF THE
INVENTIONS COVERED THEREBY, PROVIDED THAT FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH USE
WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF PATENTS THEREON SHALL BE
DEEMED PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF THE PRESENCE OF SUCH INTENTION AT THE TIME
OF THE FILING OR PROSECUTION OF SUCH APPLICATIONS." 

FN25  UNITED STATES V. BELL TEL. CO., 167 U.S. 224, 249; CONTINENTAL
PAPER BAG CO. V. EASTERN PAPER BAG CO., 210 U.S. 405, 424, 429, 430. 

FN26  H.R. 13876, 62D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1911); H.R. 22203, 62D CONG.,
2D SESS. (1912); S. 3297, 67TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1922); H.R. 6864, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1937). 

FN27  S. 3325, 67TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1922); S. 3474, 69TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. (1926); S. 705, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1927); S. 203, 71ST CONG.,
1ST SESS. (1929); S. 22, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1931); S. 290, 73D
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1933); S. 383, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1935); S. 2491,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942). 

FN28 UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 23 F.SUPP.  937,
AFFIRMED 310 U.S. 150. 

FN29  38 STAT. 736; 15 U.S.C. SEC. 24.  "THAT WHENEVER A CORPORATION
SHALL VIOLATE ANY OF THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, SUCH
VIOLATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ALSO THAT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS,
OFFICERS, OR AGENTS OF SUCH CORPORATION WHO SHALL HAVE AUTHORIZED,
ORDERED, OR DONE ANY OF THE ACTS CONSTITUTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART SUCH
VIOLATION, AND SUCH VIOLATION SHALL BE DEEMED AS MISDEMEANOR  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING IN PART. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S JUDGMENT INSOFAR AS IT SUSTAINS THE DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE. 

I CANNOT, HOWEVER, AGREE TO MANY OF THE MODIFICATIONS OF THAT
DECREE.  THESE APPELLANTS HAVE VIOLATED THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, IS AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY,
ADMIRABLY SUITED TO NEUTRALIZE THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH VIOLATIONS, TO
GUARD AGAINST REPETITION OF SIMILAR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES, AND TO
DISSIPATE THE UNLAWFUL AGGREGATE OF ECONOMIC POWER WHICH AROSE OUT OF,
AND FED UPON, MONOPOLIZATION AND RESTRAINTS.  UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT
AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173.  MANY OF THIS COURT'S MODIFICATIONS
SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE DECREE AND FRUSTRATE ITS PURPOSES. 

IT WOULD PROBABLY SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE TO STATE AT LENGTH THE
REASONS WHICH JUSTIFY THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE, SINCE THEY ARE SET
FORTH CLEARLY AND WELL IN ITS OPINION.  IN PARTICULAR, HOWEVER, IT IS
MY BELIEF THAT ANY REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT THESE APPELLANTS WILL NOT
CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE ANTI-TRUST LAW REQUIRES THAT WE LEAVE INTACT
THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE INSOFAR AS IT (1) PROVIDES FOR APPOINTMENT
OF A RECEIVER AND THE IMPOUNDING OF HARTFORD'S ROYALTIES (PARAGRAPHS 10
20 OF THE DECREE); (2) REQUIRES THAT GLASSWARE MACHINES SHOULD BE
DISPOSED OF BY OUTRIGHT SALE RATHER THAN BY LEASES (PARAGRAPHS 21, 22,
23); (3) REQUIRES THAT PATENTS, ALREADY OWNED, BE LICENSED ROYALTY
FREE; (4) PROHIBITS THE RESTRICTIVE LICENSING PRACTICES WHICH THE
APPELLANTS SO EFFECTIVELY USED TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN THEIR MONOPOLY
(PARAGRAPH 29); (5) ENJOINS THE APPELLANTS FROM THE PRACTICE OF
OBTAINING PATENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF "FENCING IN" AND "BLOCKING OFF"
NEW INVENTIONS, (PARAGRAPH 52). 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION IN MY JUDGMENT LAID A CAREFUL AND WELL
REASONED FOUNDATION ESTABLISHING THE NECESSITY FOR EVERY ONE OF THESE
PARAGRAPHS.  IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ADD TO WHAT THE COURT THERE
SAID.  IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR ME TO SAY ONLY A FEW WORDS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THESE DEFENDANTS STARTED OUT IN 1916 TO
ACQUIRE A MONOPOLY ON A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE GLASS INDUSTRY.  THEIR
EFFORTS WERE REWARDED BY COMPLETE SUCCESS.  THEY HAVE BECOME ABSOLUTE
MASTERS OF THAT DOMAIN OF OUR PUBLIC ECONOMY.  THEY ACHIEVED THIS
RESULT LARGELY THROUGH THE MANIPULATION OF PATENTS AND LICENSING
AGREEMENTS.  THEY OBTAINED PATENTS FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF
FURTHERING THEIR MONOPOLY.  THEY UTILIZED VARIOUS TYPES OF RESTRICTIONS
IN CONNECTION WITH LEASING THOSE PATENTS SO AS TO RETAIN THEIR
DOMINANCE IN THAT INDUSTRY.  THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY HAS PERHAPS
NEVER WITNESSED A MORE COMPLETELY SUCCESSFUL ECONOMIC TYRANNY OVER ANY
FIELD OF INDUSTRY THAN THAT ACCOMPLISHED BY THESE APPELLANTS.  THEY
PLANNED THEIR MONOPOLISTIC PROGRAM ON THE BASIS OF GETTING AND KEEPING
AND USING PATENTS, WHICH THEY DEDICATED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF FREE
COMPETITION IN THE GLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY.  THEIR DECLARED OBJECT WAS
"TO BLOCK THE DEVELOPMENT OF MACHINES WHICH MIGHT BE CONSTRUCTED BY
OTHERS  ..."  AND "TO SECURE PATENTS ON POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS OF
COMPETING MACHINES, SO AS TO 'FENCE IN' THOSE AND PREVENT THEIR
REACHING AN IMPROVED STATE."  THESE PATENTS WERE THE MAJOR WEAPONS IN
THE CAMPAIGN TO SUBJUGATE THE INDUSTRY; THEY WERE ALSO THE FRUITS OF
APPELLANTS' VICTORY.  THE RESTORATION OF COMPETITION IN THE GLASS
CONTAINER INDUSTRY DEMANDS THAT APPELLANTS BE DEPRIVED OF THESE
WEAPONS.  THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS END IS TO REQUIRE,
AS THE DISTRICT COURT DID, THAT THESE PATENTS BE LICENSED ROYALTY
FREE. 

THE DECREE OF THE COURT BELOW WAS WELL FASHIONED TO PREVENT A
CONTINUATION OF APPELLANTS' MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES.  THE DECREE AS
MODIFIED LEAVES THEM FREE, IN A LARGE MEASURE, TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW
THE COMPETITION-DESTROYING METHODS BY WHICH THEY ACHIEVED CONTROL OF
THE INDUSTRY.  IN FACT, THEY HAVE RECEIVED MUCH MILDER TREATMENT FROM
THIS COURT THAN THEY ANTICIPATED.  THIS IS SHOWN BY A MEMORANDUM OF ONE
OF HARTFORD'S OFFICERS MADE IN 1925.  THAT MEMORANDUM WHICH DISCUSSED
PLANS FOR SUPPRESSION OF A NUMBER OF COMPETITORS, WITH PARTICULAR
REFERENCE TO POSSIBLE PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, READ IN PART
AS FOLLOWS: 

"OF COURSE, THE COURT MIGHT ORDER THAT WE TRANSFER THE ENTIRE FEDERAL
LICENSING BUSINESS TO SOME OTHER PARTY AND TURN OVER TO THAT PARTY THE
FEDERAL PATENTS.  THIS, OF COURSE, WOULD SIMPLY RESTORE TO A CERTAIN
EXTENT THE EXISTING SITUATION AND ESTABLISH A COMPETITOR....  I  ...
DO NOT SEE MUCH DANGER OF HAVING ANY OF THESE DEALS UPSET....  IF THEY
ARE UPSET, I STILL BELIEVE THAT BY THAT TIME, WE WILL BE IN A BETTER
POSITION EVEN WITH SUCH DISSOLUTION THAN WE WOULD BE OTHERWISE; AND I
SEE NO DANGER WHATSOEVER OF ANY CRIMINAL LIABILITY BECAUSE THE CASES
ARE NECESSARILY SO DOUBTFUL IN THE MATTER OF LAW THAT THEY COULD NEVER
GET ANY JURY TO CONVICT AND I DOUBT IF ANY PROSECUTING OFFICER WOULD
EVER ATTEMPT ANY CRIMINAL ACTION.  CRIMINAL ACTION IN CASES OF THIS
SORT, SO FAR, HAS PRACTICALLY BEEN NONEXISTENT." 

I WOULD SUSTAIN THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE REASONS IT
GAVE, IN ALL OF THE PARAGRAPHS MENTIONED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING IN PART. 

WITH MR. JUSTICE BLACK, IN WHOSE OPINION I JOIN, I CONCUR IN THE
COURT'S JUDGMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SUSTAINS THE DISTRICT COURT'S
FINDINGS AND DECREE.  BUT, WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS, I DISSENT FROM THE MORE
IMPORTANT REVISIONS MADE IN THE DECREE. 

IN ANTI-TRUST INJUNCTION SUITS THE COURT'S FUNCTION IS TWOFOLD, TO
DETERMINE LIABILITY AND TO FASHION THE REMEDY TO FIT THE FAULT. 
PERHAPS IN SOME CASES THE TWO THINGS MAY BE TREATED SUBSTANTIALLY
INDEPENDENTLY.  MORE OFTEN THEY ARE SO INTERWOVEN THAT SEPARATION
BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE, IF OTHER THAN WARPED JUSTICE IS DONE.  THIS CASE IS
OF THE LATTER SORT.  BUT THE COURT'S MODIFICATIONS LARGELY DISREGARD
THIS FACT. 

THE STORY INVOLVES A QUARTER OF A CENTURY OF SHERMAN ACT VIOLATION. 
FN1  NECESSARILY IT HAS BEEN SKETCHED HERE ONLY IN OUTLINE.  THE BARE
BONES OF THE HISTORY SHOW, AS RARELY HAS BEEN DONE, THE COMBINATION'S
EXPANDING SCOPE, THE CORRESPONDING GROWTH OF DESIGN, THE VARIED, BUT
OFTEN DEVIOUS AND RUTHLESS METHODS, AS WELL AS THE ULTIMATE TOTAL
SUCCESS OF THIS LONG ADVENTURE IN MONOPOLY AND UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF
TRADE.  FN2  WITHOUT THE COLOR SUPPLIED BY DETAIL, HOWEVER, THE
EXCURSION'S TRUE CHARACTER IS HARDLY HALF REVEALED.  THE FULL EFFECT
CANNOT NOW BE GIVEN.  IT APPEARS IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S CAREFUL AND
RESTRAINED OPINION, 46 F.SUPP.  541, BUTTRESSED IN EVERY CONCLUSION,
NEARLY EVERY PAGE, FROM WRITINGS ACCUMULATED, WHILE THE COMBINATION
GREW, IN THE FILES OF THE PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANTS,  FN3  AND IN OTHER
PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS.  FN4 

THIS EMPHASIS UPON THE COMPLETE PICTURE, IN COLOR AND DETAIL, IS
PERTINENT TO LIABILITY.  IT BEARS EVEN MORE DIRECTLY ON THE QUANTITY
AND CHARACTER OF RELIEF REQUIRED TO UPROOT THE COMBINATION'S
DESTRUCTIVE AND UNLAWFUL EFFECTS.  WITHOUT THIS VIEW, MANY OF THE
DECREE'S PROVISIONS, CAST IN DRY LEGAL TERMS, DENUDED OF THE LIFE AND
HISTORY WHICH BROUGHT THEM FORTH, SEEM DRASTIC.  WITH IT, THEY TAKE A
WHOLLY DIFFERENT ASPECT. 

ONE MAY START, WITH THE COURT, UPON THE BASIC IDEA THAT, IN SUCH A
PROCEEDING, THE DECREE'S FUNCTION IS NOT TO IMPOSE SHEER "PUNISHMENT"
FOR PAST MISCONDUCT, BUT IS RATHER TO DEVISE EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO
PREVENT ITS REPETITION AND DISSIPATE ITS CONSEQUENCES.  THIS DOES NOT
MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS ANY CLEAR, SHARP LINE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN
ON THE CRUX OF PAST AND FUTURE BETWEEN PUNISHMENT AND PREVENTION OR
DISSIPATION; OR THAT THIS DIFFERENCE SHOULD BE TRANSLATED INTO THE
IMPLICIT ASSUMPTIONS WHICH SEEM TO UNDERLIE THE COURT'S EXTENSIVE
REVISIONS OF THE DECREE AND THEREBY STRIP IT IN GREAT PART OF
EFFECTIVENESS.  THE ASSUMPTIONS RELATE TO THE RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF
TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS IN FRAMING THE DECREE AS WELL AS TO THE
CRITERIA BY WHICH ARE TO BE GAUGED THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF RELIEF
NEEDED TO BE EFFECTIVE. 

IT SEEMS TO BE IMPLIED FROM THE NUMBER, CHARACTER AND DETAIL OF THE
REVISIONS THAT IT IS THE BUSINESS OF THIS COURT TO REWRITE THE DECREE,
SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WHEN THERE
IS DIFFERENCE CONCERNING THE WISDOM OR NEED OF A PARTICULAR REVISION. 
A SUPPORTING NOTION, APPARENTLY, IS THAT THE "EQUITY" PROCEDURE TO
ENFORCE THE ACT IS HEDGED WITH THE SAME LIMITATIONS NON-STATUTORY
EQUITY HAS PLACED ABOUT ITS ACTION AS A SYSTEM OF PRIVATE REMEDIAL
LITIGATION.  BOTH THESE IDEAS HAVE BACKING IN A THIRD MISCONCEPTION,
THAT MEN WHO HAVE MISUSED THEIR PROPERTY, AND ACQUIRED MUCH OF IT, BY
VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT, ARE FREE FOR THE FUTURE TO CONTINUE USING IT
AS ARE OTHER OWNERS WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO SUCH OFFENSE; AND THAT
CONSEQUENTLY THE APPROPRIATE RELIEF AFFECTING SUCH USE IS THE LEAST
RESTRICTION WHICH POSSIBLY WILL PREVENT REPETITION OF PAST VIOLATIONS. 
CF., HOWEVER, UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 226 U.S. 470,
477.  EXCEPT UPON THESE ASSUMPTIONS, THE COURT'S MAJOR REVISIONS OF THE
DECREE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. 

SHORTLY, IN MY VIEW IT IS NOT THIS COURT'S BUSINESS TO FASHION OR
REWRITE THE DECREE.  WHERE THE TRIAL COURT, WITH OBVIOUS CARE AND
JUDGMENT, HAS DEVISED MEASURES IT DEEMS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND WE AGREE THEY MAY BE SUFFICIENT, OUR MODIFICATIONS BY
WATERING THEM DOWN SHOULD STOP WITH DIRECTIONS TO ELIMINATE PROVISIONS
CONTRARY TO LAW OR THOSE WE CAN SAY AMOUNT TO AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 
UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173, 185.  CHANGES
IMPOSING GREATER RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE MADE ONLY WHEN THE DECREE IS
INSUFFICIENT TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROTECTION REQUIRED.  IBID.  THE REASONS
WHICH THUS ORDINARILY RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF APPELLATE REVIEW HAVE
MAGNIFIED FORCE IN ANTI-TRUST PROCEEDINGS.  THEIR COMPLEX CHARACTER
USUALLY REQUIRES, AS IN THIS CASE, MONTHS OR YEARS FOR THE TRIAL
COURT'S CONSIDERATION.  WITH ITS MAXIMUM ATTENTION, THIS COURT CANNOT
POSSIBLY ATTAIN THE SAME DETAILED FAMILIARITY WITH THE CAUSE.  NOR CAN
IT FRAME AT LONG DISTANCE, WITH THE SAME ASSURANCE, A DECREE ADEQUATE
FOR THE NECESSITY.    THE SO-CALLED EQUITABLE CHARACTER OF THE
PROCEEDING DOES NOT NULLIFY THIS INHERENT LIMITATION UPON APPELLATE
JUDICIAL ACTION.  NOR DOES IT JUSTIFY AN ATTITUDE WHICH WOULD
CIRCUMSCRIBE THE SUIT OR THE RELIEF WITH THE LIMITATIONS COURTS OF
EQUITY TRADITIONALLY HAVE PUT AROUND THEIR ACTION IN PRIVATE
LITIGATION.  THE ANTI-TRUST INJUNCTION SUIT IS IN FORM "A PROCEEDING IN
EQUITY."  IN SUBSTANCE, IT IS A PUBLIC PROSECUTION, WITH CIVIL RATHER
THAN CRIMINAL SANCTIONS, FOR VINDICATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT AND FOR
REDRESS AND PREVENTION OF PUBLIC INJURY.  TO REGARD THE FASHIONING OF
APPROPRIATE RELIEF IN SUCH A SUIT AS IDENTICAL WITH THE SAME FUNCTION
IN PRIVATE LITIGATION IS TO DISREGARD AT ONCE THE FORMER'S STATUTORY
ORIGIN, ITS PUBLIC CHARACTER, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IT PROTECTS.  THE
EQUITABLE GARB OF THE PROCEEDING THEREFORE DOES NOT DETERMINE OR
CONCEAL ITS TRUE CHARACTER.  NOR DOES IT LIMIT THE REQUIRED RELIEF
MERELY TO WHAT WILL PREVENT REPETITION OF THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT BY WHICH
THE COMBINATION HAS BEEN FORMED, ITS PROPERTY ACQUIRED, AND ITS
DOMINATING POSITION SECURED. 

THE CONTRARY VIEW IGNORES THE MOMENTUM INHERENT IN SUCH A
COMBINATION.  THE POWER, AND MUCH OF THE PROPERTY, NOW AGGREGATED IN
THE COMBINATION'S HANDS AND THOSE OF ITS PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANTS, WAS
GATHERED BY UNLAWFUL METHODS, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PUBLIC AND
COMPETITORS N5.  PRESUMABLY NEITHER POWER NOR PROPERTY COULD HAVE BEEN
ACCUMULATED BY LAWFUL MEANS.  NOR CAN THEY NOW TOGETHER BE TRANSFERRED
LEGALLY TO ANOTHER.  THE LOOSENED RESTRICTIONS OF THIS COURT'S REVISION
MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT, FOR THE FUTURE, FURTHER ACTS OF THE
CHARACTER AND HAVING THE EFFECTS OF THE PAST VIOLATIONS.  BUT THE POOL
HAS ACQUIRED MORE THAN 800 PATENTS, WHICH CONTROL THE INDUSTRY, OF
WHICH HARTFORD ALONE HOLDS MORE THAN 600.  ITS MEMBERS, INCLUDING
HARTFORD, ARE NOT COMPELLED TO DISGORGE ANY OF THESE, OR PROHIBITED TO
ACQUIRE OTHERS.  MANY OF THE PATENTS, AND CERTAINLY THE CHERISHED
"PATENT POSITION,"  FN6  WERE SECURED ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE ILLEGAL
CONDUCT.  WHATEVER BENEFITS MAY FLOW FROM THESE PATENTS AND THE PATENT
POSITION THUS CREATED ARE INEVITABLY THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT CONDUCT. 
FN7  MERELY TO THROW OFF THE ILLEGAL PRACTICES, SUCH AS RESTRICTED AND
DISCRIMINATORY LICENSING, CANNOT REACH THOSE CONSEQUENCES.  EVERY
DOLLAR HEREAFTER, AS WELL AS HERETOFORE, SECURED FROM LICENSES ON THE
PATENTS ILLEGALLY AGGREGATED IN THE COMBINATION'S HANDS IS MONEY TO
WHICH THE PARTICIPANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THE PATENT LAWS OR
OTHERS.  IT IS THE IMMEDIATE PRODUCT OF THE CONSPIRACY.  TO PERMIT
THESE PATENTS TO REMAIN IN THE GUILTY HANDS, AS SOURCES OF CONTINUING
LUCRATIVE REVENUE, NOT ONLY DOES NOT DEPRIVE THEIR OWNERS OF THE FRUIT
OF THEIR MISCONDUCT.  RATHER IT SECURES TO THEM ITS CONTINUED
BENEFITS.  THE POOL MAY NO LONGER UTILIZE ILLEGAL METHODS.  IT, AND THE
CONSTITUENT MEMBERS, WILL CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE PREFERRED COMPETITIVE
POSITION WHICH THEIR CONDUCT HAS GIVEN THEM AND TO USE BOTH THAT
POSITION AND THE ILL-GOTTEN PATENTS, TOGETHER WITH THE PATENT POSITION,
TO DERIVE TRADE ADVANTAGE OVER RIVALS AND GAIN FROM THE PUBLIC WHICH
THE PATENT LAWS OF THEMSELVES NEVER CONTEMPLATED AND THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS, IN MY OPINION, FORBID.  FN8 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS WERE BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT'S MIND WHEN IT
DEVISED THE DECREE.  CONCLUDING ITS OPINION, THAT COURT MADE A
"STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED" IN FRAMING THE DECREE
WHICH THROWS LIGHT PARTICULARLY UPON ITS CONSIDERED VIEWS OF THE RELIEF
REQUIRED.  IT STATED, WITH UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE  FN9  TO SUSTAIN ITS
CONCLUSION: 

"THE COURT BELIEVES THAT NO HALF-WAY MEASURES WILL SUFFICE.  THERE
HAS BEEN A DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF THE LAW, AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
COURT TO DO WHAT HE CAN TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THESE VIOLATIONS OF THE
LAW WILL CEASE AND WILL NOT BE RESUMED IN THE FUTURE AND THAT
COMPETITION WILL BE RESTORED IN THE INDUSTRY.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES
THAT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ANTICIPATED LEGAL ACTION BY THE
GOVERNMENT, AND WENT AHEAD IN SPITE OF THAT AND VIOLATED THE LAW.  THEY
ALSO TRIED TO ANTICIPATE THE REMEDIES THAT MIGHT BE APPLIED AND DID
WHAT THEY COULD TO FORESTALL THE EFFECT OF SUCH REMEDIES AND RETAIN THE
BENEFITS OF THEIR UNLAWFUL ACTIONS.  THE COURT INTENDS TO MAKE CERTAIN
THAT THIS DOES NOT OCCUR."  FN10  (P. 620.) 

THE GOVERNMENT HAD REQUESTED THE DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD, KEYSTONE OF
THE COMBINATION.  FN11  IN VIEW OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES RELATING TO
VIOLATIONS NOT LESS EXTENSIVE OR MORE CLEARLY PROVED, FN12  IT HARDLY
COULD BE SAID, AND THIS COURT'S OPINION DOES NOT SAY, THAT IF
DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD HAD BEEN ORDERED, THIS WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED
AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT DENY THAT REMEDY. 
RATHER IT RESERVED THE QUESTION FOR LATER DETERMINATION, UNDERTAKING
MEANWHILE A MILDER REMEDY.  IN ITS OWN WORDS, REFERRING TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST FOR DISSOLUTION, THE OPINION STATED: 

"THE COURT, HOWEVER, IS FIRST GOING TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID THAT,
IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO AND AT THE SAME TIME RESTORE COMPETITION TO
THE INDUSTRY.  IF THIS CANNOT BE WORKED OUT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
COURT, DISSOLUTION WILL BE ORDERED." 

"THE FIRST STEP TO BE TAKEN IS THE IMMEDIATE APPOINTMENT OF A
RECEIVER OR RECEIVERS OF HARTFORD.  THE COURT IS GOING TO DENY ANY STAY
FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF SUCH RECEIVERS.  IT IS BELIEVED TO BE
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT THE RECEIVERS TAKE OVER THE MANAGEMENT OF
HARTFORD FORTHWITH."  (P. 620.) 

AMONG THE REASONS ASSIGNED FOR THIS ACTION WERE, FIRST, IMPORTANT
CHANGES MADE BY HARTFORD WITHOUT THE COURT'S KNOWLEDGE DURING PENDENCY
OF THE SUIT, INVOLVING HEAVY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF HARTFORD "FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF THE INTERESTS OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED," INCLUDING THE
TRANSFER OF THREE IMPORTANT PATENTS TO CORNING WHICH THE COURT FELT WAS
"FOR THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF CONTINUING CORNING'S MONOPOLIES REGARDLESS
OF THE OUTCOME OF THIS SUIT"; FN13  SECOND, TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER
ABUSE OF THE PATENT PRIVILEGES OF HARTFORD AND ANY FURTHER VIOLATION OF
THE LAW, SINCE "UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE EVIDENCE, THE
COURT FEELS THAT THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE THROUGH COURT OFFICERS"; AND,
THIRD, TO CONSERVE THE ASSETS OF HARTFORD AND PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO. 
PENDING APPEAL, THEREFORE, AND FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CAUSE, THE
RECEIVERS WERE DIRECTED TO TAKE OVER HARTFORD'S MANAGEMENT, CONTINUE
OPERATION UNDER ITS EXISTING CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS FOR LICENSING AND
FOR LEASING ITS MACHINES, AND TO RECEIVE, SET ASIDE AND EARMARK THE
FUNDS RECEIVED FROM LICENSEES, HOLDING THEM FOR RETURN TO THE LICENSEES
IF THE COURT'S DECREE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  FINALLY, THE RECEIVERS WERE
TO REMAIN IN CONTROL "UNTIL THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE ABUSES AND
VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW HAVE CEASED, UNTIL THE ORDERS OF THE COURT HAVE
BEEN CARRIED OUT, AND UNTIL THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE NO LONGER
REMAINS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT THESE PRACTICES WILL BE RESUMED. 
IF, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF A REASONABLE TIME, IT APPEARS TO THE COURT
THAT THE STEPS HE IS NOW TAKING ARE INSUFFICIENT TO RESTORE A FREE AND
COMPETITIVE STATUS TO THE INDUSTRY, THE RECEIVERS SHALL BE ORDERED TO
SUBMIT A PLAN OR PLANS FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD."  (P. 621.) 

FROM THIS PORTION OF THE OPINION IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS MADE NO FINAL DECISION CONCERNING THE DISSOLUTION OF
HARTFORD, AS IT WAS AND STILL IS ENTITLED TO DO; AND THAT IT REGARDED
THE RECEIVERSHIP AS A NECESSARY ALTERNATIVE TO GRANTING THAT RELIEF AT
ONCE.  NO OTHER CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN THAN THAT THE COURT, IF
COMPELLED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN DISSOLUTION AND PERMITTING HARTFORD THEN TO
CONTINUE UNDER ITS OWN MANAGEMENT, UNHESITATINGLY WOULD HAVE DECREED
ITS DISSOLUTION.  THE COURT IN SO MANY WORDS STATED, WITH REASONS TO
SUPPORT ITS VIEW, THAT HARTFORD'S MANAGEMENT COULD NOT BE TRUSTED TO
CARRY OUT THE TERMS OF ITS DECREE, TO REFRAIN FROM FURTHER PATENT
ABUSES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW, BUT ON THE CONTRARY ALREADY HAD TAKEN
STEPS TO CIRCUMVENT, IN PART, WHATEVER REMEDY MIGHT BE IMPOSED.  FN14 

RECEIVERSHIPS GENERALLY ARE TO BE AVOIDED, IF POSSIBLE.  BUT THERE
ARE TIMES WHEN THEY REMAIN ESSENTIAL.  IF IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THEY ARE
SO, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE IN THESE.  YET THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT DIRECTING
TERMINATION DECLARES, IN THE FACE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS AND
THE EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY SUSTAINS THEM, THAT THE RECEIVERSHIP, THOUGH
USEFUL TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO PENDING DECISION HERE, WAS "NOT
NECESSARY TO THE PRESCRIPTION OF APPROPRIATE RELIEF" AND SHOULD BE
WOUND UP, AND THAT THE BUSINESS SHOULD BE RETURNED TO HARTFORD.  THIS
IS NOT MERELY A DECISION THAT THE RECEIVERSHIP WAS NOT JUSTIFIED "IN
THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS HEREAFTER SAID AS TO THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF
THE DECREE."  IT IS A SUBSTITUTION OF THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE QUESTION OF DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD, WHICH IT
RESERVED, FORECLOSING IT FROM DECISION.  IT IS LIKEWISE A SUBSTITUTION
OF THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE QUESTION
WHETHER "THE ABUSES AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW HAVE CEASED," ALSO
RESERVED FOR FUTURE DECISION, AND WHETHER THE MANAGEMENT OF HARTFORD,
IN THE FACE OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE FINDINGS, CAN BE TRUSTED NOW TO
CARRY OUT THE TERMS OF THE DECREE OR WERE WORTHY OF THAT TRUST WHEN THE
DECREE WAS ENTERED.  ALL THIS, IN ADVANCE OF DETERMINATION OF THE
FACTS, WHICH THIS COURT CANNOT ASCERTAIN, ON WHICH THE DECISION OF
THESE QUESTIONS MUST TURN. 

SUCH AN INVASION OF THE TRIAL COURT'S FUNCTION, IT SEEMS TO ME,
PERVERTS BOTH THAT FUNCTION AND OUR OWN.  IF THAT COURT'S FINDINGS,
JUSTIFYING THE RECEIVERSHIP AND THE RESERVATION OF DECISION ON
DISSOLUTION, WERE CONTRARY TO THE LAW OR THE EVIDENCE, THAT SHOULD BE
DEMONSTRATED AND DECLARED.  IF THEY CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL
DISCRETION, THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE ABUSE SHOULD BE POINTED
OUT.  IF THEY WERE NEITHER, THIS COURT GOES BEYOND ITS PROVINCE BY
SUBSTITUTING ITS OWN LONG-DISTANCE JUDGMENT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY
INFORMED VIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND IN PRECLUDING IT FROM JUDGMENT,
UPON ISSUES RIGHTLY TO BE DETERMINED BY IT, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE,
WHATEVER THE STANDARD WHICH GOVERNS REVIEW, AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
RIGHTLY RESERVED BY IT FOR FUTURE DECISION.  THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IN APPOINTING RECEIVERS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AND, UPON REMAND OF
THE CAUSE, ITS POWER SHOULD BE UNFETTERED TO RETAIN THEM PENDING ITS
FINDING OF THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN ITS OPINION AND DECREE FOR
RESTORING THE BUSINESS OF ITS OWNERS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DECREE
DISSOLUTION OF HARTFORD, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. 

THIS COURT'S MORE IMPORTANT REVISIONS OF THE "PERMANENT STEPS" TAKEN
BY THE DISTRICT COURT MAY BE NOTICED SHORTLY.  THE LATTER'S OPINION
DECLARED (P. 621):  "THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION IS WITH RESPECT TO THE
LICENSING AND LEASE SYSTEM NOW USED BY HARTFORD.  THE COURT BELIEVES
THAT THIS IS THE GREATEST ABUSE.  IT IS THROUGH THE LICENSING AND LEASE
SYSTEM THAT HARTFORD RETAINS CONTROL OVER AND DOMINATES THE INDUSTRY." 
FN15  THE COURT STATED ITS VIEW THAT "THERE WILL BE FURTHER ABUSES IN
THE FUTURE AS LONG AS THERE IS A SEMBLANCE OF THAT SYSTEM REMAINING. 
IT IS THE OPINION OF THE COURT THAT THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM MUST BE
ABOLISHED."  ACCORDINGLY IT REQUIRED FOR FUTURE DISTRIBUTION "OUTRIGHT
SALE AT REASONABLE PRICES" IN PLACE OF THE LEASING OF MACHINES, WITH
THAT METHOD'S OBVIOUS DANGER OF REPOSSESSION IN CASE THE LESSEE SHOULD
FAIL TO OBSERVE PRACTICES ESTABLISHED BY THE LESSORS, TACITLY OR
OTHERWISE.  THE COURT ALSO REQUIRED THE LICENSING, ROYALTY FREE, OF
EXISTING PATENTS UPON GLASSMAKING MACHINERY. 

IN MY OPINION BOTH MEASURES WERE FULLY JUSTIFIED BY THE FINDINGS AND
THE EVIDENCE.  THE LEASING OF PATENTED MACHINERY OR INSTRUMENTS LENDS
ITSELF PARTICULARLY TO THE CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF MONOPOLY AND TO
THE EXTENSION OF MONOPOLISTIC EFFECTS FAR BEYOND THE LIFE AND SCOPE OF
THE CONTROLLING PATENT OR PATENTS.  FN16  THE HOLDER OF A PATENT WHO
OBSERVES THE LAW IS ENTITLED TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP
THROUGH LEASE AS WELL AS SALE.  WHEN, HOWEVER, HE USES HIS PATENT
RIGHT, BY THE DEVICE OF LEASING, TO ACQUIRE A MONOPOLISTIC POSITION
STRONGER THAN THE PATENT ALLOWS, AND ON BEING CALLED TO HALT IS NOT
COMPELLED TO DISPOSE OF THE PATENT, HE SUBJECTS HIMSELF TO WHATEVER
MEASURES ARE REQUIRED TO PREVENT CONTINUANCE OF THE PRACTICE IN THE
FUTURE AND TO UPROOT THE ILLEGAL POSITION AND ADVANTAGE HE THUS
OBTAINS.  IN MY OPINION THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT FURTHER
ABUSES WOULD CONTINUE, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE DANGERS INHERENT IN
THE RIGHT OF REPOSSESSION, JUSTIFIED ITS PROHIBITION OF THE FURTHER USE
OF THE LEASING SYSTEM. 

THE REQUIREMENT OF LICENSING OF EXISTING PATENTS, ROYALTY FREE, WOULD
PRESENT GREATER DIFFICULTY IF THE VIOLATION HAD NOT BEEN SO GROSS AND
SO LONG CONTINUED.  BUT BECAUSE IT WAS BOTH, AND BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE
SHOWS A LONG COURSE OF USING PATENTS AND PATENT POSITION ILLEGALLY TO
ACQUIRE OTHER PATENTS AND CONSOLIDATE STILL STRONGER POSITIONS, IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE NOW TO DETERMINE WHAT PATENTS MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION MAY
HAVE ACQUIRED ILLEGALLY.  THE CERTAINTY IS, HOWEVER, THAT MANY WERE SO
ACQUIRED.  FN17  SINCE THE POOL AND ITS MEMBERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
DISPOSE OF THE PATENTS, ANY REVENUES NOW RECEIVED BY THEM FROM THE
EXISTING PATENTS ARE THE RESULT, AND INEVITABLY WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE
RESULT, OF THE OWNERS' VIOLATION OF THE LAW.  TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED
COLLECTION OF ROYALTIES WOULD BE TO PERPETUATE, FOR THE LIVES OF THE
PATENTS, THE ILLEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE VIOLATIONS.  THAT THE COURT IS
BOUND, IN EQUITY, AND BY THE STATUTE, NOT TO DO. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ASKED, IN THIS SUIT,
FOR CANCELLATION OF THE EXISTING PATENTS AND THAT THIS PROVISION OF THE
DECREE AMOUNTS TO THAT.  THE DEFENDANTS, IT IS TRUE, CANNOT DERIVE
ROYALTIES FROM THEM UNDER THE TERMS OF THE DECREE, IF THEY CONTINUE TO
DISTRIBUTE MACHINERY AND GLASSWARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IF THIS IS
DRASTIC, IT IS BECAUSE THE VIOLATION WAS DRASTIC AND THERE IS NO OTHER
WAY NOW, SHORT OF DISSOLUTION OR CANCELLATION, TO CUT OFF ITS
CONTINUING EFFECTS OF DISADVANTAGE TO THE PUBLIC AND THE INDUSTRY OR OF
BENEFIT TO THE VIOLATORS.  THE COURT, SEEKING TO AVOID DISSOLUTION, HAD
THE DUTY TO APPLY A REMEDY EQUALLY ADEQUATE.  UNITED STATES V. TERMINAL
RAILROAD ASSOCIATION, 224 U.S. 383, 409.  IT COULD NOT DO THIS, IF THE
POOL WERE LEFT A CONTINUING SOURCE OF REVENUE TO THE VIOLATORS AND OF
BURDEN TO THE PUBLIC.  ACCORDINGLY IT REQUIRED THE AGREEMENT FOR
LICENSE, ROYALTY FREE.  SINCE CANCELLATION WAS NOT REQUIRED IN TERMS,
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW MERELY FROM THE ROYALTY FREE PROVISION THAT THE
EFFECT WILL BE THE SAME OR THAT THE DEFENDANTS WILL NOT HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF OTHER INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP WHICH MAY BE EXERCISED WITHOUT
PERPETUATING THE UNLAWFUL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PAST MISUSE, SUCH AS
REALIZING THE VALUE OF THE PATENTS BY SALE, MADE UPON PROPER
APPLICATION WITH THE COURT'S APPROVAL.  FN18 

THIS COURT'S REVISIONS OF THE DECREE IN THESE RESPECTS LOAD UPON THE
INDUSTRY AND THE CONSUMING PUBLIC CONTINUING CHARGES IN FAVOR OF THOSE
WHO HAVE VIOLATED BOTH THE ANTI-TRUST STATUTES AND THE PATENT LAWS, A
BURDEN WHICH WILL NOT END UNTIL THE LAST OF THE ILLEGALLY AGGREGATED
PATENTS HAS EXPIRED, IF THEN.  THEY BOTH FORECLOSE DISSOLUTION AND
FORBID THE ONLY OTHER REMEDIES EQUALLY ADEQUATE.  SO TO PERPETUATE THE
UNLAWFUL CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION WILL NOT DISCOURAGE, IT CAN ONLY
ENCOURAGE SETTING THE LAW AT NAUGHT. 

FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IT FOLLOWS, OF COURSE, THAT THE COURT
PROPERLY IMPOUNDED HARTFORD'S REVENUES FROM LEASING AND LICENSING
ARRANGEMENTS AND THAT THESE SHOULD NOW BE RETURNED TO THE SOURCES
WHENCE RECEIVED.  AGAIN, CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION,
THE MERE FACT THAT DURING THIS PERIOD THERE WERE NO NEW VIOLATIONS DOES
NOT MEAN THERE WERE NOT CONTINUING EFFECTS OF FORMER ONES. 

THE MODIFICATIONS MADE IN PARAGRAPH 29, RELATING TO RESTRICTIVE
LICENSING, SHOULD NOT GO BEYOND RESTRICTING THE PARAGRAPH TO GLASS
PRODUCTS AND GLASS MACHINERY, AS THE GOVERNMENT NOW CONCEDES SHOULD BE
DONE.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE CONCERNING THE "FENCING" AND
"BLOCKING" OF PATENTS SHOULD STAND, IN VIEW OF THE PROVEN ABUSES IN
APPLYING FOR PATENTS MERELY TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM OBTAINING THEM. 
OTHER REVISIONS ARE TOO NUMEROUS TO MENTION SPECIFICALLY, EXCEPT TWO. 
I CONCUR IN THE ELIMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, COLLINS,
FULTON, FISHER, AND DILWORTH, FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE DECREE, FOR
THE REASONS STATED IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  I CONCUR ALSO IN THE
MODIFICATION WHICH REQUIRES THE DISSOLUTION OF THE GLASS CONTAINER
ASSOCIATION, SINCE THE TERMS OF THE DECREE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCOMPLISH
THIS AND THE DISTRICT COURT EXPRESSLY FOUND THE ASSOCIATION HAD BEEN "A
BREEDING PLACE FOR MANY OF THE ILLEGAL PRACTICES ESTABLISHED HEREIN." 

THE CASE PRESENTS AGAIN THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF ACCOMMODATING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PATENT LAWS TO THOSE OF THE ANTI-TRUST STATUTES. 
BASICALLY THESE ARE OPPOSED IN POLICY, THE ONE GRANTING RIGHTS OF
MONOPOLY, THE OTHER FORBIDDING MONOPOLISTIC ACTIVITIES.  THE PATENT
LEGISLATION PRESENTS A SPECIAL CASE, THE ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION THE
NATION'S GENERAL POLICY.  WHETHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER IS WISE IS NOT
FOR US TO DETERMINE.  BUT THEIR ACCOMMODATION IS ONE WE MUST MAKE,
WITHIN THE LIMITS ALLOWED TO THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION, WHEN THE ISSUE IS
PRESENTED. 

THE GENERAL POLICY HAS BEEN TO RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE PATENT
HOLDER RIGIDLY WITHIN THE TERMS OF HIS GRANT AND, WHEN HE OVERREACHES
ITS BOUNDARY, TO DENY HIM THE USUAL PROTECTIONS OF THE HOLDER OF
PROPERTY.  THAT THIS ORDINARILY HAS BEEN DONE IN INFRINGEMENT SUITS
FN19  OR SUITS FOR CANCELLATION DOES NOT QUALIFY THE FACT OR THE
POLICY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ANTI-TRUST STATUTES HAVE RECEIVED A
BROAD CONSTRUCTION AND CORRESPONDING ENFORCEMENT, WHERE VIOLATION HAS
BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN.  WHEN THE PATENT-HOLDER SO FAR OVERREACHES HIS
PRIVILEGE AS TO INTRUDE UPON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS AND THE PUBLIC
PROTECTED BY THE ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION, AND DOES THIS IN SUCH A WAY
THAT HE CANNOT FURTHER EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGE WITHOUT ALSO TRESPASSING
UPON THE RIGHTS THUS PROTECTED, EITHER HIS RIGHT OR THE OTHER PERSON'S,
AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT, MUST GIVE WAY.  IT IS WHOLLY INCONGRUOUS IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES TO SAY THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF THE TRESPASSER SHALL BE
PRESERVED AND THE RIGHTS OF ALL OTHERS WHICH HE HAS TRANSGRESSED SHALL
CONTINUE TO GIVE WAY TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS WRONGDOING. 

THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY WHAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE SOUGHT IN THIS
PROCEEDING AND THIS COURT'S REVISION OF THE DECREE HAS GRANTED IN LARGE
MEASURE.  SO INVERTED AN IDEA OF EQUITY, OR OF THE LAW, CANNOT STAND. 
IN A MACHINE AGE, DOMINATED SO WIDELY BY PATENTS, THE EFFECT CAN BE NO
OTHER THAN LARGELY TO NULLIFY THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  THERE MAY BE
INSTANCES IN WHICH A PATENT HOLDER, GUILTY OF VIOLATING THOSE STATUTES,
CAN SO SEPARATE HIS VIOLATION AND ITS CONTINUING EFFECTS FROM FURTHER
FULL EXERCISE OF HIS PATENT RIGHT THAT HE MAY BECOME ENTITLED TO A FORM
OF RELIEF WHICH WILL PERMIT THIS.  UNLESS WE ARE TO DISREGARD ENTIRELY
THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, SUPPORTED BY
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE. 

THE COURT'S MAJOR MODIFICATIONS, IN MY OPINION, EMASCULATE THE
DECREE. 

FN1 THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND  "...  THAT THERE HAS NOT ONLY BEEN A
VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, BEGINNING WITH THE FIRST AGREEMENT
BETWEEN HARTFORD AND EMPIRE IN 1916, BUT I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS
VIOLATION OF THE LAWS WAS AS DELIBERATE AS ANY THAT I CAN FIND IN A
REVIEW OF ANTI-TRUST CASES."  46 F.SUPP.  541, 552-553.  HARTFORD AND
LYNCH WERE ALSO FOUND GUILTY OF CONTRACTING IN VIOLATION OF THE CLAYTON
ACT. 

FN2  SIXTEEN PAGES OF THE TRIAL COURT'S OPINION ARE GIVEN TO A
SUMMARY OF MANIFESTATIONS OF CONSCIOUS GUILT.  THE INSTANCE CITED IN
THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS ILLUSTRATIVE.  SEE ALSO TEXT INFRA
AT NOTE 10.  THE METHODS EMPLOYED RANGED FROM SUGGESTIONS FOR
"COOPERATION" TO THE DIVISION OF FIELDS WITHIN THE INDUSTRY AND THE
SQUEEZE-OUT OF RIVALS, RUTHLESSLY AND CONSTANTLY THROUGH THE SYSTEM OF
LICENSING AND LEASING WHICH THE COURT FOUND WAS "THE GREATEST ABUSE." 
CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 15.  HAZEL-ATLAS WAS A HOLD-OUT UNTIL THE "THREE
WAY PARTNERSHIP" AGREEMENT OF 1932.  THE LONG STORY SHOWING HOW THAT
COMPANY FINALLY WAS BROUGHT "WITHIN THE FAMILY" IS PARTICULARLY
INTERESTING IN DISCLOSING THE METHODS USED IN BRINGING A RIVAL TO
BOOK. 

FN3  CHARACTERIZING THE CASE AS "PRIMARILY DOCUMENTARY," THOUGH ALSO
NOTING THE "RETICENCE OF SOME OF THE KEY WITNESSES TO DISCLOSE WHAT
PLAINLY WAS WITHIN THEIR KNOWLEDGE AS PRINCIPAL ACTORS IN THE MAIN
CONFERENCES THAT OCCURRED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME," THE COURT STATED: 

"...  IN THIS CASE, THE MEN WHO PLANNED AND DIRECTED THE PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SCRUTINY, FROM 1916 DOWN TO THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE
COMPLAINT HEREIN, LEFT BEHIND THEM NUMEROUS EXCHANGES OF LETTERS AND
MANY MEMORANDA EXECUTED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE HAPPENING OF THE
MAIN EVENTS AND DESIGNED FOR THE INFORMATION OF THEIR CONTEMPORARIES,
THEIR BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, OR FOR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE.  IT IS
HARD TO IMAGINE A CASE IN WHICH A COURT WOULD HAVE MORE FIRST-HAND
INFORMATION OF WHAT THE PARTIES DID AND INTENDED THAN IN THE CASE AT
BAR."  (P. 553.) 

FN4  SEE THE REPORTS OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE,
THE DISCLOSURES OF WHICH WERE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTITUTION
OF THIS PROCEEDING.  INVESTIGATION OF CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER,
SEN. DOC. NO. 95, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1939); IBID., SEN. DOC. NO.
35, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1941); IBID., MONOGRAPH NO. 31, HAMILTON,
PATENTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., SENATE COMMITTEE
PRINT (1941). 

FN5  REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENT "THAT THE PRICE OF
GLASSWARE TO THE CONSUMER HAS NOT INCREASED," THE DISTRICT COURT'S
OPINION STATED (P. 620):  "BUT AGAIN THIS IS NOT A GOOD DEFENSE IF
THERE HAVE BEEN VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW.  MOREOVER, THE HISTORY OF THE
CASE SHOWS THE GREAT EXTENT TO WHICH AUTOMATIC MACHINERY HAS COME INTO
USE WITHIN THE PAST FORTY YEARS.  IT IS NATURAL TO ASSUME THAT THE COST
OF PRODUCTION WOULD DECREASE WITH THE GREAT INFLUX OF AUTOMATIC
MACHINERY.  EVIDENTLY THE DEFENDANTS MANAGED TO RETAIN THIS SAVING IN
THE COST OF PRODUCTION BY MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY HEREIN, WHICH IS
MANIFESTED BY THE LARGE PROFITS IN THE INDUSTRY.  THE BENEFITS
CERTAINLY WERE NOT PASSED ON TO THE PUBLIC."  PREVIOUSLY THE COURT HAD
FOUND THAT, "DOMINANCE OVER THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY IS TODAY SO COMPLETE
THAT AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE CHOICE OF HARTFORD AND OWENS PRICES TO THE
CONSUMER OF GLASSWARE MAY ARBITRARILY BE RAISED BEYOND ALL REASON." 
(P. 619.) 

FN6  ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE COMBINATION'S PURPOSE IN THIS RESPECT IS
LEVIS' REPORT TO OWENS' BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN NOVEMBER, 1929:  "OUR
NEGOTIATIONS WITH HARTFORD-EMPIRE COMPANY AND OTHERS, SO FAR AS OUR
PATENT SITUATION AND ROYALTY INCOME IS CONCERNED, SHOULD BE TO ATTEMPT
TO SECURE A POSITION WHEREBY WE PAY NO ROYALTY ON ANY ITEM WE PRODUCE
AND WE ATTEMPT TO HAVE ALL OTHERS PAY ROYALTY ON EVERY ITEM THEY
PRODUCE, WE PARTICIPATING WITH ANY ONE ELSE IN THE ROYALTIES THEY
RECEIVE." 

FN7 WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE
DEFENDANTS IN THEIR CONTRACT RELATIONS, WITHOUT THE COURT'S KNOWLEDGE,
BETWEEN THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT IN 1939 AND THE CLOSING OF
TESTIMONY OVER TWO YEARS LATER, THE COURT SAID:  "MEN CANNOT, BY
ILLEGAL MEANS, ERECT AN ILLEGAL STRUCTURE - A STRUCTURE OF DOMINANCE
AND CONTROL OVER AN INDUSTRY VITAL TO THE WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC - AND
THEN, BY DESTROYING THE ILLEGAL MEANS BY WHICH THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN
ERECTED, TAKE THE POSITION THAT THEY HAVE REFORMED, THAT THEY HAVE
ADOPTED A NEW COURSE OF CONDUCT, AND THAT THEY SHOULD GO ON THEIR WAY
UNMOLESTED BY THE LAW - AS LONG AS THE ILLEGAL STRUCTURE AND ITS
ADVERSE EFFECTS UPON THE PUBLIC REMAIN."  (P. 618.) 

FN8  CF. NOTES 13 AND 17 INFRA. 

FN9  THROUGHOUT THE LITIGATION THE FACTS HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY
UNDISPUTED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DOCUMENTARY AND CONCLUSIVE CHARACTER
OF THE PROOFS.  CF. NOTE 3 SUPRA.  THE DISPUTE HAS BEEN PRIMARILY OVER
THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS, THE DEFENDANTS CONTENDING,
IN THE WORDS OF THE DISTRICT COURT (P. 615), THAT "ANY CONTROL THAT MAY
EXIST OVER THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF UNPATENTED GLASSWARE IS BUT
THE RESULT OF A NORMAL EXERCISE OF THE PATENT PRIVILEGE," WITH LIKE
CONTENTION, OF COURSE, CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION AND LICENSING OF
GLASSMAKING MACHINERY.  THE CONTENTION MERELY POSES THE BASIC QUESTION
OF LAW IN THE CASE. 

FN10  CF. NOTES 2 AND 13. 

FN11  UNLESS, IN FACT, THIS WERE CORNING, WHICH SINCE 1922 HAS OWNED,
OR CONTROLLED, 43 PER CENT OF HARTFORD'S STOCK.  ACCORDING TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, CORNING "IN PRACTICAL EFFECT HAD SUFFICIENT CONTROL
OVER HARTFORD TO DICTATE THE POLICIES OF HARTFORD IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CORNING'S WISHES."  (P. 557.) 

FN12  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106. 

FN13  THE TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THESE CHANGES, CF.
TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 14, MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OTHER
EVIDENCE SHOWING CONSCIOUSNESS OF VIOLATION, WITH ANTICIPATION OF
REMEDIAL ACTION, CF. NOTE 2 SUPRA, AND OF PRACTICES BY WHICH DOMINATION
OBTAINED UNDER PATENTS WAS MAINTAINED AFTER THEY HAD EXPIRED, E.G.,
HARTFORD'S REFUSAL TO LICENSE OTHERS THAN CORNING TO MAKE HEAT
RESISTANT WARE AND OVEN WARE ON ITS FEEDERS AFTER CORNING'S PATENTS ON
GLASS COMPOSITION FOR THESE WARES HAD EXPIRED IN 1936.  (P. 556.)  CF.
ALSO OWENS' CONTINUED DOMINATION OF THE SUCTION FIELD, NOTED IN THIS
COURT'S OPINION, BY USE OF IMPROVEMENT PATENTS AFTER ITS BASIC PATENT
HAD EXPIRED. 

FN14  CF. NOTE 13 SUPRA. 

FN15  CF. NOTE 2 SUPRA. 

FN16  CF. THE STATEMENT, IN 1922, OF V.M. DORSEY TO A.D. FALCK, OF
CORNING:  "F. G. SMITH, IN PRIVATE, SUGGESTED TO ME THE MOST
REVOLUTIONARY THEORY, WHICH HE WILL NO DOUBT TALK TO YOU ABOUT, VIZ.,
PUTTING OUT THE FEEDERS VERY MUCH LIKE TELEPHONES ARE INSTALLED, THAT
IS, WITH AN INSTALLATION CHARGE WITH A FLAT ROYALTY PLUS ROYALTIES ON
PRODUCTION ABOVE A GIVEN AMOUNT.  I THINK IT HAS MUCH TO BE COMMENDED. 
IT WOULD CERTAINLY PUT THE PIRATES OUT OF BUSINESS QUICKLY." 

FN17  CF. NOTE 7 SUPRA, AND THE INSTANCES CITED FROM EXHIBIT 76 IN
THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION, 46 F.SUPP.  541, 604-606, WHICH CAUSED IT
TO RAISE THE QUESTION WHY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION HAD NOT BEEN
INSTITUTED. 

FN18  EVEN A DISPOSITION SO GUARDED WOULD REALIZE FOR THE OWNER THE
FRUIT OF HIS WRONGDOING IN THE CASE OF PATENTS ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED AND
INTEGRATED IN THE POOL.  BUT IT WOULD TERMINATE THE CONTINUING BENEFIT
TO HIM AND THE POSSIBILITY OF HIS FURTHER MISUSING THE PATENT TO THE
PUBLIC HARM. 

FN19  CF. MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488; MERCOID
CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S. 661. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :





















METROPOLITAN BANK V. U.S., 323 U.S. 454 


NO. 161.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 14, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1945.  -
142 F.2D 474, AFFIRMED. 


1.  RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ON COMMERCIAL PAPER ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY FEDERAL RATHER THAN LOCAL LAW; AND,
IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPLICABLE ACT OF CONGRESS, THE GOVERNING RULES
MUST BE FASHIONED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 456. 

2.  THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER PAYMENTS MADE TO A
COLLECTING BANK ON GOVERNMENT CHECKS ON WHICH THE BANK HAD EXPRESSLY
GUARANTEED PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS BUT ON WHICH THE ENDORSEMENTS OF THE
PAYEES WERE FORGED; AND RECOVERY WAS NOT BARRED BY THE NEGLIGENT
FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO DETECT THE FRAUD OF A GOVERNMENT CLERK
WHO, OVER A PERIOD OF 28 MONTHS, HAD FRAUDULENTLY PROCURED ISSUANCE OF
THE CHECKS UPON FORGED VOUCHERS.  UNITED STATES V. CHASE NATIONAL BANK,
252 U.S. 485, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 457. 

3.  NEGLIGENCE OF A DRAWER-DRAWEE IN FAILING TO DISCOVER FRAUD PRIOR
TO A GUARANTY OF THE GENUINENESS OF PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS DOES NOT ABSOLVE
THE GUARANTOR FROM LIABILITY WHERE THE PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS HAVE BEEN
FORGED.  P. 459. 

NATIONAL METROPOLITAN BANK V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 692, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE UNITED STATES IN A SUIT AGAINST THE BANK TO RECOVER PAYMENTS MADE
ON GOVERNMENT CHECKS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ONE FOLEY, A CIVILIAN CLERK IN THE PAYMASTER'S OFFICE OF THE MARINE
CORPS, PROCURED THE ISSUANCE OF 144 GOVERNMENT CHECKS, DULY SIGNED BY
THE AUTHORIZED DISBURSING OFFICIALS, BY FORGING PAY AND TRAVEL MILEAGE
VOUCHERS IN THE NAMES OF LIVING MARINE CORPS OFFICERS.  THESE FORGERIES
OCCURRED DURING A PERIOD OF TWENTY-EIGHT MONTHS, BEGINNING SHORTLY
BEFORE JULY 14, 1936, AND ENDING NOVEMBER 16, 1938.  THE CHECKS WERE
DRAWN ON THE UNITED STATES TREASURY PAYABLE TO THE ORDER OF THE
OFFICERS AND DELIVERED TO FOLEY FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THEM.  FOLEY FORGED
THEIR ENDORSEMENTS, ADDED HIS OWN NAME AS SECOND ENDORSER, AND
DEPOSITED OR CASHED THE CHECKS AT THE ANACOSTIA BANK.  THAT BANK,
WITHOUT INVESTIGATING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYEES' SIGNATURES,
ENDORSED THE CHECKS AND TRANSMITTED THEM TO THE PETITIONER BANK, WHICH
COLLECTED ON THEM FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  BOTH BANKS SPECIFICALLY
GUARANTEED PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS.  ABOUT NOVEMBER 21, 1938, THE GOVERNMENT
DISCOVERED THE FRAUD AND THE FORGERIES, AND ON DECEMBER 8TH FORMALLY
DEMANDED REPAYMENT FROM THE PETITIONER.  REPAYMENT WAS REFUSED.  ON
AUGUST 11, 1942, THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TO RECOVER THE PAYMENTS MADE.  THE COMPLAINT CONTAINED TWO COUNTS, ONE
FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY, AND ONE FOR MONEY PAID UNDER A MISTAKE
OF FACT.  THE BANK FILED AN ANSWER IN WHICH IT ADMITTED THAT IT HAD
COLLECTED THE MONEYS FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE ANACOSTIA BANK AFTER
PRESENTING THE CHECKS TO THE GOVERNMENT WITH ITS STAMPED ENDORSEMENT
GUARANTEEING PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS.  AS DEFENSE IT SET UP THE FOLLOWING:
(1) THE ENDORSEMENT DID NOT AMOUNT TO A GUARANTY OF THE PAYEE'S
SIGNATURE; (2) ISSUANCE OF THE CHECKS BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS A WARRANTY
THAT THEY WERE NOT "FICTITIOUS," BUT GENUINE AND ISSUED FOR A VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION, AND THIS WARRANTY WAS BREACHED; (3) THE GOVERNMENT'S
DISBURSING AGENCIES NEGLECTED PROPERLY TO SUPERVISE AND EXAMINE THE
TRANSACTIONS BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRST AND SUCCEEDING CHECKS WERE
ISSUED, THEREBY DELAYING DISCOVERY OF THE FRAUD, AND THIS NEGLECT, NOT
THE BANK'S GUARANTY, CAUSED THE GOVERNMENT'S LOSS.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 142 F.2D 474, ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS OWN
PRIOR DECISION IN WASHINGTON LOAN & TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 134
F.2D 59(1943).  BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT WITH UNITED STATES V. FIRST
NATIONAL BANK, 138 F.2D 681, (C.C.A. 7, 1943), WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

ONLY RECENTLY, IN CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S.
363, WE HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE
GOVERNMENT WHICH STEM FROM THE ISSUANCE AND CIRCULATION OF ITS
COMMERCIAL PAPER.  OUR CONCLUSION WAS THAT LEGAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN
CONTROVERSIES OVER SUCH COMMERCIAL PAPERS ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY THE
APPLICATION OF FEDERAL RATHER THAN LOCAL LAW AND THAT, IN THE ABSENCE
OF AN APPLICABLE ACT OF CONGRESS, FEDERAL COURTS MUST FASHION THE
GOVERNING RULES.  SOME OF THE QUESTIONS PETITIONER ARGUES HERE ARE
FORECLOSED BY THE CLEARFIELD DECISION.  THERE WE HELD THAT PRESENTATION
OF A GOVERNMENT CHECK TO IT FOR PAYMENT WITH AN EXPRESS GUARANTY OF
PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS AMOUNTS TO A WARRANTY THAT THE SIGNATURE OF THE
PAYEE WAS NOT FORGED, BUT GENUINE.  BREACH OF THAT WARRANTY, WE SAID,
BY PRESENTING A CHECK ON WHICH THE PAYEE'S SIGNATURE IS A FORGERY,
GIVES THE GOVERNMENT A RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM THE GUARANTOR WHEN PAYMENT
IS MADE.  THE CHECKS IN THE INSTANT CASE WERE PRESENTED TO THE
GOVERNMENT BY THE BANK BEARING FORGED ENDORSEMENTS OF THE PAYEE'S NAME,
AND A SPECIFIC GUARANTY BY THE BANK.  UNDER THE CLEARFIELD RULE,
THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RECOVER, UNLESS OTHER PRINCIPLES HERE
INVOKED EXEMPT IT FROM LIABILITY. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR NEGLIGENCE OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN DETECTING THE FRAUDS OF ITS
CLERK, SOME, IF NOT ALL, OF THE CHECKS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED, AND
THAT NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR THE BANK WOULD HAVE SUFFERED ANY LOSS. 
THE ANSWER ALLEGED FACTS WHICH, IF TRUE, DID SHOW NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING
TO DISCOVER THE FRAUDS, AND SINCE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON THE PLEADINGS
WITHOUT TRIAL, WE MUST TREAT THE CASE AS THOUGH NEGLIGENCE IN THIS
RESPECT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.  THIS QUESTION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE
DRAWER-DRAWEE'S NEGLIGENCE PRIOR TO A SPECIFIC GUARANTY OF ENDORSEMENTS
WAS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN OUR CLEARFIELD CASE; IT WAS AN ISSUE IN
UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK, 214 U.S. 302, A CASE ON WHICH
WE LARGELY DREW FOR THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE CLEARFIELD
DECISION.  IN THE LATTER CASE, WE POINTED OUT THAT THE NATIONAL
EXCHANGE BANK CASE STOOD FOR THE RULE THAT PROMPT DISCOVERY OF FRAUD
WAS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT IN CASES LIKE THIS.  THE NATIONAL
EXCHANGE BANK CASE PRESENTED A SITUATION WHERE 194 GOVERNMENT CHECKS
HAD BEEN ISSUED OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS AS A RESULT OF FORGED
VOUCHERS.  THERE, AS HERE, PROPER EXAMINATION AND SUPERVISION BY
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WOULD HAVE UNCOVERED THE FRAUDS AND THEREBY
PREVENTED OR REDUCED THE LOSS.  THE COLLECTING BANK DEFENDED THERE, AS
HERE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO DISCOVER THE FRAUD
SHOULD ABSOLVE THE COLLECTING BANK FROM LIABILITY.  THIS COURT,
APPLYING THE GENERAL LAW MERCHANT, REJECTED THE DEFENSE.  THE RULE
THERE APPLIED, AS POINTED OUT BY THE COURT BELOW IN WASHINGTON LOAN &
TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, HAS BEEN ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED
BY STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  NO PERSUASIVE REASONS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED
TO US WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE GENERAL FEDERAL RULE. 

REJECTION OF THE DEFENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S NEGLIGENCE HERE SET UP
DOES NOT, AS PETITIONER ARGUES, CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S HOLDING IN
UNITED STATES V. CHASE NATIONAL BANK, 252 U.S. 485.  IN THAT CASE THE
GOVERNMENT BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST A BANK TO RECOVER PAYMENT IT MADE OF A
GOVERNMENT DRAFT WHICH WAS ITSELF A FORGERY.  THE NAME OF THE PAYEE WAS
ALSO FORGED.  RECOVERY WAS DENIED BECAUSE THE INSTRUMENT WAS A
FORGERY.  THE HOLDING RESTED ON A LONG ESTABLISHED EXCEPTION TO THE
GENERAL RULE UNDER WHICH ONE WHO PRESENTS AND COLLECTS A VALID
COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENT WITH A FORGED ENDORSEMENT CAN BE COMPELLED TO
REPAY.  THE REASON FOR THE EXCEPTION IS THAT A DRAWEE IS REQUIRED TO BE
FAMILIAR WITH A DRAWER'S SIGNATURE; IF THEREFORE THE DRAWEE PAYS TO AN
INNOCENT PRESENTER ON A FORGED DRAWER'S SIGNATURE, IT HAS BEEN HELD
THAT THE DRAWEE'S RIGHT TO THE MONEY IS NOT SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THE
INNOCENT PRESENTER.  PRICE V. NEAL, 3 BURR.  1354.  THIS EXCEPTION IS
NOT APPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE THE SIGNATURES OF THE DRAWER ON THESE
CHECKS WERE GENUINE WHILE THOSE IN THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK CONTROVERSY
WERE FORGED.  THE FACT THAT THESE CHECKS WERE INDUCED BY FRAUD DOES NOT
BRING THEM WITHIN THE REASONING OF THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK RULE. 

THERE IS NOTHING HERE TO SUPPORT THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONDUCT IN ISSUING THE CHECKS PROMPTED IT TO GUARANTEE THE
PAYEE'S ENDORSEMENT.  SUCH A GUARANTEE NO MORE RESULTS FROM THE
ISSUANCE OF GOVERNMENT CHECKS THAN ANY OTHER CHECKS.  GOVERNMENT
REGULATIONS CONCERNING PAYMENT OF ITS COMMERCIAL PAPER POINT THE OTHER
WAY.  TREASURY REGULATIONS HAVE MADE GUARANTEE OF PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS A
PREREQUISITE TO PAYMENT.  31 C.F.R. 202.33.  THIS GUARANTY WAS A
PROTECTION WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT NOT ONLY AS TO CHECKS WHICH WERE
ISSUED IN DUE COURSE FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, BUT AS TO CHECKS
WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN IRREGULARLY ISSUED.  THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICERS FAILED FULLY TO PERFORM THEIR DUTY IS NO REASON WHY THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THE ADVANTAGE OF A GUARANTEE
INDEPENDENTLY MADE BY ONE WHO WAS NOT UNDER COMPULSION OF ANY KIND TO
MAKE IT.  NO EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES REQUIRE THAT ONE WHO, FOR HIS OWN
REASONS, GUARANTEES A PAYEE'S SIGNATURE AFTER ISSUANCE OF A CHECK,
SHALL BE RELIEVED OF HIS VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED OBLIGATION BECAUSE OTHERS
WHO OWED THE GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS HAD PREVIOUSLY DEFAULTED IN THEIR
OBLIGATIONS. 

WE DO NOT SAY THAT THERE MAY NOT BE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT NOW
BEFORE US, UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE PRECLUDED FROM RECOVERY
BECAUSE OF CONDUCT OF A DRAWER PRIOR TO A GUARANTY OF ENDORSEMENT.  WE
DO HOLD THAT NEGLIGENCE OF A DRAWER-DRAWEE IN FAILING TO DISCOVER FRAUD
PRIOR TO A GUARANTY OF THE GENUINENESS OF PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS DOES NOT
ABSOLVE THE GUARANTOR FROM LIABILITY IN CASES WHERE THE PRIOR
ENDORSEMENTS HAVE BEEN FORGED.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













FORD CO. V. DEPT. OF TREASURY, 323 U.S. 459 


NO. 75.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1945.  - 141
F.2D 24, VACATED. 


1.  A SUIT AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF THE STATE OF INDIANA
AND INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING THE "BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,"
BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SEC. 64-2614 OF BURNS' INDIANA STATUTES ANNOTATED
(1943 REPLACEMENT) FOR A REFUND OF TAXES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY
COLLECTED, HELD A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE STATE
HAD NOT CONSENTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
P. 463. 

2.  WHERE A SUIT IS IN ESSENCE ONE FOR THE RECOVERY OF MONEY FROM THE
STATE, THE STATE IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND IS ENTITLED TO
INVOKE ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, EVEN THOUGH INDIVIDUAL
OFFICIALS ARE NOMINAL DEFENDANTS.  P. 464. 

3.  THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT DENIES TO THE FEDERAL COURTS AUTHORITY TO
ENTERTAIN A SUIT BROUGHT BY PRIVATE PARTIES AGAINST A STATE WITHOUT THE
STATE'S CONSENT.  P. 464. 

4.  INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 64-2614 AS AUTHORIZING SUITS FOR REFUNDS
OF TAXES ONLY IN STATE COURTS ACCORDS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF
THE STATE.  P. 466. 

5.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE SUIT IS AGAINST THE STATE AND IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT
THOUGH URGED HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS PROCEEDING.  P. 467. 

6.  NEITHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOR ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE OR
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE STATE WAS AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW TO WAIVE THE
STATE'S IMMUNITY IN THIS PROCEEDING.  P. 468. 

FORD MOTOR CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF INDIANA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 721, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DENYING RECOVERY IN A SUIT FOR A REFUND OF STATE TAXES ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN ILLEGALLY COLLECTED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW AN ACTION BY PETITIONER, A NON
RESIDENT FOREIGN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS,
THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF THE STATE OF INDIANA AND M. CLIFFORD
TOWNSEND, JOSEPH M. ROBERTSON AND FRANK G. THOMPSON, THE GOVERNOR,
TREASURER AND AUDITOR, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, WHO
"TOGETHER" CONSTITUTED THE BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY.  FN1
PETITIONER SEEKS A REFUND OF GROSS INCOME TAXES PAID TO THE DEPARTMENT
AND MEASURED BY SALES CLAIMED BY THE STATE TO HAVE OCCURRED IN
INDIANA.  FN2 JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IS
FOUNDED ON ALLEGATIONS OF THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
STATE STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING A REFUND WHICH PETITIONER
FOLLOWED IS SET FORTH IN SEC. 64-2614(A) OF THE INDIANA STATUTES.  FN3 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED RECOVERY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  FN4  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED  FN5  ON PETITIONER'S ASSERTION
OF ERROR IN THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW PROBABLY IN CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE DECISION
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.  DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., 221 IND. 416, 47 N.E.2D 150.  AS WE
CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER'S ACTION COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE
FEDERAL COURT, WE DO NOT DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE. 

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THIS ACTION IN A FEDERAL COURT
DEPENDS, FIRST, UPON WHETHER THE ACTION IS AGAINST THE STATE OF INDIANA
OR AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.  SECONDLY, IF THE ACTION IS AGAINST THE
STATE, WHETHER THE STATE HAS CONSENTED TO BE SUED IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  RECENTLY THESE QUESTIONS WERE DISCUSSED IN GREAT NORTHERN
INSURANCE CO. V. READ, 322 U.S. 47. 

IN THAT CASE THIS COURT HELD THAT AS THE SUIT WAS AGAINST A STATE
OFFICIAL AS SUCH, THROUGH PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE
TO COMPEL HIM TO CARRY OUT WITH STATE FUNDS THE STATE'S AGREEMENT TO
REIMBURSE MONEYS ILLEGALLY EXACTED UNDER COLOR OF THE TAX POWER, THE
SUIT WAS ONE AGAINST THE STATE.  WE SAID THAT SUCH A SUIT WAS CLEARLY
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM ACTIONS AGAINST A TAX COLLECTOR TO RECOVER A
PERSONAL JUDGMENT FOR MONEY WRONGFULLY COLLECTED UNDER COLOR OF STATE
LAW.  322 U.S. 47, 50-51.  WHERE RELIEF IS SOUGHT UNDER GENERAL LAW
FROM WRONGFUL ACTS OF STATE OFFICIALS, THE SOVEREIGN'S IMMUNITY UNDER
THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT EXTEND TO WRONGFUL INDIVIDUAL ACTION,
AND THE CITIZEN IS ALLOWED A REMEDY AGAINST THE WRONGDOER PERSONALLY. 
ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. O'CONNOR, 223 U.S. 280; CF. MATTHEWS V.
RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 528.  WHERE, HOWEVER, AN ACTION IS AUTHORIZED BY
STATUTE AGAINST A STATE OFFICER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND
CONSTITUTING AN ACTION AGAINST THE STATE, THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
OPERATES TO BAR SUIT EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE STATUTE WAIVES STATE
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.  SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S. 436; GREAT NORTHERN
INSURANCE CO. V. READ, 322 U.S. 47. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PETITIONER'S SUIT IN THE INSTANT CASE
AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT AND THE INDIVIDUALS AS THE BOARD CONSTITUTES AN
ACTION AGAINST THE STATE OF INDIANA.  A STATE STATUTE PRESCRIBED THE
PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING REFUND OF TAXES ILLEGALLY EXACTED, PROVIDING
THAT A TAXPAYER FIRST FILE A TIMELY APPLICATION FOR A REFUND WITH THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY.  FN6 UPON DENIAL OF SUCH CLAIM, THE
TAXPAYER IS AUTHORIZED TO RECOVER THE ILLEGAL EXACTION IN AN ACTION
AGAINST THE "DEPARTMENT."  JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN SUCH ACTION IS TO BE
SATISFIED BY PAYMENT "OUT OF ANY FUNDS IN THE STATE TREASURY."  FN7
THIS SECTION CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR AN ACTION AGAINST THE STATE, AS
OPPOSED TO ONE AGAINST THE COLLECTING OFFICIAL INDIVIDUALLY.  NO STATE
COURT DECISION HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION WHICH WOULD INDICATE
THAT A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THIS STATUTE HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY
STATE COURTS. 

PETITIONER'S SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IS BASED ON SEC. 64
2614(A) OF THE INDIANA STATUTES AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTES AN ACTION
AGAINST THE STATE, NOT AGAINST THE COLLECTING OFFICIAL AS AN
INDIVIDUAL.  PETITIONER BROUGHT ITS ACTION IN STRICT ACCORD WITH SEC.
64-2614(A).  THE ACTION IS AGAINST THE STATE'S DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY. 
THE COMPLAINT CAREFULLY DETAILS COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
64-2614(A) WHICH REQUIRE A TIMELY APPLICATION FOR REFUND TO THE
DEPARTMENT AS A PREREQUISITE TO A COURT ACTION AUTHORIZED IN THE
THE GOVERNOR, TREASURER AND AUDITOR OF THE STATE AS DEFENDANTS, WHO
"TOGETHER CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF THE STATE
OF INDIANA."  BUT, THEY WERE JOINED AS THE COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE STATE, NOT AS INDIVIDUALS AGAINST WHOM A PERSONAL JUDGMENT IS
SOUGHT.  THE PETITIONER DID NOT ASSERT ANY CLAIM TO A PERSONAL JUDGMENT
AGAINST THESE INDIVIDUALS FOR THE CONTESTED TAX PAYMENTS.  THE
PETITIONER'S CLAIM IS FOR A "REFUND," NOT FOR THE IMPOSITION OF
PERSONAL LIABILITY ON INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS FOR SUMS ILLEGALLY
EXACTED.  WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT THE NATURE OF A SUIT AS ONE
AGAINST THE STATE IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE ESSENTIAL NATURE AND
EFFECT OF THE PROCEEDING.  EX PARTE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443, 490-99; EX
PARTE NEW YORK, 256 U.S. 490, 500; WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY,
302 U.S. 292, 296-98.  AND WHEN THE ACTION IS IN ESSENCE ONE FOR THE
RECOVERY OF MONEY FROM THE STATE, THE STATE IS THE REAL, SUBSTANTIAL
PARTY IN INTEREST AND IS ENTITLED TO INVOKE ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM
SUIT EVEN THOUGH INDIVIDUAL OFFICIALS ARE NOMINAL DEFENDANTS.  SMITH V.
REEVES, SUPRA; GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE CO. V. READ, SUPRA.  WE ARE OF
THE OPINION, THEREFORE, THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT IN
RELIANCE ON SEC. 64-2614(A) AND IS A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE. 

IT REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE STATE OF INDIANA HAS
CONSENTED TO THIS ACTION AGAINST IT IN THE FEDERAL COURT. 

THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT:  "THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXTEND TO ANY SUIT IN LAW OR
EQUITY, COMMENCED OR PROSECUTED AGAINST ONE OF THE UNITED STATES BY
CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE, OR BY CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS OF ANY FOREIGN
STATE."  THIS EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION DENIES TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT BROUGHT BY PRIVATE PARTIES AGAINST
A STATE WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  HANS V. LOUISIANA, 134 U.S. 1, 10; EX
PARTE NEW YORK, 256 U.S. 490, 497; MISSOURI V. FISKE, 290 U.S. 18, 25;
UNITED STATES V. U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 309 U.S. 506, 512; GREAT
NORTHERN INSURANCE CO. V. READ, SUPRA; STATE V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.,
175 IND. 59, 71, 93 N.E. 213; HOGSTON V. BELL, 185 IND. 536, 548, 112
N.E. 883.  WHILE THE STATE'S IMMUNITY FROM SUIT MAY BE WAIVED, CLARK V.
BARNARD, 108 U.S. 436, 447; GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S.
273; MISSOURI V. FISKE, 290 U.S. 18, 24, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE
AUTHORIZATION OF SUCH WAIVER BY INDIANA IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING. 

IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION; AND THE CIRCUIT OR SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER RESIDES OR IS LOCATED SHALL
HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF ACTION TO RECOVER ANY AMOUNT IMPROPERLY
COLLECTED."  IN THE READ CASE WE CONSTRUED A SIMILAR PROVISION OF AN
OKLAHOMA TAX REFUND STATUTE AS A WAIVER OF STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IN
STATE COURTS ONLY.  322 U.S. 47, 54.  AS WAS SAID IN THAT CASE:  "WHEN
A STATE AUTHORIZES A SUIT AGAINST ITSELF TO DO JUSTICE TO TAXPAYERS WHO
DEEM THEMSELVES INJURED BY ANY EXACTION, IT IS NOT CONSONANT WITH OUR
DUAL SYSTEM FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS TO BE ASTUTE TO READ THE CONSENT TO
EMBRACE FEDERAL AS WELL AS STATE COURTS....  WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH
THE SOVEREIGN EXEMPTION FROM JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IN THE VITAL FIELD
OF FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION A CLEAR DECLARATION OF THE STATE'S
INTENTION TO SUBMIT ITS FISCAL PROBLEMS TO OTHER COURTS THAN THOSE OF
ITS OWN CREATION MUST BE FOUND."  CF. UNITED STATES V. SHAW, 309 U.S.
495, 501.  SECTION 64-2614 DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY CLEAR INDICATION THAT
THE STATE INTENDED TO CONSENT TO SUIT IN FEDERAL COURTS.  FN8  THE
PROVISION IN THIS SECTION WHICH VESTS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF SUITS
FOR REFUND IN THE "CIRCUIT OR SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE
TAXPAYER RESIDES OR IS LOCATED" INDICATES THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE
CONTEMPLATED SUIT IN THE STATE COURTS.  FN9  MOREOVER, THIS
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 64-2614(A) TO AUTHORIZE SUITS ONLY IN STATE
COURTS ACCORDS WITH THE STATE LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  INDIANA HAS ADOPTED
A LIBERAL POLICY TOWARD GENERAL CONTRACT CLAIMANTS BUT CONFINES THEIR
SUITS AGAINST THE STATE TO STATE COURTS.  FN10 

IT REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF INDIANA IN HIS CONDUCT OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDING HAS WAIVED
THE STATE'S IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.  THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE STATE IN ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER THE INDIANA
REFUND STATUTE  FN11.  HE APPEARED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND DEFENDED THE SUIT ON THE MERITS.  THE
OBJECTION TO PETITIONER'S SUIT AS A VIOLATION OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
WAS FIRST MADE AND ARGUED BY INDIANA IN THIS COURT.  THIS WAS IN TIME,
HOWEVER.  THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT DECLARES A POLICY AND SETS FORTH AN
EXPLICIT LIMITATION ON FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER OF SUCH COMPELLING FORCE
THAT THIS COURT WILL CONSIDER THE ISSUE ARISING UNDER THIS AMENDMENT IN
THIS CASE EVEN THOUGH URGED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS COURT. 

IT IS CONCEDED BY THE RESPONDENTS THAT IF IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF INDIANA TO WAIVE THE
STATE'S IMMUNITY, THEY HAVE DONE SO IN THIS PROCEEDING.  THE ISSUE THUS
BECOMES ONE OF THEIR POWER UNDER STATE LAW TO DO SO.  AS THIS ISSUE HAS
NOT BEEN DETERMINED BY STATE COURTS,  FN12  THIS COURT MUST RESORT TO
THE GENERAL POLICY OF THE STATE AS EXPRESSED IN ITS CONSTITUTION,
STATUTES AND DECISIONS.  ARTICLE 4, SEC. 24 OF THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION
PROVIDES: 

"PROVISION MAY BE MADE, BY GENERAL LAW, FOR BRINGING SUIT AGAINST THE
STATE, AS TO ALL LIABILITIES ORIGINATING AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THIS
CONSTITUTION; BUT NO SPECIAL ACT AUTHORIZING SUCH SUIT TO BE BROUGHT,
OR MAKING COMPENSATION TO ANY PERSON CLAIMING DAMAGES AGAINST THE
STATE, SHALL EVER BE PASSED." 

WE INTERPRET THIS PROVISION AS INDICATING A POLICY PROHIBITING STATE
CONSENT TO SUIT IN ONE PARTICULAR CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF A GENERAL
CONSENT TO SUIT IN ALL SIMILAR CAUSES OF ACTION.  SINCE THE STATE
LEGISLATURE MAY WAIVE STATE IMMUNITY ONLY BY GENERAL LAW, IT IS NOT TO
BE PRESUMED IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR LANGUAGE TO THE CONTRARY, THAT THEY
CONFERRED ON ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS DISCRETIONARY POWER
TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD CONSENT IN INDIVIDUAL CASES.  NOR DO WE THINK THAT
ANY OF THE GENERAL OR SPECIAL POWERS CONFERRED BY STATUTE ON THE
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL TO APPEAR AND DEFEND ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST
THE STATE OR ITS OFFICIALS CAN BE DEEMED TO CONFER ON THAT OFFICER
POWER TO CONSENT TO SUIT AGAINST THE STATE IN COURTS WHEN THE STATE HAS
NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED.  FN13  STATE COURT DECISIONS CONSTRUE
STRICTLY THE STATUTORY POWERS CONFERRED ON THE INDIANA STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND HOLD THAT HE EXERCISES ONLY THOSE POWERS "DELEGATED" TO HIM
BY STATUTE AND DOES NOT POSSESS THE POWERS OF AN ATTORNEY GENERAL AT
"COMMON LAW."  FN14  IT WOULD SEEM, THEREFORE, THAT NO PROPERLY
AUTHORIZED EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE STATE HAS WAIVED
THE STATE'S IMMUNITY TO SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S. 273, IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE
INSTANT CASE SINCE IT INVOLVED A TAXPAYER'S ANCILLARY SUIT TO ENJOIN
SOUTH CAROLINA TAX OFFICIALS FROM COLLECTING TAXES IN VIOLATION OF AN
EARLIER DECISION OF THIS COURT UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF A STATE
AGREEMENT TO EXEMPT THE TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY.  HUMPHREY V. PEGUES, 16
WALL.  244.  THE PEGUES CASE INVOLVED A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE IN THE
PERSON OF ITS TAX OFFICIALS, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL APPEARING FOR
THE STATE AND ARGUING THE CASE ON THE MERITS, NO ISSUE OF SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY BEING RAISED.  IN THE GUNTER PROCEEDING, BROUGHT OVER TWENTY
YEARS LATER, DEFENDANT SOUTH CAROLINA ATTACKED THE VALIDITY OF THE
PEGUES JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IN THAT PROCEEDING THE STATE HAD NOT
CONSENTED TO BE SUED.  THIS COURT HELD THE PEGUES JUDGMENT WAS RES
JUDICATA AND BINDING ON THE STATE BECAUSE THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTES
CONFERRED ON THE STATE OFFICIALS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POWER THERE
TO "STAND IN JUDGMENT FOR THE STATE," 200 U.S. AT 285, 286-87.  THE
STATE'S SUBMISSION TO THE COURT WAS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE, NOT BY THE
UNAUTHORIZED CONSENT OF AN OFFICIAL.  FARISH V. STATE BANKING BOARD,
235 U.S. 498, 512.  NO DISTINCTION WAS DRAWN BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS.  RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON CONTEMPORANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE STATUTES, ABSENCE OF ANY LEGISLATIVE ACTION
REPUDIATING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONDUCT OF THE CASE AND THE FAILURE
OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN ALL ITS DEPARTMENTS, FOR MORE THAN TWENTY
YEARS, TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT IN CONFLICT WITH THE PEGUES ADJUDICATION. 
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION BY A STATE OF ITS STATUTES OF CONSENT HAS
INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING OUR CONCLUSIONS.  GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE CO.
V. READ, SUPRA.    AS WE INDICATED IN THE READ CASE, THE CONSTRUCTION
GIVEN THE INDIANA STATUTE LEAVES OPEN THE ROAD TO REVIEW IN THIS COURT
ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS AFTER THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN PASSED UPON BY
STATE COURTS.  THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING STATE COURTS PASS INITIALLY UPON
QUESTIONS WHICH INVOLVE THE STATE'S LIABILITY FOR TAX REFUNDS IS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE INSTANT CASE WHERE PETITIONER SUED IN A FEDERAL
COURT FOR A REFUND ONLY TO URGE ON CERTIORARI THAT THE FEDERAL COURT
ERRED IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE
QUESTIONS RAISED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF CONSENT BY THE STATE TO THIS SUIT. 

FN1  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE BOARD OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AS SEC. 64-2614, BURNS, INDIANA STAT. ANN. (1943
REPLACEMENT), PROVIDES FOR SUIT AGAINST THE "DEPARTMENT."  SEE INDIANA
ACTS, 1933, CH. 4, SEC. 13; INDIANA ACTS, 1941, CH. 4 AND CH. 13, SECS.
2, 8; TUCKER V. STATE, 218 IND. 614, 35 N.E.2D 270. 

FN2  BURNS, INDIANA STAT. ANN. SEC. 64-2602(1943 REPLACEMENT). 

FN3  SECTION 64-2614(A) OF BURNS, INDIANA STAT. ANN. (1943
REPLACEMENT) PROVIDES: 

"IF ANY PERSON CONSIDERS THAT HE HAS PAID TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
YEAR AN AMOUNT WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT LEGALLY DUE FROM HIM
FOR THAT YEAR UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ACT, HE MAY APPLY TO THE
DEPARTMENT, BY VERIFIED PETITION IN WRITING, AT ANY TIME WITHIN THREE
(3) YEARS AFTER THE PAYMENT FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD FOR WHICH SUCH
ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE, FOR A CORRECTION OF THE AMOUNT SO
PAID BY HIM TO THE DEPARTMENT, AND FOR A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT WHICH HE
CLAIMS HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY COLLECTED AND PAID.  IN SUCH PETITION, HE
SHALL SET FORTH THE AMOUNT WHICH HE CLAIMS SHOULD BE REFUNDED, AND THE
REASONS FOR SUCH CLAIM.  THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROMPTLY CONSIDER SUCH
PETITION, AND MAY GRANT SUCH REFUND, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR MAY WHOLLY
DENY THE SAME.  IF DENIED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE
FORTHWITH NOTIFIED OF SUCH ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND OF ITS GROUNDS
FOR SUCH DENIAL.  THE DEPARTMENT MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, GRANT THE
PETITIONER A FURTHER HEARING WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PETITION.  ANY PERSON
IMPROPERLY CHARGED WITH ANY TAX PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
ACT, AND REQUIRED TO PAY THE SAME, MAY RECOVER ANY AMOUNT THUS
IMPROPERLY COLLECTED, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IN ANY PROPER ACTION OR
SUIT AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION; AND
THE CIRCUIT OR SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER
RESIDES OR IS LOCATED SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF ACTION TO
RECOVER ANY AMOUNT IMPROPERLY COLLECTED:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO
COURT SHALL ENTERTAIN SUCH A SUIT, UNLESS THE TAXPAYER SHALL SHOW THAT
HE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR REFUND WITH THE DEPARTMENT, AS HEREINABOVE
PROVIDED, WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE ACTION:
PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT NO SUCH SUIT SHALL BE ENTERTAINED UNTIL THE
EXPIRATION OF SIX (6) MONTHS FROM THE TIME OF FILING SUCH PETITION FOR
REFUND WITH THE DEPARTMENT, UNLESS IN THE MEANTIME, THE DEPARTMENT
SHALL HAVE NOTIFIED THE PETITIONER, IN WRITING, OF THE DENIAL OF SUCH
PETITION  ...." 

FN4  FORD MOTOR CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 141 F.2D 24. 

FN5  322 U.S. 721. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA, SEC. 64-2614(A). 

FN7  BURNS, INDIANA STAT. ANN. SEC. 64-2614(B)(1943 REPLACEMENT). 

FN8  SECTION 60-310, BURNS, INDIANA STAT. ANN. (1943 REPLACEMENT),
(ACTS, 1941, CH. 27, SEC. 1, P. 64), PROVIDES FOR THE CREATION OF A
STATE BOARD OF FINANCE.  THIS SECTION READS, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:
"SUCH BOARD MAY SUE, AND BE SUED IN ITS NAME, IN ANY ACTION, AND IN ANY
COURT HAVING JURISDICTION, WHENEVER NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." 

IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE RIGHT TO SUE THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
FOR ERRONEOUS TAX PAYMENTS, WHICH WAS GRANTED BY SEC. 64-2614(A),
BURNS, INDIANA STAT. ANN. (1943 REPLACEMENT)(SEE ACTS, 1937, CH. 117,
SEC. 14, PP. 631-32) HAS BEEN REPEALED OR TRANSFERRED TO THE STATE
BOARD OF FINANCE BY THE ACTS, 1941, CH. 27, OR OTHERWISE. 

IF IT IS HELD BY INDIANA THAT THE STATE'S CONSENT TO BE SUED FOR THE
RECOVERY OF TAXES WAS COVERED BY SEC. 60-310 RATHER THAN BY SEC. 64
2614(A), WE SHOULD BE OF THE OPINION, UNTIL OTHERWISE ADVISED BY
INDIANA ADJUDICATIONS, THAT THE CONSENT WAS LIMITED TO SUITS IN THE
STATE COURTS. 

CHAPTER 27 OF THE ACTS OF 1941, WHICH CREATES THE STATE BOARD OF
FINANCE, APPARENTLY INVESTS THE BOARD WITH CONTROL OVER PUBLIC FUNDS
RATHER THAN WITH THE COLLECTION AND REFUND OF TAXES. 

FN9  REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR STATE COURT IN A CALIFORNIA STATUTE
SIMILAR TO SEC. 64-2614 WAS HELD TO WARRANT AN INFERENCE THAT THE STATE
LEGISLATURE CONSENTED TO SUIT AGAINST THE STATE IN A STATE COURT ONLY. 
SEE SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S. 436, 441. 

FN10  BURNS, INDIANA STAT. ANN. SEC. 4-1501(1933), PROVIDES: 

"ANY PERSON OR PERSONS HAVING OR CLAIMING TO HAVE A MONEY DEMAND
AGAINST THE STATE OF INDIANA, ARISING, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, OUT OF
CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,  ...  MAY BRING SUIT AGAINST THE STATE
THEREFOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA,  ...  AND
JURISDICTION IS HEREBY CONFERRED UPON SAID SUPERIOR COURT OF MARION
COUNTY, INDIANA, TO HEAR AND DETERMINE SUCH ACTION  ..." 

FN11  SECTION 64-2614(C) PROVIDES: 

"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO REPRESENT THE
DEPARTMENT, AND/OR THE STATE OF INDIANA, IN ALL LEGAL MATTERS OR
LITIGATION, EITHER CRIMINAL OR CIVIL, RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT,
CONSTRUCTION, APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT, UPON THE
ORDER AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT." 

FN12  STATE EX REL. WOODWARD V. SMITH, 85 IND. APP. 56, 152 N.E. 836,
IS THE ONLY INDIANA DECISION WHICH HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION AS
INVOLVING THE AUTHORITY OF STATE EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS
TO CONSENT TO SUIT AGAINST THE STATE.  IN THAT CASE PLAINTIFF SUED TO
FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE ON CERTAIN LAND AND JOINED THE STATE OF INDIANA AS
DEFENDANT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN CANCELLATION OF A PRIOR JUDGMENT LIEN ON
THIS PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE STATE.  THE DEFENDANT STATE FILED A CROSS
COMPLAINT FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF SEEKING SATISFACTION OF ITS LIEN.  THE
INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE STATE APPEARED, PLEADED TO
THE MERITS AND FILED A CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF, IT
THEREBY CONSENTED THAT IT MIGHT BE MADE A PARTY TO DETERMINE THE
PRIORITY OF ITS LIEN.  THIS CASE INVOLVES AN APPLICATION OF THE WELL
ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN A SOVEREIGN SUES FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF,
IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AS TO THE ISSUES
PRESENTED BY ITS AFFIRMATIVE CLAIM.  STATE V. PORTSMOUTH SAVINGS BANK,
106 IND. 435, 7 N.E. 379. 

FN13  SECTION 4-1504, BURNS, INDIANA STAT. ANN. (1933) AUTHORIZES THE
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REPRESENT THE STATE IN ACTIONS BROUGHT
AGAINST IT UNDER SEC. 4-1501, SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA; IT PROVIDES: 

"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF STATE, IN PERSON OR
BY DEPUTY, TO DEFEND AND REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE IN SAID
SUPERIOR COURT OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA, AND ALSO IN THE SUPREME COURT
ON APPEAL." 


"SUCH ATTORNEY-GENERAL SHALL PROSECUTE AND DEFEND ALL SUITS THAT MAY
BE INSTITUTED BY OR AGAINST THE STATE OF INDIANA, THE PROSECUTION AND
DEFENSE OF WHICH IS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR BY LAW, WHENEVER HE
SHALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN TEN (10) DAYS' NOTICE OF THE PENDENCY THEREOF BY
THE CLERK OF THE COURT IN WHICH SUCH SUITS ARE PENDING, AND WHENEVER
REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNOR OR A MAJORITY OF THE OFFICERS OF STATE, IN
WRITING, TO BE FURNISHED HIM WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME; AND HE SHALL
REPRESENT THE STATE IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT, AND
SHALL DEFEND ALL SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST THE STATE OFFICERS IN THEIR
OFFICIAL RELATIONS, EXCEPT SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST THEM BY THE STATE; AND
HE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO ATTEND TO THE INTERESTS OF THE STATE IN ALL
SUITS, ACTIONS OR CLAIMS IN WHICH THE STATE IS OR MAY BECOME INTERESTED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THIS STATE." 

IN ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 64-2614(A) UNDER WHICH
PETITIONER'S SUIT IS BROUGHT.  SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA. 

FN14  STATE EX REL. BINGHAM V. HOME BREWING CO., 182 IND. 75, 87-95,
105 N.E. 909; JULIAN V. STATE, 122 IND. 68, 23 N.E. 690.  VARIOUS LOWER
FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS HAVE HELD THAT A STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL CANNOT
WAIVE STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.  DESERET WATER, OIL & IRR.  CO. V.
CALIFORNIA, 202 F. 498; TITLE GUARANTY & SURETY CO. V. GUERNSEY, 205 F.
91; O'CONNOR V. SLAKER, 22 F.2D 147; DUNNUCK V. KANSAS STATE HIGHWAY
COMMISSION, 21 F.SUPP.  882.  THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS
BEEN HELD TO BE WITHOUT POWER TO WAIVE THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF THE
UNITED STATES.  STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255, 269-70; CF. UNITED
STATES V. SHAW, 309 U.S. 495, 501. 

SEE RICHARDSON V. FAJARDO SUGAR CO., 241 U.S. 44, WHERE, WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION OF ANY LIMITATIONS ON HIS POWERS, WE HELD THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PUERTO RICO COULD WAIVE ITS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















WILLIAMS V. KAISER, 323 U.S. 471 


NO. 102.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1945.  -
REVERSED. 


IN A PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, THE PETITIONER, CONFINED IN A STATE PENITENTIARY UNDER A 15
YEAR SENTENCE FOR ROBBERY BY MEANS OF A DEADLY WEAPON (A CAPITAL
OFFENSE IN MISSOURI), ALLEGED THAT PRIOR TO HIS CONVICTION HE REQUESTED
THE AID OF COUNSEL BUT THAT NONE WAS APPOINTED; THAT HE DID NOT WAIVE
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE AID OF COUNSEL; THAT HE WAS INCAPABLE
OF MAKING HIS OWN DEFENSE ADEQUATELY AND AS A CONSEQUENCE WAS COMPELLED
TO PLEAD GUILTY.  THE COURT ALLOWED THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS BUT DENIED THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION.  HELD: 

1.  THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 473. 

2.  WHETHER THE FEDERAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER WAS INFRINGED IS FOR
THIS COURT TO DETERMINE.  P. 473. 

3.  THE PETITION HAVING BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REQUIRING THE STATE TO
ANSWER AND WITHOUT GIVING THE PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS
ALLEGATIONS, AND THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION BEING NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE RECITALS OF THE ACCOMPANYING CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SENTENCE
AND JUDGMENT, THIS COURT TREATS THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION AS
TRUE.  P. 474. 

4.  THE PETITION SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287
U.S. 45.  P. 474. 

5.  IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, IT WILL BE PRESUMED
THAT WHEN A DEFENDANT REQUESTS COUNSEL HE IS WITHOUT COUNSEL AND
WITHOUT FUNDS TO RETAIN COUNSEL.  P. 474. 

6.  ALTHOUGH A JUDGMENT BASED ON A PLEA OF GUILTY, LIKE OTHER
JUDGMENTS, MAY NOT BE SET ASIDE LIGHTLY ON COLLATERAL ATTACK, A
JUDGMENT BASED ON A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE BY A DEFENDANT
WHO REQUESTED BUT WAS NOT GRANTED COUNSEL, AND WHO WAS INCAPABLE
ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS OWN DEFENSE, STANDS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING. 
P. 474. 

7.  THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST THE PETITIONER
EMPHASIZED THE NEED OF COUNSEL.  P. 474. 

8.  THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND OF DENIAL OF HIS
RIGHT TO COUNSEL CAN NOT BE DEFEATED BY HIS FAILURE TO TAKE AN APPEAL
FROM THAT JUDGMENT.  P. 477. 

9.  SINCE THE STATE GROUNDS HERE ADVANCED TO SUSTAIN THE DENIAL OF
THE PETITION ARE INSUBSTANTIAL, THE DENIAL IS ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN ON
THE GROUND THAT THE PETITION STATED NO CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE
FEDERAL RIGHT.  P. 478. 

WILLIAMS V. KAISER, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 725, TO REVIEW AN ORDER DENYING A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY TO AN INDICTMENT CHARGING HIM WITH ROBBERY
BY MEANS OF A DEADLY WEAPON.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF IRON COUNTY,
MISSOURI, FOUND HIM GUILTY AND SENTENCED HIM TO THE STATE PENITENTIARY,
WHERE HE IS NOW CONFINED, FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS ON MAY 28, 1940. 
IN APRIL, 1944, HE FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI.  AFTER RECITING THE FOREGOING FACTS
CONCERNING HIS CONVICTION HE FURTHER ALLEGES IN HIS PETITION: 

"PRIOR TO HIS CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, AS AFORESAID, THE PETITIONER
REQUESTED THE AID OF COUNSEL.  AT THE TIME OF HIS CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE, AS AFORESAID, THE PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT THE AID OF COUNSEL,
THE COURT DID NOT MAKE AN APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, NOR DID PETITIONER
WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE AID OF COUNSEL, AND HE WAS
INCAPABLE ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS OWN DEFENSE, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH
HE WAS COMPELLED TO PLEAD GUILTY."  AND HE CONTENDS THAT HE WAS
DEPRIVED OF COUNSEL CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
ALLOWED PETITIONER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BUT DENIED THE PETITION
FOR THE REASON THAT IT "FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION."  THE CASE IS
HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF
THE SUBSTANTIAL NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHICH IS RAISED. 

MISSOURI HAS A STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES A COURT ON REQUEST TO ASSIGN
COUNSEL TO A PERSON UNABLE TO EMPLOY ONE AND WHO IS CHARGED WITH A
FELONY.  REV. STAT. 1939, SEC. 4003.  THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT DID
NOT INDICATE THE REASONS FOR ITS DENIAL OF THE PETITION BEYOND THE
STATEMENT THAT THE PETITION FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. 
WHATEVER THE GROUNDS OF THAT DECISION IT IS BINDING ON US INSOFAR AS
STATE LAW IS CONCERNED.  SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329.  BUT THE RIGHT
TO COUNSEL IN CASES OF THIS TYPE IS A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT
FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN INFRINGED IS NOT FORECLOSED HERE, EVEN THOUGH
THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURT WAS ON THE GROUND THAT ITS STATUTE
REQUIRING THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WAS NOT VIOLATED.  POWELL V.
ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 59-60.  AND MISSOURI HAS NOT SUGGESTED IN THE
ARGUMENT BEFORE THIS COURT THAT IT PROVIDES A REMEDY OTHER THAN HABEAS
CORPUS FOR RELEASE FROM A CONFINEMENT UNDER A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE.  NEITHER IN THE
BRIEFS NOR IN ORAL ARGUMENT DID MISSOURI SUGGEST THAT ITS HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEDURE (SEE REV. STAT. 1939, SECS. 1590, 1621, 1623) IS NOT
AVAILABLE IN THIS SITUATION.  FN1 

THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS DENIED WITHOUT REQUIRING THE STATE
TO ANSWER OR WITHOUT GIVING PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS
ALLEGATIONS.  AND THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PETITION ARE NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE RECITALS OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SENTENCE
AND JUDGMENT WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE PETITION AND UNDER WHICH PETITIONER
IS CONFINED.  HENCE WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION
ARE TRUE.  SMITH V. O'GRADY, SUPRA.  READ IN THAT LIGHT WE THINK THE
PETITION MAKES A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF DENIAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT.  THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT WHEN A DEFENDANT
REQUESTS COUNSEL IT WILL BE "PRESUMED," IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY (STATE V. STEELMAN, 318 MO. 628, 631, 300 S.W. 743), THAT HE
WAS "WITHOUT COUNSEL AND THAT HE LACKED FUNDS TO EMPLOY THEM."  STATE
V. WILLIAMS, 320 MO. 296, 306, 6 S.W.2D 915.  WE INDULGE THE SAME
PRESUMPTION.  CERTAINLY IT MAY BE REASONABLY INFERRED FROM THAT REQUEST
AND FROM THE FURTHER ALLEGATION THAT AS A RESULT OF THE COURT'S FAILURE
TO APPOINT COUNSEL PETITIONER WAS "COMPELLED TO PLEAD GUILTY," THAT HE
WAS UNABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL TO PRESENT HIS DEFENSE BECAUSE HE WAS
WITHOUT FUNDS.  LIKE OTHER JUDGMENTS, A JUDGMENT BASED ON A PLEA OF
GUILTY IS NOT OF COURSE TO BE LIGHTLY IMPEACHED IN COLLATERAL
PROCEEDINGS.  SEE JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 468-469.  BUT A PLEA
OF GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE MADE BY ONE WHO ASKED FOR COUNSEL BUT
COULD NOT OBTAIN ONE AND WHO WAS "INCAPABLE ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS
OWN DEFENSE" STANDS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING.  ROBBERY IN THE FIRST
DEGREE (REV. STAT. 1939, SEC. 4450) BY MEANS OF A DEADLY WEAPON IS A
CAPITAL OFFENSE IN MISSOURI.  REV. STAT. 1939, SEC. 4453.  THE LAW OF
MISSOURI HAS IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ROBBERY IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, ROBBERY IN THE SECOND DEGREE, GRAND LARCENY, AND PETIT
LARCENY.  FN2  THESE INVOLVE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDICTMENT
OR INFORMATION, THE KIND OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED FOR CONVICTION,  FN3  THE
INSTRUCTIONS NECESSARY TO DEFINE THE SEVERAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME,
FN4  AND THE VARIOUS DEFENSES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE.  THESE ARE A CLOSED
BOOK TO THE AVERAGE LAYMAN.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS UNDERSCORE WHAT WAS
SAID IN POWELL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, P. 69:  "EVEN THE INTELLIGENT AND
EDUCATED LAYMAN HAS SMALL AND SOMETIMES NO SKILL IN THE SCIENCE OF
LAW.  IF CHARGED WITH CRIME, HE IS INCAPABLE, GENERALLY, OF DETERMINING
FOR HIMSELF WHETHER THE INDICTMENT IS GOOD OR BAD.  HE IS UNFAMILIAR
WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.  LEFT WITHOUT THE AID OF COUNSEL HE MAY BE
PUT ON TRIAL WITHOUT A PROPER CHARGE, AND CONVICTED UPON INCOMPETENT
EVIDENCE, OR EVIDENCE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OR OTHERWISE
INADMISSIBLE.  HE LACKS BOTH THE SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE ADEQUATELY TO
PREPARE HIS DEFENSE, EVEN THOUGH HE HAVE A PERFECT ONE.  HE REQUIRES
THE GUIDING HAND OF COUNSEL AT EVERY STEP IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
HIM.  WITHOUT IT, THOUGH HE BE NOT GUILTY, HE FACES THE DANGER OF
CONVICTION BECAUSE HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE.  IF
THAT BE TRUE OF MEN OF INTELLIGENCE, HOW MUCH MORE TRUE IS IT OF THE
IGNORANT AND ILLITERATE, OR THOSE OF FEEBLE INTELLECT."  THOSE
OBSERVATIONS ARE AS PERTINENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCUSED'S PLEA AS
THEY ARE IN THE CONDUCT OF A TRIAL.  THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY IS A
DECISION TO ALLOW A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION TO BE ENTERED WITHOUT A
HEARING - A DECISION WHICH IS IRREVOCABLE AND WHICH FORECLOSES ANY
POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING INNOCENCE.  IF WE ASSUME THAT PETITIONER
COMMITTED A CRIME, WE CANNOT KNOW THE DEGREE OF PREJUDICE WHICH THE
DENIAL OF COUNSEL CAUSED.  SEE GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60,
75-76.  ONLY COUNSEL COULD DISCERN FROM THE FACTS WHETHER A PLEA OF NOT
GUILTY TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED OR A PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.  FN5  A LAYMAN IS USUALLY NO MATCH FOR THE
SKILLED PROSECUTOR WHOM HE CONFRONTS IN THE COURT ROOM.  HE NEEDS THE
AID OF COUNSEL LEST HE BE THE VICTIM OF OVERZEALOUS PROSECUTORS, OF THE
LAW'S COMPLEXITY, OR OF HIS OWN IGNORANCE OR BEWILDERMENT. 

THESE ARE REASONS WHY THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS "FUNDAMENTAL."  POWELL
V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, P. 70; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233,
243-244; AVERY V. ALABAMA, 308 U.S. 444, 447.  THEY INDICATE THE
PROTECTION WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS WHEN CHARGED WITH CRIME.  PROMPT
AND EXPEDITIOUS DETECTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CRIME ARE NECESSARY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF SOCIETY.  BUT THAT MAY NOT BE DONE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN.  LAW ENFORCEMENT NEED NOT BE INEFFICIENT
WHEN ACCOMMODATED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 

POWELL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, P. 71, HELD THAT AT LEAST IN CAPITAL
OFFENSES "WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS UNABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL, AND IS
INCAPABLE ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS OWN DEFENSE BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE,
FEEBLE MINDEDNESS, ILLITERACY, OR THE LIKE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
COURT, WHETHER REQUESTED OR NOT, TO ASSIGN COUNSEL FOR HIM AS A
NECESSARY REQUISITE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  IT FOLLOWS FROM OUR
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PETITION THAT IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TAKEN AS
TRUE, PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT
THESE ALLEGATIONS WILL TURN OUT TO BE SPECIOUS AND UNFOUNDED.  BUT THEY
ARE SUFFICIENT UNDER THE RULE OF POWELL V. ALABAMA TO ESTABLISH A
DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IF THEIR VERITY IS DETERMINED.  SEE
COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255.  CF. WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S.
275. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, MISSOURI DOES NOT CLAIM THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT
AVAILABLE IN THIS TYPE OF CASE OR THAT UNDER MISSOURI LAW THERE IS SOME
PROCEDURE OTHER THAN HABEAS CORPUS AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER IN WHICH HE
MAY CHALLENGE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. 
MISSOURI, HOWEVER, DOES CONTEND THAT THE DENIAL OF COUNSEL COULD HAVE
BEEN CHALLENGED BY PETITIONER BY AN APPEAL, THAT NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN,
AND THAT NO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SHOWN WHICH EXCUSE THAT
FAILURE.  HERETOFORE WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED A FAILURE TO APPEAL AN
ADEQUATE DEFENSE TO HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS TYPE OF CASE.  SMITH V.
O'GRADY, SUPRA. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FAILURE TO APPEAL ONLY
EMPHASIZES THE NEED OF COUNSEL.  IF AN APPEAL WERE MADE SUCH A
REQUIREMENT, THE DENIAL OF COUNSEL WOULD IN AND OF ITSELF DEFEAT THE
VERY RIGHT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION SOUGHT TO PROTECT. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, MOREOVER, THAT FOR ALL WE KNOW THE DENIAL OF THE
PETITION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI RESTED ON ADEQUATE STATE
GROUNDS.  IT IS A WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF THIS COURT THAT BEFORE
WE WILL REVIEW A DECISION OF A STATE COURT IT MUST AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR
FROM THE RECORD THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS PRESENTED TO THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE HAVING JURISDICTION AND THAT ITS DECISION OF THE
FEDERAL QUESTION WAS NECESSARY TO ITS DETERMINATION OF THE CAUSE. 
HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14, 18; LYNCH V. NEW YORK, 293 U.S. 52. 
AND WHERE THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EITHER ON A
STATE GROUND OR ON A FEDERAL GROUND AND THE STATE GROUND IS SUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT, THE COURT WILL NOT UNDERTAKE TO REVIEW IT.
KLINGER V. MISSOURI, 13 WALL.  257, 263; WOOD MOWING & REAPING MACHINE
CO. V. SKINNER, 139 U.S. 293, 297; ALLEN V. ARGUIMBAU, 198 U.S. 149,
154-155; LYNCH V. NEW YORK, SUPRA.  WE ADHERE TO THOSE DECISIONS.  BUT
IT IS LIKEWISE WELL SETTLED THAT IF THE INDEPENDENT GROUND WAS NOT A
SUBSTANTIAL OR SUFFICIENT ONE, "IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT THE STATE
COURT BASED ITS JUDGMENT ON THE LAW RAISING THE FEDERAL QUESTION, AND
THIS COURT WILL THEN TAKE JURISDICTION."  KLINGER V. MISSOURI, SUPRA,
P. 263; JOHNSON V. RISK, 137 U.S. 300, 307; LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX
COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, 282-283.  THUS IN MAGUIRE V. TYLER, 8 WALL. 
650, AND IN NEILSON V. LAGOW, 12 HOW.  98, 110, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT
THE JUDGMENTS RESTED ON ADEQUATE STATE GROUNDS.  IN NEITHER WAS THERE
AN OPINION OF THE STATE COURT.  THE COURT EXAMINED THE RECORD, FOUND
THE STATE GROUNDS NOT SUBSTANTIAL OR SUFFICIENT, AND REVERSED THE
JUDGMENTS ON THE FEDERAL QUESTION N6.  WE THINK THE PRINCIPLE OF THOSE
CASES IS APPLICABLE HERE.  THE PETITION ESTABLISHES ON ITS FACE THE
DEPRIVATION OF A FEDERAL RIGHT.  THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION ON THE
GROUNDS THAT IT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT
IT WAS DENIED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE FEDERAL
RIGHT.  AND WHEN WE SEARCH FOR AN INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND TO SUPPORT
THE DENIAL, WE FIND NONE.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI ONLY GOES
SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT THE PETITION DID NOT STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL UNDER THE MISSOURI STATUTE.  BUT AS
WE HAVE SEEN, THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION SEEM SUFFICIENT UNDER THE
RULE LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI IN STATE V. WILLIAMS,
SUPRA.  AND MISSOURI SUGGESTS NO OTHER STATE GROUND WHICH MIGHT BE THE
BASIS OF THE DECISION.  FN7  THAT IS TO SAY, THE ONLY STATE GROUNDS
WHICH HAVE BEEN ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION BELOW APPEAR TO BE
INSUBSTANTIAL.  WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THEREFORE THAT THE DENIAL BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI WAS FOR THE REASON THAT THE PETITION STATED
NO CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE FEDERAL RIGHT.  THAT SEEMS TO US TO BE
THE FAIR INTENDMENT OF THE LANGUAGE WHICH IT USED IF WE PUT TO ONE
SIDE, AS WE MUST, THE INSUBSTANTIAL STATE GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN
ADVANCED IN EXPLANATION OF THE DENIAL.  IF PERCHANCE THE SUPREME COURT
OF MISSOURI MEANT THAT SOME REASON OF STATE LAW PRECLUDES A DECISION OF
THE FEDERAL QUESTION, THAT QUESTION IS NOT FORECLOSED BY THIS
DECISION.  CF. STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511;
MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551.  BUT ON THE PRESENT STATE
OF THE RECORD BEFORE US, WE DO NOT SEE WHAT MORE PETITIONER NEED DO TO
ESTABLISH THE FEDERAL RIGHT ON WHICH HIS PETITION IS BASED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IT IS AVAILABLE TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION RESTS.  EX PARTE SMITH, 135
MO. 223, 36 S.W. 628; EX PARTE TAFT V. SHAW, 284 MO. 531, 538-539, 225
S.W. 457; EX PARTE MCKEAN, 338 MO. 597, 600, 92 S.W.2D 141. 

FN2  THUS ONE INDICTED FOR ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE CANNOT BE
CONVICTED OF ROBBERY IN THE SECOND DEGREE BUT MAY BE CONVICTED OF
LARCENY.  STATE V. JENKINS, 36 MO. 372; STATE V. DAVIDSON, 38 MO. 374;
STATE V. BRANNON, 55 MO. 63.    FN3  SEE STATE V. WHITE, 326 MO. 1000,
34 S.W.2D 79. 

FN4  SEE STATE V. BROWN, 104 MO. 365, 16 S.W. 406; STATE V. WOODWARD,
131 MO. 369, 33 S.W. 14; STATE V. MCLAIN, 159 MO. 340, 60 S.W. 736. 

FN5  "ROBBERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE WITHOUT THE USE OF A DANGEROUS AND
DEADLY WEAPON IS INCLUDED IN THE CHARGE OF ROBBERY BY MEANS OF SUCH
WEAPON.  LARCENY IS ALSO SO INCLUDED, AND WHERE THE CHARGE IS ROBBERY
AND THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A LARCENOUS TAKING OF PROPERTY BUT THE ELEMENT
OF FORCE SUCH AS TO CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE OF ROBBERY IS WANTING THERE
SHOULD BE AN INSTRUCTION SUBMITTING LARCENY."  STATE V. CRAFT, 338 MO.
831, 843, 92 S.W.2D 626.  AND SEE STATE V. WEINHARDT, 253 MO. 629, 161
S.W. 1151. 

FN6  IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE COURT WITHOUT BENEFIT OF AN OPINION
OF THE STATE COURT EXAMINED THE PLEADINGS, FOUND SUBSTANTIAL STATE
GROUNDS ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT MIGHT HAVE RESTED, AND DISMISSED THE
WRIT.  JOHNSON V. RISK, SUPRA; ALLEN V. ARGUIMBAU, SUPRA; BACHTEL V.
WILSON, 204 U.S. 36; ADAMS V. RUSSELL, 229 U.S. 353; CUYAHOGA RIVER
POWER CO. V. NORTHERN REALTY CO., 244 U.S. 300, 303; LYNCH V. NEW YORK,
SUPRA; WOOLSEY V. BEST, 299 U.S. 1; MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP., 309
U.S. 2. 

FN7  IT IS STATED THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT ALLEGE FACTS WHICH SHOW
THAT PETITIONER WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL, THAT HE WAS IGNORANT, THAT HE
WAS INNOCENT, OR THAT THE COURT WAS PREJUDICED.  BUT IT IS NOT APPARENT
HOW THE ADDITION OF ANY SUCH ALLEGATIONS TO THE PETITION WOULD BE
RELEVANT TO PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  WE ARE NOT REFERRED TO ANY MISSOURI LAW WHICH WOULD
MAKE THEM RELEVANT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

AT THE REQUEST OF ONE CHARGED WITH A FELONY AND UNABLE TO EMPLOY
COUNSEL, MISSOURI REQUIRES ITS COURTS TO ASSIGN COUNSEL.  IN STATE V.
WILLIAMS, 320 MO. 296, 6 S.W.2D 915, A DEFENDANT ON TRIAL FOR A CAPITAL
OFFENSE REQUESTED THE COURT TO ASSIGN COUNSEL, AND THE COURT
ACCORDINGLY APPOINTED TWO LAWYERS FOR HIS DEFENSE.  AFTER A PLEA OF
GUILTY AND THE IMPOSITION OF A DEATH SENTENCE, AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM
A DENIAL OF A MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL
COURT VIOLATED THE MISSOURI STATUTE IN THAT THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW
THAT THE JUDGE HAD ASCERTAINED THE INABILITY OF THE ACCUSED TO EMPLOY
COUNSEL BEFORE APPOINTING THEM.  THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A SPECIFIC FINDING DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION
OF THE MISSOURI STATUTES.  "THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IT WAS UPON
DEFENDANT'S REQUEST THAT THE COURT ASSIGNED HIM COUNSEL.  HAVING
REQUESTED THE COURT TO ASSIGN COUNSEL, IT WILL THEN BE PRESUMED THAT
DEFENDANT WAS WITHOUT COUNSEL AND THAT HE LACKED FUNDS TO EMPLOY
THEM."  320 MO. AT 306.  THE COURT THUS REJECTED THE FRIVOLOUS CLAIM
THAT BY GIVING THE ACCUSED WHAT HE ASKED FOR, COUNSEL NOT OF HIS CHOICE
HAD BEEN FORCED ON HIM.  THAT DECISION CAN HARDLY SERVE AS A
SPRINGBOARD FOR CONCLUDING IN THIS CASE THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF
MISSOURI VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN FINDING THAT
THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW THAT THE TRIAL COURT, IN DENYING THE PRESENT
DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL, DENIED HIM RIGHTS
UNDER THE LAW OF MISSOURI AS WELL AS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
TO BE SURE, THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT DID NOT WRITE AN OPINION IN
SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE PETITIONER'S WRIT FOR HABEAS CORPUS
"FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION."  THERE IS NOTHING SIGNIFICANT ABOUT
THAT, AND IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE BASIS OR SCOPE OF THIS COURT'S REVIEW
OF STATE COURT DECISIONS.  DURING ITS 1942 JUDICIAL YEAR THE SUPREME
COURT OF MISSOURI DISPOSED OF 300 CASES BY OPINION AND 217 CASES
WITHOUT OPINION; DURING ITS 1942 JUDICIAL YEAR THIS COURT DISPOSED OF
218 CASES BY OPINION AND 146 CASES WITHOUT OPINION (APART FROM
DISPOSITIONS OF PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI).  IF THE DETERMINATION BY THE
MISSOURI COURT CAN REASONABLY BE JUSTIFIED ON FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A
REQUIREMENT OF MISSOURI LAW, THEN IT MUST BE SO JUSTIFIED.  AND THE
RECORD HERE PLAINLY ALLOWS THE INFERENCE THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT
MEET THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF MISSOURI LAW FOR RELIEF BY HABEAS
CORPUS.  IF A DECISION OF A STATE COURT CAN REST ON A STATE GROUND, IT
IS OUR DUTY TO CONCLUDE THAT IT DOES SO REST; IT IS OUR DUTY NOT TO
ASSUME THAT THE STATE COURT REJECTED A CLAIM UNDER THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. 

FROM THE BEGINNING, SUCH HAS BEEN THE PRINCIPLE GOVERNING OUR REVIEW
OF STATE COURT DECISIONS.  IN CASES COMING HERE FROM THE STATE COURTS,
THIS COURT HAS NO POWER TO PASS ON QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW; IT CAN
REVIEW A STATE COURT DECISION ONLY INSOFAR AS THAT RAISES A QUESTION OF
FEDERAL LAW; AND IT CAN ONLY THEN PASS ON THE FEDERAL QUESTION IF A
DECISION ON FEDERAL LAW WAS NECESSARY FOR THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE
STATE COURT.  THIS HISTORIC DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AS
BETWEEN THE STATE COURTS AND THIS COURT WAS CONFIRMED AND REINFORCED
DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD WHEN THE INFLUENCES TOWARD EXPANSION
OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION WERE AT FLOODTIDE.  MURDOCK V. MEMPHIS, 20
WALL.  590.  FN1 

THESE SOUND LIKE DRY RULES OF TECHNICAL JURISDICTION.  IN FACT THEY
EXPRESS AN IMPORTANT PHASE OF DUE REGARD FOR OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM.  STATE COURTS ARE NO LESS UNDER DUTY TO OBSERVE THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION THAN IS THIS COURT.  TO BE SURE, AUTHORITY IS
VESTED IN THIS COURT TO SEE TO IT THAT THAT DUTY IS OBSERVED.  BUT TO
ASSUME DISOBEDIENCE INSTEAD OF OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW OF THE LAND BY THE
HIGHEST COURTS OF THE STATES IS TO ENGENDER FRICTION BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL AND STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS, TO WEAKEN THE AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE COURTS AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF STATE LAWS BY ENCOURAGING
UNMERITORIOUS RESORTS TO THIS COURT, AND WASTEFULLY TO SWELL THE
DOCKETS OF THIS COURT. 

THIS CASE GIVES POINT TO THE IMPORTANCE OF ADHERING TO THE PRINCIPLES
THAT GOVERN OUR REVIEW OF STATE DECISIONS.  NOTHING IS A MORE
FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTIC OF A CIVILIZED SOCIETY THAN THOSE SECURITIES
WHICH SAFEGUARD A FAIR TRIAL FOR ONE ACCUSED OF CRIME.  THOSE
ASSURANCES WERE WRITTEN INTO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION EVEN AGAINST
STATE ACTION BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  A
CENTRAL SAFEGUARD IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ACCUSED TO HAVE ADEQUATE
FACILITIES FOR PRESENTING HIS DEFENSE.  BUT A FULL HALF CENTURY BEFORE
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION MADE THIS REQUIREMENT OF THE STATES,
MISSOURI, WHILE YET A TERRITORY, PROVIDED FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
FOR ACCUSED IN NEED.  DIGEST OF THE LAWS OF MISSOURI TERRITORY, 1818,
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS SEC. 35.  THERE IS NOTHING TO WARRANT THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI WAS UNMINDFUL OF THE
EXACTIONS OF ITS OWN HISTORIC LAW OR OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THAT IS NOW
EMBEDDED IN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  ON THE CONTRARY, EVERY ASSUMPTION
MUST BE INDULGED THAT THAT COURT WAS MINDFUL OF THE RIGHT WHICH MAY BE
CLAIMED BY AN INDIGENT ACCUSED TO HAVE A LAWYER'S AID FOR HIS DEFENSE. 
BUT IT MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN MINDFUL OF THE REQUIREMENT OF HER LAW THAT A
TRIAL JUDGE BE REASONABLY CONVINCED THAT AN ACCUSED IS IN NEED OF
COUNSEL. 

OF COURSE THIS COURT WILL NOT WITHHOLD ITS REVIEWING POWER OVER A
DECISION OF A STATE COURT BY PRESUMING THAT THE STATE COURT FOUNDED ITS
DECISION ON A WHOLLY UNTENABLE BASIS OF LOCAL LAW.  SEE, E.G., NEILSON
V. LAGOW, 12 HOW.  98, 109-111.  BUT NOTHING IN THE RECORD BEFORE US
PRECLUDES THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT FOUND A LOCAL
INADEQUACY IN THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  IF THE
MISSOURI SUPREME COURT HAD IN FACT REFUSED TO GRANT THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS BECAUSE IT CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT ALLEGATION
BY PETITIONER THAT HE HAD NEED FOR COUNSEL, CERTAINLY THIS COURT WOULD
NOT REJECT THAT AS AN INADEQUATE STATE GROUND.  AND IF THAT WOULD HAVE
FURNISHED AN ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, WE MUST ASSUME THAT IT DID, INSTEAD
OF ATTRIBUTING TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI A FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  IF THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT ENFORCES ITS
REQUIREMENT THAT AN ACCUSED MAKE MANIFEST HIS NEED FOR APPOINTED
COUNSEL AND IF MISSOURI ENFORCES THIS REQUIREMENT EVEN WITH PROCEDURAL
STRICTNESS AGAINST THOSE CONVICTED OF FELONIES YEARS AFTER THEIR
SENTENCE, IT IS NOT FOR US TO BE HYPERCRITICAL IN DENYING TO THE
HIGHEST TRIBUNAL OF A STATE WHAT IT MAY CONCEIVE TO BE ITS DUTY TO SEE
TO IT THAT THE GREAT WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT ABUSED  FN2  AND THAT
THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS NOT NEEDLESSLY WEAKENED BY
ASTUTE DEVICES.  WHILE THE PETITION IN THIS CASE WAS SIGNED BY WILLIAMS
ALONE, IT BEARS EVERY EVIDENCE OF HAVING BEEN DRAWN BY ONE AWARE OF THE
RELEVANT LEGAL ISSUES AND SKILLED IN LEGAL DRAFTING. 

IF, PERCHANCE, WE WERE TO INTERPRET ERRONEOUSLY THE DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI IN FINDING THAT THE PRESENT WRIT FAILED TO
STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE IT WAS WANTING IN REQUIREMENTS OF
MISSOURI LAW, NO REAL HARM WILL HAVE BEEN DONE.  BY PROPER APPLICATION
TO THE STATE COURT, THE AMBIGUITY OF THE PRESENT RECORD MAY BE REMOVED
BY SHOWING, IF INDEED SUCH BE THE FACT, THAT THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
NECESSARILY REJECTED A FEDERAL CLAIM HERE REVIEWABLE.  SEE WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 269 U.S. 530; 274 U.S. 357, 360-362; LYNCH V. NEW YORK, 293
U.S. 52; HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14.  OR, ANOTHER PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS MAKING THE NECESSARY ALLEGATIONS WOULD QUICKLY
REVEAL WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI FLAGRANTLY DISREGARDED A
LAW OF MISSOURI OLDER THAN THE STATE ITSELF, LET ALONE A RIGHT
SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  PETITIONER IS NOW
REPRESENTED BY ABLE AND DEVOTED COUNSEL WHO WOULD QUICKLY ENOUGH BRING
TO LIGHT ANY SUCH DISREGARD.  CERTAINLY WE OUGHT NOT TO ATTRIBUTE
ILLEGALITY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI WHEN THE ASSUMPTION OF
OBEDIENCE TO ITS OWN TRADITIONS LIES SO READILY ON THE SURFACE OF THIS
RECORD. 

THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

FN1  "THE RULES WHICH GOVERN THE ACTION OF THIS COURT IN CASES OF
THIS SORT ARE WELL SETTLED.  WHERE IT APPEARS BY THE RECORD THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BASED EITHER UPON A LAW
WHICH WOULD RAISE A QUESTION OF REPUGNANCY TO THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS,
OR TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES, OR UPON SOME OTHER INDEPENDENT
GROUND; AND IT APPEARS THAT THE COURT DID, IN FACT, BASE ITS JUDGMENT
ON SUCH INDEPENDENT GROUND, AND NOT ON THE LAW RAISING THE FEDERAL
QUESTION, THIS COURT WILL NOT TAKE JURISDICTION OF THE CASE, EVEN
THOUGH IT MIGHT THINK THE POSITION OF THE STATE COURT AN UNSOUND ONE. 
BUT WHERE IT DOES NOT APPEAR ON WHICH OF THE TWO GROUNDS THE JUDGMENT
WAS BASED, THEN, IF THE INDEPENDENT GROUND ON WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
BASED WAS A GOOD AND VALID ONE, SUFFICIENT OF ITSELF TO SUSTAIN THE
JUDGMENT, THIS COURT WILL NOT ASSUME JURISDICTION OF THE CASE; BUT IF
SUCH INDEPENDENT GROUND WAS NOT A GOOD AND VALID ONE, IT WILL BE
PRESUMED THAT THE STATE COURT BASED ITS JUDGMENT ON THE LAW RAISING THE
FEDERAL QUESTION, AND THIS COURT WILL THEN TAKE JURISDICTION."  KLINGER
V. MISSOURI, 13 WALL.  257, 263. 

THESE SETTLED PRINCIPLES WERE VERY RECENTLY AGAIN SUMMARIZED IN A PER
CURIAM OPINION IN SOUTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 303 U.S. 206,
212-213: 

"WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT IN REVIEWING A DECISION OF A COURT OF A STATE THAT IT MUST
APPEAR AFFIRMATIVELY FROM THE RECORD, NOT ONLY THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION
WAS PRESENTED FOR DECISION TO THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAVING
JURISDICTION BUT THAT ITS DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS
NECESSARY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE CAUSE; THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION
WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED OR THAT THE JUDGMENT AS RENDERED COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT DECIDING IT.  DE SAUSSURE V. GAILLARD, 127 U.S. 216,
234; JOHNSON V. RISK, 137 U.S. 300, 306, 307; WOOD MOWING & REAPING
MACHINE CO. V. SKINNER, 139 U.S. 293, 295, 297; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA,
274 U.S. 357, 360, 361; LYNCH V. NEW YORK, 293 U.S. 52, 54." 

FN2  "WE ARE DEALING WITH A WRIT ANTECEDENT TO STATUTE, AND THROWING
ITS ROOT DEEP INTO THE GENIUS OF OUR COMMON LAW  ....  IT IS PERHAPS
THE MOST IMPORTANT WRIT KNOWN TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF ENGLAND,
AFFORDING AS IT DOES A SWIFT AND IMPERATIVE REMEDY IN ALL CASES OF
ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OR CONFINEMENT.  IT IS OF IMMEMORIAL ANTIQUITY, AN
INSTANCE OF ITS USE OCCURRING IN THE THIRTY-THIRD YEAR OF EDWARD I. IT
HAS THROUGH THE AGES BEEN JEALOUSLY MAINTAINED BY COURTS OF LAW AS A
CHECK UPON THE ILLEGAL USURPATION OF POWER BY THE EXECUTIVE AT THE COST
OF THE LIEGE."  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME AFFAIRS V. O'BRIEN (1923)
A.C. 603, 609. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
















TOMKINS V. MISSOURI, 323 U.S. 485 


NO. 64.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1945.  -
REVERSED. 


IN A PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, THE PETITIONER, CONFINED IN A STATE PENITENTIARY FOR LIFE UPON
HIS PLEA OF GUILTY TO A CHARGE OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, ALLEGED
THAT HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THAT THE COURT DID NOT MAKE AN
EFFECTIVE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, THAT HE DID NOT WAIVE HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THAT HE WAS IGNORANT OF HIS RIGHT TO
DEMAND COUNSEL, AND THAT HE WAS INCAPABLE ADEPUATELY OF MAKING HIS OWN
DEFENSE.  THE COURT ALLOWED THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
BUT DENIED THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  HELD: 

1.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION ARE HERE ASSUMED TO BE TRUE. 
WILLIAMS V. KAISER, ANTE, P. 471.  P. 487. 

2.  A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL BY ONE ACCUSED OF A CAPITAL OFFENSE, WHO IS
UNABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL AND INCAPABLE ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS OWN
DEFENSE, IS UNNECESSARY; IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT IN SUCH CASE TO
APPOINT COUNSEL.  P. 487. 

3.  THAT THE PETITION IN SUCH A CASE AS THIS IS NOT DRAWN WITH
PRECISION AND CLARITY IS NOT FATAL, WHERE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CLAIM IS
PLAIN.  P. 487. 

4.  THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST THE PETITIONER - WHO
COULD HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE OR
OF MANSLAUGHTER, WITH VARYING PENALTIES - EMPHASIZED THE NEED OF
COUNSEL.  P. 488. 

5.  THE PETITION SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO
COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  POWELL V. ALABAMA,
287 U.S. 45.  P. 489. 

TOMKINS V. MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 725, TO REVIEW AN ORDER DENYING A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS A COMPANION CASE TO WILLIAMS V. KAISER, ANTE, P. 471. 
IT, TOO, IS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS HERE ON CERTIORARI
TO THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT.  IT IS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION THAT
PETITIONER IN 1934 WAS CHARGED WITH MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, PLEADED
GUILTY TO THE CHARGE, AND WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO THE STATE
PENITENTIARY FOR LIFE WHERE HE IS PRESENTLY CONFINED.  THE PETITION WAS
FILED IN 1944.  THE OTHER SALIENT FACTS ALLEGED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE PETITIONER STATES THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN SAID CIRCUIT COURT
OF PEMISCOT COUNTY, MISSOURI, HE WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, THE
COURT DID NOT MAKE AN EFFECTIVE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, THE PETITIONER
DID NOT WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE AID OF COUNSEL, AND HE
WAS IGNORANT OF HIS RIGHT TO DEMAND COUNSEL IN HIS BEHALF, AND HE WAS
INCAPABLE ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS OWN DEFENSE."  AND HE CONTENDS THAT
HE WAS DEPRIVED OF COUNSEL CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HERE, AS IN THE WILLIAMS
CASE, THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI ALLOWED PETITIONER TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS BUT DENIED THE PETITION FOR THE REASON THAT IT "FAILS TO
STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION."  THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS DENIED
WITHOUT REQUIRING THE STATE TO ANSWER OR WITHOUT GIVING PETITIONER AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS ALLEGATIONS.  AND THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN
THE PETITION DO NOT APPEAR TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE RECITALS OF THE
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE
PETITION AND UNDER WHICH PETITIONER IS CONFINED.  HENCE, WE MUST ASSUME
HERE, AS IN THE WILLIAMS CASE, THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION ARE
TRUE. 

POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 71, HELD THAT AT LEAST IN CAPITAL
CASES "WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS UNABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL, AND IS
INCAPABLE ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS OWN DEFENSE BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE,
FEEBLE MINDEDNESS, ILLITERACY, OR THE LIKE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
COURT, WHETHER REQUESTED OR NOT, TO ASSIGN COUNSEL FOR HIM AS A
NECESSARY REQUISITE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  UNDER THAT TEST A REQUEST
FOR COUNSEL IS NOT NECESSARY.  FN1  ONE MUST BE ASSIGNED TO THE ACCUSED
IF HE IS UNABLE TO EMPLOY ONE AND IS INCAPABLE ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS
DEFENSE. 

THE PETITION IS NOT DRAWN WITH THE DESIRABLE PRECISION AND CLARITY. 
BUT WE CAN HARDLY DEMAND OF A LAYMAN AND PAUPER WHO DRAWS HIS PETITION
BEHIND PRISON WALLS THE SKILL OF ONE TRAINED IN THE LAW.  IF WE WERE TO
TAKE THAT COURSE, WE WOULD COMPOUND THE INJURY CAUSED BY THE ORIGINAL
DENIAL OF COUNSEL.  A DEPRIVATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF
COUNSEL SHOULD NOT BE READILY INFERRED FROM VAGUE ALLEGATIONS.  BUT
WHERE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CLAIM IS CLEAR, WE SHOULD NOT INSIST UPON
MORE REFINED ALLEGATIONS THAN PAUPERS, IGNORANT OF THEIR RIGHT OF
COUNSEL AND INCAPABLE OF MAKING THEIR DEFENSE, COULD BE EXPECTED TO
SUPPLY. 

IF THIS PETITION IS READ IN THAT LIGHT, IT SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS
OF POWELL V. ALABAMA.  ONE WHO WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, WHO DID
NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WHO WAS IGNORANT OF HIS RIGHT TO
DEMAND COUNSEL IS ONE OF THE CLASS WHICH THE RULE OF POWELL V. ALABAMA
WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT.  CERTAINLY WHEN WE READ THESE ALLEGATIONS WITH
THE FURTHER ASSERTION IN THE RECORD THAT PETITIONER WAS AT NO TIME
PRIOR TO CONVICTION ALLOWED TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY, THE CONCLUSION
IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT PETITIONER WAS UNABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL EITHER
BECAUSE HE WAS WITHOUT FUNDS OR BECAUSE HE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE
OPPORTUNITY. 

THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE EMPHASIZES THE NEED FOR COUNSEL.  UNDER
MISSOURI LAW ONE CHARGED WITH MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE MAY BE FOUND
GUILTY OF THAT OFFENSE, OF MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE, OR OF
MANSLAUGHTER.  REV. STAT. 1939, SECS. 4376, 4844.  THE PUNISHMENTS FOR
THE OFFENSES ARE DIFFERENT.  SECS.4378, 4391.  THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THEM ARE GOVERNED BY RULES OF CONSTRUCTION MEANINGFUL TO THOSE TRAINED
IN THE LAW BUT UNKNOWN TO THE AVERAGE LAYMAN.  FN2  THE DEFENSES COVER
A WIDE RANGE.  FN3  AND THE INGREDIENTS OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE
FIRST DEGREE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE LESSER OFFENSES ARE NOT SIMPLE
BUT ONES OVER WHICH SKILLED JUDGES AND PRACTITIONERS HAVE
DISAGREEMENTS.  FN4  THE GUIDING AHND OF COUNSEL IS NEEDED LEST THE
UNWARY CONCEDE THAT WHICH ONLY BEWILDERMENT OR IGNORANCE COULD JUSTIFY
OR PAY A PENALTY WHICH IS GREATER THAN THE LAW OF THE STATE EXACTS FOR
THE OFFENSE WHICH THEY IN FACT AND IN LAW COMMITTED. 

HERE, AS IN THE WILLIAMS CASE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION MAY
TURN OUT TO BE WHOLLY SPECIOUS.  BUT THEY ARE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DEPRIVATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  THE OTHER
OBJECTIONS RAISED BY MISSOURI HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN OUR OPINION IN THE
WILLIAMS CASE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AS NOTED IN THE WILLIAMS CASE, THE MISSOURI STATUTE GOVERNING
THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (REV. STAT. 1939, SEC. 4003) EMPLOYS THE
LANGUAGE "ARRAIGNED UPON AN INDICTMENT FOR A FELONY."  THE PROSECUTION
IN THIS CASE WAS UPON AN INFORMATION.  BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF MISSOURI APPLIES THE STATUTE IN THAT SITUATION AS WELL.  SEE
STATE V. TERRY, 201 MO. 697, 100 S.W. 432; STATE V. STEELMAN, 318 MO.
628, 300 S.W. 743. 

FN2  IN STATE V. BURRELL, 298 MO. 672, 680, 252 S.W. 709, IT WAS HELD
THAT "WHERE THERE IS WILLFUL KILLING WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, THAT IS,
WITH MALICE AND PREMEDITATION, BUT NOT DELIBERATION, OR IN A COOL STATE
OF BLOOD, THE OFFENSE IS MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.  NOR CAN ANY
HOMICIDE BE MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE UNLESS THE ACT CAUSING DEATH
WAS COMMITTED WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, THAT IS, WITH MALICE AND
PREMEDITATION.  WHERE THERE IS A WILLFUL KILLING WITHOUT DELIBERATION
AND NOT WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, THE OFFENSE IS MANSLAUGHTER." 

FN3  SELF-DEFENSE AND INSANITY ARE DEFENSES.  REV. STAT. 1939, SEC.
4049.  JUSTIFIABLE OR EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE IS A DEFENSE (ID. SEC. 4381)
AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED.  ID. SECS. 4379, 4380. 

FN4  "THE LAW PRESUMES THE KILLING WAS MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE,
IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH TEND TO RAISE
THE KILLING TO MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE OR TO REDUCE IT TO
MANSLAUGHTER."  STATE V. HENKE, 313 MO. 615, 638, 285 S.W. 392.  AS TO
THE NECESSITY ON CERTAIN EVIDENCE TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS ON A LESSER
OFFENSE THAN MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, SEE STATE V. WARREN, 326 MO.
843, 33 S.W.2D 125; STATE V. WRIGHT, 337 MO. 441, 85 S.W.2D 7; STATE V.
JACKSON, 344 MO. 1055, 130 S.W.2D 595. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER THINK THE WRIT SHOULD
BE DISMISSED FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THEIR DISSENT IN WILLIAMS V.
KAISER, ANTE, P. 479. 
..END :



WESTERN UNION V. LENROOT, 323 U.S. 490 


NO. 49.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 9, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1945.  - 141
F.2D 400, REVERSED. 


1.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 IS INCONCLUSIVE AS TO WHETHER THE ACT WAS
INTENDED TO REACH SUCH CHILD LABOR AS IS HERE INVOLVED.  P. 500. 

2.  SECTION 12(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT "NO PRODUCER ...  SHALL SHIP OR DELIVER FOR SHIPMENT IN
COMMERCE ANY GOODS PRODUCED IN AN ESTABLISHMENT  ... IN OR ABOUT WHICH
...  ANY OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR HAS BEEN EMPLOYED  ...," HELD
INAPPLICABLE TO A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE TRANSMISSION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF TELEGRAPH MESSAGES.  P. 501 ET SEQ. 

(A)  TRANSMISSION OF TELEGRAPH MESSAGES IS NOT PRODUCTION OF GOODS,
WITHIN SEC. 12(A).  AS USED IN SEC. 3(J) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES
"PRODUCED" AS MEANING, INTER ALIA, "HANDLED" OR "WORKED ON," THE WORDS
"HANDLED" AND "WORKED ON" INCLUDE EVERY KIND OF INCIDENTAL OPERATION
PREPARATORY TO PUTTING GOODS INTO THE STREAM OF COMMERCE, BUT DO NOT
INCLUDE SUCH HANDLING OR WORKING ON AS ACCOMPLISHES THE INTERSTATE
TRANSIT OR MOVEMENT IN COMMERCE ITSELF.  P. 504. 

(B)  THE WORD "SHIP," USED IN THE ACT IN ITS ORDINARY MEANING, IS
INAPPLICABLE TO TELEGRAPH MESSAGES.  P. 506. 

(C)  THE RECOIL ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH WOULD ENSUE IS
PERSUASIVE THAT THE ACT DID NOT CONTEMPLATE APPLICATION OF ITS INDIRECT
SANCTIONS TO THE TELEGRAPH COMPANY.  P. 507. 

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. LENROOT, CHIEF OF CHILDREN'S BUREAU,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 719, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF
INJUNCTION, 52 F.SUPP.  142, RESTRAINING ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN SUBSTANCE RESTRAINS THE WESTERN
UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY FROM TRANSMITTING MESSAGES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE UNTIL FOR THIRTY DAYS IT HAS CEASED EMPLOYMENT OF MESSENGERS
UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS AND OF CERTAIN OTHERS BETWEEN THE AGES
OF SIXTEEN AND EIGHTEEN.  THIS WAS THOUGHT TO BE REQUIRED BY THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,
AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  322 U.S. 719. 

THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY COLLECTS MESSAGES IN COMMUNITIES
OF ORIGIN AND DISPATCHES THEM BY ELECTRICAL IMPULSES TO PLACES OF
DESTINATION WHERE THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED.  MESSENGERS ARE EMPLOYED IN
BOTH COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION.  A LITTLE UNDER 12 PER CENT OF THE
MESSENGER FORCE IS UNDER SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND ABOUT 0.0033 PER
CENT ARE FROM SIXTEEN TO EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, ENGAGED IN THE
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SCOOTERS, AND TELEMOTORS.  THESE
MESSENGERS ARE EMPLOYED ONLY IN LOCALITIES WHERE THE LAW OF THE STATE
PERMITS IT.  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT BOTH GROUPS ARE ENGAGED IN
OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR AS DEFINED BY THE FEDERAL ACT,  FN1  IF IT
APPLIES.  WHETHER IT DOES SO APPLY IS THE ONLY ISSUE HERE. 

                   I 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE ACT DOES NOT DIRECTLY PROHIBIT THE EMPLOYMENT
OF THESE MESSENGERS, BECAUSE IT CONTAINS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILD LABOR IN CONDUCTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN2  IT
IS CONCEDED, TOO, THAT LANGUAGE APPROPRIATE DIRECTLY TO FORBID THIS
EMPLOYMENT WAS PROPOSED TO CONGRESS AND TWICE REJECTED. 

THE MAJOR EVENTS OF THE RECORDED LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS ACT SO
FAR AS RELEVANT WERE AS FOLLOWS:  AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S LABOR MESSAGE
OF MAY 24, 1937(HOUSE DOC. NO. 255, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2)
REMINDED CONGRESS THAT "A SELF-RESPECTING AND SELF-SUPPORTING DEMOCRACY
CAN PLEAD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF CHILD LABOR," BILLS
CAREFULLY DRAWN TO CARRY OUT HIS RECOMMENDATIONS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE
SENATE BY SENATOR BLACK AND IN THE HOUSE BY REPRESENTATIVE CONNERY. 
THESE BILLS EXPRESSLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY PROHIBITED THE EMPLOYMENT OF
CHILD LABOR EITHER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN PRODUCTION OF GOODS
INTENDED FOR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS WELL AS PROHIBITING
SHIPMENT OF GOODS MADE BY CHILD LABOR.  FN3  WHEN THE BLACK BILL CAME
TO VOTE IN THE SENATE, HOWEVER, ALL OF ITS CHILD-LABOR PROVISIONS WERE
STRICKEN, AND THE PROVISIONS OF ANOTHER BILL RECOMMENDED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE SUBSTITUTED N4.  THIS PROHIBITED
THE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF GOODS MADE BY CHILD LABOR, BUT
IT DID NOT PROHIBIT THE USE OF IT IN CARRYING ON THE COMMERCE ITSELF. 
THUS THE SENATE DELETED A DIRECT PROHIBITION OF THE EMPLOYMENT UNDER
QUESTION HERE.  BUT THE HOUSE, IN TURN, STRUCK OUT ALL OF THE CHILD
LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE SENATE BILL AND SUBSTITUTED THOSE OF THE
CONNERY BILL,  FN5  WHICH WAS A COUNTERPART OF THE BLACK BILL.  THIS
WAS MUCH AMENDED, BUT AS PASSED AT LENGTH IT CONTAINED A PROVISION
FORBIDDING CHILD LABOR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE "IN ANY INDUSTRY
AFFECTING COMMERCE" AND A PROHIBITION OF SHIPMENT OF CHILD-LABOR-MADE
GOODS.  FN6 THE SENATE, HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE TO THE HOUSE BILL, BUT
MEANWHILE HAD PASSED AS A SEPARATE MEASURE ITS OWN CHILD-LABOR BILL AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE.  FN7  THIS DID NOT
PROHIBIT CHILD LABOR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN THIS POSTURE THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS BILL WENT TO CONFERENCE.  THE CONFERENCE REPORT SAYS
THAT THE COMMITTEE "ADOPTS THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSE
AMENDMENT, WITH ONE EXCEPTION.  IN VIEW OF THE OMISSION FROM THE
CONFERENCE AGREEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SECTION 6 OF THE HOUSE
AMENDMENT, SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 10 OF THE HOUSE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN
OMITTED."  FN8  THE FORMULA COVERING EVERY EMPLOYER "IN COMMERCE IN AN
INDUSTRY AFFECTING COMMERCE" HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE WAGE AND HOUR AS
WELL AS THE CHILD-LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSE BILL, AND SEC. 6
CONFERRED ON THE SECRETARY OF LABOR THE POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER AN
INDUSTRY WAS ONE "AFFECTING COMMERCE."  WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THIS
DELEGATION TO THE SECRETARY, THE FORMULA WAS CHANGED IN THE WAGE AND
HOUR PROVISIONS, MAKING THEM APPLY TO "EVERY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  INSTEAD OF
MAKING A CORRESPONDING CHANGE IN THE CHILD-LABOR SECTION, THE
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE DROPPED THE WHOLE CLAUSE.  NO REASON FOR THIS
DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF THE CHILD-LABOR SECTION WAS GIVEN. 

NO CONTROVERSY APPEARS TO HAVE ARISEN ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS AS TO
INCLUSION OF A DIRECT PROHIBITION APPLICABLE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
ON THE CONTRARY, THE ADVOCATES OF THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS PASSED BY THE
SENATE AND HOUSE SEEM TO HAVE OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT ONE CONTAINED
THE PROHIBITION AND THE OTHER DID NOT; CONTROVERSY WAS CHIEFLY OVER
WHETHER THE ACT SHOULD SIMPLY RE-ENACT THE METHOD OF THE 1916 ACT,
WHICH HAD BEEN HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OR SHOULD HEDGE BY INCLUDING
LABELLING AND OTHER REMEDIES WHICH MIGHT HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF BEING
UPHELD, WHETHER STATE-ISSUED AGE CERTIFICATES SHOULD BE UTILIZED, HOW
MUCH DISCRETION SHOULD BE VESTED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND
WHETHER PARTICULAR GOODS ONLY OR ALL GOODS FROM A PARTICULAR
ESTABLISHMENT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM COMMERCE.  FN9 SO FAR AS COVERAGE
WAS CONCERNED, ALL PROPONENTS WERE AWARE THAT ANY OF THE SUGGESTED
VERSIONS OF LEGISLATION WOULD REACH ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF EXISTING
CHILD LABOR,  FN10  AND THE CHIEF CONCERN SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN TO
ELIMINATE CHILD LABOR IN MINING AND MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES SHIPPING
GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,  FN11 WHICH WAS THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE
USE OF CHILD LABOR.  FN12  THIS HAD BEEN THE ONLY OBJECT OF THE EARLIER
LEGISLATION WHICH HAD BEEN HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL; NEITHER THE ACT OF
1916,  FN13  HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S.
251, NOR THE ACT OF 1919,  FN14  HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN BAILEY V.
DREXEL FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S. 20, HAD PROHIBITED CHILD LABOR IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT BOTH APPLIED ONLY TO CHILD LABOR IN MINES,
QUARRIES, MILLS, CANNERIES, WORKSHOPS, FACTORIES, AND MANUFACTURING
ESTABLISHMENTS. 

BOTH PARTIES CONTEND ON THE BASIS OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT THE
OMISSION OF A DIRECT PROHIBITION WAS DELIBERATE; THE COMPANY ARGUING
THAT IT WAS UNWANTED, THE GOVERNMENT THAT IT WAS BELIEVED SUPERFLUOUS. 
WE THINK THAT DISPASSIONATE READING WILL NOT DISCLOSE WHAT EITHER
ADVOCATE SEES IN THIS HISTORY. 

IT IS NOWHERE STATED THAT CONGRESS DID, AND NO REASON IS STATED OR IS
OBVIOUS WHY CONGRESS SHOULD, PURPOSELY LEAVE UNTOUCHED CHILD LABOR
EMPLOYED DIRECTLY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS TRUE THAT NO OPPONENT
OF CHILD LABOR APPEARED TO WANT TO STRIKE AT ALL OF IT.  AGRICULTURE,
WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR FROM ONE-HALF TO TWO-THIRDS OF IT, WAS EXPRESSLY
EXEMPTED.  CHILD ACTORS, ALMOST NEGLIGIBLE IN NUMBER, WERE EXEMPTED. 
TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS, SO FAR AS THE EVIDENCE REVEALS, ALTHOUGH A
FAMILIAR FORM OF CHILD LABOR, WERE IN NO ONE'S MIND IN CONNECTION WITH
THIS PROHIBITION, ALTHOUGH THE PECULIARITIES OF THAT SERVICE WERE
RECOGNIZED IN ALLOWING THEM UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO BE EMPLOYED AT
LOWER THAN MINIMUM WAGES UNDER THE ACT.  FN15  BUT WHETHER A MAJORITY
OF CONGRESS, HAD THIS QUESTION COME TO ITS ATTENTION, WOULD HAVE
REGARDED MESSENGER SERVICE AS MORE LIKE AGRICULTURE IN BEING A
RELATIVELY INOFFENSIVE TYPE OF CHILD LABOR OR AS MORE LIKE MINING AND
MANUFACTURING, CONSIDERED MORE HARMFUL, IS A QUESTION ON WHICH WE HAVE
NO INFORMATION WHATEVER. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, WE FIND NOTHING TO SUSTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION THAT "THE OMISSION RESULTED FROM THE REALIZATION THAT THE
INDIRECT SANCTION OF FORBIDDING INTERSTATE SHIPMENT, COUPLED WITH BROAD
STATUTORY DEFINITIONS" WOULD BE CONSTRUED TO ELIMINATE CHILD LABOR FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NO SUCH REALIZATION APPEARS IN ANY COMMITTEE
REPORT, IN THE SPEECH OF ANY SPONSOR OF THE BILLS, NOR IN DEBATE EITHER
ON THE PART OF THOSE SUPPORTING OR OF THOSE OPPOSING THE BILLS.  THE
ONLY EXPLANATION ADVANCED FOR THE HYPOTHESIS THAT CONGRESS DELIBERATELY
CHOSE INDIRECTION INSTEAD OF FORTHRIGHT PROHIBITION IS AN ASSUMPTION
THAT THERE WERE DOUBTS OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ENACT DIRECT
LEGISLATION.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251,
THIS COURT HAD HELD THAT AN EARLIER ATTEMPT TO EXCLUDE FROM INTERSTATE
COMMERCE PRODUCTS OF MINES AND MILLS THAT EMPLOYED CHILD LABOR WAS AN
INVALID ATTEMPT TO REACH EMPLOYMENT MATTERS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE
STATES.  BUT EVEN THE PREVAILING OPINION IN THAT CASE EXPRESSLY
CONCEDED THAT CONGRESS HAD AMPLE POWER TO CONTROL THE MEANS BY WHICH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS CARRIED ON. 247 U.S. AT 272.  THERE WAS NEVER A
HOLDING OR AN INTIMATION IN THIS OR ANY OTHER DECISION OF THIS COURT
THAT A DIRECT PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD
NOT BE SUSTAINED.  RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION IN THIS FIELD REACHED ITS
MAXIMUM IN HAMMER V. DAGENHART.  IT WAS DECIDED BY A CLOSELY DIVIDED
COURT AND AT THE TIME THIS BILL WAS PENDING IT WAS UNDERMINED BY LATER
DECISIONS AND WAS THOUGHT TO BE MARKED, EVEN THEN, FOR CONSIGNMENT TO
THE LIMBO OF OVERRULED CASES, A PREDICTION THAT WAS SHORTLY FULFILLED. 
UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100.  MOREOVER, THE PURPOSE OF THE
PROPONENTS OF THIS ACT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN HAMMER V. DAGENHART
AND REQUIRE THIS COURT TO RE-EXAMINE ITS SOUNDNESS IS MANIFEST IN MANY
WAYS.  IT CAN HARDLY BE SUPPOSED THAT CONGRESS, WHILE REASSERTING A
POWER ONCE DENIED TO IT, FEARED TO EXERCISE DIRECTLY A POWER OFTEN
CONCEDED AND NEVER DENIED. 

OUR SEARCH OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY YIELDS NOTHING TO SUPPORT THE
COMPANY'S CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS DID NOT WANT TO REACH SUCH CHILD
LABOR AS WE HAVE HERE.  AND IT YIELDS NO MORE TO SUPPORT THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS WANTED TO FOREGO DIRECT
PROHIBITION IN FAVOR OF INDIRECT SANCTIONS.  INDEED, WE ARE UNABLE TO
SAY THAT ELIMINATION OF THE DIRECT PROHIBITIONS FROM THE FINAL FORM OF
THE BILL WAS PURPOSEFUL AT ALL OR THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN FROM SHEER
INADVERTENCE, DUE TO CONCENTRATION ON MORE VITAL AND CONTROVERSIAL
ASPECTS OF THE LEGISLATION.  THE MOST THAT WE CAN MAKE OF IT IS THAT NO
DEFINITE POLICY EITHER WAY APPEARS IN REFERENCE TO SUCH AN EMPLOYMENT
AS WE HAVE IN THIS CASE, NO LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS MANIFEST AS TO THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE WHICH WE SHOULD STRAIN TO EFFECTUATE BY
INTERPRETATION.  OF COURSE, IF BY FAIR CONSTRUCTION THE INDIRECT
SANCTIONS OF THE ACT APPLY TO THIS EMPLOYMENT, COURTS MAY NOT REFUSE TO
ENFORCE THEM MERELY BECAUSE WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY A SIMPLER AND MORE
DIRECT METHOD WAS NOT USED.  BUT WE TAKE THE ACT AS CONGRESS GAVE IT TO
US, WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO CONFORM IT TO ANY NOTIONS OF WHAT CONGRESS
WOULD HAVE DONE IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE HAD BEEN PUT BEFORE
IT.

                                  II 

THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THIS ACTION TO REACH INDIRECTLY CHILD LABOR IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY BRINGING IT UNDER THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 12(A)
OF THE ACT, WHICH SO FAR AS MATERIAL READS "NO PRODUCER, MANUFACTURER,
OR DEALER SHALL SHIP OR DELIVER FOR SHIPMENT IN COMMERCE ANY GOODS
PRODUCED IN AN ESTABLISHMENT SITUATED IN THE UNITED STATES IN OR ABOUT
WHICH WITHIN THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF SUCH GOODS THEREFROM
ANY OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR HAS BEEN EMPLOYED."  VIOLATION OF THIS
COMMAND IS A CRIME (SECS. 15 AND 16) PUNISHABLE BY A FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT, AND THREATENED VIOLATIONS MAY BE RESTRAINED BY
INJUNCTION.  THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE SOUGHT INJUNCTION.  ITS
COMPLAINT CHARGES THE WESTERN UNION WITH A VIOLATION IN THAT "DEFENDANT
HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN SHIPPING TELEGRAPH MESSAGES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND IN DELIVERING TELEGRAPH MESSAGES FOR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE SAID GOODS HAVING BEEN PRODUCED IN ITS SAID
ESTABLISHMENTS IN OR ABOUT WHICH THE AFORESAID MINORS WERE EMPLOYED,
SUFFERED, AND PERMITTED TO WORK WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO THE
REMOVAL OF SAID GOODS THEREFROM." 

CONTENTION THAT THIS SECTION IS APPLICABLE TO THE WESTERN UNION IS
PREDICATED ON THREE STEPS, VIZ.:  TELEGRAMS ARE "GOODS" WITHIN ITS
MEANING; THE COMPANY "PRODUCES" THESE GOODS WITHIN THE ACT BECAUSE IT
"HANDLES" THEM; AND TRANSMISSION IS "SHIPMENT" WITHIN ITS TERMS.  IF IT
CAN MAINTAIN ALL THREE OF THESE POSITIONS, THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED
TO AN INJUNCTION; IF IT FAILS IN ANY ONE, ADMITTEDLY THE EFFORT TO
BRING THE EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE ACT MUST FAIL. 

THE GOVERNMENT SAYS MESSAGES ARE "GOODS" BECAUSE THE ACT DEFINES
"GOODS" AS THEREIN USED TO INCLUDE AMONG OTHER THINGS "ARTICLES OR
SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE OF ANY CHARACTER."  SEC. 3(I).  OF COURSE,
STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED THEREIN PREVAIL OVER COLLOQUIAL
MEANINGS.  FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87, 95.  IT WAS LONG AGO
SETTLED THAT TELEGRAPH LINES WHEN EXTENDING THROUGH DIFFERENT STATES
ARE INSTRUMENTS OF COMMERCE AND MESSAGES PASSING OVER THEM ARE A PART
OF COMMERCE ITSELF.  WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. JAMES, 162 U.S.
650, 654.  THAT "IDEAS, WISHES, ORDERS, AND INTELLIGENCE" ARE
"SUBJECTS" OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN WHICH TELEGRAPH COMPANIES
ENGAGE HAS ALSO BEEN HELD.  WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. PENDLETON, 122
U.S. 347, 356; CF. ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103, 128. 
IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER ELECTRIC IMPULSES INTO WHICH THE
WORDS OF THE MESSAGE ARE TRANSFORMED ARE "GOODS" WITHIN THE ACT (CF.
UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165; FISHER'S BLEND STATION
V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650; ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 419), SINCE THE COMPLAINT IS
NOT BASED ON "SHIPMENT" OF IMPULSES AS "GOODS" BUT ONLY OF MESSAGES. 
WE THINK TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES ARE CLEARLY "SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE" AND
HENCE THAT THEY ARE "GOODS" UNDER THIS ACT, AS ALLEGED IN THE
COMPLAINT. 

THE NEXT INQUIRY IS WHETHER THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY IS A
PRODUCER OF THESE GOODS WITHIN THE ACT.  CONGRESS HAS LAID DOWN A
DEFINITION THAT AS USED IN THE ACT "'PRODUCED' MEANS PRODUCED,
MANUFACTURED, MINED, HANDLED, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WORKED ON  ..." 
SEC. 3(J).  THE COMPANY, SAYS THE GOVERNMENT, NOT ONLY "HANDLES" THE
MESSAGE BUT "WORKS ON" IT. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT IN DEFINING "PRODUCED" THE STATUTE
INTENDS "HANDLED" OR "WORKED ON" TO MEAN NOT ONLY HANDLING OR WORKING
ON IN RELATION TO PRODUCING OR MAKING AN ARTICLE READY TO ENTER
INTERSTATE TRANSIT, BUT ALSO INCLUDES THE HANDLING OR WORKING ON WHICH
ACCOMPLISHES THE INTERSTATE TRANSIT OR MOVEMENT IN COMMERCE ITSELF.  IF
THIS CONSTRUCTION IS ADOPTED, EVERY TRANSPORTER, TRANSMITTER, OR MOVER
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A "PRODUCER" OF ANY GOODS HE CARRIES.  BUT
THE STATUTE, WHILE DEFINING "PRODUCED" TO MEAN "HANDLED" OR "WORKED ON"
HAS NOT DEFINED "HANDLED" OR "WORKED ON."  THESE ARE TERMS OF ORDINARY
SPEECH AND MEAN WHAT THEY MEAN IN ORDINARY INTERCOURSE IN THIS
CONTEXT.  THEY SERVE A USEFUL PURPOSE WHEN READ TO RELATE TO ALL STEPS,
WHETHER MANUFACTURE OR NOT, WHICH LEAD TO READINESS FOR PUTTING GOODS
INTO THE STREAM OF COMMERCE.  ONE WHO PACKAGES A PRODUCT, OR BOTTLES A
LIQUID, OR LABELS, OR PERFORMS ANY NUMBER OF TASKS INCIDENTAL TO
PREPARING FOR SHIPMENT MIGHT OTHERWISE ESCAPE THE ACT, FOR IN A SENSE
HE NEITHER MANUFACTURES, PRODUCES, OR MINES THE GOODS.  WE ARE CLEAR
THAT "HANDLED" OR "WORKED ON" INCLUDES EVERY KIND OF INCIDENTAL
OPERATION PREPARATORY TO PUTTING GOODS INTO THE STREAM OF COMMERCE. 

IF WE GO BEYOND THIS AND ASSUME THAT HANDLING FOR TRANSIT PURPOSES IS
HANDLING IN PRODUCTION, WE ENCOUNTER RESULTS WHICH WE THINK CONGRESS
COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED.  THE DEFINITIONS OF THIS ACT APPLY TO THE WAGE
AND HOUR PROVISIONS, AS WELL AS TO THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS.  SECTION
15(A) MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO TRANSPORT OR SHIP GOODS IN THE PRODUCTION OF
WHICH ANY EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
PROVISIONS.  BUT IT MAKES THIS EXCEPTION:  "EXCEPT THAT NO PROVISION OF
THIS ACT SHALL IMPOSE ANY LIABILITY UPON ANY COMMON CARRIER FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION IN COMMERCE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS OF ANY
GOODS NOT PRODUCED BY SUCH COMMON CARRIER."  THIS RECOGNIZES A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN HANDLING IN TRANSPORTATION AND PRODUCING, WHICH IS
ENTIRELY PUT TO NAUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT BY
DEFINITION EVERYONE WHO HANDLES GOODS IN CARRIAGE IS THEREBY MADE A
PRODUCER.  THE EXCEPTION THEN IS AS IF IT READ "THE ACT SHALL IMPOSE NO
LIABILITY ON A COMMON CARRIER FOR CARRYING GOODS THAT IT DOES NOT
CARRY."  ONE WOULD NOT READILY IMPUTE SUCH AN ABSURDITY TO CONGRESS;
NOR CAN WE ASSUME, CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE, THAT "PRODUCED" MEANS ONE
THING IN ONE SECTION AND SOMETHING ELSE IN ANOTHER.  TO CONSTRUE THOSE
WORDS TO MEAN THAT HANDLING IN CARRIAGE OR TRANSMISSION IN COMMERCE
MAKES ONE A PRODUCER MAKES ONE OF THESE RESULTS INEVITABLE.  CONGRESS,
WE THINK, DID NOT INTEND TO OBLITERATE ALL DISTINCTION BETWEEN
PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION.  ITS ARTIFICIAL DEFINITION, IF CONSTRUED
TO MEAN THAT "HANDLING" AND "WORKED ON" CATCHES UP INTO THE CATEGORY OF
PRODUCTION EVERY STEP IN PUTTING THE SUBJECT OF COMMERCE IN A STATE TO
ENTER COMMERCE, IS A SENSIBLE AND USEFUL ONE, NOT AT ODDS WITH ANY
OTHER SECTION OF THE ACT.  WE THINK THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED
ITS CONTENTION THAT THE WESTERN UNION IS A "PRODUCER" OF TELEGRAPH
MESSAGES. 

A THIRD INQUIRY REMAINS.  HAS THE COMPANY ENGAGED IN "SHIPPING
TELEGRAPH MESSAGES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN DELIVERING TELEGRAPH
MESSAGES FOR SHIPMENT" AS ALLEGED?  THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT SAID, "MORE
TROUBLESOME IS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DEFENDANT 'SHIPPED' GOODS IN
COMMERCE."  BUT HE CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF OUR DECISIONS THAT THE
DEFENDANT WAS A "CARRIER OF MESSAGES" TO BE COMPARED TO A RAILROAD AS A
"CARRIER OF GOODS," CITING TELEGRAPH CO. V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. 460, 464,
PENSACOLA TELEGRAPH CO. V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 96 U.S. 1.  HE
THOUGHT "SHIP" SYNONYMOUS WITH "TRANSPORT" AND "CONVEY" AND HENCE HELD
THAT THE COMPANY WAS "SHIPPING" MESSAGES. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ALTHOUGH IT SUSTAINED THE INJUNCTION,
TOOK A CONTRARY VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE.  IT ANALYZED THE
TECHNOLOGY OF TRANSMITTING MESSAGES.  THE MESSAGE, IT SAID, NEVER
LEAVES THE ORIGINATING OFFICE.  IT IS ONLY A TEXT FOR SENDING
ELECTRICAL IMPULSES "WHICH ARE NOT ONLY NOT THE SENDER'S MESSAGE, BUT
WOULD BE TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO HIM OR TO THE ADDRESSEE, IF EITHER
COULD PERCEIVE THEM."  IT SAID, "FROM THE FOREGOING IT IS AT ONCE
APPARENT THAT THERE IS NOT THE LEAST SIMILARITY BETWEEN WHAT THE
DEFENDANT DOES AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS BY A COMMON CARRIER. 
THUS IT CUT THE GROUND FROM UNDER THE GOVERNMENT'S ONLY ALLEGATION OF
VIOLATION:  I.E., THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN "SHIPPING" MESSAGES. 
IT ADVANCED THIS THEORY, APPARENTLY, TO ANSWER THE COMPANY'S CONTENTION
THAT IF IT WAS LIKENED TO A CARRIER, AS THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT, IT
WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE CARRIER'S EXEMPTION IN SEC.
15(A)(1).  WE DO NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY FOR US TO RESOLVE THE
INTERESTING BUT BAFFLING INQUIRY AS TO PRECISELY WHAT, IF ANYTHING,
MOVES ACROSS STATE LINES IN THE TELEGRAPHIC PROCESS.  IN ITS PRACTICAL
ASPECTS, WHICH CONCERN THE PUBLIC, TRANSMISSION OF MESSAGES IS TOO WELL
KNOWN TO REQUIRE ANALYSIS; AND IN ITS SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS, WHICH
INTEREST THE PHYSICIST, IT IS TOO LITTLE KNOWN TO PERMIT OF IT. 

THE STATUTE APPLIES THE INDIRECT SANCTIONS OF THE ACT ONLY TO THOSE
WHO "SHIP" SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE.  IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, DEFINE "SHIP." 
THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, "THE VERB 'SHIP' IS AN IMPRECISE WORD MEANING
LITTLE MORE THAN TO SEND OR TO TRANSPORT."  THE TERM, NOT BEING
ARTIFICIALLY DEFINED BY STATUTE, IS FROM THE ORDINARY SPEECH OF
PEOPLE.  ITS IMPRECISION TO LINGUISTS AND SCHOLARS MAY BE CONCEDED. 
BUT IF IT IS COMMON IN THE COURTS, THE MARKET PLACES OR THE SCHOOLS OF
THE COUNTRY TO SPEAK OF SHIPPING A TELEGRAM OR RECEIVING A SHIPMENT OF
TELEGRAMS, WE DO NOT KNOW OF IT, NOR ARE EXAMPLES OF SUCH USAGE CALLED
TO OUR ATTENTION.  NOR, IF ONE DEPARTS FROM THE COMPLAINT IN THE CASE
AND ADOPTS THE THEORY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, DO WE THINK EITHER
SCIENTIST OR LAYMAN WOULD EVER SPEAK OF "SHIPPING" ELECTRICAL
IMPULSES.  THE FACT IS THAT TO SUSTAIN THE COMPLAINT WE MUST SUPPLY AN
ARTIFICIAL DEFINITION OF "SHIP," ONE WHICH CONGRESS HAD POWER TO ENACT,
BUT DID NOT.  WE DO NOT THINK "SHIP" IN THIS ACT APPLIES TO INTANGIBLE
MESSAGES, WHICH WE DO NOT ORDINARILY SPEAK OF AS BEING "SHIPPED." 

ANOTHER CONSIDERATION CONVINCES US THAT THIS ACT DID NOT CONTEMPLATE
ITS APPLICATION BY INDIRECTION TO SUCH A SITUATION AS WE HAVE IN HAND. 
ITS INDIRECT SANCTIONS ARE WELL ADAPTED TO THE PRODUCER, MINER,
MANUFACTURER, OR HANDLER IN PREPARATION FOR COMMERCE.  THEY BECOME
CLUMSY AND SELF-DEFEATING WHEN APPLIED TO TELEGRAPH COMPANIES,
RAILROADS, INTERSTATE NEWS AGENCIES, AND THE LIKE, AS THIS DECREE
DEMONSTRATES.  THE WESTERN UNION IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE DECREE TO
EMPLOY CHILD LABOR, NOR COULD IT BE, FOR IT IS NOT SO FORBIDDEN BY THE
ACT.  AS CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS BELOW, WHAT IS PROHIBITED IS THE
SENDING OF TELEGRAMS - SO LONG AS IT EMPLOYS CHILD LABOR AND FOR A
PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS AFTER IT QUITS.  THIS, AS THE COMPANY OBSERVES,
IS A SANCTION THAT THE COURT COULD NOT PERMIT TO BECOME EFFECTIVE.  A
SUSPENSION OF TELEGRAPHIC SERVICE FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME WOULD BE
INTOLERABLE.  OF COURSE, THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, THE COMPANY COULD ESCAPE
ITS EFFECT EXCEPT FOR THE THIRTY-DAY PERIOD BY DISCHARGING SOME TWELVE
PER CENT OF ITS MESSENGERS, WHO ARE UNDER AGE BUT WHOM NEITHER THE
COURT NOR CONGRESS HAS FORBIDDEN IT TO EMPLOY.  IT ALSO SUGGESTS THAT
THE THIRTY-DAY PERIOD MAY BE ABSORBED IN DELAYS.  OR, IT SAYS, THE
DISTRICT COURT OR CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS "MAY PROPERLY STAY THE
INJUNCTION FURTHER IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE TRANSMISSION OF MESSAGES
UNTIL PETITIONER HAS A REASONABLE TIME TO COMPLY." 

OF COURSE LITERAL COMPLIANCE COULD BE MADE ONLY BY CEASING TO SEND
MESSAGES, SINCE THAT IS ALL THE DECREE DOES OR COULD COMMAND.  BUT THE
COMPANY COULD AND PROBABLY WOULD AVOID DOING WHAT THE DECREE ORDERS, BY
DOING WHAT IT DOES NOT AND CANNOT ORDER:  VIZ., DISCHARGING THE UNDER
AGE PART OF ITS MESSENGER FORCE.  THIS, HOWEVER, WOULD LEAVE THE THIRTY
DAY PERIOD AFTER OUR MANDATE BECOMES FINAL AND GOES DOWN, DURING WHICH
THE COURTS MUST STAY THE FORCE OF THE INJUNCTION, EITHER CANDIDLY OR BY
DILATORY TACTICS, OR THE COMPANY, BY CONTINUING SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC,
WOULD BE IN CONTEMPT.  EVEN IF THIS WERE DONE, COURTS CANNOT STAY THE
PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH THE SENDING OF MESSAGES DURING SUCH PERIOD IS
MADE CRIMINAL.  WE MAY SUPPOSE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT ACTUALLY
PROSECUTE.  BUT THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE SANCTIONS OF THE ACT, IF
APPLIED TO SUCH A SITUATION, ARE SO IMPRACTICAL THAT A VIOLATION
ADJUDGED BY US TO BE PROVEN BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AS TO THE
FACTS WOULD BE WAIVED.  WE THINK IF CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED APPLICATION
OF THIS ACT TO THE WESTERN UNION IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED SANCTIONS MORE
SUITABLE THAN TO FORBID TELEGRAMS TO BE SENT BY THE ONLY COMPANY
EQUIPPED ON A NATION-WIDE SCALE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC IN SENDING THEM. 
NOR WILL WE BELIEVE WITHOUT MORE EXPRESS TERMS THAN WE FIND HERE THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THE COURTS TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION WHICH AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER THEY WOULD HAVE TO LET BECOME A DEAD LETTER, OR
ENFORCE AT SUCH COST TO THE PUBLIC, IF A DEFENDANT PROVED STUBBORN AND
RECALCITRANT.  IF THE INDIRECT SANCTIONS OF THIS ACT WERE LITERALLY TO
BE APPLIED TO GREAT AGENCIES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, THE
RECOIL ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE OUT OF ALL PROPORTION TO THE
EVIL SOUGHT TO BE REMEDIED. 

HOWEVER, THE INDIRECT SANCTION OF CUTTING ONE'S GOODS OFF FROM THE
INTERSTATE MARKET IS ONE WHICH CAN BE APPLIED TO PRODUCERS, AS WE HAVE
DEFINED THEM HEREIN, EFFECTIVELY AND WITHOUT INJURY TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  IF SUCH A PRODUCER USING CHILD LABOR IS REFUSED FACILITIES
TO TRANSPORT HIS GOODS, COMPETITORS USUALLY COME IN, NEEDS ARE STILL
SUPPLIED, AND ONLY THE OFFENDER SUFFERS.  THESE INDIRECT SANCTIONS CAN
PRACTICALLY AND LITERALLY BE APPLIED TO THE MINER AND THE MANUFACTURER
WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL RECOIL ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND WITH NO GESTURES
BY THE COURTS THAT THEY CANNOT FOLLOW THROUGH TO PUNISH DISOBEDIENCE. 

ASCERTAINMENT OF THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS IN THIS SITUATION IS
IMPOSSIBLE.  IT IS TO INDULGE IN A FICTION TO SAY THAT IT HAD A
SPECIFIC INTENTION ON A POINT WHICH NEVER OCCURRED TO IT.  HAD THE
OMISSION OF A DIRECT PROHIBITION OF THIS EMPLOYMENT BEEN CALLED TO ITS
ATTENTION, IT MIGHT WELL HAVE SUPPLIED IT, FOR ANY REASON WE CAN SEE. 
CONGRESS OF COURSE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE INDIRECT WHERE IT COULD BE
DIRECT AND TO BE OBSCURE AND CONFUSING WHERE IT COULD BE CLEAR AND
SIMPLE.  BUT HAD IT DETERMINED TO REACH THIS EMPLOYMENT, WE DO NOT
THINK IT WOULD HAVE DONE SO BY ARTIFICE IN PREFERENCE TO PLAIN TERMS. 
IT IS ADMITTED THAT IT IS BEYOND THE JUDICIAL POWER OF INNOVATION TO
SUPPLY A DIRECT PROHIBITION BY CONSTRUCTION.  WE THINK WE SHOULD NOT
TRY TO REACH THE SAME RESULT BY A SERIES OF INTERPRETATIONS SO FAR
FETCHED AND FORCED AS TO BRING INTO QUESTION THE CANDOR OF CONGRESS AS
WELL AS THE INTEGRITY OF THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS.  AFTER ALL, THIS
LAW WAS PASSED AS THE RULE BY WHICH EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN MUST ORDER
THEIR DAILY LIVES.  TO TRANSLATE THIS ACT BY A PROCESS OF
INTERPRETATION INTO AN EQUIVALENT OF THE BILLS CONGRESS REJECTED IS, WE
THINK, BEYOND THE FAIR RANGE OF INTERPRETATION.  DECLINING THAT, WE
CANNOT SUSTAIN THE GOVERNMENT'S BILL OF COMPLAINT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "'OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR' MEANS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER
WHICH (1) ANY EMPLOYEE UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS IS EMPLOYED BY AN
EMPLOYER (OTHER THAN A PARENT OR A PERSON STANDING IN PLACE OF A PARENT
EMPLOYING HIS OWN CHILD OR A CHILD IN HIS CUSTODY UNDER THE AGE OF
SIXTEEN YEARS IN AN OCCUPATION OTHER THAN MANUFACTURING OR MINING) IN
ANY OCCUPATION, OR (2) ANY EMPLOYEE BETWEEN THE AGES OF SIXTEEN AND
EIGHTEEN YEARS IS EMPLOYED BY AN EMPLOYER IN ANY OCCUPATION WHICH THE
CHIEF OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SHALL FIND
AND BY ORDER DECLARE TO BE PARTICULARLY HAZARDOUS FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF
CHILDREN BETWEEN SUCH AGES OR DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HEALTH OR WELL-BEING
..."  29 U.S.C. SEC. 203(1), JUNE 25, 1938, C. 676, SEC. 3(1), 52
STAT. 1061. 

FN2  THE ACT PROVIDES:  "AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF ONE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, NO PRODUCER,
MANUFACTURER, OR DEALER SHALL SHIP OR DELIVER FOR SHIPMENT IN COMMERCE
ANY GOODS PRODUCED IN AN ESTABLISHMENT SITUATED IN THE UNITED STATES IN
OR ABOUT WHICH WITHIN THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF SUCH GOODS
THEREFROM ANY OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR HAS BEEN EMPLOYED  ..."  SEC.
12(A), 29 U.S.C. SEC. 212(A).    FN3  "SEC.  7.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL
FOR ANY PERSON, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY - 

"(1)  TO TRANSPORT OR CAUSE TO BE TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
OR TO AID OR ASSIST IN TRANSPORTING, OR OBTAINING TRANSPORTATION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR, OR TO SHIP OR DELIVER OR SELL IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, OR TO SHIP OR DELIVER OR SELL WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT SHIPMENT OR
DELIVERY OR SALE THEREOF IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INTENDED, ANY UNFAIR
GOODS; OR 

"(2)  TO EMPLOY UNDER ANY SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS ANY EMPLOYEE
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS INTENDED
FOR TRANSPORTATION OR SALE IN VIOLATION OF CLAUSE (1) OF THIS
RESPECTIVELY, BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, JULY 6,
1937, AND BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, AUGUST 6, 1937.  "UNFAIR
GOODS" WAS DEFINED TO MEAN GOODS PRODUCED BY ANY SUBSTANDARD LABOR
CONDITION, AND THE LATTER WAS DEFINED TO INCLUDE CHILD LABOR.  SECS.
2(A)(11) AND (15). 

FN4  THIS WAS S. 2226, REPORTED IN SEN. REP. NO. 726, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.  IT WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE BLACK BILL JULY 31, 1937, 81 CONG.
REC. 7949-51.  IT PROVIDED:  "SEC.  4(SEC.  27 IN THE AMENDED BLACK
BILL).  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON WHO - 

"(A)  HAS PRODUCED GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE IN ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY, WHOLLY OR IN PART THROUGH THE USE OF CHILD LABOR, ON OR
AFTER JANUARY 1, 1938; OR 

"(B)  HAS TAKEN DELIVERY OF SUCH GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE IN ANY
STATE OR TERRITORY WITH NOTICE OF THEIR CHARACTER WHETHER BY PURCHASE
OR ON CONSIGNMENT, AS COMMISSION MERCHANT, AGENT FOR FORWARDING OR
OTHER PURPOSES, OR OTHERWISE, TO TRANSPORT OR CAUSE TO BE TRANSPORTED,
IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, OR AID OR ASSIST IN OBTAINING
TRANSPORTATION FOR OR IN TRANSPORTING SUCH GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE
IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE OR TO SELL SUCH GOODS, WARES, OR
MERCHANDISE FOR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE OR WITH
KNOWLEDGE THAT SHIPMENT THEREOF IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS
INTENDED."  OTHER PROVISIONS SUBJECTED CHILD-LABOR-MADE GOODS TO THE
LAWS OF THE STATES INTO WHICH THEY WERE SHIPPED REGARDLESS OF THEIR
INTERSTATE CHARACTER, FORBADE TRANSPORTATION INTO STATES IN VIOLATION
OF THEIR LAWS, AND FORBADE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF GOODS NOT
LABELLED AS TO THEIR CHILD-LABOR CHARACTER.  THE BILL REPRESENTED THE
VIEW THAT SEVERAL METHODS OF CIRCUMVENTING HAMMER V. DAGENHART SHOULD
BE TRIED AT THE SAME TIME, IN CASE ANY SHOULD BE HELD INVALID. 

FN5  SEE S. 2475 AS REPORTED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, AUGUST 6,
1937, H.R. REP. 1452, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN6  "SEC.  10.  (A).  NO PRODUCER, MANUFACTURER, OR DEALER SHALL
SHIP OR DELIVER FOR SHIPMENT IN COMMERCE ANY GOODS PRODUCED IN AN
ESTABLISHMENT SITUATED IN THE UNITED STATES IN OR ABOUT WHICH WITHIN 30
DAYS PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF SUCH GOODS THEREFROM ANY OPPRESSIVE CHILD
LABOR HAS BEEN EMPLOYED  ... 

"(B)  NO EMPLOYER ENGAGED IN COMMERCE IN ANY INDUSTRY AFFECTING
COMMERCE SHALL EMPLOY ANY EMPLOYEE UNDER ANY OPPRESSIVE CHILDLABOR
CONDITION."  83 CONG. REC. 7441; PASSED, ID. AT 7450(75TH CONG., 3D
SESS.). 

FN7  S. 2226, IDENTICAL WITH THE CHILD-LABOR PROVISIONS PREVIOUSLY
INCORPORATED BY THE SENATE IN THE BLACK BILL IN LIEU OF THE LATTER'S
CHILDLABOR PROVISIONS.  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA.  81 CONG. REC. 9320. 

FN8  CONFERENCE REPORT, H.R. REP. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.,
32. 

FN9 SEE 82 CONG. REC. 1411-14, 1597-98, 1691-95, 1780-83, 1822; 83
CONG. REC. 7399-7400. 

FN10  SEE, E.G., JOINT HEARINGS ON FAIR LABOR STANDARDS, SENATE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., 382-84; HEARINGS ON REGULATION OF CHILD LABOR, SENATE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 60; REMARKS OF
REPRESENTATIVE SCHNEIDER OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
82 CONG. REC. 1823, 83 CONG. REC. 7401.  THE CHIEF OF THE CHILDREN'S
BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PRESENTED TO THE SENATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMITTEE FIGURES, BASED ON THE 1930 CENSUS, SHOWING THE
DISTRIBUTION BY OCCUPATIONS OF CHILD WORKERS BETWEEN 10 AND 15 YEARS:

               OCCUPATION       NUMBER     PER CENT 

AGRICULTURE .................................. 469,497         70.4 

MANUFACTURING AND MECHANICAL INDUSTRIES         68,266         10.2 

TRADE ........................................  49,615          7.4 

DOMESTIC AND PERSONAL SERVICE.................  46,145          7.0 

CLERICAL OCCUPATIONS..........................  16,803     2.5 

TRANSPORTATION ...............................   8,717          1.3 

EXTRACTION OF MINERALS........................   1,184          0.2 

OTHER (INCLUDES PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL 

SERVICE, FORESTRY, AND FISHING)...............   6,891          1.0 

HEARINGS, SUPRA, P. 60. 

COMPARABLE FIGURES BASED ON THE 1940 CENSUS (BUT FOR THE AGE GROUP 14
17) ARE AS FOLLOWS:

               OCCUPATION NUMBER     PER CENT 

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING................ 459,966         54.3 

MINING .......................................   2,769          0.3 

CONSTRUCTION .................................  10,476          1.2 

MANUFACTURING ................................ 104,023         12.3 

TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND OTHER 

PUBLIC UTILITIES..............................  12,103          1.4 

TRADE ........................................ 109,687         13.0 

PERSONAL SERVICES ............................ 109,628         13.0 

AMUSEMENT, RECREATION, AND RELATED 

SERVICES .....................................  13,013          1.6 

PROFESSIONAL AND RELATED SERVICES.............  12,128          1.4 

OTHER ........................................  12,944  1.5 

PAMPHLET, 1940 CENSUS DATA ON EMPLOYMENT AND SCHOOL ATTENDANCE OF
MINORS 14 THROUGH 17 YEARS OF AGE (DEPT. OF LABOR, CHILDREN'S BUREAU,
1943) 14. 

SINCE AGRICULTURE WAS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED (AND THIS WAS TRUE OF ALL
VERSIONS OF CHILD-LABOR LEGISLATION REPORTED TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE),
THE CHILD LABOR CLEARLY COVERED BY THE "PRODUCING GOODS FOR COMMERCE"
FORMULA WAS AT MOST 12-15%, AND MOST OF THE REMAINDER WAS IN
OCCUPATIONS CLEARLY NOT COVERED BY THAT FORMULA, SUCH AS LOCAL
RETAILING AND SERVICE INDUSTRIES.  IN THIS LIGHT, THE OMISSION OF THE
ONE OR TWO PERCENT IN NONPRODUCING INTERSTATE COMMERCE INDUSTRIES, EVEN
IF DELIBERATE, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCONGRUOUS. 

THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE DURING THE SENATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS IS ALSO OF INTEREST, IN VIEW OF THE SENATE'S
REJECTION OF THE BLACK-CONNERY CHILD-LABOR PROVISIONS IN FAVOR OF THE
COMMERCE COMMITTEE PROPOSAL: 

"MISS LENROOT  ....  THERE HAS BEEN A DECIDED SHIFT IN THE EMPLOYMENT
OF CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 14 AND 16 YEARS FROM FACTORIES TO
MISCELLANEOUS OCCUPATIONS IN TRADE AND SERVICE INDUSTRIES, WHICH WOULD
NOT BE COVERED BY ANY OF THE BILLS NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE,
AND WHICH INVOLVE VERY OFTEN EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN FOR LONG HOURS AT
VERY LOW WAGES. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION RIGHT THERE:  DO YOU
THINK NEWSBOYS SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM WORKING?  I PROPOUND THAT
QUESTION TO YOU BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PUT UP TO ME. 

MISS LENROOT.  I THINK UNDER ANY POWERS THAT I CAN SEE THAT CONGRESS
HAS OR THAT IT MAY BE CONSTRUED TO HAVE NOW, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT
IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO BRING NEWSBOYS IN. 

THE CHAIRMAN.  BUT DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM SUCH
EMPLOYMENT? 

MISS LENROOT.  I THINK IF CONGRESS HAD BROAD POWER TO LEGISLATE ON
THE SUBJECT OF CHILD LABOR IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO WORK OUT SOME
STANDARD WHICH WOULD BE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM FACTORY EMPLOYMENT. 

SENATOR MINTON.  IN OTHER WORDS, YOU THINK IT IS IMPROPER TO USE
NEWSBOYS ON THE STREETS TO SELL NEWSPAPERS? 

MISS LENROOT.  UNDER A CERTAIN AGE, AND UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS;
YES.  I WOULD MAKE THE AGE SOMEWHAT LOWER THAN THE AGE FOR FACTORY
EMPLOYMENT, HOWEVER." 

HEARINGS, SUPRA, P. 43. 

FN11  THUS SENATOR WHEELER, ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE MEASURE ADOPTED
BY THE SENATE, SAID, "WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING OF A
PRACTICAL NATURE THAT CAN BE PASSED, THAT WILL PERHAPS NOT GO AS FAR AS
SOME OF US WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GO, BUT SOMETHING WHICH WE CAN UPHOLD
AS CONSTITUTIONAL, THAT WILL AFFECT CHILD LABOR, STOP IT, AND PREVENT
IT EFFECTIVELY IN THE FACTORIES, PARTICULARLY IN THE SWEATSHOPS AND
SOUTHERN TEXTILE MILLS."  "WE WANT TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THE FACTORIES
WHERE THEY ARE BEING EXPLOITED AND ARE IN COMPETITION WITH MEN AND IN
COMPETITION WITH WOMEN WHO NEED WORK."  JOINT HEARINGS, SUPRA, NOTE 10,
PP. 33-34, 36.  REPRESENTATIVE SCHNEIDER, WHO WAS APPARENTLY IN CHARGE
OF THE CHILD-LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR COMMITTEE'S BILL ON THE
FLOOR, REMINDED THE MEMBERS THAT ALTHOUGH THE BILL WENT AS FAR AS IT
COULD, "THE CHILD LABOR THAT IS USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF ARTICLES FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONSTITUTES ONLY 25 PERCENT OF NONAGRICULTURAL
CHILD LABOR THAT EXISTS TODAY," AND HENCE RATIFICATION OF THE CHILD
LABOR AMENDMENT WAS STILL ESSENTIAL.  82 CONG. REC. 1823.  AND SENATOR
THOMAS, WHO WAS ONE OF THE SENATE MANAGERS IN THE CONFERENCE WHICH
PRODUCED THE FINAL BILL, INTERPRETED THE RESULT OF THE COMPROMISE AS
FOLLOWS IN HIS REPORT TO THE SENATE:  "NEITHER HOUSE NOR SENATE YIELDED
ITS CONVICTIONS, BUT BOTH HOUSES OBTAINED THEIR COMMON OBJECTIVE, WHICH
WAS TO ABOLISH TRAFFIC IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE PRODUCTS OF CHILD
LABOR AND IN THE PRODUCTS OF UNDERPAID AND OVERWORKED LABOR."  83 CONG.
REC. 9163. 

FN12  SEE GENERALLY THE HEARINGS PRECEDING THE ENACTMENT OF THE CHILD
LABOR ACT OF 1916.  HEARINGS ON H.R. 8234, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR,
64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; HEARINGS ON H.R. 8234, SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN13  ACT OF SEPT. 1, 1916, C. 432, SEC. 1, 39 STAT. 675. 

FN14  ACT OF FEB. 24, 1919, C. 18, SEC. 1200, 40 STAT. 1057, 1138. 

FN15  "THE ADMINISTRATOR,  ...  SHALL BY REGULATIONS OR BY ORDERS
PROVIDE FOR (1) THE EMPLOYMENT OF LEARNERS, OF APPRENTICES, AND OF
MESSENGERS EMPLOYED EXCLUSIVELY IN DELIVERING LETTERS AND MESSAGES,
...  AT SUCH WAGES LOWER THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE APPLICABLE UNDER SECTION
6 AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS TO TIME, NUMBER, PROPORTION, AND
LENGTH OF SERVICE AS THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL PRESCRIBE  ..."  SEC. 14,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 214. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

BY READING INTO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AN EXCEPTION THAT
CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED OR SPECIFIED, THIS COURT HAS TODAY GRANTED THE
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY A SPECIAL DISPENSATION TO UTILIZE THE
CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHILE EMPLOYING ADMITTEDLY OPPRESSIVE
CHILD LABOR.  SUCH A RESULT IS REACHED, TO BORROW THE WORDS OF THE
MAJORITY OPINION, "BY A SERIES OF INTERPRETATIONS SO FAR-FETCHED AND
FORCED AS TO BRING INTO QUESTION THE CANDOR OF CONGRESS AS WELL AS THE
INTEGRITY OF THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS." 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS INCONCLUSIVE INSOFAR AS THE FAILURE TO
INSERT A PROVISION DIRECTLY PROHIBITING CHILD LABOR IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS CONCERNED.  BUT THAT FACTOR IS NEITHER DETERMINATIVE NOR
EVEN SIGNIFICANT IN THE SETTING OF THIS CASE.  THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER
THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS OF SEC. 12(A) APPLY TO A COMPANY SOLELY
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN THE TRANSPORTING OF GOODS IN SUCH
COMMERCE.  RATHER THE CRUCIAL PROBLEM IS WHETHER WESTERN UNION, IN
PREPARING MESSAGES FOR TRANSMISSION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, MAY FAIRLY
BE SAID TO BE A "PRODUCER" OF "GOODS" WHICH IT "SHIPS" IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE SO AS TO COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 12(A).  THAT WESTERN
UNION MAY ALSO BE THE INTERSTATE TRANSMITTER OF MESSAGES IS BESIDE THE
POINT; IT IS ENOUGH IF IT IS A PRODUCER OF GOODS DESTINED FOR
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT.  INDEED, SEC. 15(A)(1) EXPRESSLY ENVISAGES JUST
SUCH A SITUATION.  IT PROVIDES IN PART THAT NO COMMON CARRIER SHALL BE
LIABLE UNDER THIS ACT "FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IN COMMERCE IN THE
REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS OF ANY GOODS NOT PRODUCED BY SUCH COMMON
CARRIER," THEREBY RECOGNIZING THAT IF A CARRIER IS ACTUALLY THE
"PRODUCER" OF THE "GOODS" IT TRANSPORTS IT MAY BE VISITED WITH THE
LIABILITIES OF SEC. 12(A). 

IN APPROACHING THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER WESTERN UNION IS A PRODUCER OF
GOODS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WE SHOULD NOT BE UNMINDFUL OF THE
HUMANITARIAN PURPOSES WHICH LED CONGRESS TO ADOPT SEC. 12(A). 
OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR IN ANY INDUSTRY IS A REVERSION TO AN OUTMODED
AND DEGENERATE CODE OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR.  IN THE WORDS OF
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, "A SELF-SUPPORTING AND SELF-RESPECTING DEMOCRACY
CAN PLEAD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF CHILD LABOR....  ALL
BUT THE HOPELESSLY REACTIONARY WILL AGREE THAT TO CONSERVE OUR PRIMARY
RESOURCES OF MAN POWER, GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER  ...
THE EVIL OF CHILD LABOR...."  MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TO CONGRESS, MAY
24, 1937, HOUSE DOC. NO. 255(75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 2.  CONGRESS
SOUGHT IN SEC. 12(A) TO TRANSLATE THESE SENTIMENTS FROM RHETORIC TO
LAW.  THAT IT MAY NOT HAVE DONE SO TO THE FULL LIMITS OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS NOT OF CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE HERE.  IT
MATTERS ONLY THAT COURTS SHOULD NOT DISREGARD THE LEGISLATIVE MOTIVE IN
INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT WERE ADOPTED. 
IF THE EXISTENCE OF OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE
FALLS WITHIN THE OBVIOUS INTENT AND SPIRIT OF SEC. 12(A), WE SHOULD NOT
BE TOO METICULOUS AND EXACTING IN DEALING WITH THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE. 
TO SACRIFICE SOCIAL GAINS FOR THE SAKE OF GRAMMATICAL PERFECTION IS NOT
IN KEEPING WITH THE HIGH TRADITIONS OF THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS. 
THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 12(A), WHEN VIEWED REALISTICALLY AND WITH DUE
REGARD FOR ITS PURPOSE, COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT WESTERN UNION HAS
BEEN GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF THE CHILD LABOR PROVISIONS.  OPPRESSIVE
CHILD LABOR CONDITIONS ARE ADMITTED AND THE ONLY ISSUE CONCERNS THE
APPLICATION OF THE WORDS "GOODS," "PRODUCER" AND "SHIPS" TO THE
ACTIVITIES OF WESTERN UNION. 

1. THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY CONCEDES THAT TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGES ARE
"SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE," GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 229-230, AND
HENCE ARE "GOODS" AS DEFINED IN SEC. 3(I) OF THE ACT.    2.  THE
MAJORITY HOLDS, HOWEVER, THAT WESTERN UNION IS NOT A "PRODUCER" OF
GOODS, EVEN THOUGH THE TERM "PRODUCED" IS DEFINED IN SEC. 3(J) TO
INCLUDE "HANDLED, OR IN ANY MANNER WORKED ON."  IT FURTHER HOLDS THAT
THE WORDS "HANDLED" OR "WORKED ON" REFER ONLY TO INCIDENTAL OPERATIONS
PREPARATORY TO PUTTING GOODS IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE AND THAT THEY
CANNOT RELATE TO A "HANDLING" OR "WORKING ON" WHICH ACCOMPLISHES THE
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT IN COMMERCE ITSELF (WHICH IS SAID TO CHARACTERIZE
WESTERN UNION'S ACTIVITIES).  EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THIS DISTINCTION
IS CORRECT, HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE WESTERN UNION FROM BEING
DESCRIBED AS A "PRODUCER."  CONTRARY TO THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN THE
MAJORITY OPINION, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GROUND ITS CASE IN THIS
RESPECT ON A CLAIM THAT MERE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS BY A CARRIER SUCH
AS WESTERN UNION CONSTITUTES A "HANDLING" OR "WORKING ON" SO AS TO MAKE
THAT CARRIER A PRODUCER.  THE CONTENTION, RATHER, IS THAT WESTERN UNION
EMPLOYEES, PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE MESSAGES INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, "WORK ON" AND "HANDLE" THE MESSAGES.  AND THAT CONTENTION
WOULD SEEM TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTS. 

BEFORE THE MESSAGES ACTUALLY MOVE IN COMMERCE, WESTERN UNION
EMPLOYEES AID IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE MESSAGES, WRITE THEM ON BLANKS,
MARK THE WRITTEN MESSAGES, TRANSFORM THEM INTO ELECTRIC IMPULSES AND
PERFORM NUMEROUS OTHER INCIDENTAL TASKS.  IN A VERY REAL AND LITERAL
SENSE, THEREFORE, THEY "HANDLE" AND "WORK ON" A MESSAGE BEFORE IT
ENTERS THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE UNIQUENESS OF WESTERN
UNION INSOFAR AS IT ACTS ALSO AS THE INTERSTATE CARRIER OF THESE
MESSAGES DOES NOT NEGATIVE THE FACT THAT IT ACTUALLY PROCESSES AND
HENCE "PRODUCES" THE MESSAGES AS A PREFACE TO THAT INTERSTATE TRANSIT. 

3.  FINALLY, THE MAJORITY DOES NOT THINK THAT THE VERB "SHIP" IS
APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSMISSION EITHER OF ELECTRICAL IMPULSES OR
INTANGIBLE MESSAGES AND HENCE WESTERN UNION DOES NOT "SHIP" GOODS IN
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 12(A).  AS A MATTER OF LINGUISTIC
PURISM, THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT WITHOUT REASONABLENESS.  BUT PROPER
RESPECT FOR THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND THE INTERPRETATIVE PROCESS DOES
NOT DEMAND FASTIDIOUS ADHERENCE TO LINGUISTIC PURISM.  THIS COURT DOES
NOT REQUIRE THAT CONGRESS SPELL OUT ALL TYPES OF "GOODS" OR "SUBJECTS
OF COMMERCE" THAT MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; NO MORE SHOULD IT
REQUIRE THAT CONGRESS SPELL OUT EVERY VERB THAT MAY BE IN USAGE AS TO
VARIOUS GOODS OR SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE.  IF THE VERB ACTUALLY USED BY
CONGRESS MAY FAIRLY BE INTERPRETED TO COVER THE PARTICULAR SITUATION IN
A MANNER NOT AT VARIANCE WITH THE INTENT AND SPIRIT OF THE STATUTE, NO
SOUND RULE OF LAW FORBIDS SUCH AN INTERPRETATION. 

AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO STRAIN REALITY IN ORDER TO
APPLY THE VERB "SHIP" TO THE TRANSMISSION OF TELEGRAPH MESSAGES.  THE
VERB IS DEFINED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO MEAN "TO TRANSPORT, OR COMMIT
FOR TRANSPORTATION."  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (2D ED.). 
THIS COURT ITSELF HAS REFERRED TO TELEGRAPH COMPANIES AS ENGAGED IN
"TRANSPORTATION" OF MESSAGES.  WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. TEXAS, 105
U.S. 460, 464.  SINCE MESSAGES ARE "GOODS" AND SINCE WESTERN UNION IS
THE "PRODUCER" OF THEM, THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY IN SAYING THAT IT
"SHIPS" OR "TRANSPORTS" THE MESSAGES IN COMMERCE WHEN ITS EMPLOYEES
SEND THEM ACROSS STATE LINES. 

SUCH AN INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE CLEAR STATUTORY WORDS
ARE NOT ONLY REALISTIC BUT ARE IN OBVIOUS ACCORD WITH THE STATUTORY
POLICY OF ELIMINATING OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR IN INDUSTRIES TRANSPORTING
GOODS AND SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE ACROSS STATE LINES.  THE NATURAL EASE
WITH WHICH THESE WORDS FIT THE ACTIVITIES OF WESTERN UNION ADDS WEIGHT
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 12(A) COVERS JUST SUCH A SITUATION AS
THIS.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
TO SUGGEST THAT TELEGRAPH COMPANIES ARE EXEMPT AND THE CONSISTENT
ADMINISTRATIVE ATTITUDE HAS BEEN THAT NO SUCH EXEMPTION EXISTS.  CHILD
LABOR REGULATION NO. 3, ISSUED BY THE CHIEF OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MAY 8, 1939; WAGE AND HOUR FIELD
INSTRUCTIONS, JUNE 4, 1942.  IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT THE EVILS OF
OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR ALLOW NO DISTINCTION IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYMENT
OF TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS OF TENDER YEARS.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360.  INDEED, THE REFERENCE TO MESSENGERS IN SEC.
14 OF THE ACT IS EVIDENCE OF AN AWARENESS BY CONGRESS THAT THE ACT
WOULD REACH SUCH PERSONS.  IF CONGRESS FOUND IT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE IN
SEC. 14 FOR CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS AS TO MINIMUM WAGES FOR MESSENGERS, IT
SEEMS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS THOUGHT THAT ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT APPLIED TO ALL MESSENGERS ABSENT SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS. 
MOREOVER, EVEN SEC. 14 MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN MESSENGERS WORKING
IN AND ABOUT MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS SHIPPING GOODS IN COMMERCE,
WHO PRESUMABLY STILL COME WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 12(A) UNDER THE
MAJORITY'S VIEW, AND THOSE EMPLOYED BY TELEGRAPH COMPANIES.  UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELINEATING AN EXCEPTION TO
SEC. 12(A) THAT CONGRESS ITSELF DID NOT SEE FIT TO MAKE EXPLICITLY. 

A WORD NEED BE SAID ABOUT THE COURT'S FEAR OF ENFORCING SEC. 12(A)
AGAINST WESTERN UNION.  PURSUANT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE, THE
TRIAL COURT ENJOINED WESTERN UNION FROM TRANSMITTING OR DELIVERING FOR
TRANSMISSION IN COMMERCE "TELEGRAPH OR OTHER MESSAGES OR ANY OTHER
GOODS" PRODUCED BY IT IN ANY ESTABLISHMENT IN OR ABOUT WHICH WITHIN 30
DAYS PRIOR TO THE TRANSMISSION THERE SHALL HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED ANY
OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR.  IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THIS IS A SANCTION
THAT WE DARE NOT PERMIT TO BECOME EFFECTIVE SINCE THE SUSPENSION OF
TELEGRAPHIC SERVICE FOR 30 DAYS WOULD BE INTOLERABLE.  SUCH A SANCTION
IS SAID TO BE WELL ADAPTED TO THE PRODUCER, MINER, MANUFACTURER OR
HANDLER BUT CLUMSY AND SELF-DEFEATING WHEN APPLIED TO TELEGRAPH
COMPANIES, RAILROADS AND THE LIKE.  CONVINCED BY THESE CONSIDERATIONS
THAT THE ACT DID NOT CONTEMPLATE ITS APPLICATION TO THIS SITUATION, THE
COURT PROCEEDS TO CARVE OUT A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION TO SEC. 12(A) FOR ALL
INTERSTATE CARRIERS. 

HOWEVER MUCH WE MAY DISLIKE THE IMPOSITION OF CONGRESSIONAL SANCTIONS
AGAINST A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY OR FIELD OF ENDEAVOR, THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION DOES NOT ALLOW US TO DISREGARD THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS PLAINLY
AND CONSTITUTIONALLY DECREED AND TO FORMULATE EXCEPTIONS WHICH WE
THINK, FOR PRACTICAL REASONS, CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE MADE HAD IT THOUGHT
MORE ABOUT THE PROBLEM.  TO READ IN EXCEPTIONS BASED UPON THE NATURE OR
IMPORTANCE OF THE PARTICULAR INDUSTRY OR CORPORATION IS DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT.  IF THE SUSPENSION OF TELEGRAPHIC SERVICE FOR 30 DAYS IS SO
INTOLERABLE AS TO JUSTIFY LIFTING THE BURDEN OF SEC. 12(A) FROM THE
SHOULDERS OF WESTERN UNION, CAN IT NOT BE ARGUED WITH EQUAL FERVOR THAT
A 30-DAY INJUNCTION AGAINST INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS BY AN AIRPLANE
MANUFACTURER, A MUNITIONS PLANT OR SOME OTHER INDUSTRY VITAL TO A WAR
OR PEACE TIME ECONOMY WOULD BE LIKEWISE INTOLERABLE?  WHAT VALID
DISTINCTION IN THIS RESPECT IS THERE BETWEEN INTERSTATE CARRIERS AND
MANUFACTURERS OR PRODUCERS?  MOREOVER, ARE WE TO EXAMINE THE
COMPETITIVE SITUATION OR DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE OF A PARTICULAR COMPANY
TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF INTOLERABLENESS WHICH A SUSPENSION OF
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION MIGHT ENGENDER?  THESE AND COUNTLESS OTHER
LEGISLATIVE PROBLEMS PRESENT THEMSELVES WHEN WE EMBARK UPON A COURSE OF
FASHIONING EXCEPTIONS TO A STATUTE ACCORDING TO OUR OWN CONCEPTIONS OF
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SANCTIONS OF AN ACT.  SUCH A COURSE IS AN OPEN
INVITATION TO WHOLESALE VETO OF VALID AND REASONABLE LEGISLATIVE
PROVISIONS BY MEANS OF JUDICIAL REFUSAL TO APPLY STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT
MEASURES.  ADHERENCE TO THE SOUND RULE THAT INEQUITIES AND HARDSHIPS
ARISING FROM STATUTORY SANCTIONS ARE FOR CONGRESS RATHER THAN THE
COURTS TO REMEDY BY WAY OF AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTE IS DESIRABLE AND
NECESSARY IN SUCH A SITUATION. 

WE ARE CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF INTERPRETING AND APPLYING ACTS OF
CONGRESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT.  COURTS ARE NOT SO
IMPOTENT THAT THEY CANNOT PERFORM THAT DUTY AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
GRANT STAYS OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST SHOULD
THE OCCASION DEMAND IT.  SEE STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221
U.S. 1, 81; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, 187,
188.  THUS IF THE INJUNCTION IS GRANTED HERE AGAINST WESTERN UNION, WE
WILL HAVE VINDICATED TO THAT EXTENT THE PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST
OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR.  IF A 30-DAY SUSPENSION OF TELEGRAPH MESSAGES
WOULD UNDULY HARM THE PUBLIC INTEREST, A STAY OF THE MANDATE OR OF THE
INJUNCTION CAN BE GRANTED UNTIL AT LEAST 30 DAYS HAVE ELAPSED DURING
WHICH NO OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR HAS BEEN EMPLOYED BY WESTERN UNION. 
THUS BY FASHIONING REMEDIES THROUGH INJUNCTIONS AND STAYS WE CAN AID IN
THE ELIMINATION OF OPPRESSIVE CHILD LABOR WITHOUT UNDUE HARDSHIP ON THE
PUBLIC.  THIS CAN AND SHOULD BE DONE WITHOUT ABDICATING OUR JUDICIAL
FUNCTION AND ASSUMING THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :















THOMAS V. COLLINS, 323 U.S. 516 


NO. 14.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1944.  REARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1944.  - DECIDED
JANUARY 8, 1945.  - 141 TEX. 591, 174 S.W.2D 958, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATUTE OF TEXAS REQUIRES LABOR ORGANIZERS TO REGISTER WITH AND
PROCURE AN ORGANIZER'S CARD FROM A DESIGNATED STATE OFFICIAL BEFORE
SOLICITING MEMBERSHIPS IN LABOR UNIONS.  WHILE A STATE COURT ORDER
RESTRAINING THE APPELLANT FROM VIOLATING THE STATUTE WAS IN EFFECT, HE
MADE A SPEECH BEFORE AN ASSEMBLAGE OF WORKERS.  AT THE END OF HIS
SPEECH HE URGED HIS HEARERS GENERALLY TO JOIN A UNION, AND ALSO ASKED
AN INDIVIDUAL BY NAME TO BECOME A MEMBER.  APPELLANT WAS SENTENCED TO A
FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT.  HELD: 

(A)  UPON THE RECORD, THE PENALTY FOR CONTEMPT MUST BE TREATED AS
HAVING BEEN IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC
INVITATIONS, AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT MUST BE AFFIRMED AS TO BOTH
OR NEITHER.  P. 528. 

ON THE QUESTION WHETHER A RESTRICTION COULD BE SUSTAINED IN RESPECT
OF THE APPELLANT'S SOLICITATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL, IF CONSIDERED
SEPARATELY, THE COURT EXPRESSES NO OPINION. 

(B)  AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, THE STATUTE IMPOSED A PREVIOUS
RESTRAINT UPON APPELLANT'S RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY, IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 532. 

(C)  A REQUIREMENT THAT ONE REGISTER BEFORE MAKING A PUBLIC SPEECH TO
ENLIST SUPPORT FOR A LAWFUL MOVEMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
GUARANTIES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  P. 540. 

2.  THE TASK OF DRAWING THE LINE BETWEEN THE FREEDOM OF THE
INDIVIDUAL AND THE POWER OF THE STATE IS MORE DELICATE THAN USUAL WHERE
THE PRESUMPTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION IS BALANCED BY THE PREFERRED
POSITION OF THE FREEDOMS SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  P. 529. 

3.  RESTRICTION OF THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT
CAN BE JUSTIFIED ONLY BY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE.  P. 530. 

4.  THE RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE REMEDY PROVIDED AND THE EVIL
TO BE CURBED, WHICH IN OTHER CONTEXTS MIGHT SUPPORT LEGISLATION AGAINST
ATTACK ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS, WILL NOT IN ITSELF SUFFICE TO SUSTAIN A
RESTRICTION OF THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  P.
530. 

5.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS, AND THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE
PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, ARE
COGNATE RIGHTS.  P. 530. 

6.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S SAFEGUARDS ARE NOT INAPPLICABLE TO BUSINESS
OR ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.  P. 531. 

7.  STATE REGULATION OF LABOR UNIONS, WHETHER AIMED AT FRAUD OR OTHER
ABUSES, MUST NOT INFRINGE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE
ASSEMBLY.  P. 532. 

THOMAS V. COLLINS, SHERIFF. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING WHICH SUSTAINED
THE COMMITMENT OF THE APPELLANT FOR CONTEMPT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPEAL IS FROM A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS WHICH
DENIED APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND REMANDED
HIM TO THE CUSTODY OF APPELLEE, AS SHERIFF OF TRAVIS COUNTY.  141 TEX.
591, 174 S.W.2D 958.  IN SO DECIDING THE COURT UPHELD, AS AGAINST
CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER OBJECTIONS, APPELLANT'S COMMITMENT FOR
CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY.  THE ORDER WAS ISSUED EX PARTE AND IN
TERMS RESTRAINED APPELLANT, WHILE IN TEXAS, FROM SOLICITING MEMBERS FOR
OR MEMBERSHIPS IN SPECIFIED LABOR UNIONS AND OTHERS AFFILIATED WITH THE
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AN
ORGANIZER'S CARD AS REQUIRED BY HOUSE BILL NO. 100, C. 104, GENERAL AND
SPECIAL LAWS OF TEXAS, REGULAR SESSION, 48TH LEGISLATURE (1943).  AFTER
THE ORDER WAS SERVED, APPELLANT ADDRESSED A MASS MEETING OF WORKERS AND
AT THE END OF HIS SPEECH ASKED PERSONS PRESENT TO JOIN A UNION.  FOR
THIS HE WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT, FINED AND SENTENCED TO A SHORT
IMPRISONMENT. 

THE CASE HAS BEEN TWICE ARGUED HERE.  EACH TIME APPELLANT HAS
INSISTED, AS HE DID IN THE STATE COURTS, THAT THE STATUTE AS IT HAS
BEEN APPLIED TO HIM IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS
IT INCORPORATES THE FIRST, IMPOSING A PREVIOUS RESTRAINT UPON THE
RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY, AND DENYING HIM THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  HE URGES ALSO THAT THE APPLICATION MADE
OF THE STATUTE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, AND OTHER OBJECTIONS WHICH NEED NOT
BE CONSIDERED.  FOR REASONS TO BE STATED WE THINK THE STATUTE AS IT WAS
APPLIED IN THIS CASE IMPOSED PREVIOUS RESTRAINT UPON APPELLANT'S RIGHTS
OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY AND THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. 

THE PERTINENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS, SECS. 5 AND 12, ARE PART OF
TEXAS' COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR REGULATING LABOR UNIONS AND THEIR
ACTIVITIES.  THEY ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN1

                I 

THE FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY UNDISPUTED.  THE APPELLANT, THOMAS, IS
THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION U.A.W. (UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS WORKERS) AND A VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE C.I.O.  HIS DUTIES ARE MANIFOLD, BUT IN ADDITION TO EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS THEY INCLUDE GIVING AID AND DIRECTION IN ORGANIZING CAMPAIGNS
AND BY HIS OWN STATEMENT SOLICITING MEMBERS, GENERALLY OR IN PARTICULAR
INSTANCES, FOR HIS ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR AFFILIATED UNIONS.  HE
RECEIVES A FIXED ANNUAL SALARY AS PRESIDENT OF THE U.A.W., RESIDES IN
DETROIT, AND TRAVELS WIDELY THROUGH THE NATION IN PERFORMING HIS WORK. 

O.W.I.U. (OIL WORKERS INDUSTRIAL UNION), A C.I.O. AFFILIATE, IS THE
PARENT ORGANIZATION OF MANY LOCAL UNIONS IN TEXAS, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL
OFFICE IN FORT WORTH.  ONE OF THESE IS LOCAL NO. 1002, WITH OFFICES IN
HARRIS COUNTY AND MEMBERSHIP CONSISTING LARGELY OF EMPLOYEES OF THE
HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY'S PLANT AT BAY TOWN, TEXAS, NOT FAR FROM
HOUSTON.  DURING AND PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER, 1943, C.I.O. AND O.W.I.U. WERE
ENGAGED IN A CAMPAIGN TO ORGANIZE THE EMPLOYEES AT THIS PLANT INTO
LOCAL NO. 1002, AFTER AN ORDER PREVIOUSLY MADE BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD FOR THE HOLDING OF AN ELECTION.  AS PART OF THE
CAMPAIGN A MASS MEETING WAS ARRANGED FOR THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 23,
UNDER THE AUSPICES OF O.W.I.U., AT THE CITY HALL IN PELLY, HARRIS
COUNTY, NEAR THE BAY TOWN PLANT.  WIDE PUBLICITY WAS GIVEN TO THE
MEETING BEFOREHAND.  ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE FOR THOMAS TO COME TO TEXAS
TO ADDRESS IT AND WIDE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO HIS ANNOUNCED INTENTION OF
DOING SO. 

THOMAS ARRIVED IN HOUSTON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 21.  HE TESTIFIED
WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT HIS ONLY OBJECT IN COMING TO HOUSTON WAS TO
ADDRESS THIS MEETING, THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO REMAIN THERE AFTERWARD
AND THAT HE HAD RETURN RAIL RESERVATIONS FOR LEAVING THE STATE WITHIN
TWO DAYS.  AT ABOUT 2:30 O'CLOCK ON THE AFTERNOON OF THURSDAY,
SEPTEMBER 23, ONLY SOME SIX HOURS BEFORE HE WAS SCHEDULED TO SPEAK,
THOMAS WAS SERVED WITH THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND A COPY OF THE FIAT. 

THESE HAD BEEN ISSUED EX PARTE BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
(WHICH SITS AT AUSTIN, THE STATE CAPITAL, LOCATED ABOUT 170 MILES FROM
HOUSTON) ON THE AFTERNOON OF SEPTEMBER 22, IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED
PURSUANT TO SEC. 12 BY THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THE PETITION FOR
THE ORDER SHOWS ON ITS FACE IT WAS FILED IN ANTICIPATION OF THOMAS'
SCHEDULED SPEECH.  FN2  AND THE TERMS OF THE ORDER SHOW THAT IT WAS
ISSUED IN ANTICIPATION OF THE MEETING AND THE SPEECH.  FN3 

UPON RECEIVING SERVICE, THOMAS CONSULTED HIS ATTORNEYS AND DETERMINED
TO GO AHEAD WITH THE MEETING AS PLANNED.  HE DID SO BECAUSE HE REGARDED
THE LAW AND THE CITATION AS A RESTRAINT UPON FREE SPEECH AND FREE
ASSEMBLY IN SO FAR AS THEY PREVENTED HIS MAKING A SPEECH OR ASKING
SOMEONE TO JOIN A UNION WITHOUT HAVING A LICENSE OR ORGANIZER'S CARD AT
THE TIME. 

ACCORDINGLY, THOMAS WENT TO THE MEETING, ARRIVING ABOUT 8:00 P.M.,
AND, WITH OTHER SPEAKERS, INCLUDING MASSENGALE AND CROSSLAND, BOTH
UNION REPRESENTATIVES, ADDRESSED AN AUDIENCE OF SOME 300 PERSONS.  THE
MEETING WAS ORDERLY AND PEACEFUL.  THOMAS, IN VIEW OF THE UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, HAD PREPARED A MANUSCRIPT ORIGINALLY INTENDED, ACCORDING
TO HIS STATEMENT, TO EMBODY HIS ENTIRE ADDRESS.  HE READ THE MANUSCRIPT
TO THE AUDIENCE.  IT DISCUSSED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE STATE'S EFFORT,
AS THOMAS CONCEIVED IT, TO INTERFERE WITH HIS RIGHT TO SPEAK AND CLOSED
WITH A GENERAL INVITATION TO PERSONS PRESENT NOT MEMBERS OF A LABOR
UNION TO JOIN LOCAL NO. 1002 AND THEREBY SUPPORT THE LABOR MOVEMENT
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  AS WRITTEN, THE SPEECH DID NOT ADDRESS THE
INVITATION TO ANY SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL BY NAME OR OTHERWISE.  FN4  BUT
THOMAS TESTIFIED THAT HE ADDED, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE WRITTEN
SPEECH, AN ORAL SOLICITATION OF ONE PAT O'SULLIVAN, A NONUNION MAN IN
THE AUDIENCE WHOM HE PREVIOUSLY HAD NEVER SEEN.  FN5 

AFTER THE MEETING THOMAS, WITH TWO OF THE OTHER UNION SPEAKERS, WAS
ARRESTED AND TAKEN BEFORE A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.  COMPLAINTS WERE
FILED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, PRESUMABLY PURSUANT TO SEC. 11.  THOMAS
WAS RELEASED ON BOND, RETURNED TO HIS HOTEL, AND THE NEXT MORNING LEFT
FOR DALLAS.  THERE HE LEARNED AN ATTACHMENT FOR HIS ARREST HAD BEEN
ISSUED AT AUSTIN BY THE TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, PURSUANT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MOTION FILED THAT MORNING IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
FOR VIOLATION OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.  FN6 

ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 24, THOMAS WENT TO AUSTIN FOR THE HEARING
UPON THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION SET FOR THE MORNING OF THE 25TH.  AT THIS
TIME HE APPEARED AND MOVED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, FOR
DISSOLUTION OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND TO QUASH THE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.  THE MOTIONS WERE DENIED AND, AFTER HEARING, THE
COURT ORDERED THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION TO ISSUE.  IT ALSO RENDERED
JUDGMENT HOLDING THOMAS IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING THE RESTRAINING ORDER
AND FIXED THE PENALTY AT THREE DAYS IN JAIL AND A FINE OF $100. 
PROCESS FOR COMMITMENT THEREUPON ISSUED AND WAS EXECUTED.  APPLICATION
TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS MADE AND
GRANTED, THE CAUSE WAS SET FOR HEARING IN OCTOBER, AND THOMAS WAS
RELEASED ON BOND, ALL ON SEPTEMBER 25.  THEREAFTER, AN AMENDED
APPLICATION IN HABEAS CORPUS WAS FILED, HEARING ON THE CAUSE WAS HAD,
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED SUSTAINING THE COMMITMENT, A MOTION FOR REHEARING
WAS OVERRULED, AND THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS PERFECTED.  ARGUMENT FOLLOWED
HERE AT THE CLOSE OF THE LAST TERM, WITH REARGUMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE PRESENT ONE TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS UPON WHICH WE DESIRED FURTHER
DISCUSSION. 

    II 

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, DEEMING HABEAS CORPUS AN APPROPRIATE
METHOD FOR CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED,  FN7
SUSTAINED THE ACT AS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POLICE POWER,
TAKEN "FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC, AND
PARTICULARLY THE LABORING CLASS," WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
SAFEGUARDING LABORERS FROM IMPOSTURE WHEN APPROACHED BY AN ALLEGED
ORGANIZER.  THE PROVISION, IT WAS SAID, "AFFECTS ONLY THE RIGHT OF ONE
TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS AS A PAID ORGANIZER, AND NOT THE MERE RIGHT
OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS ON THE MERITS OF THE UNION."  THE
COURT DECLARED THE ACT "DOES NOT REQUIRE A PAID ORGANIZER TO SECURE A
LICENSE," BUT MAKES MANDATORY THE ISSUANCE OF THE CARD "TO ALL WHO COME
WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UPON THEIR GOOD-FAITH COMPLIANCE
THEREWITH."  ACCORDINGLY IT HELD THAT THE REGULATION WAS NOT
UNREASONABLE. 

THE COURT CONCEDED HOWEVER THAT THE ACT "INTERFERES TO A CERTAIN
EXTENT WITH THE RIGHT OF THE ORGANIZER TO SPEAK AS THE PAID
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION."  NEVERTHELESS, IT SAID, "SUCH
INTERFERENCES ARE NOT NECESSARILY PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
STATE UNDER ITS POLICE POWER MAY ENACT LAWS WHICH INTERFERE INDIRECTLY
AND TO A LIMITED EXTENT WITH THE RIGHT OF SPEECH OR THE LIBERTY OF THE
PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
GENERAL PUBLIC."  ACCORDINGLY, IT LIKENED THE INSTANT PROHIBITION TO
VARIOUS OTHER ONES IMPOSED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LEGISLATION UPON "THE
RIGHT OF ONE TO OPERATE OR SPEAK AS THE AGENT OF ANOTHER," INCLUDING
SECURITIES SALESMEN, INSURANCE AGENTS, REAL ESTATE BROKERS, ETC.  AND
VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OTHERS  FN8  WERE THOUGHT TO
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACT "IMPOSES NO PREVIOUS GENERAL
RESTRAINT UPON THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH....  IT MERELY REQUIRES PAID
ORGANIZERS TO REGISTER WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE BEFORE BEGINNING TO
OPERATE AS SUCH." 

                          III 

APPELLANT FIRST URGES THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE AMOUNTED TO
THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE "FOR THE SIMPLE ACT OF DELIVERING AN
ADDRESS TO A GROUP OF WORKERS."  HE SAYS THE ACT PENALIZED "WAS SIMPLY
AND SOLELY THE ACT OF ADDRESSING THE WORKERS ON THE  ...  BENEFITS OF
UNIONISM, AND CONCLUDING THE ADDRESS WITH A PLEA TO THE AUDIENCE
GENERALLY AND TO A NAMED WORKER IN THE AUDIENCE TO JOIN A UNION."  HE
POINTS OUT THAT HE DID NOT PARADE ON THE STREETS, DID NOT SOLICIT OR
RECEIVE FUNDS, DID NOT "SIGN UP" WORKERS,  FN9  ENGAGED IN NO
DISTURBANCE OR BREACH OF THE PEACE, AND THAT HIS SOLE PURPOSE IN GOING
TO TEXAS AND HIS SOLE ACTIVITY THERE WERE TO MAKE THE ADDRESS INCLUDING
THE INVITATIONS WHICH HE EXTENDED AT THE END.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
THAT HE SOLICITED MEMBERSHIPS OR MEMBERS FOR A UNION AT ANY OTHER TIME
OR OCCASION OR INTENDED TO DO SO. HIS POSITION NECESSARILY MAINTAINS
THAT THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE SPEECH INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO ASK MEMBERS OF
THE AUDIENCE, BOTH GENERALLY AND BY NAME, TO JOIN THE UNION. 

APPELLANT ALSO URGES MORE BROADLY THAT THE STATUTE IS AN INVALID
RESTRAINT UPON FREE EXPRESSION IN PENALIZING THE MERE ASKING A WORKER
TO JOIN A UNION, WITHOUT HAVING PROCURED THE CARD, WHETHER THE ASKING
TAKES PLACE IN A PUBLIC ASSEMBLY OR PRIVATELY. 

TEXAS, ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSERTS NO ISSUE OF FREE SPEECH OR FREE
ASSEMBLY IS PRESENTED.  WITH THE STATE COURT, IT SAYS THE STATUTE IS
DIRECTED AT BUSINESS PRACTICES, LIKE SELLING INSURANCE, DEALING IN
SECURITIES, ACTING AS COMMISSION MERCHANT, PAWNBROKING, ETC., AND WAS
ADOPTED "IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT SOMETHING MORE IS DONE BY A
LABOR ORGANIZER THAN TALKING."  FN10 

ALTERNATIVELY, THE STATE SAYS, SEC. 5 WOULD BE VALID IF IT WERE
FRAMED TO INCLUDE VOLUNTARY, UNPAID ORGANIZERS AND IF NO ELEMENT OF
BUSINESS WERE INVOLVED IN THE UNION'S ACTIVITY.  THE STATUTE "IS A
REGISTRATION STATUTE AND NOTHING MORE," AND CONFERS ONLY "MINISTERIAL
AND NOT DISCRETIONARY POWERS" UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  THE
REQUIREMENT ACCORDINGLY IS REGARDED AS ONE MERELY FOR PREVIOUS
IDENTIFICATION, VALID WITHIN THE RULE OF CITY OF MANCHESTER V. LEIBY,
117 F.2D 661, AND THE DICTUM OF CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296,
306.  FN11 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF THE NATURE OF THE
ISSUES, THE PARTIES WOULD APPLY DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING
THEM.  APPELLANT RELIES ON THE RULE WHICH REQUIRES A SHOWING OF CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER TO SUSTAIN A RESTRICTION UPON FREE SPEECH OR FREE
ASSEMBLY.  FN12  TEXAS, CONSISTENTLY WITH ITS "BUSINESS PRACTICE"
THEORY, SAYS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD IS THAT APPLIED UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE TO SUSTAIN THE APPLICATIONS OF STATE STATUTES
REGULATING TRANSPORTATION MADE IN HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610;
CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583; AND CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313
U.S. 109.  FN13  IN SHORT, THE STATE WOULD APPLY A "RATIONAL BASIS"
TEST, APPELLANT ONE REQUIRING A SHOWING OF "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER." 

FINALLY, AS THE CASE IS PRESENTED HERE, TEXAS APPARENTLY WOULD REST
THE VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL
SOLICITATION OF O'SULLIVAN, AND WOULD THROW OUT OF ACCOUNT THE GENERAL
INVITATION, MADE AT THE SAME TIME, TO ALL NONUNION WORKERS IN THE
AUDIENCE.  FN14  HOWEVER, THE CASE CANNOT BE DISPOSED OF ON SUCH A
BASIS.  THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT MADE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE GENERAL
AND THE SPECIFIC INVITATIONS.  FN15  NOR DID THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE
RECORD SHOWS THAT THE RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED IN EXPLICIT
ANTICIPATION OF THE SPEECH AND TO RESTRAIN THOMAS FROM UTTERING IN ITS
COURSE ANY LANGUAGE WHICH COULD BE TAKEN AS SOLICITATION.  FN16  THE
MOTION FOR THE FIAT IN CONTEMPT WAS FILED AND THE FIAT ITSELF WAS
ISSUED ON ACCOUNT OF BOTH INVITATIONS.  FN17  THE ORDER ADJUDGING
THOMAS IN CONTEMPT WAS IN GENERAL TERMS, FINDING THAT HE HAD VIOLATED
THE RESTRAINING ORDER, WITHOUT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SOLICITATIONS
SET FORTH IN THE PETITION AND PROVED AS VIOLATIONS.  FN18  THE SENTENCE
WAS A SINGLE PENALTY.  IN THIS STATE OF THE RECORD IT MUST BE TAKEN
THAT THE ORDER FOLLOWED THE PRAYER OF THE MOTION AND THE FIAT'S
RECITAL, AND THAT THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF BOTH
INVITATIONS.  THE JUDGMENT THEREFORE MUST BE AFFIRMED AS TO BOTH OR AS
TO NEITHER.  CF. WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 292;
STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368.  AND IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
STATUTE, AS IT WAS APPLIED, RESTRAINED AND PUNISHED THOMAS FOR
UTTERING, IN THE COURSE OF HIS ADDRESS, THE GENERAL AS WELL AS THE
SPECIFIC INVITATION. 

      IV 

THE CASE CONFRONTS US AGAIN WITH THE DUTY OUR SYSTEM PLACES ON THIS
COURT TO SAY WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL'S FREEDOM ENDS AND THE STATE'S POWER
BEGINS.  CHOICE ON THAT BORDER, NOW AS ALWAYS DELICATE, IS PERHAPS MORE
SO WHERE THE USUAL PRESUMPTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION IS BALANCED BY
THE PREFERRED PLACE GIVEN IN OUR SCHEME TO THE GREAT, THE INDISPENSABLE
DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  CF. SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296; PRINCE V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158.  THAT PRIORITY GIVES THESE LIBERTIES A
SANCTITY AND A SANCTION NOT PERMITTING DUBIOUS INTRUSIONS.  AND IT IS
THE CHARACTER OF THE RIGHT, NOT OF THE LIMITATION, WHICH DETERMINES
WHAT STANDARD GOVERNS THE CHOICE.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE
PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152-153. 

FOR THESE REASONS ANY ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT THOSE LIBERTIES MUST BE
JUSTIFIED BY CLEAR PUBLIC INTEREST, THREATENED NOT DOUBTFULLY OR
REMOTELY, BUT BY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.  FN19  THE RATIONAL
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE REMEDY PROVIDED AND THE EVIL TO BE CURBED, WHICH
IN OTHER CONTEXTS MIGHT SUPPORT LEGISLATION AGAINST ATTACK ON DUE
PROCESS GROUNDS, WILL NOT SUFFICE.  THESE RIGHTS REST ON FIRMER
FOUNDATION.  ACCORDINGLY, WHATEVER OCCASION WOULD RESTRAIN ORDERLY
DISCUSSION AND PERSUASION, AT APPROPRIATE TIME AND PLACE, MUST HAVE
CLEAR SUPPORT IN PUBLIC DANGER, ACTUAL OR IMPENDING.  ONLY THE GRAVEST
ABUSES, ENDANGERING PARAMOUNT INTERESTS, GIVE OCCASION FOR PERMISSIBLE
LIMITATION.  IT IS THEREFORE IN OUR TRADITION TO ALLOW THE WIDEST ROOM
FOR DISCUSSION, THE NARROWEST RANGE FOR ITS RESTRICTION, PARTICULARLY
WHEN THIS RIGHT IS EXERCISED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY. 
IT WAS NOT BY ACCIDENT OR COINCIDENCE THAT THE RIGHTS TO FREEDOM IN
SPEECH AND PRESS WERE COUPLED IN A SINGLE GUARANTY WITH THE RIGHTS OF
THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO PETITION FOR REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES.  ALL THESE, THOUGH NOT IDENTICAL, ARE INSEPARABLE.  THEY
ARE COGNATE RIGHTS, CF. DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 364, AND
THEREFORE ARE UNITED IN THE FIRST ARTICLE'S ASSURANCE.  CF. 1 ANNALS OF
CONGRESS 759-760. 

THIS CONJUNCTION OF LIBERTIES IS NOT PECULIAR TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY
AND INSTITUTIONS ALONE.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES FREEDOM OF MIND THE
SAME SECURITY AS FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.  CF. PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF
SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510; MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390; PRINCE V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158.  GREAT SECULAR CAUSES, WITH SMALL ONES,
ARE GUARDED.  THE GRIEVANCES FOR REDRESS OF WHICH THE RIGHT OF PETITION
WAS INSURED, AND WITH IT THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY, ARE NOT SOLELY
RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL ONES.  AND THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND A FREE
PRESS ARE NOT CONFINED TO ANY FIELD OF HUMAN INTEREST. 

THE IDEA IS NOT SOUND THEREFORE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S SAFEGUARDS
ARE WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE TO BUSINESS OR ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.  AND IT DOES
NOT RESOLVE WHERE THE LINE SHALL BE DRAWN IN A PARTICULAR CASE MERELY
TO URGE, AS TEXAS DOES, THAT AN ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH THE RIGHTS OF
FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY ARE CLAIMED IS ONE "ENGAGED IN BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES" OR THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO LEADS IT IN EXERCISING THESE
RIGHTS RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR DOING SO.  NOR, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS
THE ANSWER GIVEN, WHETHER WHAT IS DONE IS AN EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS
AND THE RESTRICTION A FORBIDDEN IMPAIRMENT, BY IGNORING THE
ORGANIZATION'S ECONOMIC FUNCTION, BECAUSE THOSE INTERESTS OF WORKINGMEN
ARE INVOLVED OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE GENERAL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZEN,
AS APPELLANT WOULD DO. 

THESE COMPARISONS ARE AT ONCE TOO SIMPLE, TOO GENERAL, AND TOO
INACCURATE TO BE DETERMINATIVE.  WHERE THE LINE SHALL BE PLACED IN A
PARTICULAR APPLICATION RESTS, NOT ON SUCH GENERALITIES, BUT ON THE
CONCRETE CLASH OF PARTICULAR INTERESTS AND THE COMMUNITY'S RELATIVE
EVALUATION BOTH OF THEM AND OF HOW THE ONE WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE
SPECIFIC RESTRICTION, THE OTHER BY ITS ABSENCE.  THAT JUDGMENT IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE IS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.  BUT IN OUR SYSTEM WHERE
THE LINE CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY BE PLACED PRESENTS A QUESTION THIS COURT
CANNOT ESCAPE ANSWERING INDEPENDENTLY, WHATEVER THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION.  SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161.  AND THE ANSWER, UNDER THAT TRADITION, CAN BE
AFFIRMATIVE, TO SUPPORT AN INTRUSION UPON THIS DOMAIN, ONLY IF GRAVE
AND IMPENDING PUBLIC DANGER REQUIRES THIS. 

THAT THE STATE HAS POWER TO REGULATE LABOR UNIONS WITH A VIEW TO
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS, AS THE TEXAS COURT SAID, HARDLY TO
BE DOUBTED.  THEY CANNOT CLAIM SPECIAL IMMUNITY FROM REGULATION.  SUCH
REGULATION HOWEVER, WHETHER AIMED AT FRAUD OR OTHER ABUSES, MUST NOT
TRESPASS UPON THE DOMAINS SET APART FOR FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY. 
THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT "IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OUR TIMES THE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE
MUST BE REGARDED AS WITHIN THAT AREA OF FREE DISCUSSION THAT IS
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION....  FREE DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE
CONDITIONS IN INDUSTRY AND THE CAUSES OF LABOR DISPUTES APPEARS TO US
INDISPENSABLE TO THE EFFECTIVE AND INTELLIGENT USE OF THE PROCESSES OF
POPULAR GOVERNMENT TO SHAPE THE DESTINY OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY." 
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 102-103; SENN V. TILE LAYERS
PROTECTIVE UNION, 301 U.S. 468, 478.  THE RIGHT THUS TO DISCUSS, AND
INFORM PEOPLE CONCERNING, THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF UNIONS
AND JOINING THEM IS PROTECTED NOT ONLY AS PART OF FREE SPEECH, BUT AS
PART OF FREE ASSEMBLY.  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496.  THE TEXAS
COURT, IN ITS DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE, DID NOT GIVE SUFFICIENT WEIGHT
TO THIS CONSIDERATION, MORE PARTICULARLY BY ITS FAILURE TO TAKE ACCOUNT
OF THE BLANKETING EFFECT OF THE PROHIBITION'S PRESENT APPLICATION UPON
PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND ALSO OF THE BEARING OF THE CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER TEST IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

  V 

IN APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE PUT ASIDE
THE BROADER CONTENTIONS BOTH PARTIES HAVE MADE AND CONFINE OUR DECISION
TO THE NARROW QUESTION WHETHER THE APPLICATION MADE OF SEC. 5 IN THIS
CASE CONTRAVENES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

THE PRESENT APPLICATION DOES NOT INVOLVE THE SOLICITATION OF FUNDS OR
PROPERTY.  NEITHER SEC. 5 NOR THE RESTRAINING ORDER PURPORTS TO
PROHIBIT OR REGULATE SOLICITATION OF FUNDS, RECEIPT OF MONEY, ITS
MANAGEMENT, DISTRIBUTION, OR ANY OTHER FINANCIAL MATTER.  OTHER
THOMAS NEITHER ASKED NOR ACCEPTED FUNDS OR PROPERTY FOR THE UNION AT
THE TIME OF HIS ADDRESS OR WHILE HE WAS IN TEXAS.  NEITHER DID HE "TAKE
APPLICATIONS" FOR MEMBERSHIP, THOUGH HE OFFERED TO DO SO "IF IT WAS
NECESSARY"; OR ASK ANYONE TO JOIN A UNION AT ANY OTHER TIME THAN THE
OCCASION OF THE PELLY MASS MEETING AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS ADDRESS. 

THOMAS WENT TO TEXAS FOR ONE PURPOSE AND ONE ONLY - TO MAKE THE
SPEECH IN QUESTION.  ITS WHOLE OBJECT WAS PUBLICLY TO PROCLAIM THE
ADVANTAGES OF WORKERS' ORGANIZATION AND TO PERSUADE WORKMEN TO JOIN
LOCAL NO. 1002 AS PART OF A CAMPAIGN FOR MEMBERS.  THESE ALSO WERE THE
SOLE OBJECTS OF THE MEETING.  THE CAMPAIGN, AND THE MEETING, WERE
INCIDENTS OF AN IMPENDING ELECTION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT,
PREVIOUSLY ORDERED BY NATIONAL AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE GUARANTIES OF
NATIONAL LAW.  THOSE GUARANTIES INCLUDE THE WORKERS' RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
FREELY FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  AND THIS COMPREHENDS WHATEVER MAY BE
APPROPRIATE AND LAWFUL TO ACCOMPLISH AND MAINTAIN SUCH ORGANIZATION. 
IT INCLUDED, IN THIS CASE, THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE LOCAL NO. 1002 OR ANY
OTHER UNION OR AGENCY AS THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE.  IT INCLUDED
THEIR RIGHT FULLY AND FREELY TO DISCUSS AND BE INFORMED CONCERNING THIS
CHOICE, PRIVATELY OR IN PUBLIC ASSEMBLY.  NECESSARILY CORRELATIVE WAS
THE RIGHT OF THE UNION, ITS MEMBERS AND OFFICIALS, WHETHER RESIDENTS OR
NONRESIDENTS OF TEXAS AND, IF THE LATTER, WHETHER THERE FOR A SINGLE
OCCASION OR SOJOURNING LONGER, TO DISCUSS WITH AND INFORM THE EMPLOYEES
CONCERNING MATTERS INVOLVED IN THEIR CHOICE.  THESE RIGHTS OF ASSEMBLY
AND DISCUSSION ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  WHATEVER WOULD
RESTRICT THEM, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT OCCASION, WOULD INFRINGE ITS
SAFEGUARDS.  THE OCCASION WAS CLEARLY PROTECTED.  THE SPEECH WAS AN
ESSENTIAL PART OF THE OCCASION, UNLESS ALL MEANING AND PURPOSE WERE TO
BE TAKEN FROM IT.  AND THE INVITATIONS, BOTH GENERAL AND PARTICULAR,
WERE PARTS OF THE SPEECH, INSEPARABLE INCIDENTS OF THE OCCASION AND OF
ALL THAT WAS SAID OR DONE. 

THAT THERE WAS RESTRICTION UPON THOMAS' RIGHT TO SPEAK AND THE RIGHTS
OF THE WORKERS TO HEAR WHAT HE HAD TO SAY, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT.  THE
THREAT OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER, BACKED BY THE POWER OF CONTEMPT, AND
OF ARREST FOR CRIME, HUNG OVER EVERY WORD.  A SPEAKER IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES COULD AVOID THE WORDS "SOLICIT," "INVITE," "JOIN."  IT
WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID THE IDEA.  THE STATUTE REQUIRES NO
SPECIFIC FORMULA.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT ONLY THE USE OF THE WORD
"SOLICIT" WOULD VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION.  WITHOUT SUCH A LIMITATION,
THE STATUTE FORBIDS ANY LANGUAGE WHICH CONVEYS, OR REASONABLY COULD BE
FOUND TO CONVEY, THE MEANING OF INVITATION.  THAT THOMAS CHOSE TO MEET
THE ISSUE SQUARELY, NOT TO HIDE IN AMBIGUOUS PHRASING, DOES NOT
COUNTERACT THIS FACT.  GENERAL WORDS CREATE DIFFERENT AND OFTEN
PARTICULAR IMPRESSIONS ON DIFFERENT MINDS.  NO SPEAKER, HOWEVER
CAREFUL, CAN CONVEY EXACTLY HIS MEANING, OR THE SAME MEANING, TO THE
DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF AN AUDIENCE.  HOW ONE MIGHT "LAUD UNIONISM," AS
THE STATE AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONCEDE THOMAS WAS FREE TO DO,
YET IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NOT IMPLY AN INVITATION, IS HARD TO
CONCEIVE.  THIS IS THE NUB OF THE CASE, WHICH THE STATE FAILS TO MEET
BECAUSE IT CANNOT DO SO.  WORKINGMEN DO NOT LACK CAPACITY FOR MAKING
RATIONAL CONNECTIONS.  THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND, OR SOME WOULD, THAT THE
PRESIDENT OF U.A.W. AND VICE PRESIDENT OF C.I.O., ADDRESSING AN
ORGANIZATION MEETING, WAS NOT URGING MERELY A PHILOSOPHIC ATTACHMENT TO
ABSTRACT PRINCIPLES OF UNIONISM, DISCONNECTED FROM THE BUSINESS
IMMEDIATELY AT HAND.  THE FEAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLE FOR A NATIONAL
LEADER, ADDRESSING SUCH A MEETING, LAUDING UNIONS AND THEIR PRINCIPLES,
URGING ADHERENCE TO UNION PHILOSOPHY, NOT ALSO AND THEREBY TO SUGGEST
ATTACHMENT TO THE UNION BY BECOMING A MEMBER. 

FURTHERMORE, WHETHER WORDS INTENDED AND DESIGNED TO FALL SHORT OF
INVITATION WOULD MISS THAT MARK IS A QUESTION BOTH OF INTENT AND OF
EFFECT.  NO SPEAKER, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, SAFELY COULD ASSUME THAT
ANYTHING HE MIGHT SAY UPON THE GENERAL SUBJECT WOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD
BY SOME AS AN INVITATION.  IN SHORT, THE SUPPOSEDLY CLEAR-CUT
DISTINCTION BETWEEN DISCUSSION, LAUDATION, GENERAL ADVOCACY, AND
SOLICITATION PUTS THE SPEAKER IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHOLLY AT THE
MERCY OF THE VARIED UNDERSTANDING OF HIS HEARERS AND CONSEQUENTLY OF
WHATEVER INFERENCE MAY BE DRAWN AS TO HIS INTENT AND MEANING. 

SUCH A DISTINCTION OFFERS NO SECURITY FOR FREE DISCUSSION.  IN THESE
CONDITIONS IT BLANKETS WITH UNCERTAINTY WHATEVER MAY BE SAID.  IT
COMPELS THE SPEAKER TO HEDGE AND TRIM.  HE MUST TAKE CARE IN EVERY WORD
TO CREATE NO IMPRESSION THAT HE MEANS, IN ADVOCATING UNIONISM'S MOST
CENTRAL PRINCIPLE, NAMELY, THAT WORKINGMEN SHOULD UNITE FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, TO URGE THOSE PRESENT TO DO SO. THE VICE IS NOT MERELY THAT
INVITATION, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN HERE, IS SPEECH.  IT IS ALSO
THAT ITS PROHIBITION FORBIDS OR RESTRAINS DISCUSSION WHICH IS NOT OR
MAY NOT BE INVITATION.  THE SHARP LINE CANNOT BE DRAWN SURELY OR
SECURELY.  THE EFFORT TO OBSERVE IT COULD NOT BE FREE SPEECH, FREE
PRESS, OR FREE ASSEMBLY, IN ANY SENSE OF FREE ADVOCACY OF PRINCIPLE OR
CAUSE.  THE RESTRICTION'S EFFECT, AS APPLIED, IN A VERY PRACTICAL SENSE
WAS TO PROHIBIT THOMAS NOT ONLY TO SOLICIT MEMBERS AND MEMBERSHIPS, BUT
ALSO TO SPEAK IN ADVOCACY OF THE CAUSE OF TRADE UNIONISM IN TEXAS,
WITHOUT HAVING FIRST PROCURED THE CARD.  THOMAS KNEW THIS AND FACED THE
ALTERNATIVES IT PRESENTED.  WHEN SERVED WITH THE ORDER HE HAD THREE
CHOICES:  (1) TO STAND ON HIS RIGHT AND SPEAK FREELY; (2) TO QUIT,
REFUSING ENTIRELY TO SPEAK; (3) TO TRIM, AND EVEN THUS TO RISK THE
PENALTY.  HE CHOSE THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE.  WE THINK HE WAS WITHIN HIS
RIGHTS IN DOING SO. 

THE ASSEMBLY WAS ENTIRELY PEACEABLE, AND HAD NO OTHER THAN A WHOLLY
LAWFUL PURPOSE.  THE STATEMENTS FORBIDDEN WERE NOT IN THEMSELVES
UNLAWFUL, HAD NO TENDENCY TO INCITE TO UNLAWFUL ACTION, INVOLVED NO
ELEMENT OF CLEAR AND PRESENT, GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE.  MOREOVER, THE STATE HAS SHOWN NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PLACING
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF THE WORD "SOLICIT."  WE HAVE HERE NOTHING
COMPARABLE TO THE CASE WHERE USE OF THE WORD "FIRE" IN A CROWDED
THEATER CREATES A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER WHICH THE STATE MAY
UNDERTAKE TO AVOID OR AGAINST WHICH IT MAY PROTECT.  SCHENCK V. UNITED
STATES, 249 U.S. 47.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT "SOLICIT" IN THIS SETTING IS
SUCH A DANGEROUS WORD.  SO FAR AS FREE SPEECH ALONE IS CONCERNED, THERE
CAN BE NO BAN OR RESTRICTION OR BURDEN PLACED ON THE USE OF SUCH A WORD
EXCEPT ON SHOWING OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE PUBLIC SAFETY,
MORALITY OR HEALTH IS INVOLVED OR SOME OTHER SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF
THE COMMUNITY IS AT STAKE. 

IF THEREFORE USE OF THE WORD OR LANGUAGE EQUIVALENT IN MEANING WAS
ILLEGAL HERE, IT WAS SO ONLY BECAUSE THE STATUTE AND THE ORDER FORBADE
THE PARTICULAR SPEAKER TO UTTER IT.  WHEN LEGISLATION OR ITS
APPLICATION CAN CONFINE LABOR LEADERS ON SUCH OCCASIONS TO INNOCUOUS
AND ABSTRACT DISCUSSION OF THE VIRTUES OF TRADE UNIONS AND SO BECLOUD
EVEN THIS WITH DOUBT, UNCERTAINTY AND THE RISK OF PENALTY, FREEDOM OF
SPEECH FOR THEM WILL BE AT AN END.  A RESTRICTION SO DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
RIGHT OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION, WITHOUT GREATER OR MORE IMMINENT DANGER TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAN EXISTED IN THIS CASE, IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
FREEDOMS SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

WE DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THERE IS NOT, IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES, A
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN URGING A COURSE OF ACTION AND MERELY GIVING AND
ACQUIRING INFORMATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, HISTORY HAS NOT BEEN WITHOUT
PERIODS WHEN THE SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE ALONE WAS BANNED.  OF THIS WE MAY
ASSUME THE MEN WHO WROTE THE BILL OF RIGHTS WERE AWARE.  BUT THE
PROTECTION THEY SOUGHT WAS NOT SOLELY FOR PERSONS IN INTELLECTUAL
PURSUITS.  IT EXTENDS TO MORE THAN ABSTRACT DISCUSSION, UNRELATED TO
ACTION.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS A CHARTER FOR GOVERNMENT, NOT FOR AN
INSTITUTION OF LEARNING.  "FREE TRADE IN IDEAS" MEANS FREE TRADE IN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PERSUADE TO ACTION, NOT MERELY TO DESCRIBE FACTS.  CF.
ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 624, AND GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268
U.S. 652, 672, DISSENTING OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES.  INDEED, THE
WHOLE HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM SHOWS IT IS TO THE END OF PREVENTING
ACTION THAT REPRESSION IS PRIMARILY DIRECTED AND TO PRESERVING THE
RIGHT TO URGE IT THAT THE PROTECTIONS ARE GIVEN. 

ACCORDINGLY, DECISION HERE HAS RECOGNIZED THAT EMPLOYERS' ATTEMPTS TO
PERSUADE TO ACTION WITH RESPECT TO JOINING OR NOT JOINING UNIONS ARE
WITHIN THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S GUARANTY.  LABOR BOARD V. VIRGINIA
ELECTRIC & POWER CO., 314 U.S. 469.  DECISIONS OF OTHER COURTS HAVE
DONE LIKEWISE N21.  WHEN TO THIS PERSUASION OTHER THINGS ARE ADDED
WHICH BRING ABOUT COERCION, OR GIVE IT THAT CHARACTER, THE LIMIT OF THE
RIGHT HAS BEEN PASSED.  FN22  CF. LABOR BOARD V. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC &
POWER CO., SUPRA.  BUT SHORT OF THAT LIMIT THE EMPLOYER'S FREEDOM
CANNOT BE IMPAIRED.  THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS NO LESS THE EMPLOYEES'
CONVERSE RIGHT.  OF COURSE ESPOUSAL OF THE CAUSE OF LABOR IS ENTITLED
TO NO HIGHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION THAN THE ESPOUSAL OF ANY OTHER
LAWFUL CAUSE.  IT IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTION. 

                          VI 

APART FROM ITS "BUSINESS PRACTICE" THEORY, THE STATE CONTENDS THAT
SEC. 5 IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY, SINCE
THIS IS MERELY A PREVIOUS IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT WHICH, ACCORDING
TO THE STATE COURT'S DECISION, GIVES THE SECRETARY OF STATE ONLY
"MINISTERIAL, NOT DISCRETIONARY" AUTHORITY. 

HOW FAR THE STATE CAN REQUIRE PREVIOUS IDENTIFICATION BY ONE WHO
UNDERTAKES TO EXERCISE THE RIGHTS SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS
BEEN LARGELY UNDETERMINED.  IT HAS ARISEN HERE CHIEFLY, THOUGH ONLY
TANGENTALLY, IN CONNECTION WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS INVOLVING THE
SOLICITATION OF FUNDS, CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA; CF. SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147; LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418, AND OTHER
ACTIVITIES UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS OR IN PUBLIC PLACES, CF. LOVELL V.
GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, OR HOUSE-TO-HOUSE
CANVASSING, CF. SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA.  IN THESE CASES, HOWEVER,
THE LICENSE REQUIREMENTS WERE FOR MORE THAN MERE IDENTIFICATION OR
PREVIOUS REGISTRATION AND WERE HELD INVALID BECAUSE THEY VESTED
DISCRETION IN THE ISSUING AUTHORITIES TO CENSOR THE ACTIVITY INVOLVED. 
NEVERTHELESS, IT WAS INDICATED BY DICTUM IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT,
310 U.S. 296, 306,  FN23  THAT A STATUTE GOING NO FURTHER THAN MERELY
TO REQUIRE PREVIOUS IDENTIFICATION WOULD BE SUSTAINED IN RESPECT TO THE
ACTIVITIES MENTIONED.  ALTHOUGH THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN
THIS CASE, THAT DICTUM AND THE DECISION IN BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278
U.S. 63, FURNISH PERHAPS THE INSTANCES OF PRONOUNCEMENT OR DECISION
HERE NEAREST THIS PHASE OF THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED. 

AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE A REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION IN ORDER TO
MAKE A PUBLIC SPEECH WOULD SEEM GENERALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH AN EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY.  LAWFUL PUBLIC
ASSEMBLIES, INVOLVING NO ELEMENT OF GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER TO AN
INTEREST THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO PROTECT, ARE NOT INSTRUMENTS OF HARM
WHICH REQUIRE PREVIOUS IDENTIFICATION OF THE SPEAKERS.  AND THE RIGHT
EITHER OF WORKMEN OR OF UNIONS UNDER THESE CONDITIONS TO ASSEMBLE AND
DISCUSS THEIR OWN AFFAIRS IS AS FULLY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AS
THE RIGHT OF BUSINESSMEN, FARMERS, EDUCATORS, POLITICAL PARTY MEMBERS
OR OTHERS TO ASSEMBLE AND DISCUSS THEIR AFFAIRS AND TO ENLIST THE
SUPPORT OF OTHERS. 

WE THINK THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE IS STATED IN DE JONGE V. OREGON,
299 U.S. 353, 365.  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT HELD THAT, "CONSISTENTLY
WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY FOR LAWFUL DISCUSSION
CANNOT BE MADE A CRIME."  AND "THOSE WHO ASSIST IN THE CONDUCT OF SUCH
MEETINGS CANNOT BE BRANDED AS CRIMINALS ON THAT SCORE.  THE QUESTION,
IF THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY ARE TO BE
PRESERVED, IS NOT AS TO THE AUSPICES UNDER WHICH THE MEETING IS HELD
BUT AS TO ITS PURPOSE; NOT AS TO THE RELATIONS OF THE SPEAKERS, BUT
WHETHER THEIR UTTERANCES TRANSCEND THE BOUNDS OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS.  IF THE PERSONS ASSEMBLING HAVE
COMMITTED CRIMES ELSEWHERE, IF THEY HAVE FORMED OR ARE ENGAGED IN A
CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER, THEY MAY BE PROSECUTED
FOR THEIR CONSPIRACY OR OTHER VIOLATION OF VALID LAWS.  BUT IT IS A
DIFFERENT MATTER WHEN THE STATE, INSTEAD OF PROSECUTING THEM FOR SUCH
OFFENSES, SEIZES UPON MERE PARTICIPATION IN A PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY AND A
LAWFUL PUBLIC DISCUSSION AS THE BASIS FOR A CRIMINAL CHARGE." 

IF THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY CANNOT
BE MADE A CRIME, WE DO NOT THINK THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE DEVICE
OF REQUIRING PREVIOUS REGISTRATION AS A CONDITION FOR EXERCISING THEM
AND MAKING SUCH A CONDITION THE FOUNDATION FOR RESTRAINING IN ADVANCE
THEIR EXERCISE AND FOR IMPOSING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATING SUCH A
RESTRAINING ORDER.  SO LONG AS NO MORE IS INVOLVED THAN EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY, IT IS IMMUNE TO SUCH A
RESTRICTION.  IF ONE WHO SOLICITS SUPPORT FOR THE CAUSE OF LABOR MAY BE
REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A CONDITION TO THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT TO
MAKE A PUBLIC SPEECH, SO MAY HE WHO SEEKS TO RALLY SUPPORT FOR ANY
SOCIAL, BUSINESS, RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL CAUSE.  WE THINK A REQUIREMENT
THAT ONE MUST REGISTER BEFORE HE UNDERTAKES TO MAKE A PUBLIC SPEECH TO
ENLIST SUPPORT FOR A LAWFUL MOVEMENT IS QUITE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

ONCE THE SPEAKER GOES FURTHER, HOWEVER, AND ENGAGES IN CONDUCT WHICH
AMOUNTS TO MORE THAN THE RIGHT OF FREE DISCUSSION COMPREHENDS, AS WHEN
HE UNDERTAKES THE COLLECTION OF FUNDS OR SECURING SUBSCRIPTIONS, HE
ENTERS A REALM WHERE A REASONABLE REGISTRATION OR IDENTIFICATION
REQUIREMENT MAY BE IMPOSED.  IN THAT CONTEXT SUCH SOLICITATION WOULD BE
QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE SOLICITATION INVOLVED HERE.  IT WOULD BE FREE
SPEECH PLUS CONDUCT AKIN TO THE ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE PRESENT, AND
WHICH IT WAS SAID THE STATE MIGHT REGULATE, IN SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
SUPRA, AND CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA.  THAT, HOWEVER, MUST BE
DONE, AND THE RESTRICTION APPLIED, IN SUCH A MANNER AS NOT TO INTRUDE
UPON THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSEMBLY.  IN THIS CASE THE
SEPARATION WAS NOT MAINTAINED.  IF WHAT THOMAS DID, IN SOLICITING PAT
O'SULLIVAN, WAS SUBJECT TO SUCH A RESTRICTION, AS TO WHICH WE EXPRESS
NO OPINION, THAT ACT WAS INTERTWINED WITH THE SPEECH AND THE GENERAL
INVITATION IN THE PENALTY WHICH WAS IMPOSED FOR VIOLATING THE
RESTRAINING ORDER.  SINCE THE PENALTY MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE RESTED AS
MUCH ON THE SPEECH AND THE GENERAL INVITATION AS ON THE SPECIFIC ONE,
AND THE FORMER CLEARLY WERE IMMUNE, THE JUDGMENT CANNOT STAND. 

AS WE THINK THE REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION, IN THE PRESENT
CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS IN ITSELF AN INVALID RESTRICTION, WE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE RESTRAINT AS IMPOSED GOES BEYOND
MERELY REQUIRING PREVIOUS IDENTIFICATION OR REGISTRATION.  FN24  NOR DO
WE UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 5 IN ANY OTHER
APPLICATION THAN THAT MADE UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  NEITHER DO WE
GROUND OUR DECISION UPON OTHER CONTENTIONS ADVANCED IN THE BRIEFS AND
ARGUMENT.  UPON THE REARGUMENT ATTENTION WAS GIVEN PARTICULARLY TO THE
QUESTIONS WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 5, OR
THEIR APPLICATION IN THIS CASE, ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE GOVERNMENT,
WHICH HAS APPEARED AS AMICUS CURIAE, HAVE ADVANCED CONTENTIONS ON THIS
ISSUE INDEPENDENT OF THOSE PUT FORWARD UPON THE QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY.  SINCE A MAJORITY OF THE COURT DO NOT AGREE THAT
SEC. 5 OR ITS PRESENT APPLICATION CONFLICTS WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, OUR DECISION RESTS EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE GROUNDS WE HAVE
STATED FOR FINDING THAT THE STATUTE AS APPLIED CONTRAVENES THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE RESTRAINT IS NOT SMALL WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED WHAT WAS
RESTRAINED.  THE RIGHT IS A NATIONAL RIGHT, FEDERALLY GUARANTEED. 
THERE IS SOME MODICUM OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY WHICH
ALL CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC MAY EXERCISE THROUGHOUT ITS LENGTH AND
BREADTH, WHICH NO STATE, NOR ALL TOGETHER, NOR THE NATION ITSELF, CAN
PROHIBIT, RESTRAIN OR IMPEDE.  IF THE RESTRAINT WERE SMALLER THAN IT
IS, IT IS FROM PETTY TYRANNIES THAT LARGE ONES TAKE ROOT AND GROW. 
THIS FACT CAN BE NO MORE PLAIN THAN WHEN THEY ARE IMPOSED ON THE MOST
BASIC RIGHTS OF ALL.  SEEDLINGS PLANTED IN THAT SOIL GROW GREAT AND,
GROWING, BREAK DOWN THE FOUNDATIONS OF LIBERTY. 

IN VIEW OF THE DISPOSITION WE MAKE OF THE CAUSE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
RULE UPON THE MOTION APPELLEE HAS FILED TO REQUIRE APPELLANT TO FURNISH
SECURITY FOR HIS APPEARANCE TO SERVE THE SENTENCE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 5.  "ALL LABOR UNION ORGANIZERS OPERATING IN THE STATE OF
TEXAS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, BEFORE
SOLICITING ANY MEMBERS FOR HIS ORGANIZATION, A WRITTEN REQUEST BY
UNITED STATES MAIL, OR SHALL APPLY IN PERSON FOR AN ORGANIZER'S CARD,
STATING (A) HIS NAME IN FULL; (B) HIS LABOR UNION AFFILIATIONS, IF ANY;
(C) DESCRIBING HIS CREDENTIALS AND ATTACHING THERETO A COPY THEREOF,
WHICH APPLICATION SHALL BE SIGNED BY HIM.  UPON SUCH APPLICATIONS BEING
FILED, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL ISSUE TO THE APPLICANT A CARD ON
WHICH SHALL APPEAR THE FOLLOWING:  (1) THE APPLICANT'S NAME; (2) HIS
UNION AFFILIATION; (3) A SPACE FOR HIS PERSONAL SIGNATURE; (4) A
DESIGNATION, 'LABOR ORGANIZER'; AND, (5) THE SIGNATURE OF THE SECRETARY
OF STATE, DATED AND ATTESTED BY HIS SEAL OF OFFICE.  SUCH ORGANIZER
SHALL AT ALL TIMES, WHEN SOLICITING MEMBERS, CARRY SUCH CARD, AND SHALL
EXHIBIT THE SAME WHEN REQUESTED TO DO SO BY A PERSON BEING SO SOLICITED
FOR MEMBERSHIP." 

SEC. 12.  "THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THIS STATE AND THE JUDGES THEREOF
SHALL HAVE FULL POWER, AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION, UPON THE APPLICATION
OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, ACTING THROUGH AN ENFORCMENT OFFICER HEREIN
AUTHORIZED, TO ISSUE ANY AND ALL PROPER RESTRAINING ORDERS, TEMPORARY
OR PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS, AND ANY OTHER AND FURTHER WRITS OR PROCESSES
APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT AND ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  SUCH
PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE INSTITUTED, PROSECUTED, TRIED AND HEARD AS OTHER
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS OF LIKE NATURE IN SAID COURTS." 

THE ACT ALSO REQUIRES UNIONS TO FILE ANNUAL REPORTS CONTAINING
SPECIFIED NAMES AND ADDRESSES, A STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
WITH THE NAMES OF RECIPIENTS, AND COPIES OF ALL CONTRACTS WITH
EMPLOYERS WHICH INCLUDE A CHECK-OFF CLAUSE.  IT PROHIBITS CHARGING DUES
WHICH "WILL CREATE A FUND IN EXCESS OF THE REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS OF
SUCH UNION," DEMANDING OR COLLECTING ANY FEE FOR THE PRIVILEGE TO WORK
AND PROVIDES FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT "EXCESSIVE INITIATION
FEES."  ALL OFFICERS, AGENTS, ORGANIZERS AND REPRESENTATIVES MUST BE
ELECTED BY AT LEAST A MAJORITY VOTE.  ALIENS AND FELONS (UNLESS
RESTORED TO CITIZENSHIP) CANNOT BE "OFFICERS, OFFICIALS ...  OR LABOR
ORGANIZERS." 

ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS ARE FOUND IN SEC. 11.  A CIVIL
PENALTY NOT EXCEEDING $1,000 IS IMPOSED "IF ANY LABOR UNION VIOLATES
ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT," TO BE RECOVERED IN A SUIT IN THE NAME OF
THE STATE, INSTITUTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.  VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE
BY A UNION OFFICER OR LABOR ORGANIZER IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR, PUNISHABLE
BY FINE OF NOT OVER $500 OR CONFINEMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL FOR NOT TO
EXCEED 60 DAYS, OR BOTH. 

BY SEC. 2(C), "'LABOR ORGANIZER' SHALL MEAN ANY PERSON WHO FOR A
PECUNIARY OR FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION SOLICITS MEMBERSHIPS IN A LABOR
UNION OR MEMBERS FOR A LABOR UNION."  UNDER THE INTERPRETATION
PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, "ANY PERSON WHO SOLICITS
MEMBERSHIPS FOR A UNION AND RECEIVES REMUNERATION THEREFOR, WILL BE
CONSIDERED A 'LABOR ORGANIZER'...  SOLICITATION OF MEMBERSHIPS AS AN
INCIDENT TO OTHER DUTIES FOR WHICH A SALARY IS PAID WILL BE CONSIDERED
SOLICITATION FOR REMUNERATION."    FN2  THE PETITION RECITES THE TIME
AND PLACE OF THE MASS MEETING, THAT THOMAS WAS SCHEDULED TO SPEAK AND
WOULD SOLICIT MEMBERS FOR THE UNION AT THE MEETING WITHOUT AN
ORGANIZER'S CARD.  THE RECITALS WERE BASED ON AN ALLEGED PREVIOUS
ANNOUNCEMENT BY HIM OF INTENTION TO DO THESE THINGS, WHICH AT THE
HEARING HE DENIED HAVING MADE.  THE PETITION STATED THERE WAS "NOT
SUFFICIENT TIME BEFORE THE DEFENDANT MAKES THE THREATENED SPEECH" FOR
NOTICE TO BE SERVED AND RETURNED AND CONCLUDES WITH A PRAYER FOR THE
RESTRAINING ORDER. 

FN3  THE ORDER REPEATED SUBSTANTIALLY THE RECITALS OF THE PETITION,
CONCERNING THE MEETING, THOMAS' SCHEDULED SPEECH AND INTENTION TO
SOLICIT MEMBERS, AS GROUNDS FOR ITS ISSUANCE APPEARING FROM "THE SWORN
PETITION AND STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL," AND ENJOINED THOMAS FROM
SOLICITING MEMBERSHIPS IN AND MEMBERS FOR LOCAL NO. 1002 AND ANY OTHER
UNION AFFILIATED WITH THE C.I.O., WHILE IN TEXAS, WITHOUT FIRST
OBTAINING AN ORGANIZER'S CARD. 

FN4  ACCORDING TO THE REPORT OF THE SPEECH GIVEN IN THE RECORD, IT
REFERS TO THOMAS' INVITATION TO SPEAK AT THE MEETING, HIS ACCEPTANCE,
AND HIS INTENTION TO DISCUSS WHY WORKERS SHOULD JOIN THE UNION AND TO
URGE THOSE PRESENT TO DO SO.  AFTER STATING HE HAD LEARNED, ON ARRIVAL,
THAT HIS RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH A SPEECH WAS QUESTIONED, HE SAID:  "I
DIDN'T COME HERE TO BREAK THE LAW.  I CAME HERE TO MAKE THIS SPEECH AND
TO ASK YOU TO JOIN THE UNION.  BUT SINCE THE ISSUE HAS ARISEN I DON'T
WANT ANYBODY TO SAY THAT I'M EVADING IT  ...  TO HAVE AN OPENING TO GET
OUT WITHOUT MAKING A TEST OF THIS LAW  ....  THEREFORE AS VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE C.I.O. AND AS A UNION MAN, I EARNESTLY ASK THOSE OF
YOU WHO ARE NOT NOW MEMBERS OF THE OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION TO
JOIN NOW.  I SOLICIT YOU TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE UNION OF YOUR FELLOW
WORKERS AND THEREBY JOIN HANDS WITH LABOR THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY IN
ALL INDUSTRIES  ...." 

FN5  THOMAS TESTIFIED HIS INVITATION TO O'SULLIVAN WAS AS FOLLOWS:
"I SAID, 'PAT O'SULLIVAN, I WANT YOU TO JOIN THE OIL WORKERS UNION.  I
HAVE SOME APPLICATION CARDS HERE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU SIGN
ONE.'  I WENT ON FROM THERE AND I ASKED EVERYBODY IN THE CROWD WHO WAS
NOT A MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION TO COME UP AND IF IT WAS NECESSARY I
WOULD PERSONALLY SIGN HIM TO THESE APPLICATION CARDS." 

THOMAS' ACCOUNT OF WHAT OCCURRED AT THE MEETING IS SUBSTANTIATED BY
THE TESTIMONY OF JESSE OWENS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, WHO
WAS PRESENT. 

FN6  THE MOTION RECITED THAT THOMAS "(1)  ...  DID AT SAID TIME AND
PLACE SOLICIT PAT O'SULLIVAN ...  TO JOIN A LOCAL UNION" OF O.W.I.U.
AND "(2)  AT SAID TIME AND PLACE  ...  DID OPENLY AND PUBLICLY SOLICIT
AN AUDIENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 300 PERSONS  ...  TO THEN AND THERE JOIN
AND BECOME MEMBERS" OF O.W.I.U., CHARGED THAT "THE ACTS OF R. J. THOMAS
ABOVE ALLEGED WERE IN OPEN AND FLAGRANT VIOLATION" OF THE COURT'S ORDER
AND WRIT AND ALLEGED THAT "SAID ACTS CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT
AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED BY APPROPRIATE ORDER." 

FN7  THE COURT REVIEWED THE CONTEMPT COMMITMENT OVER APPELLEE'S
STRENUOUS JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTIONS.  SINCE THE STATE COURT HAS
DETERMINED THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AND ITS APPLICATION IN THE
HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, AS AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS ON FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, THOSE QUESTIONS ARE PROPERLY HERE ON THIS
APPEAL.  BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63.  THE STATE CONCEDES THIS. 

FN8 CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296; COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312
U.S. 569; CITY OF MANCHESTER V. LEIBY, 117 F.2D 661. 

FN9  HOWEVER, THE RECORD SHOWS HE OFFERED TO SIGN THE APPLICATION
BLANKS OR CARDS "IF IT WAS NECESSARY."  CF. NOTE 5 SUPRA. 

FN10  "HE ACTS FOR AN ALLEGED PRINCIPAL AND COLLECTS MONEY FOR THE
PRINCIPAL, OR IF HE DOES NOT ACTUALLY COLLECT FEES AND DUES IN PERSON,
HE MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR HIS PRINCIPAL TO COLLECT THEM.  HE PURPORTS TO
ACT FOR A LABOR UNION IN ESTABLISHING A CONTRACTUAL RELATION  ...." 
THE STATEMENTS ARE TAKEN FROM THE BRIEF. 

FN11  "WITHOUT DOUBT A STATE MAY PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM FRAUDULENT
SOLICITATION BY REQUIRING A STRANGER IN THE COMMUNITY, BEFORE
PERMITTING HIM PUBLICLY TO SOLICIT FUNDS FOR ANY PURPOSE, TO ESTABLISH
HIS IDENTITY AND HIS AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE CAUSE WHICH HE PURPORTS
TO REPRESENT," CITING FOR COMPARISON LEWIS PUBLISHING CO. V. MORGAN,
299 U.S. 288, 306-310; BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63, 72.  CF. TEXT
INFRA AT NOTE 23. 

FN12  CF. SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47; MR. JUSTICE HOLMES
DISSENTING IN ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 624 AND IN GITLOW
V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 672; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252.  A
RECENT STATEMENT IS THAT MADE IN WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 639:  "THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO REGULATE, FOR
EXAMPLE, A PUBLIC UTILITY MAY WELL INCLUDE, SO FAR AS THE DUE PROCESS
TEST IS CONCERNED, POWER TO IMPOSE ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH A
LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE A 'RATIONAL BASIS' FOR ADOPTING.  BUT FREEDOMS OF
SPEECH AND OF PRESS, OF ASSEMBLY, AND OF WORSHIP MAY NOT BE INFRINGED
ON SUCH SLENDER GROUNDS.  THEY ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF RESTRICTION ONLY TO
PREVENT GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER TO INTERESTS WHICH THE STATE MAY
LAWFULLY PROTECT." 

FN13  ACCORDING TO THE BRIEF, "THE ANALOGY IS THAT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE LIKE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH AND PRESS IS PROTECTED FROM
UNDUE BURDENS IMPOSED BY THE STATES, YET THE STATES STILL HAVE
AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS WHICH ARE REASONABLE IN RELATION TO THE
SUBJECT." 

FN14  THE ARGUMENT, BOTH AT THE BAR AND IN THE BRIEF, HAS BEEN
INDEFINITE IN THIS RESPECT.  IT HAS NEITHER CONCEDED NOR UNEQUIVOCALLY
DENIED THAT THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF BOTH ACTS. 
NEVERTHELESS THE STATE MAINTAINS THAT THE INVITATION TO O'SULLIVAN IN
ITSELF IS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AND THAT
NOTHING MORE NEED BE CONSIDERED TO SUPPORT THEM. 

FN15  THAT THE COURT REGARDED THE VIOLATION AS CONSISTING OF BOTH
ACTS APPEARS FROM THE STATEMENT IN THE OPINION THAT THOMAS "VIOLATED
THE TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION BY SOLICITING MEMBERS FOR SAID UNION
WITHOUT HAVING FIRST REGISTERED  ..."  THE PLURAL COULD HAVE BEEN USED
ONLY IF THE GENERAL PLATFORM PLEA WERE CONSIDERED AS BEING ONE OF THE
VIOLATIONS RESTRAINED AND PUNISHED. 

FN16  THE EX PARTE PETITION FOR THE ORDER WAS FOUNDED SOLELY UPON THE
ALLEGATION, BASED ONLY UPON RUMOR AS LATER APPEARED FROM THOMAS'
UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY, THAT HE INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE MEETING AND
IN THE COURSE OF HIS SPEECH GENERALLY TO SOLICIT NONUNION MEN PRESENT
TO JOIN THE UNION.  CF. NOTE 2 SUPRA.  WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED AND
THE RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED AND SERVED, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO
SPECIFY ANTICIPATED INDIVIDUAL SOLICITATIONS AND CONSEQUENTLY ONLY
ANTICIPATED GENERAL ONES COULD BE AND WERE RELIED UPON.  THE ORDER
THEREFORE MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO REACH EXACTLY WHAT IT
WAS REQUESTED TO GET AT.  CF. NOTE 3 SUPRA; AND TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 20
FF. 

FN17  THE MOTION AFTER RECITING THE SOLICITATION OF O'SULLIVAN AND
ADDING THAT THOMAS "DID OPENLY AND PUBLICLY SOLICIT AN AUDIENCE OF
APPROXIMATELY 300 PERSONS  ...," CLAIMED BOTH ACTS AS BEING "IN OPEN
AND FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT" AND AS CONTEMPT, AND
SOUGHT PUNISHMENT FOR THEM. 

FN18  THE ORDER MADE THE USUAL FORMAL RECITALS CONCERNING THE
PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS, THE PARTIES' APPEARANCE AND THE COURT'S "HAVING
HEARD THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE."  IT THEN, WITHOUT STATING THE
PARTICULAR ACTS IN WHICH THE CONTEMPT CONSISTED, CF. NOTE 17 SUPRA,
FOUND GENERALLY THAT THOMAS "DID IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, ON THE 23D
DAY OF SEPTEMBER A.D. 1943, VIOLATE THIS COURT'S TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER HERETOFORE ISSUED INJOINING AND RESTRAINING HIM  ...  FROM
SOLICITING MEMBERS TO JOIN" THE O.W.I.U. WITHOUT OBTAINING AN
ORGANIZER'S CARD, ADJUDGED HIM GUILTY OF CONTEMPT "FOR THE VIOLATION OF
THE LAW AND OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT ON THE 23D DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
A.D. 1943," AND ASSESSED THE PUNISHMENT AS STATED ABOVE. 

FN19  CF. NOTE 12 SUPRA. 

FN20  SEE NOTE 1 SUPRA.  ACCORDING TO THE STATE'S CONCESSION, THOMAS
MIGHT HAVE MADE SPEECHES "LAUDING UNIONS AND UNIONISM" THROUGHOUT TEXAS
WITHOUT VIOLATING THE STATUTE OR THE ORDER.  AND AT EACH ADDRESS HE
COULD HAVE TAKEN A COLLECTION OR SOUGHT AND RECEIVED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
THE UNION, OR FOR HIMSELF, WITHOUT RUNNING AFOUL THEIR PROHIBITIONS;
THAT IS, ALWAYS IF IN DOING SO HE AVOIDED USING WORDS OF INVITATION TO
UNORGANIZED WORKERS TO JOIN A C.I.O. UNION. 

FN21  LABOR BOARD V. FORD MOTOR CO., 114 F.2D 905(C.C.A.); LABOR
BOARD V. AMERICAN TUBE BENDING CO., 134 F.2D 993(C.C.A.); COMPARE TEXAS
& N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 568. 

FN22  LABOR BOARD V. TROJAN POWDER CO., 135 F.2D 337(C.C.A.); LABOR
BOARD V. NEW ERA DIE CO., 118 F.2D 500; CF. LABOR BOARD V. FRIEDMAN
HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO., 301 U.S. 58; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 72.  COMPARE TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V.
BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548. 

FN23 CF. NOTE 11 SUPRA. 

FN24  IN SECURING THE DETAILED INFORMATION SEC. 5 REQUIRES, CF. NOTE
1 SUPRA, THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS ESTABLISHED AN ADMINISTRATIVE
ROUTINE FOR COMPLIANCE, WHICH INCLUDES A FORM OF APPLICATION REQUIRING
THE APPLICANT TO STATE:  (1) HIS NAME; (2) HIS ADDRESS; (3) HIS LABOR
UNION AFFILIATIONS ("SPECIFY DEFINITELY AND FULLY"); (4) THAT "AS
EVIDENCE OF MY AUTHORITY TO ACT AS LABOR ORGANIZER FOR THE LABOR UNION
WITH WHICH I AM CONNECTED, I AM FURNISHING THE FOLLOWING CREDENTIALS";
(5) A COPY OF SUCH CREDENTIALS; (6) THAT HE IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; (7) WHETHER HE HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY
IN TEXAS OR IN ANY OTHER STATE; AND (A) IF SO, THE NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE AND THE STATE IN WHICH CONVICTION WAS HAD; (B) WHETHER HIS
RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP HAVE BEEN FULLY RESTORED; AND (C) BY WHAT
AUTHORITY. 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE TESTIFIED THAT CARDS WERE ISSUED AS OF COURSE
IF THE APPLICATION BLANKS WERE PROPERLY FILLED IN.  BUT IN HIS
INTERPRETATIVE STATEMENT, ISSUED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, HE SAID:  "IN
THE ABSENCE OF MISTAKE, FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION WITH RESPECT TO
SECURING SAME, IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS NO
DISCRETION IN THE GRANTING OF AN 'ORGANIZER'S CARD,' AND THAT THE
APPLICANT WILL BE ENTITLED TO SAME UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT.  IT
WILL BE REQUIRED, HOWEVER, THAT THE APPLICANT SHOW A BONA FIDE
AFFILIATION WITH AN EXISTING LABOR UNION."  PRECISELY WHAT
"CREDENTIALS" OR EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE FELONY INQUIRY OR
SHOWING OF BONA FIDE AFFILIATION WILL SATISFY THE SECRETARY IS NOT MADE
CLEAR ON THE RECORD.  AND, ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS COURT'S DECISION,
"ALL WHO COME WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UPON THEIR GOOD-FAITH
COMPLIANCE THEREWITH" ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE CARD.  COMPLIANCE
UNDER THE DECISION, IT WOULD SEEM, REQUIRES THE SECRETARY TO DETERMINE
THE GOOD FAITH OF THE APPLICATION, AND THUS THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE UNION REPRESENTED.  WHETHER, IN SOME INSTANCES
AT LEAST, THESE DETERMINATIONS WOULD GO BEYOND "MERELY MINISTERIAL"
ACTION AND REQUIRE THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, OR THE TIME REQUIRED TO
COMPLY, BY COMPLETING THE ROUTINE, WOULD SO ADD TO THE BURDEN THAT
THESE THINGS MIGHT AMOUNT TO UNDUE PREVIOUS RESTRAINT OR CENSORSHIP,
WHERE MERE REGISTRATION OR PREVIOUS IDENTIFICATION MIGHT NOT DO SO,
NEED NOT BE DETERMINED. 

FROM THE TIME THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE IN AUGUST, 1943, UNTIL THE THE
DATE OF TRIAL, SEPTEMBER 25, 1943, 223 LABOR ORGANIZERS' CARDS WERE
ISSUED.  DURING THAT PERIOD 40 OR 50 APPLICATIONS FOR CARDS WERE
RETURNED TO THE APPLICANTS FOR FAILURE TO FILL IN THE INFORMATION
REQUESTED OR TO SIGN THE APPLICATION OR TO ATTACH CREDENTIALS.  OF
THOSE ALL BUT 15 OR 20 HAVE BEEN RESUBMITTED AND CARDS WERE GRANTED. 
NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN "POSITIVELY DENIED" SINCE THE ACT BECAME
EFFECTIVE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING. 

THE INTIMATION THAT THE PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED IN THIS CASE SERVES LABOR
ALONE AND NOT AN EMPLOYER HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY ANSWERED IN THE OPINION
OF THE COURT IN WHICH I JOIN.  BUT THE EMPHASIS ON SUCH CASES AS LABOR
BOARD V. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO., 314 U.S. 469, AND VIRGINIA
ELECTRIC & POWER CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 319 U.S. 533, TO PROVE THAT
DISCRIMINATION EXISTS MOVES ME TO ADD THESE WORDS.  THOSE CASES WOULD
BE RELEVANT HERE IF WE WERE DEALING WITH LEGISLATION WHICH REGULATED
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN UNIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS.  CF. STEELE V.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., ANTE, P. 192.  NO ONE MAY BE REQUIRED TO
OBTAIN A LICENSE IN ORDER TO SPEAK.  BUT ONCE HE USES THE ECONOMIC
POWER WHICH HE HAS OVER OTHER MEN AND THEIR JOBS TO INFLUENCE THEIR
ACTION, HE IS DOING MORE THAN EXERCISING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THAT IS TRUE WHETHER HE BE AN
EMPLOYER OR AN EMPLOYEE.  BUT AS LONG AS HE DOES NO MORE THAN SPEAK HE
HAS THE SAME UNFETTERED RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT SIDE OF AN ISSUE HE
ESPOUSES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

AS FREQUENTLY IS THE CASE, THIS CONTROVERSY IS DETERMINED AS SOON AS
IT IS DECIDED WHICH OF TWO WELL-ESTABLISHED, BUT AT TIMES OVERLAPPING,
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES WILL BE APPLIED TO IT.  THE STATE OF TEXAS
STANDS ON ITS WELL-SETTLED RIGHT REASONABLY TO REGULATE THE PURSUIT OF
A VOCATION, INCLUDING - WE MAY ASSUME - THE OCCUPATION OF LABOR
ORGANIZER.  THOMAS, ON THE OTHER HAND, STANDS ON THE EQUALLY CLEAR
PROPOSITION THAT TEXAS MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF ANY PERSON
PEACEABLY AND FREELY TO ADDRESS A LAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE OF WORKMEN INTENT
ON CONSIDERING LABOR GRIEVANCES.    THOUGH THE ONE MAY SHADE INTO THE
OTHER, A ROUGH DISTINCTION ALWAYS EXISTS, I THINK, WHICH IS MORE
SHORTLY ILLUSTRATED THAN EXPLAINED.  A STATE MAY FORBID ONE WITHOUT ITS
LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW AS A VOCATION, BUT I THINK IT COULD NOT STOP AN
UNLICENSED PERSON FROM MAKING A SPEECH ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF MAN OR THE
RIGHTS OF LABOR, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF RIGHT, INCLUDING RECOMMENDING
THAT HIS HEARERS ORGANIZE TO SUPPORT HIS VIEWS.  LIKEWISE, THE STATE
MAY PROHIBIT THE PURSUIT OF MEDICINE AS AN OCCUPATION WITHOUT ITS
LICENSE, BUT I DO NOT THINK IT COULD MAKE IT A CRIME PUBLICLY OR
PRIVATELY TO SPEAK URGING PERSONS TO FOLLOW OR REJECT ANY SCHOOL OF
MEDICAL THOUGHT.  SO THE STATE TO AN EXTENT NOT NECESSARY NOW TO
DETERMINE MAY REGULATE ONE WHO MAKES A BUSINESS OR A LIVELIHOOD OF
SOLICITING FUNDS OR MEMBERSHIPS FOR UNIONS.  BUT I DO NOT THINK IT CAN
PROHIBIT ONE, EVEN IF HE IS A SALARIED LABOR LEADER, FROM MAKING AN
ADDRESS TO A PUBLIC MEETING OF WORKMEN, TELLING THEM THEIR RIGHTS AS HE
SEES THEM AND URGING THEM TO UNITE IN GENERAL OR TO JOIN A SPECIFIC
UNION. 

THIS WIDER RANGE OF POWER OVER PURSUIT OF A CALLING THAN OVER SPEECH
MAKING IS DUE TO THE DIFFERENT EFFECTS WHICH THE TWO HAVE ON INTERESTS
WHICH THE STATE IS EMPOWERED TO PROTECT.  THE MODERN STATE OWES AND
ATTEMPTS TO PERFORM A DUTY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM THOSE WHO SEEK
FOR ONE PURPOSE OR ANOTHER TO OBTAIN ITS MONEY.  WHEN ONE DOES SO
THROUGH THE PRACTICE OF A CALLING, THE STATE MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN
SHIELDING THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE UNTRUSTWORTHY, THE INCOMPETENT, OR THE
IRRESPONSIBLE, OR AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED REPRESENTATION OF AGENCY.  A
USUAL METHOD OF PERFORMING THIS FUNCTION IS THROUGH A LICENSING
SYSTEM. 

BUT IT CANNOT BE THE DUTY, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE RIGHT, OF THE STATE
TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AGAINST FALSE DOCTRINE.  THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IS TO FORECLOSE PUBLIC AUTHORITY FROM ASSUMING A
GUARDIANSHIP OF THE PUBLIC MIND THROUGH REGULATING THE PRESS, SPEECH,
AND RELIGION.  IN THIS FIELD EVERY PERSON MUST BE HIS OWN WATCHMAN FOR
TRUTH, BECAUSE THE FOREFATHERS DID NOT TRUST ANY GOVERNMENT TO SEPARATE
THE TRUE FROM THE FALSE FOR US.  WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624.  NOR WOULD I. VERY MANY ARE THE INTERESTS
WHICH THE STATE MAY PROTECT AGAINST THE PRACTICE OF AN OCCUPATION, VERY
FEW ARE THOSE IT MAY ASSUME TO PROTECT AGAINST THE PRACTICE OF
PROPAGANDIZING BY SPEECH OR PRESS.  THESE ARE THEREBY LEFT GREAT RANGE
OF FREEDOM. 

THIS LIBERTY WAS NOT PROTECTED BECAUSE THE FOREFATHERS EXPECTED ITS
USE WOULD ALWAYS BE AGREEABLE TO THOSE IN AUTHORITY OR THAT ITS
EXERCISE ALWAYS WOULD BE WISE, TEMPERATE, OR USEFUL TO SOCIETY.  AS I
READ THEIR INTENTIONS, THIS LIBERTY WAS PROTECTED BECAUSE THEY KNEW OF
NO OTHER WAY BY WHICH FREE MEN COULD CONDUCT REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. 
FN1 

THE NECESSITY FOR CHOOSING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES
BRINGS THE SAME NATURE OF PROBLEM TO GROUPS OF ORGANIZING WORKMEN THAT
OUR REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES BRING TO THE NATION.  THEIR
SMALLER SOCIETY, TOO, MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN RIVAL LEADERS AND COMPETING
POLICIES.  THIS SHOULD NOT BE AN UNDERGROUND PROCESS.  THE UNION OF
WHICH THOMAS IS THE HEAD WAS ONE OF THE CHOICES OFFERED TO THESE
WORKERS, AND TO ME IT WAS IN THE BEST AMERICAN TRADITION THAT THEY
HIRED A HALL AND ADVERTISED A MEETING, AND THAT THOMAS WENT THERE AND
PUBLICLY FACED HIS LABOR CONSTITUENTS.  HOW BETTER COULD THESE MEN
LEARN WHAT THEY MIGHT BE GETTING INTO?  BY HIS PUBLIC APPEARANCE AND
SPEECH HE WOULD DISCLOSE HIMSELF AS A TEMPERATE MAN OR A VIOLENT ONE, A
REASONABLE LEADER THAT WELL-DISPOSED WORKMEN COULD FOLLOW OR AN
IRRESPONSIBLE ONE FROM WHOM THEY MIGHT EXPECT DISAPPOINTMENT, AN
EARNEST AND UNDERSTANDING LEADER OR A SELF-SEEKER.  IF FREE SPEECH
ANYWHERE SERVES A USEFUL SOCIAL PURPOSE, TO BE JEALOUSLY GUARDED, I
SHOULD THINK IT WOULD BE IN SUCH A RELATIONSHIP. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THOMAS URGED AND INVITED ONE AND ALL TO JOIN HIS
UNION, AND SO HE DID.  THIS, IT IS SAID, MAKES THE SPEECH SOMETHING
ELSE THAN A SPEECH; IT HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE TEXAS COURTS TO BE A
"SOLICITATION" AND THEREFORE ITS IMMUNITY FROM STATE REGULATION IS HELD
TO BE LOST.  IT IS NOT OFTEN IN THIS COUNTRY THAT WE NOW MEET WITH
DIRECT AND CANDID EFFORTS TO STOP SPEAKING OR PUBLICATION AS SUCH. 
MODERN INROADS ON THESE RIGHTS COME FROM ASSOCIATING THE SPEAKING WITH
SOME OTHER FACTOR WHICH THE STATE MAY REGULATE SO AS TO BRING THE WHOLE
WITHIN OFFICIAL CONTROL.  HERE, SPEECH ADMITTEDLY OTHERWISE BEYOND THE
REACH OF THE STATES IS ATTEMPTED TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN ITS LICENSING
SYSTEM BY ASSOCIATING IT WITH "SOLICITATION."  SPEECH OF EMPLOYERS
OTHERWISE BEYOND REACH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BROUGHT WITHIN THE
LABOR BOARD'S POWER TO SUPPRESS BY ASSOCIATING IT WITH "COERCION" OR
"DOMINATION."  SPEECH OF POLITICAL MALCONTENTS IS SOUGHT TO BE REACHED
BY ASSOCIATING IT WITH SOME VARIETY OF "SEDITION."  WHETHER IN A
PARTICULAR CASE THE ASSOCIATION OR CHARACTERIZATION IS A PROVEN AND
VALID ONE OFTEN IS DIFFICULT TO RESOLVE.  IF THIS COURT MAY NOT OR DOES
NOT IN PROPER CASES INQUIRE WHETHER SPEECH OR PUBLICATION IS PROPERLY
CONDEMNED BY ASSOCIATION, ITS CLAIM TO GUARDIANSHIP OF FREE SPEECH AND
PRESS IS BUT A HOLLOW ONE. 

FREE SPEECH ON BOTH SIDES AND FOR EVERY FACTION ON ANY SIDE OF THE
LABOR RELATION IS TO ME A CONSTITUTIONAL AND USEFUL RIGHT.  LABOR IS
FREE TO TURN ITS PUBLICITY ON ANY LABOR OPPRESSION, SUBSTANDARD WAGES,
EMPLOYER UNFAIRNESS, OR OBJECTIONABLE WORKING CONDITIONS.  THE
EMPLOYER, TOO, SHOULD BE FREE TO ANSWER, AND TO TURN PUBLICITY ON THE
RECORDS OF THE LEADERS OR THE UNIONS WHICH SEEK THE CONFIDENCE OF HIS
MEN.  AND IF THE EMPLOYEES OR ORGANIZERS ASSOCIATE VIOLENCE OR OTHER
OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS WITH LABOR'S FREE SPEECH, OR IF THE EMPLOYER'S
SPEECH IS ASSOCIATED WITH DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES OR INTIMIDATION,
THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY WOULD BE TO STOP THE EVIL, BUT PERMIT THE
SPEECH, IF THE TWO ARE SEPARABLE; AND ONLY RARELY AND WHEN THEY ARE
INSEPARABLE TO STOP OR PUNISH SPEECH OR PUBLICATION. 

BUT I MUST ADMIT THAT IN OVERRIDING THE FINDINGS OF THE TEXAS COURT
WE ARE APPLYING TO THOMAS A RULE THE BENEFIT OF WHICH IN ALL ITS
BREADTH AND VIGOR THIS COURT DENIES TO EMPLOYERS IN NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD CASES.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER
CO., 314 U.S. 469, 479; VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
319 U.S. 533; TROJAN POWDER CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 135 F.2D 337, CERT.
DENIED, 320 U.S. 768; LABOR BOARD V. AMERICAN TUBE BENDING CO., 134
F.2D 993, CERT. DENIED, 320 U.S. 768; ELASTIC STOP NUT CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 142 F.2D 371, CERT. DENIED, POST, P. 722.  HOWEVER, THE REMEDY
IS NOT TO ALLOW TEXAS IMPROPERLY TO DENY THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH BUT
TO APPLY THE SAME RULE AND SPIRIT TO FREE SPEECH CASES WHOEVER THE
SPEAKER. 

I CONCUR IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE THAT THIS CASE FALLS
IN THE CATEGORY OF A PUBLIC SPEECH, RATHER THAN THAT OF PRACTICING A
VOCATION AS SOLICITOR.  TEXAS DID NOT WAIT TO SEE WHAT THOMAS WOULD SAY
OR DO.  I CANNOT ESCAPE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT
BEFORE HE HAD REACHED THE STATE WAS AN EFFORT TO FORESTALL HIM FROM
SPEAKING AT ALL AND THAT THE CONTEMPT IS BASED IN PART AT LEAST ON THE
FACT THAT HE DID MAKE A PUBLIC LABOR SPEECH. 

I CONCUR IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  WOODROW WILSON PUT THE CASE FOR FREE SPEECH IN THIS CONNECTION
APTLY:  "I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AMONG THOSE WHO BELIEVED THAT THE GREATEST
FREEDOM OF SPEECH WAS THE GREATEST SAFETY, BECAUSE IF A MAN IS A FOOL,
THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO ENCOURAGE HIM TO ADVERTISE THE FACT BY
SPEAKING.  IT CANNOT BE SO EASILY DISCOVERED IF YOU ALLOW HIM TO REMAIN
SILENT AND LOOK WISE, BUT IF YOU LET HIM SPEAK, THE SECRET IS OUT AND
THE WORLD KNOWS THAT HE IS A FOOL.  SO IT IS BY THE EXPOSURE OF FOLLY
THAT IT IS DEFEATED; NOT BY THE SECLUSION OF FOLLY, AND IN THIS FREE
AIR OF FREE SPEECH MEN GET INTO THAT SORT OF COMMUNICATION WITH ONE
ANOTHER WHICH CONSTITUTES THE BASIS OF ALL COMMON ACHIEVEMENT." 
ADDRESS AT THE INSTITUTE OF FRANCE, PARIS, MAY 10, 1919.  2 SELECTED
LITERARY AND POLITICAL PAPERS AND ADDRESSES OF WOODROW WILSON (1926)
333. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THOUGHTS FREELY AND TO DISSEMINATE IDEAS FULLY
IS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AS BASIC TO THE CONCEPTION OF OUR
GOVERNMENT.  A LONG SERIES OF CASES HAS APPLIED THESE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS IN A GREAT VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES N1.  NOT UNTIL TODAY,
HOWEVER, HAS IT BEEN QUESTIONED THAT THERE WAS ANY CLASH BETWEEN THIS
RIGHT TO THINK ONE'S THOUGHTS AND TO EXPRESS THEM AND THE RIGHT OF
PEOPLE TO BE PROTECTED IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH THOSE WHO HOLD THEMSELVES
OUT IN SOME PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY BY REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF THOSE
WHO PROFESS TO PURSUE SUCH CALLINGS.  DOCTORS AND NURSES, LAWYERS AND
NOTARIES, BANKERS AND ACCOUNTANTS, INSURANCE AGENTS AND SOLICITORS OF
EVERY KIND IN EVERY STATE OF THIS UNION HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN UNDER
DUTY TO MAKE SOME IDENTIFICATION OF THEMSELVES AS PRACTITIONERS OF
THEIR CALLING.  THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS AS TO THE POWER OF TEXAS TO
CALL FOR SUCH REGISTRATION WITHIN LIMITS PRECISELY DEFINED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE IN SUSTAINING THE STATUTE NOW CHALLENGED. 
THE MOST ACCURATE WAY TO STATE THE ISSUE IS TO QUOTE THE CONSTRUCTION
WHICH THAT COURT PLACED UPON THE TEXAS STATUTE AND THE EXACT LIMITS OF
ITS REQUIREMENT: 

"A CAREFUL READING OF THE SECTION OF THE LAW HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION
WILL DISCLOSE THAT IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF THE
INDIVIDUAL LAY MEMBERS OF UNIONS TO SOLICIT OTHERS TO JOIN THEIR
ORGANIZATION.  IT DOES NOT AFFECT THEM AT ALL.  IT APPLIES ONLY TO
THOSE ORGANIZERS WHO FOR A PECUNIARY OR FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION SOLICIT
SUCH MEMBERSHIP.  IT AFFECTS ONLY THE RIGHT OF ONE TO ENGAGE IN THE
BUSINESS AS A PAID ORGANIZER, AND NOT THE MERE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL
TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS ON THE MERITS OF THE UNION.  FURTHERMORE, IT WILL
BE NOTED THAT THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A PAID ORGANIZER TO SECURE A
LICENSE, BUT MERELY REQUIRES HIM TO REGISTER AND IDENTIFY HIMSELF AND
THE UNION FOR WHICH HE PROPOSES TO OPERATE BEFORE BEING PERMITTED TO
SOLICIT MEMBERS FOR SUCH UNION.  THE ACT CONFERS NO UNBRIDLED
DISCRETION ON THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD A
REGISTRATION CARD AT HIS WILL, BUT MAKES IT HIS MANDATORY DUTY TO
ACCEPT THE REGISTRATION AND ISSUE THE CARD TO ALL WHO COME WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UPON THEIR GOOD-FAITH COMPLIANCE THEREWITH." 

THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT TEXAS, IN THE EXERCISE OF HER POLICE POWER,
HAS ADOPTED A STATUTE REGULATING LABOR UNIONS.  WITH MANY OF ITS
PROVISIONS WE ARE NOT PRESENTLY CONCERNED.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
OF BUT A SINGLE SECTION IS DRAWN IN QUESTION.  THAT SECTION REQUIRES
EVERY "LABOR UNION ORGANIZER" (DEFINED BY THE ACT AS A PERSON "WHO FOR
A PECUNIARY OR FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION SOLICITS MEMBERSHIPS IN A LABOR
UNION OR MEMBERS FOR A LABOR UNION") TO REQUEST, IN WRITING, OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, OR PERSONALLY TO APPLY TO THE SECRETARY FOR AN
"ORGANIZER'S CARD," BEFORE SOLICITING MEMBERS FOR HIS ORGANIZATION, AND
TO GIVE HIS NAME, HIS UNION AFFILIATION, AND HIS UNION CREDENTIALS. 
FN2  THE SECRETARY IS THEN TO ISSUE TO HIM A CARD SHOWING HIS NAME AND
AFFILIATION, WHICH IS TO BE SIGNED BY HIM AND ALSO SIGNED AND SEALED BY
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND IS TO BEAR THE DESIGNATION "LABOR
ORGANIZER."  IT IS MADE THE DUTY OF THE ORGANIZER TO CARRY THE CARD
AND, ON REQUEST, TO EXHIBIT IT TO ANY PERSON HE SOLICITS. 

THE ACT MAKES VIOLATION THE BASIS OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND
AUTHORIZES INJUNCTIONS TO PREVENT THREATENED DISREGARD OF ITS
PROVISIONS.  IN THIS INSTANCE BOTH PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED, BUT THERE
IS BEFORE US ONLY THE VALIDITY OF AN INJUNCTION AND THE SANCTION
IMPOSED FOR REFUSAL TO OBEY IT. 

AS ALWAYS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REACH THE PRECISE QUESTION PRESENTED. 
ONE PATH TO THIS END IS TO NOTE WHAT IS NOT INVOLVED. 

FIRST, NO POINT IS MADE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE APPELLANT'S
PROPOSED ACTIVITY WAS ENJOINED IN ADVANCE.  COUNSEL AT OUR BAR ASSERTED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VICE LAY IN THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE AND THAT
VICE WOULD PRECLUDE ARREST AND CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION, NO LESS THAN
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DENOUNCED ACTIVITY. 

SECONDLY, THE APPELLANT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT HE WAS OTHER THAN A
"LABOR ORGANIZER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  IN FACT HE IS AN
OFFICER OF A UNION AND NOT EMPLOYED SPECIFICALLY AS AN ORGANIZER OR
SOLICITOR OF MEMBERSHIPS.  HE MIGHT WELL HAVE QUESTIONED THE
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO HIM, OR TO A PUBLIC ADDRESS MADE BY HIM IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, BUT HE REFRAINED, OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE HE WISHED TO
TEST THE ACT'S VALIDITY AND SO, IN EFFECT, STIPULATED THAT ITS SWEEP
INCLUDED HIM, AND HIS CONDUCT ON THE OCCASION IN QUESTION. 

THIRDLY, THE APPELLANT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT, IN ATTEMPTING TO
IDENTIFY SOLICITORS AND PRECLUDE SOLICITATION WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION,
THE STATUTE EITHER IN TERMS, OR AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, REACHES OVER
INTO THE REALM OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, OF PUBLIC SPEAKING, OF ARGUMENT OR
PERSUASION.  AWARE THAT THE STATE PROPOSED TO INVOKE THE STATUTE
AGAINST HIM, HE MADE SURE THAT THE BARE RIGHT HE ASSERTED TO SOLICIT
WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH ITS REQUIREMENT SHOULD NOT BE CLOUDED BY
CONFUSION OF THAT RIGHT WITH THE OTHERS MENTIONED.  IN HIS ADDRESS,
THEREFORE, HE WAS AT PAINS TO STATE THAT HE THEN AND THERE SOLICITED
MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE TO JOIN A NAMED UNION; AND TO MAKE ASSURANCE OF
VIOLATION DOUBLY SURE, HE SOLICITED A MAN BY NAME AND OFFERED HIM A
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION, WHICH THE MAN THEN AND THERE SIGNED. 
FOURTHLY, THE ACT AND THE INJUNCTION WHICH HE DISOBEYED SAY NOTHING OF
SPEECH; THEY ARE AIMED AT A TRANSACTION, - THAT OF SOLICITATION OF
MEMBERS FOR A UNION.  THIS, AND THIS ONLY, IS THE STATUTORY OBJECT
WHICH IS SAID TO RENDER IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

WE ARE NOW IN A POSITION ACCURATELY TO STATE THE APPELLANT'S
CONTENTION.  HE ASSERTS THAT, UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES,
THERE IS A SHARP DISTINCTION BETWEEN BUSINESS RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS;
THAT IN DISCUSSION OF LABOR PROBLEMS, AND EQUALLY IN SOLICITATION OF
UNION MEMBERSHIP, CIVIL RIGHTS ARE EXERCISED; THAT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
ARE THE ONLY EFFECTIVE MEANS WHEREBY EMPLOYES MAY EXERCISE THE
GUARANTEED CIVIL RIGHTS, AND THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, ANY INTERFERENCE WITH
THE RIGHT TO SOLICIT MEMBERSHIP IN SUCH ORGANIZATIONS IS A PROHIBITED
ABRIDGMENT OF THESE RIGHTS, EVEN THOUGH THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO PAID
ORGANIZERS. 

THE ARGUMENT THEN SEEKS TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS CASE AND
THOSE IN WHICH WE HAVE SUSTAINED REGISTRATION OF PERSONS WHO DESIRE TO
USE THE STREETS OR TO SOLICIT FUNDS; URGES THAT THE BURDEN THE ACT LAYS
ON LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IS SUBSTANTIAL AND SERIOUSLY HAMPERING AND IS
NOT INTENDED TO PREVENT ANY "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TO THE STATE. 

STRIPPED TO ITS BARE BONES, THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
ARE BENEFICIAL AND LAWFUL; THAT SOLICITATION OF MEMBERS BY AND FOR THEM
IS A NECESSARY INCIDENT OF THEIR PROGRESS; THAT FREEDOM TO SOLICIT FOR
THEM IS A LIBERTY OF SPEECH PROTECTED AGAINST STATE ACTION BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND HENCE
TEXAS CANNOT REQUIRE A PAID SOLICITOR TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF.  I THINK
THIS IS THE ISSUE AND THE ONLY ISSUE PRESENTED TO THE COURTS BELOW AND
DECIDED BY THEM, AND THE ONLY ONE RAISED HERE.  THE OPINION OF THE
COURT IMPORTS INTO THE CASE ELEMENTS ON WHICH COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT DID
NOT RELY; ELEMENTS WHICH IN FACT COUNSEL STROVE TO ELIMINATE IN ORDER
TO COME AT THE FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE TO ANY REQUIREMENT OF
IDENTIFICATION OF A LABOR ORGANIZER. 

THE POSITION TAKEN IN THE COURT'S OPINION THAT IN SOME WAY THE
STATUTE INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHT TO ADDRESS A MEETING, TO SPEAK IN
FAVOR OF A LABOR UNION, TO PERSUADE ONE'S FELLOWS TO JOIN A UNION, OR
THAT AT LEAST ITS APPLICATION IN THIS CASE DOES, OR MAY, ACCOMPLISH
THAT END IS, IN MY JUDGMENT, WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD. 

WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF WAS PERSUADED THAT
MERELY TO MAKE THE SPEECH HE HAD COME TO TEXAS TO DELIVER WOULD NOT
VIOLATE THE ACT, AND THAT HE, THEREFORE, DETERMINED, IN ORDER TO
PRECLUDE ALL DOUBT AS TO VIOLATION, TO SOLICIT THOSE PRESENT TO JOIN
THE UNION.  AND, FOR THE SAME PURPOSE, HE FURTHER SPECIFICALLY
SOLICITED AN INDIVIDUAL. 

HE HAD NOT BEEN ENJOINED FROM MAKING A SPEECH, NOR FROM ADVOCATING
UNION AFFILIATION.  THE INJUNCTION, IN TERMS, FORBADE "SOLICITING
MEMBERSHIP IN LOCAL UNION NO. 1002  ..."  OR "MEMBERSHIPS IN ANY OTHER
LABOR UNION" WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A CARD.  THE INFORMATION ON WHICH
THE CITATION FOR CONTEMPT WAS BASED CHARGED (1) THAT HE SOLICITED PAT
O'SULLIVAN TO JOIN A LOCAL UNION ON SEPTEMBER 23; (2) THAT ON THE SAME
DAY HE OPENLY AND PUBLICLY SOLICITED AN AUDIENCE OF SOME THREE HUNDRED
PERSONS TO JOIN THE OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION.  THE
UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE IS THAT, WITH APPLICATION BLANKS IN HIS HAND,
HE SAID:  "I EARNESTLY URGE AND SOLICIT ALL OF YOU THAT ARE NOT MEMBERS
OF YOUR LOCAL UNION TO JOIN YOUR LOCAL UNIONS.  I DO THAT IN THE
CAPACITY OF VICE-PRESIDENT OF C.I.O." 

THE TEXT OF THE SPEECH PUT IN EVIDENCE BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT
DIFFER MATERIALLY.  IT RUNS: "AS VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE C.I.O. AND AS A
UNION MAN, I EARNESTLY ASK THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT NOW MEMBERS OF THE
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION TO JOIN NOW.  I SOLICIT YOU TO BECOME A
MEMBER OF THE UNION OF YOUR FELLOW WORKERS  ..." 

THE JUDGMENT IN THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING STATES ONLY THAT THE COURT
"FINDS THAT THE DEFENDANT ...  DID  ...  VIOLATE THIS COURT'S TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER HERETOFORE ISSUED INJOINING AND RESTRAINING HIM, THE
SAID R. J. THOMAS, FROM SOLICITING MEMBERS TO JOIN THE OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION  ..." 

IN HIS PETITION TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT FOR HABEAS CORPUS, THE
APPELLANT DID NOT SUGGEST THAT, UNDER THE GUISE OF PREVENTING HIM FROM
SOLICITING, HE WAS HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR MAKING AN ADDRESS.  THE OPINION
OF THAT COURT STATES THAT THE COMPLAINT CHARGED APPELLANT WITH ENGAGING
"IN SOLICITING MEMBERS FOR A CERTAIN LABOR UNION"; WITH VIOLATING THE
INJUNCTION ISSUED "BY SOLICITING MEMBERS FOR SAID UNION"; AND ADDS:
"RELATORS' COUNSEL IN HIS ARGUMENT BEFORE THIS COURT CONCEDED THE
EXISTENCE OF NECESSARY FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE JUDGMENT IN THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS."  THUS IT APPEARS THAT BELOW, AS HERE, THE CHALLENGE WAS
NOT AGAINST THE FORM OR CONTENT OF THE PLEADINGS OR THE ORDER; NOT THAT
TEXAS WAS TRYING TO ENJOIN APPELLANT FROM MAKING A SPEECH, BUT THAT IT
COULD NOT REGULATE SOLICITATION. 

IN CONSTRUING THE STATUTE, THE COURT BELOW SAID:  "IT APPLIES ONLY TO
THOSE ORGANIZERS WHO FOR A PECUNIARY OR FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION SOLICIT
SUCH MEMBERSHIP."  THUS IT EXCLUDED ALL QUESTIONS AS TO THE RIGHT OF
SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY AS SUCH. 

IN HIS MOTION FOR A REHEARING BELOW, THE APPELLANT ADVANCED NO
CONTENTION THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS DIRECTED AT HIS SPEECH AS SUCH. 

IN HIS STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION FILED IN THIS COURT HE SAID:
"APPELLANT DELIVERED HIS SPEECH TO THE MEETING ATTENDED LARGELY BY
WORKERS OF THE HUMBLE OIL COMPANY AND SOLICITED THE AUDIENCE IN GENERAL
AND ONE PAT O'SULLIVAN IN PARTICULAR TO JOIN THE OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION." 

IN HIS STATEMENT OF POINTS TO BE RELIED ON IN THIS COURT, HE STATED
HE WOULD URGE THAT THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT "IMPOSES A
PREVIOUS GENERAL RESTRAINT UPON THE EXERCISE OF APPELLANT'S RIGHT OF
FREE SPEECH BY PROHIBITING APPELLANT FROM SOLICITING WORKERS TO JOIN A
UNION," WITHOUT OBTAINING AN ORGANIZER'S CARD.  AND AGAIN THAT IT
VIOLATED OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS "IN REQUIRING APPELLANT TO
OBTAIN A LICENSE (ORGANIZER'S CARD) BEFORE SOLICITING WORKERS TO JOIN A
UNION." 

NOWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT IS THERE ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE STATUTE IS
INTENDED, OR HAS BEEN APPLIED, TO RESTRAIN OR RESTRICT THE FREEDOM TO
SPEAK, SAVE ONLY AS SPEECH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE TRANSACTION OF
PAID SOLICITATION OF MEN TO JOIN A UNION. 

SINCE ITS REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT OBVIOUSLY BURDENSOME, WE CANNOT VOID
THE STATUTE AS AN UNNECESSARY OR EXCESSIVE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S
POLICE POWER ON ANY A PRIORI REASONING.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS
FOUND THAT CONDITIONS EXIST IN TEXAS WHICH JUSTIFY AND REQUIRE SUCH
IDENTIFICATION OF PAID ORGANIZERS AS THE LAW PRESCRIBES.  THERE IS NOT
A WORD OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO CONTRADICT THESE CONCLUSIONS.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING AGAINST THE NEED FOR THE STATUTE THIS COURT
OUGHT NOT INCONTINENTLY TO REJECT THE STATE'S CONSIDERED VIEWS OF
POLICY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE POWER EXISTS REASONABLY TO
REGULATE SOLICITATION, AND THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER BY THE ACT IN
QUESTION IS NOT UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME, IS NOT TO BE REJECTED ON
ABSTRACT GROUNDS.  NO FEE IS CHARGED.  THE CARD MAY BE OBTAINED BY
MAIL.  TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW THE APPELLANT NEED ONLY HAVE FURNISHED
HIS NAME AND AFFILIATION, AND HIS CREDENTIALS.  THE STATUTE NOWISE
REGULATES, CURTAILS, OR BANS HIS ACTIVITIES. 

WE ARE ASKED THEN, ON THIS RECORD, TO HOLD, WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION, AND AS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL NOTICE, THAT
TEXAS HAS NO BONA FIDE INTEREST TO WARRANT HER LAW MAKERS IN REQUIRING
THAT ONE WHO ENGAGES, FOR PAY, IN THE BUSINESS OF SOLICITING PERSONS TO
JOIN UNIONS SHALL IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS SUCH.  THAT IS ALL THE LAW
REQUIRES. 

WE SHOULD FACE A VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION IF THE STATUTE ATTEMPTED TO
DEFINE THE NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS OF AN ORGANIZER; PURPORTED TO
REGULATE WHAT ORGANIZERS MIGHT SAY; LIMITED THEIR MOVEMENTS OR
ACTIVITIES; ESSAYED TO REGULATE TIME, PLACE OR PURPOSE OF MEETINGS; OR
RESTRICTED SPEAKERS IN THE EXPRESSION OF VIEWS.  BUT IT DOES NONE OF
THESE THINGS. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE ACT IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM LEGISLATION
REGULATING THE USE OF THE STREETS OR THE SOLICITATION OF MONEY.  AS
RESPECTS THE FORMER, I THINK OUR DECISION IN COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312
U.S. 569, AND THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN CITY OF
MANCHESTER V. LEIBY, 117 F.2D 661, ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE IN PRINCIPLE,
AND THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY SO HELD.  IF ONE DISSEMINATING NEWS FOR
HIS OWN PROFIT MAY RIGHTFULLY BE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF, SO MAY
ONE WHO, FOR PROFIT, SOLICITS PERSONS TO JOIN AN ORGANIZATION. 

AS RESPECTS THE SECOND, I SEE NO REASON TO LIMIT WHAT WAS SAID IN
CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 305, TO SOLICITATION OF MONEY. 
THE SOLICITATION AT WHICH THE TEXAS ACT IS AIMED MAY OR MAY NOT INVOLVE
THE PAYMENT OF INITIATION FEES OR DUES TO THE SOLICITOR.  BUT, IN ANY
CASE, IT INVOLVES THE ASSUMPTION OF BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL LIABILITY BY
HIM WHO IS PERSUADED TO JOIN A UNION.  THE TRANSACTION IS IN ESSENCE A
BUSINESS ONE.  LABOR UNIONS ARE BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS; THEIR OBJECT IS
GENERALLY BUSINESS DEALINGS AND RELATIONSHIPS AS IS MANIFEST FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SOME OF THE NATIONAL UNIONS.  MEN ARE PERSUADED
TO JOIN THEM FOR BUSINESS REASONS, AS EMPLOYERS ARE PERSUADED TO JOIN
TRADE ASSOCIATIONS FOR LIKE REASONS.  OTHER PAID ORGANIZERS, WHETHER
FOR BUSINESS OR FOR CHARITY, COULD BE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. 
THERE IS NO REASON WHY LABOR ORGANIZERS SHOULD NOT DO LIKEWISE.  I
THINK THAT IF ANYONE PURSUES SOLICITATION AS A BUSINESS FOR PROFIT, OF
MEMBERS FOR ANY ORGANIZATION, RELIGIOUS, SECULAR OR BUSINESS, HIS
CALLING DOES NOT BAR THE STATE FROM REQUIRING HIM TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF
AS WHAT HE IS,  - A PAID SOLICITOR. 

WE MAY DEEM THE STATUTORY PROVISION UNDER REVIEW UNNECESSARY OR
UNWISE, BUT IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION AS JUDGES TO READ OUR VIEWS OF
POLICY INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE, IN ORDER TO OVERTHROW A STATE
POLICY WE DO NOT PERSONALLY APPROVE, BY DENOMINATING THAT POLICY A
VIOLATION OF THE LIBERTY OF SPEECH.  THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283
U.S. 697; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233; DE JONGE V.
OREGON, 299 U.S. 353; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242; LOVELL V.
GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; SCHNEIDER V.
IRVINGTON, 308 U.S. 147; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; CARLSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296;
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321; BRIDGES V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252; BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769;
MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141; TAYLOR V. MISSISSIPPI, 319 U.S. 583;
CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. 293.  COMPARE MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105; DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, 319 U.S. 157; BOARD
OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624; FOLLETE V. MCCORMICK, 312 U.S.
573. 

FN2  A SECTION OF THE ACT FORBIDS AN ALIEN OR A CONVICTED FELON WHOSE
CIVIL RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN RESTORED TO ACT AS A LABOR ORGANIZER, BUT
THESE PROVISIONS WERE NOT HERE INVOKED OR APPLIED AND NOTHING IN THIS
CASE TURNS ON THEM.  THERE IS NO OCCASION TO DISCUSS THEM UNTIL THEY
ARE DRAWN IN QUESTION.  AND IN ADDITION, SEC. 15 OF THE ACT CONTAINS A
SWEEPING SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN
IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



INDUSTRIAL ASSN. V. COMMISSIONER, 323 U.S. 310 


NO. 118.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1945.  - 141
F.2D 636, REVERSED. 


1.  IN SEC. 1141 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, RELATING TO REVIEW OF
DECISIONS OF THE TAX COURT, THE TERMS "JURISDICTION" AND "VENUE" HAVE
THEIR USUALLY ACCEPTED MEANING.  P. 314. 

2.  BY SEC. 1141(A) ALL OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARE GIVEN
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF THE TAX COURT, THAT IS, POWER TO
ACT JUDICIALLY UPON A PETITION FOR REVIEW.  P. 314. 

3.  BY SEC. 1141(B)(1) ONE OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS IS DESIGNATED AS
THE COURT OF PROPER VENUE, THAT IS, THE PLACE WHERE THE PETITION WILL
BE HEARD.  P. 314. 

4.  THE OBJECTION THAT THE PETITION IS FILED IN THE WRONG CIRCUIT,
BEING ONE TO VENUE, MAY BE WAIVED BY THE COVERNMENT; AND THIS IT DID
HERE BY STIPULATING THAT THE CASE BE HEARD IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
DESIGNATED BY THE PARTIES.  P. 314. 

(A)  THE STIPULATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITHIN THREE MONTHS
OF THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT.  P. 314. 

(B)  NASH-BREYER MOTOR CO. V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 483, DISTINGUISHED. 
P. 315. 

5.  PETITIONER FILED A PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE COURT BELOW WITHIN
THE THREE MONTHS' PERIOD ALLOWED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY SEC. 1142.  THAT
COURT WAS NOT THE COURT OF PROPER VENUE UNDER SEC. 1141(B)(1).  MORE
THAN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT, THE PARTIES MADE
AND FILED A STIPULATION TO HAVE THE CASE HEARD IN THE COURT BELOW. 
HELD, THE COURT BELOW ON FILING OF THE PETITION HAD JURISDICTION, AND
ON THE FILING OF THE STIPULATION WAS THE COURT OF PROPER VENUE. 
DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION WAS THEREFORE
IMPROPER.  P. 315. 

INDUSTRIAL ADDITION ASSOCIATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 690, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE TAX COURT, 1
T.C. 378. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE PETITIONER, DEEMING ITSELF EXEMPT FROM INCOME AND EXCESS
PROFITS TAXES, FAILED TO FILE ANY TAX RETURNS FOR THE YEARS 1932 TO
1936 INCLUSIVE.  THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED PETITIONER FOR THE TAXES FOR
THOSE YEARS, WITH PENALTIES, AND THE TAX COURT HAS SUSTAINED THE
ASSESSMENT AS TO THE INCOME TAXES AND ATTENDANT PENALTIES.  PETITIONER,
WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS ALLOWED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY SEC. 1142 OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE TAX COURT'S DECISION BY A
PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

BY SEC. 1141(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, ENTITLED
"JURISDICTION," THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARE GIVEN "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE DECISIONS" OF THE TAX COURT.  SUBSECTION (B)(1), ENTITLED
"VENUE," PROVIDES THAT "SUCH DECISIONS MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH IS LOCATED THE COLLECTOR'S
OFFICE TO WHICH WAS MADE THE RETURN OF THE TAX IN RESPECT TO WHICH THE
LIABILITY ARISES OR, IF NO RETURN WAS MADE, THEN BY THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  SINCE PETITIONER FILED
NO RETURN, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS THE
COURT OF PROPER VENUE UNDER THIS SUBSECTION.  IF PETITIONER HAD MADE A
RETURN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO FILE IT WITH A COLLECTOR WHOSE
OFFICE WAS WITHIN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, THAT OF THE COURT BELOW; IN THAT
EVENT, THAT COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE COURT OF PROPER VENUE.  THE CODE
PROVIDES FURTHER, IN SUBSECTION (B)(2):  "NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1, SUCH DECISIONS MAY BE REVIEWED BY ANY
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  ...  WHICH MAY BE DESIGNATED BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND THE TAXPAYER BY STIPULATION IN WRITING." 

THE COMMISSIONER SUGGESTED TO PETITIONER THAT AS IT HAD FILED NO
RETURNS FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION AND NO WRITTEN STIPULATION HAD BEEN
ENTERED INTO AS PERMITTED BY SUBSECTION (B)(2), THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT WAS WITHOUT "JURISDICTION."  IN RESPONSE
TO THIS SUGGESTION, PETITIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER, AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE THREE MONTHS PERIOD IN WHICH A PETITION FOR REVIEW
COULD BE FILED, ENTERED INTO SUCH A WRITTEN STIPULATION, DESIGNATING
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AS THE COURT TO REVIEW THE
DECISION OF THE TAX COURT.  THE STIPULATION RESERVED TO THE
COMMISSIONER THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ITS TIMELINESS AND LEGAL EFFECT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, ON THE COMMISSIONER'S
MOTION, DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR REVIEW FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 
141 F.2D 636.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE AN ASSERTED CONFLICT OF
THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT IN WEGENER V. COMMISSIONER, 119 F.2D 49.  THE QUESTION
PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE COURT BELOW HAD JURISDICTION OF THE PETITION
FOR REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT, NOTWITHSTANDING
PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO FILE THE STIPULATION DURING THE THREE MONTHS
PERIOD, WITHIN WHICH REVIEW OF THE TAX COURT'S DECISION COULD BE
SOUGHT. 

THE USE IN JUXTAPOSITION, IN THE STATUTE, OF THE TERMS "JURISDICTION"
AND "VENUE" MARKS A SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION.  ON THE ONE HAND, THE
STATUTE CONFERS POWER ON THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS GENERALLY, TO
ACT JUDICIALLY ON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW PRESENTED TO THEM - WHICH IS
"JURISDICTION."  ON THE OTHER, SUCH OF THOSE COURTS AS ARE SPECIFIED BY
THE STATUTE, OR THE STIPULATION WHICH IT AUTHORIZES, ARE DESIGNATED AS
THE PLACE WHERE, FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE COURTS OR PARTIES OR BOTH, THE
PETITION WILL BE HEARD - WHICH IS "VENUE."  FN1  WANT OF JURISDICTION,
UNLIKE WANT OF VENUE, MAY NOT BE CURED BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES; BUT
WHEN THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION, IT HAS POWER TO DECIDE THE CASE
BROUGHT BEFORE IT, EVEN THOUGH THE COURT HAVING VENUE IS ONE SITTING IN
ANOTHER CIRCUIT.  GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE & M.S.R. CO.,
260 U.S. 261, 272-273; BURNRITE COAL CO. V. RIGGS, 274 U.S. 208, 211
212; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. MARVEL CO., 287 U.S. 430, 434-435; NEIRBO
CO. V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 308 U.S. 165, 167-168; FREEMAN V. BEE MACHINE
CO., 319 U.S. 448, 453.  THE RIGHT TO HAVE A CAUSE HEARD IN THE COURT
OF THE PROPER VENUE MAY BE LOST UNLESS SEASONABLY ASSERTED; AND IN THAT
EVENT, THE COURT OF TRIAL HAVING JURISDICTION BUT NOT THE PROPER VENUE
MAY RENDER A JUDGMENT BINDING ON THE PARTIES.  GENERAL INVESTMENT CO.
V. LAKE SHORE & M.S.R. CO., SUPRA, 272; COMMERCIAL CASUALTY CO. V.
CONSOLIDATED STONE CO., 278 U.S. 177, 179; FREEMAN V. BEE MACHINE CO.,
SUPRA, 453.  THE GOVERNMENT MAY WAIVE OBJECTIONS TO VENUE, JUST AS ANY
OTHER LITIGANT MAY, UNITED STATES V. HVOSLEF, 237 U.S. 1, 12; THAMES &
MERSEY INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 237 U.S. 19, 24-25; PEORIA & P.U.R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 528, 535-536, AND HERE SUCH WAIVER, BY
STIPULATION, IS CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 1141(B)(2). 

WE HAVE NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THE TERMS "JURISDICTION" AND
"VENUE" WERE USED IN THE STATUTE IN OTHER THAN THEIR USUALLY ACCEPTED
MEANING, AND NO CONVINCING REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED WHY THAT MEANING
SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED HERE.  UNLESS THESE PLAIN TERMS ARE TO BE
DISREGARDED, ALL THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION
TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF THE TAX COURT UPON A PETITION FOR REVIEW, THAT
IS, POWER TO ACT JUDICIALLY UPON THE PETITION.  PEORIA & P.U.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 535-536.  CONSEQUENTLY WHEN IN THIS CASE
PETITIONER FILED ITS PETITION WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT, THAT COURT DID NOT LACK POWER TO PROCEED WITH THE CAUSE,
ALTHOUGH THE COURT OF PROPER VENUE WAS THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 1141(B)(1).  THE PARTIES
WERE FREE TO WAIVE THIS DEFECT OF VENUE, BY FILING THE STIPULATION IN
COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION (B)(2), DESIGNATING THE COURT BELOW AS THE
ONE TO ACT UPON THE PETITION, WHICH WAS ALREADY BEFORE IT AND OF WHICH
IT THEN HAD JURISDICTION. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE STIPULATION HERE DID NOT COMPLY WITH
SEC. 1141(B)(2), SINCE IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE
DECISION OF THE TAX COURT.  BUT SEC. 1141(B)(2) DOES NOT BY ITS TERMS
PLACE ANY TIME LIMITATION UPON THE FILING OF THE STIPULATION.  THE
GOVERNMENT RELIES ON THE THREE MONTHS LIMITATION IN SEC. 1142, WHICH IS
IN TERMS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW.  THE
PETITION HERE WAS FILED WITHIN THREE MONTHS IN A COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION, AND WE SEE NO REASON TO IMPORT INTO THE STIPULATION
PROVISION, SEC. 1141(B)(2), A TIME LIMITATION WHICH IT DOES NOT
CONTAIN. 

IT IS TRUE, AS THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, THAT DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF THE
PROPER VENUE, OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW PENDING IN A COURT OF APPEALS,
CONTROLS THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  BUT IN SUCH A CASE
JURISDICTION IS CONTROLLED ONLY BY TERMINATING IT.  HERE THE CASE WAS
NOT DISMISSED BEFORE WANT OF VENUE WAS SUPPLIED BY STIPULATION IN THE
MANNER AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE.  THIS IMPOSED ON THE COURT THE DUTY
TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION IN DECIDING THE CASE. 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIES, AS DID THE COURT BELOW, ON OUR DECISION IN
NASH-BREYER MOTOR CO. V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 483.  WHEN THAT CASE AROSE,
THE PROVISION IN THE APPLICABLE REVENUE ACT FOR CHOICE OF VENUE BY
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, DID NOT PERMIT THEM TO STIPULATE FOR REVIEW
IN ANY CIRCUIT, BUT LIMITED THEIR CHOICE TO TWO SPECIFIED CIRCUITS. 
THE PARTIES IN THAT CASE STIPULATED FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN A CIRCUIT NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE, AND
THUS DID NOT CONFORM TO THE STATUTORY VENUE REQUIREMENT.  WE SUSTAINED
THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
REVIEW ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT WAS NOT BOUND TO EXERCISE ITS
JURISDICTION WHERE THE PROPER VENUE WAS IN ANOTHER COURT, SAYING, P.
487: "THE RESTRICTION ON THE POWER OF THE PARTIES TO STIPULATE AS TO
VENUE WOULD BE MEANINGLESS IF THEY COULD WAIVE IT WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF THE COURT."  IN THIS CASE THE STIPULATION CONFORMS TO THE STATUTE,
AND IS WITHOUT THE INFIRMITY FOUND TO BE FATAL IN THE NASH-BREYER
CASE. 

HERE THE COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE UNDER THE STATUTE
BY THE TIMELY FILING OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW, AND THE PARTIES WERE
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 1141(B)(2) TO STIPULATE THAT THE REVIEW SHOULD BE
HAD IN THAT COURT.  ON FILING THE STIPULATION THE CAUSE WAS THEN
PENDING IN THE COURT HAVING VENUE, AS WELL AS JURISDICTION, AND THE
CASE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE PEORIA & P.U.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 528, 535-536,
WHERE THIS COURT EXPLAINED THE SAME DISTINCTION MADE IN THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT, 38 STAT. 219, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(28), 43. 
..END :















COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATION, 323 U.S. 316 


NO. 71.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1945.  - 55
F.SUPP.  501, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A BILL OF COMPLAINT BY A PATENT OWNER AGAINST LICENSEES, SEEKING
AN ADJUDICATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT
AND AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE LICENSEES FROM COMPLYING WITH THE ACT AND
ORDERS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO, BUT SEEKING NO RECOVERY OF ROYALTIES
ALLEGED TO BE DUE FROM THE LICENSEES, HELD TO STATE NO CAUSE OF ACTION
IN EQUITY AND TO PRESENT NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL
POWER OF THE UNITED STATES AS DEFINED BY SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  P. 321. 

2.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD AND FOR PURPOSES OF
THE PRESENT SUIT, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE AND CAN INVOLVE NO JUSTICIABLE QUESTION UNLESS AND UNTIL
THE COMPLAINANT SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE ROYALTIES, AND THEN ONLY IF THE
ACT IS RELIED ON AS A DEFENSE.  P. 324. 

3.  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE IS AVAILABLE IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS ONLY WHEN AN ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY IS INVOLVED, AND MAY NOT
BE USED TO SECURE MERELY AN ADVISORY OPINION.  P. 324. 

4.  THE COURT WILL NOT PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION
IN A SUIT WHICH IS NOT ADVERSARY, OR UPON THE COMPLAINT OF ONE WHO
FAILS TO SHOW THAT HE IS INJURED BY ITS OPERATION, OR UNTIL IT IS
NECESSARY TO DO SO TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  P. 324. 

COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISMISSAL BY A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES OF THE
COMPLAINT IN A SUIT BY A PATENT OWNER AGAINST HIS LICENSEES,
CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT.  THE
UNITED STATES HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO INTERVENE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS SUIT, BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY
APPELLANT, A PATENT OWNER, TO ENJOIN HIS LICENSEES FROM PAYING ACCRUED
ROYALTIES TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT OF OCTOBER
31, 1942, 56 STAT. 1013, 35 U.S.C. SUPP. III, SECS. 89-96, AND
ATTACKING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT, WAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED FOR
WANT OF EQUITY JURISDICTION AND FOR WANT OF A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR
CONTROVERSY. 

APPELLANT BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW
JERSEY, JOINING AS DEFENDANTS FEDERAL LABORATORIES, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION, AND APPELLEE BREEZE CORPORATIONS, INC., A NEW JERSEY
CORPORATION.  FEDERAL WAS NOT SERVED WITH PROCESS AND DID NOT APPEAR,
AND THE CAUSE HAS PROCEEDED AGAINST APPELLEE BREEZE ALONE.  THE CASE
BEING ONE IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS
CHALLENGED AND IN WHICH A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL INJUNCTION IS ASKED
RESTRAINING "THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF, OR SETTING
ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART" OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS ON THE GROUND OF ITS
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, A COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS CONVENED TO HEAR THE
CAUSE PURSUANT TO SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 752,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 380(A).  FN1 

APPELLEE BREEZE ANSWERED.  UPON APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS HAD UNDER 50
STAT. 751, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 401, THE UNITED STATES WAS PERMITTED TO
INTERVENE AS A PARTY.  THEREUPON THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT FOR WANT OF EQUITY JURISDICTION
AND OF A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY.  55 F.SUPP.  501.  THE CASE
COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, C.
754, 50 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380(A), AUTHORIZING DIRECT APPEALS TO
THIS COURT IN A CASE WHERE A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES CONVENED
PURSUANT TO THE SECTION HAS ENTERED "JUDGMENT GRANTING OR DENYING,
AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, AN INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN
SUCH CASE." 

THE FACTS APPEAR FROM THE PLEADINGS AND BY STIPULATION, AND ARE
ADMITTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MOTION.  APPELLANT, THE OWNER OF A
UNITED STATES PATENT COVERING AN IMPROVEMENT UPON A DEVICE FOR USE IN
STARTING A COMBUSTION MOTOR, AND SHELLS FOR USE WITH THE DEVICE,
ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT LICENSING FEDERAL TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE
PATENTED DEVICE AT A ROYALTY OF 6% OF THE LICENSEE'S SELLING PRICE OF
THE DEVICE AND ITS PARTS.  AT SOME TIME BEFORE JULY 1937, APPELLEE
BREEZE ACQUIRED ALL OF FEDERAL'S OUTSTANDING SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK
AND HAS SINCE CONTROLLED ITS BUSINESS AND POLICIES.  IN 1937 IT ENTERED
INTO A CONTRACT, SINCE RENEWED AND CONTINUED WITH FEDERAL, WHEREBY THE
LATTER ENGAGED BREEZE AS ITS EXCLUSIVE "SALES AGENT AND DISTRIBUTOR" TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE PATENTED DEVICE.  BREEZE BEGAN THE MANUFACTURE
AND SALE OF THE PATENTED DEVICE, AND FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL
OF COMPLAINT IT APPEARS, INFERENTIALLY AT LEAST, THAT IT HAS BEEN
ENGAGED TO SOME EXTENT, NOT DISCLOSED, IN SUPPLYING THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS WITH THE PATENTED DEVICE UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. 

THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER A PATENTED DEVICE
IS "MANUFACTURED, USED, (OR) SOLD  ...  FOR THE UNITED STATES" UNDER A
LICENSE STIPULATING FOR PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES "BELIEVED TO BE
UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE" BY THE HEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY
CONCERNED, HE "SHALL GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH FACT TO THE LICENSOR
AND TO THE LICENSEE."  IT PROVIDES THAT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
THEREAFTER THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY "SHALL BY ORDER FIX AND SPECIFY SUCH
RATES OR AMOUNTS OF ROYALTIES, IF ANY, AS HE SHALL DETERMINE ARE FAIR
AND JUST, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONDITIONS OF WARTIME PRODUCTION." 
THE ACT DIRECTS THE LICENSEE, AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE NOTICE,
NOT TO "PAY TO THE LICENSOR, NOR CHARGE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE
UNITED STATES A ROYALTY, IF ANY, IN EXCESS OF THAT SPECIFIED IN SAID
ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH MANUFACTURE, USE, SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION." 

THE ACT DEPRIVES THE LICENSOR OF "ANY REMEDY  ...  AGAINST THE
LICENSEE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY ADDITIONAL ROYALTY REMAINING UNPAID." 
IT PROVIDES THAT HIS "SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY, EXCEPT AS TO THE
RECOVERY OF ROYALTIES FIXED IN SAID ORDER" IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES "TO RECOVER SUCH SUM, IF ANY, AS, WHEN ADDED TO THE ROYALTIES
FIXED AND SPECIFIED IN SUCH ORDER, SHALL CONSTITUTE FAIR AND JUST
COMPENSATION TO THE LICENSOR FOR THE MANUFACTURE, USE, SALE, OR OTHER
DISPOSITION OF THE LICENSED INVENTION FOR THE UNITED STATES, TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT THE CONDITIONS OF WARTIME PRODUCTION."  BY SEC. 7 THE ACT
IS MADE APPLICABLE "TO ALL ROYALTIES DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CHARGED OR
CHARGEABLE TO THE UNITED STATES" WHICH "HAVE NOT BEEN PAID TO THE
LICENSOR PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE NOTICE," AS WELL AS TO
ROYALTIES ACCRUING UPON ALL ARTICLES DELIVERED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE.  BY SEC. 4 ANY REDUCTION IN ROYALTIES AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT IS TO
"INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE GOVERNMENT BY WAY OF A CORRESPONDING
REDUCTION IN THE CONTRACT PRICE TO BE PAID  ...  OR BY WAY OF REFUND IF
ALREADY PAID TO THE LICENSEE." 

PURSUANT TO SEC. 1 OF THE ACT THE NAVY DEPARTMENT ON FEBRUARY 24,
1943, GAVE NOTICE TO APPELLANT, APPELLEE BREEZE AND FEDERAL THAT THE
ROYALTIES PROVIDED FOR BY THE LICENSE CONTRACT "NOW BEING PAID DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY" UNDER CONTRACTS IN WHICH FEDERAL OR BREEZE "IS EITHER A
PRIME CONTRACTOR OR A SUBCONTRACTOR ARE BELIEVED TO BE UNREASONABLE OR
EXCESSIVE."  THE NOTICE DIRECTED THAT, UNTIL A ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ORDER
SHOULD BE ISSUED UNDER THE ACT, "NO ROYALTIES SHOULD BE PAID ON ACCOUNT
OF THE MANUFACTURE, USE, (OR) SALE  ...  FOR THE UNITED STATES" OF THE
PATENTED DEVICE.  A SIMILAR NOTICE WAS GIVEN BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO
THE SAME PARTIES ON MARCH 3, 1943.  IN DECEMBER, 1943, THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS ISSUED ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ORDERS UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE ACT,
PURPORTING TO REDUCE TO SPECIFIED AMOUNTS, DECLARED TO BE "FAIR AND
JUST," THE ROYALTIES ACCRUING ON THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF THE
PATENTED DEVICE FOR THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS, WITH MAXIMUM
ROYALTIES OF $50,000 PER YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 1943.  THE ORDERS
FURTHER DIRECTED FEDERAL AND BREEZE TO PAY TO THE TREASURER OF THE
UNITED STATES "THE BALANCE IN EXCESS" OF THE ROYALTY PAYMENTS
AUTHORIZED BY THE ORDERS "WHICH WERE DUE TO LICENSOR AND WERE UNPAID ON
THE EFFECTIVE DATE" OF THE NOTICE, OR WHICH MIGHT THEREAFTER BECOME DUE
TO THE LICENSOR. 

ACCORDING TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT THERE ARE LARGE AMOUNTS DUE AND
OWING TO APPELLANT AS ROYALTIES UNDER ITS LICENSE CONTRACT WITH FEDERAL
AND THE CONTRACT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND BREEZE.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT
APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT A SEPARATE SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR NEW JERSEY AGAINST BREEZE AND FEDERAL FOR AN ACCOUNTING FOR
THE ROYALTIES SAID TO BE DUE TO APPELLANT, IN WHICH BREEZE ALONE WAS
SERVED BY PROCESS AND HAS APPEARED AND ANSWERED.  THE CAUSE IS AT
ISSUE, AND THE COURT HAS RULED THAT APPELLANT RECOVER ALL ROYALTIES
WHICH HAVE ACCRUED OR MAY ACCRUE TO THE DATE OF TRIAL. 

THE ANSWER OF APPELLEE BREEZE IN THE PRESENT SUIT DENIES THAT IT OWES
ANY ROYALTIES TO APPELLANT.  IT ALLEGES THAT WHETHER THE ROYALTY
ADJUSTMENT ACT IS VALID OR INVALID IS A MATTER WHICH IS IMMATERIAL TO
APPELLEE FOR THE REASON THAT IT OWES APPELLANT NO MONEY AS ROYALTIES OR
OTHERWISE.  IN THE PRESENT SUIT APPELLANT ASKS NO JUDGMENT FOR THE
RECOVERY OF THE ROYALTIES ALLEGED TO BE DUE FROM FEDERAL AND APPELLEE
BREEZE.  IT SEEKS ONLY AN ADJUDICATION THAT THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT
AND THE ORDERS PURPORTING TO BE MADE IN CONFORMITY TO IT ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, AND ASKS AN INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING BREEZE AND FEDERAL FROM COMPLYING WITH THE ACT AND THE
ORDERS BY PAYING ANY PART OF THE ROYALTIES INTO THE TREASURY OR TO ANY
PERSON OTHER THAN APPELLANT. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT BELOW THAT
APPELLANT'S BILL OF COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY AND
PRESENTS NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED
STATES AS DEFINED BY SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE ONLY RIGHTS ASSERTED AS THE BASIS FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY
APPELLANT ARE DERIVED FROM THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS.  THOSE AGREEMENTS,
SO FAR AS NOW APPEARS AND AS WE ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, ARE
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS TO PAY THE STIPULATED ROYALTIES.  AS THEY
ACCRUE, THE ROYALTIES BECOME SIMPLE DEBTS RECOVERABLE IN AN ACTION AT
LAW, OR POSSIBLY, WHERE THE ACCOUNTS ARE COMPLICATED, IN A PROCEEDING
FOR AN ACCOUNTING SUCH AS APPELLANT HAS ALREADY BEGUN IN ITS SEPARATE
SUIT PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY.  KIRBY V. LAKE SHORE
& M.S.R. CO., 120 U.S. 130; UNITED STATES V. OLD SETTLERS, 148 U.S.
427, 465. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT IN THE PRESENT SUIT BRING TO OUR ATTENTION ANY
FACTS SHOWING OR TENDING TO SHOW THAT A SUIT TO RECOVER A MONEY
JUDGMENT FOR THE ROYALTIES WOULD NOT AFFORD COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE
RELIEF WITHOUT RESORT TO AN EQUITABLE REMEDY.  IN SUCH A SUIT IF
APPELLEE BREEZE IS OBLIGATED BY THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION TO PAY THE
ROYALTIES TO APPELLANT, IT CAN DISCHARGE THAT OBLIGATION ONLY BY
PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE, OR BY SETTING UP THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT
AS A DEFENSE.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE DUTY UNDER THE ACT TO PAY INTO THE
TREASURY THE ROYALTIES WITHHELD FROM APPELLANT WOULD OPERATE BY THE
TERMS OF THE ACT AS A DISCHARGE OF THE OBLIGATION TO PAY APPELLANT.  IF
THAT DEFENSE WERE OFFERED, THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THESE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD BE A JUSTICIABLE ISSUE IN THE CASE, SINCE
UPON ITS ADJUDICATION WOULD DEPEND APPELLANT'S RIGHT OF RECOVERY. 

BUT WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BE VALID OR INVALID APPELLANT
SHOWS NO GROUND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF.  IF VALID THEY WOULD BE A
DEFENSE, AND APPELLANT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO NO RELIEF OTHER THAN THAT
AFFORDED BY THE SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 2 OF THE
ACT.  IF INVALID, APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO RECOVER REMAINS UNIMPAIRED.  THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE DEFENSE MAY BE AS READILY TESTED IN A SUIT AT LAW TO
RECOVER THE ROYALTIES AS BY THE PRESENT SUIT IN EQUITY TO ENJOIN
PAYMENT OF THE ROYALTIES INTO THE TREASURY.  IN EITHER CASE APPELLANT
WOULD RECEIVE ALL THE RELIEF TO WHICH IT SHOWS ITSELF ENTITLED. 

THE OBLIGATION TO PAY ROYALTIES, AS WE HAVE SAID, APPEARS TO BE NO
MORE THAN A DEBT.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT IT IS A FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATION TO TURN AN EARMARKED FUND OVER TO APPELLANT.  THE COMPLAINT
DOES NOT INDICATE THAT IF APPELLEE IS NOT ENJOINED IT WILL PAY THE
ROYALTIES INTO THE TREASURY, OR, IF IT DOES, THAT APPELLEE WILL BE
UNABLE TO RESPOND TO A JUDGMENT IN APPELLANT'S FAVOR.  APPELLANT THUS
FAILS TO ASSERT ANY RIGHT OF RECOVERY AT LAW IN THE PRESENT SUIT OR TO
SHOW THAT ITS REMEDY AVAILABLE AT LAW IS SO INADEQUATE AS TO ENTITLE IT
TO ASK AN EQUITABLE REMEDY.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 267(28 U.S.C. SEC.
384); BOISE ARTESIAN WATER CO. V. BOISE CITY, 213 U.S. 276, 283; PUSEY
& JONES CO. V. HANSSEN, 261 U.S. 491, 497; HURLEY V. KINCAID, 285 U.S.
95, 105; SCHOENTHAL V. IRVING TRUST CO., 287 U.S. 92, 94. 

SO FAR AS THE PRESENT SUIT SEEKS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING PAYMENT OF THE ROYALTIES INTO THE TREASURY, IT
RAISES NO JUSTICIABLE ISSUE.  APPELLANT ASSERTS IN THE PRESENT SUIT NO
RIGHT TO RECOVER THE ROYALTIES.  IT ASKS ONLY A DETERMINATION THAT THE
ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND, IF SO FOUND, THAT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT BE ENJOINED, AN ISSUE WHICH APPELLEE BY ITS
ANSWER DECLINES TO CONTEST.  IF CONTESTED THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT WOULD
BE AN ISSUE WHICH, SO FAR AS IT COULD EVER BECOME MATERIAL, WOULD
PROPERLY ARISE ONLY IN A SUIT TO RECOVER THE ROYALTIES, WHERE IT COULD
BE APPROPRIATELY DECIDED. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD AND FOR PURPOSES OF THE
PRESENT SUIT, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE AND CAN INVOLVE NO JUSTICIABLE QUESTION UNLESS AND UNTIL
APPELLANT SEEKS RECOVERY OF THE ROYALTIES, AND THEN ONLY IF APPELLEE
RELIES ON THE ACT AS A DEFENSE.  THE PRAYER OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
THAT THE ACT BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS THUS BUT A REQUEST FOR AN
ADVISORY OPINION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A DEFENSE TO A SUIT FOR RECOVERY
OF THE ROYALTIES.  APPELLEE COULD HAVE MADE SUCH A DEFENSE BUT DOES NOT
APPEAR TO HAVE DONE SO IN THE PENDING ACCOUNTING SUIT AND DOES NOT
ASSERT ITS VALIDITY HERE.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT THUS FAILS TO DISCLOSE
ANY GROUND FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ANY QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT WHICH
COULD BE THE BASIS OF A JUDGMENT ADJUDICATING THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES. 

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE IS AVAILABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
ONLY IN CASES INVOLVING AN ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY, NASHVILLE, C. &
ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 258-264; AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V.
HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 239-240, WHERE THE ISSUE IS ACTUAL AND
ADVERSARY, CHICAGO & GRAND TRUNK R. CO. V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339; SOUTH
SPRING GOLD CO. V. AMADOR GOLD CO., 145 U.S. 300, 301, AND IT MAY NOT
BE MADE THE MEDIUM FOR SECURING AN ADVISORY OPINION IN A CONTROVERSY
WHICH HAS NOT ARISEN.  NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328; UNITED
STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 324; ANNISTON MANUFACTURING CO. V. DAVIS, 301
U.S. 337, 355; ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V. S.E.C., 303 U.S. 419, 443. 
IN ANY CASE, THE COURT WILL NOT PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
LEGISLATION IN A SUIT WHICH IS NOT ADVERSARY, CHICAGO & GRAND TRUNK R.
CO. V. WELLMAN, SUPRA; BARTEMEYER V. IOWA, 18 WALL.  129, 134-35;
ATHERTON MILLS V. 259 U.S. 13, 15, OR UPON THE COMPLAINT OF ONE WHO
FAILS TO SHOW THAT HE IS INJURED BY ITS OPERATION, TYLER V. THE JUDGES,
179 U.S. 405; HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610, 621, OR UNTIL IT IS
NECESSARY TO DO SO TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  LIVERPOOL,
N.Y. & P.S.S. CO. V. COMMISSIONERS, 113 U.S. 33, 39; BURTON V. UNITED
STATES, 196 U.S. 283, 295; ABRAMS V. VAN SCHAICK, 293 U.S. 188;
WILSHIRE OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 100.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS RIGHTLY CONVENED,
ALTHOUGH THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST PRIVATE PARTIES NOT PUBLIC
OFFICERS.  UNLIKE SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380,
THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937 DOES NOT RESTRICT ITS REQUIREMENT FOR THE
ASSEMBLY OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES TO SUITS AGAINST PUBLIC
OFFICERS.  SEE OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292
U.S. 386.  SECTION 3 OF THE ACT OF 1937 DIRECTS THAT A COURT OF THREE
JUDGES IS TO BE CONVENED WHENEVER AN INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT "SUSPENDING OR RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT,
OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF, OR SETTING ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY
ACT OF CONGRESS" UPON THE GROUND THAT IT IS REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSTITUTION.  THIS LANGUAGE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47.  ITS CHOICE OF LANGUAGE,
DIFFERING FROM THAT OF SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, MUST BE TAKEN TO
BE DELIBERATE.  SEE JAMESON & CO. V. MORGENTHAU, 307 U.S. 171, 173. 

HERE THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT WOULD RESTRAIN APPELLEE FROM PAYMENT OF
THE ROYALTIES INTO THE TREASURY AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS AND
WOULD THUS RESTRAIN THE "OPERATION" OR "EXECUTION" OF THE STATUTE. 
LIKE INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE LIKE LANGUAGE OF THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913.  SEE LAMBERT RUN COAL CO. V. B. & O.R. CO.,
258 U.S. 377; VENNER V. MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO., 271 U.S. 127. 

GARMENT WORKERS' UNION V. DONNELLY CO., 304 U.S. 243, IS TO BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PRESENT CASE.  THERE AN INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT
AGAINST A LABOR UNION FOR VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, THE
PLAINTIFF APPELLEE CONTENDING THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT.
70, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 101, WAS INAPPLICABLE OR, IF APPLICABLE,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THIS COURT HELD THAT A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES WAS UNAUTHORIZED BY SEC. 3 OF THE 1937 ACT, SINCE THE CONTENTION
WITH RESPECT TO THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS NOT AN APPLICATION FOR AN
INJUNCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3, BUT MERELY AN ANTICIPATION OF
A DEFENSE GOING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  EVEN THOUGH THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WERE APPLICABLE, IT COULD NOT, IF
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OPERATE AS A DEFENSE, AND NO CASE WAS MADE FOR AN
INJUNCTION. 
..END :












COFFMAN V. FED. LABORATORIES, 323 U.S. 325 


NO. 485.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1945.  -
AFFIRMED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, INC.,
ANTE, P. 316. 

COFFMAN V. FEDERAL LABORATORIES, INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, CONVENED
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380(A), DENYING AN INJUNCTION AND STRIKING
PORTIONS OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN ALLOWED
TO INTERVENE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO COFFMAN V. BREEZE CORPORATIONS, ANTE, P.
316. 

LIKE THAT CASE THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY APPELLANT AGAINST
FEDERAL LABORATORIES, INC. AND BREEZE CORPORATIONS, INC. TO SECURE
AMONG OTHER THINGS AN ADJUDICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT OF CONGRESS OF OCTOBER 31, 1942, 56 STAT.
1013, 35 U.S.C. SUPP. III, SECS. 89-96.  IT SOUGHT ALSO TO ENJOIN
DEFENDANTS FROM PAYING OVER TO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES
ROYALTIES ALLEGED TO BE DUE UPON THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS INVOLVED IN THE
BREEZE SUIT, AS REQUIRED BY THE NOTICES AND ORDERS OF THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS SERVED UPON APPELLANT AND THE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO THE
ACT. 

IN ADDITION, THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS OWE
ROYALTIES TO APPELLANT UNDER THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, FOR WHICH IT PRAYS
AN ACCOUNTING.  BY WAY OF ANTICIPATION OF THE DEFENSE THAT THE ROYALTY
ADJUSTMENT ACT AND THE NOTICES AND ORDERS OF THE WAR AND NAVY
DEPARTMENTS REQUIRE APPELLEE TO PAY THE ROYALTIES INTO THE TREASURY,
APPELLANT SETS UP THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT. 

A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS CONVENED TO HEAR THE CAUSE AS
REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
380(A), AND THE UNITED STATES WAS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE AS A PARTY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 1 OF THE ACT.  50 STAT. 751, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 401. 
THE DISTRICT COURT, ON MOTION OF THE GOVERNMENT, DISMISSED SO MUCH OF
THE BILL OF COMPLAINT AS SOUGHT AN ADJUDICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT AND OF THE NOTICE AND ORDERS
ISSUED UNDER IT.  IT STRUCK FROM THE BILL OF COMPLAINT THE ANTICIPATORY
ALLEGATIONS THAT THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ACT AND THE ORDERS WITH RESPECT
TO THE ROYALTIES OWING APPELLANT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID, AND IT
STRUCK THE PRAYER OF THE BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINION IN THE BREEZE CASE WE HOLD THAT
APPELLANT HAS SHOWN NO GROUND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF BY WAY OF
INJUNCTION.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ROYALTY
ADJUSTMENT ACT AND THE ORDERS WERE PLEADED ONLY AS SUPPORTING THE
PRAYER FOR AN INJUNCTION AND WERE THEREFORE PROPERLY STRICKEN WITH THAT
PRAYER.  THE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL TO OR A PROPER PART OF THE
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND RECOVERY OF THE ROYALTIES ALLEGED
TO BE DUE. 

SINCE THE ALLEGATIONS WERE STRICKEN, APPELLEE FEDERAL HAS ANSWERED
SETTING UP AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE THE ROYALTY ADJUSTMENT ORDERS
PROHIBITING PAYMENT OF THE ROYALTIES TO APPELLANT.  UPON THAT ISSUE
APPELLANT WILL BE FREE TO CONTEST THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE
ORDERS.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 
..END :






MCCULLOUGH V. KAMMERER CORP., 323 U.S. 327 


NO. 46.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1945.  - 138
F.2D 482, DISMISSED. 


SINCE THE ONLY QUESTION FOR THE REVIEW OF WHICH CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED
IN THIS CASE IS ONE WHICH WAS NOT PROPERLY RAISED, LITIGATED, OR PASSED
UPON BELOW, THE WRIT IS DISMISSED.  P. 328. 

MCCULLOUGH V. KAMMERER CORPORATION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 766, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE FOR
THE PLAINTIFFS, RESPONDENTS HERE, IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A
PATENT, 39 F.SUPP.  213.  SEE ALSO 143 F.2D 595. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS CASE BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAVE HELD VALID AND INFRINGED THE REILLY AND
STONE PATENT, NO. 1,625,391, OF APRIL 19, 1927, FOR A PIPE CUTTING
TOOL, OF WHICH PATENT RESPONDENT KAMMERER CORPORATION IS ASSIGNEE.  THE
PATENT EXPIRED ON APRIL 18, 1944, ONLY DAMAGE FOR INFRINGEMENT IS
INVOLVED, AND THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE
PATENT.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI ONLY BECAUSE THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI PRESENTED AS A GROUND OF DEFENSE TO THE SUIT, THAT
RESPONDENT KAMMERER CORPORATION HAD LICENSED TO RESPONDENT BAASH-ROSS
TOOL COMPANY THE USE OF THE PATENTED DEVICE IN SUIT, BY AN AGREEMENT
WHICH STIPULATED FOR RESTRICTIONS ON SUCH USE WHICH ARE ASSERTED TO BE
UNAUTHORIZED BY THE PATENT MONOPOLY, CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, AND
UNLAWFUL. 

ON ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUBMISSION OF THE CAUSE IT APPEARS THAT ALTHOUGH
PETITIONER BY ITS AMENDED ANSWER ALLEGED GENERALLY THAT RESPONDENTS "DO
NOT COME INTO  ...  COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS," THE ANSWER MADE NO MENTION
OF THE RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT MADE NO FINDINGS OF FACT OR LAW WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  ON APPEAL
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PETITIONER ASSIGNED NO ERROR WITH
REFERENCE TO THEM AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT CONSIDER
THEM, SAYING:  "WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
CONSIDERING HERE ONLY THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF ERROR."  138 F.2D 482. 

THUS THE ONLY QUESTION FOR WHICH WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IS ONE NOT
PROPERLY RAISED, LITIGATED OR PASSED UPON BELOW.  DUIGNAN V. UNITED
STATES, 274 U.S. 195, 200; BURNET V. COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., 287
U.S. 415, 418; ZELLERBACH PAPER CO. V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 172, 182;
UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 329.  THE GROUNDS ASSERTED FOR
THE ALLOWANCE OF CERTIORARI ARE INADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD,
AND THE WRIT IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 
..END :























CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 329 


ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1945.  - 52 F.SUPP.  906,
AFFIRMED.  - 143 OHIO ST. 251, 55 N.E.2D 265, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, THE JURISDICTION OF A
DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS PROPERLY INVOKED TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE A SUIT TO RESTRAIN COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS FROM
ASSESSING AND COLLECTING ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAXES, WHERE SUCH
OFFICIALS WERE ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF THE STATE AND PURSUANT TO A
STATE LAW OF STATEWIDE APPLICATION.  P. 332. 

2.  THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1937, PROVIDING FOR
THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS AND CREDIT TO IMPROVE HOUSING CONDITIONS, WAS
A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL
WELFARE.  CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 1.  P. 333. 

3.  IT WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXEMPT FROM STATE TAXATION
PROPERTY ACQUIRED AND OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES, OR AN INSTRUMENTALITY
THEREOF, PURSUANT TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT.  P. 333. 

CITY OF CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

NO. 68.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 69, BOYLE, COUNTY TREASURER OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, ET
AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO - ARGUED DECEMBER
6, 1944; AND NO. 388, FEDERAL PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY (FORMERLY UNITED
STATES HOUSING AUTHORITY) V. GUCKENBERGER, AUDITOR, HAMILTON COUNTY, ET
AL., ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO - ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 7,
1944. 

APPEALS, IN NOS. 68 AND 69, FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF
THREE JUDGES ENJOINING ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF STATE TAXES; AND,
IN NO. 388, FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR
EXEMPTION FROM A STATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE APPEALS PRESENT THE SAME QUESTION OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND WILL
BE DEALT WITH IN A SINGLE OPINION. 

IN NO. 68 THE APPELLEES SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE TAXING
OFFICIALS OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO, AND THOSE OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND,
TO RESTRAIN THEM FROM ATTEMPTING TO ASSESS AND COLLECT TAXES, PURSUANT
TO THE LAWS OF OHIO, ON LANDS ACQUIRED BY CONDEMNATION AND OWNED BY THE
APPELLEES IN THE CITY AND COUNTY.  A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED
BUT, PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, THE COURT PROCEEDED AT ONCE TO HEAR THE
CASE ON THE MERITS, AND ENTERED A FINAL INJUNCTION.  FN1 

THE LANDS INVOLVED WERE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY CONDEMNATION
UNDER THE NATIONAL RECOVERY PROGRAMME FOR LOW-COST HOUSING PROJECTS. 
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY THEN ERECTED LOW-COST DWELLING
UNITS WHICH WERE LEASED TO CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN HOUSING, A STATE OF
OHIO AUTHORITY.  THE LATTER HAS SUBLET THE UNITS TO TENANTS FOR
RESIDENCE PURPOSES. 

THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF
SEPTEMBER 1, 1937,  FN2  IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS NO
POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH LOW-COST HOUSING PROJECTS. 

A MAJORITY OF THE COURT BELOW HELD THE FEDERAL STATUTE AUTHORIZED BY
THE CONSTITUTION.  FN3  ITS REASONING WAS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE EVILS OF
BAD HOUSING ARE LOCAL IN THEIR ORIGIN, THEIR EFFECT MAY BECOME SO
WIDESPREAD AS TO CREATE A MENACE TO THE NATIONAL WELFARE AND THAT
CONGRESS IS EMPOWERED TO DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT IN THAT ASPECT.  THE
DISSENTING JUDGE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROJECT AMOUNTED MERELY TO AN
EMBARKATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN A PRIVATE BUSINESS AND THAT
THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT DO THIS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO IMMUNIZE THE
PROPERTY EMPLOYED FROM NORMAL STATE TAXATION TO SUPPORT LOCAL POLICE
AND OTHER SERVICES REQUIRED BY THE COMMUNITY OF WHICH THE HOUSING
PROJECT FORMS A PART. 

IN NO. 69 THE APPELLEES SOUGHT AND WERE AWARDED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
THE COLLECTION OF LOCAL TAXES UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IN NO. 388 THE UNITED STATES HOUSING AUTHORITY APPLIED FOR EXEMPTION
FROM LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES PURSUANT TO THE LAW OF OHIO,  FN4  IN RESPECT
OF A HOUSING PROJECT IN CINCINNATI.  THE REAL ESTATE HAD BEEN PURCHASED
BY THE UNITED STATES AND DEVOTED TO A LOW-COST HOUSING PROJECT PURSUANT
TO THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  FN5  THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED.  APPEAL WAS
TAKEN TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.  FN6  THE DENIAL WAS AFFIRMED ON
THE GROUNDS THAT NO EXEMPTION WAS PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
STATUTES OF THE STATE AND THAT REFUSAL OF THE CLAIMED EXEMPTION WAS
CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FN7  AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT
WAS PERFECTED. 

NOS. 68 AND 69 WERE HEARD AND DECIDED BY A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES PURSUANT TO SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  FN8  THE APPELLANTS
INSIST THAT THEY DO NOT ACT AS OFFICERS OF THE STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OR EXECUTION OF ANY STATE STATUTE IN COLLECTING THE TAXES IN QUESTION,
AND THAT SEC. 266 THEREFORE CONFERS NO JURISDICTION ON A THREE-JUDGE
COURT TO HEAR THE CAUSE.  WE OVERRULE THIS CONTENTION. 

THE SECTION IS INAPPLICABLE TO SUITS CHALLENGING LOCAL ORDINANCES OR
STATUTES HAVING ONLY LOCAL APPLICATION.  FN9  BUT THESE CASES INVOLVE
STATE LAW THE APPLICATION OF WHICH IS STATE-WIDE.  FN10 IF THE TAXING
OFFICIALS WERE, IN THESE INSTANCES, THOUGH ACTING UNDER SUCH A LAW,
DOING SO AS LOCAL OFFICIALS AND ON BEHALF OF THE LOCALITY AND NOT AS
OFFICERS OF THE STATE, THE SECTION IS INAPPLICABLE TO SUITS TO RESTRAIN
THEM.  FN11  HERE, HOWEVER, THE OFFICIALS WERE ENFORCING STATE LAWS
EMBODYING A STATE-WIDE CONCERN AND IN THE STATE'S INTEREST, AND IN SUCH
A CASE SEC. 266 IS APPLICABLE.  FN12  THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT OF
THREE JUDGES WAS PROPERLY INVOKED. 

LITTLE NEED BE SAID CONCERNING THE MERITS.  SECTION 1 OF THE HOUSING
ACT  FN13  DECLARES A POLICY TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE
NATION BY EMPLOYING ITS FUNDS AND CREDIT TO ASSIST THE STATES AND THEIR
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT AND SAFEGUARD HEALTH,
SAFETY AND MORALS OF THE NATION'S CITIZENS BY IMPROVING HOUSING
CONDITIONS.  SECTION 5  FN14  PROVIDES IN PART, "THE AUTHORITY,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ITS FRANCHISE, CAPITAL, RESERVES, SURPLUS,
LOANS, INCOME, ASSETS, AND PROPERTY OF ANY KIND, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
ALL TAXATION NOW OR HEREAFTER IMPOSED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ANY
STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY, OR LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY."  SECTION 13
AUTHORIZES AGREEMENTS BY THE AUTHORITY TO PAY ANNUAL SUMS, NOT
EXCEEDING TAXES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAID, IN LIEU OF TAXES.  FN15 

CHALLENGE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE HOUSING ACT MUST
FAIL.  FN16  AND CONGRESS MAY EXEMPT PROPERTY OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITY FROM STATE TAXATION IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  THIS IS SETTLED BY SUCH AN ARRAY
OF AUTHORITY THAT CITATION WOULD SEEM UNNECESSARY.  FN17 

THE JUDGMENTS IN NOS. 68 AND 69 ARE AFFIRMED AND THAT IN NO. 388 IS
REVERSED.  NOS. 68 AND 69 AFFIRMED.  NO. 388 REVERSED. 

FN1  52 F.SUPP.  906. 

FN2  42 U.S.C. 1401 FF. 

FN3  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 1. 

FN4  OHIO GENERAL CODE, SECS. 5616, 5570-1. 

FN5  SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN6  PURSUANT TO SECS. 1464, 1464-1 OHIO GENERAL CODE (1942 SUPP.). 

FN7  143 OHIO ST. 251; 55 N.E.2D 265. 

FN8  28 U.S.C. 380. 

FN9  EX PARTE COLLINS, 277 U.S. 565; EX PARTE PUBLIC NATIONAL BANK,
278 U.S. 101; RORICK V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 307 U.S. 208. 

FN10  SEE OHIO GENERAL CODE SECS. 5328, 5351. 

FN11  EX PARTE COLLINS, SUPRA; EX PARTE PUBLIC NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA. 

FN12  SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89; RORICK V. BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, SUPRA, 212. 

FN13  42 U.S.C. 1401. 

FN14  42 U.S.C. 1405(E). 

FN15  42 U.S.C. 1413. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 64-67; STEWARD MACHINE CO.
V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 586; HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619, 640. 

FN17  SEE, E.G. VAN BROCKLIN V. TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151; PITTMAN V.
HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK
LUMBER CO., 314 U.S. 95. 
..END :
















GEORGIA LUMBER CO. V. COMPANIA, 323 U.S. 334 


NO. 180.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1945.  - 141
F.2D 652, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, WHICH PROVIDES
THAT NO APPEAL TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHALL BE ALLOWED "UNLESS
APPLICATION THEREFOR BE DULY MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS," AND WHICH IS
APPLICABLE TO ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE DISTRICT COURT HAS DISCRETION,
WHERE WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS' PERIOD A NOTICE OF APPEAL IS FILED IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THE INTENTION TO APPEAL IS
APPARENT, TO TREAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AS AN APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE
OF AN APPEAL; AND THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN SO TREATING A
NOTICE OF APPEAL AS AN APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL IN THIS
CASE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  P. 336. 

2.  WHERE THE APPEAL STATUTE MERELY REQUIRES THAT AN APPLICATION FOR
APPEAL BE MADE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE ALLOWANCE MAY BE MADE
SUBSEQUENTLY.  P. 337. 

GEORGIA HARDWOOD LUMBER CO. V. COMPANIA DE NAVEGACION TRANSMAR, S.A.,
OWNER OF THE S.S. KOTOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 692, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE
DISMISSING A LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ADMIRALTY CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.  A SINGLE QUESTION IS PRESENTED. 
PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT PROPERLY TAKEN.  SINCE THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE DO NOT APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS IN ADMIRALTY,  FN1  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 940, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 230, WERE MET. 
THAT SECTION PROVIDES: 

"NO WRIT OF ERROR OR APPEAL INTENDED TO BRING ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE
BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR REVIEW SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS
APPLICATION THEREFOR BE DULY MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY
OF SUCH JUDGMENT OR DECREE." 

A FINAL DECREE DISMISSING THE LIBEL WAS ENTERED ON APRIL 20, 1943. 
ON JULY 6, 1943, THE LIBELLANT ISSUED A NOTICE OF APPEAL, SERVED IT ON
RESPONDENT'S PROCTORS AND OBTAINED THEIR ACCEPTANCE.  IT FILED THE
NOTICE OF APPEAL IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON
JULY 12, 1943.  NOTHING ELSE WAS DONE WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS' PERIOD
EXCEPT TO CONSULT THE DISTRICT JUDGE ON THE AMOUNT OF THE APPEAL BOND. 
THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS AND THE APPEAL BOND WERE FILED JULY 21ST.  A
FORMAL PETITION FOR APPEAL WAS FILED ON AUGUST 12TH AND ALLOWED THE
13TH.  ON AUGUST 30TH THE DISTRICT JUDGE ENTERED AN ORDER WHICH TREATED
THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED JULY 12TH AS AN APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF
THE APPEAL AND GRANTED IT.  THAT ORDER RECITED THAT THE LIBELLANT HAD
ASSUMED THAT THE CLERK WOULD PRESENT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE JUDGE
FOR AN ALLOWANCE, THAT THE JUDGE KNEW WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS' PERIOD
OF LIBELLANT'S INTENTION TO APPEAL AND WOULD HAVE GRANTED IT IF HE HAD
BEEN SO REQUESTED, THOUGH HE ASSUMED A FORMAL ALLOWANCE WAS NOT
NECESSARY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
FILED JULY 12TH WAS SUFFICIENT AS AN APPLICATION FOR AN APPEAL AND THAT
THE FAILURE TO ALLOW IT WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS' PERIOD WAS NOT FATAL. 
141 F.2D 652. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  APPLICATION FOR AN
ALLOWANCE OF THE APPEAL WAS OF COURSE NECESSARY.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN.
V. PILLSBURY, 301 U.S. 174; WELLS V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 257, 260. 
BUT THE LAW DOES NOT PRESCRIBE THE FORM IN WHICH AN APPLICATION FOR
ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL MUST BE CAST.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE TRIAL
JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN TREATING THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AS AN
APPLICATION FOR AN ALLOWANCE.  IT WAS PROPERLY FILED WITH THE CLERK OF
THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN2  STEFFLER V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 38, 40. 
THE INTENTION TO APPEAL WAS APPARENT.  ONLY A FORMAL REQUEST WAS
LACKING.  IN OTHER INSTANCES, WHERE THE SCOPE OF REVIEW WAS NOT
AFFECTED, COMPARABLE IRREGULARITIES IN PERFECTING AN APPEAL HAVE BEEN
DISREGARDED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.  TAYLOR V. VOSS, 271 U.S. 176,
182, AND CASES CITED.  WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT THE MERE FILING OF A
NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN AS ADEQUATE.  DESIRABLE PRACTICE
INDICATES THAT EXPLICIT INSTEAD OF IMPLIED APPLICATION FOR AN ALLOWANCE
SHOULD BE MADE IN ORDER TO AVOID LITIGATION.  WE HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT
THERE IS DISCRETION TO TREAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AS SUCH AN
APPLICATION. 

ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. PILLSBURY, SUPRA, DOES NOT REQUIRE A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  IN THAT CASE AN APPEAL WAS SOUGHT TO BE PERFECTED
SIMPLY BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL.  BUT IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT AN
APPEAL WAS EVER ALLOWED.  THE COURT HELD THAT AN APPEAL MUST BE APPLIED
FOR AND ALLOWED.  IT STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ALLOWANCE IN
SCREENING OUT IMPROPER OR PREMATURE APPEALS AND IN MAKING CERTAIN THAT
SECURITY FOR COSTS WAS PROVIDED IN APPROPRIATE CASES.  301 U.S. P.
177.  WE ADHERE TO THAT DECISION.  UNDER THIS STATUTE AN ALLOWANCE OF
AN APPEAL IS ESSENTIAL.  MCCRONE V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 61.  WE
ONLY POINT OUT THAT THE ALASKA PACKERS CASE DID NOT INVOLVE THE
QUESTION PRESENTED HERE, I.E., WHETHER A NOTICE OF APPEAL MAY SUFFICE
AS AN APPLICATION FOR AN ALLOWANCE.  NOR DID IT INVOLVE THE FURTHER
QUESTION WHETHER THE ALLOWANCE MUST BE MADE WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS'
PERIOD.  WE HELD IN RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V. PRUDENCE GROUP, 311
U.S. 579, THAT A REQUIREMENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT THAT CERTAIN APPEALS
"BE TAKEN TO AND ALLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS" WITHIN A
PRESCRIBED TIME WAS SATISFIED WHERE THE APPLICATION WAS TIMELY BUT THE
ALLOWANCE OF THE APPEAL CAME LATER.  OTHERWISE "THE EXISTENCE OF THE
RIGHT TO APPEAL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCIES WHICH NO DEGREE OF
DILIGENCE BY AN APPELLANT COULD CONTROL."  311 U.S. AT 582.  THAT
RESULT IS EVEN MORE PLAINLY INDICATED UNDER THE PRESENT STATUTE.  THE
TIETJEN & LANG NO. 2, 143 F.2D 711.  FOR WHERE, AS HERE, A STATUTE
MERELY REQUIRES THAT AN APPLICATION FOR AN APPEAL BE MADE WITHIN A
PRESCRIBED TIME, THE ALLOWANCE MAY BE GRANTED SUBSEQUENTLY.  CARDONA V.
QUINONES, 240 U.S. 83.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  RULE 81(A)(1). 

FN2  WE THEREFORE HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION FROM THAT PRESENTED IN
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V. PRUDENCE GROUP, 311 U.S. 579, 582,
WHERE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT BUT THE APPEAL
HAD TO BE ALLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

HERE THE APPEAL COULD BE ALLOWED EITHER BY THE TRIAL JUDGE OR BY A
JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V.
PILLSBURY, SUPRA; MCCRONE V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 61, 65; THE
TIETJEN & LANG NO. 2, 143 F.2D 711, 712; JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 132, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 228. 
..END :


















SINGER V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 338 


NO. 30.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 10, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1945.  - 141
F.2D 262, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE OF SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND
SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, IS NOT LIMITED TO CONSPIRACIES TO
"HINDER OR INTERFERE IN ANY WAY BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE" WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, BUT EMBRACES ALL CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE THE
ACT.  P. 340. 

2.  THE OFFENSE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT, UNLIKE THAT UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, DOES
NOT REQUIRE AN OVERT ACT.  P. 340. 

3.  THE PRINCIPLE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A
CRIMINAL STATUTE BE GIVEN ITS NARROWEST POSSIBLE MEANING.  P. 341. 

4.  WHERE ANOTHER INTERPRETATION IS PERMISSIBLE, A STATUTE SHOULD NOT
BE GIVEN A CONSTRUCTION WHICH MAKES IT REDUNDANT.  P. 344. 

5.  AS TO A PETITIONER WHO DIED SINCE THE GRANT OF A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, THE WRIT IS DISMISSED
AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SUCH DISPOSITION AS
LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRE.  P. 346. 

SINGER ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 720, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS OF
CONVICTION FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT.  SEE 49 F.SUPP.  912. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE FATHER AND SON.  THEY AND ONE WALTER WEEL WERE
INDICTED IN ONE COUNT CHARGING A CONSPIRACY TO AID WILLARD I. SINGER IN
EVADING SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES.  NO OVERT ACT WAS ALLEGED.  A
DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT WAS OVERRULED WHICH CLAIMED THAT AN OVERT
ACT WAS NECESSARY.  PETITIONERS WERE TRIED BEFORE A JURY, FOUND GUILTY
AND SENTENCED.  PETITIONER WILLARD I. SINGER RECEIVED A SENTENCE OF ONE
YEAR AND A DAY; PETITIONER MARTIN H. SINGER RECEIVED A SUSPENDED
SENTENCE AND WAS PLACED ON PROBATION FOR TWO YEARS.  MOTIONS IN ARREST
OF JUDGMENT AND FOR A NEW TRIAL WERE DENIED.  49 F.SUPP.  912.  THE
JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION WERE AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
141 F.2D 262.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONSPIRACY
CHARGED CONSTITUTES AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, 894-895, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC.
311. 

THE RELEVANT PART OF SEC. 11 READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY PERSON CHARGED AS HEREIN PROVIDED WITH THE DUTY OF CARRYING OUT
ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE OR
DIRECTIONS GIVEN THEREUNDER, WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO
PERFORM SUCH DUTY, AND ANY PERSON CHARGED WITH SUCH DUTY, OR HAVING AND
EXERCISING ANY AUTHORITY UNDER SAID ACT, RULES, REGULATIONS, OR
DIRECTIONS WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY MAKE, OR BE A PARTY TO THE MAKING, OF
ANY FALSE, IMPROPER, OR INCORRECT REGISTRATION, CLASSIFICATION,
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAMINATION, DEFERMENT, INDUCTION, ENROLLMENT, OR
MUSTER, AND ANY PERSON WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY MAKE, OR BE A PARTY TO THE
MAKING OF, ANY FALSE STATEMENT OR CERTIFICATE AS TO THE FITNESS OR
UNFITNESS OR LIABILITY OR NONLIABILITY OF HIMSELF OR ANY OTHER PERSON
FOR SERVICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR RULES, REGULATIONS, OR
DIRECTIONS MADE PURSUANT THERETO, OR WHO OTHERWISE EVADES REGISTRATION
OR SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS ACT, OR WHO KNOWINGLY COUNSELS, AIDS, OR ABETS ANOTHER TO EVADE
REGISTRATION OR SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR ANY OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT, OR OF SAID RULES, REGULATIONS, OR DIRECTIONS,
OR WHO IN ANY MANNER SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM ANY
DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM UNDER OR IN THE EXECUTION OF THIS ACT, OR RULES OR
REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS ACT, OR ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHO
SHALL KNOWINGLY HINDER OR INTERFERE IN ANY WAY BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT OR THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE
PURSUANT THERETO, OR CONSPIRE TO DO SO, SHALL, UPON CONVICTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF, BE
PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT
MORE THAN $10,000, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT  ..."  THE
IT PUNISHES CONSPIRACY "ON THE COMMON LAW FOOTING."  NASH V. UNITED
STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 378.  HENCE THE INDICTMENT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE
WORDS "OR CONSPIRE TO DO SO" EXTEND TO ALL CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT
OFFENSES AGAINST THE ACT.  IT IS INSUFFICIENT IF THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE
IS LIMITED TO CONSPIRACIES TO "HINDER OR INTERFERE IN ANY WAY BY FORCE
OR VIOLENCE" WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  IF IT IS SO LIMITED
THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN THE INDICTMENT UNDER SEC.
37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88, WHICH REQUIRES THE
COMMISSION OF AN OVERT ACT.  FN1  SEE UNITED STATES V. RABINOWICH, 238
U.S. 78, 86. 

THOUGH THE MATTER IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT, WE THINK THE CONSPIRACY
CLAUSE OF SEC. 11 IS NOT LIMITED BUT EMBRACES ALL CONSPIRACIES TO
VIOLATE THE ACT.  THAT IS THE VIEW OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT (UNITED STATES V. O'CONNELL, 126, F.2D 807) AS WELL AS
THE COURT BELOW.  WE THINK THAT CONSTRUCTION IS GRAMMATICALLY
PERMISSIBLE AND CONFORMS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME. 

SEVEN OFFENSES PRECEDE THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE.  EACH IS SET OFF BY A
COMMA.  A COMMA ALSO PRECEDES THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE AND SEPARATES IT
FROM THE FORCE AND VIOLENCE PROVISION JUST AS THE LATTER IS SEPARATED
BY A COMMA FROM THE CLAUSE WHICH PRECEDES IT.  THE PUNCTUATION OF THE
SENTENCE INDICATES THAT THE DISJUNCTIVE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE IS THE LAST
INDEPENDENT CLAUSE OF A SERIES NOT A PART OF THE PRECEDING CLAUSE.  A
SUBJECT OF "CONSPIRE" MUST BE SUPPLIED HOWEVER THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE IS
READ.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE SUBJECT MUST BE PLURAL AND THAT THE SUBJECT
OF EACH OF THE PRECEDING CLAUSES IS SINGULAR EXCEPT "ANY PERSON OR
PERSONS" IN THE FORCE AND VIOLENCE CLAUSE.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE IS HITCHED SOLELY TO THE PRECEDING CLAUSE.  WHEN
READ AS APPLICABLE TO ALL THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, THE VERB "CONSPIRE"
IS PROPER SINCE SOME OF THE SUBJECTS WOULD BE SINGULAR AND SOME
PLURAL. 

A QUESTION REMAINS CONCERNING THE WORD "SO."  THE STRUCTURE OF THE
SENTENCE AS A WHOLE SUGGESTS THAT THE REFERENCE IS TO ALL THE OFFENSES
PREVIOUSLY ENUMERATED.  THE SEVEN OFFENSES WHICH PRECEDE THE CONSPIRACY
CLAUSE ARE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  EACH CARRIES THE SAME PENALTY AND IS
PUNISHABLE IN THE SAME MANNER.  THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE COMES LAST AND IS
SEPARATED FROM THE PRECEDING ONE BY A COMMA.  IF THE WORD "SO" IS READ
RESTRICTIVELY, THEN ONE TYPE OF CONSPIRACY IS SET APART FOR SPECIAL
TREATMENT.  IF OUR CONSTRUCTION IS TAKEN, A RATIONAL SCHEME RESULTS
WITH THE SAME MAXIMUM PENALTIES THROUGHOUT - ALL TYPES OF CONSPIRACIES
BEING TREATED EQUALLY, JUST AS THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES ARE TREATED
ALIKE.  NO PERSUASIVE REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED WHY THE WORDS "CONSPIRE
TO DO SO" SHOULD NOT CARRY THEIR NATURAL SIGNIFICANCE.  THE PRINCIPLE
OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY
MUST BE GIVEN THEIR NARROWEST POSSIBLE MEANING.  UNITED STATES V.
GILES, 300 U.S. 41, 48. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THROWS ONLY A LITTLE LIGHT ON THIS PROBLEM OF
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 11.  WHAT APPEARS IS A BRIEF STATEMENT BY
SENATOR SHEPPARD, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS,
WHO EXPLAINED THE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.  HE STATED THAT THE
PENALTY PROVISIONS OF THE BILL, WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS
THOSE OF THE WORLD WAR ACT.  EXPERIENCE WITH THE WORLD WAR PROVISIONS
SHOWS THAT THEY WORKED SATISFACTORILY IN PROVIDING THE NECESSARY
PROTECTION."  86 CONG. REC. 10095.  THE SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT OF 1917, 40
STAT. 76, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 201 ET SEQ., CONTAINED NO CONSPIRACY
PROVISION.  AND THE PENALTIES PRESCRIBED FOR THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES
WERE MILDER THAN THOSE CONTAINED IN THE PRESENT ACT.  FN2 CONSPIRACIES
TO COMMIT NONVIOLENT OFFENSES WERE PROSECUTED UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE WHICH, AS WE HAVE NOTED, REQUIRES AN OVERT ACT.  FN3
CONSPIRACIES INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE WERE PROSECUTED UNDER SEC. 6 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE, 35 STAT. 1089, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 6, WHICH PUNISHES
CONSPIRACIES "BY FORCE TO PREVENT, HINDER, OR DELAY THE EXECUTION OF
ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN4  SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
PROVIDES A PUNISHMENT OF NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT OR A
FINE OF $10,000 OR BOTH.  SEC. 6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE PROVIDES A
PUNISHMENT OF NOT MORE THAN SIX YEARS' IMPRISONMENT OR A $5,000 FINE,
OR BOTH.  SEC. 11 OF THE PRESENT ACT PROVIDES IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE
THAN FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF $10,000 OR BOTH.  BOTH SEC. 37 AND SEC. 6
OF THE CRIMINAL CODE WERE IN FORCE WHEN THE PRESENT ACT WAS ADOPTED. 

THE ADDITION OF THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE OF SEC. 11 WAS A DEPARTURE FROM
THE 1917 ACT AND A SUBSTANTIAL DEPARTURE AT THAT.  MOREOVER, THE "WORLD
WAR PROVISIONS" WHICH, ACCORDING TO SENATOR SHEPPARD, HAD PROVIDED "THE
NECESSARY PROTECTION" WERE CERTAINLY NOT THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1917 ACT
ALONE BUT THE CONSPIRACY STATUTES AS WELL.  HENCE, WE DO NOT TAKE HIS
STATEMENT TO MEAN THAT THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE CONTAINED IN THE 1917 ACT.  WE READ HIS
SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS COMMENTS AS INDICATING THAT HE WAS COMPARING THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1917 ACT PLUS THE
PROVISIONS OF OTHER STATUTES WHICH WERE EMPLOYED IN ENFORCING THAT
ACT.  THUS SENATOR SHEPPARD'S STATEMENT SUGGESTS THAT SEC. 11 WAS
DESIGNED TO CATALOGUE THE VARIOUS OFFENSES AGAINST THE ACT.  FN5  IT
SUGGESTS THAT THE PURPOSE OF INCLUDING A CONSPIRACY CLAUSE IN SEC. 11
WAS TO FURNISH A SINGLE BASIS FOR PROSECUTING ALL CONSPIRACIES TO
COMMIT OFFENSES AGAINST THE ACT.  THAT RESULTS IN PUNISHMENTS FOR SOME
CONSPIRACIES BEING INCREASED.  BUT THERE WAS LIKEWISE AN INCREASE IN
THE PENALTIES FOR SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES.  YET UNDER OUR INTERPRETATION
THE SANCTIONS PROVIDED BY SEC. 11 ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE SUM
OF THE VARIOUS SANCTIONS PROVIDED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE 1917 ACT. 

THE UNITED STATES SUGGESTS THAT IF THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE OF SEC. 11
IS CONSTRUED SO AS TO APPLY ONLY TO CONSPIRACIES TO OBSTRUCT THE ACT BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE IT WOULD MERELY DUPLICATE SEC. 6 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE AND HAVE NO EFFECT EXCEPT TO DECREASE THE MAXIMUM IMPRISONMENT FOR
THE OFFENSE FROM SIX YEARS TO FIVE.  IT IS SAID IN REPLY, HOWEVER, THAT
UNDER THE EARLIER ACT IT WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER CONSPIRACIES
CONTEMPLATING THE USE OF FORCE IN INTERFERING WITH ITS ADMINISTRATION
COULD BE PROSECUTED UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  CF. REEDER V.
UNITED STATES, 262 F. 36, WITH HAYWOOD V. UNITED STATES, 268 F. 795,
799.  AND IT IS ARGUED FROM THAT FACT THAT THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE OF
SEC. 11 WAS ADDED TO DISPEL THE UNCERTAINTY.  THAT IS LEFT TO
CONJECTURE.  THOUGH WE ASSUME THAT IT WAS A REASON FOR ADDING A
CONSPIRACY CLAUSE TO SEC. 11, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE CONSPIRACY
CLAUSE WHICH WAS FASHIONED IS SO LIMITED.  AND WHERE ANOTHER
INTERPRETATION IS WHOLLY PERMISSIBLE, WE WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO GIVE A
STATUTE THAT CONSTRUCTION WHICH MAKES IT WHOLLY REDUNDANT.  ONLY A
CLEAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE SHOULD LEAD TO THAT RESULT HERE. 

NOR DO WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUGGESTION THAT THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE WAS
ADDED MERELY TO FILL IN GAPS LEFT BY SEC. 6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE WHICH
COVERS ONLY CONSPIRACIES TO OBSTRUCT BY FORCE "THE EXECUTION OF ANY LAW
OF THE UNITED STATES."  IT IS SAID THAT UNITED STATES V. EATON, 144
U.S. 677, ESTABLISHED AS A PRINCIPLE OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW THAT A
PROVISION WHICH ONLY PUNISHES VIOLATIONS OF A "LAW" DOES NOT COVER
VIOLATIONS OF RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT LAW. 
IT IS THEREFORE ARGUED THAT SEC. 6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE DOES NOT
EMBRACE VIOLATIONS OF RULES OR REGULATIONS AND THAT SEC. 11 FILLED THAT
GAP BY ADDING "RULES OR REGULATIONS" TO THE FORCE AND VIOLENCE CLAUSE. 
HERE AGAIN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY LEAVES THAT QUESTION WHOLLY TO
CONJECTURE.  UNITED STATES V. EATON TURNED ON ITS SPECIAL FACTS, AS
UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506, 518-519, EMPHASIZES.  IT HAS
NOT BEEN CONSTRUED TO STATE A FIXED PRINCIPLE THAT A REGULATION CAN
NEVER BE A "LAW" FOR PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.  IT MAY OR MAY
NOT BE, DEPENDING ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE PARTICULAR STATUTE.  THE
EATON CASE INVOLVED A STATUTE WHICH LEVIED A TAX ON OLEOMARGARINE AND
REGULATED IN DETAIL OLEOMARGARINE MANUFACTURERS.  SEC. 5 OF THE STATUTE
PROVIDED FOR THE KEEPING OF SUCH BOOKS AND RECORDS AS THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY MIGHT REQUIRE.  BUT IT PROVIDED NO PENALTY FOR NON
COMPLIANCE.  OTHER SECTIONS, HOWEVER, LAID DOWN OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR
MANUFACTURERS AND PRESCRIBED PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.  SEC. 20 GAVE
THE SECRETARY THE POWER TO MAKE "ALL NEEDFUL REGULATIONS" FOR ENFORCING
THE ACT.  A REGULATION WAS PROMULGATED UNDER SEC. 20 REQUIRING
WHOLESALERS TO KEEP A PRESCRIBED RECORD.  THE PROSECUTION WAS FOR NON
COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REGULATION.  SEC. 18 IMPOSED CRIMINAL PENALTIES
FOR FAILURE TO DO ANY OF THE THINGS "REQUIRED BY LAW."  THE COURT HELD
THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION PROMULGATED UNDER SEC. 20 WAS NOT
AN OFFENSE.  IT REASONED THAT SINCE CONGRESS HAD PRESCRIBED PENALTIES
FOR CERTAIN ACTS BUT NOT FOR THE FAILURE TO KEEP BOOKS THE OMISSION
COULD NOT BE SUPPLIED BY REGULATION.  AND CONGRESS HAD NOT ADDED
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS TO THE RULES PROMULGATED UNDER SEC. 20 OF THAT ACT. 
THE SITUATION HERE IS QUITE DIFFERENT.  SEC. 11 OF THE PRESENT ACT
MAKES IT A CRIME TO DO SPECIFIED ACTS, EITHER BY WAY OF OMISSION OR
COMMISSION, IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT OR THE RULES OR REGULATIONS ISSUED
UNDER IT.  THUS IT IS A FELONY FOR A PERSON TO "FAIL OR NEGLECT TO
PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM UNDER OR IN THE EXECUTION OF THIS ACT,
OR RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS ACT."  SEC. 11 IS
THEREFORE A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH IMPOSES CRIMINAL SANCTIONS
FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS.  SINCE CONGRESS
HAS MADE THE VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS A FELONY, IT CAN HARDLY BE
CONTENDED THAT THOSE REGULATIONS ARE NOT A "LAW" FOR THE PURPOSES OF
SEC. 6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  BUT THOUGH WE ASSUME THAT UNITED STATES
V. EATON WAS A REASON FOR ADDING A CONSPIRACY CLAUSE TO SEC. 11, WE
CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE ONE WHICH WAS ADDED HAD THE NARROW SCOPE
SUGGESTED.  WHATEVER THE REASON, WORDS MEAN WHAT THEY SAY.  AND IF WE
GIVE THE WORDS "CONSPIRE TO DO SO" THEIR NATURAL MEANING, WE DO NOT
MAKE THE ACT A TRAP FOR THE INNOCENT.    WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT
MARTIN H. SINGER DIED ON OCTOBER 1, 1944.  THE WRIT IS ACCORDINGLY
DISMISSED AS TO HIM (MENKEN V. ATLANTA, 131 U.S. 405; UNITED STATES V.
JOHNSON, 319 U.S. 503, 520) AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR SUCH DISPOSITION AS LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRE.  UNITED STATES
V. POMEROY, 152 F. 279, REV'D 164 F. 324; UNITED STATES V. DUNNE, 173
F. 254. 

THE JUDGMENT AS RESPECTS WILLARD I. SINGER IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THAT SECTION PROVIDES: 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE EITHER TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN ANY MANNER OR FOR
ANY PURPOSE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PARTIES DO ANY ACT TO EFFECT THE
OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH OF THE PARTIES TO SUCH CONSPIRACY SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS,
OR BOTH." 

FN2  THE 1917 ACT PUNISHED VARIOUS SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES OF THE KIND
COVERED BY SEC. 11 OF THE PRESENT ACT BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN
ONE YEAR.  SEE SECS. 5 AND 6. 

FN3  SEE UNITED STATES V. MCHUGH, 253 F. 224; ANDERSON V. UNITED
STATES, 269 F. 65; O'CONNELL V. UNITED STATES, 253 U.S. 142; GOLDMAN V.
UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 474. 

FN4 SEE ENFIELD V. UNITED STATES, 261 F. 141; REEDER V. UNITED
STATES, 262 F. 36.  BUT SEE HAYWOOD V. UNITED STATES, 268 F. 795. 

CONSPIRACIES WERE ALSO PROSECUTED UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT
OF JUNE 15, 1917, 40 STAT. 217, 219, 41 STAT. 1359, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 34,
WHICH LIKE SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE REQUIRES AN OVERT ACT.  SEE
FROHWERK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 204; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 252
U.S. 239.  BUT THAT SECTION IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN TIME OF WAR AND HENCE
WAS NOT OPERATIVE WHEN THE PRESENT ACT BECAME THE LAW ON SEPTEMBER 16,
1940. 

FN5  WHETHER, AS ASSUMED IN UNITED STATES V. OFFUTT, 127 F.2D 336,
THERE MAY BE CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE SEC. 11 WHICH CAN STILL BE
PROSECUTED UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE IS A QUESTION WE DO NOT
REACH. 

IF ONLY ONE OF THE STATUTES IS APPLICABLE TO A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
SEC. 11, THE LATTER UNDER WHICH PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED IS
CONTROLLING, AS IT IS A LATER STATUTE PRESCRIBING PRECISE PENALTIES FOR
SPECIFIED OFFENSES.  CALLAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 285 U.S. 515, 518. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING. 

IN THE PAST, TO SOFTEN THE UNDUE RIGORS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW, COURTS
FREQUENTLY EMPLOYED CANONS OF ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTION TO RESTRICT THE
TRANSPARENT SCOPE OF CRIMINAL STATUTES.  I AM NO FRIEND OF SUCH
ARTIFICIALLY RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATIONS.  CRIMINAL STATUTES SHOULD BE
GIVEN THE MEANING THAT THEIR LANGUAGE MOST OBVIOUSLY INVITES UNLESS
AUTHORITATIVE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR ABSURD CONSEQUENCES PRECLUDE SUCH
NATURAL MEANING.  THERE ARE SURELY DEEP CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WHY
THE SCOPE OF CRIMINAL CONDEMNATION SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED BY A STRAINED
READING.  THE NATURAL READING OF THE CONSPIRACY PROVISION OF SEC. 11 OF
THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1940  FN1  CONFINES ITS APPLICATION TO THE
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING CLAUSE WHICH PUNISHES "ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHO
SHALL KNOWINGLY HINDER OR INTERFERE IN ANY WAY BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT OR THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE
PURSUANT THERETO."  SINCE NO ABSURD CONSEQUENCES PRECLUDE THE INDICATED
NATURAL READING OF THIS CRIMINAL STATUTE AND SINCE ALL AVAILABLE
EXTRANEOUS AIDS CONFIRM THE RENDERING WHICH THE TEXT INVITES, I THINK
IT SHOULD BE GIVEN IT. 

IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT IF ONE WERE READING SEC. 11
WITHOUT CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEM NOW BEFORE US AND MERELY AS A
MATTER OF ENGLISH ONE WOULD MAKE THE "SO" IN THE PHRASE "CONSPIRE TO DO
SO" RELATE BACK TO ALL THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE TWENTY-TWO PRECEDING
LINES RATHER THAN TO THE "FORCE OR VIOLENCE" CLAUSE IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING.  THE STRUCTURE OF THE SENTENCE, GRAMMAR, AND CLARITY OF
EXPRESSION COMBINE TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE PHRASE "TO DO SO" A LIMITED
REFERENCE INSTEAD OF MAKING "SO" CARRY THE BURDEN OF THE WHOLE
PARAGRAPH AS ANTECEDENT.  GOOD SENSE REINFORCES THESE TEXTUAL
CONSIDERATIONS.  IT IS MADE AN OFFENSE TO CONSPIRE TO VIOLATE NOT ONLY
THE SEVEN SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES ENUMERATED BY CONGRESS BUT ALSO THE
MULTITUDINOUS "RULES AND REGULATIONS."  THERE IS AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE ANY RULE ISSUED
UNDER THE ACT AND A MERE UNEXECUTED ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE
PEACEFULLY TO ESCAPE ONE OF SUCH RULES. 

ALL EXTRANEOUS AIDS CONFIRM RATHER THAN CONTRADICT THIS CONSTRUCTION. 

THE ONLY AUTHORITATIVE LEGISLATIVE COMMENTARY WE HAVE ON SEC. 11 IS
THE STATEMENT BY SENATOR SHEPPARD, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON
MILITARY AFFAIRS, IN A FORMAL SPEECH EXPOUNDING THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT.  THERE IS EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SENATOR SHEPPARD'S
SPEECH HAD BEHIND IT THE AUTHORITY OF THOSE WHO FRAMED THIS LEGISLATION
AND WHO WERE COGNIZANT OF THE PRIOR LEGISLATION UPON WHICH THEY WERE
BUILDING.  SENATOR SHEPPARD STATED THAT SEC. 11 "CONTAINS THE PENALTY
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL, WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE OF
THE WORLD WAR ACT.  EXPERIENCE WITH THE WORLD WAR PROVISIONS SHOWS THAT
THEY WORKED SATISFACTORILY IN PROVIDING THE NECESSARY PROTECTION."  86
CONG. REC. 10095.  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SENATOR SHEPPARD SPOKE OF THE
"WORLD WAR PROVISIONS" AND THEREBY EVIDENTLY HAD IN MIND THE VARIOUS
ENACTMENTS AVAILABLE FOR DEALING WITH INTERFERENCES WITH THE RAISING OF
AN ARMY. 

IN ITS ARSENAL OF PUNISHMENT THE GOVERNMENT HAD PROVISIONS DEALING
SPECIFICALLY WITH CONSPIRACIES AFFECTING THE RECRUITING OF AN ARMY AS
WELL AS THE ALL-COMPREHENDING CONSPIRACY STATUTE OUTLAWING CONSPIRACIES
TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES - AN OLD ENACTMENT
KNOWN TO EVERY TYRO OF FEDERAL LAW SINCE RECONSTRUCTION DAYS (R.S. SEC.
5440, ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867).  WHAT THEN WERE THE SPECIFIC CONSPIRACY
PROVISIONS WHICH WERE "SUBSTANTIALLY" DRAWN UPON FOR THIS WAR FROM THE
LEGISLATION OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR?  (A) SECTION 6 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 6, PUNISHED CONSPIRACIES "BY FORCE TO PREVENT,
HINDER, OR DELAY THE EXECUTION OF ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES  ..." 
WITH A FINE OF $5,000 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX YEARS OR BOTH.  NO OVERT
ACT WAS REQUIRED FOR PROSECUTION FOR THIS CONSPIRACY.  (B) SECTION 4 OF
THE ESPIONAGE ACT, 40 STAT. 217, 219, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 34, OUTLAWED
CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE SECS. 2 AND 3 OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT, TO BE
PUNISHED BY A FINE OF $10,000, IMPRISONMENT FOR TWENTY YEARS OR BOTH. 
BUT WAS NOT, HOWEVER, OPERATIVE WHEN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT WAS
ENACTED BECAUSE IT APPLIES ONLY "WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR." 

IF THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE IN SEC. 11 IS CONFINED TO OFFENSES INVOLVING
FORCE OR VIOLENCE, THE PROVISIONS AS TO CONSPIRACY REMAIN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME UNDER THE 1940 ACT AS THEY WERE DURING THE LAST WAR. 
CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT NONVIOLENT OFFENSES - THAT IS, CONSPIRACIES TO
COMMIT THE RANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, SOME OF THEM RATHER MINOR IN
CHARACTER, CONTAINED IN SEC. 11 - ARE OF COURSE STILL PUNISHABLE UNDER
THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY PROVISION, TO WIT SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE,
AS WAS THE SITUATION DURING THE LAST WAR.  OFFENSES OF VIOLENCE WHICH
FELL WITHIN SEC. 6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE IN 1917 ARE NOW INCLUDED WITHIN
SEC. 11, NEITHER OF WHICH REQUIRES AN OVERT ACT.  THE PUNISHMENT FOR
THESE CONSPIRACIES OF VIOLENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR - A $5,000 FINE
AND SIX YEARS IMPRISONMENT UNDER SEC. 6 AND A $10,000 FINE AND FIVE
YEARS IMPRISONMENT UNDER SEC. 11.  SENATOR SHEPPARD'S DESIRE FOR
PENALTIES "WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS  ...  THE WORLD WAR
PROVISIONS" WOULD THUS APPEAR TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. 

BUT THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT IF SEC. 11 OF THE 1940 ACT MERELY HITS
A CONSPIRACY TO DO AN ACT OF VIOLENCE, THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE WILL BE
REDUNDANT IN THAT IT WILL ACCOMPLISH NOTHING EXCEPT TO INCREASE THE
LIMIT OF THE FINE FROM $5,000 TO $10,000 AND TO DECREASE THE ALLOWABLE
IMPRISONMENT FROM SIX YEARS TO FIVE YEARS.  THIS ARGUMENT WHOLLY
OVERLOOKS TWO IMPORTANT CHANGES EFFECTED BY THE CONSPIRACY PROVISION OF
THE 1940 ACT.  THE CASES HAD RAISED DOUBT WHETHER SEC. 6 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE WAS PROPERLY APPLICABLE TO CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE BY
FORCE THE DRAFT ACT.  COMPARE REEDER V. UNITED STATES, 262 F. 36, CERT.
DENIED, 252 U.S. 581, WITH HAYWOOD V. UNITED STATES, 268 F. 795, 799,
CERT. DENIED, 256 U.S. 689.  BY SPECIFIC INCLUSION OF A CONSPIRACY
PROVISION IN THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT, INSTEAD OF LEAVING IT TO THE
GENERALITY OF SEC. 6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, THE DOUBT WAS COMPLETELY
ELIMINATED.  THAT IN ITSELF SAVES THE CONSPIRACY PROVISION FROM MERE
REDUNDANCY, FOR IT GIVES IT, AS A MATTER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, AN
IMPORTANT FUNCTION. 

THE GOVERNMENT ALSO FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE CONSPIRACY
PROVISION OF SEC. 11 ADDED CONSIDERABLY TO THE SCOPE OF SEC. 6 - THAT
THE NET OF SEC. 11 WOULD CATCH MANY OFFENDERS LEFT FREE BY SEC. 6 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THE LATTER MERELY REACHES CONSPIRACIES TO OBSTRUCT
BY FORCE THE OPERATION OF "ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES."  FOR MORE
THAN HALF A CENTURY, EVER SINCE UNITED STATES V. EATON, 144 U.S. 677,
IT HAS BEEN THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW THAT A
PROVISION MERELY PUNISHING VIOLATION OF A "LAW" DOES NOT COVER
VIOLATIONS OF RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT LAW. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506, 518-519.  SECTION 6,
THEREFORE, DOES NOT COVER VIOLATIONS OF RULES OR REGULATIONS.  SECTION
11 OF THE 1940 ACT MADE AN IMPORTANT ADDITION IN THAT IT PUNISHES
CONSPIRACIES TO INTERFERE FORCIBLY NOT MERELY "WITH THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THIS ACT" BUT ALSO WITH "THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT
THERETO." 

UNITED STATES V. EATON IS NOT A JUDICIAL SPORT.  IT IS THE
APPLICATION OF A PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN UNDEVIATINGLY APPLIED BY THIS
COURT - MOST RECENTLY IN VIERECK V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 236, 241 -
AND UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH CONGRESS LEGISLATES.  IN RE KOLLOCK, 165
U.S. 526; UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. GEORGE, 228
U.S. 14.  THE PRINCIPLE IS THAT A CRIME IS DEFINED BY CONGRESS, NOT BY
AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SMULL, 236 U.S. 405, 409. 
"WHERE THE CHARGE IS OF CRIME, IT MUST HAVE CLEAR LEGISLATIVE BASIS." 
UNITED STATES V. GEORGE, SUPRA, AT 22.  IT IS ONLY WHEN CONGRESS IN
ADVANCE PRESCRIBES CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF AUTHORIZED
RULES THAT VIOLATIONS OF SUCH RULES CAN BE PUNISHED AS CRIMES.  IT IS
THIS FAR-REACHING DISTINCTION WHICH, IT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE GRIMAUD
CASE, PUT ON ONE SIDE THE DOCTRINE OF THE EATON CASE, WHERE VIOLATION
OF RULES AND REGULATIONS WAS NOT MADE CRIMINAL, AND ON THE OTHER SIDE
LEGISLATION SUCH AS THAT ENFORCED IN THE GRIMAUD CASE WHERE CONGRESS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT "ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
OR SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS (OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE) SHALL
BE PUNISHED."  UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, SUPRA, AT 515.  CONGRESS
CONSCIOUSLY GAVE AN EFFECT TO THE CONSPIRACY CLAUSE OF SEC. 11 WHICH IS
ABSENT FROM THAT OF SEC. 6 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. 

THERE IS ANOTHER STRONG GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE DRAFTSMEN OF
THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT DID NOT INTEND BY ITS DUBIOUS LANGUAGE TO
EXTEND THE CONSPIRACY PROVISION BEYOND VIOLENT ATTEMPTS AND TO SWEEP
INTO THIS CLAUSE ALL CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE THE ACT OR ANY OF ITS
REGULATIONS.  WHENEVER CONGRESS DESIRES TO MAKE A CONSPIRACY PROVISION
APPLY TO A WHOLE SERIES OF SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, IT DOES SO
EXPLICITLY.  EITHER THE CONSPIRACY PROVISION IS SET OFF IN A SEPARATE
ELSE CLEAR WORDS OF REFERENCE TO "ANY PROVISION" OR "ANY OF THE ACTS
MADE UNLAWFUL" ARE EMPLOYED.  SEE NATIONAL STOLEN PROPERTY ACT, SEC. 7,
53 STAT. 1178, 1179, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 418A; FARM CREDIT ACT, SEC. 64(F),
48 STAT. 257, 269, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 1138(F); SHERMAN ACT, SECS. 1-3, 26
STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1-3; ACT OF JULY 31, 1861, R.S.
SEC. 1980, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 47.  THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EXPLICITNESS IN THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT IS A STRONG INDICATION THAT NO SUCH SWEEPING
SCOPE WAS INTENDED. 

A STATUTE DEFINING SPECIFIC CRIMES PRESENTS TO COURTS A VERY
DIFFERENT DUTY OF CONSTRUCTION THAN DO REGULATORY ENACTMENTS WHEREIN
CONGRESS RECITES A BROAD POLICY IN LIGHT OF WHICH THE SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATORY SCHEME MUST BE CONSTRUED.  IN THE LATTER
SITUATION, A PARTICULAR PROVISION OF A STATUTE DERIVES MEANING FROM THE
BROAD POLICY EXPRESSED.  SEE PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313
U.S. 177, 194.  IN A CRIMINAL STATUTE LIKE THE ONE NOW UNDER REVIEW
LANGUAGE DEFINING THE CRIME IS SELF-CONTAINED - THERE IS NO BACKGROUND
OF BROAD POLICY TO GUIDE THE DUTY OF GIVING SUCH LANGUAGE ITS EASY,
MOST NATURAL MEANING. 

IN THE PAST, DECISIONS UNDOUBTEDLY WORKED HARD TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF
A CRIMINAL STATUTE.  IT IS AGAINST THE WHOLE TENOR OF READING A
CRIMINAL STATUTE TO WORK HARD TO GIVE IT THE BROADEST POSSIBLE SCOPE. 
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONGRESS FOR MANIFESTING ITS WILL IS ILL SERVED
BY EASY-GOING JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES. 

THESE VIEWS CALL FOR REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  54 STAT. 885, 894, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311.  "ANY PERSON CHARGED
AS HEREIN PROVIDED WITH THE DUTY OF CARRYING OUT ANY OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT, OR THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE OR DIRECTIONS GIVEN
THEREUNDER, WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM SUCH DUTY,
AND ANY PERSON CHARGED WITH SUCH DUTY, OR HAVING AND EXERCISING ANY
AUTHORITY UNDER SAID ACT, RULES, REGULATIONS, OR DIRECTIONS WHO SHALL
KNOWINGLY MAKE, OR BE A PARTY TO THE MAKING, OF ANY FALSE, IMPROPER, OR
INCORRECT REGISTRATION, CLASSIFICATION, PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAMINATION,
DEFERMENT, INDUCTION, ENROLLMENT, OR MUSTER, AND ANY PERSON WHO SHALL
KNOWINGLY MAKE, OR BE A PARTY TO THE MAKING OF, ANY FALSE STATEMENT OR
CERTIFICATE AS TO THE FITNESS OR UNFITNESS OR LIABILITY OR NONLIABILITY
OF HIMSELF OR ANY OTHER PERSON FOR SERVICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT, OR RULES, REGULATIONS, OR DIRECTIONS MADE PURSUANT THERETO, OR WHO
OTHERWISE EVADES REGISTRATION OR SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OR
ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT, OR WHO KNOWINGLY COUNSELS, AIDS,
OR ABETS ANOTHER TO EVADE REGISTRATION OR SERVICE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL
FORCES OR ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT, OR OF SAID RULES,
REGULATIONS, OR DIRECTIONS, OR WHO IN ANY MANNER SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL
OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM UNDER OR IN THE
EXECUTION OF THIS ACT, OR RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO THIS
ACT, OR ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY HINDER OR INTERFERE
IN ANY WAY BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT OR
THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT THERETO, OR CONSPIRE TO DO SO,
SHALL, UPON CONVICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF, BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE
THAN FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR BY BOTH SUCH
FINE AND IMPRISONMENT  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :

















UNITED STATES V. WADDILL CO., 323 U.S. 353 


NO. 65.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1945.  - 182
VA. 351, 28 S.E.2D 741, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466, CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST AN
INSOLVENT DEBTOR WHO HAS MADE AN ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS, HELD ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER LIENS HERE ASSERTED UNDER
VIRGINIA LAW BY A LANDLORD FOR RENT AND BY A MUNICIPALITY FOR TAXES. 
P. 355. 

2.  WHETHER A LIEN CREATED BY STATE STATUTE IS OF SUCH CHARACTER AS
TO BRING IT WITHIN A CLAIMED EXCEPTION TO THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466 IS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  P. 356. 

UNITED STATES V. WADDILL, HOLLAND & FLINN, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 722, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DETERMINING THE PRIORITY OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS OF CREDITORS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER, IN A STATE PROCEEDING UNDER A GENERAL
ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, SECTION 3466 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 191, GIVES PRIORITY TO A CLAIM OF THE UNITED
STATES OVER A LANDLORD'S LIEN AND A MUNICIPAL TAX LIEN. 

MRS. OELAND ROMAN, THE ASSIGNOR, OPERATED A RESTAURANT IN DANVILLE,
VIRGINIA, ON PREMISES LEASED FROM RESPONDENT WADDILL, HOLLAND & FLINN,
INC. ON JUNE 19, 1941, SHE EXECUTED A GENERAL DEED OF ASSIGNMENT TO A
TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, SPECIFICALLY CONVEYING ALL
PERSONAL PROPERTY, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT USED BY HER IN THE CONDUCT OF
THE RESTAURANT AND LOCATED ON THE PREMISES.  THIS PROPERTY REMAINED ON
THE PREMISES UNTIL SOLD BY THE TRUSTEE ON JULY 12, 1941.  AFTER
DEDUCTION OF APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, A SUM OF $1,407.29
REMAINED.  FOUR CREDITORS CLAIMED PRIORITY OF PAYMENT FROM THIS
AMOUNT. 

(1)  THE UNITED STATES CLAIMED THE SUM OF $1,559.63, PLUS INTEREST,
REPRESENTING CERTAIN UNPAID FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAXES AND
A DEBT ARISING OUT OF A FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION TRANSACTION. 

(2)  THE VIRGINIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION MADE A TAX
CLAIM OF $66.38, PLUS INTEREST.  THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM, HOWEVER, WAS
CONCEDED TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THAT OF THE UNITED STATES AND NEED NOT BE
FURTHER CONSIDERED HERE. 

(3)  THE CITY OF DANVILLE CLAIMED $300.55 AS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES
STILL UNPAID.  ON JULY 2, 1941, THE CITY COLLECTOR DISTRAINED ON ALL OF
THE PROPERTY ON THE LEASED PREMISES. 

(4)  THE LANDLORD, WADDILL, HOLLAND & FLINN, INC., CLAIMED $1,500.00
FOR SIX MONTHS' RENT DUE AND TO BECOME DUE.  THE ASSIGNOR'S LEASE FROM
THIS FIRM RAN FOR FIVE YEARS BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1937, AT A MONTHLY
RENTAL OF $250.00.  ON JULY 1, 1941, TWELVE DAYS AFTER THE DEED OF
ASSIGNMENT WAS EXECUTED, THE FIRM OBTAINED THE ISSUANCE OF A DISTRESS
WARRANT FOR 3 2/5 MONTHS' PAST DUE RENT AND AN ATTACHMENT FOR 2 3/5
MONTHS' FUTURE INSTALLMENTS OF RENT.  ON THE SAME DAY, THE FIRM LEVIED
THE WARRANT AND ATTACHMENT ON THE ASSIGNOR'S PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
LEASED PREMISES. 

THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE GENERAL ASSIGNMENT FILED A PETITION IN THE
CORPORATION COURT OF DANVILLE, RECITING THE VARIOUS CLAIMS AND
REQUESTING ADVICE AS TO THE PROPER DISTRIBUTION.  THAT COURT HELD THAT
THE LANDLORD WAS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY IN PAYMENT OVER THE CLAIMS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE VIRGINIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION BUT
THAT ITS CLAIM WAS SUBORDINATE TO THAT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE FOR
TAXES IN THE SUM OF $222.31.  ON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES, THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA AFFIRMED THIS ORDER OF
DISTRIBUTION.  182 VA. 351, 28 S.E.2D 741.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED AND BECAUSE OF
ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN NEW YORK V. MACLAY,
288 U.S. 290, AND UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 314 U.S. 480. 

"THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE FIRST SATISFIED" WHENEVER
ANY PERSON INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IS INSOLVENT OR, "NOT HAVING
SUFFICIENT PROPERTY TO PAY ALL HIS DEBTS, MAKES A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT
THEREOF."  WE HOLD THAT THIS STATUTE CLEARLY SUBORDINATES THE CLAIMS OF
BOTH THE LANDLORD AND THE MUNICIPALITY TO THAT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW MUST ACCORDINGLY BE REVERSED. 

THE WORDS OF SEC. 3466 ARE BROAD AND SWEEPING AND, ON THEIR FACE,
ADMIT OF NO EXCEPTION TO THE PRIORITY OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THELUSSON V. SMITH, 2 WHEAT.  396, 425; UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, SUPRA,
484.  BUT THIS COURT IN THE PAST HAS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS
COULD BE READ INTO THIS STATUTE.  THE QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN EXPRESSLY
DECIDED, HOWEVER, AS TO WHETHER THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES MIGHT
BE DEFEATED BY A SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED LIEN UPON THE PROPERTY AT THE
TIME OF THE INSOLVENCY OR VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT.  CONARD V. ATLANTIC
INSURANCE CO., 1 PET. 386, 441, 444; BRENT V. BANK OF WASHINGTON, 10
PET. 596, 611, 612; SPOKANE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 80, 95;
UNITED STATES V. KNOTT, 298 U.S. 544, 551; NEW YORK V. MACLAY, SUPRA,
293, 294; UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 485, 486.  IT IS WITHIN THIS
SUGGESTED EXCEPTION THAT THE LANDLORD AND THE MUNICIPALITY SEEK TO
BRING THEMSELVES.  ONCE AGAIN, HOWEVER, WE DO NOT REACH A DECISION AS
TO WHETHER SUCH AN EXCEPTION IS PERMISSIBLE FOR WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
THE ASSERTED LIENS OF THE LANDLORD AND THE MUNICIPALITY WERE
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED ON THE DATE OF THE VOLUNTARY
ASSIGNMENT TO CAST ANY SERIOUS DOUBT ON THE PRIORITY OF THE CLAIM OF
THE UNITED STATES. 

THE LANDLORD RESTS ITS CLAIM UPON CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE VIRGINIA
CODE OF 1936.  SECTIONS 5519 AND 5523 AUTHORIZE A LANDLORD TO LEVY
DISTRESS FOR SIX MONTHS' RENT UPON "ANY GOODS OF THE LESSEE  ...  FOUND
ON THE PREMISES, OR WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN REMOVED THEREFROM NOT MORE THAN
THIRTY DAYS  ....  FOR NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS' RENT IF THE PREMISES
ARE IN A CITY OR TOWN."  SECTION 5524 PROVIDES THAT THE GOODS OF THE
TENANT ON LEASED PREMISES IN A CITY OR TOWN MAY NOT BE REMOVED BY A
LIENOR OR PURCHASER, NOR TAKEN UNDER LEGAL PROCESS, SAVE "ON THE TERMS
OF PAYING TO THE PERSON ENTITLED TO THE RENT SO MUCH AS IS IN ARREAR,
AND SECURING TO HIM SO MUCH AS IS TO BECOME DUE," NOT TO EXCEED SIX
MONTHS' RENT.  OTHER SECTIONS PROVIDE FOR OFFICERS MAKING THE DISTRESS
UNDER WARRANT FROM A JUSTICE, FOUNDED UPON AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PERSON
CLAIMING THE RENT, AND FOR SUCH OFFICERS TO MAKE RETURNS OF THEIR
ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS UPON SUCH WARRANTS.  PROVISIONS ARE ALSO MADE
FOR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS LOOKING TOWARD THE POSSESSION AND SALE OF THE
PROPERTY TO SATISFY THE DEBT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA HAS HERE HELD THAT THESE
ONE WHICH IS MERELY INCHOATE, AND THAT SUCH A LIEN EXISTS INDEPENDENT
OF THE RIGHT OF DISTRESS OR ATTACHMENT, WHICH ARE MERELY REMEDIES FOR
ENFORCING IT."  182 VA. AT 363, 28 S.W.2D AT 746.  IT HAS ALSO HELD
THAT SUCH A LIEN "RELATES BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE TENANCY," 182
VA. AT 364, 28 S.E.2D AT 746, THUS GIVING IT FORCE AND EFFECT ON DATE
OF THE VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT.  THESE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA
STATUTES, AS PROPOSITIONS OF STATE LAW, ARE BINDING.  BUT IT IS A
MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW AS TO WHETHER A LIEN CREATED BY STATE STATUTE IS
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED TO RAISE QUESTIONS AS TO THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE PRIORITY GIVEN THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES BY
AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  IF THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS EVER TO BE
DISPLACED BY A LOCAL STATUTORY LIEN, FEDERAL COURTS MUST BE FREE TO
EXAMINE THE LIEN'S ACTUAL LEGAL EFFECT UPON THE PARTIES.  A STATE
COURT'S CHARACTERIZATION OF A LIEN AS SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED, HOWEVER
CONCLUSIVE AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW, CANNOT OPERATE BY ITSELF TO IMPAIR
OR SUPERSEDE A LONG-STANDING CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF PRIORITY. 
FIELD V. UNITED STATES, 9 PET. 182, 201; UNITED STATES V. OKLAHOMA, 261
U.S. 253, 260; SPOKANE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 90. 

TESTED BY ITS LEGAL EFFECT UNDER VIRGINIA LAW, THE LANDLORD'S LIEN IN
THIS INSTANCE APPEARED TO SERVE "MERELY AS A CAVEAT OF A MORE PERFECT
LIEN TO COME."  NEW YORK V. MACLAY, SUPRA, 294.  AS OF THE DATE OF THE
VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT, IT WAS NEITHER SPECIFIC NOR PERFECTED.  IT GAVE
THE LANDLORD ONLY A GENERAL POWER OVER UNSPECIFIED PROPERTY RATHER THAN
AN ACTUAL INTEREST IN A DEFINITIVE PORTION OR PORTIONS THEREOF. 

SPECIFICITY WAS CLEARLY LACKING AS TO THE LIEN ON JUNE 19, 1941, THE
DATE OF THE ASSIGNMENT.  ON THAT DAY IT WAS STILL UNCERTAIN WHETHER THE
LANDLORD WOULD EVER ASSERT AND INSIST UPON ITS STATUTORY LIEN.  UNTIL
THAT WAS DONE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE PARTICULAR SIX MONTHS'
RENT, OR A PROPORTION THEREOF, UPON WHICH THE LIEN WAS BASED.  THE LIEN
DID NOT RELATE TO ANY PARTICULAR SIX MONTHS' RENT BUT COULD ATTACH ONLY
FOR THE RENT WHICH MIGHT BE DUE AT OR AFTER THE TIME WHEN THE LIEN WAS
ASSERTED.  WADES V. FIGGATT, 75 VA. 575, 582.  AND IF IT WERE ASSERTED
AT A TIME WHEN THE TENANCY HAD TERMINATED OR WOULD TERMINATE WITHIN SIX
MONTHS OF THE DATE TO WHICH RENT HAD BEEN FULLY PAID, THE LIEN COULD
ONLY COVER LESS THAN SIX MONTHS' RENT.  CONCEIVABLY THE AMOUNT OF RENT
DUE OR TO BECOME DUE WAS UNCERTAIN ON THE DAY OF THE ASSIGNMENT.  THE
LANDLORD MAY HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN AS TO THE RENTAL RATE OR AS TO PAYMENTS
PREVIOUSLY MADE AND THE TENANT MAY HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO A SET-OFF. 
SEE ALLEN V. HART, 18 GRATT.  (59 VA.)  722, 737; HANCOCK V. WHITEHALL
TOBACCO CO., 100 VA. 443, 447, 41 S.E. 860.  MOREOVER, WHILE THE LIEN
LEGALLY ATTACHED TO ALL SUCH PROPERTY AS MIGHT BE ON THE PREMISES WHEN
THE LIEN WAS ASSERTED OR WITHIN THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO DISTRAINT, THE
LANDLORD COULD DISTRAIN GOODS ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO SATISFY
THE RENT JUSTLY BELIEVED TO BE DUE, THE TENANT POSSESSING AN ACTION FOR
DAMAGES FOR EXCESSIVE DISTRAINT.  VA. CODE SEC. 5783; FISHBURNE V.
ENGLEDOVE, 91 VA. 548, 22 S.E. 354; GURFEIN V. HOWELL, 142 VA. 197, 128
S.E. 644.  THUS UNTIL THE EXTENT OF THE LIEN WAS MADE KNOWN BY THE
LANDLORD AND UNTIL SOME STEPS HAD BEEN TAKEN TO DISTRAIN OR ATTACH
SUFFICIENT PROPERTY TO SATISFY THE LIEN, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SPECIFY
THE GOODS ACTUALLY AND PROPERLY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN.  SOME OF THE GOODS
ON THE PREMISES MAY HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO MORTGAGES OR LIENS WHICH
ATTACHED BEFORE THE GOODS WERE BROUGHT ON THE PREMISES, IN WHICH CASE
THE LANDLORD'S LIEN WOULD BE INFERIOR.  VA. CODE SEC. 5523.  AND IF
OTHER GOODS WERE REMOVED AFTER THE DATE OF THE VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT BUT
MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS BEFORE THE DISTRAINT OR ATTACHMENT, THE RIGHT OF
DISTRAINT AND ATTACHMENT AS TO THOSE GOODS WOULD DISAPPEAR.  VA. CODE
SEC. 5523; DIME DEPOSIT BANK V. WESCOTT, 113 VA. 567, 75 S.E. 179. 
THESE FACTORS COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT NEITHER THE RENT SECURED BY
THE LIEN NOR THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN WAS SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC
AND ASCERTAINABLE ON THE DAY OF THE VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT TO FALL WITHIN
THE TERMS OF THE SUGGESTED EXCEPTION. 

NOR WAS THE STATUTORY LIEN PERFECTED AS A MATTER OF ACTUAL FACT,
REGARDLESS OF HOW COMPLETE IT MAY HAVE BEEN AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW. 
THE TENANT WAS DIVESTED OF NEITHER TITLE NOR POSSESSION BY THE SILENT
EXISTENCE OF THE LANDLORD'S STATUTORY LIEN ON THE DATE OF THE
ASSIGNMENT.  ONLY AFTER THE LIEN WAS ACTUALLY ASSERTED AND AN
ATTACHMENT OR A DISTRAINT LEVELED, ENABLING THE LANDLORD TO SATISFY HIS
CLAIM OUT OF THE SEIZED GOODS, COULD IT BE ARGUED THAT SUCH GOODS
SEVERED THEMSELVES FROM THE GENERAL AND FREE ASSETS OF THE TENANT FROM
WHICH THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES WERE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OF
PAYMENT.  PRIOR TO THAT TIME, THE LIEN OPERATED TO DO NO MORE THAN
PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF GOODS FROM THE PREMISES BY CERTAIN CLASSES OF
PERSONS, VA. CODE SEC. 5524, AND GIVE THE LANDLORD PRIORITY IN
DISTRIBUTION UNDER STATE LAW PROVIDED THAT THE GOODS REMAINED ON THE
PREMISES.  SUCH A POTENTIAL, INCHOATE LIEN COULD NOT DISTURB THE CLEAR
COMMAND OF SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES.  SOMETHING MORE THAN A
"CAVEAT OF A MORE PERFECT LIEN TO COME" WAS NECESSARY. 

THE LIEN OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE STANDS IN NO BETTER POSITION INSOFAR
AS THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED.  THE MUNICIPALITY
CONTENDS THAT IT ASSESSED TAXES ON SPECIFIC ITEMS OF FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TO ANNUAL LEVIES MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT A
LIEN ATTACHED TO SUCH PROPERTY ON JANUARY 1, 1941, BY OPERATION OF
STATE LAW.  IT CLAIMS THAT THIS LIEN ATTACHED BEFORE THE CLAIM OF THE
UNITED STATES WAS ACQUIRED AND HENCE HAD PRIORITY. 

UNDER VIRGINIA LAW, HOWEVER, A MUNICIPAL TAX CONFERS A LIEN ON
PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH ENABLES THE CITY TO FOLLOW IT WHEREVER IT MAY
BE TAKEN ONLY IF THE ASSESSMENT IS SPECIFICALLY MADE ON SUCH PROPERTY. 
DREWRY V. BAUGH & SONS, 150 VA. 394, 400, 401, 143 S.E. 713; CHAMBERS
V. HIGGINS, 169 VA. 345, 351, 352, 193 S.E. 531.  THE CORPORATION COURT
OF DANVILLE RECOGNIZED THAT THE CITY HAD NOT MADE SUCH AN ASSESSMENT IN
THIS CASE SINCE IT HELD THAT ASSESSMENT OF THE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT
AS A UNIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THIS RULE "SO LONG AS THEY REMAINED
ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE OWNER'S BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED."  IT REALIZED
THAT IF THIS PROPERTY UNIT WERE SEPARATED OR REMOVED FROM THE PREMISES
DIFFERENT RESULTS WOULD FOLLOW.  UNLESS AND UNTIL DISTRAINT WAS LEVIED,
WHICH IN THIS CASE OCCURRED THIRTEEN DAYS AFTER THE VOLUNTARY
ASSIGNMENT, IT WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER THE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT WOULD
REMAIN INTACT AS A UNIT ON THE PREMISES AND HENCE BE SUBJECT TO THE TAX
LIEN.  IF SUCH PROPERTY HAD BEEN REMOVED, DISTRAINT COULD THEN HAVE
BEEN LEVIED ON OTHER UNDETERMINED PROPERTY OF THE TENANT.  AT LEAST
UNTIL ACTUAL DISTRAINT, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO CERTAINTY AS TO THE
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN AND NO TRANSFER OF TITLE OR POSSESSION
RELATIVE TO ANY PROPERTY.  SUCH A LIEN CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SO EXPLICIT
AND PERFECTED ON THE DATE OF THE VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT AS TO FALL WITHIN
THE CLAIMED EXCEPTION TO THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  REVERSED. 
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF
VIRGINIA. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER, 323 U.S. 360 


NO. 106.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1945.  -
REVERSED. 


THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATED ON A PIECE RATE BASIS, AND EMPLOYERS OF SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE
SUBJECT TO THE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  P. 361. 

UNITED STATES V. ROSENWASSER, DOING BUSINESS AS PERFECT GARMENT CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER AS TO CERTAIN COUNTS OF AN INFORMATION CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.  THAT COURT SUSTAINED APPELLEE'S
DEMURRER TO AN INFORMATION CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF THE MINIMUM WAGE,
OVERTIME AND RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. THIS WAS DONE ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ACT IS INAPPLICABLE WHERE EMPLOYEES ARE COMPENSATED AT
PIECE RATES, AS IS THE CASE IN APPELLEE'S GARMENT BUSINESS.  WE ARE
THUS MET WITH THE CLEAR ISSUE OF WHETHER THE ACT COVERS PIECE RATE
EMPLOYEES SO AS TO SUBJECT THEIR EMPLOYERS TO ITS CRIMINAL PROVISIONS. 

NEITHER THE POLICY OF THE ACT NOR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY GIVES ANY
REAL BASIS FOR EXCLUDING PIECE WORKERS FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE
STATUTE.  THIS LEGISLATION WAS DESIGNED TO RAISE SUBSTANDARD WAGES AND
TO GIVE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME WORK AS TO THOSE EMPLOYEES
WITHIN ITS AMBIT, THEREBY HELPING TO PROTECT THIS NATION "FROM THE
EVILS AND DANGERS RESULTING FROM WAGES TOO LOW TO BUY THE BARE
NECESSITIES OF LIFE AND FROM LONG HOURS OF WORK INJURIOUS TO HEALTH." 
SEN. REP. NO. 884(75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 4; UNITED STATES V. DARBY,
312 U.S. 100.  NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY PIECE WORKERS WHO ARE
UNDERPAID  FN1  OR WHO WORK LONG HOURS DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE SPIRIT OR
INTENT OF THIS STATUTE, ABSENT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION AS TO THEM.  PIECE
RATE AND INCENTIVE SYSTEMS WERE WIDELY PREVALENT IN THE UNITED STATES
AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT  FN2  AND WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS MEANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MANY WORKERS COMPENSATED
UNDER SUCH SYSTEMS.  CERTAINLY THE EVILS WHICH THE ACT SOUGHT TO
ELIMINATE PERMIT OF NO DISTINCTION OR DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON THE
METHOD OF EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND NONE IS EVIDENT FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE STATUTE GIVE AN EVEN MORE UNMISTAKABLE ANSWER
TO THE PROBLEM.  SECTION 6(A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "EVERY EMPLOYER"
SHALL PAY TO "EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN
THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" NOT LESS THAN SPECIFIED MINIMUM
"RATES," WHICH AT PRESENT ARE "NOT LESS THAN 30 CENTS AN HOUR." 
EMPLOYEES" FOR LONGER THAN SPECIFIED HOURS IN ANY WEEK WITHOUT PAYING
OVERTIME COMPENSATION "AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES
THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" IS
DEFINED IN SEC. 3(E) TO INCLUDE "ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY AN
EMPLOYER," WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE PERTINENT BEING SPECIFIED
IN SEC. 13, AND THE TERM "EMPLOY" IS DEFINED IN SEC. 3(G) TO INCLUDE
"TO SUFFER OR PERMIT TO WORK." 

A BROADER OR MORE COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE
STATED CATEGORIES WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FRAME.  THE USE OF THE WORDS
"EACH" AND "ANY" TO MODIFY "EMPLOYEE," WHICH IN TURN IS DEFINED TO
INCLUDE "ANY" EMPLOYED INDIVIDUAL, LEAVES NO DOUBT AS TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION TO INCLUDE ALL EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE ACT UNLESS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED.  FN3  AND "EACH" AND "ANY"
EMPLOYEE OBVIOUSLY AND NECESSARILY INCLUDES ONE COMPENSATED BY A UNIT
OF TIME, BY THE PIECE OR BY ANY OTHER MEASUREMENT.  FN4  A WORKER IS AS
MUCH AN EMPLOYEE WHEN PAID BY THE PIECE AS HE IS WHEN PAID BY THE
HOUR.  THE TIME OR MODE OF COMPENSATION, IN OTHER WORDS, DOES NOT
CONTROL THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ONE IS AN EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT AND NO COURT IS JUSTIFIED IN READING IN AN EXCEPTION
BASED UPON SUCH A FACTOR.  WHEN COMBINED WITH THE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS
OF SECS. 15 AND 16, THE UNRESTRICTED SWEEP OF THE TERM "EMPLOYEE"
SERVES TO INFORM EMPLOYERS WITH DEFINITENESS AND CERTAINTY THAT THEY
ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO
THEIR PIECE RATE EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATED BY
OTHER METHODS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA, 125, 126. 

THE FACT THAT SEC. 6(A) SPEAKS OF A MINIMUM RATE OF PAY "AN HOUR,"
WHILE SEC. 7(A) REFERS TO A "REGULAR RATE" WHICH WE HAVE DEFINED TO
MEAN "THE HOURLY RATE ACTUALLY PAID FOR THE NORMAL, NON-OVERTIME
WORKWEEK," WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37, 40, DOES NOT
PRECLUDE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO PIECE WORKERS.  CONGRESS NECESSARILY
HAD TO CREATE PRACTICAL AND SIMPLE MEASURING RODS TO TEST COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AS TO MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION. 
IT DID SO BY SETTING THE STANDARDS IN TERMS OF HOURS AND HOURLY RATES. 
BUT OTHER MEASURES OF WORK AND COMPENSATION ARE NOT THEREBY VOIDED OR
PLACED OUTSIDE THE REACH OF THE ACT.  SUCH OTHER MODES MERELY MUST BE
TRANSLATED OR REDUCED BY COMPUTATION TO AN HOURLY BASIS FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN
FULFILLED.  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 579; WALLING
V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, SUPRA, 40.  THESE HOURLY STANDARDS ARE NOT SO
PHRASED AS REASONABLY TO MISLEAD EMPLOYERS INTO BELIEVING THAT THE ACT
IS LIMITED TO EMPLOYEES WORKING ON AN HOURLY WAGE SCALE.  NOR CAN A
COURT RIGHTLY USE THESE STANDARDS AS A BASIS FOR CUTTING OFF THE
BENEFITS OF THE ACT FROM EMPLOYEES PAID BY OTHER UNITS OF TIME OR BY
THE PIECE.  IF THAT WERE PERMISSIBLE, READY MEANS FOR WHOLESALE EVASION
OF THE ACT'S REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE PROVIDED. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN SUSTAINING APPELLEE'S
DEMURRER TO THE INFORMATION.  ITS JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT THAT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
STATISTICS SHOW THAT 25.5% TO 48.5% OF THE UNSKILLED WORKERS PAID UNDER
THE PIECE RATE OR INCENTIVE SYSTEMS IN SIX INDUSTRIES (BOOT AND SHOE,
KNITTED OUTERWEAR, KNITTED UNDERWEAR, SEAMLESS HOSIERY, FULL FASHIONED
HOSIERY AND WORK AND KNIT GLOVES) RECEIVED LESS THAN 30 CENTS AN HOUR
AT APPROXIMATELY THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT. 

FN2  THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER POINTS OUT THAT LARGE PERCENTAGES OF
WORKERS ARE PAID ON A STRAIGHT PIECE BASIS IN THE FOLLOWING INDUSTRIES:
BOOT AND SHOE, BOOT AND SHOE CUT STOCK AND FINDINGS, HOSIERY, KNIT
GOODS, HAT INDUSTRIES, GLOVES, CIGAR, FURNITURE, LEATHER AND MEAT
PACKING.  IT ALSO STATES THAT STUDIES MADE IN 1935, COVERING A CROSS
EMPLOYING 700,699 WAGE EARNERS, INDICATED THAT 22.1% WERE EMPLOYED AT
STRAIGHT PIECE RATES AND AN ADDITIONAL 21.6% ON SOME PREMIUM OR BONUS
SYSTEM.  ANOTHER STUDY MADE IN 1939 REVEALED THAT 61.6% OF THE WORKERS
IN 300 COMPANIES STUDIED WERE PAID ACCORDING TO AN INCENTIVE SYSTEM. 
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE BOARD, STUDIES IN PERSONNEL POLICY, NO.
19, SOME PROBLEMS IN WAGE INCENTIVE ADMINISTRATION, P. 11, TABLE 4. 

FN3  SEN. REP. NO. 884(75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) P. 6, STATES THAT THE
TERM "'EMPLOYEE' IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE ALL EMPLOYEES  ...."  SENATOR
BLACK SAID ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" HAD BEEN
GIVEN "THE BROADEST DEFINITION THAT HAS EVER BEEN INCLUDED IN ANY ONE
ACT."  81 CONG. REC. 7657. 

FN4  THE ACT OF JUNE 26, 1940, C. 432, SEC. 3, 54 STAT. 615, ADDED
SEC. 6(A)(5) TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THIS NEW SECTION MAKES
PROVISION FOR ESTABLISHING MINIMUM PIECE RATES BY REGULATION OR ORDER
FOR HOMEWORK IN PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.  THIS IS EVIDENCE
OF A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO INCLUDE WORKERS OF THIS TYPE WITHIN THE
ACT AND A RECOGNITION THAT WITHOUT THIS SPECIAL PROVISION HOMEWORKERS
IN PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS PAID BY THE PIECE WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATING TO MINIMUM
WAGES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 
..END :


















STEELE V. L. & N.R. CO., 323 U.S. 192 


NO. 45.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 15, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1944.  -
245 ALA. 113, 16 SO.2D 416, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IMPOSES ON A LABOR ORGANIZATION, ACTING BY
AUTHORITY OF THE STATUTE AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF
A CRAFT OR CLASS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES, THE DUTY TO REPRESENT ALL THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE CRAFT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE,
AND THE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROTECT THE MINORITY OF THE CRAFT
OR CLASS FROM THE VIOLATION OF SUCH OBLIGATION.  P. 199. 

2.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IMPOSES ON THE STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE OF
A CRAFT AT LEAST AS EXACTING A DUTY TO PROTECT EQUALLY THE INTERESTS OF
A MEMBER OF THE CRAFT AS THE CONSTITUTION IMPOSES UPON A LEGISLATURE TO
GIVE EQUAL PROTECTION TO THE INTERESTS OF THOSE FOR WHOM IT
LEGISLATES.  THE ACT CONFERS ON THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE POWERS
COMPARABLE TO THOSE POSSESSED BY A LEGISLATIVE BODY BOTH TO CREATE AND
RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHOM IT REPRESENTS, BUT IT ALSO IMPOSES ON
THE REPRESENTATIVE A CORRESPONDING DUTY.  P. 202. 

3.  SO LONG AS A LABOR UNION ASSUMES TO ACT AS THE STATUTORY
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT, IT CANNOT RIGHTLY REFUSE TO PERFORM THE
DUTY, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM THE POWER OF REPRESENTATION CONFERRED
UPON IT, TO REPRESENT THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CRAFT.  WHILE THE
STATUTE DOES NOT DENY TO SUCH A BARGAINING LABOR ORGANIZATION THE RIGHT
TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY TO ITS MEMBERSHIP, IT DOES REQUIRE THE UNION,
IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND IN MAKING CONTRACTS WITH THE CARRIER, TO
REPRESENT NON-UNION OR MINORITY UNION MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT WITHOUT
HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION, FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY, AND IN GOOD FAITH. 
WHEREVER NECESSARY TO THAT END, THE UNION IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER
REQUESTS OF NON-UNION MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT AND EXPRESSIONS OF THEIR
VIEWS WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE EMPLOYER AND TO
GIVE TO THEM NOTICE OF AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING UPON ITS PROPOSED
ACTION.  P. 204. 

4.  THE RIGHT ASSERTED BY THE PETITIONER, TO A REMEDY FOR BREACH OF
THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO REPRESENT AND
ACT FOR THE MEMBERS OF A CRAFT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES
SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE, IS CLAIMED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND A
STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES; AND THE ADVERSE DECISION OF THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE IS REVIEWABLE HERE UNDER SEC. 237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE.  P. 204. 

5.  THE PETITIONER HERE HAS NO AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY UNDER
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AND THE BILL OF COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF
ACTION ENTITLING HIM TO RELIEF.  P. 205. 

6.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT CONTEMPLATES RESORT TO THE USUAL JUDICIAL
REMEDIES OF INJUNCTION AND AWARD OF DAMAGES WHEN APPROPRIATE FOR BREACH
OF THE DUTY IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE ON A UNION REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT
TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF ALL ITS MEMBERS.  P. 207. 

STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 722, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO A COMPLAINT ASSERTING A FEDERAL RIGHT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 48 STAT. 1185, 45
U.S.C. SECS. 151 ET SEQ., IMPOSES ON A LABOR ORGANIZATION, ACTING BY
AUTHORITY OF THE STATUTE AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF
A CRAFT OR CLASS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES, THE DUTY TO REPRESENT ALL THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE CRAFT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE,
AND, IF SO, WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO PROTECT THE
MINORITY OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FROM THE VIOLATION OF SUCH OBLIGATION. 

THE ISSUE IS RAISED BY DEMURRER TO THE SUBSTITUTED AMENDED BILL OF
COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER, A LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN, IN A SUIT BROUGHT
IN THE ALABAMA CIRCUIT COURT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER, THE LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND
ENGINEMEN, AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR ORGANIZATION, AND CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS REPRESENTING THE BROTHERHOOD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT SUSTAINED
THE DEMURRER, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA AFFIRMED.  245 ALA. 113,
16 SO.2D 416.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 722, THE QUESTION
PRESENTED BEING ONE OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT. 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, SO FAR AS NOW MATERIAL, ARE
AS FOLLOWS:  PETITIONER, A NEGRO, IS A LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN IN THE EMPLOY
OF RESPONDENT RAILROAD, SUING ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND THAT OF HIS FELLOW
EMPLOYEES WHO, LIKE PETITIONER, ARE NEGRO FIREMEN EMPLOYED BY THE
RAILROAD.  RESPONDENT BROTHERHOOD, A LABOR ORGANIZATION, IS, AS
PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 2, FOURTH OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, THE EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OF FIREMEN EMPLOYED BY THE
RAILROAD AND IS RECOGNIZED AS SUCH BY IT AND THE MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT. 
THE MAJORITY OF THE FIREMEN EMPLOYED BY THE RAILROAD ARE WHITE AND ARE
MEMBERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD, BUT A SUBSTANTIAL MINORITY ARE NEGROES WHO,
BY THE CONSTITUTION AND RITUAL OF THE BROTHERHOOD, ARE EXCLUDED FROM
ITS MEMBERSHIP.  AS THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BROTHERHOOD CONSTITUTES A
MAJORITY OF ALL FIREMEN EMPLOYED ON RESPONDENT RAILROAD, AND AS UNDER
SEC. 2, FOURTH THE MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MAJORITY HAVE THE RIGHT
TO CHOOSE AND HAVE CHOSEN THE BROTHERHOOD TO REPRESENT THE CRAFT,
PETITIONER AND OTHER NEGRO FIREMEN ON THE ROAD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO
ACCEPT THE BROTHERHOOD AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT. 

ON MARCH 28, 1940, THE BROTHERHOOD, PURPORTING TO ACT AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE CRAFT OF FIREMEN, WITHOUT INFORMING THE
NEGRO FIREMEN OR GIVING THEM OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, SERVED A NOTICE
ON RESPONDENT RAILROAD AND ON TWENTY OTHER RAILROADS OPERATING
PRINCIPALLY IN THE SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE NOTICE
ANNOUNCED THE BROTHERHOOD'S DESIRE TO AMEND THE EXISTING COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT IN SUCH MANNER AS ULTIMATELY TO EXCLUDE ALL NEGRO
FIREMEN FROM THE SERVICE.  BY ESTABLISHED PRACTICE ON THE SEVERAL
RAILROADS SO NOTIFIED ONLY WHITE FIREMEN CAN BE PROMOTED TO SERVE AS
ENGINEERS, AND THE NOTICE PROPOSED THAT ONLY "PROMOTABLE," I.E. WHITE,
MEN SHOULD BE EMPLOYED AS FIREMEN OR ASSIGNED TO NEW RUNS OR JOBS OR
PERMANENT VACANCIES IN ESTABLISHED RUNS OR JOBS. 

ON FEBRUARY 18, 1941, THE RAILROADS AND THE BROTHERHOOD, AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT, ENTERED INTO A NEW AGREEMENT WHICH
PROVIDED THAT NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE FIREMEN IN EACH CLASS OF SERVICE
IN EACH SENIORITY DISTRICT OF A CARRIER SHOULD BE NEGROES; THAT UNTIL
SUCH PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE REACHED ALL NEW RUNS AND ALL VACANCIES SHOULD
BE FILLED BY WHITE MEN; AND THAT THE AGREEMENT DID NOT SANCTION THE
EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES IN ANY SENIORITY DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY WERE NOT
WORKING.  THE AGREEMENT RESERVED THE RIGHT OF THE BROTHERHOOD TO
NEGOTIATE FOR FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE EMPLOYMENT OF NEGRO FIREMEN
ON THE INDIVIDUAL RAILROADS.  ON MAY 12, 1941, THE BROTHERHOOD ENTERED
INTO A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH RESPONDENT RAILROAD FURTHER
CONTROLLING THE SENIORITY RIGHTS OF NEGRO FIREMEN AND RESTRICTING THEIR
EMPLOYMENT.  THE NEGRO FIREMEN WERE NOT GIVEN NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HEARD WITH RESPECT TO EITHER OF THESE AGREEMENTS, WHICH WERE PUT
INTO EFFECT BEFORE THEIR EXISTENCE WAS DISCLOSED TO THE NEGRO FIREMEN. 

UNTIL APRIL 8, 1941, PETITIONER WAS IN A "PASSENGER POOL," TO WHICH
ONE WHITE AND FIVE NEGRO FIREMEN WERE ASSIGNED.  THESE JOBS WERE HIGHLY
DESIRABLE IN POINT OF WAGES, HOURS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. 
PETITIONER HAD PERFORMED AND WAS PERFORMING HIS WORK SATISFACTORILY. 
FOLLOWING A REDUCTION IN THE MILEAGE COVERED BY THE POOL, ALL JOBS IN
THE POOL WERE, ABOUT APRIL 1, 1941, DECLARED VACANT.  THE BROTHERHOOD
AND THE RAILROAD, ACTING UNDER THE AGREEMENT, DISQUALIFIED ALL THE
NEGRO FIREMEN AND REPLACED THEM WITH FOUR WHITE MEN, MEMBERS OF THE
BROTHERHOOD, ALL JUNIOR IN SENIORITY TO PETITIONER AND NO MORE
COMPETENT OR WORTHY.  AS A CONSEQUENCE PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF
EMPLOYMENT FOR SIXTEEN DAYS AND THEN WAS ASSIGNED TO MORE ARDUOUS,
LONGER, AND LESS REMUNERATIVE WORK IN LOCAL FREIGHT SERVICE.  IN
CONFORMITY TO THE AGREEMENT, HE WAS LATER REPLACED BY A BROTHERHOOD
MEMBER JUNIOR TO HIM, AND ASSIGNED WORK ON A SWITCH ENGINE, WHICH WAS
STILL HARDER AND LESS REMUNERATIVE, UNTIL JANUARY 3, 1942.  ON THAT
DATE, AFTER THE BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THE PRESENT SUIT HAD BEEN FILED,
HE WAS REASSIGNED TO PASSENGER SERVICE. 

PROTESTS AND APPEALS OF PETITIONER AND HIS FELLOW NEGRO FIREMEN,
ADDRESSED TO THE RAILROAD AND THE BROTHERHOOD, IN AN EFFORT TO SECURE
RELIEF AND REDRESS, HAVE BEEN IGNORED.  RESPONDENTS HAVE EXPRESSED
THEIR INTENTION TO ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT OF FEBRUARY 18, 1941 AND ITS
SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS.  THE BROTHERHOOD HAS ACTED AND ASSERTS THE
RIGHT TO ACT AS EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FIREMEN'S
CRAFT.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT IN THAT CAPACITY IT IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION
AND DUTY IMPOSED BY THE ACT TO REPRESENT THE NEGRO FIREMEN IMPARTIALLY
AND IN GOOD FAITH; BUT INSTEAD, IN ITS NOTICE TO AND CONTRACTS WITH THE
RAILROADS, IT HAS BEEN HOSTILE AND DISLOYAL TO THE NEGRO FIREMEN, HAS
DELIBERATELY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THEM, AND HAS SOUGHT TO DEPRIVE THEM
OF THEIR SENIORITY RIGHTS AND TO DRIVE THEM OUT OF EMPLOYMENT IN THEIR
CRAFT, ALL IN ORDER TO CREATE A MONOPOLY OF EMPLOYMENT FOR BROTHERHOOD
MEMBERS. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ASKS FOR DISCOVERY OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE
AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN APPLIED AND IN OTHER RESPECTS; FOR AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE AGREEMENTS MADE BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND THE
BROTHERHOOD; FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS AGENTS
FROM PURPORTING TO ACT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, SO LONG AS THE
DISCRIMINATION CONTINUES, AND SO LONG AS IT REFUSES TO GIVE THEM NOTICE
AND HEARING WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSALS AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS; FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO THEIR RIGHTS; AND FOR AN AWARD OF DAMAGES
AGAINST THE BROTHERHOOD FOR ITS WRONGFUL CONDUCT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA TOOK JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE BUT HELD
ON THE MERITS THAT PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT STATED NO CAUSE OF ACTION. 
FN1  IT POINTED OUT THAT THE ACT PLACES A MANDATORY DUTY ON THE
RAILROAD TO TREAT WITH THE BROTHERHOOD AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A CRAFT, IMPOSES HEAVY CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR
WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITS COMMAND, AND PROVIDES THAT THE
MAJORITY OF ANY CRAFT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO SHALL BE
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CLASS FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE
EMPLOYER, SEE VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515,
545.  IT THOUGHT THAT THE BROTHERHOOD WAS EMPOWERED BY THE STATUTE TO
ENTER INTO THE AGREEMENT OF FEBRUARY 18, 1941, AND THAT BY VIRTUE OF
THE STATUTE THE BROTHERHOOD HAS POWER BY AGREEMENT WITH THE RAILROAD
BOTH TO CREATE THE SENIORITY RIGHTS OF PETITIONER AND HIS FELLOW NEGRO
EMPLOYEES AND TO DESTROY THEM.  IT CONSTRUED THE STATUTE, NOT AS
CREATING THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF
THE CRAFT AND THE BROTHERHOOD, BUT AS CONFERRING ON THE BROTHERHOOD
PLENARY AUTHORITY TO TREAT WITH THE RAILROAD AND ENTER INTO CONTRACTS
FIXING RATES OF PAY AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR THE CRAFT AS A WHOLE
WITHOUT ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION OR DUTY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF
MINORITIES FROM DISCRIMINATION OR UNFAIR TREATMENT, HOWEVER GROSS. 
CONSEQUENTLY IT HELD THAT NEITHER THE BROTHERHOOD NOR THE RAILROAD
VIOLATED ANY RIGHTS OF PETITIONER OR HIS FELLOW NEGRO EMPLOYEES BY
NEGOTIATING THE CONTRACTS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM. 

IF, AS THE STATE COURT HAS HELD, THE ACT CONFERS THIS POWER ON THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT ANY
COMMENSURATE STATUTORY DUTY TOWARD ITS MEMBERS, CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS ARISE.  FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE IS CLOTHED WITH POWER NOT
UNLIKE THAT OF A LEGISLATURE WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS ON ITS POWER TO DENY, RESTRICT, DESTROY OR DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THOSE FOR WHOM IT LEGISLATES AND WHICH IS ALSO
UNDER AN AFFIRMATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY EQUALLY TO PROTECT THOSE
RIGHTS.  IF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT PURPORTS TO IMPOSE ON PETITIONER AND
THE OTHER NEGRO MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT THE LEGAL DUTY TO COMPLY WITH THE
TERMS OF A CONTRACT WHEREBY THE REPRESENTATIVE HAS DISCRIMINATORILY
RESTRICTED THEIR EMPLOYMENT FOR THE BENEFIT AND ADVANTAGE OF THE
BROTHERHOOD'S OWN MEMBERS, WE MUST DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
WHICH PETITIONER RAISES IN HIS PLEADING. 

BUT WE THINK THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND
AUTHORIZING A LABOR UNION, CHOSEN BY A MAJORITY OF A CRAFT, TO
REPRESENT THE CRAFT, DID NOT INTEND TO CONFER PLENARY POWER UPON THE
UNION TO SACRIFICE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS, RIGHTS OF THE
MINORITY OF THE CRAFT, WITHOUT IMPOSING ON IT ANY DUTY TO PROTECT THE
MINORITY.  SINCE PETITIONER AND THE OTHER NEGRO MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT
ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD OR ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP, THE
AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THEM IS DERIVED NOT FROM THEIR ACTION OR CONSENT
BUT WHOLLY FROM THE COMMAND OF THE ACT.  SECTION 2, FOURTH PROVIDES:
"EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.  THE MAJORITY OF ANY
CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO SHALL
BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
ACT...."  UNDER SECS. 2, SIXTH AND SEVENTH, WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVE
BARGAINS FOR A CHANGE OF WORKING CONDITIONS, THE LATTER SECTION
SPECIFIES THAT THEY ARE THE WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES "AS A
CLASS."  SECTION 1, SIXTH OF THE ACT DEFINES "REPRESENTATIVE" AS
MEANING "ANY PERSON OR  ...  LABOR UNION  ...  DESIGNATED EITHER BY A
CARRIER OR GROUP OF CARRIERS OR BY ITS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES, TO ACT FOR
IT OR THEM."  THE USE OF THE WORD "REPRESENTATIVE," AS THUS DEFINED AND
IN ALL THE CONTEXTS IN WHICH IT IS FOUND, PLAINLY IMPLIES THAT THE
REPRESENTATIVE IS TO ACT ON BEHALF OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES WHICH, BY
VIRTUE OF THE STATUTE, IT UNDERTAKES TO REPRESENT. 

BY THE TERMS OF THE ACT, SEC. 2, FOURTH, THE EMPLOYEES ARE PERMITTED
TO ACT "THROUGH" THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, AND IT REPRESENTS THEM "FOR THE
PURPOSES OF" THE ACT.  SECTIONS 2, THIRD, FOURTH, NINTH.  THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT DECLARED BY SEC. 2 ARE THE AVOIDANCE OF "ANY INTERRUPTION TO
COMMERCE OR TO THE OPERATION OF ANY CARRIER ENGAGED THEREIN," AND THIS
AIM IS SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY ENCOURAGING "THE PROMPT AND ORDERLY
SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING
CONDITIONS."  COMPARE TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF
CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 569.  THESE PURPOSES WOULD HARDLY BE ATTAINED IF
A SUBSTANTIAL MINORITY OF THE CRAFT WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR
INTERESTS CONSIDERED AT THE CONFERENCE TABLE AND IF THE FINAL RESULT OF
THE BARGAINING PROCESS WERE TO BE THE SACRIFICE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE
MINORITY BY THE ACTION OF A REPRESENTATIVE CHOSEN BY THE MAJORITY.  THE
ONLY RECOURSE OF THE MINORITY WOULD BE TO STRIKE, WITH THE ATTENDANT
INTERRUPTION OF COMMERCE, WHICH THE ACT SEEKS TO AVOID. 

REPRESENTATIVE SO CHOSEN, OPERATES TO EXCLUDE ANY OTHER FROM
REPRESENTING A CRAFT.  VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, SUPRA,
545.  THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF A CRAFT ARE THUS DEPRIVED BY THE STATUTE
OF THE RIGHT, WHICH THEY WOULD OTHERWISE POSSESS, TO CHOOSE A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR OWN, AND ITS MEMBERS CANNOT BARGAIN
INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AS TO MATTERS WHICH ARE PROPERLY
THE SUBJECT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342, AND SEE UNDER THE LIKE
PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 321 U.S. 332, AND MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 321
U.S. 678. 

THE LABOR ORGANIZATION CHOSEN TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT
OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES IS THUS CHOSEN TO REPRESENT ALL OF ITS MEMBERS,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR UNION AFFILIATIONS OR WANT OF THEM.  AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE LIKE PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IN J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 338, "THE VERY
PURPOSE OF PROVIDING BY STATUTE FOR THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT IS TO
SUPERSEDE THE TERMS OF SEPARATE AGREEMENTS OF EMPLOYEES WITH TERMS
WHICH REFLECT THE STRENGTH AND BARGAINING POWER AND SERVE THE WELFARE
OF THE GROUP.  ITS BENEFITS AND ADVANTAGES ARE OPEN TO EVERY EMPLOYEE
OF THE REPRESENTED UNIT...."  THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOR A
REPRESENTATIVE IS TO SECURE THOSE BENEFITS FOR THOSE WHO ARE
REPRESENTED AND NOT TO DEPRIVE THEM OR ANY OF THEM OF THE BENEFITS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OR THOSE
MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT WHO SELECTED IT.    AS THE NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD SAID IN IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE ST.
PAUL UNION DEPOT COMPANY, CASE NO. R-635:  "ONCE A CRAFT OR CLASS HAS
DESIGNATED ITS REPRESENTATIVE, SUCH REPRESENTATIVE IS RESPONSIBLE UNDER
THE LAW TO ACT FOR ALL EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE CRAFT OR CLASS, THOSE WHO
ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE REPRESENTED ORGANIZATION, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO
ARE MEMBERS."  FN2 

UNLESS THE LABOR UNION REPRESENTING A CRAFT OWES SOME DUTY TO
REPRESENT NON-UNION MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF NOT
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM AS SUCH IN THE CONTRACTS WHICH IT MAKES AS
THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, THE MINORITY WOULD BE LEFT WITH NO MEANS OF
PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS OR, INDEED, THEIR RIGHT TO EARN A LIVELIHOOD
BY PURSUING THE OCCUPATION IN WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED.  WHILE THE
MAJORITY OF THE CRAFT CHOOSES THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN
CHOSEN IT REPRESENTS, AS THE ACT BY ITS TERMS MAKES PLAIN, THE CRAFT OR
CLASS, AND NOT THE MAJORITY.  THE FAIR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE IS THAT THE ORGANIZATION CHOSEN TO REPRESENT A CRAFT IS TO
REPRESENT ALL ITS MEMBERS, THE MAJORITY AS WELL AS THE MINORITY, AND IT
IS TO ACT FOR AND NOT AGAINST THOSE WHOM IT REPRESENTS.  FN3  IT IS A
PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL APPLICATION THAT THE EXERCISE OF A GRANTED POWER
TO ACT IN BEHALF OF OTHERS INVOLVES THE ASSUMPTION TOWARD THEM OF A
DUTY TO EXERCISE THE POWER IN THEIR INTEREST AND BEHALF, AND THAT SUCH
A GRANT OF POWER WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO DISPENSE WITH ALL DUTY TOWARD
THOSE FOR WHOM IT IS EXERCISED UNLESS SO EXPRESSED. 

WE THINK THAT THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IMPOSES UPON THE STATUTORY
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT AT LEAST AS EXACTING A DUTY TO PROTECT
EQUALLY THE INTERESTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT AS THE CONSTITUTION
IMPOSES UPON A LEGISLATURE TO GIVE EQUAL PROTECTION TO THE INTERESTS OF
THOSE FOR WHOM IT LEGISLATES.  CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO CLOTHE THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WITH POWERS COMPARABLE TO THOSE POSSESSED BY
A LEGISLATIVE BODY BOTH TO CREATE AND RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHOM
IT REPRESENTS, CF. J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 335, BUT IT HAS
ALSO IMPOSED ON THE REPRESENTATIVE A CORRESPONDING DUTY.  WE HOLD THAT
THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED, READ IN THE LIGHT OF
THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, EXPRESSES THE AIM OF CONGRESS TO IMPOSE ON THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES THE DUTY TO
EXERCISE FAIRLY THE POWER CONFERRED UPON IT IN BEHALF OF ALL THOSE FOR
WHOM IT ACTS, WITHOUT HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM. 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT IS
BARRED FROM MAKING CONTRACTS WHICH MAY HAVE UNFAVORABLE EFFECTS ON SOME
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT REPRESENTED.  VARIATIONS IN THE TERMS OF
THE CONTRACT BASED ON DIFFERENCES RELEVANT TO THE AUTHORIZED PURPOSES
OF THE CONTRACT IN CONDITIONS TO WHICH THEY ARE TO BE APPLIED, SUCH AS
DIFFERENCES IN SENIORITY, THE TYPE OF WORK PERFORMED, THE COMPETENCE
AND SKILL WITH WHICH IT IS PERFORMED, ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATION OF A CRAFT, ALL OF WHOSE MEMBERS ARE NOT
IDENTICAL IN THEIR INTEREST OR MERIT.  CF. CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL
CO., 301 U.S. 495, 509-510, 512 AND CASES CITED; WASHINGTON V. SUPERIOR
COURT, 289 U.S. 361, 366; METROPOLITAN CASUALTY CO. V. BROWNELL, 294
U.S. 580, 583.  WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO MARK THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS OF
DIFFERENCES IN THE TERMS OF CONTRACTS BASED ON DIFFERENCES OF
CONDITIONS TO WHICH THEY APPLY, IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES TO
SAY THAT THE STATUTORY POWER TO REPRESENT A CRAFT AND TO MAKE CONTRACTS
AS TO WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
AUTHORITY TO MAKE AMONG MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT DISCRIMINATIONS NOT BASED
ON SUCH RELEVANT DIFFERENCES.  HERE THE DISCRIMINATIONS BASED ON RACE
ALONE ARE OBVIOUSLY IRRELEVANT AND INVIDIOUS.  CONGRESS PLAINLY DID NOT
UNDERTAKE TO AUTHORIZE THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE SUCH
DISCRIMINATIONS.  CF. YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356; YU CONG ENG V.
TRINIDAD, 271 U.S. 500; MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S.
337; HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400. 

THE REPRESENTATIVE WHICH THUS DISCRIMINATES MAY BE ENJOINED FROM SO
DOING, AND ITS MEMBERS MAY BE ENJOINED FROM TAKING THE BENEFIT OF SUCH
DISCRIMINATORY ACTION.  NO MORE IS THE RAILROAD BOUND BY OR ENTITLED TO
TAKE THE BENEFIT OF A CONTRACT WHICH THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE IS
PROHIBITED BY THE STATUTE FROM MAKING.  IN BOTH CASES THE RIGHT
ASSERTED, WHICH IS DERIVED FROM THE DUTY IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE ON THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, IS A FEDERAL RIGHT IMPLIED FROM THE STATUTE
AND THE POLICY WHICH IT HAS ADOPTED.  IT IS THE FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH
CONDEMNS AS UNLAWFUL THE BROTHERHOOD'S CONDUCT.  "THE EXTENT AND NATURE
OF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS CONDEMNATION, THOUGH LEFT BY THE
STATUTE TO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, ARE NEVERTHELESS TO BE DERIVED FROM
IT AND THE FEDERAL POLICY WHICH IT HAS ADOPTED."  DEITRICK V. GREANEY,
309 U.S. 190, 200-201; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES,
308 U.S. 343; SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON CO., 317 U.S. 173, 176-7;
CF. CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363. 

SO LONG AS A LABOR UNION ASSUMES TO ACT AS THE STATUTORY
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT, IT CANNOT RIGHTLY REFUSE TO PERFORM THE
DUTY, WHICH IS INSEPARABLE FROM THE POWER OF REPRESENTATION CONFERRED
UPON IT, TO REPRESENT THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CRAFT.  WHILE THE
STATUTE DOES NOT DENY TO SUCH A BARGAINING LABOR ORGANIZATION THE RIGHT
TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY TO ITS MEMBERSHIP, IT DOES REQUIRE THE UNION,
IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND IN MAKING CONTRACTS WITH THE CARRIER, TO
REPRESENT NON-UNION OR MINORITY UNION MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT WITHOUT
HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION, FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY, AND IN GOOD FAITH. 
WHEREVER NECESSARY TO THAT END, THE UNION IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER
REQUESTS OF NONUNION MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT AND EXPRESSIONS OF THEIR
VIEWS WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE EMPLOYER AND TO
GIVE TO THEM NOTICE OF AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING UPON ITS PROPOSED
ACTION. 

SINCE THE RIGHT ASSERTED BY PETITIONER "IS  ...  CLAIMED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION" AND A "STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES," THE DECISION OF THE
ALABAMA COURT, ADVERSE TO THAT CONTENTION IS REVIEWABLE HERE UNDER SEC.
237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, UNLESS THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT ITSELF HAS
EXCLUDED PETITIONER'S CLAIMS FROM JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION.  THE QUESTION
HERE PRESENTED IS NOT ONE OF A JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE, DETERMINABLE
UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEME SET UP BY THE ACT, CF. SWITCHMEN'S
UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; GENERAL COMMITTEE V.
M.-K.-T.R. CO., 320 U.S. 323; GENERAL COMMITTEE V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO., 320 U.S. 338; BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS V. UNITED TRANSPORT SERVICE
EMPLOYEES, 320 U.S. 715, 816, OR RESTRICTED BY THE ACT TO VOLUNTARY
SETTLEMENT BY RECOURSE TO THE TRADITIONAL IMPLEMENTS OF MEDIATION,
CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.  GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO.,
SUPRA, 332, 337.  THERE IS NO QUESTION HERE OF WHO IS ENTITLED TO
REPRESENT THE CRAFT, OR WHO ARE MEMBERS OF IT, ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN
RELEGATED FOR SETTLEMENT TO THE MEDIATION BOARD, SWITCHMEN'S UNION V.
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, SUPRA; GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO.,
SUPRA.  NOR ARE THERE DIFFERENCES AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONTRACT WHICH BY THE ACT ARE COMMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD. 

BOARD OF "DISPUTES BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES AND A
CARRIER OR CARRIERS GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE
INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS," MAKES NO REFERENCE TO
DISPUTES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.  EVEN THOUGH THE
DISPUTE BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND THE PETITIONER WERE TO BE HEARD BY THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD, THAT BOARD COULD NOT GIVE THE ENTIRE RELIEF HERE
SOUGHT.  THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAS CONSISTENTLY DECLINED IN MORE THAN
400 CASES TO ENTERTAIN GRIEVANCE COMPLAINTS BY INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF A
CRAFT REPRESENTED BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION.  "THE ONLY WAY THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL MAY PREVAIL IS BY TAKING HIS CASE TO THE UNION AND CAUSING
THE UNION TO CARRY IT THROUGH TO THE BOARD."  ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, S. DOC. NO. 10, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PT. 4,
P. 7.  WHETHER OR NOT JUDICIAL POWER MIGHT BE EXERTED TO REQUIRE THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD TO CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCES, AS TO WHICH WE
EXPRESS NO OPINION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER OR THAT RESORT TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS IN
ORDER TO SECURE A POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY, WHICH IS WITHHELD OR
DENIED, IS PREREQUISITE TO RELIEF IN EQUITY.  FURTHER, SINCE SEC. 3,
FIRST (C) PERMITS THE NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS CHOSEN BY THE
MAJORITY OF THE CRAFTS TO "PRESCRIBE THE RULES UNDER WHICH THE LABOR
MEMBERS OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SHALL BE SELECTED" AND TO "SELECT SUCH
MEMBERS AND DESIGNATE THE DIVISION ON WHICH EACH MEMBER SHALL SERVE,"
THE NEGRO FIREMEN WOULD BE REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE A GROUP WHICH IS
IN LARGE PART CHOSEN BY THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST WHOM THEIR REAL
COMPLAINT IS MADE.  IN ADDITION SEC. 3, SECOND PROVIDES THAT A CARRIER
AND A CLASS OR CRAFT OF EMPLOYEES, "ALL ACTING THROUGH THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES, SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT," MAY AGREE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REGIONAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUSTING DISPUTES OF THE TYPE WHICH MAY BE BROUGHT
BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  IN THIS WAY THE CARRIER AND THE
REPRESENTATIVE AGAINST WHOM THE NEGRO FIREMEN HAVE COMPLAINED HAVE
POWER TO SUPERSEDE ENTIRELY THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD'S PROCEDURE AND TO
CREATE A TRIBUNAL OF THEIR OWN SELECTION TO INTERPRET AND APPLY THE
AGREEMENTS NOW COMPLAINED OF TO WHICH THEY ARE THE ONLY PARTIES.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT A HEARING, IF AVAILABLE, BEFORE EITHER OF THESE
TRIBUNALS WOULD CONSTITUTE AN ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY.  CF.
TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S. 510.  THERE IS NO ADMINISTRATIVE MEANS BY WHICH
THE NEGRO FIREMEN CAN SECURE SEPARATE REPRESENTATION FOR THE PURPOSES
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  FOR THE MEDIATION BOARD "HAS DEFINITELY
RULED THAT A CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BE DIVIDED INTO TWO OR
MORE ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR COLOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHOOSING
REPRESENTATIVES."  FN4 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY, THE RIGHT HERE
ASSERTED, TO A REMEDY FOR BREACH OF THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE TO REPRESENT AND ACT FOR THE MEMBERS OF A
CRAFT, IS OF JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE.  THAT RIGHT WOULD BE SACRIFICED OR
OBLITERATED IF IT WERE WITHOUT THE REMEDY WHICH COURTS CAN GIVE FOR
BREACH OF SUCH A DUTY OR OBLIGATION AND WHICH IT IS THEIR DUTY TO GIVE
IN CASES IN WHICH THEY HAVE JURISDICTION.  SWITCHMEN'S UNION V.
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, SUPRA, 300; STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288,
306-7.  HERE, UNLIKE GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO., SUPRA, AND
GENERAL COMMITTEE V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., SUPRA, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT
OF THE JUSTICIABILITY OF THESE CLAIMS.  AS WE NOTED IN GENERAL
COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO., SUPRA, 331, THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH
ARE IN ISSUE ARE STATED IN THE FORM OF COMMANDS.  FOR THE PRESENT
COMMAND THERE IS NO MODE OF ENFORCEMENT OTHER THAN RESORT TO THE
COURTS, WHOSE JURISDICTION AND DUTY TO AFFORD A REMEDY FOR A BREACH OF
STATUTORY DUTY ARE LEFT UNAFFECTED.  THE RIGHT IS ANALOGOUS TO THE
STATUTORY RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH
THE STATUTORY REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT, A RIGHT WHICH THIS COURT HAS
ENFORCED AND PROTECTED BY ITS INJUNCTION IN TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO.
V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, SUPRA, 556-557, 560, AND IN VIRGINIAN R. CO.
V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, SUPRA, 548, AND LIKE IT IS ONE FOR WHICH THERE IS
NO AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DUTY WHICH THE STATUTE IMPOSES ON A UNION
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF ALL ITS MEMBERS
STANDS ON NO DIFFERENT FOOTING AND THAT THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES RESORT
TO THE USUAL JUDICIAL REMEDIES OF INJUNCTION AND AWARD OF DAMAGES WHEN
APPROPRIATE FOR BREACH OF THAT DUTY. 

THE JUDGMENT IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE RESPONDENTS URGE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT SUSTAINED THEIR
DEMURRERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUIT COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED AGAINST
THE BROTHERHOOD, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, SINCE BY ALABAMA
STATUTE SUCH AN ASSOCIATION CANNOT BE SUED UNLESS THE ACTION LIES
AGAINST ALL ITS MEMBERS INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON SEVERAL OTHER STATE-LAW
GROUNDS.  THEY ARGUE ACCORDINGLY THAT THE JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE OF THE
STATE SUPREME COURT MAY BE RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND. 
AS THAT COURT SPECIFICALLY RESTED ITS DECISION ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT PLACES NO DUTY UPON THE BROTHERHOOD TO PROTECT
PETITIONER AND OTHER NEGRO FIREMEN FROM THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY
TREATMENT, THE JUDGMENT RESTS WHOLLY ON A FEDERAL GROUND, TO WHICH WE
CONFINE OUR REVIEW.  GRAYSON V. HARRIS, 267 U.S. 352, 358;
INTERNATIONAL STEEL CO. V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 297 U.S. 657, 666;
INDIANA EX REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, 303 U.S. 95, 98, 99 AND CASES
CITED.    FN2  THE MEDIATION BOARD'S DECISION IN THIS CASE WAS SET
ASIDE IN BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS V. UNITED TRANSPORT SERVICE EMPLOYEES,
137 F.2D 817, REVERSED ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS, 320 U.S. 715.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT A REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT ONLY
REQUIRED TO ACT IN BEHALF OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN A BARGAINING UNIT,
BUT THAT A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH EXCLUDES A MINORITY OF A CRAFT FROM
ITS MEMBERSHIP HAS NO STANDING TO ACT AS SUCH REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
MINORITY. 

THE ACT HAS BEEN SIMILARLY INTERPRETED BY THE EMERGENCY BOARD
REFERRED TO IN GENERAL COMMITTEE V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 320 U.S. 338,
340, 342-343 N. IT DECLARED IN 1937:  "WHEN A CRAFT OR CLASS, THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES CHOSEN BY A MAJORITY, NEGOTIATES A CONTRACT WITH A
CARRIER, ALL MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS SHARE IN THE RIGHTS SECURED
BY THE CONTRACT, REGARDLESS OF THEIR AFFILIATIONS WITH ANY ORGANIZATION
OF EMPLOYEES  ...  THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MAJORITY REPRESENT THE
WHOLE CRAFT OR CLASS IN THE MAKING OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ALL  ...." 

FN3  COMPARE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE N.L.R.A. (H. REP. NO.
1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 20-22) INDICATING THAT ALTHOUGH THE
PRINCIPLE OF MAJORITY RULE "WRITTEN INTO THE STATUTE BOOKS BY CONGRESS
IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1934" WAS TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE
BARGAINING UNIT UNDER THE N.L.R.A., THE EMPLOYER WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE
"EQUALLY ADVANTAGEOUS TERMS TO NONMEMBERS OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
NEGOTIATING THE AGREEMENT."  SEE ALSO THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ON
THE N.L.R.A. TO THE SAME EFFECT.  S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 13. 

FN4  NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD, P. 17; SEE IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATION OF
EMPLOYEES OF THE CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO., CASE NO. R-234; IN THE
MATTER OF REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE ST. PAUL UNION DEPOT CO.,
CASE NO. R-635, SET ASIDE IN BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS V. UNITED TRANSPORT
SERVICE EMPLOYEES, 137 F.2D 817, REVERSED ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS,
320 U.S. 715. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. 

THE ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES PRACTICED BY THE
BROTHERHOOD AND THE RAILROAD UNDER COLOR OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY
RAISES A GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE SQUARELY FACED. 

THE UTTER DISREGARD FOR THE DIGNITY AND THE WELL-BEING OF COLORED
CITIZENS SHOWN BY THIS RECORD IS SO PRONOUNCED AS TO DEMAND THE
INVOCATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONDEMNATION.  TO DECIDE THE CASE AND TO
ANALYZE THE STATUTE SOLELY UPON THE BASIS OF LEGAL NICETIES, WHILE
REMAINING MUTE AND PLACID AS TO THE OBVIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE DEPRIVATION
OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES, IS TO MAKE THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION
SOMETHING LESS THAN IT SHOULD BE. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM INHERENT IN THIS INSTANCE IS CLEAR. 
CONGRESS, THROUGH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, HAS CONFERRED UPON THE UNION
SELECTED BY A MAJORITY OF A CRAFT OR CLASS OF RAILWAY WORKERS THE POWER
TO REPRESENT THE ENTIRE CRAFT OR CLASS IN ALL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
MATTERS.  WHILE SUCH A UNION IS ESSENTIALLY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION, ITS
POWER TO REPRESENT AND BIND ALL MEMBERS OF A CLASS OR CRAFT IS DERIVED
SOLELY FROM CONGRESS.  THE ACT CONTAINS NO LANGUAGE WHICH DIRECTS THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE SHALL PERFORM ITS
DUTIES.  BUT IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO AUTHORIZE THE
REPRESENTATIVE TO ACT SO AS TO IGNORE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  OTHERWISE THE ACT WOULD BEAR THE STIGMA OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN THIS RESPECT.  FOR
THAT REASON I AM WILLING TO READ THE STATUTE AS NOT PERMITTING OR
ALLOWING ANY ACTION BY THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE IN THE EXERCISE OF
ITS DELEGATED POWERS WHICH WOULD IN EFFECT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS. 

IF THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE RESTS UPON THIS BASIS, I
AGREE.  BUT I AM NOT SURE THAT SUCH IS THE BASIS.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY,
HOWEVER, THAT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE CANNOT BE LIGHTLY DISMISSED. 
THE CLOAK OF RACISM SURROUNDING THE ACTIONS OF THE BROTHERHOOD IN
REFUSING MEMBERSHIP TO NEGROES AND IN ENTERING INTO AND ENFORCING
AGREEMENTS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM, ALL UNDER THE GUISE OF
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY, STILL REMAINS.  NO STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
CAN ERASE THIS UGLY EXAMPLE OF ECONOMIC CRUELTY AGAINST COLORED
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  NOTHING CAN DESTROY THE FACT THAT THE
ACCIDENT OF BIRTH HAS BEEN USED AS THE BASIS TO ABUSE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
BY AN ORGANIZATION PURPORTING TO ACT IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS
CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE.  ANY ATTEMPT TO INTERPRET THE ACT MUST TAKE THAT
FACT INTO ACCOUNT AND MUST REALIZE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTE IN THIS RESPECT DEPENDS UPON THE ANSWER GIVEN. 

THE CONSTITUTION VOICES ITS DISAPPROVAL WHENEVER ECONOMIC
DISCRIMINATION IS APPLIED UNDER AUTHORITY OF LAW AGAINST ANY RACE,
CREED OR COLOR.  A SOUND DEMOCRACY CANNOT ALLOW SUCH DISCRIMINATION TO
GO UNCHALLENGED.  RACISM IS FAR TOO VIRULENT TODAY TO PERMIT THE
SLIGHTEST REFUSAL, IN THE LIGHT OF A CONSTITUTION THAT ABHORS IT, TO
EXPOSE AND CONDEMN IT WHEREVER IT APPEARS IN THE COURSE OF A STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION. 
..END :
























TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD, 323 U.S. 210 


NO. 37.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1944.  - 140
F.2D 35, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IMPOSES ON A LABOR ORGANIZATION, ACTING AS
THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT OR CLASS OF RAILWAY
EMPLOYEES, THE DUTY TO REPRESENT ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN THE CRAFT WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE.  STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R.
CO., ANTE, P. 192.  P. 211. 

2.  THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A NON-DIVERSITY
SUIT IN WHICH PETITIONER, A RAILWAY EMPLOYEE SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT, SEEKS REMEDIES BY INJUNCTION AND AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR THE
FAILURE OF THE UNION BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS CRAFT TO PERFORM
THE DUTY IMPOSED ON IT BY THE ACT, TO REPRESENT PETITIONER AND OTHER
MEMBERS OF HIS CRAFT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE.  P. 212. 

3.  PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT EXCLUDED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT FROM THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 213. 

4.  THE RIGHT ASSERTED BY THE PETITIONER IS DERIVED FROM THE DUTY
IMPOSED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT ON THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AND
IS A FEDERAL RIGHT IMPLIED FROM THE STATUTE AND THE POLICY WHICH IT HAS
ADOPTED.  P. 213. 

5.  THE CASE IS THEREFORE ONE ARISING UNDER A LAW REGULATING
COMMERCE, OF WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION BY 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(8).  P. 213. 

6.  THE PETITIONER HAS NO ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE, AND THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION ENTITLING HIM TO RELIEF.  P.
213. 

TUNSTALL V. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 721, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO.,
ANTE, P. 192, IN WHICH WE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE A QUESTION ALSO
PRESENTED IN THIS CASE.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT,
48 STAT. 1185, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 151 ET SEQ., IMPOSES ON A LABOR
ORGANIZATION, ACTING AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF A
CRAFT OR CLASS OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES, THE DUTY TO REPRESENT ALL THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE CRAFT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. 
THE FURTHER QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A NONDIVERSITY SUIT IN WHICH PETITIONER, A
RAILWAY EMPLOYEE SUBJECT TO THE ACT, SEEKS REMEDIES BY INJUNCTION AND
AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR THE FAILURE OF THE UNION BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
OF HIS CRAFT TO PERFORM THE DUTY IMPOSED ON IT BY THE ACT, TO REPRESENT
PETITIONER AND OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS CRAFT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
BECAUSE OF RACE. 

PETITIONER, A NEGRO FIREMAN, EMPLOYED BY THE NORFOLK & SOUTHERN
RAILWAY, BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE RAILWAY,
THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN AND CERTAIN OF ITS
SUBSIDIARY LODGES, AND ONE OF ITS OFFICERS, SETTING UP, IN ALL MATERIAL
RESPECTS, A CAUSE OF ACTION LIKE THAT ALLEGED IN THE STEELE CASE.  THE
BROTHERHOOD, A LABOR UNION, IS THE DESIGNATED BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, FOR THE CRAFT OF FIREMEN OF WHICH
PETITIONER IS A MEMBER, AND IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE RAILWAY AND ITS
EMPLOYEES. 

ACTING AS SUCH THE BROTHERHOOD GAVE TO THE RAILWAY THE NOTICE OF
MARCH 28, 1940, AND LATER ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACT OF FEBRUARY 18,
1941 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATIONS, ALL OF WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF
OUR CONSIDERATION IN THE STEELE CASE.  PETITIONER COMPLAINS OF THE
DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATION OF THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS TO HIM AND OTHER
NEGRO MEMBERS OF HIS CRAFT IN FAVOR OF "PROMOTABLE," I.E. WHITE,
FIREMEN, BY WHICH HE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS PRE-EXISTING SENIORITY
RIGHTS, REMOVED FROM THE INTERSTATE PASSENGER RUN TO WHICH HE WAS
ASSIGNED AND THEN ASSIGNED TO MORE ARDUOUS AND DIFFICULT WORK WITH
LONGER HOURS IN YARD SERVICE, HIS PLACE IN THE PASSENGER SERVICE BEING
FILLED BY A WHITE FIREMAN. 

HE ALLEGES THAT THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED AND PUT INTO EFFECT WITHOUT
NOTICE TO HIM OR OTHER NEGRO MEMBERS OF HIS CRAFT, AND WITHOUT
OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE HEARD WITH RESPECT TO ITS TERMS, AND THAT
HIS PROTESTS AND DEMANDS FOR RELIEF TO THE RAILWAY AND THE BROTHERHOOD
HAVE BEEN UNAVAILING.  PETITIONER PRAYS FOR A DECLARATORY ADJUDICATION
OF HIS RIGHTS, FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES COMPLAINED OF, FOR AN AWARD OF DAMAGES AND FOR OTHER RELIEF. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 140 F.2D 35,
ON THE GROUND THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE
CAUSE, THERE BEING NO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND, INSOFAR AS THE SUIT
IS GROUNDED ON THE WRONGFUL ACTS OF RESPONDENTS, IT IS NOT ONE ARISING
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, EVEN THOUGH THE UNION WAS CHOSEN
AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE PURSUANT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  SEE
GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 109, 112, 114. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINION IN THE STEELE CASE THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT ITSELF DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF ACTION FROM
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  CF. SWITCHMEN'S UNION V.
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297; GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R.
CO., 320 U.S. 323; GENERAL COMMITTEE V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 320 U.S.
338; BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS V. UNITED TRANSPORT SERVICE EMPLOYEES, 320
U.S. 715, 816, WITH TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; VIRGINIAN R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION,
300 U.S. 515. 

WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE RIGHT ASSERTED BY PETITIONER WHICH IS DERIVED
FROM THE DUTY IMPOSED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT ON THE BROTHERHOOD, AS
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, IS A FEDERAL RIGHT IMPLIED FROM THE STATUTE
AND THE POLICY WHICH IT HAS ADOPTED.  IT IS THE FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH
CONDEMNS AS UNLAWFUL THE BROTHERHOOD'S CONDUCT.  "THE EXTENT AND NATURE
OF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS CONDEMNATION, THOUGH LEFT BY THE
STATUTE TO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, ARE NEVERTHELESS TO BE DERIVED FROM
IT AND THE FEDERAL POLICY WHICH IT HAS ADOPTED."  DEITRICK V. GREANEY,
309 U.S. 190, 200-201; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES,
308 U.S. 343; SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON CO., 317 U.S. 173, 176-7;
CF. CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363.  THE CASE IS
THEREFORE ONE ARISING UNDER A LAW REGULATING COMMERCE OF WHICH THE
FEDERAL COURTS ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(8), JUDICIAL
CODE SEC. 24(8); MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38, 46; PEYTON V. RAILWAY
EXPRESS AGENCY, 316 U.S. 350; CF. ILLINOIS STEEL CO. V. B. & O.R. CO.,
320 U.S. 508, 510-511. 

FOR THE REASONS ALSO STATED IN OUR OPINION IN THE STEELE CASE THE
PETITIONER IS WITHOUT AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES, RESORT TO
WHICH, WHEN AVAILABLE, IS PREREQUISITE TO EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  GOLDSMITH V. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 270 U.S. 117, 123;
PORTER V. INVESTORS SYNDICATE, 286 U.S. 461, 471; 287 U.S. 346; NATURAL
GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300, 309; ATLAS INS. CO. V. SOUTHERN,
INC., 306 U.S. 563. 

WE HOLD, AS IN THE STEELE CASE, THAT THE BILL OF COMPLAINT STATES A
CAUSE OF ACTION ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO RELIEF.  AS OTHER JURISDICTIONAL
QUESTIONS WERE RAISED IN THE COURTS BELOW WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE CASE WILL BE REMANDED TO THAT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS IN THE RESULT FOR THE REASONS EXPRESSED IN
HIS CONCURRING OPINION IN STEELE V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO.,
ANTE, P. 208. 
..END :




















KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214 


NO. 22.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 12, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1944.  -
140 F.2D 289, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 34 WHICH, DURING A STATE OF WAR WITH
JAPAN AND AS A PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE, WAS
PROMULGATED BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND
UNDER AUTHORITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066 AND THE ACT OF MARCH 21,
1942, AND WHICH DIRECTED THE EXCLUSION AFTER MAY 9, 1942 FROM A
DESCRIBED WEST COAST MILITARY AREA OF ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY,
HELD CONSTITUTIONAL AS OF THE TIME IT WAS MADE AND WHEN THE PETITIONER
AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OF JAPANESE DESCENT WHOSE HOME WAS IN THE
DESCRIBED AREA - VIOLATED IT.  P. 219. 

2.  THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER ORDERS REQUIRING PERSONS OF JAPANESE
ANCESTRY TO REPORT TO ASSEMBLY CENTERS AND PROVIDING FOR THE DETENTION
OF SUCH PERSONS IN ASSEMBLY AND RELOCATION CENTERS WERE SEPARATE, AND
THEIR VALIDITY IS NOT IN ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING.  P. 222. 

3.  EVEN THOUGH EVACUATION AND DETENTION IN THE ASSEMBLY CENTER WERE
INSEPARABLE, THE ORDER UNDER WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WAS
NEVERTHELESS VALID.  P. 223. 

KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 760, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OF JAPANESE DESCENT, WAS
CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR REMAINING IN SAN LEANDRO,
CALIFORNIA, A "MILITARY AREA," CONTRARY TO CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO.
34 OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE WESTERN COMMAND, U.S. ARMY, WHICH
DIRECTED THAT AFTER MAY 9, 1942, ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY
SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THAT AREA.  NO QUESTION WAS RAISED AS TO
PETITIONER'S LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED,  FN1  AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION INVOLVED CAUSED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED, TO BEGIN WITH, THAT ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS WHICH
CURTAIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF A SINGLE RACIAL GROUP ARE IMMEDIATELY
SUSPECT.  THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT ALL SUCH RESTRICTIONS ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IT IS TO SAY THAT COURTS MUST SUBJECT THEM TO THE
MOST RIGID SCRUTINY.  PRESSING PUBLIC NECESSITY MAY SOMETIMES JUSTIFY
THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH RESTRICTIONS; RACIAL ANTAGONISM NEVER CAN. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE PROSECUTION OF THE PETITIONER WAS BEGUN BY
INFORMATION CHARGING VIOLATION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, OF MARCH 21,
1942, 56 STAT. 173, WHICH PROVIDES THAT 

"...  WHOEVER SHALL ENTER, REMAIN IN, LEAVE, OR COMMIT ANY ACT IN ANY
MILITARY AREA OR MILITARY ZONE PRESCRIBED, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR, OR BY ANY
MILITARY COMMANDER DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR, CONTRARY TO THE
RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO ANY SUCH AREA OR ZONE OR CONTRARY TO THE
ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR OR ANY SUCH MILITARY COMMANDER, SHALL, IF
IT APPEARS THAT HE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE EXISTENCE AND
EXTENT OF THE RESTRICTIONS OR ORDER AND THAT HIS ACT WAS IN VIOLATION
THEREOF, BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION SHALL BE LIABLE
TO A FINE OF NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 OR TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN
ONE YEAR, OR BOTH, FOR EACH OFFENSE." 

EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 34, WHICH THE PETITIONER KNOWINGLY AND ADMITTEDLY
VIOLATED, WAS ONE OF A NUMBER OF MILITARY ORDERS AND PROCLAMATIONS, ALL
OF WHICH WERE SUBSTANTIALLY BASED UPON EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, 7 FED.
REG. 1407.  THAT ORDER, ISSUED AFTER WE WERE AT WAR WITH JAPAN,
DECLARED THAT "THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE WAR REQUIRES EVERY
POSSIBLE PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND AGAINST SABOTAGE TO NATIONAL
DEFENSE MATERIAL, NATIONAL-DEFENSE PREMISES, AND NATIONAL-DEFENSE
UTILITIES...." 

ONE OF THE SERIES OF ORDERS AND PROCLAMATIONS, A CURFEW ORDER, WHICH
LIKE THE EXCLUSION ORDER HERE WAS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE
ORDER 9066, SUBJECTED ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY IN PRESCRIBED
WEST COAST MILITARY AREAS TO REMAIN IN THEIR RESIDENCES FROM 8 P.M. TO
6 A.M.  AS IS THE CASE WITH THE EXCLUSION ORDER HERE, THAT PRIOR CURFEW
ORDER WAS DESIGNED AS A "PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND AGAINST
SABOTAGE."  IN HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, WE SUSTAINED
A CONVICTION OBTAINED FOR VIOLATION OF THE CURFEW ORDER.  THE
HIRABAYASHI CONVICTION AND THIS ONE THUS REST ON THE SAME 1942
CONGRESSIONAL ACT AND THE SAME BASIC EXECUTIVE AND MILITARY ORDERS, ALL
OF WHICH ORDERS WERE AIMED AT THE TWIN DANGERS OF ESPIONAGE AND
SABOTAGE. 

THE 1942 ACT WAS ATTACKED IN THE HIRABAYASHI CASE AS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF POWER; IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CURFEW
ORDER AND OTHER ORDERS ON WHICH IT RESTED WERE BEYOND THE WAR POWERS OF
THE CONGRESS, THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND OF THE PRESIDENT, AS
COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY; AND FINALLY THAT TO APPLY THE CURFEW
ORDER AGAINST NONE BUT CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY AMOUNTED TO A
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF RACE. 
TO THESE QUESTIONS, WE GAVE THE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION WHICH THEIR
IMPORTANCE JUSTIFIED.  WE UPHELD THE CURFEW ORDER AS AN EXERCISE OF THE
POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE STEPS NECESSARY TO PREVENT ESPIONAGE
AND SABOTAGE IN AN AREA THREATENED BY JAPANESE ATTACK. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES WE ANNOUNCED IN THE HIRABAYASHI CASE,
WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS BEYOND THE WAR POWER OF CONGRESS
AND THE EXECUTIVE TO EXCLUDE THOSE OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY FROM THE WEST
COAST WAR AREA AT THE TIME THEY DID.  TRUE, EXCLUSION FROM THE AREA IN
WHICH ONE'S HOME IS LOCATED IS A FAR GREATER DEPRIVATION THAN CONSTANT
CONFINEMENT TO THE HOME FROM 8 P.M. TO 6 A.M.  NOTHING SHORT OF
APPREHENSION BY THE PROPER MILITARY AUTHORITIES OF THE GRAVEST IMMINENT
DANGER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY JUSTIFY EITHER.  BUT
EXCLUSION FROM A THREATENED AREA, NO LESS THAN CURFEW, HAS A DEFINITE
AND CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PREVENTION OF ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE. 
THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES, CHARGED WITH THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF
DEFENDING OUR SHORES, CONCLUDED THAT CURFEW PROVIDED INADEQUATE
PROTECTION AND ORDERED EXCLUSION.  THEY DID SO, AS POINTED OUT IN OUR
HIRABAYASHI OPINION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO THE
MILITARY TO SAY WHO SHOULD, AND WHO SHOULD NOT, REMAIN IN THE
THREATENED AREAS. 

IN THIS CASE THE PETITIONER CHALLENGES THE ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH WE
RESTED OUR CONCLUSIONS IN THE HIRABAYASHI CASE.  HE ALSO URGES THAT BY
MAY 1942, WHEN ORDER NO. 34 WAS PROMULGATED, ALL DANGER OF JAPANESE
INVASION OF THE WEST COAST HAD DISAPPEARED.  AFTER CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION OF THESE CONTENTIONS WE ARE COMPELLED TO REJECT THEM. 

HERE, AS IN THE HIRABAYASHI CASE, SUPRA, AT P. 99, "...  WE CANNOT
REJECT AS UNFOUNDED THE JUDGMENT OF THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND OF
CONGRESS THAT THERE WERE DISLOYAL MEMBERS OF THAT POPULATION, WHOSE
NUMBER AND STRENGTH COULD NOT BE PRECISELY AND QUICKLY ASCERTAINED.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE WAR-MAKING BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE
GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT IN A CRITICAL HOUR SUCH PERSONS COULD NOT
READILY BE ISOLATED AND SEPARATELY DEALT WITH, AND CONSTITUTED A MENACE
TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SAFETY, WHICH DEMANDED THAT PROMPT AND
ADEQUATE MEASURES BE TAKEN TO GUARD AGAINST IT." 

LIKE CURFEW, EXCLUSION OF THOSE OF JAPANESE ORIGIN WAS DEEMED
NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF AN UNASCERTAINED NUMBER OF
DISLOYAL MEMBERS OF THE GROUP, MOST OF WHOM WE HAVE NO DOUBT WERE LOYAL
TO THIS COUNTRY.  IT WAS BECAUSE WE COULD NOT REJECT THE FINDING OF THE
MILITARY AUTHORITIES THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO BRING ABOUT AN IMMEDIATE
SEGREGATION OF THE DISLOYAL FROM THE LOYAL THAT WE SUSTAINED THE
VALIDITY OF THE CURFEW ORDER AS APPLYING TO THE WHOLE GROUP.  IN THE
INSTANT CASE, TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF THE ENTIRE GROUP WAS RESTED BY THE
MILITARY ON THE SAME GROUND.  THE JUDGMENT THAT EXCLUSION OF THE WHOLE
GROUP WAS FOR THE SAME REASON A MILITARY IMPERATIVE ANSWERS THE
CONTENTION THAT THE EXCLUSION WAS IN THE NATURE OF GROUP PUNISHMENT
BASED ON ANTAGONISM TO THOSE OF JAPANESE ORIGIN.  THAT THERE WERE
MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WHO RETAINED LOYALTIES TO JAPAN HAS BEEN CONFIRMED
BY INVESTIGATIONS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXCLUSION.  APPROXIMATELY FIVE
THOUSAND AMERICAN CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY REFUSED TO SWEAR
UNQUALIFIED ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO RENOUNCE ALLEGIANCE
TO THE JAPANESE EMPEROR, AND SEVERAL THOUSAND EVACUEES REQUESTED
REPATRIATION TO JAPAN.  FN2 

WE UPHOLD THE EXCLUSION ORDER AS OF THE TIME IT WAS MADE AND WHEN THE
PETITIONER VIOLATED IT. CF. CHASTLETON CORPORATION V. SINCLAIR, 264
U.S. 543, 547; BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135, 154-5.  IN DOING SO, WE
ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE HARDSHIPS IMPOSED BY IT UPON A LARGE GROUP OF
AMERICAN CITIZENS.  CF. EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69, 73.  BUT
HARDSHIPS ARE PART OF WAR, AND WAR IS AN AGGREGATION OF HARDSHIPS.  ALL
CITIZENS ALIKE, BOTH IN AND OUT OF UNIFORM, FEEL THE IMPACT OF WAR IN
GREATER OR LESSER MEASURE.  CITIZENSHIP HAS ITS RESPONSIBILITIES AS
WELL AS ITS PRIVILEGES, AND IN TIME OF WAR THE BURDEN IS ALWAYS
HEAVIER.  COMPULSORY EXCLUSION OF LARGE GROUPS OF CITIZENS FROM THEIR
HOMES, EXCEPT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF DIREST EMERGENCY AND PERIL, IS
INCONSISTENT WITH OUR BASIC GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS.  BUT WHEN UNDER
CONDITIONS OF MODERN WARFARE OUR SHORES ARE THREATENED BY HOSTILE
FORCES, THE POWER TO PROTECT MUST BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE THREATENED
DANGER. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT ON MAY 30, 1942, THE DATE THE PETITIONER WAS
CHARGED WITH REMAINING IN THE PROHIBITED AREA, THERE WERE CONFLICTING
ORDERS OUTSTANDING, FORBIDDING HIM BOTH TO LEAVE THE AREA AND TO REMAIN
THERE.  OF COURSE, A PERSON CANNOT BE CONVICTED FOR DOING THE VERY
THING WHICH IT IS A CRIME TO FAIL TO DO.  BUT THE OUTSTANDING ORDERS
HERE CONTAINED NO SUCH CONTRADICTORY COMMANDS. 

THERE WAS AN ORDER ISSUED MARCH 27, 1942, WHICH PROHIBITED PETITIONER
AND OTHERS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY FROM LEAVING THE AREA, BUT ITS EFFECT
WAS SPECIFICALLY LIMITED IN TIME "UNTIL AND TO THE EXTENT THAT A FUTURE
PROCLAMATION OR ORDER SHOULD SO PERMIT OR DIRECT."  7 FED. REG. 2601. 
THAT "FUTURE ORDER," THE ONE FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED, WAS ISSUED MAY 3, 1942, AND IT DID "DIRECT" EXCLUSION FROM
THE AREA OF ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, BEFORE 12 O'CLOCK NOON,
MAY 9; FURTHERMORE IT CONTAINED A WARNING THAT ALL SUCH PERSONS FOUND
IN THE PROHIBITED AREA WOULD BE LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT UNDER THE MARCH
21, 1942 ACT OF CONGRESS.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE ONLY ORDER IN EFFECT
TOUCHING THE PETITIONER'S BEING IN THE AREA ON MAY 30, 1942, THE DATE
SPECIFIED IN THE INFORMATION AGAINST HIM, WAS THE MAY 3 ORDER WHICH
PROHIBITED HIS REMAINING THERE, AND IT WAS THAT SAME ORDER, WHICH HE
STIPULATED IN HIS TRIAL THAT HE HAD VIOLATED, KNOWING OF ITS
EXISTENCE.  THERE IS THEREFORE NO BASIS FOR THE ARGUMENT THAT ON MAY
30, 1942, HE WAS SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT, UNDER THE MARCH 27 AND MAY 3
ORDERS, WHETHER HE REMAINED IN OR LEFT THE AREA. 

IT DOES APPEAR, HOWEVER, THAT ON MAY 9, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
EXCLUSION ORDER, THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES HAD ALREADY DETERMINED THAT
THE EVACUATION SHOULD BE EFFECTED BY ASSEMBLING TOGETHER AND PLACING
UNDER GUARD ALL THOSE OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, AT CENTRAL POINTS,
DESIGNATED AS "ASSEMBLY CENTERS," IN ORDER "TO INSURE THE ORDERLY
EVACUATION AND RESETTLEMENT OF JAPANESE VOLUNTARILY MIGRATING FROM
MILITARY AREA NO. 1, TO RESTRICT AND REGULATE SUCH MIGRATION."  PUBLIC
PROCLAMATION NO. 4, 7 FED. REG. 2601.  AND ON MAY 19, 1942, ELEVEN DAYS
BEFORE THE TIME PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH UNLAWFULLY REMAINING IN THE
AREA, CIVILIAN RESTRICTIVE ORDER NO. 1, 8 FED. REG. 982, PROVIDED FOR
DETENTION OF THOSE OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY IN ASSEMBLY OR RELOCATION
CENTERS.  IT IS NOW ARGUED THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE EXCLUSION ORDER
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED APART FROM THE ORDERS REQUIRING HIM, AFTER
DEPARTURE FROM THE AREA, TO REPORT AND TO REMAIN IN AN ASSEMBLY OR
RELOCATION CENTER.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT WE MUST TREAT THESE SEPARATE
ORDERS AS ONE AND INSEPARABLE; THAT, FOR THIS REASON, IF DETENTION IN
THE ASSEMBLY OR RELOCATION CENTER WOULD HAVE ILLEGALLY DEPRIVED THE
PETITIONER OF HIS LIBERTY, THE EXCLUSION ORDER AND HIS CONVICTION UNDER
IT CANNOT STAND. 

WE ARE THUS BEING ASKED TO PASS AT THIS TIME UPON THE WHOLE
SUBSEQUENT DETENTION PROGRAM IN BOTH ASSEMBLY AND RELOCATION CENTERS,
ALTHOUGH THE ONLY ISSUES FRAMED AT THE TRIAL RELATED TO PETITIONER'S
REMAINING IN THE PROHIBITED AREA IN VIOLATION OF THE EXCLUSION ORDER. 
HAD PETITIONER HERE LEFT THE PROHIBITED AREA AND GONE TO AN ASSEMBLY
CENTER WE CANNOT SAY EITHER AS A MATTER OF FACT OR LAW THAT HIS
PRESENCE IN THAT CENTER WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN HIS DETENTION IN A
RELOCATION CENTER.  SOME WHO DID REPORT TO THE ASSEMBLY CENTER WERE NOT
SENT TO RELOCATION CENTERS, BUT WERE RELEASED UPON CONDITION THAT THEY
REMAIN OUTSIDE THE PROHIBITED ZONE UNTIL THE MILITARY ORDERS WERE
MODIFIED OR LIFTED.  THIS ILLUSTRATES THAT THEY POSE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS
AND MAY BE GOVERNED BY DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES.  THE LAWFULNESS OF ONE
DOES NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE THE LAWFULNESS OF THE OTHERS.  THIS IS
MADE CLEAR WHEN WE ANALYZE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEPARATE PROVISIONS
OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS.  THESE SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS WERE THAT THOSE OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY (1) DEPART FROM THE AREA; (2) REPORT TO AND
TEMPORARILY REMAIN IN AN ASSEMBLY CENTER; (3) GO UNDER MILITARY CONTROL
TO A RELOCATION CENTER THERE TO REMAIN FOR AN INDETERMINATE PERIOD
UNTIL RELEASED CONDITIONALLY OR UNCONDITIONALLY BY THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES.  EACH OF THESE REQUIREMENTS, IT WILL BE NOTED, IMPOSED
DISTINCT DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEPARATE STEPS IN A COMPLETE
EVACUATION PROGRAM.  HAD CONGRESS DIRECTLY INCORPORATED INTO ONE ACT
THE LANGUAGE OF THESE SEPARATE ORDERS, AND PROVIDED SANCTIONS FOR THEIR
VIOLATIONS, DISOBEDIENCE OF ANY ONE WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED A SEPARATE
OFFENSE.  CF. BLOCKBURGER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 299, 304.  THERE
IS NO REASON WHY VIOLATIONS OF THESE ORDERS, INSOFAR AS THEY WERE
PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, SHOULD NOT BE TREATED
AS SEPARATE OFFENSES. 

THE ENDO CASE, POST, P. 283, GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATES THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER TO EXCLUDE AND THE VALIDITY OF A
DETENTION ORDER AFTER EXCLUSION HAS BEEN EFFECTED.    SINCE THE
PETITIONER HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF FAILING TO REPORT OR TO REMAIN IN
AN ASSEMBLY OR RELOCATION CENTER, WE CANNOT IN THIS CASE DETERMINE THE
VALIDITY OF THOSE SEPARATE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER.  IT IS SUFFICIENT
HERE FOR US TO PASS UPON THE ORDER WHICH PETITIONER VIOLATED.  TO DO
MORE WOULD BE TO GO BEYOND THE ISSUES RAISED, AND TO DECIDE MOMENTOUS
QUESTIONS NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PLEADINGS OR THE
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO DECIDE THE SERIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH PETITIONER SEEKS TO RAISE WHEN AN ASSEMBLY
OR RELOCATION ORDER IS APPLIED OR IS CERTAIN TO BE APPLIED TO HIM, AND
WE HAVE ITS TERMS BEFORE US. 

SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVACUATION AND
DETENTION IN AN ASSEMBLY CENTER WERE INSEPARABLE.  AFTER MAY 3, 1942,
THE DATE OF EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 34, KOREMATSU WAS UNDER COMPULSION TO
LEAVE THE AREA NOT AS HE WOULD CHOOSE BUT VIA AN ASSEMBLY CENTER.  THE
ASSEMBLY CENTER WAS CONCEIVED AS A PART OF THE MACHINERY FOR GROUP
EVACUATION.  THE POWER TO EXCLUDE INCLUDES THE POWER TO DO IT BY FORCE
IF NECESSARY.  AND ANY FORCIBLE MEASURE MUST NECESSARILY ENTAIL SOME
DEGREE OF DETENTION OR RESTRAINT WHATEVER METHOD OF REMOVAL IS
SELECTED.  BUT WHICHEVER VIEW IS TAKEN, IT RESULTS IN HOLDING THAT THE
ORDER UNDER WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WAS VALID. 

IT IS SAID THAT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH THE CASE OF IMPRISONMENT OF
A CITIZEN IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP SOLELY BECAUSE OF HIS ANCESTRY,
WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR INQUIRY CONCERNING HIS LOYALTY AND GOOD DISPOSITION
TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES.  OUR TASK WOULD BE SIMPLE, OUR DUTY CLEAR,
WERE THIS A CASE INVOLVING THE IMPRISONMENT OF A LOYAL CITIZEN IN A
CONCENTRATION CAMP BECAUSE OF RACIAL PREJUDICE.  REGARDLESS OF THE TRUE
NATURE OF THE ASSEMBLY AND RELOCATION CENTERS - AND WE DEEM IT
UNJUSTIFIABLE TO CALL THEM CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITH ALL THE UGLY
CONNOTATIONS THAT TERM IMPLIES - WE ARE DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH
NOTHING BUT AN EXCLUSION ORDER.  TO CAST THIS CASE INTO OUTLINES OF
RACIAL PREJUDICE, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE REAL MILITARY DANGERS WHICH
WERE PRESENTED, MERELY CONFUSES THE ISSUE.  KOREMATSU WAS NOT EXCLUDED
FROM THE MILITARY AREA BECAUSE OF HOSTILITY TO HIM OR HIS RACE.  HE WAS
EXCLUDED BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE JAPANESE EMPIRE, BECAUSE THE
PROPERLY CONSTITUTED MILITARY AUTHORITIES FEARED AN INVASION OF OUR
WEST COAST AND FELT CONSTRAINED TO TAKE PROPER SECURITY MEASURES,
BECAUSE THEY DECIDED THAT THE MILITARY URGENCY OF THE SITUATION
DEMANDED THAT ALL CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY BE SEGREGATED FROM THE
WEST COAST TEMPORARILY, AND FINALLY, BECAUSE CONGRESS, REPOSING ITS
CONFIDENCE IN THIS TIME OF WAR IN OUR MILITARY LEADERS - AS INEVITABLY
IT MUST - DETERMINED THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DO JUST THIS. 
THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF DISLOYALTY ON THE PART OF SOME, THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES CONSIDERED THAT THE NEED FOR ACTION WAS GREAT, AND TIME WAS
SHORT.  WE CANNOT - BY AVAILING OURSELVES OF THE CALM PERSPECTIVE OF
HINDSIGHT - NOW SAY THAT AT THAT TIME THESE ACTIONS WERE UNJUSTIFIED. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  140 F.2D 289. 

FN2  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL WAR AGENCIES
APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1945, PART II, 608-726; FINAL REPORT, JAPANESE
EVACUATION FROM THE WEST COAST, 1942, 309-327; HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
78TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 2701 AND OTHER BILLS TO EXPATRIATE
CERTAIN NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES, PP. 37-42, 49-58. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

ACCORDING TO MY READING OF CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 34, IT WAS AN
OFFENSE FOR KOREMATSU TO BE FOUND IN MILITARY AREA NO. 1, THE TERRITORY
WHEREIN HE WAS PREVIOUSLY LIVING, EXCEPT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE
ESTABLISHED ASSEMBLY CENTER OF THAT AREA.  EVEN THOUGH THE VARIOUS
ORDERS ISSUED BY GENERAL DEWITT BE DEEMED A COMPREHENSIVE CODE OF
INSTRUCTIONS, THEIR TENOR IS CLEAR AND NOT CONTRADICTORY.  THEY PUT
UPON KOREMATSU THE OBLIGATION TO LEAVE MILITARY AREA NO. 1, BUT ONLY BY
THE METHOD PRESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS, I.E., BY REPORTING TO THE
ASSEMBLY CENTER.  I AM UNABLE TO SEE HOW THE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT
LED TO THE DECISION IN HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, FAIL
TO SUSTAIN THE MILITARY ORDER WHICH MADE THE CONDUCT NOW IN CONTROVERSY
A CRIME.  AND SO I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, BUT SHOULD LIKE TO
ADD A FEW WORDS OF MY OWN. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH CONFER ON THE CONGRESS AND
THE PRESIDENT POWERS TO ENABLE THIS COUNTRY TO WAGE WAR ARE AS MUCH
PART OF THE CONSTITUTION AS PROVISIONS LOOKING TO A NATION AT PEACE. 
AND WE HAVE HAD RECENT OCCASION TO QUOTE APPROVINGLY THE STATEMENT OF
FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES THAT THE WAR POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT IS
"THE POWER TO WAGE WAR SUCCESSFULLY."  HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA AT 93; AND SEE HOME BLDG. & L. ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398,
426.  THEREFORE, THE VALIDITY OF ACTION UNDER THE WAR POWER MUST BE
JUDGED WHOLLY IN THE CONTEXT OF WAR.  THAT ACTION IS NOT TO BE
STIGMATIZED AS LAWLESS BECAUSE LIKE ACTION IN TIMES OF PEACE WOULD BE
LAWLESS.  TO TALK ABOUT A MILITARY ORDER THAT EXPRESSES AN ALLOWABLE
JUDGMENT OF WAR NEEDS BY THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH THE DUTY OF CONDUCTING
WAR AS "AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER" IS TO SUFFUSE A PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION WITH AN ATMOSPHERE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  THE RESPECTIVE
SPHERES OF ACTION OF MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND OF JUDGES ARE OF COURSE
VERY DIFFERENT.  BUT WITHIN THEIR SPHERE, MILITARY AUTHORITIES ARE NO
MORE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF OBEDIENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION THAN ARE
JUDGES WITHIN THEIRS.  "THE WAR POWER OF THE UNITED STATES, LIKE ITS
OTHER POWERS  ... IS SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS",
HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. 146, 156.  TO RECOGNIZE
THAT MILITARY ORDERS ARE "REASONABLY EXPEDIENT MILITARY PRECAUTIONS" IN
TIME OF WAR AND YET TO DENY THEM CONSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY MAKES OF THE
CONSTITUTION AN INSTRUMENT FOR DIALECTIC SUBLETIES NOT REASONABLY TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE HARD-HEADED FRAMERS, OF WHOM A MAJORITY HAD HAD
ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN WAR.  IF A MILITARY ORDER SUCH AS THAT UNDER
REVIEW DOES NOT TRANSCEND THE MEANS APPROPRIATE FOR CONDUCTING WAR,
SUCH ACTION BY THE MILITARY IS AS CONSTITUTIONAL AS WOULD BE ANY
AUTHORIZED ACTION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE.  AND BEING AN
EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER EXPLICITLY GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR
SAFEGUARDING THE NATIONAL LIFE BY PROSECUTING WAR EFFECTIVELY, I FIND
NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH DENIES TO CONGRESS THE POWER TO
ENFORCE SUCH A VALID MILITARY ORDER BY MAKING ITS VIOLATION AN OFFENSE
TRIABLE IN THE CIVIL COURTS.  COMPARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447; 155 U.S. 3, AND MONONGAHELA BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 216 U.S. 177.  TO FIND THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FORBID
THE MILITARY MEASURES NOW COMPLAINED OF DOES NOT CARRY WITH IT APPROVAL
OF THAT WHICH CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE DID.  THAT IS THEIR BUSINESS,
NOT OURS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I DISSENT, BECAUSE I THINK THE INDISPUTABLE FACTS EXHIBIT A CLEAR
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE OF KEEPING PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS AT NIGHT AS WAS
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, NOR A CASE OF TEMPORARY
EXCLUSION OF A CITIZEN FROM AN AREA FOR HIS OWN SAFETY OR THAT OF THE
COMMUNITY, NOR A CASE OF OFFERING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TEMPORARILY
OUT OF AN AREA WHERE HIS PRESENCE MIGHT CAUSE DANGER TO HIMSELF OR TO
HIS FELLOWS.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS THE CASE OF CONVICTING A CITIZEN
AS A PUNISHMENT FOR NOT SUBMITTING TO IMPRISONMENT IN A CONCENTRATION
CAMP, BASED ON HIS ANCESTRY, AND SOLELY BECAUSE OF HIS ANCESTRY,
WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR INQUIRY CONCERNING HIS LOYALTY AND GOOD DISPOSITION
TOWARDS THE UNITED STATES.  IF THIS BE A CORRECT STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD, AND FACTS OF WHICH WE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, I
NEED HARDLY LABOR THE CONCLUSION THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
VIOLATED. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT, AND THE OPINION OF THE COURT, IN MY
JUDGMENT, ERRONEOUSLY DIVIDE THAT WHICH IS SINGLE AND INDIVISIBLE AND
THUS MAKE THE CASE APPEAR AS IF THE PETITIONER VIOLATED A MILITARY
ORDER, SANCTIONED BY ACT OF CONGRESS, WHICH EXCLUDED HIM FROM HIS HOME,
BY REFUSING VOLUNTARILY TO LEAVE AND, SO, KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY,
DEFYING THE ORDER AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS. 

THE PETITIONER, A RESIDENT OF SAN LEANDRO, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, IS A NATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY WHO,
ACCORDING TO THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE, IS A LOYAL CITIZEN OF THE
NATION. 

A CHRONOLOGICAL RECITATION OF EVENTS WILL MAKE IT PLAIN THAT THE
PETITIONER'S SUPPOSED OFFENSE DID NOT, IN TRUTH, CONSIST IN HIS REFUSAL
VOLUNTARILY TO LEAVE THE AREA WHICH INCLUDED HIS HOME IN OBEDIENCE TO
THE ORDER EXCLUDING HIM THEREFROM.  CRITICAL ATTENTION MUST BE GIVEN TO
THE DATES AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. 

DECEMBER 8, 1941, THE UNITED STATES DECLARED WAR ON JAPAN. 

FEBRUARY 19, 1942, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066,
FN1  WHICH, AFTER STATING THE REASON FOR ISSUING THE ORDER AS
"PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND AGAINST SABOTAGE TO NATIONAL-DEFENSE
MATERIAL, NATIONAL-DEFENSE PREMISES, AND NATIONAL-DEFENSE UTILITIES,"
PROVIDED THAT CERTAIN MILITARY COMMANDERS MIGHT, IN THEIR DISCRETION,
"PRESCRIBE MILITARY AREAS" AND DEFINE THEIR EXTENT, "FROM WHICH ANY OR
ALL PERSONS MAY BE EXCLUDED, AND WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE RIGHT OF ANY
PERSON TO ENTER, REMAIN IN, OR LEAVE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER
RESTRICTIONS" THE "MILITARY COMMANDER MAY IMPOSE IN HIS DISCRETION." 

FEBRUARY 20, 1942, LIEUTENANT GENERAL DEWITT WAS DESIGNATED MILITARY
COMMANDER OF THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND EMBRACING THE WESTERNMOST
STATES OF THE UNION,  - ABOUT ONE-FOURTH OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE
NATION. 

MARCH 2, 1942, GENERAL DEWITT PROMULGATED PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 1,
FN2  WHICH RECITES THAT THE ENTIRE PACIFIC COAST IS "PARTICULARLY
SUBJECT TO ATTACK, TO ATTEMPTED INVASION  ...  AND, IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH, IS SUBJECT TO ESPIONAGE AND ACTS OF SABOTAGE."  IT STATES
THAT "AS A MATTER OF MILITARY NECESSITY" CERTAIN MILITARY AREAS AND
ZONES ARE ESTABLISHED KNOWN AS MILITARY AREAS NOS. 1 AND 2.  IT ADDS
THAT "SUCH PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS AS THE SITUATION MAY REQUIRE"
WILL, BY SUBSEQUENT ORDERS, "BE EXCLUDED FROM ALL OF MILITARY AREA NO.
1" AND FROM CERTAIN ZONES IN MILITARY AREA NO. 2.  SUBSEQUENT
PROCLAMATIONS WERE MADE WHICH, TOGETHER WITH PROCLAMATION NO. 1,
INCLUDED IN SUCH AREAS AND ZONES ALL OF CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON, OREGON,
IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA AND UTAH, AND THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF ARIZONA. 
THE ORDERS REQUIRED THAT IF ANY PERSON OF JAPANESE, GERMAN OR ITALIAN
ANCESTRY RESIDING IN AREA NO. 1 DESIRED TO CHANGE HIS HABITUAL
RESIDENCE HE MUST EXECUTE AND DELIVER TO THE AUTHORITIES A CHANGE OF
RESIDENCE NOTICE. 

SAN LEANDRO, THE CITY OF PETITIONER'S RESIDENCE, LIES IN MILITARY
AREA NO. 1. 

ON MARCH 2, 1942, THE PETITIONER, THEREFORE, HAD NOTICE THAT, BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE PRESIDENT, TO PREVENT ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE, HAD
AUTHORIZED THE MILITARY TO EXCLUDE HIM FROM CERTAIN AREAS AND TO
PREVENT HIS ENTERING OR LEAVING CERTAIN AREAS WITHOUT PERMISSION.  HE
WAS ON NOTICE THAT HIS HOME CITY HAD BEEN INCLUDED, BY MILITARY ORDER,
IN AREA NO. 1, AND HE WAS ON NOTICE FURTHER THAT, AT SOMETIME IN THE
FUTURE, THE MILITARY COMMANDER WOULD MAKE AN ORDER FOR THE EXCLUSION OF
CERTAIN PERSONS, NOT DESCRIBED OR CLASSIFIED, FROM VARIOUS ZONES
INCLUDING THAT IN WHICH HE LIVED. 

MARCH 21, 1942, CONGRESS ENACTED  FN3  THAT ANYONE WHO KNOWINGLY
"SHALL ENTER, REMAIN IN, LEAVE, OR COMMIT ANY ACT IN ANY MILITARY AREA
OR MILITARY ZONE PRESCRIBED  ...  BY ANY MILITARY COMMANDER ...
CONTRARY TO THE RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO ANY SUCH AREA OR ZONE OR
CONTRARY TO THE ORDER OF ...  ANY SUCH MILITARY COMMANDER" SHALL BE
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR.  THIS IS THE ACT UNDER WHICH THE PETITIONER
WAS CHARGED. 

MARCH 24, 1942, GENERAL DEWITT INSTITUTED THE CURFEW FOR CERTAIN
AREAS WITHIN HIS COMMAND, BY AN ORDER THE VALIDITY OF WHICH WAS
SUSTAINED IN HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

MARCH 24, 1942, GENERAL DEWITT BEGAN TO ISSUE A SERIES OF EXCLUSION
ORDERS RELATING TO SPECIFIED AREAS. 

MARCH 27, 1942, BY PROCLAMATION NO. 4,  FN4  THE GENERAL RECITED THAT
"IT IS NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE WELFARE AND TO INSURE THE
ORDERLY EVACUATION AND RESETTLEMENT OF JAPANESE VOLUNTARILY MIGRATING
FROM MILITARY AREA NO. 1, TO RESTRICT AND REGULATE SUCH MIGRATION"; AND
ORDERED THAT, AS OF MARCH 29, 1942, "ALL ALIEN JAPANESE AND PERSONS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY WHO ARE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF MILITARY AREA NO. 1, BE
AND THEY ARE HEREBY PROHIBITED FROM LEAVING THAT AREA FOR ANY PURPOSE
UNTIL AND TO THE EXTENT THAT A FUTURE PROCLAMATION OR ORDER OF THIS
HEADQUARTERS SHALL SO PERMIT OR DIRECT."  FN5 

NO ORDER HAD BEEN MADE EXCLUDING THE PETITIONER FROM THE AREA IN
WHICH HE LIVED.  BY PROCLAMATION NO. 4 HE WAS, AFTER MARCH 29, 1942,
CONFINED TO THE LIMITS OF AREA NO. 1.  IF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066
AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS MEANT WHAT THEY SAID, TO LEAVE THAT AREA, IN
THE FACE OF PROCLAMATION NO. 4, WOULD BE TO COMMIT A MISDEMEANOR. 

MAY 3, 1942, GENERAL DEWITT ISSUED CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 34
FN6  PROVIDING THAT, AFTER 12 O'CLOCK MAY 8, 1942, ALL PERSONS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY, BOTH ALIEN AND NONALIEN, WERE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM A
DESCRIBED PORTION OF MILITARY AREA NO. 1, WHICH INCLUDED THE COUNTY OF
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA.  THE ORDER REQUIRED A RESPONSIBLE MEMBER OF EACH
FAMILY AND EACH INDIVIDUAL LIVING ALONE TO REPORT, AT A TIME SET, AT A
CIVIL CONTROL STATION FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO GO TO AN ASSEMBLY CENTER, AND
ADDED THAT ANY PERSON FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ORDER WHO WAS FOUND IN THE DESCRIBED AREA AFTER THE DATE SET WOULD BE
LIABLE TO PROSECUTION UNDER THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, SUPRA.  IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ORDER, BY ITS EXPRESS TERMS, HAD NO
APPLICATION TO PERSONS WITHIN THE BOUNDS "OF AN ESTABLISHED ASSEMBLY
CENTER PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTIONS FROM THIS HEADQUARTERS  ..."  THE
OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE ORDERS MADE, TAKEN TOGETHER, WAS TO DRIVE ALL
CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY INTO ASSEMBLY CENTERS WITHIN THE ZONES OF
THEIR RESIDENCE, UNDER PAIN OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.    THE PREDICAMENT
IN WHICH THE PETITIONER THUS FOUND HIMSELF WAS THIS:  HE WAS FORBIDDEN,
BY MILITARY ORDER, TO LEAVE THE ZONE IN WHICH HE LIVED; HE WAS
FORBIDDEN, BY MILITARY ORDER, AFTER A DATE FIXED, TO BE FOUND WITHIN
THAT ZONE UNLESS HE WERE IN AN ASSEMBLY CENTER LOCATED IN THAT ZONE. 
GENERAL DEWITT'S REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR CONCERNING THE
PROGRAMME OF EVACUATION AND RELOCATION OF JAPANESE MAKES IT ENTIRELY
CLEAR, IF IT WERE NECESSARY TO REFER TO THAT DOCUMENT,  - AND, IN THE
LIGHT OF THE ABOVE RECITATION, I THINK IT IS NOT,  - THAT AN ASSEMBLY
CENTER WAS A EUPHEMISM FOR A PRISON.  NO PERSON WITHIN SUCH A CENTER
WAS PERMITTED TO LEAVE EXCEPT BY MILITARY ORDER. 

IN THE DILEMMA THAT HE DARE NOT REMAIN IN HIS HOME, OR VOLUNTARILY
LEAVE THE AREA, WITHOUT INCURRING CRIMINAL PENALTIES, AND THAT THE ONLY
WAY HE COULD AVOID PUNISHMENT WAS TO GO TO AN ASSEMBLY CENTER AND
SUBMIT HIMSELF TO MILITARY IMPRISONMENT, THE PETITIONER DID NOTHING. 

JUNE 12, 1942, AN INFORMATION WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHARGING A VIOLATION OF THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942,
IN THAT PETITIONER HAD KNOWINGLY REMAINED WITHIN THE AREA COVERED BY
EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 34.  A DEMURRER TO THE INFORMATION HAVING BEEN
OVERRULED, THE PETITIONER WAS TRIED UNDER A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY AND
CONVICTED.  SENTENCE WAS SUSPENDED AND HE WAS PLACED ON PROBATION FOR
FIVE YEARS.  WE KNOW, HOWEVER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING
RECITATION, THAT HE WAS AT ONCE TAKEN INTO MILITARY CUSTODY AND LODGED
IN AN ASSEMBLY CENTER.  WE FURTHER KNOW THAT, ON MARCH 18, 1942, THE
PRESIDENT HAD PROMULGATED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9102  FN7  ESTABLISHING
THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH SO-CALLED RELOCATION CENTERS,
A EUPHEMISM FOR CONCENTRATION CAMPS, WERE ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO
COOPERATION BETWEEN THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES OF THE WESTERN DEFENSE
COMMAND AND THE RELOCATION AUTHORITY, AND THAT THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN
CONFINED EITHER IN AN ASSEMBLY CENTER, WITHIN THE ZONE IN WHICH HE HAD
LIVED OR HAS BEEN REMOVED TO A RELOCATION CENTER WHERE, AS THE FACTS
DISCLOSED IN EX PARTE ENDO (POST, P. 283) DEMONSTRATE, HE WAS ILLEGALLY
HELD IN CUSTODY. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS ARGUED THIS CASE AS IF THE ONLY ORDER OUTSTANDING
AT THE TIME THE PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED AND INFORMED AGAINST WAS
EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 34 ORDERING HIM TO LEAVE THE AREA IN WHICH HE
RESIDED, WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AGAINST HIM.  THAT
ARGUMENT HAS EVIDENTLY BEEN EFFECTIVE.  THE OPINION REFERS TO THE
HIRABAYASHI CASE, SUPRA, TO SHOW THAT THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED THE
VALIDITY OF A CURFEW ORDER IN AN EMERGENCY.  THE ARGUMENT THEN IS THAT
EXCLUSION FROM A GIVEN AREA OF DANGER, WHILE SOMEWHAT MORE SWEEPING
THAN A CURFEW REGULATION, IS OF THE SAME NATURE,  - A TEMPORARY
EXPEDIENT MADE NECESSARY BY A SUDDEN EMERGENCY.  THIS, I THINK, IS A
SUBSTITUTION OF AN HYPOTHETICAL CASE FOR THE CASE ACTUALLY BEFORE THE
COURT.  I MIGHT AGREE WITH THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE HYPOTHETICAL
CASE.  FN8  THE LIBERTY OF EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN FREELY TO COME AND TO
GO MUST FREQUENTLY, IN THE FACE OF SUDDEN DANGER, BE TEMPORARILY
LIMITED OR SUSPENDED.  THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES MUST OFTEN RESORT TO THE
EXPEDIENT OF EXCLUDING CITIZENS TEMPORARILY FROM A LOCALITY.  THE
DRAWING OF FIRE LINES IN THE CASE OF A CONFLAGRATION, THE REMOVAL OF
PERSONS FROM THE AREA WHERE A PESTILENCE HAS BROKEN OUT, ARE FAMILIAR
EXAMPLES.  IF THE EXCLUSION WORKED BY EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 34 WERE OF
THAT NATURE THE HIRABAYASHI CASE WOULD BE AUTHORITY FOR SUSTAINING IT.
BUT THE FACTS ABOVE RECITED, AND THOSE SET FORTH IN EX PARTE ENDO,
SUPRA, SHOW THAT THE EXCLUSION WAS BUT A PART OF AN OVER-ALL PLAN FOR
FORCEABLE DETENTION.  THIS CASE CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE DECIDED ON ANY
SUCH NARROW GROUND AS THE POSSIBLE VALIDITY OF A TEMPORARY EXCLUSION
ORDER UNDER WHICH THE RESIDENTS OF AN AREA ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO
LEAVE AND GO ELSEWHERE IN THEIR NATIVE LAND OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF A
MILITARY AREA.  TO MAKE THE CASE TURN ON ANY SUCH ASSUMPTION IS TO SHUT
OUR EYES TO REALITY. 

AS I HAVE SAID ABOVE, THE PETITIONER, PRIOR TO HIS ARREST, WAS FACED
WITH TWO DIAMETRICALLY CONTRADICTORY ORDERS GIVEN SANCTION BY THE ACT
OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 21, 1942.  THE EARLIER OF THOSE ORDERS MADE HIM A
CRIMINAL IF HE LEFT THE ZONE IN WHICH HE RESIDED; THE LATER MADE HIM A
CRIMINAL IF HE DID NOT LEAVE. 

I HAD SUPPOSED THAT IF A CITIZEN WAS CONSTRAINED BY TWO LAWS, OR TWO
ORDERS HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW, AND OBEDIENCE TO ONE WOULD VIOLATE THE
OTHER, TO PUNISH HIM FOR VIOLATION OF EITHER WOULD DENY HIM DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.  AND I HAD SUPPOSED THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES A CONVICTION
FOR VIOLATING ONE OF THE ORDERS COULD NOT STAND. 

WE CANNOT SHUT OUR EYES TO THE FACT THAT HAD THE PETITIONER ATTEMPTED
TO VIOLATE PROCLAMATION NO. 4 AND LEAVE THE MILITARY AREA IN WHICH HE
LIVED HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AND TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR VIOLATION
OF PROCLAMATION NO. 4.  THE TWO CONFLICTING ORDERS, ONE WHICH COMMANDED
HIM TO STAY AND THE OTHER WHICH COMMANDED HIM TO GO, WERE NOTHING BUT A
CLEVERLY DEVISED TRAP TO ACCOMPLISH THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE MILITARY
AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS TO LOCK HIM UP IN A CONCENTRATION CAMP.  THE ONLY
COURSE BY WHICH THE PETITIONER COULD AVOID ARREST AND PROSECUTION WAS
TO GO TO THAT CAMP ACCORDING TO INSTRUCTIONS TO BE GIVEN HIM WHEN HE
REPORTED AT A CIVIL CONTROL CENTER.  WE KNOW THAT IS THE FACT.  WHY
SHOULD WE SET UP A FIGMENTARY AND ARTIFICIAL SITUATION INSTEAD OF
ADDRESSING OURSELVES TO THE ACTUALITIES OF THE CASE? 

THESE STARK REALITIES ARE MET BY THE SUGGESTION THAT IT IS LAWFUL TO
COMPEL AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO SUBMIT TO ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT HE MIGHT, AFTER GOING TO THE ASSEMBLY CENTER, APPLY FOR
HIS DISCHARGE BY SUING OUT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AS WAS DONE IN THE
ENDO CASE, SUPRA.  THE ANSWER, OF COURSE, IS THAT WHERE HE WAS SUBJECT
TO TWO CONFLICTING LAWS HE WAS NOT BOUND, IN ORDER TO ESCAPE VIOLATION
OF ONE OR THE OTHER, TO SURRENDER HIS LIBERTY FOR ANY PERIOD.  NOR WILL
IT DO TO SAY THAT THE DETENTION WAS A NECESSARY PART OF THE PROCESS OF
EVACUATION, AND SO WE ARE HERE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE
LATTER. 

AGAIN IT IS A NEW DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT ONE INDICTED
FOR DISOBEDIENCE TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE MAY NOT DEFEND ON THE
GROUND OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE STATUTE BUT MUST OBEY IT THOUGH HE
KNOWS IT IS NO LAW AND, AFTER HE HAS SUFFERED THE DISGRACE OF
CONVICTION AND LOST HIS LIBERTY BY SENTENCE, THEN, AND NOT BEFORE,
SEEK, FROM WITHIN PRISON WALLS, TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW. 

MOREOVER, IT IS BESIDE THE POINT TO REST DECISION IN PART ON THE FACT
THAT THE PETITIONER, FOR HIS OWN REASONS, WISHED TO REMAIN IN HIS
HOME.  IF, AS IS THE FACT, HE WAS CONSTRAINED SO TO DO, IT IS INDEED A
NARROW APPLICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO IGNORE THE ORDER WHICH
CONSTRAINED HIM, IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN HIS CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF
ANOTHER CONTRADICTORY ORDER. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION. 

FN1  7 FED. REG. 1407. 

FN2  7 FED. REG. 2320. 

FN3  56 STAT. 173. 

FN4  7 FED. REG. 2601. 

FN5  THE ITALICS IN THE QUOTATION ARE MINE.  THE USE OF THE WORD
"VOLUNTARILY" EXHIBITS A GRIM IRONY PROBABLY NOT LOST ON PETITIONER AND
OTHERS IN LIKE CASE.  EITHER SO, OR ITS USE WAS A DISINGENUOUS ATTEMPT
TO CAMOUFLAGE THE COMPULSION WHICH WAS TO BE APPLIED. 

FN6  7 FED. REG. 3967. 

FN7  7 FED. REG. 2165. 

FN8  MY AGREEMENT WOULD DEPEND ON THE DEFINITION AND APPLICATION OF
THE TERMS "TEMPORARY" AND "EMERGENCY."  NO PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE
COMMANDING OFFICER CAN, IN MY VIEW, PRECLUDE JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND
DETERMINATION WHETHER AN EMERGENCY EVER EXISTED AND WHETHER, IF SO, IT
REMAINED, AT THE DATE OF THE RESTRAINT OUT OF WHICH THE LITIGATION
AROSE.  CF. CHASTLETON CORP. V. SINCLAIR, 264 U.S. 543. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING. 

THIS EXCLUSION OF "ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, BOTH ALIEN AND
NON-ALIEN," FROM THE PACIFIC COAST AREA ON A PLEA OF MILITARY NECESSITY
IN THE ABSENCE OF MARTIAL LAW OUGHT NOT TO BE APPROVED.  SUCH EXCLUSION
GOES OVER "THE VERY BRINK OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER" AND FALLS INTO THE
UGLY ABYSS OF RACISM. 

IN DEALING WITH MATTERS RELATING TO THE PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS OF A
WAR, WE MUST ACCORD GREAT RESPECT AND CONSIDERATION TO THE JUDGMENTS OF
THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES WHO ARE ON THE SCENE AND WHO HAVE FULL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE MILITARY FACTS.  THE SCOPE OF THEIR DISCRETION MUST,
AS A MATTER OF NECESSITY AND COMMON SENSE, BE WIDE.  AND THEIR
JUDGMENTS OUGHT NOT TO BE OVERRULED LIGHTLY BY THOSE WHOSE TRAINING AND
DUTIES ILL-EQUIP THEM TO DEAL INTELLIGENTLY WITH MATTERS SO VITAL TO
THE PHYSICAL SECURITY OF THE NATION. 

AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THERE BE DEFINITE
LIMITS TO MILITARY DISCRETION, ESPECIALLY WHERE MARTIAL LAW HAS NOT
BEEN DECLARED.  INDIVIDUALS MUST NOT BE LEFT IMPOVERISHED OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ON A PLEA OF MILITARY NECESSITY THAT HAS NEITHER
SUBSTANCE NOR SUPPORT.  THUS, LIKE OTHER CLAIMS CONFLICTING WITH THE
ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, THE MILITARY CLAIM
MUST SUBJECT ITSELF TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS OF HAVING ITS
REASONABLENESS DETERMINED AND ITS CONFLICTS WITH OTHER INTERESTS
RECONCILED.  "WHAT ARE THE ALLOWABLE LIMITS OF MILITARY DISCRETION, AND
WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN OVERSTEPPED IN A PARTICULAR CASE, ARE
JUDICIAL QUESTIONS."  STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 401. 

THE JUDICIAL TEST OF WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT, ON A PLEA OF MILITARY
NECESSITY, CAN VALIDLY DEPRIVE AN INDIVIDUAL OF ANY OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IS WHETHER THE DEPRIVATION IS REASONABLY RELATED
TO A PUBLIC DANGER THAT IS SO "IMMEDIATE, IMMINENT, AND IMPENDING" AS
NOT TO ADMIT OF DELAY AND NOT TO PERMIT THE INTERVENTION OF ORDINARY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES TO ALLEVIATE THE DANGER.  UNITED STATES V.
RUSSELL, 13 WALL.  623, 627-8; MITCHELL V. HARMONY, 13 HOW.  115, 134
5; RAYMOND V. THOMAS, 91 U.S. 712, 716.  CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO.
34, BANISHING FROM A PRESCRIBED AREA OF THE PACIFIC COAST "ALL PERSONS
OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, BOTH ALIEN AND NON-ALIEN," CLEARLY DOES NOT MEET
THAT TEST.  BEING AN OBVIOUS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, THE ORDER DEPRIVES
ALL THOSE WITHIN ITS SCOPE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AS
GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IT FURTHER DEPRIVES THESE
INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO LIVE AND WORK WHERE THEY
WILL, TO ESTABLISH A HOME WHERE THEY CHOOSE AND TO MOVE ABOUT FREELY. 
IN EXCOMMUNICATING THEM WITHOUT BENEFIT OF HEARINGS, THIS ORDER ALSO
DEPRIVES THEM OF ALL THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS.  YET NO REASONABLE RELATION TO AN "IMMEDIATE, IMMINENT, AND
IMPENDING" PUBLIC DANGER IS EVIDENT TO SUPPORT THIS RACIAL RESTRICTION
WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST SWEEPING AND COMPLETE DEPRIVATIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN THE HISTORY OF THIS NATION IN THE ABSENCE OF
MARTIAL LAW. 

IT MUST BE CONCEDED THAT THE MILITARY AND NAVAL SITUATION IN THE
SPRING OF 1942 WAS SUCH AS TO GENERATE A VERY REAL FEAR OF INVASION OF
THE PACIFIC COAST, ACCOMPANIED BY FEARS OF SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE IN
THAT AREA.  THE MILITARY COMMAND WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING
ALL REASONABLE MEANS NECESSARY TO COMBAT THESE DANGERS.  IN ADJUDGING
THE MILITARY ACTION TAKEN IN LIGHT OF THE THEN APPARENT DANGERS, WE
MUST NOT ERECT TOO HIGH OR TOO METICULOUS STANDARDS; IT IS NECESSARY
ONLY THAT THE ACTION HAVE SOME REASONABLE RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF
THE DANGERS OF INVASION, SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE.  BUT THE EXCLUSION,
EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY, OF ALL PERSONS WITH JAPANESE BLOOD
IN THEIR VEINS HAS NO SUCH REASONABLE RELATION.  AND THAT RELATION IS
LACKING BECAUSE THE EXCLUSION ORDER NECESSARILY MUST RELY FOR ITS
REASONABLENESS UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE
ANCESTRY MAY HAVE A DANGEROUS TENDENCY TO COMMIT SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE
AND TO AID OUR JAPANESE ENEMY IN OTHER WAYS.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO
BELIEVE THAT REASON, LOGIC OR EXPERIENCE COULD BE MARSHALLED IN SUPPORT
OF SUCH AN ASSUMPTION. 

THAT THIS FORCED EXCLUSION WAS THE RESULT IN GOOD MEASURE OF THIS
ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF RACIAL GUILT RATHER THAN BONA FIDE MILITARY
NECESSITY IS EVIDENCED BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL'S FINAL REPORT ON THE
EVACUATION FROM THE PACIFIC COAST AREA.  FN1  IN IT HE REFERS TO ALL
INDIVIDUALS OF JAPANESE DESCENT AS "SUBVERSIVE," AS BELONGING TO "AN
ENEMY RACE" WHOSE "RACIAL STRAINS ARE UNDILUTED," AND AS CONSTITUTING
"OVER 112,000 POTENTIAL ENEMIES  ...  AT LARGE TODAY" ALONG THE PACIFIC
COAST.  FN2  IN SUPPORT OF THIS BLANKET CONDEMNATION OF ALL PERSONS OF
JAPANESE DESCENT, HOWEVER, NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE IS CITED TO SHOW THAT
SUCH INDIVIDUALS WERE GENERALLY DISLOYAL,  FN3 OR HAD GENERALLY SO
CONDUCTED THEMSELVES IN THIS AREA AS TO CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL MENACE TO
DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS OR WAR INDUSTRIES, OR HAD OTHERWISE BY THEIR
BEHAVIOR FURNISHED REASONABLE GROUND FOR THEIR EXCLUSION AS A GROUP. 

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXCLUSION IS SOUGHT, INSTEAD, MAINLY UPON
QUESTIONABLE RACIAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL GROUNDS NOT ORDINARILY WITHIN THE
REALM OF EXPERT MILITARY JUDGMENT, SUPPLEMENTED BY CERTAIN SEMI
MILITARY CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM AN UNWARRANTED USE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  INDIVIDUALS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY ARE CONDEMNED BECAUSE THEY
ARE SAID TO BE "A LARGE, UNASSIMILATED, TIGHTLY KNIT RACIAL GROUP,
BOUND TO AN ENEMY NATION BY STRONG TIES OF RACE, CULTURE, CUSTOM AND
RELIGION."  FN4  THEY ARE CLAIMED TO BE GIVEN TO "EMPEROR WORSHIPPING
CEREMONIES"  FN5  AND TO "DUAL CITIZENSHIP."  FN6  JAPANESE LANGUAGE
SCHOOLS AND ALLEGEDLY PRO-JAPANESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE CITED AS EVIDENCE
OF POSSIBLE GROUP DISLOYALTY,  FN7  TOGETHER WITH FACTS AS TO CERTAIN
PERSONS BEING EDUCATED AND RESIDING AT LENGTH IN JAPAN.  FN8  IT IS
INTIMATED THAT MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS DELIBERATELY RESIDED "ADJACENT
TO STRATEGIC POINTS," THUS ENABLING THEM "TO CARRY INTO EXECUTION A
TREMENDOUS PROGRAM OF SABOTAGE ON A MASS SCALE SHOULD ANY CONSIDERABLE
NUMBER OF THEM HAVE BEEN INCLINED TO DO SO."  FN9  THE NEED FOR
PROTECTIVE CUSTODY IS ALSO ASSERTED.  THE REPORT REFERS WITHOUT
IDENTITY TO "NUMEROUS INCIDENTS OF VIOLENCE" AS WELL AS TO OTHER
ADMITTEDLY UNVERIFIED OR CUMULATIVE INCIDENTS.  FROM THIS, PLUS CERTAIN
OTHER EVENTS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN CONNECTED WITH THE JAPANESE
AMERICANS, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE "SITUATION WAS FRAUGHT WITH DANGER
TO THE JAPANESE POPULATION ITSELF" AND THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC "WAS
READY TO TAKE MATTERS INTO ITS OWN HANDS."  FN10  FINALLY, IT IS
INTIMATED, THOUGH NOT DIRECTLY CHARGED OR PROVED, THAT PERSONS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THREE MINOR ISOLATED SHELLINGS
AND BOMBINGS OF THE PACIFIC COAST AREA,  FN11  AS WELL AS FOR
UNIDENTIFIED RADIO TRANSMISSIONS AND NIGHT SIGNALLING. 

THE MAIN REASONS RELIED UPON BY THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FORCED
EVACUATION, THEREFORE, DO NOT PROVE A REASONABLE RELATION BETWEEN THE
GROUP CHARACTERISTICS OF JAPANESE AMERICANS AND THE DANGERS OF
INVASION, SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE.  THE REASONS APPEAR, INSTEAD, TO BE
LARGELY AN ACCUMULATION OF MUCH OF THE MISINFORMATION, HALF-TRUTHS AND
INSINUATIONS THAT FOR YEARS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST JAPANESE
AMERICANS BY PEOPLE WITH RACIAL AND ECONOMIC PREJUDICES - THE SAME
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN AMONG THE FOREMOST ADVOCATES OF THE EVACUATION. 
FN12  A MILITARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON SUCH RACIAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL
CONSIDERATIONS IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE GREAT WEIGHT ORDINARILY GIVEN THE
JUDGMENTS BASED UPON STRICTLY MILITARY CONSIDERATIONS.  ESPECIALLY IS
THIS SO WHEN EVERY CHARGE RELATIVE TO RACE, RELIGION, CULTURE,
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, AND LEGAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS HAS BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY DISCREDITED BY INDEPENDENT STUDIES MADE BY EXPERTS IN
THESE MATTERS.  FN13 

THE MILITARY NECESSITY WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
EVACUATION ORDER THUS RESOLVES ITSELF INTO A FEW INTIMATIONS THAT
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ACTIVELY AIDED THE ENEMY, FROM WHICH IT IS INFERRED
THAT THE ENTIRE GROUP OF JAPANESE AMERICANS COULD NOT BE TRUSTED TO BE
OR REMAIN LOYAL TO THE UNITED STATES.  NO ONE DENIES, OF COURSE, THAT
THERE WERE SOME DISLOYAL PERSONS OF JAPANESE DESCENT ON THE PACIFIC
COAST WHO DID ALL IN THEIR POWER TO AID THEIR ANCESTRAL LAND.  SIMILAR
DISLOYAL ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN BY MANY PERSONS OF GERMAN,
ITALIAN AND EVEN MORE PIONEER STOCK IN OUR COUNTRY.  BUT TO INFER THAT
EXAMPLES OF INDIVIDUAL DISLOYALTY PROVE GROUP DISLOYALTY AND JUSTIFY
DISCRIMINATORY ACTION AGAINST THE ENTIRE GROUP IS TO DENY THAT UNDER
OUR SYSTEM OF LAW INDIVIDUAL GUILT IS THE SOLE BASIS FOR DEPRIVATION OF
RIGHTS.  MOREOVER, THIS INFERENCE, WHICH IS AT THE VERY HEART OF THE
EVACUATION ORDERS, HAS BEEN USED IN SUPPORT OF THE ABHORRENT AND
DESPICABLE TREATMENT OF MINORITY GROUPS BY THE DICTATORIAL TYRANNIES
WHICH THIS NATION IS NOW PLEDGED TO DESTROY.  TO GIVE CONSTITUTIONAL
SANCTION TO THAT INFERENCE IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER WELL-INTENTIONED MAY
HAVE BEEN THE MILITARY COMMAND ON THE PACIFIC COAST, IS TO ADOPT ONE OF
THE CRUELEST OF THE RATIONALES USED BY OUR ENEMIES TO DESTROY THE
DIGNITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND TO ENCOURAGE AND OPEN THE DOOR TO
DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS AGAINST OTHER MINORITY GROUPS IN THE PASSIONS OF
TOMORROW. 

NO ADEQUATE REASON IS GIVEN FOR THE FAILURE TO TREAT THESE JAPANESE
AMERICANS ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS BY HOLDING INVESTIGATIONS AND HEARINGS
TO SEPARATE THE LOYAL FROM THE DISLOYAL, AS WAS DONE IN THE CASE OF
PERSONS OF GERMAN AND ITALIAN ANCESTRY.  SEE HOUSE REPORT NO. 2124(77TH
CONG., 2D SESS.) 247-52.  IT IS ASSERTED MERELY THAT THE LOYALTIES OF
THIS GROUP "WERE UNKNOWN AND TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE."  FN14  YET
NEARLY FOUR MONTHS ELAPSED AFTER PEARL HARBOR BEFORE THE FIRST
EXCLUSION ORDER WAS ISSUED; NEARLY EIGHT MONTHS WENT BY UNTIL THE LAST
ORDER WAS ISSUED; AND THE LAST OF THESE "SUBVERSIVE" PERSONS WAS NOT
ACTUALLY REMOVED UNTIL ALMOST ELEVEN MONTHS HAD ELAPSED.  LEISURE AND
DELIBERATION SEEM TO HAVE BEEN MORE OF THE ESSENCE THAN SPEED.  AND THE
FACT THAT CONDITIONS WERE NOT SUCH AS TO WARRANT A DECLARATION OF
MARTIAL LAW ADDS STRENGTH TO THE BELIEF THAT THE FACTORS OF TIME AND
MILITARY NECESSITY WERE NOT AS URGENT AS THEY HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED TO
BE. 

MOREOVER, THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE PROOF THAT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AND THE MILITARY AND NAVAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICES DID NOT
HAVE THE ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE SITUATION WELL IN HAND DURING THIS LONG
PERIOD.  NOR IS THERE ANY DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT NOT ONE PERSON OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY WAS ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ESPIONAGE OR SABOTAGE
AFTER PEARL HARBOR WHILE THEY WERE STILL FREE,  FN15  A FACT WHICH IS
SOME EVIDENCE OF THE LOYALTY OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS
AND OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ESTABLISHED METHODS OF COMBATTING THESE
EVILS.  IT SEEMS INCREDIBLE THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD LOYALTY HEARINGS FOR THE MERE 112,000
PERSONS INVOLVED - OR AT LEAST FOR THE 70,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS -
ESPECIALLY WHEN A LARGE PART OF THIS NUMBER REPRESENTED CHILDREN AND
ELDERLY MEN AND WOMEN.  FN16 ANY INCONVENIENCE THAT MAY HAVE
ACCOMPANIED AN ATTEMPT TO CONFORM TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS CANNOT BE
SAID TO JUSTIFY VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS. 

I DISSENT, THEREFORE, FROM THIS LEGALIZATION OF RACISM.  RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION IN ANY FORM AND IN ANY DEGREE HAS NO JUSTIFIABLE PART
WHATEVER IN OUR DEMOCRATIC WAY OF LIFE.  IT IS UNATTRACTIVE IN ANY
SETTING BUT IT IS UTTERLY REVOLTING AMONG A FREE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
EMBRACED THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  ALL RESIDENTS OF THIS NATION ARE KIN IN SOME WAY BY BLOOD OR
CULTURE TO A FOREIGN LAND.  YET THEY ARE PRIMARILY AND NECESSARILY A
PART OF THE NEW AND DISTINCT CIVILIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THEY
MUST ACCORDINGLY BE TREATED AT ALL TIMES AS THE HEIRS OF THE AMERICAN
EXPERIMENT AND AS ENTITLED TO ALL THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY
THE CONSTITUTION. 

FN1  FINAL REPORT, JAPANESE EVACUATION FROM THE WEST COAST, 1942, BY
LT. GEN. J. L. DEWITT.  THIS REPORT IS DATED JUNE 5, 1943, BUT WAS NOT
MADE PUBLIC UNTIL JANUARY, 1944. 

FN2  FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE COMMANDING GENERAL'S ATTITUDE TOWARD
INDIVIDUALS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY IS REVEALED IN HIS VOLUNTARY TESTIMONY
ON APRIL 13, 1943, IN SAN FRANCISCO BEFORE THE HOUSE NAVAL AFFAIRS
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE CONGESTED AREAS, PART 3, PP. 739-40(78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.): 

"I DON'T WANT ANY OF THEM (PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY) HERE.  THEY
ARE A DANGEROUS ELEMENT.  THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE THEIR LOYALTY. 
THE WEST COAST CONTAINS TOO MANY VITAL INSTALLATIONS ESSENTIAL TO THE
DEFENSE OF THE COUNTRY TO ALLOW ANY JAPANESE ON THIS COAST  ....  THE
DANGER OF THE JAPANESE WAS, AND IS NOW - IF THEY ARE PERMITTED TO COME
BACK - ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE.  IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER HE IS AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN, HE IS STILL A JAPANESE.  AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP DOES
NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE LOYALTY  ....  BUT WE MUST WORRY ABOUT THE
JAPANESE ALL THE TIME UNTIL HE IS WIPED OFF THE MAP.  SABOTAGE AND
ESPIONAGE WILL MAKE PROBLEMS AS LONG AS HE IS ALLOWED IN THIS AREA
...." 

FN3  THE FINAL REPORT, P. 9, CASTS A CLOUD OF SUSPICION OVER THE
ENTIRE GROUP BY SAYING THAT "WHILE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT SOME WERE
LOYAL, IT WAS KNOWN THAT MANY WERE NOT." 

FN4  FINAL REPORT, P. VII; SEE ALSO PP. 9, 17.  TO THE EXTENT THAT
ASSIMILATION IS A PROBLEM, IT IS LARGELY THE RESULT OF CERTAIN SOCIAL
CUSTOMS AND LAWS OF THE AMERICAN GENERAL PUBLIC.  STUDIES DEMONSTRATE
THAT PERSONS OF JAPANESE DESCENT ARE READILY SUSCEPTIBLE TO INTEGRATION
IN OUR SOCIETY IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.  STRONG, THE SECOND-GENERATION
JAPANESE PROBLEM (1934); SMITH, AMERICANS IN PROCESS (1937); MEARS,
RESIDENT ORIENTALS ON THE AMERICAN PACIFIC COAST (1928); MILLIS, THE
JAPANESE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES (1942).  THE FAILURE TO
ACCOMPLISH AN IDEAL STATUS OF ASSIMILATION, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE
CHARGED TO THE REFUSAL OF THESE PERSONS TO BECOME AMERICANIZED OR TO
THEIR LOYALTY TO JAPAN.  AND THE RETENTION BY SOME PERSONS OF CERTAIN
CUSTOMS AND RELIGIOUS PRACTICES OF THEIR ANCESTORS IS NO CRITERION OF
THEIR LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES. 

FN5  FINAL REPORT, PP. 10-11.  NO SINISTER CORRELATION BETWEEN THE
EMPEROR WORSHIPPING ACTIVITIES AND DISLOYALTY TO AMERICA WAS SHOWN. 

FN6  FINAL REPORT, P. 22.  THE CHARGE OF "DUAL CITIZENSHIP" SPRINGS
FROM A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE SIMPLE FACT THAT JAPAN IN THE PAST USED
THE DOCTRINE OF JUS SANGUINIS, AS SHE HAD A RIGHT TO DO UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND CLAIMED AS HER CITIZENS ALL PERSONS BORN OF
JAPANESE NATIONALS WHEREVER LOCATED.  JAPAN HAS GREATLY MODIFIED THIS
DOCTRINE, HOWEVER, BY ALLOWING ALL JAPANESE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES
TO RENOUNCE ANY CLAIM OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND BY RELEASING HER CLAIM AS
TO ALL BORN IN THE UNITED STATES AFTER 1925.  SEE FREEMAN, "GENESIS,
EXODUS, AND LEVITICUS: GENEALOGY, EVACUATION, AND LAW," 28 CORNELL L.Q.
414, 447-8, AND AUTHORITIES THERE CITED; MCWILLIAMS, PREJUDICE, 123
4(1944). 

FN7  FINAL REPORT, PP. 12-13.  WE HAVE HAD VARIOUS FOREIGN LANGUAGE
SCHOOLS IN THIS COUNTRY FOR GENERATIONS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THEIR
EXISTENCE AS GROUND FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.  NO SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES OR TEACHINGS HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN CONNECTION WITH THE JAPANESE
SCHOOLS.  MCWILLIAMS, PREJUDICE, 121-3(1944). 

FN8  FINAL REPORT, PP. 13-15.  SUCH PERSONS CONSTITUTE A VERY SMALL
PART OF THE ENTIRE GROUP AND MOST OF THEM BELONG TO THE KIBEI MOVEMENT
THE ACTIONS AND MEMBERSHIP OF WHICH ARE WELL KNOWN TO OUR GOVERNMENT
AGENTS. 

FN9  FINAL REPORT, P. 10; SEE ALSO PP. VII, 9, 15-17.  THIS
INSINUATION, BASED PURELY UPON SPECULATION AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
COMPLETELY OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THE MAIN GEOGRAPHIC PATTERN OF
JAPANESE POPULATION WAS FIXED MANY YEARS AGO WITH REFERENCE TO
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND SOIL CONDITIONS.  LIMITED OCCUPATIONAL OUTLETS AND
SOCIAL PRESSURES ENCOURAGED THEIR CONCENTRATION NEAR THEIR INITIAL
POINTS OF ENTRY ON THE PACIFIC COAST.  THAT THESE POINTS MAY NOW BE
NEAR CERTAIN STRATEGIC MILITARY AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS IS NO PROOF OF A
DIABOLICAL PURPOSE ON THE PART OF JAPANESE AMERICANS.  SEE MCWILLIAMS,
PREJUDICE, 119-121(1944); HOUSE REPORT NO. 2124(77TH CONG., 2D SESS.),
59-93. 

FN10  FINAL REPORT, PP. 8-9.  THIS DANGEROUS DOCTRINE OF PROTECTIVE
CUSTODY, AS PROVED BY RECENT EUROPEAN HISTORY, SHOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO STANDING AS AN EXCUSE FOR THE DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MINORITY
GROUPS.  SEE HOUSE REPORT NO. 1911(77TH CONG., 2D SESS.) 1-2.  CF.
HOUSE REPORT NO. 2124(77TH CONG., 2D SESS.) 145-7.  IN THIS INSTANCE,
MOREOVER, THERE ARE ONLY TWO MINOR INSTANCES OF VIOLENCE ON RECORD
INVOLVING PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY.  MCWILLIAMS, WHAT ABOUT OUR
JAPANESE-AMERICANS?  PUBLIC AFFAIRS PAMPHLETS, NO. 91, P. 8(1944). 

FN11  FINAL REPORT, P. 18.  ONE OF THESE INCIDENTS (THE REPUTED
DROPPING OF INCENDIARY BOMBS ON AN OREGON FOREST) OCCURRED ON SEPT. 9,
1942 - A CONSIDERABLE TIME AFTER THE JAPANESE AMERICANS HAD BEEN
EVACUATED FROM THEIR HOMES AND PLACED IN ASSEMBLY CENTERS.  SEE NEW
YORK TIMES, SEPT. 15, 1942, P. 1, COL. 3. 

FN12  SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS WERE EXTREMELY ACTIVE IN APPLYING
PRESSURE FOR MASS EVACUATION.  SEE HOUSE REPORT NO. 2124(77TH CONG., 2D
SESS.) 154-6; MCWILLIAMS, PREJUDICE, 126-8(1944).  MR. AUSTIN E. ANSON,
MANAGING SECRETARY OF THE SALINAS VEGETABLE GROWER-SHIPPER ASSOCIATION,
HAS FRANKLY ADMITTED THAT "WE'RE CHARGED WITH WANTING TO GET RID OF THE
JAPS FOR SELFISH REASONS ....  WE DO.  IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
WHITE MAN LIVES ON THE PACIFIC COAST OR THE BROWN MEN.  THEY CAME INTO
THIS VALLEY TO WORK, AND THEY STAYED TO TAKE OVER  ....  THEY UNDERSELL
THE WHITE MAN IN THE MARKETS  ....  THEY WORK THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN
WHILE THE WHITE FARMER HAS TO PAY WAGES FOR HIS HELP.  IF ALL THE JAPS
WERE REMOVED TOMORROW, WE'D NEVER MISS THEM IN TWO WEEKS, BECAUSE THE
WHITE FARMERS CAN TAKE OVER AND PRODUCE EVERYTHING THE JAP GROWS.  AND
WE DON'T WANT THEM BACK WHEN THE WAR ENDS, EITHER."  QUOTED BY TAYLOR
IN HIS ARTICLE "THE PEOPLE NOBODY WANTS," 214 SAT.  EVE.  POST 24,
66(MAY 9, 1942). 

FN13  SEE NOTES 4-12, SUPRA. 

FN14  FINAL REPORT, P. VII; SEE ALSO, P. 18. 

FN15  THE FINAL REPORT, P. 34, MAKES THE AMAZING STATEMENT THAT AS OF
FEBRUARY 14, 1942, "THE VERY FACT THAT NO SABOTAGE HAS TAKEN PLACE TO
DATE IS A DISTURBING AND CONFIRMING INDICATION THAT SUCH ACTION WILL BE
TAKEN."  APPARENTLY, IN THE MINDS OF THE MILITARY LEADERS, THERE WAS NO
WAY THAT THE JAPANESE AMERICANS COULD ESCAPE THE SUSPICION OF
SABOTAGE. 

FN16  DURING A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, THE 112 ALIEN TRIBUNALS OR
HEARING BOARDS SET UP BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT SHORTLY AFTER THE
OUTBREAK OF THE PRESENT WAR SUMMONED AND EXAMINED APPROXIMATELY 74,000
GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN ALIENS.  THESE TRIBUNALS DETERMINED WHETHER EACH
INDIVIDUAL ENEMY ALIEN WAS A REAL ENEMY OF THE ALLIES OR ONLY A
"FRIENDLY ENEMY."  ABOUT 64,000 WERE FREED FROM INTERNMENT AND FROM ANY
SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS, AND ONLY 2,000 WERE INTERNED.  KEMPNER, "THE
ENEMY ALIEN PROBLEM IN THE PRESENT WAR," 34 AMER.  JOURN.  OF INT. LAW
443, 444-46; HOUSE REPORT NO. 2124(77TH CONG., 2D SESS.), 280-1. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

KOREMATSU WAS BORN ON OUR SOIL, OF PARENTS BORN IN JAPAN.  THE
CONSTITUTION MAKES HIM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BY NATIVITY AND A
CITIZEN OF CALIFORNIA BY RESIDENCE.  NO CLAIM IS MADE THAT HE IS NOT
LOYAL TO THIS COUNTRY.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT APART FROM THE
MATTER INVOLVED HERE HE IS NOT LAW-ABIDING AND WELL DISPOSED. 
KOREMATSU, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF AN ACT NOT COMMONLY A CRIME. 
IT CONSISTS MERELY OF BEING PRESENT IN THE STATE WHEREOF HE IS A
CITIZEN, NEAR THE PLACE WHERE HE WAS BORN, AND WHERE ALL HIS LIFE HE
HAS LIVED.    EVEN MORE UNUSUAL IS THE SERIES OF MILITARY ORDERS WHICH
MADE THIS CONDUCT A CRIME.  THEY FORBID SUCH A ONE TO REMAIN, AND THEY
ALSO FORBID HIM TO LEAVE.  THEY WERE SO DRAWN THAT THE ONLY WAY
KOREMATSU COULD AVOID VIOLATION WAS TO GIVE HIMSELF UP TO THE MILITARY
AUTHORITY.  THIS MEANT SUBMISSION TO CUSTODY, EXAMINATION, AND
TRANSPORTATION OUT OF THE TERRITORY, TO BE FOLLOWED BY INDETERMINATE
CONFINEMENT IN DETENTION CAMPS.    A CITIZEN'S PRESENCE IN THE
LOCALITY, HOWEVER, WAS MADE A CRIME ONLY IF HIS PARENTS WERE OF
JAPANESE BIRTH.  HAD KOREMATSU BEEN ONE OF FOUR - THE OTHERS BEING,
SAY, A GERMAN ALIEN ENEMY, AN ITALIAN ALIEN ENEMY, AND A CITIZEN OF
AMERICAN-BORN ANCESTORS, CONVICTED OF TREASON BUT OUT ON PAROLE - ONLY
KOREMATSU'S PRESENCE WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE ORDER.  THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THEIR INNOCENCE AND HIS CRIME WOULD RESULT, NOT FROM ANYTHING
HE DID, SAID, OR THOUGHT, DIFFERENT THAN THEY, BUT ONLY IN THAT HE WAS
BORN OF DIFFERENT RACIAL STOCK. 

NOW, IF ANY FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION UNDERLIES OUR SYSTEM, IT IS THAT
GUILT IS PERSONAL AND NOT INHERITABLE.  EVEN IF ALL OF ONE'S
ANTECEDENTS HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF TREASON, THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS ITS
PENALTIES TO BE VISITED UPON HIM, FOR IT PROVIDES THAT "NO ATTAINDER OF
TREASON SHALL WORK CORRUPTION OF BLOOD, OR FORFEITURE EXCEPT DURING THE
LIFE OF THE PERSON ATTAINTED."  BUT HERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE AN
OTHERWISE INNOCENT ACT A CRIME MERELY BECAUSE THIS PRISONER IS THE SON
OF PARENTS AS TO WHOM HE HAD NO CHOICE, AND BELONGS TO A RACE FROM
WHICH THERE IS NO WAY TO RESIGN.  IF CONGRESS IN PEACE-TIME LEGISLATION
SHOULD ENACT SUCH A CRIMINAL LAW, I SHOULD SUPPOSE THIS COURT WOULD
REFUSE TO ENFORCE IT. 

BUT THE "LAW" WHICH THIS PRISONER IS CONVICTED OF DISREGARDING IS NOT
FOUND IN AN ACT OF CONGRESS, BUT IN A MILITARY ORDER.  NEITHER THE ACT
OF CONGRESS NOR THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, NOR BOTH
TOGETHER, WOULD AFFORD A BASIS FOR THIS CONVICTION.  IT RESTS ON THE
ORDERS OF GENERAL DEWITT.  AND IT IS SAID THAT IF THE MILITARY
COMMANDER HAD REASONABLE MILITARY GROUNDS FOR PROMULGATING THE ORDERS,
THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AND BECOME LAW, AND THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO
ENFORCE THEM.  THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHY I CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THIS
DOCTRINE. 

IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE AND DANGEROUS IDEALISM TO EXPECT OR INSIST
THAT EACH SPECIFIC MILITARY COMMAND IN AN AREA OF PROBABLE OPERATIONS
WILL CONFORM TO CONVENTIONAL TESTS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.  WHEN AN AREA
IS SO BESET THAT IT MUST BE PUT UNDER MILITARY CONTROL AT ALL, THE
PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION IS THAT ITS MEASURES BE SUCCESSFUL, RATHER THAN
LEGAL.  THE ARMED SERVICES MUST PROTECT A SOCIETY, NOT MERELY ITS
CONSTITUTION.  THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE MILITARY JOB IS TO MARSHAL
PHYSICAL FORCE, TO REMOVE EVERY OBSTACLE TO ITS EFFECTIVENESS, TO GIVE
IT EVERY STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE.  DEFENSE MEASURES WILL NOT, AND OFTEN
SHOULD NOT, BE HELD WITHIN THE LIMITS THAT BIND CIVIL AUTHORITY IN
PEACE.  NO COURT CAN REQUIRE SUCH A COMMANDER IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES TO
ACT AS A REASONABLE MAN; HE MAY BE UNREASONABLY CAUTIOUS AND EXACTING. 
PERHAPS HE SHOULD BE. BUT A COMMANDER IN TEMPORARILY FOCUSING THE LIFE
OF A COMMUNITY ON DEFENSE IS CARRYING OUT A MILITARY PROGRAM; HE IS NOT
MAKING LAW IN THE SENSE THE COURTS KNOW THE TERM.  HE ISSUES ORDERS,
AND THEY MAY HAVE A CERTAIN AUTHORITY AS MILITARY COMMANDS, ALTHOUGH
THEY MAY BE VERY BAD AS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 

BUT IF WE CANNOT CONFINE MILITARY EXPEDIENTS BY THE CONSTITUTION,
NEITHER WOULD I DISTORT THE CONSTITUTION TO APPROVE ALL THAT THE
MILITARY MAY DEEM EXPEDIENT.  THAT IS WHAT THE COURT APPEARS TO BE
DOING, WHETHER CONSCIOUSLY OR NOT.  I CANNOT SAY, FROM ANY EVIDENCE
BEFORE ME, THAT THE ORDERS OF GENERAL DEWITT WERE NOT REASONABLY
EXPEDIENT MILITARY PRECAUTIONS, NOR COULD I SAY THAT THEY WERE.  BUT
EVEN IF THEY WERE PERMISSIBLE MILITARY PROCEDURES, I DENY THAT IT
FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  IF, AS THE COURT HOLDS, IT DOES
FOLLOW, THEN WE MAY AS WELL SAY THAT ANY MILITARY ORDER WILL BE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HAVE DONE WITH IT. 

THE LIMITATION UNDER WHICH COURTS ALWAYS WILL LABOR IN EXAMINING THE
NECESSITY FOR A MILITARY ORDER ARE ILLUSTRATED BY THIS CASE.  HOW DOES
THE COURT KNOW THAT THESE ORDERS HAVE A REASONABLE BASIS IN NECESSITY? 
NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER ON THAT SUBJECT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THIS OR ANY
OTHER COURT.  THERE IS SHARP CONTROVERSY AS TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
DEWITT REPORT.  SO THE COURT, HAVING NO REAL EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, HAS NO
CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT GENERAL DEWITT'S OWN UNSWORN, SELF-SERVING
STATEMENT, UNTESTED BY ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION, THAT WHAT HE DID WAS
REASONABLE.  AND THUS IT WILL ALWAYS BE WHEN COURTS TRY TO LOOK INTO
THE REASONABLENESS OF A MILITARY ORDER. 

IN THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS, MILITARY DECISIONS ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE
OF INTELLIGENT JUDICIAL APPRAISAL.  THEY DO NOT PRETEND TO REST ON
EVIDENCE, BUT ARE MADE ON INFORMATION THAT OFTEN WOULD NOT BE
ADMISSIBLE AND ON ASSUMPTIONS THAT COULD NOT BE PROVED.  INFORMATION IN
SUPPORT OF AN ORDER COULD NOT BE DISCLOSED TO COURTS WITHOUT DANGER
THAT IT WOULD REACH THE ENEMY.  NEITHER CAN COURTS ACT ON
COMMUNICATIONS MADE IN CONFIDENCE.  HENCE COURTS CAN NEVER HAVE ANY
REAL ALTERNATIVE TO ACCEPTING THE MERE DECLARATION OF THE AUTHORITY
THAT ISSUED THE ORDER THAT IT WAS REASONABLY NECESSARY FROM A MILITARY
VIEWPOINT. 

MUCH IS SAID OF THE DANGER TO LIBERTY FROM THE ARMY PROGRAM FOR
DEPORTING AND DETAINING THESE CITIZENS OF JAPANESE EXTRACTION.  BUT A
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE THAT WILL SUSTAIN THIS
ORDER IS A FAR MORE SUBTLE BLOW TO LIBERTY THAN THE PROMULGATION OF THE
ORDER ITSELF.  A MILITARY ORDER, HOWEVER UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS NOT APT
TO LAST LONGER THAN THE MILITARY EMERGENCY.  EVEN DURING THAT PERIOD A
SUCCEEDING COMMANDER MAY REVOKE IT ALL.  BUT ONCE A JUDICIAL OPINION
RATIONALIZES SUCH AN ORDER TO SHOW THAT IT CONFORMS TO THE
CONSTITUTION, OR RATHER RATIONALIZES THE CONSTITUTION TO SHOW THAT THE
CONSTITUTION SANCTIONS SUCH AN ORDER, THE COURT FOR ALL TIME HAS
VALIDATED THE PRINCIPLE OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
AND OF TRANSPLANTING AMERICAN CITIZENS.  THE PRINCIPLE THEN LIES ABOUT
LIKE A LOADED WEAPON READY FOR THE HAND OF ANY AUTHORITY THAT CAN BRING
FORWARD A PLAUSIBLE CLAIM OF AN URGENT NEED.  EVERY REPETITION IMBEDS
THAT PRINCIPLE MORE DEEPLY IN OUR LAW AND THINKING AND EXPANDS IT TO
NEW PURPOSES.  ALL WHO OBSERVE THE WORK OF COURTS ARE FAMILIAR WITH
WHAT JUDGE CARDOZO DESCRIBED AS "THE TENDENCY OF A PRINCIPLE TO EXPAND
ITSELF TO THE LIMIT OF ITS LOGIC."  FN1  A MILITARY COMMANDER MAY
OVERSTEP THE BOUNDS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, AND IT IS AN INCIDENT.  BUT
IF WE REVIEW AND APPROVE, THAT PASSING INCIDENT BECOMES THE DOCTRINE OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  THERE IT HAS A GENERATIVE POWER OF ITS OWN, AND ALL
THAT IT CREATES WILL BE IN ITS OWN IMAGE.  NOTHING BETTER ILLUSTRATES
THIS DANGER THAN DOES THE COURT'S OPINION IN THIS CASE. 

IT ARGUES THAT WE ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD THE CONVICTION OF KOREMATSU
BECAUSE WE UPHELD ONE IN HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81,
WHEN WE SUSTAINED THESE ORDERS IN SO FAR AS THEY APPLIED A CURFEW
REQUIREMENT TO A CITIZEN OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY.  I THINK WE SHOULD LEARN
SOMETHING FROM THAT EXPERIENCE. 

IN THAT CASE WE WERE URGED TO CONSIDER ONLY THE CURFEW FEATURE, THAT
BEING ALL THAT TECHNICALLY WAS INVOLVED, BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY COUNT
NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN HIRABAYASHI'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.  WE
YIELDED, AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE GUARDED THE OPINION AS CAREFULLY AS
LANGUAGE WILL DO.  HE SAID:  "OUR INVESTIGATION HERE DOES NOT GO BEYOND
THE INQUIRY WHETHER, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES
PRECEDING AND ATTENDING THEIR PROMULGATION, THE CHALLENGED ORDERS AND
STATUTE AFFORDED A REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE ACTION TAKEN IN IMPOSING
THE CURFEW."  320 U.S. AT 101.  "WE DECIDE ONLY THE ISSUE AS WE HAVE
DEFINED IT - WE DECIDE ONLY THAT THE CURFEW ORDER AS APPLIED, AND AT
THE TIME IT WAS APPLIED, WAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WAR POWER." 
320 U.S. AT 102.  AND AGAIN:  "IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR
TO WHAT EXTENT SUCH FINDINGS WOULD SUPPORT ORDERS DIFFERING FROM THE
CURFEW ORDER."  320 U.S. AT 105.  HOWEVER, IN SPITE OF OUR LIMITING
WORDS WE DID VALIDATE A DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF ANCESTRY FOR
MILD AND TEMPORARY DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY.  NOW THE PRINCIPLE OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION IS PUSHED FROM SUPPORT OF MILD MEASURES TO VERY HARSH
ONES, AND FROM TEMPORARY DEPRIVATIONS TO INDETERMINATE ONES.  AND THE
PRECEDENT WHICH IT IS SAID REQUIRES US TO DO SO IS HIRABAYASHI.  THE
COURT IS NOW SAYING THAT IN HIRABAYASHI WE DID DECIDE THE VERY THINGS
WE THERE SAID WE WERE NOT DECIDING.  BECAUSE WE SAID THAT THESE
CITIZENS COULD BE MADE TO STAY IN THEIR HOMES DURING THE HOURS OF DARK,
IT IS SAID WE MUST REQUIRE THEM TO LEAVE HOME ENTIRELY; AND IF THAT, WE
ARE TOLD THEY MAY ALSO BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FOR DEPORTATION; AND IF
THAT, IT IS ARGUED THEY MAY ALSO BE HELD FOR SOME UNDETERMINED TIME IN
DETENTION CAMPS.  HOW FAR THE PRINCIPLE OF THIS CASE WOULD BE EXTENDED
BEFORE PLAUSIBLE REASONS WOULD PLAY OUT, I DO NOT KNOW. 

I SHOULD HOLD THAT A CIVIL COURT CANNOT BE MADE TO ENFORCE AN ORDER
WHICH VIOLATES CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS EVEN IF IT IS A REASONABLE
EXERCISE OF MILITARY AUTHORITY.  THE COURTS CAN EXERCISE ONLY THE
JUDICIAL POWER, CAN APPLY ONLY LAW, AND MUST ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION,
OR THEY CEASE TO BE CIVIL COURTS AND BECOME INSTRUMENTS OF MILITARY
POLICY. 

OF COURSE THE EXISTENCE OF A MILITARY POWER RESTING ON FORCE, SO
VAGRANT, SO CENTRALIZED, SO NECESSARILY HEEDLESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, IS
AN INHERENT THREAT TO LIBERTY.  BUT I WOULD NOT LEAD PEOPLE TO RELY ON
THIS COURT FOR A REVIEW THAT SEEMS TO ME WHOLLY DELUSIVE.  THE MILITARY
REASONABLENESS OF THESE ORDERS CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED BY MILITARY
SUPERIORS.  IF THE PEOPLE EVER LET COMMAND OF THE WAR POWER FALL INTO
IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNSCRUPULOUS HANDS, THE COURTS WIELD NO POWER EQUAL
TO ITS RESTRAINT.  THE CHIEF RESTRAINT UPON THOSE WHO COMMAND THE
PHYSICAL FORCES OF THE COUNTRY, IN THE FUTURE AS IN THE PAST, MUST BE
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE POLITICAL JUDGMENTS OF THEIR CONTEMPORARIES
AND TO THE MORAL JUDGMENTS OF HISTORY. 

MY DUTIES AS A JUSTICE AS I SEE THEM DO NOT REQUIRE ME TO MAKE A
MILITARY JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER GENERAL DEWITT'S EVACUATION AND
DETENTION PROGRAM WAS A REASONABLE MILITARY NECESSITY.  I DO NOT
SUGGEST THAT THE COURTS SHOULD HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INTERFERE WITH THE
ARMY IN CARRYING OUT ITS TASK.  BUT I DO NOT THINK THEY MAY BE ASKED TO
EXECUTE A MILITARY EXPEDIENT THAT HAS NO PLACE IN LAW UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.  I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND DISCHARGE THE
PRISONER. 

FN1  NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, P. 51. 
..END :










WALLACE CORPORATION V. LABOR BOARD, 323 U.S. 248 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 16, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1944 - 141 F.2D
87, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING THAT LABOR ORGANIZATION "A", WHICH THE BOARD
HAD PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, HAD
BEEN SET UP, MAINTAINED AND USED BY THE EMPLOYER TO FRUSTRATE THE
THREATENED UNIONIZATION OF ITS PLANT BY LABOR ORGANIZATION "B", AND
THAT THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT BETWEEN A AND THE EMPLOYER HAD BEEN
ENTERED INTO BY THE EMPLOYER WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT A INTENDED TO USE THE
CONTRACT AS A MEANS OF BRINGING ABOUT THE DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES WHO
WERE MEMBERS OF B BY DENYING THEM MEMBERSHIP IN A, WERE SUPPORTED BY
THE EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO
DISESTABLISH A, TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE CLOSED
SHOP CONTRACT, AND TO REINSTATE WITH BACK PAY EMPLOYEES FOUND TO HAVE
BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THEIR AFFILIATION WITH B, AND BECAUSE OF
THEIR FAILURE TO BELONG TO A, AS REQUIRED BY THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT. 
P. 251. 

2.  HAVING FOUND THAT THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE,
THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING EVIDENCE AS TO THE EMPLOYER'S
CONDUCT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
CERTIFICATION.  P. 255. 

3.  ALTHOUGH THE PROVISO OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT PERMITS CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS, IT WAS NEVERTHELESS AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE FOR THE EMPLOYER TO EXECUTE A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT WITH
KNOWLEDGE THAT A INTENDED TO DENY MEMBERSHIP TO B EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF
THEIR FORMER AFFILIATION WITH B. P. 255. 

4.  A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS BEEN SELECTED AS BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT BECOMES THE AGENT
OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES, CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF REPRESENTING
THEIR INTERESTS FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY.  P. 255. 

5.  THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT COMPELLED BY LAW TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
UNDER WHICH IT KNEW THAT DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES WOULD OCCUR; AND THE
RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THERE WAS MORE WHICH THE EMPLOYER COULD AND
SHOULD HAVE DONE TO PREVENT THE DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES EVEN AFTER
THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED.  P. 256. 

WALLACE CORPORATION V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

NO. 66.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 67, RICHWOOD CLOTHESPIN & DISH WORKERS' UNION V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 721, TO REVIEW A DECREE GRANTING ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 50 N.L.R.B. 138. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN AN ATTEMPT TO SETTLE A LABOR DISPUTE AT THE PLANT OF PETITIONER
COMPANY, AN AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE BOARD WAS SIGNED BY A C.I.O.
UNION, AN INDEPENDENT UNION, AND THE COMPANY.  AT A CONSENT ELECTION
HELD PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT, INDEPENDENT WON A MAJORITY OF THE
VOTES CAST, FN1  AND WAS CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD AS BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE.  THE COMPANY THEN SIGNED A UNION SHOP CONTRACT WITH
INDEPENDENT, WITH KNOWLEDGE - SO THE BOARD HAS FOUND - THAT INDEPENDENT
INTENDED, BY REFUSING MEMBERSHIP TO C.I.O. EMPLOYEES, TO OUST THEM FROM
THEIR JOBS.  INDEPENDENT REFUSED TO ADMIT C.I.O. MEN TO MEMBERSHIP AND
THE COMPANY DISCHARGED THEM. 

IN A SUBSEQUENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING THE BOARD FOUND THAT
(1) INDEPENDENT HAD BEEN SET UP, MAINTAINED, AND USED BY THE PETITIONER
TO FRUSTRATE THE THREATENED UNIONIZATION OF ITS PLANT BY THE C.I.O.,
AND (2) THE UNION SHOP CONTRACT WAS MADE BY THE COMPANY WITH KNOWLEDGE
THAT INDEPENDENT INTENDED TO USE THE CONTRACT AS A MEANS OF BRINGING
ABOUT THE DISCHARGE OF FORMER C.I.O. EMPLOYEES BY DENYING THEM
MEMBERSHIP IN INDEPENDENT.  THE BOARD HELD THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE
COMPANY IN BOTH THESE INSTANCES CONSTITUTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  IT
ENTERED AN ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO DISESTABLISH INDEPENDENT,
DENOMINATED BY IT A "COMPANY UNION"; TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM GIVING
EFFECT TO THE UNION SHOP CONTRACT BETWEEN IT AND INDEPENDENT; AND TO
REINSTATE WITH BACK PAY FORTY-THREE EMPLOYEES, FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THEIR AFFILIATION WITH THE C.I.O., AND BECAUSE OF
THEIR FAILURE TO BELONG TO INDEPENDENT, AS REQUIRED BY THE UNION SHOP
CONTRACT.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER.  FN3 WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  322 U.S. 721. 

THE BOARD'S FINDINGS IF VALID SUPPORT THE ENTIRE ORDER.  THIS IS SO
BECAUSE SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT FN4  DOES NOT PERMIT SUCH A CONTRACT TO BE
MADE BETWEEN A COMPANY AND A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH IT HAS
"ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED."  N5  THE BOARD THEREFORE IS
AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT TO ORDER DISESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH UNIONS AND TO
ORDER AN EMPLOYER TO RENOUNCE SUCH CONTRACTS.  FN6 NOR CAN THE COMPANY,
IF THE BOARD'S FINDINGS ARE WELL-GROUNDED, DEFEND ITS DISCHARGE OF THE
C.I.O. EMPLOYEES ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTRACT WITH INDEPENDENT
REQUIRED IT TO DO SO.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS ARE
NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  AS SHOWN BY ITS ANALYSIS, THE
BOARD GAVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT RELATING TO
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHICH OCCURRED BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE CERTIFICATION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS UNRESERVEDLY AFFIRMED THE BOARD'S FINDINGS, AND WE FIND AMPLE
SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO JUSTIFY THAT AFFIRMANCE.  WE
NEED THEREFORE BUT BRIEFLY REFER TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE
BOARD'S ORDER. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD ESTABLISH THE FACT OF AN ABIDING HOSTILITY
ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY TO ANY RECOGNITION OF A C.I.O. UNION.  THIS
HOSTILITY WE MUST TAKE IT EXTENDED TO ANY EMPLOYEE WHO DID OR WHO MIGHT
AFFILIATE HIMSELF WITH THE C.I.O. UNION.  THE COMPANY APPARENTLY
PREFERRED TO CLOSE DOWN THIS ONE OF ITS TWO PLANTS RATHER THAN TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE C.I.O.  IT PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED THROUGH
ONE OF ITS FOREMEN THAT "...  THE ONES THAT DID NOT SIGN UP WITH THE
C.I.O. DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT  ...  THE COMPANY WOULD SEE
THAT THEY WAS TAKEN CARE OF."  THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PLAINLY IMPLIED
THAT THE OLD EMPLOYEES COULD RETAIN THEIR JOBS WITH THE COMPANY SIMPLY
BY BECOMING MEMBERS OF WHICHEVER UNION WOULD WIN THE ELECTION. 
NEVERTHELESS, THE COMPANY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH INDEPENDENT
WHICH INEVITABLY RESULTED IN BRINGING ABOUT THE DISCHARGE OF A LARGE
BLOC OF C.I.O. MEN AND THEIR PRESIDENT. 

THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED AFTER NOTICE TO THE COMPANY BY THE BUSINESS
MANAGER OF INDEPENDENT THAT INDEPENDENT MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE
MEMBERSHIP TO OLD C.I.O. EMPLOYEES WHO MIGHT JEOPARDIZE ITS MAJORITY. 
THIS BUSINESS MANAGER, WHO HAD HIMSELF ORIGINALLY BEEN RECOMMENDED TO
INDEPENDENT BY A COMPANY EMPLOYEE, WROTE THE COMPANY, PRIOR TO THE
MAKING OF THE CONTRACT, THAT INDEPENDENT INSISTED UPON A CLOSED-SHOP
AGREEMENT BECAUSE IT WANTED A "LEGAL MEANS OF DISPOSING OF ANY PRESENT
EMPLOYEES" WHO MIGHT AFFECT ITS MAJORITY, AND "WHO ARE UNFAVORABLE TO
OUR INTERESTS."  THE CONTRACT FURTHER SIGNIFICANTLY PROVIDED THAT THE
COMPANY WOULD BE RELEASED FROM THE CLAUSE REQUIRING IT TO RETAIN IN ITS
EMPLOY UNION MEN ONLY, IF INDEPENDENT SHOULD LOSE ITS MAJORITY AND THE
C.I.O. WIN IT.  FN7 

NEITHER THE BOARD NOR THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT THE COMPANY ENGAGED
IN A CONSPIRACY TO BRING ABOUT THE DISCHARGE CHARGE OF FORMER C.I.O.
MEMBERS.  BOTH OF THEM, HOWEVER, HAVE FOUND THAT THE CONTRACT WAS
SIGNED WITH KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY THAT INDEPENDENT
PROPOSED TO REFUSE TO ADMIT THEM TO MEMBERSHIP AND THUS ACCOMPLISH THE
VERY SAME PURPOSE.  BY THE PLAN CARRIED OUT THE COMPANY HAS BEEN ABLE
TO ACHIEVE THAT WHICH THE BOARD FOUND WAS ITS OBJECT FROM THE
BEGINNING, NAMELY, TO RID ITSELF OF C.I.O. MEMBERS, CATEGORIZED BY ITS
FOREMAN AS "AGITATORS." 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE BOARD'S FINDING AS TO COMPANY DOMINATION HAS
NO SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE AS TO COMPANY
DOMINATION ANTEDATED THE SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION, AND HENCE WAS
IMPROPERLY ADMITTED.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE BOARD CANNOT GO BEHIND
THE SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION.  THE PETITIONER DOES NOT ARGUE THAT
ANY LANGUAGE APPEARING IN THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT DENIES THIS POWER TO
THE BOARD, BUT RELIES UPON GENERAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE JUDICIAL
RULE GOVERNING ESTOPPEL IS BASED.  ONLY RECENTLY WE HAD OCCASION TO
NOTE THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN ORIGIN AND FUNCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES AND COURTS "PRECLUDE WHOLESALE TRANSPLANTATION OF THE RULES OF
PROCEDURE, TRIAL, AND REVIEW WHICH HAVE EVOLVED FROM THE HISTORY AND
EXPERIENCE OF COURTS."  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE
BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 143.  WITH REFERENCE TO THE ATTEMPTED
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES, AS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER DUTIES IMPOSED
UPON IT BY THE ACT, THE BOARD HAS POWER TO FASHION ITS PROCEDURE TO
ACHIEVE THE ACT'S PURPOSE TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES FROM UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES.  WE CANNOT, BY INCORPORATING THE JUDICIAL CONCEPT OF
ESTOPPEL INTO ITS PROCEDURE, RENDER THE BOARD POWERLESS TO PREVENT AN
OBVIOUS FRUSTRATION OF THE ACT'S PURPOSES. 

TO PREVENT DISPUTES LIKE THE ONE HERE INVOLVED, THE BOARD HAS FROM THE
VERY BEGINNING ENCOURAGED COMPROMISES AND SETTLEMENTS.  FN8  THE
PURPOSE OF SUCH ATTEMPTED SETTLEMENTS HAS BEEN TO END LABOR DISPUTES,
AND SO FAR AS POSSIBLE TO EXTINGUISH ALL THE ELEMENTS GIVING RISE TO
THEM.  THE ATTEMPTED SETTLEMENT HERE WHOLLY FAILED TO PREVENT THE
WHOLESALE DISCARD OF EMPLOYEES AS A RESULT OF THEIR UNION
AFFILIATIONS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE SETTLEMENT WAS THEREBY DEFEATED. 
UPON THIS FAILURE, WHEN THE BOARD'S FURTHER ACTION WAS PROPERLY
INVOKED, IT BECAME ITS DUTY TO TAKE FRESH STEPS TO PREVENT FRUSTRATION
OF THE ACT.  TO MEET SUCH SITUATIONS THE BOARD HAS ESTABLISHED AS A
WORKING RULE THE PRINCIPLE THAT IT ORDINARILY WILL RESPECT THE TERMS OF
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BY IT.  FN9  IT HAS CONSISTENTLY GONE
BEHIND SUCH AGREEMENTS, HOWEVER, WHERE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS HAVE
DEMONSTRATED THAT EFFORTS AT ADJUSTMENT HAVE FAILED TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR
PURPOSE, OR WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSEQUENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 
FN10  WE THINK THIS RULE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD IS APPROPRIATE TO
ACCOMPLISH THE ACT'S PURPOSE WITH FAIRNESS TO ALL CONCERNED. 
CONSEQUENTLY, SINCE THE BOARD CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THERE WAS A
SUBSEQUENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, IT WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING
EVIDENCE AS TO PETITIONER'S CONDUCT, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION. 

THE COMPANY DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF A SUBSEQUENT UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE.  IT ATTACKS THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE TO EXECUTE THE UNION SHOP CONTRACT WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT
INDEPENDENT AT THAT TIME INTENDED TO DENY MEMBERSHIP TO C.I.O.
EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR FORMER AFFILIATIONS WITH THE C.I.O.  IT
ADMITS THAT HAD THERE BEEN NO UNION SHOP AGREEMENT, DISCHARGE OF
EMPLOYEES ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE C.I.O. WOULD HAVE BEEN
AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT.  BUT THE
PROVISO IN SEC. 8(3) PERMITS UNION SHOP AGREEMENTS.  IT FOLLOWS
THEREFORE, THE COMPANY ARGUES, THAT, INASMUCH AS SUCH AGREEMENTS
CONTEMPLATE DISCHARGE OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CONTRACTING
UNION, AND INASMUCH AS THE COMPANY HAS NO CONTROL OVER ADMISSION TO
UNION MEMBERSHIP, THE CONTRACT IS VALID AND THE COMPANY MUST DISCHARGE
NON-UNION MEMBERS, REGARDLESS OF THE UNION'S DISCRIMINATORY PURPOSE,
AND THE COMPANY'S KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH PURPOSE.  THIS ARGUMENT WE CANNOT
ACCEPT. 

THE DUTIES OF A BARGAINING AGENT SELECTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT
EXTEND BEYOND THE MERE REPRESENTATION OF THE INTERESTS OF ITS OWN GROUP
MEMBERS.  BY ITS SELECTION AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, IT HAS BECOME
THE AGENT OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES, CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
REPRESENTING THEIR INTERESTS FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY.  OTHERWISE,
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF A SELECTED UNION AT THE TIME IT IS
CHOSEN BY THE MAJORITY WOULD BE LEFT WITHOUT ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION. 
NO EMPLOYEE CAN BE DEPRIVED OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF HIS PRIOR
AFFILIATION WITH ANY PARTICULAR UNION.  THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS
DESIGNED TO WIPE OUT SUCH DISCRIMINATION IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. 
NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT DEALING WITH THE ACT HAVE ESTABLISHED
BEYOND DOUBT THAT WORKERS SHALL NOT BE DISCRIMINATORILY DISCHARGED
BECAUSE OF THEIR AFFILIATION WITH A UNION.  WE DO NOT CONSTRUE THE
PROVISION AUTHORIZING A CLOSED SHOP CONTRACT AS INDICATING AN INTENTION
ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE A MAJORITY OF WORKERS AND A
COMPANY, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, TO PENALIZE MINORITY GROUPS OF WORKERS
BY DEPRIVING THEM OF THAT FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND SELF
ORGANIZATION WHICH IT WAS THE PRIME PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO PROTECT FOR
ALL WORKERS.  IT WAS AS MUCH A DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THESE
MINORITY EMPLOYEES FOR THE COMPANY DISCRIMINATORILY TO DISCHARGE THEM
IN COLLABORATION WITH INDEPENDENT AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE COMPANY
DONE IT ALONE.  TO PERMIT IT TO DO SO BY INDIRECTION, THROUGH THE
MEDIUM OF A "UNION" OF ITS OWN CREATION, WOULD BE TO SANCTION A READILY
CONTRIVED MECHANISM FOR EVASION OF THE ACT. 

ONE FINAL ARGUMENT REMAINS.  THE COMPANY, IT IS SAID, BARGAINED WITH
INDEPENDENT BECAUSE IT WAS COMPELLED TO DO SO BY LAW.  THE UNION SHOP
CONTRACT TO WHICH THE COMPANY AT FIRST OBJECTED, BUT INTO WHICH IT
ENTERED AGAINST THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, WAS THE RESULT OF THAT
BARGAINING.  THE COMPANY, IT IS POINTED OUT, PERSISTENTLY THOUGH
UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO PERSUADE INDEPENDENT TO ADMIT C.I.O. WORKERS
AS MEMBERS OF INDEPENDENT.  HENCE, WE ARE TOLD, THE COMPANY DID ALL IN
ITS POWER TO PREVENT THE DISCHARGES AND SHOULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE
FOR THEM.  TWO ANSWERS SUGGEST THEMSELVES:  FIRST, THAT THE COMPANY WAS
NOT COMPELLED BY LAW TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT UNDER WHICH IT KNEW THAT
DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES OF ITS EMPLOYEES WERE BOUND TO OCCUR; SECOND,
THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THERE WAS MORE THE COMPANY COULD AND SHOULD
HAVE DONE TO PREVENT THESE DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES EVEN AFTER THE
CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DISCHARGE OF THIS LARGE
GROUP OF EMPLOYEES, THE LABOR BOARD COMPLAINED TO THE COMPANY.  THE
COMPANY APPEALED IN WRITING TO INDEPENDENT'S BUSINESS MANAGER TO ADMIT
THE MEN TO MEMBERSHIP, AND THUS MAKE POSSIBLE THEIR REINSTATEMENT. 
THIS APPEAL WAS REJECTED.  THE BOARD THEN CALLED TO THE COMPANY'S
ATTENTION OUR DECISION IN LABOR BOARD V. ELECTRIC VACUUM CLEANER CO.,
315 U.S. 685, ASSERTING THAT UNDER ITS AUTHORITY THE MEN HAD BEEN
ILLEGALLY DISCHARGED AND SHOULD BE REINSTATED.  IN SUBSEQUENT
CORRESPONDENCE, THE BOARD SUGGESTED TO THE COMPANY THAT IF IT SHOULD
LATER BE REQUIRED TO REINSTATE THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES, IT WOULD HAVE
ONLY ITSELF TO BLAME, SINCE IT HAD VOLUNTARILY DISPENSED WITH THEIR
SERVICES.  IT INSISTED THAT THE COMPANY WAS TAKING A NEEDLESS RISK OF
LIABILITY BECAUSE IF THE BOARD SHOULD HEAR CHARGES AND DISMISS THEM,
THE MEN COULD THEN BE DISCHARGED, BUT IF ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BOARD
SHOULD SUSTAIN THE COMPLAINT, THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES "WOULD HAVE
RETAINED THEIR POSITIONS AND YOUR CLIENT WOULD HAVE NO FURTHER
LIABILITY BECAUSE OF THEIR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE."  THE BOARD'S
REPRESENTATIVE AT THAT TIME WROTE THE COMPANY, "I AGAIN BESEECH YOU TO
RETURN THEM TO WORK PENDING A DECISION BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD ON THIS QUESTION."    IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT WE HAVE SAID THAT WE
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW APPROVING THE ORDER OF THE BOARD
IN ITS ENTIRETY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  OF 207 ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES, 98 VOTED FOR INDEPENDENT, 83 FOR THE
C.I.O., AND 26 DID NOT VOTE. 

FN2  50 N.L.R.B. 138. 

FN3  141 F.2D 87.    FN4  SECTION 8(3) CONTAINS A PROVISO TO THE
EFFECT THAT NOTHING IN THE ACT "SHALL PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER FROM MAKING
AN AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION (NOT ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR
ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THIS ACT AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE)
TO REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP THEREIN  ...." 

FN5  LABOR BOARD V. ELECTRIC VACUUM CLEANER CO., 315 U.S. 685, 694. 

FN6  I.A. OF M. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 81-2; LABOR BOARD V.
FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453, 461. 

FN7  THE CONTRACT READS:  "IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES
HERETO THAT SHOULD THE UNION AT ANY TIME BECOME AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY
WITH ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION OR FEDERATION HAVING MEMBERSHIP OR LOCAL
UNION AFFILIATIONS IN MORE THAN ONE TOWN OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF
RICHWOOD, WEST VIRGINIA, THIS CLAUSE (E) OF ARTICLE I SHALL IMMEDIATELY
BECOME NULL AND VOID,  ..." 

FN8  APPARENTLY MORE THAN 50% OF ALL CASES BEFORE IT HAVE BEEN
ADJUSTED UNDER ITS SUPERVISION.  SEE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1936), PP. 30-31; SECOND ANNUAL REPORT
(1937), PP. 15-17; THIRD ANNUAL REPORT (1938), PP. 20-22; FOURTH ANNUAL
REPORT (1939), PP. 19-22; FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT (1940), PP. 14, 16-18,
20, 26; SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT (1941), PP. 14-15, 25, 26, 27, 29; SEVENTH
ANNUAL REPORT (1942), PP. 22-25, 28-30, 80-86; EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT
(1943), PP. 20-23, 91, 92. 

FN9  MATTER OF CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO., 22 N.L.R.B. 824, 828-829;
MATTER OF WICKWIRE BROTHERS, 16 N.L.R.B. 316, 325-326; MATTER OF
GODCHAUX SUGARS, 12 N.L.R.B. 568, 576-579; MATTER OF SHENANDOAH-DIVES
MINING CO., 11 N.L.R.B. 885, 888; CF. MATTER OF LOCOMOTIVE FINISHED
MATERIAL CO., 52 N.L.R.B. 922, 927. 

FN10  MATTER OF LOCOMOTIVE FINISHED MATERIAL CO., SUPRA, 926-928;
MATTER OF CHICAGO CASKET CO., 21 N.L.R.B. 235, 252-256; MATTER OF HARRY
A. HALFF, 16 N.L.R.B. 667, 679-682; CF. MATTER OF WICKWIRE BROTHERS,
SUPRA.  THE COURTS HAVE APPROVED THE BOARD'S PRACTICE IN THIS RESPECT. 
LABOR BOARD V. PHILLIPS GAS & OIL CO., 141 F.2D 304, 305-6(C.C.A. 3);
LABOR BOARD V. HAWK & BUCK CO., 120 F.2D 903, 904-5(C.C.A. 5); LABOR
BOARD V. THOMPSON PRODUCTS, 130 F.2D 363, 366-67(C.C.A. 6); CANYON
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 128 F.2D 953, 955-956(C.C.A. 8); SPERRY GYROSCOPE
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 129 F.2D 922, 931(C.C.A.2).  SEE WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION V. LABOR BOARD, 121 F.2D 84, 92-94(APP.  D.C.)  CERT. DEN.  314
U.S. 674. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING. 

A MORE COMPLETE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS THAN IS FOUND IN THE COURT'S
OPINION IS NECESSARY TO DISCLOSE THE REASONS WHY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND I DISSENT. 

THE WALLACE MANUFACTURING COMPANY EMPLOYS ABOUT 200 EMPLOYEES AND
MAKES CLOTHESPINS AND SIMILAR WOOD PRODUCTS AT RICHWOOD, A SMALL
COMMUNITY IN WEST VIRGINIA.  IN JULY 1941 A UNION AFFILIATED WITH THE
C.I.O., WHICH AFTER THE PRACTICE OF THE COURT'S OPINION WE WILL CALL
THE C.I.O., BEGAN TO ORGANIZE THESE EMPLOYEES, AND THE COMPANY ENGAGED
IN COUNTER MEASURES.  WITHOUT DETAILING THE EVIDENCE OR CONSIDERING THE
MERITS OF THE COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS WE WILL ASSUME THAT THE COMPANY
DURING THIS PERIOD WAS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. 

ON SEPTEMBER 25, THE C.I.O. CALLED A STRIKE.  ABOUT OCTOBER 2, THE
INDEPENDENT UNION, ONE OF THE PETITIONERS HERE, CAME INTO BEING.  ON
OCTOBER 10, 1941, THE C.I.O. FILED CHARGES WITH THE LABOR BOARD,
ALLEGING AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT THE COMPANY HAD VIOLATED THE ACT BY
SPONSORING THE FORMATION OF THE INDEPENDENT.  AGAIN, WITHOUT WEIGHING
THE EVIDENCE OR THE OBJECTIONS OF THE COMPANY OR OF THE INDEPENDENT, WE
WILL ASSUME THAT THE COMPANY WAS GUILTY. 

ON OCTOBER 14, THE INDEPENDENT DEMANDED RECOGNITION AS BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES, AND ON OCTOBER 31, IT FILED WITH THE
LABOR BOARD A PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATION OF IT AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES. 

THE BOARD, HOWEVER, DID NOT PROCEED ON EITHER THE COMPLAINT OR THE
REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION.  INSTEAD, AS THE GOVERNMENT STATES, "DURING
THE ENSUING TWO AND ONE-HALF MONTHS, REPRESENTATIVES OF PETITIONER (THE
COMPANY), THE BOARD, AND THE TWO UNIONS ENGAGED IN NEGOTIATIONS LOOKING
TOWARD SETTLEMENT OF THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY, INCLUDING DISPOSITION OF
THE UNION'S CHARGE AND THE INDEPENDENT'S PETITION."  AGAIN, WITHOUT
CONSIDERING THE COMPANY'S OR THE INDEPENDENT'S OBJECTION OR EVIDENCE,
WE WILL ASSUME THAT DURING THIS TWO AND A HALF MONTHS THE COMPANY
ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  THE STRIKE WAS PROCEEDING, HOWEVER,
WITH MUCH BITTERNESS AND SOME VIOLENCE.  ON DECEMBER 30, THE STRIKE
THEN BEING IN ITS FOURTH MONTH, THE C.I.O. BY TELEGRAM OFFERED, WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE LABOR BOARD, TO ENTER INTO A CONSENT ELECTION "WITH
YOU AND YOUR COMPANY UNION, ON THE CONDITION THAT WHEN WE PROVE A
MAJORITY AND BECOME THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENCY FOR ALL YOUR
EMPLOYEES, THAT AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT ALL ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES
MUST BECOME MEMBERS OF LOCAL UNION 129, U.C.W.O.C."  THE CLOSED-SHOP
PROPOSAL WAS THUS FIRST BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE C.I.O.  ON JANUARY 13,
THE C.I.O. AND THE INDEPENDENT AND THE COMPANY SIGNED AN AGREEMENT THAT
THE PLANT SHOULD BE OPENED, THAT EVERYONE SHOULD RETURN TO WORK, THAT
THE COMPANY WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY INFLUENCE ITS EMPLOYEES FOR OR AGAINST
EITHER UNION, AND THAT THE UNIONS WOULD NOT EXERCISE ANY COERCION.  THE
COMPANY AGREED TO RECOGNIZE AS EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT WHICHEVER
UNION WAS PROVED BY A VOTE CONDUCTED BY THE BOARD TO REPRESENT A
MAJORITY OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND TO START NEGOTIATIONS IMMEDIATELY AFTER
THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION WAS DETERMINED AND TO GRANT A UNION SHOP. 
ALL PARTIES ARE AGREED THAT THEY EMPLOYED "UNION SHOP" AS THE
EQUIVALENT OF "CLOSED SHOP."  THERE IS NO FINDING AND NO EVIDENCE THAT
AT THE TIME THE COMPANY ENTERED INTO THIS OBLIGATION IT HAD ANY
FOREKNOWLEDGE AS TO WHICH UNION WOULD WIN OR WHAT THE PRACTICE OF
EITHER AS TO ADMISSION OF MEMBERS WOULD BE, NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE
THAT EITHER UNION HAD DECIDED UPON ANY POLICY IN ANTICIPATION OF
VICTORY.  THERE IS NO CHARGE, NO FINDING, AND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
COMPANY HAS NOT PERFORMED ITS PART OF THIS AGREEMENT SCRUPULOUSLY. 

THE PARTIES TOOK THIS AGREEMENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD'S REGIONAL
MANAGER AND ON JANUARY 19 TWO AGREEMENTS WERE DRAWN:  ONE BY WHICH THE
C.I.O. WITHDREW THE CHARGES OF DOMINATION AND OTHER CHARGES; AND THE
OTHER FOR A CONSENT ELECTION TO DETERMINE THE EMPLOYEES' CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVE.  BOTH OF THESE AGREEMENTS, AFTER SIGNATURE BY ALL THE
PARTIES, WERE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ACTING ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF
THE AGREEMENT THAT THE COMPANY WOULD GIVE TO THE WINNER A CLOSED SHOP. 
FN1 

THE EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT DISTINCTION AS TO UNION AFFILIATION, ALL
RETURNED TO WORK.  THE ELECTION WAS HELD JANUARY 30, UNDER THE AUSPICES
OF THE BOARD.  OF THE 186 VALID VOTES CAST, THE INDEPENDENT RECEIVED
98, THE C.I.O. 83, AND 5 VOTES WERE CAST FOR NEITHER.  THE C.I.O. FILED
NO OBJECTIONS, AND THE BOARD ON FEBRUARY 4 CERTIFIED THE INDEPENDENT AS
THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT FOR THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PLANT. 

THEREUPON THE COMPANY BARGAINED WITH THE CERTIFIED REPRESENTATIVE, AS
IT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO.  THE EVIDENCE IS UNCONTRADICTED THAT THE
COMPANY WAS RELUCTANT STILL TO ENTER INTO A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT.  THE
INDEPENDENT, HOWEVER, INSISTED THAT THE COMPANY PERFORM THE CONTRACT BY
WHICH THE STRIKE HAD BEEN SETTLED.  IT STATED ITS POSITION IN A LETTER
IN WHICH IT SAID:  "THE 'CLOSED SHOP' WILL, THEREFORE, GIVE US SOME
CONTROL IN PREVENTING THE HIRING OF ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
UNFAVORABLE TO OUR INTERESTS AND WHO WOULD FURTHER JEOPARDIZE OUR
MAJORITY.  IT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE US WITH A LEGAL MEANS OF DISPOSING OF
ANY PRESENT EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING HARVEY DODRILL WHOM OUR MEMBERS HAVE
DECLARED BY UNANIMOUS BALLOT THAT THEY WILL NOT WORK WITH, WHOSE
PRESENCE IN THE PLANT IS UNFAVORABLE TO OUR INTERESTS BECAUSE THOSE WHO
ARE SO UNFAVORABLE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO BECOME MEMBERS OF OUR
ORGANIZATION AND WITHOUT SUCH MEMBERSHIP THEY WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO
WORK IN THE PLANT UNDER A CLOSED SHOP CONTRACT WHICH WE RESPECTFULLY
INSIST THAT WE MUST HAVE." 

THIS IS THE FIRST KNOWLEDGE IT IS CLAIMED THE COMPANY HAD OR SHOULD
HAVE HAD OF THE INDEPENDENT'S ADOPTION OF AN EXCLUSIONARY POLICY TOWARD
ITS RIVALS.  THE COMPANY YIELDED, CONSIDERING THE UNION'S MEMBERSHIP
POLICY AS SOMETHING IT COULD NOT INTERFERE WITH, AND THE CLOSED-SHOP
CONTRACT WAS SIGNED.  IT REQUIRED THAT ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE EMPLOYEES
SHOULD BECOME MEMBERS OF THE INDEPENDENT WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF
THE CONTRACT OR FROM THE DATE OF HIRING.  THE CONTRACT AND NOTICE OF
THE CLOSED-SHOP ARRANGEMENT WERE POSTED IN THE PLANT.  ON MARCH 18,
FORTY-THREE EMPLOYEES WERE DISMISSED, ON DEMAND OF THE INDEPENDENT, AS
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF NON-MEMBERSHIP IN IT.  LATER IT
APPEARED THAT TWELVE SUCH DISMISSED EMPLOYEES NEVER MADE APPLICATION
FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE INDEPENDENT, AND THIRTY-ONE MEMBERS WHO HAD
APPLIED FOR MEMBERSHIP HAD BEEN REJECTED BECAUSE WHEN THEIR
APPLICATIONS CAME BEFORE THE MEETING IN REGULAR COURSE THEY DID NOT
RECEIVE THE NUMBER OF BALLOTS NECESSARY UNDER ITS BY-LAWS TO ELECT TO
MEMBERSHIP.  WHETHER THE COMPANY KNEW THAT THEY HAD APPLIED FOR
MEMBERSHIP AND HAD BEEN REJECTED IS DISPUTED, BUT AGAIN WE RESOLVE THE
DOUBT AGAINST THE COMPANY AND ASSUME THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT KNEW THIS
FACT AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE. 

THERE IS NO DISPUTE, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN MR. WALLACE, THE PRESIDENT OF
THE COMPANY, LEARNED OF THE DISCHARGE HE ATTEMPTED TO PERSUADE THE
INDEPENDENT TO ALLOW THESE EMPLOYEES TO BE REINSTATED.  ON MARCH 20,
1942, HE WROTE TO THE BUSINESS AGENT OF THE INDEPENDENT A LETTER.  THE
BOARD HAS NOT FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT WRITTEN IN GOOD FAITH.  TO THE
CONTRARY, COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD WITH COMMENDABLE CANDOR STATED THAT
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AND THAT HE MADE NO CONTENTION THAT IT WAS OTHER
THAN A GOOD-FAITH STATEMENT OF THE COMPANY'S POSITION.  AMONG OTHER
THINGS IT SAYS, "WHEN OUR MR. CHRISTMAS TALKED TO YOU ON MARCH 9TH, YOU
WILL RECALL THAT HE APPEALED TO YOU TO SEE THAT THE CLOSED SHOP CLAUSE,
WHICH YOUR UNION INSISTED BE INCLUDED IN THE WORKING AGREEMENT, SHOULD
NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY TO UNFAIRLY PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM WORKING WHO
WANTED TO WORK.  WE REALIZE, OF COURSE, THAT THE CONTRACT DOES NOT GIVE
THE COMPANY THE RIGHT TO TELL THE UNION WHO TO ADMIT AS MEMBERS, AND
FOR THAT REASON MR. CHRISTMAS' TALK WITH YOU AND MINE OVER THE
TELEPHONE COULD ONLY BE DIRECTED TO THE SENSE OF FAIRNESS WHICH WE
BELIEVE EXISTS IN THE MINDS OF YOUR MEMBERS. 

"ENTIRELY ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT HAVING TO LAY OFF THIS LARGE
NUMBER OF EXPERIENCED PEOPLE WILL BADLY CRIPPLE OUR PRODUCTION WHICH IS
URGENTLY NEEDED, WE FEEL THAT IT IS INDEED A SAD SITUATION WHERE,
ACCOUNT OF SOME INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, PEOPLE WHO HAVE
PERHAPS BEEN FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS FOR MANY YEARS CANNOT WORK
TOGETHER.  I WILL APPRECIATE YOUR ADVISING ME WHAT CAN BE DONE." 

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DISCHARGES
AND, AS THE COURT'S OPINION STATES, HE DID URGE THE COMPANY TO
DISREGARD ITS CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT AND RE-EMPLOY NONMEMBERS OF THE
CERTIFIED UNION.  THE COMPANY'S COUNSEL REMINDED HIM THAT HE HAD
EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE CLOSED-SHOP PROVISION TO THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR WHEN IT WAS BEING NEGOTIATED, AND THAT THE DIRECTOR HAD
REPLIED THAT HE PROBABLY "WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO IT AS THE C.I.O.
CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE INSISTED UPON IT IF THEY HAD PREVAILED IN THE
ELECTION."  THE COMPANY INSISTED THAT "MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION IS
BEYOND THE COMPANY'S CONTROL" AND THAT UNLESS THE UNION RELENTED IT
WOULD STAND BY THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT.  THE COMPANY SUGGESTED,
HOWEVER, TO THE INDEPENDENT THAT IT CONDUCT INTERVIEWS WITH THOSE IT
HAD REJECTED AND RECONSIDER THEM INDIVIDUALLY.  THE UNION BY UNANIMOUS
VOTE REJECTED THE SUGGESTION.  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE BOARD ALSO
WROTE TO THE HEAD OF THE INDEPENDENT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUALS DISCHARGED
"BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MEMBERS OF YOUR UNION.  IT DEVELOPS THAT YOUR
UNION IS UNWILLING TO ACCEPT THEM INTO MEMBERSHIP.  I NEED NOT REMIND
YOU OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THESE CHARGES."  THE BOARD REPRESENTATIVES
WERE UNABLE TO PERSUADE THE UNION TO ACCEPT THE REJECTED MEMBERS NOR
THE COMPANY TO REPUDIATE ITS AGREEMENT. 

AT THE OPENING OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE EXAMINER JULY 9, 1942, THE
COMPANY DECLARED IT WAS "READY TO TAKE ANY STEPS WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO
THE END THAT THESE PEOPLE BE PUT BACK TO WORK, AS IT HAS BEEN
THROUGHOUT, SINCE THIS AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO."  IT SUGGESTED THAT
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE INDEPENDENT WORK
OUT A SETTLEMENT.  THE BOARD'S ATTORNEY EXPRESSED "TO THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPANY MY THANKS FOR THE SUGGESTION." 
ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN AND COUNSEL FOR THE UNION WENT FROM SUMMERVILLE,
THE PLACE OF HEARING, TO RICHWOOD AND CALLED A MEETING OF THE
INDEPENDENT UNION.  THE BOARD ATTORNEY'S OBJECTION KEPT FURTHER
DEVELOPMENTS OUT OF THE RECORD EXCEPT THAT HE STATED, "I AM WILLING TO
LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT MR. RITCHIE (ATTORNEY FOR THE INDEPENDENT)
MADE ME A PROPOSITION WHICH I WAS UNABLE TO ACCEPT AND THAT I MADE HIM
ONE WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO ACCEPT."  THE CASE THEREFORE PROCEEDED
AGAINST THE COMPANY.    THE BOARD DID NOT FIND ANY UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND THE ELECTION.  IN FACT, IT REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER FOR SUCH A FINDING, SAYING THAT
"SUCH INTERFERENCE, IF ANY, WAS TOO TRIVIAL," WAS KNOWN TO THE C.I.O.,
WHICH MADE NO OBJECTION TO THE CERTIFICATION, AND HAD COME TO THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. 
"NEVERTHELESS, HE PROCEEDED WITH THE ELECTION, FOUND IT TO BE A FAIR
ONE, AND CERTIFIED THE INDEPENDENT." 

NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AT ANY TIME AFTER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
ARE FOUND OR CHARGED AGAINST THE EMPLOYER EXCEPT THE MAKING AND
PERFORMING OF THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT.  THE BOARD STATES ITS POSITION
AS FOLLOWS:  "THE ISSUE REMAINS WHETHER, BY ENTERING INTO THE CLOSED
SHOP CONTRACT WITH THE INDEPENDENT WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE INDEPENDENT
INTENDED TO EXCLUDE EMPLOYEES FROM MEMBERSHIP AND BY DISCHARGING
EMPLOYEES DENIED MEMBERSHIP IN THE INDEPENDENT, AS SET FORTH ABOVE, THE
RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE ACT.  THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT IT WAS BOUND
TO ENTER INTO A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT BY THE TERMS OF THE ELECTION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT, THE UNION, AND THE INDEPENDENT, AND
URGES THE BOARD TO REGARD THE DISCHARGES AS PROPER SINCE MADE PURSUANT
TO THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT. 

"WE DO NOT AGREE.  AN EMPLOYER MAY NOT ENTER INTO A CLOSED-SHOP
CONTRACT WHICH TO HIS KNOWLEDGE IS DESIGNED TO OPERATE AS AN INSTRUMENT
FOR EFFECTING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYEES SOLELY BECAUSE OF
THEIR PRIOR UNION ACTIVITIES.  THE PROVISO IN SECTION 8(3) OF THE ACT
PERMITS AN EMPLOYER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DULY DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYEES, REQUIRING MEMBERSHIP IN THAT
ORGANIZATION AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT.  IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER THE
TERMS OF THE ELECTION AGREEMENT THE RESPONDENT WAS BOUND TO EXECUTE A
UNION-SHOP CONTRACT WITH THE VICTORIOUS UNION.  IT BY NO MEANS FOLLOWS,
HOWEVER, THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ALSO BOUND BY THE ELECTION AGREEMENT
TO ACQUIESCE IN A SCHEME TO PENALIZE EMPLOYEES WHOSE CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVES WAS NOT THAT OF THE MAJORITY; NOR CAN THE PROVISO IN

"...  THE FACTS IN THE CASE MAKE IT APPARENT THAT THE RESPONDENT
(COMPANY) WAS PUT ON NOTICE THAT ITS (INDEPENDENT'S) REAL PURPOSE WAS
TO BAR FROM FUTURE EMPLOYMENT WITH THE RESPONDENT PERSONS WHO HAD
ADHERED TO THE CHARGING UNION IN THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN.  WHILE THE
TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT OF JANUARY 13, 1942, MAY HAVE BEEN VALID WHEN
MADE, PERFORMANCE OF ITS TERMS DID NOT REQUIRE THE RESPONDENT KNOWINGLY
TO BECOME A PARTY TO THE INDEPENDENT'S PLAN TO ELIMINATE FROM
RESPONDENT'S PAY ROLL EMPLOYEES SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR PAST UNION
ACTIVITIES.  ON THE CONTRARY, WHEN THIS UNLAWFUL SCHEME BECAME KNOWN TO
IT, THE RESPONDENT NOT ONLY HAD A RIGHT TO ABROGATE THE TRIPARTITE
AGREEMENT, BUT ALSO WAS UNDER AN AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION TO DO SO....
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT CANNOT BE DEEMED A
DEFENSE, BUT A DISCRIMINATORY DEVICE TO INSURE PERPETUATION OF THE
INDEPENDENT AND THUS DEPRIVE EMPLOYEES OF THEIR STATUTORY RIGHT TO
SELECT BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES." 

HOLDING THAT EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT
AFTER THE SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION BY THE BOARD WERE "UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES," THE BOARD HELD THEM EFFECTIVE ALSO TO REVIVE THE OLD
CHARGES SETTLED BY THE AGREEMENTS AND ELECTION AND IT WENT BACK TO
THOSE EVENTS TO FIND GROUNDS ON WHICH TO HOLD THAT THE EMPLOYER
DOMINATES THE INDEPENDENT. 

ACCORDINGLY IT ORDERED THAT THE COMPANY DISESTABLISH AND WITHDRAW ALL
RECOGNITION FROM THE INDEPENDENT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OF ITS
EMPLOYEES.  IT FORBADE "ANY CONTINUATION, RENEWAL, OR MODIFICATION OF
THE EXISTING CONTRACT (WHICH) WOULD PERPETUATE THE CONDITIONS WHICH
HAVE DEPRIVED EMPLOYEES" OF THEIR JOBS; IT ORDERED THE COMPANY TO CEASE
GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN IT AND THE INDEPENDENT OR TO ANY
MODIFICATION OR EXTENSION THEREOF.  IT ALSO ORDERED THAT THE COMPANY
"OFFER THE AFORESAID 43 EMPLOYEES IMMEDIATE AND FULL REINSTATEMENT TO
THEIR FORMER OR SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT POSITIONS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO THEIR SENIORITY OR OTHER RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, AND TO MAKE THEM
WHOLE FOR ANY LOSS OF PAY THEY MAY HAVE SUFFERED." 

THE UNDERLYING QUESTION IS, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOARD'S BRIEF,
"WHETHER PETITIONER BY ENTERING INTO AND DISCHARGING EMPLOYEES PURSUANT
TO THE TERMS OF THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WITH THE INDEPENDENT VIOLATED
THIS LITTLE COMPANY AND ITS TWO HUNDRED EMPLOYEES. 

DISCRIMINATION, TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION.  IF IT ENDED THERE IT WOULD OF COURSE OUTLAW ANY CLOSED
SHOP, FOR THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE CLOSED SHOP IS THAT THE EMPLOYER
DISCRIMINATES IN EMPLOYMENT TO REQUIRE MEMBERSHIP IN A PARTICULAR
UNION.  TO VALIDATE DISCRIMINATION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES A PROVISO
FOLLOWS THAT NO LAW OF THE UNITED STATES "SHALL PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER
FROM MAKING AN AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION (NOT ESTABLISHED,
MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THIS ACT AS AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE) TO REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP
THEREIN, IF SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES...." 

AT THE TIME THIS CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT WAS MADE THE BOARD HAD
CERTIFIED THE INDEPENDENT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES.  UNDER
SEC. 8 IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HAD THE COMPANY
REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH IT.  THE BOARD MADE THE CERTIFICATION, WITHOUT
OBJECTION BY THE DEFEATED C.I.O. AND WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE
COMPANY WAS BOUND IN LAW AND IN GOOD FAITH TO GIVE THE CERTIFIED UNION
A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT.  WE DO NOT SAY, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY NOW TO
DECIDE, THAT THE BOARD HAS NO POWER TO PROTECT MINORITIES AT THIS STAGE
OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  WE DO NOT MEAN TO PRECLUDE THE POWER OF THE BOARD,
WHEN THE CONTRACT SETTLING THE STRIKE, WITHDRAWING CHARGES AGAINST THE
COMPANY, AND CONSENTING TO AN ELECTION WITH A CLOSED SHOP TO THE WINNER
WAS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD, TO HAVE REFUSED TO DISMISS CHARGES AND
UNDERTAKE AN ELECTION UNLESS EACH UNION AGREED THAT, IF IT WON A CLOSED
SHOP, IT WOULD OPEN THE UNION TO MEMBERSHIP FROM THE LOSERS ON TERMS
THE BOARD DEEMED FAIR.  SINCE NO ONE COULD TELL WHO WOULD WIN, THIS
WOULD IN ANY EVENT HAVE BEEN AN IMPARTIAL ARRANGEMENT.  EVEN AFTER THE
INDEPENDENT WON, THE BOARD BEFORE CERTIFYING IT MIGHT PERHAPS PROPERLY
HAVE MADE CONDITIONS AS TO REASONABLE TERMS TO THE DEFEATED.  BUT THE
BOARD MADE NO CONDITIONS OR RESERVATIONS OF THE SORT.  INSTEAD, IT
TAKES THE POSITION, AND THE COURT IS HOLDING, THAT SUCH CONDITIONS MUST
BE IMPOSED ON THE UNION BY THE EMPLOYER.  HE MUST SEE THAT THE UNION
WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BARGAIN MAKES PROPER TERMS FOR
ADMISSION INTO THAT CERTIFIED UNION OF ITS FORMER ENEMIES AND RIVALS. 
WE THINK THAT THE DECISION TO THAT EFFECT IS NOT ONLY UNAUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS, BUT IS UTTERLY AT WAR WITH THE HANDS-OFF REQUIREMENTS WHICH
THE LAW LAYS UPON THE EMPLOYER, AND THAT THIS DECISION IS AT WAR WITH
ONE OF THE BASIC PURPOSES OF LABOR IN ITS STRUGGLE TO OBTAIN THIS ACT
AND OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING IT. 

OF COURSE THE CLOSED SHOP IS WELL KNOWN IN LABOR RELATIONS.  ITS
ESSENTIAL PHILOSOPHY IS THAT ONCE THE EMPLOYEES HAVE CHOSEN THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE UNION, IT IS ENTITLED TO BARGAIN FOR THE EMPLOYER'S HELP
TO MAINTAIN ITS CONTROL.  OTHER EMPLOYER AIDS TO A DOMINANT UNION, SUCH
AS THE CHECK-OFF, ARE ALSO CONCEDED TO UNIONS BY BARGAINING ON BEHALF
OF A MAJORITY WHEN THEY WOULD NOT BE AT ALL PERMISSIBLE FOR THE
EMPLOYER TO USE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO INFLUENCE THE WORKMEN TO CHOOSE A
PARTICULAR UNION BECAUSE HE FAVORED IT.  BUT THE IDEA OF THE CLOSED
SHOP IS THAT, WHILE THESE ACTS OF INFLUENCE OR PRESSURE ON WORKMEN ARE
UNFAIR WHEN EXERTED BY THE EMPLOYER IN HIS OWN INTEREST, THEY ARE FAIR
AND LAWFUL WHEN ENFORCED BY HIM AS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE UNION ITSELF. 
A CLOSED SHOP IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF MOST UNION ENDEAVOR, AND NOT A
FEW EMPLOYERS HAVE FOUND IT A STABILIZER OF LABOR RELATIONS BY PUTTING
OUT OF THEIR SHOPS MEN WHO WERE ANTAGONISTIC TO THE DOMINANT UNION,
THUS ENDING STRIFE FOR DOMINATION.  IT PUTS THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE UNDER
A VETO OF THE UNION, WHICH USES ITS OWN MEMBERSHIP STANDARDS AS A BASIS
ON WHICH TO EXCLUDE MEN FROM EMPLOYMENT. 

NEITHER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT NOR ANY OTHER ACT OF
CONGRESS EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION GIVES TO THE BOARD ANY POWER TO
SUPERVISE UNION MEMBERSHIP OR TO DEAL WITH UNION PRACTICES, HOWEVER
UNFAIR THEY MAY BE TO MEMBERS, TO APPLICANTS, TO MINORITIES, TO OTHER
UNIONS, OR TO EMPLOYERS.  THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE, BUT
IT WAS NO OVERSIGHT.  WE SUPPOSE THAT THERE IS NO RIGHT WHICH ORGANIZED
LABOR OF EVERY SHADE OF OPINION IN OTHER MATTERS WOULD UNITE MORE
STRONGLY IN DEMANDING THAN THE RIGHT OF EACH UNION TO CONTROL ITS OWN
ADMISSIONS TO MEMBERSHIP.  EACH UNION HAS INSISTED ON ITS FREEDOM TO
FIX ITS OWN QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS, TO DETERMINE THE VOTE BY
WHICH INDIVIDUAL ADMISSIONS WILL BE GRANTED, TO PRESCRIBE THE
INITIATION OR ADMISSION FEES, TO FIX THE DUES, TO PRESCRIBE THE DUTIES
TO WHICH MEMBERS MUST BE FAITHFUL AND TO DECIDE WHEN AND WHY THEY MAY
BE EXPELLED OR DISCIPLINED.  THE EXCLUSION OF THOSE WHOSE LOYALTY IS TO
A RIVAL UNION OR HOSTILE ORGANIZATION IS ONE OF THE MOST COMMON AND
MOST UNDERSTANDABLE OF PRACTICES, DESIGNED TO DEFEND THE UNION AGAINST
UNDERMINING, SPYING, AND DISCORD, AND POSSIBLE CAPTURE AND DELIVERY
OVER TO A RIVAL.  SOME UNIONS HAVE BATTLED TO EXCLUDE COMMUNISTS, SOME
RACKETEERS, AND ALL TO EXCLUDE THOSE DEEMED DISLOYAL TO THEIR
PURPOSES.  SEE WILLIAMS V. QUILL, 277 N.Y. 1, 7, 12 N.E.2D 547; MILLER
V. RUEHL, 166 MISC. 479, 2 N.Y.S.2D 394. 

THERE ARE THOSE WHO THINK THAT THE TIME HAS COME WHEN UNIONS SHOULD
BE DENIED THIS CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN AFFAIRS.  HOWEVER THIS MAY BE, WE
ONLY KNOW THAT CONGRESS HAS INCLUDED NO SUCH PRINCIPLE EXPRESSLY IN THE
ACT.  IF THE BOARD SHOULD ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE IT AS WE HAVE SUGGESTED
BY WAY OF A CONDITION ON ITS CONDUCTING AN ELECTION OR MAKING A
CERTIFICATION, A QUESTION OF ITS STATUTORY POWER TO DO SO MIGHT ARISE,
ON WHICH WE EXPRESS NO OPINION.  IT WOULD AT LEAST BE A FORTHRIGHT
EXERCISE OF POWER OVER THE UNIONS BY THE BOARD ITSELF ACTING IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO ENGAGE IN
INTERFERENCE WITH UNION AFFAIRS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 

BUT THE COURT IS DECIDING NOT ONLY THAT WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS
THE ADMISSION PRACTICES OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION HAVING A CLOSED SHOP
MAY BE POLICED, BUT ALSO, CONTRARY AS WE THINK TO THE ACT, THAT THE
EMPLOYER IS EMPOWERED AND REQUIRED TO DO THE POLICING.  THIS WE THINK
DEFIES BOTH THE EXPRESS TERMS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ACT.  THE
LETTER OF THE ACT MAKES IT A FORBIDDEN PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER TO
"INTERFERE WITH" OR "RESTRAIN" EMPLOYEES IN THE "RIGHT TO SELF
ORGANIZATION."  WE ASSUME THIS EMPLOYER KNEW THE INDEPENDENT WOULD
EXERCISE ITS POWER OVER ADMISSION PRIVILEGES TO SOME EXTENT TO PROTECT
ITSELF AGAINST INFILTRATION OF HOSTILE ELEMENTS.  THE BOARD MUST HAVE
KNOWN IT, TOO.  AND BOTH MUST HAVE KNOWN THE C.I.O. WOULD, ALSO, IF IT
WON.  HOWEVER, THE INDEPENDENT HAS NOT INDISCRIMINATELY EXCLUDED ALL
WHO WERE AGAINST IT IN THE ELECTION.  THE C.I.O. HAD 83 VOTES; ALL BUT
43 OF THESE VOTERS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO THE INDEPENDENT, AND
12 OF THOSE NEVER APPLIED, MAKING 31 APPARENTLY REJECTED.  IN VIEW OF
THE BITTERNESS AND DURATION OF THE STRIKE, INVOLVING SOME SHOOTING, IT
IS NOT STRANGE THAT GOOD WILL DID NOT DESCEND ON THE VICTORS AT ONCE. 
THE BOARD MAY HAVE EXPECTED MORE MODERATION WHEN IT CONDUCTED THE
CONSENT ELECTION AND CERTIFIED THE INDEPENDENT.  THERE IS NOTHING TO
SHOW THAT THE COMPANY DID NOT, TOO.  WHEN IT WAS FOUND HOW HARSHLY THE
INDEPENDENT HAD BEHAVED, THE COMPANY DID TRY PERSUASION TO GET THE
UNION LEADERS TO RELENT - THE COMPANY'S OWN INTERESTS WERE TO GET BACK
MORE OF ITS EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEES.  HOW IT COULD HAVE DONE MORE WITHOUT
BREAKING BOTH FAITH AND THE LAW, THE COURT DOES NOT POINT OUT, AND WE
DO NOT KNOW. 

OF COURSE, IF THE EMPLOYER IN A CLOSED SHOP IS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE DISCRIMINATIONS OR UNFAIRNESS OF THE UNION, HE MUST HAVE A RIGHT TO
BE INFORMED ABOUT ITS ADMISSIONS.  IF, IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, A
UNION ASKED A CLOSED SHOP, THE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE TO DEMAND TO KNOW
THE RULES AND PRACTICES ABOUT ADMISSION, THE FEES, THE BYLAWS, THE
METHOD OF ELECTING MEMBERS.  IF HE SHOULD DEMAND THIS AS A CONDITION OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, WE SHOULD EXPECT THE BOARD TO HOLD HIM GUILTY OF
UNFAIR PRACTICES, AND WE HAVE NO DOUBT IT WOULD ASK THIS COURT TO
SUSTAIN IT.  YET HERE THE SOLE GROUND OF PENALIZING THIS EMPLOYER IS
THAT HE DID NOT DO JUST THAT.  SHOULD THE EMPLOYER HAVE MADE THE UNION
ADMIT ALL OF ITS FORMER ENEMIES?  IF NOT, BY WHAT STANDARD COULD HE
ALLOW IT TO SELECT?  MUST IT ALSO BE MADE TO ADMIT EVEN THOSE WHO WOULD
NOT SIGN APPLICATIONS OR PAY INITIATION FEES CLAIMED TO BE TOO
ONEROUS?  THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO REINSTATE WITH BACK PAY A DOZEN
WHO NEVER EVEN ASKED TO JOIN THE CERTIFIED UNION.  BUT NEITHER THE
COURT NOR THE BOARD SAYS WHAT THE EMPLOYER SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE
UNION TO ADOPT AS AN ADMISSION POLICY. 

THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY PERMITS A CLOSED SHOP.  IT CAN BE DENIED ONLY
WHEN THE CERTIFIED UNION IS "ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED" BY
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYER.  BUT THE STATUTE CANNOT MEAN
THAT THE MAKING AND PERFORMANCE OF A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT IN ITSELF IS
AN UNFAIR PRACTICE WHICH INVALIDATES A CLOSED SHOP.  TO SO INTERPRET IT
WOULD BE TO BELIEVE THE CONGRESS BY THIS PROVISION WAS PERPETRATING A
HOAX.  BUT IF IT MEANS THAT THE UNION CAN HAVE A CLOSED SHOP AND THE
EMPLOYER WILL SUPERVISE ITS MEMBERSHIP, IT IS A STRANGE CONTRADICTION
IN AN ACT WHOSE CHIEF PURPOSE WAS TO STERILIZE THE EMPLOYERS AND TO
FREE WORKMEN OF THE INFLUENCE THEY EXERTED THROUGH CONTROL OF THE RIGHT
TO WORK.    WE CAN QUITE UNDERSTAND, AND WE DO NOT MEAN TO CRITICIZE,
THE MOTIVES WHICH ANIMATED THE BOARD.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH AN
INDUSTRY LOCATED IN A SMALL COMMUNITY WHERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OTHER
EMPLOYMENT ARE PROBABLY NOT PLENTIFUL.  IT IS NOT UNLIKELY THAT DENIAL
OF THE RIGHT TO WORK FOR THIS COMPANY WILL KEEP THESE MEN FROM EARNING
A LIVELIHOOD IN A PLACE THEY LONG HAVE LIVED.  IN SO FAR AS THE BOARD
HAS BEEN STIRRED BY CONCERN FOR INDIVIDUAL AND MINORITY PROTECTION
AGAINST ARBITRARY UNION ACTION, WE BOTH UNDERSTAND AND SYMPATHIZE WITH
THEIR CONCERN.  THE EMPLOYER IS THE ONLY ONE IT CAN LAY HANDS ON, AND
THE TEMPTATION IS GREAT TO USE HIM TO PROTECT MINORITY RIGHTS IN THE
LABOR MOVEMENT.  THIS AND THE OTHER CASES BEFORE US GIVE GROUND FOR
BELIEF THAT THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS PASSING INTO A
NEW PHASE.  THE STRUGGLE OF THE UNIONS FOR RECOGNITION AND RIGHTS TO
BARGAIN, AND OF WORKMEN FOR THE RIGHT TO JOIN WITHOUT INTERFERENCE,
SEEMS TO BE CULMINATING IN A VICTORY FOR LABOR FORCES.  WE APPEAR NOW
TO BE ENTERING THE PHASE OF STRUGGLE TO RECONCILE THE RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS AND MINORITIES WITH THE POWER OF THOSE WHO CONTROL
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING GROUPS.  WE HAVE JOINED IN THE OPINION IN STEELE
V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., ANTE, P. 192.  THAT CASE AROSE UNDER
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, WHICH CONTAINS NO AUTHORIZATION WHATEVER FOR A
CLOSED SHOP, ON THE CONTRARY FORBIDS THE DISCRIMINATION UNDERLYING THE
ADOPTION OF A CLOSED SHOP, AND DEALS WITH AN INDUSTRY AND A LABOR GROUP
WHICH NEVER HAS HAD OR SOUGHT A CLOSED SHOP.  BUT HERE WE DEAL WITH A
MINORITY WHICH THE STATUTE HAS SUBJECTED TO CLOSED-SHOP PRACTICES. 
WHETHER THE CLOSED SHOP, WITH OR WITHOUT THE CLOSED UNION, SHOULD OR
SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED WITHOUT SUPERVISION IS IN THE DOMAIN OF POLICY
MAKING, WHICH IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO UNDERTAKE.  NEITHER DO WE
FIND ANY AUTHORITY IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO UNDERTAKE
IT. 

IT HAPPENS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT THAT WON HERE.  BUT COUNSEL FOR THE
BOARD ASSURED US ON ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS NOT A ONE-WAY POLICY TO
REQUIRE INDEPENDENT UNIONS TO ADMIT THEIR ENEMIES.  IT WOULD, AS WE
UNDERSTAND IT, HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE SAME MANNER IF THE C.I.O. HAD
WON AND HAD EXCLUDED SOME INDEPENDENT MEMBERS - ON SUSPICION, PERHAPS,
THAT THEY WERE COMPANY SPIES.  THE OBSTACLE THAT THIS DECISION WILL
INTERPOSE TO ALL FUTURE BARGAINING FOR CLOSED SHOPS IS LIKELY TO BE
FELT BY C.I.O. AND A.F. OF L. UNIONS MANY TIMES AS OFTEN AS BY
INDEPENDENTS. 

OF COURSE IT IS THE EMPLOYER WHO IS PENALIZED HERE, AND ON SHALLOW
AND SUPERFICIAL EXAMINATION IT MAY SEEM LIKE ANOTHER VICTORY FOR
LABOR.  THE EMPLOYER MUST PAY MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR HOURS
UNWORKED, BECAUSE IT PERFORMED RELUCTANTLY BUT IN GOOD FAITH ITS CLOSED
SHOP AGREEMENT MADE UNDER AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS AND WITH KNOWLEDGE AND
ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE BOARD, AND WITH THE APPROVAL AND INSTIGATION OF
THE C.I.O. UNION WHOSE MEMBERS NOW GAIN BACK PAY BY ITS REPUDIATION. 
WE THINK THIS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OUTLAWED
BY CONGRESS.  THAT RESISTANCE TO CLOSED-SHOP UNIONS WILL LIKELY BE
STIFFENED IF EMPLOYERS MUST UNDERWRITE THE FAIRNESS OF CLOSED-SHOP
UNIONS TO APPLICANTS AND MEMBERS, AND THAT A GOOD DEAL LABOR HAS FOUGHT
FOR MAY BE JEOPARDIZED IF THE PRICE OF OBTAINING IT IS TO HAVE THE
UNION POLICED BY THE EMPLOYER, ARE CONSIDERATIONS BEYOND OUR CONCERN. 
WE CAN ONLY VIEW THIS AS A VERY UNFAIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE TO
THE EMPLOYER AND ONE NOT WARRANTED BY ANYTHING CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED OR
AUTHORIZED. 

FN1  THE BOARD HAS DECLARED ITS POLICY WITH RESPECT TO CONSENT
ELECTIONS AS FOLLOWS:  "HOWEVER, THE BOARD DOES NOT ORDINARILY ORDER
ELECTIONS IN THE PRESENCE OF UNREMEDIED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, WHETHER
MERELY ALLEGED OR ALREADY FOUND BY THE BOARD, UNLESS THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION WHICH INSTITUTED THE CHARGES HAS AGREED IN ADVANCE THAT IT
WILL NOT RELY UPON THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AS A BASIS FOR OBJECTING
TO THE CONDUCT OR RESULTS OF THE ELECTION.  THE BOARD ORDERS AN
ELECTION ONLY WHEN IT IS SATISFIED, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL EVIDENCE,
RESPECTING THE EMPLOYER'S COMPLIANCE WITH A PRIOR ORDER CONCERNING
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, THAT 'AN ELECTION FREE FROM ALL EMPLOYER
COMPULSIONS, RESTRAINTS AND INTERFERENCE, CAN BE HELD.'"  EIGHTH ANNUAL
REPORT (1943) 49. 
..END :

















UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 323 U.S. 273 


NO. 43.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1944.  - 53
F.SUPP.  596, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A PROSECUTION FOR USING THE MAILS FOR SENDING DENTURES IN
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL DENTURE ACT - WHICH ACT CONTAINS NO SPECIFIC
PROVISION RELATIVE TO THE VENUE OF PROSECUTIONS THEREUNDER - CAN NOT BE
HAD IN THE DISTRICT TO WHICH THE DENTURES WERE SENT BUT ONLY IN THE
DISTRICT FROM WHICH THEY WERE SENT.  P. 277. 

2.  SUCH CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL DENTURE ACT, THOUGH NOT REQUIRED
BY THE COMPULSIONS OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, IS MORE CONSONANT WITH THE CONSIDERATIONS OF
HISTORIC EXPERIENCE AND POLICY WHICH UNDERLIE THOSE SAFEGUARDS IN THE
CONSTITUTION REGARDING THE TRIAL OF CRIMES.  P. 275. 

3.  QUESTIONS OF VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES ARE NOT MERELY MATTERS OF
FORMAL LEGAL PROCEDURE; THEY RAISE DEEP ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE
LIGHT OF WHICH LEGISLATION MUST BE CONSTRUED.  P. 276. 

4.  ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56, DISTINGUISHED. 
P. 276. 

UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS UNITED STATES
DENTAL CO., ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF DELAWARE. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT QUASHING AN
INFORMATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL DENTURE ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CONCERNS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL DENTURE ACT OF
1942, 56 STAT. 1087, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 420(F)(G)(H)(SUPP.  1943), WHICH
PROVIDES THAT "...  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL, IN THE COURSE OF THE CONDUCT
OF A BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTING OR SUPPLYING DENTURES FROM CASTS OR
IMPRESSIONS SENT THROUGH THE MAILS OR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO USE
THE MAILS OR ANY INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF SENDING OR BRINGING INTO  ..."  A STATE OR TERRITORY ANY DENTURE THE
CAST OF WHICH WAS TAKEN BY A PERSON NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE DENTISTRY
IN THE STATE INTO WHICH THE DENTURE IS SENT.  AN INFORMATION, FILED
OCTOBER 4, 1943, IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE,
CHARGED THAT APPELLEES PUT INTO THE MAILS AT CHICAGO FOR DELIVERY IN
HOUSTON, DELAWARE, DENTURES IN VIOLATION OF THE DELAWARE LAWS
PERTAINING TO DENTAL PRACTICE, AND THEREBY VIOLATED THE FEDERAL DENTURE
ACT.  THE INFORMATION WAS QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT PROSECUTION OF
APPELLEES COULD ONLY BE HAD WHERE THE ILLEGAL DENTURES WERE DEPOSITED. 
53 F.SUPP.  596.  A SECOND INFORMATION, ADDING COUNTS ALLEGING
TRANSMISSION INTO AND DELIVERY IN DELAWARE, WAS QUASHED BY ENTRY OF A
FORMAL ORDER REFERRING TO THE COURT'S EARLIER OPINION.  FN1  THE
GOVERNMENT HAS APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT.  34 STAT. 1246, AS AMENDED, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682(SUPP. 
1943). 

MUST THESE APPELLEES BE TRIED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS OR
MAY THEY BE TRIED IN THE DISTRICT OF ANY STATE THROUGH WHICH THE
DENTURES WERE CARRIED INCLUDING DELAWARE, THE PLACE OF DELIVERY?  HAS
CONGRESS AUTHORIZED SUCH DISCRETION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT?  IF
IT HAS, THERE IS AN END TO THE MATTER, FOR CONGRESS MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE THE PRACTICES WHICH LED TO THE FEDERAL DENTURE
ACT TRIABLE IN ANY FEDERAL DISTRICT THROUGH WHICH AN OFFENDING DENTURE
IS TRANSPORTED.  ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56.  AN
ACCUSED IS SO TRIABLE, IF A FAIR READING OF THE ACT REQUIRES IT.  BUT
IF THE ENACTMENT REASONABLY PERMITS THE TRIAL OF THE SENDER OF OUTLAWED
DENTURES TO BE CONFINED TO THE DISTRICT OF SENDING, AND THAT OF THE
IMPORTER TO THE DISTRICT INTO WHICH THEY ARE BROUGHT, SUCH CONSTRUCTION
SHOULD BE PLACED UPON THE ACT.  SUCH CONSTRUCTION, WHILE NOT REQUIRED
BY THE COMPULSIONS OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, IS MORE CONSONANT WITH THE CONSIDERATIONS OF
HISTORIC EXPERIENCE AND POLICY WHICH UNDERLIE THOSE SAFEGUARDS IN THE
CONSTITUTION REGARDING THE TRIAL OF CRIMES. 

AWARE OF THE UNFAIRNESS AND HARDSHIP TO WHICH TRIAL IN AN ENVIRONMENT
ALIEN TO THE ACCUSED EXPOSES HIM, THE FRAMERS WROTE INTO THE
CONSTITUTION THAT "THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES  ...  SHALL BE HELD IN THE
STATE WHERE THE SAID CRIMES SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED  ..."  ARTICLE
III, SEC. 2, CL. 3.  AS THOUGH TO UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
SAFEGUARD, IT WAS REINFORCED BY THE PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
REQUIRING TRIAL "BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN
THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED."  SIXTH AMENDMENT.  BY UTILIZING
THE DOCTRINE OF A CONTINUING OFFENSE, CONGRESS MAY, TO BE SURE, PROVIDE
THAT THE LOCALITY OF A CRIME SHALL EXTEND OVER THE WHOLE AREA THROUGH
WHICH FORCE PROPELLED BY AN OFFENDER OPERATES.  THUS, AN ILLEGAL USE OF
THE MAILS OR OF OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF COMMERCE MAY SUBJECT THE USER TO
PROSECUTION IN THE DISTRICT WHERE HE SENT THE GOODS, OR IN THE DISTRICT
OF THEIR ARRIVAL, OR IN ANY INTERVENING DISTRICT.  PLAINLY ENOUGH, SUCH
LEEWAY NOT ONLY OPENS THE DOOR TO NEEDLESS HARDSHIP TO AN ACCUSED BY
PROSECUTION REMOTE FROM HOME AND FROM APPROPRIATE FACILITIES FOR
DEFENSE.  IT ALSO LEADS TO THE APPEARANCE OF ABUSES, IF NOT TO ABUSES,
IN THE SELECTION OF WHAT MAY BE DEEMED A TRIBUNAL FAVORABLE TO THE
PROSECUTION. 

THESE ARE MATTERS THAT TOUCH CLOSELY THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN IT, ON WHICH IT ULTIMATELY
RESTS.  THESE ARE IMPORTANT FACTORS IN ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE
EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.  THEY HAVE BEEN ADVERTED TO,
FROM TIME TO TIME, BY EMINENT JUDGES; AND CONGRESS HAS NOT BEEN
UNMINDFUL OF THEM.  QUESTIONS OF VENUE IN CRIMINAL CASES, THEREFORE,
ARE NOT MERELY MATTERS OF FORMAL LEGAL PROCEDURE.  THEY RAISE DEEP
ISSUES OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH LEGISLATION MUST BE
CONSTRUED.  IF AN ENACTMENT OF CONGRESS EQUALLY PERMITS THE UNDERLYING
SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN FOR TRIAL IN THE VICINAGE TO BE
RESPECTED RATHER THAN TO BE DISRESPECTED, CONSTRUCTION SHOULD GO IN THE
DIRECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY EVEN THOUGH NOT COMMANDED BY IT. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT WHEN CONGRESS DESIRES TO GIVE A CHOICE OF
TRIAL, IT DOES SO BY SPECIFIC VENUE PROVISIONS GIVING JURISDICTION TO
PROSECUTE IN ANY CRIMINAL COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH WHICH A
PROCESS OF WRONGDOING MOVES.  SUCH WAS THE SITUATION IN ARMOUR PACKING
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE OFFENSE THERE WAS UNDER THE ELKINS
ACT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AT ILLEGAL FREIGHT RATES, AND
CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR PROSECUTION IN ANY DISTRICT "THROUGH
WHICH THE TRANSPORTATION MAY HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED."  32 STAT. 847, AS
AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1). 

IN THE FEDERAL DENTURE ACT CONGRESS DID NOT MAKE PROVISION FOR TRIAL
IN ANY DISTRICT THROUGH WHICH THE GOODS WERE SHIPPED.  THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH A PROVISION WOULD IN ITSELF BE SIGNIFICANT.  ITS SIGNIFICANCE IS
ENHANCED WHEN IT APPEARS THAT THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS WAS DIRECTED BY
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO THE DESIRABILITY OF AUTHORITY FOR A
DISCRETIONARY TRIAL EITHER AT THE PLACE OF SHIPMENT OR AT THE PLACE OF
RECEIPT.  HE WROTE TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE "THAT CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE
ADVISABILITY OF HAVING THE MEASURE PROVIDE FOR PROSECUTION OF VIOLATORS
IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE MATERIAL IS CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED AS
WELL AS IN THE JURISDICTION FROM WHICH IT IS SENT."  HEARINGS BEFORE
SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON
H.R. 5674, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1942) P. 3.  AND THE COMMITTEE ALSO
INVITED THE VIEWPOINT OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
"ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL."  ID. AT 28.  IN VIEW OF THE KEEN
AWARENESS OF ENFORCING OFFICIALS AS WELL AS THAT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY VENUE IN
CRIMINAL TRIALS, IT IS INADMISSIBLE TO SUGGEST EITHER OVERSIGHT ON THE
PART OF CONGRESS IN FAILING TO MAKE PROVISION FOR CHOICE OF VENUE OR TO
MAKE THE CAVALIER ASSUMPTION THAT THAT WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
FOR IN OTHER ENACTMENTS - I.E., TRIAL IN MORE THAN ONE DISTRICT - WAS
AUTHORIZED BUT THROUGH PARSIMONY OF LANGUAGE LEFT UNEXPRESSED IN THE
FEDERAL DENTURE ACT. 

THE ABSENCE OF A VENUE PROVISION SUCH AS THAT WHICH CONGRESS WROTE
INTO THE ELKINS ACT IS FAR MORE RATIONALLY EXPLAINED BY DUE REGARD TO
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OFFENSES UNDER THE ELKINS AND THE FEDERAL
DENTURE ACTS RESPECTIVELY.  THE VENUE PROVISION UNDER THE ELKINS ACT
UNDERLINES THE OFFENSE DEFINED BY THAT ACT, WHICH WAS NOT THE ILLEGAL
SENDING OR THE BRINGING OF GOODS BUT THEIR "TRANSPORTATION."  THAT -
TRANSPORTATION - IS INESCAPABLY A PROCESS, A CONTINUING PHENOMENON. 
THE FEDERAL DENTURE ACT DID NOT MAKE "TRANSPORTATION" THE OFFENSE.  IT
PROSCRIBED THE USE OF THE MAILS FOR "THE PURPOSE OF SENDING OR BRINGING
INTO ANY STATE" UNLAWFUL DENTURES.  THE ACT THEREBY HIT TWO TYPES OF
VIOLATORS - THE SENDER AND THE UNLICENSED DENTIST WHO BRINGS IN
DENTURES FROM WITHOUT.  IT IS A REASONABLE AND NOT A STRAINED
CONSTRUCTION TO READ THE STATUTE TO MEAN THAT THE CRIME OF THE SENDER
IS COMPLETE WHEN HE USES THE MAILS IN CHICAGO, AND THE CRIME OF THE
UNLICENSED DENTIST IN CALIFORNIA OR FLORIDA OR DELAWARE, WHO ORDERS THE
DENTURES FROM CHICAGO, IS COMMITTED IN THE STATE INTO WHICH HE BRINGS
THE DENTURES.  AS A RESULT, THE TRIAL OF THE SENDER IS RESTRICTED TO
ILLINOIS AND THAT OF THE UNLICENSED DENTIST TO DELAWARE OR FLORIDA OR
CALIFORNIA.  THE ILLICIT SENDER IN CHICAGO CANNOT BE HAULED FOR TRIAL
ACROSS THE CONTINENT, AND, CONVERSELY, THE UNLICENSED DENTIST CANNOT BE
COMPELLED TO STAND TRIAL IN CHICAGO. 

THE LARGE POLICY BACK OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS COUNSELS
AGAINST THE UNRESTRICTED CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS
WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT COMMANDED IT; AND NO CONSIDERATIONS OF EXPEDIENCY
REQUIRE IT.  PROSECUTIONS OF FEDERAL CRIMES ARE UNDER THE GENERAL
SUPERVISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES
ATTORNEYS DO NOT EXERCISE AUTONOMOUS AUTHORITY.  THE VINDICATION OF THE
FEDERAL DENTURE ACT THEREFORE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE WILLINGNESS OF
SOME LOCAL UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE ON BEHALF OF A LOCAL
VICTIM.  WHILE IT MIGHT FACILITATE THE GOVERNMENT'S PROSECUTION IN A
CASE LIKE THIS TO HAVE ITS WITNESSES NEAR THE PLACE OF TRIAL, THERE
MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THE INCONVENIENCE OF TRANSPORTING THE
GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES TO TRIAL AT THE PLACE OF THE SENDER THE SERIOUS
HARDSHIP OF DEFENDING PROSECUTIONS IN PLACES REMOTE FROM HOME
(INCLUDING THE ACCUSED'S DIFFICULTIES, FINANCIAL AND OTHERWISE, SEE
R.S. SEC. 878, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 656, OF MARSHALLING HIS WITNESSES), AS
WELL AS THE TEMPTATION TO ABUSES, ALREADY REFERRED TO, IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  INASMUCH AS THE STATUTE PERMITS
AND DOES NOT FORBID THIS CONSTRUCTION, THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THIS LATTER INFORMATION, BUT THE
COURT'S OPINION, DELIVERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION,
GAVE ITS REASONS FOR QUASHING BOTH INFORMATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT AND BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

CONGRESS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO FIX VENUE AT ANY PLACE WHERE
A CRIME OCCURS.  OUR PROBLEM HERE IS TO DETERMINE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A
SPECIFIC VENUE PROVISION, WHERE THE CRIME OUTLAWED BY THE FEDERAL
DENTURE ACT OCCURRED FOR PURPOSES OF VENUE. 

THE ACT PROHIBITS THE USE OF THE MAILS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENDING OR
BRINGING INTO ANY STATE CERTAIN PROHIBITED ARTICLES.  IT IS UNDISPUTED
THAT WHEN A DEFENDANT PLACES A PROHIBITED ARTICLE IN THE MAILS IN
ILLINOIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENDING IT INTO DELAWARE HE HAS COMPLETED A
STATUTORY OFFENSE.  HENCE HE IS TRIABLE IN ILLINOIS.  BUT TO HOLD THAT
THE STATUTORY CRIME ALSO ENCOMPASSES THE RECEIPT OF THE PROHIBITED
ARTICLE IN DELAWARE, JUSTIFYING A TRIAL AT THAT POINT, REQUIRES AN
IMPLICATION THAT I AM UNWILLING TO MAKE IN THE ABSENCE OF MORE EXPLICIT
CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE. 

VERY OFTEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERTY AND IMPRISONMENT IN CASES
WHERE THE DIRECT EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE DEFENDANT
IS EVENLY BALANCED DEPENDS UPON THE PRESENCE OF CHARACTER WITNESSES. 
THE DEFENDANT IS MORE LIKELY TO OBTAIN THEIR PRESENCE IN THE DISTRICT
OF HIS RESIDENCE, WHICH IN THIS INSTANCE IS USUALLY THE PLACE WHERE THE
PROHIBITED ARTICLE IS MAILED.  THE INCONVENIENCE, EXPENSE AND LOSS OF
TIME INVOLVED IN TRANSPLANTING THESE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN TRIALS FAR
REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES ARE OFTEN TOO GREAT TO WARRANT THEIR USE. 
MOREOVER, THEY ARE LIKELY TO LOSE MUCH OF THEIR EFFECTIVENESS BEFORE A
DISTANT JURY THAT KNOWS NOTHING OF THEIR REPUTATIONS.  SUCH FACTORS
MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR ME TO CONCLUDE, WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT SAID SO
SPECIFICALLY, THAT WE SHOULD CONSTRUE THE FEDERAL DENTURE ACT AS
COVERING MORE THAN THE FIRST SUFFICIENT AND PUNISHABLE USE OF THE MAILS
INSOFAR AS THE SENDER OF A PROHIBITED ARTICLE IS CONCERNED.  THE
PRINCIPLE OF NARROW CONSTRUCTION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES DOES NOT WARRANT
INTERPRETING THE "USE" OF THE MAILS TO COVER ALL POSSIBLE USES IN LIGHT
OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

THE STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION CONDEMNS THE "USE" OF "THE MAILS OR
ANY INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SENDING
OR BRINGING INTO ANY STATE OR TERRITORY" ANY DENTURE WHICH HAS BEEN
MADE WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THAT STATE OR TERRITORY,
RELATING TO THE FURNISHING OF SUCH APPLIANCES.  THE COURT NARROWLY
INTERPRETS THE TERM "USE" TO CONDEMN AS CRIMINAL ONLY THE FIRST USE OF
THE MAILS; IN THIS WAY THE COURT RESTRICTS VENUE FOR PROSECUTION TO
ILLINOIS FOR TRIAL OF AN OFFENDER WHO MAILS A DENTURE IN ILLINOIS WHICH
IS SUBSEQUENTLY DELIVERED THROUGH "USE" OF THE MAILS IN DELAWARE.  WE
THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE STATUTE CONDEMNS AND MAKES CRIMINAL ANY USE OF
THE MAILS FOR THE PROHIBITED PURPOSE.  UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION THE
APPELLEES' USE OF THE MAILS IS PUNISHABLE IN DELAWARE AND THE DISMISSAL
OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS CASE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE VENUE OF A CRIME MAY BE FIXED AT ANY PLACE WHERE THE ACTS
DENOUNCED AS CRIMES OCCUR.  FN1 THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT AS TO THIS
RULE OF LAW.  THE COURT REACHES ITS CONCLUSION UPON VENUE UNDER THE
FEDERAL DENTURE ACT NOT UPON ANY COMPULSION OF CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE
BUT BECAUSE A RESTRICTION OF THE VENUE TO THE PLACE OF MAILING SEEMED
TO IT MORE CONSONANT WITH THE UNDERLYING PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS AS TO VENUE.  THESE PURPOSES ARE THOUGHT, AS THE COURT
EXPRESSES IT, TO INCLUDE A TRIAL IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHICH IS NOT ALIEN
TO THE ACCUSED.    WE THINK THE COURT MISAPPREHENDS THE PURPOSE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  WE UNDERSTAND THEM TO ASSURE A TRIAL IN THE
PLACE WHERE THE CRIME IS COMMITTED AND NOT TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE
DOMICILE OF THE CRIMINAL NOR WITH HIS FAMILIARITY WITH THE ENVIRONMENT
OF THE PLACE OF TRIAL.  HAAS V. HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462.  INDEED IN THE
PRESENT INFORMATION NOTHING APPEARS AS TO RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE OF THE
ACCUSED OR AS TO THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS. 

CONGRESS BY ITS SPECIFICATION OF THE PRECISE ACTS DENOUNCED AS CRIMES
FIXES VENUE AT THE PLACE WHERE THOSE ACTS ARE COMMITTED.  OUR INQUIRY,
THEN, MUST BE DIRECTED TO A DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE CRIME
DENOUNCED BY THE DENTURE ACT.  THE STATUTE CONDEMNS AS UNLAWFUL THE
"USE" OF THE "MAILS OR ANY INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SENDING OR BRINGING INTO ANY STATE" THE PROHIBITED
DENTURES.  IT IS NOT THE DEPOSIT OF THE ARTICLE OR ITS DELIVERY WHICH
IS FORBIDDEN BUT THE USE OF THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.  THE SENDING
OR BRINGING OF THE DENTURES IS NOT DENOUNCED AS A SUBSTANTIVE CRIME
APART FROM THE USE OF MAILS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES TO ACCOMPLISH THE
PURPOSE.  THE CRIME CONSISTS OF THE USE OF THE MAILS TO SEND A
PROHIBITED DENTURE "INTO" OR BRING IT "INTO" ANOTHER STATE.  THE
LANGUAGE LEADS US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A USE FOR THE PROHIBITED
PURPOSE OCCURS AT WHATEVER PLACE THE PROSCRIBED DENTURE IS HANDLED BY
THE MAILS OR AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF COMMERCE. 

THE "USE" FOR THE "PURPOSE" RESULTS IN A CONTINUOUS OFFENSE N2. 
SINCE THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED WHEREVER THE MAILS OR THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SENDING OR BRINGING THE DENTURE INTO A STATE CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE
AND THE ACT HAS NO PROVISION OTHERWISE LIMITING THE PLACE OF TRIAL, THE
VENUE IS AT WHATEVER PLACE THESE ACTS ARE COMMITTED.  ONE OF THE PLACES
IN THE PRESENT CASE IS DELAWARE "INTO" WHICH THE DENTURES WERE BROUGHT
BY APPELLEES' USE OF THE MAILS IN THAT STATE.  FN3  IF THIS ANALYSIS IS
CORRECT, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR CONGRESS TO FOLLOW THE SUGGESTION AS
TO VENUE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO WHICH THE COURT REFERS. 

THE TITLE OF THE ACT INDICATES THAT IT IS DIRECTED AT PRACTICES
THOUGHT TO LEAD TO DENTAL DISORDERS AND "TO PREVENT THE CIRCUMVENTION
OF CERTAIN STATE OR TERRITORIAL LAWS REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF
DENTISTRY."  56 STAT. 1087.  THESE STATE LAWS REGULATED THE FABRICATION
OF PROSTHETIC DENTAL APPLIANCES.  FROM THE HEARINGS  FN4  IT IS CLEAR
THAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE
EVILS OF ILL-FITTING DENTAL APPLIANCES BY RESTRICTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO DENTAL APPLIANCES WHICH WERE APPROVED BY LICENSED
PRACTITIONERS OF THE STATE INTO WHICH THE APPLIANCES WERE BROUGHT. 
SUCH WAS DECLARED TO BE ITS PURPOSE BY THE REPORT OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE.  S. REP. NO. 1779, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 1.  AS THE
INJURY WOULD OCCUR NORMALLY AT THE PLACE OF DELIVERY AND AS THE ACT IS
DESIGNED TO PROTECT ONLY THOSE STATES WHICH HAVE LAWS REGULATING THE
FURNISHING OF APPLIANCES BY UNLICENSED PRACTITIONERS, CONGRESS WOULD
NATURALLY ENACT LEGISLATION WHICH MIGHT PUNISH VIOLATIONS IN THE STATE
OF DELIVERY.  THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS OF THAT STATE WOULD BE MOST
INTERESTED IN ENFORCEMENT AND WOULD BEST UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELIVERY.  CONGRESS WOULD NOT WISH TO LEAVE IMMUNE
SHIPMENTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  CF. UNITED STATES V. FREEMAN, 239
U.S. 117. 

FN1  CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 3;
SIXTH AMENDMENT.  ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56, 73
77; SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224, 232-235; HORNER V. UNITED STATES,
NO. 1, 143 U.S. 207, 213; IN RE PALLISER, 136 U.S. 257, 265; HYDE V.
SHINE, 199 U.S. 62, 78; HAAS V. HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462, 473. 

FN2  CF. UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, 218 U.S. 601; HYDE V. UNITED
STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 360-67; UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO.,
310 U.S. 150, 250; IN RE SNOW, 120 U.S. 274; CLARK & MARSHALL, CRIMES
(4TH ED.), SEC. 504(D); WHARTON CRIMINAL LAW (12TH ED.), SEC. 338.  SEE
ALSO IN RE RICHTER, 100 F. 295, 298; MORRIS V. UNITED STATES, 229 F.
516, 521. 

FN3  CF. ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56, 72-74;
UNITED STATES V. MIDSTATE CO., 306 U.S. 161, 165; AND SEE UNITED STATES
V. LOMBARDO, 241 U.S. 73, 77; UNITED STATES V. FREEMAN, 239 U.S. 117,
AND IN RE PALLISER, 136 U.S. 257.  THE LATTER TWO CASES ILLUSTRATE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONTINUOUS OFFENSE AND ONE BEGUN IN ONE STATE AND
COMPLETED IN ANOTHER.  COMPARE JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 42, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
103, WITH SEC. 3237 OF H.R. 5450, 78TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN4  HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, FEBRUARY 3 AND 4, 1942, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., ON H.R. 5674; HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, JULY 15, 16, 17 AND 20, 1942, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., ON S. 2371. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :
























EX PARTE ENDO, 323 U.S. 283 


NO. 70.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1944. 


1.  THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY, WHOSE POWER OVER PERSONS EVACUATED
FROM MILITARY AREAS DERIVES FROM EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, WHICH WAS
RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO SUBJECT TO ITS LEAVE PROCEDURE A
CONCEDEDLY LOYAL AND LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  P.
297. 

2.  WARTIME MEASURES ARE TO BE INTERPRETED AS INTENDING THE GREATEST
POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES OF THE
CITIZEN AND THE EXIGENCIES OF WAR.  P. 300. 

3.  THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942 AND EXECUTIVE
ORDERS NOS. 9066 AND 9102 WAS THE PROTECTION OF THE WAR EFFORT AGAINST
ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE.  P. 300. 

4.  POWER TO DETAIN A CONCEDEDLY LOYAL CITIZEN MAY NOT BE IMPLIED
FROM THE POWER TO PROTECT THE WAR EFFORT AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND
SABOTAGE.  P. 302. 

5.  THE POWER TO DETAIN A CONCEDEDLY LOYAL CITIZEN OR TO GRANT HIM A
CONDITIONAL RELEASE CAN NOT BE IMPLIED AS A USEFUL OR CONVENIENT STEP
IN THE EVACUATION PROGRAM.  P. 302. 

6.  THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942 AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 9066 AND 9102
AFFORD NO BASIS FOR KEEPING LOYAL EVACUEES OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY IN
CUSTODY ON THE GROUND OF COMMUNITY HOSTILITY.  P. 302. 

7.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAVING ACQUIRED JURISDICTION UPON AN
APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, AND THERE BEING WITHIN THE DISTRICT ONE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DETENTION AND WHO WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE
RESPONDENT, THE CAUSE WAS NOT RENDERED MOOT BY THE REMOVAL OF THE
APPLICANT TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT PENDING APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF THE WRIT,
AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WRIT.  UNITED
STATES V. CRYSTAL, 319 U.S. 755, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 305. 

EX PARTE MITSUYE ENDO. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFIED QUESTIONS TO THIS
COURT, WHICH, UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 239, ORDERED THE ENTIRE RECORD
SENT UP. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE COMES HERE ON A CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT, CERTIFYING TO US QUESTIONS OF LAW UPON WHICH IT DESIRES
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 239, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 346.  ACTING UNDER THAT SECTION WE ORDERED THE ENTIRE
RECORD TO BE CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT SO THAT WE MIGHT PROCEED TO A
DECISION, AS IF THE CASE HAD BEEN BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL. 

MITSUYE ENDO, HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED AS THE APPELLANT, IS AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY.  SHE WAS EVACUATED FROM SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, IN 1942, PURSUANT TO CERTAIN MILITARY ORDERS WHICH WE WILL
PRESENTLY DISCUSS, AND WAS REMOVED TO THE TULE LAKE WAR RELOCATION
CENTER LOCATED AT NEWELL, MODOC COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.  IN JULY, 1942, SHE
FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, ASKING THAT
SHE BE DISCHARGED AND RESTORED TO LIBERTY.  THAT PETITION WAS DENIED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT IN JULY, 1943, AND AN APPEAL WAS PERFECTED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN AUGUST, 1943.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER APPELLANT
WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE TULE LAKE RELOCATION CENTER TO THE CENTRAL
UTAH RELOCATION CENTER LOCATED AT TOPAZ, UTAH, WHERE SHE IS PRESENTLY
DETAINED.  THE CERTIFICATE OF QUESTIONS OF LAW WAS FILED HERE ON APRIL
22, 1944, AND ON MAY 8, 1944, WE ORDERED THE ENTIRE RECORD TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY RESPONDENT WAS
EVER SERVED WITH PROCESS OR APPEARED IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  BUT THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARGUED
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.  AND
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ARGUED THE CASE HERE. 

THE HISTORY OF THE EVACUATION OF JAPANESE ALIENS AND CITIZENS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY FROM THE PACIFIC COASTAL REGIONS, FOLLOWING THE
JAPANESE ATTACK ON OUR NAVAL BASE AT PEARL HARBOR ON DECEMBER 7, 1941,
AND THE DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST JAPAN ON DECEMBER 8, 1941(55 STAT.
795), HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81. 
IT NEED BE ONLY BRIEFLY RECAPITULATED HERE.  ON FEBRUARY 19, 1942, THE
PRESIDENT PROMULGATED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, 7 FED. REG. 1407.  IT
RECITED THAT "THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE WAR REQUIRES EVERY
POSSIBLE PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND AGAINST SABOTAGE TO NATIONAL
DEFENSE MATERIAL, NATIONAL-DEFENSE PREMISES, AND NATIONAL-DEFENSE
UTILITIES, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 4, ACT OF APRIL 20, 1918, 40 STAT.
533, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF NOVEMBER 30, 1940, 54 STAT. 1220, AND THE
ACT OF AUGUST 21, 1941, 55 STAT. 655(U.S.C., TITLE 50, SEC. 104)."  AND
IT AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED 

"THE SECRETARY OF WAR, AND THE MILITARY COMMANDERS WHOM HE MAY FROM
TIME TO TIME DESIGNATE, WHENEVER HE OR ANY DESIGNATED COMMANDER DEEMS
SUCH ACTION NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY AREAS IN SUCH
PLACES AND OF SUCH EXTENT AS HE OR THE APPROPRIATE MILITARY COMMANDER
MAY DETERMINE, FROM WHICH ANY OR ALL PERSONS MAY BE EXCLUDED, AND WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH, THE RIGHT OF ANY PERSON TO ENTER, REMAIN IN, OR LEAVE
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER RESTRICTIONS THE SECRETARY OF WAR OR THE
APPROPRIATE MILITARY COMMANDER MAY IMPOSE IN HIS DISCRETION.  THE
SECRETARY OF WAR IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR RESIDENTS OF ANY
SUCH AREA WHO ARE EXCLUDED THEREFROM, SUCH TRANSPORTATION, FOOD,
SHELTER, AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY, IN THE JUDGMENT
OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR OR THE SAID MILITARY COMMANDER, AND UNTIL OTHER
ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE, TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDER." 

LT. GENERAL J.L. DE WITT, MILITARY COMMANDER OF THE WESTERN DEFENSE
COMMAND, WAS DESIGNATED TO CARRY OUT THE DUTIES PRESCRIBED BY THAT
EXECUTIVE ORDER.  ON MARCH 2, 1942, HE PROMULGATED PUBLIC PROCLAMATION
NO. 1(7 FED. REG. 2320) WHICH RECITED THAT THE ENTIRE PACIFIC COAST OF
THE UNITED STATES 

"BY ITS GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION IS PARTICULARLY SUBJECT TO ATTACK, TO
ATTEMPTED INVASION BY THE ARMED FORCES OF NATIONS WITH WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS NOW AT WAR, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, IS SUBJECT TO
ESPIONAGE AND ACTS OF SABOTAGE, THEREBY REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF
MILITARY MEASURES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH SAFEGUARDS AGAINST SUCH ENEMY
OPERATIONS." 

IT DESIGNATED CERTAIN MILITARY AREAS AND ZONES IN THE WESTERN DEFENSE
COMMAND AND ANNOUNCED THAT CERTAIN PERSONS MIGHT SUBSEQUENTLY BE
EXCLUDED FROM THESE AREAS.  ON MARCH 16, 1942, GENERAL DE WITT
PROMULGATED PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 2 WHICH CONTAINED SIMILAR RECITALS
AND DESIGNATED FURTHER MILITARY AREAS AND ZONES.  7 FED. REG. 2405. 

ON MARCH 18, 1942, THE PRESIDENT PROMULGATED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9102
WHICH ESTABLISHED IN THE OFFICE FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY.  7 FED.
REG. 2165.  IT RECITED THAT IT WAS MADE "IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REMOVAL FROM DESIGNATED AREAS OF PERSONS WHOSE REMOVAL IS NECESSARY IN
THE INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY."  IT PROVIDED FOR A DIRECTOR AND
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED HIM TO "FORMULATE AND EFFECTUATE A PROGRAM FOR
THE REMOVAL, FROM THE AREAS DESIGNATED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE
SECRETARY OF WAR OR APPROPRIATE MILITARY COMMANDER UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066 OF FEBRUARY 19, 1942, OF THE PERSONS OR
CLASSES OF PERSONS DESIGNATED UNDER SUCH EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND FOR THEIR
RELOCATION, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPERVISION."  THE DIRECTOR WAS GIVEN THE
AUTHORITY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS NECESSARY OR
DESIRABLE TO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE EXECUTION OF THE PROGRAM. 

CONGRESS SHORTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION WHICH, AS WE POINTED OUT IN
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9066.  SEE 320 U.S. PP. 87-91.  IT DID SO BY THE ACT OF MARCH
21, 1942(56 STAT. 173) WHICH PROVIDED: 

"THAT WHOEVER SHALL ENTER, REMAIN IN, LEAVE, OR COMMIT ANY ACT IN ANY
MILITARY AREA OR MILITARY ZONE PRESCRIBED, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR, OR BY ANY
MILITARY COMMANDER DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR, CONTRARY TO THE
RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO ANY SUCH AREA OR ZONE OR CONTRARY TO THE
ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR OR ANY SUCH MILITARY COMMANDER, SHALL, IF
IT APPEARS THAT HE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE EXISTENCE AND
EXTENT OF THE RESTRICTIONS OR ORDER AND THAT HIS ACT WAS IN VIOLATION
THEREOF, BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION SHALL BE LIABLE
TO A FINE OF NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 OR TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN
ONE YEAR, OR BOTH, FOR EACH OFFENSE." 

BEGINNING ON MARCH 24, 1942, A SERIES OF 108 CIVILIAN EXCLUSION
ORDERS  FN1  WERE ISSUED BY GENERAL DE WITT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
PROCLAMATION NOS. 1 AND 2.  APPELLANT'S EXCLUSION WAS EFFECTED BY
CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 52, DATED MAY 7, 1942.  IT ORDERED THAT
"ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, BOTH ALIEN AND NON-ALIEN" BE
EXCLUDED FROM SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA,  FN2  BEGINNING AT NOON ON MAY
16, 1942.  APPELLANT WAS EVACUATED TO THE SACRAMENTO ASSEMBLY CENTER ON
MAY 15, 1942, AND WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THERE TO THE TULE LAKE
RELOCATION CENTER ON JUNE 19, 1942. 

ON MAY 19, 1942, GENERAL DE WITT PROMULGATED CIVILIAN RESTRICTIVE
ORDER NO. 1(8 FED. REG. 982) AND ON JUNE 27, 1942, PUBLIC PROCLAMATION
NO. 8.  7 FED. REG. 8346.  THESE PROHIBITED EVACUEES FROM LEAVING
ASSEMBLY CENTERS OR RELOCATION CENTERS EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN
AUTHORIZATION FROM GENERAL DE WITT'S HEADQUARTERS.  PUBLIC PROCLAMATION
NO. 8 RECITED THAT "THE PRESENT SITUATION WITHIN THESE MILITARY AREAS
REQUIRES AS A MATTER OF MILITARY NECESSITY" THAT THE EVACUEES BE
REMOVED TO "RELOCATION CENTERS FOR THEIR RELOCATION, MAINTENANCE AND
SUPERVISION," THAT THOSE RELOCATION CENTERS BE DESIGNATED AS WAR
RELOCATION PROJECT AREAS, AND THAT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF THE
EVACUEES TO ENTER, REMAIN IN, OR LEAVE SUCH AREAS BE PROMULGATED. 
THESE RESTRICTIONS WERE APPLICABLE TO THE RELOCATION CENTERS WITHIN THE
WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND  FN3 AND INCLUDED BOTH OF THOSE IN WHICH
APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONFINED - TULE LAKE RELOCATION CENTER AT NEWELL,
CALIFORNIA AND CENTRAL UTAH RELOCATION CENTER AT TOPAZ, UTAH.  AND
PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 8 PURPORTED TO MAKE ANY PERSON WHO WAS SUBJECT
TO ITS PROVISIONS AND WHO FAILED TO CONFORM TO IT LIABLE TO THE
PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942. 

BY LETTER OF AUGUST 11, 1942, GENERAL DE WITT AUTHORIZED THE WAR
RELOCATION AUTHORITY  FN4  TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR PERSONS TO LEAVE THESE
AREAS.  BY VIRTUE OF THAT DELEGATION  FN5  AND THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED
BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9102, THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN
CONTROL OVER THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF EVACUEES FROM THE RELOCATION
CENTERS WHERE MITSUYE ENDO WAS CONFINED.  FN6 

THE PROGRAM OF THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY IS SAID TO HAVE THREE
MAIN FEATURES:  (1) THE MAINTENANCE OF RELOCATION CENTERS AS INTERIM
PLACES OF RESIDENCE FOR EVACUEES; (2) THE SEGREGATION OF LOYAL FROM
DISLOYAL EVACUEES; (3) THE CONTINUED DETENTION OF THE DISLOYAL AND SO
FAR AS POSSIBLE THE RELOCATION OF THE LOYAL IN SELECTED COMMUNITIES. 
FN7  IN CONNECTION WITH THE LATTER PHASE OF ITS WORK THE WAR RELOCATION
AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED A PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING LEAVE FROM RELOCATION
CENTERS.  THAT PROCEDURE, SO FAR AS INDEFINITE LEAVE  FN8  IS
CONCERNED, PRESENTLY PROVIDES  FN9  AS FOLLOWS: 

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED.  AN INVESTIGATION OF THE
APPLICANT IS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING "THE PROBABLE EFFECT
UPON THE WAR PROGRAM AND UPON THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SECURITY OF ISSUING
INDEFINITE LEAVE" TO THE APPLICANT.  FN10  THE GRANT OF LEAVE CLEARANCE
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE DEPARTURE FROM THE RELOCATION CENTER.  APPLICATION
FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE MUST ALSO BE MADE.  INDEFINITE LEAVE MAY BE
GRANTED UNDER 14 SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.  FN11  FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAY BE
GRANTED (1) WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACCEPT AN EMPLOYMENT OFFER
OR AN OFFER OF SUPPORT THAT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED AND APPROVED BY THE
AUTHORITY; OR (2) WHERE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT INTEND TO WORK BUT HAS
"ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO TAKE CARE OF HIMSELF" AND A RELOCATION
OFFICER HAS INVESTIGATED AND APPROVED "PUBLIC SENTIMENT AT HIS PROPOSED
DESTINATION," OR (3) WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO LIVE
AT A HOTEL OR IN A PRIVATE HOME APPROVED BY A RELOCATION OFFICER WHILE
ARRANGING FOR EMPLOYMENT; OR (4) WHERE THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ACCEPT
EMPLOYMENT BY A FEDERAL OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY; OR (5) WHERE THE
APPLICANT IS GOING TO LIVE WITH DESIGNATED CLASSES OF RELATIVES. 

BUT EVEN IF AN APPLICANT MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS, NO LEAVE WILL
ISSUE WHEN THE PROPOSED PLACE OF RESIDENCE OR EMPLOYMENT IS WITHIN A
LOCALITY WHERE IT HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED THAT "COMMUNITY SENTIMENT IS
UNFAVORABLE" OR WHEN THE APPLICANT PLANS TO GO TO AN AREA WHICH HAS
BEEN CLOSED BY THE AUTHORITY TO THE ISSUANCE OF INDEFINITE LEAVE.  FN12
NOR WILL SUCH LEAVE ISSUE IF THE AREA WHERE THE APPLICANT PLANS TO
RESIDE OR WORK IS ONE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CLEARED FOR RELOCATION.  FN13
MOREOVER, THE APPLICANT AGREES TO GIVE THE AUTHORITY PROMPT NOTICE OF
ANY CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT OR RESIDENCE.  AND THE INDEFINITE LEAVE WHICH
IS GRANTED DOES NOT PERMIT ENTRY INTO A PROHIBITED MILITARY AREA,
INCLUDING THOSE FROM WHICH THESE PEOPLE WERE EVACUATED.  FN14 

MITSUYE ENDO MADE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE CLEARANCE ON FEBRUARY 19,
1943, AFTER THE PETITION WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  LEAVE
CLEARANCE  FN15  WAS GRANTED HER ON AUGUST 16, 1943.  BUT SHE MADE NO
APPLICATION FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE.  FN16 

HER PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ALLEGES THAT SHE IS A LOYAL
AND LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT NO CHARGE HAS BEEN
MADE AGAINST HER, THAT SHE IS BEING UNLAWFULLY DETAINED, AND THAT SHE
IS CONFINED IN THE RELOCATION CENTER UNDER ARMED GUARD AND HELD THERE
AGAINST HER WILL. 

IT IS CONCEDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND BY THE WAR RELOCATION
AUTHORITY THAT APPELLANT IS A LOYAL AND LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN.  THEY MAKE
NO CLAIM THAT SHE IS DETAINED ON ANY CHARGE OR THAT SHE IS EVEN
SUSPECTED OF DISLOYALTY.  MOREOVER, THEY DO NOT CONTEND THAT SHE MAY BE
HELD ANY LONGER IN THE RELOCATION CENTER.  THEY CONCEDE THAT IT IS
BEYOND THE POWER OF THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY TO DETAIN CITIZENS
AGAINST WHOM NO CHARGES OF DISLOYALTY OR SUBVERSIVENESS HAVE BEEN MADE
FOR A PERIOD LONGER THAN THAT NECESSARY TO SEPARATE THE LOYAL FROM THE
DISLOYAL AND TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY GUIDANCE FOR RELOCATION.  BUT
THEY MAINTAIN THAT DETENTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD AFTER LEAVE
CLEARANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED IS AN ESSENTIAL STEP IN THE EVACUATION
PROGRAM.  RELIANCE FOR THAT CONCLUSION IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

WHEN COMPULSORY EVACUATION FROM THE WEST COAST WAS DECIDED UPON,
PLANS FOR TAKING CARE OF THE EVACUEES AFTER THEIR DETENTION IN THE
ASSEMBLY CENTERS, TO WHICH THEY WERE INITIALLY REMOVED, REMAINED TO BE
DETERMINED.  ON APRIL 7, 1942, THE DIRECTOR OF THE AUTHORITY HELD A
CONFERENCE IN SALT LAKE CITY WITH VARIOUS STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS
INCLUDING THE GOVERNORS OF THE INTERMOUNTAIN STATES.  "STRONG
OPPOSITION WAS EXPRESSED TO ANY TYPE OF UNSUPERVISED RELOCATION AND
SOME OF THE GOVERNORS REFUSED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF LAW
AND ORDER UNLESS EVACUEES BROUGHT INTO THEIR STATES WERE KEPT UNDER
CONSTANT MILITARY SURVEILLANCE."  FN17 SEN. DOC. NO. 96, SUPRA, NOTE 7,
P. 4.  AS STATED BY GENERAL DE WITT IN HIS REPORT TO THE CHIEF OF
STAFF:   "ESSENTIALLY, MILITARY NECESSITY REQUIRED ONLY THAT THE
JAPANESE POPULATION BE REMOVED FROM THE COASTAL AREA AND DISPERSED IN
THE INTERIOR, WHERE THE DANGER OF ACTION IN CONCERT DURING ANY
ATTEMPTED ENEMY RAIDS ALONG THE COAST, OR IN ADVANCE THEREOF AS
PREPARATION FOR A FULL SCALE ATTACK, WOULD BE ELIMINATED.  THAT THE
EVACUATION PROGRAM NECESSARILY AND ULTIMATELY DEVELOPED INTO ONE OF
COMPLETE FEDERAL SUPERVISION, WAS DUE PRIMARILY TO THE FACT THAT THE
INTERIOR STATES WOULD NOT ACCEPT AN UNCONTROLLED JAPANESE MIGRATION." 

FINAL REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 2, PP. 43-44.  THE AUTHORITY THEREUPON
ABANDONED PLANS FOR ASSISTING GROUPS OF EVACUEES IN PRIVATE
COLONIZATION AND TEMPORARILY PUT TO ONE SIDE PLANS FOR AIDING THE
EVACUEES IN OBTAINING PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT.  FN18  AS AN ALTERNATIVE THE
AUTHORITY "CONCENTRATED ON ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNMENT-OPERATED CENTERS
WITH SUFFICIENT CAPACITY AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE ENTIRE
EVACUEE POPULATION."  SEN. DOC. NO. 96, SUPRA, NOTE 7, P. 4. 
ACCORDINGLY, IT UNDERTOOK TO CARE FOR THE BASIC NEEDS OF THESE PEOPLE
IN THE RELOCATION CENTERS, TO PROMOTE AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE THE
PERMANENT RESETTLEMENT OF AS MANY AS POSSIBLE IN NORMAL COMMUNITIES,
AND TO PROVIDE INDEFINITELY FOR THOSE LEFT AT THE RELOCATION CENTERS. 
AN EFFORT WAS MADE TO SEGREGATE THE LOYAL EVACUEES FROM THE OTHERS. 
THE LEAVE PROGRAM WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED WAS PUT INTO OPERATION AND
THE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCED.  FN19 

IT IS ARGUED THAT SUCH A PLANNED AND ORDERLY RELOCATION WAS ESSENTIAL
TO THE SUCCESS OF THE EVACUATION PROGRAM; THAT BUT FOR SUCH SUPERVISION
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A DANGEROUSLY DISORDERLY MIGRATION OF UNWANTED
PEOPLE TO UNPREPARED COMMUNITIES; THAT UNSUPERVISED EVACUATION MIGHT
HAVE RESULTED IN HARDSHIP AND DISORDER; THAT THE SUCCESS OF THE
EVACUATION PROGRAM WAS THOUGHT TO REQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS MAINTAINING CONTROL OVER THE EVACUATED
POPULATION EXCEPT AS THE RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS COULD BE EFFECTED
CONSISTENTLY WITH THEIR OWN PEACE AND WELL-BEING AND THAT OF THE
NATION; THAT ALTHOUGH COMMUNITY HOSTILITY TOWARDS THE EVACUEES HAS
DIMINISHED, IT HAS NOT DISAPPEARED AND THE CONTINUING CONTROL OF THE
AUTHORITY OVER THE RELOCATION PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF
THE EVACUATION PROGRAM.  IT IS ARGUED THAT SUPERVISED RELOCATION, AS
THE CHOSEN METHOD OF TERMINATING THE EVACUATION, IS THE FINAL STEP IN
THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE FIRST STEP TAKEN.  IT IS
CONCEDED THAT APPELLANT'S DETENTION PENDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEAVE
REGULATIONS IS NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE PREVENTION OF ESPIONAGE
AND SABOTAGE AT THE PRESENT TIME.  BUT IT IS ARGUED THAT EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9102 CONFERS POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS NECESSARY AND PROPER
FOR CONTROLLING SITUATIONS CREATED BY THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS
EXPRESSLY CONFERRED FOR PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE.  THE
LEAVE REGULATIONS ARE SAID TO FALL WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. 

FIRST.  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MITSUYE ENDO SHOULD BE GIVEN HER
LIBERTY.  IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION WE DO NOT COME TO THE UNDERLYING
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN ARGUED.  FOR WE CONCLUDE THAT,
WHATEVER POWER THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY MAY HAVE TO DETAIN OTHER
CLASSES OF CITIZENS, IT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO SUBJECT CITIZENS WHO ARE
CONCEDEDLY LOYAL TO ITS LEAVE PROCEDURE. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED AT THE OUTSET THAT WE DO NOT HAVE HERE A QUESTION
SUCH AS WAS PRESENTED IN EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2, OR IN EX PARTE
QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, WHERE THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS TO TRY
PERSONS ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF WAR WAS CHALLENGED IN HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS.  MITSUYE ENDO IS DETAINED BY A CIVILIAN AGENCY, THE WAR
RELOCATION AUTHORITY, NOT BY THE MILITARY.  MOREOVER, THE EVACUATION
PROGRAM WAS NOT LEFT EXCLUSIVELY TO THE MILITARY; THE AUTHORITY WAS
GIVEN A LARGE MEASURE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS EXECUTION AND CONGRESS
MADE ITS ENFORCEMENT SUBJECT TO CIVIL PENALTIES BY THE ACT OF MARCH 21,
1942.  ACCORDINGLY, NO QUESTIONS OF MILITARY LAW ARE INVOLVED. 

SUCH POWER OF DETENTION AS THE AUTHORITY HAS STEMS FROM EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9066.  THAT ORDER IS THE SOURCE OF THE AUTHORITY  FN20
DELEGATED BY GENERAL DE WITT IN HIS LETTER OF AUGUST 11, 1942.  AND
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9102 WHICH CREATED THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY
PURPORTED TO DO NO MORE THAN TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066. 

WE APPROACH THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066 AS WE WOULD
APPROACH THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEGISLATION IN THIS FIELD.  THAT EXECUTIVE
ORDER MUST INDEED BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942,
WHICH RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED IT (HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
PP. 87-91) AS THE ORDER AND THE STATUTE TOGETHER LAID SUCH BASIS AS
THERE IS FOR PARTICIPATION BY CIVIL AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IN THE EVACUATION PROGRAM.  BROAD POWERS FREQUENTLY GRANTED TO THE
PRESIDENT OR OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS BY CONGRESS SO THAT THEY MAY DEAL
WITH THE EXIGENCIES OF WARTIME PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.  FN21  AND
THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT COMMITTED TO THE EXECUTIVE AND TO CONGRESS THE
EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER NECESSARILY GAVE THEM WIDE SCOPE FOR THE
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION SO THAT WAR MIGHT BE WAGED
EFFECTIVELY AND SUCCESSFULLY.  HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P.
93.  AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE CONSTITUTION IS AS SPECIFIC IN ITS
ENUMERATION OF MANY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AS IT IS IN
ITS ENUMERATION OF THE POWERS OF HIS GOVERNMENT.  THUS IT HAS
PRESCRIBED PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS SURROUNDING THE ARREST, DETENTION AND
CONVICTION OF INDIVIDUALS.  SOME OF THESE ARE CONTAINED IN THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT, COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH IS ESSENTIAL IF CONVICTIONS ARE TO BE
SUSTAINED.  TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463.  AND THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY (AS WELL
AS LIFE OR PROPERTY) WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  MOREOVER, AS A
FURTHER SAFEGUARD AGAINST INVASION OF THE BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL IT IS PROVIDED IN ART. I, SEC. 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT
"THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED,
UNLESS WHEN IN CASES OF REBELLION OR INVASION THE PUBLIC SAFETY MAY
REQUIRE IT."  SEE EX PARTE MILLIGAN, SUPRA. 

WE MENTION THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS NOT TO STIR THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN ARGUED AT THE BAR BUT TO INDICATE
THE APPROACH WHICH WE THINK SHOULD BE MADE TO AN ACT OF CONGRESS OR AN
ORDER OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE THAT TOUCHES THE SENSITIVE AREA OF RIGHTS
SPECIFICALLY GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THIS COURT HAS QUITE
CONSISTENTLY GIVEN A NARROWER SCOPE FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY WHEN LEGISLATION APPEARED ON ITS FACE
TO VIOLATE A SPECIFIC PROHIBITION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN22  WE HAVE
LIKEWISE FAVORED THAT INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION WHICH GIVES IT THE
GREATER CHANCE OF SURVIVING THE TEST OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.  FN23 THOSE
ANALOGIES ARE SUGGESTIVE HERE.  WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AS WELL AS THE COURTS, ARE SENSITIVE TO AND
RESPECTFUL OF THE LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZEN.  IN INTERPRETING A WARTIME
MEASURE WE MUST ASSUME THAT THEIR PURPOSE WAS TO ALLOW FOR THE GREATEST
POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THOSE LIBERTIES AND THE EXIGENCIES OF
WAR.  WE MUST ASSUME, WHEN ASKED TO FIND IMPLIED POWERS IN A GRANT OF
LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, THAT THE LAW MAKERS INTENDED TO
PLACE NO GREATER RESTRAINT ON THE CITIZEN THAN WAS CLEARLY AND
UNMISTAKABLY INDICATED BY THE LANGUAGE THEY USED. 

THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, WAS A WAR MEASURE.  THE HOUSE REPORT (H.
REP. NO. 1906, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2) STATED, "THE NECESSITY FOR
THIS LEGISLATION AROSE FROM THE FACT THAT THE SAFE CONDUCT OF THE WAR
REQUIRES THE FULLEST POSSIBLE PROTECTION AGAINST EITHER ESPIONAGE OR
SABOTAGE TO NATIONAL DEFENSE MATERIAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE PREMISES, AND
NATIONAL DEFENSE UTILITIES."  THAT WAS THE PRECISE PURPOSE OF EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9066, FOR, AS WE HAVE SEEN, IT GAVE AS THE REASON FOR THE
EXCLUSION OF PERSONS FROM PRESCRIBED MILITARY AREAS THE PROTECTION OF
SUCH PROPERTY "AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND AGAINST SABOTAGE."  AND EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 9102 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY DID SO,
AS WE HAVE NOTED, "IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL FROM DESIGNATED
AREAS OF PERSONS WHOSE REMOVAL IS NECESSARY IN THE INTERESTS OF
NATIONAL SECURITY."  THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT AND OF THESE
ORDERS ARE PLAIN.  THEIR SINGLE AIM WAS THE PROTECTION OF THE WAR
EFFORT AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE.  IT IS IN LIGHT OF THAT ONE
OBJECTIVE THAT THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THE ORDERS MUST BE CONSTRUED. 

NEITHER THE ACT NOR THE ORDERS USE THE LANGUAGE OF DETENTION.  THE
ACT SAYS THAT NO ONE SHALL "ENTER, REMAIN IN, LEAVE, OR COMMIT ANY ACT"
IN THE PRESCRIBED MILITARY AREAS CONTRARY TO THE APPLICABLE
RESTRICTIONS.  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066 SUBJECTS THE RIGHT OF ANY
PERSON "TO ENTER, REMAIN IN, OR LEAVE" THOSE PRESCRIBED AREAS TO SUCH
RESTRICTIONS AS THE MILITARY MAY IMPOSE.  AND APART FROM THOSE
RESTRICTIONS THE SECRETARY OF WAR IS ONLY GIVEN AUTHORITY TO AFFORD THE
EVACUEES "TRANSPORTATION, FOOD, SHELTER, AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS." 
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9102 AUTHORIZES AND DIRECTS THE WAR RELOCATION
AUTHORITY "TO FORMULATE AND EFFECTUATE A PROGRAM FOR THE REMOVAL" OF
THE PERSONS COVERED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066 FROM THE PRESCRIBED
MILITARY AREAS AND "FOR THEIR RELOCATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
SUPERVISION."  AND POWER IS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE REGULATIONS
"NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE TO PROMOTE EFFECTIVE EXECUTION OF SUCH
PROGRAM."  MOREOVER, UNLIKE THE CASE OF CURFEW REGULATIONS (HIRABAYASHI
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA), THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT OF MARCH
21, 1942, IS SILENT ON DETENTION.  AND THAT SILENCE MAY HAVE SPECIAL
SIGNIFICANCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DETENTION IN RELOCATION CENTERS
WAS NO PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROGRAM OF EVACUATION BUT DEVELOPED LATER
TO MEET WHAT SEEMED TO THE OFFICIALS IN CHARGE TO BE MOUNTING HOSTILITY
TO THE EVACUEES ON THE PART OF THE COMMUNITIES WHERE THEY SOUGHT TO
GO. 

WE DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT DETENTION IN CONNECTION WITH NO PHASE OF
THE EVACUATION PROGRAM WOULD BE LAWFUL.  THE FACT THAT THE ACT AND THE
ORDERS ARE SILENT ON DETENTION DOES NOT OF COURSE MEAN THAT ANY POWER
TO DETAIN IS LACKING.  SOME SUCH POWER MIGHT INDEED BE NECESSARY TO THE
SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF THE EVACUATION PROGRAM.  AT LEAST WE MAY SO
ASSUME.  MOREOVER, WE MAY ASSUME FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THAT
INITIAL DETENTION IN RELOCATION CENTERS WAS AUTHORIZED.  BUT WE STRESS
THE SILENCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND OF THE ACT AND THE EXECUTIVE
ORDERS ON THE POWER TO DETAIN TO EMPHASIZE THAT ANY SUCH AUTHORITY
WHICH EXISTS MUST BE IMPLIED.  IF THERE IS TO BE THE GREATEST POSSIBLE
ACCOMMODATION OF THE LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZEN WITH THIS WAR MEASURE,
ANY SUCH IMPLIED POWER MUST BE NARROWLY CONFINED TO THE PRECISE PURPOSE
OF THE EVACUATION PROGRAM. 

A CITIZEN WHO IS CONCEDEDLY LOYAL PRESENTS NO PROBLEM OF ESPIONAGE OR
SABOTAGE.  LOYALTY IS A MATTER OF THE HEART AND MIND, NOT OF RACE,
CREED, OR COLOR.  HE WHO IS LOYAL IS BY DEFINITION NOT A SPY OR A
SABOTEUR.  WHEN THE POWER TO DETAIN IS DERIVED FROM THE POWER TO
PROTECT THE WAR EFFORT AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE, DETENTION WHICH
HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO THAT OBJECTIVE IS UNAUTHORIZED. 

NOR MAY THE POWER TO DETAIN AN ADMITTEDLY LOYAL CITIZEN OR TO GRANT
HIM A CONDITIONAL RELEASE BE IMPLIED AS A USEFUL OR CONVENIENT STEP IN
THE EVACUATION PROGRAM, WHATEVER AUTHORITY MIGHT BE IMPLIED IN CASE OF
THOSE WHOSE LOYALTY WAS NOT CONCEDED OR ESTABLISHED.  IF WE ASSUME (AS
WE DO) THAT THE ORIGINAL EVACUATION WAS JUSTIFIED, ITS LAWFUL CHARACTER
WAS DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE
MEASURE, NOT THAT THERE WAS COMMUNITY HOSTILITY TO THIS GROUP OF
AMERICAN CITIZENS.  THE EVACUATION PROGRAM RESTED EXPLICITLY ON THE
FORMER GROUND NOT ON THE LATTER AS THE UNDERLYING LEGISLATION SHOWS. 
THE AUTHORITY TO DETAIN A CITIZEN OR TO GRANT HIM A CONDITIONAL RELEASE
AS PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE OR SABOTAGE IS EXHAUSTED AT LEAST WHEN
HIS LOYALTY IS CONCEDED.  IF WE HELD THAT THE AUTHORITY TO DETAIN
CONTINUED THEREAFTER, WE WOULD TRANSFORM AN ESPIONAGE OR SABOTAGE
MEASURE INTO SOMETHING ELSE.  THAT WAS NOT DONE BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.
9066 OR BY THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, WHICH RATIFIED IT.  WHAT THEY DID
NOT DO WE CANNOT DO.  DETENTION WHICH FURTHERED THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST
ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE WOULD BE ONE THING.  BUT DETENTION WHICH HAS NO
RELATIONSHIP TO THAT CAMPAIGN IS OF A DISTINCT CHARACTER.  COMMUNITY
HOSTILITY EVEN TO LOYAL EVACUEES MAY HAVE BEEN (AND PERHAPS STILL IS) A
SERIOUS PROBLEM.  BUT IF AUTHORITY FOR THEIR CUSTODY AND SUPERVISION IS
TO BE SOUGHT ON THAT GROUND, THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, EXECUTIVE ORDER
NO. 9066, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9102, OFFER NO SUPPORT.  AND NONE
OTHER IS ADVANCED.  FN24  TO READ THEM THAT BROADLY WOULD BE TO ASSUME
THAT THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT INTENDED THAT THIS DISCRIMINATORY
ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THESE PEOPLE WHOLLY ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR
ANCESTRY EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED THEIR LOYALTY TO THIS
COUNTRY.  WE CANNOT MAKE SUCH AN ASSUMPTION.  AS THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID
OF THESE LOYAL CITIZENS:    "AMERICANS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, LIKE THOSE
OF MANY OTHER ANCESTRIES, HAVE SHOWN THAT THEY CAN, AND WANT TO, ACCEPT
OUR INSTITUTIONS AND WORK LOYALLY WITH THE REST OF US, MAKING THEIR OWN
VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATIONAL WEALTH AND WELL-BEING.  IN
VINDICATION OF THE VERY IDEALS FOR WHICH WE ARE FIGHTING THIS WAR IT IS
IMPORTANT TO US TO MAINTAIN A HIGH STANDARD OF FAIR, CONSIDERATE, AND
EQUAL TREATMENT FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS MINORITY AS OF ALL OTHER
MINORITIES."  SEN. DOC. NO. 96, SUPRA, NOTE 7, P. 2. 

MITSUYE ENDO IS ENTITLED TO AN UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE BY THE WAR
RELOCATION AUTHORITY. 

SECOND.  THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BECAUSE OF THE FACT
THAT WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
APPELLANT WAS MOVED FROM THE TULE LAKE RELOCATION CENTER IN THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WHERE SHE WAS ORIGINALLY DETAINED TO
THE CENTRAL UTAH RELOCATION CENTER IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT AND
CIRCUIT. 

THAT QUESTION IS NOT COLORED BY ANY PURPOSE TO EFFECTUATE A REMOVAL
IN EVASION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.  IT APPEARS THAT
APPELLANT'S REMOVAL TO UTAH WAS PART OF A GENERAL SEGREGATION PROGRAM
INVOLVING MANY OF THESE PEOPLE AND WAS IN NO WAY RELATED TO THIS
PENDING CASE.  MOREOVER, THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THERE IS NO ONE
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE DETENTION OF APPELLANT AND WHO WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE RESPONDENT. 
WE ARE INDEED ADVISED BY THE ACTING SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR  FN25
THAT IF THE WRIT ISSUES AND IS DIRECTED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR OR ANY OFFICIAL OF THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY (INCLUDING AN
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WHOSE OFFICE IS AT SAN FRANCISCO, WHICH IS IN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT), THE CORPUS OF APPELLANT WILL BE
PRODUCED AND THE COURT'S ORDER COMPLIED WITH IN ALL RESPECTS.  THUS IT
WOULD SEEM THAT THE CASE IS NOT MOOT. 

IN UNITED STATES EX REL. INNES V. CRYSTAL, 319 U.S. 755, THE RELATOR
CHALLENGED A JUDGMENT OF COURT MARTIAL BY HABEAS CORPUS.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DENIED HIS PETITION AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED
THAT ORDER.  AFTER THAT DECISION AND BEFORE HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
WAS FILED HERE, HE WAS REMOVED FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE ARMY TO A
FEDERAL PENITENTIARY IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT.  THE SOLE
RESPONDENT WAS THE COMMANDING OFFICER.  ONLY AN ORDER DIRECTED TO THE
WARDEN OF THE PENITENTIARY COULD EFFECTUATE HIS DISCHARGE AND THE
WARDEN AS WELL AS THE PRISONER WAS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE THEREFORE HELD THE CAUSE MOOT.  THERE IS NO
COMPARABLE SITUATION HERE. 

THE FACT THAT NO RESPONDENT WAS EVER SERVED WITH PROCESS OR APPEARED
IN THE PROCEEDINGS IS NOT IMPORTANT.  THE UNITED STATES RESISTS THE
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT.  A CAUSE EXISTS IN THAT STATE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
AND AN APPEAL LIES FROM DENIAL OF A WRIT WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF A
RESPONDENT.  EX PARTE MILLIGAN, SUPRA, P. 112; EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317
U.S. 1, 24. 

HENCE, SO FAR AS PRESENTLY APPEARS, THE CAUSE IS NOT MOOT AND THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ACT UNLESS THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF
APPELLANT IN THAT DISTRICT IS ESSENTIAL. 

WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE PRESENCE OF THE PERSON DETAINED WITHIN
THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS PREREQUISITE TO
FILING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  SEE IN RE BOLES, 48 F.
75; EX PARTE GOUYET, 175 F. 230, 233; UNITED STATES V. DAY, 50 F.2D
816, 817; UNITED STATES V. SCHLOTFELDT, 136 F.2D 935, 940.  BUT SEE
TIPPITT V. WOOD, 140 F.2D 689, 693.  WE ONLY HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE AND THAT THE REMOVAL OF
MITSUYE ENDO DID NOT CAUSE IT TO LOSE JURISDICTION WHERE A PERSON IN
WHOSE CUSTODY SHE IS REMAINS WITHIN THE DISTRICT. 

THERE ARE EXPRESSIONS IN SOME OF THE CASES WHICH INDICATE THAT THE
PLACE OF CONFINEMENT MUST BE WITHIN THE COURT'S TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO ISSUE THE WRIT.  SEE IN RE BOLES,
SUPRA, P. 76; EX PARTE GOUYET, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. DAY, SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. SCHLOTFELDT, SUPRA.  BUT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE
COURT MAY ACT IF THERE IS A RESPONDENT WITHIN REACH OF ITS PROCESS WHO
HAS CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER.  AS JUDGE COOLEY STATED IN IN THE MATTER
OF SAMUEL W. JACKSON, 15 MICH. 417, 439-440: 

"THE IMPORTANT FACT TO BE OBSERVED IN REGARD TO THE MODE OF PROCEDURE
UPON THIS WRIT IS, THAT IT IS DIRECTED TO, AND SERVED UPON, NOT THE
PERSON CONFINED, BUT HIS JAILER.  IT DOES NOT REACH THE FORMER EXCEPT
THROUGH THE LATTER.  THE OFFICER OR PERSON WHO SERVES IT DOES NOT UNBAR
THE PRISON DOORS, AND SET THE PRISONER FREE, BUT THE COURT RELIEVES HIM
BY COMPELLING THE OPPRESSOR TO RELEASE HIS CONSTRAINT.  THE WHOLE FORCE
OF THE WRIT IS SPENT UPON THE RESPONDENT;" AND SEE UNITED STATES V.
DAVIS, 5 CRANCH C.C. 622, FED. CAS. NO. 14,926; EX PARTE FONG YIM, 134
F. 938; EX PARTE NG QUONG MING, 135 F. 378, 379; SANDERS V. ALLEN, 100
F.2D 717, 719; RIVERS V. MITCHELL, 57 IA. 193, 195, 10 N.W. 626; PEOPLE
V. NEW YORK ASYLUM, 57 APP. DIV. 383, 384, 68 N.Y.S. 279; PEOPLE V. NEW
YORK ASYLUM, 58 APP. DIV. 133, 134, 68 N.Y.S. 656.  THE STATUTE UPON
WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS RESTS (REV. STAT. SEC. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 452) GIVES IT
POWER "TO GRANT WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN INQUIRY
INTO THE CAUSE OF RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY."  FN26  THAT OBJECTIVE MAY BE
IN NO WAY IMPAIRED OR DEFEATED BY THE REMOVAL OF THE PRISONER FROM THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT END MAY BE SERVED
AND THE DECREE OF THE COURT MADE EFFECTIVE IF A RESPONDENT WHO HAS
CUSTODY OF THE PRISONER IS WITHIN REACH OF THE COURT'S PROCESS EVEN
THOUGH THE PRISONER HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DISTRICT SINCE THE SUIT
WAS BEGUN.  FN27 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDERS NOS. 1 TO 99 WERE RATIFIED BY GENERAL
DE WITT'S PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 7 OF JUNE 8, 1942(7 FED. REG. 4498)
AND NOS. 100 TO 108 WERE RATIFIED BY PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 11 OF
AUGUST 18, 1942.  7 FED. REG. 6703. 

FN2  BY PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 4, DATED MARCH 27, 1942(7 FED. REG.
2601) GENERAL DE WITT HAD ORDERED THAT ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY
WHO WERE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF MILITARY AREA NO. 1(WHICH INCLUDED THE
CITY OF SACRAMENTO) WERE PROHIBITED "FROM LEAVING THAT AREA FOR ANY
PURPOSE UNTIL AND TO THE EXTENT THAT A FUTURE PROCLAMATION OR ORDER OF
THIS HEADQUARTERS SHALL SO PERMIT OR DIRECT." 

PRIOR TO THIS PROCLAMATION A SYSTEM OF VOLUNTARY MIGRATION HAD BEEN
IN FORCE UNDER WHICH 4,889 PERSONS LEFT THE MILITARY AREAS UNDER THEIR
OWN ARRANGEMENTS.  FINAL REPORT, JAPANESE EVACUATION FROM THE WEST
COAST (1943), P. 109.  THE FOLLOWING REASONS ARE GIVEN FOR TERMINATING
THAT PROGRAM: 

"ESSENTIALLY, THE OBJECTIVE WAS TWOFOLD.  FIRST, IT WAS TO ALLEVIATE
TENSION AND PREVENT INCIDENTS INVOLVING VIOLENCE BETWEEN JAPANESE
MIGRANTS AND OTHERS.  SECOND, IT WAS TO INSURE AN ORDERLY, SUPERVISED,
AND THOROUGHLY CONTROLLED EVACUATION WITH ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE PERSONS OF EVACUEES AS WELL AS THEIR PROPERTY." 
FINAL REPORT, SUPRA, P. 105. 

FN3  SIX WAR RELOCATION CENTERS AND PROJECT AREAS WERE ESTABLISHED
WITHIN AND FOUR OUTSIDE THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND.  SEE FINAL REPORT,
SUPRA, NOTE 2, PART VI.  EACH ONE WHICH WAS OUTSIDE THE WESTERN DEFENSE
COMMAND WAS DESIGNATED AS A MILITARY AREA BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR IN
PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. WD1, DATED AUGUST 13, 1942.  THAT PROCLAMATION
PROVIDED THAT ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY IN THOSE AREAS WERE
REQUIRED TO REMAIN THERE UNLESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION TO LEAVE WAS
OBTAINED FROM THE SECRETARY OF WAR OR THE DIRECTOR OF THE WAR
RELOCATION AUTHORITY.  7 FED. REG. 6593.  IT RECITED THAT THE UNITED
STATES WAS SUBJECT TO "ESPIONAGE AND ACTS OF SABOTAGE, THEREBY
REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF MILITARY MEASURES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST SUCH ENEMY OPERATIONS EMANATING FROM WITHIN AS WELL
AS FROM WITHOUT THE NATIONAL BOUNDARIES."  AND IT ALSO PURPORTED TO
MAKE ANY PERSON WHO WAS SUBJECT TO ITS PROVISIONS AND WHO FAILED TO
OBEY IT LIABLE TO THE PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 21,
1942. 

FN4  THE LETTER OF AUGUST 11, 1942, IS PRINTED IN THE FINAL REPORT,
SUPRA, NOTE 2, P. 530.  IT RECITED THAT THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY WAS
MADE PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 8, DATED JUNE
27, 1942.  LATER GENERAL DE WITT DESCRIBED THE SUPERVISION OF
RELOCATION CENTERS BY THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE INITIAL PROBLEM WAS ONE OF SECURITY - THE SECURITY OF THE
PACIFIC COAST.  THE PROBLEM WAS MET BY EVACUATION TO ASSEMBLY CENTERS
FOLLOWED BY A TRANSFER TO RELOCATION CENTERS.  THE LATTER PHASE -
CONSTRUCTION, SUPPLY, EQUIPMENT OF RELOCATION CENTERS AND THE TRANSFER
OF EVACUEES FROM ASSEMBLY TO RELOCATION CENTERS HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED
BY THE ARMY.  (WHILE THE COMMANDING GENERAL WAS MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THIS LATTER PHASE OF THE PROGRAM, IN SO DOING, HE WAS ACCOMPLISHING A
MISSION OF THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY RATHER THAN STRICTLY AN ARMY
MISSION.)  THE SECOND PROBLEM - NATIONAL IN SCOPE - ESSENTIALLY A
SOCIAL-ECONOMIC PROBLEM, WAS PRIMARILY FOR SOLUTION BY THE WAR
RELOCATION AUTHORITY, AN AGENCY EXPRESSLY CREATED FOR THAT PURPOSE." 

FINAL REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 2, P. 246. 

ON FEBRUARY 16, 1944, THE PRESIDENT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9423
TRANSFERRED THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR.  9 FED. REG. 1903.  THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BY
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 1922, DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1944, AUTHORIZED THE
DIRECTOR TO PERFORM UNDER THE SECRETARY'S SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION THE
FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9423. 

FN5  AND SEE THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN THE SECRETARY
OF WAR'S PROCLAMATION WD1 OF AUGUST 13, 1942, SUPRA, NOTE 3, RESPECTING
RELOCATION CENTERS OUTSIDE THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND. 

FN6  THE COMMANDING GENERAL RETAINED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE
RELEASE OF EVACUEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMPLOYMENT, RESETTLEMENT, OR
RESIDENCE WITHIN MILITARY AREA NO. 1 AND THE CALIFORNIA PORTION OF
MILITARY AREA NO. 2.  SEE FINAL REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 2, P. 242.  AS TO
THE RELOCATION CENTERS SITUATED WITHIN THE EVACUATED ZONE, THE
COMMANDING GENERAL REGULATED "THE CONDITIONS OF TRAVEL AND MOVEMENT
THROUGH THE AREA."  ID. 

"THE COMMANDING GENERAL RECOGNIZED FULLY THAT ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL
RESPONSIBILITIES OF WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY WAS PROPERLY TO CONTROL
INGRESS AND EGRESS AT RELOCATION CENTERS.  THE EXERCISE OF SUCH CONTROL
BY ARMY AUTHORITIES WOULD HAVE BEEN TANTAMOUNT TO ADMINISTERING THE
CENTERS THEMSELVES.  WHILE THE COMMANDING GENERAL RETAINED EXCLUSIVE
CONTROL TO REGULATE AND PROHIBIT THE ENTRY OR MOVEMENT OF ANY JAPANESE
IN THE EVACUATED AREAS, HE DELEGATED FULLY THE AUTHORITY AND
RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE ENTRY TO AND DEPARTURE FROM THE CENTER
PROPER."  ID. 

FN7  THE FUNCTIONING OF RELOCATION CENTERS IS DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL
REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 2, PART VI AND IN SEGREGATION OF LOYAL AND DISLOYAL
JAPANESE IN RELOCATION CENTERS, SEN. DOC. NO. 96, 78TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 4-25. 

FN8  PROVISION WAS ALSO MADE FOR GROUP-LEAVE (OR SEASONAL-WORK LEAVE)
AND SHORT TERM LEAVE NOT TO EXCEED 60 DAYS.  SEE SEN. DOC. NO. 96,
SUPRA, NOTE 7, P. 17. 

FN9  THE FIRST LEAVE PROCEDURE WAS CONTAINED IN ADMINISTRATIVE
INSTRUCTION NO. 22, DATED JULY 20, 1942.  IT PROVIDED IN SHORT THAT ANY
CITIZEN OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY WHO HAD NEVER RESIDED OR BEEN EDUCATED IN
JAPAN COULD APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO LEAVE THE RELOCATION CENTER IF HE
COULD SHOW THAT HE HAD A SPECIFIC JOB OPPORTUNITY AT A DESIGNATED PLACE
OUTSIDE THE RELOCATION CENTER AND OUTSIDE THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND. 
EVERY PERMITTEE WAS SAID TO REMAIN IN THE "CONSTRUCTIVE CUSTODY" OF THE
MILITARY COMMANDER IN WHOSE JURISDICTION THE RELOCATION CENTER WAS
LOCATED.  THE PERMIT COULD BE REVOKED BY THE DIRECTOR AND THE PERMITTEE
REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THE RELOCATION CENTER IF THE DIRECTOR FOUND THAT
THE REVOCATION WAS NECESSARY "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  THE REGULATIONS
OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1942, PROVIDED MORE DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING
LEAVE.  SEE 7 FED. REG. 7656.  ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION NO. 22 WAS
REVISED NOVEMBER 6, 1942.  IT WAS SUPERSEDED AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE
REGULATIONS BY THE HANDBOOK OF JULY 20, 1943.  THE REGULATIONS OF
SEPTEMBER 26, 1942 WERE REVISED JANUARY 1, 1944.  SEE 9 FED. REG. 154. 

FN10  HANDBOOK, SEC. 60.6.6.  NINE FACTORS ARE SPECIFIED EACH OF
WHICH IS "REGARDED BY INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A
RECOMMENDATION THAT LEAVE CLEARANCE BE DENIED UNLESS THERE IS AN
ADEQUATE EXPLANATION."  SEC. 60.10.2.  THESE INCLUDE, AMONG OTHERS, A
FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO SWEAR UNQUALIFIED ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES
AND TO FORSWEAR ANY FORM OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE JAPANESE EMPEROR OR ANY
OTHER FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, POWER, OR ORGANIZATION; A REQUEST FOR
REPATRIATION OR EXPATRIATION WHETHER OR NOT SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED;
MILITARY TRAINING IN JAPAN; EMPLOYMENT ON JAPANESE NAVAL VESSELS; THREE
TRIPS TO JAPAN AFTER THE AGE OF SIX, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SEAMEN WHOSE
TRIPS WERE CONFINED TO PORTS OF CALL; AN ORGANIZER, AGENT, MEMBER, OR
CONTRIBUTOR TO SPECIFIED ORGANIZATIONS WHICH INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES
CONSIDER SUBVERSIVE. 

FN11  HANDBOOK, SEC. 60.4.3. 

FN12  ID. 

FN13  ID.  THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY ALSO RECOMMENDS COMMUNITIES
IN WHICH AN EVACUEE WILL BE ACCEPTED, RENDERS AID IN FINDING EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES, AND PROVIDES CASH GRANTS, IF NEEDED, TO ASSIST THE
EVACUEE IN REACHING A SPECIFIED DESTINATION AND IN BECOMING ESTABLISHED
THERE.  THE AUTHORITY HAS ESTABLISHED EIGHT AREA OFFICES AND TWENTY-SIX
DISTRICT OFFICES TO HELP CARRY OUT THE RELOCATION PROGRAM.    FN14
SEC. 60.4.8.  OF THE HANDBOOK PROVIDES: 

"BEFORE ANY INDEFINITE LEAVE PERMITTING ANY ENTRY INTO OR TRAVEL IN A
PROHIBITED MILITARY AREA MAY ISSUE, A WRITTEN PASS OR AUTHORIZATION
SHALL BE PROCURED FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE APPROPRIATE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES AND AN ESCORT SHALL BE PROVIDED IF REQUIRED BY THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES.  SUCH PASS OR AUTHORIZATION MAY BE PROCURED THROUGH THE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN SAN FRANCISCO, OR IN THE CASE OF THE MANZANAR
RELOCATION CENTER THROUGH THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE MILITARY POLICE
AT THE CENTER TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED BY THE WESTERN DEFENSE
COMMAND."    FN15  THE LEAVE CLEARANCE STATED THAT IT DID NOT AUTHORIZE
DEPARTURE FROM THE RELOCATION CENTER.  IT ADDED: 

"YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR INDEFINITE LEAVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EMPLOYMENT
OR RESIDENCE IN THE EASTERN DEFENSE COMMAND AS WELL AS IN OTHER AREAS;
PROVIDED THE PROVISIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION NO. 22, REV., ARE
OTHERWISE COMPLIED WITH.  THE PROVOST MARSHAL GENERAL'S DEPT. OF THE
WAR DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT YOU, ENDO MITSUYE ARE NOT AT THIS
TIME ELIGIBLE FOR EMPLOYMENT IN PLANTS AND FACILITIES VITAL TO THE WAR
EFFORT." 

FN16  THE FORM OF A CITIZEN'S INDEFINITE LEAVE IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT .................. A UNITED STATES CITIZEN,
WHO HAS SUBMITTED TO ME SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SUCH CITIZENSHIP, RESIDING
WITHIN .................. RELOCATION AREA, IS ALLOWED TO LEAVE SUCH
AREA ON .................. 19.., AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE
REGULATIONS OF THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF
LEAVE FOR DEPARTURE FROM A RELOCATION AREA AND SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS
ORDERED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY, AND SUBJECT TO ANY SPECIAL
CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE SIDE HEREOF, TO
ENJOY LEAVE OF INDEFINITE DURATION." 

ONE OF THE GROUNDS GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DENIAL OF THE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS THE FAILURE OF APPELLANT TO
EXHAUST HER ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND THE WAR
RELOCATION AUTHORITY DO NOT INVOKE THAT RULE HERE, SINCE THE ISSUE
WHICH APPELLANT POSES IS THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY IS PRESCRIBED. 

FN17  CF. THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEETING BY GENERAL DE WITT IN THE FINAL
REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 2, PP. 243-244. 

FN18  AND SEE THE FOURTH INTERIM REPORT OF THE TOLAN COMMITTEE, H.R.
REP. NO. 2124, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 18. 

FN19  THERE WERE 108,503 EVACUEES TRANSFERRED TO RELOCATION CENTERS. 
FINAL REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 2, P. 279.  AS OF JULY 29, 1944, THERE WERE
28,911 ON INDEFINITE LEAVE AND 61,002 IN THE RELOCATION CENTERS OTHER
THAN TULE LAKE.  IT WAS SOUGHT TO ASSEMBLE AT TULE LAKE THOSE WHOSE
DISLOYALTY WAS DEEMED TO BE ESTABLISHED AND THOSE WHO PERSISTED IN A
REFUSAL TO SAY THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES ON COMBAT DUTY WHEREVER ORDERED AND TO SWEAR
UNQUALIFIED ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND FORSWEAR ANY FORM OF
ALLEGIANCE TO THE JAPANESE EMPEROR OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN GOVERNMENT,
POWER OR ORGANIZATION.  THIS GROUP, TOGETHER WITH MINOR CHILDREN,
TOTALED 18,684 ON JULY 29, 1944.  AND SEE HEARINGS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
NATIONAL WAR AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1945, P. 611. 

FN20  INSOFAR AS PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. WD1, DATED AUGUST 13, 1942,
SUPRA, NOTE 3, MIGHT BE DEEMED RELEVANT, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE
SINCE THE RELOCATION CENTERS WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED WERE
WITHIN THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND. 

FN21  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272
U.S. 1, 12; UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304; YAKUS
V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414; BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503. 

FN22  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303
U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S.
147; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296. 

FN23  UNITED STATES V. SHREVEPORT GRAIN & ELEVATOR CO., 287 U.S. 77,
82; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & N. CO.,
288 U.S. 14, 40; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288,
348; LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 30; ANNISTON
MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337, 351-352. 

FN24  IT IS ARGUED, TO BE SURE, THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONGRESSIONAL
RATIFICATION OF THE DETENTION OF LOYAL EVACUEES UNDER THE LEAVE
REGULATIONS OF THE AUTHORITY THROUGH THE APPROPRIATION OF SUMS FOR THE
EXPENSES OF THE AUTHORITY.  57 STAT. 533, P.L. 139, 78TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., APPROVED JULY 12, 1943 AND 58 STAT. 545, P.L. 372, 78TH CONG.,
2D SESS., APPROVED JUNE 28, 1944.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE
REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES OF THE AUTHORITY WERE DISCLOSED IN REPORTS
TO THE CONGRESS AND IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, SEN.
DOC. NO. 96, SUPRA, NOTE 7; REPORT AND MINORITY VIEWS OF THE SPECIAL
COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES ON JAPANESE WAR RELOCATION CENTERS,
H. REP. NO. 717, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 23-26; HEARINGS,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON S. 444, 78TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 45-46; JAPANESE WAR RELOCATION CENTERS,
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON S. 444 AND S. 101 AND 111, 78TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 4-5 ET SEQ. AND IT IS SHOWN THAT THE LEAVE PROGRAM OF THE
AUTHORITY WAS MENTIONED BOTH IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE HEARINGS
ON THE 1944 APPROPRIATION ACT (HEARINGS, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, NATIONAL WAR AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL
FOR 1944, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 698, 699, 710; HEARINGS OF THE
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, NATIONAL WAR AGENCIES
APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1944, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 382) AND ON THE
FLOOR OF THE HOUSE PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THE 1944 ACT.  89 CONG. REC. PP.
5983-5985.  CONGRESS MAY OF COURSE DO BY RATIFICATION WHAT IT MIGHT
HAVE AUTHORIZED.  SWAYNE & HOYT V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 301
302.  AND RATIFICATION MAY BE EFFECTED THROUGH APPROPRIATION ACTS. 
ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 139, 147; BROOKS V.
DEWAR, 313 U.S. 354, 361.  BUT THE APPROPRIATION MUST PLAINLY SHOW A
PURPOSE TO BESTOW THE PRECISE AUTHORITY WHICH IS CLAIMED.  WE CAN
HARDLY DEDUCE SUCH A PURPOSE HERE WHERE A LUMP APPROPRIATION WAS MADE
FOR THE OVERALL PROGRAM OF THE AUTHORITY AND NO SUMS WERE EARMARKED FOR
THE SINGLE PHASE OF THE TOTAL PROGRAM WHICH IS HERE INVOLVED.  CONGRESS
MAY SUPPORT THE EFFORT TO TAKE CARE OF THESE EVACUEES WITHOUT RATIFYING
EVERY PHASE OF THE PROGRAM. 

FN25  IN A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 13, 1944 TO THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND
FILED HERE. 

FN26  THE ENTIRE SECTION PROVIDES: 

"THE SEVERAL JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SEVERAL JUDGES OF
THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL AND OF THE DISTRICT COURTS, WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, SHALL HAVE POWER TO GRANT WRITS OF HABEAS
CORPUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN INQUIRY INTO THE CAUSE OF RESTRAINT OF
LIBERTY.  A CIRCUIT JUDGE SHALL HAVE THE SAME POWER TO GRANT WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS WITHIN HIS CIRCUIT, THAT A DISTRICT JUDGE HAS WITHIN HIS
DISTRICT; AND THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGE SHALL BE ENTERED IN THE
RECORDS OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT WHEREIN THE RESTRAINT
COMPLAINED OF IS HAD." 

THE LAST CLAUSE WAS ADDED BY SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925,
43 STAT. 940.  BUT WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT IT WAS ADDED TO CHANGE
THE SCOPE OF JURISDICTION IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.  ON ITS FACE IT
IS NO MORE THAN A RECORDING REQUIREMENT. 

FN27  CF. RULE 45(1) OF THIS COURT WHICH PROVIDES:  "PENDING REVIEW
OF A DECISION REFUSING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE CUSTODY OF THE
PRISONER SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, BUT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT
DETENTION IN RELOCATION CENTERS OF PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY
REGARDLESS OF LOYALTY IS NOT ONLY UNAUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS OR THE
EXECUTIVE BUT IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESORT TO
RACISM INHERENT IN THE ENTIRE EVACUATION PROGRAM.  AS STATED MORE FULLY
IN MY DISSENTING OPINION IN KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 233,
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION OF THIS NATURE BEARS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO
MILITARY NECESSITY AND IS UTTERLY FOREIGN TO THE IDEALS AND TRADITIONS
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 

MOREOVER, THE COURT HOLDS THAT MITSUYE ENDO IS ENTITLED TO AN
UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE BY THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY.  IT APPEARS THAT
MISS ENDO DESIRES TO RETURN TO SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, FROM WHICH
PUBLIC PROCLAMATIONS NOS. 7 AND 11, AS WELL AS CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER
NO. 52, STILL EXCLUDE HER.  AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THE
"UNCONDITIONAL" RELEASE TO BE GIVEN MISS ENDO NECESSARILY IMPLIES "THE
RIGHT TO PASS FREELY FROM STATE TO STATE," INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO MOVE
FREELY INTO CALIFORNIA.  TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 97;
CRANDALL V. NEVADA, 6 WALL.  35.  IF, AS I BELIEVE, THE MILITARY ORDERS
EXCLUDING HER FROM CALIFORNIA WERE INVALID AT THE TIME THEY WERE
ISSUED, THEY ARE INCREASINGLY OBJECTIONABLE AT THIS LATE DATE, WHEN THE
THREAT OF INVASION OF THE PACIFIC COAST AND THE FEARS OF SABOTAGE AND
ESPIONAGE HAVE GREATLY DIMINISHED.  FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SUGGEST UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PRESENCE OF JAPANESE BLOOD IN A LOYAL
AMERICAN CITIZEN MIGHT BE ENOUGH TO WARRANT HER EXCLUSION FROM A PLACE
WHERE SHE WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE A RIGHT TO GO IS A POSITION I CANNOT
SANCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT BUT I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE REASONS STATED IN
THE OPINION OF THE COURT FOR REACHING THAT RESULT. 

AS IN KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 214, THE COURT ENDEAVORS
TO AVOID CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH ARE NECESSARILY INVOLVED.  THE
OPINION, AT GREAT LENGTH, ATTEMPTS TO SHOW THAT NEITHER THE EXECUTIVE
NOR THE LEGISLATIVE ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED THE DETENTION OF
THE RELATOR. 

1.  WITH RESPECT TO THE EXECUTIVE, IT IS SAID THAT NONE OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDERS IN QUESTION SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO DETENTION AND THE
COURT SHOULD NOT IMPLY ANY AUTHORIZATION OF IT.  THIS SEEMS TO ME TO
IGNORE PATENT FACTS.  AS THE OPINION DISCLOSES, THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF
THE GOVERNMENT NOT ONLY WAS AWARE OF WHAT WAS BEING DONE BUT IN FACT
THAT WHICH WAS DONE WAS FORMULATED IN REGULATIONS AND IN A SO-CALLED
HANDBOOK OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.  I HAD SUPPOSED THAT WHERE THUS OVERTLY
AND AVOWEDLY A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT ADOPTS A COURSE OF ACTION
UNDER A SERIES OF OFFICIAL REGULATIONS THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT, IN THIS
WAY, THE DEPARTMENT ASSERTS ITS BELIEF IN THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF
WHAT IT IS DOING.  I THINK IT INADMISSIBLE TO SUGGEST THAT SOME
INFERIOR PUBLIC SERVANT EXCEEDED THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY EXECUTIVE
ORDER IN THIS CASE.  SUCH A BASIS OF DECISION WILL RENDER EASY THE
EVASION OF LAW AND THE VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, FOR WHEN
CONDUCT IS CALLED IN QUESTION THE OBVIOUS RESPONSE WILL BE THAT,
HOWEVER MUCH THE SUPERIOR EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS KNEW, UNDERSTOOD, AND
APPROVED THE CONDUCT OF THEIR SUBORDINATES, THOSE SUBORDINATES IN FACT
LACKED A DEFINITE MANDATE SO TO ACT.  IT IS TO HIDE ONE'S HEAD IN THE
SAND TO ASSERT THAT THE DETENTION OF RELATOR RESULTED FROM AN EXCESS OF
AUTHORITY BY SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS. 

2.  AS THE OPINION STATES, THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, SAID NOTHING OF
DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT, NOR DID EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066 OF DATE
FEBRUARY 19, 1942, BUT I CANNOT AGREE THAT WHEN CONGRESS MADE
APPROPRIATIONS TO THE RELOCATION AUTHORITY, HAVING BEFORE IT THE
REPORTS, THE TESTIMONY AT COMMITTEE HEARINGS, AND THE FULL DETAILS OF
THE PROCEDURE OF THE RELOCATION AUTHORITY WERE EXPOSED IN GOVERNMENT
PUBLICATIONS, THESE APPROPRIATIONS WERE NOT A RATIFICATION AND AN
AUTHORIZATION OF WHAT WAS BEING DONE.  THE CASES CITED IN FOOTNOTE NO.
24 OF THE OPINION DO NOT JUSTIFY ANY SUCH CONCLUSION.  THE DECISION NOW
ADDS AN ELEMENT NEVER BEFORE THOUGHT ESSENTIAL TO CONGRESSIONAL
RATIFICATION, NAMELY, THAT IF CONGRESS IS TO RATIFY BY APPROPRIATION
ANY PART OF THE PROGRAMME OF AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY THE BILL MUST INCLUDE
A SPECIFIC ITEM REFERRING TO THAT PORTION OF THE PROGRAMME.  IN OTHER
WORDS, THE COURT WILL NOT ASSUME THAT CONGRESS RATIFIED THE PROCEDURE
OF THE AUTHORITIES IN THIS CASE IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME SUCH ITEM AS
THIS IN THE APPROPRIATION BILL:   - "FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CONDITIONAL RELEASE AND PAROLE PROGRAMME IN FORCE IN RELOCATION
CENTERS."  IN THE LIGHT OF THE KNOWLEDGE CONGRESS HAD AS TO THE DETAILS
OF THE PROGRAMME, I THINK THE COURT IS UNJUSTIFIED IN STRAINING TO
CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN TO RATIFY WHAT WAS BEING DONE. 

3.  I CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE COURT IS SQUARELY FACED WITH A
SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION,  - WHETHER THE RELATOR'S DETENTION
VIOLATED THE GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND ESPECIALLY THE GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THERE
CAN BE BUT ONE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.  AN ADMITTEDLY LOYAL CITIZEN
HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF HER LIBERTY FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS.  UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION SHE SHOULD BE FREE TO COME AND GO AS SHE PLEASES. 
INSTEAD, HER LIBERTY OF MOTION AND OTHER INNOCENT ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN
PROHIBITED AND CONDITIONED.  SHE SHOULD BE DISCHARGED. 
..END :




ORDER OF CONDUCTORS V. PENN. R. CO., 323 U.S. 166 


NO. 200.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1944.  -
WRIT DISMISSED. 


1.  IN THE PRESENT POSTURE OF THIS CASE - NO REVIEW HAVING BEEN SOUGHT
OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW, NOW FINAL, SO FAR AS IT DISMISSED PETITIONERS'
SUIT AS TO THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD - REMEDIES WHICH WOULD,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, SET ASIDE THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT ARE
INAPPROPRIATE.  P. 171. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE, AND THE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE, WHETHER
THE REMEDIES SOUGHT WOULD BE AVAILABLE UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. 

2.  UPON THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE - THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD HAVING CERTIFIED A REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, AND THERE BEING NO ELECTION PENDING OR IN THE OFFING -
PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE COERCION
BY A CARRIER OVER THE DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES UNDER
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  P. 172. 

ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD
CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 688, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL, 141
F.2D 366, FROM A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND AN INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND FOR AN INJUNCTION
BROUGHT BY THE ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA, AN
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF RAILWAY EMPLOYES, AGAINST THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD, TWO OF ITS MEMBERS, THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD, AND A
SUBSIDIARY RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN,
AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF RAILWAY EMPLOYES.  FOR THE SAKE OF
BREVITY, THE PLAINTIFFS WILL BE CALLED "PLAINTIFF"; THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS "BOARD"; THE TWO RAILROADS "RAILROAD,"
AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN "TRAINMEN." 

THE COMPLAINT, AFTER STATING THE CAPACITY OF THE PARTIES, MAKES THE
FOLLOWING ALLEGATIONS, WHICH, AS WILL APPEAR, ARE, FOR PURPOSES OF
DECISION, TO BE TAKEN AS TRUE.  THE PLAINTIFF IS, AND FOR YEARS HAS
BEEN, THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE AND BARGAINING AGENT FOR THE CRAFT
OF ROAD CONDUCTORS OF THE RAILROAD, AND THE TRAINMEN THE REPRESENTATIVE
AND AGENT OF ROAD BRAKEMEN, YARD CONDUCTORS, YARD BRAKEMEN, BAGGAGEMEN
AND SWITCHTENDERS.  THE TWO ASSOCIATIONS HAVE JOINTLY NEGOTIATED
CONTRACTS WITH THE RAILROAD, AND SUCH A CONTRACT WAS JOINTLY NEGOTIATED
EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1927, AND REMAINS IN FORCE WITH RESPECT TO ROAD
CONDUCTORS, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED CONCERNING RATES OF PAY.  APRIL 18,
1941, THE RAILROAD NOTIFIED THE TWO UNIONS OF ITS DESIRE TO ALTER THE
CONTRACT AND, PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE, THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE PARTIES MET IN CONFERENCE TO ADJUST CLASSIFICATIONS OF CONDUCTORS,
RATES OF PAY FOR THEM, AND THE CONTROL OF THE SO-CALLED "EXTRA BOARD"
FOR CONDUCTORS.  DUE TO DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO UNIONS AND THE
CONCURRENCE BY THE RAILROAD IN THE ATTITUDE OF THE TRAINMEN,
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONDUCTORS WITHDREW FROM THE JOINT NEGOTIATION
AND SERVED NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL ON THE RAILROAD.  TWO WEEKS THEREAFTER
THE RAILROAD AND THE TRAINMEN SIGNED A NEW AGREEMENT COVERING THE
MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION.  CERTAIN PROVISIONS AGREED UPON BETWEEN
THE RAILROAD AND THE TRAINMEN WERE IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND, THEREFORE, VOID, AND THE PRIOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CONDUCTORS AND THE RAILROAD REMAINED IN FORCE, BUT, NEVERTHELESS,
THE RAILROAD, SINCE EXECUTION OF THE NEW AGREEMENT WITH THE TRAINMEN,
HAS REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE PLAINTIFF. 

THE RAILROAD AND THE TRAINMEN CONSPIRED AND CONFEDERATED IN AN
UNLAWFUL PROGRAMME DESIGNED TO EMBARRASS, DISCREDIT, AND WEAKEN THE
PLAINTIFF AND STRENGTHEN THE TRAINMEN AND THUS TO INFLUENCE, COERCE,
AND INTERFERE WITH THE CRAFT OF ROAD CONDUCTORS IN THEIR CHOICE OF A
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AND THE RAILROAD AND TRAINMEN WERE GUILTY OF
ACTS INTENDED, AND EFFECTIVE, TO THAT END.  SEPTEMBER 23, 1942, THE
TRAINMEN FILED WITH THE BOARD A REQUEST TO BE CERTIFIED AS THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OF ROAD CONDUCTORS. 

THE PLAINTIFF PROTESTED TO THE BOARD AGAINST THE HOLDING OF AN
ELECTION, CHARGING THAT THE RAILROAD WAS INTERFERING WITH, INFLUENCING,
AND COERCING CONDUCTORS BY UNLAWFULLY BARGAINING WITH THE TRAINMEN WITH
RESPECT TO ROAD CONDUCTORS' WORKING CONDITIONS, IN BREACH OF THE
EXISTING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE RAILROAD.  THE BOARD
ILLEGALLY AND WRONGFULLY RULED THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER
THE CHARGES, ORDERED AN ELECTION TO DETERMINE THE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE FOR ROAD CONDUCTORS, HELD SUCH ELECTION, AND ISSUED A
CERTIFICATION BASED THEREON THAT TRAINMEN WAS THE AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROAD CONDUCTORS, WHICH ELECTION AND CERTIFICATION
ARE ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID, INTER ALIA, BECAUSE THE BOARD REFUSED TO
PERFORM ITS DUTIES BY INVESTIGATING THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES. 

BASED ON THE FOREGOING ALLEGATIONS, THE RELIEF DEMANDED WAS (1) THAT
THE ELECTION AND CERTIFICATION BE ANNULLED, VACATED, AND SET ASIDE;
(2)(A) THAT THE BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS BE RESTRAINED FROM HOLDING ANY
ELECTION FOR A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ROAD CONDUCTORS UNTIL IT
SHALL HAVE CONSIDERED THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND FOUND THAT THEY DO
NOT AMOUNT TO INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE OR COERCION, AND THAT (B), IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT DECLARE THE PRACTICES COMPLAINED OF CONSTITUTE
UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE OR COERCION OF THE CRAFT OF ROAD CONDUCTORS, AND
RESTRAIN THE BOARD FROM HOLDING AN ELECTION UNTIL THE BOARD DETERMINES,
AFTER INVESTIGATION AND HEARING, THAT SUCH INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE OR
COERCION HAS CEASED; (3)(4) THAT IT BE DECLARED THAT CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS
OF THE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BY THE RAILROAD AND THE TRAINMEN WERE NOT
NEGOTIATED WITH THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROAD CONDUCTORS
AND WERE ILLEGAL INFRINGEMENTS UPON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE
PLAINTIFF, AS ACCREDITED BARGAINING AGENT, TO REPRESENT THE CONDUCTORS;
(5) THAT IT BE DECLARED THAT THE PLAINTIFF, AS SUCH REPRESENTATIVE, HAS
THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE
CONDUCTORS; (6) THAT THE RAILROAD BE PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM
BARGAINING OR MAKING OR MAINTAINING AGREEMENTS WITH TRAINMEN, OR ANY
OTHER UNION EXCEPT THE PLAINTIFF, ON BEHALF OF ROAD CONDUCTORS SO LONG
AS THE PLAINTIFF IS THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT CLASS; (7)
THAT THE RAILROAD BE DIRECTED TO NEGOTIATE AND BARGAIN WITH THE
PLAINTIFF, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROAD CONDUCTORS, SO LONG AS THE
PLAINTIFF REMAINS SUCH REPRESENTATIVE; (8) THAT THE RAILROAD BE
ENJOINED FROM DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY COERCING, INFLUENCING, OR
INTERFERING WITH THE CRAFT OF ROAD CONDUCTORS AND THEIR CHOICE OF A
REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT; (9) FURTHER RELIEF. 

AFTER ANSWERS BY THE DEFENDANTS THE PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH ADDED NOTHING TO THE
MATTERS APPEARING IN THE PLEADINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT, THOUGH OF
OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO GENUINE ISSUE, AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT,
PRESENTED UNDER THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT, NEVERTHELESS DENIED THE MOTION
AND ALSO DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, BECAUSE IT HELD THAT THE FACTS
ALLEGED AND ADMITTED FAILED TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION. 

THE PLAINTIFF APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  EACH APPELLEE FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT
THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION.  THE MOTIONS WERE GROUNDED ON THE
DECISIONS IN SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297 AND
RELATED CASES, FN1  WHICH WERE ANNOUNCED AFTER THE APPEAL HAD BEEN
TAKEN.  THE PLAINTIFF ANSWERED THE MOTIONS.  THE COURT, BEING OF
OPINION THAT, UNDER THE RULINGS IN THE SWITCHMEN'S UNION CASE AND
OTHERS DECIDED AT THE SAME TERM,  FN2  IT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF
THE CONTROVERSY, DISMISSED THE APPEAL.  FN3 

THE PLAINTIFF APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE TRAINMEN AND THE RAILROAD.  IT DID NOT SEEK
REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT GRANTING THE BOARD'S MOTION, AND DISMISSING THE
BOARD.  THAT JUDGMENT IS NOW FINAL AND BEYOND REVIEW HERE. 

THE PLAINTIFF BASED ITS CLAIMS TO RELIEF ON SEC. 2 THIRD OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, WHICH BANS INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE, OR COERCION BY
EITHER PARTY IN RESPECT OF DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE
OTHER.  THE BOARD, IN DENYING JURISDICTION, EVIDENTLY RELIED ON A
PORTION OF SEC. 2 NINTH, DEALING WITH ITS FUNCTION TO INVESTIGATE
DISPUTES CONCERNING REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYES, TO HOLD ELECTIONS, AND
TO CERTIFY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, AS LIMITING ITS JURISDICTION
TO THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION AND ELECTION AND PRECLUDING
IT FROM INVESTIGATING PRIOR ACTION BY ANY OF THE PARTIES.  THE RAILROAD
RELIED UPON SEC. 2 TENTH, WHICH IT ASSERTS CREATES REMEDIES FOR
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 THIRD THAT ARE EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHER REMEDIES. 
THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE SECTIONS THUS RELIED ON ARE QUOTED IN THE
MARGIN.  FN4  THE CONTENTIONS SO MADE RAISE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, BUT WE
EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THEM SINCE, FOR REASONS ABOUT TO BE STATED, WE
HOLD THAT WE DO NOT REACH THEM WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS CASE. 

THE FIRST AND SECOND PRAYERS FOR RELIEF SEEK THE ANNULMENT AND
CANCELLATION OF THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION AND AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
BOARD ACTION.  PLAINLY NO SUCH RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED, IF AT ALL, IN
THE ABSENCE OF THE BOARD AS A PARTY.  BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO APPEAL
FROM THE ORDER DISMISSING IT, THE BOARD IS NOT, AND NEVER CAN BE, A
PARTY TO THIS CAUSE, EITHER HERE OR IN THE COURTS BELOW. 

THE THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH PRAYERS IN EFFECT REQUEST A DECLARATION
THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ROAD CONDUCTORS FOR
BARGAINING NOTWITHSTANDING THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION TO THE CONTRARY. 
SINCE THE ELECTION AND CERTIFICATION COULD NOT BE ANNULLED WITHOUT
MAKING THE BOARD A PARTY, THAT RESULT CANNOT BE OBTAINED BY INDIRECTION
BY HAVING THE COURT SUBSTITUTE ITSELF FOR THE BOARD, OR DECLARE,
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BOARD, WHO IS THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
PLAINTIFF. 

THE SIXTH, SEVENTH, AND EIGHTH PRAYERS HAVE A SIMILAR OBJECT.  THEY
ASK AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THE RAILROAD FROM BARGAINING WITH TRAINMEN
AND A MANDATORY INJUNCTION THAT IT SHALL BARGAIN WITH THE PLAINTIFF AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF ROAD CONDUCTORS.  SUCH A DECREE WOULD BE IN THE TEETH
OF THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION.  TO GRANT SUCH A DECREE WOULD SEEM TO BE
IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE SWITCHMEN'S UNION CASE, SUPRA, AND IN ANY EVENT
SUCH ACTION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BOARD. 

THE EIGHTH PRAYER SEEKS AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE ACTS OF THE
RAILROAD COERCIVE OF THE CLASS OF ROAD CONDUCTORS IN CHOOSING A
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, AN ELECTION HAS BEEN HELD,
A REPRESENTATIVE CHOSEN AND THE CHOICE CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD.  NO
ELECTION IS NOW PENDING AND THERE IS NO AVERMENT IN THE BILL THAT AN
ELECTION IS ABOUT TO BE HELD OR THAT THE RAILROAD IS ABOUT TO COMMIT
ANY ACT IN VIOLATION OF THE PROSCRIPTION OF SEC. 2 THIRD.  ALL THAT THE
BILL DOES IS TO RECITE WHAT THE RAILROAD HAS HERETOFORE DONE IN ADVANCE
OF THE ELECTION ALREADY HELD AND THE CERTIFICATION BASED UPON IT.  NO
CASE IS STATED REQUIRING THE ENTRY OF THE INJUNCTION PRAYED. 

THE ARGUMENTS IN THIS CASE COVERED A WIDE RANGE AND EMBODIED
SUGGESTIONS AS TO POSSIBLE REMEDIES SHOULD THE BOARD ACT OR REFUSE TO
ACT ON CHARGES OF COERCION ANTECEDENT TO ELECTION AND ON POSSIBLE
REMEDIES TO DEPRIVE AN EMPLOYER GUILTY OF INFLUENCE AND COERCION OF THE
BENEFITS OF THE ELECTION AND THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION. 

WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION RESERVED IN GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.
T.R. CO., 320 U.S. 323, 336, NOTE 12, WHETHER THE COURTS MAY AFFORD
RELIEF WHERE THE BOARD REFUSES OR FAILS TO PERFORM A FUNCTION DELEGATED
TO IT BY CONGRESS, SINCE THE BOARD IS NOT A PARTY.  NEITHER THE
PLEADINGS NOR THE PRAYERS DISCLOSE A SITUATION IN WHICH THE QUESTION OF
THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH REMEDIES ANTECEDENT TO, OR SUBSEQUENT TO, THE
ELECTION OR CERTIFICATION NEED BE DISCUSSED OR DECIDED. 

FN1 GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T. R. CO., 320 U.S. 323; GENERAL
COMMITTEE V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 320 U.S. 338. 

FN2  THE COURT CITED IN ADDITION TO THE CASES RELIED ON BY THE
DEFENDANTS, BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS V. UNITED TRANSPORT SERVICE
EMPLOYEES, 320 U.S. 715. 

FN3  141 F.2D 366. 

FN4  SEC. 2 THIRD.  "REPRESENTATIVES, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
CHAPTER, SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES WITHOUT
INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE, OR COERCION BY EITHER PARTY OVER THE
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE OTHER; AND NEITHER PARTY SHALL IN
ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH, INFLUENCE, OR COERCE THE OTHER IN ITS CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVES...."  45 U.S.C. SEC. 152 THIRD. 

SEC. 2 NINTH.  "...  THE MEDIATION BOARD SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO TAKE
A SECRET BALLOT OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED, OR TO UTILIZE ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE NAMES OF THEIR DULY DESIGNATED
AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES IN SUCH MANNER AS SHALL INSURE THE
CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE EMPLOYEES WITHOUT INTERFERENCE,
INFLUENCE, OR COERCION EXERCISED BY THE CARRIER  ...."  45 U.S.C. SEC.
152 NINTH. 

SEC. 2 TENTH.  "THE WILLFUL FAILURE OR REFUSAL OF ANY CARRIER, ITS
OFFICERS OR AGENTS, TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE THIRD, FOURTH,
FIFTH, SEVENTH, OR EIGHTH PARAGRAPH OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE A
MISDEMEANOR  ...  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO WHOM ANY DULY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF A CARRIER'S
EMPLOYEES MAY APPLY TO INSTITUTE IN THE PROPER COURT AND TO PROSECUTE
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ALL
NECESSARY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
U.S.C. SEC. 152 TENTH. 

THE WRIT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :
























U.S. V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO., 323 U.S. 173 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 7, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1944.  - NO. 17
DISMISSED.  - NO. 18 REVERSED.  - NO. 19 AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE MOTIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO AMEND THE FINDINGS IN THIS
CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANCE, AND AN APPEAL APPLIED FOR AND
ALLOWED WHILE SUCH MOTIONS WERE PENDING WAS PREMATURE AND MUST BE
DISMISSED.  P. 177. 

2.  THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS ALLOWED A PREMATURE APPEAL DOES NOT
DEPRIVE IT OF JURISDICTION TO ALLOW A SUBSEQUENT AND TIMELY APPEAL.  P.
177. 

3.  THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT MAY APPLY TO THE BUSINESS OF EXHIBITING
MOTION PICTURES, WHEN A REGULAR INTERCHANGE OF FILMS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS INVOLVED.  P. 180. 

4.  ON APPEAL THIS COURT CONSIDERS ONLY THE ALLEGED ERRORS WHICH HAVE
BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.  P. 180. 

5.  THE EVIDENCE SUSTAINS THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF A
CONSPIRACY OF THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS OF MOTION PICTURES, AND CERTAIN
OFFICERS THEREOF, UNREASONABLY TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE TRADE AND
COMMERCE IN MOTION PICTURE FILMS AND TO MONOPOLIZE THE EXHIBITION OF
FILMS IN THE AREAS IN QUESTION, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 AND SEC. 2 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 181. 

(A)  THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMBINATION USED ITS BUYING
POWER FOR THE PURPOSE EITHER OF RESTRICTING THE ABILITY OF ITS
COMPETITORS TO LICENSE FILMS OR OF ELIMINATING COMPETITION BY ACQUIRING
THE COMPETITOR'S PROPERTY OR OTHERWISE.  P. 181. 

(B)  WHETHER THE DISTRIBUTORS WERE TECHNICALLY CO-CONSPIRATORS IS
IMMATERIAL, SINCE ACTION BY A COMBINATION OF EXHIBITORS TO OBTAIN AN
AGREEMENT WITH A DISTRIBUTOR WHEREBY COMMERCE WITH A COMPETING
EXHIBITOR IS SUPPRESSED OR RESTRAINED IS ITSELF A CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE A PART OF THE TRADE
OR COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES, EACH OF WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE
SHERMAN ACT.  P. 183. 

(C)  EVEN IF ERROR BE ASSUMED IN THE INTRODUCTION OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE
- CONSISTING OF LETTERS OR REPORTS WRITTEN BY EMPLOYEES OF CERTAIN OF
THE MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS TO OTHER EMPLOYEES OR OFFICERS IN THE SAME
COMPANY STATING REASONS WHY THE DISTRIBUTOR WAS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST
AN INDEPENDENT AND IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS - THERE IS SUFFICIENT
OTHER EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE AND MONOPOLISTIC
PRACTICES, AND THE BURDEN OF SHOWING PREJUDICE HAS NOT BEEN SUSTAINED. 
P. 184. 

(D)  THOUGH THE FINDINGS LEAVE MUCH TO BE DESIRED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FUNCTION OF THE TRIAL COURT, THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND
MUST THEREFORE BE SUSTAINED.  P. 184. 

6.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS TO PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE IN
THIS CASE, HELD: 

(1)  LEST THE PUBLIC INTEREST BE NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED, THE DECREE
SHOULD BE REVISED SO AS TO PROHIBIT FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF A FINANCIAL
INTEREST IN ADDITIONAL THEATRES OUTSIDE OF NASHVILLE "EXCEPT AFTER AN
AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING THAT SUCH ACQUISITION WILL NOT UNREASONABLY
RESTRAIN COMPETITION."  P. 185. 

(2)  PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ENJOINING THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS FROM
MAKING FRANCHISES WITH CERTAIN DISTRIBUTORS "WITH THE PURPOSE AND
EFFECT OF MAINTAINING THEIR THEATRE MONOPOLIES AND PREVENTING
INDEPENDENT THEATRES FROM COMPETING WITH THEM" AND FROM ENTERING INTO
"ANY SIMILAR COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES HAVING SIMILAR PURPOSES AND
OBJECTS"; FROM COMBINING, IN LICENSING FILMS, THEIR CLOSED TOWNS WITH
THEIR COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS "FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE EFFECT OF
COMPELLING THE MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS TO LICENSE FILMS ON A NON-COMPETITIVE
BASIS IN COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS AND TO DISCRIMINATE" AGAINST THE
INDEPENDENTS; AND ENJOINING EACH DEFENDANT EXHIBITOR "FROM CONDITIONING
THE LICENSING OF FILMS IN ANY COMPETITIVE SITUATION (OUTSIDE NASHVILLE)
UPON THE LICENSING OF FILMS IN ANY OTHER THEATRE SITUATION" - ARE
SUSTAINED.  P. 187. 

(A)  THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AND THE LICENSING SYSTEM WERE THE CHIEF
INSTRUMENTS OF THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES, AND IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE COURT
TO ENJOIN THEIR CONTINUANCE AND RESUMPTION.  P. 188. 

(B)  THESE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ARE NOT UNENFORCEABLE AS TOO
VAGUE AND GENERAL.  P. 188. 

(3)  THE DIVESTITURE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE - REQUIRING EACH
CORPORATE EXHIBITOR TO DIVEST ITSELF OF THE OWNERSHIP OF ANY STOCK OR
OTHER INTEREST IN ANY OTHER CORPORATE DEFENDANT OR AFFILIATED
CORPORATION, AND ENJOINING IT FROM ACQUIRING ANY INTEREST IN THOSE
COMPANIES; REQUIRING ONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS TO RESIGN AS AN
OFFICER OF ANY CORPORATION (EXCEPT CRESCENT) WHICH IS AFFILIATED WITH
ANY DEFENDANT EXHIBITOR AND ENJOINING HIM FROM ACQUIRING CONTROL OVER
ANY SUCH AFFILIATE BY ACTING AS OFFICER OR OTHERWISE; REQUIRING ANOTHER
OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS TO RESIGN AS AN OFFICER OF THE AFFILIATES
(EXCEPT ONE CORPORATION OF HIS CHOICE) AND ENJOINING HIM FROM ACQUIRING
ANY CONTROL OVER THE OTHERS BY ACTING AS AN OFFICER OR OTHERWISE; AND
ALLOWING A YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE DECREE FOR COMPLETION OF THE
DIVESTITURE - ARE SUSTAINED.  P. 189. 

(A)  IN THIS TYPE OF SHERMAN ACT CASE, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE
CONFINED TO AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER VIOLATIONS; DISSOLUTION OF
THE COMBINATION MAY BE ORDERED WHERE THE CREATION OF THE COMBINATION IS
ITSELF THE VIOLATION.  P. 189. 

(B)  THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE ACT MAY NOT REAP THE BENEFITS OF THEIR
VIOLATIONS AND AVOID AN UNDOING OF THEIR UNLAWFUL PROJECT ON THE PLEA
OF HARDSHIP OR INCONVENIENCE.  P. 189. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF THE AFFILIATED COMPANIES
ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE SUIT DOES NOT BAR A SEPARATION OF THE
COMPANIES.  P. 190. 

(D)  THE REQUIREMENT THAT TWO OF THE DEFENDANT CORPORATE EXHIBITORS
SELL THEIR RESPECTIVE HALF-INTERESTS IN TWO COMPANIES WHICH WERE NOT
MADE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS IS SUSTAINED, SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR
ON THIS RECORD THAT ANY LEGAL RIGHT OF ANY OTHER STOCKHOLDER WOULD BE
AFFECTED.  P. 190. 

UNITED STATES V. CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO. ET AL. 

NOS. 17 AND 18.  APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 19, CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. 

DIRECT APPEALS UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT FROM A DECREE AGAINST
DEFENDANTS IN A CIVIL SUIT UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT.  TWO OF THE
APPEALS WERE TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE OTHER BY CERTAIN OF THE
DEFENDANTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS CIVIL SUIT AGAINST NINE AFFILIATED
COMPANIES (WHOM WE WILL CALL THE EXHIBITORS) OPERATING MOTION PICTURE
THEATRES IN SOME 70 SMALL TOWNS IN ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, KENTUCKY,
MISSISSIPPI, AND TENNESSEE; AGAINST CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THESE
COMPANIES; AND AGAINST EIGHT MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS OF MOTION PICTURE
FILMS, CHARGING THEM WITH A CONSPIRACY UNREASONABLY TO RESTRAIN
INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE IN MOTION-PICTURE FILMS AND TO MONOPOLIZE
THE EXHIBITION OF FILMS IN THIS AREA IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 AND SEC. 2
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2.  THE SUIT WAS
DISMISSED AGAINST FIVE OF THE DISTRIBUTORS ON MOTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  FN1  OF THE OTHER THREE THE COURT FOUND THAT ONLY ONE HAD
VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT SEVEN OF THE
EXHIBITORS AND THREE OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS HAD VIOLATED THE
SHERMAN ACT SUBSTANTIALLY AS CHARGED.  IT ENTERED A DECREE AGAINST
THEM.  FROM THE JUDGMENT ENTERED THE UNITED STATES, SIX OF THE
EXHIBITORS, AND THREE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS APPEAL DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1903, 32 STAT. 823, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 29 AND SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT
OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

I. BEFORE WE COME TO THE MERITS THERE IS A PRELIMINARY QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER THE APPEAL OF THE UNITED STATES IN NO. 17 IS PREMATURE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A FINAL JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE ON MAY 17, 1943. 
ON THE SIXTIETH DAY AFTER JUDGMENT THERE WERE MOTIONS PENDING TO AMEND
THE FINDINGS.  ON THAT DAY THE APPEAL WAS APPLIED FOR AND ALLOWED.  ON
AUGUST 30, 1943, THE COURT RULED ON THE MOTIONS TO AMEND ITS FINDINGS. 
WITHIN SIXTY DAYS THEREAFTER THE UNITED STATES APPLIED FOR THE APPEAL
IN NO. 18 AND IT WAS ALLOWED.  THE APPEAL IN NO. 17 WAS FILED HERE AT
THE SAME TIME AS THAT IN NO. 18.  THE APPELLEES MOVE TO DISMISS NO. 17
ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS PREMATURE AND TO DISMISS NO. 18 ON THE GROUND
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT BY ALLOWING THE FIRST APPEAL LOST JURISDICTION
OF THE CAUSE AND WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ALLOW A FURTHER APPEAL.  WE THINK
THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IN NO. 17 MUST BE GRANTED AND THE
MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IN NO. 18 DENIED. 

THE MOTION TO AMEND THE FINDINGS TOLLED THE TIME TO APPEAL IF IT WAS
NOT ADDRESSED TO "MERE MATTERS OF FORM BUT RAISED QUESTIONS OF
SUBSTANCE," E.G., IF IT SOUGHT A "RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN BASIC
FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE ALTERATION OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT." 
LEISHMAN V. ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC CO., 318 U.S. 203, 205.  AN EXAMINATION
OF THE MOTION MAKES PLAIN THAT MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE WERE RAISED.  THE
APPEAL IN NO. 17 WAS ACCORDINGLY PREMATURE.  ZIMMERN V. UNITED STATES,
298 U.S. 167.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO ALLOW THE APPEAL IN NO. 18.  AN APPEAL CAN HARDLY BE
PREMATURE (AND THEREFORE A NULLITY) HERE AND YET NOT PREMATURE (AND
THEREFORE BINDING) BELOW.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AN APPELLANT MAY
RELY UPON THE LATER APPEAL (OHIO PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. FRITZ, 274 U.S.
12) AND NOT RUN THE RISK OF LOSING AN APPELLATE REVIEW ON THE APPEAL
FIRST ALLOWED.  CF. WILENTZ V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, 306 U.S. 573. 

II.  WE TURN TO THE MERITS.  CRESCENT, THE PRINCIPAL EXHIBITOR  FN2,
OWNS 50% OF THE STOCK OF CUMBERLAND AND LYRIC.  THE MAJORITY OF
CRESCENT'S STOCK IS OWNED BY DEFENDANT SUDEKUM, BY CERTAIN OF HIS
RELATIVES, AND BY DEFENDANTS STENGEL AND BAULCH.  PRIOR TO 1937
CRESCENT OWNED ALMOST TWO-THIRDS OF THE STOCK OF MUSCLE SHOALS; SINCE
THAT TIME MUSCLE SHOALS WAS RUN AS A PARTNERSHIP IN WHICH SUDEKUM'S
WIFE HAD A HALF-INTEREST.  DEFENDANT STENGEL, SUDEKUM'S SON-IN-LAW, IS
THE RECORD HOLDER OF ALL OF ROCKWOOD'S STOCK.  ROCKWOOD OWNS 50% OF THE
STOCK OF CHEROKEE AND KENTUCKY AND OF FIVE OTHER THEATRE CORPORATIONS. 
ROCKWOOD WAS OPERATED AS A "VIRTUAL BRANCH" OF THE CRESCENT BUSINESS
UNDER THE IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OF STENGEL.  SUDEKUM IS PRESIDENT OF
CRESCENT, CUMBERLAND, AND LYRIC; STENGEL IS AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF
KENTUCKY AND CHEROKEE.  SUDEKUM WAS PAID $200 A WEEK BY CHEROKEE "FOR
HIS ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE IN RUNNING THE BUSINESS."  EACH OF THESE
COMPANIES WAS AN EXHIBITOR OPERATING MOTION PICTURE THEATRES. 

IN THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD ENDED IN AUGUST 1939 WHEN THIS BILL WAS FILED
THE EXHIBITORS EXPERIENCED A RATHER RAPID GROWTH - IN THE NUMBER OF
TOWNS WHERE THEIR THEATRES WERE OPERATED; IN THE NUMBER OF TOWNS WHERE
THEY OPERATED WITHOUT COMPETITION; IN THEIR EARNINGS AND SURPLUS.  THE
UNITED STATES CLAIMS THAT THAT GROWTH WAS THE PRODUCT OF RESTRAINTS OF
TRADE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND OF MONOPOLISTIC
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT EACH OF THE SEVEN EXHIBITORS HAD
VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT BY 

"A.  CREATING AND MAINTAINING AN UNREASONABLE MONOPOLY OF THE
BUSINESS OF OPERATING THEATRES IN THE TOWNS OF TENNESSEE, NORTHERN
ALABAMA, AND CENTRAL AND WESTERN KENTUCKY, IN WHICH EACH HAS THEATRES. 

"B.  COMBINING ITS CLOSED TOWNS WITH ITS COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS IN
LICENSING FILMS FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE EFFECT OF COMPELLING THE
MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS TO LICENSE FILMS ON A NON-COMPETITIVE BASIS IN
COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS AND TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ITS INDEPENDENT
COMPETITORS IN LICENSING FILMS. 

"C.  COERCING OR ATTEMPTING TO COERCE INDEPENDENT OPERATORS INTO
SELLING OUT TO IT, OR TO ABANDON PLANS TO COMPETE WITH IT BY PREDATORY
PRACTICES."  THE COURT FOUND THAT THESE VIOLATIONS WERE EFFECTED (A) BY
COMBINING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH CERTAIN MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS IN MAKING
FRANCHISES, I.E. TERM CONTRACTS FOR THE LICENSING OF FILMS, WITH THE
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF MAINTAINING THEIR THEATRE MONOPOLIES AND
PREVENTING INDEPENDENTS FROM COMPETING WITH THEM; (B) BY COMBINING WITH
EACH OTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIVIDING THE TERRITORY IN WHICH THEATRES
MIGHT BE OPERATED BY ANY OF THEM; (C) BY COMBINING WITH EACH OTHER FOR
THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE EFFECT OF ELIMINATING, SUPPRESSING, AND
PREVENTING INDEPENDENTS FROM COMPETING IN THE TERRITORY IN WHICH EACH
OPERATED; AND (D) BY COMBINING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH CERTAIN MAJOR
DISTRIBUTORS IN LICENSING FILMS FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE EFFECT OF
MAINTAINING THEIR THEATRE MONOPOLIES AND PREVENTING INDEPENDENTS FROM
COMPETING WITH THEM.  THREE OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS WERE FOUND TO
HAVE PARTICIPATED ACTIVELY IN THESE VIOLATIONS. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN CONSUMMATING
THE CONSPIRACY.  IN THE SELLING SEASON EACH YEAR THE DISTRIBUTOR'S
SALESMEN SOLICIT CONTRACTS FROM THE EXHIBITORS FOR THE DISTRIBUTOR'S
APPROVAL BY THE HOME OFFICE.  AS THE FILMS ARE RELEASED FOR EXHIBITION,
PRINTS ARE SENT TO THE NUMEROUS EXCHANGES LOCATED IN VARIOUS STATES AND
DELIVERED BY THEM TO THE EXHIBITORS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS.  FN3
THE EXHIBITOR ORDINARILY RETURNS THE PRINT TO THE DISTRIBUTOR'S
EXCHANGE, FROM WHICH IT IS SUPPLIED TO OTHER THEATRES.  THE FINDINGS
ARE WHOLLY ADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE EXHIBITORS
INVOLVES A REGULAR INTERCHANGE OF FILMS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AS WE
SHALL SEE, THAT COURSE OF BUSINESS MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE
SHERMAN ACT APPLICABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF EXHIBITING MOTION PICTURES. 
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208.  CF. BINDERUP V.
PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291.  THE CRUCIAL ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CASE
RELATE TO THE EVIDENCE AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE DECREE. 

III.  THE DEFENDANTS ASSERT THAT THE UNITED STATES FAILED TO PROVE
THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AS AMPLIFIED BY THE BILL OF
PARTICULARS.  BUT NO SUCH ERROR WAS ASSIGNED.  THE ONLY ASSIGNMENTS ON
THIS PHASE OF THE CASE RELATE TO SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS WHICH ARE PARTS OF
SIXTEEN OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SEVEN FINDINGS OF FACT CONTAINED
IN ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY PRINTED PAGES.  HENCE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES
WE WILL CONSIDER.  SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S. 86, 91;
E.R. SQUIBB & SONS V. MALLINCKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS, 293 U.S. 190; RULE
9, 275 U.S. 600.  WE HAVE EXAMINED THEM AND CONCLUDE THAT THEY DO NOT
CONSTITUTE REVERSIBLE ERROR.  IF ANY MODIFICATIONS WERE MADE IN THESE
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS THEY WOULD NOT BE BASIC OR ESSENTIAL ONES. 

THE CRUX OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE WAS THE USE OF THE BUYING POWER OF
THE COMBINATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING COMPETITION WITH THE
EXHIBITORS AND ACQUIRING A MONOPOLY IN THE AREAS IN QUESTION.  THERE
WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMBINATION USED ITS BUYING POWER FOR THE
PURPOSE EITHER OF RESTRICTING THE ABILITY OF ITS COMPETITORS TO LICENSE
FILMS OR OF ELIMINATING COMPETITION BY ACQUIRING THE COMPETITOR'S
PROPERTY OR OTHERWISE.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEFENDANTS WOULD INSIST THAT A
DISTRIBUTOR GIVE THEM MONOPOLY RIGHTS IN TOWNS WHERE THEY HAD
COMPETITION OR ELSE DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT GIVE THE DISTRIBUTOR ANY
BUSINESS IN THE CLOSED TOWNS WHERE THEY HAD NO COMPETITION.  THE
COMPETITOR NOT BEING ABLE TO RENEW HIS CONTRACT FOR FILMS WOULD
FREQUENTLY GO OUT OF BUSINESS OR COME TO TERMS AND SELL OUT TO THE
COMBINATION WITH AN AGREEMENT NOT TO COMPETE FOR A TERM OF YEARS.  THE
MERE THREAT WOULD AT TIMES BE SUFFICIENT AND CAUSE THE COMPETITOR TO
SELL OUT TO THE COMBINATION "BECAUSE HIS MULE WAS SCARED."  IN THAT WAY
SOME OF THE AFFILIATES WERE BORN.  IN SUMMARIZING VARIOUS DEALS OF THIS
CHARACTER THE DISTRICT COURT SAID, "EACH OF THESE AGREEMENTS NOT TO
COMPETE WITH CRESCENT OR ITS AFFILIATES IN OTHER TOWNS EXTENDED FAR
BEYOND THE PROTECTION OF THE BUSINESS BEING SOLD, AND DEMONSTRATED A
CLEAR INTENTION TO MONOPOLIZE THEATRE OPERATION WHEREVER THEY OR THEIR
AFFILIATES SECURED A FOOTHOLD."  FN4 

THE SAME TYPE OF WARFARE WAS WAGED WITH FRANCHISE CONTRACTS WITH
CERTAIN MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS COVERING A TERM OF YEARS.  THESE GAVE THE
DEFENDANTS IMPORTANT EXCLUSIVE FILM-LICENSING AGREEMENTS.  THEIR
DETAILS VARIED.  BUT GENERALLY THEY GAVE THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS THE
RIGHT TO FIRST-RUN EXHIBITION OF ALL FEATURE PICTURES WHICH THEY CHOSE
TO SELECT IN THEIR DESIGNATED TOWNS.  CLEARANCES OVER THE SAME OR
NEARBY TOWNS WERE PROVIDED, I.E. A TIME LAG WAS ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE
SHOWING BY THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS AND A SUBSEQUENT SHOWING BY
OTHERS.  THE OPPORTUNITY OF COMPETITORS TO OBTAIN FEATURE PICTURES FOR
SUBSEQUENT RUNS WAS FURTHER CURTAILED BY REPEAT PROVISIONS WHICH GAVE
THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS THE OPTION OF SHOWING THE PICTURES IN THEIR
THEATRES A SECOND TIME.  IN REVIEWING ONE OF THESE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS
THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED, "THE REPEAT-RUN CLAUSE IN THE FRANCHISE
WAS COMPLETELY EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING THE SALE OF A SECOND-RUN OF ANY
PARAMOUNT FEATURES TO ANY OPPOSITION THEATRE." 

WE ARE NOW TOLD, HOWEVER, THAT THE INDEPENDENTS WERE ELIMINATED BY
THE NORMAL PROCESSES OF COMPETITION; THAT THEIR THEATRES WERE LESS
ATTRACTIVE; THAT THEIR SERVICE WAS INFERIOR; THAT THEY WERE NOT AS
EFFICIENT BUSINESSMEN AS THE DEFENDANTS.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT IF A
SINGLE EXHIBITOR LAUNCHED SUCH A PLAN OF ECONOMIC WARFARE HE WOULD NOT
RUN AFOUL OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN5  BUT THE VICE OF THIS UNDERTAKING
WAS THE COMBINATION OF SEVERAL EXHIBITORS IN A PLAN OF CONCERTED
ACTION.  THEY HAD UNITY OF PURPOSE AND UNITY OF ACTION.  THEY POOLED
THEIR BUYING POWER FOR A COMMON END.  IT WILL NOT DO TO ANALOGIZE THIS
TO A CASE WHERE PURCHASING POWER IS POOLED SO THAT THE BUYERS MAY
OBTAIN MORE FAVORABLE TERMS.  THE PLAN HERE WAS TO CRUSH COMPETITION
AND TO BUILD A CIRCUIT FOR THE EXHIBITORS.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT SOME OF THE DISTRIBUTORS WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS ON CERTAIN PHASES OF
THE PROGRAM.  BUT WE CAN PUT THAT CIRCUMSTANCE TO ONE SIDE AND NOT STOP
TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE FINDINGS ARE ADEQUATE ON THAT PHASE OF THE
CASE.  FOR IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE DISTRIBUTORS TECHNICALLY WERE
OR WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CONSPIRACY.  THE SHOWING OF MOTION PICTURES
IS OF COURSE A LOCAL AFFAIR.  BUT ACTION BY A COMBINATION OF EXHIBITORS
TO OBTAIN AN AGREEMENT WITH A DISTRIBUTOR WHEREBY COMMERCE WITH A
COMPETING EXHIBITOR IS SUPPRESSED OR RESTRAINED IS A CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE A PART OF THE TRADE
OR COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES, EACH OF WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE
SHERMAN ACT.  AND AS WE HAVE SAID, THE COURSE OF BUSINESS WHICH
INVOLVES A REGULAR EXCHANGE OF FILMS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ADEQUATE
TO BRING THE EXHIBITORS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE EXHIBITORS, HOWEVER, CLAIM THAT THE FINDINGS AGAINST THEM ON THE
FACTS MUST FALL BECAUSE OF IMPROPER EVIDENCE.  THE EVIDENCE TO WHICH
THIS OBJECTION IS DIRECTED CONSISTS OF LETTERS OR REPORTS WRITTEN BY
EMPLOYEES OF CERTAIN OF THE MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS TO OTHER EMPLOYEES OR
OFFICERS IN THE SAME COMPANY STATING REASONS WHY THE DISTRIBUTOR WAS
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST AN INDEPENDENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS.  THE
UNITED STATES ASSERTS THAT THESE LETTERS OR REPORTS WERE DECLARATIONS
OF ONE CONSPIRATOR IN FURTHERANCE OF THE COMMON OBJECTIVE AND THEREFORE
ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL UNDER THE RULE OF HITCHMAN COAL &
COKE CO. V. MITCHELL, 245 U.S. 229, 249.  AND IT IS ARGUED THAT IT
MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT THESE DISTRIBUTORS WERE DISMISSED OUT OF THE
CASE (DELANEY V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 586, 590) SINCE THEY WERE
CHARGED WITH BEING CO-CONSPIRATORS AND SINCE THE FINDINGS ARE WITH
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE.  WE DO NOT COME TO
THAT QUESTION.  THE OTHER EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THE POSITION OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS AND THEIR RELATIONS TO THE THEATRES INVOLVED, WHAT THE
DISTRIBUTORS IN FACT DID, THE COMBINATION OF THE DEFENDANTS, THE
CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF THEIR BUYING POWER, AND HOW IT WAS IN FACT
USED.  THIS OTHER EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE RESTRAINTS
OF TRADE AND MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES; THE PURPOSE, CHARACTER, AND EXTENT
OF THE COMBINATION ARE INFERABLE FROM IT ALONE.  THUS EVEN IF ERROR BE
ASSUMED IN THE INTRODUCTION OF THE LETTERS AND REPORTS, THE BURDEN OF
SHOWING PREJUDICE HAS NOT BEEN SUSTAINED. 

THE DEFENDANTS FINALLY OBJECT TO THE FINDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY
WERE MAINLY TAKEN VERBATIM FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF.  THE FINDINGS
LEAVE MUCH TO BE DESIRED IN LIGHT OF THE FUNCTION OF THE TRIAL COURT. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. FORNESS, 125 F.2D 928, 942-943.  BUT THEY ARE
NONETHELESS THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  AND THEY MUST STAND OR
FALL DEPENDING ON WHETHER THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  WE THINK
THEY ARE. 

IV.  THE MAJOR CONTROVERSY HERE HAS TURNED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE
DECREE. 

A. OBJECTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE UNITED STATES OBJECTS TO THE
PROVISION OF THE DECREE THAT NO DEFENDANT EXHIBITOR SHALL ACQUIRE A
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ANY ADDITIONAL THEATRE OUTSIDE NASHVILLE IN ANY
TOWN WHERE THERE ALREADY IS A THEATRE "UNLESS THE OWNER OF SUCH THEATRE
SHOULD VOLUNTARILY OFFER TO SELL SAME TO EITHER OF THE EXHIBITOR
DEFENDANTS, AND WHEN NONE OF SAID DEFENDANTS, THEIR OFFICERS, AGENTS OR
SERVANTS ARE GUILTY OF ANY OF THE ACTS OR PRACTICES PROHIBITED BY
PARAGRAPH NINE (9) HEREOF."  PARAGRAPH 9 REFERRED TO ENJOINS THE
DEFENDANTS "FROM COERCING OR ATTEMPTING TO COERCE INDEPENDENT OPERATORS
INTO SELLING OUT TO IT, OR TO ABANDON PLANS TO COMPETE WITH IT BY
PREDATORY PRACTICES."  IT ASKS THAT THERE BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT
PROVISION ONE WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HAD EARLIER APPROVED RESTRAINING
SUCH ACQUISITIONS "EXCEPT AFTER AN AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING THAT SUCH
ACQUISITION WILL NOT UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN COMPETITION." 

THE COURT AT TIMES HAS RATHER FREELY MODIFIED DECREES IN SHERMAN ACT
CASES WHERE IT APPROVED THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS TO THE
NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE VIOLATIONS.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 78-82.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221
U.S. 106, 184-188.  WE RECOGNIZE HOWEVER THAT THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF
DISCRETION IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO MOULD THE DECREE TO THE EXIGENCIES
OF THE PARTICULAR CASE; AND WHERE THE FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS ARE
SUSTAINED, WE WILL NOT DIRECT A RECASTING OF THE DECREE EXCEPT ON A
SHOWING OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  SEE ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 461; UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S.
707, 725, 728.  WE THINK THIS IS A CASE WHERE WE SHOULD ACT LEST THE
PUBLIC INTEREST NOT BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY THE DECREE AS CAST. 

THE GENERALITY OF THIS PROVISION OF THE DECREE BIDS FAIR TO CALL FOR
A RETRIAL OF A SHERMAN ACT CASE ANY TIME A CITATION FOR CONTEMPT IS
ISSUED.  THE CRUCIAL FACTS IN EACH CASE WOULD BE SUBTLE ONES AS IS
USUALLY TRUE WHERE PURPOSE AND MOTIVE ARE AT ISSUE.  THIS TYPE OF
PROVISION IS OFTEN THE ONLY PRACTICAL REMEDY AGAINST CONTINUATION OF
ILLEGAL TRADE PRACTICES.  BUT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A SITUATION
WHICH PERMITS OF A MORE SELECT TREATMENT.  THE GROWTH OF THIS COMBINE
HAS BEEN THE RESULT OF PREDATORY PRACTICES CONDEMNED BY THE SHERMAN
ACT.  THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS THE DESTRUCTION OR ABSORPTION OF
COMPETITORS.  IT WAS SUCCESSFUL IN THAT ENDEAVOR.  THE PATTERN OF PAST
CONDUCT IS NOT EASILY FORSAKEN.  WHERE THE PROCLIVITY FOR UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITY HAS BEEN AS MANIFEST AS HERE, THE DECREE SHOULD OPERATE AS AN
EFFECTIVE DETERRENT TO A REPETITION OF THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT AND YET NOT
STAND AS A BARRIER TO HEALTHY GROWTH ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS.  THE
ACQUISITION OF A COMPETING THEATRE TERMINATES AT ONCE ITS COMPETITION. 
PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT DOES NOT RESTORE THE COMPETITION WHICH HAS BEEN
ELIMINATED.  AND WHERE BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN MERGED OR PURCHASED AND
CLOSED OUT IT IS COMMONLY IMPOSSIBLE TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK.  MOREOVER
IF THE DISTRICT COURT WERE TO SUPERVISE FUTURE ACQUISITIONS IN THIS
CASE, IT WOULD NOT BE UNDERTAKING AN ONEROUS AND ABSORBING
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.  THE BURDEN WOULD NOT SEEM MORE ONEROUS THAN
UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE PROVISION WHERE IN SUBSTANCE THE ISSUE WOULD BE
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT VEL NON. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS IMPEL US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DECREE SHOULD BE
REVISED SO AS TO PROHIBIT FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF A FINANCIAL INTEREST
IN ADDITIONAL THEATRES OUTSIDE OF NASHVILLE "EXCEPT AFTER AN
AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING THAT SUCH ACQUISITION WILL NOT UNREASONABLY
RESTRAIN COMPETITION." 

B. OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS.  (1)  THE DECREE ENJOINS THE
DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS FROM MAKING FRANCHISES WITH CERTAIN DISTRIBUTORS
"WITH THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF MAINTAINING THEIR THEATRE MONOPOLIES
AND PREVENTING INDEPENDENT THEATRES FROM COMPETING WITH THEM" AND FROM
ENTERING INTO "ANY SIMILAR COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES HAVING SIMILAR
PURPOSES AND OBJECTS."  THE DECREE ALSO ENJOINS THEM FROM COMBINING, IN
LICENSING FILMS, THEIR CLOSED TOWNS WITH THEIR COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS
"FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE EFFECT OF COMPELLING THE MAJOR
DISTRIBUTORS TO LICENSE FILMS ON A NON-COMPETITIVE BASIS IN COMPETITIVE
SITUATIONS AND TO DISCRIMINATE" AGAINST THE INDEPENDENTS.  THE DECREE
ALSO ENJOINS EACH DEFENDANT EXHIBITOR "FROM CONDITIONING THE LICENSING
OF FILMS IN ANY COMPETITIVE SITUATION (OUTSIDE NASHVILLE) UPON THE
LICENSING OF FILMS IN ANY OTHER THEATRE SITUATION." 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THESE PROVISIONS WILL AGGRANDIZE THE DISTRIBUTORS
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE EXHIBITORS, THAT IF SUCH MEASURES ARE TAKEN THEY
SHOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTORS, THAT THEY DEPRIVE THE
EXHIBITORS OF GROUP PURCHASING POWER, THAT THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS ARE
NORMAL AND NECESSARY BOTH FOR DISTRIBUTORS AND EXHIBITORS, AND THAT
THESE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ARE SO VAGUE AND GENERAL AS TO GREATLY
BURDEN THE CONDUCT OF THESE BUSINESSES. 

IT IS NOT FOR US, HOWEVER, TO PICK AND CHOOSE BETWEEN COMPETING
BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC THEORIES IN APPLYING THIS LAW.  CONGRESS HAS MADE
THAT CHOICE.  IT HAS DECLARED THAT THE RULE OF TRADE AND COMMERCE
SHOULD BE COMPETITION, NOT COMBINATION.  UNITED STATES V. TRENTON
POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, 397; FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457, 465.  SINCE CONGRESS HAS MADE THAT
CHOICE, WE CANNOT REFUSE TO SUSTAIN A DECREE BECAUSE BY SOME OTHER
MEASURE OF THE PUBLIC GOOD THE RESULT MAY NOT SEEM DESIRABLE.  UNITED
STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 221-222.  THE DUTY OF
THE COURT IN THESE CASES IS "TO FRAME ITS DECREE SO AS TO SUPPRESS THE
UNLAWFUL PRACTICES AND TO TAKE SUCH REASONABLE MEASURES AS WOULD
PRECLUDE THEIR REVIVAL."  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
P. 461.  THE CHIEF WEAPONS USED BY THIS COMBINATION IN ITS UNLAWFUL
WARFARE WERE THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AND THE LICENSING SYSTEM.  THE
FACT THAT THOSE INSTRUMENTS COULD BE LAWFULLY USED DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THE DEFENDANTS MAY LEAVE THE COURT UNFETTERED.  CIVIL SUITS UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT WOULD INDEED BE IDLE GESTURES IF THE INJUNCTION DID NOT RUN
AGAINST THE CONTINUANCE OR RESUMPTION OF THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICE.  AND IT
IS HARD TO SEE HOW THE DECREE COULD BE MADE LESS GENERAL AND MORE
SPECIFIC.  IF IT IS A BURDEN WHICH CANNOT BE LIGHTENED BY APPLICATION
TO THE COURT FOR EXERCISE OF THE POWER WHICH IT HAS RESERVED OVER THE
DECREE, IT IS A BURDEN WHICH THOSE WHO HAVE VIOLATED THE ACT MUST
CARRY.  AND THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE SOMEWHERE IN THE BACKGROUND A
GREATER CONSPIRACY FROM WHICH FLOW CONSEQUENCES MORE SERIOUS THAN WE
HAVE HERE IS NO WARRANT FOR A REFUSAL TO DEAL WITH THE LESSER ONE WHICH
IS BEFORE US. 

(2)  SERIOUS COMPLAINT IS MADE OF THE DIVESTITURE PROVISIONS OF THE
DECREE.  IT REQUIRES EACH CORPORATE EXHIBITOR TO DIVEST ITSELF OF THE
OWNERSHIP OF ANY STOCK OR OTHER INTEREST IN ANY OTHER CORPORATE
DEFENDANT OR AFFILIATED CORPORATION,  FN6  AND ENJOINS IT FROM
ACQUIRING ANY INTEREST IN THOSE COMPANIES.  SUDEKUM IS REQUIRED TO
RESIGN AS AN OFFICER OF ANY CORPORATION (EXCEPT CRESCENT) WHICH IS
AFFILIATED WITH ANY DEFENDANT EXHIBITOR AND HE IS ENJOINED FROM
ACQUIRING CONTROL OVER ANY SUCH AFFILIATE (EXCEPT CRESCENT) BY ACTING
AS OFFICER OR OTHERWISE.  STENGEL IS REQUIRED TO RESIGN AS OFFICER OF
THE AFFILIATES (EXCEPT ONE CORPORATION OF HIS CHOICE) AND IS ENJOINED
FROM ACQUIRING ANY CONTROL OVER THE OTHERS BY ACTING AS AN OFFICER OR
OTHERWISE.  A YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY OF THE DECREE IS ALLOWED FOR
COMPLETING THIS DIVESTITURE. 

IT IS SAID THAT THESE PROVISIONS ARE INEQUITABLE AND HARSH INCOME TAX
WISE, THAT THEY EXCEED ANY REASONABLE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF
FUTURE VIOLATIONS, AND THAT THEY ARE THEREFORE PUNITIVE. 

THE COURT HAS QUITE CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED IN THIS TYPE OF SHERMAN
ACT CASE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE CONFINED TO AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST FURTHER VIOLATIONS.  DISSOLUTION OF THE COMBINATION WILL BE
ORDERED WHERE THE CREATION OF THE COMBINATION IS ITSELF THE VIOLATION. 
SEE NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197, 354-360;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN
TOBACCO CO., SUPRA, PP. 186-188; UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO.,
226 U.S. 61, 97; UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26, 63; UNITED
STATES V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 254 U.S. 255; UNITED STATES V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO., 259 U.S. 214; UNITED STATES V. CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO.,
234 F. 964, 1018.  THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE ACT MAY NOT REAP THE BENEFITS
OF THEIR VIOLATIONS AND AVOID AN UNDOING OF THEIR UNLAWFUL PROJECT ON
THE PLEA OF HARDSHIP OR INCONVENIENCE.  THAT PRINCIPLE IS ADEQUATE HERE
TO JUSTIFY DIVESTITURE OF ALL INTEREST IN SOME OF THE AFFILIATES SINCE
THEIR ACQUISITION WAS PART OF THE FRUITS OF THE CONSPIRACY.  BUT THE
RELIEF NEED NOT, AND UNDER THESE FACTS SHOULD NOT, BE SO RESTRICTED. 
THE FACT THAT THE COMPANIES WERE AFFILIATED INDUCED JOINT ACTION AND
AGREEMENT.  COMMON CONTROL WAS ONE OF THE INSTRUMENTS IN BRINGING ABOUT
UNITY OF PURPOSE AND UNITY OF ACTION AND IN MAKING THE CONSPIRACY
EFFECTIVE.  IF THAT AFFILIATION CONTINUES, THERE WILL BE TEMPTING
OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE EXHIBITORS TO CONTINUE TO ACT IN COMBINATION
AGAINST THE INDEPENDENTS.  THE PROCLIVITY IN THE PAST TO USE THAT
AFFILIATION FOR AN UNLAWFUL END WARRANTS EFFECTIVE ASSURANCE THAT NO
SUCH OPPORTUNITY WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE.  HENCE WE DO NOT
THINK THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO LIMIT THE
RELIEF TO AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE VIOLATIONS.  THERE IS NO REASON
WHY THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST SHOULD DEPEND SOLELY ON THAT
SOMEWHAT CUMBERSOME PROCEDURE WHEN ANOTHER EFFECTIVE ONE IS AVAILABLE. 

THE FACT THAT MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF THE AFFILIATED COMPANIES ARE
NOT PARTIES TO THE SUIT IS NO LEGAL BARRIER TO A SEPARATION OF THE
COMPANIES.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., SUPRA. NO LEGAL
RIGHT OF ONE STOCKHOLDER IS NORMALLY AFFECTED IF ANOTHER STOCKHOLDER IS
REQUIRED TO SELL HIS STOCK.  AND NO EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE HAS BEEN
SHOWN TO EXIST HERE.  ONLY BUSINESS INCONVENIENCE AND HARDSHIP ARE
ASSERTED.  IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE DECREE REQUIRES ROCKWOOD AND
CHEROKEE (TWO DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS) TO SELL THEIR RESPECTIVE HALF
INTERESTS IN TWO COMPANIES WHICH WERE NOT MADE PARTIES TO THE
PROCEEDINGS.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE LATTER COMPANIES ARE
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES IF SUCH DIVESTITURE IS REQUIRED.  RELIANCE IS
PLACED ON MINNESOTA V. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO., 184 U.S. 199.  IN THAT
CASE MINNESOTA BROUGHT AN ORIGINAL ACTION IN THIS COURT ALLEGING THAT
THE ACQUISITION BY NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. OF THE MAJORITY STOCK OF TWO
RAILROAD COMPANIES EFFECTED A CONSOLIDATION OF THE RAILROADS IN
VIOLATION OF MINNESOTA LAW.  MINNESOTA ASKED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. VOTING THE STOCK OF THOSE
COMPANIES.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE TWO RAILROAD COMPANIES WERE
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES; AND SINCE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WOULD
HAVE BEEN DEFEATED IF THEY WERE JOINED, LEAVE TO FILE THE BILL WAS
DENIED.  DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF A MAJORITY STOCKHOLDER TO VOTE HIS
STOCK WOULD DEPRIVE THE CORPORATION OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS ELECTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.  IF SUCH A STEP WERE TAKEN, THE CORPORATION
SHOULD BE A PARTY SO THAT ALL CORPORATE INTERESTS MIGHT BE
REPRESENTED.  MINNESOTA V. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. GOES NO FARTHER THAN
THAT.  HERE THERE IS NO SHOWING OF ANY COMPLICATION OF THAT ORDER.  IF
SUCH A COMPLICATION APPEARED, THE DISTRICT COURT COULD BRING IN THE TWO
AFFILIATES AS PARTIES IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE DECREE.  UNITED STATES
V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., SUPRA, P. 241.  BUT ON THIS RECORD IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT IF ROCKWOOD AND CHEROKEE ARE REQUIRED TO SELL THEIR HALF
INTERESTS IN THOSE COMPANIES ANY LEGAL RIGHT OF ANY OTHER STOCKHOLDER
WOULD BE AFFECTED.  CF. MORGAN V. STRUTHERS, 131 U.S. 246. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER CONTENTIONS AND FIND THEM WITHOUT
MERIT.    THE APPEAL IN NO. 17 IS DISMISSED. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 18 IS REVERSED. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 19 IS AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THIS WAS DONE AFTER A CONSENT DECREE HAD BEEN ENTERED AGAINST
FIVE OF THE MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS IN UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES,
INC. THIS DISMISSAL DID NOT ELIMINATE THE CHARGE THAT THESE
DISTRIBUTORS HAD CONSPIRED WITH THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS TO RESTRAIN
AND MONOPOLIZE TRADE.  AND SOME OF THE DISTRIBUTORS, THOUGH DISMISSED
FROM THE CASE, WERE FOUND TO BE CO-CONSPIRATORS WITH THE EXHIBITORS IN
MAKING FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AND IN LICENSING FILMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
MAINTAINING THE EXHIBITORS' THEATRE MONOPOLIES AND OF PREVENTING THE
INDEPENDENTS FROM COMPETING. 

FN2  CRESCENT IS USED FOR CRESCENT AMUSEMENT CO.; CUMBERLAND FOR
CUMBERLAND AMUSEMENT CO.; LYRIC FOR LYRIC AMUSEMENT CO., INC.; CHEROKEE
FOR CHEROKEE AMUSEMENTS, INC.; KENTUCKY FOR KENTUCKY AMUSEMENT CO.,
INC.; MUSCLE SHOALS FOR MUSCLE SHOALS THEATRES; AND ROCKWOOD FOR
ROCKWOOD AMUSEMENT CO. 

FN3  THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS DURING THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD PRECEDING
THE FILING OF THIS SUIT PAID ABOUT 90% OF THEIR TOTAL FILM RENTAL TO
THE EIGHT MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS. 

FN4  THE EXPANSION OF THE COMBINATION DURING THIS PERIOD WAS
SUMMARIZED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS FOLLOWS: 

"ON AUGUST 11, 1934, THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS AND THEIR AFFILIATES
OPERATED IN THIRTY-TWO TOWNS IN TENNESSEE (EXCLUDING NASHVILLE),
KENTUCKY, AND ALABAMA, IN SIX OF WHICH THEY HAD COMPETITION.  ON AUGUST
11, 1939, THE DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS AND THEIR AFFILIATES, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF STRAND, HERETOFORE DISMISSED AS A DEFENDANT, OPERATED IN
SEVENTY-EIGHT TOWNS IN TENNESSEE (EXCLUDING NASHVILLE), KENTUCKY,
ALABAMA, AND NORTH CAROLINA, IN FIVE OF WHICH THEY HAD COMPETITION, AND
THE ONLY TOWNS IN WHICH THEY HAVE COMPETITION TODAY OUTSIDE OF
NASHVILLE, ARE GADSDEN, ALABAMA, HARRIMAN, GALLATIN AND MCMINNVILLE,
TENNESSEE, AND FRANKLIN, KENTUCKY.  IN TWO OF THESE TOWNS - GADSDEN,
ALABAMA, AND HARRIMAN, TENNESSEE - THE INDEPENDENT THEATRES HAVE OPENED
SINCE THE FILING OF THIS SUIT AND TWO MORE - FRANKLIN, KENTUCKY, AND
GALLATIN, TENNESSEE - ARE TOWNS WHICH CRESCENT ENTERED LESS THAN TWO
YEARS BEFORE THE FILING OF THIS SUIT. 

"OF THE FORTY-FIVE TOWNS IN TENNESSEE LISTED IN THE 1940 CENSUS AS
HAVING POPULATIONS BETWEEN 2,500 AND 10,000, CRESCENT AND ITS
AFFILIATES NOW OPERATE THEATRES IN ALL BUT NINE.  THE INDEPENDENTS
OPERATING IN THREE OF THOSE NINE TOWNS HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROACHED BY
SUDEKUM EMISSARIES WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT THEY SELL TO ONE OF THE
DEFENDANT EXHIBITORS." 

THEIR FINANCIAL GROWTH WAS FOUND TO BE "OUT OF ALL PROPORTION" TO
THEIR PHYSICAL EXPANSION: 

"DURING THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE SUIT, THE
CRESCENT AND ROCKWOOD COMPANIES EACH EXPERIENCED A PHENOMENAL GROWTH IN
EARNINGS AND SURPLUS WHICH WAS OUT OF ALL PROPORTION TO THE INCREASE IN
GROSS RECEIPTS AND GROSS ASSETS RESULTING FROM PHYSICAL EXPANSION OF
THE BUSINESS AND IMPROVING GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.  DURING THE
FIVE-YEAR FISCAL PERIOD FROM JUNE 30, 1934 TO JUNE 30, 1939, CRESCENT'S
TOTAL ASSETS WERE LESS THAN DOUBLED, BUT ITS SURPLUS WAS INCREASED
THIRTY TIMES.  DURING THE LAST FISCAL YEAR OF SAID PERIOD ITS GROSS
RECEIPTS WERE LESS THAN TWICE THE AMOUNT OF ITS GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE
FIRST FISCAL YEAR OF SAID PERIOD, BUT ITS NET PROFITS (EXCLUSIVE OF
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED) WERE MORE THAN FIVE TIMES THOSE OF THE FIRST YEAR. 
DURING THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, ITS NET EARNINGS (EXCLUSIVE OF DIVIDENDS
RECEIVED) AVERAGED ABOUT 35 PER CENT PER ANNUM, ON ITS
CAPITALIZATION." 

FN5  A UNION OF THE EXHIBITOR WITH A DISTRIBUTOR IN SUCH A PROGRAM
WOULD OF COURSE CONSTITUTE A CONSPIRACY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AS HELD
IN INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208. 

FN6  DEFINED IN THE DECREE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN COMPANIES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 
..END :













BUSBY V. ELECTRIC UTILITIES UNION, 323 U.S. 72 


NO. 74.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944 -
DISMISSED. 


1.  THE "LAW APPLIED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA," WHICH BY RULE 81(E)
OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNS PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WHENEVER UNDER
THE RULES THE "LAW OF THE STATE" IS MADE APPLICABLE, IS DERIVED FROM
THE COMMON LAW AND STATUTES OF MARYLAND IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE
CESSION OF THE DISTRICT TO THE UNITED STATES, AS MODIFIED BY STATUTES
OF CONGRESS AND AS DETERMINED AND DEVELOPED BY THE COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT.  P. 73. 

2.  UNDER THE PROVISION OF RULE 17(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
WHICH PERMITS SUIT AGAINST AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF "A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT EXISTING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES," A CERTIFIED QUESTION WHETHER AN
UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION IS SUABLE IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN AN ACTION OF DEBT CAN NOT
ARISE IN THE PRESENT SUIT UNLESS IT FIRST BE DECIDED THAT UNDER THE LAW
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION IS WITHOUT
CAPACITY TO BE SUED IN ITS OWN NAME; AND THAT QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW
SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE THIS
COURT IS CALLED UPON TO DECIDE IT.  P. 74. 

3.  ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346, THIS COURT DOES NOT
ANSWER A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH WOULD BE DECISIVE OF THE CAUSE ONLY IN
THE EVENT THAT A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW, NOT ANSWERED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS COURT TO CONSIDER IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, RECEIVES ONE ANSWER RATHER THAN ANOTHER.  P. 75. 

BUSBY ET AL. V. ELECTRIC UTILITIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ETC. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA UPON AN APPEAL TO THAT COURT FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION OF DEBT AGAINST AN UNINCORPORATED
LABOR UNION. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS CASE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
PURSUANT TO JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 239, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346, HAS CERTIFIED
TO THIS COURT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: 

"IS AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION, WITH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SUABLE AS SUCH IN AN ACTION IN DEBT BROUGHT
AGAINST IT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, WHERE SERVICE OF PROCESS IS DULY HAD UPON ITS PRESIDENT AT
ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE?" 

RULE 17(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES PROVIDES, IN THE CASE OF A PARTY OTHER THAN AN
INDIVIDUAL OR A CORPORATION, THAT:  "CAPACITY TO SUE OR BE SUED SHALL
BE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT IS
HELD; EXCEPT THAT A PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION,
WHICH HAS NO SUCH CAPACITY BY THE LAW OF SUCH STATE, MAY SUE OR BE SUED
IN ITS COMMON NAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING FOR OR AGAINST IT A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT EXISTING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

BY RULE 81(E), THE "LAW OF THE STATE" IN PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS "THE LAW
APPLIED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  THAT LAW IS DERIVED FROM THE
COMMON LAW AND STATUTES OF MARYLAND IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE CESSION
OF THE DISTRICT TO THE UNITED STATES, AS MODIFIED BY STATUTES OF
CONGRESS AND AS DETERMINED AND DEVELOPED BY THE COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT.  ACT OF FEBRUARY 27, 1801, 2 STAT. 103; ARMSTRONG V. LEAR, 12
WHEAT.  169, 176; MCKENNA V. FISK, 1 HOW.  241, 249. 

UNDER THESE RULES, A PLAINTIFF MAY PROCEED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION IN ITS
COMMON NAME IF, BY THE LAW OF THE DISTRICT, IT HAS CAPACITY TO BE SUED
AS SUCH.  ONLY IF IT BE DECIDED THAT BY THE LOCAL LAW SUCH A UNION DOES
NOT HAVE CAPACITY TO BE SUED IN ITS OWN NAME NEED THERE BE
CONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND PART OF RULE 17(B), WHICH PERMITS A SUIT
AGAINST AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF "A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT EXISTING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

THE CERTIFICATE IN THIS CASE DISCLOSES THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS IS
IN DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE RULE LAID DOWN IN
UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344, 383-392, AND
THE EFFECT UPON IT OF THE SECOND PART OF RULE 17(B); CF. BROWN V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 134, 141; PUERTO RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., 288
U.S. 476, 480-482, 483-484; MOFFAT TUNNEL LEAGUE V. UNITED STATES, 289
U.S. 113, 118.  BUT UNDER RULES 17 AND 81 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, AS WE HAVE SAID, THAT QUESTION CANNOT ARISE IN THE PRESENT
SUIT, UNLESS IT IS FIRST DECIDED THAT UNDER THE LAW OF THE DISTRICT AN
UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION IS WITHOUT CAPACITY TO BE SUED IN ITS OWN
NAME.  AND WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CERTIFICATE TO SEEK OUR AID IN THE
DETERMINATION OF THIS QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW. 

IN ANY EVENT, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW
SHOULD BE ANSWERED BY THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT BEFORE THIS COURT IS
CALLED UPON TO ANSWER IT, OR TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF
THE SECOND PART OF RULE 17(B) IN AN ACTION IN DEBT BROUGHT IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION.  THERE ARE
COGENT REASONS WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE TO DECIDE QUESTIONS
OF LOCAL LAW WITHOUT THE AID OF SOME EXPRESSION OF THE VIEWS OF JUDGES
OF THE LOCAL COURTS WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE INTRICACIES AND TRENDS OF
LOCAL LAW AND PRACTICE.  WE DO NOT ORDINARILY DECIDE SUCH QUESTIONS
WITHOUT THAT AID WHERE THEY MAY CONVENIENTLY BE DECIDED IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE BY THE COURT WHOSE SPECIAL FUNCTION IT IS TO RESOLVE QUESTIONS
OF THE LOCAL LAW OF THE JURISDICTION OVER WHICH IT PRESIDES. 
HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232, 237, AND CASES CITED.  ONLY IN
EXCEPTIONAL CASES WILL THIS COURT REVIEW A DETERMINATION OF SUCH A
QUESTION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT.  DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA V. PACE, 320 U.S. 698, 702, AND CASES CITED. 

IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZED BY 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 346 TO REQUIRE THIS COURT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS NOT SHOWN TO BE
NECESSARY TO THE DECISION OF THE CASE.  A QUESTION WILL NOT BE ANSWERED
IF IT IS HYPOTHETICAL, WEBSTER V. COOPER, 10 HOW.  54, 55; PELHAM V.
ROSE, 9 WALL.  103, 107; WHITE V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 367, 373; LOWDEN V.
NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK CO., 298 U.S. 160, 162-163, OR IF IT IS
DEPENDENT UPON OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH MAY NOT APPROPRIATELY BE ANSWERED,
JEWELL V. KNIGHT, 123 U.S. 426, 432-433, 435; LOWDEN V. NORTHWESTERN
NATIONAL BANK CO., SUPRA, 166.  THIS COURT WILL NOT ANSWER A QUESTION
WHICH WILL NOT ARISE IN THE PENDING CONTROVERSY UNLESS ANOTHER ISSUE,
NOT YET RESOLVED BY THE CERTIFYING COURT, IS DECIDED IN A PARTICULAR
WAY.  TRIPLETT V. LOWELL, 297 U.S. 638, 647-649; WEBSTER V. COOPER,
SUPRA, 55; CF. UNITED STATES V. BUZZO, 18 WALL.  125, 129. 

WE DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND PART OF
RULE 17(B), SINCE THE ANSWER WILL BE DECISIVE OF THE CASE ONLY IN THE
EVENT THAT A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW, NOT ANSWERED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO CONSIDER IN THE FIRST INSTANCE,
RECEIVES ONE RATHER THAN ANOTHER ANSWER.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO
DISCUSS THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF THE CORONADO CASE OR
THE SECOND PART OF RULE 17(B), WHICH ARE RELEVANT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION WHICH, AS WE HAVE SAID, WE CANNOT PROPERLY
ANSWER.  THE CERTIFICATE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

I JOIN IN THE PER CURIAM ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT AFTER THE COURT OF
APPEALS WILL HAVE DISPOSED OF ALL ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY LOCAL
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW NOTHING WILL BE LEFT IN THE CERTIFIED QUESTION
FOR THIS COURT TO ANSWER. 

THIS IS A SUIT FOR A LAWYER'S FEE, THAT IS, AN ORDINARY DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA COMMON LAW ACTION OF DEBT AND NOT ONE TO ENFORCE "A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT EXISTING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES."  FOR, I TAKE IT, IN ALLOWING AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION TO
BE SUED "IN ITS COMMON NAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING  ...  A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT EXISTING UNDER THE  ...  LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,"
RULE 17(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE REFERRED TO LAWS OF GENERAL
APPLICABILITY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND NOT TO THE BODY OF LOCAL
LAW GOVERNING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THEREFORE, SUABILITY OF AN
UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION IS A LOCAL PROCEDURAL PROBLEM TO BE
DETERMINED, ACCORDING TO RULE 17(B) IN CONJUNCTION WITH RULE 81(E), BY
THE LOCAL LAW OF THE DISTRICT.  THAT "THE SUABILITY OF TRADES UNIONS
... IS AFTER ALL IN ESSENCE AND PRINCIPLE MERELY A PROCEDURAL MATTER"
IS VOUCHED FOR BY THE CORONADO CASE, 259 U.S. 344, 390, THE SCOPE OF
WHICH HAS BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY DEFINED IN BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 276
U.S. 134, 141 AND MOFFAT TUNNEL LEAGUE V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 113,
118.  SINCE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS WERE OUTSIDE THE AUTHORITY GIVEN BY
CONGRESS FOR PRESCRIBING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 17(B) AND THE
NOTE THERETO BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES, BY DEALING WITH
CAPACITY TO SUE OR BE SUED, DECISIVELY CONFIRM THE STATEMENT IN THE
CORONADO CASE THAT THE SUABILITY OF A TRADE UNION IS A PROCEDURAL
MATTER. 

BUT IF SUCH A PROCEDURAL MATTER MAY BE CAST IN THE FORM OF A
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF STATUS, IT WOULD, IN THIS
CASE IN ANY EVENT, BE A QUESTION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF THE DISTRICT
AND NOT RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE OF FEDERAL LAW.  IF A SUIT LIKE
THIS WERE BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK UNDER DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, NO CONCEIVABLE QUESTION OTHER
THAN THAT OF THE PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COULD ARISE.  NO FEDERAL QUESTION IS INFUSED INTO THE LITIGATION
BECAUSE SUCH A LOCAL SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

IN VIEW OF THE INCREASE IN THE VOLUME AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE
BUSINESS THAT IS COMING TO THIS COURT, AND THE BEARING OF THIS INCREASE
UPON THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF ITS WORK (SEE EX PARTE PERU, 318 U.S. 578,
602-604), I DEEM IT IMPORTANT TO AVOID ANY ENCOURAGEMENT HOWEVER SLIGHT
TO FUTILE RESORT TO THIS COURT. 
..END :


















BARBER V. BARBER, 323 U.S. 77 


NO. 51.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944.  - 180
TENN. 353, 175 S.W.2D 324, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF A JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF ONE STATE REFUSING TO
GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF ANOTHER, THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE GROUNDS OF REFUSAL IS FOR THIS COURT TO DETERMINE. 
P. 81. 

2.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF A DECISION OF A COURT OF ONE STATE INVOLVING
THE LAW OF ANOTHER, A FEDERAL RIGHT BEING ASSERTED, IT IS THE DUTY OF
THIS COURT TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE LAW OF SUCH OTHER STATE.  P.
81. 

3.  A DULY AUTHENTICATED JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION
OF ANOTHER STATE IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT TO RENDER IT AND OF THE RIGHT WHICH IT PURPORTS TO ADJUDICATE. 
P. 86. 

4.  A MONEY JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA FOR ARREARS OF
ALIMONY, NOT BY ITS TERMS CONDITIONAL AND ON WHICH EXECUTION WAS
DIRECTED TO ISSUE, HELD, UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE, NOT SUBJECT TO
MODIFICATION OR RECALL; AND, UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT
OF MAY 26, 1790, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  P.
86. 

BARBER V. BARBER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 719, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE IN A
SUIT TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF ANOTHER STATE FOR ARREARS OF
ALIMONY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE,
IN A SUIT BROUGHT UPON A NORTH CAROLINA JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS OF
ALIMONY, RIGHTLY DENIED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENT, ON THE
GROUND THAT IT LACKS FINALITY BECAUSE, BY THE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA, IT
IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR RECALL BY THE COURT WHICH ENTERED IT. 

IN 1920 PETITIONER SECURED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY, A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION, A JUDGMENT OF
SEPARATION FROM RESPONDENT, HER HUSBAND.  THE JUDGMENT DIRECTED PAYMENT
TO PETITIONER OF $200 PER MONTH ALIMONY, LATER REDUCED TO $160 PER
MONTH.  IN 1932 RESPONDENT STOPPED PAYING THE PRESCRIBED ALIMONY.  IN
1940, ON PETITIONER'S MOTION IN THE SEPARATION SUIT FOR A JUDGMENT FOR
THE AMOUNT OF THE ALIMONY ACCRUED AND UNPAID UNDER THE EARLIER ORDER,
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA GAVE JUDGMENT IN HER FAVOR.  IT
ADJUDGED THAT RESPONDENT WAS INDEBTED TO PETITIONER IN THE SUM OF
$19,707.20, UNDER ITS FORMER ORDER, THAT PETITIONER HAVE AND RECOVER OF
RESPONDENT THAT AMOUNT, AND "THAT EXECUTION ISSUE THEREFOR." 

PETITIONER THEN BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE TENNESSEE CHANCERY
COURT TO RECOVER ON THE JUDGMENT THUS OBTAINED.  RESPONDENT, BY HIS
ANSWER, PUT IN ISSUE THE FINALITY, UNDER NORTH CAROLINA LAW, OF THE
JUDGMENT SUED UPON, AND THE CAUSE WAS SUBMITTED FOR DECISION ON THE
PLEADINGS AND A STIPULATION THAT THE COURT MIGHT CONSIDER AS DULY
PROVED THE RECORDS IN TWO PRIOR APPEALS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA
SEPARATION PROCEEDING "UPON THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH THE JUDGMENT SUED
UPON IN THE PRESENT CASE IS PREDICATED," AND THAT THE OPINIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA UPON THESE APPEALS, BARBER V. BARBER,
216 N.C. 232, 4 S.E.2D 447; 217 N.C. 422, 8 S.E.2D 204, SHOULD BE
"ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE OR TEND TO PROVE THE NORTH CAROLINA
LAW." 

THE TENNESSEE CHANCERY COURT HELD THE JUDGMENT SUED UPON TO BE
ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER
ACCORDINGLY.  THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE REVERSED ON THE GROUND
THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS WITHOUT THE FINALITY ENTITLING IT TO CREDIT UNDER
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, ART. IV, SEC. 1. 
180 TENN. 353, 175 S.W.2D 324.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN
ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH SISTARE V. SISTARE, 218 U.S. 1, AND BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE RAISED.  322 U.S. 719. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND IS THAT "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE
GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE."  ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION ALSO PROVIDES THAT "CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE
THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED,
AND THE EFFECT THEREOF."  AND CONGRESS HAS ENACTED THAT JUDGMENTS
"SHALL HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN."  ACT OF MAY 26, 1790, C. 11, 1 STAT.
122, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687. 

IN SISTARE V. SISTARE, SUPRA, 16-17, THIS COURT CONSIDERED WHETHER A
DECREE FOR FUTURE ALIMONY, BROUGHT TO A SISTER STATE, WAS ENTITLED TO
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AS TO INSTALLMENTS WHICH HAD ACCRUED, BUT WHICH
HAD NOT BEEN REDUCED TO A FURTHER JUDGMENT.  THE COURT HELD THAT A
DECREE FOR FUTURE ALIMONY IS, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTE,
ENTITLED TO CREDIT AS TO PAST DUE INSTALLMENTS, IF THE RIGHT TO THEM IS
"ABSOLUTE AND VESTED," EVEN THOUGH THE DECREE MIGHT BE MODIFIED
PROSPECTIVELY BY FUTURE ORDERS OF THE COURT.  SEE ALSO BARBER V.
BARBER, 21 HOW.  582.  THE SISTARE CASE ALSO DECIDED THAT SUCH A DECREE
WAS NOT FINAL, AND THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT, IF THE PAST DUE
INSTALLMENTS WERE SUBJECT RETROACTIVELY TO MODIFICATION OR RECALL BY
THE COURT AFTER THEIR ACCRUAL.  SEE ALSO LYNDE V. LYNDE, 181 U.S. 183,
187. 

THE SISTARE CASE CONSIDERED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE, ONLY AS TO DECREES FOR FUTURE ALIMONY SOME OF THE
INSTALLMENTS OF WHICH HAD ACCRUED.  THE PRESENT SUIT WAS NOT BROUGHT
UPON A DECREE OF THAT NATURE, BUT UPON A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR ALIMONY
ALREADY DUE AND OWING TO THE PETITIONER, AS TO WHICH EXECUTION WAS
ORDERED TO ISSUE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE APPLIED TO THIS MONEY
JUDGMENT THE DISTINCTION TAKEN IN THE SISTARE CASE AS TO DECREES FOR
FUTURE ALIMONY.  IT CONCLUDED THAT BY THE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA THE
JUDGMENT FOR THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF ALIMONY ALREADY ACCRUED, WAS
SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY THE COURT WHICH AWARDED IT, THAT IT WAS NOT
A FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER THE RULE OF THE SISTARE CASE, AND THEREFORE WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. 

AS WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT ERRONEOUSLY
CONSTRUED THE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA AS TO THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT
SUED UPON HERE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE RULE OF THE
SISTARE CASE AS TO DECREES FOR FUTURE ALIMONY IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO
JUDGMENTS SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED FOR ARREARS OF ALIMONY.  COMPARE LYNDE
V. LYNDE, SUPRA, 187, WHERE THIS COURT DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN A DECREE
FOR ARREARS OF ALIMONY AND ONE FOR FUTURE ALIMONY, SOME OF THE
INSTALLMENTS OF WHICH HAD ACCRUED.  SEE ALSO AUDUBON V. SHUFELDT, 181
U.S. 575, 577-578.  FOR THE SAME REASON, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
WHETHER A DECREE OR JUDGMENT FOR ALIMONY ALREADY ACCRUED, WHICH IS
SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR RECALL IN THE FORUM WHICH GRANTED IT, BUT IS
NOT YET SO MODIFIED, IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT UNTIL SUCH
TIME AS IT IS MODIFIED.  CF. LEVINE V. LEVINE, 95 ORE.  94, 109-113,
187 P. 609; HUNT V. MONROE, 32 UTAH 428, 440, 91 P. 269; AND COMPARE
MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 275-276, AND CASES CITED. 

WE ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT PETITIONER'S JUDGMENT FOR ACCRUED
ALIMONY IS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, IF BY THE LAW OF
NORTH CAROLINA IT IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION.  THE REFUSAL OF THE
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT TO GIVE CREDIT TO THAT JUDGMENT BECAUSE OF ITS
NATURE IS A RULING UPON A FEDERAL RIGHT, AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
GROUNDS OF DENIAL IS FOR THIS COURT TO DECIDE.  MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO.
V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430, 443, AND CASES CITED.  AND IN DETERMINING THE
APPLICABLE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA, THIS COURT REEXAMINES THE ISSUE WITH
DEFERENCE TO THE OPINION OF THE TENNESSEE COURT, ALTHOUGH WE CANNOT
ACCEPT ITS VIEW OF THE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA AS CONCLUSIVE.  THIS IS
NOT A CASE WHERE A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW IS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE
COGNIZANCE OF THE LOCAL COURTS IN WHICH THE CASE AROSE.  THE
DETERMINATION OF NORTH CAROLINA LAW CAN BE MADE BY THIS COURT AS
READILY AS BY THE TENNESSEE COURTS, AND SINCE A FEDERAL RIGHT IS
ASSERTED, IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT, UPON AN INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION, TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA.  SEE
ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59, 64, AND CASES CITED. 

WE ARE THUS BROUGHT TO THE QUESTION WHETHER, BY THE LAW OF NORTH
CAROLINA, THE JUDGMENT WHICH PETITIONER HAS SECURED IN THAT STATE FOR
ARREARS OF ALIMONY IS SO WANTING IN FINALITY AS NOT TO BE WITHIN THE
COMMAND OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS.  OUR EXAMINATION
OF THE NORTH CAROLINA LAW ON THIS SUBJECT MUST BE IN THE LIGHT OF THE
ADMONITION OF SISTARE V. SISTARE, SUPRA, 22, THAT "EVERY REASONABLE
IMPLICATION MUST BE RESORTED TO AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF" A POWER TO
MODIFY OR REVOKE INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY ALREADY ACCRUED "IN THE
ABSENCE OF CLEAR LANGUAGE MANIFESTING AN INTENTION TO CONFER IT."  THE
ADMONITION IS NONE THE LESS TO BE HEEDED WHEN THE DEBT HAS BEEN REDUCED
TO A JUDGMENT UPON WHICH EXECUTION HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO ISSUE. 

STATS. OF 1943, MICHIE, SEC. 50-16), UNDER WHICH PETITIONER BROUGHT HER
SUIT FOR SEPARATION AND ALIMONY, PROVIDES THAT "IF ANY HUSBAND SHALL
SEPARATE HIMSELF FROM HIS WIFE AND FAIL TO PROVIDE HER AND THE CHILDREN
OF THE MARRIAGE WITH  ...  NECESSARY SUBSISTENCE," SHE MAY MAINTAIN AN
ACTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT TO HAVE A "REASONABLE SUBSISTENCE"
ALLOTTED AND PAID TO HER.  IT DECLARES THAT "THE ORDER OF ALLOWANCE
...  MAY BE MODIFIED OR VACATED AT ANY TIME, ON THE APPLICATION OF
EITHER PARTY OR OF ANY ONE INTERESTED." 

THIS STATUTE BY ITS TERMS MAKES PROVISION ONLY FOR THE MODIFICATION
OF THE "ORDER OF ALLOWANCE," NOT OF A JUDGMENT RENDERED FOR THE AMOUNT
OF THE UNPAID ALLOWANCES WHICH HAVE ACCRUED UNDER SUCH AN ORDER.  NOR
DOES IT STATE THAT THE ORDER OF ALLOWANCE MAY BE MODIFIED RETROACTIVELY
AS TO ALLOWANCES ALREADY ACCRUED.  THE ORIGINAL NORTH CAROLINA JUDGMENT
ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY IS NOT IN
THE RECORD, AND WE ARE NOT ADVISED OF ITS TERMS.  RESPONDENT PLACES HIS
RELIANCE NOT ON THEM, BUT UPON THE NORTH CAROLINA LAW, APART FROM THE
TERMS OF THE DECREE, AS PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF SUCH A JUDGMENT. 
BUT WE ARE AWARE OF NO STATUTE OR DECISION OF ANY COURT OF NORTH
CAROLINA AND NONE HAS BEEN CITED, TO THE EFFECT THAT AN UNCONDITIONAL
JUDGMENT OF THAT STATE FOR ACCRUED ALLOWANCES OF ALIMONY MAY BE
MODIFIED OR RECALLED AFTER ITS RENDITION.  INDEED, WE FIND NO
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ANY NORTH CAROLINA COURT THAT BEFORE SUCH A JUDGMENT
IS RENDERED, AN ORDER FOR FUTURE ALLOWANCES MAY BE MODIFIED OR SET
ASIDE WITH RESPECT TO ALLOWANCES WHICH HAVE ACCRUED AND ARE DUE AND
OWING. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE FOUND NO SUPPORT IN NORTH CAROLINA
STATUTES OR JUDICIAL DECISIONS FOR ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE NORTH
CAROLINA JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS OF ALIMONY IS SUBJECT TO SUCH
MODIFICATION, OTHER THAN A SINGLE PARAGRAPH OF THE OPINION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA AT AN EARLY STAGE OF THE SUIT WHICH
RESULTED IN THE JUDGMENT UPON WHICH SUIT WAS HERE BROUGHT.  FN1  BUT
THESE REMARKS, AS THEIR CONTEXT SHOWS, APPEAR TO BE ADDRESSED, NOT TO
THE POWER OF THE COURT TO MODIFY OR SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS OF
ALIMONY, BUT TO THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY N.C. CON.  STAT.  SEC. 1667
UPON THE COURT IN THE SUIT FOR ALIMONY TO MODIFY ITS PREVIOUS ORDER FOR
THE ALLOWANCE OF SUBSISTENCE. 

CONSISTENTLY WITH SISTARE V. SISTARE, SUPRA, THE PASSAGE POINTS OUT
THAT SUCH AN ORDER IS NOT FINAL IN THE PROCEEDING IN WHICH IT IS
ENTERED, BUT IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY FURTHER ORDERS OF THE
COURT.  IN THIS RESPECT THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT WAS BUT FOLLOWING ITS
OWN PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE FIRST APPEAL IN THE SEPARATION PROCEEDING,
BARBER V. BARBER, SUPRA, 216 N.C. 232, 234, AND IN NUMEROUS OTHER
DECISIONS OF THAT COURT.  SEE CREWS V. CREWS, 175 N.C. 168, 173, 95
S.E. 149; ANDERSON V. ANDERSON, 183 N.C. 139, 142, 110 S.E. 863;
TIEDEMANN V. TIEDEMANN, 204 N.C. 682, 683, 169 S.E. 422; WRIGHT V.
WRIGHT, 216 N.C. 693, 696, 6 S.E.2D 555.  BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER
MATTER TO SAY THAT PAST DUE INSTALLMENTS MAY BE MODIFIED, OR THAT A
JUDGMENT, NOT BY ITS TERMS CONDITIONAL AND ON WHICH EXECUTION MAY
ISSUE, IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BECAUSE THE OBLIGATION FOR ACCRUED
ALIMONY COULD HAVE BEEN MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE BEFORE ITS MERGER IN THE
JUDGMENT.  AND IN FACT THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN AT
PAINS TO INDICATE THAT SUCH IS NOT THE CASE. 

IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE DECREE OF ANOTHER STATE FOR FUTURE ALIMONY
IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT
RECOGNIZES THAT SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT IS REQUIRED AS TO PAST DUE
INSTALLMENTS WHEN IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEY MAY BE MODIFIED OR
REVOKED.  AND IT INTERPRETS GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF A
DECREE DIRECTING FUTURE ALLOWANCES OF ALIMONY AS INAPPLICABLE TO
ALLOWANCES WHICH HAVE BECOME DUE AND OWING.  SINCE ITS DECISION IN
BARBER V. BARBER, IN THE 217TH N.C., IT HAS HELD IN LOCKMAN V. LOCKMAN,
220 N.C. 95, THAT SUCH A DECREE IN FLORIDA IS ENTITLED TO CREDIT IN
NORTH CAROLINA WITH RESPECT TO ARREARS IN ALIMONY.  THE COURT SAID, AT
PAGE 103: 

"THE RULE IN NORTH CAROLINA IS THAT A JUDGMENT AWARDING ALIMONY IS A
JUDGMENT DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF MONEY BY THE DEFENDANT, AND BY SUCH
JUDGMENT THE DEFENDANT BECOMES INDEBTED TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR SUCH
ALIMONY AS IT FALLS DUE, AND WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS IN ARREARS IN THE
PAYMENT OF ALIMONY, THE COURT MAY JUDICIALLY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT DUE
AND ENTER DECREE ACCORDINGLY.  IT HAS NO LESS DIGNITY THAN ANY OTHER
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.  BARBER V. BARBER, 217 N.C. 422, 8 S.E.(2D)
204.  IN DUSS V. DUSS, 92 FLA. 1081, THE OBLIGATION OF THE DIVORCED
HUSBAND TO PAY ALIMONY WAS STATED IN LANGUAGE OF SIMILAR IMPORT."  THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA THUS HAS ASSIMILATED THE LAW OF NORTH
CAROLINA TO THAT OF FLORIDA, UNDER WHICH IT HAD JUST HELD THAT PAST DUE
INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY WERE NOT SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION.  IN THIS
STATE OF THE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA, WE CANNOT SAY THAT PAST DUE
INSTALLMENTS UNDER A DECREE FOR FUTURE ALIMONY CAN BE REVOKED OR
MODIFIED.    STILL LESS CAN WE SAY THAT A JUDGMENT FOR SUCH
INSTALLMENTS CAN BE SO MODIFIED.  THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT SAID
IN THE BARBER CASE, 217 N.C. 422, 428:  "THERE IS NO REASON WHY A
JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE RENDERED ON AN ALLOWANCE FOR ALIMONY, WHICH IS A
DEBT - AND MORE THAN AN ORDINARY ONE."  AND ELSEWHERE IN ITS OPINION IT
SAID (PAGE 427): 

"A JUDGMENT AWARDING ALIMONY IS A JUDGMENT DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF
MONEY BY A DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF AND, BY SUCH JUDGMENT, THE DEFENDANT
THEREUPON BECOMES INDEBTED TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR SUCH ALIMONY AS IT
BECOMES DUE, AND WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS IN ARREARS IN THE PAYMENT OF
ALIMONY THE COURT MAY, ON APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF, JUDICIALLY
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT THEN DUE AND ENTER ITS DECREE ACCORDINGLY.  THE
DEFENDANT, BEING A PARTY TO THE ACTION AND HAVING BEEN GIVEN DUE NOTICE
OF THE MOTION, IS BOUND BY SUCH DECREE, AND THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED
TO ALL THE REMEDIES PROVIDED BY LAW FOR THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF." 

WE DO NOT FIND IN THE LANGUAGE ON WHICH THE TENNESSEE COURT RELIED
ANY CLEAR OR UNEQUIVOCAL INDICATION THAT THE JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS OF
ALIMONY, ON WHICH EXECUTION WAS DIRECTED TO ISSUE, WAS ITSELF SUBJECT
TO MODIFICATION OR RECALL.  TRUE, AS THE OPINION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
COURT STATES, THE JUDGMENT FOR ARREARS OF ALIMONY WAS NOT A FINAL
JUDGMENT IN THE SEPARATION SUIT.  AS TO FUTURE ALIMONY PAYMENTS NOT
MERGED IN THE MONEY JUDGMENT, THE ALLOTMENTS ORDERED ARE, BY THE TERMS
OF THE STATUTE, SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION.  BUT IT WOULD HARDLY BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S STATEMENTS, THAT ACCRUED ALIMONY IS A DEBT
FOR WHICH A JUDGMENT MAY BE RENDERED, THAT THE DEFENDANT IS BOUND BY
THE JUDGMENT, AND THAT "THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE REMEDIES
PROVIDED BY LAW" FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT, TO SAY THAT THE JUDGMENT MAY BE
MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE BY VIRTUE OF A STATUTE WHICH IN TERMS MERELY
AUTHORIZES MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES. 

THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION OF A SISTER STATE
DULY AUTHENTICATED IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT TO RENDER IT AND OF THE RIGHT WHICH IT PURPORTS TO ADJUDICATE. 
ADAM V. SAENGER, SUPRA, 62, AND CASES CITED.  THE PRESENT JUDGMENT IS
ON ITS FACE AN UNCONDITIONAL ADJUDICATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO
RECOVER A SUM OF MONEY DUE AND OWING WHICH, BY THE LAW OF THE STATE, IS
A DEBT.  THE JUDGMENT ORDERS THAT EXECUTION ISSUE.  TO OVERCOME THE
PRIMA FACIE EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT RECORD, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE
BE SOME PERSUASIVE INDICATION THAT NORTH CAROLINA LAW SUBJECTS THE
JUDGMENT TO THE INFIRMITY OF MODIFICATION OR RECALL WHICH IS WANTING
HERE. 

UPON FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA WE CONCLUDE THAT
RESPONDENT HAS NOT OVERCOME THE PRIMA FACIE VALIDITY AND FINALITY OF
THE JUDGMENT SUED UPON.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO
MODIFY OR RECALL AN ORDER PROVIDING FOR FUTURE ALLOWANCES OF
INSTALLMENTS OF ALIMONY EXTENDS TO A JUDGMENT FOR OVERDUE INSTALLMENTS
OR THAT SUCH A JUDGMENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE LANGUAGE QUOTED FROM BARBER V. BARBER, 217 N.C. 422, 427-28,
IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT IS NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION, SINCE BOTH THE PLAINTIFF
AND THE DEFENDANT MAY APPLY FOR OTHER ORDERS AND FOR MODIFICATIONS OF
ORDERS ALREADY MADE, WHICH THE COURT WILL ALLOW AS THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
REQUIRE, ACCORDING TO THE CHANGED CONDITIONS OF THE PARTIES.  THE
ORDERS MADE FROM TIME TO TIME ARE, OF COURSE, RES JUDICATA, BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, SUBJECT TO THIS POWER OF THE COURT TO MODIFY THEM.  THE
CONSOLIDATION OF THE AMOUNTS DUE, WHEN ASCERTAINED IN ONE ORDER OR
DECREE, DOES NOT INVEST ANY OF THESE ORDERS WITH ANY OTHER CHARACTER
THAN THAT WHICH THEY ORIGINALLY HAD.  IF THE DEFENDANT IS IN COURT ONLY
BY REASON OF THE ORIGINAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS, HE IS IN COURT ONLY FOR
SUCH ORDERS AS, UPON MOTION, ARE APPROPRIATE AND CUSTOMARY IN THE
PROCEEDING THUS INSTITUTED.  THERE IS NO REASON WHY A JUDGMENT SHOULD
NOT BE RENDERED ON AN ALLOWANCE FOR ALIMONY, WHICH IS A DEBT - AND MORE
THAN AN ORDINARY ONE.  THE COURT BELOW, IN ITS SOUND DISCRETION, WHICH
IS NOT ORDINARILY REVIEWABLE BY THIS COURT, UNDER THE MOTION OF
PLAINTIFF IN THIS CAUSE CAN HEAR THE FACTS, CHANGE OF CONDITIONS OF THE
PARTIES, THE PRESENT NEEDS OF SUPPORT OF ANY OF THE CHILDREN AND, IN
ITS SOUND DISCRETION, RENDER JUDGMENT FOR WHAT DEFENDANT OWES UNDER THE
FORMER JUDGMENT AND FAILED TO PAY AND SEE TO IT THAT SUCH JUDGMENT IS
GIVEN TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF, AND 'GIVE DILIGENCE TO MAKE HER (YOUR)
CALLING AND ELECTION SURE.'" 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT, BUT I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA COURT WAS ENTITLED TO FAITH AND CREDIT IN TENNESSEE EVEN IF IT
WAS NOT A FINAL ONE.  ON THIS ASSUMPTION I DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY OR
RELEVANT TO EXAMINE NORTH CAROLINA LAW AS TO WHETHER ITS JUDGMENT MIGHT
UNDER SOME HYPOTHETICAL CIRCUMSTANCES BE MODIFIED. 

NEITHER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE
ACT OF CONGRESS IMPLEMENTING IT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT FINAL JUDGMENTS OR,
FOR THAT MATTER, ABOUT ANY JUDGMENTS.  BOTH REQUIRE THAT FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT BE GIVEN TO "JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS" WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO
FINALITY.  UPON RECOGNITION OF THE BROAD MEANING OF THAT TERM MUCH MAY
SOME DAY DEPEND. 

WHATEVER ELSE THIS NORTH CAROLINA DOCUMENT MIGHT BE, NO ONE DENIES
THAT IT IS A STEP IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, INSTITUTED VALIDLY UNDER
THE STRICTEST STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS.  ON ITS FACE IT IS FINAL AND BY
ITS TERMS IT AWARDS A MONEY JUDGMENT IN A LIQUIDATED AMOUNT, PRESENTLY
COLLECTIBLE AND PROVIDES "THAT EXECUTION ISSUE THEREFOR."  TENNESSEE
SHOULD HAVE RENDERED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME JUDGMENT THAT IT RECEIVED
FROM THE COURTS OF NORTH CAROLINA.  IF LATER A DECREE IS MADE IN NORTH
CAROLINA WHICH MODIFIES OR AMENDS ITS JUDGMENT, THAT MODIFICATION OR
AMENDMENT WILL ALSO BE ENTITLED TO FAITH AND CREDIT IN TENNESSEE. 

OF COURSE A JUDGMENT IS ENTITLED TO FAITH AND CREDIT FOR JUST WHAT IT
IS, AND NO MORE.  BUT ITS OWN TERMS CONSTITUTE A DETERMINATION BY THE
RENDERING COURT AS TO WHAT IT IS, AND AN ENFORCING COURT MAY NOT SEARCH
THE LAWS OF THE STATE TO SEE WHETHER THE JUDGMENT TERMS ARE ERRONEOUS. 
OF COURSE, IF A JUDGMENT BY ITS TERMS RESERVES POWER TO MODIFY OR
STATES CONDITIONS, A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON IT COULD APPROPRIATELY MAKE
LIKE RESERVATIONS OR CONDITIONS.  NO SUCH APPEAR IN THIS JUDGMENT
UNLESS THEY ARE TO BE ANNEXED TO IT BY A STUDY OF THE LAW OF NORTH
CAROLINA.  ANY APPLICATION FOR SUCH RELIEF SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE
NORTH CAROLINA COURT AND NOT TO THE TENNESSEE COURT NOR TO THIS ONE. 
THE PURPOSE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS TO LENGTHEN THE ARM
OF THE STATE COURT AND TO ELIMINATE STATE LINES AS A SHELTER FROM
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  THIS IS DEFEATED BY ENTERTAINING A PLEA TO
REVIEW THE SUPPORT IN STATE LAW FOR THE JUDGMENT AS IT HAS BEEN
RENDERED, WHICH IS A DELAYING INQUIRY AS HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THIS CASE. 
..END :




















KANN V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 88 


NO. 35.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944.  - 140
F.2D 380, REVERSED. 


1.  AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 215 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE IS THAT THE USE OF THE MAILS BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING THE
FRAUDULENT SCHEME.  P. 95. 

2.  THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME ALLEGED BEING ONE TO OBTAIN MONEY, AND
PARTICIPANTS HAVING OBTAINED THE MONEY BY CASHING CHECKS AT BANKS WHICH
THEREUPON BECAME HOLDERS IN DUE COURSE, THE SUBSEQUENT MAILINGS OF THE
CHECKS BY THE BANKS TO THE DRAWEES WERE NOT "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXECUTING SUCH SCHEME," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 215 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, AND THE CONVICTION HERE CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED.  P. 94. 

KANN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 761, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION OF
USING THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 215 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE TOOK THIS CASE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARISING
UNDER SEC. 215 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  FN1  THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT
"WHOEVER, HAVING DEVISED  ...  ANY SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD, OR
FOR OBTAINING MONEY OR PROPERTY BY MEANS OF FALSE OR FRAUDULENT
PRETENSES, REPRESENTATIONS, OR PROMISES,  ...  SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF EXECUTING SUCH SCHEME OR ARTIFICE OR ATTEMPTING SO TO DO, PLACE, OR
CAUSE TO BE PLACED, ANY LETTER  ...  IN ANY POST OFFICE, OR  ... CAUSE
TO BE DELIVERED BY MAIL ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTION THEREON  ...  ANY
SUCH LETTER,  ... SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR IMPRISONED
NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH." 

THE PETITIONER AND SIX OTHERS WERE INDICTED IN THREE COUNTS FOR USING
THE MAIL IN EXECUTION OF A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD.  PETITIONER'S CO
DEFENDANTS PLEADED NOLO CONTENDERE.  HE WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED ON THE
SECOND AND THIRD COUNTS, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
CONVICTION.  FN2 

THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT TRIUMPH EXPLOSIVES, INC. IS A MARYLAND
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF MUNITIONS, FOR THE UNITED
STATES, A LARGE AMOUNT OF WHOSE STOCK IS HELD BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC;
THAT PETITIONER WAS PRESIDENT, AND A DIRECTOR, ONE OF HIS CO-DEFENDANTS
WAS AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR AND FIVE OF THEM SALARIED EXECUTIVE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYES OF THE COMPANY.  THE INDICTMENT CONTINUED THAT
THE DEFENDANTS DEVISED A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD TRIUMPH AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS
AND OBTAIN MONEY FOR THEMSELVES BY DIVERTING PART OF THE PROFITS OF
TRIUMPH ON ITS GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS TO A CORPORATION KNOWN AS ELK MILLS
LOADING CORPORATION AND DISTRIBUTING SUCH PROFITS THROUGH SALARIES,
DIVIDENDS, AND BONUSES TO BE PAID BY ELK MILLS TO THE DEFENDANTS; THAT,
IN PURSUANCE OF THE SCHEME, ELK MILLS WAS ORGANIZED, SOME DEFENDANTS
ELECTED OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, AND OTHERS ELECTED CONSULTANTS AT
SUBSTANTIAL SALARIES, AND 49% OF ITS STOCK DISTRIBUTED TO FIVE
DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYES OF TRIUMPH, WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION; THAT TRIUMPH, PURSUANT TO THE PLAN, SUBCONTRACTED A
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT TO ELK MILLS FOR 51% OF THE LATTER'S STOCK, ON A
BASIS WHICH WOULD YIELD ELK MILLS LARGE PROFITS, AND WOULD INVOLVE
UTILIZATION OF THE EMPLOYES AND SERVICES OF TRIUMPH IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF THE SUBCONTRACT; AND THAT THE DEFENDANTS, PURSUANT TO THE SCHEME,
RECEIVED FROM ELK MILLS SALARIES AND BONUSES FOR WHICH NO SUBSTANTIAL
SERVICES WERE RENDERED, AND DIVIDENDS, TO THE DETRIMENT OF TRIUMPH.  IT
WAS ALLEGED THAT THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME WAS MISREPRESENTED UPON THE
MINUTES OF TRIUMPH AND FALSE REASONS FOR THE TRANSACTION GIVEN. 
FURTHER, THAT, PURSUANT TO THE SCHEME, IT WAS TO BE REPRESENTED THAT
SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS WOULD PURCHASE WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, AND CONVEY
TO ELK MILLS, CERTAIN LANDS FOR THE ISSUE TO THEM OF 49% OF THE STOCK
OF ELK MILLS, WHEREAS IT WAS NOT INTENDED THAT THESE DEFENDANTS SHOULD
USE THEIR OWN FUNDS IN PURCHASING THE LAND TO BE TRANSFERRED IN PAYMENT
OF THE STOCK, AND THAT THIS PLAN WAS CARRIED OUT.  IN SUMMARY, IT WAS
CHARGED THAT THE SCHEME WAS SUCH THAT TRIUMPH SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THE
PROFITS RIGHTFULLY BELONGING TO IT AND THESE PROFITS SHOULD BE
DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE DEFENDANTS THROUGH THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF ELK
MILLS; THAT BONUSES WERE TO BE PAID TO EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS OUT OF
THE PROFITS OF ELK MILLS, AND SUCH BONUSES WERE PAID. 

IN THE FIRST COUNT IT WAS CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EXECUTING THE SCHEME, CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED BY MAIL A CHECK
DRAWN BY ELK MILLS ON THE PEOPLES BANK OF ELKTON, MARYLAND, IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONER.  FN3  IN THE SECOND, IT WAS CHARGED THAT, FOR THE SAME
PURPOSE, THE DEFENDANTS CAUSED TO BE PLACED IN THE POST OFFICE AT
ELKTON A CHECK DRAWN BY ONE JACKSON ON INDUSTRIAL TRUST COMPANY OF
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.  IN THE THIRD, IT WAS CHARGED THAT, FOR THE SAME
PURPOSE, THE DEFENDANTS CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED BY MAIL A CHECK DRAWN BY
ELK MILLS ON THE PEOPLES BANK OF ELKTON IN FAVOR OF ONE OF THE
DEFENDANTS, WILLIS. 

AT THE TRIAL THE GOVERNMENT PROVED THE CORPORATE EXISTENCE OF
TRIUMPH, PROVED THAT TRIUMPH HELD GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, THAT ELK MILLS
WAS INCORPORATED AND BECAME SUBCONTRACTOR OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT,
THAT THE STOCK OF ELK MILLS WAS DISTRIBUTED AMONGST CERTAIN OF THE
DEFENDANTS AND TRIUMPH, AS IN THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED, THAT, UNDER THE
SUBCONTRACT, ELK MILLS WAS IN RECEIPT OF SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS AND THAT
THESE PROFITS WERE USED TO PAY SALARIES AND BONUSES TO THE DEFENDANTS,
INCLUDING PETITIONER.  THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE
THAT CERTAIN OF THESE ACTIONS HAD BEEN CONCEALED FROM OTHER DIRECTORS
OF TRIUMPH AND THAT THE TRUE SITUATION WAS DISCOVERED WHEN A FEDERAL
OFFICER MADE AN AUDIT OF TRIUMPH'S TRANSACTIONS UNDER GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS. 

THE PETITIONER OFFERED EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE THAT IN ORDER TO
EXPAND TRIUMPH'S BUSINESS TWO BANKS HAD LOANED LARGE SUMS TO TRIUMPH
UNDER WRITTEN AGREEMENTS WHICH RESTRICTED THE AMOUNT IT COULD INVEST IN
CAPITAL ASSETS AND RESTRICTED THE SALARIES AND BONUSES IT COULD PAY;
THAT THE FOUR DEFENDANTS WHO WERE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYES WERE DISSATISFIED
WITH THEIR COMPENSATION AND THREATENED TO LEAVE TRIUMPH UNLESS THEY
SHOULD RECEIVE INCREASED COMPENSATION; THAT THE DIRECTORS OF TRIUMPH
DEVISED THE PLAN OF INCORPORATING ELK MILLS AND SUBCONTRACTING WITH IT
TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES AND BONUSES WITHOUT VIOLATING
TRIUMPH'S AGREEMENTS WITH ITS BANKS; THAT PETITIONER HAD NO OTHER
MOTIVE IN PARTICIPATING IN THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO ELK MILLS, AND
THAT, UPON BEING ADVISED OF THE ARRANGEMENT, TRIUMPH'S BANKS WERE OF
OPINION THAT IT DID NOT VIOLATE THE AGREEMENTS. 

IT WAS PROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT ONE JACKSON CONTRACTED WITH
TRIUMPH FOR THE BUILDING OF A FACTORY FOR ELK MILLS ON LAND CONVEYED TO
TRIUMPH BY SEVERAL OF THE DEFENDANTS.  SOME OF THESE DEFENDANTS
INFORMED THE CONTRACTOR THAT HE MIGHT USE THE TIMBER STANDING ON THE
LAND IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING.  AFTER HE HAD DONE SO THEY
FALSELY REPRESENTED TO HIM THAT THEY OWNED THE TIMBER AND THAT HE MUST
PAY THEM SOME $12,000 FOR IT.  HE DID SO, BY A CHECK, TO THEIR ORDER,
AND, IN TURN, BILLED TRIUMPH FOR THE SAME AMOUNT.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE
THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED WHETHER IT WAS PROPER TO PAY THE BILL AND
THAT HE STATED HE DID NOT SEE WHY NOT.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE
PETITIONER RECEIVED ANY OF THIS MONEY, AND HIS EVIDENCE TENDED TO SHOW
HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS FRAUD PERPETRATED ON TRIUMPH. 

THE USE OF THE MAILS PROVED UNDER COUNT 2 WAS THIS:  THE CHECK OF
JACKSON, THE CONTRACTOR, FOR PURCHASE OF THE TIMBER, TO THE ORDER OF
DEFENDANTS DEIBERT, FELDMAN, KANN (NOT PETITIONER), PRIAL, AND WILLIS,
WAS BY THEM ENDORSED AND CASHED AT THE PEOPLES BANK OF ELKTON,
MARYLAND, AND WAS, BY THAT BANK, DEPOSITED IN THE MAIL TO BE DELIVERED
TO THE BANK IN WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, ON WHICH IT WAS DRAWN. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRD COUNT, THE PROOF WAS THAT ELK MILLS
DELIVERED ITS CHECK ON THE PEOPLES BANK OF ELKTON FOR $5,000 TO WILLIS,
ONE OF THE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYES, AS A BONUS.  IT WAS ENDORSED BY WILLIS
AND DEPOSITED WITH THE FARMERS TRUST COMPANY OF NEWARK, DELAWARE.  THE
NEWARK BANK MAILED THE CHECK TO THE PEOPLES BANK OF ELKTON. 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS, FIRST, THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
THAT THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING ELK MILLS' SUBCONTRACT WERE OTHER THAN
INNOCENT TRANSACTIONS INTENDED TO FINANCE THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS HELD
BY TRIUMPH, IN CONFORMITY TO THAT COMPANY'S AGREEMENTS WITH THE BANK;
OR, IF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE, THERE IS NO PROOF
THAT HE WAS A PARTY TO ANY IMPROPER USE OF FUNDS.  SECONDLY, THE
PETITIONER URGES THAT HE ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED NO MONEY FROM THE CHECKS
WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN COUNTS 2 AND 3, AND THERE IS NO PROOF HE HAD
KNOWLEDGE, OR REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE, THAT THE CHECKS WOULD GO
THROUGH THE MAILS AND, THEREFORE, HE DID NOT CAUSE THEM TO BE SENT OR
DELIVERED WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE.  THIRDLY, HE URGES THAT THE
MAILING OF THE CHECKS BY THE PAYING BANKS COULD NOT BE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF EXECUTING THE SCHEME SINCE THE DEFENDANTS TO WHOM THOSE CHECKS WERE
DELIVERED HAD RECEIVED THE MONEY REPRESENTED BY THE CHECKS AND EACH
TRANSACTION, AFTER SUCH RECEIPT, WAS IRREVOCABLE AS RESPECTS THE
DRAWER. 

THE PETITIONER STRENUOUSLY ARGUES HIS FIRST CONTENTION, BUT, IN THE
VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO REVIEW THE
EVIDENCE, IF WE WERE OTHERWISE INCLINED TO DO SO IN THE FACE OF THE
AGREEMENT OF THE COURTS BELOW THAT A CASE WAS MADE FOR THE JURY ON THE
QUESTION OF THE FRAUDULENT NATURE OF THE SCHEME AND THE PETITIONER'S
PARTICIPATION IN IT. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND CONTENTION, WHILE THERE MAY BE SOME
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS MAY BE SAID TO HAVE "CAUSED" THE
MAILING OF THE CHECKS, WE THINK IT A FAIR INFERENCE THAT THOSE
DEFENDANTS WHO DREW, OR THOSE WHO CASHED, THE CHECKS BELIEVED THAT THE
BANKS WHICH TOOK THEM WOULD MAIL THEM TO THE BANKS ON WHICH THEY WERE
DRAWN, AND, ASSUMING THE PETITIONER PARTICIPATED IN THE SCHEME, THEIR
KNOWLEDGE WAS HIS KNOWLEDGE.  FN4 

THE REMAINING CONTENTION IS THAT THE CHECKS WERE NOT MAILED IN THE
EXECUTION OF, OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING, THE SCHEME.  THE CHECK
DELIVERED TO THE FIVE DEFENDANTS BY THE BUILDING CONTRACTOR IN PAYMENT
FOR TIMBER THEY CLAIMED TO OWN WAS CASHED BY THEM AT A LOCAL BANK IN
ELKTON, MARYLAND.  BY CASHING IT THEY RECEIVED THE MONEYS IT WAS
INTENDED THEY SHOULD RECEIVE UNDER THE SCHEME.  THE ELKTON BANK BECAME
THE OWNER OF THE CHECK.  FN5  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE BONUS CHECK
DELIVERED TO DEFENDANT WILLIS AND DEPOSITED AND CREDITED TO HIS
ACCOUNT.  THE BANKS WHICH CASHED OR CREDITED THE CHECKS, BEING HOLDERS
IN DUE COURSE, WERE ENTITLED TO COLLECT FROM THE DRAWEE BANK IN EACH
CASE AND THE DRAWER HAD NO DEFENSE TO PAYMENT.  THE SCHEME IN EACH CASE
HAD REACHED FRUITION.  THE PERSONS INTENDED TO RECEIVE THE MONEY HAD
RECEIVED IT IRREVOCABLY.  IT WAS IMMATERIAL TO THEM, OR TO ANY
CONSUMMATION OF THE SCHEME, HOW THE BANK WHICH PAID OR CREDITED THE
CHECK WOULD COLLECT FROM THE DRAWEE BANK.  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE
MAILINGS IN QUESTION WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING THE SCHEME, AS
THE STATUTE REQUIRES.  FN6 

THE CASE IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE WHERE THE MAILS ARE USED
PRIOR TO, AND AS ONE STEP TOWARD, THE RECEIPT OF THE FRUITS OF THE
FRAUD, SUCH AS UNITED STATES V. KENOFSKEY, 243 U.S. 440.  FN7  ALSO TO
BE DISTINGUISHED ARE CASES WHERE THE USE OF THE MAILS IS A MEANS OF
CONCEALMENT SO THAT FURTHER FRAUDS WHICH ARE PART OF THE SCHEME MAY BE
PERPETRATED.  FN8  IN THESE THE MAILING HAS ORDINARILY HAD A MUCH
CLOSER RELATION TO FURTHER FRAUDULENT CONDUCT THAN HAS THE MERE
CLEARING OF A CHECK, ALTHOUGH IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT THIS ALONE, IN
SOME SETTINGS, WOULD BE ENOUGH.  THE FEDERAL MAIL FRAUD STATUTE DOES
NOT PURPORT TO REACH ALL FRAUDS, BUT ONLY THOSE LIMITED INSTANCES IN
WHICH THE USE OF THE MAILS IS A PART OF THE EXECUTION OF THE FRAUD,
LEAVING ALL OTHER CASES TO BE DEALT WITH BY APPROPRIATE STATE LAW. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE SCHEME WAS NOT COMPLETE, THAT SO LONG
AS ELK MILLS REMAINED A SUBCONTRACTOR THE DEFENDANTS EXPECTED TO
RECEIVE FURTHER BONUSES AND PROFITS AND THAT THE CLEARING OF THESE
CHECKS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE WAS ESSENTIAL TO ITS FURTHER
PROSECUTION.  BUT, EVEN IN THAT VIEW, THE SCHEME WAS COMPLETELY
EXECUTED AS RESPECTS THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WHEN THE DEFENDANTS
RECEIVED THE MONEY INTENDED TO BE OBTAINED BY THEIR FRAUD, AND THE
SUBSEQUENT BANKING TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE BANKS CONCERNED WERE MERELY
INCIDENTAL AND COLLATERAL TO THE SCHEME AND NOT A PART OF IT. 

WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT ONE ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE DEFINED BY THE
STATUTE, NAMELY, THAT THE MAILING MUST BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING
THE FRAUD, IS LACKING IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE JUDGMENT MUST BE
REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. SEC. 338. 

FN2  140 F.2D 380. 

FN3  THE GOVERNMENT ABANDONED THE FIRST COUNT AT THE TRIAL. 

FN4  WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 120 F.2D 472; STEINER V. UNITED STATES,
134 F.2D 931; BLUE V. UNITED STATES, 138 F.2D 351. 

FN5  THIS IS SO UNDER THE UNIFORM NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT WHICH
HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN MARYLAND AND IN DELAWARE.  ANNO.  CODE OF MARYLAND
1939, ART. 13, SEC. 76; REVISED CODE OF DELAWARE (1935), C. 78, ART. 4,
SEC. 57.  THIS ACT HAS ADOPTED THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN BURTON V. UNITED
STATES, 196 U.S. 283, 297; CITY OF DOUGLAS V. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, 271
U.S. 489, 492; DAKIN V. BAYLY, 290 U.S. 143, 146. 

FN6  MCNEAR V. UNITED STATES, 60 F.2D 861; DYHRE V. HUDSPETH, 106
F.2D 286; STAPP V. UNITED STATES, 120 F.2D 898; UNITED STATES V. MCKAY,
45 F.SUPP.  1001. 

FN7  SEE ALSO SHEA V. UNITED STATES, 251 F. 440; SPEAR V. UNITED
STATES, 228 F. 485; SAVAGE V. UNITED STATES, 270 F. 14; STEWART V.
UNITED STATES, 300 F. 769; TINCHER V. UNITED STATES, 11 F.2D 18.    FN8
SEE E.G. UNITED STATES V. LOWE, 115 F.2D 596; UNITED STATES V. RIEDEL,
126 F.2D 81; DUNHAM V. UNITED STATES, 125 F.2D 895. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

I HARDLY THINK WE WOULD SET THIS CONVICTION ASIDE IF THE COLLECTING
BANK INSTEAD OF CASHING THE CHECKS TOOK THEM FOR COLLECTION ONLY AND
REFUSED TO PAY THE DEFENDANTS UNTIL THE CHECKS HAD BEEN HONORED BY THE
DRAWEE.  IT IS PLAIN THAT THE MAILS WOULD THEN BE USED TO OBTAIN THE
FRUITS OF THE FRAUD.  AND I DO NOT SEE WHY THE FRAUD FAILS TO BECOME A
FEDERAL OFFENSE MERELY BECAUSE THE COLLECTING BANK CASHES THE CHECKS. 
THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE IRRELEVANT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  AS POINTED
OUT IN DECKER V. UNITED STATES, 140 F.2D 378, 379, THE OBJECT OF THE
SCHEME WAS TO DEFRAUD TRIUMPH; AND THE USE OF THE MAILS WAS AN
ESSENTIAL STEP TO THAT END.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE COLLECTING BANK WAS A
HOLDER IN DUE COURSE AGAINST WHOM THE DRAWER HAD NO DEFENSE.  BUT THAT
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME HAD REACHED FRUITION AT THAT
POINT OF TIME.  YET IF LEGAL TECHNICALITIES RATHER THAN PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS ARE TO DECIDE THAT QUESTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE
DEFENDANTS WERE PAYEE-INDORSERS OF THE CHECKS.  THEY HAD RECEIVED ONLY
A CONDITIONAL CREDIT, OR PAYMENT AS THE CASE MAY BE.  IT TOOK PAYMENT
BY THE DRAWEE TO DISCHARGE THEM FROM THEIR LIABILITY AS INDORSERS.  NOT
UNTIL THEN WOULD THE DEFENDANTS RECEIVE IRREVOCABLY THE PROCEEDS OF
THEIR FRAUD. 

MOREOVER, THIS WAS NOT THE LAST STEP IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME.  IT
WAS A CONTINUING VENTURE.  SMOOTH CLEARANCES OF THE CHECKS WERE
ESSENTIAL LEST THESE INTERMEDIATE DIVIDENDS BE INTERRUPTED AND THE
CONSPIRATORS BE CALLED UPON TO DISGORGE.  DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS
WOULD BE APPLICABLE IF WE WERE DEALING WITH INCIDENTAL MAILINGS.  BUT
WE ARE NOT.  TO OBTAIN MONEY WAS THE SOLE OBJECT OF THIS FRAUD.  THE
USE OF THE MAILS WAS CRUCIAL TO THE TOTAL SUCCESS OF THE FRAUDULENT
PROJECT.  WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHOPPING UP THE VITAL BANKING PHASE
OF THE SCHEME INTO SEGMENTS AND ISOLATING ONE PART FROM THE OTHERS. 
THAT WOULD BE WARRANTED IF THE SCHEME WERE TO DEFRAUD THE COLLECTING
BANK.  BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT THESE PLANS HAD A WIDER REACH AND THAT BUT
FOR THE USE OF THE MAILS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FINALLY CONSUMMATED. 

..END :










CLINE V. KAPLAN, 323 U.S. 97 


NO. 307.  SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 13, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944.  -
142 F.2D 301, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE A BONA FIDE CLAIM ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE IS
ASSERTED AS TO PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT IN THE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE
POSSESSION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, THE CLAIMANT HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE
THE MERITS OF HIS CLAIM ADJUDICATED IN A PLENARY SUIT.  P. 98. 

2.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS THE POWER AND THE DUTY TO EXAMINE THE
ADVERSE CLAIM TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT IS INGENUOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL.  P.
99. 

3.  WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ADVERSE CLAIM IS SUBSTANTIAL, THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT CAN NOT RETAIN JURISDICTION UNLESS THE CLAIMANT
CONSENTS TO ITS ADJUDICATION BY THAT COURT.  P. 99. 

4.  CONSENT TO ADJUDICATION BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF AN ADVERSE
CLAIM IS LACKING WHERE THE CLAIMANT HAS THROUGHOUT RESISTED A PETITION
FOR A TURNOVER ORDER AND HAS MADE FORMAL OBJECTION TO THE EXERCISE OF
SUMMARY JURISDICTION BEFORE THE ENTRY OF A FINAL ORDER.  LOUISVILLE
TRUST CO. V. COMINGOR, 184 U.S. 18.  P. 99. 

5.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HELD THAT A CLAIMANT ADVERSE TO THE
BANKRUPT ESTATE, AS TO PROPERTY WHICH WAS NOT IN THE ACTUAL OR
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, DID NOT CONSENT TO
ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIM BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  P. 100. 

CLINE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF GOLD MEDAL LAUNDRIES, INC. V. KAPLAN
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 691, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, REVERSING
ORDERS OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, SUSTAINED THE REFEREE'S DISMISSAL, FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION, OF A PETITION FOR A TURNOVER ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CONCERNS THE POWERS OF A BANKRUPTCY COURT WHEN A CLAIM
ADVERSE TO THE BANKRUPT ESTATE IS ASSERTED. 

AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED
AGAINST GOLD MEDAL LAUNDRIES ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1941.  A MONTH LATER THE
ADJUDICATION WAS MADE.  ON DECEMBER 22, PETITIONER, THE TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY, FILED WITH THE REFEREE A PETITION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS TO TURN OVER CERTAIN ASSETS, ALLEGEDLY BELONGING TO THE
BANKRUPT, WHICH HAD COME INTO POSSESSION OF THE RESPONDENTS SOME
FIFTEEN MONTHS PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. 
RESPONDENTS' ANSWER CLAIMED OWNERSHIP IN THEMSELVES AND PRAYED
DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION.  EXTENSIVE HEARINGS WERE HELD TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS IN THE CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE
BANKRUPT.  PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARINGS RESPONDENTS ORALLY MOVED
THAT THE PETITION BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION AND A
FORMAL MOTION TO THIS EFFECT WAS FILED ON MAY 19, 1942.  ON JUNE 24,
1942, THE REFEREE GRANTED THIS MOTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED,
WHEREUPON THE REFEREE DENIED A TURNOVER ORDER ON THE MERITS AND THE
DISTRICT COURT AGAIN REVERSED.  APPEALS FROM BOTH DECISIONS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WERE TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT.  HAVING FOUND THAT THE OBJECTION TO THE SUMMARY
JURISDICTION HAD BEEN TIMELY AND HAD NOT BEEN WAIVED, THAT COURT
SUSTAINED THE REFEREE'S DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.  142 F.2D
301.  CONFLICTING VIEWS HAVING BEEN EXPRESSED IN DIFFERENT CIRCUITS ON
MATTERS AFFECTING BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION WHICH OUGHT NOT TO BE LEFT
IN DOUBT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

A BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS THE POWER TO ADJUDICATE SUMMARILY RIGHTS AND
CLAIMS TO PROPERTY WHICH IS IN THE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF
THE COURT.  THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA CO., 309 U.S. 478, 481.  IF THE
PROPERTY IS NOT IN THE COURT'S POSSESSION AND A THIRD PERSON ASSERTS A
BONA FIDE CLAIM ADVERSE TO THE RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, HE
HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE MERITS OF HIS CLAIM ADJUDICATED "IN SUITS OF
THE ORDINARY CHARACTER, WITH THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES INCIDENT
THERETO."  GALBRAITH V. VALLELY, 256 U.S. 46, 50; TAUBEL-SCOTT
KITZMILLER CO. V. FOX, 264 U.S. 426.  BUT THE MERE ASSERTION OF AN
ADVERSE CLAIM DOES NOT OUST A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY OF ITS JURISDICTION. 
HARRISON V. CHAMBERLIN, 271 U.S. 191, 194.  IT HAS BOTH THE POWER AND
THE DUTY TO EXAMINE A CLAIM ADVERSE TO THE BANKRUPT ESTATE TO THE
EXTENT OF ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE CLAIM IS INGENUOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL. 
LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V. COMINGOR, 184 U.S. 18, 25-26.  ONCE IT IS
ESTABLISHED THAT THE CLAIM IS NOT COLORABLE NOR FRIVOLOUS, THE CLAIMANT
HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE MERITS OF HIS CLAIM PASSED ON IN A PLENARY
SUIT AND NOT SUMMARILY.  OF SUCH A CLAIM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT CANNOT
RETAIN FURTHER JURISDICTION UNLESS THE CLAIMANT CONSENTS TO ITS
ADJUDICATION IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  MACDONALD V. PLYMOUTH COUNTY
TRUST CO., 286 U.S. 263. 

CONSENT TO PROCEED SUMMARILY MAY BE FORMALLY EXPRESSED, OR THE RIGHT
TO LITIGATE THE DISPUTED CLAIM BY THE ORDINARY PROCEDURE IN A PLENARY
SUIT, LIKE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL, MAY BE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO MAKE
TIMELY OBJECTION.  MACDONALD V. PLYMOUTH COUNTY TRUST CO., SUPRA AT 266
267.  CONSENT IS WANTING WHERE THE CLAIMANT HAS THROUGHOUT RESISTED THE
PETITION FOR A TURNOVER ORDER AND WHERE HE HAS MADE FORMAL PROTEST
AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
BEFORE THAT COURT HAS MADE A FINAL ORDER.  LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V.
COMINGOR, SUPRA.  IN THE COMINGOR CASE ALTHOUGH THE CLAIMANT
"PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REFEREE, HE HAD PLEADED HIS
CLAIMS IN THE OUTSET, AND HE MADE HIS FORMAL PROTEST TO THE EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION BEFORE THE FINAL ORDER WAS ENTERED."  ID. AT 26.  THIS, IT
WAS HELD, NEGATIVED CONSENT AND THEREBY THE RIGHT TO PROCEED
SUMMARILY. 

THUS, WHAT A BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY DO AND WHAT IT MAY NOT DO WHEN A
PETITION FOR A TURNOVER ORDER IS RESISTED BY AN ADVERSE CLAIMANT IS
CLEAR ENOUGH.  BUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS THE NECESSARY CONSENT UPON
WHICH ITS POWER TO PROCEED MAY DEPEND IS, AS IS SO OFTEN TRUE IN
DETERMINING CONSENT, A QUESTION DEPENDING ON THE FACTS OF THE
PARTICULAR CASE.  AND SO WE TURN TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 

WHEN THE TRUSTEE FILED HIS PETITION FOR A TURNOVER ORDER, RESPONDENTS
DENIED ANY BASIS FOR SUCH AN ORDER AND ASSERTED THEIR ADVERSE CLAIM. 
THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT.  BEFORE THE MATTER WENT TO THE REFEREE
FOR DETERMINATION, RESPONDENTS EXPLICITLY RAISED OBJECTION TO THE
DISPOSITION OF THEIR CLAIM BY SUMMARY PROCEDURE.  THEY LATER AMPLIFIED
THAT OBJECTION BY A WRITTEN MOTION AND SUPPORTED IT BY EXTENDED
ARGUMENT.  THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE BASED ON THE CRITERIA OF THE
COMINGOR CASE WAS THUS ENTIRELY SATISFIED.  WE REJECT THE SUGGESTION
THAT RESPONDENTS CONFERRED CONSENT BY PARTICIPATING IN THE HEARING ON
THE MERITS.  SEE IN RE WEST PRODUCE CORP., 118 F.2D 274, 277.  IN VIEW
OF THE REFEREE'S OPINION THAT THE HEARINGS WERE HELD TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE BANKRUPT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, THE
PETITIONER CAN HARDLY CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THE RESTRICTED RULE WHICH HE
INVOKES.  IN ANY EVENT, SUCH A VIEW IS CONTRARY TO THAT WHICH WAS
DECIDED IN LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V. COMINGOR, SUPRA, WHICH HELD, AS WE
HAVE NOTED, THAT CONSENT IS NOT GIVEN EVEN THOUGH CLAIMANT
"PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS" PROVIDED FORMAL OBJECTION TO SUMMARY
JURISDICTION IS MADE BEFORE ENTRY OF THE FINAL ORDER.  AND THE COMINGOR
CASE "HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY CITED AS DETERMINATIVE OF THE LAW AND
PRACTICE IN SIMILAR CASES."  GALBRAITH V. VALLELY, 256 U.S. 46, 49. 

WE FIND NO MERIT IN OTHER QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER.  BUT
THEY DO NOT CALL FOR ELABORATION.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :






SPECTOR MOTOR CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 323 U.S. 101 


NO. 62.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944.  - 139
F.2D 809, VACATED. 


SINCE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
MAY RENDER UNNECESSARY, OR MAY AFFECT, THE DECISION OF THE QUESTIONS
ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND SINCE THE LOCAL QUESTIONS
HAVE NOT BEEN PASSED UPON BY THE STATE COURTS THOUGH AN APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDING IS AVAILABLE, THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
WITH DIRECTIONS TO RETAIN THE BILL PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF
PROCEEDINGS TO BE BROUGHT WITH REASONABLE PROMPTITUDE IN THE STATE
COURT.  P. 105. 

SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, INC. V. MCLAUGHLIN, TAX COMMISSIONER (WALSH,
SUBSTITUTED DEFENDANT). 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 720, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, ON APPEAL FROM
A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT HOLDING A STATE TAX INAPPLICABLE TO
THE PETITIONER, 47 F.SUPP.  671, HELD THE TAX APPLICABLE AND VALID. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE TAX AND FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

THE CONNECTICUT CORPORATION BUSINESS TAX ACT OF 1935, AS AMENDED,
IMPOSED ON EVERY CORPORATION, NOT OTHERWISE SPECIALLY TAXED, CARRYING
ON OR HAVING THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE "A TAX OR
EXCISE UPON ITS FRANCHISE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON OR DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE  ..."  CONN. GEN. STAT. CUM. SUPP. 1935, SEC.
418C, AS AMENDED BY CONN. GEN. STAT. SUPP. 1939, SEC. 354E. 
PETITIONER, A MISSOURI CORPORATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
IN ILLINOIS, IS ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE INTERSTATE TRUCKING
BUSINESS.  IT IS NEITHER AUTHORIZED BY CONNECTICUT TO DO INTRASTATE
TRUCKING NOR IN FACT DOES IT ENGAGE IN IT.  IT MAINTAINS TWO LEASED
TERMINALS IN CONNECTICUT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON ITS
INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  AT THE REQUEST OF ITS LESSOR, IT HAS FILED WITH
THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN CONNECTICUT A CERTIFICATE OF ITS
INCORPORATION IN MISSOURI, HAS DESIGNATED AN AGENT IN CONNECTICUT FOR
SERVICE OF PROCESS, AND HAS PAID THE STATUTORY FEE.  ON THIS STATE OF
FACTS THE STATE TAX COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT
TO THE ACT OF 1935, AS AMENDED, AND ASSESSED THE TAX AGAINST SPECTOR
FOR THE YEARS 1937 TO 1940.  WHEREUPON PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT TO
FREE ITSELF FROM LIABILITY FOR THE TAX.  ALLEGING APPROPRIATE GROUNDS
FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE "TAX OR EXCISE" LEVIED
BY THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO IT; AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT, IF IT
SHOULD BE DEEMED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE, THE TAX OFFENDS
PROVISIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS THE COMMERCE AND
DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUED THE STATUTE TO BE "A TAX UPON THE
EXERCISE OF A FRANCHISE TO CARRY ON INTRASTATE COMMERCE IN THE STATE"
AND THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER.  47 F.SUPP.  671, 675.  ON
APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CONSTRUED
THE STATUTE TO REACH ALL CORPORATIONS HAVING ACTIVITY IN CONNECTICUT,
WHETHER DOING OR AUTHORIZED TO DO INTRASTATE BUSINESS OR, LIKE THE
PETITIONER, ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT FURTHER
DECIDED ALL CONTENTIONS UNDER THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.  AND SO, THE COURT BELOW FOUND ITSELF COMPELLED "TO FACE
DIRECTLY THE MAIN ISSUE WHETHER THE TAX IS IN FACT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  139 F.2D 809, 813.  THE DISSENTING
JUDGE THUS PHRASED THE ISSUE:  "WE HAVE BEFORE US IN THE BAREST
POSSIBLE FORM THE EFFORT OF A STATE TO LEVY AN EXCISE DIRECTLY UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON AN ACTIVITY WHICH IS NEITHER DERIVED FROM THE
STATE, NOR WITHIN ITS POWER TO FORBID."  ID. AT 822.  IT WAS CONCEDED
BELOW THAT IF THE CONNECTICUT TAX WAS CONSTRUED TO COVER PETITIONER IT
WOULD RUN AFOUL THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WERE THIS COURT TO ADHERE TO WHAT
JUDGE LEARNED HAND CALLED "AN UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS."  ON THE
BASIS OF WHAT IT DEEMED FORESHADOWING "TRENDS," THE MAJORITY VENTURED
THE PROPHECY THAT THIS COURT WOULD CHANGE ITS COURSE, AND ACCORDINGLY
SUSTAINED THE TAX.  IN VIEW OF THE FAR-REACHING IMPORT OF SUCH A
DISPOSITION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE. 
322 U.S. 720. 

ONCE DOUBTS PURELY LOCAL TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF CONNECTICUT
ARE RESOLVED AGAINST THE PETITIONER THERE ARE AT STAKE IN THIS CASE
QUESTIONS OF MOMENT TOUCHING THE TAXING POWERS OF THE STATES AND THEIR
RELATION TO THE OVERRIDING NATIONAL INTERESTS EMBODIED IN THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  THIS IS SO WHETHER THE ISSUE BE AS BROAD AND AS BARE AS THE
DISTRICT COURT AND JUDGE LEARNED HAND FORMULATED IT, OR WHETHER THE
CONNECTICUT STATUTE CARRIES A MORE RESTRICTED MEANING.  IF CONNECTICUT
IN FACT SOUGHT TO TAX THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, A
LONG COURSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AND "AN UNBROKEN LINE OF
DECISIONS" WOULD INDEED BE BROUGHT INTO QUESTION.  BUT EVEN IF
CONNECTICUT SEEKS MERELY TO LEVY A TAX ON THE NET INCOME OF THIS
INTERSTATE TRUCKING BUSINESS FOR ACTIVITIES ATTRIBUTED TO CONNECTICUT,
QUESTIONS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE STILL REMAIN IF ONLY BECAUSE OF
WHAT THE COURT BELOW CALLED "INGENIOUS PROVISIONS AS TO ALLOCATION OF
NET INCOME IN THE CASE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON PARTLY WITHOUT THE
STATE."  139 F.2D 809, 812. 

WE WOULD NOT BE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY, WITH THEIR VARYING DEGREES OF DIFFICULTY, IF, AS THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD, THE STATUTE DOES NOT AT ALL APPLY TO ONE, LIKE
PETITIONER, NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  NOR DO THEY
EMERGE UNTIL ALL OTHER LOCAL CONNECTICUT ISSUES ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.  BUT EVEN IF THE STATUTE HITS ASPECTS OF AN EXCLUSIVELY
INTERSTATE BUSINESS, IT IS FOR CONNECTICUT TO DECIDE FROM WHAT ASPECT
OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS SHE SEEKS AN EXACTION.  IT IS FOR HER TO SAY
WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER WHICH SHE HAS SOUGHT TO TAX AND WHAT IS THE
CALCULUS OF THE TAX SHE SEEKS.  EVERY ONE OF THESE QUESTIONS MUST BE
ANSWERED BEFORE WE REACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH DIVIDED THE
COURT BELOW. 

ANSWERS TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS MUST PRECEDE CONSIDERATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  TO NONE HAVE WE AN AUTHORITATIVE ANSWER.  NOR CAN WE
GIVE ONE.  ONLY THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT CAN GIVE
SUCH AN ANSWER.  BUT THIS TAX HAS NOT YET BEEN CONSIDERED OR CONSTRUED
BY THE CONNECTICUT COURTS.  WE HAVE NO AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS TO
GUIDE US AS TO ITS NATURE AND APPLICATION.  THAT THE ANSWERS ARE NOT
OBVIOUS IS EVIDENCED BY THE DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE SCOPE OF
THE STATUTE REACHED BY THE TWO LOWER COURTS.  THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME
COURT MAY DISAGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT AND AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE.  BUT THIS IS
AN ASSUMPTION AND AT BEST "A FORECAST RATHER THAN A DETERMINATION." 
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496, 499.  EQUALLY ARE WE
WITHOUT POWER TO PASS DEFINITIVELY ON THE OTHER CLAIMS URGED UNDER
ARTICLES I AND II OF THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION.  FN1  IF ANY SHOULD
PREVAIL, OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WOULD EITHER FALL OR, IN ANY EVENT,
MAY BE FORMULATED IN AN AUTHORITATIVE WAY VERY DIFFERENT FROM ANY
SPECULATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF HOW THE CONNECTICUT COURTS WOULD VIEW THIS
LAW AND ITS APPLICATION.  WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387, 401-402. 

IF THERE IS ONE DOCTRINE MORE DEEPLY ROOTED THAN ANY OTHER IN THE
PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION, IT IS THAT WE OUGHT NOT TO PASS
ON QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY - HERE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TAXING
POWER AS BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE NATION - UNLESS SUCH ADJUDICATION IS
UNAVOIDABLE.  AND SO, AS QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL POWER HAVE
BECOME MORE AND MORE INTERTWINED WITH PRELIMINARY DOUBTS ABOUT LOCAL
LAW, WE HAVE INSISTED THAT FEDERAL COURTS DO NOT DECIDE QUESTIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY ON THE BASIS OF PRELIMINARY GUESSES REGARDING LOCAL
LAW.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., SUPRA; CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST
DAIRIES, 316 U.S. 168; IN RE CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY, 136 F.2D
633.  SEE ALSO BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315; MEREDITH V. WINTER
HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228, 235; GREEN V. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO., 119 F.2D
466; FINDLEY V. ODLAND, 127 F.2D 948; UNITED STATES V. 150.29 ACRES OF
LAND, 135 F.2D 878.  AVOIDANCE OF SUCH GUESSWORK, BY HOLDING THE
LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS UNTIL DEFINITE DETERMINATIONS ON LOCAL
LAW ARE MADE BY THE STATE COURTS, MERELY HEEDS THIS TIME-HONORED CANON
OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION. 

WE THINK THIS PROCEDURE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS BILL AND TO GIVE
WHATEVER RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE DESPITE THE JOHNSON ACT  FN2  AND GREAT
LAKES DREDGE CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY
SURROUNDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONNECTICUT REMEDY.  SEE WATERBURY
SAVINGS BANK V. LAWLER, 46 CONN. 243; WILCOX V. TOWN OF MADISON, 106
CONN. 223, 137 A. 742.  BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT CONNECTICUT MAKES
AVAILABLE AN ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
THOSE ISSUES OF CONNECTICUT LAW INVOLVED HERE.  CHARTER OAK COUNCIL,
INC. V. TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD, 121 CONN. 466, 185 A. 575; CONZELMAN V.
CITY OF BRISTOL, 122 CONN. 218, 188 A. 659; WALSH V. CITY OF
BRIDGEPORT, 2 CONN. SUPP. 88. 

WE THEREFORE VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND
REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO RETAIN THE
BILL PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO BE BROUGHT WITH
REASONABLE PROMPTITUDE IN THE STATE COURT IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION. 

FN1  FOR INSTANCE, PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT NO STANDARD FOR ASSESSMENT
IS SET UP IN THE STATUTE SO THAT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER IS ACTING IN A
LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II; THAT FAILURE TO ALLOW
A DEDUCTION FOR RENT VIOLATES SECS. 1 AND 12 OF ARTICLE I. IN ADDITION
HE CLAIMS THAT THE TAX WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE WRONG SUBSECTION OF THE
STATUTE - SEC. 420CB) INSTEAD OF SEC. 420CA). 

FN2  ACT OF AUGUST 21, 1937, 50 STAT. 738, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1). 
"...  NO DISTRICT COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF ANY SUIT TO ENJOIN,
SUSPEND, OR RESTRAIN THE ASSESSMENT, LEVY, OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX
IMPOSED BY OR PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF ANY STATE WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY,
AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW OR IN EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF
SUCH STATE." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 
..END :
























U.S. V. STANDARD RICE CO., 323 U.S. 106 


NO. 72.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944.  - 101
CT. CLS. 85, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF MATERIAL TO THE UNITED STATES CONTAINED
THE FOLLOWING PROVISION: "PRICES BID HEREIN INCLUDE ANY FEDERAL TAX
HERETOFORE IMPOSED BY THE CONGRESS WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL
ON THIS BID.  ANY SALES TAX, DUTIES, IMPOSTS, REVENUES, EXCISE OR OTHER
TAXES WHICH MAY HEREAFTER (THE DATE SET FOR THE OPENING OF THIS BID) BE
IMPOSED BY THE CONGRESS AND MADE APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL ON THIS BID
WELL BE CHARGED TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ENTERED ON INVOICES AS A SEPARATE
ITEM."  HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM
THE CONTRACTOR PROCESSING TAXES IMPOSED BY THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT, WHICH TAXES WERE "APPLICABLE" TO THE MATERIAL WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE CONTRACT, BUT WHICH, BECAUSE SUBSEQUENTLY ADJUDGED INVALID, WERE
NEVER COLLECTED FROM THE CONTRACTOR.  UNITED STATES V. KANSAS FLOUR
MILLS CORP., 314 U.S. 212, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 110. 

2.  GENERALLY THE UNITED STATES AS A CONTRACTOR IS TO BE TREATED AS
OTHER CONTRACTORS, AND A CONTRACT WHICH IT DRAWS IS NOT TO BE
JUDICIALLY REVISED BECAUSE IT MAY HAVE BEEN IMPROVIDENT.  P. 111. 

UNITED STATES V. STANDARD RICE CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 725, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING AN OFFSET TO A
CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER AN
OVERPAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES MADE BY RESPONDENT.  THE UNITED STATES
CONCEDED THAT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WAS OWED.  BUT THE COMPTROLLER
GENERAL, PURSUANT TO HIS POWER UNDER SEC. 305 OF THE BUDGET AND
ACCOUNTING ACT OF 1921(42 STAT. 20, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 71) SETTLED AND
ADJUSTED THE CLAIM BY OFFSETTING AGAINST IT AN AMOUNT WHICH HE
CONCLUDED RESPONDENT OWED THE UNITED STATES UNDER A CONTRACT.  SINCE
THE LATTER CLAIM EQUALLED THE OVERASSESSMENT ON THE INCOME TAXES, THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE A REFUND TO RESPONDENT.  THIS
SUIT FOLLOWED.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS DENIED THE OFFSET AND ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT IN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WITH INTEREST.  101 CT.
CLS. 85, 53 F.SUPP.  717.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI  FN1  WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT OF
THE DECISION BELOW WITH UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN PACKING & PROVISION
CO., 122 F.2D 445 AND UNITED STATES V. KANSAS FLOUR MILLS CORP., 314
U.S. 212. 

THE CONTRACT UNDER WHICH THE CLAIM AGAINST RESPONDENT WAS ASSERTED
WAS MADE IN NOVEMBER, 1935.  RESPONDENT AGREED TO SUPPLY RICE TO THE
NAVY DEPARTMENT AT THE BID PRICES SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT.  A TYPICAL
PRICE PROVISION LISTED 290,000 POUNDS OF RICE AT A UNIT PRICE (PER
POUND) OF .046[ OR A TOTAL PRICE OF $13,340.  THE CONTRACT CONTAINED
THE FOLLOWING PROVISION: 

"PRICES BID HEREIN INCLUDE ANY FEDERAL TAX HERETOFORE IMPOSED BY
THECONGRESS WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL ON THIS BID.  ANY SALES
TAX, DUTIES, IMPOSTS, REVENUES, EXCISE OR OTHER TAXES WHICH MAY
HEREAFTER (THE DATE SET FOR THE OPENING OF THIS BID) BE IMPOSED BY THE
CONGRESS AND MADE APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL ON THIS BID WILL BE
CHARGED TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ENTERED ON INVOICES AS A SEPARATE ITEM." 

RESPONDENT MADE THE REQUIRED DELIVERIES TO THE UNITED STATES AND
RECEIVED THE FULL PRICE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT.  RESPONDENT WAS THE
FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSOR OF THE RICE AND ACCORDINGLY PAID THE
PROCESSING TAXES IMPOSED BY THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT (48 STAT.
31, 7 U.S.C. SECS. 609, 611) FROM APRIL 1, 1935, UNTIL SEPTEMBER 20,
1935.  BEFORE PAYING THE PROCESSING TAX ON THE RICE PROCESSED FOR THE
MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1935, RESPONDENT OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ITS
COLLECTION.  THE TAX WAS HELD INVALID IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297
U.S. 1, DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1936.  CONSEQUENTLY RESPONDENT NEVER PAID
THE PROCESSING TAXES ON THE RICE SUPPLIED TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE NOVEMBER, 1935, CONTRACT.  FN2 

THE TAX WAS A FEDERAL TAX "APPLICABLE" TO THE RICE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE CONTRACT.  UNITED STATES V. GLENN L. MARTIN CO., 308 U.S. 62,
65.  ITS AMOUNT WAS KNOWN, AND THE VENDOR WAS RESPONSIBLE BY REGULATION
FOR ITS PAYMENT.  UNITED STATES V. KANSAS FLOUR MILLS CORP., SUPRA, P.
214.  IT IS THEREFORE ARGUABLE THAT THE VENDOR FIXED THE BID PRICE TO
PROVIDE A MARGIN OF PROFIT AFTER PAYMENT OF THOSE TAXES FOR WHICH IT
WAS RESPONSIBLE, THAT THE PRICE WAS DESIGNED TO OFFSET PRO TANTO THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAXES, AND THAT IF THEY WERE NOT PAID, THE PRICE SHOULD
BE REDUCED.  THAT IS THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES AND IT
RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IN UNITED STATES V. KANSAS FLOUR
MILLS CORP., SUPRA, PP. 216-217:  "IN THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION, THE
GOVERNMENT DID NOT BUY FOR RESALE.  UNLESS IT RECEIVED THE TAX IT
SUFFERED A DEFINITE DISADVANTAGE.  ITS PURPOSE, AS SHOWN BY THE
CONTRACTS, WAS TO BALANCE THE TAX ELEMENT IN THE PRICE PAID WITH THE
TAX COLLECTED.  THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH COULD NOT PASS ON THE TAX ON
RESALE, WAS THUS PROTECTED, NOT AGAINST A FALL IN THE MARKET PRICE BUT
AGAINST A LOSS IN ITS TAX REVENUES."  BUT WE WERE THERE ONLY ANSWERING
THE ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE VENDOR DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO PAY THE TAX,
THE RULE IN PRIVATE CONTRACTS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND NO READJUSTMENT OF
THE PRICE MADE WHERE THE TAX WAS NOT PAID.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
CASES WAS THAT IN THE LATTER SITUATION THE VENDEE PRESUMABLY PASSED ON
THE TAX WHILE THE UNITED STATES DID NOT SINCE IT DID NOT BUY FOR
RESALE.  THE VITAL FACT IN UNITED STATES V. KANSAS FLOUR MILLS CORP.
WAS THE PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT FOR AN UP-OR-DOWN REVISION OF THE
PRICE IN  CASE OF A CHANGE IN THE PROCESSING TAX BY CONGRESS.  IT
PROVIDED THAT IF A PROCESSING TAX WAS THEREAFTER "IMPOSED OR CHANGED BY
THE CONGRESS," THE CONTRACT PRICE WAS TO BE "INCREASED OR DECREASED
ACCORDINGLY."  IT WAS HELD THAT THE DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER
AND ITS RECOGNITION IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 AMOUNTED TO A DOWNWARD
CHANGE CALLING FOR A DECREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE.  314 U.S. P. 217. 
THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION IN THE PRESENT CONTRACT.  THE CLAUSE THAT
THE BID PRICES INCLUDE "ANY FEDERAL TAX HERETOFORE IMPOSED BY THE
CONGRESS WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL" MUST BE READ IN THE
CONTEXT OF THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT.  WHEN IT IS SO READ, A RESULT
DIFFERENT FROM THAT REACHED IN UNITED STATES V. KANSAS FLOUR MILLS
CORP. IS INDICATED. 

THE PRESENT CONTRACT PROVIDES FOR PAYMENT BY THE UNITED STATES OF
SALES AND OTHER TAXES THEREAFTER IMPOSED BY CONGRESS AND MADE
APPLICABLE TO THE RICE.  BUT WHILE IT MAKES THAT PROVISION FOR UPWARD
READJUSTMENT OF THE PRICE, IT PROVIDES FOR NO DOWNWARD REVISION IN CASE
OF SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN ANY TAX.  THAT SILENCE GAINS ADDED
SIGNIFICANCE HERE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS
MADE THE PAYMENT OF THESE PROCESSING TAXES WAS BEING HOTLY CONTESTED
AND THE LITIGATION RESULTING IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, SUPRA, WAS
WELL UNDER WAY.  THE INFERENCE IS STRONG THEREFORE THAT THE PARTIES
INTENDED THE PRICE TO BE FIRM, EXCEPT AS IT MIGHT BE INCREASED THROUGH
THE IMPOSITION OF NEW TAXES.  THE PROVISION FOR THE INCLUSION OF
APPLICABLE TAXES PROVIDES A FORMULA FOR DETERMINING THE PRICE TO BE
BILLED.  SINCE THE TAX IN QUESTION COULD NOT BY THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT BE BILLED TO THE UNITED STATES, THERE WAS NO OVERCHARGE.  IF
THE CONTRACTOR LAWFULLY AVOIDS PAYMENT OF A TAX HE REDUCES HIS COST AND
INCREASES HIS PROFIT.  BUT IN ABSENCE OF A PROVISION WHICH AUTHORIZES
IT THE REDUCTION OF COST IS HARDLY THE BASIS OF A REFUND TO THE UNITED
STATES.  AS THE COURT OF CLAIMS POINTS OUT, IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW THE
VENDOR COULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE UNITED STATES ANY SAVINGS WHICH IT
MADE AS A RESULT OF REDUCTIONS IN TARIFF DUTIES.  YET THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THEM AND OTHER TAXES UNDER THIS CONTRACT IS NOT APPARENT. 
ALTHOUGH THERE WILL BE EXCEPTIONS, IN GENERAL THE UNITED STATES AS A
CONTRACTOR MUST BE TREATED AS OTHER CONTRACTORS UNDER ANALOGOUS
SITUATIONS.  WHEN PROBLEMS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF ITS CONTRACTS ARISE
THE LAW OF CONTRACTS GOVERNS.  HOLLERBACH V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S.
165, 171-172; UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S. 289, 298
299.  WE WILL TREAT IT LIKE ANY OTHER CONTRACTOR AND NOT REVISE THE
CONTRACT WHICH IT DRAWS ON THE GROUND THAT A MORE PRUDENT ONE MIGHT
HAVE BEEN MADE.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 322 U.S. 96. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, SEC. 3(B), 43 STAT. 939, AMENDED
BY THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1939, 53 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 288(B). 

FN2  RESPONDENT DID, HOWEVER, PAY AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT TAX OF
$72,072.30 ON ACCOUNT OF BEING RELIEVED OF THE PROCESSING TAX.  SEE
TITLE III OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1648, 1734.  IT WAS
COMPUTED AND ASSESSED UPON THE BASIS OF INCLUSION OF UNITS INVOLVED IN
THIS SUIT.  IF THOSE UNITS HAD BEEN EXCLUDED, THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT TAX
WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY $1,706.59.  IF RESPONDENT IS REQUIRED TO
REDUCE ITS PRICE BY THE AMOUNT OF THE UNPAID PROCESSING TAX, IT IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT TAX ON THESE TRANSACTIONS.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. KANSAS FLOUR MILLS CORP., SUPRA, P. 216, NOTE 6.  THE UNITED
STATES CONCEDES THAT IF IT PREVAILS THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER $1,706.59. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 
..END :
























SMITH V. DAVIS, 323 U.S. 111 


NO. 23.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944.  - 197
GA. 95, 28 S.W.2D 148, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIM OF A CREDITOR OF THE UNITED STATES,
REPRESENTING A BALANCE CLAIMED TO BE DUE UNDER ARMY CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS, HELD NOT A CREDIT INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND
NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXATION.  P.
113. 

2.  R.S. SEC. 3701, EXEMPTING FROM STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION "ALL
STOCKS, BONDS, TREASURY NOTES, AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES," HELD INAPPLICABLE TO AN OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIM OF A CREDITOR OF
THE UNITED STATES.  P. 116. 

3.  UNDER THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS, THE WORDS "OTHER OBLIGATIONS"
IN R.S. SEC. 3701 ARE TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFERRING ONLY TO OBLIGATIONS
OR SECURITIES OF THE SAME TYPE AS THOSE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED, AND
NOT AS EXTENDING TO NON-INTEREST-BEARING CLAIMS OR OBLIGATIONS WHICH
THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT USE OR NEED FOR CREDIT PURPOSES.  P. 117. 

SMITH ET AL., PARTNERS, V. DAVIS ET AL., AS BOARD OF COUNTY TAX
ASSESSORS OF FULTON COUNTY, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 761, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DIRECTING DISMISSAL OF
A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ASSESSMENT OF A STATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE PARTNERS ENGAGED IN THE CONTRACTING AND CONSTRUCTION
BUSINESS.  THEY CLAIM THAT ON JANUARY 1, 1942, THE UNITED STATES OWED
THEM A BALANCE OF $29,831.10.  THIS AMOUNT WAS DUE UNDER THE TERMS OF
TWO CONTRACTS FOR WORK, LABOR AND MATERIALS FURNISHED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO AIRPORTS FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES
ARMY.  PETITIONERS STATE THAT THIS BALANCE "WAS IN THE NATURE OF AN
OPEN ACCOUNT AND REPRESENTED AN ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE" IN THEIR HANDS. 

THE RESPONDENT TAX OFFICIALS OF FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, SOUGHT TO
ASSESS THIS OPEN ACCOUNT FOR STATE AND COUNTY AD VALOREM TAX PURPOSES. 
FN1  PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A STATE COURT TO ENJOIN SUCH
ASSESSMENT, CLAIMING THAT THE OPEN ACCOUNT WAS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF
THE UNITED STATES AND HENCE WAS IMMUNE FROM STATE OR COUNTY TAXATION. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA OVERRULED THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF
RESPONDENTS' GENERAL DEMURRER AND DIRECTED THAT THE PETITION BE
DISMISSED.  197 GA. 95, 28 S.E.2D 148.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE
CASE. 

I. PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THE PROPOSED TAX ON THE OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIM
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IS A TAX UPON THE CREDIT OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND UPON ITS POWER TO RAISE MONEY TO CARRY ON MILITARY AND
CIVIL OPERATIONS.  HENCE, IT IS ARGUED, SUCH A TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
UNDER THE RULE, FIRST ENUNCIATED IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT. 
316, THAT WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THERE IS IMMUNITY FROM STATE AND
LOCAL TAXATION, IMPLIED FROM THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, OF ALL
PROPERTIES, FUNCTIONS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
FN2  WE THINK OTHERWISE. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, AN OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
DOES NOT REPRESENT A CREDIT INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.  THE RECORD HERE
REVEALS ONLY THAT PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THE UNITED STATES OWES THEM
$29,831.10, WHICH AMOUNT IS CARRIED BY THEM AS AN ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE
AND "IS IN THE NATURE OF AN OPEN ACCOUNT."  THERE ARE THE USUAL
PROVISIONS OF STANDARD FORM GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS CALLING
FOR PROGRESS PAYMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES, WITH FINAL PAYMENT BEING
MADE AFTER COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
OF ANY BARGAINING FOR A CREDIT EXTENSION OF $29,831.10 OR ANY
PROVISIONS FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THE
CONTRACTS.  NOR IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT ANY CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
NEEDED TO BE FULFILLED OR THAT, ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS
CONCEDED TO BE CORRECT BY THE UNITED STATES, ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE
FORMAL MECHANICS OF PAYMENT NEEDED TO BE PERFORMED.  WE CAN ONLY
ASSUME, THEREFORE, THAT THIS IS AN ORDINARY OPEN ACCOUNT AS GENERALLY
DEFINED IN THE COMMERCIAL WORLD.  FN3  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS AN
UNSETTLED CLAIM OR DEMAND MADE BY THE CREDITOR WHICH APPEARS IN HIS
ACCOUNT BOOKS.  IT IS NOT EVIDENCED BY ANY WRITTEN DOCUMENT WHEREBY THE
UNITED STATES, THE DEBTOR, HAS PROMISED TO PAY THIS CLAIM AT A CERTAIN
TIME IN THE FUTURE; NOR IS THERE ANY BINDING ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE
UNITED STATES OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM.  CONCEIVABLY THE AMOUNT
CLAIMED TO BE DUE IS INCORRECT OR IS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEFENSES OR
COUNTERCLAIMS BY THE UNITED STATES, NECESSITATING FURTHER SETTLEMENT OR
ADJUSTMENT.  SUCH A UNILATERAL, UNLIQUIDATED CREDITOR'S CLAIM, WHICH BY
ITSELF DOES NOT BIND THE UNITED STATES AND WHICH IN NO WAY INCREASES OR
AFFECTS THE PUBLIC DEBT, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CREDIT INSTRUMENTALITY
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF TAX IMMUNITY. 

IN THESE RESPECTS A MERE OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIM DIFFERS VITALLY FROM THE
TYPE OF CREDIT INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH THIS COURT IN THE PAST HAS
RECOGNIZED AS CONSTITUTIONALLY EXEMPT FROM STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION. 
FN4  SUCH INSTRUMENTALITIES IN EACH INSTANCE HAVE BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY
(1) WRITTEN DOCUMENTS, (2) THE BEARING OF INTEREST, (3) A BINDING
PROMISE BY THE UNITED STATES TO PAY SPECIFIED SUMS AT SPECIFIED DATES
AND (4) SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION, WHICH ALSO PLEDGED THE
FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUPPORT OF THE PROMISE TO
PAY.  THUS IN THE BANKS V. THE MAYOR, 7 WALL.  16, IMMUNITY WAS GRANTED
TO INTEREST-BEARING CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS ISSUED TO PUBLIC
CREDITORS PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1862, 12 STAT. 352, AND THE
ACT OF MARCH 17, 1862, 12 STAT. 370.  UNITED STATES STOCK, BEARING
INTEREST OF 6% AND 7%, ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF APRIL 20, 1822, 3
STAT. 663, WAS DECLARED IMMUNE IN WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET. 449. 
SEE ALSO BANK OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK CITY, 2 BLACK 620, HOLDING IMMUNE
INTEREST-BEARING STOCK OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZED BY VARIOUS ACTS
OF CONGRESS,  FN5 AND BANK OF THE COMMONWEALTH V. COMMISSIONER OF
TAXES, 2 BLACK 635, NOTE, DECLARING IMMUNE UNITED STATES STOCK, BEARING
NOT OVER 5% INTEREST, AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1858, 11 STAT.
365.  INTEREST-BEARING BONDS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED BY
LAW HAVE CONSISTENTLY BEEN HELD IMMUNE FROM STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION. 
SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, HOME SAVINGS BANK V. DES MOINES, 205 U.S. 503.  NONE
OF THESE CASES IS AUTHORITY FOR PLACING AN OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIM UNDER THE
PROTECTIVE UMBRELLA OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY. 

IT IS CLEAR, MOREOVER, THAT THE PROPOSED TAXATION OF THIS OPEN
ACCOUNT WILL NOT AFFECT OR EMBARRASS IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL MEASURE THE
POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE CREDIT OR TO SECURE AID FROM
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS FOR NECESSARY MILITARY AND CIVIL CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS.  THE TAX HERE IS A UNIFORM, NON-DISCRIMINATORY LEVY UPON AN
UNLIQUIDATED ASSET OF THE CREDITOR AND NOT UPON A CREDIT
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THAT THIS ASSET INVOLVES A CLAIM
AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NO MORE FATAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
TAX THAN THE FACT THAT IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134,
THE TAX WAS LEVIED ON THE CONTRACTOR'S GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE UNITED
STATES OR THE FACT THAT IN ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1, THE
SALES TAX WAS PLACED ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY TO A CONTRACTOR FOR USE IN
A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROJECT.  THE ASSETS OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
THAT ARE DERIVED FROM THE PROFITS OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT STAND IN NO
PREFERRED CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION SO FAR AS TAXATION IS CONCERNED. 
THEY TOO MUST BEAR THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE TAX BURDEN.  AND AS LONG AS
THAT BURDEN IS NON-DISCRIMINATORY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ASSUMING THAT
CONTRACTORS WILL BE ANY LESS WILLING TO ENTER INTO CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES.  NOR IS SUCH A TAX LIKELY TO AFFECT
OR IMPAIR IN ANY WAY THEIR ABILITY TO DISCHARGE THEIR DUTIES
EFFICIENTLY.  THERE IS THUS NO PRACTICAL REASON FOR IMMUNIZING OPEN
ACCOUNTS OF THIS NATURE FROM TAXATION. 

II.  THE CLAIM THAT AN OPEN ACCOUNT IS AN OBLIGATION EXEMPT FROM
TAXATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3701 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 31
U.S.C. SEC. 742, IS ALSO WITHOUT MERIT.  CONGRESS BY THIS SECTION HAS
PROVIDED THAT "ALL STOCKS, BONDS, TREASURY NOTES, AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY OR UNDER STATE
OR MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL AUTHORITY."  THE PLAIN MEANING OF THESE WORDS AND
THEIR LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND DISPEL ANY DOUBT AS TO THEIR
INAPPLICABILITY TO AN OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIM OF A CREDITOR OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

OBLIGATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.  STOCKS,
BONDS AND TREASURY NOTES  FN6  ARE OBVIOUSLY OF THAT NATURE.  AND,
UNDER THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS, IT IS REASONABLE TO CONSTRUE THE
GENERAL WORDS "OTHER OBLIGATIONS," WHICH ALLEGEDLY COVER OPEN ACCOUNTS,
AS REFERRING ONLY TO OBLIGATIONS OR SECURITIES OF THE SAME TYPE AS
THOSE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED.  HIBERNIA SAVINGS SOCIETY V. SAN
FRANCISCO, 200 U.S. 310.  CF. HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS ENSKILDA BANK,
293 U.S. 84.  THIS INTERPRETATION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE LONG
ESTABLISHED CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO PREVENT TAXES WHICH DIMINISH IN THE
SLIGHTEST DEGREE THE MARKET VALUE OR THE INVESTMENT ATTRACTIVENESS OF
OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES IN AN EFFORT TO SECURE
NECESSARY CREDIT.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO EXTEND SUCH TAX EXEMPTION, AT
LEAST THROUGH STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, TO NON-INTEREST-BEARING CLAIMS
OR OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT USE OR NEED FOR CREDIT
PURPOSES.  TAX EXEMPTIONS BEING THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE,
MUCH CLEARER LANGUAGE EVIDENCING AN INTENT TO IMMUNIZE OPEN ACCOUNT
CLAIMS UNDER SEC. 3701 IS NECESSARY UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE SEVEN STATUTORY EXEMPTION PROVISIONS  FN7  FROM WHICH SEC. 3701
WAS DERIVED FURTHER CONFIRM THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS AT NO TIME
INTENDED TO EXEMPT OPEN ACCOUNT CLAIMS.  IN ALL SEVEN INSTANCES THE
EXEMPTION PROVISIONS APPEARED IN STATUTES AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
INTEREST-BEARING BONDS OR TREASURY NOTES.  FIVE OF THE SEVEN STATUTES
SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TAX EXEMPTIONS TO THE SECURITIES ISSUED UNDER
THOSE ENACTMENTS; ONE EXTENDED EXEMPTION TO "ALL STOCKS, BONDS, AND
OTHER SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES"; FN8  AND THE OTHER GRANTED
EXEMPTION TO "ALL BONDS, TREASURY NOTES, AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES."  FN9  THUS, IF THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS BE APPLIED
TO THE TWO LATTER PROVISIONS, ALL SEVEN EXEMPTIONS WERE LIMITED BY
THEIR TERMS TO INTEREST-BEARING SECURITIES OR OBLIGATIONS AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS, FOR THE PAYMENT OF WHICH THE CREDIT AND FAITH OF THE UNITED
STATES WAS PLEDGED.  FULL EFFECT MUST ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE SUBSEQUENT
STATUTORY PROVISION ALLOWING STATES TO TAX "LEGAL TENDER NOTES AND
OTHER NOTES AND CERTIFICATES OF THE UNITED STATES PAYABLE ON DEMAND AND
CIRCULATING OR INTENDED TO CIRCULATE AS CURRENCY."  FN10  ALL OF THESE
RELATED STATUTES ARE A CLEAR INDICATION OF AN INTENT TO IMMUNIZE FROM
STATE TAXATION ONLY THE INTEREST-BEARING OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES WHICH ARE NEEDED TO SECURE CREDIT TO CARRY ON THE NECESSARY
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  THAT INTENT, WHICH IS LARGELY CODIFIED IN
SEC. 3701, SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDED OR MODIFIED IN ANY DEGREE BY THE
JUDICIARY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  GEORGIA CODE (1933) SEC. 92-101 SUBJECTS ALL REAL AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY TO TAXATION, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, AND SEC. 92
102 INCLUDES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY "MONEY DUE ON
OPEN ACCOUNT OR EVIDENCED BY NOTES, CONTRACTS, BONDS, OR OTHER
OBLIGATIONS, SECURED OR UNSECURED." 

FN2  PEOPLE EX REL. ASTORIA LIGHT CO. V. CANTOR, 236 N.Y. 417, 141
N.E. 901, IS CITED IN SUPPORT OF THIS ARGUMENT. 

FN3  SEE PATON, ACCOUNTANTS' HANDBOOK 229-30(2D ED., 1934); OLSON AND
HALLMAN, CREDIT MANAGEMENT 36(1925); JAMISON, FINANCE 56 FF (1927);
KRAMER V. GARDNER, 104 MINN. 370, 373, 116 N.W. 925, 926. 

FN4  IN BANK V. SUPERVISORS, 7 WALL.  26, THIS COURT HELD THAT
CONGRESS HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, AND EXERCISED IT, TO EXEMPT NON
INTERESTBEARING UNITED STATES LEGAL TENDER NOTES, CALLED "GREENBACKS." 
THE DECISION DID NOT REST ON A FINDING THAT THESE NOTES WERE
CONSTITUTIONALLY EXEMPT IN AND OF THEMSELVES.  CONGRESS THEREAFTER
ENACTED A STATUTE WHICH IN EFFECT REVERSED THIS DECISION AND ALLOWED
SUCH NOTES TO BE TAXED BY STATES.  ACT OF AUG. 13, 1894, 28 STAT. 278,
SEC. 1, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 425. 

FN5  THIS CASE INVOLVED STOCK ISSUED UNDER THE ACT OF APRIL 15, 1842,
5 STAT. 473, THE ACT OF JAN. 26, 1847, 9 STAT. 118, THE ACT OF MARCH
31, 1848, 9 STAT. 217, AND THE ACT OF FEB. 8, 1861, 12 STAT. 129. 

FN6  THE ONLY TREASURY NOTES THAT COULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN SEC. 3701
ARE INTEREST-BEARING ONES, IN LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF
AUG. 13, 1894, 28 STAT. 278, SEC. 1, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 425, ALLOWING NOTES
AND CERTIFICATES PAYABLE ON DEMAND AND CIRCULATING AS CURRENCY TO BE
TAXED BY THE STATES. 

FN7  (1)  ACT OF FEB. 25, 1862, 12 STAT. 345, 346, EXEMPTING "ALL
STOCKS, BONDS, AND OTHER SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES"; (2) ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1863, 12 STAT. 709, 710, EXEMPTING "ALL THE BONDS AND TREASURY
NOTES OR UNITED STATES NOTES ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT";
(3)  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1864, 13 STAT. 13, EXEMPTING "ALL BONDS ISSUED
UNDER THIS ACT"; (4)  ACT OF JUNE 30, 1864, 13 STAT. 218, EXEMPTING
"ALL BONDS, TREASURY NOTES, AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES"; (5)  ACT OF JAN. 28, 1865, 13 STAT. 425, EXEMPTING "SUCH
NOTES" AS WERE ISSUED UNDER THE STATUTE IN LIEU OF BONDS; (6)  ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1865, 13 STAT. 468, 469, EXEMPTING "ALL BONDS OR OTHER
OBLIGATIONS ISSUED UNDER THIS ACT"; (7)  ACT OF JULY 14, 1870, 16 STAT.
272, EXEMPTING "ALL OF WHICH SAID SEVERAL CLASSES OF BONDS (AUTHORIZED
TO BE ISSUED UNDER THE ACT) AND THE INTEREST THEREON." 

FN8  ACT OF FEB. 25, 1862, 12 STAT. 345, 346.  THIS HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED IN CONGRESS AS EMBRACING "SIMPLY THE PUBLIC SECURITIES, SUCH
AS ARE DESCRIBED AS THE PERMANENT DEBT OF THE GOVERNMENT."  CONG.
GLOBE, P. 3184, 38TH CONG., 1ST SESS.    FN9  ACT OF JUNE 30, 1864, 13
STAT. 218.  THIS PROVISION COMES CLOSEST TO THE WORDING OF SEC. 3701. 
IN SPEAKING OF THE TERM "OTHER OBLIGATIONS," REP. HOOPER SAID DURING
THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES ON THE ACT THAT "I UNDERSTAND, HOWEVER, THAT
THIS PROVISION APPLIES ONLY TO THE INTEREST-BEARING OBLIGATIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT."  CONG. GLOBE, P. 3183, 38TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  HE ALSO
STATED THAT THE COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF THE BILL WHICH EVENTUALLY BECAME
LAW "FOUND THE GENERAL PRACTICE SINCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN TO EXEMPT FROM TAXATION THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER LOAN BILLS."  IBID. 
THIS ACT, MOREOVER, OBVIOUSLY USED THE WORD "OBLIGATION" THROUGHOUT TO
REFER TO WRITTEN DOCUMENTS, MAKING PROVISIONS RELATING TO
COUNTERFEITING, ALTERING, PRINTING AND PHOTOGRAPHING THEM.  AND IN SEC.
13, THE ACT DEFINED THE WORDS "OBLIGATION OR OTHER SECURITY OF THE
UNITED STATES," AS USED IN THIS ACT, TO INCLUDE AND MEAN "ALL BONDS,
COUPONS, NATIONAL CURRENCY, UNITED STATES NOTES, TREASURY NOTES,
FRACTIONAL NOTES, CHECKS FOR MONEY OF AUTHORIZED OFFICERS OF THE UNITED
STATES, CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS, CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT, STAMPS,
AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF VALUE OF WHATEVER DENOMINATION, WHICH HAVE
BEEN OR MAY BE ISSUED UNDER ANY ACT OF CONGRESS." 

FN10  ACT OF AUG. 13, 1894, 28 STAT. 278, SEC. 1, 31 U.S.C. SEC.
425.  SEE NOTES 4 AND 6, SUPRA.
..END :






COMM'R V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN CO., 323 U.S. 119 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944.  - 139 F.2D 419,
AFFIRMED.  - 142 F.2D 401, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE TAX COURT THAT THE TAXPAYERS IN THIS CASE
HAD "AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS" IN THE UNITED STATES WAS SUPPORTED
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND ITS DETERMINATION THAT THEY WERE THEREFORE
ENTITLED TO BE TAXED AS RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER SEC. 231(B)
OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938 COULD NOT BE SET ASIDE ON
APPELLATE REVIEW.  P. 123. 

2.  WHEN THE TAX COURT'S FACTUAL INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS ARE
DETERMINATIVE OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THE APPELLATE
COURTS ARE LIMITED TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE EVIDENCE.  THE JUDICIAL EYE MUST NOT IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE ROVE ABOUT SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT OTHER
CONFLICTING INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH THE JUDGES OR THE
LITIGANTS MAY CONSIDER MORE REASONABLE OR DESIRABLE.  IT MUST BE CAST
DIRECTLY AND PRIMARILY UPON THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THOSE MADE BY
THE TAX COURT.  IF A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IS LACKING THE APPELLATE COURT
MAY THEN INDULGE IN MAKING ITS OWN INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS OR IT MAY
REMAND THE CASE TO THE TAX COURT FOR FURTHER APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS. 
BUT IF SUCH A BASIS IS PRESENT THE PROCESS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AT AN
END.  P. 124. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. SCOTTISH AMERICAN INVESTMENT CO.,
LTD. 

NO. 52.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 53, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. BRITISH
ASSETS TRUST, LTD., AND NO. 54, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V.
SECOND BRITISH ASSETS TRUST, LTD., ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT; AND NO. 220, SCOTTISH
AMERICAN INVESTMENT CO., LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, NO.
221, BRITISH ASSETS TRUST, LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
AND NO. 222, SECOND BRITISH ASSETS TRUST, LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 722 AND POST, P. 693, TO REVIEW IN NOS. 52, 53,
AND 54 AFFIRMANCES, AND IN NOS. 220, 221, AND 222 REVERSALS, OF
DECISIONS OF THE TAX COURT, 47 B.T.A. 474, WHICH REVERSED THE
COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATIONS OF DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CONFRONTED HERE WITH ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM OF THE
JUDICIAL REVIEWABILITY OF TAX COURT DETERMINATIONS. 

THE THREE TAXPAYERS INVOLVED IN THESE CASES ARE INVESTMENT TRUSTS
ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF GREAT BRITAIN, WITH PRINCIPAL OFFICES IN
EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND.  EACH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTING THE
FUNDS OF ITS SECURITY HOLDERS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF DERIVING
INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS.  THE TAX COURT, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS, HAD HELD THAT THESE TAXPAYERS HAD AN "OFFICE OR PLACE OF
BUSINESS" WITHIN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE FOUR YEARS IN QUESTION
AND HENCE WERE ENTITLED TO BE TAXED AS RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
UNDER SEC. 231(B) OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938.  47 B.T.A.
474.  SUCH A HOLDING WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL TAX SAVINGS THAT WOULD
BE UNAVAILABLE TO THEM HAD THEY NOT MAINTAINED SUCH AN OFFICE IN THIS
COUNTRY.  THE TAX RETURNS FOR THE VARIOUS YEARS HAVING BEEN FILED IN
DIFFERENT COLLECTORS' OFFICES, THE COMMISSIONER APPEALED TO TWO CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEAL.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT, DEALING WITH THE 1936 AND 1937 TAX RETURNS, AFFIRMED THE TAX
COURT'S DECISION AS TO THOSE YEARS.  139 F.2D 419.  BUT THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, CONSIDERING THE IDENTICAL FACTS
AND SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME STATUTES AND REGULATIONS, HELD THAT THE
TAXPAYERS DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES DURING 1938 AND 1939; THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT AS TO THOSE
YEARS WAS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED.  142 F.2D 401.  THE IRRECONCILABLE
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO COURTS BELOW LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE TAX COURT MADE VIRTUALLY UNDISPUTED FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH NEED
NOT BE REPEATED HERE IN DETAIL.  IN BRIEF, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE THREE
TAXPAYERS JOINTLY APPOINTED A MEMBER OF AN AMERICAN ACCOUNTING FIRM AS
THEIR ASSISTANT SECRETARY.  HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN
AN OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THEM IN ORDER TO OBTAIN BETTER
REPRESENTATION OF THEIR INTERESTS IN THIS COUNTRY, LARGE AMOUNTS OF
AMERICAN SECURITIES BEING HELD AS INVESTMENTS BY THEM.  BY ESTABLISHING
THIS OFFICE THEY ALSO SOUGHT TO OBTAIN CERTAIN TAX ADVANTAGES.  THE
OFFICE WAS ACCORDINGLY OPENED AND TWO FULL-TIME ASSISTANTS TO THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WERE EMPLOYED.  THE AMERICAN SECURITIES WERE KEPT
IN THE CUSTODY OF TWO BANKS, THROUGH WHICH THE SECURITIES WERE BOUGHT
AND SOLD, AND ASSISTANCE ON CERTAIN MATTERS WAS OBTAINED FROM THE
ACCOUNTING FIRM.  THIS OFFICE OF THE TAXPAYERS KEPT FULL RECORDS
CONCERNING ALL AMERICAN HOLDINGS, COLLECTED AND RECEIVED DIVIDENDS ON
SUCH HOLDINGS, ACTED ON PROXIES AND PERFORMED OTHER DUTIES RELATIVE TO
THE MAINTENANCE OF THESE INVESTMENTS.  THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY MADE
PERIODIC FINANCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL REPORTS TO THE HOME OFFICES,
AS WELL AS SPECIFIC REPORTS CONCERNING PARTICULAR HOLDINGS.  UNITED
STATES TAX RETURNS WERE PREPARED IN THIS OFFICE AND LOCAL EXPENSES WERE
DISBURSED THEREFROM.  ALL DECISIONS AS TO THE BUYING AND SELLING OF
SECURITIES AND AS TO INVESTMENT POLICIES, HOWEVER, WERE MADE BY THE
HOME OFFICES IN EDINBURGH. 

CERTAIN INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS WERE THEN DRAWN FROM THESE FACTS
BY THE TAX COURT.  IT REFUSED TO CONSIDER EACH SEPARATE ACTIVITY IN
THIS OFFICE APART FROM ITS INTEGRAL RELATION TO THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT
TRUST BUSINESS AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT "AN OFFICE HANDLING AFFAIRS
TO THIS EXTENT MUST BE REGARDED AS REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL.  IT WAS HERE
THAT A VERY LARGE PART OF THE AFFAIRS OF PETITIONERS IN THIS COUNTRY
WERE TAKEN CARE OF."  THE TAX COURT FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THIS OFFICE
WAS NOT A SHAM BUT WAS A PLACE FOR THE NECESSARY TRANSACTION OF THE
AMERICAN AFFAIRS OF THE TAXPAYERS; "THE OFFICE WAS USED FOR THE REGULAR
TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS AND NOT AS A PLACE WHERE CASUAL OR INCIDENTAL
TRANSACTIONS MIGHT BE, OR WERE, EFFECTED." 

UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 231(B) AND OF THE REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED THEREUNDER,  FN2  THE TAX COURT REACHED THE ULTIMATE
CONCLUSION THAT THE TAXPAYERS MAINTAINED AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND WERE THEREFORE ENTITLED TO BE TAXED AS
RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  THERE IS NO CHARGE HERE THAT THE TAX
COURT FAILED TO FOLLOW THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OR REGULATIONS.  NO
CLEAR CUT MISTAKE OF LAW IS ALLEGED.  NOR ARE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
INVOLVED.  THE SOLE ISSUE REVOLVES ABOUT THE PROPRIETY OF THE
INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE BY THE TAX COURT. 
THE TAXPAYERS CLAIM THAT THESE DETERMINATIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND HENCE WERE NOT REVERSIBLE BY AN APPELLATE
COURT.  THE COMMISSIONER CHARGES THAT THE FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
AMERICAN OFFICE WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR THE TRANSACTION OF THE
REGULAR BUSINESS OF MAKING INVESTMENTS AND THAT IT WAS IMPROPER AS A
MATTER OF LAW TO CLASSIFY THE TAXPAYERS AS RESIDENT FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS. 

THE ANSWER IS TO BE FOUND IN A PROPER REALIZATION OF THE DISTINCTIVE
FUNCTIONS OF THE TAX COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL IN THIS
RESPECT.  THE TAX COURT HAS THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF FINDING THE FACTS
IN TAX DISPUTES, WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE, AND CHOOSING FROM AMONG
CONFLICTING FACTUAL INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS THOSE WHICH IT CONSIDERS
MOST REASONABLE.  THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE NO POWER TO CHANGE
OR ADD TO THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT OR TO REWEIGH THE EVIDENCE.  AND WHEN
THE TAX COURT'S FACTUAL INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS ARE DETERMINATIVE OF
COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THE APPELLATE COURTS ARE
LIMITED TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL BASIS
IN THE EVIDENCE.  THE JUDICIAL EYE MUST NOT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE ROVE
ABOUT SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT OTHER CONFLICTING INFERENCES
AND CONCLUSIONS WHICH THE JUDGES OR THE LITIGANTS MAY CONSIDER MORE
REASONABLE OR DESIRABLE.  IT MUST BE CAST DIRECTLY AND PRIMARILY UPON
THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THOSE MADE BY THE TAX COURT.  IF A
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IS LACKING THE APPELLATE COURT MAY THEN INDULGE IN
MAKING ITS OWN INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS OR IT MAY REMAND THE CASE TO
THE TAX COURT FOR FURTHER APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS.  BUT IF SUCH A BASIS
IS PRESENT THE PROCESS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AT AN END.  HELVERING V.
NATIONAL GROCERY CO., 304 U.S. 282, 294; WILMINGTON TRUST CO. V.
HELVERING, 316 U.S. 164, 168; COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467,
475; DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489. 

OUR EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD CONVINCES US THAT THE FACTUAL
INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE TAX COURT ARE SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  WHILE DECISIONS AS TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF
AMERICAN SECURITIES WERE MADE IN THE EDINBURGH OFFICES, THERE WAS
ABUNDANT EVIDENCE THAT THE AMERICAN OFFICE PERFORMED VITAL FUNCTIONS IN
THE TAXPAYERS' INVESTMENT TRUST BUSINESS.  THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE
SHOWED THAT THIS OFFICE COLLECTED DIVIDENDS FROM THE VAST HOLDINGS OF
AMERICAN SECURITIES AND DID COUNTLESS OTHER TASKS ESSENTIAL TO THE
PROPER MAINTENANCE OF A LARGE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO.  ALTHOUGH SOME
MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE AMERICAN BUSINESS WERE TAKEN CARE OF BY
OTHERS, THIS OFFICE PERFORMED A VERY SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THESE DUTIES
AND COULD BE HELD TO HAVE SATISFIED THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS UNREASONABLE FOR THE TAX COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT
THIS OFFICE WAS MORE THAN A SHAM AND THAT IT WAS USED FOR THE REGULAR
TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS.  HENCE IT WAS PROPER AS A MATTER OF LAW FOR
THE TAX COURT TO CLASSIFY THE TAXPAYERS AS RESIDENT FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS UNDER SEC. 231(B).  WE DO NOT DECIDE OR IMPLY THAT THE
CONTRARY INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS URGED BY THE COMMISSIONER ARE
ENTIRELY UNREASONABLE OR COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED BY ANY PROBATIVE
EVIDENCE.  WE MERELY HOLD THAT SUCH CONTENTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT SO LONG
AS THERE IS ADEQUATE SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE FOR WHAT THE TAX COURT HAS
INFERRED.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE TAX COURT'S CONCLUSIONS IN THIS CASE
CANNOT BE SET ASIDE ON APPELLATE REVIEW. 

MOREOVER, THIS CASE EXEMPLIFIES ONE TYPE OF FACTUAL DISPUTE WHERE
JUDICIAL ABSTINENCE SHOULD BE PRONOUNCED.  THE DECISION AS TO THE FACTS
IN THIS CASE, LIKE ANALOGOUS ONES THAT PRECEDED IT,  FN3 IS OF LITTLE
VALUE AS PRECEDENT.  THE FACTUAL PATTERN IS TOO DECISIVE AND TOO VARIED
FROM CASE TO CASE TO WARRANT A GREAT EXPENDITURE OF APPELLATE COURT
ENERGY ON UNRAVELLING CONFLICTING FACTUAL INFERENCES.  THE SKILLED
JUDGMENT OF THE TAX COURT, WHICH IS THE BASIC FACT-FINDING AND
INFERENCE-MAKING BODY, SHOULD THUS BE GIVEN WIDE RANGE IN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
IS AFFIRMED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE TAXPAYERS' RETURNS FOR 1936 AND 1937 WERE FILED WITH THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND.  THE 1938
AND 1939 RETURNS WERE FILED WITH THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE AT
NEWARK, N.J. UNDER SEC. 1141 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, DECISIONS OF
THE TAX COURT MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
CIRCUIT IN WHICH IS LOCATED THE COLLECTOR'S OFFICE WHERE THE TAX RETURN
IS FILED. 

FN2  SECTION 231(B) OF BOTH THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938
PROVIDES FOR TAXES ON RESIDENT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, DEFINING THEM AS
"A FOREIGN CORPORATION ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES OR HAVING AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS THEREIN."  REVENUE ACT
OF 1936, C. 690, 49 STAT. 1648, 1717; REVENUE ACT OF 1938, C. 289, 52
STAT. 447, 530.  THE TAX COURT AND THE TWO COURTS BELOW DID NOT PASS
UPON THE COMMISSIONER'S CONTENTION, RENEWED BEFORE US, THAT THE
TAXPAYERS WERE NOT "ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THIS SECTION.  WE LIKEWISE DO NOT DISCUSS THAT CLAIM HERE SINCE IT IS
SUFFICIENT IF IT BE FOUND THAT THE TAXPAYERS IN THIS CASE HAD "AN
OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS" IN THIS COUNTRY.  SEE B.W. JONES TRUST V.
COMMISSIONER, 132 F.2D 914, 917. 

ART. 231-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1936, PROVIDES IN PART:  "WHETHER A FOREIGN CORPORATION HAS AN
'OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS' WITHIN THE UNITED STATES DEPENDS UPON THE
FACTS IN A PARTICULAR CASE.  THE TERM 'OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS,'
HOWEVER, IMPLIES A PLACE FOR THE REGULAR TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS AND
DOES NOT INCLUDE A PLACE WHERE CASUAL OR INCIDENTAL TRANSACTIONS MIGHT
BE, OR ARE, EFFECTED."  ART. 231-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 101,
PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, AND SEC. 19.231-1 OF
TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, APPLYING TO THE YEAR 1939, ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME. 

FN3  SEE LINEN THREAD CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 128 F.2D 166; AKTIEBOLAGET
SEPARATOR V. COMMISSIONER, 45 B.T.A. 243, AFFIRMED IN 128 F.2D 739;
B.W. JONES TRUST V. COMMISSIONER, 132 F.2D 914; FAJARDO SUGAR CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 20 B.T.A. 980; RECHERCHES INDUSTRIELLES V. COMMISSIONER,
45 B.T.A. 253. 
..END :
























ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK, 323 U.S. 126 


NO. 73.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944.  - 140
F.2D 356, AFFIRMED. 


1.  FIREGUARDS EMPLOYED BY A MANUFACTURER OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, HELD COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AS
EMPLOYED IN AN "OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 129. 

2.  THE CONCLUSION OF BOTH COURTS BELOW THAT, UPON THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE, TIME SPENT ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES BY FIREGUARDS SUBJECT TO
CALL - EXCLUDING TIME SPENT SLEEPING AND EATING, BUT INCLUDING TIME
SPENT IDLING OR IN RECREATION - WAS WORKING TIME COMPENSABLE UNDER THE
MAXIMUM HOURS AND OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,
SUSTAINED.  P. 132. 

3.  OPINIONS OF THE COURT ARE TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF
THE CASE.  P. 132. 

ARMOUR & CO. V. WANTOCK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 723, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFFS IN A SUIT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT FOR
OVERTIME, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ARMOUR AND COMPANY, PETITIONER, HAS BEEN HELD LIABLE TO CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES FOR OVERTIME, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEYS' FEES UNDER
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  140 F.2D 356.  THE OVERTIME IN QUESTION
IS THAT SPENT ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES AS FIREGUARDS SUBJECT TO CALL,
BUT OTHERWISE PUT TO SUCH PERSONAL USE AS SLEEPING OR RECREATION.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ON FACTS OF CONSIDERABLE
SIMILARITY REACHED AN OPPOSITE RESULT, IN SKIDMORE V. SWIFT & CO., 136
F.2D 112, POST, P. 134.  TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
IN BOTH CASES.  322 U.S. 723. 

ARMOUR AND COMPANY OPERATES A SOAP FACTORY IN CHICAGO WHICH PRODUCES
GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT MAINTAINS A PRIVATE FIRE-FIGHTING
FORCE TO SUPPLEMENT THAT PROVIDED BY THE CITY.  THE RESPONDENTS WERE
EMPLOYED AS FIRE FIGHTERS ONLY, AND OTHERWISE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS.  THEY WERE NOT NIGHT WATCHMEN, A SEPARATE
FORCE BEING MAINTAINED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THEY WERE NOT GIVEN ACCESS TO
THE FACTORY PREMISES AT NIGHT EXCEPT BY CALL OR PERMISSION OF THE
WATCHMEN. 

THESE MEN WORKED IN SHIFTS WHICH BEGAN AT 8:00 A.M., WHEN THEY
PUNCHED A TIME CLOCK.  THE FOLLOWING NINE HOURS, WITH A HALF HOUR OFF
FOR LUNCH, THEY WORKED AT INSPECTING, CLEANING, AND KEEPING IN ORDER
THE COMPANY'S FIRE-FIGHTING APPARATUS, WHICH INCLUDED FIRE ENGINES,
HOSE, PUMPS, WATER BARRELS AND BUCKETS, EXTINGUISHERS, AND A SPRINKLER
SYSTEM.  AT 5:00 P.M. THEY "PUNCHED OUT" ON THE TIME CLOCK.  THEN THEY
REMAINED ON CALL IN THE FIRE HALL, PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY AND LOCATED
ON ITS PROPERTY, UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MORNING AT 8:00.  THEY WENT OFF
DUTY ENTIRELY FOR THE NEXT TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AND THEN RESUMED WORK AS
DESCRIBED. 

DURING THIS NIGHTTIME ON DUTY THEY WERE REQUIRED TO STAY IN THE FIRE
HALL, TO RESPOND TO ANY ALARMS, TO MAKE ANY TEMPORARY REPAIRS OF FIRE
APPARATUS, AND TAKE CARE OF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IF DEFECTIVE OR SET
OFF BY MISCHANCE.  THE TIME SPENT IN THESE TASKS WAS RECORDED AND
AMOUNTS ON AVERAGE TO LESS THAN A HALF HOUR A WEEK.  THE EMPLOYER DOES
NOT DENY THAT TIME ACTUALLY SO SPENT SHOULD BE COMPENSATED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT. 

THE LITIGATION CONCERNS THE TIME DURING WHICH THESE MEN WERE REQUIRED
TO BE ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES, TO SOME EXTENT AMENABLE TO THE
EMPLOYER'S DISCIPLINE, SUBJECT TO CALL, BUT NOT ENGAGED IN ANY SPECIFIC
WORK.  THE COMPANY PROVIDED COOKING EQUIPMENT, BEDS, RADIOS, AND
FACILITIES FOR CARDS AND AMUSEMENTS WITH WHICH THE MEN SLEPT, ATE, OR
ENTERTAINED THEMSELVES PRETTY MUCH AS THEY CHOSE.  THEY WERE NOT,
HOWEVER, AT LIBERTY TO LEAVE THE PREMISES EXCEPT THAT, BY PERMISSION OF
THE WATCHMAN, THEY MIGHT GO TO A NEARBY RESTAURANT FOR THEIR EVENING
MEAL. 

A SINGLE FIXED WEEKLY WAGE WAS PAID TO THE MEN, REGARDLESS OF THE
VARIATION IN HOURS PER WEEK SPENT ON REGULAR OR ON FIREHOUSE DUTY, THE
SCHEDULE OF SHIFTS OCCASIONING CONSIDERABLE VARIATION IN WEEKLY TIME. 

THIS FIRE-FIGHTING SERVICE WAS NOT MAINTAINED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
COMPANY'S OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF PRODUCTION, BUT AT THAT OF ITS
INSURANCE DEPARTMENT.  SEVERAL OTHER PLANTS OF ARMOUR AND THOSE OF
NUMEROUS OTHER MANUFACTURERS IN THE SAME INDUSTRY PRODUCE SIMILAR GOODS
FOR COMMERCE WITHOUT MAINTAINING SUCH A FIRE-FIGHTING SERVICE. 

ON THESE FACTS THE PETITIONER CONTENDS:  FIRST, THAT EMPLOYEES IN
SUCH AUXILIARY FIRE-FIGHTING CAPACITY ARE NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, OR IN ANY OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO
SUCH PRODUCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT; AND, SECOND, THAT EVEN
IF THEY WERE WITHIN THE ACT, TIME SPENT IN SLEEPING, EATING, PLAYING
CARDS, LISTENING TO THE RADIO, OR OTHERWISE AMUSING THEMSELVES, CANNOT
BE COUNTED AS WORKING TIME.  THE EMPLOYEES CONTENDED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT THAT ALL OF SUCH STAND-BY TIME, HOWEVER SPENT, WAS EMPLOYMENT
TIME WITHIN THE ACT, BUT THEY TOOK NO APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT IN SO
FAR AS IT WAS ADVERSE TO THEM. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH SERVICE WERE
COVERED BY THE ACT.  BUT IT DECLINED TO GO TO EITHER EXTREME DEMANDED
BY THE PARTIES AS TO WORKING TIME.  USUAL HOURS FOR SLEEP AND FOR
EATING IT RULED WOULD NOT BE COUNTED, BUT THE REMAINING HOURS SHOULD. 
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED FOR WANTOCK OF $505.67 OVERTIME, THE SAME AMOUNT
IN LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND $600 FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES; WHILE SMITH
RECOVERED $943.07 OVERTIME, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF EQUAL AMOUNT, AND
ATTORNEYS' FEES OF $650.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 

FIRST.  WERE THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT?  SECTION 7 OF THE ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 207, BY ITS OWN
TERMS APPLIES MAXIMUM HOURS PROVISIONS TO TWO GENERAL CLASSES OF
EMPLOYEES, THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE AND THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED
IN PRODUCING GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  SECTION 3(J), 29 U.S.C. SEC. 203(J),
ADDS ANOTHER BY THE PROVISION THAT "AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE
BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED
...  IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS
FOR COMMERCE.  THE COURTS BELOW HELD THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE INCLUDED
IN THIS CLASS.  THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO LIMIT THOSE ENTITLED TO THIS
CLASSIFICATION BY READING THE WORD "NECESSARY" IN THE HIGHLY
RESTRICTIVE SENSE OF "INDISPENSABLE," "ESSENTIAL," AND "VITAL" - WORDS
IT FINDS IN PREVIOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THIS COURT DEALING WITH THIS
CLAUSE.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 524-26; OVERSTREET V.
NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125, 129, 130.  THESE AND OTHER CASES, SAYS
PETITIONER, INDICATE THAT IN APPLYING THE ACT A DISTINCTION MUST BE
MADE BETWEEN THOSE PROCESSES OR OCCUPATIONS WHICH AN EMPLOYER FINDS
ADVANTAGEOUS IN HIS OWN PLAN OF PRODUCTION AND THOSE WITHOUT WHICH HE
COULD NOT PRACTICALLY PRODUCE AT ALL.  PRESENT RESPONDENTS, IT
CONTENDS, CLEARLY FALL WITHIN THE FORMER CATEGORY BECAUSE SOAP CAN BE
AND IN MANY OTHER PLANTS IS PRODUCED WITHOUT THE KIND OF FIRE
PROTECTION WHICH THESE EMPLOYEES PROVIDE. 

THE ARGUMENT WOULD GIVE AN UNWARRANTED RIGIDITY TO THE APPLICATION OF
THE WORD "NECESSARY," WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A WORD TO BE
HARMONIZED WITH ITS CONTEXT.  SEE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316,
413, 414.  NO HARD AND FAST RULE WILL TELL US WHAT CAN BE DISPENSED
WITH IN "THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS."  ALL DEPENDS UPON THE DETAIL WITH
WHICH THAT BARE PHRASE IS CLOTHED.  IN THE LAW OF INFANTS' LIABILITY,
WHAT ARE "NECESSARIES" MAY WELL VARY WITH THE ENVIRONMENT TO WHICH THE
INFANT IS EXPOSED:  CLIMATE AND STATION IN LIFE AND MANY OTHER
FACTORS.  SO, TOO, NO HARD AND FAST RULE MAY BE TRANSPOSED FROM ONE
INDUSTRY TO ANOTHER TO SAY WHAT IS NECESSARY IN "THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS."  WHAT IS PRACTICALLY NECESSARY TO IT WILL DEPEND ON ITS
ENVIRONMENT AND POSITION.  A PLANT MAY BE SO BUILT AS TO BE AN
EXCEPTIONAL FIRE HAZARD, OR IT MAY BE MENACED BY NEIGHBORHOOD.  IT MAY
BE FARTHER FROM PUBLIC FIRE PROTECTION, OR ITS USE OF INFLAMMABLE
MATERIALS MAY MAKE INSTANTANEOUS RESPONSE TO FIRE ALARM OF PECULIAR
IMPORTANCE TO IT. "WHATEVER TERMINOLOGY IS USED, THE CRITERION IS
NECESSARILY ONE OF DEGREE AND MUST BE SO DEFINED."  SANTA CRUZ CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 467; KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S.
517, 526.  IN THEIR CONTEXT, THE RESTRICTIVE WORDS LIKE
"INDISPENSABLE," WHICH PETITIONER QUOTES, DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOMATIC
SIGNIFICANCE PETITIONER SEEKS TO GIVE THEM.  WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A
PRACTICAL JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYER ACTUALLY
OPERATES THE WORK AS PART OF AN INTEGRATED EFFORT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS. 

THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS WERE HIRED BY AN EMPLOYER WHICH SHOWS NO
OSTENSIBLE PURPOSE FOR BEING IN BUSINESS EXCEPT TO PRODUCE GOODS FOR
COMMERCE IS NOT WITHOUT WEIGHT, EVEN THOUGH WE RECOGNIZED IN KIRSCHBAUM
CO. V. WALLING THAT IT MIGHT NOT ALWAYS BE DECISIVE (316 U.S. AT 525). 
A COURT WOULD NOT READILY ASSUME THAT A CORPORATION'S MANAGEMENT WAS
SPENDING STOCKHOLDERS' MONEY ON A MERE HOBBY OR AN EXTRAVAGANCE.  THE
COMPANY DOES NOT PROVE OR ASSERT THAT THIS FIRE PROTECTION IS SO
UNRELATED TO ITS BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION THAT IT DOES NOT FOR INCOME-TAX
PURPOSES DEDUCT THE WAGES OF THESE EMPLOYEES FROM GROSS INCOME AS
"ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES" (INT. REV. CODE SEC. 23(A)(1)).  THE
RECORD SHOWS THAT THIS DEPARTMENT NOT ONLY HELPS TO SAFEGUARD THE
CONTINUITY OF PRODUCTION AGAINST INTERRUPTION BY FIRE BUT SERVES A
FISCAL PURPOSE AS WELL.  WITHOUT THE DEPARTMENT, INSURANCE COULD NOT BE
OBTAINED AT ANY PRICE EXCEPT BY EMPLOYING ENOUGH WATCHMEN TO MAKE
HOURLY ROUNDS; WITH IT, ONLY ENOUGH WATCHMEN FOR ROUNDS EVERY TWO HOURS
ARE NEEDED.  THIS SAVES TWELVE WATCHMEN, OR ABOUT $17,600 A YEAR, AND
REDUCES INSURANCE PREMIUMS BY $1,200 A YEAR.  WHAT THE NET SAVINGS ARE
HAS NOT BEEN STIPULATED, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS SO-CALLED "DE LUXE"
SERVICE IS MAINTAINED BECAUSE IT IS GOOD BUSINESS TO DO SO.  MORE IS
NECESSARY TO A SUCCESSFUL ENTERPRISE THAN THAT IT BE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO
PRODUCE GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  IT ALSO AIMS TO PRODUCE THEM AT A PRICE AT
WHICH IT CAN MAINTAIN ITS COMPETITIVE PLACE, AND AN OCCUPATION IS NOT
TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE ACT MERELY BECAUSE IT CONTRIBUTES TO ECONOMY OR
TO CONTINUITY OF PRODUCTION RATHER THAN TO VOLUME OF PRODUCTION. 

IF SOME OF THE PHRASES QUOTED FROM PREVIOUS DECISIONS DESCRIBE A
HIGHER DEGREE OF ESSENTIALITY THAN THESE RESPONDENTS CAN SHOW, IT MUST
BE OBSERVED THAT THEY WERE ALL UTTERED IN CASES IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEES
WERE HELD TO BE WITHIN THE ACT.  A HOLDING THAT A PROCESS OR OCCUPATION
DESCRIBED AS "INDISPENSABLE" OR "VITAL" IS ONE "NECESSARY" WITHIN THE
ACT CANNOT BE READ AS AN AUTHORITY THAT ALL WHICH CANNOT BE SO
DESCRIBED ARE OUT OF IT.  MCLEOD V. THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491, WHICH DID
EXCLUDE THE EMPLOYEE FROM THE SCOPE OF THE ACT, IS NOT IN POINT HERE
BECAUSE IT INVOLVED APPLICATION OF THE OTHER CLAUSE OF THE ACT,
COVERING EMPLOYEES ENGAGED "IN COMMERCE," AND THE TEST OF WHETHER ONE
IS IN COMMERCE IS OBVIOUSLY MORE EXACTING THAN THE TEST OF WHETHER HIS
OCCUPATION IS NECESSARY TO PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE. 

BUT WE THINK THE PREVIOUS CASES INDICATE CLEARLY THAT RESPONDENTS ARE
WITHIN THE ACT.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, HELD THAT WATCHMEN,
AS WELL AS ENGINEERS, FIREMEN, CARPENTERS AND OTHERS, WERE COVERED,
BECAUSE THEY CONTRIBUTED TO "THE MAINTENANCE OF A SAFE, HABITABLE
BUILDING" WHICH WAS, IN TURN, NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS. 
AGAIN, IN WALTON V. SOUTHERN PACKAGE CORP., 320 U.S. 540, THE
"NECESSARY FOR PRODUCTION" CLAUSE WAS HELD TO COVER A NIGHT WATCHMAN
FOR A MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AND WE POINTED TO THE REDUCTION OF FIRE
INSURANCE PREMIUMS AS EVIDENCE THAT A WATCHMAN "WOULD MAKE A VALUABLE
CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONTINUOUS PRODUCTION OF RESPONDENT'S GOODS."  THE
FUNCTION OF THESE EMPLOYEES IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. 

THE COURTS BELOW DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS WERE
EMPLOYED IN AN OCCUPATION REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PRODUCTION AS CARRIED
ON BY THE EMPLOYER AND HENCE WERE COVERED BY THE ACT. 

SECOND.  WAS IT ERROR TO COUNT TIME SPENT IN PLAYING CARDS AND OTHER
AMUSEMENTS, OR IN IDLENESS, AS WORKING TIME? 

THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, SEC. 7, 52 STAT. 1063, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 207, APPLY ONLY TO THOSE WHO ARE "EMPLOYEES" AND TO "EMPLOYMENT"
IN EXCESS OF THE SPECIFIED HOURS; SEC. 3(G), 29 U.S.C. SEC. 203(G),
PROVIDES THAT "'EMPLOY' INCLUDES TO SUFFER OR PERMIT TO WORK." 

HERE, TOO, THE EMPLOYER INTERPRETS FORMER OPINIONS OF THE COURT AS
LIMITATIONS ON THE ACT.  IT CITES STATEMENTS THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT WAS "TO GUARANTEE EITHER REGULAR OR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR
ALL ACTUAL WORK OR EMPLOYMENT" AND THAT "CONGRESS HERE WAS REFERRING TO
WORK OR EMPLOYMENT  ...  AS THOSE WORDS ARE COMMONLY USED - AS MEANING
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXERTION (WHETHER BURDENSOME OR NOT) CONTROLLED OR
REQUIRED BY THE EMPLOYER AND PURSUED NECESSARILY AND PRIMARILY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYER AND HIS BUSINESS".  TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R.
CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590, 597, 598.  IT IS TIMELY AGAIN TO
REMIND COUNSEL THAT WORDS OF OUR OPINIONS ARE TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT
OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER DISCUSSION.  TO KEEP OPINIONS WITHIN
REASONABLE BOUNDS PRECLUDES WRITING INTO THEM EVERY LIMITATION OR
VARIATION WHICH MIGHT BE SUGGESTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASES NOT
BEFORE THE COURT.  GENERAL EXPRESSIONS TRANSPOSED TO OTHER FACTS ARE
OFTEN MISLEADING.  THE CONTEXT OF THE LANGUAGE CITED FROM THE TENNESSEE
COAL CASE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE THAT THE QUOTED PHRASES WERE
NOT INTENDED AS A LIMITATION ON THE ACT, AND HAVE NO NECESSARY
APPLICATION TO OTHER STATES OF FACTS. 

OF COURSE AN EMPLOYER, IF HE CHOOSES, MAY HIRE A MAN TO DO NOTHING,
OR TO DO NOTHING BUT WAIT FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN.  REFRAINING FROM
OTHER ACTIVITY OFTEN IS A FACTOR OF INSTANT READINESS TO SERVE, AND
IDLENESS PLAYS A PART IN ALL EMPLOYMENTS IN A STAND-BY CAPACITY. 
READINESS TO SERVE MAY BE HIRED, QUITE AS MUCH AS SERVICE ITSELF, AND
TIME SPENT LYING IN WAIT FOR THREATS TO THE SAFETY OF THE EMPLOYER'S
PROPERTY MAY BE TREATED BY THE PARTIES AS A BENEFIT TO THE EMPLOYER. 
WHETHER TIME IS SPENT PREDOMINANTLY FOR THE EMPLOYER'S BENEFIT OR FOR
THE EMPLOYEE'S IS A QUESTION DEPENDENT UPON ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.    THAT INACTIVE DUTY MAY BE DUTY NONETHELESS IS NOT A NEW
PRINCIPLE INVENTED FOR APPLICATION TO THIS ACT.  IN MISSOURI, K. & T.R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 112, 119, THE COURT HELD THAT INACTIVE
TIME WAS TO BE COUNTED IN APPLYING A FEDERAL ACT PROHIBITING THE
KEEPING OF EMPLOYEES ON DUTY FOR MORE THAN SIXTEEN CONSECUTIVE HOURS. 
REFERRING TO CERTAIN DELAYS, THIS COURT SAID, "IN THE MEANTIME THE MEN
WERE WAITING, DOING NOTHING.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THEY WERE NOT ON DUTY
DURING THIS PERIOD AND THAT IF IT BE DEDUCTED, THEY WERE NOT KEPT MORE
THAN SIXTEEN HOURS.  BUT THEY WERE UNDER ORDERS, LIABLE TO BE CALLED
UPON AT ANY MOMENT, AND NOT AT LIBERTY TO GO AWAY.  THEY WERE NONE THE
LESS ON DUTY WHEN INACTIVE.  THEIR DUTY WAS TO STAND AND WAIT." 

WE THINK THE LABOR STANDARDS ACT DOES NOT EXCLUDE AS WORKING TIME
PERIODS CONTRACTED FOR AND SPENT ON DUTY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED
HERE, MERELY BECAUSE THE NATURE OF THE DUTY LEFT TIME HANGING HEAVY ON
THE EMPLOYEES' HANDS AND BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE COOPERATED
IN TRYING TO MAKE THE CONFINEMENT AND IDLENESS INCIDENT TO IT MORE
TOLERABLE.  CERTAINLY THEY WERE COMPETENT TO AGREE, EXPRESSLY OR BY
IMPLICATION, THAT AN EMPLOYEE COULD RESORT TO AMUSEMENTS PROVIDED BY
THE EMPLOYER WITHOUT A VIOLATION OF HIS AGREEMENT OR A DEPARTURE FROM
HIS DUTY.  BOTH COURTS BELOW HAVING CONCURRED IN FINDING THAT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES THE TIME SO
SPENT WAS WORKING TIME, WE THEREFORE AFFIRM.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :
























SKIDMORE V. SWIFT & CO., 323 U.S. 134 


NO. 12.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1944.  - 136
F.2D 112, REVERSED. 


1.  NO PRINCIPLE OF LAW PRECLUDED A DETERMINATION THAT WAITING TIME
WAS WORKING TIME UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  ARMOUR & CO. V.
WANTOCK, ANTE, P. 126.  P. 136. 

2.  WHETHER TIME SPENT ON THE EMPLOYER'S PREMISES (OR IN HAILING
DISTANCE) BY FIREGUARDS SUBJECT TO CALL WAS WORKING TIME UNDER THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE RESOLVED BY APPROPRIATE
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT.  P. 136. 

3.  ALTHOUGH THE RULINGS, INTERPRETATIONS AND OPINIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DO NOT CONTROL
JUDICIAL DECISION, THEY DO CONSTITUTE A BODY OF EXPERIENCE AND INFORMED
JUDGMENT TO WHICH COURTS AND LITIGANTS MAY PROPERLY RESORT FOR
GUIDANCE.  P. 140. 

SKIDMORE ET AL. V. SWIFT & CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 723, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, 53
F.SUPP.  1020, DENYING RECOVERY IN A SUIT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT FOR OVERTIME, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEVEN EMPLOYEES OF THE SWIFT AND COMPANY PACKING PLANT AT FORT WORTH,
TEXAS, BROUGHT AN ACTION UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO RECOVER
OVERTIME, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEYS' FEES, TOTALLING
APPROXIMATELY $77,000.  THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT DENYING
THIS CLAIM WHOLLY, 53 F.SUPP.  1020, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  136 F.2D 112. 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE DAYTIME EMPLOYMENT OF THESE PERSONS WAS
WORKING TIME WITHIN THE ACT.  TWO WERE ENGAGED IN GENERAL FIRE-HALL
DUTIES AND MAINTENANCE OF FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT OF THE SWIFT PLANT. 
THE OTHERS OPERATED ELEVATORS OR ACTED AS RELIEF MEN IN FIRE DUTIES. 
THEY WORKED FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 3:30 P.M., WITH A HALF-HOUR LUNCH PERIOD,
FIVE DAYS A WEEK.  THEY WERE PAID WEEKLY SALARIES. 

UNDER THEIR ORAL AGREEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, HOWEVER, PETITIONERS
UNDERTOOK TO STAY IN THE FIRE HALL ON THE COMPANY PREMISES, OR WITHIN
HAILING DISTANCE, THREE AND A HALF TO FOUR NIGHTS A WEEK.  THIS
INVOLVED NO TASK EXCEPT TO ANSWER ALARMS, EITHER BECAUSE OF FIRE OR
BECAUSE THE SPRINKLER WAS SET OFF FOR SOME OTHER REASON.  NO FIRES
OCCURRED DURING THE PERIOD IN ISSUE, THE ALARMS WERE RARE, AND THE TIME
REQUIRED FOR THEIR ANSWER RARELY EXCEEDED AN HOUR.  FOR EACH ALARM
ANSWERED THE EMPLOYEES WERE PAID IN ADDITION TO THEIR FIXED
COMPENSATION AN AGREED AMOUNT, FIFTY CENTS AT FIRST, AND LATER SIXTY
FOUR CENTS.  THE COMPANY PROVIDED A BRICK FIRE HALL EQUIPPED WITH STEAM
HEAT AND AIR-CONDITIONED ROOMS.  IT PROVIDED SLEEPING QUARTERS, A POOL
TABLE, A DOMINO TABLE, AND A RADIO.  THE MEN USED THEIR TIME IN SLEEP
OR AMUSEMENT AS THEY SAW FIT, EXCEPT THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO STAY IN
OR CLOSE BY THE FIRE HALL AND BE READY TO RESPOND TO ALARMS.  IT IS
STIPULATED THAT "THEY AGREED TO REMAIN IN THE FIRE HALL AND STAY IN IT
OR WITHIN HAILING DISTANCE, SUBJECT TO CALL, IN EVENT OF FIRE OR OTHER
CASUALTY, BUT WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PERFORM ANY SPECIFIC TASKS DURING
THESE PERIODS OF TIME, EXCEPT IN ANSWERING ALARMS."  THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS AS STIPULATED; IT MADE NO FINDINGS OF FACT
AS SUCH AS TO WHETHER UNDER THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE PARTIES AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WHICH IN SOME RESPECTS DIFFER FROM THOSE OF
THE ARMOUR CASE (ANTE, P. 126), THE FIRE-HALL DUTY OR ANY PART THEREOF
CONSTITUTED WORKING TIME.  IT SAID, HOWEVER, AS A "CONCLUSION OF LAW"
THAT "THE TIME PLAINTIFFS SPENT IN THE FIRE HALL SUBJECT TO CALL TO
ANSWER FIRE ALARMS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE HOURS WORKED, FOR WHICH OVERTIME
COMPENSATION IS DUE THEM UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AS
INTERPRETED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COURTS," AND IN ITS OPINION
OBSERVED, "OF COURSE WE KNOW PURSUING SUCH PLEASURABLE OCCUPATIONS OR
PERFORMING SUCH PERSONAL CHORES, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WORK."  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 

FOR REASONS SET FORTH IN THE ARMOUR CASE DECIDED HEREWITH WE HOLD
THAT NO PRINCIPLE OF LAW FOUND EITHER IN THE STATUTE OR IN COURT
DECISIONS PRECLUDES WAITING TIME FROM ALSO BEING WORKING TIME.  WE HAVE
NOT ATTEMPTED TO, AND WE CANNOT, LAY DOWN A LEGAL FORMULA TO RESOLVE
CASES SO VARIED IN THEIR FACTS AS ARE THE MANY SITUATIONS IN WHICH
EMPLOYMENT INVOLVES WAITING TIME.  WHETHER IN A CONCRETE CASE SUCH TIME
FALLS WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE ACT IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE RESOLVED BY
APPROPRIATE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT.  WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER
CO., 317 U.S. 564, 572.  THIS INVOLVES SCRUTINY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTICULAR PARTIES, APPRAISAL OF THEIR PRACTICAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORKING AGREEMENT BY CONDUCT, CONSIDERATION OF THE
NATURE OF THE SERVICE, AND ITS RELATION TO THE WAITING TIME, AND ALL OF
THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES.  FACTS MAY SHOW THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS
ENGAGED TO WAIT, OR THEY MAY SHOW THAT HE WAITED TO BE ENGAGED.  HIS
COMPENSATION MAY COVER BOTH WAITING AND TASK, OR ONLY PERFORMANCE OF
THE TASK ITSELF.  LIVING QUARTERS MAY IN SOME SITUATIONS BE FURNISHED
AS A FACILITY OF THE TASK AND IN ANOTHER AS A PART OF ITS
COMPENSATION.  THE LAW DOES NOT IMPOSE AN ARRANGEMENT UPON THE
PARTIES.  IT IMPOSES UPON THE COURTS THE TASK OF FINDING WHAT THE
ARRANGEMENT WAS. 

WE DO NOT MINIMIZE THE DIFFICULTY OF SUCH AN INQUIRY WHERE THE
ARRANGEMENTS OF THE PARTIES HAVE NOT CONTEMPLATED THE PROBLEM POSED BY
THE STATUTE.  BUT IT DOES NOT DIFFER IN NATURE OR IN THE STANDARDS TO
GUIDE JUDGMENT FROM THAT WHICH FREQUENTLY CONFRONTS COURTS WHERE THEY
MUST FIND RETROSPECTIVELY THE EFFECT OF CONTRACTS AS TO MATTERS WHICH
THE PARTIES FAILED TO ANTICIPATE OR EXPLICITLY TO PROVIDE FOR. 

CONGRESS DID NOT UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY TO
FIND FACTS AND TO DETERMINE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WHETHER PARTICULAR
CASES FALL WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE ACT.  INSTEAD, IT PUT THIS
RESPONSIBILITY ON THE COURTS.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517,
523.  BUT IT DID CREATE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATOR, IMPOSE UPON HIM A
VARIETY OF DUTIES, ENDOW HIM WITH POWERS TO INFORM HIMSELF OF
CONDITIONS IN INDUSTRIES AND EMPLOYMENTS SUBJECT TO THE ACT, AND PUT ON
HIM THE DUTIES OF BRINGING INJUNCTION ACTIONS TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS. 
PURSUIT OF HIS DUTIES HAS ACCUMULATED A CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE IN THE
PROBLEMS OF ASCERTAINING WORKING TIME IN EMPLOYMENTS INVOLVING PERIODS
OF INACTIVITY AND A KNOWLEDGE OF THE CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN REFERENCE TO
THEIR SOLUTION.  FROM THESE HE IS OBLIGED TO REACH CONCLUSIONS AS TO
CONDUCT WITHOUT THE LAW, SO THAT HE SHOULD SEEK INJUNCTIONS TO STOP IT,
AND THAT WITHIN THE LAW, SO THAT HE HAS NO CALL TO INTERFERE.  HE HAS
SET FORTH HIS VIEWS OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT UNDER DIFFERENT
CIRCUMSTANCES IN AN INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN AND IN INFORMAL RULINGS. 
THEY PROVIDE A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES AS TO HOW THE
OFFICE REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ITS ENFORCEMENT WILL SEEK TO
APPLY IT.  WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 13. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR THINKS THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY INACTIVE DUTY
REQUIRE A FLEXIBLE SOLUTION, RATHER THAN THE ALL-IN OR ALL-OUT RULES
RESPECTIVELY URGED BY THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE, AND HIS BULLETIN
ENDEAVORS TO SUGGEST STANDARDS AND EXAMPLES TO GUIDE IN PARTICULAR
SITUATIONS.  IN SOME OCCUPATIONS, IT SAYS, PERIODS OF INACTIVITY ARE
NOT PROPERLY COUNTED AS WORKING TIME EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE IS
SUBJECT TO CALL.  EXAMPLES ARE AN OPERATOR OF A SMALL TELEPHONE
EXCHANGE WHERE THE SWITCHBOARD IS IN HER HOME AND SHE ORDINARILY GETS
SEVERAL HOURS OF UNINTERRUPTED SLEEP EACH NIGHT; OR A PUMPER OF A
STRIPPER WELL OR WATCHMAN OF A LUMBER CAMP DURING THE OFF SEASON, WHO
MAY BE ON DUTY TWENTY-FOUR HOURS A DAY BUT ORDINARILY "HAS A NORMAL
NIGHT'S SLEEP, HAS AMPLE TIME IN WHICH TO EAT HIS MEALS, AND HAS A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME FOR RELAXATION AND ENTIRELY PRIVATE PURSUITS." 
EXCLUSION OF ALL SUCH HOURS THE ADMINISTRATOR THINKS MAY BE JUSTIFIED. 
IN GENERAL, THE ANSWER DEPENDS "UPON THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE
IS FREE TO ENGAGE IN PERSONAL ACTIVITIES DURING PERIODS OF IDLENESS
WHEN HE IS SUBJECT TO CALL AND THE NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE HOURS THAT THE
EMPLOYEE IS SUBJECT TO CALL WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO PERFORM ACTIVE
WORK."  "HOURS WORKED ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE TIME SPENT IN ACTIVE LABOR
BUT INCLUDE TIME GIVEN BY THE EMPLOYEE TO THE EMPLOYER...." 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE DO NOT FALL WITHIN ANY OF THE SPECIFIC
EXAMPLES GIVEN, BUT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, AS EXPRESSED
IN THE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE, IS THAT THE GENERAL TESTS WHICH HE HAS
SUGGESTED POINT TO THE EXCLUSION OF SLEEPING AND EATING TIME OF THESE
EMPLOYEES FROM THE WORKWEEK AND THE INCLUSION OF ALL OTHER ON-CALL
TIME:  ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEES WERE REQUIRED TO REMAIN ON THE PREMISES
DURING THE ENTIRE TIME, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THEY WERE VERY RARELY
INTERRUPTED IN THEIR NORMAL SLEEPING AND EATING TIME, AND THESE ARE
PURSUITS OF A PURELY PRIVATE NATURE WHICH WOULD PRESUMABLY OCCUPY THE
EMPLOYEES' TIME WHETHER THEY WERE ON DUTY OR NOT AND WHICH APPARENTLY
COULD BE PURSUED ADEQUATELY AND COMFORTABLY IN THE REQUIRED
CIRCUMSTANCES; THE REST OF THE TIME IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT, EVEN THOUGH PLEASURABLY SPENT,
IT WAS SPENT IN THE WAYS THE MEN WOULD HAVE CHOSEN HAD THEY BEEN FREE
TO DO SO. 

THERE IS NO STATUTORY PROVISION AS TO WHAT, IF ANY, DEFERENCE COURTS
SHOULD PAY TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S CONCLUSIONS.  AND, WHILE WE HAVE
GIVEN THEM NOTICE, WE HAVE HAD NO OCCASION TO TRY TO PRESCRIBE THEIR
INFLUENCE.  THE RULINGS OF THIS ADMINISTRATOR ARE NOT REACHED AS A
RESULT OF HEARING ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH HE FINDS FACTS FROM
EVIDENCE AND REACHES CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM FINDINGS OF FACT.  THEY
ARE NOT, OF COURSE, CONCLUSIVE, EVEN IN THE CASES WITH WHICH THEY
DIRECTLY DEAL, MUCH LESS IN THOSE TO WHICH THEY APPLY ONLY BY ANALOGY. 
THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT OR A STANDARD FOR
JUDGING FACTUAL SITUATIONS WHICH BINDS A DISTRICT COURT'S PROCESSES, AS
AN AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF A HIGHER COURT MIGHT DO.  BUT THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S POLICIES ARE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY, BASED
UPON MORE SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE AND BROADER INVESTIGATIONS AND
INFORMATION THAN IS LIKELY TO COME TO A JUDGE IN A PARTICULAR CASE. 
THEY DO DETERMINE THE POLICY WHICH WILL GUIDE APPLICATIONS FOR
ENFORCEMENT BY INJUNCTION ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT.  GOOD
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT AND GOOD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION ALIKE
REQUIRE THAT THE STANDARDS OF PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT AND THOSE FOR
DETERMINING PRIVATE RIGHTS SHALL BE AT VARIANCE ONLY WHERE JUSTIFIED BY
VERY GOOD REASONS.  THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POLICIES AND
STANDARDS ARE NOT REACHED BY TRIAL IN ADVERSARY FORM DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RESPECT.  THIS COURT HAS LONG GIVEN
CONSIDERABLE AND IN SOME CASES DECISIVE WEIGHT TO TREASURY DECISIONS
AND TO INTERPRETATIVE REGULATIONS OF THE TREASURY AND OF OTHER BODIES
THAT WERE NOT OF ADVERSARY ORIGIN. 

WE CONSIDER THAT THE RULINGS, INTERPRETATIONS AND OPINIONS OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THIS ACT, WHILE NOT CONTROLLING UPON THE COURTS BY
REASON OF THEIR AUTHORITY, DO CONSTITUTE A BODY OF EXPERIENCE AND
INFORMED JUDGMENT TO WHICH COURTS AND LITIGANTS MAY PROPERLY RESORT FOR
GUIDANCE.  THE WEIGHT OF SUCH A JUDGMENT IN A PARTICULAR CASE WILL
DEPEND UPON THE THOROUGHNESS EVIDENT IN ITS CONSIDERATION, THE VALIDITY
OF ITS REASONING, ITS CONSISTENCY WITH EARLIER AND LATER
PRONOUNCEMENTS, AND ALL THOSE FACTORS WHICH GIVE IT POWER TO PERSUADE,
IF LACKING POWER TO CONTROL. 

THE COURTS IN THE ARMOUR CASE WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE IN THE PARTICULAR
CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RULINGS AND REACHED A RESULT
CONSISTENT THEREWITH.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IN SOME RESPECTS, SUCH
AS THE UNDERSTANDING AS TO SEPARATE COMPENSATION FOR ANSWERING ALARMS,
IS DIFFERENT.  EACH CASE MUST STAND ON ITS OWN FACTS.  BUT IN THIS
CASE, ALTHOUGH THE DISTRICT COURT REFERRED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
BULLETIN, ITS EVALUATION AND INQUIRY WERE APPARENTLY RESTRICTED BY ITS
NOTION THAT WAITING TIME MAY NOT BE WORK, AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
WHICH WE HOLD TO BE ERRONEOUS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED
AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH. 
REVERSED. 
..END :




















CLARIDGE APARTMENTS CO. V. COMM'R, 323 U.S. 141 


NOS. 28 AND 29.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 20, 1944.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4,
1944.  - 138 F.2D 962, REVERSED. 


1.  WHETHER, BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 276C(3) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 270
WAS APPLICABLE TO A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B IN WHICH A FINAL DECREE
HAD BEEN ENTERED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHANDLER ACT IS A
QUESTION OF LAW IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, IS INAPPLICABLE AND THE DETERMINATION OF
THE TAX COURT IS NOT FINAL.  P. 145. 

2.  SECTION 270 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED, REQUIRING THAT FOR
INCOME TAX PURPOSES THE BASIS OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY BE DECREASED IN
THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE DEBTOR HAS BEEN CANCELED OR
REDUCED IN A CHAPTER X PROCEEDING, HELD NOT MADE APPLICABLE, BY SEC.
276C(3), TO A SEC. 77B PROCEEDING IN WHICH A FINAL DECREE HAD BEEN
ENTERED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHANDLER ACT.  P. 159. 

3.  RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF A STATUTE IS NOT FAVORED.  P. 164. 

4.  THE FINDINGS OF THE TAX COURT IN THIS CASE AS TO THE ORIGINAL
COST OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPRIETY OF DEDUCTIONS OF CERTAIN
EXPENSES WERE WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DOBSON CASE.  P. 165. 

CLARIDGE APARTMENTS CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 759, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
TAX COURT, 1 T.C. 163, SETTING ASIDE, IN PART, DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS
OF INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUES ARISE OUT OF DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS MADE IN RESPECT TO
PETITIONER'S FEDERAL INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1935
TO 1938 INCLUSIVE.  THEY INVOLVE THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 270 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED,  FN1  SO AS TO REQUIRE REDUCTION OF
DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES CLAIMED. 

THE TRANSACTIONS AROSE IN CONNECTION WITH A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 77B, 48 STAT. 912.  THEY CONSISTED ESSENTIALLY OF
PETITIONER'S ACQUISITION OF ALL THE ASSETS OF THE INSOLVENT DEBTOR
CORPORATION, BY AN EXCHANGE OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK WITHOUT PAR VALUE FOR
THE LATTER'S BONDS THEN OUTSTANDING.  THE COMMISSIONER CONTENDS THAT
THE EXCHANGE RESULTED IN A CANCELLATION OR REDUCTION OF INDEBTEDNESS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 270, SO AS TO REQUIRE A CORRESPONDING
REDUCTION IN THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED.  ACCORDINGLY HE NOW
URGES THAT THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE MADE, AS THE SECTION REQUIRES, UPON
THE BASIS OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  FN2  THE
TAXPAYER'S CLAIM IS MADE ON THE HIGHER BASIS OF THE DEBTOR CORPORATION,
IN THE VIEW THAT SEC. 270 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH A TRANSACTION. 

THIS DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN THE BASIC ONE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TAX COURT, FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND
HERE.  OTHERS INCLUDE A SIMILAR QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTINCTION
OF THE DEBTOR'S LIABILITY FOR THE ACCRUED UNPAID INTEREST ON THE BONDS
AND WHETHER SEC. 270 IS MADE APPLICABLE RETROACTIVELY TO THE YEARS
PRIOR TO 1938, BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 276C(3) OF THE
CHANDLER ACT.  FN4 

THE TAX COURT DECIDED THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE ON THE MERITS IN FAVOR OF
THE TAXPAYER, EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCRUED INTEREST.  CF. ALSO
CAPENTO SECURITIES CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 47 B.T.A. 691, AFFIRMED, 140
F.2D 382.  IT LIKEWISE LIMITED THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 270 TO THE YEAR
1938 AND SUCCEEDING YEARS.  1 T.C. 163.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED
THE TAX COURT'S DECISION IN BOTH RESPECTS, HOLDING THERE WAS A
CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS WITH RESPECT TO THE UNPAID PRINCIPAL  FN5
AND THAT SEC. 270 WAS APPLICABLE RETROACTIVELY TO REQUIRE THE
PRESCRIBED REDUCTION IN BASIS FOR EACH OF THE TAX YEARS IN QUESTION. 
138 F.2D 962.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 321 U.S. 759, BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND A CONFLICT ON THE QUESTION OF
RETROACTIVITY.  FN6  THE FACTS ARE STATED SHORTLY IN THE MARGIN, TO
GIVE CONCRETE PERSPECTIVE.  FN7

 I. 

PETITIONER EARNESTLY ARGUES THAT THE TAX COURT'S DECISION, SO FAR AS
THIS WAS IN ITS FAVOR, SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON THE AUTHORITY OF DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, THOUGH IN OTHER RESPECTS IT SEEKS A
REVERSAL OF THAT COURT'S JUDGMENT.  FN8  FOR REASONS PRESENTLY TO BE
STATED, WE THINK THE CASE MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN ITS ENTIRETY BY THE
APPLICATION OF SEC. 276C(3), WHICH DETERMINES THE EXTENT TO WHICH SECS.
268 AND 270 ARE APPLICABLE IN POINT OF TIME.  ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO PASS UPON THE MERITS OF THE OTHER INTERESTING ISSUES OR
WHETHER THEY FALL WITHIN THE DOBSON ADMONITION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECS. 268 AND 270, UNDER THE TERMS OF
SEC. 276C(3), TO THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE OBVIOUSLY IS
ONE OF LAW AND OF A SORT NOT REQUIRING THE SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE OF
THE TAX COURT TO DETERMINE.  FURTHERMORE, IT INVOLVES MAKING AN
ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE CONFLICTING POLICIES, IN PART, OF THE
BANKRUPTCY LAWS AND THE REVENUE ENACTMENTS.  SECTIONS 268 AND 270 ARE
INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE FORMER, THOUGH RELATED IN SUBJECT MATTER TO THE
LATTER, AND WERE SO PLACED FOR PURPOSES RELEVANT PRIMARILY TO THAT
LEGISLATION.  FOR THESE REASONS THE ISSUE FALLS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE
DOBSON CASE. 

                                 II. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY SEC. 276C(3) MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE PROBLEM CREATED BY SECS. 268 AND 270.  A STATEMENT OF
THEIR HISTORY IS NECESSARY TO A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PROBLEM. 
IT STEMS BASICALLY FROM UNITED STATES V. KIRBY LUMBER CO., 284 U.S. 1,
AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS WHICH HAVE APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT
CASE.  FN9  BY THEM A CORPORATION MAY REALIZE INCOME FROM THE
CANCELLATION OR REDUCTION OF INDEBTEDNESS, DEPENDING UPON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION OCCURS.  HOWEVER, THE LINE
BETWEEN INCOME-PRODUCING REDUCTIONS AND OTHERS IS NOT PRECISE OR
DEFINITE AND GREAT UNCERTAINTY PREVAILED CONCERNING IT, BOTH IN 1934
WHEN SEC. 77B WAS ENACTED AND IN 1938 WHEN CHAPTER X OF THE CHANDLER
ACT WAS ADOPTED.  THE UNCERTAINTY WAS GREATEST PERHAPS IN RELATION TO
TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING IN THE COURSE OF INSOLVENT REORGANIZATIONS. 
FN10 

SOME OF THE OBSCURITY HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE VERY LEGISLATION
ENACTED TO REMOVE IT.  THIS HAS BEEN TRUE OF THE SUCCESSIVE
"REORGANIZATION" PROVISIONS, INCLUDING THOSE FOR "NONRECOGNITION" AND
FOR TRANSFER OF "BASIS," WHICH HAVE APPEARED IN THE VARIOUS REVENUE
ACTS FROM 1918(CF. 40 STAT. 1057) FORWARD.  CLOSELY RELATED, AS THESE
HAVE BEEN, TO THE PROBLEM WHETHER INCOME IS REALIZED BY THE
CANCELLATION OR REDUCTION OF INDEBTEDNESS IN CONNECTION WITH A
REORGANIZATION, THEY HAVE TENDED TO OBSCURE IF NOT TO BLOT OUT THAT
PROBLEM ALTOGETHER IN SITUATIONS COVERED BY THEIR TERMS.  FN11 

BY AND LARGE THE PROVISIONS ARE THE PRODUCT OF AND HAVE REFLECTED
EFFORTS AT COMPROMISE, NONE TOO SUCCESSFUL, BETWEEN THE CONFLICTING
PULLS OF POLICY INVOLVED IN THE REVENUE ACTS AND IN THE BANKRUPTCY
LEGISLATION.  THEY WERE DRAWN AND ENACTED HOWEVER AS PARTS OF THE
REVENUE LAWS AND HAVE REFLECTED INCREASINGLY THE POLICY OF THAT
LEGISLATION.  FN12  ACCORDINGLY, THE SUCCESSION OF STATUTES RELATING TO
THIS FIELD, PRIOR TO SECS. 268 AND 270, REPRESENTS A SERIES OF SHIFTS
IN THE LEGISLATIVE PENDULUM FROM INITIAL BROAD TAX RELIEF, TO ENCOURAGE
NEEDED REORGANIZATIONS, TOWARD NARROWED EXEMPTION, IN ORDER TO
DISCOURAGE USE OF REORGANIZATION FOR EVASION OF TAXES.  THE GENERAL
PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, WAS TO POSTPONE THE TAX
CONSEQUENCES WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT ENSUE UPON TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING IN
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IMMEDIATE IMPOSITION WAS REGARDED AS
ECONOMICALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE.  FN13  THIS CONTINUED IN THE 1934 GENERAL
REVISION,  FN14 WHICH REMAINED IN EFFECT DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS
LITIGATION. 

IN SOME RESPECTS, AS COMPARED WITH THE PREEXISTING LEGISLATION, THE
1934 PROVISIONS BROADENED, BUT IN OTHERS THEY RESTRICTED, THE SCOPE OF
APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NONRECOGNITION AND TRANSFER OF BASIS. 
FN15  NEVERTHELESS, THEY WERE APPLICABLE TO ALL EXCHANGES FALLING
WITHIN THEIR TERMS, WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAN WAS EXECUTED IN CONNECTION
WITH A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.  CONSEQUENTLY, WHEN IN JUNE, 1934, SEC. 77B
WAS ADOPTED, THE 1934 REVENUE PROVISIONS BECAME APPLICABLE TO
REORGANIZATIONS UNDER THAT SECTION, BUT ONLY IF THEY MET THE TESTS
PRESCRIBED IN THE REVENUE ACTS, INCLUDING SUCH JUDICIALLY INTERPOLATED
MATTERS AS "CONTINUITY OF INTEREST" AND "BUSINESS PURPOSE."  FN16  MANY
77B REORGANIZATIONS DID NOT QUALIFY UNDER THESE TESTS OR ON SUBSTANTIAL
GROUNDS WERE THOUGHT NOT TO DO SO. 

THE CONSEQUENCE WAS SERIOUSLY TO CLOG THE USE OF THE 77B PROCEDURE. 
OBSTACLES WERE IMPOSED NOT ONLY BY THE DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO STATUTORY
DEFINITIONS OF "REORGANIZATION," BUT ALSO BY AMBIGUITIES IN EACH
DEFINITION WHICH IN THEMSELVES CREATED CONSIDERABLE AREAS OF
UNCERTAINTY.  FN17  AND UNDERLYING THESE REMAINED THE MYSTERY OF WHEN
INCOME WOULD BE REGARDED AS REALIZED, WHICH CONTINUED TO HAUNT
REORGANIZERS UNSURE OF WHETHER THEY COULD BRING THEMSELVES WITHIN THE
STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS.  IN SHORT, THE NECESSITY OF SQUARING THE
REORGANIZATION FIRST WITH SEC. 77B, THEN WITH THE DIFFERENT TERMS OF
THE REVENUE PROVISIONS, AND THE UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED UNDER EACH
STATUTE IN DOING THIS, ADDED TO THE PUZZLE OF "REALIZED INCOME," MADE
THE PROCESS OF CREDITORS' REORGANIZATION UNDER THE FORMER ACT A HIGHLY
DUBIOUS ADVENTURE.  TO AN UNDETERMINED EXTENT THE EFFECT OF THE REVENUE
ACT'S PROVISIONS WAS TO NULLIFY OR MAKE IMPOSSIBLE OF REALIZATION THE
OBJECTS OF SEC. 77B. 

IN THIS SETTING CONGRESS ADOPTED THE CHANDLER ACT IN 1938.  THAT
STATUTE WAS A GENERAL REVISION OF THE PROVISIONS FOR BANKRUPTCY
REORGANIZATION, INCLUDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY MADE UNDER SEC. 77B.  ONE OF
ITS PRINCIPAL OBJECTS WAS TO ENCOURAGE THE FREER USE OF BANKRUPTCY
REORGANIZATION IN ORDER TO AVOID UNNECESSARY OR PREMATURE
LIQUIDATIONS.  BY THIS TIME CONGRESS HAD BECOME AWARE OF THE HAZARDOUS
AND HAMPERING EFFECTS OF THE 1934 REVENUE PROVISIONS UPON THE OPERATION
OF BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77B.  THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
CHANDLER ACT, IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS, COULD NOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT
REMOVAL OF THESE IMPEDIMENTS.  SOME PROVISION WAS ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT
THEM FROM HAVING THE SAME EFFECTS UPON THE WORKING OF THE NEW
LEGISLATION.  ACCORDINGLY SEC. 268 WAS DEVISED FOR THIS PURPOSE AND
BECAME A PART OF THE CHANDLER ACT ITSELF.  IT HAD NO OTHER OBJECT, AND
THERE WAS NO OTHER OCCASION FOR ITS BEING, THAN TO FREE CHAPTER X
REORGANIZATIONS FROM THE TAX DETERRENTS, INCLUDING TAX UNCERTAINTIES,
IMPOSED BY THE EXISTING REVENUE ACT PROVISIONS. 

THE RELIEVING EFFECT OF SEC. 268 WAS CONFINED IN THREE WAYS, NAMELY,
(1) TO TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING IN A CHAPTER X REORGANIZATION; (2) TO
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING A MODIFICATION OR A CANCELLATION, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, OF THE DEBTOR'S INDEBTEDNESS; AND (3) ITS BENEFITS WERE LIMITED
TO THE DEBTOR CORPORATION, THE TRUSTEE, IF ANY, PROVIDED FOR IN THE
PLAN, AND THE SUCCESSOR OR TRANSFEREE CORPORATION.  WITHIN THESE
LIMITATIONS THE SECTION PROVIDED THAT "NO INCOME OR PROFIT, TAXABLE
UNDER ANY LAW  ...  SHALL  ...  BE DEEMED TO HAVE ACCRUED TO OR TO HAVE
BEEN REALIZED BY ..."  THE PARTIES SPECIFIED, AND THUS REMOVED CHAPTER
X TRANSACTIONS FROM INCIDENCE OF THE UNCERTAINTIES CHARACTERIZING THE
GENERAL "REORGANIZATION" PROVISIONS.  ONE WHO FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE
COULD BE ASSURED HE WOULD NOT THEREBY RUN INTO TAX CONSEQUENCES WHICH
WOULD BE WORSE THAN THE ECONOMIC ILLNESS REQUIRING THAT CURE. 

AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSIDERED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, THE CHANDLER
ACT CONTAINED NO COUNTERPART OF THE PRESENT SEC. 270.  HAD SEC. 268
THUS BEEN LEFT TO STAND ALONE, WITH NO ACCOMPANYING PROVISION FOR
"BASIS," EITHER THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO APPLICABLE PROVISION FOR
"BASIS" OR THE GENERAL "BASIS" PROVISIONS WOULD HAVE REMAINED
APPLICABLE TO CHAPTER X REORGANIZATIONS FALLING WITHIN THEIR TERMS,
WITH THE RESULT THAT THEY WOULD APPLY TO SOME CHAPTER X REORGANIZATIONS
BUT NOT TO OTHERS.  THE LATTER VIEW APPARENTLY WAS GENERALLY ACCEPTED. 
UNDER IT MUCH OF THE PREVIOUS UNCERTAINTY WOULD HAVE REMAINED, BUT WITH
ITS FOCUS SHIFTED FROM "REALIZED INCOME" TO "BASIS."  MOREOVER, IT WAS
THE VIEW OF TREASURY OFFICIALS, APPARENTLY IN THE ASSUMPTION OF
CONTINUED TRANSFER OF "BASIS" UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS, THAT THE
EFFECT OF SEC. 268 WOULD BE TO PROVIDE A DOUBLE DEDUCTION IN SOME
CASES,  FN18  UNLESS COMPLEMENTED BY A CORRESPONDING "BASIS" PROVISION,
AND THUS BE UNFAIR TO THE REVENUE. 

ACCORDINGLY THE TREASURY, AND OTHERS, MADE VARIOUS PROPOSALS,  FN19
WHICH EVENTUATED IN THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 270 IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM. 
THIS PROVIDED FOR TRANSFER OF BASIS, AS DID THE CODE PROVISIONS, BUT
REQUIRED THAT IT BE DECREASED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE REDUCTION OF
INDEBTEDNESS, A MEASURE AT VARIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CODE.  IT WAS
FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF REDUCTION, AND THE MEASURE PROVIDED FOR IT,
THAT NEW DIFFICULTIES WERE DERIVED.  ALTHOUGH THE ONLY OCCASION FOR
MAKING A FURTHER PROVISION CONCERNING BASIS AROSE FROM THE ADOPTION OF
SEC. 268 AND ALTHOUGH THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DISCLOSES THE PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS EXACTLY CONTRARY TO PLACING CHAPTER X REORGANIZATIONS AT
RADICAL DISADVANTAGE FROM OTHERS, THE LITERAL EFFECT OF THE ORIGINAL
SEC. 270 CAME NEAR IF NOT ENTIRELY TO WIPING OUT THE WHOLE BENEFIT
CONFERRED BY SEC. 268.  FN20  SOON IT WAS REALIZED THAT LITERAL
APPLICATION OF THE SPECIFIED NEW MEASURE OF REDUCTION WOULD REQUIRE
DECREASE OF BASIS IN MANY INSTANCES TO ZERO OR EVEN TO A POINT BELOW
ZERO, BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT CANCELLED OR REDUCED WOULD EQUAL
OR EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OR THAT ASSIGNED TO THE BASIS
TRANSFERRED.  THUS, ANY TAX BENEFIT DERIVED FROM SEC. 268, IN SUCH
CASES, WOULD BE MORE THAN OFFSET BY THE HIGHER TAXES RESULTING IN LATER
YEARS FROM THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEPRECIATION BASE AND IN CASE OF SALE OF
THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED.  AND IN CASES WHERE NO BENEFIT COULD BE DERIVED
FROM SEC. 268, THE EFFECT OF APPLYING SEC. 270 WAS, IF NOT TO IMPOSE A
CAPITAL LEVY,  FN21  THEN TO DENY THE NEW OWNERS EQUAL TREATMENT, NOT
ONLY WITH OTHER TRANSFEREES UNDER THE CODE PROVISIONS, BUT WITH ALL
OTHER TAXPAYERS.    CONGRESS, IN VIEW OF ITS ORIGINAL OBJECT IN
ADOPTING SEC. 268, COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE INTENDED SUCH CONSEQUENCES
FOR SEC. 270.  THE CURE WAS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE.  FN22  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY GIVES THE CLEAR IMPRESSION THAT ADOPTION OF THE
ORIGINAL SEC. 270 WAS A PLAIN BLUNDER, THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHICH WERE
NOT FORESEEN, UNDERSTOOD OR INTENDED BY THOSE WHO FINALLY GAVE IT THE
FORM OF LAW.  FN23 

LEGISLATIVE RELIEF OBVIOUSLY WAS IN ORDER AND WAS FORTHCOMING AT THE
NEXT SESSION OF CONGRESS, IN THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 270 ADDING THE
LANGUAGE GIVING IT ITS PRESENT FORM.  FN24  THE AMENDMENT REMOVED SOME,
BUT NOT ALL OF THE UNCERTAINTY CERTAINTY CONFRONTING CHAPTER X
REORGANIZERS.  IT PLACED A FLOOR TO THE AMOUNT OF REDUCTION REQUIRED. 
IN NO CASE WOULD BASIS BE REDUCED BELOW FAIR MARKET VALUE.  BUT THIS
WAS ONLY PARTIAL CURE OF THE ORIGINAL INFIRMITIES.  ABOVE THE FLOOR,
DEBT CANCELLATION REMAINED THE MEASURE OF REDUCTION, THUS KEEPING
CHAPTER X REORGANIZATIONS GENERALLY AT A DISADVANTAGE WITH THOSE TAKING
PLACE UNDER THE CODE.  BUT, WHAT WAS MORE IMPORTANT, THE CHIEF HAZARD
REMAINED, NAMELY, WHETHER SEC. 270 WAS INTENDED TO OPERATE ONLY WHERE
SEC. 268 WAS EFFECTIVE TO AFFORD ACTUAL TAX BENEFIT OR, AS THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH RELIEF WAS AFFORDED. 
AND IN THIS CASE THE HAZARD HAS BEEN REALIZED IN ASSESSMENT. 

           III. 

WITH THIS BACKGROUND WE TURN TO SEC. 276C(3).  BY THEIR OWN TERMS
SECS. 268 AND 270 APPLY ONLY TO TRANSACTIONS ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH
PROCEEDINGS "UNDER THIS CHAPTER," THAT IS, CHAPTER X OF THE CHANDLER
ACT.  THE INSTANT TRANSACTIONS AROSE IN PROCEEDINGS NOT UNDER CHAPTER
X, BUT UNDER SEC. 77B, WHICH HAD BEEN CLOSED BY FINAL DECREE MARCH 1,
1937.  THE CHANDLER ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 22, 1938. 
ACCORDINGLY SECS. 268 AND 270, OF THEIR OWN FORCE, ARE NOT APPLICABLE
TO THESE TRANSACTIONS.  IF THEY ARE SO AT ALL IT IS BY VIRTUE OF SEC.
276C(3), WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SAYS MUST BE CONSTRUED TO EXTEND THEIR
OPERATION RETROACTIVELY TO INCLUDE THESE FACTS.  THIS PETITIONER
DISPUTES. 

THE LANGUAGE IMMEDIATELY IN QUESTION IS THE ITALICIZED PART OF
SUBDIVISION (3), AS FOLLOWS: 

"(C)  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 77A AND 77B  ...  SHALL CONTINUE IN
FULL FORCE AND EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO PROCEEDINGS PENDING  ...  UPON
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT, EXCEPT THAT - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(3)  SECTIONS 268 AND 270 OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO ANY PLAN
CONFIRMED UNDER SECTION 77B BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
AMENDATORY ACT AND TO ANY PLAN WHICH MAY BE CONFIRMED UNDER SECTION 77B
ON AND AFTER SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE, EXCEPT THAT THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY
THAT ANY SUCH PLAN HAD FOR ONE OF ITS PRINCIPAL PURPOSES THE AVOIDANCE
OF INCOME TAXES, AND EXCEPT FURTHER THAT WHERE SUCH PLAN HAS NOT BEEN
CONFIRMED ON AND AFTER SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE, SECTION 269 OF THIS ACT
SHALL APPLY WHERE PRACTICABLE AND EXPEDIENT."  52 STAT. 905, 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 676. 

THREE CONSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED.  SHORTLY STATED THEY ARE THAT
SECS. 268 AND 270 APPLY TO TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED IN 77B PROCEEDINGS (1)
ONLY IF THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING SEPTEMBER 22, 1938; (2) ONLY FOR
1938 AND LATER TAX YEARS, BUT INCLUDING TRANSACTIONS IN PROCEEDINGS
CLOSED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 22, 1938; (3) FOR ALL TAX YEARS FROM 1934
FORWARD AS TO TRANSACTIONS IN ALL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH A PLAN HAD BEEN
OR SHOULD BE CONFIRMED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS WERE
PENDING OR HAD BEEN CLOSED ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1938. 

THE PETITIONER ADVANCES THE FIRST TWO VIEWS, ALTERNATIVELY; THE
GOVERNMENT THE THIRD.  THE GOVERNMENT INTERPRETS THE ITALICIZED
LANGUAGE AS IF IT WERE WHOLLY DISCONNECTED FROM AND UNRELATED TO THE
PRECEDING PORTIONS OF SEC. 276C, IN OTHER WORDS, AS AN ENTIRELY
INDEPENDENT PROVISION UNLIMITED BY ITS STATUTORY CONTEXT.  PETITIONER,
ON THE OTHER HAND, REGARDS IT AS MERELY A PART OR PHASE OF SEC. 276C,
FN25  AND THUS REACHES THE EXACTLY CONTRARY VIEW OF ITS MEANING.  THE
STATUTE, IT SAYS, REFERS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF "C" TO "PROCEEDINGS
PENDING" UNDER 77B AND, TO QUOTE THE BRIEF, "EXCEPTIONS (1), (2) AND
(3) ARE KEYED INTO THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH AND REFER TO PENDING
PROCEEDINGS ALSO.  THEY MERELY EXCEPT FROM THE PENDING CASES THOSE TO
WHICH 77B IS NOT TO APPLY.  SINCE (C) DEALS ONLY WITH PENDING CASES AND
NOT CLOSED CASES, THEY REFER ALSO TO PENDING CASES."  THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDES THERE IS FORCE IN THIS VIEW, THOUGH IT SUGGESTS, WE THINK
UNTENABLY,  FN26  THAT THE QUESTION IS DOUBTFULLY OPEN.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS ACCEPTED THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW, THE TAX COURT THE ALTERNATIVE
OR SECOND VIEW ADVANCED BY THE TAXPAYER.  WE THINK NEITHER CAN BE
ACCEPTED AND THAT THE EFFECT OF SEC. 276C(3) IS TO CONFINE THE
APPLICATION OF SECS. 268 AND 270, IN 77B PROCEEDINGS, TO PROCEEDINGS
PENDING WHEN THE CHANDLER ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE. 

IF SECS. 268 AND 270 WERE TO BE APPLIED TO ALL REORGANIZATIONS
COMPLETED UNDER SEC. 77B, LITERALLY THEY WOULD COVER ALL SUCH
TRANSACTIONS RUNNING BACK TO 1934, WHEN THE LATTER SECTION WAS
ENACTED.  AS TO PROCEEDINGS CLOSED WHEN THE CHANDLER ACT TOOK EFFECT,
THIS WOULD INVOLVE DISTURBANCE OF TAX CONSEQUENCES ALREADY SETTLED FOR
FIVE YEARS, UNLESS CASES ARE EXCEPTED WHERE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
HAD RUN.  FN27  WE HAVE NO MEANS OF KNOWING HOW MUCH RESURRECTION OF
OLD CLAIMS OR GENERATION OF NEW ONES IN RESPECT TO SETTLED MATTERS THIS
WOULD CREATE.  NOR DID THE AUTHORS OF THE CHANDLER ACT.  BUT, FROM THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TIME AND THE VERY NECESSITIES WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT
ADOPTION OF SEC. 77B, THE VOLUME MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLE. 

TO CONSTRUE SEC. 276C(3) TO PRODUCE SUCH CONSEQUENCES IN NO WAY WOULD
FURTHER THE PRIMARY OBJECTS OF SECS. 268 AND 270, WHICH WERE TO
ENCOURAGE USE OF CHANDLER ACT PROCEDURES, AT THE SAME TIME PREVENTING
THEIR ABUSE FOR TAX ADVANTAGE.  RATHER IT WOULD PERVERT THOSE SECTIONS
BY CHANGING THEIR CHARACTER, TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR RETROACTIVE
OPERATION, FROM RELIEF PROVISIONS TO PURELY REVENUE MEASURES OF THE
WORST TYPE.  IN ADOPTING THEM CONGRESS WAS NOT UPROOTING THE WHOLE TAX
PAST OF REORGANIZED DEBTORS AND THEIR CREDITORS.  IT WAS, OR PURPORTED
TO BE, GIVING RELIEF FROM HARSH OR UNCERTAIN TAX CONSEQUENCES TO
PERSONS REORGANIZING PRESENTLY OR IN THE FUTURE.  FN28 

THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH UNLIMITED CONSTRUCTION.  THE WORDS
ARE NOT DIRECTED EXPRESSLY TO PAST TAX YEARS.  NOR ARE THEY FOCUSED
UPON TRANSACTIONS IN CLOSED PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 276C(3),
IF CONSTRUED AS THOUGH IT WERE ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF THE REMAINDER OF
SEC. 276C, DOES NOT REFER EXPLICITLY TO PENDING 77B PROCEEDINGS, EXCEPT
IN ITS CONCLUDING CLAUSE.  YET IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF THAT SECTION,
WHICH IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS DEALS ONLY WITH PENDING AND FUTURE
PROCEEDINGS, NOT WITH CLOSED ONES.  AND THE CONCLUDING CLAUSES OF (3)
AFFORD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO PLANS
CONFIRMED OR TO BE CONFIRMED IN PENDING PROCEEDINGS, AS DOES ALSO ITS
SETTING IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC. 276 AS A WHOLE.  FN29 

THUS SEC. 276, IN SUBSECTIONS A, B AND C (EXCEPTING ONLY SEC.
276C(3)), DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH PENDING OR FUTURE PROCEEDINGS. 
CONGRESS' CONCERN IN "A" WAS THAT CHAPTER X SHOULD APPLY
NOTWITHSTANDING THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF DEBTORS, CREDITORS AND OTHERS
HAD ARISEN BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT.  IN "B" IT WAS THAT
THE PENDENCY OF BANKRUPTCY AND RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT
DEFEAT RESORT TO THE CHANDLER ACT'S PROVISIONS; IN "C" IT WAS WITH AN
ACCOMMODATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 77A AND 77B AND THOSE OF THE
CHANDLER ACT AS TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS.  APART FROM SEC. 276C(3),
THEREFORE, THE WHOLE PROBLEM TREATED IN SEC. 276 WAS TO GIVE THE
CHANDLER ACT AS WIDE ROOM AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE OPERATION,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PREVIOUS VESTING OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OR
INSTITUTION OF BANKRUPTCY OR REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  CONGRESS WAS
CONCERNED WITH THE ACT'S FUTURE OPERATION, AS A REMEDIAL PROVISION, NOT
AS A METHOD OF CREATING NEW AND RETROACTIVE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES. 

THIS BEING TRUE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY CONGRESS MIGHT
WISH TO FOLLOW EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE POLICY WITH REFERENCE TO NEWLY
CREATED SUBSTANTIVE TAX RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES.  IT WOULD SEEM WHOLLY
INCONGRUOUS TO IMPLY SUCH A PURPOSE IN THE ABSENCE OF LANGUAGE
UNQUESTIONABLY REQUIRING IT, BOTH AS A MATTER OF GENERAL LEGISLATIVE
POLICY AND, MORE ESPECIALLY, AS ONE OF ACCOMMODATION WITH THE PURPOSES
OF THE PARTICULAR LEGISLATION.  IN SHORT, APART FROM SUBDIVISION (3),
RELATING TO TAX INCIDENTS OF REORGANIZATION, ALL OF SEC. 276 WAS
DEVOTED ENTIRELY TO MATTERS AFFECTING PENDING AND FUTURE PROCEEDINGS. 
WE CAN FIND REASON FOR NO OTHER VIEW THAN THAT THIS WAS TRUE ALSO OF
THE PROVISIONS FOR APPLICATION OF THE NEW TAX FEATURES. 

THIS IS BORNE OUT BY THE CONCLUDING CLAUSES OF SEC. 276C(3) ITSELF,
WHICH PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS TO ITS OPERATION.  THE SECOND EXCEPTION IN
TERMS RELATES ONLY TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS.  IT CONTEMPLATED FUTURE
CONFIRMATION EXCLUSIVELY.  THE FIRST EXCEPTION, STANDING ALONE,
LITERALLY COULD BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF A CLOSED PROCEEDING.  BUT
REACHING SUCH CASES WAS NOT A NECESSARY REASON FOR INCLUDING IT.  SUCH
A REASON EXISTED, HOWEVER, IN THE NECESSITY FOR COVERING PLANS ALREADY
CONFIRMED IN PENDING PROCEEDINGS, UNLESS PARTIES THEN REORGANIZING
UNDER SEC. 77B WERE TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHERS REORGANIZING
AT THE SAME TIME UNDER CHAPTER X. THE TWO EXCEPTIONS THUS DOVETAILED TO
PROVIDE COMPLETE COVERAGE FOR DISALLOWING THE EXEMPTION GIVEN BY SEC.
268 IN PENDING PROCEEDINGS.  THEY COMPREHENDED DISTINCT SITUATIONS AND
PROVIDED DIFFERENT SANCTIONS,  FN30  ALL HOWEVER CONSISTENT WITH
APPLICATION ONLY IN PENDING PROCEEDINGS.  THUS THE ENTIRE LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 276C(3) WAS CAPABLE OF FULL AND COMPLETE APPLICATION, ALTHOUGH
CONFINED TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS.  TO GIVE IT GREATER SCOPE,
RETROACTIVELY, IS REQUIRED NEITHER BY THE TERMS NOR BY THE PURPOSES OF
THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OR OTHERS RELATED TO IT IN CONTEXT OR BY
REFERENCE. 

THAT THE NARROWER APPLICATION WAS THE INTENDED ONE SEEMS MOST
APPARENT WHEN THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM WITH WHICH SEC. 276C(3) SOUGHT
TO DEAL IS CONSIDERED.  THERE WAS NO PROBLEM, ARISING FROM ENACTMENT OF
THE CHANDLER ACT, WITH REFERENCE TO CLOSED 77B PROCEEDINGS.  AND THERE
WAS NO REASON ORIGINALLY, WHEN SEC. 268 STOOD ALONE, FOR GIVING THE
RELIEF IT AFFORDED TO TAXPAYERS INVOLVED IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS.  NOTHING
IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 268, OR OF SEC. 270, SHOWS ANY
CONCERN, INTENT OR OCCASION FOR DEALING WITH SUCH TAXPAYERS.  THE WHOLE
DESIRE RELATED RATHER, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, TO TAXPAYERS WHO MIGHT BE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE GENERAL REVENUE PROVISIONS IN TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THE CHANDLER ACT. 

HOWEVER, THAT ACT ITSELF CREATED ANOTHER PROBLEM, NAMELY, HOW FAR ITS
TERMS SHOULD APPLY IN PENDING 77B PROCEEDINGS.  CONGRESS DECIDED THAT
THE CHANDLER PROCEDURE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, THOUGH
NOT TO THE EXTENT OF DISPLACING THE 77B PROCEDURE IN REORGANIZATIONS
FAR ADVANCED.  FN31  THE SAME POLICY WAS FRAMED FOR OTHER CHAPTERS. 
CONSEQUENTLY SECS. 276C(1) AND (2) WERE INCLUDED, AS WERE ALSO
COMPARABLE PROVISIONS IN OTHER CHAPTERS.  FN32  WITH THEM IN, THE
PROBLEM WAS PRESENTED WHETHER THE CHANDLER ACT'S TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS,
INCLUDING SECS. 268 AND 270, SHOULD APPLY ALSO IN THE PENDING 77B
PROCEEDINGS AND, IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT - ONLY TO THOSE CONVERTED INTO
CHANDLER ACT PROCEEDINGS BY SEC. 276C(1), OR ALSO TO THOSE PARTIALLY
CONVERTED UNDER SEC. 276C(2) BY AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION AND
THOSE FALLING WITHIN 276C(2) BUT SO NEARLY COMPLETED OR OTHERWISE
SITUATED THAT APPLICATION OF THE CHANDLER ACT IN ANY RESPECT WOULD BE
IMPRACTICABLE AND THEREFORE 77B WOULD CONTINUE EXCLUSIVELY EFFECTIVE. 

ALTHOUGH THESE PENDING 77B PROCEEDINGS, AND PARTICULARLY THOSE
NEARING COMPLETION, HAVING BEEN ALREADY BEGUN, WERE GENERALLY WITHOUT
THE SCOPE OF THE ENCOURAGEMENT SECS. 268 AND 270 WERE INTENDED TO GIVE
TO PERSONS CONTEMPLATING REORGANIZATION, CONGRESS UNDOUBTEDLY FELT IT
WOULD BE UNFAIR TO GIVE THE RELIEF TO TAXPAYERS FOLLOWING THE CHANDLER
ACT PROCEDURE, BUT DENY IT TO PERSONS FOLLOWING THAT OF 77B AT THE SAME
TIME.  TO MAKE THIS DISCRIMINATION MIGHT FORCE CONVERSION OF PENDING
77B PROCEEDINGS INTO CHAPTER X PROCEEDINGS, SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF TAX
CONSEQUENCES, WHERE BUT FOR THEM SUCH CONVERSION WOULD NOT BE PROPER OR
DESIRABLE.  ACCORDINGLY, BY SEC. 276C(3) CONGRESS EXTENDED THE TAX
RELIEF PROVIDED BY SECS. 268 AND 270 ALSO TO PENDING 77B PROCEEDINGS IN
ORDER TO PUT PERSONS CONTINUING 77B REORGANIZATION ON THE SAME BASIS
WITH OTHERS PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X. THERE WAS NO OTHER OCCASION OR
OBJECT FOR THE EXTENSION. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, BOTH OF CONTEXT AND OF CONSEQUENCE,
WE DO NOT THINK SEC. 276C(3) CAN BE REGARDED AS APPLICABLE TO CLOSED
PROCEEDINGS.  THE PURPOSE RATHER, AS IN THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC.
276, WAS TO LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND IN DOING SO TO MAKE THE NECESSARY
ADJUSTMENT, SO FAR AS WAS POSSIBLE, BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CHANDLER ACT AND PREEXISTING LAWS AS TO PROCEEDINGS PENDING WHEN THE
FORMER TOOK EFFECT.  THUS CONSTRUED, SEC. 276C(3) BECOMES CONSISTENT,
BOTH IN FORM AND IN THE PURPOSE AND EFFECTS OF APPLYING THE NEW TAX
PROVISIONS, WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 276 AND WITH THE GENERAL
POLICY OF THE CHANDLER ACT AS TO APPLICABILITY OF ITS TERMS.  FN33  ANY
OTHER VIEW WOULD MAKE SEC. 276C(3) A UNIQUE PROVISION IN THE STATUTE'S
SETTING AND ONE INCONSISTENT WITH, IF NOT ALSO CONTRADICTORY TO, THE
ACT'S GENERAL PURPOSES AND THE LIMITED OBJECTS OF THE PARTICULAR
PROVISIONS IMMEDIATELY IN ISSUE. 

FURTHER SUPPORT FOR THIS VIEW WOULD SEEM TO BE AFFORDED, WHEN THE
CONSEQUENCES OF APPLYING IT OR THE CONTRARY ONE TO SIMILAR PROVISIONS
APPEARING IN OTHER CHAPTERS OF THE CHANDLER ACT  FN34  ARE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT.  IF THOSE PROVISIONS ARE TO BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE APPLICATION
COMPARABLE TO WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO SECS. 268,
270 AND 276C(3), THE DISRUPTION OF SETTLED TAX SITUATIONS, BY VIRTUE OF
THE CHANDLER ACT'S ADOPTION, MAY BE MULTIPLIED MANY TIMES OVER WHAT
WOULD FOLLOW FROM GIVING SUCH AN EFFECT ONLY TO SECS. 268, 270 AND
276C(3).  ALTHOUGH THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES OF DECISION IN THIS CASE
ARE LIMITED TO THE SPECIFIC EFFECTS OF THESE SECTIONS, IT IS AT LEAST
DOUBTFUL THAT THEY COULD BE GIVEN A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION, AS TO
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION, FROM WHAT MIGHT BE GIVEN TO THE COMPARABLE
INTERPRETATION MAY BE REQUIRED GIVES PAUSE, AT LEAST, BEFORE ADOPTING A
VIEW IN THIS CASE WHICH, IF EXTENDED TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS, WOULD
OPEN SO WIDE A DOOR FOR RETROACTIVE TAXATION. 

AS AGAINST THIS INTERPRETATION, THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT RESTS
PRIMARILY ON TWO BASES:  (1) THAT THE WORDS OF SEC. 276C(3) REQUIRE ITS
CONSTRUCTION; AND (2) THAT UNLESS THIS IS GIVEN, DISCRIMINATIONS AS TO
TAX CONSEQUENCES WILL BE CREATED BETWEEN TAXPAYERS INVOLVED IN CLOSED
PROCEEDINGS AND THOSE IN PENDING AND FUTURE ONES, WITH THE RESULT THAT
MERE SPEED IN GETTING THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 22,
1938, TO A FINAL DECREE WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER TAXPAYERS EQUALLY
DESERVING WOULD BE AFFORDED THE RELIEF PROVIDED BY SECS. 268 AND 270. 

THE ANSWERS ARE OBVIOUS.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE WORDING OF SEC.
276C(3) DOES NOT REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSTRUCTION.  THAT VIEW CAN
BE TAKEN ONLY IF SUBDIVISION (3) IS TORN, FORMALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY,
FROM ITS CONTEXT IN THE STATUTE AND THE PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THESE
SURROUNDING PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECS. 268 AND 270, UNDERTOOK TO
DEAL.  THUS TO TREAT THE PROVISION NOT ONLY WOULD DISREGARD THE
PURPOSES OF ALL THESE RELATED PROVISIONS.  IT WOULD CONVERT SUBDIVISION
(3), IN ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION, INTO AN ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT TAX
MEASURE, SOLELY IN THE NATURE OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL REVENUE
LEGISLATION, AND WITH THE HARSHEST RETROACTIVE TAX CONSEQUENCES.  THIS
IN FACT SEEMS TO BE THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW OF THE CHARACTER OF THE
LEGISLATION.  FN35  BUT THAT VIEW WHOLLY DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT
NEITHER SECS. 268 AND 270 NOR SEC. 276C(3) HAD ANY PURPOSE ORIGINALLY
OR LATER MERELY TO PRODUCE LARGER REVENUES OR TO OPERATE EXCLUSIVELY AS
REVENUE MEASURES.  IT IS TRUE THEY MODIFIED THE PREEXISTING REVENUE
PROVISIONS, SO FAR AS THEY WERE APPLICABLE BY THEIR TERMS TO DO SO.
BUT THIS WAS A FUNCTION OF THEIR PRIMARY OBJECT, WHICH WAS TO GIVE
RELIEF TO PARTIES UNDERTAKING REORGANIZATION, NOT SIMPLY TO IMPOSE NEW
AND DIFFERENT TAXES UPON THEM, MUCH LESS TO DO SO WITH RESPECT TO
TRANSACTIONS LONG SINCE SETTLED BOTH AS TO TAXES AND AS TO
REORGANIZATION.  THE OBJECTS OF SEC. 276C(3) CANNOT BE IGNORED OR
DISTORTED BY THUS STRIPPING THE PROVISION, FORMALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY,
FROM ITS STATUTORY SETTING AND THE LIMITATIONS THIS CLEARLY IMPOSES. 

SO FAR AS RESPECTS THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCERN OVER THE POSSIBLE
DISCRIMINATIONS WHICH WILL BE CREATED BETWEEN TAXPAYERS BY ACCEPTANCE
OF PETITIONER'S VIEW, IT IS PERHAPS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT SOME SUCH
DISCRIMINATION IS INEVITABLE WITH WHATEVER SOLUTION MAY BE ACCEPTED;
AND WE THINK WHAT FOLLOWS FROM APPLYING SECS. 268 AND 270 ONLY TO
"PENDING PROCEEDINGS" NOT ONLY IS PREFERABLE TO ANY OTHER BUT IS MOST
CONSISTENT WITH THE NORMAL COURSE OF LEGISLATION.  RETROACTIVITY, EVEN
WHERE PERMISSIBLE, IS NOT FAVORED, EXCEPT UPON THE CLEAREST MANDATE. 
IT IS THE NORMAL AND USUAL FUNCTION OF LEGISLATION TO DISCRIMINATE
BETWEEN CLOSED TRANSACTIONS AND FUTURE ONES OR OTHERS PENDING BUT NOT
COMPLETED.  THE DISCRIMINATION WHICH THE GOVERNMENT FEARS WILL FOLLOW
FROM ACCEPTANCE OF THE TAXPAYER'S VIEW ADMITTEDLY WILL RESULT.  BUT IT
IS ONE CONSISTENT WITH THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF LEGISLATION IN THE
DRAWING OF A LINE BETWEEN THE PAST OR THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE.  IT
ALSO WAS ONE NECESSARY FOR CONGRESS TO MAKE IF IT WERE NOT TO MAKE
ANOTHER OR OTHERS EQUALLY BAD OR WORSE.  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCERN IN
THIS CASE IS NOT THAT THE TAXPAYER WILL SUFFER HARSHER DISCRIMINATION
UNDER PETITIONER'S CONSTRUCTION THAN UNDER ITS OWN.  IT IS RATHER THAT
HE WILL NOT SUFFER IT.  FOR, AS INTERPRETED BY THE GOVERNMENT, FN36
SECS. 268, 270 AND 276C(3) APPLIED IN CONJUNCTION WOULD BE MUCH MORE
LIKELY TO PRODUCE NEW, AND RETROACTIVE, TAX BURDENS THAN TAX BENEFITS. 
THE PRESENT CASE IS AN ILLUSTRATION.  TO THIS THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE
ENTITLED IF THE STATUTORY MANDATE WERE CLEAR.  IT CANNOT HAVE THAT
ADVANTAGE BY DUBIOUS CONSTRUCTION WHICH IGNORES SO MUCH OF THE
STATUTE'S SETTING, PURPOSE AND HISTORY.  THE LETTER DOES NOT REQUIRE
THIS.  THE CONSEQUENCES FORBID IT. 

THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION THE REFUSAL OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
TO REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE TAX COURT AS TO THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE
APARTMENT BUILDING AND THE PROPRIETY OF DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED IN 1937 FOR
DECORATING EXPENSES.  FN37  THE TAX COURT, IN ARRIVING AT THE COST OF
THE BUILDING, REFUSED TO ALLOW AN ALLEGED TEN PER CENT CONTRACTOR'S
COMMISSION PAID TO THE DEBTOR COMPANY'S PRINCIPAL PROMOTER AND ORIGINAL
SOLE SHAREHOLDER BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CONVINCED BY PETITIONER'S WITNESS
"THAT ANY AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE OLD COMPANY FOR CONTRACTOR'S
SERVICES  ...."  1 T.C. 163, 175.  THE TAX COURT ALSO CONCLUDED, AFTER
HEARING VAGUE TESTIMONY ON TWO SMALL DEDUCTIONS IN 1937 FOR DECORATING
AND REPAIRS, THAT THESE WERE NOT PROPERLY TAKEN, BECAUSE THE SAME
DEDUCTIONS FOR THE SAME PURPOSES HAD BEEN CLAIMED AND ALLOWED IN 1936. 
THESE ISSUES WERE WELL WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DOBSON CASE.  THE
TAX COURT WAS UPHELD IN THESE RESPECTS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND WE
ACCEPT THESE FINDINGS. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  BANKRUPTCY ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, C. 541, 30 STAT. 544, AS AMENDED
BY THE ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, C. 575, 52 STAT. 904, AND THE ACT OF JULY
1, 1940, C. 500, 54 STAT. 709, 11 U.S.C. SECS. 668, 670.  SECTION 270
IS COMPLEMENTARY TO SEC. 268, WITH WHICH ORIGINALLY IT WAS ENACTED AS
PART OF CHAPTER X OF THE CHANDLER ACT.  THE TWO SECTIONS ARE AS
FOLLOWS, THE ITALICIZED PORTION OF 270 CONSTITUTING THE WHOLE OF THE
AMENDMENT MADE IN 1940. 

"SEC. 268.  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 270 OF THIS ACT, NO INCOME
OR PROFIT, TAXABLE UNDER ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE
NOW IN FORCE OR WHICH MAY HEREAFTER BE ENACTED, SHALL, IN RESPECT TO
THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS OF A DEBTOR IN A PROCEEDING UNDER
THIS CHAPTER, BE DEEMED TO HAVE ACCRUED TO OR TO HAVE BEEN REALIZED BY
A DEBTOR, BY A TRUSTEE PROVIDED FOR IN A PLAN UNDER THIS CHAPTER, OR BY
A CORPORATION ORGANIZED OR MADE USE OF FOR EFFECTUATING A PLAN UNDER
THIS CHAPTER BY REASON OF A MODIFICATION IN OR CANCELATION IN WHOLE OR
IN PART OF ANY OF THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE DEBTOR IN A PROCEEDING UNDER
THIS CHAPTER." 

"SEC. 270.  IN DETERMINING THE BASIS OF PROPERTY FOR ANY PURPOSES OF
ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF A STATE IMPOSING A TAX UPON INCOME,
THE BASIS OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY (OTHER THAN MONEY) OR OF SUCH
PROPERTY (OTHER THAN MONEY) AS IS TRANSFERRED TO ANY PERSON REQUIRED TO
USE THE DEBTOR'S BASIS IN WHOLE OR IN PART SHALL BE DECREASED BY AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE DEBTOR, NOT
INCLUDING ACCRUED INTEREST UNPAID AND NOT RESULTING IN A TAX BENEFIT ON
ANY INCOME TAX RETURN, HAS BEEN CANCELED OR REDUCED IN A PROCEEDING
UNDER THIS CHAPTER, BUT THE BASIS OF ANY PARTICULAR PROPERTY SHALL NOT
BE DECREASED TO AN AMOUNT LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH
PROPERTY AS OF THE DATE OF ENTRY OF THE ORDER CONFIRMING THE PLAN.  ANY
DETERMINATION OF VALUE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED A DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, SHALL PRESCRIBE SUCH REGULATIONS AS HE
MAY DEEM NECESSARY IN ORDER TO REFLECT SUCH DECREASE IN BASIS FOR
FEDERAL INCOME-TAX PURPOSES AND OTHERWISE CARRY INTO EFFECT THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION." 

FN2  CF. NOTE 1 SUPRA.  ORIGINALLY THE COMMISSIONER CONTENDED THAT
THE TAXPAYER'S BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION WAS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY ON ACQUISITION IN 1935 AND THIS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE BEFORE THE
TAX COURT, CF. 1 T.C. 163.  BUT THE TAX COURT HELD PETITIONER HAD
ACQUIRED THE ASSETS IN CONNECTION WITH A REORGANIZATION AS COMPREHENDED
BY SEC. 112(G) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, AND THAT THEREFORE ITS BASIS
WAS THE ADJUSTED BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE DEBTOR CORPORATION.  THIS
RULING WAS NOT CONTESTED ON APPEAL AND IS NOT IN QUESTION HERE. 

FN3  CF. NOTE 2 SUPRA. 

FN4  THE SECTION IS SET FORTH IN PART III OF THE OPINION. 

FN5  CONSEQUENTLY IT MADE NO RULING WITH REFERENCE TO THE ACCRUED
INTEREST, SINCE THE AMOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL HELD TO HAVE BEEN
"CANCELLED" WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO BRING THE BASIS DOWN TO THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE IN 1935. 

FN6  CF. COMMISSIONER V. COMMODORE, 135 F.2D 89(C.C.A.6TH), HOLDING
THAT SEC. 276C(3) DOES NOT MAKE SECS. 268 AND 270 RETROACTIVELY
APPLICABLE TO TAX YEARS PRIOR TO 1938.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
FOR THE FUTURE HAS BEEN MINIMIZED BY REPEAL OF SEC. 270 BY SEC. 121 OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943, C. 63, 58 STAT. 21, 41. 

FN7  THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF AN APARTMENT BUILDING, WITH
FURNISHINGS, IN CHICAGO.  IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1924 BY THE CLARIDGE
BUILDING CORPORATION AT A COST IN EXCESS OF $385,000.  THE CORPORATION
AT THAT TIME ISSUED ITS 6 1/2 PER CENT FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS FOR
$340,000.  BY OCTOBER 1, 1931, THE BONDS OUTSTANDING AMOUNTED TO
$277,000.  IN CONSEQUENCE OF DEFAULTS, ON THAT DATE THE TRUSTEE FILED
HIS BILL OF FORECLOSURE, TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, AND
THEREAFTER COLLECTED THE RENTS.  A DECREE FOR FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED
THE FOLLOWING FEBRUARY, BUT THERE WAS NO SALE AND THE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDING WAS NEVER CONSUMMATED. 

ON JUNE 16, 1934, THE BUILDING CORPORATION FILED ITS VOLUNTARY
PETITION UNDER SEC. 77B.  IN NOVEMBER OF THAT YEAR A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION WAS AGREED UPON, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED AND APPROVED MAY
14, 1935.  PURSUANT TO THIS THE TAXPAYER CORPORATION WAS ORGANIZED AND
THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO IT.  NINETY PER CENT OF ITS SHARES WERE
ISSUED TO TRUSTEES FOR DEPOSITING BONDHOLDERS AND TO NONDEPOSITING
BONDHOLDERS, ON THE BASIS OF ONE SHARE OF STOCK FOR EACH $100 FACE
AMOUNT OF BONDS; AND TEN PER CENT OF THE STOCK WAS ISSUED TO THE
SHAREHOLDERS IN THE OLD CORPORATION.  THE FINAL DECREE IN THE SEC. 77B
PROCEEDING WAS ENTERED MARCH 1, 1937. 

ACCORDING TO FINDINGS OF THE TAX COURT, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
BUILDING, AS OF MAY 14, 1935(WHEN THE PLAN WAS CONFIRMED, CF. SEC. 270,
NOTE 1 SUPRA), WAS NOT IN EXCESS OF $141,000.  THE ADJUSTED BASIS OF
THE TAXPAYER'S PREDECESSOR IN THAT YEAR WAS $239,377.33, AT WHICH TIME
THE BUILDING HAD A REMAINING USEFUL LIFE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PETITIONER'S STOCK DID NOT EXCEED $45 PER SHARE IN
1935.  THE TAX COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE CLARIDGE BUILDING CORPORATION
WAS INSOLVENT THROUGHOUT THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS. 

FN8  CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 37. 

FN9  CF., E.G., HELVERING V. AMERICAN DENTAL CO., 318 U.S. 322;
KRAMAN DEV.  CO., 3 T.C. 342; PAUL, DEBT AND BASIS REDUCTION UNDER THE
CHANDLER ACT (1940) 15 TULANE L. REV. 1, 5, AND AUTHORITIES CITED IN
NOTES 17, 19. 

FN10  CF. PAUL, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 9; DARRELL, DISCHARGE OF
INDEBTEDNESS AND THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX (1940) 53 HARV. L. REV. 977;
DARRELL, CREDITORS' REORGANIZATIONS AND THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX (1944)
57 HARV. L. REV. 1009; BANKS, TREATISE ON BANKRUPTCY FOR ACCOUNTANTS
(1939) 80-92. 

FN11  BY ASSUMING THE EXISTENCE OF INCOME OR OTHER TAXABLE GAIN, BUT
PROVIDING FOR NONRECOGNITION, THE INQUIRY WHETHER GAIN OR PROFIT
ACTUALLY HAS ACCRUED IS WHOLLY AVOIDED. 

FN12  CF. AUTHORITIES CITED NOTE 10 SUPRA. 

FN13  CF. PAUL, STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION, THIRD SERIES, 4, 5. 

FN14  SECS. 112, 113 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, C. 277, 48 STAT.
680, 704, 706. 

FN15  E.G., SEC. 112(G) OF THE 1934 ACT REDEFINED WHAT MIGHT BE A
REORGANIZATION UNDER THE REVENUE ACT.  THUS SEC. 112(G)(1)(A) INCLUDED
ONLY STATUTORY MERGERS OR CONSOLIDATIONS AS REVENUE REORGANIZATIONS,
BUT DROPPED THE EARLIER PARENTHETICAL CLAUSE; SEC. 112(G)(1)(B)
REQUIRED THAT THE ACQUISITION OF STOCK OR PROPERTY OF ANOTHER
CORPORATION BE IN EXCHANGE SOLELY FOR ALL OR A PART OF THE VOTING STOCK
OF THE ACQUIRING CORPORATION TO QUALIFY AS A REORGANIZATION.  HELVERING
V. SOUTHWEST CONSOLIDATED CORP., 315 U.S. 194; CF. SEC. 112(B)(5);
HELVERING V. CEMENT INVESTORS, 316 U.S. 527. 

FN16  CF. HELVERING V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE CO., 315 U.S. 179;
PALM SPRINGS HOLDING CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 315 U.S. 185; BONDHOLDERS
COMMITTEE V. COMMISSIONER, 315 U.S. 189; HELVERING V. SOUTHWEST
CONSOLIDATED CORP., 315 U.S. 194; DARRELL, CREDITORS' REORGANIZATIONS
AND THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX (1940) 57 HARV. L. REV. 1009, 1017-1033. 

FN17  IBID. 

FN18  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R.
8046, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 352-354; HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 8046, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
137-139. 

FN19  SEE HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, 353-354; SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
HEARINGS, 145-146. 

FN20  H. REP. NO. 2372, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., 2-4; S. REP. NO. 1857,
76TH CONG., 3D SESS., 1-5; HEARINGS BEFORE A SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BANKRUPTCY AND REORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON H.R.
9864, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., 3, 5-11, 13-14, 16, 18-31, 54; CF. PAUL,
DEBT AND BASIS REDUCTION UNDER THE CHANDLER ACT (1940) 15 TULANE L.
REV. 1, 5.    FN21  CF. DARRELL, CREDITORS' REORGANIZATIONS AND THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX (1940) 57 HARV. L. REV. 1009, 1016. 

FN22  PAUL, DEBT AND BASIS REDUCTION UNDER THE CHANDLER ACT (1940) 15
TULANE L. REV. 1, 5. 

FN23  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R.
8046, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 352-354; HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 8046, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
137-139, 145-146; HEARINGS BEFORE A SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON BANKRUPTCY
AND REORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON H.R. 9864, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS., 52-59, 66-67.  A SIGNIFICANT LETTER WRITTEN BY
CONGRESSMAN CHANDLER SHORTLY AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE CHANDLER ACT WAS
SUBMITTED AT THE 1940 HEARINGS (HEARINGS ON H.R. 9864, AT 52) AND WAS
RECEIVED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE INTO THE RECORD.  FOR SOME REASON IT WAS
NOT PUBLISHED IN THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH THE CHANDLER LETTER WAS REFERRED
TO IN A LETTER WHICH WAS PUBLISHED (HEARINGS ON H.R. 9864, AT 56).  THE
CHANDLER LETTER MAY BE FOUND IN BANKS, TREATISE ON BANKRUPTCY FOR
ACCOUNTANTS (1939) 84-85. 

FN24  CF. NOTE 1 SUPRA. 

FN25  PETITIONER'S STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT DOES NOT TAKE ACCOUNT
EXPRESSLY OF THE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT HE CALLS "EXCEPTIONS
(1) AND (2)," ON THE ONE HAND, AND "EXCEPTION (3)," ON THE OTHER.  (1)
AND (2) ARE CLEARLY TRUE SUBSTANTIVE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL MANDATE
OF "C."  THAT IS, THEY PROVIDE INSTANCES IN WHICH SEC. 77B SHALL NOT
CONTINUE TO OPERATE, CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL PROVISION OF "C" FOR ITS
CONTINUED EFFECTIVENESS IN PENDING PROCEEDINGS.  LIKE EFFECT HOWEVER
CANNOT BE GIVEN TO (3).  IT DOES NOT PURPORT EXPRESSLY TO PROVIDE FOR
NONOPERATION OF 77B.  RATHER ITS FORCE IS TO PROVIDE FOR AN EXTENDED
OPERATION OF SECS. 268 AND 270, WITH REFERENCE TO 77B PROCEEDINGS. 

THE FORMAL DIFFICULTY HOWEVER IS MORE APPARENT THAN SUBSTANTIAL. 
NOTHING IN (3) IS AT ALL INCONSISTENT WITH ITS LIMITATION TO PENDING
77B PROCEEDINGS.  AND THE FORMAL CONNECTION WITH "C," THOUGH AWKWARDLY
MADE, AFFORDS SOME EVIDENCE OF PURPOSE TO LIMIT THE EFFECTS OF (3) TO
SUCH PROCEEDINGS.  THE SAME CONSEQUENCE, HOWEVER, WOULD SEEM TO BE
DICTATED, IF THE FORMAL CONNECTION, AS AN "EXCEPTION" TO "C," WERE
DISREGARDED AND (3) WERE TREATED AS A SEPARATE SUBSECTION, LIKE THE
CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF OTHER CHAPTERS.  CF. NOTE 35 INFRA.  THE
SUBSTANTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER AND PURPOSES OF THE
PRECEDING PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION AS A WHOLE WOULD REMAIN.  CF. TEXT
INFRA PART III. 

FN26  IT IS TRUE PETITIONER DID NOT PRESENT THIS INTERPRETATION IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS OR IN THE TAX COURT.  IT WAS ADVANCED AS A
QUESTION PRESENTED ON THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, THE MATTER
HAS BEEN ARGUED HERE, AND THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CLAIM SURPRISE.  THE
ISSUE OF RETROACTIVITY AND PROPER INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 276C(3) HAS
BEEN A FOCAL POINT OF THE CONTROVERSY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND IN
THE TAX COURT.  PETITIONER HAS MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THAT THERE WAS NO
TAX DEFICIENCY FOR EITHER 1938 OR ANY PRIOR YEAR.  THUS THE ISSUE HAS
BEEN PRESENTED AT ALL STAGES, ALTHOUGH A THEORY TO SUSTAIN PETITIONER'S
POSITION CONCERNING IT HAS BEEN ADVANCED HERE WHICH WAS NOT PUT FORWARD
IN PRIOR STAGES OF THE LITIGATION. 

FN27  IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE TERMS OF SEC. 276C(3) MAKE NO
PROVISION CONCERNING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THEY APPLY LITERALLY
TO ALL PRIOR 77B PROCEEDINGS.  THE COMMISSIONER AND THE TREASURY HAVE
NOT INTERPRETED THE SECTION TO MAKE SECS. 268 AND 270 APPLY BEYOND THE
TIME WHEN THE GENERAL STATUTE HAS RUN.  BUT THIS INTERPRETATION IS NOT
NECESSARILY CONTROLLING, IN THE FACE OF THE BREADTH OF THE LANGUAGE
USED, IF IT IS TAKEN AS UNLIMITED BY ITS CONTEXT.  NO ASSESSMENT WAS
MADE IN THIS CASE FOR 1934 BECAUSE THE PETITIONER CORPORATION WAS NOT
ORGANIZED UNTIL 1935. 

FN28  CF. PART II OF THIS OPINION. 

FN29  THE SECTION COMPRISES THE WHOLE OF ARTICLE XVI OF CHAPTER X,
ENTITLED "WHEN CHAPTER TAKES EFFECT."  IT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 276.  A. THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO DEBTORS BY WHOM OR AGAINST
WHOM PETITIONS ARE FILED ON AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
AMENDATORY ACT AND TO THE CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS THEREOF, WHETHER
THEIR RIGHTS, CLAIMS, OR INTERESTS OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER HAVE BEEN
ACQUIRED OR CREATED BEFORE OR AFTER SUCH DATE; 

"B.  A PETITION MAY BE FILED UNDER THIS CHAPTER IN A PROCEEDING IN
BANKRUPTCY WHICH IS PENDING ON SUCH DATE, AND A PETITION MAY BE FILED
UNDER THIS CHAPTER NOTWITHSTANDING THE PENDENCY ON SUCH DATE OF A
PROCEEDING IN WHICH A RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE OF ALL OR ANY PART OF THE
PROPERTY OF A DEBTOR HAS BEEN APPOINTED OR FOR WHOSE APPOINTMENT
APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE IN A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY
STATE; 

"C.  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 77A AND 77B OF CHAPTER VIII, AS
AMENDED, OF THE ACT ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF
BANKRUPTCY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES', APPROVED JULY 1, 1898, SHALL
CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO PROCEEDINGS PENDING
UNDER THOSE SECTIONS UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT,
EXCEPT THAT - 

"(1)  IF THE PETITION IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WAS APPROVED WITHIN THREE
MONTHS PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT, THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY IN THEIR ENTIRETY TO SUCH
PROCEEDINGS; AND 

"(2)  IF THE PETITION IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WAS APPROVED MORE THAN
THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT, THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE JUDGE SHALL DEEM THEIR APPLICATION PRACTICABLE; AND 

"(3)  SECTIONS 268 AND 270 OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO ANY PLAN
CONFIRMED UNDER SECTION 77B BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
AMENDATORY ACT AND TO ANY PLAN WHICH MAY BE CONFIRMED UNDER SECTION 77B
ON AND AFTER SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE, EXCEPT THAT THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY
THAT ANY SUCH PLAN HAD FOR ONE OF ITS PRINCIPAL PURPOSES THE AVOIDANCE
OF INCOME TAXES, AND EXCEPT FURTHER THAT WHERE SUCH PLAN HAS NOT BEEN
CONFIRMED ON AND AFTER SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE, SECTION 269 OF THIS ACT
SHALL APPLY WHERE PRACTICABLE AND EXPEDIENT."  52 STAT. 905, 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 676. 

FN30  I.E., REFUSAL OF CONFIRMATION WHERE THE PLAN HAD NOT BEEN
APPROVED (CF. SEC. 269) AND DISALLOWANCE OF THE TAX EXEMPTION, IF THE
PLAN HAD BEEN CONFIRMED.  FOR TAX PURPOSES THESE COME TO THE SAME
RESULT, A FACT ALSO INDICATIVE THAT BOTH EXCEPTIONS WERE INTENDED TO
OPERATE WITHIN THE GENERAL LIMITATION OF PENDING PROCEEDINGS. 

FN31  S. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., 39; HEARINGS BEFORE THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 8046, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
375-376, 383; HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 8046, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS., 6-7. 

FN32  CF. NOTE 34 AND TEXT INFRA. 

FN33  "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS AMENDATORY ACT, THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT SHALL GOVERN PROCEEDINGS SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE IN CASES PENDING WHEN IT TAKES EFFECT; BUT PROCEEDINGS IN
CASES THEN PENDING TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT ARE
NOT APPLICABLE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF CONFORMABLY TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SAID ACT APPROVED JULY 1, 1898, AND THE ACTS AMENDATORY THEREOF AND
SUPPLEMENTARY THERETO."  ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, C. 575, SEC. 6B, 52
STAT. 940. 

FN34  CHAPTERS XI, XII AND XIII DEAL RESPECTIVELY WITH ARRANGEMENTS,
REAL PROPERTY ARRANGEMENTS BY PERSONS OTHER THAN CORPORATIONS, AND WAGE
EARNERS' PLANS.  EACH OF THESE CHAPTERS EMBODIES SECTIONS CORRESPONDING
IN PRINCIPLE TO SECS. 268, 270 AND 276.  THOSE COMPARABLE TO SEC. 276
ARE SEC. 399 IN CHAPTER XI, SEC. 526 IN CHAPTER XII, AND SEC. 686 IN
CHAPTER XIII.  EACH, LIKE SEC. 276, CONTAINS THE WHOLE OF AN ARTICLE
ENTITLED "WHEN CHAPTER TAKES EFFECT."  EACH CONTAINS FOUR SUBSECTIONS
(WITH A FIFTH IN SEC. 686), CORRESPONDING TO SUBSECTIONS A, B AND C OF
SEC. 276 AND SUBDIVISION C(3) OF THAT SECTION.  THUS, SECS. 399(4),
526(4), AND 686(4) CORRESPOND TO SUBDIVISION 276C(3).  THEY DIFFER FROM
IT HOWEVER IN THAT THEY ARE FORMALLY INDEPENDENT SUBSECTIONS, WHEREAS
SEC. 276C(3) IS FORMALLY A PART OF SUBSECTION 276C, DEPENDENT UPON ITS
GENERAL MANDATE, AND THUS PERHAPS EVEN MORE CLEARLY LIMITED BY THE
PRECEDING PROVISIONS.  CF. NOTE 25 SUPRA. 

INSTANCES OF LEGISLATION PECULIAR TO CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS UNDER
CHAPTER X. THEY ARE RATHER PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF A GENERAL PATTERN OF
LEGISLATION, RELATING TO A COMMON PROBLEM RUNNING THROUGH CHAPTERS X,
XI, XII AND XIII, NAMELY, TO WHAT EXTENT THE CHANDLER ACT'S TERMS
SHOULD BE APPLIED TO PENDING REORGANIZATIONS, ARRANGEMENTS, WAGE
EARNERS' PLANS, ETC.  BECAUSE OF DETAILED DIFFERENCES IN THE SITUATIONS
AFFECTED, THE PROVISIONS CORRESPONDING TO SECS. 268, 270 AND 276 VARY
SOMEWHAT IN DETAIL.  BUT THE SIMILARITIES RATHER THAN THE VARIATIONS,
WHETHER IN SITUATION OR IN TERMS, ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES. 

FN35  THUS, IN ITS BRIEF THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS, CONCERNING
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT SECS. 268 AND 270 APPLY ONLY TO "PENDING"
PROCEEDINGS:  "THIS CONTENTION, ALTHOUGH PLAUSIBLE, NEGLECTS THE FACT
THAT SECTIONS 268 AND 270 ARE ESSENTIALLY TAX PROVISIONS."  TO THIS IT
MAY BE ANSWERED THAT THE SECTIONS, IN ORIGIN, PURPOSE AND FUNCTION WERE
"ESSENTIALLY REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS" OR, TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY,
"ESSENTIALLY TAX RELIEF PROVISIONS."  THE GOVERNMENT'S EMPHASIS UPON
THE SECTIONS AS TAXING MEASURES IGNORES THEIR PRIMARY OBJECT AND
FUNCTION, WHICH WERE TO PROVIDE TAX RELIEF FOR PARTIES UNDERTAKING
REORGANIZATION AND TO PREVENT THE CLOGGING EFFECTS OF THE EXISTING TAX
LAWS UPON THE OPERATION OF THE CHANDLER ACT.  IT ALSO FAILS TO NOTE
THAT RETROACTIVE APPLICATION, IN CLOSED PROCEEDINGS, COULD HAVE NO
POSSIBLE RELATION TO THE LATTER AIM.  THE MATTER IS ONE OF EMPHASIS. 
BUT IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE, IN CONSTRUING PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO
ENCOURAGE REORGANIZATION, BY GIVING RELIEF FROM TAXES, TO TAKE THEM BY
SUCH AN EMPHASIS AS IF THEY WERE FRAMED EXCLUSIVELY FOR RAISING
REVENUE. 

FN36  THAT IS, WITH SEC. 270 AS OPERATING INDEPENDENTLY OF SEC. 268,
TO REQUIRE REDUCTION IN BASIS EVEN THOUGH NO ACTUAL TAX BENEFIT HAS
BEEN DERIVED UNDER 268. 

FN37  CF. TEXT AT NOTE 8 SUPRA.
..END :







COMMISSIONER V. HARMON, 323 U.S. 44 


NO. 33.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 19, 1944.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 20, 1944.  -
139 F.2D 211, REVERSED. 


HUSBAND AND WIFE WHO ELECT TO HAVE THE OPTIONAL OKLAHOMA COMMUNITY
PROPERTY LAW APPLY TO THEM ARE NOT ENTITLED THEREAFTER TO DIVIDE THE
COMMUNITY INCOME EQUALLY BETWEEN THEM FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL INCOME
TAX.  POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 45. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. HARMON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 760, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE TAX COURT, 1 T.C. 40, WHICH REVERSED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION POSED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER, UPON A STATE'S ADOPTION
OF AN OPTIONAL COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW, A HUSBAND AND WIFE WHO ELECT TO
COME UNDER THAT LAW ARE ENTITLED THEREAFTER TO DIVIDE THE COMMUNITY
INCOME EQUALLY BETWEEN THEM FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX. 

JULY 29, 1939, OKLAHOMA ADOPTED A COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW OPERATIVE
ONLY IF AND WHEN HUSBAND AND WIFE ELECT TO AVAIL OF ITS PROVISIONS.  IN
CONFORMITY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE, THE RESPONDENT AND HIS
WIFE FILED, OCTOBER 26, 1939, A WRITTEN ELECTION TO HAVE THE LAW APPLY
TO THEM.  FROM NOVEMBER 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1939, THEY RECEIVED INCOME
CONSISTING OF HIS SALARY, DIVIDENDS FROM HIS STOCKS, DIVIDENDS FROM HER
STOCKS, INTEREST ON OBLIGATIONS DUE HIM, DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS OF A
PARTNERSHIP OF WHICH HE WAS A MEMBER, AND OIL ROYALTIES DU     EACH OF
THEM.  THE ACT CONSTITUTES ALL OF THESE RECEIPTS COMMUNITY INCOME.  THE
TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE FILED SEPARATE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1939 IN
WHICH EACH REPORTED ONE HALF OF THE NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER INCOME.  THE
COMMISSIONER DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY IN THE VIEW THAT THE RESPONDENT
WAS TAXABLE ON ALL OF THE INCOME DERIVED FROM HIS EARNINGS AND FROM HIS
SEPARATE PROPERTY, BUT ON NONE OF THAT DERIVED FROM HIS WIFE'S SEPARATE
PROPERTY. 

THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND HIS
WIFE.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING,
AFFIRMED THE DECISION.  FN2  BOTH COURTS RELIED ON POE V. SEABORN, 282
U.S. 101.  THEY CONCLUDED THAT, AFTER ELECTION TO TAKE THE BENEFIT OF
THE LAW, THE WIFE BECAME VESTED WITH ONE HALF OF ALL COMMUNITY INCOME
AS THEREIN DEFINED.  AND, SINCE THIS COURT HELD IN POE V. SEABORN THAT
THE COMMUNITY INCOME THERE INVOLVED WAS, AS TO ONE HALF, THE INCOME
"OF" THE WIFE WITHIN THE INTENT OF WHAT IS NOW SEC. 11 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE,  FN3 BECAUSE SHE HAD AN ORIGINAL AND NOT A DERIVATIVE
VESTED PROPERTY INTEREST THEREIN, IT MUST FOLLOW THAT, UNDER THE
OKLAHOMA LAW, ONE HALF OF THE INCOME IS THE WIFE'S FOR INCOME TAX
PURPOSES.  THEY OVERRULED THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT, AS THE
STATUTE PERMITS VOLUNTARY ACTION WHICH EFFECTS A TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF
THE HUSBAND AND WIFE, THE CASE IS GOVERNED BY LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S.
111, AND OTHER DECISIONS OF LIKE IMPORT.  FN4  WE HOLD THAT THE
PETITIONER'S VIEW IS THE RIGHT ONE. 

UNDER LUCAS V. EARL AN ASSIGNMENT OF INCOME TO BE EARNED OR TO ACCRUE
IN THE FUTURE, EVEN THOUGH AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW AND IRREVOCABLE IN
CHARACTER, IS INEFFECTIVE TO RENDER THE INCOME IMMUNE FROM TAXATION AS
THAT OF THE ASSIGNOR.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THOSE STATES WHICH, BY
INHERITANCE OF SPANISH LAW, HAVE ALWAYS HAD A LEGAL COMMUNITY PROPERTY
SYSTEM, WHICH VESTS IN EACH SPOUSE ONE HALF OF THE COMMUNITY INCOME AS
IT ACCRUES, EACH IS ENTITLED TO RETURN ONE HALF OF THE INCOME AS THE
BASIS OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  COMMUNITIES ARE OF TWO SORTS,  -
CONSENSUAL AND LEGAL.  A CONSENSUAL COMMUNITY ARISES OUT OF CONTRACT. 
IT DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFER IN ORIGIN OR NATURE FROM SUCH A STATUS
AS WAS IN QUESTION IN LUCAS V. EARL, WHERE BY CONTRACT FUTURE INCOME OF
THE SPOUSES WAS TO VEST IN THEM AS JOINT TENANTS.  IN POE V. SEABORN,
SUPRA, THE COURT WAS NOT DEALING WITH A CONSENSUAL COMMUNITY BUT ONE
MADE AN INCIDENT OF MARRIAGE BY THE INVETERATE POLICY OF THE STATE.  IN
THAT CASE THE COURT WAS FACED WITH THESE FACTS:  THE LEGAL COMMUNITY
SYSTEM OF THE STATES IN QUESTION LONG ANTEDATED THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND THE FIRST REVENUE ACT ADOPTED THEREUNDER.  UNDER THAT SYSTEM, AS A
RESULT OF STATE POLICY, AND WITHOUT ANY ACT ON THE PART OF EITHER
SPOUSE, ONE HALF OF THE COMMUNITY INCOME VESTED IN EACH SPOUSE AS THE
INCOME ACCRUED AND WAS, IN LAW, TO THAT EXTENT, THE INCOME OF THE
SPOUSE.  THE TREASURY HAD CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT THE REVENUE ACT
APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY SYSTEMS OF THOSE STATES AS IT FOUND THEM AND
CONSEQUENTLY HUSBAND AND WIFE WERE ENTITLED EACH TO RETURN ONE HALF THE
COMMUNITY INCOME.  THE CONGRESS WAS FULLY CONVERSANT OF THESE RULINGS
AND THE PRACTICE THEREUNDER, WAS ASKED TO ALTER THE PROVISIONS OF LATER
REVENUE ACTS TO CHANGE THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX, AND REFUSED TO DO SO.
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT DECLINED TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF
LUCAS V. EARL. 

IN OKLAHOMA, PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW, THE
RULES OF THE COMMON LAW, AS MODIFIED BY STATUTE, REPRESENTED THE
SETTLED POLICY OF THE STATE CONCERNING THE RELATION OF HUSBAND AND
WIFE.  A HUSBAND'S INCOME FROM EARNINGS WAS HIS OWN; THAT FROM HIS
SECURITIES WAS HIS OWN.  THE SAME WAS TRUE OF THE WIFE'S INCOME.  PRIOR
TO 1939, OKLAHOMA HAD NO POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE ARTIFICIAL BEING
KNOWN AS A COMMUNITY.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT, SINCE THAT YEAR, THE STATE
HAS ANY NEW POLICY, FOR IT HAS NOT ADOPTED, AS AN INCIDENT OF MARRIAGE,
ANY LEGAL COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM.  THE MOST THAT CAN BE SAID IS THAT
THE PRESENT POLICY OF OKLAHOMA IS TO PERMIT SPOUSES, BY CONTRACT, TO
ALTER THE STATUS WHICH THEY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE UNDER THE PREVAILING
PROPERTY SYSTEM IN THE STATE. 

SUCH LEGISLATIVE PERMISSION CANNOT ALTER THE TRUE NATURE OF WHAT IS
DONE WHEN HUSBAND AND WIFE, AFTER MARRIAGE, ALTER CERTAIN OF THE
INCIDENTS OF THAT RELATION BY MUTUAL CONTRACT.  MARRIED PERSONS IN MANY
NONCOMMUNITY STATES MIGHT, BY AGREEMENT, MAKE A SIMILAR ALTERATION IN
THEIR PROSPECTIVE RIGHTS TO THE FRUITS OF EACH OTHER'S LABORS OR
INVESTMENTS, AS WAS DONE IN LUCAS V. EARL.  THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE
POSSIBLE IN EVERY STATE WHERE HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE PERMITTED FREELY TO
CONTRACT WITH EACH OTHER RESPECTING PROPERTY THEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY
EITHER. 

MUCH OF COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT IS ADDRESSED TO SPECIFIC FEATURES OF THE
OKLAHOMA COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW AND COMPARISON OF THOSE FEATURES WITH
THE LAWS OF THE TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES.  WE LAY THIS
ASIDE AND ASSUME THAT, ONCE ESTABLISHED, THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATUS
OF OKLAHOMA SPOUSES IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT OF MAN AND WIFE IN ANY
COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATE WITH WHOSE LAW WE WERE CONCERNED IN POE V.
SEABORN.  TO CITE EXAMPLES:  WE THINK IT IMMATERIAL, FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES, THAT THE COMMUNITY STATUS MAY OR MAY NOT BE ALTERED BY
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, MAY OR MAY NOT BE AVOIDED BY ANTENUPTIAL
AGREEMENTS, OR THAT CERTAIN ASSETS OF A SPOUSE MAY OR MAY NOT BE
CLASSED AS "SEPARATE" PROPERTY EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY.  THE
IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM OF OKLAHOMA IS NOT A
SYSTEM, DICTATED BY STATE POLICY, AS AN INCIDENT OF MATRIMONY. 

OUR DECISIONS IN UNITED STATES V. ROBBINS, 296 U.S. 315, AND IN
UNITED STATES V. MALCOLM, 282 U.S. 792, DO NOT, AS RESPONDENT ARGUES,
REQUIRE AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT.  THOSE CASES DEALT WITH THE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW OF CALIFORNIA.  THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY
PROPERTY CAME TO CALIFORNIA FROM THE SPANISH LAW, AS IT DID IN OTHER
STATES WHOSE TERRITORY HAD ONCE BEEN A PART OF THE SPANISH POSSESSIONS
ON THIS CONTINENT.  THERE HAD BEEN A SERIES OF DECISIONS IN CALIFORNIA
WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE WIFE'S RIGHTS IN THE COMMUNITY. 
THE COURTS HAD AT TIMES INDICATED THAT THIS WAS A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT
AND ON OTHER OCCASIONS HAD INDICATED THAT ALL THE WIFE HAD WAS A MERE
EXPECTANCY WHICH RIPENED ON THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND.  PRIOR TO THE
DECISION IN THE ROBBINS CASE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE HAD FINALLY
RULED THAT HER INTEREST WAS OF THE LATTER SORT.  THE TREASURY HAD TAKEN
THE SAME VIEW AND HAD DENIED CALIFORNIA SPOUSES THE PRIVILEGE OF EACH
RETURNING ONE-HALF OF THE COMMUNITY INCOME.  IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE TREASURY'S
RULING IN THE ROBBINS CASE.  THIS WAS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT OVER A
PERIOD OF YEARS THE LEGISLATURE OF CALIFORNIA HAD ADOPTED STATUTES
WHICH INDICATED THAT THE WIFE'S INTEREST WAS IN FACT MORE THAN A MERE
EXPECTANCY.  IN 1927 THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, IN AN EFFORT TO SETTLE
THIS CONTROVERSY OF LONG STANDING, ADOPTED A STATUTE DECLARING THAT THE
WIFE'S INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY WAS A PRESENT VESTED INTEREST.  THEN
CAME THE MALCOLM CASE IN WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT TWO QUESTIONS:  FIRST, WHETHER IN
VIEW OF THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA THE HUSBAND MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE
INCOME, AND, SECOND, WHETHER THE WIFE, UNDER THE ACT OF 1927, HAD SUCH
AN INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY INCOME THAT SHE SHOULD SEPARATELY REPORT
AND PAY TAX ON ONE HALF THEREOF.  IN A PER CURIAM OPINION THIS COURT
ANSWERED THE FIRST QUESTION "NO" AND THE SECOND QUESTION "YES."  TWO
CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE BORNE IN MIND IN CONNECTION WITH THAT DECISION. 
THE INCIDENTS OF THE SYSTEM HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION FOR
YEARS.  THE FINAL ACTION OF THE LEGISLATURE COULD WELL BE TAKEN AS
DECLARATORY OF WHAT IT INVOLVED AND IMPLIED AS RESPECTS THE INTERESTS
OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES.  THUS THE COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET ANY
SUCH QUESTION AS IS PRESENTED HERE BY THE PERMISSIVE INITIATION OF
COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATUS.  IN ADDITION, INSPECTION OF THE BRIEFS AND
OF THE REPORT WILL SHOW THAT THE COURT'S ACTION WAS BOTTOMED ON A
CONCESSION BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT "WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTICULAR
INCOME HERE IN QUESTION, THE INTERESTS OF THE HUSBAND AND WIFE WERE
SUCH AS TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE RULINGS" IN POE V. SEABORN AND
RELATED CASES, "BECAUSE OF AMENDMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTES MADE
SINCE UNITED STATES V. ROBBINS, 269 U.S. 315, WAS DECIDED."  IT IS
APPARENT, THEREFORE, THAT OUR DECISIONS DEALING WITH CALIFORNIA LAW DO
NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  1 T.C. 40. 

FN2  139 F.2D 211. 

FN3  26 U.S.C. SEC. 11.  THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE TAX SHALL BE
LEVIED "UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL."  THE LANGUAGE HAS
BEEN THE SAME IN EACH OF THE REVENUE ACTS. 

FN4  SEE ALSO BURNET V. LEININGER, 285 U.S. 136; HELVERING V. HORST,
311 U.S. 112; HELVERING V. EUBANK, 311 U.S. 122. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING. 

THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW MAKES A DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF THE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES.  IN 1937 THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
POINTED OUT  FN1  THAT 

"A NEW YORK RESIDENT WITH A SALARY OF $100,000 PAYS ABOUT $32,525
FEDERAL INCOME TAX; A CALIFORNIAN WITH THE SAME SALARY MAY CAUSE ONE
HALF TO BE REPORTED BY HIS WIFE AND THE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PAYABLE BY
THE TWO WILL BE ONLY $18,626.  THE TOTAL LOSS OF REVENUE DUE TO THIS
UNJUSTIFIABLE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE RESIDENTS OF 40 STATES RUNS
INTO THE MILLIONS."  THAT DISCRIMINATION HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY SHARP
AS SURTAX RATES HAVE INCREASED.  FN2  THE SOURCE OF THAT DISCRIMINATION
IS TO BE FOUND IN DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

THOSE DECISIONS  FN3  ARE BEST ILLUSTRATED BY POE V. SEABORN, 282
U.S. 101, WHICH INVOLVED THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON.  THEY HELD THAT THE HUSBAND NEED PAY THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX
ON ONLY ONE-HALF OF HIS SALARY AND OTHER INCOME FROM THE COMMUNITY,
SINCE THE OTHER HALF OF THOSE EARNINGS FROM THEIR VERY INCEPTION
BELONGED TO HIS WIFE.  THE COLLECTOR HAD ARGUED THAT THE CONTROL
EXERCISED BY THE HUSBAND OVER THE COMMUNITY WAS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE HIM
LIABLE FOR THE TAX ON THE FULL AMOUNT.  THAT RESULT HAD INDEED BEEN
INDICATED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN UNITED STATES
V. ROBBINS, 269 U.S. 315, 327.  AND IT HAS BEEN STRONGLY URGED THAT OUR
RECENT DECISIONS - SUCH AS HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, AND
HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, 312 U.S. 579 - MAKE FOR THE SAME RESULT.  FN4
BUT IN POE V. SEABORN AND RELATED CASES THE COURT DISCARDED THAT TEST. 
IT WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH LEGAL DOCTRINE THAN IT WAS WITH ECONOMIC
REALITIES.  IT HELD THAT THE WIFE'S INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY
(INCLUDING THE HUSBAND'S SALARY) WAS "VESTED"  FN5  AND THAT THEREFORE
THE HUSBAND NEED PAY THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON ONLY HALF OF THAT
INCOME. 

ONE DUBIOUS DECISION DOES NOT OF COURSE JUSTIFY ANOTHER.  BUT IF
TEXAS CAN REDUCE THE HUSBAND'S INCOME TAX BY CREATING IN HIS WIFE A
"VESTED" INTEREST IN HALF HIS SALARY AND OTHER INCOME, I FAIL TO SEE
WHY ITS NEIGHBOR, OKLAHOMA, MAY NOT DO THE SAME THING.  THE COURT NOW
CONCEDES THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATUS OF
OKLAHOMA SPOUSES IS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT OF MAN AND WIFE IN ANY
COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATE.  HOW THEN CAN OKLAHOMA BE DENIED THE SAME
PRIVILEGE WHICH OTHER COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES ENJOY? 

IT IS SAID THAT THE ELECTIVE FEATURE OF THE OKLAHOMA STATUTE CAUSES
IT TO RUN AFOUL OF LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111, WHICH HELD THAT AN
ASSIGNMENT OF INCOME TO BE EARNED OR TO ACCRUE IN THE FUTURE WAS
INEFFECTIVE TO RENDER THE INCOME IMMUNE FROM TAXATION AS THAT OF THE
ASSIGNOR.  BUT THE COURT WAS NOT TROUBLED WITH LUCAS V. EARL IN POE V.
SEABORN.  IT DISPOSED OF THAT ARGUMENT BY SAYING THAT IN LUCAS V. EARL
THE "VERY ASSIGNMENT" WAS BOTTOMED ON THE FACT THAT "THE EARNINGS WOULD
BE THE HUSBAND'S PROPERTY, ELSE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING ON WHICH
IT COULD OPERATE.  THAT CASE PRESENTS QUITE A DIFFERENT QUESTION FROM
THIS, BECAUSE HERE, BY LAW, THE EARNINGS ARE NEVER THE PROPERTY OF THE
HUSBAND, BUT THAT OF THE COMMUNITY."  282 U.S. P. 117.  BY THE SAME
REASONING WE SHOULD SAY THAT OKLAHOMA HAS MADE THESE EARNINGS THE
"PROPERTY" OF THE COMMUNITY ONCE THE WRITTEN ELECTION HAS BEEN FILED
AND THAT INCOME WHICH ACCRUES THEREAFTER NEVER BECOMES THE SOLE
"PROPERTY" OF THE HUSBAND.  INDEED WE HAVE THE WORD OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF OKLAHOMA THAT SUCH A TRANSFER WAS EFFECTED BY THE WRITTEN
ELECTION FILED BY THE HUSBAND AND WIFE IN THIS CASE.  HARMON V.
OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, 189 OKLA. 475, 118 P.2D 205.  THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT THE TRANSFER OF "PROPERTY" INTERESTS IN THIS CASE IS
ANY LESS GENUINE OR EFFECTIVE THAN IT WAS IN POE V. SEABORN.  THE
WRITTEN ELECTION ONCE FILED IS IRREVOCABLE.  ONLY DEATH OR A DECREE OF
ABSOLUTE DIVORCE CAN ALTER IT.  OKLA. STATS. ANN. 1941, TITLE 32, SEC.
51.  IF AS POE V. SEABORN HOLDS THE CRUCIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS WHETHER THE
INCOME AS IT ACCRUES IS THE "PROPERTY" OF THE COMMUNITY, IT SHOULD MAKE
NO DIFFERENCE FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES THAT THE TRANSFER FROM
THE HUSBAND TO THE COMMUNITY WAS EFFECTED BY THE ACT OF FILING A
WRITTEN ELECTION RATHER THAN BY THE ACT OF MARRIAGE.  IF, "BY LAW, THE
EARNINGS ARE NEVER THE PROPERTY OF THE HUSBAND, BUT THAT OF THE
COMMUNITY" (POE V. SEABORN, SUPRA, P. 117), THE HUSBAND SHOULD FARE NO
BETTER IN WASHINGTON OR TEXAS OR CALIFORNIA THAN IN OKLAHOMA.  THE
SOURCE OF THE "LAW" WHICH DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THAT RESULT OBTAINS
IS THE SAME IN EACH CASE - THE LEGISLATURE AND THE JUDICIARY OF THE
PARTICULAR STATE.  IF THEY DECLARE THAT THE HUSBAND HAS LOST AND THE
WIFE ACQUIRED A "PROPERTY" INTEREST BY A CERTAIN ACT (WHETHER BY
MARRIAGE, OR BY THE FILING OF A PAPER), IT IS THE "LAW" THOUGH IT IS A
RECENT PRONOUNCEMENT AND NOT AN "INVETERATE" AND LONG STANDING RULE OF
THAT PARTICULAR STATE.  THE CONSEQUENCE UNDER THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX
STATUTE IS OF COURSE FOR US TO DECIDE.  MY ONLY POINT IS THAT IF THAT
IS THE FORMULA FOR SOME STATES IT SHOULD BE THE FORMULA FOR ALL.  WE
SHOULD APPLY IT EQUALLY AND WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OR WE SHOULD DISCARD
IT COMPLETELY. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THE FILING OF A WRITTEN ELECTION UNDER THE
OKLAHOMA STATUTE IS AN "ANTICIPATORY ARRANGEMENT" FOR THE DISPOSITION
OF INCOME UNDER THE RULE OF LUCAS V. EARL; THAT A "CONSENSUAL"
COMMUNITY WILL NOT BE RECOGNIZED FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES BUT
THAT A "LEGAL" COMMUNITY WILL.  AS THE TAX COURT, HOWEVER, POINTED OUT
(1 T.C. 40, 49) SUCH A DISTINCTION WILL NOT STAND SCRUTINY.  COMMUNITY
PROPERTY CREATED BY MARRIAGE IS THE EFFECT OF A CONTRACT.  FN6  IT IS
THE RESULT OF A CONSENSUAL ACT.  THE SAME IS TRUE WHERE HUSBAND AND
WIFE AGREE TO LEAVE OKLAHOMA AND ESTABLISH THEIR DOMICILE IN TEXAS SO
AS TO GAIN THE ADVANTAGES OF A COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM.  I CAN SEE NO
DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE WHETHER THE STATE PUTS ITS COMMUNITY PROPERTY
SYSTEM IN EFFECT BY ONE KIND OF CONTRACT OR ANOTHER.  ONE IS AS MUCH
"LEGAL" AS ANOTHER.  THE AGREEMENT TO MARRY OR THE AGREEMENT TO MOVE
FROM OKLAHOMA TO TEXAS IS AS "CONSENSUAL" AS THE ACT OF FILING A
WRITTEN ELECTION UNDER THE OKLAHOMA STATUTE. 

BUT IF A DISTINCTION IS TAKEN BETWEEN A "LEGAL" AND A "CONSENSUAL"
COMMUNITY, IT CANNOT BE CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX
PURPOSES.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, EVEN THE DISTINCTION WHICH THE COURT
SEEKS TO TAKE BETWEEN THIS CASE AND POE V. SEABORN VANISHES WHEN AFTER
ACQUIRED PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED.  LET US ASSUME THERE IS PROPERTY FIRST
ACQUIRED IN OKLAHOMA AFTER THE WRITTEN ELECTION HAS BEEN FILED  FN7
AND IN WASHINGTON AFTER MARRIAGE.  HOW ARE WE JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT
LUCAS V. EARL MAKES THE WRITTEN ELECTION BUT NOT THE MARRIAGE AN
ANTICIPATORY ARRANGEMENT AFFECTING THE INCOME FROM THAT AFTER-ACQUIRED
PROPERTY?  OKLAHOMA IS AS EXPLICIT AS WASHINGTON IS SAYING THAT
PROPERTY SO ACQUIRED BY THE HUSBAND "SHALL BE DEEMED THE COMMUNITY OR
COMMON PROPERTY OF THE HUSBAND AND THE WIFE AND EACH, SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE VESTED WITH AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF
INTEREST THEREIN."  OKLA. STATS. ANN. 1941, TITLE 32, SEC. 56.  IN BOTH
CASES THE HUSBAND NEVER WAS AND NEVER COULD BE THE SOLE OWNER OF THAT
PROPERTY IF LOCAL LAW IS TO BE THE GUIDE.  HIS "STATUS" UNDER OKLAHOMA
LAW IS AS FIXED AND IRREVOCABLE AS IT IS UNDER WASHINGTON LAW.  HOW CAN
IT BE SAID THAT AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY IS GOVERNED BY "STATUS" IN ONE
CASE AND BY "CONTRACT" IN THE OTHER?  IF SUCH A DISTINCTION IS DRAWN,
WE ARE INDEED MAKING INCOME TAX LIABILITY TURN ON "ELUSIVE AND SUBTLE
CASUISTRIES."  CF. HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 118.  IN THE
SECOND PLACE, THE TAX COURT POINTED OUT IN THIS CASE THAT THE
DIFFERENCE "BETWEEN A COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAW WHICH IS OPERATIVE ONLY
WHEN EXPRESSLY INVOKED AND ONE WHICH OPERATES UNLESS EXPRESSLY REVOKED"
(1 T.C. P. 46) HAS NO PRACTICAL BASIS.  THERE MAY BE A "CONSENSUAL"
COMMUNITY WITHIN A SO-CALLED "LEGAL" COMMUNITY.  IN SOME OF THE SO
CALLED "LEGAL" COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES SEPARATE PROPERTY OF ONE
SPOUSE MAY BE CONVERTED BY CONTRACT OR DEED INTO COMMUNITY PROPERTY OR
VICE VERSA.  VOLZ V. ZANG, 113 WASH. 378, 194 P. 409; STATE EX REL. VAN
MOSS V. SAILORS, 180 WASH. 269, 39 P.2D 397; KENNEY V. KENNEY, 220
CALIF. 134, 136, 30 P.2D 398.  BUT SEE KELLETT V. KELLETT, 23 TEX. CIV.
APP. 571, 56 S.W. 766; MCDONALD V. LAMBERT, 43 N.M. 27, 85 P.2D 78. 
AND IT HAS BEEN SUPPOSED SINCE POE V. SEABORN THAT INCOME FROM THAT
TYPE OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY WAS NOT THEREAFTER TO BE TREATED AS THE
SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE SPOUSE WHO ORIGINALLY OWNED IT.  SEE 3
MERTENS, THE LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1942) SEC. 19.29.  THAT
HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT VIEW  FN8  BOTH OF THE COURTS (BLACK V.
COMMISSIONER, 114 F.2D 355) AND OF THE TAX COURT.  SHOENHAIR V.
COMMISSIONER, 45 B.T.A. 576, 579; HARMON V. COMMISSIONER, 1 T.C. 40, 46
47.  AND THAT HAS BEEN THE TREASURY POSITION.  G.C.M. 19248, INT. REV.
BULL., CUM. BULL.  1937-2, P. 59.  IF POE V. SEABORN STATES THE CORRECT
RULE, THAT VIEW SEEMS IRREFUTABLE.  COMMUNITY PROPERTY IS NO LESS
CREATED "BY LAW" WHETHER IT WAS CREATED BY THE CONTRACT OF MARRIAGE OR
BY A POST-NUPTIAL AGREEMENT. 

BUT ARE WE NOW TO UNDERSTAND THAT POST-NUPTIAL AGREEMENTS IN ALL
COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES ARE INEFFECTIVE FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX
PURPOSES BECAUSE THEY ARE "CONSENSUAL"?  OR IS THE COURT WILLING TO
GIVE INCOME TAX EFFECT TO SUCH CONTRACTS ONLY WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED
COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES?  IF IT IS THE FORMER THEN WE ARE OVERRIDING
SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION ON WHICH GREAT RELIANCE WAS PLACED
IN POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. P. 116.  IF IT IS THE LATTER, THEN WE CAN
HARDLY SAY THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OKLAHOMA SYSTEM AND THE
WASHINGTON SYSTEM IS THAT WASHINGTON HAS CREATED ITS SYSTEM "AS AN
INCIDENT OF MATRIMONY" WHILE OKLAHOMA HAS NOT.  IN THAT EVENT WE MAKE
UNMISTAKABLY PLAIN THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OKLAHOMA - WE GIVE INCOME
TAX EFFECT TO A POST-NUPTIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOUSES IN EIGHT STATES
AND DENY EFFECT TO A SIMILAR AGREEMENT IN OKLAHOMA.  THE ONLY APPARENT
BASIS FOR SUCH DISCRIMINATION IS THAT THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEMS IN
THE EIGHT STATES ARE TRADITIONAL; THAT THOSE EIGHT STATES HAVE A WELL
SETTLED POLICY; THAT OKLAHOMA MERELY GIVES ITS CITIZENS A CHOICE TO GET
UNDER OR STAY OUT OF ITS COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM.  YET HOW CAN WE SAY
THAT THE STATE WHICH ALLOWS HUSBAND AND WIFE TO REVOKE OR ALTER ITS
COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM BY CONTRACT HAS A MORE "SETTLED" POLICY
TOWARDS COMMUNITY PROPERTY THAN A STATE WHICH GIVES HUSBAND AND WIFE
THE CHOICE TO INVOKE ITS COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM OR TO KEEP THEIR
MARITAL PROPERTY ON A COMMON LAW BASIS?  THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS A
WIDE RANGE OF CHOICE IN EACH.  BUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A CHOICE
SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED FATAL WHEN OKLAHOMA'S CASE COMES BEFORE THE COURT
AND IRRELEVANT WHEN WASHINGTON'S CASE IS HERE. 

THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM IS THAT THE
PRODUCTS OF THE INDUSTRY OF EITHER SPOUSE ARE ATTRIBUTED TO BOTH; THE
HUSBAND IS NEVER THE SOLE "OWNER" OF HIS EARNINGS; HIS WIFE ACQUIRES A
HALF INTEREST IN THEM FROM THEIR VERY INCEPTION.  1 DE FUNIAK,
PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY (1943) SEC. 239.  THAT WAS THE TEST
WHICH POE V. SEABORN ADOPTED.  IF OKLAHOMA MEETS THAT TEST, THEN SHE
SHOULD BE TREATED ON A PARITY WITH HER SISTER STATES.  THE FACT THAT
HER SYSTEM IS NEWBORN  FN9  DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY THE LESS GENUINE. 

I DO NOT MEAN TO DEFEND POE V. SEABORN.  I ONLY SAY THAT IF WE ARE TO
STAND BY IT, WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO BECOME A "VESTED" INTEREST OF
ONLY A FEW OF THE STATES.  THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT LUCAS V.
EARL AND HELVERING V. CLIFFORD ON THE ONE HAND AND POE V. SEABORN ON
THE OTHER STATE COMPETING THEORIES OF INCOME TAX LIABILITY.  OR TO PUT
IT ANOTHER WAY, POE V. SEABORN HAS BEEN CARVED OUT AS AN EXCEPTION TO
THE GENERAL RULES OF LIABILITY FOR INCOME TAXES.  IF WE ARE TO CREATE
SUCH EXCEPTIONS WE SHOULD DO SO UNIFORMLY.  WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE
RATIONALE OF POE V. SEABORN TO BE GOOD FOR ONE GROUP OF STATES AND FOR
ONE GROUP ONLY.  IF WE ARE TO ABANDON THE RATIONALE OF POE V. SEABORN,
WE SHOULD DO SO OPENLY AND AVOWEDLY.  IF THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF
APPLYING THE RATIONALE OF POE V. SEABORN TO OTHER SITUATIONS WOULD BE
DISASTROUS TO FEDERAL FINANCE, IT IS TIME TO REEXAMINE THE CASE.  THE
RULE WHICH IT FASHIONS IS THE RULE OF THIS COURT.  WE HAVE THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CREATION.  IF WE ADHERE TO IT, WE SHOULD APPLY
IT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION.  IF WE ARE NOT TO APPLY IT EQUALLY TO ALL
STATES, WE SHOULD BE RID OF IT.  THIS IS THE TIME TO FACE THE ISSUE
SQUARELY. 

FN1  TAX EVASION AND AVOIDANCE, HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4. 

FN2  SEE THE TABLE COMPUTED ON THE 1941 RATES IN 3 MERTENS, LAW OF
FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1942) P. 20. 

FN3  GOODELL V. KOCH, 282 U.S. 118, INVOLVING THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY
SYSTEM OF ARIZONA; HOPKINS V. BACON, 282 U.S. 122(TEXAS); BENDER V.
PFAFF, 282 U.S. 127(LOUISIANA); UNITED STATES V. MALCOLM, 282 U.S.
792(CALIFORNIA). 

FN4  SEE FOR EXAMPLE RAY, PROPOSED CHANGES IN FEDERAL TAXATION OF
COMMUNITY PROPERTY, 30 CALIF. L. REV. 397, 407; 1 PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE
& GIFT TAXATION (1942) SEC. 1.09. 

FN5  CF. HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 118: 

"THE IMPORTATION OF THESE DISTINCTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES FROM THE LAW
OF PROPERTY INTO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE TAX PRECLUDES A FAIR
AND WORKABLE TAX SYSTEM.  ESSENTIALLY THE SAME INTERESTS, JUDGED FROM
THE POINT OF VIEW OF WEALTH, WILL BE TAXABLE OR NOT, DEPENDING UPON
ELUSIVE AND SUBTLE CASUISTRIES WHICH MAY HAVE THEIR HISTORIC
JUSTIFICATION BUT POSSESS NO RELEVANCE FOR TAX PURPOSES." 

FN6  LOUISIANA HAS RECOGNIZED THAT "THE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY,
CREATED BY MARRIAGE IS NOT A PARTNERSHIP; IT IS THE EFFECT OF A
CONTRACT GOVERNED BY RULES PRESCRIBED FOR THAT PURPOSE IN THIS CODE." 
CIV. CODE, ART. 2807.  THIS COURT APPLIED THE RULE OF POE V. SEABORN TO
THE LOUISIANA COMMUNITY PROPERTY SYSTEM IN BENDER V. PFAFF, SUPRA, NOTE
3. 

FN7  FOR ALL WE KNOW SOME OF THE INCOME INVOLVED IN THIS CASE MAY
HAVE ACCRUED FROM PROPERTY ACQUIRED AFTER THE WRITTEN ELECTION WAS
FILED. 

FN8  LIKEWISE IF IN THE TRADITIONAL COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATES
COMMUNITY PROPERTY IS TRANSMUTED BY AGREEMENT OF THE SPOUSES INTO THE
SEPARATE PROPERTY OF ONE SPOUSE, THE INCOME THEREAFTER IS TAXABLE
SOLELY TO THE LATTER.  THE TAX COURT HAS SO HELD.  BROOKS V.
COMMISSIONER, 43 B.T.A. 860; SHOENHAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 45 B.T.A. 576. 
AND THE COURTS HAVE SUSTAINED THAT POSITION.  SPARKMAN V. COMMISSIONER,
112 F.2D 774; HELVERING V. HICKMAN, 70 F.2D 985. 

FN9  EVEN THE ARGUMENT BASED ON TRADITION MUST BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN
OF SALT UNLESS HISTORY IS TO BE NO GUIDE.  APPARENTLY SOME OF THE
STATES WERE MERELY ONE JUMP AHEAD OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN
PROVIDING THE WIFE WITH A "VESTED" INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY.  THE
STORY IS BRIEFLY RELATED IN CAHN, FEDERAL TAXATION AND PRIVATE LAW, 44
COL. L. REV. 669, 674-677. 
..END :















MCDONALD V. COMMISSIONER, 323 U.S. 57 


NO. 36.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1944.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 20, 1944.  - 139
F.2D 400, AFFIRMED. 


THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING A DECISION OF
THE TAX COURT DISALLOWING, IN COMPUTING PETITIONER'S INCOME TAX FOR
1939, A DEDUCTION OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES - INCLUDING AN "ASSESSMENT" BY
THE POLITICAL PARTY OF WHICH HE WAS A CANDIDATE - INCURRED IN
CONTESTING UNSUCCESSFULLY AN ELECTION FOR A JUDGESHIP WHICH HE HAD BEEN
HOLDING TEMPORARILY BY APPOINTMENT, IS AFFIRMED. 

OPINION OF FRANKFURTER, J., IN WHICH STONE, C.J., AND ROBERTS AND
JACKSON, JJ., CONCUR: 

1.  PETITIONER'S CAMPAIGN EXPENSES WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE (1) UNDER SEC.
23(A)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AS EXPENSES INCURRED IN
"CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS"; (2) UNDER SEC. 23(E)(2) AS A LOSS
INCURRED IN A "TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO FOR PROFIT"; NOR (3) UNDER SEC.
23(A)(2) AS EXPENSES INCURRED "FOR THE PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF
INCOME."  P. 60. 

2.  UNDER EXISTING LEGISLATION, AN INCUMBENT IS NO MORE THAN OTHERS
ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES.  P. 63. 

3.  AFFIRMANCE OF THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT IN THIS CASE IS
SUPPORTED ALSO BY THE RATIONALE OF DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S.
489.  P. 64. 

MCDONALD V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 762, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE TAX COURT, 1 T.C. 738, WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE CONCLUSION AND JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT, AND AN OPINION IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR. 

THIS IS A CONTROVERSY CONCERNING A DEFICIENCY IN PETITIONER'S INCOME
TAX FOR 1939. 

IN DECEMBER 1938, THE GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA APPOINTED PETITIONER
TO SERVE AN UNEXPIRED TERM AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LUZERNE COUNTY.  UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW SUCH AN INTERIM JUDGESHIP IS
FILLED FOR A FULL TERM AT THE NEXT ELECTION.  MCDONALD ACCEPTED THIS
TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WOULD CONTEST BOTH
THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS.  TO OBTAIN THE SUPPORT OF HIS PARTY
ORGANIZATION HE WAS OBLIGED TO PAY TO THE PARTY FUND AN "ASSESSMENT"
MADE BY THE PARTY'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AGAINST ALL OF THE PARTY'S
CANDIDATES.  THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH "ASSESSMENTS" WERE FIXED ON THE BASIS
OF THE TOTAL PROSPECTIVE SALARIES TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE VARIOUS
OFFICES.  THE SALARY OF A COMMON PLEAS JUDGE WAS $12,000 A YEAR FOR A
TERM OF TEN YEARS, AND THE "ASSESSMENT" AGAINST PETITIONER WAS FIXED AT
$8,000.  THE PROCEEDS FROM THESE "ASSESSMENTS" WENT TO THE GENERAL
CAMPAIGN FUND IN THE SERVICE OF THE PARTY'S ENTIRE TICKET.  IN ADDITION
TO THIS POLITICAL LEVY, MCDONALD ALSO SPENT $5,017.27 FOR CUSTOMARY
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES - ADVERTISING, PRINTING, TRAVELLING, ETC.  THE SUM OF
THESE OUTLAYS, $13,017.27, MCDONALD DEDUCTED AS A "REELECTION
EXPENSE."  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DISALLOWED THE ITEM AND
NOTIFIED HIM OF A DEFICIENCY OF $2,506.77. 

IN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
THAT COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER, 1 T.C. 738, AND ITS DECISION WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  139
F.2D 400.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 321 U.S. 762, TO GIVE A DEFINITIVE
JUDICIAL ANSWER TO AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX. 

WHAT CLASS OF OUTLAYS MAY, IN RELATION TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, BE
DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME AND IN WHAT AMOUNT ARE MATTERS SOLELY FOR
CONGRESS.  OUR ONLY PROBLEM IS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT PROVISIONS CONGRESS
HAS MADE REGARDING SUCH EXPENDITURES AS THOSE FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER
CLAIMS THE RIGHT OF DEDUCTION.  THE CASE IS NOT EMBARRASSED BY ANY
ENTANGLEMENT WITH CORRUPT PRACTICES LEGISLATION EITHER STATE OR
FEDERAL. 

THE MATERIALS FROM WHICH MUST BE DISTILLED THE WILL OF CONGRESS ARE
THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE:  SEC.
23(A)(1)(A), 56 STAT. 798, 819, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(A)(1)(A)(SUPP. 
1943), IN CONNECTION WITH SEC. 24(A)(1), 26 U.S.C. SEC. 24(A)(1), AND
SEC. 48(D), 26 U.S.C. SEC. 48(D); SEC. 23(E)(2), 26 U.S.C. SEC.
23(E)(2); SEC. 23(A)(2) AS AMENDED BY SEC. 121 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1942, 56 STAT. 798, 819. 

"ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS" ARE ALLOWED BY SEC.
23(A)(1)(A) AS DEDUCTIONS IN COMPUTING NET INCOME.  ACCORDING TO TAX
LAW TERMINOLOGY (SEC. 48(D) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE) THE
PERFORMANCE BY PETITIONER OF HIS JUDICIAL OFFICE CONSTITUTED CARRYING
ON A "TRADE OR BUSINESS" WITHIN THE TERMS OF SEC. 23 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  HE WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO DEDUCT FROM HIS GROSS
INCOME ALL THE "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES" PAID DURING 1939 IN
CARRYING ON THAT "TRADE OR BUSINESS."  HE COULD, THAT IS, DEDUCT ALL
EXPENSES THAT RELATED TO THE DISCHARGE OF HIS FUNCTIONS AS A JUDGE. 
BUT HIS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS WERE NOT EXPENSES INCURRED IN BEING A
JUDGE BUT IN TRYING TO BE A JUDGE FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS.  THAT IS AS
TRUE OF THE MONEY HE SPENT MORE IMMEDIATELY FOR HIS OWN REELECTION AS
IT IS OF THE "ASSESSMENT" HE PAID INTO THE PARTY COFFERS FOR THE
SUCCESS OF HIS PARTY'S TICKET.  THE INCONGRUITY OF ALLOWING SUCH
CONTRIBUTIONS AS EXPENSES INCIDENTAL TO THE MEANS OF EARNING INCOME AS
A JUDGE IS UNDERLINED BY THE INSISTENCE THAT PAYMENT OF THE
"ASSESSMENT" LEVIED BY THE PARTY AS A PREREQUISITE TO BEING ALLOWED TO
BE A CANDIDATE IS DEDUCTIBLE AS A "BUSINESS" EXPENSE.  IF SUCH
"ASSESSMENTS" FOR FUTURE ACQUISITION OF A PROFITABLE OFFICE ARE PART OF
THE EXPENSES IN PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS OF THAT OFFICE FOR THE TAXABLE
YEAR, THEN WHY SHOULD NOT THE SAME DEDUCTION BE ALLOWED FOR
"ASSESSMENT" AGAINST OFFICEHOLDERS NOT CANDIDATES FOR IMMEDIATE
REAPPOINTMENT OR REELECTION BUT WHO PAY SUCH "ASSESSMENTS" OUT OF PARTY
ALLEGIANCE MIXED OR UNMIXED BY A LIVELY SENSE OF FUTURE FAVORS? 

IN ORDER TO DISALLOW THEM WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO FIND THAT
PETITIONER'S OUTLAYS COME WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 24 OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IN THAT THEY CONSTITUTED "PERSONAL  ...
EXPENSES."  "WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE ALLOWED
DEPENDS UPON LEGISLATIVE GRACE; AND ONLY AS THERE IS CLEAR PROVISION
THEREFOR CAN ANY PARTICULAR DEDUCTION BE ALLOWED."  NEW COLONIAL ICE
CO. V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 435, 440.  FOR THESE CAMPAIGN EXPENSES TO BE
DEDUCTIBLE, IT MUST BE FOUND THAT THEY CAN CONVENIENTLY COME WITHIN
SEC. 23(A)(1)(A).  TO PUT IT MILDLY, THAT SECTION IS NOT A CLEAR
PROVISION FOR SUCH AN ALLOWANCE.  TO DETERMINE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS BY
THE DIFFERENT INTERNAL PARTY ARRANGEMENTS FOR BEARING THE COST OF
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IN THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES WOULD DISREGARD THE
EXPLICIT RESTRICTIONS OF SEC. 23 CONFINING DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES SOLELY
TO OUTLAYS IN THE EFFORTS OR SERVICES - HERE THE BUSINESS OF JUDGING -
FROM WHICH THE INCOME FLOWS.  COMPARE WELCH V. HELVERING, 290 U.S. 111,
115-116. 

PETITIONER NEXT INSISTS THAT INASMUCH AS HE WAS DEFEATED FOR
REELECTION HIS CAMPAIGN EXPENSES CONSTITUTE A LOSS INCURRED IN A
"TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO FOR PROFIT" AND AS SUCH A DEDUCTIBLE
ALLOWANCE BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 23(E)(2).  FN1  SUCH AN ARGUMENT DOES NOT
DESERVE MORE THAN SHORT SHRIFT.  IF SUFFICES TO SAY THAT PETITIONER'S
MONEY WAS NOT SPENT TO BUY THE ELECTION BUT TO BUY THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PERSUADE THE ELECTORS.  HIS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION WAS NOT AN INSURANCE
OF VICTORY FRUSTRATED BY "AN ACT OF GOD" BUT THE PRICE PAID FOR AN
ACTIVE SHARE IN THE HAZARDS OF POPULAR ELECTIONS.  TO ARGUE THAT THE
LOSS OF THE ELECTION PROVES THAT THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN SUCH ELECTION
IS A DEDUCTIBLE "LOSS" UNDER SEC. 23(E)(2) IS TO PLAY WITH WORDS. 

FINALLY, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE INTRODUCED BY SEC. 121 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798,
819.  FN2  THIS AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED BY THE TREASURY (1 HEARINGS
BEFORE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, REVENUE REVISION, 1942, 77TH CONG.,
2D SESS., P. 88) TO AFFORD RELIEF FOR A SPECIFICALLY DEFINED
INEQUITABLE SITUATION WHICH HAD BECOME MANIFEST BY THE DECISION OF THE
COURT IN HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 212.  IN THAT CASE THIS
COURT HELD THAT BY PREVIOUS ENACTMENTS CONGRESS HAD MADE NO PROVISION
FOR ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS FROM PROFITABLE TRANSACTIONS NOT COVERED BY
THE STATUTORY CONCEPT OF "BUSINESS" INCOME.  BUT OF COURSE EARNINGS
FROM "THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF A PUBLIC OFFICE" HAD
SPECIFICALLY BEEN SO COVERED.  SEC. 48(D).  FN3  CONGRESS ADOPTED THE
TREASURY PROPOSAL FOR THE RESTRICTED PURPOSE WHICH ORIGINATED IT.  AND
SO HERE THE DIFFICULTY IS NOT THAT PETITIONER'S EXPENDITURES RELATED TO
"NON-BUSINESS" INCOME, AND THUS WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
SCHEME BEFORE THE 1942 AMENDMENT, BUT THAT THEY WERE NOT INCURRED IN
"CARRYING ON" HIS "BUSINESS" OF JUDGING.  THE AMENDMENT OF 1942 MERELY
ENLARGED THE CATEGORY OF INCOMES WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH EXPENSES WERE
DEDUCTIBLE.  IT DID NOT ENLARGE THE RANGE OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS  FN4
OF "BUSINESS" EXPENSES.  IN SHORT, THE ACT OF 1942 IN NO WISE AFFECTED
THE DISALLOWANCE OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES AS CONSISTENTLY REFLECTED BY
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, COURT DECISION, TREASURY PRACTICE AND TREASURY
REGULATIONS.  FN5  NOTHING WHATEVER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE
ADOPTION OF SEC. 121 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942 WARRANTS THE SUGGESTION
THAT CONGRESS UNWITTINGLY INITIATED A RADICAL CHANGE OF POLICY
REGARDING CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES.  EVERY RELEVANT ITEM OF EVIDENCE
BEARING UPON THE HISTORY OF THIS AMENDMENT PRECLUDES THE INFERENCE THAT
THE TREASURY WITHOUT INTENT AND THE CONGRESS WITHOUT APPRECIATION
OPENED WIDE THE DOOR FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES AS
DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES.  IT SURELY IS NOT FAIR TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS
THE REVERSAL OF ITS POLICY AND THE ENACTMENT OF A FAR-REACHING NEW
POLICY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, HOWEVER TENUOUS OR SPECULATIVE,
THAT CONGRESS WAS LEGISLATING ON THE SUBJECT. 

IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO INITIATE POLICIES AS TO THE DEDUCTION OF
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES.  IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE THE RELATION OF
CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES TO TAX DEDUCTIONS BY CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC
OFFICE, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHIN SUCH LIMITS AS COMMEND
THEMSELVES TO ITS JUDGMENT.  BUT WE CERTAINLY CANNOT DRAW INTIMATIONS
OF SUCH A POLICY FROM LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS INCREASINGLY RESTRICTIVE
AGAINST CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS.  THE RELATION BETWEEN MONEY AND POLITICS GENERALLY - AND
MORE PARTICULARLY THE COST OF CAMPAIGNS AND CONTRIBUTIONS BY
PROSPECTIVE OFFICEHOLDERS, ESPECIALLY JUDGES - INVOLVES ISSUES OF FAR
REACHING IMPORTANCE TO A DEMOCRACY AND IS BESET WITH LEGISLATIVE
DIFFICULTIES THAT EVEN JUDGES CAN APPRECIATE.  BUT THESE DIFFICULTIES
CAN NEITHER BE MET NOR AVOIDED BY SPURIOUS INTERPRETATION OF TAX
PROVISIONS DEALING WITH ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS. 

TO FIND SANCTION IN EXISTING TAX LEGISLATION FOR DEDUCTION OF
PETITIONER'S CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES WOULD NECESSARILY REQUIRE ALLOWANCE
OF DEDUCTION FOR CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES BY ALL CANDIDATES, WHETHER
INCUMBENTS SEEKING REELECTION OR NEW CONTENDERS.  TO DRAW A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN OUTLAYS FOR REELECTION AND THOSE FOR ELECTION - TO ALLOW THE
FORMER AND DISALLOW THE LATTER - IS UNSUPPORTABLE IN REASON.  IT IS
EVEN MORE UNSUPPORTABLE IN PUBLIC POLICY TO DERIVE FROM WHAT CONGRESS
HAS THUS FAR ENACTED A HANDICAP AGAINST CANDIDATES CHALLENGING EXISTING
OFFICEHOLDERS.  AND SO WE CANNOT RECOGNIZE PETITIONER'S CLAIM ON THE
SCORE THAT HE WAS A CANDIDATE FOR REELECTION.  FN6 

EVEN IF THESE CONCLUSIONS, IN THE SETTING OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX
LEGISLATION, DERIVED LESS EASILY THAN THEY DO FROM THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS UNDER SCRUTINY, WE SHOULD NOT BE INCLINED TO DISPLACE THE
VIEWS OF THE TAX COURT WITH OUR OWN.  FN7  OF COURSE THE TAX COURT
CANNOT DEFINE THE LIMITS OF ITS OWN AUTHORITY.  AND IN CASES LIKE
COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467, WHERE THE TAX COURT MISTAKENLY
FELT ITSELF BOUND BY SUPERIOR JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, WE MUST GIVE
CORRECTIVE RELIEF.  BUT, AS A SYSTEM, TAX LEGISLATION IS NOT TO BE
TREATED AS THOUGH IT WERE LOOSE TALK OR PRESENTED ISOLATED ABSTRACT
QUESTIONS OF LAW CASTING UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS THE TASK OF
INDEPENDENT CONSTRUCTION.  TAX LANGUAGE NORMALLY HAS AN ENCLOSED
MEANING OR HAS LEGITIMATELY ACQUIRED SUCH BY THE AUTHORITY OF THOSE
SPECIALLY SKILLED IN ITS APPLICATION.  TO SPEAK OF TAX DETERMINATIONS
MADE IN THE SYSTEM OF REVIEW SPECIALLY DESIGNED FOR FEDERAL TAX CASES
AS TECHNICAL IS NOT TO IMPLY OPPROBRIUM. 

HAVING REGARD TO THE CONTROVERSIES WHICH PECULIARLY CALL FOR THIS
COURT'S ADJUDICATION AND TO THE DEMANDS FOR THEIR ADEQUATE DISPOSITION,
AS WELL AS TO THE EXIGENCIES OF LITIGATION GENERALLY, RELATIVELY FEW
APPEALS FROM TAX COURT DECISIONS CAN IN ANY EVENT COME HERE.  THAT
COURT OF NECESSITY MUST BE THE MAIN AGENCY FOR NATION-WIDE SUPERVISION
OF TAX ADMINISTRATION.  WHATEVER THE STATUTORY OR PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS
UPON THE EXERCISE OF ITS AUTHORITY, CONGRESS HAS PLAINLY DESIGNED THAT
TRIBUNAL TO SERVE, AS IT WERE, AS THE EXCHEQUER COURT OF THE COUNTRY. 
DUE REGARD FOR THESE CONSIDERATIONS IS THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF
DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489.  WE ARE THEREFORE RELIEVED FROM
DISCUSSING THE NUMEROUS CASES IN WHICH THE TAX COURT OR ITS
PREDECESSOR, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, ALLOWED OR DISALLOWED DEDUCTIONS
AND THEIR BEARING ON THE SITUATION BEFORE US.  TO DO SO INVOLVES
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF VARIOUS "BUSINESSES"
AND EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THEIR "CARRYING ON."  WE SHALL NOT ENTER THIS
QUAGMIRE OF PARTICULARITIES.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "LOSSES BY INDIVIDUALS.  - IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, LOSSES
SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR AND NOT COMPENSATED FOR BY INSURANCE
OR OTHERWISE  ...  IF INCURRED IN ANY TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO FOR
PROFIT, THOUGH NOT CONNECTED WITH THE TRADE OR BUSINESS." 

FN2  "NON-TRADE OR NON-BUSINESS EXPENSES.  - IN THE CASE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL, ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF INCOME, OR
FOR THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION, OR MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY HELD FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME."    FN3  "TRADE OR BUSINESS.  - THE TERM
'TRADE OR BUSINESS' INCLUDES THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF A
PUBLIC OFFICE."  THIS AMENDMENT, ADDED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48
STAT. 680, 696, WAS MERELY "DECLARATORY OF EXISTING LAW."  S. REP. NO.
558, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 29.  IT HAD "NOTHING TO DO" WITH CAMPAIGN
EXPENSES, 1 HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON H.R. 8735, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS. (MARCH 6, 1934), P. 29, WHICH CONTINUED TO BE OUTSIDE
DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SEC. 23(A)(1). 

FN4  "A DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT, EXCEPT FOR THE
REQUIREMENT OF BEING INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH A TRADE OR BUSINESS,
TO ALL THE RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS THAT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE
DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 23(A)(1)(A) OF AN EXPENSE PAID OR INCURRED IN
CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS."  H. REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 75; S. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 88. 

FN5  REED V. COMMISSIONER, 13 B.T.A. 513, REVERSED ON ANOTHER GROUND,
34 F.2D 263, REVERSED SUB NOM. LUCAS V. REED, 281 U.S. 699; TREAS. REG.
103, SEC. 19.23(A)-15; TREAS. REG. 103, SEC. 23(O)-1; O.D. 864, 4 CUM.
BULL.  211(1921). 

FN6  IN THE INTEREST OF ACCURACY IT IS TO BE POINTED OUT THAT
PETITIONER WAS NOT A CANDIDATE FOR REELECTION; HE WAS A CANDIDATE FOR
ELECTION FOR THE FIRST TIME. 

FN7  THAT THE TAX COURT MAY, AS IS SOMETIMES TRUE EVEN OF OTHER
COURTS, INDULGE IN NEEDLESS AND ERRONEOUS OBSERVATIONS IS BESIDE THE
POINT.  SEE HELVERING V. GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238, 245-246. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

PETITIONER, A LAWYER OF MANY YEARS' EXPERIENCE, GAVE UP HIS PRACTICE
AND ACCEPTED APPOINTMENT AS A JUDGE UPON CONDITION THAT HE RUN TO
SUCCEED HIMSELF.  IN CAMPAIGNING FOR REELECTION HE INCURRED CERTAIN
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES.  THESE EXPENSES, ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WERE "LEGITIMATE IN THEIR ENTIRETY," AND "THE OBJECTIVE OF THE
EXPENDITURES WAS TO OBTAIN A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY, OVER AT
LEAST A DECADE OF YEARS."  THIS COURT HAS NOT REACHED A CONTRARY
CONCLUSION.  FOR OUR PURPOSE, THEREFORE, WE MAY CONSIDER THAT THE
EXPENSES WERE INCURRED, AT LEAST IN PART, "FOR THE PRODUCTION  ...  OF
INCOME."  THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 121 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942,
56 STAT. 798, 819, IS BROAD ENOUGH TO ALLOW A DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES SO
INDUCED.  THAT STATUTE, WHICH CONGRESS MADE APPLICABLE RETROACTIVELY,
ALLOWS THE FOLLOWING DEDUCTION, IN COMPUTING NET INCOME: 

"IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY
EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE PRODUCTION OR
COLLECTION OF INCOME, OR FOR THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION, OR
MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME." 

PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THIS SECTION, TAXPAYERS IN COMPUTING NET
INCOME WERE NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME FOR EXPENSES
INCURRED UNLESS THEY WERE "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR
INCURRED  ...  IN CARRYING ON A TRADE OR BUSINESS."  CONGRESS, BY THIS
NEW SECTION, INTRODUCED A NEW TYPE OF DEDUCTION, FOR AS THE HOUSE AND
SENATE COMMITTEES SAID, IT ALLOWED  "...  A DEDUCTION FOR THE ORDINARY
AND NECESSARY EXPENSES OF AN INDIVIDUAL PAID OR INCURRED  ...  FOR THE
PRODUCTION AND COLLECTION OF INCOME  ..."  BEFORE THE 1942 ACT, AN
EXPENSE TO BE DEDUCTIBLE HAD TO BE "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" IN ITS
RELATIONSHIP TO THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS; UNDER THE NEW SECTION IT NEED
ONLY BE "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" IN ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE TAXPAYER'S
EFFORTS TO PRODUCE INCOME.  HENCE, WHILE THE WORDS "ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY EXPENSES," DEFINING PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS, REMAINED
UNCHANGED IN THE NEW SECTION, THEY WERE GIVEN ADDED CONTENT IN THEIR
NEW RELATIONSHIP.  OBVIOUSLY, TREASURY REGULATIONS AND DECISIONS
LIMITING THE SCOPE OF "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" AS APPLIED TO BUSINESS
EXPENSES UNDER THE OLD LAW MAY BE WHOLLY UNSUITED TO DEFINE THE MEANING
OF THOSE WORDS IN THEIR NEW CONTEXT, AND SUCH RULINGS AND DECISIONS CAN
THROW LITTLE IF ANY LIGHT ON THE MEANING OF SEC. 121.  SINCE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE NEW SECTION, THE TWO QUESTIONS ESSENTIAL TO
DETERMINATION OF DEDUCTIBILITY ARE:  WERE THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN AN
EFFORT TO PRODUCE INCOME?  WERE THESE EXPENSES, OR PART OF THEM,
"ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" IN CONNECTION WITH THAT EFFORT?  THESE ARE IN
MOST INSTANCES PURE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND IN CASES SUCH AS THIS ARE TO
BE DETERMINED BY THE TAX COURT.  SEE COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320
U.S. 467, 475.  THE TAX COURT DID NOT MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT ON THESE
CRUCIAL ISSUES, BUT CATEGORICALLY DENIED THAT CAMPAIGN EXPENSES COULD
BE DEDUCTED AT ALL.  THIS, I THINK, WAS AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. 121. 

THE 1942 ACT ARTICULATED THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO WIPE OUT EVERY
VESTIGE OF A POLICY WHICH DENIED TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR LEGITIMATE EXPENSES
INCURRED IN PRODUCING TAXABLE INCOME.  TAXATION ON NET, NOT ON GROSS,
INCOME HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE BROAD BASIC POLICY OF OUR INCOME TAX LAWS. 
NET INCOME MAY BE DEFINED AS WHAT REMAINS OUT OF GROSS INCOME AFTER
SUBTRACTING THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES INCURRED IN EFFORTS TO
OBTAIN OR TO KEEP IT.  IN 1941, THIS COURT UPHELD IN HIGGINS V.
COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 212, A FINDING OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT
ONE WHO MANAGED, CONSERVED AND MAINTAINED HIS OWN PROPERTY WAS NOT
ENGAGED IN A "TRADE OR BUSINESS" AND FOR THIS REASON WAS NOT ENTITLED
TO DEDUCT EXPENSES INCURRED IN PRODUCING HIS GROSS INCOME.  THE EFFECT
OF THIS HOLDING WAS TO IMPAIR THE GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO TAX
ONLY NET INCOME.  CONGRESS IN ITS REVENUE ACT OF 1942, SUPRA, TOOK NOTE
OF THIS IMPAIRMENT AND INDICATED IN A MOST FORTHRIGHT MANNER ITS
ALLEGIANCE TO THE NET INCOME TAX POLICY.  EXCEPT FOR TRANSACTIONS
CARRIED ON "PRIMARILY AS A SPORT, HOBBY, OR RECREATION," SEE SENATE AND
HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORTS, SUPRA, CONGRESS PROVIDED A DEDUCTION FOR ALL
ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME. 
THE LANGUAGE IT UTILIZED WAS CERTAINLY FOR BROADER THAN WAS REQUIRED TO
MEET THE NARROW PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THE HIGGINS CASE.  CONGRESS
SPECIFICALLY DISPOSED OF THE HIGGINS PROBLEM BY ALLOWING A DEDUCTION
FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN  "...  THE MANAGEMENT, CONSERVATION OR
MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME."  HAD
CONGRESS SIMPLY ENACTED THESE WORDS, AND NOTHING MORE, IT MIGHT
PROPERLY HAVE BEEN INFERRED THAT IT INTENDED TO GRANT THE TYPE OF
DEDUCTION DENIED IN THE HIGGINS CASE, AND NO OTHER.  BUT IT PROVIDED AN
ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION, IN THE VERY SAME SECTION, FOR EXPENSES INCURRED
"IN THE PRODUCTION  ...  OF INCOME."  TO HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT CONGRESS
IN THIS NEW SECTION WAS CONCERNING ITSELF ONLY WITH THE RESTRICTED
ISSUE CREATED BY THE HIGGINS CASE, IS TO DENY ANY MEANING OR VALIDITY
TO THIS LATTER CLAUSE; IN A LARGER SENSE, SUCH A CONSTRUCTION CARVES
OUT OF THE SECTION A VITAL SEGMENT WHICH CONGRESS INTENTIONALLY - OR SO
WE MUST ASSUME - PUT THERE. 

THE COURT INTERPRETS SEC. 121 AS NOT PERMITTING THE DEDUCTIONS,
WITHOUT DENYING THAT THE EXPENDITURES WERE MADE BY PETITIONER FOR "THE
PRODUCTION OF INCOME."  THIS INTERPRETATION RESTS IN PART ON THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE SECTION IN NO WISE APPLIES TO EXPENSES INCURRED IN
"BUSINESS," AND THAT THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONER WERE IN
RELATION TO A "BUSINESS" EXPLICITLY SO DENOMINATED BY SEC. 48(D) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  FN1  THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION WOULD APPEAR TO
BE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES WHICH
REPORTED THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEASURE TO THEIR RESPECTIVE BODIES. 
THE REPORTS EXPRESSLY STATED THAT "THE AMENDMENT  ...  ALLOWS A
DEDUCTION FOR THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES OF AN INDIVIDUAL
INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE PRODUCTION AND COLLECTION OF
INCOME  ...  WHETHER OR NOT SUCH EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN CARRYING ON A
TRADE OR BUSINESS."  WE CANNOT QUESTION THE SPECIAL COMPETENCE OF THESE
TWO COMMITTEES TO INTERPRET THEIR OWN LEGISLATION.  CONGRESS THEREFORE
APPARENTLY INTENDED TO OBLITERATE THE LEGAL NICETIES OF THE "TRADE OR
BUSINESS" DISTINCTION, INSOFAR AS THEY AFFECTED DEDUCTIONS FOR EXPENSES
INCURRED IN THE "PRODUCTION AND COLLECTION OF INCOME." 

THE COURT'S DECISION IS ALSO GROUNDED UPON ITS REFERENCE TO
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY RESTRICTING COMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND POLITICAL
ACTIVITIES BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.  WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE, HOWEVER,
WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY ONE PERSON TO FURTHER THE CANDIDACY
OF ANOTHER.  BESIDES, CONGRESS HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO REGULATE
EXPENDITURES OF CANDIDATES FOR STATE OFFICE.  I CAN HARDLY CONCEIVE
THAT WE SHOULD INFER THAT IT WANTED TO PENALIZE THROUGH ITS TAX LAWS
NECESSARY CAMPAIGN EXPENSES, AND THEREBY CONDEMN A PRACTICE OF
CAMPAIGNING THAT IS AS OLD AS OUR COUNTRY AND WHICH EXISTS IN EVERY
STATE OF THE UNION.  UNLESS OUR DEMOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY IS WRONG, THERE
CAN BE NO EVIL IN A CANDIDATE SPENDING A LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE AND
NECESSARY SUM TO APPROACH THE ELECTORATE AND ENABLE THEM TO PASS AN
INFORMED JUDGMENT UPON HIS QUALIFICATIONS.  THIS IS NOT, OF COURSE, TO
BE TAKEN AS DENOTING APPROVAL OF CORRUPT CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES, OR OF
ANY OF THE MYRIAD ABUSES WHICH BESET OUR SYSTEMS OF ELECTION.  BUT WE
OUGHT NOT TO EVISCERATE A REVENUE ACT, AND DENY THIS STATE OFFICIAL A
DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN A STATE ELECTION CAMPAIGN, BECAUSE
CONGRESS HAS LIMITED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS, AND
PASSED RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION AGAINST POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES. 

THE TAX COURT TOO RELIED UPON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY.  IT THOUGHT
IT CONTRARY TO "THE BASIC IDEOLOGY UNDERLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR
GOVERNMENT" TO HOLD THAT A PUBLIC OFFICE CONSTITUTES A "TRADE OR
BUSINESS," ALTHOUGH CONGRESS FOR TAX PURPOSES HAD DECLARED IT WAS.  THE
TAX COURT ALSO THOUGHT THAT "UNDER THE BAN OF PUBLIC CONSCIENCE AND
...  PUBLIC POLICY IS THE CONTENTION THAT EXPENDITURES MADE TO PROMOTE
ONE'S CANDIDACY FOR ELECTION TO PUBLIC OFFICE REPRESENT EXPENSES 'PAID
...  FOR THE PRODUCTION OR COLLECTION OF INCOME.'"  PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN
THIS COUNTRY, MANY OF WHOM MUST CAMPAIGN FOR ELECTION, ARE ALMOST
UNIVERSALLY PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES.  THAT WE DO PAY OUR PUBLIC
SERVANTS IS NOT AT ALL INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT PUBLIC SERVICE
IN A LARGE MEASURE REPRESENTS AN HONEST EXPRESSION OF THE SOCIAL
CONSCIENCE.  NOR DOES INDIVIDUAL DEPENDENCE UPON REMUNERATION FOR SUCH
SERVICES DETRACT AT ALL FROM THE HIGH AND UNCOMPROMISING STANDARDS OF
THOSE WHO PERFORM PUBLIC DUTIES.  WITHOUT MONETARY REWARDS OFFICE
HOLDING WOULD NECESSARILY BE LIMITED TO ONE CLASS ONLY - THE
INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY.  PROPOSALS TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH A PURPOSE WERE
DELIBERATELY REJECTED AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE NATION'S HISTORY.  I
DENY THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC POLICY WHICH, WHILE PERMITTING CONGRESS
TO TAX THE INCOME OF ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS, BARS CONGRESS FROM
ALLOWING A DEDUCTION FOR NECESSARY CAMPAIGN EXPENSES. 

IT IS SAID THAT DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, GIVES SOME
SUPPORT TO THE COURT'S DECISION, AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT "DISPLACE THE
VIEWS OF THE TAX COURT WITH OUR OWN."  CF. SECURITY FLOUR MILLS CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 321 U.S. 281.  THE COURT'S OPINION DOES EXACTLY THAT, FOR
IT RESTS IN PART UPON ITS HOLDING THAT MCDONALD AS A JUDGE WAS ENGAGED
IN "BUSINESS," WHILE THE TAX COURT SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT HE WAS NOT. 
NEITHER THE DOBSON CASE NOR ANY OTHER TO WHICH THE COURT'S OPINION
POINTS HAS INDICATED THAT WE SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPT THE TAX
COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE, WHILE REPUDIATING THE REASONS ON
WHICH ITS CONCLUSION RESTED. 

STATE OFFICIALS ALL OVER THIS NATION HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
INCOME TAXES SINCE 1939.  WHEN THEY RUN FOR OFFICE, THEY MUST
NECESSARILY SPEND SOME MONEY TO ADVERTISE THEIR CAMPAIGNS.  WE PERMIT
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO DEDUCT EXPENSES INCURRED IN ADVERTISING TO GET
BUSINESS.  IF THIS PETITIONER HAD OWNED A FACTORY, THE OPERATIONS OF
WHICH WERE SUSPENDED BECAUSE OF WAR CONTRACTS, AND HAD ADVERTISED GOODS
WHICH HE COULD NOT PRESENTLY SELL, THE EXPENSES OF SUCH ADVERTISING
WOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTIBLE UNDER TREASURY RULINGS.  FN2 

SO LONG AS CAMPAIGN EXPENSES SPENT BY CANDIDATES ARE LEGITIMATE,
ORDINARY, AND NECESSARY, I AM UNWILLING TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED BY THE 1942 ACT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE THOUSANDS OF STATE
OFFICIALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.  THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS USED
LITERALLY PROTECTS PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO A DEDUCTION; NOTHING IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES AN INTENT TO DENY IT.  CERTAINLY THERE
ARE ABUSES IN CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES.  BUT THAT IS A PROBLEM THAT SHOULD
BE ATTACKED SQUARELY BY THE PROPER STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES, AND
NOT BY STRAINED STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WHICH PERMITS A DISCRIMINATORY
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED ON TAXPAYERS WHO WORK FOR THE STATES, COUNTIES,
MUNICIPALITIES, OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  I THINK WE SHOULD REVERSE
AND REMAND THIS CAUSE TO THE TAX COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO PASS UPON
THE FACTUAL QUESTIONS WHICH IT DID NOT PREVIOUSLY DETERMINE. 

FN1  CF. UNITED STATES V. PYNE, 313 U.S. 127.  IF THE PETITIONER IS
TO BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE 1942 AMENDMENT
(SEC. 121(A)(2)) ON THE GROUND THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN A
"BUSINESS," THEN IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY HE SHOULD BE DENIED
THE DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 23(A)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,
WHICH PROVIDES DEDUCTIONS FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CARRYING ON A
BUSINESS.  ON THE ONE HAND, THE COURT DENIES THE DEDUCTION BECAUSE THE
EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN RELATION TO A "BUSINESS"; ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE COURT DENIES THE DEDUCTION AS A "BUSINESS EXPENSE" ON THE GROUND
THAT HIS EXPENSES "WERE NOT INCURRED IN 'CARRYING ON' HIS
'BUSINESS'..."  THIS IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE, TWO PHRASES
WITH BUT A SINGLE THOUGHT.    FN2  I.T. 3581, 1-2 CUM. BULL.  88(1942);
I.T. 3564, 1-2 CUM. BULL.  87(1942).  THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF EXPENSES
HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE DEDUCTIBLE AS BUSINESS EXPENSES:  "...  PAYMENTS
BY BREWERS TO ASSOCIATIONS TO COMBAT PROHIBITION; RAILROAD
CONTRIBUTIONS TO AN ASSOCIATION CONDUCTING A CAMPAIGN TO CREATE
FAVORABLE PUBLIC OPINION; FEES PAID TO ORGANIZATIONS TO AVOID LABOR
TROUBLE AND COMBAT UNIONIZATION, AND ALSO UNION DUES; PAYMENTS TO A
FUND TO FIGHT THE BOLL WEEVIL BY A TAXPAYER IN THE COTTON BUSINESS;
MEMBERSHIP FEES OR DUES PAID BY INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATIONS TO A
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OR BOARD OF TRADE WHERE THE MEMBERSHIP IS EMPLOYED
AS A MEANS OF ADVANCING THE BUSINESS INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR
CORPORATION; ...  CONTRIBUTIONS TO A CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ENGAGED IN
STIMULATING AND EXPANDING LOCAL BUSINESS; ASSESSMENTS PAID BY MEMBER
BANKS TO A CLEARING HOUSE ASSOCIATION AS A MEANS OF FURTHERING THEIR
BUSINESS INTERESTS, AS WELL AS AMOUNTS TO BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE
ASSOCIATION TO CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS FOR BUILDING UP LOCAL TRADE;
PAYMENTS TO ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNED TO EXPAND TRADE; AND MEMBERSHIP DUES
PAID ASSOCIATIONS ORGANIZED TO PROMOTE THE BUSINESS INTERESTS OF THE
MEMBERS BY THE COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION TO ITS MEMBERS OF
INFORMATION AND STATISTICS."  4 MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME
TAXATION, 505-7, AND CASES THEREIN CITED.  FOR FURTHER ANALOGOUS
BUSINESS EXPENSE DEDUCTIONS, SEE 4 MERTENS, IBID., CHAPTER 25. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :





















POPE V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 1 


NO. 26.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1944.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1944.  - 100
CT. CLS. 375, REVERSED. 


BY THE SPECIAL ACT OF FEBRUARY 27, 1942, CONGRESS CONFERRED UPON THE
COURT OF CLAIMS JURISDICTION TO HEAR, DETERMINE AND RENDER JUDGMENT
UPON CERTAIN CLAIMS OF A CONTRACTOR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, IN
CONFORMITY WITH DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE ACT.  THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY
DENIED RECOVERY ON THE CLAIMS.  THE ACT AUTHORIZED REVIEW HERE BY
CERTIORARI.  HELD: 

1.  THE ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED NOT AS SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN A
CASE ALREADY DECIDED OR AS CHANGING THE RULES OF DECISION FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF A PENDING CASE, BUT RATHER AS CREATING A NEW
OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY THE CONTRACTOR'S CLAIMS WHERE NO
OBLIGATION EXISTED BEFORE.  UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 13 WALL.  128,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 8. 

(A)  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE TO CONGRESS' IMPOSING ON THE
GOVERNMENT A NEW OBLIGATION WHERE NONE EXISTED BEFORE, FOR WORK
PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHICH WAS BENEFICIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT AND
FOR WHICH CONGRESS THOUGHT HE HAD NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED.  P.
9. 

(B)  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS,
CONFERRED BY SEC. 8 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS NOT RESTRICTED
TO PAYMENT OF THOSE DEBTS WHICH ARE LEGALLY BINDING ON THE GOVERNMENT,
BUT EXTENDS TO THE CREATION OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS IN RECOGNITION OF
CLAIMS WHICH ARE MERELY MORAL OR HONORARY.  P. 9. 

2.  BY THE CREATION OF A LEGAL, IN RECOGNITION OF A MORAL, OBLIGATION
TO PAY THE CONTRACTOR'S CLAIMS, CONGRESS DID NOT ENCROACH UPON THE
JUDICIAL FUNCTION WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED IN
ADJUDICATING THAT THE OBLIGATION WAS NOT LEGAL.  P. 10. 

3.  NOR DID THE ACT ENCROACH UPON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS BY DIRECTING THAT COURT TO PASS UPON THE CONTRACTOR'S CLAIMS
IN CONFORMITY TO THE PARTICULAR RULE OF LIABILITY PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT
AND TO GIVE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  P. 10. 

(A)  BY THE ACT, CONGRESS IN EFFECT CONSENTED TO JUDGMENT IN AN
AMOUNT TO BE ASCERTAINED BY REFERENCE TO SPECIFIED DATA.  P. 11. 

(B)  WHEN A PLAINTIFF BRINGS SUIT TO ENFORCE A LEGAL OBLIGATION IT IS
NOT ANY THE LESS A CASE OR CONTROVERSY, UPON WHICH A COURT POSSESSING
THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER MAY RIGHTLY GIVE JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM IS UNCONTESTED OR INCONTESTABLE.  P. 11. 

(C)  WHETHER THE ACT MAKES THE FINDINGS IN THE EARLIER SUIT
CONCLUSIVE, AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WOULD ESTABLISH THE FACTS
ON WHICH THE ACT PREDICATES LIABILITY, ARE JUDICIAL QUESTIONS.  P. 11. 

(D)  WHETHER THE FACTS BE ASCERTAINED BY PROOF OR BY STIPULATION, IT
IS STILL A PART OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS
A LEGALLY BINDING OBLIGATION AND, IF SO, TO GIVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
AMOUNT DUE EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT DEPENDS UPON MERE COMPUTATION.  P.
11. 

4.  THE ACT AUTHORIZED THE CLAIMANT TO INVOKE THE JUDICIAL POWER OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND HE DID SO.  P. 12. 

5.  THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THIS COURT BY ART. III,
SEC. 2, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION EXTENDS TO DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS RENDERED IN EXERCISE OF ITS JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, AND SUCH
APPELLATE REVIEW IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS ALSO
IMPOSED UPON THE COURT OF CLAIMS NON-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGISLATIVE CHARACTER.  P. 13. 

6.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS' DETERMINATION THAT THE ACT CONFERRED UPON IT
ONLY NON-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AND HENCE THAT IT HAD NO JUDICIAL DUTY TO
PERFORM WAS ITSELF AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER REVIEWABLE HERE. 
POSTUM CEREAL CO. V. CALIFORNIA FIG NUT CO., 272 U.S. 693,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 14. 

POPE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 761, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF A PROCEEDING
BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL
ACT, WHICH THAT COURT HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER CONGRESS EXCEEDED ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IN ENACTING THE SPECIAL ACT OF FEBRUARY 27,
1942, 56 STAT. 1122,  FN1  BY WHICH, "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PRIOR
DETERMINATION" OR "ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS," IT PURPORTED TO CONFER
JURISDICTION ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO "HEAR AND DETERMINE," AND
DIRECTED IT TO "RENDER JUDGMENT" UPON, CERTAIN CLAIMS OF PETITIONER
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN CONFORMITY TO DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE ACT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO
RECOVER UPON HIS CLAIMS AS SPECIFIED AND SANCTIONED BY THE SPECIAL
ACT.  THE COURT DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  100 CT. CLS. 375.  IT THOUGHT THAT IN REQUIRING THE
COURT TO MAKE A MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF PETITIONER'S
CLAIMS UPON THE BASIS OF DATA ENUMERATED IN THE ACT AND TO GIVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT SO ASCERTAINED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE REJECTION
OF THOSE CLAIMS IN AN EARLIER SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE ACT WAS
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENCROACHMENT BY CONGRESS UPON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION
OF THE COURT.  HOLDING THAT IT WAS FREE TO IGNORE THE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMAND BECAUSE GIVEN WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, THE COURT GAVE
JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PROCEEDING. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH ASSIGNS AS ERROR
THE RULING BELOW THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE WAS WITHOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVED WE ISSUED THE WRIT, 321 U.S. 761.  FOR REASONS WHICH WILL
PRESENTLY APPEAR, WE HOLD THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT BELOW. 

SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE SPECIAL ACT, PETITIONER
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO BE
DUE UPON HIS CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
TUNNEL AS A PART OF THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE
CONSTRUCTION INVOLVED CERTAIN EXCAVATION AND CERTAIN FILLING OF THE
EXCAVATED SPACE, IN PART WITH CONCRETE AND IN PART WITH DRY PACKING AND
GROUT.  DRY PACKING CONSISTS OF CLOSELY PACKED BROKEN ROCK, INTO WHICH
IS PUMPED THE GROUT, A THIN LIQUID MIXTURE OF SAND, CEMENT AND WATER,
WHICH, WHEN IT HARDENS, SERVES TO SOLIDIFY AND STRENGTHEN THE DRY
PACKING. 

INCLUDED IN THE DEMANDS FOR WHICH THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT WERE CERTAIN
CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOW ASSERTED IN THIS PROCEEDING.  THEY COMPRISE A
CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION AND CONCRETE WORK ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED BECAUSE OF CERTAIN ORDERS OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, AND A
CLAIM FOR DRY PACKING AND GROUT FURNISHED BY PETITIONER AND PLACED BY
HIM IN CERTAIN EXCAVATED SPACE OUTSIDE THE SO-CALLED "B" LINE SHOWN ON
THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS.  THE "B" LINE MARKED THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE
TUNNEL BEYOND WHICH, BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, PETITIONER WAS NOT
TO BE PAID FOR EXCAVATION. 

IN THE FIRST SUIT IT APPEARED THAT PETITIONER SOUGHT RECOVERY FOR
EXCAVATION, FOR WHICH HE HAD NOT BEEN PAID, OF THE SPACE AT THE TOP OF
THE TUNNEL WHERE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD LOWERED THE "B" LINE BY
THREE INCHES, THUS DECREASING THE SPACE FOR THE EXCAVATION FOR WHICH
THE CONTRACT AUTHORIZED PAYMENT TO BE MADE.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS DENIED
RECOVERY OF THIS ITEM.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD ALSO DIRECTED THE
OMISSION OF CERTAIN TIMBER SUPPORTS OR LAGGING REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT
TO BE PLACED ON THE SIDE WALLS OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE TUNNEL.  CAVE
INS FROM THE SIDES RESULTED, MAKING IT NECESSARY THAT THE CAVED-IN
MATERIAL BE REMOVED AND THAT THE RESULTING SPACE BE FILLED WITH
CONCRETE, ALL AT INCREASED EXPENSE TO PETITIONER.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS
MADE FINDINGS SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION AND
CONCRETE WORK CLAIMED, BUT DENIED RECOVERY ON THESE ITEMS BECAUSE THE
ORDER OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR THE ADDITIONAL WORK INVOLVED A
CHANGE IN THE CONTRACT WHICH WAS NOT IN WRITING AS THE CONTRACT
REQUIRED. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS ALSO DENIED PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR DRY PACKING
AND GROUT.  IT WAS OF OPINION THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD RECEIVED THE
BENEFIT OF AND WAS LIABLE FOR WHATEVER DRY PACKING PETITIONER HAD DONE
AND FOR SO MUCH OF THE GROUT AS HAD ACTUALLY FOUND ITS WAY INTO THE DRY
PACKED SPACE AND HAD REMAINED THERE.  BUT IT DENIED RECOVERY BECAUSE OF
DEFICIENCY IN THE PROOF AS TO THE EXTENT OF THIS SPACE.  THE ONLY PROOF
OFFERED WAS THE "LIQUID METHOD" OF COMPUTATION, BASED ON THE NUMBER OF
BAGS OF CEMENT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF ALL THE GROUT FURNISHED BY
PETITIONER, THE CEMENT CONSTITUTING A FIXED PROPORTION OF THE GROUT. 
THE COURT HELD, WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THAT THE SEEPAGE OF THE GROUT INTO
AREAS OUTSIDE THAT DRY PACKED RENDERED THE LIQUID METHOD AN UNRELIABLE
MEASURE FOR DETERMINING EITHER THE VOLUME OF THE DRY PACKING OR THE
AMOUNT OF THE GROUT REQUIRED FOR IT.  THE COURT GAVE JUDGMENT
ACCORDINGLY, WHILE ALLOWING TO PETITIONER OTHER CLAIMS UPON HIS
CONTRACT WITH WHICH WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED.  PETITIONER'S MOTIONS
FOR A NEW TRIAL WERE DENIED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, AND THIS COURT
DENIED CERTIORARI.  303 U.S. 654. 

THE SPECIAL ACT OF CONGRESS DIRECTED THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO "RENDER
JUDGMENT AT CONTRACT RATES UPON THE CLAIMS" OF PETITIONER FOR "CERTAIN
WORK PERFORMED FOR WHICH HE HAS NOT BEEN PAID, BUT OF WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAS RECEIVED THE USE AND BENEFIT," AND GAVE JURISDICTION TO
THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT BY CERTIORARI.  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT
DEFINED THE WORK TO BE COMPENSATED AS "THE EXCAVATION AND CONCRETE WORK
FOUND BY THE COURT TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED BY THE SAID POPE IN COMPLYING
WITH CERTAIN ORDERS OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, WHEREBY THE PLANS FOR
THE WORK WERE SO CHANGED AS TO LOWER THE UPPER 'B' OR 'PAY' LINE THREE
INCHES, AND AS TO OMIT THE TIMBER LAGGING FROM THE SIDE WALLS OF THE
TUNNEL; AND FOR THE WORK OF EXCAVATING MATERIALS WHICH CAVED IN OVER
THE TUNNEL ARCH AND FOR FILLING SUCH CAVED-IN SPACES WITH DRY PACKING
AND GROUT, AS DIRECTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, THE AMOUNT OF DRY
PACKING TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LIQUID METHOD AS DESCRIBED BY THE COURT
AND BASED ON THE VOLUME OF GROUT ACTUALLY USED, AND THE AMOUNT OF GROUT
TO BE AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT'S PREVIOUS FINDINGS BASED ON THE
NUMBER OF BAGS OF CEMENT USED IN THE GROUT ACTUALLY PUMPED INTO DRY
PACKING." 

THE ACT FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER AS EVIDENCE
IN THE CASE "ANY OR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE" TAKEN BY EITHER PARTY IN THE
EARLIER SUIT, "TOGETHER WITH ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH MAY BE
TAKEN." 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN CONSTRUING THE SPECIAL ACT SAID (100 CT. CLS.
P. 379): 

"A REREADING OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT WILL SHOW THAT THE TASK WHICH
THE COURT IS DIRECTED TO PERFORM IS A SMALL AND UNIMPORTANT ONE.  IT IS
DIRECTED TO REFER TO ITS PREVIOUS FINDINGS, TAKE CERTAIN CUBIC
MEASUREMENTS AND CERTAIN NUMBERS OF BAGS OF CEMENT WHICH ARE RECITED
THERE BY REFERENCE, MULTIPLY THOSE FIGURES BY THE SEVERAL UNIT PRICES
STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE SEVERAL KINDS OF WORK, ADD THE
RESULTS AND RENDER JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE SUM.  IF THIS
READING OF SECTION 2 IS CORRECT, NOT ONLY DOES THE SPECIAL ACT PURPORT
TO CONFER UPON THE PLAINTIFF THE UNUSUAL PRIVILEGE OF LITIGATING THE
SAME CASE A SECOND TIME IN A COURT WHICH ONCE FINALLY DECIDED IT, AND
APPLYING A SECOND TIME FOR A REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, WHICH ONCE CONSIDERED AND DENIED SUCH A REVIEW.  THE SPECIAL
ACT ALSO PURPORTS TO DECIDE THE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH WERE IN THE CASE
UPON ITS FORMER TRIAL AND WOULD, BUT FOR THE ACT, BE IN IT NOW, AND TO
DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT EXCEPT CERTAIN SIMPLE COMPUTATIONS."  SO
CONSTRUED IT THOUGHT THE SPECIAL ACT DIRECTED THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO
DECIDE AGAIN THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY WHICH IT HAD DECIDED IN THE FIRST
SUIT, "TO DECIDE IT FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND GIVE HIM A JUDGMENT FOR AN
AMOUNT" DETERMINED BY A "SIMPLE COMPUTATION, BASED UPON DATA REFERRED
TO IN THE SPECIAL ACT."  THIS, IT CONCLUDED, CONGRESS COULD NOT
"EFFECTIVELY DIRECT." 

FOR THIS CONCLUSION IT RELIED UPON UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 13 WALL. 
128, IN WHICH THIS COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS WAS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO PRESCRIBE A RULE OF DECISION FOR A CASE PENDING ON APPEAL IN
THIS COURT SO AS TO REQUIRE IT TO ORDER DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT IN WHICH
THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD GIVEN JUDGMENT FOR THE CLAIMANT.  DECISION WAS
RESTED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDICIAL POWER OVER THE PENDING APPEAL
RESIDED WITH THIS COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION,
AND THAT CONGRESS WAS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE
EXERCISE OF ITS JUDICIAL POWER AND THAT OF THE COURT BELOW BY REQUIRING
THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY
DISMISSING THE SUIT. 

AS THE OPINION IN THE KLEIN CASE POINTED OUT, PP. 144, 145, THE ACT
OF MARCH 17, 1866, 14 STAT. 9, CONFERRED ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS
JUDICIAL POWER BY GIVING IT AUTHORITY TO RENDER FINAL JUDGMENTS IN
THOSE CASES AND CONTROVERSIES WHICH, PURSUANT TO EXISTING STATUTES, HAD
BEEN PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED BEFORE IT.  BY LATER STATUTES THIS AUTHORITY
WAS EXTENDED TO FUTURE CASES, AND THE COURT HAS SINCE EXERCISED THE
JUDICIAL POWER THUS CONFERRED UPON IT.  SEE EX PARTE BAKELITE CORP.,
279 U.S. 438, 454; UNITED STATES V. JONES, 119 U.S. 477.  WE DO NOT
CONSIDER JUST WHAT APPLICATION THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE KLEIN
CASE COULD RIGHTLY BE GIVEN TO A CASE IN WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT,
PENDENTE LITE, TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN FAVOR
OF THE GOVERNMENT AND TO REQUIRE RELITIGATION OF THE SUIT.  FOR WE DO
NOT CONSTRUE THE SPECIAL ACT AS REQUIRING THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN A CASE ALREADY DECIDED OR AS CHANGING THE RULES
OF DECISION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF A PENDING CASE. 

BEFORE THE SPECIAL ACT THE CLAIMS OF PETITIONER ON HIS CONTRACT WITH
THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN PASSED UPON JUDICIALLY AND MERGED IN A JUDGMENT
WHICH WAS FINAL.  UNITED STATES V. JONES, SUPRA; IN RE SANBORN, 148
U.S. 222, 225; LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 533, 536
ET SEQ. THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, AND THE JUDGMENT, WHICH REMAINS
UNDISTURBED BY ANY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL ACTION,
CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ON
HIS CLAIMS.  THE SPECIAL ACT DID NOT PURPORT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OR TO REQUIRE A NEW TRIAL OF THE ISSUES AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
CLAIMS WHICH THE COURT HAD RESOLVED AGAINST PETITIONER.  WHILE
INARTISTICALLY DRAWN THE ACT'S PURPOSE AND EFFECT SEEM RATHER TO HAVE
BEEN TO CREATE A NEW OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY PETITIONER'S
CLAIMS WHERE NO OBLIGATION EXISTED BEFORE.  AND SUCH BEING ITS EFFECT,
THE ACT'S IMPACT UPON THE PERFORMANCE BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF ITS
JUDICIAL DUTIES SEEMS NOT TO BE ANY DIFFERENT THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
IF PETITIONER'S CLAIMS HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED THERE. 

WE PERCEIVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE TO CONGRESS' IMPOSING ON THE
GOVERNMENT A NEW OBLIGATION WHERE THERE HAD BEEN NONE BEFORE, FOR WORK
PERFORMED BY PETITIONER WHICH WAS BENEFICIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR
WHICH CONGRESS THOUGHT HE HAD NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED.  THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS, CONFERRED BY
SEC. 8 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS NOT RESTRICTED TO PAYMENT
OF THOSE OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARE LEGALLY BINDING ON THE GOVERNMENT.  IT
EXTENDS TO THE CREATION OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS IN RECOGNITION OF CLAIMS
WHICH ARE MERELY MORAL OR HONORARY.  ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES, 92 U.S.
41; UNITED STATES V. REALTY CO., 163 U.S. 427; UNITED STATES V. COOK,
257 U.S. 523; CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 308, 314. 
CONGRESS, BY THE CREATION OF A LEGAL, IN RECOGNITION OF A MORAL,
OBLIGATION TO PAY PETITIONER'S CLAIMS PLAINLY DID NOT ENCROACH UPON THE
JUDICIAL FUNCTION WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED IN
ADJUDICATING THAT THE OBLIGATION WAS NOT LEGAL.  FN2  NOR DO WE THINK
IT DID SO BY DIRECTING THAT COURT TO PASS UPON PETITIONER'S CLAIMS IN
CONFORMITY TO THE PARTICULAR RULE OF LIABILITY PRESCRIBED BY THE
SPECIAL ACT AND TO GIVE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING
& BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 18 HOW.  421; ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
SEE CHEROKEE NATION V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 476, 486; CF. KLAMATH
INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 296 U.S. 244; UNITED STATES V. KLAMATH
INDIANS, 304 U.S. 119. 

CONGRESS HAVING EXERCISED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ON
THE GOVERNMENT A LEGALLY BINDING OBLIGATION, THE DECISIVE QUESTION IS
WHETHER IT INVADED THE JUDICIAL PROVINCE OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY
DIRECTING IT TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATION BY REFERENCE, AS
DIRECTED, TO THE SPECIFIED FACTS, AND TO GIVE JUDGMENT FOR THAT
AMOUNT.  IN ANSWERING, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE ACT CONTEMPLATED THAT
PETITIONER SHOULD BRING SUIT ON HIS CLAIMS IN THE USUAL MANNER, THAT
THE COURT WAS GIVEN JURISDICTION TO DECIDE IT, AND THAT PETITIONER BY
BRINGING THE SUIT HAS INVOKED, FOR ITS DECISION, WHATEVER JUDICIAL
POWER THE COURT POSSESSES.  CF. UNITED STATES V. REALTY CO., SUPRA.  IN
THIS POSTURE OF THE CASE IT IS PERTINENT TO INQUIRE WHAT, IF ANYTHING,
CONGRESS ADDED TO OR SUBTRACTED FROM THE JUDICIAL DUTIES OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS BY DIRECTING THAT IT CONSIDER THE CASE AND GIVE JUDGMENT FOR
THE AMOUNT FOUND TO BE DUE.  STRIPPED OF ALL COMPLEXITIES OF DETAIL THE
CASE IS ONE IN WHICH, SIMPLY STATED, PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT TO ENFORCE
THE OBLIGATION, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS ASSUMED, TO PAY HIM FOR WORK
DONE AND NOT PAID FOR.  CONGRESS HAS IN EFFECT CONSENTED TO JUDGMENT IN
AN AMOUNT TO BE ASCERTAINED BY REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIED DATA.    WHEN
A PLAINTIFF BRINGS SUIT TO ENFORCE A LEGAL OBLIGATION IT IS NOT ANY THE
LESS A CASE OR CONTROVERSY UPON WHICH A COURT POSSESSING THE FEDERAL
JUDICIAL POWER MAY RIGHTLY GIVE JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM
IS UNCONTESTED OR INCONTESTABLE.  NOR IS IT ANY THE LESS SO BECAUSE THE
AMOUNT RECOVERABLE DEPENDS UPON A MATHEMATICAL COMPUTATION BASED UPON
DATA TO BE ASCERTAINED WHICH BY THE TERMS OF THE OBLIGATION ARE ITS
MEASURE.  FOR IN ANY CASE THE COURT IS CALLED ON TO SANCTION, BY ITS
JUDGMENT, AN ALLEGED OBLIGATION IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE EXISTENCE,
VALIDITY AND EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATION, THE EXISTENCE OF THE DATA, AND
THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMPUTATION MAY BE PUT IN ISSUE. 

THE COURT BELOW SEEMS TO HAVE ASSUMED THAT ITS ONLY FUNCTION UNDER
THE SPECIAL ACT WAS TO MAKE A CALCULATION BASED UPON DATA TO BE FOUND
IN THE ACT AND IN THE FINDINGS OF THE EARLIER SUIT.  IN VIEW OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL ACT FOR TAKING EVIDENCE AND FOR CONSIDERING
THE EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST SUIT, WE CANNOT SAY THAT ALL THE EARLIER
FINDINGS ARE TO BE DEEMED CONCLUSIVE AND THAT THE COURT COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN CALLED ON IN THIS PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE JUDICIALLY WHETHER THEY
ARE SO.  WHETHER THE ACT MAKES THEM CONCLUSIVE, AND IF NOT, WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE WOULD ESTABLISH THE FACTS ON WHICH THE ACT PREDICATES
LIABILITY, ARE JUDICIAL QUESTIONS.  BUT IF THE FACTS BE ASCERTAINED BY
PROOF OR BY STIPULATION, IT IS STILL A PART OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A LEGALLY BINDING OBLIGATION AND, IF SO, TO
GIVE JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT DUE EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT DEPENDS UPON
MERE COMPUTATION. 

IT IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND AN EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER TO
RENDER JUDGMENT ON CONSENT.  A JUDGMENT UPON CONSENT IS "A JUDICIAL
ACT."  UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 286 U.S. 106, 115; SWIFT & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 311, 324; SEE ALSO PACIFIC R. CO. V. KETCHUM,
101 U.S. 289; UNITED STATES V. BABBITT, 104 U.S. 767; NASHVILLE, C. &
ST. L.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 113 U.S. 261; THOMPSON V. MAXWELL LAND
GRANT & R. CO., 168 U.S. 451.  IT IS LIKEWISE A JUDICIAL ACT TO GIVE
JUDGMENT ON A LEGAL OBLIGATION WHICH THE COURT FINDS TO BE ESTABLISHED
BY STIPULATED FACTS; J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332, 333;
JOHNSON V. YELLOW CAB CO., 321 U.S. 383, 388; EQUITABLE SOCIETY V.
COMMISSIONER, 321 U.S. 560, 561; OR WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS IN DEFAULT. 
VOORHEES V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 10 PET. 449; RANDOLPH V.
BARRETT, 16 PET. 138; CLEMENTS V. BERRY, 11 HOW.  398; COOPER V.
REYNOLDS, 10 WALL.  308; RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO. V. GILDERSLEEVE, 174
U.S. 603; FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 187 U.S. 315;
CHRISTIANSON V. KING COUNTY, 239 U.S. 356, 372.  IT IS A FAMILIAR
PRACTICE AND AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER FOR A COURT UPON DEFAULT, BY
TAKING EVIDENCE WHEN NECESSARY OR BY COMPUTATION FROM FACTS OF RECORD,
TO FIX THE AMOUNT WHICH THE PLAINTIFF IS LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER
AND TO GIVE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  RENNER & BUSSARD V. MARSHALL, 1
WHEAT.  215; AURORA CITY V. WEST, 7 WALL.  82, 104; CLEMENTS V. BERRY,
SUPRA; CF. MAYHEW V. THATCHER, 6 WHEAT.  129.  IN ALL THESE CASES THE
COURT DETERMINES THAT THE UNCHALLENGED FACTS SHOWN OF RECORD ESTABLISH
A LEGALLY BINDING OBLIGATION; IT ADJUDICATES THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT OF
RECOVERY AND THE EXTENT OF IT, BOTH OF WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF
THE JUDGMENT. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE EFFECT OF THE SPECIAL ACT WAS TO AUTHORIZE
PETITIONER TO INVOKE THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, AND
THAT HE HAS DONE SO.  IT IS TRUE THAT CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED ON THAT
COURT, AS IT HAS ON THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NON
JUDICIAL DUTIES OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGISLATIVE CHARACTER.  SEE IN
RE SANBORN, SUPRA; FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON BROS. CO., 289 U.S.
266, 275.  THOSE IMPOSED ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE SUCH AS IT HAS
TRADITIONALLY EXERCISED EVER SINCE ITS ORIGINAL ORGANIZATION AS A MERE
AGENCY OF CONGRESS TO AID IT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  SUCH
ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES COEXIST WITH ITS JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS.  SEE EX
PARTE BAKELITE CORP., SUPRA, 452, ET SEQ. ITS DECISIONS RENDERED IN ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY ARE NOT JUDICIAL ACTS, AND THEIR REVIEW, EVEN
THOUGH SANCTIONED BY CONGRESS, IS NOT WITHIN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION
OF THIS COURT.  GORDON V. UNITED STATES, 2 WALL.  561; AND SEE THE
VIEWS EXPRESSED BY TANEY, C.J., IN 117 U.S. 697; IN RE SANBORN, SUPRA.
BUT NOTWITHSTANDING THE RETENTION OF SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES BY THE
COURT OF CLAIMS, AS IN THE CASE OF THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS
OF BOTH COURTS RENDERED IN THEIR JUDICIAL CAPACITY.  AND THIS COURT HAS
HELD, BY AN UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS, THAT ITS APPELLATE
JURISDICTION, CONFERRED BY ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION,
EXTENDS TO THE REVIEW OF SUCH JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS; DE
GROOT V. UNITED STATES, 5 WALL.  419; UNITED STATES V. JONES, SUPRA;
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 263; AND OF THE
COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON
BROS. CO., SUPRA, AND CASES CITED. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHAT EFFECT THE IMPOSITION OF NON
JUDICIAL DUTIES ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY HAVE AFFECTING ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS AS A COURT AND THE PERMANENCY OF TENURE OF ITS
JUDGES.  CF. WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 553.  IT IS ENOUGH
THAT, ALTHOUGH THE COURT OF CLAIMS, LIKE THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, EXERCISES NON-JUDICIAL DUTIES, CONGRESS HAS ALSO AUTHORIZED
IT AS AN INFERIOR COURT TO PERFORM JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS WHOSE EXERCISE IS
REVIEWABLE HERE.  THE PROBLEM PRESENTED HERE IS NO DIFFERENT THAN IF
CONGRESS HAD GIVEN A LIKE DIRECTION TO ANY DISTRICT COURT TO BE
FOLLOWED AS IN OTHER TUCKER ACT CASES.  ITS POSSESSION OF NON-JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS BY DIRECTION OF CONGRESS PRESENTS NO MORE OBSTACLE TO
APPELLATE REVIEW OF ITS JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONS BY THIS COURT, THAN
DOES THE PERFORMANCE OF LIKE FUNCTIONS BY THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA OR BY STATE COURTS WHOSE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER, IN THE
CASES SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, CL. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS
REVIEWABLE HERE BY VIRTUE OF CL. 2 OF SEC. 2.  COMPARE SOUTHWESTERN
BELL TEL. CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 303 U.S. 206 WITH BARNETT V. ROGERS, 302
U.S. 655.  SEE ALSO PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 211 U.S. 210, 225,
226; OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S. 290. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS' DETERMINATION THAT THE SPECIAL ACT CONFERRED
UPON IT ONLY NON-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AND HENCE THAT IT HAD NO JUDICIAL
DUTY TO PERFORM WAS ITSELF AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER REVIEWABLE
HERE.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447.  THE
CASE IS NOT ONE WHERE THE COURT BELOW HAS MADE MERELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISION NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, WITHOUT PURPORTING TO ACT
JUDICIALLY OR TO RULE AS TO THE EXTENT OF ITS JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AS THE
GROUND OF ITS ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT.  POSTUM CEREAL CO. V.
CALIFORNIA FIG NUT CO., 272 U.S. 693.  JURISDICTION TO DECIDE IS
JURISDICTION TO MAKE A WRONG AS WELL AS A RIGHT DECISION.  FAUNTLEROY
V. LUM, 210 U.S. 230, 234, 235; BURNET V. DESMORNES, 226 U.S. 145,
147.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT JURISDICTION BE,
AND THE SAME IS HEREBY, CONFERRED UPON THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE
UNITED STATES, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PRIOR DETERMINATION, ANY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, RELEASE, OR PRIOR ACCEPTANCE OF PARTIAL ALLOWANCE, TO
HEAR, DETERMINE, AND RENDER JUDGMENT UPON THE CLAIMS OF ALLEN POPE, HIS
HEIRS OR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, AS
DESCRIBED AND IN THE MANNER SET OUT IN SECTION 2 HEREOF, WHICH CLAIMS
ARISE OUT OF THE CONSTRUCTION BY HIM OF A TUNNEL FOR THE SECOND HIGH
SERVICE OF THE WATER SUPPLY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

"SEC. 2.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO DETERMINE AND
RENDER JUDGMENT AT CONTRACT RATES UPON THE CLAIMS OF THE SAID ALLEN
POPE, HIS HEIRS OR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, FOR CERTAIN WORK PERFORMED
FOR WHICH HE HAS NOT BEEN PAID, BUT OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS
RECEIVED THE USE AND BENEFIT; NAMELY, FOR THE EXCAVATION AND CONCRETE
WORK FOUND BY THE COURT TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED BY THE SAID POPE IN
COMPLYING WITH CERTAIN ORDERS OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, WHEREBY THE
PLANS FOR THE WORK WERE SO CHANGED AS TO LOWER THE UPPER 'B' OR 'PAY'
LINE THREE INCHES, AND AS TO OMIT THE TIMBER LAGGING FROM THE SIDE
WALLS OF THE TUNNEL; AND FOR THE WORK OF EXCAVATING MATERIALS WHICH
CAVED IN OVER THE TUNNEL ARCH AND FOR FILLING SUCH CAVED-IN SPACES WITH
DRY PACKING AND GROUT, AS DIRECTED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, THE
AMOUNT OF DRY PACKING TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LIQUID METHOD AS
DESCRIBED BY THE COURT AND BASED ON THE VOLUME OF GROUT ACTUALLY USED,
AND THE AMOUNT OF GROUT TO BE AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT'S PREVIOUS
FINDINGS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF BAGS OF CEMENT USED IN THE GROUT
ACTUALLY PUMPED INTO THE DRY PACKING. 

"SEC. 3.  ANY SUIT BROUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE
INSTITUTED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE APPROVAL HEREOF, AND
THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER AS EVIDENCE IN SUCH SUIT ANY OR ALL EVIDENCE
HERETOFORE TAKEN BY EITHER PARTY IN THE CASE OF ALLEN POPE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES, NUMBERED K-366, IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, TOGETHER WITH
ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH MAY BE TAKEN. 

"SEC. 4.  FROM ANY DECISION OR JUDGMENT RENDERED IN ANY SUIT
PRESENTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT, A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MAY BE APPLIED FOR BY EITHER PARTY
THERETO, AS IS PROVIDED BY LAW IN OTHER CASES." 

FN2  THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS OFTEN SO HELD IN EARLIER CASES.  SEE
E.G. NOCK V. UNITED STATES, 1 CT. CLS. 71, 2 CT. CLS. 451; MURPHY V.
UNITED STATES, 14 CT. CLS. 508, 15 CT. CLS. 217, AFFIRMED 104 U.S. 464,
35 CT. CLS. 494; ALCOCK & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 61 CT. CLS. 312, 74 CT.
CLS. 308; DELUCA V. UNITED STATES, 69 CT. CLS. 262, CERT. DENIED 283
U.S. 862, 84 CT. CLS. 217.  AND SEE MENOMINEE INDIANS V. UNITED STATES,
101 CT. CLS. 10. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















BATES V. UNITED STATES, 323, U.S. 15 


NO. 92.  DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1944.  - 141 F.2D 436, VACATED. 


THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING A CONVICTION OF
THE OFFENSE OF CONSPIRACY TO EXPORT GOLD IN VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE
ORDER NO. 6260(31 C.F.R. 50.6), AND OTHER OFFENSES, ON GROUNDS CONCEDED
TO BE ERRONEOUS BY THE GOVERNMENT, IS VACATED.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION THAT THE CONVICTION CAN BE SUSTAINED ON OTHER GROUNDS IS NOT
PASSED UPON, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
SINCE IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE THAT THE CONTENTION BE CONSIDERED IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE BY THAT COURT.  P. 16. 

BATES V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HEREIN GRANTED, TO REVIEW THE
AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FEDERAL OFFENSES. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER ASKS CERTIORARI TO REVIEW HIS CONVICTION UPON AN
INDICTMENT CHARGING CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEVERAL SEPARATE
OFFENSES.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED PETITIONER, ONE SMITH, AND ANOTHER
(WHO WAS ACQUITTED BY THE JURY), AND PERSONS UNKNOWN, WITH A CONSPIRACY
TO ACQUIRE GOLD BULLION WITHOUT A LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 4 OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER 6260(31 C.F.R. SEC. 50.4); TO EARMARK FOR EXPORT, AND
TO EXPORT TO GERMANY GOLD BULLION WITHOUT A LICENSE, BOTH IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 6 OF THE ORDER (31 C.F.R. SEC. 50.6); AND WITH CONSPIRACY TO
COMMIT TWO COUNTERFEITING OFFENSES. 

AT THE TRIAL THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT PETITIONER, WHO WAS INTERESTED
IN MAKING A PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF GOLD, WAS INTRODUCED BY AN INFORMER
TO ONE SCHAETZEL, A GOVERNMENT AGENT WHO POSED AS THE OWNER OF A GOLD
MINE, INTERESTED IN DISPOSING OF GOLD.  PETITIONER TOLD SCHAETZEL A
STORY, CONCEDED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO BE WITHOUT FOUNDATION, TO THE
EFFECT THAT PETITIONER WISHED TO PROCURE GOLD FOR SALE TO NAZI AGENTS
IN THIS COUNTRY WHO PROPOSED TO TRANSPORT IT TO GERMANY BY SUBMARINE. 
PETITIONER, WHO WAS IN FACT SEEKING OTHER WAYS OF DISPOSING OF GOLD,
TRIED WITHOUT SUCCESS TO NEGOTIATE WITH NUMEROUS DEALERS, SOME OF WHOSE
NAMES WERE SUGGESTED TO PETITIONER BY SMITH ON PETITIONER'S PROMISE TO
PAY HIM A COMMISSION.  WHEN SCHAETZEL COMPLAINED TO PETITIONER OF THE
DELAY IN CONSUMMATING THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT WITH THE SUPPOSED NAZI
AGENTS, PETITIONER INDUCED SMITH TO POSE AS SUCH TO REASSURE
SCHAETZEL. 

ON THE VERDICT OF THE JURY, FINDING PETITIONER AND SMITH GUILTY AS
CHARGED BY THE INDICTMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST
THEM.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE
CONVICTION OF SMITH BUT AFFIRMED THAT OF PETITIONER, 141 F.2D 436, ON
THE GROUND THAT THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD CONSPIRED
WITH UNKNOWN NAZI AGENTS TO EXPORT GOLD. 

THE GOVERNMENT, BY ITS BRIEF HERE, FORMALLY CONCEDES THAT
PETITIONER'S CONVICTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON THIS GROUND.  IT ADMITS
THAT PETITIONER'S STORY OF HIS NEGOTIATIONS WITH NAZI AGENTS WAS SHAM,
AS HE TESTIFIED AT THE TRIAL, AND AS IS SHOWN BY OTHER EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AND BY THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE
EVIDENCE OF CONTACTS WITH NAZI AGENTS ALTHOUGH PETITIONER WAS UNDER
ALMOST CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS.  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO
CONCEDES THAT IT HAS NO EVIDENCE AND THAT THERE IS NONE IN THE RECORD
TO SUPPORT PETITIONER'S CONVICTION ON ANY THEORY OF A CONSPIRACY TO
EXPORT GOLD.  IT IN EFFECT CONFESSES THAT THE AFFIRMANCE ON THAT GROUND
IS ERROR.  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO ADMITS THAT THE CONVICTION CANNOT BE
SUPPORTED ON THE COUNTERFEITING CHARGES. 

BUT THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER AND SMITH OF
CONSPIRACY TO ACQUIRE GOLD WITHOUT THE PRESCRIBED LICENSE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO SEEK A REVIEW OF THE
REVERSAL OF SMITH'S CONVICTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO
THE JURY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECORD ON APPEAL.  IN THIS STATE OF
THE RECORD THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT THIS CHARGE OF THE INDICTMENT
WAS NOT PROPERLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. 

ON THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSION, WHICH WE ACCEPT, AS TO THE CHARGE OF
CONSPIRACY TO EXPORT GOLD AND TO COMMIT COUNTERFEITING OFFENSES, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  WE DO NOT
CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE CONVICTION
CAN BE SUSTAINED ON OTHER GROUNDS, SINCE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, WE DEEM IT MORE APPROPRIATE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDER
THAT QUESTION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  CF. MANUFACTURERS' FINANCE CO. V.
MCKEY, 294 U.S. 442, 453-454, AND CASES CITED; UNITED STATES V.
MALPHURS, 316 U.S. 1, 3. 

THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT IS
VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :






CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. U.S., 323 U.S. 18 


NO. 21.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 17, 1944.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1944.  -
140 F.2D 61, AFFIRMED. 


THE FILLED MILK ACT FORBIDS SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF MILK
"TO WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED, OR WHICH HAS BEEN BLENDED OR COMPOUNDED WITH,
ANY FAT OR OIL OTHER THAN MILK FAT, SO THAT THE RESULTING PRODUCT IS IN
IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF MILK."  HELD: 

1.  IN A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE ACT, EVIDENCE THAT THE
DEFENDANT'S COMPOUND WAS NOT NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT WAS PROPERLY
EXCLUDED.  P. 22. 

(A)  THE ACT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS INAPPLICABLE TO PRODUCTS IN
WHICH NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY HAS BEEN CORRECTED, ALTHOUGH BY METHODS
DEVELOPED SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT, SINCE THE ACT WAS
AIMED NOT ONLY AT NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY BUT ALSO AT SUBSTITUTION FOR
OR CONFUSION WITH MILK PRODUCTS.  P. 22. 

(B)  THUS TO CONTROL SHIPMENTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO AS TO
PREVENT CONFUSION, DECEPTION AND SUBSTITUTION IS WITHIN THE POWER OF
CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 23. 

2.  THOUGH THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO PRODUCTS "IN IMITATION OR
SEMBLANCE OF MILK," SUCH IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE MAY RESULT FROM THE
INGREDIENTS USED AND NEED NOT BE THE RESULT OF CONSCIOUS EFFORT.  P.
25. 

3.  AS APPLIED TO THE FILLED MILK INVOLVED HERE, THOUGH THE PRODUCT
BE ASSUMED TO BE WHOLESOME AND PROPERLY LABELED, THE ACT DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 31. 

(A)  JUDICIAL NOTICE MAY BE TAKEN OF REPORTS OF COMMITTEES OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE, WHICH SHOW THAT CONSIDERATIONS
BESIDES NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCY INFLUENCED PASSAGE OF THE ACT.  P. 28. 

(B)  HERE, MILK FROM WHICH A VALUABLE ELEMENT (BUTTERFAT) HAS BEEN
REMOVED IS ARTIFICIALLY ENRICHED WITH CHEAPER FATS AND VITAMINS SO THAT
IT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE BY THE AVERAGE PURCHASER FROM WHOLE MILK
PRODUCTS.  THE RESULT IS THAT THE COMPOUND IS CONFUSED WITH AND PASSED
OFF AS THE WHOLE MILK PRODUCT DESPITE PROPER LABELING.  P. 31. 

(C)  WHEN CONGRESS EXERCISES A DELEGATED POWER SUCH AS THAT OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE METHODS WHICH IT EMPLOYS MAY BE STRICKEN DOWN
ONLY UPON A CLEAR AND CONVINCING SHOWING THAT THERE IS NO RATIONAL
BASIS FOR THE LEGISLATION.  P. 31. 

CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 760, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS OF
VIOLATION OF THE FILLED MILK ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE LIMITED WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW
PETITIONERS' CONVICTION, AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FOR
A VIOLATION OF THE FILLED MILK ACT.  FN1  THE COURT WAS MOVED TO ALLOW
THE PETITION IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE ACCUSED
ARTICLES OF FOOD CANNOT, UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, BE BANNED FROM COMMERCE WHEN THESE
COMPOUNDS ARE NUTRITIONALLY SUFFICIENT AND NOT "IN IMITATION OR
SEMBLANCE" OF MILK OR ANY MILK PRODUCT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE AND ARE NOT SOLD AS MILK OR A MILK PRODUCT. 

THE CONTENTIONS WHICH ARE RAISED BY PETITIONERS TO AVOID THEIR
CONVICTION WERE NOT DEALT WITH IN OUR PRIOR DECISION WHICH UPHELD THE
ACT'S VALIDITY UPON DEMURRER TO AN EARLIER INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED ITS
VIOLATION.  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144.  FN2
SINCE THESE ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT TO THOSE AFFECTED BY THE ACT,
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  321 U.S. 760.  QUESTIONS OF DUE PROCESS UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SIMILAR TO THOSE PRESENTED HERE, HAD ARISEN
FROM STATE FILLED-MILK LEGISLATION WITH VARYING RESULTS.  FN3
CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT OF THE FILLED-MILK LEGISLATION OF KANSAS
APPEARS IN SAGE STORES CO. V. KANSAS, POST, P. 32. 

THE FACTS, WHICH ARE UNDISPUTED, ARE FULLY SET OUT IN THE OPINIONS OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT IS SUFFICIENT
FOR OUR PURPOSES TO SUMMARIZE THEM AS FOLLOWS.  THE CORPORATE
PETITIONER SELLS THE PRODUCTS MENTIONED IN THE INDICTMENT WHICH ARE
MANUFACTURED FOR IT BY ANOTHER CORPORATION FROM SKIM MILK, THAT IS,
MILK FROM WHICH A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUTTERFAT HAS BEEN REMOVED. 
THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE CONSISTS OF TAKING NATURAL WHOLE MILK,
EXTRACTING THE BUTTERFAT CONTENT AND THEN ADDING COTTONSEED OR COCOANUT
OIL AND FISH LIVER OIL, WHICH LATTER OIL CONTAINS VITAMINS A AND D. THE
PROCESS INCLUDES PASTEURIZATION OF THE MILK, EVAPORATION,
HOMOGENIZATION OF THE MIXTURE AND STERILIZATION.  THE COMPOUND IS SOLD
UNDER VARIOUS TRADE NAMES IN CANS OF THE SAME SIZE AND SHAPE AS THOSE
USED FOR EVAPORATED MILK.  THE CONTENTS OF THE CAN ARE PRACTICALLY
INDISTINGUISHABLE BY THE BUYING PUBLIC FROM EVAPORATED WHOLE MILK, BUT
THE CANS ARE TRUTHFULLY LABELED TO SHOW THE TRADE NAMES AND THE
INGREDIENTS. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THE PETITIONER CORPORATION AND THE INDIVIDUAL
PETITIONERS, ITS PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, WITH VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTE BY MAKING INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS OF THE COMPOUNDS CONTRARY TO
SEC. 2.  FN4  THE CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES ARE ASSAILED AS IMPROPER ON
THREE GROUNDS: FIRST, THAT THE PETITIONER'S COMPOUNDS WERE NOT COVERED
BY THE RATIONALE OF THE FILLED MILK ACT; SECOND, THAT THE ACT DID NOT
COVER THE COMPOUNDS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT "IN IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE"
OF A MILK PRODUCT; AND THIRD, THAT SINCE THE COMPOUNDS WERE WHOLESOME
FOOD PRODUCTS AND SOLD WITHOUT FRAUD, IN ANY SENSE, CONGRESS COULD NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBIT THEIR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT. 

FIRST.  AS A BASIS FOR PETITIONER'S POSITION THAT THE FILLED MILK ACT
DOES NOT COVER THEIR COMPOUNDS, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE NUTRITIONAL
DEFICIENCIES OF FILLED MILKS LED TO THE ACT'S ENACTMENT SO AS TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH.  THESE DEFICIENCIES OCCURRED BECAUSE THE
EXTRACTION OF THE BUTTERFAT FROM THE WHOLE MILK REMOVED A LARGE
PROPORTION OF THE FAT SOLUBLE VITAMINS A AND D.  THE HEARINGS ON THE
BILL AND THE COURSE OF THE DEBATE MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THIS VITAMIN
DEFICIENCY WAS OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE IN BRINGING ABOUT THE ENACTMENT OF
THE ACT.  FN5  PETITIONERS THEN OFFERED IN THE TRIAL COURT TO PROVE
THAT SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE FILLED MILK ACT IN 1923, THE TECHNIQUE OF
FORTIFICATION OF FOODS WITH VITAMINS A AND D HAD ADVANCED TO A POINT
WHERE THESE VITAMINS COULD BE RESTORED TO SKIM MILK COMPOUNDS SO THAT
THE COMPOUNDS WERE EQUALLY VALUABLE IN THAT RESPECT TO WHOLE MILK
PRODUCTS AND THAT THEIR PRODUCTS HAD BEEN SO ENRICHED.  THE OFFER WAS
REFUSED. 

FILLED MILK IS DEFINED IN SEC. 1(C) OF THE ACT AS ANY MILK, "WHETHER
OR NOT CONDENSED, EVAPORATED, CONCENTRATED, POWDERED, DRIED, OR
DESICCATED, TO WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED, OR WHICH HAS BEEN BLENDED OR
COMPOUNDED WITH, ANY FAT OR OIL OTHER THAN MILK FAT, SO THAT THE
RESULTING PRODUCT IS IN IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF MILK  ..., WHETHER OR
NOT CONDENSED, EVAPORATED, CONCENTRATED, POWDERED, DRIED, OR
DESICCATED."  THE PETITIONER'S COMPOUNDS, IT IS AGREED, FALL WITHIN
THIS DEFINITION.  BUT, PETITIONERS CONTEND, THEY DO NOT FALL WITHIN ITS
SPIRIT, SINCE THE VITAMINS WHICH CAUSE DEFICIENCY HAVE BEEN RESTORED
AND THAT THEREFORE THE ACT IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE ENRICHED COMPOUNDS
WITHIN THAT RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, AS ILLUSTRATED BY CHURCH OF
THE HOLY TRINITY V. UNITED STATES, 143 U.S. 457; UNITED STATES V. AETNA
EXPLOSIVES CO., 256 U.S. 402, AND OTHER CASES, WHICH EXCLUDES FROM THE
COVERAGE OF A STATUTE THINGS OR SITUATIONS WHICH ARE BEYOND THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. 

PETITIONERS' POSITION AS TO THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS
NOT ACCEPTED BY THE TRIAL OR REVIEWING COURT.  WE AGREE WITH THOSE
COURTS.  WHILE, AS WE HAVE STATED ABOVE, THE VITAMIN DEFICIENCY WAS AN
EFFICIENT CAUSE IN BRINGING ABOUT THE ENACTMENT OF THE FILLED MILK ACT,
IT WAS NOT THE SOLE REASON FOR ITS PASSAGE.  A SECOND REASON WAS THAT
THE COMPOUNDS LEND THEMSELVES READILY TO SUBSTITUTION FOR OR CONFUSION
WITH MILK PRODUCTS.  ALTHOUGH, SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, FILLED MILK
COMPOUNDS AS ENRICHED ARE EQUALLY WHOLESOME AND NUTRITIOUS AS MILK WITH
THE SAME CONTENT OF CALORIES AND VITAMINS, THEY ARE ARTIFICIAL OR
MANUFACTURED FOODS WHICH ARE CHEAPER TO PRODUCE THAN SIMILAR WHOLE MILK
PRODUCTS.  WHEN COMPOUNDED AND CANNED, WHETHER ENRICHED OR NOT, THEY
ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE BY THE ORDINARY CONSUMER FROM PROCESSED NATURAL
MILK.  THE PURCHASER OF THESE COMPOUNDS DOES NOT GET EVAPORATED MILK. 
THIS SITUATION HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT.  THE
POSSIBILITY AND ACTUALITY OF CONFUSION, DECEPTION AND SUBSTITUTION WAS
APPRAISED BY CONGRESS.  FN6 THE PREVENTION OF SUCH PRACTICES OR DANGERS
THROUGH CONTROL OF SHIPMENTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS WITHIN THE POWER
OF CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. AT P.
148; CF. MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, 63.  THE MANNER BY WHICH
CONGRESS CARRIES OUT THIS POWER, SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS
WHICH ARE CONSIDERED HEREINAFTER IN PART "THIRD" OF THIS OPINION, IS
WITHIN LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION,  FN7  EVEN THOUGH THE METHOD CHOSEN IS
PROHIBITION OF MANUFACTURE, SALE OR SHIPMENT.  FN8  CONGRESS EVIDENTLY
DETERMINED THAT EXCLUSION FROM COMMERCE OF FILLED MILK COMPOUNDS IN THE
SEMBLANCE OF MILK WAS AN APPROPRIATE METHOD TO STRIKE AT EVILS WHICH IT
DESIRED TO SUPPRESS.  ALTHOUGH IT NOW IS MADE TO APPEAR THAT ONE EVIL,
THE NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCIES, HAS BEEN OVERCOME, THE EVIL OF CONFUSION
REMAINS AND CONGRESS HAS LEFT THE STATUTE IN EFFECT.  IT SEEMS TO US
CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR JUDICIAL
INTERFERENCE TO WITHDRAW THESE ASSUMEDLY NONDELETERIOUS COMPOUNDS FROM
THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACT.  IT FOLLOWS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE
COVERAGE OF THE ACT THAT IT WAS NOT ERRONEOUS TO REFUSE TO CONSIDER THE
EVIDENCE WHICH PETITIONERS OFFERED AS TO THE WHOLESOMENESS OF THE
COMPOUNDS. 

SECOND.  THE PETITIONERS URGE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE ACT DOES NOT
COVER THEIR COMPOUNDS.  THIS GROUND IS THAT THE COMPOUNDS ARE NOT "IN
IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE" OF MILK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT'S
DEFINITION OF FILLED MILK.  SEC. 1(C), SUPRA, P. 22.  COMPARE STATE V.
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 346 MO. 1049, 1060-62, 144 S.W.2D 153.  WE AGREE
THAT THE PRODUCT MUST BE IN IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF MILK TO FALL
WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE ACT. 

PETITIONERS RELY UPON THE ADMITTED FACT THAT NO INGREDIENT IS ADDED
TO THE SKIM MILK, OIL AND VITAMINS TO ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE
COMPOUND.  ACCEPTING THE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMPOUNDS ARE
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM WHOLE MILK PRODUCTS BY PURCHASERS, IT IS URGED
THAT THEY CANNOT BE HELD TO BE IN "IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE" OF MILK
UNLESS THE MANUFACTURER PURPOSEFULLY ADDS SOMETHING TO MAKE THE MIXTURE
SIMULATE MILK.  IT IS SAID CONGRESS ADOPTED THIS LANGUAGE FROM SEC.
64(3) OF THE FARMS AND MARKETS LAW OF NEW YORK.  FN9  PRIOR TO THAT
TIME, THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, IN CONSTRUING THE WORDS
"IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE" AS THEY APPEARED IN ANOTHER SECTION OF THE NEW
YORK LAW DIRECTED AT THE REGULATION OF OLEOMARGARINE, HAD INTERPRETED
THEM AS DENOUNCING TRADE IN OLEOMARGARINE ONLY WHEN THE MANUFACTURER
CONSCIOUSLY AND PURPOSEFULLY ATTEMPTED TO CREATE AN IMITATION OR
SEMBLANCE OF MILK PRODUCTS.  PEOPLE V. GUITON, 210 N.Y. 1, 8, 9, 103
N.E. 773.  THE ADOPTION OF THESE WORDS AFTER THIS INTERPRETATION AND IN
THE FACE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEW YORK DECISION AND OF
THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE EFFECT OF THE USE OF SUCH LANGUAGE,  FN10
PETITIONERS CONTEND, BRINGS INTO PLAY THE GENERAL RULE THAT ADOPTION OF
THE WORDING OF A STATUTE FROM ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION CARRIES
WITH IT THE PREVIOUS JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE WORDING.  WILLIS
V. EASTERN TRUST & BANKING CO., 169 U.S. 295, 307; CF. JAMES V. APPEL,
192 U.S. 129, 135; JOINES V. PATTERSON, 274 U.S. 544, 549. 

THE CASES JUST CITED HAVE ESTABLISHED UNDER SUITABLE CONDITIONS THE
RULE FOR WHICH PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE INTERPRETATION GOES WITH
THE ACT.  IT IS A PRESUMPTION OF LEGISLATIVE INTENTION, HOWEVER, WHICH
VARIES IN STRENGTH WITH THE SIMILARITY OF THE LANGUAGE, THE ESTABLISHED
CHARACTER OF THE DECISIONS IN THE JURISDICTION FROM WHICH THE LANGUAGE
WAS ADOPTED AND THE PRESENCE OR LACK OF OTHER INDICIA OF INTENTION. 
COPPER QUEEN MINING CO. V. ARIZONA BOARD, 206 U.S. 474, 479; WHITNEY V.
FOX, 166 U.S. 637, 647. 

HERE WE CANNOT BE SURE THAT CONGRESS, DELIBERATELY OR OTHERWISE,
ADOPTED THE WORDING FROM THE NEW YORK STATUTE.  IN SEC. 2 OF THE
FEDERAL ACT OF AUGUST 2, 1886, 24 STAT. 209, TAXING AND REGULATING
OLEOMARGARINE, SOMEWHAT SIMILAR LANGUAGE OCCURS.  FN11  THAT MAY BE THE
SOURCE OF THE PHRASE.  FURTHERMORE THE GUITON CASE DID NOT INTERPRET
THE SECTION OF THE NEW YORK STATUTE UPON WHICH PETITIONERS CONTEND THE
FEDERAL ACT IS MODELED.  IN THE GUITON CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS
EXPLAINED THE FORCE OF "IMITATION AND SEMBLANCE" AS USED IN THE
OLEOMARGARINE SECTION, SEC. 38, N.Y. LAWS 1909, CH. 9.  THAT COURT
RELIED UPON THE SPECIAL STATUTORY DEFINITION OF OLEOMARGARINE IN SEC.
30, ID., AS A REASON FOR ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE WORDS PROHIBITED ONLY
CONSCIOUS IMITATION, 210 N.Y. 7.  OLEOMARGARINE WAS THERE DEFINED AS AN
ARTICLE "IN THE SEMBLANCE OF BUTTER."  THE COURT THOUGHT THAT AS THE
SALE OF NATURAL OLEOMARGARINE, WHICH MIGHT HAVE THE "SEMBLANCE" OF
BUTTER WAS PERMITTED, IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO PROHIBIT PRODUCTS WHICH
LOOKED LIKE BUTTER UNLESS THE IMITATION CAME FROM CHOICE.  AS NO
CORRESPONDING DEFINITION OF FILLED MILK OCCURS, THERE COULD BE NO
CERTAINTY THAT THE SAME RESULT WOULD BE REACHED, IF NEW YORK HAD BEEN
CALLED UPON TO INTERPRET SECTION 64. 

FINALLY, AS DETERMINATIVE OF THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO INCLUDE
COMPOUNDS WHOSE RESEMBLANCE TO MILK PRODUCTS ARISES FROM THEIR
INGREDIENTS AND NOT FROM CONSCIOUS EFFORT, WE NOTE THE FACT THAT
COMPOUNDS OF THIS INNOCENT CHARACTER WERE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED BY NAME
IN THE LIST OF COMPOUNDS WHICH THE CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS POINTED OUT AS
PRODUCTS WHICH WERE COVERED BY THE PROPOSED ACT.  FN12  PETITIONER'S
COMPOUNDS WERE THEMSELVES SO NAMED.  THE ADDITION OF VITAMINS DOES NOT
AFFECT THEIR PHYSICAL LIKENESS TO MILK PRODUCTS. 

THIRD.  IF THE FILLED MILK ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE COMPOUNDS WHOSE
SHIPMENT WAS THE BASIS OF THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE, AS WE HAVE JUST
CONCLUDED, PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THE ACT, AS THUS APPLIED, VIOLATES
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THEIR ARGUMENT RUNS IN
THIS MANNER.  SINCE THESE ENRICHED COMPOUNDS ARE ADMITTEDLY WHOLESOME
AND SOLD UNDER TRADE NAMES WITH PROPER LABELS WITHOUT THE COMMISSION OF
ANY FRAUD BY PETITIONERS ON THE PUBLIC, CONGRESS CANNOT PROHIBIT THEIR
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT WITHOUT DENYING TO PETITIONERS A RIGHT PROTECTED BY
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THE RIGHT TO TRADE IN INNOCENT ARTICLES.  THEY
RELY UPON WEAVER V. PALMER BROS. CO., 270 U.S. 402, AND CONTINUE THEIR
PROTEST AGAINST THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT TO RECEIVE THE EVIDENCE
AS TO THE WHOLESOMENESS OF THEIR PRODUCT. 

WE DO NOT NEED TO CONSIDER THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT TO RECEIVE
EVIDENCE OF THE PURITY AND WHOLESOMENESS OF PETITIONER'S PRODUCTS. 
SUCH EVIDENCE COULD BE MATERIAL ONLY IF THE SOLE BASIS FOR
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION WAS IMPURITY AND UNWHOLESOMENESS.  FN13  UNDER THE
FIRST POINT OF THIS OPINION, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE AVOIDANCE OF
CONFUSION FURNISHED A REASON FOR THE ENACTMENT OF THE FILLED MILK ACT. 
THE TRIAL COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE, AS DID THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 51
F.SUPP.  675, 678-79, AND AS WE DO, OF THE REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE WHICH SHOW THAT OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS THAN NUTRITIONAL DEFICIENCIES INFLUENCED THE PROHIBITION
OF THE SHIPMENT OF FILLED MILK IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THESE
UNCHALLENGED REPORTS, AS WE INDICATED IN PART "FIRST" ABOVE, FURNISH AN
ADEQUATE BASIS, OTHER THAN UNWHOLESOMENESS, FOR THE ACTION OF
CONGRESS.  FN14  THE REPORTS SHOW THAT IT WAS DISPUTABLE AS TO WHETHER
WHOLESOME FILLED MILK SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM COMMERCE BECAUSE OF THE
DANGER OF ITS CONFUSION WITH THE CONDENSED OR EVAPORATED NATURAL
PRODUCT OR WHETHER REGULATION WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.  THE POWER WAS IN
CONGRESS TO DECIDE ITS OWN COURSE.  WE NEED LOOK NO FURTHER.  FN15 

WEAVER V. PALMER BROS. CO., SUPRA, IS NOT TO THE CONTRARY.  THIS
COURT THOUGHT THAT UNDER THE FACTS OF THAT RECORD THERE WAS NO
REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE USE OF
SHODDY IN COMFORTABLES WAS DANGEROUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR THAT IT
OFFERED OPPORTUNITY FOR DECEPTION, PP. 412 AND 414.  THEREFORE THE
PROHIBITION OF ITS USE VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  STERILIZATION, INSPECTION AND LABELING WERE
DEEMED TO BE SUFFICIENT TO NEGATIVE THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH EVILS.  IT
WAS POINTED OUT IN THE COURSE OF THE OPINION, P. 413, THAT WHERE THE
POSSIBILITY OF EVIL WAS NOT NEGATIVED, LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE SALE
OF A WHOLESOME ARTICLE WOULD NOT BE INVALIDATED.  POWELL V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 127 U.S. 678.  IN DEALING WITH THE EVILS OF FILLED MILK,
CONGRESS REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT LABELING WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE
REMEDY FOR DECEPTION.  ON THE POINT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY IN
RELATION TO DUE PROCESS OF THE PROHIBITION OF TRADE IN ARTICLES WHICH
ARE NOT IN THEMSELVES DANGEROUS BUT WHICH MAKE OTHER EVILS MORE
DIFFICULT TO CONTROL, SUCH AS CONFUSION IN THE FILLED MILK LEGISLATION,
THE POWELL CASE IS AUTHORITY FOR THE VALIDITY OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
IN THE FILLED MILK ACT.  IT INVOLVED A SALE OF AN ARTICLE ASSUMED TO BE
JUST AS GOOD AS BUTTER BUT WHICH WAS PROHIBITED BECAUSE OF ITS
INGREDIENTS.  IN THE POWELL CASE, THIS COURT SAID: 

"THE DEFENDANT THEN OFFERED TO PROVE BY PROF. HUGO BLANCK THAT HE SAW
MANUFACTURED THE ARTICLE SOLD TO THE PROSECUTING WITNESS; THAT IT WAS
MADE FROM PURE ANIMAL FATS; THAT THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE WAS CLEAN
AND WHOLESOME, THE ARTICLE CONTAINING THE SAME ELEMENTS AS DAIRY
BUTTER, ...  THAT THE OLEAGINOUS SUBSTANCES IN THE MANUFACTURED ARTICLE
WERE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THOSE PRODUCED FROM MILK OR CREAM;
AND THAT THE ARTICLE SOLD TO THE PROSECUTING WITNESS WAS A WHOLESOME
AND NUTRITIOUS ARTICLE OF FOOD, IN ALL RESPECTS AS WHOLESOME AS BUTTER
PRODUCED FROM PURE UNADULTERATED MILK OR CREAM FROM UNADULTERATED
MILK."  PP. 681-82. 

"IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE OFFER IN THE COURT BELOW WAS TO SHOW BY
PROOF THAT THE PARTICULAR ARTICLES THE DEFENDANT SOLD, AND THOSE IN HIS
POSSESSION FOR SALE, IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, WERE, IN FACT,
WHOLESOME OR NUTRITIOUS ARTICLES OF FOOD.  IT IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT
WITH THAT OFFER THAT MANY, INDEED, THAT MOST KINDS OF OLEOMARGARINE
BUTTER IN THE MARKET CONTAIN INGREDIENTS THAT ARE OR MAY BECOME
INJURIOUS TO HEALTH.  THE COURT CANNOT SAY, FROM ANYTHING OF WHICH IT
MAY TAKE JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE, THAT SUCH IS NOT THE FACT.... 

"WHETHER THE MANUFACTURE OF OLEOMARGARINE, OR IMITATION BUTTER, OF
THE KIND DESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE, IS, OR MAY BE, CONDUCTED IN SUCH A
WAY, OR WITH SUCH SKILL AND SECRECY, AS TO BAFFLE ORDINARY INSPECTION,
OR WHETHER IT INVOLVES SUCH DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AS TO REQUIRE,
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE, THE ENTIRE SUPPRESSION OF THE
BUSINESS, RATHER THAN ITS REGULATION IN SUCH MANNER AS TO PERMIT THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ARTICLES OF THAT CLASS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN
NOXIOUS INGREDIENTS, ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND OF PUBLIC POLICY WHICH
BELONG TO THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE.  AND AS IT DOES NOT
APPEAR UPON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE, OR FROM ANY FACTS OF WHICH THE
COURT MUST TAKE JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE, THAT IT INFRINGES RIGHTS SECURED
BY THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW, THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION OF THOSE
QUESTIONS IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS."  PP. 684-85. 

IN HEBE CO. V. SHAW, 248 U.S. 297, THIS COURT IN 1919 UPHELD THE
VALIDITY OF AN OHIO STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITED THE SALE OF CONDENSED MILK
MADE OTHERWISE THAN FROM WHOLE MILK AGAINST AN ATTACK UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE COMPOUND WAS WHOLESOME
AND IT WAS PROPERLY LABELED.  THE ACT WAS SUSTAINED, HOWEVER, AS A
PROPER EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AGAINST
FRAUDULENT SUBSTITUTION, PP. 302-303.  PURITY EXTRACT CO. V. LYNCH, 226
U.S. 192, 204. 

IN THE ACTION OF CONGRESS ON FILLED MILK THERE IS NO PROHIBITION OF
THE SHIPMENT OF AN ARTICLE OF COMMERCE MERELY BECAUSE IT COMPETES WITH
ANOTHER SUCH ARTICLE WHICH IT RESEMBLES.  SUCH WOULD BE THE PROHIBITION
OF THE SHIPMENT OF COTTON OR SILK TEXTILES TO PROTECT RAYON OR NYLON OR
OF ANTHRACITE TO AID THE CONSUMPTION OF BITUMINOUS COAL OR OF
COTTONSEED OIL TO AID THE SOYBEAN INDUSTRY.  HERE A MILK PRODUCT,
SKIMMED MILK, FROM WHICH A VALUABLE ELEMENT - BUTTERFAT - HAS BEEN
REMOVED IS ARTIFICIALLY ENRICHED WITH CHEAPER FATS AND VITAMINS SO THAT
IT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE IN THE EYES OF THE AVERAGE PURCHASER FROM WHOLE
MILK PRODUCTS.  THE RESULT IS THAT THE COMPOUND IS CONFUSED WITH AND
PASSED OFF AS THE WHOLE MILK PRODUCT IN SPITE OF PROPER LABELING. 

WHEN CONGRESS EXERCISES A DELEGATED POWER SUCH AS THAT OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE METHODS WHICH IT EMPLOYS TO CARRY OUT ITS
PURPOSES ARE BEYOND ATTACK WITHOUT A CLEAR AND CONVINCING SHOWING THAT
THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE LEGISLATION; THAT IT IS AN ARBITRARY
FIAT.  FN16 THIS IS NOT SHOWN HERE.  THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, 42 STAT. 1486; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE
PRODUCTS CO., 51 F.SUPP.  675; CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES,
140 F.2D 61; CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 760. 

FN2  CF. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. EVAPORATED MILK ASSOCIATION, 93
F.2D 202.  IN CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. WALLACE, 307 U.S. 612, 308 U.S.
506, HERE ON APPEAL, WE AFFIRMED THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIAL COURT TO
GRANT AN INTERLOCUTORY OR FINAL DECREE WHICH WOULD ENJOIN PROSECUTION
OF THE CORPORATE PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FILLED MILK
ACT.  THE AFFIRMANCE WAS BASED ON A LACK OF NECESSITY FOR EQUITABLE
INTERVENTION TO PROTECT THE CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. FROM CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION. 

FN3  CASES WHICH SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF STATE ACTS AGAINST ATTACKS
WHICH WERE BASED ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
WERE:  CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. HARTER, 329 PA. 49, 197 A. 627;
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. MOHLER, 152 KANS. 2, 13, 102 P.2D 1044;
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. HANRAHAN, 291 KY. 417, 421, 164 S.W.2D 597;
STATE V. SAGE STORES CO., 157 KANS. 404, 412, 413, PAR. 5, 143 P.2D
652. 

CONTRA:  PEOPLE V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 345 ILL. 166, 177 N.E. 698;
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. THOMSON, 276 MICH. 172, 267 N.W. 608; CAROLENE
PRODUCTS CO. V. BANNING, 131 NEBR.  429, 268 N.W. 313. 

FN4  "SEC.  2  ....  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON  ...  TO
SHIP OR DELIVER FOR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, ANY
FILLED MILK. 

"SEC. 3.  ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT SHALL UPON
CONVICTION THEREOF BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR
IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH; ..."  42 STAT. 1487. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 149.  H.
REP. NO. 355, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 3-4; S. REP. NO. 987, 67TH
CONG., 4TH SESS., PP. 3-4; 62 CONG. REC. PP. 7581, 7616; HEARINGS,
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, H. RES. 6215, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
VOL. I, PP. 144, 176-77; HEARINGS, SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, H. RES. 8086, 67TH CONG., 2D
SESS., VOL. I, PP. 27, 48, 67, 89-90, 121-24, 143, 177, 226, 266. 

FN6  H. REP. NO. 355, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2:  "THE COMPOUND CAN
BE MADE MORE CHEAPLY THAN THE REGULAR ARTICLE  ....  FILLED MILK IS
SOLD UNDER VARIOUS TRADE NAMES  ....  THE MANUFACTURERS CAN NOT SELL IT
AS MILK, BUT IT IS PUT UP IN THE SAME SIZE CANS AS REGULAR CONDENSED
MILK, AND THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE SHOWS THAT IT IS ADVERTISED
BY THE RETAIL DEALERS AS MILK AND EVAPORATED MILK.  STOREKEEPERS SELL
IT WITH THE STATEMENTS THAT 'IT TAKES THE PLACE OF MILK,' 'JUST AS GOOD
AS CONDENSED AND MUCH CHEAPER,' 'NOTHING BETTER ON THE MARKET,' 'TAKES
THE PLACE OF CONDENSED MILK.'  INSTANCES HAVE BEEN FOUND IN WHICH THE
COCONUT FAT WAS MIXED WITH MILK AND SOLD FOR CREAM; THE COMPOUND HAS
BEEN USED FOR MAKING ICE CREAM  ....  IN MANY CASES RETAILERS SELL THE
COMPOUND FOR THE SAME PRICE AS THE STRAIGHT EVAPORATED MILK, ALTHOUGH
THE PRICE PER 1-POUND CAN TO THEM IS ABOUT 3 CENTS LESS.  A NUMBER OF
SURVEYS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COUNTRY SHOW THAT THE COMPOUND IS SOLD
LARGELY IN SECTIONS INHABITED BY PEOPLE UNABLE TO READ ENGLISH AND
BETTER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS."  CF. ALSO S. REP. NO. 987, 67TH CONG.,
4TH SESS., P. 3. 

FN7  JACOB RUPPERT V. CAFFEY, 251 U.S. 264, 299-301; MILLIKEN V.
UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15, 24.  CF. PURITY EXTRACT CO. V. LYNCH, 226
U.S. 192, 201; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 398. 

FN8  SEE NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 528, NOTE 26.  TO THE
CASES THERE CITED MAY BE ADDED PATTERSON V. KENTUCKY, 97 U.S. 501,
UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE PROHIBITING
THE SALE OF OILS OR FLUIDS WHICH CAN BE USED FOR ILLUMINATING PURPOSES
IF SUCH OILS OR FLUIDS IGNITE OR PERMANENTLY BURN BELOW 130 DEGREES
FAHRENHEIT; PRICE V. ILLINOIS, 238 U.S. 446, ESTABLISHING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE PROHIBITING THE SALE OF A FOOD
PRESERVATIVE THAT CONTAINED FORMALDEHYDE, HYDROFLUORIC ACID, BORIC ACID
AND SALICYLIC ACID; UNITED STATES V. HILL, 248 U.S. 420, PROHIBITING BY
FEDERAL STATUTE THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR INTO A STATE WHOSE LAWS
FORBADE ONLY MANUFACTURING AND SALE; CRESCENT COTTON OIL CO. V.
MISSISSIPPI, 257 U.S. 129, VALIDATING A STATE STATUTE PROHIBITING A
CORPORATION FROM OWNING OR OPERATING A COTTON GIN WHEN ALSO INTERESTED
IN THE MANUFACTURE OF COTTONSEED OIL OR COTTONSEED MEAL; WHITFIELD V.
OHIO, 297 U.S. 431, HOLDING VALID A STATE STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITED THE
SALE IN OPEN MARKET OF GOODS MANUFACTURED BY CONVICTS OR PRISONERS;
HENDERSON CO. V. THOMPSON, 300 U.S. 258, UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF A
STATE STATUTE PROHIBITING THE USE OF SWEET NATURAL GAS FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK (SEE ALSO WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON CO., 254
U.S. 300); AND FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR V. QUAKER OATS CO., 318
U.S. 218, HOLDING VALID AN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION PROHIBITING
MANUFACTURE OF "FARINA" ENRICHED SOLELY WITH VITAMIN D. 

FN9  SEC. 64(3).  "NO PERSON SHALL MANUFACTURE, SELL OR EXCHANGE,
OFFER OR EXPOSE FOR SALE OR EXCHANGE, OR HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION WITH
THE INTENT TO SELL OR EXCHANGE ANY CONDENSED, EVAPORATED, CONCENTRATED,
POWDERED, DRIED OR DESICCATED MILK, CREAM OR SKIMMED MILK TO WHICH
THERE HAS BEEN ADDED OR WITH WHICH THERE HAS BEEN MIXED, BLENDED OR
COMPOUNDED, ANY FATS OR OILS, OTHER THAN MILK FAT, SO THAT THE FINISHED
PRODUCT SHALL BE IN IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF CONDENSED, EVAPORATED,
CONCENTRATED, POWDERED, DRIED OR DESICCATED MILK."  N.Y. LAWS 1922, CH.
365, SEC. 64, AS AMENDED. 

FN10  HEARINGS, SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
AND FORESTRY, H. RES. 8086, 67TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 219, 221-22, 248
49. 

FN11  "SEC.  2.  THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT CERTAIN
MANUFACTURED SUBSTANCES, CERTAIN EXTRACTS, AND CERTAIN MIXTURES AND
COMPOUNDS, INCLUDING SUCH MIXTURES AND COMPOUNDS WITH BUTTER, SHALL BE
KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS 'OLEOMARGARINE', NAMELY:  ALL SUBSTANCES
HERETOFORE KNOWN AS OLEOMARGARINE, OLEO, OLEOMARGARINE-OIL, BUTTERINE,
LARDINE, SUINE, AND NEUTRAL; ALL MIXTURES AND COMPOUNDS OF
OLEOMARGARINE, OLEO, OLEOMARGARINE-OIL, BUTTERINE, LARDINE, SUINE, AND
NEUTRAL; ALL LARD EXTRACTS AND TALLOW EXTRACTS; AND ALL MIXTURES AND
COMPOUNDS OF TALLOW, BEEF-FAT, SUET, LARD, LARD-OIL, VEGETABLE-OIL
ANNOTTO, AND OTHER COLORING MATTER, INTESTINAL FAT, AND OFFAL FAT MADE
IN IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF BUTTER, OR WHEN SO MADE, CALCULATED OR
INTENDED TO BE SOLD AS BUTTER OR FOR BUTTER."  24 STAT. 209. 

FN12  S. REP. NO. 987, 67TH CONG., 4TH SESS., P. 3; H. REP. NO. 355,
67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2; 64 CONG. REC. PP. 3951, 7593. 

FN13  SEE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, MODEL CODE OF EVIDENCE, CH. 9,
RULES 801, 802, 803, PP. 319-22; BIKLE, JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
QUESTIONS OF FACT AFFECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF LEGISLATIVE
ACTION, 38 HARV. L. REV. 6; NOTE, THE PRESENTATION OF FACTS UNDERLYING
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES, 49 HARV. L. REV. 631; MORGAN, JUDICIAL
NOTICE, 57 HARV. L. REV. 269, 291-94; NOTE, 30 COL. L. REV. 360;
WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.), SEC. 2555(D), P. 522; BORDEN'S CO. V.
BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, 209; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304
U.S. 144, 153-54. 

FN14  WEST INDIA OIL CO. V. DOMENECH, 311 U.S. 20, 28; UNITED STATES
V. STEWART, 311 U.S. 60, 64; NEUBERGER V. COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 83,
85, N. 1; MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY CO., 311 U.S. 91,
101-103; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM,
311 U.S. 132, 137; TAFT V. HELVERING, 311 U.S. 195, 197, N. 4. 

FN15  CF. ZAHN V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, 274 U.S. 325, 326, 328;
SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 388-89; OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313 U.S.
236, 246. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 153-54;
HEBE CO. V. SHAW, 248 U.S. 297, 304; MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113,
132; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 191
92; CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495, 509; TOWNSEND V.
YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, 451; O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD INS. CO., 282
U.S. 251, 257-58; HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. 146,
163; RAST V. VAN DEMAN & LEWIS CO., 240 U.S. 342, 357.    MR. JUSTICE
BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :










SAGE STORES CO. V. KANSAS, 323 U.S. 32 


NO. 34.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1944.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1944.  - 157
KAN. 404, 622, 143 P.2D 652, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF KANSAS FORBIDS THE SALE OR KEEPING FOR SALE OF MILK "TO
WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED ANY FAT OR OIL OTHER THAN MILK FAT."  ONE OF THE
PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION WAS PREVENTION OF FRAUD AND DECEPTION IN
THE SALE OF SUCH COMPOUNDS.  HELD: 

1.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 34. 

THE STATUTE IS NOT WITHOUT RATIONAL BASIS EVEN THOUGH IT PERMITS THE
SALE OF SKIM MILK WHILE FORBIDDING THE SALE OF ALLEGEDLY MORE NUTRITIVE
COMPOUNDS. 

2.  THE QUESTION OF THE COVERAGE OF THE STATUTE IS ONE OF STATE LAW. 
P. 35. 

3.  AS APPLIED TO THE PETITIONERS' PRODUCTS, WHICH HAD THE TASTE,
CONSISTENCY, COLOR AND APPEARANCE OF WHOLE MILK PRODUCTS, THE STATUTE
DID NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 18.  P. 36. 

SAGE STORES CO. ET AL. V. KANSAS EX REL. MITCHELL (SUBSTITUTED AS
ATTORNEY GENERAL). 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 762, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF KANSAS WHICH, IN AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN QUO WARRANTO, SUSTAINED
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE OF THAT STATE AS APPLIED TO THE
PETITIONERS HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN ORIGINAL ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF KANSAS WAS BEGUN AGAINST THE SAGE STORES, A KANSAS CORPORATION, AND
CAROLENE PRODUCTS COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, BY THE STATE OF
KANSAS ON THE RELATION OF ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THE PURPOSE OF THE
PROCEEDING WAS TO STOP THE SALE OR OFFERING FOR SALE IN KANSAS OF
FILLED MILK, MANUFACTURED BY THE MICHIGAN CORPORATION AND SOLD BY THE
KANSAS CORPORATION.  A JUDGMENT GRANTING THIS RELIEF WAS ENTERED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.  157 KANS. 404, 141 P.2D 655. 

A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS FILED BY BOTH CORPORATIONS
AND GRANTED BY THIS COURT, 321 U.S. 762, TO EXAMINE A SINGLE ISSUE
PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, TO WIT, WHETHER THE KANSAS STATUTE, WHICH
PROHIBITS THE SELLING OR KEEPING FOR SALE OF THE PRODUCTS OF THE
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., WAS AN ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND
DISCRIMINATORY INTERFERENCE WITH PETITIONERS' RIGHTS OF LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW
CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  A SIMILAR QUESTION AS TO THE FEDERAL FILLED MILK ACT UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT IS DECIDED TODAY BY THIS COURT.  CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO.
V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 18.  LITTLE NEED BE ADDED TO THAT OPINION. 

THE KANSAS STATUTE WAS FIRST PASSED IN 1923.  REV. STAT. KANS. 1923,
SEC. 65-713.  IT WAS REENACTED AS IT NOW STANDS IN 1927.  LAWS OF KANS.
1927, C. 242, SEC. 8(F)(2).  IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO MANUFACTURE, SELL, KEEP FOR SALE, OR HAVE IN
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL OR EXCHANGE, ANY MILK, CREAM, SKIM MILK,
BUTTERMILK, CONDENSED OR EVAPORATED MILK, POWDERED MILK, CONDENSED SKIM
MILK, OR ANY OF THE FLUID DERIVATIVES OF ANY OF THEM TO WHICH HAS BEEN
ADDED ANY FAT OR OIL OTHER THAN MILK FAT, EITHER UNDER THE NAME OF SAID
PRODUCTS, OR ARTICLES OR THE DERIVATIVES THEREOF, OR UNDER ANY
FICTITIOUS OR TRADE NAME WHATSOEVER."  SEC. 65-707(F)(2), GEN. STAT.
KANS. 1935. 

THE COMPOUNDS WHICH PETITIONERS MANUFACTURE AND SELL ARE COVERED BY
THIS STATUTE.  THEY ARE THE SAME COMPOUNDS WHICH ARE DESCRIBED IN
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  PETITIONERS' DEFENSE IS
THAT THE COMPOUNDS ARE SANITARY AND HEALTHFUL.  THEY ASSERT THAT THE
CANNED COMPOUND IS PROPERLY LABELED AND THAT NO FRAUD IS PRACTICED UPON
THE BUYING PUBLIC TO INDUCE IT TO USE PETITIONERS' COMPOUND INSTEAD OF
WHOLE MILK PRODUCTS.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE ORDINARY CONSUMER CANNOT
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE COMPOUNDS AND EVAPORATED WHOLE MILK BY ODOR,
TASTE, CONSISTENCY OR OTHER MEANS SHORT OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS.  STATE V.
SAGE STORES CO., 157 KANS. 404, 443, FINDING 33. 

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT KANSAS'
PROHIBITION OF THE SALE, OR KEEPING FOR SALE, OF THIS HEALTHFUL PRODUCT
VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

APPARENTLY THE OBJECTION UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IS THAT
THE KANSAS STATUTE PERMITS THE SALE OF SKIMMED MILK WHICH HAS LESS
CALORIES AND FEWER VITAMINS THAN PETITIONERS' COMPOUND AND YET FORBIDS
THE SALE OF THE COMPOUND DESPITE ITS HIGHER NUTRITIVE VALUE.  SUCH AN
OBJECTION IS GOVERNED BY THE SAME STANDARDS OF LEGISLATION AS
OBJECTIONS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  IT IS A MATTER OF
CLASSIFICATION AND THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CLASSIFY IS AS BROAD
AS ITS POWER TO PROHIBIT.  A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN
EITHER CASE WOULD DEPEND UPON WHETHER THERE IS ANY RATIONAL BASIS FOR
THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATURE.  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO.,
304 U.S. 144, 153-54; CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495,
509. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRINGS TO US ONLY THE QUESTION OF THE
VIOLATION BY THE KANSAS LEGISLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE
COVERAGE OF THE KANSAS STATUTE IS A MATTER SOLELY FOR THE DETERMINATION
OF KANSAS.  ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S. 740, 747; UNITED
STATES V. TEXAS, 314 U.S. 480, 487.  IN THIS CASE EVIDENCE WAS
INTRODUCED AS TO THE DEFICIENCIES IN CERTAIN PARTICULARS OF
PETITIONERS' COMPOUNDS AS COMPARED WITH WHOLE MILK PRODUCTS.  THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER WHO ACTED FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS
APPEAR IN STATE V. SAGE STORES CO., 157 KANS. 430.  HIS CONCLUSIONS
WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT AS TO THE PROPERTIES OF PETITIONERS'
COMPOUND MAY BE GAUGED BY HIS FINDING 53, STATE V. SAGE STORES CO., 157
KANS. AT PP. 449-50. 

"DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT IS WHOLESOME, NUTRITIOUS AND HARMLESS, IN THE
SENSE THAT IT CONTAINS NOTHING OF A TOXIC NATURE, BUT IT IS INFERIOR TO
EVAPORATED WHOLE MILK IN THE CONTENT OF FATTY ACIDS, PHOSPHOLIPINS,
STEROLS AND VITAMINS E AND K, ALL OF WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL IN HUMAN
NUTRITION, WITH THE PROBABLE EXCEPTION OF VITAMIN E IN THE DIET OF
INFANTS.  IN ADDITION, EVAPORATED WHOLE MILK CONTAINS A SUPERIOR GROWTH
PROMOTING PROPERTY, FOUND IN BUTTERFAT AND NOT IN COTTONSEED OIL,
ESSENTIAL TO THE OPTIMUM GROWTH OF INFANTS. 

"THESE DEFICIENCIES IN DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT, AS COMPARED TO EVAPORATED
WHOLE MILK, ARE LARGELY MADE UP FROM OTHER SOURCES WHEN THE PRODUCT IS
USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR WHOLE MILK OR EVAPORATED WHOLE MILK IN THE
DIET OF ADULTS WHO CONSUME A VARIED DIET.  WHEN DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT IS
USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR WHOLE MILK OR EVAPORATED WHOLE MILK IN THE
DIET OF INFANTS AND CHILDREN WHO DO NOT CONSUME A VARIED DIET, SUCH
DEFICIENCIES ARE NOT MADE UP, AND THE DIET IS PARTIALLY INADEQUATE. 
DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT DOES 'GET INTO THE CHANNELS OF INFANT NUTRITION.'" 

IT WAS ALSO DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND APPROVED BY THE COURT
THAT ONE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS THE PREVENTION OF FRAUD AND
DECEPTION IN THE SALE OF THESE COMPOUNDS.  STATE V. SAGE STORES CO.,
157 KANS. 404, 412-13. 

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS EVIDENCE, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, THE RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN
PROHIBITING THE SALE, OR KEEPING FOR SALE, OF THE COMPOUNDS IS EVEN
MORE DEFINITE AND CLEAR THAN IN CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES,
ANTE, P. 18.  SINCE PETITIONERS' PRODUCTS HAD THE TASTE, CONSISTENCY,
COLOR AND APPEARANCE OF WHOLE MILK PRODUCTS, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE
VALIDITY OF THE KANSAS ACT AS APPLIED TO COMPOUNDS WHICH ARE READILY
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM WHOLE MILK COMPOUNDS.  REFERENCE IS MADE TO PART
"THIRD" OF THE CAROLENE OPINION FOR A DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A
PROHIBITION OF THESE PRODUCTS VIOLATES DUE PROCESS. 

IN OUR OPINION THE KANSAS LEGISLATION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :










WALLING V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, 323 U.S. 37 


NO. 27.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1944.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1944.  - 138
F.2D 705, REVERSED. 


1.  CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDING FOR THE COMPUTATION OF
COMPENSATION ON THE SO-CALLED POXON OR SPLIT-DAY PLAN, HELD NOT IN
CONFORMITY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 39. 

THE VICE OF THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN WAS THAT THE CONTRACT REGULAR RATE DID
NOT REPRESENT THE RATE WHICH WAS ACTUALLY PAID FOR ORDINARY, NON
OVERTIME HOURS, NOR DID IT ALLOW EXTRA COMPENSATION TO BE PAID FOR TRUE
OVERTIME HOURS.  IT WAS DERIVED NOT FROM THE ACTUAL HOURS AND WAGES BUT
FROM A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA DESIGNED TO PERPETUATE THE PRE-STATUTORY
WAGE SCALE. 

2.  A SUIT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO
ENJOIN AN EMPLOYER FROM USE OF CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDING FOR
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION ON THE SO-CALLED SPLIT-DAY PLAN, HELD NOT
RENDERED MOOT BY THE EMPLOYER'S VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF THE USE OF
SUCH CONTRACTS.  P. 43. 

WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, V. HELMERICH & PAYNE, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 759, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE, AS MODIFIED, OF A
JUDGMENT WHICH, IN A SUIT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY
OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION AND APPLICATION OF
REGULAR AND OVERTIME WAGE RATES CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 201 ET SEQ. 

RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS FOR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND ITS EMPLOYEES ADMITTEDLY ARE COVERED BY THE ACT.  PRIOR TO
OCTOBER 24, 1938, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, CERTAIN OF
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES WORKED 8-, 10- AND 12-HOUR DAILY SHIFTS, OR
"TOURS," AND WERE PAID A SPECIFIED WAGE FOR EACH TOUR.  THESE WAGES
WERE IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE ACT, THOUGH THE NUMBER OF
TOURS PER WEEK WOULD OFTEN CAUSE AN EMPLOYEE TO WORK MORE THAN THE
MAXIMUM HOURS ALLOWED BY THE ACT WITHOUT OVERTIME PAY BEING REQUIRED. 

IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE SAME WAGE LEVELS AFTER THE ACT BECAME
EFFECTIVE, RESPONDENT MADE NEW EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYEES
IN QUESTION WHEREBY THEY RECEIVED THEIR WAGES UNDER THE SO-CALLED
"POXON" OR SPLIT-DAY PLAN.  THIS PLAN ARBITRARILY DIVIDED EACH REGULAR
TOUR INTO TWO PARTS FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING AND APPLYING HOURLY
WAGE RATES.  THE FIRST FOUR HOURS OF EACH 8-HOUR TOUR, THE FIRST FIVE
HOURS OF EACH 10-HOUR TOUR AND THE FIRST FIVE HOURS OF EACH 12-HOUR
TOUR WERE ASSIGNED A SPECIFIED HOURLY RATE DESCRIBED AS THE "BASE OR
REGULAR RATE."  THE REMAINING HOURS IN EACH TOUR WERE TREATED AS
"OVERTIME" AND CALLED FOR PAYMENT AT ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE "BASE
OR REGULAR RATE."  THE CONTRACTS THEN RECITED THAT THE "BASE RATE" SET
FORTH "SHALL NEVER APPLY TO MORE THAN 40 HOURS IN ANY WORK WEEK." 

THESE SO-CALLED "REGULAR" AND "OVERTIME" HOURLY RATES WERE CALCULATED
SO AS TO INSURE THAT THE TOTAL WAGES FOR EACH TOUR WOULD CONTINUE THE
SAME AS UNDER THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTS,  FN1  THEREBY AVOIDING THE
NECESSITY OF INCREASING WAGES OR DECREASING HOURS OF WORK AS THE
STATUTORY MAXIMUM WORKWEEK OF 40 HOURS BECAME EFFECTIVE.  FN2  ONLY IN
THE EXTREMELY UNLIKELY CASE WHERE AN EMPLOYEE'S TOURS TOTALLED MORE
THAN 80 HOURS IN A WEEK  FN3  DID HE BECOME ENTITLED TO ANY PAY IN
ADDITION TO THE REGULAR TOUR WAGES THAT HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED PRIOR TO
THE ADOPTION OF THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN.  UNTIL MORE THAN 80 HOURS HAD BEEN
WORKED THE PLAN OPERATED SO THAT THE EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE CREDITED
WITH MORE THAN 40 HOURS OF "REGULAR" WORK, THE REMAINING TIME BEING
DENOMINATED "OVERTIME."  HENCE, SINCE THE WAGES UNDER THE OLD SYSTEM
AND UNDER THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN WERE IDENTICAL, THE ORIGINAL TOUR RATES
COULD BE USED AS THE SIMPLE METHOD OF COMPUTING WAGES FOR EACH PAY
PERIOD.  THE ACTUAL AND REGULAR WORKWEEK WAS ACCORDINGLY SHORN OF ALL
SIGNIFICANCE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BOTH HELD THAT
THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN OF COMPENSATION, UNDER THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN
WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624, DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

MAY EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO THE ACT, UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE
RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS AT A
RATE "NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE
IS EMPLOYED."  THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN HERE IN ISSUE SATISFIES NEITHER THE
PURPOSE NOR THE MECHANICS OF THIS REQUIREMENT. 

AS WE POINTED OUT IN OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 577
578, THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IN ENACTING SEC. 7(A) WAS TWOFOLD:  (1)
TO SPREAD EMPLOYMENT BY PLACING FINANCIAL PRESSURE ON THE EMPLOYER
THROUGH THE OVERTIME PAY REQUIREMENT, SEE ALSO SOUTHLAND GASOLINE CO.
V. BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44, 48; AND (2) TO COMPENSATE EMPLOYEES FOR THE
BURDEN OF A WORKWEEK IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS FIXED IN THE ACT.  YET
NEITHER OBJECTIVE COULD BE ATTAINED UNDER THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN.  IT
ENABLED RESPONDENT TO AVOID PAYING REAL OVERTIME WAGES FOR AT LEAST THE
FIRST 40 HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM WORKWEEK, THUS
NEGATIVING ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT SUCH A PAYMENT MIGHT HAVE HAD UPON THE
SPREADING OF EMPLOYMENT.  AND THE PLAN WAS SO DESIGNED AS TO DEPRIVE
THE EMPLOYEES OF THEIR STATUTORY RIGHT TO RECEIVE FOR ALL HOURS WORKED
IN EXCESS OF THE FIRST REGULAR 40 HOURS ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE
ACTUAL REGULAR RATE.  THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM WORKWEEK OF 40 HOURS WAS BY
CONTRACT TWISTED INTO AN 80 HOUR MAXIMUM WORKWEEK.  NO PLAN SO
OBVIOUSLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY PURPOSE CAN LAY A CLAIM TO
LEGALITY. 

THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN, MOREOVER, VIOLATED THE BASIC RULES FOR COMPUTING
CORRECTLY THE ACTUAL REGULAR RATE CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 7(A).  WHILE THE
WORDS "REGULAR RATE" ARE NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT, THEY OBVIOUSLY MEAN
THE HOURLY RATE ACTUALLY PAID FOR THE NORMAL, NON-OVERTIME WORKWEEK. 
OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, SUPRA.  TO COMPUTE THIS REGULAR RATE FOR
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, ASSUMING THE SAME WAGES AND TOURS, REQUIRED
ONLY THE SIMPLE PROCESS OF DIVIDING THE WAGES RECEIVED FOR EACH TOUR BY
THE NUMBER OF HOURS IN THAT TOUR.  FN4  THIS REGULAR RATE WAS THEN
APPLICABLE TO THE FIRST 40 HOURS REGULARLY WORKED ON THE TOURS AND THE
OVERTIME RATE (150% OF THE REGULAR RATE) BECAME EFFECTIVE AS TO ALL
HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40. 

BUT RESPONDENT'S PLAN MADE NO EFFORT TO BASE THE REGULAR RATE UPON
THE WAGES ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR UPON THE HOURS ACTUALLY AND REGULARLY
SPENT EACH WEEK IN WORKING.  NOR DID IT ATTEMPT TO APPLY THE REGULAR
RATE TO THE FIRST 40 HOURS ACTUALLY AND REGULARLY WORKED.  INSTEAD THE
PLAN PROVIDED FOR A FICTITIOUS REGULAR RATE CONSISTING OF A FIGURE
SOMEWHAT LOWER THAN THE RATE ACTUALLY RECEIVED.  THIS ILLUSORY RATE WAS
ARBITRARILY ALLOCATED TO THE FIRST PORTION OF EACH DAY'S REGULAR LABOR;
THE LATTER PORTION WAS DESIGNATED "OVERTIME" AND CALLED FOR
COMPENSATION AT A RATE ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE FICTITIOUS REGULAR
RATE.  THUS WHEN AN EMPLOYEE ON REGULAR EIGHT-HOUR TOURS HAD ACTUALLY
WORKED 40 HOURS, RESPONDENT COULD POINT TO THE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRACT AND
CLAIM THAT HE HAD WORKED ONLY 20 "REGULAR" HOURS AND 20 "OVERTIME"
HOURS.  HENCE HE WAS ENTITLED TO NO ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION FOR WORK IN
EXCESS OF 40 HOURS EXCEPT IN THE UNLIKELY SITUATION, WHICH NEVER IN
FACT OCCURRED, OF HIS ACTUALLY WORKING MORE THAN 80 HOURS.  THE VICE OF
RESPONDENT'S PLAN LAY IN THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT REGULAR RATE DID
NOT REPRESENT THE RATE WHICH WAS ACTUALLY PAID FOR ORDINARY, NON
OVERTIME HOURS, NOR DID IT ALLOW EXTRA COMPENSATION TO BE PAID FOR TRUE
OVERTIME HOURS.  IT WAS DERIVED NOT FROM THE ACTUAL HOURS AND WAGES BUT
FROM INGENIOUS MATHEMATICAL MANIPULATIONS, WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE BEING
TO PERPETUATE THE PRE-STATUTORY WAGE SCALE.  FN5 

IT IS NO ANSWER THAT THE ARTIFICIAL REGULAR RATE WAS A PRODUCT OF
CONTRACT OR THAT IT WAS IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MINIMUM.  THE ACT
CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES THE SETTING OF THE REGULAR RATE IN A BONA FIDE
MANNER THROUGH WAGE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE,
PROVIDED THAT THE STATUTORY MINIMUM IS RESPECTED.  BUT THIS FREEDOM OF
CONTRACT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO COMPUTE THE REGULAR RATE IN A
WHOLLY UNREALISTIC AND ARTIFICIAL MANNER SO AS TO NEGATE THE STATUTORY
PURPOSES.  EVEN WHEN WAGES EXCEED THE MINIMUM PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS,
THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT MUST RESPECT THE STATUTORY POLICY OF
REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO PAY ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR HOURLY
RATE FOR ALL HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40.  ANY OTHER
CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE WOULD EXALT INGENUITY OVER REALITY AND WOULD
OPEN THE DOOR TO INSIDIOUS DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE
ACT. 

NOTHING IN THIS COURT'S DECISION IN WALLING V. BELO CORP., SUPRA,
SANCTIONS THE USE OF THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN.  THE CONTROVERSY THERE
CENTERED ABOUT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE REGULAR RATE SHOULD BE COMPUTED
FROM THE GUARANTEED WEEKLY WAGE OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE IDENTICAL WITH
THE HOURLY RATE SET FORTH IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.  THERE WAS NO
QUESTION, AS HERE, PERTAINING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE REGULAR RATE
TO THE FIRST 40 HOURS ACTUALLY AND REGULARLY WORKED, WITH THE OVERTIME
RATE APPLYING TO ALL HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS THEREOF. 

ONE FINAL POINT REMAINS.  PETITIONER HERE FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT SEEKING, IN PART, AN INJUNCTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENT TO
CEASE ITS USE OF THE SPLIT-DAY CONTRACTS.  TWO MONTHS AFTER THE
COMPLAINT WAS FILED, BUT BEFORE THE CASE CAME ON FOR TRIAL, RESPONDENT
DISCONTINUED THE USE OF THESE CONTRACTS AND SUBSTITUTED DIFFERENT
COMPENSATION PLANS NOT NOW BEFORE US.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER,
DENIED THE INJUNCTION ON THE MERITS INSOFAR AS THE SPLIT-DAY CONTRACTS
WERE CONCERNED, AND THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED ON A LIKE BASIS.  138 F.2D
705.  IN GRANTING CERTIORARI UPON THE QUESTION OF THE LEGALITY OF THE
SPLIT-DAY PLAN WE ASKED FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER
RESPONDENT'S DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PLAN RENDERED THE CASE MOOT.  321
U.S. 759.  WE HOLD THAT THE CASE IS NOT MOOT UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  DESPITE RESPONDENT'S VOLUNTARY CESSATION OF THE
CHALLENGED CONDUCT, A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES OVER THE LEGALITY
OF THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN STILL REMAINS.  VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF AN
ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITY DOES NOT OPERATE TO REMOVE A CASE FROM THE
AMBIT OF JUDICIAL POWER.  SEE HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 321, 327;
OTIS & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 106 F.2D 579, 583-584. 
RESPONDENT HAS CONSISTENTLY URGED THE VALIDITY OF THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN
AND WOULD PRESUMABLY BE FREE TO RESUME THE USE OF THIS ILLEGAL PLAN
WERE NOT SOME EFFECTIVE RESTRAINT MADE.  THERE IS THUS "AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY, AND ADVERSE INTERESTS," LORD V. VEAZIE, 8 HOW.  251, 255,
WITH A "SUBJECT-MATTER ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT CAN OPERATE,"
EX PARTE BAEZ, 177 U.S. 378, 390; ST. PIERRE V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S.
41, 42. 

WE ACCORDINGLY REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW WITH
DIRECTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THUS THE ROTARY HELPERS EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT FORMERLY RECEIVED
$7 FOR EACH EIGHT HOUR TOUR.  UNDER THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN, THEY RECEIVED A
"REGULAR RATE" OF 70 CENTS AN HOUR FOR THE FIRST FOUR HOURS OF EACH
TOUR AND AN "OVERTIME" RATE OF $1.05 FOR EACH OF THE REMAINING FOUR
HOURS.  THIS TOTALLED $7 FOR THE TOUR. 

FN2  DURING THE FIRST YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT THE
MAXIMUM WAS 44 HOURS; DURING THE SECOND YEAR 42 HOURS; AND THEREAFTER
40 HOURS. 

FN3  FOR AN EMPLOYEE WORKING ON 12-HOUR TOURS, IT WAS NECESSARY TO
WORK AT LEAST 96 HOURS PER WEEK BEFORE BECOMING ENTITLED TO INCREASED
WAGES UNDER THE SPLIT-DAY PLAN. 

FN4  IN THIS CASE THE WEEKLY WAGE DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS
ACTUALLY WORKED IN THE WEEK WOULD HAVE YIELDED THE SAME REGULAR RATE. 
UNDER EITHER COMPUTATION, A ROTARY HELPER BEING PAID $7 FOR EACH EIGHT
HOUR TOUR WAS RECEIVING 87 1/2 CENTS PER HOUR.  THIS WAS HIS REGULAR
RATE REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF TOURS PER WEEK.  THAT RATE WAS
APPLICABLE TO THE FIRST 40 HOURS REGULARLY WORKED, OR TO THE FIRST FIVE
TOURS.  FOR ALL HOURS IN EXCESS OF 40, THE ROTARY HELPER WAS ENTITLED
TO ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THAT RATE, OR $1.31 1/4.  WE, OF COURSE,
EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO THE PROPER COMPUTATION OF THE REGULAR RATE
UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.  NOR DO WE INTEND TO INDICATE THAT THE
FORMULA WE HAVE USED AS SATISFYING THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IS THE
ONLY ONE WHICH RESPONDENT COULD ADOPT AS COMPLYING WITH THEM. 

FN5  IN PARAGRAPH 70(4) OF INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 4, AS REVISED
IN NOVEMBER, 1940, THE ADMINISTRATOR EXPRESSED HIS OPINION THAT A PLAN
SIMILAR TO THAT OF RESPONDENT'S DID NOT CONFORM TO THE ACT.  WHILE THIS
OPINION IS NOT BINDING ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, IT DOES "CARRY
PERSUASIVENESS AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE VIEW OF THOSE EXPERIENCED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT AND ACTING WITH THE ADVICE OF A STAFF
SPECIALIZING IN ITS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION."  OVERNIGHT MOTOR
CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 580-581, N. 17. 
..END :

















BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 665 


NO. 493.  ARGUED APRIL 26, 1944.  - DECIDED JUNE 12, 1944.  - 138 F.2D
29, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RULE THAT CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO LOWER COURTS ARE
PERSUASIVE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR JUDGMENTS DOES NOT RELIEVE THIS COURT OF
THE TASK OF EXAMINING THE FOUNDATION OF FINDINGS IN PARTICULAR CASES. 
P. 670. 

2.  IN A DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING INVOLVING ISSUES OF BELIEF OR
FRAUD, THE GOVERNMENT'S PROOF MUST BE CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND
CONVINCING.  P. 670. 

3.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE TWO LOWER COURTS THAT THAT EXACTING
STANDARD OF PROOF HAS ON THE WHOLE RECORD BEEN SATISFIED CAN NOT BE
DEEMED AN UNREVIEWABLE "FINDING OF FACT."  P. 671. 

4.  IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 338 OF THE
NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 TO SET ASIDE A NATURALIZATION DECREE AND CANCEL
A CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP - ISSUED TEN YEARS PREVIOUSLY - ON GROUNDS
OF FRAUD AND ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT, HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CHARGES THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS ADMISSION
TO CITIZENSHIP THE DEFENDANT DID NOT TRULY AND FULLY RENOUNCE HIS
FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE AND DID NOT IN FACT INTEND TO SUPPORT THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 677. 

BAUMGARTNER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 756, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE WHICH,
IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES, SET ASIDE AN ORDER
ADMITTING THE DEFENDANT TO CITIZENSHIP AND CANCELED HIS CERTIFICATE OF
NATURALIZATION, 47 F.SUPP.  622. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1932, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ENTERED ITS ORDER ADMITTING BAUMGARTNER TO
CITIZENSHIP AND ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION TO HIM.  ALMOST
TEN YEARS LATER, ON AUGUST 21, 1942, THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS
SUIT UNDER SEC. 338 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940(54 STAT. 1137, 1158,
8 U.S.C. SEC. 738) TO SET ASIDE THE NATURALIZATION DECREE AND CANCEL
THE CERTIFICATE.  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A DECREE FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, 47 F.SUPP.  622, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, AFFIRMED.  138 F.2D 29.  WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE IT RAISES IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW AFFECTING NATURALIZED CITIZENS.  321 U.S.
756. 

AS A CONDITION TO RECEIVING HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, BAUMGARTNER,
LIKE EVERY OTHER ALIEN APPLYING FOR THAT GREAT GIFT, WAS REQUIRED TO
DECLARE ON OATH THAT HE RENOUNCED HIS FORMER ALLEGIANCE, IN THIS CASE
TO THE GERMAN REICH, AND THAT HE WOULD "SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST ALL
ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC," AND THAT HE WOULD "BEAR TRUE FAITH AND
ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME."  THAT HE DID NOT TRULY AND FULLY RENOUNCE HIS
ALLEGIANCE TO GERMANY AND THAT HE DID NOT IN FACT INTEND TO SUPPORT THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO GIVE THEM TRUE FAITH
AND ALLEGIANCE, ARE THE CHARGES OF FRAUD AND ILLEGALITY ON WHICH HIS
CITIZENSHIP IS CLAIMED FORFEIT. 

AS IS TRUE OF THE DETERMINATION OF ALL ISSUES OF FALSITY AND FRAUD,
THE CASE DEPENDS ON ITS OWN PARTICULAR FACTS.  BUT THE DIVISION OF
OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES BELOW MAKES MANIFEST THAT FACTS DO NOT ASSESS
THEMSELVES AND THAT THE DECISIVE ELEMENT IS THE ATTITUDE APPROPRIATE
FOR JUDGMENT OF THE FACTS IN A CASE LIKE THIS.  THE TWO LOWER COURTS
HAVE SUSTAINED THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM THAT EXPRESSIONS BY BAUMGARTNER,
IN CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHERS AND IN THE SOLILOQUIES OF A DIARY, SHOWED
THAT HE CONSCIOUSLY WITHHELD COMPLETE RENUNCIATION OF HIS ALLEGIANCE TO
GERMANY AND ENTERTAINED RESERVATIONS IN HIS OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THIS
COUNTRY, ITS CONSTITUTION AND ITS LAWS.  WHAT FOLLOWS IS A FAIR SUMMARY
OF THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THIS FINDING RESTS, PUTTING THE GOVERNMENT'S
CASE IN ITS MOST FAVORABLE LIGHT. 

BAUMGARTNER WAS BORN IN KIEL, GERMANY, ON JANUARY 20, 1895, AND
BROUGHT UP IN MODESTLY COMFORTABLE CIRCUMSTANCES.  HE RECEIVED A
CLASSICAL HIGH-SCHOOL EDUCATION, WHICH HE COMPLETED IN TIME TO ENTER
THE GERMAN ARMY IN 1914.  HE WAS COMMISSIONED A SECOND LIEUTENANT IN
1917, AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER HE WAS CAPTURED BY THE BRITISH AND
CONFINED IN ENGLAND UNTIL NOVEMBER, 1919.  UPON HIS RETURN TO GERMANY,
BAUMGARTNER STUDIED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DARMSTADT, FROM WHICH HE WAS
GRADUATED IN 1925 AS AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER.  THEREUPON HE WAS EMPLOYED
BY A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY UNTIL JANUARY, 1927, WHEN HE LEFT FOR THE
UNITED STATES.  SHORTLY BEFORE, BAUMGARTNER HAD MARRIED, AND HIS WIFE
FOLLOWED HIM TO THIS COUNTRY LATER IN THE SAME YEAR. 

FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS, BAUMGARTNER STAYED WITH FRIENDS IN ILLINOIS,
AND THEN CAME TO KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, WHERE HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE
KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY.  HE CONTINUED IN ITS EMPLOY DOWN
TO THE TIME OF THIS SUIT.  THE MAN TO WHOM HE REPORTED TO WORK
TESTIFIED THAT AFTER ABOUT TWO DAYS ON THE JOB, BAUMGARTNER BEGAN TO
DISCUSS THE POLITICAL SCENE IN GERMANY, TO EXPRESS A LACK OF ENTHUSIASM
FOR THE THEN GERMAN GOVERNMENT, AND TO EXTOL THE VIRTUES OF HITLER AND
HIS MOVEMENT.  BAUMGARTNER SPOKE SO PERSISTENTLY ABOUT THE SUPERIORITY
OF GERMAN PEOPLE, THE GERMAN SCHOOLS, AND THE ENGINEERING WORK OF THE
GERMANS, THAT HE AROUSED ANTAGONISM AMONG HIS CO-WORKERS AND WAS
TRANSFERRED TO A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE PLANT. 

THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT IN 1933 OR 1934 MRS. BAUMGARTNER'S MOTHER
VISITED THIS COUNTRY, AND THAT AFTER THIS VISIT, BAUMGARTNER, BEGINNING
IN 1934, "PRAISED THE WORK THAT HITLER WAS DOING OVER THERE IN BRINGING
GERMANY BACK, ON REPEATED OCCASIONS."  EVIDENCE OF STATEMENTS MADE BY
BAUMGARTNER OVER A PERIOD OF ABOUT SEVEN YEARS BEGINNING IN 1933
INDICATED OFT-REPEATED ADMIRATION FOR THE NAZI GOVERNMENT, COMPARISONS
BETWEEN PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND ADOLF HITLER WHICH LED TO CONCLUSIONS
THAT THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF RUN AS HITLER RAN GERMANY,
"THAT REGIMENTATION, AS THE NAZIS, FORMED IT WAS SUPERIOR TO THE
DEMOCRACY," AND THAT "THE DEMOCRACY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS A
PRACTICAL FARCE."  ONE WITNESS OF GERMAN EXTRACTION TESTIFIED THAT
BAUMGARTNER TOLD HIM HE WAS "A TRAITOR TO MY COUNTRY" BECAUSE OF THE
WITNESS'S CONDEMNATION OF HITLER.  BAUMGARTNER MADE PUBLIC SPEECHES ON
AT LEAST THREE OCCASIONS BEFORE BUSINESSMEN'S GROUPS, CLUBS, AND THE
LIKE, IN WHICH HE TOLD OF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE NAZI GOVERNMENT
AND INDICATED THAT "HE WOULD BE GLAD TO LIVE UNDER THE REGIME OF
HITLER." 

DURING 1937 AND 1938, BAUMGARTNER CONDUCTED A SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASS,
AND FORMER STUDENTS TESTIFIED THAT THE DISCUSSION IN CLASS TURNED TO
GERMANY VERY FREQUENTLY, THAT BAUMGARTNER INDICATED THAT HIS STUDENTS
COULD GET A FAIRER PICTURE OF CONDITIONS IN GERMANY FROM THE GERMAN
RADIO, AND THAT GERMANY WAS JUSTIFIED IN MUCH OF WHAT IT WAS DOING. 
THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT ALSO TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED
COMPLAINTS THAT BAUMGARTNER WAS PREACHING NAZISM. 

IN 1938 BAUMGARTNER RESIGNED FROM THE COUNTRY CLUB CONGREGATIONAL
CHURCH IN KANSAS CITY BECAUSE HE OBJECTED TO THE INJECTION OF POLITICS
INTO THE SERMONS.  IN MAY OF THE NEXT YEAR HIS WIFE AND THEIR THREE
CHILDREN, WHO HAD BEEN BORN IN KANSAS CITY, WENT TO GERMANY TO VISIT
MRS. BAUMGARTNER'S PARENTS.  ONE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT BAUMGARTNER
EXPLAINED THIS TRIP IN PART BY SAYING THAT "HE WANTED THE CHILDREN TO
BE BROUGHT UP IN GERMAN SCHOOLS," AND WHEN WAR BROKE OUT IN SEPTEMBER,
1939, MRS. BAUMGARTNER CABLED FOR MONEY TO RETURN BUT BAUMGARTNER COULD
NOT RAISE THE NECESSARY FUNDS AND FELT THAT HIS FAMILY WOULD BE AS SAFE
IN GERMANY AS HERE.  BAUMGARTNER REMARKED THAT HE WANTED HIS WIFE TO
COME BACK FROM GERMANY, WHEN SHE DID, ON A GERMAN BOAT.  ONE OF
BAUMGARTNER'S NEIGHBORS TESTIFIED THAT IN A CONVERSATION IN DECEMBER,
1939, BAUMGARTNER, ASKED ABOUT HIS THIRTEEN-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER THEN IN
GERMANY, SAID SARCASTICALLY:  "EDITH HAS DONE A VERY UN-AMERICAN THING,
SHE HAS JOINED THE NAZI YOUTH MOVEMENT." 

THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT BAUMGARTNER JUSTIFIED THE GERMAN INVASIONS
IN THE LATE 1930'S, AND ANNOUNCED, WHEN DUNKERQUE FELL, THAT "TODAY I
AM REJOICING."  ONE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT BAUMGARTNER TOLD HIM THAT HE
"BELONGED TO AN ORDER CALLED THE SO-CALLED 'BUND'," AND THE DIARY WHICH
BAUMGARTNER KEPT FROM DECEMBER 1, 1938, TO THE SUMMER OF 1941 REVEALS
THAT HE ATTENDED A MEETING OF THE GERMAN VOCATIONAL LEAGUE WHERE THE
GERMAN NATIONAL ANTHEM WAS SUNG AND "EVERYONE NATURALLY AROSE AND
ASSUMED THE USUAL GERMAN STANCE WITH THE ARM EXTENDED TO GIVE THE
NATIONAL SOCIALIST GREETING."  OTHER DIARY ENTRIES REFLECT VIOLENT ANTI
SEMITISM, IMPATIENCE AT THE LACK OF PRO-GERMAN MILITANCY OF GERMAN
AMERICANS, AND APPROVAL OF GERMANS WHO HAVE NOT "BEEN AMERICANIZED,
THAT IS, RUINED."  FN2  FINALLY, BAUMGARTNER REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
TO THE TRIAL JUDGE'S QUESTION:  "WAS YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT IN 1932 WHEN YOU TOOK THE OATH
THE SAME AS IT HAS BEEN EVER SINCE?" 

THAT THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO LOWER COURTS ARE PERSUASIVE PROOF
IN SUPPORT OF THEIR JUDGMENTS IS A RULE OF WISDOM IN JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.  IN REAFFIRMING ITS IMPORTANCE WE MEAN TO PAY MORE THAN
LIP SERVICE.  BUT THE RULE DOES NOT RELIEVE US OF THE TASK OF EXAMINING
THE FOUNDATION FOR FINDINGS IN A PARTICULAR CASE.  THE MEASURE OF PROOF
REQUISITE TO DENATURALIZE A CITIZEN WAS BEFORE THIS COURT IN
SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118.  IT WAS THERE HELD THAT
PROOF TO BRING ABOUT A LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP MUST BE CLEAR AND
UNEQUIVOCAL.  WE CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONVICTION THAT THE CASE MADE OUT BY
THE GOVERNMENT LACKS THAT SOLIDITY OF PROOF WHICH LEAVES NO TROUBLING
DOUBT IN DECIDING A QUESTION OF SUCH GRAVITY AS IS IMPLIED IN AN
ATTEMPT TO REDUCE A PERSON TO THE STATUS OF ALIEN FROM THAT OF
CITIZEN. 

THE PHRASE "FINDING OF FACT" MAY BE A SUMMARY CHARACTERIZATION OF
COMPLICATED FACTORS OF VARYING SIGNIFICANCE FOR JUDGMENT.  SUCH A
"FINDING OF FACT" MAY BE THE ULTIMATE JUDGMENT ON A MASS OF DETAILS
INVOLVING NOT MERELY AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF WITNESSES
BUT OTHER APPROPRIATE INFERENCES THAT MAY BE DRAWN FROM LIVING
TESTIMONY WHICH ELUDE PRINT.  THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF A "FINDING OF FACT"
DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE MATERIALS ON WHICH THE FINDING IS BASED. 
THE FINDING EVEN OF A SO-CALLED "SUBSIDIARY FACT" MAY BE A MORE OR LESS
DIFFICULT PROCESS VARYING ACCORDING TO THE SIMPLICITY OR SUBTLETY OF
THE TYPE OF "FACT" IN CONTROVERSY.  FINDING SO-CALLED ULTIMATE "FACTS"
MORE CLEARLY IMPLIES THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS OF LAW.  AND SO THE
"FINDING OF FACT" EVEN IF MADE BY TWO COURTS MAY GO BEYOND THE
DETERMINATION THAT SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE HERE.  THOUGH LABELED
"FINDING OF FACT," IT MAY INVOLVE THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH JUDGMENT OF
FALLIBLE EVIDENCE IS TO BE MADE.  THUS, THE CONCLUSION THAT MAY
APPROPRIATELY BE DRAWN FROM THE WHOLE MASS OF EVIDENCE IS NOT ALWAYS
THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE KIND OF "FACT" THAT PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION BY
THIS COURT.  SEE, E.G., BEYER V. LEFEVRE, 186 U.S. 114.  PARTICULARLY
IS THIS SO WHERE A DECISION HERE FOR REVIEW CANNOT ESCAPE BROADLY
SOCIAL JUDGMENTS - JUDGMENTS LYING CLOSE TO OPINION REGARDING THE WHOLE
NATURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE DUTIES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP. 
DEFERENCE PROPERLY DUE TO THE FINDINGS OF A LOWER COURT DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE REVIEW HERE OF SUCH JUDGMENTS.  THIS RECOGNIZED SCOPE OF
APPELLATE REVIEW IS USUALLY DIFFERENTIATED FROM REVIEW OF ORDINARY
QUESTIONS OF FACT BY BEING CALLED REVIEW OF A QUESTION OF LAW, BUT THAT
IS OFTEN NOT AN ILLUMINATING TEST AND IS NEVER SELF-EXECUTING.  SUFFICE
IT TO SAY THAT EMPHASIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND
CONVINCING" PROOF, SEE SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 125, ON
WHICH TO REST THE CANCELLATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION WOULD
BE LOST IF THE ASCERTAINMENT BY THE LOWER COURTS WHETHER THAT EXACTING
STANDARD OF PROOF HAD BEEN SATISFIED ON THE WHOLE RECORD WERE TO BE
DEEMED A "FACT" OF THE SAME ORDER AS ALL OTHER "FACTS," NOT OPEN TO
REVIEW HERE. 

THE GRAVAMEN OF THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT AND OF THE FINDINGS AND
OPINIONS BELOW IS THAT BAUMGARTNER CONSCIOUSLY WITHHELD ALLEGIANCE TO
THE UNITED STATES AND ITS CONSTITUTION AND LAWS; IN SHORT, THAT
BAUMGARTNER WAS GUILTY OF FRAUD.  TO PROVE SUCH INTENTIONAL
MISREPRESENTATION EVIDENCE CALCULATED TO ESTABLISH ONLY THE OBJECTIVE
FALSITY OF BAUMGARTNER'S OATH WAS ADDUCED.  NOTHING ELSE WAS OFFERED TO
SHOW THAT BAUMGARTNER WAS AWARE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN HIS VIEWS AND THE
NEW POLITICAL ALLEGIANCE HE ASSUMED.  BUT EVEN IF OBJECTIVE FALSITY AS
AGAINST PERJURIOUS FALSITY OF THE OATH IS TO BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT UNDER
SEC. 338(A) OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940 TO REVOKE AN ADMISSION TO
CITIZENSHIP, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEASURE UP TO
THE STANDARD OF PROOF WHICH MUST BE APPLIED TO THIS CASE. 

WE COME THEN TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CONTEXT IN
WHICH THAT EVIDENCE IS TO BE JUDGED.  CONGRESS ALONE HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED
BY THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE POWER TO GIVE OR WITHHOLD NATURALIZATION
AND TO THAT END "TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION."  ART.
I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 4.  IN EXERCISING ITS POWER, CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED
THE COURTS TO GRANT AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP ONLY IF THE ALIEN HAS
SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY CONGRESS FOR NATURALIZATION.  THERE
IS NO "RIGHT TO NATURALIZATION UNLESS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE
COMPLIED WITH."  UNITED STATES V. GINSBERG, 243 U.S. 472, 475.  AND SO
"IF A CERTIFICATE IS PROCURED WHEN THE PRESCRIBED QUALIFICATIONS HAVE
NO EXISTENCE IN FACT, IT MAY BE CANCELLED BY SUIT."  TUTUN V. UNITED
STATES, 270 U.S. 568, 578.  FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS OF THE REPUBLIC,
CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF CITIZENSHIP THAT THE ALIEN
RENOUNCE HIS FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE AND SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO THIS COUNTRY
AND ITS CONSTITUTION.  ACT OF JANUARY 29, 1795, 1 STAT. 414.  BY THIS
REQUIREMENT CONGRESS HAS NOT USED MEANINGLESS WORDS.  NOR, ON THE OTHER
HAND, HAS IT THEREBY EXPRESSED A NARROW TEST OR FORMULA SUSCEPTIBLE OF
ALMOST MECHANICAL PROOF, AS IS TRUE OF OTHER PREREQUISITES FOR
NATURALIZATION - PERIOD OF RESIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION OF ARRIVAL,
REQUISITE NUMBER OF SPONSORING WITNESSES AND THE LIKE.  ALLEGIANCE TO
THIS GOVERNMENT AND ITS LAWS, IS A COMPENDIOUS PHRASE TO DESCRIBE THOSE
POLITICAL AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE THE ENDURING FEATURES OF
AMERICAN POLITICAL SOCIETY.  WE ARE HERE DEALING WITH A TEST EXPRESSING
A BROAD CONCEPTION - A BREADTH APPROPRIATE TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER, BEING NOTHING LESS THAN THE BONDS THAT TIE AMERICANS TOGETHER
IN DEVOTION TO A COMMON FEALTY.  THE SPACIOUS SCOPE OF THIS CONCEPTION
WAS EXPRESSED BY THIS COURT IN STATING THAT THE CONSTITUTION "WAS MADE
FOR AN UNDEFINED AND EXPANDING FUTURE, AND FOR A PEOPLE GATHERED AND TO
BE GATHERED FROM MANY NATIONS AND OF MANY TONGUES," HURTADO V.
CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516, 530-31, AND AGAIN, "WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH
WORDS THAT ALSO ARE A CONSTITUENT ACT, LIKE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, WE MUST REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE CALLED INTO LIFE A BEING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEN COMPLETELY BY THE
MOST GIFTED OF ITS BEGETTERS.  IT WAS ENOUGH FOR THEM TO REALIZE OR TO
HOPE THAT THEY HAD CREATED AN ORGANISM; IT HAS TAKEN A CENTURY AND HAS
COST THEIR SUCCESSORS MUCH SWEAT AND BLOOD TO PROVE THAT THEY CREATED A
NATION.  THE CASE BEFORE US MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF OUR
WHOLE EXPERIENCE AND NOT MERELY IN THAT OF WHAT WAS SAID A HUNDRED
YEARS AGO."  MISSOURI V. HOLLAND, 252 U.S. 416, 433. 

TO ASCERTAIN FULFILMENT OF A TEST IMPLYING SO EXPANSIVE A REACH
PRESENTS DIFFICULT AND DOUBTFUL PROBLEMS EVEN FOR JUDGES PRESUMABLY
WELL-TRAINED IN THE MEANING OF OUR COUNTRY'S INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR
DEMANDS FROM ITS CITIZENS.  "UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, A NATURALIZED
CITIZEN STANDS ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE NATIVE CITIZEN IN ALL
RESPECTS, SAVE THAT OF ELIGIBILITY TO THE PRESIDENCY."  LURIA V. UNITED
STATES, 231 U.S. 9, 22.  ONE OF THE PREROGATIVES OF AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP IS THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE PUBLIC MEN AND MEASURES - AND
THAT MEANS NOT ONLY INFORMED AND RESPONSIBLE CRITICISM BUT THE FREEDOM
TO SPEAK FOOLISHLY AND WITHOUT MODERATION.  OUR TRUST IN THE GOOD SENSE
OF THE PEOPLE ON DELIBERATE REFLECTION GOES DEEP.  FOR SUCH IS THE
CONTRADICTORINESS OF THE HUMAN MIND THAT THE EXPRESSION OF VIEWS WHICH
MAY COLLIDE WITH CHERISHED AMERICAN IDEALS DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROVE
WANT OF DEVOTION TO THE NATION.  IT WOULD BE FOOLISH TO DENY THAT EVEN
BLATANT INTOLERANCE TOWARD SOME OF THE PRESUPPOSITIONS OF THE
DEMOCRATIC FAITH MAY NOT IMPLY ROOTED DISBELIEF IN OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT. 

FORSWEARING PAST POLITICAL ALLEGIANCE WITHOUT RESERVATION AND FULL
ASSUMPTION OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP ARE NOT AT ALL
INCONSISTENT WITH CULTURAL FEELINGS IMBEDDED IN CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH. 
FN3  AND DURING A PERIOD WHEN NEW STRENGTH OF THE LAND OF ONE'S
NATIVITY WAS FLAMBOYANTLY EXPLOITED BEFORE ITS FULL SINISTER MEANING
HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY REVEALED EVEN TO SOME AMERICANS OF THE OLDEST
LINEAGE, SUCH OLD CULTURAL LOYALTY, IT IS WELL KNOWN, WAS STIMULATED
INTO CONFUSION OF MIND AND SOMETIMES TO EXPRESSIONS OF OFFENSIVE
EXUBERANCE. 

THE DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE THE JUDICIAL MIND
HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED THAT THE TEST OF ALLEGIANCE HAS BEEN MET,
PRESENTS A PROBLEM VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE REVOCATION OF THE
NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE ONCE ADMISSION TO THE COMMUNITY OF AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP HAS BEEN DECREED.  NO DOUBT THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE FOR
NATURALIZATION (SEC. 334, NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940), AND SEC. 338, WITH
WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED, "WERE DESIGNED TO AFFORD CUMULATIVE
PROTECTION AGAINST FRAUDULENT OR ILLEGAL NATURALIZATION."  UNITED
STATES V. NESS, 245 U.S. 319, 327.  BUT RELAXATION IN THE VIGOR
APPROPRIATE FOR SCRUTINIZING THE INTENSITY OF THE ALLEGIANCE TO THIS
COUNTRY EMBRACED BY AN APPLICANT BEFORE ADMITTING HIM TO CITIZENSHIP IS
NOT TO BE CORRECTED BY MEAGRE STANDARDS FOR DISPROVING SUCH ALLEGIANCE
RETROSPECTIVELY.  NEW RELATIONS AND NEW INTERESTS FLOW, ONCE
CITIZENSHIP HAS BEEN GRANTED.  ALL THAT SHOULD NOT BE UNDONE UNLESS THE
PROOF IS COMPELLING THAT THAT WHICH WAS GRANTED WAS OBTAINED IN
DEFIANCE OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.  NON-FULFILMENT OF SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS, LIKE TIME OF RESIDENCE OR THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SUPPORTING
WITNESSES, ARE EASILY ESTABLISHED, AND WHEN ESTABLISHED LEAVE NO ROOM
FOR DISCRETION BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS LEFT NO AREA OF DISCRETION.  BUT
WHERE THE CLAIM OF "ILLEGALITY" REALLY INVOLVES ISSUES OF BELIEF OR
FRAUD, PROOF IS TREACHEROUS AND OBJECTIVE JUDGMENT, EVEN BY THE MOST
DISCIPLINED MINDS, PRECARIOUS.  THAT IS WHY DENATURALIZATION ON THIS
SCORE CALLS FOR WEIGHTY PROOF, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PROOF OF A FALSE OR
FRAUDULENT OATH RESTS PREDOMINANTLY NOT UPON CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE
BUT IS ESTABLISHED BY LATER EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION ARGUMENTATIVELY
PROJECTED, AND OFTEN THROUGH THE DISTORTING AND SELF-DELUDING MEDIUM OF
MEMORY, TO AN EARLIER YEAR WHEN QUALIFICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP WERE
CLAIMED, TESTED AND ADJUDICATED. 

IT IS IDLE TO TRY TO CAPTURE AND CONFINE THE SPIRIT OF THIS
REQUIREMENT OF PROOF WITHIN ANY FIXED FORM OF WORDS.  THE EXERCISE OF
OUR JUDGMENT IS OF COURSE NOT AT LARGE.  WE ARE FULLY MINDFUL THAT DUE
OBSERVANCE OF THE LAW GOVERNING THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP TO ALIENS
TOUCHES THE VERY WELL-BEING OF THE NATION.  NOTHING THAT WE ARE NOW
DECIDING IS INTENDED TO WEAKEN IN THE SLIGHTEST THE ALERTNESS WITH
WHICH ADMISSION TO AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE SAFEGUARDED.  BUT WE
MUST BE EQUALLY WATCHFUL THAT CITIZENSHIP ONCE BESTOWED SHOULD NOT BE
IN JEOPARDY NOR IN FEAR OF EXERCISING ITS AMERICAN FREEDOM THROUGH A
TOO EASY FINDING THAT CITIZENSHIP WAS DISLOYALLY ACQUIRED.  WE HAVE
SUFFICIENTLY INDICATED THE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY, DERIVED FROM THE
TRADITIONS OF OUR PEOPLE, THAT REQUIRE SOLID PROOF THAT CITIZENSHIP WAS
FALSELY AND FRAUDULENTLY PROCURED.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS MUST GUIDE OUR
JUDICIAL JUDGMENT.  NOR CAN THE DUTY OF EXERCISING A JUDGMENT BE EVADED
BY THE ILLUSORY DEFINITENESS OF ANY FORMULA. 

THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT BAUMGARTNER DID NOT
RENOUNCE HIS ALLEGIANCE TO GERMANY IN 1932 NEED NOT BE LABORED. 
WHATEVER GERMAN POLITICAL LEANINGS BAUMGARTNER HAD IN 1932, THEY WERE
TO HITLER AND HITLERISM, CERTAINLY NOT TO THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC.  HITLER
DID NOT COME TO POWER UNTIL AFTER BAUMGARTNER FORSWORE HIS ALLEGIANCE
TO THE THEN GERMAN NATION. 

VIEWS ATTRIBUTED TO BAUMGARTNER AS TO THE SUPERIORITY OF GERMAN
PEOPLE, SCHOOLS, ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES, AND THE VIRTUES OF HITLER,
EXPRESSED IN 1927, WHEN HE BEGAN TO WORK IN KANSAS CITY, ARE THE ONLY
DIRECT EVIDENCE INTRODUCED TO SHOW THAT BEFORE HE WAS NATURALIZED IN
1932, HIS ATTITUDE PRECLUDED HIS TRULY OR HONESTLY TAKING AN OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES, ITS CONSTITUTION AND ITS LAWS.  AND
HIS STATEMENT AT THE TRIAL THAT HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT WAS THE SAME IN 1932 AS IT WAS AT THE TIME OF
THE TRIAL, IS HARDLY SIGNIFICANT.  FOR BAUMGARTNER PROFESSED LOYALTY AT
THE TRIAL, DENIED OR EXPLAINED THE FEW DISTURBING STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED
TO HIM BY OTHERS, AND RECONCILED SUSPICIOUS DIARY ENTRIES IN WAYS THAT
DO NOT PRECLUDE THE VALIDITY OF HIS OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.  IN SHORT, THE
WEAKNESS OF THE PROOF AS TO BAUMGARTNER'S STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME HE
TOOK THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE CAN BE REMOVED, IF AT ALL, ONLY BY A
PRESUMPTION THAT DISQUALIFYING VIEWS EXPRESSED AFTER NATURALIZATION
WERE ACCURATE REPRESENTATIONS OF HIS VIEWS WHEN HE TOOK THE OATH.  THE
LOGICAL VALIDITY OF SUCH A PRESUMPTION IS AT BEST DUBIOUS EVEN WERE THE
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE LESS RHETORICAL AND MORE CONCLUSIVE.  BAUMGARTNER
WAS CERTAINLY NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN A PARTY NAZI, AND THERE IS ONLY
THE STATEMENT OF ONE WITNESS THAT BAUMGARTNER HAD TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS
A MEMBER OF THE BUND, TO HINT EVEN REMOTELY THAT BAUMGARTNER WAS
ASSOCIATED WITH ANY GROUP FOR THE SYSTEMATIC AGITATION OF NAZI VIEWS OR
VIEWS HOSTILE TO THIS GOVERNMENT.  ON THE CONTRARY, BAUMGARTNER'S
DIARY, ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAINLY RELIES, REVEALS THAT WHEN IN 1939
HE ATTENDED A MEETING OF THE GERMAN VOCATIONAL LEAGUE AT WHICH THE NAZI
SALUTE WAS GIVEN, IT WAS APPARENTLY HIS ONLY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS
GROUP, AND HE WENT "SINCE I WANTED TO SEE WHAT SORT OF AN ORGANIZATION
THIS VOCATIONAL LEAGUE WAS." 

AND SO WE CONCLUDE THAT THE EVIDENCE AS TO BAUMGARTNER'S ATTITUDE
AFTER 1932 AFFORDS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THAT IN 1932 HE HAD KNOWING
RESERVATIONS IN FORSWEARING HIS ALLEGIANCE TO THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AND
EMBRACING ALLEGIANCE TO THIS COUNTRY SO AS TO WARRANT THE INFLICTION OF
THE GRAVE CONSEQUENCES INVOLVED IN MAKING AN ALIEN OUT OF A MAN TEN
YEARS AFTER HE WAS ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP.  THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
BEFORE US IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY COMPELLING TO REQUIRE THAT WE PENALIZE A
NATURALIZED CITIZEN FOR THE EXPRESSION OF SILLY OR EVEN SINISTER
SOUNDING VIEWS WHICH NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS UTTER WITH IMPUNITY.  THE
JUDGMENT MUST ACCORDINGLY BE REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1 SECTION 338(A) PROVIDES:  "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UPON AFFIDAVIT
SHOWING GOOD CAUSE THEREFOR, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS ...  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REVOKING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER ADMITTING SUCH PERSON
TO CITIZENSHIP AND CANCELING THE CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION ON THE
GROUND OF FRAUD OR ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH ORDER AND CERTIFICATE OF
NATURALIZATION WERE ILLEGALLY PROCURED." 

FN2  THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME EXCERPTS FROM BAUMGARTNER'S DIARY:  "THE
ONLY ONES WHO HAVE ANY IDEAS HERE ARE THE JEWS AND THEIR IDEAS ARE
VILE, MEAN, AND MALICIOUS.  ...  TODAY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES DELIVERED HIS MESSAGE TO THE NEW CONGRESS.  THE SPEECH WAS A
HORRIBLE MIXTURE OF WAR AGITATION AND LAUGHABLE TALK ABOUT THE FREEDOM
OF PRESS, SPEECH, ETC., WHICH THIS COUNTRY ALLEGEDLY HAS AND WHICH HAS
TO BE PROTECTED WITH GUNS.  ...  WE DRANK A BOTTLE OF PSCHORR BREW
TOGETHER TO THE WELFARE AND THE FUTURE OF GERMANY.  ...  THE JEWISH
AMERICAN-ENGLISH FORTRESS IN THE HEART OF CENTRAL EUROPE HAS FALLEN.  A
TERRIBLE DEFEAT FOR THE ABOVE NAMED POWERS WHO WILL PROBABLY HAVE A
DIFFICULT TIME RECOVERING FROM THIS.  ...  LISTENED TO HITLER'S SPEECH
FROM THE KROLLS OPERA HOUSE ON 15.2.  IT WAS WONDERFUL AS USUAL.  ...
THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE INSANE ACTIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN WASHINGTON WHICH HAVE THE CHARACTER OF WILD, UNBRIDLED
DESPOTISM." 

FN3  THE RETENTION OF CULTURAL TIES DESPITE THE CHANGE IN "JURIDICAL
AND POLITICAL" STATUS HAS THUS BEEN PUT BY A DISTINGUISHED HISTORIAN,
GAETANO SALVEMINI, IN SPEAKING OF HIS OWN NATURALIZATION:  "THERE IS IN
THIS COUNTRY A WIDER AREA OF GENEROSITY THAN IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY - AT
LEAST IN EUROPE.  IT IS THIS FEELING THAT ONE IS AT HOME HERE THAT
CONQUERS YOU LITTLE BY LITTLE.  AND ONE FINE DAY YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE
NO LONGER AN EXILE BUT A CITIZEN IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY.  WHEN I TOOK MY
OATH I FELT THAT REALLY I WAS PERFORMING A GRAND FUNCTION.  I WAS
THROWING AWAY NOT MY INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL BUT MY JURISTIC PAST.  I
THREW IT AWAY WITHOUT ANY REGRET.  THE ETHIOPIAN WAR, THE RAPE OF
ALBANIA, THE SPANISH CRIME, AND THIS LAST IDIOTIC CRIME, HAD REALLY
BROKEN MY CONNECTION WITH SOVEREIGNS, POTENTATES, AND ALL THOSE UGLY
THINGS WHICH ARE ENUMERATED IN THE FORMULA OF THE OATH.  IT IS A
WONDERFUL FORMULA.  YOUR PLEDGES ARE ONLY JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL.  YOU
ARE ASKED TO SEVER YOUR CONNECTIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF YOUR FORMER
COUNTRY, NOT WITH THE PEOPLE AND THE CIVILIZATION OF YOUR FORMER
COUNTRY.  AND YOU ARE ASKED TO GIVE ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
YOUR ADOPTED COUNTRY, THAT IS, TO AN IDEAL OF LIFE."  RADCLIFFE
QUARTERLY, AUGUST 1941, PP. 8-9. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY: 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS CLEAR.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS SOUGHT TO SET
ASIDE PETITIONER'S NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
FRAUDULENT AND ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT.  IT WAS THUS INCUMBENT ON THE
GOVERNMENT TO MEET THE STANDARD OF PROOF LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT IN
SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 158, BY PRESENTING
EVIDENCE OF A "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND CONVINCING" CHARACTER WHICH DID
NOT LEAVE "THE ISSUE IN DOUBT" AS TO WHETHER PETITIONER FRAUDULENTLY OR
ILLEGALLY PROCURED HIS CERTIFICATE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE SCHNEIDERMAN CASE WE WERE MET WITH THE ISSUE
AS TO WHETHER THE PETITIONER IN THAT CASE HAD ILLEGALLY PROCURED HIS
NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE IN THAT HE HAD NOT, AT THE TIME OF HIS
NATURALIZATION AND FIVE YEARS PRIOR THERETO, BEHAVED AS A PERSON
ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND WELL DISPOSED TO
THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE EXPRESSLY DID
NOT PASS UPON THE CHARGE OF FRAUD IN OBTAINING THE CERTIFICATE, WHICH
IS THE PRIMARY CHARGE PRESENT IN THIS PROCEEDING.  BUT THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVE ITS CASE BY "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND
CONVINCING" EVIDENCE TRANSCENDS THE PARTICULAR GROUND UPON WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO SET ASIDE THE NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE.  THE
DECISION IN THE SCHNEIDERMAN CASE WAS NOT MERELY A DECISION OF AN
ISOLATED CASE.  IT WAS A FORMULATION BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT OF A
RULE OF LAW GOVERNING ALL DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  FN1  THAT RULE
OF LAW IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE WHETHER THE CITIZEN AGAINST WHOM THE
PROCEEDING IS BROUGHT IS A COMMUNIST, A NAZI OR A FOLLOWER OF ANY OTHER
POLITICAL FAITH.  THIS REQUIREMENT OF PROOF WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT
BELOW, 138 F.2D 29, 34, AND BY BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PETITIONER
BEFORE US. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
OF A "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND CONVINCING" NATURE THAT PETITIONER
FRAUDULENTLY OR ILLEGALLY PROCURED HIS NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE IN
1932 IS PATENT.  WITH ONE UNIMPORTANT EXCEPTION, THE GOVERNMENT PROVED
ONLY THAT PETITIONER DISPLAYED CERTAIN NAZI SYMPATHIES AND WAS CRITICAL
OF THE UNITED STATES SEVERAL YEARS AFTER 1932.  THERE WAS NO COMPETENT
EVIDENCE THAT HE ENTERTAINED THESE STRONG BELIEFS OR THAT HE HAD ANY
MENTAL RESERVATIONS IN FORSWEARING HIS ALLEGIANCE TO THE WEIMAR
REPUBLIC IN 1932.    AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT A RIGHT GRANTED ON A
CONDITION SUBSEQUENT THAT THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN REFRAIN IN THE FUTURE
FROM UTTERING ANY REMARK OR ADOPTING AN ATTITUDE FAVORABLE TO HIS
ORIGINAL HOMELAND OR THOSE THERE IN POWER, NO MATTER HOW DISTASTEFUL
SUCH CONDUCT MAY BE TO MOST OF US.  HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO IMPRISON
HIMSELF IN AN INTELLECTUAL OR SPIRITUAL STRAIT-JACKET; NOR IS HE
OBLIGED TO RETAIN A STATIC MENTAL ATTITUDE.  MOREOVER, HE DOES NOT LOSE
THE PRECIOUS RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE HE SUBSEQUENTLY DARES TO
CRITICIZE HIS ADOPTED GOVERNMENT IN VITUPERATIVE OR DEFAMATORY TERMS. 
IT OBVIOUSLY IS MORE DIFFICULT TO CONFORM TO THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN
THE SCHNEIDERMAN CASE BY MERE PROOF OF A STATE OF MIND SUBSEQUENT TO
NATURALIZATION THAN BY PROOF OF FACTS EXISTING PRIOR TO OR AT THE TIME
OF NATURALIZATION.  BUT THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE A FAILURE TO MEET THAT
STANDARD.  THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN HAS AS MUCH RIGHT AS THE NATURAL
BORN CITIZEN TO EXERCISE THE CHERISHED FREEDOMS OF SPEECH, PRESS AND
RELIGION, AND WITHOUT "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND CONVINCING" PROOF THAT
HE DID NOT BEAR OR SWEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AT THE
TIME OF NATURALIZATION HE CANNOT BE DENATURALIZED.  PROPER REALIZATION
OF THAT PRINCIPLE MAKES CLEAR THE ERROR OF SETTING ASIDE PETITIONER'S
NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS ADDUCED IN THIS
PROCEEDING. 

FN1 THE DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING IN THE SCHNEIDERMAN CASE WAS
BROUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 34
STAT. 596, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 405.  PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL PROVISIONS ARE
CONTAINED IN SEC. 338 OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1137,
1158, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 738, UNDER WHICH THE PROCEEDING IN THE INSTANT CASE
WAS INSTITUTED.  SEE SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. AT 121,
NOTE 1. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :

















HARTZEL V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 680 


NO. 531.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1944.  - DECIDED JUNE 12, 1944.  - 138 F.2D
169, REVERSED. 


EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE HELD INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION OF
VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917, UPON AN INDICTMENT
CHARGING THAT THE DEFENDANT, IN TIME OF WAR, WILLFULLY ATTEMPTED TO
CAUSE INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY, MUTINY AND REFUSAL OF DUTY IN THE
ARMED FORCES AND WILLFULLY OBSTRUCTED THE RECRUITING AND ENLISTMENT
SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 688. 

HARTZEL V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 734, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR VIOLATION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY ANNOUNCED THE CONCLUSION AND JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT. 

FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT WAR WE ARE
CONFRONTED WITH A PROSECUTION UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917.  FN1
THE NARROW ISSUE IS WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE JURY'S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER VIOLATED THE ACT IN THAT, IN
TIME OF WAR, HE WILLFULLY ATTEMPTED TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION,
DISLOYALTY, MUTINY AND REFUSAL OF DUTY IN THE ARMED FORCES AND
WILLFULLY OBSTRUCTED THE RECRUITING AND ENLISTMENT SERVICE OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

PETITIONER AND TWO OTHERS WERE CHARGED IN A SEVEN-COUNT INDICTMENT
WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CLAUSES  FN2  OF SEC. 3 OF THE
ACT, TOGETHER WITH A VIOLATION OF SEC. 4.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT IN TIME
OF WAR THEY PUBLISHED AND DISSEMINATED THREE PAMPHLETS TO NUMEROUS
PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS, AMONG WHOM WERE INDIVIDUALS AVAILABLE AND
ELIGIBLE FOR RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT IN THE MILITARY AND NAVAL
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS ALREADY MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES.  COUNTS 1, 3 AND 5 CHARGED THAT BY THESE ACTIONS THEY
WILLFULLY OBSTRUCTED THE RECRUITING AND ENLISTMENT SERVICE OF THE
UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF THE THIRD CLAUSE OF SEC. 3.  COUNTS 2, 4
AND 6 CHARGED THAT THESE ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTED A WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO
CAUSE INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY, MUTINY AND REFUSAL OF DUTY IN THE
MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF THE
SECOND CLAUSE OF SEC. 3.  COUNT 7 CHARGED A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SEC.
3, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 4 OF THE ACT.  PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY ON
ALL COUNTS AND WAS SENTENCED GENERALLY TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.  THE
COURT BELOW AFFIRMED HIS CONVICTION ON APPEAL.  FN3  138 F.2D 169.  THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  320 U.S.
734. 

PETITIONER, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, WAS BORN 52 YEARS AGO IN
PENNSYLVANIA.  HIS ANCESTORS, OF SCOTCH, IRISH AND GERMAN DESCENT, CAME
TO THIS COUNTRY OVER 120 YEARS AGO.  HE ENLISTED IN THE ARMED FORCES IN
1917 AND SERVED OVERSEAS.  AFTER HIS HONORABLE DISCHARGE IN 1919, HE
WAS EMPLOYED IN THE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AT AKRON, OHIO, WHILE
EARNING A DEGREE IN SCIENCE AT AKRON UNIVERSITY.  HE THEN TOOK COURSES
IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL ECONOMY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND
BECAME A FINANCIAL ANALYST AND STATISTICIAN FOR VARIOUS BANKS,
INVESTMENT BROKERS AND INVESTMENT COMPANIES IN CHICAGO.  AFTER 1938 HE
WAS EMPLOYED AS AN AUDITOR AND STATISTICIAN, FIRST BY THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS AND THEN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CORPORATIONS IN DETROIT
AND CHICAGO PRODUCING MATERIAL FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY AIR CORPS. 
DURING ALL THIS TIME HE HAD CONSTANTLY ENGAGED IN ECONOMIC RESEARCH ON
HIS OWN BEHALF AND SEVERAL ARTICLES BY HIM WERE PUBLISHED IN REPUTABLE
BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL PERIODICALS.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF HIS
HAVING BEEN ASSOCIATED IN ANY WAY WITH ANY FOREIGN OR SUBVERSIVE
ORGANIZATION. 

PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE UNITED STATES INTO THE PRESENT WAR,
PETITIONER WROTE SEVERAL SHORT ARTICLES CONTAINING SCURRILOUS AND
VITRIOLIC ATTACKS ON THE ENGLISH, THE JEWS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.  AMERICANS WERE URGED NOT TO ALLY THEMSELVES WITH THE
ENGLISH.  ONLY A GERMAN VICTORY, IT WAS SAID, WOULD BRING "INCREASED
STABILITY AND SAFETY FOR THE WEST."  PETITIONER HAD CERTAIN OF THESE
ARTICLES MIMEOGRAPHED BY VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IN CHICAGO, INCLUDING ONE
ELMER SOLLER, WHO WAS LATER INDICTED AS A CO-DEFENDANT WITH
PETITIONER.  SEVERAL HUNDRED COPIES OF THE MIMEOGRAPHED ARTICLES WERE
MAILED BY PETITIONER TO INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS APPEARING ON HIS
MAILING LIST. 

PETITIONER THEN WROTE THREE ARTICLES IN 1942 WHICH FORMED THE BASIS
FOR HIS CONVICTION UNDER THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917.  THESE ARTICLES
REPEATED THE SAME THEMES AND WERE MARKED BY THE SAME CALUMNY AND
INVECTIVE; THEY ARE SET OUT AT LENGTH IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT
BELOW, 138 F.2D AT 170-172, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.  IN
SUBSTANCE, THEY DEPICT THE WAR AS A GROSS BETRAYAL OF AMERICA, DENOUNCE
OUR ENGLISH ALLIES AND THE JEWS AND ASSAIL IN RECKLESS TERMS THE
INTEGRITY AND PATRIOTISM OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THEY
CALL FOR AN ABANDONMENT OF OUR ALLIES AND A CONVERSION OF THE WAR INTO
A RACIAL CONFLICT.  THEY FURTHER URGE AN "INTERNAL WAR OF RACE AGAINST
RACE" AND "OCCUPATION (OF AMERICA) BY FOREIGN TROOPS UNTIL WE ARE ABLE
TO STAND ALONE." 

AFTER WRITING THESE ARTICLES, PETITIONER HAD THEM MIMEOGRAPHED BY HIS
CO-DEFENDANT SOLLER AND MAILED ABOUT SIX HUNDRED COPIES OF THEM,
ANONYMOUSLY, TO PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS ON HIS MAILING LIST.  IN
ORDER TO AVOID DETECTION, HE DEPOSITED THE ENVELOPES IN SEVERAL
DIFFERENT MAILBOXES AND ENDEAVORED TO LEAVE NO FINGERPRINTS.  FN4  HE
HAD COMPILED THIS MAILING LIST FROM SEVERAL SOURCES: (1) THE WORLD
ALMANAC, WHICH GAVE HIM THE NAMES OF VARIOUS PROMINENT PEOPLE,
ASSOCIATIONS, FRATERNITIES, SORORITIES, ETC.; (2) A GOVERNMENT
PUBLICATION CONTAINING A LIST OF LABOR UNIONS; (3) DAILY NEWSPAPERS
WHICH MENTIONED THE NAMES OF PEOPLE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE AMERICA
FIRST COMMITTEE; AND (4) TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY
WHICH GAVE HIM THE NAMES OF VARIOUS STATE AND DISTRICT COMMANDERS OF
THE AMERICAN LEGION.  INCLUDED IN HIS LIST WERE SUCH PERSONS AS UNITED
STATES SENATORS, REPRESENTATIVES, BISHOPS AND OTHER CHURCH OFFICIALS;
SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AS THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND WE
THE MOTHERS MOBILIZE WERE ALSO INCLUDED. 

THE GOVERNMENT PROVED THAT TWO OF THESE PAMPHLETS WERE MAILED TO AND
READ BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AIR FORCES AND
A COLONEL ATTACHED TO THE GENERAL STAFF.  ALL THREE PAMPHLETS WERE
MAILED TO THE UNITED STATES INFANTRY ASSOCIATION, WHICH PUBLISHES THE
INFANTRY JOURNAL, A SERVICE PUBLICATION, AND WERE READ AT ITS
HEADQUARTERS BY TWO ARMY OFFICERS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES.  THE
EVIDENCE ALSO SHOWED THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE PAMPHLETS WERE RECEIVED IN
THE MAIL BY THE PRESIDENT OF NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, THE AMERICAN
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, THE KIWANIS INTERNATIONAL, THE LIONS
INTERNATIONAL, THE AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN LEGION,
DEPARTMENT OF ILLINOIS.  INDIVIDUALS REGISTERED UNDER THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940 AND EMPLOYED BY THESE VARIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS READ THE PAMPHLETS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THEIR WORK,
INCLUDING ONE 20-YEAR-OLD CLERK WHOSE DUTY IT WAS TO OPEN THE INCOMING
MAIL AT THE OFFICE OF THE LIONS INTERNATIONAL.  IN ADDITION, ENVELOPES
ADDRESSED TO AT LEAST EIGHTEEN HIGH-RANKING ARMY OFFICERS WERE FOUND
SECRETED UNDER A BATHTUB IN PETITIONER'S HOME, TOGETHER WITH SEVERAL OF
THE PAMPHLETS. 

SHORTLY AFTER BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, PETITIONER SIGNED A STATEMENT
IN WHICH HE CLAIMED THAT "THE PRIME MOTIVE WHICH IMPELLED ME IN WRITING
AND DISTRIBUTING THE ARTICLES DISCUSSED ABOVE, WAS THE HOPE THAT THEY
MIGHT TEND TO CREATE SENTIMENT AGAINST WAR AMONGST THE WHITE RACES AND
IN DIVERTING THE WAR FROM THEM, TO UNITE THE WHITE RACES AGAINST WHAT I
CONSIDER TO BE THE MORE DANGEROUS ENEMIES, THE YELLOW RACES."  AT THE
TRIAL HE TESTIFIED THAT "I THOUGHT THERE WAS A TREND TOWARD COMMUNISM,
AND I THOUGHT IT WAS QUITE A DANGEROUS POSITION BECAUSE OF WARFARE
BETWEEN THE WHITE RACES, IT WOULD BE THE CAUSE OF WAR BETWEEN THE WHITE
AND YELLOW RACES, AND RATHER THAN HAVE IT BEAT INTO US, WE MIGHT AS
WELL FACE THE FACTS AND KNOW WHAT WE WERE FACING, A CERTAIN GROUP OF
COMMUNISTS DISCUSSING METHODS, THEIR VIEWPOINTS, I WANTED TO HELP
MINIMIZE THAT SO WE COULD AGAIN HAVE PUBLIC STANDPOINT ESTABLISHED IN
THIS COUNTRY."  HE SAID HE THOUGHT HIS ARTICLES MIGHT IMPROVE THE
MORALE OF PERSONS AVAILABLE AND ELIGIBLE FOR RECRUITING AND ENLISTMENT
IN THE ARMED FORCES, THOUGH HE RETRACTED THIS STATEMENT ON CROSS
EXAMINATION.  HIS EFFORTS, HE THOUGHT, "WERE POLITICAL IN CHARACTER"
AND "THE EFFECT ON THE TROOPS OF SAYING THAT AMERICA WAS BETRAYED WOULD
BE FOR THEM TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT WAS OR NOT AND, IF SO, TO FIGHT FOR
AMERICANS." 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS, PETITIONER WAS FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING
THE SECOND AND THIRD CLAUSES OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT.  THESE CLAUSES ARE
DIRECTED AT THOSE WHO, IN TIME OF WAR, "WILLFULLY CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO
CAUSE INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY, MUTINY, OR REFUSAL OF DUTY, IN THE
MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES," OR WHO, IN TIME OF WAR,
"WILLFULLY OBSTRUCT THE RECRUITING OR ENLISTMENT SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES, TO THE INJURY OF THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES."  THUS THESE
CLAUSES PUNISH THE MAKING AND DISSEMINATION OF STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS
WHICH ARE INTENDED TO HAVE THE EVIL EFFECTS SET FORTH BY CONGRESS.  NO
QUESTION IS HERE RAISED AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THESE PROVISIONS
OR AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT RETURNED THEREUNDER.  BUT
SUCH LEGISLATION, BEING PENAL IN NATURE AND RESTRICTING THE RIGHT TO
SPEAK AND WRITE FREELY, MUST BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY AND "MUST BE TAKEN
TO USE ITS WORDS IN A STRICT AND ACCURATE SENSE."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES,
DISSENTING IN ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616 AT 627. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CLAUSES OF SEC. 3 MAKES CLEAR
THAT TWO MAJOR ELEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE UNDER
THESE CLAUSES.  THE FIRST ELEMENT IS A SUBJECTIVE ONE, CONSISTING OF A
SPECIFIC INTENT OR EVIL PURPOSE AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OVERT ACTS
TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION OR DISLOYALTY IN THE ARMED FORCES OR TO
OBSTRUCT THE RECRUITING AND ENLISTMENT SERVICE.  THIS REQUIREMENT OF A
SPECIFIC INTENT SPRINGS FROM THE STATUTORY USE OF THE WORD
"WILLFULLY."  THAT WORD, WHEN VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT OF A HIGHLY PENAL
STATUTE RESTRICTING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, MUST BE TAKEN TO MEAN
DELIBERATELY AND WITH A SPECIFIC PURPOSE TO DO THE ACTS PROSCRIBED BY
CONGRESS.  CF. UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, 290 U.S. 389 AT 394; UNITED
STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 303 U.S. 239 AT 242; BROWDER V.
UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 335 AT 341; SPIES V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S.
492 AT 497.  THE SECOND ELEMENT IS AN OBJECTIVE ONE, CONSISTING OF A
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THE ACTIVITIES IN QUESTION WILL BRING
ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS WHICH CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT. 
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47.  BOTH ELEMENTS MUST BE PROVED BY
THE GOVERNMENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 

THE REQUISITE SPECIFIC INTENT IN SUCH A CASE AS THIS MAY BE PROVED
NOT ONLY BY THE LANGUAGE ACTUALLY USED IN THE STATEMENTS OR WRITINGS
THEMSELVES BUT ALSO BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THEIR PREPARATION
AND DISSEMINATION.  BUT, SO FAR AS THE RECORD IN THIS CASE IS
CONCERNED, NEITHER OF THESE SOURCES IS PRODUCTIVE OF EVIDENCE FROM
WHICH A JURY COULD PROPERLY FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
PETITIONER HAD SUCH AN INTENT AT THE TIME HE COMPOSED AND MAILED THE
THREE PAMPHLETS.  FOR THAT REASON ALONE THE CONVICTION MUST BE
REVERSED. 

THERE IS NOTHING ON THE FACE OF THE THREE PAMPHLETS IN QUESTION TO
INDICATE THAT PETITIONER INTENDED SPECIFICALLY TO CAUSE
INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY, MUTINY OR REFUSAL OF DUTY IN THE MILITARY
FORCES OR TO OBSTRUCT THE RECRUITING AND ENLISTMENT SERVICE.  NO DIRECT
OR AFFIRMATIVE APPEALS ARE MADE TO THAT EFFECT AND NO MENTION IS MADE
OF MILITARY PERSONNEL OR OF PERSONS REGISTERED UNDER THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT.  THEY CONTAIN, INSTEAD, VICIOUS AND
UNREASONING ATTACKS ON ONE OF OUR MILITARY ALLIES, FLAGRANT APPEALS TO
FALSE AND SINISTER RACIAL THEORIES AND GROSS LIBELS OF THE PRESIDENT. 
FEW IDEAS ARE MORE ODIOUS TO THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR
MORE DESTRUCTIVE OF NATIONAL UNITY IN TIME OF WAR.  BUT WHILE SUCH
INIQUITOUS DOCTRINES MAY BE USED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AS
VEHICLES FOR THE PURPOSEFUL UNDERMINING OF THE MORALE AND LOYALTY OF
THE ARMED FORCES AND THOSE PERSONS OF DRAFT AGE, THEY CANNOT BY
THEMSELVES BE TAKEN AS PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PETITIONER
HAD THE NARROW INTENT REQUISITE TO A VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE. 

NOR DO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE THREE PAMPHLETS,
SUPPLEMENTED BY PETITIONER'S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT, HIS TESTIMONY AND THE
SIMILAR ARTICLES WRITTEN AND DISSEMINATED BY HIM BEFORE THE WAR, SUPPLY
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE NECESSARY INTENT.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
THAT PETITIONER INTENDED TO INFLUENCE MILITARY PERSONNEL OR INDIVIDUALS
OF DRAFT AGE IN THE MANNER FORBIDDEN BY THE STATUTE IN COMPOSING HIS
MAILING LIST OR IN SENDING HIS PAMPHLETS TO THOSE LISTED THEREIN.  HIS
PURPOSE, RATHER, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TO OBTAIN THE NAMES OF PROMINENT
INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS AND TO PROPAGATE HIS IDEAS AMONG THEM. 
THE FACT THAT SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AND SOME OF THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS WERE OF DRAFT AGE WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN
DOMINANT, OR EVEN PRESENT, IN PETITIONER'S MIND OR TO HAVE MOTIVATED
HIM IN ANY DEGREE.  AND THE FACT THAT HE MAILED HIS PAMPHLETS TO AT
LEAST FOUR HIGH-RANKING ARMY OFFICERS AND ADDRESSED ENVELOPES TO AT
LEAST EIGHTEEN OTHERS IS NOT EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD INFER
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE INTENDED TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION,
DISLOYALTY, MUTINY OR REFUSAL OF DUTY AMONG THEM.  THEIR INCLUSION IN A
MAILING LIST OF SIX HUNDRED PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS IS QUITE
CONSISTENT WITH A MERE INTENT TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION AND TO
CIRCULATE MALICIOUS POLITICAL PROPAGANDA AMONG OUTSTANDING PERSONAGES,
WHETHER THEY BE IN THE ARMED FORCES OR NOT.    HIS PREWAR WRITINGS, IF
THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AT ALL, ARE NO MORE INDICATIVE OF THE
NECESSARY INTENT THAN ARE THE THREE PAMPHLETS IN ISSUE.  HIS STATEMENTS
AND TESTIMONY CONCERNING HIS MOTIVE IN PREPARING AND DISTRIBUTING THE
THREE PAMPHLETS ARE LIKEWISE INDECISIVE.  PROOF THAT HE INTENDED, IN
HIS WORDS, TO "CREATE SENTIMENT AGAINST WAR AMONGST THE WHITE RACES"
AND TO "UNITE THE WHITE RACES AGAINST WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE MORE
DANGEROUS ENEMIES, THE YELLOW RACES" DOES NOT SATISFY THE BURDEN WHICH
RESTS ON THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
PETITIONER HAD THE PURPOSE OR INTENT TO DO WHAT IS OUTLAWED BY SEC. 3
OF THIS ACT.  THOUGHTLESSNESS, CARELESSNESS AND EVEN RECKLESSNESS ARE
NOT SUBSTITUTES FOR THE MORE SPECIFIC STATE OF MIND WHICH THE STATUTE
MAKES AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE CRIME. 

WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOW
ENGAGED IN A TOTAL WAR FOR NATIONAL SURVIVAL AND THAT TOTAL WAR OF THE
MODERN VARIETY CANNOT BE WON BY A DOUBTFUL, DISUNITED NATION IN WHICH
ANY APPRECIABLE SECTOR IS DISLOYAL.  FOR THAT REASON OUR ENEMIES HAVE
DEVELOPED PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE TO A HIGH DEGREE IN AN EFFORT TO CAUSE
UNREST AND DISLOYALTY.  MUCH OF THIS TYPE OF WARFARE TAKES THE FORM OF
INSIDIOUS PROPAGANDA IN THE MANNER AND TENOR DISPLAYED BY PETITIONER'S
THREE PAMPHLETS.  CRUDE APPEALS TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT OR TO
DISCARD OUR ARMS IN OPEN MUTINY ARE SELDOM MADE.  EMPHASIS IS LAID,
RATHER, ON SUCH MATTERS AS THE FUTILITY OF OUR WAR AIMS, THE VICES OF
OUR ALLIES AND THE INADEQUACY OF OUR LEADERSHIP.  BUT THE MERE FACT
THAT SUCH IDEAS ARE ENUNCIATED BY A CITIZEN IS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF TO
WARRANT A FINDING OF A CRIMINAL INTENT TO VIOLATE SEC. 3 OF THE
ESPIONAGE ACT.  UNLESS THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FROM WHICH A JURY
COULD INFER BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE INTENDED TO BRING ABOUT
THE SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS THESE MATTERS EITHER BY TEMPERATE REASONING OR
BY IMMODERATE AND VICIOUS INVECTIVE WITHOUT RUNNING AFOUL OF THE
ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917.  SUCH EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENT IN THIS CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  ESPIONAGE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, C. 30, 40 STAT. 217, 50 U.S.C.
SEC. 31 ET SEQ. 

FN2  THE SECOND AND THIRD CLAUSES OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT PROVIDE AS
FOLLOWS:  "WHOEVER, WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR,  ...  SHALL
WILLFULLY CAUSE OR ATTEMPT TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY,
MUTINY, OR REFUSAL OF DUTY, IN THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR SHALL WILLFULLY OBSTRUCT THE RECRUITING OR ENLISTMENT
SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, TO THE INJURY OF THE SERVICE OF THE
UNITED STATES, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, OR BOTH."  40 STAT. 217,
219, 41 STAT. 1359, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 33. 

FN3  PETITIONER'S CO-DEFENDANTS - MECARTNEY, AN ATTORNEY, AND SOLLER,
THE MIMEOGRAPHER - WERE FOUND GUILTY ON COUNTS 5, 6 AND 7.  BUT THE
TRIAL JUDGE SET ASIDE MECARTNEY'S CONVICTION ON A MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD ANY ACTIVE
PART IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PAMPHLETS PRODUCED BY PETITIONER. 
SOLLER'S CONVICTION WAS SET ASIDE BY THE COURT BELOW ON THE GROUND THAT
THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT HE KNEW WHAT USE PETITIONER MADE OF THE
PAMPHLETS.  MECARTNEY AND SOLLER WERE THE ONLY CO-CONSPIRATORS OF
PETITIONER NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT AND THE SETTING ASIDE OF THEIR
CONVICTIONS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN PETITIONER'S CONVICTION UPON
THE BASIS OF COUNT 7, THE CONSPIRACY COUNT. 

FN4  PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT "I SENT THE DOCUMENTS OUT ANONYMOUSLY
BECAUSE I ALMOST LOST MY JOB SEVERAL TIMES AND I KNEW I HAD TO BE
CAREFUL AND ALSO BECAUSE OF A GREAT DEAL OF ESPIONAGE IN THE
COMMUNITY.  I DID NOT SIGN MY NAME TO THE DOCUMENTS I SENT OUT FOR THE
SAME REASON.  ...  I TOOK THEM OUT AND DROPPED THEM IN SEVERAL BOXES. 
I DID THAT BECAUSE WITH SUCH A LARGE QUANTITY OF THEM, I THOUGHT
SOMEONE MIGHT THROW THEM OUT.  I MAILED THEM ALL AT ONCE, BUT I DROPPED
ONE HUNDRED IN ONE BOX AND ANOTHER HUNDRED IN EACH OF FOUR OR FIVE
BOXES.  I DIDN'T PUT THEM ALL IN ONE BOX SIMPLY BECAUSE, IF SOMEONE
WOULD THROW ONE OUT THEY WOULD THROW THEM ALL OUT.  I HAD A SUSPICION
THAT SOMEONE IN AUTHORITY MIGHT WELL FIND THESE ARTICLES AND THROW THEM
OUT FOR THE REASONS I GAVE YOU.  I HAD HEARD THAT FINGERPRINTS WOULD BE
IDENTIFIED SO I PUT MY HAND OVER IT LIKE THAT (INDICATING).  I WAS
SUSPICIOUS OF IT FOR THE SAME REASONS I GAVE YOU."  THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE CONTRADICTING ANY OF THIS TESTIMONY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE IN DETAIL OR CHARACTERIZING THE
PETITIONER'S CONDUCT, I DEEM IT SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT I CONCUR IN THE
VIEW THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE TO WARRANT
SUBMISSION TO THE JURY.  THE CONVICTION OF VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE
SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PRESERVES FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND OF THE PRESS IN WAR AS WELL AS IN PEACE.  THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE HANDLING OF THE WAR IS NOT QUESTIONED.  CONGRESS
HAS NOT SOUGHT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF ANYONE
TO PRESENT HIS VIEWS ON THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR OR THE MAKING OF THE
PEACE.  THE LEGISLATION UNDER WHICH HARTZEL WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED WAS
AIMED AT THOSE WHO, IN TIME OF WAR, "SHALL WILLFULLY CAUSE OR ATTEMPT
TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY, OR REFUSAL OF DUTY, IN THE
MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES."  IT IS ONLY WHEN THE
REQUISITE INTENT TO PRODUCE THOSE RESULTS IS PRESENT THAT CRITICISM MAY
CROSS OVER THE LINE OF PROHIBITED CONDUCT.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF
CONGRESS SO TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL INTEREST IS BEYOND QUESTION. 
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47. 

IF THE PETITIONER COMMITTED ACTS FROM WHICH A PROPERLY INSTRUCTED
JURY COULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THE REQUISITE INTENTION EXISTED TO
CAUSE THE EVILS AGAINST WHICH THE STATUTE IS DIRECTED, THE SENTENCE WAS
PROPER.  AS THE VERDICT WAS GENERAL, WE NEED ONLY TO EXAMINE THE
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED VIOLATION
OF THE LAW IN THE WORDS QUOTED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.  HIRABAYASHI
V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 105. 

PETITIONER URGES THAT THESE ARTICLES, WHICH CONTAIN ON THEIR FACE NO
EXPLICIT CALL UPON THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY ORDERS, ACT IN A DISLOYAL
MANNER, MUTINY OR DISREGARD THEIR DUTY, CANNOT BE A VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTE BECAUSE THEY OFFER NO PROOF OF THE NECESSARY INTENT AND NONE IS
OFFERED OUTSIDE OF THE PAPERS THEMSELVES.  WE THINK THAT THIS ARGUMENT
FAILS.  CONGRESS HAS MADE IT AN OFFENSE WILLFULLY TO ATTEMPT TO CAUSE
INSUBORDINATION AND LIKEWISE WILLFULLY TO OBSTRUCT THE RECRUITING AND
ENLISTMENT SERVICE OF THE NATION.  IT DOES NOT COMMEND ITSELF TO US TO
HOLD THAT THEREBY CONGRESS WAS MERELY CONCERNED WITH CRUDE ATTEMPTS TO
UNDERMINE THE WAR EFFORT BUT GAVE FREE PLAY TO LESS OBVIOUS AND MORE
SKILLFUL WAYS OF BRINGING ABOUT THE SAME MISCHIEVOUS RESULTS.  PAPERS
OR SPEECHES MAY CONTAIN INCITEMENTS FOR THE MILITARY TO BE
INSUBORDINATE OR TO MUTINY WITHOUT A SPECIFIC CALL UPON THE ARMED
FORCES SO TO ACT.  IF CIRCULATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDERMINING
MILITARY DISCIPLINE, SCURRILOUS ARTICLES, ATTACKING AN ALLY, A MINORITY
OF OUR CITIZENS AND THE PRESIDENT, MAY CONTAIN, WITHOUT WORDS OF
SOLICITATION, INDICATIONS OF PURPOSE SUFFICIENT, IF ACCEPTED AS TRUE,
FROM WHICH TO DRAW AN INTENT TO ACCOMPLISH THE UNLAWFUL RESULTS. 

MOREOVER, WHEN THE OTHER EVIDENCE IS ADDED TO THE ARTICLES
THEMSELVES, WE THINK THAT ENOUGH FACTS REVEALING THE REQUISITE INTENT
WERE PRESENTED TO JUSTIFY THE VERDICT.  OTHER SIMILAR ARTICLES
CIRCULATED PRIOR TO THE DECLARATION OF WAR TENDED TO SHOW A CONTINUING
INTENTION.  THE ARTICLES WHICH WERE THE BASIS OF THE INDICTMENT WERE
SENT TO MILITARY OFFICERS INCLUDING THOSE OF THE HIGHEST RANK.  THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE IS BROUGHT FORWARD BY PETITIONER AS INDICATIVE OF A LACK
OF INTENTION TO UNDERMINE THE MILITARY FORCES.  THIS WAS DOUBTLESS
WEIGHED BY THE JURY, BUT CERTAINLY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT CIRCULATION
OF PROPAGANDA AMONG OFFICERS SHOWS LESS INTENTION TO PROSELYTE THAN TO
CIRCULATE AMONG THE ENLISTED PERSONNEL.  COPIES WERE SENT TO THE
INFANTRY JOURNAL, A PUBLICATION CIRCULATING LARGELY IN THE ARMED
FORCES.  NOTHING APPEARS AS TO ANY MOTIVE, OTHER THAN INTERFERENCE WITH
DISCIPLINE, THAT THE PETITIONER MIGHT HAVE IN DISTRIBUTING THIS TYPE OF
PAMPHLET TO PROFESSIONAL MILITARY OFFICERS.  THE JURY WAS ENTITLED TO
WEIGH THE FACT THAT THE ARTICLES WERE SENT ANONYMOUSLY.  THE JURY WAS
ALSO ENTITLED TO WEIGH THE FACT THAT THOSE TO WHOM THE ARTICLES WERE
SENT WERE HAND-PICKED AND COMPOSED A SELECT GROUP.  THESE ACTIONS SPEAK
AS LOUD AS WORDS. 

HARTZEL HIMSELF, MOREOVER, MADE A STATEMENT WHICH WAS INTRODUCED AT
THE TRIAL.  IN IT HE TOLD OF THE PREPARATION OF THE PAMPHLETS, THE
SELECTION OF THE MAILING LIST FROM AMONG PROMINENT PERSONAGES AND
ASSOCIATIONS AND HIS REASON FOR HIS ACTS.  HIS INTENT APPEARS IN THESE
WORDS: 

"FINALLY, THE PRIME MOTIVE WHICH IMPELLED ME IN WRITING AND
DISTRIBUTING THE ARTICLES DISCUSSED ABOVE, WAS THE HOPE THAT THEY MIGHT
TEND TO CREATE SENTIMENT AGAINST WAR AMONGST THE WHITE RACES AND IN
DIVERTING THE WAR FROM THEM, TO UNITE THE WHITE RACES AGAINST WHAT I
CONSIDER TO BE THE MORE DANGEROUS ENEMIES, THE YELLOW RACES." 

THE JURY MIGHT WELL INFER FROM THE QUOTED PARAGRAPH THAT HARTZEL, BY
PLACING THESE PAMPHLETS IN MILITARY HANDS, WAS ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE
INSUBORDINATION AMONG THE TROOPS.  HE SOUGHT TO DEVELOP SENTIMENT
"AGAINST WAR AMONG THE WHITE RACES."  GERMANS ARE A "WHITE RACE." 

THESE PAMPHLETS WERE DISTRIBUTED IN 1942.  THE MILITARY SITUATION WAS
THEN NOTHING LIKE SO STRONG AS NOW NOR CONFIDENCE IN OUR STRATEGY SO
UNIFORM.  A LARGE SEGMENT OF PUBLIC OPINION DESIRED TO CONCENTRATE
AGAINST JAPAN, RATHER THAN GERMANY AND ITALY, A VIEWPOINT WHICH
DOUBTLESS HAD ADVOCATES AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.  IT WAS
AN OPPORTUNE TIME FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE GERMAN ENEMY TO PUT
PAMPHLETS SUCH AS THESE IN CIRCULATION WHICH TAUGHT SUSPICION OF
BRITAIN, VILIFIED JEWS AND PROMOTED LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN THE
PRESIDENT.  ON THE QUESTION OF INTENTION, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
THE PAMPHLETS WERE DISTRIBUTED WERE IMPORTANT AND ENTITLED TO WEIGHT. 
PETITIONER PLAYED PRECISELY UPON THOSE PREJUDICES FROM WHICH AT THAT
TIME INSUBORDINATION OR DISLOYALTY WAS MOST LIKELY TO DEVELOP. 

WE ARE NOT A JURY PASSING ON HARTZEL'S STATE OF MIND.  OUR SOLE AND
VERY LIMITED DUTY IS TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE ENOUGH
WARRANTING THE TRIAL JUDGE LETTING THE CASE GO TO THE JURY, WHETHER 12
JURYMEN HAD WARRANT FOR THEIR FINDING THAT HARTZEL'S VERY PURPOSE WAS
TO UNDERMINE THE WILL OF OUR SOLDIERS TO FIGHT OUR NAZI ENEMY, AND
WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS WARRANTED IN SUSTAINING SUCH A
FINDING.  WE ARE AT A LOSS TO KNOW WHAT OTHER INTENT IS TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE DISSEMINATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS TO OUR SOLDIERY.  TO
ADOPT THE LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT
IN SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 51, OF COURSE THE DOCUMENTS
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENT UNLESS THEY HAD BEEN INTENDED TO HAVE SOME
EFFECT, AND WE DO NOT SEE WHAT EFFECT THEY COULD BE EXPECTED TO HAVE
UPON PERSONS IN THE MILITARY SERVICE EXCEPT TO INFLUENCE THEM TO
OBSTRUCT THE CARRYING ON OF THE WAR AGAINST GERMANY WHEN PETITIONER
DEEMED THAT A BETRAYAL OF OUR COUNTRY. 

AS THE TRIAL JUDGE APTLY STATED: 

"ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT SEEMS TO ME, THE VERY
LANGUAGE OF THE PAMPHLETS COMPOSED AND DISTRIBUTED BY HARTZEL SHOW SUCH
INTENT.  FOR WHAT PURPOSE OTHER THAN HINDERING THE CARRYING ON OF THE
WAR IN ANY WAY DID HE HAVE OR COULD HE HAVE HAD IN MIND?  HE APPEARED
ON THE STAND TO BE AN UNUSUALLY SHREWD PERSON.  THE STORY HE TELLS OF
HIS EDUCATION AND HIS ACTIVITIES INDICATES THAT WHATEVER HE DOES IS
DELIBERATE AND WITH A DEFINITE PURPOSE.  HE IS NOT A FANATIC ATTACHED
TO A CAUSE, HAVING POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC THEORIES FOR THE LIBERATION
OF OPPRESSED PEOPLES AS WERE THE DEFENDANTS IN PIERCE V. UNITED STATES,
252 U.S. 239, AND ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, WHERE JUSTICES
HOLMES AND BRANDEIS IN DISSENTING OPINIONS FOUND THAT THE LITERATURE
DISTRIBUTED BY THE DEFENDANTS HAD AS ITS PURPOSE PROPAGATING CERTAIN
ECONOMIC IDEAS RATHER THAN INTERFERING WITH ENLISTMENT OR RECRUITING OR
INSUBORDINATION OR DISLOYALTY TO THE ARMY.  IN THIS CASE THE JURY WERE
WARRANTED IN PRESUMING FROM THE PREPARATION AND CIRCULATION OF THE
LITERATURE THAT HARTZEL INTENDED TO OBSTRUCT ENLISTMENT AND RECRUITING
AND TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION AND DISLOYALTY IN THE MILITARY SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES." 

ON THESE FACTS WE WOULD INTRUDE ON THE HISTORIC FUNCTION OF THE JURY
IN CRIMINAL TRIALS TO SAY THAT THE REQUISITE INTENT "TO CAUSE
INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY, OR REFUSAL OF DUTY, IN THE MILITARY OR
NAVAL FORCES" WAS LACKING.  THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IS VITAL.  BUT THE
NECESSITY OF FINDING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE INTENT TO PRODUCE
THE PROHIBITED RESULT AFFORDS ABUNDANT PROTECTION TO THOSE WHOSE
CRITICISM IS DIRECTED TO LEGITIMATE ENDS. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. WHITE, 322 U.S. 694 


NO. 366.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1944.  - DECIDED JUNE 12, 1944.  - 137 F.2D
24, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS
ESSENTIALLY A PERSONAL ONE, APPLYING ONLY TO NATURAL INDIVIDUALS.  P.
698. 

2.  THE PAPERS AND EFFECTS WHICH THE PRIVILEGE PROTECTS MUST BE THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE PERSON CLAIMING THE PRIVILEGE, OR AT LEAST IN
HIS POSSESSION IN A PURELY PERSONAL CAPACITY.  P. 699. 

3.  AN OFFICER OF AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION HAS NO RIGHT, UNDER
THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, TO REFUSE
TO PRODUCE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE UNION - WHICH ARE IN HIS POSSESSION
AND WHICH A FEDERAL COURT BY A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM HAS REQUIRED TO BE
PRODUCED - ON THE GROUND THAT THEY MIGHT TEND TO INCRIMINATE THE UNION
OR HIMSELF AS AN OFFICER THEREOF AND INDIVIDUALLY.  P. 704. 

THE TEST OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PRIVILEGE IS WHETHER ONE CAN
FAIRLY SAY UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT A PARTICULAR TYPE OF
ORGANIZATION HAS A CHARACTER SO IMPERSONAL IN THE SCOPE OF ITS
MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES THAT IT CAN NOT BE SAID TO EMBODY OR
REPRESENT THE PURELY PRIVATE OR PERSONAL INTERESTS OF ITS CONSTITUENTS,
BUT RATHER TO EMBODY THEIR COMMON OR GROUP INTERESTS ONLY.  IF SO, THE
PRIVILEGE CAN NOT BE INVOKED ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION OR ITS
REPRESENTATIVES IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY.  P. 701. 

4.  WHETHER THE PERSON ASSERTING THE PRIVILEGE IN SUCH CASE IS A
MEMBER OF THE UNION, AND WHETHER THE UNION WAS SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN RELATION TO WHICH THE INVESTIGATION WAS
BEING MADE, ARE IMMATERIAL.  P. 704. 

UNITED STATES V. WHITE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 729, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
SENTENCING THE RESPONDENT FOR CONTEMPT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DURING THE COURSE OF A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED
IRREGULARITIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MECHANICSBURG NAVAL SUPPLY
DEPOT, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA ISSUED A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DIRECTED TO "LOCAL NO.
542, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS."  THIS SUBPOENA
REQUIRED THE UNION TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY ON JANUARY 11,
1943, COPIES OF ITS CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS AND SPECIFICALLY
ENUMERATED UNION RECORDS SHOWING ITS COLLECTIONS OF WORK-PERMIT FEES,
INCLUDING THE AMOUNTS PAID THEREFOR AND THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYORS FROM
JANUARY 1, 1942, TO THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENA, DECEMBER
28, 1942. 

THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVED THE SUBPOENA ON THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNION.  ON JANUARY 11, 1943, RESPONDENT APPEARED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY,
DESCRIBING HIMSELF AS "ASSISTANT SUPERVISOR" OF THE UNION.  ALTHOUGH HE
WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE THE AUTHORIZED CUSTODIAN OF THE UNION'S BOOKS, HE
HAD THE DEMANDED DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION.  HE HAD NOT BEEN
SUBPOENAED PERSONALLY TO TESTIFY NOR PERSONALLY DIRECTED BY THE
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO PRODUCE THE UNION'S RECORDS.  MOREOVER, THERE
WAS NO EFFORT OR INDICATED INTENTION TO EXAMINE HIM PERSONALLY AS A
WITNESS.  NEVERTHELESS HE DECLINED TO PRODUCE THE DEMANDED DOCUMENTS
"UPON THE GROUND THAT THEY MIGHT TEND TO INCRIMINATE LOCAL UNION 542,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, MYSELF AS AN OFFICER
THEREOF, OR INDIVIDUALLY."  HE REITERATED HIS REFUSAL AFTER CONSULTING
COUNSEL. 

HE WAS IMMEDIATELY CITED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND DURING THE HEARING
ON THE CONTEMPT REPEATED HIS REFUSAL ONCE AGAIN.  HE BASED HIS REFUSAL
ON THE OPINION OF HIS COUNSEL THAT "GREAT UNCERTAINTY EXISTS TODAY AS
TO WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF SECTION 276(B), TITLE
40, OF THE UNITED STATES CODE."  FN1  HE MADE NO EFFORT, ALTHOUGH HE
APPARENTLY WAS WILLING, TO TENDER THE RECORDS FOR THE JUDGE'S
INSPECTION IN SUPPORT OF HIS ASSERTION THAT THEIR CONTENTS WOULD TEND
TO INCRIMINATE HIM OR THE UNION.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD HIS REFUSAL
INEXCUSABLE, ADJUDGED HIM GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT AND SENTENCED HIM
TO THIRTY DAYS IN PRISON. 

THE COURT BELOW REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT BY A DIVIDED
VOTE.  137 F.2D 24.  THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE RECORDS OF AN
UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION WERE THE PROPERTY OF ALL ITS MEMBERS AND
THAT, IF RESPONDENT WERE A UNION MEMBER AND IF THE BOOKS AND RECORDS
WOULD HAVE TENDED TO INCRIMINATE HIM, HE PROPERLY COULD REFUSE TO
PRODUCE THEM BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.  THE COURT BELOW ACCORDINGLY
REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO SUSTAIN THE
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE IF AFTER FURTHER INQUIRY IT SHOULD DETERMINE THAT
RESPONDENT WAS IN FACT A MEMBER OF THE UNION AND THAT THE DOCUMENTS
WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM AS AN INDIVIDUAL.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
320 U.S. 729, BECAUSE OF THE NOVEL AND IMPORTANT QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WHICH IS PRESENTED.  FN2 

THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS CASE RELATES TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED HERE WITH A COMPLETE DELINEATION OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF
UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNIONS.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO THE LEGALITY
OR DESIRABILITY OF INCORPORATING SUCH UNIONS OR AS TO THE NECESSITY OF
CONSIDERING THEM AS SEPARATE ENTITIES APART FROM THEIR MEMBERS FOR
PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE ONE POSED BY THE NARROW ISSUE IN THIS CASE. 
NOR DO WE QUESTION THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT BUSINESS CORPORATIONS, BY
VIRTUE OF THEIR CREATION BY THE STATE AND BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND
PURPOSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES, DIFFER IN MANY SIGNIFICANT RESPECTS FROM
UNIONS, RELIGIOUS BODIES, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, SOCIAL CLUBS AND OTHER
TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS, AND ACCORDINGLY OWE DIFFERENT OBLIGATIONS TO
THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS.  OUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED SOLELY TO
THE RIGHT OF AN OFFICER OF A UNION TO CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENTED. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT AN OFFICER OF AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION
POSSESSES A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PRODUCE, IN COMPLIANCE
WITH A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, RECORDS OF THE UNION WHICH ARE IN HIS
CUSTODY AND WHICH MIGHT TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM.  HE RELIES UPON THE
"UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE" CLAUSE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND
THE EXPLICIT GUARANTEE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE
COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.  WE
HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT NEITHER THE FOURTH NOR THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, BOTH OF
WHICH ARE DIRECTED PRIMARILY TO THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL AND
PERSONAL RIGHTS, REQUIRES THE RECOGNITION OF A PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS
ESSENTIALLY A PERSONAL ONE, APPLYING ONLY TO NATURAL INDIVIDUALS.  IT
GROWS OUT OF THE HIGH SENTIMENT AND REGARD OF OUR JURISPRUDENCE FOR
CONDUCTING CRIMINAL TRIALS AND INVESTIGATORY PROCEEDINGS UPON A PLANE
OF DIGNITY, HUMANITY AND IMPARTIALITY.  IT IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE
USE OF LEGAL PROCESS TO FORCE FROM THE LIPS OF THE ACCUSED INDIVIDUAL
THE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO CONVICT HIM OR TO FORCE HIM TO PRODUCE AND
AUTHENTICATE ANY PERSONAL DOCUMENTS OR EFFECTS THAT MIGHT INCRIMINATE
HIM.  PHYSICAL TORTURE AND OTHER LESS VIOLENT BUT EQUALLY REPREHENSIBLE
MODES OF COMPELLING THE PRODUCTION OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE ARE
THEREBY AVOIDED.  THE PROSECUTORS ARE FORCED TO SEARCH FOR INDEPENDENT
EVIDENCE INSTEAD OF RELYING UPON PROOF EXTRACTED FROM INDIVIDUALS BY
FORCE OF LAW.  THE IMMEDIATE AND POTENTIAL EVILS OF COMPULSORY SELF
DISCLOSURE TRANSCEND ANY DIFFICULTIES THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE
PRIVILEGE MAY IMPOSE ON SOCIETY IN THE DETECTION AND PROSECUTION OF
CRIME.  WHILE THE PRIVILEGE IS SUBJECT TO ABUSE AND MISUSE, IT IS
FIRMLY EMBEDDED IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AS A BULWARK
AGAINST INIQUITOUS METHODS OF PROSECUTION.  IT PROTECTS THE INDIVIDUAL
FROM ANY DISCLOSURE, IN THE FORM OF ORAL TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTS OR
CHATTELS, SOUGHT BY LEGAL PROCESS AGAINST HIM AS A WITNESS. 

SINCE THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS A PURELY PERSONAL
ONE, IT CANNOT BE UTILIZED BY OR ON BEHALF OF ANY ORGANIZATION, SUCH AS
A CORPORATION.  HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43; WILSON V. UNITED STATES,
221 U.S. 361; ESSGEE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 262 U.S. 151.  SEE ALSO
UNITED STATES V. INVADER OIL CORP., 5 F.2D 715.  MOREOVER, THE PAPERS
AND EFFECTS WHICH THE PRIVILEGE PROTECTS MUST BE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY
OF THE PERSON CLAIMING THE PRIVILEGE, OR AT LEAST IN HIS POSSESSION IN
A PURELY PERSONAL CAPACITY.  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616.  BUT
INDIVIDUALS, WHEN ACTING AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A COLLECTIVE GROUP,
CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EXERCISING THEIR PERSONAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES NOR TO
BE ENTITLED TO THEIR PURELY PERSONAL PRIVILEGES.  RATHER THEY ASSUME
THE RIGHTS, DUTIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE ARTIFICIAL ENTITY OR
ASSOCIATION OF WHICH THEY ARE AGENTS OR OFFICERS AND THEY ARE BOUND BY
ITS OBLIGATIONS.  IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, THEREFORE, THEY HAVE NO
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  AND THE OFFICIAL RECORDS AND
DOCUMENTS OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT ARE HELD BY THEM IN A REPRESENTATIVE
RATHER THAN IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF THE
PERSONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, EVEN THOUGH PRODUCTION
OF THE PAPERS MIGHT TEND TO INCRIMINATE THEM PERSONALLY.  WILSON V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA; DREIER V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 394; BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 221 U.S. 612; WHEELER
V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 478; GRANT V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 74;
ESSGEE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  SUCH RECORDS AND PAPERS ARE NOT
THE PRIVATE RECORDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OR OFFICERS OF THE
ORGANIZATION.  USUALLY, IF NOT ALWAYS, THEY ARE OPEN TO INSPECTION BY
THE MEMBERS AND THIS RIGHT MAY BE ENFORCED ON APPROPRIATE OCCASIONS BY
AVAILABLE LEGAL PROCEDURES.  SEE GUTHRIE V. HARKNESS, 199 U.S. 148,
153.  THEY THEREFORE EMBODY NO ELEMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVACY AND CARRY
WITH THEM NO CLAIM OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. 

THE REASON UNDERLYING THE RESTRICTION OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE TO NATURAL INDIVIDUALS ACTING IN THEIR OWN PRIVATE CAPACITY
IS CLEAR.  THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF
INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
DEMAND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE THOSE ACTIVITIES BE CORRESPONDINGLY EFFECTIVE. 
THE GREATER PORTION OF EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING BY AN ORGANIZATION OR ITS
REPRESENTATIVES IS USUALLY TO BE FOUND IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS AND
DOCUMENTS OF THAT ORGANIZATION.  WERE THE CLOAK OF THE PRIVILEGE TO BE
THROWN AROUND THESE IMPERSONAL RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS, EFFECTIVE
ENFORCEMENT OF MANY FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.  SEE
HALE V. HENKEL, SUPRA, 70, 74; 8 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SEC. 
2259A.  THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE AGAINST COMPULSORY
SELF-DISCLOSURE, WHO WERE INTERESTED PRIMARILY IN PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL
CIVIL LIBERTIES, CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE INTENDED THE PRIVILEGE TO BE
AVAILABLE TO PROTECT ECONOMIC OR OTHER INTERESTS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS
SO AS TO NULLIFY APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS. 

THE FACT THAT THE STATE CHARTERS CORPORATIONS AND HAS VISITORIAL
POWERS OVER THEM PROVIDES A CONVENIENT VEHICLE FOR JUSTIFICATION OF
GOVERNMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF CORPORATE BOOKS AND RECORDS.  HALE V.
HENKEL, SUPRA; WILSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  BUT THE ABSENCE OF THAT
FACT AS TO A PARTICULAR TYPE OF ORGANIZATION DOES NOT LESSEN THE PUBLIC
NECESSITY FOR MAKING REASONABLE REGULATIONS OF ITS ACTIVITIES
EFFECTIVE, NOR DOES IT CONFER UPON SUCH AN ORGANIZATION THE PURELY
PERSONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  BASICALLY, THE POWER TO
COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF THE RECORDS OF ANY ORGANIZATION, WHETHER IT BE
INCORPORATED OR NOT, ARISES OUT OF THE INHERENT AND NECESSARY POWER OF
THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO ENFORCE THEIR LAWS, WITH THE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION BEING LIMITED TO ITS HISTORIC
FUNCTION OF PROTECTING ONLY THE NATURAL INDIVIDUAL FROM COMPULSORY
INCRIMINATION THROUGH HIS OWN TESTIMONY OR PERSONAL RECORDS. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT LABOR UNIONS, AS WELL AS THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS
ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, CANNOT INVOKE THIS PERSONAL
PRIVILEGE.  THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT REACHED BY ANY MECHANICAL COMPARISON
OF UNIONS WITH CORPORATIONS OR WITH OTHER ENTITIES NOR BY ANY
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER UNIONS TECHNICALLY MAY BE REGARDED AS LEGAL
PERSONALITIES FOR ANY OR ALL PURPOSES.  THE TEST, RATHER, IS WHETHER
ONE CAN FAIRLY SAY UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT A PARTICULAR TYPE
OF ORGANIZATION HAS A CHARACTER SO IMPERSONAL IN THE SCOPE OF ITS
MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID TO EMBODY OR REPRESENT
THE PURELY PRIVATE OR PERSONAL INTERESTS OF ITS CONSTITUENTS, BUT
RATHER TO EMBODY THEIR COMMON OR GROUP INTERESTS ONLY.  IF SO, THE
PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE INVOKED ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION OR ITS
REPRESENTATIVES IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY.  LABOR UNIONS - NATIONAL OR
LOCAL, INCORPORATED OR UNINCORPORATED - CLEARLY MEET THAT TEST. 

STRUCTURALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY, A LABOR UNION IS AN INSTITUTION WHICH
INVOLVES MORE THAN THE PRIVATE OR PERSONAL INTERESTS OF ITS MEMBERS. 
IT REPRESENTS ORGANIZED, INSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITY AS CONTRASTED WITH
WHOLLY INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY.  THIS DIFFERENCE IS AS WELL DEFINED AS THAT
EXISTING BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  THE UNION'S
EXISTENCE IN FACT, AND FOR SOME PURPOSES IN LAW, IS AS PERPETUAL AS
THAT OF ANY CORPORATION, NOT BEING DEPENDENT UPON THE LIFE OF ANY
MEMBER.  IT NORMALLY OPERATES UNDER ITS OWN CONSTITUTION, RULES AND BY
LAWS WHICH, IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN MEMBER AND UNION, ARE OFTEN
ENFORCED BY THE COURTS.  THE UNION ENGAGES IN A MULTITUDE OF BUSINESS
AND OTHER OFFICIAL CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, NONE OF WHICH CAN BE SAID TO
BE THE PRIVATE UNDERTAKINGS OF THE MEMBERS FN3.  DULY ELECTED UNION
OFFICERS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO OR SANCTION ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT
WHICH THE UNION MAY LAWFULLY DO; NOR HAVE THEY AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE
MEMBERS IN MATTERS AFFECTING ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF SUCH
MEMBERS.  THE UNION OWNS SEPARATE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, EVEN
THOUGH THE TITLE MAY NOMINALLY BE IN THE NAMES OF ITS MEMBERS OR
TRUSTEES.  FN4  THE OFFICIAL UNION BOOKS AND RECORDS ARE DISTINCT FROM
THE PERSONAL BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE INDIVIDUALS, IN THE SAME MANNER
AS THE UNION TREASURY EXISTS APART FROM THE PRIVATE AND PERSONAL FUNDS
OF THE MEMBERS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. B. GOEDDE & CO., 40 F.SUPP.  523,
534.  AND NO MEMBER OR OFFICER HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THEM FOR CRIMINAL
PURPOSES OR FOR HIS PURELY PRIVATE AFFAIRS.  THE ACTIONS OF ONE
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER NO MORE BIND THE UNION THAN THEY BIND ANOTHER
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER UNLESS THERE IS PROOF THAT THE UNION AUTHORIZED OR
RATIFIED THE ACTS IN QUESTION.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE MEMBERS ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO EITHER CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITY FOR THE ACTS OF THE UNION
OR ITS OFFICERS AS SUCH UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT THEY PERSONALLY
AUTHORIZED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PARTICULAR ACTS.  SEE LAWLOR V.
LOEWE, 235 U.S. 522; EAGLE GLASS & MFG. CO. V. ROWE, 245 U.S. 275. 
MOREOVER, THIS COURT IN UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259
U.S. 344, HELD THAT LABOR UNIONS MIGHT BE MADE PARTIES DEFENDANT IN
SUITS FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT BY SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THEIR
OFFICERS. 

BOTH COMMON LAW RULES AND LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS HAVE GRANTED MANY
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS TO LABOR UNIONS AS SEPARATE FUNCTIONING
INSTITUTIONS.  IN UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., SUPRA, 385
386, THIS COURT POINTED OUT THAT "THE GROWTH AND NECESSITIES OF THESE
GREAT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BROUGHT AFFIRMATIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION OF
THEIR EXISTENCE AND USEFULNESS AND PROVISIONS FOR THEIR PROTECTION,
WHICH THEIR MEMBERS HAVE FOUND NECESSARY.  THEIR RIGHT TO MAINTAIN
STRIKES, WHEN THEY DO NOT VIOLATE LAW OR THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, HAS BEEN
DECLARED.  THE EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS BY THEIR OFFICERS HAS BEEN
ESPECIALLY DENOUNCED AS A CRIME.  THE SO-CALLED UNION LABEL, WHICH IS A
QUASI TRADEMARK TO INDICATE THE ORIGIN OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCT IN UNION
LABOR, HAS BEEN PROTECTED AGAINST PIRATING AND DECEPTIVE USE BY THE
STATUTES OF MOST OF THE STATES, AND IN MANY STATES AUTHORITY TO SUE TO
ENJOIN ITS USE HAS BEEN CONFERRED ON UNIONS.  THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN
DISTINCT AND SEPARATE REPRESENTATION AND THE RIGHT TO APPEAR TO
REPRESENT UNION INTERESTS IN STATUTORY ARBITRATIONS, AND BEFORE
OFFICIAL LABOR BOARDS."  EVEN GREATER SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
GRANTED LABOR UNIONS BY FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO THE
STATUTES ENUMERATED IN THE OPINION IN THAT CASE.  FN5 

THESE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT
COULD NOT CLAIM THE PERSONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM WAS DIRECTED TO THE
UNION AND DEMANDED THE PRODUCTION ONLY OF ITS OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND
RECORDS.  RESPONDENT COULD NOT CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE ON BEHALF OF THE
UNION BECAUSE THE UNION DID NOT ITSELF POSSESS SUCH A PRIVILEGE. 
MOREOVER, THE PRIVILEGE IS PERSONAL TO THE INDIVIDUAL CALLED AS A
WITNESS, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SET UP THE PRIVILEGE OF A
THIRD PERSON AS AN EXCUSE FOR A REFUSAL TO ANSWER OR TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS.  HENCE RESPONDENT COULD NOT RELY UPON ANY POSSIBLE PRIVILEGE
THAT THE UNION MIGHT HAVE.  HALE V. HENKEL, SUPRA, 69-70; MCALISTER V.
HENKEL, 201 U.S. 90.  NOR COULD RESPONDENT CLAIM THE PRIVILEGE ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AS AN OFFICER OF THE UNION OR AS AN INDIVIDUAL.  THE
DOCUMENTS HE SOUGHT TO PLACE UNDER THE PROTECTIVE SHIELD OF THE
PRIVILEGE WERE OFFICIAL UNION DOCUMENTS HELD BY HIM IN HIS CAPACITY AS
A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION.  NO VALID CLAIM WAS MADE THAT ANY PART
OF THEM CONSTITUTED HIS OWN PRIVATE PAPERS.  HE THUS COULD NOT OBJECT
THAT THE UNION'S BOOKS AND RECORDS MIGHT INCRIMINATE HIM AS AN OFFICER
OR AS AN INDIVIDUAL. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT WAS A MEMBER
OF THE UNION IN QUESTION, FOR IN EITHER EVENT HE COULD NOT INVOKE THE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER THESE FACTS.  IT IS LIKEWISE
IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE UNION WAS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE IN RELATION TO WHICH THE GRAND JURY WAS MAKING ITS
INVESTIGATION.  THE EXCLUSION OF THE UNION FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE
PURELY PERSONAL PRIVILEGE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF THE
PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION OR PROCEEDING.  THE UNION DOES NOT ACQUIRE THE
PRIVILEGE BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIME OR
THAT IT MAY NOT BE SUBJECT TO LIABILITY UNDER THE STATUTE IN QUESTION. 
THE UNION AND ITS OFFICERS ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY LACK THE
PRIVILEGE AT ALL TIMES OF INSULATING THE UNION'S BOOKS AND RECORDS
AGAINST REASONABLE DEMANDS OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS WAS A REFERENCE TO THE SO-CALLED "KICKBACK" ACT, WHICH WAS
BEFORE US IN UNITED STATES V. LAUDANI, 320 U.S. 543.  SECTION 1 OF THE
ACT PROVIDES THAT WHOEVER SHALL INDUCE ANY PERSON EMPLOYED IN THE
CONSTRUCTION, PROSECUTION OR COMPLETION OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING OR WORK
FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE UNITED STATES, OR IN THE REPAIR
THEREOF, TO GIVE UP PART OF HIS COMPENSATION BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION,
THREAT OF PROCURING DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT, OR BY ANY OTHER MANNER
WHATSOEVER SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE
THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH.  ACT OF JUNE 13, 1934, C. 482, 48 STAT. 948,
40 U.S.C. SEC. 276(B). 

FN2  IN ITS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE, THE
GOVERNMENT CLAIMED THAT RESPONDENT HAD TAKEN HIS APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS RULES RATHER THAN BY APPLICATION FOR APPEAL AS REQUIRED BY SEC.
8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, C. 229, 43 STAT. 940, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 230.  SEE NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, 43-44.  IT APPEARS,
HOWEVER, THAT AT THE CONTEMPT HEARING AN EXTENSIVE COLLOQUY TOOK PLACE
BETWEEN THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND COUNSEL WITH RESPECT TO THE PERFECTING
OF THE APPEAL AND RESPONDENT AT THAT TIME MADE IN EFFECT AN ORAL
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE COURT WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925. 

FN3  IN UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344, 385,
THIS COURT DESCRIBED THE UNION THERE INVOLVED IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:
"THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE UNION HAS REACHED 450,000.  THE DUES RECEIVED
FROM THEM FOR THE NATIONAL AND DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONS MAKE A VERY LARGE
ANNUAL TOTAL, AND THE OBLIGATIONS ASSUMED IN TRAVELLING EXPENSES,
HOLDING OF CONVENTIONS, AND GENERAL OVERHEAD COST, BUT MOST OF ALL IN
STRIKES, ARE SO HEAVY THAT AN EXTENSIVE FINANCIAL BUSINESS IS CARRIED
ON, MONEY IS BORROWED, NOTES ARE GIVEN TO BANKS, AND IN EVERY WAY THE
UNION ACTS AS A BUSINESS ENTITY, DISTINCT FROM ITS MEMBERS.  NO
ORGANIZED CORPORATION HAS GREATER UNITY OF ACTION, AND IN NONE IS MORE
POWER CENTERED IN THE GOVERNING EXECUTIVE BODIES." 

FN4  LLOYD, THE LAW RELATING TO UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS (1938)
165 FF.; WRIGHTINGTON, THE LAW OF UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS (2D ED.
1923) 336 FF. 

FN5 OUTSTANDING EXAMPLES OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO
THE CORONADO CASE GIVING RECOGNITION TO UNION PERSONALITY ARE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151, THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 44 STAT. 577, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151, AND THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 101.  THE ANTI-RACKETEERING
ACT, 48 STAT. 979, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 420A-E, EXCEPTS CERTAIN TYPES OF
ACTIVITY BY LABOR UNIONS, THEREBY RECOGNIZING THEM AS ENTITIES CAPABLE
OF VIOLATING THE ACT.  THE WAR LABOR DISPUTES ACT, 57 STAT. 163, 50
U.S.C. APP. SEC. 1501, EVIDENCES A SIMILAR RECOGNITION.  SEE, IN
GENERAL, 1 & 2 TELLER, LABOR DISPUTES AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (1940),
PART V. FOR REFERENCES TO AND DISCUSSIONS OF RECENT STATE LABOR
LEGISLATION, SEE ID., PART VI; SMITH AND DELANCEY, "THE STATE
LEGISLATURES AND UNIONISM," 38 MICHIGAN LAW REV. 987. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :














U.S. V. UNDERWRITERS ASSN., 322 U.S. 533 


NO. 354.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1944.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1944.  - 51
F.SUPP.  712, REVERSED. 


1.  A FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH CONDUCTS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS
BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ACROSS STATE LINES IS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE AMONG
THE SEVERAL STATES" AND SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY CONGRESS UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 539. 

2.  A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE BY FIXING
AND MAINTAINING ARBITRARY AND NONCOMPETITIVE PREMIUM RATES ON FIRE AND
ALLIED LINES OF INSURANCE, AND A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE
TRADE AND COMMERCE IN SUCH LINES OF INSURANCE, HELD VIOLATIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT.  P. 553. 

3.  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE SHOULD BE
EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  PP. 553, 560. 

UNITED STATES V. SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FOR SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS THIS COURT HAS HELD, WHENEVER THE QUESTION HAS
BEEN PRESENTED, THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
DEPRIVE THE INDIVIDUAL STATES OF POWER TO REGULATE AND TAX SPECIFIC
ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES WHICH SELL POLICIES WITHIN
THEIR TERRITORIES.  EACH STATE HAS BEEN HELD TO HAVE THIS POWER EVEN
THOUGH NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF THE COMPANIES' POLICY CONTRACTS
INVOLVED COMMUNICATIONS OF INFORMATION AND MOVEMENTS OF PERSONS,
MONEYS, AND PAPERS ACROSS STATE LINES.  NOT ONE OF ALL THESE CASES,
HOWEVER, HAS INVOLVED AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH REQUIRED THE COURT TO
DECIDE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE GRANTS TO CONGRESS THE
POWER TO REGULATE INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS STRETCHING ACROSS STATE
LINES.  TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE COURT THAT ISSUE
IS SQUARELY PRESENTED AND MUST BE DECIDED. 

APPELLEES - THE SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION (S.E.U.A.),
AND ITS MEMBERSHIP OF NEARLY 200 PRIVATE STOCK FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANIES, AND 27 INDIVIDUALS - WERE INDICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.  THE INDICTMENT
ALLEGES TWO CONSPIRACIES.  THE FIRST, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE
ACT, WAS TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE BY FIXING AND
MAINTAINING ARBITRARY AND NON-COMPETITIVE PREMIUM RATES ON FIRE AND
SPECIFIED "ALLIED LINES"  FN1  OF INSURANCE IN ALABAMA, FLORIDA,
GEORGIA, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND VIRGINIA; THE SECOND, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2, WAS TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE SAME
LINES OF INSURANCE IN AND AMONG THE SAME STATES.  FN2 

THE INDICTMENT MAKES THE FOLLOWING CHARGES:  THE MEMBER COMPANIES OF
S.E.U.A. CONTROLLED 90 PER CENT OF THE FIRE INSURANCE AND "ALLIED
LINES" SOLD BY STOCK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE SIX STATES WHERE
THE CONSPIRACIES WERE CONSUMMATED.  FN3  BOTH CONSPIRACIES CONSISTED OF
A CONTINUING AGREEMENT AND CONCERT OF ACTION EFFECTUATED THROUGH
S.E.U.A.  THE CONSPIRATORS NOT ONLY FIXED PREMIUM RATES AND AGENTS'
COMMISSIONS, BUT EMPLOYED BOYCOTTS TOGETHER WITH OTHER TYPES OF
COERCION AND INTIMIDATION TO FORCE NON-MEMBER INSURANCE COMPANIES INTO
THE CONSPIRACIES, AND TO COMPEL PERSONS WHO NEEDED INSURANCE TO BUY
ONLY FROM S.E.U.A. MEMBERS ON S.E.U.A. TERMS.  COMPANIES NOT MEMBERS OF
S.E.U.A. WERE CUT OFF FROM THE OPPORTUNITY TO REINSURE THEIR RISKS, AND
THEIR SERVICES AND FACILITIES WERE DISPARAGED; INDEPENDENT SALES
AGENCIES WHO DEFIANTLY REPRESENTED NON-S.E.U.A. COMPANIES WERE PUNISHED
BY A WITHDRAWAL OF THE RIGHT TO REPRESENT THE MEMBERS OF S.E.U.A.; AND
PERSONS NEEDING INSURANCE WHO PURCHASED FROM NON-S.E.U.A. COMPANIES
WERE THREATENED WITH BOYCOTTS AND WITHDRAWAL OF ALL PATRONAGE.  THE TWO
CONSPIRACIES WERE EFFECTIVELY POLICED BY INSPECTION AND RATING BUREAUS
IN FIVE OF THE SIX STATES, TOGETHER WITH LOCAL BOARDS OF INSURANCE
AGENTS IN CERTAIN CITIES OF ALL SIX STATES. 

THE KIND OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREE PLAY OF COMPETITIVE FORCES
WITH WHICH THE APPELLEES ARE CHARGED IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF CONDUCT
WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT HAS OUTLAWED FOR AMERICAN "TRADE OR COMMERCE"
AMONG THE STATES.  FN4  APPELLEES  FN5  HAVE NOT ARGUED OTHERWISE. 
THEIR DEFENSE, SET FORTH IN A DEMURRER, HAS BEEN THAT THEY ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF BUSINESS CONDUCT ESTABLISHED BY
THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE "THE BUSINESS OF FIRE INSURANCE IS NOT
COMMERCE."  SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT "THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE, EITHER INTRASTATE OR
INTERSTATE"; IT "IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR INTERSTATE TRADE, THOUGH
IT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A TRADE SUBJECT TO LOCAL LAWS, EITHER STATE OR
FEDERAL, WHERE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS NOT THE AUTHORITY RELIED UPON." 
51 F.SUPP.  712, 713, 714. 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SLIGHTEST
INTIMATION THAT THE INDICTMENT WAS HELD DEFECTIVE ON A THEORY THAT IT
CHARGED THE APPELLEES WITH RESTRAINING AND MONOPOLIZING NOTHING BUT THE
MAKING OF LOCAL CONTRACTS.  THERE WAS NOT EVEN A DEMURRER ON THAT
GROUND.  THE DISTRICT COURT TREATED THE INDICTMENT AS CHARGING ILLEGAL
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE IN THE TOTAL "ACTIVITIES COMPLAINED OF AS
CONSTITUTING THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE."  51 F.SUPP.  712, 713.  AND IN
GREAT DETAIL THE INDICTMENT SET OUT THESE TOTAL ACTIVITIES, OF WHICH
THE ACTUAL MAKING OF CONTRACTS WAS BUT A PART.  AS RECOGNIZED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, THE INSURANCE BUSINESS DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT
INCLUDED NOT ONLY THE EXECUTION OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS BUT ALSO
NEGOTIATIONS AND EVENTS PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACTS AND THE
INNUMERABLE TRANSACTIONS NECESSARY TO PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACTS. 
ALL OF THESE ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS, WE SHALL HEREAFTER POINT OUT,
CONSTITUTED A SINGLE CONTINUOUS CHAIN OF EVENTS, MANY OF WHICH WERE
MULTISTATE IN CHARACTER, AND NONE OF WHICH, IF WE ACCEPT THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT, COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN CONTINUED BUT
FOR THAT PART OF THEM WHICH MOVED BACK AND FORTH ACROSS STATE LINES. 
TRUE, MANY OF THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT WHICH
CONSTITUTED THIS CHAIN OF EVENTS MIGHT, IF CONCEPTUALLY SEPARATED FROM
THAT FROM WHICH THEY ARE INSEPARABLE, BE REGARDED AS WHOLLY LOCAL.  BUT
THE DISTRICT COURT IN CONSTRUING THE INDICTMENT DID NOT ATTEMPT SUCH A
METAPHYSICAL SEPARATION.  LOOKING AT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS CHARGED, IT
FELT COMPELLED BY PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT TO HOLD THAT DESPITE
THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF MANY OF THEM "THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS
NOT COMMERCE," AND THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE THIS "BUSINESS," CONTRACTS AND
ALL, COULD NOT BE "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" OR "INTERSTATE TRADE."  IN
OTHER WORDS, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE INDICTMENT BAD FOR THE SOLE
REASON THAT THE ENTIRE "BUSINESS OF INSURANCE" (NOT MERELY THE PART OF
THE BUSINESS IN WHICH CONTRACTS ARE PHYSICALLY EXECUTED) CAN NEVER
UNDER ANY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES BE "COMMERCE," AND THAT THEREFORE,
EVEN THOUGH AN INSURANCE COMPANY CONDUCTS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS
BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ACROSS STATE LINES, IT IS NOT ENGAGED IN
"COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF EITHER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OR THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.  FN6  THEREFORE TO SAY THAT THE
INDICTMENT CHARGES NOTHING MORE THAN RESTRAINT AND MONOPOLY IN THE
"MERE FORMATION OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT," AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN
THIS COURT, IS TO GIVE IT A DIFFERENT AND NARROWER MEANING THAN DID THE
DISTRICT COURT,  - SOMETHING WE CANNOT DO CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT WHICH PERMITS THE CASE TO COME HERE ON DIRECT
APPEAL.  FN7 

THE RECORD, THEN, PRESENTS TWO QUESTIONS AND NO OTHERS:  (1) WAS THE
SHERMAN ACT INTENDED TO PROHIBIT CONDUCT OF FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES
WHICH RESTRAINS OR MONOPOLIZES THE INTERSTATE FIRE INSURANCE TRADE? 
(2) IF SO, DO FIRE INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS WHICH STRETCH ACROSS STATE
LINES CONSTITUTE "COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" SO AS TO MAKE THEM
SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE?  SINCE IT
IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE SHERMAN ACT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE
FIRE INSURANCE BUSINESS WE SHALL, FOR CONVENIENCE OF DISCUSSION, FIRST
CONSIDER THE LATTER QUESTION. 

                                  I. 

ORDINARILY COURTS DO NOT CONSTRUE WORDS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION SO
AS TO GIVE THEM A MEANING MORE NARROW THAN ONE WHICH THEY HAD IN THE
COMMON PARLANCE OF THE TIMES IN WHICH THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN.  TO
HOLD THAT THE WORD "COMMERCE" AS USED IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT
INCLUDE A BUSINESS SUCH AS INSURANCE WOULD DO JUST THAT.  WHATEVER
OTHER MEANINGS "COMMERCE" MAY HAVE INCLUDED IN 1787, THE DICTIONARIES,
ENCYCLOPEDIAS, AND OTHER BOOKS OF THE PERIOD SHOW THAT IT INCLUDED
TRADE:  BUSINESS IN WHICH PERSONS BOUGHT AND SOLD, BARGAINED AND
CONTRACTED N8.  AND THIS MEANING HAS PERSISTED TO MODERN TIMES. 
SURELY, THEREFORE, A HEAVY BURDEN IS ON HIM WHO ASSERTS THAT THE
PLENARY POWER WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE GRANTS TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE
"COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POWER TO
REGULATE TRADING IN INSURANCE TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT IT INCLUDES POWER
TO REGULATE OTHER TRADES OR BUSINESSES CONDUCTED ACROSS STATE LINES. 
FN9 

THE MODERN INSURANCE BUSINESS HOLDS A COMMANDING POSITION IN THE
TRADE AND COMMERCE OF OUR NATION.  BUILT UPON THE SALE OF CONTRACTS OF
INDEMNITY, IT HAS BECOME ONE OF THE LARGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT BRANCHES
OF COMMERCE N10.  ITS TOTAL ASSETS EXCEED $37,000,000,000, OR THE
APPROXIMATE EQUIVALENT OF THE VALUE OF ALL FARM LANDS AND BUILDINGS IN
THE UNITED STATES.  FN11  ITS ANNUAL PREMIUM RECEIPTS EXCEED
$6,000,000,000, MORE THAN THE AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE RECEIPTS OF THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DURING THE LAST DECADE.  FN12  INCLUDED IN THE
LABOR FORCE OF INSURANCE ARE 524,000 EXPERIENCED WORKERS, ALMOST AS
MANY AS SEEK THEIR LIVINGS IN COAL MINING OR AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING. 
FN13  PERHAPS NO MODERN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE DIRECTLY AFFECTS SO MANY
PERSONS IN ALL WALKS OF LIFE AS DOES THE INSURANCE BUSINESS.  INSURANCE
TOUCHES THE HOME, THE FAMILY, AND THE OCCUPATION OR THE BUSINESS OF
ALMOST EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES.  FN14 

THIS BUSINESS IS NOT SEPARATED INTO 48 DISTINCT TERRITORIAL
COMPARTMENTS WHICH FUNCTION IN ISOLATION FROM EACH OTHER. 
INTERRELATIONSHIP, INTERDEPENDENCE, AND INTEGRATION OF ACTIVITIES IN
ALL THE STATES IN WHICH THEY OPERATE ARE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES' METHODS OF DOING BUSINESS.  A LARGE SHARE OF THE
INSURANCE BUSINESS IS CONCENTRATED IN A COMPARATIVELY FEW COMPANIES
LOCATED, FOR THE MOST PART, IN THE FINANCIAL CENTERS OF THE EAST.  FN15
PREMIUMS COLLECTED FROM POLICYHOLDERS IN EVERY PART OF THE UNITED
STATES FLOW INTO THESE COMPANIES FOR INVESTMENT.  AS POLICIES BECOME
PAYABLE, CHECKS AND DRAFTS FLOW BACK TO THE MANY STATES WHERE THE
POLICYHOLDERS RESIDE.  THE RESULT IS A CONTINUOUS AND INDIVISIBLE
STREAM OF INTERCOURSE AMONG THE STATES COMPOSED OF COLLECTIONS OF
PREMIUMS, PAYMENTS OF POLICY OBLIGATIONS, AND THE COUNTLESS DOCUMENTS
AND COMMUNICATIONS WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION
OF POLICY CONTRACTS.  INDIVIDUAL POLICYHOLDERS LIVING IN MANY DIFFERENT
STATES WHO OWN POLICIES IN A SINGLE COMPANY HAVE THEIR SEPARATE
INTERESTS BLENDED IN ONE ASSEMBLED FUND OF ASSETS UPON WHICH ALL ARE
EQUALLY DEPENDENT FOR PAYMENT OF THEIR POLICIES.  THE DECISIONS WHICH
THAT COMPANY MAKES AT ITS HOME OFFICE - THE RISKS IT INSURES, THE
PREMIUMS IT CHARGES, THE INVESTMENTS IT MAKES, THE LOSSES IT PAYS -
CONCERN NOT JUST THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE WHERE THE HOME OFFICE HAPPENS
TO BE LOCATED.  THEY CONCERN PEOPLE LIVING FAR BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF
THAT STATE. 

THAT THE FIRE INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RESTRAINED
AND MONOPOLIZED BY APPELLEES FIT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PATTERN OF THE
NATIONAL INSURANCE TRADE IS SHOWN BY THE INDICTMENT BEFORE US.  OF THE
NEARLY 200 COMBINING COMPANIES, CHARTERED IN VARIOUS STATES AND FOREIGN
COUNTRIES, ONLY 18 MAINTAINED THEIR HOME OFFICES IN ONE OF THE SIX
STATES IN WHICH THE S.E.U.A. OPERATED; AND 127 HAD HEADQUARTERS IN
EITHER NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OR CONNECTICUT.  DURING THE PERIOD 1931
1941 A TOTAL OF $488,000,000 IN PREMIUMS WAS COLLECTED BY LOCAL AGENTS
IN THE SIX STATES, MOST OF WHICH WAS TRANSMITTED TO HOME OFFICES IN
OTHER STATES; WHILE DURING THE SAME PERIOD $215,000,000 IN LOSSES WAS
PAID BY CHECKS OR DRAFTS SENT FROM THE HOME OFFICES TO THE COMPANIES'
LOCAL AGENTS FOR DELIVERY TO THE POLICYHOLDERS.  FN16  LOCAL AGENTS
SOLICITED PROSPECTS, UTILIZED POLICY FORMS SENT FROM HOME OFFICES, AND
MADE REGULAR REPORTS TO THEIR COMPANIES BY MAIL, TELEPHONE OR
TELEGRAPH.  SPECIAL TRAVELLING AGENTS SUPERVISED LOCAL OPERATIONS.  THE
INSURANCE SOLD BY MEMBERS OF S.E.U.A. COVERED NOT ONLY ALL KINDS OF
FIXED LOCAL PROPERTIES, BUT ALSO SUCH PROPERTIES AS STEAMBOATS, TUGS,
FERRIES, SHIPYARDS, WAREHOUSES, TERMINALS, TRUCKS, BUSSES, RAILROAD
EQUIPMENT AND ROLLING STOCK, AND MOVABLE GOODS OF ALL TYPES CARRIED IN
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE BY EVERY MEDIA OF TRANSPORTATION. 

DESPITE ALL OF THIS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MOST PERSONS, SPEAKING
FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE, WOULD INSTANTLY SAY THAT OF COURSE SUCH A
BUSINESS IS ENGAGED IN TRADE AND COMMERCE, THE DISTRICT COURT FELT
COMPELLED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE INSURANCE
BUSINESS CAN NEVER BE TRADE OR COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  WE MUST THEREFORE CONSIDER THESE DECISIONS. 

IN 1869 THIS COURT HELD, IN SUSTAINING A STATUTE OF VIRGINIA WHICH
REGULATED FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES, THAT THE STATUTE DID NOT OFFEND
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAUSE "ISSUING A POLICY OF INSURANCE IS NOT A
TRANSACTION OF COMMERCE."  PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, 183.  FN17
SINCE THEN, IN SIMILAR CASES, THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN REPEATED, AND HAS
BEEN BROADENED.  IN HOOPER V. CALIFORNIA, 155 U.S. 648, 654, 655,
DECIDED IN 1895, THE PAUL STATEMENT WAS REAFFIRMED, AND THE COURT ADDED
THAT, "THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE."  IN 1913 THE NEW
YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, PROTESTING AGAINST A MONTANA TAX,
CHALLENGED THESE BROAD STATEMENTS, STRONGLY URGING THAT ITS BUSINESS,
AT LEAST, WAS SO CONDUCTED AS TO BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
BUT THE COURT AGAIN APPROVED THE PAUL STATEMENT AND HELD AGAINST THE
COMPANY, SAYING THAT "CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE ARE NOT COMMERCE AT ALL,
NEITHER STATE NOR INTERSTATE."  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE
COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495, 503-504, 510.  FN18    IN ALL CASES IN WHICH THE
COURT HAS RELIED UPON THE PROPOSITION THAT "THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE
IS NOT COMMERCE," ITS ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON THE VALIDITY OF STATE
STATUTES - THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AUTOMATICALLY
DEPRIVED STATES OF THE POWER TO REGULATE THE INSURANCE BUSINESS.  SINCE
CONGRESS HAD AT NO TIME ATTEMPTED TO CONTROL THE INSURANCE BUSINESS,
INVALIDATION OF THE STATE STATUTES WOULD PRACTICALLY HAVE BEEN
EQUIVALENT TO GRANTING INSURANCE COMPANIES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
ACTIVITIES A BLANKET LICENSE TO OPERATE WITHOUT LEGAL RESTRAINT.  AS
EARLY AS 1866 THE INSURANCE TRADE, THOUGH STILL IN ITS INFANCY,  FN19
WAS SUBJECT TO WIDESPREAD ABUSES.  FN20  TO MEET THE IMPERATIVE NEED
FOR CORRECTION OF THESE ABUSES THE VARIOUS STATE LEGISLATURES,
INCLUDING THAT OF VIRGINIA, PASSED REGULATORY LEGISLATION.  FN21  PAUL
V. VIRGINIA UPHELD ONE OF VIRGINIA'S STATUTES.  TO UPHOLD INSURANCE
LAWS OF OTHER STATES, INCLUDING TAX LAWS, PAUL V. VIRGINIA'S
GENERALIZATION AND REASONING HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO. 

TODAY, HOWEVER, WE ARE ASKED TO APPLY THIS REASONING, NOT TO UPHOLD
ANOTHER STATE LAW, BUT TO STRIKE DOWN AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH WAS
INTENDED TO REGULATE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE METHODS BY WHICH INTERSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANIES DO BUSINESS; AND, IN SO DOING, TO NARROW THE SCOPE
OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE THE ACTIVITIES OF A GREAT BUSINESS
CARRIED ON BACK AND FORTH ACROSS STATE LINES.  BUT PAST DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT EMPHASIZE THAT LEGAL FORMULAE DEVISED TO UPHOLD STATE POWER
CANNOT UNCRITICALLY BE ACCEPTED AS TRUSTWORTHY GUIDES TO DETERMINE
CONGRESSIONAL POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  FN22  FURTHERMORE, THE
REASONS GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF THE GENERALIZATION THAT "THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE" AND CAN NEVER BE CONDUCTED SO AS TO
CONSTITUTE "COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES" ARE INCONSISTENT WITH MANY
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH HAVE UPHELD FEDERAL STATUTES REGULATING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  FN23 

ONE REASON ADVANCED FOR THE RULE IN THE PAUL CASE HAS BEEN THAT
INSURANCE POLICIES "ARE NOT COMMODITIES TO BE SHIPPED OR FORWARDED FROM
ONE STATE TO ANOTHER."  FN24  BUT BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE PAUL V.
VIRGINIA THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT CONGRESS CAN REGULATE TRAFFIC THOUGH
IT CONSIST OF INTANGIBLES N25.  ANOTHER REASON MUCH STRESSED HAS BEEN
THAT INSURANCE POLICIES ARE MERE PERSONAL CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS
OF THE STATE WHERE EXECUTED.  BUT THIS REASON RESTS UPON A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED "LOCAL" AND WHAT "INTERSTATE," A TYPE OF
MECHANICAL CRITERION WHICH THIS COURT HAS NOT DEEMED CONTROLLING IN THE
MEASUREMENT OF FEDERAL POWER.  CF. WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111,
119-120; PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 360.  WE MAY GRANT THAT A
CONTRACT OF INSURANCE, CONSIDERED AS A THING APART FROM NEGOTIATION AND
EXECUTION, DOES NOT ITSELF CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CF. HALL V.
GEIGER-JONES CO., 242 U.S. 539, 557-558.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM
THIS THAT THE COURT IS POWERLESS TO EXAMINE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION, OF
WHICH THAT CONTRACT IS BUT A PART, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE
MAY BE A CHAIN OF EVENTS WHICH BECOMES INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN26  ONLY
BY TREATING THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES AS A
"TECHNICAL LEGAL CONCEPTION" RATHER THAN AS A "PRACTICAL ONE, DRAWN
FROM THE COURSE OF BUSINESS" COULD SUCH A CONCLUSION BE REACHED.  SWIFT
& CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 398.  IN SHORT, A NATIONWIDE
BUSINESS IS NOT DEPRIVED OF ITS INTERSTATE CHARACTER MERELY BECAUSE IT
IS BUILT UPON SALES CONTRACTS WHICH ARE LOCAL IN NATURE.  WERE THE RULE
OTHERWISE, FEW BUSINESSES COULD BE SAID TO BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN27 

ANOTHER REASON ADVANCED TO SUPPORT THE RESULT OF THE CASES WHICH
FOLLOW PAUL V. VIRGINIA HAS BEEN THAT, IF ANY ASPECTS OF THE BUSINESS
OF INSURANCE BE TREATED AS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, "THEN ALL CONTROL OVER
IT IS TAKEN FROM THE STATES AND THE LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS WHICH THIS
COURT HAS HERETOFORE SUSTAINED MUST BE DECLARED INVALID."  FN28
ACCEPTED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, THAT BROAD STATEMENT IS INCONSISTENT
WITH MANY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  IT IS SETTLED THAT, FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF A BUSINESS MAY BE
INTRASTATE AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO STATE CONTROL, WHILE OTHER
ACTIVITIES OF THE SAME BUSINESS MAY BE INTERSTATE AND THEREFORE SUBJECT
TO FEDERAL REGULATION.  FN29  AND THERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF BUSINESS AND
OTHER ACTIVITIES WHICH, THOUGH SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION, ARE SO
INTIMATELY RELATED TO LOCAL WELFARE THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, THEY MAY BE REGULATED OR TAXED BY THE STATES. 
FN30  IN MARKING OUT THESE ACTIVITIES THE PRIMARY TEST APPLIED BY THE
COURT IS NOT THE MECHANICAL ONE OF WHETHER THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITY
AFFECTED BY THE STATE REGULATION IS PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT
RATHER WHETHER, IN EACH CASE, THE COMPETING DEMANDS OF THE STATE AND
NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED CAN BE ACCOMMODATED.  FN31  AND THE FACT
THAT PARTICULAR PHASES OF AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY HAVE LONG
BEEN REGULATED OR TAXED BY STATES HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A STRONG
REASON WHY, IN THE CONTINUED ABSENCE OF CONFLICTING CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION, THE STATE REGULATORY AND TAX LAWS SHOULD BE DECLARED VALID. 
FN32 

THE REAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS TO BE FOUND IN THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE ITSELF AND IN SOME OF THE GREAT CASES WHICH INTERPRET
IT.  MANY DECISIONS MAKE VIVID THE BROAD AND TRUE MEANING OF THAT
CLAUSE.  IT IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY CONGRESS TO
CARRY LOTTERY TICKETS FROM STATE TO STATE.  LOTTERY CASE, 188 U.S. 321,
355.  SO ALSO IS IT INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO TRANSPORT A WOMAN FROM
LOUISIANA TO TEXAS IN A COMMON CARRIER, HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S.
308, 320-323; TO CARRY ACROSS A STATE LINE IN A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE FIVE
QUARTS OF WHISKEY INTENDED FOR PERSONAL CONSUMPTION, UNITED STATES V.
SIMPSON, 252 U.S. 465; TO DRIVE A STOLEN AUTOMOBILE FROM IOWA TO SOUTH
DAKOTA, BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432, 436-439.  DISEASED
CATTLE RANGING BETWEEN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA ARE IN COMMERCE, THORNTON V.
UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 414, 425; AND THE TRANSMISSION OF AN ELECTRICAL
IMPULSE OVER A TELEGRAPH LINE BETWEEN ALABAMA AND FLORIDA IS
INTERCOURSE AND SUBJECT TO PARAMOUNT FEDERAL REGULATION, PENSACOLA
TELEGRAPH CO. V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 96 U.S. 1, 11.  NOT ONLY,
THEN, MAY TRANSACTIONS BE COMMERCE THOUGH NON-COMMERCIAL; THEY MAY BE
COMMERCE THOUGH ILLEGAL AND SPORADIC, AND THOUGH THEY DO NOT UTILIZE
COMMON CARRIERS OR CONCERN THE FLOW OF ANYTHING MORE TANGIBLE THAN
ELECTRONS AND INFORMATION.  THESE ACTIVITIES HAVING ALREADY BEEN HELD
TO CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND PERSONS ENGAGED IN THEM
THEREFORE HAVING BEEN HELD SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION, IT WOULD
INDEED BE DIFFICULT NOW TO HOLD THAT NO ACTIVITIES OF ANY INSURANCE
COMPANY CAN EVER CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO AS TO MAKE IT
SUBJECT TO SUCH REGULATION; - ACTIVITIES WHICH, AS PART OF THE CONDUCT
OF A LEGITIMATE AND USEFUL COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, MAY EMBRACE
INTEGRATED OPERATIONS IN MANY STATES AND INVOLVE THE TRANSMISSION OF
GREAT QUANTITIES OF MONEY, DOCUMENTS, AND COMMUNICATIONS ACROSS DOZENS
OF STATE LINES. 

THE PRECISE BOUNDARY BETWEEN NATIONAL AND STATE POWER OVER COMMERCE
HAS NEVER YET BEEN, AND DOUBTLESS NEVER CAN BE, DELINEATED BY A SINGLE
ABSTRACT DEFINITION.  FN33  THE MOST WIDELY ACCEPTED GENERAL
DESCRIPTION OF THAT PART OF COMMERCE WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL
POWER IS THAT GIVEN IN 1824 BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN GIBBONS V.
OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 189-190:  "COMMERCE, UNDOUBTEDLY, IS TRAFFIC, BUT
IT IS SOMETHING MORE:  IT IS INTERCOURSE.  IT DESCRIBES THE COMMERCIAL
INTERCOURSE BETWEEN NATIONS, AND PARTS OF NATIONS, IN ALL ITS
BRANCHES.  ...  " COMMERCE IS INTERSTATE, HE SAID, WHEN IT "CONCERNS
MORE STATES THAN ONE."  ID., 194.  NO DECISION OF THIS COURT HAS EVER
QUESTIONED THIS AS TOO COMPREHENSIVE A DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  FN34  TO ACCEPT A DESCRIPTION LESS
COMPREHENSIVE, THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED, WOULD DEPRIVE THE CONGRESS OF
THAT FULL POWER NECESSARY TO ENABLE IT TO DISCHARGE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
DUTY TO GOVERN COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  FN35 

THE POWER CONFINED TO CONGRESS BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS DECLARED IN
THE FEDERALIST TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE "MAINTENANCE OF
HARMONY AND PROPER INTERCOURSE AMONG THE STATES."  FN36  BUT ITS
PURPOSE IS NOT CONFINED TO EMPOWERING CONGRESS WITH THE NEGATIVE
AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE AGAINST STATE REGULATIONS OF COMMERCE DEEMED
INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST.  THE POWER GRANTED CONGRESS IS A
POSITIVE POWER.  IT IS THE POWER TO LEGISLATE CONCERNING TRANSACTIONS
WHICH, REACHING ACROSS STATE BOUNDARIES, AFFECT THE PEOPLE OF MORE
STATES THAN ONE; - TO GOVERN AFFAIRS WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, WITH
THEIR LIMITED TERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS, ARE NOT FULLY CAPABLE OF
GOVERNING N37.  THIS FEDERAL POWER TO DETERMINE THE RULES OF
INTERCOURSE ACROSS STATE LINES WAS ESSENTIAL TO WELD A LOOSE
CONFEDERACY INTO A SINGLE, INDIVISIBLE NATION; ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE
IS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL TO THE WELFARE OF THAT NATION.  FN38 

OUR BASIC RESPONSIBILITY IN INTERPRETING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS TO
MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE POWER TO GOVERN INTERCOURSE AMONG THE STATES
REMAINS WHERE THE CONSTITUTION PLACED IT.  THAT POWER, AS HELD BY THIS
COURT FROM THE BEGINNING, IS VESTED IN THE CONGRESS, AVAILABLE TO BE
EXERCISED FOR THE NATIONAL WELFARE AS CONGRESS SHALL DEEM NECESSARY. 
NO COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE OF ANY KIND WHICH CONDUCTS ITS ACTIVITIES
ACROSS STATE LINES HAS BEEN HELD TO BE WHOLLY BEYOND THE REGULATORY
POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  WE CANNOT MAKE AN
EXCEPTION OF THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE. 

                                 II. 

WE COME THEN TO THE CONTENTION, EARNESTLY PRESSED UPON US BY
APPELLEES, THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND IN THE SHERMAN ACT TO EXERCISE
ITS POWER OVER THE INTERSTATE INSURANCE TRADE. 

CERTAINLY THE ACT'S LANGUAGE AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR THIS CONTENTION. 
DECLARED ILLEGAL IN SEC. 1 IS "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM
OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES  ...  "; AND "EVERY PERSON" WHO SHALL MAKE
SUCH A CONTRACT OR ENGAGE IN SUCH A COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IS DEEMED
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR.  SECTION 2 IS NOT LESS SWEEPING.  "EVERY
PERSON" WHO MONOPOLIZES, OR ATTEMPTS TO MONOPOLIZE, OR CONSPIRES WITH
"ANY OTHER PERSON" TO MONOPOLIZE, "ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" IS, LIKEWISE, DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR.  LANGUAGE MORE COMPREHENSIVE IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE.  ON
ITS FACE IT SHOWS A CAREFULLY STUDIED ATTEMPT TO BRING WITHIN THE ACT
EVERY PERSON ENGAGED IN BUSINESS WHOSE ACTIVITIES MIGHT RESTRAIN OR
MONOPOLIZE COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE AMONG THE STATES. 

A GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO ALL COMBINATIONS OF BUSINESS AND
CAPITAL ORGANIZED TO SUPPRESS COMMERCIAL COMPETITION IS IN HARMONY WITH
THE SPIRIT AND IMPULSES OF THE TIMES WHICH GAVE IT BIRTH.  "TRUSTS" AND
"MONOPOLIES" WERE THE TERROR OF THE PERIOD.  FN39  THEIR POWER TO FIX
PRICES, TO RESTRICT PRODUCTION, TO CRUSH SMALL INDEPENDENT TRADERS, AND
TO CONCENTRATE LARGE POWER IN THE FEW TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE MANY,
WERE BUT SOME OF NUMEROUS EVILS ASCRIBED TO THEM.  FN40 THE ORGANIZED
OPPONENTS OF TRUSTS AIMED AT THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ALL BUSINESS
COMBINATIONS WHICH POSSESSED POTENTIAL POWER, OR HAD THE INTENT, TO
DESTROY COMPETITION IN WHATEVER THE PEOPLE NEEDED OR WANTED.  FN41  SO
GREAT WAS THE STRENGTH OF THE ANTI-TRUST FORCES THAT THE ISSUE OF
TRUSTS AND MONOPOLIES BECAME NON-PARTISAN.  THE QUESTION WAS NOT
WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED, BUT HOW THIS PURPOSE COULD BEST BE
ACCOMPLISHED.  FN42 

COMBINATIONS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE NOT EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC
HOSTILITY AGAINST THE TRUSTS.  BETWEEN 1885 AND 1912 TWENTY-THREE
STATES ENACTED LAWS FORBIDDING INSURANCE COMBINATIONS.  FN43 WHEN, IN
1911, ONE OF THESE STATE STATUTES WAS UNSUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED IN THIS
COURT, THE COURT HAD THIS TO SAY:  "WE CAN WELL UNDERSTAND THAT FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANIES, ACTING TOGETHER, MAY HAVE OWNERS OF PROPERTY
PRACTICALLY AT THEIR MERCY IN THE MATTER OF RATES, AND MAY HAVE IT IN
THEIR POWER TO DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC GENERALLY OF THE ADVANTAGES FLOWING
FROM COMPETITION BETWEEN RIVAL ORGANIZATIONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
FIRE INSURANCE.  IN ORDER TO MEET THE EVILS OF SUCH COMBINATIONS OR
ASSOCIATIONS, THE STATE IS COMPETENT TO ADOPT APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS
THAT WILL TEND TO SUBSTITUTE COMPETITION IN THE PLACE OF COMBINATION OR
MONOPOLY."  GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. HALE, 219 U.S. 307, 316.  FN44 

APPELLEES ARGUE THAT THE CONGRESS KNEW, AS DOUBTLESS SOME OF ITS
MEMBERS DID, THAT THIS COURT HAD PRIOR TO 1890 SAID THAT INSURANCE WAS
NOT COMMERCE AND WAS SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION, AND THAT THEREFORE WE
SHOULD READ THE ACT AS THOUGH IT EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED THAT BUSINESS.  BUT
NEITHER BY REPORTS NOR BY STATEMENTS OF THE BILL'S SPONSORS OR OTHERS
WAS ANY PURPOSE TO EXEMPT INSURANCE COMPANIES REVEALED.  AND WE FAIL TO
FIND IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT AN EXPRESSION OF A CLEAR AND
UNEQUIVOCAL DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE ONLY WITHIN THAT AREA
PREVIOUSLY DECLARED BY THIS COURT TO BE WITHIN THE FEDERAL POWER.  FN45
CF. HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371; PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES,
314 U.S. 244.  WE HAVE BEEN SHOWN NOT ONE PIECE OF RELIABLE EVIDENCE
THAT THE CONGRESS OF 1890 INTENDED TO FREEZE THE PROSCRIPTION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT WITHIN THE MOLD OF THEN CURRENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS DEFINING
THE COMMERCE POWER.  ON THE CONTRARY, ALL THE ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE
POINTS THE OTHER WAY.  THAT CONGRESS WANTED TO GO TO THE UTMOST EXTENT
OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IN RESTRAINING TRUST AND MONOPOLY
AGREEMENTS SUCH AS THE INDICTMENT HERE CHARGES ADMITS OF LITTLE, IF
ANY, DOUBT.  FN46  THE PURPOSE WAS TO USE THAT POWER TO MAKE OF OURS,
SO FAR AS CONGRESS COULD UNDER OUR DUAL SYSTEM, A COMPETITIVE BUSINESS
ECONOMY.  FN47  NOR IS IT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY OUR READING INTO THE
ACT AN EXEMPTION FOR INSURANCE THAT THE CONGRESS OF 1890 MAY HAVE KNOWN
THAT STATES ALREADY WERE REGULATING THE INSURANCE BUSINESS.  THE
CONGRESS OF 1890 ALSO KNEW THAT RAILROADS WERE SUBJECT TO REGULATION
NOT ONLY BY STATES BUT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF, BUT THIS FACT
HAS BEEN HELD INSUFFICIENT TO BRING TO THE RAILROAD COMPANIES THE
INTERPRETATIVE EXEMPTION FROM THE SHERMAN ACT THEY HAVE SOUGHT.  UNITED
STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 314-315, 320
325. 

APPELLEES FURTHER ARGUE THAT, QUITE APART FROM WHAT THE SHERMAN ACT
MEANT IN 1890, THE SUCCEEDING CONGRESSES HAVE ACCEPTED AND APPROVED THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS NOT
COMMERCE.  THEY CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT AT VARIOUS TIMES SINCE
1890 CONGRESS HAS REFUSED TO ENACT LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR FEDERAL
REGULATION OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, AND THAT SEVERAL RESOLUTIONS
PROPOSING TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY TO AUTHORIZE FEDERAL
REGULATION OF INSURANCE HAVE FAILED OF PASSAGE.  IN ADDITION THEY
EMPHASIZE THAT, ALTHOUGH THE SHERMAN ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED SEVERAL
TIMES, NO AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN ADOPTED WHICH SPECIFICALLY BRING
INSURANCE WITHIN THE ACT'S PROSCRIPTION.  THE GOVERNMENT, FOR ITS PART,
POINTS TO EVIDENCE THAT VARIOUS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DURING THE PERIOD
1900-1914 CONSIDERED THERE WERE "TRUSTS" IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, AND
EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE INSURANCE BUSINESS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  FN48  IT ALSO POINTS OUT THAT IN THE MERCHANT MARINE
ACT OF 1920 CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED CERTAIN CONDUCT OF MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM THE "ANTI-TRUST" LAWS.  FN49 

THE MOST THAT CAN BE SAID OF ALL THIS EVIDENCE CONSIDERED TOGETHER IS
THAT IT IS INCONCLUSIVE AS TO ANY POINT HERE RELEVANT.  BY NO MEANS
DOES IT SHOW THAT THE CONGRESS OF 1890 SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO EXEMPT
INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM THE ALL-INCLUSIVE SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
NOR CAN WE ATTACH SIGNIFICANCE TO THE OMISSION OF CONGRESS TO INCLUDE
IN ITS AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT AN EXPRESS STATEMENT THAT THE ACT COVERED
INSURANCE.  FROM THE BEGINNING CONGRESS HAS USED LANGUAGE BROAD ENOUGH
TO INCLUDE ALL BUSINESSES, AND NEVER HAS AMENDED THE ACT TO DEFINE
THESE BUSINESSES WITH PARTICULARITY.  AND THE FACT THAT SEVERAL
CONGRESSES SINCE 1890 HAVE FAILED TO ENACT PROPOSED LEGISLATION
PROVIDING FOR MORE OR LESS COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL REGULATION OF
INSURANCE DOES NOT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT ANY CONGRESS HAS HELD THE
VIEW THAT INSURANCE ALONE, OF ALL BUSINESSES, SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO
ENTER INTO COMBINATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING COMPETITION BY
COERCIVE AND INTIMIDATORY PRACTICES. 

FINALLY IT IS ARGUED AT GREAT LENGTH THAT VIRTUALLY ALL THE STATES
REGULATE THE INSURANCE BUSINESS ON THE THEORY THAT COMPETITION IN THE
FIELD OF INSURANCE IS DETRIMENTAL BOTH TO THE INSURERS AND THE INSURED,
AND THAT IF THE SHERMAN ACT BE HELD APPLICABLE TO INSURANCE MUCH OF
THIS STATE REGULATION WILL BE DESTROYED.  THE FIRST PART OF THIS
ARGUMENT IS BUTTRESSED BY OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY VARIOUS PERSONS THAT
UNRESTRICTED COMPETITION IN INSURANCE RESULTS IN FINANCIAL CHAOS AND
PUBLIC INJURY.  WHETHER COMPETITION IS A GOOD THING FOR THE INSURANCE
BUSINESS IS NOT FOR US TO CONSIDER.  HAVING POWER TO ENACT THE SHERMAN
ACT, CONGRESS DID SO; IF EXCEPTIONS ARE TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE ACT,
THEY MUST COME FROM THE CONGRESS, NOT THIS COURT.  AND AS WAS SAID IN
ANSWER TO A SIMILAR ARGUMENT THAT THE SHERMAN ACT SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED
TO A RAILROAD COMBINATION: 

"IT IS THE HISTORY OF MONOPOLIES IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN ENGLAND THAT
PREDICTIONS OF RUIN ARE HABITUALLY MADE BY THEM WHEN IT IS ATTEMPTED,
BY LEGISLATION, TO RESTRAIN THEIR OPERATIONS AND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
AGAINST THEIR EXACTIONS.  ... 

"BUT EVEN IF THE COURT SHARED THE GLOOMY FOREBODINGS IN WHICH THE
DEFENDANTS INDULGE, IT COULD NOT REFUSE TO RESPECT THE ACTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT IF WHAT IT HAS DONE IS WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  THE SUGGESTIONS OF DISASTER TO
BUSINESS HAVE, WE APPREHEND, THEIR ORIGIN IN THE ZEAL OF PARTIES WHO
ARE OPPOSED TO THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE ACT OF CONGRESS OR ARE
INTERESTED IN THE RESULT OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE; AT ANY RATE, THE
SUGGESTIONS IMPLY THAT THE COURT MAY AND OUGHT TO REFUSE THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IF, IN ITS JUDGMENT, CONGRESS
WAS NOT WISE IN PRESCRIBING AS A RULE BY WHICH THE CONDUCT OF
INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE IS TO BE GOVERNED, THAT EVERY
COMBINATION, WHATEVER ITS FORM, IN RESTRAINT OF SUCH COMMERCE AND THE
MONOPOLIZING OR ATTEMPTING TO MONOPOLIZE SUCH COMMERCE SHALL BE
ILLEGAL.  THESE, PLAINLY, ARE QUESTIONS AS TO THE POLICY OF LEGISLATION
WHICH BELONG TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, AND THIS COURT HAS NO FUNCTION TO
SUPERVISE SUCH LEGISLATION FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WISDOM OR POLICY. 
...  "  HARLAN, J., AFFIRMING DECREE, NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 193 U.S. 197, 351-352.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SHERMAN ACT
NECESSARILY INVALIDATES MANY STATE LAWS REGULATING INSURANCE WE REGARD
AS EXAGGERATED.  FEW STATES GO SO FAR AS TO PERMIT PRIVATE INSURANCE
COMPANIES, WITHOUT STATE SUPERVISION, TO AGREE UPON AND FIX UNIFORM
INSURANCE RATES.  CF. PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 350-352.  NO
STATES AUTHORIZE COMBINATIONS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES TO COERCE,
INTIMIDATE, AND BOYCOTT COMPETITORS AND CONSUMERS IN THE MANNER HERE
ALLEGED, AND IT CANNOT BE THAT ANY COMPANIES HAVE ACQUIRED A VESTED
RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN SUCH DESTRUCTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES.  FN50
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE "ALLIED LINES" OF INSURANCE HANDLED BY APPELLEES ARE
DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT AS "INLAND NAVIGATION AND TRANSPORTATION,
INLAND MARINE, SPRINKLER LEAKAGE, EXPLOSION, WINDSTORM AND TORNADO,
EXTENDED COVERAGE, USE AND OCCUPANCY, AND RIOT AND CIVIL COMMOTION
INSURANCE." 

FN2  THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT OF JULY 2,
1890, 26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1 AND 2, COMMONLY KNOWN
AS THE SHERMAN ACT, ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 1.  EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL:  ...  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MAKE ANY CONTRACT OR ENGAGE IN
ANY COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY DECLARED BY SECTIONS 1-7 OF THIS TITLE TO
BE ILLEGAL SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR.  ... 

"SEC. 2.  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MONOPOLIZE, OR ATTEMPT TO
MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO
MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR,  ...
" 

FN3  THE INDICTMENT DOES NOT STATE THE PROPORTION OF FIRE INSURANCE
AND "ALLIED LINES" SOLD BY STOCK COMPANIES, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
MUTUALS, ETC., IN THE SIX STATES INVOLVED.  BUT IT DOES STATE THAT
"STOCK COMPANIES RECEIVE APPROXIMATELY 85% OF THE TOTAL PREMIUM INCOME
OF ALL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES OPERATING IN THE UNITED STATES." 

FN4  SEE, E.G., FASHION GUILD V. TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457, 465-468;
UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 210-224; SUNSHINE
ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 394; UNITED STATES V.
TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, 395-402; UNITED STATES V. PATTEN,
226 U.S. 525; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375. 

FN5  THE APPELLEES INCLUDE ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES NAMED
AS DEFENDANTS IN THE INDICTMENT EXCEPT THE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY
AND THE KANSAS CITY FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, NEITHER OF WHICH
JOINED IN THE DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT. 

FN6  ALTHOUGH THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO SUSTAINED TWO ADDITIONAL
GROUNDS OF DEMURRER (THAT THE INDICTMENT DID NOT STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT
TO CONSTITUTE A FEDERAL OFFENSE, AND THAT THE COURT LACKED JURISDICTION
OF THE SUBJECT MATTER), THE OPINION MAKES CLEAR IT DID SO BECAUSE OF
THE CONCLUSION THAT "THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE."  TWO
FURTHER GROUNDS OF DEMURRER, BASED UPON THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND TENTH
AMENDMENTS, WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN7  SEE 56 STAT. 271 AMENDING 34 STAT. 1246; 18 U.S.C. 682; UNITED
STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 192-193.  APPELLEES CONTEND THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT READ BOTH COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT AS ALLEGING THAT
THE TRADE OR COMMERCE SOUGHT TO BE RESTRAINED AND MONOPOLIZED WAS THE
BUSINESS OF SELLING FIRE INSURANCE, THAT THE COURT RIGHTLY DECIDED THAT
SUCH BUSINESS WAS NOT COMMERCE, AND THAT THEREFORE ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED.  THE GOVERNMENT DENIES THAT THE COURT CONSTRUED THE
INDICTMENT SO NARROWLY.  IT INSISTS THAT THE FIRST COUNT OF THE
INDICTMENT CHARGES A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE ACT REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE INSURANCE BUSINESS ITSELF BE COMMERCE, SINCE THAT COUNT
CHARGES THAT THE PRACTICES OF THE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES CONSTITUTED
AN UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE TRADE OR COMMERCE IN SUCH FIELDS AS
TRANSPORTATION AND INDUSTRY WHICH MUST PURCHASE FIRE INSURANCE.  CF.
POLISH ALLIANCE V. LABOR BOARD, POST, P. 643.  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF
THE CASE IT IS UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THIS QUESTION.  WE CONSIDER THE
CASE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT APPELLEES' CONTENTION ON THIS POINT IS
CORRECT. 

FN8  SEE GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1; ALSO, HAMILTON AND ADAIR, THE
POWER TO GOVERN (N.Y. 1937), PP. 53-63. 

FN9  ALEXANDER HAMILTON, IN 1791, STATING HIS OPINION ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, DECLARED THAT IT
WOULD "ADMIT OF LITTLE IF ANY QUESTION" THAT THE FEDERAL POWER TO
REGULATE FOREIGN COMMERCE INCLUDED "THE REGULATION OF POLICIES OF
INSURANCE."  3 WORKS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON (FED. ED., N.Y. 1904) PP.
445, 469-470.  SPEAKING OF THE NEED OF A FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE
"COMMERCE," HAMILTON HAD EARLIER SAID, "IT IS, INDEED, EVIDENT, ON THE
MOST SUPERFICIAL VIEW, THAT THERE IS NO OBJECT, EITHER AS IT RESPECTS
THE INTERESTS OF TRADE OR FINANCE, THAT MORE STRONGLY DEMANDS A FEDERAL
SUPERINTENDENCE."  FEDERALIST NO. XXII, THE FEDERALIST (REV. ED., N.Y.
1901) 110. 

FN10  ACCORDING TO FIGURES GATHERED BY THE NATIONAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE, EACH OF THE THREE LARGEST LEGAL RESERVE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANIES IN 1935 HAD ASSETS GREATER THAN ANY ONE OF THE THREE LARGEST
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS, VIZ., THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY,
THE UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, OR THE GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION.  REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE NATIONAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE, JUNE 9, 1939:  THE STRUCTURE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, PART
I, PP. 100, 101(U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE). 

FN11  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED
STATES, 1942, PP. 335-342, 694. 

FN12  IBID., PP. 195, 335-342. 

FN13  SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES - 1940; PART 1:  UNITED
STATES SUMMARY, VOL. III, THE LABOR FORCE, PP. 180, 181. 

FN14  "WE HAVE SHOWN THAT THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE HAS VERY DEFINITE
CHARACTERISTICS, WITH A REACH OF INFLUENCE AND CONSEQUENCE BEYOND AND
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ORDINARY BUSINESSES OF THE COMMERCIAL WORLD,
TO PURSUE WHICH A GREATER LIBERTY MAY BE ASSERTED.  ...  INSURANCE  ...
IS PRACTICALLY A NECESSITY TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND ENTERPRISE.  IT
IS, THEREFORE, ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM ORDINARY COMMERCIAL
TRANSACTIONS, AND, AS WE HAVE SEEN, ACCORDING TO THE SENSE OF THE WORLD
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES - CERTAINLY THE SENSE OF THE MODERN WORLD - IS
OF THE GREATEST PUBLIC CONCERN."  GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. KANSAS,
233 U.S. 389, 414-415. 

FN15  THE FIVE LARGEST LEGAL RESERVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES, OWNING
TOTAL ASSETS OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000,000,000, HAVE THEIR HOME OFFICES
IN OR NEAR NEW YORK CITY.  BEST'S LIFE REPORTS, 1939, AS SUMMARIZED IN
MONOGRAPH 28 PRINTED FOR THE USE OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE, APPENDIX A (U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1940).  EACH OF
THESE COMPANIES IS LICENSED IN EVERY STATE OF THE UNION EXCEPT THAT TWO
OF THEM ARE NOT LICENSED IN TEXAS.  LIFE INSURANCE YEAR BOOK, 1942-3. 

THE FIVE LARGEST STOCK FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANIES, OWNING
TOTAL ASSETS OF APPROXIMATELY $550,000,000, ARE SIMILARLY LOCATED. 
BEST'S 1943 DIGEST OF INSURANCE STOCKS, XXXII.  AND EACH DOES BUSINESS
IN EVERY STATE OF THE UNION.  IBID. 

FN16  THE AMOUNTS GIVEN AS PREMIUMS COLLECTED AND LOSSES PAID DURING
THE PERIOD 1931-1941 ARE FOR ALL STOCK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES
OPERATING IN THE SIX STATES INVOLVED.  THE COMPANIES WHICH WERE PARTIES
TO THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACIES PROBABLY COLLECTED AND PAID ABOUT 90% OF
THESE AMOUNTS SINCE THEY CONTROLLED THAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
BUSINESS. 

FN17  "THE DEFECT OF THE ARGUMENT LIES IN THE CHARACTER OF THEIR
BUSINESS.  ISSUING A POLICY OF INSURANCE IS NOT A TRANSACTION OF
COMMERCE.  THE POLICIES ARE SIMPLE CONTRACTS OF INDEMNITY AGAINST LOSS
BY FIRE, ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE CORPORATIONS AND THE ASSURED, FOR A
CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE LATTER.  THESE CONTRACTS ARE NOT ARTICLES OF
COMMERCE IN ANY PROPER MEANING OF THE WORD.  THEY ARE NOT SUBJECTS OF
TRADE AND BARTER OFFERED IN THE MARKET AS SOMETHING HAVING AN EXISTENCE
AND VALUE INDEPENDENT OF THE PARTIES TO THEM.  THEY ARE NOT COMMODITIES
TO BE SHIPPED OR FORWARDED FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER, AND THEN PUT UP
FOR SALE.  THEY ARE LIKE OTHER PERSONAL CONTRACTS BETWEEN PARTIES WHICH
ARE COMPLETED BY THEIR SIGNATURE AND THE TRANSFER OF THE
CONSIDERATION.  SUCH CONTRACTS ARE NOT INTER-STATE TRANSACTIONS, THOUGH
THE PARTIES MAY BE DOMICILED IN DIFFERENT STATES.  THE POLICIES DO NOT
TAKE EFFECT - ARE NOT EXECUTED CONTRACTS - UNTIL DELIVERED BY THE AGENT
IN VIRGINIA.  THEY ARE, THEN, LOCAL TRANSACTIONS, AND ARE GOVERNED BY
THE LOCAL LAW."  8 WALL.  168, 183.    FN18  OTHER CASES WHICH HAVE
REPEATED OR RELIED UPON THE PAUL GENERALIZATION ARE DUCAT V. CHICAGO,
10 WALL.  410, 415; LIVERPOOL INSURANCE CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 10 WALL. 
566, 573; PHILADELPHIA FIRE ASSN. V. NEW YORK, 119 U.S. 110, 118; NOBLE
V. MITCHELL, 164 U.S. 367, 370; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. CRAVENS, 178
U.S. 389, 401; NUTTING V. MASSACHUSETTS, 183 U.S. 553; NORTHWESTERN
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. WISCONSIN, 247 U.S. 132; NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INS. CO. V. WANBERG, 260 U.S. 71, 75; BOTHWELL V. BUCKBEE, MEARS CO.,
275 U.S. 274, 276-277; AND COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, 432.  FOR A
COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE CASES SEE GAVIT, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA, 1932), PP. 134
139. 

FN19  FOR STATISTICS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE TREMENDOUS EXPANSION OF THE
FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE BUSINESS BETWEEN 1860-1941, SEE NEW YORK
INSURANCE REPORT FOR 1942, VOL. II, TABLE A. IN 1860 FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANIES REPORTING TO THE NEW YORK SUPERINTENDENT OF
INSURANCE LISTED ASSETS OF $44,500,000 AND PREMIUMS WRITTEN OF
$13,500,000.  IN 1941 THEY LISTED ASSETS OF ALMOST $3,000,000,000, AND
PREMIUMS WRITTEN OF $1,150,000,000.  IBID. 

FN20  SEE GENERALLY INSURANCE BLUE BOOK (CENTENNIAL ISSUE 1876-77),
C. VI, "FIRE INSURANCE, 1860-1869"; PATTERSON, THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER IN THE UNITED STATES (CAMB.  1927), PP. 519-537; NEHEMKIS,
PAUL V. VIRGINIA, THE NEED FOR RE-EXAMINATION, 27 GEORGETOWN L.J.
519(1939). 

FN21  IBID. 

FN22  SEE, E.G., WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111, 121-122; BINDERUP
V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291, 311; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S.
495, 525-528; BACON V. ILLINOIS, 227 U.S. 504, 516-517; SWIFT & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 400. 

FN23  THAT THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT UPHOLDING STATE INSURANCE LAWS
DO NOT NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE
INSURANCE HAS, UPON OCCASION, BEEN RECOGNIZED BOTH BY INSURANCE
EXECUTIVES AND LAWYERS.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, AN ADDRESS ON THE REGULATION
OF INSURANCE BY CONGRESS, BY JOHN F. DRYDEN, PRESIDENT, PRUDENTIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, DELIVERED NOVEMBER 22, 1904, PP. 12-13:
"THE DECISION (PAUL V. VIRGINIA), AND THOSE THAT HAVE FOLLOWED, DID NOT
RELATE TO THE REAL POINT INVOLVED IN A CONSIDERATION OF THE REGULATION
OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS AS INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  ...  IT IS THE OPINION OF QUALIFIED AUTHORITIES WHO HAVE
GIVEN MOST CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THIS ASPECT OF THE SUBJECT ...
THAT UNDER THE IMPLIED AND RESULTING POWERS OF THE CONSTITUTION THE
SUPREME COURT WOULD NOT WITHHOLD THE VERDICT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY FROM
AN ACT OF CONGRESS DECLARING INTERSTATE INSURANCE TO BE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  SEE, SIMILARLY, INSURANCE IS COMMERCE, BY GEORGE F. SEWARD,
PRESIDENT, THE FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK (1910) PP. 15
16; S.S. HUEBNER, FEDERAL SUPERVISION AND REGULATION OF INSURANCE,
ANNALS, AMER.  ACAD.  OF POL.  AND SOC. SCIENCE, VOL. XXVI, NO. 3(1905)
681-707.  BUT SEE, E.G., CONTRA:  VANCE, FEDERAL CONTROL OF INSURANCE
CORPORATIONS, 17 GREEN BAG (1905) 83, 89; RANDOLPH, OPINION ON THE
PROPOSAL FOR FEDERAL SUPERVISION OF INSURANCE (N.Y. 1905) PP. 12-20. 

THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE LAW OF THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION, IN 1906, DISCUSSING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FEDERAL
SUPERVISION OF INSURANCE, STATED FLATLY THAT PAUL V. VIRGINIA AND THE
CASES WHICH FOLLOW IT "DO NOT BAR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION."  REPORTS OF
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, VOL. XXIX, PART 1(1906), PP. 538, 552-567. 

FN24  SEE NOTE 17, SUPRA. 

FN25  SEE FOR ILLUSTRATION GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 189-190,
229-230; PENSACOLA TELEGRAPH CO. V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 96
U.S. 1; LOTTERY CASE, 188 U.S. 321; JORDAN V. TASHIRO, 278 U.S. 123,
127-128; ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N, 303
U.S. 419, 432-433; AND AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 317
U.S. 519. 

FN26  CF. HOOPESTON CANNING CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313, 317.  "THE
CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE MAY BE SAID TO BE INTERDEPENDENT.  THEY CANNOT
BE REGARDED SINGLY, OR ISOLATEDLY, AND THE EFFECT OF THEIR RELATION IS
TO CREATE A FUND OF ASSURANCE AND CREDIT, THE COMPANIES BECOMING THE
DEPOSITORIES OF THE MONEY OF THE INSURED, POSSESSING GREAT POWER
THEREBY AND CHARGED WITH GREAT RESPONSIBILITY."  GERMAN ALLIANCE INS.
CO. V. KANSAS, 233 U.S. 389, 414.  AND SEE FURST V. BREWSTER, 282 U.S.
493, 497-498. 

FN27  APPRAISING THE SWIFT CASE, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT HAD THIS TO
SAY:  "THAT CASE WAS A MILESTONE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT RECOGNIZED THE GREAT CHANGES AND
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BUSINESS OF THIS VAST COUNTRY AND DREW AGAIN THE
DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE WHERE THE
CONSTITUTION INTENDED IT TO BE.  IT REFUSED TO PERMIT LOCAL INCIDENTS
OF GREAT INTERSTATE MOVEMENT, WHICH TAKEN ALONE WERE INTRASTATE, TO
CHARACTERIZE THE MOVEMENT AS SUCH.  THE SWIFT CASE MERELY FITTED THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE TO THE REAL AND PRACTICAL ESSENCE OF MODERN BUSINESS
GROWTH."  CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, 35. 

COMPARE INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER CO., 293 U.S.
268, 274-277; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495, 518-519. 

FN28  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495,
509. 

FN29  SEE, E.G., CRUTCHER V. KENTUCKY, 141 U.S. 47, 59-61; ATLANTIC
REFINING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 302 U.S. 22, 26; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE
CO., 309 U.S. 33. 

FN30  SEE GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 200, 203-210; WILLSON V.
BLACK BIRD CREEK MARSH CO., 2 PET. 245, 250-252; LICENSE CASES, 5 HOW. 
504, OPINION OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, 578-586; COOLEY V. BOARD OF
WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, 318-321; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 9-10. 
CF. STURGES V. CROWNINSHIELD, 4 WHEAT.  122, 192-196; HOUSTON V. MOORE,
5 WHEAT.  1, OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE STORY, 48-50. 

FN31  PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 362-363; CF. CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 112-116; SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROTHERS, 303 U.S. 177, 184-192, AND CASES CITED THEREIN IN
FOOTNOTE 5; HALL V. GEIGER-JONES CO., 242 U.S. 539, 558-559; BOWMAN V.
CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RY. CO., 125 U.S. 465, 482-483.  THAT DIFFERENT
MEMBERS OF THE COURT APPLYING THIS TEST TO A PARTICULAR STATE STATUTE
MAY REACH OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS AS TO ITS VALIDITY DOES NOT ARGUE
AGAINST THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TEST ITSELF.  SUCH DIFFERENCES IN
JUDGMENT ARE INEVITABLE WHERE SOLUTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM MUST
DEPEND UPON CONSIDERED EVALUATION OF COMPETING CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTIVES.  SEE, E.G., MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33,
48, 59; MCCARROLL V. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES, 309 U.S. 176, 183;
DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390, 397; CF. GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V.
HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 442. 

FN32  SEE, E.G., COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299; NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495; CF. BOWMAN V. CHICAGO
& NORTH WESTERN RY. CO., 125 U.S. 465, 482-483. 

FN33  LOTTERY CASE, 188 U.S. 321, 363; CF. KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING,
316 U.S. 517, 520.  THIS PARTICULAR DIFFICULTY WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE
AUTHORS OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS:  "ALL NEW LAWS, THOUGH PENNED WITH
THE GREATEST TECHNICAL SKILL, AND PASSED ON THE FULLEST AND MOST MATURE
DELIBERATION, ARE CONSIDERED AS MORE OR LESS OBSCURE AND EQUIVOCAL,
UNTIL THEIR MEANING BE LIQUIDATED AND ASCERTAINED BY A SERIES OF
PARTICULAR DISCUSSIONS AND ADJUDICATIONS.  ...  HERE, THEN, ARE THREE
SOURCES OF VAGUE AND INCORRECT DEFINITIONS:  INDISTINCTNESS OF THE
OBJECT, IMPERFECTION OF THE ORGAN OF CONCEPTION, INADEQUATENESS OF THE
VEHICLE OF IDEAS.  ANY ONE OF THESE MUST PRODUCE A CERTAIN DEGREE OF
OBSCURITY.  THE CONVENTION, IN DELINEATING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONS MUST HAVE EXPERIENCED THE FULL EFFECT
OF THEM ALL."  FEDERALIST NO. XXXVI, THE FEDERALIST (REV. ED., N.Y.
1901), PP. 193-194. 

FN34  "COMMERCE IS INTERCOURSE:  ONE OF ITS MOST ORDINARY INGREDIENTS
IS TRAFFIC."  BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419, 446.  "AND ALTHOUGH
COMMERCE INCLUDES TRAFFIC IN THIS NARROWER SENSE, FOR MORE THAN A
CENTURY IT HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY RECOGNIZED THAT IN A BROAD SENSE IT
EMBRACES EVERY PHASE OF COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND
INTERCOURSE."  JORDAN V. TASHIRO, 278 U.S. 123, 127-128. 

COMMERCE "COMPREHENDS INTERCOURSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRADE IN ANY
AND ALL ITS FORMS, INCLUDING THE TRANSPORTATION, PURCHASE, SALE, AND
EXCHANGE OF COMMODITIES.  ...  "  WELTON V. MISSOURI, 91 U.S. 275,
280.  AND "INTERCOURSE OR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PERSONS IN DIFFERENT
STATES, BY MEANS OF CORRESPONDENCE THROUGH THE MAILS, IS COMMERCE AMONG
THE STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION, ESPECIALLY WHERE
...  SUCH INTERCOURSE AND COMMUNICATION REALLY RELATES TO MATTERS OF
REGULAR, CONTINUOUS BUSINESS AND TO THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS AND THE
TRANSPORTATION OF BOOKS, PAPERS, ETC., APPERTAINING TO SUCH BUSINESS." 
INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217 U.S. 91, 107. 

FN35  SEE PENSACOLA TELEGRAPH CO. V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 96
U.S. 1, 9. 

"A GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO CONTAIN IN ITSELF EVERY POWER REQUISITE TO THE
FULL ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE OBJECTS COMMITTED TO ITS CARE, AND TO THE
COMPLETE EXECUTION OF THE TRUSTS FOR WHICH IT IS RESPONSIBLE, FREE FROM
EVERY OTHER CONTROL, BUT A REGARD TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND TO THE SENSE
OF THE PEOPLE."  FEDERALIST NO. XXX, THE FEDERALIST, SUPRA, 154. 

FN36  FEDERALIST NO. XL; FEDERALIST NO. XLI; THE FEDERALIST, SUPRA,
PP. 220, 231. 

FN37  COMPARE FEDERALIST NO. XXIII, THE FEDERALIST, SUPRA, 121:
"SHALL THE UNION BE CONSTITUTED THE GUARDIAN OF THE COMMON SAFETY?  ARE
FLEETS AND ARMIES, AND REVENUES, NECESSARY TO THIS PURPOSE?  THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION MUST BE EMPOWERED TO PASS ALL LAWS, AND TO MAKE
ALL REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE RELATION TO THEM.  THE SAME MUST BE THE CASE
IN RESPECT TO COMMERCE, AND TO EVERY OTHER MATTER TO WHICH ITS
JURISDICTION IS PERMITTED TO EXTEND.  ...  NOT TO CONFER IN EACH CASE A
DEGREE OF POWER COMMENSURATE TO THE END, WOULD BE TO VIOLATE THE MOST
OBVIOUS RULES OF PRUDENCE AND PROPRIETY, AND IMPROVIDENTLY TO TRUST THE
GREAT INTERESTS OF THE NATION TO HANDS WHICH ARE DISABLED FROM MANAGING
THEM WITH VIGOR AND SUCCESS." 

SEE NOTE (1943), 32 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL 66. 

FN38  THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE "ARE NOT CONFINED
TO THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF COMMERCE  ...  KNOWN OR IN USE WHEN THE
CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED, BUT THEY KEEP PACE WITH THE PROGRESS OF THE
COUNTRY, AND ADAPT THEMSELVES TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS OF TIME AND
CIRCUMSTANCES.  ...  THEY WERE INTENDED FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
BUSINESS TO WHICH THEY RELATE, AT ALL TIMES AND UNDER ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES."  PENSACOLA TELEGRAPH CO. V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH
CO., 96 U.S. 1, 9.  COMPARE FEDERALIST NO. XLIII, THE FEDERALIST,
SUPRA, 248. 

FN39  A HISTORIAN OF THE WHEEL, ONE OF THE STRONGEST OF THE FARMERS'
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE '80'S, HAD THIS TO SAY ABOUT ITS ORIGIN:  "THE
QUESTION HAS OFTEN BEEN ASKED, WHAT GAVE RISE TO THE WHEEL?  THIS
QUESTION IS AS EASILY ANSWERED AS ASKED, MONOPOLY.  ...  MONOPOLY
ASPIRES TO MAKE THE PEOPLE ITS SERVANTS, POLITICALLY, FINANCIALLY AND
SOCIALLY, AND DEMANDS THAT WE OFFER ON ITS GOLDEN ALTAR ALL THAT WE ARE
AND HAVE, SOULS, BODIES, LIVES, LIBERTY, AND COMMON COUNTRY,
UNRESERVEDLY AND WITHOUT COMPLAINT."  MORGAN, HISTORY OF THE WHEEL AND
ALLIANCE (FORT SCOTT, KAN. 1889), P. 56.  COMPARE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE
CASES, 16 WALL.  36(1873), DISSENTING OPINIONS OF JUSTICES FIELD AND
BRADLEY, PP. 83, 101-110, 111, 119-121. 

FN40  SEE APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 491-493, 497-498;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 58; UNITED STATES V.
TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 322-325.  SEE ALSO
PARAMOUNT FAMOUS LASKY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30, 42-43. 

NOR WAS THE OPPOSITION TO TRUSTS LIMITED TO THE MONOPOLIZATION OF
"GOODS AND SERVICES."  AT THE INSTANCE OF SENATOR INGALLS OF KANSAS AN
AMENDMENT WAS ADDED TO THE SHERMAN BILL DESIGNED TO TAX OUT OF
EXISTENCE THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN FUTURES CONTRACTS.  21 CONG. REC.
2613.  THE INGALLS AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED BY THE SENATE WITHOUT A RECORD
VOTE.  ID.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE SHERMAN BILL, AS AMENDED, WAS REDRAFTED BY
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH USED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME BROAD
AND SWEEPING LANGUAGE WHICH SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT CONTAIN TODAY. 
WITH THAT LANGUAGE THE SHERMAN BILL HAD THE SUPPORT OF SENATOR INGALLS
AND OTHER PROPONENTS OF THE INGALLS AMENDMENT.  21 CONG. REC. 3145,
3153.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525; PETO V. HOWELL,
101 F.2D 353; CF. CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1; STAFFORD
V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495. 

SEE, GENERALLY, ASHBY, THE RIDDLE OF THE SPHINX (DES MOINES 1890);
MORGAN, HISTORY OF THE WHEEL AND ALLIANCE (FORT SCOTT, KAN. 1889);
BUCK, THE GRANGER MOVEMENT (CAMB.  1913); CLOUD, MONOPOLIES AND THE
PEOPLE (DAVENPORT, IOWA 1873); WEAVER, A CALL TO ACTION (DES MOINES
1892); HICKS, THE POPULIST REVOLT (MINNEAPOLIS 1931). 

FN41  REPRESENTATIVE OF ANTI-TRUST PLATFORMS, RESOLUTIONS, ETC., OF
CONTEMPORARY AGRARIAN-POLITICAL MOVEMENTS ARE THE FOLLOWING:  "WE
DEMAND  ...  THE PASSAGE OF A LAW PROHIBITING THE FORMATION OF TRUSTS
AND COMBINATIONS BY SPECULATORS TO SECURE CONTROL OF THE NECESSARIES OF
LIFE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORCING UP PRICES ON CONSUMERS, IMPOSING HEAVY
PENALTIES" (TEXAS FARMERS' STATE ALLIANCE, REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON
INDUSTRIAL DEPRESSION (1888)); "THE OBJECTS OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE
ARE  ...  TO OPPOSE ALL FORMS OF MONOPOLY AS BEING DETRIMENTAL TO THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC" (NATIONAL FARMERS' ALLIANCE, CONSTITUTION
(1887)); "WE HOLD TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT ALL MONOPOLIES ARE DANGEROUS
...  , TENDING TO ENSLAVE A FREE PEOPLE  ...  "  (NATIONAL FARMERS'
ALLIANCE AND INDUSTRIAL UNION, CONSTITUTION (1889)); "WE OPPOSE THE
TYRANNY OF MONOPOLIES" (NATIONAL GRANGE, DECLARATION OF PURPOSES
(1874)).    FN42  THE PLATFORMS OF BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTIES IN 1888 STATED UNQUALIFIED OPPOSITION TO MONOPOLIES
AND TRUSTS.  BRANDON, PLATFORMS OF THE TWO GREAT POLITICAL PARTIES 1856
1928.  THE RECORDED VOTE IN THE HOUSE ON THE FINAL CONFERENCE REPORT ON
THE SHERMAN ACT SHOWS 242 AYES, NO NAYS, AND 85 NOT VOTING.  21 CONG.
REC. 6314. 

FN43  FOUR OF THESE STATUTES WERE ENACTED BEFORE 1890.  L.N.H. 1885,
CH. 93, P. 289; L. OHIO 1885, NO. 284, P. 231; L. MICH. 1887, NO. 285,
P. 384; L. KAN. 1889, CH. 257, P. 389, AND L. KAN. 1897, CH. 265, P.
481; L. GA. 1890-91, NO. 745, P. 206; L. MAINE 1893, CH. 285, P. 339;
L. MO. 1895, P. 237; L. IOWA 1896, CH. 22, P. 31; L. ALA. 1896-97, NO.
634, P. 1428; L. NEB. 1897, CH. 79, P. 347; L. NEB. 1897, CH. 81, P.
354; L. NEB. 1913, CH. 154, PP. 393, 419; L. WIS. 1897, CH. 356, P.
908; ACTS VA. 1898, CH. 644, P. 683; ACTS S.C. 1902, NO. 574, P. 1057;
L.S.D. 1903, CH. 158, P. 183; G.L. TEX. 1903, CH. 94, P. 119; ARK. ACTS
1905, NO. 1, P. 1, AS AMENDED BY ARK. ACTS 1907, NO. 184, P. 430;
P.L.N.C. 1905, CH. 424, P. 429, AND P.L.N.C. 1915, CH. 166, P. 243;
ACTS TENN. 1905, CH. 479, P. 1019; MISS.  CODE 1906, SEC. 5002, ADOPTED
L. MISS.  1906, CH. 101, P. 78; GEN. L. ORE.  1909, CH. 230, PP. 388,
399; SESS. L. WASH. 1911, CH. 49, PP. 161, 195, AND SESS. L. WASH.
1915, CH. 97, P. 278; L. ARIZ. 1912, CH. 73, P. 354; ACTS LA. 1912, NO.
224, P. 509. 

FN44  THE FARM ORGANIZATIONS OF THIS PERIOD DID NOT RELY SOLELY UPON
PROHIBITORY LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM COMBINATIONS OF
INSURANCE COMPANIES.  "IN 1886, TIRED OF THE EXTORTIONS OF THE OLD-LINE
INSURANCE COMPANIES, THE TERRITORIAL ALLIANCE APPOINTED A COMMITTEE
...  TO DEVISE AND PUT IN OPERATION A SYSTEM OF MUTUAL INSURANCE  ...
, THE RESULT OF WHICH HAS BEEN EMINENTLY SUCCESSFUL."  REPORT OF ALONZO
WARDALL, PRESIDENT OF THE ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANIES OF THE DAKOTAS,
PRINTED IN ASHBY, THE RIDDLE OF THE SPHINX (DES MOINES 1890), P. 363. 

FN45  WE HAVE BEEN POINTED TO ONLY ONE REFERENCE MADE TO THE BUSINESS
OF INSURANCE IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DISCUSSIONS PRECEDING PASSAGE OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, AND THAT IS A STATEMENT OF SENATOR TURPIE WHICH FLATLY
CHALLENGED THE REASONING OF THIS COURT IN HOLDING THAT INSURANCE WAS
NOT COMMERCE, AND FURTHER PREDICTED THAT IN THE FUTURE THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE WOULD NOT BE GIVEN SUCH A LIMITED CONSTRUCTION: 

"THE SENATOR FROM MISSOURI (MR. VEST) SPOKE THE OTHER DAY ABOUT THE
DIFFICULTY OF DEFINING THE WORD 'COMMERCE,' ESPECIALLY AS CONTAINED IN
THE PHRASE 'INTERSTATE COMMERCE.'  I RECOLLECT ONE JUDICIAL DECISION
UPON THIS SUBJECT VERY DEFINITELY.  THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED THAT
INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE, AND I SUPPOSE BY FOLLOWING THE CIRCLE OF
NEGATIONS LONG ENOUGH AND EXCLUDING ALL THE THINGS NOT COMMERCE WE
SHOULD COME AT LAST TO THE RESIDUUM, WHICH MUST BE COMMERCE OR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BECAUSE IT CAN BE NOTHING ELSE.  A FORTIORI,
JUDGING FROM THIS PRINCIPLE, I SHOULD MYSELF HAVE DECIDED THAT
TRANSPORTATION IS NOT COMMERCE NOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE EITHER.  ... 

"I FEEL INCLINED TO MAKE THE PREDICTION, AS ONE OF THE THINGS TO COME
IN THIS VAST DOMAIN, SCARCELY TOUCHED, OF CASES ARISING UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF CONGRESS, THAT THE WHOLE MASS OF MERCHANTABLE
PAPER KNOWN AS NEGOTIABLE BY THE LAW MERCHANT, MADE AT ONE PLACE,
NEGOTIABLE AT ANOTHER, PAYABLE AT ANOTHER, TRANSCENDING IN ITS
NEGOTIATION STATE LINES, WILL BE REMITTED TO CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, AND
WITH RESPECT TO ITS CREATION, ITS FORMATION, ITS NEGOTIATION, WITH
RESPECT TO ALL THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER IT, THE
PEOPLE, STUNNED WITH THE ETERNAL DISSONANCE OF CONFLICTING DECISIONS
AND JUDGMENTS OF FORTY-EIGHT OR FIFTY TRIBUNALS OF LAST RESORT IN THE
STATES UPON THE SUBJECT OF INTERSTATE NEGOTIABLE PAPER, WILL REQUIRE
CONGRESS TO ACT THEREIN, AND THAT, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS I NOW DEEM IT OR
THINK IT, IT WILL AS A MATTER OF NECESSITY BE DONE, AND IN ANY SUCH
LEGISLATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT PAPER, THE WHOLE BULK OF IT, THE
PERSONAL AND PECULIAR CONDITIONS OF LITIGANTS WILL NOT BE INQUIRED
ABOUT, BUT SIMPLY WHETHER THE ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER IS ENTITLED TO
RELIEF OR LIABLE TO RECOVERY AGAINST HIM BY REASON OF BEING A PARTY TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL PAPER, NEGOTIABLE AND PAYABLE AND SUABLE UNDER
THE ACTION OF CONGRESS WHICH MAY FINALLY TAKE PLACE UPON THAT SUBJECT. 
... 

"NOR DO I THINK WITH THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK THAT WE ARE DISCHARGED
FROM DUTY OR RELEASED FROM OUR OBLIGATION TO LEGISLATE UPON THE SUBJECT
OF TRUSTS BECAUSE THE STATES HAVE A RIGHT TO DO SO."  21 CONG. REC.
2556-2557. 

AND SEE NOTE 48, INFRA. 

FN46  SENATOR GEORGE, A MEMBER OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
WHICH REDRAFTED THE SHERMAN ACT BEFORE ITS FINAL PASSAGE, STATED ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT, "THE BILL HAS BEEN VERY INGENIOUSLY AND
PROPERLY DRAWN TO COVER EVERY CASE WHICH COMES WITHIN WHAT IS CALLED
THE COMMERCIAL POWER OF CONGRESS.  ...  IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THE GREAT
EVIL OF THESE COMBINATIONS, THESE CONSPIRACIES, AS THEY ARE CALLED,
THESE MONOPOLIES, AS THEY ARE DENOMINATED BY THE BILL, CONSISTS IN THE
FACT THAT BY COMBINATION, BY ASSOCIATION, THERE HAVE BEEN GATHERED
TOGETHER THE MONEY AND THE MEANS OF LARGE NUMBERS OF PERSONS, AND UNDER
THESE COMBINATIONS, OR CONSPIRACIES, OR TRUSTS, THIS GREAT AGGREGATED
CAPITAL IS WIELDED BY A SINGLE HAND AND GUIDED BY A SINGLE BRAIN, OR AT
LEAST BY HANDS AND BRAINS ACTING IN COMPLETE HARMONY AND CO-OPERATION,
AND THAT IN THIS WAY, BY THIS ASSOCIATION, BY THIS DIRECTION OF THIS
IMMENSE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL, BY ONE ORGANIZED WILL, TO A VERY LARGE
EXTENT, THESE WRONGS HAVE BEEN PERPETRATED UPON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." 
21 CONG. REC. 3147. 

EARLIER, SENATOR SHERMAN HAD EXPLAINED, "I DO NOT WISH TO SINGLE OUT
ANY PARTICULAR TRUST OR COMBINATION.  IT IS NOT A PARTICULAR TRUST, BUT
THE SYSTEM I AIM AT."  21 CONG. REC. 2457.  AND IN THE HOUSE,
REPRESENTATIVE STEWART, DELIVERING THE LAST SPEECH PRECEDING THE
UNANIMOUS ADOPTION OF THE PRESENT ACT, STATED "  ...  THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS TRUST BILL ARE JUST AS BROAD, SWEEPING, AND EXPLICIT AS THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE CAN MAKE THEM TO EXPRESS THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER
THIS SUBJECT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  ...  " 21
CONG. REC. 6314. 

COMPARE KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1 AND UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT
CO., 156 U.S. 1, WITH ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175
U.S. 211 AND UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106. 

FN47  SENATOR SHERMAN, EXPLAINING HIS BILL TO THE SENATE, STATED, "IT
IS TO ARM THE FEDERAL COURTS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER THAT THEY MAY CO-OPERATE WITH THE STATE COURTS IN CHECKING,
CURBING, AND CONTROLLING THE MOST DANGEROUS COMBINATIONS THAT NOW
THREATEN THE BUSINESS, PROPERTY, AND TRADE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES."  21 CONG. REC. 2457. 

FN48  FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY OCCURRED IN THE HOUSE
DURING THE DEBATE IN PASSAGE OF THE CLAYTON ACT: 

"MR. BARTON.  WE HAD AN ILLUSTRATION RECENTLY WHERE A BIG FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY CAME INTO THE STATE WHERE LOCAL INSURANCE COMPANIES
HAVE BEEN DOING BUSINESS, NOT CONFINED TO THE BORDER OF THE STATE, AND
CUT PRICES IN THAT IMMEDIATE LOCALITY UNTIL WE HAD IN THREE STATES 40
OR 50 LOCAL COMPANIES PUT OUT OF BUSINESS, AND THEN THE PRICE WAS PUT
BACK WHERE IT WAS PROFITABLE TO THE COMPANY.  MIGHT NOT THIS SAME
CONDITION EXIST WHERE WE STARTED A WHOLESALE HOUSE IN A STATE WHERE
THEIR TERRITORY WAS CONFINED TO THE STATE - MIGHT IT NOT BE A REDUCTION
OF PRICES FOR PUTTING THAT INSTITUTION OUT OF BUSINESS? 

"MR. WEBB.  IF THE PURPOSE IS TO WRONGFULLY INJURE OR DESTROY A
COMPETITOR, THIS SECTION WILL COVER SUCH PRACTICE; BUT INSURANCE
COMPANIES ARE NOT REACHED, AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THEIR
CONTRACTS OR POLICIES ARE NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

"MR. BARTON.  IS IT NOT RIGHT THAT THEY SHOULD COME WITHIN THE LAW? 

"MR. WEBB.  YES."  51 CONG. REC. 9390. 

SO FAR AS APPEARS, THIS WAS THE ONLY MENTION OF THE INSURANCE CASES
DURING THE DISCUSSIONS LEADING TO PASSAGE OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  AND, AS
IN 1890, WHEN THE SHERMAN ACT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE REFERENCE TO
THESE CASES SHOWED DISSATISFACTION WITH THEM.  SEE NOTE 45, SUPRA. 

FN49  SEC. 29(B), 41 STAT. 988, 1000. 

FN50  WHETHER RELIANCE ON EARLIER STATEMENTS OF THIS COURT IN THE
PAUL V. VIRGINIA LINE OF CASES THAT INSURANCE IS NOT "COMMERCE" COULD
EVER BE PLEADED AS A DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT IS A QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BUT ONE IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO DISCUSS AT THIS TIME. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

THIS COURT HAS NEVER DOUBTED, AND I DO NOT DOUBT, THAT TRANSACTIONS
ACROSS STATE LINES WHICH OFTEN ATTEND AND ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE
FORMATION AND PERFORMANCE OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, SUCH AS THE USE OF
FACILITIES FOR INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION, ARE ACTS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  NOR DO I DOUBT THAT THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE AS PRESENTLY CONDUCTED HAS IN MANY ASPECTS SUCH INTERSTATE
MANIFESTATIONS AND SUCH EFFECTS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS MAY SUBJECT
IT TO THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER.  SEE POLISH ALLIANCE
V. LABOR BOARD, POST, P. 643. 

BUT SUCH ARE NOT THE QUESTIONS NOW BEFORE US.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED
HERE WITH THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DO WHAT IT HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO DO,
BUT WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE SHERMAN ACT HAS
ASSERTED ITS POWER OVER THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE. 

THE QUESTIONS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS RAISED, ADVISEDLY IT WOULD
SEEM (CF. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495,
499), BY THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE, AS IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT BELOW, ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE QUESTION, DISCUSSED
IN THE COURT'S OPINION, WHETHER THE INCIDENTAL USE OF THE FACILITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION IN THE CONDUCT OF THE FIRE
INSURANCE BUSINESS RENDERS THE BUSINESS ITSELF "COMMERCE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE QUESTIONS HERE
ARE WHETHER THE BUSINESS OF ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS IN ONE STATE,
INSURING AGAINST THE RISK OF LOSS BY FIRE OF PROPERTY IN OTHERS, IS
ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND WHETHER AN AGREEMENT OR CONSPIRACY TO
FIX THE PREMIUM RATES OF SUCH CONTRACTS AND IN OTHER WAYS TO RESTRICT
COMPETITION IN EFFECTING POLICIES OF FIRE INSURANCE, VIOLATES THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THE COURT BELOW HAS ANSWERED "NO" TO BOTH OF THESE
QUESTIONS.  I THINK THAT ITS ANSWER IS RIGHT AND ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED, BOTH ON PRINCIPLE AND IN VIEW OF THE PERMANENCY WHICH SHOULD
BE GIVEN TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE SHERMAN ACT
IN THIS RESPECT, WHICH HAS UNTIL NOW BEEN CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO BY
ALL BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE
DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE INDICTMENT.  UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682, THE ONLY
QUESTIONS OPEN FOR DECISION HERE ARE WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND OF THE SHERMAN ACT, ON WHICH
IT RESTED ITS DECISION, ARE THE CORRECT ONES.  UNITED STATES V. BORDEN
CO., 308 U.S. 188, 193; UNITED STATES V. WAYNE PUMP CO., 317 U.S. 200,
208; UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 318 U.S. 442, 444. 

FOR THE PARTICULAR FACTS TO WHICH THE COURT BELOW APPLIED THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE SHERMAN ACT WE MUST LOOK TO THE INDICTMENT AS THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS CONSTRUED IT.  AND WE MUST ACCEPT THAT CONSTRUCTION,
FOR BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICTMENT IS REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL NOT BY THIS
COURT BUT BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  UNITED STATES V. PATTEN,
226 U.S. 525, 535; UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250 U.S. 300, 306;
UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., SUPRA. 

THE DISTRICT COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE OFFENSES CHARGED BY THE
INDICTMENT ARE A CONSPIRACY TO FIX ARBITRARY AND NON-COMPETITIVE
PREMIUM RATES ON FIRE INSURANCE SOLD IN SEVERAL NAMED STATES, AND BY
MEANS OF THAT CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE AND
COMMERCE IN FIRE INSURANCE IN THOSE STATES.  THE COURT WENT ON TO SAY: 

"TO CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE RESTRAINT AND
MONOPOLY DENOUNCED MUST BE THAT OF INTERSTATE TRADE OR COMMERCE, AND,
UNLESS THE RESTRAINT AND MONOPOLY CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT BE
RESTRAINT OR MONOPOLY IN INTERSTATE TRADE OR COMMERCE, THE INDICTMENT
MUST FALL. 

"IT IS NOT A QUESTION HERE OF WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN
SOME INCIDENTAL WAY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR USED IN SOME INSTANCES
THE FACILITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT IS RATHER WHETHER THE
ACTIVITIES COMPLAINED OF AS CONSTITUTING THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE
WOULD THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE TRADE OR COMMERCE, AND WHETHER
DEFENDANTS' METHOD OF CONDUCTING SAME AMOUNTED TO RESTRAINT OR MONOPOLY
OF SAME.  IT IS NOT A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS HAD POWER
TO REGULATE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OR SOME PHASES OF THEIR ACTIVITIES,
BUT RATHER WHETHER CONGRESS DID SO BY THE SHERMAN ACT.    "PERSONS MAY
BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, YET, IF THE RESTRAINT OR MONOPOLY
COMPLAINED OF IS NOT ITSELF A RESTRAINT OR MONOPOLY OF INTERSTATE TRADE
OR COMMERCE, THEY MAY NOT BE CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  THE FACT THAT THEY MAY USE THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND COMMUNICATION, AND BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
REGULATIONS RELATING THERETO, WOULD NOT MAKE APPLICABLE THE SHERMAN ACT
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR TO ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE NOT COMMERCE AT
ALL. 

"THE WHOLE CASE, THEREFORE, DEPENDS UPON THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR
NOT THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS INTERSTATE TRADE OR COMMERCE, AND IF
SO, WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT CONSTITUTE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

IN SHORT THE DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUED THE INDICTMENT AS CHARGING
RESTRAINTS NOT IN THE INCIDENTAL USE OF THE MAILS OR OTHER
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NOR IN THE INSURANCE OF GOODS
MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT IN THE "BUSINESS OF INSURANCE."  AND
BY THE "BUSINESS OF INSURANCE" IT NECESSARILY MEANT THE BUSINESS OF
WRITING CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE, FOR THE INDICTMENT CHARGES ONLY
RESTRAINTS IN ENTERING INTO SUCH CONTRACTS, NOT IN THEIR PERFORMANCE,
FN1  AND THE COURT DEEMED IT IRRELEVANT THAT IN THE NEGOTIATION AND
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACTS APPELLEES "MAY USE THE MAILS AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  IT HELD THAT THAT BUSINESS
IS NOT IN ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THAT THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACIES
TO RESTRAIN AND TO MONOPOLIZE THAT BUSINESS WERE NOT, WITHOUT MORE, IN
RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND CONSEQUENTLY WERE NOT VIOLATIONS
OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICTMENT AS CONFINED IN ITS SCOPE TO A
CONSPIRACY TO FIX PREMIUM RATES AND OTHERWISE RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN
THE BUSINESS OF WRITING INSURANCE CONTRACTS, AND TO MONOPOLIZE THAT
BUSINESS - A CONSTRUCTION REQUIRING DECISION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER
THAT BUSINESS IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE - IS ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 
ITS BRIEF IN THIS COURT STATES THE "QUESTIONS PRESENTED" AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  WHETHER THE FIRE INSURANCE BUSINESS IS IN COMMERCE. 

"2.  WHETHER THE FIRE INSURANCE BUSINESS IS SUBJECT TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES. 

"3.  WHETHER, IF SO, THE SHERMAN ACT IS VIOLATED BY AN AGREEMENT
AMONG FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO FIX AND MAINTAIN ARBITRARY AND NON
COMPETITIVE RATES AND TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE AND COMMERCE IN FIRE
INSURANCE, IN PART THROUGH BOYCOTTS DIRECTED AT COMPANIES NOT PART OF
THE CONSPIRACY AND THE AGENTS AND PURCHASERS OF INSURANCE WHO DEAL WITH
THEM." 

THE NUMEROUS AND UNVARYING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT "INSURANCE IS
NOT COMMERCE"  FN2  HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT ACTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
MAY BE INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF WRITING AND PERFORMING CONTRACTS
OF INSURANCE, OR THAT THOSE INCIDENTAL ACTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE COMMERCE
POWER.  OUR DECISIONS ON THIS SUBJECT HAVE UNIFORMLY RESTED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE FORMATION OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT, EVEN THOUGH IT
INSURES AGAINST RISK OF LOSS TO PROPERTY LOCATED IN OTHER STATES OR
MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THAT
ALTHOUGH THE INCIDENTS OF INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION
WHICH OFTEN ATTEND THE FORMATION AND PERFORMANCE OF AN INSURANCE
CONTRACT ARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THEY DO NOT SERVE TO RENDER THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE HOOPER V.
CALIFORNIA, 155 U.S. 648, 655; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE
COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495, 508-9. 

IF AN INSURANCE COMPANY IN NEW YORK EXECUTES AND DELIVERS, EITHER IN
THAT STATE OR ANOTHER, A POLICY INSURING THE OWNER OF A BUILDING IN NEW
JERSEY AGAINST LOSS BY FIRE, NO ACT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS
OCCURRED.  TRUE, IF THE OWNER COMES TO NEW YORK TO PROCURE THE
INSURANCE OR AFTER DELIVERY IN NEW YORK CARRIES THE POLICY TO NEW
JERSEY, OR THE COMPANY SENDS IT THERE BY MAIL OR MESSENGER, SUCH WOULD
BE ACTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SIMILARLY IF THE OWNER PAYS THE
PREMIUMS BY MAIL TO THE COMPANY IN NEW YORK, OR THE COMPANY'S NEW
JERSEY AGENT SENDS THE PREMIUMS TO NEW YORK, OR THE COMPANY IN NEW YORK
SENDS MONEY TO NEW JERSEY ON THE OCCURRENCE OF THE LOSS INSURED
AGAINST, ACTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD OCCUR.  BUT THE POWER OF THE
CONGRESS TO REGULATE THEM IS DERIVED, NOT FROM ITS AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE, BUT FROM ITS POWER TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION.  AND SUCH INCIDENTAL USE
OF THE FACILITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT RENDER THE INSURANCE
BUSINESS ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NOR IS THE NATURE OF A SINGLE
INSURANCE TRANSACTION OR A FEW SUCH TRANSACTIONS NOT INVOLVING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALTERED IN THAT REGARD MERELY BECAUSE THEIR NUMBER
IS MULTIPLIED.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION INCIDENTAL TO THE INSURANCE BUSINESS
IS NOT ANY MORE OR ANY LESS BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF INSURANCE
TRANSACTIONS IS GREAT OR SMALL.  THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO REGULATE
DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE FORMATION AND PERFORMANCE OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS
SAVE ONLY AS THE LATTER MAY AFFECT COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION
WHICH ARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR MAY OTHERWISE BE FOUND BY CONGRESS TO
AFFECT TRANSACTIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AND EVEN THEN, SUCH
EFFECTS ON THE COMMERCE AS DO NOT INVOLVE RESTRAINTS IN COMPETITION IN
THE MARKETING OF GOODS AND SERVICES ARE NOT WITHIN THE REACH OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THAT SUCH ARE THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES HAS BEEN FULLY
RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT IN THE NUMEROUS CASES WHICH HAVE HELD THAT THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE OR AS SUCH SUBJECT TO THE
COMMERCE POWER.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE
COUNTY, SUPRA, 508-9. 

THESE PRINCIPLES ARE NOT PECULIAR TO INSURANCE CONTRACTS.  THEY ARE
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER TYPES OF CONTRACTS WHICH RELATE TO THINGS
OR EVENTS IN OTHER STATES THAN THAT OF THEIR EXECUTION, BUT WHICH DO
NOT CONTAIN ANY OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN ANY FORM OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE PARTIES TO THEM ARE NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
FOR SUCH COMMERCE IS NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN OR PREREQUISITE TO THE
FORMATION OF SUCH CONTRACTS AND THEY DO NOT IN THEIR PERFORMANCE
NECESSARILY INVOLVE THE DOING OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THE MERE
FORMATION OF A CONTRACT TO SELL AND DELIVER COTTON OR COAL OR CRUDE
RUBBER IS NOT IN ITSELF AN INTERSTATE TRANSACTION AND DOES NOT INVOLVE
ANY ACT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE COTTON, COAL AND CRUDE RUBBER
ARE SUBJECTS OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR BECAUSE IN FACT
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT MAY NOT BE EFFECTED WITHOUT SOME PRECEDENT
OR SUBSEQUENT MOVEMENT INTERSTATE OF THE COMMODITIES SOLD, OR BECAUSE
THERE MAY BE INCIDENTAL USE OF THE FACILITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
TRANSPORTATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT.  WARE & LELAND V.
MOBILE COUNTY, 209 U.S. 405, 411-13; WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 253.  COMPARE DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V. BONDURANT,
257 U.S. 282, 292.  THAT THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THAT CONCLUSION IS
THE SAME AS THAT UNDERLYING THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
RECOGNIZED AND AFFIRMED.  PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, 183; HOOPER
V. CALIFORNIA, 155 U.S. 648, 654; WARE & LELAND V. MOBILE COUNTY,
SUPRA, 411; ENGEL V. O'MALLEY, 219 U.S. 128, 139; NEW YORK LIFE INS.
CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, SUPRA, 511-12; BLUMENSTOCK BROS. V. CURTIS
PUBLISHING CO., 252 U.S. 436, 443; HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44, 69;
CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, 32-3; MOORE V. NEW YORK
COTTON EXCHANGE, 270 U.S. 593, 604; WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, SUPRA; AND SEE HOPKINS V. UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 578, 588-9,
602. 

THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BUSINESS OF WRITING INSURANCE IS NOT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COULD NOT RIGHTLY BE OTHERWISE UNLESS WE WERE TO
DEPART FROM THE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED VIEW THAT THE ACT OF MAKING ANY
CONTRACT WHICH DOES NOT STIPULATE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF AN ACT OR
TRANSACTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT IN ITSELF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  AND THIS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE TRUE EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACT
BE EFFECTED BY EXCHANGE OF COMMUNICATIONS ACROSS STATE LINES, SEE NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. CRAVENS, 178 U.S. 389, 400; WARE & LELAND V.
MOBILE COUNTY, SUPRA; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY,
SUPRA, 509, A POINT WHICH NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED HERE FOR THE
INDICTMENT MAKES NO CHARGE THAT THE POLICIES WRITTEN BY APPELLEES ARE
THUS EFFECTED, BUT ALLEGES ONLY THAT THEY ARE "SOLD" BY THE DEFENDANTS
IN CERTAIN NAMED STATES. 

UNDOUBTEDLY CONTRACTS SO ENTERED INTO FOR THE SALE OF COMMODITIES
WHICH MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BECOME THE IMPLEMENTS FOR
RESTRAINTS IN MARKETING THOSE COMMODITIES, AND WHEN SO USED MAY FOR
THAT REASON BE WITHIN THE SHERMAN ACT, SEE NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197, 334, 338; UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, SUPRA,
543-4; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 168-9.  COMPARE
THAMES & MERSEY INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 237 U.S. 19.  BUT IT IS
QUITE ANOTHER MATTER TO SAY THAT THE CONTRACTS ARE THEMSELVES
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THAT RESTRAINTS IN COMPETITION AS TO THEIR TERMS
OR CONDITIONS ARE WITHIN THE SHERMAN ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING
THAT THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT IS TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING
OF THE GOODS OR SERVICES TO WHICH THE CONTRACTS RELATE.  COMPARE HILL
V. WALLACE, SUPRA, 69, WITH CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, SUPRA, 31
3; BLUMENSTOCK BROS. V. CURTIS PUBLISHING CO., SUPRA, WITH INDIANA
FARMER'S GUIDE CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER CO., 293 U.S. 268; MOORE V. NEW
YORK COTTON EXCHANGE, SUPRA, WITH UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, SUPRA. 

IN THIS RESPECT INSURANCE CONTRACTS DO NOT IN POINT OF LAW STAND ON
ANY DIFFERENT FOOTING AS REGARDS THE SHERMAN ACT.  IF CONTRACTS OF
INSURANCE ARE IN FACT MADE THE INSTRUMENTS OF RESTRAINT IN THE
MARKETING OF GOODS AND SERVICES IN OR AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
THEY ARE NOT BEYOND THE REACH OF THE SHERMAN ACT MORE THAN CONTRACTS
FOR THE SALE OF COMMODITIES,  - CONTRACTS WHICH, NOT IN THEMSELVES
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, MAY NEVERTHELESS BE USED AS THE MEANS OF ITS
RESTRAINT.  BUT SINCE TRADE IN ARTICLES OF COMMERCE IS NOT THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT NOT ONLY IS THE
WRITING OF INSURANCE POLICIES NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT THERE IS
LITTLE SCOPE FOR THEIR USE IN RESTRAINING COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING
OF GOODS AND SERVICES IN OR AFFECTING THE COMMERCE. 

THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE MAKES NO STIPULATION FOR THE SALE OR
DELIVERY OF COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR FOR ANY OTHER
INTERSTATE TRANSACTION.  IT PROVIDES ONLY FOR THE PAYMENT OF A SUM OF
MONEY IN THE EVENT OF THE LOSS INSURED AGAINST, AND IT IS NO NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE OF THE ALLEGED RESTRAINTS ON COMPETITION IN FIXING PREMIUMS
THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WILL BE RESTRAINED.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO
CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT WHICH THE COURT BELOW REJECTED, THAT THE
INDICTMENT CHARGES THAT THE CONSPIRACY TO FIX PREMIUMS ADVERSELY
AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE IN SOME INSTANCES THE COMMODITIES
INSURED MOVE ACROSS STATE LINES, OR BECAUSE INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION
AND TRANSPORTATION ARE IN SOME INSTANCES INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF
ISSUING INSURANCE CONTRACTS.  THIS IS SO BOTH BECAUSE, AS WE HAVE SAID,
WE ARE BOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICTMENT,
AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, BECAUSE SUCH EFFECTS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS
WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR, ARE NOT WITHIN THE REACH OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE CONCLUSION SEEMS INESCAPABLE THAT THE FORMATION OF INSURANCE
CONTRACTS, LIKE MANY OTHERS, AND THE BUSINESS OF SO DOING, IS NOT,
WITHOUT MORE, COMMERCE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION AND THEREBY, IN LARGE MEASURE, EXCLUDED FROM STATE
CONTROL AND REGULATION.  SEE HOOPER V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 655; NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, SUPRA.  THIS CONCLUSION SEEMS, UPON
ANALYSIS, NOT ONLY CORRECT ON PRINCIPLE AND IN COMPLETE HARMONY WITH
THE UNIFORM RULINGS BY WHICH THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE FORMATION OF
ALL TYPES OF CONTRACT WHICH DO NOT STIPULATE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF
ACTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ARE LIKEWISE NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT
IT HAS THE SUPPORT OF AN UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
BEGINNING WITH PAUL V. VIRGINIA, SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, AND EXTENDING
DOWN TO THE PRESENT TIME.  IN 1913 THIS COURT WAS ASKED, ON ELABORATE
BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS, SUCH AS ARE NOW ADDRESSED TO US, TO OVERRULE PAUL
V. VIRGINIA, SUPRA, AND THE MANY CASES WHICH HAVE FOLLOWED IT.  NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO. V. CRAVENS, SUPRA.  IN THE DEER LODGE CASE THE MODE OF
CONDUCTING THE INSURANCE BUSINESS WAS ALMOST IDENTICAL WITH THAT
ALLEGED HERE (231 U.S. AT 499-500); IT WAS STRENUOUSLY URGED, AS HERE,
THAT BY REASON OF THE GREAT SIZE OF INSURANCE COMPANIES "MODERN LIFE
INSURANCE HAD TAKEN ON ESSENTIALLY A NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
CHARACTER" (231 U.S. AT 507); AND, AS HERE, THAT THE USE OF THE MAILS
INCIDENT TO THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT AND THE INTERSTATE
TRANSMISSION OF PREMIUMS AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICIES "CONSTITUTE
'A CURRENT OF COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES'" (231 U.S. AT 509).  ALL THESE
ARGUMENTS WERE REJECTED, AND THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE WAS HELD NOT TO
BE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ON THE GROUNDS WHICH WE HAVE STATED AND THINK
VALID - BUT WHICH THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF AND THE OPINION OF THE COURT
IN THIS CASE HAVE FAILED TO NOTICE.    IF THE BUSINESS OF ENTERING INTO
INSURANCE CONTRACTS IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT
AGREEMENTS TO FIX PREMIUM RATES, OR OTHER RESTRAINTS ON COMPETITION IN
ENTERING INTO SUCH CONTRACTS, ARE NOT VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
AS WE HAVE OFTEN HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT, THE RESTRAINTS PROHIBITED
BY THE SHERMAN ACT ARE OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF GOODS OR
SERVICES WHENEVER THE COMPETITION OCCURS IN OR AFFECTS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN THOSE GOODS OR SERVICES.  SEE APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER,
310 U.S. 469, 495-501, AND CASES CITED.  THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE DOES
NOT UNDERTAKE TO SUPPLY OR MARKET GOODS OR SERVICES AND THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE WHEN ISSUED ARE ARTICLES OF
COMMERCE OR THAT AFTER THEIR ISSUE THEY ARE SOLD IN THE MARKET AS SUCH,
OR, IF THEY WERE, THAT THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACT WOULD ITSELF BE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE HOOPER V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, SUPRA, 510; CF. WARE & LELAND V. MOBILE
COUNTY, SUPRA; MOORE V. NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE, SUPRA. 

NO MORE DOES THE PERFORMANCE OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT INVOLVING THE
PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS BY THE INSURED AND THE PAYMENT OF LOSSES BY THE
INSURER INVOLVE THE MARKETING OF GOODS OR SERVICES.  THE INDICTMENT
HERE, AS THE DISTRICT COURT POINTED OUT, CHARGES RESTRAINTS ON
COMPETITION IN FIXING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF INSURANCE CONTRACTS. 
AND EVEN IF WE ASSUME, ALTHOUGH THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT MENTION IT,
THAT THE INDICTMENT ALSO CHARGES RESTRAINTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH
CONTRACTS, IT IS PLAIN THAT SUCH RESTRAINTS ON THE PERFORMANCE AS WELL
AS THE FORMATION OF THE CONTRACTS CANNOT OPERATE AS RESTRAINTS ON
COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF GOODS OR SERVICES.  SUCH RESTRAINTS ARE
NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  COMPARE FEDERAL CLUB V.
NATIONAL LEAGUE, 259 U.S. 200, 209; UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO
COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344, 410-411; BLUMENSTOCK BROS. V. CURTIS PUBLISHING
CO., SUPRA; MOORE V. NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE, SUPRA.  THE PRACTICE OF
LAW IS NOT COMMERCE, NOR, AT LEAST OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IS
IT SUBJECT TO THE SHERMAN ACT, AND IT DOES NOT BECOME SO BECAUSE A LAW
FIRM ATTRACTS CLIENTS FROM WITHOUT THE STATE OR SENDS ITS MEMBERS OR
JUNIORS TO OTHER STATES TO ARGUE CASES, OR BECAUSE ITS CLIENTS USE THE
INTERSTATE MAILS TO PAY THEIR FEES.  FEDERAL CLUB V. NATIONAL LEAGUE,
SUPRA. 

IT WOULD BE STRANGE, INDEED, IF CONGRESS, IN ADOPTING THE SHERMAN ACT
IN 1890, MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AFTER THIS COURT HAD SUPPOSEDLY SETTLED
THE QUESTION, HAD CONSIDERED THAT THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE WAS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR HAD CONTEMPLATED THAT THE SHERMAN ACT WAS TO
APPLY TO IT. NOTHING IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUGGESTS THAT IT WAS
INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE.  FN3  THE LEGISLATIVE
MATERIALS INDICATE THAT CONGRESS WAS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH
RESTRAINTS OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF GOODS SOLD IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, WHICH WERE CLEARLY WITHIN THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER.  FN4
AND WHILE THE ACT IS NOT LIMITED TO RESTRAINTS OF COMMERCE IN PHYSICAL
GOODS, SEE E.G., ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S.
427, THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE ACT TO
APPLY TO MATTERS IN WHICH, UNDER PREVAILING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,
COMMERCE WAS NOT INVOLVED.  ON THE CONTRARY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, IN
REPORTING THE BILL WHICH WAS ADOPTED WITHOUT CHANGE, DECLARED:  "NO
ATTEMPT IS MADE TO INVADE THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE SEVERAL
STATES OR EVEN TO OCCUPY DOUBTFUL GROUNDS.  NO SYSTEM OF LAWS CAN BE
DEVISED BY CONGRESS ALONE WHICH WOULD EFFECTUALLY PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF
THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE EVILS AND OPPRESSION OF TRUSTS AND
MONOPOLIES.  CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DEAL, GENERALLY, WITH THE
SUBJECT WITHIN THE STATES, AND THE STATES HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO
LEGISLATE IN RESPECT OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE SEVERAL STATES OR WITH
FOREIGN NATIONS."  FN5 

IN 1904 AND AGAIN IN 1905 PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT URGED "THAT THE
CONGRESS CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHETHER THE POWER OF THE BUREAU OF
CORPORATIONS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE EXTENDED TO COVER INTERSTATE
TRANSACTIONS IN INSURANCE."  FN6  THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
EXECUTIVES OF LEADING INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND OTHERS JOINED IN THE
REQUEST.  FN7  NUMEROUS BILLS PROVIDING FOR FEDERAL REGULATION OF
VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS WERE INTRODUCED BETWEEN 1902
AND 1906  FN8 BUT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES OF BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE
CONCLUDED THAT THE REGULATION OF THE BUSINESS OF MARINE, FIRE AND LIFE
INSURANCE WAS BEYOND CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  SEN. REP. NO. 4406, 59TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 2491, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 12-25. 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE STATED THAT "THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
INSURANCE IS COMMERCE HAS PASSED BEYOND THE REALM OF ARGUMENT, BECAUSE
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS SAID MANY TIMES FOR A GREAT
NUMBER OF YEARS THAT INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE."  (P. 13.)  FN9 

AND WHEN IN 1914, ONE YEAR AFTER THE DECISION IN NEW YORK LIFE INS.
CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, SUPRA, CONGRESS BY THE CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT.
730, AMENDED THE SHERMAN ACT AND DEFINED THE TERM "COMMERCE" AS USED IN
THAT ACT, IT GAVE NO INDICATION THAT IT QUESTIONED OR DESIRED THIS
COURT TO OVERRULE THE DECISION OF THE DEER LODGE CASE AND THOSE
PRECEDING IT.  ON THE CONTRARY MR. WEBB, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE BILL
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, STATED THAT "INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE
NOT REACHED AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THEIR CONTRACTS OR
POLICIES ARE NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  51 CONG. REC. 9390.  FN10 

THIS COURT, THROUGHOUT THE SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS SINCE THE DECISION OF
PAUL V. VIRGINIA, HAS ADHERED TO THE VIEW THAT THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN11  SUCH HAS EVER SINCE BEEN
THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION BY THE OTHER BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE APPLICATION TO INSURANCE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE SHERMAN
ACT.  LONG CONTINUED PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR A
STATUTE IS OF PERSUASIVE FORCE IN DETERMINING ITS MEANING AND PROPER
APPLICATION.  POCKET VETO CASE, 279 U.S. 655, 688-90; FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349, 351-2; UNITED STATES V. COOPER
CORP., 312 U.S. 600, 613-14.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT IN THE FIFTY YEARS
SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE SHERMAN ACT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT UNTIL NOW
SOUGHT TO APPLY IT TO THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE,  FN12  AND THAT
CONGRESS HAS CONTINUED TO REGARD INSURANCE AS NOT CONSTITUTING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ALTHOUGH OFTEN ASKED TO DO SO IT HAS REPEATEDLY
DECLINED TO PASS LEGISLATION REGULATING THE INSURANCE BUSINESS AND TO
SPONSOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS SUBJECTING IT TO CONGRESSIONAL
CONTROL.  FN13 

THE DECISION NOW RENDERED REPUDIATES THIS LONG-CONTINUED AND
CONSISTENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE SHERMAN ACT.  WE
DO NOT SAY THAT THAT IS IN ITSELF A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR DECLINING TO
JOIN IN THE COURT'S DECISION.  THIS COURT HAS NEVER COMMITTED ITSELF TO
ANY RULE OR POLICY THAT IT WILL NOT "BOW TO THE LESSONS OF EXPERIENCE
AND THE FORCE OF BETTER REASONING" BY OVERRULING A MISTAKEN PRECEDENT. 
SEE CASES COLLECTED IN JUSTICE BRANDEIS'S DISSENTING OPINION IN BURNET
V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, 406-9, NOTES 1-4, AND IN SMITH
V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649, 665, N. 10; AND SEE LEGAL TENDER CASES, 12
WALL.  457, 553-54.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY THE CASE WHEN THE MEANING OF
THE CONSTITUTION IS AT ISSUE AND A MISTAKEN CONSTRUCTION IS ONE WHICH
CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION. 

TO GIVE BLIND ADHERENCE TO A RULE OR POLICY THAT NO DECISION OF THIS
COURT IS TO BE OVERRULED WOULD BE ITSELF TO OVERRULE MANY DECISIONS OF
THE COURT WHICH DO NOT ACCEPT THAT VIEW.  BUT THE RULE OF STARE DECISIS
EMBODIES A WISE POLICY BECAUSE IT IS OFTEN MORE IMPORTANT THAT A RULE
OF LAW BE SETTLED THAN THAT IT BE SETTLED RIGHT.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY SO
WHERE, AS HERE, CONGRESS IS NOT WITHOUT REGULATORY POWER.  CF. PENN
DAIRIES V. MILK CONTROL COMM'N, 318 U.S. 261, 271, 275.  THE QUESTION
THEN IS NOT WHETHER AN EARLIER DECISION SHOULD EVER BE OVERRULED, BUT
WHETHER A PARTICULAR DECISION OUGHT TO BE.  AND BEFORE OVERRULING A
PRECEDENT IN ANY CASE IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT
MORE HARM WILL NOT BE DONE IN REJECTING THAN IN RETAINING A RULE OF
EVEN DUBIOUS VALIDITY.  COMPARE HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371,
400-4. 

FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT OUR DECISIONS THAT THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE ARE NOT UNSOUND IN PRINCIPLE, AND
INVOLVE NO INCONSISTENCY OR LACK OF HARMONY WITH ACCEPTED DOCTRINE. 
THEY PLACE NO FIELD OF ACTIVITY BEYOND THE CONTROL OF BOTH THE NATIONAL
AND STATE GOVERNMENTS AS DID HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251,
OVERRULED THREE YEARS AGO BY A UNANIMOUS COURT IN UNITED STATES V.
DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 117.  ON THE CONTRARY THE RULING THAT INSURANCE IS
NOT COMMERCE, AND IS THEREFORE UNAFFECTED BY THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE IMPOSES ON STATE LEGISLATION, REMOVED THE MOST SERIOUS
OBSTACLE TO REGULATION OF THAT BUSINESS BY THE STATES.  THROUGH THEIR
PLENARY POWER OVER DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE NOT
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE STATES HAVE DEVELOPED EXTENSIVE AND
EFFECTIVE SYSTEMS OF REGULATION OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, OFTEN
SOLVING REGULATORY PROBLEMS OF A LOCAL CHARACTER WITH WHICH IT WOULD BE
IMPRACTICAL OR DIFFICULT FOR CONGRESS TO DEAL THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF
THE COMMERCE POWER.  AND IN VIEW OF THE BROAD POWERS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE MATTERS WHICH, THOUGH NOT THEMSELVES COMMERCE,
NEVERTHELESS AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S.
111; POLISH ALLIANCE V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF
THE POWER OF CONGRESS IF IT SO DESIRES TO REGULATE MANY ASPECTS OF THE
INSURANCE BUSINESS MENTIONED IN THIS INDICTMENT. 

BUT THE IMMEDIATE AND ONLY PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE DECISION NOW
RENDERED IS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE STATES, IN LARGE MEASURE, THE
REGULATION OF INSURANCE AND TO CONFER IT ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT,
WHICH HAS ADOPTED NO LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND EVOLVED NO SCHEME OF
REGULATION WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE.  CONGRESS HAVING
TAKEN NO ACTION, THE PRESENT DECISION SUBSTITUTES, FOR THE VARIED AND
DETAILED STATE REGULATION DEVELOPED OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, THE LIMITED
AIM AND INDEFINITE COMMAND OF THE SHERMAN ACT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF
RESTRAINTS ON COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF GOODS AND SERVICES IN OR
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO BE APPLIED BY THE COURTS TO THE
INSURANCE BUSINESS AS BEST THEY MAY. 

IN THE YEARS SINCE THIS COURT'S PRONOUNCEMENT THAT INSURANCE IS NOT
COMMERCE CAME TO BE REGARDED AS SETTLED CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, VAST
EFFORTS HAVE GONE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHEMES OF STATE REGULATION
AND INTO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN CONFORMITY TO
SUCH REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.  VAST AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL HAVE BEEN
INVESTED IN THE BUSINESS IN RELIANCE ON THE PERMANENCE OF THE EXISTING
SYSTEM OF STATE REGULATION.  HOW FAR THAT SYSTEM IS NOW SUPPLANTED IS
NOT, AND IN THE NATURE OF THINGS COULD NOT WELL BE, EXPLAINED IN THE
COURT'S OPINION.  THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT STATUTES OF AT LEAST FIVE
STATES WILL BE INVALIDATED BY THE DECISION AS IN CONFLICT WITH THE
SHERMAN ACT, AND THE ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT REVEALS SERIOUS DOUBT
WHETHER MANY OTHERS MAY NOT ALSO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT ACT.  THE
EXTENT TO WHICH STILL OTHER STATE STATUTES WILL NOW BE INVALIDATED AS
IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN EXPLORED IN ANY
DETAIL IN THE BRIEFS AND ARGUMENT OR IN THE COURT'S OPINION. 

CERTAINLY THERE CANNOT BUT BE SERIOUS DOUBT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF
STATE TAXES WHICH MAY NOW BE THOUGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CF. PHILADELPHIA FIRE ASSN. V. NEW YORK, 119 U.S.
110; OR THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE RIGHT OF
INSURANCE COMPANIES TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN A STATE; OR IN GENERAL THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE STATE MAY REGULATE WHATEVER ASPECTS OF THE BUSINESS
ARE NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME TO BE REGARDED AS INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
WHILE THIS COURT NO LONGER ADHERES TO THE INFLEXIBLE RULE THAT A STATE
CANNOT IN SOME MEASURE REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE APPLICATION OF
THE TEST PRESENTLY APPLIED REQUIRES "A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE
RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES" IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
MATTER IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR LOCAL REGULATION AND WHETHER THE
REGULATION DOES NOT UNDULY BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, PARKER V. BROWN,
317 U.S. 341, 362 - A DETERMINATION WHICH CAN ONLY BE MADE UPON A CASE
TO-CASE BASIS.  ONLY TIME AND COSTLY EXPERIENCE CAN GIVE THE ANSWERS. 

CONGRESS MADE THE CHOICE AGAINST SO DRASTIC A CHANGE WHEN IN 1906 IT
REJECTED THE PROPOSALS TO ASSUME NATIONAL CONTROL OVER THE INSURANCE
BUSINESS.  THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY POINTED
OUT THAT "ALL OF THE EVILS AND WRONGS COMPLAINED OF ARE SUBJECT TO THE
EXCLUSIVE REGULATION OF STATE LEGISLATIVE POWER" AND ADDED:  "ASSUMING
THAT CONGRESS DECLARES THAT INSURANCE IS COMMERCE AND THE SUPREME COURT
HOLDS THE LEGISLATION CONSTITUTIONAL, HOW MUCH COULD CONGRESS REGULATE,
AND WHAT EFFECT WOULD SUCH LEGISLATION HAVE?  IT WOULD DISTURB THE VERY
SUBSTRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT BY PRECIPITATING A VIOLENT CONFLICT BETWEEN
THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATES AND THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  TO UPHOLD THE FEDERAL POWER WOULD BE TO
EXTINGUISH THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE BY THE LEGISLATION OF
CONGRESS.  IN OTHER WORDS, CONGRESS WOULD ADMIT CORPORATIONS INTO THE
RESPECTIVE STATES AND HAVE THE ENTIRE REGULATING POWER."  H.R. REP. NO.
2491, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 13, 15-16.  SEE ID. 18.    HAD CONGRESS
CHOSEN TO LEGISLATE FOR SUCH PARTS OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS AS COULD
BE FOUND TO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHETHER BY MAKING THE SHERMAN
ACT APPLICABLE TO THEM OR BY REGULATION IN SOME OTHER FORM, IT COULD
HAVE RESOLVED MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS OF CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND
STATE REGULATION.  BUT THIS COURT CAN DECIDE ONLY THE QUESTIONS BEFORE
IT IN PARTICULAR CASES.  ITS ACTION IN NOW OVERTURNING THE PRECEDENTS
OF SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS GOVERNING A BUSINESS OF SUCH VOLUME AND OF SUCH
WIDE RAMIFICATIONS, CANNOT FAIL TO BE THE OCCASION FOR LOOSING A FLOOD
OF LITIGATION AND OF LEGISLATION, STATE AND NATIONAL, IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH A NEW BOUNDARY BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL POWER, RAISING
QUESTIONS WHICH CANNOT BE ANSWERED FOR YEARS TO COME, DURING WHICH A
GREAT BUSINESS AND THE REGULATORY OFFICERS OF EVERY STATE MUST BE
HARASSED BY ALL THE DOUBTS AND DIFFICULTIES INSEPARABLE FROM A
REALIGNMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  THESE
CONSIDERATIONS MIGHT WELL STAY A REVERSAL OF LONG-ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE
WHICH PROMISES SO LITTLE OF ADVANTAGE AND SO MUCH OF HARM.  FOR ME
THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE CONTROLLING. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IT CHARGES AN AGREEMENT (A) TO FIX PREMIUM RATES, (B) TO FIX
COMMISSIONS PAID, (C) TO ADOPT RECLASSIFICATIONS OF RISKS ON THE BASIS
OF WHICH PREMIUM RATES ARE FIXED, (D) TO ADHERE TO STANDARD TERMS,
CONDITIONS, AND CLAUSES, IN THE INSURANCE CONTRACT, (E) TO WITHHOLD
REINSURANCE FACILITIES FROM NON-MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH-EASTERN
UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, (F) TO WITHDRAW FROM AND REFUSE TO ENTER
AGENCIES REPRESENTING NON-MEMBERS, (G) TO BOYCOTT AND WITHHOLD
PATRONAGE FROM PURCHASERS OF INSURANCE FROM NON-MEMBERS, (H) TO
DISPARAGE THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES OF NON-MEMBERS, (I) TO ESTABLISH
AND MAINTAIN RATING BUREAUS TO POLICE AND MAINTAIN THESE AGREEMENTS,
(J) TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN BOARDS AND GROUPS OF AGENTS FOR THE SAME
PURPOSE.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT COMMISSIONS ARE PAID OTHERWISE
THAN ON THE ENTERING INTO OF THE CONTRACTS.  THE INDICTMENT THUS
CHARGES ONLY RESTRAINTS IN THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACTS AND
RESTRAINTS, BY BOYCOTTS, IN COMPETITION IN ENTERING INTO SUCH CONTRACTS
AND IN ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS OF REINSURANCE. 

FN2  E.G., PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168; DUCAT V. CHICAGO, 10
WALL.  410; LIVERPOOL INSURANCE CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 10 WALL.  566;
PHILADELPHIA FIRE ASSN. V. NEW YORK, 119 U.S. 110; HOOPER V.
CALIFORNIA, 155 U.S. 648; NOBLE V. MITCHELL, 164 U.S. 367; ORIENT
INSURANCE CO. V. DAGGS, 172 U.S. 557; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V.
CRAVENS, 178 U.S. 389; NUTTING V. MASSACHUSETTS, 183 U.S. 553; NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495; NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO. V. WISCONSIN, 247 U.S. 132; NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. V.
WANBERG, 260 U.S. 71; BOTHWELL V. BUCKBEE, MEARS CO., 275 U.S. 274. 
SEE ALSO DOYLE V. CONTINENTAL INS. CO., 94 U.S. 535, OVERRULED ON OTHER
GROUNDS BY TERRAL V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 257 U.S. 529. 

FN3  THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT THE NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT
BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE
KNOWN TO AND ACCEPTED BY CONGRESS.  IN THE COURSE OF THE DEBATES IN THE
SENATE ON THE ORIGINAL BILL INTRODUCED BY SENATOR SHERMAN, SENATOR
TURPIE, DISCUSSING THE EXTENT OF THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER, STATED, "I
RECOLLECT ONE JUDICIAL DECISION UPON THIS SUBJECT VERY DEFINITELY.  THE
SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED THAT INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE.  ...  "  21
CONG. REC. 2556.  DURING SUBSEQUENT DEBATES ON THAT BILL SENATOR HOAR,
WHO LATER TOOK CHARGE OF THE REVISED BILL REPORTED BY THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AND ULTIMATELY ENACTED, 21 CONG. REC. 3145 ET SEQ., DENIED
THE EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL SUBSTANTIVE POWER, UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
OR ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, OVER CONTRACTS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
STATES, ASSERTING THAT SENATOR SHERMAN'S BILL COULD BE SUPPORTED ONLY
AS A REGULATION OF THE "IMPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION, OR SALE OF
ARTICLES.   ...  "  21 CONG. REC. 2567.  SEE ALSO THE STATEMENTS OF
SENATOR EUSTIS AT 21 CONG. REC. 2646, 2651-2. 

FN4  SEE SENATOR SHERMAN'S ORIGINAL BILL, S. 3445, 50TH CONG., S. 1,
51ST CONG., AND HIS STATEMENT AT 21 CONG. REC. 2562.  TEXTS OF THE BILL
THROUGHOUT ITS VARIOUS AMENDMENTS ARE SET OUT IN BILLS AND DEBATES
RELATING TO TRUSTS, SEN. DOC. NO. 147, 57TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1903). 

FN5  H.R. REP. NO. 1707, 51ST CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1.  SEE ALSO THE
STATEMENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE BY MR. CULBERSON, IN CHARGE OF THE
BILL, "THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE ANY DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY ON THIS
SUBJECT, BUT THE BILL IS CONFINED STRICTLY AND ALONE TO SUBJECTS OVER
WHICH, CONFESSEDLY, THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF
CONGRESS  ...  "  21 CONG. REC. 4089.  AND SEE THE STATEMENT OF SENATOR
EDMUNDS, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED OUT
THE BILL IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT PASSED, THAT IN DRAFTING THAT BILL THE
COMMITTEE THOUGHT THAT "WE WOULD FRAME A BILL THAT SHOULD BE CLEARLY
WITHIN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, THAT WE SHOULD MAKE ITS DEFINITION OUT
OF TERMS THAT WERE WELL KNOWN TO THE LAW ALREADY, AND WOULD LEAVE IT TO
THE COURTS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO SAY HOW FAR THEY COULD CARRY IT OR
ITS DEFINITIONS AS APPLICABLE TO EACH PARTICULAR CASE AS IT MIGHT
ARISE."  21 CONG. REC. 3148.  SIMILARLY SENATOR HOAR, A MEMBER OF THAT
COMMITTEE WHO WITH SENATOR EDMUNDS WAS IN CHARGE OF THE BILL, STATED
"NOW WE ARE DEALING WITH AN OFFENSE AGAINST INTERSTATE OR INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCE, WHICH THE STATE CAN NOT REGULATE BY PENAL ENACTMENT, AND WE
FIND THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT ANY COMMON LAW.  THE GREAT THING THAT
THIS BILL DOES, EXCEPT AFFORDING A REMEDY, IS TO EXTEND THE COMMON-LAW
PRINCIPLES, WHICH PROTECTED FAIR COMPETITION IN TRADE IN OLD TIMES IN
ENGLAND, TO INTERNATIONAL AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE UNITED
STATES."  21 CONG. REC. 3152. 

FN6  MESSAGES OF THE PRESIDENTS, 6901, 6986-7.  SEE THE REPORT OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS, 1905, P. 5, URGING THAT CONGRESS "SO
LEGISLATE UPON THE SUBJECT AS TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO
THE SUPREME COURT THE QUESTION WHETHER INSURANCE AS NOW CONDUCTED IS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND HENCE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION." 

SEE ALSO SEN. DOC. NO. 333, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1906), FOR A
MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT PROPOSING AN INSURANCE CODE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND ENCLOSING A REPORT OF A CONVENTION OF STATE
OFFICERS CALLED BY HIM TO INVESTIGATE WRONGFUL INSURANCE METHODS. 

FN7  SEE, E.G., 29 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION REPORTS 538(1906); 24
ANNALS OF AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES (1904) 69,
78-83; 26 ID. (1905) 681; DRYDEN, AN ADDRESS ON THE REGULATION OF
INSURANCE BY CONGRESS (1904); 1 MOODY'S MAGAZINE (1905-6) 271 ET SEQ.;
38 AMERICAN LAW REVIEW (1904) 181. 

FN8  H.R. 7054, 58TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1903); H.R. 13791, 58TH CONG.,
2D SESS. (1904); H.R. 16274, 58TH CONG., 3D SESS. (1904); S. 7277, 58TH
CONG., 3D SESS. (1905); H.R. 15092, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1906); H.
RES. NO. 417, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1906).  SEE FOOTNOTE 9 INFRA.  SEE
ALSO S. 1743, 56TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1899). 

FN9  COMPARE THE DEBATES IN THE HOUSE ON THE BILL, S. 569, TO
ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.  AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, SEC. 6 OF THE BILL
PROVIDED FOR THE CREATION OF A BUREAU OF INSURANCE TO "EXERCISE SUCH
CONTROL AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW" OVER INSURANCE COMPANIES AND TO
"FOSTER, PROMOTE, AND DEVELOP" THE INSURANCE BUSINESS BY COLLECTING AND
COMPILING STATISTICS.  H.R. REP. NO. 2970, 57TH CONG., 2D SESS., 12,
15.  AFTER EXTENDED DEBATE, IN WHICH THE PROVISION WAS OBJECTED TO FOR
WANT OF POWER IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE THE INSURANCE
BUSINESS AND AS A THREAT TO THE CONTINUANCE OF EXISTING STATE
REGULATION, 36 CONG. REC. 868-9, 872-3, 908-11, 919-21, AND IN WHICH IT
WAS INSISTED BY PROPONENTS OF THE BILL, AS NOW, THAT INSURANCE IS
COMMERCE, 36 CONG. REC. 876-7, AMENDMENTS TO STRIKE ALL REFERENCE TO
INSURANCE FROM THE BILL WERE ADOPTED.  36 CONG. REC. 911, 921.  A
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE MAILS BY INSURANCE
COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW WAS LIKEWISE
DEFEATED.  36 CONG. REC. 922-3.  THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE THEN INSERTED
THE PROVISION, ADOPTED AS SEC. 6 OF THE ACT, 32 STAT. 828, AUTHORIZING
THE BUREAU OF CORPORATIONS TO COMPILE AND PUBLISH USEFUL INFORMATION
CONCERNING CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES AND ENGAGED
IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, "INCLUDING CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN
INSURANCE."  UPON ASSURANCES THAT THIS SECTION "SIMPLY AUTHORIZES
INFORMATION BEING SECURED" AND THAT "THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS MEASURE
THAT CONTRAVENES THE VOTES OF THE HOUSE ON THAT SUBJECT," 36 CONG. REC.
2008, THE CONFERENCE REPORT WAS ADOPTED.  THE INSURANCE PROVISIONS WERE
NOT IN THE BILL AS IT HAD ORIGINALLY PASSED THE SENATE, AND THE
CONFERENCE REPORT WAS ADOPTED BY THAT BODY WITHOUT DEBATE.  36 CONG.
REC. 1990, 2035-6. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS MADE A STUDY OF STATE LEGISLATION,
BUT REPORTED THAT "IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT I HAVE
NOT FELT WARRANTED IN TRYING TO ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER INSURANCE
COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION."  REPORT OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS, 1905, P. 5; SEE REPORT OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS, 1904, PP. 29-33; REPORT OF THE SECRETARY
OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, 1903, P. 26. 

FN10  MR. WEBB'S STATEMENT WAS MADE IN ANSWER TO AN INQUIRY BY MR.
BARTON AS TO WHETHER THE PROPOSED SECTION 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT WOULD
RENDER ILLEGAL CERTAIN PRACTICES IF ENGAGED IN BY WHOLESALERS, IN THE
COURSE OF WHICH MR. BARTON REFERRED TO AN INSTANCE OF SUCH PRACTICES
COMMITTED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES.  THE COLLOQUY CONTINUED: 

"MR. BARTON.  IT IS NOT RIGHT THAT THEY SHOULD COME WITHIN THE LAW? 

MR. WEBB.  YES." 

ASSUMING THAT MR. WEBB'S ANSWER RELATED TO INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND
EXPRESSED A DESIRE THAT SUCH COMPANIES SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS, BUT WERE NOT, NOTHING WAS
DONE TO AMEND THOSE ACTS SO AS TO CARRY OUT THAT DESIRE OR WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE THIS COURT TO REEXAMINE THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL POWER OVER
INSURANCE. 

FN11  FOR CASES ARISING UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IN WHICH THIS COURT
HAS SO STATED SEE HOPKINS V. UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 578, 602;
BLUMENSTOCK BROS. V. CURTIS PUBLISHING CO., 252 U.S. 436, 443; FEDERAL
CLUB V. NATIONAL LEAGUE, 259 U.S. 200, 209; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 168-9; AND SEE NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 193 U.S. 197, 372, 377(DISSENTING OPINION).  SEE ALSO UNITED
MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344, 410; UNITED LEATHER
WORKERS V. HERKERT & MEISEL CO., 265 U.S. 457, 470-71, RELYING ON WARE
& LELAND V. MOBILE COUNTY, 209 U.S. 405, A CASE APPLYING THE INSURANCE
RULE TO COTTON FUTURES CONTRACTS NOT CALLING FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OR
DELIVERY. 

FN12  ONE PRIVATE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO
ENJOIN RATE-FIXING BY AN UNDERWRITERS' ASSOCIATION; THE SUIT WAS
DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT INSURANCE WAS NOT COMMERCE.  LOWN V.
UNDERWRITERS' ASSN., SUP. CT. D.C. JUNE 23, 1915, REPORTED IN 6 FEDERAL
ANTI-TRUST DECISIONS 1048. 

OVER 252 CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND 272 SUITS AT EQUITY HAVE BEEN
INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, HAMILTON,
ANTITRUST IN ACTION, MONOGRAPH NO. 16, PREPARED FOR THE TEMPORARY
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE (1940) 76, 78, AND OVER 103 PRIVATE ACTIONS
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, NOTE, 49 YALE L.J. 284, 296(1939). 

FN13  IN ADDITION TO THE BILLS AT NOTE 8, SUPRA, SEE H.J. RES. 31,
60TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1907); S.J. RES. 103, 63D CONG., 2D SESS.
(1914); H.J. RES. 194, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. (1914); S.J. RES. 58, 64TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1915); S.J. RES. 51, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1933), ALL
PROPOSING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 

THE RELATIONS OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS TO NATIONAL COMMERCE AND
FINANCE, I HAVE NO DOUBT, AFFORD CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR
APPROPRIATE REGULATION BY CONGRESS OF THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE,
CERTAINLY NOT TO A LESS EXTENT THAN CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION TOUCHING
AGRICULTURE.  SEE, E.G., SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE CO., 255 U.S. 180;
WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111.  BUT THE OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
LEAVES ME EQUALLY WITHOUT DOUBT THAT BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE SHERMAN
ACT IN 1890, CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN TO DISREGARD THE THEN ACCEPTED
CONCEPTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE REGULATION OF THE
INSURANCE BUSINESS.  AND THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT THE
INAPPLICABILITY OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IN ITS CONTEMPORANEOUS SETTING, TO
INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS SUCH AS THOSE CHARGED BY THIS INDICTMENT HAS
BEEN CONFIRMED AND NOT MODIFIED BY CONGRESSIONAL ATTITUDE AND ACTION IN
THE INTERVENING FIFTY YEARS.  THERE IS NO CONGRESSIONAL WARRANT
THEREFORE FOR BRINGING ABOUT THE FAR-REACHING DISLOCATIONS WHICH THE
OPINIONS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ADUMBRATE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING IN PART:

     I. 

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC REGULATION OF INSURANCE
UNDERWRITING IN THIS COUNTRY HAS CREATED A DILEMMA WHICH CONFRONTS THIS
COURT TODAY.  IT DEMONSTRATES THAT "THE LIFE OF THE LAW HAS NOT BEEN
LOGIC:  IT HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE." 

FOR ONE HUNDRED FIFTY YEARS CONGRESS NEVER HAS UNDERTAKEN TO REGULATE
THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE.  THEREFORE TO GIVE THE PUBLIC ANY PROTECTION
AGAINST ABUSES TO WHICH THAT BUSINESS IS PECULIARLY SUSCEPTIBLE THE
STATES HAVE HAD TO REGULATE IT.  SINCE 1851 THE SEVERAL STATES, SPURRED
BY NECESSITY AND WITH ACQUIESCENCE OF EVERY BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, HAVE BEEN BUILDING UP SYSTEMS OF REGULATION TO DISCHARGE
THIS DUTY TOWARD THEIR INHABITANTS.  FN1    THERE NEVER WAS DOUBT OF
THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS OF ITS DOMESTIC COMPANIES
DONE WITHIN THE HOME STATE.  THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS THE PROBLEM. 
SUCH INSURANCE INTERESTS RESISTED STATE REGULATION AND BROUGHT A SERIES
OF CASES TO THIS COURT.  THE COMPANIES SOUGHT TO DISABLE THE STATES
FROM REGULATING THEM BY ARGUING THAT INSURANCE BUSINESS IS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AN ARGUMENT ALMOST IDENTICAL WITH THAT NOW MADE BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  FN2  THE FOREIGN COMPANIES THUS SOUGHT TO VEST INSURANCE
CONTROL EXCLUSIVELY IN CONGRESS AND TO DEPRIVE EVERY STATE OF POWER TO
EXCLUDE THEM, TO REGULATE THEM, OR TO TAX THEM FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
DOING BUSINESS. 

THE PRACTICAL AND ULTIMATE CHOICE THAT FACED THIS COURT WAS TO SAY
EITHER THAT INSURANCE WAS SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION OR THAT IT WAS
SUBJECT TO NO EXISTING REGULATION AT ALL.  THE COURT CONSISTENTLY
SUSTAINED THE RIGHT OF THE STATES TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
THIS ENTERPRISE.  IT DID SO, WISELY OR UNWISELY, BY RESORT TO THE
DOCTRINE THAT INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE AND HENCE IS UNAFFECTED BY THE
GRANT OF POWER TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES.  EACH STATE THUS WAS LEFT FREE TO EXCLUDE FOREIGN INSURANCE
COMPANIES ALTOGETHER OR TO ADMIT THEM TO DO BUSINESS ON SUCH CONDITIONS
AS IT SAW FIT TO IMPOSE.  THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF INSURANCE REGULATION
AND TAXATION AS IT EXISTS TODAY HAS BEEN BUILT UPON THIS ASSUMPTION. 
FN3 

THE DOCTRINE THAT INSURANCE BUSINESS IS NOT COMMERCE ALWAYS HAS BEEN
CRITICIZED AS UNREALISTIC, ILLOGICAL, AND INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER
HOLDINGS OF THE COURT.  I AM UNABLE TO MAKE ANY SATISFACTORY
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INSURANCE BUSINESS AS NOW CONDUCTED AND OTHER
TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE HELD TO CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN4
WERE WE CONSIDERING THE QUESTION FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WRITING UPON A
CLEAN SLATE, I WOULD HAVE NO MISGIVINGS ABOUT HOLDING THAT INSURANCE
BUSINESS IS COMMERCE AND WHERE CONDUCTED ACROSS STATE LINES IS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THEREFORE THAT CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO REGULATE
PREVAILS OVER THAT OF THE STATES.  I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT IF THE
PRESENT TREND CONTINUES FEDERAL REGULATION EVENTUALLY WILL SUPERSEDE
THAT OF THE STATES. 

THE QUESTION THEREFORE FOR ME SETTLES DOWN TO THIS:  WHAT ROLE OUGHT
THE JUDICIARY TO PLAY IN REVERSING THE TREND OF HISTORY AND SETTING THE
NATION'S FEET ON A NEW PATH OF POLICY?  TO ANSWER THIS I WOULD CONSIDER
WHAT CHOICES WE HAVE IN THE MATTER. 

                             II. 

THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS, AND WE MUST APPROVE OR REJECT THE CLAIM, THAT
THE ANTITRUST LAWS CONSTITUTE AN EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER WHICH
REACHES THE INSURANCE BUSINESS.  THAT MIGHT BE TRUE ON EITHER OF TWO
DIFFERENT BASES.  THE PRACTICAL AS WELL AS THE THEORETICAL DIFFERENCE
IS SUBSTANTIAL, AS THIS CASE WILL SHOW. 

1.  IF AN ACTIVITY IS HELD TO BE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CONGRESS HAS
PARAMOUNT REGULATORY POWER.  IF IT ACTS AT ALL IN RELATION TO SUCH A
SUBJECT, IT OFTEN HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT HAS "OCCUPIED THE FIELD" TO THE
EXCLUSION OF THE STATES, THAT THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION DEFINES THE FULL
MEASURE OF REGULATION AND OUTSIDE OF IT THE ACTIVITY IS TO BE FREE. 
FN5  THIS COURT NOW IS NOT FULLY AGREED AS TO THE EFFECTS OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE ON STATE POWER,  FN6  BUT AT LEAST THE COURT ALWAYS HAS
CONSIDERED THAT IF AN ACTIVITY IS HELD TO BE INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER A
STATE MAY NOT EXCLUDE, BURDEN, OR OBSTRUCT IT,  FN7  NOR IMPOSE A
LICENSE TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING IT ON WITHIN THE STATE.  FN8
THE HOLDING OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE BRINGS INSURANCE WITHIN THIS LINE
OF DECISIONS RESTRICTING STATE POWER. 

2.  ALTHOUGH AN ACTIVITY IS HELD NOT TO BE COMMERCE OR NOT TO BE
INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER, CONGRESS NEVERTHELESS MAY REACH IT TO PROHIBIT
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN ITS CONDUCT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY BURDEN OR
RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111.  WHEN
THIS POWER IS EXERCISED BY CONGRESS, IT IMPAIRS STATE REGULATION ONLY
IN SO FAR AS IT ACTUALLY CONFLICTS WITH THE FEDERAL REGULATION. 
TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, 318
U.S. 1.  THIS CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO REACH ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE INTERFERES WITH STATE POWER ONLY IN A MILDER,
NARROWER, AND MORE SPECIFIC WAY. 

INSTEAD OF OVERRULING OUR REPEATED DECISIONS THAT INSURANCE IS NOT
COMMERCE, THE COURT COULD APPLY TO THIS CASE THE PRINCIPLE THAT EVEN IF
IT IS NOT COMMERCE THE ANTITRUST LAWS PROHIBIT ITS MANIPULATION TO
RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, JUST AS WE HOLD THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT PROHIBITS INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEN IF NOT IN COMMERCE,
FROM ENGAGING IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHICH AFFECT COMMERCE.  POLISH
ALLIANCE V. LABOR BOARD, POST, P. 643.  THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE
GOVERNMENT TO SHOW THAT ANY ACTS IT SOUGHT TO PUNISH AFFECT SOMETHING
MORE THAN INSURANCE AND SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN SOME COMMODITY.  WHATEVER PROBLEMS OF
RECONCILIATION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY THIS WOULD PRESENT -
AND IT WOULD NOT AVOID THEM ALL - IT WOULD LEAVE THE BASIS OF STATE
REGULATION UNIMPAIRED. 

THE PRINCIPLES OF DECISION THAT I WOULD APPLY TO THIS CASE ARE
NEITHER NOVEL NOR COMPLICATED AND MAY BE SHORTLY PUT: 

1.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, MODERN INSURANCE BUSINESS, AS USUALLY
CONDUCTED, IS COMMERCE; AND WHERE IT IS CONDUCTED ACROSS STATE LINES,
IT IS IN FACT INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

2.  IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, HOWEVER, INSURANCE HAS ACQUIRED AN
ESTABLISHED DOCTRINAL STATUS NOT BASED ON PRESENT-DAY FACTS.  FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES A FICTION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND LONG ACTED
UPON BY THE COURT, THE STATES, AND THE CONGRESS, THAT INSURANCE IS NOT
COMMERCE. 

3.  SO LONG AS CONGRESS ACQUIESCES, THIS COURT SHOULD ADHERE TO THIS
CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND FREQUENTLY REITERATED RULE WHICH SUSTAINS THE
TRADITIONAL REGULATION AND TAXATION OF INSURANCE COMPANIES BY THE
STATES. 

4.  ANY ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS EITHER OF PARTIAL OR OF COMPREHENSIVE
REGULATIONS OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS WOULD COME TO US WITH THE MOST
FORCEFUL PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY.  THE FICTION THAT
INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AGAINST SUCH A
PRESUMPTION, FOR RESORT TO THE FACTS WOULD SUPPORT THE PRESUMPTION IN
FAVOR OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  THE FICTION THEREFORE MUST YIELD TO
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AND CONTINUES ONLY AT THE SUFFERANCE OF CONGRESS. 

5.  CONGRESS ALSO MAY, WITHOUT EXERTING ITS FULL REGULATORY POWERS
OVER THE SUBJECT, AND WITHOUT CHALLENGING THE BASIS OR SUPPLANTING THE
DETAILS OF STATE REGULATION, ENACT PROHIBITIONS OF ANY ACTS IN PURSUIT
OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT OR UNDULY BURDEN
OR RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

6.  THE ANTITRUST LAWS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO REACH THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE AND THOSE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN IT ONLY UNDER THE LATTER
CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A CHANGE IN THE DOCTRINE
THAT INSURANCE IS NOT COMMERCE.  THE STATUTE AS THUS CONSTRUED WOULD
AUTHORIZE PROSECUTION OF ALL COMBINATIONS IN THE COURSE OF INSURANCE
BUSINESS TO COMMIT ACTS NOT REQUIRED OR AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW, SUCH
AS INTIMIDATION, DISPARAGEMENT, OR COERCION, IF THEY UNREASONABLY
RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN COMMODITIES OR INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  FN9  IT WOULD LEAVE STATE REGULATION INTACT. 

                                 III. 

THE MAJORITY OF THE SITTING JUSTICES INSIST THAT WE FOLLOW THE MORE
DRASTIC COURSE.  ABSTRACT LOGIC MAY SUPPORT THEM, BUT THE COMMON SENSE
AND WISDOM OF THE SITUATION SEEM OPPOSED.  IT MAY BE SAID THAT
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES ARE NO CONCERN OF A COURT, THAT IT SHOULD
CONFINE ITSELF TO LEGAL THEORY.  OF COURSE, IN CASES WHERE A
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OR A CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE IS CLEAR AND
MANDATORY, ITS WISDOM IS NOT FOR US.  BUT THE COURT NOW IS NOT
FOLLOWING, IT IS OVERRULING, AN UNEQUIVOCAL LINE OF AUTHORITY REACHING
OVER MANY YEARS.  WE ARE NOT SUSTAINING AN ACT OF CONGRESS AGAINST
ATTACK ON ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY, WE ARE MAKING UNPRECEDENTED USE OF THE
ACT TO STRIKE DOWN THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF STATE REGULATION.  I
THINK WE NOT ONLY ARE FREE, BUT ARE DUTY BOUND, TO CONSIDER PRACTICAL
CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A REVISION OF CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY.  THIS COURT
ONLY RECENTLY RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN FORMER DECISIONS AS TO THE
DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL POWER WERE ILLOGICAL AND
THEORETICALLY WRONG, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD
ADHERE TO THEM BECAUSE BOTH GOVERNMENTS HAD ACCOMMODATED THE STRUCTURE
OF THEIR LAWS TO THE ERROR.  DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S.
249, 255.  IT SEEMED A COMMON-SENSE COURSE TO FOLLOW THEN, AND I THINK
SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD RESTRAIN US FROM FOLLOWING A CONTRARY AND
DESTRUCTIVE COURSE NOW. 

THE STATES BEGAN NEARLY A CENTURY AGO TO REGULATE INSURANCE, AND
STATE REGULATION, WHILE NO DOUBT OF UNEVEN QUALITY, TODAY IS A
SUCCESSFUL GOING CONCERN.  SEVERAL OF THE STATES, WHERE THE GREATEST
VOLUME OF BUSINESS IS TRANSACTED, HAVE RIGOROUS AND ENLIGHTENED
LEGISLATION, WITH ENFORCEMENT AND SUPERVISION IN THE HANDS OF
EXPERIENCED AND COMPETENT OFFICIALS.  SUCH STATE DEPARTMENTS, THROUGH
TRIAL AND ERROR, HAVE ACCUMULATED THAT BODY OF INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE
AND WISDOM SO INDISPENSABLE TO GOOD ADMINISTRATION.  THE COURT'S
DECISION AT VERY LEAST WILL REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE OVERHAULING OF STATE
LEGISLATION RELATING TO TAXATION AND SUPERVISION.  THE WHOLE LEGAL
BASIS WILL HAVE TO BE RECONSIDERED.  WHAT WILL BE IRRETRIEVABLY LOST
AND WHAT MAY BE SALVAGED NO ONE NOW CAN SAY, AND IT WILL TAKE A
GENERATION OF LITIGATION TO DETERMINE.  CERTAINLY THE STATES LOSE VERY
IMPORTANT CONTROLS AND VERY CONSIDERABLE REVENUES.  FN10 

THE RECKLESSNESS OF SUCH A COURSE IS EMPHASIZED WHEN WE CONSIDER THAT
CONGRESS HAS NOT ONE LINE OF LEGISLATION DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO TAKE
OVER FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS IMPORTANT AND COMPLICATED
ENTERPRISE.  FN11  THERE IS NO FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OR PERSONNEL WITH
NATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE SUBJECT ON WHICH CONGRESS CAN CALL FOR
COUNSEL IN FRAMING REGULATORY LEGISLATION.  A POORER TIME TO THRUST
UPON CONGRESS THE NECESSITY FOR FRAMING A PLAN FOR NATIONALIZATION OF
INSURANCE CONTROL WOULD BE HARD TO FIND. 

MOREOVER, WE HAVE NOT A HINT FROM CONGRESS THAT IT CONCURS IN THE
PLAN TO FEDERALIZE RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSURANCE SUPERVISION.  INDEED,
EVERY INDICATION IS TO THE CONTRARY.  FN12  IT WAS URGED TO DO SO BY
ONE PRESIDENT,  FN13  AND BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.  FN14  THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CONFIRMING STATE POWER OVER INSURANCE HAVE BEEN
PARALLELED BY A HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL REFUSAL TO EXTEND FEDERAL
AUTHORITY INTO THE FIELD,  FN15  ALTHOUGH NO DECISION EVER HAS
EXPLICITLY DENIED THE POWER TO DO SO. 

THE ORDERLY WAY TO NATIONALIZE INSURANCE SUPERVISION, IF IT BE
DESIRABLE, IS NOT BY COURT DECISION BUT THROUGH LEGISLATION.  JUDICIAL
DECISION OPERATES ON THE STATES AND THE INDUSTRY RETROACTIVELY.  WE
CANNOT ANTICIPATE, AND MORE THAN LIKELY WE COULD NOT AGREE, WHAT
CONSEQUENCES UPON TAX LIABILITIES, REFUNDS, LIABILITIES UNDER STATE LAW
TO STATES OR TO INDIVIDUALS, AND EVEN CRIMINAL LIABILITIES WILL FOLLOW
THIS DECISION.  SUCH PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS YEARS AGO DETERRED THE
COURT FROM CHANGING ITS DOCTRINE AS TO INSURANCE N16.  CONGRESS, ON THE
OTHER HAND, IF IT THINKS THE TIME HAS COME TO TAKE INSURANCE REGULATION
INTO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, MAY FORMULATE AND ANNOUNCE THE WHOLE SCOPE AND
EFFECT OF ITS ACTION IN ADVANCE, FIX A FUTURE EFFECTIVE DATE, AND AVOID
ALL THE CONFUSION, SURPRISE, AND INJUSTICE WHICH WILL BE CAUSED BY THE
ACTION OF THE COURT.  FN17 

A JUDGMENT AS TO WHEN THE EVIL OF A DECISIONAL ERROR EXCEEDS THE EVIL
OF AN INNOVATION MUST BE BASED ON VERY PRACTICAL AND IN PART UPON
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS.  WHEN, AS IN THIS PROBLEM, SUCH PRACTICAL AND
POLITICAL JUDGMENTS CAN BE MADE BY THE POLITICAL BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT, IT IS THE PART OF WISDOM AND SELF-RESTRAINT AND GOOD
GOVERNMENT FOR COURTS TO LEAVE THE INITIATIVE TO CONGRESS. 

MOREOVER, THIS IS THE METHOD OF RESPONSIBLE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. 
TO FORCE THE HAND OF CONGRESS IS NO MORE THE PROPER FUNCTION OF THE
JUDICIARY THAN TO TIE THE HANDS OF CONGRESS.  TO USE MY OFFICE, AT A
TIME LIKE THIS, AND WITH SO LITTLE JUSTIFICATION IN NECESSITY, TO
DISLOCATE THE FUNCTIONS AND REVENUES OF THE STATES  FN18  AND TO
CATAPULT CONGRESS INTO IMMEDIATE AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR
SUPERVISION OF THE NATION'S INSURANCE BUSINESSES IS MORE THAN I CAN
RECONCILE WITH MY VIEW OF THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT IN OUR SOCIETY. 

FN1  INSURANCE COMMISSIONS WERE ESTABLISHED BY NEW HAMPSHIRE IN
1851(N.H. LAWS 1851, C. 1111); BY MASSACHUSETTS IN 1852(MASS.  LAWS
1852, C. 231); BY RHODE ISLAND IN 1855(R.I. LAWS, OCTOBER 1854, P. 17,
SEC. 17).  BY 1890, WHEN THE SHERMAN ACT BECAME LAW, SEVENTEEN STATES
HAD ESTABLISHED SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES.  PATTERSON, THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER IN THE UNITED STATES (1927), P. 536, N. 62. 

FN2  SEE PARTICULARLY ARGUMENT OF NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495, 496(1913),
AND THAT FOR PAUL IN PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168(1868). 

FN3  PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, 183(1868); HOOPER V. CALIFORNIA,
155 U.S. 648, 655(1895); NOBLE V. MITCHELL, 164 U.S. 367, 370(1896);
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. CRAVENS, 178 U.S. 389, 401(1900); NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495(1913); BOTHWELL V.
BUCKBEE, MEARS CO., 275 U.S. 274; DUCAT V. CHICAGO, 10 WALL.  410;
LIVERPOOL INSURANCE CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 10 WALL.  566; PHILADELPHIA
FIRE ASSN. V. NEW YORK, 119 U.S. 110; NUTTING V. MASSACHUSETTS, 183
U.S. 553; NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. WISCONSIN, 247 U.S.
132. 

FN4  E.G., CHAMPION V. AMES, 188 U.S. 321(LOTTERY TICKETS); ELECTRIC
BOND & SHARE CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N, 303 U.S. 419(HOLDING
COMPANIES).    FN5  E.G., PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
250 U.S. 566. 

FN6  MCCARROLL V. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES, 309 U.S. 176; DUCKWORTH V.
ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390. 

FN7  FURST V. BREWSTER, 282 U.S. 493, AND CASES CITED. 

FN8  ALPHA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 268 U.S. 203; CUDAHY
PACKING CO. V. HINKLE, 278 U.S. 460. 

FN9  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT AT LEAST COUNT ONE OF THE PRESENT
INDICTMENT CONFORMS TO THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS. 
UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO CONSTRUE OR
RECONSTRUE THE INDICTMENT.  MY VIEW WOULD REQUIRE REMAND TO THE
DISTRICT COURT OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE
LIGHT OF OUR OPINION. 

FN10  IN 1943, GROSS PREMIUMS TAXES ON INSURANCE COMPANIES YIELDED 40
STATES AN AGGREGATE OF $96,108,000 AND THE REMAINING EIGHT AN ESTIMATED
$26,892,000, MAKING A TOTAL OF $123,000,000.  STATE TAX COLLECTIONS IN
1943, PAMPHLET PUBLISHED BY BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, P. 8. 

FN11  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS, IF IT EVER INTENDED
TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR GENERAL REGULATION OF INSURANCE, WOULD
HAVE MADE THE ANTITRUST LAWS THE SOLE MANIFESTATION OF ITS PURPOSE. 
ITS ONLY COMMAND IS TO REFRAIN FROM RESTRAINTS OF TRADE.  INTELLIGENT
INSURANCE REGULATION GOES MUCH FURTHER.  IT REQUIRES CAREFUL
SUPERVISION TO ASCERTAIN AND PROTECT SOLVENCY, REGULATION WHICH MAY BE
INCONSISTENT WITH UNBRIDLED RATE COMPETITION.  IT PRESCRIBES SOME
PROVISIONS OF POLICIES OF INSURANCE AND MANY OTHER MATTERS BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

ALSO IT REQUIRES SANCTIONS FOR OBEDIENCE FAR MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE
$5,000 MAXIMUM FINE ON CORPORATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE ANTITRUST LAWS. 
VIOLATION OF STATE LAWS ARE COMMONLY PUNISHABLE BY CANCELLATION OF
PERMISSION TO DO BUSINESS THEREIN - A DRASTIC SANCTION THAT REALLY
COMMANDS RESPECT. 

THE ANTITRUST LAW SANCTIONS ARE LITTLE BETTER THAN ABSURD WHEN
APPLIED TO HUGE CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN GREAT ENTERPRISE.  IN THE TWO
RELATED MADISON OIL CASES (SEE UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO.,
310 U.S. 150) FIFTEEN OF THE SEVENTEEN CORPORATIONS CONVICTED HAD
COMBINED CAPITAL AND SURPLUS REPORTED TO BE $2,833,516,247.  THE TOTAL
CORPORATE FINES ON THEM WERE $255,000, MAKING A RATIO OF FINES TO
CORPORATE CAPITAL AND SURPLUS OF LESS THAN 1/100 OF 1 PER CENT.  IN
ADDITION, FINES OF $180,000 WERE ASSESSED AGAINST INDIVIDUALS.  IN THE
AUTOMOBILE FINANCING CASE (SEE UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP.,
121 F.2D 376, CERT. DENIED, 314 U.S. 618) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
THREE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES AND NO INDIVIDUALS WERE CONVICTED.  THE
FINES WERE $20,000.  CAPITAL AND SURPLUS WERE THEN REPORTED AT
$1,047,840,321, THE FINE BEING SOMEWHAT LESS THAN 1/500 OF 1 PER CENT
THEREOF. 

IN EACH CASE THE CORPORATE FINES WERE $5,000, THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
BY THE STATUTE.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN12  THE LAST AGENCY TO INVESTIGATE INSURANCE PROBLEMS WAS THE
TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE.  IT MADE NO RECOMMENDATION OF
FEDERAL CONTROL.  ITS CHAIRMAN, SENATOR O'MAHONEY, AFTER REVIEWING
CAREFULLY THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER IN
THE HANDS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE ABUSES OF THE BUSINESS,
SAID:  "THEREFORE I SAY AGAIN THAT PERSONALLY I WOULD NOT SUPPORT ANY
LAW THAT WOULD UNDERTAKE TO DO AWAY WITH STATE REGULATION OF INSURANCE,
AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TO ME OR TO ANY MEMBER OF THE TNEC
OR TO THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE ANY THOUGHT OF DOING AWAY WITH STATE
REGULATION OR IMPOSING FEDERAL SUPERVISION."  26 AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION JOURNAL 913.  BOTH DOMINANT POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE
SUPPORTED THE PRESENT SYSTEM.  IN 1940, THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM
CONTAINED THIS PROVISION:  "WE FAVOR STRICT SUPERVISION OF ALL FORMS OF
THE INSURANCE BUSINESS BY THE SEVERAL STATES FOR THE PROTECTION OF
POLICYHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC."  THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM OF THAT YEAR
CONTAINED THIS PROVISION:  "WE FAVOR A CONTINUANCE OF REGULATION OF
INSURANCE BY THE SEVERAL STATES." 

FN13  PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT TWICE RECOMMENDED THAT CONGRESS
ASSUME CONTROL OF INSURANCE.  MESSAGE OF DECEMBER 6, 1904, 39 CONG.
REC. 12, AND MESSAGE OF DECEMBER 5, 1905, 40 CONG. REC. 95. 

FN14  SEE INSURANCE BLUE BOOK (CENTENNIAL ISSUE, 1876) CH. VI, FIRE
INSURANCE, P. 32. 

FN15  IN 1866, A BILL WAS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE, PROVIDING FOR
CREATION OF A NATIONAL BUREAU OF INSURANCE IN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 
IT WAS NOT PASSED.  H.R. 738, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

IN 1868, A BILL WAS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE PROPOSING A NATIONAL
BUREAU OF INSURANCE, BUT NEVER PASSED.  S. 299, 40TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

IN 1892, A BILL WAS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE CREATING THE OFFICE OF
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE.  IT WAS NEVER REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE. 
H.R. 9629, 52D CONG., 1ST SESS. 

IN 1897, A BILL WAS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE TO DECLARE THAT
INSURANCE COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS OUTSIDE OF THE STATES OF THEIR
INCORPORATION WERE TO BE DEEMED TO BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
IT WAS NOT REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE.  S. 2736, 55TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

AFTER PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S RECOMMENDATION OF 1904, SENATOR DRYDEN
INTRODUCED A BILL IN THE SENATE TO ESTABLISH A BUREAU OF INSURANCE IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.  THE BILL DIED IN COMMITTEE.  S. 7277, 58TH
CONG., 3D SESS. 

AFTER PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S SECOND RECOMMENDATION, THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORTED THAT CONGRESS HAD NO POWER TO REGULATE
INSURANCE, AND SAID:  "THE VIEWS OF THE SUPREME COURT HAVE PRACTICALLY
MET THE APPROVAL OF THE BAR AND BUSINESS MEN OF THE UNITED STATES AS
BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND COMMON SENSE."  H.R. REP. 2491, 59TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., MARCH 23, 1906, P. 14. 

THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY MADE A SIMILAR REPORT.  SEN.
REP. 4406, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 1906. 

IN 1914-15, RESOLUTIONS WERE INTRODUCED IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE
SENATE PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION TO THE EFFECT THAT
CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE POWER TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS OR COMMERCE OF
INSURANCE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES OR
POSSESSIONS.  THE RESOLUTIONS WERE NOT REPORTED OUT OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE.  S.J. RES. 103, 63D CONG., 2D SESS.; H.J. RES. 194, 63D
CONG., 2D SESS.; S.J. RES. 58, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

IN 1933, A RESOLUTION WAS INTRODUCED FOR A SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT WHICH DIED IN COMMITTEE.  S.J. RES. 51, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. 

MOREOVER, BY EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS CONGRESS HAS INDICATED A CLEAR
INTENT TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH STATE SUPERVISION.  INSURANCE
CORPORATIONS ARE EXCEPTED FROM THOSE WHO MAY BECOME BANKRUPTS.  11
U.S.C. SEC. 22.  INSURANCE ISSUED BY ANY ISSUER UNDER STATE SUPERVISION
IS EXEMPTED FROM THE SECURITIES ACT.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 77C (A)(8). 
INSURANCE COMPANIES SUPERVISED BY STATE AUTHORITY ARE EXEMPTED FROM
REGULATION AS INVESTMENT COMPANIES.  15 U.S.C. SECS. 80A-2(A)(17) AND
80A-3(C)(3). 

FN16  IN NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495,
502, THE COURT SAID:  "TO REVERSE THE CASES, THEREFORE, WOULD REQUIRE
US TO PROMULGATE A NEW RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INHIBITION UPON THE
STATES AND WHICH WOULD COMPEL A CHANGE OF THEIR POLICY AND A
READJUSTMENT OF THEIR LAWS.  SUCH RESULT NECESSARILY URGES AGAINST A
CHANGE OF DECISION." 

FN17  IN RESISTING PRESSURE TO FEDERALIZE INSURANCE SUPERVISION
CONGRESS HAS FOLLOWED THE ADVICE OF SOME OF THE BEST INFORMED CHAMPIONS
OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST ON INSURANCE PROBLEMS.  ONE WAS LOUIS D.
BRANDEIS.  SPEAKING AS COUNSEL FOR THE PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE OF POLICY
HOLDERS IN THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL
CLUB OF BOSTON, ON OCTOBER 26, 1905, MR. BRANDEIS SAID: 

"THE SOLE EFFECT OF A FEDERAL LAW WOULD BE - THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE
DRYDEN BILL (SEE NOTE 15, SUPRA) MUST HAVE BEEN - TO FREE THE COMPANIES
FROM THE CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF SOME OF THE STATES. 
IT SEEKS TO ROB THE STATE EVEN OF THE RIGHT TO PROTECT ITS OWN CITIZENS
FROM THE LEGALIZED ROBBERY TO WHICH PRESENT INSURANCE MEASURES SUBJECT
THE CITIZENS, FOR BY THE TERMS OF THE BILL A FEDERAL LICENSE WOULD
SECURE THE RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE STATE,
REGARDLESS OF THE STATE PROHIBITIONS, FREE FROM THE STATE'S PROTECTIVE
REGULATIONS.  WITH A FRANKNESS WHICH IS UNUSUAL - AND AN EFFRONTERY
WHICH IS COMMON - AMONG THE INSURANCE MAGNATES - THIS BILL IS
INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE BY JOHN F. DRYDEN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY - THE COMPANY WHICH PAYS TO
STOCKHOLDERS ANNUAL DIVIDENDS EQUIVALENT TO 219.78 PER CENT. FOR EACH
DOLLAR PAID IN ON THE STOCK; THE COMPANY WHICH DEVOTES ITSELF MAINLY TO
INSURING THE WORKING MEN AT AN EXPENSE OF OVER 37.28 CENTS ON EVERY
DOLLAR OF PREMIUMS PAID; THE COMPANY WHICH, IN 1904, MADE THE WORST
RECORD OF LAPSED AND SURRENDERED INDUSTRIAL POLICIES.  ... 

"FEDERAL SUPERVISION IS ALSO ADVOCATED BY MR. JAMES M. BECK (FORMERLY
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES), THE COUNSEL FOR THE
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND HIS MAIN ARGUMENT AGAINST STATE
SUPERVISION APPEARS TO BE THAT THE COMPANIES PAY, IN THE AGGREGATE, FOR
FEES AND TAXES IN THE SEVERAL STATES $10,000,000, WHICH HE SAYS IS
TWICE AS MUCH AS IS NECESSARY TO COVER THE EXPENSE OF PROPER
SUPERVISION.  TEN MILLION DOLLARS IS A LARGE SUM IN ITSELF, BUT A VERY
SMALL ONE COMPARED WITH THE AGGREGATE ASSETS OR THE AGGREGATE EXPENSE
OF MANAGEMENT.  MR. BECK'S COMPANY PAID IN 1904 $1,138,663 IN TAXES AND
FEES.  ITS MANAGEMENT EXPENSES WERE $15,517,520, OR NEARLY FOURTEEN
TIMES AS MUCH.  OUR MASSACHUSETTS SAVINGS BANKS PAID IN THE YEAR ENDING
OCTOBER 31, 1904, $1,627,794.46 IN TAXES TO THIS COMMONWEALTH:  THAT IS
$80,890.02 MORE THAN THE WHOLE EXPENSE OF MANAGEMENT, WHICH WAS
$1,546,904.44. 

"DOUBTLESS THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENTS OF SOME STATES ARE SUBJECTS FOR
JUST CRITICISM.  IN MANY OF THE STATES THE DEPARTMENT IS INEFFICIENT,
IN SOME DOUBTLESS CORRUPT.  BUT IS THERE ANYTHING IN OUR EXPERIENCE OF
FEDERAL SUPERVISION OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF BUSINESS WHICH SHOULD LEAD
US TO ASSUME THAT IT WILL BE FREER FROM GROUNDS OF CRITICISM OR ON THE
WHOLE MORE EFFICIENT THAN THE BEST INSURANCE DEPARTMENT OF ANY OF THE
STATES?  FOR IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT AN EFFICIENT SUPERVISION BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ANY STATE WILL IN EFFECT PROTECT ALL THE POLICYHOLDERS OF
THE COMPANY WHEREVER THEY MAY RESIDE.  LET US REMEMBER RATHER THE
INEFFECTIVENESS FOR EIGHTEEN LONG YEARS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH RAILROAD ABUSES, THE FUTILE INVESTIGATION BY
COMMISSIONER GARFIELD OF THE BEEF TRUST, AND THE UNFINISHED
INVESTIGATION INTO THE AFFAIRS OF THE OIL TRUST IN WHICH HE HAS SINCE
BEEN ENGAGED.  FEDERAL SUPERVISION WOULD SERVE ONLY TO CENTRALIZE STILL
FURTHER THE POWER OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND TO INCREASE STILL FURTHER THE
POWERS OF THE CORPORATIONS." 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT WROTE, IN BOTHWELL V.
BUCKBEE, MEARS CO., 275 U.S. 274, 276(1927):  "A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE,
ALTHOUGH MADE WITH A CORPORATION HAVING ITS OFFICE IN A STATE OTHER
THAN THAT IN WHICH THE INSURED RESIDES AND IN WHICH THE INTEREST
INSURED IS LOCATED, IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  HE JOINED IN OTHER
SIMILAR DECISIONS IN NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. WISCONSIN,
247 U.S. 132; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. V. WANBERG, 260 U.S. 71. 

FN18  THIRTY-FIVE STATES OF THE UNION HAVE FILED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS
WITH US, PROTESTING AGAINST THE DECISION WHICH THE COURT IS
PROMULGATING. 
..END :



LYONS V. OKLAHOMA, 322 U.S. 596 


NO. 433.  ARGUED APRIL 26, 1944.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1944.  - 138 P.2D
142, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY IN THIS CASE FAIRLY RAISED THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE CHALLENGED CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY, AND DID NOT
DENY TO THE DEFENDANT ANY RIGHT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P.
601. 

2.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID THE USE, AT A TRIAL OF
AN ACCUSED FROM WHOM A CONFESSION WAS COERCED, OF A SUBSEQUENT
VOLUNTARY CONFESSION.  P. 603. 

3.  WHERE THE EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS COERCION IS
CONFLICTING, OR WHERE DIFFERENT INFERENCES MAY FAIRLY BE DRAWN FROM THE
ADMITTED FACTS, THE QUESTION WHETHER A CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY IS FOR
THE TRIERS OF THE FACTS.  P. 602. 

4.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WARRANTED THE INFERENCES THAT THE
EFFECTS OF THE COERCION WHICH VITIATED AN EARLIER CONFESSION BY THE
ACCUSED HAD BEEN DISSIPATED PRIOR TO HIS SECOND CONFESSION AND THAT THE
LATTER WAS VOLUNTARY; AND THE CONVICTION WILL NOT BE SET ASIDE AS
VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 604. 

5.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AGAINST SUCH CONDUCT OF
CRIMINAL TRIALS AS AMOUNTS TO A DISREGARD OF THAT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
ESSENTIAL TO THE VERY CONCEPT OF JUSTICE AND AS NECESSARILY PREVENTS A
FAIR TRIAL, BUT DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST MERE ERROR IN JURY VERDICTS. 
P. 605. 

LYONS V. OKLAHOMA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 732, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR MURDER. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT BRINGS TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW A CONVICTION OBTAINED WITH
THE AID OF A CONFESSION WHICH FURNISHED, IF VOLUNTARY, MATERIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION.  AS THE QUESTIONED CONFESSION
FOLLOWED A PREVIOUS CONFESSION WHICH WAS GIVEN ON THE SAME DAY AND
WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY INVOLUNTARY,  FN1  THE ISSUE IS THE VOLUNTARY
CHARACTER OF THE SECOND CONFESSION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
EXISTED AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF ITS SIGNATURE AND, PARTICULARLY,
BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGED CONTINUED INFLUENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL INDUCEMENTS
WHICH VITIATED THE PRIOR CONFESSION. 

THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE STATE DISTRICT COURT OF CHOCTAW
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, ON AN INFORMATION CHARGING HIM AND ANOTHER WITH THE
CRIME OF MURDER.  THE JURY FIXED HIS PUNISHMENT AT LIFE IMPRISONMENT. 
THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS, 77 OKL.
CR. - , 138 P.2D 142, REHEARING 140 P.2D 248, AND THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 732, UPON THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION THAT
THERE HAD BEEN ADMITTED AGAINST HIM AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION PROCURED
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MADE ITS USE IN EVIDENCE A VIOLATION OF HIS
RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN2 

PRIOR TO SUNDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1939, ELMER ROGERS LIVED WITH HIS WIFE
AND THREE SMALL SONS IN A TENANT HOUSE SITUATED A SHORT DISTANCE
NORTHWEST OF FORT TOWSON, CHOCTAW COUNTY, OKLAHOMA.  LATE IN THE
EVENING OF THAT DAY MR. AND MRS. ROGERS AND A FOUR-YEAR-OLD SON ELVIE
WERE MURDERED AT THEIR HOME AND THE HOUSE WAS BURNED TO CONCEAL THE
CRIME. 

SUSPICION WAS DIRECTED TOWARD THE PETITIONER LYONS AND A CONFEDERATE,
VAN BIZZELL.  ON JANUARY 11, 1940, LYONS WAS ARRESTED BY A SPECIAL
POLICEMAN AND ANOTHER OFFICER WHOSE EXACT OFFICIAL STATUS IS NOT
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  THE FIRST FORMAL CHARGE THAT APPEARS IS AT
LYONS' HEARING BEFORE A MAGISTRATE ON JANUARY 27, 1940.  IMMEDIATELY
AFTER HIS ARREST THERE WAS AN INTERROGATION OF ABOUT TWO HOURS AT THE
JAIL.  AFTER HE HAD BEEN IN JAIL ELEVEN DAYS HE WAS AGAIN QUESTIONED,
THIS TIME IN THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.  THIS INTERROGATION BEGAN
ABOUT SIX-THIRTY IN THE EVENING, AND ON THE FOLLOWING MORNING BETWEEN
TWO AND FOUR PRODUCED A CONFESSION.  THIS QUESTIONING IS THE BASIS OF
THE OBJECTION TO THE INTRODUCTION AS EVIDENCE OF A SECOND CONFESSION
WHICH WAS OBTAINED LATER IN THE DAY AT THE STATE PENITENTIARY AT
MCALESTER BY WARDEN JESS DUNN AND INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL. 
THERE WAS ALSO A THIRD CONFESSION, ORAL, WHICH WAS ADMITTED ON THE
TRIAL WITHOUT OBJECTION BY PETITIONER.  THIS WAS GIVEN TO A GUARD AT
THE PENITENTIARY TWO DAYS AFTER THE SECOND.  ONLY THE PETITIONER,
POLICE, PROSECUTING AND PENITENTIARY OFFICIALS WERE PRESENT AT ANY OF
THESE INTERROGATIONS, EXCEPT THAT A PRIVATE CITIZEN WHO DROVE THE CAR
THAT BROUGHT LYONS TO MCALESTER WITNESSED THIS SECOND CONFESSION. 

LYONS IS MARRIED AND WAS 21 OR 22 YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE
ARREST.  THE EXTENT OF HIS EDUCATION OR HIS OCCUPATION DOES NOT
APPEAR.  HE SIGNED THE SECOND CONFESSION.  FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS
EVIDENCE, THERE IS NO INDICATION OF A SUBNORMAL INTELLIGENCE.  HE HAD
SERVED TWO TERMS IN THE PENITENTIARY - ONE FOR CHICKEN STEALING AND ONE
FOR BURGLARY.  APPARENTLY HE LIVED WITH VARIOUS RELATIVES. 

WHILE PETITIONER WAS COMPETENTLY REPRESENTED BEFORE AND AT THE TRIAL,
COUNSEL WAS NOT SUPPLIED HIM UNTIL AFTER HIS PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION,
WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE CONFESSIONS.  HIS WIFE AND FAMILY VISITED
HIM BETWEEN HIS ARREST AND THE FIRST CONFESSION.  THERE IS TESTIMONY BY
LYONS OF PHYSICAL ABUSE BY THE POLICE OFFICERS AT THE TIME OF HIS
ARREST AND FIRST INTERROGATION ON JANUARY 11TH.  HIS SISTER VISITED HIM
IN JAIL SHORTLY AFTERWARDS AND TESTIFIED AS TO MARKS OF VIOLENCE ON HIS
BODY AND A BLACKENED EYE.  LYONS SAYS THAT THIS VIOLENCE WAS
ACCOMPANIED BY THREATS OF FURTHER HARM UNLESS HE CONFESSED.  THIS
EVIDENCE WAS DENIED IN TOTO BY OFFICERS WHO WERE SAID TO HAVE
PARTICIPATED. 

ELEVEN DAYS LATER THE SECOND INTERROGATION OCCURRED.  AGAIN THE
EVIDENCE OF ASSAULT IS CONFLICTING.  ELEVEN OR TWELVE OFFICIALS WERE IN
AND OUT OF THE PROSECUTOR'S SMALL OFFICE DURING THE NIGHT.  LYONS SAYS
THAT HE AGAIN SUFFERED ASSAULT.  DENIALS OF VIOLENCE WERE MADE BY ALL
THE PARTICIPANTS ACCUSED BY LYONS EXCEPT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, HIS
ASSISTANT, THE JAILER AND A HIGHWAY PATROLMAN.  DISINTERESTED WITNESSES
TESTIFIED TO STATEMENTS BY AN INVESTIGATOR WHICH TENDED TO IMPLICATE
THAT OFFICER IN THE USE OF FORCE, AND THE PROSECUTOR IN CROSS
EXAMINATION USED LANGUAGE WHICH GAVE COLOR TO DEFENDANT'S CHARGE.  IT
IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE INQUIRY CONTINUED UNTIL TWO-THIRTY IN THE
MORNING BEFORE AN ORAL CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED AND THAT A PAN OF THE
VICTIMS' BONES WAS PLACED IN LYONS' LAP BY HIS INTERROGATORS TO BRING
ABOUT HIS CONFESSION.  AS THE CONFESSION OBTAINED AT THIS TIME WAS NOT
OFFERED IN EVIDENCE, THE ONLY BEARING THESE EVENTS HAVE HERE IS THEIR
TENDENCY TO SHOW THAT THE LATER CONFESSION AT MCALESTER WAS
INVOLUNTARY. 

AFTER THE ORAL CONFESSION IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23,
LYONS WAS TAKEN TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME AND SUBJECTED TO FURTHER
QUESTIONING ABOUT THE INSTRUMENTS WHICH WERE USED TO COMMIT THE
MURDERS.  HE WAS RETURNED TO THE JAIL ABOUT EIGHT-THIRTY A.M. AND LEFT
THERE UNTIL EARLY AFTERNOON.  AFTER THAT THE PRISONER WAS TAKEN TO A
NEARBY TOWN OF ANTLERS, OKLAHOMA.  LATER IN THE DAY A DEPUTY SHERIFF
AND A PRIVATE CITIZEN TOOK THE PETITIONER TO THE PENITENTIARY.  THERE,
SOMETIME BETWEEN EIGHT AND ELEVEN O'CLOCK ON THAT SAME EVENING, THE
PETITIONER SIGNED THE SECOND CONFESSION. 

WHEN THE CONFESSION WHICH WAS GIVEN AT THE PENITENTIARY WAS OFFERED,
OBJECTION WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT FORCE WAS PRACTICED TO SECURE IT
AND THAT, EVEN IF NO FORCE WAS THEN PRACTICED, THE FEAR INSTILLED BY
THE PRISONER'S FORMER TREATMENT AT HUGO ON HIS FIRST AND SECOND
INTERROGATIONS CONTINUED SUFFICIENTLY COERCIVE IN ITS EFFECT TO REQUIRE
THE REJECTION OF THE SECOND CONFESSION. 

THE JUDGE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH OKLAHOMA PRACTICE AND AFTER HEARING
EVIDENCE FROM THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
JURY, FIRST PASSED FAVORABLY UPON ITS ADMISSIBILITY AS A MATTER OF LAW,
LYONS V. STATE, 138 P.2D 142, 163; CF. MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318
U.S. 332, 338, N. 5, AND THEN, AFTER WITNESSES TESTIFIED BEFORE THE
JURY AS TO THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE CONFESSION, SUBMITTED THE
GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE JURY UNDER A FULL
INSTRUCTION, APPROVED BY THE CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS, TO THE EFFECT
THAT VOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE PERSON MAKING
THEM BUT ARE TO BE "CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED AND RECEIVED WITH GREAT
CAUTION" BY THE JURY AND REJECTED IF OBTAINED BY PUNISHMENT,
INTIMIDATION OR THREATS.  IT WAS ADDED THAT THE MERE FACT THAT A
CONFESSION WAS MADE IN ANSWER TO INQUIRIES "WHILE UNDER ARREST OR IN
CUSTODY" DOES NOT PREVENT CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE IF MADE "FREELY
AND VOLUNTARILY."  THE INSTRUCTION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY COVER THE
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTION, EMBODIED IN A REQUESTED INSTRUCTION, THAT THE
SECOND CONFESSION SPRANG FROM THE FEAR ENGENDERED BY THE TREATMENT HE
HAD RECEIVED AT HUGO. 

THE MERE QUESTIONING OF A SUSPECT WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF POLICE
OFFICERS IS NOT PROHIBITED EITHER AS A MATTER OF COMMON LAW OR DUE
PROCESS.  LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 239-241; WAN V. UNITED
STATES, 266 U.S. 1, 14.  THE QUESTION OF HOW SPECIFIC AN INSTRUCTION IN
A STATE COURT MUST BE UPON THE INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF A CONFESSION
IS, AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE OR PRACTICE, SOLELY FOR THE COURTS OF THE
STATE.  WHEN THE STATE-APPROVED INSTRUCTION FAIRLY RAISES THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CHALLENGED CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY, AS THIS
INSTRUCTION DID, THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS, UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, ARE SATISFIED AND THIS COURT WILL NOT REQUIRE A MODIFICATION
OF LOCAL PRACTICE TO MEET VIEWS THAT IT MIGHT HAVE AS TO THE ADVANTAGES
OF CONCRETENESS.  THE INSTRUCTION GIVEN SATISFIES THE LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AS TO THE PARTICULARITY WITH
WHICH ISSUES MUST BE PRESENTED TO ITS JURIES, LYONS V. STATE, 138 P.2D
142, 164, AND IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE OF THAT INSTRUCTION, IT WAS
SUFFICIENT TO PRECLUDE ANY CLAIM OF VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE FEDERAL QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS
GIVEN UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ITS USE AS EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL
CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS "SHALL BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE." 
HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U. S.
103, 112; BUCHALTER V. NEW YORK, 319 U.S. 427, 429. 

NO FORMULA TO DETERMINE THIS QUESTION BY ITS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS
OF A GIVEN CASE CAN BE DEVISED.  HOPT V. UTAH, 110 U.S. 574, 583; BETTS
V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 462.  HERE IMPROPER METHODS WERE USED TO OBTAIN
A CONFESSION, BUT THAT CONFESSION WAS NOT USED AT THE TRIAL.  LATER, IN
ANOTHER PLACE AND WITH DIFFERENT PERSONS PRESENT, THE ACCUSED AGAIN
TOLD THE FACTS OF THE CRIME.  INVOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS, OF COURSE, MAY
BE GIVEN EITHER SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH OR SUBSEQUENTLY TO UNLAWFUL
PRESSURES, FORCE OR THREATS.  THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THOSE CONFESSIONS
SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN ARE THEMSELVES VOLUNTARY DEPENDS ON THE INFERENCES
AS TO THE CONTINUING EFFECT OF THE COERCIVE PRACTICES WHICH MAY FAIRLY
BE DRAWN FROM THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES.  LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA,
314 U.S. 219, 240.  THE VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF A
CONFESSION IS DETERMINED BY A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER THE ACCUSED, AT
THE TIME HE CONFESSES, IS IN POSSESSION OF "MENTAL FREEDOM" TO CONFESS
TO OR DENY A SUSPECTED PARTICIPATION IN A CRIME.  ASHCRAFT V.
TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143, 154; HYSLER V. FLORIDA, 315 U.S. 411, 413. 

WHEN CONCEDED FACTS EXIST WHICH ARE IRRECONCILABLE WITH SUCH MENTAL
FREEDOM, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTRARY CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIERS OF FACT,
WHETHER JUDGE OR JURY, THIS COURT CANNOT AVOID RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH
INJUSTICE BY LEAVING THE BURDEN OF ADJUDICATION SOLELY IN OTHER HANDS. 
BUT WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE ACTS WHICH ARE CHARGED
TO BE COERCIVE ACTUALLY OCCURRED, OR WHERE DIFFERENT INFERENCES MAY
FAIRLY BE DRAWN FROM ADMITTED FACTS, THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE JURY ARE
NOT ONLY IN A BETTER POSITION TO APPRAISE THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE
DEFENDANT'S ASSERTIONS FROM THE DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESSES BUT THE LEGAL
DUTY IS UPON THEM TO MAKE THE DECISION.  LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA,
P. 238. 

REVIEW HERE DEALS WITH CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REQUIRE EXAMINATION INTO
THE POSSIBILITY AS TO WHETHER THE JUDGE AND JURY IN THE TRIAL COURT
COULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THE MCALESTER CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY. 
THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A CONTRARY
CONCLUSION IS IMMATERIAL.  TO TRIERS OF FACT IS LEFT THE DETERMINATION
OF THE TRUTH OR ERROR OF THE TESTIMONY OF PRISONER AND OFFICIAL ALIKE. 
IT IS BEYOND QUESTION THAT IF THE TRIERS OF FACT ACCEPTED AS TRUE THE
EVIDENCE OF THE IMMEDIATE EVENTS AT MCALESTER, WHICH WERE DETAILED BY
WARDEN DUNN AND THE OTHER WITNESSES, THE VERDICT WOULD BE THAT THE
CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY, SO THAT THE PETITIONER'S CASE RESTS UPON THE
THEORY THAT THE MCALESTER CONFESSION WAS THE UNAVOIDABLE OUTGROWTH OF
THE EVENTS AT HUGO. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT ONE WHO HAS ADMITTED HIS
GUILT BECAUSE OF FORBIDDEN INDUCEMENTS AGAINST THE USE AT TRIAL OF HIS
SUBSEQUENT CONFESSIONS UNDER ALL POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE LATER CONFESSION DEPENDS UPON THE SAME TEST - IS
IT VOLUNTARY.  OF COURSE THE FACT THAT THE EARLIER STATEMENT WAS
OBTAINED FROM THE PRISONER BY COERCION IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN
APPRAISING THE CHARACTER OF THE LATER CONFESSION.  THE EFFECT OF
EARLIER ABUSE MAY BE SO CLEAR AS TO FORBID ANY OTHER INFERENCE THAN
THAT IT DOMINATED THE MIND OF THE ACCUSED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE
LATER CONFESSION IS INVOLUNTARY.  IF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE EARLIER
AND LATER CONFESSION IS NOT SO CLOSE THAT ONE MUST SAY THE FACTS OF ONE
CONTROL THE CHARACTER OF THE OTHER, THE INFERENCE IS ONE FOR THE TRIERS
OF FACT AND THEIR CONCLUSION, IN SUCH AN UNCERTAIN SITUATION, THAT THE
CONFESSION SHOULD BE ADMITTED AS VOLUNTARY, CANNOT BE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  CANTY V. ALABAMA, 309 U.S. 629, CANNOT BE SAID TO GO FURTHER
THAN TO HOLD THAT THE ADMISSION OF CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BY ACTS OF
OPPRESSION IS SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A REVERSAL OF A STATE CONVICTION BY
THIS COURT.  OUR JUDGMENT THERE RELIED SOLELY UPON CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA,
309 U.S. 227.  THE OKLAHOMA CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS IN THE PRESENT
CASE DECIDED THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD JUSTIFY A DETERMINATION THAT THE
EFFECT OF A PRIOR COERCION WAS DISSIPATED BEFORE THE SECOND CONFESSION
AND WE AGREE.    PETITIONER SUGGESTS A PRESUMPTION THAT EARLIER ABUSES
RENDER SUBSEQUENT CONFESSIONS INVOLUNTARY UNLESS THERE IS CLEAR AND
DEFINITE EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION.  WE NEED NOT ANALYZE
THIS CONTENTION FURTHER THAN TO SAY THAT IN THIS CASE THERE IS EVIDENCE
FOR THE STATE WHICH, IF BELIEVED, WOULD MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT
THE EVENTS AT HUGO DID NOT BRING ABOUT THE CONFESSION AT MCALESTER. 

IN OUR VIEW, THE EARLIER EVENTS AT HUGO DO NOT LEAD UNESCAPABLY TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LATER MCALESTER CONFESSION WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY
THE EARLIER MISTREATMENTS.  THE MCALESTER CONFESSION WAS SEPARATED FROM
THE EARLY MORNING STATEMENT BY A FULL TWELVE HOURS.  IT FOLLOWED THE
PRISONER'S TRANSFER FROM THE CONTROL OF THE SHERIFF'S FORCE TO THAT OF
THE WARDEN.  ONE PERSON WHO HAD BEEN PRESENT DURING A PART OF THE TIME
WHILE THE HUGO INTERROGATION WAS IN PROGRESS WAS PRESENT AT MCALESTER,
IT IS TRUE, BUT HE WAS NOT AMONG THOSE CHARGED WITH ABUSING LYONS
DURING THE QUESTIONING AT HUGO.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM OTHERS PRESENT
THAT LYONS READILY CONFESSED WITHOUT ANY SHOW OF FORCE OR THREATS
WITHIN A VERY SHORT TIME OF HIS SURRENDER TO WARDEN DUNN AND AFTER
BEING WARNED BY DUNN THAT ANYTHING HE MIGHT SAY WOULD BE USED AGAINST
HIM AND THAT HE SHOULD NOT "MAKE A STATEMENT UNLESS HE VOLUNTARILY
WANTED TO."  LYONS, AS A FORMER INMATE OF THE INSTITUTION, WAS
ACQUAINTED WITH THE WARDEN.  THE PETITIONER TESTIFIED TO NOTHING IN THE
PAST THAT WOULD INDICATE ANY REASON FOR HIM TO FEAR MISTREATMENT
THERE.  THE FACT THAT LYONS, A FEW DAYS LATER, FRANKLY ADMITTED THE
KILLINGS TO A SERGEANT OF THE PRISON GUARD, A FORMER ACQUAINTANCE FROM
HIS OWN LOCALITY, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES FREE OF COERCION SUGGESTS
STRONGLY THAT THE PETITIONER HAD CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS WISE TO MAKE A
CLEAN BREAST OF HIS GUILT AND THAT HIS CONFESSION TO DUNN WAS
VOLUNTARY.  THE ANSWERS TO THE WARDEN'S QUESTIONS, AS TRANSCRIBED BY A
PRISON STENOGRAPHER, CONTAIN STATEMENTS CORRECTING AND SUPPLEMENTING
THE QUESTIONER'S INFORMATION AND DO NOT APPEAR TO BE MERE SUPINE
ATTEMPTS TO GIVE THE DESIRED RESPONSE TO LEADING QUESTIONS. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS A PROTECTION AGAINST CRIMINAL TRIALS IN
STATE COURTS CONDUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER AS AMOUNTS TO A DISREGARD OF
"THAT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS ESSENTIAL TO THE VERY CONCEPT OF JUSTICE,"
AND IN A WAY THAT "NECESSARILY PREVENTS A FAIR TRIAL."  LISENBA V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 236.  A COERCED CONFESSION IS OFFENSIVE TO
BASIC STANDARDS OF JUSTICE, NOT BECAUSE THE VICTIM HAS A LEGAL
GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE POLICE, BUT BECAUSE DECLARATIONS PROCURED BY
TORTURE ARE NOT PREMISES FROM WHICH A CIVILIZED FORUM WILL INFER
GUILT.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE REVIEW OF MERE ERROR
IN JURY VERDICTS, EVEN THOUGH THE ERROR CONCERNS THE VOLUNTARY
CHARACTER OF A CONFESSION.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT AN INFERENCE OF GUILT
BASED IN PART UPON LYONS' MCALESTER CONFESSION IS SO ILLOGICAL AND
UNREASONABLE AS TO DENY THE PETITIONER A FAIR TRIAL.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY THE GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER. 
THE CONFESSION WAS INTRODUCED OVER DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION.  IF SUCH
ADMISSION OF THIS CONFESSION DENIED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DEFENDANT
THE ERROR REQUIRES REVERSAL.  BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 540
42.  CF. STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 367, 368; WILLIAMS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 291, 292. 

FN2  IN PETITIONER'S BRIEF A CLAIM IS MADE THAT OKLAHOMA DENIED TO
HIM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  APPARENTLY PETITIONER RELIES UPON HIS UNDUE DETENTION
WITHOUT PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION, WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS A DENIAL BY OKLAHOMA OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAW.  BUT THE EFFECT OF THE MERE DENIAL OF A PROMPT EXAMINING TRIAL IS
A MATTER OF STATE, NOT OF FEDERAL, LAW.  TO REFUSE THIS IS NOT A DENIAL
OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ALTHOUGH IT IS A
FACT FOR CONSIDERATION ON AN ALLEGATION THAT A CONFESSION USED AT THE
TRIAL WAS COERCED.  CF. MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 340;
UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

THIS FLAGRANT ABUSE BY A STATE OF THE RIGHTS OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
ACCUSED OF MURDER OUGHT NOT TO BE APPROVED.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
PROHIBITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM CONVICTING A DEFENDANT ON
EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS COMPELLED TO GIVE AGAINST HIMSELF.  BRAM V. UNITED
STATES, 168 U.S. 532.  DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN EFFECT HAVE HELD THAT
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MAKES THIS PROHIBITION APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES.  CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; CANTY V. ALABAMA, 309 U.S.
629; LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322
U.S. 143.  CF. GREEN, "LIBERTY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT," 27
WASH. UNIV.  L.Q. 497, 533.  IT IS OUR DUTY TO APPLY THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION IN THIS CASE. 

EVEN THOUGH APPROXIMATELY TWELVE HOURS INTERVENED BETWEEN THE TWO
CONFESSIONS AND EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLENCE SURROUNDING
THE SECOND CONFESSION, IT IS INCONCEIVABLE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS FREE FROM THE COERCIVE ATMOSPHERE THAT
ADMITTEDLY IMPREGNATED THE FIRST ONE.  THE WHOLE CONFESSION TECHNIQUE
USED HERE CONSTITUTED ONE SINGLE, CONTINUING TRANSACTION.  TO CONCLUDE
THAT THE BRUTALITY INFLICTED AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST CONFESSION
SUDDENLY LOST ALL OF ITS EFFECT IN THE SHORT SPACE OF TWELVE HOURS IS
TO CLOSE ONE'S EYES TO THE REALITIES OF HUMAN NATURE.  AN INDIVIDUAL
DOES NOT THAT EASILY FORGET THE TYPE OF TORTURE THAT ACCOMPANIED
PETITIONER'S PREVIOUS REFUSAL TO CONFESS, NOR DOES A PERSON LIKE
PETITIONER SO QUICKLY RECOVER FROM THE GRUESOME EFFECTS OF HAVING HAD A
PAN OF HUMAN BONES PLACED ON HIS KNEES IN ORDER TO FORCE INCRIMINATING
TESTIMONY FROM HIM.  CF. STATE V. ELLIS, 294 MO. 269; FISHER V. STATE,
145 MISS.  116, 110 SO. 361; REASON V. STATE, 94 MISS.  290, 48 SO.
820; WHITLEY V. STATE, 78 MISS.  255; STATE V. WOOD, 122 LA. 1014, 48
SO. 438.  MOREOVER, THE TRIAL JUDGE REFUSED PETITIONER'S REQUEST THAT
THE JURY BE CHARGED THAT THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS NOT FREE AND
VOLUNTARY IF IT WAS OBTAINED WHILE PETITIONER WAS STILL SUFFERING FROM
THE INHUMAN TREATMENT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED.  THUS IT CANNOT BE
SAID THAT WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A FINDING BY THE TRIER OF FACTS THAT
THE COERCIVE EFFECT OF THE PRIOR BRUTALITY HAD COMPLETELY WORN OFF BY
THE TIME THE SECOND CONFESSION WAS SIGNED. 

PRESUMABLY, THEREFORE, THIS DECISION MEANS THAT STATE OFFICERS ARE
FREE TO FORCE A CONFESSION FROM AN INDIVIDUAL BY RUTHLESS METHODS,
KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY DARE NOT USE SUCH A CONFESSION AT THE
TRIAL, AND THEN, AS A PART OF THE SAME CONTINUING TRANSACTION AND
BEFORE THE EFFECTS OF THE COERCION CAN FAIRLY BE SAID TO HAVE
COMPLETELY WORN OFF, PROCURE ANOTHER CONFESSION WITHOUT ANY IMMEDIATE
VIOLENCE BEING INFLICTED.  THE ADMISSION OF SUCH A TAINTED CONFESSION
DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S COMMAND THAT A STATE
SHALL NOT CONVICT A DEFENDANT ON EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS COMPELLED TO GIVE
AGAINST HIMSELF.  CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA; CANTY V. ALABAMA, SUPRA;
LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :











ADDISON V. HOLLY HILL CO., 322 U.S. 607 


NO. 217.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1944.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1944.  - 136 F.2D
323, REMANDED. 


1.  SECTION 13(A)(10) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT EXEMPTS FROM THE
MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT PERSONS EMPLOYED,
"WITHIN THE AREA OF PRODUCTION (AS DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR)," IN
CANNING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES FOR MARKET.  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
DEFINITION OF "AREA OF PRODUCTION" BROUGHT WITHIN THE EXEMPTION
EMPLOYEES OF CANNERIES WHICH OBTAINED "ALL" OF THEIR FARM PRODUCTS FROM
WITHIN TEN MILES AND HAD NOT MORE THAN SEVEN EMPLOYEES.  HELD: 

(1)  JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF "ALL" IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DEFINITION
AS MEANING "SUBSTANTIALLY ALL" WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE.  P. 610. 

(2)  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CANNERIES HAVING
SEVEN OR LESS EMPLOYEES AND THOSE HAVING MORE WAS UNAUTHORIZED AND
INVALID.  PP. 611, 618. 

2.  A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWING RECOVERY UNDER THE
MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN REVERSED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WAS INVALID AND THAT THE
CANNERY IN QUESTION WAS EXEMPT UNDER THE REMAINDER OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S DEFINITION, THE CAUSE ON REVIEW HERE IS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO RETAIN JURISDICTION UNTIL THE
ADMINISTRATOR, BY MAKING WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS A VALID DEFINITION,
ACTS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED HIM BY CONGRESS.  P. 619. 

ADDISON ET AL. V. HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUCTS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 725, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR THE
COMPLAINANTS IN A SUIT TO RECOVER MINIMUM WAGES, OVERTIME COMPENSATION,
AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT BY EMPLOYEES OF HOLLY HILL FRUIT PRODUCTS,
INC. FOR WAGE PAYMENTS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  52 STAT.
1060, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 201 ET SEQ. A JUDGMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEES, THE
PETITIONERS HERE, WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH
HELD THAT HOLLY HILL'S EMPLOYEES WERE BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 13(A)(10) OF
THE ACT EXEMPTED FROM ITS SCOPE, IN THAT THEY WERE "WITHIN THE AREA OF
PRODUCTION (AS DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR), ENGAGED IN  ... CANNING
OF AGRICULTURAL  ...  COMMODITIES FOR MARKET  ...  "  THE COURT BELOW
REACHED THIS CONCLUSION BY HOLDING THAT A PORTION OF THE DEFINITION OF
"AREA OF PRODUCTION" MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION WAS INVALID AND THAT THE REMAINING PORTION AFFORDED
EXEMPTION.  136 F.2D 323.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 320 U.S. 725, TO
SETTLE A MUCH LITIGATED QUESTION OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

HOLLY HILL, A CITRUS FRUIT CANNERY EMPLOYING SOME TWO HUNDRED
WORKERS, IS LOCATED IN DAVENPORT, FLORIDA, A TOWN WITH A POPULATION OF
ABOUT 650 PEOPLE.  DURING THE TWO SEASONS IN CONTROVERSY - NOVEMBER 14,
1938 TO MAY 26, 1939, AND NOVEMBER 16, 1939 TO MARCH 30, 1940 - THE
ADMINISTRATOR PROMULGATED THREE REGULATIONS BASED ON THE SCOPE HE GAVE
TO HIS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 13(A)(10) TO DEFINE "AREA OF PRODUCTION." 
THE VALIDITY OF ASPECTS OF THESE REGULATIONS IS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE. 

BY REGULATION OF OCTOBER 20, 1938, THE ADMINISTRATOR DEFINED "AREA OF
PRODUCTION" AS USED IN SEC. 13(A)(10) TO INCLUDE AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED
IN CANNING "IF THE AGRICULTURAL OR HORTICULTURAL COMMODITIES ARE
OBTAINED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT WHERE HE IS EMPLOYED FROM FARMS IN THE
IMMEDIATE LOCALITY AND THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN SUCH ESTABLISHMENT
DOES NOT EXCEED SEVEN."  29 CODE FED. REG. (SUPP. 1938) SEC. 536.2(B). 
EFFECTIVE APRIL 20, 1939, AN ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION, APPLICABLE TO
PERISHABLE OR SEASONAL FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, BROUGHT WORKERS
INTO THE "AREA OF PRODUCTION" IF EMPLOYED "IN AN ESTABLISHMENT WHICH IS
LOCATED IN THE OPEN COUNTRY OR IN A RURAL COMMUNITY AND WHICH OBTAINS
ALL OF ITS PRODUCTS FROM FARMS IN ITS IMMEDIATE LOCALITY."  IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT "'OPEN COUNTRY' OR 'RURAL COMMUNITY' SHALL NOT INCLUDE
ANY CITY OR TOWN OF 2,500 OR GREATER POPULATION ACCORDING TO THE 15TH
UNITED STATES CENSUS, 1930, AND 'IMMEDIATE LOCALITY' SHALL NOT INCLUDE
ANY DISTANCE OF MORE THAN TEN MILES."  29 CODE FED. REG. (SUPP. 1939)
SEC. 536.2(E), PP. 2239-40.  FINALLY, THIS ALTERNATIVE DEFINITION, NO
LONGER LIMITED TO FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, WAS IN SUBSTANCE INCORPORATED
INTO THE REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE JUNE 17, 1939, BUT IN ADDITION IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MIGHT ALSO BE WITHIN THE "AREA OF
PRODUCTION" "IF HE PERFORMS THOSE (CANNING) OPERATIONS ON MATERIALS ALL
OF WHICH COME FROM FARMS IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT
WHERE HE IS EMPLOYED AND THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THOSE
OPERATIONS IN THAT ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT EXCEED SEVEN."  29 CODE FED.
REG. (SUPP. 1939) SEC. 536.2(A)(D), P. 2240. 

BEFORE COMING TO THE MAIN QUESTION, THAT OF THE VALIDITY OF ADDING A
LIMITATION ON THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN ONE CANNING
ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE EXEMPTED GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDS, WE SHALL DISPOSE
OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OTHER EXEMPTING DEFINITIONS
TO HOLLY HILL'S EMPLOYEES. 

THE DEFINITIONS WHICH CONTAIN NO EMPLOYEE LIMITATION IMPOSE TWO
ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS ON AN EXEMPTION SOUGHT UNDER SEC. 13(A)(10):  THE
ESTABLISHMENT MUST BE LOCATED IN A CITY OR TOWN HAVING A POPULATION
SMALLER THAN 2,500,  FN1  AND ALL OF ITS PRODUCTS MUST BE OBTAINED FROM
WITHIN TEN MILES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.  SINCE DAVENPORT CONTAINS LESS
THAN 2,500 PERSONS, THE FIRST CONDITION IS MET AND WE NEED NOT PASS ON
ITS VALIDITY.  FN2  AS TO THE SECOND CONDITION, THE ONLY EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED INDICATES THAT DURING THE 1938-1939 SEASON, ABOUT 2% OF THE
FRUIT USED CAME FROM BEYOND TEN AIR MILES OF THE PLANT, AND THAT FOR
THE 1939-1940 SEASON, ABOUT 3.75% CAME FROM GROVES MORE THAN TEN AIR
MILES FROM HOLLY HILL.  SINCE ALL OF THE FRUIT DID NOT COME FROM WITHIN
TEN MILES, HOLLY HILL DID NOT SATISFY THIS CONDITION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S DEFINITIONS.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THIS
CONCLUSION IS JUSTIFIED BY A LITERAL READING OF THE REGULATIONS, AND
THE COURT BELOW, IN HOLDING THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REQUIREMENT THAT
ALL THE GOODS COME FROM WITHIN TEN MILES MUST BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN
"SUBSTANTIALLY ALL," ENTERED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DOMAIN.  WHAT WAS SAID
IN ANOTHER CONNECTION IS RELEVANT HERE.  "LOOKED AT BY ITSELF WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE NECESSITY BEHIND IT THE LINE OR POINT SEEMS ARBITRARY. 
IT MIGHT AS WELL OR NEARLY AS WELL BE A LITTLE MORE TO ONE SIDE OR THE
OTHER.  BUT WHEN IT IS SEEN THAT A LINE OR POINT THERE MUST BE, AND
THAT THERE IS NO MATHEMATICAL OR LOGICAL WAY OF FIXING IT PRECISELY,
THE DECISION OF THE (ADMINISTRATOR) MUST BE ACCEPTED UNLESS WE CAN SAY
THAT IT IS VERY WIDE OF ANY REASONABLE MARK."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES,
DISSENTING, IN LOUISVILLE GAS CO. V. COLEMAN, 277 U.S. 32, 41.  FN3 

WE COME THEN TO THE VALIDITY OF THE OCTOBER 20, 1938, REGULATION AND
THAT OF THE ALTERNATIVE IN THE JUNE 17, 1939, REGULATION WHICH PROVIDE
IN SUBSTANCE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE "AREA OF
PRODUCTION" IF AN ESTABLISHMENT OBTAINS THE COMMODITIES FROM THE
"IMMEDIATE LOCALITY" (1938) OR ALL THE MATERIALS COME FROM THE "GENERAL
VICINITY" (1939), AND IN ADDITION THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE
ESTABLISHMENT "DOES NOT EXCEED SEVEN."  IN SHORT, WHEN CONGRESS
EXEMPTED "ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED WITHIN THE AREA OF PRODUCTION (AS
DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR)" (SEC. 13(A)(10)), DID IT AUTHORIZE THE
ADMINISTRATOR NOT ONLY TO DESIGNATE TERRITORIAL BOUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES
OF EXEMPTION BUT ALSO TO EXCEPT ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SUCH EXEMPTION
ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF WORKERS EMPLOYED. 

CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR ELEVEN EXEMPTIONS FROM THE CONTROLLING
PROVISIONS RELATING TO MINIMUM WAGES OR MAXIMUM HOURS OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  FN4  EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE IS PROBABLY THE MOST FAR
REACHING EXEMPTION.  CLOSELY RELATED TO IT IS THE EXEMPTION WHICH IS
OUR IMMEDIATE CONCERN - THOSE WORKERS ENGAGED IN PROCESSES NECESSARY
FOR THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND EMPLOYED "WITHIN THE
AREA OF PRODUCTION" OF SUCH COMMODITIES.  SUCH WAS THE PHRASE AND SUCH
ITS CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXEMPTION FOR AGRICULTURE OF WHICH IT FORMED
AN INTEGRAL PART AS THE BILL PASSED BOTH HOUSES, EXCEPT THAT THE
ENUMERATED EXEMPTED EMPLOYMENTS SUBSIDIARY TO AGRICULTURE VARIED IN THE
TWO BILLS.  FN5  THE PARENTHETICAL QUALIFICATION "(AS DEFINED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR)" EMERGED FROM THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OF THE TWO
HOUSES.  FN6 

THE TEXTUAL MEANING OF "AREA OF PRODUCTION" IS THUS REINFORCED BY ITS
CONTEXT:  "AREA" CALLS FOR DELIMITATION OF TERRITORY IN RELATION TO THE
COMPLICATED ECONOMIC FACTORS THAT OPERATE BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL LABOR
CONDITIONS AND THE LABOR MARKET OF ENTERPRISES CONCERNED WITH
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND MORE OR LESS NEAR THEIR PRODUCTION.  THE
PHRASE IS THE MOST APT DESIGNATION OF A ZONE WITHIN WHICH ECONOMIC
INFLUENCES MAY BE DEEMED TO OPERATE AND OUTSIDE OF WHICH THEY LOSE
THEIR FORCE.  IN VIEW, HOWEVER, OF THE VARIETY OF AGRICULTURAL
CONDITIONS AND INDUSTRIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, THE BOUNDS OF THESE
AREAS COULD NOT BE DEFINED BY CONGRESS ITSELF.  NEITHER WAS IT DEEMED
WISE TO LEAVE SUCH ECONOMIC DETERMINATION TO THE CONTINGENCIES AND
INEVITABLE DIVERSITIES OF LITIGATION.  AND SO CONGRESS LEFT THE
BOUNDARY-MAKING TO THE EXPERIENCED AND INFORMED JUDGMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  THEREBY CONGRESS GAVE THE ADMINISTRATOR APPROPRIATE
DISCRETION TO ASSESS ALL THE FACTORS RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER,
THAT IS, THE FIXING OF MINIMUM WAGES AND MAXIMUM HOURS. 

IN DELIMITING THE AREA THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY PROPERLY WEIGH AND
SYNTHESIZE ALL SUCH FACTORS.  SO LONG AS HE DOES THAT AND NO MORE,
JUDGMENT BELONGS TO HIM AND NOT TO THE COURTS.  FOR CONGRESS HAS CAST
UPON HIM THE AUTHORITY AND THE DUTY TO DEFINE THE "AREA OF PRODUCTION"
OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH EXEMPTION IN
SUBSIDIARY EMPLOYMENTS MAY OPERATE.  BUT IF CONGRESS INTENDED TO ALLOW
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN SMALLER AND BIGGER
ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE ZONE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, CONGRESS
WHOLLY FAILED TO EXPRESS ITS PURPOSE.  WHERE CONGRESS WANTED TO MAKE
EXEMPTION DEPEND ON SIZE, AS IT DID IN TWO OR THREE INSTANCES NOT HERE
RELEVANT, IT DID SO BY APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE.  FN7  CONGRESS REFERRED TO
QUANTITY WHEN IT DESIRED TO LEGISLATE ON THE BASIS OF QUANTITY. 

CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AS MANIFESTED BY TEXT AND CONTEXT IS NOT
RENDERED DOUBTFUL BY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  MEAGRE AS THAT IS, IT
CONFIRMS WHAT CONGRESS HAS FORMALLY SAID.  THE ONLY EXTRINSIC LIGHT
CAST ON CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE REGARDING "AREA OF PRODUCTION" IS THAT
CAST BY THE SPONSORS OF THIS PROVISION FOR ENLARGING THE RANGE OF
AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS.  SENATOR SCHWELLENBACH FRANKLY STATED THAT THE
LARGEST APPLE PACKING PLANT IN THE WORLD WOULD BE EXEMPT IF THE "WORK
DONE IN THAT PLANT IS AS DESCRIBED IN THE AMENDMENT."  81 CONG. REC.
7877.  AND IN THE HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVE BIERMANN, WHILE EXPLAINING HIS
AMENDMENT IN SOMEWHAT DELPHIC TERMS, DID INDICATE PLAINLY ENOUGH THAT
HE HAD IN MIND NOT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE SAME
TERRITORY BUT BETWEEN RURAL COMMUNITIES AND URBAN CENTERS:  "MAY I SAY
THAT ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THERE SHOULD BE
A LABOR DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE LARGE CITY AND THE LITTLE TOWN."  83
CONG. REC. 7401.  FN8 

FROM SUCH LIGHT AS CONGRESS GAVE US BEYOND ITS WORDS, IT WOULD APPEAR
THAT IN GIVING EXEMPTION TO AN "AREA OF PRODUCTION," WITHOUT
DIFFERENTIATING AS BETWEEN ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN SUCH AREA, CONGRESS
MIGHT WELL HAVE CONSIDERED THAT A LARGE PLANT WITHIN AN AREA SHOULD NOT
BE GIVEN AN ADVANTAGE OVER SMALL PLANTS IN COMPETING FOR LABOR WITHIN
THE SAME LOCALITY, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IT GAVE THE ADMINISTRATOR
AMPLE POWER, IN DEFINING THE AREA, TO TAKE DUE ACCOUNT OF THE
APPROPRIATE ECONOMIC FACTORS IN DRAWING THE GEOGRAPHIC LINES.  IN ANY
EVENT, CONGRESS DID NOT LEAVE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DECIDE WHETHER
WITHIN GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDS DEFINED BY HIM THE ACT FURTHER PERMITS
DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN ESTABLISHMENT AND ESTABLISHMENT BASED UPON THE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.  THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT OF AUTHORITY
GIVEN TO A DELEGATED AGENCY BY CONGRESS IS NOT LEFT FOR THE DECISION OF
HIM IN WHOM AUTHORITY IS VESTED. 

THE WIDER A DELEGATION IS MADE BY CONGRESS TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY THE MORE INCOMPLETE IS A STATUTE AND THE AMPLER THE SCOPE FOR
FILLING IN, AS IT IS CALLED, ITS DETAILS.  BUT WHEN CONGRESS WANTS TO
GIVE WIDE DISCRETION IT USES BROAD LANGUAGE.  THUS, IN THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, CONGRESS PROHIBITED A LOWER RATE FOR A LONGER THAN A
SHORTER HAUL, BUT IT GAVE AN AUTHORITY TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, UNDEFINED EXCEPT AS THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THAT ACT
IMPLIED THE BASIS FOR AFFORDING EXEMPTION, TO GRANT RELIEF FROM THIS
PROHIBITION.  INTERMOUNTAIN RATE CASES, 234 U.S. 476.  AGAIN IN THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, CONGRESS GAVE THE BOARD AUTHORITY TO TAKE
SUCH ACTION "AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  SEC. 10(C),
49 STAT. 449, 454, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(C).  THE "POLICIES" OF THE ACT
WERE SO BROADLY DEFINED BY CONGRESS THAT THE DETERMINATION OF "THE
RELATION OF REMEDY TO POLICY IS PECULIARLY A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPETENCE."  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194.  IN
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, CONGRESS LEGISLATED VERY DIFFERENTLY IN
RELATION TO THE PROBLEM BEFORE US.  TO BE SURE, THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, LIKE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WAS BASED ON
FINDINGS AND A DECLARATION OF BROAD POLICY.  BUT CONGRESS DID NOT
PRESCRIBE OR PROSCRIBE GENERALLY AND THEN GIVE BROAD DISCRETION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF AS IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OR FOR REMEDIES
AS IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  CONGRESS DID OTHERWISE.  IT
DEALT WITH EXEMPTIONS IN DETAIL AND WITH PARTICULARITY, ENUMERATING NOT
LESS THAN ELEVEN EXEMPTED CLASSES BASED ON DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES, ON
DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS WITHIN THE SAME INDUSTRY (THE CLASSIFICATION IN
SOME INSTANCES TO BE DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, IN SOME MADE BY
CONGRESS ITSELF, IN OTHERS SUBJECT TO DEFINITION BY OTHER LEGISLATION),
ON SIZE AND ON AREAS.  IN SHORT THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS NOT LEFT AT
LARGE.  A NEW NATIONAL POLICY WAS HERE FORMULATED WITH EXCEPTIONS,
CATALOGUED WITH PARTICULARITY AND NOT LEFT WITHIN THE BROAD DISPENSING
POWER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  EXEMPTIONS MADE IN SUCH DETAIL PRECLUDE
THEIR ENLARGEMENT BY IMPLICATION.    WE SHOULD OF COURSE BE FAITHFUL TO
THE MEANING OF A STATUTE.  BUT AFTER ALL CONGRESS EXPRESSES ITS MEANING
BY WORDS.  IF LEGISLATIVE POLICY IS COUCHED IN VAGUE LANGUAGE, EASILY
SUSCEPTIBLE OF ONE MEANING AS WELL AS ANOTHER IN THE COMMON SPEECH OF
MEN, WE SHOULD NOT STIFLE A POLICY BY A PEDANTIC OR GRUDGING PROCESS OF
CONSTRUCTION.  TO LET GENERAL WORDS DRAW NOURISHMENT FROM THEIR PURPOSE
IS ONE THING.  TO DRAW ON SOME UNEXPRESSED SPIRIT OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF
THE NORMAL MEANING OF WORDS IS QUITE ANOTHER.  FOR WE ARE HERE NOT
DEALING WITH THE BROAD TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION "AS A CONTINUING
INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT" BUT WITH PART OF A LEGISLATIVE CODE "SUBJECT
TO CONTINUOUS REVISION WITH THE CHANGING COURSE OF EVENTS."  UNITED
STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 316. 

LEGISLATION INTRODUCING A NEW SYSTEM IS AT BEST EMPIRICAL, AND NOT
INFREQUENTLY ADMINISTRATION REVEALS GAPS OR INADEQUACIES OF ONE SORT OR
ANOTHER THAT MAY CALL FOR AMENDATORY LEGISLATION.  BUT IT IS NO WARRANT
FOR EXTENDING A STATUTE THAT EXPERIENCE MAY DISCLOSE THAT IT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN MADE MORE COMPREHENSIVE.  "THE NATURAL MEANING OF WORDS
CANNOT BE DISPLACED BY REFERENCE TO DIFFICULTIES IN ADMINISTRATION." 
COMMONWEALTH V. GRUNSEIT (1943) 67 C.L.R. 58, 80.  FOR THE ULTIMATE
QUESTION IS WHAT HAS CONGRESS COMMANDED, WHEN IT HAS GIVEN NO CLUE TO
ITS INTENTIONS EXCEPT FAMILIAR ENGLISH WORDS AND NO HINT BY THE
DRAFTSMEN OF THE WORDS THAT THEY MEANT TO USE THEM IN ANY BUT AN
ORDINARY SENSE.  THE IDEA WHICH IS NOW SOUGHT TO BE READ INTO THE GRANT
BY CONGRESS TO THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DEFINE "THE AREA OF PRODUCTION"
BEYOND THE PLAIN GEOGRAPHIC IMPLICATIONS OF THAT PHRASE IS NOT SO
COMPLICATED NOR IS ENGLISH SPEECH SO POOR THAT WORDS WERE NOT EASILY
AVAILABLE TO EXPRESS THE IDEA OR AT LEAST TO SUGGEST IT.  AFTER ALL,
LEGISLATION WHEN NOT EXPRESSED IN TECHNICAL TERMS IS ADDRESSED TO THE
COMMON RUN OF MEN AND IS THEREFORE TO BE UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO THE
SENSE OF THE THING, AS THE ORDINARY MAN HAS A RIGHT TO RELY ON ORDINARY
WORDS ADDRESSED TO HIM. 

THE DETAILS WITH WHICH THE EXEMPTIONS IN THIS ACT HAVE BEEN MADE
PRECLUDE THEIR ENLARGEMENT BY IMPLICATION.  WHILE THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION
IN CONSTRUING LEGISLATION IS NOT A MECHANICAL PROCESS FROM WHICH
JUDGMENT IS EXCLUDED, IT IS NEVERTHELESS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION.  CONSTRUCTION IS NOT LEGISLATION AND MUST AVOID
"THAT RETROSPECTIVE EXPANSION OF MEANING WHICH PROPERLY DESERVES THE
STIGMA OF JUDICIAL LEGISLATION."  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S.
517, 522.  TO BLUR THE DISTINCTIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND
JUDICIAL PROCESSES IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATION. 

WE AGREE THEREFORE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN HOLDING
INVALID THE LIMITATIONS AS TO THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN A DEFINED
AREA.  BUT WE CANNOT FOLLOW THAT COURT IN DELETING THIS PART OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION AND, BY APPLYING WHAT REMAINS OF THE
DEFINITION, EXEMPTING HOLLY HILL'S EMPLOYEES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE ACT.  SINCE THE PROVISION AS TO THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WAS NOT
AUTHORIZED, THE ENTIRE DEFINITION OF WHICH THAT LIMITATION WAS A PART
MUST FALL.  WE CAN HARDLY ASSUME THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD HAVE
DEFINED "AREA OF PRODUCTION" MERELY BY DELETING THE EMPLOYEE PROVISION,
HAD HE KNOWN OF ITS INVALIDITY.  IT WOULD BE THE SHEEREST GUESSWORK TO
BELIEVE THAT ELIMINATION OF AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
EQUATION WOULD HAVE LEFT HIS EQUATION UNAFFECTED EVEN IF HE DID NOT
HERE INSIST UPON ITS IMPORTANCE.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO WRITE A
DEFINITION.  THAT IS THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DUTY. 

CONCLUDING, THEN, THAT WHEN CONGRESS GRANTED EXEMPTIONS FOR WORKERS
WITHIN THE "AREA OF PRODUCTION (AS DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR)" IT
RESTRICTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO THE DRAWING OF GEOGRAPHIC LINES, EVEN
THOUGH HE MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT ECONOMIC FACTORS IN THE
CHOICE OF AREAS OPEN TO HIM, THE REGULATIONS WHICH MADE DISCRIMINATIONS
WITHIN THE AREA DEFINED BY APPLYING THE EXEMPTION ONLY TO PLANTS WITH
LESS THAN SEVEN EMPLOYEES ARE ULTRA VIRES.  BUT THAT LEAVES THE
DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE CASE.  IT IS OUR
VIEW THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO HOLD IT UNTIL THE ADMINISTRATOR, BY MAKING A VALID
DETERMINATION OF THE AREA WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED, ACTS WITHIN THE
AUTHORITY GIVEN HIM BY CONGRESS. 

SUCH A DISPOSITION IS MOST CONSONANT WITH JUSTICE TO ALL INTERESTS IN
RETRACING THE ERRONEOUS COURSE THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN.  NEITHER LAW NOR
LOGIC DICTATES AN "EITHER-OR" CONCLUSION - THAT IS, A CONCLUSION THAT
THE EMPLOYMENT IN THESE INDUSTRIES IS ENTIRELY EXEMPT BECAUSE THE
ADMINISTRATOR MISCONCEIVED THE BOUNDS OF HIS REGULATORY POWERS ALTHOUGH
PLAINLY ENOUGH HE MEANT TO EXERCISE THEM SO AS NOT TO WITHDRAW ALL
THESE EMPLOYMENTS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT, OR THAT EMPLOYMENT
IN THESE INDUSTRIES IS SUBJECT TO THE ACT BECAUSE NO EXCEPTION EXCLUDES
IT.  THE TWO OPPOSING ALTERNATIVES DO VIOLENCE TO THE LAW AS CONGRESS
WROTE IT.  TO HOLD THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS "ENGAGED IN HANDLING, PACKING,
STORING, GINNING, COMPRESSING, PASTEURIZING, DRYING, PREPARING IN THEIR
RAW OR NATURAL STATE, OR CANNING OF AGRICULTURAL OR HORTICULTURAL
COMMODITIES FOR MARKET, OR IN MAKING CHEESE OR BUTTER OR OTHER DAIRY
PRODUCTS" ARE EXEMPT FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT IS OBVIOUSLY TO FLY
IN THE FACE OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  THE ACT EXEMPTS SOME BUT NOT ALL
OF THE EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THESE INDUSTRIES, AND IT IS NOT FOR US NOW
TO SAY THAT ALL ARE EXEMPT.  SO TO HOLD WOULD POSTPONE THE OPERATION OF
THE ACT IN THE ENUMERATED INSTANCES FOR AT LEAST SIX YEARS BEYOND THE
DATE FIXED BY CONGRESS.  EQUALLY OFFENDING TO THE PURPOSES OF CONGRESS
AND THEREFORE TO FAIRNESS IN THIS SITUATION IS THE SUGGESTION THAT IF
THE EXEMPTION FALLS ALL EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE DESIGNATED INDUSTRIES
ARE COVERED BY THE ACT. 

THE ACCOMMODATION THAT WE ARE MAKING ASSUMES, WHAT WE MUST ASSUME,
THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL RETROSPECTIVELY ACT AS CONSCIENTIOUSLY
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE POWER GIVEN HIM BY CONGRESS AS HE WOULD HAVE
DONE INITIALLY HAD HE LIMITED HIMSELF TO HIS AUTHORITY.  TO BE SURE
THIS WILL BE A RETROSPECTIVE JUDGMENT, AND LAW SHOULD AVOID
RETROACTIVITY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.  BUT OTHER POSSIBLE DISPOSITIONS
LIKEWISE INVOLVE RETROACTIVITY, WITH THE ADDED MISCHIEF OF PRODUCING A
RESULT CONTRARY TO THE STATUTORY DESIGN. 

SUCH AN ADAPTATION OF COURT PROCEDURE TO A REMOLDING OF THE SITUATION
AS NEARLY AS MAY BE TO WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIALLY IS NOT
UNPRECEDENTED.  SUCH WAS ESSENTIALLY THE PROCEDURE WHICH WAS DEVISED TO
UNRAVEL THE SKEIN IN UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183.  THE COURT
DID NOT FEEL ITSELF BALKED BY THE KIND OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT SEEMED
CONTROLLING TO A BARON PARKE.  THE CREATIVE ANALOGIES OF THE LAW WERE
DRAWN UPON BY WHICH GREAT EQUITY JUDGES, EXERCISING IMAGINATIVE
RESOURCEFULNESS, HAVE ALWAYS ESCAPED THE IMPRISONMENT OF REASON AND
FAIRNESS WITHIN MECHANICAL CONCEPTS OF THE COMMON LAW.  SEE, E.G.,
ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. FLORIDA, 295 U.S. 301; INLAND STEEL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153; AND FOR SOME EXAMPLES OF THIS APPROACH SEE
GRAF V. HOPE BUILDING CORP., 254 N.Y. 1, 7(CARDOZO, CH. J.,
DISSENTING).  THAT SUCH WERE THE LARGE CONSIDERATIONS THAT GUIDED
DECISION IN THE MORGAN CASE THE OPINION MAKES CLEAR:  "  ...  IN
CONSTRUING A STATUTE SETTING UP AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND PROVIDING
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ITS ACTION, COURT AND AGENCY ARE NOT TO BE
REGARDED AS WHOLLY INDEPENDENT AND UNRELATED INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
JUSTICE, EACH ACTING IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS PRESCRIBED STATUTORY
DUTY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE APPROPRIATE FUNCTION OF THE OTHER IN
SECURING THE PLAINLY INDICATED OBJECTS OF THE STATUTE.  COURT AND
AGENCY ARE THE MEANS ADOPTED TO ATTAIN THE PRESCRIBED END, AND SO FAR
AS THEIR DUTIES ARE DEFINED BY THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, THOSE WORDS
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO ATTAIN THAT END THROUGH COORDINATED
ACTION.  NEITHER BODY SHOULD REPEAT IN THIS DAY THE MISTAKE MADE BY THE
COURTS OF LAW WHEN EQUITY WAS STRUGGLING FOR RECOGNITION AS AN
AMELIORATING SYSTEM OF JUSTICE; NEITHER CAN RIGHTLY BE REGARDED BY THE
OTHER AS AN ALIEN INTRUDER, TO BE TOLERATED IF MUST BE, BUT NEVER TO BE
ENCOURAGED OR AIDED BY THE OTHER IN THE ATTAINMENT OF THE COMMON AIM." 
307 U.S. AT 191. 

IF IT BE SAID THAT IN THE MORGAN CASE THE COURT WAS DEALING WITH A
FUND IN COURT - IRRELEVANT THOUGH THAT BE TO THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES
OF THAT DECISION - NO SUCH CONSTRICTION CAN BE MADE OF THE IMPORT OF
OUR DECISION IN GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V. TERMINAL CO., 308
U.S. 422.  THAT, LIKE THIS, WAS AN ACTION AT LAW AND NOT A SUIT IN
EQUITY INVOLVING A RES. THE RESPONDENT WAS SEEKING TO RECOVER A SUM
ADMITTEDLY DUE UNDER A CAR-LEASING AGREEMENT WITH PETITIONER.  THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION URGED THAT SINCE THE COMMISSION HAD NOT,
AS THE LAW REQUIRED, PASSED UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE PRACTICE INVOLVED
IN THE AGREEMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  AND SO,
TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS.  BUT THIS COURT REMANDED
THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO HOLD THE CAUSE
"PENDING THE CONCLUSION OF AN APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING." 
THE PETITION FOR REHEARING CLAIMED THAT OUR DECISION INVOLVED
RETROACTIVITY.  309 U.S. 694.  SO IT DID.  BUT AS AGAINST RETROACTIVITY
WE BALANCED THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MADE RETROACTIVITY SEEM THE LESSER
EVIL. 

IN SHORT, THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IS NOT WITHOUT THE RESOURCES OF
FLEXIBILITY IN SHAPING ITS REMEDIES, THOUGH COURTS FROM TIME TO TIME
FAIL TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THEM.  THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN LAW AND EQUITY
IN THE EVOLUTION OF MORE JUST RESULTS THAN THE HARDENED COMMON LAW
AFFORDED, HAS PROPERLY BEEN DRAWN UPON IN WORKING OUT ACCOMMODATING
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE JUDICIARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  AND
CERTAINLY IN SPECIFIC CASES, SUCH AS THOSE ALREADY REFERRED TO AND IN
THIS, IT IS CONSONANT WITH JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION AND FAIRNESS NOT TO
BE BALKED BY THE UNDESIRABILITY OF RETROACTIVE ACTION ANY MORE THAN
COURTS HAVE FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO SANCTION LEGISLATIVE RATIFICATION OF
ACTS ORIGINALLY UNLAWFUL, UNITED STATES V. HEINSZEN & CO., 206 U.S.
370; TIACO V. FORBES, 228 U.S. 549; GRAHAM & FOSTER V. GOODCELL, 282
U.S. 409; HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 91, OR
RETROACTIVELY TO GIVE PRIOR LEGISLATION NEW SCOPE.  PARAMINO LUMBER CO.
V. MARSHALL, 309 U.S. 370.  AND IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, EVEN
THOUGH A PETITIONER WAS UNLAWFULLY IN CUSTODY, THIS COURT HAS ALLOWED
CONTINUED RETENTION OF CUSTODY UNTIL A VALID ORDER COULD BE MADE. 
MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32; TOD V. WALDMAN, 266 U.S. 113. 

FINALLY, THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY UPON SUCH A REMAND IN REQUIRING THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO PROMULGATE HIS DEFINITION.  THIS COURT HAS ON SEVERAL
OCCASIONS REQUIRED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO TAKE
JURISDICTION WHEN IT DECLINED TO DO SO OR TO DISCHARGE A DUTY LAID UPON
THE COMMISSION BY STATUTE.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. HUMBOLDT
STEAMSHIP CO., 224 U.S. 474; LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO. V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 246 U.S. 638.  SEE ALSO KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY.
CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 252 U.S. 178.  THE DISTRICT
COURT WOULD NOT BE TELLING THE ADMINISTRATOR HOW TO EXERCISE HIS
DISCRETION BUT WOULD MERELY REQUIRE HIM TO EXERCISE IT.  IT IS A REMEDY
AGAINST INACTION. 

HOLLY HILL ALSO CONTENDED THAT IF IT IS NOT ENTIRELY EXEMPT FROM
PAYING THE OVERTIME RATES HERE AWARDED, IT IS ENTITLED TO THE ADVANTAGE
OF THE PARTIAL SEASONAL EXEMPTTIONS AFFORDED BY SECS. 7(B)(3) AND
7(C).  THE DISTRICT COURT RULED ADVERSELY TO HOLLY HILL ON THESE
CLAIMS, BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT REACH THEM.  IT WILL
BE TIME ENOUGH TO REACH THEM IF THEY SURVIVE THE DISPOSITION NOW MADE
OF THIS CASE. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO PROCEED IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE FACT THAT DAVENPORT IS WITHIN FOUR MILES OF HAINES CITY,
WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN 2,500, LED THE DISTRICT COURT TO
CONCLUDE THAT HOLLY HILL WAS NOT LOCATED IN THE "OPEN COUNTRY" OR A
"RURAL COMMUNITY."  THIS APPEARS TO BE A PLAIN SOLECISM.  29 CODE FED.
REG. (SUPP. 1939) SEC. 536.2(E), PP. 2239-40, AND SEC. 536.2(D), P.
2240. 

FN2  IT IS CONCEDED THAT A SPECIFIC RULING ON THE POPULATION
CRITERION IS UNNECESSARY. 

FN3  HOLLY HILL HERE ATTACKED THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT
ALL OF THE FRUIT DID NOT COME FROM WITHIN TEN MILES, BUT WE SEE NO
REASON TO DISTURB IT. 

FN4  "SEC.  13(A) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 6 AND 7 SHALL NOT APPLY
WITH RESPECT TO (1) ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN A BONA FIDE EXECUTIVE,
ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, OR LOCAL RETAILING CAPACITY, OR IN THE
CAPACITY OF OUTSIDE SALESMAN (AS SUCH TERMS ARE DEFINED AND DELIMITED
BY REGULATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR); OR (2) ANY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN
ANY RETAIL OR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF WHOSE SELLING
OR SERVICING IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE; OR (3) ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED AS
A SEAMAN; OR (4) ANY EMPLOYEE OF A CARRIER BY AIR SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF TITLE II OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT; OR (5) ANY EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYED IN THE CATCHING, TAKING, HARVESTING, CULTIVATING, OR FARMING
OF ANY KIND OF FISH, SHELLFISH, CRUSTACEA, SPONGES, SEAWEEDS, OR OTHER
AQUATIC FORMS OF ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE LIFE, INCLUDING THE GOING TO AND
RETURNING FROM WORK AND INCLUDING EMPLOYMENT IN THE LOADING, UNLOADING,
OR PACKING OF SUCH PRODUCTS FOR SHIPMENT OR IN PROPAGATING, PROCESSING,
MARKETING, FREEZING, CANNING, CURING, STORING, OR DISTRIBUTING THE
ABOVE PRODUCTS OR BYPRODUCTS THEREOF; OR (6) ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN
AGRICULTURE; OR (7) ANY EMPLOYEE TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH EMPLOYEE IS
EXEMPTED BY REGULATIONS OR ORDERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED UNDER
PUBLICATION OF ANY WEEKLY OR SEMIWEEKLY NEWSPAPER WITH A CIRCULATION OF
LESS THAN THREE THOUSAND THE MAJOR PART OF WHICH CIRCULATION IS WITHIN
THE COUNTY WHERE PRINTED AND PUBLISHED; OR (9) ANY EMPLOYEE OF A
STREET, SUBURBAN, OR INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY, OR LOCAL TROLLEY OR
MOTOR BUS CARRIER, NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS
PRODUCTION (AS DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR), ENGAGED IN HANDLING,
PACKING, STORING, GINNING, COMPRESSING, PASTEURIZING, DRYING, PREPARING
IN THEIR RAW OR NATURAL STATE, OR CANNING OF AGRICULTURAL OR
HORTICULTURAL COMMODITIES FOR MARKET, OR IN MAKING CHEESE OR BUTTER OR
OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS; OR (11) ANY SWITCHBOARD OPERATOR EMPLOYED IN A
PUBLIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGE WHICH HAS LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED STATIONS." 
52 STAT. 1067, AS AMENDED, 53 STAT. 1266.    FN5  THE EXEMPTIONS
PROVIDED IN SEC. 13(A)(10) DID NOT APPEAR IN THE BILL AS REPORTED TO
THE SENATE, BUT IN THE DEBATE ON THE FLOOR OF THAT BODY AN EFFORT WAS
MADE TO EXTEND THE EXEMPTION ACCORDED TO AGRICULTURAL WORKERS, AND AS
PASSED BY THE SENATE THE BILL PROVIDED THAT "THE TERM 'PERSON EMPLOYED
IN AGRICULTURE', AS USED IN THIS ACT, INSOFAR AS IT SHALL REFER TO
FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, SHALL INCLUDE PERSONS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE
AREA OF PRODUCTION ENGAGED IN PREPARING, PACKING, OR STORING SUCH FRESH
FRUITS OR VEGETABLES IN THEIR RAW OR NATURAL STATE."  81 CONG. REC.
7876, 7949, 7957.  THIS PROVISION, VARIED SOMEWHAT BY EXTENDING ITS
COVERAGE TO ALL "AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES" (82 CONG. REC. 1783-1784),
REMAINED AS PART OF THE DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN
AGRICULTURE" (H. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2) UNTIL
SHORTLY BEFORE THE BILL WAS FINALLY ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE, AT WHICH TIME
THE SO-CALLED BIERMANN AMENDMENT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE "INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE AREA
OF PRODUCTION, ENGAGED IN THE HANDLING, PACKING, STORING, GINNING,
COMPRESSING, PASTEURIZING, DRYING, OR CANNING OF FARM PRODUCTS AND IN
MAKING CHEESE AND BUTTER."  83 CONG. REC. 7401, 7407.  AT THE
CONFERENCE ON THE DISAGREEING VOTES OF THE TWO HOUSES, THE "AREA OF
PRODUCTION" PROVISION WAS GIVEN THE FORM IN WHICH IT WAS FINALLY
ENACTED, AND THERE THE PARENTHETICAL PHRASE "AS DEFINED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR" WAS INSERTED AFTER "AREA OF PRODUCTION."  83 CONG. REC.
9249. 

FN6  COMPARE THIS PROVISION WITH SEC. 13(A)(1) EXEMPTING EMPLOYEES IN
"A BONA FIDE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, OR LOCAL
RETAILING CAPACITY, OR IN THE CAPACITY OF OUTSIDE SALESMAN (AS SUCH
TERMS ARE DEFINED AND DELIMITED BY REGULATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR)." 
FOR THIS CLASS, THE ADMINISTRATOR IS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO DEFINE AND
DELIMIT THE "TERMS" USED.  BUT IN THE SAME SECTION, SUBDIVISION 10
GRANTS AUTHORITY TO DEFINE NOT THE TERM "AREA," BUT TO DEFINE THE
"AREA." 

FN7  SEE SECS. 13(A)(2)(8)(11) DEALING RESPECTIVELY WITH RETAIL OR
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, WEEKLY OR SEMI-WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS AND PUBLIC
TELEPHONE EXCHANGES. 

FN8  REPRESENTATIVE BIERMANN WAS ASKED WHETHER HIS AMENDMENT "WOULD
APPLY TO A PACKING HOUSE LOCATED IN IOWA AND ILLINOIS IN THE AREA OF
PRODUCTION, WHICH EMPLOYS TWO OR THREE HUNDRED MEN."  THIS WAS HIS
COMPLETE ANSWER:  "SPEAKING FRANKLY, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT.  THERE ARE SOME PACKING HOUSES IN THE
STATE OF IOWA THAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD APPLY TO PERHAPS; BUT MAY I SAY
THAT ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THERE SHOULD BE
A LABOR DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE LARGE CITY AND THE LITTLE TOWN." 
CERTAINLY MR. BIERMANN DID NOT GIVE THE REMOTEST INTIMATION THAT "AREA
OF PRODUCTION" WAS MEANT TO CONVEY ANY IDEA OTHER THAN THAT WHICH AREA
USUALLY CONVEYS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT AND WITH THE OPINION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS WITHOUT POWER (IF
"AREA OF PRODUCTION" IS TO HAVE ANY SENSIBLE MEANING) TO EXCLUDE FROM
THE AREA AND FROM THE OPERATION OF THE EXEMPTION WORKERS IN A
PROCESSING PLANT CLEARLY WITHIN THE AREA ON THE GROUND THAT A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF EMPLOYES WORKED IN THE PLANT.  IF CONGRESS, WHEN IT SAID THAT
THE AREA OF PRODUCTION SHOULD BE DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, MEANT
THAT THAT OFFICIAL SHOULD HAVE A ROVING COMMISSION TO CREATE EXEMPTIONS
FROM THE ACT, THE ENTIRE PROVISION MUST FALL AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ATTEMPT TO DELEGATE LEGISLATIVE POWER.  WE SHOULD NEVER, HOWEVER,
CONSTRUE AN ACT IN A SENSE WHICH WOULD RENDER IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF A
DIFFERENT AND PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION WILL SAVE IT. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MAKES IT CLEAR ENOUGH THAT CONGRESS WISHED TO
EXEMPT PLANTS PROCESSING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN THE LOCALITY OF
THE FARMS WHICH PRODUCED THE COMMODITIES.  REALIZING THAT THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF THE FACTS IN PARTICULAR CASES WOULD BE ESSENTIAL TO
DEFINITION OR DELIMITATION OF THE AREA SERVED, CONGRESS, BY THE PHRASE
"AS DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR," MEANT TO PERMIT HIM TO DRAW LINES IN
DELIMITATION OF AREAS APPROPRIATELY TO CORRESPOND TO THE FACTS.  I
CONSTRUE THE WORD "DEFINE," IN THIS CONTEXT, TO MEAN "ASCERTAIN THE
FACTS AND ANNOUNCE THE RESULT OF SUCH ASCERTAINMENT."  THE OPINIONS OF
THE COURT BELOW ELABORATE THIS VIEW. 

I THINK THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER MAY WELL BE ALLOWED TO STAND WITH
THE ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED FEATURE OF IT DELETED.  THIS IS WHAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED AND I BELIEVE IT WAS RIGHT.  OTHER
FEATURES OF THE ORDER WERE NOT, AND ARE NOT, ATTACKED AND IF, FOR THE
FUTURE, THE ADMINISTRATOR DESIRES, IN OTHER ASPECTS, TO AMEND HIS
ORDER, THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT.  THIS WOULD LEAD TO AFFIRMANCE OF
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND, IF I COULD MAKE MY
VOTE EFFECTIVE TO THAT END, I SHOULD VOTE FOR AFFIRMANCE.  THE OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COURT, HOWEVER, ARE FOR REVERSAL, BUT ARE DIVIDED ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED
OR THE CASE HELD IN THAT COURT PENDING AMENDMENT OF THE ORDER BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  ENTERTAINING THE VIEWS WHICH I DO, I CANNOT VOTE TO
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT THAT WILL BE THE EFFECT
OF MY ACTION IF I VOTE SIMPLY TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  WHILE I THINK NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN THE
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JUSTIFY THE PROCEDURE THERE
OUTLINED, I AM CONSTRAINED TO VOTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS OPINION. 

I AM CLEAR THAT, IF THE ADMINISTRATOR IS TO BE PERMITTED TO AMEND HIS
ORDER, OR TO ENTER A NEW ORDER EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF THE ONE UNDER
ATTACK, HE MAY NOT RESORT TO GERRYMANDERING OR TO ANY OTHER DEVICE TO
ACCOMPLISH BY INDIRECTION WHAT THE DECISION HOLDS HE CANNOT DO
DIRECTLY.  I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THE SCOPE OF HIS DISCRETION IS MORE
LIMITED THAN SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES THINK AND I DO NOT WISH MY
CONCURRENCE IN THE REMAND OF THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT, TO BE
THERE HELD PENDING THE PROMULGATION OF AN AMENDED ORDER, OR A NEW
ORDER, TO BE TAKEN AS APPROVING IN ADVANCE THE VIEWS EXPRESSED AS TO
THE EXTENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DISCRETION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

IN MY OPINION THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS DEFINED "AREA OF PRODUCTION" IN A
VALID MANNER, AND THEREFORE THE EMPLOYEE PETITIONERS SHOULD PREVAIL. 
BUT IF, AS THE MAJORITY HOLD, HIS DEFINITION IS NOT VALID, THEN THE
EXEMPTION IS NOT OPERATIVE, AND FOR THAT REASON THE PETITIONERS
LIKEWISE SHOULD PREVAIL.  I DISSENT, THEREFORE, FROM THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFINITION IS VOID.  I DISSENT EQUALLY FROM THE
WHOLLY NOVEL DISPOSITION IT MAKES OF THE CAUSE ON THAT HYPOTHESIS, IN
REMANDING IT TO AWAIT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RETROACTIVE REDETERMINATION
OF THE PARTIES' RIGHTS. 

                                  I. 

THE BASIC ISSUE, AS THE CASE WAS PRESENTED, IS WHETHER THE
ADMINISTRATOR CAN INCLUDE IN THE DEFINITION NOT ONLY SPACIAL LIMITS BUT
ALSO A LIMIT UPON THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN EXEMPTED ESTABLISHMENTS. 
THE ADMINISTRATOR INCLUDED THIS FACTOR IN HIS FIRST DEFINITION; FN1
LATER REEXAMINED IT IN EXTENSIVE HEARINGS; FN2  CONCLUDED ON THE RECORD
THUS MADE THAT NO PURELY GEOGRAPHICAL DEFINITION COULD BE CONFORMED TO
THE MAJOR LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ANNOUNCED IN THE STATUTE; FN3  HAS
RETAINED IT IN EACH OF SEVERAL LATER DEFINITIONS, VARYING IN OTHER
DETAILS, FRAMED AFTER EXTENSIVE HEARING; FN4  AND NOW EARNESTLY INSISTS
IT, OR AN EQUIVALENT LIMITATION ON SIZE OF THE PLANT, MUST BE INCLUDED,
UNLESS ANY DEFINITION HE MAY MAKE IS TO WORK HAVOC WITH SOME MAJOR
POLICY OF THE ACT, EITHER BY EXEMPTING LARGE NUMBERS OF INDUSTRIAL
EMPLOYEES  FN5  OR BY CREATING DISTURBANCES OF COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS,
BOTH FOR FARMERS AND FOR CANNERS AND PACKERS, FN6  WHICH THE STATUTE
EXPRESSLY SOUGHT TO AVOID. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR'S TASK IS HIGHLY COMPLEX.  IT INVOLVES DEFINING
EXEMPTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT THE NATION ENGAGED IN "HANDLING,
PACKING, STORING, GINNING, COMPRESSING, PASTEURIZING, DRYING, PREPARING
IN THEIR RAW OR NATURAL STATE, OR CANNING OF AGRICULTURAL OR
HORTICULTURAL COMMODITIES FOR MARKET, OR IN MAKING CHEESE OR BUTTER OR
OTHER DAIRY PRODUCTS."  SEC. 13(A)(10).  ALL THESE OPERATIONS FOLLOW
IMMEDIATELY UPON HARVEST AND REMOVAL FROM THE FIELD OR MILKING.  ALL
CAN BE DONE ON THE FARM AND FREQUENTLY ARE DONE THERE, BUT MAY BE DONE
ELSEWHERE, OFTEN IN FACTORIES.  ALL CONSIST IN THE FIRST STAGES OF
PREPARATION FOR MARKET. 

BUT WHETHER THE SPECIFIED OPERATIONS WILL BE DONE ON THE FARM, AS
PART OF THE FARM WORK OR AWAY FROM IT, AND IN EITHER SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS OR IN LARGER INDUSTRIAL PLANTS, WILL DEPEND UPON A
VARIETY OF FACTORS AS GREAT AS THAT WHICH COMPREHENDS THE WHOLE VAST
PROCESS OF STARTING THE NATION'S CROPS, OVER 300,  FN7  ON THEIR
RESPECTIVE MARKETING COURSES.  THE INITIAL STEPS IN MARKETING SUCH
WIDELY DIFFERENT PRODUCTS AS COTTON AND APPLES; TOBACCO AND MILK;
POTATOES AND CITRUS FRUITS; LEGUME CROPS, WHEAT, CORN AND OTHER GRAINS,
ON THE ONE HAND, AND TOMATOES, STRAWBERRIES, TRUCK GARDEN PRODUCTS,
ETC., ON THE OTHER, ARE WITHIN THE DELEGATION. 

THE MERE ENUMERATION OF THESE INSTANCES INDICATES SOME OF THE
VARIABLES INVOLVED.  OTHERS ADD TO THE DIFFICULTY.  HIGHLY PERISHABLE
CROPS, AS FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ACTION IN THESE
STAGES OF HANDLING.  COTTON, GRAINS, ROOT CROPS, ETC., LESS PERISHABLE,
MAY WAIT LONGER ON THE FARM, SOME FOR MONTHS, BEFORE THESE PROCESSES
BECOME NECESSARY.  SOME CROPS ARE HIGHLY CONCENTRATED FOR PRODUCTION IN
A FEW REGIONS, SUCH AS CITRUS FRUITS IN FLORIDA, SOUTHERN TEXAS, AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, BUT ARE MARKETED ON A NATION-WIDE SCALE.  OTHERS
HAVE REGIONAL AREAS OF PRODUCTION, LIKE COTTON IN THE SOUTH, CELERY IN
MICHIGAN, TOBACCO IN THE BORDER STATES AND A FEW NORTHERN REGIONS, YET
DEPEND ON THE NATIONAL MARKET.  STILL OTHERS HAVE REGIONS OF GREATER OR
LESS CONCENTRATION, BUT ARE GROWN ALL OVER THE NATION, LIKE WHEAT AND
OTHER GRAINS, APPLES, POTATOES, ETC. 

OBVIOUSLY, "AREA OF PRODUCTION," IN THE SENSE OF WHERE THE COMMODITY
IS PRODUCED FOR PURPOSES OF COMMERCIAL MARKETING, WILL VARY FROM THE
WHOLE NATION, IN THE CASE OF THE MORE COMMON GRAINS, FRUIT CROPS AND
ROOT CROPS, DOWN TO A FEW HIGHLY CONCENTRATED REGIONS OR AREAS IN THE
CASE OF OTHERS MORE DEPENDENT UPON SPECIAL CLIMATIC AND SOIL
COMBINATIONS.  AND BETWEEN THE EXTREMES OF NATION-WIDE AND HIGHLY
LOCALIZED PRODUCTION ARE ALL RANGES OF SECTIONAL AND REGIONAL
PRODUCTION AREAS.  FN8 

RESPONDENT REGARDS THE "AREA OF PRODUCTION" AS THE WHOLE REGION WHERE
A COMMODITY IS GROWN, AND THEREFORE SAYS THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS NO MORE
TO DO THAN LOCATE THE EXISTING LIMITS OF THESE AREAS.  BY THIS
CRITERION THE SOUTH, PERHAPS INCLUDING CALIFORNIA, WOULD BE THE
UNALTERABLE "AREA OF PRODUCTION" FOR COTTON, THE WHOLE NATION FOR EGGS,
WHEAT, CORN, ETC.  THIS CONCEPTION WOULD NULLIFY THE DELEGATION, MAKING
OF THE ADMINISTRATOR MERELY A SURVEYOR IN THE WRONG PLACE.  CONGRESS
CLEARLY WAS NOT MAKING HIM ONLY A FINDER OF FACT, NAMELY, OF THE
GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS SURROUNDING REGIONS WHERE 300 DIFFERENT COMMODITIES
ARE PRODUCED.  SUCH A VIEW WOULD EXEMPT ALL EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE
OPERATIONS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 13(A)(10). 

THE SAME OBJECTIONS FORBID REGARDING THE "AREA OF PRODUCTION" AS THE
REGION FROM WHICH THE PARTICULAR PLANT PURCHASES ITS RAW MATERIAL.  THE
ONLY SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE WOULD BE TO MAKE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FACT
FINDING TASK A MORE IMPOSSIBLE ONE.  A DEFINITION WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR
EVERY PLANT ENGAGING IN ANY OF THE SPECIFIED OPERATIONS FOR EACH OF THE
MORE THAN 300 AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL COMMODITIES PRODUCED
ANNUALLY IN THE UNITED STATES.  CONGRESS HARDLY COULD HAVE INTENDED TO
LOAD UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR A TASK OF THESE INFINITE PROPORTIONS.  NOR
DID IT INTEND THE EMPLOYER TO DEFINE ITS OWN EXEMPTION, OR TO MAKE THAT
EXEMPTION AUTOMATIC.  CONGRESS INTENDED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DEFINE THE
AREA OF PRODUCTION.  IT DID NOT AT THE SAME TIME INTEND TO OVERWHELM
HIM WITH MAKING MYRIADS OF PARTICULAR AND HIGHLY VARIABLE DEFINITIONS
FOR EACH OPERATING UNIT, OR TO MAKE HIM MERELY A RUNNER OF COURSES AND
DISTANCES, WHETHER LARGE OR SMALL.  IT RATHER INTENDED HIM TO MAKE
PRACTICAL, WORKABLE AND THEREFORE GENERIC AND STABLE DEFINITIONS. 

IT FOLLOWS NECESSARILY THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POWER IS
DISCRETIONARY AND THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARE TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN
WHAT MANNER MAY HIS DISCRETION WORK.  NEITHER SUBDIVISION (A)(10) NOR
SEC. 13 AS A WHOLE SUPPLIES THESE ANSWERS.  THE SECTION ITSELF DOES NOT
SUPPLY ALL THE STANDARDS NECESSARY FOR DEFINITION OF THE TERM.  AT MOST
IT AFFORDS DIRECTION TO EXEMPT SOME BUT NOT OTHER EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND THAT THOSE EXEMPTED MUST BE WITHIN THE
"AREA OF PRODUCTION."  THIS NECESSARILY INCLUDES SOME REGION WHERE THE
COMMODITY IS PRODUCED.  BUT SINCE THAT REGION IS AN UNKNOWN QUANTITY
AND SO ALSO IS THE QUESTION WHAT EMPLOYEES WITHIN IT ARE TO BE
EXEMPTED, SOLUTIONS MUST BE FOUND EITHER IN OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE OR IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, UNLESS THE DELEGATION IS TO FALL
FOR WANT OF STANDARDS.    THE STATUTE ITSELF FURNISHES CLEAR GUIDES FOR
DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATOR.  HE IS CONFINED, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, BY
SUBSECTION (A)(10) TO EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE SPECIFIED INITIAL
OPERATIONS OF MARKETING.  THEY MUST WORK WITHIN SOME PRODUCING REGION. 
APART FROM THE EXEMPTION THEY ARE WITHIN THE ACT'S COVERAGE, BUT CLOSE
TO THE MAJOR LINE IT DRAWS BETWEEN FARM WORKERS, WHO ARE EXCLUDED FROM,
AND INDUSTRIAL LABOR, WHICH IS WITHIN ITS COVERAGE.  DEPENDING, NOT
UPON WHAT THEY DO, BUT UPON WHERE AND HOW THEY DO THIS WORK, THEY WOULD
FALL ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF THIS LINE AND WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE
INCIDENCE OF THE EVILS THE ACT SOUGHT TO ERADICATE.  THESE WERE "THE
EXISTENCE, IN INDUSTRIES  ...  OF LABOR CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING NECESSARY FOR HEALTH,
EFFICIENCY, AND GENERAL WELL-BEING OF WORKERS.  ...  " FN9  CONGRESS
EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY OVER COMMERCE, "TO CORRECT AND AS RAPIDLY AS
PRACTICABLE TO ELIMINATE THE CONDITIONS ABOVE REFERRED TO IN SUCH
INDUSTRIES WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING EMPLOYMENT OR EARNING
POWER."  SEC. 2(A), (B). 

THE BROAD LINE BETWEEN FARMING AND INDUSTRY RUNS THROUGHOUT THE ACT. 
FN10  IT IS THE STATUTE'S BASIC LINE OF POLICY BETWEEN COVERAGE AND
NONCOVERAGE.  THE LINE NOT ONLY IS PERTINENT TO EACH OF THE STATUTE'S
PROVISIONS BUT, WHERE THE CONTRARY IS NOT CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY
STATED, IT IS CONTROLLING.  THERE CAN BE NO ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED EMPLOYEES IN ONE GROUP TO BE TRANSFERRED TO OR TREATED AS
BEING IN THE OTHER WHERE NO SUCH CLEAR MANDATE CAN BE FOUND. 

IN DETERMINING WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE DELEGATION, IT IS
CRUCIAL TO KEEP IN MIND THAT, WHATEVER DECISION THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY
MAKE AND BY WHATEVER CRITERIA, THE EFFECT OF HIS ACTION MUST BE TO PUT
SOME EMPLOYEES ON ONE SIDE OF THIS LINE AND OTHERS ON THE OPPOSITE
SIDE.  THAT CONSEQUENCE HE CANNOT ESCAPE.  AND, BECAUSE HE CANNOT AVOID
IT, THE LINE IS PERTINENT AND MATERIAL TO HIS CHOICE, AS IT IS TO ALL
OTHERS HE MUST MAKE IN PERFORMING HIS DUTIES.  IT IS THE STATUTE'S
LODESTAR.  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FARMING AND INDUSTRY IS THE ESSENCE
OF HIS DETERMINATION.  AN "AREA OF PRODUCTION" DETERMINED WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THIS DISTINCTION WOULD CONTRADICT, NOT ENFORCE, THE
STATUTE'S BASIC POLICY.  AND THIS APPEARS, NOT SOLELY FROM THE POLICY
ITSELF AND THE EFFECTS OF FAILURE TO TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT, BUT FROM A
CONSIDERATION OF OTHER DETERMINATIONS THE ACT CONFIDES TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND OF THE MANNER IN WHICH IT REQUIRES HIM TO MAKE THEM. 

THUS, IN ISSUING MINIMUM WAGE ORDERS AND INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATIONS, HE
AND THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEES MUST HAVE "DUE REGARD TO ECONOMIC AND
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS," AND ACT SO AS NOT TO "SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL
EMPLOYMENT" OR "GIVE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO ANY GROUP."  AND THERE
IS A SPECIFIC PROHIBITION AGAINST FIXING WAGES OR CLASSIFICATIONS
"SOLELY ON A REGIONAL BASIS."  RATHER THE GOVERNING CRITERIA ARE TO BE
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, WAGES FOR COMPARABLE WORK FIXED BY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING OR BY VOLUNTARY MINIMUM WAGE PLANS.  SEC. 8(B), (C), (D). 
THE STATUTE'S PRIMARY DESIGN WAS TO BRING INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNDER ITS
PROTECTIONS AND TO ELIMINATE AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE THE SUBSTANDARD
CONDITIONS OF SUCH LABOR.  BUT THIS WAS TO BE DONE WITH AN EYE ALSO TO
TWO OTHER MATTERS:  ONE, THAT BY TOO RAPID ADVANCE EMPLOYMENT BE NOT
CURTAILED; AND, TWO, THAT COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE AFFECTED
INDUSTRIES BE NOT UNDULY DISTURBED OR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES CREATED. 
CF. SEC. 2. 

THESE PURPOSES WERE INESCAPABLY PERTINENT TO THE PROBLEMS OF
EXEMPTION ARISING UNDER SEC. 13(A)(10).  THEY WERE LIKEWISE PERTINENT
TO OTHER EXEMPTIONS, CF. SEC. 7(C) AND COMPARE SEC. 7(B), AND TO STILL
OTHER DELEGATIONS THE STATUTE CONFIDED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT BURDEN THE BOOKS WITH "AN ITEMIZED CATALOGUE"  FN11
OF STANDARDS IN EACH INSTANCE OF DELEGATION, GIVES NO BASIS FOR
BELIEVING THAT WHAT PERMEATED ALL ELSE FOUND THESE PARTS INSULATED. 
THE ADMINISTRATOR CLEARLY HAD POWER, AND MORE, THE DUTY, TO TAKE
ACCOUNT OF THESE FACTORS. 

IF SO, HE COULD NOT ESCAPE THE QUESTION OF SIZE.  AND INDEED THE
COURT DOES NOT DENY THIS.  SIZE CERTAINLY IS NOT IRRELEVANT TO
DISTINGUISH WITHIN ANY GROUP WHICH MAY DO ESSENTIALLY THE SAME WORK IN
TWO DIFFERENT WAYS, ONE THE FARMING WAY, THE OTHER THE INDUSTRIAL ONE. 
IT IS NOT IRRELEVANT TO ECONOMIC DISLOCATIONS OR TO CURTAILMENTS OF
EMPLOYMENT.  AND IT IS RELEVANT TO THESE THINGS AS MUCH WITHIN AS
WITHOUT AN AREA OF PRODUCTION.  FN12 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DISCLOSES ONE OBJECT OF THE EXEMPTION AS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WAS TO PROTECT SMALL FARMERS, WHO ARE UNABLE TO
PERFORM THESE OPERATIONS AT THE FARM AND THEREFORE ARE DEPENDENT UPON
WHATEVER NEARBY ESTABLISHMENTS MAY EXIST, WHETHER LARGE OR SMALL. 
VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND OF THE HOUSE SPONSORED AMENDMENTS FOR
THIS PURPOSE.  FN13  AS THE BILLS WENT TO CONFERENCE EACH CONTAINED
FLAT EXEMPTIONS, SUBSTANTIALLY COVERING THE ACTIVITIES NOW SPECIFIED IN
SEC. 13(A)(10).  BUT THE DEBATES IN BOTH HOUSES SHOW THAT EVEN THE
SPONSORS OF THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS DIFFERED OR WERE DOUBTFUL CONCERNING
WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS WOULD GIVE EXEMPTION TO LARGE PLANTS.  FN14
THERE WAS GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT SMALL ONES SHOULD BE RELIEVED FROM
COVERAGE.  FN15  SENATOR REYNOLDS WENT FURTHER AND PROPOSED SEVERAL
AMENDMENTS TO RELIEVE ALL SMALL PLANTS FROM THE ACT'S PROVISIONS, NOT
MERELY THOSE ENGAGED IN THE LIMITED OPERATIONS SPECIFIED IN THE BILLS
OR SEC. 13(A)(10).  THESE WERE DEFEATED.  FN16  AND THERE WAS VIGOROUS
DEMAND, FROM THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL IN THE SENATE AND OTHERS,  FN17
FOR RESTRICTING THE SCOPE OF THE AMENDING EXEMPTIONS TO SMALL PLANTS. 
THESE DIFFERENCES WERE NOT SETTLED ON THE FLOOR OF EITHER HOUSE.  BUT
WHEN THE BILLS CAME TO CONFERENCE, THEY WERE RESOLVED BY CHANGING THE
FLAT EXEMPTIONS INTO DISCRETIONARY ONES TO BE DEFINED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR. 

SINCE THE DELEGATION FEATURE DID NOT APPEAR UNTIL THE CONFERENCE
REPORT AND THERE IS LITTLE IN THAT REPORT OR IN THE DEBATES UPON IT TO
ADD LIGHT, THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS ARE WHOLLY INCONCLUSIVE, EXCEPT IN
ONE RESPECT.  THIS WAS TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS GREAT VARIETY AND
COMPLEXITY OF OPINION, AND THAT THIS REVOLVED AROUND THE QUESTION OF
SIZE.  THAT QUESTION CONTINUED UNRESOLVED UP TO CONFERENCE AND WAS
RESOLVED THERE, NOT BY DECISION EITHER WAY, BUT BY REFERENCE TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  IT MUST BE TAKEN THEREFORE THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO GIVE
HIM DISCRETION TO MAKE THE NECESSARY CHOICES BETWEEN THE CONFLICTING
VIEWPOINTS AS THE FACTS OF PARTICULAR SITUATIONS WOULD GIVE OCCASION
FOR DOING.  AND, IT WOULD SEEM, THE PREPONDERANCE OF SENTIMENT IN FAVOR
OF EXEMPTING SMALL PLANTS, BUT NOT LARGE ONES, EXCEPT IN OCCASIONAL
INSTANCES WHERE THIS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE SMALL FARMER,
WELL COULD BE TAKEN AS HIS GUIDING LIGHT.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
THEREFORE, IN SO FAR AS IT SHEDS LIGHT AT ALL, CLEARLY IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS DONE, BUT ON THE CONTRARY
SUPPORTS IT. 

THE COURT DOES NOT FIND THE ADMINISTRATOR ACTED IMPROPERLY BY TAKING
THESE CONSIDERATIONS INTO ACCOUNT.  HE ONLY MUST NOT STATE THEM IN HIS
DEFINITION.  AND THIS MATTER OF MERE FORMULATION IS THE CRUX OF THE
CASE.  THE DEFINITION MUST BE MADE "IN RELATION TO THE COMPLICATED
ECONOMIC FACTORS THAT OPERATE BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL LABOR CONDITIONS AND
THE LABOR MARKET OF ENTERPRISES CONCERNED WITH AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES
AND MORE OR LESS NEAR THEIR PRODUCTION."  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS GIVEN
"APPROPRIATE DISCRETION TO ASSESS ALL THE FACTORS RELEVANT TO THE
SUBJECT MATTER," WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY ONE OF "ECONOMIC DETERMINATION,"
TOO COMPLEX FOR LITIGATION TO SOLVE.  HE "MAY PROPERLY WEIGH AND
SYNTHESIZE ALL SUCH FACTORS." 

IN MAKING HIS ECONOMIC SYNTHESIS, HOWEVER, THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST
STATE HIS RESULTS ONLY IN SURVEYOR'S TERMS.  CONGRESS, WHEN IT GRANTED
THE EXEMPTION, "RESTRICTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO THE DRAWING OF
GEOGRAPHIC LINES, EVEN THOUGH HE MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT
ECONOMIC FACTORS.  ...  "  THE "ZONE WITHIN WHICH ECONOMIC INFLUENCES
MAY BE DEEMED TO OPERATE AND OUTSIDE OF WHICH THEY LOSE THEIR FORCE"
CANNOT BE DEFINED DIRECTLY AND PURPOSIVELY TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE
ZONE OF FARMING AND THE ZONE OF INDUSTRY.  THIS MUST BE DONE ONLY
INDIRECTLY, IN AN AWKWARD, ROUNDABOUT WAY. 

NOTHING PREVENTS THE ADMINISTRATOR FROM DRAWING THE LINES AS HE
THINKS BEST, UNLESS THE SUGGESTION OF THE SPECIALLY CONCURRING OPINION
IS FOLLOWED THAT THEY MUST BE DRAWN IN REGULAR CIRCLES OR SQUARES.  THE
COURTS HAVE NO BUSINESS TO TELL HIM WHERE TO PUT THEM.  HE CAN DEFINE
DISTANCE BY AIR LINES OR BY ROAD LINES TO MARKET.  HE CAN RUN THE LINES
AROUND BIG TOWNS, BUT NOT AROUND BIG FACTORIES.  BALTIMORE COULD BE
EXCLUDED, BUT NOT MARTIN'S BOMBER PLANT OR ONE LIKE IT, IN SIZE AND
METHODS, FOR PROCESSING OR CANNING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES.  TOWNS MAY GO
OUT, THOUGH SURROUNDED BY TRUCK FARMS, BUT NOT COMMERCIAL CANNERIES. 
RESIDENCES, APPARENTLY, MUST SURROUND THE CANNERY.  IN SHORT, THE
ADMINISTRATOR CAN DRAW WHATEVER MAP LINES HE THINKS WILL ACHIEVE THE
APPROPRIATE ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS, EXCEPT ONE WHICH LEAVES OUT PERHAPS
THE BIGGEST CANNING FACTORY OF ALL, AND NO COURT CAN INTERFERE.  I DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS, WHEN IT GAVE THE ADMINISTRATOR HIS
COMPLICATED TASK AND AUTHORIZED HIM TO CONSIDER ALL THE RELEVANT AND
COMPLEX ECONOMIC FACTORS, NOT ONLY DENIED HIM THE POWER TO EXECUTE
THOSE CONSIDERATIONS IN HIS ACTION, BUT COMPELLED HIM TO FRUSTRATE THEM
IN DEFINING "AREA OF PRODUCTION."  THE COURT DOES NOT DENY THE
ADMINISTRATOR MAY CONSIDER THE SIZE OF THE PLANT, AND MAKE THIS EVEN
THE CRUCIAL FACTOR IN HIS DECISION.  YET IT WOULD ONLY IMPEDE OR DEFEAT
HIS JUDGMENT, FORMED ON PROPER CONSIDERATIONS, AS WELL AS THE STATUTE'S
PURPOSES, TO REQUIRE HIM TO STATE THE EXEMPTION, NOT SIMPLY IN THE
TERMS BEST CHOSEN TO EXPRESS HIS MEANING CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY, BUT IN
OTHERS COUCHED IN PURE THOUGH TORTURED GEOGRAPHY.  ACCORDING TO HIS
EXPERIENCE AND CONFIRMED JUDGMENT, SHARED BY SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATORS
AND NEVER REVERSED OR MODIFIED, TO REQUIRE THE LATTER METHOD OF
FORMULATION WOULD MAKE HIS TASK WELL NIGH IMPOSSIBLE OR, IF NOT THAT,
INCAPABLE OF BEING DISCHARGED WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE ACT'S MAJOR
PURPOSES AND STANDARDS.  FN18 

SO MUCH OF AUTHORITY AND POWER TO DEFEAT THE STATUTE'S INTENDED
OPERATION CANNOT BE GIVEN TO MERE VERBALISM, MORE ESPECIALLY TO ONE
WORD, TORN IN CONTEXT, FUNCTION AND PURPOSE FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE
ACT.  "AREA," IT IS TRUE, MEANS AREA.  BUT "AREA OF PRODUCTION" MEANS
MORE.  "THE NOTION THAT BECAUSE THE WORDS OF A STATUTE ARE PLAIN, ITS
MEANING IS ALSO PLAIN, IS MERELY PERNICIOUS OVERSIMPLIFICATION.  IT IS
A WOODEN ENGLISH DOCTRINE OF RATHER RECENT VINTAGE  ...  TO WHICH LIP
SERVICE HAS ON OCCASION BEEN GIVEN HERE, BUT WHICH SINCE THE DAYS OF
MARSHALL THIS COURT HAS REJECTED, ESPECIALLY IN PRACTICE.  ...  A
STATUTE, LIKE OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS, DERIVES SIGNIFICANCE AND
SUSTENANCE FROM ITS ENVIRONMENT, FROM WHICH IT CANNOT BE SEVERED
WITHOUT BEING MUTILATED."  FN19  AND SO DOES A SECTION IN A STATUTE. 
"AREA OF PRODUCTION" AS USED IN SEC. 13(A)(10) MEANS AN EXEMPTION,
LIMITED TO PERSONS PERFORMING THE SPECIFIED OPERATIONS WITHIN A
PRODUCING REGION, BUT SELECTED FROM ALL SO SITUATED BY AN EXERCISE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE'S PRIME
OBJECTS AND CHIEF LIMITATIONS, AMONG WHICH NECESSARILY IS THE SIZE OF
THE PLANT.  IF THAT IS SO, I SEE NO GOOD REASON FOR FORBIDDING THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO SAY SO. 

IT FOLLOWS THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS NOT IMPROPERLY EXERCISED HIS
FUNCTION, THE DEFINITIONS ARE VALID, AND RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES WERE
NOT EXEMPT FROM THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS. 

              II. 

BUT IF THE DEFINITIONS WERE INVALID, AS THE COURT HOLDS, I COULD NOT
AGREE TO THE EXTREMELY NOVEL DISPOSITION IT MAKES OF THE CASE.  WE ARE
DEALING WITH AN EXEMPTION, NOT WITH THE STATUTE'S PRIMARY COVERAGE. 
CONCEDEDLY THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER WAS LIABLE TO PETITIONERS FOR THE
MINIMUM WAGES, OVERTIME PAY AND STATUTORY PENALTIES UNDER SEC. 16(B),
IF THEY WERE NOT EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 13(A)(10) OR SOME OTHER EXEMPTION. 
ORDINARILY EXEMPTIONS ARE NOT FAVORED.  COVERAGE, NOT EXEMPTION, IS
PREFERRED.  IF THE EXEMPTION IS DUBIOUS, IT IS NOT GIVEN EFFECT.  IF
AMBIGUOUS, IT IS RESOLVED STRICTLY IN FAVOR OF THE STATUTE'S
APPLICATION.  SPOKANE & INLAND EMPIRE R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 241 U.S.
344; PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 286
U.S. 299, 311-312; MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 263.  IN THIS CASE,
IF THE EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY, THE PETITIONERS ARE WITHIN THE STATUTE
AND RESPONDENT IS LIABLE ON THEIR CLAIMS. 

TO ESCAPE LIABILITY, RESPONDENT HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THE
EXEMPTION DOES APPLY.  BUT TO DO THIS IT CANNOT MERELY SHOW THE
DEFINITION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IS INVALID.  THAT WOULD ONLY LEAVE
ITSELF AND THE PETITIONING EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO THE ACT'S PROVISIONS,
WHICH REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMS.  RESPONDENT'S DILEMMA
THEREFORE IS BOTH SHARP AND REAL.  IF THE DEFINITION IS VALID, IT DOES
NOT COVER THESE EMPLOYEES AND RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO THEM.  IF THE
DEFINITION IS INVALID, CLEARLY IT EXEMPTS NO ONE, PETITIONERS ARE
COVERED BY THE ACT, AND THE RESPONDENT MUST PAY.  THIS IS TRUE WHETHER
THE REASON DICTATING INVALIDITY IS WANT OF STANDARDS, APPLICATION OF
THE WRONG ONES, OR MERELY FORMULATING THE RESULT IN THE WRONG WAY. 
THIS DILEMMA PRESENTS THE ALTERNATIVE WHICH RESPONDENT, THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND THIS COURT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO AVOID IN ORDER, SO IT IS SAID,
TO ESCAPE AN "EITHER-OR" CONCLUSION, WHICH IS THE KIND THE LAW ALMOST
ALWAYS MUST MAKE.  IT IS ONE FROM WHICH THERE IS NO ESCAPE WITHOUT
EXERCISE OF INVENTIVE GENIUS BEYOND THE RIGHT OF EITHER COURT TO APPLY
AND WHICH, AS APPLIED HERE, MAKES THE CURE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE. 
RESPONDENT'S INVENTION, AND LIKEWISE THE COURT OF APPEALS', WAS TO
STRIKE THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND APPLY THE
REMAINDER OF THE DEFINITION.  THIS BUT EMASCULATES IT.  HENCE ALL HERE,
BUT ONE, ARE AGREED SUCH LIBERTY CANNOT BE TAKEN WITH THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S FUNCTION.  THIS COURT'S INVENTION, HOWEVER, DOES IT
EQUAL OR GREATER VIOLENCE, FIRST, AS I THINK, IN EMASCULATING IT;
SECOND, AND LACKING EVEN MORE IN JUSTIFICATION, IN REQUIRING IT TO BE
EXERCISED WITH BACKWARD-REACHING EFFECT. 

IF THE COURT HAD SOUGHT ITS ESCAPE IN FINDING THAT THERE WERE NO
STANDARDS TO CONTROL THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DISCRETION OR THAT HE HAD
APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARDS, ONE MIGHT UNDERSTAND ITS REFUSAL TO
SUSTAIN THE DEFINITION.  BUT THAT TOO WOULD MEAN THAT PETITIONERS WOULD
RECOVER.  THE COURT DOES NEITHER.  THERE IS NO CLAIM, EXCEPT A
SEMBLANCE OF SUGGESTION IN A SEPARATE OPINION, THAT THE STATUTE
SUPPLIES NO STANDARDS AND THEREFORE GIVES THE ADMINISTRATOR "A ROVING
COMMISSION TO CREATE EXEMPTIONS."  NOR IS THERE ONE THAT THE WRONG
STANDARDS WERE USED.  THE INVENTION IS CALLED FORTH ONLY TO CORRECT A
MODE OF STATEMENT. 

IF THAT WERE ALL, THERE WOULD NOT BE MUCH ROOM TO COMPLAIN.  BUT, IN
ADDITION TO COMPELLING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE THE DEFINITION IN A
MANNER WHICH FRUSTRATES HIS FUNCTION AND THE STATUTE'S OBJECTIVES, OR
ONLY PARTLY FULFILLS THEM, THE DECISION OPENS THE DOOR TO A GENERAL
EXPANSION OF THE NOVEL, AND I THINK UNAUTHORIZED, PRACTICE OF
RETROACTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF PRIVATE RIGHTS.  THAT IS
TRUE, UNLESS THESE PETITIONERS ARE TO BE SPECIALLY TREATED, ALTHOUGH
LESS THAN A MAJORITY OF THE COURT AGREE THAT THE AUTHORITIES CITED TO
SUSTAIN IT JUSTIFY THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED.  BUT IF THE PROCEDURE IS
JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE, IT IS IN ANY OTHER WHERE AN ADMINISTRATOR
MISTAKENLY INCLUDES IN A REGULATION A FACTOR LATER HELD TO MAKE IT
INVALID.  NO REASON STATED MAKES THIS CASE A SPECIAL ONE.  AND THERE IS
NONE.  IT CANNOT BE TAKEN THAT THESE PARTIES ARE TO BE SINGLED OUT FOR
UNIQUE TREATMENT, MERELY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE NORMAL LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF INVALIDATING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  HENCE, EVERY
INTEREST AFFECTED BY SUCH ACTION NOW MUST TAKE TWO RISKS IN PLACE OF
ONE:  FIRST, THE NORMAL, INESCAPABLE RISK THAT THE GOVERNING REGULATION
MAY BE HELD INVALID; SECOND, IN THAT EVENT, THE NOVEL ONE THAT SOME
FUTURE REGULATION, A WHOLLY UNKNOWN QUANTITY, WILL RELATE BACK OVER AN
INDEFINITE TIME TO CREATE ENTIRELY NEW OR DIFFERENT AND UNEXPECTED
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES. 

OF COURSE THERE MUST BE ROOM FOR CREATIVE ANALOGIES IN THE LAW TO
GIVE THE DESIRED ESCAPE FROM MECHANICAL CONCEPTS AND PERMIT SHAPING ITS
REMEDIES.  BUT WE ARE AS OFTEN TOLD THAT CONGRESS SHOULD PERFORM THE
CREATIVE ACT IN CONGRESS' FIELD.  THIS SHOULD BE MOST TRUE WHERE WHAT
WE ARE CALLED UPON TO RECREATE IS CONGRESS' OWN HANDIWORK.  IF CONGRESS
INTENDED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ACT RETROACTIVELY, CONGRESS WHOLLY FAILED
TO EXPRESS THIS PURPOSE. 

MOREOVER, IT IS NOT REMEDIES BUT RIGHTS WHICH ARE THUS REFASHIONED. 
AND NOT EQUITY BUT LAW REMOLDS THEM.  WHO KNOWS, BEFORE THE
REDEFINITION, WHAT PERSONS MAY BE INCLUDED IN ITS COVERAGE?  OR WHETHER
IT MAY NOT HAVE TO BE MADE AGAIN?  THE SAME PERSONS CANNOT BE
INCLUDED.  OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO POINT TO THIS DECISION.  IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR CAN REPHRASE THE SAME COVERAGE IN WHOLLY GEOGRAPHIC
TERMS, APART FROM DELAY THE ONLY RESULT WILL BE TO HAVE CRITICIZED HIS
LANGUAGE.  IF HE CANNOT DO THIS SOME PERSONS, AND NO ONE CAN TELL IN
ADVANCE HOW MANY, WILL BE DEPRIVED ALTOGETHER OF RIGHTS, OTHERS GIVEN
THEM WHO HAD NONE.  SO WITH LIABILITIES. 

THE INNOVATION WOULD BE SERIOUS IF CONFINED TO THIS CASE OR THIS
ACT.  IT IS BEYOND PREDICTION WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES MAY BE, OF
UNCERTAINTY, OR HARDSHIP, OF INJUSTICE IN DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, IN
WINDFALLS OF RIGHT TO OTHERS, IN LAYING ON NEW AND WHOLLY UNEXPECTED
LIABILITIES AND IN RELIEVING FROM ANTICIPATED ONES, IF RETROACTIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE REFASHIONING BECOMES THE GENERAL PRACTICE.  THE
ALTERNATIVE, EITHER TO SUSTAIN OR TO HOLD VOID THE REGULATION, AND FIX
THE RIGHTS ACCORDINGLY, IS NOT ONLY THE ACCEPTED AND ESTABLISHED ONE. 
IT IS THE ONLY ONE BY WHICH MEN CAN KNOW THE RISKS THEY ASSUME AT THE
TIME THEY BECOME SUBJECT TO THEM. 

RETROACTIVITY IS NOT FAVORED IN LAW.  FOR THIS THERE ARE SOUND
REASONS, IN SOME CASES CONSTITUTIONAL ONES.  CF. FORBES PIONEER BOAT
LINE V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 258 U.S. 338; OCHOA V. HERNANDEZ Y
MORALES, 230 U.S. 139.  THERE ARE FEW OCCASIONS WHEN RETROACTIVITY DOES
NOT WORK MORE UNFAIRLY THAN FAIRLY.  CONGRESS, THE STATE LEGISLATURES
AND THE COURTS APPLY THE PRINCIPLE SPARINGLY, EVEN WHERE THEY MAY.  CF.
GRAHAM & FOSTER V. GOODCELL, 282 U.S. 409; UNITED STATES V. HEINSZEN &
CO., 206 U.S. 370.  SELDOM IF EVER THEREFORE MAY ADMINISTRATIVE OR
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO APPLY IT BE INFERRED FROM LEGISLATION NOT
EXPRESSLY GIVING IT.  COMPARE ARIZONA GROCERY CO. V. ATCHISON, T. &
S.F. RY. CO., 284 U.S. 370; HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 306
U.S. 110.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, WHATEVER CORRECTIVE NEEDS MAY PROMPT AND
VINDICATE A GRANT OF SUCH AUTHORITY IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT
PRESENT IN THIS APPLICATION.  YET, IF THIS DECISION IS TO MARK THE
BEGINNING OF A GENERAL PATTERN, SUCH AUTHORITY NOW BIDS FAIR TO BECOME
A COMMON CHARACTERISTIC OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS HAS INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS IN
OUR LEGAL SYSTEM.  ORDINARILY IT DOES ENOUGH IF IT TAKES CARE OF TODAY
AND TOMORROW.  WHEN IT BEGINS TO ADD YESTERDAY, WITHOUT CLEAR
CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE, THE BURDEN MAY BECOME TOO GREAT.  IN ANY EVENT,
THAT HAS NOT HERETOFORE GENERALLY BEEN CONSIDERED ITS TASK.  IF THAT
TASK IS TO BE ADDED, THE ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE BY THE BODY WHENCE
ADMINISTRATIVE POWER IS DERIVED, NOT BY THIS COURT'S IMAGINATIVE
RESOURCEFULNESS. 

FINALLY, RESPONDENT HAS NOT ASKED FOR THIS RETROACTIVE "RELIEF."  AND
THIS MAY BE FOR ENTIRELY GOOD REASONS OF ITS OWN.  WHAT RESPONDENT
SOUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WHAT IT SECURED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS,
AND WHAT IT HAS SOUGHT HERE, BUT CLEARLY IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE, IS A
JUDICIAL DECLARATION THAT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, ITS EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE
BEEN EXEMPT UNDER ANY VALID DEFINITION THE ADMINISTRATOR MIGHT HAVE
ADOPTED.  IN EFFECT, THIS IS A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION BY THE STATUTE
ITSELF, ONE WHICH WOULD NULLIFY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POWER.  RELIEF NOT
SOUGHT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED ON RESPONDENT BY AN EXERCISE OF THIS
COURT'S INVENTIVE GENIUS.  MORE ESPECIALLY SHOULD THIS NOT BE DONE ON
THE COURT'S OWN MOTION, WITHOUT ANY OF THE PARTIES HAVING HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER OR DISCUSS IT IN THE BRIEFS OR IN ARGUMENT. 
UNDER SUCH A POLICY, GENERALLY FOLLOWED, A LITIGANT NEVER CAN KNOW WITH
WHAT KIND OF GIFT HORSE HE MAY COME OUT, EVEN IF SUCCESSFUL.  AND IN
THIS CASE THE PARTIES HAVE FACED THE DOUBLE UNCERTAINTY, WHOLLY
UNANTICIPATED, OF CREATION HERE AND RE-CREATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR,
WHEN THE LATTER UNDERTAKES RELIEVING THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DUTY TO
AWAIT HIS FURTHER ACTION.  FN20 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF THE OTHER ISSUES
IN THE CASE.  FN21 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS IN THAT PART OF THIS DISSENT WHICH WOULD
HOLD THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS DEFINED "AREA OF PRODUCTION" IN A VALID
MANNER. 

FN1  PROMULGATED OCTOBER 20, 1938, EFFECTIVE FOUR DAYS LATER.  3 FED.
REG. 2536. 

FN2  SEE HEARINGS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF SECTION 536.2(AREA OF
PRODUCTION) OF REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF
1938, WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR REF. NOS. 54; 73;
162A; 162B; 162C. 

FN3  TESTS PROPOSED AND CONSIDERED INCLUDED:  THE MAPPING OF
PRODUCING TERRITORIES; A FLAT MILEAGE-POPULATION DEFINITION; A "FIRST
CONCENTRATION POINT" CRITERION; A STANDARD WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ONLY
ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH HANDLED AND PREPARED FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE FARMER
COMMODITIES TO WHICH HE RETAINED TITLE.  ALL THESE AND OTHERS WERE
REJECTED BY SUCCESSIVE ADMINISTRATORS, AFTER BEING URGED AND OPPOSED BY
INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES, AS PRESENTING INSUPERABLE OBSTACLES TO
CARRYING OUT THE STATUTE'S MAJOR POLICIES. 

FN4  COMPARE THE DEFINITION PROMULGATED OCTOBER 20, 1938, 3 FED. REG.
2536, WITH THE AMENDMENTS OF APRIL 20, 1939, 4 FED. REG. 1655; JUNE 17,
1939, 4 FED. REG. 2436; OCTOBER 1, 1940, 5 FED. REG. 2647; AND APRIL 1,
1941, 6 FED. REG. 1476. 

FN5  CF. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELEASE R. -226, MARCH 18, 1939; G. -60,
JULY 24, 1940. 

FN6  A FLAT MILEAGE DEFINITION WAS IN FORCE DURING PART OF THE TIME
MATERIAL IN THIS CASE, BUT WAS ABANDONED AFTER ITS EFFECTS, BY WAY OF
CREATING SERIOUS UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN COMPETING ESTABLISHMENTS
AND NARROWING GROCERS' OUTLETS, BECAME EVIDENT.  CF. DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR RELEASE G. -60, JULY 24, 1940. 

FN7  CF. FARM AND RANCH SCHEDULES, U.S. CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE, 16TH
CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1940. 

FN8  AS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS, CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTES 13-16,
THERE WAS FAIRLY GENERAL AGREEMENT THAT SOME PART OF THE WORK SPECIFIED
IN SEC. 13(A)(10) SHOULD BE EXEMPT, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DONE ON THE
FARM.  BUT BEYOND THIS, A GREAT VARIETY OF OPINION EXISTED BOTH AS TO
HOW FAR THE EXEMPTION SHOULD GO AND AS TO THE ECONOMIC BASIS FOR IT.
AMONG THE LATTER WERE VIEWS THAT THE EXEMPTION SHOULD BE MADE BECAUSE
THE FARMER BORE THE COST OF THE WORK, CF. 81 CONG. REC. 7656, 7877,
7880; OR BECAUSE MANY FARMERS IN FACT PERFORMED IT ON THEIR FARMS AND
AS PART OF THEIR OPERATIONS, CF. SEC. 3(F), 52 STAT. 1060; 81 CONG.
REC. 7657-7659; OR BECAUSE OTHERS WHO HAD TO RESORT TO INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS TO HAVE IT DONE WOULD BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST UNLESS THE
WORK WERE EXEMPT; CF. 81 CONG. REC. 7656, 7658-7660, 7876.  SOME
LEGISLATORS WERE CONCERNED TO HAVE THE EXEMPTION APPLY WHETHER THE WORK
WERE DONE IN LARGE OR SMALL PLANTS; OTHERS TO LIMIT IT TO SMALL ONES
ONLY; AND STILL OTHERS TO SECURE IT COMPLETELY FOR PARTICULAR CROPS. 
NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS WERE TENDERED, BUT FOR THE MOST PART DEFEATED.  IT
WAS NOT UNTIL THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE'S REPORT WAS FRAMED THAT THE
PROBLEM WAS SOLVED BY REFERRING IT TO DEFINITION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 
BUT EVEN PROPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENTS WHICH WERE ADOPTED RECOGNIZED
THAT THE PROBLEM WAS ONE WHICH "THE BOARD ...  WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE,"
81 CONG. REC. 7878, "SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT," 83
CONG. REC. 7401. 

FN9  SECTION 2(A).  THESE CONDITIONS CONGRESS FOUND BURDEN COMMERCE,
LEAD TO LABOR DISPUTES OBSTRUCTING IT, INTERFERE WITH FAIR AND ORDERLY
MARKETING, AND SPREAD THEMSELVES BY CAUSING THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE TO
BE USED FOR MARKETING AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES THE GOODS PRODUCED UNDER
THEM.  IBID. 

FN10  "'INDUSTRY' MEANS A TRADE, BUSINESS, INDUSTRY  ...  IN WHICH
INDIVIDUALS ARE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED."  SEC. 3(H).  "'AGRICULTURE'
INCLUDES FARMING IN ALL ITS BRANCHES  ...  AND ANY PRACTICES (INCLUDING
ANY FORESTRY OR LUMBERING OPERATIONS) PERFORMED BY A FARMER OR ON A
FARM AS AN INCIDENT TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUCH FARMING OPERATIONS,
INCLUDING PREPARATION FOR MARKET, DELIVERY TO STORAGE OR TO MARKET OR
TO CARRIERS FOR TRANSPORTATION TO MARKET."  SEC. 3(F).  SECTION 5
PROVIDES FOR INDUSTRY COMMITTEES AND THEIR FUNCTIONING, TO WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATOR SUBMITS DATA AND FROM WHICH HE RECEIVES RECOMMENDATIONS
AND REPORTS WHICH HE MUST APPROVE BEFORE MAKING THEM EFFECTIVE IN THE
FORM OF MINIMUM WAGE RATES AND INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATIONS.  CF. SEC. 8. 

FN11  NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190, 219. 

FN12 RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, CONSISTENTLY WITH ITS "FACT-FINDER" OR
"SURVEYOR" THEORY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FUNCTION, SAYS THE PURPOSE WAS
NOT TO DISTINGUISH, WITHIN THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES, BETWEEN FARMERS
AND INDUSTRIAL WORKERS; IT WAS RATHER TO GO A STEP FURTHER AND EXEMPT
THE LATTER AS WELL, PROVIDED ONLY THEY WERE WITHIN AN AREA OF
PRODUCTION AS RESPONDENT CONCEIVES IT.  THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY
EXEMPT SOME, OR PERHAPS MANY, WHO ARE IN FACT INDUSTRIAL WORKERS,
BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING THESE ACTIVITIES UNDER FACTORY CONDITIONS AND
METHODS, MAY BE CONCEDED.  THAT HE MUST EXEMPT ALL OF THEM, OR SOME
LARGER NUMBER THAN HIS JUDGMENT, FORMED AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS,
THE STATUTE'S POLICIES, AND THE EFFECTS OF WHAT HE MAY DO, FINDS
PROPER, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.  RESPONDENT CLAIMS AN EXEMPTION FIXED BY
THE ACT.  THE STATUTE HAS GIVEN IT ONE ONLY WHEN, IN THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT, NOT ARBITRARILY FORMED, IT MEETS THE
CONDITIONS WHICH HE FINDS WILL EXECUTE THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY. 

FN13  THE SENATE'S FIRST SUGGESTION OF "AREA OF PRODUCTION" CAME FROM
SENATOR COPELAND, 81 CONG. REC. 7656, ALTHOUGH SENATOR SCHWELLENBACH
BECAME THE CHIEF PROPONENT OF THE CONCEPT THERE.  SENATOR BLACK,
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, WAS CONCERNED WITH THE SCOPE OF "AREA" AND SOUGHT
A MORE ACCURATE TERM FOR LIMITING ITS EFFECT SO AS NOT TO EXEMPT
WORKERS IN LARGE PLANTS, CF. 81 CONG. REC. 7656-7660, 7876-7878, AND
OTHERS EXPRESSED OPINIONS THAT LARGE OPERATORS SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPTED. 
FOR PORTIONS OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE SENATE FLOOR SEE ALSO 81 CONG.
REC. 7648-7673, 7876-7888, 7927-7929, 7947-7949. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL WAS
REPRESENTATIVE NORTON.  CHIEF PROPONENT OF THE AMENDMENT INVOLVING
"AREA OF PRODUCTION" WAS REPRESENTATIVE BIERMANN.  CF. 83 CONG. REC.
7325-7326, 7401-7408. 

FN14  RESPONDING TO INQUIRY WHETHER PACKING HOUSES IN IOWA AND
ILLINOIS WOULD BE EXEMPTED BY HIS AMENDMENT, REPRESENTATIVE BIERMANN
SAID:  "SPEAKING FRANKLY, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO
BE WORKED OUT."  83 CONG. REC. 7401.  SENATOR SCHWELLENBACH CLEARLY
RECOGNIZED HIS AMENDMENT WOULD EXEMPT LARGE AS WELL AS SMALL PACKING
AND SIMILAR PLANTS, 81 CONG. REC. 7877, 7878, BUT EXPRESSED THE OPINION
THERE WOULD NOT BE "ANY LARGE OR ENORMOUS PLANTS" IN THE SPECIFIED
OPERATIONS.  IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR BLACK'S INQUIRY CONCERNING THE
INDEFINITE EFFECT OF "AREA" WITHOUT FURTHER DEFINITION, HE SAID:  "I
GAVE CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT TO THAT.  I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS POSSIBLE,
AND THAT IS SOMETHING WHICH THE BOARD, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF
RECEIVING TOO MUCH POWER, WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE.  IT WOULD HAVE TO
PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF 'IMMEDIATE PRODUCTION AREA.'"  CF. 81 CONG.
REC. 7876-7878.    FN15  SEE THE DISCUSSIONS CITED IN NOTES 8, 13 AND
14.    FN16  CF. 81 CONG. REC. 7948.  RESPONDENT ARGUES FROM THIS THAT
THE INTENT OF CONGRESS WAS SHOWN NOT TO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATOR, BY
THE LATER CONFERENCE AMENDMENT, TO DISTINGUISH AMONG PLANTS WITHIN THE
"AREA OF PRODUCTION" ON THE BASIS OF SIZE.  THE ARGUMENT, HOWEVER,
IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY SENATOR REYNOLDS WERE
DRAWN AND INTENDED TO EXEMPT FROM THE STATUTE'S OPERATION ALL PLANTS
HAVING FEWER THAN THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (THE AMENDMENTS VARIED FROM
FIVE TO TEN IN THIS RESPECT), NOT MERELY PLANTS ENGAGED IN THE
PARTICULAR MARGINAL OPERATIONS SPECIFIED IN THE VARIOUS FORMS THE
SCHWELLENBACH AMENDMENT TOOK DURING THE DEBATE.  THE CONCLUSION TO BE
DRAWN FROM THE REJECTION OF THE REYNOLDS AMENDMENTS IS NOT THAT THE
SENATE INTENDED TO EXEMPT ALL PLANTS, LARGE AND SMALL, COVERED BY THE
SCHWELLENBACH AMENDMENT OR BY THE FORM TAKEN BY SEC. 13(A)(10) IN
CONFERENCE, BUT RATHER THAT THE SENATE WAS UNWILLING TO EXCEPT EVEN ALL
PLANTS HAVING AS FEW AS FIVE EMPLOYEES FROM THE STATUTE'S COVERAGE. 

FN17  CF. NOTES 13 AND 14, SUPRA, AND THE CITED DISCUSSIONS. 

FN18  CF. NOTES 1-6, SUPRA, AND TEXT. 

FN19  UNITED STATES V. MONIA, 317 U.S. 424, DISSENTING OPINION AT 431
432. 

FN20  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS SUIT, BUT HAS APPEARED
AND PARTICIPATED HERE AS AMICUS CURIAE. 

FN21  IN VIEW OF ITS DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS
DID NOT CONSIDER RESPONDENT'S DEFENSES UNDER SECS. 7(B) AND 7(C) OF THE
ACT, ON BOTH OF WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HELD FOR PETITIONERS. 
..END :


















POLISH ALLIANCE V. LABOR BOARD, 322 U.S. 643 


NO. 226.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 12, 1944.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1944.  - 136
F.2D 175, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN VIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS
INSURANCE BUSINESS (DESCRIBED IN THE OPINION), THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PRACTICES IN WHICH
THE PETITIONER WAS FOUND TO BE AND TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED WERE, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
"AFFECTING COMMERCE," WHICH THE BOARD WAS EMPOWERED BY THE ACT TO
PREVENT.  PP. 644, 648. 

2.  THE CULTURAL AND FRATERNAL ASPECTS OF THE PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES
DID NOT EXCEPT IT FROM THE OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  P. 648. 

3.  THE APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONER, THOUGH IN THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE, WAS
A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 649. 

POLISH NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 725, TO REVIEW A DECREE GRANTING ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ORDER (AS MODIFIED) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 42
N.L.R.B. 1375. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, HAVING FOUND THAT PETITIONER, IN
VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES, ISSUED AN ORDER OF CESSATION AGAINST IT.  42 N.L.R.B.
1375.  ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW AND A CROSS-PETITION OF THE BOARD FOR
ENFORCEMENT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
SUSTAINED THE ORDER.  136 F.2D 175.  OF THE NUMEROUS ISSUES BEFORE THAT
COURT ONLY TWO ARE OPEN HERE, THE IMPORTANCE OF WHICH LED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI.  320 U.S. 725.  THE QUESTIONS ARE THESE:  (1) IN VIEW OF
THE PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES, IS THE CONDUCT FOUND BY THE BOARD TO
CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT; (2) IF CONGRESS HAS PROSCRIBED SUCH CONDUCT, HAS
IT EXCEEDED ITS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES? 

THE POLISH NATIONAL ALLIANCE IS A FRATERNAL BENEFIT SOCIETY PROVIDING
DEATH, DISABILITY, AND ACCIDENT BENEFITS TO ITS MEMBERS AND THEIR
BENEFICIARIES.  INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS, IT IS
ORGANIZED INTO 1,817 LODGES SCATTERED THROUGH TWENTY-SEVEN STATES, THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA, CANADA.  AS THE
"LARGEST FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD OF AMERICANS OF POLISH
DESCENT," IT HAD OUTSTANDING, IN 1941, 272,897 INSURANCE BENEFIT
CERTIFICATES WITH A FACE VALUE OF NEARLY $160,000,000.  OVER 76% OF
THESE CERTIFICATES WERE HELD BY PERSONS LIVING OUTSIDE OF ILLINOIS.  AT
THE END OF THAT YEAR, PETITIONER'S ASSETS TOTALLED ABOUT $30,000,000,
IN CASH, REAL ESTATE IN FIVE STATES, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT BONDS,
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT BONDS, BONDS OF VARIOUS STATES AND THEIR POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS, RAILROAD, PUBLIC UTILITY, AND INDUSTRIAL BONDS, AND
STOCKS.  FROM ITS ORGANIZATION IN 1880 UNTIL THE END OF 1940, THE
ALLIANCE SPENT OVER $7,000,000 FOR CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL, AND
FRATERNAL ACTIVITIES AMONG ITS MEMBERS.  DURING THE SAME PERIOD, IT
PAID OUT OVER $38,000,000 IN "MORTUARY CLAIMS." 

PETITIONER DIRECTS FROM ITS HOME OFFICE IN CHICAGO A STAFF OF OVER
225 FULL AND PART-TIME ORGANIZERS AND FIELD AGENTS IN TWENTY-SIX STATES
WHOSE TRAVELING EXPENSES ARE BORNE BY ALLIANCE AND WHO RECEIVE
COMMISSIONS FOR NEW MEMBERSHIPS.  SINCE ITS 1939 CONVENTION, ALLIANCE
HAS ADMITTED NO MORE "SOCIAL MEMBERS."  THEREAFTER, ALL APPLICANTS HAVE
BEEN REQUIRED TO BUY INSURANCE CERTIFICATES PROVIDING VARIOUS TYPES OF
LIFE, ENDOWMENT, AND TERM COVERAGE.  THESE POLICIES CONTAIN THE TYPICAL
LOAN, CASH SURRENDER VALUE, OPTIONAL SETTLEMENT, AND DIVIDEND
PROVISIONS.  PETITIONER SPENT OVER $10,000 FOR ADVERTISING OUTSIDE OF
ILLINOIS DURING 1941.  IT EMPLOYS A GEORGIA CREDIT COMPANY TO REPORT ON
THE FINANCIAL STANDING AND CHARACTER OF THE APPLICANTS, AND REINSURES
SUBSTANDARD RISKS WITH AN INDIANA COMPANY. 

ALLIANCE LODGES ARE ORGANIZED INTO 190 COUNCILS, 160 OF WHICH ARE
OUTSIDE THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.  THE COUNCILS ELECT DELEGATES TO THE
NATIONAL CONVENTION, AND IT IN TURN ELECTS THE EXECUTIVE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.  THE CENSOR OF ALLIANCE IS ITS RANKING OFFICER
AND HE APPOINTS AN EDITORIAL STAFF WHICH PUBLISHES A WEEKLY PAPER
DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS.  OF THE 6,857,556 COPIES PUBLISHED IN 1941,
ABOUT 80% WERE MAILED TO PERSONS LIVING OUTSIDE OF ILLINOIS. 

THIS SUMMARY OF THE ACTIVITIES OF ALLIANCE AND OF THE METHODS AND
FACILITIES FOR THEIR PURSUIT AMPLY SHOWS THE WEB OF MONEY-MAKING
TRANSACTIONS WOVEN ACROSS MANY STATE LINES.  AN EFFECTIVE STRIKE
AGAINST SUCH A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, CENTERED IN CHICAGO BUT RADIATING
FROM IT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, WOULD AS A PRACTICAL MATTER CERTAINLY
BURDEN AND OBSTRUCT THE MEANS OF TRANSMISSION AND COMMUNICATION ACROSS
THESE STATE LINES.  STOPPAGE OR DISRUPTION OF THE WORK IN CHICAGO
INVOLVES INTERRUPTIONS IN THE STEADY STREAM, INTO AND OUT OF ILLINOIS,
OF BILLS, NOTICES, AND POLICIES, THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSIONS, THE
MAKING OF LOANS ON POLICIES, THE INSERTION AND CIRCULATION OF
ADVERTISING MATERIAL IN NEWSPAPERS, AND ITS DISSEMINATION OVER THE
RADIO.  THE EFFECT OF SUCH INTERRUPTIONS ON COMMERCE IS UNMISTAKABLE. 
THE LOAD OF INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IS
LESSENED, CASH NECESSARY FOR INTERSTATE BUSINESS BECOMES UNAVAILABLE,
THE BUSINESS, INTERSTATE, OF NEWSPAPERS AND RADIO STATIONS SUFFER.  NOR
IS THIS ALL.  ALLIANCE, IT APPEARS, PLAYS A CREDIT ROLE IN INTERSTATE
INDUSTRIES, RAILROADS, AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES.  IN 1941, IT
ACQUIRED SECURITIES IN AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $11,000,000, AND SOLD OR
REDEEMED SECURITIES COSTING MORE THAN $7,500,000.  FINANCIAL
TRANSACTIONS OF THIS MAGNITUDE CANNOT BE IMPEDED EVEN TEMPORARILY
WITHOUT AFFECTING TO AN EXTENT NOT NEGLIGIBLE THE INTERSTATE
ENTERPRISES IN WHICH THE LARGE ASSETS OF ALLIANCE ARE INVESTED.  THAT
SUCH ARE THE SUBSTANTIAL EFFECTS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF DISLOCATING
LABOR PRACTICES BY INSURANCE COMPANIES, WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE
LABOR BOARD IN AT LEAST THIRTEEN COMPARABLE SITUATIONS.  FN1  THE
PRACTICAL JUSTIFICATION OF SUCH A CONCLUSION HAS NOT HERETOFORE BEEN
CHALLENGED.  CONSIDERATIONS LIKE THESE LED THE BOARD TO FIND THAT
PETITIONER'S PRACTICES "HAVE A CLOSE, INTIMATE, AND SUBSTANTIAL
RELATION TO TRADE, TRAFFIC, AND COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES AND
TEND TO LEAD TO LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE," AND
WERE THEREFORE "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING COMMERCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SECTION 2(6) AND (7)," AND AS SUCH, PROHIBITED BY SEC. 10 OF
THE WAGNER ACT. 

BY THAT ACT, CONGRESS IN ORDER TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM
ADVERSE EFFECTS OF LABOR DISPUTES HAS UNDERTAKEN TO REGULATE ALL
CONDUCT HAVING SUCH CONSEQUENCES THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY IT CAN
REGULATE.  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 31; LABOR
BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 607.  WITH NEGLIGIBLE EXCEPTIONS,
CONGRESS DID NOT EXERCISE ITS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE PRIOR TO ITS
ENACTMENT IN 1887 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  24 STAT. 379, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. SINCE THAT TIME IT HAS FREQUENTLY CHOSEN, AS THE
STATUTES AT LARGE ABUNDANTLY PROVE, TO REGULATE ONLY PART OF WHAT IT
CONSTITUTIONALLY CAN REGULATE.  AGAIN, HALF A DOZEN ENACTMENTS, OTHER
THAN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, ARE SUFFICIENT TO ILLUSTRATE
THAT WHEN IT WANTS TO BRING ASPECTS OF COMMERCE WITHIN THE FULL SWEEP
OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, IT MANIFESTS ITS PURPOSE BY REGULATING
NOT ONLY "COMMERCE" BUT ALSO MATTERS WHICH "AFFECT," "INTERRUPT," OR
"PROMOTE" INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934,
SEC. 2, 48 STAT. 979, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 420A; BITUMINOUS COAL ACT, SEC. 4
A, 50 STAT. 72, 83, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 834; CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT, SEC.
1(3), 52 STAT. 973, 977, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 401(3); FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, SEC. 1, AS AMENDED, 53 STAT. (PART 2) 1404, 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 51; TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, SEC. 307(B)(3), 41 STAT. 456, 471;
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT, SEC. 31, 49 STAT. 1075, 1080, 16 U.S.C.
SEC. 831DD.  IN SO DESCRIBING THE RANGE OF ITS CONTROL, CONGRESS IS NOT
INDULGING STYLISTIC PREFERENCES; IT IS MEDIATING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND
STATE AUTHORITIES, AND DECIDING WHAT MATTERS ARE TO BE TAKEN OVER BY
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND WHAT TO BE LEFT TO THE STATES.  UNITED
STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S.
517.  AND SO IN THIS ACT, UNLIKE SOME FEDERAL REGULATORY MEASURES, SEE
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349, 351; KIRSCHBAUM CO.
V. WALLING, SUPRA, AT 522-523, CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY REGULATED NOT
MERELY TRANSACTIONS OR GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT ACTIVITIES
WHICH IN ISOLATION MIGHT BE DEEMED TO BE MERELY LOCAL BUT IN THE
INTERLACINGS OF BUSINESS ACROSS STATE LINES ADVERSELY AFFECT SUCH
COMMERCE.  BY THE WAGNER ACT, CONGRESS GAVE THE BOARD AUTHORITY TO
PREVENT PRACTICES "TENDING TO LEAD TO A LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING OR
OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE."  SEC. 2(7) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (49 STAT. 449, 450, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
152(7)).  CONGRESS THEREFORE LEFT IT TO THE BOARD TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
PROSCRIBED PRACTICES WOULD IN PARTICULAR SITUATIONS ADVERSELY AFFECT
COMMERCE WHEN JUDGED BY THE FULL REACH OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF
CONGRESS.  WHETHER OR NO PRACTICES MAY BE DEEMED BY CONGRESS TO AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY CONFINING JUDGMENT TO
THE QUANTITATIVE EFFECT OF THE ACTIVITIES IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE
BOARD.  APPROPRIATE FOR JUDGMENT IS THE FACT THAT THE IMMEDIATE
SITUATION IS REPRESENTATIVE OF MANY OTHERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, THE
TOTAL INCIDENCE OF WHICH IF LEFT UNCHECKED MAY WELL BECOME FAR-REACHING
IN ITS HARM TO COMMERCE.  LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, SUPRA, AT 607-608. 

WE HAVE SAID ENOUGH TO INDICATE THE GROUND FOR OUR CONCLUSION THAT
THE BOARD WAS NOT UNJUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES FOUND BY IT WOULD AFFECT COMMERCE.  AND THE UNDOUBTED FACT
THAT ALLIANCE PROMOTES, AMONG AMERICANS OF POLISH DESCENT, INTEREST IN,
AND DEVOTION TO, THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT POLAND HAS MADE TO CIVILIZATION
DOES NOT SUBORDINATE ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES TO INSIGNIFICANCE. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD COULD FIND THAT ITS CULTURAL AND FRATERNAL
ACTIVITIES DO NOT WITHDRAW ALLIANCE FROM AMENABILITY TO THE WAGNER
ACT. 

IN THIS ASPECT, THE CASE WE HAVE BEFORE US PRESENTS A WHOLLY NEW
PROBLEM OF THE RELATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE.  THE LONG SERIES OF INSURANCE CASES THAT HAVE COME TO THIS
COURT FOR MORE THAN SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS, FROM PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8 WALL. 
168, TO NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495, HAVE
INVARIABLY INVOLVED SOME EXERCISE OF STATE POWER RESISTED, IN MOST
INSTANCES, ON THE CLAIM THAT IT WAS IMPLIEDLY FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  SUCH WAS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THIS COURT DECIDED AGAIN AND
AGAIN THAT THE MAKING OF A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE IS NOT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THAT, SINCE THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS IN EFFECT MERELY
A CONGERIES OF CONTRACTS, THE STATES MAY, FOR TAXING AND DIVERSE OTHER
PURPOSES, REGULATE THE MAKING OF SUCH CONTRACTS AND THE INSURANCE
BUSINESS FREE FROM THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED UPON STATE ACTION BY THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS THAT LOOK ALIKE OFTEN ARE
ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT AND CALL FOR DIFFERENT ANSWERS BECAUSE THEY BRING
INTO PLAY DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OR DIFFERENT
EXERTIONS OF POWER UNDER IT.  THUS, FEDERAL REGULATION DOES NOT
PRECLUDE STATE TAXATION AND STATE TAXATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE FEDERAL
REGULATION.  COMPARE, FOR EXAMPLE, HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260
U.S. 245, WITH SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381. 

WE HAVE, THEREFORE, NOW PRESENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME NOT AN EXERCISE
OF STATE BUT OF NATIONAL POWER IN RELATION TO THE INSURANCE BUSINESS. 
AND SO THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE RELATION
BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS BEFORE US AND THE
OPERATION OF ECONOMIC FORCES ACROSS STATE LINES, THE CONSTITUTION
DENIES TO CONGRESS THE POWER TO SAY THAT THE INTERPLAY OF THE INSURANCE
BUSINESS AND THOSE ECONOMIC FORCES IS SUCH THAT ITS POWER "TO REGULATE
COMMERCE  ...  AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" CARRIES WITH IT THE POWER TO
REGULATE THE CONDUCT HERE REGULATED BY RELEVANT LEGISLATION. 

THE PROCESS OF ADJUSTING THE INTERACTING AREAS OF NATIONAL AND STATE
AUTHORITY OVER COMMERCE HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN HUNDREDS OF CASES FROM
THE VERY BEGINNING OF OUR HISTORY.  PRECISELY THE SAME KIND OF ISSUES
HAS PLAGUED THE TWO GREAT ENGLISH-SPEAKING FEDERATIONS, THE
CONSTITUTIONS OF WHICH SIMILARLY DISTRIBUTE LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER
BUSINESS BETWEEN CENTRAL AND SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENTS.  SEE SEC. 91 OF
THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867, 30 & 31 VICT., C. 3, AND REPORT OF
THE (CANADIAN) ROYAL COMMISSION ON DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS,
(1940) BK. II, C. IV; SEC. 51 OF THE AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTIONAL ACT,
1900, 63 & 64 VICT., C. 12, AND REPORT OF THE (AUSTRALIAN) ROYAL
COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION, (1929) C. XIV.  THESE ARE DIFFICULTIES
INHERENT IN SUCH A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. 

THE INTERPENETRATIONS OF MODERN SOCIETY HAVE NOT WIPED OUT STATE
LINES.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO MAKE INROADS UPON OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM EITHER
BY INDIFFERENCE TO ITS MAINTENANCE OR EXCESSIVE REGARD FOR THE UNIFYING
FORCES OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY.  SCHOLASTIC REASONING MAY PROVE THAT NO
ACTIVITY IS ISOLATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A SINGLE STATE, BUT THAT
CANNOT JUSTIFY ABSORPTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY THE UNITED STATES
OVER EVERY ACTIVITY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE OLD ADMONITION NEVER
BECOMES STALE THAT THIS COURT IS CONCERNED WITH THE BOUNDS OF LEGAL
POWER AND NOT WITH THE BOUNDS OF WISDOM IN ITS EXERCISE BY CONGRESS. 
WHEN THE CONDUCT OF AN ENTERPRISE AFFECTS COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES IS
A MATTER OF PRACTICAL JUDGMENT, NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY ABSTRACT
NOTIONS.  THE EXERCISE OF THIS PRACTICAL JUDGMENT THE CONSTITUTION
ENTRUSTS PRIMARILY AND VERY LARGELY TO THE CONGRESS, SUBJECT TO THE
LATTER'S CONTROL BY THE ELECTORATE.  GREAT POWER WAS THUS GIVEN TO THE
CONGRESS:  THE POWER OF LEGISLATION AND THEREBY THE POWER OF PASSING
JUDGMENT UPON THE NEEDS OF A COMPLEX SOCIETY.  STRICTLY CONFINED THOUGH
FAR-REACHING POWER WAS GIVEN TO THIS COURT:  THAT OF DETERMINING
WHETHER THE CONGRESS HAS EXCEEDED LIMITS ALLOWABLE IN REASON FOR THE
JUDGMENT WHICH IT HAS EXERCISED.  TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT DEEM
THE ACTIVITIES HERE IN QUESTION TO AFFECT WHAT MEN OF PRACTICAL AFFAIRS
WOULD CALL COMMERCE, AND TO DEEM THEM RELATED TO SUCH COMMERCE MERELY
BY GOSSAMER THREADS AND NOT BY SOLID TIES, WOULD BE TO DISRESPECT THE
JUDGMENT THAT IS OPEN TO MEN WHO HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER AND
RESPONSIBILITY TO LEGISLATE FOR THE NATION.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  MATTER OF JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., 26 N.L.R.B.
1024; MATTER OF LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF VIRGINIA, 29 N.L.R.B. 246; MATTER
OF LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF VIRGINIA, 31 N.L.R.B. 674; MATTER OF SUPREME
LIBERTY LIFE INSURANCE CO., 32 N.L.R.B. 94; MATTER OF LIFE INSURANCE
CO. OF VIRGINIA, 38 N.L.R.B. 20; MATTER OF COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.
OF AMERICA, 42 N.L.R.B. 1177; MATTER OF METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
CO., 43 N.L.R.B. 962; MATTER OF PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, 46
N.L.R.B. 430; MATTER OF NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL FIRE ASSOCIATION, 46
N.L.R.B. 825; MATTER OF PEOPLES LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF WASHINGTON, D.C.,
46 NL.R.B. 1115; MATTER OF PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, 47
N.L.R.B. 1103; MATTER OF PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, 49
N.L.R.B. 450; MATTER OF LIFE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. OF TENNESSEE,
53 N.L.R.B. 1196.  SEE ALSO LABOR BOARD V. BANK OF AMERICA, 130 F.2D
624, 626. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PARK IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING: 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT VEST COURTS WITH POWER TO
REVIEW THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE LABOR BOARD AND MAKE INDEPENDENT
FINDINGS OF FACT.  29 U.S.C. 160(E).  THEREFORE THE PROPRIETY OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER IN THIS CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS
THE BOARD FOUND. 

THE BOARD DID NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION AND ENTER ITS ORDER ON A FACT
FINDING THAT PETITIONER'S INSURANCE ACTIVITIES MERELY AFFECTED COMMERCE
IN TYPES OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS OTHER THAN ITS OWN.  ON THIS FACT ISSUE
IT MADE NO FINDING AT ALL.  ITS FINDING WAS THAT THE PETITIONER, BEING
"ENGAGED IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS," WAS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ACT."  THIS ULTIMATE FINDING OF FACT RESTED ON
DETAILED SUBORDINATE FINDINGS WHICH REVEALED THE WIDESPREAD INTERSTATE
ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONER IN CARRYING ON ITS INSURANCE BUSINESS.  AS
THE COURT'S OPINION POINTS OUT, THESE INSURANCE ACTIVITIES INVOLVED A
"STEADY STREAM, INTO AND OUT OF ILLINOIS, OF BILLS, NOTICES, AND
POLICIES, THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSIONS, THE MAKING OF LOANS ON POLICIES,
THE INSERTION AND CIRCULATION OF ADVERTISING MATERIAL IN NEWSPAPERS,
AND ITS DISSEMINATION OVER THE RADIO."  ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE
ULTIMATE FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS ITSELF "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" DID
THE BOARD MAKE THE ESSENTIAL FURTHER FINDING THAT PETITIONER'S REFUSAL
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH ITS EMPLOYEES HAD A "CLOSE, INTIMATE, AND
SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" AND TENDED
"TO LEAD TO LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE." 

AS A CONCLUSION OF LAW THE BOARD STATED THAT PETITIONER'S UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES CONSTITUTED "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING COMMERCE,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(6) AND (7) OF THE ACT."  SECTION 2(6)
DEFINES THE TERM "COMMERCE" TO MEAN "TRADE, TRAFFIC  ...  "; AND SEC.
2(7) DEFINES THE TERM "AFFECTING COMMERCE" TO MEAN EITHER "IN COMMERCE"
OR "BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE."  49 STAT. 449, 450; 29 U.S.C.
152(6) AND (7).  FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THESE DEFINITIONS, AND THE
BOARD'S FINDINGS ABOVE DESCRIBED, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE BOARD'S
CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT "COMMERCE" WAS "AFFECTED" BY PETITIONER'S UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES RESTED UPON ITS PREVIOUS CONCLUSION OF FACT THAT
PETITIONER'S INSURANCE BUSINESS WAS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE.  THE BOARD
CONCLUDED THAT, SINCE THE INSURANCE BUSINESS ITSELF WAS ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE, PETITIONER'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN, AND THE STRIKE THEREBY
PROVOKED, WOULD AFFECT COMMERCE.  COMPARE ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR
BOARD, 301 U.S. 103, 128-130 WITH CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 219-224. 

THE DOCTRINE THAT CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE FOR REGULATION OF ACTIVITIES
NOT THEMSELVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT MERELY "AFFECTING" SUCH
COMMERCE, RESTS ON THE PREMISE THAT IN CERTAIN FACT SITUATIONS THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY FIND THAT REGULATION OF PURELY LOCAL AND
INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS "NECESSARY AND PROPER" TO PREVENT INJURY TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HOUSTON, E. & W.T. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234
U.S. 342; SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 46-47; AND SEE
WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111, 121.  IN APPLYING THIS DOCTRINE TO
PARTICULAR SITUATIONS THIS COURT PROPERLY HAS BEEN CAUTIOUS, AND HAS
REQUIRED CLEAR FINDINGS BEFORE SUBJECTING LOCAL BUSINESS TO PARAMOUNT
FEDERAL REGULATION.  CITY OF YONKERS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 685,
AND CASES THEREIN CITED.  IT HAS INSISTED UPON "SUITABLE REGARD TO THE
PRINCIPLE THAT WHENEVER THE FEDERAL POWER IS EXERTED WITHIN WHAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE THE DOMAIN OF STATE POWER, THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE
EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL POWER MUST CLEARLY APPEAR."  ID.; FLORIDA V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 211-212; CF. PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 196-197; SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N V. CHENERY
CORP., 318 U.S. 80, 92-95. 

THE BOARD NOT HAVING FOUND AS A FACT THAT PETITIONER'S LIFE INSURANCE
BUSINESS AFFECTED INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES OF OTHER BUSINESSES, THE FIRST
ISSUE IS WHETHER THE BOARD'S FINDINGS THAT PETITIONER'S INSURANCE
ACTIVITIES WERE CONDUCTED ACROSS STATE LINES ARE SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE.  I THINK THEY ARE.  THIS LEADS TO THE QUESTION, CHIEFLY
ARGUED BY BOTH PARTIES, "IS THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE COMMERCE, AND,
WHEN CONDUCTED ACROSS STATE LINES, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION AS
SUCH UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION?"  FOR THE REASONS
GIVEN IN THE COURT'S OPINIONS IN THIS CASE AND IN UNITED STATES V.
SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION, 322 U.S. 533, I AGREE THAT THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE IS COMMERCE, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION AS
SUCH WHEN CONDUCTED ACROSS STATE LINES, AND THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS
PROPER. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :


















KANSAS V. MISSOURI, 322 U.S. 654 


NO. 9, ORIGINAL.  OPINION, ANTE, P. 213.  DECREE ENTERED JUNE 5, 1944. 


HEADNOTES-UNAVAILABLE 

KANSAS V. MISSOURI. 

DECREE. 

THIS CAUSE HAVING BEEN SUBMITTED UPON THE PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE AND
EXHIBITS, AFTER ARGUMENTS BY COUNSEL, AND UPON THE MASTER'S REPORT, AND
THE COURT HAVING DULY CONSIDERED SAME AND BEING SUFFICIENTLY ADVISED, 

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN
THE STATES OF KANSAS AND MISSOURI, WHICH EXTENDS FROM THE INTERSECTION
OF THE MISSOURI RIVER WITH THE 40TH PARALLEL, NORTH LATITUDE, SOUTHWARD
TO THE MIDDLE OF THE MOUTH OF THE KAW OR KANSAS RIVER, BE AND IT IS
HEREBY ESTABLISHED AS THE MIDDLE LINE OF THE MAIN NAVIGABLE CHANNEL OF
SAID MISSOURI RIVER AS SAID RIVER FLOWED AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF
COMPLAINANT'S BILL OF COMPLAINT HEREIN, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COURSE OF
SAID RIVER FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE 40TH PARALLEL, NORTH
LATITUDE, SOUTHWARD TO THE MIDDLE OF THE MOUTH OF THE KAW OR KANSAS
RIVER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SUCH DEVIATIONS AND DEPARTURES FROM THE
COURSE OF SAID MISSOURI RIVER, AS IT THEN FLOWED, AS ARE COVERED BY AND
PROVIDED FOR IN THE WRITTEN STIPULATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ARE
INCORPORATED IN THE DESCRIPTION OF SAID ENTIRE BOUNDARY HEREINAFTER SET
FORTH. 

THE BOUNDARY LINE NEREINBEFORE MENTIONED AND HEREBY ESTABLISHED IS
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT: 

BEGINNING WITH THE FORTIETH PARALLEL OF NORTH LATITUDE, THE SAME
BEING THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE STATE OF KANSAS AND THE STATE OF
NEBRASKA, (AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE MISSOURI RIVER) THENCE DOWN THE
COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO A PLACE THEREIN
OPPOSITE WHICH THE LEFT BANK THEREOF IS A POINT 15.50 CHAINS WEST AND
9.75 CHAINS SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION FOURTEEN, TOWNSHIP
ONE-SOUTH, RANGE NINETEEN-EAST, DONIPHAN COUNTY, KANSAS. 

THENCE DEPARTING UPON AND FROM THE LEFT BANK (AT A POINT 15.50 CHS. 
SOUTH OF THE NW. CORNER OF SEC. 14, T. 1 S., R. 19 E., DONIPHAN COUNTY,
KANSAS) OF THE PRESENT COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER AND
RUNNING N. 40 DEGREES 33' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 34.33 CHS.; 

THENCE N. 73 DEGREES 00' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.89 CHS.; 

THENCE N. 72 DEGREES 30' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 21.30 CHS.; 

THENCE N. 73 DEGREES 40' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 5.22 CHS.  (THE SAME
BEING A POINT 14.44 CHS.  SOUTH OF THE SW. CORNER OF SEC. 26, T. 60 N.,
R. 39 W., HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI); 

THENCE N. 73 DEGREES 40' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 8.59 CHS.; 

THENCE N. 74 DEGREES 45' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.01 CHS.; 

THENCE N. 72 DEGREES 15' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 12.09 CHS.; 

THENCE N. 77 DEGREES 00' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 1.32 CHS.  (THE SAME
BEING A POINT 36.24 CHS.  NORTH OF THE NW. CORNER OF SEC. 13, T. 1 S.,
R. 19 E., DONIPHAN COUNTY, KANSAS); 

THENCE N. 73 DEGREES 45' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 6.99 CHS.  (THE SAME
BEING A POINT 3.57 CHS.  SOUTH OF THE QUARTER SECTION CORNER ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF SEC. 26, T. 60 N., R. 39 W., HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI); 

THENCE N. 73 DEGREES 45' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.35 CHS.  (THE SAME
BEING A POINT 7.75 CHS.  NORTH OF THE CENTER OF SEC. 12, T. 1 S., R. 19
E., DONIPHAN COUNTY, KANSAS); 

THENCE S. 85 DEGREES 00' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.20 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 83 DEGREES 30' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 8.00 CHS.  (THE SAME
BEING A POINT 38.66 CHS.  SOUTH OF THE CENTER OF SEC. 25, T. 60 N., R.
39 W., HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI); 

THENCE S. 83 DEGREES 30' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 4.95 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 82 DEGREES 45' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 11.01 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 80 DEGREES 30' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 9.91 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 80 DEGREES 00' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 8.95 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 46 DEGREES 00' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 8.67 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 42 DEGREES 30' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.45 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 38 DEGREES 00' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 10.98 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 40 DEGREES 30' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 9.99 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 38 DEGREES 00' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 9.89 CHS.  (THE SAME
BEING TO THE CENTER OF THE ROAD); 

THENCE S. 18 DEGREES 00' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 12.57 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 14 DEGREES 26' E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 13.72 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 8 DEGREES 30' W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 11.74 CHS.  (THE SAME
BEING A POINT 40.52 CHS.  WEST OF THE SE. CORNER OF SEC. 31, T. 60 N.,
R. 38 W., HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI); 

THENCE S. 8 DEGREES 30' W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 5.60 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 12 DEGREES 30' W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 12.22 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 19 DEGREES 30' W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 8.98 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 25 DEGREES 00' W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.50 CHS.  (THE SAME
BEING A POINT 52.98 CHS.  W. AND 1.24 CHS.  SOUTH OF THE E. QUARTER
CORNER OF SEC. 6, T. 59 N., R. 38 W., HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI, WHICH
POINT ALSO IS 68.80 CHS.  EAST OF AND 0.47 CH. SOUTH OF THE CORNER TO
SECS. 13, 18, 19, 24 IN T. 1 S., RS. 19 AND 20 E., DONIPHAN COUNTY,
KANSAS); 

THENCE S. 36 DEGREES 45' W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 21.00 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 28 DEGREES 30' W. FOR A DISTANCE OF 18.50 CHS.; 

THENCE S. 38 DEGREES 15' W. (FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.30 CHS.)  TO THE
LEFT BANK OF THE MISSOURI RIVER, AT WHICH LATTER POINT THE SAID
BOUNDARY RETURNS TO THE LEFT BANK OF THE PRESENT COURSE OR CHANNEL OF
THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER AND FROM THERE DOWN THE COURSE OR CHANNEL OF
THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE PLACE THEREIN WHERE THE SAID MISSOURI
RIVER INTERSECTS THE WEST LINE OF SEC. 28, T. 59 N., R. 38 W., HOLT
COUNTY, MISSOURI. 

THENCE FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE MISSOURI RIVER INTERSECTS THE WEST
LINE OF SEC. 28, T. 59 N., R. 38 W., HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI, ON DOWN THE
COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER, AND WITH THE MIDDLE LINE
OF THE MAIN NAVIGABLE CHANNEL OF SAID MISSOURI RIVER AS THE SAME FLOWED
ON THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 1940, THROUGH THE SECTION OF SAID RIVER KNOWN
AS FORBES BEND, IN A GENERAL EASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION
DOWNSTREAM TO THE LOWER END OF FORBES BEND TO A POINT IN THE PRESENT
COURSE OR CHANNEL OF SAID MISSOURI RIVER OPPOSITE WHICH THE LEFT BANK
OF SAID RIVER INTERSECTS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CENTER SECTION LINE OF
SEC. 1, T. 58 N., R. 38 W., IN HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI, AND THEN
BEGINNING AT SAID POINT IN THE PRESENT COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID
MISSOURI RIVER OPPOSITE WHICH POINT THE LEFT BANK OF THE SAID MISSOURI
RIVER INTERSECTS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CENTER SECTION LINE OF SEC. 1, T.
58 N., R. 38 W., IN HOLT COUNTY, MISSOURI, AND THENCE PROCEEDING DOWN
THE COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE PLACE THEREIN
OPPOSITE WHICH THE LEFT BANK OF SAID MISSOURI RIVER IS A POINT 2,216
FEET WEST AND 2,096 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW.
QUARTER SEC. 22, T. 2 S., R. 21 E. IN DONIPHAN COUNTY, KANSAS. 

THENCE DEPARTING UPON AND FROM THE LEFT BANK (AT A POINT 2,216 FEET
WEST AND 2,096 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW. QUARTER OF
SEC. 22, T. 2 S., R. 21 E., IN DONIPHAN COUNTY, KANSAS) OF THE PRESENT
COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER AND RUNNING THENCE N. 19
DEGREES 13' E., 2,200 FEET; 

THENCE N. 46 DEGREES 30' E., 4,312 FEET; 

THENCE N. 29 DEGREES 40' E., 5,104 FEET; 

THENCE N. 35 DEGREES 45' E., 3,432 FEET; 

THENCE N. 44 DEGREES 10' E., 660 FEET TO A POINT 1,298 FEET WEST OF
THE NW. CORNER OF SEC. 12, T. 2 S., R. 21 E. IN DONIPHAN COUNTY,
KANSAS; 

THENCE IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,868 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE W. LINE OF SEC. 1, T. 2 S., R. 21 E. IN DONIPHAN COUNTY,
KANSAS, WHICH LATTER POINT ON SAID W. LINE OF SAID SEC. 1 IS 1,350 FEET
N. OF THE SW. CORNER OF SAID SEC. 1; 

THENCE N. 60 DEGREE 00' E., 1,188 FEET; 

THENCE N. 66 DEGREES 25' E., 1,960 FEET TO A POINT 820 FEET SOUTH OF
THE SW. CORNER OF SEC. 24, T. 59 N., R. 37 W. IN HOLT COUNTY,
MISSOURI; 

THENCE N. 84 DEGREES 05' E., 2,618 FEET TO A POINT 534.6 FEET SOUTH
OF THE S. QUARTER CORNER OF SEC. 24, T. 59 N., R. 37 W. IN HOLT COUNTY,
MISSOURI; 

THENCE S. 78 DEGREES 00' E., 2,409 FEET; 

THENCE S. 60 DEGREES 00' E., 2,323 FEET; 

THENCE S. 43 DEGREES 30' E., 2,748 FEET TO THE LEFT BANK OF THE
MISSOURI RIVER (THE SAME BEING A POINT 561 FEET UPSTREAM FROM U.S.
RIVER MARKER NUMBERED 482) AT WHICH LATTER POINT THE SAID BOUNDARY
RETURNS UPON THE LEFT BANK OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE PRESENT
COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER; 

THENCE DOWN THE COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE
PLACE THEREIN OPPOSITE WHICH THE RIGHT BANK THEREOF INTERSECTS THE S.
LINE OF SEC. 10, T. 5 S., R. 21 E. IN DONIPHAN COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE DEPARTING UPON AND FROM THE RIGHT BANK OF SAID MISSOURI RIVER
AND RUNNING THENCE W. UPON THE S. LINE OF SAID SEC. 10, T. 5 S., R. 21
E. IN DONIPHAN COUNTY, KANSAS, TO THE SW. CORNER OF SAID SEC. 10; 

THENCE NORTH ON THE W. LINE OF SAID SEC. 10 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,322
FEET; 

THENCE N. 18 DEGREES 25' W., 1,122 FEET; 

THENCE N. 61 DEGREES 53' W., 793 FEET; 

THENCE S. 88 DEGREES 21' W., 3,434 FEET TO THE W. LINE OF OGDEN
LAND; 

THENCE S. 89 DEGREES 40' W., 1,783 FEET ON THE S. LINE OF THE KOCH
LAND; 

THENCE S. 10 DEGREES 03' W., 309 FEET; 

THENCE S. 43 DEGREES 36' E., 196 FEET (ALONG CENTER OF ROAD); 

THENCE S. 24 DEGREES 30' W., 504 FEET; 

THENCE S. 27 DEGREES 00' W., 282 FEET (TO TOP OF LEVEE); 

THENCE S. 32 DEGREES 30' W., 360 FEET (ACROSS DITCH); 

THENCE S. 35 DEGREES 34' W., 245 FEET; 

THENCE S. 34 DEGREES 18' W., 809 FEET; 

THENCE S. 30 DEGREES 25' W., 132 FEET; 

THENCE S. 14 DEGREES 13' W., 1,254 FEET, TO A POINT (MARKED BY AN OLD
FENCE CORNER POST) ON THE N. LINE OF ATCHISON COUNTY, KANSAS, WHICH
POINT IS 1,571 FEET EAST OF THE PRESENT EAST BANK OF INDEPENDENCE
CREEK; 

THENCE S. 00 DEGREES 00' W., 500 FEET; 

THENCE S. 00 DEGREES 11' W., 750.65 FEET; 

THENCE S. 14 DEGREES 37' W., 749.35 FEET; 

THENCE S. 14 DEGREES 45' W., 800.00 FEET; 

THENCE S. 14 DEGREES 55' W., 1,000.00 FEET; 

THENCE S. 15 DEGREES 14' W., 1,200.00 FEET; 

THENCE S. 15 DEGREES 02' W., 1,000.00 FEET; 

THENCE S. 14 DEGREES 48' W., 795.00 FEET; 

THENCE N. 71 DEGREES 46' E., 117.00 FEET; 

THENCE N. 48 DEGREES 20' E., 100.00 FEET; 

THENCE N. 00 DEGREES 52' W., 158.75 FEET; 

THENCE N. 53 DEGREES 36' E., 259.90 FEET; 

THENCE N. 62 DEGREES 28' E., 159.60 FEET; 

THENCE N. 85 DEGREES 16' E., 326.10 FEET; 

THENCE S. 57 DEGREES 06' E., 519.35 FEET; 

THENCE S. 63 DEGREES 26' E., 268.0 FEET; 

THENCE N. 86 DEGREES 19' E., 412.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 57 DEGREES 46' E., 536.0 FEET; 

THENCE N. 71 DEGREES 46' E., 124.0 FEET; 

THENCE N. 12 DEGREES 34' W., 328.1 FEET; 

THENCE N. 16 DEGREES 23' E., 295.8 FEET; 

THENCE N. 40 DEGREES 17' E., 238.8 FEET; 

THENCE N. 71 DEGREES 29' E., 166.7 FEET; 

THENCE S. 48 DEGREES 13' E., 201.2 FEET; 

THENCE N. 74 DEGREES 21' E., 694.6 FEET; 

THENCE N. 41 DEGREES 51' E., 125.0 FEET; 

THENCE N. 33 DEGREES 47' E., 59.2 FEET; 

THENCE N. 57 DEGREES 55' E., 193.9 FEET; 

THENCE S. 87 DEGREES 03' E., 369.9 FEET; 

THENCE N. 75 DEGREES 39' E., 285.5 FEET; 

THENCE N. 80 DEGREES 36' E., 361.1 FEET; 

THENCE S. 82 DEGREES 23' E., 304.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 59 DEGREES 00' E., 187.7 FEET; 

THENCE S. 34 DEGREES 54' E., 173.1 FEET; 

THENCE S. 24 DEGREES 54' E., 268.1 FEET; 

THENCE S. 05 DEGREES 46' E., 77.8 FEET; 

THENCE S. 36 DEGREES 59' W., 338.7 FEET; 

THENCE S. 61 DEGREES 16' W., 252.4 FEET; 

THENCE S. 62 DEGREES 45' W., 313.3 FEET; 

THENCE S. 17 DEGREES 30' W., 296.5 FEET; 

THENCE S. 11 DEGREES 05' W., 167.2 FEET; 

THENCE S. 01 DEGREES 48' W., 460.6 FEET; 

THENCE S. 25 DEGREES 22' E., 250.1 FEET; 

THENCE S. 73 DEGREES 38' E., 277.4 FEET; 

THENCE N. 33 DEGREES 02' E., 151.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 75 DEGREES 13' E., 329.5 FEET; 

THENCE S. 07 DEGREES 28' E., 126.1 FEET; 

THENCE S. 25 DEGREES 02' W., 244.5 FEET; 

THENCE S. 41 DEGREES 54' W., 215.7 FEET; 

THENCE S. 80 DEGREES 24' W., 251.4 FEET; 

THENCE S. 69 DEGREES 29' W., 210.1 FEET; 

THENCE S. 62 DEGREES 14' W., 495.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 54 DEGREES 34' W., 386.2 FEET; 

THENCE S. 12 DEGREES 54' W., 443.1 FEET; 

THENCE S. 60 DEGREES 06' E., 263.4 FEET; 

THENCE S. 02 DEGREES 56' W., 283.3 FEET; 

THENCE S. 80 DEGREES 36' W., 136.4 FEET; 

THENCE S. 64 DEGREES 04' W., 192.8 FEET; 

THENCE S. 62 DEGREES 04' W., 236.8 FEET; 

THENCE S. 57 DEGREES 44' W., 342.2 FEET; 

THENCE S. 62 DEGREES 54' W., 293.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 73 DEGREES 24' W., 230.3 FEET; 

THENCE S. 60 DEGREES 22' W., 267.4 FEET; 

THENCE S. 49 DEGREES 36' W., 344.1 FEET; 

THENCE S. 49 DEGREES 36' W., 200.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 49 DEGREES 36' W., 71.4 FEET (NORTHEAST CORNER OF ST.
BENEDICT'S); 

THENCE S. 00 DEGREES 12' W., 180.3 FEET; 

THENCE S. 44 DEGREES 46' W., 162.4 FEET; 

THENCE S. 42 DEGREES 33' W., 528.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 35 DEGREES 10' W., 621.7 FEET; 

THENCE S. 12 DEGREES 59' W., 254.8 FEET; 

THENCE S. 13 DEGREES 20' W., 240.2 FEET; 

THENCE S. 21 DEGREES 23' W., 382.8 FEET; 

THENCE S. 18 DEGREES 05' W., 343.9 FEET; 

THENCE S. 20 DEGREES 47' W., 198.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 13 DEGREES 18' W., 264.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 05 DEGREES 40' W., 264.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 13 DEGREES 00' W., 326.0 FEET;    THENCE S. 19 DEGREES 30'
W., 330.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 26 DEGREES 44' W., 208.6 FEET; 

THENCE S. 00 DEGREES 00' W., 126.1 FEET; 

THENCE S. 00 DEGREES 00' W., 495.0 FEET; 

THENCE S. 00 DEGREES 00' W., 495.0 FEET, TO A POINT UPON THE RIGHT
BANK OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER, AT WHICH LATTER POINT THE SAID
BOUNDARY RETURNS UPON THE RIGHT BANK OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE
PRESENT COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER AND RUNNING THENCE
DOWN THE COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE PLACE
THEREIN OPPOSITE WHICH THE LEFT BANK OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER IS
2,898 FEET EAST AND 2,124 FEET SOUTH OF THE CENTER OF SEC. 26, T. 54
N., R. 37 W. IN PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI, THENCE DEPARTING UPON AND FROM
THE LEFT BANK OF THE PRESENT COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI
RIVER, AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH TO A POINT 1,850 FEET SOUTH AND 258
FEET EAST OF THE SW. CORNER OF SEC. 24, T. 54, R. 37 W. OF THE 5TH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI; 

THENCE E. 481 FEET; 

THENCE N. 15 DEGREES 55' E. 1,924 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
AFORESAID SEC. 24; 

THENCE E. TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH CENTER LINE OF SEC. 6, T. 7 S., R.
22 E. IN ATCHISON COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE N. TO A POINT 880 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER CORNER OF SAID
KANSAS SEC. 6; 

THENCE E. 1 MILE TO A POINT 880 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF
KANSAS SEC. 5, T. 7 S., R. 22 E., IN ATCHISON COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE S. 880 FEET TO THE CENTER OF THE AFORESAID KANSAS SEC. 5; 

THENCE E. 645 FEET TO THE TOP OF A LEVEE; 

THENCE S. 17 DEGREES AND 30' E., ALONG THE TOP OF SAID LEVEE, 2,772
FEET; 

THENCE S. 14 DEGREES E., 2,740 FEET; 

THENCE S. 11 DEGREES AND 30' E., 2,721 FEET TO A POINT 130 FEET EAST
OF THE SE. CORNER OF SEC. 8, T. 7, R. 22 E. OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN IN ATCHISON COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE S. 5 DEGREES AND 10' E., ALONG THE CENTER OF A SLOUGH, 2,969
FEET TO THE LEFT BANK OF THE MISSOURI RIVER, THE LATTER POINT BEING
1,750 FEET WEST OF THE SE. CORNER OF THE SW. QUARTER OF FRACTIONAL SEC.
32, T. 54, R. 36 W. OF 5TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN PLATTE COUNTY,
MISSOURI, AT WHICH LATTER POINT THE SAID BOUNDARY RETURNS UPON THE LEFT
BANK OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE PRESENT COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE
SAID MISSOURI RIVER; 

THENCE DOWN THE COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE
PLACE THEREIN OPPOSITE WHICH THE LEFT BANK OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER
IS 1,878 FEET WEST AND 1,172 FEET NORTH OF THE W. QUARTER CORNER OF
SEC. 35, T. 7 S., R. 22 E. IN LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE DEPARTING UPON AND FROM THE LEFT BANK OF THE PRESENT COURSE OR
CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER AND RUNNING 

THENCE S. 65 DEGREES 57' E., 502 FEET; 

THENCE N. 86 DEGREES 03' E., 207 FEET; 

THENCE N. 74 DEGREES 03' E., 200 FEET; 

THENCE S. 71 DEGREES 57' E., 300 FEET; 

THENCE S. 86 DEGREES 57' E., 800 FEET; 

THENCE N. 77 DEGREES 03' E., 2 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF
SEC. 35, T. 7 S., R. 22 E. IN LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE N. 77 DEGREES 03' E., 628 FEET; 

THENCE N. 36 DEGREES 03' E., 900 FEET; 

THENCE N. 51 DEGREES 03' E., 900 FEET; 

THENCE N. 63 DEGREES 03' E., 7 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF
SEC. 35, T. 7 S., R. 22 E. IN LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE N. 63 DEGREES 03' E., 294 FEET; 

THENCE N. 76 DEGREES 18' E., 292 FEET; 

THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 18' E., 111 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH AND
SOUTH CENTER SECTION LINE OF SEC. 26, T. 7 S., R. 22 E. IN LEAVENWORTH
COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 18' E., 648 FEET; 

THENCE N. 84 DEGREES 30' E., 688 FEET; 

THENCE N. 86 DEGREES 56' E., 915 FEET; 

THENCE N. 65 DEGREES 28' E., 450 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF
SEC. 26, T. 7 S., R. 22 E. IN LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE N. 65 DEGREES 28' E., 212 FEET; 

THENCE N. 81 DEGREES 57' E., 1,054 FEET; 

THENCE N. 86 DEGREES 29' E., 301 FEET; 

THENCE S. 87 DEGREES 11' E., 350 FEET; 

THENCE S. 85 DEGREES 31' E., 382 FEET; 

THENCE S. 84 DEGREES 30' E., 1,478 FEET; 

THENCE S. 80 DEGREES 00' E., 628 FEET; 

THENCE S. 72 DEGREES 31' E., 196 FEET TO BEAR CREEK; 

THENCE FOLLOWING THE MEANDER OF SAID BEAR CREEK AND RUNNING THENCE S.
39 DEGREES 03' E., 601 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SEC. 36, T.
7 S., R. 22 E. IN LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE S. 39 DEGREES 03' E., 609 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF
SEC. 36, T. 7 S., R. 22 E. IN LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE S. 39 DEGREES 03' E., 231 FEET; 

THENCE S. 41 DEGREES 39' E., 1,995 FEET; 

THENCE S. 8 DEGREES 01' E., 505 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST AND WEST
CENTER SECTION LINE OF SEC. 31, T. 7 S., R. 23 E. IN LEAVENWORTH
COUNTY, KANSAS; 

THENCE S. 08 DEGREES 01' E., 175 FEET; 

THENCE S. 43 DEGREES 56' E., 290 FEET; 

THENCE S. 78 DEGREES 52' E., 400 FEET; 

THENCE S. 03 DEGREES 00' E., 329 FEET; 

THENCE S. 38 DEGREES 58' E., 480 FEET; 

THENCE S. 68 DEGREES 02' E., 930 FEET TO A POINT UPON THE LEFT BANK
OF THE MISSOURI RIVER WHERE THE SAID BEAR CREEK EMPTIES INTO THE SAID
MISSOURI RIVER AND WHICH LATTER POINT IS 1,039 FEET NORTH AND 408 FEET
EAST OF THE S. QUARTER CORNER OF SEC. 31, T. 7 S., R. 23 E. IN
LEAVENWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS, AT WHICH LATTER POINT THE SAID BOUNDARY
RETURNS UPON THE LEFT BANK OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE PRESENT
COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER AND RUNNING THENCE DOWN
THE COURSE OR CHANNEL OF THE SAID MISSOURI RIVER TO THE MOUTH OF THE
KANSAS RIVER. 

THE STATE OF KANSAS, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES, ITS
INHABITANTS, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS, ARE PERPETUALLY ENJOINED FROM
DISPUTING OR OPPOSING THE SOVEREIGNTY, JURISDICTION AND DOMINION OF THE
STATE OF MISSOURI OVER THE TERRITORY ADJUDGED TO SAID STATE BY OR IN
CONSEQUENCE OF THIS DECREE; AND THE STATE OF MISSOURI, ITS OFFICERS,
AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES, ITS INHABITANTS, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS, ARE
PERPETUALLY ENJOINED FROM DISPUTING OR OPPOSING THE SOVEREIGNTY,
JURISDICTION AND DOMINION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS OVER THE TERRITORY
ADJUDGED TO SAID STATE BY OR IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS DECREE. 

THAT INSOFAR AS THE CLAIMS ASSERTED BY COMPLAINANT, THE STATE OF
KANSAS, IN ITS BILL AND, PARTICULARLY IN PARAGRAPHS VI AND VII THEREOF,
WITH RESPECT TO THE FORBES BEND AREA OF THE MISSOURI RIVER, AND THE
RELIEF SOUGHT BY SAID COMPLAINANT IN AND BY SAID BILL, ARE AT VARIANCE
WITH THE TERMS OF THE FOREGOING DECREE, SUCH CLAIMS AND RELIEF ARE
DENIED AND SAID BILL TO THIS EXTENT IS DISMISSED. 

BOTH STATES HAVING REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT OF ENTRY OF AN ORDER
DIRECTING THE PLACING OF SUITABLE MONUMENTS OR MARKERS ON THE ABOVE
DESIGNATED BOUNDARY UNTIL THEY HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER
EXCHANGING CERTAIN LANDS AND TO MAKE SUCH EXCHANGES, JURISDICTION OF
THIS CAUSE IS RETAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING SUCH ORDER AT AN
APPROPRIATE TIME. 

THE COSTS OF THIS SUIT ARE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO STATES,
COMPLAINANT AND DEFENDANT, AND THIS CASE IS RETAINED ON THE DOCKET FOR
FURTHER ORDERS IN FULFILLMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
DECREE. 
..END :










HARVESTER CO. V. DEPT. OF TAXATION, 322 U.S. 435 


ARGUED APRIL 27, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1944.  - 243 WIS. 198, 211, 10
N.W.2D 169, 174, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF WISCONSIN IMPOSES A TAX "FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DECLARING
AND RECEIVING DIVIDENDS" OUT OF CORPORATE INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY
LOCATED AND BUSINESS TRANSACTED WITHIN THE STATE, AND REQUIRES
CORPORATIONS TO DEDUCT THE TAX FROM DIVIDENDS DISTRIBUTED TO BOTH
RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT STOCKHOLDERS.  AS ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANTS
(FOREIGN CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE) THE TAX WAS
MEASURED BY SO MUCH OF THEIR DIVIDENDS AS WAS DERIVED FROM THE PORTION
OF THE CORPORATE SURPLUS ATTRIBUTED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO INCOME
EARNED IN WISCONSIN.  THEIR DIVIDENDS WERE DECLARED AT DIRECTORS'
MEETINGS HELD OUTSIDE THE STATE, AND THE DIVIDEND CHECKS WERE DRAWN ON
BANK ACCOUNTS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  HELD: 

1.  APPELLANTS HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE STATUTE.  P. 440. 

APPELLANTS CAN AVOID PAYMENT OF THE TAX FROM THEIR OWN FUNDS ONLY BY
DEDUCTING IT FROM THEIR STOCKHOLDERS' DIVIDENDS.  IN THE LATTER CASE,
THEY WOULD REMAIN LIABLE, AT LEAST TO THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, FOR
THE AMOUNTS OF THE DEDUCTIONS IF NOT LAWFULLY TAKEN.  IN EITHER ASPECT,
THEREFORE, APPELLANTS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY OBEDIENCE TO THE
STATUTE, AND MAY CHALLENGE ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

2.  THE TAX IS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 441. 

(A)  IN DETERMINING WHETHER A TAX IS WITHIN THE STATE'S
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, THIS COURT LOOKS TO THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX AND
ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION, AND NOT ITS CHARACTERIZATION BY THE STATE
COURTS.  P. 441. 

(B)  SO LONG AS THE EARNINGS ARE ACTUALLY DERIVED FROM CORPORATE
ACTIVITY WITHIN THE STATE, AND THEIR WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATE AND
ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO STOCKHOLDERS ARE SUBJECT
TO SOME STATE CONTROL, THE CONDITIONS OF STATE POWER TO TAX ARE
SATISFIED.  P. 443. 

(C)  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE EITHER TO THE STATE'S
DISTRIBUTING THE BURDEN OF THE TAX RATABLY AMONG THE STOCKHOLDERS, AS
THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARIES OF THE CORPORATION'S ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE
STATE AND OF THE STATE'S RELINQUISHMENT OF CONTROL OVER THE WISCONSIN
EARNINGS, SO AS TO RENDER THE TAX PRO TANTO ONE ON THE STOCKHOLDERS'
INCOME; OR TO THE STATE'S IMPOSING ON THE CORPORATION THE DUTY OF
ACTING AS ITS AGENT FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX, BY REQUIRING
DEDUCTION OF THE TAX FROM EARNINGS DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS.  P. 441. 

(D)  THE POWER TO TAX THE CORPORATION'S EARNINGS WITHIN THE STATE
INCLUDES THE POWER TO POSTPONE THE TAX UNTIL THE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE
EARNINGS, AND TO MEASURE IT BY THE AMOUNTS DISTRIBUTED.  P. 441. 

(E)  RESIDENCE OF STOCKHOLDERS WITHIN THE STATE IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVY OF A TAX TAKEN OUT OF SO MUCH OF THE
CORPORATION'S WISCONSIN EARNINGS AS IS DISTRIBUTED TO THEM.  P. 441. 

(F)  THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE TAX IS UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT
THAT THE POWER OF THE CORPORATION TO DECLARE DIVIDENDS WAS CREATED AND
EXERCISED OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  P. 443. 

(G)  WISCONSIN'S JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE THE TAX IS UNAFFECTED BY THE
FACT THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT REPRESENTED IN THE WISCONSIN
LEGISLATURE.  P. 443. 

(H)  CONNECTICUT GENERAL INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 444. 

(I)  THIS COURT IS CONCERNED NOT WITH THE WISDOM OR FAIRNESS OF THE
TAX BUT ONLY WITH THE POWER OF THE STATE TO LAY IT.  P. 444. 

3.  THOUGH THE DIVIDENDS WERE PAID IN PART FROM CORPORATE SURPLUS
EARNED PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAX STATUTE, THE TAXABLE EVENT -
DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS FROM WISCONSIN EARNINGS - OCCURRED
SUBSEQUENTLY, AND HENCE NO QUESTION OF RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IS
INVOLVED.  P. 445. 

4.  WHETHER THE FORMULA FOR ASSESSING THE TAX WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE
STATUTE IS A QUESTION THE DECISION OF WHICH BY THE STATE COURT IS
BINDING HERE.  P. 445. 

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. 

NO. 620.  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 621, MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO. V.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF WISCONSIN. 

APPEALS FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS SUSTAINING ASSESSMENTS OF
STATE TAXES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES COME HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
WISCONSIN, REVIEWING AND SUSTAINING ASSESSMENTS BY APPELLEE, THE
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, OF THE WISCONSIN PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND
TAX IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO APPELLANTS, WHICH ARE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
DOING BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN.  243 WIS. 198, 211.  THE APPELLANTS
PRESENT AGAIN, BUT IN A NEW ASPECT, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE QUESTION
DECIDED IN WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435.  IN THAT CASE WE
SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY, UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, OF THE WISCONSIN PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX, SEC. 3
OF CH. 505 OF WISCONSIN LAWS OF 1935 AS AMENDED BY CH. 552, WISCONSIN
LAWS OF 1935.  FN1  THE TAX IS IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO BOTH FOREIGN AND
DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE "FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF DECLARING AND RECEIVING DIVIDENDS" OUT OF INCOME DERIVED
FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AND BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN THE STATE.  THE PAYOR
CORPORATION IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT THE TAX FROM THE DIVIDENDS PAYABLE TO
BOTH RESIDENT AND NON-RESIDENT STOCKHOLDERS. 

APPELLANTS ARE RESPECTIVELY A NEW JERSEY AND A DELAWARE CORPORATION
DOING BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN.  APPELLEE HAS ASSESSED THE PRIVILEGE
DIVIDEND TAX WITH RESPECT TO DIVIDENDS DECLARED AND PAID BY APPELLANT
HARVESTER COMPANY TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS, INCLUDING NON-RESIDENTS, BETWEEN
DECEMBER 2, 1935 AND OCTOBER 15, 1937, INCLUSIVE, AND ON DIVIDENDS
SIMILARLY DECLARED AND PAID BY APPELLANT MINNESOTA MINING COMPANY IN
THE YEARS 1936 TO 1940, INCLUSIVE.  IN THE CASE OF EACH APPELLANT THE
TAX AS ASSESSED WAS MEASURED BY SO MUCH OF THE DIVIDENDS AS WERE
DERIVED FROM THE PORTION OF THE CORPORATE SURPLUS ATTRIBUTED BY THE TAX
AUTHORITIES TO INCOME EARNED BY THE CORPORATION IN WISCONSIN.  THE
DIVIDENDS WERE DECLARED AT DIRECTORS' MEETINGS HELD OUTSIDE THE STATE,
AND THE DIVIDEND CHECKS WERE DRAWN ON BANK ACCOUNTS OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

IN THE PENNEY CASE WE SUSTAINED THE TAX IN THE CASE OF A DELAWARE
CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN, BUT HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL
OFFICE IN NEW YORK, HOLDING ITS MEETINGS AND VOTING ITS DIVIDENDS
THERE, AND DRAWING ITS DIVIDEND CHECKS ON NEW YORK BANK ACCOUNTS.  IN
CONSIDERING THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX IN WISCONSIN, WHICH COULD AFFORD A
BASIS FOR THE TAXATION THERE ALTHOUGH THE DECLARATION AND PAYMENT OF
THE DIVIDEND TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE STATE, THIS COURT POINTED OUT THAT
THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE TAX IS TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL TAX ON
CORPORATE EARNINGS WITHIN WISCONSIN, BUT TO POSTPONE THE LIABILITY FOR
PAYMENT OF THE TAX UNTIL SUCH EARNINGS ARE PAID OUT IN DIVIDENDS, AND
WE ADDED, 311 U.S. AT P. 442:  "IN A WORD, BY ITS GENERAL INCOME TAX
WISCONSIN TAXES CORPORATE INCOME THAT IS TAKEN IN; BY THE PRIVILEGE
DIVIDEND TAX OF 1935 WISCONSIN SUPERIMPOSED UPON THIS INCOME TAX A TAX
ON CORPORATE INCOME THAT IS PAID OUT." 

SINCE OUR DECISION IN THE PENNEY CASE, THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
HAS SAID, IN BOTH THE PENNEY CASE ON REMAND, 238 WIS. 69, 72-73, AND IN
THE INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CASE BELOW, 243 WIS. 198, 204-206, THAT
UNDER THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION, THE STATE HAS NO POWER TO LAY AN
INCOME TAX ON CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES, WHO ARE NOT DOING BUSINESS IN
WISCONSIN, AND THAT THE TAX IS NOT ON THE INCOME OF THE CORPORATION. 
AND IN WISCONSIN GAS CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, 243 WIS. 216, 10
N.W.2D 140; CF. BLIED V. WISCONSIN FOUNDRY CO., 243 WIS. 221, 10 N.W.2D
142, THE COURT HELD THAT THE BURDEN OF THE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON THE
STOCKHOLDERS SO THAT THE CORPORATION IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE
PRIVILEGE TAX FROM GROSS INCOME AS A BUSINESS EXPENSE, IN ARRIVING AT
NET TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE STATE'S INCOME TAX LAW.  IN THE WISCONSIN
GAS COMPANY CASE, SUPRA, THE COURT SAID, AT P. 220-1:  "WE ARE CERTAIN
OF THREE THINGS:  (1) THAT THE BURDEN OF THE TAX IS SPECIFICALLY LAID
UPON THE STOCKHOLDER; (2) THAT THE CORPORATION DECLARING THE DIVIDEND
MUST DEDUCT THE TAX FROM THE DIVIDEND AND MAY NOT UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES TREAT THE TAX AS A NECESSARY EXPENSE OF DOING BUSINESS
(FOR STATE INCOME TAX PURPOSES); (3) THAT THE POWER TO LEVY THE TAX SO
CONSTRUED WAS AUTHORITATIVELY ESTABLISHED IN THE PENNEY CASE." 

FROM THIS, APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THE STATE COURT HAS NOW CONCLUSIVELY
DECLARED THAT THE TAX IS NOT ON INCOME OF THE CORPORATION, BUT ONLY ON
THE STOCKHOLDERS' PRIVILEGE OF RECEIVING DIVIDENDS, AND THAT IT MUST BE
DEDUCTED FROM THE DIVIDENDS BEFORE THEIR PAYMENT TO THE STOCKHOLDERS. 
APPELLANTS RENEW THE CONTENTIONS URGED IN THE PENNEY CASE THAT SINCE
THE DECLARATIONS OF THE DIVIDENDS HERE IN QUESTION WERE MADE OUTSIDE
THE STATE AND THE NON-RESIDENT STOCKHOLDERS RECEIVED THEIR DIVIDENDS
OUTSIDE THE STATE, THE TAXING STATUTE AS APPLIED IN THESE CASES
INFRINGES DUE PROCESS BY IMPOSING THE TAX ON STOCKHOLDERS AND ON
ACTIVITIES AND OBJECTS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN,
AND CONSEQUENTLY OUTSIDE ITS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION.  COMPARE
CONNECTICUT GENERAL INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77.  TO THIS IS ADDED
THE FURTHER ARGUMENT, NOT PRESENTED IN THE PENNEY CASE, THAT THE TAX
VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED TO AND
MEASURED BY WISCONSIN INCOME WHICH WAS EARNED AND CARRIED TO
APPELLANTS' SURPLUS ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE. 

FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE ASSUME THAT THE STATUTE, BY DIRECTING
DEDUCTION OF THE TAX FROM DECLARED DIVIDENDS, DISTRIBUTES THE TAX
BURDEN AMONG THE STOCKHOLDERS DIFFERENTLY THAN IF THE CORPORATION HAD
MERELY PAID THE TAX FROM ITS TREASURY AND THAT THE TAX IS THUS, IN
POINT OF SUBSTANCE, LAID UPON AND PAID BY THE STOCKHOLDERS, SOME OF
WHOM MIGHT NOT BEAR THE BURDEN OF THE TAX AT ALL IF, WITHOUT MORE, IT
WERE PAID OUT OF THE CORPORATE TREASURY.  THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THE CASE
HERE WITH RESPECT TO THE DEDUCTIONS FROM DIVIDENDS ON APPELLANT
HARVESTER'S PREFERRED STOCK, SINCE NORMALLY THE ECONOMIC WEIGHT OF
TAXES PAID BY THE CORPORATION WOULD BE BORNE BY ITS COMMON
STOCKHOLDERS. 

IF SUCH IS THE NATURE OF THE TAX, A QUESTION PRELIMINARY TO
DETERMINING ITS VALIDITY IS WHETHER APPELLANTS HAVE STANDING TO URGE
HERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS OF THEIR STOCKHOLDERS, WHO ARE NOT
PARTIES TO THE PRESENT SUITS AND WHO ALONE MAY BE AFFECTED ADVERSELY BY
THE TAX.  FOR APPELLANTS ARE PERMITTED TO REIMBURSE THEMSELVES FOR THE
AMOUNTS, WHICH THEY MUST PAY TO THE STATE, BY APPROPRIATE DEDUCTIONS
FROM THE DIVIDENDS BELONGING TO THE STOCKHOLDERS.  APPELLANTS' FAILURE
IN THESE CASES TO MAKE THE DEDUCTIONS WAS BY THEIR OWN CHOICE AND NOT
BY COMPULSION OF THE STATUTE.  BUT AS THE ONLY WAY BY WHICH APPELLANTS
CAN AVOID THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX FROM THEIR OWN FUNDS IS BY COLLECTING
IT FROM THEIR STOCKHOLDERS' DIVIDENDS AND AS APPELLANTS WOULD REMAIN
LIABLE TO THE STOCKHOLDERS, CERTAINLY TO THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS,
FOR THE AMOUNTS OF THE DEDUCTIONS IF NOT LAWFULLY TAKEN, THEY ARE, IN
EITHER ASPECT, ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY OBEDIENCE TO THE STATUTE, IF IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT APPELLANTS HAVE STANDING
TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE.  CF. ANDERSON
NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233, 242-3. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE PENNEY CASE WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT A
STATE HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MAKE A LEVY UPON A CORPORATION,
MEASURED BY SO MUCH OF ITS EARNINGS FROM WITHIN THE STATE AS IT
DISTRIBUTES IN DIVIDENDS, AND TO MAKE THE TAXABLE EVENT THE
CORPORATION'S RELINQUISHMENT OF THE EARNINGS TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  THAT
POWER IS NOT DIMINISHED OR ALTERED BY THE FACT THAT THE STATE COURTS,
FOR PURPOSES OF THEIR OWN, DENOMINATE THE LEVY A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE
OF DECLARING AND RECEIVING DIVIDENDS, OR THAT THEY DECLINE TO CALL IT
AN INCOME TAX.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER A TAX IS WITHIN THE STATE'S
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, WE LOOK TO THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX AND ITS
PRACTICAL OPERATION, AND NOT ITS CHARACTERIZATION BY STATE COURTS. 
SHAFFER V. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, 55 AND CASES CITED; LAWRENCE V. STATE
TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, 280 AND CASES CITED. 

NOR DO WE PERCEIVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE, EITHER TO THE STATE'S
DISTRIBUTING THE BURDEN OF THE TAX RATABLY AMONG THE STOCKHOLDERS, AS
THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARIES OF THE CORPORATION'S ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE
STATE, AND OF THE STATE'S RELINQUISHMENT OF CONTROL OVER THE WISCONSIN
EARNINGS, SO AS TO RENDER THE TAX PRO TANTO ONE ON THE STOCKHOLDERS'
INCOME, OR TO THE STATE'S IMPOSING ON THE CORPORATION THE DUTY OF
ACTING AS ITS AGENT FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX, BY REQUIRING
DEDUCTION OF THE TAX FROM EARNINGS DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS. 

THE POWER TO TAX THE CORPORATION'S EARNINGS INCLUDES THE POWER TO
POSTPONE THE TAX UNTIL THE DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE EARNINGS, AND TO
MEASURE IT BY THE AMOUNTS DISTRIBUTED.  COMPARE CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307
U.S. 357, 370.  IN TAXING SUCH DISTRIBUTIONS, WISCONSIN MAY IMPOSE THE
BURDEN OF THE TAX EITHER UPON THE CORPORATION OR UPON THE STOCKHOLDERS
WHO DERIVE THE ULTIMATE BENEFIT FROM THE CORPORATION'S WISCONSIN
ACTIVITIES.  PERSONAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE STATE OF THE STOCKHOLDER
TAXPAYERS IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEVY OF A TAX TAKEN
OUT OF SO MUCH OF THE CORPORATION'S WISCONSIN EARNINGS AS IS
DISTRIBUTED TO THEM.  A STATE MAY TAX SUCH PART OF THE INCOME OF A NON
RESIDENT AS IS FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE EITHER TO PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE
STATE OR TO EVENTS OR TRANSACTIONS WHICH, OCCURRING THERE, ARE SUBJECT
TO STATE REGULATION AND WHICH ARE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE
AND ENTITLED TO THE NUMEROUS OTHER BENEFITS WHICH IT CONFERS.  COMPARE
SHAFFER V. CARTER, SUPRA, AND TRAVIS V. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO., 252 U.S.
60, WITH LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, SUPRA, AND NEW YORK EX REL.
COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308.  AND THE PRIVILEGE OF RECEIVING DIVIDENDS
DERIVED FROM CORPORATE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE CAN HAVE NO GREATER
IMMUNITY THAN THE PRIVILEGE OF RECEIVING ANY OTHER INCOME FROM SOURCES
LOCATED THERE. 

WE THINK THAT WISCONSIN MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX THE WISCONSIN
EARNINGS DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS TO THE STOCKHOLDERS.  IT HAS AFFORDED
PROTECTION AND BENEFITS TO APPELLANTS' CORPORATE ACTIVITIES AND
TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE STATE.  THESE ACTIVITIES HAVE GIVEN RISE TO THE
DIVIDEND INCOME OF APPELLANTS' STOCKHOLDERS AND THIS INCOME FAIRLY
MEASURES THE BENEFITS THEY HAVE DERIVED FROM THESE WISCONSIN
ACTIVITIES.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION HERE THAT THE FORMULA OF
APPORTIONMENT DOES NOT FAIRLY REFLECT THE PROPER PROPORTION OF
APPELLANTS' EARNINGS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR WISCONSIN ACTIVITIES AND
TRANSACTIONS.  WISCONSIN MAY IMPOSE A MEASURE OF CONTROL UPON THE
CORPORATION THERE WITH RESPECT TO ITS WITHDRAWAL OF ITS EARNINGS FROM
THE STATE, AND ALSO MAY, FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE
STATE AND OF ITS CITIZENS, REGULATE TO SOME EXTENT THE DECLARATION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION, CERTAINLY WITH
RESPECT TO ITS WISCONSIN EARNINGS.  SEE, E.G., JUDGE CARDOZO IN GERMAN
AMERICAN COFFEE CO. V. DIEHL, 216 N.Y. 57, 109 N.E. 875; NEW YORK STOCK
CORPORATION LAW, SEC. 114.  THE EARNINGS IN WISCONSIN, THEIR WITHDRAWAL
FROM WISCONSIN AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION IN THE FORM OF DIVIDENDS HAVE
RESULTED IN THE RECEIPT OF INCOME BY THE STOCKHOLDER-TAXPAYERS AND IT
IS WISCONSIN'S RELATION TO ALL WHICH PERMITS IT TO LEVY THE TAX.  IT
MAY CONDITION THE PRIVILEGE OF EARNING AND DISPOSING OF THE WISCONSIN
EARNINGS UPON THE PAYMENT OF A TAX MEASURED BY AND COLLECTED FROM THE
EARNINGS TO BE DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS.  WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO.,
SUPRA. 

THE FACTS THAT WISCONSIN CANNOT PREVENT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE
EARNINGS FROM THE STATE OR THE DECLARATION OF THE DIVIDENDS, IF THEY BE
THE FACTS, HAVE NO BEARING ON ITS RIGHT TO MEASURE, IN TERMS OF TAXES,
BOTH THE BENEFITS WHICH IT HAS CONFERRED ON THE STOCKHOLDERS IN THEIR
RELATIONS WITH THE STATE, AND THE ACTIVITIES OR TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE
WITHIN THE REACH OF ITS REGULATORY POWER.  EQUITABLE LIFE SOCIETY V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 238 U.S. 143, 147; CF. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES DISSENTING IN
COMPANIA DE TABACOS V. COLLECTOR, 275 U.S. 87, 99, 100. 

THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF WISCONSIN EARNINGS WAS EFFECTED BY THE
EXERCISE OUTSIDE WISCONSIN OF THE POWER TO DECLARE DIVIDENDS DOES NOT
DEPRIVE IT OF ITS POWER TO TAKE TOLL FROM THE INCOME EARNED THERE UPON
ITS DISTRIBUTION TO THE STOCKHOLDERS.  SEE BULLEN V. WISCONSIN, 240
U.S. 625; CURRY V. MCCANLESS, SUPRA, 366-370 AND CASES CITED; GRAVES V.
ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383; STATE TAX COMMISSION V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174,
180.  AND THE FACT THAT THE STOCKHOLDER-TAXPAYERS NEVER ENTER WISCONSIN
AND ARE NOT REPRESENTED IN THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE  FN2  CANNOT
DEPRIVE IT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO TAX.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT THAT
RESIDENCE WITHIN A STATE OR COUNTY IS A SINE QUA NON OF THE POWER TO
TAX.  CF. COOK V. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47.  SO LONG AS THE EARNINGS ACTUALLY
ARISE THERE, AND THEIR WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATE AND ULTIMATE
DISTRIBUTION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO STOCKHOLDERS ARE SUBJECT TO SOME
STATE CONTROL, THE CONDITIONS OF STATE POWER TO TAX ARE SATISFIED, SEE
SHAFFER V. CARTER, SUPRA, 55; STATE TAX COMMISSION V. ALDRICH, SUPRA;
COMPARE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 429, EVEN THOUGH SOME
PRACTICALLY EFFECTIVE DEVICE BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE STATE
TO COLLECT ITS TAX - HERE BY IMPOSING ON THE CORPORATION THE DUTY TO
WITHHOLD THE TAX ON SO MUCH OF THE EARNINGS WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATE AS
MAY BE DISTRIBUTED IN DIVIDENDS.  IMPOSITION OF THIS REQUIREMENT ON THE
CORPORATION TRANSGRESSES NO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  NELSON V.
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359, 364; NELSON V. MONTGOMERY WARD &
CO., 312 U.S. 373. 

APPELLANTS PRESS WITH VIGOR, AS CONTROLLING DECISION HERE, THE DENIAL
OF THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX IN CONNECTICUT GENERAL INS. CO. V. JOHNSON,
SUPRA.  IN THAT CASE CALIFORNIA SOUGHT TO LEVY A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS
DERIVED FROM CONTRACTS MADE AND TO BE PERFORMED IN CONNECTICUT BY A
CONNECTICUT CORPORATION DOING OTHER BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.  BUT AS WE
SAID OF THE JOHNSON CASE IN THE PENNEY CASE, SUPRA, 446:  "IN THE
PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED BY THE RECORD IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TAX
NEITHER IN ITS MEASURE NOR IN ITS INCIDENCE WAS RELATED TO CALIFORNIA
TRANSACTIONS.  HERE, ON THE CONTRARY, THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX AS WELL
AS ITS MEASURE IS TIED TO THE EARNINGS WHICH THE STATE OF WISCONSIN HAS
MADE POSSIBLE,  ...  " AND BOTH THE EARNINGS AND THEIR DISPOSITION ARE
SUBJECT TO STATE CONTROL AND HENCE ITS POWER TO TAX. 

IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED ONCE AGAIN THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES
NOT IN TERMS OR IN EFFECT PROHIBIT UNWISE TAXES, MERELY BECAUSE THEY
ARE UNWISE, OR UNFAIR OR BURDENSOME TAXES, MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE
UNFAIR OR BURDENSOME.  THE WISDOM OR FAIRNESS OF THE TAX BEFORE US ARE
NOT MATTERS SUBJECT TO OUR CONTROL OR REVISION.  WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED
WITH THE POWER OF THE STATE TO LAY THE TAX.  THE POWER TO TAX "IS AN
INCIDENT OF SOVEREIGNTY, AND IS COEXTENSIVE WITH THAT TO WHICH IT IS AN
INCIDENT.  ALL SUBJECTS OVER WHICH THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF A STATE
EXTENDS, ARE OBJECTS OF TAXATION; ...  "  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA,
429; CURRY V. MCCANLESS, SUPRA, 366. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT APPELLANTS' STOCKHOLDERS CAN HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTION TO THE WITHHOLDING BY WISCONSIN OF A TAX MEASURED BY THEIR
DIVIDENDS DISTRIBUTED FROM WISCONSIN EARNINGS. 

APPELLANTS DO NOT DENY THAT THE DIVIDENDS ARE DERIVED FROM EARNINGS
FROM WITHIN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, BUT IT IS URGED THAT SOME OF THEM
AT LEAST WERE PAID FROM CORPORATE SURPLUS EARNED AND SET ASIDE IN YEARS
BEFORE THE TAXING STATUTE WAS ENACTED.  BUT SINCE THE TAXABLE EVENT,
THE DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS PAID FROM EARNINGS, AND THE DEDUCTION OF
THE TAX FROM THEM OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAXING
STATUTE, NO QUESTION OF ITS RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IS INVOLVED. 

THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT, THE HARVESTER COMPANY, THAT THE FORMULA
FOR ASSESSING THE TAX IS NOT ONE AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE IS NOT OPEN
TO CONSIDERATION HERE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED THE STATUTE AND BY ITS CONSTRUCTION WE ARE BOUND.  MEYER V.
WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298 AND DAVIS V. WALLACE, 257 U.S. 478, ON
WHICH APPELLANT RELIES, WERE CASES COMING HERE FROM THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS, IN WHICH THIS COURT WAS REQUIRED TO PLACE ITS OWN CONSTRUCTION
ON A STATE STATUTE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DEFINITIVELY CONSTRUED BY THE
STATE COURTS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE STATUTE WAS RE-ENACTED BY SEC. 3 OF CH. 309 OF WIS. LAWS OF
1937; SEC. 1 OF CH. 198 OF WIS. LAWS OF 1939; SEC. 3 OF CH. 63 OF WIS.
LAWS OF 1941; AND SEC. 2 OF CH. 367 OF WIS. LAWS OF 1943. 

FN2  THE WISCONSIN PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS OR FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, OR PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN
ON THEM WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING BURDEN ON RESIDENTS OR DOMESTIC
CORPORATIONS.  HENCE THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE "LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS
NOT LIKELY TO BE SUBJECTED TO THOSE POLITICAL RESTRAINTS WHICH ARE
NORMALLY EXERTED ON LEGISLATION WHERE IT AFFECTS ADVERSELY SOME
INTERESTS WITHIN THE STATE."  SEE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 184-5, N. 2 AND CASES CITED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

THE FACTS OF ONE OF THESE CASES WILL MAKE CLEAR THE GROUNDS UPON
WHICH I DISSENT. 

THE INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY IS INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF
NEW JERSEY.  ITS HEAD BUSINESS OFFICE IS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.  IT HAS
QUALIFIED AND HAS BEEN ADMITTED TO DO BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN AND IN
EVERY STATE IN THE UNION EXCEPT NEVADA.  IT HAS SALES BRANCHES AND
MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN WISCONSIN, AND IN MANY OTHER STATES.  PROCEEDS
OF SALES AND RECEIPTS FROM OPERATIONS IN WISCONSIN AND IN EVERY OTHER
STATE ARE SENT TO THE CORPORATION TREASURY IN CHICAGO AND COMMINGLED IN
GENERAL FUNDS WITHOUT SEGREGATION OR EARMARKING AS TO STATE OF ORIGIN. 

MORE THAN 32,000 STOCKHOLDERS ARE OWNERS OF THIS ENTERPRISE.  THEY
ARE DOMICILED IN EVERY STATE OF THE UNION, LESS THAN 2 PER CENT OF THEM
IN WISCONSIN.  UNDER THE CORPORATION'S CHARTER AND THE APPLICABLE LAW
OF NEW JERSEY THE STOCKHOLDERS MAY BE PAID DIVIDENDS ONLY FROM ITS
SURPLUS OR NET PROFITS.  EVERY CORPORATE ACT CONNECTED WITH PAYMENT OF
DIVIDENDS TAKES PLACE IN CHICAGO.  THERE THE DIRECTORS MEET TO DECLARE
THEM, THERE THE CHECKS ARE DRAWN AND MAILED.  THEY ARE PAID OUT OF THE
CORPORATION'S GENERAL FUNDS ON DEPOSIT IN CHICAGO OR NEW YORK. 

IN 1935 WISCONSIN ENACTED A "PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX."  IT PROVIDES,
WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL: 

"SECTION 3.  PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX.  (1) FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
DECLARING AND RECEIVING DIVIDENDS, OUT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY
LOCATED AND BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN THIS STATE, THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED
A TAX EQUAL TO 3 PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DIVIDENDS DECLARED AND
PAID BY ALL CORPORATIONS (FOREIGN AND LOCAL).  ...  SUCH TAX SHALL BE
DEDUCTED AND WITHHELD FROM SUCH DIVIDENDS PAYABLE TO RESIDENTS AND
NONRESIDENTS BY THE PAYOR CORPORATION. 

     .         .         .        .         . 

"(3)  EVERY SUCH CORPORATION HEREBY MADE LIABLE FOR SUCH TAX, SHALL
DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAX FROM THE DIVIDENDS SO DECLARED. 

"(4)  IN THE CASE OF CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN AND WITHOUT
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, SUCH TAX SHALL APPLY ONLY TO DIVIDENDS DECLARED
AND PAID OUT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS TRANSACTED AND PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.  ...  "  WIS. STAT. (1941) SEC.
71.60. 

UNDER THIS LAST PROVISION THE STATE BY FORMULA NOT NOW IMPORTANT
APPORTIONS AMONG THE STATES THE SURPLUS FROM WHICH DIVIDENDS MAY BE
PAID AND THUS DETERMINES A PROPORTION OF THE DIVIDEND ATTRIBUTABLE TO
EARNINGS IN WISCONSIN.  AS APPLIED AND SUSTAINED IN THIS CASE, THE
SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THIS:  WISCONSIN SAYS IT MAY TAX 32,000
STOCKHOLDERS, 98 PER CENT OF WHOM RESIDE IN OTHER STATES.  IT TAXES
THEM WHEN AND BECAUSE THEY RECEIVE A DIVIDEND FROM A CORPORATION NOT IN
ITS INTERNAL AFFAIRS SUBJECT TO ITS LAWS, BY ACTS NOT ONE OF WHICH IS
PERFORMED WITHIN ITS BORDERS. 

AFTER THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN HELD THIS TAX INVALID IT WAS
REINSTATED BY THIS COURT.  WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435. 
THIS WAS DONE ON THE THEORY THAT THE TAX WAS NOT WHAT WISCONSIN CALLED
IT BUT WAS IN SUBSTANCE AN INCOME TAX ON THE CORPORATION, DEFERRED
UNTIL THE INCOME WAS DISTRIBUTED AND MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE
DISTRIBUTION.  AS SO INTERPRETED, IT WAS THE FEDERAL UNDISTRIBUTED
PROFITS TAX IN REVERSE; IT WAS A DISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX.  BUT THE
WISCONSIN COURT HAS RESPECTFULLY BUT FIRMLY INSISTED THAT IT KNOWS WHOM
WISCONSIN IS TAXING AND WHY.  IT SAYS THIS IS NOT AN INCOME TAX, THAT
IT IS NO TAX ON THE CORPORATION, BUT IS A TAX ON THE STOCKHOLDER WHEN
AND BECAUSE HE RECEIVES A DIVIDEND. 

I THINK THE PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THIS FAR-REACHING TAX DECIDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS JUST WHAT
THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE AND SUPREME COURT SAY IT IS.  IF WE DO, THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER A STATE MAY TAX NONRESIDENT STOCKHOLDERS FOR
RECEIVING FROM A FOREIGN CORPORATION A DIVIDEND FROM ITS SURPLUS OR
UNDIVIDED PROFITS MERELY BECAUSE SOME TIME IN THE PAST A PORTION OF THE
SURPLUS WAS EARNED IN THE STATE. 

WE MUST PUT OUT OF CONSIDERATION ENTIRELY REASONING BY WHICH WE
SUSTAIN STATE TAXATION OF INCOME OF THE CORPORATION.  THESE DIVIDENDS
ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCOME OF THE CORPORATION WITHIN ANY
LEGAL OR ACCOUNTING DEFINITION.  THESE SURPLUS FUNDS CONSTITUTED INCOME
ONCE - AT THE MOMENT OF RECEIPT - AND MAY BE COUNTED AS INCOME FOR ANY
PERIOD WHICH INCLUDES TIME OF RECEIPT.  BUT ONCE RECEIVED, THEY BECAME
CAPITAL FUNDS IN THE SENSE THAT EARNED SURPLUS BECOMES CAPITAL.  WHEN
THEY WERE DISTRIBUTED THEY WERE NOT INCOME OF THE CORPORATION.  THEY
WERE ITS SURPLUS CAPITAL FUNDS.  NOT EVEN THE POWER OF THIS COURT CAN
MAKE INCOME OF OUTGO.  TO SPEAK OF "A TAX ON CORPORATE INCOME THAT IS
PAID OUT" IS AS SELF-CONTRADICTORY AS TO SPEAK OF ROUND SQUARES. 

THESE DIVIDENDS OF COURSE ARE INCOME TO THE STOCKHOLDER, AND ANY
STATE WITH JURISDICTION TO TAX HIM MAY TAX THEM AS SUCH.  BUT I AM
UNABLE TO AGREE THAT HAVING "AFFORDED PROTECTION AND BENEFITS" TO A
CORPORATION GIVES JURISDICTION TO TAX THE INCOMES OF ALL ITS
STOCKHOLDERS.  NOR DO I THINK THAT BECAUSE THE STATE HAS ONCE PERMITTED
THE CORPORATION TO DO BUSINESS AND MAKE EARNINGS IN THE STATE ITS
TAXING POWER FOLLOWS THOSE EARNINGS INTO THE HANDS OF THIRD PERSONS TO
WHOM THEY MAY BE PAID.  A DIVIDEND WHEN DECLARED BECOMES A DEBT OF THE
CORPORATION, ENFORCEABLE AS ANY OTHER DEBT.  IF THERE IS POWER IN
WISCONSIN, BECAUSE FUNDS WERE EARNED THERE, TO TAX THE RECEIPT OF A
DIVIDEND, THERE IS NO REASON WHY IT SHOULD NOT ALSO HAVE POWER TO TAX
THE RECIPIENTS OF CORPORATE FUNDS AS WAGES, SALARIES, OR AS PAYMENT OF
ANY OTHER OBLIGATION. 

MOREOVER, THE COURT ITSELF APPARENTLY FEELS OBLIGED TO ABANDON THE
INCOME-TAX-ON-THE-CORPORATION THEORY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE OBJECTION OF
RETROACTIVITY.  IN CONSIDERING THIS ASPECT OF THE TAX IT SHIFTS TO A
"TAXABLE EVENT" THEORY WHICH PLACES THE EVENT AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF
THE STATUTE. 

I ALSO FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT THAT THERE IS NO
"CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE EITHER TO THE STATE'S DISTRIBUTING THE BURDEN
OF THE TAX RATABLY AMONG THE STOCKHOLDERS ...  OR TO THE STATE'S
IMPOSING ON THE CORPORATION THE DUTY OF ACTING AS ITS AGENT FOR THE
COLLECTION OF THE TAX.  ...  "  THE RELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT CLASSES
OF STOCKHOLDERS IS FIXED BY THE CORPORATE CHARTER.  IF THIS IS A TAX ON
THE CORPORATION, IT IS CLEAR THAT ITS BURDEN FALLS UPON THE EQUITY
STOCKHOLDERS AND UPON THEM ALONE.  I DO NOT THINK THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO PROVIDE THAT THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS OF A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DESPITE PROVISIONS OF ITS
CHARTER, SHOULD ASSUME A PART OF THE EQUITY BURDEN. 

AS SUPPORTING THIS TAX, THE OPINION OF THE COURT SAYS THAT WISCONSIN
MAY IMPOSE UPON THE CORPORATION "A MEASURE OF CONTROL  ...  WITH
RESPECT TO ITS WITHDRAWAL" OF THESE EARNINGS, AND THAT THEIR "ULTIMATE
DISTRIBUTION  ...  TO STOCKHOLDERS" IS "SUBJECT TO SOME STATE
CONTROL."  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND TO WHAT REFERENCE IS MADE.  THESE
EARNINGS LAWFULLY HAD BEEN ADDED TO SURPLUS OF A NEW JERSEY
CORPORATION, THEY WERE REPRESENTED BY FUNDS LAWFULLY TRANSFERRED TO
CHICAGO OR NEW YORK.  FROM THEM THE CORPORATION MADE THE DISTRIBUTION. 
WHAT CONTROL WISCONSIN HAD OVER THESE FUNDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I DO
NOT SEE. 

THE ACT IN QUESTION DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE ONE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LOCAL CREDITORS AGAINST THE CORPORATION'S ILLEGAL PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS
AS WAS THE ACT DEALT WITH BY JUDGE CARDOZO IN GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE
CO. V. DIEHL, 216 N.Y. 57, 109 N.E. 875.  THIS ACT ALTERS THE PURELY
INTERNAL RELATIONS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES OF STOCKHOLDERS WITHOUT IN THE
LEAST AFFECTING THEIR RELATION TO CREDITORS. 

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCILE THE TAXABLE-EVENT THEORY WITH THE
BENEFIT THEORY FOR SUPPORTING THIS TAX.  THE TAXABLE EVENT CLEARLY IS
THE PAYMENT OF THE DIVIDEND.  THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT
DERIVED FROM WISCONSIN LAW.  THE ABILITY TO DO SO DOES NOT DEPEND ON
WISCONSIN EARNINGS.  THE EXISTENCE OF EARNINGS FOR THE PERIOD, OR OF AN
ACCUMULATED SURPLUS, FROM WISCONSIN EARNINGS ALONE WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE
SUCH A DIVIDEND.  THAT WOULD DEPEND ON NET ACCUMULATIONS FROM ALL
SOURCES AND SURPLUS FROM WISCONSIN MIGHT BE NEUTRALIZED BY LOSSES FROM
OPERATIONS ELSEWHERE.  IN SUCH A CASE IT IS CLEAR THIS STATUTE WOULD
NOT EVEN PURPORT TO TAX, ALTHOUGH WISCONSIN HAD EXTENDED EXACTLY THE
SAME PROTECTION TO THE OPERATIONS WITHIN THE STATE AS OTHERWISE. 
MOREOVER, IF EARNINGS WERE HAD IN WISCONSIN AND THERE WERE NET EARNINGS
OVERALL BUT THE CORPORATION SHOULD DECIDE TO ACCUMULATE THEM, THE
STATUTE WOULD NOT PURPORT TO LAY THE WISCONSIN TAX.  THESE FACTS MAKE
CLEAR THAT WISCONSIN IS DOING WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SAID
IT WAS DOING.  IT LAYS A TAX UPON THE STOCKHOLDER'S DIVIDEND.  IT DOES
NOT TAX THE INCOME OF THE CORPORATION. 

I DO NOT SEE THAT THE WAY TO TAX THE DIVIDENDS OF NON-RESIDENT
STOCKHOLDERS CAN BE BRIDGED BY "SOME PRACTICALLY EFFECTIVE DEVICE"
NECESSARY "IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE STATE TO COLLECT ITS TAX - HERE BY
IMPOSING ON THE CORPORATION THE DUTY TO WITHHOLD THE TAX."  DO WE MEAN
THAT THE STATE MAY EMPOWER OR OBLIGATE A FOREIGN CORPORATION TO COLLECT
FOR IT TAXES IT IS WITHOUT POWER TO COLLECT ITSELF?  THE PHYSICAL POWER
TO GET THE MONEY DOES NOT SEEM TO ME A TEST OF THE RIGHT TO TAX.  MIGHT
DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT EVEN IN TAXATION.  TO HOLD THAT WHAT THE USE OF
OFFICIAL AUTHORITY MAY GET THE STATE MAY KEEP, AND THAT IF IT CANNOT
GET HOLD OF A NONRESIDENT STOCKHOLDER IT MAY HOLD THE COMPANY AS
HOSTAGE FOR HIM, IS STRANGE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE TO ME.    WHATEVER
RIGHTS WISCONSIN HAS TO REACH BEYOND ITS BORDERS AND TAX NONRESIDENTS
EVERY OTHER STATE HAS ALSO.  ONE WHO PUTS HIS SAVINGS TO WORK IN AN
ENTERPRISE OF NATIONAL SCOPE MAY BE SUBJECTED TO ANY NUMBER OF STATE
TAXES ON HIS DIVIDENDS UP TO FORTY-EIGHT.  ANY NUMBER UP TO FORTY-SEVEN
OF THEM MAY BE LEVIED BY STATES IN WHICH HE NEVER LIVED, NEVER WENT,
DID NO INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS, AND HAS NO VOTE.  REPRESENTATION IS THE
ORDINARY GUARANTY OF FAIRNESS IN TAXATION. 

I DO NOT THINK ANY FACT IN THIS CASE SHOWS JURISDICTION IN WISCONSIN
TO LAY A TAX ON A PRIVILEGE SHE DOES NOT GRANT AND COULD NOT DENY,
WHICH IS EXERCISED WHOLLY OUTSIDE OF HER BORDERS AND BY THOSE WHO ARE
NOT HER CITIZENS OR HER CORPORATE CREATURES.  I SEE NO FOUNDATION FOR
THE TAX WISCONSIN HAS LAID AND NO BETTER FOUNDATION FOR THE SUBSTITUTE
TAX THIS COURT HAS LAID.  I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS BELOW. 
..END :





DE CASTRO V. BOARD OF COMM'RS, 322 U.S. 451 


NO. 349.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1944.  - 136 F.2D
419, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ON REVIEW BY THE FEDERAL COURTS, A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF PUERTO RICO ON A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW WILL BE REJECTED ONLY ON A
CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE RULE APPLIED BY THE INSULAR COURT DOES VIOLENCE
TO RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL LAW OR ESTABLISHED PRACTICES OF THE
LOCAL COMMUNITY.  DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, 261 U.S. 102, FOLLOWED.  PP. 455
456. 

2.  THE RULING IN BONET V. TEXAS COMPANY, 308 U.S. 463, THAT TO
JUSTIFY REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO ON A
MATTER OF LOCAL LAW, "THE ERROR MUST BE CLEAR OR MANIFEST; THE
INTERPRETATION MUST BE INESCAPABLY WRONG," DOES NOT WARRANT SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF APPEALS FROM THE INSULAR COURT BUT IMPOSES ON THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND ON THIS COURT THE DUTY TO EXAMINE AND
APPRAISE THE LOCAL LAW IN ITS SETTING, WITH THE SYMPATHETIC DISPOSITION
TO SAFEGUARD IN MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN THE ADAPTABILITY OF THE LAW TO
LOCAL PRACTICES AND NEEDS.  P. 458. 

3.  THE DEFERENCE DUE BY THE FEDERAL COURTS ON REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO TO THAT COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF
MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN IS DUE LIKEWISE BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR PUERTO RICO IN CASES THERE PENDING AND BY THE FEDERAL COURTS ON
APPEALS THEREFROM.  P. 459. 

4.  THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO THAT, UNDER THE
APPLICABLE LOCAL LEGISLATION PROPERLY CONSTRUED, THE TERM OF OFFICE OF
THE CITY MANAGER OF SAN JUAN IS FOR "FOUR YEARS, PROVIDED THAT DURING
THE SAME HE OBSERVE GOOD BEHAVIOR" WAS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND MUST
BE SUSTAINED ON REVIEW.  P. 464. 

DE CASTRO V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SAN JUAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 757, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO STAYING EXECUTION OF A PRIOR JUDGMENT
WHICH ORDERED REINSTATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER IN A LOCAL PUBLIC
OFFICE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE THE PETITION URGED AS A GROUND FOR CERTIORARI, WHICH
MOVED US TO GRANT IT, THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW,
AS IN A COMPANION CASE, MARIO MERCADO E HIJOS V. COMMINS, POST, P. 465,
"PRACTICALLY CLOSES THE DOORS OF THE APPELLATE COURT BELOW" TO APPEALS
WHICH THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES ALLOW TO PUERTO RICAN LITIGANTS
IN THE INSULAR COURTS AND "DISCRIMINATES IN FAVOR OF THE FORTUNATE
PERSONS" WHO, THROUGH DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, CAN TAKE THEIR CASES TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR PUERTO RICO,  FN1  INSTEAD OF TO
THE INSULAR COURTS. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING BY PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF
RESPONDENT, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS GOVERNING THE CITY OF SAN JUAN,
IN REMOVING PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER TO WHICH THE
BOARD HAD APPOINTED HIM.  THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN SUSTAINED THE
BOARD.  ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO REVERSED THE INSULAR
DISTRICT COURT AND DIRECTED PETITIONER'S REINSTATEMENT.  57 P.R. 149. 
ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT UNDER 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 225, THAT COURT AFFIRMED, 116 F.2D 806, AND THIS COURT DENIED
CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 614. 

ON THE REMAND THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, ON MOTION OF
RESPONDENT, ENTERED JUDGMENT STAYING EXECUTION OF ITS FIRST JUDGMENT
INSOFAR AS IT ORDERED PETITIONER'S REINSTATEMENT, ON THE GROUND THAT
PETITIONER'S TERM OF OFFICE HAD EXPIRED IN FEBRUARY, 1941, AFTER THE
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THE FIRST APPEAL.  59 D.P.R.
676(SPANISH EDITION).  CONSTRUING THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF PUERTO
RICO IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THEM BY PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND POLITICAL PARTIES OF THE ISLAND, AND OTHER MATTERS OF
WHICH IT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE, THE INSULAR COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT "THE TENURE OF OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER  ...  IS THAT OF FOUR
YEARS, PROVIDED THAT DURING THE SAME HE OBSERVE GOOD BEHAVIOR."  ON
APPEAL FROM THIS JUDGMENT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 136
F.2D 419.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 757, FOR THE REASON ALREADY
STATED AND BECAUSE SOME OBSERVATIONS IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HAVE RAISED SERIOUS QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
APPROPRIATE RULE GOVERNING DECISION OF CASES INVOLVING LOCAL LAWS,
BROUGHT FROM THE INSULAR COURTS OF PUERTO RICO FOR REVIEW BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT AND BY THIS COURT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF PUERTO RICO, POINTED OUT THAT SEC. 21 OF ACT NO. 99 OF 1931, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN, THE CAPITAL OF
PUERTO RICO, PROVIDED THAT THE CITY MANAGER "SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CREATED BY THIS ACT AND SHALL HOLD OFFICE DURING
GOOD CONDUCT."  IT SAID, "IF WE WERE FREE TO TAKE A WHOLLY INDEPENDENT
VIEW OF THE POINT AT ISSUE WE WOULD BE INCLINED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
MEANING OF SEC. 21 IS CLEAR, AND THAT THE COURT BELOW WENT BEYOND THE
PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF INTERPRETATION IN READING THE CLAUSE 'AND SHALL
HOLD OFFICE DURING GOOD CONDUCT' AS MEANING THAT 'THE TENURE OF OFFICE
OF THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CAPITAL IS THAT OF FOUR YEARS, PROVIDED THAT
DURING THE SAME HE OBSERVE GOOD BEHAVIOR.'"  BUT IT FELT CONSTRAINED TO
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE PUERTO RICAN TRIBUNAL BY OUR DECISION AND
OPINION IN BONET V. TEXAS COMPANY, 308 U.S. 463, 471. 

IN THAT CASE, IN REVERSING A DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WHICH HAD REVERSED THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO ON A POINT OF LOCAL
LAW, WE SAID, "TO JUSTIFY REVERSAL IN SUCH CASES, THE ERROR MUST BE
CLEAR OR MANIFEST; THE INTERPRETATION MUST BE INESCAPABLY WRONG; THE
DECISION MUST BE PATENTLY ERRONEOUS."  AND SINCE THE COURT OF APPEALS
IN THIS CASE WAS NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE JUDGMENT NOW UNDER REVIEW
IS "INESCAPABLY WRONG," AND AS IT THOUGHT THAT THIS COURT'S STATEMENT
IN THE BONET CASE HAD REDUCED THE DUTY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO THE
PERFORMANCE OF A MERE MECHANICAL FUNCTION, IT FELT COMPELLED TO AFFIRM
THE JUDGMENT.  IT ALSO SUGGESTED THAT, AS THE RULE OF DECISION
APPLICABLE TO APPEALS FROM THE INSULAR SUPREME COURT, AS ANNOUNCED BY
THE BONET CASE, HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED IN APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR PUERTO RICO, DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF LOCAL LAW
MIGHT BE ESTABLISHED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE
CASE WAS APPEALED FROM THE INSULAR COURT OR FROM THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR PUERTO RICO. 

OUR OPINION IN THE BONET CASE WAS THE CULMINATION OF EFFORTS BY THIS
COURT, BEGINNING WITH GARCIA V. VELA, 216 U.S. 598, 602(1910); LEWERS &
COOKE V. ATCHERLY, 222 U.S. 285, 294(1911); AND KER & CO. V. COUDEN,
223 U.S. 268, 279(1912), TO INSURE A REVIEW BY THE FEDERAL COURTS OF
DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL COURTS OF OUR INSULAR POSSESSIONS IN MATTERS OF
PECULIARLY LOCAL CONCERN WHICH SHOULD LEAVE APPROPRIATE SCOPE FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT BY THOSE COURTS OF A SYSTEM OF LAW WHICH, DIFFERING FROM
OUR OWN IN ITS ORIGINS AND PRINCIPLES, WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE SUITABLE
TO LOCAL CUSTOMS AND NEEDS.  IN THUS INTERPRETING THE FUNCTION OF THE
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS IN REVIEWING DECISIONS OF THE INSULAR
TRIBUNALS WE ONLY FOLLOWED A PRINCIPLE WHICH HAD LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED
FOR APPEALS TO FEDERAL COURTS FROM THE COURTS OF OUR TERRITORIES WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES.  FN2 

FROM THE BEGINNING WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE APPELLATE REVIEW OF
INSULAR CASES WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUPERIMPOSING UPON THE SPANISH LAW OUR COMMON LAW PRECONCEPTIONS,
EXCEPT SO FAR AS THAT LAW MUST YIELD TO THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE
UNITED STATES.  DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, 261 U.S. 102, 105-6.  HENCE WE HAVE
EMPHASIZED AS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF REVIEW IN SUCH CASES THAT THE
MERE FACT THAT OUR OWN SYSTEM OF LAW AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WOULD
CALL FOR THE APPLICATION OF ONE RULE TO A GIVEN SET OF FACTS, DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE ADOPTION OF A DIFFERENT ONE BY THE INSULAR COURTS.  SEE
WAIALUA CO. V. CHRISTIAN, 305 U.S. 91, 109.  IF THE RULE THUS ANNOUNCED
BY THE INSULAR COURT IS ONE WHICH IS NOT PLAINLY INCONSISTENT WITH
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF THE LOCAL LAW, OR IN THEIR ABSENCE IS ONE
ACCEPTED BY THE PRACTICE OF THE COMMUNITY, IT WILL NOT BE REJECTED HERE
MERELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN LOGICAL HARMONY WITH THE RULES WHICH WE
WOULD APPLY TO A COMMUNITY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  IT WILL BE
REJECTED ONLY ON A CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE RULE APPLIED BY THE LOCAL
COURT DOES VIOLENCE TO RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL LAW OR
ESTABLISHED PRACTICES OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. 

THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE, WHICH IS INCAPABLE OF STATEMENT IN A SHORT
FORMULA, HAS BEEN VARIOUSLY PHRASED IN TERMS WHICH IN EVERY CASE MUST
BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR SITUATION TO WHICH THEY
WERE APPLIED.  FN3  BUT THE PRINCIPLE WHICH THESE PHRASES WERE INTENDED
TO EXPRESS HAS NOT BEEN MORE ACCURATELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY STATED THAN
BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN WORDS WHICH ARE COMPLETELY APPLICABLE TO THE
PRESENT CASE, IN DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, SUPRA, 105-6: 

"THIS COURT HAS STATED MANY TIMES THE DEFERENCE DUE TO THE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOCAL COURTS UPON MATTERS OF PURELY LOCAL
CONCERN.  IT IS ENOUGH TO CITE VILLANUEVA V. VILLANUEVA, 239 U.S. 293,
299; NADAL V. MAY, 233 U.S. 447, 454.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN
DEALING WITH THE DECISIONS OF A COURT INHERITING AND BROUGHT UP IN A
DIFFERENT SYSTEM FROM THAT WHICH PREVAILS HERE.  WHEN WE CONTEMPLATE
SUCH A SYSTEM FROM THE OUTSIDE IT SEEMS LIKE A WALL OF STONE, EVERY
PART EVEN WITH ALL THE OTHERS, EXCEPT SO FAR AS OUR OWN LOCAL EDUCATION
MAY LEAD US TO SEE SUBORDINATIONS TO WHICH WE ARE ACCUSTOMED.  BUT TO
ONE BROUGHT UP WITHIN IT, VARYING EMPHASIS, TACIT ASSUMPTIONS,
UNWRITTEN PRACTICES, A THOUSAND INFLUENCES GAINED ONLY FROM LIFE, MAY
GIVE TO THE DIFFERENT PARTS WHOLLY NEW VALUES THAT LOGIC AND GRAMMAR
NEVER COULD HAVE GOT FROM THE BOOKS.  IN THIS CASE A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE
IN THE CAUTION FELT IN DEALING WITH THE INTEREST OF MINORS (BAERGA V.
REGISTRAR OF HUMACAO, 29 P.R. 440, 442), AND A SLIGHT CHANGE OF
EMPHASIS IN THE READING OF STATUTES, EXPLAIN THE DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE
SUPREME COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS." 

BEYOND THE FACT THAT COMMON LAW JUDGES IN SUCH CASES ARE REVIEWING
CIVIL LAW DECISIONS, IT IS OF SIGNIFICANCE THAT CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT
FOR DECISION MUST BE DRAWN FROM AN ENVIRONMENT UNFAMILIAR TO AND FAR
REMOVED FROM THAT IN WHICH THE REVIEWING COURT SITS.  THAT WHICH IS
FAMILIAR AND ACCEPTED IN THE ISLAND FORUM, IN CONSTRUING A STATUTE OR
FORMULATING A RULE OF LAW, MAY APPEAR STRANGE OR UNORTHODOX IN A COMMON
LAW SETTING.  IN BRIDGING GAPS BETWEEN LEGAL SYSTEMS HAVING DIFFERENT
ORIGINS AND HISTORY, AND GOVERNING TWO DIFFERENT POLITIES, THE RULE WE
HAVE ANNOUNCED HAS SPECIAL IMPORTANCE. 

REPEATED ADMONITIONS THAT IN CASES COMING FROM THE PUERTO RICAN
INSULAR COURTS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR REVIEW, WHERE THE CONSTITUTION
OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES WERE NOT INVOLVED, GREAT DEFERENCE
MUST BE PAID TO LOCAL DECISIONS, HAVING FAILED OF THEIR PURPOSE, SEE
BONET V. YABUCOA SUGAR CO., 306 U.S. 505,  FN4  WE RESTATED THEM IN
MORE EMPHATIC FORM IN BONET V. TEXAS COMPANY, SUPRA, 470, IN THE
SENTENCE QUOTED IN THE OPINION BELOW WHICH WE HAVE REPEATED HERE.  IN
ORDER THAT ITS TRUE PURPORT MIGHT NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD WE ACCOMPANIED
THE SENTENCE BY THE STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN DIAZ V.
GONZALEZ, SUPRA, 105-6, WHICH WE HAVE QUOTED, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT
EXPOSITION WE ADDED:  "SUCH JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL (BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS) WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED HERE EVEN THOUGH WE FELT THAT OF
SEVERAL POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WAS THE MOST REASONABLE ONE." 

THUS INTERPRETED AND READ IN ITS CONTEXT THE PRINCIPLE, AS RESTATED
IN THE BONET CASE, THAT TO JUSTIFY REVERSAL BY THE FEDERAL COURTS OF A
DECISION OF AN INSULAR SUPREME COURT IN A MATTER OF LOCAL CONCERN, "THE
ERROR MUST BE CLEAR OR MANIFEST; THE INTERPRETATION MUST BE INESCAPABLY
WRONG," IS NOT A MERE MECHANICAL DEVICE WHICH REQUIRES OR ADMITS, SAVE
IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, OF THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF APPEALS FROM THAT
COURT.  NOR DOES IT MINIMIZE THE IMPORTANCE OR DIGNITY OF THE APPELLATE
FUNCTION IN SUCH CASES.  ON THE CONTRARY, WE THINK THAT IT IMPOSES ON
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ON THIS COURT THE PECULIARLY DELICATE TASK OF
EXAMINING AND APPRAISING THE LOCAL LAW IN ITS SETTING, WITH THE
SYMPATHETIC DISPOSITION TO SAFEGUARD IN MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN THE
ADAPTABILITY OF THE LAW TO LOCAL PRACTICES AND NEEDS.  IT IS ONE WHICH
ORDINARILY CANNOT BE PERFORMED SUMMARILY OR WITHOUT FULL ARGUMENT AND
EXAMINATION OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  BUT IF IN THE LIGHT OF
SUCH AN EXAMINATION IT IS FOUND THAT THE RULE ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL
TRIBUNAL IS AN INTELLIGIBLE ONE, NOT SHOWN TO BE OUT OF HARMONY WITH
LOCAL LAW OR PRACTICE, IT IS NOT TO BE REJECTED BECAUSE WE THINK A
BETTER COULD HAVE BEEN DEVISED OR BECAUSE WE FIND IT OUT OF HARMONY
WITH OUR OWN TRADITIONAL SYSTEM OF LAW AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. 

NOR DOES IT FOLLOW THAT THE DEFERENCE DUE, ON APPEALS FROM THE LOCAL
TRIBUNALS, TO THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN WILL LEAD
TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOCAL LAW DIFFERING FROM THAT DEVELOPED IN
DECISIONS IN APPEALS FROM THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS SITTING IN OUR
INSULAR POSSESSIONS.  IT IS NOT ANY THE LESS THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS IN CASES PENDING IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OR ON APPEAL FROM
IT TO DEFER TO THAT UNDERSTANDING, WHEN IT HAS FOUND EXPRESSION IN THE
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE INSULAR COURTS, NADAL V. MAY, 233 U.S.
447, 454; DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, SUPRA, 105; WAIALUA CO. V. CHRISTIAN,
SUPRA, 109.  ONCE UNDERSTOOD WHAT DEFERENCE IS TO BE PAID, THE PROBLEM
IS COMPARABLE TO THAT PRESENTED WHEN, UPON APPEALS FROM FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS SITTING IN THE STATES, THE FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS ARE
REQUIRED TO FOLLOW STATE LAW UNDER THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64.  SEE WICHITA COMPANY V. CITY BANK, 306 U.S. 103;
HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232. 

THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION THE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF THESE
PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE.  THE ACT OF THE PUERTO
RICAN LEGISLATURE OF MAY 15, 1931, ACT NO. 99 OF 1931, ESTABLISHED A
SPECIAL FORM OF CITY GOVERNMENT FOR THE CAPITAL CITY, SAN JUAN.  FN5
LEGISLATIVE POWERS ARE VESTED IN A BOARD OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS; THE
FIRST COMMISSIONERS WERE TO BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR WITH THE
ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, FOR TERMS OF ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR
AND FIVE YEARS, RESPECTIVELY (SEC. 9), BUT THE COMMISSIONERS SO
APPOINTED WERE TO HOLD OFFICE ONLY UNTIL THE FIRST MONDAY IN JANUARY,
1937, (SEC. 50), AND THEREAFTER THE "BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CREATED BY
THIS ACT" WAS TO BE ELECTED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN 1936 AND
EVERY FOURTH YEAR THEREAFTER (SEC. 50).  FN6  THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE
CITY MANAGER, WHO IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE CITY, "SHALL BE
APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CREATED BY THIS ACT AND SHALL
HOLD OFFICE DURING GOOD CONDUCT" (SEC. 21).  HE "MAY BE REMOVED BY THE
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, FOR JUST CAUSE" AFTER HEARING, AND CAUSES FOR
REMOVAL ARE ENUMERATED (SEC. 22).  FIVE OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS
ARE APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER (SEC. 26), AND AN AUDITOR IS
APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (SEC. 36); THE PROVISIONS AS TO
THEIR TENURE OF OFFICE AND REMOVAL BY THE AGENCY APPOINTING THEM (SECS.
27, 36) ARE IDENTICAL WITH THOSE FOR THE CITY MANAGER,  FN7  SAVE THAT
ONLY AS TO THE CITY MANAGER DOES THE ACT SPECIFY A TENURE OF OFFICE
"DURING GOOD CONDUCT."  OTHER EMPLOYEES, APPOINTED BY THE OFFICERS
UNDER WHOM THEY SERVE, "SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR THE TERM FOR WHICH EACH
OFFICER IS APPOINTED," AND ARE ALSO REMOVABLE FOR CAUSE AFTER HEARING,
THE CAUSES NOT BEING SPECIFIED, HOWEVER (SEC. 39).  NO PROVISION IS
MADE FOR BRINGING SUCH EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE PUERTO RICAN CIVIL SERVICE
ACT, ACT NO. 88 OF 1931, ADOPTED FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF ACT
NO. 99. 

THE PUERTO RICAN SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO HOLD THAT THE PROVISION
THAT THE CITY MANAGER "SHALL HOLD OFFICE DURING GOOD CONDUCT" SO
CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT HE WAS TO HOLD OFFICE FOR LIFE AS TO
PRECLUDE RESORT TO EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE OF LEGISLATIVE INTENTION.  IT
HELD THAT HIS TERM WAS THE SAME AS THAT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WHICH APPOINTED HIM, SO THAT PETITIONER, WHO WAS APPOINTED IN 1937, BY
A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ELECTED FOR FOUR YEARS, HELD OFFICE FOR "FOUR
YEARS PROVIDED THAT DURING THE SAME HE OBSERVE GOOD BEHAVIOR."  FN8  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THESE HOLDINGS WERE SO CLEARLY WRONG AS TO REQUIRE A
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT TO REFUSE TO PAY DEFERENCE TO THE INSULAR
COURT'S DECISION. 

WHILE A PROVISION THAT AN OFFICE BE HELD "DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR" IS
GENERALLY DEEMED INDICATIVE OF AN INTENTION TO CREATE A LIFE TENURE
UNLESS CAUSE FOR REMOVAL ARISES, SEE MATTER OF HENNEN, 13 PET. 230,
259; SMITH V. BRYAN, 100 VA. 199, 203, 40 S.E. 652, 653; CHESLEY V.
COUNCIL OF LUNENBURG, 28 DOMINION LAW REP. 571, 572, IT HAS NOT BEEN
REGARDED, EVEN WHERE TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW PREVAIL,
AS A RIGID FORMULA PRECLUDING ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION.  FN9 AND A TENURE
FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR HAS NOT BEEN REGARDED AS A
CONTRADICTION IN TERMS BY AMERICAN COURTS.  FN10  IN SHURTLEFF V.
UNITED STATES, 189 U.S. 311, 316, THIS COURT RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED THE
STRONG PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE CREATION OF A LIFE TENURE IN A PUBLIC
OFFICE UNDER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  TO HOLD THAT THE CITY MANAGER WAS
APPOINTED FOR LIFE WOULD, ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF SEC. 39, GIVE TO
ALL EMPLOYEES APPOINTED BY HIM A TENURE FOR HIS LIFE.  AN INTENTION TO
CREATE SUCH AN ESTATE PUR AUTRE VIE IN A PUBLIC OFFICE WOULD AT LEAST
BE SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THEY ARE TO BE DEEMED
APPOINTED FOR THEIR OWN LIVES, THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT ON THE DEATH OR
RESIGNATION OF ONE CITY MANAGER, HIS SUCCESSOR WOULD BE UNABLE TO
SELECT EVEN HIS MOST IMMEDIATE SUBORDINATES AND A LIFE TENURE WOULD BE
IMPLIED FOR A LARGE GROUP OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES IN DISREGARD OF THE
RULE OF SHURTLEFF V. UNITED STATES. 

MOREOVER THERE IS NO PROVISION THAT THE OTHER MUNICIPAL OFFICERS ARE
TO SERVE DURING GOOD CONDUCT, AND SEC. 39 SEEMS TO ASSUME THAT THEY
SHALL HAVE DEFINED TERMS OF OFFICE.  TO HOLD THAT THEY COULD BE
APPOINTED FOR LIFE WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE RULE OF SHURTLEFF V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WHICH THE INSULAR COURT ACCEPTED AND APPROVED. 
SINCE THE ACT IS SILENT AS TO THEIR TERMS OF OFFICE, THEY CAN
PRESUMABLY BE APPOINTED FOR ANY TERM NOT EXCEEDING THAT OF THE OFFICER
APPOINTING THEM.  THE INTERPRETATION CONTENDED FOR BY PETITIONER WOULD
SEEMINGLY PRODUCE THE RESULT THAT ALL OF THE OTHER CITY OFFICERS, SAVE
THE AUDITOR, AND THE EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES, COULD BE
APPOINTED FOR THE LIFE OF THE CITY MANAGER, UNLESS HE SHOULD, AS THE
PUERTO RICAN COURT ASSUMED HE COULD, DECIDE TO APPOINT THEM FOR A
SHORTER TERM (SEE SECS. 26, 39).  IN THE LATTER CASE APPOINTEES OF
OTHER OFFICIALS, THEMSELVES APPOINTED FOR SHORT TERMS, WOULD
NECESSARILY HAVE A LIKE TENURE OF OFFICE (SEC. 39), WHILE THOSE OF THE
CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE A TENURE FOR HIS LIFE, AND THOSE OF THE AUDITOR
A TENURE OF FOUR YEARS.  SUCH INCONGRUITIES THE PUERTO RICAN COURT
THOUGHT WEIGHED HEAVILY AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT PETITIONER'S TENURE
WAS FOR LIFE.  THIS IS THE MORE SO BECAUSE THE APPOINTEES OF THE CITY
MANAGER AND OF OFFICERS APPOINTED BY HIM INCLUDE MOST OF THE MUNICIPAL
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, NONE OF WHOM ARE SUBJECT TO THE INSULAR CIVIL
SERVICE LAWS, BUT WHO COULD BE APPOINTED FOR PETITIONER'S LIFE SHOULD
PETITIONER'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT PREVAIL. 

IN ADDITION TO CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A HOLDING THE
PUERTO RICAN SUPREME COURT LOOKED TO THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION PLACED
ON THE ACT BY THE POLITICAL PARTIES OF PUERTO RICO, AS SHOWN BY FACTS
OF WHICH IT COULD PROPERLY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE.  IT SAID THAT "THE
POLITICAL PARTIES OF THE ISLAND HAVE ALWAYS CONSTRUED THIS STATUTE IN
THE SENSE THAT THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CAPITAL IS
THAT OF FOUR YEARS."  IT POINTED OUT THAT AT THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD
IN 1936 AND AT THAT HELD IN 1940 EACH OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES
PARTICIPATING PROPOSED A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER,
ALTHOUGH THAT OFFICE DID NOT APPEAR ON THE BALLOT.  IT SAID THAT IT WAS
WELL KNOWN THAT PETITIONER WAS THE CANDIDATE OF THE WINNING PARTY AT
THE 1936 ELECTION AND WAS APPOINTED CITY MANAGER BY THE NEWLY ELECTED
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO REPLACE THE THEN INCUMBENT, AND THAT ANOTHER
WAS THE CANDIDATE OF PETITIONER'S PARTY AT THE 1940 ELECTION, AND WAS
APPOINTED CITY MANAGER BY THE NEWLY ELECTED BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. 
THIS PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION BY THE ELECTORATE AND POLITICAL PARTIES, OF
WHICH PETITIONER WAS HIMSELF THE BENEFICIARY,  FN11  STRONGLY SUPPORTS
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT AS CONFERRING ON THE CITY MANAGER A
TENURE NO LONGER THAN THAT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHICH
APPOINTED HIM. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS AND OF THE PRINCIPLES LONG OBSERVED
BY THIS COURT IN REVIEWING DECISIONS OF THE INSULAR COURTS, WHICH WE
HAVE STATED, WE CANNOT SAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT DEFER TO THE VIEW OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO THAT THE MEANING OF SEC. 21, WHEN EXAMINED
WITH THE RELATED PROVISIONS OF ACT NO. 99, IN THE LIGHT OF THE
PREVAILING PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF IT, IS NOT SO PLAIN AND
UNAMBIGUOUS AS TO PRECLUDE RESORT TO EXTRINSIC AIDS TO INTERPRETATION. 
NOR CAN WE SAY, THAT THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE ACT, TOGETHER
WITH THE STRONG PRESUMPTION AGAINST LIFE TENURES, AND THE PRINCIPLE,
ACCEPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO ON THE AUTHORITY OF
NUMEROUS AMERICAN DECISIONS, THAT AMBIGUITIES SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN
FAVOR OF THE SHORTER TERM OF OFFICE,  FN12  WERE CLEARLY INSUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IT ADOPTED. 

PETITIONER CALLS TO OUR ATTENTION AN OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF PUERTO RICO, DATED JANUARY 30, 1937, STATING THAT "THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE CAPITAL   ...  WERE APPOINTED DURING
GOOD BEHAVIOR" AND THAT THE APPOINTMENTS "PARTICIPATE OF THE NATURE OF
A LIFE TENURE."  HE ALSO REFERS TO CORRESPONDENCE OF THE FIRST CITY
MANAGER WHICH COULD BE TAKEN AS SUPPORTING RESPONDENT'S POSITION AS
MUCH AS IT DOES PETITIONER'S.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THESE WERE
CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, BUT IN ANY
EVENT THEY DO NOT, IN OUR OPINION, COUNTERBALANCE THE WEIGHT RIGHTLY TO
BE GIVEN TO THE DECISION OF THE INSULAR SUPREME COURT AS THE ULTIMATE
INSULAR INTERPRETER OF THE LOCAL LAW.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED BUT DO NOT
FIND IT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS OTHER CONTENTIONS OF LESSER MOMENT, MOST
OF WHICH WERE DEALT WITH IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW,
AND NONE OF WHICH CALL FOR A CONCLUSION DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH IT
REACHED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE 48 U.S.C. SEC. 863. 

FN2  SWEENEY V. LOMME, 22 WALL.  208, 213; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V.
HAMBLY, 154 U.S. 349, 361; FOX V. HAARSTICK, 156 U.S. 674, 679; ARMIJO
V. ARMIJO, 181 U.S. 558, 561; COPPER QUEEN MINING CO. V. BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION, 206 U.S. 474, 479; LEWIS V. HERRERA, 208 U.S. 309, 314;
ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 214 U.S. 359, 361, 363; SANTA FE COUNTY V. COLER,
215 U.S. 296, 305, 307; ALBRIGHT V. SANDOVAL, 216 U.S. 331, 339; TREAT
V. GRAND CANYON RY. CO., 222 U.S. 448, 452; CLASON V. MATKO, 223 U.S.
646, 653; GRAY V. TAYLOR, 227 U.S. 51, 56-57; PHOENIX RY. CO. V.
LANDIS, 231 U.S. 578, 579-580; SANTA FE CENTRAL RY. CO. V. FRIDAY, 232
U.S. 694, 700. 

FN3  GIVEN THE CONDITIONS WHICH, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, CALL FOR THE
ACCEPTANCE HERE OF THE DECISION OF THE LOCAL COURT, THIS COURT HAS SAID
THAT ITS DECREE MUST BE ACCEPTED HERE UNLESS "WE THOUGHT IT CLEARLY
WRONG," SANTA FE CENTRAL RY. CO. V. FRIDAY, 232 U.S. 694, 700, UNLESS
"CONSTRAINED TO THE CONTRARY BY A SENSE OF CLEAR ERROR COMMITTED,"
VILLANUEVA V. VILLANUEVA, 239 U.S. 293, 299, MATOS V. ALONSO HERMANOS,
300 U.S. 429, UNLESS "MANIFEST ERROR BE DISCLOSED," FOX V. HAARSTICK,
156 U.S. 674, 679; ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 214 U.S. 359, 363; SANTA FE
COUNTY V. COLER, 215 U.S. 296, 305; TREAT V. GRAND CANYON RY. CO., 222
U.S. 448, 452; WAIALUA CO. V. CHRISTIAN, 305 U.S. 91, 109, "EXCEPT UPON
AN INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS WRONG," DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, 261
U.S. 102, 105, UNLESS "PLAINLY INCORRECT," PUERTO RICO V. RUBERT
HERMANOS, 315 U.S. 637, 646.  IN OTHER CASES, IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION
OF THE LOCAL COURT, WE HAVE SAID THAT WE WILL ACCORD TO ITS DECISION
"GREAT IF NOT CONTROLLING WEIGHT," LEWIS V. HERRERA, 208 U.S. 309, 314;
OR "GREAT WEIGHT," LEWERS & COOKE V. ATCHERLY, 222 U.S. 285, 294; CF.
CORDOVA V. FOLGUERAS, 227 U.S. 375, 378-9; OR THAT WE WOULD "LEAN
TOWARD THE INTERPRETATION ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL COURT," COPPER QUEEN
MINING CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 206 U.S. 474, 479; ENGLISH V.
ARIZONA, SUPRA, 361; CLASON V. MATKE, 223 U.S. 646, 653; GRAY V.
TAYLOR, 227 U.S. 51, 57; OR THAT WE WERE "NOT DISPOSED TO DISTURB" ITS
CONSTRUCTION, ALBRIGHT V. SANDOVAL, 216 U.S. 331, 339; ARMIJO V.
ARMIJO, 181 U.S. 558, 561; CF. PHOENIX RY. CO. V. LANDIS, 231 U.S. 578,
579-80; AND HAVE SPOKEN OF THE "CAUTION TO BE USED BEFORE OVERRULING"
LOCAL DECISIONS, FERNANDEZ & BROS. V. OJEDA, 266 U.S. 144, 146. 

FN4  SEE ALSO DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, 261 U.S. 102; FERNANDEZ & BROS. V.
OJEDA, 266 U.S. 144; MATOS V. ALONSO HERMANOS, 300 U.S. 429; PUERTO
RICO V. RUBERT HERMANOS, 315 U.S. 637; AND SIMILARLY AS TO REVIEW OF
DECISIONS OF THE HAWAIIAN SUPREME COURT, WAIALUA CO. V. CHRISTIAN, 305
U.S. 91. 

FN5  THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN PUERTO RICO
IS PRESCRIBED BY ACT NO. 53 OF 1928, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A MAYOR TO BE
ELECTED "IN THE SAME MANNER REQUIRED BY THIS ACT FOR MEMBERS OF THE
MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY" (SEC. 29), AND HENCE PRESUMABLY TO SERVE A TERM OF
FOUR YEARS (CF. SEC. 17). 

FN6  BY ACT NO. 10 OF 1937 THE BOARD WAS INCREASED TO NINE, BEGINNING
IN 1941, FOUR COMMISSIONERS TO BE APPOINTED EVERY FOUR YEARS BY THE
GOVERNOR WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE PUERTO RICAN SENATE, AND
FIVE TO BE ELECTED AS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED. 

FN7  IN THE ENGLISH TEXT THE CITY MANAGER IS REMOVABLE FOR
"INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES," THE OFFICERS
APPOINTED BY HIM FOR "INEXCUSABLE IGNORANCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR
DUTIES".  IN THE SPANISH TEXT THE WORD IS "NEGLIGENCIA" IN BOTH CASES. 

FN8  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHAT, UNDER THIS CONSTRUCTION, WAS THE TERM
OF OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER FIRST APPOINTED IN MAY, 1931.  AN
ADMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE THAT THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO SERVE UNTIL JANUARY 1937 WAS REGARDED AS A
SINGLE BODY WITH A FIVE-YEAR TERM, DESPITE THE ANNUAL CHANGES IN ITS
MEMBERSHIP, AND HENCE THE CITY MANAGER, WHOSE TERM OF OFFICE WAS THAT
OF THE BODY APPOINTING HIM, ALSO HAD A TENURE OF SOME SIX AND ONE-HALF
YEARS.  AT LEAST THIS CONFORMS TO WHAT IN FACT OCCURRED. 

FN9  STATE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT A PROVISION FOR TENURE "DURING GOOD
BEHAVIOR" DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE TERMINATION OF THE TENURE BY GOOD FAITH
ABOLITION OF THE OFFICE, SHIRA V. STATE, 187 IND. 441, 119 N.E. 833;
THAT SUCH A PROVISION IS NOT NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH A
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF YEARS FOR WHICH THE OFFICE
CAN BE HELD BUT WILL BE READ AS CREATING A TENURE FOR A TERM OF YEARS
DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR, CALLAGHAN V. TOBIN, 40 TEX. CIV. APP. 441, 448,
90 S.W. 328, 331; CALLAGHAN V. IRVIN, 40 TEX. CIV. APP. 453, 459, 90
S.W. 335, 338; CALLAGHAN V. MCGOWN, 90 S.W. 319, 322(TEX.  CIV.  APP.);
NEUMEYER V. KRAKEL, 110 KY. 624, 640, 62 S.W. 518, 523; BUT CF. STUART
V. ELLSWORTH, 105 ME. 523, 75 A. 59; ROTH V. STATE, 158 IND. 242, 266
8, 63 N.E. 460, 468-9; AND THAT A PROVISION THAT OFFICERS APPOINTED BY
THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL SHALL HOLD OFFICE "DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR OR UNTIL
THEY MAY BE SEVERALLY REMOVED BY THE MAYOR OR BY THREE-FOURTHS VOTE OF
THE COUNCIL  ...  " AUTHORIZES REMOVAL AT WILL BY THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL,
SMITH V. BRYAN, 100 VA. 199, 40 S.E. 652; CF. PEOPLE EX REL. MALONEY V.
DOUGLAS, 195 N.Y. 145, 150, 87 N.E. 1070, 1072.  CONTRA, CHESLEY V.
COUNCIL OF LUNENBURG, 28 DOMINION LAW REP. 571.  AND IN CONSTRUING SUCH
PROVISIONS THE COURTS HAVE ATTRIBUTED WEIGHT TO THE PRACTICAL
CONSTRUCTION PLACED ON THEM BY THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS CONCERNED, KLINK V.
STATE, 207 IND. 628, 633, 194 N.E. 352, 354; SMITH V. BRYAN, SUPRA, AND
TO SUPPOSED ANOMALIES RESULTING FROM A CONTRARY CONSTRUCTION, SMITH V.
BRYAN, SUPRA.    FN10  BRUCE V. FOX, 1 DANA (KY.)  447, 452 ET SEQ.;
SEE CASES CITED SUPRA NOTE 9. 

FN11  THE COURTS BELOW DID NOT CONSIDER, AND THE FACTS BEFORE US DO
NOT ENABLE US TO DECIDE, WHETHER SHOULD PETITIONER HAVE PREVAILED IN
HIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT AS PROVIDING A LIFE TENURE, HE COULD ALSO
ESTABLISH HIS RIGHT TO THE OFFICE OVER THAT OF THE FIRST INCUMBENT,
WHOM HE SUPERSEDED. 

FN12  THE PUERTO RICAN SUPREME COURT CITED AGGELER V. DOMINGUEZ, 217
CAL. 429, 19 P.2D 241; LOWRIE V. BRENNAN, 283 MICH. 63, 276 N.W. 900;
CHAMSKI V. BOARD OF AUDITORS, 288 MICH. 238, 284 N.W. 711; DOBKINS V.
REECE, 17 S.W.2D 81(TEX.  CIV.  APP.); SMITH V. BRYAN, SUPRA, N. 9; 135
A.L.R. 1173, 1175. 
..END :









MERCADO V. COMMINS, 322 U.S. 465 


NO. 497.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1944.  - AFFIRMED. 


ALTHOUGH THE DUTY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND OF THIS COURT TO
EXAMINE AND APPRAISE LOCAL LAW IN CASES BROUGHT FOR REVIEW FROM THE
INSULAR COURTS CAN NOT ORDINARILY BE DISCHARGED SUMMARILY, FULL
ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE HAS NOT DEVELOPED ANY ISSUE OF PUERTO RICAN LAW,
OR ANY QUESTION OF THE DEFERENCE RIGHTLY TO BE PAID TO THE DECISIONS OF
THE HIGHEST COURT OF PUERTO RICO, SO SUBSTANTIAL AS TO PRECLUDE THE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE ENTERED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  P. 471. 

MARIO MERCADO E HIJOS V. COMMINS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 758, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RULE 39(B) OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, EFFECTIVE
SEPTEMBER 20, 1940, AUTHORIZES THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL OR AFFIRMANCE OF
JUDGMENTS APPEALED FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO INVOLVING ONLY
QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW, UNLESS IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD AND
APPELLANT'S REQUIRED "STATEMENT ON APPEAL" THAT THE JUDGMENT APPEALED
FROM "IS 'INESCAPABLY WRONG' OR 'PATENTLY ERRONEOUS' (SANCHO BONET V.
TEXAS CO., 308 U.S. 463(1940))."  IN THIS, AS IN THE COMPANION CASE,
DECASTRO V. BOARD OF COMM'RS OF SAN JUAN, ANTE, P. 451, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI ON A PETITION RAISING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE
APPELLATE REVIEW BY FEDERAL COURTS OF DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO IN MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN.  THE PETITION HERE PRESENTS
FOR DECISION THE QUESTION (1) WHETHER THE APPLICATION OF RULE 39(B)
INVOLVES AN ABDICATION OF THE DUTY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO HEAR AND
DECIDE SUCH APPEALS ON THE MERITS, ON BRIEF AND ARGUMENT, AS ARE OTHER
APPEALS; AND (2) WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE INSULAR SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO IS SO MANIFESTLY CORRECT AS TO MAKE ANY APPEAL FROM IT
NECESSARILY FRIVOLOUS AND THUS WARRANT DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT
A HEARING, ON MERE INSPECTION OF THE FACE OF THE RECORD. 

PETITIONER, AN AGRICULTURAL PARTNERSHIP, BY PETITION IN THE INSULAR
DISTRICT COURT OF PONCE, P.R., SOUGHT RESCISSION OF A SALE OF A
PLANTATION KNOWN AS "INDIOS," MADE BY RESPONDENT COMMINS TO OTHERS OF
THE RESPONDENTS, AS IN VIOLATION AND IN FRAUD OF AN OPTION TO PURCHASE
THE PROPERTY GIVEN BY RESPONDENT COMMINS TO PETITIONER.  AFTER A TRIAL,
THE DISTRICT COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO CONFIRMED
THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  60
D.P.R. 877(SPANISH EDITION).  ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIRST CIRCUIT, UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 225(A), THAT COURT, ON
CONSIDERATION OF THE TYPEWRITTEN RECORD AND APPELLANT'S STATEMENT ON
APPEAL, AND WITHOUT HEARING ARGUMENT AND WITHOUT AN OPINION, AFFIRMED
UNDER ITS RULE 39(B). 

THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT BOTH FOUND THE FACTS AS
FOLLOWS:  IN 1932 RESPONDENT PROCURED A LOAN FROM PETITIONER OF MORE
THAN $40,000, FOR WHICH RESPONDENT COMMINS GAVE PETITIONER FOUR
PROMISSORY NOTES PAYABLE TO "THE HOLDER BY ENDORSEMENT," SECURED BY A
MORTGAGE, NOT SPECIFICALLY NAMING ANY MORTGAGEE, ON RESPONDENT COMMINS'
UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN TWO PLANTATIONS, "INDIOS" AND "JUANITA," THEN
OWNED JOINTLY BY HER AND HER SISTER.  AT THAT TIME PETITIONER WAS A
TENANT OF BOTH PLANTATIONS UNDER LEASE, THAT OF "INDIOS" EXPIRING IN
1937, THAT OF "JUANITA" IN 1938.  THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT STIPULATED THAT
MRS. COMMINS UPON THREE MONTHS' WRITTEN NOTICE MIGHT AT ANY TIME BEFORE
MATURITY PAY THE MORTGAGE CREDITS.  IT ALSO PROVIDED THAT "THE DEBTOR,
AS A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS CONTRACT, AGREES WITH THE
PARTNERSHIP MARIO MERCADO E HIJOS, SO LONG AS THE MORTGAGE CREDIT
HEREIN CONSTITUTED IS NOT PAID, TO GRANT IT PRIORITY TO PURCHASE AND
SELL OR LEASE HER UNDIVIDED JOINT INTEREST IN THE ESTATES 'INDIOS' AND
'JUANITA' UPON THE SAME PRICE AND TERMS" AS THOSE ON WHICH SHE SHOULD
BE WILLING TO SELL OR LEASE TO ANY OTHER PURCHASER OR LESSEE.  IT
FURTHER PROVIDED "TO THIS EFFECT, THE DEBTOR SHALL ADVISE, UNLESS SUCH
MORTGAGE CREDIT IS PAID  ...  OF ANY OFFER OF SALE OR LEASE MADE TO
HER." 

THE FOLLOWING YEAR, 1933, PETITIONER SOLD THE PROMISSORY NOTES TO THE
HEIRS OF JOSE TOUS SOTO, THE TRANSFER BEING EFFECTED BY DELIVERY OF THE
NOTES AND BY A DEED EXECUTED BY PETITIONER WHICH PURPORTED TO ASSIGN TO
THE HEIRS THE "MORTGAGE CREDITS" AND GUARANTEED PAYMENT IN MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS OF THE STIPULATED INTEREST OF 9% DUE ON THE NOTES LESS 3/4
OF 1%, WHICH IT WAS AGREED PETITIONER SHOULD RETAIN FOR ITSELF.  NO
MENTION WAS MADE IN THE DEED OF THE OPTION SECURED TO PETITIONER BY THE
MORTGAGE CONTRACT BUT BOTH OF THE INSULAR COURTS MADE FINDINGS WHICH
PETITIONER CONTENDS ESTABLISH THAT THE OPTION WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE
ASSIGNED, BUT THAT THE RIGHTS UNDER IT WERE TO BE RETAINED BY
PETITIONER.  THREE YEARS LATER, IN 1936, THE INTERESTS OF THE OWNERS IN
THE TWO ESTATES WERE PARTITIONED BETWEEN MRS. COMMINS AND HER SISTER,
MRS. COMMINS RECEIVING THE PLANTATION "INDIOS" BY THE PARTITION DEED IN
WHICH PETITIONER JOINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSENTING TO THE
PARTITION.  THE TRIAL COURT MADE FINDINGS WHICH CAN BE INTERPRETED AS
MEANING THAT ALL THE RESPONDENTS WERE IN FACT AWARE THAT IT WAS THE
UNDERSTANDING OF PETITIONER AND THE TRANSFEREES OF THE MORTGAGE
CREDITORS THAT THE OPTION WAS TO REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER. 

IN FEBRUARY, 1937, MRS. COMMINS GAVE A NEW SHORT TERM MORTGAGE FOR
$45,000 ON "INDIOS" PLANTATION TO RESPONDENT MANUEL FRANCISCO LLUBERAS
PASSARELL.  THE PROCEEDS, TO THE EXTENT OF $41,000, WERE BY HER
DIRECTION USED TO PAY HER MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS, WITH THREE MONTHS'
INTEREST IN ADVANCE, TO THE HEIRS OF JOSE TOUS SOTO, THE TRANSFEREES OF
THE MORTGAGE CREDITS, WHO, ON RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT, CANCELLED THE
MORTGAGE.  IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CANCELLATION MRS. COMMINS SOLD AND
CONVEYED BY DEED THE ESTATE "INDIOS" TO RESPONDENT LLUBERAS PASSARELL
AND HIS SISTERS, WHO ARE ALSO RESPONDENTS.  IT IS THIS DEED WHICH
PETITIONER SEEKS TO CANCEL AS IN VIOLATION OF THE OPTION. 

IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE PONCE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DENIED
THE PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF THE CONVEYANCE, THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO RESTED ITS DECISION ON TWO INDEPENDENT GROUNDS, EITHER ONE
OF WHICH, IF SUPPORTABLE, IS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN IT.  CONSTRUING AND
APPLYING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF ART. 152 OF THE PUERTO RICO
MORTGAGE LAW AND SECS. 1418 AND 1759 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF PUERTO RICO,
1930 EDITION,  FN1  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANSFER BY PETITIONER OF THE
MORTGAGE CREDITS TO THE HEIRS OF JOSE TOUS SOTO WITHOUT RESERVATION OF
THE OPTION TO PURCHASE, "CONVEYED" TO THE HEIRS, PETITIONER'S RIGHTS
UNDER THE OPTION AS AN INSEPARABLE INCIDENT OF THE CREDITS SO THAT
AFTER THE TRANSFER PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE THE OPTION. 
IT ALSO CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE OPTION WAS FOR "SO LONG AS THE
MORTGAGE CREDIT HERE CONSTITUTED IS NOT PAID" IT BECAME "EXTINGUISHED"
BY VIRTUE OF THE PAYMENT OF THE MORTGAGE AND COULD NOT THEREAFTER BE
EXERCISED.  IT FURTHER HELD THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT
THE SALE OF "INDIOS" BY RESPONDENT COMMINS, AFTER THE ASSIGNMENT BY
PETITIONER OF THE MORTGAGE CREDITS, AND AFTER THE PAYMENT OF THE
MORTGAGE AND THE EXPIRATION OF THE OPTION, WAS IN FRAUD OF PETITIONER'S
RIGHTS UNDER THE OPTION. 

THE COURT DID NOT PASS UPON THE CONTENTION THAT THE OPTION TO
PURCHASE WAS VOID AS AN AGREEMENT "ENABLING THE MORTGAGEE TO ADJUDICATE
TO ITSELF THE MORTGAGE PROPERTY" COMPARABLE TO AGREEMENTS FOR
COLLATERAL ADVANTAGE "CLOGGING" THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION DEEMED
UNLAWFUL IN ANGLO-AMERICAN MORTGAGE LAW.  JENNINGS V. WARD, 2 VERN. 
520; SAMUEL V. JARRAH TIMBER & WOOD PAVING CORP., L.R. (1904) A.C. 323;
21 HARV. L. REV. 459.  BUT ASSUMING THE VALIDITY OF THE OPTION, AS DID
THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, ITS VIEW THAT RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY A
MORTGAGEE AS AN INCIDENT TO THE MORTGAGE DEBT PASSES TO THE TRANSFEREE
OF THE DEBT BY ASSIGNMENT, WHETHER MENTIONED IN THE ASSIGNMENT OR NOT,
IS NOT UNKNOWN TO OUR LAW.  CF. SHELDON V. SILL, 8 HOW.  441, 450;
BATESVILLE INSTITUTE V. KAUFFMAN, 18 WALL.  151, 154; JONES ON
MORTGAGES, SEC. 1033; AND SEE NORTH BRITISH & MERCANTILE INS. CO. V.
ROSE, 228 F. 290, 292.  AND IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE OF OUR LAW THAT, SAVE
IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE, AN OPTION CAN ONLY BE
EXERCISED IN CONFORMITY TO ITS TERMS AND NEVER AFTER THE TIME FIXED FOR
ITS EXPIRATION.  WATERMAN V. BANKS, 144 U.S. 394, 401-3; KELSEY V.
CROWTHER, 162 U.S. 404, 409; LORD RANELAGH V. MELTON, 2 DREWRY & SMALE
278. 

PETITIONER HAS FURNISHED US WITH NO PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE LAW
IS OTHERWISE IN PUERTO RICO.  ON THE CONTRARY THE PUERTO RICAN SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION THAT THE OPTION WAS NECESSARILY ASSIGNED WITH THE
MORTGAGE IS NOT WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH IT
CITED, AND TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED.  FN2 WHETHER THE OPTION WAS SO
TRANSFERRED OR NOT IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE UPON WHAT LEGAL THEORY ANY
SYSTEM OF LAW COULD IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE READ INTO AN
OPTION TO PURCHASE, A TERM PROLONGING THE PERIOD SPECIFIED FOR ITS
EXERCISE.  PETITIONER HAS ADVANCED NO SUCH THEORY AND CITES NO
AUTHORITY WHICH WOULD SUPPORT IT. 

AS WE HAVE SAID IN THE DECASTRO CASE, THE DUTY OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND OF THIS COURT TO EXAMINE AND APPRAISE LOCAL LAW IN CASES
BROUGHT FOR REVIEW FROM THE INSULAR COURTS CANNOT ORDINARILY BE
DISCHARGED SUMMARILY.  BUT FULL ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE HAS NOT DEVELOPED
ANY ISSUE OF PUERTO RICAN LAW, OR ANY QUESTION OF THE DEFERENCE RIGHTLY
TO BE PAID TO THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF PUERTO RICO, SO
SUBSTANTIAL AS TO PRECLUDE THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION MADE OF THIS CASE BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ARTICLE 152 OF THE PUERTO RICO MORTGAGE LAW PROVIDES: 

"A MORTGAGE CREDIT MAY BE CONVEYED OR ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PERSON IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, PROVIDED IT BE EFFECTED BY MEANS OF A PUBLIC
INSTRUMENT, NOTICE OF WHICH IS GIVEN TO THE DEBTOR, AND THAT IT BE
RECORDED IN THE REGISTRY. 

"THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY SAID CONTRACT TO ANY FURTHER EXTENT
THAN HE WAS BY HIS OWN. 

"THE ASSIGNEE SHALL BE SUBROGATED TO ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE
ASSIGNOR." 


"THE SALE OR ASSIGNMENT OF A CREDIT INCLUDES THAT OF ALL THE
ACCESSORY RIGHTS, SUCH AS THE SECURITY, MORTGAGE, PLEDGE, OR
PRIVILEGE." 


"THE PLEDGE AND THE MORTGAGE ARE INDIVISIBLE, EVEN IF THE DEBT SHOULD
BE DIVIDED AMONG THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEBTOR OR OF THE
CREDITOR. 

"THEREFORE, AN HEIR OF THE DEBTOR WHO MAY HAVE PAID A PART OF THE
DEBT CAN NOT REQUEST THAT THE PLEDGE OR MORTGAGE BE PROPORTIONATELY
EXTINGUISHED AS LONG AS THE DEBT HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. 

"NEITHER CAN THE HEIR OF THE CREDITOR, WHO RECEIVED HIS PART OF THE
DEBT, RETURN THE PLEDGE NOR CANCEL THE MORTGAGE TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
OTHER HEIRS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN PAID." 

FN2  AS THE PUERTO RICAN SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT, THE OPTION HERE
COULD PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS "AN ACCESSORY RIGHT" OR "PRIVILEGE,"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1418 OF THE CIVIL CODE, QUOTED SUPRA NOTE
1.  SEE MANRESA, COMMENTARIES ON THE CIVIL CODE, VOL. 10, PP. 402-9. 
..END :
























UNIVERSAL OIL CO. V. GLOBE CO., 322 U.S. 471 


NO. 392.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1944.  - 137 F.2D 3,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN RESOLVING A CONFLICT BETWEEN CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS WHICH,
AS TO THE SAME PATENT AND UPON SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FACTS, REACHED
CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS AS TO INFRINGEMENT, THIS COURT WILL REEXAMINE
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  P. 473. 

2.  PATENT NO. 1,392,629, TO DUBBS, FOR A PROCESS FOR PRODUCING
GASOLINE AND OTHER LIGHTER OILS FROM HEAVY CRUDE OILS, HELD NOT
INFRINGED BY A PROCESS WHICH, IN THE STEP CORRESPONDING TO THE B TUBES
OF DUBBS, RELIES UPON SUBSTANTIAL VAPORIZATION.  P. 484. 

"WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL VAPORIZATION" AS USED IN THE DUBBS PATENT MEANS
THAT THE GENERATION AND RELEASE OF VAPORS IN THE B TUBES IS TO BE
AVOIDED SO THAT THE CHARGE WILL ENTER THE C TUBES FOR CRACKING AS
NEARLY AS MAY BE IN THE LIQUID PHASE.  P. 482. 

3.  EGLOFF PATENT NO. 1,537,593, FOR AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE DUBBS
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING LIGHTER FROM HEAVIER OILS, HELD INVALID FOR WANT
OF INVENTION.  P. 486. 

UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO. V. GLOBE OIL & REFINING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 730, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, ON APPEAL FROM
A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 40 F.SUPP.  575, IN A SUIT FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS, HELD THE PATENTS NOT INFRINGED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER SUED THE RESPONDENT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES
PATENTS NO. 1,392,629, DATED OCTOBER 4, 1921, AND NO. 1,537,593, DATED
MAY 12, 1925.  THE FORMER WAS ISSUED TO CARBON P. DUBBS; THE LATTER, TO
GUSTAV EGLOFF.  THESE PATENTS COVER THE DUBBS PROCESS FOR CONVERTING
HEAVY CRUDE OILS TO LIGHTER OILS, ESPECIALLY GASOLINE.  THE CLAIMED
INFRINGEMENT ARISES FROM THE RESPONDENT'S USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH
CONVERSION OF THE "WINKLER KOCH PROCESS" IN APPARATUS DESIGNED AND
INSTALLED BY THE WINKLER KOCH ENGINEERING COMPANY.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE BILL ON FINDINGS OF FACT TO THE EFFECT THAT PATENT NO.
1,392,629 WAS VALID BUT NOT INFRINGED, AND THAT PATENT NO. 1,537,593
WAS INVALID, WITHOUT FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE OF INFRINGEMENT.  FN1  THE
MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND BOTH PATENTS NOT
INFRINGED AND DID NOT PASS ON THEIR VALIDITY; JUDGE LINDLEY WAS OF
OPINION THAT THE DUBBS PATENT WAS INFRINGED BUT THAT BOTH PATENTS WERE
INVALID.  FN2  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT FOUND THE
SAME PATENTS TO BE VALID AND INFRINGED BY THE USE OF A PROCESS
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO RESPONDENT'S IN ROOT REFINING CO. V. UNIVERSAL
OIL PRODUCTS CO., 78 F.2D 991.  TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT THUS PRESENTED
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 730. 

WHERE THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE CONTESTED CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT
AND VALIDITY ARE PURELY FACTUAL, THIS COURT ORDINARILY ACCEPTS THE
CONCURRENT CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN THESE CASES.  GOODYEAR CO. V. RAY-O-VAC CO., 321 U.S. 275. 
BUT IN RESOLVING CONFLICTING VIEWS OF TWO CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AS
TO A SINGLE PATENT, WE ARE OBLIGED TO UNDERTAKE AN INDEPENDENT
REEXAMINATION OF THE FACTUAL QUESTIONS.  SANITARY REFRIGERATOR CO. V.
WINTERS, 280 U.S. 30, 35-6. 

THE PATENTS AND THE ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING PROCESS CONCERN COMMERCIAL
METHODS FOR CONVERTING PETROLEUM, AS IT IS FOUND IN NATURE, INTO THE
GASOLINE IN EVERYDAY USE AS MOTOR FUEL.  THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT HAVE STATED SOME OF THE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF
THE PROCESSES USED, AND A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS MATERIAL MAY FACILITATE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS INVOLVED. 

LAYMAN AND CHEMIST ALIKE ARE OF COURSE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCEPTION
OF THE ATOMS OF "CHEMICAL ELEMENTS" AS THE BASIC BUILDING BLOCKS OF
ORDINARY CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS.  FN3  THE ATOMS OF THE "ELEMENTS" HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO COMBINE WITH THE ATOMS OF OTHER ELEMENTS TO FORM THE
MOLECULES OF "CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS," WHOSE PROPERTIES SEEM TO DEPEND
DIRECTLY UPON THE NATURE OF THE MOLECULE.  IN THE FIELD OF OIL
CHEMISTRY, THE OUTSTANDING FACT IS THE EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY OF CARBON
AND HYDROGEN TO COMBINE WITH EACH OTHER INTO MOLECULES CONTAINING
WIDELY VARYING NUMBERS OF CARBON ATOMS WITH DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS OF
HYDROGEN ATOMS IN AN ALMOST UNLIMITED NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STRUCTURAL
ARRANGEMENTS.  THESE COMBINATIONS, GENERICALLY TERMED HYDROCARBONS, ARE
PRESENT IN GREAT VARIETY IN CRUDE OIL. 

THE HYDROCARBONS DIFFER WIDELY FROM ONE ANOTHER IN THEIR PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES, PARTICULARLY IN THE PROPERTY OF VOLATILITY, WHICH IS OF
PRIME IMPORTANCE IN MOTOR FUELS.  AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT, THE HYDROCARBONS
COMPOSED OF LARGE MOLECULES WITH MANY CARBON ATOMS ARE HEAVY, SLUGGISH
LIQUIDS WITH RELATIVELY HIGH BOILING POINTS; THEY ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR
USE AS GASOLINE.  THOSE WITH SMALLER MOLECULES ARE MUCH MORE VOLATILE -
INDEED, THE VERY SMALLEST ARE GASES AT ORDINARY TEMPERATURES. 

THE INITIAL STEP IN THE PREPARATION OF GASOLINE FROM CRUDE OIL
INVOLVES NO MOLECULAR CHANGE; IT CONSISTS MERELY IN SEPARATING THE
LIGHT HYDROCARBONS IN THE NATURAL MIXTURE FROM THE HEAVY HYDROCARBONS. 
THIS STEP IS ACCOMPLISHED BY HEATING THE OIL UNTIL IT VAPORIZES AND
THEN CARRYING THE VAPORS THROUGH A DEVICE FAMILIAR TO INDUSTRIAL
CHEMISTRY UNDER THE NAME OF A FRACTIONATING TOWER.  SUCH A TOWER IS IN
EFFECT A SERIES OF CONDENSERS IN WHICH THE VAPOR MIXTURE IS COOLED AND
THE LIQUID CONDENSATE DRAWN OFF IN SEPARATE STEPS.  FIRST THE HIGH
BOILING POINT CONSTITUENTS, REACHING A LIQUID PHASE AFTER RELATIVELY
LITTLE COOLING, ARE CONDENSED AND WITHDRAWN; THIS PROCESS IS REPEATED
ON THE REMAINING CONSTITUENTS IN SUCCESSIVE STEPS AS THE VAPORS COOL,
UNTIL THERE REMAIN ONLY THOSE LOW BOILING POINT HYDROCARBONS SUITABLE
FOR USE AS GASOLINE. 

BY FRACTIONAL DISTILLATION ALONE, A TYPICAL SAMPLE OF MID-CONTINENT
CRUDE OIL MIGHT YIELD APPROXIMATELY 25% GASOLINE, 5-7% KEROSENE, 30%
GAS OIL, AND A BALANCE OF 38-40% FUEL OIL.  THE FRACTION REMAINING
AFTER THE DISTILLATION OF GASOLINE OR GASOLINE AND KEROSENE IS TERMED
"TOPPED CRUDE." 

FOR MANY YEARS THE COMMERCIAL PETROLEUM INDUSTRY CARRIED THE
PRODUCTION OF GASOLINE FROM CRUDE OIL NO FARTHER THAN THIS INITIAL STEP
OF SEPARATING IT FROM THE MIXTURE.  BUT WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
AUTOMOBILE, THE DEMAND FOR GASOLINE INCREASED RAPIDLY, AND IT BECAME
NECESSARY TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL APPARATUS FOR THE CONVERSION OF HEAVY
HYDROCARBON MOLECULES TO LIGHT HYDROCARBON MOLECULES BY THE CHEMICAL
PROCESS KNOWN AS "CRACKING."  FN4  CHEMISTS HAD LONG KNOWN THAT BY
HEATING THE HEAVIER HYDROCARBONS TO TEMPERATURES OF THE ORDER OF 750
900 DEGREE FAHRENHEIT, IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DECOMPOSE THE HEAVY MOLECULES
INTO LIGHTER MOLECULES WITH FEWER CARBON ATOMS, WITH THE MAXIMUM
DECOMPOSITION RESULTING FROM FAIRLY PROLONGED APPLICATION OF HEAT.  FN5
THE BREAKDOWN OF THE HEAVY MOLECULES INTO LIGHTER ONES WAS
ACCOMPANIED, HOWEVER, BY A CONCURRENT PHENOMENON - NAMELY, THE
FORMATION OF EVEN HEAVIER HYDROCARBONS AND THE DEPOSIT OF SOLID MATTER
CALLED "COKE" OR "CARBON."  LIKEWISE, AT THE TEMPERATURES USED THE OIL
BOILED, AND IF THE VAPORS WERE NOT RELEASED (AND THEY COULD NOT BE IF
HEAT WAS TO BE APPLIED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME), HIGH PRESSURES
DEVELOPED IN THE STILL.  AND AS THE CRACKING OPERATION YIELDED PRODUCTS
OF INCREASING VOLATILITY, THIS PRESSURE WOULD, APPARENTLY, RISE AS THE
REACTION PROGRESSED. 

THE ENGINEERING PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE REDUCTION OF THE LABORATORY
KNOWLEDGE OF CRACKING TO COMMERCIAL PRACTICE WERE FORMIDABLE, SINCE THE
PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES EMPLOYED CARRIED SEVERE RISKS OF FIRE AND
EXPLOSION.  THE FIRST COMMERCIAL PROCESS WAS INTRODUCED ABOUT 1913 -
THE SO-CALLED BURTON PROCESS.  BURTON HEATED THE CHARGE - GAS OIL - IN
A SIMPLE TANK, OR SHELL STILL.  THE TANK WAS NOT CONTINUOUSLY FED; A
CHARGE OF 8,250 GALLONS WAS PUMPED INTO IT AND BROUGHT TO A TEMPERATURE
OF 700-750 DEGREE OVER A PERIOD OF SOME 12 HOURS UNDER AUTOGENOUS GAS
PRESSURE OF 75 POUNDS.  THE CRACKING OPERATION WAS THEN CONTINUED FOR
24 HOURS.  THE VAPORS LIBERATED IN THE STILL WERE CONDUCTED THROUGH AN
INCLINED LINE TO AN AERIAL CONDENSER, WHERE THE HEAVIER AND LESS
VOLATILE VAPORS WERE LIQUEFIED AND DRAINED BACK INTO THE STILL THROUGH
THE SAME VAPOR LINE, THERE TO BE MIXED WITH THE UNVAPORIZED RESIDUE AND
SUBJECTED TO FURTHER CRACKING.  THIS FIRST FRACTION OF THE VAPORS WAS
CALLED "REFLUX CONDENSATE"; THE UNLIQUEFIED VAPORS WERE CARRIED TO A
SECOND CONDENSER AND LIQUEFIED AS "PRESSURE DISTILLATE," A LIQUID
CONVERTIBLE BY FURTHER REFINING OPERATIONS, NOT HERE RELEVANT, TO
COMMERCIAL GASOLINE. 

THE COKE DEPOSITED DURING CRACKING TENDED TO CAUSE UNEVEN HEATING OF
THE SHELL STILL, WITH RESULTANT FORMATION OF WEAK SPOTS AND DANGER OF
EXPLOSION.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS NECESSARY TO SHUT DOWN THE STILL AFTER
ABOUT 24 HOURS OF CRACKING TO PERMIT THE COKE TO BE CLEANED OUT.  THE
CLEANING AND PRE-HEATING PROCESSES CONSUMED ABOUT HALF THE OPERATING
TIME; THE GASOLINE YIELD RANGED ONLY ABOUT 25-28% OF THE GAS OIL
CHARGE; AND THE MENACE OF EXPLOSION WAS SERIOUS.  THE BURTON PROCESS
WAS MODIFIED AND IMPROVED SOMEWHAT IN 1915 BY THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
BURTON-CLARK PROCESS, WHICH DIFFERED IN THAT IT DID NOT APPLY HEAT
DIRECTLY TO THE SHELL STILL, BUT INSTEAD CIRCULATED THE OIL IN THE
STILL BY CONVECTION THROUGH A SEPARATE HEATING COIL.  THIS IMPROVEMENT
INCREASED THE YIELD TO SOME 30-32%.  THE BURTON-CLARK PROCESS
CONSTITUTED THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF DUBBS'
PATENT. 

CHEMICAL ENGINEERS IN THE REFINING INDUSTRY WERE ENGAGED IN
CONTINUOUS RESEARCH LOOKING TO THE SOLUTION OF THE COKING PROBLEM AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROCESS WHICH MIGHT OPERATE CONTINUOUSLY, WITHOUT
WASTEFUL PERIODIC SHUT-DOWNS OF EXPENSIVE PLANT EQUIPMENT.  THE
PROCESSES IN SUIT ARE AMONG THE RESULTS OF THEIR EFFORTS. 

DUBBS PATENT NO. 1,392,629, THE ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF WHICH FORMS
THE BASIS OF THIS ACTION, COVERS A PROCESS FIRST DEMONSTRATED IN A
PILOT PLANT AT INDEPENDENCE, KANSAS, IN 1919.  THE OIL CHARGE IS FED
THROUGH A NEST OF HEATED TUBES - CALLED "B TUBES" - ABOUT FOUR INCHES
IN DIAMETER - A HEATING PROCESS NOT UNLIKE THAT USED IN BURTON-CLARK. 
THE HEATED OIL IS THEN DELIVERED TO TUBES OF ABOUT TEN INCHES DIAMETER
"C TUBES" - WHICH ARE ONLY PARTLY FILLED WITH LIQUID OIL.  THE C TUBES
ARE INSULATED, BUT UNHEATED OR ONLY LIGHTLY HEATED TO PREVENT THE
ESCAPE OF HEAT BY RADIATION.  HERE THE VAPOR GENERATED AS THE RESULT OF
HEATING AND CRACKING PASSES FROM THE LIQUID OIL AND IS CARRIED TO VAPOR
LINE CONDENSERS OF THE SAME GENERAL KIND USED IN THE BURTON SYSTEM. 
THE FIRST VAPORS TO CONDENSE - THAT IS, THE REFLUX CONDENSATE - ARE
RETURNED TO THE B TUBES FOR FURTHER HEATING AND CRACKING; THE LIGHTER
VAPORS ARE CARRIED TO A SECOND CONDENSER TO BECOME GASOLINE.  THE
UNVAPORIZED RESIDUE OF LIQUIDS AND SUSPENDED SOLID PARTICLES IN THE C
TUBES IS CONTINUOUSLY WITHDRAWN FROM THE SYSTEM; THUS ONLY THE LIGHT
OILS OF THE REFLUX CONDENSATE, WHICH HAVE BUT A LIMITED TENDENCY TO
FORM COKE, ARE RECYCLED THROUGH THE B TUBES.  SUCH DEPOSIT OF COKE IN
THE LIGHTLY HEATED C TUBES AS OCCURS INVOLVES NO MARKED DANGER OF
EXPLOSION, AND IT PRECLUDES CLOGGING OF THE SMALLER SUPERHEATED B
TUBES.  GAS OIL SUBJECTED TO THE DUBBS PROCESS HAS BEEN MADE TO YIELD
40-50% GASOLINE, AND CONTINUOUS RUNS OF FROM TEN TO TWENTY DAYS ARE
USUAL. 

IN THE COMMERCIAL PRACTICE OF THE DUBBS PATENT, A SIMPLE VAPOR
SEPARATION TANK USUALLY TAKES THE PLACE OF THE C TUBES. 

THE POINTS OF SIMILARITY AND DISSIMILARITY TO THE BURTON-CLARK
PROCESS ARE WORTH NOTING.  BURTON-CLARK SUBJECTED TO PROLONGED HEATING
THE UNVAPORIZED HYDROCARBONS AS WELL AS THE LIGHT REFLUX CONDENSATE. 
SINCE THESE HEAVY HYDROCARBONS HAVE THE GREATEST TENDENCY TO FORM STILL
HEAVIER OILS AND TO DEPOSIT CARBON, THEIR WITHDRAWAL FROM THE APPARATUS
WAS AN IMPORTANT ADVANCE.  THE CONTINUOUS FEED SYSTEM OF THE DUBBS
APPARATUS WAS ALSO REGARDED AS AN IMPROVEMENT ON BURTON'S BATCH
PROCESS.  BURTON-CLARK CIRCULATED THROUGH THE HEATING TUBES THE HEAVY
OILS FORMED DURING CRACKING; DUBBS PERMITTED ONLY A MIXTURE OF FRESH
OIL AND REFLUX CONDENSATE TO PASS THROUGH HIS FURNACE COIL. 

THE EGLOFF PATENT COVERS AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE DUBBS PROCESS. 

AS WE POINTED OUT AT P. 474, SUPRA, THE INITIAL STEP IN THE
SEPARATION OF GASOLINE FROM CRUDE OIL IS FRACTIONAL DISTILLATION; THEN
GAS OIL, THE FRACTION NEXT BELOW GASOLINE AND KEROSENE, IS SUBJECTED TO
CRACKING IN A SPECIAL APPARATUS.  THE FUEL OIL FRACTION HAS SUCH A
STRONG TENDENCY TO FORM VERY HEAVY HYDROCARBONS AND COKE THAT IT IS
UNDESIRABLE AS A CHARGE FOR THE HIGH-TEMPERATURE HEATING COIL IN THE
CRACKING SYSTEMS.  FN6  WHAT EGLOFF PROPOSED WAS A RELATIVELY MILD
HEATING OF THE HEAVY OILS IN A SEPARATE FURNACE - THUS FUEL OIL OR
TOPPED CRUDE MIGHT BE USED AS A CHARGE.  THE TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE
WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO OCCASION A MILD CRACKING; THE VAPORS MIGHT THEN
BE DELIVERED TO THE SAME VAPOR SEPARATION TANK USED WITH THE HIGH
TEMPERATURE HEATING TUBES, AND THE REFLUX CONDENSATE FROM THESE VAPORS
MIGHT BE USED AS THE CHARGE FOR THE HIGH-TEMPERATURE TUBES.  THE
SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT IS TO SUBJECT FUEL OIL OR TOPPED CRUDE, FROM WHICH
THE CHARGE FOR A DUBBS PLANT WAS OFTEN SEPARATED BY SEPARATE
DISTILLATION, TO A DISTILLATION AND MILD CRACKING OPERATION, USING THE
VAPOR SEPARATING TANK AND THE CONDENSER APPARATUS OF THE DUBBS PLANT
INSTEAD OF USING SEPARATE APPARATUS TO PREPARE THE DUBBS CHARGE. 

THE APPARATUS OF RESPONDENT'S WINKLER-KOCH PROCESS CLOSELY RESEMBLES
THE APPARATUS OF THE DUBBS-EGLOFF SYSTEM.  OIL IS HEATED IN EITHER THE
HIGH-TEMPERATURE OR LOW-TEMPERATURE FURNACE, DEPENDING ON THE KIND OF
OIL USED; THE HEATED OIL IS DELIVERED TO A VAPOR SEPARATION TANK; THE
REFLUX CONDENSATE FLOWS BACK TO THE HIGH-TEMPERATURE COIL FOR FURTHER
CRACKING. 

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROCESSES, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE
APPARATUS, ARE MORE MARKED.  DUBBS TAUGHT THE HEATING OF THE OIL CHARGE
IN THE B TUBES "WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL VAPORIZATION."  THUS THE
ILLUSTRATIVE RUN IN THE PATENT SUGGESTS THE HEATING OF OIL TO A
TEMPERATURE OF 750 DEGREE TO 860 DEGREE F., WITH A PRESSURE OF ABOUT
100 POUNDS TO THE SQUARE INCH, RESULTING FROM VAPORIZATION, MAINTAINED
IN BOTH B AND C TUBES.  IN THE RESPONDENT'S PROCESS, OIL ENTERS THE
HEATING COILS AT A TEMPERATURE OF 590 DEGREE AND LEAVES AT A
TEMPERATURE OF 940 DEGREE; A PRESSURE OF 500 POUNDS TO THE SQUARE INCH
IS MAINTAINED IN THE HEATING COIL.  SOME 85% OF THE OIL BY WEIGHT AND
95% BY VOLUME REACHES A VAPOR PHASE IN THE HEATING COILS.  THE OIL IN
MIXED LIQUID AND VAPOR PHASE ENTERS THE VAPOR SEPARATION TANK THROUGH A
PRESSURE REDUCTION VALVE, SO THAT THE PRESSURE IN THE TANK IS 26 POUNDS
AS COMPARED TO THE 500 POUNDS OF THE HEATING COIL.   THE COURTS BELOW
BELIEVED THAT THESE DIFFERENCES WERE SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT THE
RESPONDENT'S PROCESS FROM INFRINGING THE CLAIMS OF THE DUBBS PATENT.  A
TYPICAL CLAIM IS CLAIM 5, AS FOLLOWS:    "5.  A CONTINUOUS PROCESS FOR
CRACKING HYDROCARBONS CONSISTING IN PASSING THE SAME IN A STREAM IN AN
ADVANCING DIRECTION FROM AN INLET POINT TO A DISCHARGE POINT SEPARATED
AND ENTIRELY DISASSOCIATED FROM THE INLET POINT, SUBJECTING THE
MATERIAL IN THE FIRST STAGE OF ITS TRAVEL TO A CRACKING TEMPERATURE
WHILE PREVENTING SUBSTANTIAL VAPORIZATION, AFFORDING A VAPORIZATION
SPACE ABOVE THE STREAM DURING THE SECOND STAGE OF THE TRAVEL THEREOF TO
SAID DISCHARGE POINT, TAKING OFF THE VAPORS FROM SAID VAPOR SPACE AND
SUBJECTING THEM TO A CONDENSING ACTION, DISCHARGING INTO THE STREAM AT
A POINT REMOTE FROM THAT WHERE VAPORIZATION OCCURS A PORTION OF THE
CONDENSATES AND MAINTAINING A VAPOR PRESSURE ON THE MATERIAL UNDER
TREATMENT DURING DISTILLATION AND CONDENSATION." 

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ISSUE OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE DUBBS PATENT
TURNS ON THE CONSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN THE WORDS, "WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL
VAPORIZATION," AS THEY ARE USED IN THE CLAIM.  THE PETITIONER ARGUES
THAT WHAT IS CLAIMED IS THAT THERE IS NO RELEASE OF VAPORS FROM THE
LIQUID IN THE B TUBES; THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT IT IS MEANT THAT NO
LIQUID OIL PASSES INTO A VAPOR PHASE IN THE B TUBES, THAT IS, THAT
THERE IS NO VAPOR GENERATION IN THE B TUBES. 

EITHER CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OPERATION OF A
CRACKING PROCESS.  BY APPLYING SUFFICIENT PRESSURE, IT IS POSSIBLE TO
PREVENT THE GENERATION OF VAPOR FROM OIL EVEN AT THE RELATIVELY HIGH
CRACKING TEMPERATURES.  THE GASOLINE YIELDED BY CRACKING OIL IN LIQUID
PHASE IS CHEMICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT YIELDED BY VAPOR PHASE
CRACKING, AND AT THE DATE OF THE PATENT, THE LIQUID PHASE PRODUCT WAS
PREFERRED.  THE YIELD OF VAPOR CRACKING WAS A MALODOROUS YELLOW MIXTURE
REQUIRING ADDITIONAL REFINING OPERATIONS TO MAKE IT MARKETABLE;
HOWEVER, SINCE 1919 GASOLINE FORMED BY VAPOR CRACKING HAS BECOME MORE
HIGHLY REGARDED BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ANTIKNOCK CHARACTERISTICS. 

THE PARTIES ARE WHOLLY AT ODDS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE PROCESS TAUGHT
BY DUBBS IN HIS PATENT SPECIFICATIONS.  THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT
CRACKING TAKES PLACE IN THE B TUBES WITH RESULTANT GENERATION OF VAPOR,
AND THAT IN THE C TUBES THE VAPOR IS MERELY SET FREE FROM THE LIQUID
OIL.  THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE ONLY FUNCTION OF THE B TUBES IS TO
FURNISH ENOUGH HEAT TO CAUSE CRACKING, AND THAT THE OIL ACTUALLY CRACKS
WHILE IT IS IN THE C TUBES.  THE CRACKING PROCESS, IT WILL BE
REMEMBERED, REQUIRES THAT THE OIL BE KEPT AT A HIGH TEMPERATURE FOR
SOME TIME IF SUBSTANTIAL GASOLINE IS TO BE FORMED, AND THE RESPONDENT
COMPARES THE PROCESS TAUGHT BY DUBBS TO THE FAMILIAR FIRELESS COOKER,
IN WHICH A VESSEL WITH HEAT-KEEPING QUALITIES IS FIRST HEATED AND THEN
REMOVED FROM THE FLAME WHILE COOKING GOES ON WITH THE HEAT FIRST
SUPPLIED. 

THE PATENT SEVERAL TIMES REFERS TO THE B TUBES AS "CRACKING TUBES" OR
AS THE "CRACKING ZONE."  IN ITS RELEVANT PARTS, THE PATENT DESCRIBES
THE PROCESS IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: 

"DESCRIBING THE OPERATION OF THE PROCESS, THE MATERIAL TO BE TREATED
IS DRAWN FROM ANY SUITABLE SOURCE BY MEANS OF THE PUMP J AND DISCHARGED
THEREFROM THROUGH LINE J INTO AND THROUGH TUBES B AND DURING THE TIME
THEY ARE PASSING THROUGH SAID TUBES, THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO SUFFICIENT
HEAT TO CAUSE THE DESIRED AMOUNT OF CRACKING.  SAID OIL IS THEN PASSED
INTO THE TUBES C WHICH ARE ONLY PARTIALLY FILLED WITH THE OIL AND AS
THE OIL PASSES THROUGH THESE TUBES, THERE IS A LIBERATION OF VAPORS
FROM SAME AND WHICH VAPORS PASS UP THROUGH THE VAPOR TUBES D, E. ... 

"A LIGHT FIRE MAY BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE TUBES C AS SHOWN IN THE
DRAWINGS OR SAID TUBES MAY BE HEAVILY INSULATED  ...  TO PREVENT LOSS
OF HEAT BY RADIATION AND THEREBY DISPENSE WITH THE FIRE UNDER THE TUBES
C. ...  THE PER CENT. OF VAPORS GENERATED FROM THE OIL AS IT PASSES
THROUGH THE TUBES C WILL DEPEND ON THE AMOUNT OF HEAT ACQUIRED BY SAID
OIL WHILE PASSING THROUGH THE 4" COILS." 

THE PETITIONER REFERS, ALSO, TO CLAIM 5, WHICH SPECIFIES "A
VAPORIZATION SPACE ABOVE THE STREAM" IN THE C TUBES.  THESE WORDS, WE
ARE TOLD, MUST NECESSARILY REFER TO A SPACE IN WHICH VAPORS ARE
RELEASED, NOT GENERATED.  THIS DOES NOT ADVANCE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT,
HOWEVER, AS THE SPACE REFERRED TO, AS SHOWN BY THE SUBSEQUENT WORDS OF
CLAIM 5, IS SIMPLY SPACE TO HOLD RELEASED VAPOR, THAT IS, "VAPOR
SPACE."  NEITHER VAPOR SEPARATION NOR VAPOR GENERATION TAKES PLACE IN
THE SPACE ABOVE THE STREAM. 

RESPONDENT TOO SUPPORTS ITS ARGUMENT THAT NOT EVEN GENERATION OF
VAPORS WAS ENVISAGED BY THE DUBBS PATENT LIMITATION AGAINST
"SUBSTANTIAL VAPORIZATION" BY REFERENCE TO THE PATENT.  IT POINTS OUT
THAT AS THE PATENT DOES NOT DEFINE "VAPORIZATION," THE WORD IS USED IN
THE ACCEPTED SENSE OF CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE.  THE USE OF THE WORD
"VAPORIZATION" IN THE PATENT TO SHOW WHAT TAKES PLACE IN THE C COILS IS
STRESSED BY RESPONDENT AS INDICATIVE OF THE MEANING WITH WHICH THE WORD
WAS USED BY DUBBS.  FN7  THE RESPONDENT SAYS THIS MEANS GENERATION AS
WELL AS RELEASE OF VAPORS BECAUSE THE PATENT SAYS, "THE PER CENT OF
VAPORS GENERATED FROM THE OIL AS IT PASSES THROUGH THE TUBES C WILL
DEPEND ON THE AMOUNT OF HEAT ACQUIRED BY SAID OIL WHILE PASSING THROUGH
THE 4" (B) COILS."  IT IS SAID THAT THE PATENT CONSISTENTLY DESCRIBES
THE CHARGE IN THE B TUBES AS "OIL," AND NEVER AS VAPOR OR MIXED OIL AND
VAPOR OR FOAM. 

THE PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE READING OF THE PATENT WHICH RESPONDENT
ASKS WOULD RESULT IN AN INOPERATIVE PROCESS UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THE
ILLUSTRATIVE RUN.  IT SEEMS TO BE CONCEDED THAT OIL HEATED TO 750
DEGREE AT 100 POUNDS PRESSURE WOULD NOT VAPORIZE, BUT IN ORDER FOR
CRACKING TO TAKE PLACE IN THE C TUBES, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO FURNISH
SOME ADDITIONAL HEAT TO REPLACE THAT CONSUMED IN THE CRACKING
REACTION.  AT THE HIGHER TEMPERATURES SUGGESTED IN THE ILLUSTRATIVE
RUN, MUCH HIGHER PRESSURES THAN THE 100 POUNDS CALLED FOR BECOME
NECESSARY TO PRECLUDE VAPORIZATION, ALTHOUGH THE HEATED OIL WOULD, IN
COOLING FROM THE HIGHER TEMPERATURES, PROVIDE THE HEAT NECESSARY FOR
THE CRACKING REACTION IN THE C TUBES.  BUT EVEN THOUGH EXPERIMENTATION
AT LOW PRESSURES WOULD SHOW GENERATION OF VAPOR IN THE B TUBES, THIS
WILL NOT CONTROL THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIM. 

WE AGREE WITH RESPONDENT'S POSITION AS TO THE TEACHING OF THE
PATENT.  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT "WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL VAPORIZATION" AS
USED IN THE PATENT MEANS THAT THE GENERATION AND RELEASE OF VAPORS IN
THE B TUBES IS TO BE AVOIDED SO THAT THE CHARGE WILL ENTER THE C TUBES
FOR CRACKING AS NEARLY AS MAY BE IN THE LIQUID PHASE.  IT CLEARLY
APPEARS FROM THE HISTORY OF DUBBS' APPLICATION IN THE PATENT OFFICE
THAT THE USE OF THE PHRASE WAS PURPOSEFUL.  IT WAS INSERTED AFTER THE
PATENT OFFICE HAD DISALLOWED CLAIMS WITHOUT THE PHRASE AND IT WAS
EVIDENTLY ADDED TO CLARIFY THE DESCRIPTION OF THE STEPS OF THE PROCESS
AND THE CLAIMS OF NOVELTY.  CF. EXHIBIT SUPPLY CO. V. ACE CORP., 315
U.S. 126, 136.  THE IMPORTANCE IS EVIDENT FROM THE HISTORY OF THE TRADE
SINCE, AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, AT THE TIME OF DUBBS' APPLICATION GASOLINE
OBTAINED BY CRACKING THE CHARGE IN LIQUID PHASE WAS MORE DESIRABLE THAN
THE GASOLINE OBTAINED FROM VAPOR PHASE CRACKING.  FN8 

THE DISTINCTION MADE BY THE CONTROVERTED PHRASE IS OF PRACTICAL
IMPORTANCE.  DUBBS PATENTED A PROCESS FOR CONVERTING HYDROCARBONS
THROUGH CRACKING.  THE DIFFICULTY IN THE PRIOR ART WAS CARBON DEPOSIT
OR COKING.  IF IN THIS PROCESS THE CRACKING OPERATION IS PRESSED TO
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION IN THE B TUBES, THE PATENT SEEMS TO FAIL TO
TEACH A METHOD OF PREVENTING COKING IN THOSE TUBES.  COKE THERE WILL
CERTAINLY BE AS A RESULT OF THE CRACKING; WHAT WOULD PREVENT ITS
DEPOSIT?  IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE DEPOSIT OF CARBON BY
MAINTAINING A RAPID TURBULENT FLOW; INDEED, WE ARE TOLD THAT THIS IS
THE DEVICE USED IN THE COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF BOTH PARTIES'
PROCESSES, AND BEHIMER, ANOTHER ENGINEER WORKING IN THE CRACKING FIELD,
ATTRIBUTED THE FAILURE OF A SIMILAR APPARATUS (SEE PATENT NO.
1,883,850) TO THE WANT OF A PUMP OF SUFFICIENTLY HIGH PRESSURE TO
MAINTAIN THE NECESSARY VELOCITY OF FLOW.  BUT THE PATENT, WHILE IT
CALLS FOR A PUMP TO INJECT THE CHARGE INTO THE B TUBES, DOES NOT POINT
OUT THE NEED OF USING RAPID FLOW FOR THIS PURPOSE; THE PRESSURE WITHIN
THE APPARATUS IS EXPRESSLY REFERRED SOLELY TO VAPORIZATION.  ONE
BUILDING A DEVICE ACCORDING TO DUBBS' TEACHING MIGHT, IF HE READ THE
PATENT AS TEACHING THAT CRACKING WAS TO OCCUR IN THE B TUBES, CONTENT
HIMSELF WITH USING RELATIVELY SHORT B TUBES AND A CORRESPONDINGLY SLOW
FLOW TO FURNISH CRACKING TIME.  THAT PROCEDURE WOULD PRESUMABLY LEAD TO
COKING; THE PATENT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT DESCRIBE HOW THAT RESULT MAY BE
AVOIDED. 

THERE IS A REASON OF CONTROLLING IMPORTANCE WHY THE PROTECTION OF THE
DUBBS PATENT MUST BE LIMITED TO A PROCESS IN WHICH CRACKING TAKES PLACE
LARGELY IN THE C TUBES. 

AS A REWARD FOR INVENTIONS AND TO ENCOURAGE THEIR DISCLOSURE, THE
UNITED STATES OFFERS A SEVENTEEN-YEAR MONOPOLY TO AN INVENTOR WHO
REFRAINS FROM KEEPING HIS INVENTION A TRADE SECRET.  BUT THE QUID PRO
QUO IS DISCLOSURE OF A PROCESS OR DEVICE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO ENABLE
ONE SKILLED IN THE ART TO PRACTICE THE INVENTION ONCE THE PERIOD OF THE
MONOPOLY HAS EXPIRED; AND THE SAME PRECISION OF DISCLOSURE IS LIKEWISE
ESSENTIAL TO WARN THE INDUSTRY CONCERNED OF THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THE
MONOPOLY ASSERTED.  BENE V. JEANTET, 129 U.S. 683, 685-86; GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CORP., 304 U.S. 364, 368. 

IN A PROCESS PATENT IN THE REFINING OF OIL, PRECISENESS OF
DESCRIPTION IS ESSENTIAL.  IT IS A CROWDED ART. HOPE FOR SUCCESS FOR
NEW PATENTED PROCESSES WITH SLIGHT VARIATIONS FROM THOSE IN USE CAUSED
LARGE EXPENDITURES IN TESTING THEIR EFFICIENCY BY IMPORTANT COMPANIES
WITH STAFFS OF SPECIALISTS WHO WERE SKILLED IN THE ART. AMONG THE
PROCESSES CITED TO US AS PRIOR ART ADVANCES ON BURTON-CLARK, THOSE OF
HALL PATENT NO. 1,175,910, ALEXANDER PATENT NO. 1,407,619, AND BEHIMER
PATENT NO. 1,883,850 WERE EMBODIED IN EXPERIMENTAL PLANTS, AND THE
TESTIMONY IS REPLETE WITH REFERENCES TO SUCH OTHER CONTEMPORARY
EXPERIMENTAL OR WORKING CRACKING SYSTEMS AS THE HOLMES-MANLEY, FLEMING,
AND CROSS PROCESSES.  THE CLAIM IS THE MEASURE OF THE GRANT.  SMITH V.
SNOW, 294 U.S. 1, 11.  THE CLAIM IS REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIC FOR THE
VERY PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AGAINST EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE OF
THE PATENT.  WHITE V. DUNBAR, 119 U.S. 47, 52; MINERALS SEPARATION V.
BUTTE MINING CO., 250 U.S. 336, 347; KNICK V. BOWES "SEAL FAST" CORP.,
25 F.2D 442, 443.  THE APPLICANTS FOR THE PATENT THOUGHT THE PHRASE
"WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL VAPORIZATION" IN THE B TUBES IMPORTANT.  WHILE
VARYING THE DETAILS OF A PROCESS DOES NOT AVOID INFRINGEMENT, TILGHMAN
V. PROCTOR, 102 U.S. 707, WHEN THE ACCUSED PROCESS DOES NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY FOLLOW THE MODE TAUGHT IN THE PATENT, THERE IS NO
INFRINGMENT.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DIRECTION AS TO THE NON
GENERATION OF VAPORS IN THE B TUBES, AS HEREINBEFORE POINTED OUT, WE DO
NOT THINK A PROCESS WHICH RELIES ON VAPORIZATION IN THE B TUBES CAN BE
SAID TO INFRINGE THE PATENTED PROCESS. 

THE EGLOFF PATENT DOES NOT REQUIRE EXTENDED CONSIDERATION.  IT MAY
FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE EGLOFF PATENT, DESCRIBED ABOVE AT P. 478, WAS
AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE DUBBS SYSTEM.  THE IMPROVEMENT CONSISTED IN
PROVIDING A CLEAN CHARGING STOCK FOR THE B TUBES BY HEATING CRUDE OR
FUEL OIL IN COILS WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN A SEPARATE HEATING APPARATUS
FROM THE ONE USED TO HEAT THE CLEANED STOCK, AND DISCHARGING IT IN A
LIQUID PHASE INTO AN EXPANSION CHAMBER.  THE UNVAPORIZED OIL IS
WITHDRAWN FROM THE EXPANSION CHAMBER AND DOES NOT REENTER THE SYSTEM. 
THE VAPOR IS LIQUEFIED IN A PARTIAL CONDENSER OR DEPHLEGMATOR, AND THE
REFLUX CONDENSATE IS PUMPED AS A CHARGE INTO THE B TUBES OR APPARATUS
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR IN FORM AND OPERATION TO THE DUBBS PATENT.  THE
REFLUX CONDENSATE AFTER PASSING THROUGH THE B COILS REENTERS THE SAME
EXPANSION CHAMBER THAT IS USED FOR ITS PREPARATION.  FN9  NOTHING IS
SAID IN THE EGLOFF PATENT AS TO VAPORIZATION IN THE B TUBES. 

IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE DUBBS PATENT ANTICIPATED ALL THE STEPS OF
THE PROCESS EXCEPT THE SEPARATE TREATMENT OF THE HEAVY OIL.  THE CLEAN
CHARGE OF THE REFLUX CONDENSATE WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE WITHDRAWAL OF
THE RESIDUE OF UNVAPORIZED OIL, AND THIS WITHDRAWAL WAS OLD IN THE ART.
FN10 AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CLAIMS OR SPECIFICATION TO SHOW ANY
RELIANCE UPON WHERE VAPORIZATION, WHETHER BY GENERATION OR LIBERATION,
TAKES PLACE, SUCH DIFFERENCE AS THERE MAY BE BETWEEN THIS PATENT AND
DUBBS AS TO THAT PHENOMENON IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  BUT WE SEE NOTHING IN
THE ADDITION OF THE EXTRA STILL THAT INVOLVES INVENTION.  IN
RETROSPECT, IT APPEARS ALMOST INEVITABLE THAT ONCE A SATISFACTORY
CONTINUOUS FEED CRACKING APPARATUS WAS DEVELOPED, CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
WOULD PROMPTLY DESIGN EQUIPMENT FOR INTEGRATING THE INITIAL
DISTILLATION OF CRUDE OR FUEL OIL, WITH WHATEVER CRACKING MIGHT BE
PRACTICABLE, WITH THE GAS OIL CRACKING PROCESS TO FORM A CONTINUOUS
OPERATION.  RETROSPECTIVE SIMPLICITY IS OFTEN A MISLEADING TEST OF
INVENTION WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THE PATENTEE'S CONCEPTION IN FACT
SOLVED A RECOGNIZED PROBLEM THAT HAD BAFFLED THE CONTEMPORARY ART; BUT
IN THIS CASE EGLOFF ADVANCED HIS IMPROVEMENT SHORTLY AFTER DUBBS
DISCLOSED THE UNDERLYING PROCESS AND BEFORE DUBBS' SYSTEM HAD HAD WIDE
COMMERCIAL USE; HENCE CONTEMPORARY WORKERS HAD NO OCCASION TO DEAL WITH
WHATEVER ENGINEERING PROBLEMS MIGHT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.  WE HAVE,
THEREFORE, A CONCEPTION WHICH IS ON ITS FACE TOO OBVIOUS TO CONSTITUTE
PATENTABLE INVENTION, AND WHICH WAS ADVANCED SHORTLY AFTER ANY NEED OF
IT AROSE.  WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT WAS RIGHT IN FINDING THE EGLOFF
PATENT INVALID.  AFFIRMED.    FN1  UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO. V. GLOBE
OIL & REFINING CO., 40 F.SUPP.  575. 

FN2  UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO. V. GLOBE OIL & REFINING CO., 137 F.2D
3.    FN3  THIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF ANY THEORY AS TO
THE INTERNAL CHARACTER OF THE ATOM. 

FN4  SEE STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 167. 

FN5  IT HAS BEEN STATED, HOWEVER, THAT CRACKING IS AN ALMOST
INSTANTANEOUS REACTION IN THE VAPOR PHASE PROCESSES CARRIED OUT AT
TEMPERATURES ABOVE 950 DEGREE F. SEE DE FLOREZ, PROFITS FROM CRACKING
IN VAPOR PHASE, XIX NATIONAL PETROLEUM NEWS NO. 49(DEC.  7, 1927), PP.
32, 33. 

FN6  FUEL OIL CAN BE DIRECTLY CHARGED TO A DUBBS SYSTEM, BUT THE RUN
MUST BE GREATLY SHORTENED. 

FN7  "THE HEATED OIL THEN PASSES TO THE 10 INCH C COILS WHICH ARE
MAINTAINED ABOUT HALF FULL OF OIL AND WHEREIN VAPORIZATION TAKES
PLACE." 

FN8  BUT SEE UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS CO. V. GLOBE OIL & REFINING CO.,
40 F.SUPP.  575; 137 F.2D 3. 

FN9  A TYPICAL CLAIM (5) READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"5.  A PROCESS OF OIL CONVERSION, CONSISTING IN MAINTAINING A BODY OF
HEATED HYDROCARBONS IN AN ENLARGED ZONE WHERE SUBSTANTIAL VAPORIZATION
OCCURS, IN SUBJECTING THE VAPORS TO REFLUX CONDENSATION TO CONDENSE THE
HEAVIER VAPORS, IN PASSING THE REFLUX CONDENSATE IN AN ADVANCING STREAM
THROUGH A HEATING ZONE WHERE IT IS SUBJECTED TO CRACKING CONDITIONS OF
TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE, IN DELIVERING HEATED CONDENSATE TO SAID
ENLARGED ZONE, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY HEATING AN INDEPENDENT STREAM OF
CHARGING OIL FOR DELIVERY TO SAID ENLARGED ZONE TO A TEMPERATURE
SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL VAPORIZATION THEREOF IN SAID ZONE, IN
INTRODUCING SAID HEATED CHARGING OIL TO THE ENLARGED ZONE, AND IN
WITHDRAWING UNVAPORIZED OIL FROM SAID ENLARGED ZONE WITHOUT PERMITTING
THE SAME TO AGAIN ENTER EITHER OF SAID OIL STREAMS." 

FN10  EGLOFF WAS NOT THE FIRST PATENTEE TO REALIZE THE ADVISABILITY
OF WITHDRAWING THE HEAVIER OILS; DUBBS CERTAINLY ANTICIPATED HIM, AS
DID BEHIMER, NO. 1,883,850; GREENSTREET, NO. 1,740,691; ALEXANDER, NO.
1,407,619; AND HALL, NO. 1,175,910. 
..END :















FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 487 


NO. 193.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1944.  - 136 F.2D
394, AFFIRMED. 


THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID THE USE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST A
DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IN A FEDERAL COURT OF SELF-INCRIMINATING
TESTIMONY THERETOFORE COMPELLED - UNDER A STATE IMMUNITY STATUTE AND
WITHOUT PARTICIPATION BY FEDERAL OFFICERS - IN PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE
COURT.  P. 492. 

FELDMAN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 724, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION,
UNDER SEC. 215 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, FOR USING THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN INDICTMENT UNDER SECTION 215 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 338, FOR USING THE MAILS TO FURTHER A FRAUDULENT SCHEME. 
PETITIONER'S CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  136 F.2D 394.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 320
U.S. 724, TO CONSIDER THE SINGLE QUESTION WHETHER THE ADMISSION OF
TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY GIVEN BY PETITIONER IN SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
IN A STATE COURT DEPRIVED HIM OF THE PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
AGAINST BEING "COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF." 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK PROCEDURE, KNOWN AS SUPPLEMENTARY
PROCEEDINGS, DESIGNED TO AID IN THE DISCOVERY OF ASSETS OF A DEBTOR,
N.Y. CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, ART. 45, FELDMAN, A JUDGMENT DEBTOR, WAS
CALLED AS A WITNESS IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BETWEEN
MARCH 31, 1936, AND SEPTEMBER 29, 1939.  UP TO MARCH 14, 1938, THE NEW
YORK IMMUNITY STATUTE MERELY PROVIDED THAT A DEBTOR MIGHT NOT BE
EXCUSED FROM TESTIFYING BECAUSE OF SELF-CRIMINATION BUT THAT HIS
TESTIMONY COULD NOT BE USED IN EVIDENCE IN A SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING AGAINST HIM.  N.Y. LAWS, 1935, C. 630, SEC. 789.  BY AN ACT
OF MARCH 14, 1938, NEW YORK BROADENED THE DEBTOR'S IMMUNITY SO AS TO
FREE HIM FROM PROSECUTION ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MATTER REVEALED IN HIS
TESTIMONY.  N.Y. LAWS, 1938, C. 108, SEC. 17; N.Y. CIVIL PRACTICE ACT,
SEC. 789.  WHILE THE EARLIER PROVISION WAS IN EFFECT, FELDMAN TESTIFIED
THAT HE WAS UNEMPLOYED, PAID RENT OF $250 A MONTH FROM FUNDS SUPPLIED
BY HIS FAMILY, OWED ABOUT $340,000 AND CONTEMPLATED IMMEDIATE
BANKRUPTCY.  HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT ABOUT ONCE A MONTH HIS FATHER
SENT HIM A BOOK OF SIGNED CHECKS, HE SENT LARGE SUMS OF MONEY TO HIS
FATHER BY WESTERN UNION AND DESTROYED WHATEVER EVIDENCE THE RECEIPTS
MIGHT OFFER - IN SHORT, THAT HE WAS "KITING" HIS FATHER'S CHECKS BY
SENDING THE PROCEEDS OF THE LATER CHECKS TO COVER THOSE CASHED
EARLIER.  AFTER MARCH 14, 1938, AND DOWN THROUGH SEPTEMBER, 1939,
FELDMAN AGAIN TESTIFIED IN NEW YORK SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS, GIVING
FURTHER DETAILS OF HIS BIZARRE "KITING" PRACTICES. 

THE FEDERAL CHARGE WAS THE USE OF THE MAILS IN A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
EXECUTED BY "KITING" CHECKS.  IN THE TRIAL, THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED
FELDMAN'S TESTIMONY IN THE NEW YORK SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.  HE DID
NOT TAKE THE STAND.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
DECIDE WHETHER THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE DULY MADE BARS THE ADMISSION OF
THIS TESTIMONY.  IT SUGGESTS THAT TESTIMONY GIVEN PRIOR TO THE ACT OF
MARCH 14, 1938, WAS NOT COMPELLABLE AND THEREFORE FELDMAN WAIVED ANY
PRIVILEGE, IN THAT THE NEW YORK STATUTE PRIOR TO MARCH 14, 1938, DID
NOT GRANT AN IMMUNITY COEXTENSIVE WITH THE PRIVILEGE AVAILABLE UNDER
NEW YORK LAW.  PEOPLE EX REL. LEWISOHN V. O'BRIEN, 176 N.Y. 253, 68
N.E. 353.  AS TO TESTIMONY UNDER THE LATER NEW YORK STATUTE, THE
GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT IT EITHER WAS NOT INCRIMINATING OR WAS MERELY
REPETITIVE OF THE EARLIER VOLUNTARY TESTIMONY, MAKING ITS ADMISSION IN
ANY EVENT NOT PREJUDICIAL. 

WE PUT TO ONE SIDE ALL THESE SUBTLER ISSUES BECAUSE WE THINK THEY
CANNOT DISPOSE OF THE CASE.  AND SO WE COME DIRECTLY TO THE MAIN
QUESTION, NAMELY WHETHER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITED THE ADMISSION
AGAINST FELDMAN UPON HIS TRIAL IN A FEDERAL COURT OF THE EARLIER
TESTIMONY GIVEN BY HIM IN THE STATE COURTS.  WHILE THE POINT HAS NOT
BEEN FORMALLY DECIDED, WE DEEM THE ANSWER TO BE CONTROLLED BY A LONG
SERIES OF DECISIONS EXPRESSING BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OUR FEDERATION. 

THE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF A WELL-DESIGNED PENAL CODE IS OF COURSE
INDISPENSABLE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY.  BUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS ADDED TO
THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION IN THE CONVICTION THAT TOO HIGH A PRICE MAY
BE PAID EVEN FOR THE UNHAMPERED ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AND
THAT, IN ITS ATTAINMENT, OTHER SOCIAL OBJECTS OF A FREE SOCIETY SHOULD
NOT BE SACRIFICED.  WE ARE IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED WITH THE FOURTH AND
FIFTH AMENDMENTS, INTERTWINED AS THEY ARE, AND EXPRESSING AS THEY DO
SUPPLEMENTING PHASES OF THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE - TO MAINTAIN
INVIOLATE LARGE AREAS OF PERSONAL PRIVACY.  SEE BOYD V. UNITED STATES,
116 U.S. 616, 630.  "THE EFFORTS OF THE COURTS AND THEIR OFFICIALS TO
BRING THE GUILTY TO PUNISHMENT, PRAISEWORTHY AS THEY ARE, ARE NOT TO BE
AIDED BY THE SACRIFICE OF THOSE GREAT PRINCIPLES (OF THE FOURTH AND
FIFTH AMENDMENTS) ESTABLISHED BY YEARS OF ENDEAVOR AND SUFFERING WHICH
HAVE RESULTED IN THEIR EMBODIMENT IN THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND." 
WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383, 393.  "WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED
THE INTIMATE RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO AMENDMENTS.  THEY THROW GREAT
LIGHT ON EACH OTHER.  FOR THE 'UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES'
CONDEMNED IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ARE ALMOST ALWAYS MADE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COMPELLING A MAN TO GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIMSELF, WHICH IN
CRIMINAL CASES IS CONDEMNED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; AND COMPELLING A
MAN 'IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF,' WHICH IS
CONDEMNED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THROWS LIGHT ON THE QUESTION AS TO
WHAT IS AN 'UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT.  AND WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO PERCEIVE THAT THE SEIZURE
OF A MAN'S PRIVATE BOOKS AND PAPERS TO BE USED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM
IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM COMPELLING HIM TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF."  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 633. 

BUT FOR MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED YEARS, EVER SINCE BARRON V. BALTIMORE,
7 PET. 243, ONE OF THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN
THAT THESE AMENDMENTS PROTECT ONLY AGAINST INVASION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
BY THE GOVERNMENT WHOSE CONDUCT THEY ALONE LIMIT.  BROWN V. WALKER, 161
U.S. 591, 606; JACK V. KANSAS, 199 U.S. 372, 380; TWINING V. NEW
JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78.  CONVERSELY, A STATE CANNOT BY OPERATING WITHIN
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS RESTRICT THE OPERATIONS OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT WITHIN ITS SPHERE.  THE DISTINCTIVE OPERATIONS OF THE TWO
GOVERNMENTS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE SPHERES IS BASIC TO OUR FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, HOWSOEVER COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT THE
PRACTICAL ACCOMMODATIONS TO IT MAY BE.  THE MATTER WAS PUT IN CLASSIC
TERMS IN WHAT CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT CALLED "THE GREAT JUDGMENT," PONZI V.
FESSENDEN, 258 U.S. 254, 261, OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY IN ABLEMAN V.
BOOTH, 21 HOW.  506, 516:  "THE POWERS OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, AND
OF THE STATE, ALTHOUGH BOTH EXIST AND ARE EXERCISED WITHIN THE SAME
TERRITORIAL LIMITS, ARE YET SEPARATE AND DISTINCT SOVEREIGNTIES, ACTING
SEPARATELY AND INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER, WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
SPHERES.  AND THE SPHERE OF ACTION APPROPRIATED TO THE UNITED STATES IS
AS FAR BEYOND THE REACH OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ISSUED BY A STATE JUDGE
OF A STATE COURT, AS IF THE LINE OF DIVISION WAS TRACED BY LANDMARKS
AND MONUMENTS VISIBLE TO THE EYE." 

THIS PRINCIPLE HAS GOVERNED A SERIES OF DECISIONS WHICH FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES RULE THE PRESENT CASE.  WHEN THIS COURT FOR THE
FIRST TIME SUSTAINED AN IMMUNITY STATUTE AS ADEQUATE, IT REJECTED THE
ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE FEDERAL IMMUNITY COULD NOT BAR USE IN A STATE
PROSECUTION OF TESTIMONY COMPELLED IN A FEDERAL COURT, THE IMMUNITY
FALLS SHORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT.  BROWN V. WALKER, SUPRA,
AT 606.  AND WHEN THE REVERSE CLAIM WAS MADE AS TO A STATE IMMUNITY
STATUTE, THAT A DISCLOSURE COMPELLED IN A STATE COURT COULD NOT ASSURE
IMMUNITY IN A FEDERAL COURT, THE ARGUMENT WAS AGAIN REJECTED BECAUSE
"THE STATE (ANTI-TRUST) STATUTE COULD NOT, OF COURSE, PREVENT A
PROSECUTION OF THE SAME PARTY UNDER THE UNITED STATES (ANTI-TRUST)
STATUTE, AND IT COULD NOT PREVENT THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE PARTY IN
THE STATE PROCEEDING FROM BEING USED AGAINST THE SAME PERSON IN A
FEDERAL COURT FOR A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE, IF IT COULD BE
IMAGINED THAT SUCH PROSECUTION WOULD BE INSTITUTED UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES."  JACK V. KANSAS, SUPRA, AT 380.  WHEN THE MATTER WAS
HERE LAST IT WAS THUS SUMMARIZED:  "THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT IMMUNITY
AGAINST STATE PROSECUTION IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF FEDERAL
STATUTES DECLARING THAT A WITNESS SHALL NOT BE EXCUSED FROM GIVING
EVIDENCE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WILL INCRIMINATE HIM, AND ALSO THAT THE
LACK OF STATE POWER TO GIVE WITNESSES PROTECTION AGAINST FEDERAL
PROSECUTION DOES NOT DEFEAT A STATE IMMUNITY STATUTE.  THE PRINCIPLE
ESTABLISHED IS THAT FULL AND COMPLETE IMMUNITY AGAINST PROSECUTION BY
THE GOVERNMENT COMPELLING THE WITNESS TO ANSWER IS EQUIVALENT TO THE
PROTECTION FURNISHED BY THE RULE AGAINST COMPULSORY SELF
INCRIMINATION."  UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, 284 U.S. 141, 149. 

AND SO, WHILE EVIDENCE SECURED THROUGH UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS IS INADMISSIBLE IN A FEDERAL PROSECUTION,
WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298;
AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20, INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SO
SECURED BY STATE OFFICIALS WITHOUT PARTICIPATION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS
BUT TURNED OVER FOR THEIR USE ARE ADMISSIBLE IN A FEDERAL PROSECUTION. 
BURDEAU V. MCDOWELL, 256 U.S. 465.  RELEVANT TESTIMONY IS NOT BARRED
FROM USE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN A FEDERAL COURT UNLESS WRONGFULLY
ACQUIRED BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS.  "IF KNOWLEDGE OF THEM (THE FACTS) IS
GAINED FROM AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE THEY MAY BE PROVED LIKE ANY OTHERS,
BUT THE KNOWLEDGE GAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN WRONG CANNOT BE USED
BY IT  ..."  SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385,
392.  THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO DRAW NICE DISTINCTIONS AS TO WHEN
WRONGFUL ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE BY STATE AGENCIES WAS ALSO A FEDERAL
ENTERPRISE.  WHEN A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES IS A
PARTICIPANT IN THE EXTORTION OF EVIDENCE OR IN ITS ILLICIT ACQUISITION,
HE IS CHARGED WITH EXERCISING THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
EVIDENCE SO SECURED MAY BE REGAINED, GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282
U.S. 344, AND ITS ADMISSION, AFTER TIMELY MOTION FOR ITS SUPPRESSION,
VITIATES A CONVICTION.  BYARS V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28. 

THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY ONLY IN PROCEEDINGS
OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONTROL.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF
COMPLICITY BETWEEN FELDMAN'S CREDITORS AND FEDERAL LAW-ENFORCING
OFFICERS.  THE GOVERNMENT HERE IS NOT SEEKING TO BENEFIT BY EVIDENCE
WHICH IT EXTORTED.  IT HAD NO POWER EITHER TO COMPEL TESTIMONY IN THE
STATE COURT OR TO FORESTALL SUCH DISCLOSURE AS A MEANS OF AVOIDING
POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL PENAL CODE. 
WHETHER TESTIMONY IN A NEW YORK COURT SHOULD BE COMPELLED IN EXCHANGE
FOR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION UNDER THE PENAL LAWS OF NEW YORK IS FOR
NEW YORK TO SAY.  FOR WHAT PURPOSES THE UNITED STATES MAY DEEM THE
DISCLOSURE OF TESTIMONY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROSECUTION FOR FEDERAL
CRIMES IS FOR CONGRESS TO SAY.  IT HAS SEEN FIT TO MAKE THE EXCHANGE
VERY SPARINGLY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MONIA, 317 U.S. 424.  CERTAINLY
IT IS NOT FOR NEW YORK TO DETERMINE WHEN, BECAUSE IT SUITS ITS LOCAL
POLICY TO EMPLOY TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION, IT WILL RELIEVE FROM FEDERAL
PROSECUTION "FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY TRANSACTION, MATTER OR THING
CONCERNING WHICH" A NEW YORK COURT MAY HAVE SEEN FIT TO REQUIRE
TESTIMONY.  SUCH WOULD BE THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF SUSTAINING
PETITIONER'S CLAIM.  THE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION, LIKE THE PRIVILEGE
AGAINST TESTIFYING WHICH IT SUPPLANTS, PERTAINS TO A PROSECUTION IN THE
SAME JURISDICTION.  OTHERWISE THE CRIMINAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES
WOULD BE AT THE HAZARD OF CARELESSNESS OR CONNIVANCE IN SOME PETTY
CIVIL LITIGATION IN ANY STATE COURT, QUITE BEYOND THE REACH EVEN OF THE
MOST ALERT WATCHFULNESS BY LAW OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  SEE NARDONE
V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID ABOUT THE PHRASE OF SCEPTICISM IN JACK V.
KANSAS, SUPRA, AT 380, THAT IT COULD HARDLY BE IMAGINED "THAT SUCH
PROSECUTION WOULD BE INSTITUTED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES."  THE
"PROSECUTION" AND THE "CIRCUMSTANCES" THERE REFERRED TO WERE A
PROSECUTION ON THE SAME FACTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE STATE AND THE
FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  BUT SEE FOX V. OHIO, 5 HOW.  410, 435; UNITED
STATES V. LANZA, 260 U.S. 377.  THE CAUTIONARY WORDS IN JACK V. KANSAS
IN NOWISE QUALIFIED THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT AND LATER CASES AS TO THE
SEPARATENESS IN THE OPERATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS AND
STATE AND FEDERAL IMMUNITY PROVISIONS.  THERE ARE, AS WE HAVE ALREADY
SEEN, AMPLE SAFEGUARDS.  IF A FEDERAL AGENCY WERE TO USE A STATE COURT
AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR COMPELLING DISCLOSURES FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES, THE
DOCTRINE OF THE BYARS CASE, SUPRA, AS WELL AS THAT OF MCNABB V. UNITED
STATES, 318 U.S. 332, AFFORD ADEQUATE RESOURCES AGAINST SUCH AN EVASIVE
DISREGARD OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-CRIMINATION.  SEE UNITED STATES
V. SALINE BANK, 1 PET. 100; UNITED STATES V. MCRAE, L.R. 3 CH. APP.
79.  NOTHING IN THIS RECORD BRINGS EITHER DOCTRINE INTO PLAY.  JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED.    MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN
THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

IN BOYD V. UNITED STATES, THIS COURT SAID THAT "ANY COMPULSORY
DISCOVERY BY EXTORTING THE PARTY'S OATH  ...  IS CONTRARY TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF A FREE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS ABHORRENT  ...  TO THE
INSTINCTS OF AN AMERICAN.  IT MAY SUIT THE PURPOSES OF DESPOTIC POWER;
BUT IT CANNOT ABIDE THE PURE ATMOSPHERE OF POLITICAL LIBERTY AND
PERSONAL FREEDOM."  116 U.S. 616, 631-632.  FN1  UNLESS THE COURT NOW
IS DISAVOWING THIS BELIEF, THE USE OF TESTIMONY OBTAINED BY COMPULSORY
DISCOVERY TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED MUST BE CONSIDERED "SHOCKING TO THE
UNIVERSAL SENSE OF JUSTICE" AND "OFFENSIVE TO THE COMMON AND
FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF FAIRNESS AND RIGHT," AND THEREFORE, UNDER PAST
DECISIONS OF THE COURT, INCOMPATIBLE WITH CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 462, 473.  OR AT LEAST, EVEN IF THE
USE OF TESTIMONY EXTRACTED BY COMPULSORY DISCOVERY BE HELD CONSISTENT
WITH DUE PROCESS, ADHERENCE TO THE BELIEF EXPRESSED BY THE BOYD CASE
SHOULD REQUIRE THE COURT TO HOLD THAT, ABSENT A CONFLICTING ACT OF
CONGRESS, "A DECENT REGARD FOR THE DUTY OF COURTS AS AGENCIES OF
JUSTICE AND CUSTODIANS OF LIBERTY FORBIDS THAT MEN SHOULD BE CONVICTED
UPON EVIDENCE" SO OBTAINED.  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332,
347.  BUT I DO NOT BASE MY DISSENT UPON JUDICIALLY DEFINED CONCEPTS OF
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OR UPON JUDGE-MADE RULES OF EVIDENCE.  THE BILL
OF RIGHTS, PROPOSED IN 1789 BY THE FIRST CONGRESS CONVENED UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTION, AND QUICKLY RATIFIED BY THE STATES IN 1791, DECLARES IN
PART THAT, "NO PERSON  ...  SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO
BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF."  AMEND. V, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  NEVER SINCE THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS ADOPTED, UNTIL TODAY, HAS
THIS COURT SUSTAINED A SINGLE CONVICTION FOR A FEDERAL OFFENSE WHICH
RESTED ON SELF-INCRIMINATORY TESTIMONY FORCED FROM THE ACCUSED.  I
CANNOT AGREE TO DO SO NOW. 

FELDMAN WAS COMPELLED TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH IN A CREDITORS'
COMPULSORY DISCOVERY PROCEEDING IN A NEW YORK COURT CONDUCTED PURSUANT
TO A STATE STATUTE WHICH GRANTED HIM IMMUNITY FROM STATE PROSECUTION
FOR ANY STATE CRIME HE MIGHT BE FORCED TO CONFESS.  HAD HE REFUSED TO
TESTIFY HE COULD HAVE BEEN IMPRISONED.  OVER HIS OBJECTION, A
TRANSCRIPT OF HIS COMPELLED TESTIMONY WAS USED IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT TO CONVICT HIM OF A FEDERAL CRIME.  AS THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT HERETOFORE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED, FELDMAN'S TESTIMONY COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN USED FOR THIS PURPOSE HAD IT BEEN COMPELLED BY A FEDERAL
COURT RATHER THAN THE STATE COURT.  FN2  THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUE
WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDING HAD BEEN NON-CRIMINAL OR CRIMINAL,
FN3  AND WHETHER FELDMAN HAD TESTIFIED AS A MERE WITNESS OR AS A
DEFENDANT.  FN4  NOR COULD HIS FORCED TESTIMONY HAVE BEEN USED HAD IT
BEEN COMPELLED BY FEDERAL OFFICERS OUTSIDE OF A COURT ROOM; FN5  BY
FOREIGN DETECTIVES IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY INQUIRING INTO COMMISSION OF AN
OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES COMMITTED ON THE HIGH SEAS; FN6  OR
BY STATE OFFICERS INTERROGATING A SUSPECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING
A FEDERAL LAW.  FN7  THERE IS, THEN, NO SANCTION IN THE PRECEDENTS OF
THIS COURT FOR VIEWING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST
COMPELLED TESTIMONY WITH GRUDGING EYES AND REDUCING ITS SCOPE TO THE
NARROWEST PLAUSIBLE LIMITS.  AS THE DECISIONS REFLECT, THE PREVIOUSLY
DECLARED ATTITUDE OF THE COURT TOWARD THIS PROHIBITION HAS BEEN THAT IT
"MUST HAVE A BROAD CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHT WHICH IT WAS
INTENDED TO SECURE."  COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, 562;
MCCARTHY V. ARNDSTEIN, 266 U.S. 34. 

TODAY, HOWEVER, THE COURT ADOPTS A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THE TASK OF
CONSTRUING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WE ARE NOW TOLD THAT UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES COMPELLED TESTIMONY IS PURGED OF THE FATAL TAINT WHICH
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PLACES UPON IT, AND THAT AN ACCUSED CAN BE
CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL COURT ON WORDS HE WAS FORCED TO SPEAK.  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT IS NOW HELD THAT MEN CAN BE FORCED TO
CONVICT THEMSELVES BY THEIR OWN TESTIMONY ARE, (1) THAT THE TESTIMONY
WAS COMPELLED BY STATE OFFICERS, AND (2) THAT THE STATE OFFICERS WERE
NOT ACTING TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW.  THESE SLIGHT VARIATIONS IN THE
TECHNIQUES OF COMPULSION ARE CONSIDERED A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE TO ESCAPE
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S COMMAND AGAINST THE USE OF COMPELLED TESTIMONY BY
FEDERAL COURTS.  SURELY SUCH A HOLDING IS NOT TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE
LANGUAGE OF THAT AMENDMENT.  WITHIN ITS SWEEPING PROHIBITION ARE FOUND
NO EXCEPTIONS BASED UPON THE PERSONS WHO COMPEL, THEIR PURPOSE IN
COMPELLING, OR THEIR METHOD OF COMPELLING, WHETHER BY THREATS OF
IMPRISONMENT, PHYSICAL TORTURE, OR OTHER MEANS.  TESTIMONY IS NO LESS
COMPELLED BECAUSE A STATE RATHER THAN A FEDERAL OFFICER COMPELS IT, OR
BECAUSE THE STATE OFFICER APPEARS TO BE PRIMARILY INTERESTED AT THE
MOMENT IN ENFORCING A STATE RATHER THAN A FEDERAL LAW. 

NOR IS THE HOLDING IN THIS CASE TO BE DEFENDED AS ONE WHICH OUR
FEDERAL SYSTEM REQUIRES.  THIS CASE PRESENTS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN
FEDERAL AND STATE SPHERES OF POWER SUCH AS THAT PRESENTED BY CASES
INVOLVING THE VALIDITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY STATUTES, WHEREIN
IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED, UNSUCCESSFULLY, THAT NEITHER THE UNITED STATES
NOR A STATE CAN COMPEL A WITNESS TO TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF UNLESS IT
GRANT HIM COMPLETE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION IN BOTH JURISDICTIONS. 
FN8  FELDMAN'S OBJECTION TO THE USE OF HIS COMPELLED TESTIMONY IS NOT
BASED ON A CLAIM THAT NEW YORK MUST GRANT HIM, OR HAS GRANTED HIM,
IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR THE FEDERAL CRIME IT HAS FORCED HIM TO
CONFESS.  HE DOES NOT QUESTION THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO
PROSECUTE HIM FOR THAT CRIME ON PROPER EVIDENCE.  NOR, FOR THAT MATTER,
DOES HE CONTEND THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PREVENTED NEW YORK FROM
COMPELLING HIM TO CONFESS A FEDERAL CRIME.  FN9  HE CLAIMS ONLY THAT
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION PREVENTS
THE USE OF HIS COMPELLED TESTIMONY AGAINST HIM IN THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING.  THE VERY NARROW PROBLEM THUS PRESENTED, AND UPON WHICH
THIS COURT NEVER BEFORE HAS PASSED, IS WHETHER FEDERAL COURTS CAN
CONVICT A DEFENDANT OF A FEDERAL CRIME BY USE OF SELF-INCRIMINATORY
TESTIMONY WHICH SOMEONE IN SOME MANNER HAS EXTRACTED FROM HIM AGAINST
HIS WILL.  THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT A DEFENDANT CAN BE SO CONVICTED
CUTS INTO THE VERY SUBSTANCE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  AND IT JUSTIFIES
THIS RESULT NOT BY THE LANGUAGE OR HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF,
BUT BY A PROCESS OF SYLLOGISTIC REASONING BASED UPON BROAD PREMISES OF
"DUAL SOVEREIGNTY" STATED IN PREVIOUS OPINIONS OF THE COURT RELATING TO
IMMUNITY STATUTES.  EVEN WERE THERE HERE A "DUAL SOVEREIGNTY" PROBLEM,
WHICH THERE IS NOT, SUCH A METHOD OF DECISION WOULD BE QUESTIONABLE. 
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION SHOULD INVOLVE MORE THAN DIALECTICS.  THE
GREAT PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY WRITTEN IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS CANNOT SAFELY
BE TREATED AS IMPRISONED IN WALLS OF FORMAL LOGIC BUILT UPON VAGUE
ABSTRACTIONS FOUND IN THE UNITED STATES REPORTS.  "THE ULTIMATE
TOUCHSTONE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF AND NOT WHAT
WE HAVE SAID ABOUT IT."  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S.
466, CONCURRING OPINION, 487, 491-492.  FN10 

PUTTING ASIDE THE COURT'S DIALECTICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETATION, AND
EXAMINING THE HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THERE APPEARS
TO BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REDUCING ITS SCOPE AS THE COURT IS NOW
DOING.  COMPULSION OF SELF-INCRIMINATORY TESTIMONY BY COURT OATHS AND
BY THE LESS REFINED METHODS OF TORTURE WERE EQUALLY DETESTED BY THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT'S LIBERTY-LOVING ADVOCATES AND THEIR FORBEARS.  FN11
THEIR ABHORRENCE OF THESE PRACTICES DID NOT SPRING ALONE FROM A
PREDILECTION FOR PERSONAL PRIVACY.  THEY HAD OTHER REASONS TO DESPISE
AND FEAR THEM.  THEY STILL REMEMBERED THE HATED PRACTICES OF THE COURT
OF STAR CHAMBER, THE COURT OF HIGH COMMISSION, AND OTHER INQUISITORIAL
AGENCIES WHICH HAD BROUGHT RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL NON-CONFORMISTS
WITHIN THE PENALTIES OF THE LAW BY MEANS OF THEIR OWN TESTIMONY.  AND
HISTORY SUPPORTS NO ARGUMENT THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
WERE INTERESTED ONLY IN FORBIDDING THE EXTRACTION OF AN ACCUSED'S
TESTIMONY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE USE OF HIS EXTRACTED TESTIMONY. 
THE EXTRACTION OF TESTIMONY IS, OF COURSE, BUT A MEANS TO THE END OF
ITS USE TO PUNISH.  FEW PERSONS WOULD SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO TESTIFYING
UNLESS THEIR TESTIMONY WOULD SUBJECT THEM TO FUTURE PUNISHMENT.  THE
REAL EVIL AIMED AT BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S FLAT PROHIBITION AGAINST
THE COMPULSION OF SELF-INCRIMINATORY TESTIMONY WAS THAT THOUGHT TO
INHERE IN USING A MAN'S COMPELLED TESTIMONY TO PUNISH HIM.  BY BROADLY
OUTLAWING THE PRACTICE OF COMPELLING SUCH TESTIMONY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
STRUCK AT THIS EVIL AT ITS SOURCE, SEEKING TO ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY
THAT COMPELLED TESTIMONY WOULD EVER BE AVAILABLE FOR USE TO PUNISH A
DEFENDANT.  FN12 

PERHAPS, AS SOME HAVE ARGUED, THE MEN WHO FRAMED THIS AMENDMENT WERE
MISTAKEN OR THEIR FEARS HAVE LOST FOUNDATION AND THE UNQUALIFIED
PROHIBITION AGAINST THE EXTRACTION AND USE OF COMPELLED TESTIMONY WHICH
THEY PUT INTO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SHOULD BE REPEALED OR MODIFIED.  FN13
THIS VIEW OF THE DESIRABILITY OF CONSTRICTING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT I AM
NOT READY TO ACCEPT, BUT WERE IT OTHERWISE I WOULD NOT CONSIDER SUCH A
VIEW SHOULD PLAY ANY PART IN THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION.  I AM
UNWILLING TO SEE ANY CONSTRICTION OF THE LIBERTIES AND THE PROCEDURAL
SAFEGUARDS OF THESE LIBERTIES SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS UNLESS IT BE BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.  FN14 

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST COMPELLED TESTIMONY WHICH THE COURT TODAY HAS
SEEN FIT TO RESTRICT CANNOT BE DISSOCIATED FROM THE OTHER SPECIFIC
PROTECTIONS AFFORDED THE INDIVIDUAL BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THE
FOUNDERS OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WERE TOO CLOSE TO OPPRESSIONS AND
PERSECUTIONS OF THE UNORTHODOX, THE UNPOPULAR, AND THE LESS INFLUENTIAL
TO TRUST EVEN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WITH UNLIMITED POWERS OF CONTROL
OVER THE INDIVIDUAL.  FROM THEIR DISTRUST WERE DERIVED THE FIRST TEN
AMENDMENTS, DESIGNED AS A WHOLE TO "LIMIT AND QUALIFY THE POWERS OF
GOVERNMENT," TO DEFINE "CASES IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT NOT TO ACT,
OR TO ACT ONLY IN A PARTICULAR MODE," AND TO PROTECT UNPOPULAR
MINORITIES FROM OPPRESSIVE MAJORITIES.  1 ANNALS 437.  THE FIRST OF THE
TEN AMENDMENTS ERECTED A CONSTITUTIONAL SHELTER FOR THE PEOPLE'S
LIBERTIES OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, AND ASSEMBLY.  THIS AMENDMENT
REFLECTS THE FAITH THAT A GOOD SOCIETY IS NOT STATIC BUT ADVANCING, AND
THAT THE FULLEST POSSIBLE INTERCHANGE OF IDEAS AND BELIEFS IS ESSENTIAL
TO ATTAINMENT OF THIS GOAL.  THE PROPONENTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
COMMITTED TO THIS FAITH, WERE DETERMINED THAT EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD
POSSESS AN UNRESTRAINED FREEDOM TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS, HOWEVER ODIOUS
THEY MIGHT BE TO VESTED INTERESTS WHOSE POWER THEY MIGHT CHALLENGE. 

BUT THESE MEN WERE NOT SATISFIED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE
THIS RIGHT SUFFICIENTLY SECURE.  AS THEY WELL KNEW, HISTORY TEACHES
THAT ATTEMPTED EXERCISES OF THE FREEDOMS OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS,
AND ASSEMBLY HAVE BEEN THE COMMONEST OCCASIONS FOR OPPRESSION AND
PERSECUTION.  INEVITABLY SUCH PERSECUTIONS HAVE INVOLVED SECRET
ARRESTS, UNLAWFUL DETENTIONS, FORCED CONFESSIONS, SECRET TRIALS, AND
ARBITRARY PUNISHMENTS UNDER OPPRESSIVE LAWS.  THEREFORE IT IS NOT
SURPRISING THAT THE MEN BEHIND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ALSO INSISTED UPON
THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS, DESIGNED TO PROTECT ALL
INDIVIDUALS AGAINST ARBITRARY PUNISHMENT BY DEFINITE PROCEDURAL
PROVISIONS GUARANTEEING FAIR PUBLIC TRIALS BY JURIES.  THEY SOUGHT BY
THESE PROVISIONS TO ASSURE THAT NO INDIVIDUAL COULD BE PUNISHED EXCEPT
ACCORDING TO "DUE PROCESS," BY WHICH THEY CERTAINLY INTENDED THAT NO
PERSON COULD BE PUNISHED EXCEPT FOR A VIOLATION OF DEFINITE AND VALIDLY
ENACTED LAWS OF THE LAND, AND AFTER A TRIAL CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS WRITTEN IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 
FN15  IF OCCASIONALLY THESE SAFEGUARDS WORKED TO THE ADVANTAGE OF AN
ORDINARY CRIMINAL, THAT WAS A PRICE THEY WERE WILLING TO PAY FOR THE
FREEDOM THEY CHERISHED.  AND ONE OF THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
WHICH THEY INSERTED TO SHIELD THE INDIVIDUAL WAS THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST COMPULSION OF SELF-INCRIMINATORY TESTIMONY. 

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO RECONCILE TODAY'S RESTRICTIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST COMPELLED SELF-INCRIMINATION
WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF BROAD CONSTRUCTION WHICH THIS COURT HERETOFORE
HAS DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO FULL PRESERVATION OF THE BASIC SAFEGUARDS OF
LIBERTY SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THE PROTECTIONS
EXPLICITLY AFFORDED THE INDIVIDUAL BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS REPRESENT A
LARGE PART OF THE CHARACTERISTICS WHICH DISTINGUISH FREE FROM
TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT.  UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM THE
PRIVILEGES IT EMBODIES AND THE RIGHTS IT SECURES WERE INTENDED TO BE
ABOVE AND BEYOND THE POWER OF ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT TO MUTILATE OR
DESTROY.  WE HAVE NO ASSURANCE THAT THE FEARS OF THOSE WHO DRAFTED AND
ADOPTED OUR BILL OF RIGHTS WERE GROUNDLESS, NOR THAT THE REASONS FOR
THOSE FEARS NO LONGER EXIST.  ANCIENT EVILS HISTORICALLY ASSOCIATED
WITH THE POSSESSION OF UNQUALIFIED POWER TO IMPOSE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT
ON INDIVIDUALS HAVE A DANGEROUS HABIT OF REAPPEARING WHEN TRIED
SAFEGUARDS ARE REMOVED. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE FIFTH, NOT THE FOURTH, AMENDMENT.  DECISIONS
WHICH HAVE READ THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS TOGETHER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF BROADENING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT NOW BE EMPLOYED
TO NARROW THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  TO DO SO IGNORES THE PARTICULAR
REASONING OF THESE DECISIONS AS WELL AS THE SEPARATE LANGUAGE AND
HISTORY OF THE TWO AMENDMENTS.  SEE BOYD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, SUPRA; BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591; VIII
WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, THIRD ED. PP. 276-304, 368.  NOTHING THIS COURT
HAS SAID WITH REGARD TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT WE NOW OPEN
THE DOOR WHICH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN 1791 CLOSED TO COMPELLED SELF
INCRIMINATION.    I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  AND SEE JACK V. KANSAS, 199 U.S. 372, WHERE THIS COURT DISPOSED
OF AN ARGUMENT THAT A KANSAS STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY COMPELLED JACK
TO CONFESS HIS VIOLATIONS OF A FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE WITH THE
ASSERTION THAT, "WE DO NOT BELIEVE  ...  SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD BE AVAILED
OF BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR SUCH PURPOSE."  ID., 381-382.  IN AN EARLIER
CASE, BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591, THIS COURT THOUGHT THAT THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT STATE PROSECUTORS WOULD USE TESTIMONY COMPELLED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS "SO IMPROBABLE THAT NO REASONABLE MAN WOULD
SUFFER IT TO INFLUENCE HIS CONDUCT."  ID., 606-608.  BUT SEE ENSIGN V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 227 U.S. 592. 

FN2  MCCARTHY V. ARNDSTEIN, 266 U.S. 34; AND SEE BRAM V. UNITED
STATES, 168 U.S. 532; WAN V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1; CF. BOYD V.
UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616. 

FN3  MCCARTHY V. ARNDSTEIN, SUPRA, NOTE 2, PP. 40-41; COUNSELMAN V.
HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, 562.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES EX REL.
BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S. 149; UNITED STATES EX REL. VAJTAUER V.
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, 273 U.S. 103. 

FN4  COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547. 

FN5  WAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, NOTE 2; ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES,
318 U.S. 350, 356. 

FN6  BRAM V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN7  ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, NOTE 5; AND SEE BRAM V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN8  SEE HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, AND UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK,
284 U.S. 141, HOLDING IT ENOUGH THAT THE UNITED STATES GRANT IMMUNITY
FROM PROSECUTION FOR FEDERAL CRIMES; BUT SEE, CONTRA, UNITED STATES V.
SALINE BANK, 1 PET. 100; BALLMANN V. FAGIN, 200 U.S. 186.  HAD THE
COURT IN THE MURDOCK CASE, SUPRA, ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST GRANT AN IMMUNITY FROM STATE AS WELL AS FEDERAL
PROSECUTION, IT WOULD INEVITABLY HAVE BEEN FACED WITH THE PROBLEM OF
THE FEDERAL POWER TO INTERFERE WITH ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS THROUGH
THE DEVICE OF GRANTING IMMUNITY FROM STATE PROSECUTION TO WITNESSES IN
FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS - A PROBLEM REPLETE WITH BOTH PRACTICAL AND LEGAL
DIFFICULTIES.  SEE J.A.C. GRANT, IMMUNITY FROM COMPULSORY SELF
INCRIMINATION IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, 9 TEMPLE L.Q. 57 AND
194, 207-211. 

COMPARE JACK V. KANSAS, SUPRA, NOTE 1, HOLDING THAT KANSAS COULD
COMPEL A WITNESS TO TESTIFY TO HIS PAST CRIMES UPON A GRANT OF IMMUNITY
FROM STATE PROSECUTION, THOUGH HE STILL BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
PROSECUTION.  IN REACHING THIS RESULT THE COURT TOOK SPECIFIC NOTICE OF
THE FACT THAT, WERE THE RULE OTHERWISE, STATE IMMUNITY STATUTES MUST
ALL BE STRICKEN DOWN.  "THE STATE STATUTE COULD NOT, OF COURSE, PREVENT
A PROSECUTION OF THE SAME PARTY UNDER THE UNITED STATES STATUTE."  199
U.S. 372, 380. 

FN9  SEE TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, AND ENSIGN V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, NOTE 1, HOLDING RESPECTIVELY THAT DESPITE THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A STATE MAY COMPEL A DEFENDANT TO INCRIMINATE
HIMSELF, AND MAY USE AGAINST HIM SCHEDULES HE FILED IN AN INVOLUNTARY
FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  BUT SEE ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S.
143. 

FN10  FOR A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE LEGAL
CONCEPT OF "DUAL SOVEREIGNTY" AND PRESERVATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITION AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, SEE J.A.C. GRANT, OP. CIT.,
SUPRA, NOTE 8. 

FN11  SEE PITTMAN, THE COLONIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN AMERICA, 21 VA. L. REV. 763,
775-783. 

FN12  SEE UNITED STATES V. BURR, 25 FED. CAS. 38-41; COUNSELMAN V.
HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, 564-566; BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591, 594,
600, 605-606; CF. EX PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163, 173.  AND SEE PITTMAN,
OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 11; AND CASES CITED NOTES 5, 6, AND 7, SUPRA. 

FN13  COMPARE KNOX, SELF-INCRIMINATION, 74 UNIV.  PA. L. REV. 139
WITH VIII WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, THIRD ED., PP. 304-313; AND SEE
EDITORIAL, 16 JOURN.  CRIM.  LAW AND CRIM. 165-166. 

FN14  SEE DISSENTING OPINION OF CIRCUIT JUDGE FRANK IN UNITED STATES
V. ST. PIERRE, 132 F.2D 837, 840, PP. 847-848.  "STRANGELY ENOUGH,
THOSE WHO ARE MOST OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGES IN JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF
THOSE DESIGNEDLY ELASTIC CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE OFTEN THE MOST
VIGOROUS IN THEIR DEMANDS THAT THE COURTS SHOULD EVISCERATE THE
SPECIFIC AND RELATIVELY INELASTIC SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE."  ID.,
848. 

FN15  SEE CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 235-238; TOT V. UNITED
STATES, 319 U.S. 463, 473. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




I.C.C. V. JERSEY CITY, 322 U.S. 503 


NO. 767.  ARGUED MAY 2, 3, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1944.  - 54 F.SUPP. 
315, REVERSED. 


AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED A FARE
INCREASE FROM 8 CENTS TO 9 CENTS.  UPON FINDING THAT COLLECTION OF THE
9-CENT FARE WAS IMPRACTICABLE, THE COMMISSION MODIFIED ITS ORDER SO AS
TO AUTHORIZE A FARE OF 11 TOKENS FOR $1.00 OR A CASH FARE OF 10 CENTS. 
THE COMMISSION LATER REOPENED THE PROCEEDING, BUT ONLY TO CONSIDER THE
PROPRIETY AND LAWFULNESS OF THE MODIFICATION OF ITS ORIGINAL ORDER. 
UPON FURTHER FINDINGS, THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED A FARE OF 11 TOKENS
FOR $1.00 OR A CASH FARE OF 10 CENTS.  A PETITION OF THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR MODIFICATION OF THE REOPENING ORDER "IN ORDER THAT
THE SAID RECORD BE BROUGHT UP TO DATE" WAS DENIED.  UPON REVIEW OF A
DECREE SETTING ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS, HELD: 

1.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  P. 512. 

2.  FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION SO SUPPORTED ARE CONCLUSIVE.  P. 512. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A REHEARING OF THE WHOLE CASE WAS NOT
AN ABUSE OF ITS DISCRETION AND DID NOT AMOUNT TO UNFAIRNESS SUCH AS
WOULD VITIATE ITS ORDERS.  PP. 514, 519. 

4.  IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO WARTIME
CONDITIONS AND THE STABILIZATION LEGISLATION.  P. 519. 

5.  UPON THE RECORD, IT CAN NOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMISSION
FAILED TO GIVE PROPER WEIGHT TO STABILIZATION CONSIDERATIONS OR THAT IT
IGNORED THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR'S CONTENTIONS AS TO INFLATIONARY
TENDENCIES OF RATE INCREASES.  P. 520. 

6.  THE DETERMINATION OF THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO STABILIZATION
CONSIDERATIONS IN RELATION TO OTHER FACTORS WAS FOR THE COMMISSION, NOT
THE COURTS.  P. 522. 

7.  THE STABILIZATION ACT OF 1942 DID NOT GIVE THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR STANDING SUPERIOR TO THAT OF OTHER LITIGANTS TO ASK THE
COURTS TO OVERRIDE THE NORMAL DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION IN GRANTING
OR REFUSING REHEARINGS.  FOLLOWING VINSON V. WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT CO.,
321 U.S. 489.  P. 523. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. CITY OF JERSEY CITY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WHOSE
ORDERS THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY HAS SET ASIDE, AND BY THE
HUDSON & MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY, WHOSE RATES ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ENJOINED ORDERS.  RESPONDENTS ARE THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY AND THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR, WHO INTERVENED UNDER POWERS DULY DELEGATED TO HIM
PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942  FN1  AND THE
INFLATION CONTROL OR STABILIZATION ACT OF 1942.  FN2 

THE HUDSON & MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY OWNS ABOUT 8.5 MILES OF
ELECTRIC RAILWAY, OF WHICH ALL BUT 0.63 MILE IS UNDERGROUND.  IT HAS
TWO DOUBLE-TRACK LINES, ONE OF WHICH, KNOWN AS THE "UPTOWN LINE,"
CONNECTS HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY, WITH CHRISTOPHER STREET, NEW YORK, BY TWO
PARALLEL TUNNELS UNDER THE HUDSON RIVER, AND RUNS UPTOWN UNDER SIXTH
AVENUE FROM CHRISTOPHER STREET TO A TERMINAL AT 33RD STREET.  THE OTHER
LINE, KNOWN AS THE "DOWNTOWN LINE," CROSSES UNDER THE RIVER BY TWO
PARALLEL TUNNELS BETWEEN EXCHANGE PLACE, JERSEY CITY, AND HUDSON
TERMINAL, NEW YORK.  IT ALSO EXTENDS WESTWARDLY IN JERSEY CITY TO
JOURNAL SQUARE, WHERE CONNECTION IS MADE WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA
RAILROAD.  THE UPTOWN AND DOWNTOWN LINES ARE CONNECTED ON THE NEW
JERSEY SIDE BY MEANS OF A LINE PARALLELING THE HUDSON RIVER.  IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD THE HUDSON & MANHATTAN
OPERATES A JOINT RAPID-TRANSIT SERVICE BETWEEN HUDSON TERMINAL AND
NEWARK.  IT CARRIES ONLY PASSENGERS. 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY HAS ITS ROOTS IN A RATE CASE PRECIPITATED BY
THE COMPANY'S EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A 10-CENT FARE ON ITS DOWNTOWN LINE
IN 1937.  FN3  AFTER FULL HEARINGS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
FIXED AN 8-CENT FARE EFFECTIVE JULY 25, 1938.  FN4  THE 10-CENT FARE
WAS DENIED CHIEFLY ON THE GROUND THAT, WHILE THE COMPANY MIGHT BE
ENTITLED TO THE REVENUE, SUCH A FARE WOULD DECREASE ITS PATRONAGE, AND
THE COMMISSION BELIEVED THAT AN 8-CENT FARE WOULD PRODUCE MORE
REVENUE.  COMMISSIONERS MILLER AND MAHAFFIE DISSENTED FROM DENIAL OF
THE 10-CENT FARE ON SUCH GROUNDS, HOLDING IT HAD BEEN "AMPLY JUSTIFIED"
AS "REASONABLE AND LAWFUL FOR THE SERVICES PERFORMED."  THIS COURT HELD
SUCH GROUNDS OF DENIAL TO BE SUSTAINED BY EVIDENCE AND TO BE WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S DISCRETION.  HUDSON & MANHATTAN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
313 U.S. 98.  THE 8-CENT FARE REMAINED IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CARRIER ON
JUNE 27, 1942 FILED A PETITION IN THE SAME PROCEEDING FOR FURTHER
HEARING, ALLEGING CHANGED CONDITIONS AND INCREASED COSTS IN SUPPORT OF
A 10-CENT FARE ON THE DOWNTOWN LINE.  PROTESTS WERE FILED BY THE CITY
OF JERSEY CITY AND THE HUDSON BUS CORPORATION.  THE COMMISSION OPENED
THE PROCEEDING AND EXTENSIVE HEARINGS WERE HELD IN SEPTEMBER OF 1942. 
COUNSEL FOR THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR APPEARED, STATING THAT IT WAS NOT
HIS INTENTION TO OFFER EVIDENCE BUT THAT HE RESERVED THE RIGHT TO MAKE
ANY MOTIONS AND TO FILE APPROPRIATE BRIEFS.  THE HEARINGS WERE
CONCLUDED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1942. 

THE INFLATION CONTROL ACT OF 1942, PASSED ON OCTOBER 2D, CONTAINED A
PROVISO THAT "NO COMMON CARRIER OR OTHER PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL MAKE ANY
GENERAL INCREASE IN ITS RATES OR CHARGES WHICH WERE IN EFFECT ON
SEPTEMBER 15, 1942, UNLESS IT FIRST GIVES THIRTY DAYS NOTICE TO THE
PRESIDENT, OR SUCH AGENCY AS HE MAY DESIGNATE, AND CONSENTS TO THE
TIMELY INTERVENTION BY SUCH AGENCY BEFORE THE FEDERAL, STATE OR
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER SUCH INCREASE." 
SEC. 1.  THEREAFTER THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR  FN5  ASKED PERMISSION TO
AND DID FILE A BRIEF OPPOSING ANY INCREASE IN THE RATES.  ON JANUARY
25, 1943, THE HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION FIND THE
RATE OF 10 CENTS ON THE DOWNTOWN LINES TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE. 
EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED BY JERSEY CITY AND THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR AND
ARGUED BY COUNSEL FOR EACH, AND ON JUNE 8, 1943 THE COMMISSION MADE ITS
DECISION.  FN6  IT REVIEWED THE INCREASES IN OPERATING COSTS SINCE THE
8-CENT RATE HAD BEEN FIXED AND THE NEED OF THE RAILROAD FOR ADDITIONAL
REVENUE "IN ORDER TO MEET INCREASED OPERATING EXPENSES AND THE INTEREST
ON ITS BONDS."  IT INCREASED THE DOWNTOWN FARE FROM 8 CENTS TO 9 CENTS,
EFFECTIVE FOR DURATION OF THE WAR AND SIX MONTHS THEREAFTER, WITH
PERMISSION TO ANY OF THE PARTIES TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
COMMISSION ADDITIONAL FACTS IF THE REVENUE RESULTS SHOULD PROVE
MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMISSION'S ESTIMATE.  THE COMMISSION'S
OPINION CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR AGAINST ANY
INCREASE, BUT SAID, "IT SEEMS TO US THAT AN INCREASE OF 1 CENT IN
RESPONDENT'S DOWNTOWN FARE IS UNLIKELY TO HAVE ANY INFLATIONARY EFFECT,
AND THAT THE EFFECT THEREOF UPON THE COST OF LIVING, WHILE A FACTOR TO
BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION, WILL BE SO SLIGHT, A MAXIMUM OF ABOUT 12 CENTS
A WEEK AND 52 CENTS A MONTH PER PASSENGER, AS TO BE NEGLIGIBLE.  WE
BELIEVE, THEREFORE, THAT THE INCREASED FARE HEREIN APPROVED WILL NOT BE
IN CONFLICT WITH THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED." 
THREE COMMISSIONERS DISSENTED, HOLDING THAT THE COMPANY HAD ESTABLISHED
ITS RIGHT TO A 10-CENT FARE. 

A MONTH LATER THE RAILROAD FILED A PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 
AMONG OTHER THINGS, IT ALLEGED THAT IT COULD NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF THE 9
CENT RATE BECAUSE ITS FARE COLLECTION BOXES COULD NOT HANDLE THE VOLUME
OF COINS NECESSITATED BY THE 9-CENT RATE AND UNDER WAR CONDITIONS COULD
NOT BE REPLACED.  IT ASKED TO CHARGE A 10-CENT FARE UNTIL IT COULD
SECURE TOKENS.  JERSEY CITY ANSWERED, ASKING THAT THE PETITION BE
DENIED AND THE 9-CENT FARE SUSPENDED.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR ALSO
ANSWERED.  HE ADVOCATED WHAT HE CALLED A FEASIBLE SCHEME TO COLLECT THE
9-CENT FARE THROUGH THE USE OF PAPER TICKETS.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
ALSO ASKED THAT THE FARES GO BACK TO 8 CENTS IN VIEW OF ALLEGED
INCREASED EARNINGS AND ASKED THAT IN ANY EVENT BEFORE THE FARES WERE
INCREASED ON THE BASIS SUGGESTED BY THE COMPANY A FURTHER HEARING BE
HELD.  ON AUGUST 3, 1943 THE COMMISSION ISSUED A REPORT AND ORDER.  FN7
IT FOUND THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO COLLECT A 9-CENT CASH FARE,
AND IT AUTHORIZED AN ALTERNATIVE BASIS OF ELEVEN TOKENS FOR $1.00 OR A
CASH FARE OF 10 CENTS, PROVIDED THE SAME ALTERNATIVE BASIS BE PUT INTO
EFFECT ON THE UPTOWN LINE.  THIS RESULTED, OF COURSE, IN A RATE OF 9
1/11 CENTS TO TOKEN PURCHASERS ON BOTH LINES. 

THEREUPON JERSEY CITY FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, ASKING
THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER BE ENJOINED "IN SO FAR AS SUCH ORDER
PERMITS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY LOCAL INTERSTATE FARE IN EXCESS OF
NINE CENTS FOR TRANSPORTATION ON THE DOWNTOWN LINE."  IT ALLEGED THAT
IN AUTHORIZING DOWNTOWN FARES "IN EXCESS OF THE NINE CENT FARE" FIXED
IN THE ORDER OF JUNE 8, THE COMMISSION HAD DEPRIVED JERSEY CITY OF ITS
FULL DAY IN COURT BY REFUSING IT OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES
AND PRESENT COUNTER-EVIDENCE. 

THE COMMISSION THEN REOPENED THE PROCEEDING ON ITS OWN MOTION, BUT
ONLY "TO PERMIT ANY PARTY HERETO TO PRESENT EVIDENCE DIRECTED SOLELY TO
THE PROPRIETY AND LAWFULNESS OF THE MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE
COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT OF AUGUST 3, 1943, ON FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF
ITS PRIOR FINDINGS AND ORDERS OF JULY 11, 1938 AND JUNE 8, 1943" AND TO
AFFORD THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE ADVERSE WITNESSES.  THE COMMISSION IN
ITS LATER REPORT OF NOVEMBER 2, 1943 REFERRED TO THIS REOPENING AS
BEING "OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION."  AT THE REOPENED PROCEEDING THE
COMPANY OFFERED TESTIMONY ABOUT THE IMPRACTICABILITY OF COLLECTING A 9
CENT FARE, AND AS TO THE EARNINGS THAT WOULD BE DERIVED FROM THE
PROPOSED TOKEN AND CASH COMBINATION FARES UPON THE ASSUMPTION,
SUPPORTED BY TESTIMONY, THAT 90 PER CENT OF THE PASSENGERS PROBABLY
WOULD PURCHASE TOKENS.  THE EXAMINER RULED THAT THE BASIS OF THE 9-CENT
FARE FIXED BY THE ORDER OF JUNE 8, 1943 WAS NOT IN ISSUE AND CONFINED
EVIDENCE TO THE ISSUES SPECIFIED IN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR OFFERED A CONDENSED INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE HUDSON &
MANHATTAN FOR THE FIRST SEVEN MONTHS OF 1943.  THE EXAMINER DECLINED TO
RECEIVE IT, BECAUSE IT WENT ONLY TO THE COMPANY'S NEED FOR REVENUE, AN
INQUIRY WHICH WAS NOT REOPENED.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR PREVIOUSLY HAD
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION A SIMILAR STATEMENT FOR FIVE MONTHS OF
1943, AS PART OF ITS REPLY TO THE RAILROAD'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
OF THE 9-CENT FARE.  THE COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT OF AUGUST 3D REJECTED
THIS STATEMENT AS BEING WITHOUT PROBATIVE VALUE.  NEITHER OF THE
STATEMENTS SHOWED THE INCOME OF APPELLANT FROM ITS RAILROAD OPERATIONS,
BUT INCLUDED INCOME OF THE CORPORATION FROM ALL OPERATIONS, INCLUDING
THE HUDSON TERMINAL BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY AND OTHER REAL ESTATE
OWNED BY IT.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR ALSO PETITIONED THE COMMISSION
FOR MODIFICATON OF THE REOPENING ORDER "IN ORDER THAT THE SAID RECORD
BE BROUGHT UP TO DATE."  THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS STATED TO BE TO SHOW
THAT AS A RESULT OF THE WAR THE EARNINGS OF THE COMPANY AT AN 8-CENT
FARE FOR THE FULL YEAR 1943 WOULD EXCEED THE AMOUNT THE COMMISSION
FOUND ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE IN ITS 1938 ORDER OR IN THE ORDER OF JUNE
8, 1943. 

ON NOVEMBER 2, 1943 THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS REPORT AND ORDER,
ALLOWING A 10-CENT CASH FARE OR ELEVEN TOKENS FOR $1.00 AS THE RATE ON
BOTH THE DOWNTOWN AND UPTOWN LINES.  THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED IN ITS
OPINION THE REQUEST OF JERSEY CITY AND THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR THAT THE
LIMITATIONS ON THE HEARINGS SHOULD BE REMOVED AND THE WHOLE RATE CASE
THROWN OPEN AGAIN.  IT POINTED OUT THAT THE COMPLAINT OF JERSEY CITY
PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT QUESTION THE PROPRIETY OF THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORIZATION OF AN INCREASE IN THE DOWNTOWN FARE FROM 8
CENTS TO 9 CENTS BUT CHALLENGED ONLY THE INCREASE FROM 9 CENTS TO 9
1/11 CENTS WITH TOKENS AND 10 CENTS IN CASH.  IT CONSIDERED THE OFFER
OF PROOF MADE IN THE HEARINGS AND SAID:  "CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF
THE MOTION NOW BEFORE US, AND THE OFFERS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MADE AT
THE RECENT FURTHER HEARING, WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT, IF THE
ADDITIONAL HEARING SOUGHT WERE HELD, WE WOULD FEEL WARRANTED IN
MODIFYING OUR FINDINGS AS MADE IN THE SECOND REPORT.  AS WILL LATER
APPEAR, THE ALTERNATIVE-FARE BASIS HEREIN APPROVED CAN NOT BE EXPECTED
TO YIELD MATERIALLY BETTER REVENUE RESULTS TO RESPONDENT THAN WE
ANTICIPATED AT THE TIME OF THE SECOND REPORT.  ACCORDINGLY, WE SEE NO
SUFFICIENT REASON FOR FURTHER REOPENING THIS PROCEEDING AT THIS TIME,
AND THE MOTION WILL THEREFORE BE OVERRULED."  ON THE MERITS THE
COMMISSION SAID: 

"UPON THE AMPLIFIED RECORD NOW BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE FOLLOWING
BASIC FACTS, AS UNDERSCORED, HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED: 

1.  IT IS IMPRACTICABLE FOR RESPONDENT TO COLLECT A CASH FARE OF 9
CENTS. 

     .         .         .     .         . 

2.  THERE IS AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENT NO PRACTICABLE METHOD OF
COLLECTING A FARE OF, OR APPROXIMATING, 9 CENTS EXCEPT BY THE USE OF
TOKENS. 

     .         .  .         .         . 

3.  THE USE OF TOKENS ONLY FOR THE LOCAL DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC, WHILE
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY USING CASH FARES FOR THE OTHER LOCAL TRAFFIC OF
RESPONDENT, IS IMPRACTICABLE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

4.  THE USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE-FARE BASIS OF 11 TOKENS FOR $1 OR A
CASH FARE OF A DIME FOR LOCAL INTERSTATE PASSENGERS ON BOTH THE
DOWNTOWN AND UPTOWN LINES IS THE ONLY PRACTICABLE METHOD NOW AVAILABLE
BY WHICH RESPONDENT CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO OBTAIN THE FINANCIAL
BENEFITS CONTEMPLATED BY OUR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE SECOND
REPORT AS NECESSARY TO INSURE ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. 

     .         .         .         .       . 

5.  THE MODIFICATION OF OUR PRIOR FINDINGS AS MADE IN THE THIRD
REPORT OF AUGUST 3, 1943, IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED BY THE STABILIZATION ACT. 

     .         .         .         .    . 

6.  A CASH FARE OF 10 CENTS FOR THE OCCASIONAL OR IRREGULAR PASSENGER
ON THE DOWNTOWN LINE COMPARES FAVORABLY WITH THE REASONABLE CHARGE MADE
FOR SIMILAR SERVICE ON RAILROADS GENERALLY." 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED A FARE OF
ELEVEN TOKENS FOR $1.00 OR A CASH FARE OF 10 CENTS, PAYABLE BY A DIME,
AS REASONABLE AND OTHERWISE LAWFUL FOR APPLICATION DURING THE WAR AND
FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER ITS TERMINATION. 

JERSEY CITY THEREUPON AMENDED ITS COMPLAINT PENDING IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  IT ASKED THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF JUNE 8, 1943, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE 9-CENT RATE, AS WELL AS THAT OF NOVEMBER 2, 1943, WHICH
MODIFIED IT AS STATED, BE ENJOINED, IN SO FAR AS SUCH ORDER PERMITTED
ANY FARE ON APPELLANT'S DOWNTOWN LINE IN EXCESS OF 8 CENTS.  THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVENED, ALLEGING THAT AN INCREASE OVER THE 8-CENT
FARE IN EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1942 WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE
STABILIZATION ACT.  THE UNITED STATES WAS NAMED AS A DEFENDANT BUT
FILED A NEUTRAL ANSWER BECAUSE TWO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WERE IN
OPPOSITION TO EACH OTHER.  THE COMMISSION AND THE RAILROAD ANSWERED.  A
STATUTORY COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS CONSTITUTED AND AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED NOVEMBER 26, 1943.    ON JANUARY 12, 1944 A
MAJORITY OF THE COURT BELOW, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, HELD BOTH OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS INVALID UPON TWO GROUNDS.  IT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT
THE COMMISSION HAD DENIED A FULL HEARING IN REFUSING TO REOPEN THE
WHOLE PROCEEDING TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE 1943 EARNINGS OF
THE CARRIER, AND IT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD BRUSHED ASIDE TOO
LIGHTLY THE ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ARGUMENTS OF THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR.  THE EFFECT OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER IS TO DISALLOW
NOT ONLY THE TOKEN AND CASH COMBINATION FARE, BUT ALSO THE 9-CENT FARE
WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND JUST, REASONABLE AND LAWFUL, AND TO CONTINUE
THE 8-CENT RATE FIXED IN 1938 AND HELD BY THE COMMISSION TO HAVE BECOME
CLEARLY INADEQUATE TO THE RIGHTS AND NEEDS OF THE COMPANY. 

EACH OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE COMMISSION APPEARS TO BE
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  THE COURT BELOW HAS NOT FOUND TO
THE CONTRARY, NOR DO WE.  REASONABLE PERSONS COULD NO DOUBT DIFFER AS
TO WHETHER IT IS PROBABLE THAT 90 PER CENT OF THE PATRONS WILL PURCHASE
TOKENS, WHETHER THE REVENUES OF THE LINES WILL INCREASE MORE THAN THE
OPERATING COSTS, AND AS TO VARIOUS OTHER FEATURES OF THE CONTEST.  BUT
WHEN THIS SAME RAILROAD CAME TO US COMPLAINING OF SUCH PREDICATIVE
FINDINGS WE REFUSED TO REVIEW THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND HELD THAT
BEING SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION WAS FINAL. 
HUDSON & MANHATTAN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 98.  OF COURSE WE
CANNOT HOLD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION IS LESS FINAL MERELY
BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN EXERCISED ON THIS OCCASION FOR RELIEF OF THE
COMPANY. 

"MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DOES NOT BECOME SUSPECT BY REASON
OF THE FACT THAT IT IS CHALLENGED.  IT IS THE PRODUCT OF EXPERT
JUDGMENT WHICH CARRIES A PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY.  AND HE WHO WOULD
UPSET THE RATE ORDER UNDER THE ACT CARRIES THE HEAVY BURDEN OF MAKING A
CONVINCING SHOWING THAT IT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT IS UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE IN ITS CONSEQUENCES."  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE
NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591, 602.  THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THAT IT
HAD, AND WE FIND NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT IT HAD, THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT
THAT WAS NEEDFUL TO THE DISCHARGE OF ITS DUTY TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE
REGULATED RAILROAD.  "WITH THAT SORT OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM, RATE
EXPERTS OF ACKNOWLEDGED ABILITY AND FAIRNESS, AND EACH ACTING
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER, MAY NOT HAVE REACHED IDENTICALLY THE SAME
CONCLUSION.  WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE RESULTS WOULD HAVE BEEN
APPROXIMATELY THE SAME.  FOR THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF SOLVING THE
QUESTION AS THOUGH IT WERE A MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM TO WHICH THERE COULD
ONLY BE ONE CORRECT ANSWER.  STILL THERE WAS IN THIS MASS OF FACTS THAT
OUT OF WHICH EXPERTS COULD HAVE NAMED A RATE.  THE LAW MAKES THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING ON SUCH FACTS CONCLUSIVE."  INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 222 U.S. 541, 550. 

"SO LONG AS THERE IS WARRANT IN THE RECORD FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE
EXPERT BODY IT MUST STAND.  ...  "THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IS EXHAUSTED
WHEN THERE IS FOUND TO BE A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSIONS APPROVED
BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.'"  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 145-46; MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 282, 286-87. 

UNLESS, THEREFORE, THE COURT BELOW IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT A FAIR
HEARING HAS BEEN DENIED OR IN HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION
MISAPPREHENDED THE EFFECT OF THE EMERGENCY LEGISLATION, THE ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION IS ENTITLED TO STAND.  WE TURN TO THOSE QUESTIONS. 

                                  I. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HAS SET ASIDE FOR WANT OF FAIR HEARING TWO ORDERS
OF THE COMMISSION, ONE OF WHICH PERMITTED AN INCREASE FROM 8 CENTS TO 9
CENTS IN THE RATE AND THE LATTER OF WHICH MODIFIED THE 9-CENT RATE SO
FAR AS TO PERMIT A 9 1/11-CENT TOKEN RATE AND A 10-CENT CASH RATE. 

NO CLAIM IS MADE THAT FULL HEARING WAS DENIED AS TO THE FIRST ORDER. 
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN THIS ACTION, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, DID NOT
QUESTION THE 9-CENT RATE ORDER, BUT ONLY THE SUBSEQUENT STEPS TO MODIFY
IT.  THE CONTENTION AS TO THE FIRST ORDER IS THAT THE COMMISSION IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WAS COMPELLED TO GIVE A FULL REHEARING BEFORE ITS ORDER
COULD BECOME FINAL.  AND IT IS URGED THAT THE ORDER AFTER THE LIMITED
REHEARING IS INVALID BECAUSE THERE WAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO A WIDER RANGE
OF INQUIRY BEFORE MODIFICATION OF THE FIRST ORDER. 

THIS RAISES AN IMPORTANT BUT NOT A NEW QUESTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR'S CONTENTION IS THAT THIS RECORD IS
"STALE" AND THAT A FRESH RECORD IS IMPORTANT.  ONE OF THE GROUNDS OF
RESISTANCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS THROUGHOUT FEDERAL EXPERIENCE WITH
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS HAS BEEN THE CLAIMS OF PRIVATE LITIGANTS TO
BE ENTITLED TO REHEARINGS TO BRING THE RECORD UP TO DATE AND MEANWHILE
TO STALL THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.  ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE - PARTICULARLY WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS TAKEN BY
AN EXAMINER, HIS REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE PARTIES, AND A HEARING HELD ON
THEIR EXCEPTIONS TO IT - ALWAYS CREATES A GAP BETWEEN THE TIME THE
RECORD IS CLOSED AND THE TIME THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IS
PROMULGATED.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IF THE ISSUES ARE DIFFICULT, THE
EVIDENCE INTRICATE, AND THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE DELIBERATE AND
CAREFUL.  IF UPON THE COMING DOWN OF THE ORDER LITIGANTS MIGHT DEMAND
REHEARINGS AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE SOME NEW CIRCUMSTANCE HAS ARISEN,
SOME NEW TREND HAS BEEN OBSERVED, OR SOME NEW FACT DISCOVERED, THERE
WOULD BE LITTLE HOPE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS COULD EVER BE
CONSUMMATED IN AN ORDER THAT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO REOPENING.  IT HAS
BEEN ALMOST A RULE OF NECESSITY THAT REHEARINGS WERE NOT MATTERS OF
RIGHT, BUT WERE PLEAS TO DISCRETION.  AND LIKEWISE IT HAS BEEN
CONSIDERED THAT THE DISCRETION TO BE INVOKED WAS THAT OF THE BODY
MAKING THE ORDER, AND NOT THAT OF A REVIEWING BODY. 

ONLY ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW HAS THIS COURT
REVERSED A COMMISSION FOR REFUSING TO GRANT A REHEARING ON THE
CONTENTION THAT THE RECORD WAS "STALE."  IN ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 248, THIS COURT HELD THAT BECAUSE OF CHANGED
CONDITIONS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
DENYING A REHEARING.  THE RECORD IN THAT CASE WAS CLOSED IN SEPTEMBER
1928.  IN FEBRUARY 1931, THE RAILROADS PETITIONED FOR REHEARING AND
"POINTED OUT THE GRAVE REDUCTIONS, IN TRAFFIC AND EARNINGS, FROM WHICH
THEY WERE SUFFERING, THAT THEIR NET OPERATING INCOME FOR 1930 WAS OVER
$100,000,000 LESS THAN THEIR AVERAGE ANNUAL NET OPERATING INCOME FOR
THE FIVE YEARS PRECEDING, AND THAT THEIR CREDIT WAS SERIOUSLY
IMPAIRED.  AT THE TIME OF THIS PETITION, THE ORDER  ...  HAD NOT YET
BECOME EFFECTIVE, BUT THE COMMISSION STOOD UPON THE RECORD OF 1928 AND,
WITHOUT REOPENING THE PROCEEDINGS OR TAKING FURTHER EVIDENCE, PROVIDED
THAT ITS ORDER SHOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 1, 1931."  THIS, IT WAS
HELD, "WAS NOT WITHIN THE PERMITTED RANGE OF THE COMMISSION'S
DISCRETION, BUT WAS A DENIAL OF RIGHT."  284 U.S. 248, 261-62. 

THE COURT, HOWEVER, PROMPTLY RESTRICTED THAT DECISION TO ITS SPECIAL
FACTS, UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 288 U.S. 490, AND IT
STANDS VIRTUALLY ALONE.  IN BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
298 U.S. 349, 389, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, CONCURRING, SAID, "THE
ATCHISON CASE RESTS UPON ITS EXCEPTIONAL FACTS.  IT IS APPARENTLY THE
ONLY INSTANCE IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS INTERFERED WITH THE EXERCISE OF
THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION IN GRANTING, OR REFUSING, TO REOPEN A
HEARING."  ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, AROSE
UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT.  THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WAS
UPHELD IN REFUSING TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDING TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF CHANGED
CONDITIONS RESULTING FROM THE ECONOMIC LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS IN
1933.  AGAIN, UNDER THE SAME ACT, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DENIED A
REQUEST TO ADD THREE MONTHS' DEVELOPMENTS TO THE RECORD, WE REFUSED TO
INTERFERE, AND THE COURT SAID, THROUGH MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, "THE
AMENDED PETITION WAS FILED ABOUT THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ORIGINAL ORDER
ISSUED.  IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS HAD SO ALTERED IN
THIS BRIEF PERIOD AS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE NEW SCHEDULE OF RATES, IF
JUST WHEN PROMULGATED, HAD BECOME UNJUST AND OPPRESSIVE.  THE SCHEDULE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A TRIAL AND ANY ALTERATION OR MODIFICATION
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED IN THE LIGHT OF MORE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE.  WE
ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE IN THE DENIAL OF
THE PETITIONS."  ACKER V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 426, 433. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DID NOT
ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING A REQUEST FOR A NEW STUDY AS A BASIS
FOR RATE-MAKING, ALTHOUGH CHANGES WERE ALLEGED CONSISTING OF A FALLING
OFF IN VOLUME OF TRAFFIC, IMPROVEMENT OF HIGHWAYS IN THE DISTRICT
RESULTING IN DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC FROM RAIL TO TRUCK, DECLINE IN VALUE
OF THE ARTICLES TRANSPORTED, REDUCTION IN WAGES AND COST OF SUPPLIES,
AND CURTAILMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE RENDERED, AND WHERE THE
COMMISSION DECIDED THAT IT WAS ABLE ON THE RECORD BEFORE IT TO CONSIDER
THE EFFECT OF THE FACTORS SUGGESTED BY THE APPELLANTS AND THAT A NEW
COST STUDY WAS UNNECESSARY.  ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 474, 480.  EXCEPT THAT THE TRENDS ARE IN AN OPPOSITE
DIRECTION, THE INQUIRY DEMANDED HERE IS OF THE SAME NATURE.  SEE ALSO
GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 765, 769
70. 

THE COURT HAS HELD THAT ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS "HAVE POWER
THEMSELVES TO INITIATE INQUIRY, OR, WHEN THEIR AUTHORITY IS INVOKED, TO
CONTROL THE RANGE OF INVESTIGATION IN ASCERTAINING WHAT IS TO SATISFY
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN RELATION TO THE NEEDS OF
VAST REGIONS AND SOMETIMES THE WHOLE NATION IN THE ENJOYMENT OF
FACILITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND OTHER ESSENTIAL PUBLIC
SERVICES."  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE
BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 142.  CF. AMERICAN BRIDGE CO. V.
RAILROAD COMMISSION, 307 U.S. 486, 494. 

NOR CAN A LITIGANT INSIST THAT A COMMISSION MAY NOT TAKE A SECOND
STEP IN A RATE-MAKING PROCESS WITHOUT RETRACING ALL PREVIOUS ONES.  AS
PUT BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, "THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RATE FOR A REGULATED
INDUSTRY OFTEN INVOLVES TWO STEPS OF DIFFERENT CHARACTER, ONE OF WHICH
MAY APPROPRIATELY PRECEDE THE OTHER.  THE FIRST IS THE ADJUSTMENT OF
THE GENERAL REVENUE LEVEL TO THE DEMANDS OF A FAIR RETURN.  THE SECOND
IS THE ADJUSTMENT OF A RATE SCHEDULE CONFORMING TO THAT LEVEL SO AS TO
ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATIONS AND UNFAIRNESS FROM ITS DETAILS."  SUCH
PROCEDURE MAY BE ADOPTED WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF AN ACT.  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
CO., 315 U.S. 575, 584. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT "THE REFUSAL TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE OF DOMINATION
IN THE PRESENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HEARING ACCORDS, IN OUR VIEW, WITH
THE BOARD'S DISCRETIONARY POWERS."  PITTSBURGH GLASS CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 313 U.S. 146, 161. 

WE HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA OF RAILROAD STOCKHOLDERS THAT EVENTS
SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL OF A REORGANIZATION PLAN OF A VERY SIMILAR
CHARACTER TO THOSE ALLEGED HERE, REQUIRE ITS RETURN FOR
RECONSIDERATION.  GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST.
P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, 542-44; ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO.,
318 U.S. 448, 506-09. 

THE RULE THAT PETITIONS FOR REHEARINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
ARE ADDRESSED TO THEIR OWN DISCRETION IS UNIFORMLY ACCEPTED AND SEEMS
TO BE ALMOST UNIVERSALLY APPLIED IN OTHER FEDERAL COURTS.  UNITED
STATES EX REL. MAINE POTATO GROWERS ASSN. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, 88 F.2D 780, 784, CERT. DENIED, 300 U.S. 684; MISSISSIPPI
VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 4 F.SUPP.  745, 748; UNION
STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 9 F.SUPP.  864, 873; AMERICAN
COMMISSION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 11 F.SUPP.  965, 972; R.C.A.
COMMUNICATIONS V. UNITED STATES, 43 F.SUPP.  851, 858. 

CENTRAL & SOUTH WEST UTILITIES CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, 136 F.2D 273, 275, INVOLVED AN ORDER OF SIMPLIFICATION
UNDER THE HOLDING COMPANY ACT, IN WHICH THE PETITIONER MOVED FOR LEAVE
TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.  DENYING THE MOTION, THE COURT SAID,
"PETITIONERS SHOW THAT THEIR FINANCIAL POSITION HAS IMPROVED SOMEWHAT
SINCE THE COMMISSION HELD ITS HEARINGS.  SECTION 11(B) AUTHORIZES THE
COMMISSION TO REVOKE OR MODIFY ITS ORDER, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, IN
RESPONSE TO CHANGED CONDITIONS, AND THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT
IT WILL NOT DO SO IF SUFFICIENT OCCASION ARISES.  NEVERTHELESS
PETITIONERS NOW ASK LEAVE, UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE ACT, TO ADDUCE
THEIR IMPROVED POSITION AS 'ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE' IN THE COMPLETED
HEARINGS WHICH LED TO THE PRESENT ORDER.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER
SUPERVENING EVENTS OF THIS GENERAL SORT MAY SOMETIMES BE 'ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 24(A).  IF SO, FINAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DISPOSITION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY OFTEN BE PREVENTED
ALTOGETHER BY THE MERE FACT THAT THEY TAKE TIME."  SEE ALSO KOPPERS
UNITED CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 138 F.2D 577; COLORADO
RADIO CORP. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 118 F.2D 24; RED
RIVER BROADCASTING CO. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 98 F.2D
282, CERT. DENIED, 305 U.S. 625. 

VARIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR'S CONTENTION ARE MADE,
SUCH AS THAT THE EVIDENCE HE PROPOSED TO OFFER WAS REMOTE, OR OF NO
PROBATIVE VALUE, THAT THE APPLICATION TO REOPEN DID NOT CONFORM TO THE
COMMISSION'S RULES, THAT HE BECAME, ALONG WITH JERSEY CITY, ESTOPPED
FROM QUESTIONING THE 9-CENT FARE BY THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT IN DISTRICT
COURT, WHICH RAISED NO ISSUE ABOUT IT, AND THAT THE PARTIES DID NOT
PROCEED WITH DUE DILIGENCE.  WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO EXAMINE ANY
OF THESE CONTENTIONS.    IT IS PERFECTLY PLAIN THAT UNLESS THE
STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR GIVES HIM A DIFFERENT
STANDING BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS THAN CAN BE CLAIMED BY PRIVATE
LITIGANTS THERE IS NO GROUND FOR HOLDING THAT THE DENIAL OF A REHEARING
CONSTITUTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR AMOUNTED TO UNFAIRNESS WHICH
WOULD INVALIDATE THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS.  THE AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO
ABOVE MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY PLAIN THAT HAD THE RAILROAD'S PETITION FOR
REHEARING BEEN DENIED WE WOULD HAVE HELD IT TO BE IN THE SOUND
DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION AND NOT REVIEWABLE.  THE RULE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SHOULD NOT CHANGE BECAUSE THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER
FOOT.  THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR BREAKING DOWN OUR DECISIONAL
RULES THAT PROTECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS AGAINST TACTICS TO DELAY
FINALITY, UNLESS CONGRESS HAS SO ORDERED US, AS TO WHICH WE NEXT
INQUIRE. 

                       II. 

THE COURT BELOW GAVE AS A SECOND REASON FOR SETTING ASIDE THE TWO
ORDERS THAT THE COMMISSION "LIGHTLY BRUSHED ASIDE" THE ECONOMIC
STABILIZATION PHASE OF THE CASE AND GAVE TOO LITTLE WEIGHT TO THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR'S CONTENTIONS AS TO INFLATIONARY TENDENCIES OF RATE
INCREASES.  IT SAID, AND OF COURSE WE AGREE, THAT THE "COMMISSION HERE
IS UNDER A DISTINCT DUTY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, TO GIVE FULL EFFECT
TO WARTIME CONDITIONS AND THE STABILIZATION LEGISLATION." 

BUT THAT DOES NOT ANSWER THE REAL QUESTION, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE
EFFECT OF THE STABILIZATION LEGISLATION.  IN SEEKING THIS ANSWER WE ARE
INQUIRING AS TO THE RELATIVE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TWO FEDERAL
AGENCIES.  CONGRESS WAS FREE TO APPORTION THEIR FUNCTIONS AS IT SAW FIT
AND TO TRANSFER ANY PART OF THE NORMAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMMISSION
TO THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR OR OTHER EXECUTIVE AGENCIES.  COMMERCE
COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION OF RATE INCREASES COULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO
REVIEW OR VETO SO FAR AS ANY OBJECTION OF THE COMMISSION IS CONCERNED. 

BUT CONGRESS DID NO SUCH THING.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF RELEVANT
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WAS REVIEWED IN DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES,
321 U.S. 144.  IT WAS THERE POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS REJECTED A
PROPOSAL THAT SUCH RATES SHOULD NOT BE INCREASED WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE
PRESIDENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND IT WAS ASSURED BY EXECUTIVE
REPRESENTATIVES THAT RATE ADVANCES ALREADY SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ON
BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AND TO PROOF OF REASONABLENESS WERE NOT THE SOURCE
OF THE MORE SUBSTANTIAL INFLATIONARY THREATS.  CONGRESS THEN ADOPTED
THE PROVISION WE EARLIER QUOTED. 

IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH HISTORY THIS COURT HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO
CONSTRUE THE EMERGENCY LEGISLATION AS GIVING THE ADMINISTRATOR STANDING
TO MAKE MANDATORY DEMANDS UPON OTHER TRIBUNALS OR TO STRIP THEM OF
THEIR USUAL DISCRETIONS.  UNDER THIS STATUTORY PLAN, AS WE HAVE SAID IN
THE LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, "THE ADMINISTRATOR DOES NOT CARRY
THE SOLE BURDEN OF THE WAR AGAINST INFLATION."  HECHT CO. V. BOWLES,
321 U.S. 321, 325, 331.  AT THE SAME TIME, WE SAID THAT THE
DISCRETIONARY ACTION OF OTHER TRIBUNALS, EVEN OF COURTS, "SHOULD
REFLECT AN ACUTE AWARENESS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ADMONITION THAT 'OF ALL
THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAR, EXCEPT HUMAN SLAUGHTER, INFLATION IS THE MOST
DESTRUCTIVE' AND THAT DELAY OR INDIFFERENCE MAY BE FATAL." 

NO CHARGE THAT THE COMMISSION IGNORED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S CONTENTIONS
CAN FAIRLY BE MADE ON THIS RECORD.  FN8  ALTHOUGH HE INTERVENED IN THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING, FIRST ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND THEN FOR THE
STABILIZATION DIRECTOR, HE MADE NO EFFORT TO OFFER ANY EVIDENCE EITHER
BEFORE OR AFTER THE HEARING CLOSED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT NEARLY NINE
MONTHS ELAPSED BETWEEN THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING AND THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER.  FN9  NOR DID HE EVEN MOVE FOR REHEARING, UNTIL AFTER THE
RAILROAD HAD ASKED FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER.  HE WAS THEN
PERMITTED TO INTERVENE, TO FILE BRIEFS AND TO BE HEARD IN ARGUMENT, TO
CROSS-EXAMINE AND TO OFFER EVIDENCE.  HIS DESIRE TO REOPEN THE WHOLE
CASE WAS REFUSED, BECAUSE THE COMMISSION, CONSIDERING ALL THAT HE
OFFERED TO SHOW, SAID, "CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE MOTION NOW
BEFORE US, AND THE OFFERS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MADE AT THE RECENT
FURTHER HEARING, WE HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT, IF THE ADDITIONAL
HEARING SOUGHT WERE HELD, WE WOULD FEEL WARRANTED IN MODIFYING OUR
FINDINGS AS MADE IN THE SECOND REPORT."  AND THE COMMISSION IN ITS
SECOND REPORT WEIGHED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND DECIDED
THAT THEY DID NOT OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS FOR ADDED REVENUE FOR THE ROAD. 
IT SAID, "IT SEEMS TO US THAT AN INCREASE OF 1 CENT IN RESPONDENT'S
DOWNTOWN FARE IS UNLIKELY TO HAVE ANY INFLATIONARY EFFECT, AND THAT THE
EFFECT THEREOF UPON THE COST OF LIVING, WHILE A FACTOR TO BE GIVEN
CONSIDERATION, WILL BE SO SLIGHT, A MAXIMUM OF ABOUT 12 CENTS A WEEK
AND 52 CENTS A MONTH PER PASSENGER, AS TO BE NEGLIGIBLE."  CONSIDERING
THIS AMONG OTHER FINDINGS OF FACT IT CONCLUDED TO AUTHORIZE THE
INCREASED FARE "TO MEET INCREASED OPERATING COSTS AND THE INTEREST ON
ITS BONDS." 

THAT THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO STABILIZATION CONSIDERATIONS IN
RELATION TO OTHER FACTORS CALLS FOR AN EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT IN ANY
GIVEN CASE IS NOT DENIED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  INDEED IN EXCEPTING TO
THE EXAMINER'S REPORT HE SAID, "WE DID NOT NOR DO WE NOW SUGGEST THAT
THIS PROPOSED INCREASE IN FARE (FROM 8 CENTS TO 10 CENTS) WILL IN AND
OF ITSELF RESULT IN INFLATION.  SUCH A SUGGESTION WOULD, OF COURSE, BE
ASININE."  WHO, THEN, IN THIS CASE IS TO JUDGE THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN
SUCH A FACTOR?  THE OPINION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IS NOT, AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, MANDATORY ON THE COMMISSION.  NOR IS SUCH AN ECONOMIC
JUDGMENT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURTS UNLESS ALL THAT HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CONCERNING THE LIMITATION ON JUDICIAL
REVIEW IS TO BE THROWN OVERBOARD.  THE DECISION OF SUCH A MATTER BY THE
COMMISSION IS CLEARLY NOT REVIEWABLE BY A COURT BECAUSE IT THINKS
DIFFERENTLY OF THE WEIGHT THAT SHOULD BE ACCORDED TO SOME FACTORS IN
RELATION TO OTHERS. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING
AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM OF WARTIME TRANSPORTATION.  IT IS WITHOUT POWER TO
PROTECT THESE ESSENTIAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES FROM RISING LABOR AND
MATERIAL COSTS.  IT CAN DECIDE ONLY HOW SUCH UNAVOIDABLE COSTS SHALL BE
MET.  THEY CAN IN WHOLE OR IN PART BE CHARGED TO INCREASED FARES, OR
THEY CAN BE ALLOWED TO RESULT IN DEFAULTS AND RECEIVERSHIPS AND
REORGANIZATIONS, OR THEY MAY BE OFFSET BY INADEQUATE SERVICE OR DELAYED
MAINTENANCE.  ALL OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS MUST BE WEIGHED BY THE
COMMISSION WITH WARTIME TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AS WELL AS AVOIDING
INFLATIONARY TENDENCIES AS A PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.  THE NEED FOR
INFORMED, EXPERT AND UNBIASED JUDGMENT IS APPARENT.  THE PROBLEM IS
INTRICATE, THE CARRIER IS ONE OF PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS, ITS WARTIME
TRAFFIC IS OF VARYING DENSITY, WITH PEAKS AND RUSH HOURS, THE RATES AND
CARRYING CAPACITIES OF COMPETITORS BY BUS AND FERRY ARE INVOLVED IN ANY
ESTIMATE OF TRAFFIC DIVERSIONS OR PROBABLE EFFECTS OF RATES.  WHAT
RATES ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ACTUAL AND PROPER OPERATING EXPENSES, WHAT
REVENUE MUST BE AVAILABLE TO AVOID DEFAULTS AND SUSTAIN CREDIT, WHAT
DIVISIONS SHOULD BE MADE ON INTERCHANGED TRAFFIC ARE AS COMPLEX
PROBLEMS IN RATE-MAKING AS CAN READILY BE IMAGINED.  THE DELICACY OF
THE COMMISSION'S TASK IN WARTIME IS NO REASON FOR ALLOWING GREATER
SCOPE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW THAN WE ARE WILLING TO EXERCISE IN PEACETIME. 
WE THINK THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR'S
CONTENTIONS WAS FOR THE COMMISSION, NOT THE COURT, TO DETERMINE.  THE
SCOPE OF PROPER JUDICIAL REVIEW DOES NOT EXPAND OR CONTRACT, DEPENDING
ON WHAT PARTY INVOKES IT.  IT IS AS NARROW NOW AS IT WAS WHEN APPEALED
TO BY THE COMPANY.  CF. HUDSON & MANHATTAN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313
U.S. 98.  IF CONGRESS DESIRES TO GRANT ITS OWN AGENCIES GREATER
PRIVILEGES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW THAN HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRIVATE PARTIES
IT IS AT LIBERTY TO DO SO, BUT IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO SET ASIDE,
WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE COMMAND, ITS SLOW-WROUGHT GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH
PROTECT THE FINALITY AND INTEGRITY OF DECISIONS BY ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNALS. 

AS TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE STABILIZATION ACT GAVE THE
ADMINISTRATOR STANDING SUPERIOR TO THAT OF OTHER LITIGANTS TO ASK THE
COURTS TO OVERRIDE THE NORMAL DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION IN GRANTING
OR REFUSING REHEARINGS, WE HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN IN VINSON V. WASHINGTON
GAS LIGHT CO., 321 U.S. 489.  THERE, AS HERE, THE STABILIZATION
DIRECTOR INSISTED THAT HE WAS "DENIED A FAIR HEARING BECAUSE THE
COMMISSION REFUSED IN THE CURRENT PROCEEDING TO ALTER AND ENLARGE THE
SCOPE OF INQUIRY."  THERE, AS HERE, THE CONTROVERSY WAS "BETWEEN TWO
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AS TO WHETHER THE POWERS OF THE ONE OR THE OTHER
ARE PREPONDERANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  HERE, AS THERE, WE DECLINE TO
INVADE THE DISCRETION OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS TO CONTROL THEIR OWN
REHEARING PROCEDURE WHERE THE CONGRESS HAS NOT GIVEN THE ADMINISTRATOR
STANDING SUPERIOR TO THAT OF A LITIGANT AND HAS NOT DIVESTED THE
COMMISSION OF ITS ORDINARY DISCRETIONS.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS
REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF JANUARY 30, 1942, C. 26, 56 STAT. 23, 50 U.S.C. APP.,
SUPP. II, SEC. 901 ET SEQ. 

FN2  ACT OF OCTOBER 2, 1942, C. 578, 56 STAT. 765, 50 U.S.C. APP.,
SUPP. II, SEC. 961 ET SEQ. 

FN3  PRIOR TO 1920, THE HUDSON & MANHATTAN'S RATES HAD BEEN 5 CENTS
ON THE DOWNTOWN LINE AND 7 CENTS ON THE UPTOWN LINE.  IN THAT YEAR THE
RAILROAD PROPOSED A FLAT FARE OF 8 CENTS, BUT THE COMMISSION FIXED THE
FARES AT 10 CENTS FOR THE UPTOWN LINE AND 6 CENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN
LINE.  LOCAL FARES OF HUDSON & MANHATTAN RAILROAD CO., 58 I.C.C. 270. 
THOSE FARES CONTINUED IN EFFECT UNTIL THE 1937 PROCEEDINGS BEGAN, WHEN
THE RAILROAD SOUGHT TO MAKE THE FARE 10 CENTS ON BOTH LINES. 

FN4  227 I.C.C. 741.  THE 10-CENT FARE ON THE UPTOWN LINE CONTINUED
IN EFFECT. 

FN5  BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9250, 7 FED. REG. 7871, THE PRESIDENT
DESIGNATED THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC STABILIZATION TO RECEIVE NOTICE OF
PROPOSED RATE INCREASES PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE.  IN THE ENSUING
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE THE DIRECTOR WAS REPRESENTED BY THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR. 

FN6  255 I.C.C. 649. 

FN7  256 I.C.C. 269. 

FN8  THE COMMISSION HAS SHOWN IN OTHER CASES THAT IT IS WATCHFUL
AGAINST INFLATION AND CHARGES ITSELF WITH ENFORCING STABILIZATION
POLICY.  SEE INCREASES IN TEXAS RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES, 253 I.C.C.
723, 734:  "WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE EVIL EFFECTS OF INFLATION, AND,
IN OUR JUDGMENT, THE INFLATIONARY TENDENCIES OF GENERAL INCREASES IN
RATES CONSTITUTE A FACTOR WHICH WE MAY AND SHOULD TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION IN PASSING JUDGMENT UPON SUCH INCREASES.  ...  INCREASES
IN THE GENERAL PRICE LEVEL ULTIMATELY AFFECT THE COSTS OF RENDERING
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND THE VALUE OF SUCH SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC. 
SUCH CONSIDERATIONS WERE IN FACT CAREFULLY WEIGHED AND REFLECTED IN THE
INCREASES WHICH WE AUTHORIZED UNDER EX PARTE NO. 148."  IN EX PARTE NO.
148, REPORTED AS INCREASED RAILWAY RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES, 1942, 248
I.C.C. 545, THE RAILROADS SOUGHT GENERAL INCREASES OF 10 PER CENT IN
FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RATES.  THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION
APPEARED BUT TOOK NO POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL INCREASE
SOUGHT, AND DID NOT NAME THE INDIVIDUAL COMMODITIES WITH WHOSE RATES IT
PROFESSED TO BE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED.  248 I.C.C. AT 571. 
NEVERTHELESS THE COMMISSION APPARENTLY TOOK CAREFUL NOTE OF "THE EFFECT
UPON THE NATIONAL DEFENSE OF CUMULATED INCREASES IN PRODUCTION COSTS OF
MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS" AND AS TO SPECIFIC COMMODITIES, AFTER
CONSIDERATION OF THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE AFFECTED RAILROADS,
DENIED OR RESTRICTED THE INCREASES SOUGHT.  248 I.C.C. AT 610. 

FN9  THE COMMISSION DID HAVE BEFORE IT, HOWEVER, TRAFFIC AND GROSS
REVENUE FIGURES FOR THE FIRST TWO MONTHS OF 1943, WHICH WERE
INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD BY STIPULATION AT THE ORAL ARGUMENT ON
APRIL 20, 1943. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS: 

I WOULD DECIDE THIS CASE DIFFERENTLY.  I THINK THIS DECISION AND
VINSON V. WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT CO., 321 U.S. 489, PRETTY WELL
EMASCULATE THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 2, 1942(56 STAT. 765)
WHICH PROHIBITS "ANY GENERAL INCREASE" IN UTILITY RATES UNLESS NOTICE
IS GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL AGENCY IN CHARGE OF INFLATION CONTROL AND THAT
AGENCY IS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  AS I STATED IN MY
DISSENT IN VINSON V. WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT CO., SUPRA, CONGRESS INTENDED
BY THAT PROVISION THAT THERE SHOULD BE AS GREAT AN ACCOMMODATION AS
POSSIBLE BETWEEN ESTABLISHED STANDARDS FOR RATE-MAKING AND EXISTING
WARTIME NECESSITIES.  GENERAL RATE INCREASES WERE NOT TO BE ALLOWED
UNLESS, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WAS SHOWN THAT THEY WERE NECESSARY TO PRESERVE
EXISTING FACILITIES UNDER WAR CONDITIONS.  I AGREE WITH JUDGE
MCLAUGHLIN AND JUDGE MEANEY OF THE THREE-JUDGE COURT THAT THIS
EMERGENCY LEGISLATION REQUIRED THE COMMISSION "TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO
WARTIME CONDITIONS AND THE STABILIZATION LEGISLATION."  IT WAS THAT
POLICY WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER 9328 PROMULGATED BY THE
PRESIDENT ON APRIL 8, 1943(8 FED. REG. 4681, 4682) AND PROVIDING AS
FOLLOWS: 

"THE ATTENTION OF ALL AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND OF ALL
STATE AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, CONCERNED WITH THE RATES OF COMMON
CARRIERS OR OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES, IS DIRECTED TO THE STABILIZATION
PROGRAM OF WHICH THIS ORDER IS A PART SO THAT RATE INCREASES WILL BE
DISAPPROVED AND RATE REDUCTIONS EFFECTED, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE ACT OF
OCTOBER 2, 1942, AND OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE OR MUNICIPAL LAW,
IN ORDER TO KEEP DOWN THE COST OF LIVING AND EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF
THE STABILIZATION PROGRAM."    THAT POLICY IS ONCE MORE DISREGARDED. 
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PROCEEDS TO GRANT RATE INCREASES ON
THE BASIS OF PEACETIME STANDARDS.  IT JUSTIFIES THE INCREASE UNDER THE
ACT OF OCTOBER 2, 1942, BY SAYING THAT THE INCREASE PER CONSUMER IS
NEGLIGIBLE.  BY THE SAME TOKEN EVERY ITEM IN THE LIST OF CONSUMER
NECESSITIES COULD BE INCREASED A LIKE PERCENTAGE.  WHAT WAS NEGLIGIBLE
ITEM BY ITEM WOULD SOON BE SUBSTANTIAL IN THE AGGREGATE.  THAT WHICH
FIRST APPEARS AS A SMALL TRICKLE MAY EVENTUALLY UNDERMINE THE DAM. 
BUT THOUGH I DISAGREE WITH THE RESULT REACHED, I THINK IT IS PRECISELY
WHAT VINSON V. WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT CO. INTENDED.  THAT CASE AND DAVIES
WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 144, GIVE PREFERRED TREATMENT TO A
FEW BUSINESSES BY ALLOWING THEM TO GAIN ADVANTAGES FROM WAR
CONDITIONS.  I WOULD OVERRULE THEM.  BUT SO LONG AS THEY STAND I DO NOT
SEE HOW WE CAN DENY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THE POWER TO DO
FOR THE HUDSON & MANHATTAN RAILROAD CO. WHAT ANOTHER COMMISSION WAS
ALLOWED TO DO FOR THE WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT CO. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
























WISCONSIN GAS CO. V. U.S., 322 U.S. 526 


NO. 565.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1944.  - 138 F.2D
597, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PAYMENTS MADE BY A CORPORATION OF THE TAX LEVIED BY THE WISCONSIN
PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX ACT, HELD, FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, NOT
DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME OF THE CORPORATION, EITHER UNDER SEC.
23(C) OR SEC. 23(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  PP. 529, 531. 

2.  THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(C) AS "TAXES
PAID," SINCE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF APPLICABLE TREASURY REGULATIONS,
THE TAX WAS NOT "IMPOSED" ON THE CORPORATION.  P. 529. 

3.  NOR WERE THE PAYMENTS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(D) AS "TAXES
IMPOSED UPON A SHAREHOLDER OF THE CORPORATION UPON HIS INTEREST AS
SHAREHOLDER WHICH ARE PAID BY THE CORPORATION WITHOUT REIMBURSEMENT
FROM THE SHAREHOLDER," SINCE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION, THE
TAX WAS NOT "PAID BY THE CORPORATION WITHOUT REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE
SHAREHOLDER."  P. 531. 

WISCONSIN GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 757, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FOR THE COMPANY, 46
F.SUPP.  929, IN A SUIT FOR A REFUND OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WISCONSIN GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY IS A WISCONSIN CORPORATION ENGAGED
IN PUBLIC UTILITY AND ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS WHOLLY WITHIN THAT STATE. 
IN 1935 IT DECLARED A DIVIDEND FROM ITS PUBLIC UTILITY EARNINGS, AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF WISCONSIN'S PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX
ACT (WISCONSIN LAWS OF 1935, C. 505, SEC. 3; C. 552), IT PAID TO THE
STATE TWO AND ONE-HALF PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS THUS
DECLARED.  IT NOW CLAIMS THIS SUM, $3,750, AS A DEDUCTION FROM ITS
GROSS INCOME FOR 1935 FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES. 

AFTER THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED AND A DEFICIENCY ASSESSED, THE COMPANY
PAID THE TAX AND BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR REFUND UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC.
41(20).  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION IN
WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, REQUIRED PERMITTING THE
DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 23(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680,
688.  IT THEREFORE GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE COMPANY.  46 F.SUPP.  929. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISAGREED ON THIS QUESTION AND, HOLDING
THE DEFICIENCY CORRECTLY DETERMINED, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  138 F.2D
597.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 757, BECAUSE OF THE CLAIMED
CONFLICT WITH THE PENNEY CASE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 

PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR A REFUND RESTS ON THE ASSERTION IT WAS
ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX PAYMENTS UNDER EITHER
SEC. 23(C) OR SEC. 23(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, 688,
689. 

PAID OR ACCRUED WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR."  THE RELEVANT TREASURY
REGULATION, WHICH IS OF LONG STANDING,  FN1  INCLUDES AMONT "TAXES
PAID" THOSE IMPOSED BY ANY STATE, AND PROVIDES:  "IN GENERAL TAXES ARE
DEDUCTIBLE ONLY BY THE PERSON UPON WHOM THEY ARE IMPOSED."  THE
QUESTION IN THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, COMES DOWN TO WHETHER
THE PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX IS "IMPOSED" UPON THE CORPORATION DECLARING
THE DIVIDENDS. 

RESOLUTION OF THAT QUESTION REQUIRES EXAMINATION OF THE WISCONSIN
STATUTE AND ITS APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION BY THE COURTS OF THAT
STATE.  KEITH V. JOHNSON, 271 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. KOMBST, 286 U.S.
424; MAGRUDER V. SUPPLEE, 316 U.S. 394.  IN 1935 THE STATE ACT  FN2
PROVIDED: 

"(1)  FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DECLARING AND RECEIVING DIVIDENDS, OUT OF
INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AND BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN THIS
STATE, THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED A TAX EQUAL TO TWO AND ONE-HALF PER
CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DIVIDENDS DECLARED AND PAID BY ALL
CORPORATIONS (FOREIGN AND LOCAL) AFTER THE PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION OF
THIS ACT AND PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1937.  SUCH TAX SHALL BE DEDUCTED AND
WITHHELD FROM SUCH DIVIDENDS PAYABLE TO RESIDENTS AND NONRESIDENTS BY
THE PAYOR CORPORATION. 

"(2)  EVERY CORPORATION REQUIRED TO DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD ANY TAX UNDER
THIS SECTION SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING
THE PAYMENT OF THE DIVIDEND, MAKE RETURN THEREOF AND PAY THE TAX TO THE
TAX COMMISSION, REPORTING SUCH TAX ON THE FORMS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE
TAX COMMISSION. 

"(3)  EVERY SUCH CORPORATION HEREBY MADE LIABLE FOR SUCH TAX, SHALL
DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAX FROM THE DIVIDENDS SO DECLARED."  FN3 

THE TAX IS AIMED AT CORPORATE EARNINGS "DERIVED FROM PROPERTY LOCATED
AND BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN" WISCONSIN.  DOUBTLESS ALL TAXES ON
CORPORATE EARNINGS ARE, TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT, TRANSLATED INTO
ECONOMIC BURDENS UPON THE SHAREHOLDER.  AND NOT ALL SUCH TAXES CAN BE
SAID, FOR THAT REASON, TO BE "IMPOSED" UPON THE SHAREHOLDER.  CF.
BIDDLE V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 573.  HOWEVER, HERE THE BURDEN IS
PLACED UPON HIM, NOT DERIVATIVELY AS THROUGH AN INCOME TAX UPON THE
CORPORATION, BUT DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY.  WHILE CORPORATE EARNINGS
ARE THE TARGET OF THIS TAX, ITS SPECIFIC THRUST, ACCORDING TO THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, IS AT THEIR TRANSFER AS DIVIDENDS TO THE
SHAREHOLDER, RATHER THAN AT THEIR RECEIPT AS INCOME BY THE
CORPORATION.  J.C. PENNEY CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 238 WIS. 69, 298 N.W.
186.  IT IS NOT IMPOSED UNTIL DIVIDENDS ARE DECLARED.  WHEN IMPOSED IT
IS TO BE DEDUCTED AND WITHHELD NOT FROM EARNINGS RECEIVED BY THE
CORPORATION, BUT "FROM THE DIVIDENDS SO DECLARED."  THE SUMS THUS PAID
TO THE STATE ARE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE FIXED DIVIDENDS OWED TO THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDER WHO CANNOT RECOVER HIS LOSS FROM THE
CORPORATION.  BLIED V. WISCONSIN FOUNDRY CO., 243 WIS. 221, 10 N.W.2D
142.  AND THE CORPORATION WHICH SEEKS TO LEAVE THE STOCKHOLDER'S
DIVIDEND WHOLE BY ABSORBING THE TAX ITSELF RECEIVES NO CREDIT THEREFOR
UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE WISCONSIN INCOME TAX LAW COMPARABLE TO
SEC. 23(C), BECAUSE THE STATE "PUTS THE BURDEN OF THIS TAX UPON THE
STOCKHOLDER AND NOT UPON THE CORPORATION."  WISCONSIN GAS CO. V.
DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, 243 WIS. 216, 10 N.W.2D 140. 

THAT WISCONSIN HAS MADE THE CORPORATION ITS TAX COLLECTOR BY
REQUIRING IT TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF THE DIVIDENDS AND TO
TURN THAT PORTION OVER TO THE STATE DOES NOT MAKE THE TAX ONE "IMPOSED"
UPON THE CORPORATION, AT LEAST UNDER SEC. 23(C) AND THE RELEVANT
TREASURY REGULATION.  COMPARE ELIOT NATIONAL BANK V. GILL, 218 F.
600(C.C.A.); PORTER V. UNITED STATES, 27 F.2D 882(C.C.A.).  THE FACT IS
THAT THE TAX IS EXTRACTED FROM FIXED DIVIDENDS OWED TO THE STOCKHOLDER,
NOT MERELY FROM HIS COMMON INTEREST IN CORPORATE EARNINGS.  UNDER
WISCONSIN DECISIONS THE IMPACT OF THE TAX IS FOCUSED NARROWLY AND FALLS
INDEPENDENTLY UPON EACH RECIPIENT OF THE DIVIDEND WITHOUT AFFECTING THE
TAX BURDEN OF THE CORPORATION OR OTHER SHAREHOLDERS.  THE OPERATION
THUS DISCLOSED FOR THE TAX AMPLY SUSTAINS THE EMPHATIC DECLARATION OF
THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT THAT IT IS IMPOSED UPON THE SHAREHOLDER,
NOT UPON THE CORPORATION.  THIS VIEW IS COMPLEMENTED BY THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE THAT THE TAX PAYMENTS,
ALTHOUGH FORMALLY MADE BY THE CORPORATION, ARE DEDUCTIBLE BY THE
SHAREHOLDER.  FN4  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX IS NOT
"IMPOSED" UPON PETITIONER AND THEREFORE PAYMENTS OF IT ARE NOT
DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(C). 

THERE IS OF COURSE NO QUESTION IN THIS CASE THAT WISCONSIN HAS THE
POWER, UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, TO IMPOSE THIS TAX.  THAT
QUESTION WAS INVOLVED IN WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435,
WHERE THIS COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH DIVIDENDS DECLARED BY A FOREIGN
CORPORATION DOING A LOCAL BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN.  THE DECISION WAS THAT
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE STATE TO THE ENTERPRISES THERE SHOWN TO HAVE
BEEN CARRIED ON WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AND UNDER THE PROTECTION OF ITS
POLICE POWER WAS SUCH THAT ITS TAXING POWER COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY
REACH EARNINGS DERIVED FROM THOSE OPERATIONS, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE
IMPOST WAS CHARACTERIZED BY THE STATE.  THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX
EARNINGS OF THAT CHARACTER IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER THE TAX IS
HINGED ON THE RECEIPT OF THEM AS CORPORATE INCOME OR ON THE TRANSFER
AND RECEIPT OF THEM AS DIVIDENDS.  NOR DOES IT DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE
TAX HERE INVOLVED IS "IMPOSED" UPON THE CORPORATION OR UPON THE
STOCKHOLDER.  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
TAXATION, ANTE, P. 435; MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO. V.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, ANTE, P. 435.  IN THIS CASE, WHERE
THE EARNINGS OF A WISCONSIN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS SOLELY IN
WISCONSIN ARE THE SOURCE OF THE DIVIDENDS, THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX
THEIR TRANSFER AND IMPOSE THAT TAX UPON THE STOCKHOLDER CANNOT BE
DOUBTED. 

PETITIONER ALSO URGES THAT IF THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM
ITS GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 23(C), THEY ARE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(D)
AS "TAXES IMPOSED UPON A SHAREHOLDER OF THE CORPORATION UPON HIS
INTEREST AS SHAREHOLDER WHICH ARE PAID BY THE CORPORATION WITHOUT
REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SHAREHOLDER."  FN5  THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDS THAT
THE PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX IS NOT THE KIND OF TAX "UPON HIS INTEREST AS
SHAREHOLDER" WHICH SEC. 23(D) CONTEMPLATES, AND THAT IN ANY EVENT IT IS
NOT ONE WHICH IS "PAID BY THE CORPORATION WITHOUT REIMBURSEMENT FROM
THE SHAREHOLDER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION.  SINCE WE THINK THE
GOVERNMENT IS CORRECT IN THE LATTER CONTENTION, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER THIS TAX IS ONE "UPON HIS INTEREST AS SHAREHOLDER." 

THE ORIGINS OF THE PRESENT SEC. 23(D) IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921
DISCLOSE THAT ITS ADOPTION WAS PROMPTED BY THE PLIGHT OF VARIOUS
BANKING CORPORATIONS WHICH PAID AND VOLUNTARILY ABSORBED THE BURDEN OF
CERTAIN LOCAL TAXES IMPOSED UPON THEIR SHAREHOLDERS, BUT WERE NOT
PERMITTED TO DEDUCT THOSE PAYMENTS FROM GROSS INCOME.  FN6  THIS
HISTORY SUGGESTS IT IS THE VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF THE BURDEN OF THE
TAX, RATHER THAN ACTING AS TAX COLLECTOR AND PAYING IT FOR ANOTHER ON
WHOM THE BURDEN FALLS, WHICH UNDERPINS THE DEDUCTION.  AND THIS IS
PLAINLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT TO BE ENTITLED TO THE
DEDUCTION THE CORPORATION MUST NOT BE REIMBURSED BY THE SHAREHOLDER FOR
PAYING THE TAX.  TO PAY THE TAX WITH SUMS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AND
WITHHELD FROM DIVIDENDS DECLARED AND DISTRIBUTED AMOUNTS TO OBTAINING
THE REIMBURSEMENT WHICH RENDERS THE DEDUCTION UNAVAILABLE.  HENCE
PETITIONER CANNOT PREVAIL ON SEC. 23(D). 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, ART. 23(C)-(1); CF. TREASURY
REGULATIONS 65, ART. 131; TREASURY REGULATIONS 69, ART. 131; TREASURY
REGULATIONS 74, ART. 151; TREASURY REGULATIONS 77, ART. 151. 

FN2 WISCONSIN LAWS OF 1935, C. 505, SEC. 3 AS AMENDED BY WISCONSIN
LAWS OF 1935, C. 552.  THE ACT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED (WISCONSIN LAWS
OF 1937, C. 233; C. 309, SEC. 3; WISCONSIN LAWS OF 1939, C. 198;
WISCONSIN LAWS OF 1941, C. 63, SEC. 3; WISCONSIN LAWS OF 1943, C. 367,
SEC. 2), BUT THE AMENDMENTS LEAVE THE PRESENT QUESTION UNAFFECTED. 

FN3  THE ACT IS SET OUT IN FULL IN WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311
U.S. 435 AT NOTE 1. 

FN4  I.T. 3002, XV-2 CUM. BULL.  142-143(1936). 

FN5  SECTION 23(D) PROVIDES:  "TAXES OF SHAREHOLDER PAID BY
CORPORATION.  - THE DEDUCTION FOR TAXES ALLOWED BY SUBSECTION (C) SHALL
BE ALLOWED TO A CORPORATION IN THE CASE OF TAXES IMPOSED UPON A
SHAREHOLDER OF THE CORPORATION UPON HIS INTEREST AS SHAREHOLDER WHICH
ARE PAID BY THE CORPORATION WITHOUT REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SHAREHOLDER,
BUT IN SUCH CASES NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED THE SHAREHOLDER FOR THE
AMOUNT OF SUCH TAXES." 

FN6  HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON H.R. 8245, U.S. SENATE,
67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 250-251.  COMPARE, E.G., ELIOT NATIONAL BANK V.
GILL, 218 F. 600(C.C.A.); NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE V. ALLEN, 223 F.
472(C.C.A.); FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MCNEEL, 238 F. 559(C.C.A.). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 

SINCE I THINK THIS TAX WAS NOT ONE ON THE CORPORATION (SEE DISSENT IN
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, ANTE,
P. 445) I SEE NO BASIS FOR THE CORPORATION TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION UNDER
SEC. 23(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  THE TAX WAS ON THE STOCKHOLDER,
AND IT WAS PAID BY THE CORPORATION.  THE COMPANY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO
DEDUCTIONS UNDER SEC. 23(D) IF IT WERE NOT REIMBURSED.  THE CREDIT
GIVEN TO THE CORPORATION AGAINST A DECLARED DIVIDEND IS IN MY OPINION A
"REIMBURSEMENT" OF THE CORPORATION FOR PAYMENT OF THE TAX IF THE
WISCONSIN TAXING ACT IS VALID.  NOTWITHSTANDING DISSENTING VIEWS ON
THAT SUBJECT, I CONSIDER MYSELF NOW BOUND BY THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COURT.  HENCE I AGREE THAT NO RIGHT TO A DEDUCTION EXISTS. 
..END :




















COLUMBIA GAS CO. V. AMER. FUEL CO., 322 U.S. 379 


NO. 814.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1944.  - DISMISSED. 


1.  THOUGH A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY POSSESSES AND MAY EXERCISE EQUITY
POWERS IN THE DISPOSITION OF SUITS IN BANKRUPTCY, A BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING IS NOT ITSELF A SUIT IN EQUITY EITHER BY STATUTORY
DEFINITION OR IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING.  P. 383. 

2.  THE PRESENT BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY PRIVATE SUITORS WAS
NOT ONE "WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES IS COMPLAINANT"; IT WAS NOT BROUGHT
UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND THE INTERVENTION OF
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT SO ALTER THE PROCEEDING AS TO MAKE IT A SUIT
IN EQUITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT. 
CONSEQUENTLY AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT REJECTING APPELLANT'S CLAIMS IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE EXPEDITING
ACT, AND THE APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED.  P. 383. 

3.  SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN AN APPEAL ALSO TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, THIS COURT NEED NOT EXERCISE ITS SUPERVISORY POWER TO
VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW IN ORDER TO PERMIT A PROPER APPEAL TO BE
TAKEN.  P. 384. 

COLUMBIA GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. V. AMERICAN FUEL & POWER CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. 

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTING APPELLANT'S
CLAIMS IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAD
INTERVENED. 

PER CURIAM: 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTLY TO
THIS COURT, TAKEN UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF FEBRUARY 11,
1903, 32 STAT. 823, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29.  THE UNITED STATES,
AS AN INTERVENOR IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND APPELLEE HERE, HAS MOVED TO
DISMISS THE APPEAL AS UNAUTHORIZED BY THE EXPEDITING ACT. 

SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT IN BANKRUPTCY IN THE DISTRICT COURT
UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE
THREE APPELLEE DEBTORS, AMERICAN FUEL AND POWER COMPANY, AND TWO OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES, INLAND GAS CORPORATION AND KENTUCKY FUEL GAS
CORPORATION.  APPELLANT COLUMBIA GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION FILED ITS
PROOFS OF CLAIM IN THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS AS THE OWNER AND
HOLDER OF STOCK, AND OF NOTES AND BONDS AND OPEN ACCOUNTS OF THE
DEBTORS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, ON APPLICATION OF THE DEBTORS' TRUSTEES, ENTERED
AN ORDER IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS APPROVING A PROPOSED COMPROMISE
SETTLEMENT OF ALL OF APPELLANT'S CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEBTORS.  ON APPEAL
BY CERTAIN CREDITORS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
REVERSED.  122 F.2D 223.  IT HELD THAT THE FACTS OF RECORD DISCLOSED
THAT APPELLANT COLUMBIA'S STOCK AND MONEY CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEBTORS
HAD BEEN ACQUIRED AND USED BY IT TO SECURE CONTROL OF THEM IN VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ANTI-TRUST ACTS AND WERE CONSEQUENTLY NOT
PROVABLE OR ALLOWABLE CLAIMS IN A BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION.  IT
ACCORDINGLY REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS
THAT ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEBTOR, WHICH COLUMBIA HAD ACQUIRED IN
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST LAWS, BE REJECTED.  BUT ITS OPINION
POINTED OUT THAT APPELLANT HAD NOT APPEARED IN THE PROCEEDING IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPROMISE AND IT WAS
CONSEQUENTLY NOT BOUND BY THE APPELLATE COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT IN
THAT PROCEEDING. 

AFTER THE REMAND THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE APPLICATION OF THE
UNITED STATES TO BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS.  THE UNITED STATES' PETITION FOR INTERVENTION ASSERTED
THAT IT WAS CONCERNED IN ARRESTING ANY ACTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
WHICH MIGHT TEND TO DEFEAT OR CURTAIL THE RELIEF TO WHICH IT MIGHT BE
ENTITLED IN A PENDING EQUITY SUIT WHICH IT HAD BROUGHT AGAINST
APPELLANT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DELAWARE.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS
LATTER SUIT WAS TO RESTRAIN APPELLANT FROM VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS BY THE CONTROL OF THE DEBTORS THROUGH THE ACQUISITION AND HOLDING
OF THE SAME STOCK AND MONEY OBLIGATIONS, AS ARE THE SUBJECTS OF
APPELLANT'S CLAIMS IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

THE UNITED STATES, AS INTERVENOR, AND CERTAIN CREDITORS FILED
OBJECTIONS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF APPELLANT'S CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE
PROCEEDINGS ON THE CLAIMS WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING AND AFTER A
TRIAL IN WHICH APPELLANT PARTICIPATED, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT
APPELLANT HAD ACQUIRED AND USED THE SUBJECTS OF ITS CLAIMS IN THE
PROSECUTION OF A CONSPIRACY TO ACQUIRE CONTROL OF THE DEBTORS IN
VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  IT GAVE JUDGMENT REJECTING
APPELLANT'S CLAIMS AS NOT PROVABLE OR ALLOWABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.  FROM
THIS JUDGMENT APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THE PRESENT APPEAL TO THIS COURT
UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT.  IT HAS ALSO APPEALED TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

PROVIDES, "IN EVERY SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT IN ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES UNDER SECTIONS 1-7 OR 15  FN1  OF THIS TITLE (PROVISIONS
OF THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS) WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES IS
COMPLAINANT, AN APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT WILL
LIE ONLY TO THE SUPREME COURT.  ...  " ACCORDINGLY, TO BE APPEALABLE TO
THIS COURT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE PRESENT PROCEEDING
MUST BE A "SUIT IN EQUITY" "BROUGHT" IN A DISTRICT COURT "WHEREIN THE
UNITED STATES IS COMPLAINANT." 

THE NATURE OF THE EQUITY SUIT, REFERRED TO IN SEC. 2 OF THE
EXPEDITING ACT, IS DEFINED AND RESTRICTED BY 15 U.S.C. SEC. 4, WHICH
AUTHORIZES THE UNITED STATES TO BRING EQUITY SUITS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
THE SHERMAN ACT.  SECTION 4 INVESTS THE DISTRICT COURTS WITH
JURISDICTION TO "PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 1-7 AND 15
OF THIS TITLE," AND MAKES IT THE DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS IN
THEIR DISTRICTS UNDER DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL "TO INSTITUTE
PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS." 
BROUGHT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO "PREVENT AND
RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS" OF PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT EMBODIED IN 15
U.S.C. SECS. 12, 13, 14-21, AND 22-27.  SUCH A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER SEC.
14 WAS HELD TO BE APPEALABLE DIRECTLY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT TO THIS
COURT IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 298
U.S. 131. 

BY 15 U.S.C. SEC. 28, DERIVED FROM SEC. 1 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF
1903, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT IN ANY SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT IN ANY
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER SECS. 1-7 OR SEC. 15 OF THAT
TITLE "WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES IS COMPLAINANT," THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
MAY FILE IN COURT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE AND THAT THEREUPON
SUCH CASE SHALL BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER OTHERS, SHALL BE IN EVERY WAY
EXPEDITED, AND SHALL BE ASSIGNED FOR HEARING BEFORE A COURT OF THREE
JUDGES SELECTED AS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION.  FN2 

THE PRESENT IS A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, AND EVEN THOUGH A COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY POSSESSES AND MAY EXERCISE EQUITY POWERS IN THE DISPOSITION
OF SUITS IN BANKRUPTCY, SEE BANKRUPTCY ACT SEC. 2, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 11;
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES REALTY CO., 310 U.S.
434, 455 AND CASES CITED, A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING IS NOT ITSELF A SUIT
IN EQUITY EITHER BY STATUTORY DEFINITION OR IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING. 
THIS BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING IS NOT ONE "WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES IS
COMPLAINANT," NOR IS IT BROUGHT UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE INTERVENTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN
THIS PROCEEDING HAS SO ALTERED IT AS TO MAKE IT A SUIT IN EQUITY WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT. 

BY ITS PETITION AND INTERVENTION THE UNITED STATES HAS ALIGNED ITSELF
WITH THE DEBTORS' TRUSTEES, WHO ARE ASKING ONLY TO HAVE APPELLANT'S
CLAIMS REJECTED.  THE UNITED STATES LIKEWISE, BY ITS PETITION IN
INTERVENTION, ASKED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ADJUDGE THAT APPELLANT'S
CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEBTORS BE REJECTED AND THAT APPELLANT TAKE NOTHING
BY THEM.  AS AN INTERVENOR THE UNITED STATES WAS LIMITED TO THE FIELD
OF LITIGATION OPEN TO THE ORIGINAL PARTIES.  CHANDLER & PRICE CO. V.
BRANDTJEN, INC., 296 U.S. 53, 57-60 AND CASES CITED; VINSON V.
WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT CO., 321 U.S. 489.  THE POSITION OF THE TRUSTEES
IN THE PROCEEDING FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPELLANT'S CLAIMS, CONDUCTED IN
CONFORMITY TO THE MANDATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WAS NOT THAT
OF COMPLAINANTS IN AN EQUITY SUIT.  THE TRUSTEES DID NOT SEEK IN THAT
PROCEEDING, NOR WERE THEY AUTHORIZED TO SEEK, EQUITABLE RELIEF FOR THE
PREVENTION OF FUTURE VIOLATIONS.  THEY WERE RATHER IN THE POSITION OF
DEFENDANTS RESISTING THE CLAIMS OF APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT ITS
CLAIMS WERE TAINTED WITH ILLEGALITY BECAUSE OF ITS PAST CONDUCT IN
ACQUIRING THEM.  NO MORE THAN THE TRUSTEES, COULD THE UNITED STATES BE
SAID TO BE A COMPLAINANT IN A SUIT IN EQUITY, SUCH AS IS DEFINED BY 15
U.S.C. SEC. 4, "TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS" OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS. 

IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE ALSO THAT THE SUITS IN EQUITY REFERRED TO
BY SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT ARE THE SUITS WHICH UNDER 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 28 ARE REQUIRED, ON CERTIFICATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO BE
EXPEDITED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND TO BE TRIED THERE BY A COURT OF
THREE JUDGES.  BUT WE FIND NO INTIMATION IN SEC. 28 THAT THERE IS
AUTHORITY FOR CONVENING A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES TO SIT AS A
BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF AN ISSUE IN BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE IT
INVOLVES THE DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS, AND WE THINK THAT THE UNITED STATES AS INTERVENOR IN A BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING LIMITED TO THE ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS OR THEIR REJECTION, IF
FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, COULD
NOT INVOKE THE PROCEDURE FOR TRIAL OF THAT ISSUE BY A COURT OF THREE
JUDGES. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDER IN INTERVENTION AUTHORIZED THE GOVERNMENT
TO URGE THE REJECTION OF APPELLANT'S CLAIMS IN THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING; THAT IN SO DOING IT WAS NOT ACTING AS A COMPLAINANT IN AN
EQUITY SUIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT, AND
CONSEQUENTLY NO APPEAL LIES TO THIS COURT FROM THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT REJECTING APPELLANT'S CLAIMS.  THE APPEAL WILL THEREFORE
BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO ENTERTAIN IT.
SINCE APPELLANT HAS ALSO TAKEN AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, WE NEED NOT EXERCISE OUR SUPERVISORY POWER TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT BELOW, IN ORDER TO PERMIT A PROPER APPEAL TO BE TAKEN. 
WILENTZ V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, 306 U.S. 573, 582; CF. GULLY V. INTERSTATE
NATURAL GAS CO., 292 U.S. 16; OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO.,
292 U.S. 386, 392; JAMESON & CO. V. MORGENTHAU, 307 U.S. 171, 174;
PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 254.  DISMISSED. 

FN1  SECTION 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT, AS ENACTED IN 1903, 32 STAT.
823, REFERRED MERELY TO SUITS IN EQUITY "UNDER ANY OF SAID ACTS," THE
"SAID ACTS" BEING THOSE REFERRED TO IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT, I.E., THE
SHERMAN ACT, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND "ANY OTHER ACTS HAVING A
LIKE PURPOSE THAT HEREAFTER MAY BE ENACTED."  THE COMPILERS OF THE
U.S.C.  IN PLACE OF "ANY OF SAID ACTS," REFER ONLY TO SECS. 1-7 AND 15
OF TITLE 15 OF THE CODE.  IT IS NOT APPARENT WHY SEC. 15 IS INCLUDED,
SINCE IT PROVIDES FOR THE RECOVERY OF TREBLE DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF
THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, AND SINCE THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY
THE SECTION TO MAINTAIN SUCH A SUIT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. COOPER
CORP., 312 U.S. 600.  IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE COMPILERS OF THE CODE
INTENDED TO REFER TO 15 U.S.C. SEC. 25, WHICH IS SEC. 15 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT AND WHICH IS DISCUSSED IN THE TEXT OF THIS OPINION. 

FN2  BY ACT OF APRIL 6, 1942, SEC. 1, 56 STAT. 198, THIS SECTION WAS
AMENDED SO AS TO INCLUDE "ANY CIVIL ACTION" BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT
UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES "IS PLAINTIFF." 
CONGRESS, INSOFAR AS IT MAY HAVE EXTENDED THE PROCEDURE FOR A TRIAL BY
A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES TO PROCEEDINGS OTHER THAN SUITS IN
EQUITY, HAS NEVERTHELESS LEFT UNAMENDED SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT,
WHICH RESTRICTED DIRECT APPEALS TO THE SUPREME COURT TO SUITS IN EQUITY
WHEREIN THE UNITED STATES IS COMPLAINANT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. SAYLOR, 322 U.S. 385 


ARGUED APRIL 28, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1944.  - REVERSED. 


INJURE, OPPRESS, THREATEN, OR INTIMIDATE ANY CITIZEN IN THE FREE
EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES," EMBRACES THE RIGHT OF A
VOTER IN A CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION TO HAVE HIS VOTE HONESTLY COUNTED,
AND IS VIOLATED BY A CONSPIRACY OF ELECTION OFFICIALS TO STUFF A BALLOT
BOX IN SUCH AN ELECTION.  P. 389. 

UNITED STATES V. SAYLOR ET AL. 

NO. 716.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 717, UNITED STATES V. POER ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF KENTUCKY. 

APPEALS UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM JUDGMENTS IN TWO CASES
SUSTAINING DEMURRERS TO INDICTMENTS FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 19 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES COME HERE UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT SUSTAINED DEMURRERS TO INDICTMENTS FOR CONSPIRACIES FORBIDDEN BY
SEC. 19 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  FN1  THE SECTION PROVIDES:  "IF TWO OR
MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE TO INJURE, OPPRESS, THREATEN, OR INTIMIDATE ANY
CITIZEN IN THE FREE EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE
SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,  ...
" THEY SHALL BE PUNISHED. 

AS THE CASES PRESENT IDENTICAL QUESTIONS IT WILL SUFFICE TO STATE NO.
716.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT A GENERAL ELECTION WAS HELD NOVEMBER
3, 1942, IN HARLAN COUNTY, KENTUCKY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A
SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES, AT WHICH ELECTION THE DEFENDANTS SERVED
AS THE DULY QUALIFIED OFFICERS OF ELECTION; THAT THEY CONSPIRED TO
INJURE AND OPPRESS DIVERS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WERE
LEGALLY ENTITLED TO VOTE AT THE POLLING PLACES WHERE THE DEFENDANTS
OFFICIATED, IN THE FREE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES GUARANTEED TO THE CITIZENS BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES, NAMELY, THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO EXPRESS BY THEIR
VOTES THEIR CHOICE OF A CANDIDATE FOR SENATOR AND THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE
THEIR EXPRESSIONS OF CHOICE GIVEN FULL VALUE AND EFFECT BY NOT HAVING
THEIR VOTES IMPAIRED, LESSENED, DIMINISHED, DILUTED AND DESTROYED BY
FICTITIOUS BALLOTS FRAUDULENTLY CAST AND COUNTED, RECORDED, RETURNED,
AND CERTIFIED.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS, PURSUANT TO
THEIR PLAN, TORE FROM THE OFFICIAL BALLOT BOOK AND STUB BOOK FURNISHED
THEM, BLANK UNVOTED BALLOTS AND MARKED, FORGED, AND VOTED THE SAME FOR
THE CANDIDATE OF A GIVEN PARTY, OPPOSING THE CANDIDATE FOR WHOM THE
INJURED VOTERS HAD VOTED, IN ORDER TO DEPRIVE THE LATTER OF THEIR
RIGHTS TO HAVE THEIR VOTES CAST, COUNTED, CERTIFIED AND RECORDED AND
GIVEN FULL VALUE AND EFFECT; THAT THE DEFENDANTS INSERTED THE FALSE
BALLOTS THEY HAD SO PREPARED INTO THE BALLOT BOX, AND RETURNED THEM,
TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER BALLOTS LAWFULLY CAST, SO AS TO CREATE A FALSE
AND FICTITIOUS RETURN RESPECTING THE VOTES LAWFULLY CAST. 

THE APPELLEES DEMURRED TO THE INDICTMENT, AS FAILING TO STATE FACTS
SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CRIME AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE
DEMURRER ATTACKED THE INDICTMENT ON OTHER GROUNDS RAISING QUESTIONS
WHICH, IF DECIDED, WOULD NOT BE REVIEWABLE HERE UNDER THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED ONLY THAT THE INDICTMENT
CHARGED NO OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THIS RULING
PRESENTS THE QUESTION FOR DECISION. 

THE APPELLEES DO NOT DENY THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PUNISH THE
CONSPIRACY DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT.  IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISIONS,
THEY COULD NOT WELL ADVANCE SUCH A CONTENTION.  FN2 THE INQUIRY IS
WHETHER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 19 EMBRACES A CONSPIRACY BY ELECTION
OFFICERS TO STUFF A BALLOT BOX IN AN ELECTION AT WHICH A MEMBER OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES IS TO BE ELECTED. 

IN UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383, THIS COURT REVERSED A
JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED A
CONSPIRACY OF ELECTION OFFICERS TO RENDER FALSE RETURNS BY DISREGARDING
CERTAIN PRECINCT RETURNS AND THUS FALSIFYING THE COUNT OF THE VOTE
CAST.  AFTER STATING THAT SEC. 19 IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND VALIDLY EXTENDS
"SOME PROTECTION AT LEAST TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS," THE COURT ADDED:  "WE REGARD IT AS EQUALLY UNQUESTIONABLE
THAT THE RIGHT TO HAVE ONE'S VOTE COUNTED IS AS OPEN TO PROTECTION BY
CONGRESS AS THE RIGHT TO PUT A BALLOT IN A BOX."  THE COURT THEN TRACED
THE HISTORY OF SEC. 19 FROM ITS ORIGIN AS ONE SECTION OF THE
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF MAY 31, 1870,  FN3  WHICH CONTAINED OTHER SECTIONS
MORE SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT ELECTION FRAUDS, AND THE SURVIVAL OF SEC. 19
AS A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES NOTWITHSTANDING THE REPEAL OF THOSE
OTHER SECTIONS.  THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT SEC. 19 PROTECTED PERSONAL
RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO CAST HIS BALLOT, AND HELD
THAT TO REFUSE TO COUNT AND RETURN THE VOTE AS CAST WAS AS MUCH AN
INFRINGEMENT OF THAT PERSONAL RIGHT AS TO EXCLUDE THE VOTER FROM THE
POLLING PLACE.  THE CASE AFFIRMS THAT THE ELECTOR'S RIGHT INTENDED TO
BE PROTECTED IS NOT ONLY THAT TO CAST HIS BALLOT BUT THAT TO HAVE IT
HONESTLY COUNTED. 

THE DECISION WAS NOT REACHED WITHOUT A STRONG DISSENT, WHICH
EMPHASIZED THE PROBABILITY THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO COVER BY
SEC. 6 OF THE ACT (NOW SEC. 19) THE RIGHT TO CAST A BALLOT AND TO HAVE
IT COUNTED, BUT TO DEAL WITH THOSE RIGHTS IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
ACT.  AND IT WAS THOUGHT THIS VIEW WAS STRENGTHENED BY THE REPEAL,
FEBRUARY 8, 1894,  FN4  OF THE SECTIONS WHICH DEALT WITH BRIBERY AND
OTHER ELECTION FRAUDS, INCLUDING SEC. 4, WHICH, TO SOME EXTENT,
OVERLAPPED SEC. 6, IF THE LATTER WERE CONSTRUED TO COMPREHEND THE RIGHT
TO CAST A BALLOT AND TO HAVE IT COUNTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING THAT DISSENT,
THE MOSLEY CASE HAS STOOD AS AUTHORITY TO THE PRESENT TIME.  FN5 

THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THE PRESENT CASES CONTROLLED BY UNITED STATES
V. BATHGATE, 246 U.S. 220.  THAT CASE INVOLVED AN INDICTMENT CHARGING
PERSONS WITH CONSPIRING TO DEPRIVE A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE OF RIGHTS
SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 19, AND TO DEPRIVE OTHER VOTERS OF THEIR RIGHTS, BY
THE BRIBERY OF VOTERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN AN ELECTION AT WHICH MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS WERE CANDIDATES.  THIS COURT AFFIRMED A DECISION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT, AND
DISTINGUISHED THE MOSLEY CASE ON SEVERAL GROUNDS:  FIRST, THAT, IN THE
ENFORCEMENT ACT, BRIBERY OF VOTERS HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY MADE A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE BUT THE SECTION SO PROVIDING HAD BEEN REPEALED;
SECONDLY, THAT THE GROUND ON WHICH THE MOSLEY CASE WENT WAS THAT THE
CONSPIRACY THERE WAS DIRECTED AT THE PERSONAL RIGHT OF THE ELECTOR TO
CAST HIS OWN VOTE AND TO HAVE IT HONESTLY COUNTED, A RIGHT NOT INVOLVED
IN THE BATHGATE CASE. 

IF THE VOTERS' RIGHTS PROTECTED BY SEC. 19 ARE THOSE DEFINED BY THE
MOSLEY CASE, THE FRUSTRATION CHARGED TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY THE
DEFENDANTS IN THE PRESENT CASES VIOLATES THEM.  FOR ELECTION OFFICERS
KNOWINGLY TO PREPARE FALSE BALLOTS, PLACE THEM IN THE BOX, AND RETURN
THEM, IS CERTAINLY TO PREVENT AN HONEST COUNT BY THE RETURN BOARD OF
THE VOTES LAWFULLY CAST.  THE MATHEMATICAL RESULT MAY NOT BE THE SAME
AS WOULD ENSUE THROWING OUT OR FRUSTRATING THE COUNT OF VOTES LAWFULLY
CAST.  BUT THE ACTION PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY HERE CHARGED
CONSTITUTES THE RENDERING OF A RETURN WHICH, TO SOME EXTENT, FALSIFIES
THE COUNT OF VOTES LEGALLY CAST.  WE ARE UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH A
CONSPIRACY SO TO ACT FROM THAT WHICH WAS HELD A VIOLATION OF SEC. 19 IN
THE MOSLEY CASE. 

IT IS URGED THAT ANY ATTEMPTED DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CONDUCT
DESCRIBED IN THE BATHGATE CASE AND THAT REFERRED TO IN THE MOSLEY CASE
IS ILLOGICAL AND INSUBSTANTIAL; THAT BRIBERY OF VOTERS AS BADLY
DISTORTS THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION AND AS EFFECTIVELY DENIES A FREE AND
FAIR CHOICE BY THE VOTERS AS DOES BALLOT BOX STUFFING OR REFUSAL TO
RETURN OR COUNT THE BALLOTS.  MUCH IS TO BE SAID FOR THIS VIEW.  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DOES NOT CLEARLY DISCLOSE THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE
IN THE REPEAL OF THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ENFORCEMENT ACT, WHILE
LEAVING SEC. 6(NOW SEC. 19) IN FORCE.  SECTION 19 CAN HARDLY HAVE BEEN
INADVERTENTLY LEFT ON THE STATUTE BOOKS.  PERHAPS CONGRESS THOUGHT IT
HAD AN APPLICATION OTHER THAN THAT GIVEN IT BY THIS COURT IN THE MOSLEY
CASE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, CONGRESS MAY HAVE INTENDED THE RESULT THIS
COURT REACHED IN THE MOSLEY DECISION.  WE THINK IT UNPROFITABLE TO
SPECULATE UPON THE MATTER FOR CONGRESS HAS NOT SPOKEN SINCE THE
DECISIONS IN QUESTION WERE ANNOUNCED, AND THE DISTINCTION TAKEN BY
THOSE DECISIONS HAS STOOD FOR OVER A QUARTER OF A CENTURY.  OBSERVANCE
OF THAT DISTINCTION PLACES THE INSTANT CASE WITHIN THE RULING IN THE
MOSLEY CASE AND OUTSIDE THAT IN THE BATHGATE CASE. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE COURT BELOW AND REQUIRES
THAT THE JUDGMENTS BE REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

FN2  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651, 657, 658, 661, 663; UNITED
STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 314, 315. 

FN3  C. 114, 16 STAT. 140, AS AMENDED BY C. 99, 16 STAT. 433. 

FN4  C. 25, 28 STAT. 36. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476; IN RE ROBERTS, 244 U.S.
650; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 527; UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC,
SUPRA, 321. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED
CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER STUFFING OF THE BALLOT BOX SHOULD BE
PUNISHED.  KENTUCKY HAS MADE THAT REPREHENSIBLE PRACTICE A CRIME.  SEE
KY. REV. STAT. 1942, SEC. 124.220; COMMONWEALTH V. ANDERSON, 151 KY.
537, 152 S.W. 552; TACKETT V. COMMONWEALTH, 285 KY. 83, 146 S.W.2D
937.  CF. KY. REV. STAT. 1942, SEC. 124.180(8).  AND IT IS A CRIME
UNDER KENTUCKY LAW WHETHER IT OCCURS IN AN ELECTION FOR STATE OFFICIALS
OR FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR.  ID., SEC. 124.280(2).  THE QUESTION HERE
IS WHETHER THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 19 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE SHOULD
BE CONSTRUED TO SUPERIMPOSE A FEDERAL CRIME ON THIS STATE CRIME. 

UNDER SEC. 19 OF THE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF MAY 31, 1870(16 STAT. 144)
THE STUFFING OF THIS BALLOT BOX WOULD HAVE BEEN A FEDERAL OFFENSE.  FN1
THAT PROVISION WAS A PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE "RECONSTRUCTION"
LEGISLATION PASSED AFTER THE CIVIL WAR.  IT WAS REPEALED BY THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 8, 1894, 28 STAT. 36 - AN ACT WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO RESTORE
CONTROL OF ELECTION FRAUDS TO THE STATES.  THE COMMITTEE REPORT (H.
REP. NO. 18, 53D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 7) WHICH SPONSORED THE REPEAL
STATED: 

"LET EVERY TRACE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES BE WIPED FROM THE
STATUTE BOOKS; LET THE STATES OF THIS GREAT UNION UNDERSTAND THAT THE
ELECTIONS ARE IN THEIR OWN HANDS, AND IF THERE BE FRAUD, COERCION, OR
FORCE USED THEY WILL BE THE FIRST TO FEEL IT.  RESPONDING TO A
UNIVERSAL SENTIMENT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY FOR GREATER PURITY IN
ELECTIONS MANY OF OUR STATES HAVE ENACTED LAWS TO PROTECT THE VOTER AND
TO PURIFY THE BALLOT.  THESE, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF STATE OFFICERS,
HAVE WORKED EFFICIENTLY, SATISFACTORILY, AND BENEFICENTLY; AND IF THESE
FEDERAL STATUTES ARE REPEALED THAT SENTIMENT WILL RECEIVE AN IMPETUS
WHICH, IF THE CAUSE STILL EXISTS, WILL CARRY SUCH ENACTMENTS IN EVERY
STATE IN THE UNION." 

THIS COURT NOW WRITES INTO THE LAW WHAT CONGRESS STRUCK OUT 50 YEARS
AGO.  THE COURT NOW RESTORES FEDERAL CONTROL IN A DOMAIN WHERE CONGRESS
DECIDED THE STATES SHOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  I THINK IF SUCH
AN INTRUSION ON HISTORIC STATES' RIGHTS IS TO BE MADE, IT SHOULD BE
DONE BY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO PRESERVE BY THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 19 THE
SAME DETAILED FEDERAL CONTROLS OVER ELECTIONS WHICH WERE CONTAINED IN
THE MUCH DESPISED "RECONSTRUCTION" LEGISLATION. 

THE COURT, OF COURSE, DOES NOT GO QUITE THAT FAR.  IT RECOGNIZES THAT
BRIBERY OF VOTERS IS NOT A FEDERAL OFFENSE.  UNITED STATES V. BATHGATE,
246 U.S. 220.  BUT HE WHO BRIBES VOTERS AND PURCHASES THEIR VOTES
CORRUPTS THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AND DILUTES MY VOTE AS MUCH AS HE WHO
STUFFS THE BALLOT BOX.  IF ONE IS A FEDERAL CRIME UNDER SEC. 19, I FAIL
TO SEE WHY THE OTHER IS NOT ALSO. 

CONGRESS HAS AMPLE POWER TO LEGISLATE IN THIS FIELD AND TO PROTECT
THE ELECTION OF ITS MEMBERS FROM FRAUD AND CORRUPTION.  UNITED STATES
V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299.  I WOULD LEAVE TO CONGRESS ANY EXTENSION OF
FEDERAL CONTROL OVER ELECTIONS.  I WOULD RESTRICT SEC. 19 TO THOSE
CASES WHERE A VOTER IS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO CAST A BALLOT OR TO
HAVE HIS BALLOT COUNTED.  UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383.  THAT
IS THE "RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE" THE "FREE EXERCISE" OF WHICH IS PROTECTED
BY SEC. 19.  IF IT IS SAID THAT THAT DISTINCTION IS NOT A LOGICAL ONE,
MY ANSWER IS THAT IT IS NEVERTHELESS A PRACTICAL ONE.  ONCE WE GO
BEYOND THAT POINT, LOGIC WOULD REQUIRE US TO CONSTRUE SEC. 19 SO AS TO
MAKE FEDERAL OFFENSES OUT OF ALL FRAUDS WHICH CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL
PROCESS, DISTORT THE COUNT, OR DILUTE THE HONEST VOTE.  THE VAST
INTERESTS INVOLVED IN THAT PROPOSAL EMPHASIZE THE LEGISLATIVE QUALITY
OF AN EXPANSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 19.  WE SHOULD LEAVE THAT
EXPANSION TO CONGRESS. 

THAT VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY ANOTHER CONSIDERATION.  THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY
PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT BAR A FEDERAL PROSECUTION
EVEN THOUGH A CONVICTION BASED ON THE SAME ACTS HAS BEEN OBTAINED UNDER
STATE LAW.  JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 101, 105, AND CASES
CITED.  THEREFORE WHEN IT IS URGED THAT CONGRESS HAS CREATED OFFENSES
WHICH TRADITIONALLY HAVE BEEN LEFT FOR STATE ACTION AND WHICH DUPLICATE
STATE CRIMES, WE SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO EXPAND THE DEFINED FEDERAL
OFFENSES "BEYOND THE CLEAR REQUIREMENTS OF THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE." 
ID.  I KNOW OF NO SITUATION WHERE THAT PRINCIPLE COULD BE MORE
APPROPRIATELY RECOGNIZED THAN IN THE FIELD OF THE ELECTIONS WHERE THERE
IS COMPREHENSIVE STATE REGULATION.    FN1  THAT SECTION PROVIDED: 

"THAT IF AT ANY ELECTION FOR REPRESENTATIVE OR DELEGATE IN THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ANY PERSON SHALL KNOWINGLY PERSONATE AND
VOTE, OR ATTEMPT TO VOTE, IN THE NAME OF ANY OTHER PERSON, WHETHER
LIVING, DEAD, OR FICTITIOUS; OR VOTE MORE THAN ONCE AT THE SAME
ELECTION FOR ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE SAME OFFICE; OR VOTE AT A PLACE
WHERE HE MAY NOT BE LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO VOTE; OR VOTE WITHOUT HAVING A
LAWFUL RIGHT TO VOTE; OR DO ANY UNLAWFUL ACT TO SECURE A RIGHT OR AN
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR HIMSELF OR ANY OTHER PERSON; OR BY FORCE,
THREAT, MENACE, INTIMIDATION, BRIBERY, REWARD, OR OFFER, OR PROMISE
THEREOF, OR OTHERWISE UNLAWFULLY PREVENT ANY QUALIFIED VOTER OF ANY
STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR OF ANY TERRITORY THEREOF,
FROM FREELY EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE, OR BY ANY SUCH MEANS
INDUCE ANY VOTER TO REFUSE TO EXERCISE SUCH RIGHT; OR COMPEL OR INDUCE
BY ANY SUCH MEANS, OR OTHERWISE, ANY OFFICER OF AN ELECTION IN ANY SUCH
STATE OR TERRITORY TO RECEIVE A VOTE FROM A PERSON NOT LEGALLY
QUALIFIED OR ENTITLED TO VOTE; OR INTERFERE IN ANY MANNER WITH ANY
OFFICER OF SAID ELECTIONS IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES; OR BY ANY OF
SUCH MEANS, OR OTHER UNLAWFUL MEANS, INDUCE ANY OFFICER OF AN ELECTION,
OR OFFICER WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO ASCERTAIN, ANNOUNCE, OR DECLARE THE
RESULT OF ANY SUCH ELECTION, OR GIVE OR MAKE ANY CERTIFICATE, DOCUMENT,
OR EVIDENCE IN RELATION THERETO, TO VIOLATE OR REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH
HIS DUTY, OR ANY LAW REGULATING THE SAME; OR KNOWINGLY AND WILFULLY
RECEIVE THE VOTE OF ANY PERSON NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE, OR REFUSE TO
RECEIVE THE VOTE OF ANY PERSON ENTITLED TO VOTE; OR AID, COUNSEL,
PROCURE, OR ADVISE ANY SUCH VOTER, PERSON, OR OFFICER TO DO ANY ACT
HEREBY MADE A CRIME, OR TO OMIT TO DO ANY DUTY THE OMISSION OF WHICH IS
HEREBY MADE A CRIME, OR ATTEMPT TO DO SO, EVERY SUCH PERSON SHALL BE
DEEMED GUILTY OF A CRIME, AND SHALL FOR SUCH CRIME BE LIABLE TO
PROSECUTION IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, AND, ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE
NOT EXCEEDING FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT
EXCEEDING THREE YEARS, OR BOTH, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, AND
SHALL PAY THE COSTS OF PROSECUTION." 
..END :











KEEFE V. CLARK, 322 U.S. 393 


NO. 634.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 28, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1944.  - 306
MICH. 503, 11 N.W.2D 220, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE THE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF A STATE
AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, THE OBLIGATION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN IMPAIRED
IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MUST BE CLEARLY AND
UNEQUIVOCALLY EXPRESSED.  P. 396. 

2.  THE FOREGOING RULE OF CONSTRUCTION APPLIES WITH SPECIAL FORCE IN
THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT URGED BY
APPELLANTS WOULD RESULT IN A DRASTIC LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF THE
STATE TO REMEDY A SITUATION OBVIOUSLY INIMICAL TO THE INTERESTS OF
MUNICIPAL CREDITORS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  P. 397. 

3.  THE MICHIGAN STATUTE UPON WHICH THE OWNERS OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DRAIN BONDS HERE RELY, DEALING WITH THE LEVY OF AN ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENT IN THE EVENT THAT THE BONDS ARE NOT PAID IN FULL AT
MATURITY, DID NOT SECURE TO THE BOND OWNERS ANY RIGHT WHICH WAS
IMPAIRED BY LATER STATUTES PROVIDING FOR SALE BY THE STATE, FREE OF ALL
ENCUMBRANCES, OF LAND FOR UNPAID TAXES; AND THE LATER STATUTES DID NOT
IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 397. 

KEEFE ET AL. V. CLARK, DRAIN COMMISSIONER OF OAKLAND COUNTY, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT MODIFYING AND AFFIRMING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
WHICH, IN A SUIT BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND OWNERS AGAINST COUNTY
OFFICIALS, DETERMINED THE RIGHTS OF THE BOND OWNERS, APPELLANTS HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TWO ACTS
PASSED BY THE MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE IN 1937 ARE VOID IN THAT, CONTRARY
TO ART. I, SEC. 10 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THEY IMPAIR THE
OBLIGATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DRAIN BONDS ISSUED IN 1927, SOME OF
WHICH ARE OWNED BY APPELLANTS.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE
SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.  28 U.S.C. 344(A).  FN1 

SO FAR AS HERE RELEVANT, THE TWO ACTS  FN2  SAID TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROVIDE THAT PARCELS OF LAND SUBJECT TO SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT FOR DRAIN PROJECTS MAY BE SOLD FOR UNPAID TAXES, AND ALSO
PROVIDE THAT THE PURCHASER AT SUCH A SALE SHALL BE GRANTED A TITLE FREE
OF ALL ENCUMBRANCES, INCLUDING ALL ASSESSMENTS FOR DRAIN PROJECTS
ALREADY CONSTRUCTED.  THE PROCEEDS OF EACH TAX SALE ARE APPLIED TOWARDS
PAYMENT OF THE UNPAID DRAIN ASSESSMENT ON THE PARTICULAR PARCEL OF
LAND, AS WELL AS TOWARDS PAYMENT OF OTHER DELINQUENT TAXES.  PURSUANT
TO THESE ACTS, THE STATE OF MICHIGAN HAS SOLD TAX DELINQUENT PROPERTIES
LOCATED IN THE DRAIN DISTRICT WHICH ISSUED APPELLANTS' BONDS.  THE
DEEDS OF SALE PURPORT TO RELEASE THE PROPERTIES FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES,
INCLUDING ALL ASSESSMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF THE 1927 DRAIN PROJECT. 

APPELLANTS DO NOT CONTEND THAT THE CHALLENGED ACTS IMPAIR ANY TERM OF
THE CONTRACT PRINTED ON THE FACE OF THEIR DRAIN BONDS.  WHAT THEY
CONTEND IS THAT THE ACTS IMPAIR A RIGHT SECURED TO THEM BY A STATUTORY
PROVISION WHICH WAS THE LAW OF MICHIGAN AT THE TIME THEIR BONDS WERE
ISSUED AND WHICH, THEY SAY, BECAME A PART OF THE BOND CONTRACT.  SEE
VON HOFFMAN V. CITY OF QUINCY, 4 WALL.  535, 550.  THE STATUTORY
PROVISION UPON WHICH THEY RELY READS: 

"IF THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT MONEY IN THE FUND IN A PARTICULAR DRAIN
AT THE TIME OF THE MATURITY OF THE BONDS LAST TO MATURE TO PAY ALL
OUTSTANDING BONDS WITH INTEREST,  ...  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
COMMISSIONER TO AT ONCE LEVY AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT AS HEREINBEFORE
PROVIDED IN SUCH AN AMOUNT AS WILL MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY."  CHAPTER X,
SEC. 18, ACT 316, MICH. PUB. ACTS OF 1923, AS AMENDED BY ACT 331, MICH.
PUB. ACTS OF 1927.  APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS STATUTE HAS GIVEN
THEM AN INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO HAVE A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT LEVIED ON
EACH PRIVATELY OWNED PARCEL OF LAND IN THE DRAIN DISTRICT REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER A PARTICULAR PARCEL ALREADY HAS BEEN SOLD AT A TAX SALE AND THE
PROCEEDS APPLIED TOWARD PAYMENT OF THE DRAIN BONDS.  IN PRACTICAL
EFFECT, THEY ASSERT THAT BY THIS STATUTE LANDS SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT
FOR THEIR DRAIN BONDS ARE SUBJECT TO BE SOLD NOT JUST ONCE, BUT TWICE,
FOR PAYMENT OF THE SINGLE BENEFIT WHICH THE LANDS RECEIVED FROM THE
ORIGINAL DRAIN PROJECT.  CONSEQUENTLY, THEIR ARGUMENT RUNS, THE
MICHIGAN LEGISLATURE WAS POWERLESS TO PROVIDE THAT PURCHASERS OF TAX
DELINQUENT PROPERTY IN THE DRAIN DISTRICT BE EXEMPT FROM A DEFICIENCY
DRAIN ASSESSMENT. 

THIS ARGUMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN REFUSED TO ACCEPT. 
EMPHASIZING THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A HOBBLING OF THE STATE'S
POWERS TO MEET PRESSING PROBLEMS, THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE POWER
OF THE STATE TO SELL TAX-DELINQUENT LANDS FREE OF THE BURDEN OF
ASSESSMENTS FOR COMPLETED DRAIN PROJECTS WAS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO
PROTECT THE BONDHOLDERS THEMSELVES BUT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
WITHOUT POWER IN THE STATE TO OFFER AN ATTRACTIVE TITLE TO PROSPECTIVE
PURCHASERS, THE COURT FOUND, MANY OF SUCH LANDS WOULD REMAIN TAX
DELINQUENT AND THEREBY BE RENDERED VALUELESS FOR ALL PUBLIC REVENUE
PURPOSES, INCLUDING DRAIN ASSESSMENTS.  THE COURT DECLINED TO READ INTO
THE STATUTE RELIED UPON BY APPELLANTS ANY PURPOSE TO PERMIT DRAIN
DISTRICTS TO SURRENDER THE STATE'S SOVEREIGN POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE
SALE OF TAX-DELINQUENT PROPERTY FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES.  IT HELD THAT
UNDER THE MICHIGAN LAW IN EFFECT WHEN APPELLANTS' SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DRAIN BONDS WERE ISSUED THE BONDHOLDERS'"MAXIMUM SECURITY" FOR PAYMENT
OF ASSESSMENTS AGAINST DRAIN DISTRICT LANDS WAS THE PARCELS OF LAND
THEMSELVES, AND THAT WHEN THE BONDHOLDERS RECEIVED THEIR FAIR SHARE OF
THE PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM THE TAX SALE OF ANY PARTICULAR PARCEL THEY
HAD RECEIVED EVERYTHING TO WHICH THEIR BOND CONTRACTS ENTITLED THEM. 
KEEFE V. OAKLAND COUNTY DRAIN COMM'R, 306 MICH. 503, 511-512, 11 N.W.2D
220. 

BEFORE WE CAN FIND IMPAIRMENT OF A CONTRACT WE MUST FIND AN
OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT WHICH HAS BEEN IMPAIRED.  SINCE THE CONTRACT
HERE RELIED UPON IS ONE BETWEEN A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF A STATE AND
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIRE THAT
THE OBLIGATION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN IMPAIRED BE CLEARLY AND
UNEQUIVOCALLY EXPRESSED.  THIS RULE OF CONSTRUCTION APPLIES WITH
SPECIAL FORCE IN THE CASE AT BAR, FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BOND
CONTRACT URGED BY APPELLANTS WOULD RESULT IN A DRASTIC LIMITATION UPON
THE POWER OF MICHIGAN TO ENACT LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO REMEDY A
SITUATION OBVIOUSLY INIMICAL TO THE INTERESTS OF BOTH MUNICIPAL
CREDITORS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  FN3  "THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF A
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE OF NO GREAT VALUE, IF, BY IMPLICATIONS AND
PRESUMPTIONS, IT WAS DISARMED OF THE POWERS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE
ENDS OF ITS CREATION."  CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 11 PET.
420, 548; AND SEE GILMAN V. SHEBOYGAN, 2 BLACK 510, 513; FISHER V. NEW
ORLEANS, 218 U.S. 438. 

WE DO NOT FIND IN THE PROVISION OF THE DRAIN STATUTE RELIED UPON BY
APPELLANTS A CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL PURPOSE OF MICHIGAN TO PERMIT DRAIN
DISTRICTS TO BARGAIN AWAY THE STATE'S POWER TO SELL TAX-DELINQUENT
LANDS FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES.  LONG BEFORE THE DATE WHEN APPELLANTS'
BONDS WERE ISSUED, THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT HAD HELD THAT, "THE
GENERAL RULE IS THAT A SALE AND A CONVEYANCE (BY THE STATE) IN DUE FORM
FOR TAXES EXTINGUISHES ALL PRIOR LIENS, WHETHER FOR TAXES OR
OTHERWISE.  THIS RULE IS ONE OF NECESSITY, GROWING OUT OF THE
IMPERATIVE NATURE OF THE DEMAND OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR ITS REVENUES." 
AUDITOR GENERAL V. CLIFFORD, 143 MICH. 626, 630, 107 N.W. 287; AND SEE
MUNICIPAL INVESTORS ASSN. V. BIRMINGHAM, 298 MICH. 314, 325-326, 299
N.W. 90, AND CASES THERE CITED.  THE PROVISION OF THE DRAIN STATUTE
UPON WHICH APPELLANTS REST THEIR CASE DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PURPORT TO
ALTER THIS "RULE OF NECESSITY."  ON ITS FACE IT DEALS ONLY WITH THE
LEVY OF AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE EVENT THAT DRAIN BONDS ARE NOT
PAID IN FULL AT MATURITY, AND DOES NOT ASSUME TO DEAL WITH THE MANNER
OF SELLING TAX-DELINQUENT PROPERTIES IN DRAIN DISTRICTS OR THE KIND OF
TITLE THAT CAN BE CONVEYED AT SUCH SALES.  "THE LANGUAGE FALLS FAR
SHORT OF SUBJECTING LOTS WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD TO PAY TAX OR ASSESSMENT
LIENS TO AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DEFICIT.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION
WOULD DEFEAT THE REMEDY OF TAX SALES AS A MEANS OF REALIZING THE
ASSESSMENT LIEN."  MUNICIPAL INVESTORS ASSN. V. BIRMINGHAM, 316 U.S.
153, 159.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  APPELLEES HAVE MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT A
FEDERAL QUESTION WAS NOT PROPERLY RAISED IN THE STATE COURTS.  THE
RECORD FAILS TO SUSTAIN THE MOTION AND IT IS DENIED.  SEE WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 360. 

FN2  ACT 114, MICH. PUB. ACTS OF 1937, AS AMENDED BY ACT 282, MICH.
PUB. ACTS OF 1939 AND ACT 234, MICH. PUB. ACTS OF 1941. 

ACT 155, MICH. PUB. ACTS OF 1937, AS AMENDED BY ACTS 29, 244, AND 329
OF MICH. PUB. ACTS OF 1939 AND ACT 363 OF MICH. PUB. ACTS OF 1941. 

FN3  THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT HAS DESCRIBED VIVIDLY THE INTIMATE
RELATION BETWEEN THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REMOVE ENCUMBRANCES FROM TAX
DELINQUENT LANDS AND THE WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.  BAKER V. STATE LAND
OFFICE BOARD, 294 MICH. 587, 592-594, 293 N.W. 763.  LAND SPECULATION
RAN RIOT IN MICHIGAN IN THE 1920'S, BRINGING WITH IT CONSTRUCTION OF
SUBDIVISIONS, PAVING AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS, ETC.  INFLATED LAND VALUES
PRODUCED THEIR INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES.  IN THE EARLY 1930'S A LARGE
PART OF MICHIGAN LANDS HAD A MARKET VALUE FAR LESS THAN THE UNPAID
PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENT TAXES ACCUMULATED UPON THEM.  ATTEMPTING TO
REMEDY THE SITUATION, THE LEGISLATURE TRIED TAX COLLECTION MORATORIUMS,
AND FOR SIX YEARS NO TAX SALES WERE HELD, BUT STILL UNPAID TAXES
CONTINUED TO AMASS.  PROPERTY OWNERS ABANDONED THEIR HEAVILY ENCUMBERED
REAL ESTATE; THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COULD GET NO REVENUE FROM
THE DELINQUENT PROPERTY; AND MUNICIPAL CREDITORS COULD GET NEITHER
PRINCIPAL NOR INTEREST.  ALL SUFFERED ALIKE.  FINALLY IN 1937, UPON THE
RECOMMENDATION OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES AND PLANNING COMMISSIONS, ACTS
114 AND 155, SUPRA, NOTE 1, TOGETHER WITH ACT 325, WERE PASSED BY THE
LEGISLATURE IN AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT UNPAID TAXES AND TO FREE PROPERTY
OF ITS ACCUMULATED TAX BURDEN. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



STEUART & BRO. V. BOWLES, 322 U.S. 398 


NO. 793.  ARGUED MAY 2, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1944.  - 140 F.2D 703,
AFFIRMED. 


THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER SEC. 2(A)(2) OF TITLE III OF THE
SECOND WAR POWERS ACT TO "ALLOCATE" MATERIALS INCLUDES THE POWER TO
ISSUE SUSPENSION ORDERS AGAINST RETAILERS AND TO WITHHOLD RATIONED
MATERIALS FROM THEM WHERE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THEY HAVE ACQUIRED AND
DISTRIBUTED THE RATIONED MATERIALS IN VIOLATION OF THE RATION
REGULATIONS.  P. 403. 

L.P. STEUART & BRO., INC. V. BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 761, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED AGAINST THE COMPANY BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION PURSUANT TO POWERS DELEGATED BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE
SECOND WAR POWERS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEC. 2(A)(2) OF TITLE III OF THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT (56 STAT. 178,
50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. III), SEC. 633) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT IS SATISFIED THAT THE FULFILLMENT OF
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES WILL RESULT IN A
SHORTAGE IN THE SUPPLY OF ANY MATERIAL OR OF ANY FACILITIES FOR DEFENSE
OR FOR PRIVATE ACCOUNT OR FOR EXPORT, THE PRESIDENT MAY ALLOCATE SUCH
MATERIAL OR FACILITIES IN SUCH MANNER, UPON SUCH CONDITIONS AND TO SUCH
EXTENT AS HE SHALL DEEM NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AND TO PROMOTE THE NATIONAL DEFENSE."  BY SEC. 2(A)(8) OF THE ACT THE
PRESIDENT IS GRANTED AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE THAT POWER "THROUGH SUCH
DEPARTMENT, AGENCY, OR OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT AS HE MAY DIRECT AND
IN CONFORMITY WITH ANY RULES OR REGULATIONS WHICH HE MAY PRESCRIBE." 
THAT AUTHORITY, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, WAS DELEGATED TO THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION,  FN1  WHICH PROMULGATED RATION ORDER NO. 11,
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 22, 1942, PROVIDING FOR THE RATIONING OF FUEL OIL. 
FN2  THAT ORDER RECITED THE NOW FAMILIAR FACTS CONCERNING THE THEN
CRITICAL AND ACUTE SHORTAGE OF FUEL OIL AND OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN
THE EASTERN STATES DUE TO THE GREAT WAR ACTIVITY.  IT STATED THAT IT
WAS "ESSENTIAL TO GUARANTEE THE CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE
SUPPLIES OF FUEL OIL FOR MILITARY AND NAVAL USE AND FOR INDUSTRIAL AND
AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS" AND THAT THE "REDUCTION OF DEMAND TO THE
AVAILABLE SUPPLY IS SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED LARGELY BY A CURTAILMENT OF
THE USE OF FUEL OIL FOR HEATING PREMISES AND FOR HOT WATER, VIRTUALLY
THE ONLY CLASSES OF USES WHICH CAN BE UNIFORMLY REDUCED WITHOUT
DIRECTLY IMPEDING THE WAR EFFORT."  FN3  THE ORDER INAUGURATED "A
SYSTEM OF RATIONING CONTROL" DEEMED NECESSARY IN ORDER "TO PROVIDE FOR
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF FUEL OIL IN THE AREAS OF SHORTAGE."  FN4
FUEL OIL RATIONS FOR HEAT AND FOR HOT WATER WERE PROVIDED.  MACHINERY
WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE REGULATION OF THE FLOW OF FUEL OIL FROM
SUPPLIERS TO CONSUMERS.  ONLY A FEW OF THOSE REGULATIONS ARE RELEVANT
HERE.  TRANSFERS OF FUEL OIL TO CONSUMERS WERE ALLOWED ONLY IN EXCHANGE
FOR RATION COUPONS.  FN5  A DEALER OBTAINING FUEL OIL FROM HIS SUPPLIER
WAS GENERALLY REQUIRED TO SURRENDER RATION COUPONS WITHIN FIVE DAYS
AFTER THE TRANSFER.  FN6  DEALERS WERE REQUIRED, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT
MATERIAL HERE, TO KEEP RECORDS OF SALES TO CONSUMERS SHOWING THEIR
NAMES AND ADDRESSES, THE DATE AND AMOUNT OF THE TRANSFER, AND THE
COUPONS DETACHED.  FN7  PROVISION WAS ALSO MADE FOR "SUSPENSION ORDERS"
AS FOLLOWS:  FN8  "ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES RATION ORDER NO. 11 MAY, BY
ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSION ORDER, BE PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING ANY
TRANSFERS OR DELIVERIES OF, OR SELLING OR USING OR OTHERWISE DISPOSING
OF, ANY FUEL OIL OR OTHER RATIONED PRODUCT OR FACILITY.  SUCH
SUSPENSION ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED FOR SUCH PERIOD AS IN THE JUDGMENT OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR, OR SUCH PERSON AS HE MAY DESIGNATE FOR SUCH PURPOSE,
IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND TO PROMOTE THE
NATIONAL SECURITY." 

ON DECEMBER 31, 1943, A SUSPENSION ORDER WAS ISSUED AGAINST
PETITIONER, A RETAIL DEALER IN FUEL OIL IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
IT WAS FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD OBTAINED LARGE QUANTITIES OF FUEL OIL
FROM ITS SUPPLIER WITHOUT SURRENDERING ANY RATION COUPONS.  IT WAS
FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD DELIVERED MANY THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF FUEL
OIL TO CONSUMERS WITHOUT RECEIVING RATION COUPONS IN EXCHANGE; FN9  AND
THAT IN SOME INSTANCES PETITIONER DELIVERED FUEL OIL TO CONSUMERS
WITHOUT RECEIPT OF VALID RATION COUPONS IN EXCHANGE.  FN10  PETITIONER
WAS ALSO FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO KEEP THE REQUIRED RECORDS SHOWING ITS
TRANSFERS OF FUEL OIL TO CONSUMERS.  THE SUSPENSION ORDER PROHIBITED
PETITIONER FROM RECEIVING FUEL OIL FOR RESALE OR TRANSFER TO ANY
CONSUMER FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 15, 1944 TO DECEMBER 31, 1944, THE
DATE WHEN THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT EXPIRES.  THE ORDER PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT IF PETITIONER FURNISHED THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION WITH A LIST OF CONSUMERS TO WHOM IT HAD SOLD FUEL OIL
FROM OCTOBER 21, 1941, TO OCTOBER 21, 1942, AND IF IT SURRENDERED ALL
VOID RATION COUPONS IN ITS POSSESSION, IT MIGHT TRANSFER FUEL OIL TO
ANY CONSUMER TO WHOM IT HAD TRANSFERRED FUEL OIL DURING THE YEAR
SUBSEQUENT TO OCTOBER 21, 1941  FN11  AND RECEIVE FUEL OIL SUFFICIENT
FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE ORDER FINALLY PROVIDED THAT IF THE PETROLEUM
ADMINISTRATOR FOR WAR  FN12  SHOULD CERTIFY THAT THE FUEL OIL NEEDS OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COULD NOT BE MET BY THE SUPPLIES AND THE
FACILITIES OF OTHER SUPPLIERS AND DEALERS IN THE AREA AND THAT IT WAS
THEREFORE ESSENTIAL TO THE WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY THAT THE PROVISIONS
OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER BE MODIFIED, THE RESTRICTIONS MIGHT BE WHOLLY
OR PARTLY REMOVED.  FN13  THE SUSPENSION ORDER WAS ISSUED AFTER NOTICE
AND HEARINGS AS PROVIDED IN THE REGULATIONS WHICH GOVERN THE PROCEDURE
IN SUCH CASES.  FN14 

THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER.  A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED.  RESPONDENTS MOVED FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT.  THAT MOTION WAS GRANTED AND THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED.  ON
THE APPEAL THAT JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED.  140 F.2D 703.  THE CASE IS HERE
ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RATIONING
REGULATIONS. 

THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT UNDER SEC. 2(A)(2) OF TITLE III OF THE SECOND WAR POWERS ACT
TO "ALLOCATE" MATERIALS INCLUDES THE POWER TO ISSUE SUSPENSION ORDERS
AGAINST RETAILERS AND TO WITHHOLD RATIONED MATERIALS FROM THEM WHERE IT
IS ESTABLISHED THEY HAVE ACQUIRED AND DISTRIBUTED THE RATIONED
MATERIALS IN VIOLATION OF THE RATION REGULATIONS. 

WE STATE THE QUESTION THAT NARROWLY BECAUSE OF THE POSTURE OF THE
CASE AS IT REACHES US.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO
AUTHORIZE AS A WAR EMERGENCY MEASURE THE ALLOCATION OR RATIONING OF
MATERIALS IS NOT CHALLENGED.  NO QUESTION OF DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY IS
PRESENT.  IT IS ASSUMED, ON PETITIONER'S CONCESSION, THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAS VALIDLY DELEGATED TO THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION WHATEVER
AUTHORITY HE HAS UNDER SEC. 2(A)(2) OF TITLE III OF THE ACT.  AND NO
QUESTION IS RAISED, LIKE THOSE INVOLVED IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321
U.S. 414, AND BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503, CONCERNING THE
AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO DELEGATE TO THE PRESIDENT IN THIS WAY THE
POWER TO ALLOCATE MATERIALS.  NO CONTENTION IS MADE THAT PETITIONER WAS
DEPRIVED OF FUEL OIL WITHOUT A HEARING AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND. 
NOR IS IT ARGUED THAT, ALTHOUGH THE POWER TO ISSUE SUSPENSION ORDERS
EXISTS, THAT POWER WAS ABUSED IN THIS INSTANCE, SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND THE LIMITS OF THE AUTHORITY EXCEEDED BY THE
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER WHICH IS BEFORE US.  AND FINALLY, NO
CHALLENGE IS MADE OF THE FINDINGS WHICH UNDERLIE THIS SUSPENSION
ORDER.  FN15 

THE ARGUMENT, RATHER, IS THAT THE AUTHORITY TO "ALLOCATE" MATERIALS
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POWER TO ISSUE SUSPENSION ORDERS; AND THAT NO SUCH
POWER WILL BE IMPLIED SINCE SUSPENSION ORDERS ARE PENALTIES TO WHICH
PERSONS WILL NOT BE SUBJECTED UNLESS THE STATUTE PLAINLY IMPOSES THEM. 
SEE TIFFANY V. NATIONAL BANK, 18 WALL.  409, 410; KEPPEL V. TIFFIN
SAVINGS BANK, 197 U.S. 356, 362; WALLACE V. CUTTEN, 298 U.S. 229, 237. 
IN THAT CONNECTION IT IS POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS PROVIDED CRIMINAL
AND CIVIL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF TITLE III OF THE ACT.  BY SEC.
2(A)(5) ANY PERSON WHO WILFULLY VIOLATES THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR
ANY RULE, REGULATION OR ORDER PROMULGATED THEREUNDER IS GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR AND SUBJECT TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  BY SEC. 2(A)(6)
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE POWER, AMONG OTHERS, TO ENJOIN ANY VIOLATION OF
THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR ANY RULE, REGULATION OR ORDER
THEREUNDER.  IT IS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT WHEN VIOLATIONS OF
REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT ARE USED AS THE BASIS FOR WITHHOLDING
RATIONED MATERIALS FROM PERSONS, SANCTIONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE
CREATED BY ADMINISTRATIVE FIAT CONTRARY TO THE ACT IN QUESTION AND
CONTRARY TO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 

WE AGREE THAT IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO PRESCRIBE THE PENALTIES FOR THE
LAWS WHICH IT WRITES.  IT WOULD TRANSCEND BOTH THE JUDICIAL AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION TO MAKE ADDITIONS TO THOSE WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PLACED BEHIND A STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V. TWO HUNDRED BARRELS OF
WHISKEY, 95 U.S. 571; CAMPBELL V. GALENO CHEMICAL CO., 281 U.S. 599;
WALLACE V. CUTTEN, SUPRA.  HENCE WE WOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN
AGREEING WITH PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IF THE ISSUE WERE WHETHER A
SUSPENSION ORDER COULD BE USED AS A MEANS OF PUNISHMENT OF AN
OFFENDER.  BUT THAT STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION IS A DISTORTION OF THE
ISSUE PRESENTED ON THIS RECORD. 

THE PROBLEM OF THE SCARCITY OF MATERIALS IS OFTEN ACUTE AND CRITICAL
IN A GREAT WAR EFFORT SUCH AS THE PRESENT ONE.  WHETHER THE DIFFICULTY
BE TRANSPORTATION OR PRODUCTION, THERE IS APT TO BE AN INSUFFICIENT
SUPPLY TO MEET ESSENTIAL CIVILIAN NEEDS AFTER MILITARY AND INDUSTRIAL
REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.  THUS WITHOUT RATIONING, THE FUEL
TANKS OF A FEW WOULD BE FULL; THE FUEL TANKS OF MANY WOULD BE EMPTY. 
SOME LOCALITIES WOULD HAVE PLENTY; COMMUNITIES LESS FAVORABLY SITUATED
WOULD SUFFER.  ALLOCATION OR RATIONING IS DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE SUCH
INEQUALITIES AND TO TREAT ALL ALIKE WHO ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE
BURDENS ARE THUS SHARED EQUALLY AND LIMITED SUPPLIES ARE UTILIZED FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE GREATEST NUMBER.  BUT MIDDLEMEN - WHOLESALERS AND
RETAILERS - BENT ON DEFYING THE RATIONING SYSTEM COULD RAISE HAVOC WITH
IT.  BY DISREGARDING QUOTAS PRESCRIBED FOR EACH HOUSEHOLDER AND BY
GIVING SOME MORE THAN THE ALLOTTED SHARE THEY WOULD DEFEAT THE
OBJECTIVES OF RATIONING AND DESTROY ANY PROGRAM OF ALLOCATION.  THESE
MIDDLEMEN ARE THE CHIEF IF NOT THE ONLY CONDUITS BETWEEN THE SOURCE OF
LIMITED SUPPLIES AND THE CONSUMERS.  FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A RATIONING
SYSTEM A MIDDLEMAN WHO DISTRIBUTES THE PRODUCT IN VIOLATION AND
DISREGARD OF THE PRESCRIBED QUOTAS IS AN INEFFICIENT AND WASTEFUL
CONDUIT.  IF THE NEEDS OF CONSUMERS ARE TO BE MET AND THE CONSUMER
ALLOCATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED, PRUDENCE MIGHT WELL DICTATE THE AVOIDANCE
OR DISCARD OF SUCH INEFFICIENT AND UNRELIABLE MEANS OF DISTRIBUTION OF
A SCARCE AND VITAL COMMODITY.  CERTAINLY WE COULD NOT SAY THAT THE
PRESIDENT WOULD LACK THE POWER UNDER THIS ACT TO TAKE AWAY FROM A
WASTEFUL FACTORY AND ROUTE TO AN EFFICIENT ONE A PRECIOUS SUPPLY OF
MATERIAL NEEDED FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ARTICLES OF WAR.  THAT POWER OF
ALLOCATION OR RATIONING MIGHT INDEED BE THE ONLY WAY OF GETTING THE
RIGHT EQUIPMENT TO OUR ARMED FORCES IN TIME.  FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
THE FACTORY OWNER FROM WHOM THE MATERIALS WERE DIVERTED THE ACTION
WOULD BE HARSH.  HE WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF AN EXPECTED PROFIT.  BUT IN
TIMES OF WAR THE NATIONAL INTEREST CANNOT WAIT ON INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS TO
PREFERENCE.  THE WAGING OF WAR AND THE CONTROL OF ITS ATTENDANT
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS ARE URGENT BUSINESS.  YET IF THE PRESIDENT HAS THE
POWER TO CHANNEL RAW MATERIALS INTO THE MOST EFFICIENT INDUSTRIAL UNITS
AND THUS SAVE SCARCE MATERIALS FROM WASTAGE IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY
THE SAME PRINCIPLE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUEL OIL. 

IF PETITIONER ESTABLISHED THAT HE WAS ELIMINATED AS A DEALER OR THAT
HIS QUOTA WAS CUT DOWN FOR REASONS NOT RELEVANT TO ALLOCATION OR
EFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION OF FUEL OIL, QUITE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS
WOULD BE PRESENTED.  BUT WE CAN MAKE NO SUCH ASSUMPTION HERE.  THE
SUSPENSION ORDER RESTS ON FINDINGS OF SERIOUS VIOLATIONS REPEATEDLY
MADE.  THESE VIOLATIONS WERE OBVIOUSLY GERMANE TO THE PROBLEM OF
ALLOCATION OF FUEL OIL.  FOR THEY INDICATED THAT A SCARCE AND VITAL
COMMODITY WAS BEING DISTRIBUTED IN AN INEFFICIENT, INEQUITABLE AND
WASTEFUL WAY.  THE CHARACTER OF THE VIOLATIONS THUS NEGATIVES THE
CHARGE THAT THE SUSPENSION ORDER WAS DESIGNED TO PUNISH PETITIONER
RATHER THAN TO PROTECT THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND THE INTERESTS OF
CONSERVATION.  MOREOVER, THERE IS THE FOLLOWING FINDING IN SUPPORT OF
THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS WHICH PETITIONER MAY
HEREAFTER SERVICE: 

"WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MANY CUSTOMERS THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION CAN SERVE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME FAITHFULLY OBSERVING THE
RATIONING REGULATIONS.  BUT WE DO KNOW FROM ITS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED
VIOLATIONS FROM THE VERY INCEPTION OF FUEL-OIL RATIONING THAT THE
NUMBER IT THEN SERVED APPROACHED THE UPPER LIMIT OF ITS CAPACITY SINCE
THE FACT IS CLEAR THAT IT DID NOT (WHETHER IT WOULD NOT OR COULD NOT)
THEREAFTER BOTH SERVICE THIS NUMBER AND SIMULTANEOUSLY COMPLY WITH THE
RATIONING REGULATIONS.  ADDITIONAL CUSTOMERS, THEN, CLEARLY IMPOSE A
BURDEN WHICH THE RESPONDENT CANNOT BEAR."  NONE OF THE FINDINGS IS
CHALLENGED HERE.  TAKEN AT THEIR FACE VALUE, AS THEY MUST BE, THEY
REFUTE THE SUGGESTION THAT THE ORDER WAS BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS NOT
RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM OF ALLOCATION.  THEY SUSTAIN THE CONCLUSION
THAT IN RESTRICTING PETITIONER'S QUOTA THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION WAS DOING NO MORE THAN PROTECTING A COMMUNITY AGAINST
DISTRIBUTION WHICH MEASURED BY RATIONING STANDARDS WAS INEQUITABLE,
UNFAIR, AND INEFFICIENT.  IF THE POWER TO "ALLOCATE" DID NOT EMBRACE
THAT POWER IT WOULD BE FEEBLE POWER INDEED.    WHAT WE HAVE SAID
DISPOSES OF THE ARGUMENT THAT IF PETITIONER HAS VIOLATED RATION ORDER
NO. 11 THE ONLY RECOURSE OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROCEED UNDER SEC.
2(A)(5) OR SEC. 2(A)(6) WHICH PROVIDE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS. 
THOSE REMEDIES ARE SANCTIONS FOR THE POWER TO "ALLOCATE."  THEY HARDLY
SUBTRACT FROM THAT POWER.  YET THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO JUST THAT IF
IT WERE HELD THAT VIOLATIONS BY MIDDLEMEN OF THE RATION ORDERS AND
REGULATIONS COULD NEVER BE THE BASIS OF REALLOCATION OF FUEL OIL INTO
MORE RELIABLE CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION. 

IT IS FINALLY POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESS HAS SELDOM USED THE LICENSING
POWER  FN16 AND THAT THAT POWER, WHEN USED, HAS BEEN EMPLOYED
SPARINGLY.  THUS ONE OF THE SANCTIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL
ACT OF 1942(56 STAT. 33, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. III) SEC. 925) IS THE
POWER TO REVOKE LICENSES FOR VIOLATIONS OF MAXIMUM PRICES OR RENTS. 
SEC. 205(F).  THAT POWER MAY BE UTILIZED ONLY IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS;
AND LICENSES MAY BE SUSPENDED ONLY FOR LIMITED PERIODS.  SEC.
205(F)(2).  THAT CONSIDERATION WOULD BE GERMANE TO THE PRESENT PROBLEM
IF CONGRESS HAD IMPLEMENTED THE ALLOCATION PROCEDURE WITH A LICENSING
SYSTEM.  THEN THE QUESTION MIGHT ARISE WHETHER REVOCATION OF THE
LICENSE RATHER THAN THE REALLOCATION OF MATERIALS BY ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION WAS THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE IN CASE OF VIOLATIONS.  CONGRESS,
HOWEVER, DID NOT ADOPT THE LICENSING SYSTEM WHEN IT CAME TO RATIONING. 
AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO IS HARDLY A REASON FOR SAYING THAT THE POWER
TO "ALLOCATE" IS LESS REPLETE THAN A READING OF THE ACT FAIRLY
PERMITS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9125, 7 FED. REG. 2719; WAR PRODUCTION
BOARD, SUPPLEMENTARY DIRECTIVE 1-0, OCT. 16, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 8418. 

FN2  7 FED. REG. 8480. 

FN3  ID., P. 8480. 

FN4  ID., P. 8480.  RATION ORDER NO. 11 INITIATED RATIONING OF FUEL
OIL IN THIRTY EASTERN, SOUTHEASTERN, AND MIDWESTERN STATES AND IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

FN5  SEC. 1394.5652. 

FN6  SECS. 1394.5707, 1394.5708. 

FN7  SEC. 1394.5656. 

FN8  SEC. 1394.5803.  AND SEE 8 FED. REG. 2720. 

THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION CONFERRED ON ITS HEARING
COMMISSIONERS AND HEARING ADMINISTRATOR THE FUNCTION OF ISSUING
SUSPENSION ORDERS.  GENERAL ORDER 46, 8 FED. REG. 1771.  IT ALSO
ADOPTED, FEB. 6, 1943, PROCEDURAL REGULATION NO. 4, WHICH PRESCRIBED
THE PROCEDURE TO BE USED IN THE ISSUANCE OF RATIONING SUSPENSION
ORDERS.  8 FED. REG. 1744.  AND SEE 9 FED. REG. 2558 FOR THE REVISION
OF THIS REGULATION, ISSUED MAR. 6, 1944. 

FN9  SOME 328,000 GALLONS ACCORDING TO OPA, AROUND 181,000 GALLONS ON
PETITIONER'S COMPUTATION. 

FN10  THE OPA HEARING ADMINISTRATOR FOUND "THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH
PROOF THAT RESPONDENT DID COMMIT, WITH REFERENCE TO TRANSFERS TO
CONSUMERS, PRACTICALLY EVERY SORT OF VIOLATION KNOWN TO THE REGULATIONS
- MAKING DELIVERIES FOR EXPIRED COUPONS, UNMATURED COUPONS, NO COUPONS
AT ALL AND MAKING EMERGENCY DELIVERIES IN EXCESS OF THE QUANTITIES
PERMITTED." 

FN11  RATION ORDER NO. 11 BECAME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 22, 1942. 

FN12  ESTABLISHED DECEMBER 2, 1942, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9276.  7
FED. REG. 10091. 

FN13  THE SUSPENSION ORDER ALSO PROVIDED FOR AN ACCOUNTING BY
PETITIONER OF ITS FUEL OIL TRANSACTIONS SINCE OCTOBER 22, 1942. 

FN14  PROCEDURAL REGULATION NO. 4, SUPRA, NOTE 8. 

FN15  THE GOVERNMENT HAS CONCEDED THAT THERE MAY BE JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF SUSPENSION ORDERS. 

FN16  SEE SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 10, 1917, 40 STAT. 276, 277. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 
..END :























CRITES, INC. V. PRUDENTIAL CO., 322 U.S. 408 


NO. 317.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1944.  - 134 F.2D
925, REVERSED. 


1.  A FEDERAL COURT RECEIVER WHO, THROUGH A PRIVATE AGREEMENT MADE
PRIOR TO THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF THE PROPERTIES, DERIVED A PROFIT FROM
THEIR SUBSEQUENT RESALE, HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE
FOR SUCH PROFIT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO COLLECT
RENTS AND OPERATE THE PROPERTIES AND WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN RESPECT
OF ANY SALE THEREOF.  P. 416. 

2.  THE FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE RECEIVER IN
THIS CASE, TOGETHER WITH THE FACT THAT HE ENGAGED IN OTHER MISCONDUCT
INCOMPATIBLE WITH HIS POSITION AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, REQUIRE THAT
HE BE DENIED ALL FEES AND COMPENSATION AS RECEIVER.  P. 418. 

CRITES, INCORPORATED V. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 728, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVING AND CONFIRMING
RECEIVERS' ACCOUNTS AND OVERRULING EXCEPTIONS THERETO. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE CERTAIN IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL
RECEIVERSHIPS. 

HENRY M. CRITES AND HIS WIFE, MAY R. CRITES, EXECUTED MORTGAGES IN
1929 TO THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA UPON 22 PARCELS OF
ADJOINING FARM PROPERTY IN MADISON AND PICKAWAY COUNTIES, OHIO.  EACH
MORTGAGE, BEING IN DEFAULT, WAS MATURED BY ACCELERATION ON DECEMBER 30,
1931.  ON FEBRUARY 17, 1932, PRUDENTIAL BEGAN 22 SEPARATE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CRITESES AND CRITES, INC., THE PETITIONER. 
ONLY THE 11 PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE 11 CONTIGUOUS FARMS IN MADISON
COUNTY, ON WHICH THE MORTGAGES AGGREGATED $192,000, ARE NOW BEFORE US. 

AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY HAD BEEN FILED AGAINST HENRY M.
CRITES.  PETITIONER IS AN OHIO CORPORATION FORMED BY CRITES' CREDITORS
IN AN EFFORT TO SALVAGE SOMETHING FROM THE FARMS.  TO IT HAD BEEN
CONVEYED ALL THE PROPERTIES OF THE CRITESES, INCLUDING THE EQUITIES OF
REDEMPTION.  PRUDENTIAL REQUESTED THAT A RECEIVER BE APPOINTED TO TAKE
CHARGE OF THE MORTGAGED FARMS PENDING THE TERMINATION OF THE
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT ACCORDINGLY APPOINTED AS
CO-RECEIVERS THE RESPONDENTS SIMKINS AND FLORENCE "TO COLLECT THE RENTS
AND PROCEEDS OF THE REAL ESTATE  ...  TO OPERATE AND MANAGE SAID REAL
ESTATE THROUGH TENANTS, LESSEES, OR OTHERWISE, TO RENT AND LEASE SAID
REAL ESTATE, TO PAY DELINQUENT TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AND INSURANCE
PREMIUMS, TO MAKE SUCH REPAIRS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE
VALUE OF THE PREMISES AND TO PRODUCE NORMAL INCOME THEREFROM, AND TO DO
SUCH OTHER ACTS AS MAY BE FROM TIME TO TIME ORDERED BY THE COURT." 
SUBSEQUENT ORDERS AUTHORIZED THEM TO BORROW MONEY FROM PRUDENTIAL AND
FROM THE LOCAL BANK TO PAY NECESSARY EXPENSES RELATING TO THE FARMS AND
TO EXECUTE LEASES OF THE FARMS UPON A SHARE OR CROP RENTAL BASIS. 

NO ANSWERS TO THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS WERE FILED.  IN THE HOPE
THAT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WOULD IMPROVE AND BRING ABOUT A HIGHER SALE
VALUE, THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED THE RECEIVERS TO OPERATE THE FARMS
FOR A YEAR BEFORE ENTERING DECREES PRO CONFESSO ON MAY 2, 1933.  BY
THESE DECREES THE MORTGAGES AND EQUITIES OF REDEMPTION WERE DECLARED
FORECLOSED AND THE MARSHAL WAS DIRECTED TO SELL EACH FARM INDIVIDUALLY
ON JULY 1, 1933, AT A PUBLIC SALE FOR CASH AT NOT LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS
OF THE APPRAISED VALUE.  THE APPRAISERS SET THE VALUE OF THE 11 MADISON
COUNTY FARMS AT $244,080, MAKING $162,720 THE MINIMUM PRICE AT WHICH
THEY COULD BE SOLD.  THE DECREE INDEBTEDNESS IN THE 11 CASES WAS
$223,742.32.  PRUDENTIAL MADE THE SOLE BIDS AT THE PUBLIC SALE ON JULY
1 AND SECURED TITLE TO THE 11 FARMS FOR $163,900, SLIGHTLY MORE THAN
THE UPSET PRICE.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMED THIS SALE ON JULY 18. 

PRUDENTIAL SUBSEQUENTLY OBJECTED TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THE RECEIVERS'
CLAIMS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE EXCESSIVE.  PETITIONER ALSO FILED
OBJECTIONS.  HEARINGS WERE HELD BEFORE A SPECIAL MASTER.  THE DISTRICT
COURT OVERRULED PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT
AND ITS COUNTERCLAIM, AMENDED AND APPROVED THE RECEIVERS' ACCOUNTS, AND
AFFIRMED THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT.  PETITIONER ALONE APPEALED, THE
COURT BELOW AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WITH A SLIGHT
MODIFICATION AS TO ADDITIONAL FEES FOR THE RECEIVERS' ATTORNEYS.  134
F.2D 925. 

                                  I. 

PETITIONER'S FIRST CONTENTION IS THAT SIMKINS' ACTIONS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE FORECLOSURE SALES CONSTITUTED A BREACH OF HIS DUTY AS A
RECEIVER AND RENDERED HIM ACCOUNTABLE FOR CERTAIN PROFITS MADE BY HIM
AND OTHERS. 

THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT A COL. PROCTOR OF CINCINNATI WAS
INTERESTED IN PURCHASING THE ENTIRE 11 MADISON COUNTY FARMS AS A UNIT
AND THAT HE EMPLOYED A REAL ESTATE AGENT, EDWIN JONES,  FN1  TO
REPRESENT HIM IN THE MATTER.  SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE THE FORECLOSURE
SALES, JONES VISITED SIMKINS AND TOLD HIM THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT
SIMKINS WAS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS IN THE MATTER AND THAT HE WAS
INTERESTED IN BUYING THE FARMS.  SIMKINS, IN ADDITION TO BEING ONE OF
THE CO-RECEIVERS, WAS AN ATTORNEY WHO HAD REPRESENTED PRUDENTIAL IN
OTHER FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS IN OHIO AND WHO HAD SERVED JONES IN A
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY ON OTHER MATTERS.  SIMKINS REPLIED THAT "WE ARE
IN NO POSITION TO OFFER IT RIGHT NOW, NOT IN POSITION UNTIL AFTER THE
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS AND THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACQUIRES
TITLE FOR IT, THEN THEY WILL BE IN POSITION TO OFFER IT TO ANYBODY ELSE
TRYING TO BUY IT."  SIMKINS AGREED, HOWEVER, TO INTERCEDE ON JONES'
BEHALF.  THEY THEN DREW UP A CONTRACT WHEREBY SIMKINS WAS TO ASSIST
JONES IN SECURING TITLE TO THE 11 FARMS FROM PRUDENTIAL AFTER THE
LATTER HAD SECURED TITLE BY PURCHASE AT THE PUBLIC SALE.  THE
COMPENSATION OF SIMKINS WAS DEPENDENT UPON THE SUCCESS OF THE DEAL. 
SIMKINS DID NOT KNOW AT THIS TIME THE NAME OF JONES' PRINCIPAL OR HOW
MUCH THE PRINCIPAL WAS WILLING TO PAY FOR THE FARMS AS A UNIT.  SIMKINS
THEN INFORMED PETITIONER'S COUNSEL AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE THAT THERE
"MIGHT BE SOME PARTIES INTERESTED" IN THE 11 FARMS AS A UNIT, BUT WAS
INFORMED THAT THEY COULD NOT BE SOLD AS A GROUP.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR
THAT HE TOLD COUNSEL OR THE COURT THAT HE HAD ACCEPTED EMPLOYMENT FROM
JONES.  FN2 

AT JONES' REQUEST, SIMKINS CONFERRED ON JUNE 25, 1933, WITH
PRUDENTIAL REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASING THE
11 FARMS FROM PRUDENTIAL.  NO DEFINITE ARRANGEMENTS WERE THEN MADE, THE
REPRESENTATIVES STATING THAT THEY COULD NOT DISCUSS TERMS UNTIL
PRUDENTIAL HAD BOUGHT THE FARMS AT THE SALE.  ON JUNE 27 JONES
SUBMITTED THROUGH SIMKINS A WRITTEN OFFER OF $249,106 TO PRUDENTIAL FOR
THE 11 FARMS, INCLUDING "THE COMPANY'S UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN
THE GROWING CORN CROP THEREON."  THE OFFER WAS WITNESSED BY SIMKINS AND
ANOTHER PERSON AND WAS ENCLOSED IN A LETTER WHICH WAS ADDRESSED TO ONE
OF PRUDENTIAL'S REPRESENTATIVES AND WHICH WAS SIGNED BY SIMKINS.  IN
THIS LETTER SIMKINS VOUCHED FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF "MR. JONES'
BUYER."  JONES ALSO ENCLOSED A $3,000 CERTIFIED CHECK IN SUPPORT OF HIS
OFFER.  SIMKINS BY THIS TIME CLEARLY WAS AWARE OF THE IDENTITY OF
JONES' PRINCIPAL AND OF THE TERMS OF THE OFFER TO PRUDENTIAL.  BUT HE
MADE NO EFFORT TO INFORM EITHER THE DISTRICT JUDGE OR PETITIONER OF
THESE FACTS PRIOR TO OR AT THE SALE. 

AT THE PUBLIC SALE HELD BY THE MARSHAL ON JULY 1, PRUDENTIAL MADE THE
SOLE BIDS AND SECURED TITLE TO THE 11 FARMS FOR A TOTAL SUM OF
$163,900.  JONES ATTENDED THE SALE BUT COL. PROCTOR HAD NOT AUTHORIZED
JONES TO BID SINCE HE DESIRED TO BUY ONLY WHEN HE COULD BE ASSURED OF
SECURING ALL THE 11 FARMS AT ONCE AND WHEN TITLE TO THEM WAS SUPPORTED
BY A WARRANTY DEED FROM PRUDENTIAL.  TWO DAYS LATER, ON JULY 3,
PRUDENTIAL ACCEPTED JONES' OFFER OF $249,106. 

PRUDENTIAL THEN MOVED TO CONFIRM THE PUBLIC SALES, GIVING DUE NOTICE
TO PETITIONER OF THE HEARING ON THE MOTION.  AT THIS HEARING ON JULY
18, OBJECTIONS TO THE MOTION "WERE SUGGESTED BY REASON OF ALLEGED
COMMITMENTS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF (PRUDENTIAL) FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN
OF SAID PROPERTIES, PRIOR TO PUBLIC SALE."  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHO MADE
THESE OBJECTIONS OR WHETHER THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL WAS PRESENT. 
HARRISON, ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE RECEIVERS, THEREUPON ORALLY
ADVISED THE JUDGE OF THE TERMS AND AMOUNT OF JONES' OFFER AND ITS
ACCEPTANCE BY PRUDENTIAL.  AT THE JUDGE'S SUGGESTION, HARRISON SET
FORTH THESE FACTS IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT, WHICH WAS LATER
INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING ON THE RECEIVERS' ACCOUNTS.  THE COURT WAS
NOT INFORMED, HOWEVER, AS TO SIMKINS' PARTICIPATION IN THE MATTER OR AS
TO THE FACT THAT COL. PROCTOR WAS THE ACTUAL PURCHASER OF THE FARMS. 
SIMKINS WAS PRESENT IN THE COURT ROOM AT THIS TIME BUT SAID NOTHING. 
THE JUDGE CONFIRMED THE SALES ON THE SAME DAY, JULY 18.  SOON
AFTERWARDS PRUDENTIAL EXECUTED A WARRANTY DEED TO COL. PROCTOR'S
NOMINEE, THE DEED RECITING A CONSIDERATION OF $249,106 BUT BEARING TAX
STAMPS APPARENTLY INDICATING A SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER PRICE.  FN3 

SIMKINS RECEIVED A TOTAL OF $2,797 FROM JONES, NEARLY ALL OF WHICH
WAS IN PAYMENT FOR HIS AID IN CONSUMMATING THE PURCHASE OF THE FARMS
FROM PRUDENTIAL. 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS, PETITIONER SEEKS TO HAVE SIMKINS
SURCHARGED WITH (A) ALL PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM JONES FOR HIS
ASSISTANCE IN CONSUMMATING THE RESALE OF THE FARMS TO COL. PROCTOR; (B)
THE COMMISSION OR PROFIT RECEIVED BY JONES; AND (C) THE AMOUNT RECEIVED
BY PRUDENTIAL IN EXCESS OF THE DECREE INDEBTEDNESS OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE FARMS
EXCEEDED THE DECREE INDEBTEDNESS.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT SIMKINS MUST
BE SURCHARGED WITH THESE AMOUNTS BECAUSE HE BREACHED HIS DUTY AS CO
RECEIVER BY ACCEPTING EMPLOYMENT FROM JONES IN ADVANCE OF THE
FORECLOSURE SALES TO HELP BRING ABOUT A RESALE OF THE FARMS FROM
PRUDENTIAL TO COL. PROCTOR.  RESPONDENTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, RESIST
THIS CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT SIMKINS WAS APPOINTED CO-RECEIVER ONLY TO
COLLECT THE RENTS AND TO OPERATE THE FARMS AND HAD NO FIDUCIARY DUTY
WITH RESPECT TO THE FORECLOSURE SALES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT SIMKINS' OFFICIAL DUTIES AS CO-RECEIVER WERE LIMITED
TO THOSE CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE COURT AND THAT HE HAD NO AUTHORITY
TO SELL OR TO CAUSE A SALE OF THE FARMS IN QUESTION.  THE FORECLOSURE
SALES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE MARSHAL UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SIMKINS UNDULY INFLUENCED
THE ACTUAL EXECUTION OF THE SALES IN ANY WAY.  IT IS OBVIOUS, MOREOVER,
THAT SIMKINS WAS BOUND TO PERFORM HIS DELEGATED DUTIES WITH THE HIGH
DEGREE OF CARE DEMANDED OF A TRUSTEE OR OTHER SIMILAR FIDUCIARY.  HE
WAS NOT FREE TO DEAL WITH THE PROPERTY UNDER HIS CONTROL AS CO-RECEIVER
IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BENEFIT HIMSELF OR HIS ASSOCIATES.  ANY PROFITS
THAT MIGHT HAVE RESULTED FROM A BREACH OF THESE HIGH STANDARDS,
INCLUDING THE PROFITS OF OTHERS WHO KNOWINGLY JOINED HIM IN PURSUING AN
ILLEGAL COURSE OF ACTION, WOULD HAVE TO BE DISGORGED AND APPLIED TO THE
ESTATE.  MICHOUD V. GIROD, 4 HOW.  503; MAGRUDER V. DRURY, 235 U.S.
106; JACKSON V. SMITH, 254 U.S. 586. 

BUT SIMKINS' CONDUCT IS NOT TO BE MEASURED SOLELY BY THE ARBITRARY
DICHOTOMY OF FUNCTIONS RELATING TO THE CONSERVATION AND LIQUIDATION OF
THE FARM PROPERTIES.  AS A CO-RECEIVER IN CHARGE OF COLLECTING THE
RENTS AND OPERATING THE FARMS, SIMKINS WAS ALSO AN OFFICER OR ARM OF
THE COURT.  HE WAS APPOINTED TO ASSIST THE COURT IN PROTECTING AND
PRESERVING, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED, THE PROPERTIES IN
THE COURT'S CUSTODY PENDING THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.  BOOTH V.
CLARK, 17 HOW.  322, 331; DAVIS V. GRAY, 16 WALL.  203, 217-218; STUART
V. BOULWARE, 133 U.S. 78, 81; PORTER V. SABIN, 149 U.S. 473, 479;
ATLANTIC TRUST CO. V. CHAPMAN, 208 U.S. 360, 370-371.  THE COURT'S
AUTHORITY AND DUTIES, HOWEVER, COVERED ALL PHASES OF THE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS.  THEY INCLUDED NOT ONLY THE CONSERVATION BUT THE
LIQUIDATION OF THE FARM PROPERTIES.  THE COURT HAD DISCRETION TO
DELEGATE THESE DUTIES AS IT SAW FIT.  BUT WHATEVER THE FUNCTIONAL
DISTRIBUTION, ALL THE COURT OFFICERS WERE BOUND TO ACT FAIRLY AND
OPENLY WITH RESPECT TO EVERY ASPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COURT.  THE MERE FACT THAT ANY ONE ASPECT DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE
DELEGATED FUNCTION OF A PARTICULAR COURT OFFICER DID NOT GIVE THAT
OFFICER FREE REIN TO ACT IN A SECRET, NON-JUDICIAL MANNER AS TO THAT
ASPECT.  THE COURT, AS WELL AS ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES, HAD THE
RIGHT TO EXPECT THAT ITS OFFICERS WOULD NOT MAKE UNDISCLOSED PRIVATE
AGREEMENTS, FAIL TO REVEAL ANY PERTINENT INFORMATION OR USE THEIR
OFFICIAL POSITION FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT OR TO FURTHER THE INTERESTS OF
THEMSELVES OR ANY ASSOCIATES. 

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCILE THE ACTIVITIES OF SIMKINS RELATING TO
THE FORECLOSURE SALES WITH THE BASIC STANDARD OF CONDUCT DEMANDED OF
HIM AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT.  ONE OF THE PRIME PURPOSES OF THE
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WAS TO OBTAIN ENOUGH MONEY FROM THE FARM
PROPERTIES TO PAY IN FULL THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS, WITH ANY SURPLUS
GOING TO THE OWNER OF THE EQUITIES OF REDEMPTION.  ALL INFORMATION TO
THAT END WHICH CAME TO SIMKINS OR TO ANY OTHER COURT OFFICER BELONGED
TO THE COURT AND TO THE PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS.  HERE SIMKINS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF A PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OF
THE FARMS WHO WAS WILLING TO PAY MORE THAN THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS ON
THE PROPERTIES.  YET HE MADE NO EFFORT TO REVEAL THIS IMPORTANT
INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE FORECLOSURE SALES OTHER THAN TO STATE THAT
THERE "MIGHT BE SOME PARTIES INTERESTED" IN BUYING THE 11 FARMS AS A
UNIT.  HE WAS TOLD THAT THE COURT COULD NOT ORDER A PUBLIC SALE OF THE
FARMS AS A UNIT.  BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT AND PETITIONER MIGHT
WELL HAVE PROFITED IF SIMKINS HAD MORE FULLY REVEALED TO THEM IN
ADVANCE OF THE SALES THAT THERE WAS A PROSPECT OF SELLING ALL 11 FARMS
TO A RESPONSIBLE BUYER AT AN ADVANTAGEOUS PRICE.  PETITIONER COULD WELL
HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN DIRECTLY WITH COL. PROCTOR
FOR A PRIVATE SALE OF THE FARMS AS A UNIT.  FN4  THIS SUPPRESSION OF
VITAL INFORMATION WAS IN NO WAY MITIGATED BY THE PARTIAL REVELATION OF
THE FACTS AT THE HEARING ON THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE SALES TO
PRUDENTIAL, AFTER PRUDENTIAL HAD ACCEPTED THE RESALE OFFER, OR BY ANY
SUBSEQUENT KNOWLEDGE OBTAINED BY PETITIONER.  THE INFORMATION WAS MOST
VALUABLE PRIOR TO THE FORECLOSURE SALES WHEN THE PROSPECTS WERE GREATER
FOR SUCCESSFUL BARGAINING, AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIVULGED AT THAT
TIME.    MOREOVER IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH HIS POSITION AS AN OFFICER
OF THE COURT FOR SIMKINS TO MAKE A SECRET ARRANGEMENT WITH JONES TO
BRING ABOUT, BY ACTIVE INTERVENTION, A RESALE OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE COURT.  THE FACT THAT HE WAS NOT A LIQUIDATING RECEIVER
DID NOT ABSOLVE HIM OF THE DUTY TO ACT OPENLY AT ALL TIMES WITH RESPECT
TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  DUE REGARD FOR HIS OFFICIAL
POSITION DEMANDED THAT HE AT LEAST NOTIFY AND OBTAIN THE APPROVAL OF
THE COURT AND OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES BEFORE ENTERING INTO AN
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH A THIRD PARTY WHEREIN HIS COMPENSATION WAS
DEPENDENT UPON A PARTICULAR BIDDER BEING SUCCESSFUL AT THE FORECLOSURE
SALES.  THIS ARRANGEMENT BROUGHT OUT IN EVEN BOLDER RELIEF THE
REPREHENSIBLENESS OF SIMKINS' FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL THE FACTS
REGARDING COL. PROCTOR'S INTEREST IN PURCHASING THE FARMS.  HAD SUCH
FACTS BEEN REVEALED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC FORECLOSURE SALES, PRUDENTIAL
MIGHT NOT HAVE OBTAINED TITLE TO THE FARMS AND SIMKINS WOULD NOT HAVE
EARNED ANY COMPENSATION UNDER HIS CONTRACT WITH JONES.  IT WAS THUS TO
SIMKINS' PERSONAL BENEFIT NOT TO DISCLOSE ALL THE PERTINENT FACTS. 

SINCE THE COURSE TAKEN BY SIMKINS WAS ONE WHICH HE AS AN OFFICER OF
THE COURT COULD NOT LEGALLY PURSUE AND SINCE PROFITS RESULTED TO HIM,
THE LAW MAKES HIM ACCOUNTABLE TO THE TRUST ESTATE FOR ALL SUCH
PROFITS.  CF. MAGRUDER V. DRURY, SUPRA; JACKSON V. SMITH, SUPRA.  WE
NEED NOT SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER HIS CONDUCT OPERATED TO DAMPEN THE
FORECLOSURE SALES TO ANY APPRECIABLE DEGREE OR WHETHER THE ESTATE WAS
IN ANY OTHER WAY INJURED.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT HIS ACTIVITIES HAD A
TENDENCY TO DAMPEN THE SALES.  FOR THAT REASON ALONE HE MAY BE HELD TO
FORFEIT ALL PROFITS HE DERIVED FROM HIS MISCONDUCT, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER IT ACTUALLY HAD AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR NOT.  IN THIS TYPE OF
SITUATION "THE INCIDENCE OF A PARTICULAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST CAN
SELDOM BE MEASURED WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY."  WOODS V. CITY
NATIONAL BANK CO., 312 U.S. 262, 268.  PROOF OF PROFITS RESULTING FROM
AN IRREGULAR OR CONFLICTING COURSE OF CONDUCT IS SUFFICIENT.  SIMKINS
WAS THUS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM JONES FOR
HIS ASSISTANCE IN CONSUMMATING THE RESALE OF THE FARMS FROM PRUDENTIAL
TO COL. PROCTOR.  FN5 

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, HOWEVER, SIMKINS WAS NOT
SURCHARGEABLE WITH THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY JONES, WITH ANY AMOUNT
RECEIVED BY PRUDENTIAL OR WITH THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE APPRAISED VALUE
OF THE FARMS EXCEEDED THE DECREE INDEBTEDNESS.  WE PERCEIVE NO BASIS IN
THIS RECORD FOR HOLDING SIMKINS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT
ON THE PART OF JONES OR PRUDENTIAL OR FOR ANY PROFITS THAT THEY MAY
HAVE OBTAINED THEREBY.  WE DO NOT, OF COURSE, DETERMINE IN THIS
PROCEEDING WHETHER PETITIONER COULD RECOVER ANY SUCH PROFITS IN A
DIRECT ACTION AGAINST EITHER JONES OR PRUDENTIAL. 

                 II. 

PETITIONER ALSO CLAIMS THAT SIMKINS SHOULD BE SURCHARGED WITH ALL HIS
RECEIVERSHIP FEES BECAUSE OF A FEESPLITTING ARRANGEMENT WHICH HE MADE
WITH HARRISON AND INGALLS, THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE CO-RECEIVERS AS WELL
AS FOR PRUDENTIAL.  THE THREE AGREED TO POOL THE FEES ALLOWED THEM BY
THE DISTRICT COURT AND TO DIVIDE THEM EQUALLY, ALTHOUGH THIS
ARRANGEMENT APPARENTLY WAS NOT COMPLETELY CARRIED OUT. 

PETITIONER EXCEPTED TO ALL CREDITS IN THE RECEIVERS' ACCOUNTS FOR
FEES TO EITHER SIMKINS OR INGALLS BECAUSE OF THIS ARRANGEMENT.  THE
COURT BELOW ALLOWED CREDIT TO THE RECEIVERS FOR THE $250 FEES RECEIVED
BY HARRISON AND INGALLS FROM THE COURT AS PRELIMINARY COMPENSATION AND
FOR ALL OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE TWO ATTORNEYS ON BEHALF
OF THE ESTATE.  BUT ALL CREDITS WERE DENIED FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY
FEES PAID TO THEM.  PETITIONER OBJECTS TO THE FAILURE TO DISALLOW THE
$250 FEE ALLOWED SIMKINS BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE ADDITIONAL
$1,800 FEE WHICH HE PAID TO HIMSELF ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SERVICES AS CO
RECEIVER. 

A FEE-SPLITTING ARRANGEMENT OF THIS NATURE IS CLEARLY UNENFORCEABLE
AND VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.  WEIL V. NEARY, 278 U.S. 160.  BUT
WHETHER THE PARTIES TO SUCH A CONTRACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ANY FEES AT
ALL, AND IF SO THE AMOUNT THEREOF, ARE NORMALLY MATTERS WITHIN THE
SOUND DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND ARE NOT REVIEWABLE EXCEPT
WHERE A CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION IS APPARENT.  IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER,
THE FACT THAT SIMKINS ENTERED INTO A FEE-SPLITTING CONTRACT SO PATENTLY
ILLEGAL, PLUS THE FACT THAT HE ENGAGED IN OTHER MISCONDUCT AND
INDISCRETIONS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HIS POSITION AS AN OFFICER OF THE
COURT, COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL FEES AND COMPENSATION AS CO
RECEIVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED HIM.  CF. WOODS V. CITY NATIONAL BANK
CO., SUPRA, 268. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  JONES WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE 11 MADISON COUNTY FARMS, HAVING MADE
AN OFFER OF $500,000 FOR THEM "A YEAR OR MORE" PRIOR TO 1933 ON BEHALF
OF A NEW YORK PRINCIPAL.  CRITES REJECTED THIS OFFER, HOWEVER. 

FN2  SIMKINS TESTIFIED THAT THE FACT OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BY JONES "WAS
NO SECRET" AND THAT "I MAY HAVE TOLD JUDGE HOUGH.  I WOULD NOT HAVE
HESITATED IN TELLING HIM." 

FN3  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE STAMPS INDICATE THAT COL. PROCTOR
PAID APPROXIMATELY $281,000, "PRESUMABLY, $249,106 NET TO PRUDENTIAL
...  AND THE DIFFERENCE OF $31,894 TO JONES."  THERE WAS NO PROOF,
HOWEVER, THAT JONES RECEIVED THAT AMOUNT.  HE TESTIFIED MERELY THAT HE
RECEIVED $15,000 AND AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT THAT HE DID NOT REMEMBER,
FROM WHICH AMOUNTS HE PAID SIMKINS. 

FN4  THE SPECIAL MASTER AND THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT COL. PROCTOR
WAS INTERESTED IN PURCHASING THE 11 FARMS AS A UNIT ONLY IF HE COULD
OBTAIN A WARRANTY DEED FROM PRUDENTIAL.  BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT
PETITIONER COULD NOT HAVE FURNISHED MUNIMENTS OF TITLE EQUALLY
SATISFACTORY TO COL. PROCTOR OR THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SATISFIED
WITH A WARRANTY DEED FROM PETITIONER.  ACCORDING TO JONES, COL. PROCTOR
"SAID A GENERAL WARRANTY DEED FROM THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY WAS
GOOD ENOUGH FOR HIM." 

FN5  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT RELATING TO
THE SALE TO PRUDENTIAL OF THE GROWING CROPS ON THE FARM LANDS, INASMUCH
AS PETITIONER SEEKS TO SURCHARGE SIMKINS WITH THE SAME AMOUNTS AS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF THE LANDS AND NO DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS
ARE PRESENT.  RESPONDENTS' CLAIM THAT PETITIONER IS BARRED FROM RELIEF
BECAUSE OF LACHES IS WITHOUT MERIT.  NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATES
THAT PETITIONER DISCOVERED THE FULL FACTS CONCERNING SIMKINS'
ACTIVITIES UNTIL SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE FORECLOSURE SALES.  PETITIONER
THEN MADE TIMELY EXCEPTIONS TO THE RECEIVERS' ACCOUNTS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I AM OF OPINION THAT CERTIORARI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS
CASE AND THAT THE WRIT SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RECOGNIZED ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES IN
DETERMINING TO WHAT EXTENT THE RESPONDENT SIMKINS SHOULD BE DENIED
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES BY REASON OF HIS ACTING IN INCONSISTENT
RELATIONS.  THAT COURT CANVASSED AUTHORITIES WHICH THIS COURT CITES IN
ITS OPINION AND NOT ONLY DID NOT REFUSE TO FOLLOW AND APPLY THEM BUT,
AS I THINK, IN PERFECT GOOD FAITH, PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE AND APPRAISE
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ORDER TO APPLY THE RELEVANT LEGAL
PRINCIPLES. 

THERE IS NOT A SUGGESTION OF ANY CONFLICT AMONGST THE FEDERAL COURTS
RESPECTING THE LAW WHICH SHOULD GOVERN DECISION NOR IS THERE ANY
SUGGESTION THAT, ON AN IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, ANY FEDERAL COURT HAS
REACHED A RESULT CONTRARY TO THAT REACHED BY THE COURT BELOW.  IN
ESSENCE, THE CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS SUFFICIENTLY DRASTIC IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED. 

I THINK IT PLAIN THAT THIS CASE FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORY TO WHICH I
REFERRED IN BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO., 319 U.S. 350, 354.  ALL
THE CONSIDERATIONS THERE MENTIONED APPLY EQUALLY HERE.  IF THIS COURT
IS TO SPEND ITS TIME CORRECTING MISTAKES IN THE APPRAISAL OF FACTS IN
INDIVIDUAL CASES BY COURTS BELOW, THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS ESSENTIAL
FUNCTIONS NECESSARILY WILL SUFFER. 
..END :














ARENAS V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 419 


NO. 463.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 7, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1944.  - 137 F.2D
199, REVERSED. 


UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 15, 1894, BY AN INDIAN CLAIMING,
UNDER THE MISSION INDIAN ACT OF 1891, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 2,
1917, A RIGHT TO A TRUST PATENT TO AN ALLOTMENT OF LANDS WHICH HAD LONG
BEEN IN HIS POSSESSION AND WHICH HAD BEEN CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED BY HIM,
BUT WHICH ALLOTMENT HAD NOT BEEN FINALLY APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR, THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BUT
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO ANSWER, AND THE CAUSE SHOULD PROCEED TO TRIAL,
FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT.  P. 433. 

ARENAS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 733, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES IN A SUIT AGAINST IT UNDER A SPECIAL
JURISDICTIONAL ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER ARENAS IS A FULL-BLOOD MISSION INDIAN, REGULARLY
ENROLLED IN THE AGUA CALIENTE OR PALM SPRINGS BAND.  HE SUED IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TO BE AWARDED A TRUST PATENT TO CERTAIN
LANDS ON THE PALM SPRINGS RESERVATION.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS GRANTED A
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL ON AFFIDAVITS AND ON THE RECORD OF THE
ST. MARIE LITIGATION ON LIKE CLAIMS BY SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIANS.  FN1
NO FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THIS CASE BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,  FN2  CHIEFLY IN RELIANCE UPON ITS
PREVIOUS DECISION IN THE ST. MARIE CASE, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
FN3 

FOR A LONG PERIOD CONGRESS PURSUED THE POLICY OF IMPOSING, AS RAPIDLY
AS POSSIBLE, OUR SYSTEM OF INDIVIDUAL LAND TENURE ON THE INDIAN.  TO
THIS END TRIBAL OR COMMUNAL LAND HOLDINGS OF THE INDIANS WERE
SUPERSEDED BY ALLOTMENT TO INDIVIDUALS, WHO WERE PROTECTED AGAINST
IMPROVIDENCE BY RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION.  FN4 THE MISSION INDIANS HAD
DESERVED WELL AND HAD FARED BADLY  FN5  AND CONGRESS PASSED THE MISSION
INDIAN ACT OF 1891  FN6  FOR THEIR PARTICULAR REDRESS. 

THE FIRST THREE SECTIONS OF THIS ACT SET UP A COMMISSION TO SETTLE
THESE SEVERAL BANDS ON SUITABLE RESERVATIONS AND DIRECTED THAT
APPROPRIATE PATENTS ISSUE.  THE UNITED STATES WAS TO HOLD THE TITLES IN
TRUST, HOWEVER, FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AND THEN WAS TO CONVEY TO THE
TRIBES ANY PORTIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY PATENTED IN SEVERALTY TO MEMBERS. 
SEVERAL RESERVATIONS WERE SET APART, INCLUDING ONE AT PALM SPRINGS,
WITH WHICH THIS AND THE ST. MARIE CASE WERE CONCERNED. 

THE ACT ALSO PROVIDED IN SEC. 4 THAT WHENEVER IN THE OPINION OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ANY OF THE INDIANS SHOULD "BE SO ADVANCED IN
CIVILIZATION AS TO BE CAPABLE OF OWNING AND MANAGING LAND IN SEVERALTY,
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR MAY CAUSE ALLOTMENTS TO BE MADE TO SUCH
INDIANS, OUT OF THE LAND OF SUCH RESERVATION" AND IT SPECIFIED THE
ACREAGE TO BE ALLOTTED TO EACH.  SECTION 5 PROVIDED THAT ON APPROVAL OF
THE ALLOTMENTS THE SECRETARY SHOULD CAUSE PATENTS TO ISSUE IN THE NAME
OF THE ALLOTTEES.  FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS THE LANDS WERE TO REMAIN IN
TRUST FOR THEIR BENEFIT AND THEN WERE TO BE CONVEYED IN FEE FREE OF THE
TRUST.  FN7 

NEVERTHELESS, LITTLE WAS DONE TOWARD ALLOTMENT IN SEVERALTY TO
MISSION INDIANS FOR NEARLY TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  ONE REASON, WE GATHER,
WAS THAT THE ACT AUTHORIZED ALLOTMENT ON A MORE LIBERAL BASIS THAN
AVAILABLE LANDS WOULD PERMIT, ALTHOUGH THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER
REASONS.  IN 1916, HOWEVER, SECRETARY LANE CALLED THE NEGLECT TO THE
ATTENTION OF CONGRESS AND ASKED THAT HE BE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE
ALLOTMENTS IN QUANTITIES GOVERNED BY THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT OF 1887
AS AMENDED BY SEC. 17 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, 36 STAT. 859,
INSTEAD OF IN THOSE SET OUT IN THE MISSION INDIAN ACT OF 1891. 
THEREUPON CONGRESS PASSED THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1917  FN8  BY WHICH IT
"AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED" THE SECRETARY TO PROCEED UNDER THE ACT OF
1910. 

THE SECRETARY ON JUNE 7, 1921 APPOINTED HARRY E. WADSWORTH AS SPECIAL
ALLOTTING AGENT AT LARGE FOR THE MISSION INDIAN RESERVATIONS OF
CALIFORNIA AND INSTRUCTED HIM TO PREPARE SCHEDULES OF SELECTIONS FOR
ALLOTMENTS THEREON.  IN 1923, WADSWORTH FILED A SCHEDULE SHOWING
SELECTIONS ON THE PALM SPRINGS RESERVATION FOR FIFTY MEMBERS OF THE
BAND.  THE SECRETARY EXPRESSLY DISAPPROVED THIS SCHEDULE.  COMPLAINT
HAD COME FROM THE INDIANS, MANY OF WHOM DID NOT WANT ALLOTMENTS AND HAD
NOT MADE THE SELECTIONS LISTED IN THEIR NAMES.  WHEN THEY FAILED TO
CHOOSE, THE ALLOTMENT AGENT HAD MADE A CHOICE FOR THEM.  THE SECRETARY
INSTRUCTED WADSWORTH TO PREPARE A NEW SCHEDULE LISTING ONLY SELECTIONS
VOLUNTARILY MADE AND TO LEAVE OFF THOSE WHO DID NOT DESIRE ALLOTMENTS. 
IN 1927, THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED FROM WADSWORTH A NEW SCHEDULE SHOWING
VOLUNTARY SELECTIONS FOR TWENTY-FOUR MEMBERS OF THE PALM SPRINGS BAND. 

EACH INDIAN FOR WHOM A SELECTION WAS LISTED RECEIVED FROM WADSWORTH A
CERTIFICATE OF SELECTION FOR ALLOTMENT.  EACH WAS STAMPED "NOT VALID
UNLESS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR." 

ON OCTOBER 26, 1923, WADSWORTH ASKED THE INDIAN DEPARTMENT FOR
INSTRUCTIONS, RECITING, "ALLOTMENTS BEING COMPLETED AND CERTIFICATES
ISSUED.  MANY ALLOTTEES ANXIOUS TO IMMEDIATELY OCCUPY THEIR SELECTIONS
AND PREPARE THINGS FOR EARLY CROPS INSTEAD WAITING FOR RECEIPT OF
PATENTS."  ON THE SAME DAY HE RECEIVED REPLY, "NO OBJECTION TO INDIANS
PREPARING THEIR RESPECTIVE ALLOTMENT SELECTIONS FOR CROPS IF PROPERLY
LISTED ON SCHEDULE."  WADSWORTH ALSO WROTE TO ONE, AT LEAST, OF THE
ALLOTTEES IN THE ST. MARIE CASE, SAYING AMONG OTHER THINGS, "IT IS
DIFFICULT TO TELL EXACTLY WHEN YOU MAY EXPECT THESE PATENTS FROM
WASHINGTON BUT I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE HERE WITHIN 6 WEEKS OR SO.
THEY WILL COME TO THE SUPERINTENDENT IN RIVERSIDE, WHO WILL NOTIFY YOU
THAT THEY ARE THERE AND READY FOR DELIVERY TO YOU.  IN THE MEANTIME,
THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IN WASHINGTON AUTHORIZES ME TO SAY
TO YOU THAT FROM THIS DATE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ENTER UPON AND TAKE
POSSESSION OF THESE ALLOTMENTS, AND THESE CERTIFICATES WILL BE YOUR
EVIDENCE OF SUCH AUTHORITY UNTIL THE TRUST PATENTS ARE RECEIVED BY
YOU." 

WADSWORTH FILED THE SCHEDULE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.  HE
ATTACHED A CERTIFICATE, AMONG OTHER THINGS RECITING "THAT THE
ALLOTMENTS SHOWN HEREON WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF FEBRUARY 8, 1887 AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE
25, 1910 AND SUPPLEMENTED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1917."  THE GENERAL
LAND OFFICE RECOMMENDED THAT THE SCHEDULE BE APPROVED, WITH EXCEPTIONS
THAT APPEAR TO HAVE NO BEARING ON THE CASE BEFORE US. 

BUT THE ALLOTMENTS APPEAR NEVER TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE
SECRETARY.  HE REFUSES TO ISSUE PATENTS TO WHICH THESE INDIANS CLAIM TO
BE ENTITLED.  THE GOVERNMENT'S MOVING PAPERS CONTAIN AN AFFIDAVIT BY
COUNSEL DECLARING THAT THE SECRETARY DISAPPROVED THE ALLOTMENTS.  BUT
IT GIVES NO REASON, AND NO ORDER OR STATEMENT OF DISAPPROVAL BY THE
SECRETARY IS IN THE RECORD.  THE GOVERNMENT FILED NO PLEADING AVERRING
REASONS FOR DISAPPROVAL OR, IF DISAPPROVAL WAS FORMAL, SETTING FORTH
THE DOCUMENT.  ON THE CONTRARY, COUNSEL SEEMS TO HAVE TAKEN THE
POSITION THAT AS MATTER OF LAW THE SECRETARY'S REASONS AND THE FORM OF
HIS DISAPPROVAL WERE NOT RELEVANT TO ANY QUESTION THE COURT IS
EMPOWERED TO DECIDE. 

THE POWER OF THE SECRETARY SO TO REFUSE PATENTS AND THE POWERLESSNESS
OF THE COURTS TO REVIEW THE REFUSAL ARE HERE MAINTAINED ON THESE
CONTENTIONS:  "IT RESTS IN THE COMPLETE DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR WHETHER OR NOT ALLOTMENTS SHALL BE MADE ON THE PALM
SPRINGS RESERVATION.  SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF THE ACT OF JANUARY 12, 1891
CONTEMPLATE THREE STEPS IN THE MAKING OF ALLOTMENTS ON THAT
RESERVATION:  (1) AN OPINION BY THE SECRETARY AS TO THE CAPACITY OF THE
INDIANS TO RECEIVE ALLOTMENTS; (2) A METHOD OR PROCEDURE FOR MAKING
SUCH ALLOTMENTS; AND (3) APPROVAL OF THE ALLOTMENTS BY THE SECRETARY. 
EACH OF THESE STEPS IS UNDER THE CONTROL AND RESTS IN THE DISCRETION OF
THE SECRETARY."  UPON THESE GROUNDS THE TRIAL COURT AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE ST. MARIE CASES WERE
NOT ENTITLED TO PATENTS AND THAT THIS PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO GO
TO TRIAL. 

                          I.

       THE SECRETARY'S DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THE CAPACITY OF

                  THE INDIANS TO RECEIVE ALLOTMENTS. 

THE ACT OF 1891 PROVIDES THAT "WHENEVER ANY OF THE INDIANS RESIDING
UPON ANY RESERVATION PATENTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL,
IN THE OPINION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, BE SO ADVANCED IN
CIVILIZATION AS TO BE CAPABLE OF OWNING AND MANAGING LAND IN SEVERALTY,
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR MAY CAUSE ALLOTMENTS TO BE MADE TO SUCH
INDIANS."  THIS UNDOUBTEDLY CONFERRED A VERY CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION
UPON THE SECRETARY. 

THE ACT OF 1917, HOWEVER, DROPS THE LANGUAGE OF DISCRETION AND
DIRECTS THE SECRETARY TO CAUSE ALLOTMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE INDIANS ON
THE MISSION RESERVATIONS.  FN9  THE ACT WAS PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY
FN10  AND IF IT WAS INTENDED TO PERPETUATE HIS DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER
THE ALLOTMENT POLICY WAS TO BE APPLIED TO THESE INDIANS AT ALL, IT
MIGHT EASILY HAVE SO PROVIDED.  BOTH THE SECRETARY AND CONGRESS APPEAR
TO HAVE SETTLED THAT POINT.  THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SECRETARY TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS INDICATES NO
RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE SECRETARY'S VIEW THAT THE INDIANS WERE QUALIFIED
AND THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD CARRY OUT THE ALLOTMENT POLICY.  IT
POINTS OUT CERTAIN EVILS AND INEQUALITIES AMONG THE INDIANS UNDER THE
TRIBAL SYSTEM OF LAND HOLDINGS AND SAYS, "THIS IS A CONDITION THAT
CANNOT BE CURED ENTIRELY UNTIL THE LANDS HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED IN
SEVERALTY."  AND AGAIN IT SAYS, "THE DEPARTMENT BELIEVES THAT THE
PRESENT CONDITIONS, WHILE MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE SOME YEARS AGO,
WOULD BE RAPIDLY IMPROVED BY ALLOTMENT IN SEVERALTY, PROVIDED AUTHORITY
TO PRORATE THE AVAILABLE LAND IS GIVEN." 

FOLLOWING PASSAGE OF THE ACT THE SECRETARY SET ABOUT EXECUTING ITS
DIRECTIONS.  WADSWORTH WAS APPOINTED GENERAL ALLOTMENT AGENT AND WAS
SENT TO THE INDIANS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO PERMIT THEM TO SELECT THEIR
OWN ALLOTMENTS.  WHEN HE SELECTED FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT CHOOSE FOR
THEMSELVES, HIS SCHEDULE WAS DISAPPROVED, AND ONLY FOR THAT REASON.  HE
WAS RETURNED TO THE TASK OF COMPILING VOLUNTARY SELECTIONS FOR THOSE
WHO DESIRED ALLOTMENTS, IT BEING THOUGHT THAT IF THAT WERE DONE THOSE
WHO OBJECTED "WOULD SOON FALL IN LINE AND REQUEST THAT THEY TOO BE
GIVEN THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE ALLOTTABLE AREAS."  FN11  THERE
IS NO DENIAL THAT WADSWORTH WAS AUTHORIZED TO HOLD OUT TO THE INDIANS
THAT THEIR PATENTS WOULD BE RECEIVED IN A FEW WEEKS AND THAT MEANWHILE,
IF NOT ALREADY LIVING ON THEIR SELECTED LANDS, THEY MIGHT ENTER INTO
POSSESSION. 

TO ASSUME THAT THE ACT OF 1917, WHILE DIRECTING THE SECRETARY TO MAKE
ALLOTMENTS, ONLY MEANT TO GIVE HIM UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION NOT TO DO SO
WOULD BE A DOUBTFUL CONSTRUCTION, IN VIEW OF ITS HISTORY.  BUT EVEN IF
IT WERE SO INTERPRETED, IT DID NOT REQUIRE THE SECRETARY TO MANIFEST
HIS EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN ANY FORMAL WAY.  HIS OPINION THAT THE
INDIANS HAD THE CAPACITY FOR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR LAND
OWNERSHIP COULD BE INDICATED BY CONDUCT AS WELL AS BY WORDS.  WE THINK
HIS CONDUCT AND WORDS AMOUNT BOTH TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE 1917 ACT AS A DIRECTION AND TO THE EXERCISE OF ANY DISCRETION HE
MAY HAVE HAD UNDER IT. 

IF THE INDIANS WERE NOT READY FOR ALLOTMENTS, WHY SEND AN AGENT TO
HOLD OUT TO THEM THAT HOPE AND PROMISE?  WHY THE ELABORATE PROCEDURE OF
ALLOTMENT?  THE DEPARTMENT THEN SOUGHT NOT ONLY TO OFFER ALLOTMENT BUT
TO PROCEED SO AS TO MAKE THE INDIANS "FALL IN LINE."  DESPITE THE
OBVIOUS INFERENCE FROM THESE ACTS THE RECORD DOES NOT COUNTER THEM BY
ANY SHOWING THAT THE SECRETARY NOW CONSIDERS THESE INDIANS TO LACK
CIVILIZATION AND CAPACITY, TESTED BY THE USUAL STANDARDS FOR ALLOTMENT,
NOR DOES IT SHOW THAT THEY DO NOT IN FACT POSSESS IT.  HISTORY AND
COMMON KNOWLEDGE OF THESE INDIANS WOULD INDICATE THAT THEY ARE NOT
WANTING IN WHATEVER IT IS THAT MAKES UP "CIVILIZATION."  LONG AGO THE
FRANCISCANS CONVERTED THEM TO CHRISTIANITY, TAUGHT THEM TO SUBSIST BY
GOOD HUSBANDRY AND HANDICRAFTS.  UNDER THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO
(1848) THEIR ANCESTRAL LANDS AND THEIR GOVERNANCE PASSED FROM MEXICO TO
THE UNITED STATES.  DURING THE GOLD DISCOVERY DAYS THEY WERE TOO GENTLE
TO COMBAT THE RUTHLESS PRESSURES OF THE WHITES AND CAME TO LEAD A
PRECARIOUS AND PITIABLE, BUT PEACEFUL, EXISTENCE.  EVENTUALLY THE
COUNTRY WAS AROUSED BY THEIR PLIGHT AND SET UP A COMMISSION TO
INVESTIGATE THEIR GRIEVANCES AND TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIR
PROTECTION AND RELIEF.  IT REPORTED IN 1884  FN12  AND ITS
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY EMBODIED IN THE MISSION INDIAN ACT
OF 1891.  BY THE STANDARDS OF PEACEFULNESS, INDUSTRY, AND GENTLENESS
THESE INDIANS HAVE LONG BEEN "CIVILIZED."  EVEN TESTED BY THE STANDARD
OF ACQUISITIVENESS, THEY SEEM NOT TO HAVE FAILED.  IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY
ARENAS ON THE LANDS HE OCCUPIED IN RELIANCE UPON HIS CERTIFICATE ARE
VALUED AT $15,000. 

ON THE RECORD AS IT NOW STANDS WE DO NOT THINK THE GOVERNMENT HAS
ESTABLISHED THE FALSITY OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT THAT THE
SECRETARY HAD MADE THE PRELIMINARY DECISION AS TO THE ALLOTMENTS.  WE
THINK THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED, IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER PROOF TO
THE CONTRARY, BY THE ACT OF 1917 AND THE SECRETARY'S ACTION UNDER IT.

 II.

          THE SECRETARY'S DISCRETION AS TO PROCEDURE FOR MAKING

                     SUCH ALLOTMENTS. 

WE DO NOT SEE THAT THIS IS MUCH IN QUESTION NOR IS MUCH IN POINT, IF
TRUE.  ARENAS DOES NOT QUESTION THAT THE SECRETARY HAD DISCRETION TO
ADOPT THE METHOD OF ALLOTMENT WHICH WAS FOLLOWED.  HE CLAIMS THAT BOTH
HE AND THE DEPARTMENT HAVE COMPLIED WITH IT, THAT HIS CHOICE HAS BEEN
ASCERTAINED, THE LANDS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND MARKED AND REPORTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT, AND THAT NOTHING REMAINS FOR EITHER TO DO TO PERFECT
THE RIGHT TO A PATENT.  IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE
PROCEDURE TO LEAD TO A PATENT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PLEADED OR
EVIDENCED IT IN THE CASE.  WE ASSUME THE SECRETARY'S COMPLETE CONTROL
OF THE METHOD AND, AS THE RECORD STANDS, THAT HIS METHOD HAS BEEN
EXECUTED TO THE POINT WHERE A PATENT WOULD ISSUE BUT FOR THE REFUSAL OF
THE SECRETARY. 

                                 III. 

   THE SECRETARY'S DISCRETION AS TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE

                       ALLOTMENTS. 

THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE LAWSUIT.  IT IS AS TO THIS FINAL STEP THAT
CONGRESS HAS INVESTED THE COURTS WITH SOME RESPONSIBILITY. 

THE ACT OF AUGUST 15, 1894, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 345, AUTHORIZES INDIANS TO
COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTIONS "IN RELATION TO THEIR RIGHT" TO LAND
UNDER ANY ALLOTMENT ACT OR UNDER ANY GRANT MADE BY CONGRESS "IN THE
PROPER DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND SAID DISTRICT COURTS
ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION TO TRY AND DETERMINE ANY ACTION, SUIT, OR
PROCEEDING ARISING WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS INVOLVING THE
RIGHT OF ANY PERSON, IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF INDIAN BLOOD OR DESCENT, TO
ANY ALLOTMENT OF LAND UNDER ANY LAW OR TREATY."  IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED
THAT "THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE OF ANY SUCH COURT IN FAVOR OF ANY CLAIMANT
TO AN ALLOTMENT OF LAND SHALL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT, WHEN PROPERLY
CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, AS IF SUCH ALLOTMENT HAD BEEN
ALLOWED AND APPROVED BY HIM."  FN13 

UNDER THIS STATUTE THE COURTS HAVE DECIDED DISPUTES BETWEEN INDIANS
AND THE GOVERNMENT AS TO THE RELATIVE QUALIFICATIONS OF TWO CLAIMANTS
TO RECEIVE, AS A MEMBER OF A BAND, A PATENT, HY-YU-TSE-MIL-KIN V.
SMITH, 194 U.S. 401, AND WHETHER PARTICULAR LANDS WERE APPROPRIATE FOR
ALLOTMENT, UNITED STATES V. PAYNE, 264 U.S. 446. 

BUT HERE WE DO NOT KNOW FROM ANY INFORMATION DEVELOPED IN THE
ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS WHAT THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR AND ARENAS IS ABOUT.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ANSWER THE
COMPLAINT.  IT FORECLOSED EVIDENCE ON THE FACTS BY ITS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IN WHICH IT INCORPORATED THE EVIDENCE IN ANOTHER
PROCEEDING.  IN THAT OTHER PROCEEDING NO REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
GOVERNMENT EXCEPT THE LOCAL MISSION INDIAN AGENT AND WADSWORTH, THE
FORMER ALLOTMENT AGENT, WERE SWORN.  THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO
TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SCHEDULE OF ALLOTMENTS AFTER IT
REACHED WASHINGTON OR AS TO WHETHER IT EVER WAS APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED
AND, IF SO, HOW OR BY WHOM OR WHY.  THE GOVERNMENT'S AFFIDAVIT FILED IN
OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION RECITED THAT THE SECRETARY'S RECORDS "REVEAL
THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HAS DISAPPROVED THE ALLOTMENT
SCHEDULE AND CERTIFICATES OF SELECTION."  NO ENTRY ORDER OR MEMORANDUM
OF DISAPPROVAL IS PRODUCED, NOR IS THE DATE THEREOF STATED. 

CERTAIN FACTS DO APPEAR FROM WHICH WE KNOW THAT THIS IS NO ORDINARY
ALLOTMENT PROBLEM.  EACH SELECTION HERE INCLUDED THREE KINDS OF LAND: A
TWO-ACRE TOWN LOT, OF CONSIDERABLE VALUE; FIVE ACRES OF IRRIGABLE LAND
OF FAIR VALUE; AND FORTY ACRES OF DESERT LAND.  ALL OF THE TOWN LOTS
CHOSEN ARE IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST.  THIS SECTION
CONTAINS PALM SPRINGS, A HOT MINERAL SPRING, FROM WHICH THE RESERVATION
DERIVES ITS NAME. 

BUT THE RESERVATION ITSELF IS A CHECKERBOARD AFFAIR.  AT THE TIME OF
ITS ESTABLISHMENT THE ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS ALREADY HAD BEEN GRANTED TO
THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD AND HENCE THE RESERVATION CONSISTED OF
ONLY EVEN-NUMBERED SECTIONS.  ON THE RAILROAD SECTIONS THE WHITES HAVE
ESTABLISHED THE SETTLEMENT KNOWN AS PALM SPRINGS, A FLOURISHING WINTER
RESORT WITH LARGE HOTELS AND THE USUAL BUSINESS PLACES AND RESIDENCES
THAT CHARACTERIZE SUCH A DEVELOPMENT.  OUT OF THIS SITUATION HAS GROWN
CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE INDIANS AND THE WHITES AND BETWEEN
INDIANS THEMSELVES.  THE INDIANS, TO THE ANNOYANCE OF THE WHITES, SEEK
TO EXPLOIT THEIR OWNERSHIP OF THE SPRINGS, AND THE WHITES ARE ACCUSED,
NOT WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, OF COVETING THE INDIANS' PROPERTY RIGHTS
THEREIN.  THOSE AMONG BOTH RACES WHO FAVOR ALLOTMENT ALLEGE THAT THE
DENIAL OF PATENTS IS DESIGNED TO SERVE THE WHITE INTERESTS IN PALM
SPRINGS BY LEASING OR SELLING VALUABLE TRIBAL LANDS TO THOSE WHO ARE
PROMOTING THE RESORT INTERESTS.  THOSE WHO OPPOSE ISSUANCE OF PATENTS
ALLEGE THAT THE ALLOTMENT SYSTEM IS UNFAIR TO THE TRIBE AND WILL RESULT
EVENTUALLY IN THE WHITES' GETTING POSSESSION AND TITLE TO THE LANDS. 
THE OUTLINES OF THE CONTROVERSY ARE CLEAR, BUT THE SUMMARY DISPOSITION
OF THE CASE HAS PRECLUDED THE ADVERSARY TRIAL WHICH ALONE WOULD GIVE
RELIABLE FOUNDATION FOR DETERMINING IT, IF INDEED THE EVIDENCE WILL
SHOW THAT IT SHOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  THE
LEGAL CLAIMS OF THIS PARTICULAR INDIAN TO A PATENT FOR THE LANDS HE
SELECTED FOR ALLOTMENT, WHICH HAVE LONG BEEN IN HIS POSSESSION AND HAVE
BEEN CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOVERNMENT, ARE
NOW ENTANGLED IN LARGER QUESTIONS OF INDIAN LAND POLICY. 

THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF 1894, UNDER WHICH THIS SUIT IS IN THE
COURTS, REQUIRES THEM TO ADJUDICATE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AND TO
RENDER A JUDGMENT WHICH WILL STAND IN LIEU OF THE SECRETARY'S ACTION IF
HE HAS UNLAWFULLY DENIED A PATENT TO AN ALLOTMENT TO WHICH THE INDIAN
IS ENTITLED.  BUT COURTS ARE NOT TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF INDIAN LAND
POLICY, NOR CAN THE SECRETARY ON GROUNDS OF POLICY DEPRIVE AN ALLOTTEE
OF ANY RIGHTS HE MAY HAVE ACQUIRED IN HIS ALLOTMENT.  TO SEPARATE
QUESTIONS OF RIGHT FROM QUESTIONS OF POLICY REQUIRES JUDICIAL
EXAMINATION OF ANY WELL PLEADED ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT AND OF ANY
GROUNDS ADVANCED FOR REFUSAL OF THE PATENT.  EVEN IN SOME DISCRETIONARY
MATTERS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF AN OFFICIAL ACTS SOLELY ON GROUNDS
WHICH MISAPPREHEND THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, AN OTHERWISE
UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION MAY BECOME SUBJECT TO CORRECTION.  PERKINS V.
ELG, 307 U.S. 325, 349. 

SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PLEADED TO THE COMPLAINT NOR OFFERED
EVIDENCE AS TO THE SECRETARY'S POSITION WE KNOW IT ONLY AS STATED IN
ARGUMENT.  IT APPEARS THAT THE SOLE REASON FOR DENYING A PATENT IS A
DEPARTMENTAL CHANGE OF POLICY, BY WHICH THE SECRETARY NOW DISAGREES
WITH THE ALLOTMENT POLICY PRESCRIBED FOR THESE INDIANS BY THE ACTS OF
1891 AND 1917.  THE GOVERNMENT BRIEF SAYS, "MEANWHILE OPPOSITION TO THE
MAKING OF ALLOTMENTS IN SEVERALTY DEVELOPED AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE
PALM SPRINGS BAND OF INDIANS, AND AS A RESULT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ON
THE 1927 SCHEDULE WAS FURTHER DELAYED.  DURING THIS PERIOD THE
CONCLUSION WAS REACHED IN THE DEPARTMENT THAT IN FAIRNESS TO THE BAND
AS A WHOLE AND FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THEIR BEST INTERESTS THE LANDS
SCHEDULED FOR ALLOTMENT SHOULD BE HELD IN A TRIBAL STATUS AND DEALT
WITH AS A TRIBAL ASSET."  IT SAYS FURTHER, "THE SECRETARY HAS
DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE AND DETRIMENTAL TO THE PALM
SPRINGS BAND OF INDIANS AS A WHOLE TO APPROVE ANY ALLOTMENTS ON THEIR
RESERVATION."  AGAIN, "THE SECRETARY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO CARRY
THROUGH A PLAN OF ALLOTMENT IN SEVERALTY WHICH IN HIS JUDGMENT WILL
OPERATE CONTRARY TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PALM SPRINGS BAND OF
INDIANS, BUT HE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO STAY HIS HAND AND SEEK A TIME
WHICH WOULD BE MORE IN THE INTEREST OF THAT BAND." 

THE SECRETARY HAS ENDEAVORED TO PERSUADE CONGRESS THAT TREATMENT
OTHER THAN THE ALLOTMENT POLICY EMBODIED IN ITS LEGISLATION WOULD BE
MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE INDIANS.  IN 1935, HE RECOMMENDED TO CONGRESS
A BILL AUTHORIZING HIM TO MAKE A 99-YEAR LEASE OF THE RESERVATION
LANDS.  FN14  THIS FAILED OF ENACTMENT.  IN 1937, THE SECRETARY
RECOMMENDED A BILL TO REPEAL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2,
1917, DIRECTING THE MAKING OF ALLOTMENTS ON THE MISSION INDIAN
RESERVATIONS.  FN15 THAT BILL FAILED.  HE ALSO RECOMMENDED A BILL TO
AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF A PART OF THE PALM SPRINGS RESERVATION.  FN16
THAT LIKEWISE FAILED OF ENACTMENT. 

WE THINK THE GROUNDS ADVANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY WAY OF ARGUMENT,
ALTHOUGH NOT BY WAY OF EVIDENCE, ARE INADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH AS MATTER
OF LAW THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO A PATENT.  CONGRESS
NOT ONLY HAS FAILED TO DENY THESE ALLOTMENT RIGHTS BY LEGISLATION, BUT
HAS REJECTED URGENT AND REITERATED APPEALS FROM THE DEPARTMENT TO DO
SO.  ARENAS IS ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AS IT
STANDS IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE COMPLETED THE ALL
BUT FULLY EXECUTED POLICY OF ALLOTMENT.  FN17 

THE PETITIONER MADE NO COUNTER MOTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  BEFORE US HE ASKS ONLY THAT
HIS COMPLAINT BE ANSWERED AND THAT HE BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO ESTABLISH
HIS LEGAL CLAIM IF HE CAN BY TRIAL.  THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM
SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRED TO ANSWER.  WE DO NOT
PRECLUDE MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT TO STRIKE PARTS OF THE COMPLAINT IF
ANY ARE FOUND TO BE IMPROPER PLEADING.  BUT WE THINK THE DUTY OF THE
COURT UNDER THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT CAN BE DISCHARGED IN A CASE OF THIS
COMPLEXITY ONLY BY TRIAL, FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT IN REGULAR COURSE. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  ST. MARIE V. UNITED STATES, 24 F.SUPP.  237, 108 F.2D 876, CERT.
DENIED BECAUSE PETITION OUT OF TIME, 311 U.S. 652. 

FN2  137 F.2D 199. 

FN3  320 U.S. 733. 

FN4  GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT OF 1887, 24 STAT. 388, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 331;
SEE COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, C. 11. 

FN5  SEE REPORT ON CONDITIONS AND NEEDS OF THE MISSION INDIANS, SEN.
REP. NO. 74, 50TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN6  26 STAT. 712. 

FN7  SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF THE ACT PROVIDE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 4.  THAT WHENEVER ANY OF THE INDIANS RESIDING UPON ANY
RESERVATION PATENTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, IN THE
OPINION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, BE SO ADVANCED IN
CIVILIZATION AS TO BE CAPABLE OF OWNING AND MANAGING LAND IN SEVERALTY,
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR MAY CAUSE ALLOTMENTS TO BE MADE TO SUCH
INDIANS, OUT OF THE LAND OF SUCH RESERVATION, IN QUANTITY AS FOLLOWS:
TO EACH HEAD OF A FAMILY NOT MORE THAN SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY ACRES NOR
LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ACRES OF PASTURE OR GRAZING LAND, AND
IN ADDITION THERETO NOT EXCEEDING TWENTY ACRES, AS HE SHALL DEEM FOR
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ALLOTTEE, OF ARABLE LAND IN SOME SUITABLE
LOCALITY; TO EACH SINGLE PERSON OVER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE NOT LESS
THAN EIGHTY NOR MORE THAN SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY ACRES OF PASTURE OR
GRAZING LAND AND NOT EXCEEDING TEN ACRES OF SUCH ARABLE LAND. 

"SEC. 5.  THAT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE ALLOTMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN
THE PRECEDING SECTION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HE SHALL CAUSE
PATENTS TO ISSUE THEREFOR IN THE NAME OF THE ALLOTTEES, WHICH SHALL BE
OF THE LEGAL EFFECT AND DECLARE THAT THE UNITED STATES DOES AND WILL
HOLD THE LAND THUS ALLOTTED FOR THE PERIOD OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, IN
TRUST FOR THE SOLE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN TO WHOM SUCH ALLOTMENT
SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE, OR, IN CASE OF HIS DECEASE, OF HIS HEIRS
ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THAT AT THE
EXPIRATION OF SAID PERIOD THE UNITED STATES WILL CONVEY THE SAME BY
PATENT TO THE SAID INDIAN, OR HIS HEIRS AS AFORESAID, IN FEE,
DISCHARGED OF SAID TRUST AND FREE OF ALL CHARGE OR INCUMBRANCE
WHATSOEVER.  AND IF ANY CONVEYANCE SHALL BE MADE OF THE LANDS SET APART
AND ALLOTTED AS HEREIN PROVIDED, OR ANY CONTRACT MADE TOUCHING THE
SAME, BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME ABOVE MENTIONED, SUCH
CONVEYANCE OR CONTRACT SHALL BE ABSOLUTELY NULL AND VOID:  PROVIDED,
THAT THESE PATENTS, WHEN ISSUED, SHALL OVERRIDE THE PATENT AUTHORIZED
TO BE ISSUED TO THE BAND OR VILLAGE AS AFORESAID, AND SHALL SEPARATE
THE INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENT FROM THE LANDS HELD IN COMMON, WHICH PROVISO
SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN EACH OF THE VILLAGE PATENTS." 

FN8  39 STAT. 969, 976. 

FN9  THE ACT OF 1917 IN RELEVANT PART PROVIDES THAT:  "  ...  THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BE, AND HE IS HEREBY, AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED
TO CAUSE ALLOTMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE INDIANS BELONGING TO AND HAVING
TRIBAL RIGHTS ON THE MISSION INDIAN RESERVATIONS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, IN AREAS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION SEVENTEEN OF THE ACT OF
JUNE TWENTY-FIFTH, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND TEN (THIRTY-SIXTH STATUTES AT
LARGE, PAGE EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY-NINE), INSTEAD OF AS PROVIDED IN
ONE (TWENTY-SIXTH STATUTES AT LARGE, PAGE SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN):
PROVIDED, THAT THIS ACT SHALL NOT AFFECT ANY ALLOTMENTS HERETOFORE
PATENTED TO THESE INDIANS."  39 STAT. 969, 976. 

FN10  SEE LETTER OF SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO CHAIRMAN OF SENATE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, JANUARY 7, 1916. 

FN11  LETTER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS TO THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR, DECEMBER 22, 1926.    FN12  S. EX. DOC. NO. 49, 48TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., REPRODUCED IN SEN. REP. NO. 74, 50TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN13  THE STATUTE IN FULL IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ALL PERSONS WHO ARE IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF INDIAN BLOOD OR DESCENT
WHO ARE ENTITLED TO AN ALLOTMENT OF LAND UNDER ANY LAW OF CONGRESS, OR
WHO CLAIM TO BE SO ENTITLED TO LAND UNDER ANY ALLOTMENT ACT OR UNDER
ANY GRANT MADE BY CONGRESS, OR WHO CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY DENIED
OR EXCLUDED FROM ANY ALLOTMENT OR ANY PARCEL OF LAND TO WHICH THEY
CLAIM TO BE LAWFULLY ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, MAY
COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE OR DEFEND ANY ACTION, SUIT, OR PROCEEDING IN
RELATION TO THEIR RIGHT THERETO IN THE PROPER DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES; AND SAID DISTRICT COURTS ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION TO TRY
AND DETERMINE ANY ACTION, SUIT, OR PROCEEDING ARISING WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS INVOLVING THE RIGHT OF ANY PERSON, IN WHOLE OR
IN PART OF INDIAN BLOOD OR DESCENT, TO ANY ALLOTMENT OF LAND UNDER ANY
LAW OR TREATY (AND IN SAID SUIT THE PARTIES THERETO SHALL BE THE
CLAIMANT AS PLAINTIFF AND THE UNITED STATES AS PARTY DEFENDANT); AND
THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE OF ANY SUCH COURT IN FAVOR OF ANY CLAIMANT TO AN
ALLOTMENT OF LAND SHALL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT, WHEN PROPERLY CERTIFIED
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AS IF SUCH ALLOTMENT HAD BEEN ALLOWED
AND APPROVED BY HIM, BUT THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY LANDS
HELD AUGUST 15, 1894, BY EITHER OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, NOR TO
ANY OF THE LANDS WITHIN THE QUAPAW INDIAN AGENCY:  PROVIDED, THAT THE
RIGHT OF APPEAL SHALL BE ALLOWED TO EITHER PARTY AS IN OTHER CASES." 

FN14  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1521 AND SEN. REP. NO. 1201, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN15  SEN. REP. NO. 1238, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE PALM SPRINGS
INDIANS WERE AMONG THOSE WHICH HAD VOTED AGAINST APPLICATION TO THEM OF
THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 984, WHICH WOULD HAVE
TERMINATED ALL FUTURE ALLOTMENT IN SEVERALTY. 

FN16  HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, ON H.R. 7450, 75TH
CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 5-6. 

FN17  THE SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR HAS HIMSELF
INDICATED THAT WHERE THE INDIAN HAS DONE ALL HE COULD TO GET HIS PATENT
AND HAS FAILED BECAUSE OF THE NEGLECT OF PUBLIC OFFICERS THE COURTS
WILL GENERALLY PROTECT HIM, AND THAT THIS MAY BE PROPER EVEN WHERE
THERE HAS BEEN A FAILURE TO APPROVE THE ALLOTMENT.  SEE 55 DECISIONS OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 295, 303-304. 
..END :





















HUDDLESTON V. DWYER, 322 U.S. 232 


NO. 628.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 137 F.2D
383, VACATED. 


1.  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS, AS WELL AS THE
TRIAL COURT, TO ASCERTAIN AND APPLY THE STATE LAW WHERE THAT LAW
CONTROLS THE DECISION.  P. 236. 

2.  A JUDGMENT OF A FEDERAL COURT IN A CASE RULED BY STATE LAW,
CORRECTLY APPLYING THAT LAW AS AUTHORITATIVELY DECLARED BY THE STATE
COURTS WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, MUST BE REVERSED ON APPELLATE
REVIEW IF IN THE MEANTIME THE STATE COURTS HAVE DISAPPROVED THEIR
FORMER RULINGS AND ADOPTED DIFFERENT ONES.  P. 236. 

3.  THIS COURT ORDINARILY WILL NOT DECIDE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW
WHICH MAY CONVENIENTLY BE DECIDED FIRST BY THE COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT IS
HERE ON REVIEW.  P. 237. 

4.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
A CASE IN WHICH THE DECISION IS CONTROLLED BY STATE LAW, IT APPEARS
THAT A DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, RENDERED
SUBSEQUENTLY TO THOSE ON WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RELIED, HAS
AT LEAST RAISED SUCH DOUBT AS TO THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW AS TO REQUIRE
ITS REEXAMINATION.  THE JUDGMENT THEREFORE IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE
LIGHT OF THE SUBSEQUENT STATE COURT DECISION.  P. 236. 

HUDDLESTON ET AL. V. DWYER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 759, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER
DIRECTING A LEVY OF TAXES TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF
RESPONDENT BONDHOLDERS. 

PER CURIAM. 

RESPONDENTS ARE OWNERS OF DEFAULTED PAVING BONDS ISSUED BY THE CITY
OF POTEAU IN LE FLORE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, THE BONDS BEING SECURED BY
ASSESSMENTS FOR BENEFITS, PAYABLE IN TEN ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, UPON THE
PROPERTY IN TWO IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY,
INCLUDING CERTAIN LOTS OWNED BY THE COUNTY, AND OTHERS BELONGING TO THE
CITY, WHICH IT LATER CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY.  RESPONDENTS BROUGHT SUIT
IN 1937 IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN OKLAHOMA, AGAINST THE COUNTY,
ITS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND OTHER OFFICERS OF THE COUNTY AND CITY,
ALLEGING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND SEEKING A JUDGMENT FIXING THE
COUNTY'S LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW FOR THE ASSESSMENTS AND ASKING
MANDAMUS TO COMPEL A TAX LEVY BY THE COUNTY OFFICIALS FOR THE PAYMENT
OF THE OVERDUE ASSESSMENTS, AND OTHER RELIEF. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNTS DUE ON THE
RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE LOTS IN QUESTION, AND IN THE EVENT
OF FAILURE TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE JUDGMENT, THEN TO
ENTERTAIN JURISDICTION IN AN ANCILLARY PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS TO COMPEL
THE NECESSARY TAX LEVIES.  DWYER V. LE FLORE COUNTY, 97 F.2D 823.  THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY, RETAINING JURISDICTION FOR
SUCH ACTION AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE JUDGMENT. 

NO FUNDS HAVING BEEN PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT OF THE OVERDUE ASSESSMENTS,
RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
MANDAMUS, TO COMPEL PETITIONERS, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND OTHER COUNTY
OFFICERS, TO MAKE THE TAX LEVIES NECESSARY FOR PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS
ADJUDGED TO BE DUE.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR MANDAMUS, IN
EFFECT DIRECTING PETITIONERS, BEGINNING WITH THE FISCAL YEAR 1942-3, TO
MAKE TEN ANNUAL LEVIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE COUNTY GENERAL FUND
LEVIES, SUFFICIENT TO PAY SUCCESSIVELY THE TEN ASSESSMENT INSTALLMENTS
WHICH BECAME DUE AND PAYABLE IN THE YEARS 1925 TO 1934 INCLUSIVE, WITH
INTEREST AT 12% FROM THE DUE DATE OF THE ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS UNTIL
AUGUST 13, 1937, THE DATE WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED, AND THEREAFTER
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM UPON THE AGGREGATE OF SUCH
INSTALLMENTS AND INTEREST ALREADY ACCRUED. 

ONE OF THE DEFENSES TO THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS THAT UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW A COUNTY IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO LEVY
AND COLLECT A TAX IN ONE YEAR TO PAY IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS WHICH
BECAME DUE IN AN EARLIER YEAR.  THIS DEFENSE WAS URGED ON APPEAL TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH OVERRULED IT AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 137 F.2D 383, AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE
OKLAHOMA AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 39 V.
EXCHANGE NATIONAL CO., 164 OKLA. 176, 23 P.2D 210; FIRST NATIONAL BANK
V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 174 OKLA. 164, 49 P.2D 1077; BOARD OF EDUCATION
V. JOHNSTON, 189 OKLA. 172, 115 P.2D 132, AND WILSON V. CITY OF HOLLIS,
DECIDED BY THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT ON OCTOBER 6, 1942 AND NOT
OFFICIALLY REPORTED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND NONE OF THESE CASES TO
BE PRECISELY IN POINT BUT CONCLUDED THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA
HAD CONSISTENTLY AND POINTEDLY AVOIDED THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE RULE
CONTENDED FOR.  IT ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
CORRECTLY DIRECTED TAX LEVIES TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT, FROM THE GENERAL
TAX FUND, OF THE OVERDUE INSTALLMENTS OF THE IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS,
WITH INTEREST AS PRESCRIBED. 

PETITIONERS FILED A TIMELY PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH WAS DENIED ON
SEPTEMBER 1, 1943.  ON DECEMBER 17, 1943, PETITIONERS MOVED FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A SECOND PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DENIED.  IN THEIR SECOND PETITION, PETITIONERS BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE COURT AND RELIED UPON AN OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF OKLAHOMA IN WILSON V. CITY OF HOLLIS, OF OCTOBER 19, 1943,  - OKLA.
, 142 P.2D 633, WHICH HAD SUPERSEDED ITS EARLIER OPINION ON WHICH THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD RELIED IN ITS OPINION IN THIS CASE. 
PETITIONERS CONTENDED THAT BY ITS LATER OPINION THE SUPREME COURT OF
OKLAHOMA HAD DETERMINED THAT OKLAHOMA LAW DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF
A GENERAL FUND TAX TO PAY ASSESSMENT INSTALLMENTS WHICH FELL DUE IN
PRIOR YEARS, BUT THAT SUCH INSTALLMENTS COULD BE PAID ONLY FROM A
SINKING FUND LEVY, AND THAT NO STATUTORY PENALTIES OR ADDITIONAL
INTEREST FOR DELINQUENCY COULD BE COLLECTED. 

IN ITS SECOND OPINION THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA REEXAMINED IN
DETAIL THE MODE OF ENFORCING PAST DUE INSTALLMENTS OF IMPROVEMENT
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES IN
OKLAHOMA.  IT DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN THE LIABILITY OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED
AND PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, AND
IT APPEARS TO HAVE HELD, WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMER, THAT UNDER THE
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OKLAHOMA STATUTES MANDAMUS TO ENFORCE THE
LEVY OF A GENERAL FUND TAX WILL LIE ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE
ASSESSMENT INSTALLMENT FALLS DUE, THAT MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND
CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PAYMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF A PRIOR FISCAL YEAR,
AND THAT "NO DELINQUENCY THAT WILL CARRY WITH IT ADDITIONAL INTEREST OR
PENALTY CAN ACCRUE AGAINST PUBLIC PROPERTY."  IT SAID THAT JUDGMENT
COULD BE RENDERED AGAINST A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY FOR PAST DUE
INSTALLMENTS WHICH COULD BE PAID AS ARE OTHER JUDGMENTS AGAINST A
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY UNDER OKLA. CONST. ART. 10, SEC. 28, AND 62 O.S.
1941, SEC. 431, ET SEQ., I. E., IN THREE ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS OUT OF
SINKING FUND LEVIES.  IN ANNOUNCING THESE CONCLUSIONS THE SUPREME COURT
OF OKLAHOMA STATED THAT IT FOUND CONFUSION ARISING OUT OF ITS DECISIONS
ON THIS SUBJECT, AND THAT IT WAS FORCED TO REEXAMINE ITS EARLIER
DECISIONS, INCLUDING SOME OF THOSE ON WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HAD RELIED IN DECIDING THIS CASE, TO DIFFERENTIATE SOME, AND TO
BRING OTHERS INTO CONFORMITY WITH ITS CONCLUSIONS ANNOUNCED IN THE
WILSON CASE.  IN PARTICULAR IT DECLARED THAT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 39 V. EXCHANGE NATIONAL CO., SUPRA, AND FIRST NATIONAL
BANK V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA, WERE IN PART OVERRULED. 

STATE LAW IS THE CONTROLLING RULE OF DECISION IN THIS CASE AS TO BOTH
SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64; FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES 69(A),
81(B), 28 U.S.C. FOLLOWING SEC. 723(C).  IT IS THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL
APPELLATE COURTS, AS WELL AS THE TRIAL COURT, TO ASCERTAIN AND APPLY
THE STATE LAW WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, IT CONTROLS DECISION.  MEREDITH
V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228.  AND A JUDGMENT OF A FEDERAL COURT RULED
BY STATE LAW AND CORRECTLY APPLYING THAT LAW AS AUTHORITATIVELY
DECLARED BY THE STATE COURTS WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, MUST BE
REVERSED ON APPELLATE REVIEW IF IN THE MEANTIME THE STATE COURTS HAVE
DISAPPROVED OF THEIR FORMER RULINGS AND ADOPTED DIFFERENT ONES.  "UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS A CASE IS NO LONGER SUB JUDICE, THE DUTY RESTS UPON
FEDERAL COURTS TO APPLY STATE LAW UNDER THE RULES OF DECISION STATUTE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THEN CONTROLLING DECISION OF THE HIGHEST STATE
COURT."  VANDENBARK V. OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 311 U.S. 538, 543. 

THE SECOND OPINION OF THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT IN THE WILSON CASE
HAS AT LEAST RAISED SUCH DOUBT AS TO THE APPLICABLE OKLAHOMA LAW AS TO
REQUIRE ITS REEXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF THAT OPINION AND OF LATER
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA ON WHICH RESPONDENTS RELY,
BEFORE PRONOUNCEMENT OF A FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE CASE BY THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  THAT DOUBT IS NOT TO BE RESOLVED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THIS
COURT.  WE HAVE OFTEN HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT THE IMPORTANCE TO THE
ORDERLY JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION OF STATE LAWS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
THAT QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED HERE SHOULD FIRST BE
CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE STATE OR FEDERAL COURT FROM WHICH THE
CASE IS BROUGHT TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW.  DORCHY V. KANSAS, 264 U.S.
286, 290-91; MISSOURI EX REL. WABASH RY. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
273 U.S. 126, 131; RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 202, 206
7; NEW YORK EX REL. WHITMAN V. WILSON, 318 U.S. 688, 690-91.  THE
DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE ON MATTERS OF STATE LAW ARE IN
GENERAL CONCLUSIVE UPON US, AND ORDINARILY WE ACCEPT AND THEREFORE DO
NOT REVIEW, SAVE IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, THE CONSIDERED DETERMINATION OF
QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW BY THE INTERMEDIATE FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS,
CF. RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA.  WHEN WE ARE CALLED UPON
TO DECIDE THEM, THE EXPRESSION OF THE VIEWS OF THE JUDGES OF THOSE
COURTS, WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE INTRICACIES AND TRENDS OF LOCAL LAW
AND PRACTICE, IF NOT INDISPENSABLE, IS AT LEAST A HIGHLY DESIRABLE AND
IMPORTANT AID TO OUR DETERMINATION OF STATE LAW QUESTIONS.  THIS COURT
WILL NOT ORDINARILY DECIDE THEM WITHOUT THAT AID WHERE THEY MAY
CONVENIENTLY FIRST BE DECIDED BY THE COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT WE ARE CALLED
UPON TO REVIEW.  SEE, E. G., RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA;
ROSENTHAL V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 263, 264; WEST V. A.T. &
T. CO., 311 U.S. 223, 241; KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487,
497; MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, SUPRA. 

ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT PASSING ON ANY OF THE OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE
PARTIES, WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SO THAT IT MAY RECONSIDER ITS DECISION IN THE
LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS AND OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA IN
THE WILSON AND LATER CASES.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :



















HAZEL-ATLAS CO. V. HARTFORD CO., 322 U.S. 238 


NO. 398.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 10, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 137
F.2D 764, REVERSED. 


UPON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING RELIEF IN A
SUIT BY HARTFORD AGAINST HAZEL FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN 1932 HELD HARTFORD'S PATENT VALID AND
INFRINGED, AND UPON ITS MANDATE THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT
ACCORDINGLY.  IN 1941, HAZEL COMMENCED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
THIS PROCEEDING, WHEREIN IT CONCLUSIVELY APPEARED THAT HARTFORD,
THROUGH PUBLICATION OF AN ARTICLE PURPORTING TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY A
DISINTERESTED PERSON, HAD PERPETRATED A FRAUD ON THE PATENT OFFICE IN
OBTAINING THE PATENT AND ON THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ITSELF IN THE
INFRINGEMENT SUIT.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS DENYING RELIEF, HELD: 

1.  UPON THE RECORD, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD THE POWER AND
THE DUTY TO VACATE ITS 1932 JUDGMENT AND TO GIVE THE DISTRICT COURT
APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS.  P. 247. 

(A)  EVEN IF HAZEL FAILED TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO UNCOVER THE
FRAUD, RELIEF MAY NOT BE DENIED ON THAT GROUND ALONE, SINCE PUBLIC
INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED.  P. 246. 

(B)  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HARTFORD MAY NOT BE HEARD TO DISPUTE THE
EFFECTIVENESS NOR TO ASSERT THE TRUTH OF THE ARTICLE.  P. 247. 

2.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS DIRECTED TO SET ASIDE ITS 1932
JUDGMENT, RECALL ITS 1932 MANDATE, DISMISS HARTFORD'S APPEAL, AND TO
ISSUE A MANDATE TO THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTING IT TO SET ASIDE ITS
JUDGMENT ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE 1932 MANDATE, TO REINSTATE ITS
ORIGINAL JUDGMENT DENYING RELIEF TO HARTFORD, AND TO TAKE SUCH
ADDITIONAL ACTION AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE.  P. 250. 

HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 732, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DENYING RELIEF IN A BILL OF REVIEW PROCEEDING COMMENCED IN THAT
COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE POWER OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, UPON
PROOF THAT FRAUD WAS PERPETRATED ON IT BY A SUCCESSFUL LITIGANT, TO
VACATE ITS OWN JUDGMENT ENTERED AT A PRIOR TERM AND DIRECT VACATION OF
A DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS' MANDATE. 

HAZEL-ATLAS COMMENCED THE PRESENT SUIT IN NOVEMBER, 1941, BY FILING
IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS A PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
BILL OF REVIEW IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT ENTERED BY
THAT COURT AGAINST HAZEL IN 1932 PURSUANT TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS' MANDATE.  HAZEL CONTENDED THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS'
JUDGMENT HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY FRAUD AND SUPPORTED THIS CHARGE WITH
AFFIDAVITS AND EXHIBITS.  HARTFORD-EMPIRE, IN WHOSE FAVOR THE
CHALLENGED JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED, DID NOT QUESTION THE APPELLATE
COURT'S POWER TO CONSIDER THE PETITION, BUT FILED COUNTER AFFIDAVITS
AND EXHIBITS.  AFTER A HEARING THE CIRCUIT COURT CONCLUDED THAT SINCE
THE ALLEGED FRAUD HAD BEEN PRACTICED ON IT RATHER THAN THE DISTRICT
COURT IT WOULD PASS ON THE ISSUES OF FRAUD ITSELF INSTEAD OF SENDING
THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  AN ORDER WAS THEREUPON ENTERED DENYING
THE PETITION AS FRAMED BUT GRANTING HAZEL LEAVE TO AMEND THE PRAYER OF
THE PETITION TO ASK THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT ITSELF HEAR AND DETERMINE
THE ISSUE OF FRAUD.  HAZEL ACCORDINGLY AMENDED, PRAYING THAT THE 1932
JUDGMENTS AGAINST IT BE VACATED AND FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS MIGHT BE
JUST.  HARTFORD THEN REPLIED AND FILED ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS AND
AFFIDAVITS.  THE FOLLOWING FACTS WERE SHOWN BY THE RECORD WITHOUT
DISPUTE. 

IN 1926 HARTFORD HAD PENDING AN APPLICATION FOR A PATENT ON A MACHINE
WHICH UTILIZED A METHOD OF POURING GLASS INTO MOLDS KNOWN AS "GOB
FEEDING."  THE APPLICATION, ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, "WAS
CONFRONTED WITH APPARENTLY INSURMOUNTABLE PATENT OFFICE OPPOSITION." 
TO HELP ALONG THE APPLICATION, CERTAIN OFFICIALS AND ATTORNEYS OF
HARTFORD DETERMINED TO HAVE PUBLISHED IN A TRADE JOURNAL AN ARTICLE
SIGNED BY AN OSTENSIBLY DISINTERESTED EXPERT WHICH WOULD DESCRIBE THE
"GOB FEEDING" DEVICE AS A REMARKABLE ADVANCE IN THE ART OF FASHIONING
GLASS BY MACHINE.  ACCORDINGLY THESE OFFICIALS PREPARED AN ARTICLE
ENTITLED "INTRODUCTION OF AUTOMATIC GLASS WORKING MACHINERY; HOW
RECEIVED BY ORGANIZED LABOR," WHICH REFERRED TO "GOB FEEDING" AS ONE OF
THE TWO "REVOLUTIONARY DEVICES" WITH WHICH WORKMEN SKILLED IN BOTTLE
BLOWING HAD BEEN CONFRONTED SINCE THEY HAD ORGANIZED.  AFTER
UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTING TO PERSUADE THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOTTLE
BLOWERS' ASSOCIATION TO SIGN THIS ARTICLE, THE HARTFORD OFFICIALS,
TOGETHER WITH OTHER PERSONS CALLED TO THEIR AID, PROCURED THE SIGNATURE
OF ONE WILLIAM P. CLARKE, WIDELY KNOWN AS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE
FLINT GLASS WORKERS' UNION.  SUBSEQUENTLY, IN JULY 1926, THE ARTICLE
WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NATIONAL GLASS BUDGET, AND IN OCTOBER 1926 IT WAS
INTRODUCED AS PART OF THE RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE PENDING APPLICATION
IN THE PATENT OFFICE.  JANUARY 3, 1928, THE PATENT OFFICE GRANTED THE
APPLICATION AS PATENT NO. 1,655,391. 

ON JUNE 6, 1928, HARTFORD BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHARGING THAT HAZEL WAS INFRINGING
THIS "GOB FEEDING" PATENT, AND PRAYING FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
FURTHER INFRINGEMENT AND FOR AN ACCOUNTING FOR PROFITS AND DAMAGES. 
WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE CLARKE ARTICLE, WHICH WAS IN THE RECORD ONLY
AS PART OF THE "FILE-WRAPPER" HISTORY, AND WHICH APPARENTLY WAS NOT
THEN EMPHASIZED BY COUNSEL, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE BILL ON
THE GROUND THAT NO INFRINGEMENT HAD BEEN PROVED.  39 F.2D 111. 
HARTFORD APPEALED.  IN THEIR BRIEF FILED WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, THE ATTORNEYS FOR HARTFORD, ONE OF WHOM HAD PLAYED A PART IN
GETTING THE SPURIOUS ARTICLE PREPARED FOR PUBLICATION, DIRECTED THE
COURT'S ATTENTION TO "THE ARTICLE BY MR. WILLIAM CLARKE, FORMER
PRESIDENT OF THE GLASS WORKERS' UNION."  THE REFERENCE WAS NOT WITHOUT
EFFECT.  QUOTING COPIOUSLY FROM THE ARTICLE TO SHOW THAT "LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS OF PRACTICAL WORKMEN RECOGNIZED" THE "NEW AND
DIFFERENTIATING ELEMENTS" OF THE "GOB FEEDING" PATENT OWNED BY
HARTFORD, THE CIRCUIT COURT ON MAY 5, 1932, HELD THE PATENT VALID AND
INFRINGED, REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTED THAT
COURT TO ENTER A DECREE ACCORDINGLY.  59 F.2D 399, 403, 404. 

AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN 1929, WHERE THE
ARTICLE SEEMINGLY PLAYED NO IMPORTANT PART, THE ATTORNEYS OF HAZEL
RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT BOTH CLARKE AND ONE OF HARTFORD'S LAWYERS HAD
SEVERAL YEARS PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED THAT THE HARTFORD LAWYER WAS THE TRUE
AUTHOR OF THE SPURIOUS PUBLICATION.  HAZEL'S ATTORNEYS DID NOT AT THAT
TIME ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE TRUTH OF THE HEARSAY STORY OF THE ARTICLE'S
AUTHORSHIP, BUT RELIED UPON OTHER DEFENSES WHICH PROVED SUCCESSFUL. 
AFTER THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT CAME DOWN ON MAY 5, 1932,
QUOTING THE SPURIOUS ARTICLE AND REVERSING THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, HAZEL HIRED INVESTIGATORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE
HEARSAY BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.  ONE OF THESE INVESTIGATORS INTERVIEWED
CLARKE IN TOLEDO, OHIO, ON MAY 13 AND AGAIN ON MAY 24.  IN EACH
INTERVIEW CLARKE INSISTED THAT HE WROTE THE ARTICLE AND WOULD SO SWEAR
IF SUMMONED.  IN THE SECOND INTERVIEW THE INVESTIGATOR ASKED CLARKE TO
SIGN A STATEMENT TELLING IN DETAIL HOW THE ARTICLE WAS PREPARED, AND
FURTHER ASKED TO SEE CLARKE'S FILES.  CLARKE REPLIED THAT HE WOULD NOT
"STULTIFY" HIMSELF BY SIGNING ANY "STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT"; AND THAT HE
WOULD SHOW THE RECORDS TO NO ONE UNLESS COMPELLED BY A SUBPOENA.  AT
THE SAME TIME, HE REINFORCED HIS CLAIM OF AUTHORSHIP BY ASSERTING THAT
HE HAD SPENT SEVEN WEEKS IN PREPARING THE ARTICLE. 

BUT UNKNOWN TO HAZEL'S INVESTIGATOR, A REPRESENTATIVE OF HARTFORD,
SECRETLY INFORMED OF THE INVESTIGATOR'S VIEW THAT HAZEL'S ONLY CHANCE
OF REOPENING THE CASE "WAS TO GET AN AFFIDAVIT FROM SOMEONE, TO THE
EFFECT THAT THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN" BY HARTFORD'S ATTORNEY, ALSO HAD
TRAVELED TO TOLEDO.  HARTFORD'S REPRESENTATIVE FIRST WENT TO TOLEDO AND
TALKED TO CLARKE ON MAY 10, THREE DAYS BEFORE HAZEL'S INVESTIGATOR
FIRST INTERVIEWED CLARKE; AND HE RETURNED TO TOLEDO AGAIN ON MAY 22 FOR
A FIVE-DAY STAY.  THUS AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTIGATOR'S SECOND
INTERVIEW WITH CLARKE ON MAY 24, REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH COMPANIES WERE
IN TOUCH WITH CLARKE IN TOLEDO.  BUT THOUGH HARTFORD'S REPRESENTATIVE
KNEW THE INVESTIGATOR WAS THERE, THE LATTER WAS UNAWARE OF THE PRESENCE
OF THE HARTFORD REPRESENTATIVE.  ON MAY 24, HAZEL'S INVESTIGATOR
REPORTED FAILURE; THE SAME DAY, HARTFORD'S MAN REPORTED "VERY
SUCCESSFUL RESULTS."  FOUR DAYS LATER, ON MAY 28, HARTFORD'S
REPRESENTATIVE REPORTED HIS "SUCCESS" MORE FULLY.  CLARKE, HE SAID, HAD
BEEN OF "GREAT ASSISTANCE" AND HARTFORD WAS IN A "MOST SATISFACTORY
POSITION"; IT DID NOT "SEEM WISE TO DISTRIBUTE COPIES OF ALL THE
PAPERS" THE REPRESENTATIVE THEN HAD OR TO "GO INTO MUCH DETAIL IN
CORRESPONDENCE"; AND HARTFORD WAS "QUITE INDEBTED TO MR. CLARKE" WHO
"MIGHT EASILY HAVE CAUSED US A LOT OF TROUBLE.  THIS SHOULD NOT BE
FORGOTTEN.  ...  "  AMONG THE "PAPERS" WHICH THE REPRESENTATIVE HAD
PROCURED FROM CLARKE WAS AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY CLARKE STATING THAT HE,
CLARKE, HAD "SIGNED THE ARTICLE AND RELEASED IT FOR PUBLICATION."  THE
AFFIDAVIT WAS DATED MAY 24 - THE VERY DAY THAT CLARKE HAD TOLD HAZEL'S
INVESTIGATOR HE WOULD NOT "STULTIFY" HIMSELF BY SIGNING ANY AFFIDAVIT
AND WOULD PRODUCE HIS PAPERS FOR NO ONE EXCEPT UPON SUBPOENA. 

SHORTLY AFTERWARD HAZEL CAPITULATED.  IT PAID HARTFORD $1,000,000 AND
ENTERED INTO CERTAIN LICENSING AGREEMENTS.  THE DAY FOLLOWING THE
SETTLEMENT, HARTFORD'S REPRESENTATIVE TRAVELED BACK TO TOLEDO AND
TALKED TO CLARKE.  AT THIS MEETING CLARKE ASKED FOR $10,000. 
HARTFORD'S REPRESENTATIVE TOLD HIM THAT HE WANTED TOO MUCH MONEY AND
THAT HARTFORD WOULD COMMUNICATE WITH HIM FURTHER.  A FEW DAYS LATER THE
REPRESENTATIVE PAID CLARKE $500 IN CASH; AND ABOUT A MONTH LATER
DELIVERED TO CLARKE, AT SOME PLACE IN PITTSBURGH WHICH HE HAS SWORN HE
CANNOT REMEMBER, AN ADDITIONAL $7,500 IN CASH.  THE REASON GIVEN FOR
PAYING THESE SUMS WAS THAT HARTFORD FELT A CERTAIN MORAL OBLIGATION TO
DO SO, ALTHOUGH HARTFORD'S AFFIDAVITS DENY ANY PRIOR AGREEMENT TO PAY
CLARKE FOR HIS SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ARTICLE. 

INDISPUTABLE PROOF OF THE FOREGOING FACTS WAS, FOR THE FIRST TIME,
FULLY BROUGHT TO LIGHT IN 1941 BY CORRESPONDENCE FILES, EXPENSE
ACCOUNTS AND TESTIMONY INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL OF THE UNITED STATES V.
HARTFORD-EMPIRE COMPANY ET AL., 46 F.SUPP.  541, AN ANTI-TRUST
PROSECUTION BEGUN DECEMBER 11, 1939.  ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCLOSURES
AT THIS TRIAL HAZEL COMMENCED THE PRESENT SUIT. 

UPON CONSIDERATION OF WHAT IT PROPERLY TERMED THIS "SORDID STORY,"
THE CIRCUIT COURT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, HELD, FIRST, THAT THE FRAUD
WAS NOT NEWLY DISCOVERED; SECOND, THAT THE SPURIOUS PUBLICATION, THOUGH
QUOTED IN THE 1932 OPINION, WAS NOT THE PRIMARY BASIS OF THE 1932
DECISION; AND THIRD, THAT IN ANY EVENT IT LACKED THE POWER TO SET ASIDE
THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM
DURING WHICH THE 1932 DECISION HAD BEEN RENDERED.  ACCORDINGLY THE
COURT REFUSED TO GRANT THE RELIEF PRAYED BY HAZEL. 

FEDERAL COURTS, BOTH TRIAL AND APPELLATE, LONG AGO ESTABLISHED THE
GENERAL RULE THAT THEY WOULD NOT ALTER OR SET ASIDE THEIR JUDGMENTS
AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM AT WHICH THE JUDGMENTS WERE FINALLY
ENTERED.  BRONSON V. SCHULTEN, 104 U.S. 410.  THIS SALUTARY GENERAL
RULE SPRINGS FROM THE BELIEF THAT IN MOST INSTANCES SOCIETY IS BEST
SERVED BY PUTTING AN END TO LITIGATION AFTER A CASE HAS BEEN TRIED AND
JUDGMENT ENTERED.  THIS HAS NOT MEANT, HOWEVER, THAT A JUDGMENT FINALLY
ENTERED HAS EVER BEEN REGARDED AS COMPLETELY IMMUNE FROM IMPEACHMENT
AFTER THE TERM.  FROM THE BEGINNING THERE HAS EXISTED ALONGSIDE THE
TERM RULE A RULE OF EQUITY TO THE EFFECT THAT UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES, ONE OF WHICH IS AFTER-DISCOVERED FRAUD, RELIEF WILL BE
GRANTED AGAINST JUDGMENTS REGARDLESS OF THE TERM OF THEIR ENTRY. 
MARINE INSURANCE CO. V. HODGSON, 7 CRANCH 332; MARSHALL V. HOLMES, 141
U.S. 589.  THIS EQUITY RULE, WHICH WAS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN ENGLISH
PRACTICE LONG BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF OUR REPUBLIC, THE COURTS HAVE
DEVELOPED AND FASHIONED TO FULFILL A UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED NEED FOR
CORRECTING INJUSTICES WHICH, IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, ARE DEEMED
SUFFICIENTLY GROSS TO DEMAND A DEPARTURE FROM RIGID ADHERENCE TO THE
TERM RULE.  OUT OF DEFERENCE TO THE DEEP-ROOTED POLICY IN FAVOR OF THE
REPOSE OF JUDGMENTS ENTERED DURING PAST TERMS, COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE
BEEN CAUTIOUS IN EXERCISING THEIR POWER OVER SUCH JUDGMENTS.  UNITED
STATES V. THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61.  BUT WHERE THE OCCASION HAS
DEMANDED, WHERE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT IS "MANIFESTLY
UNCONSCIONABLE," PICKFORD V. TALBOTT, 225 U.S. 651, 657, THEY HAVE
WIELDED THE POWER WITHOUT HESITATION.  FN1  LITIGANTS WHO HAVE SOUGHT
TO INVOKE THIS EQUITY POWER CUSTOMARILY HAVE DONE SO BY BILLS OF REVIEW
OR BILLS IN THE NATURE OF BILLS OF REVIEW, OR BY ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS
TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT.  FN2  AND IN CASES WHERE COURTS
HAVE EXERCISED THE POWER, THE RELIEF GRANTED HAS TAKEN SEVERAL FORMS:
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT TO PERMIT A NEW TRIAL, ALTERING THE TERMS OF
THE JUDGMENT, OR RESTRAINING THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE JUDGMENT FROM
TAKING ANY BENEFIT WHATEVER FROM IT.  FN3  BUT WHATEVER FORM THE RELIEF
HAS TAKEN IN PARTICULAR CASES, THE NET RESULT IN EVERY CASE HAS BEEN
THE SAME:  WHERE THE SITUATION HAS REQUIRED, THE COURT HAS, IN SOME
MANNER, DEVITALIZED THE JUDGMENT EVEN THOUGH THE TERM AT WHICH IT WAS
ENTERED HAD LONG SINCE PASSED AWAY. 

EVERY ELEMENT OF THE FRAUD HERE DISCLOSED DEMANDS THE EXERCISE OF THE
HISTORIC POWER OF EQUITY TO SET ASIDE FRAUDULENTLY BEGOTTEN JUDGMENTS. 
THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A CASE OF A JUDGMENT OBTAINED WITH THE AID OF A
WITNESS WHO, ON THE BASIS OF AFTER-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, IS BELIEVED
POSSIBLY TO HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF PERJURY.  HERE, EVEN IF WE CONSIDER
NOTHING BUT HARTFORD'S SWORN ADMISSIONS, WE FIND A DELIBERATELY PLANNED
AND CAREFULLY EXECUTED SCHEME TO DEFRAUD NOT ONLY THE PATENT OFFICE BUT
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  CF. MARSHALL V. HOLMES, SUPRA.  PROOF OF
THE SCHEME, AND OF ITS COMPLETE SUCCESS UP TO DATE, IS CONCLUSIVE.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. THROCKMORTON, SUPRA.  AND NO EQUITIES HAVE INTERVENED
THROUGH TRANSFER OF THE FRAUDULENTLY PROCURED PATENT OR JUDGMENT TO AN
INNOCENT PURCHASER.  CF. IBID.; HOPKINS V. HEBARD, 235 U.S. 287. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT DID NOT HOLD THAT HARTFORD'S FRAUD FELL SHORT OF
THAT WHICH PROMPTS EQUITABLE INTERVENTION, BUT THOUGHT HAZEL HAD NOT
EXERCISED PROPER DILIGENCE IN UNCOVERING THE FRAUD AND THAT THIS SHOULD
STAND IN THE WAY OF ITS OBTAINING RELIEF.  WE CANNOT EASILY UNDERSTAND
HOW, UNDER THE ADMITTED FACTS, HAZEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO DO
MORE THAN IT DID TO UNCOVER THE FRAUD.  BUT EVEN IF HAZEL DID NOT
EXERCISE THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF DILIGENCE, HARTFORD'S FRAUD CANNOT BE
CONDONED FOR THAT REASON ALONE.  THIS MATTER DOES NOT CONCERN ONLY
PRIVATE PARTIES.  THERE ARE ISSUES OF GREAT MOMENT TO THE PUBLIC IN A
PATENT SUIT.  MERCOID CORPORATION V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 320
U.S. 661; MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488. 
FURTHERMORE, TAMPERING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE MANNER
INDISPUTABLY SHOWN HERE INVOLVES FAR MORE THAN AN INJURY TO A SINGLE
LITIGANT.  IT IS A WRONG AGAINST THE INSTITUTIONS SET UP TO PROTECT AND
SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONS IN WHICH FRAUD CANNOT COMPLACENTLY
BE TOLERATED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE GOOD ORDER OF SOCIETY.  SURELY IT
CANNOT BE THAT PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
MUST ALWAYS WAIT UPON THE DILIGENCE OF LITIGANTS.  THE PUBLIC WELFARE
DEMANDS THAT THE AGENCIES OF PUBLIC JUSTICE BE NOT SO IMPOTENT THAT
THEY MUST ALWAYS BE MUTE AND HELPLESS VICTIMS OF DECEPTION AND FRAUD. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT ALSO RESTED DENIAL OF RELIEF UPON THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE CLARKE ARTICLE WAS NOT "BASIC" TO THE COURT'S 1932 DECISION. 
WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR THAT RULING, THE ARTICLE
DID IMPRESS THE COURT, AS SHOWN BY THE COURT'S OPINION.  DOUBTLESS IT
IS WHOLLY IMPOSSIBLE ACCURATELY TO APPRAISE THE INFLUENCE THAT THE
ARTICLE EXERTED ON THE JUDGES.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THE CIRCUMSTANCES
CALL FOR SUCH AN ATTEMPTED APPRAISAL.  HARTFORD'S OFFICIALS AND LAWYERS
THOUGHT THE ARTICLE MATERIAL.  THEY CONCEIVED IT IN AN EFFORT TO
PERSUADE A HOSTILE PATENT OFFICE TO GRANT THEIR PATENT APPLICATION, AND
WENT TO CONSIDERABLE TROUBLE AND EXPENSE TO GET IT PUBLISHED.  HAVING
LOST THEIR INFRINGEMENT SUIT BASED ON THE PATENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
WHEREIN THEY DID NOT SPECIFICALLY EMPHASIZE THE ARTICLE, THEY URGED THE
ARTICLE UPON THE CIRCUIT COURT AND PREVAILED.  THEY ARE IN NO POSITION
NOW TO DISPUTE ITS EFFECTIVENESS.  NEITHER SHOULD THEY NOW BE PERMITTED
TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HARTFORD'S DECEPTIVE ATTRIBUTION OF
AUTHORSHIP TO CLARKE ON THE GROUND THAT WHAT THE ARTICLE STATED WAS
TRUE.  TRUTH NEEDS NO DISGUISE.  THE ARTICLE, EVEN IF TRUE, SHOULD HAVE
STOOD OR FALLEN UNDER THE ONLY TITLE IT COULD HONESTLY HAVE BEEN GIVEN
THAT OF A BRIEF IN BEHALF OF HARTFORD, PREPARED BY HARTFORD'S AGENTS,
ATTORNEYS, AND COLLABORATORS. 

WE HAVE, THEN, A CASE IN WHICH UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE FILED WITH THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN A BILL OF REVIEW PROCEEDING REVEALS SUCH
FRAUD ON THAT COURT AS DEMANDS, UNDER SETTLED EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, THE
INTERPOSITION OF EQUITY TO DEVITALIZE THE 1932 JUDGMENT DESPITE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE TERM AT WHICH THAT JUDGMENT WAS FINALLY ENTERED.  DID
THE CIRCUIT COURT HAVE THE POWER TO SET ASIDE ITS OWN 1932 JUDGMENT AND
TO DIRECT THE DISTRICT COURT LIKEWISE TO VACATE THE 1932 DECREE WHICH
IT ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE MANDATE BASED UPON THE CIRCUIT COURT'S
JUDGMENT?  COUNSEL FOR HARTFORD CONTEND NOT.  THEY CONCEDE THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS THE POWER UPON PROPER PROOF OF FRAUD TO SET ASIDE
ITS 1932 DECREE IN A BILL OF REVIEW PROCEEDING, BUT NEVERTHELESS DENY
THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT POSSESSES A SIMILAR POWER FOR THE REASON THAT
THE TERM DURING WHICH ITS 1932 JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED HAD EXPIRED.  THE
QUESTION, THEN, IS NOT WHETHER RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED, BUT WHICH COURT
CAN GRANT IT. 

EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST FRAUDULENT JUDGMENTS IS NOT OF STATUTORY
CREATION.  IT IS A JUDICIALLY DEVISED REMEDY FASHIONED TO RELIEVE
HARDSHIPS WHICH, FROM TIME TO TIME, ARISE FROM A HARD AND FAST
ADHERENCE TO ANOTHER COURTMADE RULE, THE GENERAL RULE THAT JUDGMENTS
SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED AFTER THE TERM OF THEIR ENTRY HAS EXPIRED. 
CREATED TO AVERT THE EVILS OF ARCHAIC RIGIDITY, THIS EQUITABLE
PROCEDURE HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY FLEXIBILITY WHICH ENABLES IT
TO MEET NEW SITUATIONS WHICH DEMAND EQUITABLE INTERVENTION, AND TO
ACCORD ALL THE RELIEF NECESSARY TO CORRECT THE PARTICULAR INJUSTICES
INVOLVED IN THESE SITUATIONS.  IT WAS THIS FLEXIBILITY WHICH ENABLED
COURTS TO MEET THE PROBLEM RAISED WHEN LEAVE TO FILE A BILL OF REVIEW
WAS SOUGHT IN A COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPEACHING A JUDGMENT WHICH HAD BEEN ACTED UPON BY AN APPELLATE COURT. 
SUCH A JUDGMENT, IT WAS SAID, WAS NOT SUBJECT TO IMPEACHMENT IN SUCH A
PROCEEDING BECAUSE A TRIAL COURT LACKS THE POWER TO DEVIATE FROM THE
MANDATE OF AN APPELLATE COURT.  THE SOLUTION EVOLVED BY THE COURTS IS A
PROCEDURE WHEREBY PERMISSION TO FILE THE BILL IS SOUGHT IN THE
APPELLATE COURT.  THE HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE APPELLATE COURT ON THE
PETITION, WHICH MAY BE FILED MANY YEARS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE
CHALLENGED JUDGMENT, IS NOT JUST A CEREMONIAL GESTURE.  THE PETITION
MUST CONTAIN THE NECESSARY AVERMENTS, SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER
ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE; AND THE APPELLATE COURT MAY IN THE EXERCISE OF A
PROPER DISCRETION REJECT THE PETITION, IN WHICH CASE A BILL OF REVIEW
CANNOT BE FILED IN THE LOWER COURT.  NATIONAL BRAKE CO. V. CHRISTENSEN,
254 U.S. 425, 430-433. 

WE THINK THAT WHEN THIS COURT, A CENTURY AGO, APPROVED THIS PRACTICE
AND HELD THAT FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO PASS UPON, AND
HENCE TO GRANT OR DENY, PETITIONS FOR BILLS OF REVIEW EVEN THOUGH THE
PETITIONS BE PRESENTED LONG AFTER THE TERM OF THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT
HAS EXPIRED, IT SETTLED THE PROCEDURAL QUESTION HERE INVOLVED. 
SOUTHARD V. RUSSELL, 16 HOW.  547.  FN4 TO REASON OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO
SAY THAT ALTHOUGH THE CIRCUIT COURT HAS THE POWER TO ACT AFTER THE TERM
FINALLY TO DENY RELIEF, IT HAS NOT THE POWER TO ACT AFTER THE TERM
FINALLY TO GRANT RELIEF.  IT WOULD, MOREOVER, BE TO SAY THAT EVEN IN A
CASE WHERE THE ALLEGED FRAUD WAS ON THE CIRCUIT COURT ITSELF, THE
RELEVANT FACTS AS TO THE FRAUD WERE AGREED UPON BY THE LITIGANTS, AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT CONCLUDED RELIEF MUST BE GRANTED, THAT COURT
NEVERTHELESS MUST SEND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DECISION. 
NOTHING IN REASON OR PRECEDENT REQUIRES SUCH A CUMBERSOME AND DILATORY
PROCEDURE.  INDEED THE WHOLE HISTORY OF EQUITABLE PROCEDURE, WITH THE
TRADITIONAL FLEXIBILITY WHICH HAS ENABLED THE COURTS TO GRANT ALL THE
RELIEF AGAINST JUDGMENTS WHICH THE EQUITIES REQUIRE, ARGUES AGAINST IT.
WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT ON THE RECORD HERE
PRESENTED  FN5 HAD BOTH THE DUTY AND THE POWER TO VACATE ITS OWN
JUDGMENT AND TO GIVE THE DISTRICT COURT APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO WHAT DISPOSITION SHOULD BE MADE OF THIS
CASE.  HARTFORD'S FRAUD, HIDDEN FOR YEARS BUT NOW ADMITTED, HAD ITS
GENESIS IN THE PLAN TO PUBLISH AN ARTICLE FOR THE DELIBERATE PURPOSE OF
DECEIVING THE PATENT OFFICE.  THE PLAN WAS EXECUTED, AND THE ARTICLE
WAS PUT TO FRAUDULENT USE IN THE PATENT OFFICE, CONTRARY TO LAW. 
U.S.C., TITLE 35, SEC. 69; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE
CO., 128 U.S. 315.  FROM THERE THE TRAIL OF FRAUD CONTINUED WITHOUT
BREAK THROUGH THE DISTRICT COURT AND UP TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  HAD THE DISTRICT COURT LEARNED OF THE FRAUD ON THE PATENT
OFFICE AT THE ORIGINAL INFRINGEMENT TRIAL, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WARRANTED
IN DISMISSING HARTFORD'S CASE.  IN A PATENT CASE WHERE THE FRAUD
CERTAINLY WAS NOT MORE FLAGRANT THAN HERE, THIS COURT SAID:  "HAD THE
CORRUPTION OF CLUTTER BEEN DISCLOSED AT THE TRIAL  ...,  THE COURT
UNDOUBTEDLY WOULD HAVE BEEN WARRANTED IN HOLDING IT SUFFICIENT TO
REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION THERE ALLEGED FOR THE
INFRINGEMENT OF THE DOWNIE PATENT."  KEYSTONE DRILLER CO. V. EXCAVATOR
CO., 290 U.S. 240, 246; CF. MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO.,
SUPRA, 493, 494.  SO, ALSO, COULD THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE
DISMISSED THE APPEAL HAD IT BEEN AWARE OF HARTFORD'S CORRUPT ACTIVITIES
IN SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH CONCERNING THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE ARTICLE.  THE
TOTAL EFFECT OF ALL THIS FRAUD, PRACTICED BOTH ON THE PATENT OFFICE AND
THE COURTS, CALLS FOR NOTHING LESS THAN A COMPLETE DENIAL OF RELIEF TO
HARTFORD FOR THE CLAIMED INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT THEREBY PROCURED
AND ENFORCED. 

SINCE THE JUDGMENTS OF 1932 THEREFORE MUST BE VACATED, THE CASE NOW
STANDS IN THE SAME POSITION AS THOUGH HARTFORD'S CORRUPTION HAD BEEN
EXPOSED AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL.  IN THIS SITUATION THE DOCTRINE OF THE
KEYSTONE CASE, SUPRA, REQUIRES THAT HARTFORD BE DENIED RELIEF. 

TO GRANT FULL PROTECTION TO THE PUBLIC AGAINST A PATENT OBTAINED BY
FRAUD, THAT PATENT MUST BE VACATED.  IT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DECIDED
THAT SUCH A REMEDY IS NOT AVAILABLE IN INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT
CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A DIRECT PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE CO., SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE 1932
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, RECALL THE 1932 MANDATE,
DISMISS HARTFORD'S APPEAL, AND ISSUE MANDATE TO THE DISTRICT COURT
DIRECTING IT TO SET ASIDE ITS JUDGMENT ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS' MANDATE, TO REINSTATE ITS ORIGINAL JUDGMENT DENYING
RELIEF TO HARTFORD, AND TO TAKE SUCH ADDITIONAL ACTION AS MAY BE
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE, E.G., ART METAL WORKS V. ABRAHAM & STRAUSS, 107 F.2D 940
AND 944; PUBLICKER V. SHALLCROSS, 106 F.2D 949; CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY.
CO. V. CALLICOTTE, 267 F. 799; PICKENS V. MERRIAM, 242 F. 363; LEHMAN
V. GRAHAM, 135 F. 39; BOLDEN V. SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON CO., 215
ALA. 334, 110 SO. 574, 49 A.L.R. 1206.  FOR A COLLECTION OF EARLY CASES
SEE NOTE (1880) 20 AM. DEC. 160. 

FN2  SEE WHITING V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 13 PET. 6, 13; DEXTER
V. ARNOLD, 5 MASON 303, 308-315.  SEE, ALSO, GENERALLY, 3 OHLINGER'S
FEDERAL PRACTICE PP. 814-818; 3 FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS (5TH ED.)  SEC. 
1191; NOTE (1880) 20 AM. DEC. 160, SUPRA. 

FN3  SEE 3 FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS (5TH ED.)  SECS.  1178, 1779. 

FN4  SEE ALSO TYLER V. MAGWIRE, 17 WALL.  253, 283:  "REPEATED
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE ESTABLISHED THE RULE THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT
OR DECREE OF THIS COURT IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES, AND THAT IT
CANNOT BE REEXAMINED AT A SUBSEQUENT TERM, EXCEPT IN CASES OF FRAUD, AS
THERE IS NO ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH CONFERS ANY SUCH AUTHORITY." 

FN5  WE DO NOT HOLD, AND WOULD NOT HOLD, THAT THE MATERIAL QUESTIONS
OF FACT RAISED BY THE CHARGES OF FRAUD AGAINST HARTFORD COULD, IF IN
DISPUTE, BE FINALLY DETERMINED ON EX PARTE AFFIDAVITS WITHOUT
EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.  IT SHOULD AGAIN BE
EMPHASIZED THAT HARTFORD HAS NEVER QUESTIONED THE ACCURACY OF THE
VARIOUS DOCUMENTS WHICH INDISPUTABLY SHOW FRAUD ON THE PATENT OFFICE
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND HAS NOT CLAIMED, EITHER HERE OR BELOW, THAT
A TRIAL MIGHT BRING FORTH EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE FACTS AS SHOWN BY
THESE DOCUMENTS.  AND INSOFAR AS A TRIAL WOULD SERVE TO BRING FORTH
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT HAZEL WAS NOT DILIGENT IN UNCOVERING
THESE FACTS, WE ALREADY HAVE POINTED OUT THAT SUCH EVIDENCE WOULD NOT
IN THIS CASE CHANGE THE RESULT. 

MOREOVER, WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER, IF THE FACTS RELATING TO THE
FRAUD WERE IN DISPUTE AND DIFFICULT OF ASCERTAINMENT, THE CIRCUIT COURT
HERE SHOULD HAVE HELD HEARINGS AND DECIDED THE CASE OR SHOULD HAVE SENT
IT TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DECISION.  CF. ART METAL WORKS V. ABRAHAM
& STRAUSS, SUPRA, NOTE 1. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

NO FRAUD IS MORE ODIOUS THAN AN ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE.  THE COURT IS UNANIMOUS IN CONDEMNING THE TRANSACTION
DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD.  OUR PROBLEM IS HOW BEST THE WRONG SHOULD BE
RIGHTED AND THE WRONGDOERS PURSUED.  RESPECT FOR ORDERLY METHODS OF
PROCEDURE IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN A CASE OF THIS SORT.  IN SIMPLE
TERMS, THE SITUATION IS THIS.  SOME TWELVE YEARS AGO A FRAUD
PERPETRATED IN THE PATENT OFFICE WAS RELIED ON BY HARTFORD IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE COURT REVERSED A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
HAZEL, DECIDED THAT HARTFORD WAS THE HOLDER OF A VALID PATENT WHICH
HAZEL HAD INFRINGED AND, BY ITS MANDATE, DIRECTED THE DISTRICT COURT TO
ENTER A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF HARTFORD.  THIS WAS DONE AND, ON THE
STRENGTH OF THE JUDGMENT, HARTFORD AND HAZEL ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT
OF WHICH MORE HEREAFTER.  SO LONG AS THAT JUDGMENT STANDS UNMODIFIED,
THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WILL BE UNAFFECTED BY ANYTHING INVOLVED IN
THE SUIT UNDER DISCUSSION.  HAZEL CONCEDEDLY NOW DESIRES TO BE IN A
POSITION TO DISREGARD THE AGREEMENT TO ITS PROFIT. 

THE RESOURCES OF THE LAW ARE AMPLE TO UNDO THE WRONG AND TO PURSUE
THE WRONGDOER AND TO DO BOTH EFFECTIVELY WITH DUE REGARD TO THE
ESTABLISHED MODES OF PROCEDURE.  EVER SINCE THIS FRAUD WAS EXPOSED, THE
UNITED STATES HAS HAD STANDING TO SEEK NULLIFICATION OF HARTFORD'S
PATENT.  FN1  THE GOVERNMENT FILED A BRIEF AS AMICUS BELOW AND ONE IN
THIS COURT.  IT HAS ELECTED NOT TO PROCEED FOR CANCELLATION OF THE
PATENT.  FN2 

IT IS COMPLAINED THAT MEMBERS OF THE BAR HAVE KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATED
IN THE FRAUD.  REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE TO PURGE RECREANT OFFICERS FROM
THE TRIBUNALS ON WHOM THE FRAUD WAS PRACTICED. 

FINALLY, AS TO THE IMMEDIATE AIM OF THIS PROCEEDING, NAMELY, TO
NULLIFY THE JUDGMENT IF THE FRAUD PROCURED IT, AND IF HAZEL IS
EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO RELIEF, AN EFFECTIVE AND ORDERLY REMEDY IS AT
HAND.  THIS IS A SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE OR
AMEND THE JUDGMENT.  SUCH A PROCEEDING IS REQUIRED BY SETTLED FEDERAL
LAW AND WOULD BE TRIED, AS IT SHOULD BE, IN OPEN COURT WITH LIVING
WITNESSES INSTEAD OF THROUGH THE UNSATISFACTORY METHOD OF AFFIDAVITS. 
WE SHOULD NOT RESORT TO A DISORDERLY REMEDY, BY DISREGARDING THE LAW AS
APPLIED IN FEDERAL COURTS EVER SINCE THEY WERE ESTABLISHED, IN ORDER TO
REACH ONE INEQUITY AT THE RISK OF PERPETRATING ANOTHER. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY HARTFORD AGAINST HAZEL IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA CHARGING INFRINGEMENT OF HARTFORD'S PATENT NO.
1,655,391, A DECREE WAS ENTERED AGAINST HARTFORD MARCH 31, 1930, ON THE
GROUND THAT HAZEL HAD NOT INFRINGED.  ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FILED AN OPINION, MAY 5, 1932, REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AND HOLDING THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED.  ON HAZEL'S
APPLICATION, THE TIME FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS EXTENDED
FIVE TIMES.  ON JULY 21, 1932, HAZEL ENTERED INTO A GENERAL SETTLEMENT
AND LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH HARTFORD RESPECTING THE PATENT IN SUIT AND
OTHER PATENTS, WHICH AGREEMENT WAS TO BE EFFECTIVE AS OF JULY 1, 1932. 
HAZEL FILED NO PETITION FOR REHEARING AND, ON JULY 30, 1932, THE
MANDATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WENT TO THE DISTRICT COURT. 
PURSUANT TO THE MANDATE, THAT COURT ENTERED ITS FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST
HAZEL FOR AN INJUNCTION AND AN ACCOUNTING.  NO SUCH ACCOUNTING WAS EVER
HAD BECAUSE HAZEL AND HARTFORD HAD SETTLED THEIR DIFFERENCES. 

NOVEMBER 19, 1941, HAZEL PRESENTED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ITS PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE IN THE DISTRICT COURT A BILL OF REVIEW. 
ATTACHED WAS THE PROPOSED BILL.  AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED BY HAZEL AND
HARTFORD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HEARD THE MATTER AND MADE AN
ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, HOLDING THAT ANY FRAUD
PRACTICED HAD BEEN PRACTICED ON THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND,
THEREFORE, THAT COURT SHOULD ITSELF PASS UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
MANDATE SHOULD BE RECALLED AND THE CASE REOPENED.  LEAVE WAS GRANTED TO
HAZEL TO AMEND ITS PETITION TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  THE ORDER PROVIDED FOR AN ANSWER BY HARTFORD AND FOR A
HEARING AND DETERMINATION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ON THE BASIS OF THE AMENDED PETITION,
THE ANSWER, AND THE AFFIDAVITS, DENIED RELIEF ON THE GROUNDS:  (1) THAT
THE FRAUD HAD NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE TO INFLUENCE ITS EARLIER DECISION; (2)
THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DEAL WITH THE CASE AS ITS MANDATE
HAD GONE DOWN AND THE TERM HAD LONG SINCE EXPIRED; (3) THAT HAZEL HAD
BEEN NEGLIGENT AND GUILTY OF INEXCUSABLE DELAY IN PRESENTING THE MATTER
TO THE COURT; AND (4) THAT THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE PROCEDURE WAS IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, WHERE THE JUDGMENT RESTED, BY BILL IN EQUITY IN THE
NATURE OF A BILL OF REVIEW.  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED, HOLDING THAT THE
COURT HAD POWER (1) TO RECALL THE CAUSE; (2) TO ENTER UPON A TRIAL OF
THE ISSUES MADE BY THE PETITION AND ANSWER, AND (3) ITSELF TO REVIEW
AND REVISE ITS EARLIER DECISION, ENTER A NEW JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON
THE CORRECTED RECORD AND SEND A NEW MANDATE TO THE DISTRICT COURT. 

AS I UNDERSTAND THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, WHILE IT REVERSES THE
DECISION BELOW, IT ONLY PARTIALLY ADOPTS THE VIEW OF THE DISSENTING
JUDGE, FOR THE HOLDING IS:  (1) THAT THE COURT BELOW HAS POWER AT THIS
DATE TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER EITHER AS A NEW SUIT OR AS A CONTINUATION
OF THE OLD ONE; (2) THAT IT CAN RECALL THE CASE FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT; (3) THAT IT CAN GRANT RELIEF; (4) THAT IT CAN HEAR EVIDENCE AND
ACT AS A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OR A TRIAL COURT; (5) THAT SUCH A
TRIAL AS IT AFFORDS NEED NOT BE ACCORDING TO THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
TRIAL OF FACTS IN OPEN COURT, BY EXAMINATION AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
WITNESSES, BUT THAT THE PROOFS MAY CONSIST MERELY OF EX PARTE
AFFIDAVITS; AND (6) THAT SUCH A TRIAL HAS ALREADY BEEN AFFORDED AND IT
REMAINS ONLY, IN EFFECT, TO CANCEL HARTFORD'S PATENT. 

I THINK THE DECISION OVERRULES PRINCIPLES SETTLED BY SCORES OF
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH ARE VITAL TO THE EQUITABLE AND ORDERLY
DISPOSITION OF CAUSES,  - PRINCIPLES WHICH, UPON THE SOUNDEST
CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS AND POLICY, HAVE STOOD UNQUESTIONED SINCE
THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM WAS ESTABLISHED.  I SHALL FIRST BRIEFLY
STATE THESE PRINCIPLES.  I SHALL THEN AS BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE REASONS
FOR THEIR ADOPTION AND ENFORCEMENT AND, FINALLY, I SHALL SHOW WHY IT
WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO ABANDON THEM IN THIS CASE. 

1.  THE FINAL AND ONLY EXTANT JUDGMENT IN THE LITIGATION IS THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE MANDATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  THE TERM OF THE DISTRICT COURT LONG AGO EXPIRED AND, WITH
THAT EXPIRATION, ALL POWER OF THAT COURT TO REEXAMINE THE JUDGMENT OR
TO ALTER IT CEASED, EXCEPT FOR THE CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERRORS.  THE
PRINCIPLE IS OF UNIVERSAL APPLICATION TO JUDGMENTS AT LAW,  FN3
DECREES IN EQUITY,  FN4  AND CONVICTIONS OF CRIME, THOUGH, AS RESPECTS
THE LATTER, ITS RESULT MAY BE GREAT INDIVIDUAL HARDSHIP.  FN5  THE RULE
MIGHT, FOR THAT REASON, HAVE BEEN RELAXED IN CRIMINAL CASES, IF IT EVER
IS TO BE, FOR THERE, IN CONTRAST TO CIVIL CASES, NO OTHER JUDICIAL
RELIEF IS AVAILABLE. 

IN THE PROMULGATION OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE THIS
COURT TOOK NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT TERMS OF THE DISTRICT COURT VARY IN
LENGTH AND THAT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM MIGHT OCCUR VERY SOON, OR
QUITE A LONG TIME, AFTER THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT.  IN ORDER TO MAKE THE
PRACTICE UNIFORM, RULE 60-B PROVIDES:  "ON MOTION THE COURT, UPON SUCH
TERMS AS ARE JUST, MAY RELIEVE A PARTY OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM
A JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING TAKEN AGAINST HIM THROUGH HIS MISTAKE,
INADVERTENCE, SURPRISE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT.  THE MOTION SHALL BE MADE
WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, BUT IN NO CASE EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS AFTER
SUCH JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING WAS TAKEN.  ...  THIS RULE DOES NOT
LIMIT THE POWER OF A COURT (1) TO ENTERTAIN AN ACTION TO RELIEVE A
PARTY FROM A JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR PROCEEDING.  ...  "  THUS THERE HAS
BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE TERM RULE A DEFINITE TIME LIMITATION WITHIN
WHICH A DISTRICT COURT MAY CORRECT OR MODIFY ITS JUDGMENTS.  BUT THE
SALUTARY RULE AS TO FINALITY IS RETAINED AND, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
SIX MONTHS, THE PARTY MUST APPLY, AS HERETOFORE, BY BILL OF REVIEW,  -
NOW DESIGNATED A CIVIL ACTION - TO OBTAIN RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH
ITSELF IS FINAL SO FAR AS ANY FURTHER STEPS IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION ARE
CONCERNED. 

THE TERM RULE APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE TO AN APPELLATE COURT.  OVER
THE WHOLE COURSE OF ITS HISTORY, THIS COURT HAS UNIFORMLY HELD THAT IT
WAS WITHOUT POWER, AFTER THE GOING DOWN OF THE MANDATE, AND THE
EXPIRATION OF THE TERM, TO REHEAR A CASE OR TO MODIFY ITS DECISION ON
THE MERITS.  FN6  AND THIS IS EQUALLY TRUE OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEAL.  FN7 

THE COURT BELOW, UNLESS WE ARE TO OVERTHROW A CENTURY-AND-A-HALF OF
PRECEDENTS, LACKS POWER NOW TO REVISE ITS JUDGMENT AND LACKS POWER ALSO
TO SEND ITS PROCESS TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND CALL UP FOR REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT ENTERED ON ITS MANDATE TWELVE YEARS AGO.  FN8  NO SUCH POWER
IS INHERENT IN AN APPELLATE COURT; NONE SUCH IS CONFERRED BY ANY
STATUTE. 

2.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY EITHER TO TRY
THE ISSUES POSED BY THE PETITION AND ANSWER ON THE AFFIDAVITS ON FILE,
OR, TO DO AS THE DISSENTING JUDGE BELOW SUGGESTS, HOLD A FULL-DRESS
TRIAL. 

THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE ONLY SUCH POWERS AS ARE EXPRESSLY CONFERRED
ON THEM.  CERTAIN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THIS COURT BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  ITS POWERS AS AN APPELLATE COURT ARE THOSE ONLY WHICH
ARE GIVEN BY STATUTE.  FN9 

THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL ARE CREATURES OF STATUTE.  NO ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION HAS BEEN CONFERRED ON THEM.  THEY EXERCISE ONLY SUCH
APPELLATE FUNCTIONS AS CONGRESS HAS GRANTED.  THE GRANT IS PLAIN.  "THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BY
APPEAL FINAL DECISIONS  ...  IN THE DISTRICT COURTS  ...  "  FN10
NOWHERE IS THERE ANY GRANT OF JURISDICTION TO TRY CASES, TO ENTER
JUDGMENTS, OR TO ISSUE EXECUTIONS OR OTHER FINAL PROCESS. 

"  ...  COURTS CREATED BY STATUTE MUST LOOK TO THE STATUTE AS THE
WARRANT FOR THEIR AUTHORITY; CERTAINLY THEY CANNOT GO BEYOND THE
STATUTE, AND ASSERT AN AUTHORITY WITH WHICH THEY MAY NOT BE INVESTED BY
IT, OR WHICH MAY BE CLEARLY DENIED TO THEM."  FN11 

THIS COURT HAS NEVER DEPARTED FROM THE VIEW THAT CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEAL ARE STATUTORY COURTS HAVING NO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION BUT ONLY
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  FN12 

NEITHER THIS COURT  FN13  NOR A CIRCUIT COURT  FN14  OF APPEALS MAY
HEAR NEW EVIDENCE IN A CAUSE APPEALABLE FROM A LOWER COURT.  NO
SUGGESTION SEEMS EVER BEFORE TO HAVE BEEN MADE THAT THEY MAY CONSTITUTE
THEMSELVES TRIAL COURTS, EMBARK ON THE TRIAL OF WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY AN
INDEPENDENT CAUSE AND ENTER A JUDGMENT OF FIRST INSTANCE ON THE FACTS
AND THE LAW.  BUT THIS IS WHAT THE OPINION SANCTIONS. 

3.  THE TEMPTATION MIGHT BE STRONG TO BREAK NEW GROUND IN THIS CASE
IF HAZEL WERE OTHERWISE REMEDILESS.  SUCH IS NOT THE FACT.  THE REPORTS
ABOUND IN DECISIONS POINTING THE WAY TO RELIEF IF, IN EQUITY, HAZEL IS
ENTITLED TO ANY. 

SINCE LORD BACON'S DAY A DECREE IN EQUITY MAY BE REVERSED OR REVISED
FOR ERROR OF LAW,  FN15 FOR NEW MATTER SUBSEQUENTLY OCCURRING, OR FOR
AFTER-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.  AND THIS HEAD OF EQUITY JURISDICTION HAS
BEEN EXERCISED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE
NATION.  FN16 SUCH A BILL IS AN ORIGINAL BILL IN THE NATURE OF A BILL
OF REVIEW.  EQUITY ALSO, ON ORIGINAL BILLS, EXERCISES A LIKE
JURISDICTION TO PREVENT UNCONSCIONABLE RETENTION OR ENFORCEMENT OF A
JUDGMENT AT LAW PROCURED BY FRAUD, OR MISTAKE UNMIXED WITH NEGLIGENCE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LOSING PARTY, OR RENDERED BECAUSE HE WAS PRECLUDED
FROM MAKING A DEFENSE WHICH HE HAD.  SUCH A BILL MAY BE FILED IN THE
FEDERAL COURT WHICH RENDERED THE JUDGMENT OR IN A FEDERAL COURT OTHER
THAN THE COURT, FEDERAL OR STATE, WHICH RENDERED IT. FN17 

WHETHER THE SUIT CONCERNS A DECREE IN EQUITY OR A JUDGMENT AT LAW, IT
IS FOR RELIEF GRANTED BY EQUITY AGAINST AN UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE
RESULT, AND IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE CUSTOMARY DOCTRINES GOVERNING THE
AWARD OF EQUITABLE RELIEF. 

NEW PROOF TO JUSTIFY A BILL OF REVIEW MUST BE SUCH AS HAS COME TO
LIGHT AFTER JUDGMENT AND SUCH AS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED WHEN THE
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.  THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE MUST NOT ONLY HAVE BEEN
UNKNOWN PRIOR TO JUDGMENT, BUT MUST BE SUCH AS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DISCOVERED BY THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN TIME TO PERMIT
ITS USE IN THE TRIAL.  UNREASONABLE DELAY, OR LACK OF DILIGENCE IN
TIMELY SEARCHING FOR THE EVIDENCE, IS FATAL TO THE RIGHT OF A BILL OF
REVIEW, AND A PARTY MAY NOT ELECT TO FOREGO INQUIRY AND LET THE CAUSE
GO TO JUDGMENT IN THE HOPE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT AND THEN CHANGE HIS
POSITION AND ATTEMPT, BY MEANS OF A BILL OF REVIEW, TO GET THE BENEFIT
OF EVIDENCE HE NEGLECTED TO PRODUCE.  THESE PRINCIPLES ARE ESTABLISHED
BY MANY OF THE CASES CITED IN NOTES 16 AND 17, AND SPECIFIC CITATION IS
UNNECESSARY.  THE PRINCIPLES ARE WELL SETTLED.  AND, IN THIS CLASS OF
CASES AS IN OTHERS, ALTHOUGH EQUITY DOES NOT CONDONE WRONGDOING, IT
WILL NOT EXTEND ITS AID TO A WRONGDOER; IN OTHER WORDS, THE COMPLAINANT
MUST COME INTO COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS. 

4.  CONFESSEDLY THE OPINION REPUDIATES THE UNBROKEN RULE OF DECISION
WITH RESPECT TO THE FINALITY OF A JUDGMENT AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE
TERM; THAT WITH RESPECT TO JURISDICTION OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO TRY
ISSUES OF FACT UPON EVIDENCE, AND THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE NECESSITY
FOR RESORTING TO A BILL OF REVIEW TO MODIFY OR SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT
ONCE IT HAS BECOME FINAL.  PERUSAL OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED WILL
SUFFICIENTLY EXPOSE THE REASONS FOR THESE DOCTRINES.  IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT PARTIES OUGHT NOT TO BE PERMITTED INDEFINITELY TO LITIGATE ISSUES
ONCE TRIED AND ADJUDICATED FN18.  THERE MUST BE AN END TO LITIGATION. 
IF COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE, OR APPELLATE COURTS, WERE AT LIBERTY, ON
APPLICATION OF A PARTY, AT ANY TIME TO INSTITUTE A SUMMARY INQUIRY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF MODIFYING OR NULLIFYING A CONSIDERED JUDGMENT, NO
RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON THAT WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED AND
CITIZENS COULD NOT, WITH ANY CONFIDENCE, ACT IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HAS
APPARENTLY BEEN FINALLY DECIDED. 

IF RELIEF ON EQUITABLE GROUNDS IS TO BE OBTAINED, IT IS RIGHT THAT IT
SHOULD BE SOUGHT BY A FORMAL SUIT UPON ADEQUATE PLEADINGS AND SHOULD BE
GRANTED ONLY AFTER A TRIAL OF ISSUES ACCORDING TO THE USUAL COURSE OF
THE TRIAL OF QUESTIONS OF FACT.  A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IS THE
APPROPRIATE TRIBUNAL, AND THE ONLY TRIBUNAL, EQUIPPED FOR SUCH A
TRIAL.  APPELLATE COURTS HAVE NEITHER THE POWER NOR THE MEANS TO THAT
END. 

ON THE STRONGEST GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY BILLS OF REVIEW ARE
DISFAVORED, SINCE TO FACILITATE THEM WOULD TEND TO ENCOURAGE FRAUDULENT
PRACTICES, RESORT TO PERJURY, AND THE BUILDING OF FICTITIOUS REASONS
FOR SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS. 

5.  I THINK THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE SPEAK LOUDLY FOR THE
OBSERVANCE, AND AGAINST THE REPUDIATION, OF ALL THE RULES TO WHICH I
HAVE REFERRED.  THE COURT'S OPINION IMPLIES THAT THE DISPOSITION HERE
MADE IS JUSTIFIED BY UNCONTRADICTED FACTS, BUT THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES
BEYOND QUESTION THAT SERIOUS CONTROVERTED ISSUES OUGHT TO BE RESOLVED
BEFORE HAZEL MAY HAVE RELIEF. 

IN 1926 HARTFORD BROUGHT A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE PEILER PATENT
AGAINST NIVISON-WEISKOPF COMPANY IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. 
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS IN THAT CASE WERE MESSRS.  WILLIAM R. AND
EDMUND P. WOOD OF CINCINNATI.  ABOUT THE SAME TIME, HARTFORD BROUGHT A
SIMILAR SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT AGAINST KEARNS-GORSUCH BOTTLE COMPANY, A
SUBSIDIARY OF HAZEL.  COUNSEL FOR KEARNS WERE THE SAME WHO HAVE
REPRESENTED HAZEL THROUGHOUT THIS CASE. 

IN 1928 HARTFORD BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST HAZEL IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA FOR A LIKE INFRINGEMENT.  THE SAME COUNSEL REPRESENTED
HAZEL.  THE OHIO SUITS CAME TO TRIAL FIRST.  IN THEM A DECISION WAS
RENDERED ADVERSE TO HARTFORD.  APPEALS WERE TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, WERE CONSOLIDATED, AND COUNSEL FOR THE
DEFENDANTS APPEARED TOGETHER IN THAT COURT, WHICH DECIDED ADVERSELY TO
HARTFORD (58 F.2D 701). 

IN THE PREPARATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE NIVISON SUIT, WILLIAM R.
WOOD CALLED UPON CLARKE AND INTERVIEWED HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF A
WITNESS.  CLARKE ADMITTED THAT HATCH OF HARTFORD HAD PREPARED THE
ARTICLE PUBLISHED UNDER CLARKE'S NAME.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACT THE
MESSRS.  WOOD NOTIFIED HARTFORD THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE THE PRESENCE OF
HATCH AT THE TRIAL OF THE SUIT AND HATCH WAS IN ATTENDANCE DURING THAT
TRIAL.  REPEATEDLY DURING THE TRIAL, HATCH ADMITTED TO THE MESSRS. 
WOOD THAT HE WAS IN FACT THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE.  IT WAS WELL
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE DEFENDANT WANTED HIM PRESENT SO THAT IF ANY
REFERENCE TO OR RELIANCE UPON THE ARTICLE DEVELOPED THEY COULD CALL
HATCH AND PROVE THE FACTS.  THERE WAS NO SUCH REFERENCE OR RELIANCE. 
AS COUNSEL FOR THE VARIOUS DEFENDANTS OPPOSED TO HARTFORD WERE ACTING
IN CLOSE COOPERATION, MESSRS.  WOOD ATTENDED THE TRIAL OF THE HARTFORD
HAZEL SUIT IN PITTSBURGH, WHICH MUST HAVE OCCURRED IN 1929 OR EARLY
1930.  (SEE 39 F.2D 111.)  ONE OR OTHER OF THE MESSRS.  WOOD WAS
PRESENT THROUGHOUT THAT TRIAL AND EDMUND P. WOOD WAS IN FREQUENT
CONSULTATION WITH THE HAZEL REPRESENTATIVES AND COUNSEL.  HAZEL'S
COUNSEL WAS THE SAME AT THAT TRIAL AS IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE
MESSRS.  WOOD TOLD HAZEL'S COUNSEL AND REPRESENTATIVES THAT CLARKE HAD
ADMITTED HATCH WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE AND THAT HATCH HAD ALSO
FREELY ADMITTED THE SAME THING.  HAZEL'S COUNSEL AND REPRESENTATIVES
DISCUSSED AT LENGTH, IN THE PRESENCE OF MR. WOOD, THE ADVISABILITY OF
ATTACKING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ARTICLE.  COUNSEL FOR HAZEL, IN THESE
CONFERENCES, TOOK THE POSITION THAT "AN ATTACK ON THE ARTICLE MIGHT BE
A BOOMERANG IN THAT IT MIGHT EMPHASIZE THE TRUTH OF THE ONLY STATEMENTS
IN THE ARTICLE" WHICH HE REGARDED AS OF ANY POSSIBLE PERTINENCE.  MR.
WOOD'S AFFIDAVIT GIVING IN DETAIL THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE CONCLUSION OF
HAZEL'S COUNSEL IS UNCONTRADICTED, AND DEMONSTRATES THAT HAZEL'S
COUNSEL KNEW THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE CLARKE ARTICLE AND KNEW THE
NAMES OF WITNESSES WHO COULD PROVE THOSE FACTS.  AFTER DUE
DELIBERATION, IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO OFFER PROOF ON THE SUBJECT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND IN FAVOR OF HAZEL, HOLDING THAT HAZEL HAD
NOT INFRINGED.  HARTFORD APPEALED TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  IN THAT COURT HARTFORD'S COUNSEL REFERRED IN ARGUMENT TO THE
CLARKE ARTICLE AND THE COURT, IN ITS DECISION, REFERRED TO THE ARTICLE
AS PERSUASIVE OF CERTAIN FACTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF
GLASS MACHINERY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
RENDERED ITS DECISION IN THE NIVISON AND KEARNS CASES ON MAY 12, 1932,
AND THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED ITS DECISION IN THE
HARTFORD-HAZEL CASE ON MAY 6, 1932. 

COUNSEL FOR HAZEL WAS THEN, NEARLY TEN YEARS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF
THE INSTANT PETITION, CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT THAT, IN ITS OPINION,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD ACCREDITED THE ARTICLE.  NATURALLY
COUNSEL WAS FACED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER HE SHOULD BRING TO THE
COURT'S ATTENTION THE FACTS RESPECTING THAT ARTICLE.  AS I HAVE SAID,
HE ASKED AND WAS GRANTED FIVE EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR FILING A PETITION
FOR REHEARING.  MEANTIME NEGOTIATIONS WERE BEGUN WITH HARTFORD FOR A
GENERAL SETTLEMENT AND FOR HAZEL'S JOINING IN THE COMBINATION AND
PATENT POOL OF WHICH HARTFORD WAS THE HEAD AND FRONT.  AT THE SAME
TIME, HOWEVER, EVIDENTLY AS A PRECAUTION AGAINST THE BREAKDOWN OF THE
NEGOTIATIONS, HAZEL'S COUNSEL OBTAINED AFFIDAVITS TO BE SIGNED BY THE
MESSRS.  WOOD SETTING FORTH THE FACTS WHICH THEY HAD GLEANED CONCERNING
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE CLARKE ARTICLE.  THESE AFFIDAVITS WERE INTENDED
FOR USE IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CASE FOR THEY WERE
CAPTIONED IN THAT CASE.  BEING MADE BY REPUTABLE COUNSEL WHO ARE
ACCREDITED BY BOTH PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING, THEY WERE SUFFICIENT
BASIS FOR A PETITION FOR REHEARING WHILE THE CASE WAS STILL IN THE
BOSOM OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT IS IDLE TO SUGGEST THAT
COUNSEL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING TO THE COURT ON THE
STRENGTH OF THEM. 

HAD COUNSEL FILED A PETITION AND ATTACHED TO IT THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE
MESSRS.  WOOD, WITHOUT MORE, HE WOULD HAVE DONE HIS DUTY TO THE COURT
IN TIMELY CALLING ITS ATTENTION TO THE FRAUD WHICH HAD BEEN
PERPETRATED.  BUT MORE, THE COURT WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE REOPENED THE
CASE, GRANTED REHEARING, AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT
WITH PERMISSION TO HAZEL TO SUMMON AND EXAMINE WITNESSES.  IT IS TO
IGNORE REALITIES TO SUGGEST, AS THE OPINION DOES, THAT COUNSEL FOR
HAZEL WAS HELPLESS AT THAT TIME AND IN THE THEN EXISTING SITUATION. 

BUT COUNSEL DID NOT REST THERE.  HE COMMISSIONED AN INVESTIGATOR WHO
INTERVIEWED A LABOR LEADER NAMED MALONEY IN PHILADELPHIA.  THIS MAN
REFUSED TO TALK BUT THE INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR TO
ANYONE OF AVERAGE SENSE THAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE ARTICLE,
AND ANY LAWYER OF EXPERIENCE WOULD NOT HAVE HESITATED TO SUMMON HIM AS
A WITNESS AND PUT HIM UNDER EXAMINATION.  MOREOVER, THE INVESTIGATOR
INTERVIEWED CLARKE AND HIS REPORT OF THE EVASIVE MANNER AND ANSWERS OF
CLARKE CONVINCE ME, AND I BELIEVE WOULD CONVINCE ANY LAWYER OF NORMAL
PERCEPTION, THAT THE WOODS' AFFIDAVITS WERE TRUE AND THAT CLARKE WOULD
HAVE SO ADMITTED IF CALLED TO THE WITNESS STAND.  MOST EXTRAORDINARY IS
THE OMISSION OF HAZEL'S COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH THEN IN NEGOTIATION WITH
HARTFORD FOR A SETTLEMENT, TO MAKE ANY INQUIRY CONCERNING HATCH OR TO
INTERVIEW HATCH, OR TO HAVE HIM INTERVIEWED WHEN COUNSEL HAD BEEN
ASSURED THAT HATCH HAD NO INCLINATION TO PREVARICATE CONCERNING HIS
PART IN THE PREPARATION OF THE ARTICLE. 

THE CUSTOMARY MODES OF ELICITING TRUTH IN COURT MAY WELL ESTABLISH
THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAZEL'S COUNSEL DELIBERATELY ELECTED TO
FOREGO ANY DISCLOSURE CONCERNING THE CLARKE ARTICLE AND TO PROCURE
INSTEAD THE FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT HE OBTAINED FROM HARTFORD. 

IN ANY EVENT, WE KNOW THAT, ON JULY 21, 1932, HARTFORD AND HAZEL
ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT, WHICH IS NOW BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE RECORD
IN NOS. 7-11 OF THE PRESENT TERM, ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
NORTHERN OHIO.  UNDER THE AGREEMENT HAZEL PAID HARTFORD $1,000,000. 
HARTFORD GRANTED HAZEL A LICENSE ON ALL MACHINES AND METHODS EMBODYING
PATENTED INVENTIONS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF GLASS CONTAINERS AT
HARTFORD'S LOWEST ROYALTY RATES.  HARTFORD AGREED TO PAY HAZEL ONE
THIRD OF ITS NET ROYALTY INCOME TO AND INCLUDING JANUARY 3, 1945, OVER
AND ABOVE $850,000 PER ANNUM.  AT THE SAME TIME, HAZEL ENTERED INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY, ANOTHER PARTY TO THE
HARTFORD PATENT POOL AND THE CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE THE GLASS
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

IN THE AUTUMN OF 1933 COUNSEL FOR SHAWKEE COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN
ANOTHER SUIT BY HARTFORD, OBTAINED DOCUMENTS INDICATING HATCH'S
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CLARKE ARTICLE, AND WROTE COUNSEL FOR HAZEL
INQUIRING WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE MATTER.  HAZEL'S COUNSEL, EVIDENTLY
RELUCTANT TO DISTURB THE EXISTING STATUS, REPLIED THAT, WHILE HE
SUSPECTED HARTFORD MIGHT HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARTICLE, HE DID
NOT AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, KNOW OF THE PAPERS WHICH COUNSEL FOR SHAWKEE
HAD UNEARTHED, AND ADDED THAT HIS RECOLLECTION WAS THEN "TOO INDEFINITE
TO BE POSITIVE AND I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE VOLUMINOUS MASS OF
PAPERS RELATING TO THE VARIOUS HARTFORD-EMPIRE LITIGATIONS, INCLUDING
CORRESPONDENCE, BEFORE I COULD BE MORE DEFINITE." 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN OHIO HAS FOUND THAT THE 1932
AGREEMENT AND COINCIDENT ARRANGEMENTS PLACED HAZEL IN A PREFERRED
POSITION IN THE GLASS CONTAINER INDUSTRY AND DROVE NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE
IN THAT FIELD INTO TAKING LICENSES FROM HARTFORD, STIFLED COMPETITION,
AND GAVE HAZEL, AS A RESULT OF REBATES PAID TO IT, A GREAT ADVANTAGE
OVER ALL COMPETITORS IN THE COST OF ITS PRODUCT.  IT IS UNCONTESTED
THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE AGREEMENT, HAZEL HAS BEEN REPAID THE
$1,000,000 IT PAID HARTFORD AND HAS RECEIVED UPWARDS OF $800,000
ADDITIONAL. 

IN 1941 THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTED AN EQUITY SUIT IN NORTHERN OHIO
AGAINST HARTFORD, HAZEL, OWENS-ILLINOIS, AND OTHER CORPORATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS TO RESTRAIN VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST STATUTES.  THAT
COURT FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS
AND ENTERED AN INJUNCTION ON OCTOBER 8, 1942.  (46 F.SUPP.  541.) 
HAZEL AND OTHER DEFENDANTS APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  THE SAME COUNSEL
REPRESENTED HAZEL IN THAT SUIT, AND IN THE APPEAL TO THIS COURT, AS
REPRESENTED THE COMPANY IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE.  IN ITS BRIEF IN THIS COURT HAZEL
STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT EXECUTED IN 1932, AND
STILL IN FORCE, WAS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED. 

OF COURSE, IN 1941 COUNSEL FOR HAZEL FACED THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT IN OHIO MIGHT FIND AGAINST HAZEL, AND THAT THIS COURT
MIGHT AFFIRM ITS DECISION.  CONSIDERATIONS OF PRUDENCE APPARENTLY
DICTATED THAT HAZEL SHOULD CAST AN ANCHOR TO WINDWARD.  ACCORDINGLY,
NOVEMBER 19, 1941, IT PRESENTED ITS PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BILL
OF REVIEW IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND ATTACHED A
COPY OF THE PROPOSED BILL.  IN ANSWER TO QUESTIONS AT OUR BAR AS TO THE
ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING, COUNSEL ADMITTED THAT, IF
SUCCESSFUL IN IT, HAZEL PROPOSED TO OBTAIN EVERY RESULTANT BENEFIT IT
COULD. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES RECITED, IT BECOMES HIGHLY
IMPORTANT CLOSELY TO SCRUTINIZE HAZEL'S ALLEGATIONS.  IT REFERS TO THE
USE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE CLARKE ARTICLE IN THE
OPINION AND THEN AVERS: 

"THAT ALTHOUGH PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT YOUR PETITIONER
SUSPECTED AND BELIEVED THAT THE ARTICLE HAD BEEN WRITTEN BY ONE OF
PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYEES, INSTEAD OF BY CLARKE, AND HAD BEEN CAUSED BY
PLAINTIFF TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE NATIONAL GLASS BUDGET, PETITIONER DID
NOT KNOW THEN OR UNTIL THIS YEAR MATERIAL AND PERTINENT FACTS WHICH, IF
PETITIONER HAD THEN KNOWN AND BEEN ABLE TO PRESENT TO THIS COURT,
SHOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A DECISION FOR PETITIONER. 

"THAT SUCH FACTS WERE DISCLOSED TO PETITIONER FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
SUIT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. HARTFORD, ET AL., IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, AND ARE
SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS 4, 5 AND 6 OF THE ANNEXED BILL OF REVIEW, WHICH
IS MADE A PART HEREOF. 

"THAT YOUR PETITIONER COULD NOT HAVE ASCERTAINED BY THE USE OF PROPER
AND REASONABLE DILIGENCE THE NEWLY DISCOVERED FACTS PRIOR TO THE SAID
SUIT, AND THAT THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IS TRUE AND MATERIAL AND
SHOULD CAUSE A DECREE IN THIS CAUSE DIFFERENT FROM THAT HERETOFORE
MADE." 

IN THE PROPOSED BILL OF REVIEW THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE REPEATED AND IT
IS ADDED THAT THE NEW FACTS ASCERTAINED CONSIST OF THE TESTIMONY OF
HATCH IN THE ANTITRUST SUIT AND FIVE LETTERS WRITTEN BY VARIOUS PARTIES
CONNECTED WITH THE CONSPIRACY AND A MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY HATCH WHICH
WERE IN EVIDENCE IN THAT SUIT.  THE BILL THEN ADDS: 

"THE NEW MATTER SPECIFIED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS 4, 5 AND 6 IS
MATERIAL, IT ONLY RECENTLY BECAME KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, WHICH COULD NOT
HAVE PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED IT WITH DUE DILIGENCE, AND SUCH NEW EVIDENCE
IF IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO THIS COURT AND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS WOULD HAVE CAUSED A DECISION DIFFERENT FROM THAT REACHED." 

NEITHER THE PETITION NOR THE BILL IS UNDER OATH BUT THERE IS ATTACHED
AN AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL FOR HAZEL IN WHICH HE STATES THAT IN OR BEFORE
1929 HAZEL "HAD SUSPECTED, AND I BELIEVED," THAT THE CLARKE ARTICLE HAD
BEEN WRITTEN BY HATCH AND THAT HARTFORD HAD CAUSED THE ARTICLE TO BE
PUBLISHED, ADDING:  "HAVING BEEN SO TOLD BY THE FIRM OF MESSRS.  WOOD
AND WOOD, CINCINNATI LAWYERS, WHO SAID THEY HAD SO BEEN TOLD BY CLARKE
AND ALSO BY HATCH."  THE AFFIDAVIT ALSO ATTACHES THE REPORTS OF THE
INVESTIGATOR ABOVE REFERRED TO AND REFERS TO THE EXHIBITS AND TESTIMONY
IN THE ANTITRUST SUIT IN NORTHERN OHIO. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS I HAVE RECITED, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IF
HAZEL'S CONDUCT BE WEIGHED MERELY IN THE ASPECT OF NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO
INVESTIGATE, THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN TOLEDO SCALE CO. V.
COMPUTING SCALE CO., 261 U.S. 399, MAY WELL JUSTIFY A HOLDING, ON ALL
AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, THAT, AT LEAST, HAZEL WAS GUILTY OF INEXCUSABLE
NEGLIGENCE IN NOT SEEKING THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ATTACK UPON THE
DECREE.  BUT IT IS HIGHLY POSSIBLE THAT, UPON A FULL TRIAL, IT WILL BE
FOUND THAT HAZEL HELD BACK WHAT IT KNEW AND, IF SO, IS NOT ENTITLED NOW
TO ATTACK THE ORIGINAL DECREE.  IN SCOTTEN V. LITTLEFIELD, 235 U.S.
407, IN AFFIRMING THE DENIAL OF A BILL OF REVIEW, THIS COURT SAID THAT
IF THE CLAIM NOW MADE WAS "NOT PRESENTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WHEN
THERE ON APPEAL IT COULD NOT BE HELD BACK AND MADE THE SUBJECT OF A
BILL OF REVIEW, AS IS NOW ATTEMPTED TO BE DONE."  REPEATEDLY THIS COURT
HAS HELD THAT ONE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO LITIGATE BY BILL OF REVIEW A
QUESTION WHICH IT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE IN THE MAIN SUIT,
WHETHER THE LITIGANT PURPOSELY ABSTAINED FROM BRINGING FORWARD THE
DEFENSE OR NEGLIGENTLY OMITTED TO PROSECUTE INQUIRIES WHICH WOULD HAVE
MADE IT AVAILABLE.  FN19 

AND CERTAINLY AN ISSUE OF SUCH IMPORTANCE AFFECTING THE VALIDITY OF A
JUDGMENT, SHOULD NEVER BE TRIED ON AFFIDAVITS.  FN20 

AS I READ THE OPINION OF THE COURT, IT DISREGARDS THE CONTENTS OF
MANY OF THE AFFIDAVITS FILED IN THE CAUSE AND HOLDS THAT SOLELY BECAUSE
OF THE FRAUD WHICH WAS PRACTICED ON THE PATENT OFFICE AND IN LITIGATION
ON THE PATENT, THE OWNER OF THE PATENT IS TO BE AMERCED AND IN EFFECT
FINED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHER PARTY TO THE SUIT, ALTHOUGH THAT
OTHER COMES WITH UNCLEAN HANDS  FN21 AND STANDS ADJUDGED A PARTY TO A
CONSPIRACY TO BENEFIT OVER A PERIOD OF TWELVE YEARS UNDER THE AEGIS OF
THE VERY PATENT IT NOW ATTACKS FOR FRAUD.  TO DISREGARD THESE
CONSIDERATIONS, TO PRECLUDE INQUIRY CONCERNING THESE MATTERS, IS
RECKLESSLY TO PUNISH ONE WRONGDOER FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, ALTHOUGH
PUNISHMENT HAS NO PLACE IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

HAZEL WELL UNDERSTOOD THE COURSE OF DECISION IN FEDERAL COURTS.  IT
CAME INTO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITH A PETITION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A BILL OF REVIEW, A PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY LONG-SETTLED
PRINCIPLES.  INASMUCH AS THE JUDGMENT IT ATTACKED HAD BEEN ENTERED AS A
RESULT OF THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HAZEL PROPERLY
APPLIED TO THAT COURT FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS BILL IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  FN22  THE RESPONDENT DID NOT OBJECT ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERING AND ACTING ON THE PETITION. 
THAT COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION DENIED THE PETITION AND PERMITTED
AMENDMENT TO PRAY RELIEF THERE.    ON THE QUESTION WHAT AMOUNTS TO A
SUFFICIENT SHOWING TO MOVE AN APPELLATE COURT TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE A
BILL OF REVIEW IN THE TRIAL COURT, THE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT UNIFORM. 
WHERE THE LACK OF MERIT IS OBVIOUS, APPELLATE COURTS HAVE REFUSED
LEAVE,  FN23  BUT WHERE THE FACTS ARE COMPLICATED IT IS OFTEN THE
BETTER COURSE TO GRANT LEAVE AND TO ALLOW AVAILABLE DEFENSES TO BE MADE
IN ANSWER TO THE BILL.  FN24  IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, I THINK IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN PROPER FOR THE COURT TO PERMIT THE FILING OF THE BILL IN THE
DISTRICT COURT WHERE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES TO SUMMON, TO EXAMINE,
AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, AND TO HAVE A DELIBERATE AND ORDERLY
TRIAL OF THE ISSUES ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS WOULD BE
PRESERVED. 

I SHOULD REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITH
DIRECTIONS TO PERMIT THE FILING OF THE BILL IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN BELL TELEPHONE CO., 128 U.S. 315; 167
U.S. 224, 238. 

FN2  THE FACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE FRAUD PRACTICED ON THE PATENT
OFFICE HAVE BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME YEARS. 

FN3  BANK OF UNITED STATES V. MOSS, 6 HOW.  31, 38; ROEMER V. SIMON,
91 U.S. 149; PHILLIPS V. NEGLEY, 117 U.S. 665, 672, 678; HICKMAN V.
FORT SCOTT, 141 U.S. 415; TUBMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 190 U.S.
38; WETMORE V. KARRICK, 205 U.S. 141, 151-2; IN RE METROPOLITAN TRUST
CO., 218 U.S. 312, 320; DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V. RELLSTAB, 276 U.S.
1, 5; REALTY ACCEPTANCE CORP. V. MONTGOMERY, 284 U.S. 547, 549. 

FN4  CAMERON V. MCROBERTS, 3 WHEAT.  591; SIBBALD V. UNITED STATES,
12 PET. 488, 492; WASHINGTON BRIDGE CO. V. STEWART, 3 HOW.  413, 426;
CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. GRANT LOCOMOTIVE WORKS, 135 U.S. 207; WAYNE GAS
CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 300 U.S. 131, 136; SPRAGUE V. TICONIC BANK,
307 U.S. 161, 169. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. MAYER, 235 U.S. 55, 67.  IN THIS CASE ONE
FREEMAN WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  AFTER HE HAD TAKEN AN
APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HE FILED, AFTER THE TERM HAD
EXPIRED, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT A JUROR
WILFULLY CONCEALED BIAS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WHEN EXAMINED ON HIS VOIR
DIRE.  AFTER HEARING THIS MOTION THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOUND AS A FACT
THAT THE JUROR HAD BEEN GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT AND THAT THE DEFENDANT AND
HIS COUNSEL NEITHER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE WRONG NOR COULD HAVE
DISCOVERED IT EARLIER BY DUE DILIGENCE.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE WAS IN
DOUBT WHETHER, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM, HE HAD POWER TO DEAL
WITH THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
CERTIFIED THE QUESTION TO THIS COURT WHICH, IN A UNANIMOUS OPINION,
RENDERED AFTER FULL ARGUMENT BY ABLE COUNSEL, HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ALL EARLIER PRECEDENTS THAT, EVEN IN A CASE OF SUCH HARDSHIP, THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD NO SUCH POWER. 

FN6  HUDSON V. GUESTIER, 7 CR. 1; JACKSON V. ASHTON, 10 PET. 480;
SIBBALD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 492; WASHINGTON BRIDGE CO. V. STEWART,
SUPRA; BROOKS V. RAILROAD CO., 102 U.S. 107; BARNEY V. FRIEDMAN, 107
U.S. 629; HICKMAN V. FORT SCOTT, SUPRA, 419; BUSHNELL V. CROOKE MINING
CO., 150 U.S. 82. 

FN7  EX PARTE NATIONAL PARK BANK, 256 U.S. 131.  "THAT COURT WAS
POWERLESS TO MODIFY THE DECREE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM AT
WHICH IT WAS ENTERED.  IF THE OMISSION IN THE DECREE HAD BEEN
ADEQUATELY CALLED TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION DURING THE TERM IT WOULD
DOUBTLESS HAVE CORRECTED THE ERROR COMPLAINED OF; OR RELIEF MIGHT HAVE
BEEN SOUGHT IN THIS COURT BY A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  THE
BANK FAILED TO AVAIL ITSELF OF REMEDIES OPEN TO IT."  (P. 133.)  THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE UNIFORMLY OBSERVED THE RULE THUS
ANNOUNCED.  HART V. WILTSEE, 25 F.2D 863; NACHOD V. ENGINEERING &
RESEARCH CORP., 108 F.2D 594; MONTGOMERY V. REALTY ACCEPTANCE CORP., 51
F.2D 642; FOSTER BROS. MFG. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 90 F.2D 948; WICHITA
ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 97 F.2D 249; HAWKINS V. CLEVELAND,
C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 99 F. 322; WALSH CONSTRUCTION CO. V. U.S.
GUARANTEE CO., 76 F.2D 240; WASKEY V. HAMMER, 179 F. 273. 

FN8  SIBBALD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 492; ROEMER V. SIMON, 91 U.S.
149; IN RE SANFORD FORK & TOOL CO., 160 U.S. 247. 

FN9  EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 4 CR. 75, 93. 

FN10  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 128 AS AMENDED; 28 U.S.C. 225. 

FN11  CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236, 245.  SEE SHELDON V. SILL, 8 HOW. 
441, 449; KENTUCKY V. POWERS, 201 U.S. 1, 24. 

FN12  WHITNEY V. DICK, 202 U.S. 132, 137; UNITED STATES V. MAYER,
SUPRA, 65; REALTY ACCEPTANCE CORP. V. MONTGOMERY, SUPRA, 549. 

FN13  RUSSELL V. SOUTHARD, 12 HOW.  139, 158, 159; UNITED STATES V.
KNIGHT'S ADM'R, 1 BLACK 488; ROEMER V. SIMON, SUPRA.  IN THE RUSSELL
CASE CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY SAID:  "IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT AFFIDAVITS OF
NEWLY-DISCOVERED TESTIMONY CANNOT BE RECEIVED FOR SUCH A PURPOSE.  THIS
COURT MUST AFFIRM OR REVERSE UPON THE CASE AS IT APPEARS IN THE
RECORD.  WE CANNOT LOOK OUT OF IT, FOR TESTIMONY TO INFLUENCE THE
JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT SITTING, AS AN APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.  AND,
ACCORDING TO THE PRACTICE OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY FROM ITS EARLIEST
HISTORY TO THE PRESENT TIME, NO PAPER NOT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW CAN BE
READ ON THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL.  EDEN V. EARL BUTE, 1 BRO. PAR. CAS.
465; 3 BRO. PAR. CAS. 546; STUDWELL V. PALMER, 5 PAIGE, 166. 

"INDEED, IF THE ESTABLISHED CHANCERY PRACTICE HAD BEEN OTHERWISE, THE
ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 3D, 1803, EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS THE INTRODUCTION
OF NEW EVIDENCE, IN THIS COURT, ON THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL FROM A
CIRCUIT COURT, EXCEPT IN ADMIRALTY AND PRIZE CAUSES." 

FN14  REALTY ACCEPTANCE CORP. V. MONTGOMERY, SUPRA, 550, 551. 

FN15  A BILL FILED TO CORRECT ERROR OF LAW APPARENT ON THE RECORD IS
CALLED A STRICT BILL OF REVIEW AND SOME RULES AS TO TIME ARE PECULIARLY
APPLICABLE TO SUCH BILLS.  SEE WHITING V. BANK OF UNITED STATES, 13
PET. 6, 13, 14, 15; SHELTON V. VAN KLEECK, 106 U.S. 532; CENTRAL TRUST
CO. V. GRANT LOCOMOTIVE WORKS, 135 U.S. 207.  STREET, FEDERAL EQUITY
PRACTICE, SEC. 2129 ET SEQ. WITH THIS TYPE OF BILL WE ARE NOT HERE
CONCERNED. 

FN16  OCEAN INS. CO. V. FIELDS, 2 STORY 59; WHITING V. BANK OF UNITED
STATES, SUPRA; SOUTHARD V. RUSSELL, 16 HOW.  547; MINNESOTA CO. V. ST.
PAUL CO., 2 WALL.  609; PURCELL V. MINER, 4 WALL.  519; RUBBER CO. V.
GOODYEAR, 9 WALL.  805; EASLEY V. KELLOM, 14 WALL.  279; PUTNAM V. DAY,
22 WALL.  60; BUFFINGTON V. HARVEY, 95 U.S. 99; CRAIG V. SMITH, 100
U.S. 226; SHELTON V. VAN KLEECK, SUPRA; PACIFIC RAILROAD V. MISSOURI
PACIFIC RY. CO., 111 U.S. 505; CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. GRANT LOCOMOTIVE
WORKS, SUPRA; BOONE COUNTY V. BURLINGTON & M.R.R. CO., 139 U.S. 684;
HOPKINS V. HEBARD, 235 U.S. 287; SCOTTEN V. LITTLEFIELD, 235 U.S. 407;
NATIONAL BRAKE & ELECTRIC CO. V. CHRISTENSEN, 254 U.S. 425; SIMMONS CO.
V. GRIER BROS. CO., 258 U.S. 82; JACKSON V. IRVING TRUST CO., 311 U.S.
494, 499. 

FN17  LOGAN V. PATRICK, 5 CR. 288; MARINE INS. CO. V. HODGSON, 7 CR.
332; DUNN V. CLARKE, 8 PET. 1; TRULY V. WANZER, 5 HOW.  141; CREATH'S
ADM'R V. SIMS, 5 HOW.  192; HUMPHREYS V. LEGGETT, 9 HOW.  297; WALKER
V. ROBBINS, 14 HOW.  584; HENDRICKSON V. HINCKLEY, 17 HOW.  443;
LEGGETT V. HUMPHREYS, 21 HOW.  66; GUE V. TIDE WATER CANAL CO., 24
HOW.  257; FREEMAN V. HOWE, 24 HOW.  450; KIBBE V. BENSON, 17 WALL. 
624; CRIM V. HANDLEY, 94 U.S. 652; BROWN V. COUNTY OF BUENA VISTA, 95
U.S. 157; UNITED STATES V. THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61; BRONSON V.
SCHULTEN, 104 U.S. 410; EMBRY V. PALMER, 107 U.S. 3; WHITE V. CROW, 110
U.S. 183; KRIPPENDORF V. HYDE, 110 U.S. 276; JOHNSON V. WATERS, 111
U.S. 640; RICHARDS V. MACKALL, 124 U.S. 183; ARROWSMITH V. GLEASON, 129
U.S. 86; KNOX COUNTY V. HARSHMAN, 133 U.S. 152; MARSHALL V. HOLMES, 141
U.S. 589; NORTH CHICAGO ROLLING MILL CO. V. ST. LOUIS ORE & STEEL CO.,
152 U.S. 596; ROBB V. VOS, 155 U.S. 13; HOWARD V. DE CORDOVA, 177 U.S.
609; UNITED STATES V. BEEBE, 180 U.S. 343; PICKFORD V. TALBOTT, 225
U.S. 651; SIMON V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 236 U.S. 115; WELLS FARGO & CO. V.
TAYLOR, 254 U.S. 175. 

FN18  IT HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN SAID THAT WHERE THE GROUND FOR A BILL OF
REVIEW IS FRAUD, REVIEW WILL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS THE FRAUD WAS
EXTRINSIC.  SEE UNITED STATES V. THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61.  THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC FRAUD IS NOT TECHNICAL BUT
SUBSTANTIAL.  THE STATEMENT THAT ONLY EXTRINSIC FRAUD MAY BE THE BASIS
OF A BILL OF REVIEW IS MERELY A COROLLARY OF THE RULE THAT REVIEW WILL
NOT BE GRANTED TO PERMIT RELITIGATION OF MATTERS WHICH WERE IN ISSUE IN
THE CAUSE AND ARE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED BY THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE.  THE
CLASSICAL EXAMPLE OF INTRINSIC AS CONTRASTED WITH EXTRINSIC FRAUD IS
THE COMMISSION OF PERJURY BY A WITNESS.  WHILE PERJURY IS A FRAUD UPON
THE COURT, THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES IS IN ISSUE, FOR IT IS ONE OF
THE MATTERS ON WHICH THE TRIER OF FACT MUST PASS IN ORDER TO REACH A
FINAL JUDGMENT.  AN ALLEGATION THAT A WITNESS PERJURED HIMSELF IS
INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THE MATERIALITY OF THE TESTIMONY, AND OPPORTUNITY
TO ATTACK IT, WAS OPEN AT THE TRIAL.  WHERE THE AUTHENTICITY OF A
DOCUMENT RELIED ON AS PART OF A LITIGANT'S CASE IS MATERIAL TO
ADJUDICATION, AS WAS THE GRANT IN THE THROCKMORTON CASE, AND THERE WAS
OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE THIS MATTER, FRAUD IN THE PREPARATION OF THE
DOCUMENT IS NOT EXTRINSIC BUT INTRINSIC AND WILL NOT SUPPORT REVIEW. 
ANY FRAUD CONNECTED WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE CLARKE ARTICLE IN THIS
CASE WAS EXTRINSIC, AND, SUBJECT TO OTHER RELEVANT RULES, WOULD SUPPORT
A BILL OF REVIEW. 

FN19  HENDRICKSON V. HINCKLEY, SUPRA, 446; RUBBER CO. V. GOODYEAR,
SUPRA, 806; CRIM V. HANDLEY, SUPRA, 660; BRONSON V. SCHULTEN, SUPRA,
417, 418; RICHARDS V. MACKALL, SUPRA, 188, 189; BOONE COUNTY V.
BURLINGTON & M.R.R. CO., SUPRA, 693; PICKFORD V. TALBOTT, SUPRA, 658. 

FN20  JACKSON V. IRVING TRUST CO., SUPRA, 499; SORENSON V.
SUTHERLAND, 109 F.2D 714, 719. 

FN21  CREATH'S ADM'R V. SIMS, SUPRA, 204. 

FN22  SOUTHARD V. RUSSELL, SUPRA, 570, 571; PURCELL V. MINER, SUPRA,
519; RUBBER CO. V. GOODYEAR, SUPRA; NATIONAL BRAKE & ELECTRIC CO. V.
CHRISTENSEN, SUPRA, 431; SIMMONS CO. V. GRIER BROS. CO., SUPRA, 91. 

FN23  PURCELL V. MINER, SUPRA; RUBBER CO. V. GOODYEAR, SUPRA. 

FN24  OCEAN INSURANCE CO. V. FIELDS, 2 STORY 59; IN RE GAMEWELL FIRE
ALARM TEL. CO., 73 F. 908; RAFFOLD PROCESS CORP. V. CASTANEA PAPER CO.,
105 F.2D 126. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AGREES WITH THE RESULT SUGGESTED IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :












SHAWKEE MFG. CO. V. HARTFORD CO., 322 U.S. 271 


NO. 423.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 10, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 137
F.2D 764, REVERSED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V. HARTFORD-EMPIRE
CO., ANTE, P. 238. 

SHAWKEE MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL. V. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 732, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DENYING RELIEF IN A BILL OF REVIEW PROCEEDING COMMENCED IN THAT
COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HERE AS IN HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., ANTE, P.
238, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT HAS DECLINED TO
SET ASIDE JUDGMENTS ENTERED AT A PRIOR TERM.  137 F.2D 764.  BOTH THIS
CASE AND THE HAZEL-ATLAS CASE INVOLVE THE VALIDITY OF JUDGMENTS
OBTAINED BY HARTFORD-EMPIRE ADJUDICATING INFRINGEMENT OF THE "GOB
FEEDING" PATENT NO. 1,655,391 OWNED BY HARTFORD.  IN THE HAZEL-ATLAS
CASE, SUPRA, WE HAVE HELD HARTFORD'S PROVEN FRAUDS IN CONNECTION WITH
OBTAINING AND ENFORCING THAT PATENT WERE OF SUCH NATURE THAT THE DECREE
OF INFRINGEMENT AGAINST HAZEL-ATLAS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE, AND HAVE
DIRECTED THAT APPROPRIATE ORDERS BE ENTERED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT
PURPOSE.  NEVERTHELESS, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE DECREES RENDERED AGAINST
SHAWKEE AND OTHERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STAND BECAUSE OF CERTAIN
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEIR SITUATION AND THAT OF HAZEL-ATLAS.  THESE ARE
THE DIFFERENTIATING FACTS: 

HARTFORD'S INFRINGEMENT SUIT AGAINST SHAWKEE AND THE OTHER PETITIONERS
WAS NOT BEGUN UNTIL 1933 AFTER THE DECISION OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS THE PREVIOUS YEAR HOLDING HARTFORD'S "GOB FEEDING" PATENT
VALID AND INFRINGED BY HAZEL-ATLAS.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HAVING BEEN
REVERSED BY THAT PREVIOUS DECISION, HELD SHAWKEE AND THE OTHERS GUILTY
OF INFRINGEMENT.  ON APPEAL TO THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THAT
COURT DID NOT AGAIN QUOTE FROM THE SPURIOUS CLARKE ARTICLE BUT, LIKE
THE DISTRICT COURT, SIMPLY HELD IN FAVOR OF HARTFORD ON THE AUTHORITY
OF THE 1932 DECISION.  68 F.2D 726.  WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING FINAL
DISPOSITION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SHAWKEE'S COUNSEL COMMUNICATED WITH
JUDGE BUFFINGTON CHARGING THAT THE CLARKE ARTICLE WAS SPURIOUS; BUT AT
THAT TIME SHAWKEE HAD NO DIRECT PROOF OF ITS CHARGE.  THAT PROOF, AS
POINTED OUT IN OUR HAZEL-ATLAS OPINION, SUPRA, WAS AVAILABLE ONLY AFTER
THE UNITED STATES OFFERED ITS EVIDENCE IN THE ANTI-TRUST SUIT IN 1941. 

NONE OF THESE FACTS, WE THINK, SHOULD DEPRIVE SHAWKEE AND THE OTHERS
OF RELIEF AGAINST HARTFORD'S FRAUDULENT CONDUCT.  TO OBTAIN ITS
JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM, HARTFORD SUCCESSFULLY USED THE JUDGMENT AGAINST
HAZEL-ATLAS WITHOUT DISCLOSING ITS PREVIOUS MISCONDUCT.  KEYSTONE
DRILLER CO. V. EXCAVATOR CO., 290 U.S. 240, 246-247.  HARTFORD CAN
DERIVE NO AID FROM THE FACT THAT SHAWKEE REPORTED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
ITS BELIEF AS TO THE DECEPTIVE AUTHORSHIP OF THE CLARKE ARTICLE.  WITH
THAT CHARGE ON THE RECORD, HONEST DEALING WITH THE COURT REQUIRED THAT
HARTFORD SHOULD MAKE A FULL DISCLOSURE OF ITS FRAUDULENT CONSPIRACY. 
ITS FAILURE TO DO SO UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AGGRAVATED THE PREVIOUS
DECEPTION IT HAD PRACTICED ON THE PATENT OFFICE AND THE COURTS. 

THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF OF SHAWKEE AND THE OTHERS WAS THAT THE COURT
ADJUDGE THAT HARTFORD DID NOT COME INTO COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS, AND
THAT THEY BE FULLY FREED FROM FURTHER OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE JUDGMENTS
AGAINST THEM.  THIS RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED.  THEY FURTHER PRAYED THAT
A MASTER BE APPOINTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO RENDER AN
ACCOUNTING OF COSTS INCURRED IN THESE AND FORMER PROCEEDINGS, MONEYS
PAID BY THEM TO HARTFORD PURSUANT TO THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENTS, AND
DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THEM BECAUSE OF HARTFORD'S UNLAWFUL USE OF ITS
PATENT.  WHETHER THIS TYPE OF RELIEF WILL BE GRANTED MUST DEPEND UPON
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH ENTERED THE JUDGMENT OF
INFRINGEMENT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED.  THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO IT WITH DIRECTIONS TO SET ASIDE ITS 1934 JUDGMENT,
RECALL THE MANDATE, AND DISMISS THE APPEAL; AND ISSUE MANDATE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO SET ASIDE ITS JUDGMENT FINDING
HARTFORD'S PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED, DENY HARTFORD ALL RELIEF AGAINST
INFRINGEMENT OF THIS PATENT, AND PERMIT SHAWKEE AND THE OTHERS TO BRING
SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
PRAYER FOR RELIEF.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN MY DISSENT IN HAZEL-ATLAS GLASS CO. V.
HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO., ANTE, P. 251, I THINK THAT THE DECREE SHOULD BE
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE COURT BELOW TO
GRANT THE PETITIONERS LEAVE TO FILE A BILL OF REVIEW IN THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AGREES WITH THE RESULT SUGGESTED IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



DOUGLAS V. COMMISSIONER, 322 U.S. 275 


ARGUED MARCH 7, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 134 F.2D 762,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  ARTICLE 23(M)-10(C) OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, WHICH IN THE CASE
OF A LEASE OF AN IRON ORE MINE TERMINATED IN 1937 WITHOUT ANY ORE
HAVING BEEN EXTRACTED DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE LEASE, REQUIRES THAT
DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS TAKEN IN PRIOR YEARS ON RECEIPT OF ADVANCE
ROYALTIES BE RESTORED TO THE LESSOR'S CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THAT A
CORRESPONDING AMOUNT BE RETURNED AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE
LEASE WAS TERMINATED, HELD VALID, AS AUTHORIZED BY AND CONSISTENT WITH
SEC. 23(M) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH SECS.
113(B)(1)(B) AND 114(B)(1) OR SECS. 41 AND 42 OF THE ACT.  P. 280. 

2.  A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHICH REFUSED TO TREAT AS INCOME OF THE
TAXPAYER FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LEASE WAS TERMINATED THE AMOUNT OF A
DEPLETION DEDUCTION WHICH, IN THE YEAR TAKEN AND ALLOWED, RESULTED IN
NO TAX BENEFIT, AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT.  P. 287. 

DOUGLAS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

NOS. 130 AND 131.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 132, ESTATE OF ROBINSON ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, AND NO. 133, DALRYMPLE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 734, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED IN PART
AND REVERSED IN PART A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UPON REVIEW
OF DETERMINATIONS OF DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ASSESSED INCOME TAX DEFICIENCIES
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE YEAR 1937, BECAUSE OF THEIR FAILURE TO
INCLUDE IN INCOME FOR THAT YEAR SUMS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED BY THE
TERMS OF ARTICLE 23(M)-10(C) OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, ISSUED
PURSUANT TO SEC. 23(M), REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  THE FACTS WERE NOT IN
DISPUTE.  BESSIE P. DOUGLAS, THE PETITIONER IN NOS. 130 AND 131, WAS IN
1929 CO-OWNER WITH ADELINE R. MORSE, CHARLES H. ROBINSON, AND IRENE B.
ROBINSON CIRKLER OF AN IRON ORE MINE IN ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
KNOWN AS THE PETTIT MINE.  THE PETITIONERS IN NO. 132 ARE THE EXECUTORS
OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES H. ROBINSON, AND THE PETITIONER IN NO. 133 IS
THE TRANSFEREE OF THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE OF IRENE B. ROBINSON
CIRKLER, DECEASED.  FN1  IN 1929 ITS CO-OWNERS LEASED THIS MINE TO THE
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION.  THE LEASE, AS AMENDED IN 1933, RAN FOR A
TERM OF THIRTY YEARS, BUT THE LESSEE WAS GIVEN THE POWER TO CANCEL IT
AT THE END OF EIGHT YEARS.  THE LESSEE UNDERTOOK TO PAY A ROYALTY OF 40
CENTS A TON FOR THE ORE REMOVED AND GUARANTEED MINIMUM ROYALTIES OF
$20,000 A YEAR FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND $40,000 A YEAR THEREAFTER,
SUBJECT AFTER FIVE YEARS TO THE PAYMENT OF $60,000 A YEAR AS A MINIMUM
DURING THE TIME IT FAILED TO REMOVE CERTAIN WATER FROM THE MINE.  IN
CASE THE GUARANTEE REQUIRED THE LESSEE TO PAY IN ANY ONE YEAR FOR MORE
ORE THAN IT ACTUALLY REMOVED, IT WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE EXCESS
PAYMENT APPLIED AGAINST REMOVALS IN LATER YEARS.  THE LESSEE PAID THE
MINIMUM ROYALTIES EACH YEAR, BUT IT REMOVED NO ORE AT ALL, AND AS OF
JULY 1, 1937, AT THE END OF THE EIGHT-YEAR PERIOD, IT SURRENDERED THE
LEASE.  EACH LESSOR TOOK A PROPER DEPLETION DEDUCTION IN THE RESPECTIVE
YEARS THE ROYALTIES WERE PAID, 1929 TO 1936, INCLUSIVE.  IN THE YEAR
1933, BESSIE P. DOUGLAS CLAIMED A DEPLETION DEDUCTION OF $4,958.05, BUT
SINCE SHE HAD SUSTAINED A NET LOSS OF $13,947.51, THIS DEDUCTION DID
NOT AFFECT HER TAX LIABILITY.  THE COMMISSIONER REQUIRED ALL OF THE
DEDUCTIONS TO BE TAXED AS INCOME IN 1937.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
AFFIRMED HIS CONCLUSION, EXCEPT AS TO THE 1933 DEDUCTIONS BY BESSIE P.
DOUGLAS, WHICH WAS REVERSED.  46 B.T.A. 943.  UPON APPEALS BY THE
TAXPAYERS AND, IN NO. 131, BY THE COMMISSIONER, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS UPHELD THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS.  134 F.2D 762.  WE GRANTED
PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO SETTLE A QUESTION RESERVED BY OUR
DECISION IN HERRING V. COMMISSIONER, 293 U.S. 322, 328, AS TO COST
DEPLETION, AND TO CONSIDER AN ISSUE SIMILAR TO THAT INVOLVED IN DOBSON
V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1913, SEC. IIG)(B), GRANTED A DEDUCTION FOR
DEPLETION BASED SOLELY ON ACTUAL PRODUCTION AND "NOT TO EXCEED 5 PER
CENTUM OF THE GROSS VALUE AT THE MINE OF THE OUTPUT FOR THE YEAR." 
UNDER THIS ACT, ADVANCE ROYALTIES WERE TAXED WITHOUT DEDUCTION FOR
DEPLETION.  IN 1916 CONGRESS REMOVED THE 5% CEILING, BUT THE DEDUCTION
WAS STILL LIMITED TO THE YEAR OF ACTUAL EXTRACTION.  REVENUE ACT OF
1916, SEC. 5(A) EIGHTH (B).  THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THE DEPLETION
1918, WHICH, LIKE THE 1916 ACT, AUTHORIZED "A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPLETION  ...  UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED" WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY; BUT THE 1918 ACT NO LONGER
LIMITED THE ALLOWANCE TO THE PRODUCT ACTUALLY MINED AND SOLD DURING THE
YEAR.  THE SECTION NOW READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(M)  DEPLETION.  - IN THE CASE OF MINES, OIL AND GAS WELLS, OTHER
NATURAL DEPOSITS, AND TIMBER, A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION AND
FOR DEPRECIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS
IN EACH CASE; SUCH REASONABLE ALLOWANCE IN ALL CASES TO BE MADE UNDER
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY.  IN ANY CASE IN WHICH IT IS ASCERTAINED AS A
RESULT OF OPERATIONS OR OF DEVELOPMENT WORK THAT THE RECOVERABLE UNITS
ARE GREATER OR LESS THAN THE PRIOR ESTIMATE THEREOF, THEN SUCH PRIOR
ESTIMATE (BUT NOT THE BASIS FOR DEPLETION) SHALL BE REVISED AND THE
ALLOWANCE UNDER THIS SUBSECTION FOR SUBSEQUENT TAXABLE YEARS SHALL BE
BASED UPON SUCH REVISED ESTIMATE.  ..."  REVENUE ACT OF 1936, C. 690,
49 STAT. 1648, 1658-60. 

FROM THE BEGINNING OF INCOME TAXATION, AS NOW, THE REGULATIONS
COVERED THE CONVENTIONAL SITUATIONS OF PAYMENTS FOR ORES AS MINED AND
MADE PROVISION FOR DEPLETION MEASURED BY THE VOLUME ACTUALLY
EXTRACTED.  THE 1918 ACT PERMITTED THE NEW REGULATIONS, REGULATIONS 45,
ARTICLE 215(C), TO PROVIDE FOR THE FIRST TIME A DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR
OF RECEIPT OF ADVANCE ROYALTIES OF A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE CALCULATED ON
THE UNIT VALUE OF THE MINERAL IN PLACE.  THIS MET A FREQUENTLY
RECURRING VARIATION FROM THE NORMAL LEASE.  AS A COROLLARY THE
REGULATIONS REQUIRED THAT IN CASE A LEASE WAS SURRENDERED BEFORE THE
LESSEE HAD EXTRACTED ALL THE ORE FOR WHICH ADVANCE ROYALTIES HAD BEEN
PAID, A SUM EQUAL TO THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED ON SUCH
ORE SHOULD BE TAXED AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF THE SURRENDER OF THE
LEASE.  THE BONUS OR ADVANCED ROYALTY REGULATIONS HAVE REMAINED
PRACTICALLY UNCHANGED SINCE 1919.  FN2  THE SUBSECTIONS APPLICABLE TO
PREPAID ROYALTIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"ART. 23(M)-10.  DEPLETION - ADJUSTMENTS OF ACCOUNTS BASED ON BONUS
OR ADVANCED ROYALTY 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"(B)  IF THE OWNER HAS LEASED A MINERAL PROPERTY FOR A TERM OF YEARS
WITH A REQUIREMENT IN THE LEASE THAT THE LESSEE SHALL EXTRACT AND PAY
FOR, ANNUALLY, A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF TONS, OR OTHER AGREED UNITS OF
MEASUREMENT, OF SUCH MINERAL, OR SHALL PAY, ANNUALLY, A SPECIFIED SUM
OF MONEY WHICH SHALL BE APPLIED IN PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OR
ROYALTY PER UNIT OF SUCH MINERAL WHENEVER THE SAME SHALL THEREAFTER BE
EXTRACTED AND REMOVED FROM THE LEASED PREMISES, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THAT
PART OF THE BASIS FOR DEPLETION ALLOCABLE TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS SO
PAID FOR IN ADVANCE OF EXTRACTION WILL CONSTITUTE AN ALLOWABLE
DEDUCTION FROM THE GROSS INCOME OF THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH PAYMENT OR
PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE; BUT NO DEDUCTION FOR DEPLETION BY THE LESSOR
SHALL BE CLAIMED OR ALLOWED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF THE
EXTRACTION OR REMOVAL IN SUCH YEAR OF ANY MINERAL SO PAID FOR IN
ADVANCE AND FOR WHICH DEDUCTION HAS ONCE BEEN MADE. 

"(C)  IF FOR ANY REASON ANY SUCH MINERAL LEASE EXPIRES OR TERMINATES
OR IS ABANDONED BEFORE THE MINERAL WHICH HAS BEEN PAID FOR IN ADVANCE
HAS BEEN EXTRACTED AND REMOVED, THE LESSOR SHALL ADJUST HIS CAPITAL
ACCOUNT BY RESTORING THERETO THE DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS MADE IN PRIOR
YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTIES ON MINERAL PAID FOR BUT NOT REMOVED, AND
A CORRESPONDING AMOUNT MUST BE RETURNED AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH
THE LEASE EXPIRES, TERMINATES, OR IS ABANDONED."  TREASURY REGULATIONS
94, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936. 

THE DEFICIENCY HERE ASSESSED FALLS SQUARELY UNDER THE SUBSECTIONS. 
THEIR VALIDITY IS THEREFORE THE DECISIVE ISSUE.  IN OUR OPINION THE
REGULATIONS ARE VALID. 

SINCE THE REVENUE ACTS HAVE NOT FORBIDDEN RECOGNITION OF BONUS OR
ADVANCED ROYALTIES AS A BASIS FOR THE CALCULATION OF APPROPRIATE
DEPLETION, THE PROVISION OF THE REGULATIONS FOR A DEPLETION OFFSET
AGAINST THEIR RECEIPT IS WITHIN THE BROAD RULE-MAKING DELEGATION OF
SEC. 23(M).  ROYALTY OR BONUS PAYMENTS IN ADVANCE OF ACTUAL EXTRACTION
OF MINERALS ARE, LIKE SALES AFTER SEVERANCE OR ROYALTY PAYMENTS ON
ACTUAL PRODUCTION, GROSS INCOME AND NOT A RECOVERY OF CAPITAL. 
STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE V. HOWBERT, 231 U.S. 399, 418; STANTON V.
BALTIC MINING CO., 240 U.S. 103, 114; BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103;
HERRING V. COMMISSIONER, 293 U.S. 322, 324.  CF. ANDERSON V. HELVERING,
310 U.S. 404, 407-8.  ANY DEDUCTION FROM THIS INCOME FOR DEPLETION, OF
COURSE, MAY BE ALLOWED UPON SUCH TERMS AS CONGRESS MAY DEEM ADVISABLE. 
HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., 303 U.S. 362, 366; UNITED STATES V.
LUDEY, 274 U.S. 295, 302.  DEPLETION BASED ON COST IS LIKE
DEPRECIATION.  CONGRESS HAS ALLOWED A RECOVERY OF THE CAPITAL INVESTED
IN A MINE BUT, EXCEPT IN DISCOVERY OR PERCENTAGE DEPLETION IN SPECIAL
INSTANCES WHICH ARE NOT HERE INVOLVED, SEE SEC. 114, ALLOWED NOTHING
BEYOND THAT INVESTMENT.  SECS. 23(M) AND (N), 113, 114; 49 STAT. 1648,
1660, 1682-1687.  DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED FOR THE EXHAUSTION OF THE
PROPERTY - THE ORE MASS.  LYNCH V. ALWORTH-STEPHENS CO., 267 U.S. 364,
370.  IT MAY BE IN STEP WITH EXTRACTION, WHERE EXTRACTION AND SALE
SYNCHRONIZE WITH PAYMENTS FOR THE ORE OR THE DEDUCTION MAY BE ALLOWED
AGAINST ADVANCE PAYMENTS OF ROYALTIES OR BONUS.  THE THEORY OF
DEPLETION IS THE SAME IN BOTH CASES.  IN EITHER SITUATION, THE
DEPLETION DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED IN THE ORE EXTRACTED OR EXPECTED TO BE
EXTRACTED.  REGULATIONS 45, ART. 23(M)-2 AND-10(A) AND (B).  THUS THE
MINE OWNER UNDER ARTICLE 23(M)-10 IS COMPENSATED FOR THE USE OF HIS
MINERAL RESERVES IN THE PRODUCTION OF GROSS INCOME. 

BY THE 1919 REGULATIONS, THE PLAN OF RESTORING THE SUM OF DEPLETION
DEDUCTIONS TO CAPITAL AND CARRYING A CORRESPONDING AMOUNT TO INCOME IN
THE YEAR OF THE TERMINATION OF A LEASE WITHOUT PRODUCTION WAS ADOPTED
INSTEAD OF A PERMANENT REDUCTION OF BASIS OR A RESTORATION OF THE
DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS TO INCOME FOR THE YEARS IN WHICH THEY WERE
DEDUCTED.  THE ACT - SEC. 23(M) - DID NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE THIS
HANDLING OF UNREALIZED DEPLETION.  BY THE TERMS OF THE SECTION A
REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION WAS REQUIRED, "ACCORDING TO THE
PECULIAR CONDITIONS IN EACH CASE."  AS CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT
FORESEE THE MULTIFARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF
DEPLETION, IT DELEGATED TO THE COMMISSIONER THE DUTY OF MAKING THE
REGULATIONS.  ARTICLE 23(M)-10(C) WAS DEVELOPED TO TAKE CARE OF THE
TYPE OF SITUATION WHERE BECAUSE OF A LEASE'S CANCELLATION WITHOUT
EXTRACTION, THE REASON FOR ALLOWING DEPLETION DISAPPEARED.  AS NO
DIMINUTION OCCURRED IN THE ORE MASS, NO DEPLETION WAS APPROPRIATE. 
CONGRESS HAS ENACTED NUMEROUS REVENUE ACTS SINCE THAT TIME AND HAS SEEN
NO OCCASION TO CHANGE THE STATUTORY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THIS LONG
STANDING REGULATION.  THIS EVIDENCES THAT SUBSECTIONS 23(M)-10(B) AND
(C) ARE WITHIN THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY WHICH WAS INTENDED TO BE
GRANTED THE COMMISSIONER.  NATIONAL LEAD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S.
140, 145-46; MURPHY OIL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 299, 307. 

AS NO DEPLETION OF THE ORE MASS OCCURRED OR CAN OCCUR UNDER THE LEASE
WHICH PRODUCED THE GROSS INCOME, THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE
REGULATION GIVES A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION WHEN PREPAID
ROYALTIES ARE INVOLVED.  THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE
VALIDITY OF SUCH ALLOWANCES IN OTHER CASES.  HERRING V. COMMISSIONER,
293 U.S. 322; MURPHY OIL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 299.  THE PROBLEM HERE
IS THE VALIDITY OF ARTICLE 23(M)-10(C) WHEN THE DEPLETION FOR WHICH A
DEDUCTION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED FAILS IN THE MANNER ANTICIPATED
AS A POSSIBILITY AT THE TIME OF DEDUCTION. 

A. PETITIONERS ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION ON THE GROUND
THAT THE RESTORATION OF THE ACCUMULATED DEDUCTIONS TO CAPITAL, I.E.,
THE DEPLETION BASIS, WITH A CORRESPONDING INCREASE OF THE TAXPAYERS'
ANNUAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR OF THE RESTORATION, IS CONTRARY TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE 1936 ACT.  SECS. 23(M),
114(B)(1) AND 113(B)(1)(B).  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO APPRAISE THE EFFECT
IN OTHER YEARS OF THE ANTECEDENTS OF THESE SECTIONS.  PETITIONERS URGE
THAT THE DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS WHICH WERE THE UNTAXED PORTION OF THE
ROYALTIES PAID IN PRIOR YEARS WERE CAPITAL RECOVERIES IN THOSE PRIOR
YEARS WHICH RESULTED IN A STATUTORY, PERMANENT REDUCTION OF BASIS WHICH
CANNOT BE RESTORED TO BASIS AND HENCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FOR
1937.  PETITIONERS POINT TO SEC. 23(M), SUPRA, P. 278, AS PROVIDING FOR
THE DEDUCTION FOR DEPLETION ON PAYMENT OF ADVANCE ROYALTIES.  IT IS
CONTENDED THAT SECS. 114(B)(1) AND 113(B)(1)(B)  FN3 SUPPLEMENT THE
STATUTORY DIRECTION OF 23(M) FOR DEPLETION BY REQUIRING THE PERMANENT
LOWERING OF THE BASIS TO REFLECT THE DEPLETION WHICH SEC. 23 OFFERS. 
FN4  THIS, OF COURSE, IS A CONTENTION THAT DEPLETION FOR ADVANCE
ROYALTIES IS, AS A MATTER OF STATUTE, NOT NECESSARILY AND INEVITABLY
TIED TO EXTRACTION, ACTUAL OR PROSPECTIVE.  SUMMARILY EXPRESSED, IT IS
THAT THE DEPLETION WAS PERMANENT, NOT CONDITIONAL, AND NOT SUBJECT TO
RECOVERY WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT NO MINERALS WERE TO BE EXTRACTED. 
TO ACCEPT THESE ARGUMENTS AS A SOUND INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF
THESE PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, WOULD PUT INTO SEC. 23(M) OF THE ACT OF 1936
A REQUIREMENT FOR DEPLETION AGAINST ADVANCE ROYALTIES WHICH THE WORDS
OF SEC. 114 DO NOT IMPORT.  WE THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS CORRECT IN ITS
ARGUMENT THAT THE ADJUSTMENT OF BASIS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 113(B)(1)(A)
INCLUDES A RESTORATION OF DEPLETION TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT (BASIS) UNDER
THE WORDS "OR OTHER ITEMS, PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT,"
WHEN THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE WITHOUT EXTRACTION OF ORE FORCES THE
RECONSIDERATION OF DEPLETION.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE HOLD THAT SECS. 23(M),
114(B)(1) AND 113(B)(1)(B) DO NOT AFFECT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER
UNDER SEC. 23(M) TO RESTORE TO THE BASIS THE AMOUNTS PREVIOUSLY
DEDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 23(M)-10(B) OF REGULATIONS 94.  THE
TAXPAYER WHO RECEIVES ADVANCE ROYALTIES RECEIVES A GROSS INCOME BUT HAS
NO STATUTORY RIGHT TO DEPLETION APART FROM ACTUAL OR PROSPECTIVE
EXTRACTION.  TO GRANT IRRECOVERABLE DEPLETION IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE OCCURS PRIOR TO EXTRACTION WOULD SEVER
DEPLETION FROM EXTRACTION AND, IF NO LATER EXTRACTION FOLLOWED, DEFLECT
INCOME INTO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING CAPITAL
LOSS. 

B. PETITIONERS VIGOROUSLY PRESS ANOTHER ARGUMENT AGAINST THE VALIDITY
OF THE REGULATIONS.  THIS IS THAT THE SEPARATE ANNUAL INSTALMENTS OF
UNTAXED ROYALTIES (PRIOR DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS), SINCE THESE UNTAXED
PORTIONS OF THE ROYALTIES WERE INCOME FOR THE PRIOR YEARS, MAY NOT BE
ACCUMULATED AND TAXED FOR 1937 BECAUSE SUCH TREATMENT IS FICTIONAL,
DISTORTS THE 1937 INCOME TO PETITIONERS' DETRIMENT, IS UNREASONABLE AND
VIOLATES SECS. 23(M), 41 AND 42 OF THE ACT.  THE LATTER TWO SECTIONS
REQUIRE THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, NET AND GROSS, UPON THE BASIS OF AN
ANNUAL ACCOUNTING PERIOD AND THE INCLUSION OF GROSS INCOME IN THE YEAR
RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYER.  THE APPLICABILITY OF ALL THREE SECTIONS
DEPENDS UPON WHETHER A SUM EQUAL TO DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED IN
PRIOR YEARS MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME FOR 1937.  PETITIONERS DENY THAT
THIS MAY BE DONE AND RELY FOR THE SOUNDNESS OF THEIR POSITION UPON THE
FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE OF ANNUAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME, "AS THE NET RESULT
OF ALL TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE YEAR."  BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS CO.,
282 U.S. 359, 365. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE ADVANCED ROYALTIES WERE INCOME TO THE TAXPAYERS
FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IN WHICH THEY WERE RECEIVED.  A CERTAIN
PORTION OF EACH OF SUCH PAYMENTS WAS, HOWEVER, PROPERLY DEDUCTED FROM
THIS INCOME FOR DEPLETION UNDER ARTICLE 23(M)-10(B).  IN ACCORDANCE
WITH OUR POSITION AND CONCLUSION, AS SET OUT IN THE PARAGRAPHS UNDER
THE PRECEDING SECTION A OF THIS OPINION, SUCH DEDUCTIONS WERE NOT
FINALLY CHARGED TO BASIS BUT WERE TENTATIVELY SO CHARGED, SUBJECT TO
THE CONTINGENCY THAT THERE SHOULD OCCUR UNDER THE LEASE AN ACTUAL
EXTRACTION OF MINERAL UNITS WHICH WOULD BE ALLOCABLE TO THE DEDUCTION. 
UNDER SUBSECTION (C) THERE WAS THE FURTHER REQUIREMENT THAT IF THE
CONTINGENCY FAILED, THE SUSPENDED SUMS SHOULD FALL INTO INCOME IN THE
YEAR THAT THE FAILURE WAS MANIFESTED BY THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. 
IT SEEMS ENTIRELY PROPER FOR THE COMMISSIONER NOT ONLY TO PROVIDE FOR A
REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION WHEN ADVANCE ROYALTIES ARE PAID BUT
ALSO TO PROVIDE FOR THE SITUATION WHEN THE EXPECTED DEPLETION DID NOT
TAKE PLACE.  ANNUAL DEDUCTIONS WERE MADE BY THE TAXPAYER FROM HIS
INCOME.  THESE WERE ALLOWED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EXHAUSTION OF
CAPITAL.  AN EVENT OCCURRED IN 1937, THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE,
WHICH RESTORED THE DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPLETION TO INCOME.  THIS
REQUIREMENT IS, WE THINK, WITHIN THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE
COMMISSIONER.  THE POWER DELEGATED TO HIM TO MAKE REGULATIONS FOR
DEPLETION MUST NECESSARILY INCLUDE POWER TO PROVIDE FOR SITUATIONS
WHERE THE ANTICIPATED DEPLETION OF THE MINERAL MASS DOES NOT OCCUR. 

THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COMMISSIONER EXERCISED THAT POWER BY
ATTRIBUTING THE SUMS RESTORED TO BASIS TO THE 1937 INCOME, RATHER THAN
TO THE YEARS 1929 TO 1936, IS NOT INVALID AS AN ARBITRARY PENALTY OR AN
IMPROPER ATTRIBUTION UNDER THE THEORY OF AN ANNUAL PERIOD FOR
DETERMINATION OF INCOME TAXES.  ON THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, THE
LESSEE SURRENDERED THE RIGHT TO EXTRACT WITHOUT ROYALTY THE ORE FOR
WHICH ROYALTY HAD BEEN PREPAID.  THIS SURRENDER RETURNED TO THE
TAXPAYER IN 1937 A LEGAL RIGHT.  THEREUPON THE TAXPAYER WAS IN POSITION
TO AGAIN SELL THE RIGHT TO EXTRACT THIS ORE OR TO MINE THAT SELFSAME
ORE ITSELF.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW ANY VALUATION OF THIS RIGHT WHICH
THE LESSEE SURRENDERED.  THE LESSEE PAID FOR THE RIGHT THE AMOUNT
ATTRIBUTED TO THE PETITIONERS' INCOME.  IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL
VALUE OF THE RIGHT IN 1937, IT DOES NOT SEEM UNFAIR FOR A GENERAL
REGULATION TO PUT THIS VALUE ON THE RIGHT RESTORED TO THE TAXPAYER IN
THE YEAR OF ITS RESTORATION.  THE DECISIONS UPHOLD THE REGULATION. 
SNEED V. COMMISSIONER, 119 F.2D 767, 770-771; 121 F.2D 725; LAMONT V.
COMMISSIONER, 120 F.2D 996; GRACE M. BARNETT, 39 B.T.A. 864.  FN5 

THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO PETITIONERS IN 1937 IS ANALOGOUS TO
THE SURRENDER OF A LEASEHOLD, IMPROVED BY THE LESSEE, TO THE LESSOR. 
IN SUCH A CASE, THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IS INCOME TO THE LESSOR
AT THE TIME OF THE SURRENDER.  HELVERING V. BRUUN, 309 U.S. 461.  CF.
MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 342. 

C. THE LAST CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT
WHERE DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS WERE TAKEN IN YEARS WHEN NO EQUIVALENT TAX
BENEFIT RESULTED, THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTION WHICH RESULTED IN NO TAX
BENEFIT SHOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE YEAR OF THE SURRENDER OF THE
LEASE.  THIS QUESTION ARISES ONLY IN NO. 131.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
REFUSED TO ALLOW THE ADDITION TO THE 1937 INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER OF
SUMS WHICH REPRESENTED THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPLETION BEYOND
AMOUNTS OF DEDUCTIONS WHICH OFFSET INCOME.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED. 

UPON THIS LAST POINT, THE DECISION BELOW IN NO. 131 IS AFFIRMED BY AN
EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT.  THE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT WHO JOIN IN THE
DISSENT DO NOT REACH THIS QUESTION BUT THEIR POSITION ON OTHER ISSUES
RESULTS IN THEIR VOTING FOR A REVERSAL OF THE ENTIRE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  TWO OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COURT ARE OF THE
VIEW THAT IN NO. 131 THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

IN NOS. 130, 132 AND 133, THE FOREGOING LEADS US TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE VALID AND THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BESSIE P. DOUGLAS OWNED A ONE-HALF INTEREST; EACH OF THE OTHER
CO-TENANTS OWNED A ONE-SIXTH INTEREST.  THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
ADELINE R. MORSE DID NOT APPEAL FROM AN ADVERSE DECISION OF THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS. 

FN2  IN ADDITION TO REGULATIONS 45, ARTICLE 215, THE PROVISION
APPEARED THEREAFTER IN REGULATIONS 62, ARTICLE 215, ISSUED UNDER SEC.
214(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921; REGULATIONS 65 AND 69, ARTICLE 216,
ISSUED UNDER SEC. 214(A) OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1924 AND 1926;
REGULATIONS 74, ARTICLE 236, ISSUED UNDER SEC. 23(L) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1928; REGULATIONS 77, ARTICLE 230, ISSUED UNDER SEC. 23(1) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932; REGULATIONS 86 AND 94, ARTICLE 23(M)-10, ISSUED
UNDER SEC. 23(M) OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936.  THEY HAVE
REMAINED UNCHANGED UNDER THE CODE, REGULATIONS 111, SEC. 29.23(M)-10. 

FN3  "SEC.  114.  BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION. 

     .         .   .         .         . 

(B)  BASIS FOR DEPLETION.  - 

(1)  GENERAL RULE.  - THE BASIS UPON WHICH DEPLETION IS TO BE ALLOWED
IN RESPECT OF ANY PROPERTY SHALL BE THE ADJUSTED BASIS PROVIDED IN
OTHER DISPOSITION OF SUCH PROPERTY, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPHS
(2), (3), AND (4) OF THIS SUBSECTION.  ..." 

"SEC. 113.  ADJUSTED BASIS FOR DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS. 

(B)  ADJUSTED BASIS.  - THE ADJUSTED BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE GAIN
OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, WHENEVER
ACQUIRED, SHALL BE THE BASIS DETERMINED UNDER SUBSECTION (A), ADJUSTED
AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED. 

(1)  GENERAL RULE.  - PROPER ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY
SHALL IN ALL CASES BE MADE - 

(A)  FOR EXPENDITURES, RECEIPTS, LOSSES, OR OTHER ITEMS, PROPERLY
CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT, INCLUDING TAXES AND OTHER CARRYING
CHARGES ON UNIMPROVED AND UNPRODUCTIVE REAL PROPERTY, BUT NO SUCH
ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR TAXES OR OTHER CARRYING CHARGES FOR WHICH
DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE TAXPAYER IN DETERMINING NET INCOME
FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR OR PRIOR TAXABLE YEARS; 

(B)  IN RESPECT OF ANY PERIOD SINCE FEBRUARY 28, 1913, FOR
EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR, OBSOLESCENCE, AMORTIZATION, AND DEPLETION,
TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED (BUT NOT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE) UNDER
THIS ACT OR PRIOR INCOME TAX LAWS.  ..." 

FN4  THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SEC. 23(M), RELATING TO A CHANGE OF
ESTIMATE AS TO RECOVERABLE MINERAL, IS SAID TO INDICATE A LEGISLATIVE
INTENTION THAT THE BASIS, ONCE REDUCED, IS NOT TO BE RESTORED. 

FN5  PETITIONER CALLS ATTENTION TO KNAPP V. COMMISSIONER, 7 B.T.A.
790, AND COOPER V. COMMISSIONER, 7 B.T.A. 798, ACQUIESCED IN
RESPECTIVELY BY THE COMMISSION, ACQ. VII-1 CUM. BUL.  17 AND 7, JUNE
30, 1928; ACQUIESCENCE WITHDRAWN DECEMBER 31, 1932, XI-2 CUM. BUL.  12,
14.  PETITIONERS' POINT IS THAT WHATEVER MAY BE THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATIONS, TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS, FOR
THE YEARS WHEN THE COMMISSIONER'S ACQUIESCENCE WAS IN EFFECT, CARRIED
TO INCOME IN A LATER YEAR.  WE AGREE THAT THESE DECISIONS HELD INVALID
A REGULATION LIKE ART. 23(M)-10(C) WHICH INCLUDES IN INCOME FOR A
TAXABLE YEAR DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED IN PRIOR YEARS.  THE EFFECT OF THE
COMMISSIONER'S ACQUIESCENCE IS UNCERTAIN.  CF. C.B. XIII-2-IV. DURING
THE PERIOD OF ACQUIESCENCE, THE REGULATION CONTINUED IN EXISTENCE AND
WAS REPUBLISHED IN THE EDITION OF DECEMBER 1, 1931, APPROVED FEBRUARY
15, 1929, OF REGULATIONS 74 UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, ART.
236(C).  THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN MURPHY OIL CO. V. BURNET,
287 U.S. 299, 304, DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1932, THOUGHT BY PETITIONER TO
HAVE BROUGHT ABOUT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE ACQUIESCENCE.  ACQUIESCENCE BY
THE COMMISSIONER IN A TAX COURT RULING FOLLOWED BY ACTION WHICH IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE WITHDRAWAL OF AN AFFECTED REGULATION IS NOT A
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE TO JUSTIFY A JUDICIAL
RULING AGAINST THE REGULATION ON THE STRENGTH OF THE ACQUIESCENCE. 
ESTATE OF SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 39, 49; HIGGINS V. SMITH,
308 U.S. 473, 478. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING: 

IN MY OPINION ARTICLE 23(M)-10(C) IS NOT A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF THE
RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY SEC. 23.  BY THAT SECTION CONGRESS
PROVIDED:  "IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS
DEDUCTIONS  ...  A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION  ...  ACCORDING
TO THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS IN EACH CASE  ...  UNDER RULES AND
REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF
THE SECRETARY."  REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1648.  SINCE ADOPTION OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918 THIS AUTHORITY HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN PART BY
REGULATIONS 45, ARTICLE 215(C) AND ITS SUCCESSORS, WHICH PERMIT THE
DEDUCTION IN YEARS WHEN ADVANCE ROYALTIES ARE RECEIVED.  IT IS NOT
URGED, NOR COULD IT WELL BE, THAT THE DEDUCTION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
IS NOT ONE COMPREHENDED BY THE STATUTE.  IN MAKING THAT MANDATE
CONGRESS CLEARLY DID NOT INTEND THE PRIVILEGE TO BE GRANTED MERELY ON
TERMS WHICH WOULD DEFEAT ITS OPERATION.  YET THIS, IN MY JUDGMENT, IS
EXACTLY THE EFFECT OF ARTICLE 23(M)-10(C). 

IN REQUIRING THAT "A CORRESPONDING AMOUNT MUST BE RETURNED AS INCOME
FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LEASE EXPIRES, TERMINATES, OR IS ABANDONED,"
THE REGULATION PILES UP AS "INCOME" FOR A SINGLE YEAR THE SUM OF ALL
THE DEDUCTIONS TAKEN IN THE PREVIOUS ONES.  WHOLLY APART FROM WHETHER
IN THEORY OR IN FACT "INCOME" CAN BE SAID TO BE REALIZED BY THUS PILING
UP THE DEDUCTIONS,  FN1  THIS REQUIREMENT IMPOSES RISKS AND BURDENS
UPON TAKING THE DEDUCTION HEAVIER THAN ANY ADVANTAGE TO BE GAINED FROM
IT AND THEREFORE PROHIBITIVE. 

THE CONSEQUENCES HARDLY COULD BE ILLUSTRATED BETTER THAN BY THE CASE
OF BESSIE P. DOUGLAS.  BY TAKING THE DEDUCTION DURING THE EIGHT YEARS
WHEN SHE RECEIVED ADVANCE ROYALTIES, 1929 TO 1936 INCLUSIVE, SHE SAVED
A TOTAL IN TAXES OF ABOUT $7,000.  THEN HER LEASE WAS CANCELED BY THE
LESSEE.  AND IN 1937, A YEAR IN WHICH SHE RECEIVED NO CASH RETURN FROM
THE LEASE, HER TAX LIABILITY WAS INCREASED BY ABOUT $26,500 FOR HAVING
TAKEN THE DEDUCTION IN PREVIOUS YEARS.  SHE WAS THUS FORCED TO PAY
APPROXIMATELY $19,500 MORE IN TAXES THAN IF SHE HAD NEVER TAKEN IT. 

THE REGULATION'S DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT BEARS ON ALL WHO RECEIVE ADVANCE
ROYALTIES, NOT MERELY ON THOSE WHO ACTUALLY MUST RETURN ACCUMULATED
PRIOR DEDUCTIONS AS "INCOME" IN A SINGLE YEAR.  THE TAXPAYER MUST TAKE
THE DEDUCTION, IF AT ALL, AS HIS ROYALTIES ACCRUE, NOT LATER AS THE ORE
IS REMOVED.  THE SYSTEM OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTING IS SAID TO REQUIRE THIS. 
CF. BURNET V. THOMPSON OIL & GAS CO., 283 U.S. 301, 306; BURNET V.
SANFORD & BROOKS CO., 282 U.S. 359.  YET IT IS SAID ALSO TO REQUIRE
THAT THE DEDUCTIONS BE TELESCOPED INTO "INCOME" FOR A SINGLE YEAR IN
WHICH THE RETURNS THEY REPRESENT ARE NOT RECEIVED, AND WITH AN EFFECT
IN TAX BURDEN, BY THE MERE FACT OF THE AGGREGATION, FAR BEYOND ANY
WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSED IF THE DEDUCTIONS NEVER HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED OR
TAKEN.  HENCE ALL WHO RECEIVE ADVANCE ROYALTIES ARE FACED WITH THE
CHOICE OF TAKING THE DEDUCTIONS AND THUS RISKING THIS PYRAMIDING OF
"INCOME," AGAINST THE CHANCE THE LESSEE WILL SOME DAY DEPLETE THE
PROPERTY, OR OF FOREGOING THE DEDUCTIONS ALTOGETHER.    IT IS TRUE THE
TAXPAYER MAY RECEIVE AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT IN THE RELEASE OF HIS ORE FROM
THE RIGHT OF ANOTHER TO REMOVE IT.  AND BY THE REGULATION'S REQUIREMENT
THAT HE RESTORE TO HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SUM OF
THE ACCUMULATED DEDUCTIONS, HE ALSO RECEIVES A POSSIBLE FUTURE TAX
BENEFIT IN LARGER DEDUCTIONS ALLOWABLE IF AND WHEN HE SELLS OR LEASES
THE MINERALS AGAIN.  BUT THESE BENEFITS ARE WHOLLY UNCERTAIN.  IN FACT,
RELEASE OF HIS ORE FROM THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL GIVES HIM NOT INCOME THEN
REALIZED IN CASH TO THE AMOUNT OF ACCUMULATED DEDUCTIONS, BUT UNSOLD
ORE IN THE GROUND WHICH THE LESSEE HAS FOUND IT UNPROFITABLE TO REMOVE
ALTHOUGH HE HAS PAID FOR IT.  THE ONLY CONTINGENCY ON WHICH THE
TAXPAYER REALLY BENEFITS BY THE DEDUCTIONS IS IN THE EVENT THE LESSEE
ULTIMATELY DOES DEPLETE THE PROPERTY.  BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE
CONGRESS DELIBERATELY EXTENDED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR DEDUCTION TO LESSORS
WHOSE PROPERTY IS NOT IN FACT DEPLETED BY THE LESSEE'S OPERATIONS  FN2
ONLY TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER TO NULLIFY AND PENALIZE THAT
OPPORTUNITY.  THIS THE REGULATION DOES, IN EFFECT, WHEN IT IMPOSES ON
ONE WHO TAKES THE DEDUCTION THE RISK, ON A CONTINGENCY BEYOND HIS
CONTROL, OF HAVING TO PAY IN TAXES SEVERAL TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE
DEDUCTIONS ON THE HAPPENING OF THE CONTINGENCY. 

NOR IS THE REGULATION REASONABLY ADAPTED TO RECOUPMENT OF THE LOSSES
IN REVENUE, WHOLLY PROPER WHEN INCURRED BUT WHICH LATER EVENTS REQUIRE
TO BE MADE UP.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT PERVERTS RECOUPMENT BY PYRAMIDING
INCOME SPREAD IN RECEIPT OVER MANY YEARS INTO "INCOME" RECEIVED IN A
SINGLE, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ONE.  AND IN A DAY WHEN THE TAX RATE MOUNTS
MORE OFTEN THAN YEARLY THE SKYROCKETING EFFECT OF THE PROCESS OPERATES
WITH WHOLLY INCALCULABLE EFFECT ON THE TAXPAYER, WHO IT WILL BE NOTED
HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE CONTINGENCY WHICH BRINGS IT INTO PLAY. 

A REGULATION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE TAXPAYER TO PAY THE TAXES
DEDUCTED FOR THE PRIOR YEARS TOGETHER WITH THE USUAL INTEREST AND
PENALTIES WOULD BE HARSH ENOUGH IN DISCOURAGEMENT OF TAKING THE
DEDUCTION.  IN EFFECT IT WOULD PENALIZE ONE WHO RIGHTFULLY TAKES AN
ALLOWANCE AS MUCH AS ONE WHO WRONGFULLY DOES SO.  BUT, EVEN SO, THIS
WOULD BEAR SOME SEMBLANCE OF REASONABLE RELATION TO RECOUPING THE
LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THE REVENUE AND TO ALLOCATING INCOME TO THE YEAR IN
WHICH IT IS RECEIVED.  HOWEVER, TO AMALGAMATE THE DEDUCTIONS INTO
"INCOME" FOR A SINGLE YEAR, IN WHICH NONE OF IT IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED,
IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING.  IT IS TO MAKE OF THE SO-CALLED SCHEME
OF DEDUCTIONS A SNARE FOR THE UNWARY WHO VIOLATE NO LAW BUT COMPLY WITH
IT FULLY; AND AT THE SAME TIME TO STRAIN THE THEORY OF ANNUAL
ACCOUNTING BEYOND ANY REASONABLE APPLICATION. 

THE REGULATION, THEREFORE, BOTH EFFECTIVELY NULLIFIES A PRIVILEGE
WHICH CONGRESS PROVIDED THE TAXPAYER SHALL HAVE AND REACHES FARTHER
THAN ANY REASONABLE RECOUPING PROVISION SHOULD GO.  IT IS NO ANSWER TO
SAY DEDUCTION IS A PRIVILEGE WHICH CONGRESS NEED NOT HAVE EXTENDED, OR
HAVING EXTENDED CAN QUALIFY OUT OF EXISTENCE.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
CONGRESS DID, OR AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSIONER TO DO, THE LATTER.  ITS
LANGUAGE, ITS PRIOR TREATMENT OF THE PROBLEM  FN3  AND ITS TREATMENT OF
A RELATED PROBLEM IN THE IDENTICAL SECTION OF THE REVENUE ACT ALL POINT
TO THE CONCLUSION IT DID NEITHER. 

OTHER QUESTIONS ARE RAISED ON THE RECORD.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
CONSIDER THEM.  IN MY OPINION CONGRESS WOULD NOT HAVE NULLIFIED ITS
GRANT OF THE PRIVILEGE TO TAKE "A REASONABLE ABLE ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPLETION" BY ENACTING ARTICLE 23(M)-10(C) TO MAKE EXERCISING IT SO
HAZARDOUS, CAPRICIOUS, AND UNJUST IN CONSEQUENCE.  FN4  THAT BEING
TRUE, I DO NOT THINK AUTHORITY WAS DELEGATED TO THE COMMISSIONER TO
ADOPT OR TO THE SECRETARY TO APPROVE IT.  I WOULD REVERSE THE
JUDGMENT. 

FN1  COMPARE, E.G., 26 U.S.C. SECS. 11-23, AND SEE ALSO 4 MERTENS,
LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1942) SEC. 24.64. 

FN2  COMPARE REV. ACT OF 1913 SEC. IIG)(B); REV. ACT OF 1916 SEC.
5(A)(EIGHTH)(B) WITH REV. ACT OF 1918 SEC. 234(A)(9); REV. ACT OF 196
SEC. 23(M). 

FN3  CF. NOTE 2 SUPRA. 

FN4  THE UNCERTAIN CAREER OF ARTICLE 23(M)-10(C), ADVERTED TO IN THE
COURT'S OPINION, OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE IN
THE COMMISSIONER'S POSITION BEFORE 1932 AND ONLY DOUBTFULLY SUGGESTS IT
AFTER THAT DATE.  IN THIS CASE THE NULLIFYING EFFECT OF THE LIMITATION
UPON THE PRIVILEGE GRANTED PREVENTS REMOVAL OF THAT DOUBT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





















NORTHWEST AIRLINES V. MINNESOTA, 322 U.S. 292 


NO. 33.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 20, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 213
MINN. 395, 7 N.W.2D 691, AFFIRMED. 


A CORPORATION WHICH WAS INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF MINNESOTA, AND
WHICH HAD ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THAT STATE, OWNED AND
OPERATED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE A FLEET OF AIRPLANES; FOR ALL OF THE
PLANES, A CITY WITHIN THE STATE WAS THE HOME PORT REGISTERED WITH THE
CIVIL AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY AND THE OVERHAUL BASE; AND NONE OF THE
PLANES WAS CONTINUOUSLY WITHOUT THE STATE DURING THE WHOLE TAX YEAR. 
HELD THAT A GENERAL MINNESOTA PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX APPLIED TO ALL
PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE AND WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION APPLIED
ON THE CORPORATION'S ENTIRE FLEET OF AIRPLANES DID NOT VIOLATE THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, NOR THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 293, 300. 

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. V. MINNESOTA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 734, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE STATE IN A SUIT AGAINST THE COMPANY TO RECOVER DELINQUENT PERSONAL
PROPERTY TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE CONCLUSION AND JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BARS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
FROM ENFORCING THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX IT HAS LAID ON THE ENTIRE
FLEET OF AIRPLANES OWNED BY THE PETITIONER AND OPERATED BY IT IN
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THE ANSWER INVOLVES THE APPLICATION OF
SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO THE PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  TO
THESE, ABOUT WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE, WE TURN. 

NORTHWEST AIRLINES IS A MINNESOTA CORPORATION AND ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE
OF BUSINESS IS ST. PAUL.  IT IS A COMMERCIAL AIRLINE CARRYING PERSONS,
PROPERTY AND MAIL ON REGULAR FIXED ROUTES, WITH DUE ALLOWANCE FOR
WEATHER, PREDOMINANTLY WITHIN THE TERRITORY COMPRISING ILLINOIS,
MINNESOTA, NORTH DAKOTA, MONTANA, OREGON, WISCONSIN AND WASHINGTON. 
FOR ALL THE PLANES ST. PAUL IS THE HOME PORT REGISTERED WITH THE CIVIL
AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY, UNDER WHOSE CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY NORTHWEST OPERATES.  AT SIX OF ITS SCHEDULED CITIES,
NORTHWEST OPERATES MAINTENANCE BASES, BUT THE WORK OF REBUILDING AND
OVERHAULING THE PLANES IS DONE IN ST. PAUL.  DETAILS AS TO STOPOVERS,
OTHER RUNS, THE LOCATION OF FLYING CREW BASES AND OF THE USUAL
FACILITIES FOR AIRCRAFT, HAVE NO BEARING ON OUR PROBLEM. 

THE TAX IN CONTROVERSY IS FOR THE YEAR 1939.  ALL OF NORTHWEST'S
PLANES WERE IN MINNESOTA FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THAT YEAR.  ALL WERE,
HOWEVER, CONTINUOUSLY ENGAGED IN FLYING FROM STATE TO STATE, EXCEPT
WHEN LAID UP FOR REPAIRS AND OVERHAULING FOR UNIDENTIFIED PERIODS.  ON
MAY 1, 1939, THE TIME FIXED BY MINNESOTA FOR ASSESSING PERSONAL
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ITS TAX (MINN. STAT. 1941, SEC. 273.01),
NORTHWEST'S SCHEDULED ROUTE MILEAGE IN MINNESOTA WAS 14% OF ITS TOTAL
SCHEDULED ROUTE MILEAGE, AND THE SCHEDULED PLANE MILEAGE WAS 16% OF
THAT SCHEDULED.  IT BASED ITS PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RETURN FOR 1939 ON
THE NUMBER OF PLANES IN MINNESOTA ON MAY 1, 1939.  THEREUPON THE
APPROPRIATE TAXING AUTHORITY OF MINNESOTA ASSESSED A TAX AGAINST
NORTHWEST ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTIRE FLEET COMING INTO MINNESOTA.  FOR
THAT ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA, WITH THREE JUDGES DISSENTING, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF A
LOWER COURT IN FAVOR OF THE STATE.  213 MINN. 395, 7 N.W.2D 691.  A NEW
PHASE OF AN OLD PROBLEM LED US TO BRING THE CASE HERE.  319 U.S. 734. 

THE TAX HERE ASSESSED BY MINNESOTA IS A TAX ASSESSED UPON "ALL
PERSONAL PROPERTY OF PERSONS RESIDING THEREIN, INCLUDING THE PROPERTY
OF CORPORATIONS  ...  "  MINN. STAT. 1941, SEC. 272.01.  IT IS NOT A
CHARGE LAID FOR ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR UPON AIRLINES
SPECIFICALLY; IT IS NOT AIMED BY INDIRECTION AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR MEASURED BY SUCH COMMERCE.  NOR IS THE TAX ASSESSED AGAINST
PLANES WHICH WERE "CONTINUOUSLY WITHOUT THE STATE DURING THE WHOLE TAX
YEAR," N.Y. CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. MILLER, 202 U.S. 584, 594, AND HAD
THEREBY ACQUIRED "A PERMANENT LOCATION ELSEWHERE," SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
V. KENTUCKY, 222 U.S. 63, 68; AND SEE CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND
FORKS, 253 U.S. 325, 328-330. 

MINNESOTA IS HERE TAXING A CORPORATION FOR ALL ITS PROPERTY WITHIN
THE STATE DURING THE TAX YEAR NO PART OF WHICH RECEIVES PERMANENT
PROTECTION FROM ANY OTHER STATE.  THE BENEFITS GIVEN TO NORTHWEST BY
MINNESOTA AND FOR WHICH MINNESOTA TAXES - ITS CORPORATE FACILITIES AND
THE GOVERNMENTAL RESOURCES WHICH NORTHWEST ENJOYS IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS
BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA - ARE CONCRETELY SYMBOLIZED BY THE FACT THAT
NORTHWEST'S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN ST. PAUL AND THAT ST.
PAUL IS THE "HOME PORT" OF ALL ITS PLANES.  THE RELATION BETWEEN
NORTHWEST AND MINNESOTA - A RELATION EXISTING BETWEEN NO OTHER STATE
AND NORTHWEST - AND THE BENEFITS WHICH THIS RELATION AFFORDS ARE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE TAXING POWER WHICH MINNESOTA HAS
ASSERTED.  SEE STATE TAX COMM'N V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, 180.  NO
OTHER STATE CAN CLAIM TO TAX AS THE STATE OF THE LEGAL DOMICILE AS WELL
AS THE HOME STATE OF THE FLEET, AS A BUSINESS FACT.  NO OTHER STATE IS
THE STATE WHICH GAVE NORTHWEST THE POWER TO BE AS WELL AS THE POWER TO
FUNCTION AS NORTHWEST FUNCTIONS IN MINNESOTA; NO OTHER STATE COULD
IMPOSE A TAX THAT DERIVES FROM THE SIGNIFICANT LEGAL RELATION OF
CREATOR AND CREATURE AND THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT RELATION IN
THIS CASE.  ON THE BASIS OF RIGHTS WHICH MINNESOTA ALONE ORIGINATED AND
MINNESOTA CONTINUES TO SAFEGUARD, SHE ALONE CAN TAX THE PERSONALTY
WHICH IS PERMANENTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MINNESOTA AND TO NO OTHER STATE. 
IT IS TOO LATE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS TAXING POWER OF A STATE IS LESS
BECAUSE THE TAX MAY BE REFLECTED IN THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION.  SEE
DELAWARE RAILROAD TAX, 18 WALL.  206, 232. 

SUCH BEING THE CASE, IT IS CLEARLY RULED BY N.Y. CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO.
V. MILLER, SUPRA.  HERE, AS IN THAT CASE, A CORPORATION IS TAXED FOR
ALL ITS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE DURING THE TAX YEAR NONE OF WHICH WAS
"CONTINUOUSLY WITHOUT THE STATE DURING THE WHOLE TAX YEAR."  THEREFORE
THE DOCTRINE OF UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, DOES NOT
COME INTO PLAY.  THE FACT THAT NORTHWEST PAID PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES
FOR THE YEAR 1939 UPON "SOME PROPORTION OF ITS FULL VALUE" OF ITS
AIRPLANE FLEET IN SOME OTHER STATES DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE POWER OF
TAXATION OF MINNESOTA AS THE HOME STATE OF THE FLEET IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE.  THE TAXABILITY OF ANY PART OF THIS
FLEET BY ANY OTHER STATE THAN MINNESOTA, IN VIEW OF THE TAXABILITY OF
THE ENTIRE FLEET BY THAT STATE, IS NOT NOW BEFORE US.  IT WAS NOT SHOWN
IN THE MILLER CASE AND IT IS NOT SHOWN HERE THAT A DEFINED PART OF THE
DOMICILIARY CORPUS HAS ACQUIRED A PERMANENT LOCATION, I.E., A TAXING
SITUS, ELSEWHERE.  FN1  THAT WAS THE DECISIVE FEATURE OF THE MILLER
CASE, AND IT WAS DEEMED DECISIVE AS LATE AS 1933 IN JOHNSON OIL CO. V.
OKLAHOMA, 290 U.S. 158, WHICH WAS STRONGLY PRESSED UPON US BY
NORTHWEST.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS NOT THE HOME STATE, ILLINOIS, BUT A
FOREIGN STATE, OKLAHOMA, WHICH WAS SEEKING TO TAX A WHOLE FLEET OF TANK
CARS USED BY THE OIL COMPANY.  THAT CASE FELL OUTSIDE OF THE DECISION
OF THE MILLER CASE AND OURS FALLS PRECISELY WITHIN IT.  "APPELLANT HAD
ITS DOMICILE IN ILLINOIS," AS MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES POINTED OUT,
"AND THAT STATE HAD JURISDICTION TO TAX APPELLANT'S PERSONAL PROPERTY
WHICH HAD NOT ACQUIRED AN ACTUAL SITUS ELSEWHERE."  290 U.S. AT 161. 
FN2  THIS CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR WHAT MINNESOTA DID REFLECTS
PRACTICALITIES IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATES AND AIR
TRANSPORTATION.  "IT HAS BEEN CUSTOMARY TO TAX OPERATING AIRPLANES AT
THEIR OVERHAUL BASE."  THOMPSON, STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION AFFECTING AIR
TRANSPORTATION (1933) 4 J. AIR L. 479, 483. 

THE DOCTRINE OF TAX APPORTIONMENT FOR INSTRUMENTALITIES ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE INTRODUCED BY PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
141 U.S. 18, IS HERE INAPPLICABLE.  THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT CASE IS THAT
A NON-DOMICILIARY STATE MAY TAX AN INTERSTATE CARRIER "ENGAGED IN
RUNNING RAILROAD CARS INTO, THROUGH AND OUT OF THE STATE, AND HAVING AT
ALL TIMES A LARGE NUMBER OF CARS WITHIN THE STATE  ...  BY TAKING AS
THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT SUCH PROPORTION OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK AS THE
NUMBER OF MILES OF RAILROAD OVER WHICH ITS CARS ARE RUN WITHIN THE
STATE BEARS TO THE WHOLE NUMBER OF MILES IN ALL THE STATES OVER WHICH
ITS CARS ARE RUN."  UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, AT 206.  THIS
PRINCIPLE WAS SUCCESSIVELY EXTENDED TO THE OLD MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION
AND COMMUNICATION, SUCH AS EXPRESS COMPANIES AND TELEGRAPH SYSTEMS. 
BUT THE DOCTRINE OF APPORTIONMENT HAS NEITHER IN THEORY NOR IN PRACTICE
BEEN APPLIED TO TAX UNITS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE VISITING FOR
FRACTIONAL PERIODS OF THE TAXING YEAR.  (THUS, FOR INSTANCE, "THE
COACHES OF THE COMPANY  ... ARE DAILY PASSING FROM ONE END OF THE STATE
TO THE OTHER," IN PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, AT 20,
CITING THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW IN 107 PA. 156, 160.)  THE
CONTINUOUS PROTECTION BY A STATE OTHER THAN THE DOMICILIARY STATE -
THAT IS, PROTECTION THROUGHOUT THE TAX YEAR - HAS FURNISHED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR TAX APPORTIONMENT IN THESE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
SITUATIONS, AND IT IS ON THAT BASIS THAT THE TAX LAWS HAVE BEEN FRAMED
AND ADMINISTERED. 

THE TAXING POWER OF THE DOMICILIARY STATE HAS A VERY DIFFERENT
BASIS.  IT HAS POWER TO TAX BECAUSE IT IS THE STATE OF DOMICILE AND NO
OTHER STATE IS. FOR REASONS WITHIN ITS OWN SPHERE OF CHOICE CONGRESS AT
ONE TIME CHARTERED INTERSTATE CARRIERS AND AT OTHER TIMES HAS LEFT THE
CHARTERING AND ALL THAT GOES WITH IT TO THE STATES.  THAT IS A
PRACTICAL FACT OF LEGISLATIVE CHOICE AND A PRACTICAL FACT FROM WHICH
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE HAS ALWAYS FOLLOWED.  THAT FAR-REACHING FACT WAS
RECOGNIZED, AS A MATTER OF COURSE, BY MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY IN HIS
DISSENT IN THE PULLMAN'S CAR CO. CASE, SUPRA, AT 32.  CONGRESS OF
COURSE COULD EXERT ITS CONTROLLING AUTHORITY OVER COMMERCE BY
APPROPRIATE REGULATION AND EXCLUDE A DOMICILIARY STATE FROM AUTHORITY
WHICH IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BECAUSE IT IS THE DOMICILIARY STATE.  BUT
NO JUDICIAL RESTRICTION HAS BEEN APPLIED AGAINST THE DOMICILIARY STATE
EXCEPT WHEN PROPERTY (OR A PORTION OF FUNGIBLE UNITS) IS PERMANENTLY
SITUATED IN A STATE OTHER THAN THE DOMICILIARY STATE.  FN3  AND
PERMANENTLY MEANS CONTINUOUSLY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, NOT A FRACTION
THEREOF, WHETHER DAYS OR WEEKS. 

SUCH WAS THE UNANIMOUS DECISION IN THE MILLER CASE OR THE MILLER CASE
DECIDED NOTHING.  THE PRESENT CASE IS PRECISELY THE CASE WHICH MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES ASSUMED THE MILLER CASE TO BE.  BY SUBSTITUTING
MINNESOTA FOR NEW YORK WE HAVE INESCAPABLY THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT
CASE:  "SUPPOSE, THEN, THAT THE STATE OF MINNESOTA HAD TAXED THE
PROPERTY DIRECTLY, THERE WAS NOTHING TO HINDER ITS TAXING THE WHOLE OF
IT.  IT IS TRUE THAT IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT PROPERTY, EVEN OF A
DOMESTIC CORPORATION, CANNOT BE TAXED IF IT IS PERMANENTLY OUT OF THE
STATE.  ...  BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED, AND IT COULD NOT BE DECIDED,
THAT A STATE MAY NOT TAX ITS OWN CORPORATIONS FOR ALL THEIR PROPERTY
WITHIN THE STATE DURING THE TAX YEAR, EVEN IF EVERY ITEM OF THAT
PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAKEN SUCCESSIVELY INTO ANOTHER STATE FOR A DAY, A
WEEK, OR SIX MONTHS, AND THEN BROUGHT BACK.  USING THE LANGUAGE OF
DOMICIL, WHICH NOW SO FREQUENTLY IS APPLIED TO INANIMATE THINGS, THE
STATE OF ORIGIN REMAINS THE PERMANENT SITUS OF THE PROPERTY,
NOTWITHSTANDING ITS OCCASIONAL EXCURSIONS TO FOREIGN PARTS."  N.Y.
CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. MILLER, SUPRA, AT 596-597.  FN4  SURELY, THE
POWER OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN TO "TAX ITS OWN CORPORATIONS FOR ALL THEIR
PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE DURING THE TAX YEAR" CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
BE AFFECTED WHETHER THE PROPERTY TAKES FIXED TRIPS OR INDETERMINATE
TRIPS SO LONG AS THE PROPERTY IS NOT "CONTINUOUSLY WITHOUT THE STATE
DURING THE WHOLE TAX YEAR," N.Y. CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. MILLER, SUPRA,
AT 594, EVEN WHEN, AS IN THE MILLER CASE, FROM 12% TO 64% OF THE
PROPERTY WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN USED OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK DURING THE TAX
YEAR, BUT IN NO ONE VISITED STATE PERMANENTLY, THAT IS, FOR THE WHOLE
YEAR.  AND THAT IS THE DECISIVE CONSTITUTIONAL FACT ABOUT THE MILLER
CASE - THAT ALTHOUGH FROM 12% TO 64% OF THE ROLLING STOCK OF THE
RAILROAD WAS OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK THROUGHOUT THE TAX YEAR, NEW YORK WAS
NEVERTHELESS ALLOWED TO TAX IT ALL BECAUSE NO PART WAS IN ANY OTHER
STATE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. 

TO INTRODUCE A NEW DOCTRINE OF TAX APPORTIONMENT AS A LIMITATION UPON
THE HITHERTO ESTABLISHED TAXING POWER OF THE HOME STATE IS NOT MERELY
TO INDULGE IN CONSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION.  IT IS TO INTRODUCE PRACTICAL
DISLOCATION INTO THE ESTABLISHED TAXING SYSTEMS OF THE STATES.  THE
DOCTRINE OF TAX APPORTIONMENT HAS BEEN PAINFULLY EVOLVED IN WORKING OUT
THE FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATES AND INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION CONDUCTED ON LAND AND THEREBY FORMING
A PART OF THE ORGANIC LIFE OF THESE STATES.  ALTHOUGH A PART OF THE
TAXING SYSTEMS OF THIS COUNTRY, THE RULE OF APPORTIONMENT IS BESET WITH
FRICTION, WASTE AND DIFFICULTIES, BUT AT ALL EVENTS IT GREW OUT OF, AND
HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF IN REGARD TO, LAND COMMERCE.  FN5  TO WHAT
EXTENT IT SHOULD BE CARRIED OVER TO THE TOTALLY NEW PROBLEMS PRESENTED
BY THE VERY DIFFERENT MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION THAT
THE AIRPLANE AND THE RADIO HAVE ALREADY INTRODUCED, LET ALONE THE STILL
MORE SUBTLE AND COMPLICATED TECHNOLOGICAL FACILITIES THAT ARE ON THE
HORIZON, RAISES QUESTIONS THAT WE OUGHT NOT TO ANTICIPATE; CERTAINLY WE
OUGHT NOT TO EMBARRASS THE FUTURE BY JUDICIAL ANSWERS WHICH AT BEST CAN
DEAL ONLY IN A TRUNCATED WAY WITH PROBLEMS SUFFICIENTLY DIFFICULT EVEN
FOR LEGISLATIVE STATESMANSHIP. 

THE DOCTRINE IN THE MILLER CASE, WHICH WE HERE APPLY, DOES NOT
SUBJECT PROPERTY PERMANENTLY LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE DOMICILIARY STATE
TO DOUBLE TAXATION.  BUT NOT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT HAS NO LOCALITY
OTHER THAN THE STATE OF ITS OWNER'S DOMICILE TO TAXATION THERE WOULD
FREE SUCH FLOATING PROPERTY FROM TAXATION EVERYWHERE.  AND WHAT THE
MILLER CASE DECIDED IS THAT NEITHER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE NOR THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AFFORDS SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.    EACH NEW
MEANS OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION HAS ENGENDERED
CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE TAXING POWERS OF THE STATES INTER SE AND AS
BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  SUCH CONTROVERSIES AND
SOME CONFLICT AND CONFUSION ARE INEVITABLE UNDER A FEDERAL SYSTEM. 
THEY HAVE LONG BEEN THE SOURCE OF DIFFICULTY AND DISSATISFACTION FOR
US, SEE J. B. MOORE, TAXATION OF MOVABLES AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
(1907) 7 COL. L. REV. 309; GROVES, INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL RELATIONS,
PROCEEDINGS THIRTY-FIFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE, NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION,
P. 105, AND HAVE EQUALLY PLAGUED THE BRITISH FEDERAL SYSTEMS, SEE
REPORT OF THE (AUSTRALIAN) ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION, (1929)
C. XII (P. 127), C. XIX (P. 187), C. XXIII (AT P. 259); REPORT OF THE
(CANADIAN) ROYAL COMMISSION ON DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS, (1940)
BK. I, C. VIII, BK. II, SEC. B, C. III.  IN RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
ADDRESSED ALSO TO US ABOUT THE DANGERS OF HARASSING STATE TAXATION
AFFECTING NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION, THE CONCURRING JUDGE BELOW ADVERTS
TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO INCORPORATE AIRLINES AND TO CONTROL THEIR
TAXATION.  BUT INSOFAR AS THESE ARE MATTERS THAT GO BEYOND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH DISPOSE OF THIS CASE, THEY ARE NOT OUR
CONCERN.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN THE MILLER CASE, THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD INTRODUCED
EVIDENCE THAT DURING THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION, A PROPORTION OF ITS
CARS, RANGING FROM ABOUT 12% TO 64%, WAS USED OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK. 
THIS FIGURE WAS ARRIVED AT BY USING THE RATIO BETWEEN CENTRAL'S MILEAGE
OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK AND ITS TOTAL MILEAGE.  THE COMPTROLLER
NEVERTHELESS RULED THAT ALL OF CENTRAL'S CARS WERE TAXABLE IN NEW YORK,
THE STATE OF DOMICILE.  ON REVIEW OF THIS RULING AS APPLIED IN THE
FIRST TAX YEAR INVOLVED, THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS REMITTED THE
PROCEEDINGS TO THE COMPTROLLER TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OF THE ROLLING
STOCK WAS USED EXCLUSIVELY OUT OF THE STATE.  173 N.Y. 255, 65 N.E.
1102.  NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED FOR ANY TAX YEAR, ALTHOUGH THERE
WAS EVIDENCE TO SHOW "THAT A CERTAIN PROPORTION OF CARS, ALTHOUGH NOT
THE SAME CARS, WAS CONTINUOUSLY WITHOUT THE STATE DURING THE WHOLE TAX
YEAR."  202 U.S. 584, 594.  THE COMPTROLLER MADE NO REDUCTION IN THE
TAX, AND THIS ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (89 APP.
DIV. 127, 84 N.Y.S. 1088), THE COURT OF APPEALS (177 N.Y. 584, 69 N.E.
1129) AND ON REVIEW HERE. 

FN2  IN THE JOHNSON OIL CO. CASE, SUPRA, THIS COURT REAFFIRMED NOT
LESS THAN THREE TIMES THAT THE STATE OF DOMICILE HAS JURISDICTION TO
TAX THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ITS CORPORATION UNLESS SUCH PROPERTY HAS
ACQUIRED AN "ACTUAL SITUS" IN ANOTHER STATE.  AND BY "ACTUAL SITUS" IT
MEANT, AS ITS REFERENCES TO UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, AND
THE MILLER CASE INDICATE, WHAT THOSE CASES REQUIRED FOR "ACTUAL SITUS"
BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE DOMICILIARY STATE TO TAX COULD
BE CURTAILED, NAMELY CONTINUOUS PRESENCE IN ANOTHER STATE WHICH THEREBY
SUPPLANTS THE HOME STATE AND ACQUIRES THE TAXING POWER OVER PERSONALTY
THAT HAS BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE FOREIGN STATE.  SURELY THE
SITUS WHICH PERSONAL PROPERTY MAY ACQUIRE FOR TAX PURPOSES IN A STATE
OTHER THAN THAT OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE CANNOT BE MADE TO DEPEND ON
SOME UNDEFINED CONCEPT OF "PERMANENCE" SHORT OF A TAX YEAR, LEAVING THE
ADEQUATE SIZE OF THE FRACTION OF THE TAX YEAR FOR JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION IN EACH YEAR.  SUCH A DOCTRINE WOULD PLAY HAVOC WITH THE
TAX LAWS OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES.  IT WOULD MULTIPLY MANIFOLD THE
RECOGNIZED DIFFICULTIES OF ASCERTAINING THE DOMICILE OF INDIVIDUALS. 
SEE TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. MURPHY, 314
U.S. 441. 

FN3  IN THE MOST RECENT APPORTIONMENT CASE TO COME BEFORE THIS COURT,
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, WE MERELY
SUSTAINED THE APPLICATION BY THE TENNESSEE RAILROAD COMMISSION AND THE
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT OF A "FAMILIAR AND FREQUENTLY SANCTIONED
FORMULA" FOR APPORTIONMENT ON A MILEAGE BASIS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE
INAPPLICABILITY OF THIS FORMULA IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE
BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY IN THE REVENUE-PRODUCING CAPACITY BETWEEN THE
LINES IN AND OUT OF TENNESSEE.  MATHEMATICAL EXACTITUDE IN MAKING THE
APPORTIONMENT HAS NEVER BEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT.  THAT IS THE
ESSENCE OF THE BROWNING HOLDING.  NO SUGGESTION CAN BE FOUND AT ANY
STAGE OF THAT LITIGATION IN ANY WISE TOUCHING THE PRESENT PROBLEM,
NAMELY, WHETHER THE DOMICILIARY STATE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED IN
TAXING ALL THE MOVABLES THAT COME WITHIN IT EXCEPT BY THE UNION TRANSIT
DOCTRINE, THAT A PROPORTION WHICH HAD DURING THE ENTIRE TAX YEAR BEEN
WITHIN ANOTHER STATE CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE DOMICILIARY STATE. 

FN4  IN SPEAKING OF "OCCASIONAL EXCURSIONS TO FOREIGN PARTS" AND
"RANDOM EXCURSIONS" (202 U.S. AT 597), MR. JUSTICE HOLMES MERELY PUT
COLLOQUIALLY THE LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT FACT THAT NEITHER ANY SPECIFIC
CARS NOR ANY AVERAGE OF CARS WAS SO CONTINUOUSLY IN ANY OTHER STATE AS
TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE HOME STATE AND TO HAVE ESTABLISHED FOR
TAX PURPOSES AN ADOPTED HOME STATE. 

FN5  AND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE DOMICILIARY STATE TO
TAX VESSELS IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS ITS POWER TO TAX ROLLING STOCK IS
CONCLUSIVELY SHOWN BY THE COURT'S RELIANCE IN THE MILLER CASE ON A CASE
DECIDED A WEEK BEFORE, NAMELY, AYER & LORD CO. V. KENTUCKY, 202 U.S.
409. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING: 

I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND IN SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THAT
IS SAID IN THE OPINION, BUT I WOULD NOT IN THIS CASE FORECLOSE
CONSIDERATION OF THE TAXING RIGHTS OF STATES OTHER THAN MINNESOTA. 

I BELIEVE THERE IS SMALL SUPPORT IN REASON OR IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR
THE DOCTRINE THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN AND OF ITSELF PROHIBITS A
STATE FROM APPLYING ITS GENERAL TAX LAWS TO TRANSACTIONS AND PROPERTIES
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNLESS IT IS ABLE TO MAKE TWO CORRECT PROPHECIES
AS TO WHAT THIS COURT ULTIMATELY MAY HOLD, NAMELY, (1) THE PERMISSIBLE
TOTAL OF TAXES WHICH MIGHT BE IMPOSED BY AN AGGREGATE OF STATES ON THE
TAXED PROPERTIES OR TRANSACTIONS; AND (2) THE PROPORTION OF THIS TOTAL
WHICH THE STATE ITSELF FAIRLY MAY CLAIM.  SEE DISSENTING OPINIONS IN
ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 316; GWIN, WHITE &
PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 442.  EXTENSION OF THIS DUBIOUS
DOCTRINE TO THE NEW PROBLEMS OF AIR TRANSPORT GIVES PROMISE OF LITTLE
BUT TAX CONFUSION. 

THE DIFFERING VIEWS OF MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN THIS AND RELATED CASES
ILLUSTRATE THE DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN THE JUDICIAL FORMULATION OF
GENERAL RULES TO MEET THE NATIONAL PROBLEMS ARISING FROM STATE TAXATION
WHICH BEARS IN INCIDENCE UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THESE PROBLEMS, IT
SEEMS TO ME, CALL FOR CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION, CONSIDERATION, AND
ACTION.  THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THAT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO
REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES, AND UNTIL IT ACTS I THINK WE SHOULD
ENTER THE FIELD WITH EXTREME CAUTION.  SEE DISSENTING OPINION,
MCCARROLL V. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES, 309 U.S. 176, 183. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING: 

THIS CASE CONSIDERS FOR THE FIRST TIME CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
UPON STATE POWER TO TAX AIRPLANES.  SEVERAL PRINCIPLES OF LIMITATION
HAVE BEEN JUDICIALLY EVOLVED IN REFERENCE TO SHIPS AND TO RAILROAD
ROLLING STOCK.  THE QUESTION IS WHICH, IF ANY, OF THESE SHOULD BE
TRANSFERRED TO AIR TRANSPORT. 

WE ARE AT A STAGE IN DEVELOPMENT OF AIR COMMERCE ROUGHLY COMPARABLE
TO THAT OF STEAMSHIP NAVIGATION IN 1824 WHEN GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9
WHEAT.  1, CAME BEFORE THIS COURT.  ANY AUTHORIZATION OF LOCAL BURDENS
ON OUR NATIONAL AIR COMMERCE WILL LEAD TO THEIR MULTIPLICATION IN THIS
COUNTRY.  MOREOVER, SUCH AN EXAMPLE IS NOT LIKELY TO BE NEGLECTED BY
OTHER REVENUE-NEEDY NATIONS AS INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT EXPANDS. 

AVIATION HAS ADDED A NEW DIMENSION TO TRAVEL AND TO OUR IDEAS.  THE
ANCIENT IDEA THAT LANDLORDISM AND SOVEREIGNTY EXTEND FROM THE CENTER OF
THE WORLD TO THE PERIPHERY OF THE UNIVERSE HAS BEEN MODIFIED.  TODAY
THE LANDOWNER NO MORE POSSESSES A VERTICAL CONTROL OF ALL THE AIR ABOVE
HIM THAN A SHORE OWNER POSSESSES HORIZONTAL CONTROL OF ALL THE SEA
BEFORE HIM.  THE AIR IS TOO PRECIOUS AS AN OPEN HIGHWAY TO PERMIT IT TO
BE "OWNED" TO THE EXCLUSION OR EMBARRASSMENT OF AIR NAVIGATION BY
SURFACE LANDLORDS WHO COULD PUT IT TO LITTLE REAL USE. 

STUDENTS OF OUR LEGAL EVOLUTION KNOW HOW THIS COURT INTERPRETED THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO LIFT NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES OUT OF LOCAL CONTROLS AND INTO THE DOMAIN OF FEDERAL
CONTROL.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, TO UNITED STATES V.
APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377.  AIR AS AN ELEMENT IN WHICH TO
NAVIGATE IS EVEN MORE INEVITABLY FEDERALIZED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
THAN IS NAVIGABLE WATER.  LOCAL EXACTIONS AND BARRIERS TO FREE TRANSIT
IN THE AIR WOULD NEUTRALIZE ITS INDIFFERENCE TO SPACE AND ITS CONQUEST
OF TIME. 

CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THE NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR REGULATING
AIR COMMERCE.  FEDERAL CONTROL IS INTENSIVE AND EXCLUSIVE.  PLANES DO
NOT WANDER ABOUT IN THE SKY LIKE VAGRANT CLOUDS.  THEY MOVE ONLY BY
FEDERAL PERMISSION, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INSPECTION, IN THE HANDS OF
FEDERALLY CERTIFIED PERSONNEL AND UNDER AN INTRICATE SYSTEM OF FEDERAL
COMMANDS.  THE MOMENT A SHIP TAXIS ONTO A RUNWAY IT IS CAUGHT UP IN AN
ELABORATE AND DETAILED SYSTEM OF CONTROLS.  IT TAKES OFF ONLY BY
INSTRUCTION FROM THE CONTROL TOWER, IT TRAVELS ON PRESCRIBED BEAMS, IT
MAY BE DIVERTED FROM ITS INTENDED LANDING, AND IT OBEYS SIGNALS AND
ORDERS.  ITS PRIVILEGES, RIGHTS AND PROTECTION, SO FAR AS TRANSIT IS
CONCERNED, IT OWES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALONE AND NOT TO ANY STATE
GOVERNMENT. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT EXTENDED ITS PROTECTION AND CONTROL TO THE FIELD OF
TAXATION, ALTHOUGH I TAKE IT NO ONE DENIES THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY IT MAY
DO SO.  IT MAY EXACT A SINGLE UNIFORM FEDERAL TAX ON THE PROPERTY OR
THE BUSINESS TO THE EXCLUSION OF TAXATION BY THE STATES.  IT MAY
SUBJECT THE VEHICLES OR OTHER INCIDENTS TO ANY TYPE OF STATE AND LOCAL
TAXATION, OR IT MAY DECLARE THEM TAX-FREE ALTOGETHER.  OUR FUNCTION IS
TO DETERMINE WHAT RULE GOVERNS IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH LEGISLATIVE
ENACTMENT. 

CERTAINLY TODAY FLIGHT OVER A STATE EITHER CASUALLY OR ON REGULAR
ROUTES AND SCHEDULES CONFERS NO JURISDICTION TO TAX.  EARLIER IDEAS OF
A STATE'S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE AIR ABOVE IT MIGHT ARGUE FOR SUCH A
RIGHT TO TAX, BUT IT IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE LEGAL PHILOSOPHY HAS
TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE WORLD DOES MOVE. 

DOES THE ACT OF LANDING WITHIN A STATE, EVEN REGULARLY AND ON
SCHEDULE, CONFER JURISDICTION TO TAX?  UNDOUBTEDLY A PLANE, LIKE ANY
OTHER ARTICLE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, COULD LAND OR REMAIN WITHIN A STATE
IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BECOME A PART OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE. 
BUT WHEN A PLANE LANDS TO RECEIVE AND DISCHARGE PASSENGERS, TO UNDERGO
SERVICING OR REPAIRS, OR TO AWAIT A CONVENIENT DEPARTING SCHEDULE, IT
DOES NOT IN MY OPINION LOSE ITS CHARACTER AS A PLANE IN TRANSIT.  LONG
AGO THIS COURT HELD THAT THE LANDING OF A SHIP WITHIN THE PORTS OF A
STATE FOR SIMILAR PURPOSES DID NOT CONFER JURISDICTION TO TAX.  HAYS V.
PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO., 17 HOW.  596; ST. LOUIS V. FERRY CO., 11 WALL. 
423; MORGAN V. PARHAM, 16 WALL.  471; CF. AYER & LORD TIE CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 202 U.S. 409.  I CANNOT CONSIDER THAT TO ALIGHT OUT OF THE
SKIES ONTO A LANDING FIELD AND TAKE OFF AGAIN INTO THE AIR CONFERS ANY
GREATER TAXING JURISDICTION ON A STATE THAN FOR A SHIP FOR THE SAME
PURPOSES TO COME ALONGSIDE A WHARF ON THE WATER AND GET UNDER WAY
AGAIN. 

WHAT, THEN, REMAINS AS A BASIS FOR MINNESOTA'S CLAIM TO TAX THIS
ENTIRE FLEET OF PLANES AT THEIR FULL VALUE AS PROPERTY OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA?  THEY HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE STATE ONLY TRANSIENTLY AND IN THE
SAME MANNER IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN IN MANY STATES:  TO SERVE THE
PUBLIC AND TO BE SERVICED.  THE PLANES HAVE RECEIVED NO "PROTECTION" OR
"BENEFIT" FROM MINNESOTA THAT THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED FROM MANY OTHERS. 
IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT, IN VIEW OF THE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THIS TYPE OF
ACTIVITY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TO FIND WHAT BENEFITS OR PROTECTION
ANY STATE EXTENDS.  BUT NO DISTINCTION WHATEVER CAN BE POINTED OUT
BETWEEN THOSE EXTENDED BY MINNESOTA AND THOSE EXTENDED BY ANY STATE
WHERE THERE IS A TERMINAL OR A STOPPING PLACE. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT MINNESOTA INCORPORATED THE COMPANY.  OF COURSE IT
IS HER RIGHT TO TAX THE COMPANY SHE HAS CREATED AND THE FRANCHISE SHE
HAS GRANTED.  I SUPPOSE THERE ARE MANY WAYS THAT SHE MIGHT
CONSTITUTIONALLY MEASURE THE VALUE OF THIS PRIVILEGE.  IF SHE CHARTERED
A CORPORATION ON CONDITION THAT ALL PROPERTY IT MIGHT ACQUIRE, TANGIBLE
OR INTANGIBLE, SHOULD BE TAXABLE UNDER HER LAWS, I DO NOT THINK A
COMPANY WHICH ACCEPTED SUCH A CHARTER COULD APPEAL TO THE CONSTITUTION
TO GIVE BACK WHAT IT VOLUNTARILY CONTRACTED AWAY.  BUT NO SUCH
STIPULATION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CHARTER IN THIS CASE.  THE TAX IMPOSED
HERE IS A GENERAL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX ON THE FULL VALUE OF EVERY
PLANE OF THE FLEET OPERATED BY THIS COMPANY.  DOMICILE OF AN OWNER IS A
USUAL TEST OF POWER TO TAX INTANGIBLES, BUT HAS NOT GENERALLY BEEN A
CONCLUSIVE TEST OF TAXABILITY OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY SITUATED ELSEWHERE. 
IF WE SHOULD SUPPOSE THAT THIS CORPORATION HAD A DELAWARE CHARTER
INSTEAD OF A MINNESOTA ONE, AND HAD NOTHING IN DELAWARE EXCEPT ITS
AGENT, BUT OPERATED OTHERWISE IN MINNESOTA EXACTLY AS IT HAS DONE,
WOULD WE SAY THAT THE ENTIRE RIGHT TO TAX THE FLEET MOVED TO DELAWARE
BECAUSE IT WAS THE CORPORATION'S STATE OF DOMICILE?  I DO NOT THINK
THAT DOMICILE, IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IS DECISIVE OF MINNESOTA'S
CLAIM TO TAX THE TANGIBLE PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY WHEREVER SITUATE. 
IT IS STRONGLY AND PLAUSIBLY ADVOCATED THAT THE THEORY OF APPORTIONMENT
OF THE TOTAL VALUE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OF OPERATION, HERETOFORE
APPLIED TO STATE TAXATION OF RAILROAD ROLLING STOCK, BE TRANSFERRED TO
AIR TRANSPORTATION.  THIS WOULD MEAN THAT EACH STATE OF OPERATION (NO
ONE VENTURES TO SAY WHETHER FLIGHT ALONE OR BOTH FLIGHT AND LANDING
WOULD BE REQUIRED) COULD TAX A PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL VALUE. 

THE APPORTIONMENT THEORY IS A MONGREL ONE, A CROSS BETWEEN DESIRE NOT
TO INTERFERE WITH STATE TAXATION AND DESIRE AT THE SAME TIME NOT
UTTERLY TO CRUSH OUT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS A PRACTICAL, BUT
RATHER ILLOGICAL, DEVICE TO PREVENT DUPLICATION OF TAX BURDENS ON
VEHICLES IN TRANSIT.  IT IS ESTABLISHED IN OUR DECISIONS AND HAS BEEN
FOUND MORE OR LESS WORKABLE WITH MORE OR LESS ARBITRARY FORMULAE OF
APPORTIONMENT.  NOTHING EITHER IN THEORY OR IN PRACTICE COMMENDS IT FOR
TRANSFER TO AIR COMMERCE.  A STATE HAS A DIFFERENT RELATION TO ROLLING
STOCK OF RAILROADS THAN IT HAS TO AIRPLANES.  ROLLING STOCK IS USELESS
WITHOUT SURFACE RIGHTS AND CONTINUOUS STRUCTURES ON EVERY INCH OF LAND
OVER WHICH IT OPERATES.  SURFACE RIGHTS THE RAILROAD HAS ACQUIRED FROM
THE STATE OR UNDER ITS LAW.  THERE IS A PHYSICAL BASIS WITHIN THE STATE
FOR THE TAXATION OF ROLLING STOCK WHICH IS LACKING IN THE CASE OF
AIRPLANES. 

IT SEEMS MORE THAN LIKELY THAT NO SOLUTION OF THE COMPETITION AMONG
STATES TO TAX THIS TRANSPORTATION AGENCY CAN BE DEVISED BY THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE HELP.  THE BEST ANALOGY THAT I FIND IN
EXISTING DECISIONS IS THE "HOME PORT" THEORY APPLIED TO SHIPS.  SEE
HAYS V. PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO., ST. LOUIS V. FERRY CO., MORGAN V.
PARHAM, SUPRA.  THERE IS DIFFICULTY IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS DOCTRINE
TO AIR COMMERCE, I GRANT.  THERE IS NO STATUTORY MACHINERY FOR FIXING
THE HOME PORT.  IF FEDERAL REGISTRATION ESTABLISHED STATEHOOD AS IT
ESTABLISHES NATIONALITY, THE HOME PORT DOCTRINE WOULD BE EASY TO
APPLY.  HOWEVER, ON THE RECORD BEFORE US IT SEEMS UNQUESTIONED THAT
MINNESOTA IS IN AN OPERATIONAL AS WELL AS IN A DOMICILIARY SENSE THE
HOME PORT OF THIS FLEET.  ON THAT DOCTRINE MINNESOTA CAN TAX THE FLEET,
BUT ITS RIGHT TO DO SO IS EXCLUSIVE, FOR NO OTHER STATE CAN ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION TO TAX MERELY BECAUSE IT PROVIDES A PORT OF CALL.  I
THEREFORE CONCUR IN THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE OPINION OF MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.  I DO NOT ACCEPT THE OPINION BECAUSE IT FALLS
SHORT OF COMMITMENT THAT MINNESOTA'S RIGHT IS EXCLUSIVE OF ANY SIMILAR
RIGHT ELSEWHERE.  IT IS, I KNOW, DIFFICULT TO JUDGE AND DANGEROUS TO
FORECLOSE CLAIMS OF OTHER STATES THAT ARE NOT BEFORE US.  THAT IS THE
WEAKNESS OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN THESE TAX QUESTIONS WHERE THE TOTAL
PROBLEM THAT FACES AN INDUSTRY REACHES US ONLY IN INSTALLMENTS.  IF THE
REASONING SHOULD HEREAFTER BE EXTENDED TO SUPPORT FULL TAXATION
EVERYWHERE, IT WOULD OFFEND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AS I SEE IT, EVEN MORE
SERIOUSLY THAN APPORTIONED TAXATION EVERYWHERE. 

THE EVILS OF LOCAL TAXATION OF GOODS OR VEHICLES IN TRANSIT ARE NOT
MEASURED BY THE EXACTION OF ONE LOCALITY ALONE, BUT BY THE AGGREGATION
OF THEM.  I CERTAINLY DO NOT FAVOR EXEMPTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
FROM ITS "JUST SHARE OF TAXATION."  BUT HISTORY SHOWS THAT FAIR
JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT EXACTIONS ARE JUST TO THE PASSER-BY CANNOT BE LEFT
TO LOCAL OPINION.  WHEN LOCAL AUTHORITY IS TAXING ITS OWN, THE TAXED
ONES MAY BE ASSUMED TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AT THE POLLS.  NO
SUCH SANCTION ENFORCES FAIR DEALING TO THE TRANSIENT.  IN ALL AGES AND
CLIMES THOSE WHO ARE SETTLED IN STRATEGIC LOCALITIES HAVE MADE THE
MOVING WORLD PAY DEARLY.  THIS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS DESIGNED TO END
IN THE UNITED STATES. 

THE RULE I SUGGEST SEEMS MOST CONSONANT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AMONG THOSE FOUND IN OUR PRECEDENTS.  BUT THE WHOLE
PROBLEM WE DEAL WITH IS UNPRECEDENTED.  I DO NOT THINK WE CAN DERIVE
FROM DECISIONAL LAW A SATISFACTORY ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONFLICTING NEEDS
OF THE NATION FOR FREE AIR COMMERCE AND THE NATURAL DESIRE OF
LOCALITIES TO HAVE REVENUE FROM THE BUSINESS THAT GOES ON ABOUT THEM. 

I CONCUR IN THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW, BUT ONLY BECAUSE
THE RECORD SEEMS TO ME TO ESTABLISH MINNESOTA AS A "HOME PORT" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE OLD AND SOMEWHAT NEGLECTED BUT TO ME WISE
AUTHORITIES CITED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

IN MY OPINION THE MINNESOTA LEVY IMPOSED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX ON
PETITIONER'S VEHICLES OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND FOR THAT REASON THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

PETITIONER, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, IS OWNER OF A LARGE NUMBER OF
AIRPLANES WHICH IT USES EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION MOVING
ON REGULAR SCHEDULES AND OVER FIXED ROUTES EXTENDING THROUGH EIGHT
STATES BETWEEN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AND THE PACIFIC COAST, WITH THE USUAL
LANDING FIELDS AND MAINTENANCE BASES AT INTERMEDIATE POINTS, INCLUDING
MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.  IT IS STIPULATED THAT ON MAY 1,
1939, 14% OF THE TOTAL MILEAGE OF THE PRESCRIBED INTERSTATE ROUTES WAS
IN MINNESOTA AND THAT 16% OF THE DAILY PLANE MILEAGE OF ALL
PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE PLANES WAS IN THAT STATE. 

ALTHOUGH THE MINNESOTA STATUTE TAXING PERSONAL PROPERTY DIRECTS THAT
IT SHALL BE LISTED FOR TAXATION ON MAY 1ST OF EACH YEAR AND ASSESSED
FOR TAXATION AT ITS VALUE ON THAT DATE, MINN. STAT. 1941 SEC. 273.01,
THE STATE TAXING AUTHORITIES HAVE LEVIED ON PETITIONER, AND THE
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT AND THIS COURT HAVE SUSTAINED, AN ANNUAL TAX ON
THE FULL VALUE OF ALL ITS PLANES USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH HAVE
COME INTO THE STATE AT ANY TIME DURING THE YEAR.  IT IS EVIDENT THAT
IF, WITH THE MINNESOTA TAX NOW SUSTAINED, OTHER STATES ARE LEFT FREE TO
IMPOSE A FURTHER OR COMPARABLE TAX ON THE SAME PROPERTY FOR THE SAME
TAX PERIOD, A SERIOUS QUESTION IS RAISED WHETHER THE TAX IS NOT A
PROHIBITED BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IT IS NO LONGER DOUBTED THAT INTERSTATE BUSINESS "MUST PAY ITS WAY"
BY SUSTAINING ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN WHICH THE
STATES IN WHICH THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS DONE MAY LAWFULLY IMPOSE
GENERALLY ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THEM.  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V.
BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250, 254-5 AND CASES CITED.  OBVIOUSLY INTERSTATE
BUSINESS BEARS NO UNDUE PART OF THAT BURDEN IF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY
TAX IMPOSED ON IT BY A GIVEN STATE IS - LIKE A TAX ON REAL ESTATE
LOCATED THERE - EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY TAXES IMPOSED BY OTHER
STATES, AS IS THE CASE WITH THE TAXATION OF VESSELS, OLD DOMINION S.S.
CO. V. VIRGINIA, 198 U.S. 299; SOUTHERN PACIFIC RY. V. KENTUCKY, 222
U.S. 63 AND CASES CITED; CF. N.Y. CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. MILLER, 202
U.S. 584, OR IF THE TAX ON ITS PERSONAL PROPERTY REGULARLY USED OVER
FIXED ROUTES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE TAXING
STATE, IS FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO ITS USE WITHIN THE STATE, AS HAS UNTIL
NOW BEEN THE RULE AS TO RAILROAD CARS.  MARYE V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO., 127 U.S. 117, 123-4; PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S.
18; AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO. V. HALL, 174 U.S. 70; UNION
TRANSIT CO. V. LYNCH, 177 U.S. 149; UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199
U.S. 194; GERMANIA REFINING CO. V. FULLER, 245 U.S. 632; UNION TANK
LINE CO. V. WRIGHT, 249 U.S. 275; JOHNSON OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 290 U.S.
158. 

IF THE TAX LEVIED HERE WERE HELD TO BE EXCLUSIVE OF ALL PROPERTY
TAXES IMPOSED ON PETITIONER'S AIRPLANES BY OTHER STATES THERE COULD BE
NO SERIOUS QUESTION OF AN UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THAT
QUESTION ARISES NOW ONLY BECAUSE THE RATIONALE FOUND NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT THE PRESENT TAX LEAVES OTHER STATES FREE TO IMPOSE COMPARABLE
TAXES ON THE SAME PROPERTY USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH MINNESOTA
HAS ALREADY TAXED FOR THE ENTIRE TAXABLE YEAR AND AT ITS FULL VALUE. 

SUCH, I THINK, IS THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE COURT'S DECISION
AND JUDGMENT NOW GIVEN.  THEY DO NOT SUSTAIN THE TAX ON THE GROUND THAT
MINNESOTA, AS THE STATE OF PETITIONER'S DOMICILE, HAS EXCLUSIVE POWER
TO TAX RESPONDENT'S PLANES WHICH PASS IN AND OUT OF MINNESOTA IN
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTERSTATE FUNCTIONS.  THEY DO NOT DENY THAT THE
PLANES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT, TO SOME EXTENT, TO PERSONAL
PROPERTY TAXES BY THE STATES THROUGH WHICH THEY PASS.  OUR DECISIONS,
AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR, ESTABLISH THAT THEY ARE, AND THAT VEHICLES OF
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION MOVING FROM THE STATE OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE
OVER REGULAR ROUTES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF OTHER STATES ALSO
ACQUIRE A TAX SITUS THERE, SO THAT, TO AN EXTENT PRESENTLY TO BE
CONSIDERED, THEY MAY BE TAXED BY EACH OF THE STATES THROUGH WHICH THEY
PASS.  IN FACT THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE
PLANES, ALREADY TAXED BY MINNESOTA FOR THEIR FULL VALUE, ARE IN
ADDITION SUBJECTED TO PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES IN SIX OF THE SEVEN OTHER
STATES THROUGH WHICH THEY FLY. 

BUT IF PETITIONER'S AIRPLANES, WHICH ARE TAXABLE FOR SOME PORTION OF
THEIR VALUE IN EACH OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY CARRY ON INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OVER FIXED ROUTES AND REGULAR SCHEDULES, ARE ALSO TAXED
FOR THEIR FULL VALUE BY MINNESOTA, THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE, IT IS
EVIDENT THAT MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
THEY MAY BE SUBJECTED TO MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION FAR IN EXCESS OF THEIR
VALUE, AND FAR BEYOND ANY TAX WHICH ANY ONE OF THE STATES CONCERNED
COULD UNDER ITS ESTABLISHED SYSTEM OF TAXATION IMPOSE ON VEHICLES WHOSE
MOVEMENTS ARE CONFINED WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL LIMITS.  IT IS A SCHEME
OF PROPERTY TAXATION ON WHICH, SO FAR AS THE DECISION NOW RENDERED
GIVES US ANY HINT, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE SETS NO RESTRICTION, BUT WHICH
IS SO BURDENSOME IN ITS OPERATION AS COMPARED WITH THE TAXES IMPOSED ON
INTRASTATE VEHICLES THAT FEW INTERSTATE CARRIERS COULD SUPPORT IT AND
SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY. 

THE CASE THUS SHARPLY PRESENTS IN A NEW FORM THE OLD QUESTION WHETHER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AFFORDS ANY PROTECTION AGAINST MULTIPLE STATE
TAXATION OF THE PHYSICAL FACILITIES USED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
WHICH, BECAUSE THEY MOVE FROM STATE TO STATE, ARE EXPOSED TO FULL
TAXATION IN EACH, SAVE ONLY AS THE DUE PROCESS AND COMMERCE CLAUSES MAY
PREVENT.  ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION IS NEW IN FORM IT IS OLD IN SUBSTANCE
AND THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED IT SO OFTEN IN OTHER BUT SIMILAR
RELATIONSHIPS THAT THE ANSWER HERE SEEMS PLAIN. 

OF CONTROLLING SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CASE ARE CERTAIN ELEMENTARY
PROPOSITIONS, SO LONG ACCEPTED AND APPLIED BY THIS COURT THAT THEY
CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DEBATABLE HERE, ALTHOUGH THEY SEEM NOT TO HAVE
BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DECIDING THIS CASE EITHER HERE OR IN THE
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT.  THE FIRST IS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
FOR THE STATE TAXATION OF THE AIRPLANES, WHICH ARE CHATTELS, IS THEIR
PHYSICAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE TAXING STATE, AND NOT THE DOMICILE OF THE
OWNER.  UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA; JOHNSON OIL CO. V.
OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, 161-2 AND CASES CITED.  IN THIS RESPECT, AS THIS COURT
HAS OFTEN POINTED OUT, THE TAXATION OF CHATTELS RESTS ON A DIFFERENT
BASIS THAN DOES THE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES, WHICH HAVE NO PHYSICAL
SITUS AND MAY BE REACHED BY THE TAX GATHERER ONLY THROUGH EXERTION OF
THE POWER OF THE STATE OVER THE PERSON OF THOSE WHO HAVE SOME LEGAL
INTEREST IN THE INTANGIBLES.  UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, 205
6; SCHWAB V. RICHARDSON, 263 U.S. 88, 92; FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268
U.S. 473, 494; BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1, 16-18; WHEELING STEEL
CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S. 193, 209-10; CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357,
363-6; GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383; GRAVES V. SCHMIDLAPP, 315 U.S.
657; STATE TAX COMM'N V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174. 

A STATE MAY, WITHIN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, TAX A CHATTEL LOCATED
WITHIN ITS LIMITS, ALTHOUGH ITS OWNER IS DOMICILED ELSEWHERE.  BROWN V.
HOUSTON, 114 U.S. 622; COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517; PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA; OLD DOMINION S.S. CO. V. VIRGINIA, SUPRA.  BUT DUE
PROCESS PRECLUDES THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE FROM TAXING IT UNLESS IT IS
BROUGHT WITHIN THAT STATE'S BOUNDARIES.  DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 198 U.S. 341; UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA; FRICK
V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 489 ET SEQ. IT IS PLAIN THEN THAT FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES, AND SO FAR AS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED,
RESPONDENT'S AIRPLANES, WHICH ARE CHATTELS REGULARLY MOVING OVER FIXED
INTERSTATE ROUTES, ARE SUBJECT IN SOME MEASURE TO THE TAXING POWER OF
EVERY STATE IN WHICH THEY REGULARLY STOP ON THEIR INTERSTATE MISSION. 
FN1 

IN SOME INSTANCES IT MAY BE THAT VEHICLES OF TRANSPORTATION MOVING
INTERSTATE ARE SO SPORADICALLY AND IRREGULARLY PRESENT IN OTHER STATES
THAT THEY ACQUIRE NO TAX SITUS THERE, HAYS V. PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO., 17
HOW.  596; ST. LOUIS V. FERRY CO., 11 WALL.  423; MORGAN V. PARHAM, 16
WALL.  471; AYER & LORD TIE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 202 U.S. 409, AND HENCE
REMAIN TAXABLE TO THEIR FULL VALUE BY THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT TAXABLE ELSEWHERE, N.Y. CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. MILLER,
SUPRA; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE
CASE AS TO ANY OF THE PLANES HERE INVOLVED.  AND OUR DECISIONS
ESTABLISH THAT, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF TANGIBLES WHICH HAVE NOWHERE
ACQUIRED A TAX SITUS BASED ON PHYSICAL PRESENCE, AND FOR THAT REASON
REMAIN TAXABLE AT THE DOMICILE EVEN IF NEVER PRESENT THERE, THE STATE'S
POWER TO TAX CHATTELS DEPENDS ON THEIR PHYSICAL PRESENCE AND IS NEITHER
ADDED TO NOR SUBTRACTED FROM BECAUSE THE TAXING STATE MAY OR MAY NOT
HAPPEN TO BE THE STATE OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE. 

WE NEED NOT CONSIDER TO WHAT EXTENT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE LIMITS THE
TAXING POWER OF EACH STATE THROUGH WHICH AIRPLANES OR OTHER VEHICLES OF
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION PASS, TO THE TAXATION OF PART ONLY OF THEIR
VALUE, FAIRLY RELATED TO THEIR USE WITHIN THE STATE, OR PRECLUDED THE
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT FROM EXTENDING TO TANGIBLE PROPERTY MOVING IN
MORE THAN ONE STATE THE RULE OF CURRY V. MCCANLESS, SUPRA, AND
SUBSEQUENT CASES, PERMITTING FULL TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES BY EACH STATE
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE INTEREST TAXED.  FOR WE ARE
DEALING HERE WITH TANGIBLE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
ENTITLED AS SUCH TO THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FROM
UNDULY BURDENSOME STATE TAXATION, EVEN THOUGH THE TAX MIGHT OTHERWISE
BE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATE.  AND IT IS PLAIN, AS
THIS COURT HAS OFTEN HELD, THAT IF ONE STATE MAY IMPOSE A PERSONAL
PROPERTY TAX AT FULL VALUE ON AN INTERSTATE CARRIER'S VEHICLES OF
TRANSPORTATION, AND OTHER STATES THROUGH WHICH THEY PASS MAY ALSO TAX
THEM FOR THE SAME TAX PERIOD, THE RESULTING TAX WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE OF
THE COMMERCE BY IMPOSING ON IT A MULTIPLE TAX BURDEN TO WHICH
INTRASTATE CARRIERS ARE NOT SUBJECTED. 

THIS COURT HAS NEVER DENIED THE POWER OF THE SEVERAL STATES TO IMPOSE
A PROPERTY TAX ON VEHICLES USED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IN THE
TAXING STATE.  IT HAS RECOGNIZED, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THAT SUCH
INSTRUMENTS OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, AT LEAST IF MOVING OVER FIXED
ROUTES ON REGULAR SCHEDULES, MAY THUS ACQUIRE A TAX SITUS IN EVERY
STATE THROUGH WHICH THEY PASS.  AND IT HAS MET THE PROBLEM OF
BURDENSOME MULTIPLE TAXATION BY THE SEVERAL STATES THROUGH WHICH SUCH
VEHICLES PASS BY RECOGNIZING THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OR THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OR BOTH PRECLUDE EACH STATE FROM IMPOSING ON THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE INVOLVED AN UNDUE OR INEQUITABLE SHARE OF THE TAX
BURDEN.  IN NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, 365,
WE RECENTLY CONSIDERED "THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE
STATE'S RIGHT TO SECURE ITS REVENUES AND THE NATION'S DUTY TO PROTECT
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION."  WE DECLARED THAT "THE PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED
IS WHAT PORTION OF AN INTERSTATE ORGANISM MAY APPROPRIATELY BE
ATTRIBUTED TO EACH OF THE VARIOUS STATES IN WHICH IT FUNCTIONS."  AND,
IN SUSTAINING THE TAX, APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO MILEAGE, UPON THE
ENTIRE PROPERTY, INCLUDING ROLLING STOCK, OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD,
IMPOSED BY TENNESSEE, THE STATE OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE, IN WHICH ITS
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OFFICE AND OVER 70% OF ITS TRACKAGE WAS LOCATED, WE
SAID THAT THE STATE COULD NOT "USE A FISCAL FORMULA  ...  TO PROJECT
THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE PLAINLY BEYOND ITS BORDERS." 

THIS COURT HAS ACCORDINGLY HELD INVALID STATE TAXATION OF VEHICLES OF
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION UNLESS THE TAX IS EQUITABLY APPORTIONED TO
THE USE OF THE VEHICLES WITHIN THE STATE COMPARED TO THEIR USE WITHOUT,
WHETHER THE TAX IS LAID BY THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE OR ANOTHER.  FN2
SUCH AN APPORTIONMENT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED WHEN MADE ACCORDING TO THE
MILEAGE TRAVELED WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE, PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 26, OR THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF VEHICLES WITHIN THE
TAXING STATE DURING THE TAX PERIOD.  MARYE V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO.,
SUPRA; AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO. V. HALL, SUPRA, 82; UNION
TRANSIT CO. V. LYNCH, SUPRA.  FN3 

BUT IF THE TAX IS LAID WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT OR IF THE APPORTIONMENT,
WHEN MADE, IS PLAINLY INEQUITABLE SO AS TO BEAR UNFAIRLY ON THE
COMMERCE BY COMPELLING THE CARRIER TO PAY TO THE TAXING STATE MORE THAN
ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE TAX MEASURED BY THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY,
THIS COURT HAS SET ASIDE THE TAX AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHETHER IT BE IN FORM ON THE ROLLING STOCK, UNION
TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA; UNION TANK LINE CO. V. WRIGHT, SUPRA;
JOHNSON OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, OR ON THE CARRIER'S ENTIRE
PROPERTY, FARGO V. HART, 193 U.S. 490; OR ON A FRANCHISE OR RIGHT TO DO
BUSINESS, ALLEN V. PULLMAN'S CAR CO., 191 U.S. 171; WALLACE V. HINES,
253 U.S. 66; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. KENTUCKY, 274 U.S. 76; CF. NORFOLK &
WESTERN R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 136 U.S. 114. 

UPON LIKE PRINCIPLES THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT A TAX LAID
BY A STATE ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH IS
COMPARABLE TO A PROPERTY TAX AT FULL VALUE ON VEHICLES OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION, VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE UNLESS EQUITABLY
APPORTIONED.  GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217;
OKLAHOMA V. WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298; SEE CUDAHY PACKING CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450, 453-5; PULLMAN CO. V. RICHARDSON, 261 U.S.
330, 338-9.  TO THE SAME EFFECT AS TO CAPITAL STOCK TAXES, SEE
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. O'CONNOR, 223 U.S. 280, 285 AND CASES
CITED. 

IN MANY THE TAX WAS HELD INVALID ALTHOUGH IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF THE
DOMICILE OF THE TAXPAYER.  PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326, 342, OVERRULING STATE TAX ON RAILWAY GROSS
RECEIPTS, 15 WALL.  284; CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292;
NEW JERSEY TELEPHONE CO. V. TAX BOARD, 280 U.S. 338; FISHER'S BLEND
STATION V. TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650; PUGET SOUND CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90; ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307; GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434; SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V.
BUREAU, SUPRA.  THE SAME RULE IS APPLIED TO THE TAXATION BY THE
DOMICILE OF GOODS CARRIED INTERSTATE, CASE OF THE STATE FREIGHT TAX, 15
WALL.  232; EUREKA PIPE LINE CO. V. HALLANAN, 257 U.S. 265; AND THE
TAXATION OF GOODS IN TRANSIT GENERALLY, HUGHES BROS. CO. V. MINNESOTA,
272 U.S. 469. 

IN GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 228, IN WHICH A TAX
ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF A RAILWAY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS
CONDEMNED BECAUSE NOT APPORTIONED, THE COURT DECLARED, "OF COURSE, IT
DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR ARE DOMESTIC
CORPORATIONS."  THE LIKE RULE, APPLIED TO THE TAXATION BY THE STATE OF
THE OWNER'S DOMICILE OF RAILROAD PROPERTY, INCLUDING ROLLING STOCK, WAS
APPROVED IN NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, SUPRA.  AND IN
BACON V. ILLINOIS, 227 U.S. 504, 511-12, THE COURT WAS AT PAINS TO
POINT OUT THAT THE POWER OF A STATE TO TAX GOODS IN TRANSIT IS NOT
AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT IT IS OR IS NOT THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER. 
THESE CASES CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT, WHATEVER RELEVANCE DOMICILE MAY AT
TIMES HAVE TO THE POWER OF A STATE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO TAX
TANGIBLES, IT HAS NONE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF THAT
POWER SO BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO VIOLATE THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE. 

IT CANNOT BE SAID EITHER IN POINT OF PRACTICALITY OR OF LEGAL THEORY
THAT ANYTHING IS ADDED TO MINNESOTA'S POWER TO TAX BY REASON OF THE
FACT THAT ALL OF PETITIONER'S AIRCRAFT ARE REGISTERED WITH THE CIVIL
AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY WITH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, DESIGNATED AS THEIR
"HOME PORT."  SECTION 501 OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT, 52 STAT. 1005,
49 U.S.C. SEC. 521, REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION WITH THE AUTHORITY OF
AIRCRAFT, MERELY PROVIDES THAT A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION "SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF NATIONALITY FOR INTERNATIONAL PURPOSES." 
NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED UNDER IT ATTACH ANY
OTHER CONSEQUENCES TO THE REGISTRATION OF AIRPLANES AT A PARTICULAR
"HOME PORT."  THE MUCH MORE DETAILED PROVISIONS OF R.S. SECS. 4141,
4178 AS AMENDED, REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF VESSELS AT A PARTICULAR HOME
PORT AND THE PAINTING OF THE NAME OF THAT PORT ON THE STERN OF THE
VESSEL, HAVE BEEN HELD IRRELEVANT TO STATE POWER TO TAX, EVEN THOUGH
THE PORT OF ENROLLMENT IS ALSO ONE AT WHICH THE VESSEL REGULARLY CALLS,
ST. LOUIS V. FERRY CO., SUPRA; AYER & LORD TIE CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA;
SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, 68, 73. 

NOR IS IT OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE FOR TAX PURPOSES WHETHER MINNESOTA IS
"AS A BUSINESS FACT THE HOME STATE OF THE FLEET."  WHILE THE EXISTENCE
OF A BUSINESS DOMICILE HAS BEEN THOUGHT TO AFFORD A BASIS FOR THE STATE
TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES, ON THE THEORY THAT THEY HAVE BECOME LOCALIZED
THERE, WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, SUPRA, 211 ET SEQ., THE
CONSTITUTIONAL BASES FOR THE TAXATION OF TANGIBLES AND OF INTANGIBLES
ARE, AS WE HAVE SEEN, QUITE DIFFERENT, AND UNDER OUR DECISIONS, TO
WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED, THE ONLY BASIS FOR THE TAXATION OF TANGIBLES IS
THEIR PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THE TAXING JURISDICTION.  AND EVEN THE
TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS IS SUBJECT TO THE RULE
OF APPORTIONMENT WHEREVER THE TAX WITHOUT IT WOULD SUBJECT THE COMMERCE
TO THE BURDEN OF MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION.  THE "UNIT RULE" FOR THE
TAXATION OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS APPLIES TO TANGIBLES AND INTANGIBLES
ALIKE AND REQUIRES AN EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE TAX ON BOTH. 
ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. OHIO, 165 U.S. 194, 222, 226; 166 U.S. 185, 223-4,
225; FARGO V. HART, SUPRA, 499; OKLAHOMA V. WELLS FARGO & CO., SUPRA,
300; WALLACE V. HINES, SUPRA, 69-70; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. KENTUCKY,
SUPRA, 81. 

MOREOVER, THE DIFFICULTIES OF APPLYING TO AIRCRAFT A RULE OF TAXATION
AT A "HOME PORT" ARE ESSENTIALLY THOSE WHICH HAVE LED, LONG SINCE, TO
THE ABANDONMENT OF THE IDEA BY THIS COURT AS APPLIED TO VESSELS. 
COMPARE ST. LOUIS V. FERRY CO., SUPRA; AYER & LORD TIE CO. V. KENTUCKY,
SUPRA.  WHILE IT APPEARS FROM THE PRESENT RECORD THAT PETITIONER
MAINTAINS AT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, ITS AIRPLANE AND ENGINE OVERHAULING
BASE, AT WHICH THE PRINCIPAL REPAIRS TO PLANES AND ENGINES ARE MADE, IT
ALSO OPERATES MAINTENANCE BASES AT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MINNEAPOLIS,
MINNESOTA, FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA, BILLINGS, MONTANA, AND SPOKANE AND
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, AT WHICH POINTS IT MAINTAINS CREWS OF MECHANICS
AND MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT.  IT OWNS AND LEASES HANGARS AND OFFICE SPACE
AT ALL OF ITS STOPPING POINTS, EACH OF WHICH ARE MANNED BY ITS
EMPLOYEES.  ON THE TAX DAY, MAY 1, 1939, PETITIONER'S PLANES MADE NO
SCHEDULED STOP IN ST. PAUL.  THUS A NUMBER OF STATES HAVE A PHYSICAL
RELATIONSHIP TO PETITIONER'S BUSINESS - BY REASON OF THE MOVEMENT OF
PLANES, OVER THE FIXED ROUTES, THE LANDING OF PLANES, THE MAINTENANCE
AND OPERATION OF REPAIR AND SERVICE EQUIPMENT, LANDING FIELDS, HANGARS,
AND OFFICE BUILDINGS, WITH THEIR ATTENDANT EMPLOYEES - WHICH, FOR
PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IS AS SUBSTANTIAL IN NATURE AS THAT CLAIMED FOR
MINNESOTA. 

EVEN IF WE COULD SAY ON THIS RECORD THAT MINNESOTA AND IT ALONE CAN
BE REGARDED AS THE "HOME STATE," WE HAVE NO ASSURANCE THAT IN TAXING
PLANES OPERATED BY OTHER AND MORE COMPLEX BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS, ONE
STATE WILL HAVE ANY GREATER CLAIM TO THAT DESIGNATION THAN SEVERAL
OTHERS, AND THE COURT'S OPINION FURNISHES NO TEST TO GUIDE IN THE
CHOICE AMONG THEM, IF CHOICE HAS ANY RELEVANCE.  NOR DOES IT SAY THAT
THE POWER TO TAX VEHICLES OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AT THE DOMICILE
OR THE "HOME PORT" IS EXCLUSIVE.  OBVIOUSLY, UNLESS IT IS DEEMED TO BE
THUS EXCLUSIVE IT DOES NOT FORECLOSE ANY STATE WITHIN WHICH THE PLANES
MOVE ON FIXED ROUTES FROM IMPOSING A LIKE TAX BURDEN.  AND IF IT IS
DEEMED TO BE EXCLUSIVE THE OTHER STATES MUST BE DENIED THEIR JUST
CLAIMS TO COLLECT AN EQUITABLE TAX ON PROPERTY REGULARLY USED WITHIN
THEM IN CARRYING ON AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  NORTH DAKOTA, FOR
INSTANCE, IN TAXING THE PLANES REGULARLY LANDING WITHIN ITS BORDERS, IS
NOT TAXING RIGHTS ORIGINATING IN AND SAFEGUARDED BY MINNESOTA, OR
EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO MINNESOTA.  NO REASON APPEARS WHY
NORTH DAKOTA SHOULD BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO TAX THE PLANES TO THE EXTENT
THAT THEY ARE WITHIN ITS BORDERS, OR WHY, TO THAT EXTENT, MINNESOTA HAS
ANY RELATIONSHIP TO THEM SUFFICIENT EITHER TO ENABLE IT TO TAX THEM OR
TO PRECLUDE NORTH DAKOTA FROM TAXING THEM. 

THE TAXATION OF VEHICLES OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IN A BUSINESS
ORGANIZED AND CONDUCTED AS IS PETITIONER'S IS AS CAPABLE OF
APPORTIONMENT, AND THE INSUPPORTABLE MULTIPLE TAX BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS AS READILY AVOIDED BY APPORTIONMENT OF THE TAX, AS IN THE
CASE OF THE TAXATION OF TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE PROPERTY OF RAILROADS,
RAILROAD CAR SUPPLY COMPANIES, EXPRESS COMPANIES, AND THE LIKE WHICH WE
HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD TO BE SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF APPORTIONMENT.  TO
REFUSE NOW TO APPLY THE RULE OF APPORTIONMENT TO PETITIONER'S
AIRPLANES, AFTER A HALF CENTURY OF ITS APPLICATION BY THIS COURT AS THE
MEANS OF AVOIDING PROHIBITED MULTIPLE STATE TAX BURDENS ON VEHICLES OF
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION; TO EXTEND TO AIRPLANES MOVING INTERSTATE
OVER FIXED ROUTES ON REGULAR SCHEDULES, THE RULE THAT INTANGIBLES MAY
BE TAXED AT THE BUSINESS DOMICILE WHETHER OR NOT TAXED ELSEWHERE; AND
TO REVIVE THE ABANDONED DOCTRINE THAT VESSELS MAY BE TAXED IN FULL AT
THEIR HOME PORT, WHILE REJECTING THE CORRELATIVE RULE THAT THEY ARE
EXEMPT FROM TAXATION ELSEWHERE, IS TO DISREGARD THE TEACHINGS OF
EXPERIENCE AND OF PRECEDENT.  IT SUBJECTS A NEW AND IMPORTANT INDUSTRY
TO STATE TAX BURDENS, ESSENTIALLY DISCRIMINATORY IN THEIR EFFECT ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO WHICH OTHER INTERSTATE CARRIERS ARE NOT SUBJECT
AND WHICH IT WAS THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO AVOID. 

RESPONDENT PLACES ITS RELIANCE ON N.Y. CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V.
MILLER, SUPRA.  THERE THE COURT SUSTAINED A FRANCHISE TAX BY THE STATE
OF DOMICILE INCLUDING IN ITS MEASURE THE FULL VALUE OF FREIGHT CARS
MOVING IN AND OUT OF THE STATE, OFTEN OUT OF THE TAXPAYER'S POSSESSION
FOR AN INDEFINITE TIME, AND MOVING IN THE SERVICE OF OTHER ROADS ON
THEIR INDEPENDENT BUSINESS.  THE DECISION PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION,
NOT TENABLE HERE BUT WHICH THE FACTS OF THAT CASE WERE THOUGHT TO
SUPPORT, THAT THE CARS WERE NOT SHOWN TO HAVE MOVED SO REGULARLY OR
CONTINUOUSLY IN ANY STATE OR GROUP OF STATES OUTSIDE THE DOMICILE AS TO
GAIN A TAX SITUS THERE.  THE COURT IN DISTINGUISHING THE CASE FROM
PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, WHICH SUSTAINED A STATE TAX
ON A FOREIGN RAILROAD CORPORATION, MEASURED BY THE INTRASTATE MILEAGE
OF CARS PASSING IN AND OUT OF THE TAXING STATE, SAID (PP. 597-8):  "BUT
IN THAT CASE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE 'CARS USED IN THIS STATE HAVE,
DURING ALL THE TIME FOR WHICH TAX IS CHARGED, BEEN RUNNING INTO,
THROUGH AND OUT OF THE STATE.'  THE SAME CARS WERE CONTINUOUSLY
RECEIVING THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS JUST THAT
THE STATE SHOULD TAX A PROPORTION OF THEM. WHETHER IF THE SAME AMOUNT
OF PROTECTION HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF CONSTANTLY CHANGING CARS
THE SAME PRINCIPLE WOULD HAVE APPLIED WAS NOT DECIDED, AND IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO DECIDE NOW.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT ANY SPECIFIC CARS OR ANY AVERAGE OF CARS WAS SO
CONTINUOUSLY IN ANY OTHER STATE AS TO BE TAXABLE THERE.  THE ABSENCES
RELIED ON WERE NOT IN THE COURSE OF TRAVEL UPON FIXED ROUTES BUT RANDOM
EXCURSIONS OF CASUALLY CHOSEN CARS, DETERMINED BY THE VARYING ORDERS OF
PARTICULAR SHIPPERS AND THE ARBITRARY CONVENIENCE OF OTHER ROADS. 
THEREFORE WE NEED NOT CONSIDER EITHER WHETHER THERE IS ANY NECESSARY
PARALLELISM BETWEEN LIABILITY ELSEWHERE AND IMMUNITY AT HOME."    THE
PRESENT CASE RAISES THE QUESTION WHICH THE MILLER CASE FOUND IT
UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE BUT WHICH THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY ANSWERED BY
REQUIRING THE APPORTIONMENT OF A TAX ON VEHICLES OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION ACCORDING TO THEIR REGULAR USE WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE
TAXING STATE.  IN THE MILLER CASE IT APPEARED THAT THE CARS MOVED NOT
ONLY OVER THE CARRIER'S OWN TRACKS, BUT ALSO WERE INTERCHANGED WITH
OTHER RAILROADS, AND THUS, AS THE COURT POINTED OUT, MOVED ABOUT ALMOST
AT RANDOM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED
TENDING TO SHOW IN WHAT STATES THE CARS MOVED, OR WITH WHAT DEGREE OF
REGULARITY THEY WERE PRESENT IN ANY PARTICULAR STATE OR GROUP OF STATES
OTHER THAN NEW YORK.  THE COURT WAS THUS NOT CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER
WHETHER NEW YORK COULD TAX THE CARS IF THEY MOVED BETWEEN NEW YORK AND
OTHER NAMED STATES WITH SUCH REGULARITY THAT AN "AVERAGE OF CARS" COULD
BE SAID TO BE CONTINUOUSLY SO MOVING IN THOSE OTHER STATES.  HERE, ON
THE OTHER HAND, IT IS STIPULATED AND FOUND THAT ALL OF PETITIONER'S
PLANES ARE "CONTINUOUSLY ENGAGED IN FLYING FROM STATE TO STATE IN THE
COURSE OF (PETITIONER'S) OPERATIONS" AND THAT THOSE OPERATIONS ARE ON
REGULAR SCHEDULES ALONG FIXED ROUTES THROUGH EIGHT STATES.  THE TOTAL
MILEAGE OF REGULAR ROUTES AND THE TOTAL DAILY MILEAGE ON THOSE ROUTES
BOTH IN MINNESOTA AND OUTSIDE ARE DEFINITELY STIPULATED AND FOUND. 
HENCE THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR SAYING THAT THEIR PRESENCE IN EACH OF THE
STATES THROUGH WHICH THEY PASS IS NOT AS REGULAR AND CONTINUOUS IN
NATURE AS IT IS IN MINNESOTA.  THESE FINDINGS ESTABLISH THAT, WHILE NO
PARTICULAR PLANE IS PERMANENTLY WITHIN ANY STATE, ITS PLANES ARE
CONTINUOUSLY FLYING IN, AND AN AVERAGE NUMBER OR A PERCENTAGE OF THE
TOTAL IS REGULARLY, I.E., "PERMANENTLY" WITHIN, EACH OF THE STATES
THROUGH WHICH THEY PASS.  HERE, AS WAS THE CASE IN PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, THE SAME PLANES ARE "RUNNING INTO, THROUGH, AND
OUT OF" EACH OF THE STATES ALONG PETITIONER'S ROUTES AND AN "AVERAGE"
OF PLANES IS CONTINUOUSLY WITHIN EACH OF THOSE STATES.  FN4 

WE ARE NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH THE PROPER APPORTIONMENT OF TAXABLE
VALUES AMONG THE STATES OUTSIDE THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.  SINCE THE
MOVEMENT OF THE PLANES, WHEREVER THEY GO, IS OVER FIXED ROUTES AND ON
REGULAR SCHEDULES, THEY ACQUIRE A TAX SITUS OUTSIDE MINNESOTA TO THE
EXTENT THAT THEY DO NOT MOVE WITHIN IT.  HENCE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY
MOVE IN AND ARE TAXABLE BY ONE STATE OUTSIDE MINNESOTA RATHER THAN
ANOTHER IS IRRELEVANT.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE MINNESOTA TAX IS FOR FULL
VALUE AND THAT MINNESOTA'S FISCAL FORMULA IMPOSES A PROHIBITED BURDEN
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE IT IS USED "TO PROJECT THE TAX POWER OF
THE STATE PLAINLY BEYOND ITS BORDERS," TO REACH INSTRUMENTS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH ARE TAXABLE ELSEWHERE, AND THAT THE EXTENT OF
THAT PROJECTION MAY BE MEASURED BY COMPARING EITHER THE PLANE OR THE
ROUTE MILEAGE OVER FIXED ROUTES IN MINNESOTA WITH LIKE MILEAGE OVER
FIXED ROUTES IN THE STATES OUTSIDE MINNESOTA. 

BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE THE MILLER CASE THIS COURT HAS RULED THAT
VEHICLES OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION REGULARLY MOVING TO AND FROM THE
STATE OF DOMICILE FROM AND TO OTHER STATES ACQUIRE A TAX SITUS IN THE
LATTER, AND THAT THE STATE OF DOMICILE CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY LEVY ON
THEM AN UNAPPORTIONED PROPERTY TAX.  UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY,
SUPRA; JOHNSON OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY.
V. BROWNING, SUPRA.  IN JOHNSON OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, 161-2,
WHERE THE CARS MOVED FROM AND TO OKLAHOMA TO AND FROM VARIOUS STATES
INCLUDING ILLINOIS, THE STATE OF DOMICILE, WE DECLARED THAT THE CARS
HAD ACQUIRED A TAX SITUS OUTSIDE ILLINOIS AND WERE TO THAT EXTENT NOT
TAXABLE BY ILLINOIS.  THE COURT RESTED ITS DECISION ON THE RULE, STATED
WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, THAT "WHEN A FLEET OF CARS IS HABITUALLY
EMPLOYED IN SEVERAL STATES - THE INDIVIDUAL CARS CONSTANTLY RUNNING IN
AND OUT OF EACH STATE - IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY ONE OF THE STATES IS
ENTITLED TO TAX THE ENTIRE NUMBER OF CARS REGARDLESS OF THEIR USE IN
OTHER STATES."  FN5 THOSE CASES SHOULD CONTROL NOW.  FOR HERE WE ARE
CONFRONTED WITH A SCHEME OF TAXATION IMPOSED ON VEHICLES OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION LOCATED WITHIN THE TAXING STATE FOR ONLY A LIMITED AND
SPECIFIED PART OF THEIR ACTIVE LIFE.  FOR THE REST, THEY ARE IN OTHER
STATES, MOVING OVER FIXED ROUTES OF TRAVEL WHERE, UNDER OUR DECISIONS,
THEY PLAINLY HAVE A TAX SITUS, AND WHERE THEY ARE IN FACT TAXED IN SIX
OF THE SEVEN STATES OTHER THAN MINNESOTA THROUGH WHICH THEY PASS. 

THE TAX NOW SUSTAINED IS SO OBVIOUSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE
PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THE TAXED PROPERTY BY THE TAXING STATE AS TO
PLACE A CONSTITUTIONALLY INTOLERABLE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
BUT IT IS A BURDEN WHICH IS CAPABLE OF EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WOULD
SATISFY CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS BY THE APPLICATION OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF APPORTIONMENT WHICH THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY SANCTIONED,
AND WHICH IT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO
APPLY.  THE APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES DOES NOT CALL FOR
MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS NOR FOR THE RIGID APPLICATION OF A PARTICULAR
FORMULA; ONLY IF THE RESULTING VALUATION IS PALPABLY EXCESSIVE WILL IT
BE SET ASIDE.  BUT A REASONABLE ATTEMPT MUST BE MADE TO TAX ONLY SO
MUCH OF THE VALUE AS IS FAIRLY RELATED TO USE WITHIN THE TAXING STATE. 
UNION TANK LINE CO. V. WRIGHT, SUPRA, 282; GREAT NORTHERN RY. V. WEEKS,
SUPRA, 144; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, SUPRA, 365. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO SUGGEST THAT THE STATES OTHER THAN MINNESOTA HAVE
NOT ASSERTED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO TAX OR THAT WE DO NOT KNOW
HOW OR TO WHAT EXTENT THEY HAVE EXERCISED IT. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ONE
STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX THE INSTRUMENTS OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHAT OTHER STATES MAY HAPPEN TO DO,
BUT ON WHAT THE TAXING STATE HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DO.  THE
JURISDICTION OF MINNESOTA TO TAX "MUST BE DETERMINED ON A BASIS WHICH
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LIKE JURISDICTION OF OTHER STATES."  JOHNSON OIL
CO. V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, 162.  MINNESOTA CANNOT JUSTIFY ITS IMPOSITION
OF AN UNDUE PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL TAX BURDEN WHICH CAN BE IMPOSED ON
AN INTERSTATE CARRIER BY SAYING THAT OTHER STATES HAVE TAKEN OR MAY
TAKE LESS THAN THEIR SHARE OF THE TAX.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE TAX
EXPOSES PETITIONER TO "THE RISK OF A MULTIPLE BURDEN TO WHICH LOCAL
COMMERCE IS NOT EXPOSED," ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA, 311; GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA, 439, AND CASES CITED.  TO HOLD
OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO MEASURE MINNESOTA'S POWER TO TAX, NOT BY
CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS, BUT BY THE ACTION OF OTHER STATES OVER WHICH
NEITHER MINNESOTA NOR PETITIONER HAS ANY CONTROL AND TO LEAVE
PETITIONER'S TAX TO BE MEASURED FROM YEAR TO YEAR, NOT ACCORDING TO ANY
LEGAL STANDARD, BUT BY THE UNPREDICTABLE UNCONTROLLED ACTION OF OTHER
STATES. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURSE OF WHICH THE STATE COURT WOULD BE FREE, IF SO
ADVISED, TO INQUIRE TO WHAT EXTENT, IF AT ALL, THE TAX MAY, IN HARMONY
WITH STATE LAW, BE APPORTIONED IN CONFORMITY TO PRINCIPLES HERETOFORE
ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT, AND TO THAT EXTENT SUSTAINED. 

FN1  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER HERE WHETHER THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE
OVER AIR ABOVE IT - AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE CONTROL OF A PRIVATE
LANDOWNER OVER AIR ABOVE HIS LAND - AFFORDS A BASIS FOR TAXATION OF
PLANES WHICH REGULARLY FLY OVER THE STATE BUT DO NOT REGULARLY LAND
WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  FOR IN SIX OF THE SEVEN STATES, OTHER THAN
MINNESOTA, OVER WHICH PETITIONER'S AIRPLANES REGULARLY FLY, THEY ALSO
MAKE REGULAR SCHEDULED LANDINGS.  PLAINLY THOSE STATES HAVE
JURISDICTION TO TAX A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THEIR VALUE AND TO THAT
EXTENT THE JUDGMENT OF THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT, PERMITTING TAXATION
IN FULL BY THE DOMICILE, IS ERRONEOUS, AND THE CAUSE SHOULD BE REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

FN2  THE RULE, GENERALLY APPLIED, THAT VESSELS ARE TAXABLE ONLY BY
THE DOMICILE, HAYS V. PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO., 17 HOW.  596, 597; ST.
LOUIS V. FERRY CO., 11 WALL.  423, 430, 431-2; MORGAN V. PARHAM, 16
WALL.  471, 475; TRANSPORTATION CO. V. WHEELING, 99 U.S. 273, 279-80;
AYER & LORD TIE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 202 U.S. 409, 421; SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO. V. KENTUCKY, 222 U.S. 63, 68, 69, 77, IS NO EXCEPTION TO THESE
RULES.  FOR VESSELS ORDINARILY MOVE ON THE HIGH SEAS, OUTSIDE THE
JURISDICTION OF ANY STATE, AND MERELY TOUCH BRIEFLY AT PORTS WITHIN A
STATE.  HENCE THEY ACQUIRE NO TAX SITUS IN ANY OF THE STATES AT WHICH
THEY TOUCH PORT, AND ARE TAXABLE BY THE DOMICILE OR NOT AT ALL.  SEE
PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S. 18, 23; SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, 75.  THE SUGGESTION IN THE EARLIER CASES, SEE
HAYS V. PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO., SUPRA, 600; ST. LOUIS V. FERRY CO.,
SUPRA; MORGAN V. PARHAM, SUPRA, THAT VESSELS WERE TO BE TAXED
EXCLUSIVELY AT THE HOME PORT, WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS THE DOMICILE, WAS
REJECTED IN AYER & LORD TIE CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, AND SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, AND HAS NEVER BEEN REVIVED.  BUT WHERE
THE VESSELS OPERATE WHOLLY ON WATERS WITHIN ONE STATE, THEY HAVE BEEN
HELD TO BE TAXABLE THERE, OLD DOMINION S.S. CO. V. VIRGINIA, 198 U.S.
299, AND NOT AT THE DOMICILE, SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA,
67, 72, A RESULT WHICH, LIKE THE RULE OF APPORTIONMENT IN TAXING
RAILROAD CARS, AVOIDS THE BURDEN OF MULTIPLE TAXATION. 

FN3  SIMILARLY TAXES BY THE STATE OF DOMICILE OR OTHER STATES ON THE
CARRIER'S ENTIRE PROPERTY INCLUDING ROLLING STOCK HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED
IF APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO MILEAGE, PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY.
CO. V. BACKUS, 154 U.S. 421; ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. OHIO, 165 U.S. 194,
166 U.S. 185; AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. V. INDIANA, 165 U.S. 255; ADAMS
EXPRESS CO. V. KENTUCKY, 166 U.S. 171; WELLS, FARGO & CO. V. NEVADA,
248 U.S. 165; ST. LOUIS & E. ST. L. RY. CO. V. HAGERMAN, 256 U.S. 314;
SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. WATTS, 260 U.S. 519; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V.
BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, OR A COMBINATION OF RELEVANT FACTORS, ROWLEY V.
CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 293 U.S. 102; GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. WEEKS,
297 U.S. 135.  LIKEWISE GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES, IF PROPERLY APPORTIONED
OR OTHERWISE LIMITED TO RECEIPTS FROM BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE STATE,
HAVE BEEN UPHELD, ERIE RY. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 21 WALL.  492; MAINE V.
GRAND TRUNK RY. CO., 142 U.S. 217, AS EXPLAINED IN GALVESTON, H. & S.A.
RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 226; UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335; CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450;
PULLMAN CO. V. RICHARDSON, 261 U.S. 330; CF. NEW YORK, L.E. & W.R. CO.
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 158 U.S. 431. 

FN4  IT IS TRUE THAT HERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE AVERAGE NUMBER
OF PLANES PRESENT WITHIN MINNESOTA OR ANY OTHER STATE DURING THE TAX
YEAR.  BUT WHERE THE MOVEMENT THROUGH THE STATE IS REGULAR AND
CONTINUOUS, AS IT IS HERE AND WAS NOT IN THE MILLER CASE, APPORTIONMENT
MAY BE MADE BY SHOWING THE PLANE MILEAGE OR ROUTE MILEAGE WITHIN AND
WITHOUT THE STATE.  PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S. 18;
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, AND CASES CITED. 
THE MINNESOTA COURT HERE DID NOT REST ITS DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT
PETITIONER HAD SOUGHT TO APPORTION BY MILEAGE INSTEAD OF BY AVERAGE
NUMBER OF CARS, AND HAD INTRODUCED NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE LATTER
TYPE OF APPORTIONMENT.  IF IT HAD IT MIGHT WELL HAVE REMANDED THE CAUSE
TO PERMIT ANY DEFICIENCIES OF PROOF TO BE REMEDIED.  IT HELD RATHER
THAT REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF PROOF OF APPORTIONMENT MINNESOTA, AS
THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE, COULD TAX THE CARS FOR THEIR ENTIRE VALUE. 

IN THIS RESPECT ALSO THE CASE IS UNLIKE THE MILLER CASE.  THERE, AS
THE RECORD REVEALS, THE CARRIER'S EVIDENCE SHOWED ONLY THE CAR MILEAGE
WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE, AND ITS OWNED TRACK MILEAGE WITHIN AND
WITHOUT THE STATE.  BUT SINCE THE CARS MOVED OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES
WITHOUT FIXED SCHEDULES, CAR MILEAGE AFFORDED NO BASIS OF
APPORTIONMENT, WITHOUT PROOF ALSO THAT THE CARS WERE PRESENT IN
PARTICULAR STATES WITH SUFFICIENT REGULARITY TO ACQUIRE A TAX SITUS
THERE.  OWNED TRACK MILEAGE LIKEWISE FAILED TO AFFORD A BASIS OF
APPORTIONMENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME PROOF THAT THE TRACKS WERE
REGULARLY USED BY THE CARS IN QUESTION.  NOR DID THE CARRIER LACK
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE FULLER PROOF.  THE CAUSE AS IT CAME HERE INVOLVED
FIVE SUCCESSIVE TAX YEARS, AS TO EACH OF WHICH THE CARRIER WAS AFFORDED
A HEARING WITH OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE.  THE CARRIER HAVING
FAILED DESPITE THIS REPEATED OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE WHICH
WOULD, ON ANY THEORY OF APPORTIONMENT, SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT ANY
PARTICULAR PROPORTION OF CARS HAD ACQUIRED A TAX SITUS ELSEWHERE, THIS
COURT, AS IT POINTED OUT, WAS NOT CALLED UPON TO APPLY THE RULE OF
PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, OR TO CONSIDER WHETHER,
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, PROPERTY USED AS AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF COMMERCE MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE RISK OF DOUBLE
TAXATION. 

FN5  IN UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, IT APPEARED THAT
THE CARS OF THE TRANSIT COMPANY, THE TAXPAYER, MOVED IN AND OUT OF
KENTUCKY, THE STATE OF DOMICILE.  THE TRANSIT COMPANY DISCLAIMED ON THE
RECORD ANY EFFORT TO PROVE THAT IT HAD ANY CARS WHICH NEVER CAME WITHIN
THE STATE, AND SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH THE NUMBER "PERMANENTLY LOCATED"
OUTSIDE IT ONLY BY PROOF OF GROSS EARNINGS WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE
STATE.  IN HOLDING THAT THE STATE OF DOMICILE COULD NOT TAX TANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY "PERMANENTLY LOCATED IN OTHER STATES" (P. 201), IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE COURT WAS LIMITING THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE OF
DOMICILE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CARS MOVING BETWEEN KENTUCKY AND OTHER
STATES HAD, UNDER THE RULE OF APPORTIONMENT, GAINED A TAX SITUS OUTSIDE
THE STATE BECAUSE THEY WERE "LOCATED AND EMPLOYED" THERE (P. 211). 
THIS IS EVIDENT FROM ITS CITATION (P. 206) OF PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V.
PENNSLYVANIA, 141 U.S. 18, AND AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO. V.
HALL, 174 U.S. 70, AS CASES INVOLVING PROPERTY "PERMANENTLY LOCATED" IN
THE TAXING STATES.  BOTH CASES INVOLVED ROLLING STOCK CONTINUOUSLY
MOVING INTO AND OUT OF THE TAXING STATE AND SUSTAINED TAXES UPON A
PROPORTION OF THE CARRIER'S TOTAL ROLLING STOCK BASED RESPECTIVELY UPON
THE TRACK MILEAGE OR UPON THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF CARS USED WITHIN THE
TAXING STATE.  HAD THE COURT INTENDED TO EXEMPT, FROM THE DOMICILE'S
POWER TO TAX, ONLY PROPERTY WHICH NEVER CAME INTO THE DOMICILE IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN ENCESSARY FOR IT TO DISCUSS ALSO THE CONTENTION THAT THE
UNION TRANSIT COMPANY HAD BEEN DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
BECAUSE RAILROADS WERE TAXED ONLY UPON THE VALUE OF THEIR ROLLING STOCK
USED WITHIN THE STATE DETERMINED BY THE PROPORTIONATE MILEAGE WITHIN
THE STATE (PP. 202, 211). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., 322 U.S. 327 


NO. 311.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 205 ARK.
780, 171 S.W.2D 62, AFFIRMED. 


A TENNESSEE CORPORATION WHICH WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN
ARKANSAS, AND WHICH HAD NO SALES OFFICE NOR ANY OTHER PLACE OF BUSINESS
IN ARKANSAS, MADE SALES OF GOODS IN TENNESSEE FOR DELIVERY BY COMMON
CARRIER IN ARKANSAS.  THOUGH SOME ORDERS WERE SOLICITED IN ARKANSAS BY
TRAVELING SALESMEN DOMICILED IN TENNESSEE, ALL ORDERS WERE TAKEN
SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CORPORATION IN TENNESSEE; TITLE TO THE
GOODS PASSED UPON DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER IN TENNESSEE; AND NO
COLLECTIONS WERE MADE IN ARKANSAS.  HELD THAT THE IMPOSITION BY
ARKANSAS OF A TAX ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS, UNDER A STATUTE CONSTRUED BY
THE STATE COURT AS LEVYING A SALES TAX AND NOT A USE TAX (WHICH
CONSTRUCTION IS ACCEPTED HERE), VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33,
AND WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, DISTINGUISHED.  PP.
328, 330. 

MCLEOD, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES, V. J.E. DILWORTH CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 728, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN TWO SUITS (CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL) TO
ENFORCE A STATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO REVERSE A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
HOLDING THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PRECLUDES LIABILITY FOR THE SALES TAX
OF THAT STATE UPON THE TRANSACTIONS TO BE SET FORTH. 

WE TAKE THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS FROM THE OPINION UNDER
REVIEW.  RESPONDENTS ARE TENNESSEE CORPORATIONS WITH HOME OFFICES AND
PLACES OF BUSINESS IN MEMPHIS WHERE THEY SELL MACHINERY AND MILL
SUPPLIES.  THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN ARKANSAS AND HAVE
NEITHER SALES OFFICE, BRANCH PLANT NOR ANY OTHER PLACE OF BUSINESS IN
THAT STATE.  ORDERS FOR GOODS COME TO TENNESSEE THROUGH SOLICITATION IN
ARKANSAS BY TRAVELING SALESMEN DOMICILED IN TENNESSEE, BY MAIL OR
TELEPHONE.  BUT NO MATTER HOW AN ORDER IS PLACED IT REQUIRES ACCEPTANCE
BY THE MEMPHIS OFFICE, AND ON APPROVAL THE GOODS ARE SHIPPED FROM
TENNESSEE.  TITLE PASSES UPON DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER IN MEMPHIS, AND
COLLECTION OF THE SALES PRICE IS NOT MADE IN ARKANSAS.  IN SHORT, WE
ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH SALES MADE BY TENNESSEE VENDORS THAT ARE
CONSUMMATED IN TENNESSEE FOR THE DELIVERY OF GOODS IN ARKANSAS. 

FOR SUCH SALES, THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HAD HELD, IN 1939, THE
STATE HAD NO POWER TO EXACT A SALES TAX, MANN V. MCCARROLL, 198 ARK.
628, 130 S.W.2D 721.  THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATION THEN IN FORCE WAS ACT
154 OF 1937.  THE TRANSACTIONS ON WHICH THE COLLECTOR HERE SEEKS TO TAX
EXTENDED OVER PERIODS THAT BRING INTO QUESTION ACT 154(EXTENDED BY ACT
364 OF 1939) AND A NEW STATUTE (ACT 386 OF 1941), KNOWN AS THE GROSS
RECEIPTS ACT.  THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT GAVE THE ACT OF 1941 THE SAME
SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE AS IT ATTRIBUTED TO THE ACT OF 1937, THAT IS, AN
ACT IMPOSING A RETAIL SALES TAX AND NOT A USE TAX.  IN VIEW OF THIS
CONSTRUCTION, IT HAS ADHERED TO ITS EARLIER DECISION IN MANN V.
MCCARROLL, FINDING NOTHING IN OUR INTERVENING DECISION IN MCGOLDRICK V.
BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, REQUIRING A CHANGE IN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEWS.  205 ARK. 780, 171 S.W.2D 62.  TO PERMIT FURTHER
EXAMINATION OF THE COMPLICATED PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE INTERPLAY OF
FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  320 U.S. 728. 

WE AGREE WITH THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT THAT THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE
PRESENTED A SITUATION DIFFERENT FROM THIS CASE AND THAT THIS CASE IS ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LINE WHICH MARKS OFF THE LIMITS OF STATE POWER. 
A BOUNDARY LINE IS NONE THE WORSE FOR BEING NARROW.  ONCE IT IS
RECOGNIZED, AS IT LONG HAS BEEN BY THIS COURT, THAT FEDERAL AND STATE
TAXATION DO NOT MOVE WITHIN WHOLLY DIFFERENT ORBITS, THAT THERE ARE
POINTS OF INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE POWERS OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS, AND
THAT THERE ARE TRANSACTIONS OF WHAT COLLOQUIALLY MAY BE DEEMED A SINGLE
PROCESS ACROSS STATE LINES WHICH MAY YET BE TAXED BY THE STATE OF THEIR
OCCURRENCE, "NICE DISTINCTIONS ARE TO BE EXPECTED," GALVESTON, H. &
S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 225.  THE DIFFERENTIATIONS MADE BY
THE COURT BELOW BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE ARE
RELEVANT AND CONTROLLING.  "THE DISTINGUISHING POINT BETWEEN THE
BERWIND-WHITE COAL CASE AND THE CASES AT BAR IS THAT IN THE BERWIND
WHITE COAL CASE THE CORPORATION MAINTAINED ITS SALES OFFICE IN NEW YORK
CITY, TOOK ITS CONTRACTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND MADE ACTUAL DELIVERY IN
NEW YORK CITY.  ...  " 205 ARK. AT 786.  THIS, ACCORDING TO PRACTICAL
NOTIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A SALE WHICH IS REFLECTED BY WHAT THE LAW
DEEMS A SALE, CONSTITUTED A SALE IN NEW YORK AND ACCORDINGLY WE
SUSTAINED A RETAIL SALES TAX BY NEW YORK.  HERE, AS THE ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT CONTINUED, "THE OFFICES ARE MAINTAINED IN TENNESSEE, THE
SALE IS MADE IN TENNESSEE, AND THE DELIVERY IS CONSUMMATED EITHER IN
TENNESSEE OR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITH NO INTERRUPTION FROM TENNESSEE
UNTIL DELIVERY TO THE CONSIGNEE ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE THE INTERSTATE
JOURNEY."  BECAUSE THE RELEVANT FACTORS IN THE TWO CASES DECIDED
TOGETHER WITH THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE WERE THE SAME AS THOSE IN BERWIND
WHITE, THE DECISION IN THAT CASE CONTROLLED THE TWO OTHER CASES.  "IN
BOTH CASES THE TAX WAS IMPOSED ON ALL THE SALES OF MERCHANDISE FOR
WHICH ORDERS WERE TAKEN WITHIN THE CITY AND POSSESSION OF WHICH WAS
TRANSFERRED TO THE PURCHASER THERE.  DECISION IN BOTH IS CONTROLLED BY
OUR DECISION IN THE BERWIND-WHITE COMPANY CASE."  MCGOLDRICK V. FELT &
TARRANT CO., 309 U.S. 70, 77.  IN BERWIND-WHITE THE PENNSYLVANIA SELLER
COMPLETED HIS SALES IN NEW YORK; IN THIS CASE THE TENNESSEE SELLER WAS
THROUGH SELLING IN TENNESSEE.  WE WOULD HAVE TO DESTROY BOTH BUSINESS
AND LEGAL NOTIONS TO DENY THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE SALE - THE
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - WAS MADE IN TENNESSEE.  FOR ARKANSAS TO IMPOSE
A TAX ON SUCH TRANSACTION WOULD BE TO PROJECT ITS POWERS BEYOND ITS
BOUNDARIES AND TO TAX AN INTERSTATE TRANSACTION. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT ARKANSAS COULD HAVE LEVIED A TAX OF
THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE USE OF THESE GOODS IN ARKANSAS BY THE ARKANSAS
BUYERS, AND THAT SUCH A USE TAX WOULD NOT EXCEED THE LIMITS UPON STATE
POWER DERIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  WHATEVER MIGHT BE
THE FATE OF SUCH A TAX WERE IT BEFORE US, THE NOT TOO SHORT ANSWER IS
THAT ARKANSAS HAS CHOSEN NOT TO IMPOSE SUCH A USE TAX, AS ITS SUPREME
COURT SO EMPHATICALLY FOUND.  A SALES TAX AND A USE TAX IN MANY
INSTANCES MAY BRING ABOUT THE SAME RESULT.  BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT IN
CONCEPTION, ARE ASSESSMENTS UPON DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS, AND IN THE
INTERLACINGS OF THE TWO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES WITHIN OUR FEDERATION
MAY HAVE TO JUSTIFY THEMSELVES ON DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  A
SALES TAX IS A TAX ON THE FREEDOM OF PURCHASE - A FREEDOM WHICH WARTIME
RESTRICTIONS SERVE TO EMPHASIZE.  A USE TAX IS A TAX ON THE ENJOYMENT
OF THAT WHICH WAS PURCHASED.  IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE BASIS
OF THESE TWO TAXES AND THE DIFFERENCES IN THE RELATION OF THE TAXING
STATE TO THEM, A TAX ON AN INTERSTATE SALE LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US AND
UNLIKE THE TAX ON THE ENJOYMENT OF THE GOODS SOLD, INVOLVES AN
ASSUMPTION OF POWER BY A STATE WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS MEANT TO
END.  THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS TO CREATE AN AREA OF
FREE TRADE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.  THAT CLAUSE VESTED THE POWER OF
TAXING A TRANSACTION FORMING AN UNBROKEN PROCESS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IN THE CONGRESS, NOT IN THE STATES. 

THE DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE BETWEEN A SALES AND A USE TAX WAS
ADVERTED TO IN THE LEADING CASE SUSTAINING A TAX ON THE USE AFTER A
SALE HAD SPENT ITS INTERSTATE CHARACTER:  "A TAX UPON A USE SO CLOSELY
CONNECTED WITH DELIVERY AS TO BE IN SUBSTANCE A PART THEREOF MIGHT BE
SUBJECT TO THE SAME OBJECTIONS THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO A TAX UPON
THE SALE ITSELF."  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 583. 
THUS WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH MATTERS OF NOMENCLATURE EVEN THOUGH THEY
BE MATTERS OF NICETY.  "THE STATE COURT COULD NOT RENDER VALID, BY
MISDESCRIBING IT, A TAX LAW WHICH IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT WAS REPUGNANT
TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; NEITHER CAN IT RENDER UNCONSTITUTIONAL A
TAX, THAT IN ITS ACTUAL EFFECT VIOLATES NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, BY
INACCURATELY DEFINING IT."  WAGNER V. CITY OF COVINGTON, 251 U.S. 95,
102.  THOUGH SALES AND USE TAXES MAY SECURE THE SAME REVENUES AND SERVE
COMPLEMENTARY PURPOSES, THEY ARE, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, TAXES ON
DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS AND FOR DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY A
STATE. 

A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION UNDERLAY WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311
U.S. 435.  THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT AND THIS COURT WERE CONCERNED
WITH AN EXACTION ON A TRANSACTION WHICH THE WISCONSIN COURT DESCRIBED
ONE WAY AND WE ANOTHER.  WE LOOKED BEHIND THE LABELS TO THE THING
DESCRIBED, AND THE THING - TAXATION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME
EARNED IN WISCONSIN - DID NOT OFFEND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THAT
CASE AFFORDS NO GROUND FOR REJECTING THE DELIBERATE CHOICE OF A STATE
TO IMPOSE A TAX ON A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND SUSTAINING IT, WHERE THE
TRANSFER WAS MADE BEYOND THE STATE LIMITS, AS A USE TAX ON THAT
PROPERTY BECAUSE THE STATE MIGHT, SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS
CONCERNED, HAVE ENACTED A USE TAX AND SUCH A USE TAX MIGHT HAVE BEEN
COLLECTED ON THE ENJOYMENT OF THE GOODS SO SOLD.  SUCH A MODE OF
ADJUDICATION WOULD IMPLY A DUTY OF EXCESSIVE ASTUTENESS ON OUR PART TO
CONTRACT THE AREA OF FREE TRADE AMONG THE STATES.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

THE PRESENT DECISION MARKS A RETREAT FROM THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE
BERWIND-WHITE CASE, 309 U.S. 33.  IT DRAWS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
USE TAX (FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62) AND THE SALES
TAX WHICH ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE SEEMS IRRELEVANT TO THE POWER OF
ARKANSAS TO TAX.  AND IT IS SQUARELY OPPOSED TO MCGOLDRICK V. FELT &
TARRANT CO., 309 U.S. 70, WHICH SHOULD BE OVERRULED IF THE PRESENT
DECISION GOES DOWN. 

FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER INVOLVED A USE TAX.  THE STATE OF THE
BUYER (CALIFORNIA) WAS ALLOWED TO EXACT THE TAX FROM THE ILLINOIS
SELLER FOR GOODS SOLD TO CALIFORNIA BUYERS THOUGH THE SELLER'S
ACTIVITIES IN CALIFORNIA WERE NOT DIFFERENT IN QUALITY AND HARDLY MORE
NUMEROUS THAN THE ARKANSAS ACTIVITIES OF THE TENNESSEE SELLERS IN THE
PRESENT CASE.  THOUGH IN SOME CASES DELIVERIES WERE MADE BY THE LOCAL
AGENT FOR FELT & TARRANT, IN OTHERS SHIPMENTS WERE MADE BY IT FROM
ILLINOIS DIRECT TO THE BUYERS IN CALIFORNIA.  AND IN THAT CASE, AS IN
THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDERS WERE ACCEPTED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF THE
BUYER AND REMITTANCES WERE MADE DIRECT TO THE OUT-OF-STATE SELLER. 

IN MCGOLDRICK V. FELT & TARRANT CO. WE ALLOWED NEW YORK CITY TO
COLLECT ITS SALES TAX ON SALES WHICH FELT & TARRANT MADE TO NEW YORK
PURCHASERS UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME COURSE OF DEALING AS OBTAINED
IN CASE OF THE CALIFORNIA USE TAX.  MOREOVER, THERE WERE OTHER
TRANSACTIONS IN MCGOLDRICK V. FELT & TARRANT WHICH WERE EVEN CLOSER TO
THE SALES IN THE PRESENT CASE.  I REFER TO THE SALES TO NEW YORK CITY
BUYERS BY A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION (DU GRENIER, INC.) WHICH WAS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK AND WHICH HAD NO EMPLOYEE THERE. 
ANOTHER COMPANY, STEWART & MCGUIRE, INC., ACTED AS ITS EXCLUSIVE AGENT
AND SOLICITED ORDERS IN NEW YORK CITY.  THE ORDERS WERE FORWARDED TO
MASSACHUSETTS WHERE THEY WERE ACCEPTED.  SHIPMENTS WERE MADE BY RAIL OR
TRUCK (F.O.B. HAVERHILL, MASS.) TO THE PURCHASER IN NEW YORK CITY, WHO
PAID THE FREIGHT.  YET WE ALLOWED NEW YORK CITY TO COLLECT ITS SALES
TAX ON THOSE TRANSACTIONS. 

IF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT NEW YORK CITY FROM
LEVYING ITS SALES TAX ON THE PROCEEDS OF THOSE INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS
OR CALIFORNIA FROM EXACTING ITS USE TAX AT THE FINAL STAGE OF AN
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, I FAIL TO SEE WHY ARKANSAS SHOULD BE
PROHIBITED FROM COLLECTING THE PRESENT TAX. 

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE USE TAX AND THE SALES TAX ARE
DIFFERENT.  A USE TAX MAY OF COURSE HAVE A WIDER RANGE OF APPLICATION
THAN A SALES TAX.  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577.  BUT A
USE TAX AND A SALES TAX APPLIED AT THE VERY END OF AN INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION HAVE PRECISELY THE SAME ECONOMIC INCIDENCE.  THEIR EFFECT
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS IDENTICAL.  WE STATED AS MUCH IN THE BERWIND
WHITE CASE WHERE, IN SPEAKING OF THE SALES TAX, WE SAID (309 U.S. P.
49):  "IT DOES NOT AIM AT OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
IT IS LAID UPON EVERY PURCHASER, WITHIN THE STATE, OF GOODS FOR
CONSUMPTION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ITS ONLY RELATION TO THE COMMERCE ARISES FROM THE
FACT THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TRANSFER OF POSSESSION TO THE PURCHASER
WITHIN THE STATE, WHICH IS THE TAXABLE EVENT REGARDLESS OF THE TIME AND
PLACE OF PASSING TITLE, THE MERCHANDISE HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND BROUGHT TO ITS JOURNEY'S END.  SUCH A TAX HAS
NO DIFFERENT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN A TAX ON THE 'USE' OF
PROPERTY WHICH HAS JUST BEEN MOVED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE," CITING USE
TAX CASES INCLUDING HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO. AND FELT & TARRANT CO.
V. GALLAGHER. 

THE SALES TAX AND THE USE TAX ARE, TO BE SURE, TAXES ON DIFFERENT
PHASES OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION.  WE MAY AGREE THAT THE USE TAX IS
A TAX "ON THE ENJOYMENT OF THAT WHICH WAS PURCHASED."  BUT
REALISTICALLY THE SALES TAX IS A TAX ON THE RECEIPT OF THAT WHICH WAS
PURCHASED.  FOR AS WE SAID IN THE EXCERPT FROM THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE
QUOTED ABOVE, IT IS THE "TRANSFER OF POSSESSION TO THE PURCHASER WITHIN
THE STATE" WHICH IS THE "TAXABLE EVENT REGARDLESS OF THE TIME AND PLACE
OF PASSING TITLE."  AND MCGOLDRICK V. FELT & TARRANT CO. MAKES PLAIN
THAT THE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION NEED NOT BE BY THE SELLER, FOR IN THAT
CASE, AS IN THE PRESENT ONE, DELIVERIES WERE MADE BY COMMON CARRIERS
WHICH ACCEPTED THE GOODS F.O.B. AT POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  IN TERMS
OF STATE POWER, RECEIPT OF GOODS WITHIN THE STATE OF THE BUYER IS AS
ADEQUATE A BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER AS USE WITHIN THE
STATE.  AND THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE IN RESULT UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE WHERE, AS HERE, THE PRACTICAL IMPACT ON THE INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION IS THE SAME.    IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE ARKANSAS
SALES TAX MAY NOT BE IMPOSED BECAUSE THE OUT-OF-STATE SELLER WAS
"THROUGH SELLING" WHEN THE TAX WAS INCURRED.  THAT WAS LIKEWISE TRUE OF
BOTH THE USE TAX CASES, INCLUDING GENERAL TRADING CO. V. STATE TAX
COMMISSION, POST, P. 335, AND THE SALES TAX DECISION IN MCGOLDRICK V.
FELT & TARRANT CO. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE IS A PHASE OF THE
INTERSTATE TRANSACTION ON WHICH THE STATE OF THE BUYER CAN LAY HOLD
WITHOUT PLACING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT A DISADVANTAGE.  THERE IS NO
SHOWING THAT TENNESSEE WAS EXACTING FROM THESE VENDORS A TAX ON THESE
SAME TRANSACTIONS OR THAT ARKANSAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THEM.  I CAN
SEE NO WARRANT FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHICH PUTS
LOCAL INDUSTRY AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE WITH INTERSTATE BUSINESS. 
IF THERE IS A TAXABLE EVENT WITHIN THE STATE OF THE BUYER, I WOULD MAKE
THE RESULT UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TURN ON PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
AND BUSINESS REALITIES RATHER THAN ON DIALECTICS.  IF THAT IS NOT DONE,
I THINK WE SHOULD RETREAT FROM THE VIEW THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHOULD
CARRY ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT IN THE LOCALITIES WHERE
IT FINDS ITS MARKETS AND ADOPT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE DISSENT IN
THE BERWIND-WHITE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE ALSO DISSENTS.  FOR HIS OPINION, SEE POST, P.
349. 
..END :













GENERAL TRADING CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 322 U.S. 335 


NO. 441.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 233 IOWA
877, 10 N.W.2D 659, AFFIRMED. 


A MINNESOTA CORPORATION WHICH HAD NOT QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN
IOWA, AND WHICH MAINTAINED NO OFFICE OR OTHER PLACE OF BUSINESS IN
IOWA, MADE SALES OF GOODS IN MINNESOTA WHICH WERE SENT BY COMMON
CARRIER OR BY MAIL TO PURCHASERS IN IOWA.  ORDERS, SOLICITED IN IOWA BY
SALESMEN FROM HEADQUARTERS IN MINNESOTA, WERE TAKEN SUBJECT TO
ACCEPTANCE IN MINNESOTA.  HELD THAT THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE IOWA USE TAX
ACT UPON THE USE OF SUCH GOODS IN IOWA, AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
CORPORATION COLLECT THE TAX AND PAY IT TO THE STATE, DID NOT VIOLATE
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FOLLOWING FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER,
306 U.S. 62; NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359, AND NELSON
V. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 312 U.S. 373.  PP. 336, 338. 

GENERAL TRADING CO., DOING BUSINESS AS MINNEAPOLIS IRON STORE, V.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IOWA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 731, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE STATE TAX COMMISSION IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER USE TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF IOWA BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE IOWA USE TAX LAW WHICH WAS RECENTLY HERE IN NELSON V.
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359, AND NELSON V. MONTGOMERY WARD &
CO., 312 U.S. 373.  THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED IS, IN SHORT, WHETHER
IOWA MAY COLLECT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, SUCH A USE TAX
FROM GENERAL TRADING COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ON THE BASIS OF
PROPERTY BOUGHT FROM TRADING COMPANY AND SENT BY IT FROM MINNESOTA TO
PURCHASERS IN IOWA FOR USE AND ENJOYMENT THERE. 

BY THE IOWA USE TAX LAW A TAX IS "IMPOSED ON THE USE IN THIS STATE OF
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY PURCHASED  ...  FOR USE IN THIS STATE AT THE
RATE OF TWO PERCENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF SUCH PROPERTY.  SAID TAX
IS  ...  IMPOSED UPON EVERY PERSON USING SUCH PROPERTY WITHIN THIS
STATE UNTIL SUCH TAX HAS BEEN PAID DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY TREASURER, TO
A RETAILER, OR TO THE COMMISSION.  ...  "  SEC. 6943.103, CODE OF IOWA
1939.  THE USE OF PROPERTY THE SALE OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO IOWA'S SALES
TAX IS EXEMPTED FROM THE USE TAX (SEC. 6943.104(1)), BUT THE SALES TAX
CAN BE LAID ONLY ON SALES AT RETAIL WITHIN THE STATE.  SEC. 6943.075. 
THE USE TAX CONSTITUTES A DEBT OWED BY THE RETAILER TO THE STATE.  SEC.
6943.112.  BUT "EVERY RETAILER MAINTAINING A PLACE OF BUSINESS" IN IOWA
MUST COLLECT THIS TAX FROM THE PURCHASER (SEC. 6943.109), AND MAY NOT
ADVERTISE THAT HE WILL HIMSELF ABSORB THE TAX.  SEC. 6943.111.  FINALLY
AN OFFSETTING CREDIT (SEE HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577,
584, 586-7) IF ANOTHER USE OR SALES TAX HAS BEEN PAID FOR THE SAME
THING ELSEWHERE IS ALLOWED, AND IF THE TAX "IMPOSED IN SUCH OTHER STATE
IS TWO PERCENT OR MORE, THEN NO TAX SHALL BE DUE ON SUCH ARTICLES." 
SEC. 6943.125. 

A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE TAX COMMISSION BY ONE OF THE LOWER COURTS
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, 233 IOWA 877; 10 N.W.2D
659.  THE APPLICATION BY THAT COURT OF ITS LOCAL LAWS AND THE FACTS ON
WHICH IT FOUNDED ITS JUDGMENT ARE OF COURSE CONTROLLING HERE.  FROM
THESE IT APPEARS THAT GENERAL TRADING COMPANY HAD NEVER QUALIFIED TO DO
BUSINESS AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION IN IOWA NOR DOES IT MAINTAIN THERE
ANY OFFICE, BRANCH OR WAREHOUSE.  THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE USE TAX WAS
LAID WAS SENT TO IOWA AS A RESULT OF ORDERS SOLICITED BY TRAVELING
SALESMEN SENT INTO IOWA FROM THEIR MINNESOTA HEADQUARTERS.  THE ORDERS
WERE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE IN MINNESOTA WHENCE THE GOODS WERE
SHIPPED INTO IOWA BY COMMON CARRIERS OR THE POST.  UPON THESE FACTS AND
ITS HOLDING THAT TRADING COMPANY WAS A "RETAILER MAINTAINING A PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN THIS STATE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE IOWA STATUTE, THE
IOWA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IOWA HAD NOT EXCEEDED ITS POWERS IN THE
IMPOSITION OF THIS USE TAX ON IOWA PURCHASERS, AND THAT COLLECTION
COULD VALIDLY BE MADE THROUGH THE TRADING COMPANY. 

WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 320 U.S. 731, TO MEET THE CLAIM THAT THERE
WAS NEED FOR FURTHER PRECISION REGARDING THE SCOPE OF OUR PREVIOUS
RULINGS ON THE POWER OF STATES TO LEVY USE TAXES.  IN VIEW, HOWEVER, OF
THE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING BY THE COURT BELOW THAT THE FACTS WE HAVE
SUMMARIZED BRING THE TRANSACTION WITHIN THE TAXING POWER OF IOWA, THERE
IS LITTLE NEED FOR ELABORATION.  WE AGREE WITH THE IOWA SUPREME COURT
THAT FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62; NELSON V. SEARS,
ROEBUCK & CO., SUPRA; AND NELSON V. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., SUPRA, ARE
CONTROLLING.  THE GALLAGHER CASE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE - CERTAINLY
NOTHING CAN TURN ON THE MORE ELABORATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR SOLICITING
ORDERS FOR AN INTRICATE MACHINE FOR SHIPMENT FROM WITHOUT A STATE AS IN
THE GALLAGHER CASE, COMPARED WITH THE APPARENTLY SIMPLER NEEDS FOR
SOLICITING BUSINESS IN THIS CASE.  AND THE FACT THAT IN THE SEARS
ROEBUCK AND MONTGOMERY WARD CASES THE INTERSTATE VENDOR ALSO HAD RETAIL
STORES IN IOWA, WHOSE SALES WERE APPROPRIATELY SUBJECTED TO THE SALES
TAX, IS CONSTITUTIONALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE RIGHT OF IOWA SUSTAINED IN
THOSE CASES TO EXACT A USE TAX FROM PURCHASERS ON MAIL ORDER GOODS
FORWARDED INTO IOWA FROM WITHOUT THE STATE.  ALL THESE DIFFERENTIATIONS
ARE WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.  OF COURSE, NO STATE CAN TAX
THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V.
BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250.  THAT IS WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
MERE FACT THAT PROPERTY IS USED FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR HAS COME
INTO AN OWNER'S POSSESSION AS A RESULT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT
DIMINISH THE PROTECTION WHICH HE MAY DRAW FROM A STATE TO THE UPKEEP OF
WHICH HE MAY BE ASKED TO BEAR HIS FAIR SHARE.  BUT A FAIR SHARE
PRECLUDES LEGISLATION OBVIOUSLY HOSTILE OR PRACTICALLY DISCRIMINATORY
TOWARD INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454. 

NONE OF THESE INFIRMITIES AFFECTS THE TAX IN THIS CASE ANY MORE THAN
IT DID IN THE OTHER CASES WITH WHICH IT FORMS A GROUP.  THE TAX IS WHAT
IT PROFESSES TO BE - A NON-DISCRIMINATORY EXCISE LAID ON ALL PERSONAL
PROPERTY CONSUMED IN IOWA.  THE PROPERTY IS ENJOYED BY AN IOWA RESIDENT
PARTLY BECAUSE THE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN BY IOWA TO ENJOY PROPERTY NO
MATTER WHENCE ACQUIRED.  THE EXACTION IS MADE AGAINST THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMER - THE IOWA RESIDENT WHO IS PAYING TAXES TO SUSTAIN HIS OWN
STATE GOVERNMENT.  TO MAKE THE DISTRIBUTOR THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE
STATE IS A FAMILIAR AND SANCTIONED DEVICE.  MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V.
JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, 93-94; FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER, SUPRA.
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS.  FOR HIS OPINION, SEE POST, P. 349. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

THIS DECISION AUTHORIZES IN MY OPINION AN UNWARRANTED EXTENSION OF
THE POWER OF A STATE TO SUBJECT PERSONS TO ITS TAXING POWER WHO ARE NOT
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION AND HAVE NOT IN ANY MANNER SUBMITTED THEMSELVES
TO IT.  THE GENERAL TRADING COMPANY IS, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPINION,
MADE "THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE STATE."  WE HAVE HERETOFORE HELD, AND I
THINK PROPERLY, THAT THE STATE MAY MAKE TAX COLLECTORS OF THOSE WHO
COME IN AND DO BUSINESS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, FOR THEREBY THEY
SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO ITS POWER.  SUCH WAS THE SITUATION IN BOTH
MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, AND FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO.
V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62.  THESE ARE THE ONLY AUTHORITIES CITED BY THE
COURT ON THIS POINT, AND THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT PRECEDENTS TO SUPPORT
THIS DECISION. 

IN THIS CASE, AS THE OPINION POINTS OUT, THE GENERAL TRADING COMPANY
NEVER QUALIFIED IN IOWA AND HAS NO OFFICE, BRANCH, WAREHOUSE, OR
GENERAL AGENT IN THE STATE.  FROM MINNESOTA IT SHIPS GOODS ORDERED FROM
SALESMEN BY PURCHASERS IN IOWA.  ORDERS ARE ACCEPTED ONLY IN
MINNESOTA.  THE TRANSACTION OF SALE IS NOT TAXED AND, BEING CLEARLY
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS NOT TAXABLE.  MCLEOD V. DILWORTH CO., ANTE, P.
327.  SO WE ARE HOLDING THAT A STATE HAS POWER TO MAKE A TAX COLLECTOR
OF ONE WHOM IT HAS NO POWER TO TAX.  CERTAINLY NO STATE HAS A
CONSTITUTIONAL WARRANT FOR MAKING A TAX COLLECTOR OF ONE AS THE PRICE
OF THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HE DOES NOT GET THE
RIGHT FROM THE STATE, AND THE STATE CANNOT QUALIFY IT.  I CAN IMAGINE
NO PRINCIPLE OF STATES' RIGHTS OR STATE COMITY WHICH CAN JUSTIFY WHAT
IS DONE HERE.  NOR DOES THE PRACTICE SEEM CONDUCIVE TO GOOD ORDER IN
THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.  THE POWER OF IOWA TO ENFORCE COLLECTION IN OTHER
STATES IS CERTAINLY VERY LIMITED AND THE EFFORT TO DO SO ON ANY WIDE
SCALE IS UNLIKELY EITHER TO BE SYSTEMATICALLY PURSUED OR SUCCESSFULLY
EXECUTED. 

I RECOGNIZE THE PRESSURE TO UPHOLD ALL MANNER OF EFFORTS TO COLLECT
TAX MONEYS.  BUT THIS DECISION, BY WHICH ONE MAY NOT SHIP GOODS FROM
ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES TO A PURCHASER IN IOWA WITHOUT BECOMING A
NONRESIDENT TAX COLLECTOR, EXCEEDS EVERYTHING SO FAR DONE BY THIS
COURT.  IN MY OPINION THE STATUTE IS AN EFFORT TO EXERT
EXTRATERRITORIAL CONTROL BEYOND ANY WHICH A STATE COULD EXERT IF THERE
WERE NO CONSTITUTION AT ALL.  I CAN THINK OF NOTHING IN OR OUT OF THE
CONSTITUTION WHICH WARRANTS THIS EFFORT TO REACH BEYOND THE STATE'S OWN
BORDER TO MAKE OUT-OF-STATE MERCHANTS TAX COLLECTORS BECAUSE THEY
ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITH THE STATE'S CITIZENS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :























HARVESTER CO. V. DEPT. OF TREASURY, 322 U.S. 340 


NO. 355.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 29, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 221 IND.
416, 47 N.E.2D 150, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN INDIANA TAX UPON GROSS INCOME, AS APPLIED TO RECEIPTS FROM THE
FOLLOWING CLASSES OF SALES BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO
BUSINESS IN INDIANA, WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:  (1) SALES BY OUT-OF-STATE BRANCHES TO INDIANA
DEALERS AND USERS, WHERE DELIVERY IS TAKEN AT PLANTS OF THE CORPORATION
IN INDIANA; (2) SALES TO OUT-OF-STATE BUYERS WHO COME TO INDIANA, TAKE
DELIVERY THERE, AND TRANSPORT THE GOODS TO ANOTHER STATE; (3) SALES IN
INDIANA TO INDIANA BUYERS, WHERE THE GOODS ARE SHIPPED FROM OUT-OF
STATE POINTS TO THE BUYER.  PP. 344-346. 

2.  NEITHER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE NOR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
PRECLUDES THE IMPOSITION OF A STATE TAX ON RECEIPTS FROM AN INTRASTATE
TRANSACTION, EVEN THOUGH THE TOTAL ACTIVITIES FROM WHICH THE LOCAL
TRANSACTION DERIVES MAY HAVE INCIDENTAL INTERSTATE ATTRIBUTES.  P.
344. 

3.  A STATE CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY TAX GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE
TRANSACTIONS CONSUMMATED WITHIN ITS BORDERS WHERE IT TREATS WHOLLY
LOCAL TRANSACTIONS SIMILARLY.  P. 348. 

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. ET AL. V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING AS TO CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS OF THE
APPELLANTS A STATE TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
INDIANA GROSS INCOME TAX ACT OF 1933(L. 1933, P. 388, BURNS IND. STATS.
ANN. SEC. 64-2601) AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED TO CERTAIN BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS OF APPELLANT COMPANIES.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY
APPELLANTS TO RECOVER GROSS INCOME TAXES PAID TO INDIANA DURING THE
YEARS 1935 AND 1936.  THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED OBJECTIONS TO
THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX ON CERTAIN SALES BUT ALLOWED THE TAX TO BE
IMPOSED ON OTHER TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS.  221 IND. 416, 47 N.E.2D 150. 
THE CORRECTNESS OF THE LATTER RULING IS CHALLENGED BY THE APPEAL WHICH
BRINGS THE CASE HERE.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A),
28 U.S.C. SEC. 861(A). 

APPELLANTS ARE CORPORATIONS AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN INDIANA BUT
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF OTHER STATES.  THEY MANUFACTURE FARM
IMPLEMENTS AND MOTOR TRUCKS AND SELL THOSE ARTICLES BOTH AT WHOLESALE
AND RETAIL.  DURING THE PERIOD HERE IN QUESTION THEY MAINTAINED
MANUFACTURING PLANTS AT RICHMOND AND FORT WAYNE, INDIANA AND SELLING
BRANCHES AT INDIANAPOLIS, TERRE HAUTE, FORT WAYNE, AND EVANSVILLE,
INDIANA.  THEY ALSO HAD MANUFACTURING PLANTS AND SALES BRANCHES IN
ADJOINING STATES AND ELSEWHERE.  EACH BRANCH HAD AN ASSIGNED
TERRITORY.  IN SOME INSTANCES PARTS OF INDIANA WERE WITHIN THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF BRANCH OFFICES WHICH WERE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE
STATE.  THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH INDIANA SAYS MAY BE TAXED WITHOUT
INFRINGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION ARE DESCRIBED BY THE INDIANA
SUPREME COURT AS FOLLOWS: 

CLASS C:  SALES BY BRANCHES LOCATED OUTSIDE INDIANA TO DEALERS AND
USERS RESIDING IN INDIANA.  THE ORDERS WERE SOLICITED IN INDIANA AND
THE CUSTOMERS TOOK DELIVERY TO THEMSELVES AT THE FACTORIES IN INDIANA
TO SAVE TIME AND EXPENSE OF SHIPPING.  FN1 

CLASS D:  SALES BY BRANCHES LOCATED IN INDIANA TO DEALERS AND USERS
RESIDING OUTSIDE OF INDIANA, IN WHICH THE CUSTOMERS CAME TO INDIANA AND
ACCEPTED DELIVERY TO THEMSELVES IN THIS STATE.  FN2 

CLASS E:  SALES BY BRANCHES LOCATED IN INDIANA TO DEALERS AND USERS
RESIDING IN INDIANA, IN WHICH THE GOODS WERE SHIPPED FROM POINTS
OUTSIDE INDIANA TO CUSTOMERS IN INDIANA, PURSUANT TO CONTRACTS SO
PROVIDING.  FN3 

THE GROSS INCOME TAX  FN4  COLLECTED ON THOSE TRANSACTIONS IS THE
SAME ONE WHICH WAS BEFORE THIS COURT IN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V. WOOD
PRESERVING CORP., 313 U.S. 62, AND ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S.
307.  THE TAX WAS DESCRIBED IN THE STOREN CASE AS "A PRIVILEGE TAX UPON
THE RECEIPT OF GROSS INCOME."  304 U.S. P. 311.  IN THAT CASE AN
INDIANA CORPORATION WHICH MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS AND MAINTAINED ITS HOME
OFFICE, PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, AND FACTORY IN INDIANA SOLD THOSE
PRODUCTS TO CUSTOMERS IN OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES UPON ORDERS
TAKEN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT THE HOME OFFICE.  IT WAS HELD THAT THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE (ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION) WAS A BARRIER TO
THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SUCH SALES.  BUT
AS WE HELD IN THE WOOD PRESERVING CORP. CASE, NEITHER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE NOR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PREVENTS THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX
ON RECEIPTS FROM AN INTRASTATE TRANSACTION EVEN THOUGH THE TOTAL
ACTIVITIES FROM WHICH THE LOCAL TRANSACTION DERIVES MAY HAVE INCIDENTAL
INTERSTATE ATTRIBUTES. 

THE OBJECTIONS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE TAX ON THE RECEIPTS FROM THE THREE CLASSES OF SALES INVOLVED
HERE ARE EQUALLY WITHOUT MERIT. 

IN THE WOOD PRESERVING CORP. CASE CONTRACTS WERE MADE OUTSIDE INDIANA
FOR THE SALE OF RAILROAD TIES.  THE RESPONDENT-SELLER, A DELAWARE
CORPORATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN PENNSYLVANIA,
OBTAINED THE TIES FROM PRODUCERS IN INDIANA AND DELIVERED THEM TO THE
BUYER (BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO.)  IN INDIANA WHO IMMEDIATELY
LOADED THEM ON CARS AND SHIPPED THEM OUT OF THE STATE.  PAYMENTS FOR
THE TIES WERE MADE TO THE SELLER IN PENNSYLVANIA.  WE HELD THAT INDIANA
DID NOT EXCEED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY WHEN IT LAID THE TAX ON THE
RECEIPTS FROM THOSE SALES. 

WE SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALES IN THE WOOD PRESERVING CORP.
CASE AND THE CLASS C SALES IN THE PRESENT ONE WHICH IS TRANSLATABLE
INTO A DIFFERENCE IN INDIANA'S POWER TO TAX.  THE FACT THAT THE SALES
IN CLASS C ARE MADE BY AN OUT-OF-STATE SELLER AND THAT THE CONTRACTS
WERE MADE OUTSIDE THE STATE IS NOT CONTROLLING.  HERE AS IN THE WOOD
PRESERVING CORP. CASE, DELIVERY OF THE GOODS IN INDIANA IS AN ADEQUATE
TAXABLE EVENT.  WHEN INDIANA LAYS HOLD OF THAT TRANSACTION AND LEVIES A
TAX ON THE RECEIPTS WHICH ACCRUE FROM IT, INDIANA IS ASSERTING
AUTHORITY OVER THE FRUITS OF A TRANSACTION CONSUMMATED WITHIN ITS
BORDERS.  THESE SALES, MOREOVER, ARE SALES OF INDIANA GOODS TO INDIANA
PURCHASERS.  WHILE THE CONTRACTS WERE MADE OUTSIDE THE STATE, THE GOODS
WERE NEITHER JUST COMPLETING NOR JUST STARTING AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY. 
IT COULD HARDLY BE MAINTAINED THAT INDIANA COULD NOT IMPOSE A SALES TAX
OR A USE TAX ON THESE TRANSACTIONS.  BUT, AS WE SHALL SEE, IF THAT IS
THE CASE, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO THE IMPOSITION OF A
GROSS RECEIPTS TAX BY THE STATE OF THE BUYER. 

THE CLASS D SALES ARE SALES BY AN INDIANA SELLER OF INDIANA GOODS TO
AN OUT-OF-STATE BUYER WHO COMES TO INDIANA, TAKES DELIVERY THERE AND
TRANSPORTS THE GOODS TO ANOTHER STATE.  THE WOOD PRESERVING CORP. CASE
INDICATES THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL TO THE PRESENT ISSUE THAT THE GOODS ARE
TO BE TRANSPORTED OUT OF INDIANA IMMEDIATELY ON DELIVERY.  MOREOVER,
BOTH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THE DELIVERY TOOK PLACE IN INDIANA. 
THOSE EVENTS WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN A SALES TAX BY INDIANA.  IN
MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, WE HAD BEFORE US A
QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NEW YORK CITY SALES TAX AS
APPLIED TO PURCHASES FROM OUT-OF-STATE SELLERS.  THE TAX WAS "LAID UPON
THE BUYER, FOR CONSUMPTION, OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND MEASURED
BY THE SALES PRICE."  ID., P. 43.  AND IT WAS "CONDITIONED UPON EVENTS
OCCURRING" WITHIN NEW YORK, I.E., THE "TRANSFER OF TITLE OR POSSESSION
OF THE PURCHASED PROPERTY."  ID., PP. 43-44.  UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF
THAT CASE, A BUYER WHO ACCEPTED DELIVERY IN NEW YORK WOULD NOT BE
EXEMPT FROM THE SALES TAX BECAUSE HE CAME FROM WITHOUT THE STATE AND
INTENDED TO RETURN TO HIS HOME WITH THE GOODS.  THE PRESENT TAX, TO BE
SURE, IS ON THE SELLER.  BUT IN EACH A LOCAL TRANSACTION IS MADE THE
TAXABLE EVENT AND THAT EVENT IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION OR INTERCOURSE WHICH IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN NEITHER
DOES THE TAX AIM AT OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
OPERATION OF THE TAX AND ITS EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE SEEM NO MORE
SEVERE IN THE ONE CASE THAN IN THE OTHER.  INDEED, IF WE ARE TO REMAIN
CONCERNED WITH THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THESE STATE TAXES RATHER THAN
WITH THEIR DESCRIPTIVE LABELS (NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S.
359, 363), WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SALES TAX SUSTAINED IN THE
BERWIND-WHITE CASE "WAS, IN FORM, IMPOSED UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
AN INTERSTATE SALE."  LOCKHART, GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES ON INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION, 57 HARV. L. REV. 40, 87.  BUT THAT
CASE DID NO MORE THAN TO HOLD THAT THOSE IN INTERSTATE TRADE COULD NOT
COMPLAIN IF INTERSTATE COMMERCE CARRIED ITS SHARE OF THE BURDENS OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHICH HELPED SUSTAIN IT.  AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING
THAT MORE THAN THAT WAS BEING EXACTED. 

THE SALES IN CLASS E EMBRACE THOSE BY AN INDIANA SELLER TO AN INDIANA
BUYER WHERE THE GOODS ARE SHIPPED FROM POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE TO THE
BUYER.  THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX ON RECEIPTS FROM SUCH SALES WOULD SEEM
TO FOLLOW A FORTIORI FROM OUR RECENT AFFIRMANCE PER CURIAM (318 U.S.
740) OF DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V. ALLIED MILLS, 220 IND. 340, 42 N.E.2D
34.  IN THAT CASE AN INDIANA CORPORATION HAD ONE FACTORY IN INDIANA AND
TWO IN ILLINOIS.  EACH FACTORY WAS GIVEN A SPECIFIED PART OF INDIANA TO
SERVICE - A METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION ADOPTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
FAVORABLE FREIGHT RATES, NOT TO EVADE TAXES.  THE ISSUE IN THE CASE WAS
WHETHER THE INDIANA GROSS INCOME TAX COULD BE APPLIED TO RECEIPTS FROM
SALES TO RESIDENT CUSTOMERS IN INDIANA TO WHOM DELIVERIES WERE MADE
FROM THE PLANTS IN ILLINOIS PURSUANT TO ORDERS TAKEN IN INDIANA AND
ACCEPTED IN ILLINOIS.  THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED THE
IMPOSITION OF THE TAX.  WE AFFIRMED THAT JUDGMENT ON THE AUTHORITY OF
FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62, AND MCGOLDRICK V. FELT &
TARRANT CO., 309 U.S. 70. 

IN THE LATTER CASES THE FELT & TARRANT CO. WAS AN ILLINOIS SELLER WHO
HAD AGENTS SOLICITING ORDERS IN CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK.  ALL ORDERS
WERE FORWARDED TO THE ILLINOIS OFFICE FOR APPROVAL.  IF ACCEPTED, THE
ORDERS WERE FILLED BY SHIPPING THE PRODUCTS TO THE LOCAL AGENT WHO
DELIVERED TO THE PURCHASER.  AT TIMES SHIPMENTS WOULD BE MADE DIRECT TO
THE BUYERS.  REMITTANCES WERE MADE BY THE CUSTOMERS DIRECT TO THE
ILLINOIS OFFICE.  IN THE FIRST OF THESE CASES THE COURT SUSTAINED THE
COLLECTION FROM THE SELLER OF THE CALIFORNIA USE TAX.  IN THE SECOND WE
UPHELD ON THE AUTHORITY OF MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., SUPRA, THE
IMPOSITION BY NEW YORK CITY OF ITS SALES TAX ON THOSE PURCHASES. 

WE DO NOT SEE HOW THESE CASES CAN STAND IF THE CLASS E SALES ARE TO
BE EXEMPT ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FROM THE PRESENT TAX.  INDEED THE
TRANSACTIONS IN CLASS E HAVE FEWER INTERSTATE ATTRIBUTES THAN THOSE IN
THE FELT & TARRANT CO. CASES SINCE THE AGREEMENTS TO SELL WERE MADE IN
INDIANA, BOTH BUYER AND SELLER WERE IN INDIANA, AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE
IN INDIANA.  IT IS OF COURSE TRUE THAT IN THE FELT & TARRANT CO. CASES
TAXES OF DIFFERENT NAMES WERE INVOLVED.  BUT WE ARE DEALING IN THIS
FIELD WITH MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE, NOT WITH DIALECTICS.  NELSON V. SEARS,
ROEBUCK & CO., SUPRA.  IN THIS CASE AS IN THE FOREGOING SALES TAX CASES
THE TAXABLE TRANSACTION IS AT THE FINAL STAGE OF AN INTERSTATE MOVEMENT
AND THE TAX IS ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM AN INTERSTATE TRANSACTION. 
IN FORM THE USE TAX IS DIFFERENT SINCE IT IS LEVIED ON INTRASTATE USE
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF AN INTERSTATE SALE.  BUT WE RECOGNIZED IN THE
BERWIND-WHITE CASE THAT IN THAT SETTING THE NEW YORK SALES TAX AND THE
CALIFORNIA USE TAX HAD "NO DIFFERENT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 
309 U.S. P. 49.  AND SEE NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., SUPRA.  THE
SAME IS TRUE OF THIS INDIANA TAX AS APPLIED TO THE CLASS E SALES. 
THERE IS THE SAME PRACTICAL EQUIVALENCE WHETHER THE TAX IS ON THE
SELLING OR THE BUYING PHASE OF THE TRANSACTION.  SEE POWELL, NEW LIGHT
ON GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES, 53 HARV. L. REV. 909, 929.  EACH IS IN
SUBSTANCE AN IMPOSITION OF A TAX ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.  IN LIGHT
OF OUR RECENT DECISIONS IT COULD HARDLY BE HELD THAT INDIANA LACKED
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE A SALES TAX OR A USE TAX ON THESE
TRANSACTIONS.  BUT IF THAT IS TRUE, A CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE IS NOT
APPARENT WHEN A "GROSS RECEIPTS" TAX IS UTILIZED INSTEAD. 

HERE AS IN CASE OF THE OTHER CLASSES OF SALES THERE IS NO
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE CONSUMMATION OF THE
TRANSACTION WAS AN EVENT WITHIN THE BORDERS OF INDIANA WHICH GAVE IT
AUTHORITY TO LEVY THE TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALES.  AND
THAT EVENT WAS DISTINCT FROM THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF THE GOODS AND
TOOK PLACE AFTER THE INTERSTATE JOURNEY ENDED. 

MUCH IS SAID, HOWEVER, OF DOUBLE TAXATION, PARTICULARLY WITH
REFERENCE TO THE CLASS D SALES.  IT IS ARGUED THAT APPELLANTS WILL IN
ALL PROBABILITY BE SUBJECTED TO THE ILLINOIS RETAILERS' OCCUPATION TAX
FOR SOME OF THOSE SALES, SINCE THAT TAX IS SAID TO BE EXACTED FROM
THOSE DOING A RETAIL BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS EVEN THOUGH ORDERS FOR THE
SALES ARE ACCEPTED OUTSIDE OF ILLINOIS AND THE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED
IN ANOTHER STATE.  FN5  BUT IT WILL BE TIME TO CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN
WE COME TO IT.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE WOOD PRESERVING CORP. CASE THE
STATE TO WHICH THE PURCHASER TOOK THE TIES MIGHT ALSO HAVE SOUGHT TO
TAX THE TRANSACTION BY LEVYING A USE TAX.  BUT WE DID NOT WITHHOLD THE
HAND OF INDIANA'S TAX COLLECTOR ON THAT ACCOUNT.  NOR IS THE PROBLEM
LIKE THAT OF AN ATTEMPTED TAX ON THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF AN INTERSTATE
SALE BY BOTH THE STATE OF THE BUYER AND THE STATE OF THE SELLER.  CF.
ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA. WE ONLY HOLD THAT WHERE A STATE SEEKS
TO TAX GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS CONSUMMATED WITHIN
ITS BORDERS ITS POWER TO DO SO CANNOT BE WITHHELD ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS WHERE IT TREATS WHOLLY LOCAL TRANSACTIONS THE SAME WAY.  SUCH
"LOCAL ACTIVITIES OR PRIVILEGES" (MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO.,
SUPRA, P. 58) ARE AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THIS TAX AS THEY WOULD BE TO
SUPPORT A SALES TAX.  TO DENY INDIANA THIS POWER WOULD BE TO MAKE LOCAL
INDUSTRY SUFFER A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE STIPULATION STATES THAT THE "ORDERS AND CONTRACTS WERE
ACCEPTED BY BRANCHES OUTSIDE INDIANA" AND PAYMENTS "WERE RECEIVED BY
BRANCHES OUTSIDE INDIANA."  THE CLASS C SALES WERE PRINCIPALLY SALES OF
MOTOR TRUCKS MANUFACTURED AT FORT WAYNE AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF GOODS
MANUFACTURED AT RICHMOND.  IN CASE OF WHOLESALE SALES IT IS THE CUSTOM
FOR THE DEALER TO NOTIFY THE COMPANY AT THE TIME HE DESIRES DELIVERY
THAT HE WANTS TO TAKE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS HIMSELF AT FORT WAYNE OR
RICHMOND.  IN THE CASE OF RETAIL SALES IN CLASS C, "IF THE USER DESIRES
TO UNDERTAKE TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS TO THEIR DESTINATION AND FOR
THAT PURPOSE TO TAKE DELIVERY AT THE FACTORY IN INDIANA, IT IS THE
BUSINESS PRACTICE FOR THE CONTRACT OR ORDER SO TO STATE."    FN2  THE
STIPULATION STATES THAT THE "ORDERS OR CONTRACTS WERE ACCEPTED AND THE
SALES PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED BY THE BRANCH MANAGERS AT THE BRANCHES
LOCATED WITHIN INDIANA."  THE BUSINESS CUSTOM OR PRACTICE RESPECTING
DELIVERIES IN THE STATE TO DEALERS OR RETAIL PURCHASERS WAS THE SAME AS
IN CASE OF THE CLASS C SALES. 

FN3  THE STIPULATION STATES THAT THE GOODS IN THIS CLASS WERE SHIPPED
BY THE COMPANY FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE, THE ORDER OR CONTRACT SPECIFYING
THAT "SHIPMENT SHOULD BE MADE FROM A POINT OUTSIDE INDIANA TO THE
PURCHASER IN INDIANA."  IN THESE CASES, MOREOVER, THE ORDERS WERE
"SOLICITED FROM PURCHASERS RESIDING IN INDIANA BY REPRESENTATIVES OF
INDIANA BRANCHES, OR THE ORDERS OR CONTRACTS WERE RECEIVED BY MAIL BY
INDIANA BRANCHES.  THE ORDERS AND CONTRACTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE BRANCH
MANAGER AT BRANCHES LOCATED WITHIN INDIANA.  PAYMENTS OF THE SALES
PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED BY BRANCHES IN INDIANA.  THE SALES IN THIS CLASS
WERE OF GOODS MANUFACTURED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF INDIANA." 

THERE WAS NO SHOWING, MOREOVER, THAT GOODS IN THIS CLASS WERE OF KIND
THAT COULD BE OBTAINED ONLY OUTSIDE INDIANA.  IT SEEMS TO BE ADMITTED
THAT CLASS E SALES AROSE WHEN AN INDIANA BRANCH RECEIVED ORDERS FOR
GOODS IN QUANTITIES WHICH COULD NOT BE ECONOMICALLY CARRIED IN STOCK OR
WHERE A CHEAPER FREIGHT RATE COULD BE OBTAINED BY DIRECT SHIPMENTS FROM
OUTSIDE INDIANA.  CF. BOWMAN V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 256 U.S. 642;
SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S. 506. 

FN4  SEC. 2 OF THE ACT PROVIDED IN PART:  "THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED A
TAX, MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OR VOLUME OF GROSS INCOME, AND IN THE
AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE APPLICATION OF RATES ON SUCH GROSS
INCOME AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED.  SUCH TAX SHALL BE LEVIED UPON THE
ENTIRE GROSS INCOME OF ALL RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND UPON
THE GROSS INCOME DERIVED FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE STATE OF INDIANA, OF
ALL PERSONS AND/OR COMPANIES, INCLUDING BANKS, WHO ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF
THE STATE OF INDIANA, BUT ARE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, OR WHO
DERIVE GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THIS STATE, AND SHALL BE IN
ADDITION TO ALL OTHER TAXES NOW OR HEREAFTER IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO
PARTICULAR OCCUPATIONS AND/OR ACTIVITIES."  THE LANGUAGE OF THIS

SEC. 6(A) OF THE ACT EXEMPTED "SO MUCH OF SUCH GROSS INCOME AS IS
DERIVED FROM BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN COMMERCE BETWEEN THIS STATE AND
OTHER STATES OF THE UNITED STATES, OR BETWEEN THIS STATE AND FOREIGN
COUNTRIES, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE STATE OF INDIANA IS PROHIBITED
FROM TAXING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." 
AND SEE L. 1937, C. 117, SEC. 6, P. 615. 

FN5  SEE L. ILL. 1943, P. 1121, SEC. 1 B, AMENDING L. ILL. 1933, P.
924. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING IN NO. 355(THIS CASE) AND NO. 441,
ANTE, P. 335, AND DISSENTING IN NO. 311, ANTE, P. 327: 

THESE THREE CASES PRESENT IN VARIOUS APPLICATIONS THE QUESTION OF THE
POWER OF A STATE TO TAX TRANSACTIONS HAVING A CLOSE CONNECTION WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IN NO. 311, MCLEOD V. J.E. DILWORTH CO., ANTE, P. 327, ARKANSAS HAS
CONSTRUED ITS TAX TO BE A SALES TAX, BUT HAS HELD THIS CANNOT BE
APPLIED WHERE A TENNESSEE CORPORATION, HAVING ITS HOME OFFICE AND PLACE
OF BUSINESS IN MEMPHIS, SOLICITS ORDERS IN ARKANSAS, BY MAIL, TELEPHONE
OR SENDING SOLICITORS REGULARLY FROM TENNESSEE, ACCEPTS THE ORDERS IN
MEMPHIS, AND DELIVERS THE GOODS THERE TO THE CARRIER FOR SHIPMENT TO
THE PURCHASER IN ARKANSAS.  THIS COURT HOLDS THE TAX INVALID, BECAUSE
"THE SALE - THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - WAS MADE IN TENNESSEE.  FOR
ARKANSAS TO IMPOSE A TAX ON SUCH TRANSACTION WOULD BE TO PROJECT ITS
POWERS BEYOND ITS BOUNDARIES AND TO TAX AN INTERSTATE TRANSACTION." 
THOUGH AN ARKANSAS "USE TAX" MIGHT BE SUSTAINED IN THE SAME SITUATION,
"WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH MATTERS OF NOMENCLATURE EVEN THOUGH THEY BE
MATTERS OF NICETY."  AND THE CASE IS THOUGHT TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE
BERWIND-WHITE CASE, 309 U.S. 33, WHERE NEW YORK CITY LEVIED THE TAX,
BECAUSE, IN THE ARKANSAS COURT'S LANGUAGE, "THE CORPORATION MAINTAINED
ITS SALES OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY, TOOK ITS CONTRACTS IN NEW YORK CITY
AND MADE ACTUAL DELIVERY IN NEW YORK CITY.  ...  " 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IN NO. 441, GENERAL TRADING CO. V. STATE TAX
COMMISSION, ANTE, P. 335, IOWA APPLIES ITS "USE TAX" TO A TRANSACTION
IN WHICH A MINNESOTA CORPORATION SHIPS GOODS FROM MINNESOTA, ITS ONLY
PLACE OF BUSINESS, TO IOWA PURCHASERS ON ORDERS SOLICITED IN IOWA BY
SALESMEN SENT THERE REGULARLY FROM MINNESOTA FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE
ORDERS BEING ACCEPTED IN MINNESOTA.  THIS TAX THE COURT SUSTAINS. 
WHILE "NO STATE CAN TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS, ...
THE MERE FACT THAT PROPERTY IS USED FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR HAS
COME INTO AN OWNER'S POSSESSION AS A RESULT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES
NOT DIMINISH THE PROTECTION WHICH IT MAY DRAW FROM A STATE TO THE
UPKEEP OF WHICH IT MAY BE ASKED TO BEAR ITS FAIR SHARE.  BUT A FAIR
SHARE PRECLUDES LEGISLATION OBVIOUSLY HOSTILE OR PRACTICALLY
DISCRIMINATORY TOWARD INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ...  NONE OF THESE
INFIRMITIES AFFECTS THE TAX IN THIS CASE.  ...  "  AND THE FOREIGN OR
NONRESIDENT SELLER WHO DOES NO MORE THAN SOLICIT ORDERS IN IOWA, AS THE
TENNESSEE SELLER DOES IN ARKANSAS, MAY BE MADE THE STATE'S TAX
COLLECTOR. 

IN NO. 355, INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. DEPT. OF TREASURY, ANTE,
P. 340, THE STATE APPLIES ITS GROSS INCOME TAX, AMONG OTHER SITUATIONS,
TO ONE (CLASS D) WHERE A FOREIGN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO AND DOING
BUSINESS IN INDIANA SELLS AND DELIVERS ITS PRODUCT IN INDIANA TO OUT-OF
STATE CUSTOMERS WHO COME INTO THE STATE FOR THE TRANSACTION.  THE COURT
SUSTAINS THE TAX AS APPLIED. 

                                  I. 

FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, I SEE NO DIFFERENCE BUT ONE OF WORDS AND
POSSIBLY ONE OF THE SCOPE OF COVERAGE BETWEEN THE ARKANSAS TAX IN NO.
311 AND THE IOWA TAX IN NO. 441.  THIS IS TRUE WHETHER THE ISSUE IS ONE
OF DUE PROCESS OR ONE OF UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  EACH TAX
IS IMPOSED BY THE CONSUMING STATE.  ON THE RECORDS HERE, EACH HAS A DUE
PROCESS CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION IN THAT FACT AND IN THE
REGULAR, CONTINUOUS SOLICITATION THERE.  NEITHER LAYS A GREATER BURDEN
ON THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS INVOLVED THAN IT DOES ON WHOLLY INTRASTATE
BUSINESS OF THE SAME SORT.  NEITHER SEGREGATES THE INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION FOR SEPARATE OR SPECIAL TREATMENT.  IN EACH INSTANCE
THEREFORE INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE BUSINESS REACH THESE MARKETS ON
IDENTICAL TERMS, SO FAR AS THE EFFECTS OF THE STATE TAXES ARE
CONCERNED. 

AND IN MY OPINION THEY DO SO UNDER IDENTICAL MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. 
IN BOTH CASES THE SELLERS ARE "NONRESIDENTS" OF THE TAXING STATE,
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  NEITHER SELLER MAINTAINS AN OFFICE OR A PLACE OF
BUSINESS THERE.  EACH HAS THESE FACILITIES SOLELY IN THE STATE OF
ORIGIN.  IN BOTH CASES THE ORDERS ARE TAKEN BY SOLICITORS SENT
REGULARLY TO THE TAXING STATE FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IN BOTH THE ORDERS ARE
ACCEPTED AT THE HOME OFFICE IN THE STATE OF ORIGIN.  AND IN BOTH THE
GOODS ARE SHIPPED BY DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER OR THE POST IN THE STATE
OF ORIGIN FOR CARRIAGE ACROSS THE STATE LINE AND DELIVERY BY IT TO THE
PURCHASER IN HIS TAXING STATE. 

IN THE FACE OF SUCH IDENTITIES IN CONNECTIONS AND EFFECTS, IT IS HARD
TO SEE HOW ONE TAX CAN BE UPHELD AND THE OTHER VOIDED.  SURELY THE
STATE'S POWER TO TAX IS NOT TO TURN ON THE TECHNICAL LEGAL EFFECT,
RELEVANT FOR OTHER PURPOSES BUT NOT FOR THIS, THAT "TITLE PASSES" ON
DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER IN MEMPHIS AND MAY OR MAY NOT SO PASS, SO FAR
AS THE RECORD SHOWS, WHEN THE MINNESOTA SHIPMENT IS MADE TO IOWA.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF OTHER AND MORE SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE, THAT IRRELEVANT
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION SHOULD NOT CONTROL.  HOWEVER IT MAY BE
DETERMINED FOR LOCATING THE INCIDENCE OF LOSS IN TRANSIT OR OTHER
QUESTIONS ARISING AMONG BUYER, SELLER AND CARRIER, FOR PURPOSES OF
TAXATION THAT FACTOR ALONE IS A WILL-O'-THE-WISP, INSUFFICIENT TO CRUX
A DUE PROCESS CONNECTION FROM SELLING TO CONSUMING STATE AND INCAPABLE
OF INCREASING OR REDUCING ANY BURDEN THE TAX MAY PLACE UPON THE
INTERSTATE TRANSACTION. 

THE ONLY OTHER DIFFERENCE IS IN THE TERMS USED BY IOWA AND ARKANSAS,
RESPECTIVELY, TO DESCRIBE THEIR TAXES.  FOR REASONS OF HER OWN ARKANSAS
DESCRIBES HER TAX AS A "SALES TAX."  IOWA CALLS HERS A "USE TAX."  THIS
COURT NOW IS COMMITTED TO THE VALIDITY OF "USE" TAXES:  HENNEFORD V.
SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577; FELT & TARRANT MANUFACTURING CO. V.
GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62; NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359;
NELSON V. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., 312 U.S. 373.  SIMILARLY, "SALES
TAXES" ON "INTERSTATE SALES" HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.  IN MCGOLDRICK V.
BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33, SUCH A TAX APPLIED BY THE
STATE OF THE MARKET WAS UPHELD.  COMPARE BANKER BROTHERS CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 222 U.S. 210; WILOIL CORP. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S.
169.  OTHER THINGS BEING THE SAME, CONSTITUTIONALITY SHOULD NOT TURN ON
WHETHER ONE NAME OR THE OTHER IS APPLIED BY THE STATE.  WISCONSIN V.
J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435.  THE DIFFERENCE MAY BE IMPORTANT FOR THE
SCOPE OF THE STATUTE'S APPLICATION, THAT IS, WHETHER IT IS INTENDED TO
APPLY TO SOME TRANSACTIONS BUT NOT TO OTHERS THAT ARE WITHIN REACH OF
THE STATE'S TAXING POWER.  IT HARDLY CAN DETERMINE WHETHER THE POWER
EXISTS. 

                             II. 

THE COURT'S DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF THE TWO TAXES DOES NOT RESULT FROM
ANY SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS UNDER WHICH THEY ARE LEVIED OR
THE EFFECTS THEY MAY HAVE ON INTERSTATE TRADE.  IT ARISES RATHER FROM
APPLYING DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS TO THE SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL TAXES, IN THE ONE CASE TO INVALIDATE THAT OF ARKANSAS, IN THE
OTHER TO SUSTAIN THAT OF IOWA.  DUE PROCESS DESTROYS THE FORMER. 
ABSENCE OF UNDUE BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE SUSTAINS THE LATTER. 

IT WOULD SEEM OBVIOUS THAT NEITHER TAX OF ITS OWN FORCE CAN IMPOSE A
GREATER BURDEN UPON THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION TO WHICH IT APPLIES THAN
IT PLACES UPON THE WHOLLY LOCAL TRADE OF THE SAME CHARACTER WITH WHICH
THAT TRANSACTION COMPETES.  BY PAYING THE ARKANSAS TAX THE TENNESSEE
SELLER WILL PAY NO MORE THAN AN ARKANSAS SELLER OF THE SAME GOODS TO
THE SAME ARKANSAS BUYER; AND THE LATTER WILL PAY NO MORE TO THE
TENNESSEE SELLER THAN TO AN ARKANSAS VENDOR, ON ACCOUNT OF THE TAX, IN
ABSORBING ITS BURDEN.  THE SAME THING IS TRUE OF THE IOWA TAX IN ITS
INCIDENCE UPON THE SALE BY THE MINNESOTA VENDOR.  THE CASES ARE NOT
DIFFERENT IN THE BURDEN THE TWO TAXES PLACE UPON THE INTERSTATE
TRANSACTIONS.  NOR IN MY OPINION ARE THEY DIFFERENT IN THE EXISTENCE OF
DUE PROCESS TO SUSTAIN THE TAXES. 

"DUE PROCESS" AND "COMMERCE CLAUSE" CONCEPTIONS ARE NOT ALWAYS
SHARPLY SEPARABLE IN DEALING WITH THESE PROBLEMS.  CF. E.G., WESTERN
UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1.  TO SOME EXTENT THEY
OVERLAP.  IF THERE IS A WANT OF DUE PROCESS TO SUSTAIN THE TAX, BY THAT
FACT ALONE ANY BURDEN THE TAX IMPOSES ON THE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES
BECOMES "UNDUE."  BUT, THOUGH OVERLAPPING, THE TWO CONCEPTIONS ARE NOT
IDENTICAL.  THERE MAY BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FACTUAL CONNECTIONS, WITH
ECONOMIC AND LEGAL EFFECTS, BETWEEN THE TRANSACTION AND THE TAXING
STATE TO SUSTAIN THE TAX AS AGAINST DUE PROCESS OBJECTIONS.  YET IT MAY
FALL BECAUSE OF ITS BURDENING EFFECT UPON THE COMMERCE.  AND, ALTHOUGH
THE TWO NOTIONS CANNOT ALWAYS BE SEPARATED, CLARITY OF CONSIDERATION
AND OF DECISION WOULD BE PROMOTED IF THE TWO ISSUES ARE APPROACHED,
WHERE THEY ARE PRESENTED, AT LEAST TENTATIVELY AS IF THEY WERE SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT, NOT INTERMINGLED ONES. 

THUS, IN THE CASE FROM ARKANSAS NO MORE THAN IN THAT FROM IOWA SHOULD
THERE BE DIFFICULTY IN FINDING DUE PROCESS CONNECTIONS WITH THE TAXING
STATE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE TAX.  AS IN THE IOWA CASE, THE GOODS
ARE SOLD AND SHIPPED TO ARKANSAS BUYERS.  ARKANSAS IS THE CONSUMING
STATE, THE MARKET THESE GOODS SEEK AND FIND.  THEY FIND IT BY VIRTUE OF
A CONTINUOUS COURSE OF SOLICITATION THERE BY THE TENNESSEE SELLER.  THE
OLD NOTION THAT "MERE SOLICITATION" IS NOT "DOING BUSINESS" WHEN IT IS
REGULAR, CONTINUOUS AND PERSISTENT IS FAST LOSING ITS FORCE.  IN THE
GENERAL TRADING CASE IT LOSES FORCE ALTOGETHER, FOR THE IOWA STATUTE
DEFINES THIS PROCESS IN TERMS AS "A RETAILER MAINTAINING A PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN THIS STATE."  FN1  THE IOWA SUPREME COURT SUSTAINS THE
DEFINITION AND THIS COURT GIVES EFFECT TO ITS DECISION IN UPHOLDING THE
TAX.  FICTION THE DEFINITION MAY BE; BUT IT IS FICTION WITH SUBSTANCE
BECAUSE, FOR EVERY RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATION AFFECTING
TAXATION OF TRANSACTIONS, REGULAR, CONTINUOUS, PERSISTENT SOLICITATION
HAS THE SAME ECONOMIC, AND SHOULD HAVE THE SAME LEGAL, CONSEQUENCES AS
DOES MAINTAINING AN OFFICE FOR SOLICITING AND EVEN CONTRACTING PURPOSES
OR MAINTAINING A PLACE OF BUSINESS, WHERE THE GOODS ACTUALLY ARE
SHIPPED INTO THE STATE FROM WITHOUT FOR DELIVERY TO THE PARTICULAR
BUYER.  THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IOWA AND THE ARKANSAS
SITUATIONS IN THIS RESPECT.  BOTH INVOLVE CONTINUOUS, REGULAR, AND NOT
INTERMITTENT OR CASUAL COURSES OF SOLICITATION.  BOTH INVOLVE THE
SHIPMENT OF GOODS FROM WITHOUT TO A BUYER WITHIN THE STATE.  BOTH
INVOLVE TAXATION BY THE STATE OF THE MARKET.  AND IF THESE SUBSTANTIAL
CONNECTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO UNDERPIN THE TAX WITH DUE PROCESS IN THE
ONE CASE, THEY ARE ALSO IN THE OTHER.    THAT IS TRUE, IF LABELS ARE
NOT TO CONTROL, UNLESS SOMETHING WHICH HAPPENS OR MAY HAPPEN OUTSIDE
THE TAXING STATE OPERATES IN THE ONE CASE TO DEFEAT THE JURISDICTION,
BUT DOES NOT DEFEAT IT IN THE OTHER. 

AS I READ THE COURT'S OPINION, THOUGH IT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY SO
STATE, THE ARKANSAS TAX FALLS BECAUSE TENNESSEE COULD TAX THE
TRANSACTION AND, AS BETWEEN THE TWO STATES, HAS EXCLUSIVE POWER TO DO
SO.  THIS IS BECAUSE "THE SALE - THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - WAS MADE
IN TENNESSEE."  ARKANSAS RELATION TO THE TRANSACTION IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF NEW YORK IN THE BERWIND-WHITE
CASE, THOUGH BOTH ARE THE STATE OF THE MARKET, BECAUSE THE BERWIND
WHITE COMPANY "MAINTAINED ITS SALES OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY, TOOK ITS
CONTRACTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND MADE ACTUAL DELIVERY IN NEW YORK CITY." 
THIS "CONSTITUTED A SALE IN NEW YORK AND ACCORDINGLY WE SUSTAINED A
RETAIL SALES TAX BY NEW YORK."  SO HERE THE COMPANY'S "OFFICES ARE
MAINTAINED IN TENNESSEE, THE SALE IS MADE IN TENNESSEE, AND THE
DELIVERY IS CONSUMMATED EITHER IN TENNESSEE OR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
...  "  THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS THAT THE COURT IS
DECIDING NOT ONLY THAT ARKANSAS CANNOT TAX THE TRANSACTION, BUT THAT
TENNESSEE CAN TAX IT AND IS THE ONLY STATE WHICH CAN DO SO.  TO PUT THE
MATTER SHORTLY, ARKANSAS CANNOT LEVY THE TAX BECAUSE TENNESSEE CAN LEVY
IT.  HENCE "FOR ARKANSAS TO IMPOSE A TAX ON SUCH TRANSACTION WOULD BE
TO PROJECT ITS POWERS BEYOND ITS BOUNDARIES AND TO TAX AN INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION." 

THIS STATEMENT OF THE MATTER APPEARS TO BE A COMPOSITE OF DUE PROCESS
AND COMMERCE CLAUSE IDEAS.  IF SO, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY THE SAME
CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT NULLIFY IOWA'S POWER TO LEVY HER TAX IN THE
IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND VEST EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN MINNESOTA TO
TAX THESE TRANSACTIONS.  FOR IN THE IOWA CASE THE SELLING CORPORATION
MAINTAINS ITS OFFICE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA, ACCEPTS THE
ORDERS THERE, AND THE DELIVERY, WHICH IS TO CARRIER OR POST, IS
CONSUMMATED, SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, EXACTLY IN THE MANNER IT IS
MADE IN THE TENNESSEE-ARKANSAS TRANSACTION.  IF THESE FACTS NULLIFY
ARKANSAS' POWER TO TAX THE TRANSACTION BY VESTING EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IN TENNESSEE, IT WOULD SEEM A FORTIORI THEY WOULD NULLIFY
IOWA'S POWER AND GIVE MINNESOTA EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO TAX THE
TRANSACTIONS THERE INVOLVED.  UNLESS THE SHEER DIFFERENCE IN THE TERMS
"SALE" AND "USE," AND WHATEVER DIFFERENCE THESE MIGHT MAKE AS A MATTER
OF LEGISLATIVE SELECTION OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE TO BEAR THE TAX,
ARE TO CONTROL UPON THE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER TO TAX, THE RESULT
SHOULD BE THE SAME IN BOTH CASES. 

MERELY AS A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY ANY OF THE
FOUR STATES CANNOT TAX THE TRANSACTIONS THESE CASES INVOLVE.  EACH HAS
SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONS AND CONNECTIONS WITH THE TRANSACTION, THE STATE
OF MARKET NOT LESS IN EITHER CASE THAN THE STATE OF ORIGIN.  IT "SOUNDS
BETTER" FOR THE STATE OF ORIGIN TO CALL ITS TAX A "SALES TAX" AND THE
STATE OF MARKET TO NAME ITS TAX A "USE TAX."  BUT IN THE BERWIND-WHITE
CASE THE LATTER'S "SALES TAX" WAS SUSTAINED, WHERE IT IS TRUE MORE OF
THE INCIDENTS OF SALE CONJOINED WITH THE LOCATION OF THE PLACE OF
MARKET THAN DO IN EITHER NO. 311 OR NO. 441.  IF THIS IS THE
DISTINGUISHING FACTOR, AS IT MIGHT BE FOR SELECTING ONE OF THE TWO
CONNECTED JURISDICTIONS FOR EXCLUSIVE TAXING POWER, IT IS NOT ONE WHICH
APPLIES TO EITHER OF THESE TRANSACTIONS.  THE IDENTITY IS NOT BETWEEN
THE DILWORTH CASE AND BERWIND-WHITE.  IT IS RATHER BETWEEN DILWORTH AND
GENERAL TRADING, WITH BERWIND-WHITE DIFFERING FROM BOTH.  AND, SO FAR
AS DUE PROCESS ALONE IS CONCERNED, IT SHOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER
THE TAX IN THE ONE CASE IS LAID BY ARKANSAS OR TENNESSEE AND IN THE
OTHER BY IOWA OR MINNESOTA.  EACH STATE HAS A SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIAL
AND CLOSE CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION, WHETHER BY VIRTUE OF TAX
BENEFITS CONFERRED IN GENERAL POLICE PROTECTION AND OTHERWISE OR ON
ACCOUNT OF IDEAS OF TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY CONCERNING OCCURRENCE OF
"TAXABLE INCIDENTS" WITHIN ITS BORDERS, TO FURNISH THE DUE PROCESS
FOUNDATION NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN THE EXERCISE OF ITS TAXING POWER. 
WHETHER IT EXERTS THIS BY SELECTING FOR "IMPINGEMENT" OF THE TAX SOME
FEATURE OR INCIDENT OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH IT DENOMINATES "SALE" OR
"USE" IS BOTH ILLUSORY AND UNIMPORTANT IN ANY BEARING UPON ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS A MATTER OF DUE PROCESS.  IF THIS HAS ANY
SUBSTANTIVE EFFECT, IT IS MERELY ONE OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN SELECTING
THE TRANSACTIONS TO BEAR THE TAX AND THUS FIXING THE SCOPE OF ITS
COVERAGE, NOT ONE OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  "USE" MAY COVER MORE
TRANSACTIONS WITH WHICH A STATE HAS DUE PROCESS CONNECTIONS THAN
"SALE."  BUT WHENEVER SALE OCCURS AND IS TAXED THE TAX BEARS EQUALLY,
IN FINAL INCIDENCE OF BURDEN, UPON THE USE WHICH FOLLOWS IMMEDIATELY
UPON IT. 

THE GREAT DIFFICULTY IN ALLOCATING TAXING POWER AS A MATTER OF DUE
PROCESS BETWEEN THE STATE OF ORIGIN AND THE STATE OF MARKET ARISES FROM
THE FACT THAT EACH STATE, CONSIDERED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OTHER,
ALWAYS HAS A SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIAL RELATION IN FACT AND IN TAX
BENEFIT CONFERRED TO THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION TO SUSTAIN AN EXERTION
OF ITS TAXING POWER, A FACT NOT ALWAYS RECOGNIZED.  AND FROM THIS
FAILURE, AS WELL AS FROM THE TERMS IN WHICH STATUTES NOT DIRECTED
SPECIFICALLY TO REACHING THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE CAST, COMES THE SEARCH
FOR SOME "TAXABLE INCIDENT TAKING PLACE WITHIN THE STATE'S BOUNDARIES"
AS A HOOK FOR HANGING CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER DUE PROCESS IDEAS. 
"TAXABLE INCIDENT" THERE MUST BE.  BUT TO TAKE WHAT IS IN ESSENCE AND
TOTALITY AN INTERSTATE TRANSACTION BETWEEN A STATE OF ORIGIN AND ONE OF
MARKET AND HANG THE TAXING POWER OF EITHER STATE UPON SOME SEGMENTED
INCIDENT OF THE WHOLE AND DECLARE THAT THIS DOES OR DOES NOT "TAX AN
INTERSTATE TRANSACTION" IS TO DO TWO THINGS.  IT IS FIRST TO IGNORE
THAT ANY TAX HUNG ON SUCH AN INCIDENT IS LEVIED ON AN INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION.  FOR THE PART CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE WHOLE.  IT IS
ALSO TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT EACH STATE, WHETHER OF ORIGIN OR OF
MARKET, HAS BY THAT ONE FACT ALONE A RELATION TO THE WHOLE TRANSACTION
SO SUBSTANTIAL AS TO NULLIFY ANY DUE PROCESS PROHIBITION.  WHETHER THE
TAX IS LEVIED ON THE "SALE" OR ON THE "USE," BY THE ONE STATE OR BY THE
OTHER, IT IS IN FACT AND EFFECT A TAX LEVIED ON AN INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION.  NOTHING IN DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS PROHIBITS EITHER
STATE TO LEVY EITHER SORT OF TAX ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS.  THAT TENNESSEE
THEREFORE MAY TAX THIS TRANSACTION BY A SALES TAX DOES NOT, IN ANY
PROPER CONCEPTION OF DUE PROCESS, DEPRIVE ARKANSAS OF THE SAME POWER. 

        III. 

WHEN, HOWEVER, THE ISSUE IS TURNED FROM DUE PROCESS TO THE
PROHIBITIVE EFFECT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, MORE SUBSTANTIAL
CONSIDERATIONS ARISE FROM THE FACT THAT BOTH THE STATE OF ORIGIN AND
THAT OF MARKET EXERT OR MAY EXERT THEIR TAXING POWERS UPON THE
INTERSTATE TRANSACTION.  THE LONG HISTORY OF THIS PROBLEM BOILS DOWN IN
GENERAL STATEMENT TO THE FORMULA THAT THE STATES, BY VIRTUE OF THE
FORCE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, MAY NOT UNDULY BURDEN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THIS RESOLVES ITSELF INTO VARIOUS COROLLARY FORMULATIONS. 
ONE IS THAT A STATE MAY NOT SINGLE OUT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR SPECIAL
TAX BURDEN.  MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33,
55-56.  NOR MAY IT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IN
FAVOR OF ITS LOCAL TRADE.  WELTON V. MISSOURI, 91 U.S. AT 275; GUY V.
BALTIMORE, 100 U.S. 434; VOIGHT V. WRIGHT, 141 U.S. 62.  AGAIN, THE
STATE MAY NOT IMPOSE CUMULATIVE BURDENS UPON INTERSTATE TRADE OR
COMMERCE.  GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434; ADAMS MFG.
CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307.  THUS, THE STATE MAY NOT IMPOSE CERTAIN
TAXES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ITS INCIDENTS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES, WHICH
ARE NO MORE IN AMOUNT OR BURDEN THAN IT PLACES ON ITS LOCAL BUSINESS,
NOT BECAUSE THIS OF ITSELF IS DISCRIMINATORY, CUMULATIVE OR SPECIAL OR
WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS, BUT BECAUSE OTHER STATES ALSO MAY HAVE THE
RIGHT CONSTITUTIONALLY, APART FROM THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, TO TAX THE SAME
THING AND EITHER THE ACTUALITY OR THE RISK OF THEIR DOING SO MAKES THE
TOTAL BURDEN CUMULATIVE, DISCRIMINATORY OR SPECIAL.  FN2 

IN THESE INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS CASES INVOLVING TAXATION BY THE
STATE OF ORIGIN OR THAT OF MARKET, THE TROUBLE ARISES, UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, NOT FROM ANY DANGER THAT EITHER TAX TAKEN ALONE,
WHETHER CHARACTERIZED AS "SALES" OR "USE" TAX, WILL PUT INTERSTATE
TRADE AT A DISADVANTAGE WHICH WILL BURDEN UNDULY ITS COMPETITION WITH
THE LOCAL TRADE.  SO LONG AS ONLY ONE TAX IS APPLIED AND AT THE SAME
RATE AS TO WHOLLY LOCAL TRANSACTIONS, NO UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY CLOG
ACTUALLY ATTACHES TO THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS. 

THE REAL DANGER ARISES MOST OBVIOUSLY WHEN BOTH STATES LEVY THE TAX. 
THUS, IF IN THE INSTANT CASES IT WERE SHOWN THAT, ON THE ONE HAND,
ARKANSAS AND IOWA ACTUALLY WERE APPLYING A "USE" TAX AND TENNESSEE AND
MINNESOTA A "SALES" TAX, SO THAT IN EACH CASE THE INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION WERE TAXED AT BOTH ENDS, THE HEAVIER CUMULATIVE BURDEN THUS
BORNE BY THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS IN COMPARISON WITH THE LOCAL TRADE IN
EITHER STATE WOULD BE OBVIOUS.  IF IN EACH CASE THE STATE OF ORIGIN
WERE SHOWN TO IMPOSE A SALES TAX OF THREE PER CENT AND THE STATE OF
MARKET A USE TAX OF THE SAME AMOUNT, INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN
THE TWO OBVIOUSLY WOULD BEAR DOUBLE THE LOCAL TAX BURDEN BORNE BY LOCAL
TRADE IN EACH STATE.  THIS IS A DIFFERENCE OF SUBSTANCE, NOT MERELY ONE
OF NAMES, RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM CREATED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE,
THOUGH NOT TO THAT OF "JURISDICTION" UNDER DUE PROCESS CONCEPTIONS. 
AND THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE NO LESS SUBSTANTIAL IF THE TAXES LEVIED BY
BOTH THE STATE OF ORIGIN AND THAT OF MARKET WERE CALLED "SALES" TAXES
OR IF, INDEED, BOTH WERE CALLED "USE" TAXES. 

THE IOWA TAX IN NO. 441 AVOIDS THIS PROBLEM BY ALLOWING CREDIT FOR
ANY SALES TAX SHOWN TO BE LEVIED UPON THE TRANSACTION WHETHER IN IOWA
OR ELSEWHERE.  CLEARLY THEREFORE THAT TAX CANNOT IN FACT PUT THE
INTERSTATE TRANSACTION AT A TAX DISADVANTAGE WITH LOCAL TRADE DONE IN
IOWA OR ELSEWHERE.  FN3 

HOWEVER, THE ARKANSAS TAX IN NO. 311 PROVIDES FOR NO SUCH CREDIT. 
BUT IN THAT CASE THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT TENNESSEE ACTUALLY IMPOSES
ANY TAX UPON THE TRANSACTION.  IF THERE IS A BURDEN OR CLOG ON
COMMERCE, THEREFORE, IT ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT TENNESSEE HAS POWER
CONSTITUTIONALLY TO IMPOSE A TAX, MAY EXERCISE IT, AND WHEN THIS OCCURS
THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF BOTH TAXES WILL BE DISCRIMINATORILY
BURDENSOME, THOUGH NEITHER TAX SINGLES OUT THE TRANSACTION OR BEARS
UPON IT MORE HEAVILY THAN UPON THE LOCAL TRADE TO WHICH IT APPLIES.  IN
SHORT, THE RISK OF MULTIPLE TAXATION CREATES THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BURDEN WHICH ACTUAL TAXATION BY BOTH STATES WOULD IMPOSE IN FACT. 

IN MY OPINION THIS IS THE REAL QUESTION AND THE ONLY ONE PRESENTED IN
NO. 311.  AND IN MY JUDGMENT IT IS DETERMINED THE WRONG WAY, NOT ON
COMMERCE CLAUSE GROUNDS BUT UPON AN UNSUSTAINABLE APPLICATION OF THE
DUE PROCESS PROHIBITION. 

WHERE THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF TWO TAXES, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED,
ONE IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF ORIGIN, THE OTHER BY THE STATE OF MARKET,
ACTUALLY BEARS IN PRACTICAL EFFECT UPON SUCH AN INTERSTATE TRANSACTION,
THERE IS NO ESCAPE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF UNDUE BURDEN FROM ONE OF TWO
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES.  EITHER ONE TAX MUST FALL OR, WHAT IS THE SAME
THING, BE REQUIRED TO GIVE WAY TO THE OTHER BY ALLOWING CREDIT AS THE
IOWA TAX DOES, OR THERE MUST BE APPORTIONMENT.  EITHER SOLUTION
PRESENTS AN AWKWARD ALTERNATIVE.  BUT ONE OR THE OTHER MUST BE ACCEPTED
UNLESS THAT DOCTRINE IS TO BE DISCARDED AND ONE OF TWO EXTREME
POSITIONS TAKEN, NAMELY, THAT NEITHER STATE CAN TAX THE INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION OR THAT BOTH MAY DO SO UNTIL CONGRESS INTERVENES TO GIVE
ITS SOLUTION FOR THE PROBLEM.  IT IS TOO LATE TO ACCEPT THE FORMER
EXTREME, TOO EARLY EVEN IF IT WERE CLEARLY DESIRABLE OR PERMISSIBLE TO
FOLLOW THE LATTER. 

AS BETWEEN APPORTIONMENT AND REQUIRING ONE TAX TO FALL OR ALLOW
CREDIT, THE LATTER PERHAPS WOULD BE THE PREFERABLE SOLUTION.  AND IN MY
OPINION IT IS THE ONE WHICH THE COURT IN EFFECT, THOUGH NOT IN SPECIFIC
STATEMENT, ADOPTS.  THAT THE DECISION IS CAST MORE LARGELY IN TERMS OF
DUE PROCESS THAN IN THOSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT NULLIFY THAT
EFFECT. 

IF IN THIS CASE IT WERE NECESSARY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE STATE OF
ORIGIN AND THAT OF MARKET FOR THE EXERCISE OF EXCLUSIVE POWER TO TAX,
OR FOR REQUIRING ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT IN ORDER TO AVOID THE CUMULATIVE
BURDEN, IN MY OPINION THE CHOICE SHOULD LIE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF
MARKET RATHER THAN THE STATE OF ORIGIN.  FN4  THE FORMER IS THE STATE
WHERE THE GOODS MUST COME IN COMPETITION WITH THOSE SOLD LOCALLY.  IT
IS THE ONE WHERE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX NECESSARILY WILL FALL EQUALLY ON
BOTH CLASSES OF TRADE.  TO CHOOSE THE TAX OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN
PRESENTS AT LEAST SOME POSSIBILITIES THAT THE BURDEN IT IMPOSES ON ITS
LOCAL TRADE, WITH WHICH THE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC DOES NOT COMPETE, AT ANY
RATE DIRECTLY, WILL BE HEAVIER THAN THAT PLACED BY THE CONSUMING STATE
ON ITS LOCAL BUSINESS OF THE SAME CHARACTER.  IF THEREFORE CHOICE HAS
TO BE MADE, WHETHER AS A MATTER OF EXCLUSIVE POWER TO TAX OR AS ONE OF
ALLOWING CREDIT, IT SHOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF MARKET OR
CONSUMPTION AS THE ONE MOST CERTAIN TO PLACE THE SAME TAX LOAD ON BOTH
THE INTERSTATE AND COMPETING LOCAL BUSINESS.  HENCE, IF THE RISK OF
TAXATION BY BOTH STATES MAY BE SAID TO HAVE THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSEQUENCES, UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AS TAXATION IN ACTUALITY BY
BOTH, THE ARKANSAS TAX, RATHER THAN THE POWER OF TENNESSEE TO TAX,
SHOULD STAND.    IT MAY BE THAT THE MERE RISK OF DOUBLE TAXATION WOULD
NOT HAVE THE SAME CONSEQUENCES, GIVEN ALWAYS OF COURSE A SUFFICIENT DUE
PROCESS CONNECTION WITH THE TAXING STATES, THAT ACTUAL DOUBLE TAXATION
HAS, OR MAY HAVE, FOR APPLICATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PROHIBITION. 
RISK OF COURSE IS NOT IRRELEVANT TO BURDEN OR TO THE CLOGGING EFFECT
THE RULE AGAINST UNDUE BURDEN IS INTENDED TO PREVENT.  BUT IN THESE
SITUATIONS IT MAY BE DOUBTED, ON ENTIRELY PRACTICAL GROUNDS, THAT THE
MERE RISK TENNESSEE MAY APPLY ITS TAXING POWER TO THESE TRANSACTIONS
WILL HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT IN RESTRAINING THE COMMERCE SUCH AS
THE ACTUAL APPLICATION OF THAT POWER WOULD HAVE.  IN ANY EVENT, WHETHER
OR NOT THE CHOICE MUST BE MADE NOW OR, AS I THINK, HAS BEEN MADE, IT
SHOULD GO IN FAVOR OF ARKANSAS, NOT TENNESSEE. 

FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES INDIANA'S GROSS INCOME TAX IN NO. 355 MAY
BE REGARDED AS EITHER A SALES TAX OR A USE TAX LAID IN THE STATE OF
MARKET, COMPARABLE IN ALL RESPECTS (EXCEPT IN WORDS) TO THE ARKANSAS
TAX LAID IN NO. 311 AND TO THE IOWA TAX IMPOSED IN NO. 441, EXCEPT THAT
HERE THE SELLER AS WELL AS THE BUYER DOES BUSINESS AND CONCLUDES THE
TRANSACTION IN INDIANA, THE STATE OF THE MARKET.  THIS IS CLEARLY TRUE
OF CLASSES C AND E. IT IS TRUE ALSO OF CLASS D, IN MY OPINION, ALTHOUGH
THE BUYER THERE RESIDED IN ILLINOIS BUT WENT TO INDIANA TO ENTER INTO
THE TRANSACTION AND TAKE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS.  THAT HE AT ONCE
REMOVED THEM, ON COMPLETION OF THE TRANSACTION THERE, TO ILLINOIS,
INTENDED TO DO THIS FROM THE BEGINNING AND THIS FACT MAY HAVE BEEN
KNOWN TO THE SELLER, DOES NOT TAKE FROM THE TRANSACTION ITS CHARACTER
AS ONE ENTERED INTO AND COMPLETED IN INDIANA.  WHETHER OR NOT ILLINOIS,
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, COULD IMPOSE A USE TAX OR SOME OTHER AS A
PROPERTY TAX IS NOT PRESENTED AND NEED NOT BE DETERMINED.  IF THE
ARKANSAS AND IOWA TAXES STAND, OR EITHER DOES, A FORTIORI THE INDIANA
TAX STANDS IN THESE APPLICATIONS. 

ACCORDINGLY, I CONCUR IN THE DECISIONS IN NOS. 441 AND 355, BUT
DISSENT FROM THE DECISION IN NO. 311. 

FN1  CF. FRENE V. LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO., 134 F.2D 511(APP.  D.C.). 

FN2  CF. THE OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN NORTHWEST AIRLINES V.
MINNESOTA, ANTE, P. 308. 

FN3  CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 4 ET SEQ. 

FN4 CF. POWELL, NEW LIGHT ON GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES (1940) 53 HARV. L.
REV. 909; LOCKHART, THE SALES TAX IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (1939) 52
HARV. L. REV. 617; COMPARE GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S.
434; ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. HELLARD, 322 U.S. 363 


NO. 648.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 138 F.2D
985, REVERSED. 


FULL-BLOOD INDIANS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES MAY NOT BE DIVESTED OF
TITLE TO RESTRICTED LAND BY A SALE PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF A STATE
COURT IN A PARTITION PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT A
PARTY.  CONSTRUING ACT OF JUNE 14, 1918; ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926.  P.
368. 

UNITED STATES V. HELLARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 758, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
WHICH, IN A SUIT REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT TO THE FEDERAL COURT AND IN
WHICH THE UNITED STATES INTERVENED, QUIETED TITLE TO LANDS IN THE
RESPONDENT HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER FULL-BLOOD INDIANS OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES MAY BE DIVESTED OF TITLE TO RESTRICTED LAND BY A SALE
IN PARTITION PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A PARTY. 

A FULL-BLOOD CREEK INDIAN DIED LEAVING HEIRS OF THE FULL BLOOD.  THEY
INHERITED CERTAIN LANDS FROM HER, LANDS WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO
RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION BOTH IN HER HANDS AND IN THE HANDS OF THE
HEIRS.  FN1  BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1918(25 U.S.C. SEC. 355,
40 STAT. 606) CONGRESS DECLARED THAT SUCH LANDS WERE "MADE SUBJECT TO
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, PROVIDING FOR THE PARTITION OF REAL
ESTATE."  FN2  BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926(44 STAT. 239)
CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR THE SERVICE UPON THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES OF A PRESCRIBED WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE PENDENCY OF ANY
SUIT TO WHICH A RESTRICTED MEMBER OF THE TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA OR THE
RESTRICTED HEIRS OR GRANTEES ARE PARTIES AND WHICH INVOLVES CLAIMS TO
"LANDS ALLOTTED TO A CITIZEN OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES OR THE
PROCEEDS, ISSUES, RENTS, AND PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE SAME."  BY THAT
ACT THE UNITED STATES IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR IN THE CAUSE
AND IS BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT WHICH IS ENTERED. 

THE HEIRS INSTITUTED PARTITION PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
CREEK COUNTY, OKLAHOMA IN MARCH 1940.  THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT NAMED
AS A PARTY NOR WAS NOTICE OF THE SUIT SERVED ON THE SUPERINTENDENT.  A
JUDGMENT OF PARTITION WAS ENTERED, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE LAND WAS SOLD
AND A SHERIFF'S DEED IN PARTITION ISSUED TO RESPONDENT.  IN 1941
RESPONDENT INSTITUTED IN THE SAME COURT THE PRESENT ACTION AGAINST THE
INDIAN HEIRS TO QUIET HIS TITLE.  NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE
SUPERINTENDENT.  THE HEIRS ANSWERED DISCLAIMING ANY INTEREST.  AT THE
INSTANCE OF THE UNITED STATES THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT AS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926. 
THE UNITED STATES THEN ANSWERED, ALLEGING THAT THE PARTITION
PROCEEDINGS WERE VOID FOR LACK OF THE UNITED STATES AS A PARTY AND FOR
WANT OF SERVICE ON THE SUPERINTENDENT UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF APRIL
12, 1926.  IT PRAYED THAT THE DEED IN PARTITION BE SET ASIDE AND TITLE
QUIETED IN THE HEIRS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE PARTITION
PROCEEDINGS WERE VALID AND QUIETED TITLE IN RESPONDENT.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  138 F.2D 985.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS OF THE QUESTION
PRESENTED. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1918 AND ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY (S. REP. NO. 330, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS.) THAT
CONGRESS VESTED IN THE OKLAHOMA STATE COURTS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
HEIRSHIP IN THESE RESTRICTED LANDS (SEC. 1) AND JURISDICTION TO
PARTITION THEM.  SEC. 2.  SEE SALMON V. JOHNSON, 78 OKLA. 182, 189 P.
537; UNITED STATES V. BOND, 108 F.2D 504.  THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO
SELECT STATE TRIBUNALS TO PERFORM SUCH FUNCTIONS IS CLEAR.  PARKER V.
RICHARD, 250 U.S. 235; HARRIS V. BELL, 254 U.S. 103; STEWART V. KEYES,
295 U.S. 403.  BUT A GRANT OF JURISDICTION TO A PARTICULAR COURT
WITHOUT MORE DOES NOT DETERMINE WHAT PARTIES ARE INDISPENSABLE TO THE
PROCEEDINGS IN QUESTION.  PETITIONER CONCEDES THAT THE UNITED STATES IS
NOT A NECESSARY PARTY TO PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE HEIRSHIP UNDER SEC. 1
OF THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1918.  SINCE RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION DO NOT
PREVENT INHERITANCE, NO GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IS AT LEAST DIRECTLY
INVOLVED IN SUCH A DETERMINATION.  IT MAY LIKEWISE BE INFERRED FROM THE
LANGUAGE, NATURE, AND PURPOSE OF ACTS OF CONGRESS WHICH VEST
JURISDICTION OVER SPECIFIED INDIAN AFFAIRS IN A DESIGNATED COURT THAT
CONGRESS NOT ONLY HAS MADE THAT TRIBUNAL THE EXCLUSIVE AGENCY TO
EFFECTUATE THE FEDERAL POLICY BUT ALSO HAS DISPENSED WITH ANY
REQUIREMENT THAT THE UNITED STATES BE A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS.  SEE
HY-YU-TSE-MIL-KIN V. SMITH, 194 U.S. 401, 413-414; WINTON V. AMOS, 255
U.S. 373, 392.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT CONGRESS DID MORE BY THOSE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1918 WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY
CONCERNED THAN TO GRANT THE OKLAHOMA STATE COURTS JURISDICTION OVER
PARTITION PROCEEDINGS. 

RESTRICTED INDIAN LAND IS PROPERTY IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS AN
INTEREST.  "THIS NATIONAL INTEREST IS NOT TO BE EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF
PROPERTY, OR TO BE LIMITED TO THE ASSERTION OF RIGHTS INCIDENT TO THE
OWNERSHIP OF A REVERSION OR TO THE HOLDING OF A TECHNICAL TITLE IN
TRUST."  HECKMAN V. UNITED STATES, 224 U.S. 413, 437.  THOUGH THE
INDIAN'S INTEREST IS ALIENATED BY JUDICIAL DECREE, THE UNITED STATES
MAY SUE TO CANCEL THE JUDGMENT AND SET THE CONVEYANCE ASIDE WHERE IT
WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE ACTION.  BOWLING & MIAMI INVESTMENT CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 528; PRIVETT V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 201;
SUNDERLAND V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 226.  UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 14, 1918 LANDS PARTITIONED IN KIND TO FULL-BLOODS REMAIN
RESTRICTED.  ONLY IF THE LAND IS SOLD AT PARTITION SALE ARE THE
RESTRICTIONS REMOVED.  THE GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST THROUGHOUT THE
PARTITION PROCEEDINGS IS AS CLEAR AS IT WOULD BE IF THE FEE WERE IN THE
UNITED STATES.  MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 387-388; TOWN
OF OKEMAH V. UNITED STATES, 140 F.2D 963.  THE UNITED STATES AS
GUARDIAN OF THE INDIANS IS NECESSARILY INTERESTED EITHER IN OBTAINING
PARTITION IN KIND WHERE THAT COURSE CONFORMS TO ITS POLICY OF
PRESERVING RESTRICTED LAND FOR THE INDIANS OR IN SEEING THAT THE BEST
POSSIBLE PRICE IS OBTAINED WHERE A SALE IS DESIRABLE.  WHERE, AS HERE,
THE LANDS ARE BOTH TAX-EXEMPT AND RESTRICTED, THE UNITED STATES IS
CONCERNED WITH THE REINVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS IN OTHER LANDS LIKEWISE
TAX-EXEMPT AND RESTRICTED AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932, 47
STAT. 474, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 409A.  FN3  THE UNITED STATES IS ALSO
INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO PURCHASE THE LAND AT THE SALE FOR ANOTHER INDIAN, AS
PROVIDED IN SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 26, 1936, 49 STAT. 1967.  FN4
THESE ARE IMPORTANT GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS.  SINCE THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER INDIAN AFFAIRS IS PLENARY, IT MAY WAIVE OR WITHDRAW THESE
DUTIES OF GUARDIANSHIP OR ENTRUST THEM TO SUCH AGENCY - STATE OR
FEDERAL - AS IT CHOOSES.  BUT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INDICATION THAT WHEN
CONGRESS CAME TO DEAL WITH THESE PARTITION PROCEEDINGS IT SUBSTITUTED
THE OKLAHOMA STATE COURT FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS WHICH WE HAVE ENUMERATED.  THAT ALONE
WOULD NOT BE FATAL TO RESPONDENT'S POSITION IF IT COULD BE INFERRED
THAT THOSE GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS WERE TO BE PROTECTED BY MEANS OTHER
THAN MAKING THE UNITED STATES A PARTY.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE ACT
IN QUESTION PURPORTS TO BE NO MORE THAN A JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE.  IT
FAILS TO SAY THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY; NOR DOES
IT SUGGEST THAT THE UNITED STATES OR ITS OFFICERS ARE CONFINED TO A
LIMITED ROLE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CANDELARIA, 271
U.S. 432, 444.  WE MUST READ THE ACT IN LIGHT OF THE HISTORY OF
RESTRICTED LANDS.  THAT HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS LONG
BEEN CONSIDERED A NECESSARY PARTY TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF THE
LARGE GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS WHICH ARE AT STAKE.  WE WILL NOT INFER
FROM A MERE GRANT OF JURISDICTION TO A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT TO
ADJUDICATE CLAIMS TO RESTRICTED LANDS AND TO ORDER THEIR SALE OR OTHER
DISTRIBUTION THAT CONGRESS DISPENSED WITH THAT LONG-STANDING
REQUIREMENT.  THE PURPOSE TO EFFECTUATE SUCH A MAJOR CHANGE IN POLICY
MUST BE CLEAR. 

MUCH STRESS IS LAID ON THE POINT THAT IF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF JUNE
14, 1918 IS SO CONSTRUED, IT WAS MEANINGLESS UNTIL THE ACT OF APRIL 12,
1926 WAS PASSED WHICH PROVIDED A STATUTORY METHOD FOR MAKING THE UNITED
STATES A PARTY.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT PRIOR TO THE LATTER ACT THERE WAS
NO WAY OF JOINING THE UNITED STATES AS A PARTY TO SUCH AN ACTION.  BUT
AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN MINNESOTA
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 388, AUTHORIZATION TO BRING AN ACTION
INVOLVING RESTRICTED LANDS "CONFERS BY IMPLICATION PERMISSION TO SUE
THE UNITED STATES."  FN5  THE SUIT IN THAT CASE FAILED BECAUSE NO
JURISDICTION WAS GRANTED TO THE STATE COURTS TO CONDEMN THE LANDS IN
QUESTION.  FN6  BUT SINCE THE STATE COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS GIVEN
JURISDICTION TO PARTITION, CONSENT TO BE SUED IN THE STATE COURT MAY BE
IMPLIED.  SERVICE OF PROCESS THEREFORE MIGHT BE HAD IN THE USUAL WAY
(SEE TOWN OF OKEMAH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 966) EVEN IN ABSENCE OF
THE 1926 ACT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  35 STAT. 312; 44 STAT. 239; 45 STAT. 495; 47 STAT. 777.  AND SEE
PARKER V. RICHARD, 250 U.S. 235; HARRIS V. BELL, 254 U.S. 103; STEWART
V. KEYES, 295 U.S. 403. 

FN2  "THAT THE LANDS OF FULL-BLOOD MEMBERS OF ANY OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES ARE HEREBY MADE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA, PROVIDING FOR THE PARTITION OF REAL ESTATE.  ANY LAND
ALLOTTED IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS TO A FULL-BLOOD INDIAN, OR CONVEYED TO HIM
UPON HIS ELECTION TO TAKE THE SAME AT THE APPRAISEMENT, SHALL REMAIN
SUBJECT TO ALL RESTRICTIONS UPON ALIENATION AND TAXATION OBTAINING
PRIOR TO SUCH PARTITION.  IN CASE OF A SALE UNDER ANY DECREE, OR
PARTITION, THE CONVEYANCE THEREUNDER SHALL OPERATE TO RELIEVE THE LAND
DESCRIBED OF ALL RESTRICTIONS OF EVERY CHARACTER." 

SEC. 1 OF THIS ACT (25 U.S.C. SEC. 375) PROVIDES IN PART:  "THAT A
DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION OF FACT AS TO WHO ARE THE HEIRS OF ANY
DECEASED CITIZEN ALLOTTEE OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES OF INDIANS WHO
MAY DIE OR MAY HAVE HERETOFORE DIED, LEAVING RESTRICTED HEIRS, BY THE
PROBATE COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA HAVING JURISDICTION TO SETTLE
THE ESTATE OF SAID DECEASED, CONDUCTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY THE
LAWS OF SAID STATE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF HEIRSHIP IN CLOSING UP THE
ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE OF SAID QUESTION." 

FN3  "THAT WHENEVER ANY NONTAXABLE LAND OF A RESTRICTED INDIAN OF THE
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES OR OF ANY OTHER INDIAN TRIBE IS SOLD TO ANY
STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPALITY FOR PUBLIC-IMPROVEMENT PURPOSES, OR IS
ACQUIRED, UNDER EXISTING LAW, BY ANY STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPALITY BY
CONDEMNATION OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR SUCH PUBLIC PURPOSES, OR IS SOLD
UNDER EXISTING LAW TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, THE MONEY RECEIVED FOR SAID LAND MAY, IN THE DISCRETION AND
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, BE REINVESTED IN
OTHER LANDS SELECTED BY SAID INDIAN, AND SUCH LAND SO SELECTED AND
PURCHASED SHALL BE RESTRICTED AS TO ALIENATION, LEASE, OR INCUMBRANCE,
AND NONTAXABLE IN THE SAME QUANTITY AND UPON THE SAME TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS THE NONTAXABLE LANDS FROM WHICH THE REINVESTED FUNDS WERE
DERIVED, AND SUCH RESTRICTIONS SHALL APPEAR IN THE CONVEYANCE." 

FN4  "WHENEVER ANY RESTRICTED INDIAN LAND OR INTERESTS IN LAND, OTHER
THAN SALES OR LEASES OF OIL, GAS, OR OTHER MINERALS THEREIN, ARE
OFFERED FOR SALE, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THIS OR ANY OTHER ACT OF
CONGRESS, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SHALL HAVE A PREFERENCE RIGHT,
IN HIS DISCRETION, TO PURCHASE THE SAME FOR OR IN BEHALF OF ANY OTHER
INDIAN OR INDIANS OF THE SAME OR ANY OTHER TRIBE, AT A FAIR VALUATION
TO BE FIXED BY THE APPRAISEMENT SATISFACTORY TO THE INDIAN OWNER OR
OWNERS, OR IF OFFERED FOR SALE AT AUCTION SAID SECRETARY SHALL HAVE A
PREFERENCE RIGHT, IN HIS DISCRETION, TO PURCHASE THE SAME FOR OR IN
BEHALF OF ANY OTHER INDIAN OR INDIANS BY MEETING THE HIGHEST BID
OTHERWISE OFFERED THEREFOR." 

FN5  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. JONES, 109 U.S. 513, 519-521. 

FN6  SEE COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW (1942), P. 381. 
..END :



















MORTENSEN V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 369 


NO. 559.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 10, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1944.  - 139 F.2D
967, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY APPELLATE POWER, THIS COURT
TREATS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AS PART OF THE
RECORD BEFORE IT AND CONSIDERS THE CASE ON ITS MERITS.  P. 371. 

2.  UPON REVIEW OF A CONVICTION IN A FEDERAL COURT, THIS COURT MAY
EXAMINE THE RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY COMPETENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FAIRLY TENDING TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT.  P. 374. 

3.  PETITIONERS, MAN AND WIFE, OPERATED A HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION IN
NEBRASKA.  THEY TOOK WITH THEM ON A TRIP TO UTAH, WHICH WAS PLANNED AND
CONSUMMATED PURELY AS A VACATION, TWO GIRLS WHO HAD BEEN LIVING AT
THEIR HOUSE AS PROSTITUTES.  UPON THEIR RETURN, THE GIRLS RESUMED
PROSTITUTION AT PETITIONERS' HOUSE.  HELD THAT A CONVICTION OF THE
PETITIONERS FOR TRANSPORTING THE GIRLS FROM UTAH TO NEBRASKA (THE
RETURN TRIP) "FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION OR DEBAUCHERY," IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE MANN ACT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY RELEVANT
EVIDENCE.  PP. 372, 376. 

4.  TO PUNISH THOSE WHO TRANSPORT INMATES OF A HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION
ON AN INNOCENT VACATION TRIP IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE PRACTICE OF THEIR
COMMERCIAL VICE IS CONSISTENT NEITHER WITH THE PURPOSE NOR THE LANGUAGE
OF THE MANN ACT.  P. 377. 

MORTENSEN ET UX. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 757, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR VIOLATION OF THE MANN ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONERS UNDER
SEC. 2 OF THE WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC ACT, POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE MANN
ACT.  FN1  139 F.2D 967. 

FOLLOWING THEIR CONVICTION BY THE JURY IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
PETITIONERS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
HOWEVER, THEY FAILED TO FILE A TIMELY BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IN THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THEREAFTER THEY APPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR AN ORDER GRANTING THEM "THE RIGHT TO HAVE A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS" AND FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IN WHICH TO SETTLE AND FILE IT.
THIS APPLICATION WAS DENIED WITHOUT OPINION OR EXPLANATION.  WHEN THE
CASE SUBSEQUENTLY CAME BEFORE ANOTHER DIVISION OF JUDGES OF THAT COURT
FOR ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS, PETITIONERS RENEWED THEIR REQUEST FOR
PERMISSION TO FILE A BILL.  THIS WAS, IN EFFECT, A MOTION FOR REHEARING
OF THE DECISION OF THE FIRST DIVISION OF JUDGES OF THE COURT.  COUNSEL
WAS THEN ALLOWED BY THE COURT TO LEAVE WITH IT, BUT NOT TO FILE, A COPY
OF THE REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVIDENCE "IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT
ASSURE OURSELVES THAT NO FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE HAD BEEN DONE BY THE
PREVIOUS DENIAL OF AN EXTENSION, AND THAT WE WOULD NOT, BECAUSE OF THE
ABSENCE OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, BE AFFIRMING A CONVICTION WHICH WAS
NOT PROPERLY AN OFFENSE UNDER THE ACT."  139 F.2D AT 969, NOTE 1.  THE
COURT THEN TREATED THE CASE AS THOUGH THE TRANSCRIPT WERE PROPERLY
BEFORE IT AND SUSTAINED PETITIONERS' CONVICTION ON THE MERITS.  HAVING
REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN PETITIONERS'
CONTENTIONS AND THAT THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME HAD A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS BEEN FILED, THE COURT REFUSED TO PERMIT THE "PURPORTED"
TRANSCRIPT TO BE FILED.  NO OTHER REASON WAS GIVEN FOR THIS REFUSAL. 

PETITIONERS HAVE RAISED BEFORE US THE PROPRIETY OF THE ACTION OF THE
COURT BELOW, CLAIMING THAT THEY THEREBY HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM URGING
AND ARGUING CERTAIN ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR WHICH THEY WISHED TO URGE.  IT
IS CLEAR FROM RULE IV OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES  FN2  THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION IN SUPERVISING AND CONTROLLING THE PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL. 
RAY V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 158, 166-167; FORTE V. UNITED STATES,
302 U.S. 220, 223; KAY V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 1, 9-10; MILLER V.
UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 192, 199.  THIS INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO GRANT OR
DENY BELATED APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO FILE BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS. 
AND THE COURT'S ACTION IN THE MATTER IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN THIS COURT
ABSENT A CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

BUT UNDER THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IT IS UNNECESSARY
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COURT BELOW ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING
TO ALLOW A BILL TO BE FILED.  WHEN THAT COURT EXAMINED THE TRANSCRIPT
OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIVELY ADJUDICATED THE MERITS, IT
ACCOMPLISHED IN SUBSTANCE ALL THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED IF THE
FORMALITY OF FILING THE TRANSCRIPT HAD OCCURRED AND THE COURT HAD THEN
PASSED UPON THE MERITS.  IN ORDER THAT PETITIONERS SHALL NOT BE
UNFAIRLY DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO SEEK A REVIEW OF THAT COURT'S
DETERMINATION OF THE MERITS, WE MAY CONSIDER THE COURT'S ACTION AS IN
EFFECT HAVING APPROVED THE FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT AS A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS.  A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN LODGED WITH THE CLERK OF
THIS COURT AND NO QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO ITS CORRECTNESS OR
COMPLETENESS.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTION AND IN
THE EXERCISE OF OUR SUPERVISORY APPELLATE POWER, WE SHALL TREAT THE
TRANSCRIPT AS A PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE US AND CONSIDER THE CASE ON
ITS MERITS. 

THE PETITIONERS, MAN AND WIFE, OPERATED A HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION IN
GRAND ISLAND, NEBRASKA.  IN 1940 THEY PLANNED AN AUTOMOBILE TRIP TO
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, IN ORDER TO VISIT MRS. MORTENSEN'S PARENTS.  TWO
GIRLS WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY PETITIONERS AS PROSTITUTES ASKED TO BE TAKEN
ALONG FOR A VACATION AND THE MORTENSENS AGREED TO THEIR REQUEST.  THEY
MOTORED TO YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK AND THEN ON TO SALT LAKE CITY,
WHERE THEY ALL STAYED AT A TOURIST CAMP FOR FOUR OR FIVE DAYS.  THEY
VISITED MRS. MORTENSEN'S PARENTS AND, IN ADDITION, THE GIRLS "WENT TO
SHOWS AND AROUND IN THE PARKS" AND SAW VARIOUS OTHER PARTS OF THE
CITY.  THE FOUR THEN RETURNED IN PETITIONERS' AUTOMOBILE TO GRAND
ISLAND; ON ARRIVAL THEY DROVE IMMEDIATELY TO PETITIONERS' HOUSE OF ILL
FAME AND RETIRED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ROOMS.  THE FOLLOWING DAY ONE OF
THE GIRLS RESUMED HER ACTIVITIES AS A PROSTITUTE IN PETITIONERS'
EMPLOY, WHILE THE OTHER DID NOT RESUME SUCH ACTIVITIES FOR A WEEK OR
TEN DAYS BECAUSE OF ILLNESS.  BOTH GIRLS CONTINUED TO ACT AS
PROSTITUTES FOR PETITIONERS FOR A YEAR OR MORE AFTER THEIR RETURN FROM
SALT LAKE CITY. 

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THIS WAS PURELY A VACATION TRIP, WITH THE TWO
GIRLS PAYING THEIR OWN LIVING EXPENSES AND PETITIONERS BEARING THE
EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION.  ONE OF THE GIRLS HAD OFFERED TO HELP PAY
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, BUT PETITIONERS REFUSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COST WOULD REMAIN THE SAME EVEN IF THE GIRLS DID NOT ACCOMPANY THEM. 
NO ACTS OF PROSTITUTION OR OTHER IMMORALITY OCCURRED DURING THE TWO
WEEK TRIP AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF SUCH ACTS DURING THE COURSE OF
THE JOURNEY.  BOTH GIRLS TESTIFIED THAT DURING THE TRIP THEY GAVE NO
CONSIDERATION TO THEIR WORK AS PROSTITUTES AND MADE NO PLANS TO ABANDON
SUCH ACTIVITIES.  THERE WAS ALSO UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE THAT THE TWO
GIRLS WERE UNDER NO OBLIGATION OR COMPULSION OF ANY KIND TO RETURN TO
GRAND ISLAND TO WORK FOR PETITIONERS.  THEY WERE FREE AT ANY TIME
BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER THE VACATION EXCURSION TO LEAVE PETITIONERS'
EMPLOY AND ENGAGE IN THEIR OWN PURSUITS.  BOTH GIRLS CLAIMED THAT GRAND
ISLAND WAS THEIR RESIDENCE, ONE OF THEM TESTIFYING THAT SHE BOARDED HER
CHILD WITH A FAMILY IN THAT CITY. 

PETITIONERS WERE CHARGED IN TWO COUNTS WITH VIOLATING SEC. 2 OF THE
MANN ACT IN THAT THEY TRANSPORTED AND CAUSED TO BE TRANSPORTED, AND
AIDED AND ASSISTED IN OBTAINING TRANSPORTATION FOR AND IN TRANSPORTING,
TWO GIRLS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM SALT LAKE CITY TO GRAND ISLAND
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION AND DEBAUCHERY, AND WITH INTENT TO
INDUCE, ENTICE AND COMPEL THE GIRLS TO GIVE THEMSELVES UP TO DEBAUCHERY
AND TO ENGAGE IN IMMORAL PRACTICES.  THE JURY WAS CHARGED THAT PURPOSE
WAS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE CRIME AND THAT IF THE JURY FOUND
THAT THE TRANSPORTATION FROM SALT LAKE CITY TO GRAND ISLAND WAS PLANNED
WITH NO IMMORAL PURPOSE, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.  THE JURY WAS ALSO
TOLD THAT, TO CONVICT, IT MUST FIND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD PROVED
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PETITIONERS TRANSPORTED THE GIRLS FROM
SALT LAKE CITY TO GRAND ISLAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION AND
DEBAUCHERY.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY ON BOTH COUNTS. 
THIS CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED. 

THE PRIMARY ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE FROM
WHICH THE JURY COULD RIGHTLY FIND THAT PETITIONERS TRANSPORTED THE
GIRLS FROM SALT LAKE CITY TO GRAND ISLAND FOR AN IMMORAL PURPOSE IN
VIOLATION OF THE MANN ACT. 

THE PENALTIES OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT ARE DIRECTED AT THOSE WHO
KNOWINGLY TRANSPORT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE "ANY WOMAN OR GIRL FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION OR DEBAUCHERY, OR FOR ANY OTHER IMMORAL
PURPOSE, OR WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE TO INDUCE, ENTICE, OR COMPEL
SUCH WOMAN OR GIRL TO BECOME A PROSTITUTE OR TO GIVE HERSELF UP TO
DEBAUCHERY, OR TO ENGAGE IN ANY OTHER IMMORAL PRACTICE."  THE STATUTE
THUS AIMS TO PENALIZE ONLY THOSE WHO USE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITH A
VIEW TOWARD ACCOMPLISHING THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSES.  TO CONSTITUTE A
VIOLATION OF THE ACT, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION HAVE FOR ITS OBJECT OR BE THE MEANS OF EFFECTING OR
FACILITATING THE PROSCRIBED ACTIVITIES.  HANSEN V. HAFF, 291 U.S. 559,
563.  AN INTENTION THAT THE WOMEN OR GIRLS SHALL ENGAGE IN THE CONDUCT
OUTLAWED BY SEC. 2 MUST BE FOUND TO EXIST BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE
INTERSTATE JOURNEY AND MUST BE THE DOMINANT MOTIVE OF SUCH INTERSTATE
MOVEMENT.  AND THE TRANSPORTATION MUST BE DESIGNED TO BRING ABOUT SUCH
RESULT.  WITHOUT THAT NECESSARY INTENTION AND MOTIVATION, IMMORAL
CONDUCT DURING OR FOLLOWING THE JOURNEY IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUBJECT THE
TRANSPORTER TO THE PENALTIES OF THE ACT. 

SINCE THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER PETITIONERS INTENDED THAT THE TWO GIRLS
SHOULD RESUME THEIR IMMORAL CONDUCT ON THEIR RETURN TO GRAND ISLAND AND
TRANSPORTED THEM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR THAT PURPOSE WAS SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY WITH APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS WE WOULD NORMALLY BE
PRECLUDED FROM REVIEWING OR DISTURBING THE INFERENCES OF FACT DRAWN
FROM THE EVIDENCE BY THE JURY.  BUT WE HAVE NEVER HESITATED TO EXAMINE
A RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE FAIRLY TENDING TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT.  CF. ABRAMS V. UNITED
STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 619.  OUR EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD IN THIS CASE
CONVINCES US THAT THERE WAS A COMPLETE LACK OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE FROM
WHICH THE JURY COULD PROPERLY FIND OR INFER, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT,
THAT PETITIONERS TRANSPORTED THE GIRLS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE "FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION OR DEBAUCHERY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MANN
ACT. 

IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT PETITIONERS ANTICIPATED THAT THE TWO GIRLS
WOULD RESUME THEIR ACTIVITIES AS PROSTITUTES UPON THEIR RETURN TO GRAND
ISLAND.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK IT IS FAIR OR PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE
EVIDENCE ADDUCED TO INFER THAT THIS INTERSTATE VACATION TRIP, OR ANY
PART OF IT, WAS UNDERTAKEN BY PETITIONERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF, OR AS A
MEANS OF EFFECTING OR FACILITATING, SUCH ACTIVITIES.  THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF THE JOURNEY FROM BEGINNING TO END WAS TO PROVIDE INNOCENT RECREATION
AND A HOLIDAY FOR PETITIONERS AND THE TWO GIRLS.  IT WAS A COMPLETE
BREAK OR INTERLUDE IN THE OPERATION OF PETITIONERS' HOUSE OF ILL FAME
AND WAS ENTIRELY DISASSOCIATED THEREFROM.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT
ANY IMMORAL ACTS OCCURRED ON THE JOURNEY OR THAT PETITIONERS FORCED THE
GIRLS AGAINST THEIR WILL TO RETURN TO GRAND ISLAND FOR IMMORAL
PURPOSES.  WHAT CONGRESS HAS OUTLAWED BY THE MANN ACT, HOWEVER, IS THE
USE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS A CALCULATED MEANS FOR EFFECTUATING
SEXUAL IMMORALITY.  IN ORDINARY SPEECH AN INTERSTATE TRIP UNDERTAKEN
FOR AN INNOCENT VACATION PURPOSE CONSTITUTES THE USE OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FOR THAT INNOCENT PURPOSE.  SUCH A TRIP DOES NOT LOSE THAT
MEANING WHEN VIEWED IN LIGHT OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE OUTLAWING INTERSTATE
TRIPS FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES. 

THE FACT THAT THE TWO GIRLS ACTUALLY RESUMED THEIR IMMORAL PRACTICES
AFTER THEIR RETURN TO GRAND ISLAND DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, OPERATE TO
INJECT A RETROACTIVE ILLEGAL PURPOSE INTO THE RETURN TRIP TO GRAND
ISLAND.  NOR DOES IT JUSTIFY AN ARBITRARY SPLITTING OF THE ROUND TRIP
INTO TWO PARTS SO AS TO PERMIT AN INFERENCE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
DRIVE TO SALT LAKE CITY WAS INNOCENT WHILE THE PURPOSE OF THE HOMEWARD
JOURNEY TO GRAND ISLAND WAS CRIMINAL.  THE RETURN JOURNEY UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED APART FROM ITS INTEGRAL
RELATION WITH THE INNOCENT ROUND TRIP AS A WHOLE.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
OF ANY CHANGE IN THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIP DURING ITS COURSE.  IF
INNOCENT WHEN IT BEGAN IT REMAINED SO UNTIL IT ENDED.  GUILT OR
INNOCENCE DOES NOT TURN MERELY ON THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL DURING PART
OF A TRIP NOT UNDERTAKEN FOR IMMORAL ENDS.  IF THE RETURN JOURNEY WAS
ILLEGAL, SO WAS THE OUTGOING ONE SINCE ALL INTENDED, FROM THE
BEGINNING, TO END THE JOURNEY WHERE IT BEGAN, AT GRAND ISLAND.  THE
OUTWARD LEG OF THE TRIP WAS INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  YET IT WAS NOT
CHARGED, AND COULD NOT WELL BE, THAT PROOF OF THIS PART OF THE TRIP WAS
A VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  IT DIFFERED IN NO RESPECT FROM THE OTHER PART,
EXCEPT IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL.  THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE
FIRST PART INNOCENT, THE LAST PART ILLEGAL.  CRIMINAL INTENT AND
PURPOSE MUST BE GROUNDED ON SOMETHING LESS INGENIOUS THAN THAT WHICH IS
NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF SUCH A PURPOSE IN MAKING THE RETURN
INTERSTATE JOURNEY TO GRAND ISLAND.  "PEOPLE NOT OF GOOD MORAL
CHARACTER, LIKE OTHERS, TRAVEL FROM PLACE TO PLACE AND CHANGE THEIR
RESIDENCE.  BUT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THEY INDULGE IN ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL
ACTS, THEY TRAVEL FOR THAT PURPOSE, IS TO EMPHASIZE THAT WHICH IS
INCIDENTAL AND IGNORE WHAT IS OF PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE."  HANSEN V.
HAFF, SUPRA, 562-563.  CF. EX PARTE ROCHA, 30 F.2D 823. 

AN ARTIFICIAL AND UNREALISTIC VIEW OF THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE
RETURN JOURNEY TO GRAND ISLAND IS NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN THIS
CONVICTION.  BUT WE ARE UNWILLING TO SANCTION THE APPLICATION OF THE
MANN ACT IN A MANNER THAT IS SO MANIFESTLY UNFAIR.  WHATEVER THEIR
FAULTS, PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE JUST AND FAIR TREATMENT UNDER
THE LAW AND NOT TO BE PUNISHED FOR TRANSPORTING GIRLS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FOR A PURPOSE WHOLLY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OF THE PURPOSES
CONDEMNED BY CONGRESS.    WE DO NOT HERE QUESTION OR RECONSIDER ANY
PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION PLACED ON THE ACT WHICH MAY HAVE LED THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT INTO AREAS OF REGULATION NOT ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED BY
CONGRESS.  BUT EXPERIENCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW ADMONISHES
US AGAINST ADDING ANOTHER CHAPTER OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND
APPLICATION WHICH WOULD HAVE A SIMILAR EFFECT AND WHICH WOULD MAKE
POSSIBLE EVEN FURTHER JUSTIFICATION OF THE FEAR EXPRESSED AT THE TIME
OF THE ADOPTION OF THE LEGISLATION THAT ITS BROAD PROVISIONS "ARE
LIABLE TO FURNISH BOUNDLESS OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD UP AND BLACKMAIL AND
MAKE UNNECESSARY TROUBLE, WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING BENEFITS TO
SOCIETY."  FN3 

TO PUNISH THOSE WHO TRANSPORT INMATES OF A HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION ON
AN INNOCENT VACATION TRIP IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE PRACTICE OF THEIR
COMMERCIAL VICE IS CONSISTENT NEITHER WITH THE PURPOSE NOR WITH THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT.  CONGRESS WAS ATTEMPTING PRIMARILY TO ELIMINATE
THE "WHITE SLAVE" BUSINESS WHICH USES INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
AS A MEANS OF PROCURING AND DISTRIBUTING ITS VICTIMS AND "TO PREVENT
PANDERERS AND PROCURERS FROM COMPELLING THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS
AGAINST THEIR WILL AND DESIRE TO ENTER AND CONTINUE IN A LIFE OF
PROSTITUTION."  FN4  SUCH CLEARLY WAS NOT THE SITUATION REVEALED BY THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE.  TO ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE THE STATUTE ENUMERATES
THE PROHIBITED ACTS IN BROAD LANGUAGE CAPABLE OF APPLICATION BEYOND
THAT INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMERS.  BUT EVEN SUCH BROAD LANGUAGE
IS CONDITIONED UPON THE USE OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF, OR AS A MEANS OF EFFECTING OR FACILITATING, THE COMMISSION
OF THE ILLEGAL ACTS.  HERE THE INTERSTATE ROUND TRIP HAD NO SUCH
PURPOSE AND WAS IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE SUBSEQUENT IMMORALITIES IN
GRAND ISLAND.  IN SHORT, WE PERCEIVE NO STATUTORY PURPOSE OR LANGUAGE
WHICH PROHIBITS PETITIONERS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES FROM USING
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION FOR A VACATION OR FOR ANY OTHER INNOCENT
PURPOSE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, SEC. 2, 36 STAT. 825, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 398. 

FN2  292 U.S. 661, 663; 18 U.S.C.A. FOLLOWING SEC. 688. 

FN3  45 CONG. REC. 1033. 

FN4  H. REP. NO. 47, P. 10(61ST CONG., 2D SESS.).  THE SAME STATEMENT
APPEARS IN S. REP. NO. 886, P. 10(61ST CONG., 2D SESS.).  SEE ALSO 45
CONG. REC. 805, 821, 1035, 1037. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND I THINK
THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

COURTS HAVE NO MORE CONCERN WITH THE POLICY AND WISDOM OF THE MANN
ACT THAN OF THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT OR ANY OTHER WHICH CONGRESS MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY ADOPT.  THOSE ARE MATTERS FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE,
NOT THE COURTS.  CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE MANN ACT, DECLARED IN
UNMISTAKABLE TERMS THAT ANY PERSON WHO SHOULD TRANSPORT ACROSS STATE
LINES "ANY WOMAN  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION  ...  OR WITH
THE INTENT AND PURPOSE TO INDUCE  ...  SUCH WOMAN  ... TO GIVE HERSELF
UP TO DEBAUCHERY, OR TO ENGAGE IN ANY OTHER IMMORAL PRACTICE; ...
SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A FELONY." 

THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS, WHO WERE ENGAGED IN AN ESTABLISHED
BUSINESS OF OPERATING A HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION IN NEBRASKA, TOOK SOME OF
ITS WOMEN INMATES ON A TRANSIENT AND INNOCENT VACATION TRIP TO OTHER
STATES, IS IN NO WAY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONERS,
IN BRINGING THEM BACK TO NEBRASKA, PURPOSED AND INTENDED THAT THEY
SHOULD RESUME THERE THE PRACTICE OF COMMERCIAL VICE, WHICH IN FACT THEY
DID PROMPTLY RESUME IN PETITIONERS' ESTABLISHMENT.  THE RECORD IS
WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY ENGAGED OR INTENDED TO ENGAGE IN ANY OTHER
ACTIVITIES IN NEBRASKA, OR THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PRACTICE OF
THEIR PROFESSION WAS THE OBJECT OF THEIR RETURN.  FOR THIS REASON THE
CASE IS CONTROLLED BY LAPINA V. WILLIAMS, 232 U.S. 78, RATHER THAN BY
HANSEN V. HAFF, 291 U.S. 559.  THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED, ITS
VERDICT IS SUPPORTED BY AMPLE EVIDENCE, AND THE TWO COURTS BELOW
RIGHTLY SUSTAINED IT.
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. WABASH R. CO., 322 U.S. 198 


NO. 453.  DECIDED MAY 8, 1944.  - REHEARING DENIED. 


NOTHING IN THE RECORD OR IN THE PETITION FOR REHEARING REQUIRES
DECISION IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING OF THE CONTENTION THAT, AS A RESULT
OF CHANGED CONDITIONS AFTER THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION,
THE SPOTTING SERVICE AS NOW PERFORMED IS NOT IN EXCESS OF THE CARRIERS'
OBLIGATION UNDER THEIR TARIFF RATES, AND THAT ITS PERFORMANCE BY THE
CARRIERS WITHOUT CHARGE IS THEREFORE NOT UNLAWFUL.  THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO APPELLEES' PRESENTATION OF THE
QUESTION IN ANY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE
COURTS.  P. 201. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. WABASH RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING. 

PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. WABASH R. CO.,
321 U.S. 403. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

IN ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING, APPELLEE STALEY MANUFACTURING CO. FOR
THE FIRST TIME CALLS TO OUR ATTENTION CERTAIN ALLEGED CHANGES IN THE
LOCATION AND ARRANGEMENT OF TRACKS ON WHICH ARE PLACED CARS MOVING TO
AND FROM THE TRACKS OF THE LINE-HAUL CARRIERS FROM AND TO STALEY'S
INDUSTRIAL TRACKS.  THE CHANGES ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED AFTER THE
SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND ARE
SAID TO CALL FOR A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAN THAT REACHED BY THE
COMMISSION AS TO WHETHER THE SPOTTING SERVICE NOW PERFORMED BY STALEY
IS A PART OF THE SERVICE COVERED BY THE LINE-HAUL TARIFFS. 

THE COMMISSION'S REPORT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ATTENDING THE PLACING OF CARS AT WHAT ARE TERMED THE BURWELL TRACKS,
WHICH IT FOUND TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE STALEY PLANT AREA AND TO HAVE
BEEN LEASED BY STALEY TO APPELLEE WABASH RAILROAD CO. ITS REPORT STATES
THAT, IN GENERAL, CARS DELIVERED TO STALEY WERE INITIALLY PLACED BY THE
CARRIER ON THE BURWELL TRACKS AND THENCE SWITCHED TO APPROPRIATE
UNLOADING POINTS AT THE STALEY PLANT, WHILE CARS RECEIVED FROM STALEY
WERE GENERALLY PLACED ON THE WABASH RAILROAD'S GENERAL OR STORAGE
TRACKS, BUT WERE ALSO SOMETIMES PLACED ON THE BURWELL TRACKS.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND, ON SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THEN BEFORE IT, THAT "THE
MOVEMENTS BETWEEN POINTS OF LOADING OR UNLOADING WITHIN THE PLANT AREA
OF THE STALEY COMPANY AND THE BURWELL YARD, THE STORAGE YARD, OR THE
GENERAL YARD OF THE WABASH  ...  IN ALL INSTANCES ARE, AND MUST BE,
COORDINATED WITH THE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS OF THE STALEY COMPANY AND
CONFORM TO ITS CONVENIENCE."  AND IN ITS SECOND CONCLUSION OF LAW IT
STATED THAT "ALL SERVICES BETWEEN THE BURWELL YARD OR THE STORAGE OR
GENERAL YARD OF THE WABASH AND POINTS OF LOADING OR UNLOADING WITHIN
THE PLANT AREA OF THE STALEY COMPANY ARE PLANT SERVICES FOR THE STALEY
COMPANY AND NOT COMMON-CARRIER SERVICES COVERED BY THE LINE-HAUL RATES
AND CHARGES OF RESPONDENT CARRIERS." 

BY THEIR PETITIONS FOR REHEARING ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION,
APPELLEES ALLEGED THAT SINCE MARCH 1, 1941, THREE MONTHS AFTER THE CASE
HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION AND ABOUT TWO MONTHS BEFORE IT
RENDERED ITS DECISION, THE USE OF THE BURWELL TRACKS HAD BEEN
DISCONTINUED, AND THAT THOSE TRACKS HAD THEREAFTER BEEN DISCONNECTED
AND WERE BEING DISMANTLED.  THEY FURTHER ALLEGED THAT APPELLEE WABASH
RAILROAD WAS IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTING NEW TRACKS ON ITS OWN PROPERTY
"ADJACENT TO ITS YARD TRACKS NORTH OF THE STALEY PLANT" AND
"IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE SO-CALLED BURWELL YARD" FOR USE IN THE
INTERCHANGE OF CARS WITH STALEY AND OTHER SHIPPERS, AND THAT MEANWHILE
THE INTERCHANGE WAS BEING PERFORMED FROM ITS GENERAL OR STORAGE YARDS. 
APPELLEES MOVED RESPECTIVELY THAT THE COMMISSION RECONSIDER ITS
DECISION "UPON SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE AND
NECESSARY," AND THAT "THE CASE BE SET DOWN FOR A FURTHER HEARING, AND
THAT  ... THE COMMISSION RECONSIDER ITS ORDER."  NO EVIDENCE WAS
SPECIFIED OR TENDERED TO PROVE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING, AND NO OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
WAS IN TERMS REQUESTED.  THE COMMISSION DENIED THE PETITIONS FOR
REHEARING WITHOUT OPINION. 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT APPELLEES SET OUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR
PETITIONS TO THE COMMISSION FOR REHEARING AND URGED THAT THE COMMISSION
ERRED IN DENYING THEM.  THE UNITED STATES IN ITS ANSWER ADMITTED ONLY
THAT APPELLEES HAD ALLEGED IN THOSE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING THE MATTERS
SET FORTH; THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ALLEGED WAS NOT ADMITTED BY EITHER
APPELLANT.  NO NEW EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT
COURT DID NOT PASS ON THIS QUESTION, AND MADE NO FINDINGS AS TO THE
EXTENT OR EFFECT OF THE ALLEGED CHANGE OF CONDITIONS. 

NOTHING IN THE PETITIONS TO THE COMMISSION FOR REHEARING OR IN THE
PETITION HERE AFFORDS ANY BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THE ALLEGED CHANGES IN
CONDITIONS ARE OF A CHARACTER WHICH WOULD REQUIRE ANY MODIFICATION OF
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OR THAT APPELLEES COULD NOT, WITH DUE DILIGENCE,
HAVE BROUGHT THE CHANGES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSION BEFORE IT
MADE ITS REPORT.  THEY WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN APPELLEES' BRIEFS IN
THIS COURT.  COMPARE RULE 27, PARAGRAPHS 4 AND 6; I.T.S. RUBBER CO. V.
ESSEX RUBBER CO., 272 U.S. 429, 431-2; FLOURNOY V. WIENER, 321 U.S.
253, 260-61.  NEITHER THE COMMISSION NOR THE DISTRICT COURT HAVE MADE
FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THEM AND THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THIS
COURT OR REFERRED TO IN ITS OPINION. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE RECORD OR IN THE PETITION BEFORE US WHICH
CALLS ON THE COURT IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING TO PASS ON THE QUESTION
NOW SOUGHT TO BE RAISED.  OUR DECISION IS ACCORDINGLY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO APPELLEES' PRESENTATION IN ANY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURTS, OF THEIR CONTENTION THAT AS A RESULT OF
CHANGED CONDITIONS AFTER THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION, THE
SPOTTING SERVICE AS NOW PERFORMED IS NOT IN EXCESS OF THE CARRIERS'
OBLIGATION UNDER THEIR TARIFF RATES, AND THAT ITS PERFORMANCE BY THE
CARRIERS WITHOUT CHARGE IS THEREFORE NOT UNLAWFUL. 

THE PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED. 
..END :











UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN, 322 U.S. 202 


NO. 291.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1944.  - 215 MINN.
207, 9 N.W.2D 721, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF MINNESOTA DENYING TO ALL FOREIGN CORPORATIONS THE RIGHT
TO MAINTAIN ANY ACTION IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE UNLESS THEY HAVE
PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN
THE STATE, FOR WHICH A FILING FEE OF $5.00 PLUS AN INITIAL LICENSE FEE
OF $50.00 IS EXACTED - HELD VALID AS APPLIED TO A FEDERALLY LICENSED
CUSTOMHOUSE BROKER WHOSE BUSINESS WAS LOCALIZED IN THE STATE; AND NOT
IN CONFLICT WITH EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO
CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERS OR WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
PP. 207, 212. 

UNION BROKERAGE CO. V. JENSEN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 724, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, REVERSING A
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT, ORDERED DISMISSAL OF A SUIT BROUGHT BY A
FOREIGN CORPORATION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT IN ONE OF THE LOWER COURTS OF MINNESOTA BY THE
UNION BROKERAGE COMPANY AGAINST JENSEN AND RIME FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO UNION'S BUSINESS, THAT OF CUSTOMHOUSE
BROKERAGE.  THE ONLY DEFENSE TO THE SUIT WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED IS
THE ALLEGED DISABILITY OF UNION TO RESORT TO MINNESOTA'S COURTS FOR
WANT OF COMPLIANCE WITH HER LAWS GOVERNING THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS
IN THE STATE AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION.  MINN. L. 1935, C. 200, MINN.
STAT. 1941, C. 303.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA SUSTAINED THIS
DEFENSE, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER, AND ORDERED
THE SUIT DISMISSED.  215 MINN. 207, 9 N.W.2D 721.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE
HERE TO DETERMINE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHETHER ENFORCEMENT OF THE
MINNESOTA FOREIGN CORPORATION ACT IN THIS SITUATION RUNS COUNTER TO
FEDERAL LAW PERTAINING TO CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERS OR IS BARRED BY THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  320 U.S. 724. 

ANOTHER CLAIM THAT STATE AUTHORITY MUST YIELD TO CONTROLLING FEDERAL
AUTHORITY OVER INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IS THUS PRESENTED.  IT
BECOMES NECESSARY THEREFORE TO ASCERTAIN PRECISELY WHAT DEMAND THE
STATE HAS HERE MADE, IN RELATION TO WHAT TRANSACTIONS OR ACTIVITY IT IS
MAKING SUCH DEMAND, IN WHAT WAY FEDERAL AUTHORITY HAS REGULATED SUCH
TRANSACTIONS OR ACTIVITY, AND, FINALLY, WHETHER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BY
ITS OWN FORCE, IN CASE FEDERAL LAW HAS NOT ACTUALLY TAKEN CONTROL,
EXCLUDES THE STATE FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER IT HAS HERE
ASSERTED. 

FOR MANY YEARS THE PETITIONER, A NORTH DAKOTA CORPORATION, CONDUCTED
A CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERAGE BUSINESS AT PORTAL, NORTH DAKOTA, A PORT OF
ENTRY FROM CANADA BY WAY OF THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.  IN JULY,
1940, THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RE-ROUTED MOST OF ITS SHIPMENTS WHEREBY THEY
NO LONGER ENTERED THE UNITED STATES THROUGH PORTAL BUT CAME THROUGH
NOYES, MINNESOTA, WITH THE RESULT THAT MORE THAN 90% OF UNION'S
BUSINESS WAS DIVERTED FROM PORTAL.  AFTER NOVEMBER, 1940, AT WHICH TIME
RESPONDENT JENSEN RESIGNED AS OFFICER OF UNION UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
GIVING RISE TO THIS SUIT, UNION BEGAN TO DO BUSINESS AT NOYES AND WAS
DOING BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA WHEN IT BROUGHT THIS SUIT.  WE SHALL
OUTLINE THE NATURE OF THIS CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERAGE BUSINESS ONLY SO FAR
AS IS RELEVANT TO A CONSIDERATION OF OUR PROBLEM. 

ON GOODS SHIPPED FROM CANADA INTO THIS COUNTRY THE CONSIGNEE OF
IMPORTED MERCHANDISE MUST "MAKE ENTRY" OF THEM AT THE OFFICE OF THE
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AT NOYES EITHER IN PERSON OR BY AN AUTHORIZED
AGENT, AND THIS MUST BE DONE WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT HOURS OF THE REPORT OF
THE VEHICLE WHICH CARRIED THE GOODS UNLESS THE COLLECTOR EXTENDS THE
TIME.  TARIFF ACT OF 1930, 46 STAT. 590, 722, 52 STAT. 1083, 19 U.S.C.
SEC. 1484(A).  TO MAKE ENTRY, THE CONTENTS AND VALUE OF THE SHIPMENT
MUST BE DECLARED AND THE TARIFF ESTIMATED, AND THE PRODUCTION OF A
CERTIFIED INVOICE AND A BILL OF LADING IS GENERALLY REQUIRED.  19
U.S.C. SEC. 1484(B)(C)(E)(G).  SPEED IN MAKING ENTRY IS VITAL, BECAUSE
GOODS CANNOT PROCEED TO THEIR ULTIMATE DESTINATION UNTIL ITS
COMPLETION.  APART FROM THE FACT THAT IMPORTERS CANNOT ALWAYS OR EVEN
OFTEN MAKE ENTRIES IN PERSON, THE PROCEDURE MAKES DEMANDS UPON SKILL
AND EXPERIENCE.  THE SPECIALIST IN THESE SERVICES IS THE CUSTOMHOUSE
BROKER.  IN ADDITION, HE ADVANCES THE DUTY IN ORDER THAT THE GOODS MAY
BE CLEARED.  19 U.S.C. SEC. 1505.  THE COMPETENCE OF THE BROKER ALSO
BEARS ON THE EFFICIENT COLLECTION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES IN THAT THE
LIKELIHOOD OF ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT OR REFUND AFTER FINAL DETERMINATION
OF THE DUTY IS GREATLY LESSENED BY ACCURACY IN THE TENTATIVE
COMPUTATION.  BUT SINCE ERRORS AND DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ARE
INEVITABLE, TO INSURE COLLECTION OF DEFICIENCIES THE GOVERNMENT
REQUIRES A BOND PRIOR TO RELEASE.  19 U.S.C. SEC. 1499; 19 CODE FED.
REG. SEC. 6.27. 

THE BUSINESS OF CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERS, IT IS APPARENT, DEMANDS A SENSE
OF RESPONSIBILITY AND SKILL.  TO PROTECT IMPORTERS AS WELL AS THE
TREASURY, CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO
"PRESCRIBE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE LICENSING AS CUSTOMHOUSE
BROKERS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, AND
OF CORPORATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS, AND PARTNERSHIPS, AND MAY REQUIRE AS A
CONDITION TO THE GRANTING OF ANY LICENSE, THE SHOWING OF SUCH FACTS AS
HE MAY DEEM ADVISABLE AS TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPLICANT TO
RENDER VALUABLE SERVICE TO IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS."  46 STAT. 759, 19
U.S.C. SEC. 1641(A).  ELABORATE REGULATIONS DEFINE THE INVESTIGATION TO
BE MADE OF THE CHARACTER AND REPUTATION OF THE APPLICANT AND HIS
EXPERIENCE IN CUSTOMS MATTERS.  31A CODE FED. REG. SEC. 11.3(B).  THE
APPLICANT IS THEN DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE AN EXAMINING SUBCOMMITTEE
WHICH DETERMINES THE "APPLICANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF CUSTOMS LAW AND
PROCEDURE AND HIS FITNESS TO RENDER VALUABLE SERVICE TO IMPORTERS AND
EXPORTERS."  31A CODE FED. REG. SEC. 11.3(E)(F).  ON APPROVAL OF A
FAVORABLE REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE BY THE COMMITTEE ON ENROLLMENT AND
DISBARMENT OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, A LICENSE ISSUES.  31A CODE FED.
REG. SECS. 11.3(F)(G), 11.4.  "A LICENSED CUSTOMHOUSE BROKER REQUIRES
NO FURTHER ENROLLMENT UNDER THE REGULATIONS IN THIS PART FOR THE
TRANSACTION, WITHIN THE CUSTOMS DISTRICTS IN WHICH HE IS LICENSED, OF
ANY BUSINESS RELATING SPECIFICALLY TO THE IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF
MERCHANDISE UNDER CUSTOMS OR INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS."  31A CODE FED.
REG. SEC. 11.5. 

UNION'S LICENSE AUTHORIZES IT TO DO BUSINESS IN DISTRICT NO. 34 WHICH
EMBRACES BOTH PORTAL, NORTH DAKOTA, AND NOYES, MINNESOTA.  19 CODE FED.
REG. SEC. 1.2.  THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE IT TO KEEP RECORDS OF ITS
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS AS CUSTOMHOUSE BROKER, AND ITS BOOKS AND PAPERS
MUST BE KEPT ON FILE AVAILABLE FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS.  31A CODE FED.
REG. SEC. 11.8.  BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DENIED A
LICENSE BECAUSE OF MORAL TURPITUDE OR THOSE WHOSE LICENSE HAS BEEN
REVOKED ARE PROHIBITED, AND THE LICENSEE IS UNDER A DUTY NOT TO PROMOTE
EVASION OF OBLIGATIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT.  PROMPT PAYMENT AND
ACCOUNTING OF FUNDS DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT OR HIS CLIENT ARE REQUIRED OF
THE BROKER, AND RESPONSIBLE AND ETHICAL CONDUCT IS GENERALLY ENJOINED. 
31A CODE FED. REG. SEC. 11.9. 

DOES THIS SCHEME OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE BUSINESS OF CUSTOMHOUSE
BROKERS PRECLUDE THE REQUIREMENT OF MINNESOTA LEGISLATION WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE HAS ENFORCED AGAINST UNION?  THIS BRINGS US
TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE PRECISE DEMAND AGAINST WHICH UNION PROTESTS. 
MINNESOTA HAS NOT SINGLED OUT THE CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERAGE BUSINESS FOR
LEGISLATION NOR HAS SHE MADE REQUIREMENTS OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS DOING
CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERAGE BUSINESS.  WHAT IS IN CONTROVERSY IS THE
APPLICABILITY OF A GENERAL LAW OF MINNESOTA DEALING WITH ALL FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS.  MORE SPECIFICALLY, SEC. 20 OF THE MINNESOTA FOREIGN
CORPORATION ACT REQUIRES A CERTIFICATE OF ANY FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING
BUSINESS IN THE STATE AS A PREREQUISITE FOR MAINTAINING AN ACTION IN A
COURT OF THAT STATE.  IN ADDITION A FILING FEE OF FIVE DOLLARS AND
INITIAL LICENSE FEE OF FIFTY DOLLARS IS EXACTED ON MAKING APPLICATION
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY.  SECS. 21(A)(1), 6.  SUCH AN
APPLICATION MUST CONTAIN THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION, ITS HOME STATE OR
COUNTRY, THE ADDRESS OF ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND THAT OF ITS PROPOSED
REGISTERED OFFICE IN MINNESOTA, THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ITS
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS, A STATEMENT OF ITS AGGREGATE NUMBER OF
AUTHORIZED SHARES AND KINDRED INFORMATION.  SEC. 5.  THE APPLICANT MUST
FURTHERMORE CONSENT TO THE SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON IT AND APPOINT AN
AGENT UPON WHOM SERVICE CAN BE MADE, AND IN LIEU OF SUCH APPOINTMENT OR
IF THE AGENT CANNOT BE FOUND, SERVICE MAY BE MADE UPON THE SECRETARY OF
STATE.  SECS. 5(6), 13(A)(2).  A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN
MINNESOTA WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO A PENALTY
NOT EXCEEDING $1,000 AND "AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY NOT EXCEEDING $100.00
FOR EACH MONTH OR FRACTION THEREOF DURING WHICH IT SHALL CONTINUE TO
TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THIS STATE WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
THEREFOR."  SEC. 20(C).  HAVING OBTAINED SUCH A CERTIFICATE, THE
CORPORATION IS REQUIRED TO FILE ANNUAL REPORTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH AN
ANNUAL FEE IS ASSESSED.  THE MEASURE OF THE FEE IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME AS THAT SET FOR DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS BUT IN ITS COMPUTATION THE
PROPERTY AND GROSS RECEIPTS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION ARE ALLOCATED
BETWEEN THOSE DERIVED FROM WITHIN AND THOSE DERIVED FROM WITHOUT
MINNESOTA AND CREDIT IS GIVEN FOR THE LATTER.  SEC. 15; CF. MINN. L.
1935, C. 230, SEC. 2. 

WE HAVE BEFORE US ONLY ONE NARROW ASPECT OF THIS MINNESOTA
LEGISLATION, NAMELY THE POWER OF MINNESOTA TO DENY TO UNION ACCESS TO
ITS COURTS BECAUSE IT HAS NOT OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE REQUIRED OF ALL
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE.  WE HAVE NOT BEFORE
US THE TAXING POWER OF MINNESOTA OVER SUCH A BUSINESS AS THAT OF UNION,
FOR WE DO NOT KNOW THE EXTENT OR NATURE OF THE POWER TO TAX THAT
MINNESOTA WOULD CLAIM AGAINST UNION. 

OF COURSE MINNESOTA COULD NOT DENY ACCESS TO ITS COURTS TO UNION
MERELY BECAUSE IT IS ENGAGED IN THE CUSTOMS BROKERAGE BUSINESS.  SEE
SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, AND DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK,
N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377.  BUT THE LIMITED AND DEFINED CONTROL
WHICH FEDERAL AUTHORITY HAS THUS FAR SEEN FIT TO ASSERT OVER
CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERS DOES NOT DENY TO MINNESOTA THE POWER TO SUBJECT
UNION TO THE SAME DEMAND WHICH IT MAKES OF ALL OTHER FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS SEEKING THE FACILITIES OF MINNESOTA'S COURTS.  THE FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS AND THIS STATE REQUIREMENT CAN MOVE FREELY WITHIN THE
ORBITS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PURPOSES WITHOUT IMPINGING UPON ONE
ANOTHER.  THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS ARE CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE
RELATIONS OF THE CUSTOMHOUSE BROKER TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE
IMPORTER AND EXPORTER.  THE LIMITED FEDERAL SUPERVISION OF THE
FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF UNION IS RESTRICTED TO THESE FEDERAL
INTERESTS.  SUCH SUPERVISION DOES NOT TOUCH THE INTEREST OF THE STATE
IN THE PROTECTION OF THOSE WHO HAVE OTHER DEALINGS WITH UNION, AND
THEREFORE DOES NOT PREEMPT APPROPRIATE MEANS FOR THEIR PROTECTION. 

IN A SITUATION LIKE THE PRESENT, WHERE AN ENTERPRISE TOUCHES
DIFFERENT AND NOT COMMON INTERESTS BETWEEN NATION AND STATE, OUR TASK
IS THAT OF HARMONIZING THESE INTERESTS WITHOUT SACRIFICING EITHER.  THE
PROPER ATTITUDE OF MIND FOR MAKING SUCH AN ACCOMMODATION IS ILLUSTRATED
BY FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17.  THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930
IN THIS CASE, AS THE WAREHOUSING ACT IN THAT CASE, CONFERS UPON
LICENSEES CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, AND SECURES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY
MEANS OF THESE LICENSING PROVISIONS A MEASURE OF CONTROL OVER THOSE
ENGAGED IN THE CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERAGE BUSINESS.  BUT SUCH CIRCUMSCRIBED
CONTROL BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT IMPLY IMMUNITY FROM CONTROL
BY THE STATE WITHIN THE SPHERE OF ITS SPECIAL INTERESTS.  "THE
GOVERNMENT EXERCISES THAT CONTROL IN THE FURTHERANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL
PURPOSE TO SECURE FAIR AND UNIFORM BUSINESS PRACTICES.  BUT THE
APPELLANT, IN THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PRIVILEGE, IS ENGAGED IN ITS OWN
BEHALF, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S, IN THE CONDUCT OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS FOR
PROFIT."  FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, SUPRA AT 22-23.  THE STATE
AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS HERE APPLICABLE HAVE THEIR SEPARATE SPHERES OF
OPERATION.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DEALT WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH
CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERAGE IS CARRIED ON.  MINNESOTA, HOWEVER, IS
LEGITIMATELY CONCERNED WITH SAFEGUARDING THE INTERESTS OF ITS OWN
PEOPLE IN BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH CORPORATIONS NOT OF ITS OWN CHARTERING
BUT WHO DO BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  UNION'S BUSINESS IS LOCALIZED
IN MINNESOTA, IT BUYS MATERIALS AND SERVICES FROM PEOPLE IN THAT STATE,
IT ENTERS INTO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS, AS THIS CASE, A SUIT AGAINST ITS
FORMER PRESIDENT, ILLUSTRATES, WHOLLY OUTSIDE OF THE ARRANGEMENTS IT
MAKES WITH IMPORTERS OR EXPORTERS.  TO SAFEGUARD RESPONSIBILITY IN ALL
SUCH DEALINGS, DEALINGS QUITE OUTSIDE TRANSACTIONS IMMEDIATELY
CONNECTED WITH IMPORT AND EXPORT, MINNESOTA HAS MADE THE SAME EXACTIONS
OF UNION AS OF EVERY OTHER FOREIGN CORPORATION ENGAGED IN SIMILAR
TRANSACTIONS.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS SUCH
A PROPER FIELD FOR STATE REGULATION COMPLEMENTARY TO FEDERAL
REGULATION, FOR THE TREASURY HAS PROVIDED THAT "A LICENSEE HAVING A
LICENSE IN FORCE IN ONE DISTRICT MAY ON APPLICATION TO THE COMMITTEE BE
GRANTED A LICENSE TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN ANOTHER DISTRICT WITHOUT
FURTHER EXAMINATION, PROVIDED IT APPEARS ON INVESTIGATION THAT THE
LICENSEE IS AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OR STATES IN WHICH
SUCH OTHER DISTRICT IS SITUATED."  31A CODE FED. REG. SEC. 11.6.  THOSE
WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL
AS OF COMMERCE HAVE THUS GIVEN EMPHATIC INDICATION THAT A STATE HAS A
LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE REGULATION OF THOSE ENGAGED IN THE BROKERAGE
BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROVIDED FOR
COLLABORATION THE COURTS SHOULD NOT FIND CONFLICT.  SEE SAVAGE V.
JONES, 225 U.S. 501, AND KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1.    THIS
BRINGS US TO THE FINAL QUESTION.  DOES THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATION DO
THAT WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT - DOES IT
EXPRESS HOSTILITY TOWARD THOSE ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE OR
PRACTICALLY OBSTRUCT ITS CONDUCT?  WHAT WE HAVE SAID MAKES IT
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE BUSINESS OF UNION IS RELATED TO THE PROCESS
OF FOREIGN COMMERCE.  AS THE TRIAL COURT FOUND, THE CUSTOMHOUSE BROKER
IN CLEARING THE SHIPMENTS, "AIDS IN THE COLLECTION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES
AND FACILITATES THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE BETWEEN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND
THE UNITED STATES."  THE FEES EXACTED BY CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERS "ARE
CHARGES UPON THE COMMERCE ITSELF"; THEY ARE CHARGES FOR SERVICES
AFFORDED IN THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF A STATE. 
SEE HOPKINS V. UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 578, 591-2; WICKARD V. FILBURN,
317 U.S. 111, 122. 

BUT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT CUT THE STATES OFF FROM ALL
LEGISLATIVE RELATION TO FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SOUTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177; WESTERN LIVE
STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250.  SUCH COMMERCE INTERPENETRATES THE
STATES, AND NO UNDISPUTED GENERALITY ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF COMMERCE FROM
STATE ENCROACHMENT CAN DELIMIT IN ADVANCE THE INTERACTING AREAS OF
STATE AND NATIONAL POWER WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT BY LEGISLATION
FORECLOSED STATE ACTION.  THE INCIDENCE OF THE PARTICULAR STATE
ENACTMENT MUST DETERMINE WHETHER IT HAS TRANSGRESSED THE POWER LEFT TO
THE STATES TO PROTECT THEIR SPECIAL STATE INTERESTS ALTHOUGH IT IS
RELATED TO A PHASE OF A MORE EXTENSIVE COMMERCIAL PROCESS. 

THE INFORMATION HERE SOUGHT OF ALL FOREIGN CORPORATIONS BY MINNESOTA
AS A BASIS FOR GRANTING THEM CERTIFICATES TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN HER
BORDERS IS A CONVENTIONAL MEANS OF ASSURING RESPONSIBILITY AND FAIR
DEALING ON THE PART OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS COMING INTO A STATE.  APART
FROM ANY QUESTION OF INTERFERENCE WITH FOREIGN COMMERCE SUCH A
REQUIREMENT IS PLAINLY WITHIN THE REGULATORY POWER OF A STATE.  BUT, AS
WE HAVE NOTED, WHILE THE BUSINESS OF UNION IS THAT OF A CUSTOMHOUSE
BROKER, ITS ACTIVITIES ARE NOT CONFINED TO ITS SERVICES AT THE PORT OF
ENTRY.  IT HAS LOCALIZED ITS BUSINESS, AND TO FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY IT
MUST HAVE A WIDE VARIETY OF DEALINGS WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. 
THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS THAT JUSTIFY THE PARTICULAR REGULATORY MEASURE
ALONE BEFORE US, NAMELY THE REQUIREMENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
IN THE CASE OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OTHER THAN
CUSTOMHOUSE BROKERAGE, APPLY TO THE CARRYING ON OF UNION'S BUSINESS IN
MINNESOTA.  THE BURDEN, SUCH AS IT IS, FALLS ON FOREIGN BUSINESSES THAT
COMMINGLE WITH MINNESOTA PEOPLE, AND THE BURDEN, A FEE OF FIFTY
DOLLARS, IS SUFFICIENTLY SMALL FAIRLY TO REPRESENT THE COST OF
GOVERNMENTAL SUPERVISION OF FOREIGN BUSINESS ENTERPRISES COMING INTO
MINNESOTA.  IN SHORT, IT IS A SUPERVISORY AND NOT A FISCAL MEASURE.  AS
SUCH IT IMPOSES COSTS UPON THE STATE WHICH THOSE WHO ARE SUPERVISED
MUST, AS IS OFTEN THE CASE, THEMSELVES PAY.  SEE CLYDE MALLORY LINES V.
ALABAMA, 296 U.S. 261, 267. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED LITERALLY SCORES OF CASES IN WHICH THE STATES HAVE
EXERTED AUTHORITY OVER FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AND IN DOING SO HAVE DEALT
WITH ASPECTS OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE
GENERALITIES TO WHICH THESE CASES GAVE UTTERANCE AND ABOUT WHICH THERE
HAS BEEN, ON THE WHOLE, RELATIVELY LITTLE DISAGREEMENT, THE FATE OF
STATE LEGISLATION IN THESE CASES HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED BY THESE
GENERALITIES BUT BY THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE PRACTICAL
AND EXPERIENCED JUDGMENT IN APPLYING THESE GENERALITIES TO THE
PARTICULAR INSTANCES.  TO REVIEW THEM TO ANY EXTENT WOULD BE WRITING
THE HISTORY OF THE ADJUDICATORY PROCESS IN RELATION TO THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE NOT HERE A CASE OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION MERELY COMING INTO MINNESOTA TO CONTRIBUTE TO OR TO
CONCLUDE A UNITARY INTERSTATE TRANSACTION, SEE INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK
CO. V. PIGG, 217 U.S. 91; DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282,
NOR OF THE STATE'S WITHHOLDING "THE RIGHT TO SUE EVEN IN A SINGLE
INSTANCE UNTIL THE CORPORATION RENDERS ITSELF AMENABLE TO SUIT IN ALL
THE COURTS OF THE STATE BY WHOSOEVER CHOOSES TO SUE IT THERE."  SIOUX
REMEDY CO. V. COPE, 235 U.S. 197, 205.  THE BUSINESS OF UNION, WE HAVE
SEEN, IS LOCALIZED IN MINNESOTA, AND MINNESOTA, IN THE REQUIREMENT
BEFORE US, MERELY SEEKS TO REGULARIZE ITS CONDUCT.  NOR IS THERE HERE
AN ATTEMPT TO TAX PROPERTY OR GROSS RECEIPTS EARNED OUTSIDE THE STATE,
AS WAS THE CASE IN LOONEY V. CRANE CO., 245 U.S. 178.  IN THE ABSENCE
OF APPLICABLE FEDERAL REGULATION, A STATE MAY IMPOSE NON-DISCRIMINATORY
REGULATIONS ON THOSE ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INSURING THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE; ...  A LICENSE FEE NO
LARGER IN AMOUNT THAN IS REASONABLY REQUIRED TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF
ADMINISTERING THE REGULATIONS MAY BE DEMANDED."  SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND,
277 U.S. 163, 169. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT DEPRIVE MINNESOTA OF THE POWER TO
PROTECT THE SPECIAL INTEREST THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO PLAY BY UNION'S
LOCALIZED PURSUIT OF ITS SHARE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PROCESS OF FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  TO DENY THE STATES THE POWER TO PROTECT SUCH SPECIAL
INTERESTS WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO EXERT ITS OWN LEGISLATIVE
POWER WOULD BE TO GIVE AN IMMUNITY TO DETACHED ASPECTS OF COMMERCE
UNRELATED TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BY ITS OWN FORCE
THAT CLAUSE DOES NOT IMPLY RELIEF TO THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM THE DUTY OF PAYING AN APPROPRIATE SHARE FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE VARIOUS STATE GOVERNMENTS.  NOR DOES IT PRECLUDE A
STATE FROM GIVING NEEDFUL PROTECTION TO ITS CITIZENS IN THE COURSE OF
THEIR CONTACTS WITH BUSINESSES CONDUCTED BY OUTSIDERS WHEN THE
LEGISLATION BY WHICH THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED IS GENERAL IN ITS SCOPE, IS
NOT AIMED AT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND INVOLVES MERELY
BURDENS INCIDENT TO EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION.  AND SO WE CONCLUDE THAT
IN DENYING UNION THE RIGHT TO GO TO HER COURTS BECAUSE UNION DID NOT
OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE TO CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS AS REQUIRED BY THE
FOREIGN CORPORATION ACT, MINNESOTA OFFENDED NEITHER FEDERAL LEGISLATION
NOR THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DISSENT. 
..END :








KANSAS V. MISSOURI, 322 U.S. 213 


NO. 9, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 8, 1944. 


UPON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, IN WHICH KANSAS CLAIMS TITLE TO
CERTAIN LAND NOW LYING ON THE MISSOURI SIDE OF THE MISSOURI RIVER IN
THE FORBES BEND AREA, KANSAS HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT, AT ANY TIME
DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE MISSOURI RIVER
SHIFTED FROM A COURSE SUCH AS THE RIVER NOW FOLLOWS (OR ONE SLIGHTLY
CLOSER TO THE KANSAS BLUFFS) TO ONE FOLLOWING THE COURSE OF THE CHANNEL
ON THE MISSOURI SIDE WHEN THE FLOW WAS DIVIDED.  THEREFORE THE LAND IN
DISPUTE MUST BE AWARDED TO MISSOURI, AND THE BOUNDARY WILL BE FIXED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL MASTER.  PP. 214,
232. 

KANSAS V. MISSOURI. 

BILL IN EQUITY. 

BILL OF COMPLAINT BY KANSAS AGAINST MISSOURI TO DETERMINE AND FIX THE
BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE STATES.  LEAVE TO FILE THE BILL WAS GRANTED BY
THIS COURT, 310 U.S. 614. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

KANSAS BRINGS THIS ORIGINAL SUIT AGAINST MISSOURI TO HAVE DETERMINED
THEIR COMMON BOUNDARY FROM THE MOUTH OF THE KAW OR KANSAS RIVER
NORTHWARDLY, OVER A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 128 MILES, ALONG THE
CHANNEL OF THE MISSOURI RIVER TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH KANSAS' NORTH
BOUNDARY LINE. 

AT THE TIME OF KANSAS' ADMISSION TO THE UNION, JANUARY 29, 1861, THE
WESTERN BOUNDARY OF MISSOURI FOLLOWED THE THREAD OF THE MISSOURI RIVER,
THAT IS, THE MIDDLE LINE OF ITS MAIN NAVIGABLE CHANNEL, BETWEEN THESE
POINTS.  FN1  THIS LINE THEN BECAME THE COMMON BOUNDARY OF THE TWO
STATES.  FN2  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN 1940.  IT ALLEGED THAT
THE THREAD OF THE STREAM HAD SHIFTED FREQUENTLY, SOMETIMES SUDDENLY,
SOMETIMES GRADUALLY, AND THAT THESE CHANGES HAD CAUSED CONTROVERSIES
CONCERNING THE TRUE BOUNDARY.  WHEN THE PROCEEDING BEGAN IT WAS IN
DISPUTE AT A NUMBER OF PLACES.  FN3  BUT DURING PENDENCY OF THE SUIT
THE PARTIES HAVE SETTLED ALL DIFFERENCES EXCEPT ONE.  THIS RELATES TO
THE SECTION OF THE BOUNDARY IN THE FORBES BEND REGION.  FN4 

AFTER THE FILING OF THE SUIT A MASTER WAS APPOINTED.  EXTENSIVE
HEARINGS WERE HELD.  BOTH DOCUMENTARY AND ORAL EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. 
THE MASTER HAS FILED HIS REPORT, WHICH MAKES FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
IN FAVOR OF MISSOURI.  KANSAS SAYS THESE ARE CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND TO
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

THE LAND IN DISPUTE CONSISTS OF ABOUT 2,000 ACRES.  THIS NOW LIES ON
THE MISSOURI SIDE OF THE RIVER TOWARD THE LOWER END OF FORBES BEND. 
KANSAS CLAIMS THIS LAND WAS AT ONE TIME SOIL ACCRETED TO THE KANSAS
BANK, WHICH AN AVULSIVE CHANGE IN THE COURSE OF THE MAIN CHANNEL HAS
PUT BACK ON THE MISSOURI SIDE; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE TRACT
FORMED AS AN ISLAND ON THE KANSAS SIDE OF THE MAIN CHANNEL AND, AS A
RESULT OF A SUDDEN SHIFT IN THAT CHANNEL TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
ISLAND AND THE DRYING UP OF THE OLD COURSE, IT HAS BECOME PHYSICALLY
ATTACHED TO MISSOURI.  IN EITHER EVENT, KANSAS URGES, IT FOLLOWS THAT
THE BOUNDARY REMAINS AT THE CENTER OF THE RIVER'S FORMER MAIN CHANNEL. 
MISSOURI DENIES THAT THE LAND ACCRETED TO KANSAS, THAT THERE WAS
AVULSION, OR THAT THE ISLAND EVER LAY ON THE KANSAS SIDE OF THE MAIN
CHANNEL. 

THE STATES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE ABOUT THE APPLICABLE LAW.  THEY AGREE
THAT WHEN CHANGES TAKE PLACE BY THE SLOW AND GRADUAL PROCESS OF
ACCRETION THE BOUNDARY MOVES WITH THE SHIFTING IN THE MAIN CHANNEL'S
COURSE.  FN5  LIKEWISE, THEY AGREE THAT A SUDDEN OR AVULSIVE CHANGE IN
THAT COURSE DOES NOT MOVE THE BOUNDARY, BUT LEAVES IT WHERE THE CHANNEL
FORMERLY HAD RUN.  FN6 

HOWEVER, THE PARTIES ARE SHARPLY AT ODDS OVER THE FACTS AND THE
CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE.  IN VIEW OF THIS AND SINCE
WE THINK THE FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE EVIDENCE ARE CONCLUSIVE OF THE
CONTROVERSY, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO SKETCH THEM AND TO REFER TO
PORTIONS OF THE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO GIVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE
ISSUES AND THE BASIS FOR OUR CONCLUSIONS. 

                                  I. 

FORBES BEND LIES BETWEEN DONIPHAN COUNTY, KANSAS, AND HOLT COUNTY,
MISSOURI.  THE DISPUTED BOUNDARY, ACCORDING TO THE MASTER'S FINDINGS,
EXTENDS ALONG THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE RIVER AS IT NOW FLOWS FOR A
DISTANCE OF ABOUT FIVE MILES BENDING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM CHANNEL MILEAGE
STATION 515 TO STATION 510(AS MEASURED AND MARKED IN 1890).  AS THE
RIVER ENTERS FORBES BEND FROM THE NORTH IT FLOWS EAST OF SOUTH.  NEAR
THE POINT OF ENTRANCE IT IS JOINED BY WOLF CREEK.  THIS COMES INTO THE
RIVER FROM THE KANSAS SIDE IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION.  THE MOUTH OF WOLF
CREEK IS ROUGHLY ADJACENT TO STATION 515.  FROM THIS POINT THE KANSAS
BLUFFS SWING IN A GRADUAL CONVEX CURVE SOUTHEASTERLY UNTIL THEY REACH A
POINT ABOVE STATION 510.  ON THE MISSOURI SIDE THE BLUFFS RUN, AS THEY
DO ON THE KANSAS SIDE, GENERALLY SOUTHEASTERLY.  THROUGHOUT THE FORBES
BEND REGION THE DISTANCE AS THE CROW FLIES FROM THE KANSAS BLUFFS TO
THE MISSOURI BLUFFS IS FOUR MILES, MORE OR LESS.  ADJACENT TO AND
PARALLEL WITH THE MISSOURI BLUFFS, BUT BETWEEN THEM AND THE RIVER, LIE
TRACKS OF THE BURLINGTON RAILROAD. 

THE MISSOURI RIVER IS A VAGRANT, TURBULENT STREAM.  ITS NAME REFLECTS
THIS CHARACTER.  THE BIG MUDDY IS SAID TO CARRY MORE SILT THAN ANY
OTHER RIVER EXCEPT THE YELLOW RIVER IN CHINA.  IT IS CONSTANTLY
CHANGING ITS COURSE WITHIN THE REGION BETWEEN ITS BLUFFS, SHIFTING FROM
SIDE TO SIDE AS NATURAL FORCES WORK UPON ITS FLOW.  EXPERT TESTIMONY IS
THAT A CHANGE OF CONDITIONS IN ONE BEND PRODUCES CHANGES AS GREAT, OR
NEARLY SO, IN THE NEXT BEND BELOW. 

THE RIVER FLOWS AROUND A BIG BEND, KNOWN AS WOLF CREEK BEND, JUST
BEFORE IT REACHES THE MOUTH OF WOLF CREEK.  HERE IT RUNS ALMOST DUE
SOUTH.  IT IS CONCEDED BY ALL THAT IN 1900 THE RIVER FLOWED
SOUTHEASTERLY IN A SINGLE CHANNEL FROM THE MOUTH OF WOLF CREEK, HUGGING
THE KANSAS BLUFFS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COURSE OF FLOW TO STATION 510. 
AS IT PRESENTLY FLOWS, THE RIVER MAKES A WIDE ARC, FIRST TO THE LEFT OR
MISSOURI BANK IN A COURSE ALMOST DUE EAST OR NORTH OF EAST, BEFORE IT
TURNS SHARPLY TO THE SOUTH AGAIN AT A POINT MIDWAY BETWEEN THE BLUFFS,
AND FOLLOWS THIS SOUTHERLY COURSE UNTIL IT STRIKES THE OLD MAIN CHANNEL
AT THE KANSAS BLUFFS ABOVE STATION 510.  THIS BEND NOW IS IN THE FORM
OF A BOW, WITH THE RIVER PROPER FORMING THE BOW AND THE OLD CHANNEL
ALONG THE KANSAS BANK ITS STRING.  ROUGHLY, THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE PRESENT FLOW THROUGH FORBES BEND AND THE FLOW IN 1900 IS
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BOW AND THE STRING.  AT THE CENTER OF THE
BOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE OLD CHANNEL AND THE PRESENT ONE APPEARS TO
BE AT MOST ONE MILE. 

HOWEVER, AS WILL APPEAR, THE CHANNEL'S PRESENT LOCATION RESULTS FROM
MORE COMPLEX CHANGES THAN MERELY A MOVEMENT OF THE RIVER NORTH AND EAST
OVER THE DISTANCE LYING BETWEEN THESE TWO CHANNELS.  ACCORDING TO THE
GREATLY PREPONDERANT THOUGH NOT UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, THERE WAS A
DIVISION OF CHANNELS IN FORBES BEND FROM ABOUT 1914 OR 1917 TO 1927 OR
1928.  DURING THIS TIME THE MORE WESTERLY OR KANSAS CHANNEL LAY
SLIGHTLY WEST OF WHERE THE PRESENT CHANNEL RUNS.  THE MISSOURI OR
EASTERLY CHANNEL LAY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AREA IN DISPUTE, WHICH
THEN FORMED PART OF A BAR OR ISLAND.  AT ONE TIME, PROBABLY ABOUT 1922
OR 1923, DURING THE PERIOD OF GREATEST EROSION OF THE MISSOURI BANK,
THIS CHANNEL CAME WITHIN HALF A MILE OR LESS OF THE BURLINGTON TRACKS. 
THE MISSOURI CHANNEL, WITH THE RIVER ABOVE IT, THEN FOLLOWED A COURSE
ALMOST DUE EAST OR SLIGHTLY NORTH OF EAST FROM BELOW THE MOUTH OF WOLF
CREEK TO THE POINT OF ITS CLOSEST APPROACH TO THE RAILROAD.  THEN IT
SWUNG SHARPLY TO THE SOUTH AND IN A CURVING LINE CAME BACK TO JOIN THE
ORIGINAL CHANNEL NEAR THE KANSAS BLUFFS ABOVE STATION 510. 

FROM THE RECITAL THUS FAR IT IS CLEAR THAT IN 1900 THE LAND WHICH
THEN LAY WHERE THE DISPUTED TRACT NOW LIES WAS MISSOURI LAND.  THIS IS
UNDISPUTED.  LIKEWISE, THE TRACT NOW IS ATTACHED TO MISSOURI ON THE
EASTERLY BANK OF THE RIVER.  THIS IS BECAUSE THE MISSOURI CHANNEL DRIED
UP DURING SOME FIVE TO EIGHT YEARS BEGINNING AROUND 1927 OR EARLIER. 
BUT, BEFORE THAT PROCESS BEGAN, FOR MANY YEARS THE LAND IN QUESTION LAY
BETWEEN THE TWO CHANNELS.  AND IT IS FROM CONFLICTING VIEWS CONCERNING
WHETHER, HOW AND WHEN THESE MAJOR CHANGES TOOK PLACE THE PARTIES DERIVE
THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS TO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THIS SOIL. 

KANSAS FIRST CLAIMS THAT THE LAND IN DISPUTE BECAME HERS BY
ACCRETION.  HER PRINCIPAL THEORY IS THAT BEGINNING IN 1900 AND DURING A
PERIOD EXTENDING TO 1917 OR TO 1927 THE RIVER CHANNEL, DUE TO CHANGES
UPSTREAM, GRADUALLY MOVED OUT FROM THE KANSAS BLUFFS OVER A DISTANCE OF
SOME THREE TO THREE AND A HALF MILES TO THE NORTH AND EAST.  FN7  AS
MISSOURI SOIL THUS WAS BEING CUT AWAY, IT IS SAID THE LAND IN QUESTION
WAS BUILT UP GRADUALLY ON THE KANSAS SIDE.  IN ANY EVENT, IF IT WAS NOT
CONNECTED FIRMLY TO THE KANSAS SHORE IT WAS SEPARATED ONLY BY NARROW
AND IRREGULAR CHUTES AND SLOUGHS, NOT BY ANY SORT OF REGULAR CHANNEL. 
THEN EITHER IN 1917  FN8  OR IN 1927  FN9  ICE JAMS FORMING IN THE
RIVER CAUSED IT SUDDENLY TO LEAVE ITS CHANNEL NEAR THE MISSOURI BLUFFS
AND TO OPEN A NEW ONE NEAR WHERE THE PRESENT CHANNEL RUNS.  RELYING
UPON ACCRETION FROM 1900 TO 1917 OR 1927 FOR ACQUISITION OF THE
DISPUTED AREA, KANSAS RELIES UPON AVULSION IN 1917 OR 1927 TO PREVENT
LOSING THE AREA AGAIN TO MISSOURI.  HER ALTERNATIVE THEORY OF ISLAND
FORMATION IS RELIED ON IN CASE THAT OF ACCRETION AND AVULSION FAILS ON
THE PROOF.  BY THIS, THE ISLAND FORMED ON HER SIDE OF THE MAIN CHANNEL
AND THE SUBSEQUENT SHIFT OF THE MAIN FLOW TO THE KANSAS CHANNEL AND
DRYING UP OF THE MISSOURI CHANNEL DID NOT AFFECT HER JURISDICTION. 

MISSOURI MEETS ALL OF KANSAS' CLAIMS WITH DENIAL ON THE FACTS.  SHE
SAYS FIRST THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS BEEN AT NO TIME ACCRETED SOIL
OF KANSAS.  ON THE CONTRARY, SHE CLAIMS THAT THE DISPUTED AREA FORMED
AS AN ISLAND IN THE RIVER BED BEGINNING ABOUT 1910 OR 1912, AND FROM
THEN UNTIL 1927 OR 1928 THERE WAS A DIVIDED FLOW AROUND THIS ISLAND, A
MISSOURI CHANNEL RUNNING NORTH AND EAST OF IT WITH A KANSAS CHANNEL TO
THE SOUTH AND WEST.  SHE INSISTS THAT THE KANSAS CHANNEL ALWAYS
REMAINED THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE STREAM AND ONLY A MINOR ONE REACHED
PROXIMITY TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.  ACCORDINGLY, SHE SAYS THE ISLAND
FORMED AS MISSOURI LAND AND ALWAYS REMAINED MISSOURI TERRITORY. 
MISSOURI THUS OPPOSES HER VIEW OF ISLAND FORMATION, BOTH TO KANSAS'
VIEW OF THAT PROCESS AND TO HER CLAIM OF ACCRETION AND AVULSION. 

HOWEVER, MISSOURI ADDS A FURTHER ARGUMENT EVEN IF THE KANSAS THEORY
OF ACCRETION IS CONCEDED.  ACCORDING TO THIS, THE EFFECT OF THE
ACCRETION TO THE KANSAS BANK IS COUNTERACTED BY THE FACT THAT AT NO
TIME WAS THERE AN AVULSIVE CHANGE, WHETHER IN 1917 OR IN 1927.  ON THE
CONTRARY THE RIVER MOVED BACK GRADUALLY AS IT CAME.  IN THIS VIEW THE
ACCRETIVE PROCESS WORKING AGAINST MISSOURI ENDED IN 1923 OR 1924, WHEN
THE MISSOURI CHANNEL REACHED GREATEST PROXIMITY TO THE RAILROAD
TRACKS.  BEGINNING IN THOSE YEARS AND CONTINUING GRADUALLY UNTIL 1933
OR 1934, THE RIVER MOVED SLOWLY BACK TO A POINT BEYOND THE LOCATION OF
THE PRESENT CHANNEL.  THUS PURPORTING TO FOLLOW THE ACCRETION THEORY IN
BOTH DIRECTIONS, MISSOURI CLAIMS THE LAND IN QUESTION. 

IT MAY BE NOTED THAT CRUCIAL TO KANSAS' CASE, WHETHER ON HER THEORY
OF ACCRETION AND AVULSION OR ON THAT OF ISLAND FORMATION, IS THE NEED
FOR SHOWING THAT THE MAIN CHANNEL FOLLOWED THE COURSE OF THE MISSOURI
CHANNEL. 

                      II. 

ROUGHLY THE HISTORY OF THE BEND, FOR OUR PURPOSES, MAY BE DIVIDED
INTO THREE PERIODS, NAMELY, FROM 1900 TO 1917; FROM 1917 TO 1928; AND
FROM 1928 TO 1940, WHEN THIS SUIT WAS BEGUN.  THERE IS DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE AS WELL AS ORAL TESTIMONY FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1900.  THERE
IS LITTLE OR NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF MAPS, PHOTOGRAPHS,
DRAWINGS OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM 1900 TO 1923.  THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE
AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTARY MATERIAL FROM 1923 ON. 

PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENTARY ITEM IS A MAP OF THE FORBES
BEND REGION COMPILED FROM THE FIELD IN 1923 BY THE UNITED STATES
ENGINEER OFFICE AT KANSAS CITY, DESIGNATED AS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT 46
IN THIS RECORD.  ANOTHER MAP OF CONSIDERABLE ASSISTANCE, WITH
INFORMATION PENCILED ON IT BY TWO WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED AT THE
HEARINGS, IS COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT 47.  THIS PURPORTS TO SHOW IN LESS
DETAIL THAN EXHIBIT 46 CONDITIONS IN THE BEND IN 1926.  THE WITNESSES'
PENCILED ADDITIONS, PLACING CHANNELS AND OTHER LANDMARKS, WITH THEIR
TESTIMONY, GIVE CONSIDERABLE INFORMATION ABOUT CONDITIONS IN THE BEND
FROM 1921 OR 1922 ON TO 1926 AND LATER.  ASSISTANCE ALSO IS DERIVED
FROM COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT 56.  THIS IS AN AERIAL SURVEY PHOTOGRAPH OF
THE FORBES BEND REGION MADE IN 1941, SHOWING CONDITIONS WHEN THIS SUIT
WAS BEGUN.  REFERENCE TO THESE EXHIBITS WILL BE MADE AS THE TESTIMONY
OF SOME OF THE WITNESSES IS REFERRED TO. 

IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT SOMETIME AROUND 1900, FIXED BY SOME
OLDER WITNESSES VARIOUSLY AS BEGINNING EARLIER AND BY OTHERS LATER, THE
RIVER BEGAN A NORTHERLY AND EASTWARD MOVEMENT, CUTTING AWAY THE
MISSOURI BANK AND FILLING IN ON THE KANSAS BANK.  FN10  NEIGHBORHOOD
TESTIMONY ATTRIBUTES THE BEGINNING OF THIS MOVEMENT TO SOME CHANGE IN
CONDITIONS UPSTREAM, TAKING PLACE APPARENTLY AROUND THE MOUTH OF WOLF
CREEK OR IN WOLF CREEK BEND ABOVE.  FN11  WHATEVER THIS CHANGE MAY HAVE
BEEN, IT APPARENTLY THREW THE CURRENT OF THE STREAM AGAINST THE SOLID
ROCK FORMATION ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN.  THIS IS A POINT
ON THE KANSAS BLUFFS ABOUT A MILE OR A MILE AND A HALF BELOW THE MOUTH
OF WOLF CREEK.  THE CURRENT, STRIKING THIS ROCK WITH FORCE, WAS THROWN
OVER TO THE NORTH OR MISSOURI BANK. 

THE SOIL COMPOSITION OF THE NORTH BANK IS A COMMON FORMATION IN THE
MISSOURI RIVER VALLEY.  UNDERNEATH THE SURFACE SOIL IS SAND OR
QUICKSAND.  THIS IS COVERED BY A LAYER OF GUMBO SOIL.  TESTIMONY IN THE
RECORD DISCLOSES THERE IS NO GREAT EROSION WHEN THE WATER IS VERY HIGH
OR VERY LOW.  BUT WHEN IT IS AT AN INTERMEDIATE STAGE THE WATER COMES
IN CONTACT WITH THE UNDERLYING SAND, WASHES IT OUT, AND THE TOPSOIL
FALLS INTO THE RIVER IN GREAT CHUNKS, OFTEN TWENTY FEET LONG BY TEN
FEET WIDE.  AS THE CURRENT WAS FORCED FROM THE KANSAS ROCK TO THE
MISSOURI SAND, IT UNDERCUT MORE AND MORE OF THE MISSOURI SOIL. 
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD ALSO SHOWS THAT BETWEEN 1900 AND 1920, OR A
LITTLE LATER, FROM 4,000 TO 5,000 ACRES OF MISSOURI SOIL WAS WASHED
INTO THE RIVER BY THIS PROCESS.  ON THIS STOOD HOUSES, BARNS, A SCHOOL
BUILDING KNOWN AS THE BAKER SCHOOLHOUSE, AND OTHER STRUCTURES, WHICH
EITHER WENT INTO THE RIVER AS THE SOIL WAS UNDERMINED OR WERE MOVED TO
PREVENT THEIR FALLING IN.  THE BAKER SCHOOLHOUSE, WHICH IN 1900 WAS A
MILE OR MORE NORTHEAST FROM THE RIVER BANK, WAS MOVED ABOUT 1915 TO
PREVENT ITS GOING INTO THE RIVER.  FN12  BY THAT TIME THE EROSION WAS
MOVING AT GREAT SPEED AND THIS CONTINUED UNTIL THE FARTHEST POINT WAS
REACHED, A HALF MILE OR LESS FROM THE BURLINGTON RAILROAD, ABOUT 1923
TO 1925.  FN13 

THE CLEAR WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THERE WAS ONLY A SINGLE
CHANNEL OF THE RIVER UNTIL ABOUT 1912 OR 1914.  WITNESSES FOR BOTH
KANSAS AND MISSOURI SUBSTANTIATE THIS.  FN14  THE EVIDENCE ALSO CLEARLY
ESTABLISHES THAT THERE WAS A DIVIDED FLOW FROM 1917 OR EARLIER TO
1927.  THIS TOO IS SUBSTANTIATED BY BOTH KANSAS AND MISSOURI
WITNESSES.  FN15  THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CONFLICTING CONCERNING WHEN
THE DIVISION FIRST TOOK PLACE AND WHETHER, WHILE IT REMAINED, THE
KANSAS CHANNEL OR THE MISSOURI CHANNEL WAS THE MAIN ONE. 

WITNESSES FOR MISSOURI, AND SOME FOR KANSAS, TESTIFY THAT THE
DIVISION OCCURRED BEFORE 1917 AND THAT THE TWO CHANNELS REMAINED
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL OR THE KANSAS CHANNEL WAS THE LARGER IN THE VOLUME
OF WATER CARRIED BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE DIVISION AND SOMETIME BETWEEN
1922 AND 1927 OR 1928.  FN16  THE MISSOURI WITNESSES FAIRLY UNIFORMLY
AGREE THAT THE FLOW IN THE TWO CHANNELS WAS AT LEAST "FIFTY-FIFTY" AND
SOME OF THEM SAY THE KANSAS CHANNEL ALWAYS CARRIED THE HEAVIER VOLUME
OF WATER.  FN17  THEY ALSO GENERALLY AGREE THAT THE MISSOURI CHANNEL
BEGAN TO DECREASE AND THE KANSAS CHANNEL TO INCREASE IN VOLUME AT SOME
TIME BEFORE 1927.  SOME PLACE THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS AS EARLY AS
1921 OR 1922.  FN18  THE EVIDENCE IS SUBSTANTIAL THAT THE DECREASE IN
THE MISSOURI FLOW AND THE INCREASE IN THE KANSAS FLOW BEGAN BEFORE
1927; AND IT IS ALMOST UNANIMOUS THAT, FROM 1928 ON, THE MISSOURI
CHANNEL CONTAINED NO CURRENT OR ONLY THE FLOW OF MILL CREEK DRAINAGE
DITCH, WHICH BY THAT TIME HAD BEEN DIVERTED INTO THE MISSOURI CHANNEL. 
WITNESSES FOR MISSOURI ATTRIBUTE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE FILLING
UP OF THE MISSOURI CHANNEL TO DEPOSITS MADE BY THE MILL CREEK DITCH. 
FN19  THEY AGREE, AND THE EVIDENCE FOR KANSAS HARDLY CONTRADICTS THIS,
FN20  THAT BETWEEN 1928 AND 1934 THE MISSOURI CHANNEL ALMOST COMPLETELY
DRIED UP.  THE GREAT PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AS A WHOLE IS THAT
THIS OCCURRED GRADUALLY OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, VARYING ACCORDING TO
DIFFERENT WITNESSES FROM TWO OR THREE TO EIGHT OR TEN YEARS. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, KANSAS WITNESSES ARE NOT IN ACCORD AMONG
THEMSELVES AS TO WHAT OCCURRED IN THE BEND BETWEEN 1912 AND 1928.  SOME
OF THEM SAY THERE WAS A DIVIDED FLOW.  FN21  OTHERS DENY THIS BUT
QUALIFY THEIR DENIALS BY ASSERTING THAT, ALTHOUGH THE MAIN CHANNEL OF
THE RIVER RAN OVER INTO MISSOURI CLOSE TO THE BURLINGTON TRACKS UNTIL
1927, THERE WERE CHUTES ON THE ISLAND AND PARTICULARLY THERE WAS ONE
CHUTE RUNNING FROM ABOUT THE MOUTH OF MILL CREEK DITCH AS IT WAS IN
1917(DIRECTLY ACROSS NORTHERLY FROM THE NORTHERN END OF THE BAR OR
ISLAND) DUE SOUTH TO THE KANSAS BLUFFS AT ABOUT STATION 510.  FN22
HOWEVER, THEY MAINTAIN GENERALLY THAT THIS WAS A SMALL CHUTE, OR
SMALLER THAN THE MISSOURI CHANNEL, AT ANY RATE UP TO 1922 OR 1923.  A
FEW SAY IT WAS SMALL UNTIL 1927 WHEN THE ALLEGED ICE JAM OCCURRED. 
FN23 

SOME WITNESSES FOR KANSAS MAINTAIN THAT THERE WERE BIG ICE JAMS IN
1917  FN24  AND IN 1927.  FN25  DIFFERENT WITNESSES TESTIFY TO THE TWO
ALLEGED JAMS.  THOSE WHO SAY ONE OCCURRED IN 1917 ASSERT THAT IT THREW
THE MAIN FLOW BACK FROM THE MISSOURI CHANNEL INTO THE KANSAS CHANNEL. 
LIKEWISE SOME OF THOSE WHO SAY THERE WAS A JAM IN 1927 ACCREDIT THE
SAME CONSEQUENCE TO THAT JAM.  THE TWO KANSAS THEORIES OF AVULSION
THEREFORE ARE ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT, THOUGH EACH IS SUPPORTED BY SOME
EVIDENCE.  IF THERE WAS AVULSION IN 1917, THERE HARDLY COULD HAVE BEEN
AVULSION, ON THIS RECORD, IN 1927.  ON THE OTHER HAND, SEVERAL KANSAS
WITNESSES, FAMILIAR WITH THE TERRITORY DURING ONE OR BOTH OF THE TWO
YEARS IN QUESTION, TESTIFY THEY SAW NO ICE JAMS IN THOSE YEARS.  FN26
OTHERS SAY THEY SAW ICE BUT NOT IN LARGE OR UNUSUALLY LARGE QUANTITIES
OR WITH UNUSUAL EFFECTS ON THE FLOW OF THE RIVER.  FN27  NEARLY ALL OF
THE MISSOURI WITNESSES DENY THAT THERE WERE ICE JAMS EITHER IN THOSE
YEARS OR AT OTHER TIMES, ALTHOUGH SOME REFER TO ICE IN THE RIVER AS NOT
UNCOMMON IN WINTER OR EARLY SPRING.  THE MISSOURI WITNESSES ARE FAIRLY
UNANIMOUS IN SAYING THAT AT NO TIME HAD ICE CONDITIONS OR OTHERS CAUSED
A SUDDEN CHANGE IN THE RIVER'S COURSE  FN28 AND IN THIS THEY ARE
SUPPORTED BY A NUMBER OF KANSAS WITNESSES.  FN29 

WHEN WE TURN TO COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT 46 WE FIND VERY SUBSTANTIAL
SUPPORT FOR MISSOURI'S VIEW THAT DURING THE CONTROVERTED PERIOD THE
FLOW OF THE RIVER WAS DIVIDED AND THAT THE KANSAS CHANNEL EQUALLED OR
EXCEEDED THE MISSOURI CHANNEL IN THE FLOW OR VOLUME OF WATER CARRIED. 
THIS MAP, COMPILED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY,
WHO HAD CHARGE OF THE RIVER'S DEVELOPMENT, SHOWS CONDITIONS IN 1923. 
TWO CHANNELS APPEAR, WITH A LARGE SAND BAR OR ISLAND BETWEEN THEM.  THE
MAP PLACES THE MISSOURI CHANNEL WITHIN LESS THAN A HALF MILE OF THE
BURLINGTON TRACKS.  IT SHOWS A WIDTH OF ABOUT 1,250 FEET AT THE
NARROWEST POINT.  SOUNDINGS, READ FROM THE SOUTH END OF THE ISLAND
AROUND THE CURVE TO ITS NORTH END, DISCLOSE THAT THE DEEPEST WATER RAN
FROM POINT TO POINT AS FOLLOWS:  15 FEET, 16 FEET, 25 FEET, 13 FEET, 14
FEET.  ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF THE ISLAND THE KANSAS CHANNEL WAS A
LITTLE WIDER AT ITS NARROWEST POINT.  ITS SOUNDINGS FROM SOUTH TO NORTH
AT APPROPRIATE INTERVALS WERE 31 FEET, 12 FEET, 12 FEET AND 13 FEET. 
THE MISSOURI CHANNEL MEANDERED FROM THE SOUTH TO THE EAST AND NORTH AND
THEN BACK AROUND THE NORTH END OF THE ISLAND OR BAR IN A DUE WESTERLY
DIRECTION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE KANSAS CHANNEL WAS MUCH SHORTER,
RUNNING STRAIGHT NORTH FROM THE SOUTH END OF THE ISLAND ALONG ITS
WESTERN SHORE TO ITS NORTHERN END.  THE MAP SHOWS THAT THE HIGHER
PORTION OF THE ISLAND WAS COVERED WITH WILLOWS AND A SMALL PART AT THE
LOWER END WAS UNDER CULTIVATION.  FURTHERMORE, IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT
AT THE NORTH END OF THE ISLAND, JUST OPPOSITE THE MOUTH OF MILL CREEK
DITCH, THE WATER IN THE MISSOURI CHANNEL WAS COMPARATIVELY SHALLOW. 

EXHIBIT 46 FURNISHES THE MOST RELIABLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF
CONDITIONS IN FORBES BEND AT A GIVEN TIME.  IF ONLY THIS EXHIBIT AND
THE FACTS IT DISCLOSES WERE CONSIDERED, CLEARLY IT COULD NOT BE RULED
THAT THE MAIN NAVIGABLE CHANNEL OF THE RIVER WAS THE MISSOURI CHANNEL. 
FOR PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION, THE KANSAS CHANNEL WAS MUCH THE SHORTER AND
MORE DIRECT AND, FROM THE SOUNDINGS AS WELL AS THE SHORTER FLOW, IT
APPARENTLY CARRIED AT LEAST AN EQUAL VOLUME OF WATER. 

EXHIBIT 47, WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A REVISION FROM AIRPLANE
PHOTOGRAPHS, SHOWS IN GENERAL A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR THOUGH LESS DETAILED
PICTURE FOR 1926.  HOWEVER, TWO WITNESSES FOR KANSAS, KENNETH ROBINSON
AND JOSEPH H. GRAY, WHO HUNTED IN THE REGION FROM 1920 TO 1927 OR 1928,
TESTIFIED CONCERNING THIS EXHIBIT AND MARKED ON IT IN PENCILED LINES
THEIR RECOLLECTIONS OF THE CHANNELS' RESPECTIVE COURSES IN 1922.  THEIR
TESTIMONY GIVES PERHAPS THE STRONGEST SUPPORT TO KANSAS' CASE THAT THE
MAIN CHANNEL DURING A PORTION OF THE DISPUTED PERIOD WAS ON THE
MISSOURI SIDE.  BUT, APART FROM ITS INCONSISTENCY AS TO THE LOCATION
AND DIRECTION OF THE KANSAS CHUTE,  FN30  IT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE
MORE RELIABLE EVIDENCE GIVEN CONCERNING CONDITIONS IN THE BEND AT THE
SAME TIME BY COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBIT 46 AND IT IS CONTRADICTED BY
NUMEROUS WITNESSES FOR MISSOURI AS WELL AS BY SOME FOR KANSAS IN
ALLOCATING A LARGER FLOW TO THE MISSOURI CHANNEL.  IT CANNOT THEREFORE
BE ACCEPTED AS CONTROLLING. 

                     III. 

THE EVIDENCE NEED NOT BE STATED IN FURTHER DETAIL.  IN OUR OPINION IT
FULLY SUPPORTS THE MASTER'S ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.  IT WAS
HIS VIEW, FIRST, THAT THERE WAS NO AVULSIVE CHANGE, WHETHER IN 1917,
1927, OR AT ANY TIME.  HE FOUND THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE OF AN ICE JAM
IN 1917 AND MORE TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH A CLAIM FOR 1927.  BUT HE ALSO
FOUND, AND THE EVIDENCE, THOUGH NOT UNDISPUTED, FULLY SUBSTANTIATES HIS
CONCLUSION, THAT NEITHER OF THESE JAMS WAS SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE A SUDDEN
CHANGE IN THE RIVER'S COURSE. 

THERE IS VERY CONSIDERABLE DOUBT, ON THE RECORD AS A WHOLE, WHETHER
THE ALLEGED JAM IN 1917 OCCURRED AT ALL.  IN ANY EVENT, THE
PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE IS THAT IT AMOUNTED TO LITTLE, IF ANYTHING, MORE
THAN THE NORMAL PILING OF ICE ON THE HEADS OF BARS AND ISLANDS DURING
THE SPRING BREAKUP.  FN31  THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THIS OCCURRED EACH
YEAR.  THE PROOF THEREFORE TO SUSTAIN AVULSION IN 1917 IS NOT
SUFFICIENT AND THIS PHASE OF THE CASE MAY BE PUT ASIDE. 

WE AGREE WITH THE MASTER THAT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW A MORE UNUSUAL
PILING UP OF ICE AT THE HEAD OF THE ISLAND IN 1927 IS SOMEWHAT
STRONGER.  FN32  BUT WE ALSO AGREE WITH HIM THAT THE EVIDENCE AS A
WHOLE IS CLEARLY PREPONDERATING THAT THIS DID NOT CAUSE AN AVULSIVE
CHANGE.  AS HAS BEEN STATED, THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED
1927 JAM CAUSED THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE RIVER TO SHIFT THEN AND
SUDDENLY FROM THE MISSOURI CHANNEL TO THE KANSAS CHANNEL AS THE LATTER
FLOWED FROM 1927 OR 1928 UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT'S REVETMENT WORK ON THE
RIVER FORCED THE CHANNEL TO ITS PRESENT LOCATION AFTER 1935.  BUT THIS
IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN KANSAS' CASE. 

BOTH BY VIRTUE OF HER POSITION AS COMPLAINANT AND ON THE FACTS,
KANSAS HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS CASE.  CF. OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS,
260 U.S. 606.  THE DISPUTED LOCATION WAS IN MISSOURI IN 1900.  IT LIES
ON THE MISSOURI SIDE NOW AND HAS DONE SO, BY PRACTICALLY ALL THE
EVIDENCE, SINCE AT LEAST 1927 OR 1928.  THESE FACTS PUT UPON KANSAS THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT IN THE MEANTIME THE LAND LAY ON THE KANSAS SIDE
OF THE MAIN CHANNEL BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL CHANGES WHICH WERE EFFECTIVE
TO CHANGE THE JURISDICTION.  KANSAS HAS SHOWN BEYOND DOUBT THAT ONE
BRANCH OF THE RIVER ERODED TO A POINT OR POINTS NORTH AND EAST OF THIS
LAND, PROBABLY AS EARLY AS 1920, POSSIBLY EARLIER.  BUT BEYOND THIS
FACT, WHETHER ON HER THEORY OF ACCRETION AND AVULSION OR ON THAT OF
ISLAND FORMATION, THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS AGAINST HER VIEW OF
WHAT OCCURRED. 

KANSAS' MAIN DIFFICULTY PERHAPS IS THAT BY ATTEMPTING TO PROVE ONE
THEORY OF WHAT HAPPENED IN FORBES BEND SHE DIVIDES THE WEIGHT OF HER
EVIDENCE AND THUS GOES FAR TO DISPROVE HER OTHER THEORY.  TO SHOW
ACCRETION AND AVULSION SHE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT THE RIVER'S MAIN
CHANNEL MOVED GRADUALLY FROM THE KANSAS BLUFFS IN 1900 TO THE FARTHEST
EROSION POINT IN MISSOURI IN 1927, AND THEN SUDDENLY SHIFTED BACK TO A
NEW CHANNEL CUT THEN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE ACCRETED SOIL, LEAVING
THE OLD ONE FROM THAT TIME ON A MINOR OR DRY ONE.  TO SHOW SOVEREIGNTY
BY ISLAND FORMATION IT WAS NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT THE ISLAND FORMED ON
THE KANSAS SIDE OF THE MAIN CHANNEL, IN WHICH EVENT A SUBSEQUENT SHIFT
IN THE MAIN FLOW TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISLAND WOULD NOT AFFECT HER
JURISDICTION,  FN33  ALTHOUGH MISSOURI'S ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION SEEMS
TO BE TO THE CONTRARY.  FN34 BY PROVING THE FORMATION OF THE ISLAND,
KANSAS IN EFFECT DISPROVES THAT THE DISPUTED AREA BECAME ACCRETED SOIL
ATTACHED FIRMLY TO THE KANSAS BANK.  HER OWN EVIDENCE IN THIS RESPECT,
ADDED TO THAT GIVEN BY MISSOURI, FAR OUTWEIGHS THE EVIDENCE SHE
PRESENTED TO SHOW ACCRETION BEYOND WHERE THE PRESENT CHANNEL LIES AND
CREATES AN OVERWHELMING PREPONDERANCE THAT THE FLOW WAS DIVIDED FROM
1912 OR AT ANY RATE 1917 TO 1927 OR 1928; THAT THE ISLAND FORMED IN
THIS PERIOD; AND THUS THAT THE SOIL IN QUESTION WAS NOT AT ANY TIME
ATTACHED FIRMLY TO THE KANSAS BANK BY ACCRETION.  IF IT WAS FORMED AS
ISLAND SOIL, IT WAS NOT ACCRETED SOIL. 

KANSAS' EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE DIVISION OF FLOW AND FORMATION OF THE
ISLAND, TOGETHER WITH THAT CONCERNING THE DRYING UP OF THE MISSOURI
CHANNEL, ALSO PROVES NOT THAT THE RIVER SUDDENLY CUT A NEW CHANNEL
THROUGH ACCRETED SOIL IN 1927, BUT THAT IT MERELY SHIFTED THE VOLUME OF
FLOW FROM ONE CHANNEL TO ANOTHER PREEXISTING ONE.  IN OTHER WORDS IT
GOES TO DISPROVE BOTH ACCRETION AND AVULSION.  MISSOURI AND KANSAS
WITNESSES ARE AGREED THAT THE MAIN FLOW WAS IN THE KANSAS CHANNEL FROM
1927 ON AND THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT THAT BY 1933 OR 1935 THE
MISSOURI CHANNEL HAD DRIED UP, EXCEPT FOR THE FLOW OF MILL CREEK DITCH,
AND LARGELY HAD FILLED UP BY DEPOSITS FROM THAT STREAM AND OTHER
FORCES.  MISSOURI WITNESSES SAY THIS DRYING UP BEGAN BEFORE 1927, SOME
AS EARLY AS 1922 OR 1923, AND THEREFORE CONTINUED FOR TEN OR TWELVE
YEARS.  KANSAS WITNESSES GENERALLY SAY IT BEGAN IN 1927 AND CONTINUED
FOR FROM THREE TO SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS.  ONLY A FEW OF THEM SAY THE ICE
JAM THAT YEAR CUT A NEW CHANNEL.  MORE TESTIFY THAT THE MAIN FLOW THEN
SHIFTED FROM ONE CHANNEL TO THE OTHER, AND SOME JOIN THE WITNESSES FOR
MISSOURI IN SAYING THAT THIS SHIFT BEGAN EARLIER.  EXCEPT FOR THE FEW
WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY TO THE SUDDEN CUTTING OF A NEW CHANNEL, THE GREAT
WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY IS THAT WHATEVER CHANGE OCCURRED IN REDUCTION
OF THE FLOW IN THE MISSOURI CHANNEL REQUIRED SEVERAL YEARS TO
COMPLETE.  IT WAS A GRADUAL PROCESS, AND THEREFORE NOT THE SUDDEN SHIFT
NECESSARY TO SHOW AVULSION.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD
BE IF THE EVIDENCE HAD SHOWN THIS WAS A GRADUAL CUTTING OF A NEW
CHANNEL.  IT WAS AT MOST A GRADUAL SHIFTING FROM ONE TO ANOTHER. 
KANSAS CLEARLY HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A SINGLE CHANNEL OF
THE RIVER WHICH GRADUALLY MOVED OVER TO THE FARTHEST EROSION POINT,
MEANWHILE ACCRETING THIS LAND TO HER SOIL, THEN SUDDENLY MOVED BACK,
EITHER IN 1917 OR IN 1927, TO A NEW CHANNEL CUT THROUGH THE ACCRETED
SOIL.  ONLY BY ACCEPTING THE EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE FEW WITNESSES WHO
SUPPORTED THIS THEORY, WHICH WAS CONTRADICTED BOTH BY THE WEIGHT OF HER
OWN EVIDENCE CONCERNING ISLAND FORMATION AND BY SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THAT
WAS OFFERED FOR MISSOURI, COULD A FINDING IN KANSAS' FAVOR BE MADE
UNDER THE THEORY OF ACCRETION AND AVULSION. 

KANSAS' STRONGER CASE UPON THE PROOF IS ON THE THEORY OF ISLAND
FORMATION.  ON THIS, AS UNDER THAT OF ACCRETION AND AVULSION, IT WAS
NECESSARY FOR HER TO SHOW THAT THE MISSOURI CHANNEL WAS THE RIVER'S
MAIN CHANNEL AND THUS THE ISLAND, WHICH IS NOW PART OF THE DISPUTED
LAND, WAS FORMED ON HER SIDE OF THE RIVER'S THREAD.  ON THIS CRUCIAL
ISSUE KANSAS' CASE IS STRONGER PERHAPS THAN IN ANY OTHER RESPECT.  SHE
PRESENTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT WHILE THE RIVER WAS DIVIDED
OR DURING SOME PART OF THAT PERIOD, MORE ESPECIALLY FROM 1921 OR 1922
TO 1927, THE MISSOURI CHANNEL WAS THE MAIN ONE, BOTH IN VOLUME OF WATER
CARRIED AND, LESS CLEARLY, IN AVAILABILITY FOR NAVIGATION.  THERE IS,
HOWEVER, AT LEAST AN EQUAL WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, GIVEN BOTH BY MISSOURI
WITNESSES AND BY SOME FOR KANSAS, THAT THE KANSAS CHANNEL REMAINED THE
MAIN NAVIGABLE CHANNEL THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF DIVISION. 

THE EVIDENCE ON THIS CONTROLLING ISSUE UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT AS FREE
FROM CONFLICT OR DOUBT AS WE MIGHT WISH.  BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID, WHEN
ACCOUNT IS TAKEN OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, BOTH ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY, THAT A
PREPONDERANCE SUSTAINS KANSAS' VIEW THAT THE MAIN CHANNEL EVER CHANGED
TO THE MISSOURI SIDE.  KANSAS' BURDEN REQUIRED PREPONDERANT PROOF.  SHE
HAS NOT MADE IT. 

AS THE CASE HAS BEEN MADE, BOTH THE MASTER AND THIS COURT HAVE HAD TO
RELY UPON THE INADEQUATE AND INCONCLUSIVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THE
CONFLICTING AND OFTEN VAGUE RECOLLECTIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD WITNESSES. 
THE SUM DOES NOT ADD UP TO THE WEIGHT OF PROOF KANSAS WAS REQUIRED TO
ESTABLISH IN ORDER TO PREVAIL.  THE MASTER SAW AND HEARD THE
WITNESSES.  HIS CONCLUSIONS IN ALL RESPECTS WERE IN FAVOR OF MISSOURI. 
WE FIND NO BASIS IN THE RECORD FOR ANY CONCLUSION THAT HE PERFORMED HIS
TASK WITH OTHER THAN FAIR, DISINTERESTED, PAINSTAKING EFFORT AND
ATTITUDE.  HIS JUDGMENT ACCORDS WITH THE CONCLUSIONS WE MAKE FROM OUR
OWN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US
TO DECIDE MORE THAN THAT KANSAS HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE MAIN
CHANNEL OF THE RIVER SHIFTED AT ANY TIME IN QUESTION FROM A COURSE SUCH
AS THE RIVER NOW FOLLOWS, OR ONE SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO THE KANSAS BLUFFS,
TO ONE FOLLOWING THE COURSE OF THE MISSOURI CHANNEL WHEN THE FLOW WAS
DIVIDED. 

IT FOLLOWS THE LAND IN DISPUTE MUST BE AWARDED TO MISSOURI AND THE
BOUNDARY WILL BE FIXED AS THE MASTER HAS RECOMMENDED IN HIS REPORT.  A
DECREE WILL BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.  (SEE POST, P. 654.) 

FN1  CF. MISSOURI V. KANSAS, 213 U.S. 78; MISSOURI V. NEBRASKA, 196
U.S. 23. 

FN2  ACT OF ADMISSION OF KANSAS, 12 STAT. 126; KANSAS CONSTITUTION OF
1859, CHARTERS AND CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, PART I, 629,
630. 

FN3  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED DISPUTES OVER THE LINE AT POINTS ALONG THE
RIVER BETWEEN WAR DEPARTMENT SURVEY STATIONS 399 AND 405, AT OTHER
POINTS IN ATCHISON COUNTY, KANSAS, AND AT POINTS ALONG THE RIVER
BETWEEN WAR DEPARTMENT SURVEY STATIONS 510 AND 515(FORBES BEND). 

FN4  ATTEMPTS AT SETTLEMENT BY NEGOTIATION HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY
KANSAS BEFORE THIS PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN (LAWS OF KANSAS, 1939, C.
355).  APPARENTLY THEY WERE UNAVAILING, AND THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED. 
AFTER IT WAS BEGUN, HOWEVER, THE PARTIES AGREED TO A SETTLEMENT WITH
RESPECT TO ALL AREAS BUT THIS ONE AND INCORPORATED IT IN THIS RECORD. 
IT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE DECREE. 

FN5  JEFFERIS V. EAST OMAHA LAND CO., 134 U.S. 178; ST. CLAIR COUNTY
V. LOVINGSTON, 23 WALL.  46; NEBRASKA V. IOWA, 143 U.S. 359. 

FN6  NEBRASKA V. IOWA, 143 U.S. 359; MISSOURI V. NEBRASKA, 196 U.S.
23; OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 260 U.S. 606. 

FN7  SINCE KANSAS CLAIMS AVULSIVE CHANGE BOTH IN 1917 AND IN 1927,
AND THAT THE ACCRETION BEGAN ABOUT 1900 OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER, HER
CLAIM NECESSARILY IMPLIES THAT THE PERIOD OF ACCRETION EXTENDED EITHER
FROM 1900 TO 1917 OR FROM 1900 TO 1927. 

FN8  AT THAT TIME, ACCORDING TO THIS CLAIM, THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE
RIVER FLOWED THROUGH THE SO-CALLED MISSOURI CHANNEL TO THE NORTH AND
EAST, BUT WAS SUDDENLY CHANGED BY THE ICE JAM BACK FROM THAT CHANNEL
INTO A CHUTE ON THE KANSAS SIDE.  THIS CHUTE PREVIOUSLY HAD CUT ACROSS
THE ALLEGEDLY ACCRETED LAND A LITTLE TO THE WEST OF WHERE THE PRESENT
CHANNEL NOW LIES.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE ICE JAM OCCURRED "ON
OR ABOUT FEBRUARY 1918."  THE SCANTY TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD IF
COMPLETELY ACCEPTED WOULD ESTABLISH THE ICE JAM IN 1917 RATHER THAN IN
1918; CF. NOTE 24 INFRA. 

FN9  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE ICE JAM OCCURRED "DURING THE YEAR
1927."  THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY TO THE JAM AT THIS TIME DATE IT
VARIOUSLY IN 1927, 1928 AND 1929; CF. NOTE 25 INFRA. 

FN10  C. MCWILLIAMS (1892); P. DYER (1898); C. HUDGINS (1900); J. H.
SIMPSON (1904); J. E. SIMPSON (1905). 

FN11  CF. TESTIMONY OF L. F. STALCUP. 

FN12  WITNESSES VARY AS TO THE EXACT TIME FROM 1910-11 TO 1916(J. H.
PERET:  1910-12; MRS. S. JENKINS:  1910-12; R. E. SIMPSON:  1913; C.
MCWILLIAMS:  1912-13; C. HARPER:  1915; C. HUDGINS:  1915; B. HUDGINS:
1916; E. MCCOY:  1915).  BUT MOST OF THEM PUT THIS EVENT IN 1912 OR
LATER, AND THE MOST RELIABLE TESTIMONY, BY THOSE WHO MOVED THE BUILDING
(C. HUDGINS AND B. HUDGINS), PLACES IT IN 1915 OR 1916. 

FN13  C. MCWILLIAMS (1924-25); E. MCCOY (1922); A. H. MURRAY (1922
23); RALPH DYER (1923-24); W. METCALF (1917); CF. E. A. COLE (1923,
1928). 

FN14  VARYING DATES ARE GIVEN FOR THE TIME AT WHICH A DIVIDED FLOW
WAS FIRST NOTED. 

KANSAS WITNESSES:  I. MUSE:  1900; L. F. STALCUP:  1910-1912; J. E.
SIMPSON:  1912-13, 1917; O. MCKAY:  1917; R. E. SIMPSON:  1918; C.
BASKINS:  1917; C. W. RYAN:  1917 OR 1919; J. MCKAY: 1920. 

MISSOURI WITNESSES:  D. BARBOUR:  1903; B. HUDGINS:  1914; C.
HARRISON:  1914; RALPH DYER: 1913-14; C. HARPER:  1915; A. H. MURRAY:
1915; H. H. HALL:  1916; W. METCALF:  1916; J. FITZGERALD:  1917;
RAYMOND DYER:  1917-1918. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 14 SUPRA.  A FEW KANSAS WITNESSES MAINTAIN THERE WAS
ONLY ONE CHANNEL THROUGH THIS PERIOD. 

FN16  SEE NOTE 14 SUPRA.  KANSAS' WITNESSES TESTIFIED VARIOUSLY THAT
THERE ALWAYS HAD BEEN A CHANNEL ON THE KANSAS SIDE, THAT IT WAS SWIFTER
THAN THE MISSOURI CHANNEL (J. H. SIMPSON), THAT THE KANSAS CHANNEL WAS
THE "MAIN RIVER" (MRS. J. COUFAL), THAT THE KANSAS CHANNEL WAS MUCH THE
LARGER IN 1918(R. E. SIMPSON), THAT MOST OF THE WATER WAS ON THE KANSAS
SIDE IN 1920(P. BOTTIGER); CF. C. B. CATON, THAT THE RIVER WAS JUST
ABOUT EVENTLY DIVIDED IN 1917(C. BASKINS).  MISSOURI WITNESSES SAID
THAT THERE WAS ALWAYS A SUBSTANTIAL FLOW IN THE KANSAS CHANNEL AND THAT
IT WAS ABOUT AS LARGE AS OR LARGER THAN THE MISSOURI CHANNEL (E.G.,
RALPH DYER, B. HUDGINS, C. DINWIDDIE, J. FITZGERALD, C. HARPER, RAYMOND
DYER).  THEY PLACED BOATS IN THE KANSAS RATHER THAN THE MISSOURI
CHANNEL (E. MCCOY); IN 1918(W. L. MOORE); 1916 TO 1929(H. H. HALL); AND
IN 1927(C. HUDGINS). 

FN17  SEE NOTE 16 SUPRA. 

FN18  W. METCALF:  1917; W. L. MOORE:  1918; C. DINWIDDIE:  1920-22;
C. HARRISON:  1921; J. FITZGERALD:  1923-1925; CF. P. BOTTIGER:  1920. 

FN19  J. FITZGERALD, E. WALES, J. H. PERET (KANSAS WITNESS); CF. E.
MCCOY, C. HARPER. 

FN20  E.G., J. H. GRAY:  1928 ET SEQ.; A. F. HAYS:  1926 ET SEQ.; J.
B. GRAY:  1927-30; G. ATKINSON:  1929-AFTER 1934; J. H. PERET:  1929
33; C. COUFAL:  1929-33; C. W. RYAN:  1928-31; SOME KANSAS WITNESSES
CLAIM THE DRYING UP OF THE MISSOURI CHANNEL WAS A SUDDEN CONCOMITANT OF
AN ICE JAM IN 1929 BUT ADD THAT THE MISSOURI CHANNEL CONTAINED WATER
UNTIL 1933 OR 1934(E.G., C. COUFAL, E. A. COLE), OR 1935 OR 1936 WHEN
IT DRIED UP AS A RESULT OF GOVERNMENT DIKING AND REVETMENT WORK
UPSTREAM (E.G., J. COUFAL). 

FN21  SEE NOTE 14 SUPRA. 

FN22  E.G., A. F. HAYS, C. COUFAL, K. BROWNLEE, K. ROBINSON. 

FN23  E. A. COLE, J. COUFAL.  COLE IS A KANSAS CLAIMANT TO OWNERSHIP
OF PART OF THE DISPUTED LAND.  COUFAL ONCE WORKED FOR HIM. 

FN24  C. BASKINS:  1917; J. E. SIMPSON:  1917; P. DYER:  1917; C.
DYER. 

FN25  E. A. COLE:  1929; C. COUFAL:  1929; J. COUFAL:  1929; MRS. J.
COUFAL:  1929; E. L. ROCKWELL:  1927; I. OVERSTREET:  1927; H. W.
LINVILLE:  1927; P. DYER:  1927 OR 1928.  MRS. COUFAL, HOWEVER,
TESTIFIED THE "MAIN RIVER" WAS ON THE KANSAS SIDE OF THE ISLAND AT THAT
TIME.  IN THIS RESPECT HER TESTIMONY FLATLY CONTRADICTS THAT OF HER
HUSBAND AND COLE. 

FN26  D. BASKINS, J. KOTSCH, R. E. SIMPSON, J. H. SIMPSON, W.
PRUSMAN, G. ATKINSON. 

FN27  I. MUSE, L. F. STALCUP; CF. A. P. STAVER. 

FN28  C. HUDGINS, V. HARRISON, C. DINWIDDIE, R. L. GREENE, W.
METCALF, E. WALES; CF. E. MCCOY, H. H. HALL, D. BARBOUR. 

FN29  CF. NOTE 20 SUPRA; J. KOTSCH, W. PRUSMAN, C. MCWILLIAMS. 

FN30  THEY AGREED THAT THE MISSOURI CHANNEL FLOWED AROUND THE ISLAND
NOT FAR FROM THE BURLINGTON TRACKS, TURNING SOUTH AT THAT POINT AND
FLOWING AGAINST THE KANSAS BLUFFS AT STATION 510.  THEY ALSO AGREED
THAT THE KANSAS CHANNEL WAS A CHUTE.  BUT THEY DIFFERED CONCERNING ITS
DIRECTION AND LOCATION.  ROBINSON PLACED IT AS RUNNING ALMOST DUE SOUTH
ACROSS THE CENTER OF THE ISLAND IN A STRAIGHT COURSE.  GRAY PLACED THE
KANSAS CHUTE MORE TO THE WEST AND WITH A CURVING COURSE.  BOTH
TESTIFIED THAT THE MISSOURI CHANNEL WAS THE MAIN CHANNEL AT THAT TIME. 
THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN EXHIBIT 46 AND THE TESTIMONY AND DRAWINGS OF
ROBINSON AND GRAY MAY BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN PART, THOUGH NOT ALTOGETHER,
BY THE FACT THEY WERE IN THE BEND FOR HUNTING AND FISHING PURPOSES,
CHIEFLY IN THE FALL, WHEREAS EXHIBIT 46 WAS MADE FROM SURVEYS IN JUNE
AND JULY.  THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME, HOWEVER, IS HARDLY ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT
FOR THE DIFFERENCE EITHER IN WIDTH OR DEPTH OF THE KANSAS CHANNEL AS
SHOWN BY THE EXHIBIT AND BY THEIR TESTIMONY. 

FN31  CF. NOTES 27-29 SUPRA. 

FN32  CF. NOTE 25 SUPRA. 

FN33  MISSOURI V. KENTUCKY, 11 WALL.  395; DAVIS V. ANDERSON-TULLY
CO., 252 F. 681(C.C.A.); COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 270 F.
110(C.C.A.). 

FN34  MISSOURI APPARENTLY URGES THAT EVEN IF THE LAND FORMED AS AN
ISLAND ON THE KANSAS SIDE, THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE MAIN CHANNEL
SHIFTED FROM THE EASTERN TO THE WESTERN CHANNEL AND THE FORMER
GRADUALLY FILLED WITH ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS THUS CONNECTING THE ISLAND TO
THE MISSOURI SHORE, ENTITLES IT TO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE DISPUTED
LANDS. 
..END :












U.S. V. MARSHALL TRANSPORT CO., 322 U.S. 31 


NO. 589.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 1, 1944.  - 52 F.SUPP. 
1010, REVERSED. 


ON AN APPLICATION TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF TWO
CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR PERMISSION FOR ONE TO PURCHASE THE
PROPERTY AND OPERATING RIGHTS OF THE OTHER, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
THE PROPOSED VENDEE WAS CONTROLLED THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP BY A NON
CARRIER.  HELD THAT BY THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION THE NON-CARRIER WOULD
"ACQUIRE CONTROL OF ANOTHER CARRIER THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF ITS STOCK OR
OTHERWISE," WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 5(2)(A) OF PART I OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940;
THAT SEC. 5(2)(B) REQUIRED THAT APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR
APPROVAL BE MADE BY THE NON-CARRIER; AND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN
APPLICATION FROM THE NON-CARRIER THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY
TO APPROVE THE TRANSACTION.  PP. 37, 41. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. MARSHALL TRANSPORT CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MARYLAND. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 39 M.C.C. 271. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON AN APPLICATION TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF TWO
CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE, APPELLEE REFINERS TRANSPORT TERMINAL
CORPORATION AND APPELLEE MARSHALL TRANSPORT COMPANY, FOR PERMISSION FOR
REFINERS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND OPERATING RIGHTS OF MARSHALL, THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT REFINERS, THE VENDEE-CARRIER, WAS CONTROLLED
THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP BY A NON-CARRIER, UNION TANK CAR COMPANY, AND
THAT THE PROPOSED PURCHASE WOULD RESULT IN THE ACQUISITION BY UNION OF
CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OF MARSHALL.  CONSTRUING SECS.
5(2)(A) AND (B) OF PART I OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 24 STAT. 379,
AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 905, 49 U.S.C.
SECS. 5(2)(A) AND (B), AS REQUIRING THE APPLICATION TO BE MADE BY
UNION, THE NON-CARRIER CORPORATION CONTROLLING REFINERS, THE COMMISSION
DENIED THE APPLICATION OF THE CARRIERS FOR LACK OF POWER IN THE
COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE (1) WHETHER THE ACQUISITION OF THE
PROPERTY AND FRANCHISES OF ONE CARRIER BY ANOTHER, WHICH IS CONTROLLED
BY A NON-CARRIER, INVOLVES THE ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OF THE FIRST OR
VENDOR-CARRIER BY THE NON-CARRIER FOR WHICH THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL
IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 5(2)(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT; AND IF SO
(2) WHETHER THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY HELD THAT UNDER SEC. 5(2)(B) OF THE
ACT IT COULD NOT CONSIDER THE PROPRIETY OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE
ABSENCE OF AN APPLICATION BY THE NON-CARRIER FOR THE COMMISSION'S
AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE CONTROL. 

APPELLEE REFINERS HOLDS CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO OPERATE AS A
COMMON CARRIER, BY MOTOR VEHICLE, OF GASOLINE AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN
PENNSYLVANIA AND EIGHT OF THE CENTRAL STATES.  REFINERS, AS THE
COMMISSION FOUND, IS CONTROLLED THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF 82.6% OF ITS
OUTSTANDING COMMON STOCK BY UNION TANK CAR COMPANY, A NON-CARRIER
CORPORATION.  MARSHALL, A CORPORATION, HOLDS A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY UNDER THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, SEC. 206 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 306, AUTHORIZING CARRIAGE, AS A
COMMON CARRIER, OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, IN BULK IN TANK TRUCKS, OVER
IRREGULAR ROUTES IN MARYLAND, DELAWARE, PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, AND
WASHINGTON, D.C. BY THEIR JOINT APPLICATION REFINERS AND MARSHALL
SOUGHT AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 5(2)(A) FOR REFINERS TO
ACQUIRE BY PURCHASE THE OPERATING PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF MARSHALL. 

AFTER A HEARING ON THE APPLICATION, IN WHICH NINE MOTOR CARRIERS, CO
APPELLANTS HERE, APPEARED AS PROTESTANTS, AND THE ANTITRUST DIVISION OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INTERVENED, DIVISION 4 OF THE COMMISSION
ISSUED ITS REPORT FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED PURCHASE WAS WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF SEC. 5(2)(A) AND (B) AND WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  IT OVERRULED CONTENTIONS OF THE PROTESTANTS THAT THE
PROPOSED PURCHASE WOULD RESULT IN THE ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OF
MARSHALL BY UNION, THE NON-CARRIER, THROUGH ITS CONTROL OF REFINERS,
THE PURCHASER, SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT UNION JOIN IN THE APPLICATION.  39
M.C.C. 93.  ON PETITION FOR REHEARING THE COMMISSION REVERSED THE
HOLDING OF DIVISION 4.  IT CONCLUDED THAT AS UNION, THE NON-CARRIER,
ALREADY CONTROLLED ONE CARRIER, REFINERS, THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY
AND BUSINESS OF MARSHALL BY REFINERS WOULD RESULT IN THEIR CONTROL BY
UNION, AND THAT UNDER SECS. 5(2)(A) AND (B) AND RELATED SECTIONS THIS
COULD NOT BE DONE WITHOUT AN APPLICATION BY UNION FOR THE COMMISSION'S
AUTHORITY TO DO SO.  39 M.C.C. 271. 

UNION HAVING FAILED TO APPLY FOR THAT AUTHORITY WITHIN THE TWENTY
DAYS ALLOWED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, THE COMMISSION
DISMISSED THE PENDING APPLICATION OF REFINERS AND MARSHALL.  UPON THE
SUIT OF APPELLEES THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND, THREE JUDGES
SITTING, SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, CIRCUIT JUDGE SOPER
DISSENTING, 52 F.SUPP.  1010, AND THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER
28 U.S.C. SECS. 47(A), 345. 

AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMISSION  ...  FOR TWO OR MORE CARRIERS TO
CONSOLIDATE OR MERGE THEIR PROPERTIES OR FRANCHISES ...  INTO ONE
CORPORATION FOR THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATION OF THE
PROPERTIES THERETOFORE IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP; OR FOR ANY CARRIER  ...
TO PURCHASE  ...  THE PROPERTIES  ... OF ANOTHER; ...  OR FOR A PERSON
WHICH IS NOT A CARRIER AND WHICH HAS CONTROL OF ONE OR MORE CARRIERS TO
ACQUIRE CONTROL OF ANOTHER CARRIER THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF ITS STOCK OR
OTHERWISE." 

UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH (A), THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS OR PERSON SEEKING
AUTHORITY THEREFOR SHALL PRESENT AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION.  ...
"  AND SEC. 5(3) PROVIDES THAT "WHENEVER A PERSON WHICH IS NOT A
CARRIER IS AUTHORIZED, BY AN ORDER ENTERED UNDER PARAGRAPH (2), TO
ACQUIRE CONTROL OF ANY CARRIER OR OF TWO OR MORE CARRIERS, SUCH PERSON
THEREAFTER SHALL, TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY THE COMMISSION IN SUCH
ORDER, BE CONSIDERED AS A CARRIER SUBJECT TO" SPECIFIED PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT, RELATING MAINLY TO THE KEEPING OF ACCOUNTS, THE MAKING OF
REPORTS, ACCESS TO RECORDS, THE ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES AND THE
ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES. 

PARAGRAPH (2), TO ENTER INTO ANY TRANSACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
SUBPARAGRAPH (A) THEREOF, OR TO ACCOMPLISH OR EFFECTUATE, OR TO
PARTICIPATE IN ACCOMPLISHING OR EFFECTUATING, THE CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT
IN A COMMON INTEREST OF ANY TWO OR MORE CARRIERS, HOWEVER SUCH RESULT
IS ATTAINED, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY USE OF  ...  A HOLDING
OR INVESTMENT COMPANY OR COMPANIES, A VOTING TRUST OR TRUSTS, OR IN ANY
OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER.  ...  AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH AND PARAGRAPH
(5), THE WORDS 'CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT' SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE
THE POWER TO EXERCISE CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT." 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER, UNDER THE NON-CARRIER CONTROL CLAUSE OF SEC.
5(2)(A), UNION, THE NON-CARRIER HERE, IS REQUIRED TO FILE AN
APPLICATION WITH THE COMMISSION, THE ISSUE TURNS ON THE QUESTIONS
WHETHER, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, UNION IS BY THE PROPOSED
TRANSACTION ATTEMPTING TO "ACQUIRE CONTROL" OF MARSHALL AND, IF SO,
WHETHER UNION IS WITHIN THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 5(2)(B) THAT THE PERSON
SEEKING THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO ACQUIRE SUCH CONTROL SHALL
PRESENT HIS APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION.  IN ANSWERING THESE
QUESTIONS THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THAT THE SEVERAL INSTANCES
SPECIFIED BY SEC. 5(2)(A), IN WHICH THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO
PERMIT ACQUISITION OF CARRIER CONTROL, ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT OF
EACH OTHER SO THAT, THE COMMISSION HAVING FULL AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE
REFINERS TO PURCHASE MARSHALL UNDER THE MERGER AND PURCHASE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 5(2)(A), ITS AUTHORITY IN THAT RESPECT IS NOT LIMITED OR
SUPERSEDED BY THE NON-CARRIER CONTROL PROVISION APPEARING LATER IN THE
SUBPARAGRAPH AND THAT PROVISION IS THEREFORE INAPPLICABLE. 

IN ANY CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THESE PROVISIONS ARE
PERMISSIVE ONLY, GIVING THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO ACT WITH RESPECT TO
ANY ONE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY ANY OTHER.  SINCE
REFINERS' AND MARSHALL'S APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF
REFINERS' PURCHASE OF MARSHALL'S PROPERTY AND OPERATING RIGHTS ARE
WITHIN THE PERMISSIVE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THE PURCHASE
PROVISION OF SEC. 5(2)(A), THE COURT THOUGHT THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY
FOR UNION TO COMPLY WITH THE NON-CARRIER PROVISION AND WITH THE
REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 5(2)(B) BY JOINING IN THE APPLICATION EVEN THOUGH
THE NON-CARRIER PROVISION WOULD OTHERWISE BE APPLICABLE TO THE
TRANSACTION. 

BUT THIS OVERLOOKS THE FACT, WHICH THE COMMISSION THOUGHT
CONTROLLING, THAT THE PRESENT TRANSACTION MAY FALL WITHIN BOTH THE
PURCHASE PROVISION AND THE NON-CARRIER CONTROL PROVISION OF THE STATUTE
SINCE IT INVOLVES NOT ONLY THE PURCHASE OF MARSHALL BY REFINERS BUT
ALSO THE ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OF MARSHALL BY UNION, THROUGH ITS
CONTROL OF REFINERS.  THE QUESTION THEN IS NOT WHETHER THE NON-CARRIER
CONTROL PROVISION LIMITS OR SUPERSEDES THE PURCHASE PROVISION BUT
WHETHER, AS THE COMMISSION THOUGHT, BOTH APPLY, AND IF SO THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THEY RESTRICT THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE
ACQUISITION OF CONTROL BY A NON-CARRIER WHICH HAS NOT FILED AN
APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(2)(B). 

AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT SUCH
PARTS OF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION IN THIS CASE AS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE NON-CARRIER CONTROL PROVISION CAN ESCAPE THAT
REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE TRANSACTION ALSO INVOLVES A PURCHASE WHICH
FALLS WITHIN AND SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PURCHASE PROVISION OF
THE STATUTE.  SECTION 5(4) PROHIBITS EACH OF THE TRANSACTIONS
ENUMERATED IN SEC. 5(2)(A) UNLESS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.  AND IT
IS PLAIN THAT IF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION INVOLVES UNION'S NON-CARRIER
CONTROL OF MARSHALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 5(2)(A) APPROPRIATE
APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR ITS APPROVAL MUST BE MADE IN
CONFORMITY TO SEC. 5(2)(B).  HENCE OUR INQUIRY MUST BE DIRECTED TO THE
NATURE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE NON-CARRIER CONTROL PROVISION OF THE
STATUTE AND TO THE QUESTION WHETHER IF APPLICABLE IT IS SATISFIED BY
APPELLEES' APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION IN WHICH UNION DID NOT JOIN. 

IT IS NOT DOUBTED THAT IF UNION, HAVING CONTROL OF REFINERS, SOUGHT
TO ACQUIRE STOCK CONTROL OF MARSHALL, UNION WOULD BE REQUIRED BY SEC.
5(2)(B) TO APPLY FOR THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO DO SO.  BUT IT IS
SAID THAT HAVING CONTROL OF REFINERS, UNION MAY, BY PROCURING REFINERS'
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURCHASE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE ALONE, EXTEND
ITS CONTROL INDEFINITELY TO OTHER CARRIERS MERELY BY DIRECTING THE
PURCHASE OF THEIR PROPERTY AND BUSINESS BY REFINERS, WITHOUT SUBJECTING
ITSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 5(3),
SO LONG AS UNION DOES NOT ACT DIRECTLY AS THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY
FN1  OR OF A CONTROLLING STOCK INTEREST IN SUCH OTHER CARRIERS. 

WE THINK THAT NEITHER THE LANGUAGE NOR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
STATUTE ADMITS OF SO NARROW A CONSTRUCTION.  SECTION SEC. 5(4) MAKES IT
UNLAWFUL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION AS PROVIDED BY SEC.
5(2)(A), FOR A PERSON WHICH IS NOT A CARRIER AND WHICH HAS CONTROL OF
ONE OR MORE CARRIERS TO ACQUIRE CONTROL OF ANOTHER CARRIER THROUGH
OWNERSHIP OF ITS STOCK OR OTHERWISE.  NOT ONLY IS THIS LANGUAGE BROAD
ENOUGH IN TERMS TO EMBRACE THE ACQUISITION OF CONTROL BY A NON-CARRIER
THROUGH THE PURCHASE, BY A CONTROLLED CARRIER, OF THE PROPERTY AND
BUSINESS OF ANOTHER CARRIER, BUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES THAT
SUCH WAS ITS PURPOSE. 

CONGRESS, BY SEC. 407 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT.
480, AMENDED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT SO AS TO PROVIDE IN SEC. 5(2)
THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE AUTHORITY TO PERMIT A RAIL CARRIER OR
CARRIERS TO ACQUIRE CONTROL OF ANOTHER BY LEASE OR PURCHASE OF STOCK;
BY SEC. 5(8) THE CARRIERS AFFECTED WERE RELIEVED FROM THE OPERATION OF
THE ANTITRUST LAWS, AND BY SEC. 5(6) THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED UPON
SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO APPROVE THE ACTUAL CONSOLIDATION OF RAIL
CARRIERS.  BY THE 1933 AMENDMENT OF SEC. 5(2), 48 STAT. 217, THE
COMMISSION WAS GIVEN FURTHER AUTHORITY TO PERMIT UNIFIED CONTROL OF TWO
SEPARATE CARRIERS "THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF THEIR STOCK" AND IN 1940, SEC.
5(2)(A) WAS AMENDED TO READ AS AT PRESENT BY THE ADDITION OF THE WORDS
"OR OTHERWISE" TO THE PHRASE LAST QUOTED, AND THE SECTION WAS MADE
APPLICABLE TO MOTOR CARRIERS, 54 STAT. 905.  SECTION 1(3)(B) OF THE ACT
AS AMENDED IN 1940 DECLARES THAT "CONTROL" "SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
INCLUDE ACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL CONTROL, WHETHER MAINTAINED OR
EXERCISED THROUGH OR BY REASON OF THE METHOD OF OR CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING ORGANIZATION OR OPERATION, THROUGH OR BY COMMON DIRECTORS,
OFFICERS, OR STOCKHOLDERS, A VOTING TRUST OR TRUSTS, A HOLDING OR
INVESTMENT COMPANY OR COMPANIES, OR THROUGH OR BY ANY OTHER DIRECT OR
INDIRECT MEANS; AND TO INCLUDE THE POWER TO EXERCISE CONTROL." 

THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940,
H.R. REP. NO. 2832, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 63, POINTS OUT THAT THIS
DEFINITION OF "CONTROL" WAS ADDED IN ORDER TO MAKE APPLICABLE TO
SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF THE ACT, INCLUDING SEC. 5, THE BENEFIT OF THE
INTERPRETATION OF THIS COURT IN ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 145-6, OF THE SIMILAR DEFINITION OF "CONTROL" IN
SEC. 2 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1065, 47 U.S.C. SEC.
152(B).  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT HAD EMPHASIZED THE BREADTH OF THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE AS EMBRACING EVERY TYPE OF CONTROL IN FACT.  IT HAD
DECLARED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF CONTROL MUST BE DETERMINED BY A REGARD
FOR THE "ACTUALITIES" OF INTERCORPORATE RELATIONSHIPS AND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATIONS OF FACT, IF WARRANTED BY THE RECORD, WERE
CONCLUSIVE.    HERE THE STATUTE HAS DECLARED THAT THE NON-CARRIER
CONTROL TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION IS CONTROL THROUGH STOCK
OWNERSHIP "OR OTHERWISE."  SEC. 5(2)(A).  IT HAS IN THE BROADEST TERMS
PROHIBITED THE EFFECTUATING OF "CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT  ...  , HOWEVER
SUCH RESULT IS ATTAINED, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY USE OF
COMMON DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, OR STOCKHOLDERS, A HOLDING OR INVESTMENT
COMPANY  ...  , OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER."  SEC. 5(4). 
"CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT" IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE "THE POWER TO EXERCISE
CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT."  SEC. 5(4).  THE CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT WHOSE
ACQUISITION IS PROHIBITED UNLESS THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION IS
SECURED IS THAT WHICH IS OBTAINED "IN ANY  ...  MANNER WHATSOEVER"
"HOWEVER SUCH RESULT IS ATTAINED, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY," SEC.
5(4).  IT INCLUDES "ACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL CONTROL," SEC. 1(3)(B), AND
"THE POWER TO EXERCISE CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT," SEC. 5(4). 

APPELLEES ARGUE THAT THE COMMISSION, IN FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND FRANCHISES OF MARSHALL WOULD BE AN
ACQUISITION OF "CONTROL" REQUIRING THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL UNDER
SECS. 5(2)(A) AND 5(4), DISREGARDED THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE WHICH
SPEAKS ONLY OF ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OF ANOTHER "CARRIER," DEFINED IN
SEC. 1(3)(A) AS A PERSON, "NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL," AND NOT OF
ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OF ITS PROPERTY.  BUT SUCH A LITERAL
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE IGNORES ITS ESSENTIAL OBJECT.  WHAT SEC.
5(4) READ WITH SEC. 5(2)(A) PROHIBITS, UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE
COMMISSION, IS THE MERGER BY TWO OR MORE CARRIERS OF "THEIR PROPERTIES
OR FRANCHISES  ...  INTO ONE CORPORATION FOR THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT,
AND OPERATION OF THE PROPERTIES THERETOFORE IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP," AND
THE ACQUISITION BY A NON-CARRIER, HAVING CONTROL OF ONE CARRIER, OF
CONTROL OF ANOTHER, OR THE EFFECTUATING IN ANY OTHER MANNER OF "THE
CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT IN A COMMON INTEREST OF ANY TWO OR MORE
CARRIERS." 

THE STATUTE IS THUS CONCERNED, NOT MERELY WITH THE ACQUISITION OF
CONTROL OF ONE CORPORATION BY ANOTHER, BUT WITH THE ACQUISITION OF
CONTROL OF A CORPORATION WHICH IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF A CARRIER,
BECAUSE SUCH CONTROL IS IN EFFECT CONTROL OF ITS CARRIER BUSINESS. 
CONTROL OF THAT BUSINESS, WHICH MAY BE EFFECTED BY STOCK OWNERSHIP, MAY
ALSO BE "OTHERWISE" EFFECTED THROUGH A CONTRACT OF A CONTROLLED CARRIER
TO PURCHASE THE BUSINESS OF THE OTHER CARRIER, IF THE PURCHASE RECEIVES
THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.  THE POWER THUS ACQUIRED OVER THE
VENDOR-CARRIER BY THE CONTRACT OF PURCHASE IS THE POWER "TO EXERCISE
CONTROL OR MANAGEMENT" OVER ITS CARRIER BUSINESS WHICH, UNDER SEC.
5(4), CAN BECOME EFFECTIVE ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION. 
AS THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT IN ITS REPORT, THERE CAN BE NO MORE
DIRECT OR POSITIVE MANNER OF OBTAINING CONTROL THAN BY OUTRIGHT
PURCHASE OF ANOTHER CARRIER'S BUSINESS AND PROPERTY AND THE PURPOSE OF
THE ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED IF OUTRIGHT PURCHASE, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF A
CONTROLLED SUBSIDIARY CARRIER, OF ANOTHER CARRIER'S PROPERTY AND
OPERATING RIGHTS, WERE EXEMPTED, WHILE CONTROL BY PURCHASE OF STOCK OF
THE OTHER CARRIER THROUGH THE SAME SUBSIDIARY REMAINED WITHIN THE ACT. 

THE COMMISSION ALSO EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT, AS THE MOTOR CARRIER
BUSINESS IS NOW ORGANIZED, PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS AND FRANCHISES OF
CARRIERS WOULD BE THE USUAL AND IN MANY CASES THE ONLY FEASIBLE METHOD
OF ACQUIRING CONTROL OF THEM.  IT POINTED OUT THAT MANY OF THE
BUSINESSES ARE OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS OR PARTNERSHIPS, OFTEN POSSESSING
EXTENSIVE OPERATING RIGHTS.  IN THE CASE OF CORPORATIONS THEIR STOCK IS
USUALLY CLOSELY HELD AND THEY ARE WITHOUT OUTSTANDING LONG-TERM DEBT
OBLIGATIONS.  IN ALL THESE CASES A SIMPLE AND USUAL METHOD OF ACQUIRING
CONTROL OF OTHER CARRIERS IS BY THE CASH PURCHASE OF THEIR ASSETS AND
OPERATING RIGHTS AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THEIR LIABILITIES FOLLOWED BY
LIQUIDATION OF THE VENDOR.  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED, "PROCEEDING THUS
THROUGH A CONTROLLED SUBSIDIARY, A NON-CARRIER HOLDING COMPANY, OR
OTHERS, MAY EXPAND AT WILL WITHOUT BECOMING SUBJECT TO OUR JURISDICTION
UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE DIVISION.  WE CANNOT AGREE TO
THAT CONSTRUCTION OF 'CONTROL' AS USED IN THE ACT."  39 M.C.C. AT 275. 
FOR THE REASONS WHICH WE HAVE STATED WE THINK THE COMMISSION'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT IN THIS RESPECT IS CORRECT. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO PROCEED
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPLICATION BY UNION.  BY SEC. 5(4) ANY
TRANSACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUBPARAGRAPH (A) OF PARAGRAPH (2) IS
UNLAWFUL EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THAT PARAGRAPH, WHICH INCLUDES
SUBPARAGRAPH (B).  SECTION 5(2)(A), READ WITH SEC. 5(4), REQUIRES THE
ACQUISITION OF CONTROL TO BE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.  AND
SEC. 5(2)(B) REQUIRES THE "PERSON" SEEKING AUTHORITY FOR A TRANSACTION
COVERED BY SUBPARAGRAPH (A), HERE THE NON-CARRIER CONTROL OF MARSHALL,
TO PRESENT AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION.  THE COMMISSION MAY
APPROVE THE APPLICATION "SUBJECT TO SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SUCH
MODIFICATIONS AS IT SHALL FIND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE."  THE PURPOSE
OF THESE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 5(2)(B) AND 5(4) IS APPARENT WHEN THEY ARE
READ WITH SEC. 5(3), WHICH AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION, BY ITS ORDER
PERMITTING NON-CARRIER CONTROL, TO REQUIRE SUCH NON-CARRIER TO BE
CONSIDERED A CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE ACT TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE
ORDER MADE IN CONFORMITY TO SEC. 5(3). 

THE CONTROL OVER THE NON-CARRIER CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 5(3) CAN BE
ACQUIRED ONLY IF THE NON-CARRIER SUBJECTS ITSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COMMISSION BY FILING ITS APPLICATION WITH THE COMMISSION FOR ITS
APPROVAL OF SUCH NON-CARRIER CONTROL AS IS PROVIDED BY SEC. 5(2)(B). 
THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 5(3) TO SUBJECT THE NON-CARRIER, THUS ACQUIRING
CONTROL, TO SPECIFIED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED IF THE
NON-CARRIER WERE NOT TO BECOME SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THAT
IS AVOIDED BY MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO ACQUIRE NON-CARRIER CONTROL SAVE ON
THE NON-CARRIER'S APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION IN CONFORMITY TO SEC.
5(2)(B).  AS APPELLEES' APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION INVOLVED THE
ACQUISITION OF NON-CARRIER CONTROL OF MARSHALL BY UNION, UNION WAS A
PERSON SEEKING AUTHORITY FOR SUCH CONTROL AND AS SUCH WAS REQUIRED BY
SEC. 5(2)(B) TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION.  TO APPROVE THE
TRANSACTION INVOLVING SUCH NON-CARRIER CONTROL WITHOUT THE APPLICATION
OF THE NON-CARRIER WOULD BE TO AUTHORIZE UNION'S NON-CARRIER CONTROL OF
MARSHALL WITHOUT SUBJECTING THE FORMER TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION
AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 5(3). 

THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE SUCH CONTROL UNLESS UNION, THE NON-CARRIER, FILED ITS
APPLICATION WITH THE COMMISSION, AND SINCE UNION FAILED TO DO SO WITHIN
THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, THE COMMISSION PROPERLY
DISMISSED THE PENDING APPLICATION IN WHICH UNION HAD FAILED TO JOIN. 
IT WAS THEREFORE ERROR FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SUCH AN ACQUISITION OF OPERATING PROPERTY, WHETHER OR NOT WITHIN
SEC. 5(2)(A), WOULD RENDER THE ACQUIRING CORPORATION AN OPERATING
CARRIER WITHIN SECS. 203(A)(14)-(16) SUBJECT AS SUCH TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER PART II.  SIMILARLY THE TRANSFER
OF THE CARRIER'S OPERATING FRANCHISES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 212(B). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 
..END :























ALLEN CO. V. CASH REGISTER CO., 322 U.S. 137 


NO. 592.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 1, 1944.  - APPEAL
DISMISSED. 


PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AN EARLIER DECREE OF INJUNCTION IN A
SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST A DEFENDANT UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS,
THE DEFENDANT PETITIONED FOR AND WAS GRANTED LEAVE ON CERTAIN
CONDITIONS TO ACQUIRE STOCK OF A COMPETITOR.  THE PROCEEDING WAS
ADVERSARY THROUGHOUT AND NEITHER PARTY APPEALED.  THE APPELLANT HERE
HAD SOUGHT BUT WAS DENIED LEAVE TO INTERVENE.  HELD: 

1.  UNDER RULE 24(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, APPELLANT WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT.  P. 140. 

(A)  NO STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERRED AN "UNCONDITIONAL
RIGHT" TO INTERVENE.  CLAYTON ACT, SEC. 16; R.C.P. 24(A)(1).  P. 140. 

(B)  THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT BE BOUND BY ANY JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION. 
R.C.P. 24(A)(2).  P. 141. 

(C)  APPELLANT HAD NO INTEREST IN "A DISTRIBUTION OR OTHER
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COURT."  R.C.P.
24(A)(3).  P. 141. 

(D)  MISSOURI-KANSAS PIPE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 502,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 141. 

2.  UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE APPELLANT LEAVE TO
INTERVENE.  R.C.P. 24(B)(2).  P. 142. 

WHERE EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD LEADING TO THE COURT'S FINAL
ORDER DISCLOSES THAT THE ISSUES WERE THOROUGHLY EXPLORED AND THAT THE
PARTIES WERE ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED, THE ACTION OF THE COURT DENYING
INTERVENTION SHOULD NOT BE REVIEWED. 

ALLEN CALCULATORS, INC. V. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

APPEAL UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
DENYING LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN AN ANTITRUST PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY A DECREE, ENTERED FEBRUARY 1, 1916, IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES
AGAINST NATIONAL CASH REGISTER COMPANY, THE LATTER WAS RESTRAINED,
PURSUANT TO THE ANTITRUST STATUTES, FROM ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL
OF THE BUSINESS OR PLANT OF A COMPETITOR MANUFACTURING OR SELLING CASH
REGISTERS OR OTHER REGISTERING DEVICES.  THE INJUNCTION, HOWEVER,
PROVIDED THAT, IN CASE NATIONAL SHOULD DESIRE SUCH ACQUISITION, "A
PETITION MAY BE PRESENTED TO THIS COURT STATING THE REASONS THEREFOR,
AND IF THE COURT UPON INVESTIGATION INTO ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND AFTER NOTICE OF NOT LESS THAN SIXTY DAYS TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SHALL DETERMINE THAT SUCH BUSINESS OR PATENTS OR PLANT SO
DESIRED TO BE ACQUIRED WILL SUPPLEMENT THE PLANT, PATENTS, MACHINES, OR
FACILITIES OF THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION AND THAT THE ACQUISITION
THEREOF IS DESIRED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN
COMPETITION, THEN JURISDICTION IS RESERVED TO PASS AN ORDER PERMITTING
THE SAME UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MAY BE RIGHT." 

NATIONAL, DESIRING TO ACQUIRE STOCK OF ALLEN-WALES ADDING MACHINE
CORPORATION, PETITIONED FOR LEAVE AND GAVE THE REQUIRED NOTICE TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THE GOVERNMENT FILED AN ANSWER OPPOSING THE GRANT. 
THE MATTER WAS SET FOR HEARING IN THE DISTRICT COURT NOVEMBER 15,
1943.  ON THAT DAY ALLEN CALCULATORS, INC., THE APPELLANT, PRESENTED A
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE.  THE UNITED STATES CONSENTED TO THE
PROPOSED INTERVENTION; NATIONAL OPPOSED IT.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE GRANTED
INTERVENTION CONDITIONALLY AND ALLOWED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT TO
MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT AND TO TAKE SOME PART IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, BUT PRIOR TO THE CLOSING OF THE HEARING, HE RULED THAT
THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE.  BEFORE MAKING HIS
RULING, HE WAS ADVISED, IN ANSWER TO HIS INQUIRY, THAT THE PRESIDENT OF
THE APPELLANT WOULD BE CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE GOVERNMENT.  NOVEMBER
16 HE ENTERED A FORMAL ORDER DENYING INTERVENTION. 

THE ISSUES, WHICH WERE TRIED UPON EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY NATIONAL AND
BY THE GOVERNMENT, WERE WHETHER THE PURPORTED ACQUISITION WOULD
ELIMINATE COMPETITION BETWEEN CERTAIN PRODUCTS OF NATIONAL AND ALLEN
WALES, WOULD ELIMINATE POTENTIAL COMPETITION BETWEEN OTHER PRODUCTS OF
THE TWO COMPANIES, AND WOULD, IN OTHER RESPECTS, BE CONTRARY TO THE
PURPOSE OF THE ORIGINAL DECREE.  THE PROCEEDING WAS ADVERSARY
THROUGHOUT. 

DECEMBER 4 THE APPELLANT FILED ITS PETITION FOR APPEAL FROM THE ORDER
DENYING INTERVENTION.  DECEMBER 7 THE DISTRICT JUDGE ENTERED FINDINGS
OF FACT AND AN ORDER GRANTING NATIONAL'S PETITION UPON CERTAIN
CONDITIONS WHICH HE DEEMED NECESSARY TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ORIGINAL DECREE IN THE SUIT.  NEITHER PARTY HAS APPEALED FROM THAT
ORDER.  DECEMBER 10 THE JUDGE ALLOWED THIS APPEAL WITH A PROVISO THAT
ALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT OPERATE AS A STAY OF THE ORDER GRANTING NATIONAL'S
PETITION.  THE APPEAL IS TO THIS COURT UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT.  FN1 

RULE 24 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FN2  IS: 

"(A)  INTERVENTION OF RIGHT.  - UPON TIMELY APPLICATION ANYONE SHALL
BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN AN ACTION:  (1) WHEN A STATUTE OF THE
UNITED STATES CONFERS AN UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE; OR (2) WHEN
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT'S INTEREST BY EXISTING PARTIES IS
OR MAY BE INADEQUATE AND THE APPLICANT IS OR MAY BE BOUND BY A JUDGMENT
IN THE ACTION; OR (3) WHEN THE APPLICANT IS SO SITUATED AS TO BE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A DISTRIBUTION OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY
IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COURT OR OF AN OFFICER THEREOF. 

"(B)  PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION.  - UPON TIMELY APPLICATION ANYONE MAY
BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN AN ACTION:  (1) WHEN A STATUTE OF THE
UNITED STATES CONFERS A CONDITIONAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE; OR (2) WHEN AN
APPLICANT'S CLAIM OR DEFENSE AND THE MAIN ACTION HAVE A QUESTION OF LAW
OR FACT IN COMMON.  IN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION THE COURT SHALL
CONSIDER WHETHER THE INTERVENTION WILL UNDULY DELAY OR PREJUDICE THE
ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ORIGINAL PARTIES." 

THE APPELLANT INSISTS THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT,
BUT WE THINK THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (A)
THE CONTENTION MUST BE REJECTED.  NO STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES
CONFERS AN UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT OF INTERVENTION, AS REQUIRED BY (1). 
THE APPELLANT RELIES ON SEC. 16 OF THE CLAYTON ACT,  FN3  BUT THAT
THREATENED DAMAGE CONSEQUENT UPON THE VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS.  IT GRANTS NO PRIVILEGE, MUCH LESS AN UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT, TO
INTERVENE IN SUITS UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES. 
THE APPLICATION DID NOT FALL UNDER (2) FOR THE APPELLANT CLEARLY WOULD
NOT BE BOUND BY ANY JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION.  NOR HAD IT ANY INTEREST IN
THE DISTRIBUTION OR DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COURT
SO AS TO COME UNDER (3). 

THE APPELLANT RELIES UPON MISSOURI-KANSAS PIPE LINE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 312 U.S. 502.  THAT CASE, HOWEVER, IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED. 
THERE THE APPLICANT ON WHOSE BEHALF INTERVENTION WAS ASKED WAS NAMED IN
THE ORIGINAL DECREE AS ONE WHO SHOULD BE HEARD IN RESPECT OF ITS
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE EVENT CERTAIN ACTION WAS TAKEN.  SUCH ACTION WAS
TAKEN AND, DESPITE THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL DECREE, INTERVENTION WAS
DENIED.  CLEARLY, AS TO THE INTERVENOR, THE ACTION WAS FINAL.  WE
ACCORDINGLY ENTERTAINED THE APPEAL. 

THE APPELLANT HAD STANDING TO INVOKE THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT
JUDGE TO PERMIT IT TO INTERVENE UNDER (B)(2) ON THE GROUND THAT ITS
"CLAIM OR DEFENSE AND THE MAIN ACTION HAVE A QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT IN
COMMON."  THE RULE PROVIDES THAT, IN EXERCISING DISCRETION AS TO
INTERVENTION OF THIS CHARACTER, THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER WHETHER
INTERVENTION WILL UNDULY DELAY OR PREJUDICE THE ADJUDICATION OF THE
RIGHTS OF THE ORIGINAL PARTIES.  IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT, WHERE A
SUIT IS OF LARGE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OFTEN
DESIRE TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS TO THE COURT IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OR
THE DEFENSE.  TO PERMIT A MULTITUDE OF SUCH INTERVENTIONS MAY RESULT IN
ACCUMULATING PROOFS AND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT ASSISTING THE COURT.  THE
RECORD HERE DISCLOSES THAT THE PARTIES PRODUCED ALL DATA THEY AND THE
COURT THOUGHT WAS AVAILABLE UPON THE ISSUES IN THE CASE.  MOREOVER, THE
COURT INVITED THE GOVERNMENT TO CALL THE APPELLANT'S PRESIDENT TO
TESTIFY AS TO HIS KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE ISSUES. 

THE CHALLENGED ORDER IS BUT AN ORDER IN THE CAUSE AND NOT THE FINAL
JUDGMENT.  THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN A MATTER OF THIS SORT IS NOT
REVIEWABLE BY AN APPELLATE COURT UNLESS CLEAR ABUSE IS SHOWN; AND IT IS
NOT ORDINARILY POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION EXCEPT IN THE LIGHT
OF THE WHOLE RECORD.  IF, IN THIS CASE, NATIONAL'S PETITION HAD
ULTIMATELY BEEN DISMISSED, A REVIEW OF THE COURT'S DENIAL OF
APPELLANT'S INTERVENTION WOULD HAVE BEEN AN IDLE GESTURE.  WHERE, AS
HERE, EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD LEADING TO THE COURT'S FINAL
ORDER DISCLOSES THAT THE ISSUES WERE THOROUGHLY EXPLORED AND THAT THE
PARTIES WERE ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED, THE ACTION OF THE COURT DENYING
INTERVENTION SHOULD NOT BE REVIEWED.  IT WAS, INTER ALIA, TO PREVENT
THE DELAY OF UNWARRANTED APPEALS BY DISAPPOINTED APPLICANTS TO
INTERVENE, WHICH WOULD SUSPEND THE ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF SUITS UNDER
THE ANTITRUST ACTS, THAT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DISTRICT COURT DECREES
WAS NOT VESTED IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS BUT SOLELY IN THIS
COURT, AND THAT THE STATUTE LIMITED THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO FINAL
DECREES.  FN4 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ENTERED A FINAL DECREE
ON THE MERITS OF NATIONAL'S PETITION PRIOR TO ALLOWING THE PRESENT
APPEAL; AND, IF WE TREAT THE APPEAL AS TAKEN FROM THAT FINAL DECREE, AS
WE THINK IS REQUIRED BY THE EXPEDITING ACT,  FN5  AND AS ATTACKING THAT
DECREE BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN WRONGFULLY DENIED INTERVENTION,
WE SHOULD HAVE TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT SINCE IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING INTERVENTION.  FN6 

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

FN1  ACT OF FEB. 11, 1903, C. 544, SEC. 2, 32 STAT. 823, AS AMENDED
MARCH 3, 1911, C. 231, SEC. 291, 36 STAT. 1167, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29.  CF.
ACT OF FEB. 13, 1925, C. 229, SEC. 1, 43 STAT. 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
345. 

FN2  28 U.S.C.A., FOLLOWING SEC. 723C. 

FN3  15 U.S.C. SEC. 26. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA CANNERIES, 279 U.S. 553. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA CANNERIES, SUPRA. 

FN6  ID., CASES CITED P. 556. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
DISSENT. 
..END :




ASHCRAFT V. TENNESSEE, 322 U.S. 143 


NO. 391.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 1, 1944.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF A CONVICTION OF A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
IN A STATE COURT, IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT
EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S CLAIM THAT HIS CONVICTION, ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE IN EVIDENCE OF CONFESSIONS COERCED
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, WAS IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 147. 

2.  AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION BY THIS COURT OF THE DEFENDANT'S CLAIM
IN SUCH A CASE CAN NOT BE FORECLOSED BY THE FINDING OF THE STATE COURT,
OR THE VERDICT OF A JURY, OR BOTH.  P. 148. 

3.  THE TREATMENT OF THE ALLEGED CONFESSIONS BY THE TWO STATE COURTS,
AND THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY IN RESPECT OF THE
ALLEGED CONFESSIONS, MAKE MORE IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE AN INDEPENDENT
EXAMINATION BY THIS COURT OF THE DEFENDANTS' CLAIMS.  P. 147. 

4.  UPON UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, THIS COURT CONCLUDES THAT IF THE
DEFENDANT ASHCRAFT MADE A CONFESSION IT WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BUT
COMPELLED, AND THAT HIS CONVICTION, RESTING UPON THE ALLEGED
CONFESSION, MUST BE SET ASIDE AS IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 153. 

THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE - INTER ALIA, THAT ASHCRAFT HAD BEEN HELD
INCOMMUNICADO FOR THIRTY-SIX HOURS, DURING WHICH TIME WITHOUT SLEEP OR
REST, HE HAD BEEN INTERROGATED BY RELAYS OF OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATORS
SHOWED A SITUATION INHERENTLY COERCIVE. 

5.  IN MAKING SUCH DISPOSITION OF CASES AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE, THIS
COURT MUST CONSIDER ANY CHANGE, IN FACT OR IN LAW, WHICH HAS SUPERVENED
SINCE THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.  P. 156. 

6.  THE CONVICTION OF A CODEFENDANT HAVING BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE
STATE COURT UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ASHCRAFT'S CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY
ADMITTED AND HIS CONVICTION VALID, THE JUDGMENT AS TO THE CODEFENDANT
IS VACATED AND THE CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  P. 155. 

ASHCRAFT ET AL. V. TENNESSEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 728, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS OF
TWO DEFENDANTS TRIED JOINTLY IN THE STATE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK ON THE MORNING OF THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1941, MRS.
ZELMA IDA ASHCRAFT GOT IN HER AUTOMOBILE AT HER HOME IN MEMPHIS,
TENNESSEE, AND SET OUT ON A TRIP TO VISIT HER MOTHER'S HOME IN
KENTUCKY.  LATE IN THE AFTERNOON OF THE SAME DAY, HER CAR WAS OBSERVED
A FEW MILES OUT OF MEMPHIS, STANDING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF A ROAD WHICH
SHE WOULD LIKELY HAVE TAKEN ON HER JOURNEY.  JUST OFF THE ROAD, IN A
SLOUGH, HER LIFELESS BODY WAS FOUND.  ON HER HEAD WERE CUT PLACES
INFLICTED BY BLOWS SUFFICIENT TO HAVE CAUSED HER DEATH.  PETITIONER
WARE, AGE 20, A NEGRO, WAS INDICTED IN A STATE COURT AND FOUND GUILTY
OF HER MURDER.  PETITIONER ASHCRAFT, AGE 45, A WHITE MAN, HUSBAND OF
THE DECEASED, CHARGED WITH HAVING HIRED WARE TO COMMIT THE MURDER, WAS
TRIED JOINTLY WITH WARE AND CONVICTED AS AN ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT. 
BOTH WERE SENTENCED TO NINETY-NINE YEARS IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS. 

IN APPLYING TO US FOR CERTIORARI, WARE AND ASHCRAFT URGED THAT
ALLEGED CONFESSIONS WERE USED AT THEIR TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN EXTORTED
FROM THEM BY STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT "SOLELY AND ALONE" ON THE BASIS OF THESE
CONFESSIONS THEY HAD BEEN CONVICTED.  THEIR CONTENTIONS RAISED A
FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH THE RECORD SHOWED TO BE SUBSTANTIAL AND WE
BROUGHT BOTH CASES HERE FOR REVIEW.  UPON ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THIS
COURT TENNESSEE'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES CONCEDED THAT THE CONVICTIONS
COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED WITHOUT THE CONFESSIONS BUT DEFENDED THEIR USE
UPON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE NOT COMPELLED BUT WERE "FREELY AND
VOLUNTARILY MADE." 

THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT NEITHER THE TRIAL COURT NOR THE TENNESSEE
SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY HELD AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT PETITIONERS'
CONFESSIONS WERE "FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE."  THE TRIAL COURT HEARD
EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OUT OF THE JURY'S HEARING, BUT DID NOT ITSELF
DETERMINE FROM THAT EVIDENCE THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE VOLUNTARY. 
INSTEAD IT OVERRULED ASHCRAFT'S OBJECTION TO THE USE OF HIS ALLEGED
CONFESSION WITH THE STATEMENT THAT, "THIS COURT IS NOT ABLE TO HOLD, AS
A MATTER OF LAW, THAT REASONABLE MINDS MIGHT NOT DIFFER ON THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT ALLEGED CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARILY OBTAINED." 
AND IT LIKEWISE OVERRULED WARE'S OBJECTION TO USE OF HIS ALLEGED
CONFESSION, STATING THAT "THE REASONABLE MINDS OF TWELVE MEN MIGHT  ...
DIFFER AS TO  ...  WHETHER WARE'S CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY, AND  ...
THEREFORE, THAT IS A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE JURY TO PASS ON."  FN1
NOR DID THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVIEW THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO THE
CONFESSIONS AND AFFIRMATIVELY HOLD THEM VOLUNTARY.  IN SUSTAINING THE
PETITIONERS' CONVICTIONS, ONE JUSTICE DISSENTING, IT WENT NO FURTHER
THAN TO POINT OUT THAT, "THE TRIAL JUDGE ...  HELD  ...  HE COULD NOT
SAY THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE NOT VOLUNTARILY MADE AND, THEREFORE,
PERMITTED THEM TO GO TO THE JURY," AND TO DECLARE THAT IT, LIKEWISE,
WAS "UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE NOT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY
MADE."  FN2 

IF, THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE TWO
CONFESSIONS WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED AT ALL IT WAS BY THE JURY.  AND THE
JURY WAS CHARGED GENERALLY ON THE SUBJECT OF THE TWO CONFESSIONS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"I FURTHER CHARGE YOU THAT IF VERBAL OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS MADE BY
THE DEFENDANTS FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PUNISHMENT OR
HOPE OF REWARD, HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO YOU IN THIS CASE, YOU MAY TAKE THEM
INTO CONSIDERATION WITH ALL OF THE OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE
CASE.  ...  IN STATEMENTS MADE AT THE TIME OF THE ARREST, YOU MAY TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION THE CONDITION OF THE MINDS OF THE PRISONERS OWING TO
THEIR ARREST AND WHETHER THEY WERE INFLUENCED BY MOTIVES OF HOPE OR
FEAR, TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS.  SUCH A STATEMENT IS COMPETENT EVIDENCE
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WHO MAKES IT AND IS NOT COMPETENT EVIDENCE
AGAINST THE OTHER DEFENDANT  ...  YOU CANNOT CONSIDER IT FOR ANY
PURPOSE AGAINST THE OTHER DEFENDANT."  CONCERNING ASHCRAFT'S ALLEGED
CONFESSION THIS GENERAL CHARGE CONSTITUTED THE SOLE INSTRUCTION TO THE
JURY.  FN3  BUT WITH REGARD TO WARE'S ALLEGED CONFESSION THE JURY
FURTHER WAS INSTRUCTED: 

"IT IS HIS (WARE'S) FURTHER THEORY THAT HE WAS INDUCED BY THE FEAR OF
VIOLENCE AT THE HANDS OF A MOB AND BY FEAR OF THE OFFICERS OF THE LAW
TO CONFESS HIS GUILT OF THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST HIM, BUT THAT SUCH
CONFESSION WAS FALSE AND THAT HE HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH, AND
NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME.  IF YOU BELIEVE THE THEORY OF THE
DEFENDANT, WARE,  ...  IT IS YOUR DUTY TO ACQUIT HIM."  HAVING
SUBMITTED THE TWO ALLEGED CONFESSIONS TO THE JURY IN THIS MANNER, THE
TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT: "WHAT THE PROOF MAY SHOW YOU, IF
ANYTHING, THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE SAID AGAINST THEMSELVES, THE LAW
PRESUMES TO BE TRUE, BUT ANYTHING THE DEFENDANTS HAVE SAID IN THEIR OWN
BEHALF, YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO BELIEVE.  ...  " 

THIS TREATMENT OF THE CONFESSIONS BY THE TWO STATE COURTS, THE MANNER
OF THE CONFESSIONS' SUBMISSION TO THE JURY, AND THE EMPHASIS UPON THE
GREAT WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN CONFESSIONS MAKE ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT THE
KIND OF "INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION" OF PETITIONERS' CLAIMS WHICH, IN ANY
EVENT, WE ARE BOUND TO MAKE.  LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 237
238.  OUR DUTY TO MAKE THAT EXAMINATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN "FORECLOSED
BY THE FINDING OF A COURT, OR THE VERDICT OF A JURY, OR BOTH."  ID.  WE
PROCEED THEREFORE TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OUT OF WHICH THE ALLEGED CONFESSIONS CAME. 

FIRST, AS TO ASHCRAFT.  ASHCRAFT WAS BORN ON AN ARKANSAS FARM.  AT
THE AGE OF ELEVEN HE LEFT THE FARM AND BECAME A FARM HAND WORKING FOR
OTHERS.  YEARS LATER HE GRAVITATED INTO CONSTRUCTION WORK, FINALLY
BECOMING A SKILLED DRAGLINE AND STEAM-SHOVEL OPERATOR.  UNCONTRADICTED
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD WAS THAT HE HAD ACQUIRED FOR HIMSELF "AN
EXCELLENT REPUTATION."  IN 1929 HE MARRIED THE DECEASED ZELMA IDA
ASHCRAFT.  CHILDLESS, THEY ACCUMULATED, APPARENTLY THROUGH ASHCRAFT'S
EARNINGS, A VERY MODEST AMOUNT OF JOINTLY HELD PROPERTY INCLUDING BANK
ACCOUNTS AND AN EQUITY IN THE HOME IN WHICH THEY LIVED.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF TENNESSEE FOUND "NOTHING TO SHOW BUT WHAT THE HOME LIFE OF
ASHCRAFT AND THE DECEASED WAS PLEASANT AND HAPPY."  SEVERAL OF MRS.
ASHCRAFT'S FRIENDS WHO WERE GUESTS AT THE ASHCRAFT HOME ON THE NIGHT
BEFORE HER TRAGIC DEATH TESTIFIED THAT BOTH HUSBAND AND WIFE APPEARED
TO BE IN A HAPPY FRAME OF MIND. 

THE OFFICERS FIRST TALKED TO ASHCRAFT ABOUT 6 P.M. ON THE DAY OF HIS
WIFE'S MURDER AS HE WAS RETURNING HOME FROM WORK.  INFORMED BY THEM OF
THE TRAGEDY, HE WAS TAKEN TO AN UNDERTAKING ESTABLISHMENT TO IDENTIFY
HER BODY WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED ONLY BY A DRIVER'S
LICENSE.  FROM THERE HE WAS TAKEN TO THE COUNTY JAIL WHERE HE CONFERRED
WITH THE OFFICERS UNTIL ABOUT 2 A.M.  NO CLUES OF ULTIMATE VALUE CAME
FROM THIS CONFERENCE, THOUGH IT DID RESULT IN THE OFFICERS' HOLDING AND
INTERROGATING THE ASHCRAFTS' MAID AND SEVERAL OF HER FRIENDS.  DURING
THE FOLLOWING WEEK THE OFFICERS MADE EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATIONS IN
ASHCRAFT'S NEIGHBORHOOD AND ELSEWHERE AND FURTHER CONFERRED WITH
ASHCRAFT HIMSELF ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, BUT NONE OF THESE ACTIVITIES
PRODUCED TANGIBLE EVIDENCE POINTING TO THE IDENTITY OF THE MURDERER. 

THEN, EARLY IN THE EVENING OF SATURDAY, JUNE 14, THE OFFICERS CAME TO
ASHCRAFT'S HOME AND "TOOK HIM INTO CUSTODY."  IN THE WORDS OF THE
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT, 

"THEY TOOK HIM TO AN OFFICE OR ROOM ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
FIFTH FLOOR OF THE SHELBY COUNTY JAIL.  THIS OFFICE IS EQUIPPED WITH
ALL SORTS OF CRIME AND DETECTIVE DEVICES SUCH AS A FINGERPRINT OUTFIT,
CAMERAS, HIGH-POWERED LIGHTS, AND SUCH OTHER DEVICES AS MIGHT BE FOUND
IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATING OFFICE.  ...  IT APPEARS THAT THE OFFICERS
PLACED ASHCRAFT AT A TABLE IN THIS ROOM ON THE FIFTH FLOOR OF THE
COUNTY JAIL WITH A LIGHT OVER HIS HEAD AND BEGAN TO QUIZ HIM.  THEY
QUESTIONED HIM IN RELAYS UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONDAY MORNING, JUNE 16,
1941, AROUND NINE-THIRTY OR TEN O'CLOCK.  IT APPEARS THAT ASHCRAFT FROM
SATURDAY EVENING AT SEVEN O'CLOCK UNTIL MONDAY MORNING AT APPROXIMATELY
NINE-THIRTY NEVER LEFT THIS HOMICIDE ROOM ON THE FIFTH FLOOR."  FN4
TESTIMONY OF THE OFFICERS SHOWS THAT THE REASON THEY QUESTIONED
ASHCRAFT "IN RELAYS" WAS THAT THEY BECAME SO TIRED THEY WERE COMPELLED
TO REST.  BUT FROM 7:00 SATURDAY EVENING UNTIL 9:30 MONDAY MORNING
ASHCRAFT HAD NO REST.  ONE OFFICER DID SAY THAT HE GAVE THE SUSPECT A
SINGLE FIVE MINUTES' RESPITE, BUT EXCEPT FOR THIS FIVE MINUTES THE
PROCEDURE CONSISTED OF ONE CONTINUOUS STREAM OF QUESTIONS. 

AS TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FIFTH-FLOOR JAIL ROOM DURING THIS THIRTY
SIX HOUR SECRET EXAMINATION THE TESTIMONY FOLLOWS THE USUAL PATTERN AND
IS IN HOPELESS CONFLICT.  FN5  ASHCRAFT SWEARS THAT THE FIRST THING
SAID TO HIM WHEN HE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY WAS, "WHY IN HELL DID YOU
KILL YOUR WIFE?"; THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE EXAMINATION HE WAS
THREATENED AND ABUSED IN VARIOUS WAYS; AND THAT AS THE HOURS PASSED HIS
EYES BECAME BLINDED BY A POWERFUL ELECTRIC LIGHT, HIS BODY BECAME
WEARY, AND THE STRAIN ON HIS NERVES BECAME UNBEARABLE.  FN6  THE
OFFICERS, ON THE OTHER HAND, SWEAR THAT THROUGHOUT THE QUESTIONING THEY
WERE KIND AND CONSIDERATE.  THEY SAY THAT THEY DID NOT ACCUSE ASHCRAFT
OF THE MURDER UNTIL FOUR HOURS AFTER HE WAS BROUGHT TO THE JAIL
BUILDING, THOUGH THEY FREELY ADMIT THAT FROM THAT TIME ON THEIR BARRAGE
OF QUESTIONS WAS CONSTANTLY DIRECTED AT HIM ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT HE
WAS THE MURDERER.  TOGETHER WITH OTHER PERSONS WHOM THEY BROUGHT IN ON
MONDAY MORNING TO WITNESS THE CULMINATION OF THE THIRTY-SIX HOUR ORDEAL
THE OFFICERS DECLARE THAT AT THAT TIME ASHCRAFT WAS "COOL," "CALM,"
"COLLECTED," "NORMAL"; THAT HIS VISION WAS UNIMPAIRED AND HIS EYES NOT
BLOODSHOT; AND THAT HE SHOWED NO OUTWARD SIGNS OF BEING TIRED OR
SLEEPY. 

AS TO WHETHER ASHCRAFT ACTUALLY CONFESSED, THERE IS A SIMILAR
CONFLICT OF TESTIMONY.  ASHCRAFT MAINTAINS THAT ALTHOUGH THE OFFICERS
INCESSANTLY ATTEMPTED BY VARIOUS TACTICS OF INTIMIDATION TO ENTRAP HIM
INTO A CONFESSION, NOT ONCE DID HE ADMIT KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING OR
PARTICIPATION IN THE CRIME.  AND HE SPECIFICALLY DENIES THE OFFICERS'
STATEMENTS THAT HE ACCUSED WARE OF THE CRIME, INSISTING THAT IN
RESPONSE TO THEIR QUESTIONS HE MERELY GAVE THEM THE NAME OF WARE AS ONE
OF SEVERAL MEN WHO OCCASIONALLY HAD RIDDEN WITH HIM TO WORK.  THE
OFFICERS' VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED, HOWEVER, IS THAT ABOUT 11 P.M. ON
SUNDAY NIGHT, AFTER TWENTY-EIGHT HOURS' CONSTANT QUESTIONING, ASHCRAFT
MADE A STATEMENT THAT WARE HAD OVERPOWERED HIM AT HIS HOME AND ABDUCTED
THE DECEASED, AND WAS PROBABLY THE KILLER.  ABOUT MIDNIGHT THE OFFICERS
FOUND WARE AND TOOK HIM INTO CUSTODY, AND, ACCORDING TO THEIR
TESTIMONY, WARE MADE A SELF-INCRIMINATING STATEMENT AS OF EARLY MONDAY
MORNING, AND AT 5:40 A.M. SIGNED BY MARK A WRITTEN CONFESSION IN WHICH
APPEARED THE STATEMENT THAT ASHCRAFT HAD HIRED HIM TO COMMIT THE
MURDER.  THIS ALLEGED CONFESSION OF WARE WAS READ TO ASHCRAFT ABOUT SIX
O'CLOCK MONDAY MORNING, WHEREUPON ASHCRAFT IS SAID SUBSTANTIALLY TO
HAVE ADMITTED ITS TRUTH IN A DETAILED STATEMENT TAKEN DOWN BY A
REPORTER.  ABOUT 9:30 MONDAY MORNING A TRANSCRIPT OF ASHCRAFT'S
PURPORTED STATEMENT WAS READ TO HIM.  THE STATE'S POSITION IS THAT HE
AFFIRMED ITS TRUTH BUT REFUSED TO SIGN THE TRANSCRIPT, SAYING THAT HE
FIRST WANTED TO CONSULT HIS LAWYER.  AS TO THIS LATTER 9:30 EPISODE THE
OFFICERS' TESTIMONY IS REINFORCED BY TESTIMONY OF THE SEVERAL PERSONS
WHOM THEY BROUGHT IN TO WITNESS THE END OF THE EXAMINATION. 

IN REACHING OUR CONCLUSION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ASHCRAFT'S
CONFESSION WE DO NOT RESOLVE ANY OF THE DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT
RELATING TO THE DETAILS OF WHAT TRANSPIRED WITHIN THE CONFESSION
CHAMBER OF THE JAIL OR WHETHER ASHCRAFT ACTUALLY DID CONFESS.  FN7
SUCH DISPUTES, WE MAY SAY, ARE AN INESCAPABLE CONSEQUENCE OF SECRET
INQUISITORIAL PRACTICES.  AND ALWAYS EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE INNER
DETAILS OF SECRET INQUISITIONS  FN8  IS WEIGHTED AGAINST AN ACCUSED,
PARTICULARLY WHERE, AS HERE, HE IS CHARGED WITH A BRUTAL CRIME, OR
WHERE, AS IN MANY OTHER CASES, HIS SUPPOSED OFFENSE BEARS RELATION TO
AN UNPOPULAR ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, OR RELIGIOUS CAUSE. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT IF ASHCRAFT MADE A CONFESSION IT WAS NOT
VOLUNTARY BUT COMPELLED.  WE REACH THIS CONCLUSION FROM FACTS WHICH ARE
NOT IN DISPUTE AT ALL.  ASHCRAFT, A CITIZEN OF EXCELLENT REPUTATION,
WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY POLICE OFFICERS.  TEN DAYS' EXAMINATION OF
THE ASHCRAFTS' MAID, AND OF SEVERAL OTHERS, IN JAIL WHERE THEY WERE
HELD, HAD REVEALED NOTHING WHATEVER AGAINST ASHCRAFT.  INQUIRIES AMONG
HIS NEIGHBORS AND BUSINESS ASSOCIATES LIKEWISE HAD FAILED TO UNEARTH
ONE SINGLE TANGIBLE CLUE POINTING TO HIS GUILT.  FOR THIRTY-SIX HOURS
AFTER ASHCRAFT'S SEIZURE DURING WHICH PERIOD HE WAS HELD INCOMMUNICADO,
WITHOUT SLEEP OR REST, RELAYS OF OFFICERS, EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATORS,
AND HIGHLY TRAINED LAWYERS QUESTIONED HIM WITHOUT RESPITE.  FROM THE
BEGINNING OF THE QUESTIONING AT 7 O'CLOCK ON SATURDAY EVENING UNTIL 6
O'CLOCK ON MONDAY MORNING ASHCRAFT DENIED THAT HE HAD ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE MURDER OF HIS WIFE.  AND AT A HEARING BEFORE A MAGISTRATE
ABOUT 8:30 MONDAY MORNING ASHCRAFT PLEADED NOT GUILTY TO THE CHARGE OF
MURDER WHICH THE OFFICERS HAD SOUGHT TO MAKE HIM CONFESS DURING THE
PREVIOUS THIRTY-SIX HOURS.    WE THINK A SITUATION SUCH AS THAT HERE
SHOWN BY UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE IS SO INHERENTLY COERCIVE THAT ITS
VERY EXISTENCE IS IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE POSSESSION OF MENTAL FREEDOM
BY A LONE SUSPECT AGAINST WHOM ITS FULL COERCIVE FORCE IS BROUGHT TO
BEAR.  FN9  IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT ANY COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE LAND,
CONDUCTED AS OUR COURTS ARE, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, WOULD PERMIT
PROSECUTORS SERVING IN RELAYS TO KEEP A DEFENDANT WITNESS UNDER
CONTINUOUS CROSS-EXAMINATION FOR THIRTY-SIX HOURS WITHOUT REST OR SLEEP
IN AN EFFORT TO EXTRACT A "VOLUNTARY" CONFESSION.  NOR CAN WE,
CONSISTENTLY WITH CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW, HOLD VOLUNTARY A
CONFESSION WHERE PROSECUTORS DO THE SAME THING AWAY FROM THE
RESTRAINING INFLUENCES OF A PUBLIC TRIAL IN AN OPEN COURT ROOM.  FN10 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES STANDS AS A BAR AGAINST THE
CONVICTION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL IN AN AMERICAN COURT BY MEANS OF A COERCED
CONFESSION.  FN11  THERE HAVE BEEN, AND ARE NOW, CERTAIN FOREIGN
NATIONS WITH GOVERNMENTS DEDICATED TO AN OPPOSITE POLICY:  GOVERNMENTS
WHICH CONVICT INDIVIDUALS WITH TESTIMONY OBTAINED BY POLICE
ORGANIZATIONS POSSESSED OF AN UNRESTRAINED POWER TO SEIZE PERSONS
SUSPECTED OF CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE, HOLD THEM IN SECRET CUSTODY, AND
WRING FROM THEM CONFESSIONS BY PHYSICAL OR MENTAL TORTURE.  SO LONG AS
THE CONSTITUTION REMAINS THE BASIC LAW OF OUR REPUBLIC, AMERICA WILL
NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT. 

SECOND, AS TO WARE.  ASHCRAFT AND WARE WERE JOINTLY TRIED, AND WERE
CONVICTED ON THE THEORY THAT ASHCRAFT HIRED WARE TO PERFORM THE
MURDER.  WARE'S CONVICTION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ASHCRAFT'S CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AND
HIS CONVICTION VALID.  WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED HAD THE
COURT REACHED THE CONCLUSION WE HAVE REACHED AS TO ASHCRAFT WE CANNOT
KNOW.  DOUBT AS TO WHAT THE STATE COURT WOULD HAVE DONE UNDER THE
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT BY OUR REVERSAL OF ITS DECISION AS
TO ASHCRAFT IS EMPHASIZED BY THE POSITION OF THE STATE'S
REPRESENTATIVES IN THIS COURT.  THEY HAVE ASKED THAT IF WE REVERSE
ASHCRAFT'S CONVICTION WE ALSO REVERSE WARE'S. 

IN DISPOSING OF CASES BEFORE US IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SUCH
DISPOSITION AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.  "AND IN DETERMINING WHAT JUSTICE
DOES REQUIRE, THE COURT IS BOUND TO CONSIDER ANY CHANGE, EITHER IN FACT
OR IN LAW, WHICH HAS SUPERVENED SINCE THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED." 
PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600, 607; STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN
COTT, 306 U.S. 511, 515-516.  APPLICATION OF THIS GUIDING PRINCIPLE TO
THE CASE AT HAND REQUIRES THAT WE SEND WARE'S CASE BACK TO THE
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT.  SHOULD THAT COURT IN PASSING ON WARE'S
CONVICTION IN THE LIGHT OF OUR RULING AS TO ASHCRAFT ADOPT THE STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S VIEW AND REVERSE THE CONVICTION THERE THEN WOULD BE
NO OCCASION FOR OUR PASSING ON THE FEDERAL QUESTION HERE RAISED BY
WARE.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE
TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMING WARE'S CONVICTION, AND REMAND HIS
CASE TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

THE JUDGMENT AFFIRMING ASHCRAFT'S CONVICTION IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE LEGAL TEST APPLIED BY THE TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE TWO CONFESSIONS WAS STATED THUS: 

"THE COURT HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION  ...  THAT THE LAW IN TENNESSEE
WITH REFERENCE TO CONFESSION IS SIMPLY THIS:  IT IS LARGELY A QUESTION
OF FACT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A CONFESSION IS VOLUNTARY, AND IS MADE
WITHOUT HOPE OF REWARD OR FEAR OF PUNISHMENT.  IT ONLY BECOMES A
QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE WHEN, FROM THE FACTS
SURROUNDING THE TAKING OF THE ALLEGED CONFESSIONS OR STATEMENTS, THE
COURT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, CAN HOLD THAT THE STATE HAS FAILED TO CARRY
ITS BURDEN, WHICH IT HAS OF SHOWING THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE FREE AND
VOLUNTARY, AND THAT REASONABLE MINDS COULD NOT DIFFER, AND COULD COME
TO BUT ONE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE INVOLUNTARY AND
FORCED." 

FN2  NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPARENT FACT THAT NEITHER THE TRIAL COURT
NOR THE APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMATIVELY HELD THE CONFESSIONS VOLUNTARY,
THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT, IN ITS OPINION, RESTATED THE RULE IT HAD
ANNOUNCED IN PREVIOUS CASES, THAT, "WHEN CONFESSIONS ARE OFFERED AS
EVIDENCE, THEIR COMPETENCY BECOMES A PRELIMINARY QUESTION, TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE COURT.  ... (IF) THE JUDGE ALLOW THE JURY TO
DETERMINE THE PRELIMINARY FACT, IT IS ERROR, FOR WHICH THE JUDGMENT
WILL BE REVERSED."  SEE SELF V. STATE, 65 TENN. 244, 253. 

FN3  ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, ASHCRAFT'S COUNSEL URGED ERROR IN THAT,
"THE COURT  ...  IN DELIVERING HIS CHARGE TO THE JURY  ...  IN NO PLACE
OR AT ANY TIME  ...  PRESENTED THE THEORY OF THE DEFENDANT ASHCRAFT TO
THE JURY.  HE WHOLLY AND COMPLETELY IN HIS CHARGE IGNORED THE
CONTENTION AND THEORY OF THE DEFENDANT ASHCRAFT THAT THE ALLEGED
CONFESSION OR ADMISSIONS MADE BY HIM  ... WERE NOT FREELY AND
VOLUNTARILY MADE.  ...  " 

FN4  FROM THE TESTIMONY IT APPEARS THAT ASHCRAFT WAS TAKEN FROM THE
JAIL ABOUT 11 O'CLOCK SUNDAY NIGHT FOR A PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY AN
HOUR TO HELP THE OFFICERS HUNT THE PLACE WHERE WARE LIVED.  ON HIS
RETURN ASHCRAFT WAS, FOR A SHORT TIME, KEPT IN A JAIL ROOM DIFFERENT
FROM THAT IN WHICH HE WAS KEPT THE REST OF THE TIME. 

FN5  "AS THE REPORT AVERS, "THE THIRD DEGREE IS A SECRET AND ILLEGAL
PRACTICE.'  HENCE THE DIFFICULTY OF DISCOVERING THE FACTS AS TO THE
EXTENT AND MANNER IT IS PRACTICED."  IV REPORTS OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE
ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT (WICKERSHAM COMMISSION), U.S.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1931, LAWLESSNESS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, P.
3.  STATION HOUSES AND JAILS ARE MOST FREQUENTLY EMPLOYED FOR THIRD
DEGREE PRACTICES, "UPSTAIRS ROOMS OR BACK ROOMS BEING SOMETIMES PICKED
OUT FOR THEIR GREATER PRIVACY."  ID., THE THIRD DEGREE, P. 170.  CF.
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 238. 

FN6  "WORK' IS THE TERM USED TO SIGNIFY ANY FORM OF WHAT IS COMMONLY
CALLED THE THIRD DEGREE, AND MAY CONSIST IN NOTHING MORE THAN A SEVERE
CROSS-EXAMINATION.  PERHAPS IN MOST CASES IT IS NO MORE THAN THAT, BUT
THE PRISONER KNOWS THAT HE IS WHOLLY AT THE MERCY OF HIS INQUISITOR AND
THAT THE SEVERE CROSS-EXAMINATION MAY AT ANY MOMENT SHIFT TO A SEVERE
BEATING.  ...  POWERFUL LIGHTS TURNED FULL ON THE PRISONER'S FACE, OR
SWITCHED ON AND OFF HAVE BEEN FOUND EFFECTIVE.  ...  THE MOST COMMONLY
USED METHOD IS PERSISTENT QUESTIONING, CONTINUING HOUR AFTER HOUR,
SOMETIMES BY RELAYS OF OFFICERS.  IT HAS BEEN KNOWN SINCE 1500 AT LEAST
THAT DEPRIVATION OF SLEEP IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE TORTURE AND CERTAIN TO
PRODUCE ANY CONFESSION DESIRED."  REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON LAWLESS
ENFORCEMENT OF LAW MADE TO THE SECTION OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY
OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1930) 1 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLICE
SCIENCE 575, 579-580, ALSO QUOTED IN IV WICKERSHAM REPORT, SUPRA, P.
47. 

FN7  THE USE IN EVIDENCE OF A DEFENDANT'S COERCED CONFESSION CANNOT
BE JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS DENIED HE EVER GAVE
THE CONFESSION.  WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530, 531-532. 

FN8  STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, TEXTBOOK WRITERS, LEGAL COMMENTATORS,
AND GOVERNMENTAL COMMISSIONS CONSISTENTLY HAVE APPLIED THE NAME OF
"INQUISITION" TO PROLONGED EXAMINATION OF SUSPECTS CONDUCTED AS WAS THE
EXAMINATION OF ASHCRAFT.  SEE, E.G., CASES CITED IN IV WICKERSHAM
REPORT, SUPRA, AND ALSO PP. 44, 47, 48, AND PASSIM; POUND (CUTHBERT
W.), INQUISITORIAL CONFESSIONS, 1 CORNELL L.Q. 77; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA,
309 U.S. 227, 237; BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 544; BROWN V.
WALKER, 161 U.S. 591, 596; COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, 573;
CF. COOPER V. STATE, 86 ALA. 610, 611, 6 SO. 110.  IN A CASE WHERE NO
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE WAS INFLICTED OR THREATENED, THE SUPREME COURT OF
VIRGINIA EXPRESSLY APPROVED THE STATEMENT OF THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT THE
MANNER AND METHODS USED IN OBTAINING THE CONFESSION READ "LIKE A
CHAPTER FROM THE HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF THE MIDDLE AGES."  ENOCK
V. COMMONWEALTH, 141 VA. 411, 423, 126 S.E. 222, 225; AND SEE CROSS V.
STATE, 142 TENN. 510, 514, 221 S.W. 489.  THE ANALOGY, OF COURSE, WAS
IN THE FACT THAT OLD INQUISITION PRACTICES INCLUDED QUESTIONING
SUSPECTS IN SECRET PLACES, AWAY FROM FRIENDS AND COUNSEL, WITH NOTARIES
WAITING TO TAKE DOWN "CONFESSIONS," AND WITH ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE THE
SUSPECT LATER AFFIRM THE TRUTH OF HIS CONFESSION IN THE PRESENCE OF
WITNESSES WHO TOOK NO PART IN THE INQUISITION.  SEE ENCYCLOPEDIA
BRITANNICA, FOURTEENTH ED., "INQUISITION"; PRESCOTT, FERDINAND AND
ISABELLA, SIXTH ED., PART FIRST, CHAP. VII, THE INQUISITION; VIII
WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, THIRD ED., P. 307.  "IN THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES
THE PARTY SUSPECTED IS ARRESTED, HE IS PLACED ON HIS INQUISITION BEFORE
THE CHIEF OF POLICE, AND A STATEMENT IS OBTAINED.  ...  WHERE THE
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS IN POLITICAL HARMONY WITH THE POLICE
SYSTEM, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS GENERALLY INVITED TO BE PRESENT AS AN
INQUISITOR."  2 WHARTON ON CRIMINAL EVIDENCE, ELEVENTH ED., PP. 1021
1022; AND SEE NOTES 5 AND 6, SUPRA. 

AN ADMIRABLE SUMMARY OF THE GENERALLY EXPRESSED JUDICIAL ATTITUDE
TOWARD THESE PRACTICES IS SET FORTH IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
LAWLESS ENFORCEMENT OF LAW, 1 AMER.  JOURN.  OF POLICE SCIENCE, SUPRA,
P. 587:  "HOLDING INCOMMUNICADO IS OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE ARBITRARY - AT
THE MERE WILL AND UNREGULATED PLEASURE OF A POLICE OFFICER.   ...  THE
USE OF THE THIRD DEGREE IS OBNOXIOUS BECAUSE IT IS SECRET; BECAUSE THE
PRISONER IS WHOLLY UNREPRESENTED; BECAUSE THERE IS PRESENT NO NEUTRAL,
IMPARTIAL AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE
PRISONER; BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE RANGE OF THE INQUISITION,
NOR TO THE PRESSURE THAT MAY BE PUT UPON THE PRISONER." 

FN9  BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 556, 562-563; SEE ALSO WAN
V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1, 14-15; BURDEAU V. MCDOWELL, 256 U.S. 465,
475; COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, 573-574; 3 ELLIOT'S
DEBATES, PP. 445-449, 452; CF. CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227.  THE
QUESTION IN THE BRAM CASE WAS WHETHER BRAM HAD BEEN COMPELLED OR
COERCED BY A POLICE OFFICER TO MAKE A SELF-INCRIMINATORY STATEMENT,
CONTRARY TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; AND THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER
ASHCRAFT SIMILARLY WAS COERCED TO MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT, CONTRARY TO
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 236
238.  TAKEN TOGETHER, THE BRAM AND LISENBA CASES HOLD THAT A COERCED OR
COMPELLED CONFESSION CANNOT BE USED TO CONVICT A DEFENDANT IN ANY STATE
OR FEDERAL COURT.  AND THE DECISION IN THE BRAM CASE MAKES IT CLEAR
THAT THE ADMITTED CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH ASHCRAFT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE
CONFESSED PRECLUDE A HOLDING THAT HE ACTED VOLUNTARILY. 

FN10  COMPARE THE FOLLOWING ALLEGATION CONTAINED IN ASHCRAFT'S MOTION
FOR NEW TRIAL, "THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES  ...  SET THEMSELVES UP AS A
QUASI JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL AND TRIED  ...  AND CONVICTED HIM THERE AND IN
SO DOING RENDERED A TRIAL  ...  BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT  ...  AND THE
JURY OF PEERS  ... A MERE FORMALITY," WITH LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA,
SUPRA, P. 237.  "THE REQUIREMENT OF A PUBLIC TRIAL IS FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE ACCUSED; THAT THE PUBLIC MAY SEE HE IS FAIRLY DEALT WITH AND NOT
UNJUSTLY CONDEMNED, AND THAT THE PRESENCE OF INTERESTED SPECTATORS MAY
KEEP HIS TRIERS KEENLY ALIVE TO A SENSE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND TO
THE IMPORTANCE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS  ...  "  COOLEY'S CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS, SIXTH ED. (1890) P. 379; SEE ALSO KEDDINGTON V. STATE, 19
ARIZ. 457, 459, 172 P. 273.  "THE AID OF COUNSEL IN PREPARATION WOULD
BE FARCICAL IF THE CASE COULD BE FORECLOSED BY A PRELIMINARY
INQUISITION WHICH WOULD SQUEEZE OUT CONVICTION OR PREJUDICE BY MEANS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF USED AT THE TRIAL."  WOOD V. UNITED STATES, 128
F.2D 265, 271.  SEE ALSO CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, P. 237, NOTE 10. 

FN11  CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; CANTY V. ALABAMA, 309 U.S.
629; WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530; LOMAX V. TEXAS, 313 U.S. 544; VERNON
V. ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 547; LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 236-238;
WARD V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 547, 555; AND SEE BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168
U.S. 532. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

A SOVEREIGN STATE IS NOW BEFORE US, SUMMONED ON THE CHARGE THAT IT
HAS OBTAINED CONVICTIONS BY METHODS SO UNFAIR THAT A FEDERAL COURT MUST
SET ASIDE WHAT THE STATE COURTS HAVE DONE.  HERETOFORE THE STATE HAS
HAD THE BENEFIT OF A PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND LEGALITY.  A
CONFESSION MADE BY ONE IN CUSTODY HERETOFORE HAS BEEN ADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE UNLESS IT WAS PROVED AND FOUND THAT IT WAS OBTAINED BY
PRESSURES SO STRONG THAT IT WAS IN FACT INVOLUNTARILY MADE, THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL WILL OF THE PARTICULAR CONFESSOR HAD BEEN OVERCOME BY
TORTURE, MOB VIOLENCE, FRAUD, TRICKERY, THREATS, OR PROMISES.  EVEN
WHERE THERE WAS EXCESS AND ABUSE OF POWER ON THE PART OF OFFICERS, THE
STATE STILL WAS ENTITLED TO USE THE CONFESSION IF UPON EXAMINATION OF
THE WHOLE EVIDENCE IT WAS FOUND TO NEGATIVE THE VIEW THAT THE ACCUSED
HAD "SO LOST HIS FREEDOM OF ACTION THAT THE STATEMENTS MADE WERE NOT
HIS BUT WERE THE RESULT OF THE DEPRIVATION OF HIS FREE CHOICE TO ADMIT,
TO DENY, OR TO REFUSE TO ANSWER."  LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219,
241. 

IN DETERMINING THESE ISSUES OF FACT, RESPECT FOR THE SOVEREIGN
CHARACTER OF THE SEVERAL STATES ALWAYS HAS CONSTRAINED THIS COURT TO
GIVE GREAT WEIGHT TO FINDINGS OF FACT OF STATE COURTS.  WHILE WE HAVE
SOMETIMES GONE BACK OF STATE COURT DETERMINATIONS TO MAKE SURE WHETHER
THE GUARANTIES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAVE OR HAVE NOT BEEN
VIOLATED, IN CLOSE CASES THE DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS HAVE OFTEN BEEN
SUFFICIENT TO TIP THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF AFFIRMANCE.  LISENBA V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 238, 239; BUCHALTER V. NEW YORK, 319 U.S. 427, 431;
CF. MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, 312 U.S. 287, 294. 
AS WE READ THE PRESENT DECISION THE COURT IN EFFECT DECLINES TO APPLY
THESE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES.  INSTEAD, IT:  (1) SUBSTITUTES FOR
DETERMINATION ON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS
CONFESSION WAS ACTUALLY PRODUCED BY COERCION, A PRESUMPTION THAT IT
WAS, ON A NEW DOCTRINE THAT EXAMINATION IN CUSTODY OF THIS DURATION IS
"INHERENTLY COERCIVE"; (2) IT MAKES THAT PRESUMPTION IRREBUTTABLE -
I.E., A RULE OF LAW - BECAUSE, WHILE IT GOES BACK OF THE STATE
DECISIONS TO FIND CERTAIN FACTS, IT REFUSES TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN
EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OTHER OF THE STATE'S PROOF IS SUFFICIENT
TO OVERCOME SUCH PRESUMPTION; AND, IN SO DOING, (3) IT SETS ASIDE THE
FINDINGS BY THE COURTS OF TENNESSEE THAT ON ALL THE FACTS THIS
CONFESSION DID NOT RESULT FROM COERCION, EITHER GIVING THOSE FINDINGS
NO WEIGHT OR REGARDING THEM AS IMMATERIAL. 

WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT COME HERE FROM A LOWER
FEDERAL COURT OVER WHOSE CONDUCT WE MAY ASSERT A GENERAL SUPERVISORY
POWER.  IF IT DID, WE SHOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO APPLY RULES AS TO THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS, BASED ON OUR OWN CONCEPTION OF
PERMISSIBLE PROCEDURE, AND IN WHICH WE MAY EMBODY RESTRICTIONS EVEN
GREATER THAN THOSE IMPOSED UPON THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  SEE BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532; WAN V. UNITED
STATES, 266 U.S. 1; MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, 341; UNITED
STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65.  BUT WE HAVE NO SUCH SUPERVISORY POWER
OVER STATE COURTS.  WE MAY NOT LAY DOWN RULES OF EVIDENCE FOR THEM NOR
REVISE THEIR DECISIONS MERELY BECAUSE WE FEEL MORE CONFIDENCE IN OUR
OWN WISDOM AND RECTITUDE.  WE HAVE NO POWER TO DISCIPLINE THE POLICE OR
LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE NOR TO REVERSE ITS
CONVICTIONS IN RETRIBUTION FOR CONDUCT WHICH WE MAY PERSONALLY
DISAPPROVE. 

THE BURDEN OF PROTECTING SOCIETY FROM MOST CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS AND
PROPERTY FALLS UPON THE STATE.  DIFFERENT STATES HAVE DIFFERENT CRIME
PROBLEMS AND SOME FREEDOM TO VARY PROCEDURES ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN
IDEAS.  HERE, A STATE WAS FORCED BY AN UNWITNESSED AND BAFFLING MURDER
TO VINDICATE ITS LAW AND PROTECT ITS SOCIETY.  TO NULLIFY ITS
CONVICTION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE UPON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE
FACTS WOULD BE A DELICATE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER.  BUT TO
GO BEYOND THIS, AS THE COURT DOES TODAY, AND DIVINE IN THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AN EXCLUSION OF CONFESSIONS ON AN
IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT CUSTODY AND EXAMINATION ARE "INHERENTLY
COERCIVE" IF OF SOME UNSPECIFIED DURATION WITHIN THIRTY-SIX HOURS,
REQUIRES US TO MAKE MORE THAN A PASSING EXPRESSION OF OUR DOUBTS AND
DISAGREEMENTS. 

I. 

THE CLAIM OF A SUSPECT TO IMMUNITY FROM QUESTIONING CREATES ONE OF
THE MOST VEXING PROBLEMS IN CRIMINAL LAW - THAT BRANCH OF THE LAW WHICH
DOES THE COURTS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION LEAST CREDIT.  THE
CONSEQUENCES UPON SOCIETY OF LIMITING EXAMINATION OF PERSONS OUT OF
COURT CANNOT FAIRLY BE APPRAISED WITHOUT RECOGNITION OF THE ADVANTAGE
CRIMINALS ALREADY ENJOY IN IMMUNITY FROM COMPULSORY EXAMINATION IN
COURT.  OF THIS LATTER MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, FOR AN ALL BUT UNANIMOUS
COURT, SAID:  "THIS TOO MIGHT BE LOST, AND JUSTICE STILL BE DONE. 
INDEED, TODAY AS IN THE PAST THERE ARE STUDENTS OF OUR PENAL SYSTEM WHO
LOOK UPON THE IMMUNITY AS A MISCHIEF RATHER THAN A BENEFIT, AND WHO
WOULD LIMIT ITS SCOPE, OR DESTROY IT ALTOGETHER.  NO DOUBT THERE WOULD
REMAIN THE NEED TO GIVE PROTECTION AGAINST TORTURE, PHYSICAL OR
MENTAL."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 325-26. 

THIS COURT NEVER YET HAS HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION DENIES A STATE
THE RIGHT TO USE A CONFESSION JUST BECAUSE THE CONFESSOR WAS QUESTIONED
IN CUSTODY WHERE IT DID NOT ALSO FIND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DEPRIVED
HIM OF A "FREE CHOICE TO ADMIT, TO DENY, OR TO REFUSE TO ANSWER." 
LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 241.  THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES
THAT A CONVICTION REST ON A FAIR TRIAL.  FORCED CONFESSIONS ARE RULED
OUT OF A FAIR TRIAL.  THEY ARE RULED OUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN WRUNG
FROM A PRISONER BY MEASURES WHICH ARE OFFENSIVE TO CONCEPTS OF
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.  DIFFERENT COURTS HAVE USED DIFFERENT TERMS TO
EXPRESS THE TEST BY WHICH TO JUDGE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF A CONFESSION,
SUCH AS "FORCED," "COERCED," "INVOLUNTARY," "EXTORTED," "LOSS OF
FREEDOM OF WILL."  BUT ALWAYS WHERE WE HAVE PROFESSED TO SPEAK WITH THE
VOICE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THE TEST, IN WHATEVER WORDS STATED,
HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THE PARTICULAR CONFESSOR AT THE TIME OF
CONFESSION. 

IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT AMERICAN COURTS HOLD ALMOST UNIVERSALLY
AND VERY PROPERLY THAT A CONFESSION OBTAINED DURING OR SHORTLY AFTER
THE CONFESSOR HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO BRUTALITY, TORTURE, BEATING,
STARVATION, OR PHYSICAL PAIN OF ANY KIND IS PRIMA FACIE "INVOLUNTARY." 
THE EFFECT OF THREATS ALONE MAY DEPEND MORE ON INDIVIDUAL
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO FEAR.  BUT MEN ARE SO CONSTITUTED THAT MANY WILL RISK
THE POSTPONED CONSEQUENCES OF YIELDING TO A DEMAND FOR A CONFESSION IN
ORDER TO BE RID OF PRESENT OR IMMINENT PHYSICAL SUFFERING.  ACTUAL OR
THREATENED VIOLENCE HAVE NO PLACE IN ELICITING TRUTH AND IT IS FAIR TO
ASSUME THAT NO OFFICER OF THE LAW WILL RESORT TO CRUELTY IF TRUTH IS
WHAT HE IS SEEKING.  WE NEED NOT BE TOO EXACTING ABOUT PROOF OF THE
EFFECTS OF SUCH VIOLENCE ON THE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED, FOR THEIR EFFECT
ON THE HUMAN PERSONALITY IS INVARIABLY AND SERIOUSLY DEMORALIZING. 

WHEN, HOWEVER, WE CONSIDER A CONFESSION OBTAINED BY QUESTIONING, EVEN
IF PERSISTENT AND PROLONGED, WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT FIELD. 
INTERROGATION PER SE IS NOT, WHILE VIOLENCE PER SE IS, AN OUTLAW. 
QUESTIONING IS AN INDISPENSABLE INSTRUMENTALITY OF JUSTICE.  IT MAY BE
ABUSED, OF COURSE, AS CROSS-EXAMINATION IN COURT MAY BE ABUSED, BUT THE
PRINCIPLES BY WHICH WE MAY ADJUDGE WHEN IT PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS
ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE THAT CONDEMN POLICE BRUTALITY, AND ARE
FAR MORE DIFFICULT TO APPLY.  AND THEY CALL FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE AND
CAUTIOUS EXERCISE OF OUR OFFICE.  FOR WE MAY ERR ON THE SIDE OF
HOSTILITY TO VIOLENCE WITHOUT DOING INJURY TO LEGITIMATE PROSECUTION OF
CRIME; WE CANNOT READ AN UNDISCRIMINATING HOSTILITY TO MERE
INTERROGATION INTO THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT UNDULY FETTERING THE STATES
IN PROTECTING SOCIETY FROM THE CRIMINAL. 

IT PROBABLY IS THE NORMAL INSTINCT TO DENY AND CONCEAL ANY SHAMEFUL
OR GUILTY ACT.  EVEN A "VOLUNTARY CONFESSION" IS NOT LIKELY TO BE THE
PRODUCT OF THE SAME MOTIVES WITH WHICH ONE MAY VOLUNTEER INFORMATION
THAT DOES NOT INCRIMINATE OR CONCERN HIM.  THE TERM "VOLUNTARY"
CONFESSION DOES NOT MEAN VOLUNTARY IN THE SENSE OF A CONFESSION TO A
PRIEST MERELY TO RID ONE'S SOUL OF A SENSE OF GUILT.  "VOLUNTARY
CONFESSIONS" IN CRIMINAL LAW ARE THE PRODUCT OF CALCULATIONS OF A
DIFFERENT ORDER, AND USUALLY PROCEED FROM A BELIEF THAT FURTHER DENIAL
IS USELESS AND PERHAPS PREJUDICIAL.  TO SPEAK OF ANY CONFESSIONS OF
CRIME MADE AFTER ARREST AS BEING "VOLUNTARY" OR "UNCOERCED" IS SOMEWHAT
INACCURATE, ALTHOUGH TRADITIONAL. 

A CONFESSION IS WHOLLY AND INCONTESTABLY VOLUNTARY ONLY IF A GUILTY
PERSON GIVES HIMSELF UP TO THE LAW AND BECOMES HIS OWN ACCUSER.  THE
COURT BASES ITS DECISION ON THE PREMISE THAT CUSTODY AND EXAMINATION OF
A PRISONER FOR THIRTY-SIX HOURS IS "INHERENTLY COERCIVE."  OF COURSE IT
IS.  AND SO IS CUSTODY AND EXAMINATION FOR ONE HOUR.  ARREST ITSELF IS
INHERENTLY COERCIVE, AND SO IS DETENTION.  WHEN NOT JUSTIFIED,
INFLICTION OF SUCH INDIGNITIES UPON THE PERSON IS ACTIONABLE AS A
TORT.  OF COURSE SUCH ACTS PUT PRESSURE UPON THE PRISONER TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS, TO ANSWER THEM TRUTHFULLY, AND TO CONFESS IF GUILTY. 

BUT DOES THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBIT USE OF ALL CONFESSIONS MADE AFTER
ARREST BECAUSE QUESTIONING, WHILE ONE IS DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM, IS
"INHERENTLY COERCIVE"?  THE COURT DOES NOT QUITE SAY SO, BUT IT IS
MOVING FAR AND FAST IN THAT DIRECTION.  THE STEP IT NOW TAKES IS TO
HOLD THIS CONFESSION INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE TIME TAKEN IN GETTING
IT. 

THE DURATION AND INTENSITY OF AN EXAMINATION OR INQUISITION ALWAYS
HAVE BEEN REGARDED AS ONE OF THE RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
IN ESTIMATING ITS EFFECT ON THE WILL OF THE INDIVIDUAL INVOLVED. 
THIRTY-SIX HOURS IS A LONG STRETCH OF QUESTIONING.  THAT THE INQUIRY
WAS PROLONGED AND PERSISTENT IS A FACTOR THAT IN ANY CALCULATION OF ITS
EFFECT ON ASHCRAFT WOULD COUNT HEAVILY AGAINST THE CONFESSION.  BUT
SOME MEN WOULD WITHSTAND FOR DAYS PRESSURES THAT WOULD DESTROY THE WILL
OF ANOTHER IN HOURS.  ALWAYS HERETOFORE THE ULTIMATE QUESTION HAS BEEN
WHETHER THE CONFESSOR WAS IN POSSESSION OF HIS OWN WILL AND SELF
CONTROL AT THE TIME OF CONFESSION.  FOR ITS BEARING ON THIS QUESTION
THE COURT ALWAYS HAS CONSIDERED THE CONFESSOR'S STRENGTH OR WEAKNESS,
WHETHER HE WAS EDUCATED OR ILLITERATE, INTELLIGENT OR MORONIC, WELL OR
ILL, NEGRO OR WHITE. 

BUT THE COURT REFUSES IN THIS CASE TO BE GUIDED BY THIS TEST.  IT
REJECTS THE FINDING OF THE TENNESSEE COURTS AND SAYS IT MUST MAKE AN
"INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION" OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THEN IT SAYS THAT IT
WILL NOT "RESOLVE ANY OF THE DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT" RELATING TO
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CONFESSION.  INSTEAD OF FINDING AS A FACT THAT
ASHCRAFT'S FREEDOM OF WILL WAS IMPAIRED, IT SUBSTITUTES THE DOCTRINE
THAT THE SITUATION WAS "INHERENTLY COERCIVE."  IT THUS REACHES ON A
PART OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE A CONCLUSION WHICH I SHALL DEMONSTRATE
IT COULD NOT PROPERLY REACH ON ALL THE EVIDENCE.  AND IT REFUSES TO
RESOLVE THE CONFLICTS IN THE OTHER EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT
REBUTS THE PRESUMPTION THUS REACHED THAT THE CONFESSION IS A COERCED
ONE. 

IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ADMISSIBILITY OF A CONFESSION IS NO LONGER TO
BE MEASURED BY THE MENTAL STATE OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONFESSOR BUT BY A
GENERAL DOCTRINE DEPENDENT ON THE CLOCK, IT SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF
STATEMENT IN DEFINITE TERMS.  IF THIRTY-SIX HOURS IS MORE THAN IS
PERMISSIBLE, WHAT ABOUT 24?  OR 12?  OR 6?  OR 1?  ALL ARE "INHERENTLY
COERCIVE."  OF COURSE QUESTIONS OF LAW LIKE THIS OFTEN TURN ON MATTERS
OF DEGREE.  BUT ARE NOT THE STATES ENTITLED TO KNOW, IF THIS COURT IS
ABLE TO STATE, WHAT THE CONSIDERATIONS ARE WHICH MAKE ANY PARTICULAR
DEGREE DECISIVE?  HOW ELSE MAY STATE COURTS APPLY OUR TESTS? 

THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINING THESE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS OF
ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS IS EMPHASIZED BY THE DECISION TO RETURN
THE COMPANION CASE OF WARE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE FOR
RECONSIDERATION "IN THE LIGHT OF OUR RULING AS TO ASHCRAFT."  EXCEPT
FOR WARE'S OWN TESTIMONY, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS THAT WHEN HE
CONFRONTED ASHCRAFT IN CUSTODY WARE CONFESSED IMMEDIATELY, VOLUNTARILY,
AND ALMOST SPONTANEOUSLY.  BUT HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED, TAKEN FROM BED
INTO CUSTODY, AND DETAINED AND QUESTIONED.  DOES THE DOCTRINE OF
INHERENT COERCIVENESS CONDEMN THE WARE CONFESSION?  SHOULD THE
TENNESSEE COURT DECIDE WHETHER WARE, OBVIOUSLY A MUCH WEAKER CHARACTER
THAN ASHCRAFT, WAS ACTUALLY COERCED INTO CONFESSING?  IT ALREADY HAS
DECIDED THAT QUESTION AND THIS COURT DOES NOT HOLD THE FACT DETERMINED
WRONGLY.  WARE'S CASE IS PROPERLY IN THIS COURT.  WHY SHOULD NOT THIS
COURT DECIDE WARE'S CASE ON THE MERITS AND THUS TEST AND EXPOUND ITS
NOVEL RULING AS APPLIED TO A DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES? 

NO ONE CAN REGARD THE RULE OF EXCLUSION DEPENDENT ON THE STATE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL'S WILL AS AN EASY ONE TO APPLY.  IT LEADS TO CONTROVERSY,
SPECULATION, AND VARIATIONS IN APPLICATION.  TO ELIMINATE THESE EVILS
BY ELIMINATING ALL CONFESSIONS MADE AFTER INTERROGATION WHILE IN
CUSTODY IS A DRASTIC ALTERNATIVE, BUT IT IS THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF
TODAY'S RULING, AS ITS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF ASHCRAFT'S CASE WILL
SHOW. 

II. 

APART FROM ASHCRAFT'S UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY, WHICH THE TENNESSEE
COURTS REFUSED TO BELIEVE, THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD FROM
PERSONS WHOM THEY DID BELIEVE AND WERE JUSTIFIED IN BELIEVING.  THIS
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT DESPITE THE "INHERENT COERCIVENESS" OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS EXAMINATION, THE CONFESSION WHEN MADE WAS
DELIBERATE, FREE, AND VOLUNTARY IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THAT TERM IS USED
IN CRIMINAL LAW.  THIS COURT COULD NOT, IN OUR OPINION, HOLD THIS
CONFESSION AN INVOLUNTARY ONE EXCEPT BY SUBSTITUTING ITS PRESUMPTION IN
PLACE OF ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND REFUSING TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE
EVEN IN REBUTTAL OF ITS PRESUMPTION. 

AS IN MOST SUCH CASES, WE START WITH SOME ADMITTED FACTS.  IN THE
EARLY MORNING MRS. ASHCRAFT LEFT HER HOME IN AN AUTOMOBILE TO VISIT
RELATIVES.  SHE WAS FOUND MURDERED.  SHE HAD NOT BEEN ROBBED NOR
RAVISHED, ALTHOUGH AN EFFORT HAD BEEN MADE TO GIVE THE CRIME AN
APPEARANCE OF ROBBERY.  THE OFFICERS KNEW OF NO OTHER MOTIVE FOR THE
KILLING AND NATURALLY TURNED TO HER HUSBAND FOR INFORMATION. 

ON THE AFTERNOON OF THE CRIME, THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1941, THEY TOOK
ASHCRAFT TO THE MORGUE TO IDENTIFY THE BODY, AND TO THE COUNTY JAIL,
WHERE HE WAS KEPT AND INTERVIEWED UNTIL 2:00 A.M.  HE MAKES NO
COMPLAINT OF HIS TREATMENT AT THIS TIME.  IN THIS AND SEVERAL LATER
INTERVIEWS HE MADE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE
CONDITION OF THE CAR, AND AS TO MRS. ASHCRAFT'S HAVING TAKEN A CERTAIN
DRUG, AND AS TO MONEY WHICH SHE WAS ACCUSTOMED TO CARRY ON HER PERSON,
WHICH FURTHER INVESTIGATION INDICATED TO BE UNTRUE.  STILL ASHCRAFT WAS
NOT ARRESTED.  HE PROFESSED TO BE WILLING TO ASSIST IN IDENTIFYING THE
KILLER.  AT LAST, ON SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 14, AN OFFICER BROUGHT
ASHCRAFT TO THE JAIL FOR FURTHER QUESTIONING.  HE WAS TAKEN TO A ROOM
ON THE FIFTH FLOOR AND QUESTIONED INTERMITTENTLY BY SEVERAL OFFICERS
OVER A PERIOD OF ABOUT THIRTY-SIX HOURS.    THERE ARE TWO VERSIONS AS
TO WHAT HAPPENED DURING THIS PERIOD OF QUESTIONING.  ACCORDING TO THE
VERSION OF THE OFFICERS, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COURT WHICH SAW THE
WITNESSES, WHAT HAPPENED?  ON SATURDAY EVENING ASHCRAFT WAS TAKEN TO
THE JAIL, WHERE HE WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. BECKER AND MR. BATTLE.  BECKER
IS IN THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AT THE PRESENT
TIME AND BEFORE THAT WAS IN CHARGE OF THE HOMICIDE BUREAU OF THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE.  BATTLE HAS FOR EIGHT
YEARS BEEN AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COUNTY.  THEY BEGAN
QUESTIONING ASHCRAFT ABOUT 7:00 P.M.  THEY RECOUNTED VARIOUS STATEMENTS
OF HIS WHICH HAD PROVED UNTRUE.  ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK ASHCRAFT SAID HE
REALIZED THE CIRCUMSTANCES ALL POINTED TO HIM AND THAT HE COULD NOT
EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THEY THEN ACCUSED HIM OF THE MURDER, BUT HE
DENIED IT.  ABOUT 3:00 A.M. BECKER AND BATTLE RETIRED AND LEFT ASHCRAFT
IN CHARGE OF EZZELL, A SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR CONNECTED WITH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE.  HE QUESTIONED ASHCRAFT AND DISCUSSED THE CRIME WITH
HIM UNTIL ABOUT 7:00 ON SUNDAY MORNING.  BECKER AND BATTLE THEN
RETURNED AND INTERVIEWED HIM INTERMITTENTLY UNTIL ABOUT NOON, WHEN
EZZELL RETURNED AND REMAINED UNTIL ABOUT 5:00.  BECKER THEN RETURNED,
AND ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK SUNDAY NIGHT ASHCRAFT EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO
TALK WITH EZZELL.  EZZELL WAS SENT FOR AND ASHCRAFT TOLD HIM HE WANTED
TO TELL HIM THE TRUTH.  HE SAID, "MR. EZZELL, A NEGRO KILLED MY WIFE." 
EZZELL ASKED THE NEGRO'S NAME, AND ASHCRAFT SAID, "TOM WARE."  UP TO
THIS TIME WARE HAD NOT BEEN SUSPECTED, NOR HAD HIS NAME BEEN
MENTIONED.  ASHCRAFT EXPLAINED THAT HE DID NOT TELL THE OFFICERS BEFORE
BECAUSE "I WAS SCARED; THE NEGRO SAID HE WOULD BURN MY HOUSE DOWN IF I
TOLD THE LAW." 

THEREUPON BECKER, BATTLE, EZZELL, AND MR. JAYROE, CONNECTED WITH THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, TOOK ASHCRAFT IN A CAR AND FOUND WARE.  WHEN
QUESTIONED AT THE JAIL, WARE TURNED TO ASHCRAFT AND SAID IN SUBSTANCE
THAT HE HAD TOLD ASHCRAFT WHEN THIS THING HAPPENED THAT HE DID NOT
INTEND TO TAKE THE ENTIRE BLAME.  THE OFFICERS THEREUPON TURNED THEIR
ATTENTION TO WARE.  HE PROMPTLY ADMITTED THE KILLING AND SAID ASHCRAFT
HIRED HIM TO DO IT.  WALDAUER, THE COURT REPORTER, WAS CALLED TO TAKE
DOWN THIS CONFESSION, AND COMPLETED HIS TRANSCRIPT AT ABOUT 5:40 A.M.
HE READ IT TO WARE AND TOLD HIM HE DID NOT HAVE TO SIGN IT UNLESS HE SO
CHOSE.  WARE MADE HIS MARK UPON IT AND SWORE TO IT BEFORE WALDAUER AS A
NOTARY PUBLIC.  A COPY WAS GIVEN TO ASHCRAFT, AND HE THEN ADMITTED THAT
HE HAD HIRED WARE TO KILL HIS WIFE.  HE WAS GIVEN BREAKFAST AND THEN IN
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS MADE A STATEMENT WHICH WAS TAKEN DOWN BY THE
COURT REPORTER, WALDAUER.  IT WAS TRANSCRIBED, BUT ASHCRAFT DECLINED TO
SIGN IT, SAYING THAT HE WANTED HIS LAWYER TO SEE IT BEFORE HE SIGNED
IT.  NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO COMPEL HIM TO SIGN THE CONFESSION.  HOWEVER,
TWO BUSINESS MEN OF MEMPHIS, MR. CASTLE, VICE PRESIDENT OF A BANK, AND
MR. PIDGEON, PRESIDENT OF THE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, WERE CALLED
IN.  BOTH TESTIFIED THAT ASHCRAFT IN THEIR PRESENCE ASSERTED THAT THE
TRANSCRIPT WAS CORRECT BUT THAT HE DECLINED TO SIGN IT.  THE OFFICERS
ALSO CALLED DR. MCQUISTON TO THE JAIL TO MAKE A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF
BOTH ASHCRAFT AND WARE.  HE HAD PRACTICED MEDICINE IN MEMPHIS FOR
TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS AND BOTH MR. AND MRS. ASHCRAFT HAD BEEN HIS PATIENTS
FOR SOMETHING LIKE FIVE YEARS.  IN THE PRESENCE OF THIS FRIENDLY DOCTOR
ASHCRAFT MIGHT HAVE COMPLAINED OF HIS TREATMENT AND AVOWED HIS
INNOCENCE.  THE DOCTOR TESTIFIED, HOWEVER, THAT ASHCRAFT SAID HE HAD
BEEN TREATED ALL RIGHT, THAT HE MADE NO COMPLAINT ABOUT HIS EYES, AND
THAT THEY WERE NOT BLOODSHOT.  THE DOCTOR MADE A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION,
AND SAYS ASHCRAFT APPEARED NORMAL.  HE FURTHER TESTIFIED AS TO
ASHCRAFT, "WELL, SIR, HE SAID HE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET ALONG WITH
HIS WIFE FOR SOME TIME; THAT HER HEALTH HAD BEEN BAD; THAT HE HAD
OFFERED HER A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT, AND THAT SHE MIGHT GO HER WAY AND HE
HIS WAY; AND HE ALSO STATED THAT HE OFFERED THIS COLORED MAN, WARE, A
SUM OF MONEY TO MAKE AWAY WITH HIS WIFE."  FN1  THE DOCTOR SAYS THAT
THAT STATEMENT WAS ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY.  NO MATTER WHAT PRESSURE HAD
BEEN PUT ON ASHCRAFT BEFORE, THE COURTS BELOW COULD REASONABLY BELIEVE
THAT HE MADE THIS STATEMENT VOLUNTARILY TO A MAN OF WHOM HE HAD NO FEAR
AND WHO KNEW HIS FAMILY RELATIONS. 

ASHCRAFT'S STORY OF TORTURE COULD ONLY BE ACCEPTED BY DISBELIEVING
SUCH CREDIBLE AND UNIMPEACHED CONTRADICTION.  ASHCRAFT TESTIFIED THAT
HE WAS REFUSED FOOD, AND WAS NOT ALLOWED TO GO TO THE LAVATORY, AND WAS
DENIED EVEN A DRINK OF WATER.  OTHER TESTIMONY IS THAT ON SATURDAY
NIGHT HE WAS BROUGHT A SANDWICH AND COFFEE ABOUT MIDNIGHT; THAT HE
DRANK THE COFFEE BUT REFUSED THE SANDWICH; THAT ON SUNDAY MORNING HE
WAS GIVEN A BREAKFAST AND WAS FED AGAIN ABOUT NOON A PLATE LUNCH
CONSISTING OF MEAT AND VEGETABLES AND COFFEE.  BOTH WALDAUER, THE
REPORTER, AND DR. MCQUISTON TESTIFIED THAT THEY SAW BREAKFAST SERVED TO
ASHCRAFT THE NEXT MORNING BEFORE THE STATEMENT TAKEN DOWN BY WALDAUER. 
ASHCRAFT CLAIMS HE WAS THREATENED AND THAT A CIGARETTE WAS SLAPPED OUT
OF HIS MOUTH.  THIS IS ALL DENIED. 

THIS COURT REJECTS THE TESTIMONY OF THE OFFICERS AND DISINTERESTED
WITNESSES IN THIS CASE THAT THE CONFESSION WAS VOLUNTARY NOT BECAUSE IT
LACKED PROBATIVE VALUE IN ITSELF NOR BECAUSE THE WITNESSES WERE SELF
CONTRADICTORY OR WERE IMPEACHED.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS IMPUGNED ONLY
ON GROUNDS SUCH AS THAT SUCH DISPUTES "ARE AN INESCAPABLE CONSEQUENCE
OF SECRET INQUISITORIAL PRACTICES."  WE INFER FROM THIS THAT SINCE A
PRISONER'S UNSUPPORTED WORD OFTEN CONFLICTS WITH THAT OF THE OFFICERS,
THE OFFICER'S TESTIMONY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES IS ALWAYS PRIMA
FACIE FALSE.  WE KNOW THAT POLICE STANDARDS OFTEN LEAVE MUCH TO BE
DESIRED, BUT WE ARE NOT READY TO BELIEVE THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
BRINGS TO OFFICE MEN GENERALLY LESS BELIEVABLE THAN THE AVERAGE OF
THOSE ACCUSED OF CRIME. 

REFERENCE ALSO IS MADE TO THE FACT THAT WHEN PETITIONER WAS
QUESTIONED INVESTIGATION HAD FAILED "TO UNEARTH ONE SINGLE TANGIBLE
CLUE POINTING TO HIS GUILT."  WE CANNOT SEE THE RELEVANCE OF SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE QUESTION OF THE VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER
OF HIS STATEMENTS TO THE OFFICERS.  IS THE SUGGESTION THAT IF THEY HAD
PROBABLE CLEWS TO HIS GUILT, THEIR QUESTIONING OF HIM WOULD HAVE BEEN
BETTER JUSTIFIED? 

THIS QUESTIONING IS CHARACTERIZED AS A "SECRET INQUISITION," INVOKING
ALL OF THE HORRENDOUS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS OF THOSE WORDS. 
CERTAINLY THE INQUIRY WAS PARTICIPATED IN BY A GOOD MANY PERSONS, AND
WE DO NOT SEE HOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH LESS "SECRET" UNLESS THE
PRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED IN.  OF COURSE, ANY QUESTIONING MAY BE
CHARACTERIZED AS AN "INQUISITION," BUT THE USE OF SUCH
CHARACTERIZATIONS IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DETACHED AND JUDICIAL
CONSIDERATION THAT THE COURT BELOW GAVE TO THE CASE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT EVEN GOING BEHIND THE STATE COURT DECISIONS INTO THE
FACTS, NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON THE WHOLE EVIDENCE THAT ASHCRAFT'S
CONFESSION WAS IN FACT COERCED IS POSSIBLE.  AND AGAINST THIS
BACKGROUND OF FACTS THE EXTREME CHARACTER OF THE COURT'S RULING BECOMES
APPARENT. 

I AM NOT SURE WHETHER THE COURT DENIES THE STATE ALL RIGHT TO ARREST
AND QUESTION THE HUSBAND OF THE SLAIN WOMAN.  NO INVESTIGATION WORTHY
OF THE NAME COULD FAIL TO EXAMINE HIM.  OF ALL PERSONS, HE WAS MOST
LIKELY TO KNOW WHETHER SHE HAD ENEMIES OR RIVALS.  WOULD NOT THE STATE
HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, WHETHER HE WAS ACCUSED OR NOT, TO ARREST
AND DETAIN HIM AS A MATERIAL WITNESS?  IF IT HAS THE RIGHT TO DETAIN
ONE AS A WITNESS, PRESUMABLY IT HAS THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE HIM. 

COULD THE STATE NOT CONFRONT ASHCRAFT WITH HIS FALSE STATEMENTS AND
ASK HIS EXPLANATION?  HE DID NOT THROW HIMSELF AT ANY TIME ON HIS
RIGHTS, REFUSE TO ANSWER, AND DEMAND COUNSEL, EVEN ACCORDING TO HIS OWN
TESTIMONY.  THE STRATEGY OF THE OFFICERS EVIDENTLY WAS TO KEEP HIM
TALKING, TO GIVE HIM PLENTY OF ROPE AND SEE IF HE WOULD NOT HANG
HIMSELF.  HE DOES NOT CLAIM TO HAVE MADE OBJECTION TO THIS.  INSTEAD HE
RELIED ON HIS WITS.  THE TIME CAME WHEN IT DAWNED ON HIM THAT HIS OWN
STORY BROUGHT HIM UNDER SUSPICION, AND THAT HE COULD NOT MEET IT.  MUST
THE OFFICERS STOP AT THIS POINT BECAUSE HE WAS COMING TO APPRECIATE THE
USELESSNESS OF DECEPTION? 

THEN HE BECAME DESPERATE AND ACCUSED THE NEGRO.  CERTAINLY FROM THIS
POINT THE STATE WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING AND QUESTIONING HIM AS A
WITNESS, FOR HE CLAIMED TO KNOW THE KILLER.  THAT ACCUSATION BACKFIRED
AND ONLY TURNED UP A WITNESS AGAINST HIM.  HE HAD RUN OUT OF EXPEDIENTS
AND INVENTIONS; HE KNEW HE HAD LOST THE BATTLE OF WITS.  AFTER ALL,
HONESTY SEEMED TO BE THE BEST, EVEN IF THE LAST, POLICY.  HE CONFESSED
IN DETAIL. 

AT WHAT POINT IN ALL THIS INVESTIGATION DOES THE COURT HOLD THAT THE
CONSTITUTION COMMANDS THESE OFFICERS TO SEND ASHCRAFT ON HIS WAY AND
GIVE UP THE MURDER AS INSOLUBLE?  IF THE STATE IS DENIED THE RIGHT TO
APPLY ANY PRESSURE TO HIM WHICH IS "INHERENTLY COERCIVE" IT COULD
HARDLY DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS FREEDOM AT ALL.  I, TOO, DISLIKE TO THINK OF
ANY MAN, UNDER THE DISADVANTAGES AND INDIGNITIES OF DETENTION BEING
QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS PERSONAL LIFE FOR THIRTY-SIX HOURS OR FOR ONE
HOUR.  IN FACT, THERE IS MUCH IN OUR WHOLE SYSTEM OF PENOLOGY THAT
SEEMS ARCHAIC AND VINDICTIVE AND BADLY MANAGED.  EVERY PERSON IN THE
COMMUNITY, NO MATTER HOW INCONVENIENT OR EMBARRASSING, NO MATTER WHAT
RETALIATION IT EXPOSES HIM TO, MAY BE CALLED UPON TO TAKE THE WITNESS
STAND AND TELL ALL HE KNOWS ABOUT A CRIME - EXCEPT THE PERSON WHO KNOWS
MOST ABOUT IT.  EFFORTS OF PROSECUTORS TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS HANDICAP
BY VIOLENT OR BRUTAL TREATMENT OR THREATS WE CONDEMN AS PASSIONATELY
AND SINCERELY AS OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT.  BUT WE ARE NOT READY TO
SAY THAT THE PRESSURE TO DISCLOSE CRIME, INVOLVED IN DECENT DETENTION
AND LENGTHY EXAMINATION, ALTHOUGH WE ADMIT THEM TO BE "INHERENTLY
COERCIVE," ARE DENIED TO A STATE BY THE CONSTITUTION, WHERE THEY ARE
NOT PROVED TO HAVE PASSED THE INDIVIDUAL'S ABILITY TO RESIST AND TO
ADMIT, DENY, OR REFUSE TO ANSWER. 

                      III. 

THE COURT EITHER GIVES NO WEIGHT TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TENNESSEE
COURTS OR IT REGARDS THEIR INQUIRY AS TO THE EFFECT ON THE INDIVIDUALS
INVOLVED AS IMMATERIAL.  WE THINK IT WAS A MATERIAL INQUIRY AND THAT
RESPECT IS DUE TO THEIR CONCLUSION. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE, WRITING IN THIS CASE, STATED THE LAW
OF THAT STATE BY WHICH IT REVIEWED AND AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL
COURT.  IT SAID, "WHEN CONFESSIONS ARE OFFERED AS EVIDENCE, THEIR
COMPETENCY BECOMES A PRELIMINARY QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
COURT.  THIS IMPOSES UPON THE PRESIDING JUDGE THE DUTY OF DECIDING THE
FACT WHETHER THE PARTY MAKING THE CONFESSION WAS INFLUENCED BY HOPE OR
FEAR.  THIS RULE IS SO WELL ESTABLISHED, THAT IF THE JUDGE ALLOW THE
JURY TO DETERMINE THE PRELIMINARY FACT, IT IS ERROR, FOR WHICH THE
JUDGMENT WILL BE REVERSED. 

"IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TRIAL JUDGE HEARD THE WITNESSES AS TO THEIR
CONFESSIONS OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, AND HE HELD THAT UNDER THE
FACTS HE COULD NOT SAY THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE NOT VOLUNTARILY MADE
AND, THEREFORE, PERMITTED THEM TO GO TO THE JURY." 

THE RULE OF LAW THUS LAID DOWN COMPLIED WITH THE LAW AS THIS COURT
HAD SETTLED IT AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. 

THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT MADE A PAINSTAKING EXAMINATION OF THE
EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE COERCED. 
IT CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS "UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE NOT
FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE.  BOTH OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR HAVE HAD
A FAIR TRIAL AND WE DECLINE TO DISTURB THE CONVICTION." 

THAT COURT, IT IS CLEAR, RENDERS NO MERE LIP SERVICE TO THE
GUARANTIES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN OTHER CASES IT HAS SET ASIDE
CONVICTIONS BECAUSE CONFESSIONS USED AT TRIALS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
COERCED.  FN2  THERE IS NOT THE LEAST INDICATION THAT THE COURT WAS
PASSIONATE OR BIASED OR THAT THE RESULT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE HONEST
JUDGMENT OF A HIGH-MINDED COURT, SENSITIVE TO THESE PROBLEMS. 

A TRIAL JUDGE OUT OF HEARING OF THE JURY SAW AND HEARD ASHCRAFT AND
SAW AND HEARD THOSE WHOM ASHCRAFT ACCUSED OF COERCING HIM.  IN
DETERMINING A MATTER OF THIS KIND NO ONE CAN DENY THE GREAT ADVANTAGE
OF A COURT WHICH MAY SEE AND HEAR A MAN WHO CLAIMS THAT HIS WILL
SUCCUMBED AND THOSE WHO, IT IS CLAIMED, WERE SO OVERBEARING.  THE REAL
ISSUE IS STRENGTH OF CHARACTER, AND A FEW MINUTES' OBSERVATION OF THE
PARTIES IN THE COURTROOM IS MORE INFORMING THAN REAMS OF COLD RECORD. 
THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS
PREJUDICED OR INDIFFERENT TO THE PRISONER'S RIGHTS.  ASHCRAFT'S COUNSEL
MOVED TO EXCLUDE HIS CONFESSION "FOR THE REASON THAT THE STATEMENTS
CONTAINED THEREIN WERE NOT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE, NOR WERE THEY
FREE FROM DURESS AND RESTRAINT, BUT WERE SECURED BY COMPULSION.  ...  "
THE COURT SAID, "  ...  THE SOLE PROPOSITION, AS THE COURT SEES IT
FROM THIS TESTIMONY, IS THAT HE WAS CONFINED AND QUESTIONED FOR A
PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY THIRTY-SIX HOURS.  I THINK COUNSEL CONCEDES
THAT IS PRACTICALLY THE MAIN GROUND UPON WHICH HE RESTS HIS MOTION. 
THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL VIOLENCE OFFERED TO THE DEFENDANT ASHCRAFT, AND
NONE CLAIMED."  HE OVERRULED THE MOTION AND RECEIVED THE CONFESSION. 
THIS COURT, NOT ONE OF WHOSE MEMBERS EVER SAW ASHCRAFT OR ANY ONE OF
THE STATE'S WITNESSES, OVERTURNS THE DECISION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE. 

MOREOVER, A JURY HELD ASHCRAFT'S STATEMENTS INCREDIBLE.  AFTER THE
TRIAL JUDGE, OUT OF THEIR PRESENCE, HEARD THE EVIDENCE AND DECIDED THE
CONFESSION WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE JURY HEARD THE EVIDENCE TO DECIDE
WHETHER THE CONFESSION SHOULD BE BELIEVED.  ASHCRAFT AGAIN TESTIFIED
AND SO DID ALL OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE STATE.  CONDUCT OF THE HEARING
BOTH BY THE JUDGE AND THE PROSECUTORS WAS ABOVE CRITICISM.  THE COURT
OBSERVES:  "IF, THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE TWO
CONFESSIONS WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED AT ALL IT WAS BY THE JURY."  IS IT
SUGGESTED THAT A STATE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION MAY NOT LEAVE
THIS QUESTION TO THE SOLE DETERMINATION OF A JURY?  I HAD SUPPOSED THAT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF A STATE WHEN SUCH QUESTIONS OF FACT ARISE IS
TO FURNISH DUE PROCESS OF LAW FOR DECIDING THEM.  DOES NOT JURY TRIAL
MEET THIS TEST?  HERE TENNESSEE, AND I THINK VERY COMMENDABLY, PROVIDED
THE DOUBLE SAFEGUARDS OF A PRELIMINARY TRIAL BY THE JUDGE AND A FINAL
DETERMINATION BY THE JURY. 

THE COURT'S OPINION MAKES A CRITICAL REFERENCE TO THE CHARGE OF THE
TRIAL JUDGE.  HOWEVER, DILIGENT COUNSEL TOOK NO EXCEPTION TO THE PART
OF THE CHARGE QUOTED, MADE NO REQUEST FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTION ON THE
SUBJECT, AND ASSIGNED NO ERROR TO THE CHARGE.  EVEN IF WE THINK THE
CHARGE INADEQUATE, DOES THE INADEQUACY OF A CHARGE CONSTITUTE WANT OF
DUE PROCESS?  AND IF SO, DO WE REVIEW QUESTIONS AS TO THE CHARGE
ALTHOUGH COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER MADE NO OBJECTION DURING THE TRIAL
WHEN THE JUDGE COULD HAVE CORRECTED THE ERROR, BUT AFTER THE TRIAL WAS
OVER ASSIGNED IT AS ONE OF TWELVE REASONS FOR DEMANDING A NEW TRIAL? 

NO CONCLUSION THAT THIS CONFESSION WAS ACTUALLY COERCED CAN BE
REACHED ON THIS RECORD EXCEPT BY RELIANCE UPON THE UTTERLY
UNCORROBORATED STATEMENTS OF DEFENDANT ASHCRAFT.  HIS TESTIMONY DOES
NOT CARRY EVEN ORDINARY GUARANTIES OF TRUTHFULNESS, AND THE COURTS AND
JURY WERE NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT IT.  PERJURY IS A LIGHT OFFENSE COMPARED
TO MURDER AND THEY MAY WELL HAVE BELIEVED THAT ASHCRAFT WAS READY TO
RESORT TO A LESSER CRIME TO AVOID CONVICTION OF A GREATER ONE. 
FURTHERMORE, THE VERY GROUNDS ON WHICH THIS COURT NOW UPSETS HIS
CONVICTION ASHCRAFT REPUDIATED AT THE TRIAL.  HE ASSERTS THAT HE WAS
ABUSED, BUT HE DOES NOT TESTIFY AS THIS COURT HOLDS THAT IT HAD THE
EFFECT OF FORCING AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION FROM HIM.  ON THE CONTRARY,
HE FLATLY INSISTS THAT IT HAD NO SUCH EFFECT AND THAT HE NEVER DID
CONFESS AT ALL. 

AGAINST ASHCRAFT'S WORD THE STATE COURTS AND JURY ACCEPTED THE
TESTIMONY OF SEVERAL APPARENTLY DISINTERESTED WITNESSES OF HIGH
STANDING IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, IN ADDITION TO THAT OF THE ACCUSED
OFFICERS.  ONE OF THE WITNESSES TO ASHCRAFT'S ADMISSION OF GUILT WAS
HIS OWN FAMILY PHYSICIAN, TWO WERE DISINTERESTED BUSINESSMEN OF
SUBSTANCE AND STANDING, ANOTHER WAS AN EXPERIENCED COURT REPORTER WHO
HAD LONG HELD THIS POSITION OF CONSIDERABLE TRUST.  ANOTHER WAS A
MEMBER OF THE BAR.  CERTAINLY, THE STATE COURTS WERE NOT COMMITTING AN
OFFENSE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN REFUSING TO
BELIEVE THAT THIS WHOLE GROUP OF APPARENTLY REPUTABLE CITIZENS ENTERED
INTO A CONSPIRACY TO SWEAR A MURDER ONTO AN INNOCENT MAN, AGAINST WHOM
NOT ONE OF THEM IS SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A GRIEVANCE OR A GRUDGE. 

THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF AN IGNORANT AND UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANT WHO
HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF PREJUDICE.  ASHCRAFT WAS A WHITE MAN OF GOOD
REPUTATION, GOOD POSITION, AND SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY.  FOR A WEEK AFTER
THIS CRIME WAS DISCOVERED HE WAS NOT DETAINED, ALTHOUGH HIS STORIES TO
THE OFFICERS DID NOT HANG TOGETHER, BUT WAS AT LARGE, FREE TO CONSULT
HIS FRIENDS AND COUNSEL.  THERE WAS NO INDECENT HASTE, BUT ON THE
CONTRARY EVIDENT DELIBERATION, IN SUSPECTING AND ACCUSING HIM.  HE WAS
NOT SENTENCED TO DEATH, BUT FOR A TERM THAT PROBABLY MEANS LIFE.  HE
WAS DEFENDED BY RESOURCEFUL AND DILIGENT COUNSEL. 

THE USE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO DISABLE THE STATES IN PROTECTION
OF SOCIETY FROM CRIME IS QUITE AS DANGEROUS AND DELICATE A USE OF
FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER AS TO USE IT TO DISABLE THEM FROM SOCIAL OR
ECONOMIC EXPERIMENTATION.  THE WARNING WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN
HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586, 595, SEEM
TO US APPROPRIATE FOR REREADING NOW. 

FN1  THE OFFICERS HAD BEEN BAFFLED AS TO ANY MOTIVE FOR ASHCRAFT TO
MURDER HIS WIFE (WHO WAS HIS THIRD, TWO FORMER ONES HAVING BEEN
SEPARATED FROM HIM BY DIVORCE).  HE DISCLOSED IN HIS CONFESSION TO THEM
THAT HER SICKNESS HAD RESULTED IN A DEGREE OF IRRITABILITY WHICH HAD
MADE THEM INCOMPATIBLE AND RESULTED IN HIS SEXUAL FRUSTRATION. 

FN2  DEATHRIDGE V. STATE, 33 TENN. 75; STRADY V. STATE, 45 TENN. 300;
SELF V. STATE, 65 TENN. 244; CROSS V. STATE, 142 TENN. 510, 221 S.W.
489; ROUNDS V. STATE, 171 TENN. 511, 106 S.W.2D 212. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS
OPINION. 
..END :
















U.S. V. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 322 U.S. 174 


NO. 417.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 1944.  - DECIDED MAY 1, 1944.  - 347 PA. 191,
32 A.2D 236, REVERSED. 


PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
ORDNANCE, A CONTRACTOR INSTALLED MACHINERY IN HIS MILL.  IN THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE MILL FOR STATE TAXES, THE VALUE OF THE MACHINERY WAS
INCLUDED.  HELD: 

1.  WHETHER THE MACHINERY WAS PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS A
FEDERAL QUESTION.  P. 182. 

2.  TITLE TO THE MACHINERY WAS IN THE UNITED STATES.  P. 183. 

3.  THE STATE TAX LAW, SO FAR AS IT PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE TAXATION OF
THE PROPERTY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE MACHINERY IN THE
CONTRACTOR'S PLANT, OR TO USE THAT INTEREST TO TAX OR TO ENHANCE THE
TAX UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S BAILEE, VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
P. 192. 

4.  THE CLAIM IN THIS CASE THAT IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION WAS
WAIVED IS UNSUPPORTED.  P. 189. 

(A)  A PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT REQUIRING THE CONTRACTOR TO ABIDE BY
THE "APPLICABLE" STATE LAW WAS INADEQUATE TO WAIVE FEDERAL IMMUNITY. 
P. 189. 

(B)  A PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT WAS OBLIGATED
TO PAY CERTAIN TAXES OF THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT OPERATE TO WAIVE
IMMUNITY.  P. 189. 

5.  THE INVALIDITY OF THE TAX WAS NOT DEPENDENT UPON WHERE ITS
ECONOMIC BURDEN FELL.  P. 189. 

6.  LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY NOT IMPOSE EITHER COMPENSATORY OR
RETALIATORY TAXES ON PROPERTY INTERESTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  P.
190. 

7.  THE CONTRACTOR, UPON WHOM THE TAX WAS LAID, AND THE GOVERNMENT,
AS INTERVENOR, HAVING MADE TIMELY INSISTENCE IN THE PROCEEDING BELOW
THAT THE STATE TAX LAW AS APPLIED VIOLATED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
AND THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAVING RENDERED FINAL JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE CLAIM OF FEDERAL RIGHT, THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION ON
APPEAL.  JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(A).  P. 191. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT WHICH HELD A STATE TAX INVALID
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CALLED UPON TO SOLVE ANOTHER OF THE RECURRING CONFLICTS
BETWEEN THE POWER TO TAX AND THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM TAXATION WHICH
ARE INEVITABLE WHERE TWO GOVERNMENTS FUNCTION AT THE SAME TIME AND IN
THE SAME TERRITORY.  IN ARGUING THE CASE OF MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND,
LUTHER MARTIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, HIMSELF A MEMBER OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, SAID, "THE WHOLE OF THIS SUBJECT OF TAXATION
IS FULL OF DIFFICULTIES, WHICH THE CONVENTION FOUND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
SOLVE, IN A MANNER ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY.  THE FIRST ATTEMPT WAS TO
DIVIDE THE SUBJECTS OF TAXATION BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT.  THIS BEING FOUND IMPRACTICABLE, OR INCONVENIENT, THE STATE
GOVERNMENTS SURRENDERED ALTOGETHER THEIR RIGHT TO TAX IMPORTS AND
EXPORTS, AND TONNAGE; GIVING THE AUTHORITY TO TAX ALL OTHER SUBJECTS TO
CONGRESS, BUT RESERVING TO THE STATES A CONCURRENT RIGHT TO TAX THE
SAME SUBJECTS TO AN UNLIMITED EXTENT.  THIS WAS ONE OF THE ANOMALIES OF
THE GOVERNMENT, THE EVILS OF WHICH MUST BE ENDURED, OR MITIGATED BY
DISCRETION AND MUTUAL FORBEARANCE."  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT. 
316, 376.  WHERE DISCRETION AND FORBEARANCE HAVE FAILED, IT OFTEN HAS
FALLEN TO THIS COURT TO DETERMINE SPECIFIC CASES FOR WHICH THE
CONVENTION WAS UNABLE TO AGREE UPON A GENERAL RULE.  LOOKING BACKWARD
IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT THE LINE BETWEEN THE TAXABLE AND THE IMMUNE HAS
BEEN DRAWN BY AN UNSTEADY HAND. 

BUT SINCE 1819, WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN THE MCCULLOCH CASE
EXPOUNDED THE PRINCIPLE THAT PROPERTIES, FUNCTIONS, AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE FEDERATED GOVERNMENT ARE IMMUNE FROM TAXATION
BY ITS CONSTITUENT PARTS, THIS COURT NEVER HAS DEPARTED FROM THAT BASIC
DOCTRINE OR WAVERED IN ITS APPLICATION.  IN THE COURSE OF TIME IT HELD
THAT EVEN WITHOUT EXPLICIT CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IMMUNITIES HAD BECOME
COMMUNICATED TO THE INCOME OR PROPERTY OR TRANSACTIONS OF OTHERS
BECAUSE THEY IN SOME MANNER DEALT WITH OR ACTED FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 
FN1  IN RECENT YEARS THIS COURT HAS CURTAILED SHARPLY THE DOCTRINE OF
IMPLIED DELEGATED IMMUNITY.  FN2  BUT UNSHAKEN, RARELY QUESTIONED, AND
INDEED NOT QUESTIONED IN THIS CASE, IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT POSSESSIONS,
INSTITUTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF IN THE
ABSENCE OF EXPRESS CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FORM OF
STATE TAXATION.  THE REAL CONTROVERSY HERE IS WHETHER, ESPECIALLY IN
VIEW OF RECENT DECISIONS, TAXING AUTHORITIES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA HAVE INFRINGED THIS ADMITTED IMMUNITY. 

MESTA MACHINE COMPANY, AN APPELLANT WITH THE UNITED STATES, EXISTS AS
A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND HAS A MANUFACTURING
PLANT IN THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, OF THAT COMMONWEALTH, THE COUNTY
BEING APPELLEE HEREIN.  IT IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF HEAVY
MACHINERY.  IN OCTOBER 1940, THE WAR DEPARTMENT DESIRED TO PRODUCE A
QUANTITY OF LARGE FIELD GUNS.  IT COULD HAVE ASSEMBLED AN ORGANIZATION,
CREATED A GOVERNMENT-OWNED CORPORATION, AND ERECTED A PLANT WHICH WOULD
HAVE BEEN WHOLLY TAX IMMUNE.  CLALLAM COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S.
341.  BUT FOR REASONS OF TIME AND POLICY IT CHOSE TO UTILIZE A GOING
CONCERN UNDER PRIVATE MANAGEMENT AND OWNERSHIP.  MESTA'S PLANT WAS NOT
EQUIPPED FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF ORDNANCE.  IT WAS AGREED THAT CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT SPECIALLY REQUIRED FOR THE WORK SHOULD BE
FURNISHED AT GOVERNMENT COST AND SHOULD REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

THE BASIC ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN MESTA AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS PROVIDED
FOR BY THREE SEPARATE TITLES OF A SINGLE CONTRACT, MADE IN OCTOBER
1940.  A TITLE WAS DEVOTED TO EACH FEATURE OF THE ARRANGEMENT, BEING
GENERALLY:  PROCUREMENT OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT AT GOVERNMENT
COST; LEASE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO MESTA; AND MESTA'S
UNDERTAKING TO MAKE AND DELIVER THE GUNS AT A FIXED PRICE EACH.  IN
FEBRUARY 1941 A SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT WAS MADE. 

UNDER THE FIRST TITLE OF THE CONTRACT, MACHINERY WAS TO BE PROCURED
IN THREE POSSIBLE WAYS: MESTA, AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND NOT AS
AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, COULD PURCHASE IT; MESTA COULD MANUFACTURE IT;
OR THE GOVERNMENT AT ITS OPTION COULD FURNISH ANY PART OF IT.  IN
CARRYING OUT THE AGREEMENT MESTA MANUFACTURED ONE MACHINE, THE
GOVERNMENT FURNISHED EIGHT GUN-BORING LATHES AND TWO RIFLING MACHINES
FROM ITS WATERVLIET ARSENAL, AND THE REST MESTA PURCHASED FROM OTHER
MACHINETOOL MANUFACTURERS.  THE MACHINERY BOUGHT OR BUILT BY MESTA WAS
INSPECTED AND ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH THEREUPON
COMPENSATED MESTA AS AGREED.  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT TITLE TO ALL
SUCH PROPERTY SHOULD VEST IN THE GOVERNMENT UPON DELIVERY AT THE SITE
OF WORK AND INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE. 

BY THE SECOND TITLE OF THE CONTRACT THE GOVERNMENT LEASED THIS
EQUIPMENT TO MESTA FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH GUNS ARE MANUFACTURED BY
IT UNDER THIS CONTRACT OR LATER SUPPLEMENTS.  AS RENTAL MESTA AGREED TO
PAY THE SUM OF ONE DOLLAR.  MESTA WAS PERMITTED TO USE THE EQUIPMENT
"FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPEDITING THE MANUFACTURE OF GUNS" AND FOR NO
OTHER, WITHOUT CONSENT, EXCEPT THAT SUCH MACHINERY AS WAS "PURCHASED OR
FURNISHED TO SUPPLEMENT ITS EXISTING FACILITIES" MIGHT BE USED "FOR
GENERAL PURPOSES."  LIABILITY OF MESTA FOR LOSS, DAMAGE, OR DESTRUCTION
OF EQUIPMENT WAS "THAT OF A BAILEE UNDER A MUTUAL BENEFIT BAILMENT." 
MESTA COULD NOT REMOVE ANY OF IT WITHOUT PERMISSION, AND AT ALL TIMES
IT WAS ACCESSIBLE TO GOVERNMENT INSPECTION.  ON TERMINATION OF THE GUN
SUPPLY CONTRACT, UNLESS A STAND-BY CONTRACT WAS MADE, MESTA AGREED TO
REMOVE AND SHIP THE EQUIPMENT ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT DIRECTIONS, IN
GOOD CONDITION SUBJECT TO FAIR WEAR AND TEAR AND DEPRECIATION. 

THE LEASING TITLE OF THE CONTRACT MADE NO MENTION OF TAXATION.  THE
EQUIPMENT-PROCUREMENT TITLE PROVIDED FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MESTA "IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK UNDER THIS TITLE" FOR PAYMENTS "UNDER THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AND ANY APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL TAXES, FEES, OR
CHARGES WHICH THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED ON ACCOUNT OF THIS
CONTRACT TO PAY ON OR FOR ANY PLANT, EQUIPMENT, PROCESS, ORGANIZATION,
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, OR PERSONNEL."  THE GUN-SUPPLY TITLE RECITED THAT
THE CONTRACT PRICE DID NOT "INCLUDE ANY TAX IMPOSED BY ANY STATE,
COUNTY, OR MUNICIPALITY UPON THE TRANSACTION OF THIS PURCHASE OF GUNS. 
THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT BE LIABLE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FOR THE
PAYMENT OF ANY SUCH TAXES, EXCEPT THAT IF THE CONTRACTOR AFTER USING
EVERY EFFORT SHORT OF LITIGATION TO PROCURE EXEMPTION OR REFUND, AS THE
CASE MAY BE, SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PAY TO ANY STATE, COUNTY OR
MUNICIPALITY, ANY TAX UPON THE TRANSACTION OF THIS PROCUREMENT, AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE TAX SO PAID SHALL BE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT ON
DEMAND OF THE CONTRACTOR, IN ADDITION TO THE PRICES HEREIN STATED." 
THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS LIABILITY TO REIMBURSE MESTA IF IT IS OBLIGED TO
PAY TAX BY REASON OF THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION HERE. 

THE MACHINERY WAS BOLTED ON CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS IN MESTA'S PLANT ON
REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY IT. IT COULD BE REMOVED WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE
BUILDING. 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY FLARED WHEN THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES OF
ALLEGHENY COUNTY REVISED MESTA'S PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED ASSESSMENT FOR
AD VALOREM TAXES.  THEY ADDED THERETO THE VALUE OF THE MACHINERY IN
QUESTION, FIXED AT $618,000.  THIS INCLUDED PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM
OTHER TOOL MANUFACTURERS AS ABOVE DESCRIBED, $444,000; THAT
MANUFACTURED BY MESTA, $14,000; LATHES BROUGHT FROM THE WATERVLIET
ARSENAL, $160,000.  MESTA PROTESTED AND EXHAUSTED ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES WITHOUT AVAIL, AND ON JULY 30, 1942, PAID UNDER PROTEST
$5,137.12, THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS INCREASED
ASSESSMENT. 

MESTA TOOK A TIMELY APPEAL ALLOWED BY STATUTE TO THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS.  THE UNITED STATES PETITIONED TO INTERVENE, RECITING THAT IT
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REIMBURSE MESTA BY FORCE OF ITS CONTRACT. 
INTERVENTION WAS PERMITTED AGAINST OBJECTION BY THE COUNTY, AND THE
UNITED STATES HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE LITIGATION SINCE.  MESTA ATTACKED
THE ASSESSMENT UNDER BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, CLAIMING THAT UNDER
THE STATE TAX LAW PROPERTY BELONGING TO ANOTHER WAS NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED A PART OF ITS MILL AND THAT IF CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE
ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION OF THIS MACHINERY, THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HELD THAT THE STATE ACT AUTHORIZED THE
ASSESSMENT, BUT THAT THE MACHINERY HERE INVOLVED WAS "OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES" AND SO FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS COULD NOT BE
INCLUDED. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, ON APPEAL OF THE COUNTY, REVERSED,
AND REINSTATED THE ASSESSMENT.  IT HELD THAT UNDER THE STATE LAW
REGARDLESS OF WHO HELD THE TITLE TO IT THE MACHINERY CONSTITUTED A PART
OF THE MILL FOR PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT AND WAS PROPERLY ASSESSED AS
REAL ESTATE.  IT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT PROPERTY HELD BY THE UNITED STATES
IS "BEYOND THE PALE OF TAXATION" BY A STATE, BUT THIS ASSESSMENT, IT
SAID, IS NOT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BUT AGAINST MESTA, WHICH IS
OPERATING ITS MILL FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES.  IF MESTA DEFAULTED IN TAX
PAYMENTS, THE COURT HELD THAT "THE PARAMOUNT RIGHTS OF THE GOVERNMENT
IN THE MACHINERY COULD NOT BE DIVESTED OR IN ANY WAY AFFECTED," HENCE
THE GOVERNMENT COULD SUFFER NO LOSS.  EVIDENCE THAT THE MACHINERY WAS
NOT OWNED BY MESTA IT HELD TO BE IRRELEVANT AND IMPROPERLY ADMITTED. 
TWO JUSTICES DISSENTED. 

THE UNITED STATES AND MESTA APPEALED AND WE POSTPONED CONSIDERATION
OF JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE HEARING ON THE MERITS. 

I. 

IT IS DENIED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS VALID TITLE TO THE MACHINERY. 
THIS CONTENTION IS URGED BY THE MEMBER CITIES OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS, PERMITTED TO FILE A BRIEF AND TO ARGUE
ORALLY AS AMICI CURIAE.  THEIR POSITION IS THAT "THE GOVERNMENT IS
SUBJECT TO THE LEGAL RULES APPLICABLE TO PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS."  UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA LAW TRANSFER OF TITLE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE GOOD AS
AGAINST SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS AND LIENORS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY
DELIVERY OF POSSESSION.  THEY SAY THAT INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY A
CONTRACTING OFFICER ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE MESTA PLANT
DID NOT UNDER DECISIONAL LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA AMOUNT TO DELIVERY OF
POSSESSION TO THE UNITED STATES AND HENCE THAT ITS TITLE IS DEFECTIVE. 
THE POSITION OF THE COUNTY IS LESS EXTREME.  IT ARGUED EARLIER IN THE
LITIGATION THAT THE MACHINERY BECAME PART OF MESTA'S REAL ESTATE UPON
INSTALLATION AND THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD ONLY "A REVERSIONARY
INTEREST AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT."  IT LATER CONCEDED
THAT TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WAS NOT IN MESTA "EXCEPT FOR TAX PURPOSES." 
THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT THOUGHT IT IMMATERIAL WHETHER TITLE WAS
IN THE GOVERNMENT, BUT SAID, "  ...  THIS PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN
THE MESTA COMPANY, THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND BUILDINGS AND OPERATOR OF
THE MILL, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE OWNER OF THE MACHINERY, WHICH
TREATS THE EQUIPMENT AS PERSONAL PROPERTY AND PERMITS THE LATTER TO
REMOVE IT AT THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT, CAN IN NO WAY CHANGE THE
LEGAL EFFECT OF THE ACT OF ASSEMBLY WHICH SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATES
MACHINERY, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS REAL ESTATE FOR TAX
PURPOSES." 

WE DO NOT DETERMINE WHETHER, UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW, THE RETENTION OF
POSSESSION BY MESTA WOULD PROTECT ONLY GOOD-FAITH PURCHASERS OR LIENORS
WHO RELIED UPON IT OR WHETHER, AS URGED BY THE AMICI, IT ALSO MAKES THE
GOVERNMENT'S TITLE IMPERFECT AS AGAINST THESE TAXING AUTHORITIES, WHO
WERE FULLY ADVISED OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS
MADE.  EVEN IF THE LATTER WERE TRUE, WE DO NOT THINK THE STATE LAW
WOULD BE DECISIVE OF THE QUESTION OF TITLE. 

THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO
DISPOSE OF AND MAKE ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE
TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES ...  "  ART.
IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2.  IT ALSO GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER "TO MAKE ALL LAWS
WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION" ALL
POWERS VESTED IN THE GOVERNMENT OR IN ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER
THEREOF, ART. 1, SEC. 8, CL. 18, AND IT MAKES THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES ENACTED PURSUANT THERETO "THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; AND THE
JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." 
ART. VI, CL. 2. 

EVERY ACQUISITION, HOLDING, OR DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT DEPENDS UPON PROPER EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF
POWER.  IN THIS CASE NO CONTENTION IS MADE THAT THE CONTRACT WITH MESTA
IS NOT FULLY AUTHORIZED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO RAISE AND SUPPORT
ARMIES AND BY ADEQUATE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO THE CONTRACTING
OFFICERS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT.  IT MUST BE ACCEPTED AS AN ACT OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WARRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND REGULAR UNDER
STATUTE.    PROCUREMENT POLICIES SO SETTLED UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY MAY
NOT BE DEFEATED OR LIMITED BY STATE LAW.  THE PURPOSE OF THE SUPREMACY
CLAUSE WAS TO AVOID THE INTRODUCTION OF DISPARITIES, CONFUSIONS AND
CONFLICTS WHICH WOULD FOLLOW IF THE GOVERNMENT'S GENERAL AUTHORITY WERE
SUBJECT TO LOCAL CONTROLS.  THE VALIDITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACTS
THROUGH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS EXERCISING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
FUNCTIONS, THEIR CONSEQUENCES ON THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE
PARTIES, THE TITLES OR LIENS WHICH THEY CREATE OR PERMIT, ALL PRESENT
QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL LAW NOT CONTROLLED BY THE LAW OF ANY STATE. 
CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 363; JACKSON COUNTY V.
UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343; CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363; UTAH
POWER & LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 389; UNITED STATES V.
ANSONIA BRASS & COPPER CO., 218 U.S. 452; SEE D'OENCH, DUHME & CO. V.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORP., 315 U.S. 447; DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S.
190; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK LUMBER CO., 314 U.S. 95.  FEDERAL
STATUTES MAY DECLARE LIENS IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ESTABLISH
THEIR PRIORITY OVER SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS OR LIENORS IRRESPECTIVE OF
STATE RECORDING ACTS.  DETROIT BANK V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 329;
UNITED STATES V. SNYDER, 149 U.S. 210.  OR THE GOVERNMENT MAY AVAIL
ITSELF, AS ANY OTHER LIENOR, OF STATE RECORDING FACILITIES, IN WHICH
CASE, WHILE IT HAS NEVER BEEN DENIED THAT IT MUST PAY NONDISCRIMINATORY
FEES FOR THEIR USE, THE RECORDING MAY NOT BE MADE THE OCCASION FOR
TAXING THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPERTY.  FEDERAL LAND BANK V. CROSLAND, 261
U.S. 374; PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21. 

WE HOLD THAT TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS IN THE UNITED
STATES AND IS EFFECTIVE FOR TAX PURPOSES. 

                    II. 

THE COUNTY DENIES, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS TAXING PROPERTY BELONGING TO
THE UNITED STATES.  FIRST, IT SAYS IT TAXES ONLY THE LAND, WHICH THE
UNITED STATES DOES NOT OWN; AND THE MACHINERY IS NOT TAXED, BUT IS
CONSIDERED ONLY AS AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND TO MESTA,
ITS OWNER.  SECONDLY, IT SAYS THE LIEN OF THE TAX DOES NOT ENCUMBER AND
THE PROCESS OF COLLECTION DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY SALE OR OTHER
INTERFERENCE WITH THE MACHINERY.  THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT HAS
UPHELD THE QUESTIONED TAX BECAUSE UPON THESE GROUNDS IT CONCLUDED THAT
NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE FEDERAL FUNCTION RESULTED. 

"WHERE A FEDERAL RIGHT IS CONCERNED WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THE
CHARACTERIZATION GIVEN TO A STATE TAX BY STATE COURTS OR LEGISLATURES,
OR RELIEVED BY IT FROM THE DUTY OF CONSIDERING THE REAL NATURE OF THE
TAX AND ITS EFFECT UPON THE FEDERAL RIGHT ASSERTED."  CARPENTER V.
SHAW, 280 U.S. 363, 367-68. 

IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE SCHEME OF TAXATION EMPLOYED BY
PENNSYLVANIA IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE OLD AND WIDELY USED AD VALOREM
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX.  THIS TAXATION PLAN INVOLVES THE IDENTIFICATION
AND VALUATION OF THE VARIABLE INDIVIDUAL HOLDINGS TO BE TAXED, COMMONLY
CALLED THE ASSESSMENT, THE APPLICATION OF A UNIFORM RATE CALCULATED ON
THE NEED FOR PUBLIC REVENUES, AND THE COLLECTION, IN DEFAULT OF
PAYMENT, BY DISTRAINT AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSED AND TAXED. 
THIS FORM OF TAXATION IS NOT REGARDED PRIMARILY AS A FORM OF PERSONAL
TAXATION BUT RATHER AS A TAX AGAINST THE PROPERTY AS A THING.  ITS
PROCEDURES ARE MORE NEARLY ANALOGOUS TO PROCEDURES IN REM THAN TO THOSE
IN PERSONAM.  WHILE PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR THE TAX MAY BE AND SOMETIMES
IS IMPOSED, THE POWER TO TAX IS PREDICATED UPON JURISDICTION OF THE
PROPERTY, NOT UPON JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF THE OWNER, WHICH OFTEN
IS LACKING WITHOUT IMPAIRMENT OF THE POWER TO TAX.  IN BOTH THEORY AND
PRACTICE THE PROPERTY IS THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX AND STANDS AS SECURITY
FOR ITS PAYMENT. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES EMBODY THIS SCHEME OF TAXATION.  THEY ARE A
CENTURY OLD.  THE BASIC PROVISION READS:  "THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS AND
PROPERTY SHALL  ...  BE VALUED AND ASSESSED, AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION." 
FN3  TAXES ARE "DECLARED TO BE A FIRST LIEN ON SAID PROPERTY."  FN4  IT
IS ONLY UNDER THESE LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS THAT THE TAX IN QUESTION IS
LAID. 

THE PROCEDURE OF THE ASSESSORS IS CONSISTENT WITH NO OTHER THEORY
THAN THAT THE MACHINERY ITSELF WAS BEING ASSESSED AND TAXED EXACTLY AS
LAND WAS BEING ASSESSED AND TAXED.  THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED MACHINERY WAS
INSPECTED AND ITEMIZED BY THE ASSESSOR, EACH MACHINE WAS THEN
SEPARATELY APPRAISED BY A MACHINERY EXPERT, AND THE AGGREGATE FULL
VALUES OF $618,000 WERE CARRIED INTO THE ASSESSMENT.  THE ASSESSMENT
AGAINST MESTA WAS ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSORS AS FOLLOWS:
"LAND, $293,795; BUILDINGS, $1,123,124; MACHINERY, $2,489,085; TOTAL
ASSESSMENT, $3,906,004."  THE MACHINERY ITEM INCLUDED THE VALUE OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S PROPERTY. 

THE ASSESSORS MADE NO CLAIM THAT THE TEMPORARY PRESENCE OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S MACHINERY ACTUALLY ENHANCED THE MARKET VALUE OR THE USE
VALUE OF MESTA'S LAND.  THE ASSESSORS SIMPLY AND FORTHRIGHTLY VALUED
MESTA'S LAND AS LAND, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S MACHINES AS MACHINERY, AND
ADDED THE LATTER TO THE FORMER.  WE DISCERN LITTLE THEORETICAL
DIFFERENCE, AND NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE AT ALL, BETWEEN WHAT WAS DONE
AND WHAT WOULD BE DONE IF THE MACHINERY WERE TAXED IN FORM.  ITS FULL
VALUE WAS ASCERTAINED AND ADDED TO THE BASE TO WHICH THE ANNUAL RATES
WOULD APPLY FOR COUNTY, CITY, BOROUGH, TOWN, TOWNSHIP, SCHOOL, AND POOR
PURPOSES. 

WE HOLD THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS PROCEDURE IS TO LAY AN AD VALOREM
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

               III. 

IT IS CONTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT GOVERNMENT TITLE DOES NOT PREVENT SUCH
STATE TAXATION, BECAUSE THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX IS BORNE BY MESTA, NOT
THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE TAXATION CREATES NO LIEN UPON ITS PROPERTY OR
INTERFERENCE WITH ITS FUNCTION. 

THE COMMONWEALTH CERTAINLY HAS BROAD POWERS AND CHOICES OF METHODS TO
TAX MESTA, A CORPORATION CREATED BY IT AND DOMICILED AND OPERATING
WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  THE TREND OF RECENT DECISIONS HAS BEEN TO WITHDRAW
PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PROFITS FROM THE SHELTER OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
BUT WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE IMMUNITY OF THE STATE OR THE NATION ITSELF. 
BENEFITS WHICH A CONTRACTOR RECEIVES FROM DEALINGS WITH THE GOVERNMENT
ARE SUBJECT TO STATE INCOME TAXATION.  FN5  SALARIES RECEIVED FROM IT
MAY BE TAXED.  FN6  THE FACT THAT MATERIALS ARE DESTINED TO BE
FURNISHED TO THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EXEMPT THEM FROM SALES TAXES
IMPOSED ON THE CONTRACTOR'S VENDOR.  FN7  BUT IN ALL OF THESE CASES
WHAT WE HAVE DENIED IS IMMUNITY FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S OWN PROPERTY,
PROFITS, OR PURCHASES.  WE HAVE NOT HELD EITHER THAT THE GOVERNMENT
COULD BE TAXED OR ITS CONTRACTORS TAXED BECAUSE PROPERTY OF THE
GOVERNMENT WAS IN THEIR HANDS.  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN TAXATION OF
PRIVATE INTERESTS AND TAXATION OF GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS, ALTHOUGH
SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO DEFINE, IS FUNDAMENTAL IN APPLICATION OF THE
IMMUNITY DOCTRINE AS DEVELOPED IN THIS COUNTRY. 

MESTA HAS SOME LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY.  IT IS
A BAILEE FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT.  WHETHER SUCH A RIGHT OF POSSESSION AND
USE IN VIEW OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES COULD BE TAXED BY APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS WE DO NOT DECIDE.  ITS LEASEHOLD INTEREST IS SUBJECT TO
SOME QUALIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO USE THE PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR GUN
MANUFACTURE, IS LIMITED TO THE PERIOD IT ENGAGES IN SUCH WORK, AND IS
PERHAPS BURDENED BY OTHER CONTRACTUAL CONDITIONS.  WE HAVE HELD THAT
WHERE PRIVATE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY WERE SO PREPONDERANT THAT ALL THE
GOVERNMENT HELD WAS A NAKED TITLE AND A NOMINAL INTEREST, THE WHOLE
VALUE WAS TAXABLE TO THE EQUITABLE OWNER.  NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
MYERS, 172 U.S. 589; NEW BRUNSWICK V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 547.  BUT
THAT IS NOT THE SITUATION HERE, AND THE STATE HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO
SEGREGATE MESTA'S INTEREST AND TAX IT.  THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY,
INCLUDING THE WHOLE OWNERSHIP INTEREST, AS WELL AS WHATEVER VALUE
PROPER APPRAISAL MIGHT ATTRIBUTE TO THE LEASEHOLD, WAS INCLUDED IN
MESTA'S ASSESSMENT. 

IT IS CONTENDED THE WHOLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MAY BE REACHED SINCE
THE IMPACT OF THE TAX IS UPON MESTA.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS WE ARE
REMINDED THAT THE TAX, SO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELD, FALLS
UPON THE REAL ESTATE ALONE, BECAUSE THE LIEN THEREOF DOES NOT TOUCH THE
GOVERNMENT'S PROPERTY, WHICH BEFORE OR AFTER TAX DEFAULT MAY BE
REMOVED.  BUT RENUNCIATION OF ANY LIEN ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY ITSELF,
WHICH COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN ANY EVENT, HARDLY ESTABLISHES THAT IT
IS NOT BEING TAXED.  THE FACT IS THAT THE LIEN ON THE UNDERLYING LAND
IS INCREASED BECAUSE OF AND IN PROPORTION TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
MACHINERY.  IF THE TAX IS COLLECTED BY SELLING THE LAND OUT FROM UNDER
THE MACHINERY, THE EFFECT ON ITS USEFULNESS TO THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE
ALMOST AS DISASTROUS AS TO SELL THE MACHINERY ITSELF.  THE COERCION OF
PAYMENT FROM COMPELLING THE GOVERNMENT TO MOVE ITS PROPERTY AND
INTERRUPT PRODUCTION AT THE MESTA PLANT WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN OWNING AND LEASING IT. 

WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE NOT
TAXABLE EITHER TO IT OR TO ITS BAILEE.  THE "GOVERNMENT" IS AN
ABSTRACTION, AND ITS POSSESSION OF PROPERTY LARGELY CONSTRUCTIVE. 
ACTUAL POSSESSION AND CUSTODY OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY NEARLY ALWAYS ARE
IN SOMEONE WHO IS NOT HIMSELF THE GOVERNMENT BUT ACTS IN ITS BEHALF AND
FOR ITS PURPOSES.  HE MAY BE AN OFFICER, AN AGENT, OR A CONTRACTOR. 
HIS PERSONAL ADVANTAGES FROM THE RELATIONSHIP BY WAY OF SALARY, PROFIT,
OR BENEFICIAL PERSONAL USE OF THE PROPERTY MAY BE TAXED AS WE HAVE
HELD.  BUT NEITHER HE NOR THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE TAXED FOR THE
GOVERNMENT'S PROPERTY INTEREST.  RARELY DOES A STATE OR MUNICIPALITY
PURSUE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  MOST OF THE IMMUNITY CASES WE
HAVE BEEN CALLED UPON TO DEAL WITH INVOLVED ASSERTION OF A RIGHT TO TAX
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.  IN UNITED STATES V.
RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432, THIS COURT DECIDED THAT IMPROVEMENTS MADE UPON
LANDS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HELD TITLE BUT WHICH WERE PUT IN
POSSESSION OF INDIANS FOR THEIR BENEFIT REMAINED IMMUNE FROM TAXATION
AND THAT CATTLE, HORSES, AND CHATTELS PURCHASED WITH THE MONEY OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND "PUT INTO THE HANDS OF THE INDIANS TO BE USED IN
EXECUTION OF THE PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN REFERENCE TO THEM" WERE
LIKEWISE IMMUNE FROM TAXATION.  IN VAN BROCKLIN V. TENNESSEE, 117 U.S.
151, TENNESSEE ATTEMPTED TO SELL FOR STATE TAXES LANDS WHICH THE UNITED
STATES OWNED AT THE TIME THE TAXES WERE ASSESSED AND LEVIED, BUT IN
WHICH IT HAD CEASED TO HAVE ANY INTEREST AT THE TIME OF SALE.  THERE,
AS HERE, IT WAS CLAIMED THE COLLECTION AFFECTED ONLY PRIVATE PERSONS,
WHOSE EQUITIES IN THE MATTER WERE AT LEAST DOUBTFUL, AND THAT THE
UNITED STATES COULD SUFFER NO HARM.  THE COURT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE
IMMUNITY PROTECTED THE PRIVATE OWNER, FOR THE TAX HAD BEEN LAID AGAINST
AN INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS BEYOND THE REACH OF STATE
TAXING POWER.  SEE ALSO IRWIN V. WRIGHT, 258 U.S. 219; LEE V. OSCEOLA
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, 268 U.S. 643. 

A STATE MAY TAX PERSONAL PROPERTY AND MIGHT WELL TAX IT TO ONE IN
WHOSE POSSESSION IT WAS FOUND, BUT IT COULD HARDLY TAX ONE OF ITS
CITIZENS BECAUSE OF MONEYS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH WERE IN HIS
POSSESSION AS COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, POSTMASTER, CLERK OF THE
UNITED STATES COURT, OR OTHER FEDERAL OFFICER, AGENT, OR CONTRACTOR. 
WE HOLD THAT GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY, TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST THEREIN, IS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION, EITHER AS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF OR AS AGAINST ONE WHO HOLDS IT AS A
BAILEE. 

                                 IV. 

WE FIND NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIM THAT THE IMMUNITY HAS BEEN WAIVED. 
CONGRESS CERTAINLY HAS NOT DONE SO.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE CONTRACT
REQUIRES MESTA TO OBEY AND ABIDE BY THE "APPLICABLE" LAW OF
PENNSYLVANIA.  BUT SUCH LANGUAGE DOES NOT REQUIRE MESTA TO SUBMIT TO
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXACTIONS.  IT CLEARLY IS INADEQUATE TO WAIVE FEDERAL
IMMUNITY, EVEN IF WE ASSUME A CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD POWER TO DO SO.
LIKEWISE ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO PAY
MESTA'S TAXES DOES NOT OPERATE EITHER TO WAIVE OR TO CREATE AN
IMMUNITY.  NOR IS THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX DEPENDENT UPON THE ULTIMATE
RESTING PLACE OF THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX.  WE ALSO THINK IT
IMMATERIAL WHAT, IF ANY, RIGHT OF REIMBURSEMENT THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW
GRANTS A LESSEE AGAINST A PRIVATE LESSOR IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. 
STATE LAW COULD NOT OBLIGATE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO REIMBURSE FOR A
VALID TAX, MUCH LESS FOR AN INVALID ONE. 

EACH PARTY URGES EQUITIES IN ITS FAVOR.  THE GOVERNMENT POINTS TO THE
EXIGENCIES OF WAR, POINTS TO NUMEROUS AND INCREASING STATE EFFORTS TO
TAX SUCH PROPERTY, AND URGES AGAINST THE DECISION BELOW THAT IT IS A
PRECEDENT FOR TAXATION OF A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF PROPERTY OF THE
GOVERNMENT VALUED AT 7 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS IN THE POSSESSION AND USE OF
PRIVATE CONTRACTORS ENGAGED IN WAR PRODUCTION.  IT OWNS PROPERTY ON
PRIVATE LANDS, UNDER CONTRACTS SIMILAR TO THIS, WITH A VALUE
APPROXIMATING TWO BILLION DOLLARS, OVER $257,000,000 OF IT LOCATED IN
PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPELLEES, AND ESPECIALLY THE AMICI, ON THE OTHER HAND, POINT FOR A
DIFFERENT PURPOSE TO THE AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN WAR
PRODUCTION.  IT IS SAID THAT INCREASED MUNICIPAL SERVICES, TO SERVE AND
PROTECT THE INFLUX OF WAR WORKERS, ARE REQUIRED IN ALL COMMUNITIES
WHERE LARGE WAR CONTRACTS OF THIS TYPE ARE PLACED; THAT SUCH LOCAL
SERVICES RELY HEAVILY ON REAL ESTATE TAXATION; THAT TO EXCLUDE PROPERTY
SUCH AS THIS, TOGETHER WITH THE LARGE REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS THAT HAVE
BEEN AND ARE BEING ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT, IMPOSES THIS INCREASED
COST ON OTHERS.  WHILE VALIDATION OF ASSESSMENTS OF THIS CHARACTER WILL
MEASURABLY INCREASE THE COST OF WAGING THE WAR, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY DIFFUSE THE COST THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY INSTEAD
OF PUTTING A BACK-BREAKING BURDEN ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHERE WAR PLANTS
ARE LOCATED.  FOR THESE REASONS WE ARE URGED TO HOLD THE POSITION OF
THE GOVERNMENT "UNSOUND, AS WELL AS INEQUITABLE."    SUCH
CONSIDERATIONS REMIND US OF OUR HEAVY RESPONSIBILITY IN DECIDING THE
ISSUES BUT HARDLY PROVIDE A GUIDE OR ALTER THE USUAL PRINCIPLES FOR
DECISION.  THE EQUITIES IN THIS UNFORTUNATE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND ONE OF ITS MOST IMPORTANT INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITIES ARE NOT
CAPABLE OF JUDICIAL ASCERTAINMENT OR EQUALIZATION.  WHETHER A COUNTY
LOSES MORE THAN IT GAINS BY SUCH FEDERAL ACTIVITY AND WHAT OTHER
FEDERAL BENEFITS OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED IF A BALANCE WERE TO BE STRUCK
BETWEEN ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES, WE CANNOT SAY.  THE ADJUSTMENT OF
BENEFITS AND BURDENS IS FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS, AND STUDIES TO THAT END
HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN.  FN8  WE CAN ONLY SAY THAT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM AS JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED FROM THE BEGINNING LEAVES NO ROOM FOR
THE LOCALITIES TO IMPOSE EITHER COMPENSATORY OR RETALIATORY TAXATION ON
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY INTERESTS.  THEIR REMEDY LIES IN PETITION TO THE
FEDERAL CONGRESS, WHICH ALSO IS THEIR CONGRESS. 

                                  V. 

OUR JURISDICTION WAS QUESTIONED BY APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
ITS CONSIDERATION WAS POSTPONED TO HEARING OF THE MERITS.  THE ARGUMENT
RUNS THAT THE TAX IS LAID ONLY UPON MESTA AND THEREFORE ONLY MESTA CAN
QUESTION ITS VALIDITY; THAT IF MESTA DOES SO, IT CAN BE ONLY UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; THAT NO QUESTION HAS BEEN ASSIGNED UNDER THIS
AMENDMENT AND HENCE THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

THE QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE DO NOT ARISE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THEY DEPEND ON PROVISIONS ADOPTED AND PRINCIPLES SETTLED
LONG BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND WHICH EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF
IT. 

THE UNITED STATES WAS ADMITTED TO THE CASE AS AN INTERVENOR.  BOTH IT
AND MESTA RAISED THESE QUESTIONS OF TAXABILITY, AS EITHER MAY DO.  THE
UNITED STATES MAY QUESTION THE TAXATION IN ORDER TO PROTECT ITS
SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.  MESTA AS BAILEE IS UNDER A
DUTY TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY AND MAY PROTECT ITSELF FROM UNLAWFUL
BURDENS PUT UPON IT BECAUSE OF ITS POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.  THE TAX
IS CALCULATED AND IMPOSED ON THE LAND AND MACHINERY AS A UNIT, THE LIEN
OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE MACHINERY BECOMES A LIEN ON THE LAND WHICH CAN
BE TAKEN TO PAY THE TAX OCCASIONED BY THE MACHINERY.  SINCE THE TAX
MUST BE PAID OUT OF MESTA'S PROPERTY IT IS IN A POSITION TO CHALLENGE
THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX, AS WAS THE CASE IN VAN BROCKLIN V. TENNESSEE,
SUPRA.  BOTH MESTA AND THE GOVERNMENT MADE TIMELY INSISTENCE THAT THE
PENNSYLVANIA TAX LAW AS APPLIED VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE RENDERED FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CLAIM OF
FEDERAL RIGHT.  WE HAVE JURISDICTION BY APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
237(A).  THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. 

THE TAX LAW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AS INTERPRETED AND
APPLIED IN THIS CASE VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN SO FAR AS IT
PURPORTS TO AUTHORIZE TAXATION OF THE PROPERTY INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE MACHINERY IN MESTA'S PLANT, OR TO USE THAT INTEREST TO
TAX OR TO ENHANCE THE TAX UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S BAILEE.  THE JUDGMENT
IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS, 16 PET. 435; COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11
WALL.  113; NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401; OSBORN V.
BANK OF UNITED STATES, 9 WHEAT.  738; OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V.
OWENSBORO, 173 U.S. 664; CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S.
292; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501; JAYBIRD MINING CO. V. WEIR,
271 U.S. 609; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374; TELEGRAPH
CO. V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. 460; LELOUP V. PORT OF MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640;
INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570; PANHANDLE OIL CO.
V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218; GRAVES V. TEXAS CO., 298
U.S. 393. 

FN2  SEE ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1; GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX
REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S.
134; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN
PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376. 

FN3  PENN.  STAT.  ANN. (PURDON) TIT. 72, SEC. 5020-201. 

FN4  ID., TIT. 53, SEC. 2022. 

FN5  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134. 

FN6  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466. 

FN7  ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1. 

FN8  SEE REPORT ON FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WITH RESPECT TO FEDERALLY OWNED REAL ESTATE, HOUSE
DOC. NO. 216, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1943).  THIS COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
SHOWS THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF GENERALIZING ABOUT THE EQUITIES BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND A COMMUNITY IN CASES DEALING WITH ISOLATED
PROPERTIES.  MUCH FEDERALLY OWNED PROPERTY IS HELD FOR THE
ACCOMMODATION AND SERVICE OF THE LOCALITY, SUCH AS THE POST OFFICE OR
THE COURTHOUSES.  OTHER IS HELD FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES IN
WHICH THE LOCALITY HAS AN INTEREST OR FOR THE CARE OF WARDS, SUCH AS
VETERANS, IN WHICH LOCAL INHABITANTS SHARE WITH OTHERS.  THE REPORT
CONSIDERS ALL FEDERALLY OWNED REAL ESTATE AND IMPROVEMENTS, BUT NOT
PERSONALTY.  IT SHOWS THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD WITHIN PENNSYLVANIA ON
JUNE 30, 1937, PROPERTY COSTING $278,519,000, WITH MARKET VALUE OF
$151,806,000.  THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL TAX BASED ON FAIR MARKET VALUE AT
LOCAL RATES WOULD BE $3,152,000.  BUT THE AVERAGE ANNUAL FEDERAL AID TO
THAT STATE IS REPORTED TO BE:  1928-30, $6,834,000; 1931-33,
$10,791,000; 1934-37, ALL KINDS, $190,071,000(EXCLUDING FERA, CWA, AND
WPA: $23,118,000). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IS RIGHT
AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN ITS OPINION. 

IF JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, WERE NOT UPON OUR
BOOKS, OR HAD BEEN DECIDED THE OTHER WAY, I SHOULD AGREE TO THE OPINION
OF THE COURT.  IN THAT CASE, AT THE INSISTENCE OF THE UNITED STATES,
THIS COURT HELD THAT A STATE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX UPON PAYMENTS BY THE
UNITED STATES TO A CONTRACTOR FOR ERECTING STRUCTURES ON UNITED STATES
PROPERTY WAS VALID BECAUSE THE TAX WAS NOT LAID UPON THE CONTRACT, THE
GOVERNMENT, ITS PROPERTY, ITS OFFICERS, OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITY; WAS
LAID UPON AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WAS NONDISCRIMINATORY. 
ALTHOUGH ADMITTING THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX IMPOSED A BURDEN UPON
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE IT INEVITABLY INCREASED THE
COST OF EXERCISE OF ITS FUNCTIONS, THE COURT NONETHELESS SUSTAINED THE
EXACTION.  I THEN THOUGHT, AS I STILL THINK, THAT THE DECISION
OVERRULED A CENTURY OF PRECEDENTS IN THIS COURT. 

IT WAS NOT LONG BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT REPENTED ITS GENEROSITY.  FOUR
YEARS LATER, IT INSISTED, IN ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1, THAT
A STATE SALES TAX UPON A PURCHASE OF BUILDING MATERIALS BY A CONTRACTOR
WHO WAS TO INCORPORATE THEM INTO A GOVERNMENT PROJECT, AND WHERE, UPON
DELIVERY, INSPECTION, AND ACCEPTANCE, THEY BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE
GOVERNMENT, WAS SO DIRECT A TAX ON THE GOVERNMENT AS TO INFRINGE ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, FOLLOWED TO ITS LOGICAL
CONCLUSION THE DECISION IN DRAVO AND EXPRESSLY OVERRULED EARLIER
DECISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH DRAVO AND KING & BOOZER.  FN1  I CONCURRED
IN THAT DECISION, FEELING MYSELF BOUND BY THE DRAVO CASE. 

IN THIS CASE, AS I THINK, THE COURT NECESSARILY REVERTS TO THE TEST
OF BURDENSOMENESS BY A FORM OF WORDS AND, AS A RESULT, AGAIN PLUNGES
THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE INTO CONFUSION. 

THE TRUTH IS THAT THE TAX LIABILITY OF MESTA IN RESPECT OF ITS
MANUFACTURING PLANT HAS BEEN INCREASED BY THE PRESENCE IN THE PLANT OF
MACHINERY BAILED TO THE TAXPAYER BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IT IS TRUE
TOO THAT, EITHER AS A RESULT OF THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTRACT WITH MESTA, THE GOVERNMENT'S MONETARY OBLIGATION TO MESTA WILL
BE INCREASED BY THE IMPOSITION OF INCREASED TAX OR, AS IN THE DRAVO
CASE, IF THE CONTRACTOR IS LIABLE FOR AN INCREASE OF TAX BY REASON OF
THE FACT THAT HE IS SUCH CONTRACTOR, THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE LONG RUN,
WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR GOODS AND SERVICES AS A RESULT OF SUCH
INCREASE. 

IN ORDER TO RELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT OF THIS BURDEN, THE COURT IS NOW
OBLIGED TO SAY THAT THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH HAS DECLARED IT, AND THAT A
CENTURY OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION IS
MEANINGLESS WHEN THE SUPPOSED NECESSITY ARISES TO UNBURDEN THE
GOVERNMENT FROM THE RESULT OF STATE TAXATION UPON PRIVATELY OWNED
PROPERTY. 

THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, THAT A TAX IMPOSED
ON REAL ESTATE IS ENHANCED IN AMOUNT BY BUILDINGS AND MACHINERY PLACED
UPON THE LAND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER EVEN THOUGH HE DOES NOT OWN
THE IMPROVEMENTS BUT IS A MERE BAILEE.  THE LIEN OF THE TAX EXTENDS
ONLY TO THE LAND OWNED BY THE TAXPAYER AND THE BAILED IMPROVEMENTS ARE
NEITHER UNDER THE LIEN NOR SUBJECT TO SEIZURE OR SALE FOR PAYMENT OF
THE TAX.  BUT THIS SETTLED LAW IS BRUSHED ASIDE AND IT IS SAID,
NOTWITHSTANDING THESE FACTS, THAT, IN SOME INDEFINABLE WAY,
PENNSYLVANIA HAS IN TRUTH LEVIED AN AD VALOREM TAX UPON PROPERTY OF THE
UNITED STATES WHICH IS IN THE POSSESSION OF MESTA AS BAILEE.  THIS IS
NOTHING IN SUBSTANCE BUT TO SAY, IN THE TEETH OF THE DRAVO AND KING &
BOOZER CASES, THAT IF A TAX LEVIED UPON A CONTRACTOR OF THE GOVERNMENT
IMPOSES A BURDEN UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIVITIES IT VIOLATES THE
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY AND MUST BE STRICKEN DOWN.  WHEREAS, IN THOSE
CASES, THE COURT ACCEPTED THE TAX FOR WHAT IT WAS, VIZ., A TAX UPON THE
CONTRACTOR AND NOT UPON THE GOVERNMENT, HERE, ALTHOUGH UNDER STATE LAW
THE LIABILITY TO THE STATE IS THAT OF THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS PROPERTY,
AND CAN, IN NO EVENT, BE THE LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS
PROPERTY,  - EXCEPT AS THE GOVERNMENT EITHER CONTRACTUALLY ASSUMES THE
BURDEN OR BEARS IT AS AN INCIDENT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S BURDEN,  - THE
COURT ANNOUNCES THAT THE TAX IS LAID ON THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPERTY. 

I THINK THE CASE WAS DECIDED BY THE COURT BELOW ON A NONFEDERAL
GROUND.  THE DECISION IS PITCHED SOLELY UPON THE CHARACTER AND
INCIDENCE OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX OF THE COMMONWEALTH.  AS THAT COURT,
IN THE LIGHT OF A HUNDRED YEARS OF HISTORY, DEFINED THE TAX AND THE TAX
LIEN NEITHER WAS LAID UPON OR COLLECTABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES OR ITS
PROPERTY.  AS A RESULT OF THAT DECISION MESTA BECAME LIABLE FOR AN
INCREASED TAX AS A RESULT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT. 
UNLESS THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY FROM CONSEQUENT BURDEN ON THE
GOVERNMENT, AS THE OTHER PARTY TO THE CONTRACT, IS TO BE REIMPORTED
INTO OUR JURISPRUDENCE, THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE
DECISION BELOW WAS BASED UPON AN ADEQUATE NONFEDERAL GROUND. 

FN1  PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218; GRAVES V. TEXAS CO.,
298 U.S. 393. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

I SHOULD LIKE TO ADD A FEW WORDS TO THE OPINION OF MY BROTHER
ROBERTS, WITH WHICH, IN THE MAIN, I AGREE. 

THIS CONTROVERSY IS TREATED BY THE COURT AS THOUGH IT PRESENTED A
CHALLENGE BY PENNSYLVANIA TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
CASE IS NOT ENTITLED, ON THE FACTS AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, TO HAVE SUCH
IMPORTANCE ATTRIBUTED TO IT.  WE ARE ALL AGREED THAT A STATE MUST
SUBORDINATE ITS POLICIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS DULY EXERCISED BY
THE UNITED STATES.  WAR OF COURSE EVOKES POWERS OF GOVERNMENT NOT
AVAILABLE IN TIMES OF PEACE, BUT IT IS NO LESS TRUE OF THE WAR POWERS
OF THE GOVERNMENT THAN OF THE PEACE POWERS THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE LAWS ENACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IT ARE "THE SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND."  UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ART. VI. 

IMPLICIT IN OUR FEDERAL SCHEME IS IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
FROM TAXATION BY THE STATES.  AFTER HAVING LONG BEEN THE SUBJECT OF
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, THE EXTENT OF THIS IMPLIED IMMUNITY WAS GREATLY
CURTAILED.  THE BASIS OF THE DOCTRINE WAS SHIFTED FROM THAT OF AN
ARGUMENTATIVE FINANCIAL BURDEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THAT OF
FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRANSACTIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT
AND FREEDOM FROM DIRECT IMPOSITIONS UPON THE PROPERTY AND THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE DECISIONS IN JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, AND ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S.
1, MEAN NOTHING UNLESS THEY MEAN THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE
GOVERNMENT MAY ULTIMATELY HAVE TO BEAR THE COST OF A PART OR EVEN THE
WHOLE OF A TAX WHICH A STATE IMPOSES ON A THIRD PERSON WHO HAS BUSINESS
RELATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, WHEN A STATE COULD IMPOSE SUCH A TAX
UPON SUCH A THIRD PERSON BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION WHICH
GAVE RISE TO IT WAS NOT WITH A PRIVATE PERSON BUT WITH THE GOVERNMENT. 
SO MUCH FOR THE SCOPE OF THE IMPLIED IMMUNITY OF THE GOVERNMENT FROM
STATE TAXATION AS I UNDERSTAND THE DECISIONS TO DATE.  BUT IN CARRYING
ON EFFECTIVELY THE TASK COMMITTED TO IT, THE UNITED STATES CAN, I
BELIEVE, GO BEYOND THE JUDICIAL DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED IMMUNITY FROM
TAXATION.  I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS, BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION,
COULD IMMUNIZE THOSE WHO DEAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT FROM SALES AND
PROPERTY TAXES WHICH STATES OTHERWISE ARE FREE TO IMPOSE. 

ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, PENNSYLVANIA HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE IMPLIED
IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM TAXATION NOR HAS SHE SOUGHT TO
TAX THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS SAID SHOULD BE FREE FROM TAXATION. 
PENNSYLVANIA HAS NOT TAXED PROPERTY OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 
PENNSYLVANIA HAS NOT USED HER OTHERWISE UNQUESTIONED POWER OF TAXATION
TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ONE DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  FINALLY,
PENNSYLVANIA HAS NOT TRIED TO IMPOSE A TAX WHICH CONGRESS, IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE WAR PRODUCTION, HAS FORBIDDEN THE STATES TO LEVY. 
PENNSYLVANIA MERELY SEEKS TO ENFORCE A TAX ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE OWNER
OF LANDS AND BUILDINGS IN THE MANNER IN WHICH SHE HAS MADE SUCH AN
ASSESSMENT FOR ONE HUNDRED YEARS.  SHE HAS ASSESSED REAL PROPERTY
CONCEDEDLY OWNED BY MESTA AT A VALUATION INCREASED BY THE VALUE OF THE
MACHINERY MADE AVAILABLE TO MESTA BY VARIOUS ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT.  BUT IT IS THE REALTY THAT IS BEING TAXED, PRECISELY AS
OTHER REALTY IS TAXED, AND BY PRECISELY THE SAME METHOD OF DETERMINING
THE VALUE OF OTHER REALTY.  IF THE MACHINERY WHICH HAS HERE BEEN
AFFIXED TO THE LAND THROUGH ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN
MACHINERY THAT BELONGED TO REMINGTON ARMS AND MESTA HAD BEEN OPERATING
THROUGH REMINGTON AS A SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR THE GOVERNMENT, I SUPPOSE NO
ONE WOULD DOUBT THAT PENNSYLVANIA COULD ASSESS THE VALUE OF THE LAND
TAXED AGAINST MESTA AS IT WAS HERE ASSESSED, QUITE REGARDLESS OF THE
RETENTION OF THE TITLE BY REMINGTON OF THE ANNEXED FIXTURES, THE VALUE
OF WHICH SERVED TO ENHANCE THE AMOUNT AT WHICH THE LAND WAS ASSESSED. 
IT CANNOT ALTER THE NATURE OF THE TAX AS A TAX AGAINST MESTA'S
OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND AND BUILDINGS WHETHER THE ENHANCING FIXTURES
BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT OR TO REMINGTON.  CONSTITUTIONAL ANSWERS DO AT
TIMES TURN ON A NICETY BUT NOT ON A NICETY WITHOUT AT LEAST A NICE
SIGNIFICANCE. 

THE CASE THUS APPEARS TO ME ONE THAT WAS DECIDED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA
SUPREME COURT ON THE SETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE
AS A TAX ON REALTY, AND NOT AT ALL AS A TAX ON THE ONLY THING THAT
BELONGS TO THE UNITED STATES, NAMELY, MACHINERY ANNEXED TO THE REALTY. 
HERE ALSO "THERE CAN BE NO PRETENCE THAT THE COURT ADOPTED ITS VIEW IN
ORDER TO EVADE A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, AND THE CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED
UPON GROUNDS THAT HAVE NO RELATION TO ANY FEDERAL QUESTION."  NICKEL V.
COLE, 256 U.S. 222, 225.  THE ONLY INTEREST WHICH THE STATE HERE TAXED
WAS AN INTEREST WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE TO TAX; IT WAS NOT A
FEDERAL INTEREST.  SEE ELDER V. WOOD, 208 U.S. 226, 232; NEW BRUNSWICK
V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 547.  THE RATE AT WHICH THAT INTEREST WAS
TAXED IS EQUALLY A MATTER FOR PENNSYLVANIA TO DETERMINE.  IN VIEW OF
THE DRAVO CASE, SUPRA, AND ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, SUPRA, THERE IS
NOT BEFORE US A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNIZED BURDEN OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
INSOFAR AS THE FINANCIAL BURDEN HAS BEEN DIRECTLY ASSUMED BY THE
GOVERNMENT IT HAS BEEN SO ASSUMED BY ARRANGEMENTS WHICH THE CONTRACTING
OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT SAW FIT TO MAKE WITH MESTA. 

IN RESPECT TO THE PROBLEM WE ARE CONSIDERING, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RELATION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA TO ITS CONSTITUENT PROVINCES IS THE
SAME AS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE STATES.  A RECENT DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IS THEREFORE PERTINENT.  IN CITY OF
VANCOUVER V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CANADA, (1944) S.C.R. 23, THAT COURT
DENIED THE DOMINION'S CLAIM TO IMMUNITY IN A SITUATION PRECISELY LIKE
THIS, AS I BELIEVE WE SHOULD DENY THE CLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
..END :













THE ANACONDA V. AMER. SUGAR CO., 322 U.S. 42 


NO. 649.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1944.  - 138 F.2D
765, AFFIRMED. 


THE PARTIES TO AN AGREEMENT FOR ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF
A CHARTER PARTY CAN NOT BY STIPULATION MAKE UNAVAILABLE THE RIGHT OF
THE AGGRIEVED PARTY UNDER SEC. 8 OF THE UNITED STATES ARBITRATION ACT
TO BEGIN HIS PROCEEDING BY "LIBEL AND SEIZURE OF THE VESSEL  ...
ACCORDING TO THE USUAL COURSE OF ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS."  P. 46. 

THE ANACONDA ET AL. V. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 758, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 48
F.SUPP.  385, DISMISSING A LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THIS CASE POSES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
ARISING UNDER THE UNITED STATES ARBITRATION ACT.  FN1  THE QUESTION
ARISES IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE PETITIONER SMITH-ROWLAND COMPANY,
INC., AS OWNER, CHARTERED TO THE RESPONDENT, AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING
COMPANY, THE BARGE "ANACONDA" FOR A VOYAGE FROM HAVANA, CUBA, TO PORT
EVERGLADES, FLORIDA.  AFTER ARRIVAL AT THE LATTER PORT, THE RESPONDENT
FILED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT A LIBEL IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE
PETITIONER WITH A PRAYER FOR PROCESS OF FOREIGN ATTACHMENT, AND IN REM
AGAINST THE VESSEL, WHICH WAS SEIZED BY THE MARSHAL. 

SMITH-ROWLAND COMPANY, INC., APPEARING SPECIALLY, EXCEPTED TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, RELYING ON A PROVISION OF THE CHARTER PARTY
WHICH WAS:  "ANY AND ALL DIFFERENCES AND DISPUTES OF WHATSOEVER NATURE
ARISING OUT OF THIS CHARTER SHALL BE PUT TO ARBITRATION AT THE FINAL
PLACE OF DISCHARGE  ...  PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES ARBITRATION ACT  ...  EXCEPT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8
THEREOF SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY ARBITRATION HEREUNDER." 

ACTION OTHERWISE JUSTICIABLE IN ADMIRALTY, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING
ANYTHING HEREIN TO THE CONTRARY, THE PARTY CLAIMING TO BE AGGRIEVED MAY
BEGIN HIS PROCEEDING HEREUNDER BY LIBEL AND SEIZURE OF THE VESSEL ...
ACCORDING TO THE USUAL COURSE OF ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS, AND THE COURT
SHALL THEN HAVE JURISDICTION TO DIRECT THE PARTIES TO PROCEED WITH THE
ARBITRATION AND SHALL RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENTER ITS DECREE UPON THE
AWARD." 

THE COURT TREATED THE PETITIONER'S EXCEPTION AS A MOTION TO DISMISS,
AND ORDERED DISMISSAL  FN2 ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS COMPETENT TO THE
PARTIES, WHILE AVAILING THEMSELVES OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
RENDERING ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS ENFORCEABLE IN COURTS OF ADMIRALTY, TO
PRECLUDE RESORT TO THE USUAL PROCESS OF SEIZURE AS SECURITY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH ANY ARBITRAL AWARD.  THE RESPONDENT APPEALED FROM THE
ORDER, AND THE PARTIES ENTERED A STIPULATION FOR VALUE PURSUANT TO
WHICH THE BARGE WAS RELEASED FROM THE MARSHAL'S CUSTODY.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  FN3  WE HOLD ITS ACTION WAS
RIGHT. 

WITHIN THE SPHERES OF ITS OPERATION,  - MARITIME TRANSACTIONS AND
TRANSACTIONS IN COMMERCE, INTERSTATE AND WITH FOREIGN NATIONS,  - THE
ARBITRATION ACT RENDERED A WRITTEN PROVISION IN A CONTRACT BY THE
PARTIES TO SUCH A TRANSACTION, TO ARBITRATE CONTROVERSIES ARISING
THEREOUT, SPECIFICALLY ENFORCEABLE.  THEREBY CONGRESS OVERTURNED THE
EXISTING RULE THAT PERFORMANCE OF SUCH AGREEMENTS COULD NOT BE
COMPELLED BY RESORT TO COURTS OF EQUITY OR ADMIRALTY.  FN4 

AFTER DECLARING (SEC. 2)  FN5  SUCH AGREEMENTS TO BE ENFORCEABLE,
CONGRESS, IN SUCCEEDING SECTIONS, IMPLEMENTED THE DECLARED POLICY.  BY
SEC. 3 IT PROVIDED THAT "IF ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING BE BROUGHT IN ANY OF
THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES UPON ANY ISSUE REFERABLE TO ARBITRATION
UNDER AN AGREEMENT IN WRITING FOR SUCH ARBITRATION, THE COURT  ...
SHALL ON APPLICATION OF ONE OF THE PARTIES STAY THE TRIAL  ...  UNTIL
SUCH ARBITRATION HAS BEEN HAD" IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN DEFAULT IN
PROCEEDING WITH SUCH ARBITRATION.  THE SECTION OBVIOUSLY ENVISAGES
ACTION IN A COURT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION AND DOES NOT OUST THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION OF THE ACTION, THOUGH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO
ARBITRATE.  AND, IT WOULD SEEM THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THE
PLAINTIFF FROM COMMENCING THE ACTION BY ATTACHMENT IF SUCH PROCEDURE IS
AVAILABLE UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW.  THIS SECTION DEALS WITH SUITS AT
LAW OR IN EQUITY.  THE CONCEPT SEEMS TO BE THAT A POWER TO GRANT A STAY
IS ENOUGH WITHOUT THE POWER TO ORDER THAT THE ARBITRATION PROCEED, FOR,
IF A STAY BE GRANTED, THE PLAINTIFF CAN NEVER GET RELIEF UNLESS HE
PROCEEDS TO ARBITRATION. 

THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.  IT HAS ALREADY BEEN QUOTED.  IF THE CAUSE
OF ACTION IS ONE COGNIZABLE IN ADMIRALTY, THEN, THOUGH THE PARTIES HAVE
AGREED TO ARBITRATE, "NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING HEREIN (I.E. IN THE ACT)
TO THE CONTRARY," THE PARTY CLAIMING TO BE AGGRIEVED MAY BEGIN "HIS
PROCEEDING HEREUNDER BY LIBEL AND SEIZURE," "ACCORDING TO THE USUAL
COURSE OF ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS," AND THE COURT MAY DIRECT THE PARTIES
TO PROCEED WITH ARBITRATION AND RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENTER ITS DECREE
ON THE AWARD.  HERE AGAIN THE ACT PLAINLY CONTEMPLATES THAT ONE WHO HAS
AGREED TO ARBITRATE MAY, NEVERTHELESS, PROSECUTE HIS CAUSE OF ACTION IN
ADMIRALTY, AND PROTECTS HIS OPPONENT'S RIGHT TO ARBITRATION BY COURT
ORDER.  FAR FROM OUSTING OR PERMITTING THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT TO
OUST THE COURT OF JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION THE STATUTE
RECOGNIZES THE JURISDICTION AND SAVES THE RIGHT OF AN AGGRIEVED PARTY
TO INVOKE IT. 

FINALLY WE TURN TO SEC. 4, WHICH PERMITS "A PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THE
ALLEGED FAILURE" OF HIS OPPONENT TO ARBITRATE AS AGREED, TO PETITION
ANY FEDERAL COURT OF APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION AT LAW, IN EQUITY OR IN
ADMIRALTY, FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT ARBITRATION PROCEED.  PROVISION
IS MADE FOR FRAMING AN ISSUE AND TRYING IT AS TO WHETHER THE PARTIES
ARE BOUND TO ARBITRATE AND THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER ACCORDINGLY.  FROM
THIS PROVISION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PARTIES MAY PROCEED IN AN ADMIRALTY
CASE WITHOUT THE CUSTOMARY LIBEL AND SEIZURE.  AND IT HAS BEEN SO
HELD.  FN6 

GRANTED BY SEC. 4, MAY BEGIN A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY BY LIBEL AND SEIZURE. 
OUR QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ACT CONTEMPLATES OR PERMITS CONSENSUAL
ELIMINATION OF THE PROCEDURE THUS SAVED BY THE ACT AND CONTRACTUAL
CONFINEMENT OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY'S RESORT TO A COURT TO A PETITION
FOR AN ORDER TO ARBITRATE UNDER SEC. 4.  WE THINK THE ANSWER MUST BE IN
THE NEGATIVE.  CONGRESS MAY HAVE THOUGHT IT WISE NOT TO RAISE DOUBTS
UNDER THE ADMIRALTY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT MAY HAVE THOUGHT
THAT IN MANY CAUSES IN ADMIRALTY IF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY COULD NOT SEIZE
THE SHIP OF HIS OPPONENT, AN ARBITRAL AWARD WOULD BE WHOLLY
UNENFORCEABLE AS THE VESSEL MIGHT SELDOM OR NEVER AGAIN BE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF OUR COURTS.  BUT, WHATEVER ITS REASONS, CONGRESS
PLAINLY AND EMPHATICALLY DECLARED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES HAD AGREED
TO ARBITRATE, THE TRADITIONAL ADMIRALTY PROCEDURE WITH ITS CONCOMITANT
SECURITY SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE AGGRIEVED PARTY WITHOUT IN ANY WAY
LESSENING HIS OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE HIS GRIEVANCE RATHER THAN
LITIGATE THE MERITS IN COURT. 

IT IS ENOUGH THAT CONGRESS HAS SO DECLARED.  WE THINK A PARTY CAN NOT
STIPULATE AWAY SUCH A JURISDICTION WHICH THE LEGISLATION DECLARES OPEN
AS HERETOFORE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF FEBRUARY 12, 1925, C. 213, 43 STAT. 883; TITLE 9 U.S.C. 

FN2  48 F.SUPP.  385. 

FN3  138 F.2D 765. 

FN4  SEE RED CROSS LINE V. ATLANTIC FRUIT CO., 264 U.S. 109; 120-121,
123. 

FN5  THE SECTIONS HAVE THE SAME SECTION NUMBERS IN TITLE 9 OF THE
UNITED STATES CODE. 

FN6  THE AAKRE, 21 F.SUPP.  540. 
..END :














GREAT NORTHERN INS. CO. V. READ, 322 U.S. 47 


NO. 235.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1944.  - 136
F.2D 44, VACATED. 


1.  ON REVIEW BY CERTIORARI OF A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, THE RESPONDENT MAY URGE IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT A
CONTENTION WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 49. 

2.  A FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY BROUGHT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT OF OKLAHOMA AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF OKLAHOMA, TO
RECOVER PAYMENTS MADE TO HIM PURSUANT TO A STATE STATUTE WHICH LEVIED A
TAX OF FOUR PER CENT ON PREMIUMS RECEIVED BY FOREIGN INSURANCE
COMPANIES IN THE STATE.  SECTION 12665, OKLAHOMA STATUTES OF 1931,
PRESCRIBED A JUDICIAL PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY WRONGFULLY
COLLECTED AS TAXES.  HELD: 

(1)  THE SUIT WAS A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE, AND NOT MAINTAINABLE
WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  ELEVENTH AMENDMENT; SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S.
436.  P. 53. 

(2)  THE STATE HAD CONSENTED TO ITS BEING SUED ONLY IN ITS OWN
COURTS, AND THE SUIT WAS THEREFORE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE FEDERAL
COURT.  P. 55. 

3.  A STATE MAY LIMIT TO ITS OWN COURTS SUITS AGAINST IT TO RECOVER
TAXES; AND ITS INTENT IN RESPECT OF SUCH SUITS TO SUBMIT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF COURTS OTHER THAN THOSE OF ITS OWN CREATION MUST
CLEARLY APPEAR.  P. 54. 

4.  SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466; REAGAN V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO.,
154 U.S. 362; AND GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S. 273,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 55. 

GREAT NORTHERN LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. READ, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 726, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING ON THE MERITS A SUIT TO RECOVER SUMS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
ILLEGALLY EXACTED AS TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW THE ACTION OF PETITIONER, A FOREIGN
INSURANCE COMPANY, TO RECOVER TAXES PAID TO RESPONDENT, THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER OF OKLAHOMA, WHICH WERE LEVIED BY SEC. 10478, OKLAHOMA
STATUTES 1931, AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 1(A), TITLE 36, SESSION LAWS OF
OKLAHOMA 1941.  THIS WAS AN ANNUAL FOUR PER CENT TAX ON PREMIUMS
RECEIVED BY FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES IN OKLAHOMA, AND IT, TOGETHER
WITH CERTAIN SPECIFIED FEES, WAS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER TAXES AND FEES IN
OKLAHOMA.  PETITIONER PAID THE TAX UNDER PROTEST AND, ALLEGING
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41, BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY IS LAID DOWN BY SEC. 12665, OKLAHOMA STATUTES
1931.  FN1 

THE PERCENTAGE OF PREMIUMS DUE WAS INCREASED FROM TWO TO FOUR PER
CENT BY THE AMENDMENT OF 1941, EFFECTIVE APRIL 25TH OF THAT YEAR.  THE
DISTRICT COURT REFUSED RECOVERY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  GREAT NORTHERN LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. READ, 136 F.2D 44. 
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED ON PETITIONER'S ASSERTION OF ERROR IN REQUIRING
IT TO PAY A TAX ALLEGEDLY DISCRIMINATORY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AS COMPARED WITH THE TAXATION OF DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND ALSO
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS LEVIED AFTER THE COMPANY'S ADMISSION TO THE STATE
AND ON PREMIUMS COLLECTED DURING THE BUSINESS YEAR FOR WHICH A LICENSE
WAS ALREADY IN FORCE.  A CONFLICT IN PRINCIPLE WAS SUGGESTED WITH
HANOVER FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 726, AND ASKED DISCUSSION OF THE RIGHT OF
PETITIONER TO MAINTAIN ITS SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT.  AS WE CONCLUDE
THAT THIS SUIT COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE FEDERAL COURT, WE DO NOT
REACH THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX. 

THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT
DEPENDS, FIRST, UPON WHETHER THE ACTION IS AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL OR
AGAINST THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.  SECONDLY, IF THE ACTION IS DETERMINED
TO BE AGAINST THE STATE, THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE
STATE HAS CONSENTED TO SUIT AGAINST ITSELF IN THE FEDERAL COURT. 

RESPONDENT CHALLENGED THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER TO SEEK RELIEF IN THE
DISTRICT COURT BY THE DEFENSE IN ITS ANSWER THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO
STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED.  R.C.P. 12(B) AND (E). 
FN2  THIS CHALLENGE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE HAD NOT CONSENTED TO
BE SUED, WAS SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE CONTENTION IS
AVAILABLE HERE TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT ON APPEAL.  LETULLE V. SCOFIELD,
308 U.S. 415. 

IN SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S. 436, AN ACTION WAS INSTITUTED IN THE
FEDERAL TRIAL COURT BY RAILROAD RECEIVERS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT "AS
TREASURER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" TO RECOVER TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST
AND PAID BY THE RAILROAD.  THE PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 3669
OF THE CALIFORNIA POLITICAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY CALIFORNIA STATUTES
(1891) 442, WHICH AUTHORIZED A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE TREASURER FOR THE
RECOVERY OF TAXES WHICH WERE ILLEGALLY EXACTED.  THE DEFENDANT COULD
DEMAND TRIAL OF THE ACTION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.  IF THE FINAL JUDGMENT WAS AGAINST THE
TREASURER, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE WAS DIRECTED TO DRAW HIS
WARRANT ON STATE FUNDS FOR ITS SATISFACTION. 

AS THE SUIT WAS AGAINST A STATE OFFICIAL AS SUCH, THROUGH PROCEEDINGS
WHICH WERE AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE, TO COMPEL HIM TO CARRY OUT WITH THE
STATE'S FUNDS THE STATE'S AGREEMENT TO REIMBURSE MONEYS ILLEGALLY
EXACTED UNDER COLOR OF THE TAX POWER, THIS COURT HELD, P. 439, IT WAS A
SUIT AGAINST THE STATE.  THE STATE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY.  FN3  THE
CASE THEREFORE IS PLAINLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE TO RECOVER
PERSONALLY FROM A TAX COLLECTOR MONEY WRONGFULLY EXACTED BY HIM UNDER
COLOR OF STATE LAW, ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. O'CONNOR, 223 U.S.
280; CF. MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 528; TO RECOVER UNDER
GENERAL LAW POSSESSION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY LIKEWISE WRONGFULLY
OBTAINED OR HELD, TINDAL V. WESLEY, 167 U.S. 204, 221; VIRGINIA COUPON
CASES, 114 U.S. 269, 285; UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196; TO
PERFORM A PLAIN MINISTERIAL DUTY, BOARD OF LIQUIDATION V. MCCOMB, 92
U.S. 531, 541; ROLSTON V. MISSOURI FUND COMM'RS, 120 U.S. 390, 411; OR
TO ENJOIN AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT TO THE INJURY OF PLAINTIFF, STERLING V.
CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 393; TOMLINSON V. BRANCH, 15 WALL.  460;
DAVIS V. GRAY, 16 WALL.  203, 220; IN RE TYLER, 149 U.S. 164, 190. 
ONLY IN SMITH V. REEVES WAS THE ACTION AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE AGAINST
THE OFFICER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY.  IN THE OTHER INSTANCES RELIEF
WAS SOUGHT UNDER GENERAL LAW FROM WRONGFUL ACTS OF OFFICIALS.  IN SUCH
CASES THE IMMUNITY OF THE SOVEREIGN DOES NOT EXTEND TO WRONGFUL
INDIVIDUAL ACTION AND THE CITIZEN IS ALLOWED A REMEDY AGAINST THE
WRONGDOER PERSONALLY. 

THIS RULING THAT A STATE COULD NOT BE CONTROLLED BY COURTS IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF ITS POLITICAL DUTIES THROUGH SUITS AGAINST ITS OFFICIALS
HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED.  CHANDLER V. DIX, 194 U.S. 590; FITTS
V. MCGHEE, 172 U.S. 516, 529; MURRAY V. WILSON DISTILLING CO., 213 U.S.
151, 167; LANKFORD V. PLATTE IRON WORKS CO., 235 U.S. 461, 468 ET SEQ.;
EX PARTE STATE OF NEW YORK, NO. 1, 256 U.S. 490, 500; WORCESTER COUNTY
CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 296, 299.  EFFORTS TO FORCE, THROUGH SUITS
AGAINST OFFICIALS, PERFORMANCE OF PROMISES BY A STATE COLLIDE DIRECTLY
WITH THE NECESSITY THAT A SOVEREIGN MUST BE FREE FROM JUDICIAL
COMPULSION IN THE CARRYING OUT OF ITS POLICIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  MONACO V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 313, 320; LOUISIANA V.
JUMEL, 107 U.S. 711, 720.  A STATE'S FREEDOM FROM LITIGATION WAS
ESTABLISHED AS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THROUGH THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT. 
THE INHERENT NATURE OF SOVEREIGNTY PREVENTS ACTIONS AGAINST A STATE BY
ITS OWN CITIZENS WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  HANS V. LOUISIANA, 134 U.S. 1,
10, 16. 

OKLAHOMA PROVIDES FOR RECOVERY OF UNLAWFUL EXACTIONS PAID TO ITS
COLLECTORS UNDER PROTEST.  SEC. 12665 OKLAHOMA STATUTES 1931.  NOTE 1,
SUPRA.  IN OUR VIEW OF THIS CASE IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO PASS UPON
WHETHER THIS METHOD OF PROTECTING TAXPAYERS WAS INTENDED TO BE
EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHER REMEDIES, INCLUDING ACTIONS AGAINST AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO HAPPENED TO BE A TAX COLLECTOR, OR WHETHER IF IT WERE SO
INTENDED IT WOULD SURMOUNT ALL CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.  COMPARE
BURRILL V. LOCOMOBILE CO., 258 U.S. 34, AND ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS,
301 U.S. 337, 341-43.  SEE ALSO ANTRIM LUMBER CO. V. SNEED, 175 OKLA.
47, 49-51, 52 P.2D 1040, 1043-45. 

A SUIT AGAINST A STATE OFFICIAL UNDER SEC. 12665 TO RECOVER TAXES IS
HELD TO BE A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE BY OKLAHOMA AND THE REMEDY
EXCLUSIVE OF OTHER STATE REMEDIES.  ANTRIM LUMBER CO. V. SNEED, SUPRA,
175 OKLA. AT 51, 52 P.2D AT 1045.  THIS INTERPRETATION OF AN OKLAHOMA
STATUTE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE ACCORDS WITH OUR VIEW, AS SET
OUT ABOVE, OF THE MEANING OF A SUIT AGAINST A STATE.  PETITIONER
BROUGHT THIS ACTION AGAINST THE COLLECTOR, THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER,
IN STRICT ACCORD WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 12665.  IT ALLEGED THAT
THERE WAS NO APPEAL PROVIDED BY OKLAHOMA LAWS FROM DEFENDANT'S ACTION
IN COLLECTING AND GAVE NOTICE OF PROTEST AND SUIT TO DEFENDANT AT THE
TIME OF PAYMENT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION.  BY SO DOING PETITIONER
WAS RELIEVED OF THE NECESSITY OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT
VOLUNTARY  FN4 AND OBTAINED THE ADVANTAGE OF A STATUTORY LIEN LIS
PENDENS ON THE TAX PAYMENT. 

BY SEC. 12665, OKLAHOMA CREATES A JUDICIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE PROMPT
RECOVERY BY THE CITIZEN OF MONEY WRONGFULLY COLLECTED AS TAXES.  IT IS
THE SOVEREIGN'S METHOD OF TAX ADMINISTRATION.  OKLAHOMA DESIGNATES THE
OFFICIAL TO BE SUED, ORDERS HIM TO HOLD THE TAX, EMPOWERS ITS COURTS TO
DO COMPLETE JUSTICE BY DETERMINING THE AMOUNT PROPERLY DUE AND DIRECTS
ITS COLLECTOR TO PAY BACK ANY EXCESS RECEIVED TO THE TAXPAYER.  THE
STATE PROVIDES THIS PROCEDURE IN LIEU OF THE COMMON LAW RIGHT TO CLAIM
REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE COLLECTOR.  THE ISSUE OF COERCION AND DURESS WAS
ELIMINATED AT THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE WITHOUT OBJECTION BY THE
PETITIONER.  THE SECTION MAKES SURE THE TAXPAYER'S RECOVERY OF ILLEGAL
PAYMENTS.  THE SECTION IS LIKE THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE INVOLVED IN SMITH
V. REEVES, SUPRA, EXCEPT FOR THE IMMATERIAL DIFFERENCE THAT THE MONEY
COLLECTED IS DIRECTED TO BE HELD SEPARATE AND APART BY THE COLLECTOR
INSTEAD OF BEING HELD IN THE GENERAL FUNDS OF THE STATE TREASURER.  SEE
SEC. 3669, CALIFORNIA POLITICAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY CALIFORNIA STATUTES
(1891) 442.  IN THE REEVES CASE, AS HERE, THE SUIT WAS AGAINST THE
OFFICIAL, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.  THE OKLAHOMA SECTION DIFFERS FROM THE
COLORADO LAW, SEC. 6, CHAPTER 211, SESSION LAWS OF COLORADO 1907,
CONSIDERED IN ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. O'CONNOR, SUPRA, IN THAT
THE COLORADO STATUTE LEFT THE TAXPAYER TO HIS REMEDY AGAINST THE
COLLECTOR AND MERELY DIRECTED THE REFUND OF THE TAX BY THE TREASURER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE WHICH MIGHT BE OBTAINED.  IN THE
O'CONNOR CASE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE, THE SUIT, AS THIS
COURT'S OPINION SHOWS, WAS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL, NOT THE OFFICIAL. 
WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 12665 IS LIKE
SMITH V. REEVES, A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE. 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT IF THIS IS A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE, OKLAHOMA
HAS CONSENTED TO THIS ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  CF. REAGAN V.
FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362, 391. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF IMMUNITY FROM LITIGATION ASSURES THE STATES AND THE
NATION FROM UNANTICIPATED INTERVENTION IN THE PROCESSES OF GOVERNMENT,
WHILE ITS RIGORS ARE MITIGATED BY A SENSE OF JUSTICE WHICH HAS
CONTINUALLY EXPANDED BY CONSENT THE SUABILITY OF THE SOVEREIGN.  THE
HISTORY OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND THE PRACTICAL NECESSITY OF UNFETTERED
FREEDOM FOR GOVERNMENT FROM CRIPPLING INTERFERENCES REQUIRE A
RESTRICTION OF SUABILITY TO THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT, AS TO PERSONS,
COURTS AND PROCEDURES.  ANTRIM LUMBER CO. V. SNEED, 175 OKLA. 47, 52
P.2D 1040; PATTERSON V. CITY OF CHECOTAH, 187 OKLA. 587, 103 P.2D 97;
BEERS V. ARKANSAS, 20 HOW.  527; KAWANANAKOA V. POLYBLANK, 205 U.S.
349; MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 388; UNITED STATES V.
U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 309 U.S. 506, 512.  FN5  THE IMMUNITY
MAY, OF COURSE, BE WAIVED.  CLARK V. BARNARD, 108 U.S. 436, 447.  WHEN
A STATE AUTHORIZES A SUIT AGAINST ITSELF TO DO JUSTICE TO TAXPAYERS WHO
DEEM THEMSELVES INJURED BY ANY EXACTION, IT IS NOT CONSONANT WITH OUR
DUAL SYSTEM FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS TO BE ASTUTE TO READ THE CONSENT TO
EMBRACE FEDERAL AS WELL AS STATE COURTS.  FEDERAL COURTS, SITTING
WITHIN STATES, ARE FOR MANY PURPOSES COURTS OF THAT STATE, MADISONVILLE
TRACTION CO. V. MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239, 255, BUT WHEN WE ARE DEALING
WITH THE SOVEREIGN EXEMPTION FROM JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IN THE VITAL
FIELD OF FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION A CLEAR DECLARATION OF THE STATE'S
INTENTION TO SUBMIT ITS FISCAL PROBLEMS TO OTHER COURTS THAN THOSE OF
ITS OWN CREATION MUST BE FOUND.  FN6 

THE OKLAHOMA SECTION IN QUESTION, 12665, WAS ENACTED IN 1915 AS A
PART OF A GENERAL AMENDMENT TO THEN EXISTING TAX LAWS.  SESSION LAWS
1915, P. 149, CHAP. 107, ART. ONE, SUBDIVISION B, SEC. 7.  FN7  THIS
SUBDIVISION OF THE ACT OF 1915 IS CONCERNED WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
OF BOARDS OF EQUALIZATION AND PROVIDES A COMPLETE PROCEDURE INCLUDING
REVIEW BY THE DISTRICT AND SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA, AS THE CASE MAY
BE, WHICH ARE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO AFFIRM, MODIFY OR ANNUL THE ACTION OF
THE BOARDS.  SECS. 2 AND 3.  SECTION 6 REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF THE
TAXES WHICH FALL DUE, PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, AND PROVIDES FOR
RECOVERY OF SUCH TAXES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ULTIMATE FINDING ON
REVIEW IN LANGUAGE PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF SEC. 7(SEC. 
12665) HERE INVOLVED.  FURTHERMORE, SEC. 12665 GIVES DIRECTIONS TO THE
OKLAHOMA OFFICER AS TO HIS OBLIGATIONS, REQUIRES THE COURT TO GIVE
PRECEDENCE TO THESE CASES AND DIRECTS THE KIND OF JUDGMENT TO BE
RETURNED, SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA, WHICH IS QUITE DIFFERENT IN LANGUAGE, IF
NOT IN EFFECT, FROM THE JUDGMENT A FEDERAL COURT WOULD RENDER.  IT IS
CLEAR TO US THAT THE LEGISLATURE OF OKLAHOMA WAS CONSENTING TO SUIT IN
ITS OWN COURTS ONLY.  CHANDLER V. DIX, 194 U.S. 590. 

SMITH V. REEVES, SUPRA, P. 445, HOLDS THAT AN ACT OF A STATE IS VALID
WHICH LIMITS TO ITS OWN COURTS SUITS AGAINST IT TO RECOVER TAXES. 
THERE CALIFORNIA'S INTENTION TO SO LIMIT WAS MADE MANIFEST BY
AUTHORIZING THE STATE OFFICER TO DEMAND TRIAL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
SACRAMENTO COUNTY.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. O'CONNOR, CONSIDERED
ABOVE AT P. 53, IS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE IT WAS NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE
STATE. 

PETITIONER URGES THAT SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466, 517, AND REAGAN V.
FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362, 391, 392, ARE PRECEDENTS WHICH
LEAD TO A CONTRARY CONCLUSION ON THIS ISSUE OF THE SUABILITY OF
OKLAHOMA IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE FORMER IS
CLEARLY INAPPOSITE.  THAT CASE INVOLVED PROCEEDINGS TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE STATUTE PROVIDING
FOR INTRASTATE RAILROAD RATES.  SINCE THE STATE ACT PROVIDED A REMEDY,
THE STATE TOOK THE POSITION THAT FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION WAS
OUSTED.  THIS COURT HELD THE FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION CONTINUED TO
RESTRAIN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS BY STATE OFFICERS WHICH THREATENED
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE.  PP. 474, 477, 515-19.    IN THE REAGAN CASE, A
PROCEEDING FOR INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE MEMBERS OF THE TEXAS RAILROAD
COMMISSION FROM ENFORCING RATES WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAS ALLOWED TO BE MAINTAINED IN EQUITY IN A FEDERAL
COURT.  THIS COURT SAID IT WAS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS BOTH
UNDER THE GENERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS AND UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE STATUTE WHICH ALLOWED REVIEW "IN A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS.  ...  "  IT WAS THOUGHT
THAT THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, SITTING IN TRAVIS COUNTY, WAS
COVERED BY THIS LANGUAGE.  AS IT WAS CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS WAS
NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE, PAGE 392, WE DO NOT FEEL IMPELLED TO
EXTEND THE RULING OF THE REAGAN CASE ON THIS ALTERNATIVE BASIS OF
JURISDICTION TO A SUIT, SUCH AS THIS, AGAINST A STATE FOR RECOVERY OF
TAXES. 

GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S. 273, IS ALSO
DISTINGUISHABLE.  THERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA APPEARED
IN A FEDERAL COURT TO ANSWER FOR THE STATE IN AN INJUNCTION SUIT UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF A STATUTE WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS:  "IF THE STATE BE
INTERESTED IN THE REVENUE IN SAID ACTION, THE COUNTY AUDITOR SHALL,
IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COMMENCEMENT OF SAID ACTION, INFORM THE AUDITOR OF
STATE OF ITS COMMENCEMENT, OF THE ALLEGED CAUSE THEREOF, AND THE
AUDITOR OF STATE SHALL SUBMIT THE SAME TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO
SHALL DEFEND SAID ACTION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE."  P. 286. 

THIS COURT CONSTRUED THIS TO CONSENT TO AN APPEARANCE IN THE FEDERAL
COURT AND HELD ITS DECISION RES JUDICATA AGAINST THE STATE AND ADDED AT
P. 287: 

"IF THERE WERE DOUBT - WHICH WE THINK THERE IS NOT - AS TO THE
CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE GIVE TO THE ACT OF 1868, THAT DOUBT IS ENTIRELY
DISPELLED BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTEMPORANEOUS INTERPRETATION
GIVEN TO THE ACT BY THE OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH ITS EXECUTION, BY THE
VIEW WHICH THIS COURT TOOK AS TO THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ON THE
RECORD IN THE PEGUES CASE, AND BY THE ACTION AS WELL AS NON-ACTION
WHICH FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THAT CASE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN ALL
ITS DEPARTMENTS THROUGH A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS." 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION BY A STATE OF THESE STATUTES OF
CONSENT HAVE INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING OUR CONCLUSIONS.  CF. FARISH V.
STATE BANKING BOARD, 235 U.S. 498, 512; RICHARDSON V. FAJARDO SUGAR
CO., 241 U.S. 44, 47; MISSOURI V. FISKE, 290 U.S. 18, 24. 

IT MAY BE WELL TO ADD THAT THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE OKLAHOMA
STATUTE LEAVES OPEN THE ROAD TO REVIEW IN THIS COURT ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS AFTER THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN PASSED UPON BY THE STATE COURTS. 
CHANDLER V. DIX, 194 U.S. 590, 592; SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S. 436,
445. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

FN1  "12665.  PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST WHERE RELIEF BY APPEAL NOT
PROVIDED - ACTION TO RECOVER. 

"IN ALL CASES WHERE THE ILLEGALITY OF THE TAX IS ALLEGED TO ARISE BY
REASON OF SOME ACTION FROM WHICH THE LAWS PROVIDE NO APPEAL, THE
AGGRIEVED PERSON SHALL PAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE TAXES AT THE TIME AND
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW, AND SHALL GIVE NOTICE TO THE OFFICER
COLLECTING THE TAXES SHOWING THE GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT AND THAT SUIT
WILL BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE OFFICER FOR RECOVERY OF THEM.  IT SHALL BE
THE DUTY OF SUCH COLLECTING OFFICER TO HOLD SUCH TAXES SEPARATE AND
APART FROM ALL OTHER TAXES COLLECTED BY HIM, FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY
DAYS AND IF WITHIN SUCH TIME SUMMONS SHALL BE SERVED UPON SUCH OFFICER
IN A SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF SUCH TAXES, THE OFFICER SHALL FURTHER HOLD
SUCH TAXES UNTIL THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF SUCH SUIT.  ALL SUCH SUITS
SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF, AND THEY
SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE THEREIN; IF, UPON FINAL DETERMINATION OF ANY SUCH
SUIT, THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE THAT THE TAXES WERE ILLEGALLY
COLLECTED, AS NOT BEING DUE THE STATE, COUNTY OR SUBDIVISION OF THE
COUNTY, THE COURT SHALL RENDER JUDGMENT SHOWING THE CORRECT AND LEGAL
AMOUNT OF TAXES DUE BY SUCH PERSON, AND SHALL ISSUE SUCH ORDER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S FINDINGS, AND IF SUCH ORDER SHOWS THAT THE
TAXES SO PAID ARE IN EXCESS OF THE LEGAL AND CORRECT AMOUNT DUE, THE
COLLECTING OFFICER SHALL PAY TO SUCH PERSON THE EXCESS AND SHALL TAKE
HIS RECEIPT THEREFOR." 

FN2  THERE IS HERE NO WANT OF JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES OR SUBJECT
MATTER.  WE ARE NOT PASSING UPON A CERTIFICATION OF AN ISSUE AS TO
JURISDICTION SUCH AS AROSE UNDER THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, SEC. 5, 26
STAT. 827, IN ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. ADAMS, 180 U.S. 28, 37.  IF
THIS IS A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE, A FAILURE TO SHOW THE STATE'S CONSENT
TO BE SUED IN THE FACE OF THIS ANSWER WOULD BE FATAL.  CF. BERRYESSA
CATTLE CO. V. SUNSET PACIFIC OIL CO., 87 F.2D 972, 974. 

FN3  PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY, 140 U.S. 1, 10.  COMPARE LOUISIANA V.
JUMEL, 107 U.S. 711, 726. 

FN4  BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. WARD, 68 OKLA. 287, 288, 173 P. 1050;
BROADWELL V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 71 OKLA. 162, 163, 175 P. 828; CF.
WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17, 22; BROADWELL V. CARTER COUNTY, 253
U.S. 25; CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363, 369; RAILROAD CO. V.
COMMISSIONERS, 98 U.S. 541, 544; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS S.W. RY. CO.,
284 U.S. 530, 532. 

FN5  KEIFER & KEIFER V. R.F.C., 306 U.S. 381, IS NOT TO THE
CONTRARY.  WHEN AUTHORITY TO SUE IS GIVEN, THAT AUTHORITY IS LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED TO ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE.  UNITED STATES V. SHAW, 309 U.S.
495, 501. 

FN6  CF. MATTHEWS V. RODGERS 284 U.S. 521, 525.  THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT TO SUIT AGAINST ITSELF, WITHOUT MORE, IN A FIELD
OF FEDERAL POWER DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A SUIT IN A STATE COURT.  STANLEY
V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255, 270; MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S.
382, 384, 389. 

FN7  SEE ALSO SESSION LAWS 1913, CH. 240, ART. 1, SEC. 7. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE
ROBERTS CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

TO AVOID THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES AND OTHER SERIOUS HAZARDS, THE
PLAINTIFF PAID MONEY UNDER CLAIM OF A TAX WHICH OKLAHOMA, WE MUST
ASSUME, HAD NO POWER TO EXACT.  CONCEDEDLY, HE COULD SUE TO RECOVER THE
MONEYS SO PAID TO THE DEFENDANT, A TAX COLLECTOR, IN A STATE COURT IN
OKLAHOMA.  BUT TO ALLOW THE SUIT TO BE BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT
SITTING IN OKLAHOMA WOULD DEROGATE, THIS COURT NOW HOLDS, FROM THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF OKLAHOMA.  SUCH A RESULT, I BELIEVE, DERIVES FROM AN
EXCESSIVE REGARD FOR FORMALISM AND FROM A DISREGARD OF THE WHOLE TREND
OF LEGISLATION, ADJUDICATION AND LEGAL THOUGHT IN SUBJECTING THE
COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF SOCIETY TO THOSE RULES OF LAW WHICH GOVERN
AS BETWEEN MAN AND MAN. 

TO REPEAT, THIS IS A SIMPLE SUIT TO GET BACK MONEY FROM A COLLECTOR
WHO FOR PRESENT PURPOSES HAD NO RIGHT TO DEMAND IT.  SO FAR AS THE
FEDERAL FISCAL SYSTEM IS CONCERNED, THIS COMMON LAW REMEDY HAS BEEN
ENFORCED THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, BARRING ONLY A BRIEF INTERRUPTION. 
FN1  SEE UNITED STATES V. NUNNALLY INVESTMENT CO., 316 U.S. 258.  AND
IF, INSTEAD OF AVOIDING THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF NOT PAYING THIS
STATE TAX, THE PLAINTIFF HAD RESISTED PAYMENT AND SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
TAX, UNDER APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES THE FEDERAL COURTS WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  SEE, E.G., WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V.
TRAPP, 186 F. 114; WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17; CARPENTER V. SHAW,
280 U.S. 363.  FINALLY, AS I READ THE OPINION OF THE COURT, EVEN A SUIT
OF THIS VERY NATURE FOR THE RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID FOR A DISPUTED TAX
WILL LIE AGAINST THE COLLECTOR IN WHAT IS CALLED HIS INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY; THAT IS, A SUIT AGAINST THE SAME PERSON ON THE SAME CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR THE SAME REMEDY CAN BE BROUGHT, IF ONLY DIFFERENTLY
ENTITLED.  IN VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF SUCH A SUIT AS THIS AND OF THE
INCONGRUOUS CONSEQUENCES OF DISALLOWING IT IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT WAS
A CASE IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN OKLAHOMA, THE CLAIMS OF SOVEREIGNTY
WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO BE RESPECTED MUST SURELY BE ATTENUATED AND
CAPRICIOUS. 

THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT HAS PUT STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT INTO THE
CONSTITUTION.  THEREFORE, IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF INDIVIDUALS TO
BRING ANY STATE INTO COURT - THE STATE'S OR THAT OF THE UNITED STATES -
EXCEPT WITH ITS CONSENT.  BUT CONSENT DOES NOT DEPEND ON SOME
RITUALISTIC FORMULA.  NOR ARE ANY WORDS NEEDED TO INDICATE SUBMISSION
TO THE LAW OF THE LAND.  THE READINESS OR RELUCTANCE WITH WHICH COURTS
FIND SUCH CONSENT HAS NATURALLY BEEN INFLUENCED BY PREVAILING VIEWS
REGARDING THE MORAL SANCTION TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO A STATE'S FREEDOM FROM
SUABILITY.  WHETHER THIS IMMUNITY IS AN ABSOLUTE SURVIVAL OF THE
MONARCHIAL PRIVILEGE, OR IS A MANIFESTATION MERELY OF POWER, OR RESTS
ON ABSTRACT LOGICAL GROUNDS, SEE KAWANANAKOA V. POLYBLANK, 205 U.S.
349, IT UNDOUBTEDLY RUNS COUNTER TO MODERN DEMOCRATIC NOTIONS OF THE
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE.  ACCORDINGLY, COURTS REFLECT A
STRONG LEGISLATIVE MOMENTUM IN THEIR TENDENCY TO EXTEND THE LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT AND TO CONFIRM MAITLAND'S BELIEF,
EXPRESSED NEARLY FIFTY YEARS AGO, THAT "IT IS A WHOLESOME SIGHT TO SEE
'THE CROWN' SUED AND ANSWERING FOR ITS TORTS."  3 MAITLAND, COLLECTED
PAPERS, 263.  FN2 

ASSUMING THAT THE PROCEEDING IN THIS CASE TO RECOVER FROM THE
INDIVIDUAL MONEYS DEMANDED BY HIM IN DEFIANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS A
SUIT AGAINST THE STATE, COMPARE EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, 155;
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. O'CONNOR, 223 U.S. 280, OKLAHOMA HAS
CONSENTED THAT HE BE SUED.  THE ONLY QUESTION THEREFORE IS AS TO THE
SCOPE OF THE CONSENT.  HAS SHE CONFINED THE RIGHT TO SUE TO HER OWN
COURTS AND EXCLUDED THE FEDERAL COURTS WITHIN HER BOUNDARIES?  SHE HAS
NOT SAID SO.  IS SUCH RESTRICTION INDICATED BY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF STATE AFFAIRS?  IF IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE TO
OKLAHOMA WHETHER THIS SUIT AGAINST A TAX COLLECTOR IS PRESSED IN AN
OKLAHOMA STATE COURT RATHER THAN IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN
OKLAHOMA, THE DIFFERENCE HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED.  THERE IS HERE AN
ENTIRE ABSENCE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT LED TO THE DECISION IN
BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315.  THERE IT WAS DEEMED DESIRABLE,
AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION, THAT A FEDERAL EQUITY COURT SHOULD STEP
ASIDE AND LEAVE A SPECIALIZED SYSTEM OF STATE ADMINISTRATION TO
FUNCTION.  HERE THE SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT WOULD NOT SUPPLANT A
SPECIALLY ADAPTABLE STATE SCHEME OF ADMINISTRATION NOR BRING INTO PLAY
THE EXPERT KNOWLEDGE OF A STATE COURT REGARDING LOCAL CONDITIONS.  THE
SUBJECT MATTER AND THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL COURT
WOULD BE PRECISELY THE SAME AS IN THE STATE COURT.  THE CASE WOULD
MERELY BE ARGUED IN A DIFFERENT BUILDING AND BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE. 
LANGUAGE RESTRICTIVE OF SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT IS LACKING, AND
INTRINSIC POLICY DOES NOT SUGGEST RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION TO
WITHDRAW FROM A FEDERAL COURT QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 

LEGISLATION GIVING CONSENT TO SUE IS NOT TO BE TREATED IN THE SPIRIT
IN WHICH SEVENTEENTH CENTURY CRIMINAL PLEADING WAS CONSTRUED.  ONLY BY
SUCH OVERSTRAINED RENDERING OF THE OKLAHOMA STATUTE DOES THE COURT
FINANY ACHIEVE EXCLUSION OF THE RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFF TO GO TO A
FEDERAL COURT.  TO THE LANGUAGE OF THAT STATUTE I NOW TURN.  BY SEC.
12665 OKLAHOMA STATUTES, 1931, THE STATE AUTHORIZED AN ACTION TO
RECOVER MONEYS ILLEGALLY EXACTED AS A TAX, IN A SITUATION LIKE THE
PRESENT, WHERE THE EXACTION IS ONE "FROM WHICH THE LAWS PROVIDE NO
APPEAL."  THE RELEVANT JURISDICTIONAL PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS:  "ALL
SUCH SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF,
AND THEY SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE THEREIN.  ...  "  THE PART THAT THE
FEDERAL COURTS PLAY IN THE GRANT OF SUCH JURISDICTION BY THE STATES IS
NOT A NEW PROBLEM.  WITH HIS CUSTOMARY HARDHEADEDNESS CHIEF JUSTICE
WAITE, FOR THIS COURT, STATED THE GUIDING CONSIDERATION IN ASCERTAINING
THE RELATION OF THE FEDERAL COURT WITHIN A STATE TO THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS RECOGNIZED BY THAT STATE:  "WHILE THE CIRCUIT COURT MAY NOT BE
TECHNICALLY A COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH, IT IS A COURT WITHIN IT; AND
THAT, AS WE THINK, IS ALL THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR."  EX
PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369, 377.  THIS CONCEPTION OF A FEDERAL
COURT AS A COURT WITHIN THE STATE OF ITS LOCATION HAS EVER SINCE
DOMINATED OUR DECISIONS.  SEE, E.G., MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V.
MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239, 255-56; NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 308
U.S. 165, 171.  IT IS A CONCEPTION WHICH HAS BEEN ACTED UPON BY STATE
LEGISLATURES.  FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN
ASSIMILATED TO THE COURTS OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY MAY SIT.  WHEN WE
ARE DEALING WITH JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS LEGISLATION SHOULD BE
INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH PROFESSIONAL HISTORY.  EVEN IF AN
AMBIGUITY COULD BE SQUEEZED OUT OF A GRANT OF JURISDICTION WHICH
APPLIES SO APTLY TO A FEDERAL COURT IN OKLAHOMA AS TO AN OKLAHOMA STATE
COURT - "SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION
THEREOF" - NEITHER LOGIC NOR HISTORY NOR REASON COUNSELS AN
INTERPRETATION THAT ATTRIBUTES TO THE STATE HOSTILITY AGAINST A SUIT IN
A FEDERAL COURT ON AN EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL RIGHT AS TO WHICH THE LAST
SAY IN ANY EVENT BELONGS TO A FEDERAL COURT.  FN3    IN THE PAST, EVEN
WHEN THE JURISDICTIONAL GRANT HAS BEEN COUCHED IN LANGUAGE GIVING
SUBSTANTIAL GROUND FOR THE ARGUMENT OF RESTRICTION OF JURISDICTION TO
THE STATE COURT, THIS COURT HAS NOT FOUND DENIAL BY A STATE OF THE
RIGHT TO GO TO A FEDERAL COURT WITHIN THAT STATE WHEN IT IN FACT OPENED
THE DOOR OF ITS OWN COURTS.  THUS, IN MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V.
MINING CO., SUPRA, A KENTUCKY STATUTE REQUIRED, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS IN A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING BY THE COUNTY
COURT, EXAMINATION OF THE REPORT AT ITS FIRST REGULAR TERM, ISSUANCE OF
ORDERS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE KENTUCKY CIVIL CODE OF PRACTICE AND
ALLOWANCE OF APPEALS FROM THE COUNTY COURTS.  AND YET THIS COURT HELD,
AS A MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION, THAT IT WAS "NOT TO BE IMPLIED FROM THE
STATUTE IN QUESTION THAT THE STATE INTENDED TO EXCLUDE  ...  THE
FEDERAL COURTS."  196 U.S. AT 256.  THE SECTION NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION
IS ONLY ONE OF SEVERAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR CHALLENGING LIKE TAX
ASSESSMENTS IN COURTS.  IN ALL THE OTHER PROVISIONS, THE JURISDICTION
IS EXPLICITLY GIVEN ONLY TO STATE COURTS.  SEE, E.G., SECS. 12651,
12660, 12661.  IF IN SEC. 12665 OKLAHOMA HAS SEEN FIT TO ALLOW SUITS TO
BE BROUGHT "IN THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF," WHICH AS A
MATTER OF FEDERAL JURISDICTIONAL LAW CERTAINLY INCLUDES THE FEDERAL
COURT IN OKLAHOMA, AND HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO DESIGNATE THE STATE COURTS
FOR SUCH JURISDICTION, WHY SHOULD THIS COURT INTERPOLATE A RESTRICTION
WHICH THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE HAS OMITTED?  THE FACT THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT SUCH SUITS "SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE"
IS NO MORE EMBARRASSMENT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION THAN TO STATE
JURISDICTION.  THAT IS MERELY AN ADMONITION TO COURTS OF THE IMPORTANCE
OF DISPOSING OF LITIGATION AFFECTING REVENUE WITH ALL CONVENIENT
DISPATCH.  NOR IS THERE ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE STATUTE GIVING THIS
RIGHT OF ACTION THAT REMOTELY REQUIRES A PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED OR
RELIEF TO BE GIVEN PECULIAR TO STATE COURTS OR DIFFERENT FROM
ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE AND RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  ONLY ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT FEDERAL COURTS ARE ALIEN COURTS IS THERE ANYTHING IN
SEC. 12665 THAT IS NOT AS SUITED TO A PROCEEDING IN A FEDERAL COURT AS
IT IS TO ONE IN A STATE COURT. 

THE SITUATION THUS PRESENTED BY THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATION IS VERY
DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH WAS HERE IN CHANDLER V. DIX, 194 U.S. 590. 
THERE A SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST STATE OFFICIALS TO REMOVE A CLOUD ON
TITLE TO LANDS CLAIMED BY THE STATE.  THE RELIEF THAT WAS SOUGHT AND
THE PROCEDURE FOR PURSUING IT PLAINLY INDICATED "THAT THE LEGISLATURE
HAD IN MIND ONLY PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE.  A COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT IS TO BE SERVED UPON THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, WHO IS TO SEND
A COPY THEREOF WITHIN FIVE DAYS TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL, AND THIS IS TO
BE IN LIEU OF SERVICE OF PROCESS.  IT THEN IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF
THE AUDITOR GENERAL TO CAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REPRESENT HIM, AND
IT IS PROVIDED THAT IN SUCH SUITS NO COSTS SHALL BE TAXED.  THESE
PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO PROCEDURE AND COSTS SHOW THAT THE STATUTE IS
DEALING WITH A MATTER SUPPOSED TO REMAIN UNDER STATE CONTROL.  ...
(THE) STATUTE DOES NOT WARRANT THE BEGINNING OF A SUIT IN THE FEDERAL
COURT TO SET ASIDE THE TITLE OF THE STATE."  194 U.S. AT 591-592.  THE
MARKED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MICHIGAN STATUTE AND THIS OKLAHOMA
STATUTE IS FURTHER EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT SEC. 12665 GIVES AN
ACTION TO RECOVER NOT MERELY ILLEGAL STATE TAXES BUT ALSO TAXES OF THE
"COUNTY OR SUB-DIVISION OF THE COUNTY" THAT HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY
COLLECTED.  BUT COUNTIES OR THEIR SUBDIVISIONS DO NOT ENJOY IMMUNITY
FROM SUIT.  LINCOLN COUNTY V. LUNING, 133 U.S. 529; SEATTLE V. OREGON &
WASHINGTON R. CO., 255 U.S. 56, 71.  IF THE OTHER JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS ARE PRESENT, THEY CAN BE SUED IN A FEDERAL COURT WITHOUT
THE LEAVE OF OKLAHOMA.  IT IS NOT, I SUBMIT, A RATIONAL WAY TO CONSTRUE
THE OKLAHOMA STATUTE, DEALING WITH A PARTICULAR TYPE OF ILLEGAL
EXACTION RAISING THE SAME KIND OF ISSUE AND INVOLVING THE SAME
PROCEDURE.  SO AS TO RECOGNIZE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS OVER
SUITS AGAINST THE COUNTY AND ITS SUB-DIVISION BUT TO FIND A PURPOSE TO
EXCLUDE SUITS AS TO ILLEGAL STATE EXACTIONS. 

I HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ACTION BELOW WAS UNDER
SEC. 12665, AND AS SUCH AN ACTION AGAINST THE STATE.  BUT THE SUIT WAS
NOT BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 12665.  IT WAS BROUGHT AS AN ORDINARY COMMON LAW
ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF MONEY AGAINST AN OFFICER ACTING UNDER AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE.  THE DEFENDANT ANSWERED THE SUIT, BUT DID NOT
CLAIM THE STATE'S IMMUNITY FROM SUIT AND THE COURT'S RESULTING LACK OF
JURISDICTION.  WHAT IS EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT IS THAT HE DID ALLEGE LACK
OF JURISDICTION ON ANOTHER GROUND NOT NOW RELEVANT.  IN A WORD, THE
DEFENDANT DID NOT CLAIM, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE, THE IMMUNITY WHICH
THIS COURT NOW AFFORDS HIM.  HE DID NOT EVEN MAKE THIS CLAIM AT THE PRE
TRIAL CONFERENCE AND THE CLAIM DID NOT EMERGE AS ONE OF THE ISSUES
DEFINED BY THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE UNDER RULE 16.  IN DISPOSING OF THE
CASE, THE JUDGE INTERPRETED THE ACTION AS HAVING BEEN BROUGHT UNDER
SEC. 12665, ALTHOUGH THE PLEADINGS GAVE NO WARRANT FOR SUCH CONCLUSION,
AND ON SUCH INTERPRETATION, HE FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD CLAIM AND
HAD NOT WAIVED OKLAHOMA'S IMMUNITY.  EVIDENTLY, HOWEVER, THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS NOT CONTENT WITH ITS OWN FINDING OF WANT OF "JURISDICTION"
FOR IT PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ON THEIR
MERITS.  I THINK THAT THE CLAIM OF THE STATE'S IMMUNITY WAS NOT IN THE
CASE UNDER ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. ADAMS, 180 U.S. 28, WHICH HELD
THAT IN A SUIT NOMINALLY AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS A
DEFENSE THAT MUST BE RAISED BY APPROPRIATE PLEADING.  DOUBTLESS FOR
THIS REASON, THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION ON WHICH THE CASE IS NOW MADE
TO TURN WAS NOT EVEN DISCUSSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

THAT COURT, I BELIEVE, PROPERLY PASSED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL MERITS,
BUT SINCE THE CASE HERE GOES OFF ON JURISDICTION, I INTIMATE NO VIEWS
UPON THEM. 

FN1  THE SWARTWOUT SCANDAL LED TO THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1839(SEC.  2, 5
STAT. 339, 348), WHICH THIS COURT CONSTRUED AS A WITHDRAWAL OF THE
SUABILITY OF THE COLLECTOR.  CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236.  THAT
DECISION WAS RENDERED ON JANUARY 21, 1845, AND CONGRESS PROMPTLY
RESTORED THE OLD LIABILITY.  ACT OF FEB. 26, 1845, C. XXII, 5 STAT.
727.  SEE BROWN, A DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE STORY (1940) 26
VA. L. REV. 759.  AGAIN, IN VIEW OF THE COMPLICATED ADMINISTRATIVE
PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE INVALIDATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT,
CONGRESS DEVISED A SPECIAL SCHEME FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS MADE UNDER THE ACT.  49 STAT. 1747, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 644 ET
SEQ.; ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337. 

FN2  "WITH US EVERY OFFICIAL, FROM THE PRIME MINISTER DOWN TO A
CONSTABLE OR A COLLECTOR OF TAXES, IS UNDER THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY FOR
EVERY ACT DONE WITHOUT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION AS ANY OTHER CITIZEN." 
DOUBTLESS THIS STATEMENT OF DICEY'S, LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION, 8TH ED.,
AT P. 189, 9TH ED. AT P. 193, WAS AN IDEALIZATION OF ACTUALITY.  BUT IN
THE PERSPECTIVE OF OUR TIME ITS VALIDITY AS AN IDEAL HAS GAINED AND NOT
LOST. 

FN3  OF COURSE THE STATE CAN AT ANY TIME WITHDRAW ITS CONSENT TO BE
SUED.  SEE BEERS V. ARKANSAS, 20 HOW.  527.  BUT STATUTES HAVE STEADILY
ENLARGED THE RANGE OF A STATE'S SUABILITY AND RARELY HAS THERE BEEN A
RECESSION.  SEE, GENERALLY, BORCHARD, STATE AND MUNICIPAL LIABILITY IN
TORT - PROPOSED STATUTORY REFORM (1934) 20 A.B.A.J. 747; BORCHARD,
GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY IN TORT (1926) 36 YALE L.J. 1, 17, (1927)
36 YALE L.J. 757, 1039, (1928) 28 COL. L. REV. 577, 735. 
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL, 322 U.S. 65 


NOS. 514 AND 515.  ARGUED MARCH 27, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1944.  -
138 F.2D 426, REVERSED. 


1.  PROMPTLY AND SPONTANEOUSLY AFTER A HOUSEBREAKING SUSPECT HAD BEEN
TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY POLICE OFFICERS AND HAD ARRIVED AT THE POLICE
STATION, HE ADMITTED HIS GUILT AND CONSENTED TO THE OFFICERS'
RECOVERING STOLEN PROPERTY FROM HIS HOME.  HELD THAT THE ADMISSION OF
GUILT AND THE PROPERTY THUS RECOVERED WERE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE IN A
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A FEDERAL COURT, AND THAT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT ILLEGAL DETENTION OF
THE SUSPECT FOR EIGHT DAYS BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT.  MCNABB V. UNITED
STATES, 318 U.S. 332, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 69. 

2.  THE POWER OF THIS COURT TO ESTABLISH RULES GOVERNING THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IS NOT TO BE USED TO
DISCIPLINE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.  P. 70. 

UNITED STATES V. MITCHELL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 756, TO REVIEW REVERSALS, IN TWO CASES, OF
CONVICTIONS OF HOUSEBREAKING AND LARCENY. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UNDER EACH OF TWO INDICTMENTS FOR HOUSEBREAKING AND LARCENY, THE
DEFENDANT MITCHELL WAS SEPARATELY TRIED AND CONVICTED, BUT HIS
CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, 138 F.2D 426, SOLELY
ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY OF MITCHELL'S ORAL
CONFESSIONS AND OF STOLEN PROPERTY SECURED FROM HIS HOME THROUGH HIS
CONSENT WAS BARRED BY OUR DECISION IN MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S.
332.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE TO FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE OF PROPER
APPLICATION OF THE MCNABB DOCTRINE, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE. 

PRACTICALLY THE WHOLE BODY OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE GOVERNING CRIMINAL
TRIALS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS HAS BEEN JUDGEMADE.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
REID, 12 HOW.  361, AND FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371.  NATURALLY
THESE EVIDENTIARY RULES HAVE NOT REMAINED UNCHANGED.  THEY HAVE ADAPTED
THEMSELVES TO PROGRESSIVE NOTIONS OF RELEVANCE IN THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH
THROUGH ADVERSARY LITIGATION, AND HAVE REFLECTED DOMINANT CONCEPTIONS
OF STANDARDS APPROPRIATE FOR THE EFFECTIVE AND CIVILIZED ADMINISTRATION
OF LAW.  AS THIS COURT WHEN MAKING A NEW DEPARTURE IN THIS FIELD TOOK
OCCASION TO SAY A DECADE AGO, "THE PUBLIC POLICY OF ONE GENERATION MAY
NOT, UNDER CHANGED CONDITIONS, BE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF ANOTHER."  FUNK
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT 381.  THE MCNABB DECISION WAS MERELY ANOTHER
EXPRESSION OF THIS HISTORIC TRADITION, WHEREBY RULES OF EVIDENCE FOR
CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE MADE A PART OF LIVING LAW AND
NOT TREATED AS A MERE COLLECTION OF WOODEN RULES IN A GAME. 

THAT CASE RESPECTED THE POLICY UNDERLYING ENACTMENTS OF CONGRESS AS
WELL AS THAT OF A MASSIVE BODY OF STATE LEGISLATION WHICH, WHATEVER MAY
BE THE MINOR VARIATIONS OF LANGUAGE, REQUIRE THAT ARRESTING OFFICERS
SHALL WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS BRING ARRESTED PERSONS BEFORE A
COMMITTING AUTHORITY.  SUCH LEGISLATION, WE SAID IN THE MCNABB CASE,
"CONSTITUTES AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD - NOT ONLY IN ASSURING PROTECTION
FOR THE INNOCENT BUT ALSO IN SECURING CONVICTION OF THE GUILTY BY
METHODS THAT COMMEND THEMSELVES TO A PROGRESSIVE AND SELF-CONFIDENT
SOCIETY.  FOR THIS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT CHECKS RESORT TO THOSE
REPREHENSIBLE PRACTICES KNOWN AS THE 'THIRD DEGREE' WHICH, THOUGH
UNIVERSALLY REJECTED AS INDEFENSIBLE, STILL FIND THEIR WAY INTO USE. 
IT AIMS TO AVOID ALL THE EVIL IMPLICATIONS OF SECRET INTERROGATION OF
PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIME.  IT REFLECTS NOT A SENTIMENTAL BUT A STURDY
VIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.  IT OUTLAWS EASY BUT SELF-DEFEATING WAYS IN
WHICH BRUTALITY IS SUBSTITUTED FOR BRAINS AS AN INSTRUMENT OF CRIME
DETECTION.  A STATUTE CARRYING SUCH PURPOSES IS EXPRESSIVE OF A GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE POLICY TO WHICH COURTS SHOULD NOT BE HEEDLESS WHEN
APPROPRIATE SITUATIONS CALL FOR ITS APPLICATION."  318 U.S. AT 344. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MCNABB CASE WE FOUND SUCH AN APPROPRIATE
SITUATION, IN THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE ILLEGALLY DETAINED UNDER
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:  ONE OF THEM WAS SUBJECTED TO UNREMITTING
QUESTIONING BY HALF A DOZEN POLICE OFFICERS FOR FIVE OR SIX HOURS AND
THE OTHER TWO FOR TWO DAYS.  WE HELD THAT "A CONVICTION RESTING ON
EVIDENCE SECURED THROUGH SUCH A FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THE PROCEDURE
WHICH CONGRESS HAS COMMANDED CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT MAKING
THE COURTS THEMSELVES ACCOMPLICES IN WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF LAW. 
CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN THE USE OF EVIDENCE SO PROCURED. 
BUT TO PERMIT SUCH EVIDENCE TO BE MADE THE BASIS OF A CONVICTION IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS WOULD STULTIFY THE POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENACTED
INTO LAW."  318 U.S. AT 345.  FOR LIKE REASONS IT WAS HELD IN THE
NARDONE CASE THAT WHERE WIRETAPPING IS PROHIBITED BY CONGRESS THE
FRUITS OF ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING CONSTITUTE ILLICIT EVIDENCE AND ARE
THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE.  NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379; 308
U.S. 338.  INEXCUSABLE DETENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ILLEGALLY
EXTRACTING EVIDENCE FROM AN ACCUSED, AND THE SUCCESSFUL EXTRACTION OF
SUCH INCULPATORY STATEMENTS BY CONTINUOUS QUESTIONING FOR MANY HOURS
UNDER PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE, WERE THE DECISIVE FEATURES IN THE MCNABB
CASE WHICH LED US TO RULE THAT A CONVICTION ON SUCH EVIDENCE COULD NOT
STAND. 

WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF STATE CONVICTIONS
PRESENTS A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION, CONFINED AS IT IS WITHIN VERY
NARROW LIMITS.  OUR SOLE AUTHORITY IS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THAT WHICH A
STATE COURT PERMITTED VIOLATED THE BASIC SAFEGUARDS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THEREFORE, IN CASES COMING FROM THE STATE COURTS IN MATTERS
OF THIS SORT, WE ARE CONCERNED SOLELY WITH DETERMINING WHETHER A
CONFESSION IS THE RESULT OF TORTURE, PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND NOT
THE OFFSPRING OF REASONED CHOICE.  HOW DIFFICULT AND OFTEN ELUSIVE AN
INQUIRY THIS IMPLIES, OUR DECISIONS MAKE MANIFEST.  AND FOR THE
IMPORTANT RELATION BETWEEN ILLEGAL INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION AND "THIRD
DEGREE" PRACTICES, SEE IV, REPORT, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW
OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT (BETTER KNOWN AS THE WICKERSHAM
COMMISSION)(1931) PP. 4, 35 ET SEQ., 152; AND THE DEBATES IN THE HOUSE
OF COMMONS ON THE SAVIDGE CASE, 217 H.C. DEB.  (5TH SER.  1928) PP.
1216-1220, 1303-1339, 1921-1931, AND INQUIRY IN REGARD TO THE
INTERROGATION BY THE POLICE OF MISS SAVIDGE, CMD.  3147(1928); REPORT
OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON POLICE POWERS AND PROCEDURE, CMD. 
3297(1929).  BUT UNDER THE DUTY OF FORMULATING RULES OF EVIDENCE FOR
FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS, WE ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION OF ASCERTAINING WHEN A CONFESSION COMES OF A FREE CHOICE AND
WHEN IT IS EXTORTED BY FORCE, HOWEVER SUBTLY APPLIED.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. OPPENHEIMER, 242 U.S. 85, 88.  THE MCNABB DECISION WAS AN
EXERCISE OF OUR DUTY TO FORMULATE POLICY APPROPRIATE FOR CRIMINAL
TRIALS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  WE ADHERE TO THAT DECISION AND TO THE
VIEWS ON WHICH IT WAS BASED.  (FOR CASES IN WHICH APPLICATIONS OF THE
MCNABB DOCTRINE BY CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS WERE LEFT UNCHALLENGED BY
THE GOVERNMENT, SEE UNITED STATES V. HAUPT, 136 F.2D 661; GROS V.
UNITED STATES, 136 F.2D 878; RUNNELS V. UNITED STATES, 138 F.2D 346.) 

BUT THE FOUNDATIONS FOR APPLICATION OF THE MCNABB DOCTRINE ARE HERE
TOTALLY LACKING.  UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES, SEE, FOR
INSTANCE, SECS. 25 AND 26 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, FN1  UNDER
THE PREVAILING AMERICAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THE
MCNABB CASE, "THE MERE FACT THAT A CONFESSION WAS MADE WHILE IN THE
CUSTODY OF THE POLICE DOES NOT RENDER IT INADMISSIBLE."  318 U.S. AT
346.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE TRIAL COURTS WERE QUITE
RIGHT IN ADMITTING, FOR THE JURIES' JUDGMENT, THE TESTIMONY RELATING TO
MITCHELL'S ORAL CONFESSIONS AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY RECOVERED AS A
RESULT OF HIS CONSENT TO A SEARCH OF HIS HOME.  AS THE ISSUES COME
BEFORE US THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE AND ARE QUICKLY TOLD. 

IN AUGUST AND EARLY OCTOBER 1942, TWO HOUSES IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA WERE BROKEN INTO AND FROM EACH PROPERTY WAS STOLEN.  THE TRAIL
OF POLICE INVESTIGATION LED TO MITCHELL WHO WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AT
HIS HOME AT 7 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1942, AND
DRIVEN BY TWO POLICE OFFICERS TO THE PRECINCT STATION.  WITHIN A FEW
MINUTES OF HIS ARRIVAL AT THE POLICE STATION, MITCHELL ADMITTED GUILT,
TOLD THE OFFICERS OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF STOLEN PROPERTY TO BE FOUND IN
HIS HOME AND CONSENTED TO THEIR GOING TO HIS HOME TO RECOVER THE
PROPERTY.  FN2  IT IS THESE ADMISSIONS AND THAT PROPERTY WHICH
SUPPORTED THE CONVICTIONS, AND WHICH WERE DEEMED BY THE COURT BELOW TO
HAVE BEEN INADMISSIBLE.  OBVIOUSLY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISCLOSURE BY
MITCHELL ARE WHOLLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE
DISCLOSURES BY THE MCNABBS.  HERE THERE WAS NO DISCLOSURE INDUCED BY
ILLEGAL DETENTION, NO EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF ANY LEGAL
RIGHTS, BUT INSTEAD THE CONSENT TO A SEARCH OF HIS HOME, THE PROMPT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY AN ACCUSED OF HIS GUILT, AND THE SUBSEQUENT RUEING
APPARENTLY OF SUCH SPONTANEOUS COOPERATION AND CONCESSION OF GUILT. 

BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF LEGALITY ATTENDING THE MAKING OF THESE ORAL
STATEMENTS ARE NULLIFIED, IT IS SUGGESTED, BY WHAT FOLLOWED.  FOR NOT
UNTIL EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WAS MITCHELL ARRAIGNED
BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE.  UNDOUBTEDLY HIS DETENTION DURING THIS
PERIOD WAS ILLEGAL.  THE POLICE EXPLANATION OF THIS ILLEGALITY IS THAT
MITCHELL WAS KEPT IN SUCH CUSTODY WITHOUT PROTEST THROUGH A DESIRE TO
AID THE POLICE IN CLEARING UP THIRTY HOUSEBREAKINGS, THE BOOTY FROM
WHICH WAS FOUND IN HIS HOME.  ILLEGALITY IS ILLEGALITY, AND OFFICERS OF
THE LAW SHOULD DEEM THEMSELVES SPECIAL GUARDIANS OF THE LAW.  BUT IN
ANY EVENT, THE ILLEGALITY OF MITCHELL'S DETENTION DOES NOT
RETROACTIVELY CHANGE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE MADE THE
DISCLOSURES.  THESE, WE HAVE SEEN, WERE NOT ELICITED THROUGH
ILLEGALITY.  THEIR ADMISSION, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT BE USE BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE FRUITS OF WRONGDOING BY ITS OFFICERS.  BEING
RELEVANT, THEY COULD BE EXCLUDED ONLY AS A PUNITIVE MEASURE AGAINST
UNRELATED WRONGDOING BY THE POLICE.  OUR DUTY IN SHAPING RULES OF
EVIDENCE RELATES TO THE PROPRIETY OF ADMITTING EVIDENCE.  THIS POWER IS
NOT TO BE USED AS AN INDIRECT MODE OF DISCIPLINING MISCONDUCT. 
JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 25:  "NO CONFESSION MADE TO A POLICE OFFICER, SHALL BE
PROVED AS AGAINST A PERSON ACCUSED OF ANY OFFENCE." 

SEC. 26:  "NO CONFESSION MADE BY ANY PERSON WHILST HE IS IN THE
CUSTODY OF A POLICE OFFICER, UNLESS IT BE MADE IN THE IMMEDIATE
PRESENCE OF A MAGISTRATE, SHALL BE PROVED AS AGAINST SUCH PERSON." 

FN2  IN BOTH CASES MITCHELL DENIED THE TESTIMONY OF THE OFFICERS THAT
HE HAD IN FACT MADE PROMPT AND SPONTANEOUS CONFESSION AND CONSENT TO
THE SEARCH OF HIS HOME, AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DENIAL MOTIONS WERE
MADE TO EXCLUDE THE EVIDENCE.  THE TRIAL JUDGES RULED THAT WHETHER
THESE STATEMENTS WERE IN FACT MADE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED WERE
QUESTIONS OF FACT FOR THE JURIES.  AS SUCH THEY WERE LEFT TO THE
JURIES, AND WE HERE ACCEPT THEIR VERDICT AS DID THE COURT BELOW. 
MITCHELL, IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED, MERELY DENIED THAT HE MADE THESE
STATEMENTS AND SO DID NOT CONTEST THE TIME OF MAKING THEM.  WHILE AT
THE TRIAL THERE WAS A CLAIM BY MITCHELL THAT HE WAS ABUSED BY THE
POLICE OFFICERS, IN THE STATE OF THE RECORD THAT ISSUE IS NOT HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED: 

AS I UNDERSTAND MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332, AS EXPLAINED
BY THE COURT'S OPINION OF TODAY, THE MCNABB RULE IS THAT WHERE THERE
HAS BEEN ILLEGAL DETENTION OF A PRISONER, JOINED WITH OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE DEEMED BY THIS COURT TO BE CONTRARY TO PROPER
CONDUCT OF FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS, THE CONFESSION WILL NOT BE ADMITTED. 
FURTHER, THIS REFUSAL OF ADMISSION IS REQUIRED EVEN THOUGH THE
DETENTION PLUS THE CONDUCT DO NOT TOGETHER AMOUNT TO DURESS OR
COERCION.  IF THE ABOVE UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, IT IS FOR ME A
DESIRABLE MODIFICATION OF THE MCNABB CASE. 

HOWEVER, EVEN AS EXPLAINED I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE RULE WORKS A WISE
CHANGE IN FEDERAL PROCEDURE. 

IN MY VIEW DETENTION WITHOUT COMMITMENT IS ONLY ONE FACTOR FOR
CONSIDERATION IN REACHING A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A
CONFESSION IS VOLUNTARY.  THE JURISTIC THEORY UNDER WHICH A CONFESSION
SHOULD BE ADMITTED OR BARRED IS BOTTOMED ON THE TESTIMONIAL
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE CONFESSION.  IF THE CONFESSION IS FREELY MADE
WITHOUT INDUCEMENT OR MENACE, IT IS ADMISSIBLE.  IF OTHERWISE MADE, IT
IS NOT, FOR IF BROUGHT ABOUT BY FALSE PROMISES OR REAL THREATS, IT HAS
NO WEIGHT AS PROPER PROOF OF GUILT.  WAN V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1,
14; WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 162 U.S. 613, 622; 3 WIGMORE EVIDENCE
(1940 ED.)  SEC.  882. 

AS THE PRESENT RECORD SHOWS NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH COERCION, I CONCUR IN
THE RESULT. 
..END :
























SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 72 


NO. 578.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 29, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1944.  - 100
CT.CLS.  175, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER A LAND-GRANT EQUALIZATION AGREEMENT WHEREBY A NON-LAND-GRANT
CARRIER AGREED TO ACCEPT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
"THE LOWEST NET RATES LAWFULLY AVAILABLE" OVER LAND-GRANT ROUTES, THE
GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO THE LOWEST RATE WHICH IT COULD HAVE OBTAINED
OVER ANY LAND-GRANT ROUTE, HOWEVER CIRCUITOUS, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN
USED.  P. 76. 

SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 321 U.S. 758, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING RECOVERY IN A
SUIT BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY UPON A LAND GRANT EQUALIZATION AGREEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1933 PETITIONER, A COMMON CARRIER, ENTERED INTO A "FREIGHT-LAND
GRANT EQUALIZATION AGREEMENT" WITH THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL, ACTING
FOR THE UNITED STATES.  THIS AGREEMENT WAS MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
SEC. 22 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  24 STAT. 387, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
22.  SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, PETITIONER AGREED "TO ACCEPT FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY SHIPPED FOR ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS
LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO REDUCED RATES OVER LAND-GRANT ROADS, THE LOWEST
NET RATES LAWFULLY AVAILABLE, AS DERIVED THROUGH DEDUCTIONS ACCOUNT OF
LAND-GRANT DISTANCE FROM THE LAWFUL RATES FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION APPLYING FROM POINT OF ORIGIN TO DESTINATION AT
TIME OF MOVEMENT." 

FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE CARRIER THE PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT
WAS TO GIVE IT A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN
ROUTED OVER LAND-GRANT ROUTES.  FN1  LAND-GRANT ROADS WERE UNDER AN
OBLIGATION TO FURNISH TRANSPORTATION TO THE GOVERNMENT FREE OF CHARGE
OR AT REDUCED RATES.  SEE PUBLIC AIDS TO TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL
COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION (1938), VOL. II, PP. 3-42 FOR A REVIEW OF
THE VARIOUS ACTS OF CONGRESS.  AT THE TIME WHEN THIS AGREEMENT WAS MADE
LAND-GRANT ROADS WERE REQUIRED TO ALLOW THE UNITED STATES 50%
DEDUCTIONS FROM THE COMMERCIAL RATE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY
OR TROOPS OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN2  43 STAT. 477, 486, 10 U.S.C. SEC.
1375.  "RAILROADS WHICH COMPETE WITH THE REDUCED-RATE LINES FOUND
THEMSELVES UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE, NOT ONLY IN THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
OF FEDERAL TROOPS AND PROPERTY BETWEEN THE TERMINI OF THE REDUCED-RATE
LINES, BUT ALSO IN THROUGH MOVEMENTS FROM AND TO POINTS BEYOND SUCH
TERMINI."  PUBLIC AIDS TO TRANSPORTATION, SUPRA, P. 42.  ACCORDINGLY
MOST OF THOSE ROADS ENTERED INTO LAND-GRANT EQUALIZATION AGREEMENTS
WITH THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO GET AS LARGE A SHARE OF THE BUSINESS
AS POSSIBLE.  FN3  SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S.
393, 394.  THE ONE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN EXAMPLE. 

THIS SUIT INVOLVES 374 SHIPMENTS OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY OVER
PETITIONER'S LINES AND ITS CONNECTIONS MADE BETWEEN 1934 AND 1938 WHILE
THIS AGREEMENT WAS IN FORCE.  FN4  THERE WERE AVAILABLE IN CASE OF EACH
SHIPMENT SEVERAL ROUTES BETWEEN THE POINT OF ORIGIN AND THE POINT OF
DESTINATION.  PETITIONER'S ROUTE WAS IN GENERAL THE SHORTEST.  BUT
THERE WERE OTHER ROUTES CONTAINING LAND GRANTS OF VARYING PERCENTAGES
WHICH IT WAS POSSIBLE TO USE FOR THESE SHIPMENTS.  AND THE RATES SHOWN
BY TARIFFS ON FILE WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR FREIGHT
SHIPMENTS BETWEEN THE POINTS IN QUESTION WERE THE SAME (WITH EXCEPTIONS
NOT IMPORTANT HERE) FOR EACH OF THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES REGARDLESS OF
THE MILEAGE.  PETITIONER COMPUTED ITS CHARGES SO AS TO ALLOW THE RATE
REDUCTIONS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED HAD IT
ACTUALLY MADE THE SHIPMENTS BY ONE OF THE AVAILABLE, ALTERNATIVE LAND
GRANT ROUTES.  THE UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, CLAIMED GREATER DEDUCTIONS. 
IT SHOWED A LONGER AND MORE CIRCUITOUS ROUTE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN USED
FN5  AND WHICH CONTAINED MORE LAND-GRANT MILEAGE THAN THE ALTERNATIVE
ROUTE CHOSEN BY PETITIONER.  SINCE THE TARIFF RATES OVER EITHER
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE WERE THE SAME, THE GREATER LAND GRANTS INCLUDED IN
THE ROUTE SELECTED BY THE UNITED STATES RESULTED IN LOWER RATES THAN
THOSE WHICH WERE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE LAND-GRANT ROUTE SELECTED
BY PETITIONER.  THE UNITED STATES PAID THE LOWER RATES.  PETITIONER
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
AMOUNT PAID AND THE RATES COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE TARIFFS FOR THE
ROUTE WHICH IT HAD SELECTED.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS DENIED RECOVERY.  100
CT. CLS. 175.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE CIRCUITOUS ROUTES ON WHICH THE
UNITED STATES BASED ITS COMPUTATIONS COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE
SHIPMENTS IN QUESTION.  BUT PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD "AVAILABLE" IS UNREASONABLE IN THE PRESENT
CONTEXT AND THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN "CAPABLE OF BEING
EMPLOYED OR MADE USE OF WITH ADVANTAGE."  IN THAT CONNECTION,
PETITIONER ARGUES THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPROVIDENT AND UNECONOMICAL
TO SHIP LIVESTOCK ON SUCH CIRCUITOUS ROUTES AND THAT THOSE ROUTES WOULD
NEVER IN FACT HAVE BEEN USED BY THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS ARGUED,
MOREOVER, THAT THE EQUALIZATION AGREEMENT PROPERLY CONSTRUED REQUIRES
PETITIONER TO EQUALIZE RATES COMPUTED BY LAND-GRANT ROUTES WHICH ARE
COMPETITIVE FOR GOVERNMENT TRAFFIC.  ITS PURPOSE, ACCORDING TO THAT
CONTENTION, WAS TO SECURE FOR PETITIONER TRAFFIC WHICH IN ITS ABSENCE
WOULD BE LIKELY TO MOVE OVER COMPETING LAND-GRANT ROUTES, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM TRAFFIC WHICH WAS POSSIBLE OF ROUTING OVER THE
CHEAPEST LAND-GRANT ROUTE. 

WE AGREE, HOWEVER, WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  IN THIS CONTEXT THE
"LOWEST NET RATES LAWFULLY AVAILABLE" MEAN TO US THE LOWEST NET RATES
WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED ON THE BASIS OF TARIFFS ON FILE WITH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  WHETHER SUCH CIRCUITOUS ROUTES AS WERE
EMPLOYED IN THE PRESENT COMPUTATION WOULD HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY USED FOR
THESE SHIPMENTS IN ABSENCE OF THE EQUALIZATION AGREEMENT IS OF COURSE
UNKNOWN.  BUT CIRCUITOUS ROUTING BY THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN THE BENEFITS OF ITS EARLIER LAND-GRANTS TO RAILROADS WAS
APPARENTLY A COMMON PRACTICE.  SEE PUBLIC AIDS TO TRANSPORTATION,
SUPRA, P. 42.  THE RECORDS SHOW THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF OBTAINING THE
BENEFIT OF RATES ON LAND-GRANT ROUTES IS A VALUABLE PRIVILEGE INDEED. 
FN6  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE UNITED STATES INTENDED TO SURRENDER ANY
OF THOSE BENEFITS BY GRANTING THE EQUALIZING CARRIERS MORE FAVORABLE
RATES THAN THOSE TO WHICH IT WAS LAWFULLY ENTITLED ON THE LAND-GRANT
ROUTES, UNLESS THE PURPOSE TO DO SO WAS PLAINLY EXPRESSED.  IT MUST BE
REMEMBERED THAT THE EQUALIZATION AGREEMENT WAS A RATE-MAKING
AGREEMENT.  ITS OBJECT WAS TO DIVERT SHIPMENTS TO THE NON-LAND-GRANT
ROUTE.  THE LAND-GRANT ROUTE WAS CHOSEN MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COMPUTING THE RATE.  THE FACT THAT IN A GIVEN CASE THE SHIPMENT
PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE MOVED OVER THE LAND-GRANT ROUTE IS IMMATERIAL. 
THE UNITED STATES WAS BARGAINING FOR LOW RATES FOR THE SHIPMENT OF ITS
PROPERTY.  IT DID NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TYPES OF PROPERTY
SHIPPED.  IT DID NOT IN TERMS STATE THAT LAND-GRANT ROUTES, THOUGH
ACTUALLY AVAILABLE, WOULD NOT BE USED IN COMPUTING THE RATE UNLESS THEY
WOULD IN FACT HAVE BEEN CONVENIENT OR PRACTICABLE TO USE FOR THE
PARTICULAR SHIPMENT.  THE STANDARD IT PRESCRIBES IS "THE LOWEST NET
RATES LAWFULLY AVAILABLE."  WE MAY NOT RESOLVE ANY AMBIGUITIES WHICH
MAY LINGER IN THAT PHRASE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  CF. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 401.  WE ARE NOT WARRANTED IN
ASSUMING THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS MORE GENEROUS TO THIS CARRIER THAN
THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT REQUIRES.  WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE
CONTRACTING OFFICERS FOR THE UNITED STATES DROVE AS PROVIDENT A BARGAIN
AS A READING OF THE AGREEMENT FAIRLY PERMITS. 

AT TIMES THE UNITED STATES HAS MADE EQUALIZATION AGREEMENTS WHICH
WERE MORE FAVORABLE TO THE EQUALIZING CARRIERS THAN THE INSTANT ONE
APPEARS TO BE.  THUS IN 1917 A PASSENGER LAND-GRANT EQUALIZATION
AGREEMENT WAS MADE WITH PETITIONER AND OTHER CARRIERS  FN7  WHEREBY
THEY AGREED TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST NET FARE "LAWFULLY AVAILABLE, AS
DERIVED, THROUGH DEDUCTIONS ACCOUNT LAND-GRANT DISTANCE VIA A USUALLY
TRAVELED ROUTE FOR MILITARY TRAFFIC, FROM A LAWFUL FARE FILED WITH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AS APPLYING FROM POINT OF ORIGIN TO
DESTINATION VIA SUCH ROUTE AT TIME OF MOVEMENT."  THAT AGREEMENT
SUGGESTS THAT WHEN THE UNITED STATES DESIRED TO GIVE EQUALIZING
CARRIERS MORE FAVORABLE RATES THAN THE LOWEST RATES TO WHICH IT WAS
LAWFULLY ENTITLED ON LAND-GRANT ROUTES, IT CHOSE APT WORDS TO EXPRESS
ITS PURPOSE.  IT ALSO GIVES ADDED SIGNIFICANCE TO THE OMISSION OF ANY
SUCH QUALIFICATION IN THE PRESENT AGREEMENT.  IT SUGGESTS THAT IF WE
READ INTO THE AGREEMENT THE QUALIFICATION WHICH THE PETITIONER DESIRES,
WE WOULD REMAKE THE CONTRACT. 

MUCH MATERIAL BEARING ON ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS TYPES
OF EQUALIZATION AGREEMENTS HAS BEEN PRESSED UPON US.  BUT WE HAVE NOT
RELIED ON IT AS WE FOUND IT INCONCLUSIVE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COURT OF CLAIMS MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDING IN THIS CASE:
"THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE FREIGHT EQUALIZATION AGREEMENTS OF THE
DEFENDANT WITH PLAINTIFF AND WITH OTHER COMMON CARRIERS WAS TO EQUALIZE
RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY OVER VARIOUS ROUTES SERVING THE SAME POINT
OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION, WHERE ONE OR MORE OF THOSE ROUTES HAD BEEN
AIDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY GRANT OF PUBLIC LANDS, RATES OVER ALL
ROUTES FROM POINT OF ORIGIN TO DESTINATION BEING BROUGHT DOWN TO THE
LEVEL OF THAT OVER THE ROUTE PRODUCING THE LOWEST NET RATE ON ACCOUNT
OF LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION.  THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE THE
EQUALIZING CARRIER A PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS THAT WAS
POSSIBLE OF ROUTING OVER THE GOVERNING LAND-GRANT ROUTE, AND TO GIVE
THE GOVERNMENT A GREATER RANGE IN CHOICE OF ROUTES WHERE CONSIDERATIONS
OF ECONOMY ENTERED INTO THE SELECTION." 

FN2  BUT SEE SEC. 321 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT.
898, 954. 

FN3  PETITIONER'S ROAD INCLUDES 145 MILES OF LAND-GRANTS.  BUT AS
POINTED OUT IN PUBLIC AIDS TO TRANSPORTATION, SUPRA, P. 42, "THE LAND
GRANT RAILROADS ARE PARTIES TO THESE AGREEMENTS FOR THE REASON THAT, IN
MANY INSTANCES, A NON-AIDED PORTION OF A LAND-GRANT RAILROAD COMPETES
WITH A REDUCED-RATE PORTION OF ANOTHER LAND-GRANT RAILROAD." 

FN4  THESE CONSISTED OF 147 SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK BY THE FEDERAL
SURPLUS RELIEF CORPORATION FROM MIDWESTERN POINTS TO SOUTHEASTERN
POINTS; AND 227 SHIPMENTS OF PROPERTY BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY. 

FN5  THUS IN CASE OF THE SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK THE ROUTES ON WHICH
THE UNITED STATES MADE ITS COMPUTATION OF RATES WERE FROM 137 TO ALMOST
700 MILES LONGER THAN THE ONES ACTUALLY USED. 

FN6  SEE PUBLIC AIDS TO TRANSPORTATION, SUPRA, PP. 43-45; KENNY, LAND
GRANT RAILROADS AND THE GOVERNMENT (1933), 9 JOURNAL OF LAND & PUBLIC
UTILITY ECONOMICS 368. 

FN7  SEE MANUAL FOR THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS, 1916(1917), VOL. 2, PP.
223, 230. 
..END :














UNITED STATES V. BALLARD, 322 U.S. 78 


NO. 472.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 6, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1944.  - 138
F.2D 540, REVERSED. 


UPON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING USE OF THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD, AND
CONSPIRACY SO TO DO, RESPONDENTS WERE CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 
THE INDICTMENT CHARGED A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD THROUGH REPRESENTATIONS -
INVOLVING RESPONDENTS' RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS - WHICH WERE
ALLEGED TO BE FALSE AND KNOWN BY THE RESPONDENTS TO BE FALSE.  HOLDING
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD RESTRICTED THE JURY TO THE ISSUE OF
RESPONDENTS' GOOD FAITH AND THAT THIS WAS ERROR, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED AND GRANTED A NEW TRIAL.  HELD: 

1.  THE ONLY ISSUE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY BY THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
WHETHER RESPONDENTS BELIEVED THE REPRESENTATIONS TO BE TRUE.  P. 84. 

2.  RESPONDENTS DID NOT ACQUIESCE IN THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE JURY OF
THE ISSUE OF THE TRUTH OF THEIR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS, AND ARE
NOT BARRED BY THE RULE OF JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189, FROM
REASSERTING HERE THAT NO PART OF THE INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  P. 85. 

3.  THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY WITHHELD FROM THE JURY ALL QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF RESPONDENTS' RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR
DOCTRINES.  THIS COURSE WAS REQUIRED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE
OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  P. 86. 

THE PREFERRED POSITION GIVEN FREEDOM OF RELIGION BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT IS NOT LIMITED TO ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS GROUP OR TO ANY
PARTICULAR TYPE OF RELIGION BUT APPLIES TO ALL.  P. 87. 

4.  RESPONDENTS MAY URGE IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS POINTS WHICH THAT COURT RESERVED, BUT SINCE THESE WERE
NOT FULLY PRESENTED HERE EITHER IN THE BRIEFS OR ORAL ARGUMENT, THEY
MAY MORE APPROPRIATELY BE CONSIDERED BY THAT COURT UPON REMAND.  P.
88. 

UNITED STATES V. BALLARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 733, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF CONVICTIONS FOR
USING THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD AND CONSPIRACY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS WERE INDICTED AND CONVICTED FOR USING, AND CONSPIRING TO
USE, THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD.  SEC. 215 CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 338;
SEC. 37 CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88.  THE INDICTMENT WAS IN TWELVE
COUNTS.  IT CHARGED A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY ORGANIZING AND PROMOTING THE
I AM MOVEMENT THROUGH THE USE OF THE MAILS.  THE CHARGE WAS THAT
CERTAIN DESIGNATED CORPORATIONS WERE FORMED, LITERATURE DISTRIBUTED AND
SOLD, FUNDS SOLICITED, AND MEMBERSHIPS IN THE I AM MOVEMENT SOUGHT "BY
MEANS OF FALSE AND FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS, PRETENSES AND
PROMISES."  THE FALSE REPRESENTATIONS CHARGED WERE EIGHTEEN IN NUMBER. 
IT IS SUFFICIENT AT THIS POINT TO SAY THAT THEY COVERED RESPONDENTS'
ALLEGED RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS.  THEY WERE ALL SET FORTH IN THE
FIRST COUNT.  THE FOLLOWING ARE REPRESENTATIVE: 

THAT GUY W. BALLARD, NOW DECEASED, ALIAS SAINT GERMAIN, JESUS, GEORGE
WASHINGTON, AND GODFRE RAY KING, HAD BEEN SELECTED AND THEREBY
DESIGNATED BY THE ALLEGED "ASCERTAINED MASTERS," SAINT GERMAIN, AS A
DIVINE MESSENGER; AND THAT THE WORDS OF "ASCENDED MASTERS" AND THE
WORDS OF THE ALLEGED DIVINE ENTITY, SAINT GERMAIN, WOULD BE TRANSMITTED
TO MANKIND THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THE SAID GUY W. BALLARD; 

THAT GUY W. BALLARD, DURING HIS LIFETIME, AND EDNA W. BALLARD, AND
DONALD BALLARD, BY REASON OF THEIR ALLEGED HIGH SPIRITUAL ATTAINMENTS
AND RIGHTEOUS CONDUCT, HAD BEEN SELECTED AS DIVINE MESSENGERS THROUGH
WHICH THE WORDS OF THE ALLEGED "ASCENDED MASTERS," INCLUDING THE
ALLEGED SAINT GERMAIN, WOULD BE COMMUNICATED TO MANKIND UNDER THE
TEACHINGS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "I AM" MOVEMENT; 

THAT GUY W. BALLARD, DURING HIS LIFETIME, AND EDNA W. BALLARD AND
DONALD BALLARD HAD, BY REASON OF SUPERNATURAL ATTAINMENTS, THE POWER TO
HEAL PERSONS OF AILMENTS AND DISEASES AND TO MAKE WELL PERSONS
AFFLICTED WITH ANY DISEASES, INJURIES, OR AILMENTS, AND DID FALSELY
REPRESENT TO PERSONS INTENDED TO BE DEFRAUDED THAT THE THREE DESIGNATED
PERSONS HAD THE ABILITY AND POWER TO CURE PERSONS OF THOSE DISEASES
NORMALLY CLASSIFIED AS CURABLE AND ALSO OF DISEASES WHICH ARE
ORDINARILY CLASSIFIED BY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AS BEING INCURABLE
DISEASES; AND DID FURTHER REPRESENT THAT THE THREE DESIGNATED PERSONS
HAD IN FACT CURED EITHER BY THE ACTIVITY OF ONE, EITHER, OR ALL OF SAID
PERSONS, HUNDREDS OF PERSONS AFFLICTED WITH DISEASES AND AILMENTS; 

EACH OF THE REPRESENTATIONS ENUMERATED IN THE INDICTMENT WAS FOLLOWED
BY THE CHARGE THAT RESPONDENTS "WELL KNEW" IT WAS FALSE.  AFTER
ENUMERATING THE EIGHTEEN MISREPRESENTATIONS THE INDICTMENT ALSO
ALLEGED: 

AT THE TIME OF MAKING ALL OF THE AFORE-ALLEGED REPRESENTATIONS BY THE
DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM, THE DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF THEM, WELL
KNEW THAT ALL OF SAID AFOREMENTIONED REPRESENTATIONS WERE FALSE AND
UNTRUE AND WERE MADE WITH THE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS,
AND EACH OF THEM, TO CHEAT, WRONG, AND DEFRAUD PERSONS INTENDED TO BE
DEFRAUDED, AND TO OBTAIN FROM PERSONS INTENDED TO BE DEFRAUDED BY THE
DEFENDANTS, MONEY, PROPERTY, AND OTHER THINGS OF VALUE AND TO CONVERT
THE SAME TO THE USE AND THE BENEFIT OF THE DEFENDANTS, AND EACH OF
THEM; 

THE INDICTMENT CONTAINED TWELVE COUNTS, ONE OF WHICH CHARGED A
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD.  THE FIRST COUNT SET FORTH ALL OF THE EIGHTEEN
REPRESENTATIONS, AS WE HAVE SAID.  EACH OF THE OTHER COUNTS
INCORPORATED AND REALLEGED ALL OF THEM AND ADDED NO ADDITIONAL ONES. 
THERE WAS A DEMURRER AND A MOTION TO QUASH, EACH OF WHICH ASSERTED,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE INDICTMENT ATTACKED THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
OF RESPONDENTS AND SOUGHT TO RESTRICT THE FREE EXERCISE OF THEIR
RELIGION IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THESE
MOTIONS WERE DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  EARLY IN THE TRIAL,
HOWEVER, OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED TO THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE
CONCERNING RESPONDENTS' RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  THE COURT CONFERRED WITH
COUNSEL IN ABSENCE OF THE JURY AND WITH THE ACQUIESCENCE OF COUNSEL FOR
THE UNITED STATES AND FOR RESPONDENTS CONFINED THE ISSUES ON THIS PHASE
OF THE CASE TO THE QUESTION OF THE GOOD FAITH OF RESPONDENTS.  AT THE
REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES THE COURT ADVISED THE JURY OF THAT
ACTION IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: 

NOW, GENTLEMEN, HERE IS THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE: 

FIRST, THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE MADE CERTAIN REPRESENTATIONS OF
BELIEF IN A DIVINITY AND IN A SUPERNATURAL POWER.  SOME OF THE
TEACHINGS OF THE DEFENDANTS, REPRESENTATIONS, MIGHT SEEM EXTREMELY
IMPROBABLE TO A GREAT MANY PEOPLE.  FOR INSTANCE, THE APPEARANCE OF
JESUS TO DICTATE SOME OF THE WORKS THAT WE HAVE HAD INTRODUCED IN
EVIDENCE, AS TESTIFIED TO HERE AT THE OPENING TRANSCRIPTION, OR SHAKING
HANDS WITH JESUS, TO SOME PEOPLE THAT MIGHT SEEM HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.  I
POINT THAT OUT AS ONE OF THE MANY STATEMENTS. 

WHETHER THAT IS TRUE OR NOT IS NOT THE CONCERN OF THIS COURT AND IS
NOT THE CONCERN OF THE JURY - AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE TOLD SO IN THEIR
INSTRUCTIONS.  AS FAR AS THIS COURT SEES THE ISSUE, IT IS IMMATERIAL
WHAT THESE DEFENDANTS PREACHED OR WROTE OR TAUGHT IN THEIR CLASSES. 
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO SPECULATE ON THE ACTUALITY OF THE
HAPPENING OF THOSE INCIDENTS.  NOW, I THINK I HAVE MADE THAT AS CLEAR
AS I CAN.  THEREFORE, THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THESE DEFENDANTS CANNOT
BE AN ISSUE IN THIS COURT. 

THE ISSUE IS:  DID THESE DEFENDANTS HONESTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH
BELIEVE THOSE THINGS?  IF THEY DID, THEY SHOULD BE ACQUITTED.  I CANNOT
MAKE IT ANY CLEARER THAN THAT. 

IF THESE DEFENDANTS DID NOT BELIEVE THOSE THINGS, THEY DID NOT
BELIEVE THAT JESUS CAME DOWN AND DICTATED, OR THAT SAINT GERMAIN CAME
DOWN AND DICTATED, DID NOT BELIEVE THE THINGS THAT THEY WROTE, THE
THINGS THAT THEY PREACHED, BUT USED THE MAIL FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING
MONEY, THE JURY SHOULD FIND THEM GUILTY.  THEREFORE, GENTLEMEN,
RELIGION CANNOT COME INTO THIS CASE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT REITERATED THAT ADMONITION IN THE CHARGE TO THE
JURY AND MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR.  THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE CHARGE
IS TYPICAL: 

THE QUESTION OF THE DEFENDANTS' GOOD FAITH IS THE CARDINAL QUESTION
IN THIS CASE.  YOU ARE NOT TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE RELIGIOUS BELIEF OF
THE DEFENDANTS, OR ANY OF THEM.  THE JURY WILL BE CALLED UPON TO PASS
ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANTS HONESTLY AND IN GOOD
FAITH BELIEVED THE REPRESENTATIONS WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN THE
INDICTMENT, AND HONESTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH BELIEVED THAT THE BENEFITS
WHICH THEY REPRESENTED WOULD FLOW FROM THEIR BELIEF TO THOSE WHO
EMBRACED AND FOLLOWED THEIR TEACHINGS, OR WHETHER THESE REPRESENTATIONS
WERE MERE PRETENSES WITHOUT HONEST BELIEF ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS
OR ANY OF THEM, AND, WERE THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROCURING MONEY, AND WERE THE MAILS USED FOR THIS PURPOSE. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE ACQUIESCED IN THIS TREATMENT
OF THE MATTER, MADE NO OBJECTION TO IT DURING THE TRIAL, AND INDEED
TREATED IT WITHOUT PROTEST AS THE LAW OF THE CASE THROUGHOUT THE
PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO THE VERDICT.  RESPONDENTS DID NOT CHANGE THEIR
POSITION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AFTER VERDICT AND CONTEND THAT THE
TRUTH OR VERITY OF THEIR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS SHOULD HAVE
BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  IN THEIR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL THEY DID
CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THESE ISSUES FROM THE JURY WAS
ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS IN EFFECT AN AMENDMENT OF THE INDICTMENT.  THAT
WAS ALSO ONE OF THEIR SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS ON APPEAL.  AND OTHER
ERRORS URGED ON APPEAL INCLUDED THE OVERRULING OF THE DEMURRER TO THE
INDICTMENT AND THE MOTION TO QUASH, AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROOF OF
THE TRUTH OF RESPONDENTS' RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
GRANTED A NEW TRIAL, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  138 F.2D 540.  IN ITS VIEW
THE RESTRICTION OF THE ISSUE IN QUESTION TO THAT OF GOOD FAITH WAS
ERROR.  ITS REASON WAS THAT THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD ALLEGED IN THE
INDICTMENT WAS THAT RESPONDENTS MADE THE EIGHTEEN ALLEGED FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS; AND THAT TO PROVE THAT DEFENDANTS DEVISED THE SCHEME
DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT "IT WAS NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT THEY
SCHEMED TO MAKE SOME, AT LEAST, OF THE (EIGHTEEN) REPRESENTATIONS  ...
AND THAT SOME, AT LEAST, OF THE REPRESENTATIONS WHICH THEY SCHEMED TO
MAKE WERE FALSE."  138 F.2D 545.  ONE JUDGE THOUGHT THAT THE RULING OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ALSO ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS "AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE
ISSUE OF HONEST BELIEF AS TO THE ISSUE OF PURPOSEFUL
MISREPRESENTATION."  ID., P. 546. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WITHDREW FROM THE
JURY'S CONSIDERATION ONLY THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THOSE REPRESENTATIONS
WHICH RELATED TO RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS OR BELIEFS AND THAT THERE WERE
REPRESENTATIONS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT WHICH FELL WITHIN A DIFFERENT
CATEGORY.  FN1  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS LATTER GROUP OF
REPRESENTATIONS WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, THAT THEY WERE ADEQUATE TO
CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE UNDER THE ACT, AND THAT THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY
THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE.  IT IS THUS SOUGHT TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE
RULE OF HALL V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 632, 639-640, WHICH HELD THAT
WHERE AN INDICTMENT CONTAINED "ALL THE NECESSARY AVERMENTS TO
CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE CREATED BY THE STATUTE," A CONVICTION WOULD NOT
BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE A "TOTALLY IMMATERIAL FACT" WAS AVERRED BUT NOT
PROVED.  WE DO NOT STOP TO ASCERTAIN THE RELEVANCY OF THAT RULE TO THIS
CASE, FOR WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ALL OF THE REPRESENTATIONS CHARGED IN
THE INDICTMENT WHICH RELATED AT LEAST IN PART TO THE RELIGIOUS
DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS OF RESPONDENTS WERE WITHHELD FROM THE JURY.  THE
TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT DIFFERENTIATE THEM.  HE REFERRED IN THE CHARGE TO
THE "RELIGIOUS BELIEFS" AND "DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY THE DEFENDANTS" AS
MATTERS WITHHELD FROM THE JURY.  AND IN STATING THAT THE ISSUE OF GOOD
FAITH WAS THE "CARDINAL QUESTION" IN THE CASE HE CHARGED, AS ALREADY
NOTED, THAT "THE JURY WILL BE CALLED UPON TO PASS ON THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANTS HONESTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH BELIEVED THE
REPRESENTATIONS WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT."  NOWHERE IN THE
CHARGE WERE ANY OF THE SEPARATE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. 
A CAREFUL READING OF THE WHOLE CHARGE LEADS US TO AGREE WITH THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE THAT THE ONLY ISSUE
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY WAS THE QUESTION AS STATED BY THE DISTRICT COURT,
OF RESPONDENTS'"BELIEF IN THEIR REPRESENTATIONS AND PROMISES." 

THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT RESPONDENTS ACQUIESCED IN THE
WITHDRAWAL FROM THE JURY OF THE TRUTH OF THEIR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR
BELIEFS AND THAT THEIR CONSENT BARS THEM FROM INSISTING ON A DIFFERENT
COURSE ONCE THAT ONE TURNED OUT TO BE UNSUCCESSFUL.  RELIANCE FOR THAT
POSITION IS SOUGHT IN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189.  THAT
CASE STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT, APART FROM SITUATIONS INVOLVING
AN UNFAIR TRIAL, AN APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT GRANT A NEW TRIAL TO A
DEFENDANT ON THE GROUND OF IMPROPER INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OR
IMPROPER COMMENT BY THE PROSECUTOR, WHERE THE DEFENDANT ACQUIESCED IN
THAT COURSE AND MADE NO OBJECTION TO IT.  IN FAIRNESS TO RESPONDENTS
THAT PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE APPLIED HERE.  THE REAL OBJECTION OF
RESPONDENTS IS NOT THAT THE TRUTH OF THEIR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR
BELIEFS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  THEIR DEMURRER AND
MOTION TO QUASH MADE CLEAR THEIR POSITION THAT THAT ISSUE SHOULD BE
WITHHELD FROM THE JURY ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  MOREOVER,
THEIR POSITION AT ALL TIMES WAS AND STILL IS THAT THE COURT SHOULD HAVE
GONE THE WHOLE WAY AND WITHHELD FROM THE JURY BOTH THAT ISSUE AND THE
ISSUE OF THEIR GOOD FAITH.  THEIR DEMURRER AND MOTION TO QUASH ASKED
FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ENTIRE INDICTMENT.  THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THE TRUTH
OF THEIR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE JURY
WHEN THE QUESTION OF THEIR GOOD FAITH WAS SUBMITTED WAS AND IS MERELY
AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT.  THEY NEVER FORSOOK THEIR POSITION THAT THE
INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND THAT NONE OF IT WAS GOOD. 
MOREOVER, RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL CHALLENGED THE PROPRIETY OF
THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN WITHDRAWING FROM THE JURY THE ISSUE
OF THE TRUTH OF THEIR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS WITHOUT ALSO
WITHDRAWING THE QUESTION OF THEIR GOOD FAITH.  SO WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
RULE OF JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, DOES NOT PREVENT RESPONDENTS
FROM REASSERTING NOW THAT NO PART OF THE INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE QUESTION
OF THE TRUTH OF THE REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING RESPONDENTS' RELIGIOUS
DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  AND IT
REMANDED THE CASE FOR A NEW TRIAL.  IT MAY BE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TOOK THAT ACTION BECAUSE IT DID NOT THINK THAT THE INDICTMENT
COULD BE PROPERLY CONSTRUED AS CHARGING A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY MEANS
OTHER THAN MISREPRESENTATIONS OF RESPONDENTS' RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR
BELIEFS.  OR THAT COURT MAY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE
ISSUE OF THE TRUTH OF THOSE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS WAS
UNWARRANTED BECAUSE IT RESULTED IN A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE
CHARACTER OF THE CRIME CHARGED.  BUT ON WHICHEVER BASIS THAT COURT
RESTED ITS ACTION, WE DO NOT AGREE THAT THE TRUTH OR VERITY OF
RESPONDENTS' RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY.  WHATEVER THIS PARTICULAR INDICTMENT MIGHT REQUIRE, THE
FIRST AMENDMENT PRECLUDES SUCH A COURSE, AS THE UNITED STATES SEEMS TO
CONCEDE.  "THE LAW KNOWS NO HERESY, AND IS COMMITTED TO THE SUPPORT OF
NO DOGMA, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NO SECT."  WATSON V. JONES, 13 WALL. 
679, 728.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS A DUAL ASPECT.  IT NOT ONLY
"FORESTALLS COMPULSION BY LAW OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY CREED OR THE
PRACTICE OF ANY FORM OF WORSHIP" BUT ALSO "SAFEGUARDS THE FREE EXERCISE
OF THE CHOSEN FORM OF RELIGION."  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S.
296, 303.  "THUS THE AMENDMENT EMBRACES TWO CONCEPTS,  - FREEDOM TO
BELIEVE AND FREEDOM TO ACT.  THE FIRST IS ABSOLUTE BUT, IN THE NATURE
OF THINGS, THE SECOND CANNOT BE."  ID., PP. 303-304.  FREEDOM OF
THOUGHT, WHICH INCLUDES FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF, IS BASIC IN A
SOCIETY OF FREE MEN.  BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624.  IT
EMBRACES THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THEORIES OF LIFE AND OF DEATH AND OF THE
HEREAFTER WHICH ARE RANK HERESY TO FOLLOWERS OF THE ORTHODOX FAITHS. 
HERESY TRIALS ARE FOREIGN TO OUR CONSTITUTION.  MEN MAY BELIEVE WHAT
THEY CANNOT PROVE.  THEY MAY NOT BE PUT TO THE PROOF OF THEIR RELIGIOUS
DOCTRINES OR BELIEFS.  RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES WHICH ARE AS REAL AS LIFE
TO SOME MAY BE INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO OTHERS.  YET THE FACT THAT THEY MAY
BE BEYOND THE KEN OF MORTALS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY CAN BE MADE
SUSPECT BEFORE THE LAW.  MANY TAKE THEIR GOSPEL FROM THE NEW
TESTAMENT.  BUT IT WOULD HARDLY BE SUPPOSED THAT THEY COULD BE TRIED
BEFORE A JURY CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF DETERMINING WHETHER THOSE
TEACHINGS CONTAINED FALSE REPRESENTATIONS.  THE MIRACLES OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT, THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST, LIFE AFTER DEATH, THE POWER OF
PRAYER ARE DEEP IN THE RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS OF MANY.  IF ONE COULD BE
SENT TO JAIL BECAUSE A JURY IN A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOUND THOSE
TEACHINGS FALSE, LITTLE INDEED WOULD BE LEFT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  THE
FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE NOT UNAWARE OF THE VARIED AND EXTREME
VIEWS OF RELIGIOUS SECTS, OF THE VIOLENCE OF DISAGREEMENT AMONG THEM,
AND OF THE LACK OF ANY ONE RELIGIOUS CREED ON WHICH ALL MEN WOULD
AGREE.  THEY FASHIONED A CHARTER OF GOVERNMENT WHICH ENVISAGED THE
WIDEST POSSIBLE TOLERATION OF CONFLICTING VIEWS.  MAN'S RELATION TO HIS
GOD WAS MADE NO CONCERN OF THE STATE.  HE WAS GRANTED THE RIGHT TO
WORSHIP AS HE PLEASED AND TO ANSWER TO NO MAN FOR THE VERITY OF HIS
RELIGIOUS VIEWS.  THE RELIGIOUS VIEWS ESPOUSED BY RESPONDENTS MIGHT
SEEM INCREDIBLE, IF NOT PREPOSTEROUS, TO MOST PEOPLE.  BUT IF THOSE
DOCTRINES ARE SUBJECT TO TRIAL BEFORE A JURY CHARGED WITH FINDING THEIR
TRUTH OR FALSITY, THEN THE SAME CAN BE DONE WITH THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
OF ANY SECT.  WHEN THE TRIERS OF FACT UNDERTAKE THAT TASK, THEY ENTER A
FORBIDDEN DOMAIN.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT SELECT ANY ONE GROUP OR
ANY ONE TYPE OF RELIGION FOR PREFERRED TREATMENT.  IT PUTS THEM ALL IN
THAT POSITION.  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105.  AS STATED IN
DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333, 342, "WITH MAN'S RELATIONS TO HIS MAKER
AND THE OBLIGATIONS HE MAY THINK THEY IMPOSE, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH
AN EXPRESSION SHALL BE MADE BY HIM OF HIS BELIEF ON THOSE SUBJECTS, NO
INTERFERENCE CAN BE PERMITTED, PROVIDED ALWAYS THE LAWS OF SOCIETY,
DESIGNED TO SECURE ITS PEACE AND PROSPERITY, AND THE MORALS OF ITS
PEOPLE, ARE NOT INTERFERED WITH."  SEE PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321
U.S. 158.  SO WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT RULED PROPERLY WHEN
IT WITHHELD FROM THE JURY ALL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE TRUTH OR FALSITY
OF THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR DOCTRINES OF RESPONDENTS. 

RESPONDENTS MAINTAIN THAT THE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
WAS JUSTIFIED ON OTHER DISTINCT GROUNDS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
DID NOT REACH THOSE QUESTIONS.  RESPONDENTS MAY, OF COURSE, URGE THEM
HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, 538-539; STORY PARCHMENT CO. V.
PATERSON CO., 282 U.S. 555, 560, 567-568.  BUT SINCE ATTENTION WAS
CENTERED ON THE ISSUES WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED, THE REMAINING QUESTIONS
WERE NOT FULLY PRESENTED TO THIS COURT EITHER IN THE BRIEFS OR ORAL
ARGUMENT.  IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DEEM IT MORE APPROPRIATE
TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SO THAT IT MAY PASS
ON THE QUESTIONS RESERVED.  LUTCHER & MOORE LUMBER CO. V. KNIGHT, 217
U.S. 257, 267-268; BROWN V. FLETCHER, 237 U.S. 583.  IF ANY QUESTIONS
OF IMPORTANCE SURVIVE AND ARE PRESENTED HERE, WE WILL THEN HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF THE VIEWS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  UNTIL THAT
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION IS HAD, WE CANNOT BE SURE THAT IT WILL BE
NECESSARY TO PASS ON ANY OF THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHICH
RESPONDENTS CLAIM TO HAVE RESERVED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PETITIONER HAS PLACED THREE REPRESENTATIONS IN THIS GROUP:  (1)
A PORTION OF THE SCHEME AS TO HEALING WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY QUOTED AND
WHICH ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENTS "HAD IN FACT CURED EITHER BY THE
ACTIVITY OF ONE, EITHER, OR ALL OF SAID PERSONS, HUNDREDS OF PERSONS
AFFLICTED WITH DISEASES AND AILMENTS"; (2) THE PORTION OF THE SCHEME
RELATING TO CERTAIN RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES DESCRIBED IN CERTAIN BOOKS
(UNVEILED MYSTERIES AND THE MAGIC PRESENCE) AND CONCERNING WHICH THE
INDICTMENT ALLEGED "THAT THE DEFENDANTS REPRESENTED THAT GUY W.
BALLARD, EDNA W. BALLARD, AND DONALD BALLARD ACTUALLY ENCOUNTERED THE
EXPERIENCES PERTAINING TO EACH OF THEIR SAID NAMES AS RELATED AND SET
FORTH IN SAID BOOKS, WHEREAS IN TRUTH AND IN FACT NONE OF SAID PERSONS
DID ENCOUNTER THE EXPERIENCES"; (3) THE PART OF THE SCHEME CONCERNING
PHONOGRAPH RECORDS SOLD BY RESPONDENTS ON REPRESENTATIONS THAT THEY
WOULD BESTOW ON PURCHASERS "GREAT BLESSINGS AND REWARDS IN THEIR AIM TO
ACHIEVE SALVATION" WHEREAS RESPONDENTS "WELL KNEW THAT SAID  ...
RECORDS WERE MAN-MADE AND HAD NO ABILITY TO AID IN ACHIEVING
SALVATION." 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

I AM NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF FREEDOM
OF RELIGION AFFORDS IMMUNITY FROM CRIMMINAL PROSECUTION FOR THE
FRAUDULENT PROCUREMENT OF MONEY BY FALSE STATEMENTS AS TO ONE'S
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES, MORE THAN IT RENDERS POLYGAMY OR LIBEL IMMUNE
FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333; SEE
CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 572; CF. PATTERSON V.
COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454, 462; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 715.  I
CANNOT SAY THAT FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND WORSHIP INCLUDES FREEDOM TO
PROCURE MONEY BY MAKING KNOWINGLY FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT ONE'S
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES.  TO GO NO FURTHER, IF IT WERE SHOWN THAT A
DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE HAD ASSERTED AS A PART OF THE ALLEGED FRAUDULENT
SCHEME, THAT HE HAD PHYSICALLY SHAKEN HANDS WITH ST. GERMAIN IN SAN
FRANCISCO ON A DAY NAMED, OR THAT, AS THE INDICTMENT HERE ALLEGES, BY
THE EXERTION OF HIS SPIRITUAL POWER HE "HAD IN FACT CURED  ...
HUNDREDS OF PERSONS AFFLICTED WITH DISEASES AND AILMENTS," I SHOULD NOT
DOUBT THAT IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE GOVERNMENT TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY
PROOF THAT HE HAD NEVER BEEN IN SAN FRANCISCO AND THAT NO SUCH CURES
HAD EVER BEEN EFFECTED.  IN ANY EVENT I SEE NO OCCASION FOR MAKING ANY
PRONOUNCEMENT ON THIS SUBJECT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES RESPONDENTS' USE OF THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD AND A
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THAT OFFENSE BY FALSE STATEMENTS OF THEIR
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES WHICH HAD NOT IN FACT OCCURRED.  BUT IT ALSO
CHARGED THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS WERE "FALSELY AND FRAUDULENTLY" MADE,
THAT RESPONDENTS "WELL KNEW" THAT THESE REPRESENTATIONS WERE UNTRUE,
AND THAT THEY WERE MADE BY RESPONDENTS WITH THE INTENT TO CHEAT AND
DEFRAUD THOSE TO WHOM THEY WERE MADE.  WITH THE ASSENT OF THE
PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE THE TRIAL JUDGE WITHDREW FROM THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE JURY THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ALLEGED RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCES HAD IN FACT OCCURRED, BUT SUBMITTED TO THE JURY THE SINGLE
ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONERS HONESTLY BELIEVED THAT THEY HAD OCCURRED,
WITH THE INSTRUCTION THAT IF THE JURY DID NOT SO FIND, THEN IT SHOULD
RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY.  ON THIS ISSUE THE JURY, ON AMPLE EVIDENCE
THAT RESPONDENTS WERE WITHOUT BELIEF IN THE STATEMENTS WHICH THEY HAD
MADE TO THEIR VICTIMS, FOUND A VERDICT OF GUILTY.  THE STATE OF ONE'S
MIND IS A FACT AS CAPABLE OF FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS IS ONE'S
PHYSICAL CONDITION OR THE STATE OF HIS BODILY HEALTH.  SEE SEVEN CASES
V. UNITED STATES, 239 U.S. 510, 517; CF. DURLAND V. UNITED STATES, 161
U.S. 306, 313.  THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE CHARGE AND NO CONTENTION
THAT THE TRIAL COURT REJECTED ANY RELEVANT EVIDENCE WHICH PETITIONERS
SOUGHT TO OFFER.  SINCE THE INDICTMENT AND THE EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE
CONVICTION, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER THE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES ALLEGED
DID OR DID NOT IN FACT OCCUR OR WHETHER THAT ISSUE COULD OR COULD NOT,
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS, HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. 
CERTAINLY NONE OF RESPONDENTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED IF
THEY ARE PROSECUTED FOR THE FRAUDULENT PROCUREMENT OF MONEY BY FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THEIR BELIEFS, RELIGIOUS OR OTHERWISE. 

OBVIOUSLY IF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES IN FACT
OCCURRED COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY THE
COURT RIGHTLY WITHDREW IT.  IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED I KNOW OF
NO REASON WHY THE PARTIES COULD NOT, WITH THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL, ASSENT
TO ITS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE JURY.  AND WHERE, AS HERE, THE INDICTMENT
CHARGES TWO SETS OF FALSE STATEMENTS, EACH INDEPENDENTLY SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION, I CANNOT ACCEPT RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION THAT
THE WITHDRAWAL OF ONE SET AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE OTHER TO THE JURY
AMOUNTED TO AN AMENDMENT OF THE INDICTMENT. 

AN INDICTMENT IS AMENDED WHEN IT IS SO ALTERED AS TO CHARGE A
DIFFERENT OFFENSE FROM THAT FOUND BY THE GRAND JURY.  EX PARTE BAIN,
121 U.S. 1.  BUT HERE THERE WAS NO ALTERATION OF THE INDICTMENT,
SALINGER V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 542, 549, NOR DID THE COURT'S
ACTION, IN EFFECT, ADD ANYTHING TO IT BY SUBMITTING TO THE JURY MATTERS
WHICH IT DID NOT CHARGE.  UNITED STATES V. NORRIS, 281 U.S. 619, 622. 
IN SALINGER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 548-9, WE EXPLICITLY HELD THAT
WHERE AN INDICTMENT CHARGES SEVERAL OFFENSES, OR THE COMMISSION OF ONE
OFFENSE IN SEVERAL WAYS, THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION
OF ONE OFFENSE OR ONE ALLEGED METHOD OF COMMITTING IT DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A FORBIDDEN AMENDMENT OF THE INDICTMENT.  SEE ALSO GOTO V.
LANE, 265 U.S. 393, 402-3; FORD V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 593, 602. 
WERE THE RULE OTHERWISE THE COMMON PRACTICE OF WITHDRAWING FROM THE
JURY'S CONSIDERATION ONE COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT WHILE SUBMITTING OTHERS
FOR ITS VERDICT, SUSTAINED IN DEALY V. UNITED STATES, 152 U.S. 539,
542, WOULD BE A FATAL ERROR. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THE SUBMISSION TO THE
JURY OF PART ONLY OF THE MATTERS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT MIGHT RESULT
IN SUCH SURPRISE TO THE DEFENDANT AS TO AMOUNT TO THE DENIAL OF A FAIR
TRIAL.  BUT, AS IN THE ANALOGOUS CASE OF A VARIANCE BETWEEN PLEADING
AND PROOF, A CONVICTION CAN BE REVERSED ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF INJURY
TO THE "SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS" OF THE ACCUSED.  BERGER V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 78, 82.  HERE NO CLAIM OF SURPRISE HAS BEEN OR COULD BE MADE. 
THE INDICTMENT PLAINLY CHARGED BOTH FALSITY OF, AND LACK OF GOOD FAITH
BELIEF IN THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE, AND IT WAS AGREED AT THE OUTSET OF
THE TRIAL, WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM THE DEFENDANTS, THAT ONLY THE ISSUE
OF RESPONDENTS' GOOD FAITH BELIEF IN THE REPRESENTATIONS OF RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCES WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  RESPONDENTS, WHO WERE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AT NO TIME IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL OFFERED
ANY OBJECTION TO THIS LIMITATION OF THE ISSUES, OR ANY CONTENTION THAT
IT WOULD RESULT IN A PROHIBITED AMENDMENT OF THE INDICTMENT.  SO FAR AS
APPEARS FROM THE RECORD BEFORE US THE POINT WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST
TIME IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF ERRORS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
IT IS ASSERTED THAT IT WAS ARGUED TO THE DISTRICT COURT ON MOTIONS FOR
NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT.  IF SO, THERE WAS STILL NO
SURPRISE BY A RULING TO WHICH, AS WE HAVE SAID, RESPONDENTS' COUNSEL
ASSENTED WHEN IT WAS MADE. 

ON THE ISSUE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THIS CASE IT PROPERLY RENDERED
A VERDICT OF GUILTY.  AS NO LEGALLY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR DISTURBING IT
APPEARS, I THINK THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT REINSTATED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS
OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

I SHOULD SAY THE DEFENDANTS HAVE DONE JUST THAT FOR WHICH THEY ARE
INDICTED.  IF I MIGHT AGREE TO THEIR CONVICTION WITHOUT CREATING A
PRECEDENT, I CHEERFULLY WOULD DO SO.  I CAN SEE IN THEIR TEACHINGS
NOTHING BUT HUMBUG, UNTAINTED BY ANY TRACE OF TRUTH.  BUT THAT DOES NOT
DISPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHETHER MISREPRESENTATION OF
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE OR BELIEF IS PROSECUTABLE; IT RATHER EMPHASIZES
THE DANGER OF SUCH PROSECUTIONS. 

THE BALLARD FAMILY CLAIMED MIRACULOUS COMMUNICATION WITH THE SPIRIT
WORLD AND SUPERNATURAL POWER TO HEAL THE SICK.  THEY WERE BROUGHT TO
TRIAL FOR MAIL FRAUD ON AN INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED THAT THEIR
REPRESENTATIONS WERE FALSE AND THAT THEY "WELL KNEW" THEY WERE FALSE. 
THE TRIAL JUDGE, OBVIOUSLY TROUBLED, RULED THAT THE COURT COULD NOT TRY
WHETHER THE STATEMENTS WERE UNTRUE, BUT COULD INQUIRE WHETHER THE
DEFENDANTS KNEW THEM TO BE UNTRUE; AND, IF SO, THEY COULD BE
CONVICTED.    I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE THIS CONCLUSION WITH OUR
TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS A MATTER OF EITHER PRACTICE OR PHILOSOPHY I DO
NOT SEE HOW WE CAN SEPARATE AN ISSUE AS TO WHAT IS BELIEVED FROM
CONSIDERATIONS AS TO WHAT IS BELIEVABLE.  THE MOST CONVINCING PROOF
THAT ONE BELIEVES HIS STATEMENTS IS TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TRUE IN
HIS EXPERIENCE.  LIKEWISE, THAT ONE KNOWINGLY FALSIFIED IS BEST PROVED
BY SHOWING THAT WHAT HE SAID HAPPENED NEVER DID HAPPEN.  HOW CAN THE
GOVERNMENT PROVE THESE PERSONS KNEW SOMETHING TO BE FALSE WHICH IT
CANNOT PROVE TO BE FALSE?  IF WE TRY RELIGIOUS SINCERITY SEVERED FROM
RELIGIOUS VERITY, WE ISOLATE THE DISPUTE FROM THE VERY CONSIDERATIONS
WHICH IN COMMON EXPERIENCE PROVIDE ITS MOST RELIABLE ANSWER. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, ANY INQUIRY INTO INTELLECTUAL HONESTY IN
RELIGION RAISES PROFOUND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.  WILLIAM JAMES, WHO
WROTE ON THESE MATTERS AS A SCIENTIST, REMINDS US THAT IT IS NOT
THEOLOGY AND CEREMONIES WHICH KEEP RELIGION GOING.  ITS VITALITY IS IN
THE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES OF MANY PEOPLE.  "IF YOU ASK WHAT THESE
EXPERIENCES ARE, THEY ARE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE UNSEEN, VOICES AND
VISIONS, RESPONSES TO PRAYER, CHANGES OF HEART, DELIVERANCES FROM FEAR,
INFLOWINGS OF HELP, ASSURANCES OF SUPPORT, WHENEVER CERTAIN PERSONS SET
THEIR OWN INTERNAL ATTITUDE IN CERTAIN APPROPRIATE WAYS."  FN1  IF
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY INCLUDES, AS IT MUST, THE RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE SUCH
EXPERIENCES TO OTHERS, IT SEEMS TO ME AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK FOR JURIES TO
SEPARATE FANCIED ONES FROM REAL ONES, DREAMS FROM HAPPENINGS, AND
HALLUCINATIONS FROM TRUE CLAIRVOYANCE.  SUCH EXPERIENCES, LIKE SOME
TONES AND COLORS, HAVE EXISTENCE FOR ONE, BUT NONE AT ALL FOR ANOTHER. 
THEY CANNOT BE VERIFIED TO THE MINDS OF THOSE WHOSE FIELD OF
CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT INCLUDE RELIGIOUS INSIGHT.  WHEN ONE COMES TO
TRIAL WHICH TURNS ON ANY ASPECT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF OR REPRESENTATION,
UNBELIEVERS AMONG HIS JUDGES ARE LIKELY NOT TO UNDERSTAND AND ARE
ALMOST CERTAIN NOT TO BELIEVE HIM. 

AND THEN I DO NOT KNOW WHAT DEGREE OF SKEPTICISM OR DISBELIEF IN A
RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATION AMOUNTS TO ACTIONABLE FRAUD.  JAMES POINTS OUT
THAT "FAITH MEANS BELIEF IN SOMETHING CONCERNING WHICH DOUBT IS STILL
THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE."  FN2  BELIEF IN WHAT ONE MAY DEMONSTRATE TO
THE SENSES IS NOT FAITH.  ALL SCHOOLS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT MAKE
ENORMOUS ASSUMPTIONS, GENERALLY ON THE BASIS OF REVELATIONS
AUTHENTICATED BY SOME SIGN OR MIRACLE.  THE APPEAL IN SUCH MATTERS IS
TO A VERY DIFFERENT PLANE OF CREDULITY THAN IS INVOKED BY
REPRESENTATIONS OF SECULAR FACT IN COMMERCE.  SOME WHO PROFESS BELIEF
IN THE BIBLE READ LITERALLY WHAT OTHERS READ AS ALLEGORY OR METAPHOR,
AS THEY READ AESOP'S FABLES.  RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM IS EVEN USED BY SOME
WITH THE SAME MENTAL RESERVATIONS ONE HAS IN TEACHING OF SANTA CLAUS OR
UNCLE SAM OR EASTER BUNNIES OR DISPASSIONATE JUDGES.  IT IS HARD IN
MATTERS SO MYSTICAL TO SAY HOW LITERALLY ONE IS BOUND TO BELIEVE THE
DOCTRINE HE TEACHES AND EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO SAY HOW FAR IT IS
RELIANCE UPON A TEACHER'S LITERAL BELIEF WHICH INDUCES FOLLOWERS TO
GIVE HIM MONEY. 

THERE APPEAR TO BE PERSONS - LET US HOPE NOT MANY - WHO FIND
REFRESHMENT AND COURAGE IN THE TEACHINGS OF THE "I AM" CULT.  IF THE
MEMBERS OF THE SECT GET COMFORT FROM THE CELESTIAL GUIDANCE OF THEIR
"SAINT GERMAIN," HOWEVER DOUBTFUL IT SEEMS TO ME, IT IS HARD TO SAY
THAT THEY DO NOT GET WHAT THEY PAY FOR.  SCORES OF SECTS FLOURISH IN
THIS COUNTRY BY TEACHING WHAT TO ME ARE QUEER NOTIONS.  IT IS PLAIN
THAT THERE IS WIDE VARIETY IN AMERICAN RELIGIOUS TASTE.  THE BALLARDS
ARE NOT ALONE IN CATERING TO IT WITH A PRETTY DUBIOUS PRODUCT. 

THE CHIEF WRONG WHICH FALSE PROPHETS DO TO THEIR FOLLOWING IS NOT
FINANCIAL.  THE COLLECTIONS AGGREGATE A TEMPTING TOTAL, BUT INDIVIDUAL
PAYMENTS ARE NOT RUINOUS.  I DOUBT IF THE VIGILANCE OF THE LAW IS EQUAL
TO MAKING MONEY STICK BY OVER-CREDULOUS PEOPLE.  BUT THE REAL HARM IS
ON THE MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL PLANE.  THERE ARE THOSE WHO HUNGER AND
THIRST AFTER HIGHER VALUES WHICH THEY FEEL WANTING IN THEIR HUMDRUM
LIVES.  THEY LIVE IN MENTAL CONFUSION OR MORAL ANARCHY AND SEEK VAGUELY
FOR TRUTH AND BEAUTY AND MORAL SUPPORT.  WHEN THEY ARE DELUDED AND THEN
DISILLUSIONED, CYNICISM AND CONFUSION FOLLOW.  THE WRONG OF THESE
THINGS, AS I SEE IT, IS NOT IN THE MONEY THE VICTIMS PART WITH HALF SO
MUCH AS IN THE MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL POISON THEY GET.  BUT THAT IS
PRECISELY THE THING THE CONSTITUTION PUT BEYOND THE REACH OF THE
PROSECUTOR, FOR THE PRICE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR OF SPEECH OR OF THE
PRESS IS THAT WE MUST PUT UP WITH, AND EVEN PAY FOR, A GOOD DEAL OF
RUBBISH. 

PROSECUTIONS OF THIS CHARACTER EASILY COULD DEGENERATE INTO RELIGIOUS
PERSECUTION.  I DO NOT DOUBT THAT RELIGIOUS LEADERS MAY BE CONVICTED OF
FRAUD FOR MAKING FALSE REPRESENTATIONS ON MATTERS OTHER THAN FAITH OR
EXPERIENCE, AS FOR EXAMPLE IF ONE REPRESENTS THAT FUNDS ARE BEING USED
TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE BEING USED FOR PERSONAL
PURPOSES.  BUT THAT IS NOT THIS CASE, WHICH REACHES INTO WHOLLY
DANGEROUS GROUND.  WHEN DOES LESS THAN FULL BELIEF IN A PROFESSED CREDO
BECOME ACTIONABLE FRAUD IF ONE IS SOLICITING GIFTS OR LEGACIES?  SUCH
INQUIRIES MAY DISCOMFORT ORTHODOX AS WELL AS UNCONVENTIONAL RELIGIOUS
TEACHERS, FOR EVEN THE MOST REGULAR OF THEM ARE SOMETIMES ACCUSED OF
TAKING THEIR ORTHODOXY WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. 

I WOULD DISMISS THE INDICTMENT AND HAVE DONE WITH THIS BUSINESS OF
JUDICIALLY EXAMINING OTHER PEOPLE'S FAITHS. 

FN1  WILLIAM JAMES, COLLECTED ESSAYS AND REVIEWS, PP. 427-8; SEE
GENERALLY HIS VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND THE WILL TO
BELIEVE.  SEE ALSO BURTON, HEYDAY OF A WIZARD. 

FN2  WILLIAM JAMES, THE WILL TO BELIEVE, P. 90. 
..END :


















U.S. V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 322 U.S. 96 


NO. 381.  ARGUED MARCH 27, 28, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1944.  - 136
F.2D 437, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT HERE INVOLVED, THE
GOVERNMENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN
COMPLETION, WHERE, THOUGH SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE SPECIFIED COMPLETION
DATE, THE GOVERNMENT TERMINATED THE CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO PROCEED.  P.
100. 

2.  A GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MAY VALIDLY PROVIDE FOR
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN LIMITED SITUATIONS ONLY.  ACT OF JUNE 6, 1902,
SEC. 21.  P. 101. 

UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SURETY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 729, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED IN PART
A JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES IN A SUIT UPON A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT, 44 F.SUPP.  871. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON JUNE 24, 1931, ONE JOHN V. GROGAN ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT  FN1
WITH THE UNITED STATES TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN PUBLIC BUILDINGS AT THE
UNITED STATES INSPECTION STATION AT BABB-PIEGAN, MONTANA.  RESPONDENT
BECAME THE SURETY ON GROGAN'S PERFORMANCE BOND TO THE UNITED STATES. 
THE COMPLETION DATE OF THE CONTRACT WAS MARCH 4, 1932, BUT THIS WAS
EXTENDED TO JUNE 20, 1933.  GROGAN FAILED TO COMPLETE THE WORK BY THE
EXTENDED DATE.  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, ALLOWED HIM TO CONTINUE WITH
THE CONSTRUCTION.  ON JULY 20, 1934, THIRTEEN MONTHS LATER, THE WORK
WAS STILL UNCOMPLETED.  PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF
THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, THE GOVERNMENT THEREUPON TERMINATED GROGAN'S
RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH THE WORK BECAUSE OF HIS CONTINUING DEFAULT.  THE
GOVERNMENT FINISHED THE WORK THROUGH ANOTHER CONTRACTOR, EXPENDING
$2,044.04 MORE THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO EXPEND HAD GROGAN
COMPLETED THE WORK. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER
THE EXCESS COST AND ALSO TO RECOVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF $9,875 FOR
THE DELAY OCCASIONED BY GROGAN'S DEFAULT.  THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WERE
COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF AN AGREED $25 PER DAY FOR THE 395 DAYS BETWEEN
JUNE 20, 1933, THE EXTENDED DATE FOR COMPLETION, AND JULY 20, 1934,
WHEN THE CONTRACT RIGHT TO PROCEED WAS TERMINATED.  GROGAN WAS NOT
SERVED AND NEVER APPEARED.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED RESPONDENT'S
MOTION TO STRIKE FROM THE COMPLAINT THE PARAGRAPH ALLEGING A RIGHT TO
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  UNITED STATES V. GROGAN, 39 F.SUPP.  819.  THE
COURT SUBSEQUENTLY RENDERED JUDGMENT, AFTER TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY, FOR
THE UNITED STATES FOR $2,044.04 AS EXCESS COST OF COMPLETION AND $9,875
AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. GROGAN, 44
F.SUPP.  871.  ON APPEAL, THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AS TO
THE EXCESS COST BUT REVERSED AS TO THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  AMERICAN
SURETY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 136 F.2D 437.  THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF
THE ISSUE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  320 U.S. 729. 

CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING UNDER THE CONTROL
OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT SHALL CONTAIN A STIPULATION CALLING FOR
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN COMPLETION OF THE WORK AND THAT SUCH
STIPULATION SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND BINDING UPON ALL PARTIES.  PROOF OF
ACTUAL DAMAGES IS RENDERED UNNECESSARY.  THIS STATUTE, HOWEVER, DOES
NOT PURPORT TO REQUIRE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO BE PAID IN AMOUNTS OR
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THOSE STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES.  ROBINSON
V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 486, 488.  IT WAS PURSUANT TO THIS STATUTORY
COMMAND THAT ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN ISSUE WAS
INSERTED.  THUS THIS ARTICLE IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT
TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

ARTICLE 9, SET OUT IN THE MARGIN,  FN3  PROVIDES IN EFFECT THAT:  (1)
IF THE CONTRACTOR REFUSES OR FAILS TO PROSECUTE THE WORK WITH PROPER
DILIGENCE OR TO COMPLETE HIS WORK WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME, THE
GOVERNMENT MAY AT ANY TIME TERMINATE HIS RIGHT TO PROCEED AND PROSECUTE
THE SAME TO COMPLETION BY CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE, IN WHICH CASE THE
GOVERNMENT MAY RECOVER FROM THE CONTRACTOR OR HIS SURETY ANY EXCESS
COST OCCASIONED THEREBY; (2) "IF THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT TERMINATE THE
RIGHT OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUE THE
WORK, IN WHICH EVENT THE ACTUAL DAMAGES FOR THE DELAY WILL BE
IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE AND IN LIEU THEREOF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY TO
THE GOVERNMENT AS FIXED, AGREED, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR EACH
CALENDAR DAY OF DELAY UNTIL THE WORK IS COMPLETED OR ACCEPTED THE
AMOUNT AS SET FORTH IN THE SPECIFICATIONS."  IN THIS INSTANCE,
PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDES THAT "THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY TO THE GOVERNMENT THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY-FIVE
DOLLARS ($25.00) AS FIXED, AGREED, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR EACH
CALENDAR DAY'S DELAY IN THE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT."  THIS
PARAGRAPH MERELY PROVIDES THE AGREED RATE OF THE PER DIEM LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES TO BE PAID IN THE SITUATIONS CONTEMPLATED BY ARTICLE 9.  IT IS
OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO SPELL OUT THE SITUATIONS WHERE LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES ARE TO BE PAID AND CANNOT, CONTRARY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION, CONTROL THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 9.  FN4 

THE IMPACT OF ARTICLE 9 ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IS CLEAR.  THE
CONTRACTOR HAVING FAILED TO COMPLETE HIS WORK WITHIN THE SPECIFIED
TIME, THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISED ITS OPTION UNDER THE FIRST PART OF
ARTICLE 9 TO TERMINATE HIS RIGHT TO PROCEED.  THIS POWER TO TERMINATE
COULD BE EXERCISED BEFORE OR ON THE STIPULATED COMPLETION DATE OR, AS
IN THIS CASE, AT ANY DATE THEREAFTER.  THE GOVERNMENT THEN MADE OTHER
ARRANGEMENTS TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND WAS ENTITLED TO, AND
DID RECOVER, THE EXCESS COST OCCASIONED THEREBY.  IT THUS WAIVED ITS
RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE SECOND PART OF ARTICLE 9.  THAT
RIGHT IS CONDITIONED UPON THE GOVERNMENT NOT TERMINATING THE
CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO PROCEED.  WHERE THERE IS SUCH A TERMINATION, EVEN
THOUGH IT BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE STIPULATED COMPLETION DATE, THE RIGHT TO
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES DISAPPEARS.  SUCH HAS BEEN THE UNIFORM AND CORRECT
RESULT HERETOFORE REACHED IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS TYPE OF CONTRACT
PROVISION.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CUNNINGHAM, 125 F.2D 28; UNITED STATES
V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 25 F.SUPP.  778; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 93 CT. CLS. 247.  SEE ALSO FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 81 CT. CLS. 495; COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 83 CT. CLS. 367; AMERICAN EMPLOYER'S INSURANCE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 91 CT. CLS. 231. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS URGED US TO READ THE SECOND PART OF ARTICLE 9 AS
THOUGH THE RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WERE BASED, NOT UPON A CONDITION
PRECEDENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT NOT TERMINATE, BUT UPON A CONTINUING
CONDITION, UNDER WHICH LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WOULD ACCRUE "SO LONG AS THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT TERMINATE" THE CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO PROCEED.  THIS
IS SAID TO BE THE ONLY WAY TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO THE PRIME PURPOSE OF
SEC. 21 OF THE 1902 ACT TO ELIMINATE THE UNCERTAINTIES AND DIFFICULTIES
OF ESTABLISHING ACTUAL DAMAGES TO THE GOVERNMENT BY DELAY IN OBTAINING
THE USE OF A PUBLIC BUILDING.  OTHERWISE PROOF IS REQUIRED OF ACTUAL
DAMAGES FOR THE DELAY WHERE TERMINATION OCCURS BEFORE COMPLETION IN THE
TEETH OF A STATUTE WHICH DISPENSES WITH SUCH PROOF IN SUITS ON A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONTAINING A STIPULATION "FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
FOR DELAY."  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO CLAIMS THAT FAILURE TO ALLOW IT
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES LEAVES IT ENTIRELY TO THE
CONTRACTOR WHETHER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WILL EVER BE PAID SINCE HE CAN
RELIEVE HIMSELF OF SUCH LIABILITY AT ANY TIME SHORT OF COMPLETION
SIMPLY BY ABANDONING THE WORK OR PROVOKING THE GOVERNMENT TO TERMINATE
HIS RIGHT TO PROCEED.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING OFFICERS IN TURN
WOULD BE INDUCED TO ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED TO COMPLETION
DESPITE INEXCUSABLE DELAYS SO AS NOT TO FORFEIT MOUNTING LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES, THUS PRECLUDING PROMPT COMPLETION AND OCCUPANCY OF NEEDED
STRUCTURES. 

BUT WE ARE CONFRONTED HERE WITH AN UNAMBIGUOUS CONTRACT THAT CLEARLY
LIMITS THE RIGHT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT AT ANY TIME TERMINATE THE CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO
PROCEED.  THAT IT MAY BE WISER TO EXPAND THE RIGHT TO SUCH DAMAGES TO
EVERY CASE OF DELAY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS A TERMINATION, IS
OF COURSE NOT RELEVANT IN INTERPRETING AND APPLYING CLEAR WORDS OF
LIMITATION IN THE CONTRACT.  WE FIND NOTHING, MOREOVER, IN SEC. 21 OF
THE 1902 ACT THAT FILLS IN INTERSTICES DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN BY THE
PARTIES.  NO STATUTORY LANGUAGE OR POLICY FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT AND A
CONTRACTOR FROM STIPULATING FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN LIMITED
SITUATIONS ONLY.  INDEED THE STATUTE MAKES ANY SUCH STIPULATION
"CONCLUSIVE AND BINDING UPON ALL PARTIES," THEREBY FORECLOSING THE
GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO OBJECT TO ITS OWN FAILURE TO INSIST UPON
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN OTHER SITUATIONS.  SINCE WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN
REWRITING THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT TO INCLUDE WHAT MIGHT
WELL HAVE BEEN BUT WAS NOT INSERTED, THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE FORM OF CONTRACT USED WAS U.S. STANDARD FORM NO. 23
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT ON NOVEMBER 19, 1926,
AND USED BETWEEN 1926 AND 1935. 

FN2  C. 1036, 32 STAT. 310, 326; 40 U.S.C. SEC. 269.  THIS PROVIDES:
"IN ALL CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIR OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING OR PUBLIC WORK UNDER THE
CONTROL OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, A STIPULATION SHALL BE INSERTED FOR
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY; AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IS
AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO REMIT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF SUCH DAMAGES
AS IN HIS DISCRETION MAY BE JUST AND EQUITABLE; AND IN ALL SUITS
HEREAFTER COMMENCED ON ANY SUCH CONTRACTS OR ON ANY BOND GIVEN IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THE UNITED STATES,
WHETHER PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT, TO PROVE ACTUAL OR SPECIFIC DAMAGES
SUSTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT BY REASON OF DELAYS, BUT SUCH STIPULATION
FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND BINDING UPON ALL
PARTIES."  SEE H. REP. NO. 1794, P. 8(57TH CONG., 1ST SESS.); 35 CONG.
REC. 4935. 

FN3  "DELAYS - DAMAGES.  - IF THE CONTRACTOR REFUSES OR FAILS TO
PROSECUTE THE WORK, OR ANY SEPARABLE PART THEREOF, WITH SUCH DILIGENCE
AS WILL INSURE ITS COMPLETION WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 1,
OR ANY EXTENSION THEREOF, OR FAILS TO COMPLETE SAID WORK WITHIN SUCH
TIME, THE GOVERNMENT MAY, BY WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CONTRACTOR,
TERMINATE HIS RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH THE WORK OR SUCH PART OF THE WORK
AS TO WHICH THERE HAS BEEN DELAY.  IN SUCH EVENT, THE GOVERNMENT MAY
TAKE OVER THE WORK AND PROSECUTE THE SAME TO COMPLETION BY CONTRACT OR
OTHERWISE, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS SURETIES SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE
GOVERNMENT FOR ANY EXCESS COST OCCASIONED THE GOVERNMENT THEREBY.  IF
THE CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO PROCEED IS SO TERMINATED, THE GOVERNMENT MAY
TAKE POSSESSION OF AND UTILIZE IN COMPLETING THE WORK SUCH MATERIALS,
APPLIANCES, AND PLANT AS MAY BE ON THE SITE OF THE WORK AND NECESSARY
THEREFOR.  IF THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT TERMINATE THE RIGHT OF THE
CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUE THE WORK, IN WHICH
EVENT THE ACTUAL DAMAGES FOR THE DELAY WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE
AND IN LIEU THEREOF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY TO THE GOVERNMENT AS
FIXED, AGREED, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR EACH CALENDAR DAY OF DELAY,
UNTIL THE WORK IS COMPLETED OR ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT AS SET FORTH IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS OR ACCOMPANYING PAPERS AND THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS
SURETIES SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE AMOUNT THEREOF.  ...  " 

FN4  THE DIRECTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
UPON THE FORM HERE INVOLVED STATE THAT "THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOULD
INCLUDE A PARAGRAPH STATING THE AMOUNT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES THAT WILL
BE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR EACH CALENDAR DAY OF DELAY, AS INDICATED
IN ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONTRACT."  IT WAS PURSUANT TO THIS DIRECTION THAT
PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS INSERTED. 
THIS INSTRUCTION INDICATES THAT THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO INCLUDE NO
MORE THAN "THE AMOUNT" OR RATE OF PER DIEM DAMAGES THAT ARE TO BE
APPLIED "AS INDICATED IN ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONTRACT." 
..END :





















MACEVOY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 322 U.S. 102 


NO. 483.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1944.  - 137 F.2D
565, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A SOLD MATERIALS TO B WHO MERELY SOLD THEM TO A CONTRACTOR
FOR USE ON A GOVERNMENT PROJECT, A IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER UPON A
PAYMENT BOND FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR PURSUANT TO THE MILLER ACT. 
P. 104. 

2.  THE TERM "SUBCONTRACTOR" IN THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE
MILLER ACT - "ANY PERSON HAVING DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A
SUBCONTRACTOR BUT NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WITH
THE CONTRACTOR FURNISHING SAID PAYMENT BOND SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF
ACTION UPON SAID PAYMENT BOND"  - DOES NOT INCLUDE A MATERIALMAN WHO
MERELY SELLS MATERIALS TO THE CONTRACTOR.  P. 108. 

3.  THE SALUTARY POLICY OF THE MILLER ACT TO PROTECT THOSE WHOSE
LABOR AND MATERIALS GO INTO PUBLIC PROJECTS DOES NOT WARRANT DISREGARD
OF THE PLAIN WORDS OF LIMITATION IN THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE
ACT.  P. 107. 

CLIFFORD F. MACEVOY CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES FOR THE USE AND
BENEFIT OF CALVIN TOMKINS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 733, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 49
F.SUPP.  81, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT AGAINST A GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTOR AND SURETY UPON A PAYMENT BOND. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE PETITIONER
CLIFFORD F. MACEVOY COMPANY WHEREBY THE LATTER AGREED TO FURNISH THE
MATERIALS AND TO PERFORM THE WORK NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
DWELLING UNITS OF A DEFENSE HOUSING PROJECT NEAR LINDEN, NEW JERSEY, ON
A COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE BASIS.  PURSUANT TO THE MILLER ACT,  FN1  MACEVOY
AS PRINCIPAL AND THE PETITIONER AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY AS
SURETY EXECUTED A PAYMENT BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000, CONDITIONED
ON THE PROMPT PAYMENT BY MACEVOY "TO ALL PERSONS SUPPLYING LABOR AND
MATERIAL IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK PROVIDED FOR IN SAID
CONTRACT."  THE BOND WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

MACEVOY THEREUPON PURCHASED FROM JAMES H. MILLER & COMPANY CERTAIN
BUILDING MATERIALS FOR USE IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK PROVIDED FOR
IN MACEVOY'S CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  MILLER IN TURN PURCHASED
THESE MATERIALS FROM THE RESPONDENT, CALVIN TOMKINS COMPANY.  MILLER
FAILED TO PAY TOMKINS A BALANCE OF $12,033.49.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION
THAT MILLER AGREED TO PERFORM OR DID PERFORM ANY PART OF THE WORK ON
THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.  NOR IS IT DISPUTED THAT MACEVOY PAID MILLER
IN FULL FOR THE MATERIALS. 

WITHIN NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH TOMKINS FURNISHED THE LAST
OF THE MATERIALS TO MILLER, TOMKINS GAVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO MACEVOY AND
THE SURETY OF THE EXISTENCE AND AMOUNT OF TOMKINS' CLAIM FOR MATERIALS
FURNISHED TO MILLER.  TOMKINS AS USE-PLAINTIFF THEN INSTITUTED THIS
ACTION AGAINST MACEVOY AND THE SURETY ON THE PAYMENT BOND.  THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED PETITIONERS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AGAINST THEM.  49 F.SUPP.  81.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  137 F.2D 565.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A NOVEL AND IMPORTANT QUESTION PRESENTED UNDER
THE MILLER ACT.  320 U.S. 733. 

SPECIFICALLY THE ISSUE IS WHETHER UNDER THE MILLER ACT A PERSON
SUPPLYING MATERIALS TO A MATERIALMAN OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR AND TO
WHOM AN UNPAID BALANCE IS DUE FROM THE MATERIALMAN CAN RECOVER ON THE
PAYMENT BOND EXECUTED BY THE CONTRACTOR.  WE HOLD THAT HE CANNOT. 

THE HEARD ACT,  FN2  WHICH WAS THE PREDECESSOR OF THE MILLER ACT,
REQUIRED GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS TO EXECUTE PENAL BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT
OF "ALL PERSONS SUPPLYING HIM OR THEM WITH LABOR AND MATERIALS IN THE
PROSECUTION OF THE WORK PROVIDED FOR IN SUCH CONTRACT."  WE
CONSISTENTLY APPLIED A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION TO THAT STATUTE, NOTING
THAT IT WAS REMEDIAL IN NATURE AND THAT IT CLEARLY EVIDENCED "THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT THOSE WHOSE LABOR OR MATERIAL HAS
CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK."  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN
SURETY CO., 200 U.S. 197, 204.  SEE ALSO MANKIN V. UNITED STATES, 215
U.S. 533; U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. BARTLETT, 231 U.S. 237;
BROGAN V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 246 U.S. 257; FLEISCHMANN CONSTRUCTION
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 349; STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 442.  WE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE PHRASE "ALL
PERSONS SUPPLYING (THE CONTRACTOR)  ... WITH LABOR AND MATERIALS"
INCLUDED NOT ONLY THOSE FURNISHING LABOR AND MATERIALS DIRECTLY TO THE
PRIME CONTRACTOR BUT ALSO COVERED THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED LABOR AND
MATERIALS TO SUBCONTRACTORS.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SURETY CO.,
SUPRA, 204; MANKIN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 539; ILLINOIS SURETY CO. V.
JOHN DAVIS CO., 244 U.S. 376, 380.  WE HAD NO OCCASION, HOWEVER, TO
DETERMINE UNDER THAT ACT WHETHER THOSE WHO MERELY SOLD MATERIALS TO
MATERIALMEN, WHO IN TURN SOLD THEM TO THE PRIME CONTRACTORS, WERE
INCLUDED WITHIN THE PHRASE AND HENCE ENTITLED TO RECOVER ON THE PENAL
BOND.  FN3 

THE MILLER ACT, WHILE IT REPEALED THE HEARD ACT, REINSTATED ITS BASIC
PROVISIONS AND WAS DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO ELIMINATE CERTAIN PROCEDURAL
LIMITATIONS ON ITS BENEFICIARIES N4.  THERE WAS NO EXPRESSED PURPOSE IN
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO RESTRICT IN ANY WAY THE COVERAGE OF THE
HEARD ACT; THE INTENT RATHER WAS TO REMOVE THE PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES
FOUND TO EXIST UNDER THE EARLIER MEASURE AND THEREBY MAKE IT EASIER FOR
UNPAID CREDITORS TO REALIZE THE BENEFITS OF THE BOND.  SECTION 1(A)(2)
OF THE MILLER ACT REQUIRES EVERY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, WHERE THE
AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT EXCEEDS $2,000, TO FURNISH TO THE UNITED STATES
A PAYMENT BOND WITH A SURETY "FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS
SUPPLYING LABOR AND MATERIAL IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK PROVIDED
FOR IN SAID CONTRACT FOR THE USE OF EACH SUCH PERSON."  SECTION 2(A)
FURTHER PROVIDES THAT "EVERY PERSON WHO HAS FURNISHED LABOR OR MATERIAL
IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK PROVIDED FOR IN SUCH CONTRACT" AND WHO
HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL THEREFOR WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE LAST
LABOR WAS PERFORMED OR MATERIAL SUPPLIED MAY BRING SUIT ON THE PAYMENT
BOND FOR THE UNPAID BALANCE.  A PROVISO THEN STATES: 

"PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY PERSON HAVING DIRECT CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBCONTRACTOR BUT NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WITH THE CONTRACTOR FURNISHING SAID PAYMENT BOND
SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF ACTION UPON THE SAID PAYMENT BOND UPON GIVING
WRITTEN NOTICE TO SAID CONTRACTOR WITHIN NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE ON
WHICH SUCH PERSON DID OR PERFORMED THE LAST OF THE LABOR OR FURNISHED
OR SUPPLIED THE LAST OF THE MATERIAL FOR WHICH SUCH CLAIM IS MADE.  ...
" 

THE MILLER ACT, LIKE THE HEARD ACT, IS HIGHLY REMEDIAL IN NATURE.  IT
IS ENTITLED TO A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION IN ORDER PROPERLY
TO EFFECTUATE THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO PROTECT THOSE WHOSE LABOR AND
MATERIALS GO INTO PUBLIC PROJECTS.  FLEISHER ENGINEERING CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 311 U.S. 15, 17, 18; CF. UNITED STATES V. IRWIN, 316 U.S. 23,
29, 30.  BUT SUCH A SALUTARY POLICY DOES NOT JUSTIFY IGNORING PLAIN
WORDS OF LIMITATION AND IMPOSING WHOLESALE LIABILITY ON PAYMENT BONDS. 
OSTENSIBLY THE PAYMENT BOND IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF "ALL PERSONS
SUPPLYING LABOR AND MATERIAL IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK" AND "EVERY
PERSON WHO HAS FURNISHED LABOR OR MATERIAL IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE
WORK" IS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO SUE ON SUCH PAYMENT BOND.  WHETHER THIS
STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE PERSONS SUPPLYING
MATERIAL TO MATERIALMEN AS WELL AS THOSE IN MORE REMOTE RELATIONSHIPS
WE NEED NOT DECIDE.  EVEN IF IT DID INCLUDE SUCH PERSONS WE CANNOT
DISREGARD THE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO
IMPOSE AND DID IMPOSE IN THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(A).  HOWEVER INCLUSIVE
MAY BE THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF A STATUTE, IT "WILL NOT BE HELD TO APPLY
TO A MATTER SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SAME
ENACTMENT.  ...  SPECIFIC TERMS PREVAIL OVER THE GENERAL IN THE SAME OR
ANOTHER STATUTE WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT BE CONTROLLING."  GINSBERG & SONS
V. POPKIN, 285 U.S. 204, 208. 

THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(A), WHICH HAD NO COUNTERPART IN THE HEARD ACT,
MAKES CLEAR THAT THE RIGHT TO BRING SUIT ON A PAYMENT BOND IS LIMITED
TO (1) THOSE MATERIALMEN, LABORERS AND SUBCONTRACTORS WHO DEAL DIRECTLY
WITH THE PRIME CONTRACTOR AND (2) THOSE MATERIALMEN, LABORERS AND
SUBSUBCONTRACTORS WHO, LACKING EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRIME CONTRACTOR, HAVE DIRECT CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBCONTRACTOR AND WHO GIVE THE STATUTORY NOTICE OF
THEIR CLAIMS TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR.  TO ALLOW THOSE IN MORE REMOTE
RELATIONSHIPS TO RECOVER ON THE BOND WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE CLEAR
LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO AND TO THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE FRAMERS OF THE
ACT.  FN5  MOREOVER, IT WOULD LEAD TO THE ABSURD RESULT OF REQUIRING
NOTICE FROM PERSONS IN DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A
SUBCONTRACTOR BUT NOT FROM MORE REMOTE CLAIMANTS. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER MILLER, THE
MATERIALMAN TO WHOM TOMKINS SOLD THE GOODS AND WHO IN TURN SUPPLIED
THEM TO MACEVOY, WAS A SUBCONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
PROVISO.  IF HE WAS, TOMKINS' DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM
ENABLES TOMKINS TO RECOVER ON MACEVOY'S PAYMENT BOND.  IF MILLER WAS
NOT A SUBCONTRACTOR, TOMKINS STANDS IN TOO REMOTE A RELATIONSHIP TO
SECURE THE BENEFITS OF THE BOND. 

THE MILLER ACT ITSELF MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO DEFINE THE WORD
"SUBCONTRACTOR."  WE ARE THUS FORCED TO UTILIZE ORDINARY JUDICIAL TOOLS
OF DEFINITION.  WHETHER THE WORD INCLUDES LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN IS
NOT SUBJECT TO EASY SOLUTION, FOR THE WORD HAS NO SINGLE EXACT
MEANING.  FN6  IN A BROAD, GENERIC SENSE A SUBCONTRACTOR INCLUDES
ANYONE WHO HAS A CONTRACT TO FURNISH LABOR OR MATERIAL TO THE PRIME
CONTRACTOR.  IN THAT SENSE MILLER WAS A SUBCONTRACTOR.  BUT UNDER THE
MORE TECHNICAL MEANING, AS ESTABLISHED BY USAGE IN THE BUILDING TRADES,
A SUBCONTRACTOR IS ONE WHO PERFORMS FOR AND TAKES FROM THE PRIME
CONTRACTOR A SPECIFIC PART OF THE LABOR OR MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE
ORIGINAL CONTRACT, THUS EXCLUDING ORDINARY LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN. 
TO DETERMINE WHICH MEANING CONGRESS ATTACHED TO THE WORD IN THE MILLER
ACT, WE MUST LOOK TO THE CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF THE STATUTE AS WELL
AS TO THE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THE ACT. 

IT IS APPARENT FROM THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY LEADING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE MILLER ACT
THAT THE PARTICIPANTS HAD IN MIND A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN
SUBCONTRACTORS AND MATERIALMEN.  IN OPENING THE HEARINGS,
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER, THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL THAT BECAME THE MILLER
ACT, STATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE VARIOUS PROPOSED BILLS THAT "WE
WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE REACTION AND OPINION OF MEMBERS IN REFERENCE TO
THOSE BILLS THAT DEAL WITH THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF REQUIRING A BOND FOR
THE BENEFIT OF LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN WHO DEAL WITH SUBCONTRACTORS ON
PUBLIC WORKS."  FN7  AND THE AUTHORITATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT  FN8 MADE
NUMEROUS REFERENCES TO AND DISTINGUISHED AMONG "LABORERS, MATERIALMEN
AND SUBCONTRACTORS."  SIMILAR UNCONTRADICTED STATEMENTS WERE MADE IN
BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS WHEN THE ACT WAS PENDING BEFORE THEM.  FN9  THE
FACT THAT SUBCONTRACTORS WERE SO CONSISTENTLY DISTINGUISHED FROM
MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS IN THE COURSE OF THE FORMATION OF THE ACT IS
PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE WORD "SUBCONTRACTOR" WAS USED IN THE
PROVISO OF SEC. 2(A) IN ITS TECHNICAL SENSE SO AS TO EXCLUDE
MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS.  FN10 

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THE ACT LIKEWISE SUPPORT THIS
CONCLUSION.  CONGRESS CANNOT BE PRESUMED, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS
STATUTORY LANGUAGE, TO HAVE INTENDED TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON THE PAYMENT
BOND IN SITUATIONS WHERE IT IS DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PRIME
CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT HIMSELF.  THE RELATIVELY FEW SUBCONTRACTORS WHO
PERFORM PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT REPRESENT IN A SENSE THE PRIME
CONTRACTOR AND ARE WELL KNOWN TO HIM.  IT IS EASY FOR THE PRIME
CONTRACTOR TO SECURE HIMSELF AGAINST LOSS BY REQUIRING THE
SUBCONTRACTORS TO GIVE SECURITY BY BOND, OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE PAYMENT
OF THOSE WHO CONTRACT DIRECTLY WITH THE SUBCONTRACTORS.  UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., SUPRA, 204; MANKIN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
540.  BUT THIS METHOD OF PROTECTION IS GENERALLY INADEQUATE TO COPE
WITH REMOTE AND UNDETERMINABLE LIABILITIES INCURRED BY AN ORDINARY
MATERIALMAN, WHO MAY BE A MANUFACTURER, A WHOLESALER OR A RETAILER. 
FN11 MANY SUCH MATERIALMEN ARE USUALLY INVOLVED IN LARGE PROJECTS; THEY
DEAL IN TURN WITH INNUMERABLE SUB-MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS.  TO IMPOSE
UNLIMITED LIABILITY UNDER THE PAYMENT BOND TO THOSE SUB-MATERIALMEN AND
LABORERS IS TO CREATE A PRECARIOUS AND PERILOUS RISK ON THE PRIME
CONTRACTOR AND HIS SURETY.  TO SANCTION SUCH A RISK REQUIRES CLEAR
LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE AND IN THE BOND SO AS TO LEAVE NO ALTERNATIVE. 
FN12  HERE THE PROVISO OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE ACT FORBIDS THE IMPOSITION
OF SUCH A RISK, THEREBY FORECLOSING TOMKINS' RIGHT TO SUE ON THE
PAYMENT BOND. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1 ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1935, C. 642, 49 STAT. 793; 40 U.S.C. SEC. 270A
ET SEQ. 

FN2  ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1894, C. 280, 28 STAT. 278, AS AMENDED BY ACT
OF FEBRUARY 24, 1905, C. 778, 33 STAT. 811; 40 U.S.C. SEC. 270. 

FN3  IN UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 200 U.S. 197, 204, WE
SAID, "THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE NOR IN THE BOND WHICH IS
THEREIN AUTHORIZED LIMITING THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY TO THOSE WHO FURNISH
MATERIAL OR LABOR DIRECTLY TO THE CONTRACTOR, BUT ALL PERSONS SUPPLYING
THE CONTRACTOR WITH LABOR OR MATERIALS IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK
PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONTRACT ARE TO BE PROTECTED.  THE SOURCE OF THE
LABOR OR MATERIAL IS NOT INDICATED OR CIRCUMSCRIBED.  IT IS ONLY
REQUIRED TO BE 'SUPPLIED' TO THE CONTRACTOR IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE
WORK PROVIDED FOR."  THIS BROAD LANGUAGE, WHICH WENT BEYOND THAT
REQUIRED BY THE FACTS AND THE HOLDING IN THAT CASE, MIGHT SEEM TO
JUSTIFY RECOVERY BY PERSONS SUPPLYING MATERIALS TO MATERIALMEN.  SUCH
WAS THE HOLDING IN UTAH CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 15 F.2D 21. 
OUR DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IN THAT CASE, 273 U.S. 745, WAS NOT A
DETERMINATION BY US OF THE ISSUE, HOWEVER.  COMPARE CONTINENTAL
CASUALTY CO. V. NORTH AMERICAN CEMENT CORP., 91 F.2D 307, EXPRESSING
THE OPPOSITE OPINION UNDER AN IDENTICAL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATUTE. 
FN4  UNDER THE HEARD ACT, A SINGLE BOND WAS REQUIRED TO PROTECT BOTH
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SUPPLIERS OF LABOR AND MATERIALS.  THE
GOVERNMENT WAS GIVEN THE SOLE RIGHT TO SUE ON THE BOND FOR SIX MONTHS
AFTER COMPLETION OF THE WORK AND FINAL SETTLEMENT.  OTHER CLAIMANTS
COULD SUE ONLY THEREAFTER AND HAD TO JOIN IN A SINGLE ACTION.  SERIOUS
INCONVENIENCES AND DELAYS RESULTED.  THE CLAIMANTS, OFTEN IN NEED OF
IMMEDIATE FUNDS, WERE COMPELLED TO SETTLE MERITORIOUS CLAIMS FOR LESS
THAN THE FULL AMOUNT.  THE MILLER ACT WAS DESIGNED TO MEET THESE
DIFFICULTIES BY REQUIRING THAT THE PRIME CONTRACTOR EXECUTE TWO BONDS -
A PERFORMANCE BOND TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT AND A PAYMENT BOND TO
PROTECT THE CREDITORS.  CREDITORS CAN SUE ON THE LATTER BOND WITHOUT
WAITING FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND EVEN WITHOUT WAITING FOR COMPLETION OF
THE PROJECT.  EACH CREDITOR MAY SUE SEPARATELY NINETY DAYS AFTER THE
LABOR IS COMPLETELY PERFORMED OR MATERIALS FULLY SUPPLIED.  HEARINGS ON
H.R. 2068, ET AL., BONDS OF CONTRACTORS ON PUBLIC WORKS, HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 79 CONG. REC. 11702,
13382; H. REP. NO. 1263 AND S. REP. NO. 1238(74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.). 

FN5  "A SUB-SUBCONTRACTOR MAY AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PROTECTION OF THE
BOND BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CONTRACTOR, BUT THAT IS AS FAR AS
THE BILL GOES.  IT IS NOT FELT THAT MORE REMOTE RELATIONSHIPS OUGHT TO
COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE BOND."  H. REP. NO. 1263(74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.), P. 3. 

FN6  IN ANALOGOUS SITUATIONS, STATE AND LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE
EXPRESSED DIVERGENT OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER THE WORD "SUBCONTRACTOR"
INCLUDES LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN.  SEE ANNOTATION IN 141 A.L.R. 321
FOR A SUMMARY OF THE CONFLICTING CASES.  WE HAVE NOT HERETOFORE HAD
OCCASION TO DEFINE THE WORD IN THIS CONNECTION.  ANY LOOSE,
INTERCHANGEABLE USE OF "SUBCONTRACTOR" AND "MATERIALMAN" IN ANY PRIOR
DECISION OF OURS IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE. 

FN7  HEARINGS ON H.R. 2068, ET AL., BONDS OF CONTRACTORS ON PUBLIC
WORKS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1. 
SEE ALSO STATEMENTS BY REP. MILLER, ID., PP. 18, 26, 60, 67, 74; REP.
ROBSION, P. 30; REP. MCLAUGHLIN, P. 73; REP. DOCKWEILER, PP. 12-22;
REP. CELLER, PP. 83, 84, 89; EDWARD H. CUSHMAN, PP. 23-31, 85. 

FN8  H. REP. NO. 1263(74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.), PP. 1, 2. 

FN9  REP. MILLER STATED IN THE HOUSE THAT "THIS BILL MERELY PROVIDES
THAT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND OTHER PUBLIC WORKS
THERE SHALL BE TWO BONDS, ONE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT WITH
THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE OTHER A PAYMENT BOND FOR THE PROTECTION OF
SUBCONTRACTORS AND THOSE FURNISHING THE LABOR AND MATERIAL.  UNDER THE
PRESENT LAW WE HAVE BUT ONE BOND, WITH A DUAL OBLIGATION, BUT IT IS NOT
SATISFACTORY IN THAT IT DOES NOT AFFORD PROTECTION TO THE
SUBCONTRACTORS, MATERIALMEN, AND LABORERS.  THIS MERELY PROVIDES FOR
TWO BONDS, ONE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERESTS, AND
THE OTHER FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF LABOR, THE
SUBCONTRACTORS, AND MATERIAL FURNISHERS."  79 CONG. REC. 11702. 

SEN. BURKE SAID IN THE SENATE THAT "THIS BILL WOULD AMEND THAT LAW BY
REQUIRING AN ADDITIONAL BOND, A PAYMENT BOND, FOR THE PROTECTION OF
MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND ALL WHO PUT FORTH THEIR
LABOR OR FURNISH MATERIALS OR INCUR EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
WORK."  79 CONG. REC. 13382. 

FN10  SEE, IN GENERAL, CAMPBELL, "THE PROTECTION OF LABORERS AND
MATERIALMEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION BONDS," 3 UNIV.  OF CHICAGO L. REV. 1;
ANNOTATION, 77 A.L.R. 21. 

FN11  SEE NOTE, "THE WIDENING SCOPE OF PROTECTION OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION BONDS," 45 HARVARD L. REV. 1236. 

FN12  CONGRESS HAS SHOWN ITS ABILITY IN OTHER STATUTES TO MAKE CLEAR
AN INTENT TO INCLUDE MATERIALMEN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD
"SUBCONTRACTOR."  SEE SEC. 301(A)(3) OF THE ACT OF DEC. 2, 1942, 56
STAT. 1035, 42 U.S.C. SUPP. II, SEC. 1651(A)(3), PROVIDING THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYEES OF A "SUBCONTRACTOR
WHO IS ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN FURNISHING MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES."  IN
OTHER STATUTES, CONGRESS HAS CLEARLY USED THE TERM "SUBCONTRACTOR" IN
CONTRAST TO "MATERIALMAN."  SEE 40 U.S.C. SEC. 407(B); 41 U.S.C. SEC.
10B (A) AND (B); 41 U.S.C. SEC. 28. 
..END :

















BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, 322 U.S. 111 


ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 9, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1944.  - 136 F.2D 608,
REVERSED. 


1.  THE MEANING OF THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT IS TO BE DETERMINED NOT EXCLUSIVELY BY REFERENCE TO COMMON-LAW
STANDARDS, LOCAL LAW, OR LEGAL CLASSIFICATIONS MADE FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
BUT WITH REGARD ALSO TO THE HISTORY, CONTEXT AND PURPOSES OF THE ACT
AND TO THE ECONOMIC FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR RELATIONSHIP.  PP. 120,
129. 

2.  THE DETERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT, IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, A PERSON IS AN "EMPLOYEE" UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, MAY NOT BE SET ASIDE ON REVIEW IF IT HAS
WARRANT IN THE RECORD AND A REASONABLE BASIS IN LAW.  P. 130. 

3.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT
"NEWSBOYS" DISTRIBUTING RESPONDENTS' PAPERS ON THE STREETS OF THE CITY
WERE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS SUPPORTED BY
THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE AND HAS AMPLE BASIS IN THE LAW.  P. 131. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE "NEWSBOYS" WORK CONTINUOUSLY AND REGULARLY,
RELY UPON THEIR EARNINGS FOR THE SUPPORT OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR
FAMILIES, AND HAVE THEIR TOTAL WAGES INFLUENCED IN LARGE MEASURE BY THE
PUBLISHERS (RESPONDENTS) WHO DICTATE THEIR BUYING AND SELLING PRICES,
FIX THEIR MARKETS AND CONTROL THEIR SUPPLY OF PAPERS; THAT THEIR HOURS
OF WORK AND THEIR EFFORTS ON THE JOB ARE SUPERVISED AND TO SOME EXTENT
PRESCRIBED BY THE PUBLISHERS OR THE PUBLISHERS' AGENTS; AND THAT A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR SALES EQUIPMENT AND ADVERTISING MATERIALS IS
FURNISHED BY THE PUBLISHERS WITH THE INTENTION THAT IT BE USED FOR THE
PUBLISHERS' BENEFIT. 

4.  THE BOARD'S DESIGNATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS IN
THIS CASE - (1) FULL-TIME NEWSBOYS AND "CHECKMEN," ENGAGED TO SELL
PAPERS WITHIN THE CITY, AND EXCLUDING BOOTJACKERS, TEMPORARY, CASUAL,
AND PART-TIME NEWSBOYS; AND (2) NEWSBOYS SELLING AT ESTABLISHED SPORTS
IN THE CITY, FOUR OR MORE HOURS PER DAY, FIVE OR MORE DAYS PER WEEK,
EXCEPT TEMPORARY NEWSBOYS - WAS WITHIN ITS DISCRETION AND IS
SUSTAINED.  P. 132. 

(A)  THAT THE BOARD'S SELECTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS
EMPHASIZES DIFFERENCE IN TENURE RATHER THAN IN FUNCTION WAS, ON THE
RECORD IN THIS CASE, NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  P. 133. 

(B)  THE BOARD'S EXCLUSION OF SUBURBAN NEWSBOYS FROM THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING UNITS, ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE NOT ORGANIZED BY THE
UNION, WAS, ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  P.
133. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, INC. 

NO. 336.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 337, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
STOCKHOLDERS PUBLISHING CO., INC., NO. 338, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. HEARST PUBLICATIONS, INC., AND NO. 339, NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. TIMES-MIRROR CO., ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 728, TO REVIEW DECREES DENYING ENFORCEMENT OF
ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (39 N.L.R.B. 1245, 1256)
AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES ARISE FROM THE REFUSAL OF RESPONDENTS, PUBLISHERS OF FOUR
LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWSPAPERS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH A UNION
REPRESENTING NEWSBOYS WHO DISTRIBUTE THEIR PAPERS ON THE STREETS OF
THAT CITY.  RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO
BARGAIN BECAUSE THE NEWSBOYS ARE NOT THEIR "EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THAT TERM IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 450,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 152,  FN1  PRESENTS THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHICH WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI  FN2 TO RESOLVE. 

THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WERE BEGUN
WITH THE FILING OF FOUR PETITIONS FOR INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATION
FN3  BY LOS ANGELES NEWSBOYS LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION NO. 75.  HEARINGS
WERE HELD IN A CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDING  FN4  AFTER WHICH THE BOARD MADE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUDED THAT THE REGULAR FULL-TIME NEWSBOYS
SELLING EACH PAPER WERE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE ACT AND THAT QUESTIONS
AFFECTING COMMERCE CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES HAD
ARISEN.  IT DESIGNATED APPROPRIATE UNITS AND ORDERED ELECTIONS.  28
N.L.R.B. 1006.  FN5  AT THESE THE UNION WAS SELECTED AS THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE BY MAJORITIES OF THE ELIGIBLE NEWSBOYS.  AFTER THE UNION
WAS APPROPRIATELY CERTIFIED, 33 N.L.R.B. 941, 36 N.L.R.B. 285, THE
RESPONDENTS REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH IT.  THEREUPON PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SEC. 10, 49 STAT. 453-455, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160, WERE INSTITUTED, A
HEARING  FN6  WAS HELD AND RESPONDENTS WERE FOUND TO HAVE VIOLATED
SECS. 8(1) AND 8(5) OF THE ACT, 49 STAT. 452-453, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
158(1), (5).  THEY WERE ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH
VIOLATIONS AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION UPON REQUEST.  39
N.L.R.B. 1245, 1256. 

UPON RESPONDENTS' PETITIONS FOR REVIEW AND THE BOARD'S PETITIONS FOR
ENFORCEMENT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, SET
ASIDE THE BOARD'S ORDERS.  REJECTING THE BOARD'S ANALYSIS, THE COURT
INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NEWSBOYS ARE EMPLOYEES
WITHIN THE ACT, DECIDED THAT THE STATUTE IMPORTS COMMON-LAW STANDARDS
TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION, AND HELD THE NEWSBOYS ARE NOT EMPLOYEES. 
136 F.2D 608. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD DISCLOSE THAT THE LOS ANGELES TIMES AND THE
LOS ANGELES EXAMINER, PUBLISHED DAILY AND SUNDAY,  FN7  ARE MORNING
PAPERS.  EACH PUBLISHES SEVERAL EDITIONS WHICH ARE DISTRIBUTED ON THE
STREETS DURING THE EVENING BEFORE THEIR DATELINE, BETWEEN ABOUT 6:00 OR
6:30 P.M. AND 1:00 A.M., AND OTHER EDITIONS DISTRIBUTED DURING THE
FOLLOWING MORNING UNTIL ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK.  THE LOS ANGELES EVENING
HERALD AND EXPRESS, PUBLISHED EVERY DAY BUT SUNDAY, IS AN EVENING
PAPER, WHICH HAS SIX EDITIONS ON THE PRESSES BETWEEN 9:00 A.M. AND 5:30
P.M.  FN8  THE NEWS, ALSO PUBLISHED EVERY DAY BUT SUNDAY, IS A TWENTY
FOUR HOUR PAPER WITH TEN EDITIONS.  FN9 

THE PAPERS ARE DISTRIBUTED TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER THROUGH A VARIETY
OF CHANNELS, INCLUDING INDEPENDENT DEALERS AND NEWSSTANDS OFTEN
ATTACHED TO DRUG, GROCERY OR CONFECTIONERY STORES, CARRIERS WHO MAKE
HOME DELIVERIES, AND NEWSBOYS WHO SELL ON THE STREETS OF THE CITY AND
ITS SUBURBS.  ONLY THE LAST OF THESE ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

THE NEWSBOYS WORK UNDER VARYING TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  THEY MAY BE
"BOOTJACKERS," SELLING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT PLACES OTHER THAN
ESTABLISHED CORNERS, OR THEY MAY SELL AT FIXED "SPOTS."  THEY MAY SELL
ONLY CASUALLY OR PARTTIME, OR FULL-TIME; AND THEY MAY BE EMPLOYED
REGULARLY AND CONTINUOUSLY OR ONLY TEMPORARILY.  THE UNITS WHICH THE
BOARD DETERMINED TO BE APPROPRIATE ARE COMPOSED OF THOSE WHO SELL FULL
TIME AT ESTABLISHED SPOTS.  THOSE VENDORS, MISNAMED BOYS, ARE GENERALLY
MATURE MEN, DEPENDENT UPON THE PROCEEDS OF THEIR SALES FOR THEIR
SUSTENANCE, AND FREQUENTLY SUPPORTERS OF FAMILIES.  WORKING THUS AS
NEWS VENDORS ON A REGULAR BASIS, OFTEN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THEY FORM
A STABLE GROUP WITH RELATIVELY LITTLE TURNOVER, IN CONTRAST TO
SCHOOLBOYS AND OTHERS WHO SELL AS BOOTJACKERS, TEMPORARY AND CASUAL
DISTRIBUTORS. 

OVER-ALL CIRCULATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE PAPERS ARE UNDER THE
GENERAL SUPERVISION OF CIRCULATION MANAGERS.  BUT FOR PURPOSES OF
STREET DISTRIBUTION EACH PAPER HAS DIVIDED METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES
INTO GEOGRAPHIC DISTRICTS.  EACH DISTRICT IS UNDER THE DIRECT AND CLOSE
SUPERVISION OF A DISTRICT MANAGER.  HIS FUNCTION IN THE MECHANICS OF
DISTRIBUTION IS TO SUPPLY THE NEWSBOYS IN HIS DISTRICT WITH PAPERS
WHICH HE OBTAINS FROM THE PUBLISHER AND TO TURN OVER TO THE PUBLISHER
THE RECEIPTS WHICH HE COLLECTS FROM THEIR SALES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF "CHECKMEN" OR "MAIN SPOT" BOYS.  FN10  THE
LATTER, STATIONED AT THE IMPORTANT CORNERS OR "SPOTS" IN THE DISTRICT,
ARE NEWSBOYS WHO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, RECEIVE DELIVERY OF THE PAPERS,
REDISTRIBUTE THEM TO OTHER NEWSBOYS STATIONED AT LESS IMPORTANT
CORNERS, AND COLLECT RECEIPTS FROM THEIR SALES.  FN11  FOR THAT
SERVICE, WHICH OCCUPIES A MINOR PORTION OF THEIR WORKING DAY, THE
CHECKMEN RECEIVE A SMALL SALARY FROM THE PUBLISHER.  FN12  THE BULK OF
THEIR DAY, HOWEVER, THEY SPEND IN HAWKING PAPERS AT THEIR "SPOTS" LIKE
OTHER FULL-TIME NEWSBOYS.  A LARGE PART OF THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
SELECTED BY THE BOARD FOR THE NEWS AND THE HERALD ARE CHECKMEN WHO, IN
THAT CAPACITY, CLEARLY ARE EMPLOYEES OF THOSE PAPERS. 

THE NEWSBOYS' COMPENSATION CONSISTS IN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
PRICES AT WHICH THEY SELL THE PAPERS AND THE PRICES THEY PAY FOR THEM. 
THE FORMER ARE FIXED BY THE PUBLISHERS AND THE LATTER ARE FIXED EITHER
BY THE PUBLISHERS OR, IN THE CASE OF THE NEWS, BY THE DISTRICT
MANAGER.  FN13  IN PRACTICE THE NEWSBOYS RECEIVE THEIR PAPERS ON
CREDIT.  THEY PAY FOR THOSE SOLD EITHER SOMETIME DURING OR AFTER THE
CLOSE OF THEIR SELLING DAY, RETURNING FOR CREDIT ALL UNSOLD PAPERS. 
FN14 LOST OR OTHERWISE UNRETURNED PAPERS, HOWEVER, MUST BE PAID FOR AS
THOUGH SOLD.  NOT ONLY IS THE "PROFIT" PER PAPER THUS EFFECTIVELY FIXED
BY THE PUBLISHER, BUT SUBSTANTIAL CONTROL OF THE NEWSBOYS' TOTAL "TAKE
HOME" CAN BE EFFECTED THROUGH THE ABILITY TO DESIGNATE THEIR SALES
AREAS AND THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF PAPERS ALLOCATED TO
EACH.  WHILE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THIS POWER IS NOT EXERCISED FULLY,
THE NEWSBOYS'"RIGHT" TO DECIDE HOW MANY PAPERS THEY WILL TAKE IS ALSO
NOT ABSOLUTE.  IN PRACTICE, THE BOARD FOUND, THEY CANNOT DETERMINE THE
SIZE OF THEIR ESTABLISHED ORDER WITHOUT THE COOPERATION OF THE DISTRICT
MANAGER.  AND OFTEN THE NUMBER OF PAPERS THEY MUST TAKE IS DETERMINED
UNILATERALLY BY THE DISTRICT MANAGERS. 

IN ADDITION TO EFFECTIVELY FIXING THE COMPENSATION, RESPONDENTS IN A
VARIETY OF WAYS PRESCRIBE, IF NOT THE MINUTIAE OF DAILY ACTIVITIES, AT
LEAST THE BROAD TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF WORK.  THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED
LARGELY THROUGH THE SUPERVISORY EFFORTS OF THE DISTRICT MANAGERS, WHO
SERVE AS THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE PUBLISHERS AND THE NEWSBOYS.  FN15  THE
DISTRICT MANAGERS ASSIGN "SPOTS" OR CORNERS TO WHICH THE NEWSBOYS ARE
EXPECTED TO CONFINE THEIR SELLING ACTIVITIES N16.  TRANSFERS FROM ONE
"SPOT" TO ANOTHER MAY BE ORDERED BY THE DISTRICT MANAGER FOR REASONS OF
DISCIPLINE OR EFFICIENCY OR OTHER CAUSE.  TRANSPORTATION TO THE SPOTS
FROM THE NEWSPAPER BUILDING IS OFFERED BY EACH OF RESPONDENTS.  HOURS
OF WORK ON THE SPOTS ARE DETERMINED NOT SIMPLY BY THE IMPERSONAL
PRESSURES OF THE MARKET, BUT TO A REAL EXTENT BY EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS
FROM THE DISTRICT MANAGERS.  ADHERENCE TO THE PRESCRIBED HOURS IS
OBSERVED CLOSELY BY THE DISTRICT MANAGERS OR OTHER SUPERVISORY AGENTS
OF THE PUBLISHERS.  SANCTIONS, VARYING IN SEVERITY FROM REPRIMAND TO
DISMISSAL, ARE VISITED ON THE TARDY AND THE DELINQUENT.  BY SIMILAR
SUPERVISORY CONTROLS MINIMUM STANDARDS OF DILIGENCE AND GOOD CONDUCT
WHILE AT WORK ARE SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED.  HOWEVER WIDE MAY BE THE
LATITUDE FOR INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE BEYOND THOSE STANDARDS, DISTRICT
MANAGERS' INSTRUCTIONS IN WHAT THE PUBLISHERS APPARENTLY REGARD AS
HELPFUL SALES TECHNIQUE ARE EXPECTED TO BE FOLLOWED.  SUCH VARIED ITEMS
AS THE MANNER OF DISPLAYING THE PAPER, OF EMPHASIZING CURRENT FEATURES
AND HEADLINES, AND OF PLACING ADVERTISING PLACARDS, OR THE ADVANTAGES
OF SOLICITING CUSTOMERS AT SPECIFIC STORES OR IN THE TRAFFIC LANES ARE
AMONG THE SUBJECTS OF THIS INSTRUCTION.  MOREOVER, NEWSBOYS ARE
FURNISHED WITH SALES EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS RACKS, BOXES AND CHANGE APRONS,
AND ADVERTISING PLACARDS BY THE PUBLISHERS.  IN THIS PATTERN OF
EMPLOYMENT THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE NEWSBOYS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF
THE PUBLISHERS' DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND CIRCULATION ORGANIZATION.  AND
THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE NEWSBOYS AND CHECKMEN FEEL THEY ARE
EMPLOYEES OF THE PAPERS; AND RESPONDENTS' SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, IF NOT
RESPONDENTS THEMSELVES, REGARD THEM AS SUCH. 

IN ADDITION TO QUESTIONING THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN
THESE FINDINGS, RESPONDENTS POINT TO A NUMBER OF OTHER ATTRIBUTES
CHARACTERIZING THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE NEWSBOYS  FN17  AND URGE
THAT ON THE ENTIRE RECORD THE LATTER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THEIR
EMPLOYEES.  THEY BASE THIS CONCLUSION ON THE ARGUMENT THAT BY COMMON
LAW STANDARDS THE EXTENT OF THEIR CONTROL AND DIRECTION OF THE
NEWSBOYS' WORKING ACTIVITIES CREATES NO MORE THAN AN "INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR" RELATIONSHIP AND THAT COMMON-LAW STANDARDS DETERMINE THE
"EMPLOYEE" RELATIONSHIP UNDER THE ACT.  THEY FURTHER URGE THAT THE
BOARD'S SELECTION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT IS NEITHER
APPROPRIATE NOR SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  FN18

                                  I. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE NEWSBOYS ARE "EMPLOYEES." 
BECAUSE CONGRESS DID NOT EXPLICITLY DEFINE THE TERM, RESPONDENTS SAY
ITS MEANING MUST BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO COMMON-LAW STANDARDS. 
IN THEIR VIEW "COMMON-LAW STANDARDS" ARE THOSE THE COURTS HAVE APPLIED
IN DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN "EMPLOYEES" AND "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS"
WHEN WORKING OUT VARIOUS PROBLEMS UNRELATED TO THE WAGNER ACT'S
PURPOSES AND PROVISIONS. 

THE ARGUMENT ASSUMES THAT THERE IS SOME SIMPLE, UNIFORM AND EASILY
APPLICABLE TEST WHICH THE COURTS HAVE USED, IN DEALING WITH SUCH
PROBLEMS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER PERSONS DOING WORK FOR OTHERS FALL IN
ONE CLASS OR THE OTHER.  UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS NOT TRUE.  ONLY BY A
LONG AND TORTUOUS HISTORY WAS THE SIMPLE FORMULATION WORKED OUT WHICH
HAS BEEN STATED MOST FREQUENTLY AS "THE TEST" FOR DECIDING WHETHER ONE
WHO HIRES ANOTHER IS RESPONSIBLE IN TORT FOR HIS WRONGDOING.  FN19  BUT
THIS FORMULA HAS BEEN BY NO MEANS EXCLUSIVELY CONTROLLING IN THE
SOLUTION OF OTHER PROBLEMS.  AND ITS SIMPLICITY HAS BEEN ILLUSORY
BECAUSE IT IS MORE LARGELY SIMPLICITY OF FORMULATION THAN OF
APPLICATION.  FEW PROBLEMS IN THE LAW HAVE GIVEN GREATER VARIETY OF
APPLICATION AND CONFLICT IN RESULTS THAN THE CASES ARISING IN THE
BORDERLAND BETWEEN WHAT IS CLEARLY AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
AND WHAT IS CLEARLY ONE OF INDEPENDENT, ENTREPRENEURIAL DEALING.  FN20
THIS IS TRUE WITHIN THE LIMITED FIELD OF DETERMINING VICARIOUS
LIABILITY IN TORT.  IT BECOMES MORE SO WHEN THE FIELD IS EXPANDED TO
INCLUDE ALL OF THE POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS OF THE DISTINCTION. 

IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO STRESS PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF THESE
VARIATIONS OR TO EMPHASIZE THAT THEY HAVE ARISEN PRINCIPALLY, FIRST, IN
THE STRUGGLE OF THE COURTS TO WORK OUT COMMON-LAW LIABILITIES WHERE THE
LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN NO GUIDES FOR JUDGMENT,  FN21  MORE RECENTLY ALSO
UNDER STATUTES WHICH HAVE POSED THE SAME PROBLEM FOR SOLUTION IN THE
LIGHT OF THE ENACTMENT'S PARTICULAR TERMS AND PURPOSES.  FN22  IT IS
ENOUGH TO POINT OUT THAT, WITH REFERENCE TO AN IDENTICAL PROBLEM,
RESULTS MAY BE CONTRARY OVER A VERY CONSIDERABLE REGION OF DOUBT IN
APPLYING THE DISTINCTION, DEPENDING UPON THE STATE OR JURISDICTION
WHERE THE DETERMINATION IS MADE; FN23 AND THAT WITHIN A SINGLE
JURISDICTION A PERSON WHO, FOR INSTANCE, IS HELD TO BE AN "INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR" FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSING VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN TORT MAY
BE AN "EMPLOYEE" FOR THE PURPOSES OF PARTICULAR LEGISLATION, SUCH AS
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.  SEE, E.G., GLOBE GRAIN & MILLING CO. V.
INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 98 UTAH 36, 91 P.2D 512.  IN SHORT, THE ASSUMED
SIMPLICITY AND UNIFORMITY, RESULTING FROM APPLICATION OF "COMMON-LAW
STANDARDS," DOES NOT EXIST. 

MERE REFERENCE TO THESE POSSIBLE VARIATIONS AS CHARACTERIZING THE
APPLICATION OF THE WAGNER ACT IN THE TREATMENT OF PERSONS IDENTICALLY
SITUATED IN THE FACTS SURROUNDING THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND IN THE
INFLUENCES TENDING TO DISRUPT IT, WOULD BE ENOUGH TO REQUIRE PAUSE
BEFORE ACCEPTING A THESIS WHICH WOULD INTRODUCE THEM INTO ITS
ADMINISTRATION.  THIS WOULD BE TRUE, EVEN IF THE STATUTE ITSELF HAD
INDICATED LESS CLEARLY THAN IT DOES THE INTENT THEY SHOULD NOT APPLY. 
TWO POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES COULD FOLLOW.  ONE WOULD BE TO REFER THE
DECISION OF WHO ARE EMPLOYEES TO LOCAL STATE LAW.  THE ALTERNATIVE
WOULD BE TO MAKE IT TURN ON A SORT OF PERVADING GENERAL ESSENCE
DISTILLED FROM STATE LAW.  CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY DID NOT INTEND THE FORMER
RESULT.  IT WOULD INTRODUCE VARIATIONS INTO THE STATUTE'S OPERATION AS
WIDE AS THE DIFFERENCES THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES AND OTHER LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS MAKE IN APPLYING THE DISTINCTION FOR WHOLLY DIFFERENT
PURPOSES.  PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE "EMPLOYEES" IN ONE STATE WOULD BE
"INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS" IN ANOTHER.  THEY WOULD BE WITHIN OR WITHOUT
THE STATUTE'S PROTECTION DEPENDING NOT ON WHETHER THEIR SITUATION FALLS
FACTUALLY WITHIN THE AMBIT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND, BUT UPON THE ACCIDENTS
OF THE LOCATION OF THEIR WORK AND THE ATTITUDE OF THE PARTICULAR LOCAL
JURISDICTION IN CASTING DOUBTFUL CASES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.  PERSONS
WORKING ACROSS STATE LINES MIGHT FALL IN ONE CLASS OR THE OTHER,
POSSIBLY BOTH, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE BOARD AND THE COURTS WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE LAW OF ONE STATE OR OF THE ADJOINING
ONE, OR TO THAT OF EACH IN RELATION TO THE PORTION OF THE WORK DONE
WITHIN ITS BORDERS. 

BOTH THE TERMS AND THE PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE, AS WELL AS THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, SHOW THAT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND NO SUCH PATCHWORK
PLAN FOR SECURING FREEDOM OF EMPLOYEES' ORGANIZATION AND OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  THE WAGNER ACT IS FEDERAL LEGISLATION, ADMINISTERED BY A
NATIONAL AGENCY, INTENDED TO SOLVE A NATIONAL PROBLEM ON A NATIONAL
SCALE.  CF. E.G., SEN. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 2-4.  IT IS
AN ACT, THEREFORE, IN REFERENCE TO WHICH IT IS NOT ONLY PROPER BUT
NECESSARY FOR US TO ASSUME, "IN THE ABSENCE OF A PLAIN INDICATION TO
THE CONTRARY, THAT CONGRESS ...  IS NOT MAKING THE APPLICATION OF THE
FEDERAL ACT DEPENDENT ON STATE LAW."  JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S.
101, 104.  NOTHING IN THE STATUTE'S BACKGROUND, HISTORY, TERMS OR
PURPOSES INDICATES ITS SCOPE IS TO BE LIMITED BY SUCH VARYING LOCAL
CONCEPTIONS, EITHER STATUTORY OR JUDICIAL, OR THAT IT IS TO BE
ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHATEVER DIFFERENT STANDARDS THE
RESPECTIVE STATES MAY SEE FIT TO ADOPT FOR THE DISPOSITION OF
UNRELATED, LOCAL PROBLEMS.  CONSEQUENTLY, SO FAR AS THE MEANING OF
"EMPLOYEE" IN THIS STATUTE IS CONCERNED, "THE FEDERAL LAW MUST PREVAIL
NO MATTER WHAT NAME IS GIVEN TO THE INTEREST OR RIGHT BY STATE LAW." 
MORGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78, 81; CF. LABOR BOARD V. BLOUNT, 131
F.2D 585(C.C.A.). 

                    II. 

WHETHER, GIVEN THE INTENDED NATIONAL UNIFORMITY, THE TERM "EMPLOYEE"
INCLUDES SUCH WORKERS AS THESE NEWSBOYS MUST BE ANSWERED PRIMARILY FROM
THE HISTORY, TERMS AND PURPOSES OF THE LEGISLATION.  THE WORD "IS NOT
TREATED BY CONGRESS AS A WORD OF ART HAVING A DEFINITE MEANING.  ...  "
RATHER "IT TAKES COLOR FROM ITS SURROUNDINGS  ...  (IN) THE STATUTE
WHERE IT APPEARS," UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S.
534, 545, AND DERIVES MEANING FROM THE CONTEXT OF THAT STATUTE, WHICH
"MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE MISCHIEF TO BE CORRECTED AND THE END
TO BE ATTAINED."  SOUTH CHICAGO COAL & DOCK CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S.
251, 259; CF. NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. SANITARY GROCERY CO., 303 U.S. 552;
DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY CO., 311 U.S. 91. 

CONGRESS, ON THE ONE HAND, WAS NOT THINKING SOLELY OF THE IMMEDIATE
TECHNICAL RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  IT HAD IN MIND AT LEAST
SOME OTHER PERSONS THAN THOSE STANDING IN THE PROXIMATE LEGAL RELATION
OF EMPLOYEE TO THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYER INVOLVED IN THE LABOR DISPUTE. 
FN24  IT CANNOT BE TAKEN, HOWEVER, THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO INCLUDE ALL
OTHER PERSONS WHO MAY PERFORM SERVICE FOR ANOTHER OR WAS TO IGNORE
ENTIRELY LEGAL CLASSIFICATIONS MADE FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  CONGRESS HAD
IN MIND A WIDER FIELD THAN THE NARROW TECHNICAL LEGAL RELATION OF
"MASTER AND SERVANT," AS THE COMMON LAW HAD WORKED THIS OUT IN ALL ITS
VARIATIONS, AND AT THE SAME TIME A NARROWER ONE THAN THE ENTIRE AREA OF
RENDERING SERVICE TO OTHERS.  THE QUESTION COMES DOWN THEREFORE TO HOW
MUCH WAS INCLUDED OF THE INTERMEDIATE REGION BETWEEN WHAT IS CLEARLY
AND UNEQUIVOCALLY "EMPLOYMENT," BY ANY APPROPRIATE TEST, AND WHAT IS AS
CLEARLY ENTREPRENEURIAL ENTERPRISE AND NOT EMPLOYMENT. 

IT WILL NOT DO, FOR DECIDING THIS QUESTION AS ONE OF UNIFORM NATIONAL
APPLICATION, TO IMPORT WHOLESALE THE TRADITIONAL COMMON-LAW CONCEPTIONS
OR SOME DISTILLED ESSENCE OF THEIR LOCAL VARIATIONS AS EXCLUSIVELY
CONTROLLING LIMITATIONS UPON THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE'S EFFECTIVENESS. 
TO DO THIS WOULD BE MERELY TO SELECT SOME OF THE LOCAL, HAIRLINE
VARIATIONS FOR NATION-WIDE APPLICATION AND THUS TO REJECT OTHERS FOR
COVERAGE UNDER THE ACT.  THAT RESULT HARDLY WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE STATUTE'S BROAD TERMS AND PURPOSES. 

CONGRESS WAS NOT SEEKING TO SOLVE THE NATIONALLY HARASSING PROBLEMS
WITH WHICH THE STATUTE DEALS BY SOLUTIONS ONLY PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE.  IT
RATHER SOUGHT TO FIND A BROAD SOLUTION, ONE THAT WOULD BRING INDUSTRIAL
PEACE BY SUBSTITUTING, SO FAR AS ITS POWER COULD REACH, THE RIGHTS OF
WORKERS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WHICH PREVAILS WHERE THESE RIGHTS ARE NOT EFFECTIVELY
ESTABLISHED.  YET ONLY PARTIAL SOLUTIONS WOULD BE PROVIDED IF LARGE
SEGMENTS OF WORKERS ABOUT WHOSE TECHNICAL LEGAL POSITION SUCH LOCAL
DIFFERENCES EXIST SHOULD BE WHOLLY EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE BY REASON OF
SUCH DIFFERENCES.  YET THAT RESULT COULD NOT BE AVOIDED, IF CHOICE MUST
BE MADE AMONG THEM AND CONTROLLED BY THEM IN DECIDING WHO ARE
"EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE ACT'S MEANING.  ENMESHED IN SUCH DISTINCTIONS,
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATUTE SOON MIGHT BECOME ENCUMBERED BY THE
SAME SORT OF TECHNICAL LEGAL REFINEMENT AS HAS CHARACTERIZED THE LONG
EVOLUTION OF THE EMPLOYEE-INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DICHOTOMY IN THE
COURTS FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE ULTIMATELY TO
DEFEAT, IN PART AT LEAST, THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE STATUTE'S OBJECTIVES. 
CONGRESS NO MORE INTENDED TO IMPORT THIS MASS OF TECHNICALITY AS A
CONTROLLING "STANDARD" FOR UNIFORM NATIONAL APPLICATION THAN TO REFER
DECISION OF THE QUESTION OUTRIGHT TO THE LOCAL LAW. 

THE ACT, AS ITS FIRST SECTION STATES, WAS DESIGNED TO AVERT THE
"SUBSTANTIAL OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE" WHICH RESULT
FROM "STRIKES AND OTHER FORMS OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE OR UNREST" BY
ELIMINATING THE CAUSES OF THAT UNREST.  IT IS PREMISED ON EXPLICIT
FINDINGS THAT STRIKES AND INDUSTRIAL STRIFE THEMSELVES RESULT IN LARGE
MEASURE FROM THE REFUSAL OF EMPLOYERS TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY AND THE
INABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL WORKERS TO BARGAIN SUCCESSFULLY FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN THEIR "WAGES, HOURS OR OTHER WORKING CONDITIONS" WITH
EMPLOYERS WHO ARE "ORGANIZED IN THE CORPORATE OR OTHER FORMS OF
OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATION."  HENCE THE AVOWED AND INTERRELATED PURPOSES OF
THE ACT ARE TO ENCOURAGE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND TO REMEDY THE
INDIVIDUAL WORKER'S INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER BY "PROTECTING THE
EXERCISE  ...  OF FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION, AND
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF NEGOTIATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION."  49 STAT. 449, 450. 

THE MISCHIEF AT WHICH THE ACT IS AIMED AND THE REMEDIES IT OFFERS ARE
NOT CONFINED EXCLUSIVELY TO "EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL LEGAL
DISTINCTIONS SEPARATING THEM FROM "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS."  MYRIAD
FORMS OF SERVICE RELATIONSHIP, WITH INFINITE AND SUBTLE VARIATIONS IN
THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT, BLANKET THE NATION'S ECONOMY.  SOME ARE WITHIN
THIS ACT, OTHERS BEYOND ITS COVERAGE.  LARGE NUMBERS WILL FALL CLEARLY
ON ONE SIDE OR ON THE OTHER, BY WHATEVER TEST MAY BE APPLIED.  BUT
INTERMEDIATE THERE WILL BE MANY, THE INCIDENTS OF WHOSE EMPLOYMENT
PARTAKE IN PART OF THE ONE GROUP, IN PART OF THE OTHER, IN VARYING
PROPORTIONS OF WEIGHT.  AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LEGAL PENDULUM, FOR
PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE STATUTE, MAY SWING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER,
DEPENDING UPON THE WEIGHT OF THIS BALANCE AND ITS RELATION TO THE
SPECIAL PURPOSE AT HAND. 

UNLESS THE COMMON-LAW TESTS ARE TO BE IMPORTED AND MADE EXCLUSIVELY
CONTROLLING, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE STATUTE'S PURPOSES, IT CANNOT BE
IRRELEVANT THAT THE PARTICULAR WORKERS IN THESE CASES ARE SUBJECT, AS A
MATTER OF ECONOMIC FACT, TO THE EVILS THE STATUTE WAS DESIGNED TO
ERADICATE AND THAT THE REMEDIES IT AFFORDS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR
PREVENTING THEM OR CURING THEIR HARMFUL EFFECTS IN THE SPECIAL
SITUATION.  INTERRUPTION OF COMMERCE THROUGH STRIKES AND UNREST MAY
STEM AS WELL FROM LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN SOME WHO, FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
ARE TECHNICALLY "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS" AND THEIR EMPLOYERS AS FROM
DISPUTES BETWEEN PERSONS WHO, FOR THOSE PURPOSES, ARE "EMPLOYEES" AND
THEIR EMPLOYERS.  CF. DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY CO., 311 U.S. 91. 
INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER IN CONTROVERSIES OVER WAGES, HOURS AND
WORKING CONDITIONS MAY AS WELL CHARACTERIZE THE STATUS OF THE ONE GROUP
AS OF THE OTHER.  THE FORMER, WHEN ACTING ALONE, MAY BE AS "HELPLESS IN
DEALING WITH AN EMPLOYER," AS "DEPENDENT  ...  ON HIS DAILY WAGE" AND
AS "UNABLE TO LEAVE THE EMPLOY AND TO RESIST ARBITRARY AND UNFAIR
TREATMENT" AS THE LATTER.  FOR EACH, "UNION  ...  (MAY BE) ESSENTIAL TO
GIVE  ...  OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL ON EQUALITY WITH THEIR EMPLOYER."  N25
AND FOR EACH, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MAY BE APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE
FOR THE "FRIENDLY ADJUSTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF
DIFFERENCES AS TO WAGES, HOURS, OR OTHER WORKING CONDITIONS."  FN26  49
STAT. 449.  IN SHORT, WHEN THE PARTICULAR SITUATION OF EMPLOYMENT
COMBINES THESE CHARACTERISTICS, SO THAT THE ECONOMIC FACTS OF THE
RELATION MAKE IT MORE NEARLY ONE OF EMPLOYMENT THAN OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE WITH RESPECT TO THE ENDS SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
BY THE LEGISLATION, THOSE CHARACTERISTICS MAY OUTWEIGH TECHNICAL LEGAL
CLASSIFICATION FOR PURPOSES UNRELATED TO THE STATUTE'S OBJECTIVES AND
BRING THE RELATION WITHIN ITS PROTECTIONS. 

TO ELIMINATE THE CAUSES OF LABOR DISPUTES AND INDUSTRIAL STRIFE,
CONGRESS THOUGHT IT NECESSARY TO CREATE A BALANCE OF FORCES IN CERTAIN
TYPES OF ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS.  THESE DO NOT EMBRACE SIMPLY
EMPLOYMENT ASSOCIATIONS IN WHICH CONTROVERSIES COULD BE LIMITED TO
DISPUTES OVER PROPER "PHYSICAL CONDUCT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
SERVICE."  FN27  ON THE CONTRARY, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THOSE ECONOMIC
RELATIONSHIPS CANNOT BE FITTED NEATLY INTO THE CONTAINERS DESIGNATED
"EMPLOYEE" AND "EMPLOYER" WHICH AN EARLIER LAW HAD SHAPED FOR DIFFERENT
PURPOSES.  ITS REPORTS ON THE BILL DISCLOSE CLEARLY THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT "EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES NOT IN PROXIMATE RELATIONSHIP MAY BE
DRAWN INTO COMMON CONTROVERSIES BY ECONOMIC FORCES,"  FN28  AND THAT
THE VERY DISPUTES SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED MIGHT INVOLVE "EMPLOYEES (WHO)
ARE AT TIMES BROUGHT INTO AN ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP WITH EMPLOYERS WHO
ARE NOT THEIR EMPLOYERS."  N29  IN THIS LIGHT, THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF
THE ACT'S DEFINITIONS, WHICH IN TERMS REJECT CONVENTIONAL LIMITATIONS
ON SUCH CONCEPTIONS AS "EMPLOYEE," "EMPLOYER," AND "LABOR DISPUTE,"
FN30  LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT ITS APPLICABILITY IS TO BE DETERMINED
BROADLY, IN DOUBTFUL SITUATIONS, BY UNDERLYING ECONOMIC FACTS RATHER
THAN TECHNICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY BY PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED LEGAL
CLASSIFICATIONS.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. BLOUNT, SUPRA. 

HENCE "TECHNICAL CONCEPTS PERTINENT TO AN EMPLOYER'S LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO THIRD PERSONS FOR ACTS OF HIS SERVANTS" HAVE BEEN
REJECTED IN VARIOUS APPLICATIONS OF THIS ACT BOTH HERE (INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 80-81; H.J.
HEINZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 514, 520-521)  FN31  AND IN OTHER
FEDERAL COURTS (LABOR BOARD V. CONDENSER CORP., 128 F.2D 67(C.C.A.);
NORTH WHITTIER HEIGHTS CITRUS ASSN. V. LABOR BOARD, 109 F.2D 76,
82(C.C.A.); LABOR BOARD V. BLOUNT, SUPRA).  THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR
INVOKING THEM TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" SOUGHT TO BE
DONE IN THIS CASE.  THAT TERM, LIKE OTHER PROVISIONS, MUST BE
UNDERSTOOD WITH REFERENCE TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND THE FACTS
INVOLVED IN THE ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP.  FN32  "WHERE ALL THE CONDITIONS
OF THE RELATION REQUIRE PROTECTION, PROTECTION OUGHT TO BE GIVEN." 
FN33 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO MAKE A COMPLETELY DEFINITIVE
LIMITATION AROUND THE TERM "EMPLOYEE."  THAT TASK HAS BEEN ASSIGNED
PRIMARILY TO THE AGENCY CREATED BY CONGRESS TO ADMINISTER THE ACT. 
DETERMINATION OF "WHERE ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE RELATION REQUIRE
PROTECTION" INVOLVES INQUIRIES FOR THE BOARD CHARGED WITH THIS DUTY. 
EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATUTE GIVES IT
FAMILIARITY WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND BACKGROUNDS OF EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIPS IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES, WITH THE ABILITIES AND NEEDS OF
THE WORKERS FOR SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE ACTION, AND WITH THE
ADAPTABILITY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF
THEIR DISPUTES WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS.  THE EXPERIENCE THUS ACQUIRED MUST
BE BROUGHT FREQUENTLY TO BEAR ON THE QUESTION WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE UNDER
THE ACT.  RESOLVING THAT QUESTION, LIKE DETERMINING WHETHER UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, "BELONGS TO THE USUAL
ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINE" OF THE BOARD.  FN34  GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S.
402, 411.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. STANDARD OIL CO., 138 F.2D 885, 887-888. 

IN MAKING THAT BODY'S DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE FACTS IN THESE MATTERS
CONCLUSIVE, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, CONGRESS ENTRUSTED TO IT
PRIMARILY THE DECISION WHETHER THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THE MATERIAL
FACTS.  HENCE IN REVIEWING THE BOARD'S ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS, IT IS NOT
THE COURT'S FUNCTION TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN INFERENCES OF FACT FOR THE
BOARD'S, WHEN THE LATTER HAVE SUPPORT IN THE RECORD.  LABOR BOARD V.
NEVADA COPPER CORP., 316 U.S. 105; CF. WALKER V. ALTMEYER, 137 F.2D
531(C.C.A.).  UNDOUBTEDLY QUESTIONS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION,
ESPECIALLY WHEN ARISING IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS,
ARE FOR THE COURTS TO RESOLVE, GIVING APPROPRIATE WEIGHT TO THE
JUDGMENT OF THOSE WHOSE SPECIAL DUTY IS TO ADMINISTER THE QUESTIONED
STATUTE.  NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S.
294; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534.  BUT
WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE OF SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF A BROAD STATUTORY
TERM IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE AGENCY ADMINISTERING THE STATUTE MUST
DETERMINE IT INITIALLY, THE REVIEWING COURT'S FUNCTION IS LIMITED. 
LIKE THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S & HARBOR
WORKERS' ACT,  FN35  THAT A MAN IS NOT A "MEMBER OF A CREW" (SOUTH
CHICAGO COAL & DOCK CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251) OR THAT HE WAS
INJURED "IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT" (PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314
U.S. 244) AND THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
FN36  THAT ONE COMPANY IS UNDER THE "CONTROL" OF ANOTHER (ROCHESTER
TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125), THE BOARD'S
DETERMINATION THAT SPECIFIED PERSONS ARE "EMPLOYEES" UNDER THIS ACT IS
TO BE ACCEPTED IF IT HAS "WARRANT IN THE RECORD" AND A REASONABLE BASIS
IN LAW. 

IN THIS CASE THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE DESIGNATED NEWSBOYS WORK
CONTINUOUSLY AND REGULARLY, RELY UPON THEIR EARNINGS FOR THE SUPPORT OF
THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND HAVE THEIR TOTAL WAGES INFLUENCED IN
LARGE MEASURE BY THE PUBLISHERS, WHO DICTATE THEIR BUYING AND SELLING
PRICES, FIX THEIR MARKETS AND CONTROL THEIR SUPPLY OF PAPERS.  THEIR
HOURS OF WORK AND THEIR EFFORTS ON THE JOB ARE SUPERVISED AND TO SOME
EXTENT PRESCRIBED BY THE PUBLISHERS OR THEIR AGENTS.  MUCH OF THEIR
SALES EQUIPMENT AND ADVERTISING MATERIALS IS FURNISHED BY THE
PUBLISHERS WITH THE INTENTION THAT IT BE USED FOR THE PUBLISHER'S
BENEFIT.  STATING THAT "THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IN THE DETERMINATION
OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTORY DEFINITION IS WHETHER
EFFECTUATION OF THE DECLARED POLICY AND PURPOSES OF THE ACT COMPREHEND
SECURING TO THE INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED AND PROTECTION
AFFORDED BY THE ACT," THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE NEWSBOYS ARE
EMPLOYEES.  THE RECORD SUSTAINS THE BOARD'S FINDINGS AND THERE IS AMPLE
BASIS IN THE LAW FOR ITS CONCLUSION. 

                    III. 

THE BOARD'S SELECTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS ALSO MUST BE
UPHELD.  THE UNITS CHOSEN FOR THE NEWS AND THE HERALD CONSIST OF ALL
FULL-TIME  FN37  NEWSBOYS AND CHECKMEN ENGAGED TO SELL THE PAPERS IN
LOS ANGELES.  BOOTJACKERS, TEMPORARY, CASUAL AND PART-TIME  FN38
NEWSBOYS ARE EXCLUDED.  THE UNITS DESIGNATED FOR THE TIMES AND THE
EXAMINER CONSIST OF NEWSBOYS SELLING AT ESTABLISHED SPOTS  FN39  IN LOS
ANGELES  FN40  FOUR OR MORE HOURS PER DAY FIVE OR MORE DAYS PER WEEK,
EXCEPT TEMPORARY NEWSBOYS.  FN41 

THE BOARD PREDICATED ITS DESIGNATIONS IN PART UPON THE FINDING THAT
THE UNITS INCLUDED, IN GENERAL, MEN WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE WORKERS,
CONTINUOUSLY AND REGULARLY EMPLOYED AS VENDORS AND DEPENDENT UPON THEIR
SALES FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD, WHILE SCHOOLBOYS AND TRANSIENT OR CASUAL
WORKERS WERE EXCLUDED.  THE DISCRETION WHICH CONGRESS VESTED IN THE
BOARD TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE UNIT IS HARDLY OVERSTEPPED BY THE
CHOICE OF A UNIT BASED ON A DISTINCTION SO CLEARLY CONSISTENT WITH THE
NEED FOR RESPONSIBLE BARGAINING.  THAT THE BOARD'S SELECTION EMPHASIZES
DIFFERENCE IN TENURE RATHER THAN FUNCTION IS, ON THIS RECORD CERTAINLY,
NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

NOR IS THERE SUBSTANCE IN THE OBJECTION THAT THE BOARD'S DESIGNATIONS
ON THE ONE HAND FAIL TO EMBRACE ALL WORKERS WHO IN FACT COME WITHIN THE
RESPONSIBLE OR STABLE FULLTIME CATEGORY GENERICALLY STATED, AND ON THE
OTHER HAND FAIL TO EXCLUDE ALL WHO IN FACT COME WITHIN THE SCHOOLBOY OR
MORE VOLATILE PART-TIME CATEGORY.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE
UNITS DESIGNATED, AT LEAST SO FAR AS LOS ANGELES NEWSBOYS ARE
CONCERNED, DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY EFFECTUATE THE BOARD'S THEORY OR
EMBRACE A LARGE PORTION OF THOSE WHO WOULD MAKE UP A STABLE BARGAINING
GROUP BASED ON RESPONSIBLE TENURE AND FULL-TIME WORK.  IN THESE MATTERS
THE BOARD CANNOT BE HELD TO MATHEMATICAL PRECISION.  IF IT CHOOSES TO
COUCH ITS ORDERS IN TERMS WHICH FOR GOOD REASONS IT REGARDS EFFECTIVE
TO ACCOMPLISH ITS STATED ENDS, PERIPHERAL OR HYPOTHETICAL DEVIATIONS
WILL NOT DEFEAT AN OTHERWISE APPROPRIATE ORDER. 

ANOTHER OBJECTION URGED BY THE TIMES, THE HERALD AND THE EXAMINER IS
TO THE BOARD'S EXCLUSION OF SUBURBAN NEWSBOYS  FN42  FROM THE UNITS ON
THE GROUND THEY WERE NOT ORGANIZED BY THE UNION.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT
ALTHOUGH ALL VENDORS IN METROPOLITAN LOS ANGELES WERE ELIGIBLE FOR
MEMBERSHIP, THE UNION HAD NOT BEEN EXTENDED TO THE SUBURBAN GROUPS
GENERALLY AND THAT NO OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION WAS SEEKING TO REPRESENT
RESPONDENTS' EMPLOYEES.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION EITHER THAT THE UNION
DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED SUBURBAN NEWSBOYS WHO SOUGHT ADMISSION OR THAT
SUBURBAN NEWSBOYS HAVE DISPLAYED ANY INTEREST IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
OR SELF-ORGANIZATION. 

WIDE VARIATIONS IN THE FORMS OF EMPLOYEE SELF-ORGANIZATION AND THE
COMPLEXITIES OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION MAKE DIFFICULT THE USE
OF INFLEXIBLE RULES AS THE TEST OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT.  CONGRESS WAS
INFORMED OF THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY IN SHAPING THE UNIT TO THE
PARTICULAR CASE  FN43  AND ACCORDINGLY GAVE THE BOARD WIDE DISCRETION
IN THE MATTER.  ITS CHOICE OF A UNIT IS LIMITED SPECIFICALLY ONLY BY
THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE AN "EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT UNIT, PLANT UNIT,
OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF" AND THAT THE SELECTION BE MADE SO AS "TO INSURE
TO EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND
TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND OTHERWISE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF
THE ACT."  PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 146. 
THE FLEXIBILITY WHICH CONGRESS THUS PERMITTED HAS CHARACTERIZED THE
BOARD'S ADMINISTRATION OF THE SECTION AND HAS LED IT TO RESORT TO A
WIDE VARIETY OF FACTORS IN CASE-TO-CASE DETERMINATION OF THE
APPROPRIATE UNIT.  FN44  AMONG THE CONSIDERATIONS TO WHICH IT HAS GIVEN
WEIGHT IS THE EXTENT OF ORGANIZATION OF THE UNION REQUESTING
CERTIFICATION OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THIS IS DONE ON THE EXPRESSED
THEORY THAT IT IS DESIRABLE IN THE DETERMINATION OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT
TO RENDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES AN IMMEDIATE
POSSIBILITY.  FN45  NO PLAUSIBLE REASON IS SUGGESTED FOR WITHHOLDING
THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT FROM THOSE HERE SEEKING IT UNTIL A GROUP OF
GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATED EMPLOYEES BECOMES INTERESTED IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD WE CANNOT
SAY THE BOARD'S CONCLUSIONS ARE LACKING IN A "RATIONAL BASIS." 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 2(3) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE' SHALL
INCLUDE ANY EMPLOYEE, AND SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF A
PARTICULAR EMPLOYER, UNLESS THE ACT EXPLICITLY STATES OTHERWISE, AND
SHALL INCLUDE ANY INDIVIDUAL WHOSE WORK HAS CEASED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF,
OR IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE OR BECAUSE OF ANY
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND WHO HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY OTHER REGULAR AND
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT, BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED AS AN AGRICULTURAL LABORER, OR IN THE DOMESTIC
SERVICE OF ANY FAMILY OR PERSON AT HIS HOME, OR ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED
BY HIS PARENT OR SPOUSE." 

FN2  320 U.S. 728. 

FN3  PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(B) AND (C) OF THE ACT; 49 STAT. 453, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 159(B) AND (C). 

FN4  ALTHOUGH IT TREATED THE FOUR REPRESENTATION PETITIONS IN ONE
CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDING AND DISPOSED OF THEM IN ONE OPINION, THE BOARD
DID NOT CONSIDER EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO ONE PUBLISHER AS APPLICABLE
TO ANY OF THE OTHERS. 

FN5  SUBSEQUENTLY THOSE ORDERS WERE AMENDED IN VARIOUS DETAILS.  29
N.L.R.B. 94, 95; 30 N.L.R.B. 696, 697; 31 N.L.R.B. 697. 

FN6  THE RECORD IN THE REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING WAS IN EFFECT
INCORPORATED IN THE COMPLAINT PROCEEDING. 

FN7  THE TIMES' DAILY CIRCULATION IS ABOUT 220,000 AND ITS SUNDAY
CIRCULATION IS ABOUT 368,000.  THE EXAMINER'S DAILY CIRCULATION IS
ABOUT 214,000 AND ITS SUNDAY CIRCULATION IS ABOUT 566,000. 

FN8  THE HERALD HAS A CIRCULATION OF ABOUT 243,000.  BOTH IT AND THE
EXAMINER ARE OWNED BY HEARST PUBLICATIONS, INC. 

FN9  THE NEWS HAS A CIRCULATION OF ABOUT 195,000.  ITS FIRST THREE
AND SEVENTH EDITIONS ARE CONSIGNED FOR THE MOST PART TO ROUTE DELIVERY
OR SUBURBAN DEALERS.  ITS FOURTH EDITION, WHICH GOES TO PRESS AT 2:45
A.M., IS SOLD IN THE CITY DURING THE MORNINGS.  THE REMAINING EDITIONS,
WHICH GO TO PRESS AT REGULAR INTERVALS BETWEEN 9:50 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.,
ARE SOLD IN THE CITY DURING THE AFTERNOONS. 

FN10  THE EXAMINER, THE HERALD, AND THE NEWS ALL EMPLOY "MAIN SPOT"
BOYS OR CHECKMEN; THE TIMES DOES NOT. 

FN11  THE TIMES DISTRICT MANAGERS DELIVER THE PAPERS DIRECTLY TO THE
NEWSBOYS AND COLLECT DIRECTLY FROM THEM.  ON THE OTHER PAPERS DISTRICT
MANAGERS MAY DELIVER BUNDLES OF PAPERS TO THE CHECKMEN OR DIRECTLY TO
THE NEWSBOYS THEMSELVES.  THE TIMES CUSTOMARILY TRANSPORTS ITS NEWSBOYS
TO THEIR "SPOTS" FROM THE TIMES BUILDING, WHERE THEY FIRST REPORT AND
PICK UP THEIR PAPERS.  THE OTHER RESPONDENTS OFFER SIMILAR
TRANSPORTATION TO THOSE OF THEIR NEWSBOYS WHO DESIRE IT. 

FN12  IN THE CASE OF THE EXAMINER THESE "MAIN SPOT" BOYS, ALTHOUGH
PERFORMING SERVICES SIMILAR TO THOSE OF CHECKMEN, ARE LESS CLOSELY KNIT
TO THE PUBLISHER AND SOMETIMES RECEIVE NO COMPENSATION FOR THEIR
SERVICES. 

FN13  SEE INFRA, NOTE 15. 

FN14  NEWSBOYS SELLING THE HERALD IN ONE RESIDENTIAL AREA DO NOT
RECEIVE CREDIT FOR ALL UNSOLD PAPERS. 

FN15  ADMITTEDLY THE TIMES, EXAMINER, AND HERALD DISTRICT MANAGERS
ARE EMPLOYEES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PAPERS.  WHILE THE NEWS URGED
EARNESTLY THAT ITS MANAGERS ARE NOT ITS EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD FOUND
OTHERWISE.  THEY DO NOT OPERATE ON A FORMAL SALARY BASIS BUT THEY
RECEIVE GUARANTEED MINIMUM PAYMENTS WHICH THE BOARD FOUND ARE "NO MORE
THAN A FIXED SALARY BEARING ANOTHER LABEL."  AND WHILE THEY, RATHER
THAN THE PUBLISHER, FIX THE PRICE OF THE PAPER TO THE NEWSBOY, THE
BOARD FOUND, ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT THEY FUNCTION FOR THE NEWS
IN SPECIFIED DISTRICTS, DISTRIBUTE RACKS, APRONS, ADVERTISING PLACARDS
FROM THE NEWS TO THE NEWSBOYS, GIVE INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THEIR USE,
SUPERVISE THE REDISTRIBUTING ACTIVITIES OF THE CHECKMEN (THEMSELVES
CLEARLY EMPLOYEES OF THE NEWS), AND HAND OUT NEWS CHECKS TO THE
CHECKMEN FOR THEIR SERVICES.  ON THIS AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUGGESTING
THAT HOWEVER DIFFERENT MAY BE THEIR FORMAL ARRANGEMENTS, NEWS DISTRICT
MANAGERS BEAR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RELATION TO THE PUBLISHER ON ONE
HAND AND THE NEWSBOYS ON THE OTHER AS DO THE OTHER DISTRICT MANAGERS,
THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THEY WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE PAPER. 

FN16  ALTHOUGH FROM TIME TO TIME THESE "SPOTS" ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD
AMONG THE VENDORS THEMSELVES, WITHOUT OBJECTION BY DISTRICT MANAGERS
AND PUBLISHERS, THIS IN NO WAY NEGATES THE NEED FOR THE DISTRICT
MANAGERS' IMPLICIT APPROVAL OF A SPOTHOLDER OR THEIR AUTHORITY TO
REMOVE VENDORS FROM THEIR "SPOTS" FOR REASONS OF DISCIPLINE OR
EFFICIENCY. 

FN17  E.G., THAT THERE IS EITHER NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SHOW,
OR THE RECORD EXPLICITLY NEGATIVES, THAT RESPONDENTS CARRY THE NEWSBOYS
ON THEIR PAYROLLS, PAY "SALARIES" TO THEM, KEEP RECORDS OF THEIR SALES
OR LOCATIONS, OR REGISTER THEM AS "EMPLOYEES" WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY
BOARD, OR THAT THE NEWSBOYS ARE COVERED BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
INSURANCE OR THE CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION ACT.  FURTHERMORE, IT IS URGED
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NEWSBOYS ALL SELL NEWSPAPERS, PERIODICALS AND
OTHER ITEMS NOT FURNISHED TO THEM BY THEIR RESPECTIVE PUBLISHERS,
ASSUME THE RISK FOR PAPERS LOST, STOLEN OR DESTROYED, PURCHASE AND SELL
THEIR "SPOTS," HIRE ASSISTANTS AND RELIEF MEN AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS
AMONG THEMSELVES FOR THE SALE OF COMPETING OR LEFTOVER PAPERS. 

FN18  THEY HAVE ABANDONED HERE THE CONTENTION, MADE IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT, THAT THE ACT DOES NOT REACH THEIR CONTROVERSIES WITH THE
NEWSBOYS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT AFFECT COMMERCE. 

FN19  THE SO-CALLED "CONTROL TEST" WITH WHICH COMMON-LAW JUDGES HAVE
WRESTLED TO SECURE PRECISE AND READY APPLICATIONS DID NOT ESCAPE THE
DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED IN BORDERLAND CASES BY ITS REFORMULATION IN
THE RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF AGENCY SEC. 220.  THAT EVEN AT THE COMMON
LAW THE CONTROL TEST AND THE COMPLEX OF INCIDENTS EVOLVED IN APPLYING
IT TO DISTINGUISH AN "EMPLOYEE" FROM AN "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR," FOR
PURPOSES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN TORT, DID NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE
SAME SIGNIFICANCE IN OTHER CONTEXTS, COMPARE LUMLEY V. GYE (1853) EL. &
BL. 216, AND SEE ALSO THE CASES COLLECTED IN 21 A.L.R. 1229 ET SEQ.; 23
A.L.R. 984 ET SEQ. 

FN20 SEE, E.G., STEVENS, THE TEST OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION (1939)
38 MICH. L. REV. 188; STEFFEN, INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND THE GOOD LIFE
(1935) 2 U. OF CHI.  L. REV. 501; LEIDY, SALESMEN AS INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS (1938) 28 MICH. L. REV. 365; N.Y. LAW REVISION COMMISSION
REPORT, 1939(1939) LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT NO. 65(K). 

FN21  SEE NOTE 20 SUPRA. 

FN22  COMPARE, E.G., MCKINLEY V. PAYNE LUMBER CO., 200 ARK. 1114, 143
S.W.2D 38; INDUSTRIAL COMM'N V. NORTHWESTERN INS. CO., 103 COLO. 550,
88 P.2D 560; SCHOMP V. FULLER BRUSH CO., 124 N.J.L. 487, 12 A.2D 702;
126 N.J.L. 368, 19 A.2D 780; UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMM'N V.
JEFFERSON INS. CO., 215 N.C. 479, 2 S.E.2D 584; SINGER SEWING MACHINE
CO. V. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMM'N, 167 ORE.  142, 103 P.2D 708,
WITH MCCAIN V. CROSSETT LUMBER CO., 174 S.W.2D 114(ARK.); HILL HOTEL
CO. V. KINNEY, 138 NEB. 760, 295 N.W. 397; WASHINGTON RECORDER CO. V.
ERNST, 199 WASH. 176, 91 P.2D 718; WISCONSIN BRIDGE CO. V. INDUSTRIAL
COMM'N, 233 WIS. 467, 290 N.W. 199.  SEE GENERALLY WOLFE, DETERMINATION
OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION (1941) 41 COL.
L. REV. 1015.  AND SEE NOTE 23 INFRA.    FN23  COMPARE STOCKWELL V.
MORRIS, 46 WYO. 1, WITH AUER V. SINCLAIR REFINING CO., 103 N.J.L. 372;
SCHOMP V. FULLER BRUSH CO., 124 N.J.L. 487, 126 N.J.L. 368, WITH FULLER
BRUSH CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 99 UTAH 97; STOVER BEDDING CO. V.
INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 99 UTAH 423, WITH MALTZ V. JACKOWAY-KATZ CAP CO.,
336 MO. 1000. 

FN24  CF. NOTES 28-30 INFRA AND TEXT. 

FN25  AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES CO. V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184,
209, CITED IN H.R. REP. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 10; CF. BAKERY
& PASTRY DRIVERS V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769. 

FN26  THE PRACTICE OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO
RESOLVE LABOR DISPUTES HAS FOR SOME TIME BEEN COMMON AMONG SUCH VARIED
TYPES OF "INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS" AS MUSICIANS (HOW COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING WORKS (20TH CENTURY FUND, 1942) 848-866; PROCEEDINGS OF THE
47TH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS (1942)),
ACTORS (SEE, E.G., COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY ACTORS (1926) BUREAU OF
LABOR STATISTICS, BULLETIN NO. 402; HARDING, THE REVOLT OF THE ACTORS
(1929); ROSS, STARS AND STRIKES (1941)), AND WRITERS (SEE, E.G.,
ROSTEN, HOLLYWOOD (1941); ROSS, STARS AND STRIKES (1941) 48-63), AND
SUCH ATYPICAL "EMPLOYEES" AS INSURANCE AGENTS, ARTISTS, ARCHITECTS AND
ENGINEERS (SEE, E.G., PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2D CONVENTION OF THE UOPWA,
C.I.O. (1938); PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3D CONVENTION OF THE UOPWA, C.I.O.
(1940); HANDBOOK OF AMERICAN TRADE UNIONS (1936), BUREAU OF LABOR
STATISTICS, BULL.  NO. 618, 291-293; CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE
IFTEAD OF THE A.F.L., 1942). 

FN27  CONTROL OF "PHYSICAL CONDUCT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE"
IS THE TRADITIONAL TEST OF THE "EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP" AT COMMON LAW. 
CF., E.G., RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF AGENCY SEC. 220(1). 

FN28  SEN. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 7. 

FN29  SEN. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 6. 

FN30  CF. PHELPS-DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177; AND
COMPARE DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY CO., 311 U.S. 91, WITH SEN. REP.
NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 7. 

FN31  COMPARE LABOR BOARD V. WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 309 U.S. 206;
PHELPS-DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177. 

FN32  CF. SOUTH CHICAGO COAL & DOCK CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251;
LEHIGH VALLEY COAL CO. V. YENSAVAGE, 218 F. 547, 552(C.C.A.). 

FN33  LEHIGH VALLEY COAL CO. V. YENSAVAGE, 218 F. 547, 552(C.C.A.). 

FN34  E.G., MATTER OF METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, 7 N.L.R.B. 662,
686-690; MATTER OF KMOX BROADCASTING STATION, 10 N.L.R.B. 479; MATTER
OF INTERSTATE GRANITE CORP., 11 N.L.R.B. 1046; MATTER OF SUN LIFE INS.
CO., 15 N.L.R.B. 817; MATTER OF KELLY CO., 34 N.L.R.B. 325; MATTER OF
JOHN YASEK, 37 N.L.R.B. 156. 

FN35  44 STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 901 ET SEQ. 

FN36  UNDER SEC. 2(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT.
1064, 1065, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 152(B). 

FN37  FULL-TIME NEWSBOYS FOR THE HERALD INCLUDES THOSE WHO REGULARLY
SELL TO THE PUBLIC FIVE OR MORE EDITIONS FIVE OR MORE DAYS PER WEEK. 
FULL-TIME NEWSBOYS FOR THE NEWS INCLUDES THOSE WHO REGULARLY SELL TO
THE GENERAL PUBLIC THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, NINTH AND TENTH, OR THE
SIXTH, EIGHTH, NINTH AND TENTH EDITIONS FIVE OR MORE DAYS PER WEEK, OR
THE FOURTH AND EARLIER EDITIONS FOR AT LEAST FOUR HOURS DAILY BETWEEN
4:00 A.M. AND 10:00 A.M. FIVE DAYS PER WEEK. 

FN38  PART-TIME NEWSBOYS FOR THE HERALD MEANS THOSE SELLING LESS THAN
FIVE EDITIONS DAILY OR FOR LESS THAN FIVE DAYS PER WEEK. 

FN39  ESTABLISHED SPOTS ARE CORNERS AT WHICH NEWSBOYS SOLD THOSE
PAPERS FOR AT LEAST FIVE OR MORE DAYS PER WEEK DURING AT LEAST SIX
CONSECUTIVE MONTHS. 

FN40  GLENDALE IS INCLUDED IN THE TIMES UNIT. 

FN41  TEMPORARY NEWSBOYS ARE THOSE SELLING FOR LESS THAN THIRTY-ONE
CONSECUTIVE DAYS. 

FN42  EXCEPT NEWSBOYS SELLING THE TIMES IN GLENDALE. 

FN43  HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ON S. 1958,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 83. 

FN44  E.G., SEE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD 112-120; SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD 122-140; THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD 156-197; FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD 82-97; FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
63-72; SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 63
71. 

FN45  MATTER OF GULF OIL CORP., 4 N.L.R.B. 133. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THE RESULT.  HE IS OF THE OPINION THAT
THE TEST OF COVERAGE FOR EMPLOYEES IS THAT ANNOUNCED BY THE BOARD IN
THE MATTER OF STOCKHOLDERS PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., AND LOS ANGELES
NEWSBOYS LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION NO. 75, C.I.O., AND OTHER SIMILAR
CASES, DECIDED JANUARY 9, 1941, 28 N.L.R.B. 1006, 1022-23. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED.  THE OPINION OF THAT COURT REPORTED IN 136 F.2D 608, SEEMS TO
ME ADEQUATELY TO STATE THE CONTROLLING FACTS AND CORRECTLY TO DEAL WITH
THE QUESTION OF LAW PRESENTED FOR DECISION.  I SHOULD NOT ADD ANYTHING
WERE IT NOT FOR CERTAIN ARGUMENTS PRESENTED HERE AND APPARENTLY
ACCEPTED BY THE COURT. 

I THINK IT PLAIN THAT NEWSBOYS ARE NOT "EMPLOYEES" OF THE RESPONDENTS
WITHIN THE MEANING AND INTENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 
WHEN CONGRESS, IN SEC. 2(3), SAID "THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE' SHALL INCLUDE
ANY EMPLOYEE,  ... " IT STATED AS CLEARLY AS LANGUAGE COULD DO IT THAT
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WERE TO EXTEND TO THOSE WHO, AS A RESULT OF
DECADES OF TRADITION WHICH HAD BECOME PART OF THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING
OF OUR PEOPLE, BEAR THE NAMED RELATIONSHIP.  CLEARLY ALSO CONGRESS DID
NOT DELEGATE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE FUNCTION OF
DEFINING THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYMENT SO AS TO PROMOTE WHAT THE BOARD
UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE.  THE QUESTION
WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE, SO AS TO MAKE THE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO HIM, IS A
QUESTION OF THE MEANING OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, IS A JUDICIAL AND
NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION. 

I DO NOT THINK THAT THE COURT BELOW SUGGESTED THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS
SITTING IN THE VARIOUS STATES MUST DETERMINE WHETHER A GIVEN PERSON IS
AN EMPLOYEE BY APPLICATION OF EITHER THE LOCAL STATUTES OR LOCAL STATE
DECISIONS.  QUITE THE CONTRARY.  AS A RESULT OF COMMON LAW DEVELOPMENT,
MANY PRESCRIPTIONS OF FEDERAL STATUTES TAKE ON MEANING WHICH IS
UNIFORMLY ASCRIBED TO THEM BY THE FEDERAL COURTS, IRRESPECTIVE OF LOCAL
VARIANCE.  FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371.  THIS COURT HAS
REPEATEDLY RESORTED TO JUST SUCH CONSIDERATIONS IN DEFINING THE VERY
TERM "EMPLOYEE" AS USED IN OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES, AS THE OPINION OF
THE COURT BELOW SHOWS.  THERE IS A GENERAL AND PREVAILING RULE
THROUGHOUT THE UNION AS TO THE INDICIA OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE CRITERIA
OF ONE'S STATUS AS EMPLOYEE.  UNQUESTIONABLY IT WAS TO THIS COMMON,
GENERAL, AND PREVAILING UNDERSTANDING THAT CONGRESS REFERRED IN THE
STATUTE AND, ACCORDING TO THAT UNDERSTANDING, THE FACTS STATED IN THE
OPINION BELOW, AND IN THAT OF THIS COURT, IN MY JUDGMENT, DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE NEWSBOYS WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE NEWSPAPERS. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE ACT USES THE TERM IN SOME LOOSE AND UNUSUAL
SENSE SUCH AS JUSTIFIES THE BOARD'S DECISION BECAUSE CONGRESS ADDED TO
THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE ABOVE QUOTED THESE FURTHER WORDS:  "AND
SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYER, UNLESS
THE ACT EXPLICITLY STATES OTHERWISE,  ...  "  THE SUGGESTION SEEMS TO
BE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE TERM EMPLOYEE SHOULD MEAN THOSE WHO
WERE NOT IN FACT EMPLOYEES, BUT IT IS PERFECTLY EVIDENT, NOT ONLY FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS A WHOLE BUT FROM THE SENATE COMMITTEE'S
REPORT, THAT THIS PHRASE WAS ADDED TO PREVENT ANY MISCONCEPTION OF THE
PROVISIONS WHEREBY EMPLOYEES WERE TO BE ALLOWED FREELY TO COMBINE AND
TO BE REPRESENTED IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
THEIR UNION.  CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT EMPLOYEE
ORGANIZATIONS DID NOT HAVE TO BE ORGANIZATIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY
SINGLE EMPLOYER.  BUT THAT QUALIFYING PHRASE MEANS NO MORE THAN THIS
AND WAS NEVER INTENDED TO PERMIT THE BOARD TO DESIGNATE AS EMPLOYEES
THOSE WHO, IN TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING, HAVE NO SUCH STATUS. 
..END :

















WALLING V. REUTER CO., 321 U.S. 671 


NO. 436.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 10, 1944.  - 137 F.2D
315, VACATED. 


IN A PROCEEDING AGAINST A LOUISIANA CORPORATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
PURSUANT TO SEC. 17 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED THE CORPORATION, "ITS AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES
AND ATTORNEYS, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING OR CLAIMING TO ACT IN ITS BEHALF
OR INTEREST," FROM FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  ON APPEAL BY THE
CORPORATION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  SHORTLY AFTER THIS
COURT HAD GRANTED CERTIORARI, THE CORPORATION WAS DISSOLVED AND ITS
BUSINESS WAS TRANSFERRED TO STOCKHOLDERS.  UPON A MOTION TO RECALL THE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HELD: 

1.  THE MOTION PAPERS FAIL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASE IS MOOT OR HAS
ABATED MERELY BECAUSE OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CORPORATION, SINCE AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE CORPORATION MAY, IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES,
BE ENFORCED AGAINST THOSE TO WHOM THE BUSINESS MAY HAVE BEEN
TRANSFERRED.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SUCCESSOR TO THE CORPORATION HERE
IS BOUND IS NOT DECIDED.  P. 673. 

2.  BY REASON OF ITS DISSOLUTION, THE CORPORATION, THE SOLE
RESPONDENT HERE, NO LONGER HAS CAPACITY TO BE SUED, THUS ABATING THE
PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDING.  P. 675. 

3.  ALTHOUGH THIS COURT MAY NOT PROPERLY PROCEED WITH THE APPEAL, IT
MAY NEVERTHELESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY APPELLATE POWER,
MAKE SUCH DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AS JUSTICE REQUIRES.  P. 676. 

4.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED, SUBJECT ONLY TO
RESORT TO THE PRESCRIBED APPELLATE REVIEW, THE RIGHT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO AN INJUNCTION.  THAT REVIEW CONTEMPLATES MORE THAN A
CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ALONE, BUT
ALSO APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT.  THE FULL REVIEW
CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE HAVING BEEN FRUSTRATED BY RESPONDENT'S
DISSOLUTION, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CANNOT
RIGHTLY BE MADE THE IMPLEMENT FOR DEPRIVING THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
BENEFIT OF A JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS THEREFORE VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT, WHERE THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY TAKE SUCH PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS JUDGMENT AS HE MAY DEEM ADVISABLE AND AS MAY
BE PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 677. 

WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, V. JAMES V. REUTER, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 731, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 49
F.SUPP.  485, ENJOINING THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION FROM VIOLATIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT PURSUANT TO SEC. 17 OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF JUNE 25, 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 201 ET
SEQ., TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENT, A LOUISIANA CORPORATION, FROM VIOLATING
THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 6, 7,
15(A)(1)(2) AND (5) OF THE ACT AND GAVE JUDGMENT PERMANENTLY
RESTRAINING RESPONDENT, "ITS AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES AND ATTORNEYS,
AND ALL PERSONS ACTING OR CLAIMING TO ACT IN ITS BEHALF OR INTEREST"
FROM FURTHER VIOLATIONS.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, 137 F.2D 315, AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI,
320 U.S. 731. 

THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS A MOTION TO RECALL THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY WHO HAS APPEARED FOR RESPONDENT IN THIS COURT
AND IN THE TWO COURTS BELOW.  HIS MOTION IS BASED UPON THE AFFIDAVIT OF
JAMES V. REUTER, DESCRIBED AS THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION, FROM WHICH IT APPEARS THAT ON DECEMBER 15, 1943, SHORTLY
AFTER THIS COURT HAD GRANTED CERTIORARI, REUTER AND TWO OTHERS, BEING
ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS OF RESPONDENT, DULY SIGNED A CONSENT THAT THE
CORPORATION BE DISSOLVED AND THAT REUTER BE DESIGNATED ITS LIQUIDATOR;
AND THAT ONE DAY LATER, ON DECEMBER 16, 1943, REUTER, AS LIQUIDATOR,
CERTIFIED THAT THE CORPORATION HAD BEEN "COMPLETELY WOUND UP AND IS
DISSOLVED."  UPON FILING THE CONSENT AND CERTIFICATE WITH THE SECRETARY
OF STATE, WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF DISSOLUTION, THE
SECRETARY OF STATE ISSUED HIS CERTIFICATE OF DECEMBER 31, 1943,
CERTIFYING THAT THE CORPORATION "STANDS DISSOLVED."  SEE SEC. 54 OF ACT
250 OF THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE OF 1928 AS AMENDED BY SEC. 1 OF ACT 65
OF 1932, AND SECS. 62 AND 64 OF ACT 250 OF THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE OF
1928.  THE PURPOSE OF THE DISSOLUTION IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN TO SECURE
TAX ADVANTAGES. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION IT IS ARGUED THAT SINCE THE CORPORATION IS,
BY LOUISIANA LAW, NOW DISSOLVED WITHOUT ANY PROLONGATION OF ITS LIFE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING PENDING LITIGATION AGAINST IT, SEE MCCOY
V. STATE LINE OIL & GAS CO., 180 LA. 579, 583, THE CASE HAS BECOME
MOOT; AND FURTHER THAT, FOR WANT OF A PARTY RESPONDENT, THIS COURT IS
WITHOUT POWER TO RENDER ANY EFFECTIVE JUDGMENT IN THE APPELLATE
PROCEEDING NOW PENDING BEFORE IT.  FN1 

IN THE PRESENT POSTURE OF THE CASE WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT THE MOVING
PAPERS FAIL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CASE IS MOOT OR HAS ABATED MERELY
BECAUSE OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CORPORATE DEFENDANT.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 307-310; CF.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 219 U.S. 433, 452;
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 219 U.S.
498, 514-516; LEONARD & LEONARD V. EARLE, 279 U.S. 392, 398.  THE
JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED, SUBJECT ONLY TO
RESORT TO THE PRESCRIBED APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT, THE RIGHT OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE CORPORATION AND
THOSE ASSOCIATED OR IDENTIFIED WITH IT FROM VIOLATING THE STATUTE.  NOT
ONLY IS SUCH AN INJUNCTION ENFORCIBLE BY CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE CORPORATION, ITS AGENTS AND OFFICERS AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS
ASSOCIATED WITH IT IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS, WILSON V. UNITED
STATES, 221 U.S. 361, 376-377; CF. IN RE LENNON, 166 U.S. 548, BUT IT
MAY ALSO, IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, BE ENFORCED AGAINST THOSE TO
WHOM THE BUSINESS MAY HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED, WHETHER AS A MEANS OF
EVADING THE JUDGMENT OR FOR OTHER REASONS.  THE VITALITY OF THE
JUDGMENT IN SUCH A CASE SURVIVES THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CORPORATE
DEFENDANT.  SOUTHPORT PETROLEUM CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 315 U.S. 100, 106
107.  AND SEE, TO LIKE EFFECT, LABOR BOARD V. HOPWOOD RETINNING CO.,
104 F.2D 302, 304-305; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. WESTERN NEW YORK &
P.R. CO., 82 F. 192, 194-195; MORTON V. SUPERIOR COURT, 65 CAL. 496, 4
P. 489; KATENKAMP V. SUPERIOR COURT, 16 CAL.2D 696, 108 P.2D 1; MAYOR
V. NEW YORK & S.I. FERRY CO., 64 N.Y. 622; FARMERS FERTILIZER CO. V.
RUH, 7 OHIO APP. 430; SPERRY & HUTCHINSON CO. V. MCKELVEY HUGHES CO.,
64 PA. SUPER.  57, 61-62; CF. ALEMITE MFG. CORP. V. STAFF, 42 F.2D 832,
833; LABOR BOARD V. COLTEN, 105 F.2D 179, 183; UNION DRAWN STEEL CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 109 F.2D 587, 589, 594-595.  AND THESE PRINCIPLES MAY BE
APPLIED IN FULLER MEASURE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH
HERE THE PETITIONER REPRESENTS, THAN IF ONLY PRIVATE INTERESTS WERE
INVOLVED.  SEE VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515,
552, AND CASES CITED. 

WHETHER A FAMILY BUSINESS, SUCH AS THIS ONE APPEARS TO BE, HAS
SUCCESSFULLY AVOIDED ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE
JUDGMENT ENTERED AGAINST THE FAMILY CORPORATION, BY THE SIMPLE
EXPEDIENT OF DISSOLVING IT AND CONTINUING THE BUSINESS UNDER THE
INDIVIDUAL CONTROL OF MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, AS APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN
PLACE HERE, IS A QUESTION WHICH IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO DECIDE ON
THE BASIS OF THE SCANTY AND NOT ENTIRELY ENLIGHTENING AFFIDAVITS NOW
SUBMITTED TO US.  IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, IF THE APPELLATE
PROCEDURE, RENDERED ABORTIVE BY RESPONDENT'S DISSOLUTION, HAS NOT
DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF THE BENEFITS OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN HIS
FAVOR BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO INITIATE
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WHO EITHER
DISOBEY ITS COMMAND OR PARTICIPATE IN THE EVASION OF ITS TERMS.  IN
SUCH PROCEEDINGS THE QUESTION AS TO HOW FAR THE SUCCESSOR TO THE
CORPORATION IS BOUND BY THE DECREE MAY BE FULLY INVESTIGATED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, WITH APPROPRIATE APPELLATE REVIEW.  THE DECISIVE
QUESTION FOR US THEN IS WHETHER PETITIONER CAN BE RIGHTLY DEPRIVED OF
THE BENEFIT OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT BY RESPONDENT'S INVOCATION
OF THE APPELLATE PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE, FOLLOWED BY THE
FRUSTRATION OF THAT PROCEDURE BY RESPONDENT'S DISSOLUTION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT CANNOT, IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE
RECORD,  FN2  RENDER AN EFFECTIVE JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS, BECAUSE THE
SOLE RESPONDENT BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, BY
REASON OF ITS DISSOLUTION, NO LONGER HAS CAPACITY TO BE SUED, AND NO
ONE HAS SOUGHT TO PROCURE SUBSTITUTION OF ANY OTHER PERSON AS PARTY
RESPONDENT.  SUCH IS THE EFFECT OF DISSOLUTION UNDER THE LOUISIANA
LAW.  SEE MCCOY V. STATE LINE OIL & GAS CO., SUPRA; ORTEGO V. NEHI
BOTTLING WORKS, 182 SO. 365, 367(LA. APP.); COMPARE OKLAHOMA NATURAL
GAS CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 273 U.S. 257.  BUT THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS ENTERED AGAINST RESPONDENT BEFORE IT WAS DISSOLVED AND WHILE
IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING SUED.  HENCE IT WAS BINDING ON RESPONDENT AND,
AS WE HAVE SEEN, ON OTHERS WHO, IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY BE
BROUGHT WITHIN ITS REACH.  THE DISSOLUTION OF RESPONDENT, SO LONG AS
THE CERTIFICATE OF DISSOLUTION IS NOT ANNULLED, PRECLUDES ENFORCEMENT
OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST IT, BUT DOES NOT FORECLOSE PETITIONER FROM
ASSERTING HIS RIGHTS AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSONS AS MAY BE BOUND BY THE
JUDGMENT.  HENCE IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, BECAUSE THE PENDING APPELLATE
PROCEEDING HAS ABATED, THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
ABATED BECAUSE OF RESPONDENT'S DISSOLUTION.  NOR DOES IT FOLLOW,
BECAUSE OF THIS COURT'S INABILITY TO PROCEED WITH THE APPEAL ON THE
MERITS FOR WANT OF A PROPER PARTY RESPONDENT, THAT PETITIONER IS TO BE
DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFIT OF HIS JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH
THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES SHALL BE UNDISTURBED SAVE ONLY BY PURSUIT TO
COMPLETION OF THE PRESCRIBED APPELLATE PROCEDURE. 

IT IS A FAMILIAR PRACTICE OF THIS COURT THAT WHERE FOR ANY REASON THE
COURT MAY NOT PROPERLY PROCEED WITH A CASE BROUGHT TO IT ON APPEAL, OR
WHERE FOR ANY REASON IT IS WITHOUT POWER TO PROCEED WITH THE APPEAL, IT
MAY NEVERTHELESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY APPELLATE POWER,
MAKE SUCH DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AS JUSTICE REQUIRES.  WHEN EVENTS
SUBSEQUENT TO AN APPEAL MAY AFFECT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM, THIS COURT MAY VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CAUSE
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  MISSOURI EX REL. WABASH RY. CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, 273 U.S. 126, 131; PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600,
607, AND CASES CITED; VILLA V. VAN SCHAICK, 299 U.S. 152, 155-156. 
WHEN IT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DECIDE AN APPEAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE
BEEN PROSECUTED TO ANOTHER COURT, IT MAY VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND
THE CAUSE IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURT BELOW TO ENTER A NEW JUDGMENT
FROM WHICH A PROPER APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN.  GULLY V. INTERSTATE NATURAL
GAS CO., 292 U.S. 16; OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292
U.S. 386, 392; JAMESON & CO. V. MORGENTHAU, 307 U.S. 171, 174; PHILLIPS
V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 254.  IF A JUDGMENT HAS BECOME MOOT,
THIS COURT MAY NOT CONSIDER ITS MERITS, BUT MAY MAKE SUCH DISPOSITION
OF THE WHOLE CASE AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE.  UNITED STATES V. HAMBURG
AMERICAN CO., 239 U.S. 466, 477-478; HEITMULLER V. STOKES, 256 U.S.
359, 362-363; BROWNLOW V. SCHWARTZ, 261 U.S. 216, 218. 

HERE, FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE STATED, IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED TO RETAIN THE BENEFIT OF THE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN HIS FAVOR BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE REVIEW OF THAT JUDGMENT ON
APPEAL AS THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES, AND THAT THAT JUDGMENT IS NOT SHOWN
TO BE MOOT OR TO HAVE ABATED.  BUT REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT CONTEMPLATES MORE THAN A CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS ALONE.  THE LOSING PARTY IN THAT COURT MAY SECURE
FURTHER REVIEW HERE UPON CERTIORARI, IF HE SO DESIRES AND IF THIS
COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION, GRANTS THE WRIT.  THUS APPELLATE REVIEW OF
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED WHEN
RESPONDENT WAS DISSOLVED, AND THE FULL REVIEW CONTEMPLATED BY THE
STATUTE WAS FRUSTRATED BY THAT DISSOLUTION.  BY REASON OF THAT ACTION,
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH IS NOT FINAL
BECAUSE THE CASE IS PENDING IN THIS COURT, CANNOT RIGHTLY BE MADE THE
IMPLEMENT FOR DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF THE BENEFIT OF HIS JUDGMENT IN
THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THE ONLY JUST AND APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION WHICH CAN BE MADE OF THIS
CASE IS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS BE VACATED, AND THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT RESTORED, AS THOUGH RESPONDENT HAD TAKEN
NO APPEAL. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED, AND THE CAUSE WILL
BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, WHERE PETITIONER WILL BE FREE TO
TAKE SUCH PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, AS HE MAY DEEM ADVISABLE, AND AS MAY BE PROPER IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  ANY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT WILL, OF
COURSE, BE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE APPELLATE REVIEW.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  IN THE MCCOY CASE, IT WAS HELD AT 585-586 THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF
A LIQUIDATOR OF A CORPORATION IN DISSOLUTION TO "TERMINATE IN A LEGAL
MANNER  ...  BY PROSECUTING, DEFENDING, OR COMPROMISING IT, ALL
LITIGATION PENDING IN WHICH THE CORPORATION IS A PARTY."  THE COURT
FURTHER STATED THAT "THE LEGISLATURE HAD NO INTENTION OF SANCTIONING
THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF DISSOLUTION" WHERE THE LIQUIDATOR HAD
FAILED TO DISCHARGE THAT DUTY, TO THE INJURY OF OPPOSING LITIGANTS. 
THE LOUISIANA COURT DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE IN THAT CASE TO ANNUL THE
CERTIFICATE OF DISSOLUTION OF THE CORPORATION THERE INVOLVED, IN VIEW
OF ITS LIQUIDATOR'S FAILURE TO TERMINATE IN A LEGAL MANNER, PRIOR TO
DISSOLUTION, THE SUIT THERE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

WE DO NOT CONSIDER WHETHER IN THIS CASE THIS COURT HAS A LIKE POWER
TO ANNUL THE CERTIFICATE OF DISSOLUTION OF RESPONDENT CORPORATION, SO
AS TO PERMIT THE CONTINUATION OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HERE, FOR, AS
WILL APPEAR, OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE CASE SEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE. 

FN2  COMPARE NOTE 1, SUPRA.
..END :







MEDO CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 678 


NO. 265.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 10, 1944.  - 135 F.2D
279, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONER RECOGNIZED A LABOR UNION AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  AT THEIR REQUEST AND UPON THEIR STATEMENT THAT THEY
WERE DISSATISFIED WITH THE UNION AND WOULD ABANDON IT IF THEIR WAGES
WERE INCREASED, PETITIONER NEGOTIATED WITH THEM WITHOUT THE
INTERVENTION OF THE UNION, GRANTED THE REQUESTED INCREASE IN WAGES, AND
THEREAFTER REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE OR BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  HELD THAT
THE LABOR BOARD PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH
ITS EMPLOYEES, ITS PAYMENT OF INCREASED WAGES, AND ITS REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN WITH THE UNION CONSTITUTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION
OF SECS. 8(1) AND (5) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT; AND THAT
THIS DETERMINATION SUPPORTED ITS ORDER DIRECTING THE CESSATION OF THOSE
PRACTICES.  P. 679. 

1.  THE NEGOTIATIONS BY PETITIONER WITH ANY OTHER THAN THE UNION, THE
DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES, WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE.  P. 683. 

BARGAINING CARRIED ON BY THE EMPLOYER DIRECTLY WITH THE EMPLOYEES,
WHETHER A MINORITY OR A MAJORITY, WHO HAVE NOT REVOKED THEIR
DESIGNATION OF A BARGAINING AGENT, WOULD BE SUBVERSIVE OF THE MODE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH THE STATUTE HAS ORDAINED.  P. 684. 

2.  IT WAS LIKEWISE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR PETITIONER, THOUGH
IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSAL OF ITS EMPLOYEES, TO GRANT WAGE INCREASES
INDUCING THEM TO LEAVE THE UNION.  P. 685. 

3.  THE DEFECTION OF UNION MEMBERS, WHICH PETITIONER HAD INDUCED BY
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT WAS THAT THE UNION NO
LONGER HAD THE SUPPORT OF A MAJORITY, COULD NOT JUSTIFY PETITIONER'S
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  P. 687. 

MEDO PHOTO SUPPLY CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 723, TO REVIEW A DECREE GRANTING ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 43 N.L.R.B. 989. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER RECOGNIZED A LABOR UNION AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  AT THEIR REQUEST AND UPON THEIR STATEMENT THAT THEY
WERE DISSATISFIED WITH THE UNION AND WOULD ABANDON IT IF THEIR WAGES
WERE INCREASED, PETITIONER NEGOTIATED WITH THEM WITHOUT THE
INTERVENTION OF THE UNION, GRANTED THE REQUESTED INCREASES IN WAGES AND
THEREAFTER REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE OR BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  THE ONLY
QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ARE WHETHER IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, PETITIONER'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES, ITS
PAYMENT OF INCREASED WAGES, AND ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION
CONSTITUTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 8(1) AND (5)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 158(1) AND (5). 

UPON COMPLAINT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CHARGING
PETITIONER WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, ISSUED PURSUANT TO SEC. 10 OF
THE ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160, THE BOARD FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD
VIOLATED SECS. 8(1) AND (5) OF THE ACT BY INTERFERING WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY,
GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 157, AND BY REFUSING TO
BARGAIN WITH A UNION REPRESENTING ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD ENTERED THE
USUAL ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO CEASE THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES SO
FOUND, AND REQUIRING IT TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  43 N.L.R.B. 989. 
ON THE BOARD'S PETITION TO ENFORCE ITS ORDER, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT OVERRULED PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS THAT THE UNION,
AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, NO LONGER
REPRESENTED PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND DIRECTED COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER.  135 F.2D 279.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 723, AS THE CASE INVOLVES QUESTIONS OF
IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

THE BOARD MADE FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT AFTER EIGHTEEN OF
THE TWENTY-SIX EMPLOYEES IN PETITIONER'S SHIPPING AND RECEIVING
DEPARTMENT, CONSTITUTING AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT, HAD DESIGNATED
THE UNION AS THEIR BARGAINING AGENT, PETITIONER, ON JUNE 4TH AND 5TH,
1941, RECOGNIZED IT AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  THE UNION HAVING PROPOSED A CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR AN
INCREASE OF WAGES FOR THE EMPLOYEES, PETITIONER AGREED TO MEET THE
UNION REPRESENTATIVES ON JUNE 9, 1941 IN ORDER TO BEGIN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. 

TWO DAYS BEFORE THAT DATE, TWELVE OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE MEMBERS
OF THE UNION, WAITED ON PETITIONER'S MANAGER AND STATED THAT THEY AND
THE SIX OTHER MEMBERS HAD NO DESIRE TO BELONG TO THE UNION IF THROUGH
THEIR OWN EFFORTS THEY COULD OBTAIN WAGE INCREASES, A LIST OF WHICH
THEY SUBMITTED.  THE MANAGER, AT THAT TIME, DECLINED TO DISCUSS THE
UNION, BUT STATED THAT HE WOULD CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR WAGE INCREASES
WITH PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT ON THE LATTER'S RETURN TO THE OFFICE ON
JUNE 9TH, AND ASKED THE EMPLOYEES TO RETURN ON THAT DAY. 

ON JUNE 9TH, THE MANAGER, AFTER A CONFERENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT, MET
WITH A COMMITTEE OF FOUR OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD CONFERRED WITH HIM
TWO DAYS BEFORE.  HE ADVISED THEM THAT PETITIONER WOULD GRANT
SUBSTANTIALLY THE REQUESTED WAGE INCREASES.  THE COMMITTEE THEN
WITHDREW TO CONVEY THIS MESSAGE TO THE OTHER EMPLOYEES, WHO THEREUPON
AGREED TO ACCEPT THE WAGE INCREASES.  THE COMMITTEE RETURNED TO INFORM
THE MANAGER OF THIS AND THAT THE EMPLOYEES "FELT THAT THEY DID NOT NEED
THE UNION, AND WE WOULD RATHER STAY OUT."  LATER IN THE DAY, THE
COMMITTEE NOTIFIED THE UNION REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE EMPLOYEES NO
LONGER DESIRED THE UNION TO REPRESENT THEM.  AT A MEETING ON THE SAME
DAY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION, AT WHICH THIS COMMITTEE WAS
PRESENT, PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY STATED THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE UNION
NO LONGER REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES AND HE DECLINED TO
NEGOTIATE WITH IT UNLESS IT WERE ESTABLISHED BY AN ELECTION THAT IT
DID. 

FROM THIS, AND FROM EVIDENCE WHICH IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETAIL, THE
BOARD CONCLUDED, AND WE ACCEPT ITS FINDINGS, THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAD NOT
REVOKED THEIR DESIGNATION OF THE UNION AS THEIR BARGAINING AGENT BEFORE
THE WAGE INCREASES WERE PROMISED BY PETITIONER'S MANAGER ON JUNE 9TH;
THAT THE INCREASES WERE INDUCED BY NEGOTIATIONS BEGUN WITH PETITIONER
ON JUNE 7TH AND CONCLUDED ON JUNE 9TH BEFORE THEY HAD REPUDIATED THE
UNION; THAT PETITIONER'S DETERMINATION TO INCREASE WAGES WAS
"OCCASIONED SOLELY BY THE EMPLOYEES' OFFER TO WITHDRAW FROM THE UNION
IF THE RAISES WERE GRANTED"; AND THAT THE EMPLOYEES' DEFECTION FROM THE
UNION WAS INDUCED BY PETITIONER'S CONDUCT IN DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THE
EMPLOYEES.  FN1 

IN SUSTAINING THE BOARD'S ORDER THE COURT OF APPEALS ASSUMED THAT AS
THERE HAD BEEN NO ELECTION OR CERTIFICATION OF THE UNION AS THEIR
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, THE EMPLOYEES WERE FREE TO REVOKE THEIR
DESIGNATION OF IT AND TO NEGOTIATE DIRECTLY WITH THE EMPLOYER FOR AN
INCREASE IN WAGES, WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF THE UNION.  BUT IT
THOUGHT THAT IF SUCH A PROPOSAL CAME FROM THE EMPLOYER, IT WOULD BE A
FORBIDDEN INTERFERENCE WITH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS AND IT
CONCLUDED THAT, IN VIEW OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF DETERMINING WHETHER IN
FACT SUCH AN OFFER, OSTENSIBLY COMING FROM THE EMPLOYEES, WAS INDUCED
BY THE EMPLOYER, THE BOARD COULD CONCLUDE THAT THE MERE ACCEPTANCE BY
THE EMPLOYER OF THE EMPLOYEES' OFFER WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  A
CONCURRING JUDGE THOUGHT THAT THE CASE WAS STRIPPED OF ANY INTIMATION
OF EMPLOYER CONTROL BUT THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED ON
THE GROUND THAT IT WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR THE EMPLOYER TO
BARGAIN WITH THE EMPLOYEES WHEN THEIR REVOCATION OF THE UNION'S
AUTHORITY WAS MADE CONDITIONAL UPON THE MAJORITY'S AGREEMENT TO ABANDON
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ALTOGETHER, EVEN FOR AN UNSPECIFIED TIME. 

WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD DO NOT ADMIT OF
EITHER OF THESE DISPOSITIONS OF THE CASE.  WHILE THE NEGOTIATIONS OF
PETITIONER WITH THE EMPLOYEES RESULTED IN A WAGE INCREASE AND THEIR
ABANDONMENT OF THE UNION, THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE CARRIED ON BY CERTAIN
OF THE EMPLOYEES PURPORTING TO ACT IN BEHALF OF AND TO REPRESENT A
MAJORITY.  NOTHING APPEARS WHICH WOULD SUGGEST, AS THE CONCURRING JUDGE
THOUGHT, THAT ANY OF THE EMPLOYEES DURING OR AS A RESULT OF THE
NEGOTIATIONS HAD BY AGREEMENT OR OTHERWISE FORECLOSED THEMSELVES FROM
CONTINUING SUCH BARGAINING THROUGH THE SAME OR ANY OTHER
REPRESENTATIVES WHOM THEY MIGHT CHOOSE.  NOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED BY THE EVIDENCE AND THE BOARD'S FINDINGS CAN WE SAY THAT IT
WAS OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE WHETHER, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT, THE
EMPLOYEES' OFFER TO ABANDON THE UNION ORIGINATED WITH THEM OR WAS
INSPIRED BY THE EMPLOYER.  FOR IN EITHER CASE, AS WILL PRESENTLY
APPEAR, WE THINK THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS BY PETITIONER FOR WAGE INCREASES
WITH ANY ONE OTHER THAN THE UNION, THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES, WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  WE THINK THAT THE BOARD'S
ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENFORCED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY IT. 

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS
THAT THE UNION REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN PETITIONER'S
SHIPPING DEPARTMENT, AND THAT THEY CONSTITUTED A PROPER BARGAINING UNIT
AND THAT PETITIONER HAD AGREED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  THE EVIDENCE
SHOWS AND THE BOARD FOUND THAT WHEN THE EMPLOYEES OPENED THEIR
NEGOTIATIONS WITH PETITIONER'S MANAGER ON JUNE 7TH, THEY HAD NOT
REPUDIATED THE UNION.  ON THE CONTRARY THEY MADE IT PLAIN THAT THEIR
PROPOSAL FOR ITS ABANDONMENT WAS CONTINGENT UPON PETITIONER'S
WILLINGNESS TO GIVE THE DESIRED WAGE INCREASES.  THE EVIDENCE ALSO
SHOWS, AS THE BOARD FOUND, THAT THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT WITHDRAW THEIR
DESIGNATION OF THE UNION AS THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE UNTIL AFTER
THEY HAD VOTED TO ACCEPT THE WAGE INCREASES, AND THAT UNTIL THEN, THEY
HAD HELD THEMSELVES OUT AS UNION MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THEIR NEGOTIATIONS
WITH PETITIONER AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT MAKES IT THE DUTY OF THE EMPLOYER TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS EMPLOYEES. 
THE OBLIGATION BEING EXCLUSIVE, SEE SEC. 9(A) OF THE ACT, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 159(A), IT EXACTS "THE NEGATIVE DUTY TO TREAT WITH NO OTHER." 
LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 44; AND SEE
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 548-549. 
PETITIONER, BY IGNORING THE UNION AS THE EMPLOYEES' EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, BY NEGOTIATING WITH ITS EMPLOYEES CONCERNING
WAGES AT A TIME WHEN WAGE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNION WERE PENDING, AND
BY INDUCING ITS EMPLOYEES TO ABANDON THE UNION BY PROMISING THEM HIGHER
WAGES, VIOLATED SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH FORBIDS INTERFERENCE WITH
THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES
OF THEIR OWN CHOICE. 

THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE ACT FOR THE EMPLOYER TO DISREGARD
THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE BY NEGOTIATING WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES,
WHETHER A MAJORITY OR A MINORITY, WITH RESPECT TO WAGES, HOURS AND
WORKING CONDITIONS WAS RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT IN J.I. CASE CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332; CF. ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS V.
RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342; SEE ALSO NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 359-361.  THE STATUTE GUARANTEES TO ALL
EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH THEIR CHOSEN
REPRESENTATIVES.  BARGAINING CARRIED ON BY THE EMPLOYER DIRECTLY WITH
THE EMPLOYEES, WHETHER A MINORITY OR MAJORITY, WHO HAVE NOT REVOKED
THEIR DESIGNATION OF A BARGAINING AGENT, WOULD BE SUBVERSIVE OF THE
MODE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH THE STATUTE HAS ORDAINED, AS THE
BOARD, THE EXPERT BODY IN THIS FIELD, HAS FOUND.  SUCH CONDUCT IS
THEREFORE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 AND A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT.  FN2  THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR US
TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH OR THE PERIODS FOR WHICH THE
EMPLOYEES, HAVING DESIGNATED A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, MAY BE
FORECLOSED FROM REVOKING THEIR DESIGNATION, IF AT ALL, OR THE
FORMALITIES, IF ANY, NECESSARY FOR SUCH A REVOCATION.  COMPARE LABOR
BOARD V. CENTURY OXFORD MFG. CO., 140 F.2D 541, C.C.A.2D, DECIDED
FEBRUARY 15, 1944.  BUT ORDERLY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REQUIRES THAT THE
EMPLOYER BE NOT PERMITTED TO GO BEHIND THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES,
IN ORDER TO BARGAIN WITH THE EMPLOYEES THEMSELVES, PRIOR TO SUCH A
REVOCATION.  AND IT IS THE FACT HERE, AS FOUND BY THE BOARD, THAT THE
EMPLOYEES DID NOT REVOKE THEIR DESIGNATION OF THE UNION AS THEIR
BARGAINING AGENT AT ANY TIME WHILE THEY WERE THEMSELVES NEGOTIATING
WITH PETITIONER, AND THAT THEY LEFT THE UNION, AS THEY HAD PROMISED
PETITIONER TO DO, ONLY WHEN PETITIONER HAD AGREED TO GIVE THEM
INCREASED WAGES. 

QUITE APART FROM THE BOARD'S FINDING OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN
PETITIONER'S DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY HAD NOT
REVOKED THEIR DESIGNATION OF THE UNION, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT
THAT IT WAS LIKEWISE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR PETITIONER, IN
RESPONSE TO THE OFFER OF ITS EMPLOYEES, TO INDUCE THEM BY THE GRANT OF
WAGE INCREASES, TO LEAVE THE UNION.  FN3  LABOR BOARD V. FALK CORP.,
308 U.S. 453, 460-461.  THIS VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) WAS IN ITSELF
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST.  THE WORDS
AND PURPOSE OF SECS. 7 AND 8(1) OF THE ACT ENJOIN AN EMPLOYER FROM
INTERFERING WITH, OR COERCING, ITS EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF
ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING. 
THERE COULD BE NO MORE OBVIOUS WAY OF INTERFERING WITH THESE RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYEES THAN BY GRANTS OF WAGE INCREASES UPON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
THEY WOULD LEAVE THE UNION IN RETURN.  THE ACTION OF EMPLOYEES WITH
RESPECT TO THE CHOICE OF THEIR BARGAINING AGENTS MAY BE INDUCED BY
FAVORS BESTOWED BY THE EMPLOYER AS WELL AS BY HIS THREATS OR
DOMINATION.  INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. LABOR BOARD,
311 U.S. 72; LABOR BOARD V. FALK CORP., SUPRA; LABOR BOARD V.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 266-268. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT IT WOULD BE EQUALLY AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
TO REFUSE THE WAGE INCREASES AS TO GRANT THEM, FOR THAT WOULD INFLUENCE
THE EMPLOYEES TO STAY IN THE UNION, INSTEAD OF ABANDONING IT.  BUT
EITHER CONSEQUENCE, AS WELL AS ANY VIOLATION OF THE ACT, WOULD IN THIS
CASE HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE EMPLOYER, AS IS ITS STATUTORY DUTY, HAD
REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE WITH ANY ONE OTHER THAN THE DULY DESIGNATED
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYEES.  WE ARE NOT NOW CONCERNED
WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER, IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH ACTION WOULD
HAVE BEEN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  NOR DOES THAT POSSIBILITY RELIEVE
PETITIONER OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHICH THE
BOARD HAS FOUND.    PETITIONER WAS NOT RELIEVED FROM ITS OBLIGATIONS
BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES ASKED THAT THEY BE DISREGARDED.  THE STATUTE WAS
ENACTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES'
RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND IT MAY NOT BE IGNORED BY THE
EMPLOYER, EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEES CONSENT, LABOR BOARD V. NEWPORT
NEWS CO., 308 U.S. 241, 251, OR THE EMPLOYEES SUGGEST THE CONDUCT FOUND
TO BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
SUPRA, 353, AT LEAST WHERE THE EMPLOYER IS IN A POSITION TO SECURE ANY
ADVANTAGE FROM THESE PRACTICES, H.J. HEINZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S.
514, 519-521, AND CASES CITED.    PETITIONER CANNOT, AS JUSTIFICATION
FOR ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION, SET UP THE DEFECTION OF
UNION MEMBERS WHICH IT HAD INDUCED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, EVEN
THOUGH THE RESULT WAS THAT THE UNION NO LONGER HAD THE SUPPORT OF A
MAJORITY.  IT CANNOT THUS, BY ITS OWN ACTION, DISESTABLISH THE UNION AS
THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES, PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED
AS SUCH OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL.  LABOR BOARD V. BRADFORD DYEING ASSN.,
310 U.S. 318, 339-340; INTERNATIONAL ASSN. OF MACHINISTS V. LABOR
BOARD, SUPRA, 82; CF. NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA,
359.  PETITIONER'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS BUT
AN AGGRAVATION OF ITS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN DESTROYING THE
MAJORITY'S SUPPORT OF THE UNION, AND WAS A VIOLATION OF SECS. 8(1) AND
(5) OF THE ACT. 

THE BOARD RIGHTLY DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER HAD ENGAGED IN THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHICH THE BOARD FOUND, AND THIS DETERMINATION
SUPPORTS ITS ORDER DIRECTING THE CESSATION OF THOSE PRACTICES.  THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HAS RAISED NO QUESTION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF
THE BOARD'S ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION, WHICH
WAS ALSO SUSTAINED AND ORDERED ENFORCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WE
THEREFORE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THAT PART OF THE ORDER HERE. 
COMPARE FRANKS BROS. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, POST, P. 702.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IT HAS NOW LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT FINDINGS OF THE BOARD, AS WITH
THOSE OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, ARE CONCLUSIVE UPON REVIEWING
COURTS WHEN SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THAT THE WEIGHING OF CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE IS FOR THE BOARD AND NOT FOR THE COURTS, THAT THE INFERENCES
FROM THE EVIDENCE ARE TO BE DRAWN BY THE BOARD AND NOT BY THE COURTS,
SAVE ONLY AS QUESTIONS OF LAW ARE RAISED AND THAT UPON SUCH QUESTIONS
OF LAW, THE EXPERIENCED JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD IS ENTITLED TO GREAT
WEIGHT.  SEE FRANKS BROS. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, POST, P. 702; LABOR BOARD
V. SOUTHERN BELL CO., 319 U.S. 50, 60, AND CASES CITED; LABOR BOARD V.
NEVADA COPPER CO., 316 U.S. 105, 106-107, AND CASES CITED; CF. DOBSON
V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, 501, AND CASES CITED. 

FN2  THAT THE ACT "CARRIES THE CLEAR IMPLICATION THAT EMPLOYERS SHALL
NOT INTERFERE" WITH THE RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING "BY BARGAINING
WITH INDIVIDUALS OR MINORITY GROUPS IN THEIR OWN BEHALF, AFTER
REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN PICKED BY THE MAJORITY TO REPRESENT ALL," WAS
RECOGNIZED BY THE REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES RECOMMENDING
THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  SEN. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 13; H. REP. NO.
1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 20. 

FN3  WE FIND NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATIVES STATED TO THE EMPLOYEES EITHER IN TERMS OR IN
SUBSTANCE, "WE WILL GIVE YOU THE (WAGE) INCREASES AND YOU CAN DO AS YOU
PLEASE ABOUT THE UNION."  FROM THE EVIDENCE, WHICH FULLY SUPPORTS THE
FINDINGS, IT APPEARS THAT THE EMPLOYEES PROPOSED TO PETITIONER'S
MANAGER ON JUNE 7TH THAT THEY WOULD LEAVE THE UNION IF THEY WERE GIVEN
WAGE RAISES; THAT THE MANAGER ADJOURNED THE MEETING WITH THE EMPLOYEES
UNTIL JUNE 9TH IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE SUGGESTED WAGE INCREASES WITH
PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT.  ON THAT DATE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATTER
WITH THE PRESIDENT, THE MANAGER ANNOUNCED TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT WAGE
INCREASES WOULD BE GIVEN, AND THIS WAS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY THE
EMPLOYEES' DESERTION OF THE UNION.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT IT WAS
PETITIONER'S NORMAL PRACTICE TO GRANT WAGE INCREASES ONLY AT THE CLOSE
OF THE YEAR.  FROM THESE FACTS THE BOARD COULD CONCLUDE, AS IT DID,
THAT THE PURPOSE AND THE EFFECT OF THE WAGE INCREASES WAS TO INDUCE
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES TO LEAVE THE UNION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING: 

I DISSENT.  THE STORY TOLD BY THIS RECORD IS NOT OF A DOMINATING OR
INTERMEDDLING EMPLOYER, INTERFERING WITH EMPLOYEES IN THEIR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ARRANGEMENTS OR ACTIVITIES.  IT IS RATHER OF ONE WHICH
SOUGHT TO DO NO MORE THAN MEET ITS EMPLOYEES' WISHES, FREELY FORMED AND
FREELY STATED; AND AT THE SAME TIME TO BE SURE IT WOULD DO NOTHING TO
VIOLATE THE LAW GOVERNING THEIR RELATIONS.  THE RECORD IS BARREN OF ANY
EVIDENCE OF TROUBLE OR REAL DISPUTE BETWEEN MEDO AND ITS EMPLOYEES, OF
HOSTILITY BY MEDO TO UNIONS OR EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION, OR OF ANY REFUSAL
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES.  FN1  ON THE CONTRARY,
IT SHOWS WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT MEDO REGARDED THESE THINGS AS
WHOLLY FOR THE EMPLOYEES TO SETTLE AMONG THEMSELVES; THAT IT
SCRUPULOUSLY SOUGHT TO KEEP HANDS OFF; AND THAT IT WAS WILLING TO
BARGAIN WITH THEM BY WHATEVER AGENCY THEY MIGHT SELECT.  THESE
ATTITUDES WERE QUALIFIED ONLY BY THE COMPANY'S DESIRE TO BE SURE THAT
THE UNION WAS ENTITLED LEGALLY TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES AND TO AVOID
BEING CAUGHT IN A POSSIBLE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE A.F. OF
L. AND THE C.I.O.  FN2 

THE BOARD HAS FOUND THAT MEDO WAS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN
THREE RESPECTS:  (1) IN DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THE EMPLOYEES, RATHER
THAN THROUGH THE UNION, ON JUNE 7 AND 9; (2) IN REFUSING TO DEAL WITH
THE UNION; (3) IN GRANTING THE INCREASED WAGES SOUGHT BY THE
EMPLOYEES.  ON THE FACTS, (1) AND (2) COME TO THE SAME THING, THAT
BEFORE JUNE 7 THE UNION HAD ACQUIRED LEGAL STATUS AS EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING AGENT, WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE TO REQUIRE MEDO TO DEAL ONLY WITH
IT, AND THAT THIS WAS NOT VALIDLY REVOKED THEN OR LATER.  THE SAME
THINGS ARE SUBSUMED BY (3), WHICH HOWEVER POSES THE FURTHER QUESTION
WHETHER GRANTING THE INCREASE IN ITSELF WAS AN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE. 
THE QUESTIONS THUS PRESENTED MAY BE PICTURED MORE ACCURATELY IN THE
LIGHT OF FURTHER FACTS. 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF LABOR TROUBLE OR EMPLOYEE DISSATISFACTION
PRIOR TO MAY, 1941.  ON THE CONTRARY, FOR ALL THAT APPEARS, RELATIONS
WERE PEACEFUL AND HARMONIOUS.  DURING THAT SPRING THE A.F. OF L. FN3
PUT ON A CAMPAIGN TO ORGANIZE ALL PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLY STORES IN NEW
YORK.  IN MAY IT GOT AROUND TO MEDO.  THE COMPANY HAD ABOUT 70
EMPLOYEES.  OF THESE, ABOUT 25 OR 26(INCLUDING SOME SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES) WERE IN THE SHIPPING AND RECEIVING DEPARTMENT, DOING MANUAL
LABOR IN THE PLANT'S BASEMENT.  THE OTHERS WERE CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND
SALESMEN, WORKING UPSTAIRS.  STOLTMAN, THE A.F. OF L. ORGANIZER,
STARTED OUT IN MAY TO ORGANIZE ALL OF MEDO'S EMPLOYEES IN A SINGLE
UNIT.  APPARENTLY HE WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL UPSTAIRS.  BUT BY MAY 23 HE HAD
SIGNED UP 18 OF THE DOWNSTAIRS MEN.  HE AND THEY THEN DECIDED TO LIMIT
THE UNIT TO THE BASEMENT, AND REQUESTED THE EMPLOYER TO NEGOTIATE.  AT
THE SAME TIME THE UNION APPLIED TO THE BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION.  THERE
WAS SOME SHORT DELAY, OWING TO THE ABSENCE OF MEDO'S PRESIDENT OVER THE
MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY.  BUT ON JUNE 4, AT THE BOARD'S ARRANGEMENT, THE
FIRST CONFERENCE CONCERNING RECOGNITION WAS HELD.  FN4 SEVERAL FOLLOWED
BETWEEN THAT TIME AND SATURDAY, JUNE 7, WHEN THE EMPLOYEES INTERVENED
FOR THEMSELVES. 

AT ALL TIMES MEDO SHOWED WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE.  BUT IT ALSO
WISHED TO BE SURE, AS IT HAD BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO BE, THAT
THE UNIT WAS APPROPRIATE AND THE UNION HAD A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  FN5  MEDO FURTHER WANTED TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE TERMS
THE UNION WOULD DEMAND, IF RECOGNIZED; NOT WISHING, AS IT SAID, TO "BUY
A PIG IN A POKE."  ALL OF THESE THINGS WERE MATTERS OF DISCUSSION
BETWEEN STOLTMAN AND VARIOUS COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CONFERENCES
HELD ON JUNE 4 AND 5.  BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE LATTER DATE THAT
STOLTMAN FINALLY SUBMITTED HIS SUBSTANTIVE DEMANDS TO MEDO THROUGH
SELIGSBERG, ITS ATTORNEY. 

THE BOARD'S FINDINGS, IN EFFECT, ARE THAT ON JUNE 5 SELIGSBERG, IN
THIS CONFERENCE WITH STOLTMAN, CONCEDED FINALLY ALL QUESTIONS OF
REPRESENTATION, THAT IS, OF APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNIT AND THE UNION'S
MAJORITY STATUS.  HENCE IT CONCLUDED MEDO THEN RECOGNIZED THE UNION AS
COLLECTIVE AGENT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ONLY THING REMAINING FOR
FURTHER DISCUSSION WAS THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.  THIS
FINDING IS THE BASIS FOR THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT MEDO WAS GUILTY OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHEN IT LATER DEALT DIRECTLY WITH THE EMPLOYEES
RATHER THAN THROUGH THE UNION.  MEDO, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT ALL THREE
QUESTIONS REMAINED OPEN FOR FINAL ACTION BY IT AT THE CONFERENCE
SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, JUNE 9, BUT NOT HELD BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES
INTERVENED DIRECTLY IN THEIR OWN BEHALF ON SATURDAY, JUNE 7.  FN6 

SELIGSBERG MADE PARTICULAR STATEMENTS IN HIS CONFERENCE WITH STOLTMAN
ON JUNE 5 WHICH, IF DISCONNECTED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE
CONVERSATION AND TREATED AS IN THEMSELVES STATING THE EMPLOYER'S ENTIRE
POSITION, COULD BE TAKEN AS INDICATING INTENTION TO CLOSE THE
DISCUSSION ON APPROPRIATENESS OF THE UNIT AND THE UNION'S MAJORITY
STATUS.  THESE STATEMENTS ARE THE BOARD'S ONLY FOUNDATION FOR FINDING
THAT MEDO AT ANY TIME CONCEDED RECOGNITION TO THE UNION WITH FINALITY. 
IN MY OPINION IT WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO THE FACTS TO REGARD THEM AS
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THESE FINDINGS.  THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTITLED TO A
REASONABLE TIME FOR ASCERTAINING THE UNION'S STATUS BEFORE DEALING WITH
IT  FN7  AND THIS HAD NOT EXPIRED ON JUNE 7 OR, FOR THAT MATTER, ON
JUNE 9.  FN8  PRIOR TO JUNE 5 ALL QUESTIONS WERE OPEN.  THE CONFERENCE
THEN WAS NOT BEGUN, CARRIED THROUGH OR CONCLUDED WITH ANY INTENTION OR
PURPOSE THAT UNDERSTANDINGS WHICH MIGHT BE REACHED WERE OR COULD BE
TAKEN TO BE FINAL.  MEDO'S REPRESENTATIVE WAS DOING A LAWYER'S JOB,
FN9  WHICH WAS TO SEE HOW FAR HE AND STOLTMAN COULD AGREE ON TERMS TO
BE CONSIDERED BY HIS CLIENT AS A BASIS FOR FINAL DECISION.  THEY HAD
BEEN SUCCESSFUL PREVIOUSLY IN BRINGING OTHER EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
TOGETHER IN MORE DIFFICULT DISPUTES AND THE WHOLE INTENT OF THEIR
CONFERENCE WAS TO FIND A BASIS OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENT UPON ALL MATTERS,
INCLUDING REPRESENTATION,  FN10  FOR CONSIDERATION BY MEDO FOR ITS
FINAL DECISION AND WITH A VIEW TO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE FINAL
SETTLEMENT IN THE CONFERENCE AGREED UPON FOR JUNE 9.  TO TEAR
SELIGSBERG'S STATEMENTS OUT OF THIS SETTING AND CONTEXT AND MAKE OF
SUCH TENTATIVE UNDERSTANDINGS OR BASES OF FURTHER NEGOTIATION FINAL
CONCESSIONS OF RECOGNITION IS TO DRAW INFERENCES WHOLLY UNWARRANTED BY
THE RECORD.  IT IS THEREFORE NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT ON JUNE 7
NEGOTIATIONS HAD PASSED BEYOND THE STAGE OF RECOGNITION OR,
CONSEQUENTLY, THAT THE UNION THEN WAS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO ACT AS
EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT. 

BUT EVEN ASSUMING THAT MEDO ON JUNE 5, THROUGH SELIGSBERG, CONCEDED
RECOGNITION, STILL I CANNOT AGREE THAT IT COMMITTED ANY UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, UNDER THE FACTS SHOWN HERE, EITHER IN MERELY HEARING WHAT THE
EMPLOYEES HAD TO SAY OR, AFTER DECLINING TO BE DRAWN INTO DISCUSSION OF
THEIR RELATIONS WITH THE UNION,  FN11  IN GRANTING UNCONDITIONALLY
THEIR FREELY MADE AND WHOLLY UNCOERCED REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN
WAGES.  IN MY VIEW IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THIS, IN EFFECT, SHORT
CIRCUITED THE UNION, FOR TWO REASONS.  ONE IS THAT, UNDER THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EMPLOYEES HAD THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THE DESIGNATION
AND DID SO BY UNDERTAKING TO DEAL FOR THEMSELVES; THE OTHER, WHICH IS
PERHAPS BUT A DIFFERENT WAY OF STATING THE FIRST, IS THAT THE UNION
ITSELF HAD NO RIGHT OR INTEREST SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT THEM FROM DOING
SO. 

AT MOST THE EMPLOYER DID NOTHING MORE THAN ACCEDE TO THE WISHES OF A
CLEAR MAJORITY, BOTH IN LISTENING TO THEIR REQUEST AND IN GRANTING IT.
THERE IS NO CLAIM OR SEMBLANCE OF PROOF THAT MEDO INDUCED THE MEN TO
MAKE THE REQUEST.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT, WHEN THEY
ASKED FOR THE CONFERENCE ON JUNE 7, THE REQUEST CAME UNEXPECTEDLY TO
MEDO.  AND WHEN, AT THE START OF THE CONFERENCE THE MEN MENTIONED THE
UNION SITUATION, MEDO'S GENERAL MANAGER, HOPPIN, STATED AT ONCE AND
FLATLY THAT HE WOULD NOT DISCUSS THEIR UNION AFFAIRS OR RELATIONS WITH
THEM, CLEARLY IMPLYING THAT THIS WAS THEIR BUSINESS EXCLUSIVELY, NOT
THE COMPANY'S.  FN12  ASKED WHETHER HE WOULD DISCUSS OTHER MATTERS, HE
ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVELY.  THE MEN THEREUPON SAID THEY WANTED THE
INCREASE AND THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THEY ALSO SAID UNCONDITIONALLY THAT
THEY DID NOT WANT THE UNION.  FN13  THE BOARD, HOWEVER, HAS FOUND THAT
THEY COUPLED THE TWO STATEMENTS CONDITIONALLY, NAMELY, THAT THEY DID
NOT WANT THE UNION, IF THEY COULD HAVE THE INCREASE WITHOUT IT. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT MEDO'S ACTION ON JUNE 9 IN GRANTING THE
INCREASES, THOUGH LESS THAN WHAT WERE REQUESTED, "CONSTITUTED
INTERFERENCE WITH THE SELF-ORGANIZATIONAL RIGHTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES," ON
THE THEORY THAT THIS INFLUENCED THEM TO ABANDON THE UNION.  IT ALSO
HELD THAT THE EMPLOYEES' ACTION IN APPROACHING THE COMPANY ON JUNE 7
DID NOT "CONSTITUTE AN IMPLIED REVOCATION OF THEIR DESIGNATION OF THE
UNION SO AS TO RELIEVE THE RESPONDENT OF THE OBLIGATION TO DEAL SOLELY
WITH IT," AND THEREFORE DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THEM WAS A VIOLATION OF
MEDO'S STATUTORY DUTY TO THE UNION AND AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  THE
BOARD'S THEORY WAS, APPARENTLY, THAT THE MEN, TO REVOKE THEIR
DESIGNATION, WERE REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE THE REVOCATION TO THE UNION
AND THAT THE UNION HAD ACQUIRED SUCH AN INTEREST OR STATUS NO OTHER ACT
COULD TERMINATE THE AGENCY, HOWEVER INCONSISTENT WITH ITS CONTINUED
EXISTENCE AND EXCLUSIVE CHARACTER.    THE STATUTE MAKES NO PROVISION
THAT THE AGENCY, ONCE CREATED, SHALL CONTINUE FOR ANY SPECIFIC TIME. 
IT PRESCRIBES NO PARTICULAR METHOD FOR TERMINATING, AS IT MAKES NONE
FOR CREATING,  FN14 THE AGENCY.  GREATER FORMALITY HARDLY WOULD SEEM TO
BE REQUIRED IN THE ONE CASE THAN IN THE OTHER.  THE STATUTE PURPORTS TO
BE DRAWN IN FAVOR OF PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF EMPLOYEES, NOT THOSE
OF UNIONS AS SUCH.  FN15  TRUE, WHILE THE AGENCY EXISTS IT IS EXCLUSIVE
FOR ITS APPROPRIATE PURPOSES.  BUT IT IS SO ONLY WHILE IT DOES EXIST
AND THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER IT CONTINUED IN FORCE AFTER THE
EMPLOYEES TOOK MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS AND SHOWED TO THE EMPLOYER
BY THAT ACT THAT THEY WANTED TO DEAL FOR THEMSELVES, NOT THROUGH THE
UNION. 

THE BOARD IMPLIES AND THE COURT SAYS THE EMPLOYER SHOULD HAVE
DECLINED TO DISCUSS WITH THEM ANY MATTER WHICH WAS APPROPRIATE FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, SINCE THE UNION WAS THEIR AGENT FOR THIS
PURPOSE.  THEREFORE, IT IS CONCLUDED, THE EMPLOYER VIOLATED THEIR
RIGHTS UNDER THE STATUTE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY.  THIS, ALTHOUGH IT IS
CONCEDED THE TWELVE EMPLOYEES SPOKE FOR 18 OF THE 25 OR 26 IN THE UNIT
AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT WHAT THEY DID WAS DISAPPROVED OR REPUDIATED
BY THE OTHER SIX OR SEVEN.  MERELY TO STATE THIS PROPOSITION SHOULD BE
ENOUGH TO NEGATE IT.  FOR IT PRESERVES RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN
BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING BY DESTROYING THEM.  IN ALL
NORMAL AGENCY RELATIONS, EXCEPT THOSE "COUPLED WITH AN INTEREST,"  FN16
THE PRINCIPAL CAN REVOKE THEM BY EXERCISING THE AGENCY HIMSELF.  FN17
HE NEED NOT NOTIFY THE AGENT.  WHEN HE ACTS ON HIS OWN BEHALF, HE
EXHAUSTS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE AGENCY AND IT COMES TO AN END. 

UNLESS A DESIGNATED UNION ACQUIRES, BY ITS SELECTION, A THRALDOM OVER
THE MEN WHO DESIGNATE IT ANALOGOUS TO THE POWER ACQUIRED BY ONE WHO HAS
A "POWER COUPLED WITH AN INTEREST," UNBREAKABLE AND IRREVOCABLE BY HIM
WHO GAVE IT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT ANY POWERS THE UNION MAY ACQUIRE BY
VIRTUE OF THE DESIGNATION WOULD END WHENEVER THOSE WHO CONFER THEM AND
ON WHOSE BEHALF THEY ARE TO BE EXERCISED TAKE THEM BACK OF THEIR OWN
ACCORD INTO THEIR OWN HANDS AND EXERCISE THEM FOR THEMSELVES.  AND THIS
SHOULD BE TRUE, WHETHER OR NOT PREVIOUS NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE UNION
AND WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE RESUMPTION MAY INCLUDE, AS
ONE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DEALING, THE POSSIBLE CONTINUANCE OF THE
AGENCY.  FOR IT IS THE VERY TAKING BACK OF THE RIGHT TO DEAL WITH THEIR
EMPLOYER, NOT WHAT HE DOES IN RESPONSE TO THIS, UNLESS THAT CREATES
SOME NEW PRESSURE OR INFLUENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED IN THE EMPLOYEES'
FREELY MADE PROPOSALS, THAT SHOWS THE INTENT TO DESTROY THE AGENCY. 
DEALING FOR THEMSELVES AND DEALING EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH THE AGENT CANNOT
COEXIST.  THE ONE WHOLLY EXCLUDES THE OTHER AND THE REAL QUESTION
BECOMES, WHICH IS TO PREVAIL, THE AGENT'S INTEREST AND RIGHT OR THE
PRINCIPAL'S, THE UNION'S OR THE EMPLOYEES'? 

I DO NOT THINK CONGRESS INTENDED, BY THIS LEGISLATION, TO CREATE
RIGHTS IN UNIONS OVERRIDING THOSE OF THE EMPLOYEES THEY REPRESENT. 
FN18  NOR DID IT REQUIRE A SPECIAL FORM OR MODE FOR ENDING A COLLECTIVE
AGENCY ANY MORE THAN FOR CREATING IT.  WHAT CONGRESS DID WAS TO GIVE
THE DESIGNATED UNION THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY AS
LONG AS, AND ONLY AS LONG AS, A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIT
CONSENT TO ITS DOING SO.  WHEN THAT MAJORITY VANISHES BY THE EMPLOYEES'
VOLUNTARY ACTION, WHATEVER FORM THIS MAY TAKE, AND THE FACT IS MADE
UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR TO THE EMPLOYER, IT NOT ONLY IS NO LONGER UNDER DUTY
TO DEAL WITH THE UNION; IT COMES UNDER AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION NOT TO DO
SO.  FOR OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE DEALING WITH A REPRESENTATIVE NOT OF THE
EMPLOYEES' CHOICE. 

THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLY APPLICABLE LIMITATIONS.  ONE IS THAT THE
EMPLOYER MUST NOT INTERFERE TO BRING ABOUT THE ABANDONMENT.  THE OTHER
IS THAT, IN LARGE UNITS, WHERE THERE ARE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS OF
ASCERTAINING WHETHER A MAJORITY EXISTS AT A PARTICULAR TIME, A
REASONABLE DEGREE OF STABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS MAY REQUIRE, TO
GIVE THE STATUTE WORKABLE OPERATION, THAT A MAJORITY DESIGNATION BE
DEEMED TO CONTINUE FOR A REASONABLE PERIOD, THOUGH CHANGES MEANWHILE
MAY TAKE AWAY THE CLEARLY EXISTING MAJORITY, A QUESTION NOT YET FINALLY
DETERMINED.  FN19 

THE LATTER LIMITATION, IF IT IS ONE, CAN HAVE NO REASONABLE
APPLICATION TO A SMALL UNIT AND A SMALL EMPLOYER UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
LIKE THOSE INVOLVED HERE.  IN SUCH A SITUATION TO IMPOSE IT, WHERE THE
ACTUAL DESIRES OF THE MAJORITY MAY BE EASILY AND READILY ASCERTAINED AT
ANY TIME, WOULD BE TO FORCE MEN INTO UNIONS AND INTO DEALING WITH THEIR
EMPLOYERS THROUGH UNIONS CONTRARY TO THE EMPLOYEES' OWN WISHES.  THE
STATUTE HAS NO SUCH PURPOSE. 

BUT IT IS SAID THE OTHER LIMITATION APPLIES HERE, THAT THE EMPLOYER
SHALL OFFER NO INDUCEMENT AND EXERT NO INFLUENCE TO SECURE
ABANDONMENT.  THIS, TOO, IS A SALUTARY PRINCIPLE WHEN PROPERLY
APPLIED.  AND IT MAY BE APPLIED AS WELL TO A SMALL UNIT AND A SMALL
EMPLOYER AS TO LARGE ONES.  BUT AGAIN THE LIMITATION IS NOT UNIVERSALLY
APPLICABLE.  WHETHER IT IS APPLICABLE OR NOT DEPENDS UPON WHAT THE
EMPLOYER DOES.  CLEARLY IF HE STIMULATES A PROPOSAL FROM THE EMPLOYEES
TO ABANDON THE UNION FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGE HE MAY GIVE, THE
LIMITATION SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE.  BUT DOES HE DO THIS WHEN, WITH NO
SUGGESTION OR INTIMATION ON HIS PART, WHEN RATHER HE HAS SHOWN EVERY
WILLINGNESS TO LEAVE THE WHOLE MATTER OF THEIR ORGANIZATION TO HIS
EMPLOYEES AND TO DEAL WITH THEM IN ANY WAY THEY WISH, THEY COME TO HIM,
WITHOUT INFLUENCE, WITHOUT COERCION, AND MAKE A PROPOSAL WHOLLY OF
THEIR OWN CONCEPTION AND DESIRE? 

IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN TO WANT WAGE INCREASES AND ALSO TO
REMAIN OR BECOME NONUNION MEN AT THE SAME TIME.  NOR IS SUCH A
COMBINATION OF DESIRES ILLEGAL.  WHEN SUCH A PROPOSAL IS THUS MADE, AND
THE EMPLOYER DOES NO MORE THAN WAS DONE HERE, NAMELY, ACCEDE TO IT,
KNOWING HE IS DEALING WITH A MAJORITY OF THE UNIT, SAYING IN EFFECT,
"WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE A UNION IS YOUR OWN BUSINESS, NOT MINE.  BUT
WHETHER YOU DO OR NOT, YOU GET THE INCREASE YOU WANT," THEN IN MY
JUDGMENT TWO THINGS HAVE HAPPENED:  (1) THE EMPLOYEES HAVE REVOKED THE
COLLECTIVE AGENCY, AS THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO; AND (2) THE EMPLOYER HAS
BEEN GUILTY OF NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE EITHER IN HEARING THEIR
PROPOSAL OR IN ACCEDING TO IT.  HE HAS DONE NO MORE THAN COMPLY WITH
THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY, FREELY FORMED AND FREELY STATED.  AND THIS
IT IS THE EMPLOYER'S DUTY TO DO UNDER THE STATUTE.  IF THEREBY THE
UNION HAS BEEN BY-PASSED, IT IS NOT THROUGH THE EMPLOYER'S ACTION, BUT
RATHER THROUGH THAT OF THE EMPLOYEES.  THE EMPLOYER'S RESPONSE, SO
LIMITED, IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE, RECENTLY STATED HERE,
FN20  THAT INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES CANNOT DEAL WITH THE EMPLOYER TO CREATE
TERMS IN THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT.  SUCH A SITUATION PRESENTS NO CASE OF INCONSISTENT
INDIVIDUAL BARGAINING.  IT INVOLVES RATHER ONE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, NOT BY INDIVIDUALS AS SUCH, BUT BY THE MAJORITY ON BEHALF
OF THE UNIT. 

FINALLY, IF MORE IS NEEDED, THE MATTER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE
LIGHT OF MEDO'S PREDICAMENT WHEN THE EMPLOYEES MADE THE PROPOSAL,
ACCOUNT BEING TAKEN OF THE ALTERNATIVE COURSES OPEN TO IT. UNDER THE
COURT'S RULING IT WAS BETWEEN THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA.  THERE
WAS NO ANSWER MEDO COULD GIVE WHICH WOULD NOT LEAVE IT OPEN TO A CHARGE
AND A FINDING OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  THE EMPLOYEES WANTED AN
INCREASE, ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS, WITH THE UNION IF THEY COULD NOT
GET ONE WITHOUT IT; WITHOUT THE UNION, IF THEY COULD.  THE MAIN THING
IN THEIR MINDS WAS THE INCREASE, NOT THE UNION.  FN21  IN EFFECT,
ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS, THEY SAID SO TO THEIR EMPLOYER.  IT HAD TO
KEEP SILENT OR REPLY.  IT COULD REPLY IN SEVERAL WAYS:  (1) THE UNION
IS YOUR EXCLUSIVE AGENT AND WE CANNOT DEAL WITH YOU WHILE IT IS SUCH;
(2) WE WILL GIVE YOU THE INCREASE IF YOU DISCHARGE THE UNION; DO THAT
AND THEN COME BACK; (3) WE WILL GIVE YOU THE INCREASE AND YOU CAN DO AS
YOU PLEASE ABOUT THE UNION; (4) WE WILL NOT GIVE THE RAISE, UNION OR NO
UNION. 

THE COURT SAYS THE COMPANY'S REPLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN (1), WHEREAS ITS
RESPONSE ACTUALLY WAS (3).  FN22  IT FINDS THE LATTER BAD BECAUSE IN
EFFECT IT OFFERED "INDUCEMENT" TO THE EMPLOYEES TO ABANDON THE UNION. 
THE TROUBLE IS THAT THE SAME THING WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUE OF (1) OR OF
ANY OF THE OTHER POSSIBLE REPLIES.  ANSWERS (2) AND (4) CLEARLY WOULD
CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, UNDER THE COURT'S VIEW, THE FORMER
AS OFFERING INDUCEMENT TO ABANDON, THE LATTER AS A FLAT REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN THROUGH THE UNION OR OTHERWISE.  ANSWER (1), WHILE PURPORTING
TO SAY ONLY THAT THE EMPLOYER COULD NOT DEAL WITH ANYONE AS LONG AS THE
UNION RETAINED ITS EXCLUSIVE AGENCY, IN FACT WOULD BE INFECTED WITH TWO
FAULTS.  ONE WOULD BE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE EMPLOYEES COULD NOT
REVOKE THE AGENCY AND TAKE MATTERS BACK INTO THEIR OWN HANDS, WITHOUT
GIVING PRIOR NOTICE TO THE UNION, A QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE ISSUES
HERE.  BUT, EVEN MORE PLAINLY, BY MAKING THIS RESPONSE THE EMPLOYER
WOULD OPEN ITSELF TO THE CHARGE AND TO THE FINDING THAT IT HAD SAID, IN
EFFECT:  "WE CANNOT DEAL WITH YOU DIRECTLY WHILE THE UNION'S AGENCY
STANDS UNREVOKED," AND THEREBY HAD OFFERED, BY CLEAR IMPLICATION, THE
INDUCEMENT OF DEALING WITH THE EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY, CONDITIONED UPON
THEIR DISCHARGING THE UNION. 

THE ONLY OTHER ANSWERS OPEN TO THE EMPLOYER WERE (3), THE ONE MEDO
ACTUALLY MADE, AND TO REMAIN SILENT.  MERELY IGNORING THE EMPLOYEES
MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO MEAN ANYTHING, BUT MORE PROBABLY ANSWER (4)
THAN ANY OTHER.  SILENCE THEREFORE AFFORDED NO ESCAPE FROM THE TRAP. 
NOR DOES THE ACT REQUIRE SILENCE IN SUCH A SITUATION.  CONSEQUENTLY
ANSWER (3), WHICH MEDO GAVE, WAS THE ONLY ONE IT COULD GIVE
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE VIEW THAT THE EMPLOYER SHOULD HOLD OUT NO
INDUCEMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES TO ABANDON THE UNION.  IN EFFECT IT SAID
SIMPLY, "WE ARE PERFECTLY WILLING YOU SHOULD HAVE THE INCREASE.  BUT
WHETHER YOU HAVE IT THROUGH THE UNION OR WITHOUT IT IS ENTIRELY YOUR
OWN BUSINESS AND WE WILL NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS."  ANY OTHER
REPLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A COUNTER-PROPOSAL OFFERING INDUCEMENT TO ABANDON
OR A REJECTION OF ALL BARGAINING.  THE ANSWER MEDO GAVE WAS NEITHER. 
IT WAS MERELY ACCESSION TO THE EMPLOYEES' WISHES, NOT "INDUCEMENT" OR
OFFER HELD OUT; AND IT WAS COUPLED WITH THE CLEAR INDICATION, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT WHAT THE EMPLOYEES MIGHT DO ABOUT THE UNION WAS
WHOLLY THEIR OWN AFFAIR AND NONE OF MEDO'S. 

ACCORDINGLY, I THINK MEDO GAVE THE ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER CONSISTENT
WITH THE STATUTE'S REQUIREMENTS AND PURPOSES AND THE ONLY ONE WHICH
AFFORDED NO SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR FINDING EITHER THAT IT WAS REFUSING
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY OR THAT IT WAS INTERFERING WITH THE EMPLOYEES'
RIGHTS OF ORGANIZATION BY OFFERING INDUCEMENT TO GET RID OF THE UNION. 
IN MY OPINION THE WAGNER ACT WAS NOT DESIGNED OR INTENDED TO PUT AN
EMPLOYER, WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE AND CONDUCT ARE TO GIVE HIS EMPLOYEES
COMPLETELY FREE REIN IN MATTERS OF ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, ON SUCH A SPOT THAT ANYTHING HE MAY DO WILL BE, OR WILL
FORM THE BASIS FOR A FINDING THAT IT IS, AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  SO
TO CONSTRUE THE ACT NOT ONLY WOULD MAKE IT A TRAP FOR EMPLOYERS, BUT
ALSO WOULD DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSES THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO
ACCOMPLISH, BY FASTENING UPON EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES ALIKE UNION
DOMINATION THE LATTER DO NOT WANT.  THIS WOULD BE TO DESTROY, NOT TO
SAFEGUARD, THE EMPLOYEES' BASIC RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.  I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT
WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT. 

FN1  THERE WAS NO REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION UNTIL JUNE 9,
1941, AFTER THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEES HAD REACHED A FULL
AGREEMENT.  CF. NOTE 6 INFRA. 

FN2  CF. NOTE 5 INFRA. 

FN3  ACTING THROUGH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF PHOTO EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 21314, OF WHICH STOLTMAN, CHIEF UNION FIGURE IN THIS CASE, WAS
PRESIDENT. 

FN4  THE BOARD'S PART IN BRINGING ABOUT THE CONFERENCE WAS DUE SOLELY
TO THE UNION'S HAVING APPLIED TO IT FOR CERTIFICATION SIMULTANEOUSLY
WITH THE MAKING OF ITS FIRST DEMAND UPON MEDO TO NEGOTIATE WITH IT, NOT
TO ANY REFUSAL BY MEDO TO NEGOTIATE CONCERNING RECOGNITION. 

FN5  IT FELT, AS STOLTMAN DID AT FIRST, THAT THERE SHOULD BE ONE UNIT
IN THE SMALL PLANT AND WAS FEARFUL OF BECOMING INVOLVED IN A
JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE IF THE A.F. OF L. SHOULD ORGANIZE THE UNIT
DOWNSTAIRS AND THE C.I.O., WHICH WAS ACTIVELY ORGANIZING SUCH UNITS,
SHOULD COME IN AND ORGANIZE THE CLERICAL AND SALES EMPLOYEES WORKING
UPSTAIRS. 

THE UNION CLEARLY HAD A MAJORITY OF THE CLAIMED UNIT FROM MAY 23 TO
JUNE 7, SINCE 18 OF THE 25 OR 26 EMPLOYEES EMBRACED IN THE UNIT HAD
SIGNED MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION CARDS AND NONE HAD REVOKED HIS
APPLICATION OR MEMBERSHIP IN THAT PERIOD. 

THE COMPANY, HOWEVER, HAD TO TAKE STOLTMAN'S WORD FOR THIS.  IT ASKED
HIM FOR PROOF THAT HIS UNION REPRESENTED A MAJORITY, BUT HE DECLINED TO
SUBMIT IT, SAYING HE WOULD SUBMIT THE CARDS ONLY TO A BOARD
REPRESENTATIVE.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT MEDO EVER WAS GIVEN
PROOF THAT THE UNION HAD LINED UP ITS CLAIMED AND ACTUAL MAJORITY. 
THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WHICH, IN MY OPINION, THE RECORD SHOWS WAS
HELD FOR DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION AT THE CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR
JUNE 9.  CF. TEXT INFRA NOTES 6-10. 

FN6  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE EMPLOYEES, ENTIRELY OF THEIR OWN
MOTION AND WITHOUT ANY STIMULUS OR SUGGESTION BY MEDO, ON SATURDAY
MORNING, JUNE 7, SOUGHT A CONFERENCE WITH MEDO'S OFFICIALS, WITHOUT
DISCLOSING THEIR PURPOSE.  THE REQUEST WAS GRANTED AND THE CONFERENCE
HELD SATURDAY AFTERNOON.  AS IT OPENED, ONE OF THE MEN MENTIONED THE
"UNION SITUATION."  BUT MEDO'S GENERAL MANAGER, HOPPIN, AT ONCE AND
FLATLY DECLINED TO DISCUSS THAT, SAYING HE WOULD DISCUSS ANYTHING
ELSE.  THE MEN THEN STATED THEIR DESIRE FOR AN INCREASE IN WAGES, AND
NOT TO HAVE THE UNION.  THEY SPECIFIED THE WAGES SOUGHT AND MEDO'S
REPLY, GRANTING THEM IN PART, WAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING MONDAY MORNING,
JUNE 9.  ON MONDAY AFTERNOON THERE WAS ALSO A CONFERENCE WITH STOLTMAN,
BUT BECAUSE OF THE TURN EVENTS HAD TAKEN BY THE EMPLOYEES' INTERVENTION
IT SERVED ONLY AS THE OCCASION FOR NOTIFYING HIM THAT MEDO AND THE
EMPLOYEES HAD REACHED AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE THE COMPANY WOULD NOT
DEAL FURTHER WITH THE UNION.    FN7  CF., E.G., NORTH ELECTRIC MFG. CO.
V. LABOR BOARD, 123 F.2D 887(C.C.A.); TEXARKANA BUS CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
119 F.2D 480, 484(C.C.A.).  SEE ALSO LABOR BOARD V. UNION PACIFIC
STAGES, 99 F.2D 153, 158-159(C.C.A.). 

FN8  IT IS TO BE RECALLED THAT THE WHOLE PERIOD FROM DEMAND BY THE
UNION ON MEDO TO NEGOTIATE TO THE TIME THE EMPLOYEES INTERVENED
EXTENDED ONLY FROM MAY 23 TO JUNE 7, AND THAT THE PERIOD OF ACTIVE
NEGOTIATION BEGAN ON JUNE 4.  THREE DAYS, OR EVEN A LITTLE MORE THAN
TWO WEEKS, IS HARDLY TOO MUCH UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENT TO
ALLOW AN EMPLOYER FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE UNION MEETS THE STATUTE'S
REQUIREMENTS. 

FN9  SELIGSBERG'S TESTIMONY WAS:  "THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE
POSTPONEMENT.  THEY WERE TO BRING US PROOF OF REPRESENTATION.  WE WERE
BOTH TO STUDY THE QUESTION OF UNIT, AND WE WERE TO STUDY IT - AND WHEN
I SAY 'WE,' I MEAN THE EMPLOYER, BECAUSE EXCEPT AS TO LANGUAGE, I
WOULDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.  THEY WERE TO STUDY IT.  MR. HOPPIN
AND MR. GOODFIELD AND MR. NIEMEYER, IF HE WERE THERE - WHICH I DON'T
REMEMBER - WERE TO STUDY THE PROPOSED TERMS AND SEE HOW THEY COMPARED
WITH THE POSSIBILITIES."  SELIGSBERG CONSISTENTLY TESTIFIED THAT HE AND
STOLTMAN CONSIDERED "ALL THREE QUESTIONS TOGETHER, PROOF OF MAJORITY,
PROOF OF UNIT, AND THE CONTRACT."  HE WAS A DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY OF
THE COMPANY, BUT NOT A SHAREHOLDER. 

FN10 IN THE CONFERENCE SELIGSBERG RENEWED A PREVIOUS REQUEST FOR
PROOF THAT THE UNION HAD A MAJORITY AND CONDITIONED THE DISCUSSION UPON
THE COMPANY'S BEING SATISFIED IN THIS RESPECT AND THAT THE UNIT WAS
APPROPRIATE.  CF. NOTE 9 SUPRA.  HOWEVER, STOLTMAN AGAIN REFUSED TO
EXHIBIT THE CARDS AND RENEWED HIS OFFER ONLY TO SUBMIT THEM TO A BOARD
REPRESENTATIVE FOR COMPARISON WITH MEDO'S PAYROLL.  THE RECORD DOES NOT
SHOW THIS WAS EVER DONE, ALTHOUGH IN MY OPINION, CONTRARY TO THE
BOARD'S FINDINGS, IT DOES SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE PARTIES
CONTEMPLATED IT WOULD BE DONE AND THAT THE RESULT OF THE COMPARISON
WOULD BE GIVEN TO MEDO BEFORE THE NEGOTIATIONS SHOULD BE CONCLUDED WITH
FINALITY OF RECOGNITION. 

FN11  CF. NOTE 6 SUPRA. 

FN12  CF. NOTE 6 SUPRA.  HOPPIN'S TESTIMONY WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE
QUESTION "WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THEY CAME TO YOUR OFFICE?"  (ON SATURDAY
AFTERNOON):  "THEY CAME UP AND SAID THAT, 'WE HAVE DECIDED THAT WE
DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE UNION.'  I IMMEDIATELY
STOPPED THEM, AND I TOLD THEM THAT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING AT ALL
PERTAINING TO ANY UNION ACTIVITIES, I DID NOT WANT TO LISTEN TO THEM AT
ALL, BUT IF IT WAS ANYTHING ELSE THEY HAD TO OFFER, I WOULD BE WILLING
TO LISTEN TO THEM." 

FN13  HOPPIN TESTIFIED HE WAS TOLD:  "WE HAVE ONE THING THAT WE ARE
PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN. THE WORKING CONDITIONS HERE ARE EXCELLENT.  WE
ARE VERY HAPPY WITH OUR JOBS, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE MONEY." 

FN14  CF. LEBANON STEEL FOUNDRY V. LABOR BOARD, 130 F.2D 404(APP. 
D.C.). 

FN15  WHATEVER JUSTICIABLE "INTEREST" THE UNION MAY HAVE IN
CONTINUING TO ACT AS THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE, ITS STATUS AS SUCH
IS FOR THE PRINCIPAL'S BENEFIT, NOT ITS OWN, AND IS TERMINABLE AT THE
FORMER'S WILL.  CF. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S.
197, 237; LABOR BOARD V. SANDS MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332, 344; LABOR BOARD
V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORP., 306 U.S. 240, 261-262; LABOR BOARD V.
REMINGTON RAND, 94 F.2D 862, 869-870(C.C.A.); LABOR BOARD V. LION SHOE
CO., 97 F.2D 448. 

FN16  SEE, E.G., HUNT V. ROUSMANIER'S ADMINISTRATORS, 8 WHEAT.  174;
LANE MORTGAGE CO. V. CRENSHAW, 93 CAL. APP. 411, 269 P. 672; HALL V.
BLISS, 118 MASS. 554; NOTE (1930) 39 YALE L.J. 110. 

FN17  SEE, E.G., AHERN V. BAKER, 34 MINN. 98, 24 N.W. 341; MOTT V.
FERGUSON, 92 MINN. 201, 99 N.W. 804; WHITE & HOSKINS V. BENTON, 121
IOWA 354, 96 N.W. 876; GILBERT V. HOLMES, 64 ILL. 548. 

FN18  CF. NOTE 15 SUPRA. 

FN19  CF. LABOR BOARD V. CENTURY OXFORD MFG. CORP., 140 F.2D
541(C.C.A.). 

FN20  J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332; ORDER OF RAILROAD
TELEGRAPHERS V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342. 

FN21  CF. NOTE 13 SUPRA. 

FN22  THAT THIS IS THE FAIR MEANING OF MEDO'S RESPONSE IS CLEAR FROM
ITS REFUSAL TO DISCUSS OR INTERFERE IN THE EMPLOYEES' UNION ACTIVITIES,
CF. NOTE 12 SUPRA.
..END :



FRANKS BROS. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 702 


NO. 521.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 27, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 10, 1944.  - 137
F.2D 989, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ACTED WITHIN ITS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH A UNION
WHICH HAD LOST ITS MAJORITY AFTER PETITIONER HAD WRONGFULLY REFUSED TO
BARGAIN WITH IT.  29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(A), (C).  P. 703. 

2.  IT IS FOR THE BOARD, NOT THE COURTS, TO DETERMINE HOW THE EFFECT
OF PRIOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES MAY BE EXPUNGED.  P. 704. 

FRANKS BROS. CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 734, TO REVIEW A DECREE DIRECTING COMPLIANCE
WITH AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 44 N.L.R.B. 898,
917. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SINGLE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD ACTED WITHIN ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH A UNION WHICH HAD LOST ITS MAJORITY AFTER
PETITIONER WRONGFULLY HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH IT. 

IN JUNE 1941 FORTY-FIVE OF THE EIGHTY PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES IN PETITIONER'S CLOTHING FACTORY DESIGNATED THE AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA AS THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. 
ATTEMPTS OF THE UNION TO NEGOTIATE WITH PETITIONER PROVED UNSUCCESSFUL
BECAUSE OF THE LATTER'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN, AND THE UNION FILED WITH
THE BOARD A PETITION FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES.  A CONSENT ELECTION WAS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 25, AND
NOTICES POSTED.  BEFORE THE ELECTION WAS HELD, PETITIONER CONDUCTED AN
AGGRESSIVE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE UNION, EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF
THREATENING TO CLOSE ITS FACTORY IF THE UNION WON THE ELECTION. 
THEREUPON THE UNION WITHDREW ITS PETITION FOR AN ELECTION, AND FILED
CHARGES WITH THE BOARD ALLEGING THAT PETITIONER HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES. 

IN THE FOLLOWING MONTHS VARIOUS CONFERENCES WERE HELD AND
CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE BOARD IN AN
UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORT TO PERSUADE THE PETITIONER TO CEASE OPPOSITION TO
THE UNION.  FINALLY ON MARCH 2, 1942, THE BOARD ISSUED A COMPLAINT
AGAINST PETITIONER.  HEARINGS ON THE COMPLAINT WERE CONDUCTED AT
LENGTH, AND IN OCTOBER 1942 A FINAL ORDER WAS ENTERED.  THE FINDING OF
THE BOARD, NOT HERE CHALLENGED, WAS THAT THE FOREGOING CONDUCT OF
PETITIONER, TOGETHER WITH RELATED CONDUCT UNNECESSARY TO BE DETAILED,
CONSTITUTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(1) AND
(5) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT; 49 STAT. 449, 452, 453; 29
U.S.C. SEC. 158(1) AND (5). 

IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR THESE
UNFAIR PRACTICES, THE BOARD CONSIDERED PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT
DURING THE SEVEN-MONTH INTERVAL BETWEEN THE FILING OF THE CHARGES AND
THE ISSUANCE OF THE COMPLAINT, THIRTEEN OF THE UNION'S ORIGINAL MEMBERS
HAD BEEN REPLACED BY NEW EMPLOYEES IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. 
THIS LEFT THE UNION WITH ONLY THIRTY-TWO OF THE EIGHTY-FIVE EMPLOYEES
THEN IN THE UNIT WHICH IT REPRESENTED, OR LESS THAN A MAJORITY.  BUT
THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE UNION'S LACK OF A MAJORITY WAS "NOT
DETERMINATIVE OF THE REMEDY TO BE ORDERED."  CITING MANY OF ITS
PREVIOUS DECISIONS INVOLVING SIMILAR SITUATIONS, THE BOARD CONCLUDED
THAT "THE ONLY MEANS BY WHICH A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN CAN BE REMEDIED IS
AN AFFIRMATIVE ORDER REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION
WHICH REPRESENTED A MAJORITY AT THE TIME THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WAS
COMMITTED."  44 N.L.R.B. 898, 917.  ACCORDINGLY, BECAUSE IT DEEMED SUCH
A PROVISION "NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT," THE
BOARD INCLUDED IN ITS ORDER A REQUIREMENT THAT PETITIONER BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE
BOARD, AND DIRECTED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  137 F.2D 989.  TO
CONSIDER AN ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CIRCUIT COURT'S DECISION
AND OUR DECISION IN LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORP., 306
U.S. 240, 261-262, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE FOR REVIEW.  320 U.S. 734. 

WE THINK THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT CORRECT UNDER THE ACT AND
CONSISTENT WITH PAST DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  LITTLE NEED BE ADDED TO
WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ON THIS SUBJECT IN OTHER CASES.  OUT OF ITS WIDE
EXPERIENCE, THE BOARD MANY TIMES HAS EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE
UNLAWFUL REFUSAL OF AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES' CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES DISRUPTS THE EMPLOYEES' MORALE,
DETERS THEIR ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES, AND DISCOURAGES THEIR
MEMBERSHIP IN UNIONS.  THE BOARD'S STUDY OF THIS PROBLEM HAS LED IT TO
CONCLUDE THAT, FOR THESE REASONS, A REQUIREMENT THAT UNION MEMBERSHIP
BE KEPT INTACT DURING DELAYS INCIDENT TO HEARINGS WOULD RESULT IN
PERMITTING EMPLOYERS TO PROFIT FROM THEIR OWN WRONGFUL REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN.  SEE, E.G., MATTER OF INLAND STEEL CO., 9 N.L.R.B. 783, 815
816; MATTER OF P. LORILLARD CO., 16 N.L.R.B. 684, 699-701.  ONE OF THE
CHIEF RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD IS TO DIRECT SUCH ACTION AS WILL
DISSIPATE THE UNWHOLESOME EFFECTS OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT.  SEE 29
U.S.C. SEC. 160(A) AND (C).  AND, "IT IS FOR THE BOARD, NOT THE COURTS,
TO DETERMINE HOW THE EFFECT OF PRIOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES MAY BE
EXPUNGED."  INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. LABOR BOARD, 311
U.S. 72, 82. 

THAT DETERMINATION THE BOARD HAS MADE IN THIS CASE AND IN SIMILAR
CASES BY ADOPTING A FORM OF REMEDY WHICH REQUIRES THAT AN EMPLOYER
BARGAIN EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE PARTICULAR UNION WHICH REPRESENTED A
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THE TIME OF THE WRONGFUL REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN DESPITE THAT UNION'S SUBSEQUENT FAILURE TO RETAIN ITS
MAJORITY.  THE BOARD MIGHT WELL THINK THAT, WERE IT NOT TO ADOPT THIS
TYPE OF REMEDY, BUT INSTEAD ORDER ELECTIONS UPON EVERY CLAIM THAT A
SHIFT IN UNION MEMBERSHIP HAD OCCURRED DURING PROCEEDINGS OCCASIONED BY
AN EMPLOYER'S WRONGFUL REFUSAL TO BARGAIN, RECALCITRANT EMPLOYERS MIGHT
BE ABLE BY CONTINUED OPPOSITION TO UNION MEMBERSHIP INDEFINITELY TO
POSTPONE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR STATUTORY OBLIGATION.  IN THE BOARD'S
VIEW, PROCEDURAL DELAYS NECESSARY FAIRLY TO DETERMINE CHARGES OF UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES MIGHT IN THIS WAY BE MADE THE OCCASION FOR FURTHER
PROCEDURAL DELAYS IN CONNECTION WITH REPEATED REQUESTS FOR ELECTIONS,
THUS PROVIDING EMPLOYERS A CHANCE TO PROFIT FROM A STUBBORN REFUSAL TO
ABIDE BY THE LAW.  THAT THE BOARD WAS WITHIN ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN
ADOPTING THE REMEDY WHICH IT HAS ADOPTED TO FORECLOSE THE PROBABILITY
OF SUCH FRUSTRATIONS OF THE ACT SEEMS TOO PLAIN FOR ANYTHING BUT
STATEMENT.  SEE 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(A) AND (C). 

CONTRARY TO PETITIONER'S SUGGESTION, THIS REMEDY, AS EMBODIED IN A
BOARD ORDER, DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY INJUSTICE TO EMPLOYEES WHO MAY WISH
TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PARTICULAR UNION SOME OTHER BARGAINING AGENT OR
ARRANGEMENT.  FOR A BOARD ORDER WHICH REQUIRES AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN
WITH A DESIGNATED UNION IS NOT INTENDED TO FIX A PERMANENT BARGAINING
RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT REGARD TO NEW SITUATIONS THAT MAY DEVELOP.  SEE
GREAT SOUTHERN TRUCKING CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 139 F.2D 984, 987.  BUT, AS
THE REMEDY HERE IN QUESTION RECOGNIZES, A BARGAINING RELATIONSHIP ONCE
RIGHTFULLY ESTABLISHED MUST BE PERMITTED TO EXIST AND FUNCTION FOR A
REASONABLE PERIOD IN WHICH IT CAN BE GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE TO SUCCEED. 
SEE LABOR BOARD V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 140 F.2D 217, 220-222; LABOR
BOARD V. BOTANY WORSTED MILLS, 133 F.2D 876, 881-882.  AFTER SUCH A
REASONABLE PERIOD THE BOARD MAY, IN A PROPER PROCEEDING AND UPON A
PROPER SHOWING, TAKE STEPS IN RECOGNITION OF CHANGED SITUATIONS WHICH
MIGHT MAKE APPROPRIATE CHANGED BARGAINING RELATIONSHIPS.  ID.; SEE 29
U.S.C. SEC. 159(C). 

THAT ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER CHALLENGED BY PETITIONER LAY WITHIN THE
BOARD'S DISCRETION IS SETTLED BY OUR HOLDING IN LABOR BOARD V. P.
LORILLARD CO., 314 U.S. 512, 513.  THE LORILLARD CASE, ARGUES
PETITIONER, IS DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE COURT POINTED
TO THE FACT THAT, "THE BOARD HAD CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF A POSSIBLE
SHIFT IN MEMBERSHIP.   ...  "  ID., 513.  BUT IN THIS CASE ALSO THE
BOARD CONSIDERED THE CHANGE IN MEMBERSHIP, AND IN ADDITION RELIED IN
PART UPON THE LORILLARD DECISION TO SUPPORT ITS ORDER.  WE FIND NO
POSSIBLE VALID DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS AND THE LORILLARD CASE. 

NOR IS THE LORILLARD DECISION INCONSISTENT WITH THE EARLIER HOLDING
IN LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORP., 306 U.S. 240.  IN THE
LATTER CASE THE BOARD'S ORDER TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION RESTED IN PART
ON ITS FINDING THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD REINSTATE NINETY-THREE
DISCHARGED UNION MEMBERS.  THE BOARD HAD NOT DETERMINED IN THAT
PROCEEDING, NOR DID IT ARGUE IN THIS COURT, THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD BE
COMPELLED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION IF THESE NINETY-THREE EMPLOYEES
WERE DENIED REINSTATEMENT.  AFTER THIS COURT, CONTRARY TO THE BOARD'S
CONCLUSION, HELD THAT THESE EMPLOYEES PROPERLY WERE DENIED
REINSTATEMENT, THE SITUATION WAS THE SAME AS IF THE BOARD HAD NOT
CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF THE CHANGE IN UNION MEMBERSHIP.  CF. LABOR
BOARD V. P. LORILLARD CO., SUPRA.  AFFIRMED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



U.S. V. BAUSCH & LOMB CO., 321 U.S. 707 


ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 10, 1944.  - 45 F.SUPP.  387,
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PROVISION OF THE JUDGMENT DISMISSING, AS TO CERTAIN OF THE
DEFENDANTS, THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF
THE SHERMAN ACT IS HERE AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT.  P. 719. 

2.  A DISTRIBUTOR OF A TRADE-MARKED ARTICLE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
MAY NOT LIMIT BY AGREEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE PRICE AT WHICH OR
THE PERSONS TO WHOM ITS PURCHASER MAY RESELL, EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY
THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT.  P. 721. 

3.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SUPPORTS THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING
OF A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE SOFT-LITE COMPANY (A
DISTRIBUTOR OF TRADE-MARKED PINK-TINTED OPHTHALMIC LENSES) AND
WHOLESALERS TO MAINTAIN RESALE PRICES THROUGH A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  ON REVIEW OF ITS DECREE, HELD: 

(A)  THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTING CANCELLATION OF SOFT
LITE'S ARRANGEMENTS WITH WHOLESALERS AND CESSATION OF SYSTEMATIC PRICE
SUGGESTIONS WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE FINDINGS.  P. 723. 

WHETHER THE CONSPIRACY AND COMBINATION WAS ACHIEVED BY AGREEMENT OR
BY ACQUIESCENCE OF THE WHOLESALERS, COUPLED WITH ASSISTANCE IN
EFFECTUATING ITS PURPOSE, IS IMMATERIAL. 

(B)  CLAUSES OF THE DECREE WHICH HOLD NULL AND VOID CERTAIN RESALE
PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY SOFT-LITE AND WHOLESALERS
SUBSEQUENT TO THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT, AND WHICH FORBID ENFORCEMENT OF
SUCH CONTRACTS AND THE EXECUTION OF ANY OTHERS FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION, ARE JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE ILLEGALITY OF THE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PREVIOUSLY EXISTING AND BECAUSE THE CONTRACTS IN
RESPECT OF A PORTION OF THE RESALES ARE NOT IMMUNIZED BY THE ACT.  P.
724. 

EQUITY HAS POWER TO ERADICATE THE EVILS OF A CONDEMNED SCHEME BY
PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF ADMITTEDLY VALID PARTS OF AN INVALID WHOLE. 

(C)  PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE GIVING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CERTAIN BROAD VISITATORIAL POWERS, AS CONSTRUED
BY THIS COURT, WERE WITHIN THE POWER AND DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  P. 726. 

(D)  A PROVISION OF THE DECREE DIRECTING THE DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT, ON
THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SUCH REPORTS IN
WRITING "WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT"
AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ENFORCE IT, IS TOO INDEFINITE FOR JUDICIAL
ENFORCEMENT AND THEREFORE INAPPROPRIATE.  PP. 725, 728. 

(E)  THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUESTS THAT THE DECREE REQUIRE SOFT-LITE TO
SELL ITS PRODUCT TO ANY PERSON OFFERING TO PAY CASH THEREFOR, AND THAT
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SOFT-LITE'S SYSTEMATICALLY SUGGESTING RESALE
PRICES AND ITS EXECUTION OF RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS UNDER
THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT BE MADE PERMANENT, ARE DENIED.  P. 728. 

UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL CO. ET AL. 

NO. 62.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 64, SOFT-LITE LENS CO., INC., ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

CROSS-APPEALS FROM A DECREE WHICH, IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT AS TO CERTAIN OF
THE DEFENDANTS AND GAVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST OTHERS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AGAINST THE BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL
COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE SOFT-LITE LENS COMPANY, INC., AND
SEVERAL OF THE CHIEF OFFICERS OF EACH, TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED ON THE TRIAL COURT BY SEC. 4
OF THE ACT (15 U.S.C. SEC. 4) AND UPON THIS COURT BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT
OF FEBRUARY 11, 1903(15 U.S.C. SEC. 29 AND JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 238). 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT BAUSCH & LOMB AND SOFT-LITE AND THEIR
OFFICERS CONTRACTED, COMBINED AND CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN TRADE IN PINK
TINTED LENSES FOR EYEGLASSES, CONTRARY TO SECS. 1 AND 3 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  FN1  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT WERE UPHELD BY THE TRIAL
COURT AS TO SOFT-LITE AND CERTAIN OF ITS OFFICERS AND DISMISSED AS TO
BAUSCH & LOMB AND ITS OFFICERS.  UNITED STATES V. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL
CO., 45 F.SUPP.  387. 

THE FINDINGS AND OPINION UPON WHICH THE DECREE IS MOLDED SHOW THAT
SOFT-LITE IS THE SOLE DISTRIBUTOR OF PINK TINTED LENSES SOLD UNDER THE
TRADE NAME "SOFT-LITE."  THEIR PLAN OF DEALING FOLLOWS.  AS NO PATENTS
OR SECRET PROCESSES ARE RELIED UPON AND AS SOFT-LITE LIMITS ITSELF TO
DISTRIBUTION ONLY, THE TRADE NAME, SALESMANSHIP AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE
OF SOFT-LITE ARE THE QUALITIES UPON WHICH IT MUST PRIMARILY DEPEND FOR
ITS PROFITS AS A DISTRIBUTOR.  SOFT-LITE BUYS ITS LENSES FROM BAUSCH &
LOMB.  IT SELLS TO WHOLESALERS, WHO IN TURN SELL TO RETAILERS, WHO IN
TURN SELL TO THE PUBLIC.  LAYING ASIDE THE VARIATIONS IN OPERATING
COSTS OF WHOLESALERS AS COMPARED WITH OTHER WHOLESALERS AND OF
RETAILERS AS COMPARED WITH OTHER RETAILERS, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROFITS
WHICH CAN BE DIVIDED BETWEEN SOFT-LITE, THE WHOLESALERS AND THE
RETAILERS, DEPENDS UPON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE PER LENS THAT
SOFT-LITE PAYS BAUSCH & LOMB AND THE PRICE THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER PAYS
THE RETAILER.  A WIDER SPREAD BETWEEN ORIGINAL PURCHASE AND FINAL
PRICES, WHICH IS MAINTAINED BY ARTIFICIAL FIXING OF THE PRICES DEMANDED
FROM THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER, FURNISHES THE LINKS OF THE DISTRIBUTION
CHAIN MORE PROFIT FOR DIVISION AMONG THEMSELVES.  THIS IS TRUE
REGARDLESS OF VOLUME OR PRICE ALTHOUGH THESE FACTORS, OF COURSE, AFFECT
THE AGGREGATE PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR DIVISION AMONG THE DEALERS WHO HAVE
A PART IN DISTRIBUTION.  IN ITS SELF-RESTRICTED FIELD, SOFT-LITE IS
SUCCESSFUL.  ROUGHLY SPEAKING, FOR THE YEARS 1938, 1939 AND 1940 IN THE
UNITED STATES IT HAS SOLD ONE-THIRD OF THE PINK TINTED LENSES FOR ONE
HALF OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS.  OTHER MANUFACTURERS THAN BAUSCH & LOMB AND
OTHER DISTRIBUTORS THAN SOFT-LITE DO THE REMAINDER OF THE BUSINESS. 

SOFT-LITE HAS ARRANGEMENTS WITH BAUSCH & LOMB FOR THE PURCHASE FROM
THEM OF LENSES AND BLANKS, WITH WHOLESALERS OF OPTICAL GLASS FOR THE
SUPPLY OF THIS MATERIAL TO RETAIL OPTICIANS, AND IN TURN WITH THESE
RETAILERS FOR SALES PROMOTION.  THIS IS AN INTEGRATED PLAN FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF SOFT-LITE'S OPTICAL SPECIALTY, THE PINK TINTED GLASS
FOR EASING EYE STRAIN.  THE PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION FOR THIS COMMODITY HAS
DEVELOPED OVER MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY OF EXPERIENCE. 

THE ARRANGEMENT WITH BAUSCH & LOMB HAD ITS ORIGIN IN 1924.  AT THAT
TIME THIS MANUFACTURER OF OPTICAL GLASS UNDERTOOK TO GRIND PINK TINTED
LENSES FOR SOFT-LITE OUT OF FOREIGN GLASS IMPORTED BY THE LATTER, BUT
VERY SOON THE TWO PARTIES ARRANGED FOR BAUSCH & LOMB TO MANUFACTURE THE
GLASS AS WELL.  AT THE VERY BEGINNING BAUSCH & LOMB AGREED THAT ANY
ORDERS FOR PINK TINTED LENSES WHICH IT MIGHT RECEIVE WOULD BE
TRANSMITTED TO SOFT-LITE.  A LIST OF SOFT-LITE CUSTOMERS, WHOLESALE AND
RETAIL, WAS FURNISHED BAUSCH & LOMB.  IT APPEARED BETTER TO BOTH SELLER
AND BUYER TO EXTEND THEIR ARRANGEMENT BY A CONTRACT IN WHICH BAUSCH &
LOMB UNDERTOOK TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL PINK TINTED GLASS AND LENSES TO
SOFT-LITE.  TO AVOID THE DANGER TO SOFT-LITE'S BUSINESS OF
INDISCRIMINATE SELLING BY BAUSCH & LOMB OF THIS PINK GLASS SPECIALTY,
BAUSCH & LOMB AGREED THAT IT WOULD NOT SELL PINK TINTED GLASS TO LENS
MANUFACTURERS OR PINK TINTED LENSES TO THE OPTICAL TRADE.  SOFT-LITE
BUYS EXCLUSIVELY FROM BAUSCH & LOMB. 

THE LEGAL POSITION OF BAUSCH & LOMB AND SOFT-LITE IS THAT OF BUYER
AND SELLER.  THEIR RELATIONS THROUGH THE YEARS HAVE BEEN CLOSE,
FRIENDLY AND MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY.  BAUSCH & LOMB KNOWS GENERALLY OF
THE SOFT-LITE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, BOTH AS MANUFACTURER FOR AN ACTIVE
CUSTOMER AND AS AN OWNER OF STOCK IN WHOLESALE OPTICAL GOODS COMPANIES,
WHICH SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES HANDLED A LARGE PART OF SOFT-LITE'S GOODS AS
JOBBERS.  THE OFFICIALS OF THE TWO CORPORATIONS CARRIED ON DISCUSSIONS
AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH RESPECT TO WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS, RETAIL OUTLETS,
PRICES, ADVERTISING POLICIES, THE STANDING OF DEALERS, AND GENERAL
TRADE INFORMATION.  AS TO TRADE ADJUNCTS FOR OPTICAL GLASS DISTRIBUTION
SUCH AS CLEANING CLOTHS, LENS CABINETS, ETC., SOFT-LITE AND BAUSCH &
LOMB COOPERATED EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF AGREEING TO CHARGE IDENTICAL
PRICES FOR SUCH MARKETING AIDS. 

IN 1926, THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN BAUSCH & LOMB AND SOFT-LITE WAS
GIVEN A SOMEWHAT MORE FORMAL CHARACTER BY A LETTER OF THE MANUFACTURER
ADVISING ITS CUSTOMER AS FOLLOWS: 

"SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF OUR RELATIONS WITH YOU, IN CONNECTION
WITH THIS TRANSACTION, IT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WOULD SAFEGUARD
YOUR INTERESTS IN EVERY WAY AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN OUR INTENTION TO MAKE
COMPETITION FOR YOU BY EITHER MARKETING A TINTED LENS OF OUR OWN OR
PRODUCING SIMILAR TINTED GLASS FOR OTHER MANUFACTURERS AND IT IS OUR
INTENTION TO ABIDE BY THIS UNDERSTANDING. 

"ON THE OTHER HAND, HOWEVER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO FORESEE THE PROGRESS
OF SCIENCE IN PRODUCING GLASS POSSESSING BETTER PROPERTIES THAN IS
OBTAINABLE AT THE PRESENT TIME AND IN THAT EVENT WE FEEL CERTAIN THAT
YOU WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY DESIRE TO IMPEDE OUR PROGRESS IN THAT
DIRECTION. 

"WE HOPE THAT THIS MAY BE SUFFICIENT GUARANTEE TO YOU THAT WE DO NOT
WISH TO DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE COMPETITION IN CONNECTION WITH
THE SOFT-LITE AND WE NATURALLY EXPECT THAT YOUR EFFORTS IN THE SALE OF
SAME WILL BE CONTINUED AS AT PRESENT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD UNLESS BY
CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES CONCERNED A DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT IS AGREED
UPON. 

YOURS VERY TRULY, 

BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL COMPANY. 

"P.S.  TINTED LENSES SUCH AS CROOKES, FIEUZAL, SMOKE, AMBER, ETC.
WHICH WE ARE NOW MANUFACTURING, IT IS UNDERSTOOD WILL NOT COME UNDER
THE ABOVE ARRANGEMENT." 

MINOR VARIATIONS IN THE PLAN HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THAT LETTER.  BAUSCH
& LOMB PATENTED A LENS CALLED "NOKROME."  SOFT-LITE WAS ADVISED THAT
WHEN SOFT-LITE GLASS WAS USED IN THE NOKROME LENS, SOFT-LITE SHOULD
HAVE EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTION.  THERE WERE OTHER PATENTED LENSES
MANUFACTURED BY BAUSCH & LOMB.  SOMETIMES THESE LENSES WERE GROUND FROM
PINK TINTED GLASS AND SOMETIMES FROM OTHER COLORS.  SINCE THESE
PATENTED LENSES WERE DISTRIBUTED BY BAUSCH & LOMB UNDER A LICENSEE
SYSTEM, INTERFERENCE AROSE.  SOFT-LITE AND BAUSCH & LOMB MADE MUTUALLY
SATISFACTORY ADJUSTMENTS SO THAT THEIR RESPECTIVE RETAILERS MIGHT HAVE
SOME OF THE ADVANTAGES OF DEALING IN THE BAUSCH & LOMB PATENTED LENSES
GROUND OUT OF SOFT-LITE GLASS. 

AGAIN, SOFT-LITE WAS RELEASED FROM ITS OBLIGATION TO TAKE SECOND
QUALITY LENSES AND BAUSCH & LOMB AGREED TO SELL THEM ONLY IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES WHERE SOFT-LITE HAD NO OFFICES AND AT PRICES ACCEPTABLE TO
BOTH SOFT-LITE AND BAUSCH & LOMB. 

REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE FACT THAT BAUSCH & LOMB OWNED STOCK IN
OPTICAL WHOLESALE COMPANIES WHICH DISTRIBUTED SOFT-LITE LENSES AND
BLANKS.  A STIPULATION STATED THAT "BAUSCH & LOMB, THROUGH ITS
OWNERSHIP OF A MAJORITY OF THE OUTSTANDING VOTING STOCK OF EACH OF SAID
WHOLESALE COMPANIES, HAS POWER TO COORDINATE AND CONTROL THE SALES AND
PRICING POLICIES OF SAID WHOLESALE COMPANIES." 

THESE SUBSIDIARIES WERE ACQUIRED BY BAUSCH & LOMB "AT INTERVALS
SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL ARRANGEMENT WITH SOFT-LITE."  THEY NOW ARE
THE LARGEST OUTLET FOR SOFT-LITE LENSES, TAKING SIXTY PER CENT OF SOFT
LITE SALES.  THEY WERE SUBSTANTIAL CUSTOMERS OF SOFT-LITE BEFORE THEY
BECAME AFFILIATES OF BAUSCH & LOMB.  SOFT-LITE IS TREATED BY ITS
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS ALIKE WHETHER OR NOT THE CUSTOMERS ARE BAUSCH &
LOMB AFFILIATES.  IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT ALL WHOLESALERS HAVE
COOPERATED WITH SOFT-LITE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS SYSTEM. 

BAUSCH & LOMB THUS PROFITED FROM THE SOFT-LITE BUSINESS IN TWO WAYS:
FIRST, BY PROFIT MADE IN MANUFACTURING AND SELLING TO SOFT-LITE;
SECOND, BY SHARING, THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP OF WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS
OF SOFT-LITE'S GOODS, IN THE PROFITS WHICH LAY BETWEEN THE SOFT-LITE
SELLING PRICE AND THE CONSUMER PURCHASE PRICE.  BAUSCH & LOMB, THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS, UNDERSTOOD WELL AS EARLY AS 1925 THE ADVANTAGES TO
ITSELF THROUGH THESE SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SOFT-LITE PLAN, WHICH SECURED
AN INCREASED PROFIT FOR DIVISION AMONG DISTRIBUTING AGENCIES.  AS A
CONSEQUENCE, BAUSCH & LOMB CONCERNED ITSELF WITH PRICES CHARGED TO
WHOLESALERS BY SOFT-LITE, DISCUSSED EACH STEP OF THE PRICE MARK-UP FROM
SOFT-LITE UP TO THE CONSUMER, INSISTED THAT REDUCTIONS IN ITS PRICES TO
SOFT-LITE SHOULD BE PASSED ALONG THE DISTRIBUTION LINE, AND THROUGH ITS
AFFILIATED CORPORATIONS COOPERATED IN THE PRICE ARRANGEMENTS AND THE
ELIMINATION OF UNDESIRABLE RETAILERS. 

SOFT-LITE'S CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTION DID NOT CEASE WITH THIS SALE OF
ITS GOODS TO OPTICAL WHOLESALERS.  IT SOUGHT AS WHOLESALE OUTLETS
DISTRIBUTORS WHO WERE FREE FROM BUSINESS ALLIANCES WITH SOFT-LITE'S
COMPETITORS.  IT SOLD ONLY TO WHOLESALERS WHO WERE WILLING TO COOPERATE
WITH ITS POLICY.  THESE WHOLESALERS IT DESIGNATED AS DEALERS AND SOLD
ITS GOODS ONLY THROUGH THEM.  SOFT-LITE'S WHOLESALERS WERE ALLOWED TO
RESELL ONLY TO RETAILERS WHO HELD LICENSES FROM SOFT-LITE.  WHEN
RETAILERS WERE LICENSED, THE WHOLESALERS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THEY WERE
AT LIBERTY TO SELL TO THE SPECIFIED RETAILER.  ON THE CANCELLATION OF
THE LICENSE, THE WHOLESALERS WERE NOTIFIED IN WRITING THAT THE RETAILER
WAS NO LONGER ENTITLED TO RECEIVE SOFT-LITE LENSES.  IF A WHOLESALER
DID BUSINESS WITH UNAPPROVED RETAILERS, IT WAS EXCLUDED FROM SOFT
LITE'S LIST OF DESIGNATED WHOLESALERS.  THE WHOLESALERS WERE REQUIRED
TO DISTRIBUTE WITH EACH PAIR OF SOFT-LITE LENSES A NUMBERED CERTIFICATE
CALLED A "PROTECTION CERTIFICATE."  BY THIS CERTIFICATE THE WHOLESALE
OUTLET FOR SOFT-LITE LENSES FOUND IN THE HANDS OF UNLICENSED RETAILERS
COULD BE TRACED BY SOFT-LITE.  THE WHOLESALERS WERE TOLD THAT THE
CERTIFICATES WERE INTENDED FOR THIS PURPOSE.  SOFT-LITE INDICATED TO
THE WHOLESALERS THE PRICES TO BE RECEIVED BY THEM FROM RETAILERS BY
MEANS OF PUBLISHED PRICE LISTS.  THROUGH THESE PRICE LISTS, MADE
AVAILABLE TO WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS ALIKE, THE RETAILERS COULD
DETERMINE THE PRICES WHOLESALERS WERE TO CHARGE. 

IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT (AND THIS FINDING IS WITHOUT
CHALLENGE) THAT SOFT-LITE AND THE WHOLESALERS UNDERSTOOD THAT MATERIAL
DEVIATION WOULD RESULT IN THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE OFFENDING
WHOLESALER AS AN OUTLET. 

SOFT-LITE'S PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION WAS ROUNDED OUT BY ITS ARRANGEMENTS
WITH THE RETAIL OPTICAL CONCERNS.  AS WE HAVE JUST POINTED OUT, THE
RETAILERS KNEW FROM THE PUBLISHED LISTS THE PRICES THE WHOLESALERS WERE
EXPECTED TO CHARGE THEM.  THE RETAILERS WERE SELECTED BY SOFT-LITE WITH
CARE EQUAL TO THAT USED IN SELECTING WHOLESALERS.  SOFT-LITE, IN THE
WORDS OF ITS BRIEF, WAS "MANUFACTURED AND ADVERTISED AS A QUALITY
PRODUCT, SOFT-LITE MUST BE SOLD AS SUCH."  "ETHICAL" RETAILER OPTICIANS
AND OPTOMETRISTS WERE SOUGHT.  THOSE WHO QUOTED PRICES IN THEIR
ADVERTISEMENTS OR OPERATED AS ADJUNCTS TO DEPARTMENT OR JEWELRY STORES
WERE FROWNED UPON.  RETAIL PRICES TO CONSUMERS WERE NOT FIXED BY SOFT
LITE.  IT SEEMS TO BE ADMITTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RETAILER WAS REQUIRED
TO MAINTAIN PREVAILING LOCAL PRICE SCHEDULES.  AN APPLICATION FORM
DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1939, FOR RETAIL STOCK LICENSEES CALLS FOR
REPRESENTATIONS TO THAT EFFECT FROM THE SOFT-LITE REPRESENTATIVE
RECOMMENDING THE APPLICATION AND THE APPROVAL OF A SOFT-LITE
WHOLESALER.  THIS PRACTICE APPARENTLY APPLIED TO ALL RETAILERS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT RETAILERS AGREED TO SELL THE LENSES AT PRICES
PREVAILING IN THE LOCALITY AND THAT SOFT-LITE REQUIRED RETAILERS TO
SELL THE PINK TINTED LENSES "AT A PREMIUM OVER COMPARABLE UNTINTED
LENSES." 

UNDER ITS PRESENT SYSTEM, SOFT-LITE GRANTS A REVOCABLE, EXCLUSIVE AND
NONTRANSFERABLE "LICENSE" TO THE RETAILER TO BUY SOFT-LITE LENSES AND
LENS BLANKS FROM "LICENSED" SOFT-LITE DISTRIBUTORS OR WHOLESALE
"LICENSEES" AND TO RESELL THE LENSES AT PREVAILING PRICES IN THE
LOCALITY WHERE THE RETAILER IS LOCATED.  IN TURN, THE LICENSEE AGREES
TO PROMOTE THE SALE OF SOFT-LITE LENSES AND TO DO NOTHING TO INJURE
THEIR PRESTIGE.  THE LICENSEE WAS REQUIRED TO STATE THAT HE UNDERSTOOD
THAT THE SUBSTITUTION OF OTHER LENSES FOR SOFT-LITE WOULD ADVERSELY
AFFECT THAT PRESTIGE.  THE LICENSEE FURTHER AGREED TO SELL ONLY UNDER
THE TRADE NAMES AND MARK OF SOFT-LITE AND ONLY TO THE CONSUMER OR
PATIENT.  FN2   THE RETAILER'S AGREEMENT TO CONFORM TO THE LICENSE
REQUIREMENTS WAS ENFORCED BY SURVEILLANCE THROUGH SOFT-LITE'S SALESMEN
AND BY CANCELLATION OF THE RETAILER'S LICENSE IF HE FAILED TO ABIDE BY
ITS TERMS.  WHOLESALERS WERE NOTIFIED OF SUCH CANCELLATION. 

THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT OF AUGUST 17, 1937, 50 STAT. 693, AMENDED THE
SHERMAN ACT SO AS TO PERMIT MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE RESALE OF A
COMMODITY WHICH BEARS THE TRADE MARK OF THE DISTRIBUTOR IN STATES WHERE
CONTRACTS OF THAT DESCRIPTION ARE LEGAL BY STATUTE SO FAR AS INTRASTATE
TRANSACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, AND BEGINNING IN 1940 SOFT-LITE HAS ENTERED
INTO RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS WITH A NUMBER OF WHOLESALERS,
PRESUMABLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THESE CONTRACTS "CAME INTO EXISTENCE AS A
PATCH UPON AN ILLEGAL SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION OF WHICH THEY HAVE BECOME
AN INTEGRAL PART." 

IT IS ACCEPTED BY ALL PARTIES THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF BAUSCH & LOMB
AND SOFT-LITE ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS THE TERM "COMMERCE" IS USED
IN THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED THAT SOFT-LITE AND
CERTAIN OF ITS OFFICERS HAD CONTRACTED AND CONSPIRED WITH OPTICAL
WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT IN THE
FOLLOWING PARTICULARS: 

"(A) BY ENTERING INTO SO-CALLED 'LICENSE' AGREEMENTS WITH OPTICAL
RETAILERS WHICH FIX THE PRICES AT WHICH SAID RETAILERS SHALL SELL SOFT
LITE LENSES; (B) BY ENTERING INTO SO-CALLED 'LICENSE' AGREEMENTS WITH
OPTICAL RETAILERS WHICH PROVIDE THAT SAID RETAILERS WILL SELL SUCH
LENSES ONLY TO THE PUBLIC; (C) BY ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS WITH
WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS WHICH PROVIDE THAT THE SAID WHOLESALERS WILL SELL
SOFT-LITE LENSES AND BLANKS ONLY TO RETAILERS WHO ARE DESIGNATED AS
'LICENSEES' BY THE DEFENDANT SOFT-LITE LENS COMPANY, INC.; (D) BY
ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS WITH WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS WHICH FIX THE PRICES
AT WHICH SAID WHOLESALERS SHALL SELL SOFT-LITE LENSES AND BLANKS; (E)
BY ENTERING INTO 'FAIR TRADE' RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS WITH
SAID WHOLESALERS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
OF SOFT-LITE BLANKS AND LENSES; AND (F) BY ENFORCING THE AGREEMENTS SET
FORTH IN SUBDIVISIONS (A) THROUGH (E) OF THIS PARAGRAPH." 

THE JUDGMENT DIRECTS SOFT-LITE TO CANCEL ITS LICENSE AGREEMENTS WITH
RETAILERS AND ITS FAIR TRADE RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS AND
AGREEMENTS WITH WHOLESALERS FIXING PRICES AND RESTRICTING THEIR RESALES
TO SOFT-LITE'S RETAIL LICENSEES.  SOFT-LITE AND ITS AGENTS ARE ENJOINED
FROM ENFORCING THESE CONTRACTS OR USING IDENTIFICATION DEVICES, SUCH AS
THE "PROTECTION CERTIFICATES," FOR TRACING RESALES OF LENSES OR BLANKS
PURCHASED FROM SOFT-LITE.  THEY ARE LIKEWISE FORBIDDEN TO ENTER INTO
ANY OTHER AGREEMENT SIMILAR IN EFFECT OR PURPOSE TO THOSE ADJUDGED
UNLAWFUL, EXCEPT THE FAIR TRADE CONTRACTS.  THESE LATTER MAY BE
RENEGOTIATED AFTER SIX MONTHS FROM THE NOTICES OF CANCELLATION WHICH
THE JUDGMENT DIRECTS TO ISSUE.  THERE IS ALSO A PROHIBITION AGAINST
SOFT-LITE'S AND ITS OFFICERS' SYSTEMATICALLY SUGGESTING RESALE PRICES
ON LENS OR BLANKS FOR SAID SIX MONTHS.  BAUSCH & LOMB AND VARIOUS
INDIVIDUALS ARE ADJUDGED TO BE FREE OF THE VIOLATIONS WHICH ARE CHARGED
IN THE COMPLAINT.  THE RIGHT TO INSPECT RECORDS AND TO INTERVIEW
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IS RESERVED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE
MANNER SET OUT BELOW.  FN3 FINALLY, JURISDICTION OF THE CASE IS
RETAINED FOR FURTHER ORDERS, OR DIRECTIONS, INCLUDING MODIFICATION OR
TERMINATION OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS AS WELL AS THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  CF.
SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553, 605. 

TWO APPEALS ARE BEFORE US.  THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH THAT
THE AGREEMENT OF BAUSCH & LOMB NOT TO SELL PINK TINTED GLASS OR LENSES
TO ANY COMPETITOR OF SOFT-LITE AND NOT TO COMPETE WITH SOFT-LITE IN THE
MARKETING OF ANY PINK TINTED LENS UNREASONABLY RESTRAINS COMMERCE IN
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  BY ITS APPEAL, THE GOVERNMENT URGES ALSO
A BROADENING OF THE DECREE BY THE SUBSTITUTION OF A PERMANENT INSTEAD
OF A SIX MONTHS' INJUNCTION AGAINST NEW FAIR TRADE AGREEMENTS AND
AGAINST SYSTEMATIC SUGGESTION OF RESALE PRICES BY SOFT-LITE.  IT ALSO
ASKS AN ADDITION TO THE DECREE REQUIRING SOFT-LITE TO SELL ITS PRODUCT
WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION TO ANY PERSON OFFERING TO PAY CASH THEREFOR. 

THE OTHER APPEAL IS BY SOFT-LITE AND THOSE OF ITS OFFICERS WHO ARE
ENJOINED.  THIS APPEAL ATTACKS THE PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT
CANCELLING AGREEMENTS OF SOFT-LITE WITH WHOLESALERS TO CHARGE UNIFORM
PRICES TO RETAILERS, ENJOINING SYSTEMATIC SUGGESTIONS OF RESALE PRICES
AND EXECUTION OF FAIR TRADE RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS EVEN FOR
SIX MONTHS, AND ALLOWING FUTURE DISCOVERY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IN ORDER TO POLICE THE DECREE. 

SINCE THE ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF THE SOFT-LITE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IS
THE HEART OF THE SCHEME WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ATTACKS, WE SHALL EXAMINE
FIRST THE JUDGMENT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SOFT-LITE'S OBJECTIONS TO IT
AND THEN FROM THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S DESIRED ADDITIONS AS TO SOFT
LITE. 

AS THE COURT IS EQUALLY DIVIDED UPON THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL IN NO. 62 BY ITS REQUEST FOR A REVERSAL OF THE
PROVISION OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH DISMISSES BAUSCH & LOMB AND ITS
OFFICERS FROM THE PROCEEDING, THAT PROVISION STANDS AFFIRMED. 

  I. 

OUR TASK OF EXAMINING SOFT-LITE'S OBJECTIONS IS SIMPLIFIED BY THE
FRANK RECOGNITION OF THOSE APPELLANTS THAT "THE RETAIL LICENSE
PROVISIONS BINDING DEALERS TO SELL AT LOCALLY PREVAILING PRICES AND
ONLY TO THE PUBLIC CONSTITUTE ILLEGAL RESTRAINTS."  OUR FORMER
DECISIONS COMPEL THIS CONCLUSION.  PRICE FIXING, REASONABLE OR
UNREASONABLE, IS "UNLAWFUL PER SE."  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL
CO., 310 U.S. 150, 218; UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES, 273 U.S.
392, 397; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 458;
FASHION GUILD V. TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457, 465.  THE RETAILER'S PRICE
TO HIS CUSTOMER IS THE SINGLE SOURCE OF STABLE PROFITS FOR ALL
HANDLERS. 

THESE ILLEGAL CONTRACTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED, HOWEVER, AS HAPPENINGS,
COMPLETELY INSULATED FROM OTHER INCIDENTS OF THE SOFT-LITE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM.  WHEN WE TURN TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE WHICH ARE
ATTACKED HERE BY SOFT-LITE, REQUIRING IT TO CANCEL ITS RESALE PRICE
AGREEMENTS WITH WHOLESALERS AS WELL AS RETAILERS AND TO AVOID SUCH
REQUIREMENTS FOR SIX MONTHS EITHER BY CONTRACT OR SUGGESTION, AND
THEREAFTER TO ACT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT, WE
MUST FIRST NOTE THAT IT IS PLAIN THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR PRICE
MAINTENANCE IN THE WHOLESALERS' SALES TO RETAILERS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART
OF THE WHOLE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  NOT ONLY ARE SOFT-LITE WHOLESALERS
CAREFULLY SELECTED AND COOPERATIVE BUT THEY MAY SELL ONLY TO SOFT
LITE'S RETAIL LICENSEES.  UNDESIRABLE WHOLESALERS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE
SYSTEM AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT BY MEANS OF PUBLISHED
WHOLESALE PRICE LISTS, PUT IN THE HANDS OF WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS
ALIKE, RESALE PRICES OF WHOLESALERS ARE DESIGNATED BY SOFT-LITE.  THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE WHOLESALERS' RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE BUSINESS
CHARACTER OF THE APPLICANT FOR A RETAIL LICENSE, THE EVIDENCE OF
ESPIONAGE, THE LIMITATION OF RESALES TO SOFT-LITE RETAIL LICENSEES, THE
EXISTENCE OF THE "PROTECTION CERTIFICATE" TO MARK THE WHOLESALER WHO
MIGHT VIOLATE THE ARRANGEMENT, THE UNIFORMITY OF THE PRICES, AS
PRESCRIBED IN SOFT-LITE'S PUBLISHED LISTS, WHICH ARE CHARGED RETAILERS
BY WHOLESALERS - ALL AMPLY SUPPORT, INDEED REQUIRE, THE INFERENCE OF
THE TRIAL COURT THAT A CONSPIRACY TO MAINTAIN PRICES DOWN THE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXISTED BETWEEN THE WHOLESALERS AND SOFT-LITE
THROUGH THE YEARS PRIOR TO THIS SUIT. 

SOFT-LITE IS THE DISTRIBUTOR OF AN UNPATENTED ARTICLE.  IT SELLS TO
ITS WHOLESALERS AT PRICES SATISFACTORY TO ITSELF.  BEYOND THAT POINT IT
MAY NOT PROJECT ITS POWER OVER THE PRICES OF ITS WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS BY
AGREEMENT.  A DISTRIBUTOR OF A TRADE-MARKED ARTICLE MAY NOT LAWFULLY
LIMIT BY AGREEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THE PRICE AT WHICH OR THE
PERSONS TO WHOM ITS PURCHASER MAY RESELL, EXCEPT AS THE SELLER MOVES
ALONG THE ROUTE WHICH IS MARKED BY THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT.  DR. MILES
MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S. 373, 404.  EVEN THE ADDITIONAL
PROTECTION OF A COPYRIGHT, BOBBS-MERRILL CO. V. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339;
INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208, 221, AND CASES
CITED, OR OF A PATENT, UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265,
276; MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 320 U.S. 661, 664
665, AND CASES CITED, ADDS NOTHING TO A DISTRIBUTOR'S POWER TO CONTROL
PRICES OF RESALE BY A PURCHASER.  THE SAME THING IS TRUE AS TO
RESTRICTION OF CUSTOMERS.  FASHION GUILD V. TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457,
465; STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 47-49;
MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38, 45. 

NOT ONLY DO THE APPELLANTS URGE THAT CONSPIRACY BETWEEN SOFT-LITE AND
THE WHOLESALERS SHOULD NOT BE FOUND FROM THE FOREGOING EVIDENCE BUT
THEY ALSO SAY THAT THEY COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CERTAIN OF OUR CASES
WHICH ARE SAID TO INDICATE THAT A SIMPLE REFUSAL TO SELL TO CUSTOMERS
WHO WILL NOT RESELL AT PRICES FIXED BY THE SELLER IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER
THE SHERMAN ACT.  THEY CITE UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250 U.S.
300; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO., 257 U.S. 441,
452-3; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. SINCLAIR REFINING CO., 261 U.S. 463,
475-6; AND FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CURTIS PUBLISHING CO., 260 U.S.
568, 582.  NONE OF THESE CASES INVOLVE, AS THE PRESENT CASE DOES, AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SELLER AND PURCHASER TO MAINTAIN RESALE PRICES. 

THE COLGATE CASE TURNED UPON THE SUFFICIENCY ON DEMURRER OF AN
INDICTMENT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AGAINST A MANUFACTURER FOR REQUIRING
ITS DEALERS TO MAINTAIN PRICES.  AS THE INDICTMENT WAS CONSTRUED TO
ALLEGE ONLY SPECIFICATION OF RESALE PRICES BY THE MANUFACTURER AND
REFUSAL TO DEAL WITH CUSTOMERS WHO DID NOT MAINTAIN THEM, THIS COURT
HELD THE INDICTMENT INSUFFICIENT AS NO REFERENCE WAS MADE IN IT TO A
PURPOSE TO MONOPOLIZE AND IN SUCH A POSTURE THE SHERMAN ACT "DOES NOT
RESTRICT THE LONG RECOGNIZED RIGHT OR TRADER OR MANUFACTURER ENGAGED IN
AN ENTIRELY PRIVATE BUSINESS, FREELY TO EXERCISE HIS OWN INDEPENDENT
DISCRETION AS TO PARTIES WITH WHOM HE WILL DEAL.  AND, OF COURSE, HE
MAY ANNOUNCE IN ADVANCE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE WILL REFUSE TO
SELL."  250 U.S. AT 302, 306, 307.  CF. UNITED STATES V. SCHRADER'S
SON, 252 U.S. 85, 99. 

THE BEECH-NUT CASE RECOGNIZES THAT A SIMPLE REFUSAL TO SELL TO OTHERS
WHO DO NOT MAINTAIN THE FIRST SELLER'S FIXED RESALE PRICES  FN4  IS
LAWFUL BUT ADDS AS TO THE SHERMAN ACT, "HE (THE SELLER) MAY NOT,
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE ACT, GO BEYOND THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT, AND BY
CONTRACTS OR COMBINATIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, UNDULY HINDER OR
OBSTRUCT THE FREE AND NATURAL FLOW OF COMMERCE IN THE CHANNELS OF
INTERSTATE TRADE."  257 U.S. AT 453.  THE BEECH-NUT COMPANY, WITHOUT
AGREEMENTS, WAS FOUND TO SUPPRESS THE FREEDOM OF COMPETITION BY
COERCION OF ITS CUSTOMERS THROUGH SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE COMPANY, BY
REPORTS OF COMPETITORS ABOUT CUSTOMERS WHO VIOLATED RESALE PRICES, AND
BY BOYCOTTS OF PRICE CUTTERS.  IDEM, PP. 451, 454, 455.  AS THE
DECISION AS TO THE CURTIS COMPANY INVOLVED ONLY SELLING AGENCIES, 260
U.S. AT 581, AND THAT AS TO SINCLAIR THE RESTRICTED USE OF A
DISTRIBUTOR'S GASOLINE TANKS, 261 U.S. AT 474, THEY ARE INAPPLICABLE TO
A CONSIDERATION OF A REFUSAL BY A DISTRIBUTOR TO SELL EXCEPT TO CHOSEN
DEALERS. 

AS IN THE BEECH-NUT CASE, THERE IS MORE HERE THAN MERE ACQUIESCENCE
OF WHOLESALERS IN SOFT-LITE'S PUBLISHED RESALE PRICE LIST.  THE
WHOLESALERS ACCEPTED SOFT-LITE'S PROFFER OF A PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION BY
COOPERATING IN PRICES, LIMITATION OF SALES TO AND APPROVAL OF RETAIL
LICENSEES.  THAT IS SUFFICIENT.  INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES,
306 U.S. 208, 226, 227; UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265,
274-75; SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553, 601. 

SO FAR AS THE WHOLESALERS ARE CONCERNED, SOFT-LITE AND ITS OFFICERS
CONSPIRED AND COMBINED AMONG THEMSELVES AND WITH AT LEAST SOME OF THE
WHOLESALERS TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE BY DESIGNATING SELECTED WHOLESALERS AS
SUB-DISTRIBUTORS OF SOFT-LITE PRODUCTS, BY FIXING RESALE PRICES AND BY
LIMITING THE CUSTOMERS OF THE WHOLESALERS TO THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE
WHOLESALERS AND APPROVED BY SOFT-LITE - ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  THIS FINDING JUSTIFIES THE ORDER DIRECTING CANCELLATION OF THE
WHOLESALE ARRANGEMENTS AND CESSATION BY SOFT-LITE OF SYSTEMATIC PRICE
SUGGESTIONS.  WHETHER THIS CONSPIRACY AND COMBINATION WAS ACHIEVED BY
AGREEMENT OR BY ACQUIESCENCE OF THE WHOLESALERS COUPLED WITH ASSISTANCE
IN EFFECTUATING ITS PURPOSE IS IMMATERIAL. 

SOFT-LITE MAKES OBJECTION ALSO TO THE CLAUSE OF THE DECREE WHICH
HOLDS NULL AND VOID CERTAIN RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS ENTERED
INTO BY SOFT-LITE AND MANY OF ITS WHOLESALERS AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE
MILLER-TYDINGS AMENDMENT TO THE SHERMAN ACT ON AUGUST 17, 1937, 50
STAT. 693.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.  OBJECTIONS ON THE SAME GROUNDS APPLY TO
OTHER CLAUSES OF THE DECREE FORBIDDING ENFORCEMENT OF THESE EXISTING
"FAIR TRADE" CONTRACTS WITH WHOLESALERS AND SOFT-LITE'S ENTERING INTO
ANY OTHERS UNTIL SIX MONTHS AFTER CERTAIN NOTICES OF CANCELLATION WHICH
ARE REQUIRED BY THE DECREE BUT WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN GIVEN OWING TO
THIS APPEAL.  SOFT-LITE CONTENDS THAT THE "FAIR TRADE" AGREEMENTS ARE
STRICTLY WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT AND WE ASSUME THE
CORRECTNESS OF THAT POSITION.  FN5  THE DISADVANTAGE AT WHICH THESE
CLAUSES PLACE SOFT-LITE TOWARDS ITS CUSTOMERS AND COMPETITORS IS
POINTED OUT.    THE DISTRICT COURT SAID THAT THESE CONTRACTS "CAME INTO
EXISTENCE AS A PATCH UPON AN ILLEGAL SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION" AND AS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THAT SYSTEM.  AS SOME WHOLESALERS DO CERTAIN CUTTING
AND EDGING WORK ON THE BLANKS FOR SALE TO RETAILERS WHO DO NOT DO THIS
GRINDING FOR THEMSELVES, THE "FAIR TRADE" CONTRACTS FOR FIXING RESALE
PRICES APPLY ONLY TO THOSE SALES, KNOWN AS "STOCK" SALES, WHERE THE
LENSES AND BLANKS ARE RESOLD IN THE SAME FORM IN WHICH THEY COME FROM
SOFT-LITE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241, 253
54.  WE THINK THAT WHERE A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXISTS, PRIOR TO THE
MAKING OF SUCH PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS, WHICH IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF
UNALLOWABLE PRICE FIXING CONTRACTS AND WHERE THAT ILLEGALITY
NECESSARILY PERSISTS IN PART BECAUSE A PORTION OF THE RESALES ARE NOT
COVERED BY THE "FAIR TRADE" CONTRACTS, AS JUST EXPLAINED, SUBSEQUENT
PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS, OTHERWISE VALID, SHOULD BE CANCELLED,
ALONG WITH THE INVALID ARRANGEMENTS, IN ORDER THAT THE GROUND MAY BE
CLEANSED EFFECTUALLY FROM THE VICE OF THE FORMER ILLEGALITY.  EQUITY
HAS POWER TO ERADICATE THE EVILS OF A CONDEMNED SCHEME BY PROHIBITION
OF THE USE OF ADMITTEDLY VALID PARTS OF AN INVALID WHOLE.  UNITED
STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241, 254; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 461.  CF. STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 78; UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 226 U.S.
61, 96, 470, 476-77; AIKENS V. WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194, 205-6. 

THE LAST OBJECTION BROUGHT FORWARD BY SOFT-LITE TO THE DECREE IS THAT
PARAGRAPH 9, WHICH IS SET OUT IN FULL IN NOTE 3, IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTH
AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS OR, AT ANY RATE, AN IMPROPER USE OF THE TRIAL
COURT'S DISCRETION. 

THE FIRST SENTENCE REQUIRES SOFT-LITE TO PERMIT AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO HAVE ACCESS TO ALL
RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS OF SOFT-LITE WHICH ARE IN SOFT-LITE'S CONTROL,
"RELATING TO ANY OF THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT  ...
SUBJECT TO ANY LEGALLY RECOGNIZED PRIVILEGE."  FN6  THE SECOND SENTENCE
WE CONSTRUE TO FORBID SOFT-LITE OR ITS OFFICERS FROM DIRECTING ITS
PERSONNEL TO REFUSE TO DISCUSS WITH INVESTIGATORS OF THE DEPARTMENT THE
AFFAIRS OF SOFT-LITE RELATING TO ANY OF THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE
JUDGMENT AND FROM BARRING FROM THEIR PROPERTY INVESTIGATORS WHO MAY
APPEAR UNPROVIDED WITH SEARCH WARRANTS.  THIS SECOND SENTENCE PURPORTS
TO GIVE NO OTHER RIGHT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE
APPELLANTS.  THE THIRD AND LAST SENTENCE DIRECTS THE DEFENDANTS TO
SUBMIT ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT SUCH REPORTS IN WRITING
"WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT" AS MAY
BE NECESSARY TO ENFORCE IT. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE U.S.C. RELATING TO MONOPOLIES AND
COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE WHICH MAKES PROVISION FOR SUCH BROAD
VISITATORIAL POWERS.  WITHOUT THIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY, UNITED STATES
OFFICIALS COULD NOT REQUIRE THE CORPORATION TO SUBMIT TO THIS
EXAMINATION WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.  GO-BART IMPORTING CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 282 U.S. 344, 356-58; UNITED STATES V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO.,
236 U.S. 318, 329-38.  CF. GUTHRIE V. HARKNESS, 199 U.S. 148, 158.  THE
PROVISION WAS EVIDENTLY SOUGHT AND ALLOWED TO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO
OBTAIN INFORMATION AS TO THE OPERATIONS OF SOFT-LITE SUBSEQUENT TO THE
JUDGMENT DECLARING SOFT-LITE'S DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS UNLAWFUL, TO
GUIDE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THEIR
DUTY OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AGAINST A CONTINUANCE OF THE ILLEGAL
COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF THE EXPENSE AND
DIFFICULTY OF EXTENDED INVESTIGATION OR RENEWED HEARINGS UNDER THE
JURISDICTION RETAINED FOR MODIFICATION OR ENFORCEMENT.  IF REASONABLY
NECESSARY TO WIPE OUT THE ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, WE SEE NO
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO THE EMPLOYMENT BY EQUITY OF THIS METHOD. 
IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS OPINION WHICH DISCUSS
THE POWER OF THE TRIAL COURT TO COMPEL THE CANCELLATION OF "FAIR TRADE"
AGREEMENTS, EXECUTED DURING AND AS A PART OF THE UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM, WE CITED IMPORTANT PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT WHICH UPHOLD
EQUITY'S AUTHORITY TO USE QUITE DRASTIC MEASURES TO ACHIEVE FREEDOM
FROM THE INFLUENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  THESE
PRECEDENTS ARE APPLICABLE HERE.  THE TEST IS WHETHER OR NOT THE
REQUIRED ACTION REASONABLY TENDS TO DISSIPATE THE RESTRAINTS AND
PREVENT EVASIONS.  DOUBTS ARE TO "BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND AGAINST THE CONSPIRATORS."  LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES,
291 U.S. 293, 299; WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526, 532. 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT A CORPORATION AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION THROUGH COMPULSORY PRODUCTION OF ITS PAPERS, WILSON V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361, 375; HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 74-75;
WHEELER V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 478, ALTHOUGH IT DOES PROTECT AN
INDIVIDUAL, BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616.  A CORPORATION IS
CHARTERED WITH SPECIAL POWERS ONLY.  ITS CREATOR, THE STATE, MAY
EXAMINE INTO ITS RECORDS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVILEGES HAVE BEEN
ABUSED.  OUR DUAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT NECESSARILY AUTHORIZES THE UNITED
STATES TO EXERCISE THESE POWERS IN THE VINDICATION OF ITS OWN LAWS. 
HALE V. HENKEL, SUPRA.  THE BOYD CASE POINTED OUT THAT, AS TO
INDIVIDUALS, THE EXTORTION OF HIS PRIVATE PAPERS BY SUBPOENA WAS NOT
ONLY COMPELLING SELF-INCRIMINATION BUT WAS ALSO AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE WITHIN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  116 U.S. AT 634.  UPON
FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE PROBLEM OF THE INTER-RELATION OF THE TWO
AMENDMENTS IN HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. AT 72-73, THIS COURT REACHED THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS NOT INTENDED TO INTERFERE WITH
"THE POWER OF COURTS TO COMPEL, THROUGH A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, THE
PRODUCTION, UPON A TRIAL IN COURT, OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE," SO LONG AS
THE SCOPE OF THE SUBPOENA WAS REASONABLE.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE DOCUMENTS, A QUESTION ADVERTED TO IN
HALE V. HENKEL, P. 77, BUT NOT DECIDED, WAS UPHELD IN UNITED STATES V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., SUPRA.  THE SCOPE OF EQUITY'S POWER, SHERMAN
ACT, SEC. 4, 26 STAT. 209, TO OBVIATE CONTINUED RESTRAINT ON TRADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION AS TO THE USE OF THE
INJUNCTION AGAINST VIOLATORS OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS NO MORE RESTRICTED
IN ITS FIELD THAN THAT OF CONGRESS. 

THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE VISITATORIAL REMEDY RAISES A DIFFERENT
QUESTION.  OF COURSE, A MERE PROHIBITION OF THE PRECISE SCHEME WOULD BE
INEFFECTUAL TO PREVENT RESTRAINTS.  UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI
FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 308.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE
CONTROL THE BREADTH OF THE ORDER.  LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING
CO., 312 U.S. 426, 436.  THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ARE
IMPORTANT.  IF IN THE PRESENT CASE, SOFT-LITE WAS REQUIRED FOR THE
INDEFINITE FUTURE TO SELL ITS GOODS TO ANY BUYER WITH CASH TO PAY THE
PURCHASE PRICE, THERE WOULD NOT BE THE SAME NEED FOR VISITATORIAL
POWERS.  THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE PROVISION OF THE DECREE UNDER
DISCUSSION COMPELS THE DISCLOSURE ONLY OF PAPERS RELATING TO THE
MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE JUDGMENT.  THIS WE THINK IS LIMITED
SUFFICIENTLY TO SATISFY THE RULE AS TO NECESSARY CERTAINTY.  WILSON V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES OF
THE 9TH PARAGRAPH OF THE DECREE, AS HEREIN CONSTRUED, WERE BEYOND THE
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE THIRD
SENTENCE, RELATING TO REPORTS, IS TOO INDEFINITE FOR JUDICIAL
ENFORCEMENT AND THEREFORE IMPROPER.  CF. SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES,
196 U.S. 375, 400, 402. 

                           II. 

THE UNITED STATES SEEKS EXTENSIONS OF THE DECREE AS ENTERED AGAINST
SOFT-LITE.  IN THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW THE EXISTING PROHIBITIONS,
ALTHOUGH COUPLED WITH THE RETENTION OF JURISDICTION FOR FURTHER ORDERS
OR DIRECTIONS, INCLUDING MODIFICATION AND ENFORCEMENT, ARE INSUFFICIENT
TO PREVENT CONTINUANCE OF THE PURPOSES AND EFFECTS OF THE UNLAWFUL SOFT
LITE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE ASKED TO DIRECT THE
INCLUSION OF REQUIREMENTS THAT SOFT-LITE FILE "WITH THE DISTRICT COURT
A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT PROVIDING THAT IT WILL SELL ITS PRODUCT, WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION, TO ANY PERSON OFFERING TO PAY CASH THEREFOR." 

THE SHERMAN ACT IS INTENDED TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF
COMMERCE.  THE CLAYTON AMENDMENT, 38 STAT. 731, OUTLAWED AGREEMENTS
WITH CUSTOMERS WHICH RESTRICTED THE CUSTOMER FROM DEALING WITH THE
PRODUCTS OF A COMPETITOR OF THE SELLER.  PERSONS INJURED BY UNLAWFUL
RESTRAINT MAY RECOVER THREEFOLD DAMAGES.  THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE
JURISDICTION OF SUITS TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS.  CONGRESS HAS BEEN LIBERAL
IN ENACTING REMEDIES TO ENFORCE THE ANTI-MONOPOLY STATUTES.  BUT IN NO
INSTANCE HAS IT INDICATED AN INTENTION TO INTERFERE WITH ORDINARY
COMMERCIAL PRACTICES.  IN A BUSINESS, SUCH AS SOFT-LITE, WHICH DEALS IN
A SPECIALTY OF A LUXURY OR NEAR-LUXURY CHARACTER, THE RIGHT TO SELECT
ITS CUSTOMERS MAY WELL BE THE MOST ESSENTIAL FACTOR IN THE MAINTENANCE
OF THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF SERVICE.  WE ARE, AS THE DISTRICT COURT
APPARENTLY WAS, LOATH TO DENY TO SOFT-LITE THIS PRIVILEGE OF
SELECTION.  UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250 U.S. 300, 307; FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. RAYMOND CO., 263 U.S. 565, 573.  WE HAVE NO REASON TO
DOUBT THAT SOFT-LITE WILL CONFORM METICULOUSLY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE DECREE.  WHEN IT IS SHOWN TO THE TRIAL COURT THAT IT HAS NOT DONE
SO WILL BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO URGE THIS ADDITION
TO THE DECREE. 

WHAT WE HAVE JUST SAID AS TO THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST FOR A
REQUIREMENT OF SALES BY SOFT-LITE TO ALL APPLICANTS FOR ITS COMMODITIES
IS RELEVANT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OTHER REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE
DECREE TO MAKE PERMANENT THE SIX MONTHS' PROHIBITION AGAINST SOFT
LITE'S SYSTEMATICALLY SUGGESTING RESALE PRICES ON ITS LENSES AND THE
EXECUTION OF RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS UNDER THE MILLER
TYDINGS ACT.  THE PATH IS NARROW BETWEEN THE PERMISSIBLE SELECTION OF
CUSTOMERS UNDER THE DECISION IN COLGATE & CO. AND UNLAWFUL ARRANGEMENTS
AS TO PRICES UNDER THIS DECREE, BUT WE THINK SOFT-LITE IS ENTITLED TO
TRAVERSE IT, AFTER A REASONABLE INTERIM TO DISSIPATE UNLAWFUL
ADVANTAGES, WITH SUCH AID AS CONGRESS HAS GIVEN BY THE MILLER-TYDINGS
ACT.  THE SUGGESTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS UNACCEPTABLE. 

THESE CONCLUSIONS LEAD US TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT BY STRIKING OUT THE
LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 9, QUOTED IN NOTE 3.  AS SO MODIFIED THE
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 50 STAT. 693: 

"SECTION 1.  EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL RENDER ILLEGAL,
CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBING MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE RESALE OF A
COMMODITY WHICH BEARS, OR THE LABEL OR CONTAINER OF WHICH BEARS, THE
TRADE MARK, BRAND, OR NAME OF THE PRODUCER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF SUCH
COMMODITY AND WHICH IS IN FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION WITH COMMODITIES OF
THE SAME GENERAL CLASS PRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS, WHEN
CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS OF THAT DESCRIPTION ARE LAWFUL AS APPLIED TO
INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS, UNDER ANY STATUTE, LAW, OR PUBLIC POLICY NOW
OR HEREAFTER IN EFFECT IN ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, IN WHICH SUCH RESALE IS TO BE MADE, OR TO WHICH THE COMMODITY
IS TO BE TRANSPORTED FOR SUCH RESALE, AND THE MAKING OF SUCH CONTRACTS
OR AGREEMENTS SHALL NOT BE AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION UNDER
CREATE A FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, TO DEFINE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' APPROVED SEPTEMBER 26, 1914:  PROVIDED FURTHER,
THAT THE PRECEDING PROVISO SHALL NOT MAKE LAWFUL ANY CONTRACT OR
AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OR MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM
RESALE PRICES ON ANY COMMODITY HEREIN INVOLVED, BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS,
OR BETWEEN PRODUCERS, OR BETWEEN WHOLESALERS, OR BETWEEN BROKERS, OR
BETWEEN FACTORS, OR BETWEEN RETAILERS, OR BETWEEN PERSONS, FIRMS, OR
CORPORATIONS IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER.  ...  " 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

FN2  IN 1939 A CHANGE WAS MADE FROM THE LICENSE AGREEMENT NOT TO DEAL
IN ANY LENS SIMILAR IN TINT, COLOR OR SHADE TO SOFT-LITE LENSES.  THE
CHANGE FOLLOWED AN AGREED ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION OF JUNE
23, 1938, DOCKET NO. 2717, IN THE MATTER OF SOFT-LITE LENS CO., INC. 

FN3  "9.  THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS
JUDGMENT, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UPON
THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, SHALL BE PERMITTED ACCESS, WITHIN THE OFFICE HOURS OF THE SAID
DEFENDANTS, AND UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, TO BOOKS, LEDGERS, ACCOUNTS,
CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDA, AND OTHER RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS IN THE
POSSESSION OR THE CONTROL OF THE SAID DEFENDANTS, OR ANY OF THEM,
RELATING TO ANY OF THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT, SUCH ACCESS
TO BE SUBJECT TO ANY LEGALLY RECOGNIZED PRIVILEGE.  ANY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SUBJECT TO THE REASONABLE
CONVENIENCE OF THE SAID DEFENDANTS, SHALL BE PERMITTED TO INTERVIEW
OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF SAID DEFENDANTS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE,
RESTRAINT OR LIMITATION BY SAID DEFENDANTS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY
SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT AT SUCH INTERVIEW. 
SAID DEFENDANTS, UPON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR
AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, SHALL SUBMIT SUCH REPORTS WITH RESPECT
TO ANY OF THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS JUDGMENT AS FROM TIME TO TIME
MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCEMENT OF THIS JUDGMENT;
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE MEANS PERMITTED
IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT BE DIVULGED BY ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN A DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXCEPT IN THE COURSE OF
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY OR AS OTHERWISE
REQUIRED BY LAW."    FN4  CF. ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT, SEC. 1, 49 STAT.
1526. 

FN5  SEE THE DECISION BELOW, 45 F.SUPP.  387, 399.  WE DO NOT
UNDERSTAND THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO IMPUGN THE VALIDITY OF
BILATERAL CONTRACTS, IDENTICAL IN FORM, BETWEEN A PRODUCER OR
DISTRIBUTOR, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THEIR CUSTOMERS ON THE OTHER, ENTERED
INTO UNDER THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT. 

FN6  THE WORDING OF THE SENTENCE INCLUDES THE PAPERS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS WHO ARE OFFICERS OF SOFT-LITE.  THE UNITED STATES
DISCLAIMS IN ITS BRIEF, PAGE 55, SO BROAD A MEANING.  WE ACCEPT THE
SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION THAT THE PARAGRAPH RELATES ONLY TO THE PAPERS
BELONGING TO THE CORPORATION.  CF. WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S.
361, 376-85. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. BLAIR, 321 U.S. 730 


NO. 75.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 10, 1944.  - 99
CT.CLS.  71, REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  THE GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT HERE INVOLVED IMPOSED NO DUTY
ON THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO PREVENT A CONTRACTOR
FROM UNREASONABLY DELAYING OR INTERFERING WITH THE ATTEMPT OF ANOTHER
CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION IN ADVANCE OF THE TIME SPECIFIED;
AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR SUCH DELAY.  P. 733. 

THE FACT THAT AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT THE CONTRACTOR GAVE
NOTICE TO ALL OTHER PARTIES OF HIS INTENTION TO FINISH AHEAD OF
SCHEDULE DOES NOT ALTER THE OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

2.  AN AWARD OF DAMAGES BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
ON ITEMS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF "DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS
ARISING UNDER THIS CONTRACT" - THOUGH THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT
AGENTS UPON WHICH THE CLAIMS WERE BASED BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN
UNAUTHORIZED, UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY - HELD ERRONEOUS IN VIEW OF
THE FAILURE OF THE CONTRACTOR TO APPEAL TO THE DEPARTMENTAL HEAD AS
REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 15 OF THE CONTRACT, IT NOT APPEARING THAT THE
APPEAL PROCEDURE PROVIDED WAS IN FACT INADEQUATE.  P. 735. 

3.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY ALLOWED A CLAIM OF THE CONTRACTOR,
TO THE USE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR, FOR EXTRA LABOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE
SUBCONTRACTOR UNDER CONDITIONS ERRONEOUSLY IMPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT
SUPERINTENDENT.  P. 737. 

UNITED STATES V. BLAIR, INDIVIDUALLY AND TO THE USE OF ROANOKE MARBLE
& GRANITE CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 720, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A
SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT UPON A CONTRACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OF LONG EXPERIENCE IN CONSTRUCTING
FEDERAL BUILDINGS, WAS AWARDED A CONTRACT BY THE UNITED STATES TO
CONSTRUCT CERTAIN BUILDINGS AT THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION FACILITY AT
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA.  AFTER COMPLETING THE CONTRACT, RESPONDENT FILED A
CLAIM WITH THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES WHICH HE
CLAIMED WERE CAUSED BY THE DELAY OF A MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR AND FOR
OTHER EXPENSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON HIM BY THE ARBITRARY,
CAPRICIOUS AND UNFAIR CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT AGENTS AT THE WORK SITE. 
THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED AND THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOLLOWED. 
JUDGMENT IN THE SUM OF $130,911.08 WAS AWARDED BY THAT COURT TO
RESPONDENT, 99 CT. CLS. 71.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION OF THE GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
USED IN THIS CASE.  FN1

    I. 

RESPONDENT'S CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS TO BE
COMPLETED WITHIN 420 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE TO PROCEED. 
CONCURRENTLY, ONE R. J. REDMON WAS AWARDED A MECHANICAL CONTRACT  FN2
BY THE UNITED STATES TO PERFORM THE PLUMBING, HEATING AND ELECTRICAL
WORK IN THE BUILDINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY RESPONDENT.  REDMON'S WORK
WAS TO BE COMMENCED PROMPTLY AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE TO PROCEED AND WAS
TO BE COMPLETED AT A DATE NOT LATER THAN THAT PROVIDED IN RESPONDENT'S
CONTRACT. 

RESPONDENT PROCEEDED PROMPTLY WITH THE CONSTRUCTION WORK.  HE PLANNED
TO COMPLETE THE WORK WITHIN 314 DAYS INSTEAD OF THE 420 DAYS ALLOWED
HIM BY THE CONTRACT.  HOWEVER, NO REPRESENTATIVE OF REDMON REPORTED AT
THE WORK SITE UNTIL NEARLY THREE MONTHS AFTER HE RECEIVED NOTICE TO
PROCEED.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE MANY URGENT
DEMANDS THAT REDMON PROCEED WITH HIS WORK AND HAD ADVISED HIM THAT THE
PROGRESS OF RESPONDENT'S CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS BEING DELAYED BY HIS
FAILURE TO START WORK; REDMON HAD ALSO BEEN THREATENED WITH TERMINATION
OF HIS CONTRACT.  HE FINALLY STARTED WORK, BUT MADE SLOW PROGRESS.  AT
NO TIME DID REDMON HAVE ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT OR A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF
MEN ON THE JOB PROPERLY TO CARRY ON THE WORK CALLED FOR BY HIS
CONTRACT, NOR WAS HE FINANCIALLY ABLE AT THIS TIME TO COMPLETE HIS
WORK.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT REASONABLE INQUIRY BY THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THESE FACTS BUT THAT NO SUCH INQUIRY
WAS MADE BECAUSE OF FALSE STATEMENTS AND REPORTS MADE TO THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS IN CHARGE OF THE WORK AT
THE SITE. 

SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, REDMON ADVISED THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT HE
WAS UNABLE TO PROCEED WITH HIS CONTRACT.  REDMON'S SURETY SECURED A
SUBSTITUTE AND EVERY EFFORT WAS MADE TO OVERCOME THE DELAY.  AS A
RESULT, RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO FINISH HIS CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE
REQUIRED 420 DAYS BUT NOT WITHIN THE 314 DAYS AS HE HAD PLANNED.  THE
COURT BELOW FOUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS UNREASONABLY DELAYED FOR A PERIOD
OF THREE AND ONE-HALF MONTHS DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES
PROMPTLY TO TERMINATE REDMON'S RIGHT TO PROCEED, THAT THE COST OF THE
DELAY TO RESPONDENT WAS $51,249.52, AND THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS
LIABLE THEREFOR. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING IN THE GOVERNMENT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT USED IN THIS CASE IMPOSED AN OBLIGATION OR DUTY
ON THE GOVERNMENT TO AID RESPONDENT IN COMPLETING HIS CONTRACT PRIOR TO
THE STIPULATED COMPLETION DATE AND THAT IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO AWARD DAMAGES TO RESPONDENT BASED UPON A BREACH OF THIS NON
EXISTENT OBLIGATION. 

IF THE PARTIES DID INTEND TO IMPOSE SUCH AN OBLIGATION OR DUTY ON THE
GOVERNMENT, THEY FAILED TO EMBODY THAT INTENTION EXPRESSLY IN THE
CONTRACT.  ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONTRACT MERELY OBLIGATES THE CONTRACTOR
TO COOPERATE WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS AND TO REFRAIN FROM
COMMITTING OR PERMITTING ANY ACT WHICH WOULD DELAY SUCH OTHER
CONTRACTORS.  ARTICLE 9 IMPOSES LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UPON THE CONTRACTOR
FOR DELAY IN COMPLETING HIS WORK UNLESS DUE TO SUCH UNFORESEEABLE
CAUSES AS "ACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT."  NOWHERE IS THERE SPELLED OUT ANY
DUTY ON THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO PREVENT A
CONTRACTOR FROM UNREASONABLY DELAYING OR INTERFERING WITH THE ATTEMPT
OF ANOTHER CONTRACTOR TO FINISH AHEAD OF HIS SCHEDULE. 

NOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONTRACT TO LEAD US TO
BELIEVE THAT THE PARTIES MEANT MORE THAN THEY SAID, OR THAT THE
CONTRACT IMPLIES SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT EXPRESSED.  THE GOVERNMENT AND
RESPONDENT COVENANTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WOULD BE COMPLETED
WITHIN 420 DAYS; REDMON'S CONTRACT WAS GROUNDED ON THIS SAME TIME
ESTIMATE.  THEY CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE EXECUTED THESE CONTRACTS IN
CONTEMPLATION OF THE THEN UNREVEALED INTENTION OF RESPONDENT TO
COMPLETE HIS WORK THREE AND ONE-HALF MONTHS EARLY.  THE FACT THAT
RESPONDENT SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE NOTICE OF THIS INTENTION TO ALL THE OTHER
PARTIES CONCERNED COULD NOT GIVE RISE TO A NEW OBLIGATION ON THE
GOVERNMENT TO COMPEL ACCELERATED PERFORMANCE FROM REDMON. 

RESPONDENT HAD THE UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO FINISH HIS CONSTRUCTION WORK IN
LESS TIME THAN THE STIPULATED 420 DAYS, BUT HE COULD NOT BE FORCED TO
DO SO UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.  TO HOLD THAT HE CAN EXACT
DAMAGES FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR FAILING TO COOPERATE FULLY IN CHANGING
THE CONTRACT BY SHORTENING THE TIME PROVISIONS WOULD BE TO IMPLY A
GROSSLY UNEQUAL OBLIGATION.  WE CANNOT SANCTION SUCH LIABILITY WITHOUT
MORE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACT.  COMPARE CROOK CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 270 U.S. 4; UNITED STATES V. RICE, 317 U.S. 61. 

         II. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS, IN ADDITION TO AWARDING DAMAGES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT'S DELAY IN TERMINATING REDMON'S CONTRACT, AWARDED RESPONDENT
$79,661.56 DAMAGES FOR EXTRA LABOR AND MATERIALS, EXCESS WAGES AND
MISCELLANEOUS COSTS FOUND TO BE THE RESULT OF UNAUTHORIZED ACTS,
RULINGS AND INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT SUPERINTENDENT AND HIS
ASSISTANT.  THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THESE ACTS, RULINGS AND
INSTRUCTIONS WERE UNREASONABLE AND IN MANY INSTANCES ARBITRARY,
CAPRICIOUS AND SO GROSSLY ERRONEOUS AS TO IMPLY BAD FAITH. 

ASSUMING WITHOUT DECIDING THAT THE ACTIONS COMPLAINED OF WERE
UNAUTHORIZED, UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY, WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT
RECOVERY OF THE RESULTING DAMAGES WAS PROPER IN THIS CASE.  ARTICLE 15
OF THE CONTRACT IN SUIT PROVIDES THAT ALL DISPUTES "CONCERNING
QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO
WRITTEN APPEAL BY THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT CONCERNED OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WHOSE
DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES THERETO AS TO
SUCH QUESTIONS."  ALL OF THE ITEMS ON WHICH THE RECOVERY OF $79,661.56
WAS BASED WERE THE SUBJECT OF "DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS ARISING
UNDER THIS CONTRACT."  RESPONDENT APPEALED SOME OF THE DECISIONS OR
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT SUPERINTENDENT TO THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER, WHICH RESULTED IN AT LEAST ONE RULING FAVORABLE TO
RESPONDENT.  FN3  AS TO THE ADVERSE RULINGS, HOWEVER, RESPONDENT MADE
NO FURTHER APPEAL TO THE HEAD OF THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT OR HIS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.  MOREOVER, THE REMAINING ITEMS WHICH WERE
THE SUBJECT OF SHARP DISPUTE BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE SUPERINTENDENT
WERE NOT EVEN APPEALED BY RESPONDENT TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.  AND
WHERE THE CONTRACTING OFFICER COULD BE SAID TO HAVE ACQUIESCED IN THE
SUPERINTENDENT'S RULINGS, NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO APPEAL FURTHER TO THE
DEPARTMENTAL HEAD. 

RESPONDENT HAS THUS CHOSEN NOT TO FOLLOW "THE ONLY AVENUE FOR
RELIEF," UNITED STATES V. CALLAHAN WALKER CO., 317 U.S. 56, 61,
AVAILABLE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS ARISING
UNDER THIS CONTRACT.  IN ARTICLE 15 THE PARTIES CLEARLY SET FORTH AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR RESPONDENT TO FOLLOW.  SUCH A PROCEDURE
PROVIDED A COMPLETE AND REASONABLE MEANS OF CORRECTING THE ABUSES
ALLEGED TO EXIST IN THIS CASE.  ARBITRARY RULINGS AND ACTIONS OF
SUBORDINATE OFFICERS ARE OFTEN ADJUSTED MOST EASILY AND SATISFACTORY BY
THEIR SUPERIORS.  FURTHERMORE, ARTICLE 15 PROVIDED THE GOVERNMENT WITH
AN OPPORTUNITY TO MITIGATE OR AVOID DAMAGES BY CORRECTING ERRORS OR
EXCESSES OF ITS SUBORDINATE OFFICERS.  HAVING ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO
THESE PROVISIONS, RESPONDENT WAS NOT FREE TO DISREGARD THEM WITHOUT DUE
CAUSE, ACCUMULATE LARGE DAMAGES AND THEN SUE FOR RECOVERY IN THE COURT
OF CLAIMS.  NOR CAN THE GOVERNMENT BE SO EASILY DEPRIVED OF THE
BENEFITS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY IT HAS CREATED TO ADJUDICATE
DISPUTES AND TO AVOID LARGE DAMAGE CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO PURSUE
THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN ARTICLE 15.  IT FOUND THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT
AND HIS ASSISTANT ACTED SO UNREASONABLY AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
RESPONDENT TO INVOKE THE APPEAL PROCEDURE WITHOUT SUBJECTING HIMSELF TO
PUNISHMENT AND REPRISALS.  IT ALSO FOUND THAT RESPONDENT REASONABLY
CONCLUDED THAT "THE BEST AND MOST PRACTICAL WAY OF HANDLING THE MATTER
OF PROTESTS" WAS INFORMALLY THROUGH CONFERENCES WITH THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER IN WASHINGTON; THE LATTER, HOWEVER, WAS OFTEN UNABLE OR
UNWILLING TO HELP HIM.  THUS THE COURT RULED THAT RESPONDENT WAS
EXCUSED FROM FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN THE CONTRACT.  WE
CANNOT AGREE.  EVEN IF THE CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT SUPERINTENDENT OR
CONTRACTING OFFICER, OR THEIR ASSISTANTS, WAS SO FLAGRANTLY
UNREASONABLE OR SO GROSSLY ERRONEOUS AS TO IMPLY BAD FAITH, THE APPEAL
PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT MUST BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE RELIEF IS SOUGHT IN
THE COURTS.  THERE WAS NO FINDING OR EVIDENCE THAT APPEAL TO THE HEAD
OF THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT OR TO HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WOULD
HAVE BEEN FUTILE OR PREJUDICIAL.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 256
U.S. 11, 16; RIPLEY V. UNITED STATES, 223 U.S. 695, 702.  WE CANNOT ON
THIS RECORD ATTRIBUTE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL HEAD THE ALLEGED UNREASONABLE
ATTITUDE OF HIS SUBORDINATES.  NOR CAN WE ASSUME THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL
HEAD WOULD HAVE ADOPTED AN ARBITRARY ATTITUDE OR REFUSED TO GRANT
RESPONDENT THE RELIEF TO WHICH HE MAY HAVE BEEN ENTITLED.  MOREOVER,
NOTHING IN THE RECORD SUGGESTS THAT HE COULD NOT EFFECTIVELY SUPERVISE
HIS SUBORDINATES OR PROVIDE FULL AND PROMPT RELIEF.  THUS, ABSENT A
VALID EXCUSE FOR NOT APPEALING THE DISPUTED ITEMS TO THE DEPARTMENTAL
HEAD PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 15, RESPONDENT CANNOT ASSERT A CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  IF IT WERE SHOWN THAT THE APPEAL
PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT WAS IN FACT INADEQUATE FOR THE
CORRECTION OF THE ALLEGED UNREASONABLE ATTITUDE OF THE SUBORDINATE
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, WE WOULD HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT CASE.  BUT HERE
WE MUST INSIST, NOT THAT RESPONDENT TURN SQUARE CORNERS, BUT THAT HE
EXHAUST THE AMPLE REMEDIES AGREED UPON. 

                                III. 

INCLUDED IN THE $79,661.56 AWARD OF MISCELLANEOUS DAMAGES WAS ONE
ITEM OF $9,730.27 ON A CLAIM TO THE USE OF THE ROANOKE MARBLE & GRANITE
COMPANY, INC., A SUBCONTRACTOR OF RESPONDENT WHO FURNISHED THE
MATERIALS AND PERFORMED THE LABOR NECESSARY TO INSTALL THE TILE,
TERRAZZO, MARBLE AND SOAPSTONE WORK CALLED FOR IN RESPONDENT'S CONTRACT
WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS AWARD WAS BASED UPON EXTRA LABOR COSTS
INCURRED UNDER CONDITIONS ERRONEOUSLY EXACTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
SUPERINTENDENT.  RESPONDENT APPEALED THIS MATTER TO THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER, WHO FINALLY RENDERED A DECISION IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT AND THE
SUBCONTRACTOR.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT REIMBURSED EITHER RESPONDENT OR
THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR THESE EXCESS LABOR COSTS; NOR HAS RESPONDENT PAID
THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR SUCH COSTS.  THE COURT BELOW MADE NO FINDING, AND
THE SUBCONTRACT AS INTRODUCED IN THE RECORD DOES NOT EXPRESSLY
INDICATE, THAT RESPONDENT WAS LIABLE TO THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR THE ACTS
OF THE GOVERNMENT UPON WHICH THE CLAIM WAS BASED. 

CLEARLY THE SUBCONTRACTOR COULD NOT RECOVER THIS CLAIM IN A SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, FOR THERE WAS NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONTRACT
BETWEEN HIM AND THE GOVERNMENT.  MERRITT V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S.
338.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT RESPONDENT IS BARRED FROM SUING FOR
THIS AMOUNT.  RESPONDENT WAS THE ONLY PERSON LEGALLY BOUND TO PERFORM
HIS CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND HE HAD THE UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO
RECOVER FROM THE GOVERNMENT THE CONTRACT PRICE FOR THE TILE, TERRAZZO,
MARBLE AND SOAPSTONE WORK WHETHER THAT WORK WAS PERFORMED PERSONALLY OR
THROUGH ANOTHER.  THIS NECESSARILY IMPLIES THE RIGHT TO RECOVER EXTRA
COSTS AND SERVICES WRONGFULLY DEMANDED OF RESPONDENT UNDER THE
CONTRACT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH COSTS WERE INCURRED OR SUCH
SERVICES WERE PERFORMED PERSONALLY OR THROUGH A SUBCONTRACTOR. 
RESPONDENT'S CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT IS THUS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN
AN ACTION FOR EXTRA COSTS WRONGFULLY DEMANDED UNDER THAT CONTRACT. 
HUNT V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 125.    THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS IS REVERSED AS TO ALL ITEMS EXCEPT THE CLAIM OF $9,730.27.  WE
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT AS TO THE LATTER CLAIM. 

FN1  THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACT HERE INVOLVED WAS "U.S.
GOVERNMENT FORM P.W.A. 51," THE CRITICAL PROVISIONS OF WHICH ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE IN THE STANDARD FORM OF GOVERNMENT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. 

FN2  THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF BOTH RESPONDENT'S AND REDMON'S
CONTRACTS WERE IDENTICAL, DIFFERING ONLY IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK
TO BE PERFORMED. 

FN3  SEE PART III, INFRA.    MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING IN
PART: 

THOSE DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT MUST NO DOUBT TURN SQUARE CORNERS. 
WHILE AGENTS FOR PRIVATE PRINCIPALS MAY WAIVE OR MODIFY PROVISIONS IN
CONTRACTS WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE RENDERED HARSH, PROVISIONS IN
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS CANNOT BE SO ALLEVIATED.  BUT IN ORDER TO ENFORCE
THE TERMS OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT COURTS MUST FIRST CONSTRUE THEM. 
AND THERE IS NEITHER LAW NOR POLICY THAT REQUIRES THAT COURTS IN
CONSTRUING THE TERMS OF A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT SHOULD TURN SQUARER
CORNERS THAN IF THE SAME TERMS WERE CONTAINED IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN
PRIVATE PARTIES.  "A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS ARE
CONTRACTS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS, WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAINING THE
INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND TO GIVE IT EFFECT ACCORDINGLY, IF THAT CAN
BE DONE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE INSTRUMENT."  HOLLERBACH V.
UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 165, 171-172.  LIKE ALL OTHER WRITINGS THAT DO
NOT HAVE THE PRECISION OF MATHEMATICAL TERMS, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS HAVE
INTERSTICES THAT SECRETE RELEVANT IMPLICATIONS.  NEITHER A STATUTE
WHICH PROVIDES THAT CONTRACTS SHALL BE REDUCED TO WRITING, NOR THE
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE "PRECLUDES RELIANCE UPON A WARRANTY IMPLIED BY
LAW."  UNITED STATES V. SPEARIN, 248 U.S. 132, 138.  UNLESS THE TERMS
OF A CONTRACT ARE SO EXPLICIT AS TO PRECLUDE IT, THE PRESUPPOSITION OF
FAIR DEALING SURELY MUST UNDERLIE A GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS A PRIVATE
CONTRACT.  RIPLEY V. UNITED STATES, 223 U.S. 695, 701-702; UNITED
STATES V. SMITH, 256 U.S. 11, 16. 

ACCORDINGLY, PROVISIONS IN A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT DEFINING METHODS FOR
SETTLING CONTROVERSIES BY APPEAL TO THE CONTRACTING BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT PRESUPPOSE EFFECTIVE RESORT TO SUCH METHODS OF SETTLING
QUESTIONS THAT ARISE IN CARRYING OUT A CONTRACT - THEY PRESUPPOSE THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AS A CONDITION TO JUDICIAL RELIEF ARE NOT
RENDERED FUTILE AND NUGATORY.  THIS DOES NOT OF COURSE QUESTION THE
GOOD FAITH OF THE HEAD OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION.  BUT WHERE THE
MAN ON THE SPOT, IN HIS DAILY RELATIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR, SHOWS THE
KIND OF ARBITRARY ATTITUDE FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, HE CANNOT BE
EFFECTIVELY SUPERVISED BY THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT.  IN ANY EVENT, THE
BURDEN OF INCURRING THE SUBORDINATE'S FUTURE HOSTILITY BY APPEALS TO
THE HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT BE CAST ON THE CONTRACTOR.  THE
FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THIS CASE CAN ONLY MEAN THAT IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN WHOLLY FUTILE, AND WORSE THAN FUTILE, TO INVOKE THE
EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT FOR RESORT TO ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF.  THEREFORE, AS A RECIPROCAL DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE
CONTRACT BRINGS INTO OPERATION THE IMPLIED WARRANTY THAT THOSE WHO HAVE
IN EFFECTIVE KEEPING THE ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY FOR SETTLING
CONTROVERSIES WILL NOT PREVENT ITS UTILIZATION FOR ALL PRACTICAL
PURPOSES. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS AWARDED RESPONDENT $79,661.56 TO COMPENSATE FOR
LOSSES AND INCREASED COSTS RESULTING FROM THE UNREASONABLE AND IMPROPER
REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED UPON THE CONTRACTOR BY THE GOVERNMENT'S
SUPERINTENDENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND HIS ASSISTANT.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THE VARIOUS ITEMS WHICH GO TO MAKE UP THIS SUM DIFFER IN
DETAILS, BUT THE BASIS ON WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND FOR THE
CONTRACTOR IS THE SAME. 

THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT BELOW TELL A STORY OF ARBITRARY
IMPOSITIONS.  FROM THE OUTSET, THE SUPERINTENDING GOVERNMENT OFFICERS
REQUIRED THE CONTRACTOR "TO DO THINGS ADMITTEDLY NOT REQUIRED OF HIM
UNDER THE CONTRACT ON THREAT OF REPRISALS FOR REFUSAL."  THESE WERE NOT
EMPTY THREATS.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT AN UNAUTHORIZED AND
UNREASONABLE ORDER TO ERECT OUTSIDE SCAFFOLDING FOR LAYING BRICKS WAS
ENFORCED BY REJECTING BRICKWORK WHICH WAS NOT PRECISELY UNIFORM TO A
MAXIMUM OF ONE-SIXTEENTH OF AN INCH BY MEASUREMENT, AND EXACTING OF
PLAINTIFF MORTAR JOINTS THAT DID NOT VARY MORE THAN ONE-EIGHTH OF AN
INCH BY MEASUREMENT.  THAT THESE REJECTIONS AND EXACTIONS WERE WILFUL
AND OPPRESSIVE BECAME CLEAR WHEN ALL OBJECTIONS CEASED AS SOON AS THE
CONTRACTOR DECIDED TO COMPLY AND ERECT THE OUTSIDE SCAFFOLDS.  THIS IS
BUT ONE ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT WAS APPARENTLY A SYSTEMATIC PRACTICE OF
UNJUSTIFIED DEMANDS AND VEXATIONS. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT AND HIS ASSISTANT
"RESENTED PLAINTIFF'S MAKING PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER,
THEREBY RENDERING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PLAINTIFF EFFECTIVELY TO PROTEST IN
WRITING IN EACH INSTANCE TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THROUGH THE
DEFENDANT'S OFFICER AT THE SITE OF THE WORK.  ...  THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER IN THOSE CASES INVOLVING UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY ACTS AND
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE OFFICERS AT THE SITE OF THE WORK STATED TO
PLAINTIFF THAT HE UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED THE TROUBLES AND
DIFFICULTIES UNDER WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS HAVING TO PERFORM THE WORK, BUT
THERE WAS PRACTICALLY NOTHING HE COULD DO ABOUT IT AND THAT PLAINTIFF
SHOULD KEEP HIM INFORMED BUT THAT PLAINTIFF 'WOULD JUST HAVE TO DO THE
BEST HE COULD TO GET ALONG' WITH THE OFFICERS AND INSPECTORS AT THE
SITE OF THE WORK, TO THE END THAT THE WORK BE COMPLETED AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE."  IF THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THESE FINDINGS,
THIS COURT'S POWER OF REVIEW IS CONFINED TO QUESTIONS OF LAW.  53 STAT.
752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 288. 

FOR ALL BUT ONE ITEM, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE EVIDENCE IS
ADEQUATE AND THE AWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  THE CONTRACTOR WAS
AWARDED $107.50 FOR THE EXTRA COST OF TEMPERATURE STEEL USED BY ORDER
OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CONSTRUCTION IN SLABS REINFORCED WITH TWO-WAY
RODS.  THE RECORD MAKES CLEAR THAT THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS
SUPPORTED THIS ORDER OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, IN THAT NO DISTINCTION WAS
MADE AS TO WHETHER THE SLABS WERE REINFORCED BY ONE-WAY OR TWO-WAY
RODS, AND THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SUBSEQUENTLY RELIEVED
THE CONTRACTOR OF THIS REQUIREMENT AS TO TWO-WAY RODS DOES NOT JUSTIFY
THE AWARD.  IN VIEW OF WHAT I DEEM TO BE LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACTS, I SHOULD THEREFORE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE ACTS OF THE
SUPERINTENDING OFFICERS AFTER DEDUCTING $107.50. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :

















CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. V. U.S., 322 U.S. 1 


NO. 482.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 10, 1944.  - 50
F.SUPP.  249, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FINDINGS UPON WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BASED
ITS AUTHORIZATION OF MOTOR CARRIER OPERATIONS IN THIS CASE WERE
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE; AND THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY DECLINED TO
SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN INFERENCES FROM THE TESTIMONY FOR THOSE OF THE
COMMISSION AND TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE ANEW.  P. 2. 

2.  UPON APPLICATION BY A MOTOR CARRIER UNDER SECS. 206(A) AND 207(A)
OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT FOR AUTHORIZATION OF
OPERATIONS OVER CERTAIN ROUTES, THE COMMISSION, UPON THE FACTS FOUND,
HAD POWER UNDER SEC. 208(A) TO AUTHORIZE THE APPLICANT TO SERVE
INTERMEDIATE POINTS ON THE ROUTES, THOUGH THE APPLICANT HAD NOT SOUGHT
AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE INTERMEDIATE POINTS.  P. 3. 

3.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SUSTAIN THE CLAIM THAT THE PROTESTANTS WERE
DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ADEQUATE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 
P. 3. 

CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & OMAHA RAILWAY CO. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING A
SUIT TO SET ASIDE IN PART AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS ARE FIVE RAILROADS OPERATING IN MINNESOTA AND NORTH
DAKOTA.  THEY CLAIM TO BE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION GRANTING OPERATING AUTHORITY TO A MOTOR CARRIER OF
GOODS IN THAT TERRITORY.  APPELLEE CORNELIUS STYER, DOING BUSINESS AS
NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, MADE APPLICATION FOR TWO CLASSES OF
COMMON-CARRIER RIGHTS.  AS TO CERTAIN ROUTES HE SOUGHT "GRANDFATHER
RIGHTS" UNDER SEC. 206(A) OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 306(A).  AS TO CERTAIN OTHERS, HE SOUGHT AUTHORITY UNDER
SECS. 206(A) AND 207(A) OF THE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 306(A), 307(A), BY
SHOWING THAT THE PROPOSED SERVICE "IS OR WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE
PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY."  AFTER DUE
HEARINGS BOTH CLASSES OF RIGHTS WERE GRANTED.  STYER LATER TRANSFERRED
THEM TO THE APPELLEE GLENDENNING MOTORWAYS, INC. 

THE RAILROADS BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MINNESOTA
AGAINST THE COMMISSION AND THE CARRIERS TO ANNUL THE COMMISSION'S
CERTIFICATE, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(28).  THE CAUSE CAME ON
BEFORE A COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHO DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE
MERITS.  IT WAS BROUGHT HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS ON
WHICH THE COMMISSION GRANTED OPERATING RIGHTS.  THE COURT BELOW
EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE AS TO EACH CHALLENGED FINDING AND FOUND EACH "NOT
UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE."  IT DECLINED, QUITE PROPERLY, TO SUBSTITUTE
INFERENCES OF ITS OWN FOR THOSE DRAWN BY THE COMMISSION FROM TESTIMONY
AND DECLINED TO WEIGH ANEW CONFLICTS IN IT.  THIS WAS NO ERROR, AND WE
AFFIRM THE FINDINGS.  GREGG CARTAGE & STORAGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 316
U.S. 74; ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125. 

THE QUESTION OF LAW IN THE CASE IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON ITS
FINDING NEED FOR SUCH SERVICE HAD POWER TO AUTHORIZE SERVICE OF
INTERMEDIATE POINTS NOT ASKED FOR BY THE APPLICANT.  THE APPLICANT HAS
ACCEPTED AND IS DEFENDING THE GRANT, BUT THE COMPETING RAIL CARRIERS
COMPLAIN OF IT. 

IN THE GRANDFATHER CASE STYER STATED THAT HE DID NOT CLAIM AND WAS
NOT APPLYING FOR AUTHORITY TO CARRY GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM
ANY MINNESOTA POINT TO ANY MINNESOTA POINT.  BUT HE HAD BEGUN
OPERATIONS ONLY TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO THE "GRANDFATHER" DATE.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT HE HAD HELD OUT SERVICE TO SUCH INTERMEDIATE
POINTS AND THAT THERE WAS PUBLIC NEED FOR IT. 

IN THE CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY CASE, BEFORE HEARING STYER FILED AN
AMENDMENT TO HIS APPLICATION WHICH WITHDREW REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY AS TO
"ALL SERVICE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BETWEEN POINTS IN MINNESOTA."  THE
COMMISSION, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT HE HAD SERVED SUCH INTERMEDIATE POINTS
ON THE ROUTE AS SHIPPERS HAD REQUESTED IT, THAT SUCH SERVICE WAS
FULFILLING A PUBLIC NEED, AND WAS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY. 

IT IS SAID THAT THESE ACTIONS WITHDREW THE INTERMEDIATE POINTS FROM
ISSUE AND THREW THE PROTESTING PARTIES OFF THEIR GUARD AND THAT THEY
DID NOT HAVE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADEQUATE HEARING ON THE MATTERS ULTIMATELY
DECIDED.  HOWEVER, AFTER RECEIVING THE REPORT OF DIVISION 5
RECOMMENDING GRANTING, AS WAS DONE, THE RAILROADS FILED A PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.  IT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE.  WHETHER SURPRISE WAS CLAIMED
AND EVIDENCE WAS INDICATED THAT COULD BE ADDED ON REHEARING, WE DO NOT
KNOW.  THE COURT ENDEAVORS TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF PARTIES TO FAIR
HEARINGS, BUT IT WILL NOT PRESUME THAT THEIR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY DENIED WHEN THEY DO NOT EMBRACE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE
THEIR GRIEVANCE IN THE COURT BELOW. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION ON THE FACTS FOUND HAD POWER TO
INCLUDE IN THE AUTHORIZATION PROVISION FOR SERVICE GREATER THAN THE
CARRIER HAD ASKED.  SECTION 208(A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT IN ANY
CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER EITHER SEC. 206 OR SEC. 207 "THERE SHALL, AT
THE TIME OF ISSUANCE AND FROM TIME TO TIME THEREAFTER, BE ATTACHED TO
THE EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY THE CERTIFICATE SUCH
REASONABLE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS AS THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY MAY FROM TIME TO TIME REQUIRE, INCLUDING TERMS,
CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS AS TO THE EXTENSION OF THE ROUTE OR ROUTES
OF THE CARRIER."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 308(A).  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 
..END :











POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS, 322 U.S. 4 


NO. 345.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 10, 1944.  - 153
FLA. 338, 14 SO.2D 700, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATUTE OF FLORIDA WHICH MAKES GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR ANY
PERSON WHO, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD, OBTAINS AN ADVANCE UPON AN
AGREEMENT TO RENDER SERVICES, AND WHICH PROVIDES FURTHER THAT FAILURE
TO PERFORM THE SERVICES FOR WHICH AN ADVANCE WAS OBTAINED SHALL BE
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO DEFRAUD, HELD VIOLATIVE OF THE
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE FEDERAL ANTIPEONAGE ACT.  PP. 5, 17. 

2.  IN VIEW OF THE HISTORY AND OPERATION OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE, IT
CAN NOT BE SAID THAT A PLEA OF GUILTY IS UNINFLUENCED BY THE STATUTE'S
THREAT TO CONVICT BY ITS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE SECTION; HENCE THE ENTIRE
STATUTE IS INVALID, AND A CONVICTION UNDER IT, THOUGH BASED UPON A PLEA
OF GUILTY, CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED.  P. 15. 

3.  THAT UPON A TRIAL OF THE DEFENDANT HIS TESTIMONY IN RESPECT OF
HIS INTENT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPETENT IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 25. 

POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS, SHERIFF. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT WHICH, UPON A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, DISCHARGED THE PRISONER, APPELLANT HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT POLLOCK QUESTIONS THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF THE STATE OF
FLORIDA MAKING IT A MISDEMEANOR TO INDUCE ADVANCES WITH INTENT TO
DEFRAUD BY A PROMISE TO PERFORM LABOR AND FURTHER MAKING FAILURE TO
PERFORM LABOR FOR WHICH MONEY HAS BEEN OBTAINED PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
INTENT TO DEFRAUD.  FN1  IT CONFLICTS, HE SAYS, WITH THE THIRTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND WITH THE ANTIPEONAGE STATUTE
ENACTED BY CONGRESS THEREUNDER.  CLAIMS ALSO ARE MADE UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH
WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER. 

POLLOCK WAS ARRESTED JANUARY 5, 1943, ON A WARRANT ISSUED THREE DAYS
BEFORE WHICH CHARGED THAT ON THE 17TH OF OCTOBER, 1942, HE DID "WITH
INTENT TO INJURE AND DEFRAUD UNDER AND BY REASON OF A CONTRACT AND
PROMISE TO PERFORM LABOR AND SERVICE, PROCURE AND OBTAIN MONEY, TO-WIT:
THE SUM OF $5.00, AS ADVANCES FROM ONE J.V. O'ALBORA, A CORPORATION,
CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE IN SUCH CASES MADE AND PROVIDED, AND AGAINST
THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA."  HE WAS TAKEN BEFORE
THE COUNTY JUDGE ON THE SAME DAY, ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY, AND WAS
SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF $100 AND IN DEFAULT TO SERVE SIXTY DAYS IN
THE COUNTY JAIL.  HE WAS IMMEDIATELY COMMITTED. 

ON JANUARY 11, 1943, A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS ISSUED BY THE JUDGE
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, DIRECTED TO THE JAIL KEEPER, WHO IS APPELLEE
HERE.  PETITION FOR THE WRIT CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
STATUTES UNDER WHICH POLLOCK WAS CONFINED AND SET FORTH THAT "AT THE
TRIAL AFORESAID, HE WAS NOT TOLD THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL, AND
THAT COUNSEL WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR HIM IF HE WISHED, AND HE DID NOT
KNOW THAT HE HAD SUCH RIGHT.  PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT FUNDS AND UNABLE
TO EMPLOY COUNSEL.  HE FURTHER AVERS THAT HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE
NATURE OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM, BUT UNDERSTOOD THAT IF HE OWED ANY
MONEY TO HIS PRIOR EMPLOYER AND HAD QUIT HIS EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT PAYING
THE SAME, HE WAS GUILTY, WHICH FACTS HE ADMITTED."  THE SHERIFF'S
RETURN MAKES NO DENIAL OF THESE ALLEGATIONS, BUT MERELY SETS FORTH THAT
HE HOLDS THE PRISONER BY VIRTUE OF THE COMMITMENT "BASED UPON THE
JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION AS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION."  THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA HAS SAID THAT "UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION
ARE TAKEN AS TRUE."  FN2 

THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD THE STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE CASE WAS
PROSECUTED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DISCHARGED THE PRISONER.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA REVERSED.  FN3  IT READ OUR DECISIONS IN
BAILEY V. ALABAMA  FN4  AND TAYLOR V. GEORGIA  FN5  TO HOLD THAT
SIMILAR LAWS ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION IN SO FAR AS
THEY DENOUNCE THE CRIME, BUT ONLY IN DECLARING THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
RULE.  IT STATED THAT ITS FIRST IMPRESSION WAS THAT THE ENTIRE FLORIDA
ACT WOULD FALL, AS DID THAT OF GEORGIA, BUT ON REFLECTION IT CONCLUDED
THAT OUR DECISIONS WERE CALLED FORTH BY OPERATION OF THE PRESUMPTION,
AND DID NOT CONDEMN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF THE STATUTE WHERE THE
PRESUMPTION WAS NOT BROUGHT INTO PLAY.  AS THE PRISONER HAD PLEADED
GUILTY, THE FLORIDA COURT THOUGHT THE PRESUMPTION HAD PLAYED NO PART IN
THIS CASE, AND THEREFORE REMANDED THE PRISONER TO CUSTODY.  AN APPEAL
TO THIS COURT WAS TAKEN AND PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED.  FN6 

FLORIDA ADVANCES NO ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESUMPTION SECTION OF THIS
STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL, NOR COULD IT PLAUSIBLY DO SO IN VIEW OF OUR
DECISIONS.  IT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, (1) THAT WE CAN GIVE NO CONSIDERATION
TO THE PRESUMPTION SECTION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN FACT BROUGHT INTO PLAY
IN THE CASE, BY REASON OF THE PLEA OF GUILTY; (2) THAT SO SEVERED THE

             I. 

THESE ISSUES EMERGE FROM AN HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH THE
FLORIDA LEGISLATION IN QUESTION MUST BE APPRAISED. 

THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, MADE IN 1865,
DECLARES THAT INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE SHALL NOT EXIST WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES AND GIVES CONGRESS POWER TO ENFORCE THE ARTICLE BY APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATION.  FN7  CONGRESS ON MARCH 2, 1867, ENACTED THAT ALL LAWS OR
USAGES OF ANY STATE "BY VIRTUE OF WHICH ANY ATTEMPT SHALL HEREAFTER BE
MADE TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, OR ENFORCE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE
VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY SERVICE OR LABOR OF ANY PERSONS AS PEONS, IN
LIQUIDATION OF ANY DEBT OR OBLIGATION, OR OTHERWISE," ARE NULL AND
VOID, AND DENOUNCED IT AS A CRIME TO HOLD, ARREST, OR RETURN A PERSON
TO THE CONDITION OF PEONAGE.  FN8  CONGRESS THUS RAISED BOTH A SHIELD
AND A SWORD AGAINST FORCED LABOR BECAUSE OF DEBT. 

CLYATT V. UNITED STATES WAS A CASE FROM FLORIDA IN WHICH THE FEDERAL
ACT WAS USED AS A SWORD AND AN EMPLOYER CONVICTED UNDER IT.  THIS COURT
SUSTAINED IT AS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SAID OF PEONAGE: "IT MAY BE DEFINED
AS A STATUS OR CONDITION OF COMPULSORY SERVICE, BASED UPON THE
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE PEON TO THE MASTER.  THE BASAL FACT IS
INDEBTEDNESS.  ...  PEONAGE IS SOMETIMES CLASSIFIED AS VOLUNTARY OR
INVOLUNTARY, BUT THIS IMPLIES SIMPLY A DIFFERENCE IN THE MODE OF
ORIGIN, BUT NONE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE SERVITUDE.  THE ONE EXISTS
WHERE THE DEBTOR VOLUNTARILY CONTRACTS TO ENTER THE SERVICE OF HIS
CREDITOR.  THE OTHER IS FORCED UPON THE DEBTOR BY SOME PROVISION OF
LAW.  ... A CLEAR DISTINCTION EXISTS BETWEEN PEONAGE AND THE VOLUNTARY
PERFORMANCE OF LABOR OR RENDERING OF SERVICES IN PAYMENT OF A DEBT.  IN
THE LATTER CASE THE DEBTOR, THOUGH CONTRACTING TO PAY HIS INDEBTEDNESS
BY LABOR OR SERVICE, AND SUBJECT LIKE ANY OTHER CONTRACTOR TO AN ACTION
FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THAT CONTRACT, CAN ELECT AT ANY TIME TO BREAK
IT, AND NO LAW OR FORCE COMPELS PERFORMANCE OR A CONTINUANCE OF THE
SERVICE."  FN9 

THEN CAME THE TWICE-CONSIDERED CASE OF BAILEY V. ALABAMA N10, IN
WHICH THE ACT AND THE CONSTITUTION WERE RAISED AS A SHIELD AGAINST
CONVICTION OF A LABORER UNDER AN ALABAMA ACT SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS
THE ONE BEFORE US NOW.  BAILEY, A NEGRO, HAD OBTAINED $15 FROM A
CORPORATION ON A WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO WORK FOR A YEAR AT $12 PER MONTH,
$10.75 TO BE PAID HIM AND $1.25 PER MONTH TO APPLY ON HIS DEBT.  IN
ABOUT A MONTH HE QUIT.  HE WAS CONVICTED, FINED $30, OR IN DEFAULT
SENTENCED TO HARD LABOR FOR 20 DAYS IN LIEU OF THE FINE AND 116 DAYS ON
ACCOUNT OF COSTS.  THE COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE PORTION OF THE STATE
LAW DEFINING THE CRIME WOULD REQUIRE PROOF OF INTENT TO DEFRAUD, AND SO
DID NOT STRIKE DOWN THAT PART; NOR WAS IT EXPRESSLY SUSTAINED, NOR WAS
IT NECESSARILY REACHED, FOR THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE PROVISION HAD BEEN
USED TO OBTAIN A CONVICTION.  THIS COURT HELD THE PRESUMPTION, IN SUCH
A CONTEXT, TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

LATER CAME UNITED STATES V. REYNOLDS AND UNITED STATES V. BROUGHTON
FN11  IN WHICH THE ACT OF 1867 WAS SWORD AGAIN.  REYNOLDS AND BROUGHTON
WERE INDICTED UNDER IT.  THE ALABAMA CODE AUTHORIZED ONE UNDER SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES TO BECOME SURETY FOR A CONVICT, PAY HIS FINE, AND BE
REIMBURSED BY LABOR.  REYNOLDS AND BROUGHTON EACH GOT HIMSELF A CONVICT
TO WORK OUT FINES AND COSTS AS A FARM HAND AT $6.00 PER MONTH.  AFTER A
TIME EACH CONVICT REFUSED TO LABOR FURTHER AND, UNDER THE STATUTE, EACH
WAS CONVICTED FOR THE REFUSAL.  THIS COURT SAID, "THUS, UNDER PAIN OF
RECURRING PROSECUTIONS, THE CONVICT MAY BE KEPT AT LABOR, TO SATISFY
THE DEMANDS OF HIS EMPLOYER."  IT HELD THE ALABAMA STATUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND EMPLOYERS UNDER IT SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION. 

IN TAYLOR V. GEORGIA  FN12  THE FEDERAL ACT WAS AGAIN APPLIED AS A
SHIELD, AGAINST CONVICTION BY RESORT TO THE PRESUMPTION, OF A NEGRO
LABORER, UNDER A GEORGIA STATUTE IN EFFECT LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US NOW. 
WE MADE NO EFFORT TO SEPARATE VALID FROM INVALID ELEMENTS IN THE
STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS WERE, AS
HERE, IN SEPARATE, AND SEPARATELY NUMBERED, SECTIONS.  WE SAID, "WE
THINK THAT THE SECTIONS OF THE GEORGIA CODE UPON WHICH THIS CONVICTION
RESTS ARE REPUGNANT TO THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND TO THE ACT OF 1867,
AND THAT THE CONVICTION MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED."  ONLY RECENTLY IN
A CASE FROM NORTHERN FLORIDA A CREDITOR-EMPLOYER WAS INDICTED UNDER THE
FEDERAL ACT FOR ARRESTING A DEBTOR TO PEONAGE, AND WE SUSTAINED THE
INDICTMENT.  UNITED STATES V. GASKIN.  FN13 

THESE CASES DECIDED BY THIS COURT UNDER THE ACT OF 1867 CAME EITHER
FROM FLORIDA OR ONE OF THE ADJOINING STATES.  AND THESE WERE BUT A PART
OF THE STIR CAUSED BY THE FEDERAL ANTIPEONAGE ACT AND ITS ENFORCEMENT
IN THIS SAME REGION.  FN14  THIS IS NOT TO INTIMATE THAT THIS SECTION,
MORE THAN OTHERS, WAS SYMPATHETIC WITH PEONAGE, FOR THIS EVIL HAS NEVER
HAD GENERAL APPROVAL ANYWHERE, AND ITS SPORADIC APPEARANCES HAVE BEEN
NEITHER SECTIONAL NOR RACIAL.  IT IS MEMTIONED, HOWEVER, TO INDICATE
THAT THE LEGISLATURE OF FLORIDA ACTED WITH ALMOST CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE IN
DESIGNING ITS SUCCESSIVE "LABOR FRAUD" ACTS IN RELATION TO OUR SERIES
OF PEONAGE DECISIONS.  THE PRESENT ACT IS THE LATEST OF A LINEAGE, IN
WHICH ITS ANTECEDENTS WERE OBVIOUSLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRACTICE OF
PEONAGE.  THIS HISTORY THROWS SOME LIGHT ON WHETHER THE PRESENT STATE
ACT IS ONE "BY VIRTUE OF WHICH ANY ATTEMPT SHALL HEREAFTER BE MADE" TO
"ENFORCE INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE," IN WHICH EVENT THE FEDERAL ACT
DECLARES IT VOID. 

IN 1891, THE LEGISLATURE CREATED AN OFFENSE OF TWO ELEMENTS:
OBTAINING MONEY OR PROPERTY UPON A FALSE PROMISE TO PERFORM SERVICE,
AND ABANDONMENT OF SERVICE WITHOUT JUST CAUSE AND WITHOUT RESTITUTION
OF WHAT HAD BEEN OBTAINED N15.  IN 1905, THIS COURT DECIDED CLYATT V.
UNITED STATES, INDICATING THAT ANY PERSON, INCLUDING PUBLIC OFFICERS,
EVEN IF ACTING UNDER STATE LAW, MIGHT BE GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE
FEDERAL ACT.  IN 1907, THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE ENACTED A NEW STATUTE,
NEARLY IDENTICAL IN TERMS WITH THAT OF ALABAMA N16.  IN 1911, IN BAILEY
V. ALABAMA, THIS COURT HELD SUCH AN ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IN 1913, THE
FLORIDA LEGISLATURE REPEALED THE 1907 ACT, BUT RE-ENACTED IN SUBSTANCE
THE SECTION DENOUNCING THE CRIME, OMITTING THE PRESUMPTION OF INTENT
FROM THE FAILURE TO PERFORM THE SERVICE OR MAKE RESTITUTION.  FN17  IN
1919, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HELD THIS ACT, STANDING ALONE, VOID
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF BAILEY V. ALABAMA.  FN18  WHEREUPON, AT THE
SESSION OF 1919, THE PRESENT STATUTE WAS ENACTED, INCLUDING THE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE PROVISIONS, NOTWITHSTANDING THESE DECISIONS BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AND BY THIS COURT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
FLORIDA LATER UPHELD A CONVICTION UNDER THIS STATUTE ON A PLEA OF
GUILTY, BUT DECLINED TO PASS ON THE PRESUMPTION SECTION, BECAUSE, AS IN
THE PRESENT CASE, THE PLEA OF GUILTY WAS THOUGHT TO MAKE ITS
CONSIDERATION UNNECESSARY.  FN19  THE STATUTE WAS RE-ENACTED WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN 1941.  AGAIN IN 1943 IT WAS RE-ENACTED DESPITE
THE FACT THAT THE YEAR BEFORE WE HELD A VERY SIMILAR GEORGIA STATUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS ENTIRETY.  FN20

                                 II. 

THE STATE CONTENDS THAT WE MUST EXCLUDE THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
PROVISION FROM CONSIDERATION BECAUSE IN FACT IT PLAYED NO PART IN
PRODUCING THIS CONVICTION.  SUCH WAS THE HOLDING OF THE STATE SUPREME
COURT.  WE ARE NOT CONCLUDED BY THAT HOLDING, HOWEVER, BUT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION. 
FN21 

WHAT THE PRISONER ACTUALLY DID THAT CONSTITUTED THE CRIME CANNOT BE
GLEANED FROM THE RECORD.  THE CHARGE IS CAST IN THE WORDS OF THE
STATUTE AND IS LARGELY A CONCLUSION.  IT AFFORDS NO INFORMATION EXCEPT
THAT POLLOCK OBTAINED $5 FROM A CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH A
PROMISE TO WORK WHICH HE FAILED TO PERFORM, AND THAT HIS DOING SO WAS
FRAUDULENT.  IF THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRISONER ACTED WITH INTENT TO
DEFRAUD RESTS ON FACTS AND NOT ON THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE PROVISIONS
OF THE STATUTE, NONE ARE STATED IN THE WARRANT OR APPEAR IN THE
RECORD.  NONE WERE SO SET FORTH THAT HE COULD DENY THEM.  HE OBTAINED
THE MONEY ON THE 14TH OF OCTOBER, 1942, AND THE WARRANT WAS NOT SOUGHT
UNTIL JANUARY 2, 1943.  WHETHER THE ORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT WAS MORE OR
LESS THAN $5, WHAT HE REPRESENTED OR PROMISED IN OBTAINING IT, WHETHER
HE WORKED A TIME AND QUIT, OR WHETHER HE NEVER BEGAN WORK AT ALL ARE
UNDISCLOSED.  ABOUT ALL THAT APPEARS IS THAT HE OBTAINED AN ADVANCEMENT
OF $5 FROM A CORPORATION AND FAILED TO KEEP HIS AGREEMENT TO WORK IT
OUT.  HE ADMITTED THOSE FACTS AND THE LAW PURPORTED TO SUPPLY THE
ELEMENT OF INTENT.  HE ADMITTED THE CONCLUSION OF GUILT WHICH THE
STATUTE MADE PRIMA FACIE THEREON.  HE WAS FINED $20 FOR EACH DOLLAR OF
HIS DEBT, AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT WAS REQUIRED TO ATONE FOR IT BY
SERVING TIME AT THE RATE OF LESS THAN 9[ PER DAY. 

ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE UNDENIED ASSERTIONS IN POLLOCK'S PETITION
WE CANNOT DOUBT THAT THE PRESUMPTION PROVISION HAD A COERCIVE EFFECT IN
PRODUCING THE PLEA OF GUILTY.  THE STATUTE LAID ITS UNDIVIDED WEIGHT
UPON HIM.  THE LEGISLATURE HAD NOT EVEN INCLUDED A SEPARABILITY
CLAUSE.  FN22  OF COURSE THE FUNCTION OF THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
LACKING.  NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT WE CLEARLY HAVE HELD THAT SUCH A
PRESUMPTION IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE FEDERAL STATUTE. 
THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE HAS ENACTED AND TWICE RE-ENACTED IT SINCE WE SO
HELD.  WE CANNOT ASSUME IT WAS DOING AN IDLE THING.  SINCE THE
PRESUMPTION WAS KNOWN TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OF NO USE IN A
CONTESTED CASE, THE ONLY EXPLANATION WE CAN FIND FOR ITS PERSISTENT
APPEARANCE IN THE STATUTE IS ITS EXTRA-LEGAL COERCIVE EFFECT IN
SUPPRESSING DEFENSES.  IT CONFRONTED THIS DEFENDANT.  THERE WAS EVERY
PROBABILITY THAT A LAW SO RECENTLY AND REPEATEDLY ENACTED BY THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THE TRIAL COURT, WHOSE JUDGE WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO BE A LAWYER.  THE POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING RELIEF BY APPEAL
WAS NOT BRIGHT, AS THE EVENT PROVED, FOR POLLOCK HAD TO COME ALL THE
WAY TO THIS COURT AND WAS REQUIRED, AND QUITE REGULARLY, TO POST A
SUPERSEDEAS BOND OF $500, A HUNDRED TIMES THE AMOUNT OF HIS DEBT.  HE
WAS AN ILLITERATE NEGRO LABORER IN THE TOILS OF THE LAW FOR THE WANT OF
$5.  SUCH CONSIDERATIONS BEAR IMPORTANTLY ON THE DECISION OF A PRISONER
EVEN IF AIDED BY COUNSEL, AS POLLOCK WAS NOT, WHETHER TO PLEAD GUILTY
AND HOPE FOR LENIENCY OR TO FIGHT.  IT IS PLAIN THAT, HAD HIS PLIGHT
AFTER CONVICTION NOT AROUSED OUTSIDE HELP, POLLOCK HIMSELF WOULD HAVE
BEEN UNHEARD IN ANY APPELLATE COURT. 

IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY, THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE
LAW WAS GENERALLY USED OR ESPECIALLY USEFUL MERELY TO PUNISH DECEIT. 
FLORIDA HAS A GENERAL AND COMPREHENSIVE STATUTE MAKING IT A CRIME TO
OBTAIN MONEY OR PROPERTY BY FALSE PRETENSES  FN23  OR COMMIT "GROSS
FRAUD OR CHEAT AT COMMON LAW."  FN24  THESE APPEAR TO AUTHORIZE
PROSECUTION FOR EVEN THE PETTY AMOUNT INVOLVED HERE.  FN25  WE CAN
CONCEIVE REASONS, EVEN IF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONES, WHICH MIGHT LEAD WELL
INTENTIONED PERSONS TO APPLY THIS ACT AS A MEANS TO MAKE OTHERWISE
SHIFTLESS MEN WORK,  FN26 BUT IF IN ADDITION TO THIS GENERAL FRAUD
PROTECTION EMPLOYERS AS A CLASS ARE SO SUSCEPTIBLE TO IMPOSITION THAT
THEY NEED EXTRA LEGISLATION, OR WORKMEN SO CRAFTY AND SUBTLE AS TO
CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL MENACE, WE DO NOT KNOW IT, NOR ARE WE ADVISED OF
SUCH FACTS. 

WE THINK THAT A STATE WHICH MAINTAINS SUCH A LAW IN FACE OF THE COURT
DECISIONS WE HAVE RECITED MAY NOT BE HEARD TO SAY THAT A PLEA OF GUILTY
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT DUE TO PRESSURE OF ITS STATUTORY THREAT
TO CONVICT HIM ON THE PRESUMPTION. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, FLORIDA PERSISTED IN PUTTING UPON ITS STATUTE BOOKS
A PROVISION CREATING A PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD FROM THE MERE
NONPERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR LABOR SERVICE THREE TIMES AFTER THE
COURTS RULED THAT SUCH A PROVISION VIOLATES THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
PEONAGE.  TO ATTACH NO MEANING TO SUCH ACTION, TO SAY THAT LEGALLY
SPEAKING THERE WAS NO SUCH LEGISLATION, IS TO BE BLIND TO FACT.  SINCE
THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE DEEMED THESE REPEATED ENACTMENTS TO BE
IMPORTANT, WE TAKE THE LEGISLATURE AT ITS OWN WORD.  SUCH A PROVISION
IS ON THE STATUTE BOOKS FOR THOSE WHO ARE ARRESTED FOR THE CRIME, AND
IT IS ON THE STATUTE BOOKS FOR US IN CONSIDERING THE PRACTICAL MEANING
OF WHAT FLORIDA HAS DONE. 

IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THIS PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE PROVISION IT IS NOT MATERIAL WHETHER AS MATTER OF STATE LAW IT
IS REGARDED AS AN INDEPENDENT AND SEVERABLE PROVISION. 

                       III. 

WE ARE INDUCED BY THE EVIDENT MISUNDERSTANDING OF OUR DECISIONS BY
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, IN WHAT WE ARE CONVINCED WAS A CONSCIENTIOUS
AND PAINSTAKING STUDY OF THEM, TO MAKE MORE EXPLICIT THE BASIS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY OF THIS TYPE OF STATUTE. 

THE UNDOUBTED AIM OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE
ANTIPEONAGE ACT WAS NOT MERELY TO END SLAVERY BUT TO MAINTAIN A SYSTEM
OF COMPLETELY FREE AND VOLUNTARY LABOR THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. 
FORCED LABOR IN SOME SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
GENERAL BASIC SYSTEM OF FREE LABOR.  FOR EXAMPLE, FORCED LABOR HAS BEEN
SUSTAINED AS A MEANS OF PUNISHING CRIME,  FN27  AND THERE ARE DUTIES
SUCH AS WORK ON HIGHWAYS  FN28  WHICH SOCIETY MAY COMPEL.  BUT IN
GENERAL THE DEFENSE AGAINST OPPRESSIVE HOURS, PAY, WORKING CONDITIONS,
OR TREATMENT IS THE RIGHT TO CHANGE EMPLOYERS.  WHEN THE MASTER CAN
COMPEL AND THE LABORER CANNOT ESCAPE THE OBLIGATION TO GO ON, THERE IS
NO POWER BELOW TO REDRESS AND NO INCENTIVE ABOVE TO RELIEVE A HARSH
OVERLORDSHIP OR UNWHOLESOME CONDITIONS OF WORK.  RESULTING DEPRESSION
OF WORKING CONDITIONS AND LIVING STANDARDS AFFECTS NOT ONLY THE LABORER
UNDER THE SYSTEM, BUT EVERY OTHER WITH WHOM HIS LABOR COMES IN
COMPETITION.  WHATEVER OF SOCIAL VALUE THERE MAY BE, AND OF COURSE IT
IS GREAT, IN ENFORCING CONTRACTS AND COLLECTION OF DEBTS, CONGRESS HAS
PUT IT BEYOND DEBATE THAT NO INDEBTEDNESS WARRANTS A SUSPENSION OF THE
RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM COMPULSORY SERVICE.  THIS CONGRESSIONAL POLICY
MEANS THAT NO STATE CAN MAKE THE QUITTING OF WORK ANY COMPONENT OF A
CRIME, OR MAKE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AVAILABLE FOR HOLDING UNWILLING
PERSONS TO LABOR.  THE FEDERAL STATUTORY TEST IS A PRACTICAL INQUIRY
INTO THE UTILIZATION OF AN ACT AS WELL AS ITS MERE FORM AND TERMS. 

WHERE PEONAGE HAS EXISTED IN THE UNITED STATES IT HAS DONE SO CHIEFLY
BY VIRTUE OF LAWS LIKE THE STATUTE IN QUESTION.  WHETHER THE STATUTE
DID OR DID NOT INCLUDE THE PRESUMPTION SEEMS TO HAVE MADE LITTLE
DIFFERENCE IN ITS PRACTICAL EFFECT.  IN 1910, IN RESPONSE TO A
RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE IMMIGRATION COMMISSION
REPORTED THE RESULTS OF AN INVESTIGATION OF PEONAGE AMONG IMMIGRANTS IN
THE UNITED STATES.  FN29  IT FOUND THAT NO GENERAL SYSTEM OF PEONAGE
EXISTED, AND THAT SENTIMENT DID NOT SUPPORT IT ANYWHERE.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, IT FOUND SPORADIC CASES OF PROBABLE PEONAGE IN EVERY STATE IN THE
UNION EXCEPT OKLAHOMA AND CONNECTICUT.  IT POINTED OUT THAT "THERE HAS
PROBABLY EXISTED IN MAINE THE MOST COMPLETE SYSTEM OF PEONAGE IN THE
ENTIRE COUNTRY," IN THE LUMBER CAMPS.  FN30  IN 1907, MAINE ENACTED A
STATUTE, APPLICABLE ONLY TO LUMBER OPERATIONS BUT IN ITS TERMS VERY
LIKE THE SECTION OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE WE ARE ASKED TO SEPARATE AND
SAVE.  THE LAW WAS ENFORCIBLE IN LOCAL COURTS NOT OF RECORD.  THE
COMMISSION POINTED OUT THAT THE MAINE STATUTE, UNLIKE THAT OF MINNESOTA
FN31  AND THE STATUTES OF OTHER STATES IN THE WEST AND SOUTH, DID NOT
CONTAIN A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE PROVISION.  BUT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
THE STATUTE LED TO THE SAME RESULT.  FN32 

THE FRAUD WHICH SUCH STATUTES PURPORT TO PENALIZE IS NOT THE
CONCEALMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION OF EXISTING FACTS, SUCH AS FINANCIAL
CONDITION, OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS, OR DATA RELEVANT TO CREDIT.  THEY
EITHER PENALIZE PROMISSORY REPRESENTATIONS WHICH RELATE TO FUTURE
ACTION AND CONDUCT OR THEY PENALIZE A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE PRESENT
INTENT OR STATE OF MIND OF THE LABORER.  FN33  IN THESE "A HAIR PERHAPS
DIVIDES THE FALSE AND TRUE."  OF COURSE THERE MIGHT BE PROVABLE FRAUD
EVEN IN SUCH MATTERS.  ONE MIGHT ENGAGE FOR THE SAME PERIOD TO SEVERAL
EMPLOYERS, COLLECTING AN ADVANCE FROM EACH, OR HE MIGHT WORK THE SAME
TRICK OF HIRING OUT AND COLLECTING IN ADVANCE AGAIN AND AGAIN, OR
OTHERWISE PROVIDE PROOF THAT FRAUD WAS HIS DESIGN AND PURPOSE.  BUT IN
NOT ONE OF THE CASES TO COME BEFORE THIS COURT UNDER THE ANTIPEONAGE
STATUTE HAS THERE BEEN EVIDENCE OF SUCH SUBTLETY OR DESIGN.  IN EACH
THERE WAS THE SAME STORY, A NECESSITOUS AND ILLITERATE LABORER, AN
AGREEMENT TO WORK FOR A SMALL WAGE, A TRIFLING ADVANCE, A BREACH OF
CONTRACT TO WORK.  IN NOT ONE HAS THERE BEEN PROOF FROM WHICH WE FAIRLY
COULD SAY WHETHER THE NEGRO NEVER INTENDED TO WORK OUT THE ADVANCE, OR
QUIT BECAUSE OF SOME REAL OR FANCIED GRIEVANCE, OR JUST GOT TIRED.  IF
SUCH STATUTES HAVE EVER ON EVEN ONE OCCASION BEEN PUT TO A WORTHIER USE
IN THE RECORDS OF ANY STATE COURT, IT HAS NOT BEEN CALLED TO OUR
ATTENTION.  IF THIS IS THE VISIBLE RECORD, IT IS HARDLY TO BE ASSUMED
THAT THE OFF-THE-RECORD USES ARE MORE BENIGN. 

IT IS A MISTAKE TO BELIEVE THAT IN DEALING WITH STATUTES OF THIS TYPE
WE HAVE HELD THE PRESUMPTION SECTION TO BE THE ONLY SOURCE OF
INVALIDITY.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE SUBSTANTIVE SECTION HAS CONTRIBUTED
LARGELY TO THE CONCLUSION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PRESUMPTION
INDEED, WE HAVE SUSTAINED THE POWER OF THE STATE TO ENACT AN ALMOST
IDENTICAL PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD, BUT IN TRANSACTIONS THAT DID NOT
INVOLVE INVOLUNTARY LABOR TO DISCHARGE A DEBT.  JAMES-DICKINSON FARM
MORTGAGE CO. V. HARRY.  FN34  ABSENT THIS FEATURE ANY OBJECTION TO
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OR PRESUMPTION STATUTES OF THE STATE CAN ARISE
ONLY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, RATHER THAN UNDER THE THIRTEENTH. 
IN DECIDING PEONAGE CASES UNDER THE LATTER THIS COURT HAS BEEN AS
CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THE BROAD POWER OF THE STATE TO CREATE
PRESUMPTIONS AS IT HAS TO POINT OUT ITS POWER TO PUNISH FRAUDS.  IT
"HAS FREQUENTLY RECOGNIZED THE GENERAL POWER OF EVERY LEGISLATURE TO
PRESCRIBE THE EVIDENCE WHICH SHALL BE RECEIVED, AND THE EFFECT OF THAT
EVIDENCE IN THE COURTS OF ITS OWN GOVERNMENT.  IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS
POWER NUMEROUS STATUTES HAVE BEEN ENACTED PROVIDING THAT PROOF OF ONE
FACT SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE MAIN FACT IN ISSUE; AND WHERE
THE INFERENCE IS NOT PURELY ARBITRARY AND THERE IS A RATIONAL RELATION
BETWEEN THE TWO FACTS, AND THE ACCUSED IS NOT DEPRIVED OF A PROPER
OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ALL THE FACTS BEARING UPON THE ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN
HELD THAT SUCH STATUTES DO NOT VIOLATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS
OF LAW."  BAILEY V. ALABAMA.  FN35  BUT THE COURT ADDED THAT "THE STATE
MAY NOT IN THIS WAY INTERFERE WITH MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM ITS AUTHORITY
BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR SUBJECT AN ACCUSED TO CONVICTION FOR
CONDUCT WHICH IT IS POWERLESS TO PROSCRIBE."  FN36  AND IT PROCEEDED TO
HOLD THAT THE PRESUMPTION, WHEN COUPLED WITH THE OTHER SECTION,
TRANSGRESSED THOSE LIMITS, FOR WHILE IT APPEARED TO PUNISH FRAUD THE
INEVITABLE EFFECT OF THE LAW WAS TO PUNISH FAILURE TO PERFORM LABOR
CONTRACTS. 

IN TAYLOR V. GEORGIA BOTH SECTIONS OF THE ACT WERE HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THERE THE STATE RELIED ON THE PRESUMPTION TO
CONVICT.  BUT IT WAS NOT DENIED THAT A STATE HAS POWER REASONABLY TO
PRESCRIBE THE PRIMA FACIE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  IT WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CRIME TO ESTABLISH WHICH THE
PRESUMPTION WAS INVOKED THAT GAVE A FORBIDDEN ASPECT TO THAT METHOD OF
SHORT-CUTTING THE ROAD TO CONVICTION.  THE DECISION STRIKING DOWN BOTH
UNCONSIDERED USE OF THE PLURAL.  MR. JUSTICE BYRNES KNEW WHEREOF HE
SPOKE; UNCONSTITUTIONALITY INHERED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE QUITE AS MUCH AS
IN THE PROCEDURAL SECTION AND NO PART OF THE INVALID STATUTE COULD BE
SEPARATED TO BE SALVAGED.  WHERE IN THE SAME SUBSTANTIVE CONTEXT THE
STATE THREATENS BY STATUTE TO CONVICT ON A PRESUMPTION, ITS INHERENT
COERCIVE POWER IS SUCH THAT WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT IT IS
EQUALLY USEFUL IN ATTEMPTS TO ENFORCE INVOLUNTARY SERVICE IN DISCHARGE
OF A DEBT, AND THE WHOLE IS INVALID. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN EACH OPINION DEALING WITH STATUTES OF THIS TYPE
THIS COURT HAS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO PUNISH
FRAUD, EVEN IN MATTERS OF THIS KIND, BY STATUTES WHICH DO NOT EITHER IN
FORM OR IN OPERATION LEND THEMSELVES TO SHELTERING THE PRACTICE OF
PEONAGE.  DECEIT IS NOT PUT BEYOND THE POWER OF THE STATE BECAUSE THE
CHEAT IS A LABORER NOR BECAUSE THE DEVICE FOR SWINDLING IS AN AGREEMENT
TO LABOR.  BUT WHEN THE STATE UNDERTAKES TO DEAL WITH THIS SPECIALIZED
FORM OF FRAUD, IT MUST RESPECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY COMMAND
THAT IT MAY NOT MAKE FAILURE TO LABOR IN DISCHARGE OF A DEBT ANY PART
OF A CRIME.  IT MAY NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY COMMAND INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE, EVEN IF IT WAS VOLUNTARILY CONTRACTED FOR. 

FROM WHAT WE HAVE SAID ABOUT THE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE
RELEVANT TO THE INQUIRY WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR STATE ACT CONFLICTS WITH
THE ANTIPEONAGE ACT OF 1867 BECAUSE IT IS ONE BY WHICH "ANY ATTEMPT
SHALL HEREAFTER BE MADE TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN OR ENFORCE" THE
PROHIBITED SERVITUDE, IT IS APPARENT THAT WE SHOULD NOT PASS ON
HYPOTHETICAL ACTS.  RESERVATION OF THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF AN
ACT UNASSOCIATED WITH A PRESUMPTION NOW, AS HERETOFORE, DOES NOT DENOTE
APPROVAL.  THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HAS HELD SUCH AN ACT STANDING
ALONE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FN37  A CONSIDERABLE RECORDED EXPERIENCE WOULD
MERIT EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO ANY SPECIFIC LABOR FRAUD ACT.  FN38
WE DO NOT ENTER UPON THE INQUIRY FURTHER THAN THE ACT BEFORE US. 

ANOTHER MATTER DESERVES NOTICE.  IN BAILEY V. ALABAMA IT WAS OBSERVED
THAT THE LAW OF THAT STATE DID NOT PERMIT THE PRISONER TO TESTIFY TO
HIS UNCOMMUNICATED INTENT, WHICH HANDICAPPED HIM IN MEETING THE
PRESUMPTION.  IN TAYLOR V. GEORGIA THE PRISONER COULD NOT BE SWORN, BUT
COULD AND DID MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE JURY.  IN THIS FLORIDA CASE
APPELLEE IS UNDER NEITHER DISABILITY, BUT IS AT LIBERTY TO OFFER HIS
SWORN WORD AS AGAINST PRESUMPTIONS.  THESE DISTINCTIONS WE THINK ARE
WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.  AS MR. JUSTICE BYRNES SAID IN TAYLOR V. GEORGIA,
THE EFFECT OF THIS DISABILITY "WAS SIMPLY TO ACCENTUATE THE HARSHNESS
OF AN OTHERWISE INVALID STATUTE." 

WE IMPUTE TO THE LEGISLATURE NO INTENTION TO OPPRESS, BUT WE ARE
COMPELLED TO HOLD THAT THE FLORIDA ACT OF 1919 AS BROUGHT FORWARD ON
THE STATUTES AS SECS. 817.09 AND 817.10 OF THE STATUTES OF 1941 ARE, BY
VIRTUE OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE ANTIPEONAGE ACT OF THE
UNITED STATES, NULL AND VOID.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE FLORIDA STATUTE UNDER WHICH POLLOCK IS HELD WAS ENACTED AS
CHAPTER 7917 OF THE ACTS OF 1919.  IT WAS RE-ENACTED AS SECS. 817.09
AND 817.10, STATUTES OF 1941, IN THE REVISION AND COMPILATION OF THE
GENERAL STATUTE LAWS OF THE STATE.  IT READS:    "817.09  OBTAINING
PROPERTY BY FRAUDULENT PROMISE TO PERFORM LABOR OR SERVICE.  - ANY
PERSON IN THIS STATE WHO SHALL, WITH INTENT TO INJURE AND DEFRAUD,
UNDER AND BY REASON OF A CONTRACT OR PROMISE TO PERFORM LABOR OR
SERVICE, PROCURE OR OBTAIN MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE AS A CREDIT,
OR AS ADVANCES, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION
THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE NOT EXCEEDING FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS,
OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS. 

"817.10  SAME; PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF FRAUDULENT INTENT.  - IN ALL
PROSECUTIONS FOR A VIOLATION OF SEC. 817.09 THE FAILURE OR REFUSAL,
WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, TO PERFORM SUCH LABOR OR SERVICE OR TO PAY FOR THE
MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE SO OBTAINED OR PROCURED SHALL BE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO INJURE AND DEFRAUD." 

FN2  STATE EX REL. LIBTZ V. COLEMAN, 149 FLA. 28, 5 SO.2D 60. 

FN3  WILLIAMS V. POLLOCK, 153 FLA. 338, 14 SO.2D 700. 

FN4  219 U.S. 219. 

FN5  315 U.S. 25. 

FN6  OCTOBER 25, 1943. 

FN7  "SECTION 1.  NEITHER SLAVERY NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, EXCEPT
AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY
CONVICTED, SHALL EXIST WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT
TO THEIR JURISDICTION. 

"SECTION 2.  CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE THIS ARTICLE BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION." 

FN8  THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867, 14 STAT. 546, READS: 

"THE HOLDING OF ANY PERSON TO SERVICE OR LABOR UNDER THE SYSTEM KNOWN
AS PEONAGE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL, AND THE SAME IS HEREBY
ABOLISHED AND FOREVER PROHIBITED IN THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO, OR IN
ANY OTHER TERRITORY OR STATE OF THE UNITED STATES; AND ALL ACTS, LAWS,
RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS, REGULATIONS, OR USAGES OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW
MEXICO, OR OF ANY OTHER TERRITORY OR STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH
HAVE HERETOFORE ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR ENFORCED, OR BY VIRTUE OF
WHICH ANY ATTEMPT SHALL HEREAFTER BE MADE TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, OR
ENFORCE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY SERVICE
OR LABOR OF ANY PERSONS AS PEONS, IN LIQUIDATION OF ANY DEBT OR
OBLIGATION, OR OTHERWISE, BE, AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY, DECLARED NULL
AND VOID; AND ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WHO SHALL HOLD, ARREST, OR RETURN,
OR CAUSE TO BE HELD, ARRESTED, OR RETURNED, OR IN ANY MANNER AID IN THE
ARREST OR RETURN OF ANY PERSON OR PERSONS TO A CONDITION OF PEONAGE,
SHALL, UPON CONVICTION, BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
NOR MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT LESS THAN
ONE NOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT."  THE FIRST PART OF THE STATUTE IS NOW 8 U.S.C. SEC. 56(R.S.
SEC. 1990) AND THE CRIMINAL PROVISION IS SEC. 269 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 444(R.S. SEC. 5526). 

FN9  197 U.S. 207, 215-16(1905). 

FN10  211 U.S. 452(1908), WHERE HELD TO BE BROUGHT HERE PREMATURELY,
AND 219 U.S. 219(1911). 

FN11  235 U.S. 133(1914). 

FN12  315 U.S. 25(1942). 

FN13  320 U.S. 527. 

FN14  SEE PEONAGE CASES, 123 F. 671; UNITED STATES V. EBERHART, 127
F. 252; UNITED STATES V. MCCLELLAN, 127 F. 971; IN RE PEONAGE CHARGE,
138 F. 686; EX PARTE DRAYTON, 153 F. 986; TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 244
F. 321. 

FN15  "ANY PERSON IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHO BY FALSE PROMISES AND
WITH THE INTENT TO INJURE OR DEFRAUD, OBTAINS FROM ANOTHER, ANY MONEY
OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, OR ANY PERSON WHO HAS ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN
CONTRACT, WITH, AT THE TIME, THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD, TO DO OR TO PERFORM
ANY ACT OR SERVICE, AND IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF, OBTAINS FROM THE
HIRER, MONEY OR OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND WHO ABANDONS THE SERVICE
OF SAID HIRER WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, WITHOUT FIRST RE-PAYING SUCH MONEY OR
PAYING FOR SUCH PERSONAL PROPERTY, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, AND ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE NOT
LESS THAN FIVE NOR MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT
IN THE COUNTY JAIL NOT LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS, NOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR,
OR BOTH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT."  FLORIDA LAWS 1891, C. 4032. 

FN16  IT PROVIDED: 

"SECTION 1.  THAT FROM AND AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT ANY PERSON
IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHO SHALL CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER TO PERFORM FOR
HIM SERVICES OF ANY KIND WITH INTENT TO PROCURE MONEY, OR OTHER THING
OF VALUE THEREBY, AND NOT TO PERFORM THE SERVICE CONTRACTED FOR, OR
WHOEVER, AFTER HAVING SO CONTRACTED, SHALL OBTAIN OR PROCURE FROM THE
HIRER MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE, WITH INTENT NOT TO PERFORM SUCH
SERVICE, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND ON CONVICTION
THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS
OR BY IMPRISONMENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BY
BOTH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. 

"SEC. 2.  THAT SATISFACTORY PROOF OF THE CONTRACT, THE PROCURING
THEREON OF MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE, THE FAILURE TO PERFORM THE
SERVICES SO CONTRACTED FOR, OR FAILURE TO RETURN THE MONEY SO ADVANCED
WITH INTEREST THEREON AT THE TIME SAID LABOR OR SERVICE WAS TO BE
PERFORMED, WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE, SHALL BE DEEMED PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING SECTION." 
FLORIDA LAWS 1907, C. 5678. 

FN17  "SECTION 1.  ANY PERSON IN THIS STATE WHO SHALL CONTRACT WITH
ANOTHER TO PERFORM ANY LABOR OR SERVICE AND WHO SHALL, BY REASON OF
SUCH CONTRACT AND WITH THE INTENT TO INJURE AND DEFRAUD, OBTAIN OR
PROCURE MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE AS A CREDIT OR ADVANCES FROM THE
PERSON SO CONTRACTED WITH AND WHO SHALL, WITHOUT JUST CAUSE, FAIL OR
REFUSE TO PERFORM SUCH LABOR OR SERVICE OR FAIL OR REFUSE TO PAY FOR
THE MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE SO RECEIVED UPON DEMAND, SHALL BE
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED
BY A FINE NOT EXCEEDING FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR A
PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS. 

"SEC. 2.  THAT CHAPTER 5678, ACTS OF 1907, BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY
REPEALED. 

"SEC. 3.  THAT ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
ARE HEREBY REPEALED."  FLORIDA LAWS 1913, C. 6528. 

FN18  GOODE V. NELSON, 73 FLA. 29, 74 SO. 17.  "AS 'INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL
HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED,' IS FORBIDDEN 'WITHIN THE UNITED STATES' BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, A CRIME TO BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT CANNOT
LAWFULLY BE PREDICATED UPON THE BREACH OF A PROMISE TO PERFORM LABOR OR
SERVICE."  73 FLA. AT 32. 

FN19  PHILLIPS V. BELL, 84 FLA. 225, 94 SO. 699.  IN THIS CASE NO
REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE PRIOR DECISION OF THE FLORIDA COURT IN GOODE
V. NELSON, SUPRA NOTE 18. 

FN20  FLORIDA STATUTES (1941) SECS. 817.09, 817.10; FLORIDA LAWS
1943, C. 22000, APPROVED JUNE 10, 1943.  TAYLOR V. GEORGIA WAS DECIDED
JANUARY 12, 1942.  315 U.S. 25. 

FN21  "THAT THE QUESTION IS ONE OF FACT DOES NOT RELIEVE US OF THE
DUTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN TRUTH A FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN DENIED. 
WHEN A FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN SPECIALLY SET UP AND CLAIMED IN A STATE
COURT, IT IS OUR PROVINCE TO INQUIRE NOT MERELY WHETHER IT WAS DENIED
IN EXPRESS TERMS BUT ALSO WHETHER IT WAS DENIED IN SUBSTANCE AND
EFFECT.  IF THIS REQUIRES AN EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE, THAT EXAMINATION
MUST BE MADE.  OTHERWISE, REVIEW BY THIS COURT WOULD FAIL OF ITS
PURPOSE IN SAFEGUARDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THUS, WHENEVER A
CONCLUSION OF LAW OF A STATE COURT AS TO A FEDERAL RIGHT AND FINDINGS
OF FACT ARE SO INTERMINGLED THAT THE LATTER CONTROL THE FORMER, IT IS
INCUMBENT UPON US TO ANALYZE THE FACTS IN ORDER THAT THE APPROPRIATE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL RIGHT MAY BE ASSURED."  NORRIS V. ALABAMA,
294 U.S. 587, 589.  SEE LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 236;
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227.  "EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION INVOKED BE DENIED ON NON-FEDERAL GROUNDS, IT IS THE PROVINCE
OF THIS COURT TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT RESTS
UPON A FAIR OR SUBSTANTIAL BASIS.  IF UNSUBSTANTIAL, CONSTITUTIONAL
OBLIGATIONS MAY NOT BE THUS EVADED."  BROAD RIVER POWER CO. V. SOUTH
CAROLINA, 281 U.S. 537, 540; DEMOREST V. CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO.,
321 U.S. 36. 

FN22  THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE HAS MADE USE OF SEPARABILITY CLAUSES
WHERE SEPARABILITY WAS THE DESIRE.  SEE FLORIDA LAWS 1919, CC. 7808,
7936. 

FN23  FLORIDA STATUTES (1941) SEC. 817.01. 

FN24  FLORIDA STATUTES (1941) SEC. 817.29. 

FN25  THESE STATUTES CARRY PERMISSIBLE MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT SUCH,
HOWEVER, THAT THEY MAY BE PROSECUTED ONLY IN COURTS PRESIDED OVER BY
JUDGES REQUIRED TO BE LAWYERS AND WHERE PRESUMABLY DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS
ARE MORE ACCURATELY OBSERVED.  SEE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, ART. V, SECS.
3, 17; FLORIDA STATUTES (1941) SECS. 32.05, 33.03, 36.01. 

FN26  DR. ALBERT BUSHNELL HART IN THE SOUTHERN SOUTH, AFTER REVIEWING
AND UNSPARINGLY CONDEMNING EVIDENCES OF PEONAGE IN SOME REGIONS, SAYS,
"MUCH OF THE PEONAGE IS SIMPLY A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO MAKE MEN EARN
THEIR LIVING.  THE TROUBLE IS THAT NOBODY IS WISE ENOUGH TO INVENT A
METHOD OF COMPELLING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A LABOR CONTRACT WHICH
SHALL NOT CARRY WITH IT THE PRINCIPLE OF BONDAGE."  P. 287. 

FN27  UNITED STATES V. REYNOLDS, 235 U.S. 133, 149; LOEB V. JENNINGS,
133 GA. 796, 67 S.E. 101, AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 219 U.S. 582;
DUNBAR V. ATLANTA, 7 GA. APP. 434, 67 S.E. 107.  CF. CHICAGO V.
WILLIAMS, 254 ILL. 360, 98 N.E. 666; CHICAGO V. COLEMAN, 254 ILL. 338,
98 N.E. 521. 

FN28  BUTLER V. PERRY, 240 U.S. 328. 

FN29  REPORT ON PEONAGE, ABSTRACTS OF REPORTS OF THE IMMIGRATION
COMMISSION, VOL. II, P. 439, SEN. DOC. NO. 747, 61ST CONG., 3D SESS. 

FN30  THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN LATE YEARS THE NATIVES WHO FORMERLY SUPPLIED THE LABOR FOR THE
LOGGING CONCERNS IN THAT STATE HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PAPER MILLS,
AND THE LUMBER COMPANIES HAVE BEEN COMPELLED TO IMPORT LABORERS,
LARGELY FOREIGNERS, FROM OTHER STATES.  BOSTON IS THE CHIEF LABOR
MARKET FOR THE MAINE FORESTS.  THE EMPLOYMENT AGENTS MISREPRESENT
CONDITIONS IN THE WOODS, AND FREQUENTLY TELL THE LABORERS THAT THE
CAMPS WILL BE BUT A FEW MILES FROM SOME TOWN WHERE THEY CAN GO FROM
TIME TO TIME FOR RECREATION AND ENJOYMENT.  ARRIVING AT THE OUTSKIRTS
OF CIVILIZATION THE LABORERS ARE DRIVEN IN WAGONS A SHORT DISTANCE INTO
THE FORESTS AND THEN HAVE TO WALK SOMETIMES 60 OR 70 MILES INTO THE
INTERIOR, THE ROADS BEING IMPASSABLE FOR VEHICLES.  THE MEN WILL THEN
BE KEPT IN THE HEART OF THE FOREST FOR MONTHS THROUGHOUT THE WINTER,
LIVING IN A MOST RUGGED FASHION AND WITH NO RECREATION WHATEVER.  A
GREAT MANY OF THEM HAVE REBELLED AGAINST THIS TREATMENT, AND THEY HAVE
LEFT THEIR EMPLOYERS BY THE SCORE.  THE LUMBERMEN HAVING ADVANCED
TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPLIES HAVE APPEALED TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR
PROTECTION.  IN FEBRUARY, 1907, A BILL BECAME A LAW MAKING IT A CRIME
FOR A PERSON TO - 

ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO LABOR FOR ANY LUMBERING OPERATION OR IN
DRIVING LOGS AND IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF RECEIVE ANY ADVANCES OF
GOODS, MONEY, OR TRANSPORTATION, AND UNREASONABLY AND WITH INTENT TO
DEFRAUD, FAIL TO ENTER INTO SAID EMPLOYMENT AS AGREED AND LABOR A
SUFFICIENT LENGTH OF TIME TO REIMBURSE HIS EMPLOYER FOR SAID ADVANCES
AND EXPENSES. 

JUDGES IN MUNICIPAL COURTS AND TRIAL JUSTICES WERE GIVEN JURISDICTION
TO TRY CASES UNDER THIS LAW, AND THE ACT PROVIDED THAT IT WOULD TAKE
EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON APPROVAL.  WHEN THIS BILL WAS BEFORE THE
LEGISLATURE, REQUESTS WERE MADE BY CITIZENS INTERESTED IN FACTORIES AND
OTHER INDUSTRIES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE BE MADE TO PROTECT
ALL EMPLOYERS OF LABOR.  THE ATTORNEY WHO INTRODUCED THE BILL ON BEHALF
OF THE LUMBER INTERESTS WHICH HE REPRESENTED, HAS STATED THAT HE HAD
REFUSED TO ACCEDE TO THESE REQUESTS, INASMUCH AS HE BELIEVED THE
PROVISION SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED.  THE PROTECTION GRANTED BY THE
STATUTE, THEREFORE, WAS RESTRICTED TO A FAVORED CLASS, PERSONS
INTERESTED IN 'LUMBERING OPERATIONS AND IN DRIVING LOGS.'"  PEONAGE
REPORT, SUPRA NOTE 29, P. 447. 

FN31  MINNESOTA STAT. (1941) SEC. 620.64. 

FN32  "THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE MAINE STATUTE THAT - THE FAILURE
OR REFUSAL OF ANY EMPLOYEE TO PERFORM SUCH LABOR OR RENDER SUCH
SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS CONTRACT OR TO PAY IN MONEY THE AMOUNT
FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SUCH ADVANCEMENT SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE OF HIS INTENT TO DEFRAUD; 

AS APPEARS IN THE CONTRACT-LABOR LAW OF MINNESOTA AND IN THE STATUTES
OF OTHER STATES IN THE WEST AND THE SOUTH.  HOWEVER, JUSTICES OF THE
PEACE IN MAINE HAVE DECIDED INDISCRIMINATELY THAT, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A
CONVICTION UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE, IT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW ONLY
THAT THE LABORER OBTAINED THE 'ADVANCES' AND FAILED 'TO LABOR A
SUFFICIENT LENGTH OF TIME TO REIMBURSE HIS EMPLOYER.' 

"A JUSTICE AT HOULTON, MAINE, WHO IS A LAWYER BY PROFESSION, TOLD THE
ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PEONAGE COMMITTEE THAT HE DECIDED IN CASES
BROUGHT UNDER THE CONTRACT-LABOR LAW THAT 'THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON
THE DEFENDANT,' WHO MUST SHOW TO THE COURT 'BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
THAT HE HAD NO INTENT TO DEFRAUD.'  THIS JUSTICE ADDED THAT ONCE IN A
WHILE IF A LABORER HAS A REALLY GOOD EXCUSE HE WILL LET HIM OFF, AS HE
BELIEVES 'EVERY MAN HAS SOME RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH HE MAY BE POOR.'  ANOTHER
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AT PATTEN, MAINE, STATED THAT IF IT WAS SHOWN THAT
A LABORER HAD OBTAINED THE ADVANCES AND HAD NOT WORKED SUFFICIENTLY TO
SETTLE FOR THEM HE FOUND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE
QUESTION OF INTENT TO DEFRAUD.  THIS SEEMS TO BE THE GENERAL ATTITUDE
OF THE RURAL JUSTICES OF MAINE TOWARD THE CONTRACT-LABOR LAW. 

"CONSIDERABLE PEONAGE HAS RESULTED FROM THIS STATUTE.  THE LAW HAS
BEEN VIGOROUSLY ENFORCED.  SOON AFTER ITS PASSAGE PROSECUTIONS WERE
COMMENCED IN THE LUMBER REGIONS, AND THE JAIL AT DOVER, THE COUNTY SEAT
OF ONE OF THE LARGE LUMBER COUNTIES OF MAINE, WAS CROWDED WITH LABORERS
CONVICTED OF DEFRAUDING THEIR EMPLOYERS OUT OF 'ADVANCES OF GOODS,
MONEY, OR TRANSPORTATION.'    "INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE RESULTS IN
UTILIZING THIS STATUTE TO INTIMIDATE LABORERS TO WORK AGAINST THEIR
WILL.  ON ACCOUNT OF THE VIGOROUS METHODS PURSUED IN ENFORCING THE
ABOVE-DESCRIBED LAW, IT SOON BECAME KNOWN THROUGHOUT THE LUMBER REGION
OF MAINE THAT ANY LABORER WAS LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT WHO REFUSED TO
WORK ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF HIS CONTRACT UNTIL HE HAD SETTLED
FOR ALL ADVANCES, NO MATTER WHAT MISREPRESENTATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN MADE
TO INDUCE HIM TO ENTER INTO THE AGREEMENT.  THE CONTRACT-LABOR LAW HAS
BECOME A CLUB WHICH THE FOREMEN AND SUPERINTENDENTS DRAW UPON THE
LABORERS WHO REFUSE TO GO TO WORK OR TO CONTINUE AT WORK.  IF A MAN
LEAVES HIS EMPLOYER BEFORE SETTLING FOR ADVANCES, HE WILL BE PURSUED
AND APPREHENDED, OR SOMEONE WILL TELEPHONE TO THE CONSTABLE, WHO WILL
ARREST THE LABORER.  HE WILL THEN BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE JUSTICE, AND
'SENT DOWN THE RIVER,' TO PRISON; OR IF HE CONSENTS TO LABOR UNTIL HE
SHALL HAVE REIMBURSED FOR ALL ADVANCES AND THE FINE AND COST OF THE
PROSECUTION, THE EMPLOYER WILL SETTLE WITH THE COURT AND CONSTABLE AND
WILL TAKE THE LABORER BACK INTO THE FOREST.  NO DOUBT MANY OF THE
LABORERS NEVER ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY CONSIDER THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN BASELY DECEIVED ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF LABOR."  PEONAGE
REPORT, SUPRA NOTE 29, PP. 448-49. 

FN33  THE COURT AT ONE TIME SAID, "THE LAW GIVES A DIFFERENT EFFECT
TO A REPRESENTATION OF EXISTING FACTS, FROM THAT GIVEN TO A
REPRESENTATION OF FACTS TO COME INTO EXISTENCE.  TO MAKE A FALSE
REPRESENTATION THE SUBJECT OF AN INDICTMENT, OR OF AN ACTION, TWO
THINGS ARE GENERALLY NECESSARY, VIZ., THAT IT SHOULD BE A STATEMENT
LIKELY TO IMPOSE UPON ONE EXERCISING COMMON PRUDENCE AND CAUTION, AND
THAT IT SHOULD BE THE STATEMENT OF AN EXISTING FACT.  A PROMISSORY
STATEMENT IS NOT, ORDINARILY, THE SUBJECT EITHER OF AN INDICTMENT OR OF
AN ACTION."  SAWYER V. PRICKETT, 19 WALL.  146, 160. 

FN34  273 U.S. 119. 

FN35  219 U.S. 219, 238. 

FN36  219 U.S. 219, 239. 

FN37  GOODE V. NELSON, SUPRA NOTE 18. 

FN38  ON THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF SUCH LAWS AS AMOUNTING TO THE
EXISTENCE OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE IN THE UNITED STATES, SEE:  PEONAGE,
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL SCIENCES; COMMONS & ANDREWS, PRINCIPLES OF LABOR
LEGISLATION, P. 37; WILSON, FORCED LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES, CHAPTERS
VI AND VII; "REPORT OF CHAS. W. RUSSELL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
RELATIVE TO PEONAGE MATTERS," IN REPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL (1937) P.
207; AND REPORT OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSION, SUPRA NOTE 29. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 1.  NEITHER SLAVERY NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, EXCEPT AS A
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED,
SHALL EXIST WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THEIR
JURISDICTION. 

"SECTION 2.  CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE THIS ARTICLE BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION." 

TO MEET THE PROBLEM OF PEONAGE, THAT IS, "COMPULSORY SERVICE IN
PAYMENT OF A DEBT,"  FN1 CONGRESS ENACTED THE LEGISLATION SET OUT IN
NOTE 8 OF THE COURT'S OPINION WHICH DECLARED INVALID LAWS OF A STATE BY
VIRTUE OF WHICH INVOLUNTARY SERVICE IS ENFORCED OR ATTEMPTED TO BE
ENFORCED IN LIQUIDATION OF ANY DEBT.  THIS COURT REITERATES TODAY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PREVIOUS RULINGS THAT THE SECOND SECTION OF THE
FLORIDA STATUTE, SEC. 817.10 SET OUT IN NOTE 1 OF TODAY'S OPINION, IS
INVALID UNDER THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE FEDERAL ACT BECAUSE THIS
SECOND SECTION ENFORCES LABOR BY FEAR OF CONVICTION OF THE CRIME
DENOUNCED IN THE FIRST SECTION.  THE SECOND SECTION PROVIDES THAT A
REFUSAL TO PERFORM LABOR FOR WHICH ONE HAS CONTRACTED AND BEEN PAID IN
ADVANCE IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO DEFRAUD UNDER THE FIRST
UNDER A CONTRACT TO PERFORM LABOR.  THIS CONCLUSION IS ACCEPTED AS A
PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL PROHIBITIONS.  IN THE EFFORT TO
OBLITERATE COMPULSORY LABOR TO SATISFY A DEBT, CONGRESS MAY INVALIDATE
A STATE LAW WHICH COERCES THAT LABOR BY FEAR OF A CONVICTION OBTAINED
BY A PRESUMPTION OF LAW WHICH MAY BE FALSE IN FACT.  TAYLOR V. GEORGIA,
315 U.S. 25. 

HOWEVER MUCH PEONAGE MAY OFFEND OUR SUSCEPTIBILITIES, AND HOWEVER
GREAT OUR DISTASTE FOR A STATUTE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF USE AS A MEANS OF
IMPOSING PEONAGE ON THE WORKING MAN, THE PRESENT STATUTE IS, IN THIS
COURT, NO MORE IMMUNE THAN ANY OTHER WHICH A STATE MAY ENACT, FROM THE
SALUTARY REQUIREMENT THAT ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE PRESUMED, AND
THAT THE BURDEN RESTS ON HIM WHO ASSAILS IT, ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS,
TO SHOW THAT IT IS EITHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE OR THAT IT HAS
BEEN OR WILL BE IN FACT SO APPLIED AS TO DENY HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS. 

THIS COURT NOW HOLDS, AS IT HAS HELD BEFORE, THAT WHEN THE
PRESUMPTION SECTION IS APPLIED IN THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CHARGE UNDER
THE SUBSTANTIVE SECTION, BOTH ARE INVALID AND A CONVICTION THUS
OBTAINED BY RESORT TO A PRESUMPTION OF LAW WHICH MAY BE FALSE IN FACT,
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  BUT THE COURT'S OPINION FAILS TO BRIDGE THE GAP
BETWEEN THESE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE COURT AND ITS PRESENT CONCLUSION
THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION, WHEN RESORTED TO ALONE AS THE BASIS FOR
A SENTENCE ON AN ADMISSION OF GUILT, IS LIKEWISE INVALID, BECAUSE OF
THE MERE EXISTENCE OF THE PRESUMPTION SECTION. 

WHETHER THIS CONCLUSION RESTS UPON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE OF
FLORIDA CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE IT A PENAL OFFENSE FOR A LABORER
FRAUDULENTLY TO PROCURE ADVANCES OF WAGES FOR WHICH HE INTENDS TO
RENDER NO SERVICE OR UPON THE GROUND THAT THE PRESUMPTION SECTION HAS
IN FACT OPERATED IN THIS CASE TO COERCE PETITIONER'S PLEA OF GUILTY,
THE ONE IS PLAINLY WITHOUT SUPPORT IN LAW AND THE OTHER IS WITHOUT
SUPPORT IN THE RECORD. 

SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE COURT RESTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE
SUBSTANTIVE SECTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, THE DECISION
NECESSARILY PROCEEDS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT BECAUSE OF THE THIRTEENTH
AMENDMENT A STATE IS WITHOUT POWER TO PUNISH A WORKMAN WHO FRAUDULENTLY
PROCURES AN ADVANCE OF A WAGE WHEN HE INTENDS NOT TO WORK FOR IT, OR
THAT THE TWO SECTIONS IN LAW AND IN FACT ARE INSEPARABLE IN THEIR
APPLICATION SO THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE SECTION IS TAINTED BY THE
PRESUMPTION SECTION, ALTHOUGH IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE
INFLUENCED THE PLEA OF GUILTY. 

WE ARE GIVEN NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR SAYING THAT A STATE MAY NOT
PUNISH THE FRAUDULENT PROCUREMENT OF AN ADVANCE OF WAGES AS WELL AS THE
GIVING OF A CHECK DRAWN ON A BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH THERE ARE NO FUNDS,
OR ANY OTHER COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH THE COMMON LAW HAS LONG
RECOGNIZED, AS THE PROCURING OF MONEY OR PROPERTY BY FRAUD OR DECEIT. 
THERE IS OF COURSE NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY FLORIDA SHOULD NOT
PUNISH FRAUD IN LABOR CONTRACTS DIFFERENTLY FROM FRAUD IN OTHER CLASSES
OF CONTRACTS.  LEGISLATION NEED NOT SEEK TO CORRECT EVERY ABUSE BY A
SINGLE ENACTMENT.  THE STATE MAY SELECT ITS OBJECTIVE.  WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 370; TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141, 149.  THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT ALL PERSONS SHOULD BE TREATED ALIKE
BUT ONLY THAT THOSE IN THE SAME CLASS SHALL RECEIVE EQUAL TREATMENT. 

NOT ONLY HAS THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW
THAT THE TWO SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE NOW BEFORE US ARE SEPARABLE,  FN2
BUT IT IS OBVIOUS THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW THE PRESUMPTION SECTION IS
NOT CALLED INTO OPERATION WHERE, AS HERE, THE ACCUSED DOES NOT GO TO
TRIAL BUT PLEADS GUILTY TO THE SUBSTANTIVE CHARGE.  IN REJECTING THESE
CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE SEPARABILITY OF THE TWO SECTIONS, WE TAKE IT THAT
THE COURT IS NOT REJECTING THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE, BUT RATHER THAT IT CONCLUDES AS
A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE PRESUMPTION SECTION IS SO ALL-PERVASIVE IN
ITS OPERATION THAT WE MUST CONCLUDE WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF THAT IT SO
OPERATED IN PETITIONER'S CASE AS TO COERCE HIS PLEA OF GUILTY TO THE
CHARGE OF VIOLATING THE SUBSTANTIVE SECTION. 

BUT NEITHER THE PRESENT RECORD NOR ANY FACTS OF WHICH WE CAN TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE LEND SUPPORT TO THAT CONCLUSION.  FOR ALL THAT APPEARS
PETITIONER HAD NO DEFENSE TO THE CHARGE EVEN THOUGH THE SUBSTANTIVE
ONLY BE GIVEN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT
PETITIONER HAD ANY DEFENSE TO THE CHARGE OF FRAUD TO WHICH HE PLEADED
GUILTY, AND CERTAINLY WE CANNOT TREAT THE PRESUMPTION SECTION AS
DEPRIVING HIM OF A DEFENSE WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE. 

THE COURT APPARENTLY CONCLUDES THAT THE ENACTMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
THE PRESUMPTION SECTION, AFTER A DETERMINATION HERE OF ITS INVALIDITY,
MAKES THE ENTIRE STATUTE INVALID ON ITS FACE.  THIS RESULT IS REACHED
BY ASSUMING THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRESUMPTION SECTION COERCES
INVOLUNTARY LABOR UNDER THE CONTRACT BY FEAR OF CONVICTION FOR
VIOLATION OF THE FIRST OR SUBSTANTIVE SECTION.  WE CANNOT PROPERLY TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF SUCH AN EFFECT.  IF PLEADED AND PROVEN A DIFFERENT
SITUATION WOULD EMERGE. 

THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE CAN HARDLY BE SAID TO GO
FARTHER THAN OBJECT TO CONVICTION ON THE GROUND OF THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE AS A WHOLE.  NO COERCION TO
PLEAD GUILTY IS ALLEGED.  THE STATEMENTS IN THE PETITION AS TO LACK OF
COUNSEL AND OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE ARE REFERRED TO
IN THE COURT'S OPINION BUT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURT RELIES
UPON THEM.  NO USE WAS MADE OF THE PRESUMPTION SECTION AT THE TRIAL. 
PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY TO THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME.  NO ALLEGATIONS OR
PROOF APPEAR IN THE RECORD THAT THE FLORIDA STATUTE WAS USED OR APPLIED
TO PROMOTE PEONAGE OR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE OF PETITIONER OR TO COERCE
HIS PLEA OF GUILTY.  THE DECISION IS IN EFFECT THAT BECAUSE THE TWO
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE PEONAGE ACT, EACH MUST BE TAKEN TO BE
INVALID ON ITS FACE.  THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES
IS A SAFEGUARD WISELY CONCEIVED TO KEEP COURTS WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL
BOUNDS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR EXTRAORDINARY POWER OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  IT SHOULD NOT BE DISREGARDED HERE. 

WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT A STATUTE WHICH MERELY PUNISHES A FRAUD IN A
CONTRACT, AS THE FIRST SECTION DOES IF CONSIDERED ALONE, VIOLATES THE
PROVISION OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE OR
IS NULL AND VOID UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 56 BECAUSE IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO
ENFORCE COMPULSORY SERVICE FOR A DEBT.  CONVICTION UNDER THE STATUTE
RESULTS NOT IN PEONAGE, WORK FOR A DEBT, BUT IN PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME,
PROBABLY IN THE COUNTY WORKHOUSE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. REYNOLDS, 235
U.S. 133, 149.  THE CONCEPTION EMBODIED IN THE COURT'S OPINION THAT THE
FEAR OF CONVICTION FOR HIS FRAUD MIGHT COMPEL THE DEFENDANT TO WORK AS
AGREED IS WITHOUT BASIS IN THE RECORD.  AT ANY RATE, FEAR OF PUNISHMENT
IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DETERRENT TO CRIME. 

THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BAILEY V. ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219, 242. 

FN2  THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SAID:  "THIS IS NOT THE FIRST
CHALLENGE OF THE ACT WHICH HAS APPEARED IN THIS COURT.  THE IDENTICAL
MATTER WAS CONSIDERED IN PHILLIPS V. BELL, 84 FLA. 225, 94 SO. 699,
WHERE THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE PORTION OF THE LAW DEFINING THE
CRIME WAS HARMONIOUS WITH THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND OBSERVED,
WITHOUT DECIDING THE POINT, THAT IF THE PART REFERRING TO THE PRIMA
FACIE CHARACTER OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRONOUNCED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE RULING WOULD NOT AFFECT THE REMAINDER." 

THE COURT THEN TOOK UP BAILEY V. ALABAMA, 211 U.S. 452, AND NOTED AS
TO IT:  "WE THINK IT VERY SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COURT REMARKED UPON THE
LACK OF DOUBT THAT THE OFFENSES DEFINED COULD BE MADE A CRIME.  GIST OF
THE DECISION, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, WAS, SUMMARIZING, THAT THE PART OF
THE LAW DESCRIBING THE CRIME AND THE ONE PROVIDING FOR THE PRESUMPTION
WERE NOT INTERDEPENDENT AND THAT IF, IN THE PROSECUTION, THE STATE DID
NOT RESORT TO THE LATTER THE VALIDITY OF THE FORMER WOULD BE
UNAFFECTED." 

LATER, SPEAKING OF OUR OPINION IN THE TAYLOR CASE, THE FLORIDA COURT
SAID: "THE SECTION ANENT PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN RELIED UPON TO
SECURE A CONVICTION, SO THE COURT AGAIN HAD FOR DETERMINATION THE
QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FIRST SECTION WHEN THE SECOND
WAS BROUGHT INTO PLAY.  NOT BEING FACED WITH THAT PROBLEM HERE WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE FIRST BAILEY DECISION AND OURS IN PHILLIPS V. BELL
ARE IN ACCORD AND THAT THEY IN TURN ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE
RULINGS IN THE SECOND BAILEY CASE AND TAYLOR V. GEORGIA, SUPRA." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




















BOSTON TOW BOAT CO. V. U.S., 321 U.S. 632 


NO. 385.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 2, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 3, 1944.  - APPEAL
DISMISSED. 


APPELLANT'S INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED A PETITION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, HELD INSUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE IT TO TAKE
A SEPARATE APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 210, AS
AMENDED.  P. 633. 

BOSTON TOW BOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, 53
F.SUPP.  349, WHICH DISMISSED A PETITION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, BOSTON TOW BOAT COMPANY, WAS AN INTERVENOR IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION LEADING TO THE
COMMISSION'S DECISION AGAINST THE CORNELL STEAMBOAT COMPANY WHICH WE
TODAY HAVE HELD WAS PROPERLY SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  CORNELL
STEAMBOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES, POST, P. 634.  WHEN CORNELL ATTACKED
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BOSTON AGAIN INTERVENED. 
53 F.SUPP.  349.  ITS PETITION FOR INTERVENTION, GRANTED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, ALLEGED THAT IT OPERATED TUGBOATS IN AND ABOUT BOSTON
HARBOR WHICH RENDERED SERVICES SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THOSE RENDERED BY
CORNELL IN NEW YORK HARBOR; THAT DIVISION 4 OF THE COMMISSION HAD HELD
IT, BOSTON, COVERED BY THE ACT; THAT IT WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE
COMMISSION'S DECISION AGAINST CORNELL "INSOFAR AS SAID DECISION HOLDS
THAT TOWERS FOR HIRE ARE CARRIERS AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND
PROVISIONS OF PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT"; AND THAT IT
DESIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS "SOLELY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ASSERTING ...  ITS SAID CONTENTIONS REGARDING SUCH
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE."  BOSTON'S PETITION DID NOT ALLEGE, AND THE
RECORD FAILS TO SHOW, THAT IT HAD ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST IN CORNELL, OR
WAS ENGAGED IN COMPETITION WITH CORNELL, OR THAT ITS INTERESTS WOULD BE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A DECISION AGAINST CORNELL EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THAT
DECISION MIGHT ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT HOLDING TUGBOATS SUBJECT TO THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION UNDER PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  BOSTON'S BRIEF IN THIS COURT ASSERTS THAT IT HAS PENDING IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS A SUIT TO ENJOIN AND
SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HOLDING BOSTON COVERED BY THE ACT.  IN
ITS BRIEF BOSTON EXPRESSLY SEEKS TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CONTEND IN THE
MASSACHUSETTS PROCEEDING "THAT THE FACTS UNDERLYING ITS OWN TOWING
OPERATIONS ARE SUCH AS TO BRING THE QUESTION OF ITS STATUS OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF THAT OF A CARRIER." 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT BOSTON'S INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE
CORNELL LITIGATION IS INSUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE IT TO TAKE A SEPARATE
APPEAL.  SEE JUDICIAL CODE, SECS. 210, 212, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SECS.
47A, 45A.  WHETHER BOSTON HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST TO INTERVENE AS OF
RIGHT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT WE NEED NOT
DECIDE, THE ISSUE HERE BEING ONLY WHETHER BOSTON HAS SUCH AN
"INDEPENDENT RIGHT WHICH IS VIOLATED" BY THE DECISION AGAINST CORNELL
AS WILL SUPPORT AN INDEPENDENT APPEAL.  ALEXANDER SPRUNT & SON V.
UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 249, 255.  CLEARLY IT HAS NOT.  SEE EDWARD
HINES TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 143; THE CHICAGO JUNCTION
CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 266-269; ALEXANDER SPRUNT & SON V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S.
479, 486-488; MOFFAT TUNNEL LEAGUE V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 113; CF.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 760; L. SINGER
& SONS V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 311 U.S. 295.  APPEAL DISMISSED. 
..END :






CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V. U.S., 321 U.S. 634 


NO. 384.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 2, 1944.  - DECIDED APRIL 3, 1944.  - 53
F.SUPP.  349, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLANT OPERATED TUGBOATS FOR HIRE IN AND ABOUT NEW YORK HARBOR AND
ON THE HUDSON RIVER.  THE TUGBOATS CARRIED NO CARGO BUT TOWED CARGO
VESSELS BELONGING TO OTHERS.  OPERATIONS WERE BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEW
JERSEY, BUT MOSTLY BETWEEN POINTS IN NEW YORK AND OTHER POINTS IN THE
SAME STATE.  HELD: 

1.  APPELLANT WAS A "WATER CARRIER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF PART III OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 636. 

2.  THE FINDING OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THAT APPELLANT
WAS A "COMMON CARRIER BY WATER," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 302(D) OF
THE ACT, IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND IS SUSTAINED.  P.
637. 

3.  UNDER SEC. 302(I)(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES "INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION" AS INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION "WHOLLY BY WATER FROM A
PLACE IN A STATE TO A PLACE IN ANOTHER STATE," APPELLANT'S TOWAGE
OPERATIONS BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY WERE SUBJECT TO REGULATION. 
P. 638. 

4.  SECTION 302(I)(1) IS PROPERLY CONSTRUED TO APPLY ALSO TO
APPELLANT'S TOWAGE OPERATIONS BETWEEN POINTS IN NEW YORK AND OTHER
POINTS IN THE SAME STATE, WHERE IN THE COURSE OF SUCH OPERATIONS THE
TOWS REGULARLY CROSSED INTO NEW JERSEY WATERS.  P. 638. 

CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
DISMISSED A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CORNELL OPERATES TUGBOATS FOR HIRE ON THE HUDSON RIVER AND IN AND
ABOUT NEW YORK HARBOR.  ITS TUGS CARRY NO CARGO BUT MOVE SCOWS, BARGES,
AND SIMILAR VESSELS BELONGING TO OTHERS WHICH THEMSELVES USUALLY CARRY
CARGO.  THIS TOWING SERVICE CORNELL OFFERS TO PERFORM FOR THE PUBLIC IN
GENERAL.  ABOUT NINETY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE VESSELS WHICH IT SERVES ARE
MOVED FROM POINTS IN NEW YORK TO OTHER POINTS IN THE SAME STATE, BUT
THESE MOVEMENTS GENERALLY TRAVERSE NEW JERSEY AS WELL AS NEW YORK
WATERS.  PART III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT  FN1  PROVIDES THAT
CONTRACT OR COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE SUBJECT
TO THE ACT'S REGULATING PROVISIONS.  IN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HELD CORNELL'S BUSINESS COVERED.  250
I.C.C. 301; 250 I.C.C. 577.  A THREE JUDGE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  53 F.SUPP.  349.  THE CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT
APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SECS. 47A, 345. 

FIRST.  CORNELL ARGUES THAT ITS TOWBOATS ARE NOT "WATER CARRIERS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF PART III OF THE ACT.  LOOKING AT PART III, WE
FIND THAT, READ TOGETHER, SECS. 302(C), (D) AND (E) DEFINE A "WATER
CARRIER" AS ANY PERSON WHO ENGAGES IN THE "TRANSPORTATION BY WATER  ...
OF ...  PROPERTY ...  FOR COMPENSATION."  SECTION 302(H) DEFINES
"TRANSPORTATION" AS INCLUDING "ALL SERVICES IN OR IN CONNECTION WITH
TRANSPORTATION," AS WELL AS "THE USE OF ANY TRANSPORTATION FACILITY." 
ANY "VESSEL," WHICH MEANS ANY "WATERCRAFT," SEC. 302(F), IS SUCH A
FACILITY.  SEC. 302(G).  CONGRESS HAS THUS CAREFULLY AND EXPLICITLY SET
OUT THE CONDITIONS WHICH IN COMBINATION DESCRIBE THE KINDS OF CARRIERS
IT INTENDED TO SUBJECT TO REGULATION.  CORNELL'S TUGBOATS FALL SQUARELY
WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION.  IF FURTHER PROOF OF THIS BE NEEDED, SECS.
303(F)(1) AND (2) EXPRESSLY EXEMPT FROM REGULATION UNDER PART III
CERTAIN TYPES OF TOWAGE SERVICE, BUT NOT THAT SUCH AS CORNELL
PROVIDES.  CONGRESS HARDLY WOULD HAVE EXEMPTED SOME TOWERS, AS IT DID
IN THESE SECTIONS, HAD IT INTENDED TO EXEMPT ALL TOWERS. 

NEVERTHELESS, CORNELL ARGUES THAT THE ACT'S LANGUAGE, WHICH APPEARS
ON ITS FACE PLAINLY TO INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION BY MEANS OF TOWERS,
SHOULD NOT BE SO CONSTRUED.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, IT IS SAID
THAT TOWERS DO NOT HAVE THAT COMMON LAW OR STATUTORY LIABILITY TO
SHIPPERS WHICH GENERALLY ATTACHES TO COMMON CARRIERS, SEE SUN OIL CO.
V. DALZELL TOWING CO., 287 U.S. 291; CF. THE MURRELL, 200 F. 826; AND
THAT A "CARRIER" HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY DEFINED AS ONE WHO UNDERTAKES TO
TRANSPORT THE GOODS OF ANOTHER, A DEFINITION NOT INCLUSIVE OF CORNELL,
SINCE IT DOES NOT MAKE CONTRACTS TO CARRY GOODS BUT ONLY TO MOVE
VESSELS WHICH HAVE GOODS ON THEM.  SEE SACRAMENTO NAVIGATION CO. V.
SALZ, 273 U.S. 326, 328; THE PROPELLER NIAGARA V. CORDES, 21 HOW.  7,
22.  BUT THE AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON BY CORNELL ARE OF LITTLE OR NO
ASSISTANCE HERE.  THE CASE AT BAR DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT WE DETERMINE AT
LARGE THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF A TOWER OR DEFINE THE USUAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF A CARRIER.  WE ARE CALLED UPON ONLY TO INTERPRET A
SINGLE ACT OF CONGRESS.  WITH UNQUESTIONED POWER TO REGULATE CORNELL'S
BUSINESS, CONGRESS IN THIS ACT HAS GIVEN ITS OWN DEFINITION TO
CORNELL'S ACTIVITIES IN WORDS LITERALLY INCLUSIVE OF THOSE ACTIVITIES,
AND WHICH OPERATE TO SUBJECT TO THE ACT INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES IN THE
BUSINESS OF TOWING, WHICH AT COMMON LAW WAS A COMMON CALLING.  SPROUL
V. HEMMINGWAY, 14 PICK.  1, 6.  THE ACT IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS INCLUDED
THIS DEFINITION IS DESIGNED, NOT TO DETERMINE THE LEGAL STATUS OF
VESSELS FOR ALL PURPOSES,  FN2  BUT TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATION OF THE
RATES AND SERVICES OF COMPETING INTERSTATE WATER CARRIERS AS PART OF A
BROAD PLAN OF REGULATION FOR ALL TYPES OF COMPETING INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.  CORNELL IS IN ACTIVE COMPETITION WITH OTHER
TYPES OF INTERSTATE WATER CARRIERS AS WELL AS WITH TRUCKS AND
RAILROADS.  THEREFORE, IF CORNELL'S PARTICULAR METHOD OF PROVIDING
WATER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FOR OTHERS IS NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION
UNDER THE ACT, IT WOULD APPEAR TO PRESENT AN ANOMALOUS EXCEPTION TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL PLAN FOR REGULATION OF COMPETING TRANSPORTATION
ACTIVITIES.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT BRINGS CORNELL'S
BUSINESS WITHIN ITS COVERAGE, AND THAT TO CONSTRUE THE ACT OTHERWISE
WOULD FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS. 

SECOND.  CORNELL ARGUES THAT EVEN IF IT IS COVERED BY PART III OF THE
ACT, THERE WAS ERROR IN HOLDING IT TO BE A "COMMON" RATHER THAN A
"CONTRACT" CARRIER.  SECTION 302(D) DEFINES A "COMMON CARRIER" AS ONE
"WHICH HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO ENGAGE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION BY WATER  ...  OF  ...  PROPERTY  ...  FOR
COMPENSATION."  THE COMMISSION FOUND FROM EVIDENCE OFFERED THAT CORNELL
DID SO HOLD ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  UPON REVIEW THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THE COMMISSION'S FINDING WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  THE OPINIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT SHOWED
THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON AND IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REPEAT IT HERE. 
SUFFICIENT IT IS TO SAY THAT WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CONCLUSION. 

THIRD.  THE FIVE PER CENT OF CORNELL'S BUSINESS WHICH CONSISTS OF
MOVING VESSELS BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY PORTS IS UNQUESTIONABLY
COVERED BY THE ACT, BECAUSE SEC. 302(I)(1) SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES
TRANSPORTATION "WHOLLY BY WATER FROM A PLACE IN A STATE TO A PLACE IN
ANY OTHER STATE."  FN3  BUT ABOUT NINETY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE VESSELS
TOWED BY CORNELL ARE PICKED UP AT NEW YORK PORTS AND PULLED TO OTHER
PORTS IN THE SAME STATE.  CORNELL CONTENDS THAT NONE OF THESE MOVEMENTS
COME WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  WE ACCEPT FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT THAT AT LEAST A SUBSTANTIAL
PROPORTION OF THESE LATTER MOVEMENTS REGULARLY AND ORDINARILY PASS OVER
NEW JERSEY TERRITORIAL WATERS.  WHILE MOVING ON NEW JERSEY WATERS,
CORNELL'S VESSELS ARE NOT AT THAT TIME AT "A PLACE" IN NEW YORK. 
CERTAIN OF ITS TOWING ACTIVITIES THEREFORE ACTUALLY MOVE VESSELS FROM
PLACES IN NEW YORK TO PLACES IN NEW JERSEY AND THENCE BACK TO PLACES IN
NEW YORK.  SUCH MOVEMENTS, IF MADE ON LAND BY RAIL CARRIERS, WOULD BE
CLASSIFIED AS INTERSTATE FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES UNDER PREVIOUS
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT; FN4  AND, AS THE COMMISSION'S OPINION POINTS
OUT, THESE DECISIONS HAVE CAST GRAVE DOUBTS UPON THE POWER OF A SINGLE
STATE TO REGULATE SUCH MOVEMENTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  WATER
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TWO PORTS OF A SINGLE STATE MAY TOUCH MANY OTHER
STATES, AND PASS THROUGH HUNDREDS OF MILES OF OTHER STATES' WATERS, FAR
REMOVED FROM THE STATE IN WHICH THE TERMINAL PORTS OF THE VOYAGE ARE
LOCATED.  POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE SUCH MOVEMENTS APPEARS TO
COME WELL WITHIN THE BROAD PURPOSES DECLARED BY CONGRESS IN PASSING
LEGISLATION DESIGNED COMPREHENSIVELY TO COORDINATE A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF
ALL TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION.  WE ARE UNPERSUADED THAT CONGRESS HAS
INADVERTENTLY LEFT SUCH A GAP IN ITS PLAN AS ACCEPTANCE OF CORNELL'S
ARGUMENT WOULD CREATE. 

THE PERTINENT LANGUAGE CONGRESS USED IN DEFINING WHAT SHOULD BE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PART III OF THE ACT REGULATING WATER CARRIERS IS
TO ALL PRACTICAL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THE SAME AS IT USED IN PART I
REGULATING RAIL CARRIERS.  FN5 PART III OF THE ACT, INCLUDING THIS
DEFINITION, FIRST WAS DRAFTED IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AS PART OF A GENERAL REVISION OF AN OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION
BILL (S. 2009) PROPOSED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE H.R. NO. 1217, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  IN REPORTING ON
THE PROVISIONS OF PART III, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, A BODY WELL ACQUAINTED
WITH TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION, MADE THE STATEMENT THAT, "MOST OF THE
REGULATORY PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN THE NEW PART III WERE MODELED ON
PROVISIONS OF PART I DEALING WITH THE SAME SUBJECT."  ID., P. 18.  AT
THE TIME OF THIS REPORT, THE DEFINITION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PART
I UPON WHICH THAT IN PART III WAS MODELED HAD LONG BEFORE BEEN
INTERPRETED BOTH BY THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS AS BROAD ENOUGH TO
COVER RAILROAD MOVEMENTS WHICH PASS THROUGH THE TERRITORY OF TWO
STATES, EVEN THOUGH THE FREIGHT BE CARRIED FROM A PLACE IN ONE STATE TO
ANOTHER PLACE IN THE SAME STATE.  MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. STROUD,
267 U.S. 404.  FN6 

PARTS I, II, AND IV OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, RELATING
RESPECTIVELY TO REGULATION OF RAIL CARRIERS, MOTOR CARRIERS, AND
FREIGHT FORWARDERS, EXPLICITLY OR BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION COVER ALL
SHIPMENTS WHICH PASS THROUGH THE TERRITORY OF TWO OR MORE STATES EVEN
THOUGH BOTH TERMINAL POINTS ARE IN THE SAME STATE.  FN7  AND SO IF
RAILROADS OR TRUCKERS SHOULD USE TUGS FOR THE SAME PURPOSES AND OVER
THE SAME ROUTE AS CORNELL THE MOVEMENTS WOULD BE INTERSTATE UNDER THE
ACT AND SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION; AND APPARENTLY THE
SAME IS TRUE OF FREIGHT FORWARDERS.  FROM THE LANGUAGE OF PART III OF
THE ACT, ITS HISTORY, AND ITS GENERAL PURPOSE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
COMMISSION AND DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DECIDED CORNELL'S
TRANSPORTATION THROUGH NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY WATERS ALSO IS SUBJECT
TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  FN8  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, C. 722, 54 STAT. 898, 929. 

FN2  COMPARE SEC. 320(D) OF PART III OF THE ACT:  "NOTHING IN THIS
PART SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT ANY LAW OF NAVIGATION, THE ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, LIABILITIES OF VESSELS
AND THEIR OWNERS FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE, OR LAWS RESPECTING SEAMEN, OR ANY
OTHER MARITIME LAW, REGULATION, OR CUSTOM NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PART."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 920(D); 54 STAT. 950. 

FN3  THIS SECTION SHOULD BE READ TOGETHER WITH SECS. 303(J) AND (K)
OF PART III WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"(J)  NOTHING IN THIS PART SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO INTERFERE WITH THE
EXCLUSIVE EXERCISE BY EACH STATE OF THE POWER TO REGULATE INTRASTATE
COMMERCE BY WATER CARRIERS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH STATE. 

"(K)  NOTHING IN THIS PART SHALL AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO
PRESCRIBE OR REGULATE ANY RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE FOR INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION, OR FOR ANY SERVICE CONNECTED THEREWITH, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF REMOVING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE." 

THE WORDS "INTRASTATE COMMERCE" AND "INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION" AS
USED IN THESE TWO SUBSECTIONS ARE NOT EXPRESSLY DEFINED IN PART III. 

FN4  HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO., 187 U.S. 617.  THE RULE
OF THE HANLEY CASE HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED BY THE CASES HOLDING THAT
COMPANIES ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION MOVEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO
TAXATION BY THE STATE WHERE THE TERMINAL POINTS ARE LOCATED.  SEE
CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO. V. SOHMER, 235 U.S. 549; LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 145 U.S. 192; EWING V. LEAVENWORTH, 226 U.S. 464, 468
469. 

COMPARE WILMINGTON TRANSPORTATION CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 236 U.S.
151, 155-156, WHICH HELD THAT TRANSPORTATION ON THE HIGH SEAS BETWEEN
TWO POINTS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CATALINA ISLAND AND
SAN PEDRO, BEING "LOCAL" AND NOT INVOLVING "PASSAGE THROUGH THE
TERRITORY OF ANOTHER STATE," WAS SUBJECT TO RATE REGULATION BY
CALIFORNIA IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTROLLING FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 

FOR A GENERAL SURVEY OF STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION PERTAINING TO
REGULATION OF WATER CARRIERS, SEE REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION
AGENCIES, SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 152, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 5-13, 98
170. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 7, INFRA. 

FN6  SEE ALSO WELLS-HIGMAN CO. V. ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S. RY. CO., 18
I.C.C. 175, 176; WILLMAN & CO. V. ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S. RY. CO., 22
I.C.C. 405; SECURITY CEMENT & LIME CO. V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 113
I.C.C. 579; UNITED STATES V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 152 F. 269, 271
272(C.C.S.D.N.Y.). 

FN7  PART I, SEC. 1(1) OF THE ACT CONFERS JURISDICTION OVER
"TRANSPORTATION  ...  WHOLLY BY RAILROAD  ...  FROM ONE STATE  ...  TO
ANY OTHER STATE."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(1); 24 STAT. 379 AS AMENDED.  AS
PREVIOUSLY STATED THIS HAS BEEN CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION
STARTING IN ONE STATE, PASSING THROUGH A SECOND STATE, AND RETURNING TO
THE FIRST STATE.  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

PART II, SEC. 203(A)(10) OF THE ACT DEFINES THE "INTERSTATE COMMERCE"
BY MOTOR VEHICLE OVER WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION AS
INCLUDING "COMMERCE  ...  BETWEEN PLACES IN THE SAME STATE THROUGH
ANOTHER STATE.  ... "  49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(10); 49 STAT. 543, 544, AS
AMENDED. 

AND PART IV, SEC. 402(A)(6) DEFINES THAT TRANSPORTATION WHICH SHALL
BE DEEMED "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATION OF
FREIGHT FORWARDERS AS INCLUDING "TRANSPORTATION  ... BETWEEN POINTS
WITHIN THE SAME STATE BUT THROUGH ANY PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF."  49
U.S.C. SEC. 1002(A)(6); 56 STAT. 284, 285. 

FN8  AS REPORTED IN THE SENATE, THE ORIGINAL OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION
BILL (S. 2009) CONTAINED A SINGLE DEFINITION OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE"
APPLICABLE ALIKE TO RAIL, MOTOR, AND WATER CARRIERS. THIS DEFINITION
EMBODIED THE HOLDING OF THE STROUD CASE (267 U.S. 404) CITED IN OUR
OPINION BY EXPRESSLY INCLUDING "TRANSPORTATION  ...  BETWEEN PLACES IN
THE SAME STATE BY A ROUTE  ... PASSING BEYOND THE BORDERS OF SAID
STATE."  SEC. 3(25), BILL S. 2009, REPORTED TO THE SENATE MAY 16,
1939.  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE FAILURE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE'S
REVISION OF BILL S. 2009 TO RETAIN THIS PART OF THE DEFINITION
CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL BILL INDICATES AN INTENTION THAT THE RULE OF
THE STROUD CASE SHOULD NOT APPLY TO WATER TRANSPORTATION.  IN REACHING
OUR CONCLUSION IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS SUGGESTION
AND HAVE REJECTED IT FOR SEVERAL REASONS.    IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE'S FAILURE TO RETAIN IN PART III THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE
OF THE DEFINITION OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" IN ORIGINAL S. 2009 IS
SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED BY THE FACT, NOTED IN THE BODY OF OUR OPINION,
THAT THE COMMITTEE MODELED PART III, NOT UPON THE PROVISIONS OF
ORIGINAL S. 2009, BUT UPON THE EXISTING PART I OF THE ACT.  AND FROM
THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, A BODY EXPERIENCED IN MATTERS OF
TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION, WE MAY FAIRLY INFER THAT, IN THUS USING THE
LANGUAGE OF PART I, IT HAD IN MIND THE SAME OBJECTIVE AS THE SENATE
COMMITTEE WHICH DRAFTED THE ORIGINAL S. 2009, NAMELY TO SAVE "SO FAR AS
POSSIBLE THE EXISTING LANGUAGE SO THAT FULL ADVANTAGE MAY BE TAKEN OF
THE MANY INTERPRETATIONS, BOTH JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE, WHICH HAVE
BEEN PUT UPON THE RESPECTIVE SECTIONS."  SEE S.R. NO. 433, 76TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 4; AND H.R. NO. 1217, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 18-19. 
CF. MCLEAN TRUCKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 67, 77-80. 

FURTHERMORE, HAD THE EXPERIENCED HOUSE COMMITTEE INTENDED TO PLACE IN
PART III A DEFINITION OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" DIFFERENT IN SCOPE FROM
THAT IN PART I, IT HARDLY WOULD HAVE EXPRESSED SUCH AN INTENTION BY
ADOPTING SUBSTANTIALLY THE IDENTICAL LANGUAGE OF PART I. BUT NEITHER
THE HOUSE NOR THE SENATE COMMITTEE APPEARS TO HAVE HAD ANY SUCH
INTENTION.  AS SHOWN BY THEIR REPORTS AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILLS
WHICH THEY DRAFTED, THE INTENTION OF BOTH COMMITTEES, AND OF CONGRESS,
WAS TO PROVIDE FOR REGULATION OF THE SAME SORT OF INTERSTATE WATER
SHIPMENTS AS ALREADY WERE BEING REGULATED IN THE CASE OF INTERSTATE
RAIL SHIPMENTS.  SEE H.R. NO. 1217, SUPRA; S.R. NO. 433, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING IN PART: 

WHEN IN 1940 CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR THE REGULATION OF WATER CARRIERS
IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, IT DEFINED "TRANSPORTATION IN
INTERSTATE  ...  COMMERCE" FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH REGULATION TO MEAN
"TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY - (1) WHOLLY BY WATER FROM A
PLACE IN A STATE TO A PLACE IN ANY OTHER STATE, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH
TRANSPORTATION TAKES PLACE WHOLLY IN THE UNITED STATES."  SEC.
302(I)(1) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 898, 929, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 902(I)(1).  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT
CONSTRUES THE FIELD OF REGULATION THUS DEFINED BY CONGRESS TO INCLUDE
TUGBOATS MOVING ON THE HUDSON RIVER FROM PLACE TO PLACE IN NEW YORK
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY LEAVE THE NEW YORK BOUNDARY OF THE RIVER AND
NAVIGATE ON WHAT ARE DEEMED JERSEY WATERS, I DISSENT. 

THE PROBLEM IS HERE, AS IT WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, FOR THE FIRST
TIME.  AND THE COURT'S DUTY OF CONSTRUCTION IS NOT AIDED BY THE LIGHT
OF CONTINUOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, THOUGH OF COURSE EVEN THE
INITIAL CONCLUSION BY THE COMMISSION ON SUCH A QUESTION OF LAW SHOULD
HAVE ITS WEIGHT.  BUT SINCE THE MATTER ULTIMATELY TURNS ON GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH LEGISLATION SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED, I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD A FEW WORDS TO THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED BY COMMISSIONER SPLAWN THAT PART III OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT DOES NOT BRING WITHIN THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION ON A BOUNDARY STREAM
BETWEEN POINTS IN THE SAME STATE MERELY BECAUSE A WATER CARRIER CROSSES
A STATE BOUNDARY IN A STREAM. 

THE TERMS BY WHICH CONGRESS CONFERRED JURISDICTION UPON THE
COMMISSION SUCCESSIVELY OVER RAIL CARRIERS, MOTOR CARRIERS AND WATER
CARRIERS ARE DIFFERENT.  IN A FIELD SO WELL TRODDEN AS THIS, INVOLVING
AS IT DOES THE DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY AS BETWEEN STATES AND NATION
OVER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF INTEREST TO BOTH GOVERNMENTS, ONE
WOULD SUPPOSE THAT ONLY THE ENVIRONMENT OF LEGISLATION AND THE HISTORY
OF ITS ENACTMENT COULD DISLODGE THE NATURAL ASSUMPTION THAT DIFFERENT
LITERARY ROADS TAKEN BY CONGRESS HAD DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES.  FOR WE ARE
HERE CONCERNED WITH THREE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS HAVING DIFFERENT
GENEALOGIES IN THE GENERAL FIELD OF REGULATION INCORPORATED IN ONE
PIECE OF LEGISLATION, NAMELY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE EXTENT OF THE POWER OVER
TRANSPORTATION BY WATER CARRIAGE COMMITTED TO THE COMMISSION TO SHOW
THAT CONGRESS MEANT THAT THE PHRASING WHICH IT EMPLOYED WAS IN PURPOSE
TO BE IDENTIC WITH THE DIFFERENT PHRASINGS CONGRESS USED AS TO RAIL AND
MOTOR CARRIERS.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES THE CONTRARY. 

THE CULLOM ACT OF 1887, AS IS WELL KNOWN, WAS IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO
WABASH, ST. L. & P. RY. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 118 U.S. 557.  THAT DECISION
RESTED FUNDAMENTALLY ON THE VIEW THAT RAIL TRANSPORTATION HAS A
PHYSICAL UNITY AND TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT, AS HELD VERY EARLY,
REGULATION OF RAIL RATES CANNOT BE "SPLIT UP" BETWEEN TWO STATES OR
LEFT ONLY TO ONE STATE EVEN AS TO TRANSPORTATION WHICH BEGINS AND ENDS
IN THE SAME STATE BUT PASSES THROUGH THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER.  SEE
HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO., 187 U.S. 617.  THE TERMS IN
WHICH CONGRESS GRANTED REGULATORY POWER OVER RAILROADS TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REFLECTED THIS VIEW.  THE COMMISSION WAS
AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE RAIL TRANSPORTATION "FROM ONE STATE  ...  TO ANY
OTHER STATE," BUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WERE NOT TO APPLY "TO THE
TRANSPORTATION  ...  WHOLLY WITHIN ONE STATE  ...  "  SEC. 1 OF THE ACT
TO REGULATE COMMERCE, 24 STAT. 379, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 1(1), (2)(A).  WHEN
CONGRESS IN 1935 BROUGHT MOTOR CARRIERS WITHIN THE REGULATORY POWERS OF
THE COMMISSION, IT WAS NOT CONTENT TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION TO BE REGULATED IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE OF THE REGULATED
RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION.  IT DEFINED THE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION TO BE
REGULATED TO INCLUDE "COMMERCE BETWEEN ANY PLACE IN A STATE AND ANY
PLACE IN ANOTHER STATE OR BETWEEN PLACES IN THE SAME STATE THROUGH
ANOTHER STATE."  SEC. 203(A)(10) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49
STAT. 543, 544, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(A)(10).  IT USED THIS EXPLICIT AND
PRECISE LANGUAGE BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION IN
RELATION TO STATE CONTROL DIFFER FROM THE CONDITIONS OF INTERSTATE
RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION, AND IT WISHED TO LEAVE NO DOUBT WHATEVER THAT
IT WAS REGULATING RATES ON MOTOR TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE SAME STATE
THROUGH ANOTHER.  THE SAME EXPLICITNESS WAS AGAIN USED BY CONGRESS WHEN
IN 1942 IT SWEPT FREIGHT FORWARDERS WHO SERVE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
WITHIN FEDERAL CONTROL.  SEC. 402(A)(6), 56 STAT. 284, 285, 49 U.S.C.
(SUPP. 1942) SEC. 1002(A)(6). 

A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION WAS PRESENTED TO CONGRESS BY THE HEAVY
WATER TRAFFIC ON BOUNDRY STREAMS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  IN HIS REPORT
AS FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION, THE LATE COMMISSIONER EASTMAN
POINTED OUT THAT THIRTY-TWO STATES HAD LAWS REGULATING WATER
TRANSPORTATION "ON INLAND WATERS AND IN SOME INSTANCES ON BORDERING
STREAMS OR LAKES AND COASTAL WATERS."  SEN. DOC. NO. 152, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 158.  THIS COURT, IN PORT RICHMOND FERRY CO. V. HUDSON
COUNTY, 234 U.S. 317, HAD OCCASION TO CALL ATTENTION TO THIS LIVELY
WATER TRAFFIC WHICH, THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, PRESENTED "A SITUATION
ESSENTIALLY LOCAL REQUIRING REGULATION ACCORDING TO LOCAL CONDITIONS." 
234 U.S. AT 332.  FOR THAT REASON IT SUSTAINED STATE REGULATION OF
FERRY RATES EVEN FOR TRANSPORTATION FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER.  FN1
THE DOCTRINE OF HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO., SUPRA, IS THUS
A DOCTRINE APPLICABLE TO RAILROADS AND HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED TO WATER
CARRIERS.  SEE WILMINGTON TRANSPORTATION CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 236
U.S. 151, 155-156. 

IN 1940 CONGRESS DID UNDERTAKE TO REGULATE WATER TRANSPORTATION.  BUT
IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICH RAIL, MOTOR AND WATER
TRANSPORTATION ARE ENTANGLED WITH STATE INTERESTS AND THEREFORE STATE
AUTHORITY, IT BECOMES VITAL TO HEED THE EXACT LANGUAGE IN WHICH
CONGRESS EXPRESSED ITS PURPOSE OF REGULATION AND THE MANNER IN WHICH IT
FINALLY PASSED THE PROVISIONS BY WHICH IT DEFINED THE COMMISSION'S
AUTHORITY. 

IN A WORD, THE BILL AS ENACTED WAS IN QUITE A DIFFERENT FORM FROM THE
BILL AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED.  AS THE BILL CAME OUT OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND AS PASSED BY THE SENATE IT HAD
THIS PROVISION:  "THE TERM 'INTERSTATE COMMERCE' MEANS TRANSPORTATION
...  FROM A PLACE IN ONE STATE  ...  TO A PLACE IN ANOTHER STATE  ...
OR BETWEEN PLACES IN THE SAME STATE BY A ROUTE OR ROUTES PASSING BEYOND
THE BORDERS OF SAID STATE  ...  "  84 CONG. REC. 5964.  THIS WAS NOT
MERELY A CHOICE OF LANGUAGE BUT A CHOICE OF PURPOSE.  THE COMMITTEE AND
THE SENATE, THAT IS, ASSERTED A CONTROL AS EXTENSIVE AS THAT WHICH
CONGRESS ASSERTED IN 1935 OVER MOTOR CARRIERS.  THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF
THE PURPOSE THUS MANIFESTED WAS TO EXCLUDE STATE CONTROL OVER WATER
CARRIERS FROM PORT TO PORT IN THE SAME STATE BUT ENTERING THE WATER OF
A BORDER STATE.  THE HOUSE EVIDENTLY HAD OTHER VIEWS, FOR THAT
PROVISION WAS DELETED AFTER THE SENATE BILL WAS COMMITTED TO THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE.  THAT COMMITTEE REPORTED AND THE HOUSE PASSED THIS
RESTRICTIVE PROVISION: "THE TERM 'INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN TRANSPORTATION'
...  MEANS TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY - (1) WHOLLY BY WATER
FROM A PLACE IN A STATE TO A PLACE IN ANY OTHER STATE, WHETHER OR NOT
SUCH TRANSPORTATION TAKES PLACE WHOLLY IN THE UNITED STATES."  84 CONG.
REC. 9956.  THE SENATE RECEDED FROM ITS FORMULATION (H. REP. NO. 2016,
76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 30), AND THE RESTRICTIVE HOUSE PROVISION
BECAME THE LAW.  BUT WE ARE NOW TOLD THAT THIS CHANGE FROM EXPLICIT
ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS MEANINGLESS, AND THE FACT THAT THE
PROVISION IN THE SENATE BILL WAS LEFT OUT AS THE BILL WENT THROUGH THE
HOUSE, THE CONFERENCE AND TO PASSAGE HAS PRECISELY THE SAME
SIGNIFICANCE AS THOUGH THE ORIGINAL SENATE PROVISION HAD REMAINED IN
IT.  AS TO THIS AS WELL AS OTHER PHASES OF WATER TRANSPORTATION,
CONGRESS CIRCUMSCRIBED THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY AND LEFT STATE
REGULATION TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS TO MATTERS WHICH, IN THE CASE OF
RAIL AND MOTOR TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL CONTROL HAS BEEN ASSERTED.  THUS
FOR INSTANCE, USE OF THE SHREVEPORT DOCTRINE (SEE HOUSTON, E. & W.T.
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342) - THE CONTROL OVER STATE RATES
DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST INTERSTATE RATES - IS EXPLICITLY DENIED (SEC.
303(K)), AND NUMEROUS OTHER EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS SHOW
"CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO CONFER MORE LIMITED JURISDICTION THAN HAS BEEN
GIVEN IN THE OTHER PARTS OF THE ACT."  250 I.C.C. 577, 586. 

NO DOUBT, AS THE HOUSE COMMITTEE SAID, "MOST OF THE REGULATORY
PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN THE NEW PART III WERE MODELED ON PROVISIONS OF
PART I DEALING WITH THE SAME SUBJECT."  H.R. NO. 1217, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 18.  IN ITS CONTEXT, THE IDEA BEHIND THE PHRASE "REGULATORY
PROVISIONS" BEARS ON HOW TO REGULATE, NOT WHAT IS REGULATED.  AND THE
FACT THAT "MOST" PROVISIONS WERE THE SAME, NOT ALL, INDICATES THAT
VARIATIONS FROM PART I WERE MADE IN PART III.  WHEN THEREFORE WE FIND
DIFFERENCES IN DEFINITION OF THE "COMMERCE" TO BE REGULATED BETWEEN
PART I AND PART III, IT WILL NOT DO TO DISREGARD THEM AND FIND IDENTITY
THROUGH VARIATION.  PARTICULARLY IS THIS TRUE WHEN THERE ARE PRACTICAL
DIFFERENCES TO ACCOUNT FOR THE VARIATION.  WE MUST FIRST DEFINE THE
FIELD OF THE REGULATION - WHAT "COMMERCE" BETWEEN TWO POINTS IN THE
SAME STATE BUT GOING THROUGH ANOTHER BECOMES FEDERALLY REGULATED
ALTHOUGH THERETOFORE FREE FROM STATE REGULATION AS WAS RAIL
TRANSPORTATION, AND WHAT "COMMERCE" IS GIVEN OVER TO FEDERAL REGULATION
ALTHOUGH THERETOFORE IT WAS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF STATE REGULATION AS
WAS WATER TRANSPORTATION IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT UNDER DISCUSSION.  WE
THUS HAVE THE PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WATER-BORNE AND LAND
TRAFFIC, THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS IN THE DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN STATE AND
FEDERAL POWER RAISED BY WATER-BORNE TRAFFIC ON BOUNDARY STREAMS, AND
THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCES IN THE DEFINITIONS OF "COMMERCE" IN THE SAME ACT
OF CONGRESS RESPONDING TO THESE DIFFERENCES OF FACT BETWEEN WATER-BORNE
AND LAND TRANSPORTATION.  ALL ENJOIN JUDICIAL REGARD FOR THESE
DIFFERENCES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 

THE DEFINITION ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN THE SENATE BILL WAS INTENDED TO
COVER ALL THREE TYPES OF CARRIER - RAIL, WATER AND MOTOR. 
PARTICULARIZATION IN THIS PROPOSED DEFINITION OF TRANSPORTATION WITHIN
ONE STATE BUT THROUGH A SECOND IS CLEAR PROOF THAT THE HANLEY DOCTRINE
APPLICABLE TO RAIL CARRIERS DID NOT CARRY OVER TO WATER AND MOTOR
CARRIAGE.  WHEN CONGRESS FINALLY REJECTED THE ALL-INCLUSIVE DEFINITION
PROPOSED BY THE SENATE AND DECIDED ON SEPARATE DEFINITIONS OF THE
COMMERCE TO BE REGULATED, IT DID SO PRECISELY BECAUSE IT REALIZED THAT
THE LEGAL SITUATION AS TO THE THREE TYPES WAS NOT THE SAME.  THIS
CAREFUL PROCESS OF DISTINCTIVE DEFINITION BY CONGRESS IS NOW IN EFFECT
HELD TO HAVE BEEN A FUTILE LEGISLATIVE ENDEAVOR.  THE ALL-INCLUSIVE
DEFINITION IN THE ORIGINAL SENATE BILL WHICH THE CONGRESS REJECTED THIS
COURT RESTORES. 

A FINAL WORD.  WE MUST NOT BE UNMINDFUL THAT THE COMMITTEES ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OUT OF WHICH ISSUED THIS LEGISLATION HAVE A
CONTINUITY OF MEMBERSHIP WHICH MAKES THEM WELL VERSED IN THE PROBLEM
BEFORE US:  NAMELY, HOW MUCH OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER POSSESSED BY
CONGRESS FOR THE CONTROL OF UTILITY SERVICES SHOULD IN FACT BE
COMMITTED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  (THE CHAIRMEN OF THE
SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHO HAD CHARGE OF
THE BILLS THAT BECAME THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, HAVE BEEN MEMBERS
OF THESE COMMITTEES FOR TWENTY AND TWENTY-THREE YEARS RESPECTIVELY.) 
PARTICULARLY THEREFORE WHEN DEALING WITH LEGISLATION COMING FROM THESE
COMMITTEES AND IN MATTERS INVOLVING DISPLACEMENT OF STATE BY FEDERAL
AUTHORITY, WE OUGHT NOT TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS DID NOT ATTACH
SIGNIFICANCE TO WHAT IT SAID AND MEANT TO CONVEY THAT WHICH SKILLED
LANGUAGE WITHHELD.  IT IS MORE RESPECTFUL OF CONGRESS TO ATTRIBUTE TO
IT CARE INSTEAD OF CASUALNESS.  IT IS CERTAINLY MORE CONSONANT WITH
JUDICIAL TRADITION AND MORE CONDUCIVE TO LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
COURTS TO ACT ON THAT BELIEF. 

I AM THEREFORE COMPELLED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT
GIVEN POWER TO REGULATE TRANSPORTATION BY CORNELL FROM ONE PORT IN NEW
YORK TO ANOTHER PORT IN THE SAME STATE. 

FN1  "IT HAS NEVER BEEN SUPPOSED THAT BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF
FEDERAL ACTION THE PUBLIC INTEREST WAS UNPROTECTED FROM EXTORTION AND
THAT IN ORDER TO SECURE REASONABLE CHARGES IN A MYRIAD OF SUCH
DIFFERENT LOCAL INSTANCES, EXHIBITING AN ENDLESS VARIETY OF
CIRCUMSTANCE, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR CONGRESS TO ACT DIRECTLY OR TO
ESTABLISH FOR THAT PURPOSE A FEDERAL AGENCY  ...  THE PRACTICAL
ADVANTAGES OF HAVING THE MATTER DEALT WITH BY THE STATES ARE OBVIOUS
AND ARE ILLUSTRATED BY THE PRACTICE OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE
YEARS.  AND IN VIEW OF THE CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT, WE FIND NO SOUND
OBJECTION TO ITS CONTINUANCE.  IF CONGRESS AT ANY TIME UNDERTAKES TO
REGULATE SUCH RATES, ITS ACTION WILL OF COURSE CONTROL."  234 U.S. AT
332. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :





SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 321 U.S. 649 


NO. 51.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 12, 1943.  REARGUED JANUARY 12, 1944.  -
DECIDED APRIL 3, 1944.  - 131 F.2D 593, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE FOR THE
NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN A PRIMARY WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ELECTIVE
PROCESS IS A RIGHT SECURED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; AND THIS RIGHT
OF THE CITIZEN MAY NOT BE ABRIDGED BY THE STATE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RACE
OR COLOR.  P. 661. 

2.  WHETHER THE EXCLUSION OF CITIZENS FROM VOTING ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR
RACE OR COLOR HAS BEEN EFFECTED BY ACTION OF THE STATE - RATHER THAN OF
INDIVIDUALS OR OF A POLITICAL PARTY - IS A QUESTION UPON WHICH THE
DECISION OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE IS NOT BINDING ON THE FEDERAL
COURTS, BUT WHICH THE LATTER MUST DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES P. 662. 

3.  UPON EXAMINATION OF THE STATUTES OF TEXAS REGULATING PRIMARIES,
HELD THAT THE EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM VOTING IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
TO SELECT NOMINEES FOR A GENERAL ELECTION - ALTHOUGH BY RESOLUTION OF A
STATE CONVENTION OF THE PARTY ITS MEMBERSHIP WAS LIMITED TO WHITE
CITIZENS - WAS STATE ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
GROVEY V. TOWNSEND, 295 U.S. 45, OVERRULED.  PP. 663, 666. 

WHEN, AS HERE, PRIMARIES BECOME A PART OF THE MACHINERY FOR CHOOSING
OFFICIALS, STATE AND FEDERAL, THE SAME TESTS TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTER
OF DISCRIMINATION OR ABRIDGMENT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE PRIMARY AS ARE
APPLIED TO THE GENERAL ELECTION.  P. 664. 

4.  WHILE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE DESIRABILITY OF ITS ADHERING TO FORMER
DECISIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, THIS COURT IS NOT CONSTRAINED TO
FOLLOW A PREVIOUS DECISION WHICH UPON REEXAMINATION IS BELIEVED
ERRONEOUS, PARTICULARLY ONE WHICH INVOLVES THE APPLICATION OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE RATHER THAN AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION TO EVOLVE THE PRINCIPLE ITSELF.  P. 665. 

SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, ELECTION JUDGE, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 738, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT FOR DAMAGES UNDER 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IN
THE SUM OF $5,000 ON THE PART OF PETITIONER, A NEGRO CITIZEN OF THE
48TH PRECINCT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, FOR THE REFUSAL OF RESPONDENTS,
ELECTION AND ASSOCIATE ELECTION JUDGES RESPECTIVELY OF THAT PRECINCT,
TO GIVE PETITIONER A BALLOT OR TO PERMIT HIM TO CAST A BALLOT IN THE
PRIMARY ELECTION OF JULY 27, 1940, FOR THE NOMINATION OF DEMOCRATIC
CANDIDATES FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
AND GOVERNOR AND OTHER STATE OFFICERS.  THE REFUSAL IS ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE RACE AND COLOR OF THE PROPOSED VOTER. 

THE ACTIONS OF RESPONDENTS ARE SAID TO VIOLATE SECS. 31 AND 43 OF
TITLE 8  FN1  OF THE UNITED STATES CODE IN THAT PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED
OF RIGHTS SECURED BY SECS. 2 AND 4 OF ARTICLE I  FN2 AND THE
FOURTEENTH, FIFTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.  FN3 THE SUIT WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, WHICH HAD
JURISDICTION UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 24, SUBSECTION 14.  FN4 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS QUITE PROPERLY AFFIRMED ITS ACTION ON THE AUTHORITY OF GROVEY
V. TOWNSEND, 295 U.S. 45.  FN5  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
TO RESOLVE A CLAIMED INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DECISION IN THE GROVEY
CASE AND THAT OF UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299.  319 U.S.
738. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS BY ITS CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES PROVIDES THAT
EVERY PERSON, IF CERTAIN OTHER REQUIREMENTS ARE MET WHICH ARE NOT HERE
IN ISSUE, QUALIFIED BY RESIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT OR COUNTY "SHALL BE
DEEMED A QUALIFIED ELECTOR."  CONSTITUTION OF TEXAS, ARTICLE VI, SEC.
2; VERNON'S CIVIL STATUTES (1939 ED.), ARTICLE 2955.  PRIMARY ELECTIONS
FOR UNITED STATES SENATORS, CONGRESSMEN AND STATE OFFICERS ARE PROVIDED
FOR BY CHAPTERS TWELVE AND THIRTEEN OF THE STATUTES.  UNDER THESE
CHAPTERS, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WAS REQUIRED TO HOLD THE PRIMARY WHICH
WAS THE OCCASION OF THE ALLEGED WRONG TO PETITIONER.  A SUMMARY OF THE
STATE STATUTES REGULATING PRIMARIES APPEARS IN THE FOOTNOTE.  FN6
THESE NOMINATIONS ARE TO BE MADE BY THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE PARTY. 
ART. 3101. 

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TEXAS IS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT
STATE TO BE A "VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION," BELL V. HILL, 123 TEX. 531, 534,
PROTECTED BY SEC. 27 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, ART. 1, CONSTITUTION OF
TEXAS, FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE STATE EXCEPT THAT: 

"IN THE INTEREST OF FAIR METHODS AND A FAIR EXPRESSION BY THEIR
MEMBERS OF THEIR PREFERENCES IN THE SELECTION OF THEIR NOMINEES, THE
STATE MAY REGULATE SUCH ELECTIONS BY PROPER LAWS."  P. 545.  THAT COURT
STATED FURTHER: 

"SINCE THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND MAINTAIN A POLITICAL PARTY IS ONE
GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THIS STATE, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS
THAT EVERY PRIVILEGE ESSENTIAL OR REASONABLY APPROPRIATE TO THE
EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT IS LIKEWISE GUARANTEED,  - INCLUDING, OF COURSE,
THE PRIVILEGE OF DETERMINING THE POLICIES OF THE PARTY AND ITS
MEMBERSHIP.  WITHOUT THE PRIVILEGE OF DETERMINING THE POLICY OF A
POLITICAL ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERSHIP, THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE SUCH AN
ASSOCIATION WOULD BE A MERE MOCKERY.  WE THINK THESE RIGHTS,  - THAT
IS, THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE MEMBERSHIP OF A POLITICAL PARTY AND TO
DETERMINE ITS POLICIES, OF NECESSITY ARE TO BE EXERCISED BY THE STATE
CONVENTION OF SUCH PARTY, AND CANNOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BE
CONFERRED UPON A STATE OR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY."  P. 546.  CF. WAPLES V.
MARRAST, 108 TEX. 5, 184 S.W. 180. 

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON MAY 24, 1932, IN A STATE CONVENTION ADOPTED
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION, WHICH HAS NOT SINCE BEEN "AMENDED, ABROGATED,
ANNULLED OR AVOIDED": 

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALL WHITE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS WHO ARE
QUALIFIED TO VOTE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE SHALL BE
ELIGIBLE TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND, AS SUCH, ENTITLED
TO PARTICIPATE IN ITS DELIBERATIONS."  IT WAS BY VIRTUE OF THIS
RESOLUTION THAT THE RESPONDENTS REFUSED TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO
VOTE. 

TEXAS IS FREE TO CONDUCT HER ELECTIONS AND LIMIT HER ELECTORATE AS
SHE MAY DEEM WISE, SAVE ONLY AS HER ACTION MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR IN CONFLICT WITH
POWERS DELEGATED TO AND EXERCISED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  FN7  THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS A STATE FROM MAKING OR ENFORCING ANY LAW
WHICH ABRIDGES THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY INTERDICTS ANY DENIAL
OR ABRIDGEMENT BY A STATE OF THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO VOTE ON ACCOUNT
OF COLOR.  RESPONDENTS APPEARED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AND DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
OF TEXAS IS A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION WITH MEMBERS BANDED TOGETHER FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SELECTING INDIVIDUALS OF THE GROUP REPRESENTING THE
COMMON POLITICAL BELIEFS AS CANDIDATES IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.  AS
SUCH A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION, IT WAS CLAIMED, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS
FREE TO SELECT ITS OWN MEMBERSHIP AND LIMIT TO WHITES PARTICIPATION IN
THE PARTY PRIMARY.  SUCH ACTION, THE ANSWER ASSERTED, DOES NOT VIOLATE
THE FOURTEENTH, FIFTEENTH OR SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT AS OFFICERS OF
GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE CHOSEN AT PRIMARIES AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE
APPLICABLE ONLY TO GENERAL ELECTIONS WHERE GOVERNMENTAL OFFICERS ARE
ACTUALLY ELECTED.  PRIMARIES, IT IS SAID, ARE POLITICAL PARTY AFFAIRS,
HANDLED BY PARTY, NOT GOVERNMENTAL, OFFICERS.  NO APPEARANCE FOR
RESPONDENTS IS MADE IN THIS COURT.  ARGUMENTS PRESENTED HERE BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE DEMOCRATIC
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF TEXAS, AS AMICI CURIAE, URGED SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME GROUNDS AS THOSE ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS. 

THE RIGHT OF A NEGRO TO VOTE IN THE TEXAS PRIMARY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED
HERETOFORE BY THIS COURT.  THE FIRST CASE WAS NIXON V. HERNDON, 273
U.S. 536.  AT THAT TIME, 1924, THE TEXAS STATUTE, ART. 3093A,
AFTERWARDS NUMBERED ART. 3107(REV.  STAT.  1925) DECLARED "IN NO EVENT
SHALL A NEGRO BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN A DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY
ELECTION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS."  NIXON WAS REFUSED THE RIGHT TO VOTE
IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY AND BROUGHT A SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE
ELECTION OFFICERS UNDER R.S. SECS. 1979 AND 2004, THE PRESENT SECS. 43
AND 31 OF TITLE 8, U.S.C., RESPECTIVELY.  IT WAS URGED TO THIS COURT
THAT THE DENIAL OF THE FRANCHISE TO NIXON VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION OF THE FIFTEENTH, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE ACTION OF
TEXAS IN DENYING THE BALLOT TO NEGROES BY STATUTE WAS IN VIOLATION OF
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND REVERSED
THE DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT. 

THE LEGISLATURE OF TEXAS REENACTED THE ARTICLE BUT GAVE THE STATE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF A PARTY THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS MEMBERS FOR VOTING OR OTHER PARTICIPATION.  THIS
ARTICLE REMAINS IN THE STATUTES.  THE STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY ADOPTED A RESOLUTION THAT WHITE DEMOCRATS AND NONE
OTHER MIGHT PARTICIPATE IN THE PRIMARIES OF THAT PARTY.  NIXON WAS
REFUSED AGAIN THE PRIVILEGE OF VOTING IN A PRIMARY AND AGAIN BROUGHT
SUIT FOR DAMAGES BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 31, TITLE 8, U.S.C.  THIS COURT
AGAIN REVERSED THE DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT FOR THE REASON THAT THE
COMMITTEE ACTION WAS DEEMED TO BE STATE ACTION AND INVALID AS
DISCRIMINATORY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE TEST WAS SAID TO BE
WHETHER THE COMMITTEE OPERATED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THE STATE'S AUTHORITY.  NIXON V. CONDON, 286 U.S. 73.  THE
QUESTION OF THE INHERENT POWER OF A POLITICAL PARTY IN TEXAS "WITHOUT
RESTRAINT BY ANY LAW TO DETERMINE ITS OWN MEMBERSHIP" WAS LEFT OPEN. 
ID., 84-85. 

IN GROVEY V. TOWNSEND, 295 U.S. 45, THIS COURT HAD BEFORE IT ANOTHER
SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR THE REFUSAL IN A PRIMARY OF A COUNTY CLERK, A
TEXAS OFFICER WITH ONLY PUBLIC FUNCTIONS TO PERFORM, TO FURNISH
PETITIONER, A NEGRO, AN ABSENTEE BALLOT.  THE REFUSAL WAS SOLELY ON THE
GROUND OF RACE.  THIS CASE DIFFERED FROM NIXON V. CONDON, SUPRA, IN
THAT A STATE CONVENTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAD PASSED THE
RESOLUTION OF MAY 24, 1932, HEREINBEFORE QUOTED.  IT WAS DECIDED THAT
THE DETERMINATION BY THE STATE CONVENTION OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY MADE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM A DETERMINATION BY THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  THE FORMER WAS PARTY ACTION, VOLUNTARY IN
CHARACTER.  THE LATTER, AS HAD BEEN HELD IN THE CONDON CASE, WAS ACTION
BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE.  THE MANAGERS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION WERE
THEREFORE DECLARED NOT TO BE STATE OFFICIALS IN SUCH SENSE THAT THEIR
ACTION WAS STATE ACTION.  A STATE CONVENTION OF A PARTY WAS SAID NOT TO
BE AN ORGAN OF THE STATE.  THIS COURT WENT ON TO ANNOUNCE THAT TO DENY
A VOTE IN A PRIMARY WAS A MERE REFUSAL OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP WITH WHICH
"THE STATE NEED HAVE NO CONCERN," LOC.  CIT.  AT 55, WHILE FOR A STATE
TO DENY A VOTE IN A GENERAL ELECTION ON THE GROUND OF RACE OR COLOR
VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION.  CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS FOUND NO GROUND FOR
HOLDING THAT THE COUNTY CLERK'S REFUSAL OF A BALLOT BECAUSE OF RACIAL
INELIGIBILITY FOR PARTY MEMBERSHIP DENIED THE PETITIONER ANY RIGHT
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH OR FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

SINCE GROVEY V. TOWNSEND AND PRIOR TO THE PRESENT SUIT, NO CASE FROM
TEXAS INVOLVING PRIMARY ELECTIONS HAS BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT.  WE DID
DECIDE, HOWEVER, UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299.  WE THERE HELD
THAT SEC. 4 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZED CONGRESS TO
REGULATE PRIMARY AS WELL AS GENERAL ELECTIONS, 313 U.S. AT 316, 317,
"WHERE THE PRIMARY IS BY LAW MADE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ELECTION
MACHINERY."  313 U.S. AT 318.  CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE CLASSIC CASE, WE
UPHELD THE APPLICABILITY TO FRAUDS IN A LOUISIANA PRIMARY OF SECS. 19
AND 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THEREBY CORRUPT ACTS OF ELECTION OFFICERS
WERE SUBJECTED TO CONGRESSIONAL SANCTIONS BECAUSE THAT BODY HAD POWER
TO PROTECT RIGHTS OF FEDERAL SUFFRAGE SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN
PRIMARY AS IN GENERAL ELECTIONS.  313 U.S. AT 323.  THIS DECISION
DEPENDED, TOO, ON THE DETERMINATION THAT UNDER THE LOUISIANA STATUTES
THE PRIMARY WAS A PART OF THE PROCEDURE FOR CHOICE OF FEDERAL
OFFICIALS.  BY THIS DECISION THE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SUCH
PRIMARIES WERE A PART OF "ELECTIONS" SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL, WHICH
HAD REMAINED UNANSWERED SINCE NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 232,
WAS ERASED.  THE NIXON CASES WERE DECIDED UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WITHOUT A DETERMINATION OF THE
STATUS OF THE PRIMARY AS A PART OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.  THE
EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM THE PRIMARIES BY ACTION OF THE STATE WAS HELD
INVALID UNDER THAT AMENDMENT.  THE FUSING BY THE CLASSIC CASE OF THE
PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS INTO A SINGLE INSTRUMENTALITY FOR CHOICE
OF OFFICERS HAS A DEFINITE BEARING ON THE PERMISSIBILITY UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF EXCLUDING NEGROES FROM PRIMARIES.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY
THAT THE CLASSIC CASE CUTS DIRECTLY INTO THE RATIONALE OF GROVEY V.
TOWNSEND.  THIS LATTER CASE WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE OPINION.  CLASSIC
BEARS UPON GROVEY V. TOWNSEND NOT BECAUSE EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM
PRIMARIES IS ANY MORE OR LESS STATE ACTION BY REASON OF THE UNITARY
CHARACTER OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS BUT BECAUSE THE RECOGNITION OF THE
PLACE OF THE PRIMARY IN THE ELECTORAL SCHEME MAKES CLEAR THAT STATE
DELEGATION TO A PARTY OF THE POWER TO FIX THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PRIMARY
ELECTIONS IS DELEGATION OF A STATE FUNCTION THAT MAY MAKE THE PARTY'S
ACTION THE ACTION OF THE STATE.  WHEN GROVEY V. TOWNSEND WAS WRITTEN,
THE COURT LOOKED UPON THE DENIAL OF A VOTE IN A PRIMARY AS A MERE
REFUSAL BY A PARTY OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP.  295 U.S. AT 55.  AS THE
LOUISIANA STATUTES FOR HOLDING PRIMARIES ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF TEXAS,
OUR RULING IN CLASSIC AS TO THE UNITARY CHARACTER OF THE ELECTORAL
PROCESS CALLS FOR A REEXAMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE EXCLUSION OF
NEGROES FROM A TEXAS PARTY PRIMARY WAS STATE ACTION. 

THE STATUTES OF TEXAS RELATING TO PRIMARIES AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TEXAS EXTENDING THE PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERSHIP TO
WHITE CITIZENS ONLY ARE THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT TODAY AS THEY
WERE WHEN GROVEY V. TOWNSEND WAS DECIDED BY A UNANIMOUS COURT.  THE
QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE EXCLUSIONARY ACTION OF THE PARTY WAS THE
ACTION OF THE STATE PERSISTS AS THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR.  IN AGAIN
ENTERING UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN AS TO STATE
ACTION FROM A SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR FACTUAL SITUATION, IT SHOULD BE
NOTED THAT GROVEY V. TOWNSEND UPHELD EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM
PRIMARIES THROUGH THE DENIAL OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP BY A PARTY
CONVENTION.  A FEW YEARS BEFORE, THIS COURT REFUSED APPROVAL OF
EXCLUSION BY THE STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PARTY.  A DIFFERENT
RESULT WAS REACHED ON THE THEORY THAT THE COMMITTEE ACTION WAS STATE
AUTHORIZED AND THE CONVENTION ACTION WAS UNFETTERED BY STATUTORY
CONTROL.  SUCH A VARIATION IN THE RESULT FROM SO SLIGHT A CHANGE IN
FORM INFLUENCES US TO CONSIDER ANEW THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE
DISTINCTION WHICH HAS RESULTED IN BARRING NEGROES FROM PARTICIPATING IN
THE NOMINATIONS OF CANDIDATES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN TEXAS.  OTHER
PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT FORBID THE ABRIDGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE. 
UNITED STATES V. REESE, 92 U.S. 214, 217; NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S.
370, 388; GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347, 361; MYERS V. ANDERSON,
238 U.S. 368, 379; LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268.    IT MAY NOW BE TAKEN
AS A POSTULATE THAT THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN SUCH A PRIMARY FOR THE
NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATE, LIKE THE
RIGHT TO VOTE IN A GENERAL ELECTION, IS A RIGHT SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. AT 314; MYERS V.
ANDERSON, 238 U.S. 368; EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651, 663 ET SEQ.
BY THE TERMS OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT THAT RIGHT MAY NOT BE ABRIDGED
BY ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF RACE.  UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION THE GREAT
PRIVILEGE OF THE BALLOT MAY NOT BE DENIED A MAN BY THE STATE BECAUSE OF
HIS COLOR. 

WE ARE THUS BROUGHT TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTORS IN TEXAS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER STATE ACTION
OR PRIVATE ACTION HAS EXCLUDED NEGROES FROM PARTICIPATION.  DESPITE
TEXAS' DECISION THAT THE EXCLUSION IS PRODUCED BY PRIVATE OR PARTY
ACTION, BELL V. HILL, SUPRA, FEDERAL COURTS MUST FOR THEMSELVES
APPRAISE THE FACTS LEADING TO THAT CONCLUSION.  IT IS ONLY BY THE
PERFORMANCE OF THIS OBLIGATION THAT A FINAL AND UNIFORM INTERPRETATION
CAN BE GIVEN TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND."  NIXON
V. CONDON, 286 U.S. 73, 88; STANDARD OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481,
483; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252; LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314
U.S. 219, 238; UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 450,
467; DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR CO., 312 U.S. 287, 294; CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 228.  TEXAS REQUIRES ELECTORS IN A PRIMARY TO
PAY A POLL TAX.  EVERY PERSON WHO DOES SO PAY AND WHO HAS THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF AGE AND RESIDENCE IS AN ACCEPTABLE VOTER FOR THE
PRIMARY.  ART. 2955.  AS APPEARS ABOVE IN THE SUMMARY OF THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS SET OUT IN NOTE 6, TEXAS REQUIRES BY THE LAW THE ELECTION OF
THE COUNTY OFFICERS OF A PARTY.  THESE COMPOSE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE.  THE COUNTY CHAIRMEN SO SELECTED ARE MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND CHOOSE THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE DISTRICT.  PRECINCT
PRIMARY ELECTION OFFICERS ARE NAMED BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
STATUTES PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION BY THE VOTERS OF PRECINCT DELEGATES
TO THE COUNTY CONVENTION OF A PARTY AND THE SELECTION OF DELEGATES TO
THE DISTRICT AND STATE CONVENTIONS BY THE COUNTY CONVENTION.  THE STATE
CONVENTION SELECTS THE STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  NO CONVENTION MAY
PLACE IN PLATFORM OR RESOLUTION ANY DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC LEGISLATION
WITHOUT ENDORSEMENT OF SUCH LEGISLATION BY THE VOTERS IN A PRIMARY. 
TEXAS THUS DIRECTS THE SELECTION OF ALL PARTY OFFICERS. 

PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE CONDUCTED BY THE PARTY UNDER STATE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY.  THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SELECTS PRECINCT ELECTION
OFFICIALS AND THE COUNTY, DISTRICT OR STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES,
RESPECTIVELY, CANVASS THE RETURNS.  THESE PARTY COMMITTEES OR THE STATE
CONVENTION CERTIFY THE PARTY'S CANDIDATES TO THE APPROPRIATE OFFICERS
FOR INCLUSION ON THE OFFICIAL BALLOT FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION.  NO NAME
WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SO CERTIFIED MAY APPEAR UPON THE BALLOT FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTION AS A CANDIDATE OF A POLITICAL PARTY.  NO OTHER NAME
MAY BE PRINTED ON THE BALLOT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PLACED IN NOMINATION BY
QUALIFIED VOTERS WHO MUST TAKE OATH THAT THEY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A
PRIMARY FOR THE SELECTION OF A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE FOR WHICH THE
NOMINATION IS MADE. 

THE STATE COURTS ARE GIVEN EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF
CONTESTED ELECTIONS AND OF MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS TO COMPEL PARTY
OFFICERS TO PERFORM THEIR STATUTORY DUTIES. 

WE THINK THAT THIS STATUTORY SYSTEM FOR THE SELECTION OF PARTY
NOMINEES FOR INCLUSION ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT MAKES THE PARTY
WHICH IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THESE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIONS AN AGENCY OF
THE STATE IN SO FAR AS IT DETERMINES THE PARTICIPANTS IN A PRIMARY
ELECTION.  THE PARTY TAKES ITS CHARACTER AS A STATE AGENCY FROM THE
DUTIES IMPOSED UPON IT BY STATE STATUTES; THE DUTIES DO NOT BECOME
MATTERS OF PRIVATE LAW BECAUSE THEY ARE PERFORMED BY A POLITICAL
PARTY.  THE PLAN OF THE TEXAS PRIMARY FOLLOWS SUBSTANTIALLY THAT OF
LOUISIANA, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IN LOUISIANA THE STATE PAYS THE COST
OF THE PRIMARY WHILE TEXAS ASSESSES THE COST AGAINST CANDIDATES.  IN
NUMEROUS INSTANCES, THE TEXAS STATUTES FIX OR LIMIT THE FEES TO BE
CHARGED.  WHETHER PAID DIRECTLY BY THE STATE OR THROUGH STATE
REQUIREMENTS, IT IS STATE ACTION WHICH COMPELS.  WHEN PRIMARIES BECOME
A PART OF THE MACHINERY FOR CHOOSING OFFICIALS, STATE AND NATIONAL, AS
THEY HAVE HERE, THE SAME TESTS TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF
DISCRIMINATION OR ABRIDGEMENT SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE PRIMARY AS ARE
APPLIED TO THE GENERAL ELECTION.  IF THE STATE REQUIRES A CERTAIN
ELECTORAL PROCEDURE, PRESCRIBES A GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT MADE UP OF
PARTY NOMINEES SO CHOSEN AND LIMITS THE CHOICE OF THE ELECTORATE IN
GENERAL ELECTIONS FOR STATE OFFICES, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, TO THOSE
WHOSE NAMES APPEAR ON SUCH A BALLOT, IT ENDORSES, ADOPTS AND ENFORCES
THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES, PRACTICED BY A PARTY ENTRUSTED BY
TEXAS LAW WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PARTICIPANTS
IN THE PRIMARY.  THIS IS STATE ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347, 362. 

THE UNITED STATES IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.  ITS ORGANIC LAW
GRANTS TO ALL CITIZENS A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CHOICE OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS WITHOUT RESTRICTION BY ANY STATE BECAUSE OF RACE.  THIS GRANT
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CHOICE IS NOT TO BE NULLIFIED BY A
STATE THROUGH CASTING ITS ELECTORAL PROCESS IN A FORM WHICH PERMITS A
PRIVATE ORGANIZATION TO PRACTICE RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE
ELECTION.  CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WOULD BE OF LITTLE VALUE IF THEY COULD
BE THUS INDIRECTLY DENIED.  LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268, 275. 

THE PRIVILEGE OF MEMBERSHIP IN A PARTY MAY BE, AS THIS COURT SAID IN
GROVEY V. TOWNSEND, 295 U.S. 45, 55, NO CONCERN OF A STATE.  BUT WHEN,
AS HERE, THAT PRIVILEGE IS ALSO THE ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION FOR VOTING
IN A PRIMARY TO SELECT NOMINEES FOR A GENERAL ELECTION, THE STATE MAKES
THE ACTION OF THE PARTY THE ACTION OF THE STATE.  IN REACHING THIS
CONCLUSION WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE DESIRABILITY OF CONTINUITY OF
DECISION IN CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  FN8  HOWEVER, WHEN CONVINCED OF
FORMER ERROR, THIS COURT HAS NEVER FELT CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW
PRECEDENT.  IN CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, WHERE CORRECTION DEPENDS UPON
AMENDMENT AND NOT UPON LEGISLATIVE ACTION THIS COURT THROUGHOUT ITS
HISTORY HAS FREELY EXERCISED ITS POWER TO REEXAMINE THE BASIS OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS.  THIS HAS LONG BEEN ACCEPTED PRACTICE,  FN9
AND THIS PRACTICE HAS CONTINUED TO THIS DAY.  FN10  THIS IS
PARTICULARLY TRUE WHEN THE DECISION BELIEVED ERRONEOUS IS THE
APPLICATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE RATHER THAN AN INTERPRETATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION TO EXTRACT THE PRINCIPLE ITSELF.  FN11  HERE WE ARE
APPLYING, CONTRARY TO THE RECENT DECISION IN GROVEY V. TOWNSEND, THE
WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, FORBIDDING THE
ABRIDGEMENT BY A STATE OF A CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE.  GROVEY V.
TOWNSEND IS OVERRULED.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  8 U.S.C. SEC. 31: 

"ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ARE OTHERWISE QUALIFIED BY LAW
TO VOTE AT ANY ELECTION BY THE PEOPLE IN ANY STATE, TERRITORY,
DISTRICT, COUNTY, CITY, PARISH, TOWNSHIP, SCHOOL DISTRICT,
MUNICIPALITY, OR OTHER TERRITORIAL SUBDIVISION, SHALL BE ENTITLED AND
ALLOWED TO VOTE AT ALL SUCH ELECTIONS, WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF RACE,
COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE; ANY CONSTITUTION, LAW,
CUSTOM, USAGE, OR REGULATION OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, OR BY OR UNDER
ITS AUTHORITY, TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." 

SEC. 43:  "EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR
CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER
PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN
EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS." 

FN2  CONSTITUTION, ART. I: 

"SECTION 2.  THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE COMPOSED OF
MEMBERS CHOSEN EVERY SECOND YEAR BY THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL STATES,
AND THE ELECTORS IN EACH STATE SHALL HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUISITE
FOR ELECTORS OF THE MOST NUMEROUS BRANCH OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE." 

"SECTION 4.  THE TIMES, PLACES AND MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS FOR
SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN EACH STATE BY THE
LEGISLATURE THEREOF; BUT THE CONGRESS MAY AT ANY TIME BY LAW MAKE OR
ALTER SUCH REGULATIONS, EXCEPT AS TO THE PLACES OF CHUSING SENATORS." 

FN3  CONSTITUTION: 

ARTICLE XIV.  "SECTION 1.  ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE.  NO STATE SHALL
MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE
DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

ARTICLE XV.  "SECTION 1.  THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
TO VOTE SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ANY
STATE ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE. 

"SECTION 2.  THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE THIS ARTICLE BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION." 

ARTICLE XVII.  "THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE COMPOSED OF
TWO SENATORS FROM EACH STATE, ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE THEREOF, FOR SIX
YEARS; AND EACH SENATOR SHALL HAVE ONE VOTE.  THE ELECTORS IN EACH
STATE SHALL HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUISITE FOR ELECTORS OF THE MOST
NUMEROUS BRANCH OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES." 

FN4  A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ALSO WAS SOUGHT AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DENIAL OF THE BALLOT.  THE JUDGMENT ENTERED
DECLARED THE DENIAL WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.  THIS PHASE OF THE CASE IS NOT
CONSIDERED FURTHER AS THE DECISION ON THE MERITS DETERMINES THE
LEGALITY OF THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS. 

FN5  SMITH V. ALLWRIGHT, 131 F.2D 593. 

FN6  THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE STATE CONTROLS THE PRIMARY ELECTION
MACHINERY APPEARS FROM THE TEXAS STATUTES, AS FOLLOWS:  ART. 3118,
VERNON'S TEXAS STATUTES, PROVIDES FOR THE ELECTION OF A COUNTY CHAIRMAN
FOR EACH PARTY HOLDING A PRIMARY BY THE "QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE WHOLE
COUNTY," AND OF ONE MEMBER OF THE PARTY'S COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BY
THE "QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE ELECTION PRECINCTS."  THESE
OFFICERS HAVE DIRECT CHARGE OF THE PRIMARY.  THERE IS IN ADDITION
STATUTORY PROVISION FOR A PARTY CONVENTION:  THE VOTERS IN EACH
PRECINCT CHOOSE DELEGATES TO A COUNTY CONVENTION, AND THE LATTER
CHOOSES DELEGATES TO A STATE CONVENTION.  ART. 3134.  THE STATE
CONVENTION HAS AUTHORITY TO CHOOSE THE STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND
ITS CHAIRMAN.  ART. 3139, 1939 SUPP.  CANDIDATES FOR OFFICES TO BE
FILLED BY ELECTION ARE REQUIRED TO BE NOMINATED AT A PRIMARY ELECTION
IF THE NOMINATING PARTY CAST OVER 100,000 VOTES AT THE PRECEDING
GENERAL ELECTION.  ART. 3101.  THE DATE OF THE PRIMARY IS FIXED AT THE
FOURTH SATURDAY IN JULY; A MAJORITY IS REQUIRED FOR NOMINATION, AND IF
NO CANDIDATE RECEIVES A MAJORITY, A RUN-OFF PRIMARY BETWEEN THE TWO
HIGHEST STANDING CANDIDATES IS HELD ON THE FOURTH SATURDAY IN AUGUST. 
ART. 3102.  POLLING PLACES MAY NOT BE WITHIN A HUNDRED YARDS OF THOSE
USED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY.  ART. 3103.  EACH PRECINCT PRIMARY IS TO BE
CONDUCTED BY A PRESIDING JUDGE AND THE ASSISTANTS HE NAMES.  THESE
OFFICIALS ARE SELECTED BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  ART. 3104. 
ABSENTEE VOTING MACHINERY PROVIDED BY THE STATE FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS
IS ALSO USED IN PRIMARIES.  ART. 2956.  THE PRESIDING JUDGES ARE GIVEN
LEGAL AUTHORITY SIMILAR TO THAT OF JUDGES AT GENERAL ELECTIONS. 
COMPARE ART. 3105 WITH ART. 3002.  THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MAY
DECIDE WHETHER COUNTY OFFICERS ARE TO BE NOMINATED BY MAJORITY OR
PLURALITY VOTE.  ART. 3106.  THE STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IS GIVEN
POWER TO FIX QUALIFICATIONS OF PARTY MEMBERSHIP, ART. 3107; ART. 2955,
1942 SUPP., REQUIRES PAYMENT OF A POLL TAX BY VOTERS IN PRIMARY
ELECTIONS, AND ART. 3093(3) DEALS WITH POLITICAL QUALIFICATIONS OF
CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR.  BUT CF. BELL V.
HILL, 123 TEX. 531, 74 S.W.2D 113.  ART. 3108 EMPOWERS THE COUNTY
COMMITTEE TO PREPARE A BUDGET COVERING THE COST OF THE PRIMARY AND TO
REQUIRE EACH CANDIDATE TO PAY A FAIR SHARE.  THE FORM OF THE BALLOT IS
PRESCRIBED BY ART. 3109.  ART. 3101 PROVIDES THAT THE NOMINATIONS BE
MADE BY THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE PARTY.  CF. ART. 3091.  ART. 3110
PRESCRIBES A TEST FOR VOTERS WHO TAKE PART IN THE PRIMARY.  IT READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"NO OFFICIAL BALLOT FOR PRIMARY ELECTION SHALL HAVE ON IT ANY SYMBOL
OR DEVICE OR ANY PRINTED MATTER, EXCEPT A UNIFORM PRIMARY TEST, READING
AS FOLLOWS:  'I AM A  ...  (INSERTING NAME OF POLITICAL PARTY OR
ORGANIZATION OF WHICH THE VOTER IS A MEMBER) AND PLEDGE MYSELF TO
SUPPORT THE NOMINEE OF THIS PRIMARY;' AND ANY BALLOT WHICH SHALL NOT
CONTAIN SUCH PRINTED TEST ABOVE THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES THEREON,
SHALL BE VOID AND SHALL NOT BE COUNTED."  THIS APPEARS, HOWEVER, TO BE
A MORALLY RATHER THAN A LEGALLY ENFORCIBLE PLEDGE.  SEE LOVE V. WILCOX,
119 TEX. 256, 28 S.W.2D 515.    ARTS. 3092 AND 3111 TO 3114 DEAL WITH
THE MECHANICS OF PROCURING A PLACE ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT FOR FEDERAL,
STATE, DISTRICT, OR COUNTY OFFICE.  THE REQUEST FOR A PLACE ON THE
BALLOT MAY BE MADE TO THE STATE, DISTRICT OR COUNTY PARTY CHAIRMAN,
EITHER BY THE PERSON DESIRING NOMINATION OR BY TWENTY-FIVE QUALIFIED
VOTERS.  THE BALLOT IS PREPARED BY A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COUNTY
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  ART. 3115.  A CANDIDATE MUST PAY HIS SHARE OF THE
EXPENSES OF THE ELECTION BEFORE HIS NAME IS PLACED ON THE BALLOT.  ART.
3116.  ART. 3116, HOWEVER, LIMITS THE SUM THAT MAY BE CHARGED
CANDIDATES FOR CERTAIN POSTS, SUCH AS THE OFFICES OF DISTRICT JUDGE,
JUDGE OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, AND SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE IN
THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATURES, AND FOR SOME COUNTIES FEES ARE
FIXED BY ARTS. 3116 A-D, 1939 SUPP., AND 3116 E-F, 1942 SUPP.  SUPPLIES
FOR THE ELECTION ARE DISTRIBUTED BY THE COUNTY COMMITTEE, ART. 3119,
AND ART. 3120 AUTHORIZES THE USE OF VOTING BOOTHS, BALLOT BOXES AND
GUARD RAILS, PREPARED FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION, "FOR THE ORGANIZED
POLITICAL PARTY NOMINATING BY PRIMARY ELECTION THAT CAST OVER ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND VOTES AT THE PRECEDING GENERAL ELECTION."  THE COUNTY
TAX COLLECTOR MUST SUPPLY LISTS OF QUALIFIED VOTERS BY PRECINCTS; AND
THESE LISTS MUST BE USED AT THE PRIMARY.  ART. 3121.  THE SAME
PRECAUTIONS AS TO SECRECY AND THE CARE OF THE BALLOTS MUST BE OBSERVED
IN PRIMARY AS IN GENERAL ELECTIONS.  ART. 3122.  ARTS. 3123-25 COVER
THE MAKING OF RETURNS TO THE COUNTY AND STATE CHAIRMEN AND CANVASS OF
THE RESULT BY THE COUNTY COMMITTEE.  BY ART. 3127, A STATEWIDE CANVASS
IS REQUIRED OF THE STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR STATE AND DISTRICT
OFFICERS AND A SIMILAR CANVASS BY THE STATE CONVENTION, WITH RESPECT TO
STATE OFFICERS, IS PROVIDED BY ART. 3138.  THE NOMINATIONS FOR DISTRICT
OFFICES ARE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY CLERKS, AND FOR STATE OFFICERS TO
THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  ARTS. 3127, 3137, 3138.  BALLOT BOXES AND
BALLOTS ARE TO BE RETURNED TO THE COUNTY CLERK, ART. 3128, 1942 SUPP.,
AND UPON CERTIFICATION BY THE COUNTY COMMITTEE, THE COUNTY CLERK MUST
PUBLISH THE RESULT.  ART. 3129, 1942 SUPP.  IF NO OBJECTION IS MADE
WITHIN FIVE DAYS, THE NAME OF THE NOMINEE IS THEN TO BE PLACED ON THE
OFFICIAL BALLOT BY THE COUNTY CLERK.  ART. 3131, 1942 SUPP.  CF. ARTS.
2978, 2984, 2992, 2996.  ARTS. 3146-53, 1942 SUPP., PROVIDE FOR
ELECTION CONTESTS.  THE STATE DISTRICT COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION, AND THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS HAS APPELLATE
JURISDICTION.  THE STATE COURTS ARE ALSO AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE WRITS OF
MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES, COMMITTEEMEN, AND PRIMARY
OFFICERS TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE.  ART. 3142;
CF. ART. 3124. 

THE OFFICIAL BALLOT IS REQUIRED TO CONTAIN PARALLEL COLUMNS FOR THE
NOMINEES OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, A COLUMN FOR INDEPENDENT
CANDIDATES, AND A BLANK COLUMN FOR SUCH NAMES AS THE VOTERS CARE TO
WRITE IN.  ARTS. 2978, 2980.  THE NAMES OF NOMINEES OF A PARTY CASTING
MORE THAN 100,000 VOTES AT THE LAST PRECEDING GENERAL ELECTION MAY NOT
BE PRINTED ON THE BALLOT UNLESS THEY WERE CHOSEN AT A PRIMARY
ELECTION.  ART. 2978.  CANDIDATES WHO ARE NOT PARTY NOMINEES MAY HAVE
THEIR NAMES PRINTED ON THE BALLOT BY COMPLYING WITH ARTS. 3159-62. 
THESE SECTIONS REQUIRE APPLICATIONS TO BE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE, COUNTY JUDGE, OR MAYOR, FOR STATE AND DISTRICT, COUNTY, AND CITY
OFFICES, RESPECTIVELY.  THE APPLICATIONS MUST BE SIGNED BY QUALIFIED
VOTERS TO THE NUMBER OF FROM ONE TO FIVE PER CENT OF THE BALLOTS CAST
AT THE PRECEDING ELECTION, DEPENDING ON THE OFFICE.  EACH SIGNER MUST
TAKE AN OATH TO THE EFFECT THAT HE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A PRIMARY AT
WHICH A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE IN QUESTION WAS NOMINATED.  WHILE THIS
REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO PRECLUDE ONE WHO HAS VOTED IN THE PARTY
PRIMARY FROM APPEARING ON THE BALLOT AS AN INDEPENDENT, WESTERMAN V.
MIMS, 111 TEX. 29, 227 S.W. 178; SEE CUNNINGHAM V. MCDERMETT, 277 S.W.
218(CIV.  APP.), ONE WHO LOST AT THE PRIMARY MAY STILL BE ELECTED AT
THE GENERAL ELECTION BY A WRITE-IN VOTE.  CUNNINGHAM V. MCDERMETT,
SUPRA. 

THE OPERATIONS OF THE PARTY ARE RESTRICTED BY THE STATE IN ONE OTHER
IMPORTANT RESPECT.  BY ART. 3139, 1939 SUPP., THE STATE CONVENTION CAN
ANNOUNCE A PLATFORM OF PRINCIPLES, BUT ITS SUBMISSION AT THE PRIMARY IS
A PREREQUISITE TO PARTY ADVOCACY OF SPECIFIC LEGISLATION.  ART. 3133. 

FN7  CF. PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 359-60. 

FN8  CF. POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, 652. 

FN9  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN BURNET V.
CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, 410. 

FN10  SEE E.G., UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, OVERRULING
HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251; CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S.
109, OVERRULING DISANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34; WEST COAST HOTEL
CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379, OVERRULING ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL,
261 U.S. 525; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376,
OVERRULING GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501 AND BURNET V. CORONADO
OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393; ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64,
OVERRULING SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1; GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL.
O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, OVERRULING COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, AND
NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401; O'MALLEY V. WOODROUGH,
307 U.S. 277, OVERRULING MILES V. GRAHAM, 268 U.S. 501; MADDEN V.
KENTUCKY, 309 U.S. 83, OVERRULING COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404;
HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, OVERRULING HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS
UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 39 AND BECKER V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO.,
296 U.S. 48; NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, OVERRULING TOLEDO
NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402; ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER,
314 U.S. 1, OVERRULING PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218 AND
GRAVES V. TEXAS CO., 298 U.S. 393; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S.
287, OVERRULING HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562; STATE TAX COMMISSION
V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, OVERRULING FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284
U.S. 312; BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, OVERRULING
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586. 

FN11  CF. DISSENT IN BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393
AT 410. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

IN MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN STEAMSHIP CO., 321 U.S. 96, 105, I HAVE
EXPRESSED MY VIEWS WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT POLICY OF THE COURT
FREELY TO DISREGARD AND TO OVERRULE CONSIDERED DECISIONS AND THE RULES
OF LAW ANNOUNCED IN THEM.  THIS TENDENCY, IT SEEMS TO ME, INDICATES AN
INTOLERANCE FOR WHAT THOSE WHO HAVE COMPOSED THIS COURT IN THE PAST
HAVE CONSCIENTIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY CONCLUDED, AND INVOLVES AN
ASSUMPTION THAT KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM RESIDE IN US WHICH WAS DENIED TO
OUR PREDECESSORS.  I SHALL NOT REPEAT WHAT I THERE SAID FOR I CONSIDER
IT FULLY APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT DECISION, WHICH BUT POINTS THE MORAL
ANEW. 

A WORD SHOULD BE SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE JUDICIAL HISTORY FORMING
THE BACKGROUND OF GROVEY V. TOWNSEND, 295 U.S. 45, WHICH IS NOW
OVERRULED. 

IN 1923 TEXAS ADOPTED A STATUTE WHICH DECLARED THAT NO NEGRO SHOULD
BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTION IN THAT
STATE.  A NEGRO, A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF TEXAS, QUALIFIED
TO VOTE, EXCEPT FOR THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, WAS DENIED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE IN A PRIMARY ELECTION AT WHICH CANDIDATES WERE TO
BE CHOSEN FOR THE OFFICES OF SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  HE BROUGHT ACTION AGAINST THE JUDGES OF ELECTION
IN A UNITED STATES COURT FOR DAMAGES FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT HIS
BALLOT.  THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT AND HELD THAT THE JUDGES ACTED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW AND THAT
THE STATE OF TEXAS, BY ITS STATUTE, HAD DENIED THE VOTER THE EQUAL
PROTECTION SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  NIXON V. HERNDON, 273
U.S. 536(1927). 

IN 1927 THE LEGISLATURE OF TEXAS REPEALED THE PROVISION CONDEMNED BY
THIS COURT AND ENACTED THAT EVERY POLITICAL PARTY IN THE STATE MIGHT,
THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, PRESCRIBE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS
OWN MEMBERS AND DETERMINE IN ITS OWN WAY WHO SHOULD BE QUALIFIED TO
VOTE OR PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY, EXCEPT THAT NO DENIAL OF
PARTICIPATION COULD BE DECREED BY REASON OF FORMER POLITICAL OR OTHER
AFFILIATION.  THEREUPON THE STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY IN TEXAS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION THAT WHITE DEMOCRATS, AND NO OTHER,
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PARTY'S PRIMARIES. 

A NEGRO, WHOSE PRIMARY BALLOT WAS REJECTED PURSUANT TO THE
RESOLUTION, SOUGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM THE JUDGES WHO HAD REJECTED
IT.  THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED HIS ACTION, AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED; BUT THIS COURT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT
AND SUSTAINED THE RIGHT OF ACTION BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 4.  NIXON V.
CONDON, 286 U.S. 73(1932). 

THE OPINION WAS WRITTEN WITH CARE.  THE COURT REFUSED TO DECIDE
WHETHER A POLITICAL PARTY IN TEXAS HAD INHERENT POWER TO DETERMINE ITS
MEMBERSHIP.  THE COURT SAID, HOWEVER:  "WHATEVER INHERENT POWER A STATE
POLITICAL PARTY HAS TO DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF ITS MEMBERSHIP RESIDES
IN THE STATE CONVENTION," AND REFERRED TO THE STATUTES OF TEXAS TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STATE HAD LEFT THE CONVENTION FREE TO FORMULATE
THE PARTY FAITH.  ATTENTION WAS DIRECTED TO THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE
UNDER ATTACK DID NOT LEAVE TO THE PARTY CONVENTION THE DEFINITION OF
PARTY MEMBERSHIP BUT PLACED IT IN THE PARTY'S STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
WHICH COULD NOT, BY ANY STRETCH OF REASONING, BE HELD TO CONSTITUTE THE
PARTY.  THE COURT HELD, THEREFORE, THAT THE STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
ACTED SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THE STATUTORY MANDATE AND AS DELEGATE OF
STATE POWER, AND AGAIN STRUCK DOWN THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGRO
VOTERS AS DERIVING FORCE AND VIRTUE FROM STATE ACTION,  - THAT IS, FROM
STATUTE. 

IN 1932 THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION OF TEXAS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION THAT
"ALL WHITE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO VOTE
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO
MEMBERSHIP IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND AS SUCH ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE
IN ITS DELIBERATIONS." 

A NEGRO VOTER QUALIFIED TO VOTE IN A PRIMARY ELECTION, EXCEPT FOR THE
EXCLUSION WORKED BY THE RESOLUTION, DEMANDED AN ABSENTEE BALLOT WHICH
HE WAS ENTITLED TO MAIL TO THE JUDGES AT A PRIMARY ELECTION EXCEPT FOR
THE RESOLUTION.  THE COUNTY CLERK REFUSED TO FURNISH HIM A BALLOT.  HE
BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE CLERK IN A STATE COURT.  THAT
COURT, WHICH WAS THE TRIBUNAL HAVING FINAL JURISDICION UNDER THE LAWS
OF TEXAS, DISMISSED HIS COMPLAINT AND HE BROUGHT THE CASE TO THIS COURT
FOR REVIEW.  AFTER THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION BY THE WHOLE COURT  FN1
AN OPINION WAS WRITTEN REPRESENTING ITS UNANIMOUS VIEWS AND AFFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT.  GROVEY V. TOWNSEND, 295 U.S. 45(1935). 

I BELIEVE IT WILL NOT BE GAINSAID THE CASE RECEIVED THE ATTENTION AND
CONSIDERATION WHICH THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED DEMANDED AND THE OPINION
REPRESENTED THE VIEWS OF ALL THE JUSTICES.  IT APPEARS THAT THOSE VIEWS
DO NOT NOW COMMEND THEMSELVES TO THE COURT.  I SHALL NOT RESTATE THEM. 
THEY ARE EXPOSED IN THE OPINION AND MUST STAND OR FALL ON THEIR
MERITS.  THEIR SOUNDNESS, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MATTER WHICH PRESENTLY
CONCERNS ME. 

THE REASON FOR MY CONCERN IS THAT THE INSTANT DECISION, OVERRULING
THAT ANNOUNCED ABOUT NINE YEARS AGO, TENDS TO BRING ADJUDICATIONS OF
THIS TRIBUNAL INTO THE SAME CLASS AS A RESTRICTED RAILROAD TICKET, GOOD
FOR THIS DAY AND TRAIN ONLY.  I HAVE NO ASSURANCE, IN VIEW OF CURRENT
DECISIONS, THAT THE OPINION ANNOUNCED TODAY MAY NOT SHORTLY BE
REPUDIATED AND OVERRULED BY JUSTICES WHO DEEM THEY HAVE NEW LIGHT ON
THE SUBJECT.  IN THE PRESENT TERM THE COURT HAS OVERRULED THREE CASES. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IN MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., SUPRA, THE
COURT BELOW RELIED, AS IT WAS BOUND TO, UPON OUR PREVIOUS DECISION.  AS
THAT COURT POINTS OUT, THE STATUTES OF TEXAS HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED
SINCE GROVEY V. TOWNSEND WAS DECIDED.  THE SAME RESOLUTION IS INVOLVED
AS WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION IN GROVEY V. TOWNSEND.  NOT A FACT
DIFFERENTIATES THAT CASE FROM THIS EXCEPT THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT GROVEY V. TOWNSEND WAS OVERRULED SUB SILENTIO IN
UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299.  IF SO, THE SITUATION IS EVEN
WORSE THAN THAT EXHIBITED BY THE OUTRIGHT REPUDIATION OF AN EARLIER
DECISION, FOR IT IS THE FACT THAT, IN THE CLASSIC CASE, GROVEY V.
TOWNSEND WAS DISTINGUISHED IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT
WITHOUT SUGGESTION THAT IT WAS WRONGLY DECIDED, AND WAS RELIED ON BY
THE APPELLEES, NOT AS A CONTROLLING DECISION, BUT BY WAY OF ANALOGY. 
THE CASE IS NOT MENTIONED IN EITHER OF THE OPINIONS IN THE CLASSIC
CASE.  AGAIN AND AGAIN IT IS SAID IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THAT
CASE THAT THE VOTER WHO WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE WAS A FULLY
QUALIFIED VOTER.  IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF HIS BEING A
PERSON ENTITLED UNDER STATE LAW TO VOTE IN THE PRIMARY.  THE OFFENSE
CHARGED WAS THE FRAUDULENT DENIAL OF HIS CONCEDED RIGHT BY AN ELECTION
OFFICER BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.  HERE THE QUESTION IS ALTOGETHER
DIFFERENT.  IT IS WHETHER, IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, HE WHO TENDERED HIS
VOTE WAS A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 

I DO NOT STOP TO CALL ATTENTION TO THE MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE PRIMARY ELECTION LAWS OF LOUISIANA UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE
CLASSIC CASE AND THOSE OF TEXAS WHICH ARE HERE DRAWN IN QUESTION. 
THESE DIFFERENCES WERE SPELLED OUT IN DETAIL IN THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF
IN THE CLASSIC CASE AND EMPHASIZED IN ITS ORAL ARGUMENT.  IT IS ENOUGH
TO SAY THAT THE LOUISIANA STATUTES REQUIRED THE PRIMARY TO BE CONDUCTED
BY STATE OFFICIALS AND MADE IT A STATE ELECTION, WHEREAS, UNDER THE
TEXAS STATUTE, THE PRIMARY IS A PARTY ELECTION CONDUCTED AT THE EXPENSE
OF MEMBERS OF THE PARTY AND BY OFFICIALS CHOSEN BY THE PARTY.  IF THIS
COURT'S OPINION IN THE CLASSIC CASE DISCLOSES ITS METHOD OF OVERRULING
EARLIER DECISIONS, I CAN ONLY PROTEST THAT, IN FAIRNESS, IT SHOULD
RATHER HAVE ADOPTED THE OPEN AND FRANK WAY OF SAYING WHAT IT WAS DOING
THAN, AFTER THE EVENT, CHARACTERIZE ITS PAST ACTION AS OVERRULING
GROVEY V. TOWNSEND THOUGH THOSE LESS SAPIENT NEVER REALIZED THE FACT. 
IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT IN AN ERA MARKED BY DOUBT AND CONFUSION, AN ERA
WHOSE GREATEST NEED IS STEADFASTNESS OF THOUGHT AND PURPOSE, THIS
COURT, WHICH HAS BEEN LOOKED TO AS EXHIBITING CONSISTENCY IN
ADJUDICATION, AND A STEADINESS WHICH WOULD HOLD THE BALANCE EVEN IN THE
FACE OF TEMPORARY EBBS AND FLOWS OF OPINION, SHOULD NOW ITSELF BECOME
THE BREEDER OF FRESH DOUBT AND CONFUSION IN THE PUBLIC MIND AS TO THE
STABILITY OF OUR INSTITUTIONS. 

FN1  THE COURT WAS COMPOSED OF HUGHES, C.J., VAN DEVANTER,
MCREYNOLDS, BRANDEIS, SUTHERLAND, BUTLER, STONE, ROBERTS AND CARDOZO,
JJ.
..END :


















U.S. V. WABASH R. CO., 321 U.S. 403 


NO. 453.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  - 51
F.SUPP.  141, REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DIRECTING APPELLEE
RAILROADS TO CANCEL CERTAIN TARIFF SUPPLEMENTS BY WHICH THEY PROPOSED
TO ELIMINATE CHARGES FOR SPOTTING FREIGHT CARS AT THE DOORS OF
FACTORIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PLANT OF A MANUFACTURING COMPANY - BASED ON
ITS FINDING THAT PERFORMANCE OF THE SPOTTING SERVICE WITHOUT CHARGE
WOULD BE AN UNLAWFUL PREFERENCE BECAUSE A DEPARTURE FROM FILED TARIFFS,
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(7) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT - SUSTAINED. 
PP. 405, 410. 

2.  THE POINT IN TIME AND SPACE AT WHICH THE CARRIER'S TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE ENDS IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION,
AND ITS FINDINGS ON THAT QUESTION, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, WILL NOT
BE DISTURBED BY THE COURTS.  P. 408. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE THAT THE MOVEMENT OF
CARS BETWEEN THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS AND POINTS OF LOADING AND UNLOADING
WAS A PLANT SERVICE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE INDUSTRY, AND NOT A PART
OF THE CARRIER SERVICE COMPARABLE TO THE USUAL CAR DELIVERY AT A TEAM
TRACK OR SIDING, IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND IS BINDING ON
REVIEW.  P. 409. 

4.  SECTION 6(7) PROHIBITS DEPARTURES FROM THE FILED TARIFFS AND IT
IS VIOLATED WHEN CARRIERS PAY THE INDUSTRIES FOR A TERMINAL SERVICE NOT
INCLUDED IN THEIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OR WHEN THEY RENDER SUCH
TERMINAL SERVICE FREE OF CHARGE.  P. 410. 

5.  THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 6(7) APPLIES WITHOUT QUALIFICATION TO
EVERY CARRIER, AND WHEN THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THE ALLOWANCE OR SERVICE IS
SHOWN BY THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING AT A PARTICULAR INDUSTRIAL PLANT, IT
IS UNNECESSARY, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, TO CONSIDER
WHETHER GENERALLY SIMILAR ALLOWANCES OR SERVICES AT OTHER PLANTS ARE,
OR ARE NOT, LAWFUL UNDER CONDITIONS PREVAILING THERE.  P. 410. 

6.  THE FINDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE MANUFACTURING COMPANY IN
THIS CASE WAS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE CONTINUANCE OF FREE
SPOTTING SERVICE AT OTHER PLANTS IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE IN THE
PRESENT PROCEEDING, WHICH RELATES ONLY TO VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 6(7) AND
NOT TO SECS. 2 AND 3(1).  P. 413. 

7.  WHILE IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO PROCEED AS RAPIDLY AS
MAY BE TO SUPPRESS VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 6(7) IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
SPOTTING SERVICES, THAT IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY AN INVESTIGATION OF
THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS PREVAILING AT EACH PARTICULAR PLANT WHERE THE
SERVICE IS RENDERED AND NOT BY COMPARISON OF THE SERVICES RENDERED AT
DIFFERENT PLANTS.  P. 413. 

8.  THE COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED TO SUPPRESS ALL VIOLATIONS OF SEC.
6(7) SIMULTANEOUSLY OR NONE.  P. 414. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. WABASH RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES SETTING
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, ANNOUNCED BY MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN A REPORT AND ORDER
SUPPLEMENTAL TO ITS MAIN REPORT IN EX PARTE 104, PRACTICES OF CARRIERS
AFFECTING OPERATING REVENUES OR EXPENSES, PART II, TERMINAL SERVICES,
209 I.C.C. 11, HAS DIRECTED APPELLEE RAILROADS TO CANCEL CERTAIN TARIFF
SUPPLEMENTS BY WHICH THEY PROPOSE TO ELIMINATE CHARGES FOR SPOTTING
FREIGHT CARS AT THE DOORS OF FACTORIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL PLANT OF
APPELLEE STALEY MANUFACTURING CO., AT DECATUR, ILLINOIS.  THE
COMMISSION BASED ITS ORDER UPON A FINDING THAT THE PERFORMANCE WITHOUT
CHARGE OF THE SPOTTING SERVICE WOULD BE AN UNLAWFUL PREFERENCE BECAUSE
A DEPARTURE FROM FILED TARIFFS, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(7) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(7).  ON APPELLEES' PETITION
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN ILLINOIS, THREE JUDGES SITTING, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 47, SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, 51 F.SUPP.  141.  IT
HELD THAT THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT THE FREE SPOTTING SERVICE
RENDERED AT THE STALEY PLANT IS AN UNLAWFUL PREFERENCE, WAS NOT
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, AND THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER MUST BE SET
ASIDE BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN DISCRIMINATION CONTRARY TO SECS. 2 AND 3(1)
OF THE ACT, SINCE IT APPEARS THAT SIMILAR FREE SPOTTING SERVICE WAS
BEING RENDERED TO STALEY'S COMPETITORS AGAINST WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD
ISSUED NO ORDER.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECS.
47A, 345.  THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER, AS THE
DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT, THE ORDER IS INVALID BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN A
PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION. 

IN EX PARTE 104, THE COMMISSION INITIATED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION
OF THE SERVICE RENDERED BY INTERSTATE RAILROADS IN SPOTTING CARS AT
POINTS UPON THE SYSTEMS OF PLANT TRACKAGE MAINTAINED BY LARGE
INDUSTRIES.  AFTER A STUDY OF THE CONDITIONS AT SOME TWO HUNDRED
INDUSTRIAL PLANTS TO WHICH THE RAIL CARRIERS MADE ALLOWANCES FOR
SPOTTING SERVICE PERFORMED BY THE INDUSTRIES, AND AT NUMEROUS OTHER
PLANTS WHERE THE SPOTTING SERVICE WAS RENDERED WITHOUT CHARGE BY THE
CARRIERS, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE FREIGHT RATES HAD NOT BEEN SO
FIXED AS TO COMPENSATE THE CARRIERS FOR SUCH SERVICE AND THAT THE
RAILROADS BY ASSUMING TO PERFORM IT, OR PAY FOR ITS PERFORMANCE BY THE
INDUSTRIES, HAD ASSUMED A BURDEN NOT INCLUDED IN THE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE COMPENSATED BY THE FILED TARIFFS.  AND IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
PERFORMANCE BY THE RAILROADS OF SUCH SERVICE, FREE, OR THE PAYMENT TO
THE INDUSTRIES OF ALLOWANCES FOR ITS PERFORMANCE BY THEM, IS IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(7) OF THE ACT. 

THE COMMISSION, IN ITS MAIN REPORT IN EX PARTE 104, RECOGNIZED THAT
BY RAILWAY TARIFF PRACTICE IN THIS COUNTRY THE RATES ON CARLOAD TRAFFIC
MOVING TO OR FROM ANY CITY OR TOWN APPLY TO SO-CALLED "SWITCHING" OR
"TERMINAL" DISTRICTS AND ENTITLE EACH INDUSTRY WITHIN SUCH A DISTRICT
TO HAVE THE TRAFFIC DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO AND TAKEN FROM ITS SITE.  BY
THIS METHOD OF DELIVERY AND BY USE OF PRIVATE TRACKS OF THE INDUSTRY
THE RAILROADS ARE SAVED THE EXPENSE OF MAINTAINING MORE EXTENSIVE
TERMINAL FACILITIES, THE SERVICE AND COST OF DELIVERY WITHIN THE
SWITCHING DISTRICT BEING COMPARABLE TO THAT OF DELIVERY ON TEAM TRACKS
OR SIDINGS OR AT WAY STATIONS.  BUT IN THE CASE OF LARGE INDUSTRIES
HAVING EXTENSIVE PLANT TRACKAGE THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT CARS HAULED
TO THE INDUSTRY USUALLY COME TO REST AT NEARBY INTERCHANGE TRACKS,
AFTER WHICH THE INTRAPLANT DISTRIBUTION OF THE CARS IS MADE AT TIMES
AND IN A MANNER TO SERVE THE CONVENIENCE OF THE INDUSTRY RATHER THAN
THAT OF THE CARRIER IN COMPLETING ITS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. 

IN DETERMINING IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE POINT AT WHICH THE CARRIER
SERVICE ENDS AND THE SERVICE IN PLACING THE CARS SO AS TO MEET THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE INDUSTRY BEGINS, THE COMMISSION STATED THAT THE LINE
OF DEMARCATION "SHOULD BE DRAWN AT THE POINT WHERE THE CARRIER IS
PREVENTED FROM PERFORMING AT ITS ORDINARY OPERATING CONVENIENCE ANY
FURTHER SERVICE, BY THE NATURE, DESIRES, OR DISABILITIES OF A PLANT,"
209 I.C.C. AT 34.  IT ADDED, "WHEN A CARRIER IS PREVENTED AT ITS
ORDINARY OPERATING CONVENIENCE FROM REACHING POINTS OF LOADING OR
UNLOADING WITHIN A PLANT, WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE BY THE
DESIRES OF AN INDUSTRY OR THE DISABILITIES OF ITS PLANT, SUCH AS THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS ARE CONDUCTED, THE
ARRANGEMENT OR CONDITION OF ITS TRACKS, WEIGHING SERVICE, OR SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES,  ...  THE SERVICE BEYOND THE POINT OF INTERRUPTION OR
INTERFERENCE IS IN EXCESS OF THAT PERFORMED IN SIMPLE SWITCHING OR TEAM
TRACK DELIVERY.  ...  " 209 I.C.C. AT 44-5. 

THE APPLICATION OF SUCH A TEST OBVIOUSLY REQUIRES AN INTENSIVE STUDY
OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS PREVAILING AT THE PARTICULAR PLANT AT WHICH THE
SPOTTING SERVICE IS RENDERED.  IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE
COMMISSION, IN CARRYING INTO EFFECT THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN EX
PARTE 104, HAS FOUND IT NECESSARY TO PROCEED TO A SERIES OF
SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE SPOTTING SERVICE RENDERED AT
PARTICULAR PLANTS.  ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION MADE NO ORDER ON THE
FOOT OF ITS MAIN REPORT, BUT FOLLOWING A SERIES OF SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORTS, INCLUDING THE PRESENT ONE, EACH DETAILING THE FACTS FOUND AS
TO THE SPOTTING SERVICE RENDERED AT THE PARTICULAR PLANT INVESTIGATED,
THE COMMISSION HAS MADE CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS, APPLICABLE TO THAT
SERVICE, A NUMBER OF WHICH THIS COURT HAS UPHELD ON REVIEW.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S. 402; GOODMAN LUMBER
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 669; A.O. SMITH CORP. V. UNITED STATES,
301 U.S. 669; UNITED STATES V. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP., 304 U.S.
156.  IN SUSTAINING THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, AS
IN RELATED CASES, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POINT IN TIME AND SPACE
AT WHICH THE CARRIER'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ENDS IS A QUESTION OF
FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION AND NOT THE COURTS, AND THAT
ITS FINDINGS ON THAT QUESTION WILL NOT BE DISTURBED BY THE COURTS IF
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE
CO., SUPRA, 408; UNITED STATES V. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP., SUPRA,
158; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. HOBOKEN MFRS.  R. CO., 320 U.S.
368, 378 AND CASES CITED. 

IN THIS, AS IN ITS EARLIER SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS, THE COMMISSION HAS
EXAMINED THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS OF OPERATION AT THE INDUSTRIAL PLANT IN
QUESTION, HERE THE STALEY PLANT, AND HAS FOUND THESE CONDITIONS TO BE
SIMILAR IN TYPE TO THOSE HELD SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ITS ORDERS IN
UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., SUPRA, AND UNITED
STATES V. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP., SUPRA.  FN1  IT MADE AN
EXTENDED EXAMINATION OF CAR MOVEMENTS WITHIN THE PLANT AREA OF THE
STALEY COMPANY, WHICH EXTENDS FOR A DISTANCE OF ABOUT TWO AND A QUARTER
MILES, INCLUDES SOME FORTY BUILDINGS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF VARIOUS
PRODUCTS, PRINCIPALLY FROM CORN AND SOY BEANS, AND CONTAINS
APPROXIMATELY 20 MILES OF TRACK, HAVING 18 POINTS AT WHICH FREIGHT IS
LOADED OR UNLOADED.  IT FOUND THAT INBOUND CARS ARE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE PLACED UPON INTERCHANGE TRACKS FROM WHICH THEY ARE LATER
SPOTTED AT THE POINTS OF LOADING AND UNLOADING, A SERVICE REQUIRING IN
NUMEROUS INSTANCES TWO OR MORE CAR MOVEMENTS PERFORMED BY ENGINES AND
CREWS REGULARLY AND EXCLUSIVELY ASSIGNED TO IT; THAT THE INTERCHANGE
TRACKS ARE REASONABLY CONVENIENT POINTS FOR THE DELIVERY AND RECEIPT OF
CARS; THAT THE MOVEMENTS BETWEEN THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS AND THE POINTS
OF LOADING AND UNLOADING ARE NOT PERFORMED AT THE CARRIER'S CONVENIENCE
BUT ARE "COORDINATED WITH THE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS OF THE STALEY
COMPANY AND CONFORM TO ITS CONVENIENCE"; THAT THE SERVICE BEYOND THE
INTERCHANGE POINTS IS IN EXCESS OF THAT INVOLVED IN SWITCHING CARS TO A
TEAM TRACK OR ORDINARY INDUSTRIAL SIDING OR SPUR, AND IS CONSEQUENTLY
NOT A PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WHICH ENDS AT THE INTERCHANGE
TRACKS. 

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLEES BASED ON A FORMAL CHANGE OF CONTROL OF THE
INTERCHANGE TRACKS BY LEASE FROM THE STALEY COMPANY TO APPELLEE WABASH
RAILROAD EXECUTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMISSION'S REPORT IN EX PARTE
104, ARE IRRELEVANT TO OUR PRESENT INQUIRY.  AFTER THE LEASE, AS
BEFORE, THEY CONTINUED TO BE USED AS INTERCHANGE TRACKS AND THE
CONTROLLING QUESTION IS WHETHER THE MOVEMENT FROM THE INTERCHANGE
TRACKS TO POINTS OF LOADING AND UNLOADING IS A PLANT SERVICE FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE INDUSTRY, OR A PART OF THE CARRIER SERVICE
COMPARABLE TO THE USUAL CAR DELIVERY AT A TEAM TRACK OR SIDING.  THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT IT IS A PLANT SERVICE IS SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE AND MUST BE ACCEPTED AS CONCLUSIVE HERE. 

APPELLEES MAKE NO OTHER SERIOUS CONTENTION OF WANT OF EVIDENTIARY
SUPPORT FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT THE CARRIER SERVICE ENDED
AT THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND NO SUCH LACK. 
THEIR CONTENTION, UPHELD BY THE COURT BELOW, IS THAT THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER CANNOT BE SUPPORTED MERELY BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE
EVIDENCE RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS AT THE STALEY PLANT, BUT THAT ITS
VALIDITY MUST TURN UPON A COMPARISON OF THE CONDITIONS AT THE STALEY
PLANT WITH THOSE AT COMPETING PLANTS.  THEY URGE FURTHER, AND THE
DISTRICT COURT SO HELD, THAT, AS IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT
SIMILAR SPOTTING SERVICE IS BEING RENDERED AT COMPETING PLANTS, THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER COMPELS APPELLEES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST STALEY,
CONTRARY TO SECS. 2 AND 3(1). 

THIS ARGUMENT IGNORES THE NATURE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WHICH IS
TO ENFORCE SEC. 6(7), NOT SECS. 2 AND 3(1).  SECTION 6(7) PROHIBITS
DEPARTURES FROM THE FILED TARIFFS AND IT IS VIOLATED, AS THE COMMISSION
HAS POINTED OUT, WHEN CARRIERS PAY THE INDUSTRIES FOR A TERMINAL
SERVICE NOT INCLUDED IN THEIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OR WHEN THEY
RENDER SUCH TERMINAL SERVICE FREE OF CHARGE.  THIS PROHIBITION APPLIES
WITHOUT QUALIFICATION TO EVERY CARRIER AND WHEN, AS HERE, THE
UNLAWFULNESS OF THE ALLOWANCE OR SERVICE IS SHOWN BY THE CONDITIONS
PREVAILING AT A PARTICULAR INDUSTRIAL PLANT, IT IS UNNECESSARY, IN
ORDER TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, TO CONSIDER WHETHER GENERALLY
SIMILAR ALLOWANCES OR SERVICES AT OTHER PLANTS ARE, OR ARE NOT, LAWFUL
UNDER CONDITIONS PREVAILING THERE. 

IN THIS RESPECT A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 6(7) IS UNLIKE PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SECS. 2 AND 3(1) WHICH PROHIBIT UNJUST DISCRIMINATIONS AND UNDUE
PREFERENCES.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., SUPRA,
406; UNITED STATES V. HANLEY, 71 F. 672, 673-4; COMPARE MERCHANTS
WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501, 510-11.  SINCE UNDER
THESE SECTIONS ACTS OR PRACTICES NOT OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL MAY BE SO
BECAUSE DISCRIMINATORY OR PREFERENTIAL, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO MAKE
COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT ACTS OR PRACTICES SAID TO PRODUCE THE
DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE
SUCH IN FACT AND WHETHER THEY ARE UNJUST OR UNDUE.  DIFFERENCES IN
CONDITIONS MAY JUSTIFY DIFFERENCES IN CARRIER RATES OR SERVICE.  IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A PROHIBITED UNJUST DISCRIMINATION OR
UNDUE PREFERENCE, IT IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO SAY WHETHER SUCH
DIFFERENCES IN CONDITIONS EXIST AND WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THEM, THE
DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE IS UNLAWFUL.  SEE BARRINGER & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 1, 7-8, AND CASES CITED. 

THE COMMISSION'S DECISION HERE, AND ITS FINDING OF A "PREFERENTIAL
SERVICE," ARE NOT BASED AND DO NOT DEPEND ON A COMPARISON OF CONDITIONS
AT THE STALEY PLANT WITH THOSE OBTAINING AT OTHERS.  BY ITS FIFTH
FINDING THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE SPOTTING SERVICE RENDERED AT THE
STALEY PLANT WAS A SERVICE "IN EXCESS OF THAT RENDERED SHIPPERS
GENERALLY IN THE RECEIPT AND DELIVERY OF TRAFFIC AT TEAM TRACKS OR
INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS AND SPURS," AND HENCE IN EXCESS OF THAT PROVIDED FOR
BY THE TARIFF RATES.  IT CONCLUDED IN ITS THIRD CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT
THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS SERVICE WITHOUT CHARGE WOULD RESULT IN RECEIPT
BY THE STALEY COMPANY OF "A PREFERENTIAL SERVICE NOT ACCORDED TO
SHIPPERS GENERALLY," AND HENCE WOULD RESULT IN A PROHIBITED REFUNDING
OR REMITTING OF A PORTION OF THE FILED TARIFF RATES. 

THE COMMISSION, AFTER POINTING OUT THAT EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED
SHOWING THAT SPOTTING IS PERFORMED WITHOUT CHARGE AT VARIOUS PLANTS,
SOME OF WHICH COMPETE WITH THE STALEY COMPANY, ALSO FOUND, "THE
EVIDENCE DOES NOT SATISFACTORILY SHOW THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SPOTTING IS PERFORMED AT SUCH PLANTS ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE AT THE STALEY PLANT.  IF IT DID IT WOULD
ONLY SHOW THE PROBABILITY OF EXISTENCE OF UNLAWFUL PRACTICES AT SUCH
PLANTS AND THE NEED FOR INVESTIGATION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH."  THE
DISTRICT COURT RELIED SOLELY ON THIS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION
OF LACK OF EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR THE COMMISSION'S FINDING OF A
"PREFERENTIAL SERVICE NOT ACCORDED TO SHIPPERS GENERALLY" AND TO
SUPPORT ITS OWN FINDING THAT UNDER THE PRESENT ORDER STALEY IS BEING
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.  FOR THIS REASON IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER MUST BE SET ASIDE.    WE THINK THAT THIS IS A
MISTAKEN INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND MISAPPREHENDS
THEIR LEGAL EFFECT.  IF THE COMMISSION'S REFERENCE, IN ITS CONCLUSION
OF LAW, TO "A PREFERENTIAL SERVICE NOT ACCORDED TO SHIPPERS GENERALLY"
MEANS MORE THAN THE STATEMENT IN THE FIFTH FINDING OF FACT THAT THE
SERVICE IS "IN EXCESS OF THAT RENDERED SHIPPERS GENERALLY IN THE
RECEIPT AND DELIVERY OF TRAFFIC AT TEAM TRACKS," IT IS OBVIOUSLY
IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING.  FOR IT COULD NOT SERVE TO
FORECLOSE THE LEGAL CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN FROM THE FIFTH FINDING THAT
THE FREE PERFORMANCE OF THE SPOTTING SERVICE AT THE STALEY PLANT IS IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(7) BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS FOUND TO
PREVAIL THERE.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., SUPRA,
406-7.  BUT A READING OF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT AND FINDINGS MAKES
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH DISCRIMINATIONS OR
PREFERENCES BETWEEN THE STALEY PLANT AND OTHERS, SUCH AS ARE PROHIBITED
BY SECS. 2 AND 3(1); THAT THE "PREFERENCE" TO WHICH IT REFERRED WAS NOT
BASED UPON A COMPARISON OF CONDITIONS AT THE STALEY PLANT WITH THOSE OF
OTHERS, BUT UPON AN APPLICATION TO THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS AT THE STALEY
PLANT OF THE STANDARDS LAID DOWN IN ITS REPORT IN EX PARTE 104, IN
ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE SERVICE RENDERED THERE IS IN EXCESS OF
THAT WHICH THE CARRIERS ARE OBLIGED TO PERFORM BY THEIR TARIFFS. 

AS THE COMMISSION AND THIS COURT HAVE POINTED OUT, A PREFERENCE OR
REBATE IS THE NECESSARY RESULT OF EVERY VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(7) WHERE
THE CARRIER RENDERS OR PAYS FOR A SERVICE NOT COVERED BY THE PRESCRIBED
TARIFFS.  DAVIS V. CORNWELL, 264 U.S. 560, 562.  THE COMMISSION
EMPHASIZED THAT NO QUESTION OF DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE PROHIBITED
BY SECS. 2 AND 3 WAS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WHEN IT FOUND
THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SHOW THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS
UNDER WHICH THE SPOTTING IS PERFORMED AT OTHER PLANTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR TO THOSE AT THE STALEY PLANT, AND THAT IF IT DID THAT IT WOULD
ONLY TEND TO SHOW THAT THE PRACTICE WAS UNLAWFUL AT THE OTHERS AS
WELL.  SO FAR AS THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE STALEY COMPANY WAS
BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE CONTINUANCE OF THE SERVICE AT OTHER
PLANTS, ITS FINDING IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING WHICH RELATES ONLY TO VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 6(7) AND NOT SECS.
2 AND 3(1).  IN ANY CASE FINDINGS OF DISCRIMINATION OR UNDUE PREFERENCE
UNDER SECS. 2 AND 3(1), AS WE HAVE SAID, ARE FOR THE COMMISSION AND NOT
THE COURTS.  AND THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT
SHOW THAT CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SPOTTING SERVICE AT THE STALEY
PLANT AND THOSE OF ITS COMPETITORS ARE SIMILAR. 

WHILE IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO PROCEED AS RAPIDLY AS MAY
BE TO SUPPRESS VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 6(7) IN THE PERFORMANCE OF SPOTTING
SERVICES, THAT IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, AS WE HAVE HELD, BY AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS PREVAILING AT EACH PARTICULAR
PLANT WHERE THE SERVICE IS RENDERED AND NOT BY COMPARISON OF THE
SERVICES RENDERED AT DIFFERENT PLANTS.  APPELLEES COMPLAIN OF THE
COMMISSION'S LONG DELAY, SOME SIX YEARS SINCE THE PRESENT PROCEEDING
WAS BEGUN, IN INVESTIGATING SPOTTING SERVICES RENDERED AT THE PLANTS OF
STALEY'S COMPETITORS, BUT ANY OF THE APPELLEES HAVE BEEN FREE TO
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO ELIMINATE ANY UNLAWFUL PREFERENCES OR
DISCRIMINATIONS AFFECTING THEM IF THEY SO DESIRED, SEC. 13(1), AND NO
REASON APPEARS WHY THEY COULD NOT HAVE DONE SO.  THERE ARE OTHER MODES
OF INDUCING THE COMMISSION TO PERFORM ITS DUTY THAN BY SETTING ASIDE
ITS ORDER PROHIBITING A PRACTICE WHICH PLAINLY VIOLATES SEC. 6(7),
BECAUSE IT HAS NOT MADE LIKE ORDERS AGAINST OTHER OFFENDERS.  THE
SUPPRESSION OF ABUSES RESULTING FROM VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 6(7) WOULD BE
RENDERED PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE IF THE COMMISSION WERE REQUIRED TO
SUPPRESS ALL SIMULTANEOUSLY OR NONE.  SECTION 12(1) IMPOSES ON THE
COMMISSION THE DUTY TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  THAT DUTY
UNDER SEC. 6(7) WOULD HARDLY BE PERFORMED IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO
DECLINE TO ENFORCE IT AGAINST ONE BECAUSE IT COULD NOT AT THE SAME TIME
ENFORCE IT AGAINST ALL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COMMISSION EXAMINED THE CONDITIONS AT THE STALEY PLANT IN A
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT RENDERED MAY 22, 1936, IN WHICH IT DIRECTED THE
CARRIERS, APPELLANTS HERE, TO ABANDON THE PRACTICE OF PAYING ALLOWANCES
TO STALEY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SPOTTING SERVICE.  A.E. STALEY
MFG. CO. TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 215 I.C.C. 656.  AN ACTION TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THAT ORDER WAS VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
AS A RESULT OF THIS COURT'S DECISION IN THE TIN PLATE, PAN AMERICAN
PETROLEUM, AND OTHER CASES SUSTAINING SIMILAR ORDERS.  THEREUPON THE
PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES WAS ABANDONED, AND THE CARRIERS ASSUMED THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE SPOTTING SERVICES, ESTABLISHING A CHARGE OF $2.27
PER CAR, LATER INCREASED TO $2.50.  BY SCHEDULES FILED TO BECOME
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 15, 1939, THE CARRIERS PROPOSED TO CANCEL THE
SPOTTING CHARGE.  IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING THE COMMISSION HAS REFUSED
TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES, AND HAS LIKEWISE REFUSED, AFTER
HAVING REOPENED THE PROCEEDINGS IN STALEY MFG. CO. TERMINAL ALLOWANCE,
SUPRA, TO MODIFY ITS PRIOR ORDER.  245 I.C.C. 383. 
..END :









YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 414 


ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  - 137 F.2D 850,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, HELD NOT TO
INVOLVE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION TO THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONTROL COMMODITY PRICES IN TIME
OF WAR.  P. 423. 

(A)  THE ACT, THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO PREVENT WARTIME
INFLATION, PROVIDES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A PRICE ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED
BY THE PRESIDENT.  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED, AFTER CONSULTATION
WITH REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRY SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, TO
PROMULGATE REGULATIONS FIXING PRICES OF COMMODITIES WHICH "IN HIS
JUDGMENT WILL BE GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND WILL EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT" WHEN, IN HIS JUDGMENT, THEIR PRICES "HAVE RISEN
OR THREATEN TO RISE TO AN EXTENT OR IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS DIRECTED IN FIXING PRICES
TO GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, TO PRICES PREVAILING
DURING A DESIGNATED BASE PERIOD, AND TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR RELEVANT
FACTORS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY.  P. 419 ET SEQ. 

(B)  THE ESSENTIALS OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION ARE PRESERVED WHEN
CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED THE BASIC CONDITIONS OF FACT UPON WHOSE
EXISTENCE OR OCCURRENCE, ASCERTAINED FROM RELEVANT DATA BY A DESIGNATED
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, IT DIRECTS THAT ITS STATUTORY COMMAND SHALL BE
EFFECTIVE.  IT IS NO OBJECTION THAT THE DETERMINATION OF FACTS AND THE
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY
STANDARDS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY CALL FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT,
AND FOR THE FORMULATION OF SUBSIDIARY ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED STATUTORY FRAMEWORK.  P. 424. 

(C)  ACTING WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO FIX PRICES, IT IS FOR
CONGRESS TO SAY WHETHER THE DATA ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PRICES ARE TO BE
FIXED ARE TO BE CONFINED WITHIN A NARROW OR A BROAD RANGE.  P. 425. 

(D)  CONGRESS IS NOT CONFINED TO THAT METHOD OF EXECUTING ITS POLICY
WHICH INVOLVES THE LEAST POSSIBLE DELEGATION OF DISCRETION TO
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.  P. 425. 

(E)  THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT, WITH THE AID OF THE
"STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS" REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR,
ARE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND PRECISE TO ENABLE CONGRESS, THE COURTS
AND THE PUBLIC TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATOR, IN FIXING THE
DESIGNATED PRICES, HAS CONFORMED TO THOSE STANDARDS.  P. 426. 

2.  THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY SECS. 203 AND 204 OF THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT FOR DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRICE REGULATIONS - BY PROTEST TO AND HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR,
WHOSE DETERMINATION MAY BE REVIEWED ON COMPLAINT TO THE EMERGENCY COURT
OF APPEALS AND BY THIS COURT ON CERTIORARI - IS EXCLUSIVE AND PRECLUDES
THE DEFENSE OF INVALIDITY OF THE REGULATION IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
FOR ITS VIOLATION.  PP. 427, 429. 

3.  PETITIONERS, WHO HAVE NOT RESORTED TO THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY
CONGRESS, CAN EXCUSE THEIR FAILURE TO DO SO, AND CAN SHOW A DENIAL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, ONLY BY SHOWING THAT THAT PROCEDURE IS INCAPABLE
OF AFFORDING THEM THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 434. 

4.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, CONSTRUED TO
DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF A PRICE
REGULATION (ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM PRICES FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN MEATS
AT WHOLESALE) IN A PROSECUTION FOR ITS VIOLATION, HELD NOT ON THEIR
FACE INCAPABLE OF AFFORDING DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 435. 

(A)  PETITIONERS WERE NOT REQUIRED BY THE ACT, NOR BY ANY OTHER RULE
OF LAW, TO CONTINUE SELLING AT A LOSS.  P. 431. 

(B)  THE SIXTY DAYS' PERIOD ALLOWED FOR PROTEST TO THE ADMINISTRATOR
WAS NOT UNDULY SHORT IN VIEW OF THE POWER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
EXTEND THE TIME FOR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, AND THE RIGHT GIVEN BY
THE ACT TO APPLY TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS FOR LEAVE TO
INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE "WHICH COULD NOT REASONABLY" HAVE BEEN OFFERED
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  P. 435. 

(C)  SINCE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATIONS PROVIDE FOR A FULL ORAL
HEARING IN APPROPRIATE CASES, THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY APPLICATION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SUCH A HEARING,
WHETHER THE DENIAL OR AN ORAL HEARING IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE WOULD BE A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 436. 

(D)  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPLICATION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, IT CAN
NOT BE ASSUMED THAT HE WILL DENY DUE PROCESS TO ANY APPLICANT.  AND THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, AND THIS COURT UPON CERTIORARI, HAVE FULL
POWER TO CORRECT ANY DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OR OTHER PROCEDURAL ERROR
THAT MAY OCCUR IN A PARTICULAR CASE.  PP. 434, 437. 

5.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE ACT WAS ADOPTED AND MUST BE
APPLIED, ITS DENIAL OF ANY JUDICIAL STAY PENDING DETERMINATION OF THE
VALIDITY OF A REGULATION DOES NOT DENY DUE PROCESS.  P. 437. 

(A)  THE STATUTE PROVIDES AN EXPEDITIOUS MEANS OF TESTING THE
VALIDITY OF A PRICE REGULATION WITHOUT NECESSARILY INCURRING ANY OF THE
PENALTIES PROVIDED BY THE ACT.  P. 438. 

(B)  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS NOT VIOLATED BY A STATUTORY DENIAL OF
A RIGHT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER OR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION TO ONE WHO
HAS FAILED TO APPLY FOR AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF, NOT SHOWN TO
BE INADEQUATE, FROM THE OPERATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION,
PENDING DETERMINATION OF ITS VALIDITY.  P. 439. 

(C)  THE AWARD OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION BY COURTS OF EQUITY IS
NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT, EVEN THOUGH IRREPARABLE INJURY MAY OTHERWISE
RESULT TO THE PLAINTIFF.  AND THE LEGISLATIVE FORMULATION OF WHAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE A RULE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS OR A USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS.  PP. 440, 442. 

(D)  THE PUBLIC INTEREST MAY JUSTIFY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION OF
SUMMARY ACTION SUBJECT TO LATER JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ITS VALIDITY.  P.
442. 

6.  NO PRINCIPLE OF LAW OR PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION PRECLUDES
CONGRESS FROM MAKING CRIMINAL THE VIOLATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION, BY ONE WHO HAS FAILED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF AN ADEQUATE
SEPARATE PROCEDURE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ITS VALIDITY, OR PRECLUDES
THE PRACTICE OF SPLITTING THE TRIAL FOR VIOLATIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION BY COMMITTING THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF ITS VALIDITY
TO THE AGENCY WHICH CREATED IT, AND THE ISSUE OF VIOLATION TO A COURT
WHICH IS GIVEN JURISDICTION TO PUNISH VIOLATIONS.  P. 444. 

7.  THE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE WHETHER ONE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL
VIOLATION OF A DULY PROMULGATED PRICE REGULATION MAY DEFEND ON THE
GROUND THAT THE REGULATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, OR WHETHER
ONE WHO IS FORCED TO TRIAL AND CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF A REGULATION,
WHILE DILIGENTLY SEEKING DETERMINATION OF ITS VALIDITY BY THE STATUTORY
PROCEDURE, MAY THUS BE DEPRIVED OF THE DEFENSE THAT THE REGULATION IS
INVALID.  P. 446. 

8.  THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF A JURY TRIAL IS INAPPLICABLE
TO A PROCEEDING WITHIN THE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE EMERGENCY COURT
OF APPEALS TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF A PRICE REGULATION.  P. 447. 

9.  IN THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, THERE WAS NO DENIAL OF THE
RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, TO A TRIAL
BY A JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.  THE
QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONERS HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT AND DEFINED BY CONGRESS, NAMELY, WHETHER THEY HAD VIOLATED
THE STATUTE BY WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF A PRICE REGULATION PROMULGATED
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAS PROPERLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  P. 447. 

YAKUS V. UNITED STATES. 

NO. 374.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 375, ROTTENBERG ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 730, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, ANNOUNCED BY MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE:  (1) WHETHER THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT OF JANUARY 30, 1942, 56 STAT. 23, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. II,
SECS. 901 ET SEQ., AS AMENDED BY THE INFLATION CONTROL ACT OF OCTOBER
2, 1942, 56 STAT. 765, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. II, SECS. 961 ET SEQ.,
INVOLVES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION TO THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONTROL PRICES; (2) WHETHER SEC.
204(D) OF THE ACT WAS INTENDED TO PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION BY A DISTRICT
COURT OF THE VALIDITY OF A MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION PROMULGATED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR, AS A DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ITS
VIOLATION; (3) WHETHER THE EXCLUSIVE STATUTORY PROCEDURE SET UP BY
SECS. 203 AND 204 OF THE ACT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
REGULATIONS, WITH THE ACCOMPANYING STAY PROVISIONS, PROVIDE A
SUFFICIENTLY ADEQUATE MEANS OF DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF A PRICE
REGULATION TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS; AND (4) WHETHER, IN VIEW
OF THIS AVAILABLE METHOD OF REVIEW, SEC. 204(D) OF THE ACT, IF
CONSTRUED TO PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION
AS A DEFENSE TO A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATING IT, CONTRAVENES THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT, OR WORKS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE WITH
THE JUDICIAL POWER. 

PETITIONERS IN BOTH OF THESE CASES WERE TRIED AND CONVICTED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS UPON SEVERAL COUNTS OF INDICTMENTS
CHARGING VIOLATION OF SECS. 4(A) AND 205(B) OF THE ACT BY THE WILLFUL
SALE OF WHOLESALE CUTS OF BEEF AT PRICES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PRICES
PRESCRIBED BY SECS. 1364.451-1364.455 OF REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 169, 7 FED. REG. 10381 ET SEQ. PETITIONERS HAVE NOT
AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THE PROCEDURE SET UP BY SECS. 203 AND 204 BY
WHICH ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION MAY TEST ITS
VALIDITY BY PROTEST TO AND HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE
DETERMINATION MAY BE REVIEWED ON COMPLAINT TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS AND BY THIS COURT ON CERTIORARI, SEE LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319
U.S. 182.  WHEN THE INDICTMENTS WERE FOUND THE 60 DAYS' PERIOD ALLOWED
BY THE STATUTE FOR FILING PROTESTS HAD EXPIRED. 

IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED OR DENIED
OFFERS OF PROOF, MOTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR RULINGS, RAISING VARIOUS
QUESTIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT AND REGULATION, INCLUDING THOSE
PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  IN PARTICULAR PETITIONERS
OFFERED EVIDENCE, WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT EXCLUDED AS IRRELEVANT, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE REGULATION DID NOT CONFORM TO THE
STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT AND THAT IT DEPRIVED PETITIONERS OF
PROPERTY WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  THEY SPECIFICALLY RAISED THE QUESTION RESERVED IN LOCKERTY
V. PHILLIPS, SUPRA, WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF A REGULATION MAY BE
CHALLENGED IN DEFENSE OF A PROSECUTION FOR ITS VIOLATION ALTHOUGH IT
HAD NOT BEEN TESTED BY THE PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND
COMPLAINT TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS.  THE DISTRICT COURT
CONVICTED PETITIONERS UPON VERDICTS OF GUILTY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 137 F.2D 850, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 730. 

                I. 

THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT PROVIDES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT, AND SETS UP A COMPREHENSIVE
SCHEME FOR THE PROMULGATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF REGULATIONS OR
ORDERS FIXING SUCH MAXIMUM PRICES OF COMMODITIES AND RENTS AS WILL
EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT AND CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS WHICH
IT PRESCRIBES.  THE ACT WAS ADOPTED AS A TEMPORARY WARTIME MEASURE, AND
PROVIDES IN SEC. 1(B) FOR ITS TERMINATION ON JUNE 30, 1943, UNLESS
SOONER TERMINATED BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION OR CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
OF CONGRESS.  BY THE AMENDATORY ACT OF OCTOBER 2, 1942, IT WAS EXTENDED
TO JUNE 30, 1944. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY AND NECESSARY TO THE EFFECTIVE
PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT WAR," AND THAT ITS PURPOSES ARE:  "TO
STABILIZE PRICES AND TO PREVENT SPECULATIVE, UNWARRANTED, AND ABNORMAL
INCREASES IN PRICES AND RENTS; TO ELIMINATE AND PREVENT PROFITEERING,
HOARDING, MANIPULATION, SPECULATION, AND OTHER DISRUPTIVE PRACTICES
RESULTING FROM ABNORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS OR SCARCITIES CAUSED BY OR
CONTRIBUTING TO THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY; TO ASSURE THAT DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ARE NOT DISSIPATED BY EXCESSIVE PRICES; TO PROTECT
PERSONS WITH RELATIVELY FIXED AND LIMITED INCOMES, CONSUMERS, WAGE
EARNERS, INVESTORS, AND PERSONS DEPENDENT ON LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES,
AND PENSIONS, FROM UNDUE IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING; TO
PREVENT HARDSHIPS TO PERSONS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS,  ... AND TO THE
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM ABNORMAL
INCREASES IN PRICES; TO ASSIST IN SECURING ADEQUATE PRODUCTION OF
COMMODITIES AND FACILITIES; TO PREVENT A POST EMERGENCY COLLAPSE OF
VALUES; ...  " 

THE STANDARDS WHICH ARE TO GUIDE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S EXERCISE OF HIS
AUTHORITY TO FIX PRICES, SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT, ARE PRESCRIBED BY SEC.
2(A) AND BY SEC. 1 OF THE AMENDATORY ACT OF OCTOBER 2, 1942, AND
EXECUTIVE ORDER 9250, PROMULGATED UNDER IT.  7 FED. REG. 7871.  BY SEC.
2(A) THE ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH
REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRY SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, TO
PROMULGATE REGULATIONS FIXING PRICES OF COMMODITIES WHICH "IN HIS
JUDGMENT WILL BE GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND WILL EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT" WHEN, IN HIS JUDGMENT, THEIR PRICES "HAVE RISEN
OR THREATEN TO RISE TO AN EXTENT OR IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." 

THE SECTION ALSO DIRECTS THAT "SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, IN ESTABLISHING
ANY MAXIMUM PRICE, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL ASCERTAIN AND GIVE DUE
CONSIDERATION TO THE PRICES PREVAILING BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND OCTOBER
15, 1941(OR IF, IN THE CASE OF ANY COMMODITY, THERE ARE NO PREVAILING
PRICES BETWEEN SUCH DATES, OR THE PREVAILING PRICES BETWEEN SUCH DATES
ARE NOT GENERALLY REPRESENTATIVE BECAUSE OF ABNORMAL OR SEASONAL MARKET
CONDITIONS OR OTHER CAUSE, THEN TO THE PRICES PREVAILING DURING THE
NEAREST TWO-WEEK PERIOD IN WHICH, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR,
THE PRICES FOR SUCH COMMODITY ARE GENERALLY REPRESENTATIVE)  ...  AND
SHALL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR SUCH RELEVANT FACTORS AS HE MAY DETERMINE
AND DEEM TO BE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, INCLUDING  ...  SPECULATIVE
FLUCTUATIONS, GENERAL INCREASES OR DECREASES IN COSTS OF PRODUCTION,
DISTRIBUTION, AND TRANSPORTATION, AND GENERAL INCREASES OR DECREASES IN
PROFITS EARNED BY SELLERS OF THE COMMODITY OR COMMODITIES, DURING AND
SUBSEQUENT TO THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 1, 1941." 

BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 2, 1942, THE PRESIDENT IS DIRECTED TO STABILIZE
PRICES, WAGES AND SALARIES "SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE" ON THE BASIS OF THE
LEVELS WHICH EXISTED ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1942, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
PROVIDED IN THE ACT.  BY TITLE I, SEC. 4 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9250,
HE HAS DIRECTED "ALL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT" "TO
STABILIZE THE COST OF LIVING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT OF OCTOBER 2,
1942."  FN1 

REVISED MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 169 WAS ISSUED DECEMBER 10,
1942, UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT AS AMENDED AND
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9250.  THE REGULATION ESTABLISHED SPECIFIC MAXIMUM
PRICES FOR THE SALE AT WHOLESALE OF SPECIFIED CUTS OF BEEF AND VEAL. 
AS IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 2(A) OF THE ACT, IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A
"STATEMENT OF THE CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED" IN PRESCRIBING IT.  FROM THE
PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS
ACCOMPANYING IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE PRICES FIXED FOR SALES AT
WHOLESALE WERE SLIGHTLY IN EXCESS OF THOSE PREVAILING BETWEEN MARCH 16
AND MARCH 28, 1942,  FN2  AND APPROXIMATED THOSE PREVAILING ON
SEPTEMBER 15, 1942.  FINDINGS THAT THE REGULATION WAS NECESSARY, THAT
THE PRICES WHICH IT FIXED WERE FAIR AND EQUITABLE, AND THAT IT
OTHERWISE CONFORMED TO THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT, APPEAR IN
THE STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS. 

THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE COMMODITY
PRICES AS A WAR EMERGENCY MEASURE, AND THAT THE ACT WAS ADOPTED BY
CONGRESS IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER, ARE NOT QUESTIONED HERE, AND
NEED NOT NOW BE CONSIDERED SAVE AS THEY HAVE A BEARING ON THE
PROCEDURAL FEATURES OF THE ACT LATER TO BE CONSIDERED WHICH ARE
CHALLENGED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. 

CONGRESS ENACTED THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT IN PURSUANCE OF A
DEFINED POLICY AND REQUIRED THAT THE PRICES FIXED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
SHOULD FURTHER THAT POLICY AND CONFORM TO STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE
ACT.  THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FIELD OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PERMISSIBLE
ACTION ARE MARKED BY THE STATUTE.  IT DIRECTS THAT THE PRICES FIXED
SHALL EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT TO STABILIZE COMMODITY
PRICES SO AS TO PREVENT WARTIME INFLATION AND ITS ENUMERATED DISRUPTIVE
CAUSES AND EFFECTS.  IN ADDITION THE PRICES ESTABLISHED MUST BE FAIR
AND EQUITABLE, AND IN FIXING THEM THE ADMINISTRATOR IS DIRECTED TO GIVE
DUE CONSIDERATION, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, TO PREVAILING PRICES DURING
THE DESIGNATED BASE PERIOD, WITH PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS
TO COMPENSATE FOR ENUMERATED DISTURBING FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES.  IN
SHORT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT SPECIFIED IN SEC. 1 DENOTE THE OBJECTIVE
TO BE SOUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN FIXING PRICES - THE PREVENTION OF
INFLATION AND ITS ENUMERATED CONSEQUENCES.  THE STANDARDS SET OUT IN
SEC. 2 DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES WITHIN WHICH PRICES HAVING THAT PURPOSE
MUST BE FIXED.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS THAT
THE ADMINISTRATOR FINDS THAT THE PRICES FIXED WILL TEND TO ACHIEVE THAT
OBJECTIVE AND WILL CONFORM TO THOSE STANDARDS, AND THAT THE COURTS IN
AN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING CAN SEE THAT SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THOSE
FINDINGS IS NOT WANTING. 

THE ACT IS THUS AN EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER.  IN
IT CONGRESS HAS STATED THE LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE, HAS PRESCRIBED THE
METHOD OF ACHIEVING THAT OBJECTIVE - MAXIMUM PRICE FIXING - , AND HAS
LAID DOWN STANDARDS TO GUIDE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF BOTH
THE OCCASIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE PRICE-FIXING POWER, AND THE
PARTICULAR PRICES TO BE ESTABLISHED.  COMPARE FIELD V. CLARK, 143 U.S.
649; HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 394; CURRIN V. WALLACE,
306 U.S. 1; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38; UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL
CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533; SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S.
381; OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126; NATIONAL
BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190; HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED
STATES, 320 U.S. 81. 

THE ACT IS UNLIKE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT OF JUNE 16,
1933, 48 STAT. 195, CONSIDERED IN SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 495, WHICH PROCLAIMED IN THE BROADEST TERMS ITS PURPOSE "TO
REHABILITATE INDUSTRY AND TO CONSERVE NATURAL RESOURCES."  IT
PRESCRIBED NO METHOD OF ATTAINING THAT END SAVE BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CODES OF FAIR COMPETITION, THE NATURE OF WHOSE PERMISSIBLE PROVISIONS
WAS LEFT UNDEFINED.  IT PROVIDED NO STANDARDS TO WHICH THOSE CODES WERE
TO CONFORM.  THE FUNCTION OF FORMULATING THE CODES WAS DELEGATED, NOT
TO A PUBLIC OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE TO CONGRESS OR THE EXECUTIVE, BUT TO
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN THE INDUSTRIES TO BE REGULATED.  COMPARE
SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, SUPRA, 399. 

THE CONSTITUTION AS A CONTINUOUSLY OPERATIVE CHARTER OF GOVERNMENT
DOES NOT DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE OR THE IMPRACTICABLE.  IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT CONGRESS FIND FOR ITSELF EVERY FACT UPON WHICH IT DESIRES
TO BASE LEGISLATIVE ACTION OR THAT IT MAKE FOR ITSELF DETAILED
DETERMINATIONS WHICH IT HAS DECLARED TO BE PREREQUISITE TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY TO PARTICULAR FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES IMPOSSIBLE FOR CONGRESS ITSELF PROPERLY TO INVESTIGATE. 
THE ESSENTIALS OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION ARE THE DETERMINATION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND ITS FORMULATION AND PROMULGATION AS A DEFINED
AND BINDING RULE OF CONDUCT - HERE THE RULE, WITH PENAL SANCTIONS, THAT
PRICES SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN THOSE FIXED BY MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATIONS WHICH CONFORM TO STANDARDS AND WILL TEND TO FURTHER THE
POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED.  THESE ESSENTIALS ARE PRESERVED
WHEN CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED THE BASIC CONDITIONS OF FACT UPON WHOSE
EXISTENCE OR OCCURRENCE, ASCERTAINED FROM RELEVANT DATA BY A DESIGNATED
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, IT DIRECTS THAT ITS STATUTORY COMMAND SHALL BE
EFFECTIVE.  IT IS NO OBJECTION THAT THE DETERMINATION OF FACTS AND THE
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY
STANDARDS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY CALL FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT,
AND FOR THE FORMULATION OF SUBSIDIARY ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED STATUTORY FRAMEWORK.  SEE OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR,
SUPRA, 145-6, AND CASES CITED.    NOR DOES THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION
OF POWERS DENY TO CONGRESS POWER TO DIRECT THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER PROPERLY DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE HAVE AMPLE LATITUDE WITHIN
WHICH HE IS TO ASCERTAIN THE CONDITIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS MADE
PREREQUISITE TO THE OPERATION OF ITS LEGISLATIVE COMMAND.  ACTING
WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO FIX PRICES IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO SAY
WHETHER THE DATA ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PRICES ARE TO BE FIXED ARE TO BE
CONFINED WITHIN A NARROW OR A BROAD RANGE.  IN EITHER CASE THE ONLY
CONCERN OF COURTS IS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE WILL OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN
OBEYED.  THIS DEPENDS NOT UPON THE BREADTH OF THE DEFINITION OF THE
FACTS OR CONDITIONS WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IS TO FIND BUT
UPON THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE DEFINITION SUFFICIENTLY MARKS THE
FIELD WITHIN WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR IS TO ACT SO THAT IT MAY BE KNOWN
WHETHER HE HAS KEPT WITHIN IT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE WILL. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, "THE CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS DENYING
TO THE CONGRESS THE NECESSARY RESOURCES OF FLEXIBILITY AND PRACTICALITY
...  TO PERFORM ITS FUNCTION."  CURRIN V. WALLACE, SUPRA, 15.  HENCE
IT IS IRRELEVANT THAT CONGRESS MIGHT ITSELF HAVE PRESCRIBED THE MAXIMUM
PRICES OR HAVE PROVIDED A MORE RIGID STANDARD BY WHICH THEY ARE TO BE
FIXED; FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ALL PRICES SHOULD BE FROZEN AT THE LEVELS
OBTAINING DURING A CERTAIN PERIOD OR ON A CERTAIN DATE.  SEE UNION
BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 204 U.S. 364, 386.  CONGRESS IS NOT
CONFINED TO THAT METHOD OF EXECUTING ITS POLICY WHICH INVOLVES THE
LEAST POSSIBLE DELEGATION OF DISCRETION TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS. 
COMPARE M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 413 ET SEQ. IT IS FREE TO
AVOID THE RIGIDITY OF SUCH A SYSTEM, WHICH MIGHT WELL RESULT IN SERIOUS
HARDSHIP, AND TO CHOOSE INSTEAD THE FLEXIBILITY ATTAINABLE BY THE USE
OF LESS RESTRICTIVE STANDARDS.  CF. HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 408, 409.  ONLY IF WE COULD SAY THAT THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF
STANDARDS FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION, SO THAT IT
WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IN A PROPER PROCEEDING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE
WILL OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN OBEYED, WOULD WE BE JUSTIFIED IN OVERRIDING
ITS CHOICE OF MEANS FOR EFFECTING ITS DECLARED PURPOSE OF PREVENTING
INFLATION. 

THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESENT ACT, WITH THE AID OF THE
"STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS" REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR,
ARE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND PRECISE TO ENABLE CONGRESS, THE COURTS
AND THE PUBLIC TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATOR, IN FIXING THE
DESIGNATED PRICES, HAS CONFORMED TO THOSE STANDARDS.  COMPARE
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 104.  HENCE WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND
IN THEM AN UNAUTHORIZED DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  THE AUTHORITY
TO FIX PRICES ONLY WHEN PRICES HAVE RISEN OR THREATEN TO RISE TO AN
EXTENT OR IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO
PREVENT INFLATION IS NO BROADER THAN THE AUTHORITY TO FIX MAXIMUM
PRICES WHEN DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AGAINST UNREASONABLY
HIGH PRICES, SUSTAINED IN SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS,
SUPRA, OR THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE POSSESSION OF AND OPERATE TELEGRAPH
LINES WHENEVER DEEMED NECESSARY FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY OR DEFENSE,
UPHELD IN DAKOTA CENTRAL TEL. CO. V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 163; OR THE
AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND TARIFF PROVISIONS UPON FINDINGS THAT THE DUTIES
IMPOSED BY A FOREIGN STATE ARE "RECIPROCALLY UNEQUAL AND UNREASONABLE,"
HELD VALID IN FIELD V. CLARK, SUPRA. 

THE DIRECTIONS THAT THE PRICES FIXED SHALL BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE,
THAT IN ADDITION THEY SHALL TEND TO PROMOTE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT,
AND THAT IN PROMULGATING THEM CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO PRICES
PREVAILING IN A STATED BASE PERIOD, CONFER NO GREATER REACH FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAN THE POWER TO FIX JUST AND REASONABLE
RATES, SEE SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, SUPRA, AND CASES CITED; OR THE
POWER TO APPROVE CONSOLIDATIONS IN THE "PUBLIC INTEREST," SUSTAINED IN
NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 24
5(COMPARE UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225); OR THE POWER TO
REGULATE RADIO STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN BROADCASTING "AS PUBLIC
INTEREST, CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY REQUIRES," UPHELD IN NATIONAL
BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 225-6; OR THE POWER TO
PROHIBIT "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION" NOT DEFINED OR FORBIDDEN BY
THE COMMON LAW, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S.
304; OR THE DIRECTION THAT IN ALLOTING MARKETING QUOTAS AMONG STATES
AND PRODUCERS DUE CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO A VARIETY OF ECONOMIC
FACTORS, SUSTAINED IN MULFORD V. SMITH, SUPRA, 48-9; OR THE SIMILAR
DIRECTION THAT IN ADJUSTING TARIFFS TO MEET DIFFERENCES IN COSTS OF
PRODUCTION THE PRESIDENT "TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION" "IN SO FAR AS HE
FINDS IT PRACTICABLE" A VARIETY OF ECONOMIC MATTERS, SUSTAINED IN
HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; OR THE SIMILAR AUTHORITY, IN
MAKING CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN AN INDUSTRY, TO CONSIDER VARIOUS NAMED
AND UNNAMED "RELEVANT FACTORS" AND DETERMINE THE RESPECTIVE WEIGHTS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH, HELD VALID IN OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR,
SUPRA.

                                 II. 

WE CONSIDER NEXT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROCEDURE WHICH CONGRESS
HAS ESTABLISHED FOR DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
REGULATIONS IS EXCLUSIVE SO AS TO PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE OF INVALIDITY OF
THE REGULATION IN THIS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ITS VIOLATION UNDER
SECS. 4(A) AND 205(B).  SECTION 203(A) SETS UP A PROCEDURE BY WHICH
"ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISION OF A REGULATION OR ORDER" MAY
WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER IT IS ISSUED "FILE A PROTEST SPECIFICALLY
SETTING FORTH OBJECTIONS TO ANY SUCH PROVISION AND AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER
WRITTEN EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH OBJECTIONS."  HE MAY SIMILARLY
PROTEST LATER, ON GROUNDS ARISING AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE ORIGINAL
SIXTY DAYS.  THE SUBSECTION DIRECTS THAT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AND
IN NO EVENT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF A PROTEST OR
NINETY DAYS AFTER THE ISSUE OF THE REGULATION PROTESTED, WHICHEVER IS
LATER, "THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL EITHER GRANT OR DENY SUCH PROTEST IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, NOTICE SUCH PROTEST FOR HEARING, OR PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT FURTHER EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.  IN
THE EVENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR DENIES ANY SUCH PROTEST IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, HE SHALL INFORM THE PROTESTANT OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH SUCH
DECISION IS BASED, AND OF ANY ECONOMIC DATA AND OTHER FACTS OF WHICH
THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS TAKEN OFFICIAL NOTICE." 

APPEALS CONSISTING OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT JUDGES
DESIGNATED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES.  SECTION 204(A)
AUTHORIZES ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY THE DENIAL OR PARTIAL DENIAL OF HIS
PROTEST TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DENIAL, PRAYING THAT THE REGULATION, ORDER OR
PRICE SCHEDULE PROTESTED BE ENJOINED OR SET ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 
THE COURT MAY ISSUE SUCH AN INJUNCTION ONLY IF IT FINDS THAT THE
REGULATION, ORDER OR PRICE SCHEDULE "IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, OR
IS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS."  (SUBSECTION (B).)  IT IS DENIED POWER TO
ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR INTERLOCUTORY DECREE. 
(SUBSECTION (C).)  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY PERMANENT INJUNCTION IT MAY
ISSUE IS POSTPONED FOR THIRTY DAYS, AND IF REVIEW BY THIS COURT IS
SOUGHT UPON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AS AUTHORIZED BY SUBSECTION (D), ITS
EFFECTIVENESS IS FURTHER POSTPONED UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE
BY THIS COURT BY DENIAL OF CERTIORARI OR DECISION UPON THE MERITS. 
(SUBSECTION (B).) 

SUPREME COURT UPON REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE EMERGENCY
COURT OF APPEALS, SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE
VALIDITY OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2, OF ANY
PRICE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
206, AND OF ANY PROVISION OF ANY SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE
SCHEDULE.  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, NO COURT, FEDERAL,
STATE, OR TERRITORIAL, SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OR POWER TO CONSIDER THE
VALIDITY OF ANY SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE, OR TO STAY,
RESTRAIN, ENJOIN, OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY PROVISION OF
THIS ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REGULATIONS OR ORDERS, OR
MAKING EFFECTIVE ANY SUCH PRICE SCHEDULE, OR ANY PROVISION OF ANY SUCH
REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE, OR TO RESTRAIN OR ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ANY SUCH PROVISION." 

IN LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT THESE PROVISIONS
CONFERRED ON THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THIS
COURT, EXCLUSIVE EQUITY JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF PRICE
REGULATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THAT THEY WITHDREW SUCH
JURISDICTION FROM ALL OTHER COURTS.  THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE
EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO PRESCRIBE THE
JURISDICTION OF INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS, AND THE JURISDICTION OF ALL
STATE COURTS TO DETERMINE FEDERAL QUESTIONS, AND TO VEST THAT
JURISDICTION IN A SINGLE COURT, THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED US TO THAT CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO
THE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, LEAD TO THE LIKE
CONCLUSION AS TO ITS POWER TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF A PRICE
REGULATION AS A DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ITS VIOLATION. 
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204(D), CONFERRING UPON THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS AND THIS COURT "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE
VALIDITY OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER," COUPLED WITH THE PROVISION THAT
"NO COURT, FEDERAL, STATE OR TERRITORIAL, SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OR
POWER TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF ANY SUCH REGULATION," ARE BROAD
ENOUGH IN TERMS TO DEPRIVE THE DISTRICT COURT OF POWER TO CONSIDER THE
VALIDITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATION OR ORDER AS A DEFENSE TO A
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ITS VIOLATION. 

THAT SUCH WAS THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS APPEARS FROM THE REPORT OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION
OF THE BILL WHICH CONTAINED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204(D).  AFTER
POINTING OUT THAT THE BILL PROVIDED FOR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
EMERGENCY COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF
REGULATIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SEC. 2, THE COMMITTEE SAID:  "THE
COURTS IN WHICH CRIMINAL OR CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BROUGHT
HAVE JURISDICTION, CONCURRENTLY WITH THE EMERGENCY COURT, TO DETERMINE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE ITSELF."  SEN. REP. 931,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 25.  THAT THE COMMITTEE, IN MAKING THIS
STATEMENT, INTENDED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE
AND THAT OF A REGULATION, AND TO PERMIT CONSIDERATION ONLY OF THE
FORMER IN DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, IS FURTHER BORNE OUT BY
THE FACT THAT THE BILL AS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE HAD PROVIDED THAT THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AUTHORIZING PRICE
REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS OF THE REGULATIONS THEMSELVES.  H.R. 5479, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PRINTED IN HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND
CURRENCY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 5479,
PP. 4, 7-8. 

CONGRESS, IN THUS AUTHORIZING CONSIDERATION BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT ALONE, GAVE CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE VALIDITY
OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATIONS OR ORDERS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO
ATTACK IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR THEIR VIOLATION, AT LEAST BEFORE
THEIR INVALIDITY HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED BY RECOURSE TO THE PROTEST
PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE.  SUCH WE CONCLUDE IS THE CORRECT
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT. 

                                 III. 

WE COME TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, SO
CONSTRUED AS TO DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK THE
REGULATION IN A PROSECUTION FOR ITS VIOLATION, DEPRIVE THEM OF THE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  AT THE TRIAL,
PETITIONERS OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE REGULATION WOULD COMPEL THEM TO
SELL BEEF AT SUCH PRICES AS WOULD RENDER IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR WHOLESALERS
SUCH AS THEY ARE, NO MATTER HOW EFFICIENT, TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS
OTHER THAN AT A LOSS.  SECTION 4(D) DECLARES THAT "NOTHING IN THIS ACT
SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE ANY PERSON TO SELL ANY COMMODITY  ...  "
PETITIONERS WERE THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED BY THE ACT, NOR SO FAR AS
APPEARS BY ANY OTHER RULE OF LAW, TO CONTINUE SELLING MEAT AT WHOLESALE
IF THEY COULD NOT DO SO WITHOUT LOSS.  BUT THEY ARGUE THAT TO IMPOSE ON
THEM THE CHOICE EITHER OF REFRAINING FROM SALES OF BEEF AT WHOLESALE OR
OF RUNNING THE RISK OF NUMEROUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND SUITS FOR
TREBLE DAMAGES AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 205(E), WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ANY
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION OR STAY PENDING DETERMINATION BY THE PRESCRIBED
STATUTORY PROCEDURE OF THE REGULATION'S VALIDITY, IS SO HARSH IN ITS
APPLICATION TO THEM AS TO DENY THEM DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  IN ADDITION
THEY URGE THE INADEQUACY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND
PARTICULARLY OF THE SIXTY DAYS' PERIOD AFFORDED BY THE ACT WITHIN WHICH
TO PREPARE AND LODGE A PROTEST WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

IN CONSIDERING THESE ASSERTED HARDSHIPS, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING
ITS ENACTMENT AND APPLICATION AS A WARTIME EMERGENCY MEASURE.  THE ACT
WAS ADOPTED JANUARY 30, 1942, SHORTLY AFTER OUR DECLARATION OF WAR
AGAINST GERMANY AND JAPAN, WHEN IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE, AS IS
EMPHASIZED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT, THAT THERE WAS GRAVE
DANGER OF WARTIME INFLATION AND THE DISORGANIZATION OF OUR ECONOMY FROM
EXCESSIVE PRICE RISES.  CONGRESS WAS UNDER PRESSING NECESSITY OF
MEETING THIS DANGER BY A PRACTICABLE AND EXPEDITIOUS MEANS WHICH WOULD
OPERATE WITH SUCH PROMPTNESS, REGULARITY AND CONSISTENCY AS WOULD
MINIMIZE THE SUDDEN DEVELOPMENT OF COMMODITY PRICE DISPARITIES,
ACCENTUATED BY COMMODITY SHORTAGES OCCASIONED BY THE WAR.    INFLATION
IS ACCELERATED AND ITS CONSEQUENCES AGGRAVATED BY PRICE DISPARITIES NOT
BASED ON GEOGRAPHIC OR OTHER RELEVANT DIFFERENTIALS.  THE HARM
RESULTING FROM DELAYED OR UNEQUAL PRICE CONTROL IS BEYOND REPAIR.  AND
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE PREVENTION OF INFLATION BY
ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATION-WIDE SYSTEM OF PRICE CONTROL IS THE
DISORGANIZATION WHICH WOULD RESULT IF ENFORCEMENT OF PRICE ORDERS WERE
DELAYED OR SPORADIC OR WERE UNEQUAL OR CONFLICTING IN DIFFERENT PARTS
OF THE COUNTRY.  THESE EVILS MIGHT WELL ARISE IF REGULATIONS WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH THERE WAS FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVISION
WERE TO BE MADE INEFFECTIVE BY INJUNCTION OR STAY OF THEIR ENFORCEMENT
IN ADVANCE OF SUCH REVISION OR OF FINAL DETERMINATION OF THEIR
VALIDITY. 

CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, WAS FAMILIAR
WITH THE CONSISTENT HISTORY OF DELAY IN UTILITY RATE CASES.  IT HAD IN
MIND THE DANGERS TO PRICE CONTROL AS A PREVENTIVE OF INFLATION IF THE
VALIDITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM PRICES WERE TO BE
SUBJECT TO THE EXIGENCIES AND DELAYS OF LITIGATION ORIGINATING IN
EIGHTY-FIVE DISTRICT COURTS AND CONTINUED BY SEPARATE APPEALS THROUGH
ELEVEN SEPARATE COURTS OF APPEALS TO THIS COURT, TO SAY NOTHING OF
LITIGATION CONDUCTED IN STATE COURTS.  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 931, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 23-5. 

CONGRESS SOUGHT TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE THESE DIFFICULTIES BY THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SINGLE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
REGULATIONS, BEGINNING WITH AN APPEAL TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE GAINED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ACT, AND AFFORDING TO HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS
AND ORDERS COMPLAINED OF BEFORE RESORT TO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
THEIR VALIDITY.  THE ORGANIZATION OF SUCH AN EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE
ESPECIALLY ADAPTED TO THE EXIGENCIES AND REQUIREMENTS OF A NATION-WIDE
SCHEME OF PRICE REGULATION IS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO CREATE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS AND
PRESCRIBE THEIR JURISDICTION.  THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED TO ITS
CREATION ARE SIMILAR TO, AND CERTAINLY NO WEAKER THAN, THOSE WHICH LED
THIS COURT IN TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204
U.S. 426, AND THE LONG LINE OF CASES FOLLOWING IT, TO REQUIRE RESORT TO
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE SPECIAL STATUTORY METHOD
PROVIDED FOR REVIEW OF ITS DECISIONS IN CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES
INVOLVING RAILWAY RATES.  AS WITH THE PRESENT STATUTE, IT WAS THOUGHT
DESIRABLE TO PREFACE ALL JUDICIAL ACTION BY RESORT TO EXPERT
ADMINISTRATIVE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE, AND THUS MINIMIZE THE
CONFUSION THAT WOULD RESULT FROM INCONSISTENT DECISIONS OF DISTRICT AND
CIRCUIT COURTS RENDERED WITHOUT THE AID OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION.  IN ADDITION THE PRESENT ACT SEEKS FURTHER TO AVOID
THAT CONFUSION BY RESTRICTING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION TO A SINGLE COURT.  SUCH A PROCEDURE, SO LONG AS IT
AFFORDS TO THOSE AFFECTED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND
PRESENT EVIDENCE, DOES NOT OFFEND AGAINST DUE PROCESS.  BRADLEY V.
RICHMOND, 227 U.S. 477; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. WELD COUNTY, 264 U.S.
450; ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337. 

PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED THAT OPPORTUNITY
BECAUSE THE SIXTY DAYS' PERIOD ALLOWED FOR FILLING A PROTEST IS
INSUFFICIENT FOR THAT PURPOSE; BECAUSE THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS INADEQUATE TO ENSURE DUE PROCESS; BECAUSE THE STATUTE
PRECLUDES ANY INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF A PRICE
REGULATION BEFORE FINAL ADJUDICATION OF ITS VALIDITY; BECAUSE THE TRIAL
OF THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF A REGULATION IS EXCLUDED FROM THE CRIMINAL
TRIAL FOR ITS VIOLATION; AND BECAUSE IN ANY CASE THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE STATUTE TO PREVENT THEIR CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF A REGULATION
BEFORE THEY COULD SECURE A RULING ON ITS VALIDITY.  A SUFFICIENT ANSWER
TO ALL THESE CONTENTIONS IS THAT PETITIONERS HAVE FAILED TO SEEK THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY AND THE STATUTORY REVIEW WHICH WERE OPEN TO THEM
AND THAT THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT HAD THEY DONE SO ANY OF THE
CONSEQUENCES WHICH THEY APPREHEND WOULD HAVE ENSUED TO ANY EXTENT
WHATEVER, OR IF THEY SHOULD, THAT THE STATUTE WITHHOLDS JUDICIAL
REMEDIES ADEQUATE TO PROTECT PETITIONERS' RIGHTS. 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, IN PASSING UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
PROCEDURE ON PROTEST TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND COMPLAINT TO THE
EMERGENCY COURT, IT IS IRRELEVANT TO SUGGEST THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OR
THE COURT HAS IN THE PAST OR MAY IN THE FUTURE DENY DUE PROCESS. 
ACTION TAKEN BY THEM IS REVIEWABLE IN THIS COURT AND IF CONTRARY TO DUE
PROCESS WILL BE CORRECTED HERE.  HENCE WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO PASS UPON
DETERMINATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OR THE EMERGENCY COURT, SAID TO
VIOLATE DUE PROCESS, WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW, AND
OBVIOUSLY WE CANNOT PASS UPON ACTION WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON A
PROTEST BY PETITIONERS, WHO HAVE NEVER MADE A PROTEST OR IN ANY WAY
SOUGHT THE REMEDY CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT HE WOULD FAIL
IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY DUTY IMPOSED ON HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR THAT HE WOULD DENY DUE PROCESS TO
PETITIONERS BY "LOADING THE RECORD AGAINST THEM" OR DENYING SUCH
HEARING AS THE CONSTITUTION PRESCRIBES.  PLYMOUTH COAL CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 531, 545; HALL V. GEIGER-JONES CO., 242 U.S.
539, 554; MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT, 309 U.S. 270, 277, AND CASES
CITED.  ONLY IF WE COULD SAY IN ADVANCE OF RESORT TO THE STATUTORY
PROCEDURE THAT IT IS INCAPABLE OF AFFORDING DUE PROCESS TO PETITIONERS
COULD WE CONCLUDE THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN ANY LEGAL EXCUSE FOR THEIR
FAILURE TO RESORT TO IT OR THAT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
OR WILL BE INFRINGED.  NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300, 309;
ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA, 356-7; MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT,
SUPRA, 275, 277.  BUT UPON A FULL EXAMINATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AUTHORIZED PROCEDURE IS NOT INCAPABLE OF
AFFORDING THE PROTECTION TO PETITIONERS' RIGHTS REQUIRED BY DUE
PROCESS. 

THE REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE GIVEN THE FORCE OF LAW, ARE PUBLISHED IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER, AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THEIR CONTENTS IS THUS
GIVEN ALL PERSONS AFFECTED BY THEM.  44 U.S.C. SEC. 307.  THE PENAL
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO VIOLATIONS OF A
REGULATION WHICH ARE WILLFUL.  PETITIONERS HAVE NOT CONTENDED THAT THEY
WERE UNAWARE OF THE REGULATION AND THE JURY FOUND THAT THEY KNOWINGLY
VIOLATED IT WITHIN EIGHT DAYS AFTER ITS ISSUE. 

THE SIXTY DAYS' PERIOD ALLOWED FOR PROTEST OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
REGULATIONS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLY SHORT IN VIEW OF THE
URGENCY AND EXIGENCIES OF WARTIME PRICE REGULATION.  FN3 HERE THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED TO ACT INITIALLY UPON THE PROTEST WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS AFTER IT IS FILED OR NINETY DAYS AFTER PROMULGATION OF THE
CHALLENGED REGULATION, BY ALLOWING THE PROTEST WHOLLY OR IN PART, OR
DENYING IT OR SETTING IT DOWN FOR HEARING.  (SEC. 203(A).)  BUT WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED AMPLE TIME FOR
THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.  FN4 AND UNDER SEC. 204(A) PETITIONERS
COULD HAVE APPLIED TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS FOR LEAVE TO
INTRODUCE ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE "WHICH COULD NOT REASONABLY" HAVE
BEEN OFFERED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OR INCLUDED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
HIM, AND COULD HAVE APPLIED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MODIFY OR CHANGE
HIS DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THAT EVIDENCE. 

NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROVIDED BY THE
STATUTE WILL PROVE INADEQUATE.  WE HOLD IN BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, POST,
P. 503, THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH THIS ACT WAS INTENDED TO
APPLY, THE FAILURE TO AFFORD A HEARING PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A PRICE
REGULATION DOES NOT OFFEND AGAINST DUE PROCESS.  WHILE THE HEARING ON A
PROTEST MAY BE RESTRICTED TO THE PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE,
AFFIDAVITS AND BRIEFS, THE ACT CONTEMPLATES, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
REGULATIONS PROVIDE FOR, A FULL ORAL HEARING UPON A SHOWING THAT
WRITTEN EVIDENCE AND BRIEFS "WILL NOT PERMIT THE FAIR AND EXPEDITIOUS
DISPOSITION OF THE PROTEST."  (SEC. 203(A); REVISED PROCEDURAL
REGULATION NO. 1, SEC. 1300.39, 7 FED. REG. 8961.)  IN ADVANCE OF
APPLICATION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SUCH A HEARING WE CANNOT WELL SAY
WHETHER ITS DENIAL IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE WOULD BE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  THE ACT REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO INFORM THE PROTESTANT
OF THE GROUNDS FOR HIS DECISION DENYING A PROTEST, INCLUDING ALL
MATTERS OF WHICH HE HAS TAKEN OFFICIAL NOTICE.  (SEC. 203(A).)  IN VIEW
OF THE PROVISIONS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE BOTH BEFORE
AND AFTER THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS ANNOUNCED HIS DETERMINATION, WE CANNOT
SAY THAT IF PETITIONERS HAD FILED A PROTEST ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THEM TO MEET ANY ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE PUT
FORWARD BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, OR THAT IF SUCH OPPORTUNITY HAD BEEN
DENIED THE DENIAL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BY THE EMERGENCY
COURT. 

THE EMERGENCY COURT HAS POWER TO REVIEW ALL QUESTIONS OF LAW,
INCLUDING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION IS
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, AND ANY QUESTION OF THE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OR
ANY PROCEDURAL ERROR APPROPRIATELY RAISED IN THE COURSE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.  NO REASON IS ADVANCED WHY PETITIONERS COULD NOT,
THROUGHOUT THE STATUTORY PROCEEDING, RAISE AND PRESERVE ANY DUE PROCESS
OBJECTION TO THE STATUTE, THE REGULATIONS, OR THE PROCEDURE, AND SECURE
ITS FULL JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS AND THIS
COURT.  COMPARE WHITE V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 367, 374.  FN5 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WE FIND NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN
THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION OF A TEMPORARY STAY OR INJUNCTION.  THE
PRESENT STATUTE IS NOT OPEN TO THE OBJECTION THAT PETITIONERS ARE
COMPELLED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC AS IN THE CASE OF A PUBLIC UTILITY, OR
THAT THE ONLY METHOD BY WHICH THEY CAN TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER IT IS BY VIOLATING THE STATUTE AND THUS
SUBJECTING THEMSELVES TO THE POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF SEVERE AND
CUMULATIVE PENALTIES.  SEE EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; WILLCOX V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S. 19, 53-4; MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
TUCKER, 230 U.S. 340; OKLAHOMA OPERATING CO. V. LOVE, 252 U.S. 331. 
FOR AS WE HAVE SEEN, SEC. 4(D) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT NO ONE SHALL
BE COMPELLED TO SELL ANY COMMODITY, AND THE STATUTE ITSELF PROVIDES AN
EXPEDITIOUS MEANS OF TESTING THE VALIDITY OF ANY PRICE REGULATION,
WITHOUT NECESSARILY INCURRING ANY OF THE PENALTIES OF THE ACT.  COMPARE
WADLEY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. GEORGIA, 235 U.S. 651, 667-9. 

THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE CHOICE OF ABANDONING
THEIR BUSINESSES OR SUBJECTING THEMSELVES TO THE PENALTIES OF THE ACT
BEFORE THEY HAVE SOUGHT AND SECURED A DETERMINATION OF THE REGULATION'S
VALIDITY.  IT IS TRUE THAT IF THE ADMINISTRATOR DENIES A PROTEST NO
STAY OR INJUNCTION MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE BEFORE THE FINAL DECISION OF
THE EMERGENCY COURT OR OF THIS COURT IF REVIEW HERE IS SOUGHT.  IT IS
ALSO TRUE THAT THE PROCESS OF REACHING A FINAL DECISION MAY BE TIME
CONSUMING.  BUT WHILE COURTS HAVE NO POWER TO SUSPEND OR AMELIORATE THE
OPERATION OF A REGULATION DURING THE PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS TO
DETERMINE ITS VALIDITY, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS NO
SUCH POWER OR ASSUME THAT HE WOULD NOT EXERCISE IT IN AN APPROPRIATE
CASE. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE REGULATIONS, IS GIVEN
WIDE DISCRETION AS TO THE TIME AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR ISSUE AND
CONTINUED EFFECT.  SECTION 2(A) AUTHORIZES HIM TO ISSUE SUCH
REGULATIONS AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, WHENEVER, IN
HIS JUDGMENT, SUCH ACTION IS NECESSARY.  SECTION 201(D) SIMILARLY
AUTHORIZES HIM "FROM TIME TO TIME" TO ISSUE REGULATIONS WHEN NECESSARY
AND PROPER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  ONE OF THE OBJECTS
OF THE PROTEST PROVISIONS IS TO ENABLE THE ADMINISTRATOR MORE FULLY TO
INFORM HIMSELF AS TO THE WISDOM OF A REGULATION THROUGH EVIDENCE OF ITS
EFFECT ON PARTICULAR CASES.  IN THE LIGHT OF THAT INFORMATION HE IS
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 203(A) TO GRANT OR DENY A PROTEST "IN WHOLE OR IN
PART."  AND SEC. 204(A) AUTHORIZES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MODIFY OR
RESCIND A REGULATION "AT ANY TIME."  FN6  MOREOVER SEC. 2(A) FURTHER
AUTHORIZES THE ISSUE, IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT, OF TEMPORARY
REGULATIONS, EFFECTIVE FOR SIXTY DAYS, "ESTABLISHING AS A MAXIMUM  ...
THE PRICE  ...  PREVAILING WITH RESPECT TO ANY COMMODITY  ...  WITHIN
FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH TEMPORARY REGULATIONS. 
...  " 

UNDER THESE SECTIONS THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY NOT ONLY ALTER OR SET
ASIDE THE REGULATION, BUT HE HAS WIDE SCOPE FOR THE EXERCISE OF HIS
DISCRETIONARY POWER TO MODIFY OR SUSPEND A REGULATION PENDING ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.  HENCE WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT
PETITIONERS, HAD THEY APPLIED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, WOULD NOT HAVE
SECURED ALL THE RELIEF TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED.  THE DENIAL OF A
RIGHT TO A RESTRAINING ORDER OR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION TO ONE WHO HAS
FAILED TO APPLY FOR AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF, NOT SHOWN TO BE
INADEQUATE, IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  NATURAL GAS CO. V.
SLATTERY, SUPRA, 310. 

IN ANY EVENT, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE DENIAL OF INTERLOCUTORY
RELIEF PENDING A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATION WOULD, IN THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, INVOLVE A
DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  IF THE ALTERNATIVES, AS CONGRESS COULD
HAVE CONCLUDED, WERE WARTIME INFLATION OR THE IMPOSITION ON INDIVIDUALS
OF THE BURDEN OF COMPLYING WITH A PRICE REGULATION WHILE ITS VALIDITY
IS BEING DETERMINED, CONGRESS COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE THE CHOICE IN
FAVOR OF THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST FROM THE DANGERS OF
INFLATION.  COMPARE MILLER V. SCHOENE, 276 U.S. 272, IN WHICH WE HELD
THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE A STATE FROM COMPELLING
THE UNCOMPENSATED DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
IMPORTANT PUBLIC INTERESTS FROM DESTRUCTION.    THE AWARD OF AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION BY COURTS OF EQUITY HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS
STRICTLY A MATTER OF RIGHT, EVEN THOUGH IRREPARABLE INJURY MAY
OTHERWISE RESULT TO THE PLAINTIFF.  COMPARE SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO V.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N, 316 U.S. 4, 10 AND CASES CITED.  EVEN IN
SUITS IN WHICH ONLY PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED THE AWARD IS A
MATTER OF SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION, IN THE EXERCISE OF WHICH THE COURT
BALANCES THE CONVENIENCES OF THE PARTIES AND POSSIBLE INJURIES TO THEM
ACCORDING AS THEY MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING OF THE
INJUNCTION.  MECCANO, LTD. V. JOHN WANAMAKER, 253 U.S. 136, 141; RICE &
ADAMS CORP. V. LATHROP, 278 U.S. 509, 514.  AND IT WILL AVOID SUCH
INCONVENIENCE AND INJURY SO FAR AS MAY BE, BY ATTACHING CONDITIONS TO
THE AWARD, SUCH AS THE REQUIREMENT OF AN INJUNCTION BOND CONDITIONED
UPON PAYMENT OF ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE INJUNCTION IF THE PLAINTIFF'S
CONTENTIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINED.  PRENDERGAST V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO.,
262 U.S. 43, 51; OHIO OIL CO. V. CONWAY, 279 U.S. 813, 815. 

BUT WHERE AN INJUNCTION IS ASKED WHICH WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT A PUBLIC
INTEREST FOR WHOSE IMPAIRMENT, EVEN TEMPORARILY, AN INJUNCTION BOND
CANNOT COMPENSATE, THE COURT MAY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITHHOLD RELIEF
UNTIL A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, THOUGH THE
POSTPONEMENT MAY BE BURDENSOME TO THE PLAINTIFF.  FN7  VIRGINIAN RY.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 658, 672-3; PETROLEUM EXPLORATION CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 304 U.S. 209, 222-3; DRYFOOS V. EDWARDS, 284 F.
596, 603, AFFIRMED, 251 U.S. 146; SEE BEAUMONT, S.L. & W. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 74, 91, 92.  COMPARE WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS, 278
U.S. 367, 418-21.  THIS IS BUT ANOTHER APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE,
DECLARED IN VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552,
THAT "COURTS OF EQUITY MAY, AND FREQUENTLY DO, GO MUCH FARTHER BOTH TO
GIVE AND WITHHOLD RELIEF IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAN
THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO GO WHEN ONLY PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED." 

HERE, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
FROM THE DISRUPTIVE INFLUENCES OF INFLATION IN TIME OF WAR CONGRESS HAS
SEEN FIT TO POSTPONE INJUNCTIONS RESTRAINING THE OPERATIONS OF PRICE
REGULATIONS UNTIL THEIR LAWFULNESS COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY AN
APPROPRIATE AND EXPEDITIOUS PROCEDURE.  IN SO DOING IT HAS DONE ONLY
WHAT A COURT OF EQUITY COULD HAVE DONE, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
DISCRETION TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WHAT THE COURTS COULD DO
CONGRESS CAN DO AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE NATION IN
TIME OF WAR.  THE LEGISLATIVE FORMULATION OF WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE A
RULE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OR A
USURPATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS.  CF. DEMOREST V. CITY BANK CO., 321
U.S. 36.  FN8 

OUR DECISIONS LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT WHEN JUSTIFIED BY COMPELLING PUBLIC
INTEREST THE LEGISLATURE MAY AUTHORIZE SUMMARY ACTION SUBJECT TO LATER
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ITS VALIDITY.  IT MAY INSIST ON THE IMMEDIATE
COLLECTION OF TAXES.  PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 595-7 AND
CASES CITED.  IT MAY TAKE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY PRESUMPTIVELY
ABANDONED BY ITS OWNER, PRIOR TO DETERMINATION OF ITS ACTUAL
ABANDONMENT.  ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK V. LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233.  FOR THE
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH IT MAY ORDER THE SUMMARY DESTRUCTION OF
PROPERTY WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE OR HEARING.  NORTH AMERICAN COLD STORAGE
CO. V. CHICAGO, 211 U.S. 306; ADAMS V. MILWAUKEE, 228 U.S. 572, 584. 
IT MAY SUMMARILY REQUISITION PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NEEDED FOR THE
PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. PFITSCH, 256 U.S.
547.  AS A MEASURE OF PUBLIC PROTECTION THE PROPERTY OF ALIEN ENEMIES
MAY BE SEIZED, AND PROPERTY BELIEVED TO BE OWNED BY ENEMIES TAKEN
WITHOUT PRIOR DETERMINATION OF ITS TRUE OWNERSHIP.  CENTRAL UNION TRUST
CO. V. GARVAN, 254 U.S. 554, 566; STOEHR V. WALLACE, 255 U.S. 239,
245.  SIMILARLY PUBLIC NECESSITY IN TIME OF WAR MAY JUSTIFY ALLOWING
TENANTS TO REMAIN IN POSSESSION AGAINST THE WILL OF THE LANDLORD. 
BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135; MARCUS BROWN CO. V. FELDMAN, 256 U.S.
170.  EVEN THE PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE CITIZEN MAY BE TEMPORARILY
RESTRAINED AS A MEASURE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.  HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA; CF. JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11.  MEASURED BY
THESE STANDARDS WE FIND NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THIS ACT WAS ADOPTED AND MUST BE APPLIED, IN ITS
DENIAL OF ANY JUDICIAL STAY PENDING DETERMINATION OF A REGULATION'S
VALIDITY. 

               IV. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, CONGRESS, THROUGH ITS POWER TO DEFINE THE
JURISDICTION OF INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS AND TO CREATE SUCH COURTS FOR
THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER, COULD, SUBJECT TO OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, CREATE THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, GIVE
TO IT EXCLUSIVE EQUITY JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF PRICE
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND FORECLOSE ANY FURTHER
OR OTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE VALIDITY OF A REGULATION AS A DEFENSE TO
A PROSECUTION FOR ITS VIOLATION. 

UNLIKE MOST PENAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS WHOSE VALIDITY CAN BE
DETERMINED ONLY BY RUNNING THE RISK OF VIOLATION, SEE DOUGLAS V. CITY
OF JEANNETTE, 319 U.S. 157, 163, THE PRESENT STATUTE PROVIDES A MODE OF
TESTING THE VALIDITY OF A REGULATION BY AN INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THAT TEST BE
MADE IN ONE TRIBUNAL RATHER THAN IN ANOTHER, SO LONG AS THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SATISFIES THE
DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS, AS IS THE CASE HERE.  THIS WAS RECOGNIZED IN
BRADLEY V. RICHMOND, SUPRA, AND IN WADLEY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. GEORGIA,
SUPRA, 667, 669, AND HAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED BY THIS COURT.  AND WE ARE
POINTED TO NO PRINCIPLE OF LAW OR PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH
PRECLUDES CONGRESS FROM MAKING CRIMINAL THE VIOLATION OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION, BY ONE WHO HAS FAILED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF AN
ADEQUATE SEPARATE PROCEDURE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ITS VALIDITY, OR
WHICH PRECLUDES THE PRACTICE, IN MANY WAYS DESIRABLE, OF SPLITTING THE
TRIAL FOR VIOLATIONS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION BY COMMITTING THE
DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF ITS VALIDITY TO THE AGENCY WHICH CREATED
IT, AND THE ISSUE OF VIOLATION TO A COURT WHICH IS GIVEN JURISDICTION
TO PUNISH VIOLATIONS.  SUCH A REQUIREMENT PRESENTS NO NOVEL
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. 

NO PROCEDURAL PRINCIPLE IS MORE FAMILIAR TO THIS COURT THAN THAT A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT MAY BE FORFEITED IN CRIMINAL AS WELL AS CIVIL
CASES BY THE FAILURE TO MAKE TIMELY ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT BEFORE A
TRIBUNAL HAVING JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE IT.  O'NEIL V. VERMONT, 144
U.S. 323, 331; BARBOUR V. GEORGIA, 249 U.S. 454, 460; WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 360, 362, 380.  COURTS MAY FOR THAT REASON
REFUSE TO CONSIDER A CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION EVEN THOUGH A LIKE
OBJECTION HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUSTAINED IN A CASE IN WHICH IT WAS
PROPERLY TAKEN.  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S. 86. 
WHILE THIS COURT IN ITS DISCRETION SOMETIMES DEPARTS FROM THIS RULE IN
CASES FROM LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, IT INVARIABLY ADHERES TO IT IN CASES
FROM STATE COURTS, SEE BRANDEIS, J. CONCURRING IN WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 380, AND IT COULD HARDLY BE MAINTAINED THAT IT IS
BEYOND LEGISLATIVE POWER TO MAKE THE RULE INFLEXIBLE IN ALL CASES. 
COMPARE WOOLSEY V. BEST, 299 U.S. 1 WITH EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S.
371. 

FOR MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS IT HAS BEEN A PENAL OFFENSE FOR SHIPPERS
AND INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIERS TO FAIL TO OBSERVE THE DULY FILED TARIFFS
FIXING FREIGHT RATES - INCLUDING, SINCE 1906, RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSION - EVEN THOUGH THE VALIDITY OF THOSE RATES IS OPEN TO ATTACK
ONLY IN A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  49 U.S.C. SECS. 6(7), 10(1); ARMOUR PACKING CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56, 81; UNITED STATES V. ADAMS EXPRESS CO.,
229 U.S. 381, 388.  IT IS NO DEFENSE TO A PROSECUTION FOR DEPARTURE
FROM A RATE FIXED BY THE FILED TARIFFS THAT THE RATE IS UNREASONABLE OR
OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL, WHERE ITS INFIRMITY HAS NOT FIRST BEEN ESTABLISHED
BY AN INDEPENDENT PROCEEDING BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
AND THE DENIAL OF THE DEFENSE IN SUCH A CASE DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY
PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  UNITED STATES V. VACUUM OIL CO., 158 F.
536, 539-41; LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 188 F. 879, 887-8. 
SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL CO., 155 F. 305, 309-10,
REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 164 F. 376.  COMPARE PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V.
INTERNATIONAL COAL CO., 230 U.S. 184, 196-7; ARIZONA GROCERY CO. V.
ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO., 284 U.S. 370, 384.  SIMILARLY IT HAS BEEN
HELD THAT ONE WHO HAS FAILED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE STATUTORY METHOD
OF REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THE PACKERS
AND STOCKYARDS ACT OF 1921, OR OF THE FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION UNDER
THE RADIO ACT OF 1927, CANNOT ENJOIN THREATENED PROSECUTIONS FOR
VIOLATION OF THOSE ORDERS, UNITED STATES V. CORRICK, 298 U.S. 435, 440;
WHITE V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, 373-4.  SEE ALSO NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY,
SUPRA, 309-10.  FN9 

THE ANALOGY OF SUCH A PROCEDURE TO THE PRESENT, BY WHICH VIOLATION OF
A PRICE REGULATION IS MADE PENAL, UNLESS THE OFFENDER HAS ESTABLISHED
ITS UNLAWFULNESS BY AN INDEPENDENT STATUTORY PROCEEDING, IS COMPLETE
AND OBVIOUS.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT SUCH A REQUIREMENT IS
OBJECTIONABLE ONLY IF BY STATUTORY COMMAND OR IN OPERATION IT WILL
DENY, TO THOSE CHARGED WITH VIOLATIONS, AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD ON THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY.  AND, AS WE HAVE SEEN, PETITIONERS
FAIL TO SHOW THAT SUCH IS THE NECESSARY EFFECT OF THE PRESENT STATUTE,
OR THAT IF SO APPLIED AS TO DEPRIVE THEM OF AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO
ESTABLISH THE INVALIDITY OF A REGULATION THERE WOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE
MEANS OF SECURING APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL RELIEF IN THE COURSE EITHER OF
THE STATUTORY PROCEEDING OR OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL.  DURING THE PRESENT
TERM OF COURT WE HAVE HELD THAT ONE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF
AN ORDER OF HIS DRAFT BOARD MAY NOT CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER
IF HE HAS FAILED TO PURSUE TO COMPLETION THE EXCLUSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES PROVIDED BY THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940. 
FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549; AND SEE BOWLES V. UNITED STATES,
319 U.S. 33.  WE PERCEIVE NO TENABLE GROUND FOR DISTINGUISHING THAT
CASE FROM THIS. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE WHETHER ONE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL
VIOLATION OF A DULY PROMULGATED PRICE REGULATION MAY DEFEND ON THE
GROUND THAT THE REGULATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE.  NOR DO WE
CONSIDER WHETHER ONE WHO IS FORCED TO TRIAL AND CONVICTED OF VIOLATION
OF A REGULATION, WHILE DILIGENTLY SEEKING DETERMINATION OF ITS VALIDITY
BY THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE, MAY THUS BE DEPRIVED OF THE DEFENSE THAT
THE REGULATION IS INVALID.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE PRESENT
REGULATION IS VOID ON ITS FACE, PETITIONERS HAVE TAKEN NO STEP TO
CHALLENGE ITS VALIDITY BY THE PROCEDURE WHICH WAS OPEN TO THEM AND IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO
SO.  EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE SHOULD BE DEEMED TO REQUIRE IT, ANY RULING
AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE THE ACCUSED FROM SHOWING
THAT HE HAD HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH THE INVALIDITY OF THE
REGULATION BY RESORT TO THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE, WOULD BE REVIEWABLE ON
APPEAL ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO DECIDE
QUESTIONS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WHEN THEY ARE BROUGHT TO US FOR
DECISION, AS THEY MAY BE, WHETHER THEY ARISE IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT UPON A CRIMINAL TRIAL. 

IN THE EXERCISE OF THE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF A PRICE REGULATION, A JURY TRIAL IS NOT
MANDATORY UNDER THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT.  CF. BLOCK V. HIRSH, SUPRA,
158.  NOR HAS THERE BEEN ANY DENIAL IN THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
OF THE RIGHT, GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, TO A TRIAL BY A JURY
OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.  SUBJECT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS, WHICH ARE HERE SATISFIED, CONGRESS
COULD MAKE CRIMINAL THE VIOLATION OF A PRICE REGULATION.  THE
INDICTMENT CHARGED A VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION IN THE DISTRICT OF
TRIAL, AND THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONERS HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME
THUS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND DEFINED BY CONGRESS, NAMELY, WHETHER
THEY HAD VIOLATED THE STATUTE BY WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF A PRICE
REGULATION PROMULGATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAS PROPERLY SUBMITTED TO
THE JURY.  CF. FALBO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE PARTIES HAVE NOT DISCUSSED IN BRIEFS OR ON ARGUMENT, AND WE
DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER, THE PRECISE EFFECT OF THIS
DIRECTION TO STABILIZE PRICES "SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE" AT THE LEVELS
OBTAINING ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1942, UPON THE STANDARDS LAID DOWN BY SEC.
2(A) OF THE ACT AND THE DISCRETION WHICH THEY CONFER ON THE
ADMINISTRATOR. 

FN2  THE USE OF THE MARCH 16-28, 1942, BASE PERIOD IS EXPLAINED BY
THE FACT THAT WHOLESALE MEAT PRICES HAD ALREADY BEEN STABILIZED AT
APPROXIMATELY THAT LEVEL BY MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 169 AS
ORIGINALLY ISSUED ON JUNE 19, 1942, 7 FED. REG. 4653, AND BY THE
GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION, ISSUED APRIL 28, 1942, 7 FED. REG.
3153, WHICH FORBADE THE SALE OF MOST COMMODITIES AT PRICES IN EXCESS OF
THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED BY THE SELLER DURING MARCH, 1942.  THE
STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS ACCOMPANYING THE LATTER, 2 C.C.H. WAR LAW
SERVICE - PRICE CONTROL, PARA. 42,081, EXPLAINS IN SOME DETAIL THE
CONSIDERATIONS IMPELLING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
STABILIZATION AT THE LEVELS OBTAINING IN MARCH, 1942 WOULD BE FAIR AND
EQUITABLE AND WOULD EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT; IT CONSIDERS
THE PRICE LEVELS PREVAILING DURING OCTOBER 1-15, 1941, AND GIVES
REASONS WHY PRICE STABILIZATION AT THOSE LEVELS WOULD NOT BE
PRACTICABLE.  THE STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS ACCOMPANYING MAXIMUM
PRICE REGULATION NO. 169 AS ORIGINALLY ISSUED, 2 C.C.H. WAR LAW SERVICE
- PRICE CONTROL, PARA. 43,369A, REFERS TO THIS DISCUSSION IN
EXPLANATION OF THE CONTINUANCE OF THE USE OF MARCH, 1942, LEVELS AS A
BASE. 

FN3  FOR NUMEROUS INSTANCES IN WHICH COMPARABLE OR SHORTER PERIODS
FOR RESORT TO ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF AS A PREREQUISITE TO PROCEEDING IN
THE COURTS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE SUFFICIENT, SEE, E.G., BELLINGHAM BAY &
B.C.R. CO. V. NEW WHATCOM, 172 U.S. 314(10 DAYS); CAMPBELL V. OLNEY,
262 U.S. 352(20 DAYS); WICK V. CHELAN ELECTRIC CO., 280 U.S. 108(18
DAYS); PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589(60 DAYS); OPP COTTON
MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126(40 DAYS). 

FN4  REVISED PROCEDURAL REGULATION NO. 1, 7 FED. REG. 8961,
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 203(A), CONTAINS DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR EXTENDING
THE TIME FOR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE WHEN APPROPRIATE.  SECS.
1300.30(C), 1300.33, 1300.35(A)(3). 

FN5  NOR IS THE INCONVENIENCE TO PETITIONERS OF BEING REQUIRED TO
MAKE THEIR OBJECTION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
SUFFICIENT TO OUTWEIGH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE, IN HAVING A CENTRALIZED, UNITARY SCHEME OF REVIEW OF THE
REGULATIONS.  THE PROTEST PROCEDURE IS DESIGNED TO BE CONDUCTED
PRIMARILY UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, SEC. 203(A); REVISED PROCEDURAL
REGULATION NO. 1, SECS. 1300.29-1300.31, 1300.39.  THERE WOULD THUS BE
NO PURPOSE IN THE PERSONAL PRESENCE OF THE PROTESTANT UNLESS THE
PROTEST WERE SET FOR HEARING BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND IN SUCH A CASE
THE HEARING MAY BE HELD AT ANY PLACE DESIGNATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
AND BEFORE A PERSON DESIGNATED BY HIM.  ID., SECS. 1300.39, 1300.42. 
THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS IS LIKEWISE AUTHORIZED TO "HOLD SESSIONS
AT SUCH PLACES AS IT MAY SPECIFY" AND DOES IN FACT HOLD SESSIONS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AS NEEDED.  SEC. 204(C):  RULE 4(A) OF ITS RULES
OF PROCEDURE, 50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. II FOLLOWING SEC. 924. 

FN6  REVISED PROCEDURAL REGULATION NO. 1 AUTHORIZES THE FILING AT ANY
TIME OF A PETITION TO AMEND A REGULATION (SEC. 1300.20), AND AUTHORIZES
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO TREAT A PROTEST AS A PETITION FOR AMENDMENT AS
WELL (SEC. 1300.49). 

FN7  CONGRESS HAS SOUGHT TO MINIMIZE THE BURDEN SO FAR AS WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY PROVIDING EXPEDITIOUS PROCEDURE
FOR THE REVIEW, ON PROTEST AND COMPLAINT, OF A REGULATION'S VALIDITY. 
THUS A PROTEST MUST BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS (SEC. 203(A)); THE
ADMINISTRATOR MUST TAKE INITIAL ACTION ON IT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
BUT NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS AFTER ITS FILING OR 90 DAYS AFTER THE
ISSUANCE OF THE REGULATION (SEC. 203(A)); THE COMPLAINT TO THE
EMERGENCY COURT MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS (SEC. 204(A)); THAT COURT
IS DIRECTED TO "PRESCRIBE RULES GOVERNING ITS PROCEDURE IN SUCH MANNER
AS TO EXPEDITE THE DETERMINATION OF CASES OF WHICH IT HAS JURISDICTION"
(SEC. 204(C)); IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THAT END, AS MANY JUDGES AS ARE
NEEDED MAY BE DESIGNATED TO SERVE ON IT, IT MAY SIT IN DIVISIONS, AND
MAY HOLD SESSIONS AT SUCH PLACES AS IT MAY SPECIFY (SEC. 204(C)), AND
IN FACT IT DOES SIT IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AS THE CONVENIENCE
OF THE PARTIES MAY REQUIRE; UNDER ITS RULES IT IS "ALWAYS  ...  OPEN
FOR THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS," (RULE 4(A); 50 U.S.C. APP., SUPP. II
FOLLOWING SEC. 924); PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW ITS DECISIONS
MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS (SEC. 204(D)); AND THIS COURT IS DIRECTED
TO ADVANCE ON THE DOCKET AND EXPEDITE THE DECISION OF ALL CASES FROM
THE EMERGENCY COURT (SEC. 204(D)).  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR, WHO HAS A VITAL INTEREST IN THE PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, WOULD UNREASONABLY DELAY ACTION UPON A PROTEST;
IF HE SHOULD, JUDICIAL REMEDIES ARE NOT LACKING, SEE SAFEWAY STORES V.
BROWN, 138 F.2D 278, 280. 

FN8  FOR OTHER INSTANCES IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS REGULATED AND
RESTRICTED THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS, SEE:
1.  SECTION 16 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 82, JUDICIAL CODE
SEC. 267, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 384, DENYING RELIEF IN EQUITY WHERE THERE IS
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW.  2.  SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1793, 1
STAT. 334, JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 265, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 379, PROHIBITING
INJUNCTION OF STATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  3.  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867, 14
STAT. 475, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 3653, PROHIBITING SUITS TO ENJOIN COLLECTION
OR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL TAXES.  4.  THE JOHNSON ACT OF MAY 14, 1934,
48 STAT. 775, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), RESTRICTING JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN
ORDERS OF STATE BODIES FIXING UTILITY RATES.  5.  ACT OF AUG. 21, 1937,
50 STAT. 738, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), SIMILARLY RESTRICTING JURISDICTION
TO ENJOIN COLLECTION OR ENFORCEMENT OF STATE TAXES.  6.  SECTION 17 OF
THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1910, 36 STAT. 557 AND SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUG.
24, 1937, 50 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 380 AND 380(A), REQUIRING THE
CONVENING OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT FOR THE GRANTING OF TEMPORARY
INJUNCTIONS IN CERTAIN CASES AND ALLOWING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
BY ONE JUDGE ONLY TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY.  7.  THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 101-15, REGULATING THE
ISSUE OF INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES AND PROHIBITING THEIR ISSUE
"CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC POLICY" DECLARED IN THE ACT.  IN SEVERAL CASES
SUCH STATUTES WERE HELD TO BE MERELY DECLARATORY OF A PREVIOUSLY
OBTAINING RULE FOR THE GUIDANCE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  SEE, E.G.,
STATE RAILROAD TAX CASES, 92 U.S. 575, 613(ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867);
MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525(JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 267); GREAT
LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293, 297(ACT OF AUG. 21,
1937). 

FN9  COMPARE THE PROVISIONS OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, 7
U.S.C. SECS. 194 AND 195, AND OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, 7 U.S.C.
SEC. 13(A), IMPOSING CRIMINAL SANCTIONS, AND THOSE OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 45(G)-(L) IMPOSING HEAVY
PENALTIES, FOR VIOLATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WHICH HAS BECOME
FINAL BY ITS AFFIRMANCE UPON THE EXCLUSIVE STATUTORY METHOD OF REVIEW
PROVIDED, OR BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME ALLOWED FOR REVIEW WITHOUT
RESORT TO THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I DISSENT.  I FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS CERTAIN OF THE QUESTIONS
TREATED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  I AM OF OPINION THAT THE ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR. 
AS I READ THE OPINION OF THE COURT IT HOLDS THE ACT VALID ON THE GROUND
THAT SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE STANDARDS ARE PRESCRIBED TO CONFINE THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATIONS AND ORDERS WITHIN FIXED LIMITS, AND THAT
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PROVIDED EFFECTIVELY TO PROHIBIT HIS TRANSGRESSION
OF THOSE LIMITS.  I BELIEVE THAT ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATES THE CONTRARY.  I
PROCEED, THEREFORE, TO EXAMINE THE STATUTE. 

                        THE POWERS CONFERRED. 

WHEN, IN HIS JUDGMENT, COMMODITY PRICES HAVE RISEN, OR THREATEN TO
RISE, "TO AN EXTENT OR IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES" OF
THE ACT, THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY ESTABLISH "SUCH MAXIMUM PRICE OR MAXIMUM
PRICES AS IN HIS JUDGMENT WILL BE GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND WILL
EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES" OF THE ACT. 

"SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE" IN ESTABLISHING ANY MAXIMUM PRICE, HE IS TO
ASCERTAIN THE PRICES PREVAILING IN A SPECIFIED PERIOD IN 1941 BUT MAY
USE ANOTHER PERIOD NEAREST TO THAT SPECIFIED BECAUSE NECESSARY DATA FOR
THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IS NOT AVAILABLE; AND MAY MAKE ADJUSTMENTS "FOR
SUCH RELEVANT FACTORS AS HE MAY DETERMINE AND DEEM TO BE OF GENERAL
APPLICABILITY," INCLUDING SEVERAL FACTORS MENTIONED.  BEFORE ISSUING
ANY REGULATION, HE SHALL " SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE" ADVISE WITH
REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRY AFFECTED. 

ANY REGULATION MAY PROVIDE FOR ADJUSTMENTS AND REASONABLE EXCEPTIONS
WHICH, IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT, ARE NECESSARY AND PROPER TO
EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  IF, IN HIS JUDGMENT, SUCH ACTION
IS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, HE MAY,
BY REGULATION OR ORDER, REGULATE OR PROHIBIT SPECULATIVE OR
MANIPULATIVE PRACTICES OR HOARDING IN CONNECTION WITH ANY COMMODITY (50
U.S.C. SEC. 902). 

IT WILL BE SEEN THAT WHETHER, AND, IF SO, WHEN, THE PRICE OF ANY
COMMODITY  FN1  SHALL BE REGULATED DEPENDS ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR AS TO THE NECESSITY OR PROPRIETY OF SUCH PRICE REGULATION
IN EFFECTUATING THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 

       THE SUPPOSED STANDARDS FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR'S GUIDANCE. 

THE ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY REGULATION OR ORDER MUST BE "GENERALLY FAIR
AND EQUITABLE" IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT; BUT COUPLED WITH THIS
INJUNCTION IS ANOTHER THAT THE ORDER AND REGULATION MUST BE SUCH AS, IN
THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, IS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO EFFECTUATE
THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 

I TURN, THEREFORE, TO THE STATED PURPOSES TO ASCERTAIN WHAT, IF ANY,
LIMITS THE STATUTE PLACES UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S EXERCISE OF HIS
POWERS. 

SHOULD BE SET FORTH SEPARATELY AS FOLLOWS: 

"TO STABILIZE PRICES AND TO PREVENT SPECULATIVE, UNWARRANTED, AND
ABNORMAL INCREASES IN PRICES AND RENTS;" 

IN ORDER TO EXERCISE HIS POWER ANENT THIS PURPOSE THE ADMINISTRATOR
WILL HAVE TO FORM A JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT STABILIZATION MEANS, AND WHAT
ARE SPECULATIVE, UNWARRANTED AND ABNORMAL INCREASES IN PRICE.  IT
HARDLY NEED BE SAID THAT MEN MAY DIFFER RADICALLY AS TO THE CONNOTATION
OF THESE TERMS AND THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO CONVICT ANYONE OF
ERROR OF JUDGMENT IN SO CLASSIFYING A GIVEN ECONOMIC PHENOMENON. 

"TO ELIMINATE AND PREVENT PROFITEERING, HOARDING, MANIPULATION,
SPECULATION, AND OTHER DISRUPTIVE PRACTICES RESULTING FROM ABNORMAL
MARKET CONDITIONS OR SCARCITIES CAUSED BY OR CONTRIBUTING TO THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY;" 

TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST FORM A JUDGMENT AS
TO WHAT CONSTITUTES PROFITEERING, HOARDING, MANIPULATION OR
SPECULATION.  AS IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
BROAD THERE IS ADDED THE PHRASE "OTHER DISRUPTIVE PRACTICES," WHICH
SEEMS TO LEAVE THE ADMINISTRATOR AT LARGE IN THE FORMATION OF OPINION
AS TO WHETHER ANY PRACTICE IS DISRUPTIVE. 

"TO ASSURE THAT DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ARE NOT DISSIPATED BY
EXCESSIVE PRICES;" 

IT IS NOT CLEAR - TO ME AT LEAST - WHAT IS THE LIMIT OF THIS
PURPOSE.  I CAN CONCEIVE THAT AN HONEST ADMINISTRATOR MIGHT, WITHOUT
LAYING HIMSELF OPEN TO THE CHARGE OF EXCEEDING HIS POWERS, MAKE ANY
KIND OF ORDER OR REGULATION BASED UPON THE VIEW THAT OTHERWISE DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS BY CONGRESS MIGHT BE DISSIPATED BY WHAT HE CONSIDERS
EXCESSIVE PRICES.  HOW HIS EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
PURPOSE COULD BE THOUGHT EXCESSIVE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SAY. 

"TO PROTECT PERSONS WITH RELATIVELY FIXED AND LIMITED INCOMES,
CONSUMERS, WAGE EARNERS, INVESTORS, AND PERSONS DEPENDENT ON LIFE
INSURANCE, ANNUITIES, AND PENSIONS, FROM UNDUE IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR
STANDARD OF LIVING;" 

THE ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT THAT ANY PRICE POLICY WILL TEND TO
AFFECT THE CLASSES MENTIONED IN THIS PURPOSE FROM WHAT HE MAY DECIDE TO
BE "UNDUE IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING" WOULD SEEM TO BE SO
SWEEPING THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO CONVICT HIM OF AN ERROR OF
JUDGMENT IN ANY CONCLUSION HE MIGHT REACH. 

"TO PREVENT HARDSHIPS TO PERSONS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS, TO SCHOOLS,
UNIVERSITIES, AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS, AND TO THE FEDERAL, STATE, AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM ABNORMAL INCREASES IN
PRICES;" 

OF COURSE CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE INCLUDED IN THE CATALOGUE OF
BENEFICIARIES CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, LABOR UNIONS, BANKS AND TRUST
COMPANIES AND OTHER PRAISEWORTHY ORGANIZATIONS, WITHOUT RENDERING THE
"STANDARD" ANY MORE VAGUE. 

"TO ASSIST IN SECURING ADEQUATE PRODUCTION OF COMMODITIES AND
FACILITIES;" 

HERE IS A PURPOSE WHICH SEEMS, TO SOME EXTENT AT LEAST, TO PERMIT THE
EASING OF PRICE RESTRICTIONS; FOR IT WOULD APPEAR THAT DIMINISHMENT OF
PRICE WOULD HARDLY ASSIST IN PROMOTING PRODUCTION.  THUS THE
ADMINISTRATOR, AND HE ALONE, IS TO BALANCE TWO COMPETING POLICIES AND
STRIKE THE HAPPY MEAN BETWEEN THEM.  WHO SHALL SAY HIS CONCLUSION IS SO
INDUBITABLY WRONG AS TO BE PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS "ARBITRARY OR
CAPRICIOUS." 

"TO PREVENT A POST EMERGENCY COLLAPSE OF VALUES;" 

THIS PURPOSE, OR "STANDARD," SEEMS TO PERMIT ADOPTION BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF ANY CONCEIVABLE POLICY.  I HAVE DIFFICULTY IN
ENVISAGING ANY PRICE POLICY IN SUPPORT OF WHICH SOME ECONOMIC DATA OR
OPINION COULD NOT BE CITED TO SHOW THAT IT WOULD TEND TO PREVENT POST
EMERGENCY COLLAPSE OF VALUES. 

THESE SEVEN PURPOSES MUST, I SUBMIT, BE CONSIDERED AS SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT.  ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE ADMINISTRATOR WHICH, IN HIS
JUDGMENT, PROMOTES ANY ONE OR MORE OF THEM IS WITHIN THE GRANTED
POWER.  IF, IN HIS JUDGMENT, ANY ACTION BY HIM IS NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ONE OR MORE OF THEM, THE ACT GIVES
SANCTION TO HIS ORDER OR REGULATION. 

REFLECTION WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT IN FACT THE ACT SETS NO LIMITS UPON
THE DISCRETION OR JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  HIS COMMISSION IS TO
TAKE ANY ACTION WITH RESPECT TO PRICES WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL PRESERVE
WHAT HE DEEMS A SOUND ECONOMY DURING THE EMERGENCY AND PREVENT WHAT HE
CONSIDERS TO BE A DISRUPTION OF SUCH A SOUND ECONOMY IN THE POSTWAR
PERIOD.  HIS JUDGMENT, FOUNDED, AS IT MAY BE, ON HIS STUDIES AND
INVESTIGATIONS, AS WELL AS OTHER ECONOMIC DATA, EVEN THOUGH CONTRARY TO
THE GREAT WEIGHT OF CURRENT OPINION OR AUTHORITY, IS THE FINAL
TOUCHSTONE OF THE VALIDITY OF HIS ACTION.    I SHALL NOT REPEAT WHAT I
HAVE SAID IN BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, POST, P. 503.  I HAVE THERE QUOTED
THE SO-CALLED STANDARDS PRESCRIBED IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY
ACT.  COMPARISON OF THEM WITH THOSE OF THE PRESENT ACT, AND PERUSAL OF
WHAT WAS SAID CONCERNING THEM IN SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 495, LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE DECISION IS NOW OVERRULED.  THERE,
AS HERE, THE "CODE" OR REGULATION, TO BECOME EFFECTIVE, HAD TO BE FOUND
BY THE EXECUTIVE TO "TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY" OF THE ACT.  (SEE
FOOTNOTE 3, P. 521.) 

THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PROCEDURE. 

I HAVE NOT YET SPOKEN OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS RESPECTING THE
PERMISSIBLE PROCEDURE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IN IMPOSING PRICES.  SEC.
202(A)(50 U.S.C. SEC. 922(A)) AUTHORIZES HIM TO MAKE SUCH STUDIES AND
INVESTIGATIONS AND TO OBTAIN SUCH INFORMATION AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY OR
PROPER TO ASSIST HIM IN PRESCRIBING ANY REGULATION OR ORDER, OR IN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT AND REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND
PRICE SCHEDULES THEREUNDER.  THE REMAINING SUBSECTIONS GIVE HIM BROAD
POWERS TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.  AND HE MAY TAKE OFFICIAL
NOTICE OF ECONOMIC DATA AND OTHER FACTS, INCLUDING FACTS FOUND AS A
RESULT OF HIS INVESTIGATIONS AND STUDIES (SEC. 203(B), 50 U.S.C. SEC.
923(B)). 

EACH REGULATION OR ORDER MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A "STATEMENT OF THE
CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED" IN ITS ISSUE (SEC. 2(A), 50 U.S.C. SEC.
902(A)).  THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OR FINDING OF FACT.  WEBSTER DEFINES
THE TERM "CONSIDERATION" AS "THAT WHICH IS, OR SHOULD BE, CONSIDERED AS
A GROUND OF OPINION OR ACTION; MOTIVE; REASON."  THE CITIZEN,
THEREFORE, IS MERELY TO BE ADVISED OF THE REASONS FOR THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION. 

HOW IS HE TO PROCEED IF HE DESIRES TO CHALLENGE THAT ACTION?  THE
ANSWER IS FOUND IN SEC. 203(50 U.S.C. SEC. 923).  WITHIN A SPECIFIED
TIME AFTER THE ISSUE OF A REGULATION ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO ANY
PROVISION OF IT MAY FILE A PROTEST "SPECIFICALLY SETTING FORTH
OBJECTIONS TO ANY SUCH PROVISION AND AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER WRITTEN
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH OBJECTIONS."  THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY RECEIVE
STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE REGULATIONS AND INCORPORATE THEM IN HIS
PROCEEDINGS.  WITHIN A TIME FIXED HE MUST (1) GRANT OR DENY THE PROTEST
IN WHOLE OR IN PART, (2) NOTE IT FOR HEARING, OR (3) PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT FURTHER EVIDENCE.  HIS IS THE CHOICE. 

IF HE DENIES THE PROTEST IN WHOLE OR IN PART HE MUST INFORM THE
PROTESTANT OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH HIS DECISION WAS BASED AND OF ANY
ECONOMIC DATA OR OTHER FACTS OF WHICH HE HAS TAKEN OFFICIAL NOTICE. 

THIS, THEN, IS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY THE PROTESTANT HAS TO KNOW ON
WHAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS BASED HIS "CONSIDERATIONS" OR REASONS FOR
ACTION.  AS THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS HELD IN LAKEMORE CO. V.
BROWN, 137 F.2D 355:  FN2 

"THUS, CONSISTENTLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THE ADMINISTRATOR
COULD HAVE WAITED UNTIL HE HAD ENTERED HIS ORDER DENYING THE PROTEST
BEFORE INFORMING THE PROTESTANT OF THE ECONOMIC DATA OF WHICH HE HAD
TAKEN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND OF THE ECONOMIC CONCLUSIONS WHICH HE HAD
DERIVED THEREFROM AND THE OTHER GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE DENIAL WAS
BASED." 

AND IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT, AFTER SEEING THE PROTESTANT'S
AFFIDAVITS AND THE EVIDENCE, THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY LOAD THE RECORD WITH
ALL SORTS OF MATERIAL, ARTICLES, OPINIONS, COMPILATIONS, AND WHAT NOT -
PURE HEARSAY - SUBJECT TO NO CROSS-EXAMINATION, TO PERSUADE THE COURT
THAT HIS ORDER COULD, "IN HIS JUDGMENT," PROMOTE ONE OF THE "PURPOSES"
OF THE ACT. 

THUS IS THE "RECORD" WEIGHTED AGAINST FORMAL COMPLAINT IN COURT. 

CHATLOS V. BROWN, 136 F.2D 490, SPAETH V. BROWN, 137 F.2D 669, AND
BIBB MANUFACTURING CO. V. BOWLES, 140 F.2D 459, AMONGST OTHER CASES,
INDICATE THE SORT OF DATA - ALTHOUGH THEY DO NOT EXCLUDE THE USE OF
OTHER SORTS - ON WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR SEEMS TO BE ACCUSTOMED, AND TO
BE ENTITLED, TO ACT.  HE NEED MAKE NO FINDINGS OF FACT. 

                  THE COURT REVIEW. 

THE PROTESTANT WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DENIAL OR PARTIAL DENIAL OF
HIS PROTEST MAY, WITHIN A SET TIME, FILE A COMPLAINT WITH A SPECIALLY
CREATED EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS "SPECIFYING HIS OBJECTIONS AND
PRAYING THAT THE REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE PROTESTED BE
ENJOINED OR SET ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART."  THE COURT IS GIVEN
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND ALL OTHER COURTS ARE FORBIDDEN TO TAKE
JURISDICTION TO GRANT SUCH RELIEF.  THE COURT MAY SET ASIDE THE ORDER,
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, OR REMAND THE PROCEEDING.  UPON THE FILING AND
SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT, THE ADMINISTRATOR IS TO CERTIFY AND FILE A
TRANSCRIPT OF SUCH PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM AS ARE
MATERIAL TO THE COMPLAINT (SEC. 204(A); 50 U.S.C. SEC. 924(A)). 

THE SECTION PROCEEDS: 

"NO OBJECTION TO SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE, AND NO
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ANY OBJECTION THERETO, SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY
THE COURT, UNLESS SUCH OBJECTION SHALL HAVE BEEN SET FORTH BY THE
COMPLAINANT IN THE PROTEST OR SUCH EVIDENCE SHALL BE CONTAINED IN THE
TRANSCRIPT.  IF APPLICATION IS MADE TO THE COURT BY EITHER PARTY FOR
LEAVE TO INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS EITHER OFFERED TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND NOT ADMITTED, OR WHICH COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE BEEN
OFFERED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OR INCLUDED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS, AND THE COURT DETERMINES THAT SUCH EVIDENCE SHOULD BE
ADMITTED, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL PROMPTLY RECEIVE THE SAME, AND
SUCH OTHER EVIDENCE AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY OR PROPER, AND THEREUPON HE
SHALL CERTIFY AND FILE WITH THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT THEREOF AND ANY
MODIFICATION MADE IN THE REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE AS A
RESULT THEREOF; EXCEPT THAT ON REQUEST BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, ANY SUCH
EVIDENCE SHALL BE PRESENTED DIRECTLY TO THE COURT." 

IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO PICTURE THE PLIGHT OF THE PROTESTANT.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS, WITHOUT MORE, CONSTITUTES
PROOF IN THE CAUSE. 

IN MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. BOWLES, 138 F.2D 669, THE ADMINISTRATOR
IN HIS STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS SAID THAT HE TOOK OFFICIAL NOTICE OF
THREE PROPOSITIONS OF THE MOST GENERAL SCOPE.  NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
OF THESE OR OF ANY OTHER FACTS UPON WHICH HE RELIED WAS INCLUDED IN THE
TRANSCRIPT.  THE COMPLAINANT SUGGESTED TO THE COURT THE OMISSION OF
PERTINENT MATTER, NAMELY, THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITIONS
OF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR SAID HE TOOK OFFICIAL NOTICE, THE EVIDENCE
OF VARIOUS OTHER ASSERTIONS OF FACT IN HIS OPINION, AND THE PARTICULAR
FACTS AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH HE BASED THE CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED IN HIS
STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT "THE MAXIMUM PRICES ESTABLISHED IN
THIS REGULATION ARE FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  THE ADMINISTRATOR OBJECTED TO
THE SUGGESTION AND THE COURT REJECTED IT.  IT WAS HELD THAT THE ACT
REQUIRES "ONLY A SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE BASIC FACTS WHICH JUSTIFY THE
REGULATION." 

REFERRING TO SEC. 204(B), 50 U.S.C. SEC. 924(B), THE COURT HELD THAT
THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMPLAINANT MUST ESTABLISH "TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE COURT" THAT THE REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE
SCHEDULE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR IS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS
THROWS UPON THE PROTESTANT THE BURDEN "TO BRING FORWARD AND
SATISFACTORILY PROVE THE INVALIDATING FACTS," AND ADDED:  "UNLESS AND
UNTIL HE DOES SO THE REGULATION IS TO BE TAKEN AS VALID AND THE
EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF FACTS WHICH JUSTIFY IT IS TO BE ASSUMED WITHOUT
THE NECESSITY OF PROOF THEREOF BY THE ADMINISTRATOR." 

THE COURT ADDED THAT THE PROTESTANT IS GIVEN MEANS OF CARRYING THIS
BURDEN BY FILING AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE, BUT OMITS TO REFER TO
THE FACT THAT THESE AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE MUST BE ADDRESSED TO
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER AND HIS MOST GENERAL AND SWEEPING STATEMENT
OF CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH MERELY MEANS HIS REASONS FOR MAKING THE
ORDER.  THESE AFFIDAVITS AND THIS EVIDENCE UNDER THE PROCEDURE
PRESCRIBED ARE TO BE PUT IN BEFORE THE PROTESTANT EVEN KNOWS WHAT DATA
THE ADMINISTRATOR RELIED UPON OR SEES THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OPINION
DENYING HIS PROTEST.  IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO DILATE UPON THE BURDEN
THUS PLACED ON A PROTESTANT OR THE EXTENT TO WHICH HE IS COMPELLED TO
FILL THE RECORD WITH WHAT HE MAY THINK RELEVANT MATTER ONLY TO FIND
THAT HE HAS BEEN SHOOTING AT STRAWS.  THE COURT FURTHER ADVERTED TO THE
FACT THAT THE ACT PERMITS THE PROTESTANT TO STATE IN DETAIL IN
CONNECTION WITH HIS PROTEST THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF ANY FURTHER
EVIDENCE NOT SUBJECT TO HIS CONTROL UPON WHICH HE BELIEVES HE CAN RELY
IN SUPPORT OF THE FACTS ALLEGED IN HIS PROTEST.  HERE AGAIN THE
PROTESTANT IS UNDER THE SAME HANDICAP.  HE MUST DISCLOSE ALL HE HAS IN
MIND TO THE ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR MAKES ANY DISCLOSURE
TO HIM OF THE FACTS AND DATA UPON WHICH THAT OFFICIAL HAS RELIED. 

FINALLY THE COURT REFERS TO THE PRIVILEGE GIVEN THE PROTESTANT TO
FILE A BRIEF WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND TO "REQUEST AN ORAL HEARING,"
WITHOUT MENTIONING THE FACTS THAT THE BRIEF CAN BE ADDRESSED ONLY TO
THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION, AND THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS AT LIBERTY TO DENY THE REQUEST. 

A PROCEDURE BETTER DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE MAKING OF AN ISSUE BETWEEN
PARTIES CAN HARDLY BE CONCEIVED. 

AND THE EXTENT OF THE BURDEN IS FURTHER EMPHASIZED BY WHAT THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS HAS SAID IN LAKEMORE CO. V. BROWN, SUPRA: 

"IT IS OBJECTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR THUS IN EFFECT HAS PREJUDGED
THE CASE; THAT AS WITNESS, IMMUNE FROM CROSS-EXAMINATION, HE HAS
RENDERED AN OPINION WHICH CONCLUDES THE MATTER WHICH IS BEFORE HIM AS
JUDGE. 

"THIS OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR, FROM THE NECESSITIES
OF THE CASE, DOES NOT COME WITH A VIRGIN MIND TO THE CONSIDERATION OF A
PROTEST.  HE HAS PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED THE OFFICIAL ACT OF ISSUING THE
REGULATION, THE TERMS OF WHICH OF COURSE REFLECT HIS CONCLUSIONS ON
MANY ECONOMIC, ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL QUESTIONS.  IN THIS SENSE, HE
NECESSARILY APPROACHES CONSIDERATION OF A PROTEST WITH CERTAIN
'PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS' - TO USE COMPLAINANT'S PHRASE.  IT IS THE OBJECT
OF THE PROTEST PROCEDURE TO GIVE THE ADMINISTRATOR A CHANCE TO
RECONSIDER ANY CHALLENGED PROVISIONS IN THE REGULATION IN THE LIGHT OF
FURTHER EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS WHICH MAY BE ADVANCED BY THE PROTESTANT. 
WHAT THE ADMINISTRATOR DID HERE WAS TO LAY HIS CARDS ON THE TABLE IN
THE PROTEST PROCEEDINGS, OFFERING PROTESTANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY ITS
TRUMP CARDS, IF IT HAD ANY. 

"OF COURSE SUCH STATEMENTS OF ECONOMIC CONCLUSIONS THUS INCORPORATED
IN THE RECORD ARE NOT 'EVIDENCE.'  SECTION 204(A) REQUIRES THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROTEST PROCEEDINGS, FILED IN THIS COURT, TO 'INCLUDE
A STATEMENT SETTING FORTH, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE ECONOMIC DATA AND
OTHER FACTS OF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS TAKEN OFFICIAL NOTICE.' 
INSOFAR AS ANY ECONOMIC GENERALIZATIONS OR CONCLUSIONS FORMULATED BY
THE ADMINISTRATOR CONSTITUTE INDISPENSABLE STEPS IN HIS PROCESS OF
REASONING IN DENYING THE PROTEST, IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO SAY WHETHER
THEY HAVE ANY RATIONAL BASIS, IN PERFORMANCE OF OUR STATUTORY DUTY TO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE REGULATION OR ORDER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE IN WHOLE
OR IN PART AS BEING 'ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.'  THIS IS SO, WHETHER THE
ADMINISTRATOR INCLUDES SUCH GENERALIZATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN HIS
OPINION ACCOMPANYING THE DENIAL OF THE PROTEST OR, AS IN THIS CASE,
INCORPORATES THEM INTO THE RECORD OF THE PROTEST PROCEEDINGS AT AN
EARLIER STAGE IN ORDER TO AFFORD PROTESTANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
REBUTTAL." 

TO THIS MAY BE ADDED WHAT THE EMERGENCY COURT SAID IN MADISON PARK
CORP. V. BOWLES, 140 F.2D 316, 324: 

"WE DO NOT DECIDE THAT THIS COURT SHOULD LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE
TERM 'GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE' TO STANDARDS MENTIONED IN THE LAW
AND IN DISCUSSIONS OF ITS ENACTMENT WHILE PENDING IN CONGRESS.  IT MAY
BE POSSIBLE THAT A CASE WILL OCCUR IN WHICH THE EFFECT OF A REGULATION
ESTABLISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR CLEARLY WILL BE SHOWN TO BE GENERALLY
UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE ON GROUNDS NOT MENTIONED.  BUT IN SUCH A CASE
THE REASONS MUST BE CLEAR AND COMPELLING.  THE ACT PROVIDES THE
ADMINISTRATOR MAY ESTABLISH SUCH RENTS AS IN HIS JUDGMENT WILL BE
GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE.  REVIEW IN THIS COURT IS PLAINLY
LIMITED.  IT MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR, BUT MAY ACT IN REVIEW ONLY WHEN IT FINDS THE REGULATION
IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.  THUS IF
THE COURT FINDS ANY REASONABLE BASIS TO SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE
REGULATION DEALS FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY WITH THE INDUSTRY CONCERNED, THE
REGULATION MUST STAND." 

WHEN THESE CUMULATIVE BURDENS PLACED UPON THE PROTESTANT WHO SEEKS
REVIEW ARE FAIRLY APPRAISED IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT HE MUST CARRY AN
INSUPPORTABLE LOAD, AND THAT, IN TRUTH, THE COURT REVIEW IS A SOLEMN
FARCE IN WHICH THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, AND THIS COURT, ON
CERTIORARI, MUST GO THROUGH A SERIES OF MOTIONS WHICH LOOK LIKE
JUDICIAL REVIEW BUT IN FACT ARE NOTHING BUT A CATALOGUE OF REASONS WHY,
UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, THE COURTS ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAS EXCEEDED THE DISCRETION VESTED IN HIM. 

NO COURT IS COMPETENT, ON A MASS OF ECONOMIC OPINION CONSISTING OF
STUDIES BY SUBORDINATES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, CHARTS AND GRAPHS
PREPARED IN SUPPORT OF THE STUDIES, AND ECONOMIC ESSAYS GATHERED HITHER
AND YON, TO DEMONSTRATE, BEYOND DOUBT, THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS OR
CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR FROM SUCH MATERIAL CANNOT SUPPORT THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT THAT WHAT HE HAS DONE BY WAY OF REGULATION OR
PRICE SCHEDULE TENDS TO PREVENT POSTWAR COLLAPSE OF VALUES, OR TO
PREVENT DISSIPATION OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS THROUGH EXCESSIVE PRICES,
OR TO PREVENT IMPAIRMENT OF THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF PERSONS DEPENDENT
ON LIFE INSURANCE, OR TO PREVENT HARDSHIP TO SCHOOLS - TO ENUMERATE BUT
A FEW OF THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE ACT.    IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT,
IN THE THIRTY-ONE CASES DECIDED BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS OF
WHICH I HAVE FOUND REPORTS, COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN TWENTY
EIGHT, AND BUT THREE HAVE BEEN REMANDED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  FN3  TWO OF THE THREE INVOLVED NO QUESTION OF
MERITS UNDER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. 
THE WAR POWER. 

THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS IN TAYLOR V. BROWN, 137 F.2D 654,
OVERRULED A CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ACT'S
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR BY INVOCATION OF
THE "WAR POWER" OF CONGRESS, THE POWERS EMBODIED IN ARTICLE I, SEC. 8,
OF THE CONSTITUTION "TO DECLARE WAR," "TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES,"
"TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY," AND "TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE
NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION" THOSE POWERS.  AFTER
SHOWING, WHAT NEEDS NO ARGUMENT, THAT THESE POWERS OF CONGRESS ARE VERY
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE TO BE EXERCISED IN PEACE, THE COURT THEN - WITHOUT
A SIGN THAT IT REALIZES THE GREAT GAP IN THE PROCESS - ASSUMES THAT ONE
OF CONGRESS' WAR POWERS IS THE POWER TO TRANSFER ITS LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTION TO A DELEGATE.  BY THE SAME REASONING IT COULD CLOSE THIS
COURT OR TAKE AWAY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES OF THE PRESIDENT AS
"WAR MEASURES." 

I AM NOT SURE HOW FAR THIS COURT'S PRESENT OPINION ADOPTS THE SAME
VIEW.  THERE ARE REFERENCES IN IT TO THE WAR EMERGENCY, AND YET THE
REASONING AND THE AUTHORITIES CITED SEEM TO INDICATE THAT THE
DELEGATION WOULD BE GOOD IN PEACETIME AND IN RESPECT OF PEACETIME
ADMINISTRATION.  AND THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, IN SPITE OF ITS
DECISION IN TAYLOR V. BROWN, SUPRA, AND ITS STATEMENT IN PHILADELPHIA
COKE CO. V. BOWLES, 139 F.2D 349, THAT, AS THE ACT IS AN EXERCISE OF
THE WAR POWER AND THEREFORE DOES NOT DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, HAS, NEVERTHELESS, WEIGHED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
AS AGAINST THE GUARANTY OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN WILSON V. BROWN, 137
F.2D 348, AND IN AVANT V. BOWLES, 139 F.2D 702. 

I AM SURE THAT MY BRETHREN, NO MORE THAN I, WOULD SAY THAT CONGRESS
MAY SET ASIDE THE CONSTITUTION DURING WAR.  IF NOT, MAY IT SUSPEND ANY
OF ITS PROVISIONS?  THE QUESTION DESERVES A FAIR ANSWER.  MY VIEW IS
THAT IT MAY NOT SUSPEND ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INSTRUMENT.  WHAT
ANY OF THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT DO IN WAR MUST FIND WARRANT IN THE
CHARTER AND NOT IN ITS NULLIFICATION, EITHER DIRECTLY OR STEALTHILY BY
EVASION AND EQUIVOCATION.  BUT IF THE COURT PUTS ITS DECISION ON THE
WAR POWER I THINK IT SHOULD SAY SO.  THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY WILL
THEN KNOW THAT IN WAR THE FUNCTION OF LEGISLATION MAY BE SURRENDERED TO
AN AUTOCRAT WHOSE "JUDGMENT" WILL CONSTITUTE THE LAW; AND THAT HIS
JUDGMENT WILL BE ENFORCED BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS PURSUANT TO CIVIL
JUDGMENTS, AND CRIMINAL PUNISHMENTS WILL BE IMPOSED BY COURTS AS
MATTERS OF ROUTINE. 

IF, ON THE CONTRARY, SUCH A DELEGATION AS IS HERE DISCLOSED IS TO BE
SUSTAINED EVEN IN PEACETIME, WE SHOULD KNOW IT. 

FN1  THE ACT GIVES THE ADMINISTRATOR NO POWER WITH RESPECT TO WAGES,
AND LIMITS HIS POWERS AS RESPECTS FISHERY COMMODITIES (50 U.S.C. SEC.
902(I)), AND AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES (50 U.S.C. SEC. 903). 

FN2  IN CITING CASES DECIDED BY THAT COURT, I DO SO WITH NO THOUGHT
THAT IN CONSTRUING THE ACT'S PROVISIONS THAT COURT HAS ERRED.  ON THE
CONTRARY, I CITE ITS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE STATUTE AS SUPPORTING MY
VIEWS THAT, AS PROPERLY CONSTRUED, THE ACT IS INVALID. 

FN3  ARMOUR & CO. V. BROWN, 137 F.2D 233; MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V.
BOWLES, 138 F.2D 669; HILLCREST TERRACE CORP. V. BROWN, 137 F.2D 663. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING: 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES. 
BUT I AM UNABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE TRIAL AFFORDED THE PETITIONERS
CONFORMED TO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  THE MATTER IS OF SUCH
IMPORTANCE AS REQUIRES A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DISSENT. 

THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL LEGISLATION IS UNUSUAL, IF NOT UNIQUE. 
IT IS STREAMLINED LAW IN BOTH SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE.  MORE THAN ANY
OTHER LEGISLATION EXCEPT PERHAPS THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT, IN THE
COMBINED EFFECT OF ITS PROVISIONS IT ATTENUATES THE RIGHTS OF AFFECTED
INDIVIDUALS.  THE CONGRESS REGARDED THIS AS NECESSARY, THOUGH IT SOUGHT
TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AS IT FELT WAS CONSISTENT WITH
CONTROLLING WARTIME INFLATION.  TO THAT JUDGMENT WE OWE ALL DEFERENCE,
SAVING ONLY WHAT WE OWE TO THE CONSTITUTION. 

WAR SUCH AS WE NOW FIGHT CALLS INTO PLAY THE FULL POWER OF GOVERNMENT
IN EXTREME EMERGENCY.  IT COMPELS INVENTION OF LEGAL, AS OF MARTIAL
TOOLS ADEQUATE FOR THE TIMES' NECESSITY.  INEVITABLY SOME WILL BE
STRANGE, IF ALSO LIFESAVING, INSTRUMENTS FOR A PEOPLE ACCUSTOMED TO
PEACE AND THE NORMAL WORKING OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  CITIZENS
MUST SURRENDER OR FOREGO EXERCISING RIGHTS WHICH IN OTHER TIMES COULD
NOT BE IMPAIRED.  BUT NOT ALL ARE LOST.  WAR EXPANDS THE NATION'S
POWER.  BUT IT DOES NOT SUSPEND THE JUDICIAL DUTY TO GUARD WHATEVER
LIBERTIES WILL NOT IMPERIL THE PARAMOUNT NATIONAL INTEREST. 

         I. 

JUDGED BY NORMAL PEACETIME STANDARDS, OVER-ALL NATIONWIDE PRICE
CONTROL HARDLY HAS ACCEPTED PLACE IN OUR INSTITUTIONS.  NOTWITHSTANDING
THE CONSIDERABLE EXPANSION OF RECENT YEARS IN THIS RESPECT, THE
EXTENSION HAS BEEN PIECEMEAL.  FN1  UNTIL NOW IT HAS NOT ENVELOPED THE
ENTIRE ECONOMY.  FN2  WHETHER CONTROL SO EXTENSIVE MIGHT BE UPHELD IN
SOME EMERGENCY NOT CREATED BY WAR NEED NOT NOW BE DECIDED.  THAT IT CAN
BE SUPPORTED IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR THE DECLARED PURPOSES
THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT.  IT IS ENOUGH, AS THE COURT POINTS OUT, THAT
LEGAL FOUNDATION EXISTS IN THE NATION'S POWER TO MAKE WAR, AS THIS HAS
BEEN GIVEN TO CONGRESS AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE.  CF. HIRABAYASHI V.
UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81.  FN3 

THE FOUNDATION HAS RELEVANCE FOR EACH OF THE ISSUES.  AND GENERALLY
IT HAS SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE APPLICATION OF PEACETIME PRECEDENTS. 
DECISIONS MADE THEN WITH LIMITATIONS, EXPLICIT OR IMPLIED, NOT AFFECTED
BY INFLUENCE OF THE WAR POWER AND THE CONDITIONS OF A STATE OF WAR,
CANNOT BE WHOLLY CONCLUSIVE IN THEIR LIMITING EFFECT UPON THE EXERCISE
OF WAR-MAKING AUTHORITY.  CARE MUST BE TAKEN THEREFORE, IN APPLYING
THEM, BOTH TO SEE THAT THEY ARE OBSERVED SO FAR AS THE DOMINANT
NECESSITY PERMITS AND TO BE EQUALLY SURE THEY ARE NOT MISAPPLIED TO
HAMSTRING ESSENTIAL AUTHORITY.  FN4 

AS IT IS WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTROL, SO IT IS WITH DELEGATING
LEGISLATIVE POWER.  WAR BEGETS NECESSITIES FOR THIS, AS FOR IMPOSING
SUBSTANTIVE CONTROLS, NOT REQUIRED BY THE LESSER EXIGENCIES OF MORE
NORMAL PERIODS.  IN THIS RESPECT CERTAINLY THERE IS AS MUCH ROOM FOR
DIFFERENCE AS EXISTS WHEN CONGRESS IS DEALING WHOLLY WITH INTERNAL
MATTERS AND WHEN IT IS ACTING WITH THE PRESIDENT ABOUT FOREIGN
AFFAIRS.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., 299 U.S.
304.  NOT ONLY THE BROADER POWER OF CONGRESS, BUT ITS CONJUNCTION IN
THE PARTICULAR DELEGATION WITH THE WIDER AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT,
BOTH AS CHIEF MAGISTRATE AND AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, GOES TO SUSTAIN THE
GREATER DELEGATION.  CF. HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  BUT THE
PRESENT LEGISLATION, AS THE COURT'S OPINION DEMONSTRATES, DOES NOT GO
BEYOND THE LIMITS ALLOWED BY PEACETIME PRECEDENTS IN THE SUBSTANTIVE
DELEGATION.  FN5

      II. 

MY DIFFICULTY ARISES FROM THE ACT'S PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS.  THEY TOO
ARE UNUSUAL.  THAT IS TRUE, THOUGH EACH SAVE ONE HAS BEEN USED BEFORE,
AND SUSTAINED, IN SEPARATE APPLICATIONS.  NO PREVIOUS LEGISLATION HAS
PRESENTED QUITE THIS COMBINATION OF PROCEDURAL DEVICES.  FN6  IN THE
COMBINATION, IF IN NOTHING MORE, UNIQUE QUALITY WOULD BE FOUND.  BUT
THERE IS MORE. 

CONGRESS SOUGHT TO ACCOMPLISH TWO PROCEDURAL OBJECTIVES.  ONE WAS TO
AFFORD A NARROW BUT SUFFICIENT METHOD FOR SECURING REVIEW AND REVISION
OF THE REGULATIONS.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE ACT CREATED BROAD AND READY
METHODS FOR ENFORCEMENT.  THE SHORT EFFECT OF THE PROCEDURE IS TO GIVE
THE INDIVIDUAL A SINGLE CHANNEL FOR QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A
REGULATION, THROUGH THE PROTEST PROCEDURE AND THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS, WITH REVIEW OF ITS DECISIONS HERE ON CERTIORARI.  SEC. 204. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE VARIED AND WIDELY AVAILABLE MEANS FOR
ENFORCEMENT INCLUDE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, SUITS IN EQUITY, AND SUITS
FOR RECOVERY OF CIVIL PENALTIES, IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS AND IN
THE STATE COURTS.  SEC. 205(A), (B), (C).  SEE ALSO SEC. 205(D), (E),
(F).  FN7  AND IN ALL THESE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS THE MANDATE OF SEC.
204(D) IS THAT THE COURT SHALL HAVE NO "JURISDICTION OR POWER TO
CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF" A REGULATION, ORDER OR PRICE SCHEDULE.  THE
STATUTE THUS AFFORDS THE INDIVIDUAL, TO QUESTION A REGULATION'S
VALIDITY, ONE ROUTE AND THAT A VERY NARROW ONE, OPEN ONLY BRIEFLY.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND OTHERS, TO ENFORCE IT, HAVE MANY.  AND IN THE
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ISSUES ARE CUT DOWN SO THAT, IN A PRACTICAL
SENSE, LITTLE ELSE THAN THE FACT WHETHER A VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION
AS WRITTEN HAS OCCURRED OR IS THREATENED MAY BE INQUIRED INTO.  FN8 

DISPARITY IN REMEDIAL AND PENAL MEASURES DOES NOT NECESSARILY
INVALIDATE THE PROCEDURE, THOUGH IT HAS RELEVANCE TO ADEQUACY OF THE
REMEDY ALLOWED THE INDIVIDUAL.  FN9  CONGRESS HAS BROAD DISCRETION TO
OPEN AND CLOSE THE DOORS TO LITIGATION.  IN DOING SO IT MAY TAKE
ACCOUNT OF THE NECESSITIES PRESENTED BY SUCH A SITUATION AS IT WAS
DEALING WITH HERE.  TO FOLLOW THE USUAL COURSE OF LEGISLATION AND
PERMIT CHALLENGE BY RESTRAINING ORDERS, INJUNCTIONS, STAY ORDERS AND
THE NORMAL PROCESSES OF LITIGATION WOULD HAVE BEEN, IN THIS CASE, TO
LOCK THE BARN DOOR AFTER THE HORSE HAD BEEN STOLEN.  THERE WAS
THEREFORE COMPELLING REASON FOR CONGRESS TO BALANCE THE SCALES OF
LITIGATION UNEVENLY, IF ONLY IT DID NOT GO TOO FAR.  IN NO OTHER WAY
COULD IT PROTECT THE PARAMOUNT NATIONAL INTEREST.  IF THE RESULT,
WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE LIMITS, IS HARSH OR INCONVENIENT FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL, THAT IS BUT PART OF THE PRICE HE, WITH ALL OTHERS, MUST PAY
FOR LIVING IN A NATION WHICH ORDINARILY GIVES HIM SO MUCH OF PROTECTION
BUT IN A WORLD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ORGANIZED TO GIVE IT SECURITY AGAINST
EVENTS SO DISRUPTIVE OF DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES. 

I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY WITH THE PROVISION WHICH CONFERS JURISDICTION
UPON THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF PRICE
REGULATIONS OR, IF THAT HAD BEEN ALL, WITH THE MANDATE WHICH MAKES ITS
JURISDICTION IN THAT RESPECT EXCLUSIVE.  EQUALLY CLEAR IS THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO DEPRIVE THE OTHER FEDERAL COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO ISSUE
STAY ORDERS, RESTRAINING ORDERS, INJUNCTIONS OR OTHER RELIEF TO PREVENT
THE OPERATION OF PRICE REGULATIONS OR TO SET THEM ASIDE.  SO MUCH MAY
BE RESTED ON CONGRESS' PLENARY AUTHORITY TO DEFINE AND CONTROL THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, SEC. 2;
LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182.  IT MAY BE TAKEN TOO, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, THAT CONGRESS' POWER TO CHANNEL ENFORCEMENT OF
FEDERAL AUTHORITY THROUGH THE FEDERAL COURTS SUSTAINS THE LIKE
PROHIBITIONS IT HAS PLACED ON THE STATE COURTS.  FN10  WITHOUT MORE,
THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS WOULD SEEM TO BE UNQUESTIONABLY WITHIN THE
CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  CF. MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303
U.S. 41. 

CONGRESS HOWEVER WAS NOT CONTENT TO CREATE A SINGLE NATIONAL
TRIBUNAL, GIVE IT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ALL CASES ARISING
UNDER THE STATUTE, AND DENY JURISDICTION OVER THEM TO ALL OTHER
COURTS.  FN11  IT PROVIDED FOR ENFORCEMENT BY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS AND IN THE STATE COURTS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. 

THIS, TOO, IT COULD DO, THOUGH ONLY IF ADEQUATE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, WERE AUTHORIZED.  AND I AGREE THAT THE ENFORCING
JURISDICTION WOULD NOT BE MADE INADEQUATE MERELY BY THE FACT THAT NO
STAY ORDER OR OTHER RELIEF COULD BE HAD PENDING THE OUTCOME OF
LITIGATION.  CONFRONTED AS THE NATION WAS WITH THE IMMINENT DANGER OF
INFLATION AND THEREFORE THE NECESSITY THAT PRICE CONTROLS SHOULD BECOME
EFFECTIVE AT ONCE AND CONTINUE SO WITHOUT INTERRUPTION AT LEAST UNTIL
INVALIDATED IN PARTICULAR INSTANCES, CONGRESS COULD REQUIRE INDIVIDUALS
TO SUSTAIN, IN DEFERENCE TO THE PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST, WHATEVER
HARM MIGHT ENSUE DURING THE PERIOD OF LITIGATION AND UNTIL EACH HAD
DEMONSTRATED THE INVALIDITY OF THE REGULATION AS IT AFFECTED HIMSELF. 
FN12  RUNAWAY INFLATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IN ANY OTHER WAY. 
THE LID HAD TO GO ON, GO ON TIGHT AND STAY TIGHT.  THIS NECESSITY
UNITED WITH THE GENERAL PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY WHICH ATTACHES TO
LEGISLATION  FN13  AND CONGRESS' POWER TO CONTROL THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURTS TO SUSTAIN ITS DENIAL OF POWER TO ALL COURTS, INCLUDING THE
ENFORCING COURTS, THE EMERGENCY COURT AND THIS ONE,  FN14  TO SUSPEND
OPERATION OF THE REGULATIONS PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY. 

THE CRUX OF THIS CASE COMES, AS I SEE IT, IN THE QUESTION WHETHER
CONGRESS CAN CONFER JURISDICTION UPON FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IN THE
ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS, MORE PARTICULARLY THE CRIMINAL SUIT, AND AT
THE SAME TIME DENY THEM "JURISDICTION OR POWER TO CONSIDER THE
VALIDITY" OF THE REGULATIONS FOR WHICH ENFORCEMENT IS THUS SOUGHT. 
THIS QUESTION WHICH THE COURT NOW SAYS "PRESENTS NO NOVEL
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE" WAS EXPRESSLY AND CAREFULLY RESERVED IN LOCKERTY
V. PHILLIPS, SUPRA.  THE PROHIBITION IS THE STATUTE'S MOST NOVEL
FEATURE.  IN COMBINATION WITH OTHERS IT GIVES THE PROCEDURE A
CULMINATING SUMMARY TOUCH AND PRESENTS QUESTIONS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
ARISING FROM THE OTHER FEATURES.    THE PROHIBITION IS UNQUALIFIED.  IT
MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN REGULATIONS INVALID ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS AND OTHERS MERELY DEPARTING IN SOME RESPECT FROM STATUTORY
LIMITATIONS, WHICH CONGRESS MIGHT WAIVE, OR BY THE CRITERION WHETHER
INVALIDITY APPEARS ON THE FACE OF THE REGULATION OR ONLY BY PROOF OF
FACTS.  IF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT ARE TO FORBID THE ENFORCING COURT TO
CONSIDER ALL QUESTIONS OF VALIDITY AND THUS TO REQUIRE IT TO ENFORCE
REGULATIONS WHICH ARE OR MAY BE INVALID FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS,
DOUBT ARISES IN TWO RESPECTS.  FIRST, BROAD AS IS CONGRESS' POWER TO
CONFER OR WITHHOLD JURISDICTION, THERE HAS BEEN NONE HERETOFORE TO
CONFER IT AND AT THE SAME TIME DEPRIVE THE PARTIES AFFECTED OF
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL IN QUESTION IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL WHETHER THE LAW, BE
IT STATUTE OR REGULATION,  FN15  UPON WHICH THE JURISDICTION IS
EXERCISED SQUARES WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW.  NOR HAS IT BEEN HELD THAT
CONGRESS CAN FORBID A COURT INVESTED WITH THE JUDICIAL POWER UNDER
ARTICLE III TO CONSIDER THIS QUESTION, WHEN CALLED UPON TO GIVE EFFECT
TO A STATUTORY OR OTHER MANDATE. 

IT IS ONE THING FOR CONGRESS TO WITHHOLD JURISDICTION.  IT IS
ENTIRELY ANOTHER TO CONFER IT AND DIRECT THAT IT BE EXERCISED IN A
MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR, WHAT IN SOME
INSTANCES MAY BE THE SAME THING, WITHOUT REGARD TO THEM.  ONCE IT IS
HELD THAT CONGRESS CAN REQUIRE THE COURTS CRIMINALLY TO ENFORCE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS OR STATUTES, INCLUDING REGULATIONS, OR TO DO SO
WITHOUT REGARD FOR THEIR VALIDITY, THE WAY WILL HAVE BEEN FOUND TO
CIRCUMVENT THE SUPREME LAW AND, WHAT IS MORE, TO MAKE THE COURTS
PARTIES TO DOING SO.  THIS CONGRESS CANNOT DO. THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE
JUDICIAL POWER.  CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE OTHERS.  AND IN SOME MATTERS
CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENT HAS FINAL SAY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  BUT
WHENEVER THE JUDICIAL POWER IS CALLED INTO PLAY, IT IS RESPONSIBLE
DIRECTLY TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW AND NO OTHER AUTHORITY CAN INTERVENE TO
FORCE OR AUTHORIZE THE JUDICIAL BODY TO DISREGARD IT.  THE PROBLEM
THEREFORE IS NOT SOLELY ONE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OR DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 
IT IS EQUALLY ONE OF THE SEPARATION AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE POWERS OF
GOVERNMENT AND OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS,
MORE ESPECIALLY IN CRIMINAL TRIALS. 

III. 

THE IDEA IS ENTIRELY NOVEL THAT REGULATIONS MAY HAVE A GREATER
IMMUNITY TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY THAN STATUTES HAVE, WITH RESPECT TO THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO REQUIRE THE COURTS TO ENFORCE THEM WITHOUT REGARD
TO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  AT A TIME WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ASSUMES MORE AND MORE OF THE LAW-MAKING FUNCTION,  FN16  IT WOULD SEEM
THE BALANCE OF ADVANTAGE, IF ANY, SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY.  BUT THERE
IS NONE.  THE STATUTE HAS IMPACT UPON INDIVIDUALS ONLY THROUGH THE
REGULATIONS.  THEY ARE IN EFFECT PART OF THE ACT ITSELF, UNLESS
INVALID.  IF INVALID, THEY RULE, JUST AS THE STATUTE DOES, UNTIL SET
ASIDE.  AND, IN RESPECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THEY HAVE NO
MORE IMMUNITY THAN THE STATUTE ITSELF.  FN17 

CLEARLY CONGRESS COULD NOT REQUIRE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
REGULATION.  AND IT IS CONCEDED THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE COMPELLED
JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF ALL PRICE REGULATIONS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR
VALIDITY, IF IT HAD NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY FOR ATTACK UPON THEM THROUGH
THE EMERGENCY COURT OR IF THAT OPPORTUNITY IS INADEQUATE.  BUT BECAUSE
THE OPPORTUNITY IS AFFORDED AND IS DEEMED ADEQUATE IN THE UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, AT ANY RATE FOR SOME OF ITS PURPOSES, AND BECAUSE IT WAS
NOT FOLLOWED, THE COURT HOLDS THAT CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT MUST BE GIVEN
AND THE ENFORCING COURT CANNOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY. 

IF I UNDERSTAND IT, THE ARGUMENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION, IN ITS
BROADEST FORM, RESTS UPON THE PROPOSITION THAT CONGRESS, BY PROVIDING
IN ONE PROCEEDING A CONSTITUTIONALLY ADEQUATE MODE FOR DECIDING UPON
THE VALIDITY OF A LAW OR REGULATION, AND REQUIRING THIS TO BE FOLLOWED
WITHIN A LIMITED TIME, CAN CUT OFF ALL OTHER RIGHT TO QUESTION IT AND
MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, OR THE FAILURE TO SECURE IT IN TIME,
CONCLUSIVE FOR ALL PURPOSES AND IN ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS.  THE
PROPOSITION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THAT BROAD FORM.  TO DO SO WOULD
MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, THAT IF IN THIS CASE A REGULATION HAD PRESCRIBED
ONE MAXIMUM PRICE FOR SALES BY MERCHANTS OF ONE RACE OR RELIGION AND A
LOWER ONE FOR DISTRIBUTORS OF ANOTHER, THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED
STATES WOULD HAVE TO BE EXERCISED TO CONVICT THE LATTER FOR SELLING AT
THE FORMERS' PRICE, IF THEY HAD NOT AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THE LIMITED
REVIEW AFFORDED BY THIS ACT.  IT HARDLY WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH
ACCEPTED IDEAS OF DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION FOR ANY COURT TO
IMPOSE PENALTY OR RESTRAINT IN SUCH A CASE.  FN18  AND I CANNOT IMAGINE
THIS COURT AS SUSTAINING SUCH A CONVICTION OR ANY OTHER AS IMPOSING IT.
FN19 

THE ILLUSTRATION IS EXTREME AND IMPROBABLE OF OCCURRENCE.  BUT IT
SERVES TO TEST THE BROAD CONTENTION.  SUCH A DOCTRINE ESTABLISHED AS
GENERALLY APPLICABLE WOULD CONTAIN SEEDS OF INFLUENCE TOO DANGEROUS FOR
ACCEPTANCE, MORE ESPECIALLY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CRIMINAL MATTERS. 
NO AUTHORITY COMPELS OR ENJOINS THIS.  AND I AM UNWILLING TO GIVE THE
IDEA ADHERENCE IN PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS WITHOUT STATING QUALIFICATION
WHICH CONFINES ITS POSSIBLE EFFECTS TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE GRAVEST
DANGERS TO THE NATION'S INTEREST EXIST AND CANNOT BE ESCAPED IN ANY
OTHER WAY. 

THE QUESTION NARROWS THEREFORE TO THE INQUIRY, IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES
AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS MAY CONGRESS, BY OFFERING THE INDIVIDUAL A
SINGLE CHANCE TO CHALLENGE A LAW OR AN ORDER, FORECLOSE FOR HIM ALL
FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION IT, THOUGH REQUIRING THE COURTS TO
ENFORCE IT BY CRIMINAL PROCESSES?  THIS QUESTION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
ONE IN THE CASE AND DEMANDS EXPLICIT ATTENTION.  "IT IS EASY ENOUGH TO
SAY THAT A PARTY HAS ENOUGH OF A REMEDY IF STATUTORY REVIEW OF THE
ORDER IS AVAILABLE AND IF HE DOES NOT CHOOSE TO EMPLOY THAT PROCEDURE
HE SHOULD BE FORECLOSED FROM RAISING ELSEWHERE THE QUESTIONS THAT COULD
HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THAT PROCEEDING."  FN20  BUT TO MAKE THIS EASY
ASSUMPTION IS AT ONCE TO DECIDE THE ROCKBOTTOM ISSUE AND, IN MY
OPINION, ONE THIS COURT HAS NOT DETERMINED HERETOFORE WITH EFFECTS UPON
THE CRIMINAL PROCESS LIKE THOSE PRODUCED IN THIS CASE.  FN21

              IV. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS AND FOR A VARIETY OF
REASONS A PERSON IS FORECLOSED FROM RAISING ISSUES, INCLUDING SOME
CONSTITUTIONAL ONES, WHERE HE HAS FAILED TO EXERCISE AN EARLIER
OPPORTUNITY.  THUS ORDINARILY ISSUES CANNOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL WHICH
WERE NOT PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL COURT.  AND A VARIANT IS THAT FEDERAL
QUESTIONS NOT RAISED IN THE STATE COURTS GENERALLY WILL NOT BE
CONSIDERED HERE.  FN22 

BUT SUCH INSTANCES OF FORECLOSURE, WHETHER LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL IN
ORIGIN, DO NOT SUPPORT THE BROADER BASIS OF ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE.  TWO
THINGS ARE TO BE EMPHASIZED.  ONE IS THAT THE PREVIOUS OPPORTUNITY IS
IN AN EARLIER PHASE OF THE SAME PROCEEDING, NOT AS HERE A SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT ONE OF WHOLLY DIFFERENT CHARACTER.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE
DETERMINATION OF GUILT OR OTHER MATTER ULTIMATELY IN ISSUE IS NOT CUT
UP INTO TWO SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS IN DIFFERENT
TRIBUNALS, IN WHICH NEITHER BODY HAS POWER TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE ALL
THE ISSUES, BUT EACH CAN DETERMINE THEM ONLY IN PART.  THE OTHER THING
FOR STRESS IS THAT THE FORECLOSURE BY FAILURE TO TAKE THE EARLIER
CHANCE IS NOT UNIVERSALLY EFFECTIVE.  AND THIS IS TRUE PARTICULARLY OF
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, SOME OF WHICH MAY BE RAISED AT ANY TIME. 
FN23  WHILE CONGRESS HAS PLENARY POWER TO CONFER OR WITHHOLD APPELLATE
JURISDICTION, CF. EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 7 WALL.  506, IT HAS NOT SO FAR
BEEN HELD, AND IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, THAT CONGRESS CAN CONFER IT, YET
DENY THE APPELLATE COURT "POWER TO CONSIDER" CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
RELATING TO THE LAW IN ISSUE. 

IF THE FORECLOSURE IS NOT ALWAYS EFFECTIVE WHEN THE EARLIER PHASE OF
LITIGATION IS WHOLLY JUDICIAL, IT HARDLY SHOULD BE WHEN THIS CONSISTS
OF ADMINISTRATIVE OR OF BOTH ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS,
STILL LESS WHEN THESE ARE CIVIL IN CHARACTER AND THE LATER ENFORCEMENT
PHASE IS CRIMINAL.  IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS THE
COURTS HAVE BEEN ASSIDUOUS, PERHAPS AT TIMES EXTREMELY SO,  FN24  TO
SEE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED ARE
OBSERVED.  BY TRIAL AND ERROR, WAYS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO GIVE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS SCOPE FOR EFFECTIVE ACTION AND YET TO MAINTAIN
INDIVIDUAL SECURITY AGAINST ABUSE, ESPECIALLY IN RESPECT TO
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  FN25  THE INSTANCES CLOSEST TO THE PROBLEM HERE
HAVE PROVIDED FOR ATTACHING PENALTIES, INCLUDING CRIMINAL SANCTIONS, TO
VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS.  BUT GENERALLY BY ONE METHOD OR ANOTHER MEANS
HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED FOR POSTPONING THEIR IMPACT, AT ANY RATE
IRREVOCABLY, UNTIL AFTER THE ORDER'S VALIDITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 
FN26  AND IN THAT EFFORT THIS COURT HAS JOINED.  FN27 

WHATEVER MAY BE THE LIMITATIONS ON JUDICIAL REVIEW IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS UNDER OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PATTERNS,  FN28  NO
ONE OF THESE ARRANGEMENTS GOES AS FAR AS THE COMBINATION PRESENTED BY
THIS ACT.  IT RESTRICTS THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO REVIEW TO THE PROTEST
PROCEDURE AND APPEAL THROUGH THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS BOTH ARE
SHORT-CUT PROCEEDINGS, TRIMMED ALMOST TO THE BONE OF DUE PROCESS, EVEN
FOR WHOLLY CIVIL PURPOSES, AND PARED DOWN FURTHER BY A SHORT STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  PROTEST MUST BE FILED WITHIN THE SIXTY-DAY PERIOD.  AFTER
THAT TIME, NO PROTEST CAN BE MADE AND NO REVIEW CAN BE HAD, EXCEPT UPON
GROUNDS ARISING LATER.  SEC. 203(A).  FN29  THE ONLY RIGHT IS TO SUBMIT
WRITTEN EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  SEC. 203(C). 
THERE IS NONE TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE COURT.  FN30
NECESSARILY THERE IS NONE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.  NO COURT CAN SUSPEND
THE ORDER UNLESS OR UNTIL A JUDGMENT OF THE EMERGENCY COURT
INVALIDATING IT BECOMES FINAL.  FN31  THE PENALTIES, CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL, ATTACH AT ONCE ON VIOLATION AND, IT WOULD SEEM, UNTIL THE
CONTRARY IS DECIDED, WITH FINALITY.  FN32  AT ANY RATE, THAT IS THE
STATUTE'S PURPORT.  IN SHORT, THE STATUTE AS DRAWN MAKES NOT ONLY THE
REGULATION BUT ALSO THE PENALTIES IMMEDIATELY AND FULLY EFFECTIVE
WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER PROTEST IS MADE, THE PROTEST PROCEEDING IS
CARRIED TO CONCLUSION, OR WHAT THE CONCLUSION MAY BE, EXCEPT, AND THIS
IS BY INFERENCE, THAT VIOLATION AFTER THE ORDER FINALLY IS HELD INVALID
MAY NOT BE PUNISHABLE. 

THIS IS THE SCOPE AND REACH OF THE STATUTE.  IT IS GREATER THAN ANY
THIS COURT HERETOFORE HAS SUSTAINED.  FN33  IT PLACES THE AFFECTED
INDIVIDUAL JUST WHERE THE COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE LAMAR IN
WADLEY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. GEORGIA, 235 U.S. 651, 662, SAID HE COULD
NOT BE PUT:  "HE MUST EITHER OBEY WHAT MAY FINALLY BE HELD TO BE A VOID
ORDER, OR DISOBEY WHAT MAY ULTIMATELY BE HELD TO BE A LAWFUL ORDER." 
YET THE COURT HOLDS THIS SPECIAL PROCEEDING "ADEQUATE" AND THEREFORE
EFFECTIVE TO FORECLOSE ALL OPPORTUNITY FOR DEFENSE IN A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION ON THE GROUND THE REGULATION IS VOID. 

THIS IS NO ANSWER.  A PROCEDURE SO SUMMARY, IMPOSING SUCH RISKS, DOES
NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS HERETOFORE CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL TO THE
DETERMINATION OR FORECLOSURE OF ISSUES MATERIAL TO GUILT IN CRIMINAL
CAUSES.  IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT FOLLOW THE
SPECIAL PROCEDURE.  THE VERY QUESTION, POSED IN THE COURT'S OWN TERMS,
IS WHETHER, IF THEY HAD FOLLOWED IT, THE REMEDY WOULD BE ADEQUATE
CONSTITUTIONALLY.  IT CANNOT BE, UNDER PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED IDEAS, IF
FOR ONE WHO FOLLOWS IT TO A FAVORABLE JUDGMENT THE PENALTY YET MAY
FALL.  THAT QUESTION THE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE.  UNLESS IT IS DECIDED,
THE QUESTION OF ADEQUACY, IN ANY SENSE HERETOFORE RECEIVED, HAS NOT
BEEN DETERMINED, OR AN ENTIRELY NEW CONCEPTION OF ADEQUACY HAS BEEN
APPROVED. 

            V. 

BUT THERE IS A DEEPER FAULT, EVEN IF WE ASSUME WHAT NEITHER THE
STATUTE NOR THE COURT'S OPINION TODAY JUSTIFIES, THAT A POTENTIAL
OFFENDER WHO SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
REGULATION OR BEGINS A CHALLENGE ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS IN THE
EMERGENCY COURT AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION,
CANNOT BE CONVICTED, AT LEAST UNTIL AFTER FINAL DECISION THAT THE ORDER
IS VALID.  THERE STILL REMAIN THOSE CASES WHERE HE HAS EITHER
CHALLENGED UNSUCCESSFULLY IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OR HAS NOT CHALLENGED
AT ALL.  IN THEM THE WOULD-BE OFFENDER IS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION WITHOUT A RIGHT TO QUESTION IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REGULATION ON WHICH HIS PROSECUTION AND
CONVICTION HINGE.  AND THIS SEEMS TO BE TRUE WITHOUT DISTINCTION AS TO
THE CHARACTER OF THE GROUND ON WHICH HE SEEKS TO MAKE THE ISSUE.  TO
SAY THAT THIS DOES NOT OPERATE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ON THE ACCUSED
BECAUSE HE HAS THE CHOICE OF REFRAINING FROM VIOLATION OR OF TESTING
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IN A CIVIL PROCEEDING BEFOREHAND ENTIRELY
MISSES THE POINT.  THE FACT IS THAT IF HE VIOLATES THE REGULATION HE
MUST BE CONVICTED, IN A TRIAL IN WHICH EITHER AN EARLIER AND SUMMARY
CIVIL DETERMINATION OR THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF A DETERMINATION
FORECLOSES HIM ON A CRUCIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  IN SHORT, HIS
TRIAL FOR THE CRIME IS EITHER IN TWO PARTS IN TWO COURTS OR ON ONLY A
PORTION OF THE ISSUES MATERIAL TO GUILT IN ONE COURT.  THIS MAY BE ALL
VERY WELL FOR SOME CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.  BUT, SO FAR AS I KNOW, CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS OF THIS CHARACTER NEVER BEFORE HAVE RECEIVED THE SANCTION
OF CONGRESS OR OF THIS COURT.  THAT, LIKE MANY OTHER CRIMINALS, AN
OFFENDER HERE CAN BE PUNISHED FOR MAKING THE WRONG GUESS AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REGULATION, I HAVE NO DOUBT.  BUT THAT, UNLIKE
ALL OTHER CRIMINALS, HE CAN BE CONVICTED ON A TRIAL IN TWO PARTS, ONE
SO SUMMARY AND CIVIL AND THE OTHER CRIMINAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ON
A TRIAL WHICH SHUTS OUT WHAT MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE ISSUES
MATERIAL TO HIS GUILT, I DO DENY.    THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES TO
THE ACCUSED "IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS  ...  THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY
AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT
WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.  ...  "  BY ARTICLE III,
SEC. 2, "THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT, SHALL
BE BY JURY; AND SUCH TRIAL SHALL BE HELD IN THE STATE WHERE THE SAID
CRIMES SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.  ...  "  AND, BY THE SAME SECTION,
"THE JUDICIAL POWER," WHICH IS VESTED IN THE SUPREME AND INFERIOR
COURTS BY SEC. 1, "SHALL EXTEND TO ALL CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY,
ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
TREATIES MADE  ... UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY." 

BY THESE PROVISIONS THE PURPOSE HARDLY IS TO BE SUPPOSED TO AUTHORIZE
SPLITTING UP A CRIMINAL TRIAL INTO SEPARATE SEGMENTS, WITH SOME OF THE
ISSUES ESSENTIAL TO GUILT TRIABLE BEFORE ONE COURT IN THE STATE AND
DISTRICT WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED AND OTHERS, EQUALLY ESSENTIAL,
TRIABLE IN ANOTHER COURT IN A HIGHLY SUMMARY CIVIL PROCEEDING HELD
ELSEWHERE, OR TO DISPENSE WITH TRIAL ON THEM BECAUSE THAT PROCEEDING
HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.  FN34  IF THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER, ON
CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHER GROUNDS, HAS ANY SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP TO
THE PETITIONERS' GUILT, AND IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT IT DOES, THE SHORT
EFFECT OF THE PROCEDURE IS TO CHOP UP THEIR TRIAL INTO TWO SEPARATE,
SUCCESSIVE AND DISTINCT PARTS OR PROCEEDINGS, IN EACH OF WHICH ONLY
SOME OF THE ISSUES DETERMINATIVE OF GUILT CAN BE TRIED, THE TWO BEING
CONNECTED ONLY BY THE THREAD OF FINALITY WHICH RUNS FROM THE DECISION
OF THE FIRST INTO THE SECOND.  THE EFFECT IS TO SEGREGATE OUT OF THE
TRIAL PROPER ISSUES, WHETHER OF LAW OR OF FACT, RELATING TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE LAW FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH THE DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED,
AND TO LEAVE TO THE CRIMINAL COURT ONLY THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A
VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION AS WRITTEN ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE AND WHETHER
IN SOME OTHER RESPECT THE STATUTE ITSELF IS INVALID.  IF CONGRESS CAN
REMOVE THESE QUESTIONS, IT CAN REMOVE ALSO ALL QUESTIONS OF VALIDITY OF
THE STATUTE OR, IT WOULD SEEM, OF LAW. 

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS SPLITTING HARDLY NEED FURTHER NOTING.  ON
FACTS AND ISSUES MATERIAL TO VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION THE PERSONS
CHARGED ARE DEPRIVED OF A FULL TRIAL IN THE STATE OR DISTRICT WHERE THE
CRIME OCCURS, EVEN IF THE EMERGENCY COURT SITS THERE, AS IT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO DO.  THEIR RIGHT TO TRY THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES BOTH OF
FACT AND OF LAW ON WHICH A CRIMINAL CONVICTION ULTIMATELY WILL HINGE,
IS RESTRICTED RIGIDLY TO THE INTRODUCTION OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE BEFORE
THE ADMINISTRATOR IN A PROCEEDING BARELY ADEQUATE, EVEN UNDER SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE, TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.  THE COURT WHICH MAKES THE DECISION ON THESE
ISSUES CANNOT CONSIDER THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE VIOLATION.  IT HAS NO
POWER TO PASS JUDGMENT OF GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY UPON THE WHOLE OF THE
EVIDENCE.  IT CAN ONLY PRONOUNCE THE LAW VALID OR INVALID IN A SETTING
WHOLLY APART FROM ANY CHARGE OF CRIME, FROM THE FACTS ALLEGED AS ITS
COMMISSION, AND FROM THE USUAL PROTECTIONS WHICH SURROUND ITS TRIAL. 

ON THE OTHER HAND THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL'S JUDGMENT, RENDERED IT MAY BE
ON DISPUTED FACTS AS WELL AS LAW, BECOMES BINDING AGAINST THE ACCUSED,
IN THE LATER PROCEEDING.  HE CANNOT THEN DISPUTE IT, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER MEANWHILE THE FACTS HAVE CHANGED  FN35  OR NEW AND ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCOVERED AND MIGHT BE TENDERED WITH CONCLUSIVE
EFFECT, IF IT WERE ADMISSIBLE.  HE CAN TENDER NO EVIDENCE ON WHAT MAY
BE THE MOST VITAL ISSUE IN HIS CASE AND ONE, IT MAY LIKEWISE BE, THAT
THE EVIDENCE THEN AVAILABLE WOULD SUSTAIN OVERWHELMINGLY.  THE TRIAL
COURT MUST SHUT ITS EYES TO ALL SUCH OFFERS OF PROOF AND, MOREOVER, TO
ANY SUCH ISSUE OF LAW. 

              VI. 

A PROCEDURE SO PIECEMEAL, SO CHOPPED UP, SO DISRUPTIVE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES IN RELATION TO TRIALS FOR CRIME, SHOULD NOT
AND, IN MY JUDGMENT, CANNOT BE VALIDATED, AS TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS, UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION.  EVEN WAR DOES NOT SUSPEND THE PROTECTIONS WHICH ARE
INHERENTLY PART AND PARCEL OF OUR CRIMINAL PROCESS.  SUCH A DISSECTION
OF THE TRIAL FOR CRIME COULD BE SUPPORTED, UNDER OUR SYSTEM, ONLY UPON
SOME SUCH NOTIONS AS WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA, WHETHER OR
NOT EMBODIED IN LEGISLATION.  FN36  THESE TOO ARE STRANGE AND
INADEQUATE VEHICLES FOR TRYING WHETHER THE CITIZEN HAS BEEN GUILTY OF
CRIMINAL CONDUCT.  THEY BAR DEFENSE, WHILE KEEPING PROSECUTION OPEN,
BEFORE IT BEGINS.  RES JUDICATA, BY VIRTUE OF A JUDGMENT IN SOME PRIOR
CIVIL PROCEEDING, WHERE DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES RELATING TO
THE MODE AND COURSE OF TRIAL HAVE PLAY, HAS NOT DONE DUTY HERETOFORE TO
REPLACE EITHER PROOF OF FACTS BEFORE A JURY OR DECISION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS NECESSARY TO MAKE UP THE SUM OF GUILT IN THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING ITSELF.  CONGRESS CAN INVADE THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION
IN CRIMINAL CASES NO MORE BY COMPELLING THE COURT TO DISPENSE WITH
PROOF, JURY TRIAL OR OTHER CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS
THAN IT CAN BY DENYING ALL EFFECT OF FINALITY TO JUDICIAL JUDGMENTS. 
CF. SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118, CONCURRING OPINION AT
167-168.  AND WHILE, AS NOTED ABOVE, NOTIONS OF WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL
HAVE HAD PLACE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO AN EXTENT NOT WHOLLY DEFINED,
IN SOME INSTANCES HARSHLY AND ARTIFICIALLY,  FN37  THEY HAVE NOT HAD
EFFECT HERETOFORE TO ENABLE CONGRESS TO FORCE A WAIVER OF DEFENSE UPON
THE INDIVIDUAL BY OFFERING A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO KINDS OF TRIAL, NEITHER
OF WHICH SATISFIES CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS. 
CERTAINLY WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES ARE SO NOVEL AND FAR REACHING AS THEY
MAY BE UNDER THIS PROCEDURE, BOTH FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND FOR THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THESE CONCEPTIONS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN LEGAL
ESTABLISHMENT TO BRING THEM INTO BEING. 

TO STATE THE QUESTION OFTEN IS TO DECIDE IT.  AND IT MAY DO THIS BY
FAILURE TO REVEAL FULLY WHAT IS AT STAKE.  THE QUESTION IS NOT MERELY
WHETHER THE PROTEST PROCEEDING IS ADEQUATE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE
FOR SOME OF THE PURPOSES PERTINENT TO THAT PROCEEDING.  IT IS RATHER
WHAT EFFECT SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE CIVIL DETERMINATION IN THE LATER AND
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CRIMINAL TRIAL.  IT IS WHETHER, BY SUBSTITUTING THAT
CIVIL PROCEEDING FOR DECISION OF BASIC ISSUES IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL
ITSELF, CONGRESS CAN FORECLOSE THE ACCUSED FROM HAVING THEM DECIDED IN
THAT TRIAL AND THEREBY DEPRIVE HIM OF THE PROTECTIONS IN TRIAL
GUARANTEED ALL PERSONS CHARGED WITH CRIME AND THUS OF FULL AND ADEQUATE
DEFENSE.  IT IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF THAT SORT OF DEFENSE TO FORCE ONE
TO INITIATE A CURTAILED CIVIL SUIT OR TO CUT HIM OFF SHORTLY FROM ALL
DEFENSE ON THE ISSUES ALLOCATED TO IT, IF HE DOES NOT DO SO.  AGAIN,
THE QUESTION IS NOT MERELY WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL CAN WAIVE HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL OF THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY.  IT IS RATHER WHETHER
CONGRESS CAN FORCE HIM TO DO SO IN THE MANNER ATTEMPTED AND, BEYOND
THIS, WHETHER HE AND CONGRESS TOGETHER, IN THE COMBINED EFFECTS OF WHAT
THEY DO, CAN SO STRIP THE CRIMINAL FORUM OF ITS POWER AND OF ITS DUTY
TO ABIDE THE LAW OF THE LAND.  AND IF THE ISSUE IS FURTHER WHETHER
CONGRESS CAN DO THIS IN SOME SITUATIONS, RESPECTING SOME ISSUES, UNDER
MORE USUAL SAFEGUARDS, THE QUESTION REQUIRES ATTENTION TO THESE
IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS.  FN38 

THE PROCEDURAL PATTERN IS ONE WHICH MAY BE ADAPTED TO THE TRIAL OF
ALMOST ANY CRIME.  ONCE APPROVED, IT IS BOUND TO SPAWN PROGENY.  IF IN
ONE CASE CONGRESS THUS CAN WITHDRAW FROM THE CRIMINAL COURT THE POWER
TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS ON WHICH THE CHARGE IS
BASED, IT CAN DO SO FOR OTHER CASES, UNLESS LIMITATIONS ARE POINTED OUT
CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY.  AND IT CAN DO SO FOR STATUTES AS WELL.  IN
SHORT THE WAY WILL HAVE BEEN FOUND TO AVOID, IF NOT ALTOGETHER THE
POWER OF THE COURTS TO REVIEW LEGISLATION FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
CONSTITUTION,  FN39  THEN IN PART AT LEAST THEIR OBLIGATION TO OBSERVE
ITS COMMANDS AND MORE ESPECIALLY THE GUARANTEED PROTECTIONS OF PERSONS
CHARGED WITH CRIME IN THE TRIAL OF THEIR CAUSES.  THIS IS NOT MERELY
CONTROL OR DEFINITION OF JURISDICTION.  IT IS RATHER UNWARRANTED
ABRIDGEMENT OF THE JUDICIAL POWER IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS, UNLESS AT
THE VERY LEAST IT IS CONFINED SPECIFICALLY TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE
SPECIAL PROCEEDING PROVIDES A FAIR AND EQUAL SUBSTITUTE FOR FULL
DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL OR OTHER ADEQUATE SAFEGUARD IS AFFORDED
AGAINST PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATING AN ORDER WHICH ITSELF VIOLATES OR MAY
VIOLATE BASIC RIGHTS.  SO MUCH SHOULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED MERELY BY
GIVING TO THE FAILURE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR SUMMARY
CIVIL DETERMINATION, COUPLED WITH A SHORT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UPON
ITS AVAILABILITY, THE EFFECT OF A FULL AND FINAL CRIMINAL
ADJUDICATION.  TO DO THIS HARDLY OBSERVES THE SUBSTANCE OF "ADEQUACY"
IN CRIMINAL TRIALS. 

FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS CANNOT FORBID
THE ENFORCING COURT, EXERCISING THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION, TO CONSIDER
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF AN ORDER INVALID ON ITS FACE.  ANY OTHER
VIEW WOULD PERMIT CONGRESS TO COMPEL THE COURTS TO ENFORCE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS.  NOR, IN MY OPINION, CAN CONGRESS FORBID
CONSIDERATION OF VALIDITY IN ALL CASES, IF IT CAN IN ANY, WHERE THE
INVALIDITY APPEARS ONLY FROM PROOF OF FACTS EXTRINSIC TO THE
REGULATION.  AGAIN THE RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS LINE IS OBVIOUS AND
PERTINENT.  IF, FOR INSTANCE, ONE CHARGED CRIMINALLY WITH VIOLATING THE
REGULATION SHOULD TENDER PROOF IT WAS BEING ENFORCED IN A MANNER TO
DENY HIM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, BECAUSE OF HIS RACIAL OR
RELIGIOUS CONNECTIONS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE COULD BE
EXCLUDED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE JUDICIAL OBLIGATION.  THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT MAKE JUDICIAL OBSERVANCE OR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS BASIC
GUARANTIES DEPEND ON WHETHER THEIR VIOLATION APPEARS FROM THE FACE OF
LEGISLATION OR ONLY FROM ITS APPLICATION TO PROVEN FACTS.  SNOWDEN V.
HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1; YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 373-374; UNITED
STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152-154. 

FOR LEGISLATION NOT VOID ON ITS FACE, A PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY ATTACHES AND REMAINS UNTIL IT IS PROVEN INVALID OR SO
IN OPERATION.  IN SUCH CASES THERE IS NO UNFAIRNESS, NOR ANY INVASION
OF THE COURT'S PARAMOUNT OBLIGATION, IN REQUIRING ONE WHO WOULD AVOID
THE REGULATIONS' IMPACT TO SHOW THEY ARE NOT WHAT THEY APPEAR TO BE OR
THAT THEY ARE MADE TO OPERATE OTHERWISE THAN AS THEY PURPORT OR WERE
INTENDED.  BUT IT IS ONE THING TO SAY THAT BURDEN MUST BE BORNE WITHIN
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING ITSELF AND ANOTHER TO SAY IT MUST BE CARRIED
ENTIRELY OUTSIDE IT.  TO REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE INVALIDITY IN
SUCH A SITUATION IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ITSELF, UPON A SHOWING OF
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, IS WHOLLY PERMISSIBLE.  BUT FOR THE COURT TO
BE UNABLE TO RECEIVE TENDERED EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT DISCLOSE THE
STATUTE'S INVALID CHARACTER AND EFFECT, IS QUITE DIFFERENT.  CERTAINLY,
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE AS MUCH A
VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND AS MUCH AN INVASION OF THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION FOR CONGRESS TO COMMAND THE COURT NOT TO RECEIVE THE EVIDENCE,
REGARDLESS OF ITS CHARACTER OR EFFECT, AS FOR IT TO DIRECT THE COURT TO
ENFORCE A LAW OR AN ORDER VOID ON ITS FACE. 

                                 VII. 

TO SANCTION CONVICTION OF CRIME IN A PROCEEDING WHICH DOES NOT ACCORD
THE ACCUSED FULL PROTECTION FOR HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND SIXTH
AMENDMENTS, AND WHICH ENTAILS A SUBSTANTIAL LEGISLATIVE INCURSION ON
THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DERIVED JUDICIAL POWER, IF INDEED THIS EVER COULD
BE SUSTAINED, WOULD REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE GREATEST EMERGENCY COUPLED
WITH AN INABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE SUBSTANTIVE ENDS SOUGHT IN ANY
OTHER WAY.  NO ONE QUESTIONS THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE EMERGENCY THE PRICE
CONTROL ACT WAS ADOPTED TO MEET.  AND IT HAS BEEN URGED WITH GREAT
EARNESTNESS THAT THE NATION'S SECURITY IN THE PRESENT SITUATION
REQUIRES THAT THE STATUTE'S PROCEDURE, FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE, BE
SUSTAINED TO ITS FULL EXTENT. 

THAT ARGUMENT WOULD BE MORE POWERFUL IF ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE,
AND THUS MAINTENANCE OF PRICE CONTROL, WERE DEPENDENT UPON ACCEPTING
EVERY FEATURE.  NO DOUBT TO IMPOSE THE CRIMINAL SANCTION AS HAS BEEN
DONE IN THIS CASE IMPLEMENTS THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS WITH THE DETERRENT
EFFECTS WHICH USUALLY ACCOMPANY THAT SANCTION.  BUT NEITHER ITS USE NOR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE'S SUBSTANTIVE PROHIBITIONS REQUIRES THAT THE
CRIMINAL COURT SHALL NOT CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS. 

WITH THE ARSENAL OF OTHER VALID LEGAL WEAPONS AVAILABLE, THERE CAN BE
NO LACK OF SPEEDY AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO SECURE COMPLIANCE.  THE
REGULATIONS ARE EFFECTIVE UNTIL INVALIDATED.  THEY CANNOT BE SUSPENDED
BY ANY COURT, PENDING FINAL DECISION HERE, IF THE LAST SOURCE OF RELIEF
IS SOUGHT.  ALL THE ARMORY OF EQUITY, AND WITH IT THE SANCTIONS OF
CONTEMPT, ARE AVAILABLE TO KEEP THE REGULATIONS IN FORCE AND TO PREVENT
VIOLATIONS, AT LEAST UNTIL DECISION HERE IS SOUGHT AND HAD THAT THE
REGULATIONS ARE INVALID.  THE SAME WEAPONS ARE AVAILABLE TO ENFORCE
THEM PERMANENTLY IF THEY ARE FOUND VALID.  APART FROM DEFENSE WHEN
CHARGED WITH CRIME, THE INDIVIDUAL'S ONLY AVENUE OF ESCAPE, AND THAT
NOT UNTIL FINAL DECISION OF INVALIDITY HAS BEEN MADE, IS BY PROTEST AND
APPEAL THROUGH THE SINGLE ROUTE PRESCRIBED.  FINALLY, IN ADDITION TO
ALL THIS, THE DEALER MAY BE PUNISHED FOR CRIME IF HE VIOLATES THE
REGULATION WILLFULLY AND CANNOT SHOW IT IS INVALID EITHER IN HIS
DEFENSE OR BY SECURING A JUDGMENT TO THIS EFFECT THROUGH THE PROTEST
PROCEDURE.  IN EITHER CASE, IN VIEW OF THE STATUTE'S CURTAILMENT OF HIS
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AND THE CONSEQUENT INCREASE IN THE BURDEN OF PROVING
FACTS SUFFICIENT TO NULLIFY THE REGULATION,  FN40  HIS CHANCE FOR
ESCAPE BECOMES REMOTE, TO SAY THE LEAST.  IN VIEW OF ALL THESE
RESOURCES AND ADVANTAGES, THE ASSERTION HARDLY IS SUSTAINED THAT
ENFORCEMENT REQUIRES ALSO DEPRIVING THE ACCUSED OF HIS OPPORTUNITY FOR
FULL AND ADEQUATE DEFENSE IN HIS CRIMINAL TRIAL.    WAR REQUIRES MUCH
OF THE CITIZEN.  HE SURRENDERS RIGHTS FOR THE TIME BEING TO SECURE
THEIR MORE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT.  MOST MEN DO SO FREELY.  ACCORDING
TO OUR PLAN OTHERS MUST DO SO ALSO, AS FAR AS THE NATION'S SAFETY
REQUIRES.  BUT THE SURRENDER IS NEITHER PERMANENT NOR TOTAL.  THE GREAT
LIBERTIES OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS ARE CURTAILED BUT NOT DENIED. 
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REMAINS A LIVING THING.  WITH THESE, IN OUR SYSTEM,
RANK THE ELEMENTAL PROTECTIONS THROWN ABOUT THE CITIZEN CHARGED WITH
CRIME, MORE ESPECIALLY THOSE FORGED ON HISTORY'S ANVIL IN GREAT
CRISES.  THEY SECURE FAIR PLAY TO THE GUILTY AND VINDICATION FOR THE
INNOCENT.  BY ONE MEANS ONLY MAY THEY BE SUSPENDED, EVEN WHEN CHAOS
THREATENS.  WHATEVER ELSE SEEKS TO DISPENSE WITH THEM OR MATERIALLY
IMPAIR THEIR INTEGRITY SHOULD FAIL.  NOT YET HAS THE WAR BROUGHT
EXTREMITY THAT DEMANDS OR PERMITS THEM TO BE PUT ASIDE.  NOR DOES
MAINTAINING PRICE CONTROL REQUIRE THIS.  THE EFFECT, THOUGH NOT
INTENDED, OF THE PROVISION WHICH FORBIDS A CRIMINAL COURT TO "CONSIDER
THE VALIDITY" OF THE LAW ON WHICH THE CHARGE OF CRIME IS FOUNDED, IN MY
OPINION, WOULD BE GREATLY TO IMPAIR THESE SECURITIES.  HENCE I CANNOT
ASSENT TO THAT PROVISION AS VALID. 

DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS, IN PART AT ANY RATE, APPLY IN CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS.  FN41  BUT FOR THE TRIAL OF CRIMES NO PROCEDURE SHOULD BE
APPROVED WHICH DISPENSES WITH TRIAL OF ANY MATERIAL ISSUE OR SPLITS THE
TRIAL INTO DISJOINTED SEGMENTS, ONE OF WHICH IS SUMMARY AND CIVIL, THE
OTHER BUT A REMNANT OF THE ANCIENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  CF., E.G., NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502. 

FN2  PERHAPS THE NEAREST PREVIOUS APPROACH TO CONTROL SO EXTENSIVE
WAS IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY LEGISLATION. 

FN3  CF. NOTE 18 INFRA. 

FN4  IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT WHATEVER SCOPE IS ALLOWED FOR
OPERATION OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY IN PEACE CONTINUES TO BE EFFECTIVE
IN WAR. 

FN5  E.G., THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS NO POWER TO ADOPT CODES OF FAIR
COMPETITION GENERALLY, SUCH AS WAS GIVEN UNDER N.I.R.A.  HIS PRINCIPAL
FUNCTION IS SINGLE, TO DETERMINE AND MAKE EFFECTIVE BY REGULATION THE
MAXIMUM PRICE AT WHICH A COMMODITY MAY BE SOLD.  THE TASK IS VAST AND
COMPLEX, IN COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUSLY SUSTAINED PRICE-FIXING
DELEGATIONS, BY VIRTUE OF THE NUMBER OF INDUSTRIES AND ITEMS AFFECTED
AND THE NATION-WIDE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY.  BUT THE FOCUS OF THE PRICE
FIXING FUNCTION IS NARROW, ALTHOUGH POWERFUL, IN ITS INCIDENCE UPON A
PARTICULAR INDUSTRY OR OPERATOR. 

FN6  CF. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PRICE ORDERS UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT (1942) 37 ILL. L. REV. 256, 263-264; AND OTHER MATERIALS
CITED INFRA NOTES 20, 21. 

FN7  BY SEC. 205(F)(1), (2) LICENSING AUTHORITY IS GIVEN TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR, WITH SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SUSPENSION FOR NOT MORE THAN
TWELVE MONTHS BY PROCEEDINGS IN STATE, TERRITORIAL OR FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS. 

FN8  IT IS CONCEDED THAT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF
STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM REGULATIONS, REMAIN
DETERMINABLE BY ENFORCING COURTS.  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 931, 77TH CONG.,
2D SESS., 24-25, AND COMPARE H.R. 5479, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PRINTED
IN HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY ON H.R. 5479, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., 4, 7-8. 

FN9  CF. PARTS IV, V, INFRA. 

FN10  THE MOSES TAYLOR, 4 WALL.  411; BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, POST, P.
503; CF. CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130; PLAQUEMINES TROPICAL FRUIT
CO. V. HENDERSON, 170 U.S. 511. 

FN11  THIS IT MIGHT HAVE DONE, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT
THE PROCEDURE SPECIFIED FOR THE SINGLE COMPETENT COURT AFFORD A
CONSTITUTIONALLY ADEQUATE MODE FOR DETERMINING THE ISSUES.  MYERS V.
BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., SUPRA.  IN CASE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
WERE CONFERRED, OBSERVANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 2,
AND OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS CONCERNING SUCH TRIALS WOULD BE
REQUIRED.  CF. TEXT INFRA, PARTS V, VI. 

FN12  CF. L'HOTE V. NEW ORLEANS, 177 U.S. 587; WELCH V. SWASEY, 214
U.S. 91; HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES & WAREHOUSE CO., 251 U.S.
146. 

FN13 METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INS. CO. V. BROWNELL, 294 U.S. 580; UNITED
STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152-154. 

FN14  BY SEC. 204(B) OF THE ACT, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE EMERGENCY COURT ENJOINING OR SETTING ASIDE THE REGULATION, IN WHOLE
OR IN PART, IS POSTPONED UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THIRTY DAYS FROM ITS
ENTRY AND, IF CERTIORARI IS SOUGHT HERE WITHIN THAT TIME, THE
POSTPONEMENT CONTINUES UNTIL THIS COURT'S DENIAL OF THE WRIT BECOMES
FINAL OR UNTIL OTHER FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE BY THIS COURT.  BY
SEC. 204(D) THE EMERGENCY COURT AND THIS COURT ARE GIVEN EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION AND ALL OTHER
COURTS ARE DENIED "JURISDICTION OR POWER TO CONSIDER" THIS QUESTION AND
TO STAY, RESTRAIN, ENJOIN OR SET ASIDE ANY PROVISION OF THE REGULATION
OR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THE NET EFFECT IS TO DEPRIVE ALL COURTS OF POWER
TO SUSPEND OPERATION OF THE REGULATION PENDING FINAL DECISION ON ITS
VALIDITY AND TO KEEP IT IN FORCE UNTIL A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE
EMERGENCY COURT, OR OF THIS COURT ON REVIEW OF ITS DECISION, BECOMES
EFFECTIVE. 

FN15  CF. TEXT INFRA, PART III, AT NOTES 16, 17. 

FN16  THERE HARDLY CAN BE QUESTION THAT WHENEVER AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY, ACTING WITHIN THE DISCRETION VALIDLY CONFERRED UPON IT BY
CONGRESS, PROMULGATES A REGULATION OR ISSUES AN ORDER OF GENERAL
APPLICABILITY IT IS "MAKING THE LAW," AS EFFECTIVELY AS IS CONGRESS
WHEN IT ENACTS A SPECIFIC PRESCRIPTION, BY WHATEVER NAME THIS MAY BE
CALLED.  UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506; AVENT V. UNITED
STATES, 266 U.S. 127; UNITED STATES V. MICHIGAN PORTLAND CEMENT CO.,
270 U.S. 521. 

FN17  CF. THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS.  THE NOTION
THAT CONGRESS SOMEHOW COULD CUT OFF REVIEW OF REGULATIONS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY WHEN IT COULD NOT DO SO FOR STATUTES, OF
WHICH SUGGESTIONS APPEAR IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE BRIEFS, WAS
NOT ADHERED TO IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT AS TO REGULATIONS VOID ON THEIR
FACE AND IS NOT TOLERABLE WHEN THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO MAKE THE COURTS
INSTRUMENTS FOR ENFORCING UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES.  CF. PART VI,
INFRA. 

FN18  SEE NOTE 17 SUPRA.  THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, CONFINE THAT CASE TO ITS
FACTS, INCLUDING THE PARTICULAR EMERGENCY WITH WHICH LEGISLATION THERE
UNDER REVIEW HAD DEALT, AS RESPECTS THE ISSUE OF EQUAL PROTECTION. 

FN19  CF. NOTES 23, 33 INFRA. 

FN20  MCALLISTER, STATUTORY ROADS TO REVIEW OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS (1940) 28 CALIF. L. REV. 129, 166. 

FN21  IBID.  CF. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PRICE ORDERS UNDER THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT (1942) 37 ILL. L. REV. 256, 263; STASON, TIMING OF
JUDICIAL REDRESS FROM ERRONEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (1941) 25 MINN.
L. REV. 560, 575, 576-581; ADMINISTRATIVE FEATURES OF THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT (1942) 28 VA. L. REV. 991, 998, 999; REID AND HATTON,
PRICE CONTROL AND NATIONAL DEFENSE (1941) 36 ILL. L. REV. 255, 283
284.  FOR AN ANALYSIS OF LITIGATION UNDER THIS ACT SEE SPRECHER, PRICE
CONTROL IN THE COURTS (1944) 44 COL. L. REV. 34. 

FN22  THE FORECLOSURE MAY BE FOUNDED UPON NOTIONS OF WAIVER, COMITY,
PUTTING AN END TO LITIGATION, SECURING ORDERLY PROCEDURE OR THE
ADVANTAGES OF HAVING AVAILABLE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE LATER STAGES
THE INFORMED JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL TRIBUNAL, OR SOME COMBINATION OF
THESE AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.  CF. STASON, TIMING OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
FROM ERRONEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (1941) 25 MINN. L. REV. 560, 576
581; BERGER, EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (1939) 48 YALE L. J.
980, 1006.  AND THE RULE AGAINST ALLOWING COLLATERAL ATTACK, WHERE A
JUDGMENT IS INVOLVED, IS RELEVANT TO THE BROAD PROBLEM OF FORECLOSURE. 

FN23  COMMONLY IT IS SAID THAT "JURISDICTIONAL" QUESTIONS,
PARTICULARLY CONCERNING THE COURT'S POWER TO DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT
MATTER, MAY BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE OR IN A COLLATERAL ATTACK.  AND THIS
SEEMS TO BE TRUE ALSO OF SOME OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THROUGH
CHALLENGE TO JUDGMENTS BY HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS LONG AFTER THE
JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL.  CF., E.G., EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339;
EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S. 371; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458; MOONEY
V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103.  COMPARE REVISED RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES, RULE 27, PARAGRAPH 6; CF. WEEMS V. UNITED STATES,
217 U.S. 349, 362; COLUMBIA HEIGHTS REALTY CO. V. RUDOLPH, 217 U.S.
547; BRASFIELD V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 448; MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S.
32, 45. 

FN24  COMPARE OHIO VALLEY WATER CO. V. BEN AVON BOROUGH, 253 U.S.
287; CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38; UTAH FUEL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL
COMM'N, 306 U.S. 56, WITH MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303
U.S. 41. 

FN25  E.G., COMPARE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. GRATZ, 253 U.S. 421
WITH LABOR BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO CO., 304 U.S. 333; CF. ALSO MORGAN V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468; 304 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307
U.S. 183.  COMPARE NOTE 24 SUPRA; AND SEE NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S.
276. 

FN26  THUS, IN SOME CASES REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT ARE CONCENTRATED
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE SAME COURT.  CF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49
STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., GIVING THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEAL EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW AND ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDERS,
TO WHICH NO PENALTY ATTACHES UNTIL THE BOARD HAS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED AN
ORDER FROM THE COURT FOR ENFORCEMENT.  WITH THIS DONE, THERE IS NO
DANGER THE INDIVIDUAL WILL BE SENTENCED FOR CRIME FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH AN INVALID ORDER.  AND THERE IS NONE THAT THE COURT WILL BE CALLED
UPON TO LEND ITS HAND IN ENFORCING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL EDICT OR, FOR
THAT MATTER, ONE MERELY IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  LIKEWISE,
WHEN THERE IS PROVISION FOR STAY OR SUSPENSION OF THE ORDER PENDING
DETERMINATION OF ITS VALIDITY, E.G., THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48
STAT. 81, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77I; THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 48
STAT. 902, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 78Y; THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT
OF 1935, 49 STAT. 835, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79X.  AND THIS IS TRUE WHERE THE
ENFORCING COURT IS NOT FORBIDDEN TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER,
A PROHIBITION ENTIRELY NOVEL TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT. 

FN27  CF. WADLEY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. GEORGIA, 235 U.S. 651, AND
AUTHORITIES CITED.  IN NOTABLE INSTANCES, ALSO, WHERE NO SPECIFIC
PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR EITHER JUDICIAL REVIEW OR AVOIDING THE
IRREVOCABLE IMPACT OF POSSIBLY INVALID ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, AND
REVIEW HAS NOT BEEN EXPRESSLY DENIED, THE COURTS HAVE BEEN READY TO
FIND MEANS FOR REVIEW AND FOR AVERTING THE IMPACT OF THE PENALTY UNTIL
IT HAS BEEN HAD.  E.G., EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; CF. SOUTHERN RY.
CO. V. VIRGINIA, 290 U.S. 190. 

FN28  CF. MCALLISTER, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 20; AND NOTE 26 SUPRA. 

FN29  APPARENTLY IT IS CONTEMPLATED THAT THE "AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER
WRITTEN EVIDENCE" SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE OBJECTIONS BE FILED WITH
THE PROTEST, THOUGH LATER SUBMISSIONS MAY BE MADE AT TIMES AND UNDER
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, OR WHEN ORDERED BY THE
EMERGENCY COURT, OR TO THAT COURT WHEN THE ADMINISTRATOR REQUESTS. 
SECS. 203(A), 204(A).  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED TO PERMIT FILING
OF PROTEST AFTER THE SIXTY DAYS HAVE EXPIRED SOLELY ON GROUNDS ARISING
AFTER THAT TIME.  SEC. 203(A).  HE IS REQUIRED TO GRANT OR DENY THE
PROTEST, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, NOTICE THE PROTEST FOR A HEARING, OR
PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT FURTHER EVIDENCE, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
AFTER THE PROTEST IS FILED OR NINETY DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE
REGULATION OR ORDER, OR IN THE CASE OF A PRICE SCHEDULE NINETY DAYS
FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE, WHICHEVER OCCURS LATER.  IBID. 

FN30  CF. NOTE 29 SUPRA.  IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, "NO
OBJECTION TO (THE) REGULATION ...  AND NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ANY
OBJECTION THERETO, SHALL BE CONSIDERED  ...  UNLESS SUCH OBJECTION" HAS
BEEN SET FORTH IN THE PROTEST OR SUCH EVIDENCE IS IN THE TRANSCRIPT. 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMITTED ONLY IF IT WAS "EITHER OFFERED TO
THE ADMINISTRATOR AND NOT ADMITTED (BY HIM) OR  ...  COULD NOT
REASONABLY HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO  ...  OR INCLUDED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS."  IN THAT CASE IT IS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR, RECEIVED BY HIM AND CERTIFIED TO THE COURT TOGETHER WITH
ANY MODIFICATION HE MAY MAKE IN THE REGULATION.  WHERE THE
ADMINISTRATOR SO REQUESTS, HOWEVER, SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE "SHALL BE
PRESENTED DIRECTLY TO THE COURT."  SEC. 204(A). 

FN31  CF. NOTE 14 SUPRA. 

FN32  THAT IS TRUE WHETHER THE INFRACTION OCCURS BEFORE OR AFTER THE
TIME FOR PROTEST OR APPEAL HAS PASSED AND, IT WOULD SEEM,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROTESTANT MAY PROCEED WITH ALL DILIGENCE.  THE
STATUTE MAKES NO PROVISION FOR RELIEVING FROM ITS PENAL SANCTIONS ONE
WHO FOLLOWS THE PROTEST PROCEDURE TO THE END IN CASE THE PROTEST
EVENTUALLY IS SUSTAINED, IF MEANWHILE HE DISOBEYS THE ORDER. 
PUNISHMENT IS NOT MADE DEPENDENT ON OR REQUIRED TO AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF
THAT PROCEEDING.  RATHER, THE ENFORCING COURT IS COMMANDED NOT TO
CONSIDER VALIDITY.  THE COMMAND IS UNQUALIFIED, UNVARYING AND
UNIVERSAL.  IT IS CAST IN THE COMPELLING TERMS OF "JURISDICTION." 
UNDER THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS, IT APPLIES AS MUCH WHEN TRIAL AND
CONVICTION OCCUR BEFORE THE EMERGENCY COURT'S DECISION IS FINAL AS
AFTERWARDS.    FN33  CF. BRADLEY V. RICHMOND, 227 U.S. 477, WHICH
INVOLVED A STATE PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATING A STATE LAW.  IN AFFIRMING
THE CONVICTION THIS COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION ON WHICH PROSECUTION RESTED WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT IT WOULD NOT FOLLOW FROM THE FACT A STATE MIGHT
THUS CONDITION ITS CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS THAT CONGRESS CAN DO
LIKEWISE FOR FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIALS.  CF. INFRA PART V. WADLEY
SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. GEORGIA, SUPRA, ALSO INVOLVED A STATE SUIT FOR
CIVIL PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF A STATE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, TO WHICH
THE LIMITATIONS OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WOULD NOT APPLY.  THE DICTA
WHICH THE COURT REGARDS AS POINTING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEDURE
HERE DO NOT SUSTAIN IT, NOT ONLY FOR THIS REASON, BUT BECAUSE THE
SPECIAL PROCEDURE WAS DIFFERENT, DID NOT PURPORT TO FORECLOSE DEFENSE
TO ENFORCEMENT IF NOT FOLLOWED, AND EXPRESSLY ASSERTED THAT, IF
FOLLOWED, PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ONLY FOR VIOLATIONS TAKING PLACE
AFTER THE ORDER WAS ADJUDICATED VALID, NOT BEFOREHAND.  THIS CASE
INVOLVES THE VERY RISK THE COURT THERE SAID COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. 

OTHER INSTANCES RELIED ON BY THE COURT INVOLVE ONLY CIVIL, NOT
CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES, OR DISTINGUISHABLE INSTANCES OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION, AND THEREFORE HAVE NO CONCLUSIVE BEARING HERE.  AS THE
COURT SEEMS TO RECOGNIZE, THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED WAS NOT PRESENTED
OR CONSIDERED IN ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56, OR
IN UNITED STATES V. ADAMS EXPRESS CO., 229 U.S. 381.  AND IT WAS NOT
INVOLVED OR DETERMINED IN THE CITED DECISIONS, EITHER HERE OR IN THE
INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS, DEALING WITH CARRIERS WHO VIOLATE TARIFFS
FRAMED AND FILED BY THEMSELVES AND THEREBY BECOME SUBJECT TO PENALTY. 
THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE CASES HOLDING THAT THREATENED CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS CANNOT BE ENJOINED. 

IN THESE DECISIONS, NONE OF THE STATUTES FORBADE THE ENFORCING COURT
"TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY" OF THE ORDERS, NONE AFFORDED A SPECIAL
PROCEEDING SO SUMMARY AS THAT PROVIDED HERE, AND ONLY UNITED STATES V.
VACUUM OIL CO., 158 F. 536, RAISED A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION RELEVANT
HERE.  FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, INVOLVED A DIFFERENT
PROCEDURE AND A DIFFERENT AND MORE URGENT PROBLEM.  COMPARE PART VII
INFRA.  IT MAY BE DOUBTED THE DECISION'S EFFECT IS TO PRECLUDE THE
ENFORCING COURT FROM EXAMINING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE
ORDER'S VALIDITY. 

FN34  NOR, ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED NOTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS, HAS
IT EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED THAT SOME OF THE ISSUES OF FACT SHOULD BE
PROVABLE BY CONFRONTATION OF WITNESSES AND OTHERS BY WRITTEN EVIDENCE
ONLY, WHEN OTHER EVIDENCE IS OR MAY BE AVAILABLE.  IF, FOR INSTANCE,
CONGRESS SHOULD DEFINE AN ACT AS A CRIME, BUT SHOULD REQUIRE THAT IN
THE TRIAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW FURNISHING THE
BASIS FOR THE CHARGE SHOULD BE PROVEN ONLY BY AFFIDAVIT, THOUGH OTHERS
BY THE NORMAL PROCESSES OF PROOF, THE PROCEEDING HARDLY COULD BE HELD
TO COMPORT WITH THE KIND OF TRIAL THE CONSTITUTION, AND MORE
PARTICULARLY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES.  AND IF CONGRESS SHOULD GO
FURTHER AND PROVIDE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES TRIABLE ONLY BY
AFFIDAVIT IN A COURT OR OTHER BODY SITTING ELSEWHERE THAN IN THE STATE
AND DISTRICT OF THE CRIME, WITH OTHER ISSUES TRIABLE BEFORE A COURT
WITH A JURY EMPANELLED THERE, BUT WITH THAT COURT COMPELLED TO GIVE
FINALITY TO THE OTHER'S FINDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED, THE DEPARTURE
FROM CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS WOULD SEEM TO BE ONLY THE MORE
OBVIOUS.  THIS IS NOT FAR IN EFFECT, IF IT IS AT ALL, FROM WHAT HAS
BEEN DONE HERE. 

FN35  HIS ONLY REMEDY IS TO BEGIN A NEW PROTEST PROCEEDING (SEC.
203(A)), WHICH IS NOT ONLY AS LIMITED IN CHARACTER AS THE ORIGINAL ONE,
BUT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS MUST BE "FILED
WITHIN  ...  SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE PROTESTANT HAS HAD, OR COULD
REASONABLY HAVE HAD, NOTICE" OF THE CHANGED FACTS.  REVISED PROCEDURAL
REGULATION 1, SEC. 1300.26.  CF. NOTES 29, 30 SUPRA. 

FN36  CF. NOTE 22 SUPRA. 

FN37  COMPARE JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458; GLASSER V. UNITED
STATES, 315 U.S. 60; WITH PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276; ADAMS
V. UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269. 

FN38  CF. NOTE 41 INFRA. 

FN39  CF. MCLAREN, CAN A TRIAL COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BE
COMPLETELY DEPRIVED OF THE POWER TO DETERMINE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS?  (1944) 30 A.B.A.J. 17. 

FN40  THAT BURDEN IS HEAVY, AS THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES.  PETITIONERS
ATTACKED THE REGULATION'S CONSTITUTIONALITY ON THE GROUND THAT, BY
COMPELLING THEM TO SELL AT PRICES LESS THAN COST, IT DEPRIVED THEM OF
THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  AND, ON THE SAME GROUND,
THEY URGED THE REGULATION VIOLATES THE STATUTE'S REQUIREMENT THAT THE
PRICE FIXED ALLOW MARGINS WHICH ARE "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE." 
BUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT INSURE A PROFIT TO ANY GIVEN
INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP NOT UNDER LEGAL COMPULSION TO RENDER SERVICE, WHERE
DOING SO WOULD CONTRAVENE AN ENACTED POLICY OF CONGRESS SUSTAINABLE ON
A BALANCE OF PUBLIC NECESSITY AND PRIVATE HARDSHIP.  CF. THE COURT'S
OPINION HEREIN AND AUTHORITIES CITED; ALSO BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, POST,
P. 503.  AND IN THIS CASE BOTH THE STATUTE'S BASIC PURPOSE AND ITS
TERMS, AS WELL AS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, CF. SEN. REP. NO. 931, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., 15, SHOW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO FORBID ONLY A PRICE
SO LOW THAT THE TRADE IN GENERAL, NOT MERELY SOME INDIVIDUAL DEALERS OR
GROUPS, COULD NOT HAVE THE MARGIN PRESCRIBED.  BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM,
SUPRA. PETITIONERS' OFFERS OF PROOF, IN THIS RESPECT, WHICH THE TRIAL
COURT REJECTED, WENT ONLY TO SHOW THAT THEY, OR AT MOST THE MEAT
WHOLESALERS OF BOSTON, COULD SELL BEEF ONLY AT A LOSS.  HARSH AS THIS
MAY SEEM IN INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES, IT WAS CONGRESS' JUDGMENT THAT THE
INTERESTS OF DEALERS WHO COULD NOT OPERATE PROFITABLY AT A LEVEL OF
PRICES PERMITTING A FAIR MARGIN GENERALLY TO THE TRADE, WOULD HAVE TO
GIVE WAY, IN THE ACUTE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES, TO THE PARAMOUNT
NATIONAL NECESSITY OF KEEPING PRICES STABILIZED; AND THAT JUDGMENT, BY
VIRTUE OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS FOR CONGRESS TO MAKE.  ACCORDINGLY
THE TENDERED PROOF HARDLY WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE AN ISSUE OF
CONFISCATION GIVING GROUND FOR SETTING ASIDE THE REGULATION. 

IT IS LIKELY THAT BY FAR THE GREATER NUMBER OF CHALLENGES WOULD ARISE
ON GROUNDS OF SUPPOSED CONFISCATION, IN WHICH THIS BURDEN WOULD HAVE TO
BE MET.  ONCE IT IS MADE CLEAR JUST WHAT THAT BURDEN IS, THE FEAR
HARDLY SEEMS JUSTIFIED THAT ENFORCEMENT WOULD SWAMP THE AGENCY WITH
LITIGATION.  IN ANY EVENT, THE REMEDY FOR THAT WOULD BE BY PROVIDING A
MORE ADEQUATE ENFORCING STAFF, NOT BY CUTTING OFF DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS BASED ON INVALID ORDERS. 

FN41  CF. CONCURRING OPINION IN BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, POST, P. 503. 
LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE SOLELY TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FALL TO ONE
SIDE.  GIVING THE DECISION IN THE SPECIAL PROCEEDING, OR FAILURE TO
SEEK IT AFTER REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, THE EFFECT OF RES JUDICATA IN
LATER CIVIL PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT THEREFORE DEPRIVE THE PARTY AFFECTED
OF OPPORTUNITY FOR FULL AND ADEQUATE DEFENSE IN HIS CRIMINAL TRIAL,
WHERE NOT ONLY HIS RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, BUT HIS LIBERTY OR HIS LIFE MAY
BE AT STAKE. 

HOWEVER WIDELY THE CHARACTER OF THE SPECIAL REMEDY MAY BE VARIED TO
MEET DIFFERENT URGENCIES, WITH CONSEQUENCES OF FORECLOSURE FOR CIVIL
EFFECTS, THE FORECLOSURE OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE SHOULD BE ALLOWED, IF AT
ALL, ONLY BY A PROCEDURE AFFORDING ITS SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT, IN
RELATION TO SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE
FAILURE TO FOLLOW IT REASONABLY COULD BE TAKEN AS AN ACTUAL, NOT A
FORCED WAIVER.  THUS, POSSIBLY FORECLOSURE OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE COULD BE
SUSTAINED, WHEN VALIDITY TURNS ON COMPLEX ECONOMIC QUESTIONS, USUALLY
OF CONFISCATORY EFFECTS OF LEGISLATION, AND PROOF OF COMPLICATED FACTS
BEARING ON THEM.  BUT, IF SO, THIS SHOULD BE ONLY WHEN THE SPECIAL
PROCEEDING IS CLEARLY ADEQUATE, AFFORDING THE USUAL RIGHTS TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE, CROSS-EXAMINE, AND MAKE ARGUMENT, CHARACTERISTIC OF JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, SO THAT, IF FOLLOWED, THE PARTY WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL
EQUIVALENT TO DEFENSE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL.  AND THE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD
BE LONG ENOUGH SO THAT THE FAILURE TO TAKE IT REASONABLY COULD BE TAKEN
TO MEAN THAT THE PARTY INTENDS, BY NOT TAKING IT, TO WAIVE THE QUESTION
ACTUALLY AND NOT BY FORCED SURRENDER.  SO SAFEGUARDED, THE FORECLOSURE
OF SUCH QUESTIONS IN THIS WAY WOULD NOT WORK A SUBSTANTIAL DEPRIVATION
OF DEFENSE. 

IN RESPECT TO OTHER QUESTIONS, SUCH AS THE DRAWING OF RACIAL OR
RELIGIOUS LINES IN ORDERS OR BY THEIR APPLICATION, OF A CHARACTER
DETERMINABLE AS WELL BY THE CRIMINAL AS BY THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, IN MY
OPINION THE SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL
CRIMINAL TRIALS, AND DUE ENFORCEMENT OF SOME SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS
AS WELL, REQUIRE KEEPING OPEN AND AVAILABLE THE CHANCE FOR FULL AND
COMPLETE DEFENSE IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL ITSELF. 

I AM AUTHORIZED TO SAY THAT MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS
OPINION. 
..END :
















VINSON V. WASHINGTON GAS CO., 321 U.S. 489 


NO. 396.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 14, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  -
137 F.2D 547, AFFIRMED. 


THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 SPECIFICALLY WITHHELD FROM THE
ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE RATES OF ANY PUBLIC UTILITY. 
THE AMENDATORY ACT OF OCTOBER 2, 1942 PROVIDED "THAT NO  ...  PUBLIC
UTILITY SHALL MAKE ANY GENERAL INCREASE IN ITS RATES OR CHARGES WHICH
WERE IN EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1942, UNLESS IT FIRST GIVES THIRTY DAYS
NOTICE TO THE PRESIDENT, OR SUCH AGENCY AS HE MAY DESIGNATE, AND
CONSENTS TO THE TIMELY INTERVENTION BY SUCH AGENCY BEFORE THE FEDERAL,
STATE, OR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER SUCH
INCREASE."  IN A PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO A SLIDING SCALE ARRANGEMENT
AUTHORIZED BY THE LOCAL LAW, THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GRANTED AN INCREASE IN THE RATES OF A PUBLIC
UTILITY.  THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC STABILIZATION WAS PERMITTED TO
INTERVENE, BUT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDUCING EVIDENCE AS TO THE
INFLATIONARY EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED INCREASE, AND NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS
OFFERED.  HELD: 

1.  BY THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED, CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND TO PROHIBIT LOCAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES FROM PERMITTING ANY
INCREASE IN UTILITY RATES WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NECESSARY TO
PREVENT ACTUAL HARDSHIP.  P. 498. 

2.  UPON THE RECORD, THE COMMISSION, IN REFUSING TO ENLARGE THE SCOPE
OF THE PROCEEDING AND TO REEXAMINE THE BASIS OF THE SLIDING SCALE
ARRANGEMENT, DID NOT DENY THE DIRECTOR A FAIR HEARING.  P. 499. 

3.  UPON THE ISSUES AS PROPERLY LIMITED BY THE COMMISSION, THE
DIRECTOR WAS AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY FOR A FULL HEARING.  P. 500. 

VINSON, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC STABILIZATION, ET AL. V. WASHINGTON GAS
LIGHT CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 730, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 48
F.SUPP.  703, WHICH SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE
RATES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN THIS CASE, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DIRECTOR
OF ECONOMIC STABLIZATION AND THE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION, OF THE UNITED STATES, TO REVIEW A RATE ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE
APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942,  FN1
AND THE ACT OF OCTOBER 2, 1942,  FN2  ARE INVOLVED. 

THE PETITIONERS, WHO WERE INTERVENORS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, APPEALED
FROM ITS ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHICH
SET ASIDE THE ORDER AS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL.  FN3  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN4
UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED REQUIRES A DETAILED STATEMENT
OF THEIR HISTORICAL BACKGROUND. 

THE COMMISSION WAS CREATED, AND ITS POWERS AND DUTIES DEFINED, BY ACT
OF CONGRESS IN 1913, SUPPLEMENTED IN 1926, 1935, AND 1939.  FN5
REFERENCES WILL BE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE, 1940 EDITION.  THE
STATUTES REQUIRE PUBLIC UTILITIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT TO FURNISH SAFE
AND ADEQUATE FACILITIES, JUST AND REASONABLE SERVICE, AT REASONABLE,
JUST AND NONDISCRIMINATORY RATES, AND TO OBEY THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF THE
COMMISSION (SEC. 43-301).  THERE ARE DETAILED PROVISIONS RESPECTING
RATES AND DEPRECIATION (SEC. 43-315).  FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS
FUNCTIONS, THE COMMISSION IS DIRECTED TO VALUE "THE PROPERTY OF EVERY
PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ACTUALLY USED AND USEFUL
FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC AT THE FAIR VALUE THEREOF AT THE TIME
OF SAID VALUATION."  (SEC. 43-306.)  NOTHING IN THE STATUTE IS TO BE
"TAKEN TO PROHIBIT A PUBLIC UTILITY, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
COMMISSION, FROM PROVIDING A SLIDING SCALE OF RATES AND DIVIDENDS
ACCORDING TO WHAT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BOSTON SLIDING SCALE, OR
OTHER FINANCIAL DEVICE THAT MAY BE PRACTICABLE AND ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE
PARTIES INTERESTED."  BUT NO SUCH ARRANGEMENT IS LAWFUL UNTIL FOUND BY
THE COMMISSION, AFTER INVESTIGATION, TO BE REASONABLE, JUST, AND NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  SUCH ARRANGEMENT MUST
OPERATE UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND REGULATION OF THE COMMISSION, MAY BE
ALTERED AND AMENDED, AND MAY BE TERMINATED BY THE COMMISSION (SEC. 43
317).  USUAL POWERS TO FIX RATES, CHARGES, AND MAKE RULES AND
REGULATIONS ARE CONFERRED (SEC. 43-411).  THE COMMISSION MAY MAKE RULES
AND REGULATIONS TO GOVERN ITS PROCEEDINGS AND TO REGULATE THE MODE AND
MANNER OF INVESTIGATIONS AND HEARINGS BEFORE IT (SEC. 43-402).  APPEAL
FROM ITS ORDERS IS AUTHORIZED, AND THE SCOPE OF REVIEW DEFINED (SECS.
43-705 TO 43-706). 

PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY, THE COMMISSION INITIATED IN 1931 AND
CONCLUDED IN 1935 A PROCEEDING FOR THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
WASHINGTON GAS LIGHT COMPANY, AT AN EXPENSE OF SOME $750,000, AND
ARRIVED AT A DEPRECIATED RATE BASE AS OF 1932.  IT THEN ENTERED UPON A
FURTHER INQUIRY AS TO RATES.  AFTER THIS HAD LASTED SOME TIME IT
APPROVED AND ADOPTED A SLIDING SCALE ARRANGEMENT, WHICH INVOLVED A RATE
BASE, TO BE ADJUSTED ANNUALLY BY ADDING NET PROPERTY ADDITIONS AT COST,
A RATE OF RETURN, AND A RATE OF ACCRUAL TO RETIREMENT RESERVE, IN THE
LIGHT OF WHICH THE RATES OF THE COMPANY WERE TO BE ADJUSTED ANNUALLY. 
IT FOUND THAT THE PLAN WAS PRACTICAL AND WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO ALL
PARTIES INTERESTED.  THIS PLAN CALLS FOR AN ANNUAL DETERMINATION OF THE
RATE OF RETURN EARNED DURING THE "TEST YEAR," AND OF THE AMOUNT
AVAILABLE FOR RATE INCREASE OR DECREASE FOR THE SUCCEEDING "RATE YEAR,"
AND SCHEDULES AND REGULATIONS TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH INCREASE OR DECREASE. 
SUCH DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY
FOR HEARING.  THE PLAN DEFINES A RATE YEAR AS "THE TWELVE MONTHS'
PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 1ST TO AUGUST 31ST, INCLUSIVE," AND THE TEST YEAR
AS "THE TWELVE MONTHS' PERIOD ENDING  ...  JUNE 30TH PRECEDING THE RATE
YEAR."  AT THE INCEPTION OF THE PLAN, RATES WERE REDUCED BY SOME
$800,000 ANNUALLY, AND SUBSEQUENT ANNUAL HEARINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
RESULTED IN RATE REDUCTIONS IN EACH YEAR AFTER 1935, EXCEPT IN 1937 AND
1941, WHEN NO CHANGES WERE MADE. 

THE DURATION OF THE SYSTEM WAS NOT PRESCRIBED BUT IN ITS ORDER THE
COMMISSION STATED THAT IT CONSTRUED THE STATUTE TO PERMIT A TERMINATION
UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, AND FOUND THAT NINETY DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE OF
TERMINATION BY COMMISSION OR COMPANY WOULD BE REASONABLE. 

MARCH 20, 1942, THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS ORDER OF INVESTIGATION IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE SLIDING SCALE ARRANGEMENT.  AFTER PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION BY ITS AGENTS AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANY, THE
COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, ISSUED, ON JULY 21,
1942, NOTICE OF HEARING AS TO RATES, CHARGES, AND REGULATIONS WHICH
WERE TO BECOME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1942, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
SLIDING-SCALE ARRANGEMENT.  THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR WAS GIVEN LEAVE TO
INTERVENE AND WAS REPRESENTED AT A PREHEARING CONFERENCE AND AT ALL
HEARINGS, AND HIS COUNSEL WAS PERMITTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND
TO OFFER TESTIMONY.  THESE BEGAN AUGUST 18 AND CONTINUED ON AUGUST 19,
SEPTEMBER 4, 8, 11, AND 14, AND CLOSED ON THE LAST-NAMED DATE.  THE
COMMISSION STATED THAT IT WOULD WELCOME TESTIMONY WITH RELATION TO THE
AIMS AND PURPOSES OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION DURING THE
NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND THE RELATION OF THOSE AIMS AND PURPOSES TO THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND EXPRESSED THE HOPE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR, AS
INTERVENOR, WOULD DEVELOP TESTIMONY ALONG LINES WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN INCREASE SHOULD BE GRANTED IN VIEW
OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S COUNSEL OFFERED
EVIDENCE, CROSS-EXAMINED WITNESSES, ARGUED AND FILED A BRIEF. 

ON APPLICATION OF OTHER PARTIES, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE REOPENED AND
FURTHER HEARING HAD SEPTEMBER 30TH.  COUNSEL FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR
PARTICIPATED AND FILED A SECOND BRIEF.  THE HEARINGS WERE AGAIN CLOSED,
AND, OCTOBER 13, THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS FINDINGS, OPINION AND
ORDER. 

THE PETITIONERS' STANDING IN THE PROCEEDINGS DESERVES NOTICE. 
PROVIDES:  "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE THE
REGULATION OF  ...  RATES CHARGED BY ANY COMMON CARRIER OR OTHER PUBLIC
UTILITY."  FN7  THE ADMISSION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AS INTERVENOR WAS,
THEREFORE, NOT PURSUANT TO STATUTE BUT WAS GOVERNED BY THE COMMISSION'S
RULES.  THE COMMISSION HAD PROVIDED FOR INTERVENTION IN ITS RULES. 
RULE 7.3 IS:  "THE COMMISSION MAY GRANT OR DENY A PETITION FOR LEAVE TO
INTERVENE, OR MAY GRANT THE PETITION UPON SUCH CONDITIONS AND
LIMITATIONS AS IT MAY PRESCRIBE."  RULE 7.5 IS:  "THE GRANTING OF A
PETITION TO INTERVENE SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING OR
ENLARGING THE ISSUES IN THE PROCEEDING, EXCEPT WHERE SUCH CHANGE OR
ENLARGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY REQUESTED IN THE PETITION AND IS EXPRESSLY
GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION AFTER OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING UPON THE
QUESTION HAS BEEN AFFORDED ALL OTHER PARTIES." 

AFTER FINAL SUBMISSION, AND BEFORE PROMULGATION OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER, THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
OCTOBER 2, 1942, WHICH, WHILE PROHIBITING THE PRESIDENT FROM SUSPENDING
THAT PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL ACT EXEMPTING PUBLIC UTILITIES FROM THE
SCOPE OF THE STATUTE, PROVIDED:  "THAT NO COMMON CARRIER OR OTHER
PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL MAKE ANY GENERAL INCREASE IN ITS RATES OR CHARGES
WHICH WERE IN EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1942, UNLESS IT FIRST GIVES
THIRTY DAYS NOTICE TO THE PRESIDENT, OR SUCH AGENCY AS HE MAY
DESIGNATE, AND CONSENTS TO THE TIMELY INTERVENTION BY SUCH AGENCY
BEFORE THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION
TO CONSIDER SUCH INCREASE."  50 U.S.C., SUPP. III, SEC. 961. 

ON THE SHOWING OF THE COMMISSION'S STAFF, THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE BEEN
ENTITLED, UNDER THE SLIDING SCALE, TO AN INCREASE IN RATES OF
$324,718.  THE INCREASE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION WAS $201,424,
EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1942.  IN ITS ORDER, HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION
DIRECTED THE COMPANY'S ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF
OCTOBER 2, 1942, AND QUOTED ITS LANGUAGE.  ACCORDINGLY THE COMPANY,
OCTOBER 14, 1942, SERVED NOTICE UPON THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC
STABILIZATION, WHO HAD BEEN DESIGNATED FOR THE PURPOSE BY THE
PRESIDENT, OF THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN RATES TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, AND LATER CONSENTED TO HIS INTERVENTION.  THE
COURT BELOW HAS FOUND THAT THE REQUISITE NOTICE AND CONSENT TO
INTERVENTION WAS GIVEN BY THE COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT. 

COUNSEL WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN ALL THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
ADMINISTRATOR FILED WITH THE COMMISSION OCTOBER 19 A PETITION IN THE
NAME OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR, ASKING THAT
THE COMMISSION VACATE ITS ORDER AND REOPEN THE PROCEEDINGS TO ALLOW THE
DIRECTOR TO INTERVENE.  THE COMMISSION REOPENED THE PROCEEDING AND SET
A HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 2 "FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING FROM THE OFFICE
OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC
STABILIZATION, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE INFLATIONARY EFFECT,
IF ANY, OF THE INCREASE IN RATES AUTHORIZED BY ORDER NO. 2401, AND
INTERVENTION IS GRANTED FOR SUCH PURPOSE."  WHEN THE REOPENED
PROCEEDINGS CAME ON FOR HEARING, THE SAME COUNSEL WHO HAD THERETOFORE
PARTICIPATED IN BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATOR APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, OFFERED NO WITNESSES, BUT RENEWED A MOTION PREVIOUSLY FILED
THAT THE PROCEEDING BE REOPENED "WITHOUT RESTRICTION AS TO THE TYPE OF
EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED" AND THAT THE COMMISSION VACATE ITS ORDER. 
THE MOTION WAS DENIED, THE COMMISSION ANNOUNCING THAT IT WAS READY TO
RECEIVE EVIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER REOPENING THE
PROCEEDING.  THE PETITIONERS OFFERED NO EVIDENCE.  ON BEING ASKED
WHETHER THEY HAD ANY TESTIMONY TO PRESENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER
TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDINGS, THEY ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE SO THAT THEY
MIGHT CONSULT THEIR ASSOCIATES.  THE REQUEST WAS GRANTED.  ON NOVEMBER
4, COUNSEL RECALLED A WITNESS FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION BUT OFFERED NO
OTHER EVIDENCE.  THE PROCEEDINGS WERE THEN CLOSED FOR THE THIRD TIME
WITHOUT THE OFFER OF ANY TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC
POLICY DEVELOPED UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT AS AMENDED "AND
THE EFFECT THEREON OF INCREASE IN RATES OR CHARGES OF COMMON CARRIERS
OR OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES." 

THE COMMISSION RECONSIDERED THE RECORD AND THE TESTIMONY AND,
NOVEMBER 9, ISSUED ITS ORDER IN WHICH IT REVIEWED THE PROCEEDINGS AND
FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE RATES
AUTHORIZED BY ORDER NO. 2401 WERE UNDULY INFLATIONARY.  IT DENIED THE
DIRECTOR'S PETITION TO VACATE THE ORDER.  THEREAFTER THE COMPANY PUT
THE NEW RATES INTO EFFECT AS OF NOVEMBER 16TH.  ON APPEAL BY THE
PETITIONERS, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION,
IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORD, WAS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL, AND VACATED THE
ORDER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION HAD
AFFORDED PETITIONERS FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING UPON ANY QUESTION
WHICH, UNDER THE LAW AND THE RULES OF THE COMMISSION, WAS OPEN IN THE
PROCEEDING AND THAT IT WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR ILLEGAL FOR THE COMMISSION,
ON THE RECORD MADE, TO DENY THE ABANDONMENT OF THE SLIDING-SCALE PLAN
AND THE PROSECUTION OF AN ENTIRELY NEW RATE INVESTIGATION INVOLVING
FAIR VALUE, DEPRECIATION, RATE OF RETURN, AND OTHER ELEMENTS COMMONLY
CONSIDERED IN SUCH AN INVESTIGATION. 

THE PETITIONERS SEEK VACATION OF THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMMISSION DENIED THEM A FULL AND FAIR HEARING.  THIS CONTENTION IS
BASED UPON THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENTION THAT UNDER THE ACTS OF JANUARY 30
AND OCTOBER 2, 1942, THEY WERE ENTITLED TO DEMAND THAT THE COMMISSION
ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE HEARING AND CONVERT THE INQUIRY INTO ONE
WHETHER AN INCREASE OF RATES WAS NECESSARY TO THE COMPANY TO PREVENT
HARDSHIP.  THE COMMISSION, ON THE OTHER HAND, INSISTS THAT IT WAS
ENTITLED TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STATUTORY
POWERS AS THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO 1942, AND, AT MOST, ACCORD THE
PETITIONERS A FULL HEARING AS TO THE EFFECT OF ANY ORDER IN ITS
RELATION TO INFLATION IN THE WAR EMERGENCY.  THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE
CONTROVERSY IS ESSENTIALLY ONE BETWEEN TWO GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AS TO
WHETHER THE POWERS OF THE ONE OR THE OTHER ARE PREPONDERANT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IN VIEW OF THE PETITIONERS' INSISTENCE THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED, IN
EFFECT, TO CONTROL AND DIRECT THE INQUIRY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
STATUTORY POWERS OF THE COMMISSION, WE SHALL FIRST EXAMINE THE EXTENT
OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON PETITIONERS BY CONGRESS. 

THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, WHILE IT GIVES THE
ADMINISTRATOR POWER OVER PRICES OF "COMMODITIES," WHICH ARE NOT
GENERALLY REGULATED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY, SPECIFICALLY AND EXPRESSLY
WITHHOLDS FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR JURISDICTION OVER PUBLIC UTILITY
RATES.  AND, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE STABILIZATION ACT OF OCTOBER 2,
1942, DID NOT ALTER THIS PROHIBITION BUT REQUIRED MERELY THAT NO
UTILITY SHOULD GENERALLY INCREASE RATES IN EFFECT SEPTEMBER 15, 1942,
UNLESS IT FIRST GAVE THIRTY DAYS' NOTICE TO THE PRESIDENT OR HIS
REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSENTED TO THE TIMELY INTERVENTION OF THAT
REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY HAVING
JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE INCREASE.    IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THIS
LANGUAGE CONFERS A RIGHT OF INTERVENTION.  THE BILL AS PASSED BY THE
SENATE CONTAINED A PROVISION THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO INCREASE IN
UTILITY RATES UNLESS THEY WERE APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT.  THE HOUSE
REFUSED TO CONCUR, WITH THE RESULT THAT ONLY THE LANGUAGE NOW CONTAINED
IN THE PROVISO APPEARED IN THE BILL.  THE ASSERTION THAT, WHILE THE
PRICE ADMINISTRATOR OR THE DIRECTOR MAY PRESENT HIS VIEWS TO THE
REGULATORY BODY, "HE HAD NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT ITS DECISION," WAS MADE
AND NOT CONTRADICTED ON THE SENATE FLOOR IN DISCUSSION OF THE
CONFERENCE REPORT.  EVIDENTLY CONGRESS INTENDED TO GRANT THE
ADMINISTRATOR PLENARY CONTROL OVER COMMODITY PRICES, SINCE THEY
GENERALLY WERE NOT THE SUBJECT OF LOCAL REGULATION, BUT IN BOTH THE
ORIGINAL ACT AND THE AMENDMENT, AS THIS COURT HAS RECENTLY SAID IN
DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, SUPRA, WAS CAREFUL "TO AVOID PARALYZING
OR EXTINGUISHING LOCAL INSTITUTIONS."  THUS IT LIMITED THE RIGHT OF THE
EXECUTIVE TO NOTICE BY THE UTILITY AND THE UTILITY'S CONSENT THAT THE
EXECUTIVE MIGHT BE HEARD BY THE REGULATORY BODY HAVING FINAL AUTHORITY
IN THE PREMISES. 

IF THE PETITIONERS WERE ADMITTED AS INTERVENORS BY A STATE COMMISSION,
OR BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSION, WHICH IS A RESPONDENT HERE, THEY MIGHT,
OF COURSE, BE ADMITTED TO PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDING UPON
REASONABLE TERMS; AND ONE OF THE MOST USUAL PROCEDURAL RULES IS THAT AN
INTERVENOR IS ADMITTED TO THE PROCEEDING AS IT STANDS, AND IN RESPECT
OF THE PENDING ISSUES, BUT IS NOT PERMITTED TO ENLARGE THOSE ISSUES OR
COMPEL AN ALTERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING.  TO THIS EFFECT
WAS THE COMMISSION'S RULE ON THE SUBJECT.  IT WOULD SEEM THEN THAT, IN
THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR LEGISLATIVE MANDATE TO THE CONTRARY, THE
PETITIONERS SHOULD NOT POSSESS GREATER RIGHTS THAN OTHER INTERVENORS. 

THIS THE PETITIONERS DENY.  THEY SAY THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
ABSENCE OF ANY CATEGORICAL ENACTMENT, THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE
ORIGINAL ACT AND ITS SUPPLEMENT SHOW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO PROHIBIT
STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES FROM PERMITTING ANY INCREASE IN
UTILITY RATES WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NECESSARY TO PREVENT ACTUAL
HARDSHIP.  WE ARE ASKED THEN, NOT ONLY TO REVISE THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN
DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, SUPRA, AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE ACTS, BUT
TO INFER FROM A GENERAL EXPRESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY, THE
LIMITATION OF EXISTING POWERS CONFERRED BY LAW ON REGULATORY
COMMISSIONS THROUGHOUT THE NATION, BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL, AND THE
ENDOWMENT OF A DIFFERENT FEDERAL AGENCY WITH NEW AND SUPERIOR RIGHTS
AND POWERS.  FN8  THIS WE ARE UNABLE TO DO. 

THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONERS STEMS FROM THEIR VIEW AS TO
THE EFFECT OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT AND THE STABILIZATION
ACT.  THEY INSISTED BELOW THAT THEY WERE DENIED A FAIR HEARING BECAUSE
THE COMMISSION REFUSED, IN THE CURRENT PROCEEDING, TO ALTER AND ENLARGE
THE SCOPE AND THE CHARACTER OF THE INQUIRY.  IT WILL BE REMEMBERED
THAT, UNDER THE COMMISSION'S EXISTING ORDER, A TERMINATION OF THE
SLIDING SCALE ARRANGEMENT REQUIRED NINETY DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE.  THERE
WAS NO APPLICATION OF ANY RATE PAYER OR ANY PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION
IN THE SPRING OF 1942 TO ABROGATE THE ARRANGEMENT.  ON THE CONTRARY,
THE COMMISSION GAVE THE REQUIRED NOTICE FOR THE USUAL ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT
UNDER THE PLAN; AND, AFTER THE NECESSARY INVESTIGATIONS BY ITS AGENTS,
GAVE NOTICE OF HEARING WITH RESPECT TO SUCH ADJUSTMENT.  AT THAT POINT,
AND AT A TIME WHEN NO NOTICE OF INCREASE OF RATES WAS REQUIRED BY ANY
ACT OF CONGRESS, THE ADMINISTRATOR, UPON HIS APPLICATION WAS PERMITTED
TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDING. 

IN HIS PETITION, AND AT THE HEARINGS, HE ASSERTED AND REITERATED THAT
HE HAD THE RIGHT TO GO INTO THE PROPRIETY OF THE RATE BASE, THE
OPERATING EXPENSES, INCLUDING DEPRECIATION EXPENSES, TAXES, AND RATE OF
RETURN, SUMMARIZING HIS DEMAND AS "A FULL AND COMPLETE INQUIRY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHAT ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES  ...  "  THE
PETITIONERS NOW INSIST THAT THEIR DESIRE WAS LIMITED TO EXAMINATION OF
CERTAIN FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE SLIDING SCALE.  BUT THE COURTS BELOW
DID NOT SO UNDERSTAND.  THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH SUSTAINED THE APPEAL,
SAID:  "THE COMMISSION WAS REQUESTED TO RECONSIDER THE BASIC PRINCIPLE
OF THE SLIDING-SCALE ARRANGEMENT  ... "  THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID "THE
PRICE ADMINISTRATOR DEPARTED FROM THE FIELD COMMITTED TO HIS CARE AND
DEMANDED THAT THE COMMISSION SUSPEND THE APPLICATION OF THE SLIDING
SCALE, AND REEXAMINE ITS BASIS IN A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION OF ALL THE
ELEMENTS THAT ENTER INTO THE DETERMINATION OF A UTILITY RATE BY A
REGULATORY BODY."  THESE CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ARE SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD. 

IF WE CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS' PRESENT POSITION WE FIND THAT THE
COMMISSION HEARD ALL EVIDENCE OFFERED, AND SAYS IT WEIGHED IT.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR URGED THAT THE STRAIGHTLINE METHOD OF DEPRECIATION
EMBODIED IN THE SINKING FUND PLAN MUST BE DISCARDED IN FAVOR OF A
SINKING FUND METHOD UNDER THE FORCE OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, A
POSITION UNSUPPORTED BY OUR CASES, AND EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO SHOW THE
RESULT WHICH WOULD ENSUE THE SUBSTITUTION.  SOME TESTIMONY WAS ADDUCED
AS TO RATE OF RETURN, AND THE COMMISSION'S REPORT SHOWS THIS WAS
CONSIDERED.  IN SHORT, IF THE INQUIRY WAS LIMITED TO THE ISSUES
COMPREHENDED IN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF INVESTIGATION, THE
PETITIONERS WERE AFFORDED EVERY OPPORTUNITY FOR A FULL HEARING.  ON THE
SUBJECT RESPECTING WHICH THE PETITIONERS WERE ESPECIALLY COMPETENT TO
ENLIGHTEN THE COMMISSION, - NAMELY THE INFLATIONARY EFFECT OF A RATE
INCREASE OF 2.28% FOR ONE YEAR, AMOUNTING, ON THE AVERAGE, TO THREE
CENTS PER MONTH PER CUSTOMER, IN THE LIGHT OF WAGE INCREASES AND
INCREASED COMMODITY PRICES AND OVER-ALL CONDITIONS IN THE NATIONAL
ECONOMY, - NO EVIDENCE WAS TENDERED BY PETITIONERS, IN RESPONSE TO
REPEATED INVITATIONS BY THE COMMISSION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  56 STAT. 23. 

FN2  56 STAT. 765. 

FN3  48 F.SUPP.  703. 

FN4  137 F.2D 547. 

FN5  C. 150, 37 STAT. 974; C. 8, 44 STAT. 920; C. 742, 49 STAT. 882;
C. 40, 53 STAT. 569.  D.C. CODE, 1940 ED., TIT. 43 SECS. 101-1006. 

FN6  56 STAT. 36, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 942(C). 

FN7  COMPARE DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 144. 

FN8  DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, SUPRA; YONKERS V. UNITED STATES,
320 U.S. 685. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THIS CASE GOES HAND IN HAND WITH DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, 321
U.S. 144.  THAT DECISION EXPANDED THE "PUBLIC UTILITY" EXEMPTION IN THE
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT TO INCLUDE A WIDE VARIETY OF ENTERPRISES. 
THE PRESENT DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE VALUE OF THAT PREFERRED
TREATMENT. 

THE STABILIZATION ACT PROHIBITS ANY "UTILITY" FROM MAKING "ANY
GENERAL INCREASE IN ITS RATES OR CHARGES WHICH WERE IN EFFECT ON
SEPTEMBER 15, 1942" WITHOUT GIVING THE PRESIDENT'S AGENT THE RIGHT TO
INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE PRESENT DECISION GOES FAR TOWARDS
MAKING THAT PROVISION INEFFECTIVE.  IT ALLOWS THE COMMISSION SO TO
SHAPE THE ISSUES OF THE RATE PROCEEDING AS TO EXCLUDE THE DATA MOST
RELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ANY RATE INCREASE SHOULD BE
ALLOWED.  THE POWER OF A COMMISSION TO SHAPE THE ISSUES AS IT DESIRES
AND TO RESTRICT THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC STABILIZATION TO THOSE ISSUES
IS NOT A POWER WHICH IS APT TO BE NEGLECTED.  THE DIRECTOR MAY OF
COURSE PROCLAIM AGAINST RATE INCREASES.  BUT HE DOES NOT NEED THE RIGHT
TO INTERVENE TO PROVE THAT RATE INCREASES ARE INFLATIONARY.  THAT IS
SELF-EVIDENT.  THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE, IF IT IS NOT A RIGHT TO
INTRODUCE RELEVANT DATA BEARING ON THE TRUE EARNINGS AND RETURNS OF THE
UTILITY, IS AN EMPTY RIGHT INDEED. 

I AGREE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT TRANSFER RATE-MAKING POWERS FROM THE
COMMISSIONS TO THE DIRECTOR.  I AGREE THAT CONGRESS MUST HAVE
CONTEMPLATED THAT SOME RATE INCREASES MIGHT TAKE PLACE OR ELSE IT WOULD
HAVE TREATED THE WHOLE PROBLEM QUITE DIFFERENTLY.  BUT I FIND NOT THE
SLIGHTEST INDICATION THAT THE DIRECTOR WAS TO BE DENIED A FULL
HEARING.  AND I DO NOT SEE HOW A FULL HEARING COULD BE ACCORDED UNLESS
HE WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH, IF HE COULD, THAT THE CASE
UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOWED NO REAL HARDSHIP, THAT WARTIME DEMANDS WERE
NOT CAUSING THE COMPANY TO SUFFER, THAT ITS FINANCIAL INTEGRITY AND ITS
ABILITY TO RENDER SERVICE REMAINED UNIMPAIRED, THAT ITS PROPERTY WAS
NOT BEING CONFISCATED, THAT IT WAS NOT BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY AS
COMPARED WITH OTHER COMPANIES. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT THIS COMPANY HAS AN INFLATED RATE BASE OF SOME
$1,000,000.  WE ARE TOLD THAT ITS EXCESSIVE CHARGES FOR DEPRECIATION
EXPENSE WERE OVER $225,000 A YEAR AS COMPARED WITH THE RATE INCREASE OF
ABOUT $200,000 A YEAR.  WE ARE TOLD THAT A FULL HEARING WOULD HAVE
DISCLOSED THAT THE COMPANY WAS IN FACT EARNING MORE THAN 6 1/2%.  I DO
NOT KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD SHOW.  BUT AN OFFER OF PROOF IN A RATE
CASE COULD NOT BE MORE RELEVANT. 

I BELIEVE, MOREOVER, THAT WHEN CONGRESS HALTED GENERAL RATE INCREASES
AND GAVE THE DIRECTOR A RIGHT TO INTERVENE, IT DID NOT SANCTION RATE
INCREASES REGARDLESS OF NEED AND REGARDLESS OF INFLATIONARY EFFECT.  I
THINK IT MEANT TO MAKE UTILITY COMMISSIONS AT LEAST PARTIAL
PARTICIPANTS IN THE WAR AGAINST INFLATION AND GAVE THEM A SECTOR OF THE
FRONT TO CONTROL.  THOUGH IT DID NOT REMOVE THE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS
FOR RATE-MAKING, I DO NOT THINK IT INTENDED UTILITY COMMISSIONS TO
PROCEED IN DISREGARD OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL AND
UNMINDFUL OF THE DANGERS OF GENERAL RATE INCREASES.  TO THE CONTRARY, I
THINK CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THERE SHOULD BE AS GREAT AN ACCOMMODATION
AS POSSIBLE BETWEEN THE OLD STANDARDS AND THE NEW WARTIME NECESSITIES. 
THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THAT ACCOMMODATION IS BEST
ILLUSTRATED PERHAPS BY ITS TREATMENT OF TAXES.  THE COMMISSION ALLOWED
THE COMPANY TO DEDUCT AS OPERATING EXPENSES ALL INCOME TAXES UP TO AND
INCLUDING 31%.  THAT THIS AMOUNT INCLUDES WARTIME TAXES IS EVIDENT FROM
THE FACT THAT THE HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX RATE WHICH PREVAILED FROM 1936
TO 1939 WAS 19%.  WE ALL KNOW THAT THE EXTRAORDINARY EXPENDITURES
INCURRED FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE NATION STARTED WITH THE REVENUE ACT OF
1940.  IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED PRACTICE TO DEDUCT INCOME TAXES AS WELL AS
OTHER TAXES FROM OPERATING EXPENSES IN DETERMINING RATES FOR PUBLIC
UTILITIES.  GALVESTON ELECTRIC CO. V. GALVESTON, 258 U.S. 388, 399. 
BUT THIS IS WAR, NOT BUSINESS-AS-USUAL.  WHEN INCOME TAXES ARE PASSED
ON TO CONSUMERS, THE INFLATIONARY EFFECT IS OBVIOUS.  AND IT IS SELF
EVIDENT THAT THE ABILITY TO PASS PRESENT WARTIME INCOME TAXES ON TO
OTHERS IS A REMARKABLE PRIVILEGE INDEED. 
..END :



BOWLES V. WILLINGHAM, 321 U.S. 503 


NO. 464.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 10, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 AND
SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND IN VIEW OF SEC. 204(D) OF THE ACT,
A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS AUTHORITY
TO ENJOIN A PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT TO RESTRAIN ISSUANCE BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF RENT ORDERS; AND SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
FORBIDDING FEDERAL COURTS TO ENJOIN PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS, IS
INAPPLICABLE.  P. 510. 

(A)  CONGRESS MAY DETERMINE WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD HAVE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF CONTROVERSIES WHICH ARISE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHICH ARE THEREFORE
WITHIN THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES AS DEFINED IN ART. III,
SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, OR WHETHER THEY SHOULD EXERCISE THAT
JURISDICTION CONCURRENTLY WITH THE COURTS OF THE STATES.  P. 511. 

(B)  THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO WITHHOLD FROM STATE COURTS ALL
JURISDICTION OF CONTROVERSIES ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDES THE POWER TO RESTRICT THE OCCASIONS WHEN
THAT JURISDICTION MAY BE INVOKED.  P. 512. 

2.  BY THE RENT CONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT
OF 1942, AUTHORIZING THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR TO FIX MAXIMUM RENTS FOR
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN DEFENSE-RENTAL AREAS, CONGRESS DID NOT
DELEGATE ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER.  YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 414. 
P. 514. 

THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE JUDICIAL
REVIEW WHICH IS AFFORDED.  THE FACT THAT THERE IS A ZONE FOR THE
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IS NO MORE FATAL HERE THAN
IN OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED THE GENERAL STANDARD
AND HAS LEFT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY THE DETERMINATION OF THE
PRECISE SITUATIONS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WILL BE APPLIED
AND THE WEIGHT TO BE ACCORDED VARIOUS STATUTORY CRITERIA ON GIVEN
FACTS. 

3.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE MAXIMUM RENT OR RENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR BE "GENERALLY" FAIR AND EQUITABLE, SEC. 2(B), DOES NOT
RENDER THE ACT VIOLATIVE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 516. 

(A)  THAT PRICE-FIXING IS ON A CLASS BASIS, RATHER THAN ON AN
INDIVIDUAL BASIS, DOES NOT RENDER IT INVALID.  P. 518. 

(B)  THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS REGARD
BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ARE NO GREATER THAN THOSE IMPOSED ON THE STATES
BY THE FOURTEENTH.  P. 518. 

(C)  CONGRESS WAS DEALING HERE WITH CONDITIONS CREATED BY ACTIVITIES
RESULTING FROM A GREAT WAR EFFORT; IT WAS UNDER NO CONSTITUTIONAL
NECESSITY OF PROVIDING A SYSTEM OF PRICE CONTROL WHICH WOULD ASSURE
EACH LANDLORD A "FAIR RETURN" ON HIS PROPERTY.  P. 519. 

(D)  AND THOUGH THE LEGISLATION MAY HAVE REDUCED THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY BEING REGULATED, THERE WAS NO "TAKING" OF IT.  P. 517. 

4.  THAT LANDLORDS ARE NOT AFFORDED A HEARING BEFORE THE ORDER OR
REGULATION FIXING RENTS BECOMES EFFECTIVE DOES NOT RENDER THE ACT
VIOLATIVE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER
THE ORDER OR REGULATION BECOMES EFFECTIVE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF
DUE PROCESS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 519. 

5.  QUESTIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ORDERS OR REGULATIONS ISSUED
PURSUANT TO THE ACT MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF
APPEALS ON THE REVIEW PROVIDED BY SEC. 204.  P. 521. 

BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, V. WILLINGHAM ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 

DIRECT APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING A SUIT
BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR ON THE GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE RENT PROVISIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 AND
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT THERETO. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLEE, MRS. WILLINGHAM OF MACON, GEORGIA, SUED IN A GEORGIA COURT
TO RESTRAIN THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN RENT ORDERS UNDER THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942(56 STAT. 23, 50 U.S.C. APP. (SUPP. II) SEC.
901) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDERS AND THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON
WHICH THEY RESTED WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE STATE COURT ISSUED, EX
PARTE, A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND A SHOW CAUSE ORDER.  THEREUPON
APPELLANT, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE OFFICE OF PRICE ADMINISTRATION, BROUGHT
THIS SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT PURSUANT TO SEC. 205(A) OF THE
ACT AND SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO RESTRAIN MRS. WILLINGHAM
FROM FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE STATE PROCEEDINGS AND FROM VIOLATION OF
THE ACT, AND TO RESTRAIN APPELLEE HICKS, BIBB COUNTY SHERIFF, FROM
EXECUTING OR ATTEMPTING TO EXECUTE ANY ORDERS IN THE STATE
PROCEEDINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN RELIANCE ON ITS EARLIER RULING IN
PAYNE V. GRIFFIN, 51 F.SUPP.  588, DISMISSED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SUIT
ON BILL AND ANSWER, HOLDING THAT THE ORDERS IN QUESTION AND THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ON WHICH THEY RESTED WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL.  50 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 349(A). 

SEC. 2(B) OF THE ACT PROVIDES IN PART THAT, "WHENEVER IN THE JUDGMENT
OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SUCH ACTION IS NECESSARY OR PROPER IN ORDER TO
EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, HE SHALL ISSUE A DECLARATION
SETTING FORTH THE NECESSITY FOR, AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO,
THE STABILIZATION OR REDUCTION OF RENTS FOR ANY DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN A PARTICULAR DEFENSERENTAL AREA."  PURSUANT TO
THAT AUTHORITY THE ADMINISTRATOR ON APRIL 28, 1942, ISSUED A
DECLARATION DESIGNATING TWENTY-EIGHT AREAS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE
COUNTRY, INCLUDING MACON, GEORGIA, AS DEFENSE-RENTAL AREAS.  7 FED.
REG. 3193.  THAT DECLARATION STATED THAT DEFENSE ACTIVITIES HAD
RESULTED IN INCREASED HOUSING RENTS IN THOSE AREAS  FN1  AND THAT IT
WAS NECESSARY AND PROPER IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT
TO STABILIZE AND REDUCE SUCH RENTS.  IT ALSO CONTAINED A RECOMMENDATION
PURSUANT TO SEC. 2(B) THAT THE MAXIMUM RENT FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS
RENTED ON APRIL 1, 1941, SHOULD BE THE RENTAL FOR SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS
ON THAT DATE; FN2  AND THAT IN CASE OF ACCOMMODATIONS NOT RENTED ON
APRIL 1, 1941, OR CONSTRUCTED THEREAFTER PROVISIONS FOR THE
DETERMINATION, ADJUSTMENT, AND MODIFICATION OF MAXIMUM RENTS SHOULD BE
MADE, SUCH RENTS TO BE IN PRINCIPLE NO GREATER THAN THE GENERALLY
PREVAILING RENTS IN THE PARTICULAR AREA ON APRIL 1, 1941.  THE
DECLARATION ALSO STATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(B)
FN3  THAT IF WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER APRIL 28, 1942, SUCH RENTS WITHIN
THE AREAS IN QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN STABILIZED OR REDUCED BY STATE OR
LOCAL REGULATION OR OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
RECOMMENDATION, THE ADMINISTRATOR MIGHT FIX THE MAXIMUM RENTS. 

ON JUNE 30, 1942, THE ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED MAXIMUM RENT REGULATION
NO. 26, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1942, ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM LEGAL RENTS
FOR HOUSING IN THESE DEFENSE AREAS, INCLUDING MACON, GEORGIA.  7 FED.
REG. 4905.  IT RECITED THAT THE RENTALS HAD NOT BEEN REDUCED OR
STABILIZED SINCE THE DECLARATION OF APRIL 28, 1942, AND THAT DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES HAD RESULTED IN INCREASES IN THE RENTALS ON OR ABOUT APRIL
1, 1941, BUT NOT PRIOR TO THAT DATE.  THE MAXIMUM RENTALS FIXED FOR
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS RENTED ON APRIL 1, 1941 WERE THE RENTS OBTAINED
ON THAT DATE.  SEC. 1388.1704(A).  AS RESPECTS HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS
NOT RENTED ON APRIL 1, 1941, BUT RENTED FOR THE FIRST TIME BETWEEN THAT
DATE AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATION, JULY 1, 1942 - THE
SITUATION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE - IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE MAXIMUM RENT
SHOULD BE THE FIRST RENT CHARGED AFTER APRIL 1, 1941.  SEC.
1388.1704(C).  BUT IN THAT CASE IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE RENT DIRECTOR
(DESIGNATED BY SEC. 1388.1713) MIGHT ORDER A DECREASE ON HIS OWN
INITIATIVE ON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE RENT WAS HIGHER THAN
THAT GENERALLY PREVAILING IN THE AREA FOR COMPARABLE HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS ON APRIL 1, 1941.  SEC. 1388.1704(C), SEC.
1388.1705(C)(1).  BY PROCEDURAL REGULATION NO. 3, AS AMENDED (8 FED.
REG. 526, 1798, 3534, 5481, 14811) ISSUED PURSUANT TO SEC. 201(D) AND
SEC. 203(A) OF THE ACT  FN4  PROVISION WAS MADE THAT WHEN THE RENT
DIRECTOR PROPOSED TO TAKE SUCH ACTION HE SHOULD SERVE A NOTICE UPON THE
LANDLORD INVOLVED, STATING THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE GROUNDS
THEREFOR.  SEC. 1300.207.  WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE FINAL ACTION OF THE
RENT DIRECTOR THE LANDLORD MIGHT FILE AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW BY THE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE REGION IN WHICH THE DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA
OFFICE WAS LOCATED AND THEN FILE A PROTEST WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE (SEC. 1300.209, SEC.
1300.210); OR HE MIGHT PROCEED BY PROTEST IMMEDIATELY.  SEC. 1300.209,
SEC. 1300.215.  AS WE DEVELOP MORE FULLY HEREAFTER, THE ACT PROVIDES IN
SEC. 203(A) FOR THE FILING OF PROTESTS WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR.  THE
MACHINERY FOR A HEARING ON A PROTEST AND A DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR (SEC. 1300.215-SEC.  1300.240) WAS DESIGNED TO
PROVIDE THE BASIS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS
AS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 204(A) OF THE ACT. 

IN JUNE, 1943, THE RENT DIRECTOR GAVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO MRS.
WILLINGHAM THAT HE PROPOSED TO DECREASE THE MAXIMUM RENTS FOR THREE
APARTMENTS OWNED BY HER, AND WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RENTED ON APRIL 1,
1941, BUT WERE FIRST RENTED IN THE SUMMER OF 1941, ON THE GROUND THAT
THE FIRST RENTS FOR THESE APARTMENTS RECEIVED AFTER APRIL 1, 1941, WERE
IN EXCESS OF THOSE GENERALLY PREVAILING IN THE AREA FOR COMPARABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS ON APRIL 1, 1941.  MRS. WILLINGHAM FILED OBJECTIONS TO
THAT PROPOSED ACTION TOGETHER WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS.  THE RENT
DIRECTOR THEREUPON ADVISED HER THAT HE WOULD PROCEED TO ISSUE AN ORDER
REDUCING THE RENTS.  BEFORE THAT WAS DONE SHE FILED HER BILL IN THE
GEORGIA COURT.  THE PRESENT SUIT FOLLOWED SHORTLY, AS WE HAVE SAID. 

1.  WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTRICT
COURT COULD IN ANY EVENT GIVE THE RELIEF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR SEEKS
IN VIEW OF SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (36 STAT. 1162, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
379) WHICH PROVIDES THAT "THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION SHALL NOT BE GRANTED
BY ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF A
STATE, EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE SUCH INJUNCTION MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY ANY
LAW RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY."  WE RECENTLY HAD OCCASION
TO CONSIDER THE HISTORY OF SEC. 265 AND THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN
ENGRAFTED ON IT.  TOUCEY V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 314 U.S. 118.  IN
THAT CASE WE LISTED THE FEW ACTS OF CONGRESS PASSED SINCE ITS FIRST
ENACTMENT IN 1793 WHICH OPERATE AS IMPLIED LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO
IT.  314 U.S. PP. 132-134.  THERE SHOULD NOW BE ADDED TO THAT LIST THE
EXCEPTION CREATED BY THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942.  BY SEC.
205(A) THE ADMINISTRATOR IS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
IN THE APPROPRIATE COURT (INCLUDING THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS)
AGAINST ACTS OR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 4, E.G., THE RECEIPT OF
RENT IN VIOLATION OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER SEC. 2.  MOREOVER,
BY SEC. 204(D) OF THE ACT ONE WHO SEEKS TO RESTRAIN OR SET ASIDE ANY
ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OR ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT IS CONFINED TO
THE JUDICIAL REVIEW GRANTED TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH
WAS CREATED BY SEC. 204(C) AND TO THIS COURT.  FN5  AS WE RECENTLY HELD
IN LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182, 186, 187, CONGRESS CONFINED
JURISDICTION TO GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF TO THAT NARROW CHANNEL AND
WITHHELD SUCH JURISDICTION FROM EVERY OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE COURT. 
CONGRESS THUS PREEMPTED JURISDICTION IN FAVOR OF THE EMERGENCY COURT TO
THE EXCLUSION OF STATE COURTS.  FN6  THE RULE EXPRESSED IN SEC. 265
WHICH IS DESIGNED TO AVOID COLLISIONS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES (TOUCEY V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA) THUS DOES NOT
COME INTO PLAY.  THE POWERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF
THE ACT AND SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE ARE AMPLE AUTHORITY FOR
THAT COURT TO PROTECT THE EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS
CREATED. 

THE SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
WITHHOLD FROM THE COURTS OF THE STATES JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUITS
ATTACKING THE ACT ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS.  BUT WE HAVE HERE A
CONTROVERSY WHICH ARISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND IS THEREFORE WITHIN THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES
AS DEFINED IN ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  HENCE CONGRESS
COULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURTS WHICH IT ESTABLISHED SHOULD
HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH CASES OR WHETHER THEY SHOULD
EXERCISE THAT JURISDICTION CONCURRENTLY WITH THE COURTS OF THE STATES. 
PLAQUEMINES FRUIT CO. V. HENDERSON, 170 U.S. 511, 517; THE MOSES
TAYLOR, 4 WALL.  411, 428-430.  AND SEE TENNESSEE V. DAVIS, 100 U.S.
257; MCKAY V. KALYTON, 204 U.S. 458, 468-469.  UNDER THE PRESENT ACT
ALL JURISDICTION HAS NOT BEEN WITHHELD FROM STATE COURTS, SINCE THEY
HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER ALL CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SUITS BROUGHT
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  SEC. 205(C).  BUT THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO
WITHHOLD ALL JURISDICTION FROM THE STATE COURTS OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES THE
POWER TO RESTRICT THE OCCASIONS WHEN THAT JURISDICTION MAY BE INVOKED. 

II.  THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RENT CONTROL
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT  FN7 RAISES ISSUES RELATED TO THOSE CONSIDERED IN
YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 414. 

WHEN IT CAME TO RENTS CONGRESS PURSUED THE POLICY IT ADOPTED
RESPECTING COMMODITY PRICES.  IT ESTABLISHED STANDARDS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND LEFT WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR THE DECISION WHEN
THE RENT CONTROLS OF THE ACT SHOULD BE INVOKED.  HE IS EMPOWERED TO FIX
MAXIMUM RENTS FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN ANY DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA,
FN8  WHENEVER IN HIS JUDGMENT THAT ACTION IS NECESSARY OR PROPER IN
ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  A DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA IS
ANY AREA "DESIGNATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AS AN AREA WHERE DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES HAVE RESULTED OR THREATEN TO RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE
RENTS FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES" OF THE
ACT.  SEC. 302(D).  THE CONTROLS ADOPTED BY CONGRESS WERE THOUGHT
NECESSARY "IN THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY" AND
FOR THE "EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT WAR."  SEC. 1(A).  THEY
HAVE AS THEIR AIM THE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF OUR PRICE STRUCTURES
AGAINST THE FORCES OF DISORGANIZATION AND THE PRESSURES CREATED BY WAR
AND ITS ATTENDANT ACTIVITIES.  FN9 SEC. 1(A); S. REP. NO. 931, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1-5.  THUS THE POLICY OF THE ACT IS CLEAR.  THE
MAXIMUM RENTS FIXED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR ARE THOSE WHICH "IN HIS
JUDGMENT" WILL BE "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND WILL EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."  SEC. 2(B).  BUT CONGRESS DID NOT LEAVE THE
ADMINISTRATOR WITH THAT GENERAL STANDARD; IT SUPPLIED CRITERIA FOR ITS
APPLICATION BY STATING THAT SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE THE ADMINISTRATOR IN
ESTABLISHING ANY MAXIMUM RENT SHOULD ASCERTAIN AND GIVE CONSIDERATION
TO THE RENTS PREVAILING FOR THE ACCOMMODATIONS, OR COMPARABLE ONES, ON
APRIL 1, 1941.  THE ADMINISTRATOR, HOWEVER, MAY CHOOSE AN EARLIER OR
LATER DATE IF DEFENSE ACTIVITIES HAVE CAUSED INCREASED RENTS PRIOR OR
SUBSEQUENT TO APRIL 1, 1941.  BUT IN NO EVENT MAY THE ADMINISTRATOR
SELECT A DATE EARLIER THAN APRIL 1, 1940.  AND IN DETERMINING A MAXIMUM
RENT "HE SHALL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR SUCH RELEVANT FACTORS AS HE MAY
DETERMINE AND DEEM TO BE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY IN RESPECT OF SUCH
ACCOMMODATIONS, INCLUDING INCREASES OR DECREASES IN PROPERTY TAXES AND
OTHER COSTS."  SEC. 2(B).  AND CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR "MAY PROVIDE FOR SUCH ADJUSTMENTS AND REASONABLE
EXCEPTIONS" AS IN HIS JUDGMENT ARE "NECESSARY OR PROPER IN ORDER TO
EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."  SEC. 2(C). 

THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH SUPPORT THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY UNDER
THIS ACT OVER COMMODITY PRICES (YAKUS V. UNITED STATES) ARE EQUALLY
APPLICABLE HERE.  THE POWER TO LEGISLATE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
"SHALL BE VESTED" IN CONGRESS (ART. I, SEC. 1) HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED TO
THE ADMINISTRATOR.  CONGRESS IN SEC. 1(A) OF THE ACT HAS MADE CLEAR ITS
POLICY OF WAGING WAR ON INFLATION.  IN SEC. 2(B) IT HAS DEFINED THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN ITS ANNOUNCED POLICY IS TO BE DECLARED OPERATIVE AND
THE METHOD BY WHICH IT IS TO BE EFFECTUATED.  THOSE STEPS CONSTITUTE
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SENSE.  OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 144.    THERE
IS NO GRANT OF UNBRIDLED ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AS APPELLEE ARGUES. 
CONGRESS HAS NOT TOLD THE ADMINISTRATOR TO FIX RENTS WHENEVER AND
WHEREVER HE MIGHT LIKE AND AT WHATEVER LEVELS HE PLEASES.  CONGRESS HAS
DIRECTED THAT MAXIMUM RENTS BE FIXED IN THOSE AREAS WHERE DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES HAVE RESULTED OR THREATEN TO RESULT IN INCREASED RENTALS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT.  AND IT HAS SUPPLIED THE
STANDARD AND THE BASE PERIOD TO GUIDE THE ADMINISTRATOR IN DETERMINING
WHAT THE MAXIMUM RENTALS SHOULD BE IN A GIVEN AREA.  THE CRITERIA TO
GUIDE THE ADMINISTRATOR ARE CERTAINLY NOT MORE VAGUE THAN THE STANDARDS
GOVERNING THE DETERMINATION BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN UNITED
STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 576-577, OF MARKETING AREAS
AND MINIMUM PRICES FOR MILK.  THE QUESTION OF HOW FAR CONGRESS SHOULD
GO IN FILLING IN THE DETAILS OF THE STANDARDS WHICH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY IS TO APPLY RAISES LARGE ISSUES OF POLICY.  SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE
COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 398.  WE RECENTLY STATED IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS PROBLEM OF DELEGATION, "THE CONSTITUTION, VIEWED
AS A CONTINUOUSLY OPERATIVE CHARTER OF GOVERNMENT, IS NOT TO BE
INTERPRETED AS DEMANDING THE IMPOSSIBLE OR THE IMPRACTICABLE."  OPP
COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, SUPRA, P. 145.  IN TERMS OF HARD-HEADED
PRACTICALITIES CONGRESS FREQUENTLY COULD NOT PERFORM ITS FUNCTIONS IF
IT WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE AN APPRAISAL OF THE MYRIAD OF FACTS APPLICABLE
TO VARYING SITUATIONS, AREA BY AREA THROUGHOUT THE LAND, AND THEN TO
DETERMINE IN EACH CASE WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.  CONGRESS DOES NOT ABDICATE
ITS FUNCTIONS WHEN IT DESCRIBES WHAT JOB MUST BE DONE, WHO MUST DO IT,
AND WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY.  IN OUR COMPLEX ECONOMY THAT
INDEED IS FREQUENTLY THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS CAN
GO FORWARD.  WHETHER A PARTICULAR GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO AN OFFICER OR
AGENCY IS WISE OR UNWISE, RAISES QUESTIONS WHICH ARE NONE OF OUR
CONCERN.  OUR INQUIRY ENDS WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  CONGRESS
HERE HAS SPECIFIED THE BASIC CONCLUSIONS OF FACT UPON THE ASCERTAINMENT
OF WHICH BY THE ADMINISTRATOR ITS STATUTORY COMMAND IS TO BECOME
EFFECTIVE.  BUT THAT IS NOT ALL.  THE ADMINISTRATOR ON THE DENIAL OF
PROTESTS MUST INFORM THE PROTESTANT OF THE "GROUNDS UPON WHICH" THE
DECISION IS BASED AND OF ANY "ECONOMIC DATA AND OTHER FACTS OF WHICH
THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS TAKEN OFFICIAL NOTICE."  SEC. 203(A).  THESE
MATERIALS AND THE GROUNDS FOR DECISION WHICH THEY FURNISHED ARE
INCLUDED IN THE TRANSCRIPT ON WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW IS BASED.  SEC.
204(A).  WE FAIL TO SEE HOW MORE COULD BE REQUIRED (TAYLOR V. BROWN,
137 F.2D 654, 658-659) UNLESS WE WERE TO SAY THAT CONGRESS RATHER THAN
THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD DETERMINE THE EXACT RENTALS WHICH MRS.
WILLINGHAM MIGHT EXACT. 

AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT AND AS MORE FULLY DEVELOPED IN YAKUS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, SEC. 203(A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR THE FILING OF A
PROTEST WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AGAINST ANY REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER
SEC. 2.  MOREOVER, ANY PERSON "AGGRIEVED" MAY SECURE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS. 
SEC. 204(A).  AND THAT REVIEW IS ON A TRANSCRIPT WHICH INCLUDES "A
STATEMENT SETTING FORTH, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, THE ECONOMIC DATA AND
OTHER FACTS OF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS TAKEN OFFICIAL NOTICE." 
SEC. 204(A).  HERE, AS IN THE YAKUS CASE, THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY
THE ACT ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH HAS BEEN ACCORDED. 
THE FACT THAT THERE IS A ZONE FOR THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS NO MORE FATAL HERE THAN IN OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE
CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED THE GENERAL STANDARD AND HAS LEFT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY THE DETERMINATION OF THE PRECISE SITUATIONS TO
WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WILL BE APPLIED AND THE WEIGHT TO BE
ACCORDED VARIOUS STATUTORY CRITERIA ON GIVEN FACTS.  OPP COTTON MILLS
V. ADMINISTRATOR, SUPRA; YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THUS SO FAR AS DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY IS CONCERNED, THE RENT CONTROL
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, LIKE THE PRICE CONTROL PROVISIONS (YAKUS V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA), MEET THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH THIS COURT HAS
PREVIOUSLY HELD TO BE ADEQUATE FOR PEACETIME LEGISLATION. 

III.  IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT SEC. 2(B) OF THE ACT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO FIX MAXIMUM
RENTS WHICH ARE "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT A
RENTAL WHICH IS "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE" MAY BE MOST UNFAIR AND
INEQUITABLE AS APPLIED TO A PARTICULAR LANDLORD AND THAT A STATUTE
WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A FAIR RENTAL TO EACH LANDLORD IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  DURING THE FIRST WORLD WAR THE STATUTE FOR THE
CONTROL OF RENTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROVIDED MACHINERY FOR
SECURING TO A LANDLORD A REASONABLE RENTAL.  BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S.
135, 157.  AND SEE EDGAR A. LEVY LEASING CO. V. SIEGEL, 258 U.S. 242. 
AND UNDER OTHER PRICE-FIXING STATUTES SUCH AS THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF
1938(52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717) CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR THE
FIXING OF RATES WHICH ARE JUST AND REASONABLE IN THEIR APPLICATION TO
PARTICULAR PERSONS OR COMPANIES.  FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. HOPE
NATURAL GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591.  CONGRESS DEPARTED FROM THAT PATTERN
WHEN IT CAME TO THE PRESENT ACT.  IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT ANY
ATTEMPT TO FIX RENTS, LANDLORD BY LANDLORD, AS IN THE FASHION OF
UTILITY RATES, WOULD HAVE BEEN QUITE IMPOSSIBLE.  WILSON V. BROWN, 137
F.2D 348, 352-354.  SUCH CONSIDERATIONS OF FEASIBILITY AND PRACTICALITY
ARE CERTAINLY GERMANE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  JACOB RUPPERT V.
CAFFEY, 251 U.S. 264, 299; OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, SUPRA, P.
145.  MOREOVER, THERE WOULD BE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION IF CONGRESS
AS A WAR EMERGENCY MEASURE HAD ITSELF FIXED THE MAXIMUM RENTS IN THESE
AREAS.  WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH A SITUATION WHICH INVOLVES A
"TAKING" OF PROPERTY.  WILSON V. BROWN, SUPRA.  BY SEC. 4(D) OF THE ACT
IT IS PROVIDED THAT "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE
ANY PERSON TO SELL ANY COMMODITY OR TO OFFER ANY ACCOMMODATIONS FOR
RENT."  THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE APARTMENTS IN QUESTION BE USED
FOR PURPOSES WHICH BRING THEM UNDER THE ACT.  OF COURSE, PRICE CONTROL,
THE SAME AS OTHER FORMS OF REGULATION, MAY REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY REGULATED.  BUT, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT IN THE HOPE NATURAL
GAS CO. CASE (320 U.S. P. 601), THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE REGULATION
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT,
STATED IN BLOCK V. HIRSH, SUPRA, P. 155:  "THE FACT THAT TANGIBLE
PROPERTY IS ALSO VISIBLE TENDS TO GIVE A RIGIDITY TO OUR CONCEPTION OF
OUR RIGHTS IN IT THAT WE DO NOT ATTACH TO OTHERS LESS CONCERTELY
CLOTHED.  BUT THE NOTION THAT THE FORMER ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE MODIFICATION REQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME IN CIVILIZED LIFE
IS CONTRADICTED NOT ONLY BY THE DOCTRINE OF EMINENT DOMAIN, UNDER WHICH
WHAT IS TAKEN IS PAID FOR, BUT BY THAT OF THE POLICE POWER IN ITS
PROPER SENSE, UNDER WHICH PROPERTY RIGHTS MAY BE CUT DOWN, AND TO THAT
EXTENT TAKEN, WITHOUT PAY."  A MEMBER OF THE CLASS WHICH IS REGULATED
MAY SUFFER ECONOMIC LOSSES NOT SHARED BY OTHERS.  HIS PROPERTY MAY LOSE
UTILITY AND DEPRECIATE IN VALUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF REGULATION.  BUT
THAT HAS NEVER BEEN A BARRIER TO THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER. 
L'HOTE V. NEW ORLEANS, 177 U.S. 587, 598; WELCH V. SWASEY, 214 U.S. 91;
HEBE CO. V. SHAW, 248 U.S. 297; PIERCE OIL CORP. V. CITY OF HOPE, 248
U.S. 498; HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. 146, 157;
EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO., 272 U.S. 365; WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379.  AND THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED ON THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT IN THIS REGARD BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ARE NO GREATER THAN
THOSE IMPOSED ON THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH.  HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY
DISTILLERIES CO., SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100. 

IT IS IMPLICIT IN CASES SUCH AS NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502,
WHICH INVOLVED THE POWER OF NEW YORK TO FIX THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM
PRICES OF MILK, AND SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, SUPRA,
WHICH INVOLVED THE POWER OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION TO FIX
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PRICES OF BITUMINOUS COAL, THAT HIGH COST OPERATORS
MAY BE MORE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY PRICE CONTROL THAN OTHERS.  BUT IT
HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT THAT PRICE-FIXING, OTHERWISE VALID, WAS IMPROPER
BECAUSE IT WAS ON A CLASS RATHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.  INDEED, THE
DECISION IN MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113, THE PIONEER CASE IN THIS
COURT, INVOLVED A LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM PRICES FOR A DEFINED
CLASS OF WAREHOUSES AND WAS SUSTAINED ON THAT BASIS.  WE NEED NOT
DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS THERE ARE TO PRICE-FIXING
LEGISLATION.  CONGRESS WAS DEALING HERE WITH CONDITIONS CREATED BY
ACTIVITIES RESULTING FROM A GREAT WAR EFFORT.  YAKUS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.  A NATION WHICH CAN DEMAND THE LIVES OF ITS MEN AND WOMEN IN THE
WAGING OF THAT WAR IS UNDER NO CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY OF PROVIDING A
SYSTEM OF PRICE CONTROL ON THE DOMESTIC FRONT WHICH WILL ASSURE EACH
LANDLORD A "FAIR RETURN" ON HIS PROPERTY. 

IV.  IT IS FINALLY SUGGESTED THAT THE ACT VIOLATES THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT MAKES NO PROVISION FOR A HEARING TO LANDLORDS
BEFORE THE ORDER OR REGULATION FIXING RENTS BECOMES EFFECTIVE. 
OBVIOUSLY, CONGRESS WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER NO NECESSITY TO GIVE NOTICE
AND PROVIDE A HEARING BEFORE IT ACTED, HAD IT DECIDED TO FIX RENTS ON A
NATIONAL BASIS THE SAME AS IT DID FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  SEE 55
STAT. 788.  WE AGREE WITH THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS (AVANT V.
BOWLES, 139 F.2D 702) THAT CONGRESS NEED NOT MAKE THAT REQUIREMENT WHEN
IT DELEGATES THE TASK TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  IN BI-METALLIC
INVESTMENT CO. V. STATE BOARD, 239 U.S. 441, A SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY A
TAXPAYER AND LANDOWNER TO ENJOIN A COLORADO BOARD FROM PUTTING IN
EFFECT AN ORDER WHICH INCREASED THE VALUATION OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY
IN DENVER 40 PER CENT.  SUCH ACTION, IT WAS ALLEGED, VIOLATED THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS THE PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN NO OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, STATED, P. 445:
"WHERE A RULE OF CONDUCT APPLIES TO MORE THAN A FEW PEOPLE IT IS
IMPRACTICABLE THAT EVERY ONE SHOULD HAVE A DIRECT VOICE IN ITS
ADOPTION.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE ALL PUBLIC ACTS TO BE DONE
IN TOWN MEETING OR AN ASSEMBLY OF THE WHOLE.  GENERAL STATUTES WITHIN
THE STATE POWER ARE PASSED THAT AFFECT THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF
INDIVIDUALS, SOMETIMES TO THE POINT OF RUIN, WITHOUT GIVING THEM A
CHANCE TO BE HEARD.  THEIR RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED IN THE ONLY WAY THAT
THEY CAN BE IN A COMPLEX SOCIETY, BY THEIR POWER, IMMEDIATE OR REMOTE,
OVER THOSE WHO MAKE THE RULE."  WE NEED NOT GO SO FAR IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  HERE CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION.  TO BE SURE, THAT REVIEW COMES AFTER THE ORDER
HAS BEEN PROMULGATED; AND NO PROVISION FOR A STAY IS MADE.  BUT AS WE
HAVE HELD IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THAT REVIEW SATISFIES THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS FOR A
UNANIMOUS COURT IN PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 596-597:
"WHERE ONLY PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, MERE POSTPONEMENT OF THE
JUDICIAL ENQUIRY IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, IF THE OPPORTUNITY
GIVEN FOR THE ULTIMATE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE LIABILITY IS
ADEQUATE.  SPRINGER V. UNITED STATES, 102 U.S. 586, 593; SCOTTISH UNION
& NATIONAL INS. CO. V. BOWLAND, 196 U.S. 611, 631.  DELAY IN THE
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IS NOT UNCOMMON WHERE IT IS
ESSENTIAL THAT GOVERNMENTAL NEEDS BE IMMEDIATELY SATISFIED." 

LANGUAGE IN THE CASES THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES A HEARING BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER BECOMES EFFECTIVE (MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304
U.S. 1, 19-20; OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, SUPRA, PP. 152-153)
IS TO BE EXPLAINED ON TWO GROUNDS.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE STATUTES
THERE INVOLVED REQUIRED THAT PROCEDURE. 

SECONDLY, AS WE HAVE HELD IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, CONGRESS
WAS DEALING HERE WITH THE EXIGENCIES OF WARTIME CONDITIONS AND THE
INSISTENT DEMANDS OF INFLATION CONTROL.  CF. PORTER V. INVESTORS
SYNDICATE, 286 U.S. 461, 471.  CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO FIX RENTS IN
SPECIFIED AREAS OR ON A NATIONAL SCALE BY LEGISLATIVE FIAT.  IT CHOSE A
METHOD DESIGNED TO MEET THE NEEDS FOR RENT CONTROL AS THEY MIGHT ARISE
AND TO ACCORD SOME LEEWAY FOR ADJUSTMENT WITHIN THE FORMULA WHICH IT
PRESCRIBED.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE PROCEDURE WHICH CONGRESS ADOPTED WAS
SELECTED WITH THE VIEW OF ELIMINATING THE NECESSITY FOR "LENGTHY AND
COSTLY TRIALS WITH CONCOMITANT DISSIPATION OF THE TIME AND ENERGIES OF
ALL CONCERNED IN LITIGATION RATHER THAN IN THE COMMON WAR EFFORT."  S.
REP. NO. 931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 7.  TO REQUIRE HEARINGS FOR
THOUSANDS OF LANDLORDS BEFORE ANY RENT CONTROL ORDER COULD BE MADE
EFFECTIVE MIGHT HAVE DEFEATED THE PROGRAM OF PRICE CONTROL.  OR
CONGRESS MIGHT WELL HAVE THOUGHT SO.  NATIONAL SECURITY MIGHT NOT BE
ABLE TO AFFORD THE LUXURIES OF LITIGATION AND THE LONG DELAYS WHICH
PRELIMINARY HEARINGS TRADITIONALLY HAVE ENTAILED.    WE FULLY
RECOGNIZE, AS DID THE COURT IN HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL,
290 U.S. 398, 426, THAT "EVEN THE WAR POWER DOES NOT REMOVE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS SAFEGUARDING ESSENTIAL LIBERTIES."  AND SEE
HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., SUPRA, P. 155.  BUT WHERE
CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER THE REGULATIONS OR
ORDERS HAVE BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE IT HAS DONE ALL THAT DUE PROCESS UNDER
THE WAR EMERGENCY REQUIRES. 

OTHER OBJECTIONS ARE RAISED CONCERNING THE REGULATIONS OR ORDERS
FIXING THE RENTS.  BUT THESE MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY BY THE EMERGENCY
COURT OF APPEALS ON THE REVIEW PROVIDED BY SEC. 204.  YAKUS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  REVERSED.    FN1  THE DECLARATION RECITED THAT THE
DESIGNATED AREAS WERE THE LOCATION OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES OR OF WAR PRODUCTION INDUSTRIES, THAT THE INFLUX OF PEOPLE HAD
CAUSED AN ACUTE SHORTAGE OF RENTAL HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, THAT MOST OF
THE AREAS WERE THOSE IN WHICH BUILDERS COULD SECURE PRIORITY RATINGS ON
CRITICAL MATERIALS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION
HAD NOT BEEN SUFFICIENT TO RESTORE NORMAL RENTAL MARKETS, THAT SURVEYS
SHOWED LOW VACANCY RATIOS FOR RENTAL HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE
AREAS, THAT DEFENSE ACTIVITIES HAD RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL AND
WIDESPREAD INCREASES IN RENTS AFFECTING MOST OF THESE ACCOMMODATIONS IN
THE AREAS, AND THAT OFFICIAL SURVEYS IN THE AREAS HAD SHOWN A MARKED
UPWARD MOVEMENT IN THE GENERAL LEVEL OF RESIDENTIAL RENTS. 

FN2  SEC. 2(B) PROVIDES:  "WHENEVER IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR SUCH ACTION IS NECESSARY OR PROPER IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE
THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, HE SHALL ISSUE A DECLARATION SETTING FORTH
THE NECESSITY FOR, AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO, THE
STABILIZATION OR REDUCTION OF RENTS FOR ANY DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN A PARTICULAR DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA.  IF WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF ANY SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS RENTS FOR ANY
SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN SUCH DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA HAVE NOT IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR BEEN STABILIZED OR REDUCED BY STATE OR
LOCAL REGULATION, OR OTHERWISE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS,
THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY BY REGULATION OR ORDER ESTABLISH SUCH MAXIMUM
RENT OR MAXIMUM RENTS FOR SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS AS IN HIS JUDGMENT WILL
BE GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND WILL EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF
THIS ACT.  SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, IN ESTABLISHING ANY MAXIMUM RENT FOR
ANY DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL
ASCERTAIN AND GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE RENTS PREVAILING FOR SUCH
ACCOMMODATIONS, OR COMPARABLE ACCOMMODATIONS, ON OR ABOUT APRIL 1,
1941(OR IF, PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO APRIL 1, 1941, DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
SHALL HAVE RESULTED OR THREATENED TO RESULT IN INCREASES IN RENTS FOR
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN SUCH AREA INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF
THIS ACT, THEN ON OR ABOUT A DATE (NOT EARLIER THAN APRIL 1, 1940),
WHICH IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, DOES NOT REFLECT SUCH
INCREASES), AND HE SHALL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR SUCH RELEVANT FACTORS AS
HE MAY DETERMINE AND DEEM TO BE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY IN RESPECT OF
SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS, INCLUDING INCREASES OR DECREASES IN PROPERTY TAXES
AND OTHER COSTS.  IN DESIGNATING DEFENSE-RENTAL AREAS, IN PRESCRIBING
REGULATIONS AND ORDERS ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM RENTS FOR SUCH
ACCOMMODATIONS, AND IN SELECTING PERSONS TO ADMINISTER SUCH REGULATIONS
AND ORDERS, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL, TO SUCH EXTENT AS HE DETERMINES TO
BE PRACTICABLE, CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH MAY BE MADE BY STATE
AND LOCAL OFFICIALS CONCERNED WITH HOUSING OR RENTAL CONDITIONS IN ANY
DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA." 

AND SEC. 2(C) PROVIDES: "ANY REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER THIS SECTION
MAY BE ESTABLISHED IN SUCH FORM AND MANNER, MAY CONTAIN SUCH
CLASSIFICATIONS AND DIFFERENTIATIONS, AND MAY PROVIDE FOR SUCH
ADJUSTMENTS AND REASONABLE EXCEPTIONS, AS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR ARE NECESSARY OR PROPER IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT.  ANY REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER THIS SECTION WHICH
ESTABLISHES A MAXIMUM PRICE OR MAXIMUM RENT MAY PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM
PRICE OR MAXIMUM RENT BELOW THE PRICE OR PRICES PREVAILING FOR THE
COMMODITY OR COMMODITIES, OR BELOW THE RENT OR RENTS PREVAILING FOR THE
DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS, AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF
SUCH REGULATION OR ORDER." 

FN3  SEE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(B) IN NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN4  SEC. 201(D) PROVIDES:  "THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY, FROM TIME TO
TIME, ISSUE SUCH REGULATIONS AND ORDERS AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR
PROPER IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT." 

SEC. 203(A) PROVIDES IN PART:  "WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS AFTER
THE ISSUANCE OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER UNDER SECTION 2, OR IN THE CASE
OF A PRICE SCHEDULE, WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE THEREOF SPECIFIED IN SECTION 206, ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO ANY
PROVISION OF SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE MAY, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, FILE
A PROTEST SPECIFICALLY SETTING FORTH OBJECTIONS TO ANY SUCH PROVISION
AND AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER WRITTEN EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH
OBJECTIONS.  AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH SIXTY DAYS ANY
PERSONS SUBJECT TO ANY PROVISION OF SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE
SCHEDULE MAY FILE SUCH A PROTEST BASED SOLELY ON GROUNDS ARISING AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH SIXTY DAYS.  STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ANY SUCH
REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE MAY BE RECEIVED AND INCORPORATED
IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT SUCH TIMES AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SUCH REGULATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR." 

FN5  SEC. 204(D) PROVIDES IN PART:  "THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS,
AND THE SUPREME COURT UPON REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION
2, OF ANY PRICE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
PRICE SCHEDULE.  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, NO COURT, FEDERAL,
STATE, OR TERRITORIAL, SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OR POWER TO CONSIDER THE
VALIDITY OF ANY SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE, OR TO STAY,
RESTRAIN, ENJOIN, OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY PROVISION OF
THIS ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REGULATIONS OR ORDERS, OR
MAKING EFFECTIVE ANY SUCH PRICE SCHEDULE, OR ANY PROVISION OF ANY SUCH
REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE, OR TO RESTRAIN OR ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ANY SUCH PROVISION." 

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT SEC. 204(C) WITHHOLDS FROM THE EMERGENCY
COURT POWER "TO ISSUE ANY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR INTERLOCUTORY
DECREE STAYING OR RESTRAINING, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2 OR ANY PRICE SCHEDULE
EFFECTIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206." 

FN6  IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 205(C) GIVES TO STATE AND TERRITORIAL
COURTS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF ALL PROCEEDINGS (EXCEPT CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS) UNDER SEC. 205 OF THE ACT.  BUT THEY EMBRACE ONLY
ENFORCEMENT SUITS BROUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, NOT SUITS BROUGHT TO
RESTRAIN OR ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT OR ORDERS OR REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER. 

FN7  HERE AS IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE ADMINISTRATOR
CONCEDES THAT IN AN ENFORCEMENT SUIT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ORDERS OR REGULATIONS
UNDER THE ACT IS OPEN.  AS POINTED OUT IN THE YAKUS CASE, RELIANCE IS
PLACED ON SEC. 204(D), SUPRA NOTE 5.  AND SEE S. REP. NO. 931, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 24-25. 

FN8  THE TERMS RENT, DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA, DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS, AND HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS ARE DEFINED IN SEC. 302 OF
THE ACT. 

FN9  SEC. 1(A) PROVIDES IN PART:  "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE IN THE
INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY AND NECESSARY TO THE
EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT WAR, AND THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT
ARE, TO STABILIZE PRICES AND TO PREVENT SPECULATIVE, UNWARRANTED, AND
ABNORMAL INCREASES IN PRICES AND RENTS; TO ELIMINATE AND PREVENT
PROFITEERING, HOARDING, MANIPULATION, SPECULATION, AND OTHER DISRUPTIVE
PRACTICES RESULTING FROM ABNORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS OR SCARCITIES
CAUSED BY OR CONTRIBUTING TO THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY; TO ASSURE THAT
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ARE NOT DISSIPATED BY EXCESSIVE PRICES; TO
PROTECT PERSONS WITH RELATIVELY FIXED AND LIMITED INCOMES, CONSUMERS,
WAGE EARNERS, INVESTORS, AND PERSONS DEPENDENT ON LIFE INSURANCE,
ANNUITIES, AND PENSIONS, FROM UNDUE IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR STANDARD OF
LIVING; TO PREVENT HARDSHIPS TO PERSONS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS, TO
SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES, AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS, AND TO THE FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM ABNORMAL
INCREASES IN PRICES; TO ASSIST IN SECURING ADEQUATE PRODUCTION OF
COMMODITIES AND FACILITIES; TO PREVENT A POST EMERGENCY COLLAPSE OF
VALUES; TO STABILIZE AGRICULTURAL PRICES IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN
AND PRODUCERS, PROCESSORS, AND OTHERS TO ACCOMPLISH THE AFORESAID
PURPOSES." 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING: 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT AND SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE COURT'S OPINION,
EXCEPT FOR QUALIFICATIONS EXPRESSED BELOW.  IN VIEW OF THESE AND MY
DIFFERENCE FROM THE COURT'S POSITION IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE,
P. 414, A STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR CONCURRENCE HERE IS APPROPRIATE. 

                                  I. 

WITH REFERENCE TO THE SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF THE LEGISLATION, I WOULD
ADD HERE ONLY THE FOLLOWING.  SINCE THE PHASES IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE
RELATE TO REAL ESTATE RENTALS, IT IS NOT AMISS TO NOTE THAT THESE
ORDINARILY ARE WITHIN THE STATE'S POWER TO REGULATE RATHER THAN THAT OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  BUT THEIR RELATION, BOTH TO THE GENERAL SYSTEM
OF CONTROLLING WARTIME PRICE INFLATION AND TO THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF
HOUSING CREATED IN PARTICULAR AREAS BY WAR ACTIVITIES, GIVES ADEQUATE
GROUND FOR EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER OVER THEM. 

LIKEWISE, WITH RESPECT TO THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO DESIGNATE "DEFENSE RENTAL AREAS" AND TO FIX MAXIMUM
RENTALS WITHIN THEM, THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS, AND OTHERS, SUSTAIN THE
DELEGATION AS DO THAT TO FIX PRICES OF COMMODITIES GENERALLY.  THE
POWER TO SPECIFY DEFENSE RENTAL AREAS, RATHER THAN AMOUNTING TO AN
EXCESS OF PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION, IS ACTUALLY A LIMITATION UPON THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S AUTHORITY, RESTRICTING IT TO REGIONS WHERE THE FACTS,
NOT MERELY HIS JUDGMENT, MAKE CONTROL OF RENTS NECESSARY BOTH TO KEEP
DOWN INFLATION AND TO CARRY ON THE WAR ACTIVITIES CONCENTRATED IN
THEM.  ACCORDINGLY, I CONCUR FULLY WITH THE COURT'S EXPRESSED VIEWS
CONCERNING THE SUBSTANTIVE FEATURES OF THE LEGISLATION. 

                                 II. 

THIS APPEAL PRESENTS TWO KINDS OF JURISDICTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL
QUESTIONS, THOUGH THEY ARE NOT UNRELATED.  THE FIRST SORT RELATE TO THE
POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO RESTRAIN THE FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE
STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS AND THE EXECUTION OF, OR ATTEMPTS TO EXECUTE,
ORDERS ISSUED IN THEM.  THE OTHER ISSUES RELATE TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S
POWER TO RESTRAIN MRS. WILLINGHAM FROM VIOLATING THE EMERGENCY PRICE
CONTROL ACT AND THE ORDERS ISSUED PURSUANT TO IT AFFECTING HER
INTERESTS. 

AS TO THE FORMER, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER,
FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE COURT, TO RESTRAIN THE PROSECUTION OF THE
SUIT IN THE STATE COURT AND THE EXECUTION OF ORDERS MADE BY IT.  BY
SEC. 204(D) OF THE ACT, CONGRESS WITHHELD FROM ALL COURTS, INCLUDING
THE STATE COURTS, WITH AN EXCEPTION IN THE CASE OF THE EMERGENCY COURT
OF APPEALS AND THIS COURT ON REVIEW OF ITS JUDGMENTS, "JURISDICTION
...  TO STAY, RESTRAIN, ENJOIN, OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY
PROVISION OF THIS ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REGULATIONS OR
ORDERS, OR MAKING EFFECTIVE ANY SUCH PRICE SCHEDULE, OR ANY PROVISION
OF ANY SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE, OR TO RESTRAIN OR
ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY SUCH PROVISION."  THE SINGLE EXCEPTION
WAS THE POWER OF THE EMERGENCY COURT BY ITS FINAL JUDGMENT, OR OF THIS
COURT ON FINAL DISPOSITION IN REVIEW THEREOF, SEC. 204(A), (B), TO SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OR REGULATION.  CONGRESS CLEARLY HAD THE POWER THUS TO
CONFINE THE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS AND TO MAKE ITS
MANDATE FOR UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION OF THE RENT CONTROL SYSTEM
EFFECTIVE BY PROHIBITING THE STATE COURTS SO TO INTERFERE WITH THE
STATUTORY PLAN, AT LEAST UNTIL IT SHOULD BE SHOWN INVALID BY THE
CHANNEL CREATED FOR THIS PURPOSE.  FN1  ANY EFFORT OF THE STATE COURT
THEREFORE TO ENJOIN THE ISSUANCE OF RENT ORDERS OR SUSPEND THEIR
OPERATION, WHETHER ON CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHER GROUNDS, WAS DIRECTLY IN
THE TEETH OF THE STATUTE'S EXPLICIT PROVISIONS AND A VIOLATION OF ITS
TERMS.  BY THIS MANDATE THE STATE COURTS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE
THEIR SANCTION TO ENFORCEMENT OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OR REGULATION
OR EVEN OF ONE WHICH MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE SUCH.  THEY WERE MERELY
COMMANDED TO KEEP HANDS OFF AND LEAVE DECISION UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE OR THE REGULATIONS, FOR PURPOSES OF SUSPENDING OR SETTING THEM
ASIDE, TO ANOTHER FORUM ESTABLISHED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  CONGRESS CLEARLY
HAD THE POWER AND THE INTENT TO AUTHORIZE FEDERAL COURTS TO ENFORCE
THIS COMMAND, BY INJUNCTION IF NECESSARY. 

                                 III. 

IN VESTING JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO ENJOIN
VIOLATIONS OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT AND REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO
IT, CONGRESS INCLUDED NOT ONLY VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTE'S PROHIBITION
DIRECTED TO THE STATE COURTS AGAINST STAYING ENFORCEMENT BUT OTHER
VIOLATIONS AS WELL.  THE DISTRICT COURT, ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT
JURISDICTION, RESTED ITS JUDGMENT ON THE DECISION OF A QUESTION IT WAS
AUTHORIZED TO CONSIDER, NAMELY, WHETHER THE ACT, RATHER THAN MERELY A
REGULATION ISSUED UNDER IT, IS INVALID.  SINCE THE COURT DECIDED THAT
QUESTION ERRONEOUSLY IN DISPOSING OF THIS CASE, REVERSAL OF ITS
JUDGMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED.  AND PERHAPS IN STRICTNESS THIS IS ALL THAT
IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DECIDE AT THIS TIME.    BUT THE CONTENTION HAS
BEEN MADE EARNESTLY ALL THROUGH THESE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE REGULATIONS,
ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ANY INJUNCTION OBTAINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST
REST, ARE INVALID AND BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT.  AND THE
COURT, RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN THE YAKUS CASE, HAS INDICATED THAT
THESE CONTENTIONS MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN A PROCEEDING OF THIS
CHARACTER.    FROM WHAT ALREADY HAS BEEN SAID, IT IS CLEAR THE
CONTENTION MISCONCEIVES THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE STATE SUIT AND
EXECUTION OF THE STATE COURT'S ORDERS.  HIS RIGHT TO SUCH AN INJUNCTION
MAY REST ON CONSIDERATIONS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE GOVERNING HIS
RIGHT TO SECURE AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING MRS. WILLINGHAM FROM
VIOLATING THE REGULATION.  THE FORMER COULD BE FOUNDED WHOLLY UPON THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO REQUIRE THE STATE COURTS TO KEEP HANDS ENTIRELY
OFF, IN THE DISCHARGE OF FEDERAL FUNCTIONS BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS, AT ANY
RATE DURING SUCH TIME AS MIGHT BE REQUIRED FOR DECISION, WITH FINALITY,
UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER IT BY AN
APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE FEDERAL METHOD.  THE LATTER, HOWEVER, PRESENTS
THE DIFFERENT QUESTION WHETHER CONGRESS CAN REQUIRE THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS, ORGANIZED UNDER ARTICLE III AND VESTED BY IT WITH THE
JUDICIAL POWER, NOT MERELY TO KEEP HANDS OFF, BUT BY AFFIRMATIVE
EXERCISE OF THEIR POWERS TO GIVE PERMANENT SANCTION TO THE LEGISLATIVE
OR ADMINISTRATIVE COMMAND, NOTWITHSTANDING IT IS OR MAY BE IN CONFLICT
WITH SOME CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE. 

THAT CONGRESS CAN REQUIRE THE COURT EXERCISING THE CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN EQUITY TO REFRAIN FROM STAYING STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS
IS CLEAR.  WHETHER THE ENFORCING COURT ACTS CIVILLY OR CRIMINALLY, IN
CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THESE, CONGRESS CAN CUT OFF ITS POWER TO STAY OR
SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE OR THE REGULATION PENDING FINAL
DECISION THAT IT IS INVALID.  BUT THIS LEAVES THE QUESTION WHETHER
CONGRESS ALSO CAN CONFER THE EQUITY JURISDICTION TO DECREE ENFORCEMENT
AND AT THE SAME TIME DEPRIVE THE COURT OF POWER TO CONSIDER THE
VALIDITY OF THE LAW OR REGULATION AND TO GOVERN ITS DECREE
ACCORDINGLY. 

DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS, IN PART, DETERMINE THIS QUESTION FROM THOSE
CONTROLLING WHEN ENFORCEMENT IS BY CRIMINAL SANCTION.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS SPECIALLY APPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL TRIALS FALL
TO ONE SIDE.  THOSE RELATING TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING WHATEVER MATTERS AFFECTING DISCRIMINATION ARE
APPLICABLE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND TO THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE
JUDICIAL POWER UNDER ARTICLE III, IN RELATION TO CIVIL PROCEEDINGS,
REMAIN APPLICABLE.  SINCE IN THESE CASES THE RIGHTS INVOLVED ARE RIGHTS
OF PROPERTY, NOT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY OR LIFE AS IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS, THE CONSEQUENCES, THOUGH SERIOUS, ARE NOT OF THE SAME
MOMENT UNDER OUR SYSTEM, AS APPEARS FROM THE FACT THEY ARE NOT SECURED
BY THE SAME PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS IN TRIAL.  IT IS IN THIS RESPECT
PERHAPS THAT OUR BASIC LAW, FOLLOWING THE COMMON LAW, MOST CLEARLY
PLACES THE RIGHTS TO LIFE AND TO LIBERTY ABOVE THOSE OF PROPERTY. 

ALL THIS IS PERTINENT TO WHETHER CONGRESS, IN PROVIDING FOR CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS, CAN DO WHAT IN MY OPINION
IT CANNOT REQUIRE BY WAY OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT OF THIS STATUTE,
NAMELY, BY PROVIDING THE SINGLE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY
OF THE REGULATION AND MAKING THIS AVAILABLE FOR THE LIMITED TIME,
CONSTITUTE THE METHOD AFFORDED THE EXCLUSIVE MODE FOR SECURING DECISION
OF THAT QUESTION AND, EITHER BY VIRTUE OF THE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT OR
BY VIRTUE OF THE FAILURE TO DO SO WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED, FORECLOSE
FURTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSIDERING IT. 

IN MY OPINION CONGRESS CAN DO THIS, SUBJECT HOWEVER TO THE FOLLOWING
LIMITATIONS OR RESERVATIONS, WHICH I THINK SHOULD BE STATED EXPLICITLY:
(1) THE ORDER OR REGULATION MUST NOT BE INVALID ON ITS FACE; (2) THE
PREVIOUS OPPORTUNITY MUST BE ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE PRESCRIBED, IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE; AND (3), WHAT IS A COROLLARY OF THE SECOND
LIMITATION OR IMPLICIT IN IT, THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NATURE OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEM DEALT WITH BY THE LEGISLATION MUST BE SUCH THAT
THEY JUSTIFY BOTH THE CREATION OF THE SPECIAL REMEDY AND THE
REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE FOLLOWED TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS NORMALLY
AVAILABLE. 

IN THIS CASE, IN MY JUDGMENT, THESE CONDITIONS CONCUR TO JUSTIFY THE
PROCEDURE CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED.  EXCEPT FOR THE CHARGE THAT THE
REGULATIONS, OR SOME OF THEM, ARE SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE AS TO BE
INCAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT, THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THEY ARE INVALID
ON THEIR FACE.  AND THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT SO, EITHER IN THE RESPECT
SPECIFIED OR OTHERWISE.  FN2  THE PROCEEDING BY PROTEST AND APPEAL
THROUGH THE EMERGENCY COURT, EVEN FOR CIVIL CONSEQUENCES ONLY,
APPROACHES THE LIMIT OF ADEQUACY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, BOTH BY
REASON OF ITS SUMMARY CHARACTER  FN3  AND BECAUSE OF THE SHORTNESS OF
THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR FOLLOWING IT.  FN4  A RESERVATION PERHAPS IS IN
ORDER IN THE LATTER RESPECT, WHEN FACTS ARE DISCOVERED AFTER THE PERIOD
WHICH, IF PROVEN, WOULD INVALIDATE THE REGULATION AND WHICH BY
REASONABLE DILIGENCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BEFORE THE PERIOD
ENDS.  FINALLY, IT HARDLY CAN BE DISPUTED THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEM
AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CREATED AND SURROUNDED IT WERE SUCH AS, IF
EVER THEY COULD BE, TO JUSTIFY A PROCEDURE OF THIS SORT.  FN5 

ACCORDINGLY, I AGREE THAT, AS AGAINST THE CHALLENGES MADE HERE, THE
SPECIAL REMEDY PROVIDED BY THE ACT WAS ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE, IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, FOR THE DETERMINATION OF APPELLEE'S RIGHTS WITH
CIVIL EFFECTS, HAD SHE FOLLOWED IT.  AND HER FAILURE TO FOLLOW IT
PRODUCED NO SUCH IRREVOCABLE AND HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES, FOR SUCH
PURPOSES, AS WOULD ENSUE IF SHE WERE CHARGED WITH VIOLATION AS A
CRIME.  ACCORDINGLY, BY DECLINING TO TAKE THE PLAIN WAY OPENED TO HER,
MORE INCONVENIENT THOUGH THAT MAY HAVE BEEN, AND TAKING HER
MISCONCEIVED REMEDY BY ANOTHER ROUTE, SHE HAS ARRIVED WHERE SHE MIGHT
WELL HAVE EXPECTED, AT THE WRONG END. 

NO DOUBT THIS WAS DUE TO A MISCONCEPTION OF HER RIGHTS, BOTH AS A
MATTER OF SUBSTANCE AND AS ONE OF PROCEDURE, DUE PERHAPS TO FAILURE TO
TAKE FULL ACCOUNT OF THE REACH OF THE NATION'S POWER IN WAR. 
NEVERTHELESS, THE COURT NOT IMPROPERLY HAS SET AT REST SOME OF HER
MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF THE REGULATIONS.  THUS, IT IS
HELD THAT THE STATUTE IS NOT INVALID IN PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM RENTS
WHICH ARE "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  SEC. 2(B).  IT DOES NOT
LESSEN THE EFFECT OF THIS RULING FOR PURPOSES OF DECIDING THE
REGULATION'S VALIDITY, THAT MAXIMUM RENT REGULATION NUMBER 26, SEC.
5(C)(1), OF WHICH APPELLEE COMPLAINED ON VARIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS, INCLUDING CONFISCATION, PROVIDED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MIGHT
ORDER A DECREASE OF THE MAXIMUM RENT FOR SPECIFIED HOUSING
ACCOMMODATIONS ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THAT RENT "IS HIGHER THAN THE
RENT GENERALLY PREVAILING IN THE DEFENSE RENTAL AREA FOR COMPARABLE
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS ON APRIL 1, 1941." 

OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLEE WITH RESPECT TO THE REGULATIONS
LIKEWISE ARE DISPOSED OF BY THE RULINGS UPON THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS. 
FN6  IN SO FAR AS THE REGULATIONS ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE STATUTE,
THEREFORE, AND THE OBJECTIONS TO THEM ARE IDENTICAL, THE DISPOSITION OF
THESE OBJECTIONS TO THE ACT DISPOSES ALSO OF THOSE MADE TO THE
REGULATIONS.  IN SO FAR AS THE LATTER RAISED QUESTIONS NOT RAISED
CONCERNING THE STATUTE, AND SINCE NONE OF THESE, EXCEPT AS MENTIONED
ABOVE, CALLED ATTENTION TO ANY FEATURE MAKING A REGULATION VOID ON ITS
FACE, THE APPELLEE HAS FORECLOSED HER OPPORTUNITY TO ASSERT THEM, AS TO
FACTS EXISTING WHEN THE SUIT WAS BEGUN, BY HER FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE
PRESCRIBED SPECIAL REMEDY.  IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE, IN A MATTER OF THIS
IMPORTANCE AND URGENCY, TO REQUIRE ONE, WHOSE ONLY VALID OBJECTION TO
THE LAW, INCLUDING THE REGULATIONS, RESTS IN PROOF OF FACTS NOT
APPARENT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OR THE COURT, TO MAKE HIS PROOF IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED AND TO DO SO PROMPTLY, AS A CONDITION TO SECURING
EQUITABLE OR OTHER CIVIL RELIEF. 

FN1  THE MOSES TAYLOR, 4 WALL.  411; CF. CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S.
130, PLAQUEMINES TROPICAL FRUIT CO. V. HENDERSON, 170 U.S. 511. 

FN2  THE MAXIMUM RENTALS ESTABLISHED IN THE REGULATION ARE DEFINITE
AND EASILY ENOUGH ASCERTAINABLE.  APPELLEE'S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
REGULATION ON THE SCORE OF VAGUENESS IS ADDRESSED TO THE INDEFINITENESS
OF THE STANDARDS WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS PRESCRIBED AS A GUIDE FOR
HIS OFFICE IN MAKING DECREASES IN MAXIMUM RENTALS, MORE PARTICULARLY TO
SEC. 5(C)(1), WHICH AUTHORIZES A DECREASE IN THE MAXIMUM IF IT IS
"HIGHER THAN THE RENT GENERALLY PREVAILING IN THE DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA
FOR COMPARABLE HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS ON APRIL 1, 1941."  BUT ASSUMING
THIS COMPLAINT IS OTHERWISE MERITORIOUS, THE STANDARDS THUS PROVIDED
ARE NO LESS DEFINITE THAN THOSE CONTAINED IN THE ACT ITSELF AND THE
CONTENTION IS THEREFORE DISPOSED OF BY THE DETERMINATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT. 

FN3  CF. THE WRITER'S DISSENTING OPINION IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES,
ANTE, P. 460. 

FN4  UNDER THE ACT A PROTEST AGAINST A REGULATION MUST BE MADE WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS OF ITS ISSUANCE, BUT IF BASED ON GROUNDS ARISING AFTER THE
SIXTY DAYS, IT MAY BE FILED "AT ANY TIME" THEREAFTER. 

BUT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REVISED PROCEDURAL REGULATION NO. 3,
SEC. 1300.216, "A PROTEST AGAINST A PROVISION OF A MAXIMUM RENT
REGULATION BASED SOLELY ON GROUNDS ARISING AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE
OF SUCH MAXIMUM RENT REGULATION SHALL BE FILED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIXTY
DAYS AFTER THE PROTESTANT HAS HAD, OR COULD REASONABLY HAVE HAD, NOTICE
OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH GROUNDS." 

FN5 CF. THE WRITER'S DISSENTING OPINION IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES,
ANTE, P. 460. 

FN6  E. G. THE CONTENTION THAT THE REGULATION, LIKE THE ACT,
IMPROPERLY DELEGATES TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS AGENTS "LEGISLATIVE"
POWER. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I SHOULD BE CONTENT IF REVERSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION WERE
UPON THE GROUND THAT THAT COURT LACKED POWER TO ENJOIN PROSECUTION OF
THE APPELLEES' STATE COURT SUIT.  THE POLICY EXPRESSED IN SEC. 265 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE APPLIES IN THIS INSTANCE.  MOREOVER, IF THE PROVISION
OF SEC. 204(D) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT IS VALID, THE LACK OF
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT COULD, AND SHOULD, HAVE BEEN RAISED IN
THAT COURT AND REVIEW OF ITS RULING COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY
ESTABLISHED MEANS OF RESORT TO THIS COURT.  SINCE, HOWEVER, THE COURT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS COMPETENCY IN
ENJOINING FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE STATE COURT SUIT, OTHER ISSUES
MUST BE FACED. 

THE APPELLANT IN HIS COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT THE APPELLEES THREATENED
TO DISOBEY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT
TO IT.  THE APPELLEES ANSWERED THAT THE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS WERE
VOID BECAUSE IN EXCESS OF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND
THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CONTEND THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS PRECLUDED BY THE
TERMS OF THE STATUTE FROM PASSING UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT
CONSTITUTES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  I AM
NOT SURE WHETHER HE ASSERTS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204(D), WHICH
PURPORT TO PROHIBIT ANY COURT, EXCEPT THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS
CREATED BY THE ACT, FROM CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF ANY REGULATION OR
ORDER MADE UNDER THE ACT, PREVENT CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
RENT REGULATIONS AND ORDERS HERE UNDER ATTACK.  IF SO, I THINK THE
CONTENTION IS UNTENABLE. 

THE STATUTE OF ITS OWN FORCE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN ANY AREA EXCEPT THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNLESS AND UNTIL SO MADE BY A REGULATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS RESPECTING RENTALS AMOUNT ONLY
TO CONFERENCE OF AUTHORITY ON THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE REGULATIONS AND
DO NOT THEMSELVES PRESCRIBE OR CONSTRAIN ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE
CITIZEN.  IN SHORT, ONE CANNOT VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE
UNLESS THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS OR ORDERS. 
TO SAY THEN THAT, WHILE THE COURT IN WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR SEEKS
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, AND REGULATIONS MADE UNDER IT, HAS JURISDICTION
TO PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT, IT MAY NOT CONSIDER THE
VALIDITY OF PERTINENT REGULATIONS, IS TO SAY THAT THE COURT IS TO
CONSIDER THE ACT IN VACUO AND WHOLLY APART FROM ITS APPLICATION TO THE
DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT.  UNDER THE UNINTERRUPTED
CURRENT OF AUTHORITY THE ARGUMENT MUST BE REJECTED. 

THIS BRINGS ME TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE APPELLEES' PRINCIPAL
CONTENTION, NAMELY, THAT, AS APPLIED TO RENT CONTROL, THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.  IN APPROACHING THIS QUESTION IT IS
HARDLY NECESSARY TO STATE THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE BEEN
REITERATED IN RECENT DECISIONS.  FN1 CONGRESS MAY PERFORM ITS
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY LAYING DOWN POLICIES AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS
WHILE LEAVING ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS FREE TO MAKE RULES WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED LIMITS AND TO ASCERTAIN FACTS TO WHICH THE DECLARED POLICY
IS TO APPLY.  BUT ANY DELEGATION WHICH GOES BEYOND THE APPLICATION AND
EXECUTION OF THE LAW AS DECLARED BY CONGRESS IS INVALID. 

CONGRESS CANNOT DELEGATE THE POWER TO MAKE A LAW OR REFRAIN FROM
MAKING IT; TO DETERMINE TO WHOM THE LAW SHALL BE APPLICABLE AND TO WHOM
NOT; TO DETERMINE WHAT THE LAW SHALL COMMAND AND WHAT NOT.  CANDID
APPRAISAL OF THE RENT CONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN QUESTION
DISCLOSES THAT CONGRESS HAS DELEGATED THE LAW-MAKING POWER IN TOTO TO
AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.    AS ALREADY STATED, THE ACT IS NOT IN
ITSELF EFFECTIVE WITH RESPECT TO RENTS.  IT CREATES AN OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION TO BE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT (50 U.S.C. SEC. 921(A)).  THIS OFFICIAL IS
AUTHORIZED, "WHENEVER IN (HIS) JUDGMENT  ... SUCH ACTION IS NECESSARY
OR PROPER IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES" OF THE ACT, TO ISSUE A
DECLARATION SETTING FORTH THE NECESSITY FOR, AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH
REFERENCE TO, THE STABILIZATION OR REDUCTION OF RENTS FOR
ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN A PARTICULAR DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA.  IF WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS SUCH RENTS WITHIN SUCH AREA HAVE NOT "IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR" BEEN STABILIZED OR REDUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS
RECOMMENDATIONS, HE MAY, BY REGULATION OR ORDER, ESTABLISH SUCH MAXIMUM
RENT OR MAXIMUM RENTS FOR SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS "AS IN HIS JUDGMENT WILL
BE GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND WILL EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES" OF
THE ACT.  "SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE" IN ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM RENTS HE IS
TO ASCERTAIN AND DULY CONSIDER THE RENTS PREVAILING FOR SUCH
ACCOMMODATIONS, OR COMPARABLE ACCOMMODATIONS, ON OR ABOUT APRIL 1,
1941(OR IF, PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO APRIL 1, 1941, DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
SHALL HAVE RESULTED, OR THREATEN TO RESULT, IN INCREASES IN RENTS OF
HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN SUCH AREA INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF
THE ACT, THEN ON OR ABOUT A DATE (NOT EARLIER THAN APRIL 1, 1940)
WHICH, "IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR" DOES NOT REFLECT SUCH
INCREASES); AND HE SHALL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS "FOR SUCH RELEVANT FACTORS AS
HE MAY DETERMINE AND DEEM TO BE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY IN RESPECT OF
SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS, INCLUDING INCREASES OR DECREASES IN PROPERTY TAXES
AND OTHER COSTS."  "IN DESIGNATING DEFENSE-RENTAL AREAS, IN PRESCRIBING
REGULATIONS AND ORDERS ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM RENTS FOR SUCH
ACCOMMODATIONS, AND IN SELECTING PERSONS TO ADMINISTER SUCH REGULATIONS
AND ORDERS, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL, TO SUCH EXTENT AS HE DETERMINES TO
BE PRACTICABLE," CONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY STATE AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS (50 U.S.C. SEC. 902(B)).  THE FORM AND THE MANNER OF
ESTABLISHING A REGULATION OR ORDER, THE INSERTION OF CLASSIFICATIONS
AND DIFFERENTIATIONS, THE PROVISIONS FOR ADJUSTMENTS AND REASONABLE
EXCEPTIONS LIE WHOLLY "IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR" AS TO
THEIR NECESSITY OR PROPRIETY IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT (50 U.S.C. SEC. 902(C)). 

THE "JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR" AS TO WHAT IS NECESSARY AND
PROPER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT IS THE ONLY CONDITION
PRECEDENT FOR HIS ISSUE OF AN ORDER, REGULATION, OR PROHIBITION
AFFECTING SPECULATIVE OR MANIPULATIVE PRACTICES OR RENTING OR LEASING
PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DEFENSE-AREA HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS,
WHICH PRACTICES "IN HIS JUDGMENT" ARE EQUIVALENT TO OR ARE LIKELY TO
RESULT IN RENT INCREASES INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT (50
U.S.C. SEC. 902(D)). 

AT THE MOMENT THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS WERE ADOPTED RENT CONTROL WAS
NOT EFFECTIVE IN ANY PART OF THE NATION.  THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS
APPOINTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENACTING SUCH CONTROL BY REGULATIONS AND
ORDERS.  AS WILL BE SEEN, THE FIRST STEP HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE WAS
TO ISSUE A DECLARATION STATING THE NECESSITY FOR REDUCTION OF RENTS
WITHIN A PARTICULAR DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE
NATURE OF SUCH REDUCTIONS. 

HOW IS THE READER OF THE STATUTE TO KNOW WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM
"DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA"?  THE STATUTORY "STANDARD" IS THIS: 

"THE TERM 'DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA' MEANS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
ANY AREA DESIGNATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AS AN AREA WHERE DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES HAVE RESULTED OR THREATEN TO RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE
RENTS FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THIS
ACT."  (50 U.S.C. SEC. 942(D).) 

SAVE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE DESIGNATION OF AN AREA WHERE
THE ACT IS TO OPERATE DEPENDS WHOLLY UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT
THAT SO-CALLED DEFENSE ACTIVITIES HAVE RESULTED OR THREATEN TO RESULT
IN AN INCREASE OF RENTS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 
NOTE THAT THE JUDGMENT INVOLVED IS SOLELY THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. 
HE NEED FIND NO FACTS, HE NEED MAKE NO INQUIRY, HE NEED NOT, UNLESS HE
THINKS IT PRACTICABLE, EVEN CONSULT LOCAL AUTHORITIES.  IN EXERCISING
HIS JUDGMENT THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST BE PERSUADED THAT "DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES" HAVE CAUSED OR WILL CAUSE A RISE IN RENTS.  THE STATUTE
NOWHERE DEFINES OR GIVES A HINT AS TO WHAT DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ARE.  IN
TIME OF WAR IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT AN HONEST OFFICIAL MIGHT CONSIDER
ANY TYPE OF WORK A DEFENSE ACTIVITY.  HIS JUDGMENT, HOWEVER EXORBITANT,
DETERMINES THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT.  IT IS TRUE THAT HE IS AUTHORIZED
TO MAKE SUCH STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY OR PROPER
TO ASSIST HIM IN PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS OR ORDERS (50 U.S.C. SEC.
922(A)), BUT HIS UNFETTERED JUDGMENT IS CONCLUSIVE WHETHER ANY ARE
NECESSARY OR PROPER. 

BUT IS NOT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT CHANNELED AND CONFINED BY THE
FINAL LIMITATION THAT HIS ACTION MUST BE THE PROMOTION OF THE "PURPOSES
OF THIS ACT"?  WHAT ARE THEY?  SO FAR AS MATERIAL THEY ARE:  "TO
PREVENT SPECULATIVE, UNWARRANTED, AND ABNORMAL INCREASES IN  ...
RENTS" (50 U.S.C. SEC. 901(A)).  THERE ARE OTHER GENERAL PHRASES IN THE
THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY ENTERTAIN BUT, SO FAR AS RENTS ARE CONCERNED,
THEY ARE SO VAGUE AS TO BE USELESS; AS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PROTECTION OF
PERSONS WITH RELATIVELY FIXED AND LIMITED INCOMES, CONSUMERS, WAGE
EARNERS, INVESTORS AND PERSONS DEPENDENT ON LIFE INSURANCE, ANNUITIES,
AND PENSIONS FROM UNDUE IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING, AND
MORE OF THE SAME.  I HAVE DISCUSSED THESE "STANDARDS" IN AN OPINION
FILED IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 448. 

LANGUAGE COULD NOT MORE APTLY FIT THIS GRANT OF POWER THAN THAT USED
IN SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT P. 551:  "HERE IN EFFECT
IS A ROVING COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO EVILS AND UPON DISCOVERY CORRECT
THEM."  EQUALLY APPOSITE IS WHAT WAS SAID AT P. 541:  "IT (THE ACT)
DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO PRESCRIBE RULES OF CONDUCT TO BE APPLIED TO
PARTICULAR STATES OF FACT DETERMINED BY APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE.  INSTEAD OF PRESCRIBING RULES OF CONDUCT, IT AUTHORIZES THE
MAKING OF CODES TO PRESCRIBE THEM.  FOR THAT LEGISLATIVE UNDERTAKING,
SEC. 3 SETS UP NO STANDARDS, ASIDE FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL
AIMS OF REHABILITATION, CORRECTION AND EXPANSION DESCRIBED IN SECTION
ONE.  IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE OF THAT BROAD DECLARATION, AND OF THE NATURE
OF THE FEW RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IMPOSED, THE DISCRETION OF THE
PRESIDENT IN APPROVING OR PRESCRIBING CODES, AND THUS ENACTING LAWS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, IS
VIRTUALLY UNFETTERED." 

PLACING THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE TOGETHER WE FIND THAT
THE TERM "DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA" MEANS ANY AREA DESIGNATED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR AS AN AREA WHERE "DEFENSE ACTIVITIES" HAVE RESULTED, OR
THREATEN TO RESULT, IN "SPECULATIVE, UNWARRANTED, AND ABNORMAL
INCREASES IN  ... RENTS."  CAN ANYONE ASSERT THAT CONGRESS HAS THUS
LAID DOWN A STANDARD TO CONTROL THE ACTION OF THE EXECUTIVE?  THE
ADMINISTRATOR, AND HE ALONE, IS TO SAY WHAT INCREASE IS SPECULATIVE,
WHAT INCREASE IS UNWARRANTED, AND WHAT INCREASE IS ABNORMAL.  WHAT
FACTS IS HE TO CONSIDER?  SUCH AS HE CHOOSES.  WHAT FACTS DID HE
CONSIDER IN THE INSTANT CASE?  ONE CANNOT KNOW. 

BUT THE MATTER DOES NOT STOP HERE.  WE HAVE NOW ONLY ARRIVED AT THE
DESIGNATION OF AN AREA BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, HIS NEXT
STEP IS TO ISSUE A DECLARATION OR RECOMMENDATION.  HOW SHALL HE
DETERMINE WHETHER TO DO SO OR NOT?  AS SEEN BY THE ABOVE SUMMARY OF THE
ACT'S PROVISIONS, THE MATTER RESTS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
AS TO WHETHER SUCH ACTION IS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO EFFECTUATE THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  WE HAVE JUST SEEN WHAT THOSE PURPOSES ARE. 
AGAIN, HIS SOLE AND UNTRAMMELED JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT IS NEEDED TO
PREVENT SPECULATIVE, UNWARRANTED OR ABNORMAL INCREASES IS THE ONLY
CRITERION OF HIS ACTION.  THE PUBLIC RECORDS SHOW THAT DECLARATIONS
MADE BY HIM MERELY STATE THAT, IN HIS JUDGMENT, THE BASIC FACT EXISTS. 
HE MAKES NO FINDINGS; HE IS NOT BOUND TO MAKE ANY SPECIFIC INQUIRY; HE
ISSUES A FIAT.  NO ONE IS TO BE ADVISED AS TO THE BASIS OF HIS
JUDGMENT; NO ONE NEED BE HEARD. 

DOES THE STATUTE AFFORD A STANDARD FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO FOLLOW IN
DECIDING THE QUANTITY OF THE REDUCTION?  AGAIN HIS JUDGMENT ALONE IS
DETERMINATIVE.  AND, MORE, IN HIS JUDGMENT ALONE RESTS THE DECISION AS
TO WHAT ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN THE AREA ARE TO BE AFFECTED BY THE
DECREED REDUCTION.  HE MAY RECOMMEND THE REDUCTION OF RENT FOR "ANY
ACCOMMODATIONS" WITHIN THE DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA. 

AFTER THE ISSUE OF HIS DECLARATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS THE
ADMINISTRATOR MUST WAIT SIXTY DAYS BEFORE PUTTING HIS RECOMMENDATIONS
INTO EFFECT.  IF, IN HIS SOLE AND UNFETTERED JUDGMENT, STABILIZATION
HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, HE MAY THEN, BY REGULATION OR ORDER,
ESTABLISH SUCH MAXIMUM RENT OR MAXIMUM RENTS AS "IN HIS JUDGMENT" WILL
BE "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND WILL EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF
THIS ACT."  HIS ORDER MAY BE BASED UPON NOTHING BUT HIS OWN OPINION. 
IT MAY BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE, WITHOUT HEARING, WITHOUT INQUIRY OF ANY
SORT, WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES.  THE RENTS
ESTABLISHED MAY VARY FROM STREET TO STREET, AND FROM SUBDIVISION TO
SUBDIVISION, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PERSONAL
JUDGMENT.  THE ORDER MAY INVOLVE CLASSIFICATION AND EXEMPTION IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR, IN HIS SOLE DISCRETION, DEEMS THAT THIS COURSE WILL
"EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."  WHICH MEANS, OF COURSE, IF HE
THINKS NON-SPECULATION, NON-ABNORMALITY, OR SUFFICIENT WARRANT
JUSTIFIES THE DISCRIMINATIONS INVOLVED. 

HOW SHALL HE FIX THE AMOUNT OF THE MAXIMUM RENT?  THE ONLY STANDARD
GIVEN HIM IS THE EXERCISE OF HIS OWN JUDGMENT THAT THE RENTS FIXED WILL
BE "GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND WILL EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF
THIS ACT."  "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE A WORKABLE
STANDARD IF INQUIRY INTO THE SPECIFIC FACTS WERE PRESCRIBED AND IF THE
BEARING OF THOSE FACTS WERE TO BE GIVEN WEIGHT IN THE ULTIMATE
DECISION, BUT THE ADDITION OF THE WORD "GENERALLY," AND THE FAILURE TO
PRESCRIBE ANY METHOD FOR ARRIVING AT WHAT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE LEAVES
THE ADMINISTRATOR SUCH ROOM FOR DISREGARD OF SPECIFIC INJUSTICES AND
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT NO LIVING PERSON COULD DEMONSTRATE ERROR
IN HIS CONCLUSION.  AND, AGAIN, EVEN THE PHRASE "GENERALLY FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" IS QUALIFIED BY EMPOWERING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO CONSIDER
ALSO QUESTIONS OF SPECULATION, UNWARRANTED ACTION OR ABNORMALITY OF
CONDITION.  SUCH A "STANDARD" IS PRETENSE.  IT IS A DEVICE TO ALLOW THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO DO ANYTHING HE SEES FIT WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY TO
ANYONE. 

BUT, IT IS SAID, THIS IS AN UNFAIR CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STATUTE
BECAUSE, "SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE," THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST ASCERTAIN AND
DULY CONSIDER RENTS PREVAILING FOR "SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS, OR COMPARABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS, ON OR ABOUT APRIL 1, 1941," AND THAT, ALTHOUGH HE MAY
PICK OUT SOME OTHER PERIOD WHICH HE THINKS MORE REPRESENTATIVE, HE MUST
NOT SELECT ANY PERIOD EARLIER THAN APRIL 1, 1940, AND, THEREFORE, HE IS
DEFINITELY CONFINED AND PROHIBITED IN EXERCISING CONTROL OVER RENTALS. 
THIS ARGUMENT WILL NOT DO.  THE MERE FACT THAT HE MAY NOT GO TO ANY
PERIOD FOR COMPARISON EARLIER THAN APRIL 1, 1940, ALTHOUGH HE MAY TAKE
ANY LATER PERIOD HE THINKS APPROPRIATE, DOES NOT SERVE TO OBLITERATE
THE FACT THAT AFTER SUCH WIDE AND UNRESTRICTED CHOICE OF A PERIOD HE
CAN MAKE ANY REGULATION HE SEES FIT. 

WITHOUT FURTHER ELABORATION IT IS PLAIN THAT THIS ACT CREATES
PERSONAL GOVERNMENT BY A PETTY TYRANT INSTEAD OF GOVERNMENT BY LAW. 
WHETHER THERE SHALL BE A LAW PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM RENTS ANYWHERE IN THE
UNITED STATES DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PERSONAL JUDGMENT. 
WHEN THAT LAW SHALL TAKE EFFECT, HOW LONG IT SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE,
WHETHER IT SHALL BE MODIFIED, WHAT TERRITORY IT SHALL COVER, WHETHER
THE DIFFERENT AREAS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT REGULATIONS, WHAT IS
THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY THAT SHALL MOTIVATE THE INSTITUTION OF THE
LAW, - ALL THESE MATTERS ARE BURIED IN THE BOSOM OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
AND NOWHERE ELSE. 

I AM FAR FROM URGING THAT, IN THE PRESENT WAR EMERGENCY, RENTS AND
PRICES SHALL NOT BE CONTROLLED AND STABILIZED.  BUT I DO INSIST THAT,
WAR OR NO WAR, THERE EXISTS NO NECESSITY, AND NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER,
FOR CONGRESS' ABDICATION OF ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER AND REMISSION TO AN
EXECUTIVE OFFICIAL OF THE FUNCTION OF MAKING AND REPEALING LAWS
APPLICABLE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  NO TRUER WORD WAS
EVER SAID THAN THIS COURT'S STATEMENT IN THE MINNESOTA MORTGAGE
MORATORIUM CASE  FN2  THAT EMERGENCY DOES NOT CREATE POWER BUT MAY
FURNISH THE OCCASION FOR ITS EXERCISE.  THE CONSTITUTION NO MORE
CONTEMPLATES THE ELIMINATION OF ANY OF THE COORDINATE BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT DURING WAR THAN IN PEACE.  IT WILL NOT DO TO SAY THAT NO
OTHER METHOD COULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED CONSONANT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
POWER OF CONGRESS.  "DEFENSE-RENTAL AREAS" AND "DEFENSE ACTIVITIES"
COULD HAVE BEEN REASONABLY DEFINED.  RENTS IN THOSE AREAS COULD HAVE
BEEN FROZEN AS OF A GIVEN DATE, OR REASONABLY PRECISE STANDARDS COULD
HAVE BEEN FIXED, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OR OTHER TRIBUNALS COULD HAVE BEEN
GIVEN POWER ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND STANDARDS PRESCRIBED TO DEAL
WITH SPECIAL SITUATIONS AFTER HEARING AND FINDINGS AND EXPOSITION OF
THE REASONS FOR ACTION.  I SAY THIS ONLY BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN
MADE THAT THE EMERGENCY WAS SUCH THAT NO OTHER FORM OF LEGISLATION
WOULD HAVE SERVED THE END IN VIEW.  IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO TELL
CONGRESS WHAT SORT OF LEGISLATION IT SHALL ADOPT, BUT IN THIS INSTANCE,
WHEN CONGRESS SEEMS TO HAVE ABDICATED AND TO HAVE ELIMINATED THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FROM OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IT MUST
BE STATED THAT THIS CANNOT BE DONE UNLESS THE PEOPLE SO COMMAND OR
PERMIT BY AMENDING THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW.    THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO WHAT I
HAVE SAID IS THAT THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED, AND NO ONE WOULD NOW
QUESTION, THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF ACTS OF CONGRESS LAYING DOWN
PURPORTED STANDARDS AS VAGUE AS THOSE CONTAINED IN THE ACT UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  BUT THE ANSWER IS SPECIOUS.  GENERALLY SPEAKING,
STATUTES INVOKING THE AID OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT
FOR THEIR APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT FALL INTO TWO CLASSES, - THOSE IN
WHICH A POLICY IS DECLARED AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IS EMPOWERED TO
ASCERTAIN THE FACTS IN PARTICULAR CASES SO AS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT
POLICY IN A PARTICULAR CASE HAD BEEN VIOLATED.  OF THIS TYPE OF
LEGISLATION THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT ARE CLASSICAL EXAMPLES.  IN THE ONE, CARRIERS ARE
REQUIRED TO CHARGE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES FOR THEIR SERVICES.  IN
THE OTHER, CITIZENS ARE FORBIDDEN TO INDULGE IN UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION.  IF IT BE ASSERTED THAT THESE ARE BUT VAGUE STANDARDS OF
CONDUCT, IT MUST AT ONCE BE SAID THAT, IN ADOPTING THEM, CONGRESS
ADOPTED COMMON LAW CONCEPTS, THE ONE APPLYING TO THOSE PURSUING A
PUBLIC CALLING AND THE OTHER TO BUSINESS COMPETITORS IN GENERAL, AND
THAT THE STANDARDS ANNOUNCED CARRIED WITH THEM CONCEPTS AND CONTOURS
ATTACHING AS A RESULT OF A LONG LEGAL HISTORY.  BUT MORE, IN SUCH
INSTANCES, THE STANDARDS WERE NOT TO BE APPLIED IN THE UNCONTROLLED
JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE STATUTES
REQUIRE A COMPLAINT SPECIFYING THE CONDUCT THOUGHT TO VIOLATE THE
STATUTE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ANSWER, FOR HEARING, FOR PRODUCTION OF
EVIDENCE, AND FOR FINDINGS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  WITH
SUCH A BACKGROUND FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, WHAT SEEMS A LOOSE AND
VAGUE STANDARD BECOMES IN FACT A REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE ONE THAT CAN
FAIRLY, EQUITABLY, AND JUSTLY BE APPLIED. 

THE OTHER AND DISTINCT CLASS OF CASES IS THAT IN WHICH CONGRESS, AS
IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, DECLARES A POLICY AND ENTRUSTS TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, WITHOUT MORE, THE MAKING OF GENERAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT POLICY.  THESE RULES ARE, IN
ALL BUT NAME, STATUTES.  HERE, UNLESS THE RULE FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS CLEAR, AND THE CONSIDERATIONS UPON WHICH HE MAY ACT
ARE DEFINITE AND CERTAIN, IT MUST INEVITABLY FOLLOW THAT, TO A GREATER
OR LESS DEGREE, HE WILL MAKE THE LAW.  NO CITIZEN CAN QUESTION THE
MOTIVE OR PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING A SPECIFIC STATUTE TO CONTROL
AND DEFINE CONDUCT AS LONG AS CONGRESS ACTS WITHIN THE POWERS GRANTED
IT BY THE CONSTITUTION.  AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, CONGRESS, IN PASSING
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, HAS ATTEMPTED TO CLOTHE ITS DELEGATE -
AN ADMINISTRATOR - WITH THE SAME UNCHALLENGEABLE LEGISLATIVE POWER
WHICH IT POSSESSES.  IN THIS RESPECT THE DELEGATION IS NO DIFFERENT
FROM THAT INVOLVED IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT WHICH WAS
HELD INVALID IN SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT "CONGRESS HAS SPECIFIED THE BASIC CONCLUSIONS OF
FACT UPON THE ASCERTAINMENT OF WHICH BY THE ADMINISTRATOR ITS STATUTORY
COMMAND IS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE."  THIS MEANS, I TAKE IT, THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR NEED FIND NO FACTS, IN THE ACCEPTED SENSE OF THE
EXPRESSION.  HE NEED ONLY FORM AN OPINION, - FOR EVERY OPINION IS A
CONCLUSION OF FACT.  AND "BASIC" MEANS, EVIDENTLY, THAT HIS OPINION IS
THAT ONE OF THE "PURPOSES OF THE ACT" REQUIRES THE MAKING OF A LAW
APPLICABLE TO A GIVEN SITUATION.  IT IS NOT OF MATERIAL AID THAT HE
DISCLOSES THE REASONS FOR HIS ACTION.  SUCH A TEST OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
WAS UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED IN THE SCHECHTER CASE. 

THE STATUTE THERE IN QUESTION DECLARED THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO BE
"TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE WHICH TEND TO DIMINISH THE AMOUNT THEREOF; AND TO PROVIDE FOR
THE GENERAL WELFARE BY PROMOTING THE ORGANIZATION OF INDUSTRY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COOPERATIVE ACTION AMONG TRADE GROUPS, TO INDUCE AND
MAINTAIN UNITED ACTION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT UNDER ADEQUATE
GOVERNMENTAL SANCTIONS AND SUPERVISION, TO ELIMINATE UNFAIR COMPETITIVE
PRACTICES, TO PROMOTE THE FULLEST POSSIBLE UTILIZATION OF THE PRESENT
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF INDUSTRIES, TO AVOID UNDUE RESTRICTION OF
PRODUCTION (EXCEPT AS MAY BE TEMPORARILY REQUIRED), TO INCREASE THE
CONSUMPTION OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BY INCREASING
PURCHASING POWER, TO REDUCE AND RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT, TO IMPROVE
STANDARDS OF LABOR, AND OTHERWISE TO REHABILITATE INDUSTRY AND TO
CONSERVE NATURAL RESOURCES." 

UNDER THAT ACT THE PRESIDENT WAS REQUIRED TO FIND THAT THE
PROMULGATION BY HIM OF A CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION IN ANY INDUSTRY WOULD
"TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY" OF CONGRESS AS ABOVE DECLARED.  HE DID
SO FIND IN PROMULGATING THE CODE THERE UNDER ATTACK. 

I HAVE ALREADY QUOTED WHAT THIS COURT SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE SO
CALLED STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATUTE.  THAT CASE AND THIS FALL
INTO EXACTLY THE SAME CATEGORY.  THERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
BASIC CONCLUSIONS OF FACT AMOUNTED TO AN EXERCISE OF HIS JUDGMENT AS TO
WHETHER A LAW SHOULD COME INTO BEING OR NOT.  HERE IT IS SAID THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S BASIC CONCLUSIONS OF FACT ARE BUT THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS.  WHETHER EXPLICITLY AVOWED OR NOT, THE PRESENT
DECISION OVERRULES THAT IN THE SCHECHTER CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IS, BY THIS ACT, SUBSTITUTED FOR
THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS.  IT IS SOUGHT TO MAKE THAT JUDGMENT
UNQUESTIONABLE JUST AS THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS WOULD BE UNQUESTIONABLE
ONCE EXERCISED AND EMBODIED IN A DEFINITE STATUTORY PROSCRIPTION.  BUT
CONGRESS, UNDER OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, MAY NOT SURRENDER ITS JUDGMENT
AS TO WHETHER THERE SHALL BE A LAW, OR WHAT THAT LAW SHALL BE, TO ANY
OTHER PERSON OR BODY. 

THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DRAWN SO AS TO LAY
DOWN STANDARDS FOR ACTION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR WHICH WOULD BE
REASONABLY DEFINITE; IT MIGHT HAVE AUTHORIZED INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS BY
HIM TO ASCERTAIN FACTS WHICH AFFECT SPECIFIC CASES WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.  THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL AND
PRACTICABLE MEASURE.  IT HAS DONE NO SUCH THING. 

BUT IT IS SAID THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POWERS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, FOR THE
STATUTE PROVIDES JUDICIAL REVIEW OF HIS ACTION.  WHILE THE ACT PURPORTS
TO GIVE RELIEF FROM RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR BY APPEAL TO THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS AND TO THIS COURT, THE GRANT OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW IS ILLUSORY.  HOW CAN ANY COURT SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS
ERRED IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS JUDGMENT IN DETERMINING WHAT ARE DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES?  HOW CAN ANY COURT PRONOUNCE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
JUDGMENT IS ERRONEOUS IN DEFINING A "DEFENSE-RENTAL AREA"?  WHAT ARE
THE MATERIALS ON WHICH TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR THAT
ONE OR ANOTHER PERIOD IN THE LAST THREE YEARS REFLECTS, IN A GIVEN
AREA, NO ABNORMAL, SPECULATIVE, OR UNWARRANTED INCREASE IN RENT IN
PARTICULAR DEFENSE HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS IN A CHOSEN DEFENSE-RENTAL
AREA?  IT IS MANIFEST THAT IT IS BEYOND THE COMPETENCE OF ANY COURT TO
CONVICT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF ERROR WHEN THE SUPPOSED MATERIALS FOR
JUDGMENT ARE SO VAGUE AND SO NUMEROUS AS THOSE PERMITTED BY THE
STATUTE. 

ONE ONLY NEED READ THE DECISIONS OF THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS TO
LEARN HOW FUTILE IT IS FOR THE CITIZEN TO ATTEMPT TO CONVICT THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF AN ABUSE OF JUDGMENT IN FRAMING HIS ORDERS, HOW
ILLUSORY THE PURPORTED JUDICIAL REVIEW IS IN FACT.  I HAVE SPOKEN MORE
AT LENGTH ON THIS SUBJECT IN MY OPINION IN YAKUS V. UNITED STATES,
ANTE, P. 448. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS RIGHT AND SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388; SCHECHTER CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495. 

FN2  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 425,
426. 
..END :






BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, 321 U.S. 542 


NO. 215.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  - 135
F.2D 505, REVERSED. 


1.  A REGISTRANT UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940
BECOMES "ACTUALLY INDUCTED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT
WHEN IN OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER OF HIS DRAFT BOARD AND AFTER THE ARMY
HAS FOUND HIM ACCEPTABLE FOR SERVICE HE UNDERGOES WHATEVER CEREMONY OR
REQUIREMENTS OF ADMISSION THE WAR DEPARTMENT HAS PRESCRIBED.  P. 559. 

2.  UNTIL "ACTUALLY INDUCTED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF THE
SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT, A REGISTRANT UNDER THAT ACT IS
SUBJECT SOLELY TO CIVIL AND NOT TO MILITARY JURISDICTION.  P. 557. 

3.  A REGISTRANT UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF
1940, WHOSE CLAIM THAT HE WAS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR HAD BEEN
REJECTED, WAS ORDERED BY HIS BOARD TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION.  AT THE
INDUCTION CENTER HE WAS EXAMINED AND PUT IN CLASS 1-B.  HE INFORMED THE
OFFICERS IN CHARGE THAT HE REFUSED TO SERVE IN THE ARMY AND THAT HE
WANTED TO TURN HIMSELF OVER TO THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES.  HE REFUSED TO
TAKE THE OATH, BUT IT WAS READ TO HIM AND HE WAS TOLD THAT HE WAS IN
THE ARMY.  HE WAS THEN ORDERED TO SUBMIT TO FINGERPRINTING, BUT REFUSED
TO OBEY.  MILITARY CHARGES WERE PREFERRED AGAINST HIM FOR WILLFUL
DISOBEDIENCE OF THAT ORDER.  HELD THAT HE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY
COURT MARTIAL BUT WAS SUBJECT SOLELY TO CIVIL JURISDICTION.  PP. 544,
558. 

BILLINGS V. TRUESDELL, MAJOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES ARMY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 725, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER, 46
F.SUPP.  663, DISCHARGING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND REMANDING THE
PETITIONER TO THE CUSTODY OF THE RESPONDENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940(54 STAT.
894, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 311) PROVIDES THAT "NO PERSON SHALL BE TRIED
BY ANY MILITARY OR NAVAL COURT MARTIAL IN ANY CASE ARISING UNDER THIS
ACT UNLESS SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN ACTUALLY INDUCTED FOR THE TRAINING AND
SERVICE PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS ACT OR UNLESS HE IS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY
COURT MARTIAL UNDER LAWS IN FORCE PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT." 
FN1  PETITIONER BILLINGS, WHO IS HELD BY THE ARMY ON A CHARGE OF A
VIOLATION OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, CLAIMS THAT THIS PROVISION OF THE ACT
EXEMPTS HIM FROM MILITARY JURISDICTION AND MAKES HIM RESPONSIBLE SOLELY
TO THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES.  THE ANSWER TURNS ON WHETHER OR NOT BILLINGS
HAS BEEN "ACTUALLY INDUCTED" INTO THE ARMY.  THESE ARE THE FACTS. 

BILLINGS CLAIMS TO BE A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.  HE REGISTERED UNDER
THE ACT WITH LOCAL BOARD NO. 1 OF OTTAWA COUNTY, KANSAS, STATING ON HIS
CARD AT THE TIME THAT HE WOULD NEVER SERVE IN THE ARMY.  HE WAS GIVEN A
1-B CLASSIFICATION BECAUSE OF DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT BUT WAS RECLASSIFIED
AS 1-A IN JANUARY, 1942.  THE LOCAL BOARD REJECTED HIS CLAIM THAT HE
WAS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.  HE APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF APPEAL WHICH
AFFIRMED THE RULING OF THE LOCAL BOARD.  THOUGH PETITIONER RESOLVED
NEVER TO SERVE IN THE ARMY, HE DESIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE SHORT OF ACTUAL INDUCTION, SO THAT HE
MIGHT AVOID ALL CIVIL PENALTIES POSSIBLE.  ACCORDINGLY, HE CONSULTED
WITH DRAFT OFFICIALS IN TEXAS AND FACULTY MEMBERS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS WHERE HE TAUGHT AND CONCLUDED THAT TAKING THE OATH WAS A PRE
REQUISITE TO INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED FORCES.  HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE
FINALLY REJECTED BY THE ARMY ON ACCOUNT OF DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT.  BUT HE
RESOLVED THAT IF HE WAS NOT REJECTED AT THE INDUCTION STATION, HE WOULD
NOT TAKE THE OATH BUT WOULD TURN HIMSELF OVER TO THE CIVIL
AUTHORITIES.  HE WAS ORDERED BY HIS LOCAL BOARD TO REPORT ON AUGUST 12,
1942 AND TO PROCEED TO THE INDUCTION CENTER AT FORT LEAVENWORTH.  HE
JOINED THE GROUP SELECTED FOR INDUCTION AND WAS TRANSPORTED TO FORT
LEAVENWORTH WHERE HE AND THE OTHERS IN HIS GROUP SPENT THE NIGHT IN THE
BARRACKS.  THE NEXT MORNING AFTER BREAKFAST IN THE MESS HALL PETITIONER
WAS GIVEN BOTH THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATIONS DURING WHICH HE
MADE CLEAR TO THE EXAMINING OFFICIALS HIS PURPOSE NOT TO SERVE IN THE
ARMY.  HE THEN REPORTED TO THE OFFICER WHO PASSED ON THE RESULTS OF THE
EXAMINATIONS AND WHO TOLD HIM THAT HE HAD BEEN PUT IN CLASS 1-B.  HE
THEN REPORTED TO THE INDUCTION OFFICE AND TOLD THE OFFICERS IN CHARGE
THAT HE REFUSED TO SERVE IN THE ARMY AND THAT HE WANTED TO TURN HIMSELF
OVER TO THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES.  THEY SAID THAT HE WAS ALREADY UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE MILITARY AND PUT HIM UNDER GUARD TO PREVENT HIM
FROM LEAVING THE RESERVATION.  WITH THEIR CONSENT, HOWEVER, HE USED THE
TELEPHONE AND PROCURED THE SERVICES OF AN ATTORNEY WHOM HE RETAINED TO
FILE A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ON HIS BEHALF.  THEREUPON AN ARMY
OFFICER READ PETITIONER THE OATH OF INDUCTION WHICH PETITIONER REFUSED
TO TAKE.  HE WAS ADVISED THAT HIS REFUSAL MADE NO DIFFERENCE, THAT "YOU
ARE IN THE ARMY NOW."  HE WAS THEN ORDERED TO SUBMIT TO
FINGERPRINTING.  HE REFUSED TO OBEY.  MILITARY CHARGES WERE PREFERRED
AGAINST HIM FOR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THAT ORDER. 

ON AUGUST 14, 1942, PETITIONER FILED THIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS ALLEGING THAT HE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES, THAT HE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO MILITARY JURISDICTION,
AND THAT IF HE HAD VIOLATED ANY LAWS THEY WERE THE CIVIL LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE WRIT ISSUED.  RESPONDENT FILED A RETURN AND A
HEARING WAS HAD AT WHICH PETITIONER TESTIFIED.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISCHARGED THE WRIT AND REMANDED PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT'S CUSTODY,
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT TO MILITARY JURISDICTION.  46
F.SUPP.  663.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, HOLDING THAT
"INDUCTION WAS COMPLETED WHEN THE OATH WAS READ TO PETITIONER AND HE
WAS TOLD THAT HE WAS INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY."  135 F.2D 505, 507.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ACT. 

                                  I. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT "ACTUALLY INDUCTED" IN THE
ARMY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT WHEN HE WAS ORDERED TO
REPORT TO THE INDUCTION STATION.  BUT IT IS CONTENDED THAT FROM THAT
TIME ON HE WAS SUBJECT TO AT LEAST A LIMITED MILITARY JURISDICTION BY
REASON OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR. 

AMONG THOSE WHOM ARTICLE 2 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR (41 STAT. 787, 10
U.S.C. SEC. 1473) SUBJECTS TO MILITARY LAW ARE ALL PERSONS "LAWFULLY
CALLED, DRAFTED, OR ORDERED INTO, OR TO DUTY OR FOR TRAINING IN, THE
SAID SERVICE, FROM THE DATES THEY ARE REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THE
CALL, DRAFT OR ORDER TO OBEY THE SAME."  THIS PROVISION STANDING ALONE
WOULD HAVE MADE PETITIONER SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW FROM AUGUST 12,
1942, THE DATE WHEN HE WAS REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL BOARD TO PRESENT
HIMSELF FOR INDUCTION.  THAT WAS INDEED THE CONSEQUENCE UNDER THE
SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT OF 1917(40 STAT. 76).  FRANKE V. MURRAY, 248 F.
865; UNITED STATES V. BULLARD, 290 F. 704; DIGEST OP. J.A.G. 1912-1930,
SEC. 2238; 2 OP. J.A.G. (1918) 327.3; SECOND REPORT, PROVOST MARSHAL
GENERAL (1918), P. 221.  THE ARTICLES OF WAR THEN IN FORCE (39 STAT.
651) HAD SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME PROVISION AS THE PRESENT ARTICLE 2. 
SEC. 2 OF THE 1917 ACT PROVIDED, MOREOVER, THAT "ALL PERSONS DRAFTED
INTO THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL, FROM THE DATE OF
SAID DRAFT OR ACCEPTANCE, BE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE REGULAR ARMY  ...  "  40 STAT. 78.  AND THE REGULATIONS
UNDER THE 1917 ACT STATED THAT WHEN A REGISTRANT WAS ORDERED TO REPORT
TO A LOCAL BOARD OR A STATE ADJUTANT GENERAL FOR DUTY HE WAS "IN THE
MILITARY SERVICE" FROM AND AFTER THE DAY AND HOUR THUS SPECIFIED. 
SECS. 133, 159D, 159E, 159F, 159G, 161.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V.
MCINTYRE, 4 F.2D 823.  BUT THE PRESENT ACT AND THE REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED UNDER IT ARE DIFFERENTLY DESIGNED. 

SEC. 3 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "NO MAN SHALL BE INDUCTED FOR
TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THIS ACT UNLESS AND UNTIL HE IS ACCEPTABLE
TO THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES FOR SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE AND HIS
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL FITNESS FOR SUCH TRAINING AND SERVICE HAS BEEN
SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED."  MOREOVER, AS WE HAVE NOTED, CONGRESS BY
SEC. 11 WITHHELD FROM MILITARY COURTS MARTIAL JURISDICTION OVER CASES
ARISING UNDER THE ACT UNLESS THE PERSON INVOLVED HAD BEEN "ACTUALLY
INDUCTED" OR "UNLESS HE IS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL UNDER LAWS
IN FORCE PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT."  THE "ACTUALLY INDUCTED"
CLAUSE OF SEC. 11 WAS OFFERED AS AN AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE
SENATE BY SENATOR BONE.  86 CONG. REC. 10895.  IT WAS DESIGNED, AS
STATED BY THE SENATE CONFEREES, TO GIVE CIVIL COURTS JURISDICTION OVER
VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT PRIOR TO INDUCTION FOR TRAINING IN SUBSTITUTION
FOR THE HOUSE PROVISIONS THAT CIVIL AND MILITARY COURTS SHOULD HAVE
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN SUCH CASES.  86 CONG. REC. 11710, 12039,
12084.  IN VIEW OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THE CONGRESS CAN HARDLY BE
PRESUMED TO HAVE RESTORED BY THE SECOND "UNLESS" CLAUSE IN SEC. 11 WHAT
IT TOOK AWAY BY THE FIRST "UNLESS" CLAUSE.  THAT IS TO SAY, SEC. 11 OF
THE ACT READ TOGETHER WITH SEC. 3 INDICATES TO US A PURPOSE TO VEST IN
THE CIVIL COURTS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT
PRIOR TO ACTUAL INDUCTION.  IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT PRIOR TO
THAT TIME A SELECTEE MAY BE SUBJECT TO MILITARY JURISDICTION BY REASON
OF ART. 2 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR AND BE PROSECUTED BEFORE COURTS
MARTIAL FOR ALL OFFENSES PROSCRIBED BY THE ARTICLES, PROVIDED THOSE
ACTS ARE NOT MADE CRIMINAL BY THE ACT.  UNDER THAT VIEW A SELECTEE WHO
FAILED TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION (BOWLES V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 33)
OR WHO, HAVING REPORTED, REFUSED TO BE EXAMINED (UNITED STATES V.
COLLURA, 139 F.2D 345) COULD BE PROSECUTED FOR SUCH OFFENSES ONLY IN
CIVIL COURTS.  SEC. 11.  BUT SINCE BY ART. 2 HE BECAME A SOLDIER WHEN
ORDERED TO REPORT, HE COULD BE PROSECUTED BY THE MILITARY FOR THOSE
OFFENSES WHICH WERE PROSCRIBED BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR BUT NOT BY THE
ACT. 

WE THINK THAT IS TOO NARROW A READING OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT.  AS WE
POINTED OUT IN FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549, 552, THE
MOBILIZATION PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM IS
DESIGNED TO OPERATE "AS ONE CONTINUOUS PROCESS FOR THE SELECTION OF MEN
FOR NATIONAL SERVICE" - A PROCESS IN WHICH THE CIVIL AND MILITARY
AGENCIES PERFORM INTEGRATED FUNCTIONS.  THE EXAMINATION OF MEN AT
INDUCTION CENTERS AND THEIR ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION ARE PARTS OF THAT
PROCESS.  INDUCTION MARKS ITS END.  BUT PRIOR TO THAT TIME A SELECTEE
IS STILL SUBJECT TO THE ACT AND NOT YET A SOLDIER.  A CASE INVOLVING
HIS RIGHTS OR DUTIES AS A SELECTEE PRIOR TO THAT EVENT IS A CASE
ARISING UNDER THE ACT.  THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES, NOT THE MILITARY, ARE
CHARGED WITH THE DUTIES OF ENFORCEMENT AT THAT STAGE OF THE PROCESS. 
THAT NECESSARILY MEANS THAT THE MEASURE OF A SELECTEE'S RIGHTS AND
DUTIES IS TO BE FOUND IN THE ACT, NOT IN THE ARTICLES OF WAR.  FOR SEC.
16(A) OF THE ACT SUSPENDS ALL LAWS OR PARTS THEREOF WHICH ARE IN
CONFLICT WITH ITS PROVISIONS. 

WE ARE SUPPORTED IN THAT VIEW BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ACT.  THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER IT DEFINE A "DELINQUENT" AS
ONE WHO IS "LIABLE FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE" UNDER THE ACT AND "WHO
FAILS OR NEGLECTS TO PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM" BY THE ACT OR
THE REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT THERETO.  SEC. 601.5.  AND PART 642,
WHICH CONTAINS DETAILED PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF
"DELINQUENTS," PROVIDES:  "EVERY REGISTRANT WHO HAS HERETOFORE OR WHO
HEREAFTER FAILS TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION OR AN
ORDER TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE SHALL BE REPORTED
PROMPTLY TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY  ...  ; PROVIDED THAT IF THE
LOCAL BOARD BELIEVES THAT BY REASONABLE EFFORT IT MAY BE ABLE TO LOCATE
THE REGISTRANT AND SECURE HIS COMPLIANCE, IT MAY DELAY THE MAILING OF
SUCH DELINQUENT REGISTRANT REPORT FOR A PERIOD NOT IN EXCESS OF 30
DAYS."  SEC. 642.41(A).  MOREOVER, SEC. 642.42(A) PROVIDES:  "AFTER A
DELINQUENT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE
SHALL BE PROSECUTED.  BEFORE PERMITTING SUCH A DELINQUENT TO BE
INDUCTED OR ASSIGNED TO WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, THE LOCAL BOARD
SHOULD OBTAIN THE VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CONCERNING SUCH
ACTION."  WE WILL DEVELOP SHORTLY THE PLACE OF SUCH REGULATIONS IN THE
SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM.  IT IS SUFFICIENT AT THIS POINT TO NOTE THAT
THE REGULATIONS TREAT THE PROBLEMS OF "DELINQUENTS" AS MATTERS
EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES.  FN2  WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE
ACT WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THAT CONSTRUCTION IF, AS IS NOW CONTENDED,
THE SELECTEE BECAME SUBJECT TO EVEN A LIMITED MILITARY JURISDICTION
PRIOR TO INDUCTION. 

                  II. 

RESPONDENT ARGUES IN THE SECOND PLACE THAT PETITIONER BECAME A
SOLDIER WHEN THE ARMY ACCEPTED HIM AFTER HIS EXAMINATIONS WERE
COMPLETED.  THAT ARGUMENT IS BASED LARGELY ON THE WAR DEPARTMENT
REGULATIONS. 

THE WAR DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS  FN3  IN FORCE IN AUGUST,
1942(MOBILIZATION REGULATIONS NO. 1-7, OCTOBER 1, 1940) PROVIDED IN
SEC. II, PAR. 6, THAT "THE FUNCTION OF THE INDUCTION STATION IS TO
PROVIDE THE FINAL EXAMINATIONS FOR REGISTRANTS SELECTED FOR INDUCTION
AND THE INDUCTION OF THOSE ACCEPTABLE TO THE ARMY."  SEC. II, PAR.
13(E) ENTITLED "INDUCTION CEREMONY" PROVIDED:  "ALL MEN SUCCESSFULLY
PASSING THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDUCTED INTO THE
ARMY.  THE INDUCTION WILL BE PERFORMED BY AN OFFICER IN A SHORT,
DIGNIFIED CEREMONY IN WHICH THE MEN ARE ADMINISTERED THE OATH, AW 109:
'I,   , DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND
ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THAT I WILL SERVE THEM
HONESTLY AND FAITHFULLY AGAINST ALL THEIR ENEMIES WHOMSOEVER; AND THAT
I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND
ARTICLES OF WAR.'  THEY WILL BE INFORMED THAT THEY ARE NOW MEMBERS OF
THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES AND GIVEN AN EXPLANATION OF THEIR
OBLIGATIONS AND PRIVILEGES.  IN THE EVENT OF REFUSAL TO TAKE AN OATH
(OR AFFIRMATION) BY ANY INDIVIDUAL HE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE
IT, BUT WILL BE INFORMED THAT THIS ACTION DOES NOT ALTER IN ANY RESPECT
HIS OBLIGATION TO THE UNITED STATES." 

THE ARGUMENT IS THAT SINCE THE ARMY REGULATIONS DO NOT CONDITION A
SELECTEE'S ENTRY INTO THE ARMY ON HIS SUBSCRIBING TO THE OATH,  FN4
INDUCTION MUST TAKE PLACE AT SOME ANTERIOR POINT OF TIME.  IT IS SAID
THAT WHILE SEC. 3 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT A SELECTEE SHALL NOT BE
INDUCTED "UNTIL HE IS ACCEPTABLE" TO THE ARMY, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
ACT WHICH POSTPONES INDUCTION BEYOND THAT TIME.  THE INDUCTION CEREMONY
DESCRIBED IN SEC. II, PAR. 13(E) OF THE REGULATIONS IS SAID TO BE A
FORMAL EXERCISE WHICH SOLEMNIFIES THE OCCASION AND DURING WHICH THE
SOLDIER IS ADVISED CONCERNING HIS OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO
THE UNITED STATES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 47 F.SUPP.  607.  THE
STATEMENT IN SEC. II, PAR. 13(E) THAT THOSE WHO PASS THE EXAMINATION
"WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INDUCTED INTO THE ARMY" IS READ TO MEAN THAT
SELECTEES SHALL THEREUPON BE ACCEPTED AS SOLDIERS.  A STATEMENT BY AN
OFFICER IN AUTHORITY THAT THEY ARE ACCEPTED, FOLLOWED BY THE READING OF
THE OATH AND SUCH OTHER EXPLANATION AS MAY BE REQUIRED COMPLETES THE
CEREMONY. 

THAT VIEW FINDS SUPPORT IN INFORMAL RULINGS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL'S OFFICE.  FN5  AND WAR DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS HAVE THE FORCE
OF LAW AS WE RECENTLY HAD OCCASION TO REAFFIRM IN STANDARD OIL CO. V.
JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481, 484. 

BUT THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS COMPLICATED HERE BY THE DIVISION OF
JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE CIVIL AND MILITARY AUTHORITIES WHICH THE ACT
CREATES.  THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED "TO SELECT AND INDUCT" MEN INTO
THE ARMED FORCES "IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THIS ACT."  SEC. 3(A).  NO
MAN SHALL BE "INDUCTED FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THIS ACT UNLESS
AND UNTIL HE IS ACCEPTABLE" TO THE ARMED SERVICES.  SEC. 3(A).  AND THE
CIVIL AUTHORITIES RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER HIM UNTIL HE IS "ACTUALLY
INDUCTED."  SEC. 11.  THUS IT SEEMS CLEAR, AS WE HAVE ALREADY SAID,
THAT THE ACT, RATHER THAN THE WAR DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS OR THE
ARTICLES OF WAR, DETERMINES THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF SELECTEES, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM INDUCTED MEN.  THE MANNER AND METHOD OF EFFECTING AN
INDUCTION INTO THE ARMY ARE THUS LEFT FOR THE WAR DEPARTMENT.  BUT THE
POWER OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE ACT "TO SELECT AND INDUCT" MEN
INCLUDES THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHEN THE SELECTIVE PROCESS IS
COMPLETED.  IT IS ONLY AFTER THAT PROCESS IS FINISHED THAT A SELECTEE
IS ELIGIBLE FOR INDUCTION. 

THAT VIEW RUNS THROUGHOUT THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED UNDER THE ACT.  THEY ARE THE REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE SPECIAL
RELEVANCY HERE.  THE RULEMAKING POWER UNDER THE ACT IS VESTED IN THE
PRESIDENT.  SEC. 10(A)(1).  THE PRESIDENT IN TURN IS GIVEN THE POWER TO
DELEGATE THAT AUTHORITY.  FN6  SEC. 10(B).  AND DURING THE PERIOD HERE
IN QUESTION, AS AT THE PRESENT TIME,  FN7 THE PRESIDENT HAD DELEGATED
IT TO THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE.  EXEC. ORDER, NO. 8545, SEPT.
23, 1940, 5 FED. REG., PP. 3779, 3781.  THE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED UNDER IT GIVE THE SELECTIVE PROCESS ITS INTEGRATED NATURE. 
FALBO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THEY DETERMINE THE ROLE WHICH THE
MILITARY AS WELL AS THE CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES ARE TO PLAY IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF SELECTION.  ID.  AS IN OTHER INSTANCES
(UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, 549; GRAY V.
POWELL, 314 U.S. 402) THE INTERPRETATIONS OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS BY
THOSE CHARGED WITH ITS ADMINISTRATION ARE ENTITLED TO PERSUASIVE
WEIGHT. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS SUPPORT OUR
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT.  THUS IT IS PROVIDED THAT WHILE A SELECTEE
IS APPEALING OR OTHERWISE CONTESTING HIS CLASSIFICATION, HIS INDUCTION
SHALL BE STAYED.  SECS. 625.3, 626.14, 627.41, 628.7.  AND, AS WE HAVE
NOTED, WHEN A "DELINQUENT" HAS BEEN REPORTED TO A UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, THE LOCAL BOARD SHALL NOT ORDER HIM TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION
WITHOUT OBTAINING THE VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.  THESE
PROVISIONS, AS WELL AS THOSE GOVERNING THE CONTROL OF THE LOCAL BOARDS
OVER THE ORDERS TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION, WHICH WE WILL COME TO SHORTLY,
ARE FRAMED ON THE THEORY THAT THE TIME WHEN A SELECTEE'S STATUS MAY
CHANGE FROM CIVILIAN TO SOLDIER IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  THUS THEY CONFIRM OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ACT. 

THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS ALSO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
ACCEPTANCE (OR BEING FOUND ACCEPTABLE) BY THE ARMY AND INDUCTION. 
DURING THE PERIOD HERE IN QUESTION AN INDUCTED MAN WAS DEFINED AS "A
MAN WHO HAS BECOME A MEMBER OF THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES THROUGH THE
OPERATION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM."  32 CODE FED. REG. 1941
SUPP. SEC. 601.7.  INDUCTION STATION WAS DEFINED AS ANY CAMP, ETC. "AT
WHICH SELECTED MEN ARE RECEIVED BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND, IF
FOUND ACCEPTABLE, ARE INDUCTED INTO MILITARY SERVICE."  SEC. 601.8. 
AND THOUGH THE REGULATION GOVERNING THE RECEPTION OF SELECTED MEN AT
THE INDUCTION STATION REFERRED TO THEIR TREATMENT "PENDING THEIR
INDUCTION OR REJECTION" (SEC. 633.8), "INDUCTION" WAS NOT OTHERWISE
USED IN THE SENSE OF "ACCEPTANCE."  FOR IT WAS DEFINED IN THE VERY NEXT
REGULATION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: "INDUCTION.  AT THE INDUCTION
STATION, THE SELECTED MEN FOUND ACCEPTABLE WILL BE INDUCTED INTO THE
LAND OR NAVAL FORCES."  SEC. 633.9. 

THESE REGULATIONS THUS SUGGEST THAT INDUCTION FOLLOWS ACCEPTANCE AND
IS A SEPARATE PROCESS.  READ IN THAT LIGHT THE WAR DEPARTMENT
REGULATIONS MAY BE RECONCILED WITH THE REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT.  FOR
AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE WAR DEPARTMENT PROVIDED BY REGULATION AT THE TIME
BILLINGS APPEARED AT FORT LEAVENWORTH THAT THE "INDUCTION WILL BE
PERFORMED BY AN OFFICER IN A SHORT, DIGNIFIED CEREMONY IN WHICH THE MEN
ARE ADMINISTERED THE OATH," ETC. 

WE ARE CONFIRMED IN THIS CONCLUSION BY RECENT AMENDMENTS BOTH TO THE
ARMY REGULATIONS AND TO THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS.  THE ARMY
REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED MARCH 30, 1943, NOW STATE RESPECTING THE
"INDUCTION CEREMONY," THAT "THE INDUCTION WILL BE PERFORMED BY AN
OFFICER WHO, PRIOR TO ADMINISTERING THE OATH, WILL GIVE THE MEN ABOUT
TO BE INDUCTED A SHORT PATRIOTIC TALK" (ITALICS ADDED).  THIS MAKES
UNAMBIGUOUS THE FAIR INFERENCE IN THE EARLIER ARMY REGULATIONS THAT
SELECTEES WERE INDUCTED BY THE CEREMONY AND NOT BEFORE IT. 

MOREOVER, THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN AMENDED IN
RECENT MONTHS SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR PREINDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS
BEFORE A REGISTRANT "IS ORDERED TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION."  SEC. 629.1. 
AS UNDER THE FORMER REGULATIONS, THE GROUP TO BE FORWARDED FOR
EXAMINATION BY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES IS ASSEMBLED BY THE LOCAL BOARD
AND GIVEN CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONS AND CREDENTIALS.  SEC. 629.22. 
REGISTRANTS IN CERTAIN CLASSES "MAY BE INDUCTED INTO SERVICE AT THE
INDUCTION STATION UPON BEING FOUND QUALIFIED FOR SERVICE," PROVIDED
THEY MAKE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THEIR BOARDS AND PROVIDED THERE IS NO
APPEAL PENDING IN THEIR CASES AND THE APPEAL PERIOD HAS EXPIRED.  SEC.
629.23.  ALL OTHER REGISTRANTS WHO ARE GIVEN THE PREINDUCTION
EXAMINATION ARE RETURNED TO THEIR LOCAL BOARD WHEN THE EXAMINATION IS
COMPLETED.  SEC. 629.22(E).  THOSE FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ARMY OR NAVY
ARE LATER ORDERED TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION.  SECS. 632.1 ET SEQ. LOCAL
BOARDS, IN FILLING CALLS RECEIVED, ARE AUTHORIZED TO ALLOW TWENTY-ONE
DAYS BEFORE INDUCTION TO THOSE WHO "HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO
THE ARMY."  SEC. 632.4.  THIS TAKES THE PLACE OF THE EARLIER SYSTEM
WHEREBY SELECTEES WERE FIRST INDUCTED AND THEN GIVEN, IF THEY DESIRED,
FURLOUGHS TO ATTEND TO THEIR PERSONAL AFFAIRS.  ARMY REG. NO. 615-500,
SEPTEMBER 1, 1942, SEC. II, PAR. 16. 

WE MENTION THESE RECENT REGULATIONS BECAUSE THEY PERPETUATE THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACCEPTANCE OR BEING FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND INDUCTION
WHICH APPEARED IN THE REGULATIONS WHEN BILLINGS REPORTED AT THE
INDUCTION STATION.  THAT THESE AMENDMENTS DO NOT EFFECT ANY CHANGE IN
THE CONCEPT OF "INDUCTION" IS APPARENT FROM THE FACT THAT ITS
DEFINITION HAS REMAINED PRACTICALLY THE SAME FROM THE TIME WHEN
BILLINGS REPORTED AT THE INDUCTION STATION TO THE PRESENT TIME.  FN8
IT COULD HARDLY BE MAINTAINED THAT A SELECTEE WHO HAS PASSED HIS
PREINDUCTION PHYSICAL EXAMINATION BUT WHO HAS NOT BEEN ORDERED TO
REPORT FOR INDUCTION IS SUBJECT TO MILITARY JURISDICTION.  AND IT WOULD
NOT SEEM PERMISSIBLE TO HOLD THAT HE WHO FAILED TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION
AT THE END OF THE SO-CALLED TWENTY-ONE DAY FURLOUGH PERIOD COULD BE
PROSECUTED BY A COURT MARTIAL BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN "ACTUALLY INDUCTED"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11.  BUT IF THAT IS TRUE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
SEE WHY THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE IN RESULT IF THE INTERVAL BETWEEN
THE TIME WHEN HE IS FOUND ACCEPTABLE OR IS ACCEPTED AND THE CEREMONY OF
INDUCTION WERE ONLY A FEW MINUTES, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, RATHER THAN
A FEW WEEKS. 

                                 III. 

IT IS FINALLY CONTENDED, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THAT
PETITIONER WAS INDUCTED WHEN THE OATH WAS READ TO HIM AND HE WAS TOLD
THAT HE WAS IN THE ARMY.  AT THAT TIME HE HAD BEEN PLACED UNDER GUARD
AND WAS RETAINED AGAINST HIS WILL.  BUT THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE
MILITARY HAS AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCTING
SELECTEES INTO THE SERVICE. 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENLIST THE MANPOWER OF
THE NATION FOR PROSECUTION OF THE WAR AND TO SUBJECT TO MILITARY
JURISDICTION THOSE WHO ARE UNWILLING, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO ARE EAGER,
TO COME TO THE DEFENSE OF THEIR NATION IN ITS HOUR OF PERIL.  ARVER V.
UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 366.  BUT CONGRESS DID NOT CHOOSE THAT COURSE
IN THE PRESENT EMERGENCY.  IT IMPOSED A SEPARATE PENALTY ON THOSE WHO
DEFIED THE LAW - PROSECUTION BY THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND A MAXIMUM
PENALTY OF FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT OR A $10,000 FINE OR BOTH.  SEC.
11.  WE SAY THAT THAT PENALTY WAS AIMED AT THOSE WHO DEFIED THE LAW,
THOUGH IN THE WORDS OF SEC. 11 IT INCLUDES, OF COURSE, ONLY THOSE WHO
HAVE NOT BEEN "ACTUALLY INDUCTED."  BUT WE GIVE "INDUCTED" THE MEANING
IT HAS IN THE ACT AND IN THE REGULATIONS.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, AN
INDUCTED MAN IS DEFINED BY THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS AS ONE
"WHO HAS BECOME A MEMBER OF THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES THROUGH THE
OPERATION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM."  SEC. 601.7.  THAT SUGGESTS
THAT HE BECOMES "ACTUALLY INDUCTED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT BY
SUBMITTING TO THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM.  THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT A
VOLUNTEER IS, OF COURSE, IRRELEVANT AS THE ACT WAS DESIGNED AS A "FAIR
AND JUST SYSTEM OF SELECTIVE COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING AND
SERVICE."  SEC. 1(B).  BUT INDUCTION UNDER THE ACT AND THE PRESENT
REGULATIONS IS THE END PRODUCT OF SUBMISSION TO THE SELECTIVE PROCESS
AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOCAL BOARD. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT SEC. 11 IMPOSES ON A SELECTEE A CRIMINAL
PENALTY FOR ANY FAILURE "TO PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM UNDER OR
IN THE EXECUTION" OF THE ACT "OR THE RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT
THERETO."  HE WHO REPORTS TO THE INDUCTION STATION BUT REFUSES TO BE
INDUCTED VIOLATES SEC. 11 OF THE ACT AS CLEARLY AS ONE WHO REFUSES TO
REPORT AT ALL.  UNITED STATES V. COLLURA, SUPRA.  THE ORDER OF THE
LOCAL BOARD TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION INCLUDES A COMMAND TO SUBMIT TO
INDUCTION.  THOUGH THAT COMMAND WAS FORMERLY IMPLIED,  FN9  IT IS NOW
EXPRESS.  THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS STATE THAT IT IS THE "DUTY"
OF A REGISTRANT WHO RECEIVES FROM HIS LOCAL BOARD AN ORDER TO REPORT
FOR INDUCTION "TO APPEAR AT THE PLACE WHERE HIS INDUCTION WILL BE
ACCOMPLISHED," "TO OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ARMED
FORCES WHILE AT THE PLACE WHERE HIS INDUCTION WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED,"
AND "TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION."  SEC. 633.21(B).  THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT A
REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO INDUCTION IS A VIOLATION OF THE ACT RATHER THAN A
MILITARY ORDER.  THE OFFENSE IS COMPLETE BEFORE INDUCTION AND WHILE THE
SELECTEE RETAINS HIS CIVILIAN STATUS.  THAT CIRCUMSTANCE THROWS LIGHT
ON THE MEANING OF THE WORDS "ACTUALLY INDUCTED" AS USED IN SEC. 11 OF
THE ACT.  CONGRESS BY ACCEPTING THE BONE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 11 SPECIFIED
THE MAXIMUM PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED ON THOSE WHO VIOLATED THE ACT OR
DISOBEYED AN ORDER OF THEIR BOARD PRIOR TO THEIR INDUCTION.  FN10  IT
ALSO WITHHELD FROM MILITARY COURTS JURISDICTION OVER THOSE OFFENDERS. 
AT THE SAME TIME, CONGRESS DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE ARMY TO SEARCH OUT
DELINQUENTS WHEREVER THEY MIGHT BE AND INDUCT THEM WITHOUT MORE.  WE
MUST THEREFORE ASSUME THAT CONGRESS AS A MATTER OF POLICY DECIDED THAT
THOSE WHO DISOBEYED THE ORDER OF THEIR BOARD AND REFUSED TO BE INDUCTED
WERE TO BE PUNISHED BY THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES AND BY THEM ALONE.  FN11
IF FORCIBLE SEIZURE OR DETENTION OF SUCH OFFENDERS BY THE ARMY WERE
SANCTIONED, THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF PROVIDING THE MAXIMUM
PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR DELINQUENCY WOULD BE UNDERMINED. 

MOREOVER, IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT HE WHO REPORTS AT THE
INDUCTION STATION IS FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN THE FALBO CASE
FOR THE EXHAUSTION OF HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.  UNLESS HE FOLLOWS
THAT PROCEDURE HE MAY NOT CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF HIS CLASSIFICATION
IN THE COURTS.  BUT WE CAN HARDLY SAY THAT HE MUST REPORT TO THE
MILITARY IN ORDER TO EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND THEN SAY
THAT IF HE DOES SO REPORT HE MAY BE FORCIBLY INDUCTED AGAINST HIS
WILL.  THAT WOULD INDEED MAKE A TRAP OF THE FALBO CASE BY SUBJECTING
THOSE WHO REPORTED FOR COMPLETION OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCESS TO
MORE SEVERE PENALTIES THAN THOSE WHO STAYED AWAY IN DEFIANCE OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER TO REPORT. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS TOGETHER INDICATE TO US THAT A SELECTEE BECOMES
"ACTUALLY INDUCTED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT WHEN IN
OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER OF HIS BOARD AND AFTER THE ARMY HAS FOUND HIM
ACCEPTABLE FOR SERVICE HE UNDERGOES WHATEVER CEREMONY OR REQUIREMENTS
OF ADMISSION THE WAR DEPARTMENT HAS PRESCRIBED. 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WISDOM OF EITHER THE "ACTUALLY
INDUCTED" CLAUSE IN SEC. 11 OR THE PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION AND
INDUCTION WHICH HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT.  NOR IS IT FOR US TO
DECIDE WHETHER THE MAXIMUM PENALTY PROVIDED BY CONGRESS IS ADEQUATE FOR
THOSE WHO FLOUT THE ACT WHILE THE NATION FIGHTS FOR ITS VERY
EXISTENCE.  BUT WHERE CONGRESS HAS DRAWN THE LINE BETWEEN CIVIL AND
MILITARY JURISDICTION IT IS OUR DUTY TO RESPECT IT.  REVERSED.    FN1
SEC. 11 SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE PROVIDES:  "ANY PERSON ...  WHO IN ANY
MANNER SHALL KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED OF
HIM UNDER OR IN THE EXECUTION OF THIS ACT, OR RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE
PURSUANT TO THIS ACT,  ...  SHALL, UPON CONVICTION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF, BE PUNISHED BY
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$10,000, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT, OR IF SUBJECT TO
MILITARY OR NAVAL LAW MAY BE TRIED BY COURT MARTIAL, AND, ON
CONVICTION, SHALL SUFFER SUCH PUNISHMENT AS A COURT MARTIAL MAY
DIRECT.  NO PERSON SHALL BE TRIED BY ANY MILITARY OR NAVAL COURT
MARTIAL IN ANY CASE ARISING UNDER THIS ACT UNLESS SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN
ACTUALLY INDUCTED FOR THE TRAINING AND SERVICE PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS
ACT OR UNLESS HE IS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL UNDER LAWS IN
FORCE PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT." 

FN2  WHILE THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING "DELINQUENTS" CITED IN THE TEXT
ARE THOSE PRESENTLY IN FORCE, THE ONES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF
BILLINGS' REFUSAL TO BE INDUCTED WERE OF THE SAME TENOR AND WERE THEN
INCLUDED IN SEC. 601.5, SEC. 642.4, SEC. 642.5. 

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THESE REGULATIONS CONTAIN DETAILED
PROVISION FOR THE PAROLE OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF VIOLATIONS OF THE
ACT.  SECS. 643.1 ET SEQ. THOSE REQUIRED TO REGISTER UNDER THE ACT MAY
BE PAROLED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE FOR INDUCTION OR FOR OTHER ASSIGNMENTS. 
SEC. 643.2.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE POWER TO IMPOSE "SUCH TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AS HE MAY DEEM PROPER" UPON THE PAROLEE AND SHALL
SUPERVISE HIM, AND MAY SUSPEND OR REVOKE THE PAROLE, EXCEPT WHEN THE
PAROLEE IS "IN THE ACTIVE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES." 
SECS. 643.8, 643.9.  AND ARMY REGULATIONS NO. 615-500, SEC. II, PAR.
7(B)(5) PROVIDE THAT REGISTRANTS CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF THE ACT
"WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR INDUCTION AT ANY TIME," PROVIDED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HAS GRANTED PAROLE "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INDUCTION." 

FN3  THESE WERE SUPERSEDED SEPTEMBER 1, 1942, BY ARMY REGULATIONS NO.
615-500. 

FN4  THE CASE OF A SELECTEE IS DISTINGUISHED FROM THAT OF AN ENLISTEE
WHO IS REQUIRED BY ART. 109 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR TO TAKE THE OATH. 
IDENTICAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE PREDECESSOR ARTICLES OF WAR APPLICABLE TO
ENLISTEES WERE CONSTRUED AS INAPPLICABLE TO DRAFTEES UNDER THE
SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT OF 1917.  SEE 1 OP. J.A.G. 169(1917); FRANKE V.
MURRAY, SUPRA, PP. 868-869. 

FN5  THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF, MILITARY
AFFAIRS SECTION OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE:  "1.  THAT THE
ONLY PURPOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH AS SET OUT IN MR 1-7,
PARAGRAPH 13E, IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE INDIVIDUAL OF HIS
OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND
HIS ACQUIESCENCE IN, OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THIS OBLIGATION, BY SOME
OVERT ACT INDICATING ACCEPTANCE THEREOF IS IMMATERIAL.  2.  THAT
INDUCTION IS COMPLETE IMMEDIATELY UPON FULL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE OATH OR ANY ACT OR REQUIREMENT
THEREAFTER IS MINISTERIAL ONLY AND IS NOT NECESSARY TO THE COMPLETION
OF INDUCTION.  3.  FOR INDUCTION NO ACQUIESCENCE OR ACCEPTANCE ON THE
PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS REQUIRED." 

ON JUNE 6, 1941, THE FOLLOWING INFORMAL RULING WAS MADE:  "GENERALLY
SPEAKING, THE ABOVE-QUOTED CONCLUSIONS ARE BELIEVED TO BE SOUND, AND IT
THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT A REFUSAL ON THE PART OF A SELECTEE TO TAKE THE
PRESCRIBED OATH DOES NOT LEGALLY AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF HIS
INDUCTION."  WE ARE ADVISED BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL ON FEBRUARY
4, 1944, IN A SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
THAT ALTHOUGH THAT OPINION WAS EXPRESSED INFORMALLY BY LETTER AND NOT
IN A FORMAL OPINION IT "REPRESENTED THE VIEWS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL" AND THAT THOSE VIEWS "HAVE NOT BEEN MODIFIED AND ARE HEREBY
ADHERED TO." 

FN6  SEC. 10(B) AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED CONTAINED NO LIMITATION AS TO
THE PERSONS TO WHOM THAT AUTHORITY MIGHT BE DELEGATED.  BUT BY THE ACT
OF DECEMBER 5, 1943, 57 STAT. 598, SEC. 10(B) WAS AMENDED TO READ:
"THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO DELEGATE TO THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE
SERVICE ONLY, ANY AUTHORITY VESTED IN HIM UNDER THIS ACT (EXCEPT

FN7  SEE EXEC. ORDER NO. 9410, DECEMBER 23, 1943, 8 FED. REG. 17319. 

FN8  AS WE HAVE INDICATED, THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS IN SEC.
633.9 DEFINED "INDUCTION" AT THE TIME BILLINGS REPORTED TO THE
INDUCTION STATION AS FOLLOWS:  "AT THE INDUCTION STATION, THE SELECTED
MEN FOUND ACCEPTABLE WILL BE INDUCTED INTO THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES." 
AT THE PRESENT TIME SEC. 633.25 DEFINES "INDUCTION" AS FOLLOWS:  "AT
THE ARMY RECEPTION CENTER, THE NAVY RECRUITING STATION, OR THE
INDUCTION STATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE SELECTED MEN WHO HAVE BEEN
FORWARDED FOR INDUCTION AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE WILL BE INDUCTED INTO THE
LAND OR NAVAL FORCES." 

FN9  SEE SECS. 633.1, 633.2, 633.6 IN FORCE IN AUGUST, 1942. 

FN10  THE CONFERENCE REPORT STATED:  "THE SENATE BILL PROVIDED THAT
PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE BILL WHO FAIL TO REPORT FOR DUTY AS ORDERED
SHOULD BE TRIED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND NOT BY MILITARY AND NAVAL COURTS MARTIAL, UNLESS SUCH PERSONS HAD
ACTUALLY BEEN INDUCTED FOR THE TRAINING AND SERVICE PRESCRIBED IN THE
BILL OR UNLESS THEY WERE SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL UNDER LAWS
IN FORCE PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE BILL.  THE HOUSE AMENDMENT IN
SUCH CASES GAVE THE COURTS MARTIAL AND THE DISTRICT COURTS CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION, AND MADE FAILURE OF PERSONS TO REPORT FOR DUTY SUBJECT TO
THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING THAT BRANCH OF THE LAND AND NAVAL
FORCES TO WHICH THEY WERE ASSIGNED FROM THE DATE THEY WERE REQUIRED BY
THE TERMS OF THE ORDER TO OBEY THE SAME, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD NOT
ACTUALLY BEEN INDUCTED. 

"THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT CONTAINS THE PROVISIONS OF THE SENATE BILL
IN THIS RESPECT."  86 CONG. REC. 12039. 

FN11  IT IS TRUE THAT FOR OTHER PURPOSES CONGRESS HAS TREATED
SELECTEES WHO ARE ORDERED TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION THE SAME AS THOSE IN
MILITARY SERVICE.  THUS THE BENEFITS OF THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS'
CIVIL RELIEF ACT OF 1940(50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 501, 54 STAT. 1178), WHICH
ORIGINALLY OBTAINED ONLY TO "PERSONS IN THE MILITARY SERVICE," WERE
EXTENDED BY AN ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1942, TO SELECTEES FROM THE DATE OF
RECEIVING AN ORDER TO REPORT UNTIL THE TIME OF ACTUALLY REPORTING FOR
INDUCTION.  50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. II, SEC. 516, 56 STAT. 770.  BUT, AS
WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS
UNDER IT HAVE NOT MADE THE SELECTEE'S CIVILIAN STATUS CHANGE TO THAT OF
SOLDIER AT EITHER POINT OF TIME. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, 135 F.2D 505. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

UNDER THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT OF 1940, UNLIKE THAT OF 1917, A
SELECTEE IS NOT SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY A MILITARY COURT MARTIAL UNTIL HE
HAS BEEN "ACTUALLY INDUCTED" FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE.  BUT CONGRESS
DID NOT DEFINE WHEN HE WAS SO "INDUCTED."  IT THUS LEFT TO JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION WHEN THE CIVILIAN STATUS CEASED AND THE MILITARY STATUS
BEGAN.  IN A MATTER OF THIS SORT, INVOLVING AS IT DOES THE PROCESS OF
COMPULSORY RECRUITING OF THE NATION'S ARMY IN THE MIDST OF WAR, IT IS
OF VITAL IMPORTANCE THAT THE LINE BE DRAWN AS DEFINITELY AS THE
LEGISLATION REASONABLY PERMITS IN ORDER THAT AMBIGUITY AND CONTROVERSY
BE REDUCED TO A MINIMUM. 

IN THE FALBO CASE WE HELD THE OTHER DAY THAT "THE CONNECTED SERIES OF
STEPS INTO THE NATIONAL SERVICE WHICH BEGINS WITH REGISTRATION WITH THE
LOCAL BOARD DOES NOT END UNTIL THE REGISTRANT IS ACCEPTED BY THE ARMY
...  "  320 U.S. 549, 553.  THE LINE THAT WAS THUS DRAWN - WHEN "THE
CONNECTED SERIES OF STEPS" HAS ENDED - SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE LINE TO
DRAW BETWEEN THE CIVIL AND MILITARY STATUS OF A REGISTRANT.  IN OTHER
WORDS, WHEN ACCEPTANCE OF A REGISTRANT IS COMMUNICATED BY THE ARMY, THE
ARMY HAS MADE ITS CHOICE.  THE MAN IS THEN IN THE ARMY.  SUCH WAS THE
RULING, AND I BELIEVE THE CORRECT RULING, OF THE COURT BELOW.  135 F.2D
505.  ACCORDING TO THE COURT'S OPINION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE ACT
ITSELF DOES NOT DRAW THIS LINE BUT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED SUCH A LINE
TO BE DRAWN BY APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS.  ON THAT ASSUMPTION, I DO NOT
DISSENT. 
..END :



EQUITABLE SOCIETY V. COMM'R, 321 U.S. 560 


NO. 492.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 9, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  - 137
F.2D 623, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE TAX COURT, IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION
OF THE REVIEWING COURT TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM FACTS OR TO SUPPLEMENT
STIPULATED FACTS.  P. 563. 

2.  A DECISION OF THE TAX COURT ON REVIEW MAY BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED
ONLY IF IT IS "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  P. 563. 

3.  "INTEREST" USUALLY DENOTES AN AMOUNT WHICH ONE HAS CONTRACTED TO
PAY FOR THE USE OF BORROWED MONEY.  P. 564. 

4.  UPON THE RECORD, "EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS" PAID BY THE LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY WERE NOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, "INTEREST" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 203(A)(8) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932; AND THE TAX
COURT'S DISALLOWANCE OF THEIR DEDUCTION AS "INTEREST ON INDEBTEDNESS"
MAY NOT BE SET ASIDE.  P. 564. 

5.  PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACTS FOR DEDUCTIONS FROM TAXES ARE TO
BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  P. 564. 

EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 733, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE TAX COURT, 44 B.T.A. 293, DISALLOWING TAXPAYER'S DEDUCTION OF
EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER PETITIONER, A MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT FROM ITS GROSS INCOME FOR
1933 "EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS" PAID WITHIN THAT YEAR.  THE DEDUCTION
WAS AUTHORIZED IF THE AMOUNTS WERE "INTEREST" PAID ON "INDEBTEDNESS"
FN1  WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 203(A)(8) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,
47 STAT. 169, 225.  THE TAX COURT DENIED THE DEDUCTION.  44 B.T.A.
293.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  137 F.2D 623.  THE CASE
IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE
THE DECISION BELOW AND PENN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 92
F.2D 962, FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT CONFLICTED WITH COMMISSIONER V.
LAFAYETTE LIFE INS. CO., 67 F.2D 209, FROM THE SEVENTH. 

THE FACTS ARE STIPULATED AND SHOW THE FOLLOWING:  DURING AND PRIOR TO
1933 PETITIONER ISSUED LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES WHICH GAVE TO THE
INSURED (AND IN SOME CASES TO THE BENEFICIARY) THE RIGHT TO HAVE
PETITIONER HOLD THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICIES UPON THEIR MATURITY
UNDER ONE OR MORE OF SEVERAL OPTIONAL MODES OF SETTLEMENT IN LIEU OF
PAYMENT IN A LUMP SUM.  THESE OPTIONAL MODES OF SETTLEMENT ARE
EXERCISED UNDER SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRACTS.  THUS ONE FORM OF
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRACT PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY SHALL BE
LEFT ON DEPOSIT WITH PETITIONER.  AND IT IS PROVIDED IN CASE OF THIS,
AS WELL AS THE OTHER TYPES OF SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRACTS WHICH ARE
INVOLVED,  FN2  THAT "IF IN ANY YEAR THE SOCIETY DECLARES" THAT FUNDS
HELD UNDER THESE OPTIONS SHALL RECEIVE INTEREST IN EXCESS OF 3% PER
ANNUM, THE PAYMENTS UNDER THEM "SHALL BE INCREASED FOR THAT YEAR BY AN
EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDEND AS DETERMINED AND APPORTIONED BY THE
SOCIETY."  DURING THE YEAR 1933 SOME $534,000 OF EXCESS INTEREST
DIVIDENDS WAS PAID BY PETITIONER UNDER THESE SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRACTS. 
THE AMOUNT SO PAID ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR AT THE RATE WHICH HAD BEEN
DECLARED BY PETITIONER'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT
YEAR. 

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT RUNS AS FOLLOWS:  NOTHING IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY
CONTRACTS OR UNDERLYING POLICIES CONDITIONS THE PAYMENT OF EXCESS
INTEREST DIVIDENDS ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SURPLUS.  THE POLICIES AND THE
STATUTES AUTHORIZING THEIR ISSUANCE NEGATIVE THE IDEA THAT THE PAYMENT
OF THESE EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS CONSTITUTE A DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS
OR OF EARNINGS OF PRIOR YEARS.  PETITIONER'S DECLARATION AT THE
BEGINNING OF 1933 THAT IT WOULD PAY EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS IN THAT
YEAR AT A SPECIFIC RATE CONSTITUTED AN OFFER.  THOSE WHO ELECTED IN
1933 TO KEEP THE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT, RATHER THAN TO WITHDRAW THE AMOUNTS
OF THE POLICIES WHICH HAD BECOME PAYABLE DURING THE YEAR, ACCEPTED THAT
OFFER.  IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT BUT FOR THE DECLARATION AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE YEAR THE NEW SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRACTS WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN MADE.  IN AT LEAST SOME OF THE CASES WHERE THE FUNDS WERE ALREADY
ON DEPOSIT AT THE BEGINNING OF 1933 THE BENEFICIARIES COULD HAVE
WITHDRAWN THEM ON DEMAND.  BY REFUSING TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT AND BY
LEAVING THE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT THE BENEFICIARIES ACCEPTED PETITIONER'S
OFFER.  AND, IT IS AGAIN ASSERTED, BUT FOR THE DECLARATION OF EXCESS
INTEREST DIVIDENDS, IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT PETITIONER WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO RETAIN AND USE THOSE FUNDS DURING THAT
YEAR.  AS TO FUNDS ON DEPOSIT AT THE BEGINNING OF 1933 AND OVER WHICH
THE BENEFICIARIES HAD NO POWER OF WITHDRAWAL, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE
ORIGINAL PROMISE TO PAY THE EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS, THOUGH
CONDITIONAL, WAS A PROMISE TO PAY "INTEREST."  FN3 

WHILE THESE ARE INTERESTING QUESTIONS WHICH ARE PROPOUNDED, THE FACTS
ON WHICH MOST OF THEM TURN WERE NOT DETERMINED BY THE TAX COURT.  ITS
FINDINGS OF FACT DID NOT GO BEYOND THE STIPULATION.  AND IT APPARENTLY
WAS NOT ASKED TO GO FARTHER.  IT BASED ITS RULING ON PENN MUTUAL LIFE
INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  IT MAY BE THAT CUSTOM OR A COURSE OF
DEALING OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD WARRANT FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH
WOULD SUPPORT AT LEAST PART OF THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION.  BUT MORE PROOF
IS NEEDED THAN THE PROVISIONS OF THE POLICIES AND THE CONTENTS OF THE
STIPULATION.  IT IS NOT OUR TASK TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM FACTS OR TO
SUPPLEMENT STIPULATED FACTS.  THAT FUNCTION RESTS WITH THE TAX COURT. 
WE MAY MODIFY OR REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT ONLY IF IT IS
"NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  44 STAT. 110, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1141(C)(1);
WILMINGTON TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 316 U.S. 164; DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489.  WE MUST MAKE OUR DETERMINATION ON THE
RECORD BEFORE US.  IF RELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED BEFORE THE TAX
COURT BUT REJECTED BY IT, WE COULD REMAND THE CASE TO IT FOR
APPROPRIATE FINDINGS.  BUT NO SUCH SITUATION IS PRESENTED HERE. 
ACCORDINGLY WE CAN REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW ONLY IF WE CAN SAY ON THE
BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF POLICIES AND THE MEAGER STIPULATION THAT THE
EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS WERE "INTEREST" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT
FN4  AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

THE "USUAL IMPORT" OF THE WORD INTEREST IS "THE AMOUNT WHICH ONE HAS
CONTRACTED TO PAY FOR THE USE OF BORROWED MONEY."  OLD COLONY R. CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 284 U.S. 552, 560; DEPUTY V. DU PONT, 308 U.S. 488, 498. 
WE CANNOT SAY AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS
FALL WITHIN THAT CATEGORY.  THEY APPEAR TO BE AMOUNTS WHICH MAY BE
DECLARED OR WITHHELD AT THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.  AN
OBLIGATION TO PAY MAY OF COURSE ARISE AFTER THE DECLARATION, THE SAME
AS IN CASE OF DIVIDENDS ON STOCK.  BUT AN OBLIGATION TO PAY DECLARED
DIVIDENDS ON STOCK WOULD HARDLY QUALIFY AS "INTEREST" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  THE ANALOGY OF COURSE IS NOT PERFECT, AS THESE
EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS MAY NOT BE PAYABLE FROM SURPLUS OR EARNINGS
OF PRIOR YEARS AND THE OBLIGATION TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT UNDER
EACH OPTION WAS ABSOLUTE.  YET PAYMENTS MADE WHOLLY AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE COMPANY HAVE A DEGREE OF CONTINGENCY WHICH THE NOTION OF
"INTEREST" ORDINARILY LACKS.  IF WE EXPANDED THE MEANING OF THE TERM TO
INCLUDE THESE EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS, WE WOULD INDEED RELAX THE
STRICT RULE OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS OBTAINED IN CASE OF DEDUCTIONS
UNDER THE VARIOUS REVENUE ACTS.  NEW COLONIAL CO. V. HELVERING, 292
U.S. 435, 440; DEPUTY V. DU PONT, SUPRA, P. 493.  APPROPRIATE FINDINGS
OF FACT MIGHT WELL BRING SUCH PAYMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
"INTEREST," AS FOR EXAMPLE A FINDING THAT THEIR DECLARATION WAS THE
BASIS ON WHICH NEW CONTRACTUAL ENGAGEMENTS WERE MADE.  BUT SUCH IS NOT
THIS CASE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS PROVISION OF THE ACT READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "IN THE
CASE OF A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY THE TERM 'NET INCOME' MEANS THE GROSS
INCOME LESS  ...  ALL INTEREST PAID OR ACCRUED WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR
ON ITS INDEBTEDNESS" WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT RELEVANT HERE. 

FN2  THE OTHER TYPES OF OPTIONAL SETTLEMENTS INVOLVED HERE ARE
INSTALMENT OPTIONS FOR A FIXED PERIOD AND INSTALMENT OPTIONS IN A FIXED
AMOUNT. 

FN3  THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS IN EACH OF THESE THREE CATEGORIES DOES NOT
APPEAR, THOUGH PETITIONER HAS OFFERED ITS ROUGH ESTIMATES. 

FN4  SEC. 163(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798, 868,
INCLUDES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "INTEREST PAID" THE FOLLOWING:  "ALL
AMOUNTS IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST, WHETHER OR NOT GUARANTEED, PAID
WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR ON INSURANCE OR ANNUITY CONTRACTS (OR CONTRACTS
ARISING OUT OF INSURANCE OR ANNUITY CONTRACTS) WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE, AT
THE TIME OF PAYMENT, LIFE, HEALTH, OR ACCIDENT CONTINGENCIES."  THE
SENATE REPORT POINTS OUT THAT THIS PROVISION WAS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE
BOTH GUARANTEED INTEREST AND EXCESS INTEREST DIVIDENDS.  S. REP. NO.
1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 146-147. 
..END :




NORTON V. WARNER CO., 321 U.S. 565 


NO. 362.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 29, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  -
137 F.2D 57, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ON REVIEW UNDER SEC. 21(B) OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S & HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT, THE COURT MAY NOT SET ASIDE A COMPENSATION AWARD
DEEMED CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, BUT MAY SET AN AWARD
ASIDE ONLY FOR ERROR OF LAW.  P. 568. 

2.  A BARGE, THOUGH WITHOUT MOTIVE POWER, IS A VESSEL WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S & HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, SINCE
IT IS A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION BY WATER.  P. 571. 

3.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HELD THAT A BARGEMAN - THOUGH THE
BARGE WHICH HE TENDED WAS WITHOUT MOTIVE POWER AND THOUGH HE WAS THE
SOLE EMPLOYEE ABOARD - WAS A "MEMBER OF A CREW" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE LONGSHOREMEN'S & HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT AND EXCLUDED FROM
THE COVERAGE OF THAT ACT BY SECS. 2(3) AND 3(A)(1) THEREOF.  P. 571. 

NORTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR THE THIRD COMPENSATION DISTRICT, V.
WARNER COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 729, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 45
F.SUPP.  835, WHICH DISMISSED A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD OF
COMPENSATION UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S & HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER NICHOLAS RUSIN, A BARGEMAN
EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT, IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION UNDER THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT (44 STAT. 1424, 33
U.S.C. SEC. 901) FOR INJURIES RECEIVED WHEN A CAPSTAN BAR, WHICH HE WAS
USING TO SHIFT THE BARGE AT A PIER, PULLED OUT AND STRUCK HIM UPON THE
CHEST AND CAUSED HIM TO FALL.  THE ANSWER TURNS ON WHETHER RUSIN WAS A
"MASTER OR MEMBER OF A CREW OF ANY VESSEL."  IF HE WAS, HE IS NOT
ENTITLED TO THE COMPENSATION BECAUSE SUCH PERSONS ARE EXPRESSLY
EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT BY SEC. 2(3) AND SEC. 3(A)(1). 

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT RUSIN WAS A HARBOR WORKER, NOT A
"MASTER OR MEMBER OF A CREW," AND GRANTED HIM A COMPENSATION AWARD. 
FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN A SUIT WHICH
RESPONDDENT-EMPLOYER BROUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD.  45 F.SUPP.  835. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  137 F.2D 57.  THE CASE IS HERE
ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
ASSERTED FAILURE OF THE COURT BELOW TO GIVE PROPER EFFECT TO OUR
DECISION IN SOUTH CHICAGO COAL & DOCK CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251. 

THE FACTS, AS FOUND BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND AMPLIFIED BY
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ARE NOT IN
DISPUTE.  RUSIN WAS EMPLOYED AS A BOATMAN ON A BARGE WHICH AT THE TIME
OF THE INJURY WAS AFLOAT ON THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THE BARGE HAD NO MOTIVE POWER OF ITS OWN AND WAS MOVED EITHER BY TOWING
OR, FOR SHORTER DISTANCES, BY THE WINDING UP OF A CABLE BY MEANS OF A
CAPSTAN OPERATED BY HAND.  THE BARGE, WHICH WAS DOCUMENTED AS A VESSEL
OF THE UNITED STATES, NEVER WENT TO SEA BUT WAS CONFINED IN ITS
OPERATION TO WATERS WITHIN A RADIUS OF THIRTY MILES OF PHILADELPHIA. 
RUSIN WAS EMPLOYED UNDER A UNION CONTRACT WITH RESPONDENT WHICH STATED
THAT ALL BARGEMEN ASSIGNED TO SPECIFIC BARGES IN ACTIVE OPERATION WERE
TO BE PAID A MONTHLY SALARY OF $80 AND WERE TO BE PROVIDED WITH
QUARTERS.  IT ALSO STATED THAT THAT COMPENSATION WAS "FOR ALL WORK
PERFORMED BY BARGEMEN IN THE OPERATION OF HIS OWN VESSEL" AND THAT THE
RATES PROVIDED WERE "BASED UPON ALL SERVICES AND TIME REQUIRED TO
SAFEGUARD AND OPERATE THE BARGE FLEET, INCLUDING NECESSARY PUMPING,
WATCHING, OR OTHER EMERGENCY DUTIES ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS."  RUSIN
WAS CONTINUOUSLY ABOARD.  HE BOUGHT HIS OWN MEALS AND LIVED, ATE, AND
SLEPT ON THE BARGE.  WHEN HE WORKED ON ANY OTHER BOAT, HE RECEIVED
WAGES AT AN HOURLY RATE, IN ADDITION TO THE MONTHLY SALARY.  RUSIN HAD
LITTLE EXPERIENCE AS A SEAMAN EXCEPT THAT WHICH HE OBTAINED AS A
BARGEMAN.  HIS DUTIES CONSISTED OF TAKING GENERAL CARE OF THE BARGE. 
THEY INCLUDED TAKING CARE OF THE LINES AT DOCKS, TIGHTENING OR
SLACKENING THEM AS NECESSARY; REPAIRING LEAKS; PUMPING OUT THE BARGE;
TAKING LINES FROM TUGS; RESPONDING TO WHISTLES FROM THE TUGS; PUTTING
OUT NAVIGATIONAL LIGHTS AND SIGNALS; TAKING ORDERS FROM THE TUGBOAT
WHEN BEING TOWED; MOVING THE BARGE AT PIERS BY THE CAPSTAN.  HE COULD
NOT SET THE COURSE OR CONTROL OR CHANGE IT AT ANY TIME.  HE WAS SUBJECT
TO ORDERS OF RESPONDENT'S MARINE SUPERINTENDENT EXCEPT WHEN IN TOW, AT
WHICH TIME HE WAS SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE TUGBOAT CAPTAIN.  BUT
HE HAD NO DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE HANDLING OF CARGO AND NO SHORE
DUTIES.  AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY HE WAS THE SOLE PERSON ABOARD OR
EMPLOYED UPON THE BARGE. 

SEC. 19(A) OF THE ACT GIVES THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER "FULL POWER AND
AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF" CLAIMS FOR
COMPENSATION.  AND SEC. 21(B) GIVES THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS POWER
TO SUSPEND OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, COMPENSATION ORDERS IF
"NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  IN CONSIDERING THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT IN THE BASSETT CASE, WE HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT
WARRANTED IN SETTING ASIDE SUCH AN ORDER BECAUSE THE COURT WOULD WEIGH
OR APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE DIFFERENTLY.  THE DUTY OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
WE SAID, WAS TO GIVE THE AWARD EFFECT, "IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT IT."  309 U.S. AT 258.  AND WE STATED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WERE CONCLUSIVE EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE PERMITTED
CONFLICTING INFERENCES.  ID. P. 260.  AND SEE PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT
SALES, 314 U.S. 244, 246.  THIS STATEMENT OF THE FINALITY TO BE
ACCORDED FINDINGS OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER THE ACT WAS NOT
NEW.  IT HAD BEEN STATED IN SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TERMS IN VOEHL V.
INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO., 288 U.S. 162, 166, AND IN DEL VECCHIO V.
BOWERS, 296 U.S. 280, 287.  THE RULE FASHIONED BY THESE CASES FOLLOWED
THE DESIGN OF THE ACT OF ENCOURAGING PROMPT AND EXPEDITIOUS
ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS ARISING UNDER IT.  FN2  BY GIVING A LARGE DEGREE
OF FINALITY TO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS, CONTESTS AND DELAYS,
WHICH EMPLOYEES COULD ILL AFFORD AND WHICH MIGHT DEPRIVE THE ACT OF
MUCH OF ITS BENEFICENT EFFECT, WERE DISCOURAGED.  THUS IT IS THAT THE
JUDICIAL REVIEW CONFERRED BY SEC. 21(B) DOES NOT GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE
COURTS TO SET ASIDE AWARDS BECAUSE THEY ARE DEEMED TO BE AGAINST THE
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.  MORE IS REQUIRED.  THE ERROR MUST BE ONE OF
LAW, SUCH AS THE MISCONSTRUCTION OF A TERM OF THE ACT. 

WE THINK THE AWARD GRANTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAD SUCH AN
INFIRMITY.  FN3 

IF THE AWARD WERE TO STAND, THERE WOULD BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE ACT A
GROUP OF WORKERS WHOM WE DO NOT BELIEVE CONGRESS INTENDED TO INCLUDE. 
THE SENATE REPORT MAKES CLEAR THAT "THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO
PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION, IN THE STEAD OF LIABILITY, FOR A CLASS OF
EMPLOYEES COMMONLY KNOWN AS 'LONGSHOREMEN.'  THESE MEN ARE MAINLY
EMPLOYED IN LOADING, UNLOADING, REFITTING, AND REPAIRING SHIPS."  S.
REP. NO. 973, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 16.  WE REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF
THE ACT IN THE BASSETT CASE AND IN THE PARKER CASE, AND MORE RECENTLY
IN DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S. 249.  AS WE NOTED IN THOSE
CASES, THE ACT WAS ADOPTED TO MEET THE DIFFICULTIES ENGENDERED BY THE
DECISION IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205.  AND SEE
KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO. V. STEWART, 253 U.S. 149; WASHINGTON V. W.C.
DAWSON & CO., 264 U.S. 219.  THAT LINE OF CASES CARVED OUT A DOMAIN IN
WHICH, ACCORDING TO A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT, STATE LAW COULD NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY AFFORD COMPENSATION TO MARITIME EMPLOYEES.  IT WAS TO
FILL THAT GAP IN THE SYSTEM OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION THAT THE PRESENT
ACT WAS PASSED.  S. REP. NO. 973, SUPRA, P. 16.  BUT AS WE POINTED OUT
IN THE BASSETT CASE (309 U.S. PP. 256-257) THE EFFORT TO BRING A MASTER
AND MEMBERS OF A CREW OF A VESSEL UNDER THE ACT WAS SUCCESSFULLY
OPPOSED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF MARITIME EMPLOYEES.  SEE NOGUEIRA V.
NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 281 U.S. 128, 136; WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293
U.S. 155, 159-160.  AND THE MARITIME UNIONS WHICH APPEARED AS AMICI
CURIAE IN THE PRESENT CASE EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT EXCEPTION. 
THE LIABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER UNDER THE ACT IS EXCLUSIVE.  SEC. 5.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, THOSE WHO ARE NOT COVERED BY IT BUT WHO ARE PROTECTED
BY MARITIME LAW ARE ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE, A REMEDY NOT
RESTRICTED TO ACCIDENTS.  AS WE SAID IN AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO.,
318 U.S. 724, 732, "IN THIS RESPECT IT IS A BROADER LIABILITY THAN THAT
IMPOSED BY MODERN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTES."  MOREOVER, SEAMEN
MAY SUE UNDER THE JONES ACT (41 STAT. 988, 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688)
FOR INJURIES IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  AND IN SUCH ACTIONS
ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS NO DEFENSE.  SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO. V. SMITH, 305
U.S. 424.  OR SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT IN ADMIRALTY FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY
UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL OR ITS APPURTENANT APPLIANCES AND
EQUIPMENT.  MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN STEAMSHIP CO., 321 U.S. 96, AND CASES
CITED.  THESE ARE BASIC RIGHTS.  THE MARITIME UNIONS APPEARING IN THE
PRESENT CASE MAINTAIN THAT THOSE REMEDIES ARE INDEED SUPERIOR TO THE
RELIEF AFFORDED BY THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT.  WHETHER
THEY ARE MORE DESIRABLE THAN A SYSTEM OF COMPENSATION IS NOT FOR US TO
DETERMINE.  BUT WHERE CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT THOSE BASIC RIGHTS
SHALL NOT BE WITHHELD FROM A CLASS OR CLASSES OF MARITIME EMPLOYEES IT
IS OUR DUTY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW TO RESPECT THE COMMAND AND NOT PERMIT
THE EXEMPTION TO BE NARROWED WHETHER BY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OR
OTHERWISE. 

IF A BARGE WITHOUT MOTIVE POWER OF ITS OWN CAN HAVE A "CREW" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ACT AND IF A "CREW" MAY CONSIST OF ONE MAN, WE DO
NOT SEE WHY RUSIN DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.  A BARGE IS A VESSEL
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT EVEN WHEN IT HAS NO MOTIVE POWER OF ITS
OWN, SINCE IT IS A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION ON WATER.  FN4  SEE THE
GENERAL CASS, FED. CAS. NO. 5,307; SEABROOK V. RAFT, 40 F. 596; IN RE
EASTERN DREDGING CO., 138 F. 942; LOS ANGELES V. UNITED DREDGING CO.,
14 F.2D 364; THE ROBERT W. PARSONS, 191 U.S. 17, 30; ELLIS V. UNITED
STATES, 206 U.S. 246, 259.  A CREW IS GENERALLY "EQUIVALENT TO SHIP'S
COMPANY" AS MR. JUSTICE STORY SAID IN UNITED STATES V. WINN, FED. CAS.
NO. 16,740, 28 FED. CAS. 733, 737.  BUT WE POINTED OUT IN THE BASSETT
CASE THAT THE WORD DOES NOT HAVE "AN ABSOLUTELY UNVARYING LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE."  309 U.S. AT P. 258.  WE KNOW OF NO REASON WHY A PERSON
IN SOLE CHARGE OF A VESSEL ON A VOYAGE IS NOT AS MUCH A "MEMBER OF THE
CREW" AS HE WOULD BE IF THERE WERE TWO OR MORE ABOARD.  WE SAID IN THE
BASSETT CASE THAT THE TERM "CREW" EMBRACED THOSE "WHO ARE NATURALLY AND
PRIMARILY ON BOARD" THE VESSEL "TO AID IN HER NAVIGATION."  ID., P.
260.  BUT NAVIGATION IS NOT LIMITED TO "PUTTING OVER THE HELM."  IT
ALSO EMBRACES DUTIES ESSENTIAL FOR OTHER PURPOSES OF THE VESSEL. 
CERTAINLY MEMBERS OF THE CREW ARE NOT CONFINED TO THOSE WHO CAN "HAND,
REEF AND STEER."  JUDGE HOUGH POINTED OUT IN THE BUENA VENTURA, 243 F.
797, 799, THAT "EVERY ONE IS ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGE OF A SEAMAN WHO,
LIKE SEAMEN, AT ALL TIMES CONTRIBUTES TO THE LABORS ABOUT THE OPERATION
AND WELFARE OF THE SHIP WHEN SHE IS UPON A VOYAGE."  AND SEE THE MINNA,
11 F. 759; DISBROW V. WALSH BROS., 36 F. 607, 608(BARGEMAN).  WE THINK
THAT "CREW" MUST HAVE AT LEAST AS BROAD A MEANING UNDER THE ACT.  FN5
FOR IT IS PLAIN FROM THE AMENDMENT EXEMPTING A "MASTER OR MEMBER OF A
CREW" THAT SHIP'S COMPANY WAS NOT BROUGHT UNDER THE ACT.  AND WE ARE
TOLD BY THE SENATE REPORT, AS ALREADY NOTED, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION WAS TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR THOSE WHO "ARE MAINLY
EMPLOYED IN LOADING, UNLOADING, REFITTING, AND REPAIRING SHIPS."  S.
REP. NO. 973, SUPRA. 

RUSIN, UNLIKE THE EMPLOYEE IN THE BASSETT CASE,  FN6  DID NO WORK OF
THE LATTER VARIETY.  HE PERFORMED ON THE BARGE FUNCTIONS OF THE SAME
QUALITY AS THOSE PERFORMED IN THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF MANY
VESSELS.  HIS WERE INDEED DIFFERENT FROM THE FUNCTIONS OF ANY OTHER
"CREW" ONLY AS THEY WERE MADE SO BY THE NATURE OF THE VESSEL AND ITS
NAVIGATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  THE CONTRACT UNDER WHICH HE WAS EMPLOYED
STATED THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS "BASED UPON ALL SERVICES AND TIME
REQUIRED TO SAFEGUARD AND OPERATE THE BARGE FLEET."  THE SERVICES
RENDERED CONFORMED TO THAT STANDARD AND NO OTHER.  RUSIN MOREOVER HAD
THAT PERMANENT ATTACHMENT TO THE VESSEL WHICH COMMONLY CHARACTERIZES A
CREW.  SEE A.L. MECHLING BARGE LINE V. BASSETT, 119 F.2D 995. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT ONLY BY A DISTORTED DEFINITION OF THE WORD "CREW" AS
USED IN THE ACT COULD RUSIN BE RESTRICTED TO THE REMEDY WHICH IT
AFFORDS AND EXCLUDED FROM RECOVERY UNDER THE JONES ACT OR BE DENIED
RELIEF IN ADMIRALTY.  SEE MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. LAWSON, 94 F.2D 190;
LOVERICH V. WARNER CO., 118 F.2D 690; CANTEY V. MCLAIN LINE, 32
F.SUPP.  1023, 114 F.2D 1017, WHICH WE REVERSED IN 312 U.S. 667. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CF. THE FINDING OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN DIOMEDE V. LOWE,
14 F.SUPP.  380; 87 F.2D 296. 

FN2  SEC. 14(B) MAKES THE FIRST INSTALMENT OF COMPENSATION DUE ON THE
FOURTEENTH DAY AFTER THE EMPLOYER HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURY OR
DEATH.  SEC. 14(F) PROVIDES THAT IF COMPENSATION, PAYABLE UNDER AN
AWARD, IS NOT PAID WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER IT IS DUE, A PENALTY OF TWENTY
PER CENT IS ADDED.  SEC. 18 PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF A SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER WHEN AN EMPLOYER IS IN DEFAULT OF
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION DUE UNDER AN AWARD FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY
DAYS.  ON SUCH AN ORDER JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION MAY BE OBTAINED IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, THE SUPPLEMENTARY ORDER OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER BEING FINAL.  ANY WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION
UNDER THE ACT IS MADE INVALID BY SEC. 15(B).  AGREEMENTS FOR
COMPENSATION NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT ARE OUTLAWED.  SECS.
15(A), 16.  LIMITATIONS ON THE GRANTING OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS
STAYING PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION WHILE AN AWARD IS BEING CONTESTED ARE
CONTAINED IN SEC. 21(B).  AND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IS DIRECTED TO
APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DEFEND COMPENSATION
ORDERS.  45 STAT. 490, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 921A.    FN3  IN DAVIS V.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S. 249, WE WERE DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF
DETERMINING WHETHER A SO-CALLED HARBOR WORKER COULD BE COMPENSATED
UNDER A STATE ACT OR MUST COME UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' ACT.  THAT PROBLEM WAS EMBARRASSED BY THE FACT THAT THE LINE
BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE DOMAIN HAD BEEN DRAWN WITH REFERENCE TO THE
RULE OF THE JENSEN CASE.  THERE ARE NO SUCH COMPLICATIONS HERE.  IN
THIS CASE THE LINE IS ONE WHICH CONGRESS HAS DRAWN BETWEEN TWO MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL SYSTEMS.  THE RISK OF EMPLOYEES CHOOSING THE WRONG
REMEDY HAS BEEN ANTICIPATED BY CONGRESS AND AT LEAST PARTIALLY
AVOIDED.  FOR SEC. 13(D) PROVIDES THAT WHERE RECOVERY IS DENIED TO ANY
PERSON IN A SUIT BROUGHT AT LAW OR IN ADMIRALTY TO RECOVER DAMAGES ON
THE GROUND THAT HIS REMEDY WAS UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' ACT THE LIMITATION OF TIME FOR MAKING APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD
BEGINS TO RUN "ONLY FROM THE DATE OF TERMINATION OF SUCH SUIT." 

FN4  "VESSEL" IS DEFINED IN REV. STAT. SEC. 3, 1 U.S.C. SEC. 3, TO
INCLUDE "EVERY DESCRIPTION OF WATERCRAFT OR OTHER ARTIFICIAL
CONTRIVANCE USED, OR CAPABLE OF BEING USED, AS A MEANS OF
TRANSPORTATION ON WATER." 

FN5  "SEAMAN" AS USED IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT MAY OF COURSE HAVE A
BROADER MEANING THAN "CREW."  INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY,
272 U.S. 50.  AND SEE CARUMBO V. CAPE COD S.S. CO., 123 F.2D 991. 

FN6  AND SEE MOORE DRY DOCK CO. V. PILLSBURY, 100 F.2D 245; HENDERSON
V. JONES, 110 F.2D 952. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :










FOLLETT V. MCCORMICK, 321 U.S. 573 


NO. 486.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  -
REVERSED. 


A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE IMPOSING A FLAT LICENSE TAX ON BOOK AGENTS, AS
APPLIED TO AN EVANGELIST OR PREACHER WHO DISTRIBUTES RELIGIOUS TRACTS
IN HIS HOME TOWN AND WHO MAKES HIS LIVELIHOOD FROM SUCH ACTIVITY, HELD
VIOLATIVE OF THE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  P. 576. 

FOLLETT V. TOWN OF MCCORMICK. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF A
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE PRESCRIBING AN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF
MCCORMICK, SOUTH CAROLINA WHICH PROVIDED:  "  ...  THE FOLLOWING
LICENSE ON BUSINESS, OCCUPATION AND PROFESSIONS TO BE PAID BY THE
PERSON OR PERSONS CARRYING ON OR ENGAGED IN SUCH BUSINESS, OCCUPATION
OR PROFESSIONS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF MCCORMICK,
SOUTH CAROLINA:  AGENTS SELLING BOOKS, PER DAY $1.00, PER YEAR
$15.00."  APPELLANT IS A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS AND HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY
THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY AS "AN ORDAINED MINISTER OF
JEHOVAH GOD TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF GOD'S KINGDOM UNDER CHRIST JESUS." 
HE IS A RESIDENT OF MCCORMICK, SOUTH CAROLINA, WHERE HE WENT FROM HOUSE
TO HOUSE DISTRIBUTING CERTAIN BOOKS.  HE OBTAINED HIS LIVING FROM THE
MONEY RECEIVED; HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME.  HE CLAIMED THAT HE
MERELY OFFERED THE BOOKS FOR A "CONTRIBUTION."  BUT THERE WAS EVIDENCE
THAT HE "OFFERED TO AND DID SELL THE BOOKS."  ADMITTEDLY HE HAD NO
LICENSE FROM THE TOWN AND REFUSED TO OBTAIN ONE.  HE MOVED FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE, CLAIMING
THAT THE ORDINANCE RESTRICTED FREEDOM OF WORSHIP IN VIOLATION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MAKES APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES.  THE MOTION WAS OVERRULED AND APPELLANT WAS FOUND GUILTY BY THE
JURY IN THE MAYOR'S COURT.  THAT JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS FOR MCCORMICK COUNTY AND THEN BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE,
SEC. 237(A), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

THE ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE IS IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS THE SAME AS
THE ONES INVOLVED IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 103, AND MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105.  IN THOSE CASES, THE TAX IMPOSED WAS ALSO A
LICENSE TAX - "A FLAT TAX IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE
GRANTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS" AND THEREFORE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
EXACTION.  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, P. 113.  IN THOSE CASES
MEMBERS OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES HAD ALSO BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF "PEDDLING"
OR "SELLING" LITERATURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LOCAL ORDINANCES. 
BUT SINCE THEY WERE ENGAGED IN A "RELIGIOUS" RATHER THAN A "COMMERCIAL"
VENTURE, WE HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ORDINANCES MIGHT NOT
BE MEASURED BY THE STANDARDS GOVERNING THE SALES OF WARES AND
MERCHANDISE BY HUCKSTERS AND OTHER MERCHANTS.  "FREEDOM OF PRESS,
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION ARE IN A PREFERRED POSITION." 
MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, P. 115.  WE EMPHASIZED THAT THE
"INHERENT VICE AND EVIL" OF THE FLAT LICENSE TAX IS THAT "IT RESTRAINS
IN ADVANCE THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES" AND "INEVITABLY TENDS TO
SUPPRESS THEIR EXERCISE."  P. 114. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA RECOGNIZED THOSE PRINCIPLES BUT
DISTINGUISHED THE PRESENT CASE FROM THE MURDOCK AND OPELIKA DECISIONS. 
IT POINTED OUT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AN ITINERANT BUT WAS A
RESIDENT OF THE TOWN WHERE THE CANVASSING TOOK PLACE, AND THAT THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE MURDOCK DECISION WAS APPLICABLE ONLY TO ITINERANT
PREACHERS.  IT STATED, MOREOVER, THAT APPELLANT EARNED HIS LIVING "BY
THE SALE OF BOOKS," THAT HIS "OCCUPATION WAS THAT OF SELLING BOOKS AND
NOT THAT OF COLPORTEUR," THAT "THE SALES PROVEN WERE MORE COMMERCIAL
THAN RELIGIOUS."  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE "LICENSE WAS REQUIRED FOR THE
SELLING OF BOOKS, NOT FOR THE SPREADING OF RELIGION."  FN1 

WE POINTED OUT IN THE MURDOCK CASE THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
"RELIGIOUS" ACTIVITY AND "PURELY COMMERCIAL" ACTIVITY WOULD AT TIMES BE
"VITAL" IN DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF FLAT LICENSE TAXES SUCH
AS THESE.  319 U.S. P. 110.  BUT WE NEED NOT DETERMINE HERE BY WHAT
TESTS THE EXISTENCE OF A "RELIGION" OR THE "FREE EXERCISE" THEREOF IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE MAY BE ASCERTAINED OR MEASURED.  FOR THE
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CONCEDED THAT "THE BOOK IN QUESTION
FN2  IS A RELIGIOUS BOOK"; AND IT CONCLUDED "WITHOUT DIFFICULTY" THAT
"ITS PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION COME WITHIN THE WORDS, 'EXERCISE OF
RELIGION,' AS THEY ARE USED IN THE CONSTITUTION."  WE MUST ACCORDINGLY
ACCEPT AS BONA FIDE APPELLANT'S ASSERTION THAT HE WAS "PREACHING THE
GOSPEL" BY GOING "FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE PRESENTING THE GOSPEL OF THE
KINGDOM IN PRINTED FORM."  THUS WE HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT CASE FROM
THAT OF A MERCHANT WHO SELLS BOOKS AT A STAND OR ON THE ROAD. 

THE QUESTION IS THEREFORE A NARROW ONE.  IT IS WHETHER A FLAT LICENSE
TAX AS APPLIED TO ONE WHO EARNS HIS LIVELIHOOD AS AN EVANGELIST OR
PREACHER IN HIS HOME TOWN IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  IT WAS NOT CLEAR FROM THE
RECORDS IN THE OPELIKA AND MURDOCK CASES TO WHAT EXTENT, IF ANY, THE
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES THERE INVOLVED WERE DEPENDENT ON "SALES" OR
"CONTRIBUTIONS" FOR A LIVELIHOOD.  BUT WE DID STATE THAT AN "ITINERANT
EVANGELIST" DID NOT BECOME "A MERE BOOK AGENT BY SELLING THE BIBLE OR
RELIGIOUS TRACTS TO HELP DEFRAY HIS EXPENSES OR TO SUSTAIN HIM."  319
U.S. P. 111.  FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS NOT MERELY RESERVED FOR THOSE WITH
A LONG PURSE.  PREACHERS OF THE MORE ORTHODOX FAITHS ARE NOT ENGAGED IN
COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON THEIR CALLING FOR
A LIVING.  WHETHER NEEDY OR AFFLUENT, THEY AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE OF A "FREE EXERCISE" OF THEIR RELIGION WHEN
THEY ENTER THE PULPIT TO PROCLAIM THEIR FAITH.  THE PRIEST OR PREACHER
IS AS FULLY PROTECTED IN HIS FUNCTION AS THE PARISHIONERS ARE IN THEIR
WORSHIP.  A FLAT LICENSE TAX ON THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE WOULD BE
AS ODIOUS AS THE EARLY "TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE" WHICH THE FRAMERS OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT SOUGHT TO OUTLAW.  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297
U.S. 233, 245-248.  A PREACHER HAS NO LESS A CLAIM TO THAT PRIVILEGE
WHEN HE IS NOT AN ITINERANT.  WE REFERRED TO THE ITINERANT NATURE OF
THE ACTIVITY IN THE MURDOCK CASE MERELY IN EMPHASIS OF THE PROHIBITIVE
CHARACTER OF THE LICENSE TAX AS SO APPLIED.  ITS UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.  THE EXACTION OF A TAX AS A
CONDITION TO THE EXERCISE OF THE GREAT LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IS AS OBNOXIOUS (GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., SUPRA;
MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA) AS THE IMPOSITION OF A CENSORSHIP OR A
PREVIOUS RESTRAINT.  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697.  FOR, TO REPEAT,
"THE POWER TO TAX THE EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE IS THE POWER TO CONTROL
OR SUPPRESS ITS ENJOYMENT."  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, P. 112. 

BUT IF THIS LICENSE TAX WOULD BE INVALID AS APPLIED TO ONE WHO
PREACHES THE GOSPEL FROM THE PULPIT, THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE
REVERSED.  FOR WE FAIL TO SEE HOW SUCH A TAX LOSES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
INFIRMITY WHEN EXACTED FROM THOSE WHO CONFINE THEMSELVES TO THEIR OWN
VILLAGE OR TOWN AND SPREAD THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS FROM DOOR TO DOOR OR
ON THE STREET.  THE PROTECTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT RESTRICTED
TO ORTHODOX RELIGIOUS PRACTICES ANY MORE THAN IT IS TO THE EXPRESSION
OF ORTHODOX ECONOMIC VIEWS.  HE WHO MAKES A PROFESSION OF EVANGELISM IS
NOT IN A LESS PREFERRED POSITION THAN THE CASUAL WORKER. 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT RELIGIOUS UNDERTAKINGS MUST BE SUBSIDIZED. 
THE EXEMPTION FROM A LICENSE TAX OF A PREACHER WHO PREACHES OR A
PARISHIONER WHO LISTENS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EITHER IS FREE FROM ALL
FINANCIAL BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING TAXES ON INCOME OR
PROPERTY.  WE SAID AS MUCH IN THE MURDOCK CASE.  319 U.S. P. 112.  BUT
TO SAY THAT THEY, LIKE OTHER CITIZENS, MAY BE SUBJECT TO GENERAL
TAXATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY CAN BE REQUIRED TO PAY A TAX FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THAT WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS MADE A HIGH
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COURT ALSO DISTINGUISHED STATE V. MEREDITH, 197 S.C. 351, 15
S.E.2D 678, WHERE A LICENSE TAX STATUTE WAS CONSTRUED TO BE
INAPPLICABLE TO AN ITINERANT MINISTER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, THE
"SALE" OF LITERATURE BEING "MERELY COLLATERAL TO THE MAIN PURPOSE IN
WHICH HE WAS ENGAGED, WHICH WAS TO PREACH AND TEACH THE TENETS OF HIS
RELIGION."  P. 355. 

FN2  THOUGH APPELLANT DISTRIBUTED MORE THAN ONE TRACT OR BOOK, THE
ONLY ONE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA WAS ENTITLED
"CHILDREN."  AS STATED BY THAT COURT, "TESTED BY THE TENETS OF OTHER
FORMS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION WITH WHICH WE ARE FAMILIAR, IT IS FULL
OF HERESIES.  BUT IT PURPORTS TO OFFER A PLAN OF SALVATION OF THE HUMAN
SOUL IN LIFE AFTER DEATH  ...  " 

MR. JUSTICE REED, CONCURRING: 

MY VIEWS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ORDINANCES OF THIS TYPE ARE SET
OUT AT LENGTH IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, AND IN A DISSENT ON
THE REHEARING OF THE SAME CASE, 319 U.S. 117.  THESE VIEWS REMAIN
UNCHANGED BUT THEY ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH THOSE ANNOUNCED BY THE
COURT. 

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS COURT'S OPINIONS IN MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
319 U.S. 105, AND JONES V. OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 103, IS THAT DISTRIBUTION
OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IN RETURN FOR MONEY WHEN DONE AS A METHOD OF
SPREADING THE DISTRIBUTOR'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IS AN EXERCISE OF
RELIGION WITHIN THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM
INTERFERENCE BY THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE.  THESE OPINIONS ARE NOW
THE LAW OF THE LAND. 

AS I SEE NO DIFFERENCE IN RESPECT TO THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION BETWEEN
AN ITINERANT DISTRIBUTOR AND ONE WHO REMAINS IN ONE GENERAL
NEIGHBORHOOD OR BETWEEN ONE WHO IS ACTIVE PART TIME AND ANOTHER WHO IS
ACTIVE ALL OF HIS TIME, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR ME TO STATE AGAIN
VIEWS ALREADY REJECTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE COURT.  CONSEQUENTLY, I
CONCUR IN THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING: 

WHILE I AM IN COMPLETE ACCORD WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT, I DESIRE
TO ADD A BRIEF WORD IN LIGHT OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE IN THE
DISSENTING OPINION.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE EFFECT OF OUR DECISION IS
TO SUBSIDIZE RELIGION.  BUT THIS IS MERELY A HARSH WAY OF SAYING THAT
TO PROHIBIT THE TAXATION OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES IS TO GIVE SUBSTANCE
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE OPENED THE DOOR TO EXEMPTION OF WEALTHY
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, LIKE TRINITY CHURCH IN NEW YORK CITY, FROM THE
PAYMENT OF TAXES ON PROPERTY INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH SUPPORT IS DERIVED
FOR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES.  IT IS ALSO CHARGED THAT THE DECISION
CONTAINS STARTLING IMPLICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
THE PRESS.  I AM NEITHER DISTURBED NOR IMPRESSED BY THESE ALLEGATIONS. 
WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON IN THIS CASE TO DEAL WITH THE TAXABILITY OF
INCOME ARISING OUT OF EXTENSIVE HOLDINGS OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES RELATED THERETO.  THERE IS AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN TAXING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND INVESTMENTS UNDERTAKEN FOR
PROFIT, WHATEVER USE IS MADE OF THE INCOME, AND LAYING A TAX DIRECTLY
ON AN ACTIVITY THAT IS ESSENTIALLY RELIGIOUS IN PURPOSE AND CHARACTER
OR ON AN EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE
PUBLICATION. 

IT IS WISE TO REMEMBER THAT THE TAXING AND LICENSING POWER IS A
DANGEROUS AND POTENT WEAPON WHICH, IN THE HANDS OF UNSCRUPULOUS OR
BIGOTED MEN, COULD BE USED TO SUPPRESS FREEDOMS AND DESTROY RELIGION
UNLESS IT IS KEPT WITHIN APPROPRIATE BOUNDS. 

SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. 

THE PRESENT DECISION EXTENDS THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN JONES V. OPELIKA,
319 U.S. 103, AND MURODCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105. 

THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION IS NOT, IN THE WORDS OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, A LAW "PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE" OF RELIGION.  AT THE
OUTSET IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE ORDINANCE IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY. 
IT LAYS A TAX ON THE PURSUIT OF OCCUPATIONS BY WHICH PERSONS EARN THEIR
LIVING IN THE TOWN OF MCCORMICK.  IT DOES NOT SINGLE OUT PERSONS
PURSUING ANY GIVEN OCCUPATION AND EXEMPT OTHERS.  IF IT WERE ATTACKED
AS A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS THE CONTENTION WOULD BE
FRIVOLOUS.  FN1  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE PURPOSE IS OTHER THAN
TO RAISE REVENUE NECESSARY FOR THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT FROM ALL WHO
ENJOY THE SERVICE AND PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT, AND TO ADJUST THE TAX
LAID ON THE APPELLANT IN THE LIGHT OF THE AID HE DERIVES FROM SUCH
SERVICE AND PROTECTION. 

SECONDLY, THE ORDINANCE LAYS NO ONEROUS BURDEN ON THE OCCUPATION OF
THE APPELLANT OR ANY OTHER CITIZEN.  THE TAX IN QUESTION IS WHOLLY
UNLIKE THAT CONSIDERED IN GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233,
WHICH HAD THE UNMISTAKABLE PURPOSE OF HITTING AT ONE OUT OF MANY
OCCUPATIONS AND HITTING SO HARD AS TO DISCOURAGE OR SUPPRESS THE
PURSUIT OF THAT CALLING.  THE COURT THERE SAID (P. 250): 

"IT 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 A LONG HISTORY OF HOSTILE
MISUSE AGAINST THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS." 

WHAT THEN IS THE LAW UNDER ATTACK?  IT IS A REVENUE MEASURE APPLYING
GENERALLY TO THOSE EARNING THEIR LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY.  IT IS A
MONETARY EXACTION REASONABLY RELATED TO THE COST OF MAINTAINING SOCIETY
BY GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION, WHICH ALONE RENDERS CIVIL LIBERTY
ATTAINABLE.    FOLLETT IS NOT MADE TO PAY A TAX FOR THE EXERCISE OF
THAT WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS RELIEVED FROM TAXATION.  HE IS MADE
TO PAY FOR THAT FOR WHICH ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED MUST PAY - AN
EXCISE FOR THE OCCUPATION OF STREET VENDING.  FOLLETT ASKS EXEMPTION
BECAUSE STREET VENDING IS, FOR HIM, ALSO PART OF HIS RELIGION.  AS A
RESULT, FOLLETT WILL ENJOY A SUBSIDY FOR HIS RELIGION.  HE WILL SAVE
THE CONTRIBUTION FOR THE COST OF GOVERNMENT WHICH EVERYONE ELSE WILL
HAVE TO PAY. 

THE PRESENT DECISION EXTENDS AND REACHES BEYOND WHAT WAS DECIDED IN
MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA.  THERE THE COMMUNITY ASSERTED THE RIGHT
TO SUBJECT TRANSIENT PREACHERS OF RELIGION TO TAXATION; THERE THE COURT
EMPHASIZED THE "ITINERANT" ASPECT OF THE ACTIVITIES SOUGHT TO BE
SUBJECTED TO THE EXACTION.  THE EMPHASIS THERE WAS UPON THE CASUAL
MISSIONARY APPEARANCES OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE TOWN AND THE
INJUSTICE OF SUBJECTING THEM TO A GENERAL LICENSE TAX.  HERE, A CITIZEN
OF THE COMMUNITY, EARNING HIS LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY BY A RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITY, CLAIMS IMMUNITY FROM CONTRIBUTING TO THE COST OF THE
GOVERNMENT UNDER WHICH HE LIVES.  THE RECORD SHOWS APPELLANT "TESTIFIED
THAT HE OBTAINED HIS LIVING FROM THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THOSE WITH
WHOM HE PLACED BOOKS, THAT HE HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME." 

UNLESS THE PHRASE "FREE EXERCISE," EMBODIED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT,
MEANS THAT GOVERNMENT MUST RENDER SERVICE FREE TO THOSE WHO EARN THEIR
LIVING IN A RELIGIOUS CALLING, NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY THE APPELLANT,
LIKE EVERY OTHER EARNER IN THE COMMUNITY, SHOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE HIS
SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY'S COMMON BURDEN OF EXPENSE.  IN EFFECT THE
DECISION GRANTS NOT FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, IN THE SENSE THAT SUCH
EXERCISE SHALL NOT BE HINDERED OR LIMITED, BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND,
REQUIRES THAT THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION BE SUBSIDIZED.  TRINITY CHURCH,
OWNING GREAT PROPERTY IN NEW YORK CITY, DEVOTES THE INCOME TO RELIGIOUS
ENDS.  MUST IT, THEREFORE, BE EXEMPT FROM PAYING ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE
COST OF GOVERNMENT'S PROTECTION OF ITS PROPERTY? 

WE CANNOT IGNORE WHAT THIS DECISION INVOLVES.  IF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
GRANTS IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION TO THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, IT MUST
EQUALLY GRANT A SIMILAR EXEMPTION TO THOSE WHO SPEAK AND TO THE PRESS. 
IT WILL NOT DO TO SAY THAT THE AMENDMENT, IN THE CLAUSE RELATING TO
RELIGION, IS COUCHED IN THE IMPERATIVE AND, IN THE CLAUSE RELATING TO
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF PRESS, IS COUCHED IN THE COMPARATIVE.  THE
AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITIONS ARE EQUALLY SWEEPING.  FN2  IF EXACTIONS ON
THE BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION OF SELLING CANNOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES THEY CAN NO MORE BE ENFORCED AGAINST PUBLISHERS OR
VENDORS OF BOOKS, WHETHER DEALING WITH RELIGION OR OTHER MATTERS OF
INFORMATION.  THE DECISION NOW RENDERED MUST MEAN THAT THE GUARANTEE OF
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS CREATES AN IMMUNITY EQUAL TO THAT HERE UPHELD AS
TO TEACHING OR PREACHING RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.  THUS THE DECISION
PRECLUDES NONOPPRESSIVE, NONDISCRIMINATORY LICENSING OR OCCUPATION
TAXES ON PUBLISHERS, AND ON NEWS VENDORS AS WELL, SINCE, WITHOUT THE
LATTER, THE DISSEMINATION OF VIEWS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.  THIS COURT
DISAVOWED ANY SUCH DOCTRINE WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN
GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., SUPRA, AND IT IS UNTHINKABLE THAT THOSE
WHO PUBLISH AND DISTRIBUTE FOR PROFIT NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS SHOULD
SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE IN A CLASS APART, UNTOUCHABLE BY TAXATION UPON
THEIR ENTERPRISES FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH MAKES THEIR
ACTIVITIES POSSIBLE. 

NOT ONLY MUST THE COURT, IF IT IS TO BE CONSISTENT, ACCORD TO
DISSEMINATION OF ALL OPINION, RELIGIOUS OR OTHER, THE SAME IMMUNITY,
BUT, EVEN IN THE FIELD OF RELIGION ALONE, THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE
PRESENT DECISION ARE STARTLING.  MULTIPLE ACTIVITIES BY WHICH CITIZENS
EARN THEIR BREAD MAY, WITH EQUAL PROPRIETY, BE DENOMINATED AN EXERCISE
OF RELIGION AS MAY PREACHING OR SELLING RELIGIOUS TRACTS.  CERTAINLY
THIS COURT CANNOT SAY THAT ONE ACTIVITY IS THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND
THE OTHER IS NOT.  THE MATERIALS FOR JUDICIAL DISTINCTION DO NOT
EXIST.  IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DENY THE CLAIMS OF THOSE WHO DEVOTE
THEIR LIVES TO THE HEALING OF THE SICK, TO THE NURSING OF THE DISABLED,
TO THE BETTERMENT OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, AND TO A MYRIAD
OTHER WORTHY OBJECTS, THAT THEIR RESPECTIVE CALLINGS, ALBEIT THEY EARN
THEIR LIVING BY PURSUING THEM, ARE, FOR THEM, THE EXERCISE OF
RELIGION.  SUCH A BELIEF, HOWEVER EARNESTLY AND HONESTLY HELD, DOES NOT
ENTITLE THE BELIEVERS TO BE FREE OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE COST OF
GOVERNMENT, WHICH ITSELF GUARANTEES THEM THE PRIVILEGE OF PURSUING
THEIR CALLINGS WITHOUT GOVERNMENTAL PROHIBITION OR INTERFERENCE. 

WE SHOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  CLARK V. TITUSVILLE, 184 U.S. 329; SOUTHWESTERN OIL CO. V.
TEXAS, 217 U.S. 114, 121; BRADLEY V. RICHMOND, 227 U.S. 477. 

FN2  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...  PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE
(OF RELIGION); OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS  ...
"
..END :














UNITED STATES V. SEATTLE BANK, 321 U.S. 583 


NO. 267.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 8, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  - 136
F.2D 676, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 3 OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT, AS AMENDED, AND
PURSUANT TO A CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT, A STATE BANK WAS CONSOLIDATED IN
1935 WITH A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION.  THE TRANSFER TO THE
CONSOLIDATED ASSOCIATION OF TITLE TO THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE BANK WAS
NOT EVIDENCED BY DEED, CONVEYANCE, ASSIGNMENT OR OTHER INSTRUMENT. 
HELD: 

1.  IN RESPECT OF (A) SECURITIES HELD BY THE STATE BANK AS LEGAL AND
BENEFICIAL OWNER AND (B) SECURITIES TO WHICH THE STATE BANK HELD LEGAL
TITLE IN FIDUCIARY CAPACITIES, THE TRANSFER WAS "WHOLLY BY OPERATION OF
LAW" WITHIN THE MEANING OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 71(1932 ED.), ARTS.
34(R) AND 35(R), AND THEREBY EXEMPT FROM THE STAMP TAX IMPOSED BY SEC.
800, SCHEDULE A, PARS. 3 AND 9, OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS
AMENDED.  P. 588. 

2.  THE TRANSFER TO THE CONSOLIDATED ASSOCIATION OF THE REALTY OF THE
STATE BANK WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE STAMP TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 800,
SCHEDULE A-8, OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED SINCE THE PROPERTY
WAS NOT CONVEYED BY ANY "DEED, INSTRUMENT, OR WRITING," WAS NOT "SOLD,"
AND THERE WAS NO "PURCHASER."  P. 589. 

UNITED STATES V. SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 723, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF, 44 F.SUPP.  603, IN A SUIT TO RECOVER SUMS PAID AS
TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT INITIATED THIS SUIT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE
DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX, PENALTY AND INTEREST WHICH HAD BEEN EXACTED
UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED, IN CONNECTION WITH A
STATUTORY CONSOLIDATION OF BANKS UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE NATIONAL BANKING
ACT.  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT FOR THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX AND INTEREST, 44 F.SUPP.  603.  FN2 THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE CASE WAS GOVERNED BY ONE OF ITS FORMER
DECISIONS  FN3 AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT, 136 F.2D 676.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 723, BECAUSE THIS JUDGMENT WAS ALLEGED TO CONFLICT
WITH DECISIONS IN OTHER CIRCUITS  FN4  AND BECAUSE OF THE DESIRABILITY
OF A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED. 

IN 1935 THE DIRECTORS OF THE SPOKANE AND EASTERN TRUST COMPANY, A
STATE BANK, ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT OF CONSOLIDATION WITH THE
DIRECTORS OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SEATTLE.  THE AGREEMENT
PROVIDED THAT THE BANKS WERE TO BE CONSOLIDATED UNDER THE CHARTER OF
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SEATTLE AND UNDER THE NEW CORPORATE TITLE OF
SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK, THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.  THE AGREEMENT WAS
RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED BY THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF STOCKHOLDERS OF BOTH
BANKS AND THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY ISSUED THE NECESSARY
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, RECITING THAT THE DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS
OF BOTH BANKS HAD COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL BANKING
ACT. 

THE STATE BANK OWNED REAL ESTATE, INCLUDING ITS BANKING PREMISES, AS
WELL AS CORPORATE STOCKS AND BONDS, TO ALL OF WHICH IT HELD LEGAL AND
BENEFICIAL TITLE AS PART OF ITS CORPORATE ASSETS.  IT ALSO HELD IN
TRUST CERTAIN STOCKS AND BONDS, THE LEGAL TITLE TO WHICH WAS VESTED IN
IT AS TRUSTEE, EXECUTOR, ADMINISTRATOR, GUARDIAN, OR IN OTHER FIDUCIARY
CAPACITIES.  SECTION 5 OF THE CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT
"ALL ASSETS OF EACH ASSOCIATION AT THE DATE OF CONSOLIDATION SHALL PASS
TO AND VEST IN THE CONSOLIDATED ASSOCIATION, AND THE CONSOLIDATED
ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE LIABILITIES OF EVERY
KIND AND DESCRIPTION OF EACH OF THE CONSOLIDATING ASSOCIATIONS." 

THE TRANSFER TO RESPONDENT OF TITLE TO THIS PROPERTY HELD BY THE
STATE BANK WAS NOT EVIDENCED BY ANY DEED, CONVEYANCE, ASSIGNMENT OR
OTHER INSTRUMENT.  NOR WERE ANY DOCUMENTARY STAMPS PURCHASED OR AFFIXED
WITH RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSFER.  SUBSEQUENTLY, A DEPUTY COLLECTOR
EXAMINED THE BANK RECORDS AND EXACTED A TAX FROM RESPONDENT ON THE
THEORY THAT THE CONSOLIDATION HAD RESULTED IN A TAXABLE TRANSFER.  THE
NECESSARY STAMPS WERE PURCHASED AND AFFIXED AND THIS SUIT FOR REFUND
FOLLOWED. 

FIRST.  WE CONCLUDE THAT, AS TO THE SECURITIES TO WHICH THE STATE
BANK HELD BOTH LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL TITLE, THERE WAS NO TAXABLE
TRANSFER UNDER THE STAMP TAX PROVISIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE
CONSOLIDATION TOOK PLACE. 

FN5  IMPOSES A STAMP TAX ON TRANSFERS OF LEGAL TITLE TO ANY SHARES OF
STOCK OR CERTIFICATES, "WHETHER MADE UPON OR SHOWN BY THE BOOKS OF THE
CORPORATION OR OTHER ORGANIZATION, OR BY ANY ASSIGNMENT IN BLANK, OR BY
ANY DELIVERY, OR BY ANY PAPER OR AGREEMENT OR MEMEORANDUM OR OTHER
EVIDENCE OF TRANSFER OR SALE (WHETHER ENTITLING THE HOLDER IN ANY
MANNER TO THE BENEFIT OF SUCH SHARE, CERTIFICATE  ...  OR NOT)." 
SCHEDULE A-9  FN6  IMPOSES A STAMP TAX ON SIMILAR TRANSFERS OF LEGAL
TITLE TO BONDS. 

STANDING ALONE, THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS MAKE NO EXCEPTIONS AND
CLEARLY IMPOSE A TAX ON THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE SECURITIES LEGALLY
AND BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY THE STATE BANK.  BUT ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS, WHICH UNTIL RECENTLY HAVE BEEN LEFT UNDISTURBED BY
SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED LEGISLATION AND ARE TO BE RESPECTED AS SETTLED
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE,  FN7  HAVE CARVED OUT CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS
GERMANE TO THE TRANSFER HERE INVOLVED.  THUS ARTICLE 34(R) OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS 71(1932 ED.)  PROVIDES THAT THE TRANSFER OF STOCK OWNED BY
A CORPORATION WHICH IS MERGED INTO ANOTHER CORPORATION IS SUBJECT TO
THE STAMP TAX, "SUCH A TRANSFER BEING EFFECTED BY THE ACT OF THE
PARTIES AND NOT WHOLLY BY OPERATION OF LAW."  FN8  ARTICLE 35(R)
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS FROM THE TAX THOSE TRANSFERS OF SHARES OR
CERTIFICATES OF STOCK "WHICH RESULT WHOLLY BY OPERATION OF LAW"; IT
FURTHER STATES THAT "TRANSFERS OF THIS CHARACTER ARE THOSE WHICH THE
LAW ITSELF WILL EFFECT WITHOUT ANY VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE PARTIES, SUCH
AS TRANSFER OF STOCK FROM DECEDENT TO EXECUTOR."  ARTICLE 120 MAKES
THESE SAME PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO SALES OR TRANSFERS OF BONDS.  THE
PROBLEM THUS RESOLVES ITSELF INTO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE
TRANSFER OF THE STATE BANK'S SECURITIES TO RESPONDENT OCCURRED "WHOLLY
BY OPERATION OF LAW" SO AS TO EXEMPT THE TRANSFER FROM THE STAMP TAX
REQUIREMENTS. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CONSOLIDATION OR MERGER OF THE NATIONAL BANK AND
THE STATE BANK OCCURRED THROUGH THE VOLUNTARY ACTS OF THE RESPECTIVE
DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE
NATIONAL BANKING ACT, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE
CURRENCY.  IF THE WORDS "WHOLLY BY OPERATION OF LAW," AS USED IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, REFER HERE TO THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF
CONSOLIDATION, OF WHICH THE TRANSFER OF SECURITIES IS AN ESSENTIAL
PART, THE EXEMPTION CANNOT BE APPLIED.  BUT IN A BROAD SENSE, FEW IF
ANY TRANSFERS EVER TAKE PLACE "WHOLLY BY OPERATION OF LAW," FOR EVERY
TRANSFER MUST NECESSARILY BE A PART OF A CHAIN OF HUMAN EVENTS, RARELY
IF EVER OTHER THAN VOLUNTARY IN CHARACTER.  THUS TO GIVE ANY REAL
SUBSTANCE TO THE EXEMPTION, WE MUST TAKE A MORE NARROW VIEW AND EXAMINE
THE TRANSFER APART FROM ITS GENERAL BACKGROUND.  WE MUST LOOK ONLY TO
THE IMMEDIATE MECHANISM BY WHICH THE TRANSFER IS MADE EFFECTIVE.  IF
THAT MECHANISM IS ENTIRELY STATUTORY, EFFECTING AN AUTOMATIC TRANSFER
WITHOUT ANY VOLUNTARY ACTION BY THE PARTIES, THEN THE TRANSFER MAY
TRULY BE SAID TO BE "WHOLLY BY OPERATION OF LAW." 

HERE THE ACTUAL TRANSFER TO RESPONDENT OF THE LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL
TITLE TO THE SECURITIES OWNED BY THE STATE BANK WAS NOT EFFECTED BY OR
DEPENDENT ON ANY OF THE VOLUNTARY ACTS RELATING TO THE CONSOLIDATION
AGREEMENT OR THE RATIFICATION OR APPROVAL THEREOF.  NOR WAS ANY
VOLUNTARY DEED, CONVEYANCE, ASSIGNMENT OR OTHER INSTRUMENT UTILIZED. 
RATHER THE TRANSFER OCCURRED SOLELY AND AUTOMATICALLY BY VIRTUE OF SEC.
3 OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT.  THIS PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART THAT:
(1) UPON CONSOLIDATION, THE CORPORATE EXISTENCE OF EACH OF THE
CONSTITUENT BANKS SHALL BE MERGED AND CONTINUED IN THE CONSOLIDATED
NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, WHICH SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE SAME
CORPORATION AS THE CONSTITUENT BANKS; (2) ALL THE RIGHTS, FRANCHISES
AND INTERESTS OF EACH CONSTITUENT BANK IN AND TO EVERY SPECIES OF
PROPERTY, REAL, PERSONAL AND MIXED, AND CHOSES IN ACTION THERETO
BELONGING, "SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO AND VESTED IN" THE
CONSOLIDATED ASSOCIATION WITHOUT ANY DEED OR OTHER TRANSFER; (3) THE
CONSOLIDATES ASSOCIATION, BY VIRTUE OF SUCH CONSOLIDATION AND WITHOUT
ANY ORDER OR OTHER ACTION BY ANY COURT OR OTHERWISE, SHALL HOLD AND
ENJOY THE SAME AND ALL RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, FRANCHISES AND INTERESTS
(INCLUDING FIDUCIARY INTERESTS) IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME
EXTENT AS HELD AND ENJOYED BY THE CONSTITUENT BANKS. 

THUS IT IS THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT THAT IS THE MECHANISM BY WHICH
THE TRANSFER OF SECURITIES IS MADE EFFECTIVE.  NO VOLUNTARY ACT BY THE
PARTIES IS NECESSARY.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE TRANSFER OCCURRED "WHOLLY BY
OPERATION OF LAW."  THE MERE FACT THAT THE PARTIES HERE SAW FIT TO
INCLUDE IN THEIR CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT A PROVISION THAT ALL ASSETS OF
EACH CONSTITUENT BANK "SHALL PASS TO AND VEST IN THE CONSOLIDATED
ASSOCIATION" DOES NOT MAKE THE TRANSFER ANY LESS THAN ONE "WHOLLY BY
OPERATION OF LAW."  THIS WAS MERELY AN AGREEMENT THAT THE ASSETS WOULD
BE TRANSFERRED IN THE FUTURE AND DID NOT PURPORT TO BE A PRESENT,
EFFECTIVE CONVEYANCE.  THE TRANSFER OF THE SECURITIES TO WHICH THE
STATE BANK HELD LEGAL AND BENEFICIAL TITLE WAS THEREFORE EXEMPT FROM
THE STAMP TAX UNDER ARTICLES 34(R)  AND 35(R). 

SECOND.  WE REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION AS TO THE TRANSFER OF
SECURITIES TO WHICH THE STATE BANK HELD LEGAL TITLE IN TRUST IN VARIOUS
FIDUCIARY CAPACITIES.  THE INTENT TO TAX SUCH TRANSFERS MUST BE CLEAR
AND UNMISTAKABLE.  NO SUCH INTENT IS APPARENT HERE.  UNDER SEC. 3 OF
THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT, THESE SECURITIES PASSED TO RESPONDENT "WHOLLY
BY OPERATION OF LAW" JUST AS DID THE SECURITIES PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. 
ARTICLES 34(R) AND 35(R) MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRANSFERS OF
STOCKS FROM A FIDUCIARY AND TRANSFERS FROM ONE WHO IS ALSO THE
BENEFICIAL OWNER.  THE EXEMPTION THEREIN CONTAINED IS THEREFORE
APPLICABLE.  FN9 

THIRD.  THE TRANSFER OF THE REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE STATE BANK IS
LIKEWISE, IN OUR OPINION, EXEMPT FROM THE STAMP TAX. 

FN10  PLACES A STAMP TAX ON "CONVEYANCES:  DEED, INSTRUMENT, OR
WRITING, DELIVERED  ...  WHEREBY ANY LANDS, TENEMENTS, OR OTHER REALTY
SOLD SHALL BE GRANTED, ASSIGNED, TRANSFERRED, OR OTHERWISE CONVEYED TO,
OR VESTED IN, THE PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS  ..."  IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER,
FROM SEC. 3 OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT THAT THE STATE BANK'S REALTY
WAS NOT CONVEYED TO OR VESTED IN RESPONDENT BY MEANS OF ANY DEED,
INSTRUMENT OR WRITING.  THERE WAS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY OF THE
FORMAL INSTRUMENTS OR WRITINGS UPON WHICH THE STAMP TAX IS LAID.  NOR
CAN THE REALTY BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN "SOLD" OR VESTED IN A "PURCHASER OR
PURCHASERS" WITHIN THE ORDINARY MEANINGS OF THOSE TERMS.  ONLY BY
STRAINING THE REALITIES OF THE STATUTORY CONSOLIDATION PROCESS CAN
RESPONDENT BE SAID TO HAVE "BOUGHT" OR "PURCHASED" THE REAL PROPERTY. 
THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO DO. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF NOVEMBER 7, 1918, C. 209, 40 STAT. 1043, SEC. 3, AS ADDED
BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1927, C. 191, 44 STAT. 1224, SEC. 1, AND AS
AMENDED BY THE BANKING ACT OF 1933, C. 89, 48 STAT. 162, SEC. 24, AND
THE BANKING ACT OF 1935, C. 614, 49 STAT. 684, SEC. 331; 12 U.S.C. SEC.
34A. 

FN2  RECOVERY WAS DENIED FOR THE $100 PENALTY, WHICH WAS PAID IN
COMPROMISE OF A THREATENED CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMPROMISE WAS A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE PENALTY.  THIS MATTER IS NOT
NOW BEFORE US. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK, 101 F.2D 399. 

FN4  SEE CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. V. HOEY, 125 F.2D 577; STATE
STREET TRUST CO. V. HASSETT, 134 F.2D 156. 

FN5  C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 723(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169. 

FN6  C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, AS ADDED BY SEC. 724(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, AND AS AMENDED BY SEC. 212 OF THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, C. 90, 48 STAT. 195, AND AS AMENDED BY PUB.
RES. NO. 36, C. 333, 49 STAT. 431. 

FN7  SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR REGULATIONS WERE PROMULGATED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926 AND WERE IN EFFECT WHEN CONGRESS, IN THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1932, REENACTED THE STAMP TAX PROVISIONS IN ISSUE.  CONGRESS DID
NOT SEE FIT TO AMEND OR CHANGE THESE REGULATIONS UNTIL THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1942, SECS. 506(B)(1) AND (2), C. 619, 56 STAT. 958, SEE HELVERING
V. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 306 U.S. 110, 115. 

FN8  WHILE THE GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE QUOTED CLAUSE GIVES
RISE TO SOME DOUBT AS TO ITS MEANING, WE INTERPRET IT IN ACCORD WITH
ARTICLE 35(R) SO AS TO IMPOSE A TAX ON TRANSFERS ARISING OUT OF MERGERS
ONLY IF THE TRANSFER OCCURS BY THE ACT OF THE PARTIES AND NOT WHOLLY BY
OPERATION OF LAW. 

FN9  BECAUSE OF THE CLEAR APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLES 34(R) AND 35(R),
WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY HERE OF ARTICLE
35(H), WHICH EXEMPTS FROM THE STAMP TAX "THE TRANSFER OF STOCK FROM THE
NAME OF A DECEASED OR RESIGNED TRUSTEE TO THE NAME OF A SUBSTITUTED
TRUSTEE APPOINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE ORIGINAL TRUST
AGREEMENT, WHICH IS A TRANSFER RESULTING WHOLLY BY OPERATION OF LAW." 

FN10  C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, AS ADDED BY SEC. 725 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932, AND AS AMENDED BY SEC. 212 OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY
ACT, AND AS AMENDED BY PUB. RES. NO. 36, C. 333, 49 STAT. 431. 
..END :
























TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. MUSCODA LOCAL, 321 U.S. 590 


NO. 409.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 14, 1944 - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  - 137
F.2D 176, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS REMEDIAL AND HUMANITARIAN IN
NATURE AND MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED OR APPLIED IN A NARROW, GRUDGING
MANNER.  P. 597. 

2.  SECTIONS 7(A), 3(G) AND 3(J) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT ARE
NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF A CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION TO GUARANTEE EITHER
REGULAR OR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR ALL ACTUAL WORK OR EMPLOYMENT.  P.
597. 

3.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY LEGISLATIVE EXPRESSION, IT MUST BE
ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS REFERRING TO
WORK OR EMPLOYMENT AS THOSE WORDS ARE COMMONLY USED - AS MEANING
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXERTION (WHETHER BURDENSOME OR NOT) CONTROLLED OR
REQUIRED BY THE EMPLOYER AND PURSUED NECESSARILY AND PRIMARILY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYER AND HIS BUSINESS.  P. 598. 

4.  UNDERGROUND TRAVEL BY IRON ORE MINERS TO AND FROM THE "WORKING
FACE" OF THE MINES, HELD, UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS FOUND BY BOTH
COURTS BELOW, TO CONSTITUTE WORK.  SUCH UNDERGROUND TRAVEL TIME IS
INCLUDIBLE IN THE WORKWEEK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT AND MUST BE COMPENSATED ACCORDINGLY.  P. 598. 

5.  ALTHOUGH SUCH UNDERGROUND TRAVEL OF THE IRON ORE MINERS IS IN A
STRICT SENSE NON-PRODUCTIVE, THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS ENGAGED DURING SUCH
TRAVEL TIME IN A "PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO ...  PRODUCTION,"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3(J) OF THE ACT.  P. 599. 

6.  THE FACTS RELATING TO UNDERGROUND TRAVEL BY MINERS IN IRON ORE
MINES IN THIS CASE LEAVE NO DOUBT AS TO ITS CHARACTER AS WORK WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AND THE REQUIREMENT OF THE
ACT THAT IT BE COMPENSATED ACCORDINGLY CAN NOT BE RENDERED INAPPLICABLE
BY ANY CONTRARY CUSTOM OR CONTRACT.  P. 602. 

TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & RAILROAD CO. ET AL V. MUSCODA LOCAL NO. 123 ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 731, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT, 40 F.SUPP.  4, IN ACTIONS FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS CONSTRUING THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CONFRONTED HERE WITH THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING IN PART WHAT
CONSTITUTES WORK OR EMPLOYMENT IN UNDERGROUND IRON ORE MINES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
201.  THIS QUESTION, WHICH IS ONE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, ARISES OUT OF
CONFLICTING CLAIMS BASED UPON THE ACTUAL ACTIVITIES PURSUED AND UPON
PRIOR CUSTOM AND CONTRACT IN THE IRON ORE MINES.  SUCH AN ISSUE CAN BE
RESOLVED ONLY BY DISCARDING FORMALITIES AND ADOPTING A REALISTIC
ATTITUDE, RECOGNIZING THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH HUMAN BEINGS AND WITH A
STATUTE THAT IS INTENDED TO SECURE TO THEM THE FRUITS OF THEIR TOIL AND
EXERTION. 

THREE IRON ORE MINING COMPANIES, PETITIONERS HEREIN, FILED
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS  FN1  TO DETERMINE WHETHER TIME SPENT BY
IRON ORE MINERS IN TRAVELING UNDERGROUND IN MINES TO AND FROM THE
"WORKING FACE"  FN2  CONSTITUTES WORK OR EMPLOYMENT FOR WHICH
COMPENSATION MUST BE PAID UNDER THE ACT.  THE RESPONDENT LABOR UNIONS
AND THEIR OFFICIALS, REPRESENTING PETITIONERS' EMPLOYEES, WERE NAMED AS
DEFENDANTS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WAS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE.  THE ACTUAL CONTROVERSY
RELATES ONLY TO THE HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT DURING THE PERIOD INTERVENING
BETWEEN THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, OCTOBER 24, 1938, AND THE DATES
WHEN THE RESPECTIVE ACTIONS WERE INITIATED IN APRIL, 1941.  FN3  IT IS
CONCEDED THAT IF UNDERGROUND TRAVEL CONSTITUTES EMPLOYMENT, THE MINERS
WORKED MORE THAN THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM WORKWEEK AND ARE ENTITLED TO BE
PAID ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE FOR THE EXCESS HOURS.  BUT
IF THE TRAVEL TIME IS EXCLUDED FROM THE WORKWEEK, THUS LIMITING IT TO
THE TIME SPENT AT THE WORKING FACE, NO OVERTIME PAYMENTS ARE DUE. 

AFTER EXTENDED HEARINGS, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE TRAVEL
TIME "BEARS IN A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE EVERY INDICIA OF WORKTIME:
SUPERVISION BY THE EMPLOYER, PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXERTION, ACTIVITY
NECESSARY TO BE PERFORMED FOR THE EMPLOYERS' BENEFIT, AND CONDITIONS
PECULIAR TO THE OCCUPATION OF MINING."  THE COURT ACCORDINGLY RULED
THAT THE TRAVEL TIME, AS WELL AS THE TIME SPENT AT THE SURFACE
OBTAINING AND RETURNING TOOLS, LAMPS AND CARBIDE AND CHECKING IN AND
OUT, WAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE WORKWEEK.  40 F.SUPP.  4.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED AS TO THE TRAVEL TIME, HOLDING THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS ON THAT MATTER WERE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  THE JUDGMENT WAS MODIFIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT, HOWEVER, BY
EXCLUDING FROM THE WORKWEEK THE TIME SPENT IN THE ACTIVITIES AT THE
SURFACE.  135 F.2D 320; REHEARING DENIED, 137 F.2D 176.  THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE PROBLEM AS TO THE TRAVEL TIME LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  FN4 

SPECIFICALLY WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY FOUND THAT IRON ORE MINERS
WERE AT WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT WHILE ENGAGED IN UNDERGROUND
TRAVEL WHICH THEY WERE OBLIGED TO PERFORM ON THE PROPERTY OF AND UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF PETITIONERS AS A NECESSARY CONCOMITANT OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PETITIONERS OWN AND OPERATE TWELVE
UNDERGROUND IRON ORE MINES IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA,  FN5 AND THAT
THE GENERAL PATTERN OF FACTS UNDERLYING THE FINDINGS OF THE COURTS
BELOW IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME IN EACH OF THESE MINES.  FN6 

THE MINERS BEGIN THEIR DAY BY ARRIVING ON THE COMPANY PROPERTY AT A
SCHEDULED HOUR  FN7  AND GOING TO THE BATH HOUSE, WHERE THEY CHANGE
INTO WORKING CLOTHES.  FN8  THEY THEN WALK TO THE TALLY HOUSE NEAR THE
MINE ENTRANCE OR PORTAL; THERE THEY CHECK IN AND HANG UP INDIVIDUAL
BRASS CHECKS, FURNISHED BY PETITIONERS, ON A TALLY OR CHECK-IN BOARD. 
THIS ENABLES THE FOREMAN AND OTHER OFFICIALS TO TELL AT A GLANCE THOSE
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE REPORTED FOR WORK AND THOSE PRODUCTION AND SERVICE
CREWS THAT ARE INCOMPLETE AND IN NEED OF SUBSTITUTES.  VACANCIES ARE
FILLED AND THE HEAD MINERS AND CREWS RECEIVE ANY NECESSARY
INSTRUCTIONS.  IN ADDITION, EACH MINER EITHER RENTS A BATTERY LAMP FOR
THE DAY OR BUYS A CAN OF CARBIDE EACH DAY OR TWO FOR UNDERGROUND
ILLUMINATION PURPOSES.  AND AT SOME OF THE MINES, MANY MINERS STOP AT A
TOOL BOX OR TOOL HOUSE ON THE SURFACE TO PICK UP OTHER SMALL SUPPLIES
AND TOOLS NECESSARY FOR THEIR WORK.  THESE ACTIVITIES CONSUME BUT A FEW
MINUTES. 

THE MINERS THEREUPON ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT AT THE LOADING PLATFORM
AT THE MINE PORTAL AND AWAIT THEIR TURN TO RIDE DOWN THE INCLINED
SHAFTS OF THE MINES.  ORIGINALLY THE MINERS COULD REACH THE WORKING
FACES ENTIRELY BY FOOT, BUT AS THE SHAFTS INCREASED IN LENGTH
PETITIONERS PROVIDED TRANSPORTATION DOWN THE MAIN SHAFTS.  THE MINERS
ACCORDINGLY RIDE PART OF THE WAY TO THE WORKING FACES IN ORE SKIPS  FN9
OR REGULAR MAN TRIPS,  FN10  WHICH OPERATE ON NARROW GAUGE TRACKS BY
MEANS OF CABLES OR HOISTING ROPES.  THE OPERATION OF THE SKIPS AND MAN
TRIPS IS UNDER THE STRICT CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE PETITIONERS AT
ALL TIMES AND THEY REFUSE TO PERMIT THE MINERS TO WALK RATHER THAN
RIDE.  REGULAR SCHEDULES ARE FIXED; LOADING AND UNLOADING ARE
SUPERVISED; THE SPEED OF THE TRIPS IS REGULATED; AND THE CONDUCT OF THE
MINERS DURING THE RIDES IS PRESCRIBED. 

ABOUT THREE TO SIX TRIPS ARE MADE, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE MINE
AND THE NUMBER OF MINERS.  TEN MEN SIT ON EACH MAN TRIP CAR, WHILE FROM
30 TO 40 ARE CROWDED INTO AN ORE SKIP.  THEY ARE FORCED TO JUMP SEVERAL
FEET INTO THE SKIP FROM THE LOADING PLATFORM, WHICH NOT INFREQUENTLY
CAUSES INJURIES TO ANKLES, FEET AND HANDS.  THE SKIPS ARE USUALLY
OVERCROWDED AND THE MEN STAND TIGHTLY PRESSED TOGETHER.  THE HEADS OF
MOST OF THEM ARE A FOOT OR MORE ABOVE THE TOP OF THE SKIPS.  BUT SINCE
THE SKIPS USUALLY CLEAR THE LOW MINE CEILINGS BY ONLY A FEW INCHES, THE
MINERS ARE COMPELLED TO BEND OVER.  THEY THUS RIDE IN A CLOSE "SPOON
FASHION," WITH BODIES CONTORTED AND HEADS DRAWN BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE
SKIP TOP.  BROKEN RIBS, INJURED ARMS AND LEGS, AND BLOODY HEADS OFTEN
RESULT; EVEN FATALITIES ARE NOT UNKNOWN. 

THE LENGTH OF THE RIDES IN THE DARK, MOIST, MALODOROUS SHAFTS VARIES
IN THE DIFFERENT MINES FROM 3,000 FEET TO 12,000 FEET.  THE MINERS THEN
CLIMB OUT OF THE SKIPS AND MAN TRIPS AT THE UNDERGROUND MAN-LOADING
PLATFORMS OR "HOODLUMS" AND CONTINUE THEIR JOURNEYS ON FOOT FOR
DISTANCES UP TO TWO MILES.  THESE SUBTERRANEAN WALKS ARE FILLED WITH
DISCOMFORTS AND HIDDEN PERILS.  THE SURROUNDINGS ARE DARK AND DANK. 
THE AIR IS INCREASINGLY WARM AND HUMID, THE VENTILATION POOR.  ODORS OF
HUMAN SEWAGE, RESULTING FROM A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SANITARY FACILITIES,
PERMEATE THE ATMOSPHERE.  ROTTING MINE TIMBERS ADD TO THE BEFOULING OF
THE AIR.  MANY OF THE PASSAGES ARE LEVEL, BUT OTHERS TAKE THE FORM OF
TUNNELS AND STEEP GRADES.  WATER, MUCK AND STRAY PIECES OF ORE OFTEN
MAKE THE FOOTING UNCERTAIN.  LOW CEILINGS MUST BE DUCKED AND MOVING ORE
SKIPS MUST BE AVOIDED.  OVERHEAD, A MAZE OF WATER AND AIR PIPE LINES,
TELEPHONE WIRES, AND EXPOSED HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRIC CABLES AND WIRES
PRESENT EVER-DANGEROUS OBSTACLES, ESPECIALLY TO THOSE TRANSPORTING
TOOLS.  AT ALL TIMES THE MINERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE HAZARDS OF FALLING
ROCKS. 

MOREOVER, MOST OF THE WORKING EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT DRILLS AND HEAVY
SUPPLIES, IS KEPT NEAR THE "HOODLUMS."  THIS EQUIPMENT IS CARRIED EACH
DAY BY FOOT BY THE CREWS THROUGH THESE PERILOUS PATHS FROM THE
"HOODLUMS" TO THE WORKING FACES.  INCLUDED ARE SUCH ITEMS AS FIFTY
POUND SACKS OF DYNAMITE, DYNAMITE CAPS, FUSES, GALLON CANS OF OIL AND
SERVICEMEN'S SUPPLIES.  ACTUAL DRILLING AND LOADING OF THE ORE BEGIN ON
ARRIVAL AT THE WORKING FACES, INTERRUPTED ONLY BY A THIRTY MINUTE LUNCH
PERIOD SPENT AT OR NEAR THE FACES.  THE SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE MEN, OF
COURSE, WORK WHEREEVER THEY ARE NEEDED. 

AT THE END OF THE DAY'S DUTIES AT THE WORKING FACES, THE MINERS LAY
DOWN THEIR DRILLS, PICK UP THEIR OTHER EQUIPMENT AND RETRACE THEIR
STEPS BACK TO THE "HOODLUMS."  THEY WAIT THERE UNTIL AN ORE SKIP OR MAN
TRIP IS AVAILABLE TO TRANSPORT THEM BACK TO THE PORTAL.  AFTER ARRIVING
ON THE SURFACE, THEY RETURN THEIR SMALL TOOLS AND LAMPS, PICK UP THEIR
BRASS CHECKS AT THE TALLY HOUSE, AND PROCEED TO BATHE AND CHANGE THEIR
CLOTHES AT THE BATH HOUSE.  FINALLY THEY LEAVE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY
AND RETURN TO THEIR HOMES. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS UNDERGROUND TRAVEL CONSTITUTES
COMPENSABLE WORK OR EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, WE ARE NOT GUIDED BY ANY PRECISE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF
WORK OR EMPLOYMENT.  SECTION 7(A) MERELY PROVIDES THAT NO ONE, WHO IS
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, SHALL
BE EMPLOYED FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN THE PRESCRIBED HOURS UNLESS
COMPENSATION IS PAID FOR THE EXCESS HOURS AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE
AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE.  SECTION 3(G) DEFINES THE WORD
"EMPLOY" TO INCLUDE "TO SUFFER OR PERMIT TO WORK," WHILE SEC. 3(J)
STATES THAT "PRODUCTION" INCLUDES "ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY
TO ...  PRODUCTION." 

BUT THESE PROVISIONS, LIKE THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, ARE REMEDIAL AND HUMANITARIAN IN PURPOSE.  WE ARE NOT
HERE DEALING WITH MERE CHATTELS OR ARTICLES OF TRADE BUT WITH THE
RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO TOIL, OF THOSE WHO SACRIFICE A FULL MEASURE OF
THEIR FREEDOM AND TALENTS TO THE USE AND PROFIT OF OTHERS.  THOSE ARE
THE RIGHTS THAT CONGRESS HAS SPECIALLY LEGISLATED TO PROTECT.  SUCH A
STATUTE MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED OR APPLIED IN A NARROW, GRUDGING
MANNER.  ACCORDINGLY WE VIEW SECS. 7(A), 3(G) AND 3(J) OF THE ACT AS
NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF A CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION TO GUARANTEE EITHER
REGULAR OR OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR ALL ACTUAL WORK OR EMPLOYMENT.  TO
HOLD THAT AN EMPLOYER MAY VALIDLY COMPENSATE HIS EMPLOYEES FOR ONLY A
FRACTION OF THE TIME CONSUMED IN ACTUAL LABOR WOULD BE INCONSISTENT
WITH THE VERY PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF THOSE SECTIONS OF THE ACT.  IT
IS VITAL, OF COURSE, TO DETERMINE FIRST THE EXTENT OF THE ACTUAL
WORKWEEK.  ONLY AFTER THIS IS DONE CAN THE MINIMUM WAGE AND MAXIMUM
HOUR REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT BE EFFECTIVELY APPLIED.  AND, IN THE
ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY LEGISLATIVE EXPRESSION, WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS HERE WAS REFERRING TO WORK OR EMPLOYMENT OTHER THAN AS THOSE
WORDS ARE COMMONLY USED - AS MEANING PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXERTION
(WHETHER BURDENSOME OR NOT) CONTROLLED OR REQUIRED BY THE EMPLOYER AND
PURSUED NECESSARILY AND PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYER AND
HIS BUSINESS.  FN11 

VIEWING THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS FOUND BY BOTH COURTS BELOW IN THE
LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, WE ARE UNWILLING TO CONCLUDE
THAT THE UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IN PETITIONERS' IRON ORE MINES CANNOT BE
CONSTRUED AS WORK OR EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  THE
EXACTING AND DANGEROUS CONDITIONS IN THE MINE SHAFTS STAND AS MUTE,
UNANSWERABLE PROOF THAT THE JOURNEY FROM AND TO THE PORTAL INVOLVES
CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXERTION AS WELL AS HAZARDS TO LIFE AND
LIMB.  AND THIS COMPULSORY TRAVEL OCCURS ENTIRELY ON PETITIONERS'
PROPERTY AND IS AT ALL TIMES UNDER THEIR STRICT CONTROL AND
SUPERVISION. 

SUCH TRAVEL, FURTHERMORE, IS NOT PRIMARILY UNDERTAKEN FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE MINERS AND BEARS NO RELATION WHATEVER TO THEIR NEEDS
OR TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEIR HOMES AND THE MINES.  FN12  RATHER THE
TRAVEL TIME IS SPENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF PETITIONERS AND THEIR IRON ORE
MINING OPERATIONS.  THE EXTRACTION OF ORE FROM THESE MINES BY ITS VERY
NATURE NECESSITATES DANGEROUS TRAVEL IN PETITIONERS' UNDERGROUND SHAFTS
IN ORDER TO REACH THE WORKING FACES, WHERE PRODUCTION ACTUALLY OCCURS. 
SUCH HAZARDOUS TRAVEL IS THUS ESSENTIAL TO PETITIONERS' PRODUCTION.  IT
MATTERS NOT THAT SUCH TRAVEL IS, IN A STRICT SENSE, A NONPRODUCTIVE
BENEFIT.  NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR IN REASON DEMANDS THAT EVERY MOMENT
OF AN EMPLOYEE'S TIME DEVOTED TO THE SERVICE OF HIS EMPLOYER SHALL BE
DIRECTLY PRODUCTIVE.  SECTION 3(J) OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT
IT IS SUFFICIENT IF AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED IN A PROCESS OR OCCUPATION
NECESSARY TO PRODUCTION.  HENCE EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN SUCH NECESSARY BUT
NOT DIRECTLY PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES AS WATCHING AND GUARDING A BUILDING,
FN13  WAITING FOR WORK,  FN14  AND STANDING BY ON CALL  FN15  HAVE
BEEN HELD TO BE ENGAGED IN WORK NECESSARY TO PRODUCTION AND ENTITLED TO
THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT.  IRON ORE MINERS TRAVELING UNDERGROUND ARE NO
LESS ENGAGED IN A "PROCESS OR OCCUPATION" NECESSARY TO ACTUAL
PRODUCTION.  THEY DO MORE THAN "STAND AND WAIT," MISSOURI, K. & T. RY.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 112, 119.  CF. BOUNTIFUL BRICK CO. V.
GILES, 276 U.S. 154, 158.  THEIRS IS A FOSSORIAL ACTIVITY BEARING ALL
THE INDICIA OF HARD LABOR. 

THE CONCLUSION THAT UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IN IRON ORE MINES IS WORK HAS
ALSO BEEN REACHED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION. 
ON MARCH 17, 1941, HE APPROVED AN INFORMAL REPORT OF HIS REPRESENTATIVE
BASED UPON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE "HOURS WORKED" IN UNDERGROUND METAL
MINES IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE REPORT CONCLUDED, IN PART, THAT "THE
WORKDAY IN UNDERGROUND METAL MINING STARTS WHEN THE MINER REPORTS FOR
DUTY AS REQUIRED AT OR NEAR THE COLLAR (PORTAL) OF THE MINE AND ENDS
WHEN HE REACHES THE COLLAR AT THE END OF THE SHIFT."  SEE ALSO SUNSHINE
MINING CO. V. CARVER, 41 F.SUPP.  60.  IN ADDITION, STATUTES OF SEVERAL
IMPORTANT METAL MINING STATES PROVIDE THAT THE EIGHT-HOUR PER DAY
LIMITATION UPON WORK INCLUDES TRAVEL UNDERGROUND.  FN16    PETITIONERS,
HOWEVER, RELY MAINLY UPON THE ALLEGED "IMMEMORIAL CUSTOM AND AGREEMENTS
ARRIVED AT BY THE PRACTICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING" WHICH ARE SAID TO
ESTABLISH "THE 'FACE TO FACE' METHOD AS THE STANDARD AND MEASURE FOR
COMPUTING WORKING TIME IN THE IRON ORE INDUSTRY."  THEY FURTHER CLAIM
THAT SINCE THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT CONTAINS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION
REGARDING UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IN MINES, CONGRESS MUST BE PRESUMED TO
HAVE INTENDED TO PERPETUATE EXISTING CUSTOMS OR TO LEAVE THE MATTER TO
BE WORKED OUT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS UNABLE TO FIND FROM
THE EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH "IMMEMORIAL" CUSTOM OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS EXISTED.  THAT COURT, IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, PROPERLY
DIRECTED ITS ATTENTION SOLELY TO THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING PETITIONERS'
IRON ORE MINES AND DISREGARDED THE CUSTOMS AND CONTRACTS IN THE COAL
MINING INDUSTRY.  THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT PRIOR TO THE CRUCIAL
DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, THE PROVISIONS IN PETITIONERS'
CONTRACTS WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES RELATING TO A FORTY HOUR WORKWEEK "AT
THE USUAL WORKING PLACE" BORE NO RELATION TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME
ACTUALLY WORKED OR THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED.  INSTEAD, WORKING TIME
AND PAYMENT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RELATED TO THE AMOUNT OF IRON ORE MINED
EACH DAY.  HENCE SUCH CONTRACT PROVISIONS DEFINING THE WORKWEEK ARE OF
LITTLE IF ANY VALUE IN DETERMINING THE WORKWEEK AND COMPENSATION UNDER
A STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES THAT THEY BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACTUAL
WORK PERFORMED. 

LIKEWISE THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL, IF NOT CONCLUSIVE, EVIDENCE THAT
PRIOR TO 1938 PETITIONERS RECOGNIZED NO INDEPENDENT LABOR UNIONS AND
ENGAGED IN NO BONA FIDE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH AN EYE TOWARD
REACHING AGREEMENTS ON THE WORKWEEK.  CONTRACTS WITH COMPANY-DOMINATED
UNIONS AND DISCRIMINATORY ACTIONS TOWARD THE INDEPENDENT UNIONS ARE
POOR SUBSTITUTES FOR "CONTRACTS FAIRLY ARRIVED AT THROUGH THE PROCESS
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."  THE WAGE PAYMENTS AND WORK ON A TONNAGE
BASIS, AS WELL AS THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS AS TO THE WORKWEEK, WERE ALL
DICTATED BY PETITIONERS.  THE FUTILE EFFORTS BY THE MINERS TO SECURE AT
LEAST PARTIAL COMPENSATION FOR THEIR TRAVEL TIME AND THEIR
DISSATISFACTION WITH EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS, MOREOVER, NEGATIVE THE
CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ANY REAL CUSTOM AS TO THE WORKWEEK AND
COMPENSATION THEREFOR.  A VALID CUSTOM CANNOT BE BASED ON SO TURBULENT
AND DISCORDANT A HISTORY; IT REQUIRES SOMETHING MORE THAN UNILATERAL
AND ARBITRARY IMPOSITION OF WORKING CONDITIONS.  FN17  WE THUS CANNOT
SAY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS AS TO CUSTOM AND CONTRACT ARE SO
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AS TO COMPEL US TO DISREGARD THEM. 

BUT IN ANY EVENT IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PRIOR
CUSTOM OR CONTRACT NOT TO CONSIDER CERTAIN WORK WITHIN THE COMPASS OF
THE WORKWEEK OR NOT TO COMPENSATE EMPLOYEES FOR CERTAIN PORTIONS OF
THEIR WORK.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CODIFY OR
PERPETUATE THOSE CUSTOMS AND CONTRACTS WHICH ALLOW AN EMPLOYER TO CLAIM
ALL OF AN EMPLOYEE'S TIME WHILE COMPENSATING HIM FOR ONLY A PART OF IT.
CONGRESS INTENDED, INSTEAD, TO ACHIEVE A UNIFORM NATIONAL POLICY OF
GUARANTEEING COMPENSATION FOR ALL WORK OR EMPLOYMENT ENGAGED IN BY
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE ACT.  FN18  ANY CUSTOM OR CONTRACT FALLING
SHORT OF THAT BASIC POLICY, LIKE AN AGREEMENT TO PAY LESS THAN THE
MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS, CANNOT BE UTILIZED TO DEPRIVE EMPLOYEES OF
THEIR STATUTORY RIGHTS.  CF. OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S.
572; HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366.  SEE ALSO LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R.
CO. V. MOTTLEY, 219 U.S. 467; J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S.
332; ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S.
342. 

THIS DOES NOT FORECLOSE, OF COURSE, REASONABLE PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT
OR CUSTOM GOVERNING THE COMPUTATION OF WORK HOURS WHERE PRECISELY
ACCURATE COMPUTATION IS DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE.  NOR ARE WE CONCERNED
HERE WITH THE EFFECT THAT CUSTOM AND CONTRACT MAY HAVE IN BORDERLINE
CASES WHERE THE OTHER FACTS GIVE RISE TO SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER
CERTAIN ACTIVITY OR NON-ACTIVITY CONSTITUTES WORK OR EMPLOYMENT.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT IN THIS CASE THAT THE FACTS RELATING TO UNDERGROUND TRAVEL
IN IRON ORE MINES LEAVE NO UNCERTAINTY AS TO ITS CHARACTER AS WORK. 
THE ACT THUS REQUIRES THAT APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION BE PAID FOR SUCH
WORK.  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD DEPRIVE THE IRON ORE MINERS OF THE
JUST REMUNERATION GUARANTEED THEM BY THE ACT FOR CONTRIBUTING THEIR
TIME, LIBERTY AND STRENGTH PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THESE ACTIONS WERE INSTITUTED UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS ACT, 48 STAT. 955, SEC. 274D, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400.  THEY WERE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL PURPOSES AND THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A SINGLE
JUDGMENT. 

FN2  THE "WORKING FACE" IS THE PLACE IN THE MINE WHERE THE MINERS
ACTUALLY DRILL AND LOAD ORE.  THE "FACE TO FACE" BASIS OF COMPENSATION,
ADVOCATED BY PETITIONERS, INCLUDES ONLY THE TIME SPENT AT THE WORKING
FACE.  THE "PORTAL TO PORTAL" BASIS, PROPOSED BY RESPONDENTS, INCLUDES
TIME SPENT IN TRAVELING BETWEEN THE PORTAL OR ENTRANCE TO THE MINE AND
THE WORKING FACE AND BACK AGAIN, AS WELL AS THE TIME SPENT AT THE
WORKING FACE. 

FN3  SINCE MAY 5, 1941, PETITIONERS HAVE PAID THEIR MINERS FOR TRAVEL
TIME PURSUANT TO CONTRACT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION THAT UNDERGROUND TRAVEL IN
IRON ORE MINES IS WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 

FN4  NO REVIEW HAS BEEN SOUGHT OF THE EXCLUSION FROM THE WORKWEEK OF
THE ACTIVITIES AT THE SURFACE.  WE THEREFORE DO NOT DISCUSS THAT ISSUE
IN THIS CASE.  ALEXANDER V. COSDEN PIPE LINE CO., 290 U.S. 484, 487,
AND CASES CITED. 

FN5  THE TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & RAILROAD COMPANY HAS EIGHT MINES;
SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL & IRON COMPANY, TWO MINES; AND REPUBLIC STEEL
CORPORATION, TWO MINES. 

FN6  AS THE DISTRICT COURT POINTED OUT, THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY
THE RECORD ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED TO CENSURE PETITIONERS' MANNER
OF MAINTENANCE OF THEIR MINES, "FOR THESE CONDITIONS MAY WELL BE NORMAL
CONDITIONS IN IRON ORE MINES AND PRACTICALLY INEVITABLE."  MOREOVER,
THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE SPAULDING MINE OF THE REPUBLIC COMPANY
HAS BEEN OPERATED ONLY INTERMITTENTLY AND EXPERIMENTALLY DURING THE
LAST 20 YEARS AND MANY OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE OTHER MINES ARE NOT
PRESENT.  THE ORE IS CLOSE TO THE SURFACE AND MINERS CAN WALK ALL THE
WAY TO THE WORKING FACES. 

FN7  ONE OF THE TENNESSEE COMPANY'S SUPERINTENDENTS STATED THAT
"WHENEVER A MAN COMES TO THE MINE LATE, DRAGGING ALONG AND ENCOURAGES
OTHERS TO BE LATE, HE IS SETTING A BAD EXAMPLE.  I WANT THIS UNDERSTOOD
THOROUGHLY - MEN MUST BE ON TIME; WE DON'T CARE WHETHER THEY WORK HERE
OR NOT, BUT IF THEY WANT TO WORK HERE THEY WILL HAVE TO BE ON TIME OR
ELSE THEY WILL BE DISCIPLINED, EVEN TO DISCHARGE." 

FN8  THE USE OF THE BATH HOUSE, OR CHANGE HOUSE, IS OPTIONAL.  SOME
MINERS CHANGE THEIR CLOTHES AT HOME AND MAKE NO USE OF THE BATH HOUSES
FURNISHED BY PETITIONERS. 

FN9  AN ORE SKIP IS AN ORDINARY FOUR-WHEELED ORE BOX CAR MADE OF
STEEL.  IT IS NORMALLY USED FOR TRANSPORTING ORE AND ITS FLOOR IS OFTEN
COVERED WITH MUCK FROM SUCH HAULINGS.  WHEN MEN ARE RIDING IN THE CAR
IT IS KNOWN AS A "MAN SKIP TRIP."  IT IS USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES IN THE
MINES OF THE TENNESSEE COMPANY AND THE REPUBLIC COMPANY. 

FN10  A REGULAR MAN TRIP IS A SPECIALLY CONSTRUCTED SERIES OF CARS. 
EACH CAR IS ABOUT EIGHT FEET LONG AND RESEMBLES A STAIRWAY.  FIVE MEN
SIT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CAR FACING OUTWARDS, BACK TO BACK WITH FIVE
MEN ON THE OTHER SIDE.  THE MAN TRIP USED IN THE SLOSS COMPANY MINES
CONSISTS OF SIX SUCH CARS. 

FN11  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (2D ED., UNABRIDGED)
DEFINES WORK AS FOLLOWS:  "1.  TO EXERT ONESELF PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY
FOR A PURPOSE, ESP., IN COMMON SPEECH, TO EXERT ONESELF THUS IN DOING
SOMETHING UNDERTAKEN CHIEFLY FOR GAIN, FOR IMPROVEMENT IN ONE'S
MATERIAL, INTELLECTUAL, OR PHYSICAL CONDITION, OR UNDER COMPULSION OF
ANY KIND, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SOMETHING UNDERTAKEN PRIMARILY FOR
PLEASURE, SPORT, OR IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION, OR AS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO
OTHER ACTIVITIES (AS A DISAGREEABLE WALK INVOLVED IN GOING TO SEE A
FRIEND, OR THE PACKING OF A TRUNK FOR A PLEASURE TRIP)  ...  " THE WORD
"EMPLOY" IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:  "2.  TO MAKE USE OF THE SERVICES OF;
TO GIVE EMPLOYMENT TO; TO ENTRUST WITH SOME DUTY OR BEHEST." 

FN12  CF. DOLLAR V. CADDO RIVER LUMBER CO., 43 F.SUPP.  822; SIRMON
V. CRON & GRACEY DRILLING CORP., 44 F.SUPP.  29; BULOT V. FREEPORT
SULPHUR CO., 45 F.SUPP.  380; WALLING V. PEAVY-WILSON LUMBER CO., 49
F.SUPP.  846. 

FN13  WALTON V. SOUTHERN PACKAGE CORP., 320 U.S. 540; KIRSCHBAUM CO.
V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517. 

FN14  FLEMING V. NORTH GEORGIA MFG. CO., 33 F.SUPP.  1005; TRAVIS V.
RAY, 41 F.SUPP.  6. 

FN15  WALLING V. ALLIED MESSENGER SERVICE, 47 F.SUPP.  773. 

FN16  ARIZONA AND UTAH STATUTES SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE ALL THE TRAVEL
TIME WITHIN THE EIGHT-HOUR LIMITATION.  ARIZ. CODE ANN. (1939), VOL. 4,
SEC. 56-115; UTAH CODE ANN. (1943), SEC. 49-3-2.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
MONTANA HAS CONSTRUED MONT. CONST., ART. 18, SEC. 4, AND MONT. REV.
CODE (1935), SEC. 3071, WHICH PROVIDE FOR EIGHT HOURS OF WORK PER DAY
IN UNDERGROUND MINES, TO INCLUDE ALL TRAVEL TIME, BUTTE MINERS' UNION
NO. 1 V. ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO., 112 MONT. 418, 118 P.2D 148. 
NEVADA COMP. LAWS (1929), SEC. 10237, PROVIDES THAT THE LIMITATION
SHALL APPLY TO TRAVEL ONE WAY.  BUT WYOMING REV. STAT. (1931), SEC. 63
107, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES UNDERGROUND TRAVEL FROM THE LIMITATION; A
LIKE RESULT HAS BEEN REACHED BY INTERPRETATION OF CALIFORNIA STATS.
1909, CH. 181, P. 279, IN MATTER OF APPLICATION OF MARTIN, 157 CAL. 59,
106 P. 238.  ALABAMA AND TENNESSEE FIX NO LIMITATION ON HOURS, WHILE
MAXIMUM HOUR STATUTES OF OTHER METAL MINING STATES ARE INCONCLUSIVE
INSOFAR AS THE INCLUSION OF TRAVEL TIME IS CONCERNED.  SEE ALSO SEC.
5(2) OF THE ENGLISH METALLIFEROUS MINES REGULATION ACT (1872), 35 & 36
VICT., C. 77, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "THE PERIOD OF EACH EMPLOYMENT SHALL
BE DEEMED TO BEGIN AT THE TIME OF LEAVING THE SURFACE, AND TO END AT
THE TIME OF RETURNING TO THE SURFACE." 

FN17  BLACKSTONE HAS SAID THAT ONE OF THE REQUISITES OF A VALID
CUSTOM IS THAT "IT MUST HAVE BEEN PEACEABLE, AND ACQUIESCED IN; NOT
SUBJECT TO CONTENTION AND DISPUTE.  FOR AS CUSTOMS OWE THEIR ORIGINAL
TO COMMON CONSENT, THEIR BEING IMMEMORIALLY DISPUTED, EITHER AT LAW OR
OTHERWISE, IS A PROOF THAT SUCH CONSENT WAS WANTING."  1 COMMENTARIES
77.  SEE ALSO POLLOCK, FIRST BOOK OF JURISPRUDENCE, 283(6TH ED.). 

FN18  CONGRESS WAS NOT UNAWARE OF THE EFFECT THAT COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING CONTRACTS MIGHT HAVE ON OVERTIME PAY.  IT EXPRESSLY DECIDED
TO GIVE EFFECT TO TWO KINDS OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS, AS SPECIFIED IN
SEC. 7(B)(1) AND (2) OF THE ACT.  CF. SEC. 8(C).  IT THUS DID NOT
INTEND THAT OTHER COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS SHOULD RELIEVE EMPLOYERS FROM
PAYING FOR OVERTIME IN EXCESS OF AN ACTUAL WORKWEEK OF 40 HOURS,
REGARDLESS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH CONTRACTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

THE LEGAL QUESTION ON THE RECORD BEFORE US LIES WITHIN A NARROW
COMPASS.  SECTION 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT COMMANDS THE
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AT A RATE OF NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF
TIMES THE REGULAR RATE FOR EVERY EMPLOYEE UNDER THE STATUTE WHO IS
ENGAGED "FOR A WORKWEEK" LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR OR FORTY-TWO HOURS
DURING THE FIRST OR THE SECOND YEAR, RESPECTIVELY, AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE SECTION AND FORTY HOURS THEREAFTER.  52 STAT. 1060, 1063,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 207.  CONGRESS DID NOT EXPLICITLY DEFINE "WORKWEEK" AND
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE AVAILABLE MATERIALS PERTINENT TO CONSTRUCTION
THAT WARRANTS A FINDING THAT "WORKWEEK," AS APPLIED TO THE WORKERS IN
THE IRON ORE INDUSTRY, HAD SO SETTLED A MEANING AT THE TIME OF THE
ENACTMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AS TO BE DEEMED INCORPORATED
BY REFERENCE.  AS A RESULT, "WORKWEEK" IN THIS STATUTE, AS APPLIED TO
WORKERS IN THIS INDUSTRY AND ON THIS RECORD, HAS NO TECHNICAL MEANING,
THAT IS, A MEANING SO WELL KNOWN TO THOSE IN THIS PARTICULAR INDUSTRY
AS TO BE APPLIED BY COURTS IN ENFORCING THE STATUTE WHEN INVOKED BY MEN
IN THE INDUSTRY.  FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, IN ANY EVENT, WHEN
CONGRESS USED THE WORD "WORKWEEK," IT USED IT COLLOQUIALLY - THE TERM
CARRIES MERELY THE MEANING OF COMMON UNDERSTANDING. 

AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY FOR PRELIMINARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
ARISING UNDER THE WAGES AND HOURS LAW, LIKE THAT ESTABLISHED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WAS NOT PROVIDED BY CONGRESS.  AND SO,
THE APPLICATION OF THIS COLLOQUIAL CONCEPT "WORKWEEK" TO THE
MULTIFARIOUS SITUATIONS IN AMERICAN INDUSTRY WAS LEFT BY CONGRESS FOR
ASCERTAINMENT BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  THESE FACTS ARE TO BE FOUND
EITHER BY A JURY OR, AS IN THIS CASE, BY A JUDGE SITTING WITHOUT A
JURY.  AND SO HERE IT WAS THE JUDGE'S DUTY TO DETERMINE WHAT TIME AND
ENERGY ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT CONSTITUTED A
"WORKWEEK" OF THESE EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONERS.  AFTER A TRIAL WHICH
LASTED FOR ABOUT THREE WEEKS, DURING WHICH TESTIMONY COVERING 2,643
PAGES WAS HEARD AND VOLUMINOUS EXHIBITS WERE INTRODUCED, THE DISTRICT
COURT MADE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT.  A JUDGMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEES BASED ON
THESE FINDINGS WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  40
F.SUPP.  4; 135 F.2D 320.    WE HAVE THEN A JUDGMENT OF TWO COURTS
BASED ON FINDINGS WITH AMPLE EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUCH FINDINGS. 
AFFIRMANCE BY THIS COURT IS THEREFORE DEMANDED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING: 

THIS CASE IN MY VIEW PROBABLY DOES NOT PRESENT ANY QUESTION OF LAW
OR, IF SO, IT IS ONE WITH A VERY OBVIOUS ANSWER.  WHEN CONGRESS IN THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT REFERRED TO "A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY
HOURS," IT CONSIDERED, I ASSUME, THAT WHAT WAS A WORKWEEK IN FACT
SHOULD BE A WORKWEEK IN LAW.  THEREFORE, THE DETERMINATION OF ANY
PARTICULAR CASE DOES NOT GOVERN ANY OTHER, FOR EACH ESTABLISHMENT AND
INDUSTRY STANDS ON ITS OWN CONDITIONS. 

A SEASONED AND WISE RULE OF THIS COURT MAKES CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF
TWO COURTS BELOW FINAL HERE IN THE ABSENCE OF VERY EXCEPTIONAL SHOWING
OF ERROR.  GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. V. RAY-O-VAC CO., 321 U.S. 275;
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. PACE, 320 U.S. 698; BAKER V. SCHOFIELD, 243
U.S. 114, 118; WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY
CORP., 316 U.S. 364, 367. 

IN THESE CASES ORE MINING COMPANIES SOUGHT DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS THAT
MINERS' TRAVEL TIME IN THE SHAFTS GETTING TO AND FROM ACTUAL MINING
OPERATIONS, AND SOME OTHER TIME, IS NOT TO BE COUNTED IN THE WORKWEEK
AS DEFINED FOR OVERTIME PURPOSES IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THEY
ALLEGED THAT THE CUSTOM OF THEIR MINES EXCLUDED IT, BUT THE TRIAL COURT
CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE AND SAID, "THE EVIDENCE HAS DISCLOSED NO
SUCH CUSTOM."  THE COMPANIES ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ACTIVITY DURING
TRAVEL IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF WORK.  AFTER HEARING A MASS OF
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY THE TRIAL COURT SAID OF THESE ACTIVITIES, "THEY
ARE PERFORMED ON THE PREMISES OF THE EMPLOYER, IN THE FURTHERANCE OF
THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS, WITH NO BENEFIT TO THE EMPLOYEE (EXCEPT TO AID
HIM IN THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK FOR THE EMPLOYER), UNDER CONDITIONS
CREATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE EMPLOYER, AND THEY INVOLVE RESPONSIBILITY
TO THE EMPLOYER AND PHYSICAL EXERTION, EVEN THOUGH NOT BURDENSOME, ON
THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE.  NO CHARACTERISTIC OF WORK IS LACKING." 
THESE WERE FOUND TO BE THE FACTS BY THE TWO COURTS BELOW AND, WHATEVER
WE MIGHT DECIDE IF WE WERE A TRIAL COURT HEARING THE EVIDENCE IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE, WE CANNOT WITH OUR LIMITED REVIEW HOLD THEM WRONG ON
THIS RECORD. 

IF THESE FACTS ARE ACCEPTED, THE RULING THAT SUCH TRAVEL TIME IS PART
OF THE WORKWEEK SEEMS MANIFEST.  I WOULD AFFIRM ON THESE CONTROLLING
FACTS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IN THIS CASE SHOULD BE APPROACHED NOT ON
THE BASIS OF ANY BROAD HUMANITARIAN PREPOSSESSIONS WE MAY ALL
ENTERTAIN, NOT WITH A DESIRE TO CONSTRUE LEGISLATION SO AS TO
ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE DEEM WORTHY OBJECTS, BUT IN THE TRADITIONAL AND, IF
WE ARE TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, THE ESSENTIAL ATTITUDE OF
ASCERTAINING WHAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED RATHER THAN WHAT WE WISH IT HAD
ENACTED. 

MUCH OF WHAT IS SAID IN THE OPINION, IN MY VIEW, DISREGARDS THIS
FUNDAMENTAL FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS AND RELIES ON
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE NO PLACE IN THE SOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
PRESENTED. 

WHAT DID CONGRESS MEAN WHEN IT SAID, IN SEC. 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, THAT "NO EMPLOYER SHALL  ...  EMPLOY ANY OF HIS
EMPLOYEES  ...  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS ...  UNLESS SUCH
EMPLOYEE RECEIVES COMPENSATION" FOR OVERTIME AT A SPECIFIED RATE?  NO
OTHER ISSUE IS PRESENTED. 

THE MATERIALS FOR DECISION ARE THOSE TO WHICH RESORT ALWAYS HAS BEEN
HAD IN ASCERTAINING THE MEANING OF A STATUTE.  THEY ARE THE MISCHIEF TO
BE REMEDIED, THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MISCHIEF, AND
THE MEANS ADOPTED TO PROMOTE THAT PURPOSE.  THESE ARE NOT OBSCURE IN
THIS INSTANCE. 

THE COMMITTE REPORTS UPON THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT  FN1  MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE WAS TO INCREASE
EMPLOYMENT, TO REQUIRE A FAIR DAY'S PAY FOR A FAIR DAY'S WORK BY
RAISING THE WAGES OF THE MOST POORLY PAID WORKERS AND REDUCING THE
HOURS OF THOSE MOST OVERWORKED, AND THUS CORRECT INEQUALITIES IN THE
COST OF PRODUCING GOODS AND PREVENT UNFAIR COMPETITION IN COMMERCE. 
THE REPORTS DISCLOSE NO OTHER PURPOSE.  THE CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND
DECLARATION OF POLICY EMBODIED IN SEC. 2(A)  FN2  EXHIBIT NO INTENT TO
DEAL WITH ANY MATTER OTHER THAN SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS IN INDUSTRY
STEMMING FROM WAGE AND HOUR PRACTICES.  THE ACT WILL BE SEARCHED IN
VAIN FOR A MANDATE RESPECTING ANY SUBJECT OTHER THAN MINIMUM WAGES AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF WORK.  THIS COURT HAS CONSTRUED IT AS DEALING ONLY
WITH THESE SUBJECTS.  FN3 

IN THIS SETTING, THEREFORE, WE ARE TO DETERMINE WHAT CONGRESS MEANT
BY THE TERM "WORKWEEK" WHEN IT PRESCRIBED THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOURS
OF LABOR AN EMPLOYER MIGHT REQUIRE TO BE RENDERED WITHIN ANY WEEK AT
THE STANDARD WAGE.  THE ACT DOES NOT DEFINE "WORKWEEK," FOR THE EVIDENT
REASON THAT CONGRESS BELIEVED IT HAD A CONVENTIONAL MEANING WHICH ALL
WOULD UNDERSTAND AND TO WHICH ALL COULD CONFORM THEIR PRACTICES.  THE
TERM COMBINES TWO WORDS IN COMMON USE.  A WEEK IS ANY PERIOD OF SEVEN
DAYS.  IN ACCEPTED USAGE A MAN'S WORK MEANS THAT WHICH HE DOES FOR HIS
EMPLOYER AS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE WAGE HE RECEIVES.  THE TERM IS
OFTEN USED IN A MORE GENERAL SENSE AS WHEN ONE IS ASKED WHAT HE IS
DOING AND REPLIES "I AM WORKING FOR JONES."  OF COURSE HE DOES NOT MEAN
THAT JONES IS PAYING HIM FOR EACH HOUR OF EVERY WEEK OF HIS LIFE.  MEN
ARE NOT COMMONLY PAID FOR THE TIME THEY SLEEP, THE TIME THEY EAT, OR
THE TIME THEY TAKE TO GO TO, AND RETURN FROM, THEIR EMPLOYER'S
PREMISES.  THUS, ALTHOUGH THE PHRASE "WORK" MAY REFER TO THE CALLING
PURSUED, OR THE IDENTITY OF THE EMPLOYER, IT IS PLAINLY NOT SO USED IN
THIS STATUTE.  ITS COLLOCATION WITH THE WORD "WEEK" AND WITH THE
INJUNCTION AS TO MINIMUM PAY, MAXIMUM HOURS, AND OVERTIME FOR EXTRA
WORK, IN ANY WEEK, SHOWS THAT WHAT CONGRESS MEANT BY WORK WAS WHAT I
HAVE ABOVE DESCRIBED, - THE ACTUAL SERVICE RENDERED TO THE EMPLOYER FOR
WHICH HE PAYS WAGES IN CONFORMITY TO CUSTOM OR AGREEMENT. 

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT WHAT CONSTITUTES WORK FOR WHICH PAYMENT
IS TO BE MADE VARIES WITH CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES IN DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES
OR BUSINESSES.  WHERE THE EMPLOYE IS REQUIRED TO REPORT AT HIS
EMPLOYER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS AND GO THENCE TO THE PLACE WHERE HIS
EMPLOYER'S ACTIVITIES ARE PURSUED, IT HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM IN SOME CASES
TO PAY FOR THE TIME SPENT IN GOING FROM THE EMPLOYER'S PLACE OF
BUSINESS TO THE PLACE OF WORK.  IN MANY INDUSTRIES SOME OR ALL OF THE
EMPLOYES ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT AND TO REMAIN AT A GIVEN PLACE AWAITING
A CALL FOR EMERGENCY OR OTHER CASUAL SERVICE AND, ACCORDING TO
UNDERSTANDING, THEY ARE PAID FOR THE HOURS DURING WHICH THEY WAIT AS
WELL AS THOSE IN WHICH THEY ACTUALLY PUT FORTH PHYSICAL OR MENTAL
EFFORT.  THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT CONGRESS EXPECTED THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO BE FITTED INTO THE PREVAILING PRACTICES AND
UNDERSTANDINGS AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTED WORK IN VARIOUS INDUSTRIES. 

THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OR THE COURTS ARE TO
DEFINE A WORKWEEK IN THE CASE OF EACH EMPLOYER ON SUCH BASIS AS THEY
DEEM RIGHT, REGARDLESS OF THE CUSTOM OF THE INDUSTRY OR OF EXISTING
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYES.  NOR DOES THE ACT VEST
AUTHORITY IN ADMINISTRATOR OR COURT TO DISREGARD AND SUPERSEDE EXISTING
UNDERSTANDINGS AND PRACTICES AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES WORK OR THE
WORKWEEK.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE OR ITS HISTORY
TO SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS INTENDED, WITHOUT MENTIONING IT, TO CONFER ON
THE ADMINISTRATOR OR THE COURTS SO VAST A POWER OVER THE INDUSTRY OF
THE NATION. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE THEN IS:  WHAT WAS THE WORKWEEK OF IRON
MINERS WHEN THE ACT WAS ADOPTED?  IF THE ANSWER IS PLAIN, THEN, I
SUBMIT, THAT EXISTING WORKWEEK MUST CONTROL IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE STATUTE UNLESS AND UNTIL EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYES, BY CONSENSUAL
ARRANGEMENT, ALTER THE CURRENT PRACTICE. 

THE RECORD PRESENTS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE FACTS.  SOME ARE MATTERS OF
PUBLIC NOTORIETY SUSCEPTIBLE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE; OTHERS ARE CONTAINED
IN OFFERS OF EVIDENCE WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT EXCLUDED AS IRRELEVANT;
OTHERS ARE EXPOSED IN THE PROOFS. 

CONDITIONS OF LABOR IN IRON MINES AND IN COAL MINES ARE SIMILAR.  IN
BOTH, AS THE WORKINGS BECOME DEEPER, THE MEN HAVE FARTHER TO GO TO
REACH THE PLACES AT WHICH THEY LABOR.  THE TIME THUS CONSUMED BY
INDIVIDUAL WORKMEN VARIES IN THE SAME MINE, AND IN DIFFERENT MINES. 
THE CONDITIONS IN THE CHANNELS OF APPROACH TO THE PLACES OF WORK ARE
SOMEWHAT BETTER IN IRON MINES THAN IN COAL MINES.  THE CUSTOM IN COAL
MINES IS, THEREFORE, PERSUASIVE, SINCE SOME OF THE PETITIONERS MAINTAIN
COAL AND IRON MINES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, AND SINCE THE PRACTICE IN THE
TWO HAS BEEN THE SAME FOR MANY YEARS. 

IN THE PUBLIC ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AT BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, IN
1903, THE TESTIMONY SHOWED THAT A MINER'S DAY WAS RECKONED "FROM THE
TIME (HE) GETS TO THE FACE OF THE COAL UNTIL HE LEAVES THE FACE OF THE
COAL," AND THAT THE EIGHT HOUR DAY WAS SO MEASURED.  THAT ARBITRATION
RESULTED IN A WAGE AGREEMENT ON THE "FACE TO FACE" BASIS; THAT IS, ON A
WAGE FIXED ACCORDING TO THE TIME THE MINERS WORKED AT THE FACE OF THE
COAL. 

IN 1917 A PUBLIC BOARD OF ARBITRATION, WHOSE AWARD WAS APPROVED BY
THE UNITED STATES FUEL ADMINISTRATOR, FOUND: 

"AN EIGHT HOUR DAY MEANS EIGHT HOURS WORK AT THE USUAL WORKING PLACES
OF ALL CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES.  THIS SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE OF THE TIME
REQUIRED IN REACHING SUCH WORKING PLACES IN THE MORNING AND DEPARTING
FROM THE SAME AT NIGHT." 

IN 1920 THE REPORT AND AWARD OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION, WHICH
WAS MADE THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OPERATORS AND UNION MINERS,
EMPLOYED THE LANGUAGE JUST QUOTED. 

IN 1933 THE CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE BITUMINOUS COAL
INDUSTRY, PROMULGATED BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT, PROVIDED: 

"SEVEN HOURS OF LABOR SHALL CONSTITUTE A DAY'S WORK AND THIS MEANS
SEVEN HOURS WORK AT THE USUAL WORKING PLACES FOR ALL CLASSES OF LABOR,
EXCLUSIVE OF THE LUNCH PERIOD, WHETHER THEY BE PAID ON THE DAY OR THE
TONNAGE OR OTHER PIECEWORK BASIS." 

IN 1933 THE APPALACHIAN AGREEMENT, APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT,
PROVIDED: 

"EIGHT HOURS OF LABOR SHALL CONSTITUTE A DAY'S WORK.  THE EIGHT-HOUR
DAY MEANS EIGHT HOURS' WORK IN THE MINES AT THE USUAL WORKING PLACES
FOR ALL CLASSES OF LABOR, EXCLUSIVE OF THE LUNCH PERIOD." 

PRIOR TO 1938, THE PETITIONER TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & RAILROAD COMPANY
PAID ITS MINERS EITHER ON A PIECEWORK BASIS OR UPON A SHIFT BASIS, AS
DID THE PETITIONERS SLOSS-SHEFFIELD AND REPUBLIC STEEL.  BUT THE COMMON
UNDERSTANDING OF MEN AND MANAGEMENT WAS THAT, AT FIRST, TEN HOURS AND,
LATER, EIGHT HOURS CONSTITUTED A WORKING DAY.  THIS IS SHOWN BY THE
PROOFS AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. 

ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS THE MEN WORKING IN THESE MINES CLAIMED, THROUGH
THEIR UNIONS, THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE PAID FOR TRAVEL TIME CONSUMED IN
THE MINES IN GOING TO OR FROM THE FACE WHERE THEY WORKED.  THEIR
DEMANDS FOR PAY FOR TRAVEL TIME ARE ELOQUENT PROOF THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD
THE BASIS ON WHICH THEIR PAY WAS RECKONED AND THAT IT DID NOT INCLUDE
TRAVEL TIME AS WORKING TIME.  NO AGREEMENT TO PAY FOR TRAVEL TIME WAS
MADE AND NO PRACTICE TO PAY FOR IT WAS ADOPTED. 

IN 1934 TENNESSEE MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION REPRESENTING ITS
EMPLOYEES, WHICH WAS RENEWED IN 1935, AND AGAIN IN 1936.  IT IS
UNDISPUTED THAT ALL OF THESE AGREEMENTS EXCLUDED PAYMENT FOR TRAVEL
TIME.  ON OCTOBER 6, 1938, BEFORE THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS IN
EFFECT, A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFFILIATED WITH THE CIO, AND THE TENNESSEE
COMPANY.  IN THIS AGREEMENT IT WAS PROVIDED: 

"SECTION 4 - HOURS OF WORK.  EIGHT (8) HOURS SHALL CONSTITUTE A DAY'S
WORK AND FORTY (40) HOURS SHALL CONSTITUTE A WEEK'S WORK.  TIME AND ONE
HALF SHALL BE PAID FOR ALL OVERTIME IN EXCESS OF EIGHT (8) HOURS IN ANY
ONE DAY OR FOR ALL OVERTIME IN EXCESS OF FORTY (40) HOURS IN ANY ONE
WEEK. 

"THE EIGHT (8) HOUR DAY MEANS EIGHT HOURS OF WORK IN OR ABOUT THE
MINES AT THE USUAL WORKING PLACES FOR ALL CLASSES OF LABOR, EXCLUSIVE
OF THE LUNCH PERIOD, WHETHER THEY BE PAID BY THE DAY OR BE PAID ON THE
TONNAGE BASIS." 

THIS AGREEMENT REMAINED IN EFFECT UNTIL MAY 5, 1941, WHEN THE
PROVISIONS IN QUESTION WERE ABROGATED PURSUANT TO AN OPINION
PROMULGATED BY THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR AS HEREINAFTER
DESCRIBED. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO SLOSS
SHEFFIELD.  THAT COMPANY HAS BARGAINED WITH A UNION REPRESENTING ITS
MINERS SINCE 1934.  SEVERAL TIMES THE UNION MADE A DEMAND FOR PAYMENT
OF TRAVEL TIME BUT THIS WAS NOT GRANTED.  A FORMAL AGREEMENT CONTAINING
THE SAME DEFINITIONS OF WORKWEEK, AND HOURS OF WORK, AS IN THE CASE OF
TENNESSEE, WAS EXECUTED IN 1939 AND RENEWED IN 1940.  THE COMPANY
CONTINUED TO PAY ON THE FACE TO FACE BASIS UNTIL 1941. 

REPUBLIC STEEL HAS HAD NO FORMAL WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH ITS EMPLOYES,
BUT IT HAS BARGAINED WITH THEIR UNION.  AS EARLY AS 1933 THE UNION
SUGGESTED THAT AN ARRANGEMENT BE MADE WHEREBY THE MEN ENTER THE MINE ON
THEIR OWN TIME AND COME OUT ON COMPANY TIME, BUT THE MATTER WAS NOT
PRESSED.  IT CAME UP AGAIN IN 1934.  AFTER A STRIKE, NEGOTIATIONS
RESULTED IN A RETURN OF THE MEN TO WORK ON THE FACE TO FACE PLAN OF
PAYMENT.  IN 1935 THE UNION PROPOSED THAT THE EMPLOYES SHOULD ENTER ON
THEIR OWN TIME AND COME OUT ON COMPANY TIME, BUT IN NEGOTIATIONS THE
MATTER WAS DROPPED.  IN 1936 THE UNION WROTE THE COMPANY RESPECTING AN
AGREEMENT AND, IN ITS PROPOSAL, SAID:  "THE EIGHT HOUR DAY MEANS EIGHT
HOURS IN OR ABOUT THE MINES, AT THE USUAL WORKING PLACES FOR ALL
CLASSES OF WORK."  IN 1939 THE UNION PROPOSED AN AGREEMENT CONTAINING A
LIKE PROVISION.  IN THAT YEAR THE UNION PREFERRED CHARGES BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BUT THESE DID NOT INVOLVE THE FACE TO
FACE BASIS OF WAGE COMPUTATION.  THE COMPLAINT WAS SETTLED BY
STIPULATION.  THE COMPANY CONTINUED TO PAY FOR A DAY'S WORK ON THE FACE
TO FACE BASIS UNTIL MAY 1, 1941.    THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BECAME
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 24, 1938.  AT THAT TIME COAL AND IRON MINERS WERE
BEING PAID ON THE BASIS OF THEIR TIME SPENT AT THEIR WORKING PLACES IN
THE MINE.  THE MINERS FULLY UNDERSTOOD THIS BASIS. 

ON JULY 9, 1940, THE DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, IN A LETTER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ACT,
REQUESTED THAT HE ACCEPT THE DEFINITION OF WORKING TIME CONTAINED IN
THE APPALACHIAN AGREEMENT, WHICH THE LETTER SAID EMBODIED "THE CUSTOM
AND TRADITIONS OF THE BITUMINOUS MINING INDUSTRY."  THAT DEFINITION WAS
THE SAME AS THAT QUOTED FROM THE TENNESSEE AGREEMENT, SUPRA.  THE
LETTER FURTHER SAID, RESPECTING THE FACE TO FACE METHOD: 

"THIS METHOD OF MEASURING THE WORKING TIME AT THE PLACES OF WORK HAS
BEEN THE STANDARD PROVISION IN THE BASIC WAGE AGREEMENTS FOR ALMOST
FIFTY YEARS AND IS THE RESULT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN ITS COMPLETE
SENSE."  AND FURTHER SAID: 

"AS MINES GROW OLDER, THE WORKING PLACES MOVE FARTHER AND FARTHER
AWAY FROM THE PORTAL OR OPENING OF THE MINE, AND AS SUCH CONDITIONS
DEVELOP, IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR PROVISION TO BE MADE FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF THE MEN OVER LONG DISTANCES TO THEIR WORKING
PLACES."  AND ADDED THAT ADJUSTMENT OF WAGE RATES TO ANY NEW
MEASUREMENT "WOULD CREATE SO MUCH CONFUSION IN THE BITUMINOUS INDUSTRY
AS TO RESULT IN COMPLETE CHAOS, AND WOULD PROBABLY RESULT IN A COMPLETE
STOPPAGE OF WORK AT PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE COAL MINES IN THE UNITED
STATES." 

ON THE FOOTING OF THAT LETTER THE ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED A RELEASE
STATING THAT THE FACE TO FACE BASIS IN THE BITUMINOUS INDUSTRY WOULD
NOT BE UNREASONABLE. 

ON MARCH 23, 1941, THE ADMINISTRATOR ANNOUNCED A MODIFIED PORTAL TO
PORTAL WAGE HOUR OPINION IN WHICH HE DEFINED THE WORKDAY IN UNDERGROUND
METAL MINING AS STARTING WHEN THE MINER REPORTS AT THE COLLAR OF THE
MINE, ENDS WHEN HE RETURNS TO THE COLLAR, AND INCLUDES THE TIME SPENT
ON THE SURFACE IN OBTAINING AND RETURNING LAMPS, CARBIDE, AND TOOLS AND
IN CHECKING IN AND OUT.  REALIZING THAT THIS WAS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF
OPINION, THE ADMINISTRATOR ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD NOT SEEK TO COMPEL
PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION FROM MINE OWNERS OPERATING ON A FACE TO FACE
BASIS BUT THAT HE COULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYES OR
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO SUE FOR PAST OVERTIME AND PENALTIES UNDER SEC.
16(B) OF THE ACT.  THEREUPON THE UNIONS REPRESENTING MINERS DEMANDED
PAYMENT OF OVERTIME FOR ALL TRAVEL TIME SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ACT, AND INVOKED THE PENALTIES SPECIFIED THEREIN. 

IN ORDER TO AVOID POSSIBLE PENALTIES, THE PETITIONERS COMPLIED WITH
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S RULING AND BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT WORKING TIME OF UNDERGROUND
EMPLOYES COMPRISED THE HOURS OF WORK IN THE USUAL WORKING PLACES IN THE
MINE AND DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME CONSUMED IN TRAVEL THERETO AND
THEREFROM. 

AT THE TRIAL MUCH EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN AS TO THE PRACTICE EXISTING IN
IRON MINES LONG PRIOR TO, AND AT THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF, THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THIS WAS GIVEN BY MINERS, FOREMEN, FOREMEN, AND
EMPLOYERS, AND REPRESENTED NOT ANY SINGLE LOCALITY BUT THE INDUSTRY
OVER THE COUNTRY.  IN FACT, SOME OF THE TESTIMONY CONSISTED OF
DEPOSITIONS TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENTS, BUT OFFERED BY THE PETITIONERS. 
IT WAS ALL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE WORKING TIME OF IRON MINERS HAD
ALWAYS BEEN CALCULATED AND PAID FOR ACCORDING TO THE TIME WORKED IN THE
MINE AT THE PLACE ASSIGNED FOR THE WORK AND THAT TRAVEL TIME HAD NEVER
BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TIME FOR WHICH PAYMENT WAS MADE. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE ENTERED TWENTY-NINE FINDINGS OF FACT.  THE FIRST
FOUR ARE FORMAL.  THE FIFTH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT, IN THE HISTORY OF
MINING IN THE BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT, PLAINTIFFS' EMPLOYES HAVE BEEN PAID
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS SPENT AT THE FACE OF THE ORE OR
AT ANY SPECIFIED PLACE OR STATION IN THE MINES, AND ADDS: "THIS
COMPENSATION HAS NEVER BEEN BASED UPON ANY PRECISE NUMBER OF HOURS
SPENT DAILY AT THE FACE OF THE SEAM OR AT ANY SPECIFIED PLACE OR
STATION IN THE MINES."  THE FINDING WOULD SEEM DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN IN
VIEW OF THE HISTORY HERETOFORE OUTLINED.  THE EXPLANATION IS FOUND IN
THE FACT THAT, ALTHOUGH THE MEN WERE PAID FOR AN EIGHT HOUR DAY OF WORK
AT THE FACE, IF BLASTS WERE ABOUT TO BE SET OFF AT THE CLOSE OF THE DAY
THE MEN WERE SENT AWAY FROM THE FACE SOME TIME BEFORE THE BLASTING BUT
WERE, NEVERTHELESS, PAID AS IF THEY HAD REMAINED AT THE FACE FOR THE
FULL EIGHT HOURS.  BUT THIS CAN BE NO REASON FOR DISREGARDING THE
PRACTICES AND AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES. 

FINDINGS 6 TO 12, INCLUSIVE, REFER TO VARIOUS METHODS OF PAYMENT
PRACTICED IN THE PAST AND TO THE CHARACTER OF THE WORK OF MINERS AND
OTHER UNDERGROUND WORKERS.  THEY EVIDENTLY ARE INTENDED TO SHOW THAT,
WHILE AN EIGHT HOUR DAY WAS IN FORCE, THE WAGE WAS NOT CALCULATED AT AN
HOURLY RATE.  OF COURSE, THEY DO NOT CONTRADICT THE FACT THAT FORTY
HOURS CONSTITUTED THE WORKWEEK NOR THE FACT THAT IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT
NO WAGES WERE PAID FOR TIME SPENT IN TRAVEL IN THE MINES. 

FINDING 13 IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE UNIONS WHICH MADE AGREEMENTS
WITH VARIOUS PETITIONERS HAD NEVER BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD AS APPROPRIATE UNITS FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE
BEARING OF THIS FINDING IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IN VIEW OF THE FACT
THAT THE EMPLOYERS DEALT WITH THE UNIONS REPRESENTING THEIR MEN AND TWO
OPERATED UNDER FORMAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WITH NATIONALLY
AFFILIATED UNIONS. 

FINDING 14 BRIEFLY MENTIONS THAT THE MEN HAD SEVERAL TIMES DEMANDED
PAY FOR TRAVEL TIME. 

FINDINGS 15 TO 27, INCLUSIVE, DESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE
MEN ARRIVE AT THE MINE, CHECK IN, OBTAIN THEIR TOOLS, AND WALK, OR ARE
CARRIED, TO THEIR WORK UNDERGROUND AND HOW THEY RETURN.  THEY RECITE
THAT THE MEN HAVE TO OBEY COMPANY REGULATIONS WHILE THEY ARE ON THE
COMPANY PROPERTY AND IN GOING TO AND RETURNING FROM WORK.  MANY OF
THESE REGULATIONS ARE FOR THE MEN'S SAFETY.  THESE FINDINGS ALSO SHOW
THAT, AFTER ARRIVING ON COMPANY PROPERTY, THE MEN RECEIVE CERTAIN
DIRECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE WORK THEY ARE TO DO.  THE OBVIOUS
BEARING OF THESE FINDINGS IS THAT THE COURT THOUGHT TRAVEL OUGHT TO BE
CONSIDERED WORK, WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF THE ACT, WHATEVER THE CUSTOM,
PRACTICE, OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.  IT WOULD BE NO LESS A JUDICIAL
FIAT, THOUGH SOMEWHAT MORE EXTREME, TO HOLD THAT AS THE MEN'S LIVING
QUARTERS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE AND UNHEALTHY AND THEY MUST LIVE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE MINES, THE TIME SPENT IN THEIR HOMES MUST BE PAID
FOR AS WORK. 

THE TWO CONCLUDING FINDINGS ARE OF FACTS WHICH ADD NOTHING.  THEY ARE
TO THE EFFECT THAT, IF ALL THE TRAVEL TIME IS COUNTED IN THE WORKWEEK,
THE MEN HAVE WORKED MORE THAN FORTY HOURS PER WEEK AND THE PETITIONERS
HAVE NOT PAID THEM FOR MORE THAN FORTY HOURS. 

THE OPINION AND CONCURRING OPINION IN THIS COURT RELY HEAVILY ON
THESE FINDINGS, ESPECIALLY AS THEY WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  BUT IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE FINDINGS ARE NOTEWORTHY
FOR THE FEATURE THAT THEY DEAL, EXCEPT IN THE INSTANCE MENTIONED, WHICH
HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED, WITH FACTS WHICH ARE IMMATERIAL TO THE
ISSUES IN THE CASE.  I DO NOT SEE HOW AID TO DECISION CAN BE DERIVED BY
REFUSING TO DISTURB FINDINGS WHICH DO NOT MEET THE ISSUE MADE BY THE
PLEADINGS.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT AVOIDED ANY
FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE EMPLOYERS HAD EVER PAID TRAVEL TIME OR AS TO
THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES THAT THE EMPLOYERS WERE NOT PAYING FOR
SUCH TRAVEL TIME.  AND IT IS EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COURT MADE
NO FINDING WHATEVER ABOUT THE FORMAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
ENTERED INTO BY THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE PETITIONERS IN WHICH BOTH
PARTIES CLEARLY SIGNIFIED THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS WORK IN IRON
MINES.  AND THE COURT COULD NOT, UNDER THE PROOFS IN THIS CASE, HAVE
FOUND THAT THESE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS WERE CONTRARY TO THE
ACCEPTED PRACTICE IN IRON AND COAL MINES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY PRIOR
TO 1941.  THE PETITIONERS OBJECTED THAT THE FINDINGS OMITTED ANY
REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE COMPANIES HAD NEVER PAID FOR TRAVEL
TIME, TO THE FACT THAT THE DAY'S WORK FOR WHICH WAGES WERE PAID DID NOT
INCLUDE TRAVEL TIME TO OR FROM THE PLACE WHERE THEY MINED THE ORE, OR
TO THE NEGOTIATIONS AND AGREEMENTS AS TO WORKING TIME, AND SOUGHT A NEW
TRIAL.  THE OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS WERE OVERRULED. 

RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCE
DISCLOSES NO CUSTOM TO EXCLUDE TRAVEL TIME FROM THE WORKWEEK.  BUT THAT
VERY RELIANCE EXPOSES THE FALLACY OF THE LOWER COURT'S AND THIS COURT'S
POSITION.  UNLESS THE STATUTE GAVE THE COURTS AUTHORITY TO MAKE
CONTRACTS FOR THE PARTIES, WHICH THE STATUTE DID NOT MAKE, A COURT
COULD NOT SUPPORT SUCH A CONTRACT BY FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO CUSTOM
WITH RESPECT TO TRAVEL TIME.  IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR IT TO FIND THAT
THERE WAS A CUSTOM TO PAY FOR SUCH TIME, WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT
FAILED TO DO, FOR THE OBVIOUS REASON THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH
CUSTOM. 

TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD PITCH DECISION ON ACCEPTANCE OF THE FINDINGS OF
THE TRIAL COURT, WHEN THAT COURT NEGLECTED TO FIND FACTS WHICH WERE
HIGHLY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL, IS TO DISREGARD THE REAL AND THE ONLY
ISSUE IN THE CASE. 

AS I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS NOT
INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO TURN INTO WORK THAT WHICH WAS NOT WORK, OR NOT
SO UNDERSTOOD TO BE, AT THE TIME OF ITS PASSAGE.  IT WAS NOT INTENDED
TO PERMIT COURTS TO DESIGNATE AS WORK SOME ACTIVITY OF AN EMPLOYE,
WHICH NEITHER EMPLOYER NOR EMPLOYE HAD EVER REGARDED AS WORK, MERELY
BECAUSE THE COURT THOUGHT THAT SUCH ACTIVITY IMPOSED SUCH HARDSHIP ON
HIM OR INVOLVED CONDITIONS SO DELETERIOUS TO HIS HEALTH OR WELFARE THAT
HE OUGHT TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THEM. 

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ISSUE OF PORTAL TO PORTAL PAY WAS
FIRST NATIONALLY RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MINING INDUSTRY AFTER
THE NATION WAS AT WAR AND IN CONNECTION WITH DISASTROUS COAL STRIKES. 
AND, INDEED, THE INSPIRATION FOR THE DEMAND FOR PORTAL TO PORTAL PAY
WAS FURNISHED BY THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW IN THIS CASE.  THAT
DECISION WAS RENDERED ON MARCH 16, 1943.  THREE DAYS LATER THE NATIONAL
POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS CHANGED ITS DEMANDED
DEFINITION OF HOURS OF LABOR SO THAT EXISTING DEMANDS, WHICH, UNTIL
THEN, HAD BEEN ON THE TRADITIONAL FACE TO FACE BASIS OF PAYMENT, SHOULD
"CONFORM WITH THE BASIC LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRY AND THE
MAXIMUM HOURS OF WORK TIME PROVISIONS BE AMENDED TO ESTABLISH 'PORTAL
TO PORTAL' FOR STARTING AND QUITTING TIME FOR ALL UNDERGROUND
WORKERS."  IN PRESENTING THIS DEMAND IT SAID:  "THE MINE WORKERS DESIRE
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LAW WHICH, UNDER THE ALABAMA DECISION, GRANTS
THEM THE RIGHT TO BE PAID FOR THE TIME THEY ARE IN THE MINES."  THUS IT
IS PLAIN THAT THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW WAS UNDERSTOOD, AS IT MUST BE,
AS A DECLARATION OF LAW BY A COURT AS TO WHAT IS A WORKWEEK UNDER THE
ACT AND NOT A FINDING OF FACT BASED ON THE CUSTOM OF THE INDUSTRY AND
THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.  IN AUGUST CLASS ACTIONS WERE FILED BY
THE UNITED MINE WORKERS IN VARIOUS DISTRICT COURTS TO OBTAIN OVERTIME
COMPENSATION FOR PORTAL TO PORTAL PAY. 

ONE FURTHER FACT SHOULD BE NOTED.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT NOT
ONLY THE TRAVEL TIME FROM AND TO THE MOUTH OF THE MINE SHOULD BE
COUNTED AS WORKING TIME, BUT THAT THE TIME MEN SPENT ON THE SURFACE IN
COLLECTING TOOLS, ETC. SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, ALTHOUGH PROFESSING TO ACCEPT THE FACT FINDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, REVERSED ITS JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO TIME SPENT ON THE
SURFACE, SAYING NO MORE THAN THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WRONG IN
INCLUDING THAT TIME.  THIS IS FURTHER PROOF THAT THE DECISION OF THE
CASE BY BOTH COURTS BELOW TURNS ON THE VIEW OF A COURT AS TO WHAT OUGHT
TO BE CONSIDERED WORK AND WHAT NOT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE UNDERSTANDING
OF THE PARTIES.  SUPPOSE THAT THE PARTIES HAD AGREED THAT TRAVEL TIME
WAS WORKING TIME AND TO BE INCLUDED AND PAID FOR IN THE WORKWEEK? 
WOULD THE COURTS BE AT LIBERTY TO FIND THE CONTRARY AND DEPRIVE
RESPONDENTS OF THE BENEFIT OF THE AGREEMENT?  I THINK NOT. 

I CANNOT BETTER CHARACTERIZE THE RESULT IN THIS CASE THAN BY QUOTING
FROM WHAT JUDGE SIBLEY SAID IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION BELOW:  FN4  "IF
IT WOULD BE BETTER TO INCLUDE TRAVEL TIME IN WORK TIME, IT OUGHT TO BE
DONE BY A NEW BARGAIN IN WHICH RATES OF PAY ARE ALSO REVIEWED.  IF THE
CHANGE IS TO BE BY A SPECIAL STATUTE (SOME WESTERN STATES HAVE SUCH
STATUTES), IT WILL OPERATE JUSTLY IN FUTURO, AND NOT BY UNEXPECTED
PENALTY, AS HERE. 

"THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT TO OUTLAW AGREEMENTS THAT TRAVEL TIME IN
GETTING TO OR FROM THE AGREED PLACE OF WORK IS NOT WORK TIME.  THIS IS
TRUE THOUGH THE EMPLOYER MAY ORGANIZE A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION AND
MAKE RULES FOR ITS USE.  THE AGREEMENTS HERE THAT WORK TIME INCLUDES
ONLY TIME AT THE FACE OF THE ORE BED ARE NOT ILLEGAL.  DIGGING OUT THE
ORE IS WHAT THE MINERS AGREE TO DO, AND FOR THAT THEY ARE PAID. 
GETTING THEIR TOOLS TOGETHER AND RIDING OR WALKING TO THE AGREED PLACE
OF WORK IS NOT, BY FORCE OF ANY LAW, WORK DONE FOR THE MINE OWNER.  NO
ONE, I SUPPOSE, WOULD SAY THAT IF A GROUP OF MINERS WHO HAD SPENT AN
HOUR RIDING TO WORK DECIDED OF THEIR OWN WILL NOT TO DIG ANY ORE AND
SPENT ANOTHER HOUR RIDING BACK, THEY HAD DONE ANY WORK FOR WHICH THEY
SHOULD BE PAID BY FORCE OF THE ACT.           .         .         .
.         . 

"IT IS NOW PROPOSED TO ASSESS AGAINST THESE APPELLANTS AS BACK PAY
FOR OVERTIME AN ESTIMATED QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS, TO BE DOUBLED
BY WAY OF PENALTY, TO COMPENSATE THE MINERS FOR THEIR TIME IN GOING TO
AND FROM THEIR PLACE OF WORK, IN THE FACE OF THEIR AGREEMENTS THAT THIS
TIME WAS NOT IN THEIR WORK TIME.  THEY ARE TO GET THREE TIMES AS MUCH
PER HOUR FOR RIDING AND WALKING TO AND FROM THE WORK THEY WERE HIRED TO
DO, AS THEY GET FOR DOING THE WORK ITSELF.  THE INJUSTICE OF IT TO ME
IS SHOCKING." 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT.    FN1  H.R. 1452, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., 1ST SESS., H.R. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., S.R. 884, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN2  52 STAT. 1060. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 115, 117, 122, 125. 

FN4  135 F.2D 324, 325. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :























SARTOR V. ARKANSAS GAS CORP., 321 U.S. 620 


NO. 232.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1944.  - 134
F.2D 433, REVERSED. 


SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 56 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED DEFENDANT SOLELY UPON OPINION AFFIDAVITS OF
EXPERTS WHO EITHER WERE OFFICERS OF DEFENDANT OR WHOSE INTERESTS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LITIGATION WERE SIMILAR TO THAT OF
DEFENDANT, AND WHO HAD GIVEN LIKE TESTIMONY AT A PREVIOUS TRIAL OF THE
CAUSE WHEREIN A JURY HAD FOUND CONTRARY TO THEIR TESTIMONY.  P. 627. 

SARTOR ET AL. V. ARKANSAS NATURAL GAS CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 727, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT (46
F.SUPP.  111) FOR THE DEFENDANT, UPON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
UNDER RULE 56, IN A SUIT TO RECOVER SUMS CLAIMED TO BE DUE THE
PLAINTIFFS UNDER AN OIL AND GAS LEASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS LITIGATION, BEGUN A DECADE AGO, HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY A SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AND WHETHER RIGHTLY SO IS THE ISSUE.  THE SUIT HAS WEATHERED
FOUR ADJUDICATIONS, INCLUDING TWO TRIALS, IN DISTRICT COURT AND FOUR
DECISIONS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  FN1  WE WILL RECITE ONLY SUCH OF
ITS HISTORY AS BEARS ON THE ISSUES AS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SINCE WE
CONSIDER NO OTHER QUESTION. 

SARTORS ARE LANDOWNERS IN RICHLAND PARISH, LOUISIANA, WHO IN MARCH OF
1927 LEASED THEIR LANDS FOR NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT.  THE LEASE, SO FAR
AS HERE IMPORTANT, PROVIDES THAT "  ...  THE GRANTOR SHALL BE PAID ONE
EIGHTH (1/8) OF THE VALUE OF SUCH GAS CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF MARKET
PRICE AND NO LESS THAN THREE CENTS PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET, CORRECTED
TO TWO POUNDS ABOVE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE ... " FOR MANY YEARS THE
LESSEE MADE SETTLEMENT AT THE 3[ RATE.  THE SUIT WAS BASED UPON THE
CONTENTION THAT DURING ALL OF THE YEARS FROM 1927 TO 1932 INCLUSIVE
SUCH MARKET PRICE WAS CONSIDERABLY ABOVE 3[.  AT THE LAST TRIAL THE
COURT HELD THAT THE CLAIMS FOR GAS PRODUCED PRIOR TO THE 20TH OF MARCH,
1930 WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR, AS IT IS CALLED IN
LOUISIANA, BY PRESCRIPTION.  THE ISSUES AS TO GAS PRODUCED BETWEEN
MARCH 20, 1930 AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION WERE SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY, WHICH RETURNED A VERDICT:  "WE, THE JURY, FIND FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
THAT THE AVERAGE PRICE OF GAS AT THE WELL IN RICHLAND PARISH,
LOUISIANA, FIELD DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING MARCH 20, 1930, AND ENDING
MARCH 20, 1933, TO BE .0445 PER 1,000 CU. FT. AT 8 OZ. PRESSURE."  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED "SO FAR AS THE VERDICT OF THE JURY
FIXED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE GAS UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER ROYALTIES."  HOWEVER, IT REVERSED THE RULING THAT PART OF
PETITIONER'S CLAIMS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND
REMANDED THE CASE FOR TRIAL OF THE SAME ISSUES AS TO MARKET PRICE OF
GAS PRODUCED PRIOR TO MARCH 20, 1930.  THE RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT THEN
FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 56.  THE MOTION WAS
GRANTED AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN2  THE IMPORTANCE OF
QUESTIONS RAISED UNDER THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULE LED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI.  FN3 

THE CONTROVERSY, BOTH AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION AND,
IF SO, IN WHAT AMOUNT, TURNS ON WHETHER THE "RATE OF MARKET PRICE"
DURING THIS PERIOD BEFORE MARCH 20, 1930 WAS ABOVE 3[ PER M.C.F., AS IT
IS CONCLUSIVELY ADJUDGED IN THIS CASE TO HAVE BEEN THEREAFTER.  IT IS
HELD IN LOUISIANA THAT THE MARKET PRICE UNDER SUCH LEASES IS TO BE
ASCERTAINED AT THE WELLHEAD, IF THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED MARKET PRICE AT
THAT POINT.  UNFORTUNATELY, THIS RULE REQUIRES THAT THE PRICE FOR
ROYALTY PURPOSES BE ASCERTAINED AT A PLACE AND TIME AT WHICH FEW
COMMERCIAL SALES OF GAS OCCUR.  THE LESSEES WHO MARKET THIS ROYALTY GAS
ALONG WITH THEIR OWN PRODUCTION DO NOT CUSTOMARILY MAKE THEIR
DELIVERIES AT THE WELLHEAD BUT TRANSMIT GAS FROM THE SEVERAL WELLS SOME
DISTANCE IN GATHERING LINES, TURNING IT OVER TO LARGER BUYERS AT POINTS
SOMEWHAT REMOVED, AND UNDER CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY DIFFERENT FROM
WELLHEAD DELIVERIES.  THE PRICE PRODUCERS RECEIVE AT THESE DELIVERY
STATIONS OFTEN IS SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE 3[ PRICE TO THE LANDOWNER. 
THE PRACTICE OF FIXING THE PRICE OF LANDOWNER'S ROYALTY GAS AT ONE TIME
AND PLACE AND OF MARKETING HIS GAS FOR A DIFFERENT PRICE AT ANOTHER
DELIVERY POINT RAISES THE DISSATISFACTION AND PROBLEMS WHICH PRODUCE
THIS CASE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, CORRECTLY WE THINK, FOLLOWED THE LOUISIANA
SUBSTANTIVE RULE THAT THE INQUIRY IN A CASE OF THIS KIND SHALL
DETERMINE (1) THE MARKET PRICE AT THE WELL, OR (2) IF THERE IS NO
MARKET PRICE AT THE WELL FOR THE GAS, WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY WORTH THERE,
AND "IN DETERMINING THIS ACTUAL VALUE  ...  EVERY FACTOR PROPERLY
BEARING UPON ITS ESTABLISHMENT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 
INCLUDED IN THESE ARE THE FIXED ROYALTIES OBTAINING IN THE LEASES IN
THE FIELD CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DATES, THE PRICES
PAID UNDER THE PIPE-LINE CONTRACTS, AND WHAT ELEMENTS, BESIDES THE
VALUE AS SUCH OF THE GAS, WERE INCLUDED IN THOSE PRICES, THE CONDITIONS
EXISTING WHEN THEY WERE MADE, AND ANY CHANGES OF CONDITIONS, THE END
AND AIM OF THE WHOLE INQUIRY, WHERE THERE WAS NO MARKET PRICE AT THE
WELL, BEING TO ASCERTAIN, UPON A FAIR CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT
FACTORS, THE FAIR VALUE AT THE WELL OF THE GAS PRODUCED AND SOLD BY
DEFENDANT."  FN4 

THE DEFENDANT ASKED A SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT AVERRED "THERE
EXISTS NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR DISPUTE" THAT DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION THERE WAS A MARKET PRICE AT THE WELLS AND THAT IT DID NOT
EXCEED 3[ PER M.C.F.  TO SUSTAIN THIS POSITION IT FILED AFFIDAVITS, A
STIPULATION OF FACTS, AND SEVERAL EXHIBITS.  THE PLAINTIFFS RESISTED ON
THE GROUND THAT THE MOTION WAS INADEQUATELY SUPPORTED ON THE FACE OF
DEFENDANT'S PAPERS.  AN AFFIDAVIT BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL ANALYZED
DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVITS IN THE LIGHT OF TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE WITNESSES
AT PRIOR TRIALS; ASSERTED THAT ALL WERE INTERESTED WITNESSES WHOSE
TESTIMONY WAS REJECTED ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS; RECITED PREVIOUS VERDICTS
IN THE CASE; AND SETTING FORTH AFFIANT'S EXPERIENCE IN TEN TRIALS OF
THIS CHARACTER ARISING OUT OF LEASES IN THIS FIELD, ASSERTED HIS
KNOWLEDGE OF THE MARKET PRICES THERE AND DECLARED IT TO BE MORE THAN 5[
PER M.C.F. AT THE WELLHEAD. 

IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY HERE TURNS ON
QUESTIONS OF VALUATION.  THE ONLY ISSUE RELATES TO MARKET PRICE OR
VALUE OF PLAINTIFFS' GAS AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF DELIVERY.  IF THERE
HAS BEEN NO DAMAGE IN THE SENSE OF FAILURE TO PAY THE FULL MARKET
PRICE, THEN THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION, AND IF THERE HAS BEEN DAMAGE
IN SUCH SENSE, THERE IS A CAUSE OF ACTION. 

THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULE PROVIDES THAT "THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT SHALL BE
RENDERED FORTHWITH IF THE PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS, AND ADMISSIONS ON
FILE, TOGETHER WITH THE AFFIDAVITS, IF ANY, SHOW THAT, EXCEPT AS TO THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES, THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT
AND THAT THE MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
LAW."  WHERE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS LEAVE THE EXISTENCE OF A CAUSE OF
ACTION DEPENDING ON QUESTIONS OF DAMAGE WHICH THE RULE HAS RESERVED
FROM THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCESS, IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER SUMMARY
JUDGMENT IS WARRANTED ON ANY SHOWING.  BUT AT LEAST A SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF ISSUES OF DAMAGE SHOULD BE ON EVIDENCE WHICH A JURY
WOULD NOT BE AT LIBERTY TO DISBELIEVE AND WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A
DIRECTED VERDICT FOR THE MOVING PARTY. 

THE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO ESTABLISH THE ABSENCE OF A TRIABLE ISSUE
BY THE AFFIDAVITS OF EIGHT PERSONS.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE CASE THAT THE WITNESSES OFFERED ADMISSIBLE OPINION EVIDENCE
WHICH, IF IT MAY BE GIVEN CONCLUSIVE EFFECT, WOULD SUSTAIN THE MOTION. 
IT WILL SERVE NO PURPOSE TO REVIEW IT IN DETAIL, AND WE RECITE ONLY THE
FACTS WHICH MADE IT INCONCLUSIVE.  AFFIANT HARRIS WAS THE VICE
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE DEFENDANT, CLEARLY AN INTERESTED
WITNESS.  HUNTER WAS A LESSEE AND THE PRODUCER OF GAS WITH INTERESTS
APPARENTLY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE DEFENDANT.  HARGROVE WAS VICE
PRESIDENT OF A GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, OWNING LEASES AND PRODUCING GAS,
WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY BY AFFIDAVIT AVERS IS DEFENDING ON
SIMILAR CASES BROUGHT BY THESE PLAINTIFFS AND OTHERS.  FLORSHEIM IS AN
EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF TWO GAS PRODUCING COMPANIES WITH SIMILAR INTERESTS
TO THE DEFENDANT, AND HE AVERS THAT THE PRICE IN THE RICHLAND FIELD WAS
NEVER IN EXCESS OF 3[, ALTHOUGH IN THIS VERY CASE IT IS ADJUDGED AT ONE
TIME TO HAVE BEEN MORE.  STOKES IS THE CHIEF CLERK OF A PRODUCING
COMPANY AND RECITES THAT THE RECORDS OF HIS COMPANY SHOW THAT "AFTER
DEDUCTING FROM THE GROSS PRICE REALIZED BY THESE VARIOUS CORPORATIONS
FOR GAS PRODUCED FROM THE RICHLAND GAS FIELD DURING THE PERIOD 1928
1930 INCLUSIVE, THE ACTUAL AVERAGE UNIT COST OF GATHERING AND
DELIVERING THE AFORESAID GAS, THE NET REALIZATION OF THOSE CORPORATIONS
FROM THE SALE OF GAS DURING AFORESAID PERIOD DID NOT EXCEED 3[ PER
M.C.F."  WAIVING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONTENTS OF WRITTEN RECORDS
CAN THUS BE PROVED, IT WOULD HARDLY SEEM THAT A CONCLUSION BASED ON SO
COMPLICATED AND INDEFINITE A CALCULATION, SHOULD BE ACCEPTED FROM AN
EMPLOYEE OF A CORPORATION WITH AN INTEREST IN THE MARKET PRICE OF GAS
SIMILAR TO THE DEFENDANT'S WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE. 
FEAZEL IS ANOTHER PRODUCER OF OIL AND GAS FROM MANY LEASES, WHO AVERS
THAT THE PRICE PAID NEVER EXCEEDED 3[, NOTWITHSTANDING THE JURY
VERDICTS.  MCHENRY IS A LAWYER AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF A COMPANY
OPERATING GAS PROPERTIES WITH INTERESTS SIMILAR TO THE DEFENDANT'S.
TAYLOR IS AN OFFICER OF A SIMILAR PRODUCING COMPANY. 

APART FROM THESE, AND CONTRACTS AND LEASES USEFUL ONLY IN CONNECTION
WITH THE TESTIMONY OF THESE WITNESSES, DEFENDANT OFFERED A BULLETIN OF
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF MINES, WHICH INCLUDED A TABLE SHOWING THE
ESTIMATED VALUE AT THE WELLS OF GAS PRODUCED IN LOUISIANA TO BE 3[ PER
M.C.F. IN 1927 AND 3.3[ IN 1928.  IN SO FAR AS STATE-WIDE STATISTICS
COULD HAVE ANY VALUE IN PROVING THE LOCAL MARKET, THIS WOULD SEEM TO
SUSTAIN THE PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTION THAT THE PRICE WAS OVER 3[.
DEFENDANT ALSO RELIED ON A STIPULATION OF FACTS.  THIS STIPULATION
RECITED A NUMBER OF CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF GAS UNDER VARIOUS
CONDITIONS, AT VARIOUS PRICES, SOME CONSIDERABLY IN EXCESS OF 3[.  IT
ALSO SHOWED THE COST OF DELIVERY FROM THE WELLS TO THE POINT WHERE
THESE SALES WERE MADE TO BE 0.3[ PER M.C.F.  MUCH OF THE CONTROVERSY,
AS WILL BE SEEN FROM THE PRIOR HISTORY OF THE CASE,  FN5  IS OVER THE
QUESTION WHETHER THESE CONTRACT PRICES MAY BE USED IN AID OF THE
PLAINTIFFS' CASE.  DEFENDANT USES THESE CONTRACTS ONLY TO EXPLAIN THEIR
PRICES AWAY BY SHOWING DIFFERENCES IN MARKET CONDITIONS.  THEY DO NOT
ESTABLISH THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A WELLHEAD MARKET PRICE.  THE
STIPULATION ALSO RECITES THAT ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THE LEASES IN THIS
AREA SPECIFY THE ROYALTY IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TERMS AS THE LEASE
IN SUIT, THE REST PROVIDING FOR A FIXED ROYALTY OF 3[ PER M.C.F.  ABOUT
90 PER CENT OF THE PAYMENTS TO BE BASED ON MARKET PRICE HAVE BEEN MADE
ON THE BASIS OF 3[, AND THE REMAINING 10 PER CENT AT 4[ PER M.C.F.  WE
CERTAINLY CANNOT RULE AS MATTER OF LAW THAT THE 4[ PRICE PAID FOR 10
PER CENT OF SUCH ROYALTY GAS IS NOT A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED BY A FACT
FINDING TRIBUNAL IN FIXING THE MARKET VALUE, AND IS, OR MAY BE, SOME
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS. 

TO SUMMARIZE THE FEATURES OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION PAPERS: 

1.  THE ONLY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S CONTENTION AS TO THE
WELLHEAD MARKET PRICE IS OPINION TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS. 

2.  EACH OF THEM EITHER IS AN OFFICER OF THE DEFENDANT OR IS A
LESSEE, OR IS AN EMPLOYEE OR OFFICER OF A LESSEE CORPORATION, ENGAGED
LIKE DEFENDANT IN GAS PRODUCTION, AND EACH CERTAINLY IS OPEN TO INQUIRY
AS TO THE TRUTH OF PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY'S SWORN STATEMENTS THAT EACH
HAS INTEREST IN OR BIAS AS TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS LITIGATION. 

3.  EVERY ONE OF DEFENDANT'S WITNESSES HAD TESTIFIED TO THE SAME
GENERAL EFFECT ON THE TRIAL OF THE CLAIM WHEREIN THE JURY FOUND AGAINST
THE TESTIMONY AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE VERDICT. 

4.  DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK BY ITS MOTION TO SHOW THAT IT WAS BEYOND
CONTROVERSY THAT THE 3[ PRICE PREVAILED CONSTANTLY AND NOT AS A MATTER
OF AVERAGES FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 19, 1930, ALTHOUGH PRIOR
TRIAL HAD CONCLUSIVELY ADJUDGED THAT ON MARCH 20, 1930 AND THEREAFTER
THE PRICE OR VALUE AVERAGED 4.45[ AS RECITED IN THE JURY VERDICT.  NO
EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED OF ANY SUDDEN CHANGE, AND NO FACT IS OFFERED TO
EXPLAIN ANY CHANGE IN THE MARKET AND PRICE OF SUCH GAS.  IN FACT ANY
CHANGE IS INCONSISTENT WITH DEFENDANTS' POSITION IN THE FORMER TRIAL,
WHICH WAS THAT AT NO TIME IN EITHER PERIOD HAD THE MARKET EXCEEDED 3[. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW HERETOFORE HAS CORRECTLY NOTED THAT RULE
56 AUTHORIZES SUMMARY JUDGMENT ONLY WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED
TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHERE IT IS QUITE CLEAR WHAT THE TRUTH
IS, THAT NO GENUINE ISSUE REMAINS FOR TRIAL, AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF
THE RULE IS NOT TO CUT LITIGANTS OFF FROM THEIR RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY
IF THEY REALLY HAVE ISSUES TO TRY.  AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. V. GENTILE
BROTHERS CO., 109 F.2D 732; WHITAKER V. COLEMAN, 115 F.2D 305.  IN THE
VERY PROPER ENDEAVOR TO TERMINATE A LITIGATION BEFORE IT FOR THE FOURTH
TIME, WE THINK IT OVERLOOKED CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MAKE THE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AN INAPPROPRIATE MEANS TO THAT VERY DESIRABLE END. 

IN CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE VALUE OF
GAS LEASES, THIS COURT THROUGH MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO HAS SAID:  "IF THEY
HAVE ANY PROBATIVE EFFECT, IT IS THAT OF EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION BY MEN
FAMILIAR WITH THE GAS BUSINESS AND ITS OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFIT.  BUT
PLAINLY OPINIONS THUS OFFERED, EVEN IF ENTITLED TO SOME WEIGHT, HAVE NO
SUCH CONCLUSIVE FORCE THAT THERE IS ERROR OF LAW IN REFUSING TO FOLLOW
THEM.  THIS IS TRUE OF OPINION EVIDENCE GENERALLY, WHETHER ADDRESSED TO
A JURY OR TO A JUDGE OR TO A STATUTORY BOARD."  DAYTON POWER & LIGHT
CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 292 U.S. 290, 299.  CF. HALLIDAY V.
UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 94, 97; FORSYTH V. DOOLITTLE, 120 U.S. 73, 77;
MCGOWAN V. AMERICAN PRESSED TAN BARK CO., 121 U.S. 575, 609; QUOCK TING
V. UNITED STATES, 140 U.S. 417, 420; HEAD V. HARGRAVE, 105 U.S. 45, 50;
UNION INSURANCE CO. V. SMITH, 124 U.S. 405, 423.  THE RULE HAS BEEN
STATED "THAT IF THE COURT ADMITS THE TESTIMONY, THEN IT IS FOR THE JURY
TO DECIDE WHETHER ANY, AND IF ANY WHAT, WEIGHT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE
TESTIMONY."  SPRING CO. V. EDGAR, 99 U.S. 645, 658.  "  ...  THE JURY,
EVEN IF SUCH TESTIMONY BE UNCONTRADICTED, MAY EXERCISE THEIR
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT."  THE CONQUEROR, 166 U.S. 110, 131.  "  ...  THE
MERE FACT THAT THE WITNESS IS INTERESTED IN THE RESULT OF THE SUIT IS
DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS TESTIMONY TO BE
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS A QUESTION OF FACT."  SONNENTHEIL V. CHRISTIAN
MOERLEIN BREWING CO., 172 U.S. 401, 408. 

THIS COURT HAS SAID:  "THE JURY WERE THE JUDGES OF THE CREDIBILITY OF
THE WITNESSES  ...  AND IN WEIGHING THEIR TESTIMONY HAD THE RIGHT TO
DETERMINE HOW MUCH DEPENDENCE WAS TO BE PLACED UPON IT. THERE ARE MANY
THINGS SOMETIMES IN THE CONDUCT OF A WITNESS UPON THE STAND, AND
SOMETIMES IN THE MODE IN WHICH HIS ANSWERS ARE DRAWN FROM HIM THROUGH
THE QUESTIONING OF COUNSEL, BY WHICH A JURY ARE TO BE GUIDED IN
DETERMINING THE WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY OF HIS TESTIMONY.  THAT PART OF
EVERY CASE, SUCH AS THE ONE AT BAR, BELONGS TO THE JURY, WHO ARE
PRESUMED TO BE FITTED FOR IT BY THEIR NATURAL INTELLIGENCE AND THEIR
PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE OF MEN AND THE WAYS OF MEN; AND SO LONG AS WE HAVE
JURY TRIALS THEY SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED IN THEIR POSSESSION OF IT,
EXCEPT IN A CASE OF MANIFEST AND EXTREME ABUSE OF THEIR FUNCTION." 
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. WARD, 140 U.S. 76, 88. 

WE THINK THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT
AS MATTER OF LAW.  IN THE STIPULATION, THE BULLETIN, THE AFFIDAVIT OF
THE PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEY AND THE ADMISSION OF ITS WITNESSES, THERE IS
SOME, ALTHOUGH FAR FROM CONCLUSIVE, EVIDENCE OF A MARKET PRICE OR A
VALUE, UNDER THE RULES LAID DOWN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THAT SUPPORTS
PLAINTIFFS' CASE.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD
BE FOUND ON A TRIAL TO BE WITH DEFENDANT.  BUT IT MAY NOT WITHDRAW
THESE WITNESSES FROM CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE BEST METHOD YET DEVISED FOR
TESTING TRUSTWORTHINESS OF TESTIMONY.  AND THEIR CREDIBILITY AND THE
WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THEIR OPINIONS IS TO BE DETERMINED, AFTER TRIAL,
IN THE REGULAR MANNER.  THE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY IS REVERSED. 

FN1  ARKANSAS NATURAL GAS CORP. V. SARTOR, 78 F.2D 924; ARKANSAS
NATURAL GAS CORP. V. SARTOR, 98 F.2D 527; SARTOR V. ARKANSAS NATURAL
GAS CORP., 111 F.2D 772; SARTOR V. ARKANSAS NATURAL GAS CORP., 134 F.2D
433. 

FN2  134 F.2D 433. 

FN3  320 U.S. 727. 

FN4  134 F.2D 433, 434-35. 

FN5  SEE ARKANSAS NATURAL GAS CORP. V. SARTOR, 78 F.2D 924(APPEAL
AFTER FIRST TRIAL); SARTOR V. ARKANSAS NATURAL GAS CORP., 134 F.2D
433(DECISION BELOW); CF. SARTOR V. UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 84
F.2D 436; SARTOR V. UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 186 LA. 555, 173 SO.
103; PARDUE V. UNION PRODUCING CO., 117 F.2D 225; DRISKELL V. UNION
PRODUCING CO., 117 F.2D 229; HEMLER V. HOPE PRODUCING CO., 117 F.2D
231. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE TWO COURTS BELOW HAVE CORRECTLY APPLIED THE
STATE LAW GOVERNING THE RIGHT TO RECOVER ROYALTIES ON THE PARTICULAR
TYPE OF GAS LEASE HERE IN QUESTION.  BY THAT LAW, IN ORDER TO RECOVER
FURTHER ROYALTY PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE 3 CENTS PER 1,000 CUBIC FEET
OF GAS, WHICH PETITIONERS HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED, THEY MUST SUSTAIN THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE MARKET PRICE OR
VALUE OF THE GAS AT THE WELLHEAD EXCEEDED 3 CENTS.  BY LOUISIANA LAW
ALSO AND UPON PRINCIPLES OF PROOF WHICH IT IS ALSO NOT DENIED THAT THE
COURTS BELOW CORRECTLY APPLIED, THE "PIPE LINE" PRICE OF GAS, WITHOUT
QUALIFICATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROOF WHOLLY LACKING IN THIS CASE, IS
NOT EVIDENCE OF MARKET PRICE OR VALUE AT THE WELLHEAD.  CONSEQUENTLY,
ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE SINGLE ISSUE WAS WHETHER
PETITIONERS HAD ANY EVIDENCE BY WHICH THEY COULD SUSTAIN THE BURDEN
RESTING ON THEM OF SHOWING THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THERE WAS A
MARKET PRICE OR VALUE OF GAS IN EXCESS OF 3 CENTS AT THE WELLHEAD. 

TRUE, RULE 56(C) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EXCLUDES FROM THE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE ANY ISSUE AS TO THE "AMOUNT OF DAMAGES,"
WHERE THERE IS AN ADMITTED RIGHT OF RECOVERY BUT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
IS IN DISPUTE.  BUT THE RULE DOES NOT EXCLUDE FROM THAT PROCEDURE THE
ISSUE OF DAMAGE VEL NON WHEN THAT IS DECISIVE OF THE RIGHT TO RECOVER. 
THIS IS MADE PLAIN BY SUBDIVISION (D) OF RULE 56, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DECLARES THAT THE ORDER SHALL SPECIFY THE
"FACTS THAT APPEAR WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, INCLUDING THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF IS NOT IN
CONTROVERSY."  OBVIOUSLY, IF IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF
DAMAGE, THE "AMOUNT OF DAMAGES" IS NOT IN CONTROVERSY AND THE COURT IS
NOT PRECLUDED FROM GIVING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT. 

ON THE SINGLE ISSUE HERE PRESENTED, WHETHER PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO
RECOVER CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A SHOWING OF MARKET PRICE OR VALUE OF THE
GAS AT THE WELLHEAD, IN EXCESS OF 3 CENTS, RESPONDENT'S AFFIDAVITS AND
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND A STIPULATION OF FACTS SHOW THAT ALL SUCH
SALES OF GAS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD WERE AT 3 CENTS OR LESS.  THE
AFFIDAVITS ALSO SHOWED BY OPINION EVIDENCE OF QUALIFIED EXPERTS, THE
DISINTERESTEDNESS OF SOME OF WHOM IS NOT, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, OPEN
TO CHALLENGE, THAT THE MARKET PRICE AND VALUE OF THE GAS AT THE
WELLHEAD DID NOT EXCEED 3 CENTS.  TO MEET THE PRIMA FACIE CASE THUS
MADE OUT BY RESPONDENT'S PAPERS, PETITIONERS TENDERED ONLY PROOF OF
PIPE-LINE PRICES, EACH OF WHICH THE STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS HAD HELD IN
EARLIER CASES TO BE NO EVIDENCE OF MARKET PRICE OR VALUE OF THE GAS AT
THE WELLHEAD.  SEE SARTOR V. UNITED GAS CO., 186 LA. 555, 559-569,  FN1
AND CASES CITED. 

IT IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE NOW PRESENTED THAT AS TO A LATER
PERIOD, AS THE FIELD MORE NEARLY APPROACHED EXHAUSTION, A JURY HAD
RETURNED A VERDICT SUSTAINED BY THE COURT BELOW, BY WHICH IT WAS FOUND
THAT THE AVERAGE MARKET PRICE OR VALUE AT THE WELLHEAD WAS IN EXCESS OF
3 CENTS.  SINCE THIS WAS THE AVERAGE FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD, IT DOES
NOT INDICATE ANY SUDDEN ADVANCE IN PRICE, AND IS WITHOUT PROBATIVE
FORCE TO SHOW A MARKET PRICE OR VALUE IN EXCESS OF 3 CENTS DURING THE
EARLIER PERIOD HERE IN ISSUE FOR WHICH PETITIONERS HAVE TENDERED NO
PROBATIVE EVIDENCE OF A HIGHER PRICE. 

NOR IS IT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A GENUINE ISSUE HERE THAT IT APPEARS
WITH RESPECT TO 3 1/3% OF THE APPROXIMATELY 900 LEASES IN THE GAS
FIELD, THAT SETTLEMENTS WERE MADE FOR ROYALTIES OF 4 CENTS. 
RESPONDENT'S MOTION PAPERS SHOW, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT THESE
SETTLEMENTS "IN ALMOST EVERY CASE" WERE COMPROMISES OF DISPUTES AS TO
WHETHER THE LEASE IN QUESTION HAD BEEN PROPERLY DEVELOPED, WHETHER THE
LESSOR WAS ENTITLED TO A FURTHER ROYALTY ON GASOLINE RECOVERED FROM THE
GAS, OR WHETHER THE LESSEE OR LESSOR SHOULD BEAR THE BURDEN OF A LOCAL
SEVERANCE TAX.  SUCH COMPROMISES OF ISSUES NOT PRESENT HERE FURNISH NO
INDICATION OF THE MARKET PRICE OR VALUE AT THE WELLHEAD, WHICH ALONE IS
THE ISSUE DECISIVE OF THIS CASE. 

FURTHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT IS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE
OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE TO SAY THAT RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE IT IS SUPPORTED IN PART BY
AFFIDAVITS OF INTERESTED EXPERT WITNESSES WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS
EXAMINATION BY THE PLAINTIFFS.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION OF THE RULE CAN
HARDLY BE INVOKED IN BEHALF OF PETITIONERS HERE, WHO TENDER NO
PROBATIVE EVIDENCE TO CHALLENGE EITHER THE PROOF OF ACTUAL SALES AT
WELLHEAD AT 3 CENTS OR LESS OR THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERTS, AND WHO
HAVE NOT SOUGHT TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE PRIVILEGE AFFORDED BY RULE
56(E) AND (F) TO TAKE THE EXPERTS' DEPOSITIONS OR TO OFFER THE CROSS
EXAMINATION OF THESE WITNESSES AT THE FORMER TRIALS OF THIS ACTION. 
THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE SERVES TOO USEFUL A FUNCTION IN
TERMINATING GROUNDLESS LITIGATION TO WARRANT ITS LIMITATION IN A WAY
WHICH RULE 56 DOES NOT ADMIT AND ON GROUNDS SO INSUBSTANTIAL. 

ON THIS STATE OF THE RECORD BOTH COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD THAT THE
ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONERS HAVE ANY PROOF TENDING TO SUPPORT THE BURDEN
WHICH RESTS ON THEM TO SHOW MARKET PRICE OR VALUE AT THE WELLHEAD IN
EXCESS OF 3 CENTS, MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST THEM.  I THINK THAT THE
COURTS' CONCLUSION IS CORRECT; THAT THEY PROPERLY APPLIED THE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT PROCEDURE, AND THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS SUIT, BROUGHT BY THE PRESENT PETITIONERS, TURNED ON
PRECISELY THE ISSUE HERE LITIGATED - THE MARKET PRICE OF GAS AT THE
WELLHEAD IN THE RICHLAND FIELD.  THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT SAID THAT
THE DEFENDANT LESSEE IN THAT CASE "PROVED CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE MARKET
PRICE IN THESE FIELDS DOES NOT EXCEED 3 CENTS PER THOUSAND CUBIC
FEET."  186 LA. 555, 569. 

MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :












JOHNSON V. YELLOW CAB CO., 321 U.S. 383 


NO. 447.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 7, 1944.  - DECIDED MARCH 13, 1944.  - 137
F.2D 274, AFFIRMED. 


INTOXICATING LIQUORS IN TRANSIT FROM A CONSIGNOR IN ILLINOIS TO A
CONSIGNEE AT FORT SILL MILITARY RESERVATION WERE SEIZED IN OKLAHOMA BY
STATE OFFICERS.  THE CARRIER INSTITUTED A PROCEEDING IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE RETURN OF THE LIQUORS AND TO RESTRAIN FURTHER
INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR TRANSPORTATION TO DESTINATION.  HELD: 

1.  THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE LIQUORS THROUGH OKLAHOMA VIOLATED NO
LAW OF THAT STATE AND THE SEIZURE WAS ILLEGAL.  P. 386. 

2.  UPON THE FACTS, THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF THE LIQUORS WERE NOT
IN VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1350.  P. 388. 

3.  APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE IS NOT
DECIDED.  P. 390. 

4.  UPON THE RECORD, THE CARRIER, WHICH HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH, WAS
NOT BARRED BY THE "CLEAN HANDS" DOCTRINE AND WAS ENTITLED IN THIS
PROCEEDING TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  PP. 387, 392. 

JOHNSON ET AL. V. YELLOW CAB TRANSIT CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 731, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF
INJUNCTION, 48 F.SUPP.  594. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE OFFICIALS OF OKLAHOMA STATE AND OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CONCERNED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF OKLAHOMA'S LIQUOR LAWS.  RESPONDENT IS A
COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE AUTHORIZED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION TO TRANSPORT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE VARIOUS COMMODITIES,
INCLUDING WINES AND LIQUORS.  SEE U.S.C. TITLE 49, C. 8.  IN REGULAR
COURSE OF BUSINESS THE RESPONDENT-CARRIER UNDERTOOK TO TRANSPORT 225
CASES OF WINES AND LIQUORS FROM EAST ST. LOUIS, ILLINOIS, THROUGH
MISSOURI, INTO OKLAHOMA AND THENCE TO A CONSIGNEE AT FORT SILL, A
MILITARY RESERVATION WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF OKLAHOMA.  WHILE THE
VEHICLE CARRYING THE LIQUORS WAS MOMENTARILY STOPPED AT OKLAHOMA CITY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOADING AND UNLOADING OTHER FREIGHT, THE PETITIONER
OFFICIALS FORCIBLY SEIZED AND TOOK AWAY THE LIQUORS. 

THE CARRIER FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ALLEGING
THAT THE SEIZURE CONSTITUTED AN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH ITS
AUTHORIZED INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, AND PRAYING THAT THE COURT ORDER
THE OFFICIALS TO RETURN THE LIQUORS SO THAT IT MIGHT DELIVER THEM TO
THE CONSIGNEE AT FORT SILL.  THE ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, IN SUBSTANCE,
ADMITTED THE MATERIAL FACTS RELATIVE TO THE SHIPMENT AND SEIZURE OF THE
LIQUORS BUT DENIED THE ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT THAT THE SEIZURE WAS
UNLAWFUL.  THE ANSWER DID NOT ALLEGE THAT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
CONCERNING THE SEIZED LIQUOR WERE PENDING, OR WERE TO BE COMMENCED, IN
AN OKLAHOMA STATE COURT.  AFTER A TRIAL ON STIPULATED FACTS, THE
DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THE LIQUORS RETURNED TO THE CARRIER AND FORBADE
THE OFFICIALS TO INTERFERE WITH COMPLETION OF THE SHIPMENT.  48
F.SUPP.  594.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING,
AFFIRMED.  137 F.2D 274. 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE PETITION FOR REVIEW CONCERNING IMPORTANT
STATE AND FEDERAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH REGARD TO FEDERAL ENCLAVES
PROMPTED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  320 U.S. 731.  ARGUMENT HAS REVEALED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE DETERMINATIVE ISSUES ARE MORE NARROW:  (1) DID
TRANSPORTATION OF THE LIQUORS THROUGH OKLAHOMA VIOLATE THAT STATE'S LAW
SO AS TO JUSTIFY THEIR SEIZURE?  (2) SHOULD THE DISTRICT COURT HAVE
DENIED THE CARRIER EQUITABLE RELIEF BECAUSE OF THE "UNCLEAN HANDS"
DOCTRINE, EVEN THOUGH SEIZURE OF THE LIQUORS BY THE OFFICIALS WAS
ILLEGAL?  THIS SECOND QUESTION RESTS ON THE DISPUTED PREMISE THAT
INTRODUCTION OF THE LIQUORS INTO FORT SILL WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES. 

PETITIONERS DO NOT CLAIM, NOR COULD THEY CLAIM, THAT EITHER OF THESE
TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DECIDED IN THEIR FAVOR ON THE GROUND
THAT OKLAHOMA HAS POWER TO CONTROL LIQUOR TRANSACTIONS ON THE FORT SILL
RESERVATION.  WITH CERTAIN MINOR EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL, OKLAHOMA
CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES IN 1913 WHATEVER AUTHORITY IT EVER COULD
HAVE EXERCISED IN THE RESERVATION.  FN1  THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT THE GENERAL POWER TO GOVERN THE FORT SILL AREA IS
VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES, NOT IN OKLAHOMA,  FN2  AND OUR DECISIONS
LEAD TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.  FN3 

FIRST.  SINCE POWER TO GOVERN FORT SILL IS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND
SINCE THE SEIZED LIQUORS WERE NOT TO BE SOLD, DELIVERED OR OTHERWISE
DISPOSED OF IN OKLAHOMA PROPER, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM FORT SILL, THE
ONLY OKLAHOMA LAWS CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION WHICH COULD HAVE JUSTIFIED
THE SEIZURE ARE THOSE WHICH APPLY TO LIQUOR TRANSPORTATION.  NO
OKLAHOMA LAW PURPORTS ON ITS FACE TO PROHIBIT OR REGULATE INTERSTATE
SHIPMENTS OF LIQUOR INTO AND THROUGH THE STATE TO ANOTHER STATE, OR TO
AN AREA SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
AND WE WERE INFORMED AT THE BAR BY OKLAHOMA'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT
NO STATE STATUTE HAD BEEN CONSTRUED BY ANY STATE COURT AS APPLYING TO
SUCH THROUGH SHIPMENTS.  OKLAHOMA LAW DOES MAKE IT UNLAWFUL "TO IMPORT,
BRING, TRANSPORT, OR CAUSE TO BE BROUGHT OR TRANSPORTED INTO THE STATE
...  INTOXICATING LIQUOR  ... WITHOUT A PERMIT  ...  AS HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED."  OKLA. STAT. (1941) TITLE 37, SEC. 41.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT
THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE INTENDED THIS STATUTE TO APPLY TO LIQUOR
IMPORTED INTO THE FORT SILL RESERVATION BECAUSE THE LATTER IS LOCATED
WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF OKLAHOMA.  WERE THIS STATUTE INTENDED
TO DO NO MORE THAN PROVIDE A MEANS WHEREBY THE STATE COULD PROTECT
ITSELF FROM ILLEGAL LIQUOR DIVERSIONS WITHIN THE AREA WHICH OKLAHOMA
HAS POWER TO GOVERN, THE INTERPRETATION ASKED MIGHT WELL BE AN
ACCEPTABLE ONE.  DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390; CARTER V.
VIRGINIA, 321 U.S. 131.  BUT THE STATUTE HAS NO SUCH LIMITED PURPOSE. 
NO PERMIT TO TRANSPORT LIQUOR INTO OKLAHOMA CAN BE OBTAINED AT ALL
EXCEPT FOR SCIENTIFIC, MECHANICAL, MEDICINAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR
SACRAMENTAL PURPOSES.  OKLA. STAT. (1941) TITLE 37, SEC. 42.  TO
CONSTRUE THE STATE STATUTE IN THE MANNER URGED WOULD BE TO SAY THAT,
ALTHOUGH OKLAHOMA ADMITTEDLY HAS NO POWER DIRECTLY TO REGULATE THE
LIQUOR TRAFFIC ON THE RESERVATION, THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE INTENDED
PRACTICALLY TO EXCLUDE FROM THE RESERVATION LIQUOR WHICH MIGHT BE PUT
TO LEGAL USES UNDER CONTROLLING UNITED STATES LAWS.  NEITHER THE WORDS
NOR THE SCHEME OF THE STATUTE IN QUESTION, NOR ANY OTHER RELEVANT
MATERIAL POINTED OUT TO US, INDICATE THAT THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE HAD
SUCH A PURPOSE.  HAD THE LEGISLATURE EXPRESSED SUCH A PURPOSE,
QUESTIONS WOULD BE RAISED WHICH WE NEED NOT HERE CONSIDER.  SEE COLLINS
V. YOSEMITE PARK & CURRY CO., 304 U.S. 518, 533; PACIFIC COAST DAIRY V.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 318 U.S. 285, 295.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SEIZURE IN OKLAHOMA LAW. 

SECOND.  BUT IT IS SAID THAT DESPITE THE FACT THE SEIZURE WAS ILLEGAL
AND WHOLLY WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, THE CONSIGNEE COULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED
THE LIQUORS WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOR
THAT REASON THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE DENIED THE CARRIER ANY
RELIEF UNDER THE "CLEAN HANDS" DOCTRINE. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT BECAUSE OF THE CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE A FEDERAL
COURT SHOULD NOT, IN AN ORDINARY CASE, LEND ITS JUDICIAL POWER TO A
PLAINTIFF WHO SEEKS TO INVOKE THAT POWER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSUMMATING A TRANSACTION IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF LAW.  FN4  BUT THIS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT COURTS MUST ALWAYS PERMIT A DEFENDANT WRONGDOER TO
RETAIN THE PROFITS OF HIS WRONGDOING MERELY BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF
HIMSELF IS POSSIBLY GUILTY OF TRANSGRESSING THE LAW IN THE TRANSACTIONS
INVOLVED.  FN5  THE MAXIM THAT HE WHO COMES INTO EQUITY MUST COME WITH
CLEAN HANDS IS NOT APPLIED BY WAY OF PUNISHMENT FOR AN UNCLEAN LITIGANT
BUT "UPON CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAKE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF RIGHT AND
JUSTICE."  KEYSTONE DRILLER CO. V. GENERAL EXCAVATOR CO., 290 U.S. 240,
245.  IT IS NOT A RIGID FORMULA WHICH "TRAMMELS THE FREE AND JUST
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION."  IBID., 245, 246.  THEREFORE, BEFORE DECIDING
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE MAXIM TO THE CASE AT HAND, WE MUST EXAMINE THE
PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED TOGETHER WITH THE
FEDERAL LAWS WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO TAINT THESE TRANSACTIONS WITH
ILLEGALITY. 

AS SHOWN BY THE STIPULATED FACTS IN THIS RECORD, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE LIQUOR SHIPMENT WERE AS FOLLOWS:  FORT SILL HAD AN OFFICERS' CLUB,
WHICH PROVIDED AMONG OTHER THINGS AN OFFICERS' MESS, LIVING QUARTERS
FOR SOME OFFICERS, AND OTHER CUSTOMARY CLUB FACILITIES.  SEVERAL
HUNDRED OFFICER-MEMBERS GAVE TO THE CLUB SECRETARY, HIMSELF AN OFFICER,
SEPARATE WRITTEN ORDERS FOR LIQUOR TOGETHER WITH MONEY OR CHECKS IN
PAYMENT FOR THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS.  ACTING FOR THE OFFICER-MEMBERS, THE
SECRETARY TELEPHONED FROM FORT SILL TO A DEALER AT EAST ST. LOUIS,
ILLINOIS, AND ORDERED THE LIQUORS SHIPPED TO THE CLUB.  THE DEALER
DELIVERED THE LIQUORS TO THE RESPONDENT-CARRIER UNDER A UNIFORM THROUGH
BILL OF LADING.  IT WAS THIS SHIPMENT WHICH THE STATE OFFICIALS
SEIZED.  HAD THE SHIPMENT NOT BEEN SEIZED IT WOULD HAVE ARRIVED AT THE
CLUB FOR DELIVERY TO THE SEVERAL OFFICERS WHO HAD PAID FOR IT. 

IT IS FIRST CONTENDED THAT PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF THE LIQUORS WERE
IN VIOLATION OF U.S.C. TITLE 10, SEC. 1350, SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN6
THE AGREED FACTS, SUMMARIZED ABOVE, SUFFICIENTLY SHOW THAT THE
TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE. 

PETITIONERS NEXT ARGUE THAT THE LIQUOR TRANSACTIONS HERE INVOLVED
WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE N7.  THIS STATUTE,
IT IS SAID, ADOPTS ALL OF THE VARIOUS PENAL STATUTES OF OKLAHOMA
RELATING TO LIQUOR AND MAKES THEM THE FEDERAL LAW APPLICABLE TO THE
FORT SILL RESERVATION.  CF. UNITED STATES V. PRESS PUBLISHING CO., 219
U.S. 1; FRANKLIN V. UNITED STATES, 216 U.S. 559.  PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT
AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE RAISES AT
LEAST THREE DISTINCT QUESTIONS, NO ONE OF WHICH IS EASILY RESOLVED:
(1)  WHICH, IF ANY, OF THE OKLAHOMA PENAL STATUTES ARE SO DESIGNED THAT
THEY COULD BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE AND APPLIED TO
FORT SILL?  FN8  SEE OPINIONS OF CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SUPRA; CF.
MURRAY V. GERRICK & CO., 291 U.S. 315.  (2) IF THERE ARE OKLAHOMA
STATUTES WHICH COULD BE SO ADOPTED, ARE ALL OR ANY OF THEM IN CONFLICT
WITH FEDERAL POLICIES AS EXPRESSED BY ACTS OF CONGRESS OTHER THAN THE
ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE OR BY VALID ARMY REGULATIONS  FN9  WHICH
HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW?  FN10  CF. STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S.
94, 99-104.  (3) ASSUMING THAT CERTAIN OKLAHOMA STATUTES ARE ADAPTABLE,
AND ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL POLICIES, WOULD SUCH STATUTES
MAKE PENAL THE LIQUOR TRANSACTIONS HERE STIPULATED TO HAVE TAKEN
PLACE?  INEXTRICABLY INVOLVED IN EACH OF THE THREE QUESTIONS IS THE
FURTHER PROBLEM OF WHETHER CERTAIN OF THE OKLAHOMA LIQUOR STATUTES MAY
BE INCONSISTENT WITH OKLAHOMA'S CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED BY THE
OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT.  SEE OPINIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
SUPRA; EX PARTE WILSON, 6 OKLA. CR. 451, 119 P. 596; MORSE V. STATE, 63
OKLA. CR. 445, 77 P.2D 757. 

CONSIDERING THE DIFFICULTY AND IMPORTANCE OF A CORRECT DECISION OF
THE NOVEL ISSUES WHICH AN ATTEMPT TO CONSTRUE THIS FEDERAL CRIMINAL
STATUTE WOULD PRESENT, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
PRESENT CASE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SOUND
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM A COMPLETE EXPLORATION
OF THESE ISSUES IN THIS PROCEEDING, ESPECIALLY SINCE THESE ISSUES ARE
ONLY COLLATERAL TO THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE
OF THE LIQUOR.  WERE WE TO DECIDE THAT THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE
IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS SHIPMENT OF LIQUORS, WE WOULD, IN EFFECT, BE
CONSTRUING A FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN A
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER BEEN REPRESENTED.  AND,
ON THE OTHER HAND, SHOULD WE DECIDE THE STATUTE OUTLAWS THE SHIPMENT,
SUCH A DECISION WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A HOLDING THAT MORE THAN 200
ARMY OFFICERS, SWORN TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION, HAD PARTICIPATED IN A
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW.  NOT ONLY THAT, IT WOULD FOR
PRACTICAL PURPOSES BE ACCEPTED AS AN AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION THAT
ALL ARMY RESERVATIONS IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA MUST CONDUCT THEIR
ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH NUMEROUS OKLAHOMA LIQUOR REGULATIONS,
SOME OF WHICH, AT LEAST, ARE OF DOUBTFUL ADAPTABILITY.  AND ALL OF THIS
WOULD BE DECIDED IN A CASE WHEREIN NEITHER THE ARMY OFFICERS NOR THE
WAR DEPARTMENT NOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE BEEN
REPRESENTED, AND UPON A RECORD CONSISTING OF STIPULATIONS BETWEEN A
PRIVATE CARRIER AND THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF OKLAHOMA. 

NOR IS IT ANY ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE CARRIER SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO
SUE IN THE OKLAHOMA STATE COURTS TO RECLAIM THE LIQUORS IN ORDER TO
GIVE THE OKLAHOMA COURTS THE OPPORTUNITY COLLATERALLY TO PASS UPON THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THESE LIQUOR TRANSACTIONS VIOLATE THE FEDERAL
ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE.  THAT BROAD QUESTION, THOUGH SOME PARTS OF
IT INVOLVE A CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPER SCOPE OF THE STATE LAW ADOPTED
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IS IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS A QUESTION OF THE
CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF A FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE, AND THEREFORE AN
ISSUE UPON WHICH FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT BOUND BY THE RULINGS OF STATE
COURTS.  PUERTO RICO V. SHELL CO., 302 U.S. 253, 266.  INDEED CONGRESS
HAS VESTED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE TRIAL
OF ALL FEDERAL CRIMES.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 256 AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 371.  AND SO, EVEN IF THE CARRIER COULD BRING SUIT IN AN OKLAHOMA
STATE COURT TO RECLAIM THE LIQUOR, A POINT WHICH IS ITSELF SUBJECT TO
SOME DOUBT,  FN11  THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT FOR THAT
REASON REFUSE RELIEF IN THE PRESENT SUIT. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IN THIS PART OF THE CASE IS WHETHER THE
CARRIER, WHOSE COMPLETE GOOD FAITH IS IN NO WAY QUESTIONED, SHOULD HAVE
THE COURT'S DOORS SHUT TO IT.  SO TO HOLD WOULD BE TO SAY THAT THE
STATE OFFICIALS, WHO SO FAR AS THIS RECORD SHOWS, HAD NO SEARCH WARRANT
OR JUDICIAL PROCESS OF ANY KIND,  FN12  COULD RETAIN LIQUORS WHICH THEY
SEIZED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW.  WE DO NOT FIND HERE ANY
"UNCONSCIENTIOUS OR INEQUITABLE ATTITUDE" ON THE PART OF THE CARRIER. 
INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 248 U.S. 215, 245.  AND
SO FAR AS THIS RECORD SHOWS, THE CARRIER, IN SEEKING RELIEF IN THE
COURTS AGAINST THE UNLAWFUL SEIZURE, HAS PROCEEDED IN THE ONLY
"PRACTICABLE AND ADEQUATE WAY"  FN13  AVAILABLE.    IF THE CARRIER'S
DELIVERY OF THESE LIQUORS ON THE FORT SILL RESERVATION WOULD VIOLATE
ANY FEDERAL LAW, FEDERAL AGENCIES EXIST WHICH ARE CHARGED WITH
RESPONSIBILITIES TO INSTITUTE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
CARRIER IN FEDERAL TRIBUNALS.  IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS THE PARTIES WOULD BE
THE UNITED STATES AND THE CARRIER, AND THE ISSUE OF VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL LAWS WOULD BE DIRECTLY, AND NOT COLLATERALLY, PRESENTED.  THE
COMPLICATED FEDERAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED, CONCERNING VARIOUS FEDERAL
STATUTES AS WELL AS ARMY RULES AND REGULATIONS, COULD BE ANSWERED UPON
AN ADEQUATE PRESENTATION OF ALL FACTORS ESSENTIAL TO A RIGHT AND JUST
DETERMINATION. 

AND, SIMILARLY, IF THE SEVERAL HUNDRED ARMY OFFICERS WHO ORDERED AND
PAID FOR THESE LIQUORS HAVE ACTED CONTRARY TO UNITED STATES STATUTES,
ARMY REGULATIONS, OR ORDERS OF THE POST COMMANDANT, IT IS NOT TO BE
DOUBTED THAT THE ARMY OR SOME OTHER UNITED STATES AGENCY IS CAPABLE OF
DETERMINING WHAT COURSE SHALL BE PURSUED.  SHOULD THE UNITED STATES
DETERMINE TO PROCEED IN THE MATTER IT COULD DO SO AT SUCH TIME AND
PLACE AS LEAST WOULD HAMPER ESSENTIAL MILITARY TRAINING, AND THE ARMY
OFFICERS WOULD BE HEARD BEFORE THEY WOULD BE STIGMATIZED AS LAW
BREAKERS AND SUBJECTED AS SUCH TO ARMY DISCIPLINE.  WE WILL NOT, AT
THIS TIME, AND UPON THIS INADEQUATE RECORD, RESOLVE ALL DOUBTS AGAINST
THE LAWFULNESS OF THEIR CONDUCT IN ORDER TO DENY RELIEF AGAINST A
PLAINLY UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF THEIR PROPERTY FROM AN INTERSTATE CARRIER
WHOSE GOOD FAITH HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  OKLAHOMA LAWS, 1913, C. 52, P. 90. 

FN2  SEE UTLEY V. STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 176 OKLA. 255, 55 P.2D
762; IN RE ANNEXATION OF RENO QUARTERMASTER DEPOT MILITARY RESERVATION,
180 OKLA. 274, 69 P.2D 659. 

FN3  SEE COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518, 533; PACIFIC
COAST DAIRY V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 318 U.S. 285, 294. 

FN4  SEE GENERALLY 2 POMEROY'S EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE (5TH ED.)  SECS. 
402, 403.  CF. BENTLEY V. TIBBALS, 223 F. 247, 252; BONNIE & CO. V.
BONNIE BROS., 160 KY. 487, 495, 169 S.W. 871. 

FN5  SEE, E.G., CATTS V. PHALEN, 2 HOW.  376; KINSMAN V. PARKHURST,
18 HOW.  289, 293; STARK V. GRANT, 16 N.Y.S. 526; MARTIN V. HODGE, 47
ARK. 378, 1 S.W. 694. 

FN6  "THE SALE OF OR DEALING IN, BEER, WINE OR ANY INTOXICATING
LIQUORS BY ANY PERSON IN ANY POST EXCHANGE OR CANTEEN OR ARMY TRANSPORT
OR UPON ANY PREMISES USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES BY THE UNITED STATES,
IS HEREBY PROHIBITED.  THE SECRETARY OF WAR IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO CARRY
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION INTO FULL FORCE AND EFFECT."  31 STAT.
758; U.S.C. TITLE 10, SEC. 1350.  SEE NOTE 9, INFRA. 

FN7  "WHOEVER, WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF ANY STATE,  ...  BUT
WITHIN OR UPON ANY OF THE PLACES NOW EXISTING OR HEREAFTER RESERVED OR
ACQUIRED, DESCRIBED IN SECTION 272 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE  ...  , SHALL
DO OR OMIT THE DOING OF ANY ACT OR THING WHICH IS NOT MADE PENAL BY ANY
LAWS OF CONGRESS, BUT WHICH IF COMMITTED OR OMITTED WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PLACE
IS SITUATED, BY THE LAWS THEREOF IN FORCE ON FEBRUARY 1, 1940, AND
REMAINING IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE DOING OR OMITTING THE DOING OF
SUCH ACT OR THING, WOULD BE PENAL, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A LIKE
OFFENSE AND BE SUBJECT TO A LIKE PUNISHMENT."  54 STAT. 234, U.S.C.
TITLE 18, SEC. 468.  SECTION 272 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, REFERRED TO IN
THIS ACT, IS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THE FORT SILL RESERVATION.  35
STAT. 1143. 

FN8  THE OKLAHOMA LIQUOR STATUTES PERTAINING TO LIQUOR IMPORTS
PROVIDE ONE ILLUSTRATION OF THE DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN THIS
QUESTION.  THESE PENAL STATUTES ARE DESIGNED TO ENFORCE A SYSTEM OF
LICENSING SUCH IMPORTS BY SPECIAL PERMITS ISSUED BY A STATE AGENCY. 
OKLA. STAT. (1941) TITLE 37, SECS. 41-48.  IMPORTATION OF LIQUORS
WITHOUT A SPECIAL PERMIT IS MADE PENAL.  IBID., SECS. 41, 46.  TO HOLD,
THEREFORE, THAT THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE ADOPTS OKLAHOMA'S PENAL
LIQUOR LAWS THE COURT MIGHT FURTHER HAVE TO HOLD THAT THAT STATUTE
COMPELS FEDERAL OFFICIALS ON THE FORT SILL RESERVATION TO APPLY FOR AND
OBTAIN STATE PERMITS BEFORE THEY CAN LAWFULLY IMPORT ANY LIQUORS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.  AND A STRONG ARGUMENT MIGHT BE MADE THAT HAD CONGRESS
INTENDED SUCH A DRASTIC RESULT, IT WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE PROBLEM
AND USED MORE EXPRESS LANGUAGE.  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA; SENATE REPORT NO.
1699, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.; HOUSE REPORT
NO. 1584, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.  CF. COLLINS
V. YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518, 533. 

FN9  ARMY REGULATIONS HAVE DECLARED CERTAIN LIQUOR POLICIES FOR ARMY
RESERVATIONS GENERALLY.  SEE, E.G., A.G. 250.1(1-20-43), CONCERNING THE
SALE OF LIQUOR UPON PREMISES USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES BY THE UNITED
STATES, PUBLISHED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT ON JANUARY 25, 1943, IN
CIRCULAR NO. 29; AND A.R. 210-65, CONCERNING ARMY EXCHANGES, PUBLISHED
BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT ON MARCH 19, 1943.  PETITIONERS HAVE NOT
CONTENDED THAT THE LIQUOR TRANSACTIONS HERE WERE CONTRARY TO ANY ARMY
REGULATIONS, AND NO REGULATIONS HAVE COME TO OUR ATTENTION WHICH WOULD
INDICATE THAT THERE IS A BASIS FOR SUCH A CONTENTION.  WHETHER THE
DECLARATION OF POLICIES CONTAINED IN THESE VARIOUS REGULATIONS
INDICATES AN INTENTION OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO PERMIT ALL LIQUOR
TRANSACTIONS NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, AND WHETHER, IF IT DOES, THE WAR
DEPARTMENT HAS THE POWER UNDER ACTS OF CONGRESS TO PERMIT SUCH
TRANSACTIONS, SEEM OPEN QUESTIONS. 

FN10  STANDARD OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481, 484. 

FN11  NOTHING IN THE RECORD OR BRIEFS JUSTIFIES THE CONCLUSION THAT
THE CARRIER COULD BRING SUCH A PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURTS.  AND SEE
OKLA. STAT. (1941) TITLE 37, SECS. 72, 86, AND 89; BLUNK V. WAUGH, 32
OKLA. 616, 122 P. 717; LEE V. STATE, 180 OKLA. 643, 71 P.2D 1090; CF.
1942 CHEVROLET AUTOMOBILE MOTOR NO. BA-193397 V. STATE, 191 OKLA. 26,
27, 128 P.2D 448.  NOR HAS THERE BEEN ANY ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT, IF THE
CARRIER COULD BRING SUCH A PROCEEDING, THE ARMY OFFICERS, THE WAR
DEPARTMENT, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES COULD
INTERVENE ON THE COLLATERAL ISSUE OF "CLEAN HANDS." 

FN12  UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW THERE ARE NO "PROPERTY RIGHTS" IN LIQUOR. 
OKLA. STAT. (1941) TITLE 37, SEC. 72.  OFFICERS WITH POWER TO EXECUTE
CRIMINAL PROCESS MAY ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT ONE WHO VIOLATES THE
STATE LIQUOR LAWS, AND SEIZE THE PROPERTY USED IN THE VIOLATION, AND IT
IS THEIR DUTY TO TAKE THE PROPERTY BEFORE A COURT WHICH MAY ORDER IT
FORFEITED AND DESTROYED.  IBID., SECS. 89, 90.  AS STATED IN THE BODY
OF THE OPINION, THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT PROCEEDINGS OF ANY KIND
WERE EVER INSTITUTED, OR SOUGHT TO BE INSTITUTED, IN THE STATE COURTS. 

FN13  MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO., 241 U.S. 79, 84-85;
SEE ALSO BOWMAN V. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO., 125 U.S. 465. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND I ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COURT'S
DECISION. 

THE ULTIMATE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD, BY
ISSUING AN INJUNCTION, AID IN THE CONSUMMATION OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A
VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE UNITED STATES.  FOR IT MUST NOT
BE FORGOTTEN THAT A MANDATORY INJUNCTION, THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THIS
SUIT, "IS AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIAL PROCESS WHICH IS GRANTED, NOT AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT BUT IN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION." 
MORRISON V. WORK, 266 U.S. 481, 490. 

A LARGE SHIPMENT OF WINE AND SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS WAS SEIZED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA WHILE THE LIQUOR HAD
TEMPORARILY COME TO REST AT THE TERMINAL OF THE TRANSIT COMPANY.  THE
LIQUOR, IN COURSE OF TRANSIT FROM EAST ST. LOUIS, ILLINOIS, TO THE FORT
SILL, MILITARY RESERVATION, WAS DESTINED FOR THE OFFICERS CLUB AT THE
RESERVATION FOR DELIVERY TO SEVERAL HUNDRED MEMBERS OF THE CLUB ON
WHOSE BEHALF ITS SECRETARY WAS MANAGING THE IMPORTATION OF THE LIQUOR. 
UPON SEIZURE THE LIQUOR WAS DEPOSITED IN THE COUNTY COURT HOUSE OF
OKLAHOMA COUNTY, WHERE IT IS HELD AS AN ILLEGAL SHIPMENT OF
INTOXICATING LIQUOR SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE AND DESTRUCTION.  THEREUPON
THE TRANSIT COMPANY BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR A MANDATORY INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE STATE OFFICERS, REQUIRING THEM TO RETURN THE SHIPMENT AND
TO REFRAIN FROM INTERFERING WITH ITS DELIVERY BY THE TRANSIT COMPANY AT
THE RESERVATION.  THE INJUNCTION ISSUED AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, IN TWO SEPARATE OPINIONS, APPROVED, WITH ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING.  48 F.SUPP.  594; 137 F.2D 274. 

THE FACTS ESTABLISH THAT THAT WHICH WAS DONE, IF IT HAD BEEN DONE IN
OKLAHOMA PROPER, WOULD UNDER ITS LAWS HAVE CONSTITUTED A MISDEMEANOR. 
DELIVERY OF THE LIQUOR ON THE RESERVATION WOULD THEREFORE BE AN OFFENSE
UNDER THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW BY VIRTUE OF THE ACT OF JUNE 6TH, 1940,
54 STAT. 234, WHEREBY CONGRESS MADE APPLICABLE TO THE RESERVATION THE
PENAL LAWS OF OKLAHOMA IN EXISTENCE ON FEBRUARY 1, 1940, 18 U.S.C. SEC.
468.  BUT EVEN IF THERE WERE DOUBT THAT THE IMPORTATION OF THE LIQUOR
INTO THE RESERVATION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS RECORD WOULD
OFFEND THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
ACT IF COMMITTED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF OKLAHOMA "BY THE LAWS
THEREOF IN FORCE ON FEBRUARY 1, 1940  ...  WOULD BE PENAL," EQUITY
SHOULD RESOLVE THE DOUBT IN FAVOR OF LAW BY DENYING THE EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDY OF INJUNCTION INSTEAD OF RESOLVING IT AGAINST LAW BY GRANTING
THE INJUNCTION. 

OKLAHOMA IS, COLLOQUIALLY SPEAKING, A DRY STATE.  ONLY FOR STRICTLY
DEFINED PURPOSES MAY LIQUOR FROM WITHOUT THE STATE BE LAWFULLY BROUGHT
INTO IT FOR CONSUMPTION.  PROHIBITED IMPORTATIONS ARE PENALIZED.  IF A
TRANSACTION LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US RELATED WHOLLY TO OKLAHOMA SOIL IT
WOULD - THERE CAN HARDLY BE DOUBT - BE OUTLAWED.  THE CIRCUIT JUDGE WHO
SPEAKS WITH SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF OKLAHOMA LAW ASSURES US THAT "THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, BY ITS CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO
POSSESS, TRANSPORT, FURNISH, OR RECEIVE THIS PARTICULAR SHIPMENT OF
INTOXICATING LIQUOR, AND IT IS THEREFORE CONTRABAND AND SUBJECT TO
SEIZURE AND CONFISCATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE," 137 F.2D AT
279.  JUDGE MURRAH CALLS SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO AN OKLAHOMA STATUTE
WHICH MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR "FOR ANY PERSON IN THIS STATE TO RECEIVE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ANY LIQUORS, THE SALE OF WHICH ARE PROHIBITED BY
THE LAWS OF THIS STATE, FROM A COMMON OR OTHER CARRIER."  FN1  THE
OPINION OF JUDGE PHILLIPS RECOGNIZES THAT THIS ACT OF 1917 PENALIZES
THE TRANSACTION BEFORE US WITHIN OKLAHOMA, BUT REJECTS ITS BEARING WHEN
A FEDERAL COURT IS ASKED TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION INVOLVING THIS LAW BY
SUGGESTING THAT THIS STATUTE IS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL."  HE BASES THIS
SUGGESTION ON THE ARGUMENT THAT INASMUCH AS THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT
HAS HELD THAT A STATUTE MAKING MERE POSSESSION OF OVER ONE QUART OF
SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS UNLAWFUL IS NOT "A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE
POWERS," AND THEREFORE BEYOND THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE
UNLAWFUL, EX PARTE WILSON, 6 OKLA. CR. 451, 475, "IT MUST LIKEWISE BE
BEYOND ITS POWER TO MAKE UNLAWFUL THE POSSESSION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR
FOR PERSONAL USE RECEIVED FROM A COMMON CARRIER."  137 F.2D AT 277. 
FN2  IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS ARGUED THAT BECAUSE THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME
COURT HELD THAT THE MERE POSSESSION OF LIQUOR CANNOT BE MADE A CRIME BY
OKLAHOMA, OKLAHOMA CANNOT PROHIBIT THE RECEIPT OF LIQUOR FROM A
CARRIER.  ON SUCH REASONING A LAW THAT HAS BEEN ON THE OKLAHOMA STATUTE
BOOKS FOR MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, AND DURING THAT PERIOD ACTIVELY
ENFORCED AND NEVER QUESTIONED, IS THROWN INTO DISCARD WHEN A FEDERAL
COURT IS ASKED TO EXERCISE ITS DUTY OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE
EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF AN INJUNCTION.  I AM UNABLE TO FOLLOW SUCH
REASONING BECAUSE OKLAHOMA LAW MAKES IT BASELESS.  THE VALIDITY OF THIS
PROVISION, AS ALREADY INDICATED, HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR GRANTED BY THE
OKLAHOMA COURTS.  IT WAS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION IN DE HASQUE V.
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 68 OKLA. 183, 173 P. 73, AND CROSSLAND V.
STATE, 74 OKLA. 58, 176 P. 944, AND A CONVICTION UNDER THIS SECTION WAS
SUSTAINED IN WALKER V. STATE, 18 OKLA. CR. 661, 197 P. 520.  THIS IS A
SPECIFIC STATUTE, THE CONTINUING VALIDITY OF WHICH IS WHOLLY UNAFFECTED
BY SPECULATIVE DOUBTS REGARDING OTHER AND IRRELEVANT LIQUOR LEGISLATION
OF OKLAHOMA.  THE DISSENTING JUDGE WAS JUSTIFIED IN READING THE ACT OF
1917 AS CONCLUSIVELY CONDEMNING THE TRANSACTION WHICH THE CARRIER WAS
SEEKING TO CONSUMMATE AS AN OFFENSE, WERE IT SUBJECT TO OKLAHOMA LAW. 
FN3 

BUT THE SHIPMENT OF LIQUOR IN CONTROVERSY WAS FOR DELIVERY ON THE
FORT SILL RESERVATION, THAT IS, A PLACE WITHIN THE PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES
OF OKLAHOMA BUT BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION.  IT WAS STIPULATED BETWEEN THE
PARTIES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SUIT WAS TO ENABLE THE TRANSIT COMPANY
TO TRANSPORT AND DELIVER THE SHIPMENT TO ITS DESTINATION IN THE
RESERVATION.  SUCH WAS THE BASIS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE
REQUIRING THE RETURN OF THE SHIPMENT AND ENJOINING INTERFERENCE WITH
"DELIVERY OF SAID SHIPMENT TO ITS DESTINATION" AND NO PLACE ELSE.  THIS
BRINGS US TO THE SECOND HALF OF THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE:  MAY THE
TRANSIT COMPANY, ACCORDING TO THE LAW THAT RULES SUCH MATTERS ON THE
RESERVATION, LAWFULLY DELIVER THIS LIQUOR AT FORT SILL?  OF COURSE ALL
TRANSACTIONS ON THE RESERVATION ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY CONGRESS. 
CONSTITUTION, ART. IV, SEC. 3, PAR. 2; SEE COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK
CO., 304 U.S. 518; PENN DAIRIES V. MILK CONTROL COMM'N, 318 U.S. 261;
PACIFIC COAST DAIRY V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 318 U.S. 285.  IF IT
CHOOSES, CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE A RULE OF LAW WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO THE
EXPRESSED DRY POLICY OF OKLAHOMA, AND IT MAY DO SO EITHER SPECIFICALLY
FOR FORT SILL OR GENERALLY FOR ALL FEDERAL RESERVATIONS.  CONGRESS HAS
NOT DONE SO.  IT HAS DONE THE OPPOSITE.  FOR MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS
MOST OF THE RULES OF LIFE ON NATIONAL RESERVATIONS HAVE BEEN CONTROLLED
BY THE LAWS OF THE STATES IN WHICH THESE RESERVATIONS ARE LOCATED.  BY
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1825(4 STAT. 115), CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT WHEN
SOMETHING IS DONE ON A FEDERAL RESERVATION WHICH IS NOT MADE PENAL BY
THE LAWS OF CONGRESS BUT WHICH UNDER STATE LAW, IF THE STATE HAD
JURISDICTION, WOULD BE PUNISHABLE, THE ACT SHOULD BE EQUALLY PUNISHED
AS WRONGFUL IF COMMITTED ON THE RESERVATION.  IN THUS ADOPTING THE
PENAL LAWS OF THE STATES AS ITS CODE FOR LAWFUL CONDUCT ON FEDERAL
RESERVATIONS WITHIN THE STATES, CONGRESS DID NOT GIVE TO THE STATES A
FREE HAND TO IMPOSE THE CONTINUING PROCESS OF STATE LAW-MAKING ON
PLACES OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS JURISDICTION.  ONLY THE LAWS OF
THE STATES EXISTING AT THE TIME WHEN THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1825 WAS
ENACTED BECAME OPERATIVE ON THE RESERVATIONS.  UNITED STATES V. PAUL, 6
PET. 141.  AND SO, IN VIEW OF THE INEVITABLE MODIFICATIONS AND
ADDITIONS IN THE PENAL LAWS OF THE STATES, CONGRESS HAS ACCOMMODATED
ITS ADOPTION OF THOSE STATE LAWS, AS THE GOVERNING FEDERAL LAW, BY
BRINGING UP TO DATE FROM TIME TO TIME ITS ADOPTION FOR ENFORCEMENT ON
FEDERAL RESERVATIONS OF THE POLICIES OF THE STATES WHICH HAVE PENAL
SANCTIONS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1825, WAS IN SUBSTANCE
REENACTED ON APRIL 5, 1866, 14 STAT. 12, 13, WAS CARRIED FORWARD IN
SEC. 5391 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF 1878, WAS AGAIN REENACTED ON JULY
7, 1898, 30 STAT. 717, AND BECAME SEC. 289 OF THE FEDERAL PENAL CODE OF
1910, 35 STAT. 1088, 1145.  SINCE THEN AND IN RELATIVELY QUICK
SUCCESSION, CONGRESS HAS THREE TIMES BROUGHT STILL NEARER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF STATE PENAL LAWS APPLICABLE ON FEDERAL RESERVATIONS, TO WIT BY
THE AMENDMENTS OF JUNE 15, 1933, 48 STAT. 152; JUNE 20, 1935, 49 STAT.
394; AND JUNE 6, 1940, 54 STAT. 234.  THE LAST AMENDMENT NOW CONTROLS
WHEREBY "WHOEVER  ...  SHALL DO  ...  ANY ACT OR THING WHICH IS NOT
MADE PENAL BY ANY LAWS OF CONGRESS, BUT WHICH IF COMMITTED OR OMITTED
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT IN WHICH
SUCH PLACE IS SITUATED, BY THE LAWS THEREOF IN FORCE ON FEBRUARY 1,
1940, AND REMAINING IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE DOING  ...  OF SUCH ACT
OR THING, WOULD BE PENAL, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A LIKE OFFENSE AND
BE SUBJECT TO A LIKE PUNISHMENT."  18 U.S.C. SEC. 468. 

THE VERY IMPORTANT PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION IN THE WORKING OF OUR
DUAL SYSTEM, AS EXPOUNDED AFTER THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION HERETOFORE
GIVEN TO THIS SUBJECT BY THIS COURT, BEARS REPETITION: "WHILE THE
STATUTE LEAVES NO DOUBT WHERE ACTS ARE DONE ON RESERVATIONS WHICH ARE
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED AND PUNISHED AS CRIMES BY A LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES, THAT LAW IS DOMINANT AND CONTROLLING, YET, ON THE OTHER HAND,
WHERE NO LAW OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR THE
PUNISHMENT OF OFFENSES COMMITTED ON RESERVATIONS, ALL ACTS DONE ON SUCH
RESERVATIONS WHICH ARE MADE CRIMINAL BY THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES
ARE LEFT TO BE PUNISHED UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATE STATUTES.  WHEN
THESE RESULTS OF THE STATUTE ARE BORNE IN MIND IT BECOMES MANIFEST THAT
CONGRESS, IN ADOPTING IT, SEDULOUSLY CONSIDERED THE TWOFOLD CHARACTER
OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND HAD IN VIEW THE ENLIGHTENED
PURPOSE, SO FAR AS THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIME WAS CONCERNED, TO INTERFERE
AS LITTLE AS MIGHT BE WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES ON THAT SUBJECT
OVER ALL TERRITORY SITUATED WITHIN THEIR EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES, AND WHICH
HENCE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO EXCLUSIVE STATE JURISDICTION BUT FOR THE
EXISTENCE OF A UNITED STATES RESERVATION.  IN ACCOMPLISHING THESE
PURPOSES IT IS APPARENT THAT THE STATUTE, INSTEAD OF FIXING BY ITS OWN
TERMS THE PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMES COMMITTED ON SUCH RESERVATIONS WHICH
WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED FOR BY A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, ADOPTED
AND WROTE IN THE STATE LAW, WITH THE SINGLE DIFFERENCE THAT THE
OFFENSE, ALTHOUGH PUNISHED AS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, WAS
NEVERTHELESS PUNISHABLE ONLY IN THE WAY AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN PUNISHABLE IF THE TERRITORY EMBRACED BY THE RESERVATION
REMAINED SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE."  UNITED STATES V.
PRESS PUBLISHING CO., 219 U.S. 1, 9-10.  FN4 

THEREFORE THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IN RELATION TO OUR PRESENT PROBLEM IS
WHETHER ANY LAW OF CONGRESS HAS OVERRIDDEN THE OKLAHOMA ACT OF 1917
WHICH MAKES UNLAWFUL THE TRANSACTION THAT THE TRANSIT COMPANY SEEKS TO
CONSUMMATE WITH THE AID OF AN INJUNCTION ISSUED BY A FEDERAL COURT. 

THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.  LONG BEFORE THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT,
CONGRESS DID PROVIDE THAT "THE SALE OF OR DEALING IN, BEER, WINE OR ANY
INTOXICATING LIQUORS BY ANY PERSON IN ANY POST EXCHANGE OR CANTEEN OR
ARMY TRANSPORT OR UPON ANY PREMISES USED FOR MILITARY PURPOSES BY THE
UNITED STATES, IS HEREBY PROHIBITED."  ACT OF FEBRUARY 2, 1901, SEC.
38, 31 STAT. 748, 758, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1350.  PLAINLY, THE PURPOSE OF
THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT TO SUPPLANT SOCIAL POLICIES IN REGARD TO
ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR IN THE VARIOUS STATES WITHIN WHICH THE MANY FEDERAL
ENCLAVES ARE LOCATED EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF PROVIDING MINIMUM
REGULATIONS TO RESTRICT THE FREE DEALING IN LIQUOR AT ALL ARMY POSTS
INCLUDING THOSE WITHIN WET STATES.  THE SPECIFIC BARRIER THUS ERECTED
BY CONGRESS AGAINST THE LIBERAL LIQUOR POLICIES OF SOME STATES SHOULD
NOT NOW BE USED AS A QUALIFICATION OF THE GENERALITY OF THE
ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE IN ORDER TO SERVE AS A BARRIER AGAINST THE
PROHIBITORY LAWS OF OTHER STATES.  NO SUCH POLICY CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE
ACT OF 1901 - QUITE THE OPPOSITE IS IMPLIED.  AND ASSUMING THAT THE
MILITARY COULD ASSERT SUCH A POLICY IN THE INTEREST OF ARMY MORALE,
THERE IS WHOLLY LACKING ANY MANIFESTATION THAT THE ARMY DEEMS IT
NECESSARY FOR THE MORALE OF ITS OFFICERS THAT AT FORT SILL CONDUCT
SHOULD BE PERMITTED WHICH IF COMMITTED IN THE SURROUNDING TERRITORY OF
OKLAHOMA WOULD OFFEND ITS PENAL LAWS.  SO FAR AS THE WAR DEPARTMENT HAS
INDICATED A POLICY, ITS POLICY LIKE THAT OF THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES
STATUTE IS TO ADOPT ON MILITARY RESERVATIONS THE LAWS OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE STATES.  THUS, IN REFERENCE TO A.G. 250.1, SEC. VI, PAR. 4(1
20-43) OF CIRCULAR NO. 29 OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT, JAN. 25, 1943,
PROVIDES:  "BEER OF AN ALCOHOLIC CONTENT NOT IN EXCESS OF 3.2 PER
CENTUM BY WEIGHT MAY BE SOLD OR DEALT IN UPON ANY OF THE MENTIONED
PREMISES UNLESS A STATE ENACTMENT OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE PREMISES
ARE LOCATED PROHIBITS THE SALE OF OR DEALING IN SUCH BEER THROUGHOUT
THE ENTIRE STATE."  AND THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL HAS SAID THAT "WAR
DEPARTMENT POLICY DOES NOT FAVOR SALE OF SUCH (3.2) BEER BY EXCHANGES
IN STATES WHERE ITS SALE IS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED  ...  "  BULLETIN OF
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY, JULY 1942, P. 100, SEC. 310. 

EVEN IF THERE WERE MORE HYPOTHETICAL DOUBT THAN THE LAWS AND
DECISIONS OF OKLAHOMA MAKE MANIFEST AS TO THE VALIDITY AND VITALITY OF
THE ACT OF 1917 AND ITS APPLICABILITY TO THE IMPORTATION OF THE LIQUOR
SHIPMENT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, IF THE IMPORTATION WERE INTO OKLAHOMA
PROPER, SUCH A CONTINGENCY SHOULD BE LEFT FOR DETERMINATION BY
APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT TO RECOVER THE LIQUOR AND
NOT BE MADE THE BASIS FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE LAW IN THE
FEDERAL COURT.  SINCE FEDERAL LAW HERE TOO TURNS ON STATE LAW BY
ADOPTION THROUGH THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE, THE BASIS OF OUR
DECISION IN PENN DAIRIES V. MILK CONTROL COMM'N, SUPRA, BECOMES
RELEVANT.  HERE, AS IN THAT CASE, THERE IS AN "ABSENCE OF SOME EVIDENCE
OF AN INFLEXIBLE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY," 318 U.S. AT 275, OPPOSED TO THE
POLICY EXPRESSED BY THE STATE.  IN THIS CASE AS IN THAT, WE SHOULD
THEREFORE BE SLOW TO STRIKE DOWN STATE LEGISLATION BY ELABORATE
IMPLICATIONS.  THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF EQUITY PARTICULARLY COUNSEL
AGAINST IT.  AND EVEN IF THERE WERE MORE DOUBT THAN APPEARS REGARDING
THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT OF 1917 BY THE ASSIMILATIVE CRIMES STATUTE,
WHEREBY THE DELIVERY OF THE LIQUOR BY THE TRANSIT COMPANY ON THE
RESERVATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A MISDEMEANOR, THAT DOUBT TOO SHOULD NOT
BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE LAW IN SUCH A PROCEEDING AS THIS FOR AN
INJUNCTION.  THAT QUESTION ALTHOUGH FEDERAL MAY ALSO BE LITIGATED AS
PART OF THE INDICATED STATE COURT SUIT, WHERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY
INTERVENE AND THEN COME HERE IF HE CHOOSES TO ASSERT WHATEVER POSITION
THE GOVERNMENT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE TO PRESS. 

IN MY VIEW THEREFORE IT WAS AN INEQUITABLE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION TO
ISSUE THIS INJUNCTION.  OF COURSE, "EQUITY DOES NOT DEMAND THAT ITS
SUITORS SHALL HAVE LED BLAMELESS LIVES."  LOUGHRAN V. LOUGHRAN, 292
U.S. 216, 229.  BUT WHERE THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS NOT AS TO SOMETHING PAST
AND COLLATERAL, BUT WHERE IT IS THE VERY MEANS, AS IS THE CASE HERE,
FOR COMPLETING AN OUTLAWED TRANSACTION, A COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD
WITHHOLD ITS AID AND NOT BECOME THE PROMOTER OF WRONGDOING.  THE
POSSIBLE ILLEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE OF THE LIQUOR BY THE OKLAHOMA
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IS QUITE IRRELEVANT TO OUR PROBLEM.  "A QUESTION
OF PUBLIC POLICY IS PRESENTED - NOT A MERE ADJUDICATION OF ADVERSARY
RIGHTS BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES."  WEIL V. NEARY, 278 U.S. 160, 171. 
THE ABSTENTION WHICH EQUITY EXERCISES, AS IT SHOULD HERE, UNDER THE
SHORT-HAND PHRASE OF THE "CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE" IS NOT DUE TO ANY
DESIRE TO PUNISH A LITIGANT FOR HIS UNCLEANLINESS.  "BUT THE OBJECTION
THAT THE PLAINTIFF COMES WITH UNCLEAN HANDS WILL BE TAKEN BY THE COURT
ITSELF.  IT WILL BE TAKEN DESPITE THE WISH TO THE CONTRARY OF ALL THE
PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION.  THE COURT PROTECTS ITSELF."  MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS IN OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 485.  IT IS HARDLY
SEEMLY FOR A FEDERAL COURT TO ORDER THE RETURN OF LIQUOR SEIZED WITH
FULL KNOWLEDGE BY THE COURT THAT THE CARRIER WOULD USE THE LIQUOR TO
SHARE IN THE COMMISSION OF A MISDEMEANOR.  THE PENAL STATUTE HERE
APPLICABLE IS A POLICE REGULATION VIOLATION OF WHICH OUGHT NOT TO BE
FURTHERED BY A FEDERAL COURT.  WHILE ITS VIOLATION DOES NOT IMPLY MORAL
TURPITUDE, CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED THAT ARMY OFFICERS SHOULD ALSO CONFORM
TO THE LAW OF A STATE ON WHICH MILITARY RESERVATIONS ARE LOCATED IN
MATTERS THAT ARE OUTSIDE MILITARY CONCERN. 

FN1  "SECTION 1.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON IN THIS STATE
TO RECEIVE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ANY LIQUORS, THE SALE OF WHICH IS
PROHIBITED BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE, FROM A COMMON OR OTHER CARRIER. 

"IT SHALL ALSO BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON IN THIS STATE TO POSSESS
ANY LIQUOR, THE SALE OF WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE,
RECEIVED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM A COMMON OR OTHER CARRIER IN THIS
STATE.  THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO SUCH LIQUORS INTENDED FOR PERSONAL
USE, AS WELL AS OTHERWISE, AND TO INTERSTATE AS WELL AS INTRASTATE
SHIPMENTS OR CARRIAGE.  ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY PROVISION OF THIS
FINED NOT LESS THAN $50.00 NOR MORE THAN $500.00 AND BY IMPRISONMENT
FOR NOT LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS NOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS, UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, AND
BONDED APOTHECARIES, DRUGGISTS, HOSPITALS OR PHARMACISTS MAY RECEIVE
AND POSSESS PURE GRAIN ALCOHOL, AS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE,
TO BE USED ONLY FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS ARE PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS OF THIS
STATE."  LAWS 1917, CH. 186, P. 350, SEC. 1. 

FN2  EX PARTE WILSON WAS DECIDED IN 1911.  IN 1913, THE OKLAHOMA
LEGISLATURE ENACTED A STATUTE WHICH MADE THE POSSESSION OF MORE THAN
ONE QUART OF LIQUOR "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AN INTENTION TO CONVEY,
SELL OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF SUCH LIQUORS."  LAWS 1913, C. 26, P. 48,
SEC. 6, 37 O.S.A. SEC. 82.  THE VALIDITY OF THIS STATUTE WAS UPHELD
(CAFFEE V. STATE, 11 OKLA. CR. 485, 148 P. 680), AND THE OKLAHOMA COURT
RULED THAT IT SUPERSEDED THE 1911 ACT WHICH HAD BEEN HELD INVALID.  CF.
JENKINS V. STATE, 28 OKLA. CR. 249, 230 P. 293; MORSE V. STATE, 63
OKLA. CR. 445, 458, 77 P.2D 757. 

FN3  AT LEAST ONE OTHER PROVISION OF OKLAHOMA LEGISLATION MAY WELL BE
FOUND TO OUTLAW THE DELIVERY OF THE SHIPMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF
WHICH THE CARRIER IS SEEKING THE AID OF THE FEDERAL COURT.  CHAPTER 16,
P. 16, SEC. 1 OF THE LAWS OF 1939 MAKES IT "UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON
...  TO IMPORT, BRING, TRANSPORT, OR CAUSE TO BE BROUGHT OR TRANSPORTED
INTO THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ANY INTOXICATING LIQUOR  ...  WITHOUT A
PERMIT FIRST SECURED THEREFOR AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED."  37 O.S.A. SEC.
41.  PERMITS MAY BE ISSUED, UNDER SEC. 2 OF THAT ACT, ONLY FOR THE
IMPORTATION OF ALCOHOL FOR SCIENTIFIC, MECHANICAL, MEDICINAL OR
SACRAMENTAL PURPOSES.  37 O.S.A. SEC. 42.  SINCE THE IMPORTATION OF THE
LIQUOR HERE INVOLVED CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SAID TO FALL WITHIN THE
CLASSIFICATIONS FOR WHICH PERMITS ARE GRANTED, THESE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS AS APPLIED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE ARE PENAL, AND
AS SUCH, MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE RESERVATION UNDER THE ASSIMILATIVE
CRIMES ACT.  54 STAT. 234, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 468.  SEE INFRA. 

FN4  AND SEE WEBSTER, THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL IN THE SENATE, IN
REGISTER OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS (GALES & SEATON, 1825) VOL. I, P. 338:
"AS TO THE THIRD SECTION (THE PRECURSOR OF THE PRESENT ASSIMILATIVE
CRIMES ACT), IT MUST BE OBVIOUS, THAT, WHERE THE JURISDICTION OF A
SMALL PLACE, CONTAINING ONLY A FEW HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE, (A NAVY YARD FOR
INSTANCE,) WAS CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES, SOME PROVISION WAS REQUIRED
FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES; AND AS, FROM THE USE TO WHICH THE PLACE
WAS TO BE PUT, SOME CRIMES WERE LIKELY TO BE MORE FREQUENTLY COMMITTED
THAN OTHERS, THE COMMITTEE HAD THOUGHT IT SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE FOR
THESE, AND THEN TO LEAVE THE RESIDUE TO BE PUNISHED BY THE LAWS OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE YARD, &C. MIGHT BE.  HE WAS PERSUADED THAT THE
PEOPLE WOULD NOT VIEW IT AS ANY HARDSHIP, THAT THE GREAT CLASS OF MINOR
OFFENCES SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE PUNISHED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEY HAD
BEEN BEFORE THE CESSION." 
..END :





ANDERSON V. ABBOTT, 321 U.S. 349 


NO. 3.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1943.  REARGUED JANUARY 12, 13, 1944.  -
DECIDED MARCH 6, 1944.  - 127 F.2D 696, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON THE FACTS, HELD THAT SHAREHOLDERS OF A BANK-STOCK HOLDING
COMPANY WERE LIABLE FOR AN ASSESSMENT ON SHARES OF A NATIONAL BANK IN
THE PORTFOLIO OF THE HOLDING COMPANY.  CONSTRUING FEDERAL RESERVE ACT,
SEC. 23; NATIONAL BANK ACT, SEC. 12.  P. 356. 

SO HELD OF SHAREHOLDERS WHO ACQUIRED THEIR HOLDING-COMPANY SHARES BY
PURCHASE AS WELL AS OF OTHERS WHO ACQUIRED THEIR HOLDING-COMPANY SHARES
BY TRANSFER OF BANK SHARES. 

2.  A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE HOLDING COMPANY IN A PRIOR SUIT BY THE
RECEIVER OF THE NATIONAL BANK WAS NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE CLAIM AGAINST
THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY FOR THE BALANCE DUE ON THE
ASSESSMENT.  NOR BY INSTITUTING THE PRIOR SUIT AGAINST THE HOLDING
COMPANY DID THE RECEIVER MAKE AN ELECTION WHICH BARRED THE SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDING AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY.  P. 354. 

3.  FINDINGS IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS CONCURRED, AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO CLEAR ERROR IS SHOWN,
ACCEPTED HERE.  P. 356. 

4.  WHERE A TRANSFEROR OF SHARES OF A NATIONAL BANK RETAINS THROUGH
HIS TRANSFEREE HIS INVESTMENT POSITION IN THE BANK, INCLUDING CONTROL,
HE CAN NOT ESCAPE THE STATUTORY LIABILITY IF HIS TRANSFEREE DOES NOT
HAVE RESOURCES COMMENSURATE WITH THE RISKS OF THOSE HOLDINGS.  IN SUCH
CASE, THE TRANSFEROR REMAINS LIABLE AS A "STOCKHOLDER" OR
"SHAREHOLDER," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTES, TO THE
EXTENT OF HIS INTEREST IN THE UNDERLYING SHARES OF THE BANK.  THIS
RESULT IS NECESSARY LEST THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE DOUBLE
LIABILITY PROVISIONS BE LOST THROUGH TRANSFERS TO IMPECUNIOUS OR NOT
FULLY RESPONSIBLE HOLDING OR OPERATING COMPANIES WHOSE STOCK IS OWNED
BY THE TRANSFEROR.  P. 357. 

5.  WHETHER THE TRANSFER IS MADE IN AVOIDANCE OF THE DOUBLE
LIABILITY, OR FOR BUSINESS REASONS WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED WHOLLY
LEGITIMATE, THE RESULT IS THE SAME, SINCE IN EITHER EVENT DEPOSITORS
ARE DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFIT OF DOUBLE LIABILITY.  P. 357. 

6.  THE HOLDING-COMPANY DEVICE HERE USED COULD BE SO READILY UTILIZED
TO CIRCUMVENT THE STATUTORY POLICY OF DOUBLE LIABILITY THAT THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY RATHER THAN THE DEPOSITORS OF THE
SUBSIDIARY BANKS MUST TAKE THE RISK OF THE FINANCIAL SUCCESS OF THE
UNDERTAKING.  P. 359. 

7.  STOCKHOLDERS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF
THE DIRECTORS WHICH DETERMINED, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CORPORATE
CHARTER, THE KIND AND QUALITY OF THE CORPORATE UNDERTAKING.  P. 361. 

8.  THAT STOCKHOLDERS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY MAY HAVE CLAIMS AGAINST
AN OFFICER OR DIRECTOR FOR MISMANAGEMENT DOES NOT RELIEVE THEM FROM
LIABILITY TO THE DEPOSITORS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BANKS.  P. 361. 

9.  THE QUESTION OF THE LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS OF A HOLDING
COMPANY FOR ASSESSMENTS IN RESPECT OF NATIONAL BANK SHARES HELD BY IT
IS A FEDERAL QUESTION, UNAFFECTED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
INCORPORATION OF THE HOLDING COMPANY.  P. 365. 

10.  THE INNOCENCE AND GOOD FAITH OF INVESTORS IN THE HOLDING COMPANY
ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THEM AS DEFENSES IN THIS SUIT.  P. 366. 

11.  COURTS WILL NOT ALLOW THE INTERPOSITION OF A CORPORATION TO
DEFEAT A LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  P. 362. 

12.  THE LIABILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY IS TO
BE MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF SHARES OF STOCK OF THE NATIONAL BANK,
WHETHER SEVERAL OR ONLY FRACTIONAL, REPRESENTED BY EACH SHARE OF STOCK
OF THE HOLDING COMPANY; AND THE ASSESSMENT LIABILITY OF EACH SHARE OF
STOCK OF THE HOLDING COMPANY MUST BE A LIKE PROPORTION OF THE
ASSESSMENT LIABILITY OF THE SHARES OF THE BANK REPRESENTED BY THE
FORMER.  P. 368. 

ANDERSON, RECEIVER, V. ABBOTT, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, 32 F.SUPP.  328, IN A SUIT BY A RECEIVER OF A
NATIONAL BANK AGAINST SHAREHOLDERS OF A HOLDING COMPANY TO RECOVER THE
BALANCE OF AN ASSESSMENT OF DOUBLE LIABILITY ON SHARES HELD BY THE
HOLDING COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRIMARY QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER ON THESE FACTS
SHAREHOLDERS OF A BANK-STOCK HOLDING COMPANY ARE LIABLE UNDER SEC. 23
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 64, AND SEC. 12 OF THE
NATIONAL BANK ACT, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 63, FOR AN ASSESSMENT ON SHARES OF A
NATIONAL BANK IN THE PORTFOLIO OF THE HOLDING COMPANY. 

THE ESSENTIAL FACTS  FN1  MAY BE BRIEFLY STATED. 

BANCOKENTUCKY COMPANY WAS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF DELAWARE IN
JULY, 1929.  IT HAD BROAD CHARTER POWERS IN THE FIELD OF FINANCE.  IT
WAS ORGANIZED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY AND OF
THE LOUISVILLE TRUST COMPANY - BANKING HOUSES DOING BUSINESS AT
LOUISVILLE.  BANCO PERFECTED THE DESIRED ALLIANCE BETWEEN THEM BY
ACQUIRING MOST OF THEIR SHARES  FN2  IN EXCHANGE FOR ITS SHARES.  THE
BANK, THE TRUST COMPANY, AND BANCO EACH HAD THE SAME DIRECTORS AND
CERTAIN COMMON OFFICERS.  SOME OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WHO MADE THE
EXCHANGE ALSO PURCHASED ADDITIONAL SHARES OF BANCO STOCK AT $25 PER
SHARE.  BANCO STOCK WAS ALSO SOLD AT THAT PRICE ON THE MARKET TO THOSE
WHO DID NOT OWN ANY SHARES IN THE BANK OR THE TRUST COMPANY.  ALL TOLD
SOME $9,900,000 IN CASH WAS REALIZED BY BANCO FROM THE SALE OF ITS
SHARES - ABOUT $6,000,000 OF WHICH WAS FINANCED ON LOANS FROM THE BANK
AND FROM THE TRUST COMPANY.  BANCO'S STOCK CERTIFICATES STATED THAT THE
SHARES WERE "FULL-PAID AND NONASSESSABLE."  ITS CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION PROVIDED THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS' PROPERTY SHOULD "NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF CORPORATE DEBTS TO ANY EXTENT WHATEVER." 

THE CLOSING DATE FOR THE EXCHANGE OF SHARES WAS SEPTEMBER 19, 1929. 
BEGINNING ABOUT SEPTEMBER 25, 1929, BANCO ACQUIRED A MAJORITY STOCK
INTEREST IN EACH OF FIVE BANKS IN KENTUCKY AND TWO BANKS IN OHIO, AND A
MINORITY STOCK INTEREST IN ANOTHER BANK IN KENTUCKY.  OF THESE EIGHT
BANKS, TWO WERE NATIONAL.  THE SHARES OF THE STATE, AS WELL AS THE
NATIONAL, BANKS IN THE GROUP CARRIED A DOUBLE LIABILITY.  FN3  THE
PRICE PAID FOR THE SHARES IN THESE BANKS WAS ABOUT $11,500,000 - OF
WHICH SOME $6,500,000 WAS PAID IN CASH AND $5,000,000 IN BANCO'S
SHARES.  NOT ALL OF BANCO'S FUNDS WERE INVESTED IN BANK SHARES.  IT
ACQUIRED FOR $2,000,000 A $2,000,000 NOTE OF ITS PRESIDENT.  FN4 IT
PURCHASED 625 SHARES OF A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR $25,000 CASH.  IT
PURCHASED AND RETIRED 106,000 OF ITS OWN SHARES AT A COST OF OVER
$2,300,000 - SOME $275,000 LESS THAN BANCO RECEIVED FOR THEM.  IT
RECEIVED DIVIDENDS OF ABOUT $1,180,000 ON THE BANK STOCKS OWNED BY IT
AND PAID THEM OUT AT ONCE AS DIVIDENDS ON ITS OWN SHARES.  IT BORROWED
$2,600,000 FROM A NEW YORK BANK AND PAID BACK $1,000,000.  WITH
$600,000 OF THAT LOAN IT PURCHASED FROM THE BANK CERTAIN DUBIOUS ASSETS
FN5  - A TRANSACTION WHICH THE KENTUCKY COURT LATER SET ASIDE. 
BANCOKENTUCKY'S RECEIVER V. NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY'S RECEIVER, 281
KY. 784, 137 S.W.2D 357.  IT WAS NEGOTIATING FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE
SHARES OF AN INVESTMENT BANKING HOUSE WHEN THAT HOUSE, THE BANK AND THE
TRUST COMPANY FAILED.  THAT WAS IN NOVEMBER, 1930 - A LITTLE MORE THAN
A YEAR AFTER BANCO BEGAN ITS FINANCIAL CAREER.  IN NOVEMBER, 1930 A
RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED FOR THE BANK AND ONE FOR BANCO.  IN FEBRUARY,
1931 THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY MADE AN ASSESSMENT ON THE
SHAREHOLDERS OF THE BANK IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000,000 PAYABLE ON OR
BEFORE APRIL 1, 1931.  AND IN MARCH, 1931 THE RECEIVER OF THE BANK
NOTIFIED THE STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO THAT HE HAD DEMANDED PAYMENT OF THE
ASSESSMENT FROM THE RECEIVER OF BANCO AND THAT HE INTENDED TO PROCEED
AGAINST THEM FOR COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT HE WAS
UNABLE TO COLLECT FROM BANCO.  IN OCTOBER, 1931 THE RECEIVER OF THE
BANK BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST BANCO AS HOLDER OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF
THE BANK'S SHARES.  HE OBTAINED A JUDGMENT (KEYES V. AMERICAN LIFE INS.
CO., 1 F.SUPP.  512) WHICH WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL.  LAURENT V.
ANDERSON, 70 F.2D 819.  SOME $90,000 WAS PAID ON THAT JUDGMENT.  THE
RECEIVER OF THE BANK THEREUPON BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THOSE
STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO WHO RESIDED IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
IN WHICH HE SEEKS TO RECOVER FROM EACH HIS PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE
BALANCE OF THE ASSESSMENT.  SIMILAR SUITS AGAINST OTHER STOCKHOLDERS
WERE BROUGHT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS IN OTHER STATES.  THE DISTRICT
COURT, AFTER A TRIAL, DISMISSED THE BILL.  32 F.SUPP.  328.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT JUDGMENT.  127 F.2D 696.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

                                  I. 

WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE DECISION IN
LAURENT V. ANDERSON, SUPRA, HOLDING BANCO LIABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT, IS
RES JUDICATA OF THE PRESENT CLAIM; AND THAT PETITIONER BY BRINGING THAT
SUIT MADE AN ELECTION WHICH BARS THE PRESENT ACTION.  WE DO NOT AGREE. 
EITHER THE RECORD OWNER OR THE ACTUAL OWNER OF SHARES OF A NATIONAL
BANK MAY BE LIABLE ON THE STATUTORY ASSESSMENT.  FN6  RICHMOND V.
IRONS, 121 U.S. 27, 58; KEYSER V. HITZ, 133 U.S. 138, 149; PAULY V.
STATE LOAN & TRUST CO., 165 U.S. 606; LANTRY V. WALLACE, 182 U.S. 536;
OHIO VALLEY NATIONAL BANK V. HULITT, 204 U.S. 162; EARLY V. RICHARDSON,
280 U.S. 496; FORREST V. JACK, 294 U.S. 158.  A RECEIVER MAY SUE BOTH -
PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE BEING A PRO TANTO
DISCHARGE OF THE OTHER.  ERICSON V. SLOMER, 94 F.2D 437.  AND SEE
CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. V. O'NEIL, 82 F.2D 650.  THE
BASIS OF LIABILITY OF EACH IS DIFFERENT - APPARENT OR TITULAR OWNERSHIP
IN ONE CASE, ACTUAL OR BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP IN THE OTHER.  HENCE THE
ISSUES INVOLVED IN EACH SUIT ARE NOT THE SAME.  FN7  SEE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORP. V. PELTS, 123 F.2D 503; RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V.
BARRETT, 131 F.2D 745, 748.  IF THE RECEIVER WERE BARRED FROM
PROCEEDING AGAINST ONE BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY PROCEEDED AGAINST THE
OTHER, CREDITORS OF BANKS WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THE FULL BENEFITS OF
THESE STATUTES.  THE WISDOM OF THE RECEIVER'S FIRST SUIT RATHER THAN
THE FIXED STATUTORY LIABILITY WOULD BE THE MEASURE OF THEIR
PROTECTION.  THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE
STATUTORY SCHEME.  THE RULES OF ELECTION APPLICABLE TO SUITS ON
CONTRACTS MADE BY AGENTS OF UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPALS (PITTSBURGH TERMINAL
COAL CORP. V. BENNETT, 73 F.2D 387, 389) HAVE BEEN PRESSED UPON US.
BUT THEY HAVE NO APPLICATION TO SUITS TO ENFORCE A LIABILITY WHICH HAS
THIS STATUTORY ORIGIN.  CF. CHRISTOPHER V. NORVELL, 201 U.S. 216, 225. 

      II. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AGREED,
THAT BANCO WAS ORGANIZED IN GOOD FAITH AND WAS NOT A SHAM; THAT IT WAS
NOT ORGANIZED FOR A FRAUDULENT PURPOSE OR TO CONCEAL ENTERPRISES
CONDUCTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BANK; THAT IT WAS NOT A MERE HOLDING
COMPANY; THAT IT WAS NOT FORMED AS A MEANS FOR AVOIDING DOUBLE
LIABILITY ON THE STOCK OF THE BANK; AND THAT THE SOUNDNESS OF THE BANK
AND ITS ABILITY TO MEET THE OBLIGATIONS COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED UNTIL
AFTER THE FORMATION OF BANCO.  SOME OF THESE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN
CHALLENGED.  BUT WE DO NOT STOP TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE.  WE ACCEPT
THOSE FINDINGS, AS THEY WERE CONCURRED IN BY TWO COURTS AND NO CLEAR
ERROR IS SHOWN.  BREWER-ELLIOTT OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 77,
86; ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 477.  WE CONCLUDE,
HOWEVER, THAT THE COURTS BELOW ERRED IN DISMISSING THE BILL. 

IT IS CLEAR BY REASON OF EARLY V. RICHARDSON, SUPRA, THAT IF A
STOCKHOLDER OF THE BANK HAD TRANSFERRED HIS SHARES TO HIS MINOR
CHILDREN, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIEVED FROM LIABILITY FOR THIS
ASSESSMENT.  AND SEE SEABURY V. GREEN, 294 U.S. 165.  THAT FOLLOWS
BECAUSE OF THE POLICY UNDERLYING THESE STATUTES.  ONE WHO IS LEGALLY
IRRESPONSIBLE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SERVE AS AN INSULATOR FROM
LIABILITY, WHETHER THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OR MERELY THE EFFECT OF THE
ARRANGEMENT.  A FATHER WHO TRANSFERS HIS SHARES TO HIS MINOR CHILDREN
HAS NOT FOUND A SUBSTITUTE FOR HIS LIABILITY.  SEE WESTON'S CASE, 5 CH.
APP. 614.  IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE TRANSFER WAS IN GOOD FAITH,
WITHOUT PURPOSE OF EVASION AND AT A TIME WHEN THE BANK WAS SOLVENT. 
EARLY V. RICHARDSON, SUPRA.  THE VICE OF THE ARRANGEMENT IS FOUND IN
THE NATURE OF THE TRANSFEREE AND HIS RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRANSFEROR. 
CF. NICKALLS V. MERRY, 7 ENG. & IRISH APP. 530.  THE SAME RESULT WILL
AT TIMES OBTAIN WHERE THE TRANSFEREE IS FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. 
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY STOCKHOLDER OF A NATIONAL BANK WHO SELLS
HIS SHARES REMAINS LIABLE BECAUSE HIS TRANSFEREE TURNS OUT TO BE
IRRESPONSIBLE OR IMPECUNIOUS.  IT IS CLEAR THAT HE DOES NOT.  EARLE V.
CARSON, 188 U.S. 42, 54-55.  BUT WHERE AFTER THE SALE HE RETAINS
THROUGH HIS TRANSFEREE AN INVESTMENT POSITION IN THE BANK, INCLUDING
CONTROL, HE CANNOT ESCAPE THE STATUTORY LIABILITY IF HIS TRANSFEREE
DOES NOT HAVE RESOURCES COMMENSURATE WITH THE RISKS OF THOSE HOLDINGS. 
IN SUCH A CASE HE REMAINS LIABLE AS A "STOCKHOLDER" OR "SHAREHOLDER"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THESE STATUTES TO THE EXTENT OF HIS INTEREST IN
THE UNDERLYING SHARES OF THE BANK.  FOR HE RETAINS CONTROL AND THE
OTHER BENEFITS OF OWNERSHIP WITHOUT SUBSTITUTING IN HIS STEAD ANY ONE
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISKS OF THE BANKING BUSINESS.  THE LAW HAS
BEEN EDGING TOWARDS THAT RESULT.  SEE HANSEN V. AGNEW, 195 WASH. 354,
80 P.2D 845; METROPOLITAN HOLDING CO. V. SNYDER, 79 F.2D 263; BARBOUR
V. THOMAS, 86 F.2D 510; NETTLES V. RHETT, 94 F.2D 42.  WE THINK THE
RESULT IS NECESSARY, LEST THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THESE DOUBLE
LIABILITY PROVISIONS BE LOST THROUGH TRANSFERS TO IMPECUNIOUS OR NOT
FULLY RESPONSIBLE HOLDING OR OPERATING COMPANIES WHOSE STOCK IS OWNED
BY THE TRANSFEROR.  WHETHER THE TRANSFER IS MADE IN AVOIDANCE OF THE
DOUBLE LIABILITY AS IN CORKER V. SOPER, 53 F.2D 190, OR FOR BUSINESS
REASONS WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED WHOLLY LEGITIMATE, THE RESULT IS THE
SAME.  DEPOSITORS ARE DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFIT OF DOUBLE LIABILITY IN
EITHER EVENT. 

THUS IT IS NO BAR TO THE PRESENT SUIT THAT BANCO WAS ORGANIZED IN
GOOD FAITH, THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUDULENT INTENT, THAT BANCO WAS NOT A
SHAM, THAT IT WAS NOT A MERE HOLDING COMPANY, OR THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS
OF THE BANK HAD NO PURPOSE OF AVOIDING DOUBLE LIABILITY.  WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED WITH ANY QUESTION OF GOOD INTENTION.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE PARTIES DID WHAT THEY INTENDED TO DO AND WHETHER WHAT THEY DID
CONTRAVENED THE POLICY OF THE LAW.  BY THAT TEST IT IS CLEAR TO US THAT
THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK ARE LIABLE.  FOR THEY RETAINED THROUGH
BANCO THEIR FORMER INVESTMENT POSITIONS IN THE BANK, INCLUDING CONTROL,
AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE BANCO AS AN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL SUBSTITUTE IN
THEIR STEAD.  BANCO'S ASSET POSITION IMMEDIATELY AFTER ITS SALES OF
STOCK CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE MEASURE OF ITS FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. 
ITS LIQUID CONDITION WAS FLEETING; THE RAISING OF THE CASH WAS BUT AN
INTERIM STEP IN THE PLANNED EVOLUTION OF BANCO AS A BANK-STOCK HOLDING
COMPANY.  IT IS THE CONDITION OF BANCO AT THE END OF THE PROMOTION
WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT.  BANCO EMERGED AS A BANK-STOCK HOLDING COMPANY. 
TECHNICALLY IT WAS NOT MERELY SUCH A HOLDING COMPANY AS IT HAD OTHER
INTERESTS AND INVESTMENTS.  BUT ITS MAIN ASSETS WERE STOCKS IN BANKS,
STOCKS WHICH CARRIED DOUBLE LIABILITY.  ITS OTHER ASSETS - APART FROM
THE $25,000 OF LIFE INSURANCE STOCK - WERE ALWAYS HIGHLY SUSPECT AND
DUBIOUS.  IN SUBSTANCE BANCO AS A GOING CONCERN HAD NO FREE ASSETS
WHICH COULD POSSIBLY BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE AN ADEQUATE RESERVE AGAINST
DOUBLE LIABILITY ON THE BANK STOCKS WHICH IT HELD.  IT WAS IN NO TRUE
SENSE COMPARABLE TO AN INVESTMENT TRUST OR HOLDING COMPANY WHICH HOLDS
BANK STOCK IN A DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO.  IF THE SMALL AMOUNT OF LIFE
INSURANCE STOCK BE LEFT OUT OF ACCOUNT, THE SITUATION IS IN POINT OF
FACT NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE WHERE THE ONLY ASSETS HELD
WERE BANK STOCKS CARRYING DOUBLE LIABILITY.  SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT, IF
SUCCESSFUL, WOULD ALLOW STOCKHOLDERS OF BANKS TO RETAIN ALL OF THE
BENEFITS OF OWNERSHIP WITHOUT THE DOUBLE LIABILITY WHICH CONGRESS HAD
PRESCRIBED.  THE ONLY SUBSTITUTE WHICH DEPOSITORS OF ONE BANK WOULD
HAVE FOR THAT DOUBLE LIABILITY WOULD BE THE STOCK IN ANOTHER BANK
CARRYING A LIKE LIABILITY.  THE SENSITIVENESS OF ONE BANK IN THE GROUP
TO THE DISASTER OF ANOTHER WOULD LIKELY MEAN THAT AT THE ONLY TIME WHEN
DOUBLE LIABILITY WAS NEEDED THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOLDING
COMPANY AS STOCKHOLDER WOULD BE LACKING.  HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, THE
DEVICE USED HERE CAN BE SO READILY UTILIZED IN CIRCUMVENTION OF THE
STATUTORY POLICY OF DOUBLE LIABILITY THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
HOLDING COMPANY RATHER THAN THE DEPOSITORS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BANKS MUST
TAKE THE RISK OF THE FINANCIAL SUCCESS OF THE UNDERTAKING.  FN8    THAT
IS A BASIS OF LIABILITY SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO INCLUDE ALSO THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO WHO HAD NOT BEEN STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK.  AS WE
HAVE NOTED, MANY OF THEM ACQUIRED THEIR SHARES EITHER FOR CASH OR FOR
SHARES IN OTHER BANKS.  IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT IN MAKING THOSE
PURCHASES OR EFFECTING THOSE EXCHANGES THEY KNEW WHAT KIND OF AN
ENTERPRISE BANCO WAS.  SEE NETTLES V. RHETT, SUPRA, PP. 48-49; ANDERSON
V. ATKINSON, 22 F.SUPP.  853, 863.  CIRCULARS OF THE CHICAGO STOCK
EXCHANGE, ON WHICH BANCO'S SHARES WERE LISTED, GAVE A PLAIN INDICATION
OF THE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE.  FN9  SO DID CIRCULARS OF DEALERS. 
FN10  AND THERE WOULD NOT SEEM TO BE ANY DOUBT THAT THE OLD
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK WERE GIVEN AT THE TIME OF THE EXCHANGE A FAIR
PICTURE OF THE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE WHICH BANCO WAS ABOUT TO
LAUNCH.  SOME SHAREHOLDERS OF BANCO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO RESCIND THEIR
PURCHASES OF ITS SHARES ON THE GROUND OF MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE
SALE.  BUT WHETHER OR NOT SUCH RELIEF MIGHT BE GRANTED IN SOME
INSTANCES, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT BANCO'S STOCKHOLDERS ARE BOUND BY THE
DECISIONS OF THE DIRECTORS WHICH DETERMINED, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
CORPORATE CHARTER, THE KIND AND QUALITY OF THE CORPORATE UNDERTAKING. 
AS WAS STATED IN CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302 U.S. 500, 503, "A
STOCKHOLDER IS SO FAR AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CORPORATION OF WHICH HE
IS A MEMBER, THAT HE MAY BE BOUND AND HIS RIGHTS FORECLOSED BY
AUTHORIZED CORPORATE ACTION TAKEN WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR
PARTICIPATION.  SANGER V. UPTON, 91 U.S. 56, 58."  AND SEE PINK V.
A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201, 207, AND CASES CITED.  THE
LEGALITY OF THE INVESTMENTS OF BANCO'S FUNDS FOR THE MOST PART IS NOT
CHALLENGED.  IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THEY WERE NOT ULTRA VIRES.  THEY
FALL INDEED INTO THE CATEGORY OF ACTS OF DIRECTORS WHICH NORMALLY
CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BY STOCKHOLDERS.  COOK, CORPORATIONS (8TH ED.) 
SEC.  684.  THESE PRINCIPLES, BASIC IN GENERAL CORPORATION LAW, ARE
RELEVANT HERE AS INDICATING THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO CANNOT
ESCAPE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INADEQUACY OF BANCO'S RESOURCES MERELY
BECAUSE THE CHOICE OF ITS INVESTMENTS WAS MADE BY THE OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS - ACTS IN WHICH THE STOCKHOLDERS DID NOT PARTICIPATE AND OF
WHICH PERHAPS THEY HAD NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE.  THE FACT THAT THEY MAY
HAVE CLAIMS AGAINST AN OFFICER OR DIRECTOR FOR MISMANAGEMENT DOES NOT
RELIEVE THEM FROM LIABILITY TO THE DEPOSITORS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BANKS. 
CF. SCOTT V. DEWEESE, 181 U.S. 202, 213; LANTRY V. WALLACE, 182 U.S.
536, 548-554. 

NORMALLY THE CORPORATION IS AN INSULATOR FROM LIABILITY ON CLAIMS OF
CREDITORS.  THE FACT THAT INCORPORATION WAS DESIRED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
LIMITED LIABILITY DOES NOT DEFEAT THAT PURPOSE.  ELENKRIEG V.
SIEBRECHT, 238 N.Y. 254, 144 N.E. 519.  SEE 7 HARV. BUS.  REV.  496.
LIMITED LIABILITY IS THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION; AND ON THAT
ASSUMPTION LARGE UNDERTAKINGS ARE RESTED, VAST ENTERPRISES ARE
LAUNCHED, AND HUGE SUMS OF CAPITAL ATTRACTED.  BUT THERE ARE OCCASIONS
WHEN THE LIMITED LIABILITY SOUGHT TO BE OBTAINED THROUGH THE
CORPORATION WILL BE QUALIFIED OR DENIED.  MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO STATED
THAT A SURRENDER OF THAT PRINCIPLE OF LIMITED LIABILITY WOULD BE MADE
"WHEN THE SACRIFICE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE END THAT SOME ACCEPTED PUBLIC
POLICY MAY BE DEFENDED OR UPHELD."  BERKEY V. THIRD AVE. RY. CO., 244
N.Y. 84, 95, 155 N.E. 58, 61; UNITED STATES V. MILWAUKEE REFRIGERATOR
TRANSIT CO., 142 F. 247.  SEE POWELL, PARENT & SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS
(1931) PP. 77-81.  THE CASES OF FRAUD MAKE UP PART OF THAT EXCEPTION. 
LINN & LANE TIMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 236 U.S. 574; RICE V. SANGER
BROTHERS, 27 ARIZ. 15, 229 P. 397; DONOVAN V. PURTELL, 216 ILL. 629,
640, 75 N.E. 334; GEORGE V. ROLLINS, 176 MICH. 144, 142 N.W. 337;
HIGGINS V. CALIFORNIA PETROLEUM CO., 147 CAL. 363, 81 P. 1070.  BUT
THEY DO NOT EXHAUST IT.  AN OBVIOUS INADEQUACY OF CAPITAL, MEASURED BY
THE NATURE AND MAGNITUDE OF THE CORPORATE UNDERTAKING, HAS FREQUENTLY
BEEN AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN CASES DENYING STOCKHOLDERS THEIR DEFENSE OF
LIMITED LIABILITY.  LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V. GRACE & CO., 267 F. 676,
681; ORIENTAL INVESTMENT CO. V. BARCLAY, 25 TEX. CIV. APP. 543, 559, 64
S.W. 80, 88.  AND SEE WEISSER V. MURSAM SHOE CORP., 127 F.2D 344.  CF.
PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, 310; ALBERT RICHARDS CO. V. MAYFAIR,
INC., 287 MASS. 280, 288, 191 N.E. 430; ERICKSON V. MINNESOTA & ONTARIO
POWER CO., 134 MINN. 209, 158 N.W. 979.  THAT RULE HAS BEEN INVOKED
EVEN IN ABSENCE OF A LEGISLATIVE POLICY WHICH UNDERCAPITALIZATION WOULD
DEFEAT.  IT BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT IN A SITUATION SUCH AS THE PRESENT
ONE WHERE THE STATUTORY POLICY OF DOUBLE LIABILITY WILL BE DEFEATED IF
IMPECUNIOUS BANK-STOCK HOLDING COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED TO BE INTERPOSED
AS NON-CONDUCTORS OF LIABILITY.  IT HAS OFTEN BEEN HELD THAT THE
INTERPOSITION OF A CORPORATION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEFEAT A
LEGISLATIVE POLICY, WHETHER THAT WAS THE AIM OR ONLY THE RESULT OF THE
ARRANGEMENT.  UNITED STATES V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 220 U.S. 257;
CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MINNEAPOLIS CIVIC & COMMERCE ASSN., 247
U.S. 490; UNITED STATES V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26.  THE COURT STATED
IN CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MINNEAPOLIS CIVIC & COMMERCE ASSN.,
SUPRA, P. 501, THAT "THE COURTS WILL NOT PERMIT THEMSELVES TO BE
BLINDED OR DECEIVED BY MERE FORMS OR LAW" BUT WILL DEAL "WITH THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION INVOLVED AS IF THE CORPORATE AGENCY DID
NOT EXIST AND AS THE JUSTICE OF THE CASE MAY REQUIRE."  WE ARE DEALING
HERE WITH A PRINCIPLE OF LIABILITY WHICH IS CONCERNED WITH REALITIES
NOT FORMS.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE NET PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF BANCO WAS THE SAME AS THOUGH THE SHARES
OF THE BANK WERE HELD IN TRUST FOR BENEFICIARIES WHO WERE IN POINT OF
SUBSTANCE ITS ONLY OWNERS.  THOSE WHO ACQUIRED SHARES OF BANCO DID NOT
ENTER UPON AN ENTERPRISE DISTINCT FROM THE BANKING BUSINESS.  THEIR
INVESTMENT IN BANCO WAS IN SUBSTANCE LITTLE MORE THAN AN INVESTMENT IN
THE SHARES OF THE BANK.  THEY WERE AS MUCH IN THE BANKING BUSINESS AS
ANY STOCKHOLDER OF THE BANK HAD EVER BEEN.  AND THEY CONTINUED IN THAT
BUSINESS THROUGH BANCO WHICH AS A GOING CONCERN LACKED ASSETS ADEQUATE
AS A RESERVE AGAINST THE CONTINGENT STATUTORY LIABILITY.  ITS
STOCKHOLDERS WERE IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE THE ONLY SOURCE OF FUNDS
AVAILABLE TO SATISFY THE ASSESSMENTS.  FOR THESE REASONS THE OLD GROUP
OF STOCKHOLDERS MUST BE HELD TO HAVE RETAINED AND THE NEW GROUP OF
STOCKHOLDERS MUST BE HELD TO HAVE ACQUIRED LIABILITY AS STOCKHOLDERS OF
THE BANK. 

TO ALLOW THIS HOLDING COMPANY DEVICE TO SUCCEED WOULD BE TO PUT THE
POLICY OF DOUBLE LIABILITY AT THE MERCY OF CORPORATION FINANCE.  THE
FACT THAT CONGRESS DID NOT OUTLAW HOLDING COMPANIES FROM THE NATIONAL
BANK FIELD NOR UNDERTAKE TO REGULATE THEM DURING THE PERIOD OF BANCO'S
EXISTENCE CAN HARDLY IMPLY THAT CONGRESS SANCTIONED THEIR USE TO DEFEAT
THE POLICY OF DOUBLE LIABILITY.  IT IS TRUE THAT CONGRESS LATER
ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THIS PROBLEM AND IN THE BANKING ACT OF 1933(48
STAT. 186, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 61) ESTABLISHED CERTAIN CONTROLS OVER THEM. 
IN GENERAL, THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM WAS
AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE A VOTING PERMIT ENTITLING A HOLDING COMPANY TO VOTE
THE STOCK CONTROLLED BY IT ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  APART FROM
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXAMINATION AND NON-AFFILIATION WITH SECURITIES
COMPANIES, SEC. 19(A) AND (E), CERTAIN STANDARDS FOR FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY WERE ESTABLISHED AND HOLDING COMPANIES SEEKING SUCH
PERMITS WERE GRANTED A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO MEET
THOSE STANDARDS.  WHERE THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY WERE
LIABLE FOR THE STATUTORY LIABILITY, A SPECIFIED RESERVE OF READILY
MARKETABLE ASSETS WAS REQUIRED.  SEC. 19(C).  OTHERWISE, THE HOLDING
COMPANY WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN FREE OF ANY LIEN "READILY MARKETABLE
ASSETS OTHER THAN BANK STOCK" IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO A LARGER PERCENTAGE
OF THE PAR VALUE OF THE BANK STOCKS OWNED.  SEC. 19(B).  IT IS APPARENT
THAT CONGRESS IN THAT ACT PROTECTED ITS POLICY OF DOUBLE LIABILITY BY
PRESCRIBING ONE STANDARD OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HOLDING
COMPANIES WHOSE SHARES WERE ASSESSABLE BY THEIR TERMS AND ANOTHER FOR
THOSE WHOSE SHARES WERE NON-ASSESSABLE.  FN11  WE NEED NOT STOP TO
CONSIDER WHAT WOULD BE THE MEASURE OF LIABILITY IN CASES ARISING UNDER
THAT ACT WHERE THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLIANCE WITH IT.  BUT IF THAT ACT
HAD BEEN APPLICABLE TO BANCO AND BANCO HAD COMPLIED WITH IT, BANCO
WOULD THEN HAVE MET THE STANDARDS OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WHICH
CONGRESS HAD PRESCRIBED AS ADEQUATE FOR THE DEPOSITORS.  YET THE FACT
THAT CONGRESS LATER WROTE SPECIFIC STANDARDS INTO THE LAW MEANS NO MORE
THAN A RECOGNITION ON ITS PART OF AN EVIL AND A FASHIONING BY IT OF A
SPECIFIC REMEDY.  IT CAN HARDLY MEAN THAT CONGRESS BY ITS EARLIER
SILENCE HAD SANCTIONED THE USE OF THE HOLDING COMPANY TO DEFEAT THE
PROTECTION WHICH IT HAD PROVIDED FOR DEPOSITORS OF NATIONAL BANKS.  THE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAD LONG ANNOUNCED WAS THE POLICY OF
DOUBLE LIABILITY.  IT IS THAT POLICY WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED. 
IT IS THAT POLICY, DECLARED BY CONGRESS, WHICH THE JUDICIAL POWER MAY
APPROPRIATELY PROTECT IN THE WAY WE HAVE INDICATED, IN ABSENCE OF A
CHOICE BY CONGRESS OF ANOTHER METHOD. 

IT IS OF COURSE TRUE THAT DELAWARE CREATED THIS CORPORATION.  BUT THE
QUESTION OF LIABILITY FOR THESE ASSESSMENTS IS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  THE
POLICY UNDERLYING A FEDERAL STATUTE MAY NOT BE DEFEATED BY SUCH AN
ASSERTION OF STATE POWER.  NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES,
193 U.S. 197, 349; SEABURY V. GREEN, SUPRA.  THE SPECTRE OF UNLIMITED
LIABILITY FOR STOCKHOLDERS HAS BEEN RAISED.  BUT THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR
ALARM.  BARRING CONFLICTING FEDERAL INCORPORATION STATUTES, DELAWARE
MAY CHOOSE SUCH RULES OF LIMITATION ON THE LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS OF
HER CORPORATIONS AS SHE DESIRES.  AND THOSE LAWS ARE ENFORCEABLE IN
FEDERAL COURTS UNDER THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 
BUT NO STATE MAY ENDOW ITS CORPORATE CREATURES WITH THE POWER TO PLACE
THEMSELVES ABOVE THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND DEFEAT THE
FEDERAL POLICY CONCERNING NATIONAL BANKS WHICH CONGRESS HAS ANNOUNCED. 
WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH THAT PROBLEM AND WITH THAT PROBLEM ALONE. 

THE RESULT WHICH WE REACH MAY BE HARSH TO SOME OF THE STOCKHOLDERS OF
BANCO.  BUT RULES OF LIABILITY ARE USUALLY HARSH ESPECIALLY WHERE THEY
ARE NOT BOTTOMED ON FAULT.  THUS PRIVATE INVESTORS HAVE FREQUENTLY
FOUND CONTRARY TO THEIR EXPECTATION OR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY
PURCHASED WITH THEIR INVESTMENT AN UNLIMITED LIABILITY FOR THE DEBTS OF
THE ENTERPRISE.  THOMPSON V. SCHMITT, 115 TEX. 53, 274 S.W. 554; FROST
V. THOMPSON, 219 MASS. 360, 106 N.E. 1009; WEBER ENGINE CO. V. ALTER,
120 KAN. 557, 245 P. 143; RAND V. MORSE, 289 F. 339.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN
SUPPOSED, HOWEVER, THAT THE INNOCENCE AND GOOD FAITH OF INVESTORS WERE
BARRIERS TO SUCH SUITS.  HORGAN V. MORGAN, 233 MASS. 381, 385, 124 N.E.
32.  NOR CAN WE ACCEDE TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THOSE DEFENSES SHOULD BE
AVAILABLE HERE.  THE POLICY UNDERLYING DOUBLE LIABILITY IS AN EXACTING
ONE.  ITS DEFEAT CANNOT BE ENCOURAGED THROUGH THE UTILIZATION OF
FINANCIAL DEVICES WHICH PUT A PREMIUM ON IGNORANCE. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT UNLESS
A STATUTE ESTABLISHES IT DENIES THE WHOLE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS IN SHAPING THE RULES OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY.  THE LIABILITY OF
A MASTER FOR THE TORTS OF HIS SERVANT CERTAINLY STARTED FROM NO SUCH
FOUNDATION.  AND THE RULES WHICH MADE THOSE WHO PURCHASED SHARES IN
MASSACHUSETTS BUSINESS TRUSTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEBTS OF THE
ENTERPRISE WERE EVOLVED, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, ON A COMMON LAW, NOT A
STATUTORY, BASIS.  MAGRUDER, THE POSITION OF SHAREHOLDERS IN BUSINESS
TRUSTS, 23 COL. L. REV. 423.  IN THE FIELD IN WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY
CONCERNED, JUDICIAL POWER HARDLY OVERSTEPS THE BOUNDS WHEN IT REFUSES
TO LEND ITS AID TO A PROMOTIONAL PROJECT WHICH WOULD CIRCUMVENT OR
UNDERMINE A LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  TO DENY IT THAT FUNCTION WOULD BE TO
MAKE IT IMPOTENT IN SITUATIONS WHERE HISTORICALLY IT HAS MADE SOME OF
ITS MOST NOTABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.  IF THE JUDICIAL POWER IS HELPLESS TO
PROTECT A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FROM SCHEMES FOR EASY AVOIDANCE, THEN
INDEED IT HAS BECOME A HANDY IMPLEMENT OF HIGH FINANCE.  JUDICIAL
INTERFERENCE TO CRIPPLE OR DEFEAT A LEGISLATIVE POLICY IS ONE THING;
JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE PLANS OF THOSE WHOSE CORPORATE OR OTHER
DEVICES WOULD CIRCUMVENT THAT POLICY IS QUITE ANOTHER.  ONCE THE
PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF THE SCHEME IS CLEAR, ONCE THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY
IS PLAIN, WE WOULD INDEED FORSAKE A GREAT TRADITION TO SAY WE WERE
HELPLESS TO FASHION THE INSTRUMENTS FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 

IN SUMMARY, WE SEE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF
STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR
LIABILITY.  THOSE WHO PURCHASED STOCK OF BANCO FOR CASH WERE AS MUCH
PARTICIPANTS IN THE BANKING BUSINESS AS THOSE WHO ACQUIRED THEIR STOCK
IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARES OF THE BANK.  TOGETHER THEY SHARED THE BENEFITS
OF OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBSIDIARY BANKS, INCLUDING CONTROL.  CERTAINLY A
SALE OF SHARES OF BANCO BY THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK DID NOT
GIVE THOSE SHARES AN IMMUNITY BATH.  TO DRAW DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE
CLASSES OF STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO WOULD BE TO MAKE THE PROTECTION
AFFORDED BY THESE STATUTES TURN ON ACCIDENTS OF ACQUISITION QUITE
IRRELEVANT TO THE CONCEPT OF "STOCKHOLDERS" OR "SHAREHOLDERS" ON WHOM
CONGRESS PLACED THIS LIABILITY.  ONE SIMPLE ILLUSTRATION WILL MAKE THAT
PLAIN.  A PURCHASES SHARES OF AN UNDERLYING BANK FOR $10,000 IN CASH
AND EXCHANGES THOSE SHARES FOR SHARES OF BANCO.  B HANDS OVER TO BANCO
$10,000, BANCO PURCHASES THE SHARES OF THE UNDERLYING BANK, AND THEN
ISSUES ITS SHARES TO B.  FROM THE PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW A AND B ARE
INVESTORS OF THE SAME CLASS.  TO SAY THAT A IS LIABLE AND B NOT LIABLE
WHEN BOTH START WITH CASH AND END WITH IDENTICAL INVESTMENTS IS TO MAKE
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIABILITY AND NO LIABILITY TURN ON DISTINCTIONS
WHICH HAVE NO APPARENT RELEVANCY TO THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY WHICH THE
RULE OF DOUBLE LIABILITY WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT.  AND TO SAY THAT
COURTS MAY HOLD A LIABLE BUT NOT B IS TO MAKE THE OCCASIONS FOR THE
ASSERTION OF JUDICIAL POWER TURN ON WHIMSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES.    THE
FINAL SUGGESTION IS THAT THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK REMAIN LIABLE
FOR THE FULL ASSESSMENT ON THE SHARES OF THE BANK WHICH THEY EXCHANGED
FOR SHARES OF BANCO.  BUT THAT OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THEIR INTEREST
IN THOSE UNDERLYING SHARES WAS DILUTED BY THE ISSUANCE OF BANCO'S
SHARES TO OTHERS.  FN12  DOUBLE LIABILITY IS AN INCIDENCE OF
OWNERSHIP.  IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD THAT A STOCKHOLDER WHO IN GOOD FAITH
PARTS WITH ALL HIS INTEREST IN THE SHARES RIDS HIMSELF OF THAT DOUBLE
LIABILITY, EVEN THOUGH HIS TRANSFEREE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.  EARLE V.
CARSON, SUPRA.  WE COULD HARDLY ADHERE TO THAT PRINCIPLE AND STILL HOLD
THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK LIABLE FOR THE FULL ASSESSMENT ON THE
SHARES WHICH THEY EXCHANGED FOR SHARES OF BANCO.  THE OTHER
STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO ACQUIRED THROUGH THEIR INVESTMENT IN IT AN
INTEREST IN THE SHARES OF THE BANK.  TO THE EXTENT OF THAT INTEREST THE
BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK IN ITS SHARES
WAS AS DEFINITELY REDUCED AS IF THEY HAD MADE A TRANSFER OF THAT PART
OF THEIR HOLDINGS. 

CERTAIN STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO CLAIM THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RESCIND
THEIR PURCHASES OF BANCO'S SHARES BECAUSE OF MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO
THEM WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THE SHARES.  WE DO NOT REACH THOSE QUESTIONS. 
NOR DO WE STOP TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH A DEFENSE WOULD AVOID
LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSMENT (CF. OPPENHEIMER V. HARRIMAN NATIONAL BANK
& TRUST CO., 301 U.S. 206) AND, UNLIKE THE CASE WHERE SOME SHAREHOLDERS
ARE INSOLVENT (UNITED STATES V. KNOX, 102 U.S. 422, 425), INCREASE THE
PRO RATA LIABILITY OF THE OTHER SHAREHOLDERS OF BANCO.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT AT THIS TIME TO STATE THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS
OF BANCO WOULD BE MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF SHARES OF STOCK OF THE
BANK, WHETHER SEVERAL OR ONLY FRACTIONAL, REPRESENTED BY EACH SHARE OF
STOCK OF BANCO; AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT LIABILITY OF EACH SHARE OF
STOCK OF BANCO WOULD BE A LIKE PROPORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT LIABILITY
OF THE SHARES OF THE BANK REPRESENTED BY THE FORMER. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FURTHER DETAILS CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS INDIRECTLY
INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION MAY BE FOUND IN ATHERTON V. ANDERSON, 86
F.2D 518, 99 F.2D 883; BANCOKENTUCKY'S RECEIVER V. LOUISVILLE TRUST
CO.'S RECEIVER, 263 KY. 155, 92 S.W.2D 19. 

FN2  THE SHARES OF THE BANK AND THE TRUST COMPANY HAD BEEN EARLIER
TRANSFERRED TO TRUSTEES WHO ISSUED TRUSTEES' PARTICIPATION
CERTIFICATES.  IT WAS THESE CERTIFICATES WHICH BANCO RECEIVED FROM THE
SHAREHOLDERS OF THE TWO BANKS IN EXCHANGE FOR ITS SHARES.  THE COMMAND
WHICH BANCO HAD OVER THE UNDERLYING SHARES IS DESCRIBED IN LAURENT V.
ANDERSON, 70 F.2D 819. 

FN3  SEE KY. REV. STAT. 1942, SEC. 287.360; OHIO CODE ANN. 1940, SEC.
710-75.  AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OF BANCO'S FAILURE THE SHARES IN THE
OTHER BANKS WERE SOLD OR DISPOSED OF AT RATHER NOMINAL PRICES.  IT
APPEARS THAT THE CLOSING OF THE BANK WAS FOLLOWED BY HEAVY RUNS ON
THESE OTHER BANKS; AND THE LOCAL INTERESTS IN MOST OF THE CITIES WHERE
THE BANKS WERE LOCATED WERE WILLING TO SUPPORT THE BANKS TO KEEP THEM
OPEN IF BANCO WOULD SURRENDER CONTROL.  BANCO, IT SEEMS, WAS ALSO
ANXIOUS TO AVOID DOUBLE LIABILITY ON THOSE SHARES. 

FN4  THE PRESIDENT OF BANCO WAS ALSO PRESIDENT OF THE BANK.  THIS
NOTE WAS ACQUIRED IN NOVEMBER, 1929, FROM WAKEFIELD & CO. IT WAS
SECURED BY 60,000 SHARES OF BANCO STOCK AND 22,500 SHARES OF STOCK OF
STANDARD OIL OF KENTUCKY.  NOTHING WAS EVER PAID ON THE NOTE.  NOTHING
WAS REALIZED ON THE BANCO STOCK.  SOME $440,000 WAS REALIZED ON THE
STANDARD OIL STOCK.  IN DECEMBER 1930 THE PRESIDENT OF BANCO AND MAKER
OF THE NOTE FILED A VOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.  HE WAS
DISCHARGED.  WAKEFIELD & CO. MADE AN ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS IN 1931 AND APPARENTLY NO DIVIDENDS HAVE YET BEEN PAID ITS
CREDITORS. 

FN5  THESE WERE A MURRAY RUBBER NOTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $580,000 AND A
NOTE OF LEWIS C. HUMPHREY FOR $20,000 - OF WHICH THE BANK EXAMINER HAD
BEEN QUITE CRITICAL FOR SOME TIME. 

FN6  PROVISIONS FOR THE TERMINATION OF DOUBLE LIABILITY ON SHARES OF
NATIONAL BANKS ARE CONTAINED IN THE ACT OF JUNE 16, 1933, 48 STAT. 189,
AND THE ACT OF AUGUST 23, 1935, 49 STAT. 708, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 64A. 

FN7  IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURT IN LAURENT V. ANDERSON, SUPRA, STATED
THAT BANCO WAS "IN EVERY SENSE THE TRUE AND BENEFICIAL OWNER" OF THE
SHARES OF THE BANK.  70 F.2D P. 824.  BUT IT IS APPARENT FROM THE
OPINION THAT THE COURT WAS ANSWERING THE CONTENTION THAT THE TRUSTEES
OF THE PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT. 
BANCO'S DEFENSE WAS BASED ON SEC. 63 OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT.  IT
ARGUED THAT UNDER THAT SECTION ONLY FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUSTEES
WERE LIABLE THAT ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE COURT. 

FN8  THE HISTORY OF BANK-STOCK HOLDING COMPANIES SHOWS THAT THEIR
ORGANIZERS WERE ACUTELY AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM AND AT TIMES TOOK STEPS
TO PROTECT THE DEPOSITORS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BANKS ON POSSIBLE
ASSESSMENTS ON THE BANK STOCKS.  ONE HOLDING COMPANY IS SAID TO HAVE
KEPT "AT ALL TIMES AN AMOUNT IN CASH OR ITS EQUIVALENT EQUAL TO OUR
AGGREGATE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY ON THE BANK STOCKS OWNED BY US." 
BRANCH, CHAIN, AND GROUP BANKING, HEARINGS UNDER H. RES. 141, 71ST
CONG., 2D SESS. (1930) P. 1181.  A SIMILAR METHOD WAS FOR THE HOLDING
COMPANY "TO CARRY IN ITS TREASURY A LARGE RESERVE OF READILY MARKETABLE
SECURITIES WHICH MAY BE LIQUIDATED IN ORDER TO MAKE GOOD ANY
SHAREHOLDERS' LIABILITY THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UPON THE HOLDING COMPANY." 
BONBRIGHT & MEANS, THE HOLDING COMPANY (1932), P. 331.  CF. NINETEENTH
ANNUAL REPORT, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS OF CALIFORNIA (1928), P. 21. 
ANOTHER METHOD OF SAFEGUARDING THE DEPOSITORS WAS TO MAKE EXPRESS
PROVISION IN THE CHARTER OF THE HOLDING COMPANY THAT ITS STOCKHOLDERS
WERE RATABLY LIABLE FOR ANY STATUTORY LIABILITY IMPOSED ON IT BY REASON
OF ITS OWNERSHIP OF BANK STOCKS.  BRANCH, CHAIN, AND GROUP BANKING, OP.
CIT., PP. 1042-1043; BARBOUR V. THOMAS 86 F.2D 510, 513-514.  WISCONSIN
PROVIDED FOR SUCH A LIABILITY BY STATUTE.  WIS. STAT. 1941, SEC.
221.56. 

FN9  "THE BANCOKENTUCKY COMPANY WAS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE ON JULY 16, 1929, WITH AN AUTHORIZED CAPITAL OF
2,000,000 SHARES OF $10 PAR VALUE.  THE COMPANY WAS ORGANIZED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF OWNING A CONTROLLING INTEREST IN STATE AND NATIONAL BANKS
LOCATED PRIMARILY IN KENTUCKY, OHIO AND INDIANA.  ITS CHARTER GIVES IT
BROAD POWERS ENTITLING IT TO ENGAGE IN A WIDE RANGE OF INVESTMENT AND
OTHER ACTIVITIES. 

"THE BANCOKENTUCKY COMPANY HAS ACQUIRED, THROUGH AN EXCHANGE OF
STOCK, NEARLY 100% OF THE SHARES OF THE NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE TRUST COMPANY, AND IN ADDITION ITS STOCKHOLDERS HAVE
SUBSCRIBED TO 480,000 SHARES OF ITS STOCK FOR CASH.  THIS CASH WILL BE
USED FOR ACQUIRING MAJORITY INTERESTS IN OTHER BANKS AND FOR OTHER
CORPORATE PURPOSES." 

IN LISTING ITS SHARES ON THE CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE IT GAVE THE
EXCHANGE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION OF ITS BUSINESS: 

"(B)  PRIMARY PURPOSE:  TO ACQUIRE CONTROL AND OPERATE BANKS AND
TRUST COMPANIES. 

"(C)  NATURE OF BUSINESS:  THIS COMPANY HAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF INVESTING AND REINVESTING IN A DIVERSIFIED LIST OF
SECURITIES OF OTHER CORPORATIONS FOR REVENUE AND PROFIT, BUT HAS
LIMITED ITS ACTIVITIES TO ACQUIRING CONTROL OF BANKS AND TRUST
COMPANIES AND THE OPERATION OF SAME." 

FN10  THUS A CIRCULAR OF BLYTH & CO. STATED: 

"THE BANCOKENTUCKY COMPANY WAS RECENTLY FORMED TO ACQUIRE AND HOLD
CONTROLLING INTERESTS IN COMMERCIAL BANKS THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE WEST. 
BY CHARTER, BROAD POWERS ARE CONFERRED UPON THE COMPANY, SO THAT ALL
TYPES OF OPERATIONS IN THE FINANCIAL FIELD ARE PERMITTED BUT NO
INVESTMENTS ARE CONTEMPLATED OTHER THAN CONTROLLING INTERESTS IN
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. 

"UPON COMPLETION OF PRESENT TRANSACTIONS THE COMPANY WILL CONTROL THE
NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY, ORGANIZED IN 1834, THE LOUISVILLE NATIONAL
BANK AND TRUST CO., ORGANIZED IN 1884 AS LOUISVILLE TRUST COMPANY, BOTH
OF LOUISVILLE, KY., THE PEARL MARKET BANK & TRUST CO., ORGANIZED 1907,
AND THE BRIGHTON BANK & TRUST CO., ORGANIZED 1898, BOTH OF CINCINNATI,
OHIO, AND THE CENTRAL SAVINGS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ORGANIZED 1906,
OF COVINGTON, KY.  IN ADDITION, THE COMPANY HAS FUNDS OF APPROXIMATELY
$6,000,000, WHICH ARE EXPECTED TO BE USED FOR THE ACQUIRING OF
ADDITIONAL BANKING INSTITUTIONS." 

FN11  AS STATED IN S. REP. NO. 77, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11:  "THE
AFFILIATES OF THIS TYPE (HOLDING COMPANIES) ARE PROHIBITED FROM VOTING
THE STOCKS OF NATIONAL BANKS UNLESS THEY ARE WILLING TO UNDERTAKE TO
ACCEPT EXAMINATION BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, DIVEST THEMSELVES OF
OWNERSHIP OF STOCK AND BOND FINANCING CONCERNS, AND COMPLY WITH
REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO INSURE THEIR OWNERSHIP OF SUFFICIENT FREE
ASSETS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN SATISFY THE DOUBLE LIABILITY OF THEIR
SHAREHOLDERS IN CASE ANY OF THE BANKS OWNED BY SUCH A COMPANY SHOULD GO
INTO THE HANDS OF RECEIVERS OR BE CLOSED." 

FN12  THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK HAVE A LESSER INTEREST IN THE
SHARES OF THE BANK THAN THEY HAD PRIOR TO THE EXCHANGE.  THEIR INTEREST
IN THE SHARES OF THE BANK DECREASED PROPORTIONATELY WITH THE INCREASE
IN THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF BANCO.  THAT RESULTED IN A PRO RATA
REDUCTION IN THEIR LIABILITY.  THE OTHER GROUP OF STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO
ACQUIRED THAT PORTION OF THE LIABILITY OF WHICH THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS OF
THE BANK WERE RELIEVED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND I
FIND OURSELVES UNABLE TO JOIN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT ACCEPTS CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE TWO LOWER
COURTS, BUT REVERSES THEIR CONCURRENT JUDGMENT.  IT HOLDS THAT THE
FINDINGS ESTABLISH LIABILITY AS MATTER OF LAW ON TWO VERY DIFFERENT
KINDS OF STOCKHOLDINGS:  (1) HOLDING COMPANY STOCK TAKEN IN EXCHANGE
FOR DOUBLE LIABILITY STOCK OF THE NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY; AND (2)
HOLDING COMPANY STOCK BOUGHT AND FULLY PAID FOR IN CASH.  WE THINK
HOLDERS OF THE LATTER ARE NOT LIABLE ON ANY PRINCIPLE HERETOFORE KNOWN
TO THE LAW AND THAT IF OWNERS OF THE FORMER ARE TO BE HELD IT MUST BE
ON A QUITE DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE THAN THAT STATED BY THE COURT. 

                                  I. 

FORMER NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY STOCKHOLDERS HAD STOCK IN THE BANK
ITSELF WHICH CARRIED DOUBLE LIABILITY.  FN1  THE BANK FAILED NOVEMBER
30, 1930, AND IF THEY HAD THEN HELD THAT STOCK, EACH WOULD HAVE BEEN
LIABLE FOR ASSESSMENT UPON HIS SHARES.  THE AGGREGATE ASSESSMENT WAS
$4,000,000.  ONLY ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE THE FAILURE, ON SEPTEMBER 19,
1929, THIS DOUBLE-LIABILITY BANK STOCK WAS EXCHANGED FOR SHARES OF THE
HOLDING COMPANY PURPORTING TO BE FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE.  AT THE
SAME TIME BANK OF KENTUCKY STOCKHOLDERS ALSO BOUGHT ADDITIONAL HOLDING
COMPANY STOCK FOR CASH TO THE AMOUNT OF $4,471,950.  BANK OF KENTUCKY
STOCKHOLDERS AS A GROUP THUS PAID INTO THE HOLDING COMPANY CASH MORE
THAN SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE ASSESSMENT NOW LEVIED.  IN ADDITION TO
THAT, INVESTORS WHO WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH THE BANK BOUGHT SHARES FOR
CASH AMOUNTING TO $5,397,000.  THE COURT NEVERTHELESS HOLDS THAT THE
BANK OF KENTUCKY STOCKHOLDERS CONTRAVENED THE POLICY OF THE LAW AND ARE
SUBJECT TO THE DOUBLE LIABILITY BECAUSE THEY "DID NOT CONSTITUTE BANCO
AS AN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL SUBSTITUTE IN THEIR STEAD."  WE DO NOT SEE HOW
SUCH A STATEMENT OF FACT, AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MATTER OF LAW, CAN
BE CONFORMABLE WITH ACCEPTANCE OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURTS
BELOW.  NOR ARE WE ABLE TO RECONCILE THE VIEW THAT "THE OLD GROUP OF
STOCKHOLDERS MUST BE HELD TO HAVE RETAINED  ...  LIABILITY AS
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK" WITH THE ONE LATER EXPRESSED THAT THEIR
INTEREST WAS "DILUTED" SO AS TO GIVE THEM A PRO RATA REDUCTION OF
LIABILITY.  (SEE NOTE 12 OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT.)  IT SEEMS TO US
THAT THE TRANSFER OF THEIR BANK STOCK TO THE HOLDING COMPANY EITHER WAS
VALID, IN WHICH CASE IT RELIEVED OF ALL LIABILITY; OR IT WAS INVALID,
IN WHICH CASE IT RELIEVED OF NO LIABILITY.  THE DOCTRINE THAT A
TRANSFER MAY BE GOOD ENOUGH TO DILUTE LIABILITY BUT BAD ENOUGH TO CARRY
ALONG A PART OF IT IS NEW TO US AND WE HAVE DIFFICULTY GRASPING ITS
IMPLICATIONS. 

WE ARE, HOWEVER, AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE A PROPER USE OF THE POWER OF
THIS COURT FOR IT TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE THAT LIES BACK OF THESE
FINDINGS AND DETERMINE WHETHER CLEAR ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND
WHETHER THE CONDITIONS DISCLOSED ARE SUCH THAT A BONA FIDE TRANSFER OF
THE STOCK TOOK PLACE SUFFICIENT TO SHAKE OFF DOUBLE-LIABILITY
OBLIGATIONS. 

IN SPITE OF THE EXCHANGE OF NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY STOCK, ITS
STOCKHOLDERS THROUGH THE HOLDING COMPANY KEPT BOTH A LARGE MEASURE OF
CONTROL OF THE BANK AND THE BENEFITS OF INVESTMENT IN IT.  THEY, OR
THOSE ACTING IN THEIR BEHALF, HAD DETERMINED THE POLICY OF THE HOLDING
COMPANY, HAD SPONSORED ITS REPRESENTATIVES, AND HAD SELECTED ITS
OFFICERS AND PERSONNEL, INCLUDING THE MANAGER WHO PROVED TO BE FALSE TO
HIS TRUST.  THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY HAD
FOR SOME TIME BEEN UNDER CRITICISM BY THE COMPTROLLER FOR MANY OF ITS
LOANS AND SOME OF ITS POLICIES, ALTHOUGH IT IS FOUND NOT TO HAVE BEEN
INSOLVENT.  THE EXCHANGE DID NOT CONSIST OF INDIVIDUAL ACTS BUT WAS A
CONCERTED MOVEMENT, PLANNED BY THE BANK MANAGEMENT, BY WHICH THE
HOLDING COMPANY ABSORBED ALL OF THE STOCKHOLDINGS AND ALL OF THE DOUBLE
LIABILITY.    THE COURT MIGHT PROPERLY, IF EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE
SHOULD WARRANT IT, REACH A LEGAL CONCLUSION THAT THE DOUBLE LIABILITY
OF THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY SURVIVES THE
EXCHANGE AND THAT THOSE WHO HAVE CONTINUED THEIR INTEREST IN THE BANK
THROUGH THE HOLDING COMPANY ARE LIABLE UPON ASSESSMENT IN THE SAME
MANNER AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE HOLDING
COMPANY TRANSACTIONS NEVER OCCURRED.  BUT THIS WOULD BE BECAUSE THE
FORMAL TRANSFER OF THE STOCK OUT OF THEIR OWN NAMES WOULD NOT BE
RECOGNIZED AS A DEFENSE.  THE COURT'S CONCLUSION RESTS ON A QUITE
DIFFERENT THEORY.  IT CONCLUDES THAT THE TRANSFER WAS VALID TO RELIEVE
THESE STOCKHOLDERS OF THEIR LIABILITY AS STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANK, BUT
THAT THEY BECAME SUBJECT TO A NEW AND SMALLER LIABILITY AS STOCKHOLDERS
OF A HOLDING COMPANY.  WITH THIS WE CANNOT AGREE.  THE HOLDING COMPANY,
ITS FINANCING, ITS MANAGEMENT, AND ALL THAT RELATES TO IT CONSTITUTE
RELEVANT MATERIAL AS TO WHETHER UNDER PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE LONG BEEN
RECOGNIZED THE TRANSFER IS GOOD.  WE DO NOT THINK THEY CREATE A NEW
LIABILITY. 

   II. 

AFTER HOLDING THAT FORMER OWNERS OF NATIONAL BANK OF KENTUCKY SHARES
ARE LIABLE BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FIND AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR THEIR
OWN PERSONAL LIABILITY, THE COURT PROCEEDS TO HOLD PURCHASERS OF
HOLDING-COMPANY STOCK FOR CASH TO BE UNDER A SUBSTITUTED LIABILITY PRO
TANTO.  THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH BANK OF KENTUCKY STOCKHOLDERS AND NON
BANK OF KENTUCKY STOCKHOLDERS ARE BOTH HELD SEEM TO CONFLICT.  IF THE
NEW STOCKHOLDERS FOR CASH ARE LIABLE IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY THE OLD ONES
HAVE NOT FOUND A SUBSTITUTE, AND IF THE BANK OF KENTUCKY STOCKHOLDERS
HAVE NOT FOUND A SUBSTITUTE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE A BASIS ON WHICH
THE NEW STOCKHOLDERS ARE LIABLE. 

STOCK PURCHASERS FOR CASH HAVE AT NO TIME OWNED A STOCK THAT
PURPORTED TO CARRY DOUBLE LIABILITY.  ON THE CONTRARY, BY THE TERMS OF
THE STOCK CERTIFICATES AND BY THE LAW OF THE CORPORATION'S BEING, THEIR
SHARES WERE FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE.  THESE STOCKHOLDERS CANNOT BE
SAID IN ANY WAY TO HAVE ASSUMED ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONTRACTUAL
ASSESSMENT LIABILITY.  NO STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES AND NO
APPLICABLE STATE STATUTE THEN OR SINCE HAS PURPORTED TO IMPOSE A DOUBLE
LIABILITY UPON THESE HOLDING-COMPANY SHARES.  NO CONTROLLING PRECEDENT
IN THIS COURT AT THE TIME THESE STOCKHOLDERS PURCHASED OR SINCE (UNTIL
TODAY) PURPORTED TO ATTACH A DOUBLE LIABILITY TO SUCH SHARES.  FN2 

THE REASON GIVEN FOR THIS DECISION IS THAT "THE INTERPOSITION OF A
CORPORATION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DEFEAT A LEGISLATIVE POLICY" AND
THAT "NO STATE MAY ENDOW ITS CORPORATE CREATURES WITH THE POWER TO
PLACE THEMSELVES ABOVE THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND DEFEAT THE
FEDERAL POLICY CONCERNING NATIONAL BANKS WHICH CONGRESS HAS
ANNOUNCED." 

WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND THAT CONGRESS EVER HAS ANNOUNCED A
LEGISLATIVE POLICY SUCH AS THE COURT ANNOUNCES.  AND THE COURT NOWHERE
POINTS IT OUT.  THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT APPLICABLE AT THE TIME
PROVIDED THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS "OF EVERY NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION"
SHALL BE UNDER ASSESSMENT LIABILITY.  BUT CONGRESS NOWHERE HAS SAID
THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION THAT IS NOT A NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATION SHALL BE LIABLE TO ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THE LATTER
CORPORATION HELD SOME OR ALL OF THE STOCK OF A NATIONAL BANK.  INDEED,
THE HISTORY OF BANKING LEGISLATION SHOWS THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSIDERED
THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE HOLDING COMPANY AND NOT ONLY HAS FAILED TO
ADOPT SUCH A POLICY AS THE COURT IS DECLARING, BUT HAS MADE OTHER
PROVISIONS INCONSISTENT WITH SUCH A POLICY. 

NO LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT APPEARS UNTIL 1933, WHEN CONGRESS
ENACTED DETAILED REGULATION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN HOLDING COMPANIES
AND NATIONAL BANKS.  IT REQUIRED THE HOLDING COMPANY TO OBTAIN A PERMIT
TO VOTE NATIONAL BANK SHARES AND EMPOWERED THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD THE PERMIT N3.  NO
PERMIT CAN BE GRANTED EXCEPT UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, AND ASSUMPTION BY
HOLDING-COMPANY STOCKHOLDERS OF AN ASSESSMENT LIABILITY IS NOT AMONG
THEM.  IN GENERAL, THEY ARE (A) THAT THE HOLDING COMPANY MUST SUBMIT TO
EXAMINATION IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE NATIONAL BANK AND MUST PUBLISH
PERIODIC STATEMENTS OF CONDITION; (B) THAT AFTER FIVE YEARS FROM THE
STATUTE'S ENACTMENT, EACH HOLDING COMPANY MUST POSSESS READILY
MARKETABLE ASSETS AND FREE ASSETS OTHER THAN BANK STOCK IN A PRESCRIBED
AMOUNT; AND (C) THAT AFTER FIVE YEARS A HOLDING COMPANY WHOSE
STOCKHOLDERS OR MEMBERS ARE INDIVIDUALLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE MAY BE
RELIEVED OF ESTABLISHING A PART OF THIS RESERVE UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES.  CONGRESS WAS INFORMED THAT SOME BANK STOCK HOLDING
CORPORATIONS WERE, BY THE LAW OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY WERE
INCORPORATED, SUBJECT TO DOUBLE LIABILITY JUST AS WERE STOCKHOLDERS OF
BANKS.  IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT OTHER BANK HOLDING CORPORATIONS BY
THE LAW OF THEIR INCORPORATION WERE NOT SO LIABLE.  FN4  IT DID NOT
EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION RECOGNIZE OR CREATE A UNIFORM DOUBLE
LIABILITY BY FEDERAL ACT ON STOCKHOLDERS OF STATE-CREATED HOLDING
COMPANIES.  IT MADE SPECIFIC PROVISION, ON THE CONTRARY, FOR EACH CLASS
OF CORPORATION.  WHERE DOES THIS COURT GET AUTHORITY TO DISREGARD THE
DISTINCTION CONGRESS HAS THUS CREATED AND TO IMPOSE A SINGLE RULE OF
ITS OWN MAKING INSTEAD?  WHEN CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY SET UP A STANDARD
OF DIVERSIFICATION FOR HOLDING COMPANY ASSETS AND HAS GIVEN THE
COMPANIES FIVE YEARS TO MEET IT, FROM WHAT DO WE DERIVE AUTHORITY TO
SAY THE FIVE-YEAR ADJUSTMENT PERIOD SHALL BE IGNORED?  HOW CAN WE SAY
RETROACTIVELY THAT THERE IS A LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO DO BEFORE
CONGRESS ACTED SOMETHING WHICH, AFTER IT DID ACT, IT EXPRESSLY GAVE
FIVE YEARS TO DO?  AND HOW CAN SUCH A RESULT BE SAID TO BE AN
ENFORCEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND TO BE THE
BASIS OF THE COURT'S OPINION? 

                          III. 

IF TO LEGISLATE WERE THE PROVINCE OF THIS COURT, WE WOULD BE AT
LIBERTY CANDIDLY TO EXERCISE DISCRETION TOWARD THE UNDOING OF THE
HOLDING COMPANY.  SOME OF US FEEL THAT AS UTILIZED IN THIS COUNTRY IT
IS, WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS, A MENACE TO RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT AND TO
SOUND FINANCE, SHIFTING CONTROL OF LOCAL INSTITUTIONS TO ABSENTEE
MANAGEMENTS AND CENTRALIZING IN FEW HANDS CONTROL OF ASSETS AND
ENTERPRISES BIGGER THAN THEY ARE ABLE WELL TO MANAGE - VIEWS WHICH ARE
MATTERS OF RECORD.  FN5 

BUT WE ARE OF ONE OPINION THAT NO SUCH LATITUDE IS CONFIDED TO JUDGES
AS HERE IS EXERCISED.  WE ARE DEALING WITH A VARIETY OF LIABILITY
WITHOUT FAULT.  THE COURT IS PROFESSING TO IMPOSE IT, NOT AS A MATTER
OF JUDGE-MADE LAW, BUT AS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY, AND IT CANNOT
CITE SO MUCH AS A STATUTORY HINT OF SUCH A POLICY.  THE COURT IS NOT
ENFORCING A POLICY OF CONGRESS; IT IS COMPETING WITH CONGRESS IN
CREATING NEW REGULATIONS IN BANKING, A FIELD PECULIARLY WITHIN
LEGISLATIVE RATHER THAN JUDICIAL COMPETENCE.  NOR WAS SUCH A POLICY OF
ASSESSMENT LIABILITY ONE WHOSE IMPORTANCE WAS SO TRANSCENDING AS TO SET
ASIDE THE POLICY OF PERMITTING CORPORATE ENTERPRISE UNDER LIMITED
LIABILITY.  CONGRESS HAS SINCE REPEALED THE DOUBLE LIABILITY, EVEN OF
HOLDERS OF STOCK IN NATIONAL BANKS; FN6  AND WHEN IN FORCE, IT HAD
LITTLE PRACTICAL VALUE TO DEPOSITORS.  FN7  STATES ALSO HAVE ABANDONED
THE ASSESSMENT PLAN.  FN8  COURTS SHOULD, OF COURSE, SEE THAT THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY IS NOT DEFEATED BY ANY FRAUD, BY CREATING SHAM
CORPORATIONS, OR BY ANY OTHER ARTIFICE.  WHEN, HOWEVER, ASSESSMENT
LIABILITY IS A FAILURE ONLY BECAUSE THE CORPORATE OWNER OF THE STOCK IS
NOT SOLVENT, THAT IS NOT A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH WILL WARRANT DISREGARD OF
THE CORPORATE ENTITY SO AS TO RENDER STOCKHOLDERS LIABLE.  THE FINDINGS
HERE, ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, ELIMINATE EVERY CHARGE OF FRAUD, BAD
FAITH, OR INTENTIONAL EVASION OF LIABILITY.  FN9 

WE ARE FULLY AGREED THAT BANK OF KENTUCKY DEPOSITORS, HOWEVER, SHOULD
NOT BE PREJUDICED BY A TRANSFER TO THE HOLDING COMPANY OF ITS STOCK IN
VIOLATION OF LETTER OR SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT.  IF THE CASE
WARRANTS DISREGARD OF THE TRANSFER, THE DEPOSITORS THEN WOULD HAVE JUST
THE PROTECTION THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ENJOYED HAD NO HOLDING COMPANY
INTERVENED.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, MAKES THE HOLDING COMPANY A WINDFALL
TO BANK CREDITORS BY EXTENDING THE LIABILITY TO PERSONS NEVER OTHERWISE
REACHABLE.  WE MAY DISALLOW THE HOLDING COMPANY AS A SANCTUARY FOR
STOCKHOLDERS ESCAPING PRE-EXISTING LIABILITY WITHOUT MAKING OF IT A
TRAP FOR UNWARY AND UNWARNED INVESTORS. 

TO DISREGARD THE TRANSFER OF THIS STOCK, AND TO HOLD FORMER
STOCKHOLDERS LIABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THEY HAD MADE NO SUCH
TRANSFER, IS THE MANNER OF PROCEEDING INDICATED UNDER PROPER
CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT ITSELF.  INSTEAD OF
CONSIDERING WHETHER TO DISREGARD THE TRANSFER THE COURT DISREGARDS THE
CORPORATE ENTITY OF THE HOLDING COMPANY BECAUSE IT SAYS THESE
OBLIGATIONS ARISE FROM LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  EVEN IF WE COULD FIND SUCH
A POLICY, LEGISLATIVE LIABILITIES ARE NUMEROUS.  IT IS PROBABLY A
LEGISLATIVE POLICY THAT A CORPORATION SHALL PAY ALL OF ITS DEBTS.  THE
REASONING EMPLOYED BY THE COURT, WE SHOULD THINK, WOULD LEAVE IT
UNCERTAIN WHETHER STOCKHOLDERS MAY NOT BE LIABLE FOR MANY OTHER TYPES
OF INDEBTEDNESS.  CONGRESS, IF THE MATTER OF BANKING REFORM WERE LEFT
TO IT, COULD DEFINE THE LIMITS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AT THE TIME IT
WAS IMPOSED.  THE COURT IS LEAVING THE LIMITS AND EXTENT OF THAT
LIABILITY SO VAGUE THAT A WHOLE CLUSTER OF DECISIONS WILL HAVE TO BE
WRITTEN TO CLARIFY WHAT IS BEING DONE TODAY.  AND MEANWHILE WE KNOW OF
NO WAY THAT A STOCKHOLDER CAN LEARN THE EXTENT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
STOCKHOLDER LIABILITY EXCEPT TO GIVE HIS NAME TO A LEADING CASE.  FN10 

THE COURT ADMITS THAT THE JUDGMENT IS "HARSH."  WHY IS IT SO IF IT IS
ACCORDING TO ANY LAW THAT WAS KNOWN OR KNOWABLE AT THE TIME OF THE
TRANSACTIONS?  TO ENFORCE A DOUBLE LIABILITY SO INCURRED WOULD BE NO
HARSHER THAN TO ENFORCE ANY CONTRACT OBLIGATION THAT HAD BEEN ASSUMED
WITHOUT EXPECTING IT WOULD RESULT IN LIABILITY.  THIS DECISION IS MADE
HARSH BY THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE.  FN11  ITS ONLY HARSHNESS IS THAT
WHICH COMES OF THE COURT'S DOING WITH BACKWARDS EFFECT WHAT CONGRESS
HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO DO WITH FORWARD EFFECT. 

FN1  THE PERTINENT SECTIONS OF THE BANK ACT FOLLOW: 

"THE SHAREHOLDERS OF EVERY NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION SHALL BE HELD
INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE ...  FOR ALL CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS
OF SUCH ASSOCIATION, TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF THEIR STOCK
THEREIN, AT THE PAR VALUE THEREOF, IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT INVESTED
IN SUCH SHARES; ...  "  12 U.S.C. SEC. 63. 

"THE STOCKHOLDERS OF EVERY NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION SHALL BE HELD
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS OF
SUCH ASSOCIATION, EACH TO THE AMOUNT OF HIS STOCK THEREIN, AT THE PAR
VALUE THEREOF IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN SUCH STOCK.  THE
STOCKHOLDERS IN ANY NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION WHO SHALL HAVE
TRANSFERRED THEIR SHARES OR REGISTERED THE TRANSFER THEREOF WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS NEXT BEFORE THE DATE OF THE FAILURE OF SUCH ASSOCIATION TO
MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS, OR WITH KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH IMPENDING FAILURE,
SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THEY HAD MADE NO SUCH
TRANSFER, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFEREE FAILS TO MEET
SUCH LIABILITY; BUT THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT IN
ANY WAY ANY RECOURSE WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDERS MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE
AGAINST THOSE IN WHOSE NAMES SUCH SHARES ARE REGISTERED AT THE TIME OF
SUCH FAILURE."  12 U.S.C. SEC. 64. 

FN2  THE AUTHORITIES CITED TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S DISREGARD OF THE
CORPORATE ENTITY FALL FAR SHORT OF PERSUASION.  THE QUOTATION OF THE
STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO FROM BERKEY V. THIRD AVE. RY. CO., 244
N.Y. 84, 155 N.E. 58, 61, "THAT A SURRENDER OF THAT PRINCIPLE OF
LIMITED LIABILITY WOULD BE MADE 'WHEN THE SACRIFICE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
END THAT SOME ACCEPTED PUBLIC POLICY MAY BE DEFENDED OR UPHELD'" HAS A
VERY DIFFERENT SIGNIFICANCE IN ITS CONTEXT.  THE FACTS, INCLUDING
INTERCHANGEABLE NAMES OF PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY, COMPLETE FINANCIAL AND
OPERATING DOMINATION, AND USE OF ONE COMPANY'S ASSETS BY THE OTHER,
INDICATED A STRONGER CASE FOR DISREGARD OF THE CORPORATE FICTION THAN
DO THE FINDINGS HERE.  NEVERTHELESS, CHIEF JUDGE CARDOZO CONSIDERED
THAT THE CORPORATE ENTITY COULD NOT BE DISREGARDED IN FAVOR OF A TORT
CLAIMANT AND SAID:  "IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE THWART THE PUBLIC POLICY
OF THE STATE INSTEAD OF DEFENDING OR UPHOLDING IT, WHEN WE IGNORE THE
SEPARATION BETWEEN SUBSIDIARY AND PARENT, AND TREAT THE TWO AS ONE." 

OTHER CASES CITED AFFORD NO MORE SUPPORT FOR THE DECISION.  UNITED
STATES V. MILWAUKEE REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO., 142 F. 247, HELD THAT
PAYMENTS BY A CARRIER TO A CORPORATION WHOLLY CONTROLLED BY A SHIPPER
MIGHT CONSTITUTE REBATES UNDER THE ELKINS ACT.  THE STATEMENTS IN
POWELL, PARENT & SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS, 77-81, ARE COMPLETELY GENERAL
AND TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES WHICH PRECEDE
THE PAGE CITATION, ALL OF WHICH INVOLVE ACTIVE WRONG BY A PARENT
CORPORATION.  LINN & LANE TIMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 236 U.S. 574,
INVOLVED THE QUESTION WHETHER AN "INSTRUMENTALITY" CORPORATION COULD
ACQUIRE RIGHTS WHICH WOULD ENABLE IT TO STAND BETTER THAN ITS
TRANSFEROR-CREATOR.  RICE V. SANGER BROTHERS, 27 ARIZ. 15, 229 P. 397,
FOUND A CORPORATION TO BE ORGANIZED FOR FRAUDULENT PURPOSES AND THE
FORMER PARTNERS WHO BECAME ITS STOCKHOLDERS WERE HELD LIABLE.  DONOVAN
V. PURTELL, 216 ILL. 629, 75 N.E. 334, HOLDS NOTHING MORE THAN THAT AN
OFFICER OF A CORPORATION WHO IS PERSONALLY GUILTY OF FRAUD WILL BE HELD
LIABLE THEREFOR.  GEORGE V. ROLLINS, 176 MICH. 144, 142 N.W. 337,
STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EQUITY WILL ENFORCE A RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT AGAINST A SUCCESSOR CORPORATION FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EVADING IT.  HIGGINS V. CALIFORNIA PETROLEUM CO., 147 CAL. 363, 81 P.
1070, HELD THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CERTAIN SUCCESSOR CORPORATIONS
ASSUMED A LEASE AND THEREFORE HAD TO PAY ROYALTIES; THERE WAS NO
DISREGARDING OF THE CORPORATE ENTITY INVOLVED.  LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V.
GRACE & CO., 267 F. 676, COMES NEARER THE MARK, BUT STILL IS FAR WIDE
OF IT.  A STEAMSHIP CORPORATION LEASED ITS FLEET OF VESSELS TO A
$10,000 CORPORATION, FORMED AND 90 PER CENT OWNED BY IT, FOR AN UTTERLY
INADEQUATE RENTAL.  IT WAS HELD THAT THIS TURNING OVER OF THE
CORPORATION'S SHIPS TO A SUBSIDIARY WHICH WAS "ITSELF IN ANOTHER FORM"
RENDERED THE PARENT CORPORATION LIABLE FOR THE SUBSIDIARY'S BREACH OF
CONTRACT.  ORIENTAL INVESTMENT CO. V. BARCLAY, 25 TEX. CIV. APP. 543,
64 S.W. 80, ALLOWED A HOTEL EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
AGAINST THE PARENT HOLDING COMPANY, EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY HE WAS THE
EMPLOYEE OF THE SUBSIDIARY OPERATING COMPANY, OF WHOSE EXISTENCE HE WAS
UNAWARE AND WHICH HAD BEEN CAPITALIZED WITH $2,000 TO OPERATE A
PROPERTY WHOSE MONTHLY RENTAL ALONE WAS $1,500.  WEISSER V. MURSAM SHOE
CORP., 127 F.2D 344, AROSE ON DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT AND IT WAS
HELD THAT ON A FULL TRIAL IT MIGHT BE FOUND THAT THE SUBSIDIARY WAS
"ONLY A TOOL OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, DELIBERATELY KEPT JUDGMENT-PROOF,
TO OBTAIN THE BENEFITS OF A LEASE WITH THE PLAINTIFFS WITHOUT ASSUMING
ANY OBLIGATIONS.  THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THAT THIS WAS DONE
FRAUDULENTLY.  ...  "  PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295 AND ALBERT
RICHARDS CO. V. MAYFAIR, INC., 287 MASS. 280, 191 N.E. 430, BOTH DEALT
WITH CASES WHERE PARENT CORPORATIONS CLAIMED PRIORITY OVER OTHER
CREDITORS OF A SUBSIDIARY; IN EACH, THE SUBSIDIARY WAS HELD TO BE AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE PARENT AND, TO AVOID A FRAUD ON CREDITORS, THE
LATTER'S CLAIM OF PRIORITY WAS DENIED.  IN ERICKSON V. MINNESOTA &
ONTARIO POWER CO., 134 MINN. 209, 158 N.W. 979, A PARENT CORPORATION
WAS HELD LIABLE FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY A DAM OWNED BY A SUBSIDIARY; THE
PARENT PAID THE OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE DAM, TOOK ALL THE EARNINGS OF
THE SUBSIDIARY, HAD A MORTGAGE ON ALL ITS ASSETS, AD IN ADDITION HAD A
DIRECT RIGHT OF CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE DAM.  UNITED STATES
V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 220 U.S. 257, AND UNITED STATES V. READING
CO., 253 U.S. 26, HELD THAT A RAILROAD'S EXERCISE OF ITS POWER AS A
STOCKHOLDER MIGHT AMOUNT TO SUCH A COMMINGLING OF AFFAIRS AS TO MAKE IT
LIABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THE COMMODITIES CLAUSE.  CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.
RY. CO. V. MINNEAPOLIS CIVIC ASSN., 247 U.S. 490, HELD THAT ADDITIONAL
TERMINAL CHARGES MADE BY A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY AS COMPARED WITH
TERMINAL CHARGES BY THE PARENT MIGHT BE HELD TO CONSTITUTE A
DISCRIMINATION. 

FN3  SEC. 19 OF THE BANKING ACT OF 1933, AMENDING SEC. 5144 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES, PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  SHARES CONTROLLED BY ANY HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE OF A
NATIONAL BANK SHALL NOT BE VOTED UNLESS SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE
SHALL HAVE FIRST OBTAINED A VOTING PERMIT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED,
WHICH PERMIT IS IN FORCE AT THE TIME SUCH SHARES ARE VOTED. 

  .         .         .         .         . 

"FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION SHARES SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
CONTROLLED BY A HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE IF THEY ARE OWNED OR
CONTROLLED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE, OR
HELD BY ANY TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OR MEMBERS
THEREOF. 

"ANY SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE MAY MAKE APPLICATION TO THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD FOR A VOTING PERMIT ENTITLING IT TO CAST ONE VOTE
AT ALL ELECTIONS OF DIRECTORS AND IN DECIDING ALL QUESTIONS AT MEETINGS
OF SHAREHOLDERS OF SUCH BANK ON EACH SHARE OF STOCK CONTROLLED BY IT OR
AUTHORIZING THE TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES HOLDING THE STOCK FOR ITS BENEFIT
OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS SO TO VOTE THE SAME.  THE
FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, GRANT OR WITHHOLD SUCH
PERMIT AS THE PUBLIC INTEREST MAY REQUIRE.  IN ACTING UPON SUCH
APPLICATION, THE BOARD SHALL CONSIDER THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE
APPLICANT, THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF ITS MANAGEMENT, AND THE PROBABLE
EFFECT OF THE GRANTING OF SUCH PERMIT UPON THE AFFAIRS OF SUCH BANK,
BUT NO SUCH PERMIT SHALL BE GRANTED EXCEPT UPON THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS: 

"(A)  EVERY SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE SHALL, IN MAKING THE
APPLICATION FOR SUCH PERMIT, AGREE (1) TO RECEIVE, ON DATES IDENTICAL
WITH THOSE FIXED FOR THE EXAMINATION OF BANKS WITH WHICH IT IS
AFFILIATED, EXAMINERS DULY AUTHORIZED TO EXAMINE SUCH BANKS, WHO SHALL
MAKE SUCH EXAMINATIONS OF SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE AS SHALL BE
NECESSARY TO DISCLOSE FULLY THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SUCH BANKS AND SUCH
HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE AND THE EFFECT OF SUCH RELATIONS UPON THE
AFFAIRS OF SUCH BANKS, SUCH EXAMINATIONS TO BE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE SO EXAMINED; (2) THAT THE REPORTS OF SUCH
EXAMINERS SHALL CONTAIN SUCH INFORMATION AS SHALL BE NECESSARY TO
DISCLOSE FULLY THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SUCH AFFILIATE AND SUCH BANKS AND
THE EFFECT OF SUCH RELATIONS UPON THE AFFAIRS OF SUCH BANKS; (3) THAT
SUCH EXAMINERS MAY EXAMINE EACH BANK OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE HOLDING
COMPANY AFFILIATE, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH OTHER
BANKS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE; AND (4)
THAT PUBLICATION OF INDIVIDUAL OR CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CONDITION
OF SUCH BANKS MAY BE REQUIRED; 

"(B)  AFTER FIVE YEARS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE BANKING ACT OF
1933, EVERY SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE (1) SHALL POSSESS, AND SHALL
CONTINUE TO POSSESS DURING THE LIFE OF SUCH PERMIT, FREE AND CLEAR OF
ANY LIEN, PLEDGE, OR HYPOTHECATION OF ANY NATURE, READILY MARKETABLE
ASSETS OTHER THAN BANK STOCK IN AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN 12 PER CENTUM
OF THE AGGREGATE PAR VALUE OF ALL BANK STOCKS CONTROLLED BY SUCH
HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE, WHICH AMOUNT SHALL BE INCREASED BY NOT LESS
THAN 2 PER CENTUM PER ANNUM OF SUCH AGGREGATE PAR VALUE UNTIL SUCH
ASSETS SHALL AMOUNT TO 25 PER CENTUM OF THE AGGREGATE PAR VALUE OF SUCH
BANK STOCKS; AND (2) SHALL REINVEST IN READILY MARKETABLE ASSETS OTHER
THAN BANK STOCK ALL NET EARNINGS OVER AND ABOVE 6 PER CENTUM PER ANNUM
ON THE BOOK VALUE OF ITS OWN SHARES OUTSTANDING UNTIL SUCH ASSETS SHALL
AMOUNT TO SUCH 25 PER CENTUM OF THE AGGREGATE PAR VALUE OF ALL BANK
STOCKS CONTROLLED BY IT; 

"(C)  NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, AFTER
FIVE YEARS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE BANKING ACT OF 1933, (1) ANY SUCH
HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE THE SHAREHOLDERS OR MEMBERS OF WHICH SHALL BE
INDIVIDUALLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE IN PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER OF SHARES
OF SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE HELD BY THEM RESPECTIVELY, IN
ADDITION TO AMOUNTS INVESTED THEREIN, FOR ALL STATUTORY LIABILITY
IMPOSED ON SUCH HOLDING COMPANY AFFILIATE BY REASON OF ITS CONTROL OF
SHARES OF STOCK OF BANKS, SHALL BE REQUIRED ONLY TO ESTABLISH AND
MAINTAIN OUT OF NET EARNINGS OVER AND ABOVE 6 PER CENTUM PER ANNUM ON
THE BOOK VALUE OF ITS OWN SHARES OUTSTANDING A RESERVE OF READILY
MARKETABLE ASSETS IN AN AMOUNT OF NOT LESS THAN 12 PER CENTUM OF THE
AGGREGATE PAR VALUE OF BANK STOCKS CONTROLLED BY IT, AND (2) THE ASSETS
REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION TO BE POSSESSED BY SUCH HOLDING COMPANY
AFFILIATE MAY BE USED BY IT FOR REPLACEMENT OF CAPITAL IN BANKS
AFFILIATED WITH IT AND FOR LOSSES INCURRED IN SUCH BANKS, BUT ANY
DEFICIENCY IN SUCH ASSETS RESULTING FROM SUCH USE SHALL BE MADE UP
WITHIN SUCH PERIOD AS THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD MAY BY REGULATION
PRESCRIBE  ...  "  JUNE 16, 1933, C. 89, 48 STAT. 186-7. 

FN4  AT THE SENATE HEARINGS WHICH PRECEDED THE BANKING ACT OF 1933,
MR. L. E. WAKEFIELD, VICE-PRESIDENT OF ONE OF THE LARGEST BANK HOLDING
COMPANIES, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS WITH RESPECT TO DOUBLE LIABILITY: 

"MR. WAKEFIELD.  THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE FIRST BANK STOCK
CORPORATION, BEING A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DO NOT HAVE A DOUBLE
LIABILITY.  WHEN WE STARTED TO ORGANIZE THIS INSTITUTION WE DID ALL THE
WORK ON THE THEORY WE WOULD HAVE IT A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, WHICH
WOULD HAVE DOUBLE LIABILITY.  AT THE LAST MINUTE, WHEN WE FOUND THAT
EVERY STOCKHOLDER IN NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND MONTANA WOULD, IN
CASE OF DEATH, HAVE A DOUBLE INHERITANCE TAX, THEY COMPLAINED SO
STRONGLY ABOUT THAT SITUATION WE SHIFTED AND PUT IT INTO A DELAWARE
CORPORATION. 

     .         .    .         .         . 

"THE OTHER FACTOR THAT WE HAVE HEARD DISCUSSED AND THAT I THINK OF IN
CONNECTION WITH BANKING SUCH AS WE ARE DOING IS THIS THOUGHT IN THE
PUBLIC MIND, OR SOME MINDS, THAT, FOR INSTANCE, OUR BEING A DELAWARE
CORPORATION WAS INTENDED TO AVOID THE DOUBLE LIABILITY OF
STOCKHOLDERS.  I WOULD SAY THAT IF THAT IS OF IMPORTANCE IT MIGHT
EASILY BE PROVIDED THAT A HOLDING COMPANY SHOULD CREATE A SURPLUS
ACCOUNT IN ITS HOLDINGS OR BUILD UP A SURPLUS ACCOUNT OF SOME
PROPORTION OF THE CAPITAL OF THE BANKS THAT SHOULD BE KEPT IN LIQUID
SECURITIES, OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT.  ...  " HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY PURSUANT TO S. RES. 71, 71ST CONG.,
3D SESS., PT. 4, PP. 616, 620. 

EARLIER, MR. J. W. POLE, COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, HAD TESTIFIED: 

"MR. POLE.  WE CALL THAT A GROUP-BANKING SYSTEM IN THE NORTHWEST.  IN
THE CASE OF THE NORTHWEST AND THE FIRST BANK STOCK CORPORATION, I THINK
THAT THEIR STOCK IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DOUBLE LIABILITY, ALTHOUGH THE
STOCK OF SOME HOLDING CORPORATIONS IS SUBJECT TO DOUBLE LIABILITY.  BUT
IN THE CASE OF THOSE TWO CORPORATIONS, IN THOSE PARTICULAR CASES - NOT
THAT IT OBTAINS TOO GENERALLY - THEY HAVE INVESTED IN SECURITIES OTHER
THAN BANK STOCKS, SO THAT A JUDGMENT AGAINST EITHER ONE OF THOSE
CORPORATIONS WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE ASSESSMENT. 

MR. WILLIS.  IN THOSE PARTICULAR CASES? 

MR. POLE.  IN THOSE PARTICULAR CASES; YES, SIR. 

MR. WILLIS.  BUT THERE ARE CASES WHERE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
ASSESSMENT? 

MR. POLE.  THERE ARE CASES WHERE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
ASSESSMENT; YES, AND WHERE THEY HOLD NOTHING BUT BANK STOCKS. 

MR. WILLIS.  IN THOSE CASES WHERE YOU HAVE AN AFFILIATED BANK THAT
BUYS ALL THE STOCK OF THE BANK ITSELF, WHAT BECOMES OF THE DOUBLE
LIABILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDER? 

MR. POLE.  THE SECURITIES COMPANY WHERE IT BUYS THE STOCK OF THE BANK
ITSELF, WOULD BE THE HOLDER OF THE STOCK AND SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

MR. WILLIS.  IS NOT THE DOUBLE LIABILITY THEN VERY LARGELY
NEUTRALIZED? 

MR. POLE.  YES. 

MR. WILLIS.  WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO CORRECT THAT? 

MR. POLE.  WE HAVE DONE NOTHING TO CORRECT IT. 

MR. WILLIS.  WHAT CAN BE DONE BY LAW TO CORRECT IT? 

MR. POLE.  THAT IS A BIG PROBLEM. 

MR. WILLIS.  CAN YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION COVERING THAT ALONG WITH
YOUR OTHER PROBLEMS? 

MR. POLE.  YES." 

SENATE HEARINGS, SUPRA, PART 1, PP. 27-28. 

FOR A PROVISION EXTENDING DOUBLE LIABILITY TO HOLDING-COMPANY
STOCKHOLDERS, SEE WISCONSIN STAT. (1943) SEC. 221.56(3). 

FN5  SEE 56 REPORTS OF AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1931) P. 763; BRIEFS
FOR GOVERNMENT IN ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V. S.E.C., 303 U.S. 419;
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF A PROPOSAL TO WITHDRAW FROM HOLDING COMPANIES
TAX EXEMPTION OF INTERCORPORATE DIVIDENDS, HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, ON H.R. 8974, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 221, ET
SEQ. 

FN6  THE REMOVAL OF LIABILITY IS CONDITIONED UPON GIVING THE NOTICE
PRESCRIBED.  JUNE 16, 1933, C. 89, SEC. 22, 48 STAT. 189, AUG. 23,
1935, C. 614, SEC. 304, 49 STAT. 708; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 64A. 

FN7  COMPTROLLER POLE STATED AT THE SENATE HEARINGS:  "WE HEAR A GOOD
DEAL ABOUT DOUBLE LIABILITY.  IT IS NOT SO IMPORTANT AS AT FIRST ONE
MIGHT SO REGARD IT.  AS AN ILLUSTRATION, THE DEPOSITS, WE WILL SAY, OF
A BANK WITH $100,000 CAPITAL WOULD BE ORDINARILY $1,000,000.  IF YOU
COLLECTED THE ENTIRE 10 PER CENT ASSESSMENT, YOU ONLY WOULD COLLECT 10
PER CENT OF YOUR DEPOSITS AFTER ALL.  ...  BUT IN PRACTICE YOU WOULD
NOT COLLECT OVER 50 PER CENT OF THAT.  WE DO COLLECT, AS A MATTER OF
FACT, JUST ABOUT 50 PER CENT."  HEARINGS, SUPRA NOTE 4, PT. 1, P. 28. 

DEPOSITORS IN THE BANK HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED 77 PER CENT OF THEIR
DEPOSITS.  FEW PRE-DEPRESSION INVESTMENTS HAVE YIELDED SO MUCH.  ABOUT
6,000 STOCKHOLDERS OF BANCO HAVE LOST 100 PER CENT OF THEIR INVESTMENT,
AND ARE NOW FACED WITH LIABILITY IN UNDETERMINED AMOUNTS.  AS TO MANY
OF THEM, IT IS IDLE TO SAY THAT THEY HAD ACTUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
BANK'S MANAGEMENT OR ANY BETTER KNOWLEDGE OF ITS AFFAIRS THAN THE
DEPOSITORS. 

FN8  WITHIN THE LAST DECADE AT LEAST THIRTY-ONE STATES WHICH FORMERLY
HAD DOUBLE LIABILITY HAVE ABOLISHED IT EITHER ABSOLUTELY OR UPON
COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  ONLY FIVE STATES APPEAR TO HAVE
RETAINED THEIR DOUBLE LIABILITY PROVISIONS INTACT, AND IN ONE OF THESE
A PROPOSAL TO ABOLISH IT IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED.  SEE
"STOCKHOLDERS' DOUBLE LIABILITY," COMMERCE CLEARING HOUSE STATE BANKING
LAW SERVICE, VOL. II. 

FN9  FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING: 

"61.  BANCO WAS ORGANIZED IN GOOD FAITH. 

62.  BANCO WAS 'CERTAINLY NOT A SHAM.' 

63.  BANCO WAS 'NOT ORGANIZED FOR A FRAUDULENT PURPOSE OR TO CONCEAL
SECRET OR SINISTER ENTERPRISES CONDUCTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BANK.' 

64.  BANCO WAS NOT A MERE HOLDING COMPANY. 

65.  BANCO 'WAS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE SET OUT IN THE LETTER OF JULY
19, 1929, AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE.' 

66.  BANCO 'WAS NOT FORMED AS A MEDIUM OR AGENCY THROUGH WHICH TO
AVOID DOUBLE LIABILITY ON THE STOCK OF THE BANK.'" 

FN10  THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE DISREGARD OF THE CORPORATE
FICTION IN DONNELL V. HERRING-HALL-MARVIN SAFE CO., 208 U.S. 267, 273
AND KLEIN V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 282 U.S. 19, 24. 

FN11  IN AUTHORITATIVE STUDIES MADE PRIOR TO THE ORIGIN OF THIS
CONTROVERSY WHICH INCLUDED STUDIES OF MANY OF THE CASES CITED BY THE
COURT'S OPINION WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND A TRACE OR SUGGESTION OF THE
PRESENT THEORY OF STOCKHOLDER LIABILITY FOR CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS
CREATED BY LEGISLATION.  SEE DOUGLAS AND SHANKS, INSULATION FROM
LIABILITY THROUGH SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS (1929), 39 YALE L.J. 193;
POWELL, PARENT AND SUBSIDIARY CORPORATIONS (1931), ESP.  CH. III;
WORMSER, DISREGARD OF THE CORPORATE FICTION (1927). 
..END :









ANDERSON NAT. BANK V. LUCKETT, 321 U.S. 233 


NO. 154.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1944.  - 294
KY. 674, 172 S.W.2D 575, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF KENTUCKY SETS UP A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF ABANDONED BANK DEPOSITS.  UPON A REPORT BY THE BANK
AND NOTICE TO THE DEPOSITOR, AND WITH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EITHER TO BE
HEARD, THE STATE TAKES INTO ITS PROTECTIVE CUSTODY BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH,
HAVING BEEN INACTIVE FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS IF DEMAND ACCOUNTS OR FOR
AT LEAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IF NON-DEMAND, THE STATUTE DECLARES TO BE
PRESUMPTIVELY ABANDONED.  THE BANK IS RELIEVED OF ITS LIABILITY TO THE
DEPOSITOR, WHO RECEIVES INSTEAD A CLAIM AGAINST THE STATE, ENFORCIBLE
AT ANY TIME UNTIL THE DEPOSIT IS JUDICIALLY FOUND TO BE ABANDONED AND
FOR FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.  REFUSAL BY THE DESIGNATED STATE OFFICER TO
MAKE PAYMENT IS REVIEWABLE BY THE STATE COURTS.  IN AN ACTION BY A
NATIONAL BANK TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE, HELD: 

1.  IN REQUIRING PAYMENT OF THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS TO THE STATE ON THE
PRESCRIBED NOTICE, WITHOUT RECOURSE TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR ANY
COURT ORDER OR JUDGMENT, THE STATUTE DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE DEPOSITOR OR
THE BANK OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PP. 240, 247. 

(A)  APART FROM QUESTIONS WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER THE NATIONAL BANKING
LAWS IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL BANKS, A STATE, BY A PROCEDURE SATISFYING
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, MAY COMPEL SURRENDER TO IT OF DEPOSIT
BALANCES, WHEN THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL GROUND FOR BELIEF THAT THEY HAVE
BEEN ABANDONED OR FORGOTTEN, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE STATE ACQUIRES THEM
SUBJECT TO ALL LAWFUL DEMANDS OF DEPOSITORS.  P. 240. 

(B)  THE STATUTORY REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT OF DEMAND
DEPOSITS AFTER INACTIVITY OF TEN YEARS, AND OF NON-DEMAND DEPOSITS
AFTER INACTIVITY OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, IS SUSTAINED.  P. 241. 

(C)  SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, THE
DEPOSITORS, PRIOR TO A JUDICIAL DECREE OF ACTUAL ABANDONMENT, WILL NOT
BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR PROPERTY BY THE SURRENDER OF THEIR PRESUMPTIVELY
ABANDONED BANK ACCOUNTS INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE STATE.  P. 241. 

(D)  THE REQUIREMENT THAT A DEPOSITOR WITHOUT ACTUAL NOTICE OF A
PROCEEDING FOR THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF ABANDONMENT MUST MAKE
CLAIM WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE DECREE, DOES NOT INFRINGE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  P. 241. 

(E)  NOTICE TO THE DEPOSITORS OF THE STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS, BY THE
SHERIFF'S POSTING ON THE COURTHOUSE DOOR OR BULLETIN BOARD, FOR A
PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS, A COPY OF THE BANK'S REPORT OF DEPOSITS PRESUMED
ABANDONED, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NOTICE PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE
ITSELF AND BY THE TAKING OF POSSESSION OF THE BANK BALANCES BY THE
STATE, IS SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO THE DEPOSITORS TO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 243. 

(F)  THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HEARD UPON SUCH NOTICE AND PROCEEDINGS AS ARE ADEQUATE TO SAFEGUARD
THE RIGHT FOR WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IS INVOKED.  P. 246. 

(G)  IT IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS THAT EVERY
PROCEDURE AFFECTING THE OWNERSHIP OR DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BE
EXCLUSIVELY BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.  STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING
PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHICH, BY LATER RESORT TO THE COURTS, SECURE TO
ADVERSE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, SUITABLE TO THE OCCASION,
DO NOT DENY DUE PROCESS.  P. 246. 

(H)  THE MERE FACT THAT THE STATE OR ITS AUTHORITIES ACQUIRE
POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF PROPERTY AS A PRELIMINARY STEP TO THE JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF ASSERTED RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  P. 247. 

2.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS AND DOES
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INTERFERE WITH A NATIONAL BANK AS AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  PP. 247, 252. 

(A)  THE STATUTE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NATIONAL BANKS IN
DIRECTING PAYMENT TO THE STATE, PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE, OF
PRESUMPTIVELY ABANDONED ACCOUNTS BY STATE AND NATIONAL BANKS.  P. 247. 

(B)  THE STATUTE IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY PROVISION OF THE
NATIONAL BANKING LAWS.  P. 247. 

(C)  FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 262 U.S. 366, DISTINGUISHED. 
P. 250. 

3.  AS AN APPROPRIATE INCIDENT TO THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO
REQUIRE THE SURRENDER TO IT OF PRESUMPTIVELY ABANDONED ACCOUNTS IN
NATIONAL AS WELL AS STATE BANKS, THE STATE MAY REQUIRE THE BANKS TO
FILE REPORTS OF INACTIVE ACCOUNTS.  P. 252. 

ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK ET AL. V. LUCKETT, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT WHICH, UPON A REMAND (293
KY. 735, 170 S.W.2D 350), DISMISSED THE BILL IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UNDER KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES OF 1942, CH. 393, SECS. 393.060 ET
SEQ., EVERY BANK OR TRUST COMPANY IN THE STATE IS REQUIRED TO TURN OVER
TO THE STATE, DEPOSITS WHICH HAVE REMAINED INACTIVE AND UNCLAIMED FOR
SPECIFIED PERIODS.  THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE:  (1) WHETHER THE
STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE STATE PURPORTS TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND
CUSTODY OF THE DEPOSITS, AFFORDS DUE PROCESS OF LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE
DEPOSITORS MAY NOT RECEIVE PERSONAL NOTICE OF THE PENDING TRANSFER AND
THERE MAY BE NO PRIOR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND (2) WHETHER THE
STATUTE, AS APPLIED TO DEPOSITS IN A NATIONAL BANK, CONFLICTS WITH THE
NATIONAL BANKING LAWS OR IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY THE
STATE WITH APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS AS A BANKING INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

SO FAR AS HERE RELEVANT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE MAY BE
SUMMARILY STATED AS FOLLOWS.  DEMAND DEPOSITS HELD BY A BANK, WITH
ACCRUED INTEREST, ARE PRESUMED ABANDONED UNLESS THE OWNER HAS, WITHIN
TEN YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE FOR MAKING THE REPORT REQUIRED BY SEC.
393.110, NEGOTIATED IN WRITING WITH THE BANK, OR BEEN CREDITED WITH
INTEREST ON HIS PASSBOOK AT HIS REQUEST, OR HAD A TRANSACTION NOTED
UPON THE BOOKS OF THE BANK, OR INCREASED OR DECREASED THE AMOUNT OF HIS
DEPOSIT (SEC. 393.060).  NON-DEMAND DEPOSITS, WITH ACCRUED INTEREST,
ARE LIKEWISE PRESUMED ABANDONED, UNLESS THE OWNER, WITHIN THE TWENTY
FIVE YEARS PRECEDING THE REPORT, HAS TAKEN ONE OR MORE OF SUCH
ENUMERATED ACTIONS (SEC. 393.070). 

THE HOLDER OF PROPERTY PRESUMED ABANDONED, INCLUDING ANY NATIONAL
BANK, IS REQUIRED TO FILE WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
ANNUALLY BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, A REPORT IN DUPLICATE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS
OF THE PRECEDING JULY 1; THE COPY IS SENT TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY
IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, AND HE IS UNDER THE STATUTORY DUTY OF
POSTING THE COPY ON THE COURT HOUSE DOOR OR BULLETIN BOARD, BEFORE THE
FOLLOWING OCTOBER 1(SEC.  393.110(1)).  THE HOLDER IS REQUIRED TO TURN
OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BEFORE NOVEMBER 15, THE PROPERTY SO
REPORTED, UNLESS THE HOLDER OR OWNER CERTIFIES FACTS TO REBUT THE
PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT, OR UNLESS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS
RUN AS BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE HOLDER.  IN NEITHER SUCH CASE NEED THE
HOLDER TURN OVER THE PROPERTY EXCEPT UPON AN ORDER OF COURT.  IF A
CLAIMANT HAS FILED AN ACTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY SUCH PROPERTY, THE
HOLDER IS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE PENDENCY OF THE
ACTION BUT IS NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER THE PROPERTY DURING ITS
PENDENCY.  (SEC. 393.110(2).)  IN ANY CASE THE HOLDER OF SUCH PROPERTY
IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF HIS RIGHTS, UNDER SEC.
393.160, PROVIDING FOR APPEALS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF REVENUE, OR UNDER SEC. 393.230, PROVIDING FOR AN EQUITABLE ACTION BY
THE COMMISSIONER TO COMPEL THE SURRENDER OF SUCH PROPERTY (SEC.
393.110(3)). 

A PERSON REFUSING TO TURN OVER PROPERTY UNDER THIS STATUTE IS SUBJECT
TO A PENALTY OF 10% OF ITS AMOUNT, BUT NOT TO EXCEED $500; HE IS
SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY, HOWEVER, IF HE POSTS A COMPLIANCE BOND (SEC.
393.290).  ANY PERSON WHO TRANSFERS PROPERTY TO THE STATE UNDER THIS
STATUTE IS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY TO THE OWNER, AND THE STATE IS
REQUIRED TO REIMBURSE THE HOLDER FOR ANY SUCH LIABILITY (SEC.
393.130). 

THE COMMISSIONER MAY INSTITUTE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH
CONCLUSIVELY THAT PROPERTY, IN HIS HANDS BECAUSE PRESUMED ABANDONED, IS
ACTUALLY ABANDONED, OR THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAS DIED AND THAT
THERE IS NO PERSON ENTITLED TO IT (SEC. 393.230(2)).  IN SUCH AN ACTION
THE PROCEDURE IS GOVERNED BY THE KENTUCKY CIVIL CODE OF PRACTICE (SEC.
393.240(2)). 

A CLAIM TO PROPERTY SURRENDERED TO THE STATE MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME,
UNLESS THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY DETERMINED, UNDER SEC. 393.230,
TO HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY ABANDONED, IN WHICH CASE ANY CLAIM TO THE
PROPERTY BY A PERSON NOT ACTUALLY SERVED WITH NOTICE AND WHO DID NOT
APPEAR AND WHOSE CLAIM WAS NOT CONSIDERED DURING THE PROCEEDING, MUST
BE MADE WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION (SEC.
393.140(1) AND (2); AND SEE ANDERSON NATIONAL BANK V. REEVES, 293 KY.
735, 738, 741, 170 S.W.2D 350).  THE CLAIMANT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE
PUBLICATION OF HIS CLAIM IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE
COUNTY, OR IF THERE IS NONE, HE IS REQUIRED TO POST HIS CLAIM AT THE
COURT HOUSE DOOR AND AT THREE OTHER CONSPICUOUS PLACES IN THE COUNTY
(SEC. 393.140(3)).  THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER
AND DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF ANY CLAIM AND ANY DEFENSE; IF HE APPROVES
THE CLAIM, HE MUST AUTHORIZE ITS PAYMENT (SEC. 393.150).  JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF HIS DETERMINATION IN THE APPROPRIATE STATE COURTS IS PROVIDED
(SEC. 393.160). 

THE STATUTE THUS SETS UP A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF ABANDONED BANK DEPOSITS.  UPON A REPORT BY THE BANK
AND NOTICE TO THE DEPOSITORS AND WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, IF
EITHER WISH IT, THE STATE TAKES INTO ITS PROTECTIVE CUSTODY BANK
ACCOUNTS WHICH, HAVING BEEN INACTIVE FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS IF DEMAND
ACCOUNTS, OR AT LEAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IF NON-DEMAND, THE STATUTE
DECLARES TO BE PRESUMPTIVELY ABANDONED.  THE BANK IS RELIEVED OF ITS
LIABILITY TO THE DEPOSITORS, WHO RECEIVE INSTEAD A CLAIM AGAINST THE
STATE, ENFORCIBLE AT ANY TIME UNTIL THE DEPOSITS ARE JUDICIALLY FOUND
TO BE ABANDONED IN FACT AND FOR FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.  REFUSAL BY THE
DESIGNATED STATE OFFICER TO MAKE PAYMENT IS REVIEWABLE BY THE STATE
COURTS. 

APPELLANT, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES, BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
KENTUCKY FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, FILED BY
APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SOUGHT
TO ENJOIN APPELLEES, THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE AND OTHER STATE
OFFICERS, FROM ENFORCING THE STATUTE HERE IN QUESTION.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT HELD INVALID SO MUCH OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTE AS REQUIRES THE
PAYMENT OF DEPOSITS TO THE STATE MERELY ON THE PRESCRIBED NOTICE, AND
WITHOUT THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.  IT
GAVE JUDGMENT PERPETUALLY ENJOINING APPELLEES FROM ENFORCING SUCH PARTS
OF THE STATUTE.  THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE ACT IN ITS
ENTIRETY, HOLDING THAT IT AFFORDS DUE PROCESS, AND THAT IT NEITHER
INFRINGES THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS NOR IS A PROHIBITED INTERFERENCE
WITH A BANKING INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT ACCORDINGLY
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND INSTRUCTED IT TO DENY
AN INJUNCTION.  293 KY. 735.  ON REMAND, THE CIRCUIT COURT ENTERED ITS
JUDGMENT, DISMISSING THE BILL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  294 KY.
674, 172 S.W.2D 575.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A)
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

APPELLANT CONTENDS HERE:  (1) THAT THE STATUTE, IN REQUIRING PAYMENT
OF THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS TO THE STATE ON THE PRESCRIBED NOTICE, WITHOUT
RECOURSE TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR ANY COURT ORDER OR JUDGMENT,
DEPRIVES THE DEPOSITORS AND APPELLANT OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW, AND (2) THAT SUCH WITHDRAWAL OF ACCOUNTS FROM A NATIONAL BANK
INFRINGES THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS, PARTICULARLY R.S. SEC. 5136, 12
U.S.C. SEC. 24, WHICH AUTHORIZE NATIONAL BANKS TO ACCEPT DEPOSITS AND
TO DO A BANKING BUSINESS, AND IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
THE FEDERALLY AUTHORIZED FUNCTION OF NATIONAL BANKS AS
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

                         I. 

APPELLANT ARGUES THAT THE STATUTE DEPRIVES BOTH THE BANK AND THE
DEPOSITORS OF THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, AND CONTENDS
THAT THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE STATE ACQUIRES ITS ASSERTED RIGHT TO
DEMAND PAYMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS IS SO LACKING IN NOTICE TO DEPOSITORS
AND IN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE HEARD AS TO DENY THE STATE THE
RIGHT TO ASSERT THE DEPOSITORS' CLAIMS AND AFFORD TO THE BANK NO
PROTECTION IF IT RESPONDS TO THE STATE'S DEMAND FOR PAYMENT OF THE
ACCOUNTS. 

WHILE THE KENTUCKY STATUTE IS ENTITLED "ESCHEATS," ITS PROVISIONS, SO
FAR AS APPLICABLE TO BANK DEPOSITS, ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH PERSONAL
PROPERTY DEEMED ABANDONED.  AT COMMON LAW, ABANDONED PERSONAL PROPERTY
WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF ESCHEAT, BUT WAS SUBJECT ONLY TO THE RIGHT OF
APPROPRIATION BY THE SOVEREIGN AS BONA VACANTIA.  SEE 7 HOLDSWORTH, A
HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW (2D ED.)  495-496.  LIKE RIGHTS OF
APPROPRIATION, EXCEPT SO FAR AS LIMITED BY STATE LAW AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, EXIST IN THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES.  HAMILTON
V. BROWN, 161 U.S. 256; CHRISTIANSON V. KING COUNTY, 239 U.S. 356;
SECURITY BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 263 U.S. 282; UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 303
U.S. 276. 

APART FROM QUESTIONS WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS
IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL BANKS, IT IS NO LONGER OPEN TO DOUBT THAT A
STATE, BY A PROCEDURE SATISFYING CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, MAY
COMPEL SURRENDER TO IT OF DEPOSIT BALANCES, WHEN THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL
GROUND FOR BELIEF THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABANDONED OR FORGOTTEN, SECURITY
BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, CERTAINLY WHEN THE STATE ACQUIRES THEM
SUBJECT TO ALL LAWFUL DEMANDS OF THE DEPOSITORS.  PROVIDENT SAVINGS
INSTITUTION V. MALONE, 221 U.S. 660. 

THE DEPOSITS ARE DEBTOR OBLIGATIONS OF THE BANK, INCURRED AND TO BE
PERFORMED IN THE STATE WHERE THE BANK IS LOCATED, AND HENCE ARE SUBJECT
TO THE STATE'S DOMINION.  SEE SECURITY BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 285
AND CASES CITED; IRVING TRUST CO. V. DAY, 314 U.S. 556, 562.  AND IT IS
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATE TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS
OF DEPOSITORS FROM THE RISKS WHICH ATTEND LONG NEGLECTED ACCOUNTS, BY
TAKING THEM INTO CUSTODY WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN INACTIVE SO LONG AS TO BE
PRESUMPTIVELY ABANDONED, SEE PROVIDENT SAVINGS INSTITUTION V. MALONE,
SUPRA, 664, JUST AS IT MAY PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
PROPERTY OF A MISSING PERSON.  CUNNIUS V. READING SCHOOL DISTRICT, 198
U.S. 458; BLINN V. NELSON, 222 U.S. 1. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUTORY REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT
OF DEMAND DEPOSITS AFTER INACTIVITY OF TEN YEARS AND OF NON-DEMAND
DEPOSITS AFTER INACTIVITY OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY
THAT THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION IS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN EXPERIENCE. 
WE HAVE SUSTAINED LIKE STATUTORY PRESUMPTIONS THAT SHORTER PERIODS OF
INACTIVITY FURNISH THE BASIS FOR STATE ADMINISTRATION OF UNASSERTED
CLAIMS OR DEMANDS.  SEE SECURITY BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; CUNNIUS V.
READING SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUPRA; BLINN V. NELSON, SUPRA; CF. PROVIDENT
SAVINGS INSTITUTION V. MALONE, SUPRA. 

IN THE PRESENT POSTURE OF THE CASE WE CONCLUDE, SUBJECT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, THAT PRIOR TO A JUDICIAL DECREE
OF ACTUAL ABANDONMENT, THE DEPOSITORS WILL NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR
PROPERTY BY THE SURRENDER OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS TO THE STATE.  WE NEED
NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING ABANDONMENT IN FACT
CONFORMS TO DUE PROCESS, FOR APPELLANT HAS NOT ATTACKED THIS PROCEDURE
HERE AND NO SUCH PROCEEDING IS BEFORE US.  PRIOR TO SUCH A DECREE THE
PRESENT STATUTE MERELY COMPELS THE SUMMARY SUBSTITUTION OF THE STATE
FOR THE BANK, AS THE DEBTOR OF THE DEPOSITORS.  IT DEPRIVES THE
DEPOSITORS OF NONE OF THEIR RIGHTS AS CREDITORS, PRESERVING THEIR RIGHT
TO DEMAND FROM THE STATE PAYMENT OF THE DEPOSITS, AND THEIR RIGHT TO
RESORT TO THE COURTS IF PAYMENT IS REFUSED.  TRUE, PAYMENT OVER OF THE
DEPOSITS TO THE STATE MAY BE THE PRECURSOR OF A DECREE OF ABANDONMENT
AND THE SHORTENING OF THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH A CLAIMANT MAY DEMAND
PAYMENT OF HIS DEPOSIT.  BUT, IF THE NOTICE TO DEPOSITORS IS ADEQUATE,
WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS ALLOWED FOR THAT PURPOSE
AFTER THE DECREE, IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  TERRY
V. ANDERSON, 95 U.S. 628, 632-633, AND CASES CITED; UNITED STATES V.
MORENA, 245 U.S. 392, 397. 

APPELLANT AND THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, AS AMICUS CURIAE,
POINT TO THE FORMALITIES WITH WHICH THE DEPOSITORS MUST COMPLY BEFORE
THEY WILL BE ABLE TO RECOVER THEIR DEPOSITS, AND ARGUE THAT THE STATE
MAY BE LESS SOLVENT OR LESS WILLING TO PAY THAN THE BANK.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF SOME PERSUASIVE SHOWING, WHICH IS LACKING HERE, THAT THESE
FORMALITIES WILL BE MORE ONEROUS THAN THOSE WHICH WOULD OR COULD BE
PROPERLY REQUIRED BY THE BANK, OR THAT THE STATE WILL IN FACT BE LESS
ABLE OR LESS WILLING TO PAY, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE MERE
SUBSTITUTION OF THE STATE AS THE DEBTOR WILL DEPRIVE THE DEPOSITORS OF
THEIR PROPERTY, OR IMPOSE ON THEM AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN.  SEE
DOHANY V. ROGERS, 281 U.S. 362, 366-368; CF. BLINN V. NELSON, SUPRA, 7;
CORN EXCHANGE BANK V. COLER, 280 U.S. 218, 223.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A
SHOWING OF INJURY, ACTUAL OR THREATENED, THERE CAN BE NO CONSTITUTIONAL
ARGUMENT.  IN RE 620 CHURCH ST. CORP., 299 U.S. 24, 27, AND CASES
CITED.    SINCE THE BANK IS A DEBTOR TO ITS DEPOSITORS, IT CAN
INTERPOSE NO DUE PROCESS OR CONTRACT CLAUSE OBJECTION TO PAYMENT OF THE
CLAIMED DEPOSITS TO THE STATE, IF THE STATE IS LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO
DEMAND PAYMENT, FOR IN THAT CASE PAYMENT OF THE DEBT TO THE STATE,
UNDER THE STATUTE, RELIEVES THE BANK OF ITS LIABILITY TO THE
DEPOSITORS.  SECURITY BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 285, 286.  BUT IF THE
STATUTE IS DEFICIENT IN ITS PROVISIONS FOR NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING SO THAT THE DEPOSITORS WOULD NOT BE BOUND BY ANY PROCEEDINGS
TAKEN UNDER IT, THE BANK WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RAISE THE QUESTION
WHETHER ITS OBLIGATION TO THE DEPOSITORS WOULD BE DISCHARGED BY PAYMENT
OF THE DEPOSITS TO THE STATE.  HENCE OUR INQUIRY MUST BE DIRECTED TO
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE STATE UNDERTAKES TO
ACQUIRE THE DEPOSITORS' RIGHT TO DEMAND PAYMENT OF THE DEPOSITS WAS
UPON ADEQUATE NOTICE TO THEM AND OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE HEARD. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR NOTICE TO THE DEPOSITORS BY
REQUIRING THE SHERIFF TO POST ON THE COURT HOUSE DOOR OR BULLETIN BOARD
A COPY OF THE BANK'S REPORT OF DEPOSITS PRESUMED ABANDONED.  WE THINK
THAT THIS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NOTICE PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE
ITSELF AND BY THE TAKING OF POSSESSION OF THE BANK BALANCES BY THE
STATE, IS SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO THE DEPOSITORS TO SATISFY ALL
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS. 

THE STATUTE ITSELF IS NOTICE TO ALL DEPOSITORS OF BANKS WITHIN THE
STATE, OF THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH THE BALANCES OF INACTIVE ACCOUNTS
WILL BE DEEMED PRESUMPTIVELY ABANDONED, AND THEIR SURRENDER TO THE
STATE COMPELLED.  ALL PERSONS HAVING PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A STATE
AND SUBJECT TO ITS DOMINION MUST TAKE NOTE OF ITS STATUTES AFFECTING
THE CONTROL OR DISPOSITION OF SUCH PROPERTY AND OF THE PROCEDURE WHICH
THEY SET UP FOR THOSE PURPOSES.  REETZ V. MICHIGAN, 188 U.S. 505, 509;
NORTH LARAMIE LAND CO. V. HOFFMAN, 268 U.S. 276, 283.  PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES, THE CONDEMNATION OF LAND, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AFFECTING LAND OWNERS, ARE FAMILIAR
EXAMPLES.  HULING V. KAW VALLEY CO., 130 U.S. 559, 563-564; BALLARD V.
HUNTER, 204 U.S. 241, 254-257, 262. 

THE REPORT OF THE BANK, REQUIRED TO BE POSTED ON THE COURT HOUSE DOOR
OR BULLETIN BOARD, LISTS THE ABANDONED ACCOUNTS AS DEFINED BY THE
STATUTE AND THUS GIVES NOTICE TO THE OWNERS OF ALL THOSE ACCOUNTS
WHICH, BECAUSE OF THEIR INACTIVITY FOR THE PERIODS AND IN THE WAYS
SPECIFIED BY THE STATUTE, ARE DEEMED ABANDONED AND REQUIRED TO BE PAID
TO THE STATE.  THIS NOTICE, WHEN READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF
THE STATUTE, WITH WHICH ALL PERSONS HAVING SUCH BANK ACCOUNTS WITHIN
THE STATE ARE CHARGEABLE, IS SUFFICIENT TO ADVISE THAT THE LISTED
ACCOUNTS ARE DEEMED PRESUMPTIVELY ABANDONED AND WILL AT THE END OF SIX
WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF FILING BE PAID OVER TO THE STATE, AND THAT BOTH
BEFORE AND AFTER THAT EVENT THE DEPOSITORS WILL BE AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT THEIR CLAIMS AND TO HAVE THEM JUDICIALLY DETERMINED, IF
REJECTED. 

POSTING ON THE COURT HOUSE DOOR AS A METHOD OF GIVING NOTICE OF
PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING PROPERTY WITHIN THE COUNTY, IS AN ANCIENT ONE AND
IS TIME-HONORED IN KENTUCKY.  THE ACT OF THE KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE OF
DECEMBER 19, 1796, PROVIDED IN SEC. 2 FOR THE USE OF THIS METHOD OF
WARNING ABSENT DEFENDANTS IN EQUITY PROCEEDINGS THAT A DECREE WOULD BE
ENTERED AGAINST THEM, IF THEY DID NOT APPEAR.  THIS MEANS OF GIVING
NOTICE WAS EMPLOYED IN THE ESCHEAT STATUTES OF KENTUCKY AT LEAST AS
EARLY AS 1852.  KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES OF 1852, P. 308, C. 34, ART.
IV, SEC. 3(1).  THE FACT THAT A PROCEDURE IS SO OLD AS TO HAVE BECOME
CUSTOMARY AND WELL KNOWN IN THE COMMUNITY IS OF GREAT WEIGHT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER IT CONFORMS TO DUE PROCESS, FOR "NOT LIGHTLY
VACATED IS THE VERDICT OF QUIESCENT YEARS."  COLER V. CORN EXCHANGE
BANK, 250 N.Y. 136, 141, 164 N.E. 882, AFF'D, SUB NOM. CORN EXCHANGE
BANK V. COLER, SUPRA.  TO THAT EFFECT, SEE OTIS CO. V. LUDLOW MFG. CO.,
201 U.S. 140, 154; OWNBEY V. MORGAN, 256 U.S. 94, 108-109, 112; JACKMAN
V. ROSENBAUM CO., 260 U.S. 22, 31; CORN EXCHANGE BANK V. COLER, SUPRA,
222-223; SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 110-111. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE POSTING OF A NOTICE ON THE DOOR OF THE COURT
HOUSE IN A KENTUCKY COUNTY IS A LESS EFFICACIOUS METHOD OF GIVING
NOTICE TO DEPOSITORS IN BANKS OF THE COUNTY THAN PUBLICATION IN A LOCAL
NEWSPAPER, OR THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IT IS AN
INADEQUATE MEANS OF GIVING NOTICE OF THE SUMMARY TAKING INTO CUSTODY OF
THE DESIGNATED BANK ACCOUNTS BY THE STATE.  THIS IS THE MORE SO BECAUSE
IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE IS THE IMMEDIATE PRELUDE TO AND ACCOMPANIES THE
COMPULSORY SURRENDER OF THE BANK BALANCES TO THE STATE, UNLESS THE
DEPOSITORS IN THE MEANTIME INTERVENE AS CLAIMANTS.  THE STATUTORY
PROCEDURE, SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS DEPOSITORS, IS IN THE NATURE OF A
PROCEEDING IN REM, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH PROPERTY, AGAINST WHICH A
CLAIM IS ASSERTED, IS SEIZED OR SEQUESTERED, AND HELD SUBJECT TO THE
APPEARANCE AND PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS BY ALL THOSE WHO ASSERT AN
ADVERSE INTEREST IN IT. IN ALL SUCH PROCEEDINGS THE SEIZURE OF THE
PROPERTY IS IN ITSELF A FORM OF NOTICE OF THE CLAIM ASSERTED, TO THOSE
WHO MAY CLAIM AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY.  SEE CORN EXCHANGE BANK V.
COLER, SUPRA, HOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL A STATUTE PROVIDING FOR NO NOTICE
TO THE OWNER OF A BANK DEPOSIT OTHER THAN ITS SEIZURE. 

SECURITY BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, WAS A PROCEEDING TO COMPEL THE
BANK TO PAY OVER TO THE STATE INACTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS AS THE FIRST STEP
IN THEIR SEQUESTRATION AND, IF UNCLAIMED, THEIR POSSIBLE ULTIMATE
ESCHEAT.  THE COURT HELD, 263 U.S. AT 289-290, THAT PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDING IN A NEWSPAPER AT THE STATE CAPITAL WAS
SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO ABSENT DEPOSITORS TO MEET DUE PROCESS
REQUIREMENTS.  IT SUPPORTED THIS CONCLUSION BY REFERENCE TO THE
PROCEEDING AGAINST THE BANK BY WHICH IT WAS REQUIRED TO PAY OVER THE
DEPOSITS TO THE STATE "AS IN PERSONAM SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE BANK; AS
QUASI IN REM SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE DEPOSITORS," 263 U.S. AT P. 287. 
SINCE THE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE BANK PERSONALLY WAS EQUIVALENT TO A
SEIZURE OF THE ACCOUNTS, IT WAS DEEMED TO SUPPLEMENT THE PUBLICATION AS
AN INDEPENDENT NOTICE, IN ITSELF, TO THE DEPOSITORS OF THE SEIZURE AND
OF THEIR OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE STATUTE TO APPEAR AND ASSERT THEIR
CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE. 

LIKE PROCEDURE, BEGUN BY THE SEIZURE OR ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OF A
RES, INCLUDING, IN SOME CASES, CHOSES IN ACTIONS, HAS BEEN SUSTAINED AS
AFFORDING ADEQUATE NOTICE TO ABSENT CLAIMANTS IN ESCHEAT PROCEEDINGS,
HAMILTON V. BROWN, SUPRA; CHRISTIANSON V. KING COUNTY, SUPRA, 373; IN
GARNISHMENT PROCEEDINGS, HARRIS V. BALK, 198 U.S. 215, 223; IN
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A DEBT DUE AN ABSENTEE, CUNNIUS
V. READING SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUPRA; IN PROCEEDINGS BEGUN BY ATTACHMENT,
COOPER V. REYNOLDS, 10 WALL.  308; AND IN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE
MARY, 9 CRANCH 126, 144. 

WE CANNOT SAY, NOR DOES APPELLANT SERIOUSLY URGE, THAT THE LENGTH OF
NOTICE BY POSTING, SIX WEEKS, IS INADEQUATE.  THREE WEEKS NOTICE BY
PUBLICATION OF THE CONDEMNATION OF THE LAND FOR A PUBLIC HIGHWAY WAS
HELD SUFFICIENT BY THIS COURT IN NORTH LARAMIE LAND CO. V. HOFFMAN,
SUPRA; AND THIRTY DAYS WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT IN A LIKE PROCEEDING IN
HULING V. KAW VALLEY CO., SUPRA. 

WHAT IS DUE PROCESS IN A PROCEDURE AFFECTING PROPERTY INTERESTS MUST
BE DETERMINED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PURPOSES OF THE PROCEDURE AND
ITS EFFECT UPON THE RIGHTS ASSERTED AND ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
MAY RENDER THE PROCEEDING APPROPRIATE TO THE NATURE OF THE CASE. 
DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97, 107-108; BALLARD V. HUNTER, SUPRA,
255; NORTH LARAMIE LAND CO. V. HOFFMAN, SUPRA, 282-283; DOHANY V.
ROGERS, SUPRA, 369, AND CASES CITED.  THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT OF
DUE PROCESS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD UPON SUCH NOTICE AND
PROCEEDINGS AS ARE ADEQUATE TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT FOR WHICH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IS INVOKED.  IF THAT IS PRESERVED, THE
DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS ARE FULFILLED.  MEASURED BY THIS STANDARD, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE PRESENT NOTICE IS INSUFFICIENT. 

FOR THIS REASON ALSO IT IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT OF DUE
PROCESS THAT EVERY PROCEDURE AFFECTING THE OWNERSHIP OR DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY BE EXCLUSIVELY BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.  STATUTORY PROCEEDINGS
AFFECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHICH, BY LATER RESORT TO THE COURTS, SECURE
TO ADVERSE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, SUITABLE TO THE
OCCASION, DO NOT DENY DUE PROCESS.  FAMILIAR EXAMPLES ARE THE DECISIONS
AND ORDERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES WHICH DETERMINE RIGHTS SUBJECT TO
A SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW.  AND SUCH IS OBVIOUSLY THE CASE HERE,
WHERE THERE IS FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE DEPOSITORS TO BE HEARD BY THE
STATE COMMISSIONER, WHOSE DECISION IS SUBJECT TO COURT REVIEW.  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE WHAT RIGHT HERE ASSERTED WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER
PRESERVED BY A COURT PROCEDURE WHOSE END WAS THE COMPULSORY SURRENDER
OF THE DEPOSIT BALANCES BY THE BANK TO THE STATE, WHICH TAKES SUBJECT
TO THE CLAIMS OF THE DEPOSITORS. 

THE MERE FACT THAT THE STATE OR ITS AUTHORITIES ACQUIRE POSSESSION OR
CONTROL OF PROPERTY AS A PRELIMINARY STEP TO THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
OF ASSERTED RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. 
SAMUELS V. MCCURDY, 267 U.S. 188, 200; NORTH LARAMIE LAND CO. V.
HOFFMAN, SUPRA; CORN EXCHANGE BANK V. COLER, SUPRA; PHILLIPS V.
COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 593-601, AND CASES CITED. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF THE KENTUCKY STATUTE
ARE ADEQUATE TO MEET ALL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT IT DOES
NOT DEPRIVE APPELLANT OR ITS DEPOSITORS OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW. 

                                 II. 

WE COME NOW TO APPELLANT'S SECOND CONTENTION, THAT THE KENTUCKY
STATUTE INFRINGES THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
INTERFERES WITH APPELLANT AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  BUT THE STATUTE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NATIONAL
BANKS, CF. MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, BY DIRECTING PAYMENT
TO THE STATE BY STATE AND NATIONAL BANKS ALIKE, OF PRESUMPTIVELY
ABANDONED ACCOUNTS.  NOR DO WE FIND ANY WORD IN THE NATIONAL BANKING
LAWS WHICH EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION CONFLICTS WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE KENTUCKY STATUTES.  CF. DAVIS V. ELMIRA SAVINGS BANK, 161 U.S.
275. 

THIS COURT HAS OFTEN POINTED OUT THAT NATIONAL BANKS ARE SUBJECT TO
STATE LAWS, UNLESS THOSE LAWS INFRINGE THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS OR
IMPOSE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BANKS' FUNCTIONS. 
WAITE V. DOWLEY, 94 U.S. 527, 533; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MISSOURI, 263
U.S. 640, 656; LEWIS V. FIDELITY CO., 292 U.S. 559, 566; JENNINGS V.
U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 294 U.S. 216, 219.  THUS THE MERE FACT
THAT THE DEPOSITOR'S ACCOUNT IS IN A NATIONAL BANK DOES NOT RENDER IT
IMMUNE TO ATTACHMENT BY THE CREDITORS OF THE DEPOSITOR, AS AUTHORIZED
BY STATE LAW.  COMPARE EARLE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 178 U.S. 449, WITH VAN
REED V. PEOPLE'S NATIONAL BANK, 198 U.S. 554. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, A BANK ACCOUNT IS A CHOSE IN ACTION OF THE DEPOSITOR
AGAINST THE BANK, WHICH THE LATTER IS OBLIGATED TO PAY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TERMS OF THE DEPOSIT.  IT IS A PART OF THE MASS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE STATE WHOSE TRANSFER AND DEVOLUTION IS SUBJECT TO STATE
CONTROL.  SECURITY BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 285, 286, AND CASES
CITED; IRVING TRUST CO. V. DAY, SUPRA, 562.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN
SUGGESTED THAT NON-DISCRIMINATORY LAWS OF THIS TYPE ARE SO BURDENSOME
AS TO BE INAPPLICABLE TO THE ACCOUNTS OF DEPOSITORS IN NATIONAL BANKS. 

THE STATUTE HERE ATTACKED DOES NOT PURPORT TO DO MORE THAN DOES ANY
OTHER REGULATION OF THE DEVOLUTION OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF MISSING PERSONS,
A FUNCTION WHICH IS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE
STATE.  UNDER THE STATUTE THE STATE MERELY ACQUIRES THE RIGHT TO DEMAND
PAYMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS IN THE PLACE OF THE DEPOSITORS.  UPON PAYMENT
OF THE DEPOSITS TO THE STATE, THE BANK'S OBLIGATION IS DISCHARGED. 
SOMETHING MORE THAN THIS IS REQUIRED TO RENDER THE STATUTE OBNOXIOUS TO
THE FEDERAL BANKING LAWS.  FOR AN INSEPARABLE INCIDENT OF A NATIONAL
BANK'S PRIVILEGE OF RECEIVING DEPOSITS IS ITS OBLIGATION TO PAY THEM TO
THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO DEMAND PAYMENT ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE
STATE WHERE IT DOES BUSINESS.  A DEMAND FOR PAYMENT OF AN ACCOUNT BY
ONE ENTITLED TO MAKE THE DEMAND DOES NOT INFRINGE OR INTERFERE WITH ANY
AUTHORIZED FUNCTION OF THE BANK.  IN FACT, INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH
SUCH DEMANDS IS MADE A BASIS IN THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS FOR CLOSING
THE DOORS OF THE BANK AND WINDING UP ITS AFFAIRS. 

APPELLANT ARGUES THAT IF THE PRESENT ACT IS SUSTAINED, IT WILL OPEN
THE DOOR TO THE EXERTION OF UNLIMITED STATE DISCRETIONARY POWER OVER
THE DEPOSITS IN NATIONAL BANKS, AND THAT THE ACT IMPOSES A BURDEN ON
APPELLANTS SUCH AS WAS HELD TO BE INADMISSIBLE IN FIRST NATIONAL BANK
V. CALIFORNIA, 262 U.S. 366, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED IN NATIONAL CITY BANK
V. PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 302 U.S. 651.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE ONLY POWER
SOUGHT TO BE EXERTED BY THE STATE OVER THE DEPOSITORS' ACCOUNTS IS THE
ASSERTION OF ITS LAWFULLY ACQUIRED RIGHT TO COLLECT THEM, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE OBLIGATION, WHICH WAS BOTH ASSUMED BY APPELLANT AND IS TO BE
PERFORMED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE BANKING LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN
THIS RESPECT THE STATE'S POWER TO MAKE SUCH A DEMAND CANNOT EXTEND
BEYOND ITS POWER UNDER STATE LAW AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO
ACQUIRE CONTROL OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS FROM THEIR OWNERS.  SO LONG AS IT
IS THUS LIMITED, AND THE POWER IS EXERCISED ONLY TO DEMAND PAYMENT OF
THE ACCOUNTS IN THE SAME WAY AND TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT THE DEPOSITORS
COULD, WE CAN PERCEIVE NO DANGER OF UNLIMITED CONTROL BY THE STATE OVER
THE OPERATIONS OF NATIONAL BANKING INSTITUTIONS.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE
WHETHER, WITHIN THE LIMIT, THE STATE'S POWER OVER DEPOSITS IN NATIONAL
BANKS IS AS SIMPLE AS ITS LIKE POWER OVER DEPOSITS IN STATE BANKS. 
COMPARE FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, WITH SECURITY BANK V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA.  WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
PARTICULAR POWER HERE ASSERTED IS A FORBIDDEN ENCROACHMENT UPON THE
PRIVILEGES OF A NATIONAL BANK.    THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, DID NOT REST ON ANY WANT OF POWER
OF A STATE TO DEMAND OF A NATIONAL BANK, PAYMENT OF DEPOSITS WHICH THE
STATE WAS LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.  DECISION THERE TURNED RATHER
ON THE EFFECT OF THE STATE STATUTE IN ALTERING THE CONTRACTS OF DEPOSIT
IN A MANNER CONSIDERED SO UNUSUAL AND SO HARSH IN ITS APPLICATION TO
DEPOSITORS AS TO DETER THEM FROM PLACING OR KEEPING THEIR FUNDS IN
NATIONAL BANKS.  IN THAT CASE THE STATE BROUGHT A STATUTORY PROCEEDING
IN ITS COURTS TO COMPEL A NATIONAL BANK TO PAY OVER TO IT AN INACTIVE
DEPOSIT ACCOUNT.  THE STATUTE REQUIRED "ESCHEAT TO THE STATE" OF ALL
BALANCES IN DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS REMAINING UNCLAIMED AND INACTIVE FOR MORE
THAN TWENTY YEARS, WHERE NEITHER THE DEPOSITOR NOR ANY CLAIMANT HAD
FILED ANY NOTICE WITH THE BANK SHOWING HIS PRESENT ADDRESS.  IT
AUTHORIZED SUIT IN BEHALF OF THE STATE TO RECOVER SUCH AMOUNTS AND
DIRECTED THAT JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR THE STATE "IF IT BE
DETERMINED THAT THE MONEYS DEPOSITED IN ANY DEFENDANT BANK OR BANKS ARE
UNCLAIMED," FOR THE PERIOD AND IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED BY THE STATUTE. 
IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRED NO PROOF THAT THE FORFEITED
ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN IN FACT ABANDONED, OR THAT THEIR OWNERS WERE UNKNOWN
OR HAD DIED WITHOUT HEIRS OR SURVIVING KIN.  UPON MERE PROOF OF
DORMANCY FOR THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THE STATUTE DECLARED THE ACCOUNTS
TO BE ESCHEATED TO THE STATE. 

AFTER POINTING OUT THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT, IN SUSTAINING THE
JUDGMENT IN THE STATE'S FAVOR, HAD DECLINED, AS UNNECESSARY TO ITS
DECISION, TO EXPRESS AN OPINION WHETHER THE ABSENT DEPOSITORS COULD
RECLAIM THEIR FORFEITED DEPOSITS FROM THE STATE, THIS COURT DECLARED
THAT THE STATUTE "ATTEMPTS TO QUALIFY IN AN UNUSUAL WAY AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN NATIONAL BANKS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS LONG UNDERSTOOD TO ARISE
WHEN THE FORMER RECEIVE DEPOSITS UNDER THEIR PLAINLY GRANTED POWERS." 
262 U.S. AT P. 370.  AND SINCE IT WAS THOUGHT THAT SUCH ALTERATIONS
MIGHT BE MADE BY THAT AND OTHER STATES "AND, INSTEAD OF TWENTY YEARS,
VARYING LIMITATIONS MAY BE PRESCRIBED - THREE YEARS PERHAPS, OR FIVE,
OR TEN, OR FIFTEEN," THE COURT DECLARED THAT THE EFFECT ON THE NATIONAL
BANKING SYSTEM WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE STATUTORY PURPOSES OF
ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF NATIONAL BANKS ACTING AS FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES.  THAT EFFECT IT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
(P. 370):  "THE DEPOSITORS OF A NATIONAL BANK OFTEN LIVE IN MANY
DIFFERENT STATES AND COUNTRIES; AND CERTAINLY IT WOULD NOT BE AN
IMMATERIAL THING IF THE DEPOSITS OF ALL WERE SUBJECT TO SEIZURE BY THE
STATE WHERE THE BANK HAPPENED TO BE LOCATED.  THE SUCCESS OF ALMOST ALL
COMMERCIAL BANKS DEPENDS UPON THEIR ABILITY TO OBTAIN LOANS FROM
DEPOSITORS, AND THESE MIGHT WELL HESITATE TO SUBJECT THEIR FUNDS TO
POSSIBLE CONFISCATION." 

THE UNUSUAL ALTERATION OF DEPOSITORS' ACCOUNTS TO WHICH THE COURT
REFERRED WAS PLAINLY THE STATUTORY DECLARATION OF ESCHEAT OF
DEPOSITORS' ACCOUNTS MERELY BECAUSE OF THEIR DORMANCY FOR THE SPECIFIED
PERIOD, WITHOUT ANY DETERMINATION OF ABANDONMENT IN FACT.  THIS IT
TREATED AS IN EFFECT "CONFISCATION" OF DEPOSITORS' ACCOUNTS, OPERATING
AS AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT TO DEPOSITORS' PLACING THEIR FUNDS IN
NATIONAL BANKS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO RECONSIDER THIS DECISION, AS APPELLEES URGE,
FOR THE GROUNDS ASSIGNED FOR IT ARE WHOLLY WANTING HERE.  WHILE THE
SEIZURE AND ESCHEAT OR FORFEITURE FOR MERE DORMANCY OF A NATIONAL BANK
ACCOUNT ARE UNUSUAL, THE ESCHEAT OR APPROPRIATION BY THE STATE OF
PROPERTY IN FACT ABANDONED OR WITHOUT AN OWNER IS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, AS
OLD AS THE COMMON LAW ITSELF.  HERE THERE IS NO ESCHEAT OR FORFEITURE
BY REASON OF DORMANCY.  DORMANCY WITHOUT MORE IS MADE THE STATUTORY
GROUND FOR THE STATE'S TAKING INACTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS INTO ITS CUSTODY,
THE STATE ASSUMING THE BANK'S OBLIGATION TO THE DEPOSITORS.  AND THE
DEPOSITS NEED NOT BE SURRENDERED, IF THE DEPOSITORS OR THE BANK MAKE IT
APPEAR THAT ABANDONMENT HAS NOT OCCURRED.  THIS IS NOT CONFISCATION OR
EVEN AN ATTEMPTED DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY.  ESCHEAT OR FORFEITURE TO
THE STATE MAY FOLLOW, BUT ONLY ON PROOF OF ABANDONMENT IN FACT.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY OF LONG INACTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS,
FOR WHICH THE KENTUCKY STATUTE PROVIDES, AND WHICH IN MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY OPERATE FOR THE BENEFIT AND SECURITY OF DEPOSITORS,
SEE PROVIDENT SAVINGS INSTITUTION V. MALONE, SUPRA, 664, WILL DETER
THEM FROM PLACING THEIR FUNDS IN NATIONAL BANKS IN THAT STATE.  IT
CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT WOULD HAVE THAT EFFECT, MORE THAN WOULD THE TAX
LAWS, THE ATTACHMENT LAWS, OR THE LAWS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
ESTATES OF DECEDENTS OR OF MISSING OR UNKNOWN PERSONS, WHICH A STATE
MAY MAINTAIN AND APPLY TO DEPOSITORS IN NATIONAL BANKS. 

NOR ARE WE ABLE TO DISCERN ANY GREATER OR DIFFERENT EFFECT SO FAR AS
PROSPECTIVE DEPOSITORS IN NATIONAL BANKS ARE CONCERNED, FROM THE
APPLICATION OF THE ANCIENT LAW OF ESCHEAT OR FORFEITURE OF GOODS AS
BONA VACANTIA, TO BANK ACCOUNTS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT AN OWNER, OR TO
HAVE BEEN IN FACT ABANDONED BY THEIR OWNERS.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V.
KLEIN, SUPRA.  TRUE, UNDER THE KENTUCKY STATUTE, AS IN THE CASE OF AN
ATTACHMENT OR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED DEPOSITOR,
A CHANGE IN THE DOMINION OVER THE ACCOUNTS WILL ENSUE, TO WHICH THE
BANK MUST RESPOND BY PAYMENT OF THEM ON LAWFUL DEMAND.  BUT THIS, AS WE
HAVE SAID, IS NOTHING MORE THAN PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY BY THE BANK
IMPOSED BY THE FEDERAL BANKING LAWS, AND NOT A DENIAL OF ITS PRIVILEGES
AS A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY.  IN ALL THIS WE CAN PERCEIVE NO DENIAL OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND NO UNLAWFUL ENCROACHMENT ON THE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES OF NATIONAL BANKS. 

SINCE KENTUCKY MAY ENFORCE ITS STATUTE REQUIRING THE SURRENDER TO IT
OF PRESUMPTIVELY ABANDONED ACCOUNTS IN NATIONAL AS WELL AS STATE BANKS,
IT MAY, AS AN APPROPRIATE INCIDENT TO THIS EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY,
REQUIRE THE BANKS TO FILE REPORTS OF INACTIVE ACCOUNTS, AS THE STATUTE
DIRECTS.  WAITE V. DOWLEY, SUPRA; COLORADO BANK V. BEDFORD, 310 U.S.
41, 53.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :








FLOURNOY V. WIENER, 321 U.S. 253 


NO. 252.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 7, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1944.  -
203 LA. 649, 14 SO.2D 475, APPEAL DISMISSED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF A STATE COURT, EITHER ON APPEAL OR ON
CERTIORARI, THIS COURT WILL NOT PASS UPON OR CONSIDER FEDERAL QUESTIONS
NOT ASSIGNED AS ERROR OR DESIGNATED IN THE POINTS TO BE RELIED UPON,
EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE PROPERLY PRESENTED TO AND PASSED UPON BY THE
STATE COURT.  P. 259. 

2.  THE STATE COURT HAVING RESTED ITS DECISION IN THIS CASE UPON (1)
THE INVALIDITY OF THE FEDERAL ACT UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND (2) THE
INVALIDITY OF THE STATE ACT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, EITHER OF
WHICH GROUNDS WAS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT; AND THE APPELLANT
HAVING ASSIGNED AS ERROR ONLY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT QUESTION; AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT QUESTION NOT HAVING BEEN BRIEFED OR ARGUED BY
EITHER PARTY IN THIS COURT, - HELD THAT, UPON THE RECORD, THIS COURT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DECIDE EITHER QUESTION, AND THE CAUSE MUST
BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  PP. 258, 261. 

3.  APPELLANT HAVING ASSIGNED AS ERROR THE DECISION OF THE STATE
COURT HOLDING THE FEDERAL ACT INVALID, THE CASE IS PROPERLY AN APPEAL,
AND APPELLANT COULD HAVE INCLUDED IN HIS ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ANY OTHER
DENIAL OF FEDERAL RIGHT WHETHER OR NOT CAPABLE IN ITSELF OF BEING
BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL; OR HE COULD HAVE FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI IN ADDITION TO HIS APPEAL.  BUT SINCE HE FAILED TO RAISE OR
BRIEF IN THIS COURT ANY QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE
STATUTE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION
OF THE CASE EITHER ON CERTIORARI OR ON APPEAL, AND THERE IS NO OCCASION
FOR THE APPLICATION OF JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(C).  P. 263. 

FLOURNOY, SHERIFF AND EX-OFFICIO TAX COLLECTOR, V. WIENER ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT WHICH HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLEES, A STATE INHERITANCE TAX STATUTE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
LOUISIANA, APPELLANT ASSIGNING AS ERROR THAT THAT COURT HAD HELD
INVALID, AS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, SEC. 402(B)(2) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 942.  ON CONSIDERING THE JURISDICTIONAL
STATEMENT FILED BY APPELLANT PURSUANT TO RULE 12 OF THE RULES OF THIS
COURT, WE POSTPONED DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE
ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS. 

COURT FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE "WHERE IS DRAWN
IN QUESTION" THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
DECISION IS AGAINST ITS VALIDITY.  THE ERROR ASSIGNED IS THEREFORE ONE
COGNIZABLE ON APPEAL.  THE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER, THE
STATE COURT HAVING RESTED ITS DECISION AND JUDGMENT UPON TWO
INDEPENDENT GROUNDS, EACH ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE DECISION BUT ONLY ONE
OF WHICH APPELLANT HAS ASSIGNED AS ERROR ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, WE
HAVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE EITHER. 

APPELLEES, CHILDREN AND SOLE LEGATEES OF WIENER, WHO HAD DIED A
RESIDENT OF LOUISIANA, LEAVING HIS WIDOW SURVIVING, BROUGHT THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
LOUISIANA TO ESTABLISH THE AMOUNT OF THE STATE INHERITANCE TAX ON THE
INTEREST ACQUIRED BY THEM UNDER THE WILL OF DECEDENT.  UNDER STATE LAW
THEY CANNOT BE PLACED IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY INHERITED BY THEM
UNTIL THEY HAVE PAID THE TAX.  ACT NO. 127 OF THE EXTRA SESSION OF 1921
AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 44 OF 1922; SEE SEC. 3 OF ACT NO. 119 OF 1932. 
SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, THE AMOUNT OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR THE TAX
DEPENDS UPON THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF ACT NO. 119 OF THE
LOUISIANA ACTS OF 1932, LOUISIANA CODE OF PRACTICE, ARTS. 996.89
996.94, AND OF SEC. 402(B)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942.  ACT NO. 119
DIRECTS THE LEVY, IN ADDITION TO EXISTING INHERITANCE TAXES, OF "AN
ESTATE TRANSFER TAX UPON ALL ESTATES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO TAXATION
UNDER THE FEDERAL REVENUE ACT OF 1926."  THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER
THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ALL INHERITANCE, SUCCESSION, LEGACY AND ESTATE
TAXES ACTUALLY PAID TO THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED STATES IN
RESPECT TO ANY PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DECEDENT SHALL BE LESS THAN 80% OF
THE ESTATE TAX PAYABLE TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AMOUNT AND 80% SHALL
BE PAID TO LOUISIANA.  FN1 

THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHICH WAS DERIVED FROM SEC. 302(E) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SO AS TO INCLUDE IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF DECEDENT
FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, PROPERTY "TO THE EXTENT OF THE
INTEREST THEREIN HELD AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY BY THE DECEDENT AND
SURVIVING SPOUSE UNDER THE LAW OF ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR POSSESSION
OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY, EXCEPT SUCH PART THEREOF
AS MAY BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED BY THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OR DERIVED
ORIGINALLY FROM SUCH COMPENSATION OR FROM SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE
SURVIVING SPOUSE." 

RELYING ON THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS APPELLANT, WHO IS CHARGED BY
STATE LAW WITH THE DUTY OF COLLECTING THE STATE INHERITANCE TAX, SET UP
BY HIS ANSWER THAT THE STATE OF LOUISIANA IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER AN
INHERITANCE TAX EQUAL TO 80% OF THE BASIC FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, WHICH BY
SEC. 402(B)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, IS TO BE COMPUTED UPON THE
ENTIRE COMMUNITY, AND PRAYED JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLEES FOR AN
INHERITANCE TAX SO COMPUTED. 

TO THIS ANSWER APPELLEES INTERPOSED PLEAS THAT THE INHERITANCE TAX
DEMANDED OF THEM, INSOFAR AS IT IS MEASURED BY THE INTEREST OF THE
WIDOW IN THE COMMUNITY, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR WANT OF THE UNIFORMITY
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 8 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND IS A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IN THAT IT
TAXES PROPERTY NOT BELONGING TO DECEDENT AND NOT ACQUIRED BY APPELLEES
UNDER THE WILL.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THESE PLEAS ON THE
GROUNDS ASSIGNED AND GAVE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY. 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, LAID ON ALL
THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, IS PAYABLE
BY THE ESTATE,  FN2  THE EFFECT OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IN BOTH STATE
COURTS WAS THAT ACT NO. 119 HAD, BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 402(B)(2) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, IMPOSED AN INHERITANCE TAX MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY AND HAD AUTHORIZED COLLECTION OF THAT ENTIRE TAX
FROM THE DECEDENT'S LEGATEES.  THE CASE THUS PRESENTED NOT ONLY THE
QUESTION WHETHER A TAX COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY BE IMPOSED ON THE ENTIRE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY ON THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND, BUT ALSO THE FURTHER
QUESTION, NOT NECESSARILY GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL ACT, CF. RIGGS V. DEL
DRAGO, 317 U.S. 95, WHETHER THE ENTIRE TAX COULD BE COLLECTED FROM
THOSE WHO INHERIT FROM THE DECEDENT, ALTHOUGH THEY TOOK NO INTEREST IN
THE SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY RETAINED BY THE SURVIVING SPOUSE. 

ON APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES WAS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE; ON THE ARGUMENT THERE HE URGED
THAT THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 402 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942 WAS NOT IN
QUESTION, BUT THAT THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT WAS THE VALIDITY OF
ACT NO. 119 UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IF CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN
THE MANNER CONTENDED FOR BY APPELLANT.  APPELLEES ACCORDINGLY WERE
ALLOWED TO AMEND THEIR PLEA OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY SO AS TO PLEAD IN
THE ALTERNATIVE THAT IF ACT NO. 119 WERE CONSTRUED SO AS TO IMPOSE ON
THEM AN INHERITANCE TAX MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY PROPERTY IT
WOULD VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.  203 LA. 649, 14 SO.2D 475.  IT HELD
THAT "THE CONSTRUCTION SOUGHT TO BE PLACED ON ACT NO. 119 OF 1932 BY
THE TAX COLLECTOR ...  WOULD RENDER IT VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS
GUARANTEED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, SINCE SUCH INTERPRETATION WOULD RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF A
TAX UPON THOSE SUCCEEDING TO THE ESTATE OF A DECEDENT MEASURED IN PART
BY THE PROPERTY COMPRISING THE ESTATE OF ANOTHER, TO WHICH THE ESTATE
OF THE DECEDENT IS IN NO WAY RELATED."  FOR THIS CONCLUSION IT RELIED
UPON HOEPER V. TAX COMMISSION, 284 U.S. 206, HOLDING THAT A STATE
GRADUATED INCOME TAX MEASURED BY THE JOINT INCOME OF HUSBAND AND WIFE
VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT SAID THAT THE TAX WAS THERE HELD
INVALID BECAUSE "ANY ATTEMPT BY A STATE TO MEASURE THE TAX ON ONE
PERSON'S PROPERTY OR INCOME BY REFERENCE TO THE PROPERTY OR INCOME OF
ANOTHER IS CONTRARY TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT." 

THE COURT THUS MADE AN ALTERNATIVE DECISION THAT EITHER ACT NO. 119
DID NOT IMPOSE ON APPELLEES A TAX ON PROPERTY NOT BEQUEATHED TO THEM OR
THAT IF IT DID IT VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BUT IT ALSO WENT
ON TO HOLD THAT "THE LIMITATION PLACED UPON THE STATE BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS LIKEWISE PLACED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT" AND THAT SEC. 402(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, WHICH
APPELLANT, BY INTERPRETATION OF ACT NO. 119, HAD CONTENDED WAS THE
MEASURE OF THE TAX TO BE IMPOSED ON APPELLEES, IS LIKEWISE A VIOLATION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IF INTERPRETED SO AS TO TAX THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY
PROPERTY HERE. 

APPELLANT, IN HIS ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR HERE, MADE NO MENTION OF THE
RULING OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT THAT ACT NO. 119, AS CONSTRUED AND
SOUGHT TO BE APPLIED BY HIM, VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HE
ASSIGNED AS ERROR THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION THAT SEC. 402(B)(2) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942 VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  HE ALSO ASSERTED
THAT IT HAD ERRED "IN DENYING LEGAL EFFICACY" TO THAT PROVISION OF THE
REVENUE ACT WHICH REQUIRED THE VALUATION OF ALL THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY
OF DECEDENT AND HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX.  BUT IN HIS "STATEMENT OF THE POINTS ON WHICH HE INTENDS TO
RELY," FILED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 9 OF RULE 13 OF THIS COURT, HE
STATED, "THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT, AND THE POINT ON WHICH HE
INTENDS TO RELY IS THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF LOUISIANA TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, TO-WIT SECTION 402(B)(2) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 1942, IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND
THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA ERRED IN HOLDING SAID STATUTE TO BE
VIOLATIVE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION." 

RULE 9 OF THIS COURT'S RULES REQUIRES THE APPELLANT IN ALL CASES TO
FILE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR "WHICH SHALL SET OUT SEPARATELY AND
PARTICULARLY EACH ERROR ASSERTED," AND PARAGRAPH 9 OF RULE 13,
REQUIRING THE STATEMENT OF POINTS TO BE RELIED UPON, PROVIDES THAT "THE
COURT WILL CONSIDER NOTHING BUT THE POINTS OF LAW SO STATED."  SEE ALSO
RULE 27, PAR. 6.  IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE, CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED, THAT
UPON APPEAL FROM A STATE COURT THIS COURT WILL NOT PASS UPON OR
CONSIDER FEDERAL QUESTIONS NOT ASSIGNED AS ERROR OR DESIGNATED IN THE
POINTS TO BE RELIED UPON EVEN THOUGH PROPERLY PRESENTED TO AND PASSED
UPON BY THE STATE COURT.  O'NEIL V. VERMONT, 144 U.S. 323, 331; NEW
YORK V. KLEINERT, 268 U.S. 646, 651; HERBRING V. LEE, 280 U.S. 111,
117; SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S. 86, 91; SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167, 172; JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S.
584, 592.  THE RULE IS THE SAME IN THE CASE OF APPLICATIONS FOR
CERTIORARI.  RULE 38, PAR. 2; GENERAL PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN
ELECTRIC CO., 304 U.S. 175, 179; NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
309 U.S. 350, 357. 

THERE IS A SPECIAL REASON WHY THIS PRACTICE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED HERE. 
DOUBTLESS BECAUSE OF APPELLANT'S DISCLAIMER, IN HIS POINTS TO BE RELIED
UPON, OF A PURPOSE TO PRESENT ANY BUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT QUESTION,
APPELLEES HAVE PROCEEDED ON ARGUMENT AND IN BRIEFS IN THIS COURT ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT ONLY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT QUESTION WAS BEFORE US.
APPELLANT'S ONLY MENTION OF THE IMPACT OF THE TAX ON APPELLEES IS TO
SAY THAT "THEY HAVE BEEN VICTIMIZED BY THE STATE LAW NOT THE FEDERAL
LAW."  AND HE HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO SUSTAIN THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE IMPOSITION BY THE STATE OF THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF THE TAX ON
APPELLEES.  THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE ON THE PRESENT RECORD THE TWO
QUESTIONS AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES
ARE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE AND IN KIND.  THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT IS RELEVANT ONLY BECAUSE THE FEDERAL TAX ON COMMUNITY
PROPERTY IS MADE THE MEASURE OF THE TAX WHICH LOUISIANA, NOT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IMPOSES UPON APPELLEES.  IF THE FEDERAL TAX ON
COMMUNITY PROPERTY INFRINGES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT
PROPERTY IS NOT "SUBJECT TO TAXATION UNDER THE FEDERAL REVENUE ACT" AS
THE LOUISIANA ACT REQUIRES, AND THERE IS WANTING THE TAXABLE SUBJECT
MATTER UPON WHICH THE LOUISIANA STATUTE PURPORTS TO IMPOSE THE TAX,
NAMELY COMMUNITY PROPERTY WHICH IS SUBJECT TO A FEDERAL TAX. 

IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL BUT THE STATE STATUTE WHICH IMPOSES THE TAX ON
APPELLEES, AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS NOT
MERELY THAT THE STATE STATUTE, LIKE THE FEDERAL STATUTE, IMPOSES THE
TAX ON A SUBJECT MATTER WHICH IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY TAXABLE, BUT THAT
THE STATE STATUTE DOES SOMETHING WHICH, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE FEDERAL
STATUTE DOES NOT DO, NAMELY IMPOSES ON APPELLEES AN INHERITANCE TAX
WHICH INCLUDES IN ITS MEASURE SOME OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY WHICH THEY
DO NOT RECEIVE.  AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, THIS WAS THE QUESTION RAISED
BY APPELLEES' SUPPLEMENTAL PLEA OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, ALLOWED AND
DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA.  BY IT THEY CHALLENGED, AS A
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE IMPOSITION ON THEM OF AN
"INHERITANCE TAX" "BASED OR MEASURED UPON THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE
COMMUNITY."  EVEN THOUGH IT WERE DECIDED THAT THE FEDERAL STATUTE
VALIDLY IMPOSES THE TAX ON DECEDENT'S ESTATE WITH ITS BURDEN
DISTRIBUTED AMONG ALL THOSE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE ESTATE AS THE
STATE LAW MAY PROVIDE, SEE RIGGS V. DEL DRAGO, SUPRA, THE QUESTION
WOULD REMAIN FOR DECISION WHETHER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PERMITS THE
PARTICULAR DISTRIBUTION FOR WHICH APPELLANT CONTENDS, REQUIRING
APPELLEES TO BEAR ALL THE TAX ALTHOUGH THEY SHARE IN ONLY PART OF THE
ESTATE ON WHICH IT IS LAID. 

BUT THIS QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE US BECAUSE APPELLANT, BY HIS
STATEMENT OF POINTS TO BE RELIED ON, HAS AFFIRMATIVELY EXCLUDED IT FROM
CONSIDERATION ON THIS APPEAL AND HAS LIMITED HIMSELF TO THE DIFFERENT
QUESTION ARISING UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IN ANY CASE WE OUGHT NOT
TO CONSIDER IT HERE BECAUSE IN RELIANCE UPON THIS DECLARATION NEITHER
PARTY HAS BRIEFED OR ARGUED IT IN THIS COURT.  RULE 27, PARAGRAPH 6
DECLARES THAT ERRORS NOT URGED IN THE BRIEFS WILL BE DISREGARDED.  AND,
INDEPENDENTLY OF "TECHNICAL" RULES IT IS NOT THE HABIT OF THIS COURT TO
DECIDE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE NOT
PRESENTED, BRIEFED OR ARGUED.    IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DECISION OF
THE SINGLE QUESTION ARISING UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, CANNOT, IN THE
PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD, BE DISPOSITIVE OF THE CASE.  THE ONLY TAX
HERE SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED IS THE STATE INHERITANCE TAX AUTHORIZED BY
ACT NO. 119.  THE STATE COURT HAVING HELD THAT THAT ACT IS EITHER
INAPPLICABLE OR, IF APPLICABLE, IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, ANY RULING WE COULD MAKE AS TO THE VALIDITY OF SEC.
402(B)(2) COULD AFFORD NO BASIS FOR AFFIRMING, MODIFYING OR SETTING
ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT THAT BY REASON OF THE INVALIDITY
OR INAPPLICABILITY OF ACT NO. 119, THE TAX DEMANDED CANNOT BE IMPOSED. 

ANY DETERMINATION WHICH WE MIGHT MAKE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT QUESTION
WOULD THUS LEAVE UNAFFECTED THE STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT BROUGHT HERE FOR
REVIEW.  OUR OPINION ON THAT SUBJECT WOULD BE ADVISORY ONLY, SINCE
THERE IS NOTHING BEFORE US ON WHICH WE COULD RENDER A DECISION THAT
WOULD HAVE ANY CONTROLLING EFFECT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  HENCE
THE CASE STANDS IN THE SAME POSTURE AS THOSE IN WHICH WE HAVE
REPEATEDLY HELD THAT WHERE THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT RESTS IN PART
ON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT IT, THIS COURT WILL NOT
CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION WHICH THE STATE COURT ALSO
MADE OF A FEDERAL QUESTION OTHERWISE REVIEWABLE HERE.  BEREA COLLEGE V.
KENTUCKY, 211 U.S. 45, 53; ENTERPRISE IRRIGATION DIST. V. CANAL CO.,
243 U.S. 157, 163-4; LYNCH V. NEW YORK, 293 U.S. 52, 54-5; FOX FILM
CORP. V. MULLER, 296 U.S. 207, 210-11.  IN SUCH A CASE THIS COURT HAS
SAID THAT IT WILL NOT ENTER "A USELESS AND PROFITLESS REVERSAL" "WHERE
THE SAME JUDGMENT WILL BE RENDERED BY THE COURT BELOW, AFTER THEY HAVE
CORRECTED THE ERROR IN THE FEDERAL QUESTION."  MURDOCK V. CITY OF
MEMPHIS, 20 WALL.  590, 634-5.  COMPARE PUGH V. MCCORMICK, 14 WALL. 
361, 374.  FOR LIKE REASONS WE HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
CERTIFIED TO US BY A LOWER FEDERAL COURT WHERE IT APPEARS THAT THE
ANSWER CANNOT AFFECT THE RESULT, UNITED STATES V. BUZZO, 18 WALL.  125,
129; UNITED STATES V. BRITTON, 108 U.S. 199, 207; LEDERER V. MCGARVEY,
271 U.S. 342, 344.  SEE ALSO THE RULES STATED IN NEW ORLEANS V.
EMSHEIMER, 181 U.S. 153; NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO. V. MALTBIE, 291 U.S.
645; LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS TEL. CO., 292 U.S. 151, 176; AND IN
HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81, 85, AND CASES CITED. 

THE CAUSE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  IN THE
VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
APPEAL SHOULD NOT ALSO BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF DOUBT WHETHER THE
DECISION OF THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT AS TO ACT NO. 119 RESTS ON A
HOLDING THAT THE ACT VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, OR MERELY THAT
IT IS INAPPLICABLE AS A MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE STATUTE NOT
REVIEWABLE HERE.  WITH THAT LEFT IN DOUBT, WE COULD NOT SAY THAT THE
DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT REST ON A NON-FEDERAL
GROUND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT IT. COMPARE LYNCH V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, 55;
HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14; BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL,
313 U.S. 572; NEW YORK EX REL. ROGALSKI V. MARTIN, 320 U.S. 767, WITH
STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511; MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL
TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551; STANDARD OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481. 

APPELLANT HAVING ASSIGNED AS ERROR THE DECISION OF THE LOUISIANA
SUPREME COURT HOLDING THE FEDERAL ACT INVALID, THE CASE IS PROPERLY AN
APPEAL, AND APPELLANT COULD HAVE INCLUDED IN HIS ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
ANY OTHER DENIAL OF FEDERAL RIGHT WHETHER OR NOT CAPABLE IN ITSELF OF
BEING BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL.  PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. CHEEK, 259
U.S. 530, 547.  OR HE COULD HAVE FILED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI IN ADDITION TO HIS APPEAL.  COLUMBUS & GREENVILLE RY. CO. V.
MILLER, 283 U.S. 93, 98.  BUT SINCE HE FAILED TO RAISE OR BRIEF IN THIS
COURT ANY QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE LOUISIANA STATUTE UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION OF THE CASE EITHER ON
CERTIORARI OR ON APPEAL, AND THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE APPLICATION
OF JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 237(C), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(C).  SEE ROBERTSON
AND KIRKHAM, JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, P.
40, AND CASES CITED.  DISMISSED. 

FN1  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, DECLARED BY SEC. 4, WAS TO SECURE FOR
THE STATE THE BENEFIT OF THE CREDIT ALLOWED BY SEC. 301(B) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 813(B), WHICH ALLOWED THE TAXPAYER
A CREDIT AGAINST THE ESTATE TAX IMPOSED BY THAT ACT FOR ESTATE,
INHERITANCE OR LEGACY TAXES ACTUALLY PAID TO A STATE OR TERRITORY OR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL CREDIT FOR SUCH
TAXES SHOULD NOT EXCEED 80% OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX PAYABLE. 

FN2  THE TAX IS MADE A LIEN ON THE GROSS ESTATE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
ENTIRE COMMUNITY PROPERTY HERE, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SEC. 827(A), AND
IS A PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE WIFE TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST
ACQUIRED BY HER, REVENUE ACT OF 1942, SEC. 411. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR.
JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

IF THIS APPEAL WERE DISMISSED SUMMARILY I SHOULD REMAIN SILENT.  BUT
OPINIONS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT MUST SERVE AS GUIDES FOR THE
BAR AS WELL AS FOR ALL OTHER COURTS.  THEREFORE THE REASONS FOR MY
INABILITY TO CONCUR IN THE COURT'S VIEWS, INVOLVING AS THEY DO GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS, CALL FOR SOMEWHAT DETAILED EXPRESSION. 

1.  THE LAW OF THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT RAISES PROBLEMS OF A
HIGHLY TECHNICAL NATURE.  BUT UNDERLYING THEIR SOLUTION ARE MATTERS OF
SUBSTANCE IN THE PRACTICAL WORKING OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM AND IN THE
EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF THIS COURT.  WHILE THEREFORE THE
DISPOSITION OF JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS INVOLVES SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE,
WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH PROBLEMS THE ANSWERS TO WHICH DEPEND ON THE USE
OF TALISMANIC WORDS OR ON THE OBSERVANCE OF RIGID FORMS.  ON NO ONE I
VENTURE TO BELIEVE HAS THE CONVICTION STRONGER HOLD THAN ON ME THAT IT
IS IMPORTANT TO POSTPONE CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATIONS AND THEREFORE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICTS UNTIL THEY ARE JUDICIALLY UNAVOIDABLE, OR TO
KEEP THEM, WHEN UNAVOIDABLE, WITHIN THE STRICT CONFINES OF A SPECIFIC
CASE.  THAT IS WHY WE SHOULD BE UNCOMPROMISING IN OBSERVING THE LIMITS
OF OUR AUTHORITY AND SHOULD AVOID LAXITY IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION.  SEE
49 HARV. L. REV. 68, 90-107.  BUT THE DUTIES OF THIS COURT DO NOT HANG
ON THE THREAD OF MERE VERBALISM. 

2.  WE DO NOT REVIEW A CASE FROM A STATE COURT WHICH CAN BE SUPPORTED
ON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND BECAUSE FEDERAL AUTHORITY OUGHT NOT TO INTRUDE
UPON THE DOMAIN OF THE STATES.  THIS FAR-REACHING POLITICAL
CONSIDERATION WAS DECISIVE EVEN AFTER THE CIVIL WAR IN SETTLING THE
RULE THAT NOT ONLY DO WE NOT REVIEW A CASE FROM A STATE COURT THAT CAN
REST ON A PURELY STATE GROUND, BUT WE DO NOT EVEN REVIEW STATE
QUESTIONS IN A CASE THAT IS PROPERLY HERE FROM A STATE COURT ON A
FEDERAL GROUND.  MURDOCK V. MEMPHIS, 20 WALL.  590. 

3.  THE REQUIREMENT OF ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS IN ORDER TO INVOKE OUR
REVIEWING POWER RESTS ON A WHOLLY DIFFERENT CONSIDERATION.  "THE
PURPOSE IS TO ENABLE THE COURT AS WELL AS OPPOSING COUNSEL, READILY TO
PERCEIVE WHAT POINTS ARE RELIED ON."  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V.
WATSON, 287 U.S. 86, 91.  OF COURSE, WHEN THE ERROR COMPLAINED OF IS A
REJECTION OF A CLAIM OF THE INVALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE UNDER THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE CLAIM MUST HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVELY
PRESSED BEFORE THE STATE COURT AND REJECTED BY IT.  BUT THE REQUIREMENT
IS NOT FOR SOME ABRACADABRA.  THE NUB OF THE MATTER IS FOUND IN BRYANT
V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63, 67:  "THERE ARE VARIOUS WAYS IN WHICH THE
VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE MAY BE DRAWN IN QUESTION ON THE GROUND THAT
IT IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  NO
PARTICULAR FORM OF WORDS OR PHRASES IS ESSENTIAL, BUT ONLY THAT THE
CLAIM OF INVALIDITY AND THE GROUND THEREFOR BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION
OF THE STATE COURT WITH FAIR PRECISION AND IN DUE TIME.  AND IF THE
RECORD AS A WHOLE SHOWS EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY CLEAR INTENDMENT THAT
THIS WAS DONE, THE CLAIM IS TO BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN ADEQUATELY
PRESENTED." 

4.  THESE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS BRING US TO THE PARTICULAR CASE. 
ITS REVIEWABILITY HERE IS QUESTIONED ON NUMEROUS GROUNDS.  ANY ONE OF
THEM WOULD BE CONCLUSIVE.  APPARENTLY, HOWEVER, A CLOUD OF
UNREVIEWABILITY IS COMPOUNDED BY INTERMINGLING DOUBTS ON SEVERAL
SCORES.  IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA CAN REST ON
A NON-FEDERAL GROUND THERE IS AN END OF THE MATTER.  IF THAT COURT WENT
OFF ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A FEDERAL STATUTE WHEN THAT STATUTE WAS
NOT DRAWN INTO QUESTION AGAIN THERE IS AN END TO THE MATTER.  IF THE
JUDGMENT IN FACT RESTED ON THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE URGED TO BE
REPUGNANT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE CASE COULD COME HERE
BUT ONLY IF THE CLAIM OF INVALIDITY WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED AND DULY
REJECTED BY THE STATE COURT.  AND EVEN THEN SUCH ERROR COULD BE URGED
HERE ONLY IF BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT BY REVEALING ASSIGNMENT OF
ERRORS.  IF THAT REQUIREMENT WERE NOT MET, AGAIN THE APPEAL WOULD CALL
FOR DISMISSAL. 

5.  THIS CONTROVERSY "CONCERNS THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF AN ACT
OF CONGRESS" - SEC. 402(B)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798,
942 - "WHICH IS DIRECTLY DRAWN IN QUESTION.  THE DECISION DEPENDS UPON
THE DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE."  SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE CO., 255
U.S. 180, 201.  THIS IS SO, THAT IS, UNLESS WE WISH TO OVERRULE THE
KANSAS CITY TITLE CASE AS WELL AS THE RECENT UNANIMOUS DECISION IN
STANDARD OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481, AND ADOPT THE DISSENTING
VIEWS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN THE KANSAS CITY TITLE CASE, SUPRA AT
213.  IN ANY EVENT, HOWEVER, THE DECISION OF THE LOUISIANA SUPREME
COURT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED ON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND AND DOES INVOLVE THE
VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 
FINALLY THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS, THE ORDER ALLOWING APPEAL AND THE
STATEMENT OF POINTS ON WHICH APPELLANT RELIED SATISFY THE REASONS FOR
OUR RULES 9 AND 13(9).  ALL THREE CONSIDERATIONS ARE INTERTWINED IN THE
DISTINCTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND THEY ESTABLISH OUR
JURISDICTION, ONCE THE CAUSE OF THIS LITIGATION IS KEPT IN MIND AND OUR
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT TURNED INTO FORMALISM "RUN RIOT." 

6.  WHAT THEN WAS IN ISSUE IN THIS LITIGATION AND WHAT ISSUE WAS
DETERMINED IN THE JUDGMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT HERE?  THE TAX COLLECTOR
CLAIMED THAT "THE HEIRS OF SAM WIENER, JR., OWE AN INHERITANCE TAX ON
THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY ESTATE RATHER THAN UPON THE ONE-HALF INTEREST IN
THE COMMUNITY INHERITED BY THEM" FOR THE REASON THAT "BY VIRTUE OF ACT
NO. 119 OF THE LEGISLATURE OF LOUISIANA FOR THE YEAR 1932, THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA IS ULTIMATELY ENTITLED TO RECOVER AN INHERITANCE TAX AGAINST
THIS ESTATE WHICH IS EQUAL TO EIGHTY PER CENT OF THE BASIC FEDERAL TAX
AS FIXED BY THE FEDERAL REVENUE ACT OF 1926," AND THAT 

"CONGRESS IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, (TITLE IV, SEC. 402A, 56
STATUTES 798, TITLE 26, SEC. 811, U.S.C.A.)  PROVIDES THAT THE BASIC
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX IS COMPUTED UPON THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AND
ACCORDINGLY, THE STATE OF LOUISIANA IS ENTITLED TO AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
EIGHTY PER CENT OF THE BASIC FEDERAL ESTATE TAX SO CALCULATED."  (R. 8)
THE CLAIM OF THE STATE FOR AN INHERITANCE TAX IN A SUM EQUAL TO 80% OF
THE TAX DUE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS COMPUTED IN PART UNDER SEC.
402(B)(2) WAS THUS BASED ON THE INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN THE LOUISIANA
ACT NO. 119 AND SEC. 402(B)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942.  THE LATTER
WAS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE FORMER.  THE TWO BECAME
INSEPARABLE FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION - IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT A
DECISION INVOLVING ACT NO. 119 INESCAPABLY DEPENDED UPON THE
DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 402(B)(2).  FN1  SUCH WAS THE
ISSUE TENDERED BY THE STATE, AND ISSUE WAS JOINED BY THE APPELLEES'
PLEA OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY: 

"NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY THAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN
THE FEDERAL REVENUE ACT OF 1942, APPROVED ON OCTOBER 21, 1942, THERE
MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, SUBJECT TO THE
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX (AND CONSEQUENTLY SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE INHERITANCE TAX UNDER ACT 119 OF 1932) ANY PROPERTY EXCEPT THAT
WHICH WAS OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT THE INSTANT OF HIS DEATH, AND BY HIS
DEATH TRANSMITTED TO HIS HEIRS."  (R. 9) 

IN THIS PLEA THE CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY OF THE FEDERAL ACT WAS
CHALLENGED AS FOLLOWS: "SUCH STATUTORY PROVISION IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF
AND VIOLATIVE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, IN THAT ITS APPLICATION WOULD DEPRIVE THESE APPEARERS OF THEIR
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY ITS IMPOSITION OF TAXES UPON
THEM, BASED BOTH UPON AN ARBITRARY INCLUSION IN THE ESTATE OF THE
DECEDENT OF PROPERTY WHICH DID NOT BELONG TO HIM AND UPON THE
APPLICATION THERETO OF GRADUATED RATES BASED UPON VALUES ARRIVED AT BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH OTHER PROPERTY."  (R. 10) 

7.  PUTTING TO ONE SIDE THE CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC.
402(B)(2) FOR WANT OF UNIFORMITY, THIS IS THE ISSUE WHICH PERSISTS
THROUGHOUT THE LITIGATION - THE ISSUE ARISING FROM THE CLAIM OF
CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE METHOD OF
COMPUTING THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX ACCORDING TO THE AMENDMENT OF 1942
INASMUCH AS THE STATE INHERITANCE TAX IS CONCEDEDLY ASCERTAINED THROUGH
THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  THIS WAS THE ISSUE RAISED
BY THE PLEADINGS IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF LOUISIANA;
THIS WAS THE ISSUE TENDERED BY THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE
THAT COURT (R. 11, PARTICULARLY PAR. 4); THIS WAS THE ISSUE WHICH THAT
COURT DECIDED AGAINST THE STATE BECAUSE IT FOUND A STATUTE OF CONGRESS
"VIOLATIVE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THAT ITS APPLICATION HERE WOULD DEPRIVE THE HEIRS OF THE
DECEDENT OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW" (R. 13); THIS
WAS THE ISSUE FORMULATED BY BOTH PARTIES IN THEIR APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF LOUISIANA (R. 14, 16); ON THE BASIS OF THIS ISSUE THAT COURT
INVITED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES TO APPEAR AS AMICUS
CURIAE.  AFTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SO APPEARING, SUGGESTED FOR THE
FIRST TIME THAT "THE TAX LIABILITY HERE IN ISSUE IS ONLY THAT IMPOSED
BY THE STATE STATUTE," APPELLEES    "WITHOUT IN ANY MANNER CONCEDING
THE CORRECTNESS OF THAT POSITION, BUT ON THE CONTRARY EXPRESSLY
REAFFIRMING THAT THIS CAUSE INVOLVES AND DEPENDS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE," AMENDED THEIR PLEA OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, WITH THE STATE'S CONSENT, BY ADDING ALSO AN ATTACK
UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE STATUTES "EITHER ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE FEDERAL STATUTE" (R. 18). 

BY THIS PROCESS THE CASE REACHED THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA.  NO
ONE CAN READ THAT COURT'S OPINION AND BE LEFT IN ANY DOUBT THAT
LOUISIANA ACT NO. 119 OF 1932 AND SEC. 402(B)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1942 WERE TREATED INSEPARABLY AND THE VALIDITY OF THE FORMER MADE TO
DEPEND ON THE FATE OF THE LATTER.  TWO PASSAGES GIVE THE PITH OF THE
OPINION:  "NOW, BECAUSE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF SECTION
402(B)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT, AMENDING SECTION 811(E) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE OF 1939, 26 U.S.C.A. INT. REV. CODE SEC. 811(E), THE TAX
COLLECTOR OF CADDO PARISH IS CONTENDING INHERITANCE AND ESTATE TAXES IN
THIS STATE, UNDER ACT NO. 119 OF 1932, MUST BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS
ESTABLISHED IN THAT SECTION."  "WE ARE ASKED TO PLACE AN INTERPRETATION
ON ACT NO. 119 OF 1932 AND SECTION 402(B)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942
THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE INCLUSION IN THE ESTATE OF THE MANAGING
PARTNER OF AN INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP TO WHICH HE NEVER
HAD ANY CLAIM AND WHICH WAS, IN FACT, DURING HIS LIFETIME AND IS NOW,
OWNED BY HIS WIFE."  203 LA. 649, 656, 669-70. 

ON THIS SHOWING THE LOWER COURT CONCLUDED THAT SEC. 402(B)(2) OFFENDS
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND THEREFORE THE
RELIANCE OF THE STATE UPON SEC. 402(B)(2) AS READ INTO ACT NO. 119 MADE
THE LATTER ACT OFFENSIVE TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

8.  THE INVALIDITY, BECAUSE WANTING IN DUE PROCESS, OF SEC. 402(B)(2)
INFUSED INTO ACT NO. 119, IS THE ISSUE THAT RUNS LIKE A SILVER THREAD
UNBROKEN AND UNALLOYED THROUGH THIS LITIGATION AS IT TOOK ITS COURSE
FROM THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF LOUISIANA TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AND FROM THERE TO THIS COURT.  THIS MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR WHY THE ERRORS WERE ASSIGNED AS THEY WERE - CLAIMS OF ERROR IN
HOLDING THAT SEC. 402(B)(2) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IN DENYING "LEGAL
EFFICACY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 402(B)(2) OF THE FEDERAL REVENUE
ACT OF 1942 AS REQUIRING THE VALUATION OF ALL OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY
STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE DECEDENT, SAM WIENER, JR., IN THE
COMPUTATION OF THE FEDERAL BASIC ESTATE TAX; AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE
COMPUTATION OF THE INHERITANCE TAX DUE TO THE STATE OF LOUISIANA WHICH,
UNDER THE STATUTE OF THE STATE, IS REQUIRED TO BE EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE FEDERAL BASIC ESTATE TAX."  (R. 32, ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS,
2.)  BECAUSE SUCH WAS THE ISSUE AND BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF LOUISIANA DETERMINED THAT ISSUE, THE ORDER ALLOWING APPEAL
RECITES THAT "THERE WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF SECTION
402(B)(2) OF THE FEDERAL REVENUE ACT OF 1942," (R. 33).  SUCH HAVING
BEEN THE ISSUE AND SUCH ITS DETERMINATION, APPELLANT NATURALLY SET IT
FORTH IN HIS STATEMENT OF THE POINTS ON WHICH HE INTENDED TO RELY.  (R.
35) 

9.  IF A FEDERAL CLAIM WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION IN SMITH V. KANSAS CITY
TITLE CO., SUPRA, AND STANDARD OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, IT WAS NOT
LESS DRAWN IN QUESTION IN THIS CASE.  IF THE EARLIER TWO DECISIONS ARE
TO CONTINUE TO STAND, I AM UNABLE TO MAKE A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN
THEM AND THE RECORD BEFORE US.  FN2  MUCH IS TO BE SAID FOR THE
REASONING OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN THE KANSAS CITY TITLE CASE IN URGING
THAT THE INCORPORATION OF A FEDERAL ACT INTO A STATE LAW NEVERTHELESS
MAKES THE SUIT, FOR PURPOSES OF OUR JURISDICTION, ONE ARISING UNDER THE
STATE AND NOT UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW.  BUT HIS VIEW WAS REJECTED.  IN
THE RECENT STANDARD OIL CASE WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT HIS VIEW
AND REJECT THAT OF THE COURT IN THE KANSAS CITY TITLE CASE.  INSTEAD,
WE UNANIMOUSLY APPLIED THE REASONING OF THE KANSAS CITY TITLE CASE THAT
WHERE A DECISION UNDER STATE LAW NECESSARILY INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION
OR VALIDITY OF FEDERAL LAW THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH FEDERAL LAW IN THE
APPLICATION OF STATE LAW GIVES RISE TO A FEDERAL QUESTION FOR REVIEW
HERE. 

10.  IN ANY EVENT THE DECISION BELOW DID NOT GO OFF ON A NON-FEDERAL
GROUND.  IT CANNOT BE SAID OF THIS CASE AS WAS TRUE OF A CASE LIKE FOX
FILM CORP. V. MULLER, 296 U.S. 207, 211, THAT THE CASE "IN EFFECT, WAS
DISPOSED OF BEFORE THE FEDERAL QUESTION SAID TO BE INVOLVED WAS
REACHED.  CHOUTEAU V. GIBSON, 111 U.S. 200; CHAPMAN V. GOODNOW, 123
U.S. 540, 548.  A DECISION OF THAT QUESTION THEN BECAME UNNECESSARY;
AND WHETHER IT WAS DECIDED OR NOT, OUR WANT OF JURISDICTION IS CLEAR." 
WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE ISSUE THAT WAS FRAMED AFTER THE TAX COLLECTOR'S
RETURN TO THE RULE WAS EXCLUSIVELY A QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE TWO STATE
COURTS WAS A DETERMINATION OF THAT ISSUE.  THERE NEVER WAS ANY
SUGGESTION THAT THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED MERELY A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATE LAW EXCEPT A CONSTRUCTION THAT NECESSARILY RAISED A FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  IT WAS DEEMED TO BE A QUESTION UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION UNTIL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES SUGGESTED THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS AT STAKE. 
BUT EVEN ON THAT ASSUMPTION, THE CASE WAS DECIDED ON A FEDERAL AND NOT
ON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND, NAMELY THE INVALIDITY OF THE STATE'S CLAIM
BECAUSE OF WANT OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SINCE,
HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF INVALIDITY WAS SUSTAINED WE CAN TAKE THE CASE
ONLY ON CERTIORARI.  SEC. 277(B) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

11.  THE QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER THE FEDERAL GROUND WAS ADEQUATELY
ASSIGNED TO SATISFY OUR RULES 9 AND 13(9).  FN3  THIS BRINGS US AGAIN
TO THE RATIONALE OF THESE RULES.  "THE PURPOSE IS TO ENABLE THE COURT
AS WELL AS OPPOSING COUNSEL, READILY TO PERCEIVE WHAT POINTS ARE RELIED
ON."  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S. 86, 91.  IS THERE
ANY DOUBT THAT EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT WAS THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE SUPREME
COURT OF LOUISIANA PASSED AND WHAT WAS THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA AND THE GOVERNMENT DESIRE US TO REVERSE THAT DECISION? 
SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. WATSON, SUPRA, ILLUSTRATES THE TRUE
FUNCTIONS OF ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS AND AFFORDS AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF
SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE RULE COMES INTO OPERATION.  IT IS NOT FAIR TO
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - TO THE WORK OF THIS COURT AND COUNSEL
TAKING PART IN ITS BUSINESS - THAT APPEAL PAPERS HERE SHOULD NOT ENABLE
US TO KNOW CLEARLY AND QUICKLY WHAT IT IS THAT IS COMPLAINED OF AND
THAT WE ARE ASKED TO UNDO: "THE SUBSTITUTION OF VAGUE AND GENERAL
STATEMENT FOR THE PRESCRIBED PARTICULARITY SETS THE RULE AT NAUGHT. 
...  AND AS THE RULE MAKES FOR CONVENIENCE AND CERTAINTY IN THE
CONSIDERATION OF CASES THE COURT MAY, AND GENERALLY IT WILL, DISREGARD
A SPECIFICATION THAT IS SO UNCERTAIN OR OTHERWISE DEFICIENT AS NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE, EVEN IF THE OPPOSING PARTY
RAISES NO QUESTION AND TREATS IT AS ADEQUATE.  THE QUOTED ASSIGNMENT
AMOUNTS MERELY TO A COMPLAINT THAT THE SUPREME COURT ERRED IN NOT
REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT BECAUSE 'IN THE TRIAL OF THIS
CASE' THE 'SCOPE AND EFFECT' OF THE SECTION DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF ITS
PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF BOTH THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSES.  AN ALLEGATION OF ERROR COULD SCARCELY BE MORE INDEFINITE.  IT
DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANY RULING AT THE TRIAL OR SPECIFY ANY BASIS FOR THE
ASSERTION OF DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  IT PRESENTS NO
QUESTION FOR OUR CONSIDERATION."  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. WATSON,
SUPRA AT 91.  IN THIS CASE, UNLIKE THE WATSON CASE, THERE WAS NOT A
"VAGUE AND GENERAL STATEMENT," AN "INDEFINITE" ALLEGATION OF ERROR. 
FROM BEGINNING TO END ALL CONCERNED KNEW THE PRECISE ISSUE THAT THIS
LITIGATION RAISES - WHETHER SEC. 402(B)(2) MEETS THE GUARANTY OF DUE
PROCESS, IN VIEW OF THE DEPENDENCE OF THE STATE ACT UPON THAT FEDERAL
PROVISION.  SURELY WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THIS CASE IF LOUISIANA HAD
SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED AS ERROR THE VIEW THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF
LOUISIANA TOOK OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN RELATION TO TAXING
COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  BUT SINCE, AS THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT SAID,
THE ISSUE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS PRECISELY THE SAME IN THIS
SITUATION AS THAT UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, TO THROW OUT THE CASE
BECAUSE "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT" WAS NOT WRITTEN IS TO MAKE OUR
JURISDICTION THE SLAVE OF WORDS. 

12.  IF THE DECISION BELOW CAN REALLY BE SAID TO REST ON A NON
FEDERAL GROUND, NO ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS COULD CURE THE DEFECT.  BUT IT
DOES NOT REST ON A NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  IT RESTS ON A FEDERAL GROUND -
THE FEDERAL GROUND THAT IS WRITTEN ON ALMOST EVERY PAGE OF THE RECORD. 

13.  NOR SHOULD WE AVOID JURISDICTION BY CREATING AN ISSUE WHICH "THE
PARTIES HAVE NOT PRESENTED, BRIEFED OR ARGUED" FOR THE VERY GOOD REASON
THAT IT IS NOT IN THE CASE.  IN BRIEF, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT EVEN
ASSUMING THE TAX ON THE WHOLE COMMUNITY IS VALID, THE QUESTION REMAINS
WHETHER THE APPELLEES AS LEGATEES OF HALF THE COMMUNITY CAN BE MADE TO
BEAR THE WHOLE TAX.  THAT ISSUE IS EXCLUDED FROM THE CASE.  THE AMENDED
PLEA OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY DID NOT RAISE A NEW ISSUE BUT MERELY GAVE A
NEW LABEL - THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - TO THE ISSUE THEY TENDERED UNDER
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, DEPENDENCE ON WHICH THEY REAFFIRMED.  FOR THE
APPELLEES, IN THE PETITION TO PROVE THE WILL, HAVE ASSUMED THE FULL
LIABILITY FOR WHATEVER TAXES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY DUE FROM THE ESTATE. 
WE OUGHT NOT TO CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCE WHICH THE PARTIES
THEMSELVES HAVE NEVER ENTERTAINED IN ORDER TO AVOID ADJUDICATION OF THE
ONLY QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE CASE FROM THE BEGINNING. 

FN1  SECTION 2 OF ACT NO. 119 OF THE LOUISIANA ACTS OF 1932 PROVIDES
THAT "WHENEVER THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ALL INHERITANCE, SUCCESSION,
LEGACY AND ESTATE TAXES ACTUALLY PAID TO THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE
UNITED STATES IN RESPECT TO ANY PROPERTY OWNED BY SUCH DECEDENT SHALL
BE LESS THAN EIGHTY PER CENT (80%) OF THE ESTATE TAX PAYABLE TO THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID FEDERAL REVENUE ACT OF
1926, BUT NOT OTHERWISE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAID AMOUNT AND SAID
EIGHTY PER CENT (80%) SHALL BE PAID TO THE STATE OF LOUISIANA." 

OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, INCLUDES IN THE GROSS ESTATE PROPERTY, "TO
THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST THEREIN HELD AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY BY THE
DECEDENT AND SURVIVING SPOUSE UNDER THE LAW OF ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY, EXCEPT SUCH
PART THEREOF AS MAY BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR
PERSONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED BY THE SURVIVING SPOUSE OR DERIVED
ORIGINALLY FROM SUCH COMPENSATION OR FROM SEPARATE PROPERTY OF THE
SURVIVING SPOUSE.  IN NO CASE SHALL SUCH INTEREST INCLUDED IN THE GROSS
ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT BE LESS THAN THE VALUE OF SUCH PART OF THE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY AS WAS SUBJECT TO THE DECEDENT'S POWER OF
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION."  44 STAT. (PART 2) 9, 70; 56 STAT. 798,
942. 

FN2  THE KANSAS CITY TITLE CASE WAS A SUIT BY A MISSOURI SHAREHOLDER
OF A MISSOURI TRUST COMPANY TO ENJOIN THE DIRECTORS FROM BUYING BONDS
OF FEDERAL LAND BANKS AND JOINT STOCK LAND BANKS ON THE THEORY THAT THE
STATUTES AUTHORIZING THE BANKS AND BONDS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE
BONDS WERE NOT LAWFUL SECURITIES FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES.  THE COURT
HELD THAT THIS WAS A STATEMENT OF A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE MEANING OF THE COURT'S HOLDING IS
CLEARLY INDICATED BY THE VIEW WHICH WAS REJECTED.  "THE DEFENDANT IS A
MISSOURI CORPORATION AND THE RIGHT CLAIMED IS THAT OF A STOCKHOLDER TO
PREVENT THE DIRECTORS FROM DOING AN ACT, THAT IS, MAKING AN INVESTMENT,
ALLEGED TO BE CONTRARY TO THEIR DUTY.  BUT THE SCOPE OF THEIR DUTY
DEPENDS UPON THE CHARTER OF THEIR CORPORATION AND OTHER LAWS OF
MISSOURI.  IF THOSE LAWS HAD AUTHORIZED THE INVESTMENT IN TERMS THE
PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE HAD NO CASE, AND THIS SEEMS TO ME TO MAKE MANIFEST
WHAT I AM UNABLE TO DEEM EVEN DEBATABLE, THAT, AS I HAVE SAID, THE
CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES WHOLLY UNDER MISSOURI LAW.  IF THE MISSOURI LAW
AUTHORIZES OR FORBIDS THE INVESTMENT ACCORDING TO THE DETERMINATION OF
THIS COURT UPON A POINT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR ACTS OF CONGRESS,
STILL THAT POINT IS MATERIAL ONLY BECAUSE THE MISSOURI LAW SAW FIT TO
MAKE IT SO."  255 U.S. AT 214. 

IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE, A RULING BY A STATE COURT THAT UNITED
STATES ARMY POST EXCHANGES WERE NOT FEDERAL AGENCIES IN DECIDING THE
APPLICABILITY OF A STATE SALES TAX WHICH DID NOT APPLY TO SALES TO
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, WAS HELD TO BE A DECISION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION
REVIEWABLE HERE.  "FOR POST EXCHANGES OPERATE UNDER REGULATIONS OF THE
SECRETARY OF WAR PURSUANT TO FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  THESE REGULATIONS AND
THE PRACTICES UNDER THEM ESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POST
EXCHANGE AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, AND TOGETHER WITH THE
RELEVANT STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FROM WHICH THEY
DERIVE, AFFORD THE DATA UPON WHICH THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE POST
EXCHANGE MAY BE DETERMINED.  IT WAS UPON A DETERMINATION OF A FEDERAL
QUESTION, THEREFORE, THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA RESTED ITS
CONCLUSION THAT, BY SEC. 10, SALES TO POST EXCHANGES WERE NOT EXEMPTED
FROM THE TAX."  316 U.S. AT 483.    FN3  RULE 9:  "WHERE AN APPEAL IS
TAKEN TO THIS COURT FROM ANY COURT, THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE WITH THE
CLERK OF THE COURT BELOW, WITH HIS PETITION FOR APPEAL, AN ASSIGNMENT
OF ERRORS, WHICH SHALL SET OUT SEPARATELY AND PARTICULARLY EACH ERROR
ASSERTED.  NO APPEAL SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT OF
ERRORS SHALL ACCOMPANY THE PETITION." 

RULE 13(9):  "WHEN THE RECORD IS FILED, OR WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS
THEREAFTER, THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK A DEFINITE
STATEMENT OF THE POINTS ON WHICH HE INTENDS TO RELY AND A DESIGNATION
OF THE PARTS OF THE RECORD WHICH HE THINKS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSIDERATION THEREOF OR A DESIGNATION OF THOSE PARTS CONSIDERED
UNNECESSARY, WHICHEVER IS MORE CONVENIENT, WITH PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE
SAME ON THE ADVERSE PARTY.  ...  THE STATEMENT OF POINTS INTENDED TO BE
RELIED UPON AND THE DESIGNATIONS OF THE PARTS OF THE RECORD TO BE
PRINTED SHALL BE PRINTED BY THE CLERK WITH THE RECORD.  ...  THE COURT
WILL CONSIDER NOTHING BUT THE POINTS OF LAW SO STATED.  ..." 
..END :



GOODYEAR CO. V. RAY-O-VAC CO., 321 U.S. 275 


NO. 262.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 3, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1944.  -
136 F.2D 159, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT WILL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  P. 278. 

2.  ANTHONY PATENT NO. 2,198,423, CLAIMS 1, 2 AND 3, FOR A LEAKPROOF
DRY CELL FOR A FLASHLIGHT BATTERY, HELD VALID AND INFRINGED.  P. 278. 

3.  DEFENSES BASED ON INSUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
AND ON FILE-WRAPPER ESTOPPEL ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P.
279. 

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., INC. ET AL. V. RAY-O-VAC COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 727, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE FOR
THE PLAINTIFF (45 F.SUPP.  927) IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A
PATENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE VALIDITY AND ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE
ANTHONY PATENT NO. 2,198,423, ISSUED APRIL 23, 1940.  THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED  FN1  AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN2 

THE PATENT, A VERY NARROW ONE IN A CROWDED ART, IS FOR A LEAK-PROOF
DRY CELL FOR A FLASHLIGHT BATTERY.  THE CONVENTIONAL DRY CELL EMBODIES
A CUP-LIKE ZINC ELECTRODE ACTING AS A CONTAINER FOR A CENTRAL CARBON
ELECTRODE, ELECTROLYTE, AND DEPOLARIZING MIX.  THE BOTTOM ENCLOSURE IS
THE TERMINAL FOR ONE ELECTRODE, THE TOP ENCLOSURE FOR THE OTHER.  THE
ELECTROLYTE IS A VISCOUS LIQUID COMPOSED OF AMMONIUM CHLORIDE, ZINC
CHLORIDE, WATER AND STARCH.  USE OF THE BATTERY CAUSES EROSION OF THE
ZINC AND EVENTUALLY THE MIXTURE LEAKS THROUGH THE CONTAINER.  A SHORT
CIRCUIT, OR LONG CONTINUOUS USE, CAUSES THE FORMATION OF SOLIDS AS THE
ZINC IS EATEN AWAY.  THE RESULTANT EXPANSION OF THE CELL CONTENTS, DUE
TO THE WEAKNESS OF THE ZINC WALLS, CAUSES BULGING, BREAKING, AND
SEEPAGE.  THE ESCAPING LIQUID TENDS TO INJURE THE METAL WALLS OF THE
FLASHLIGHT CASING. 

DRY CELLS HAVE BEEN USED IN FLASHLIGHTS FOR MANY YEARS.  THE TENDENCY
OF THE CELLS TO DAMAGE FLASHLIGHT CONTAINERS BY LEAKAGE, BULGING, AND
FREEZING IN THE CONTAINER HAD LONG PLAGUED THE INDUSTRY.  SO MUCH SO
THAT MOST MANUFACTURERS ATTACHED WARNING NOTICES TO THEIR FLASHLIGHT
BATTERIES ADVISING USERS NOT TO ALLOW THEM TO REMAIN IN THE FLASHLIGHT
FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF NON-USE AND TO REMOVE A CELL PROMPTLY UPON
ASCERTAINING THAT IT WAS DEAD. 

NO PATENT IN THE PRIOR ART ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE PROBLEM OF
PREVENTING BOTH LEAKAGE AND SWELLING IN A DRY CELL.  AT THE TIME OF THE
ANTHONY APPLICATION FLASHLIGHT CELLS WERE COMMONLY ENCASED IN A PAPER
COATING WHICH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE WATERPROOFED, OR IN SOME OTHER
SIMILAR CASING FOR PURPOSES OF INSULATION FROM THE CASE.  IN THE PATENT
IN SUIT ANTHONY CALLS ATTENTION TO THE EXISTING DIFFICULTIES AND STATES
THAT HIS INVENTION IS FOR AN IMPROVED PROTECTIVE CASING WHICH WILL
PREVENT FLUIDS FROM LEAKING OUT OF THE CELL AND CAUSING INJURY TO THE
CASE OR OTHER DRY CELLS WITHIN IT.  HE ALSO ADVERTS TO THE TENDENCY OF
THE CELLS TO SWELL AFTER A CERTAIN TIME AND ASSOCIATES THIS SWELLING
WITH THE LEAKING.  HE STATES THAT THE OBJECT OF HIS INVENTION IS TO
PROTECT THE SIDE WALLS OF THE ZINC CUP BY PROVIDING A STRONG METAL
SHEATH WHICH WILL CLOSELY AND RIGIDLY CONFINE THE CELL TO A GIVEN
LENGTH AND DIAMETER AND, WHILE PROVIDING SUCH A SHEATH, TO INSULATE IT
FROM BOTH TERMINALS SO AS TO RENDER UNNECESSARY THE USE OF AN
INSULATING COVER OR LABEL TO PREVENT THE CELL FROM SHORT-CIRCUITING BY
CONTACT WITH THE SIDE WALLS OF THE CASE.  TO ACCOMPLISH HIS OBJECTS
ANTHONY USED THE ORDINARY TYPE OF DRY CELL HAVING CIRCUIT TERMINALS AT
OPPOSITE ENDS, ONE ELECTRODE BEING A CYLINDRICAL ZINC CUP, THE OTHER A
CENTRALLY PLACED CARBON ELECTRODE, IN ELECTROLYTE AND DEPOLARIZING MIX,
THE BOTTOM CLOSURE AFFORDING A TERMINAL FOR ONE ELECTRODE AND THE TOP
FOR THE OTHER.  AROUND THIS CONVENTIONAL COMBINATION HE PLACED AN
INSULATING MATERIAL AND AN OUTSIDE PROTECTING METAL SHEATH WHICH WOULD
ENCLOSE THE INSULATED SIDE WALLS OF THE ZINC CUP AND TIGHTLY EMBRACE
BOTH UPPER AND LOWER CLOSURES TO PREVENT LEAKAGE. 

THE CLAIMS IN SUIT ARE NOS. 1, 2, AND 3.  IF 1 IS GOOD, 2 AND 3 ARE
ALSO.  WE, THEREFORE, QUOTE 1: 

"A LEAK-IMMUNIZED FLASHLIGHT DRY-CELL PROVIDED WITH CIRCUIT TERMINALS
AT OPPOSITE ENDS, COMPRISING:  A HOLLOW CYLINDRICAL ZINC METAL
ELECTRODE CONTAINING ELECTROLYTE; A CENTRALLY DISPOSED CARBON ELECTRODE
AND DEPOLARIZING-MIX IN SAID ELECTROLYTE; A BOTTOM CLOSURE FOR THE CELL
AFFORDING A TERMINAL FOR ONE OF THE ELECTRODES; A TOP CLOSURE FOR THE
CELL PROVIDED WITH A TERMINAL FOR THE OTHER ELECTRODE, ELECTRICALLY
INSULATED FROM THE FIRST MENTIONED TERMINAL; AND A PROTECTING SHEET
METAL SHEATH INSULATED FROM BOTH OF SAID ELECTRODES AND ENCLOSING THE
SIDE WALLS OF SAID METAL ELECTRODE AND TIGHTLY EMBRACING SAID CLOSURES
SO AS TO PREVENT LEAKAGE OF THE ELECTROLYTE FROM THE UNIT." 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE MADE FINDINGS, WHICH HAVE SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE,
TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT: THAT THE PROBLEM PRESENTED WAS OLD AND NO
SOLUTION WAS ATTAINED PRIOR TO ANTHONY'S INVENTION; THAT THE RESPONDENT
BEGAN MARKETING THE PATENTED CELL IN 1939 AND WAS THE FIRST TO
GUARANTEE ITS PRODUCT AGAINST STICKING IN THE FLASHLIGHT CASE; THAT THE
CELL MET WITH IMMEDIATE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS DUE TO THE ADVANTAGES OF ITS
CONSTRUCTION AND NOT TO EXTENSIVE ADVERTISING; THAT ITS ADVANTAGES WERE
RECOGNIZED BY THE ARMY AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND WERE
DEMONSTRATED BY RELIABLE TESTS.  IN HIS OPINION HE EXAMINED THE PRIOR
ART AND SHOWED THAT NONE OF THE WORKERS IN THE ART HAD MET THE PROBLEMS
OF LEAKAGE AND SWELLING IN THE WAY SUGGESTED BY ANTHONY AND THAT MOST
OF THE CITED PATENTS HAD NOT IN FACT BEEN ADDRESSED TO THESE PROBLEMS. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARGE OF INFRINGEMENT, THE COURT FOUND, ON
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE:  THAT THE PETITIONERS CONSCIOUSLY COPIED THE
RESPONDENT'S COMMERCIAL CELL, WHICH WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CLAIMS OF THE PATENT; THAT THE PETITIONERS' CELL INFRINGED THE CLAIMS
IN SUIT, SINCE THE PETITIONERS' SUBSTITUTIONS OF STRUCTURE AND MATERIAL
WERE NO MORE THAN THE CHOICE OF MECHANICAL ALTERNATIVES AND DID NOT
AVOID THE PRACTICE OF THE PRINCIPLE DISCLOSED BY THE PATENT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REEXAMINED THE FINDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE AND ACCEPTED THEM.  IT MUST BE A STRONG CASE IN WHICH THIS
COURT WILL SET ASIDE THESE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO COURTS.  FN3 WE
THINK THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE. 

VIEWED AFTER THE EVENT, THE MEANS ANTHONY ADOPTED SEEM SIMPLE AND
SUCH AS SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO THOSE WHO WORKED IN THE FIELD, BUT
THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO NEGATIVE INVENTION.  FN4 DURING A PERIOD OF HALF
A CENTURY, IN WHICH THE USE OF FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES INCREASED
ENORMOUSLY, AND THE MANUFACTURERS OF FLASHLIGHT CELLS WERE CONSCIOUS OF
THE DEFECTS IN THEM, NO ONE DEVISED A METHOD OF CURING SUCH DEFECTS. 
ONCE THE METHOD WAS DISCOVERED IT COMMENDED ITSELF TO THE PUBLIC AS
EVIDENCED BY MARKED COMMERCIAL SUCCESS.  THESE FACTORS WERE ENTITLED TO
WEIGHT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE IMPROVEMENT AMOUNTED TO INVENTION AND
SHOULD, IN A CLOSE CASE, TIP THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF PATENTABILITY N5. 
ACCEPTING, AS WE DO, THE FINDINGS BELOW, WE HOLD THE PATENT VALID AND
INFRINGED. 

THE PETITIONERS RENEW HERE CONTENTIONS, BASED ON ASSERTED
INSUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION AND ON ALLEGED FILE
WRAPPER ESTOPPEL, WHICH THE COURTS BELOW OVERRULED.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED
THESE DEFENSES BUT CONCLUDE THAT THE PROOFS DO NOT SUSTAIN THEM. 
DECREE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  45 F.SUPP.  927. 

FN2  136 F.2D 159. 

FN3  WILLIAMS MFG. CO. V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP., 316 U.S. 364,
367. 

FN4  LOOM COMPANY V. HIGGINS, 105 U.S. 580, 589, 591; THE BARBED WIRE
PATENT, 143 U.S. 275, 277, 283; KREMENTZ V. S. COTTLE CO., 148 U.S.
556; EXPANDED METAL CO. V. BRADFORD, 214 U.S. 366, 381; DIAMOND RUBBER
CO. V. CONSOLIDATED TIRE CO., 220 U.S. 428, 434-435. 

FN5  SMITH V. GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE CO., 93 U.S. 486, 495-6;
MAGOWAN V. NEW YORK BELTING CO., 141 U.S. 332, 343; TOPLIFF V. TOPLIFF,
145 U.S. 156, 163, 164; KEYSTONE MFG. CO. V. ADAMS, 151 U.S. 139, 143;
POTTS V. CREAGER, 155 U.S. 597, 609; MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD. V. HYDE,
242 U.S. 261, 270; SMITH V. SNOW, 294 U.S. 1, 7, 14; PARAMOUNT PUBLIX
CORP. V. TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 464, 474. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

THOSE WHO STRIVE TO PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE GOODS IN A SYSTEM OF FREE
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE SHOULD NOT BE HANDICAPPED BY PATENTS BASED ON A
"SHADOW OF A SHADE OF AN IDEA."  ATLANTIC WORKS V. BRADY, 107 U.S. 192,
200.  THE PRACTICE OF GRANTING PATENTS FOR MICROSCOPIC STRUCTURAL OR
MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENTS INEVITABLY MUST REDUCE THE UNITED STATES PATENT
OFFICE TO A MASS PRODUCTION FACTORY FOR UNEARNED SPECIAL PRIVILEGES
WHICH SERVE NO PURPOSE EXCEPT UNFAIRLY TO HARASS THE HONEST PURSUIT OF
BUSINESS.  IF THE PATENTEE HERE HAS "DISCOVERED" ANYTHING, IT IS THAT
THE CREAMY SUBSTANCE IN A DRY CELL WILL NOT LEAK THROUGH A STEEL JACKET
WHICH COVERS AND IS SECURELY FASTENED TO THE ENDS OF THE CELL.  FOR
THAT ALLEGED DISCOVERY THIS PATENT IS TODAY UPHELD.  I DO NOT DENY THAT
SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, SOMETIME, MADE THE DISCOVERY THAT LIQUIDS WOULD NOT
LEAK THROUGH LEAK-PROOF SOLIDS.  MY TROUBLE IS THAT, DESPITE FINDINGS
TO THE CONTRARY,  FN1  I CANNOT AGREE THAT THIS PATENTEE IS THAT
DISCOVERER.  MY DISAGREEMENT IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON THE NARROW GROUND
THAT THE RECORD SHOWS PREVIOUS PATENTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO OTHERS WHO
PUT JACKETS OF METAL AND OTHER SUBSTANCES AROUND DRY CELLS. 
ANTIQUARIANS TELL US THAT THE USE OF SOLID CONTAINERS TO HOLD LIQUIDS
PREDATED THE DAWN OF WRITTEN HISTORY.  THAT THE PROBLEM OF THE QUALITY
AND STRENGTH OF THE WALLS OF SUCH CONTAINERS WAS ONE TO WHICH ANCIENT
PEOPLE TURNED THEIR ATTENTION APPEARS FROM THE WIDESPREAD CURRENCY AT
AN EARLY AGE OF THE MAXIM THAT "NEW WINE SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN OLD
BOTTLES."  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
GRANT MONOPOLY PRIVILEGES TO PERSONS WHO DO NO MORE THAN APPLY
KNOWLEDGE WHICH HAS FOR CENTURIES BEEN THE UNIVERSAL POSSESSION OF ALL
THE EARTH'S PEOPLE - EVEN THOSE OF THE MOST PRIMITIVE CIVILIZATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 

FN1  THIS COURT IN 1884 DECLARED THAT "WHETHER THE THING PATENTED
AMOUNTS TO A PATENTABLE INVENTION" IS A QUESTION OF LAW TO BE DECIDED
BY THE COURTS.  MAHN V. HARWOOD, 112 U.S. 354, 358.  ON NUMEROUS
OCCASIONS BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE THAT CASE, THIS COURT HAS INVALIDATED
PATENTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ALLEGED DISCOVERIES FAILED TO MEASURE UP
TO THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR INVENTION.  SEE CASES COLLECTED UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT DIGEST (WEST 1943), PATENTS, VOL. 11, PAR. 16-74. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON IS OF OPINION THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE
REVERSED FOR THE REASON THAT, INVENTION BEING DOUBTFUL, THE COURT OF
APPEALS RELIED UPON COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OF THE PRODUCT WITHOUT ADEQUATE
FINDINGS OR EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER SUCH ALLEGED SUCCESS WAS DUE TO THE
PRODUCT OR TO THE PHENOMENAL INCREASE IN DEMAND DUE TO THE WAR AND TO
THE ADVANTAGES OF MARKETING CONTRACTS WITH MAIL-ORDER HOUSES. 
..END :



SECURITY MILLS CO. V. COMM'R, 321 U.S. 281 


NO. 276.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1944.  - 135
F.2D 165, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE RULE THAT A TAXPAYER (ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS) MAY NOT ACCRUE AN
EXPENSE THE AMOUNT OF WHICH IS UNSETTLED OR THE LIABILITY FOR WHICH IS
CONTINGENT IS APPLICABLE TO A TAX THE LIABILITY FOR WHICH HE DENIES AND
PAYMENT OF WHICH HE IS CONTESTING.  P. 284. 

2.  IN 1935 A TAXPAYER (ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS) MADE SALES OF FLOUR AT
PRICES WHICH INCLUDED AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO COVER A FEDERAL
PROCESSING TAX.  IN THE SAME YEAR, THE TAXPAYER OBTAINED A TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION AGAINST COLLECTION OF THE TAX, ON CONDITION THAT THE AMOUNT
THEREOF BE DEPOSITED PENDENTE LITE.  IN 1936 THE TAX WAS HELD INVALID
AND THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS WERE RETURNED TO THE TAXPAYER.  HELD THAT
PAYMENTS MADE BY THE TAXPAYER IN 1936, 1937 AND 1938 TO REIMBURSE
CUSTOMERS FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX ON SUCH SALES WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE
FROM GROSS INCOME FOR 1935.  PP. 283, 285. 

3.  SECTION 43 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, WHICH REQUIRES THAT
DEDUCTIONS BE TAKEN FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS PAID
OR ACCRUED, "UNLESS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY REFLECT INCOME THE DEDUCTIONS
OR CREDITS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS OF A DIFFERENT PERIOD," DOES NOT
AUTHORIZE OR REQUIRE THAT DEDUCTION OF THE PAYMENTS HERE IN QUESTION BE
TAKEN AS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR 1935.  PP. 284, 287. 

SECURITY FLOUR MILLS CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 724, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 45 B.T.A. 671, WHICH SET ASIDE THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A TAX DEFICIENCY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD  FN1  THAT THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS ERRED IN DECIDING  FN2 THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED, IN
REPORTING ITS INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR 1935, TO DEDUCT PAYMENTS MADE BY
IT IN 1936, 1937, AND 1938.  BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF DECISION  FN3  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE PETITIONER, WHICH CONDUCTS A FLOUR MILL, REPORTS ITS NET INCOME
ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS.  AS A FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSOR OF WHEAT IT WAS
SUBJECT TO THE PROCESSING TAX LEVIED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT OF 1933.  IN THE EARLY MONTHS OF 1935 IT PAID PROCESSING TAXES, AND
CLAIMED, AND WAS ALLOWED, THE AMOUNT SO PAID AS A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS
INCOME IN ITS FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1935.  THE AMOUNT THUS PAID
IS NOT INVOLVED. 

PETITIONER INSTITUTED A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF PROCESSING
TAXES, AND OBTAINED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ENJOINING FURTHER COLLECTION
ON THE CONDITION THAT PENDENTE LITE IT FILE INFORMATION RETURNS AND PAY
THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX INTO A DEPOSITORY.  FROM MAY 1 TO DECEMBER 31,
1935 PETITIONER SO PAID $93,000 AND ACCRUED OVER $9,000 ADDITIONAL UPON
ITS BOOKS FOR PROCESSING TAX FOR THE LAST MONTH.  IT ALSO ACCRUED ABOUT
$1,000 AS A RESERVE FOR POSSIBLE INCREASES IN TAXES EARLIER PAID.  ON
JANUARY 6, 1936, THE TAXING PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT WERE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THIS COURT.  CERTAIN OF THE
PETITIONER'S VENDEES ATTEMPTED TO INTERVENE IN THE INJUNCTION SUIT AND
TO HAVE IMPOUNDED MONEYS RETURNED TO THEM.  PETITIONER RESISTED AND THE
COURT DENIED THE INTERVENTION AND MADE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE
DEPOSITORY TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER THE IMPOUNDED MONEY, WHICH WAS DONE
FEBRUARY 28, 1936. 

THE PETITIONER SET UP ON ITS BOOKS A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT COVERING THE
ITEMS ABOVE MENTIONED UNDER THE TITLE "RESERVE FOR PROCESSING TAX,
CLAIMS, ETC."  THE PETITIONER REFUNDED VARIOUS SUMS TO ITS CUSTOMERS,
TOTALING OVER $45,000 IN 1936, 1937, AND 1938 TO REIMBURSE CUSTOMERS
FOR PROCESSING TAX INCLUDED IN THE SALES PRICE OF FLOUR SOLD THEM IN
1935 AND NOT PAID TO THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE AS PROCESSING
TAXES.  IN ITS 1935 TAX RETURN PETITIONER DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME
THE TOTAL OF THE AMOUNTS IMPOUNDED AND ACCRUED BUT NOT PAID THE
COLLECTOR IN THE YEAR 1935 AS ACCRUED TAX LIABILITY.  THE COMMISSIONER
FOUND A DEFICIENCY BY DISALLOWING THE PETITIONER'S DEDUCTION FOR TAXES
ACCRUED BUT NOT PAID IN 1935. 

THE PROPRIETY OF THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION DEPENDS UPON THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SECS. 23(A), 41 AND 43 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  FN4  SECTION 23
PERMITS THE DEDUCTION OF ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES "PAID OR
INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR
BUSINESS."  SECTION 41 DECLARES THE GENERAL RULE THAT THE TAXPAYER'S
ANNUAL ACCOUNTING PERIOD SHALL BE THE FISCAL YEAR OR CALENDAR YEAR,
DEPENDING UPON THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED, PROVIDED
SUCH METHOD CLEARLY REFLECTS INCOME.  SECTION 43, ON WHICH THE
PETITIONER RELIES, PROVIDES: 

"THE DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS TITLE SHALL BE TAKEN
FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH 'PAID OR ACCRUED' OR 'PAID OR INCURRED',
DEPENDENT UPON THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE NET
INCOME IS COMPUTED, UNLESS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY REFLECT THE INCOME THE
DEDUCTIONS OR CREDITS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS OF A DIFFERENT PERIOD.  ..." 

IT IS SETTLED BY MANY DECISIONS THAT A TAXPAYER MAY NOT ACCRUE AN
EXPENSE THE AMOUNT OF WHICH IS UNSETTLED OR THE LIABILITY FOR WHICH IS
CONTINGENT, AND THIS PRINCIPLE IS FULLY APPLICABLE TO A TAX, LIABILITY
FOR WHICH THE TAXPAYER DENIES, AND PAYMENT WHEREOF HE IS CONTESTING. 
FN5  HERE THE PETITIONER, IN FIGURING ITS COSTS AND ITS SALES PRICE TO
CONSUMERS, ADDED THE AMOUNT OF THE PROCESSING TAX, BUT IT COLLECTED ITS
PURCHASE PRICE AS SUCH AND DESIGNATED NO PART OF IT AS REPRESENTING THE
TAX.  THE PETITIONER RECEIVED THE PURCHASE PRICE AS SUCH.  ITS TAX
LIABILITY, IF ANY, TO THE UNITED STATES DID NOT DIFFER FROM OTHER
DEBTS.  SINCE IT DENIED LIABILITY FOR, AND FAILED TO PAY, THE TAX
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR 1935, IT WAS NOT IN A POSITION IN ITS TAX
ACCOUNTING TO TREAT THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM AS AN ACCRUED LIABILITY.  AS
IT ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED THE MONEY IN QUESTION IN 1935 AND COULD NOT
DEDUCT FROM GROSS INCOME AN ACCRUED LIABILITY TO OFFSET IT, THE
RECEIPT, IT WOULD SEEM, MUST CONSTITUTE INCOME FOR THAT YEAR. 

PETITIONER NEVERTHELESS INSISTS THAT SEC. 43 OF THE REVENUE ACT,
WHICH REQUIRES THAT DEDUCTIONS BE TAKEN FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH
THE AMOUNT WAS PAID OR ACCRUED, CREATES AN EXCEPTION APPLICABLE TO THIS
CASE BY ITS CONCLUDING CLAUSE, "UNLESS IN ORDER TO CLEARLY REFLECT THE
INCOME THE DEDUCTIONS OR CREDITS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS OF A DIFFERENT
PERIOD."  IN SHORT, THE PETITIONER'S POSITION IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER
AND THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ARE AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED TO MAKE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE OF ACCOUNTING BY ANNUAL PERIODS
WHEREVER, UPON ANALYSIS OF ANY TRANSACTION, IT IS FOUND THAT IT WOULD
BE UNJUST OR UNFAIR NOT TO ISOLATE THE TRANSACTION AND TREAT IT ON THE
BASIS OF THE LONG TERM RESULT.  WE THINK THE POSITION IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, IN SECS. 214(A)(6) AND 234(A)(4)  FN6
AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSIONER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF LOSSES IN A YEAR
OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH SUSTAINED WHEN, IN HIS OPINION, THAT WAS
NECESSARY CLEARLY TO REFLECT INCOME.  THE QUALIFYING CLAUSE OF SEC. 43
WAS FIRST ADDED AS SEC. 200(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924.  FN7  THE
REPORTS OF BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES CONCERNING THIS CHANGE
SAID: 

"THE PROPOSED BILL EXTENDS THAT THEORY TO ALL DEDUCTIONS AND
CREDITS.  THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH A PROVISION ARISES IN CASES IN WHICH A
TAXPAYER PAYS IN ONE YEAR INTEREST OR RENTAL PAYMENTS OR OTHER ITEMS
FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS.  IF HE IS FORCED TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT IN THE
YEAR IN WHICH PAID, IT MAY RESULT IN A DISTORTION OF HIS INCOME WHICH
WILL CAUSE HIM TO PAY EITHER MORE OR LESS TAXES THAN HE PROPERLY
SHOULD."  FN8 

FROM THESE REPORTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF INSERTING THE
QUALIFYING CLAUSE WAS TO TAKE CARE OF FIXED LIABILITIES PAYABLE IN
FIXED INSTALLMENTS OVER A SERIES OF YEARS.  FOR EXAMPLE, A TENANT WOULD
NOT BE COMPELLED TO ACCRUE, IN THE FIRST YEAR OF A LEASE, THE RENTAL
LIABILITY COVERING THE ENTIRE TERM NOR WOULD HE BE PERMITTED, IF HE SAW
FIT TO PAY ALL THE RENT IN ADVANCE, TO DEDUCT THE WHOLE PAYMENT AS AN
EXPENSE OF THE CURRENT YEAR.  BUT WE THINK IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO UPSET
THE WELL-UNDERSTOOD AND CONSISTENTLY APPLIED DOCTRINE THAT CASH
RECEIPTS OR MATURED ACCOUNTS DUE ON THE ONE HAND, AND CASH PAYMENTS OR
ACCRUED DEFINITE OBLIGATIONS ON THE OTHER, SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN OUT OF
THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM AND, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GOVERNMENT OR
THE TAXPAYER, TREATED ON A BASIS WHICH IS NEITHER A CASH BASIS NOR AN
ACCRUAL BASIS, BECAUSE SO TO DO WOULD, IN A GIVEN INSTANCE, WORK A
SUPPOSEDLY MORE EQUITABLE RESULT TO THE GOVERNMENT OR TO THE TAXPAYER. 

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE BOARD, WITHIN ITS DISCRETION, MADE A
DETERMINATION OF FACT.  COMPARE DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489. 
IT IS RATHER WHETHER, AS MATTER OF LAW, THE BOARD MISCONSTRUED THE
EXTENT OF THE POWER CONFERRED BY THE REVENUE ACT. 

"ALL THE REVENUE ACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ENACTED SINCE THE ADOPTION OF
THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT HAVE UNIFORMLY ASSESSED THE TAX ON THE BASIS OF
ANNUAL RETURNS SHOWING THE NET RESULT OF ALL THE TAXPAYER'S
TRANSACTIONS DURING A FIXED ACCOUNTING PERIOD, EITHER THE CALENDAR
YEAR, OR, AT THE OPTION OF THE TAXPAYER, THE PARTICULAR FISCAL YEAR
WHICH HE MAY ADOPT."  FN9 

THE RATIONALE OF THE SYSTEM IS THIS:  "IT IS THE ESSENCE OF ANY
SYSTEM OF TAXATION THAT IT SHOULD PRODUCE REVENUE ASCERTAINABLE, AND
PAYABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT, AT REGULAR INTERVALS.  ONLY BY SUCH A SYSTEM
IS IT PRACTICABLE TO PRODUCE A REGULAR FLOW OF INCOME AND APPLY METHODS
OF ACCOUNTING, ASSESSMENT, AND COLLECTION CAPABLE OF PRACTICAL
OPERATION."  FN10 

THIS LEGAL PRINCIPLE HAS OFTEN BEEN STATED AND APPLIED.  FN11  THE
UNIFORM RESULT HAS BEEN DENIAL BOTH TO GOVERNMENT AND TO TAXPAYER OF
THE PRIVILEGE OF ALLOCATING INCOME OR OUTGO TO A YEAR OTHER THAN THE
YEAR OF ACTUAL RECEIPT OR PAYMENT, OR, APPLYING THE ACCRUAL BASIS, THE
YEAR IN WHICH THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE, OR THE OBLIGATION TO PAY, HAS
BECOME FINAL AND DEFINITE IN AMOUNT.  FN12 

BUT THE PETITIONER URGES THAT SEC. 43 HAS ALTERED THE RULE SO THAT A
HYBRID SYSTEM, PARTLY ANNUAL AND PARTLY TRANSACTIONAL, MAY, WITHIN
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTING
PERIODS.  IT URGES THAT THE CHANGE WAS DUE TO THE DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO
PREVENT DISTORTION OF TRUE INCOME.  THIS MUST MEAN DISTORTION OF TRUE
INCOME, NOT OF A GIVEN YEAR, BUT, IN THE LIGHT OF ULTIMATE GAIN, FROM A
SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, GROWING OUT OF, OR IN
SOME WAY RELATED TO, AN INITIAL TRANSACTION IN THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THE
VERY SECTION ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIES, HOWEVER, REITERATES THE
ADHERENCE OF CONGRESS TO THE SYSTEM OF ANNUAL PERIODS OF COMPUTATION. 

AS WE SAID IN DIXIE PINE PRODUCTS CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA,
REFERRING TO A SECTION IDENTICAL WITH SEC. 43 NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION,
"THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 WORKED NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
OVER EARLIER ACTS RESPECTING THE PERMISSIBLE BASIS OF CALCULATING
ANNUAL TAXABLE INCOME." 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LANGUAGE WHICH CONGRESS
USED WAS NOT TO SUBSTITUTE, WHENEVER IN THE DISCRETION OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OR TRIBUNAL SUCH A COURSE WOULD SEEM PROPER, A
DIVIDED AND INCONSISTENT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING NOT PROPERLY TO BE
DENOMINATED EITHER A CASH OR AN ACCRUAL SYSTEM. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  135 F.2D 165. 

FN2  45 B.T.A. 671. 

FN3  HELVERING V. CANNON VALLEY MILLING CO., 129 F.2D 642. 

FN4  C. 277, 48 STAT. 680, 688, 694. 

FN5  SEE DIXIE PINE PRODUCTS CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 516, WHERE
THIS RULE OF LAW WAS REAFFIRMED AND APPLIED BY THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS, THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND BY THIS COURT, AND
CASES CITED. 

FN6  C. 136, 42 STAT. 227, 240, 255. 

FN7  43 STAT. 253, 254. 

FN8  H. REP. 179, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 10, 11; S. REP. 398,
68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 10, 11. 

FN9  BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS CO., 282 U.S. 359, 363. 

FN10  ID., P. 365. 

FN11  SEE E.G. LUCAS V. OX FIBRE BRUSH CO., 281 U.S. 115, 120; BURNET
V. THOMPSON OIL & GAS CO., 283 U.S. 301, 306; WOOLFORD REALTY CO. V.
ROSE, 286 U.S. 319, 326; TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 289 U.S.
620, 624; BROWN V. HELVERING, 291 U.S. 193; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 303 U.S. 493, 498. 

FN12  SEE THE CASES CITED NOTES 5, 9 AND 11. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
CASE IS GOVERNED BY DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489, AND THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD, FOR THE REASONS THEREIN STATED, BE REVERSED. 
..END :









STARK V. WICKARD, 321 U.S. 288 


NO. 211.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1944.  - 136
F.2D 786, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE PROMULGATED AN ORDER REGULATING THE MARKETING
OF MILK IN THE GREATER BOSTON AREA.  THE ORDER PROVIDED FOR FIXING
MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID TO PRODUCERS, AND THE PRESCRIBED FORMULA
AUTHORIZED A DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES. 
PRODUCERS, CLAIMING THAT THE SECRETARY, BY THE PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENTS
TO COOPERATIVES, WAS UNLAWFULLY DIVERTING FUNDS WHICH BELONGED TO
PRODUCERS, BROUGHT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE
SECRETARY FROM CARRYING OUT THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER. 
HELD THAT THE PRODUCERS HAD STANDING TO SUE.  PP. 289, 305. 

2.  ALTHOUGH A JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
SECRETARY'S ACTION IS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT, AUTHORITY
THEREFOR IS FOUND IN THE EXISTENCE OF COURTS AND THE INTENT OF CONGRESS
AS DEDUCED FROM THE STATUTES AND PRECEDENTS.  P. 307. 

3.  UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS ESTABLISHED
COURTS TO ADJUDICATE CASES AND CONTROVERSIES AS TO CLAIMS OF
INFRINGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WHETHER BY UNLAWFUL ACTION OF
PRIVATE PERSONS OR BY THE EXERTION OF UNAUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATIVE
POWER.  P. 310. 

4.  WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE SUSTAINABLE IS NOT
CONSIDERED; THE COURT DETERMINES ONLY THAT THE COMPLAINANTS ARE
ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL EXAMINATION THEREOF.  P. 311. 

STARK ET AL. V. WICKARD, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 723, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE FROM CARRYING OUT PROVISIONS OF AN ORDER UNDER THE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CLASS ACTION WAS INSTITUTED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO PROCURE AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE
RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FROM CARRYING OUT CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF HIS ORDER NO. 4, EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1941, DEALING WITH
THE MARKETING OF MILK IN THE GREATER BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, AREA.  SEE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 246, 7 U.S.C.
SECS. 601 ET SEQ., AND ORDER 4, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, SURPLUS MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, TITLE 7, CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS, PART 904.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED, AND ITS
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 136 F.2D 786.  THE RESPONDENT WAR FOOD ADMINISTRATOR WAS
JOINED IN THIS COURT UPON A SHOWING THAT HE HAD BEEN GIVEN POWERS
CONCURRENT WITH THOSE OF THE SECRETARY.  SEE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9334,
FILED APRIL 23, 1943, 8 F.R. 5423, 5425.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT. 
320 U.S. 723. 

THE PETITIONERS ARE PRODUCERS OF MILK, WHO ASSERT THAT BY SECS.
904.7(B)(5) AND 904.9 OF HIS ORDER, THE SECRETARY IS UNLAWFULLY
DIVERTING FUNDS THAT BELONG TO THEM.  THE COURTS BELOW DISMISSED THE
ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACT VESTS NO LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION IN
MILK PRODUCERS, AND SINCE THE DECISION BELOW AND THE ARGUMENT HERE WERE
LIMITED TO THAT POINT, WE SHALL CONFINE OUR CONSIDERATION TO IT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS A GENERAL EQUITY
JURISDICTION AUTHORIZING IT TO HEAR THE SUIT; FN1  BUT IN ORDER TO
RECOVER, THE PETITIONERS MUST GO FURTHER AND SHOW THAT THE ACT OF THE
SECRETARY AMOUNTS TO AN INTERFERENCE WITH SOME LEGAL RIGHT OF THEIRS. 
FN2  IF SO, THE FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE THAT EXECUTIVE OFFICERS MAY BE
RESTRAINED FROM THREATENED WRONGS IN THE ORDINARY COURTS IN THE ABSENCE
OF SOME EXCLUSIVE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY WILL ENABLE THE PETITIONERS TO
MAINTAIN THEIR SUIT; BUT IF THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT REST UPON A CLAIM OF
WHICH COURTS TAKE COGNIZANCE, THEN IT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED.  THE
PETITIONERS PLACE THEIR RELIANCE UPON SUCH RIGHTS AS MAY BE EXPRESSLY
OR IMPLIEDLY CREATED BY THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF
1937 AND THE ORDER ISSUED THEREUNDER. 

ALTHOUGH THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED THE PROVISIONS OF THAT
STATUTE AT LENGTH AND UPHELD ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY,  FN3  SOME FURTHER
REFERENCE TO IT IS NECESSARY TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRODUCER'S
INTEREST IN THE FUNDS DEALT WITH BY THE ORDER.  FN4 

THE IMMEDIATE OBJECT OF THE ACT IS TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE SALE
OF MILK BY PRODUCERS TO HANDLERS.  IT DOES NOT FORBID SALES AT PRICES
ABOVE THE MINIMUM.  IT CONTAINS AN APPROPRIATE DECLARATION OF POLICY,
FN5  AND IT PROVIDES THAT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE SHALL HOLD A
HEARING WHEN HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A MARKETING ORDER WOULD TEND
TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  FN6  IF HE FINDS THAT AN ORDER
WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECLARED POLICY, HE MUST THEN ISSUE IT.
FN7  SECTIONS 8C (5) AND 8C (7) ENUMERATE THE PROVISIONS THAT THE
ORDER MAY CONTAIN.  SECTION 8C (5)(A) AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY TO
CLASSIFY MILK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORM OR PURPOSE OF ITS USE, AND TO
FIX MINIMUM PRICES FOR EACH CLASSIFICATION.  THESE MINIMA ARE THE USE
VALUE OF THE MILK.  THIS METHOD OF FIXING PRICES WAS ADOPTED BECAUSE
THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF MILK DEPENDS UPON THE PARTICULAR USE MADE OF IT.
FN8  IT IS APPARENT THAT SERIOUS INEQUITIES AS AMONG PRODUCERS MIGHT
ARISE IF THE PRICES EACH RECEIVED DEPENDED UPON THE USE THE HANDLER
MIGHT HAPPEN TO MAKE OF HIS MILK; ACCORDINGLY, SEC. 8C (5)(B)
AUTHORIZES PROVISION TO BE MADE FOR THE PAYMENT TO PRODUCERS OF A
UNIFORM PRICE  FN9  FOR THE MILK DELIVERED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE USE TO
WHICH THE MILK IS PUT BY THE INDIVIDUAL HANDLER.  SECTION 8C (5)(C)
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY TO SET UP THE NECESSARY MACHINERY TO
ACCOMPLISH THESE PURPOSES. 

BY ORDER NO. 4,  FN10  THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DID FIX MINIMUM
PRICES FOR EACH CLASS OF MILK AND REQUIRED EACH HANDLER IN THE BOSTON
AREA TO PAY NOT LESS THAN THOSE MINIMA TO PRODUCERS, 7 C.F.R. 1941
SUPP., SEC. 904.4, LESS SPECIFIED DEDUCTIONS.  SECS. 904.7(B), 904.8. 
IN ADDITION, THE ORDER EXERCISED THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE STATUTE
TO REQUIRE THE USE OF A WEIGHTED AVERAGE IN REACHING THE UNIFORM PRICE
TO BE PAID PRODUCERS, AS DESCRIBED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.  SECS.
904.7, 904.8. 

UNDER THE ORDER, THE HANDLER DOES NOT MAKE FINAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE
PRODUCER UNTIL THE BLENDED PRICE  FN11 HAS BEEN SET, ALTHOUGH HE MUST
MAKE A PART PAYMENT ON OR BEFORE THE TENTH OF EACH MONTH.  SEC. 904.8. 
BUT WITHIN EIGHT DAYS AFTER THE END OF EACH CALENDAR MONTH - THE SO
CALLED "DELIVERY PERIOD," SEC. 904.1(9) - THE HANDLER MUST REPORT HIS
SALES AND DELIVERIES, CLASSIFIED BY USE VALUE, SEC. 904.5, TO A "MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR."  SEC. 904.1(8).  ON THE BASIS OF THESE REPORTS, THE
ADMINISTRATOR COMPUTES THE BLENDED PRICE AND ANNOUNCES IT ON THE
TWELFTH DAY FOLLOWING THE END OF THE DELIVERY PERIOD.  SEC. 904.7(B). 
ON THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY, THE HANDLERS ARE REQUIRED TO PAY THE BALANCE
DUE OF THE BLENDED PRICE SO FIXED TO THE PRODUCERS.  SEC. 904.8(B). 

WERE NO ADMINISTRATIVE DEDUCTIONS NECESSARY, THE BLENDED PRICE PER
HUNDREDWEIGHT OF MILK COULD READILY BE DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THE TOTAL
VALUE OF THE MILK USED IN THE MARKETING AREA AT THE MINIMUM PRICES FOR
EACH CLASSIFICATION BY THE NUMBER OF HUNDREDWEIGHT OF RAW MILK USED IN
THE AREA.  FN12  HOWEVER, THE ORDER REQUIRES SEVERAL ADJUSTMENTS FOR
PURPOSES ADMITTEDLY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE, SO THAT THE DETERMINATION OF
THE BLENDED PRICE AS ACTUALLY MADE IS DRAWN FROM THE TOTAL USE VALUE
LESS A SUM WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR IS DIRECTED TO RETAIN TO MEET
VARIOUS INCIDENTAL ADJUSTMENTS.  FN13  IN PRACTICE, EACH HANDLER
DISCHARGES HIS OBLIGATION TO THE PRODUCERS OF WHOM HE BOUGHT MILK BY
MAKING TWO PAYMENTS:  ONE PAYMENT, THE BLENDED PRICE, IS APPORTIONED
FROM THE VALUES AT THE MINIMUM PRICE FOR THE RESPECTIVE CLASSES LESS
ADMINISTRATIVE DEDUCTIONS AND IS MADE TO THE PRODUCER HIMSELF; FN14
THE OTHER PAYMENT IS EQUAL TO THESE DEDUCTIONS AND IS MADE, IN THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ORDER, "TO THE PRODUCER, THROUGH THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR," IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO COVER THE
DIFFERENTIALS AND DEDUCTIONS IN QUESTION N15.  IT IS THE CONTENTION OF
THE PETITIONERS THAT BY SEC. 904.7(B)(6)  FN16  OF THE ORDER THE
SECRETARY HAS DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DEDUCT A SUM FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MEETING PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 904.9,
AND THAT THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY TO INCLUDE IN HIS
ORDER PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS OF THAT KIND OR FOR DEDUCTIONS TO MEET
THEM.  APPARENTLY, THIS DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES IS THE
ONLY DEDUCTION THAT IS AN UNRECOVERABLE CHARGE AGAINST THE PRODUCERS. 
THE OTHER ITEMS DEDUCTED UNDER SEC. 904.7(B) ARE FOR A REVOLVING FUND
OR TO MEET DIFFERENTIALS IN PRICE BECAUSE OF LOCATION, SEASONAL
DELIVERY, ET CETERA. 

THESE PRODUCER PETITIONERS ALLEGE THAT THEY HAVE DELIVERED MILK TO
HANDLERS IN THE "GREATER BOSTON," MASSACHUSETTS, MARKETING AREA UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER.  THEY STATE THAT THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF A
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION ENTITLED UNDER THE ORDER TO THE CONTESTED
PAYMENTS AND THAT, AS PRODUCERS, MANY OF THEM VOTED AGAINST THE
CHALLENGED AMENDMENT ON THE PRODUCERS' REFERENDUM UNDER SECS. 8C (9)
AND 8C (19) OF THE ACT.  THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE ADMITTED BY THE DEFENSE
UPON WHICH DISMISSAL WAS BASED, NAMELY, THAT THE PETITION FAILS TO
STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED.  FROM THE PRECEDING
SUMMARY OF THE THEORY AND PLAN OF THE STATUTORY REGULATION OF MINIMUM
PRICES FOR MILK AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE
PETITIONERS HAVE EXERCISED THE RIGHT GRANTED THEM BY THE STATUTE AND
ORDER TO DELIVER THEIR MILK TO "GREATER BOSTON" HANDLERS AT THE
GUARANTEED MINIMUM PRICES FIXED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN THE
ORDER.  SEC. 904.4.  UPON ACCEPTING THAT DELIVERY THE HANDLER WAS
REQUIRED BY THE ORDER TO PAY TO THESE PRODUCERS THEIR MINIMUM PRICES IN
THE MANNER SET FORTH IN SEC. 904.8.  SIMPLY STATED, THIS SECTION
REQUIRED THE HANDLER TO PAY DIRECTLY TO THE PRODUCER THE BLENDED PRICE
AS DETERMINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AND TO PAY TO THE PRODUCERS THROUGH
THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR USE IN MEETING THE DEDUCTIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE
ORDER OF THE SECRETARY AND APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRODUCERS,
SEC. 8C (9)(B), THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BLENDED PRICE AND THE
MINIMUM PRICE.  THE ORDER DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO DEDUCT FROM THE
FUNDS COMING INTO HIS HANDS FROM THE PRODUCERS' SALE PRICE THE PAYMENTS
TO COOPERATIVES.  SEC. 904.9. 

IT IS THIS DEDUCTION WHICH THE PRODUCERS CHALLENGE AS BEYOND THE
SECRETARY'S STATUTORY POWER.  THE RESPONDENTS ANSWER THAT THE
PETITIONERS HAVE NOT SUCH A LEGAL INTEREST IN THIS EXPENDITURE OR IN
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S SETTLEMENT FUND AS ENTITLES THEM TO CHALLENGE THE
ACTION OF THE SECRETARY IN DIRECTING THE DISBURSEMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT
SAYS THAT AS THE PRODUCERS PAY NOTHING INTO THE SETTLEMENT FUND AND
RECEIVE NOTHING FROM IT, THEY HAVE NO LEGALLY PROTECTED RIGHT WHICH
GIVES THEM STANDING TO SUE.  THERE IS, OF COURSE, NO QUESTION BUT THAT
THE CHALLENGED DEDUCTION REDUCES PRO TANTO THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY RECEIVED
BY THE PRODUCERS FOR THEIR MILK. 

BY THE STATUTE AND ORDER, THE SECRETARY HAS REQUIRED ALL AREA
HANDLERS DEALING IN THE MILK OF OTHER PRODUCERS TO PAY MINIMUM PRICES
AS JUST DESCRIBED.  SECS. 904.1(6), 904.4; ACT, SEC. 8C (14).  THE
PRODUCER IS NOT COMPELLED BY THE ORDER TO DELIVER (ACT SEC. 8C (13)(B))
BUT NEITHER CAN HE BE REQUIRED TO MARKET ELSEWHERE; AND IF HE FINDS A
DEALER IN THE AREA WHO WILL BUY HIS PRODUCT, THE PRODUCER BY DELIVERY
OF MILK COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER.  THE ORDER
FIXING THE MINIMUM PRICE OBVIOUSLY AFFECTS BY DIRECT GOVERNMENTAL
ACTION THE PRODUCER'S BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH HANDLERS.  COLUMBIA
BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407, 422.  CF. CHICAGO
JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 267.  THE FACT THAT THE PRODUCER MAY SELL
TO THE HANDLER FOR ANY PRICE ABOVE THE MINIMUM IS NOT OF MOMENT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE STATUTE AND ORDER SECURE TO HIM A
MINIMUM PRICE.  SHOULD THE PRODUCER SELL HIS MILK TO A HANDLER AT
PRICES IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM, THE HANDLER WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE
COMPELLED TO PAY INTO THE FUND THE SAME AMOUNT.  THE CHALLENGED
DEDUCTION IS A BURDEN ON EVERY AREA SALE.  SECS. 904.7(A), 904.8(B). 
IN SUBSTANCE PETITIONERS' ALLEGATION IS THAT IN EFFECT THE ORDER
DIRECTED WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY A DEDUCTION OF A SUM TO PAY THE
UNITED STATES A SALES TAX ON MILK SOLD.  THE STATUTE AND ORDER CREATE A
RIGHT IN THE PRODUCER TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PROTECTION OF A MINIMUM
PRICE AFFORDED BY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION.  SUCH A RIGHT CREATED BY STATUTE
IS MANDATORY IN CHARACTER AND OBVIOUSLY CAPABLE OF JUDICIAL
ENFORCEMENT.  FN17  FOR EXAMPLE, THE ORDER COULD NOT BAR ANY QUALIFIED
PRODUCERS IN THE MILK SHED FROM SELLING TO AREA HANDLERS.  LIKE THE
INSTANCES JUST CITED FROM RAILWAY LABOR CASES, SUPRA, N. 17, THE
PETITIONERS HERE VOLUNTARILY BRING THEMSELVES WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF
THE ACT.  IT CANNOT BE FAIRLY SAID THAT BECAUSE PRODUCERS MAY CHOOSE
NOT TO SELL IN THE AREA, THOSE WHO DO CHOOSE TO SELL THERE NECESSARILY
MUST SELL, WITHOUT A RIGHT OF CHALLENGE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNLAWFUL
REQUIREMENTS OF ADMINISTRATORS.  UPON PURCHASE OF HIS MILK BY A
HANDLER, THE STATUTE ENDOWS THE PRODUCER WITH OTHER RIGHTS, E.G., THE
RIGHT TO BE PAID A MINIMUM PRICE.  ORDER, SEC. 904.4. 

THE MERE FACT THAT GOVERNMENTAL ACTION UNDER LEGISLATION CREATES AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE A MINIMUM PRICE DOES NOT SETTLE THE PROBLEM OF
WHETHER OR NOT THE PARTICULAR CLAIM MADE HERE IS ENFORCIBLE BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THE DEDUCTION FOR COOPERATIVES MAY HAVE DETRIMENTAL
EFFECT ON THE PRICE TO PRODUCERS AND THAT DETRIMENT BE DAMNUM ABSQUE
INJURIA.  FN18  IT IS ONLY WHEN A COMPLAINANT POSSESSES SOMETHING MORE
THAN A GENERAL INTEREST IN THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE LAWS THAT HE IS
IN A POSITION TO SECURE JUDICIAL INTERVENTION.  HIS INTEREST MUST RISE
TO THE DIGNITY OF AN INTEREST PERSONAL TO HIM AND NOT POSSESSED BY THE
PEOPLE GENERALLY.  FN19  SUCH A CLAIM IS OF THAT CHARACTER WHICH
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMITS ADJUDICATION BY COURTS UNDER THEIR GENERAL
POWERS.  FN20 

WE DEEM IT CLEAR THAT ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT THESE
PRODUCERS HAVE SUCH A PERSONAL CLAIM AS JUSTIFIES JUDICIAL
CONSIDERATION.  IT IS MUCH MORE DEFINITE AND PERSONAL THAN THE RIGHT OF
COMPLAINANTS TO JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION OF THEIR OBJECTIONS TO
REGULATIONS, WHICH THIS COURT UPHELD IN COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM V.
UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407.  IN THE PRESENT CASE A REEXAMINATION OF
THE PRECEDING STATEMENT OF FACTS AND SUMMARY OF THE STATUTE AND ORDER
WILL SHOW THAT DELIVERING PRODUCERS ARE ASSURED MINIMUM PRICES FOR
THEIR MILK.  SEC. 904.4.  THE ORDER DIRECTS THE HANDLER TO PAY THAT
MINIMUM AS FOLLOWS:    A. BY SEC. 904.8(A) THE HANDLER IS TO MAKE A
PRELIMINARY PART PAYMENT OF THE BLENDED PRICE AND LATER, SEC.
904.8(B)(1) THE HANDLER MAKES THE FINAL PAYMENT TO THE PRODUCER OF THE
BLENDED PRICE COMPUTED AS THE ORDER DIRECTS.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
ORDER COMPELS THE HANDLER TO PAY NOT ONLY THE BLENDED PRICE, WHICH IS
ALWAYS LESS THAN THE UNIFORM MINIMUM PRICE, BUT THE ENTIRE MINIMUM
PRICE, BECAUSE SEC. 904.8(B) DIRECTS THE HANDLER'S PAYMENT OF THE
ENTIRE MINIMUM VALUE AS ASCERTAINED BY SEC. 904.7(A)(1) AND (2).  THE
BLENDED PRICE IS REACHED BY SUBTRACTING AMONG OTHER ITEMS THE
COOPERATIVE PAYMENT, HERE IN QUESTION, FROM THE MINIMUM PRICE.  SEC.
904.7(B)(5). 

B. THE BALANCE OF THE MINIMUM PRICE, WHICH THE HANDLER OWES TO THE
PRODUCER, HE MUST PAY "TO THE PRODUCER, THROUGH THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR" BY PAYMENT INTO THE SETTLEMENT OR EQUALIZATION FUND TWO
DAYS AHEAD OF THE FINAL DATE FOR PAYMENT OF THE BLENDED PRICE.  SEC.
904.8(B)(3).  THIS BALANCE OF THE MINIMUM PURCHASE PRICE IS THEN PARTLY
USED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PAY THE COOPERATIVES.  SEC. 904.9(B).  THE
HANDLER IS SIMPLY A CONDUIT FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR WHO RECEIVES AND
DISTRIBUTES THE MINIMUM PRICES.  THE SITUATION WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME IF AN ADMINISTRATOR RECEIVED AS TRUSTEE FOR THE PRODUCERS THE
PURCHASE PRICE OF THEIR MILK, PAID EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE OPERATION,
AND PAID THE BALANCE TO THE PRODUCERS.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE
THINK THE PRODUCERS HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO OBJECT TO ILLEGAL PROVISIONS
OF THE ORDER. 

HOWEVER, EVEN WHERE A COMPLAINANT POSSESSES A CLAIM TO EXECUTIVE
ACTION BENEFICIAL TO HIM, CREATED BY FEDERAL STATUTE, IT DOES NOT
NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT ACTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS, DEEMED BY
THE OWNER OF THE RIGHT TO PLACE UNLAWFUL RESTRICTIONS UPON HIS CLAIM,
ARE COGNIZABLE IN APPROPRIATE FEDERAL COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE.  WHEN
THE CLAIMS CREATED ARE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, NO REMEDY THROUGH THE
COURTS NEED BE PROVIDED.  UNITED STATES V. BABCOCK, 250 U.S. 328, 331,
AND CASES CITED; WORK V. RIVES, 267 U.S. 175, 181; BUTTE, A. & P. RY.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 127, 142, 143.  TO REACH THE DIGNITY OF
A LEGAL RIGHT IN THE STRICT SENSE, IT MUST APPEAR FROM THE NATURE AND
CHARACTER OF THE LEGISLATION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO CREATE A
STATUTORY PRIVILEGE PROTECTED BY JUDICIAL REMEDIES.  UNDER THE UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT,
THIS COURT HAS RECENTLY HELD THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY'S
DETERMINATION OF A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN UNIONS OF EMPLOYEES AS TO WHICH
IS THE PROPER BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IS NOT
JUSTICIABLE IN FEDERAL COURTS.  GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO.,
320 U.S. 323.  UNDER THE SAME ACT IT WAS HELD ON THE SAME DATE THAT THE
DETERMINATION BY THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN AN
ELECTION FOR REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LIKEWISE WAS NOT
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. MEDIATION BOARD, 320
U.S. 297.  THIS RESULT WAS REACHED BECAUSE OF THIS COURT'S VIEW THAT
JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES BETWEEN UNIONS WERE LEFT BY CONGRESS TO
MEDIATION RATHER THAN ADJUDICATION.  320 U.S. 302 AND 337.  THAT IS TO
SAY, NO PERSONAL RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES, ENFORCIBLE IN THE COURTS, WAS
CREATED IN THE PARTICULAR INSTANCES UNDER CONSIDERATION.  320 U.S.
337.  BUT WHERE RIGHTS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, CREATED BY THE SAME
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, CONTAINED DEFINITE PROHIBITIONS OF CONDUCT OR WERE
MANDATORY IN FORM, THIS COURT ENFORCED THE RIGHTS JUDICIALLY.  320 U.S.
330, 331.  CF. TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S.
548; VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515. 

IT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE SWITCHMEN'S CASE THAT: 

"IF THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS MEANT A
SACRIFICE OR OBLITERATION OF A RIGHT WHICH CONGRESS HAD CREATED, THE
INFERENCE WOULD BE STRONG THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF THOSE COURTS TO
CONTROL."  320 U.S. AT 300.  THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY THESE PETITIONERS HAD
TO COMPLAIN OF THE CONTESTED DEDUCTION WAS TO APPEAR AT HEARINGS AND TO
VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED ORDER.  ACT, SEC. 8C (3), 8C (9) AND
8C (19); ORDER, PREAMBLE.  SO LONG AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER ARE
WITHIN THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY SUCH HEARINGS AND
BALLOTING FURNISH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROTEST.  MORGAN V. UNITED
STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 480.  BUT WHERE AS HERE THE ISSUE IS STATUTORY
POWER TO MAKE THE DEDUCTION REQUIRED BY ORDER, SEC. 904.9, UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF SEC. 8C (7)(D) OF THE ACT, A MERE HEARING OR OPPORTUNITY
TO VOTE CANNOT PROTECT MINORITY PRODUCERS AGAINST UNLAWFUL EXACTIONS
WHICH MIGHT BE VOTED UPON THEM BY MAJORITIES.  IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID
THAT OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON MATTERS WITHIN THE SECRETARY'S
DISCRETION WOULD FORECLOSE AN ATTACK ON THE INCLUSION IN THE ORDER OF
PROVISIONS ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF THE SECRETARY'S DELEGATED POWERS. 

WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS COULD CREATE SUCH A
DEFINITE PERSONAL STATUTORY RIGHT IN AN INDIVIDUAL AGAINST A FUND
HANDLED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY, AS WE HAVE HERE, AND YET LIMIT ITS
ENFORCEABILITY TO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, DESPITE THE EXISTENCE
OF FEDERAL COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE III
OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF JURISDICTION OF THIS
PROCEEDING APPEARS PLAIN.  THERE IS NO DIRECT JUDICIAL REVIEW GRANTED
BY THIS STATUTE FOR THESE PROCEEDINGS.  THE AUTHORITY FOR A JUDICIAL
EXAMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SECRETARY'S ACTION IS FOUND IN THE
EXISTENCE OF COURTS AND THE INTENT OF CONGRESS AS DEDUCED FROM THE
STATUTES AND PRECEDENTS AS HEREINAFTER CONSIDERED. 

THE ACT BEARS ON ITS FACE THE INTENT TO SUBMIT MANY QUESTIONS ARISING
UNDER ITS ADMINISTRATION TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  SECS. 8A (6), 8C (15)(A)
AND (B).  IT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE REMEDIES SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED IN SEC. 8A ARE TO BE IN ADDITION TO ANY REMEDIES NOW EXISTING
AT LAW OR EQUITY.  SEC. 8A (8).  THIS COURT HAS HERETOFORE CONSTRUED
THE ACT TO GRANT HANDLERS JUDICIAL RELIEF IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTORY
REVIEW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY SEC. 8C (15).  ON COMPLAINT BY THE
UNITED STATES, THE HANDLER WAS PERMITTED BY WAY OF DEFENSE TO RAISE
ISSUES OF A WANT OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PROVISIONS ON
HANDLERS WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT SUCH HANDLERS.  UNITED STATES V. ROCK
ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 560-61.  IN THE ROCK ROYAL CASE THE
GOVERNMENT HAD CONTENDED THAT THE HANDLERS HAD NO LEGAL STANDING IN THE
SUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT TO ATTACK PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER RELATING TO
HANDLERS.  WHILE WE UPHELD THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT AS TO THE
LACK OF STANDING OF HANDLERS TO OBJECT TO THE OPERATION OF THE PRODUCER
SETTLEMENT FUND ON THE GROUND THAT THE HANDLERS HAD NO "FINANCIAL
INTEREST" IN THAT FUND, WE RECOGNIZED THE STANDING OF A PROPRIETARY
HANDLER TO QUESTION THE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION SHOWN IN FAVOR OF THE CO
OPERATIVE HANDLERS.  THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND IS CREATED TO MEET
ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS BY THE PAYMENT OF A PART OF THE MINIMUM PRICE TO
PRODUCERS THROUGH THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR.  SEE NOTE 15, SUPRA. ROCK
ROYAL POINTED OUT THAT HANDLERS WERE WITHOUT STANDING TO QUESTION THE
USE OF THE FUND, BECAUSE HANDLERS HAD NO FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE FUND
OR ITS USE.  IT IS BECAUSE EVERY DOLLAR OF DEDUCTION COMES FROM THE
PRODUCER THAT HE MAY CHALLENGE THE USE OF THE FUND.  THE PETITIONERS'
COMPLAINT IS NOT THAT THEIR BLENDED PRICE IS TOO LOW, BUT THAT THE
BLENDED PRICE HAS BEEN REDUCED BY A MISAPPLICATION OF MONEY DEDUCTED
FROM THE PRODUCERS' MINIMUM PRICE. 

WITH THIS RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW IN THIS FIELD, IT IS NOT TO BE LIGHTLY ASSUMED THAT THE SILENCE
OF THE STATUTE BARS FROM THE COURTS AN OTHERWISE JUSTICIABLE ISSUE,
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, 238; SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO R.
CO., 305 U.S. 177, 182; CF. A.F. OF L. V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401,
404, 412.  THE RULING IN TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL
CO., 204 U.S. 426, IS NOT AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY.  IT WAS THERE HELD
THAT THE STATUTE PLACED THE POWER IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
TO HEAR THE COMPLAINT STATED, NOT IN THE STATE COURT WHERE IT WAS
BROUGHT.  THE COMMISSION AWARD WAS THEN TO BE ENFORCED IN COURT.  P.
438.  HERE, THERE IS NO FORUM, OTHER THAN THE ORDINARY COURTS, TO HEAR
THIS COMPLAINT.  WHEN, AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY CONCLUDED IN THIS OPINION,
DEFINITE PERSONAL RIGHTS ARE CREATED BY FEDERAL STATUTE, SIMILAR IN
KIND TO THOSE CUSTOMARILY TREATED IN COURTS OF LAW, FN21  THE SILENCE
OF CONGRESS AS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IS, AT ANY RATE IN THE ABSENCE OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY, NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A DENIAL OF AUTHORITY TO
THE AGGRIEVED PERSON TO SEEK APPROPRIATE RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR GENERAL JURISDICTION.  WHEN CONGRESS PASSES AN
ACT EMPOWERING ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES TO CARRY ON GOVERNMENTAL
ACTIVITIES, THE POWER OF THOSE AGENCIES IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE
AUTHORITY GRANTED.  FN22  THIS PERMITS THE COURTS TO PARTICIPATE IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT ENTRUSTED TO ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES ONLY TO THE EXTENT
NECESSARY TO PROTECT JUSTICIABLE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AGAINST
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION FAIRLY BEYOND THE GRANTED POWERS.  THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING THE LIMITS OF STATUTORY GRANTS OF
AUTHORITY IN SUCH INSTANCES IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION ENTRUSTED TO THE
COURTS BY CONGRESS BY THE STATUTES ESTABLISHING COURTS AND MARKING
THEIR JURISDICTION.  CF. UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 190
91.  THIS IS VERY FAR FROM ASSUMING THAT THE COURTS ARE CHARGED MORE
THAN ADMINISTRATORS OR LEGISLATORS WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF
THE PEOPLE.  CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE SUPERVISE THE ACTS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENTS.  THE POWERS OF DEPARTMENTS, BOARDS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE SUBJECT TO EXPANSION, CONTRACTION OR
ABOLITION AT THE WILL OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  THESE BRANCHES HAVE THE RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL TO EXAMINE
INTO THE WORKING OF THE VARIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS TO DETERMINE THE
NECESSARY CHANGES OF FUNCTION OR MANAGEMENT.  BUT UNDER ARTICLE III,
CONGRESS ESTABLISHED COURTS TO ADJUDICATE CASES AND CONTROVERSIES AS TO
CLAIMS OF INFRINGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHETHER BY UNLAWFUL ACTION
OF PRIVATE PERSONS OR BY THE EXERTION OF UNAUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATIVE
POWER. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SUCH A RULING PUTS THE AGENCY AT THE MERCY OF
OBJECTORS, SINCE ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER MAY BE ATTACKED AS
UNAUTHORIZED BY EACH PRODUCER.  TO THIS OBJECTION THERE ARE ADEQUATE
ANSWERS.  THE TERMS OF THE ORDER ARE LARGELY MATTERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO JUSTICIABLE RIGHT OR ARE CLEARLY
AUTHORIZED BY A VALID ACT.  UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307
U.S. 533.  TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE MILK BUSINESS ARE LEFT TO THE
SECRETARY AND HIS AIDES.  THE EXPENSES OF LITIGATION DETER FRIVOLOUS
CONTENTIONS.  IF NUMEROUS PARALLEL CASES ARE FILED, THE COURTS HAVE
AMPLE AUTHORITY TO STAY USELESS LITIGATION UNTIL THE DETERMINATION OF A
TEST CASE.  CF. LANDIS V. NORTH AMERICAN CO., 299 U.S. 248.  SHOULD
SOME PROVISIONS OF AN ORDER BE HELD TO EXCEED THE STATUTORY POWER OF
THE SECRETARY, IT IS WELL WITHIN THE POWER OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO SO
MOLD A DECREE AS TO PRESERVE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THE OPERATION OF
THE PORTION OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT ATTACKED PENDING AMENDMENT. 

IT HARDLY NEED BE ADDED THAT WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE SOUNDNESS OF
THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS IN THEIR COMPLAINT.  THE TRIAL
COURT IS FREE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY GIVEN THE
SECRETARY IS A VALID ANSWER TO THE PETITIONERS' CONTENTION.  WE MERELY
DETERMINE THE PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN A RIGHT TO A JUDICIAL EXAMINATION
OF THEIR COMPLAINT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE 18 D.C. CODE SEC. 41, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 1921.  THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT MAY ALSO EXERCISE THE SAME JURISDICTION OF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS GENERALLY, 18 D.C. CODE SEC. 43, WHICH
HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER THE JUDICIAL CODE OVER CASES ARISING UNDER ACTS
REGULATING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 24(8), 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 41(8); MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38; TURNER LUMBER CO. V.
CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO., 271 U.S. 259; ROBERTSON V. ARGUS HOSIERY
MILLS, 121 F.2D 285. 

FN2  SEE TENNESSEE POWER CO. V. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 137-8. 

FN3  SEE UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533; H. P. HOOD
& SONS V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 588. 

FN4 THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES OF THE ACT ARE NECESSARY TO A CONSIDERATION
OF THIS CASE: 

"SEC. 2.  IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF CONGRESS - 

"(1)  THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THIS TITLE, TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN SUCH ORDERLY
MARKETING CONDITIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AS WILL ESTABLISH PRICES TO FARMERS AT A LEVEL THAT WILL GIVE
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES A PURCHASING POWER WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES
THAT FARMERS BUY, EQUIVALENT TO THE PURCHASING POWER OF AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES IN THE BASE PERIOD; AND, IN THE CASE OF ALL COMMODITIES FOR
WHICH THE BASE PERIOD IS THE PRE-WAR PERIOD, AUGUST 1909 TO JULY 1914,
WILL ALSO REFLECT CURRENT INTEREST PAYMENTS PER ACRE ON FARM
INDEBTEDNESS SECURED BY REAL ESTATE AND TAX PAYMENTS PER ACRE ON FARM
REAL ESTATE, AS CONTRASTED WITH SUCH INTEREST PAYMENTS AND TAX PAYMENTS
DURING THE BASE PERIOD.  THE BASE PERIOD IN THE CASE OF ALL
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES EXCEPT TOBACCO AND POTATOES SHALL BE THE
PREWAR PERIOD, AUGUST 1909-JULY 1914.  IN THE CASE OF TOBACCO AND
POTATOES, THE BASE PERIOD SHALL BE THE POST-WAR PERIOD, AUGUST 1919
JULY 1929.    "(2)  TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE CONSUMER BY (A)
APPROACHING THE LEVEL OF PRICES WHICH IT IS DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY
OF CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION BY GRADUAL
CORRECTION OF THE CURRENT LEVEL AT AS RAPID A RATE AS THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE DEEMS TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND FEASIBLE IN VIEW OF
THE CURRENT CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND IN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN MARKETS, AND (B)
AUTHORIZING NO ACTION UNDER THIS TITLE WHICH HAS FOR ITS PURPOSE THE
MAINTENANCE OF PRICES TO FARMERS ABOVE THE LEVEL WHICH IT IS DECLARED
TO BE THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS
ALLOTMENT FIXED FOR HIM UNDER THIS TITLE BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, AND ANY OTHER PERSON KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATING, OR AIDING,
IN THE EXCEEDING OF SAID QUOTA OR ALLOTMENT, SHALL FORFEIT TO THE
UNITED STATES A SUM EQUAL TO THREE TIMES THE CURRENT MARKET VALUE OF
SUCH EXCESS, WHICH FORFEITURE SHALL BE RECOVERABLE IN A CIVIL SUIT
BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"(6) THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE HEREBY
VESTED WITH JURISDICTION SPECIFICALLY TO ENFORCE, AND TO PREVENT AND
RESTRAIN ANY PERSON FROM VIOLATING ANY ORDER, REGULATION, OR AGREEMENT,
HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER MADE OR ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS TITLE, IN ANY
PROCEEDING NOW PENDING OR HEREAFTER BROUGHT IN SAID COURTS. 

"(7)  UPON THE REQUEST OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, IT SHALL BE
THE DUTY OF THE SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN
THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE REMEDIES AND TO
COLLECT THE FORFEITURES PROVIDED FOR IN, OR PURSUANT TO, THIS TITLE. 
WHENEVER THE SECRETARY, OR SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE AS HE MAY DESIGNATE FOR THE PURPOSE, HAS REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT ANY HANDLER HAS VIOLATED, OR IS VIOLATING, THE PROVISIONS
OF ANY ORDER OR AMENDMENT THERETO ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS TITLE, THE
SECRETARY SHALL HAVE POWER TO INSTITUTE AN INVESTIGATION AND, AFTER DUE
NOTICE TO SUCH HANDLER, TO CONDUCT A HEARING IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE
FACTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION. 

"(8)  THE REMEDIES PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN ADDITION
TO, AND NOT EXCLUSIVE OF, ANY OF THE REMEDIES OR PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR
ELSEWHERE IN THIS TITLE OR NOW OR HEREAFTER EXISTING AT LAW OR IN
EQUITY. 

"(9)  THE TERM 'PERSON' AS USED IN THIS TITLE INCLUDES AN INDIVIDUAL,
PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, AND ANY OTHER BUSINESS UNIT." 

"SEC. 8C(3)  WHENEVER THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE HAS REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE
DECLARED POLICY OF THIS TITLE WITH RESPECT TO ANY COMMODITY OR PRODUCT
THEREOF SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION, HE SHALL GIVE DUE
NOTICE OF AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING UPON A PROPOSED ORDER. 

"(4)  AFTER SUCH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER IF HE FINDS, AND SETS FORTH IN SUCH
ORDER, UPON THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT SUCH HEARING (IN ADDITION TO
SUCH OTHER FINDINGS AS MAY BE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION)
THAT THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER AND ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
THEREOF WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THIS TITLE WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH COMMODITY. 

"(5)  IN THE CASE OF MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS, ORDERS ISSUED PURSUANT TO
THIS SECTION SHALL CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, AND (EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (7)) NO OTHERS: 

"(A)  CLASSIFYING MILK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORM IN WHICH OR THE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS USED, AND FIXING, OR PROVIDING A METHOD FOR
FIXING, MINIMUM PRICES FOR EACH SUCH USE CLASSIFICATION WHICH ALL
HANDLERS SHALL PAY, AND THE TIME WHEN PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE, FOR MILK
PURCHASED FROM PRODUCERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS.  SUCH PRICES
SHALL BE UNIFORM AS TO ALL HANDLERS, SUBJECT ONLY TO ADJUSTMENTS FOR
(1) VOLUME, MARKET, AND PRODUCTION DIFFERENTIALS CUSTOMARILY APPLIED BY
THE HANDLERS SUBJECT TO SUCH ORDER, (2) THE GRADE OR QUALITY OF THE
MILK PURCHASED, AND (3) THE LOCATIONS AT WHICH DELIVERY OF SUCH MILK,
OR ANY USE CLASSIFICATION THEREOF, IS MADE TO SUCH HANDLERS. 

"(B)  PROVIDING: 

(I)  FOR THE PAYMENT TO ALL PRODUCERS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS
DELIVERING MILK TO THE SAME HANDLER OF UNIFORM PRICES FOR ALL MILK
DELIVERED BY THEM:  PROVIDED, THAT, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF ORDERS
COVERING MILK PRODUCTS ONLY, SUCH PROVISION IS APPROVED OR FAVORED BY
AT LEAST THREE-FOURTHS OF THE PRODUCERS WHO, DURING A REPRESENTATIVE
PERIOD DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN
THE PRODUCTION FOR MARKET OF MILK COVERED IN SUCH ORDER OR BY PRODUCERS
WHO, DURING SUCH REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD, HAVE PRODUCED AT LEAST THREE
FOURTHS OF THE VOLUME OF SUCH MILK PRODUCED FOR MARKET DURING SUCH
PERIOD; THE APPROVAL REQUIRED HEREUNDER SHALL BE SEPARATE AND APART
FROM ANY OTHER APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL PROVIDED FOR BY THIS SECTION;
OR 

(II)  FOR THE PAYMENT TO ALL PRODUCERS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS
DELIVERING MILK TO ALL HANDLERS OF UNIFORM PRICES FOR ALL MILK SO
DELIVERED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE USES MADE OF SUCH MILK BY THE INDIVIDUAL
HANDLER TO WHOM IT IS DELIVERED; SUBJECT, IN EITHER CASE, ONLY TO
ADJUSTMENTS FOR (A) VOLUME, MARKET, AND PRODUCTION DIFFERENTIALS
CUSTOMARILY APPLIED BY THE HANDLERS SUBJECT TO SUCH ORDER, (B) THE
GRADE OR QUALITY OF THE MILK DELIVERED, (C) THE LOCATIONS AT WHICH
DELIVERY OF SUCH MILK IS MADE, AND (D) A FURTHER ADJUSTMENT, EQUITABLY
TO APPORTION THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MILK PURCHASED BY ANY HANDLER, OR
BY ALL HANDLERS, AMONG PRODUCERS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, ON THE
BASIS OF THEIR MARKETINGS OF MILK DURING A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD OF
TIME. 

"(C)  IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS (A)
AND (B) OF THIS SUBSECTION (5), PROVIDING A METHOD FOR MAKING
ADJUSTMENTS IN PAYMENTS, AS AMONG HANDLERS (INCLUDING PRODUCERS WHO ARE
ALSO HANDLERS), TO THE END THAT THE TOTAL SUMS PAID BY EACH HANDLER
SHALL EQUAL THE VALUE OF THE MILK PURCHASED BY HIM AT THE PRICES FIXED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (A) HEREOF." 

  .         .         .         .         . 

AMONG THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (7), REFERRED TO IN SEC. 8C (5),
IS AUTHORIZATION FOR TERMS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 8C(7)(D)  INCIDENTAL TO, AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH, THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTIONS (5), (6), AND (7) AND NECESSARY
TO EFFECTUATE THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SUCH ORDER." 

THAT A MARKETING ORDER MUST HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE HANDLERS OF AT
LEAST 50% OF THE VOLUME OF THE COMMODITY SUBJECT TO THE ORDER UNLESS
THE SECRETARY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, DETERMINES THAT THE
PROPOSED ORDER IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE
ACT AND "IS THE ONLY PRACTICAL MEANS OF ADVANCING THE INTERESTS OF THE
PRODUCERS OF SUCH COMMODITY PURSUANT TO THE DECLARED POLICY.  ...  "
SEC. 8C (9)(B).  WHETHER THE HANDLERS AGREE OR NOT, AN ORDER MUST BE
FOUND TO BE "APPROVED OR FAVORED" EITHER BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRODUCERS
IN NUMBER OR BY VOLUME OF THE COMMODITY PRODUCED.  SECTION 8C (19)
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY TO HOLD A REFERENDUM TO DETERMINE WHETHER
PRODUCERS APPROVE. 

"SEC. 8C(13)(B)  NO ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS TITLE SHALL BE APPLICABLE
TO ANY PRODUCER IN HIS CAPACITY AS A PRODUCER." 

"SEC. 8C(14)  ANY HANDLER SUBJECT TO AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS
WHO VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF SUCH ORDER (OTHER THAN A PROVISION
CALLING FOR PAYMENT OF A PRO RATA SHARE OF EXPENSES) SHALL, ON
CONVICTION, BE FINED NOT LESS THAN $50 OR MORE THAN $500 FOR EACH SUCH
VIOLATION, AND EACH DAY DURING WHICH SUCH VIOLATION CONTINUES SHALL BE
DEEMED A SEPARATE VIOLATION:  PROVIDED, THAT IF THE COURT FINDS THAT A
PETITION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (15) OF THIS SECTION WAS FILED AND
PROSECUTED BY THE DEFENDANT IN GOOD FAITH AND NOT FOR DELAY, NO PENALTY
SHALL BE IMPOSED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION FOR SUCH VIOLATIONS AS OCCURRED
BETWEEN THE DATE UPON WHICH THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION WAS FILED WITH THE
SECRETARY, AND THE DATE UPON WHICH NOTICE OF THE SECRETARY'S RULING
THEREON WAS GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (15)." 

"SEC. 8C(15)(A)  ANY HANDLER SUBJECT TO AN ORDER MAY FILE A WRITTEN
PETITION WITH THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, STATING THAT ANY SUCH ORDER
OR ANY PROVISION OF ANY SUCH ORDER OR ANY OBLIGATION IMPOSED IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PRAYING FOR A
MODIFICATION THEREOF OR TO BE EXEMPTED THEREFROM.  HE SHALL THEREUPON
BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING UPON SUCH PETITION, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH REGULATIONS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT.  AFTER SUCH HEARING, THE SECRETARY SHALL
MAKE A RULING UPON THE PRAYER OF SUCH PETITION WHICH SHALL BE FINAL, IF
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 

"(B)  THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES (INCLUDING THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH
HANDLER IS AN INHABITANT, OR HAS HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, ARE
HEREBY VESTED WITH JURISDICTION IN EQUITY TO REVIEW SUCH RULING,
PROVIDED A BILL IN EQUITY FOR THAT PURPOSE IS FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF THE ENTRY OF SUCH RULING.  SERVICE OF PROCESS IN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS MAY BE HAD UPON THE SECRETARY BY DELIVERING TO HIM A COPY
OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT SUCH RULING IS
NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IT SHALL REMAND SUCH PROCEEDINGS TO THE
SECRETARY WITH DIRECTIONS EITHER (1) TO MAKE SUCH RULING AS THE COURT
SHALL DETERMINE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, OR (2) TO TAKE SUCH
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS, IN ITS OPINION, THE LAW REQUIRES.  THE PENDENCY
OF PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION (15) SHALL NOT
IMPEDE, HINDER, OR DELAY THE UNITED STATES OR THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE FROM OBTAINING RELIEF PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A (6) OF THIS
TITLE.  ANY PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 8A (6) OF THIS
TITLE (EXCEPT WHERE BROUGHT BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM IN PROCEEDINGS
INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION (15)) SHALL ABATE WHENEVER A
FINAL DECREE HAS BEEN RENDERED IN PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES,
AND COVERING THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER, INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO THIS
SUBSECTION (15)." 

FN5  SEC. 2, N. 4, SUPRA. 

FN6  SEC. 8C (3), N. 4, SUPRA. 

FN7  SEC. 8C (4), N. 4, SUPRA. 

FN8  SEE UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 549-50. 

FN9  "UNIFORM PRICE" MEANS WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF MINIMUM PRICES. 

FN10  THE PREAMBLE TO THE ORDER RECITES THE HOLDING OF HEARINGS AND
COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 8C (9) OF THE ACT.  SECTION 904.0 OF THE ORDER
CONTAINS THE SECRETARY'S FINDINGS AND SEC. 904.1 THE DEFINITIONS OF
TERMS. 

"SEC. 904.1(6)  THE TERM 'HANDLER' MEANS ANY PERSON, IRRESPECTIVE OF
WHETHER SUCH PERSON IS A PRODUCER OR AN ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCERS,
WHEREVER LOCATED OR OPERATING, WHO ENGAGES IN SUCH HANDLING OF MILK,
WHICH IS SOLD AS MILK OR CREAM IN THE MARKETING AREA, AS IS IN THE
CURRENT OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR WHICH DIRECTLY BURDENS,
OBSTRUCTS, OR AFFECTS INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, IN MILK AND ITS
PRODUCTS." 

ACCORDING TO ITS UTILIZATION.  GENERALLY SPEAKING, CLASS I MILK IS THAT
WHICH IS UTILIZED FOR SALE AS MILK CONTAINING FROM 1/2 OF 1% TO 16%
BUTTERFAT OR AS CHOCOLATE OR FLAVORED MILK, WHILE CLASS II INCLUDES ALL
OTHER USES. 


"SEC. 904.4.  MINIMUM PRICES.  (A)  CLASS I PRICES TO PRODUCERS. 
EACH HANDLER SHALL PAY PRODUCERS, IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN SEC.
904.8, FOR CLASS I MILK DELIVERED BY THEM, NOT LESS THAN THE FOLLOWING
PRICES: 

   .         .         .         .         . 

"(B)  CLASS II PRICES.  EACH HANDLER SHALL PAY PRODUCERS, IN THE
MANNER SET FORTH IN SEC. 904.8, FOR CLASS II MILK DELIVERED BY THEM NOT
LESS THAN THE FOLLOWING PRICES PER HUNDREDWEIGHT:  ...  " 

HANDLERS, AND SEC. 904.6 DEALS WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDER TO
EXCEPTIONAL TYPES OF HANDLERS.  SECTION 904.7, DEALING WITH COMPUTATION
OF THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE, READ IN ITS APPLICABLE PORTIONS AS OF JULY 28,
1941, AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 904.7.  DETERMINATION OF UNIFORM PRICES TO PRODUCERS. 

(A)  COMPUTATION OF VALUE OF MILK FOR EACH HANDLER.  FOR EACH
DELIVERY PERIOD THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR SHALL COMPUTE  ...  THE VALUE
OF MILK SOLD, DISTRIBUTED, OR USED BY EACH HANDLER ...  IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER: 

"(1)  MULTIPLY THE QUANTITY OF MILK IN EACH CLASS BY THE PRICE
APPLICABLE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPHS (A), (B), AND (C), OF SEC. 904.4;
AND 

"(2)  ADD TOGETHER THE RESULTING VALUE OF EACH CLASS. 

"(B)  COMPUTATION AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF UNIFORM PRICES.  THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR SHALL COMPUTE AND ANNOUNCE THE UNIFORM PRICES PER
HUNDREDWEIGHT OF MILK DELIVERED DURING EACH DELIVERY PERIOD IN THE
FOLLOWING MANNER: 

"(1)  COMBINE INTO ONE TOTAL THE RESPECTIVE VALUES OF MILK, COMPUTED
PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION, FOR EACH HANDLER FROM WHOM
THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR HAS RECEIVED AT HIS OFFICE, PRIOR TO THE 11TH
DAY AFTER THE END OF SUCH DELIVERY PERIOD, THE REPORT FOR SUCH DELIVERY
PERIOD AND THE PAYMENTS REQUIRED BY SEC. 904.8(B)(3) AND (G) AND (H)
FOR MILK RECEIVED DURING EACH DELIVERY PERIOD SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE MOST RECENT AMENDMENT HEREOF; 

     .         .         .         .         .    "(4)  SUBTRACT
THE TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE PAID TO PRODUCERS PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.8(B)(2); 

"(5)  SUBTRACT THE TOTAL OF PAYMENTS REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR SUCH
DELIVERY PERIOD PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.9(B); 

"(6)  DIVIDE BY THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF MILK WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THESE
COMPUTATIONS.  ... 

"(7)  SUBTRACT NOT LESS THAN 4 CENTS NOR MORE THAN 5 CENTS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF RETAINING A CASH BALANCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PAYMENTS SET
FORTH IN SEC. 904.8(B)(3); 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"(9)  ON THE 12TH DAY AFTER THE END OF EACH DELIVERY PERIOD, MAIL TO
ALL HANDLERS AND PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE (A) SUCH OF THESE COMPUTATIONS AS DO
NOT DISCLOSE INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO THE ACT, (B) THE
BLENDED PRICE PER HUNDREDWEIGHT WHICH IS THE RESULT OF THESE
COMPUTATIONS, (C) THE NAMES OF THE HANDLERS WHOSE MILK IS INCLUDED IN
THE COMPUTATIONS, AND (D) THE CLASS II PRICE."  AS OF OCTOBER 28, 1941,
SUBSECTION (5) WAS REVOKED AND THE SUBSECTIONS FOLLOWING IT WERE
RENUMBERED, AND THE DEDUCTION THERETOFORE REQUIRED BY IT WAS EFFECTED
BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (7)(NEW SUBSECTION (6)) TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"(6)  SUBTRACT NOT LESS THAN 5 1/2 CENTS NOR MORE THAN 6 1/2 CENTS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETAINING A CASH BALANCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PAYMENTS SET FORTH IN SECS. 904.8(B)(3) AND 909.9(B);" SEE N. 16,
INFRA. 

READS: 

"SEC. 904.8 PAYMENTS FOR MILK.  (A) ADVANCE PAYMENTS.  ON OR BEFORE
THE 10TH DAY AFTER THE END OF EACH DELIVERY PERIOD, EACH HANDLER SHALL
MAKE PAYMENT TO PRODUCERS FOR THE APPROXIMATE VALUE OF MILK RECEIVED
DURING THE FIRST 15 DAYS OF SUCH DELIVERY PERIOD.  IN NO EVENT SHALL
SUCH ADVANCE PAYMENT BE AT A RATE LESS THAN THE CLASS II PRICE FOR SUCH
DELIVERY PERIOD. 

"(B)  FINAL PAYMENTS.  ON OR BEFORE THE 25TH DAY AFTER THE END OF
EACH DELIVERY PERIOD, EACH HANDLER SHALL MAKE PAYMENT, SUBJECT TO THE
BUTTERFAT DIFFERENTIAL SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH (D) OF THIS SECTION, FOR
THE TOTAL VALUE OF MILK RECEIVED DURING SUCH DELIVERY PERIOD AS
REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.7(A), AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1) TO EACH PRODUCER, EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN SUBPARAGRAPH (2) OF
THIS PARAGRAPH AT NOT LESS THAN THE BLENDED PRICE PER HUNDREDWEIGHT,
COMPUTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.7(B), SUBJECT TO THE DIFFERENTIALS SET
FORTH IN PARAGRAPH (E) OF THIS SECTION, FOR THE QUANTITY OF MILK
DELIVERED BY SUCH PRODUCER; 

"(2)  TO ANY PRODUCER, WHO DID NOT REGULARLY SELL MILK FOR A PERIOD
OF 30 DAYS PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 9, 1936, TO A HANDLER OR TO PERSONS WITHIN
THE MARKETING AREA, AT NOT LESS THAN THE CLASS II PRICE IN EFFECT FOR
THE PLANT AT WHICH SUCH PRODUCER DELIVERED MILK, EXCEPT THAT DURING THE
MAY, JUNE, AND SEPTEMBER DELIVERY PERIODS THE PRICE PURSUANT TO SEC.
904.4(B)(3) SHALL APPLY, FOR ALL THE MILK DELIVERED BY SUCH PRODUCER
DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING WITH THE FIRST REGULAR DELIVERY OF SUCH
PRODUCER AND CONTINUING UNTIL THE END OF 2 FULL CALENDAR MONTHS
FOLLOWING THE FIRST DAY OF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING CALENDAR MONTH; AND 

"(3)  TO PRODUCERS, THROUGH THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR, BY PAYING TO,
ON OR BEFORE THE 23RD DAY AFTER THE END OF EACH DELIVERY PERIOD, OR
RECEIVING FROM THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR ON OR BEFORE THE 25TH DAY AFTER
THE END OF EACH DELIVERY PERIOD, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE AMOUNT BY
WHICH THE PAYMENTS REQUIRED TO BE MADE PURSUANT TO SUBPARAGRAPHS (1)
AND (2) OF THIS PARAGRAPH ARE LESS THAN OR EXCEED THE VALUE OF MILK AS
REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED FOR SUCH HANDLER PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.7(A), AS
SHOWN IN A STATEMENT RENDERED BY THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR ON OR BEFORE
THE 20TH DAY AFTER THE END OF SUCH DELIVERY PERIOD." 

     .         .         .         .      . 

OTHER CLAUSES OF SEC. 904.8 DEAL WITH PRICE DIFFERENTIALS NOT HERE
PERTINENT. 

QUESTIONED HERE.  ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE SET OUT IN SEC.
904.9(A), WHICH THEN PROVIDES: 

"(1)  ANY SUCH COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION SHALL RECEIVE AN AMOUNT
COMPUTED AT NOT MORE THAN THE RATE OF 1 1/2 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF
MILK MARKETED BY IT ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
PROVISION OF THIS ORDER, THE VALUE OF WHICH IS DETERMINED PURSUANT TO
SEC. 904.7(A), AND WITH RESPECT TO WHICH A HANDLER HAS MADE PAYMENTS AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 904.8(B)(3) AND SEC. 904.10:  PROVIDED, THAT THE
AMOUNT PAID SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT WHICH HANDLERS ARE OBLIGATED TO
DEDUCT FROM PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS UNDER SUBSECTION (E) HEREOF AND ARE NOT
USED IN PAYING PATRONAGE DIVIDENDS OR OTHER PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS WITH
RESPECT TO MILK DELIVERED EXCEPT IN FULFILLING THE GUARANTEE OF
PAYMENTS TO PRODUCERS; AND THAT IN CASES WHERE TWO OR MORE ASSOCIATIONS
PARTICIPATE IN THE MARKETING OF THE SAME MILK, PAYMENT UNDER THIS
PARAGRAPH SHALL BE AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE ASSOCIATION WHICH THE
INDIVIDUAL PRODUCER HAS MADE HIS EXCLUSIVE AGENT IN THE MARKETING OF
SUCH MILK. 

"(2)  ANY SUCH COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION SHALL RECEIVE AN AMOUNT
COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF 5 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT ON CLASS I MILK
RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS AT A PLANT OPERATED UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL
OF MEMBER PRODUCERS, WHICH IS SOLD TO PROPRIETARY HANDLERS.  THIS
AMOUNT SHALL NOT BE RECEIVED ON MILK SOLD TO STORES, TO HANDLERS, IN
WHICH THE COOPERATIVE HAS ANY OWNERSHIP, OR TO A HANDLER WITH WHICH THE
COOPERATIVE HAS SUCH SALES ARRANGEMENTS THAT ITS MILK NOT SOLD AS CLASS
I MILK TO SUCH HANDLER IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR SALE AS CLASS I MILK TO
OTHER HANDLERS." 

BALANCE CREATED BY SEC. 904.7(B)(6), AS AMENDED, SUPRA. 


"(B)  PAYMENT TO QUALIFIED COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS.  THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR SHALL, UPON CLAIM SUBMITTED IN FORM AS PRESCRIBED BY HIM,
MAKE PAYMENTS AUTHORIZED UNDER PARAGRAPH (A), OR ISSUE CREDIT THEREFOR
OUT OF THE CASH BALANCE CREDITED PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.7(B)(5), ON OR
BEFORE THE 25TH DAY AFTER THE END OF EACH DELIVERY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO
VERIFICATION OF THE RECEIPTS AND OTHER ITEMS ON WHICH THE AMOUNT OF
SUCH PAYMENT IS BASED." 

THE DEDUCTIONS FROM PAYMENTS BY HANDLERS TO COOPERATIVE MEMBER
PRODUCERS, REFERRED TO IN SEC. 904.9(A)(1), QUOTED SUPRA, ARE
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 904.9(E), AS FOLLOWS: 

"(E)  AUTHORIZED MEMBER DEDUCTIONS.  IN THE CASE OF PRODUCERS WHOSE
MILK IS RECEIVED AT A PLANT NOT OPERATED BY A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
OF WHICH SUCH PRODUCERS ARE MEMBERS AND WHICH IS RECEIVING PAYMENTS
PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, EACH HANDLER SHALL MAKE SUCH DEDUCTIONS FROM
THE PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO SUCH PRODUCERS PURSUANT TO SEC. 904.8 AS MAY
BE AUTHORIZED BY SUCH PRODUCERS AND, ON OR BEFORE THE 25TH DAY AFTER
THE END OF EACH DELIVERY PERIOD, PAY OVER SUCH DEDUCTIONS TO THE
ASSOCIATION IN WHOSE FAVOR SUCH AUTHORIZATIONS WERE MADE." 

ADMINISTRATOR NOT MORE THAN 2 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF MILK DELIVERED
TO HIM IN ORDER TO MEET COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION.  SECTION 904.11 COVERS
THE EFFECTIVE TIME, SUSPENSION, OR TERMINATION OF THE ORDER. 

FN11  "BLENDED PRICE" MEANS THE UNIFORM PRICE LESS ADMINISTRATIVE
DEDUCTIONS. 

FN12  CF. 7 C.F.R. 1941 SUPP. SEC. 904.7(A). 

FN13  SEE 7 C.F.R. 1941 SUPP. SEC. 904.7(B). 

FN14  7 C.F.R. 1941 SUPP. SECS. 904.7(B), 904.8(B)(1). 

FN15  7 C.F.R. 1941 SUPP. SEC. 904.8(B)(3).  THE OPERATIONS OF THE
SETTLEMENT FUND ARE DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP.,
307 U.S. 533, 571. 

FN16  THIS SECTION HAS SUPERSEDED SEC. 904.7(B)(5) IN EFFECT AT THE
TIME THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEDUCTION IN ISSUE.  6
F.R. 5482, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 28, 1941.  SEE N. 10, SUPRA. 

FN17  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 568;
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 545.  GENERAL
COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T.R. CO., 320 U.S. 323, AND SWITCHMEN'S UNION V.
MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297, DO NOT LOOK IN THE CONTRARY DIRECTION. 
BOTH ASSUME CLAIMS CREATED BY STATUTE IN THE PETITIONERS AND DENY A
JUDICIAL REMEDY TO THOSE CLAIMS ON THE GROUND THAT "CONGRESS  ...  HAS
FORECLOSED RESORT TO THE COURTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAIMS ASSERTED
BY THE PARTIES."  320 U.S. 300 AND 327. 

FN18  UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 244 U.S. 82, 87;
UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 314-15;
ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 478; TENNESSEE POWER CO. V.
T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 135; PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113,
125; SINGER & SONS V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 311 U.S. 295, 303. 

FN19  THIS DISTINCTION HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED.  CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL PHRASED IT IN VIVID LANGUAGE AS EARLY AS MARBURY V. MADISON, 1
CRANCH 137, 165-66, A FRAGMENT ONLY OF WHICH FOLLOWS: "BUT WHERE A
SPECIFIC DUTY IS ASSIGNED BY LAW, AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DEPEND UPON THE
PERFORMANCE OF THAT DUTY, IT SEEMS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
WHO CONSIDERS HIMSELF INJURED, HAS A RIGHT TO RESORT TO THE LAWS OF HIS
COUNTRY FOR A REMEDY."  PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S 113, 125;
MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 488. 

FN20  PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 619; AMERICAN SCHOOL
OF MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94, 110. 

FN21  TENNESSEE POWER CO. V. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 137. 

FN22  MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137, 165; AMERICAN SCHOOL OF
MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94, 109-10; INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 222 U.S. 541, 547; INTERNATIONAL RY.
CO. V. DAVIDSON, 257 U.S. 506, 514; MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S.
468, 479; UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S.
475, 489; COMMISSIONER V. GOOCH MILLING & ELEVATOR CO., 320 U.S. 418. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED
FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THESE PLAINTIFFS, MILK
PRODUCERS, CAN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE GO TO COURT TO
COMPLAIN OF AN ORDER BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FIXING RATES FOR
THE DISTRIBUTION OF MILK WITHIN THE GREATER BOSTON MARKETING AREA.  THE
SOLUTION OF THAT QUESTION DEPENDS, HOWEVER, UPON A PROPER APPROACH
TOWARD SUCH A SCHEME OF LEGISLATION AS THAT FORMULATED BY CONGRESS IN
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937. 

APART FROM LEGISLATION TOUCHING THE REVENUE, THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,
NATIONAL BANKS AND PATENTS, NOT UNTIL THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF
1887 DID CONGRESS BEGIN TO PLACE ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE UNDER SYSTEMS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL.  THESE REGULATORY SCHEMES HAVE VARIED IN THE
RANGE OF CONTROL EXERCISED BY GOVERNMENT; THEY HAVE VARIED NO LESS IN
THE PROCEDURES BY WHICH THE CONTROL WAS EXERCISED.  MORE PARTICULARLY,
THESE REGIMES OF NATIONAL AUTHORITY OVER PRIVATE ENTERPRISE REVEAL
GREAT DIVERSITY IN THE ALLOTMENT OF POWER BY CONGRESS AS BETWEEN COURTS
AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  CONGRESS HAS NOT MADE UNIFORM PROVISIONS
IN DEFINING WHO MAY GO TO COURT, FOR WHAT GRIEVANCE, AND UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES, IN SEEKING RELIEF FROM ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS. 
QUITE THE CONTRARY.  IN THE SUCCESSIVE ENACTMENTS BY WHICH CONGRESS HAS
ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AS MAJOR INSTRUMENTS OF REGULATION,
THERE IS THE GREATEST CONTRARIETY IN THE EXTENT TO WHICH, AND THE
PROCEDURES BY WHICH, DIFFERENT MEASURES OF CONTROL AFFORD JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. 

EXCEPT IN THOSE RARE INSTANCES, AS IN A CLAIM OF CITIZENSHIP IN
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, WHEN A JUDICIAL TRIAL BECOMES A CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF "THE DIFFERENCE IN SECURITY OF JUDICIAL OVER
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION," NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 285, WHETHER
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AVAILABLE AT ALL, AND, IF SO, WHO MAY INVOKE IT,
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IN WHAT MANNER, AND TO WHAT END, ARE
QUESTIONS THAT DEPEND FOR THEIR ANSWER UPON THE PARTICULAR ENACTMENT
UNDER WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW IS CLAIMED.  RECOGNITION OF THE CLAIM TURNS
ON THE PROVISIONS DEALING WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW IN A PARTICULAR STATUTE
AND ON THE SETTING OF SUCH PROVISIONS IN THAT STATUTE AS PART OF A
SCHEME FOR ACCOMPLISHING THE PURPOSES EXPRESSED BY THAT STATUTE.  APART
FROM THE TEXT AND TEXTURE OF A PARTICULAR LAW IN RELATION TO WHICH
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS SOUGHT, "JUDICIAL REVIEW" IS A MISCHIEVOUS
ABSTRACTION.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COMMON LAW OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN MORE THAN A SCORE
OF THESE REGULATORY MEASURES PROVE THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH CONGRESS
HAS DISTRIBUTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS LAWS BETWEEN
COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES RUNS A GAMUT ALL THE WAY FROM
AUTHORIZING A JUDICIAL TRIAL DE NOVO OF A CLAIM DETERMINED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY TO DENYING ALL JUDICIAL REVIEW AND MAKING
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DEFINITIVE. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT ONLY DEVISED DIFFERENT SCHEMES OF ENFORCEMENT FOR
DIFFERENT ACTS.  IT HAS FROM TIME TO TIME MODIFIED AND RESTRICTED THE
SCOPE OF REVIEW UNDER THE SAME ACT.  COMPARE SEC. 16 OF THE ACT TO
REGULATE COMMERCE, FEBRUARY 4, 1887, C. 104, 24 STAT. 379, 384-385,
WITH SEC. 13 OF THE COMMERCE COURT ACT, JUNE 18, 1910, C. 309, 36 STAT.
539, 554-5, AND 49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(12), AND THE LATTER WITH ENFORCEMENT
OF REPARATION ORDERS, 49 U.S.C SEC. 16(2).  MOREOVER THE SAME STATUTE,
AS IS TRUE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, MAY MAKE SOME ORDERS NOT
JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE, SEE E.G., UNITED STATES V. LOS
ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, OR REVIEWABLE BY SOME WHO ARE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED AND NOT BY OTHERS, E.G., SINGER & SONS V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., 311 U.S. 295, 305-308.  THE OLDEST SCHEME OF
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL - OUR CUSTOMS REVENUE LEGISLATION - SHOWS IN ITS
EVOLUTION ALL SORTS OF PERMUTATIONS AND COMBINATIONS IN USING AVAILABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REMEDIES.  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, ELLIOTT V.
SWARTWOUT, 10 PET. 137; CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236; MURRAY'S LESSEE V.
HOBOKEN LAND CO., 18 HOW.  272; HILTON V. MERRITT, 110 U.S. 97; FOR A
GENERAL SURVEY, SEE FREUND, ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OVER PERSONS AND
PROPERTY, SECS. 260-62.  AND ONLY THE OTHER DAY WE FOUND THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT (C. 347, 44 STAT. (PART 2) 577,
AS AMENDED, C. 691, 48 STAT. 1185, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ.) TO BE
SUCH THAT COURTS COULD NOT EVEN EXERCISE THE FUNCTION OF KEEPING THE
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD WITHIN ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  SWITCHMEN'S
UNION V. MEDIATION BOARD, 320 U.S. 297.  WERE THIS LIST OF
ILLUSTRATIONS EXTENDED AND THE VARIOUS REGULATORY SCHEMES THROWN INTO A
HOTCHPOT, THE RESULT WOULD BE HOPELESS DISCORD.  AND TO DO SO WOULD BE
TO TREAT THESE LEGISLATIVE SCHEMES AS THOUGH THEY WERE PART OF A SINGLE
BODY OF LAW INSTEAD OF EACH BEING A SELF-CONTAINED SCHEME. 

THE DIVERS ROLES PLAYED BY JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
REGULATORY MEASURES OTHER THAN THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT CANNOT
TELL US WHEN AND FOR WHOM JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION CAN
BE HAD UNDER THAT ACT.  THE FACT THAT CERTAIN CLASSES OF INDIVIDUALS
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A RULING OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
CAN AND OTHER CLASSES CANNOT OBTAIN REDRESS IN COURT, DOES NOT TELL US
WHAT CLASSES MAY AND WHAT CLASSES MAY NOT OBTAIN JUDICIAL REDRESS FOR
ACTION BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WHICH AFFECTS THESE RESPECTIVE
CLASSES ADVERSELY.  AND TO CITE THE SWITCHMEN'S CASE, SUPRA, IN SUPPORT
OF THIS CASE IS TO TREAT OUR DECISIONS TOO LIGHTLY.  IN THE NUMEROUS
CASES EITHER GRANTING OR DENYING JUDICIAL REVIEW, GRANT OR DENIAL WAS
REACHED NOT BY APPLYING SOME "NATURAL LAW" OF JUDICIAL REVIEW NOR ON
THE BASIS OF SOME GENERAL BODY OF DOCTRINES FOR CONSTRUING THE DIVERSE
PROVISIONS OF THE GREAT VARIETY OF FEDERAL REGULATORY STATUTES. 
JUDICIAL REVIEW WHEN RECOGNIZED - ITS SCOPE AND ITS INCIDENCE - WAS
DERIVED FROM THE MATERIALS FURNISHED BY THE PARTICULAR STATUTE IN
REGARD TO WHICH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS ASSERTED.  THIS
IS THE LESSON TO BE DRAWN FROM THE PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ON
JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND NOT ANY DOCTRINAIRE NOTIONS OF GENERAL
APPLICABILITY TO STATUTES BASED ON DIFFERENT SCHEMES OF ADMINISTRATION
AND CONVEYING DIFFERENT PURPOSES BY CONGRESS IN THE UTILIZATION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REMEDIES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAW. 
HOWEVER USEFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE, IT IS FOR CONGRESS AND NOT FOR
THIS COURT TO DECIDE WHEN IT MAY BE USED - EXCEPT WHEN THE CONSTITUTION
COMMANDS IT.  IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO SUCH COMMAND.  COMMON-LAW
REMEDIES WITHHELD BY CONGRESS AND UNRELATED TO A NEW SCHEME FOR
ENFORCING NEW RIGHTS AND DUTIES SHOULD NOT BE ENGRAFTED UPON REMEDIES
WHICH CONGRESS SAW FIT TO PARTICULARIZE.  TO DO SO IMPLIEDLY DENIES TO
CONGRESS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF CHOICE IN THE SELECTION OF
REMEDIES, AND TURNS COMMON-LAW REMEDIES INTO CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITIES
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE OLD AND FAMILIAR. 

WHEN RECENTLY THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT WAS IN LITIGATION BEFORE
US, WE SUSTAINED ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY AND DEFINED ITS SCOPE IN THE
LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY, ITS PURPOSES AND ITS PROVISIONS.  UNITED STATES
V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533.  WE HELD IN THAT CASE THAT A MILK
HANDLER CANNOT CHALLENGE IN COURT SUCH AN ORDER AS THE ONE WHICH IS NOW
ASSAILED.  AGAIN WE MUST TURN TO THE HISTORY, THE PURPOSES AND THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONGRESS GAVE THE PRODUCER
THE RIGHT OF JUDICIAL RELIEF HERE SOUGHT. 

IN 1931 AND 1932, PRICES OF MANUFACTURED DAIRY PRODUCTS REACHED THE
LOWEST LEVEL IN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATIVELY WEAK
BARGAINING POSITION, MILK PRODUCERS SUFFERED MOST SERIOUSLY.  SEE
MORTENSON, MILK DISTRIBUTION AS A PUBLIC UTILITY, P. 6; BLACK, THE
DAIRY INDUSTRY AND THE AAA, C. III; STATE MILK AND DAIRY LEGISLATION
(U.S. GOV'T PRINTING OFFICE, 1941) P. 3.  ACCORDINGLY, CONGRESS DECIDED
THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE HANDLING OF MILK IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COULD NO LONGER BE LEFT TO THE HAGGLING OF A DISORDERLY MARKET,
MITIGATED BY INADEQUATE ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE INDUSTRY.  THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933(C. 25, 48 STAT. 31) WAS THE
RESULT.  THE "ESSENTIAL PURPOSE" OF THE SERIES OF ENACTMENTS THUS
INITIATED WAS TO RAISE THE PRODUCER'S PRICES.  SEN. REP. NO. 1011, 74TH
CONG., 3D SESS., P. 3.  THE ACT OF 1933 WAS AMENDED IN 1935(C. 641, 49
STAT. 750), AND PARTIALLY REENACTED AND AMENDED BY THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED.  C.
296, 50 STAT. 246, C. 567, 50 STAT. 563, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 601 ET SEQ. 

AN ELABORATE ENACTMENT LIKE THIS, DEVISED BY THOSE WHO KNOW THE NEEDS
OF THE INDUSTRY AND DRAFTED BY LEGISLATIVE SPECIALISTS, IS TO BE
TREATED AS AN ORGANISM.  EVERY PART MUST BE RELATED TO THE SCHEME AS A
WHOLE.  THE LEGISLATION IS A SELF-CONTAINED CODE, AND WITHIN IT MUST BE
FOUND WHATEVER REMEDIES CONGRESS SAW FIT TO AFFORD.  FOR THE ACT DID
NOT GIVE NEW REMEDIES FOR OLD RIGHTS.  IT CREATED NEW RIGHTS AND NEW
DUTIES, AND PRECISELY DEFINED THE REMEDIES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
DUTIES AND THE VINDICATION OF RIGHTS.  OF COURSE THE STATUTE CONCERNS
THE INTERESTS OF PRODUCERS, HANDLERS AND CONSUMERS.  BUT IT DOES NOT
DEFINE OR CREATE ANY LEGAL INTEREST FOR THE CONSUMER, AND IT
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT "NO ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS TITLE SHALL BE
APPLICABLE TO ANY PRODUCER IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRODUCER."  SEC. 8C
(13)(B). 

THE STATUTE AS AN ENTIRETY MAKES IT CLEAR THAT OBLIGATIONS ARE
IMPOSED ON HANDLERS ALONE.  SECTION 8C (5)(A) AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY
TO CLASSIFY MILK ACCORDING TO THE FORM IN WHICH OR THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH IT IS USED.  SECTION 8C (5)(B)(II) DIRECTS THE SECRETARY TO
PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT TO PRODUCERS OF A UNIFORM PRICE "IRRESPECTIVE
OF THE USES MADE OF SUCH MILK BY THE INDIVIDUAL HANDLER TO WHOM IT IS
DELIVERED."  THIS LATTER, KNOWN AS THE "BLENDED PRICE," IS COMPUTED
UNDER THE SECRETARY'S ORDER NO. 4 OF JULY 28, 1941, BY MULTIPLYING THE
USE VALUE OF THE MILK BY THE TOTAL QUANTITY, MAKING SPECIFIED
DEDUCTIONS AND ADDITIONS, AND THEN DIVIDING THE RESULTING SUM BY THE
TOTAL QUANTITY OF THE MILK.  SEC. 904.7(B).  A DEDUCTION FOR PAYMENTS
TO COOPERATIVES WHICH ENTERS INTO THIS COMPUTATION IS THE OBJECT OF
PETITIONER'S ATTACK. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE MINIMUM "BLENDED PRICE" WHICH THE PRODUCER
RECEIVES MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THE MINIMUM "USE VALUE" FIXED BY THE
SECRETARY OR HIS ADMINISTRATOR WHICH THE HANDLER MUST PAY.  THUS SEC.
8C (5)(C) AUTHORIZES PROVISION FOR NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS.  THE
MECHANICS OF THESE ADJUSTMENTS ARE DESCRIBED IN THE SECRETARY'S ORDER
NO. 4.  IN SHORT, THE HANDLER WHO SELLS OR USES HIS MILK SO THAT ITS
VALUE IS MORE THAN THE MINIMUM "BLENDED PRICE" HE PAYS THE PRODUCER,
MUST PAY THE EXCESS TO A SETTLEMENT FUND, AND THE HANDLER WHO PUTS HIS
MILK TO A LOWER VALUE USE THAN THE MINIMUM "BLENDED PRICE" HE PAYS IN
TURN RECEIVES THE DIFFERENCE OUT OF THE FUND.  SEC. 904.8(B). 

VIOLATION OF ANY ORDER BY A HANDLER MAKES HIM SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS.  SEC. 8C (14).  THUS, WHILE THE ACT AND THE ORDER MAY
AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF PRODUCERS AS WELL AS THOSE OF HANDLERS, LEGALLY
THEY OPERATE DIRECTLY AGAINST HANDLERS ONLY.  THE CORRECTIVE PROCESSES
PROVIDED BY THE ACT REFLECT THIS SITUATION.  SECTION 8C (15) PERMITS A
HANDLER TO CHALLENGE AN ORDER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, AND IF
DISSATISFIED, HE MAY BRING SUIT IN EQUITY BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT. 
PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL REMEDIES FOR CONSUMERS AND PRODUCERS IS
SIGNIFICANTLY ABSENT.  SUCH OMISSION IS NEITHER INADVERTENT NOR
SURPRISING.  IT WOULD BE MANIFESTLY INCONGRUOUS FOR AN ACT WHICH
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT NO ORDER SHALL BE DIRECTED AT PRODUCERS TO
GIVE TO PRODUCERS THE RIGHT TO ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF SUCH AN ORDER IN
COURT. 

TO CREATE A JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR PRODUCERS WHEN THE STATUTE GAVE NONE
IS TO DISLOCATE THE CONGRESSIONAL SCHEME OF ENFORCEMENT.  FOR EXAMPLE,
SEC. 8C (15)(B) PROVIDES THAT THE PENDENCY OF A PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW
INSTITUTED BY A HANDLER SHALL NOT IMPEDE OR DELAY PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT
UNDER SEC. 8A (6) FOR COMPLIANCE WITH AN ORDER.  BECAUSE THERE IS NO
PROVISION FOR COURT REVIEW OF AN ORDER ON A PRODUCER'S POSITION
NATURALLY THERE IS NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION TO GUARD AGAINST SUCH
INTERFERENCE WITH ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER.  BY GIVING PRODUCERS THE
RIGHT TO SUE ALTHOUGH CONGRESS WITHHELD THAT RIGHT, THE SUSPENSION OF A
MILK ORDER PENDING DISPOSITION OF A PRODUCER'S SUIT WILL NOW DEPEND
UPON THE DISCRETION OF TRIAL JUDGES.  AND TECHNICAL DETAILS CONCERNING
THE MILK INDUSTRY THAT WERE COMMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
ARE NOW MADE SUBJECTS OF LITIGATION BEFORE ILL-EQUIPPED COURTS. 

BY DENYING THEM ACCESS TO THE COURTS CONGRESS HAS NOT LEFT PRODUCERS
TO THE MERCY OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  CONGRESS MERELY HAS
DEVISED MEANS OTHER THAN JUDICIAL FOR THE EFFECTIVE EXPRESSION OF
PRODUCERS' INTERESTS IN THE TERMS OF AN ORDER.  BEFORE THE SECRETARY
MAY ISSUE AN ORDER HE IS REQUIRED TO "GIVE DUE NOTICE OF AND AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING UPON A PROPOSED ORDER."  SEC. 8C (3).  AT
SUCH A HEARING ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY SUBMIT RELEVANT EVIDENCE, AND
THE PROCEDURE MAKES ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR NOTICE TO THOSE WHO MAY BE
AFFECTED BY AN ORDER.  SEE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT
ACT OF 1937(U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 1939), P. 11 ET SEQ. NOR
ARE THESE THE ONLY OR THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS FOR SAFEGUARDING THE
PRODUCER'S INTEREST.  WHILE AN ORDER MAY BE ISSUED DESPITE THE
OBJECTION OF HANDLERS OF MORE THAN 50% OF THE VOLUME OF THE COMMODITY
COVERED BY THE ORDER, NO ORDER MAY ISSUE WHEN NOT APPROVED BY AT LEAST
TWO-THIRDS - EITHER NUMERICALLY OR ACCORDING TO VOLUME OF PRODUCTION -
OF THE PRODUCERS.  SEC. 8C (9). 

THE FACT THAT CONGRESS MADE SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR SUBMISSION OF SOME
DEFINED QUESTIONS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD HARDLY APPEAR TO BE AN
ARGUMENT FOR INFERRING THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW EVEN OF BROADER SCOPE IS
ALSO OPEN AS TO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT PROVIDE
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THE OBVIOUS CONCLUSION CALLED FOR IS THAT AS TO SUCH
OTHER QUESTIONS, JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS PURPOSEFULLY WITHHELD.  IN THE
FRAME OF THIS STATUTE SUCH AN OMISSION SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS HAVING
NO MEANING, OR RATHER AS MEANING THAT AN OMISSION IS TO BE GIVEN THE
SAME EFFECT AS AN INCLUSION.  NOR DOES SEC. 8A (8) REFERRING TO
REMEDIES "EXISTING AT LAW OR IN EQUITY" TOUCH OUR PROBLEM.  THAT ONLY
ADDS TO THE REMEDIES IN SEC. 8A (5)-(7) FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ACT.  IT IN NO WAY QUALIFIES OR EXPANDS THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE IN SEC. 8C (15) FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUCH AN ORDER AS THE
PRESENT - SPECIFICATION OF THE CLASS OF PERSONS WHO ARE GIVEN THE RIGHT
TO RESORT TO COURTS AND NARROW LIMITATION OF THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  THE REMEDY OF REVIEW HERE SOUGHT BY PRODUCERS IS BY SEC. 8C
(15) EXPLICITLY RESTRICTED TO HANDLERS; AND SUCH REVIEW IS NOT LIKE
THAT BEFORE THE COURT, A CONVENTIONAL SUIT IN EQUITY, BUT IS A
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF AN ADVERSE RULING IN A PRICE PROCEEDING BEFORE
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  IT IS A REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
REVIEW, NOT AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL DETERMINATION. 

AN ELABORATE PROCESS OF IMPLICATIONS SHOULD NOT BE INVENTED TO ESCAPE
THE PLAIN MEANING OF SEC. 8C (15), AND TO DISLOCATE A CAREFULLY
FORMULATED SCHEME OF ENFORCEMENT.  THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO CONSTRUE SUCH
LEGISLATION, THAT IS, IF CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT WAS RIGHT IN CHARACTERIZING
AS "A CONSPICUOUS INSTANCE OF HIS (CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE'S) UNUSUAL AND
REMARKABLE POWER AND FACILITY IN STATESMANLIKE INTERPRETATION OF
STATUTE LAW," 257 U.S. XXV, THE DOCTRINE ESTABLISHED IN TEXAS & PACIFIC
RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426, AND MORE PARTICULARLY
THE WAY IN WHICH SEC. 22 OF THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE WAS THEREIN
CONSTRUED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THAT ACT.  204 U.S. AT 446
447. 

THE COURT IS THUS ADDING TO WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN A PROVISION FOR
JUDICIAL RELIEF OF PRODUCERS.  AND IT SANCTIONS SUCH RELIEF IN A CASE
IN WHICH PETITIONERS HAVE NO STANDING TO SUE ON ANY THEORY.  THE ONLY
EFFECT OF THE DEDUCTION WHICH IS CHALLENGED BY THE PRODUCERS IS TO FIX
A MINIMUM PRICE TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED PERHAPS LOWER THAN THAT
WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN DETERMINED.  BUT THE ACT DOES NOT
PREVENT THEIR BARGAINING FOR A PRICE HIGHER THAN THE MINIMUM, AND WE
ARE ADVISED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF WHAT IS NOT DENIED BY PETITIONERS,
THAT SUCH ARRANGEMENTS ARE BY NO MEANS UNUSUAL.  THIS COURT HAS HELD
THAT A CONSUMER HAS NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE A MINIMUM PRICE ORDER LIKE
THE ONE BEFORE US.  ATLANTA V. ICKES, 308 U.S. 517; CF. SPRUNT & SON V.
UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 249.  SURELY A PRODUCER WHO MAY BARGAIN FOR
PRICES ABOVE THE MINIMUM IS IN NO BETTER LEGAL POSITION THAN A CONSUMER
WHO URGES THAT TOO HIGH A MINIMUM HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY FIXED.  THE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WHICH PURCHASED MILK FOR ITS PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS VALUED AT $105,232.97 IN 1940, AND $117,584.50 IN 1941,
HAS HARDLY A LESS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE MINIMUM PRICE THAN THAT
OF THE PETITIONERS.  AND YET MASSACHUSETTS HAS NO STANDING TO OBJECT TO
THE MINIMUM FIXED BY AN ORDER. 

THE ALLEGED LOWER MINIMUM "BLENDED PRICE" IS THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF
PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT.  IF THAT GIVES THEM NO STANDING TO SUE NOTHING
DOES.  AN ATTACK MERELY ON THE METHOD BY WHICH THE BLENDED PRICE WAS
REDUCED MAY PRESENT AN INTERESTING ABSTRACT QUESTION BUT FURNISHES NO
LEGAL RIGHT TO SUE.  THE PRODUCERS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
SETTLEMENT FUND.  THEY RECEIVE THE BLENDED PRICE IN ANY EVENT.  EVEN
ASSUMING THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY HAVE FIXED A BLENDED PRICE IN WAYS
THAT MAY ARGUE AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN WHAT HE HAS DONE AND WHAT
CONGRESS TOLD HIM TO DO, ANY RESULTING DISADVANTAGE TO A PRODUCER IS
WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  THAT FUND IS CONTRIBUTED BY
HANDLERS AND PAID TO HANDLERS.  IF HANDLERS MAY NOT ATTACK PAYMENTS TO
COOPERATIVES, AS THIS COURT HELD IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP.,
SUPRA AT 561, WITH ALL DEFERENCE I AM UNABLE TO SEE HOW PRODUCERS CAN
BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO ATTACK SUCH PAYMENTS.  THIS SUIT WAS RIGHTLY
DISMISSED. 
..END :



HECHT CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 321 


NO. 316.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 4, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1944.  -
137 F.2D 689, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, THE
GRANT OF AN INJUNCTION, UPON APPLICATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND A
SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS ENGAGED IN ACTS OR PRACTICES VIOLATIVE
OF SEC. 4 OF THE ACT, IS NOT MANDATORY BUT IS IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT.  P. 328. 

2.  THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT UNDER SEC. 205(A) MUST BE EXERCISED
IN THE LIGHT OF THE LARGE OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT; FOR IN THESE CASES THE
STANDARDS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT THE REQUIREMENTS OF PRIVATE
LITIGATION, MEASURE THE PROPRIETY AND NEED OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  P.
331. 

3.  WHETHER UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL
OF AN INJUNCTION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IS NOT DECIDED; AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DETERMINATION OF THAT
QUESTION.  P. 331. 

THE HECHT COMPANY V. BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 727, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, 49 F.SUPP.  528, IN A SUIT BY THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE DEFENDANT FROM
VIOLATIONS OF PRICE REGULATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEC. 205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942(56 STAT. 23,
50 U.S.C. APP. SUPP. II, SECS. 901, 925) PROVIDES:  "WHENEVER IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ANY PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO
ENGAGE IN ANY ACTS OR PRACTICES WHICH CONSTITUTE OR WILL CONSTITUTE A
VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF SECTION 4 OF THIS ACT, HE MAY MAKE
APPLICATION TO THE APPROPRIATE COURT FOR AN ORDER ENJOINING SUCH ACTS
OR PRACTICES, OR FOR AN ORDER ENFORCING COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH PROVISION,
AND UPON A SHOWING BY THE ADMINISTRATOR THAT SUCH PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR
IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES A PERMANENT OR
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING ORDER, OR OTHER ORDER SHALL BE
GRANTED WITHOUT BOND."  THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE
ADMINISTRATOR, HAVING ESTABLISHED THAT A DEFENDANT HAS ENGAGED IN ACTS
OR PRACTICES VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 4 OF THE ACT IS ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT TO
AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT FROM ENGAGING IN SUCH ACTS OR
PRACTICES OR WHETHER THE COURT HAS SOME DISCRETION TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD
SUCH RELIEF. 

SEC. 4(A) OF THE ACT MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO SELL OR
DELIVER ANY COMMODITY IN VIOLATION OF SPECIFIED ORDERS OR REGULATIONS
OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  A REGULATION ISSUED UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT AND
EFFECTIVE IN MAY, 1942(7 FED. REG. 3153) PROVIDED THAT NO PERSON SHOULD
SELL OR DELIVER ANY COMMODITY AT A PRICE HIGHER THAN THE AUTHORIZED
MAXIMUM PRICE (SEC. 1499.1) AS FIXED OR DETERMINED BY THE REGULATION. 
FN1  SINCE MAXIMUM PRICES WERE FIXED WITH REFERENCE TO EARLIER BASE
PERIODS, THE REGULATION ALSO PROVIDED FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
EXAMINATION OF EXISTING RECORDS.  FN2  AND PROVISION WAS LIKEWISE MADE
FOR THE KEEPING OF CURRENT RECORDS REFLECTING SALES MADE UNDER THE
REGULATION  FN3  AND FOR THE FILING OF MAXIMUM PRICES WITH THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  FN4 

THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY OVER THE FACTS.  PETITIONER
OPERATES A LARGE DEPARTMENT STORE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND DID A
BUSINESS OF ABOUT $20,000,000 IN 1942.  THERE ARE 107 DEPARTMENTS IN
THE STORE AND EACH SELLS A SEPARATE LINE OF MERCHANDISE.  IN THE FALL
OF 1942 THE ADMINISTRATOR STARTED AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER
PETITIONER WAS COMPLYING WITH THE ACT AND THE REGULATION.  THE
INVESTIGATION WAS A "SPOT CHECK," CONFINED TO SEVEN DEPARTMENTS.  IN
EACH OF THE SEVEN DEPARTMENTS VIOLATIONS WERE DISCLOSED.  AS A RESULT
THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED VIOLATIONS OF THE MAXIMUM
PRICE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION AND VIOLATIONS OF THE REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE KEEPING OF RECORDS AND REPORTING TO THE ADMINISTRATOR. 
THE ADMINISTRATOR PRAYED FOR AN INJUNCTION ENJOINING PETITIONER FROM
SELLING, DELIVERING OR OFFERING FOR SALE OR DELIVERY ANY COMMODITY IN
VIOLATION OF THE REGULATION AND FROM FAILING TO KEEP COMPLETE AND
ACCURATE RECORDS AS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATION.  IN ITS ANSWER
PETITIONER PLEADED AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT ANY FAILURE OR NEGLECT TO
COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION WAS INVOLUNTARY AND WAS CORRECTED AS SOON AS
DISCOVERED. 

NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS BOTH AS RESPECTS PRICES AND RECORDS WERE
DISCOVERED.  THUS IN SIX OF THE SEVEN DEPARTMENTS INVESTIGATED THERE
HAD OCCURRED BETWEEN MAY AND OCTOBER, 1942 SOME 3,700 SALES IN EXCESS
OF THE MAXIMUM PRICES WITH OVERCHARGES OF SOME $4,600.  THE STATEMENTS
FILED WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR WERE DEFICIENT, SOME 400 ITEMS OF
MERCHANDISE BEING OMITTED.  AND THERE WERE OVER 300 ITEMS WITH RESPECT
TO WHICH NO RECORDS WERE KEPT SHOWING HOW THE MAXIMUM PRICES HAD BEEN
DETERMINED. 

THERE IS NO DOUBT, HOWEVER, OF PETITIONER'S GOOD FAITH AND
DILIGENCE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE MANAGER OF THE STORE HAD
OFFERED IT AS A LABORATORY IN WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR MIGHT EXPERIMENT
WITH ANY REGULATION WHICH MIGHT BE ISSUED.  PRIOR TO THE PROMULGATION
OF THE REGULATION THE PETITIONER HAD CREATED A NEW SECTION KNOWN AS THE
PRICE CONTROL OFFICE.  THAT OFFICE UNDERTOOK TO BRING PETITIONER INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATION IN ADVANCE OF ITS
EFFECTIVE DATE.  THE HEAD OF THAT OFFICE TOGETHER WITH SEVEN ASSISTANTS
DEVOTED FULL TIME TO THAT ENDEAVOR.  BUT THE STORE HAD ABOUT 2,000
EMPLOYEES AND OVER ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ARTICLES OF
MERCHANDISE.  IN THE FURNITURE DEPARTMENTS ALONE THERE WERE OVER FIFTY
FOUR THOUSAND TRANSACTIONS IN THE FIRST TEN MONTHS OF 1942. 
DIFFICULTIES WERE ENCOUNTERED IN INTERPRETING THE REGULATION, IN
DETERMINING THE EXACT NATURE OF AN ARTICLE AND WHETHER IT HAD BEEN
PREVIOUSLY SOLD AND AT WHAT PRICE, ETC.  THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE
RECORDS MADE IT DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN PRICES DURING THE EARLIER BASE
PERIOD.  MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE REGULATION, CONFUSION ON THE PART OF
EMPLOYEES NOT TRAINED IN SUCH PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION AND
ADMINISTRATION, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROBLEM, AND THE FALLIBILITY OF
HUMANS ALL COMBINED TO PRODUCE NUMEROUS ERRORS.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THE "MISTAKES IN PRICING AND LISTING WERE ALL MADE IN
GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT INTENT TO VIOLATE THE REGULATIONS." 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE MISTAKES BROUGHT TO LIGHT
"WERE AT ONCE CORRECTED, AND VIGOROUS STEPS WERE TAKEN BY THE HECHT
COMPANY TO PREVENT RECURRENCE OF THESE MISTAKES OR FURTHER MISTAKES IN
THE FUTURE."  THE COMPANY INCREASED ITS PRICE CONTROL OFFICE TO TWENTY
EIGHT EMPLOYEES.  NEW METHODS OF INTERNAL CONTROL WERE INSTITUTED EARLY
IN NOVEMBER, 1942 WITH THE VIEW OF AVOIDING FUTURE VIOLATIONS.  THAT
NEW SYSTEM OF CONTROL "GREATLY IMPROVED" THE SITUATION.  PETITIONER
UNDERTOOK TO MAKE REPAYMENT OF ALL OVERCHARGES BROUGHT TO LIGHT BY THE
INVESTIGATION IN CASE OF CUSTOMERS WHO COULD BE IDENTIFIED.  IT
PROPOSED TO CONTRIBUTE THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF SUCH OVERCHARGES TO SOME
LOCAL CHARITY.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE ISSUANCE OF AN
INJUNCTION WOULD HAVE "NO EFFECT BY WAY OF INSURING BETTER COMPLIANCE
IN THE FUTURE" AND WOULD BE "UNJUST" TO PETITIONER AND NOT "IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST."  IT ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  49 F.SUPP. 
528.  ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  137 F.2D 689.  THAT
COURT HELD THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT WERE SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, EXCEPT THAT IT DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS THAT AN INJUNCTION WOULD NOT INSURE
BETTER COMPLIANCE IN THE FUTURE AND WOULD BE UNJUST TO PETITIONER.  IN
ITS VIEW THE LATTER FINDINGS WERE IMMATERIAL.  FOR IT CONSTRUED SEC.
205(A) OF THE ACT TO REQUIRE THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION OR OTHER
ORDER AS A MATTER OF COURSE, ONCE VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE ACT. 

RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE MANDATORY CHARACTER OF SEC. 205(A) IS
CLEAR FROM ITS LANGUAGE, HISTORY AND PURPOSE.  HE ARGUES THAT "SHALL BE
GRANTED" IS NOT PERMISSIVE, THAT SINCE THE SAME SECTION PROVIDES THAT
THE ADMINISTRATOR "MAY" APPLY FOR AN INJUNCTION AND THAT, IF SO, THE
INJUNCTION "SHALL" BE GRANTED, "MAY" AND "SHALL" ARE EACH USED IN THE
ORDINARY SENSE.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE BILL (FOR WHICH THE
ACT IN ITS FINAL FORM WAS SUBSTITUTED) PASSED THE HOUSE, SEC. 205(A)
PROVIDED THAT "UPON A PROPER SHOWING" AN INJUNCTION OR OTHER ORDER
"SHALL BE GRANTED WITHOUT BOND."  FN5  THE WORDS "UPON A PROPER
SHOWING" WERE STRICKEN IN THE SENATE AND WERE REPLACED BY THE WORDS
"UPON A SHOWING BY THE ADMINISTRATOR THAT SUCH PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS
ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES."  AND THE SENATE REPORT
IN ITS ANALYSIS OF SEC. 205(A) STATED THAT "UPON A SHOWING BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR THAT SUCH PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY
SUCH ACTS OR PRACTICES, A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER ORDER IS TO BE GRANTED WITHOUT BOND."  S.
REP. NO. 931, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 25.  FURTHER SUPPORT FOR THE
VIEW THAT THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION IS MANDATORY ONCE VIOLATIONS
ARE SHOWN IS SOUGHT IN THE PATTERN OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION WHICH
PROVIDES RELIEF BY INJUNCTION IN AID OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.  SOME OF THOSE
STATUTES  FN6  CONTAIN PROVISIONS QUITE CLOSE TO THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.
205(A).  OTHERS PROVIDE THAT AN INJUNCTION OR RESTRAINING ORDER SHALL
BE GRANTED "UPON A PROPER SHOWING"  FN7  OR THAT FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS "FOR CAUSE
SHOWN."  FN8  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT WHEN CONGRESS DESIRED TO GIVE THE
DISTRICT COURTS DISCRETION TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD RELIEF BY INJUNCTION IT
CHOSE APT WORDS TO MAKE ITS DESIRE PLAIN. 

WE AGREE THAT THE CESSATION OF VIOLATIONS, WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER
THE INSTITUTION OF A SUIT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, IS NO BAR TO THE
ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION UNDER SEC. 205(A).  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT
UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT MUST ISSUE THE INJUNCTION OR OTHER
ORDER WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR SEEKS. 

IT SEEMS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF SEC. 205(A) THAT THERE IS SOME ROOM
FOR THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE COURT.  FOR THE
REQUIREMENT IS THAT A "PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING
ORDER, OR OTHER ORDER" BE GRANTED.  THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR ASKS FOR
AN INJUNCTION, SOME "OTHER ORDER" MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE, OR AT
LEAST SO APPEAR TO THE COURT.  THUS IN THE PRESENT CASE ONE JUDGE IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS FELT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BUT SHOULD HAVE ENTERED AN ORDER RETAINING THE
CASE ON THE DOCKET WITH THE RIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, ON NOTICE, TO
RENEW HIS APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IF VIOLATIONS RECURRED.  IT
IS INDEED NOT DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT IN SOME SITUATIONS THAT MIGHT
BE THE FAIREST COURSE TO FOLLOW AND ONE WHICH WOULD BE AS PRACTICALLY
EFFECTIVE AS THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION.  SUCH AN ORDER, MOREOVER,
WOULD SEEM TO BE A TYPE OF "OTHER ORDER" WHICH A FAITHFUL READING OF
SEC. 205(A) WOULD PERMIT A COURT TO ISSUE IN A COMPLIANCE PROCEEDING. 
HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR THAT THE COURT MIGHT DEEM SOME
"OTHER ORDER" MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE EVIL AT HAND THAN THE ONE WHICH
WAS SOUGHT.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT LACKS THE POWER TO MAKE THAT
CHOICE.  THUS IT SEEMS THAT SEC. 205(A) FALLS SHORT OF MAKING MANDATORY
THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION MERELY BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATOR ASKS
IT. 

THERE IS, MOREOVER, SUPPORT IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 205(A)
FOR THE VIEW THAT "SHALL BE GRANTED" IS LESS MANDATORY THAN A LITERAL
READING MIGHT SUGGEST.  WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO A PORTION OF THE
SENATE REPORT WHICH LENDS SOME SUPPORT TO THE POSITION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  BUT IN ANOTHER PORTION OF THAT REPORT THERE IS THE
FOLLOWING REFERENCE TO SUITS TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT:  "IN
COMMON WITH SUBSTANTIALLY ALL REGULATORY STATUTES, THE BILL AUTHORIZES
THE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ADMINISTERING THE ACT TO APPLY TO
ANY APPROPRIATE COURT, STATE OR FEDERAL, FOR AN ORDER ENJOINING ANY
PERSON WHO HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTS OR PRACTICES
WHICH CONSTITUTE OR WILL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THE
BILL.  SUCH COURTS ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WHATEVER ORDER TO
ENFORCE COMPLIANCE IS PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH PARTICULAR
CASE."  S. REP. NO. 931, SUPRA, P. 10.  A GRANT OF JURISDICTION TO
ISSUE COMPLIANCE ORDERS HARDLY SUGGESTS AN ABSOLUTE DUTY TO DO SO UNDER
ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.  WE CANNOT BUT THINK THAT IF CONGRESS HAD
INTENDED TO MAKE SUCH A DRASTIC DEPARTURE FROM THE TRADITIONS OF EQUITY
PRACTICE, AN UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT OF ITS PURPOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN
MADE. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO COMPARE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 205(A) WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES GOVERNING ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES WHICH, IT IS SAID, MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT THOSE AGENCIES TAKE
ACTION WHEN CERTAIN FACTS ARE SHOWN TO EXIST.  FN9  WE ARE DEALING HERE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF EQUITY PRACTICE WITH A BACKGROUND OF SEVERAL
HUNDRED YEARS OF HISTORY.  ONLY THE OTHER DAY WE STATED THAT "AN APPEAL
TO THE EQUITY JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS IS AN
APPEAL TO THE SOUND DISCRETION WHICH GUIDES THE DETERMINATIONS OF
COURTS OF EQUITY."  MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228, 235.  THE
HISTORIC INJUNCTIVE PROCESS WAS DESIGNED TO DETER, NOT TO PUNISH.  THE
ESSENCE OF EQUITY JURISDICTION HAS BEEN THE POWER OF THE CHANCELLOR TO
DO EQUITY AND TO MOULD EACH DECREE TO THE NECESSITIES OF THE PARTICULAR
CASE.  FLEXIBILITY RATHER THAN RIGIDITY HAS DISTINGUISHED IT.  THE
QUALITIES OF MERCY AND PRACTICALITY HAVE MADE EQUITY THE INSTRUMENT FOR
NICE ADJUSTMENT AND RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
PRIVATE NEEDS AS WELL AS BETWEEN COMPETING PRIVATE CLAIMS.  WE DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT SUCH A MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM THAT LONG TRADITION AS IS HERE
PROPOSED SHOULD BE LIGHTLY IMPLIED.  WE DO NOT THINK THE HISTORY OR
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 205(A) COMPEL IT.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED, MOREOVER, THAT
SEC. 205(A) GOVERNS THE PROCEDURE IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. 
FOR SEC. 205(C) GIVES THE STATE COURTS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS
THEREFORE EVEN MORE COMPELLING TO CONCLUDE THAT, IF CONGRESS DESIRED TO
MAKE SUCH AN ABRUPT DEPARTURE FROM TRADITIONAL EQUITY PRACTICE AS IS
SUGGESTED, IT WOULD HAVE MADE ITS DESIRE PLAIN.  HENCE WE RESOLVE THE
AMBIGUITIES OF SEC. 205(A) IN FAVOR OF THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH
AFFORDS A FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR EQUITY COURTS TO TREAT ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS EMERGENCY LEGISLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
TRADITIONAL PRACTICES, AS CONDITIONED BY THE NECESSITIES OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WHICH CONGRESS HAS SOUGHT TO PROTECT.  UNITED STATES V.
MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 194 AND CASES CITED. 

WE DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT COURTS SHOULD ADMINISTER SEC. 205(A)
GRUDGINGLY.  WE REPEAT WHAT WE STATED IN UNITED STATES V. MORGAN,
SUPRA, 191, RESPECTING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:  "
...  COURT AND AGENCY ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS WHOLLY INDEPENDENT AND
UNRELATED INSTRUMENTALITIES OF JUSTICE, EACH ACTING IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF ITS PRESCRIBED STATUTORY DUTY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE APPROPRIATE
FUNCTION OF THE OTHER IN SECURING THE PLAINLY INDICATED OBJECTS OF THE
STATUTE.  COURT AND AGENCY ARE THE MEANS ADOPTED TO ATTAIN THE
PRESCRIBED END, AND SO FAR AS THEIR DUTIES ARE DEFINED BY THE WORDS OF
THE STATUTE, THOSE WORDS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO ATTAIN THAT END
THROUGH COORDINATED ACTION.  NEITHER BODY SHOULD REPEAT IN THIS DAY THE
MISTAKE MADE BY THE COURTS OF LAW WHEN EQUITY WAS STRUGGLING FOR
RECOGNITION AS AN AMELIORATING SYSTEM OF JUSTICE; NEITHER CAN RIGHTLY
BE REGARDED BY THE OTHER AS AN ALIEN INTRUDER, TO BE TOLERATED IF MUST
BE, BUT NEVER TO BE ENCOURAGED OR AIDED BY THE OTHER IN THE ATTAINMENT
OF THE COMMON AIM."  THE ADMINISTRATOR DOES NOT CARRY THE SOLE BURDEN
OF THE WAR AGAINST INFLATION.  THE COURTS ALSO HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH
A SHARE OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY.  AND THEIR DISCRETION UNDER SEC. 205(A)
MUST BE EXERCISED IN LIGHT OF THE LARGE OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT.  FOR THE
STANDARDS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT THE REQUIREMENTS OF PRIVATE
LITIGATION, MEASURE THE PROPRIETY AND NEED FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN
THESE CASES.  THAT DISCRETION SHOULD REFLECT AN ACUTE AWARENESS OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL ADMONITION THAT "OF ALL THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAR, EXCEPT
HUMAN SLAUGHTER, INFLATION IS THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE" (S. REP. NO. 931,
SUPRA, P. 2) AND THAT DELAY OR INDIFFERENCE MAY BE FATAL.  WHETHER THE
DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IS A
QUESTION WHICH WE DO NOT REACH.  THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THAT DETERMINATION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 1499.2 PROVIDED IN PART:  "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN
THIS GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION, THE SELLER'S MAXIMUM PRICE FOR
ANY COMMODITY OR SERVICE SHALL BE:  (A) IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE
SELLER DEALT IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR COMMODITIES OR SERVICES DURING
MARCH 1942:  THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED BY THE SELLER DURING SUCH MONTH
(1) FOR THE SAME COMMODITY OR SERVICE; OR (2) IF NO CHARGE WAS MADE
FOR THE SAME COMMODITY OR SERVICE, FOR THE SIMILAR COMMODITY OR
SERVICE, MOST NEARLY LIKE IT; OR (B) IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE SELLER
DID NOT DEAL IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR COMMODITIES OR SERVICES DURING
MARCH 1942:  THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED DURING SUCH MONTH BY THE MOST
CLOSELY COMPETITIVE SELLER OF THE SAME CLASS - (1) FOR THE SAME
COMMODITY OR SERVICE; OR (2) IF NO CHARGE WAS MADE FOR THE SAME
COMMODITY OR SERVICE, FOR THE SIMILAR COMMODITY OR SERVICE MOST NEARLY
LIKE IT.  'HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED DURING MARCH 1942'.  FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THIS GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION, THE HIGHEST PRICE CHARGED BY
A SELLER 'DURING MARCH 1942' SHALL BE:  (A) THE HIGHEST PRICE WHICH THE
SELLER CHARGED FOR A COMMODITY DELIVERED OR SERVICE SUPPLIED BY HIM
DURING MARCH 1942; OR (B) IF THE SELLER MADE NO SUCH DELIVERY OR
SUPPLIED NO SUCH SERVICE DURING MARCH 1942 HIS HIGHEST OFFERING PRICE
FOR DELIVERY OR SUPPLY DURING THAT MONTH." 

THE SELLER'S MAXIMUM PRICE FOR A COMMODITY WHICH CANNOT BE PRICED
UNDER SEC. 1499.2 WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SELLER PURSUANT TO A
FORMULA PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 1499.3. 

FN2  SEC. 1499.11 ENTITLED "BASE-PERIOD RECORDS" PROVIDED IN PART:
"EVERY PERSON SELLING COMMODITIES OR SERVICES FOR WHICH, UPON SALE BY
THAT PERSON, MAXIMUM PRICES ARE ESTABLISHED BY THIS GENERAL MAXIMUM
PRICE REGULATION, SHALL:  (A) PRESERVE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION ALL HIS EXISTING RECORDS RELATING TO THE PRICES
WHICH HE CHARGED FOR SUCH OF THOSE COMMODITIES OR SERVICES AS HE
DELIVERED OR SUPPLIED DURING MARCH 1942, AND HIS OFFERING PRICES FOR
DELIVERY OR SUPPLY OF SUCH COMMODITIES OR SERVICES DURING SUCH MONTH;
AND (B) PREPARE, ON OR BEFORE JULY 1, 1942, ON THE BASIS OF ALL
AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND RECORDS, AND THEREAFTER KEEP FOR EXAMINATION
BY ANY PERSON DURING ORDINARY BUSINESS HOURS, A STATEMENT SHOWING:  (1)
THE HIGHEST PRICES WHICH HE CHARGED FOR SUCH OF THOSE COMMODITIES OR
SERVICES AS HE DELIVERED OR SUPPLIED DURING MARCH 1942 AND HIS OFFERING
PRICES FOR DELIVERY OR SUPPLY OF SUCH COMMODITIES OR SERVICES DURING
SUCH MONTH, TOGETHER WITH AN APPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION OR IDENTIFICATION
OF EACH SUCH COMMODITY OR SERVICE; AND (2) ALL HIS CUSTOMARY
ALLOWANCES, DISCOUNTS, AND OTHER PRICE DIFFERENTIALS." 

FN3  SEC. 1499.12 ENTITLED "CURRENT RECORDS" PROVIDED:  "EVERY PERSON
SELLING COMMODITIES OR SERVICES FOR WHICH, UPON SALE BY THAT PERSON,
MAXIMUM PRICES ARE ESTABLISHED BY THIS GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION
SHALL KEEP, AND MAKE AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE OFFICE OF PRICE
ADMINISTRATION, RECORDS OF THE SAME KIND AS HE HAS CUSTOMARILY KEPT,
RELATING TO THE PRICES WHICH HE CHARGED FOR SUCH OF THOSE COMMODITIES
OR SERVICES AS HE SOLD AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS GENERAL MAXIMUM
PRICE REGULATION; AND, IN ADDITION, RECORDS SHOWING, AS PRECISELY AS
POSSIBLE, THE BASIS UPON WHICH HE DETERMINED MAXIMUM PRICES FOR THOSE
COMMODITIES OR SERVICES." 

FN4  SEC. 1499.13(B) PROVIDED:  "ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1, 1942, EVERY
PERSON OFFERING TO SELL COST-OF-LIVING COMMODITIES AT RETAIL SHALL FILE
WITH THE APPROPRIATE WAR PRICE AND RATIONING BOARD OF THE OFFICE OF
PRICE ADMINISTRATION A STATEMENT SHOWING HIS MAXIMUM PRICE FOR EACH
SUCH COMMODITY, TOGETHER WITH AN APPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION OR
IDENTIFICATION OF IT.  SUCH STATEMENT SHALL BE KEPT UP TO DATE BY SUCH
PERSON BY FILING ON THE FIRST DAY OF EVERY SUCCEEDING MONTH A STATEMENT
OF HIS MAXIMUM PRICE FOR ANY COST-OF-LIVING COMMODITY NEWLY OFFERED FOR
SALE DURING THE PREVIOUS MONTH, TOGETHER WITH AN APPROPRIATE
DESCRIPTION OR IDENTIFICATION OF THE COMMODITY." 

FN5  H.R. 5479, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN6  "UPON A SHOWING THAT SUCH PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ABOUT TO
ENGAGE IN ANY SUCH ACT OR PRACTICE, A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
OR DECREE OR RESTRAINING ORDER SHALL BE GRANTED WITHOUT BOND." 
INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 842, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 80A-41;
INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 853, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 80B-9. 

FN7  SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 86, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77T (B);
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 899, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 78U (E). 

FN8  FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1069, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 217. 

FN9  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 453, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
160(C); CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 734, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 21; FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT, 38 STAT. 719, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45(B). 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AGREES THAT SEC. 205(A) OF THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT, APART FROM DISPENSING WITH ANY REQUIREMENT FOR A
BOND, DOES NOT CHANGE THE HISTORIC CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE BY
COURTS OF EQUITY OF THEIR POWER TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS, ACCORDING TO
WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOW DISPOSE OF THIS CAUSE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED. 
..END :










J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 321 U.S. 332 


NO. 67.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1944 - 134 F.2D
70, MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN VIEW OF THE CONTINUING CHARACTER OF THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED ON
THE EMPLOYER BY THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE
SUBSEQUENT EXPIRATION OF THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION AND THE EMPLOYER'S
ENTRY INTO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT DID NOT RENDER THE CASE
MOOT.  P. 334. 

2.  THAT AN EMPLOYER HAS INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT, COVERING
WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS, WITH A MAJORITY OF HIS EMPLOYEES,
WHICH CONTRACTS WERE VALID WHEN MADE AND ARE UNEXPIRED, DOES NOT
PRECLUDE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THEIR RIGHT UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO CHOOSE A REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING NOR WARRANT REFUSAL BY THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH SUCH
REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF TERMS COVERED BY THE INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS.  P. 339. 

THE RELATION IN GENERAL OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS TO COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IS DISCUSSED. 

3.  THE BOARD HAS NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE THE VALIDITY OR EFFECT OF
THE CONTRACTS HERE IN QUESTION, EXCEPT AS TO THEIR EFFECT ON MATTERS
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.  P. 340. 

4.  SINCE THE DESIST ORDER LITERALLY GOES BEYOND WHAT THE BOARD
INTENDED, ITS LANGUAGE IS MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY.  P. 341. 

J.I. CASE CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 210, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH GRANTED
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 42
N.L.R.B. 85. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CAUSE WAS HEARD BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ON
STIPULATED FACTS WHICH SO FAR AS CONCERN PRESENT ISSUES ARE AS
FOLLOWS: 

THE PETITIONER, J.I. CASE COMPANY, AT ITS ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS,
PLANT, FROM 1937 OFFERED EACH EMPLOYEE AN INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT.  THE CONTRACTS WERE UNIFORM AND FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR. 
THE COMPANY AGREED TO FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AS STEADILY AS CONDITIONS
PERMITTED, TO PAY A SPECIFIED RATE, WHICH THE COMPANY MIGHT REDETERMINE
IF THE JOB CHANGED, AND TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN HOSPITAL FACILITIES.  THE
EMPLOYEE AGREED TO ACCEPT THE PROVISIONS, TO SERVE FAITHFULLY AND
HONESTLY FOR THE TERM, TO COMPLY WITH FACTORY RULES, AND THAT DEFECTIVE
WORK SHOULD NOT BE PAID FOR.  ABOUT 75% OF THE EMPLOYEES ACCEPTED AND
WORKED UNDER THESE AGREEMENTS. 

ACCORDING TO THE BOARD'S STIPULATION AND FINDING, THE EXECUTION OF
THE CONTRACTS WAS NOT A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, NOR WAS THE STATUS OF
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY REASON OF SIGNING OR FAILING TO SIGN
THE CONTRACTS.  IT IS NOT FOUND OR CONTENDED THAT THE AGREEMENTS WERE
COERCED, OBTAINED BY ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, OR THAT THEY WERE NOT
VALID UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY WERE MADE. 

WHILE THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS EXECUTED AUGUST 1, 1941 WERE IN
EFFECT, A C.I.O. UNION PETITIONED THE BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION AS THE
EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES.  ON DECEMBER 17, 1941 A HEARING WAS HELD, AT WHICH THE
COMPANY URGED THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AS A BAR TO REPRESENTATION
PROCEEDINGS.  THE BOARD, HOWEVER, DIRECTED AN ELECTION, WHICH WAS WON
BY THE UNION.  THE UNION WAS THEREUPON CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION IN RESPECT TO
WAGES, HOURS, AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. 

THE UNION THEN ASKED THE COMPANY TO BARGAIN.  IT REFUSED, DECLARING
THAT IT COULD NOT DEAL WITH THE UNION IN ANY MANNER AFFECTING RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS WHILE THEY REMAINED IN
EFFECT.  IT OFFERED TO NEGOTIATE ON MATTERS WHICH DID NOT AFFECT RIGHTS
UNDER THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS, AND SAID THAT UPON THE EXPIRATION OF
THE CONTRACTS IT WOULD BARGAIN AS TO ALL MATTERS.  TWICE THE COMPANY
SENT CIRCULARS TO ITS EMPLOYEES ASSERTING THE VALIDITY OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AND STATING THE POSITION THAT IT TOOK BEFORE THE
BOARD IN REFERENCE TO THEM. 

THE BOARD HELD THAT THE COMPANY HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY,
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(5) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT; AND THAT
THE CONTRACTS HAD BEEN UTILIZED, BY MEANS OF THE CIRCULARS, TO IMPEDE
EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT,
WITH THE RESULT THAT THE COMPANY HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT.  IT ORDERED THE COMPANY TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE CONTRACTS, FROM EXTENDING
THEM OR ENTERING INTO NEW ONES, FROM REFUSING TO BARGAIN AND FROM
INTERFERING WITH THE EMPLOYEES; AND IT REQUIRED THE COMPANY TO GIVE
NOTICE ACCORDINGLY AND TO BARGAIN UPON REQUEST. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH MODIFICATION NOT IN ISSUE HERE,
GRANTED AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT.  THE ISSUES ARE UNSETTLED ONES
IMPORTANT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
IN DOING SO WE ASKED COUNSEL, IN VIEW OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AND THE NEGOTIATION OF A COLLECTIVE CONTRACT, TO
DISCUSS WHETHER THE CASE WAS MOOT.  IN VIEW OF THE CONTINUING CHARACTER
OF THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE ORDER WE THINK IT IS NOT, AND WILL
EXAMINE THE MERITS. 

CONTRACT IN LABOR LAW IS A TERM THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHICH MUST BE
DETERMINED FROM THE CONNECTION IN WHICH IT APPEARS.  COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF A UNIT, USUALLY
A UNION, RESULTS IN AN ACCORD AS TO TERMS WHICH WILL GOVERN HIRING AND
WORK AND PAY IN THAT UNIT.  THE RESULT IS NOT, HOWEVER, A CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT EXCEPT IN RARE CASES; NO ONE HAS A JOB BY REASON OF IT AND
NO OBLIGATION TO ANY INDIVIDUAL ORDINARILY COMES INTO EXISTENCE FROM IT
ALONE.  THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN UNION AND MANAGEMENT RESULT IN WHAT
OFTEN HAS BEEN CALLED A TRADE AGREEMENT, RATHER THAN IN A CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT.  WITHOUT PUSHING THE ANALOGY TOO FAR, THE AGREEMENT MAY BE
LIKENED TO THE TARIFFS ESTABLISHED BY A CARRIER, TO STANDARD PROVISIONS
PRESCRIBED BY SUPERVISING AUTHORITIES FOR INSURANCE POLICIES, OR TO
UTILITY SCHEDULES OF RATES AND RULES FOR SERVICE, WHICH DO NOT OF
THEMSELVES ESTABLISH ANY RELATIONSHIPS BUT WHICH DO GOVERN THE TERMS OF
THE SHIPPER OR INSURER OR CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP WHENEVER AND WITH
WHOMEVER IT MAY BE ESTABLISHED.  INDEED, IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
CONTRARY TO AMERICAN PRACTICE, THE TERMS OF A COLLECTIVELY NEGOTIATED
TRADE AGREEMENT ARE SUBMITTED TO A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND IF
APPROVED BECOME A GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION RULING EMPLOYMENT IN THE
UNIT.  FN1 

AFTER THE COLLECTIVE TRADE AGREEMENT IS MADE, THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
SHALL BENEFIT BY IT ARE IDENTIFIED BY INDIVIDUAL HIRINGS.  THE
EMPLOYER, EXCEPT AS RESTRICTED BY THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ITSELF AND
EXCEPT THAT HE MUST ENGAGE IN NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OR
DISCRIMINATION, IS FREE TO SELECT THOSE HE WILL EMPLOY OR DISCHARGE. 
BUT THE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT ALREADY HAVE BEEN TRADED OUT.  THERE IS
LITTLE LEFT TO INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENT EXCEPT THE ACT OF HIRING.  THIS
HIRING MAY BE BY WRITING OR BY WORD OF MOUTH OR MAY BE IMPLIED FROM
CONDUCT.  IN THE SENSE OF CONTRACTS OF HIRING, INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS
BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE ARE NOT FORBIDDEN, BUT INDEED ARE
NECESSITATED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCEDURE. 

BUT, HOWEVER ENGAGED, AN EMPLOYEE BECOMES ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THE
LABOR RELATIONS ACT SOMEWHAT AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY TO ALL
BENEFITS OF THE COLLECTIVE TRADE AGREEMENT, EVEN IF ON HIS OWN HE WOULD
YIELD TO LESS FAVORABLE TERMS.  THE INDIVIDUAL HIRING CONTRACT IS
SUBSIDIARY TO THE TERMS OF THE TRADE AGREEMENT AND MAY NOT WAIVE ANY OF
ITS BENEFITS, ANY MORE THAN A SHIPPER CAN CONTRACT AWAY THE BENEFIT OF
FILED TARIFFS, THE INSURER THE BENEFIT OF STANDARD PROVISIONS, OR THE
UTILITY CUSTOMER THE BENEFIT OF LEGALLY ESTABLISHED RATES. 

CONCURRENT EXISTENCE OF THESE TWO TYPES OF AGREEMENT RAISES PROBLEMS
AS TO WHICH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT MAKES NO EXPRESS
PROVISION.  WE HAVE, HOWEVER, HELD THAT INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OBTAINED
AS THE RESULT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE MAY NOT BE THE BASIS OF
ADVANTAGE TO THE VIOLATOR OF THE ACT NOR OF DISADVANTAGE TO EMPLOYEES. 
NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350.  BUT IT IS URGED
THAT WHERE, AS HERE, THE CONTRACTS WERE NOT UNFAIRLY OR UNLAWFULLY
OBTAINED, THE COURT INDICATED A CONTRARY RULE IN LABOR BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 44-45, AND VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V.
SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515.  WITHOUT REVIEWING THOSE CASES IN
DETAIL, IT MAY BE SAID THAT THEIR DECISION CALLED FOR NOTHING AND THEIR
OPINIONS CONTAIN NOTHING WHICH MAY BE PROPERLY READ TO RULE THE CASE
BEFORE US.  THE COURT IN THOSE CASES RECOGNIZED THE EXISTENCE OF SOME
SCOPE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS, BUT IT DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO DEFINE IT
OR TO CONSIDER THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LAWFUL INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENTS, WHICH IS THE PROBLEM NOW BEFORE US. 

CARE HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE OPINIONS OF THE COURT TO RESERVE A FIELD
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT, EVEN IN INDUSTRIES COVERED BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, NOT MERELY AS AN ACT OR EVIDENCE OF HIRING, BUT
ALSO IN THE SENSE OF A COMPLETELY INDIVIDUALLY BARGAINED CONTRACT
SETTING OUT TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT, BECAUSE THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN
WHICH IT MAY LEGALLY BE USED, IN FACT, IN WHICH THERE IS NO
ALTERNATIVE.  WITHOUT LIMITING THE POSSIBILITIES, INSTANCES SUCH AS THE
FOLLOWING WILL OCCUR:  MEN MAY CONTINUE WORK AFTER A COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT EXPIRES AND, DESPITE NEGOTIATION IN GOOD FAITH, THE
NEGOTIATION MAY BE DEADLOCKED OR DELAYED; IN THE INTERIM EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS MAY BE HELD TO GOVERN.  THE CONDITIONS
FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MAY NOT EXIST; THUS A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES MAY REFUSE TO JOIN A UNION OR TO AGREE UPON OR DESIGNATE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES, OR THE MAJORITY MAY NOT BE DEMONSTRABLE BY
THE MEANS PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE, OR A PREVIOUSLY EXISTENT MAJORITY
MAY HAVE BEEN LOST WITHOUT UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE BY THE EMPLOYER AND NO
NEW MAJORITY HAVE BEEN FORMED.  AS THE EMPLOYER IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
MAY BE UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, HE MAY BE
FREE TO ENTER INTO INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS.  FN2 

INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT JUSTIFY
THEIR EXECUTION OR WHAT THEIR TERMS, MAY NOT BE AVAILED OF TO DEFEAT OR
DELAY THE PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
LOOKING TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, NOR TO EXCLUDE THE CONTRACTING
EMPLOYEE FROM A DULY ASCERTAINED BARGAINING UNIT; NOR MAY THEY BE USED
TO FORESTALL BARGAINING OR TO LIMIT OR CONDITION THE TERMS OF THE
COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.  "THE BOARD ASSERTS A PUBLIC RIGHT VESTED IN IT
AS A PUBLIC BODY, CHARGED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH THE DUTY OF
PREVENTING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES."  NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 364.  WHEREVER PRIVATE CONTRACTS CONFLICT WITH ITS
FUNCTIONS, THEY OBVIOUSLY MUST YIELD OR THE ACT WOULD BE REDUCED TO A
FUTILITY. 

IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR SINCE THE COLLECTIVE TRADE AGREEMENT IS TO SERVE
THE PURPOSE CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT, THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT CANNOT BE
EFFECTIVE AS A WAIVER OF ANY BENEFIT TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE OTHERWISE
WOULD BE ENTITLED UNDER THE TRADE AGREEMENT.  THE VERY PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING BY STATUTE FOR THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT IS TO SUPERSEDE THE
TERMS OF SEPARATE AGREEMENTS OF EMPLOYEES WITH TERMS WHICH REFLECT THE
STRENGTH AND BARGAINING POWER AND SERVE THE WELFARE OF THE GROUP.  ITS
BENEFITS AND ADVANTAGES ARE OPEN TO EVERY EMPLOYEE OF THE REPRESENTED
UNIT, WHATEVER THE TYPE OR TERMS OF HIS PRE-EXISTING CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT. 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT SOME EMPLOYEES MAY LOSE BY THE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT, THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WORKMAN MAY SOMETIMES HAVE, OR BE CAPABLE
OF GETTING, BETTER TERMS THAN THOSE OBTAINABLE BY THE GROUP AND THAT
HIS FREEDOM OF CONTRACT MUST BE RESPECTED ON THAT ACCOUNT.  WE ARE NOT
CALLED UPON TO SAY THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN AN INDIVIDUAL
ENFORCE AN AGREEMENT MORE ADVANTAGEOUS THAN A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, BUT
WE FIND THE MERE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH AGREEMENTS MIGHT BE MADE NO
GROUND FOR HOLDING GENERALLY THAT INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS MAY SURVIVE OR
SURMOUNT COLLECTIVE ONES.  THE PRACTICE AND PHILOSOPHY OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING LOOKS WITH SUSPICION ON SUCH INDIVIDUAL ADVANTAGES.  OF
COURSE, WHERE THERE IS GREAT VARIATION IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF EMPLOYMENT
OR CAPACITY OF EMPLOYEES, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE COLLECTIVE BARGAIN TO
PRESCRIBE ONLY MINIMUM RATES OR MAXIMUM HOURS OR EXPRESSLY TO LEAVE
CERTAIN AREAS OPEN TO INDIVIDUAL BARGAINING.  BUT EXCEPT AS SO
PROVIDED, ADVANTAGES TO INDIVIDUALS MAY PROVE AS DISRUPTIVE OF
INDUSTRIAL PEACE AS DISADVANTAGES.  THEY ARE A FRUITFUL WAY OF
INTERFERING WITH ORGANIZATION AND CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES; INCREASED
COMPENSATION, IF INDIVIDUALLY DESERVED, IS OFTEN EARNED AT THE COST OF
BREAKING DOWN SOME OTHER STANDARD THOUGHT TO BE FOR THE WELFARE OF THE
GROUP, AND ALWAYS CREATES THE SUSPICION OF BEING PAID AT THE LONG-RANGE
EXPENSE OF THE GROUP AS A WHOLE.  SUCH DISCRIMINATIONS NOT INFREQUENTLY
AMOUNT TO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  THE WORKMAN IS FREE, IF HE VALUES
HIS OWN BARGAINING POSITION MORE THAN THAT OF THE GROUP, TO VOTE
AGAINST REPRESENTATION; BUT THE MAJORITY RULES, AND IF IT COLLECTIVIZES
THE EMPLOYMENT BARGAIN, INDIVIDUAL ADVANTAGES OR FAVORS WILL GENERALLY
IN PRACTICE GO IN AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE COLLECTIVE RESULT.  WE
CANNOT EXCEPT INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS GENERALLY FROM THE OPERATION OF
COLLECTIVE ONES BECAUSE SOME MAY BE MORE INDIVIDUALLY ADVANTAGEOUS. 
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS CANNOT SUBTRACT FROM COLLECTIVE ONES, AND WHETHER
UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THEY MAY ADD TO THEM IN MATTERS COVERED BY THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAIN, WE LEAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY APPROPRIATE FORUMS
UNDER THE LAWS OF CONTRACTS APPLICABLE, AND TO THE LABOR BOARD IF THEY
CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. 

IT ALSO IS URGED THAT SUCH INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS MAY EMBODY MATTERS
THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY INCLUDED WITHIN THE STATUTORY SCOPE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, SUCH AS STOCK PURCHASE, GROUP INSURANCE,
HOSPITALIZATION, OR MEDICAL ATTENTION.  WE KNOW OF NOTHING TO PREVENT
THE EMPLOYEE'S, BECAUSE HE IS AN EMPLOYEE, MAKING ANY CONTRACT PROVIDED
IT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT OR DOES NOT AMOUNT
TO OR RESULT FROM OR IS NOT PART OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  BUT IN
SO DOING THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT INCIDENTALLY EXACT OR OBTAIN ANY
DIMINUTION OF HIS OWN OBLIGATION OR ANY INCREASE OF THOSE OF EMPLOYEES
IN THE MATTERS COVERED BY COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.    HENCE WE FIND THAT
THE CONTENTIONS OF THE COMPANY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS PRECLUDED
A CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND WARRANTED REFUSAL TO BARGAIN DURING
THEIR DURATION WERE PROPERLY OVERRULED.  IT FOLLOWS THAT REPRESENTATION
TO THE EMPLOYEES BY CIRCULAR LETTER THAT THEY HAD SUCH LEGAL EFFECT WAS
IMPROPER AND COULD PROPERLY BE PROHIBITED BY THE BOARD. 

ONE MINOR MATTER REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION.  THE LITERAL TERMS OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRE THE COMPANY TO "CEASE AND DESIST FROM (A) GIVING
EFFECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY MODIFICATION,
CONTINUATION, EXTENSION, OR RENEWAL THEREOF, OR ENTERING INTO ANY
SIMILAR FORM OF CONTRACT WITH ITS EMPLOYEES FOR ANY PERIOD SUBSEQUENT
TO THE DATE OF THIS DECISION," AND TO GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO EACH TO
THAT EFFECT AND THAT "SUCH CONTRACT WILL NOT IN ANY MANNER BE ENFORCED
OR ATTEMPTED TO BE ENFORCED" AND THAT "SUCH DISCONTINUANCE OF THE
CONTRACT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ASSERTION OF ANY LEGAL RIGHTS THE
EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE ACQUIRED UNDER SUCH CONTRACT." 

THESE PROVISIONS, IT HAS BEEN ARGUED, GO BEYOND THE BOARD'S POWER,
LEAVE EMPLOYEES FREE TO BRING BUT THE COMPANY POWERLESS TO DEFEND
ACTIONS ON THE CONTRACT, AND PROHIBIT MAKING FUTURE CONTRACTS EVEN WHEN
NOT OBNOXIOUS TO THE LAW OR TO ANY COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT. 

THE BOARD, OF COURSE, HAS NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE THE VALIDITY OR
EFFECT OF SUCH CONTRACTS EXCEPT AS TO THEIR EFFECT ON MATTERS WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION.  NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA.  THE
BOARD, HOWEVER, WOULD CONSTRUE THE ORDER MORE NARROWLY THAN ITS TERMS
SUGGEST.  IT SAYS, "THE PROVISION IN QUESTION, AS WE HAVE SEEN, IS
BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE UTILIZED AS A MEANS OF
INTERFERING WITH RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE ACT AND CONSTITUTED AN
OBSTACLE TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS
FINDING, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CEASE AND DESIST PROVISIONS ENJOINS
PETITIONER ONLY FROM CONTINUING TO DERIVE BENEFITS FROM THE CONTRACTS
HERETOFORE UTILIZED TO FORESTALL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND DETER SELF
ORGANIZATION, AND FROM ENTERING INTO NEW CONTRACTS EITHER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AGAIN THUS UTILIZING THEM OR UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
SIMILAR INFRINGEMENT OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS WOULD BE A
PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE.  THE PARAGRAPH DOES NOT PREVENT PETITIONER FROM
CONTRACTING WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
NEGATIVE ANY INTENT TO INTERFERE WITH THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS UNDER THE
ACT.  ...  THUS CONSTRUED, THE CHALLENGED REQUIREMENT IS BUT A
REASONABLE SAFEGUARD ...  " 

WE AGREE, BUT THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORDER MAY WELL BE READ IN
QUITE DIFFERENT MEANING, ESPECIALLY WHEN SEPARATED FROM FINDINGS AND
STANDING ALONE IN THE COURT'S ENFORCEMENT ORDER.  IT THEN BECOMES THE
LANGUAGE OF THE COURT, AND THE COURT WOULD NOT BE BOUND TO LOOK UPON
THE BOARD'S CONSTRUCTION AS ITS OWN.  QUESTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION HAD
BETTER BE IRONED OUT BEFORE ENFORCEMENT ORDERS ISSUE THAN UPON CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS.  A PARTY IS ENTITLED TO A DEFINITION AS EXACT AS THE
CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT OF THE ACTS WHICH HE CAN PERFORM ONLY ON PAIN OF
CONTEMPT OF COURT.  NOR SHOULD HE BE ORDERED TO DESIST FROM MORE ON THE
THEORY THAT HE MAY VIOLATE THE LITERAL LANGUAGE AND THEN DEFEND BY
RESORT TO THE BOARD'S CONSTRUCTION OF IT.  COURTS' ORDERS ARE NOT TO BE
TRIFLED WITH, NOR SHOULD THEY INVITE LITIGATION AS TO THEIR MEANING. 
IT WILL OCCUR OFTEN ENOUGH WHEN EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT IS MADE TO
AVOID IT.  WHERE, AS HERE, THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORDER GOES
BEYOND WHAT THE BOARD ADMITS WAS INTENDED, CORRECTION SHOULD BE MADE. 
PARAGRAPHS 1(A) AND 2(A) OF THE DECREE OF THE COURT BELOW ARE HEREBY
MODIFIED, BY ADDING THE WORDS IN ITALICS, TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM: 

"(A)  GIVING EFFECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY
MODIFICATION, CONTINUATION, EXTENSION, OR RENEWAL THEREOF TO FORESTALL
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR DETER SELF-ORGANIZATION, OR ENTERING INTO ANY
SIMILAR FORM OF CONTRACT WITH ITS EMPLOYEES FOR ANY PERIOD SUBSEQUENT
TO THE DATE OF THIS DECREE FOR SUCH PURPOSE OR WITH SUCH EFFECT. 

"2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH THE BOARD FINDS WILL
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT: 

"(A)  GIVE SEPARATE WRITTEN NOTICE TO EACH OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHO SIGNED
AN INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY MODIFICATION, CONTINUATION,
EXTENSION, OR RENEWAL THEREOF, OR ANY SIMILAR FORM OF CONTRACT FOR ANY
PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS DECREE, THAT SUCH CONTRACT WILL
NOT IN ANY MANNER BE ENFORCED OR ATTEMPTED TO BE ENFORCED TO FORESTALL
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR DETER SELF-ORGANIZATION, THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS
NOT REQUIRED OR EXPECTED BY VIRTUE OF SUCH CONTRACT TO DEAL WITH
RESPONDENT INDIVIDUALLY IN RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT SUCH
DISCONTINUANCE OF THE CONTRACT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ASSERTION OF
ANY LEGAL RIGHTS THE EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE ACQUIRED UNDER SUCH CONTRACT OR
TO ANY DEFENSES THERETO BY THE EMPLOYER." 

AS SO MODIFIED THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE HAMBURGER, THE EXTENSION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS TO COVER
ENTIRE TRADE AND INDUSTRIES (1939) 40 INTERNATIONAL LABOR REVIEW 153;
METHODS OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, WORKERS'
ORGANIZATIONS, AND EMPLOYERS' ORGANIZATIONS (INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
CONFERENCE, 1940) P. 112. 

FN2  CF. LABOR BOARD V. SANDS MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332; LABOR BOARD V.
COLUMBIAN ENAMELING & STAMPING CO., 306 U.S. 292, 297-98; LABOR BOARD
V. BRASHEAR FREIGHT LINES, 119 F.2D 379; HOENIGER, THE INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND INDIVIDUAL BARGAIN, 10 FORDHAM L. REV. 14, 22
25. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 
..END :










TELEGRAPHERS V. RY. EXPRESS AGENCY, 321 U.S. 342 


NO. 343.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1944.  - 137
F.2D 46, REVERSED. 


1.  FAILURE OF THE CARRIER TO GIVE NOTICE, TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE EMPLOYEES, OF AN INTENDED CHANGE AFFECTING RATES OF PAY OF CERTAIN
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES WAS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT OF 1926, APPLICABLE TO THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION, AND
RENDERED INEFFECTIVE THE INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO; AND THE
AWARD OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD, BASED ON THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, WAS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  P. 346. 

2.  AN AWARD OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT,
HELD ENFORCIBLE IN A PROCEEDING IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BEGUN
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE AWARD, AND NOT BARRED BY A STATE
STATUTE OF LIMITATION OF SIX YEARS (EVEN IF APPLICABLE) MERELY BECAUSE
THE CLAIMS BECAME SIX YEARS OLD WHILE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE
THE BOARD.  P. 348. THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 137 F.2D 46. 

ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 727, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT TO ENFORCE AN AWARD OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS HOARY LITIGATION PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER A CARRIER BY
CONTRACTS WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES MADE IN 1930 COULD SUPERSEDE OR
EXPAND TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED BETWEEN THE
EMPLOYER AND THE UNION IN 1917, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, WHICH WAS APPLICABLE WHEN THE CONTROVERSY
AROSE. 

PETITIONER WAS A UNION DESIGNATED TO REPRESENT CERTAIN CRAFTS AND
CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS BY RAILROAD.  EMPLOYEES HERE INVOLVED
ARE AGENTS AT STATIONS ON THE SEABOARD AIRLINE RAILROAD, WHO PRIMARILY
ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE RAILWAY AND SECONDARILY OF THE RAILWAY EXPRESS
AGENCY; THEY RECEIVE COMPENSATION FROM EACH EMPLOYER.  FOR SOME YEARS
THEY WERE REPRESENTED BY THE UNION IN BARGAINING COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS
WITH PREDECESSOR EXPRESS COMPANIES.  THE LAST WAS EXECUTED IN 1917 AND
WAS ASSUMED BY THIS RESPONDENT MARCH 1, 1929. 

IN 1930, THE EXPRESS COMPANY BEGAN TO HANDLE NEW BUSINESS CONSISTING
MAINLY OF CARLOAD SHIPMENTS OF PERISHABLES WHICH FORMERLY HAD BEEN
HANDLED BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY AS FREIGHT.  THE EXPRESS COMPANY
THOUGHT THE CHANGE IN VOLUME AND CHARACTER OF ITS SHIPMENTS WARRANTED
AN ADJUSTMENT OF RATES OF PAY APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN OF THE AGENCIES
WHERE THE SHIPMENTS ORIGINATED.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, THEN IN
EFFECT, PROVIDED THAT CARRIERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES SHOULD
GIVE AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN INTENDED CHANGE
AFFECTING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS, AND SHOULD AGREE
UPON TIME AND PLACE OF CONFERENCE.  FN1  THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ALSO
PROVIDED THAT NO CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE IN ITS TERMS "UNTIL AFTER 30
DAYS' NOTICE IN WRITING HAS BEEN GIVEN."  THE EXPRESS COMPANY GAVE NO
SUCH NOTICE TO THE UNION SIGNATORY TO THE 1917 COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT. 
INSTEAD, IT GAVE INDIVIDUAL NOTICES TO THE AGENTS THAT THEIR
COMPENSATION FOR SUCH SHIPMENTS WOULD BE $5.00 PER CAR, THE NOTICES ON
ONE DIVISION GOING OUT ON MARCH 25, AND THOSE ON ANOTHER, APRIL 8, AND
ALL BECOMING EFFECTIVE APRIL 10, 1930.  THE AGENTS INVOLVED, AFTER
VARIOUS OBJECTIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS, INDIVIDUALLY ACCEPTED THE RATE,
ALTHOUGH THERE IS CONTROVERSY AS TO WHETHER THEIR ACCEPTANCE WAS WHOLLY
VOLUNTARY.  FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION, HOWEVER, WE ASSUME VOLUNTARY
ASSENT AND THAT BUT FOR PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT VALID
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS RESULTED. 

THE LOCAL CHAIRMAN OF THE UNION PROTESTED AND INSISTED THAT
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MUST CONTROL THE COMPENSATION OF THE AGENTS.  THE
EXPRESS COMPANY DECLINED TO ACCEDE TO THE CLAIMS, AND THE UNION'S CLAIM
THAT THE AGENTS MUST BE COMPENSATED UNDER THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
REMAINED UNADJUSTED.  ATTEMPTS TO ADJUST WERE RENEWED BY THE GENERAL
CHAIRMAN, BUT NO VOLUNTARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS AGREED UPON AS
PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE 1926 ACT.  FN2  THE STATUTORY BOARD WAS
CREATED IN 1934,  FN3  THE COMPANY REFUSED TO JOIN THE UNION IN A
PETITION, AND THE UNION ON OCTOBER 8, 1935, GAVE NOTICE OF ITS
INTENTION TO REFER THE DISPUTE TO THE BOARD.  THE COMPANY CHALLENGED
THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, A HEARING WAS HAD, THE BI-PARTISAN BOARD
DEADLOCKED, A REFEREE WAS NAMED, AND IN 1936 OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION
WERE OVERRULED AND A HEARING ON THE MERITS WAS DIRECTED.  AFTER THE
HEARING THE BOARD AGAIN DEADLOCKED, AGAIN A REFEREE WAS CHOSEN, AND ON
DECEMBER 15, 1937, AN AWARD SUSTAINING THE CLAIMS THAT THE AGENTS WERE
ENTITLED TO THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY THE COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED
AGREEMENT WAS MADE, ACCOMPANIED BY A HOLDING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS WERE INEFFECTIVE.  THE COMPANY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
AWARD AND IN DECEMBER 1939, AFTER ALMOST TWO YEARS, THE PRESENT ACTION
WAS COMMENCED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURTS
ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE AWARDS OF THE BOARD, ITS ORDERS AND
FINDINGS BEING DECLARED TO BE "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS
THEREIN STATED."  LAWS 1934, C. 691, SEC. 3, FIRST (P), 48 STAT. 1192. 
IN JUNE 1942 DECISION WAS RENDERED BY WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT ENFORCED
THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD'S AWARD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED
UPON THE GROUND THAT THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT HAD BEEN SUPERSEDED
VALIDLY BY THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AND UPON THE FURTHER GROUND THAT
THE CLAIMS UNDER COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  FN4  THESE QUESTIONS ARE UNSETTLED ONES IMPORTANT TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CURRENT RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  FN5 

1.  THE COMPANY CONTENDS THAT SPECIAL VOLUNTARY INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS
AS TO RATES OF PAY, RULES, AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT MAY VALIDLY BE
MADE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTENCE OF A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT, AND THAT
THE TERMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS SUPERSEDE THOSE OF THE
COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED ONE.  IF THIS WERE TRUE, STATUTES REQUIRING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WOULD HAVE LITTLE SUBSTANCE, FOR WHAT WAS MADE
COLLECTIVELY COULD BE PROMPTLY UNMADE INDIVIDUALLY.  IT IS SAID,
HOWEVER, THAT IN THIS CASE THE AGREEMENTS AFFECT RELATIVELY FEW AGENTS
AND THAT THOSE ARE SPECIALLY AND UNIQUELY SITUATED.  THIS APPARENTLY IS
TRUE, FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT RESULTS IN AN
AWARD OF SOME $40,000 TO ONE AGENT OVER THE PERIOD AND LESS THAN $2,000
TO ALL OF THE OTHERS, AND MOST OF THE AWARDS ARE FOR A FEW HUNDRED
DOLLARS. 

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WAS NOT DEFINED BY THE STATUTE WHICH PROVIDED
FOR IT, BUT IT GENERALLY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED TO ABSORB AND GIVE
STATUTORY APPROVAL TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF BARGAINING AS WORKED OUT IN THE
LABOR MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES.  FN6  FROM THE FIRST THE POSITION
OF LABOR WITH REFERENCE TO THE WAGE STRUCTURE OF AN INDUSTRY HAS BEEN
MUCH LIKE THAT OF THE CARRIERS ABOUT RATE STRUCTURES.  FN7  IT IS
INSISTED THAT EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS OFTEN HAVE AN IMPORTANCE TO THE
WHOLE BECAUSE THEY INTRODUCE COMPETITIONS AND DISCRIMINATIONS THAT ARE
UPSETTING TO THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.  HENCE EFFECTIVE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING HAS BEEN GENERALLY CONCEDED TO INCLUDE THE RIGHT OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNIT TO BE CONSULTED AND TO BARGAIN ABOUT THE
EXCEPTIONAL AS WELL AS THE ROUTINE RATES, RULES, AND WORKING
CONDITIONS.  COLLECTIVE BARGAINS NEED NOT AND DO NOT ALWAYS SETTLE OR
EMBRACE EVERY EXCEPTION.  IT MAY BE AGREED THAT PARTICULAR SITUATIONS
ARE RESERVED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTING, EITHER COMPLETELY OR WITHIN
PRESCRIBED LIMITS.  HAD THIS PROPOSED RATE OF PAY BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SETTLED THEREBY OR
MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN AN AGREEMENT THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD BE FREE TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE AGENTS SEVERALLY.  BUT THE COMPANY DID NOT OBSERVE
THE RIGHT OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WHOLE UNIT TO BE NOTIFIED AND
DEALT WITH CONCERNING A MATTER WHICH FROM AN EMPLOYEE'S POINT OF VIEW
MAY NOT BE EXCEPTIONAL OR WHICH MAY PROVIDE A LEVERAGE FOR TAKING AWAY
OTHER ADVANTAGES OF THE COLLECTIVE CONTRACT. 

THE DECISION IN J.I. CASE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, ANTE, P. 332, CONSIDERS
MORE GENERALLY THE RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS TO COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, AND MUCH THAT IS SAID IN THAT OPINION IS APPLICABLE HERE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE FAILURE OF THE CARRIER TO PROCEED AS PROVIDED BY THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, THEN APPLICABLE, LEFT THE COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT IN FORCE THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD AND THAT THE CARRIER'S EFFORTS
TO MODIFY ITS TERMS THROUGH INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENTS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE. 
THE AWARD, THEREFORE, WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 

2.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE CLAIMS BARRED BY THE STATE
SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE IN THE FORUM.  IT IS TRUE
THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE AWARD RESULTS IN ENTERING JUDGMENT IN 1942
ON CLAIMS THAT BEGAN TO ACCRUE IN 1930 AND SOME OF WHICH CEASED TO
ACCRUE OVER SIX YEARS BEFORE THE SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
COMMENCED.  IT ALSO IS TRUE THAT SOME OF THESE HAVE ACCRUED IN LARGE
AMOUNTS. 

IF THE ACTION BROUGHT IN 1939 HAD BEEN A COMMON-LAW ACTION TO RECOVER
WAGES, LIKE THAT IN MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 312 U.S. 630, A
QUITE DIFFERENT QUESTION OF LIMITATIONS WOULD BE PRESENTED.  THE ACTION
AS BROUGHT, HOWEVER, WAS NOT A COMMON-LAW ACTION BUT ONE OF STATUTORY
ORIGIN TO ENFORCE THE AWARD OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.  A SPECIAL
TWO-YEAR LIMITATION FROM THE TIME OF AWARD WAS PRESCRIBED BY THE
FEDERAL STATUTE,  FN8  AND THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT WITHIN THAT PERIOD. 
IT IS CLEAR THAT AS AN ACTION TO ENFORCE THE AWARD THE SUIT WAS NOT
BARRED, AND IT MUST THEREFORE HAVE BEEN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE STATUTE BARRED THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
FROM MAKING AN AWARD ON CLAIMS SO OLD.  THERE IS NO FEDERAL STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO UNADJUSTED CLAIMS WHICH THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
MAY CONSIDER.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
CAN RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL TO
CONSIDER AND ADJUST CLAIMS.  MOREOVER, EVEN IF THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE DID
APPLY TO THE CLAIMS UNDER THE COLLECTIVE CONTRACT, AS WE THINK IT DID
NOT, PROCEEDINGS ON THESE CLAIMS WERE INITIATED BEFORE THE BOARD WELL
WITHIN THAT TIME. 

IF, THEREFORE, THESE CLAIMS ARE BARRED, IT MUST BE BECAUSE THE TIME
OCCUPIED IN THEIR LITIGATION BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OPERATES TO
DEFEAT THEM.  A STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CAN HARDLY DESTROY A CLAIM
BECAUSE THE PERIOD OF ACTUAL CONTEST OVER IT IN A FEDERAL TRIBUNAL
EXTENDS BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD. 

STATUTES OF LIMITATION, LIKE THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, IN
THEIR CONCLUSIVE EFFECTS ARE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE JUSTICE BY PREVENTING
SURPRISES THROUGH THE REVIVAL OF CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO
SLUMBER UNTIL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN LOST, MEMORIES HAVE FADED, AND
WITNESSES HAVE DISAPPEARED.  THE THEORY IS THAT EVEN IF ONE HAS A JUST
CLAIM IT IS UNJUST NOT TO PUT THE ADVERSARY ON NOTICE TO DEFEND WITHIN
THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND THAT THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF STALE CLAIMS
IN TIME COMES TO PREVAIL OVER THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE THEM.  HERE, WHILE
THE LITIGATION SHOWS NO EVIDENCE OF RECKLESS HASTE ON THE PART OF
EITHER PARTY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CLAIMS WERE NOT TIMELY
PURSUED. 

REGRETTABLE AS THE LONG DELAY HAS BEEN IT HAS BEEN CAUSED BY THE
EXIGENCIES OF THE CONTEST, NOT BY THE NEGLECT TO PROCEED.  WE FIND NO
BASIS FOR APPLYING A STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO CUT OFF THE RIGHT
OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD TO CONSIDER THE CLAIMS OR TO ABSOLVE THE COURTS
FROM THE DUTY TO ENFORCE AN AWARD. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 6, 44 STAT. 582.  THIS PROVIDED:  "CARRIERS AND THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES SHALL GIVE AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS'
WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN INTENDED CHANGE AFFECTING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR
WORKING CONDITIONS, AND THE TIME AND PLACE FOR CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES INTERESTED IN SUCH INTENDED CHANGES
SHALL BE AGREED UPON WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF SAID NOTICE,
AND SAID TIME SHALL BE WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS PROVIDED IN THE NOTICE. 
...  "  THE 1934 ACT CONTAINS A SIMILAR PROVISION.  SEC. 6, 48 STAT.
1197, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 156. 

FN2  44 STAT. 578. 

FN3  ACT OF 1934, SEC. 3, 48 STAT. 1189.  SEC. 3, FIRST (I) PROVIDES:
"THE DISPUTES BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES AND A CARRIER
OR CARRIERS GROVING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR
APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING
CONDITIONS, INCLUDING CASES PENDING AND UNADJUSTED ON THE DATE OF
APPROVAL OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE HANDLED IN THE USUAL MANNER UP TO AND
INCLUDING THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CARRIER DESIGNATED TO
HANDLE SUCH DISPUTES; BUT, FAILING TO REACH AN ADJUSTMENT IN THIS
MANNER, THE DISPUTES MAY BE REFERRED BY PETITION OF THE PARTIES OR BY
EITHER PARTY TO THE APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD WITH A
FULL STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND ALL SUPPORTING DATA BEARING UPON THE
DISPUTES." 

FN4  137 F.2D 46. 

FN5  320 U.S. 727. 

FN6  CF. H.J. HEINZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 514, 523-26. 

FN7  SEE LENHOFF, THE PRESENT STATUS OF COLLECTIVE CONTRACTS IN THE
AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM, 39 MICH. L. REV. 1109; DAUGHERTY, LABOR PROBLEMS
IN AMERICAN INDUSTRY (1933) P. 415; TAYLOR, LABOR PROBLEMS AND LABOR
LAW (1938) P. 85 ET SEQ.; GOLDEN AND RUTTENBERG, THE DYNAMICS OF
INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY (1942) PP. 23-26, 82 ET SEQ. 

FN8  ACT OF 1934, SEC. 3, FIRST (Q), 48 STAT. 1192, 45 U.S.C. SEC.
153, FIRST (Q):  "ALL ACTIONS AT LAW BASED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACTION ACCRUES UNDER THE AWARD OF THE DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD,
AND NOT AFTER." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE OPINION OF
..END :
























COMMISSIONER V. LANE-WELLS CO., 321 U.S. 219 


NO. 115.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1944.  - 134
F.2D 977, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY, FOR THE YEARS 1934, 1935 AND
1936, FAILED TO MAKE AND FILE A SEPARATE RETURN ON FORM 1120H, AS
REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE AND VALID TREASURY REGULATIONS, IN RESPECT OF
THE SURTAX IMPOSED ON PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANIES BY TITLE IA OF THE
REVENUE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936, HELD THAT ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX MAY BE
MADE AT ANY TIME, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE CORPORATION MADE AND FILED
FOR EACH YEAR A RETURN ON FORM 1120 IN RESPECT OF THE ORDINARY INCOME
TAX IMPOSED BY TITLE I OF THE ACTS.  P. 222. 

THE FILING OF THE ORDINARY INCOME-TAX RETURNS, IN WHICH THE
CORPORATION ERRONEOUSLY DENIED THAT IT WAS A PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY,
DID NOT START THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNNING AGAINST ASSESSMENT OF
THE SURTAX. 

2.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1935, IMPOSITION OF THE
PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE A RETURN (AS DISTINGUISHED FROM TARDILY
FILING) IS MANDATORY; BUT UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 THE TAXPAYER
MAY BE RELIEVED OF THE PENALTY WHERE THE FAILURE TO FILE WAS "DUE TO
REASONABLE CAUSE AND NOT DUE TO WILLFUL NEGLECT."  P. 224. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. LANE-WELLS CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 724, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 43 B.T.A. 463, WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF DEFICIENCIES IN PERSONAL-HOLDING-COMPANY SURTAX AND
PENALTIES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE LANE-WELLS COMPANY IS A TRANSFEREE AND SUCCESSOR OF THE TAXPAYER
TECHNICRAFT ENGINEERING CORPORATION AND AS SUCH IS LIABLE FOR ITS
TAXES.  THE COMMISSIONER, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS,  FN1 AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  FN2  HAVE HELD THAT TECHNICRAFT WAS A
PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY IN 1934, 1935, AND 1936, AND THAT QUESTION IS
NO LONGER OPEN. 

FOR THE YEARS NAMED, TECHNICRAFT FILED THE USUAL CORPORATION INCOME
TAX RETURNS ON TREASURY FORM 1120.  ON THIS FORM THE FOLLOWING
APPEARED:  "IS THE CORPORATION A PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SECTION 351 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934(OR THE APPROPRIATE
YEAR)?  (IF SO, AN ADDITIONAL RETURN ON FORM 1120H MUST BE FILED.)"  TO
THIS EACH YEAR TECHNICRAFT ANSWERED, "NO."  IN NONE OF THE YEARS IN
QUESTION DID IT FILE A PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RETURN ON FORM 1120H. 
IT WAS ADVISED, AND IN GOOD FAITH BELIEVED, THAT IT WAS NOT A PERSONAL
HOLDING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 

THE COMMISSIONER RELIES UPON THE TAXPAYER'S ALLEGED DEFAULT IN TWO
RESPECTS.  FIRST, THE DEFICIENCY NOTICES WERE GIVEN WITHIN THREE YEARS
OF THE FILING OF THE CORPORATE RETURN ON FORM 1120 FOR THE YEAR 1936,
BUT NOT WITHIN THREE YEARS OF SUCH RETURNS FOR 1934 AND 1935 AND NOT
WITHIN FOUR YEARS (THE PERIOD AS TO A TRANSFEREE) OF THE 1934 RETURN. 
HENCE, A PART OF THE TAX IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IF THE
RETURN FILED IS THE ONLY ONE REQUIRED TO START THE STATUTE.  SECOND,
THE COMMISSIONER HAS ASSESSED AND THE BOARD HAS UPHELD AS TO EACH YEAR
A 25 PER CENT PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY
RETURN. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  IT HELD THE ONE RETURN SUFFICIENT TO START
THE RUNNING OF THE LIMITATION STATUTE AS TO BOTH INCOME TAXES AND
PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY TAXES AND HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT
WARRANTING IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY.  THIS DECISION CONFLICTED WITH
THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN SIMPSON & CO. V.
HELVERING, 128 F.2D 742, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

PRIOR TO 1934, AS NOW, PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANIES WERE LIABLE FOR THE
REGULAR CORPORATION INCOME TAXES UNDER TITLE I OF THE REVENUE ACTS AND
THEY, LIKE ALL OTHER CORPORATIONS, WERE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL TAX UPON
AN ACCUMULATION OF PROFITS WHERE THERE WAS PRESENT A PURPOSE OF
AVOIDING SURTAXES UPON SHAREHOLDERS.  FN3  THE OBSCURITY OF CORPORATE
TAXPAYERS' PURPOSES AND DIFFICULTIES OF PROOF MADE THE LATTER TAX
SOMETHING OF A DEAD LETTER IN PRACTICE, AND A NEW TAX WAS DEVISED "TO
PROVIDE FOR A TAX WHICH WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY LEVIED UPON THE HOLDING
COMPANY WITHOUT ANY NECESSITY FOR PROVING A PURPOSE OF AVOIDING
SURTAXES."  FN4  THE NEW TAX WAS INCLUDED IN A SEPARATE TITLE OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934, TITLE IA - ADDITIONAL INCOME TAXES, AND
CONSTITUTED SEC. 351, ENTITLED SURTAX ON PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANIES. 
AS PART (C) THEREOF IT ENACTED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS,
INCLUDING PENALTIES, APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE TAXES IMPOSED BY
TITLE I SHOULD APPLY IN RESPECT OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION. 
FN5  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THIS SECTION CREATED A NEW TAX SEPARATE FROM
THAT ON INCOME OF ORDINARY CORPORATIONS. 

AMONG THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS OF TITLE I INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE IN THE PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY TAX SECTION ARE SEC. 54(A),
FN6  WHICH REQUIRES ONE LIABLE FOR SUCH TAX TO "MAKE SUCH RETURNS, AND
COMPLY WITH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, AS THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, MAY FROM TIME TO TIME PRESCRIBE," AND SEC.
62, WHICH DIRECTS THE COMMISSIONER TO PRESCRIBE AND PUBLISH "ALL
NEEDFUL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS TITLE."  FN7
PURSUANT THERETO TREASURY REGULATIONS WERE PROMULGATED PROVIDING
UNEQUIVOCALLY:  "A SEPARATE RETURN IS REQUIRED FOR THE SURTAX IMPOSED
UNDER SECTION 351.  SUCH RETURN SHALL BE MADE ON FORM 1120H."  FN8 

THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THIS REGULATION.  IT SAYS,
HOWEVER, THAT ITS REGULAR CORPORATION INCOME TAX RETURN MUST BE TAKEN
AS AN EQUIVALENT TO THE SEPARATE RETURN, UNDER OUR DECISION IN
GERMANTOWN TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 304, BOTH FOR STARTING
THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND FOR AVOIDING THE PENALTY.  THE TAXPAYER IN
THE GERMANTOWN CASE FILED A RETURN ON A WRONG FORM.  THE RETURN
CONTAINED, HOWEVER, "ALL OF THE DATA FROM WHICH A TAX COULD BE COMPUTED
AND ASSESSED ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT PURPORT TO STATE ANY AMOUNT DUE AS
TAX," AND THE COURT SAID, "THIS DEFECT FALLS SHORT OF RENDERING IT NO
RETURN WHATEVER."  309 U.S. AT 308, 310.  THERE THE ONLY LIABILITY
INVOLVED WAS FOR A TITLE I INCOME TAX, AND THE RETURN WAS ADDRESSED TO
THAT LIABILITY, AS TO WHICH THE COURT HELD THAT IT SET THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS RUNNING.  HERE THE TAXPAYER IS UNDER LIABILITIES FOR TWO
TAXES AND UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO FILE TWO RETURNS, AND IT SAYS THAT ONE
RETURN ADDRESSED TO BUT ONE OF THE LIABILITIES ANSWERS THE PURPOSE OF
BOTH. 

IT IS CONTENDED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE RETURNS IN THE PRESENT
CASE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO ADVISE THE COMMISSIONER THAT ANY LIABILITY
EXISTED FOR THE HOLDING-COMPANY TAX.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND
THAT THE RETURNS FILED BY THE CORPORATION DISCLOSED ITS GROSS INCOME
AND DEDUCTIONS AND ITS RESULTING NET INCOME.  43 B.T.A. 470, 471.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONSTRUED THIS AS FINDING THAT THEY "SHOWED
ALL THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE RESPONDENT TO COMPUTE THE TAXES AS A
PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY OBLIGATION."  134 F.2D AT 978.  BUT IT SEEMS
ADMITTED THAT THE RETURNS DID NOT SHOW THE FACTS ON WHICH LIABILITY
WOULD BE PREDICATED.  SUCH LIABILITY WAS EXPRESSLY DENIED BY THE
RETURN, AND TO OBTAIN DATA ON WHICH CORPORATIONS SUBJECT TO THE TAX
COULD BE IDENTIFIED AND ASSESSED WAS THE VERY PURPOSE OF REQUIRING A
SEPARATE RETURN ADDRESSED TO THAT LIABILITY.  TAXPAYER SAYS THAT THE
INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY FORM 1120H IS INFORMATION THAT COULD HAVE
BEEN CALLED FOR BY FORM 1120.  WE ASSUME SO, BUT WE DO NOT SEE HOW THE
FACT HELPS THE TAXPAYER, FOR THE TREASURY WAS FULLY WITHIN THE STATUTE
IN REQUIRING THAT INFORMATION IN A SEPARATE RETURN. 

CONGRESS HAS GIVEN DISCRETION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PRESCRIBE BY
REGULATION FORMS OF RETURNS AND HAS MADE IT THE DUTY OF THE TAXPAYER TO
COMPLY.  IT THUS IMPLEMENTS THE SYSTEM OF SELF-ASSESSMENT WHICH IS SO
LARGELY THE BASIS OF OUR AMERICAN SCHEME OF INCOME TAXATION.  THE
PURPOSE IS NOT ALONE TO GET TAX INFORMATION IN SOME FORM BUT ALSO TO
GET IT WITH SUCH UNIFORMITY, COMPLETENESS, AND ARRANGEMENT THAT THE
PHYSICAL TASK OF HANDLING AND VERIFYING RETURNS MAY BE READILY
ACCOMPLISHED.  FOR SUCH PURPOSES THE REGULATION REQUIRING TWO SEPARATE
RETURNS FOR THESE TAXES WAS A REASONABLE AND VALID ONE AND THE FINDING
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT THE TAXPAYER IS IN DEFAULT IS
CORRECT. 

SINCE NO PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RETURNS WERE FILED, THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS DID NOT COMMENCE TO RUN,  FN9  AND THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
TAX WAS NOT BARRED.  FN10 

SINCE THE TAXPAYER DEFAULTED IN FILING A REQUIRED RETURN FOR THE
YEARS 1934 AND 1935, THE 25 PER CENT PENALTY IN THE APPLICABLE ACTS
BECAME MANDATORY  FN11  AND WAS CORRECTLY UPHELD BY THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS. 

FOR 1936 THE PENALTY PRESENTS A DIFFERENT QUESTION.  THE STATUTE
APPLICABLE PROVIDES THAT IT COULD BE LIFTED IF IT WERE SHOWN THAT SUCH
FAILURE WAS "DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AND NOT DUE TO WILLFUL NEGLECT." 
REVENUE ACT OF 1936, SEC. 291, 49 STAT. 1727.  THE BOARD HAS MADE NO
FINDING ON THAT SUBJECT, APPARENTLY ASSUMING THAT THE MANDATORY
PROVISIONS APPLIED TO ALL YEARS.  THE QUESTION IS ONE OF FACT IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE FOR THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION.  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER,
320 U.S. 489.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OBJECT TO A REMAND TO THE BOARD
FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF RECONSIDERING THE IMPOSITION OF THE 25 PER
CENT PENALTY FOR THE YEAR 1936 ONLY, IF THE RESPONDENT SHALL SEASONABLY
APPLY TO THE BOARD THEREFOR.  IN ALL THINGS ELSE THE DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE
TAX COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  43 B.T.A. 463. 

FN2  134 F.2D 977, 980. 

FN3  E.G., REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC. 104, 47 STAT. 195. 

FN4  SEN. REP. NO. 558, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 15; 1939-1 CUM.
BULL.  (PART 2) 586, 596. 

FN5  SEC. 351(C) PROVIDES:  "ALL PROVISIONS OF LAW (INCLUDING
PENALTIES) APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE TAXES IMPOSED BY TITLE I OF
THIS ACT, SHALL INSOFAR AS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SECTION, BE
APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION, EXCEPT THAT
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 131 OF THAT TITLE SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE." 
48 STAT. 752. 

FN6  SEC. 54(A) PROVIDES:  "EVERY PERSON LIABLE TO ANY TAX IMPOSED BY
THIS TITLE OR FOR THE COLLECTION THEREOF, SHALL KEEP SUCH RECORDS,
RENDER UNDER OATH SUCH STATEMENTS, MAKE SUCH RETURNS, AND COMPLY WITH
SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, AS THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF
THE SECRETARY, MAY FROM TIME TO TIME PRESCRIBE."  48 STAT. 698. 

FN7  SEC. 62 PROVIDES:  "THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
SECRETARY, SHALL PRESCRIBE AND PUBLISH ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND
REGULATIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS TITLE."  48 STAT. 700. 

FN8  REGULATIONS 86 AND 94, ARTICLE 351-8. 

FN9  THE STATUTE PROVIDES:  "IN THE CASE OF A FALSE OR FRAUDULENT
RETURN WITH INTENT TO EVADE TAX OR OF A FAILURE TO FILE A RETURN THE
TAX MAY BE ASSESSED, OR A PROCEEDING IN COURT FOR THE COLLECTION OF
SUCH TAX MAY BE BEGUN WITHOUT ASSESSMENT, AT ANY TIME."  SEC. 276(A),
48 STAT. 745. 

FN10  THE TREASURY REGULATION ALSO PROVIDED:  "THE SAME PROVISIONS OF
LAW RELATING TO THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION
WHICH GOVERN THE TAXES IMPOSED BY TITLE I ALSO APPLY TO THE SURTAX
IMPOSED UNDER TITLE IA.  HOWEVER, SINCE THE SURTAX IMPOSED UNDER TITLE
IA IS A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE TAX FROM THOSE IMPOSED UNDER TITLE I, THE
MAKING OF A RETURN UNDER TITLE I WILL NOT START THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE SURTAX IMPOSED UNDER TITLE IA.  IF THE
CORPORATION SUBJECT TO SECTION 351 FAILS TO MAKE A RETURN, THE TAX MAY
BE ASSESSED AT ANY TIME."  REGULATIONS 86, ART. 351-8. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THIS UNAUTHORIZED.  AS WE HAVE
INDICATED, WE DO NOT AGREE THAT IT WAS BEYOND THE DELEGATED AUTHORITY,
AND IT APPEARS ONLY TO DECLARE WHAT WAS EVEN OTHERWISE THE LAW. 

FN11  THE 1934 STATUTE READS:  "IN CASE OF ANY FAILURE TO MAKE AND
FILE A RETURN REQUIRED BY THIS TITLE, WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY LAW
OR PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN PURSUANCE OF LAW, 25 PER CENTUM OF
THE TAX SHALL BE ADDED TO THE TAX, EXCEPT THAT WHEN A RETURN IS FILED
AFTER SUCH TIME AND IT IS SHOWN THAT THE FAILURE TO FILE IT WAS DUE TO
REASONABLE CAUSE AND NOT DUE TO WILLFUL NEGLECT NO SUCH ADDITION SHALL
BE MADE TO THE TAX."  SEC. 291, 48 STAT. 746.  A 25 PER CENT PENALTY IS
LIKEWISE MANDATORY IN THIS CASE UNDER SEC. 406 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1935, 49 STAT. 1014.  THIS PROVISION EXCUSES LATE FILING, FOR
REASONABLE CAUSE, BUT NOT COMPLETE FAILURE TO FILE. 
..END :


















R. SIMPSON & CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 321 U.S. 225 


NO. 1.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1944.  - 128
F.2D 742, WRIT DISMISSED. 


OF A CASE TO WHICH SEC. 1140(B)(2) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS
APPLICABLE, THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AFTER A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI HAS BEEN DENIED AND THE PERIOD OF 25 DAYS ALLOWED BY
RULE 33 FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REHEARING HAS EXPIRED.  P. 229. 

R. SIMPSON & CO., INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 778, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 44 B.T.A. 498.  THIS COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY
DENIED CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 677. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FOR THE YEARS 1934, 1935, AND 1936 THE TAXPAYER, A CORPORATION, FILED
COMPLETE INCOME AND EXCESS-PROFITS TAX RETURNS ON FORM 1120 OF THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT.  EACH OF THESE INCLUDED A QUESTION WHETHER THE
CORPORATION WAS A PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
351 OF THE APPLICABLE REVENUE ACT AND STATED THAT IF IT WAS, AN
ADDITIONAL RETURN ON FORM 1120H WAS REQUIRED.  THE TAXPAYER ANSWERED
THE QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE AND DID NOT IN ANY YEAR FILE PERSONAL
HOLDING COMPANY RETURNS ON FORM 1120H. 

THE COMMISSIONER IMPOSED PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY SURTAXES FOR EACH
YEAR AND UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SEC. 406 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1935 AND
SEC. 291 OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936 IMPOSED A 25 PER CENT
PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RETURN. 

THE PRESIDENT, WHO EXECUTED THE INCOME TAX RETURNS, DID NOT FILE
PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RETURNS BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THE TAXPAYER WAS
NOT A PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  IT WAS
ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE PAWNSHOP BUSINESS.  HOWEVER, MORE THAN 50 PER
CENT OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK WAS OWNED BY LESS THAN FIVE STOCKHOLDERS, AND
MORE THAN 80 PER CENT OF ITS GROSS INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM INTEREST. 
THE TAXPAYER FILED INFORMATION RETURNS SHOWING DIVIDENDS OF OVER $300
PAID TO EACH STOCKHOLDER DURING THOSE YEARS AND ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS
MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSIONER DURING AUDIT DISCLOSED THE FACTS. 
NO FRAUD OR BAD FAITH IS SUGGESTED. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AFFIRMED THE PENALTIES,  FN1  AND ITS
DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN2  THERE
APPEARING TO BE NO CONFLICT OF DECISION BETWEEN CIRCUITS, WE ON
NOVEMBER 9, 1942 DENIED CERTIORARI.  FN3  THE 25-DAY PERIOD ALLOWED BY
OUR RULE IN WHICH TO FILE PETITION FOR REHEARING EXPIRED.  IN FEBRUARY
1943 A CONFLICT DEVELOPED THROUGH DECISION OF LANE-WELLS CO. V.
COMMISSIONER BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.  FN4
PETITIONER ASKED LEAVE TO FILE OUT OF TIME A PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
WE CONSENTED.  ON JUNE 7, 1943, WE GRANTED PETITION FOR REHEARING,
VACATED THE ORDER DENYING CERTIORARI, AND GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO
THE PENALTY QUESTION.  FN5  WE ASKED COUNSEL IN VIEW OF SEC. 1140 OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND HELVERING V. NORTHERN COAL CO., 293 U.S.
191, TO DISCUSS OUR JURISDICTION TO GRANT A PETITION FOR REHEARING IN
THE CASE. 

PROVIDES: 

"THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT SHALL BECOME FINAL - 

"(B)  DECISION AFFIRMED OR PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.  - 

"(2)  PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DENIED.  - UPON THE DENIAL OF A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, IF THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT HAS BEEN
AFFIRMED OR THE PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS; OR 

"(3)  AFTER MANDATE OF THE SUPREME COURT.  - UPON THE EXPIRATION OF
30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE OF THE SUPREME COURT,
IF SUCH COURT DIRECTS THAT THE DECISION OF THE BOARD BE AFFIRMED OR THE
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED." 

THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE SITUATIONS WHERE THE
BOARD'S DECISION IS MODIFIED OR REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OR BY THIS COURT, THE PURPOSE BEING TO DETERMINE DEFINITELY THE
DATE ON WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SUSPENDED DURING APPEAL,
BEGINS TO RUN AGAIN AND ASSESSMENT MAY BE MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER. 
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 HAD IDENTICAL PROVISIONS.  FN6  IN REPORTING
UPON THE PROVISION IN THE REVENUE BILL OF 1926, THE SENATE COMMITTEE
SAID:  "SECTION 1005 PRESCRIBES THE DATE ON WHICH A DECISION OF THE
BOARD (WHETHER OR NOT REVIEW THEREOF IS HAD) IS TO BECOME FINAL. 
INASMUCH AS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UPON ASSESSMENTS AND SUITS FOR
COLLECTION, BOTH OF WHICH ARE SUSPENDED DURING REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION, COMMENCES TO RUN UPON THE DAY UPON WHICH
THE BOARD'S DECISION BECOMES FINAL, IT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT
THIS TIME BE SPECIFIED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE.  IN SOME INSTANCES IN
ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS RESULT THE USUAL RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE IN COURT
PROCEDURE MUST BE CHANGED.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE POWER OF THE COURT OF
REVIEW TO RECALL ITS MANDATE IS MADE TO EXPIRE 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE."  SEN. REP. NO. 52, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
37. 

IN HELVERING V. NORTHERN COAL CO., SUPRA, WE CONSIDERED THE PROVISION
OF THE 1926 ACT, CORRESPONDING TO SEC. 1140(B)(3) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, DEALING WITH ISSUANCE OF MANDATE BY THIS COURT.  THE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER NOTWITHSTANDING THE LAPSE OF MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS
AFTER MANDATE WE COULD GRANT A PETITION FOR REHEARING, AND IT WAS URGED
THAT THIS STATUTE DID NOT QUALIFY THE INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT TO
RECONSIDER ITS JUDGMENTS THROUGHOUT THE TERM IN WHICH THEY ARE
ENTERED.  QUOTING THE STATUTE, WE HELD:  "IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITATIVE
AND EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE AND OF ITS APPLICATION TO THESE
CASES, THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING ARE SEVERALLY DENIED." 

WHILE IT APPEARS THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF TIMES GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
REVIEW DECISIONS IN CASES ORIGINATING WITH THE TAX COURT AFTER ONCE
DENYING THE PETITIONS, DUQUESNE STEEL FOUNDRY CO. V. BURNET, CERTIORARI
DENIED, 282 U.S. 878, CERTIORARI GRANTED, 282 U.S. 830; NEUBERGER V.
COMMISSIONER, CERTIORARI DENIED, 308 U.S. 623, CERTIORARI GRANTED, 310
U.S. 655; CRANE-JOHNSON CO. V. COMMISSIONER, CERTIORARI DENIED, 308
U.S. 627, CERTIORARI GRANTED, 309 U.S. 692; HELVERING V. CEMENT
INVESTORS, CERTIORARI DENIED, 315 U.S. 802, CERTIORARI GRANTED, 315
U.S. 825, IN ALL BUT ONE OF THESE CASES THE PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS
FILED WITHIN 25 DAYS AFTER THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI.  IN THE OTHER, THE
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION WAS NOT RAISED OR CONSIDERED, AND THEREFORE IT
DOES NOT ESTABLISH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V.
MORE, 3 CRANCH 159, 172; SNOW V. UNITED STATES, 118 U.S. 346, 354;
CROSS V. BURKE, 146 U.S. 82, 86; LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V. KNOTT, 191
U.S. 225, 236; ARANT V. LANE, 245 U.S. 166, 170. 

IT SOMETIMES IS DESIRABLE IN THE LIGHT OF EVENTS TO GRANT A
PREVIOUSLY DENIED WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AS WHERE IT APPEARS THE QUESTION
MUST LATER BE TAKEN BECAUSE OF CONFLICT.  A GRANT IN SUCH A CASE NOT
ONLY ENABLES US TO DO JUSTICE TO THE PARTY IF IT APPEARS THAT HE HAS
THE RIGHT OF THE CONTROVERSY, BUT ALSO IT GIVES US THE BENEFIT OF
ARGUMENT AND EXAMINATION OF THE ADDITIONAL OR CONTRARY ASPECTS OF THE
QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE CASE.  OUR RULES PROVIDE FOR PETITIONS FOR
REHEARING AS MATTER OF RIGHT WITHIN 25 DAYS AFTER JUDGMENT,  FN7  AND
THIS RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED TO PETITIONS FOR REHEARINGS OF ORDERS
DENYING CERTIORARI.  WE HAVE APPLIED IT TO CASES FALLING WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF SEC. 1140(B)(2).  NO MANDATE ISSUES ON DENIAL OF CERTIORARI,
AND AFTER A FINAL DECISION THE MANDATE DOES NOT ISSUE UNTIL EXPIRATION
OF THE 25-DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH PETITION FOR REHEARING MAY BE FILED. 
FN8  IF, THEREFORE, WE FOLLOW THE PRACTICE HERETOFORE OBSERVED, BY
WHICH WE REGARD DENIALS OF CERTIORARI AS QUALIFIED UNTIL THE 25-DAY
PERIOD EXPIRES, WE PUT THE DENIAL AND THE DECISION ON A GENERALLY EQUAL
BASIS EXCEPT AS CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO GIVE THE LATTER AN ADDITIONAL
THIRTY DAYS BEFORE FINALITY.  THE GOVERNMENT AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE
PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE QUESTION ADVISES THAT IN ITS VIEW OUR PRACTICE
IN THESE MATTERS HAS BEEN "SALUTARY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUND
POLICY."  THERE APPEARS TO BE NO GOOD REASON, THEREFORE, TO HOLD THAT
THE RULE AS TO REHEARINGS, IN SO FAR AS IT PERMITS AS MATTER OF RIGHT
THE FILING OF PETITION THEREFOR WITHIN 25 DAYS, MAY NOT APPLY TO THIS
CLASS OF CASES.  BUT WHEN UNDER OUR RULES OUR DENIAL HAS BECOME FINAL,
THIS STATUTE DEPRIVES US OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. 

ACCORDINGLY THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. 

FN1  44 B.T.A. 498. 

FN2  128 F.2D 742. 

FN3  317 U.S. 677. 

FN4  134 F.2D 977. 

FN5  319 U.S. 778. 

FN6  SEC. 1005, 44 STAT. 110. 

FN7  RULE 33. 

FN8  RULE 34. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE
RUTLEDGE CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

I CAN FIND NO WARRANT IN SEC. 1140 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE FOR
SAYING THAT THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT BECOMES "FINAL" ONLY AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF THE 25-DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH A PETITION FOR
REHEARING MAY BE FILED.  THE SECTION CONTAINS NO SUCH PROVISION.  THE
25-DAY PERIOD FOR REHEARINGS IS PRESCRIBED BY OUR RULE 33.  BUT OUR
AUTHORITY TO GRANT PETITIONS FOR REHEARING DURING THE TERM RISES FROM
THE SAME SOURCE.  SEE WAYNE UNITED GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO.,
300 U.S. 131, 136-137; ART METAL CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 289
U.S. 706; BRONSON V. SCHULTEN, 104 U.S. 410, 415.  HENCE I SEE NO BASIS
FOR SAYING THAT ONE, BUT NOT THE OTHER, QUALIFIES THAT PROVISION OF
SEC. 1140 WHICH STATES THAT THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT BECOMES FINAL
"UPON DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI." 
..END :





















DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 321 U.S. 231 


DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1944.  - REHEARING DENIED. 


THE RECOVERIES HERE IN QUESTION WERE NOT AS MATTER OF LAW PROCEEDS OF
THE "SALE OR EXCHANGE" OF A CAPITAL ASSET, AND WERE PROPERLY TAXED AS
ORDINARY INCOME RATHER THAN AS CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SEC. 117 OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  P. 232. 

DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

NO. 44.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 47, HARWICK V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING OF TWO OF THE FOUR CASES DECIDED IN DOBSON
V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITION FOR REHEARING IN TWO OF THE FOUR CASES DECIDED TOGETHER ON
DECEMBER 20, 1943 STATES THAT THESE CONTAINED AN ISSUE NOT PRESENT AND
NOT CONSIDERED IN THE MAIN CASE.  IN THESE TWO CASES THE TAX COURT HELD
THAT RECOVERIES BY THESE TAXPAYERS IN 1939 DID CONSTITUTE TAXABLE
INCOME.  IT HELD, ALSO, THAT THE RECOVERY WAS TAXABLE AS ORDINARY
INCOME, DESPITE TAXPAYER'S CONTENTION THAT IT SHOULD BE TAXED AS
CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SEC. 117 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THIS
CONTENTION, THE PETITION SAYS, PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF LAW TO BE
DETERMINED BY THIS COURT, RATHER THAN OF FACT FINALLY TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE TAX COURT. 

THE WEAKNESS OF TAXPAYERS' POSITION LIES IN THE FACT THAT NOT EVERY
GAIN GROWING OUT OF A TRANSACTION CONCERNING CAPITAL ASSETS IS ALLOWED
THE BENEFITS OF THE CAPITAL GAINS TAX PROVISION.  THOSE ARE LIMITED BY
DEFINITION TO GAINS FROM "THE SALE OR EXCHANGE" OF CAPITAL ASSETS. 
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SEC. 117(2), (3), (4), (5). 

WE CERTAINLY CANNOT SAY THAT THE ITEMS IN QUESTION WERE AS MATTER OF
LAW PROCEEDS OF THE "SALE OR EXCHANGE" OF A CAPITAL ASSET.  HARWICK
ASSERTED A CLAIM, AND THE THREE OTHER TAXPAYERS INVOLVED IN THESE CASES
FILED SUIT, AGAINST THE NATIONAL CITY COMPANY, DEMANDING RESCISSION OF
THEIR PURCHASES OF STOCK.  THEIR CLAIMS WERE COMPROMISED OR ADMITTED;
THE TAXPAYERS SEEK TO LINK THE RECOVERIES RESULTING THEREFROM WITH
THEIR PRIOR SALES OF THE STOCK, WHICH RESULTED IN LOSSES.  THE TAX
COURT DID NOT FIND AS MATTER OF FACT, AND WE DECLINE TO SAY AS MATTER
OF LAW, THAT SUCH A TRANSACTION IS A "SALE OR EXCHANGE" OF A CAPITAL
ASSET IN THE ACCEPTED MEANING OF THOSE TERMS.  CF. HELVERING V. FLACCUS
LEATHER CO., 313 U.S. 247; FAIRBANKS V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 436. 
IN HELVERING V. HAMMEL, 311 U.S. 504; ELECTRO-CHEMICAL ENGRAVING CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 513; HELVERING V. NEBRASKA BRIDGE SUPPLY &
LUMBER CO., 312 U.S. 666, ON WHICH PETITIONERS RELY, WE HELD AS MATTER
OF LAW THAT LOSSES RESULTING FROM A SALE WERE NOT TO BE DENIED THE
BENEFITS OF THE CAPITAL LOSSES PROVISIONS BECAUSE THE SALE WAS A FORCED
OR INVOLUNTARY ONE, AS UPON FORECLOSURE.  THOSE CASES ARE NO AID TO
PETITIONERS HERE. 

PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS. 
..END :











BROWN V. GERDES, 321 U.S. 178 


NO. 183.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1944.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 1944.  - 290
N.Y. 468, 49 N.E.2D 718, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER CH. X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT
WHICH SHALL BE ALLOWED OUT OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE FOR SERVICES OF
ATTORNEYS WHO, BY AUTHORITY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, REPRESENTED THE
BANKRUPT ESTATE IN LITIGATION IN A STATE COURT.  P. 180. 

2.  THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IN THIS CASE HAVING BEEN APPROVED
SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CH. X, THE RESULT IS UNAFFECTED
BY THE FACT THAT THE PETITION WAS FILED AND THE MAIN SUIT IN THE STATE
COURT LITIGATION WAS INSTITUTED PRIOR TO THAT DATE.  P. 184. 

3.  NOR IS THE RESULT AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE LITIGATION IN THE
STATE COURT WAS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THAT COURT.  P.
185. 

4.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR HERE THAT THE STATE HAS IMPOSED CONDITIONS FOR
ENTRY INTO ITS COURTS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT.  P. 186. 

5.  ASSUMING THAT THE STATE COURT COULD DECLINE JURISDICTION OF THE
SUITS TO ENFORCE CLAIMS OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE, IT COULD NOT TAKE
JURISDICTION OF THEM BUT FAIL TO APPLY THE FEDERAL RULE GOVERNING THE
COMPENSATION OF THOSE WHO ARE EMPLOYED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AND WHO
REPRESENT IT IN THE STATE TRIBUNAL.  P. 186. 

BROWN ET AL. V. GERDES ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 722, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
LOWER STATE COURTS WHICH FIXED THE AMOUNTS OF FEES AND LIENS FOR
SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AS ATTORNEYS FOR A BANKRUPT
ESTATE.  SEE ALSO 290 N.Y. 868, 50 N.E.2D 249. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE NEW YORK COURT OR THE
FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS THE POWER TO FIX THE FEES OF PETITIONERS
WHO AS ATTORNEYS REPRESENTED THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE IN LITIGATION IN THE
STATE COURTS.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THAT
JURISDICTION RESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  290 N.Y. 468,
49 N.E.2D 718.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM UNDER THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

IN JANUARY, 1939, A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION OF REYNOLDS INVESTING
CO., INC. WAS APPROVED UNDER CH. X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  52 STAT.
883, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 501.  IN AUGUST, 1938, WHILE THE PETITION WAS
PENDING BUT BEFORE ITS APPROVAL, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AUTHORIZED THE
DEBTOR TO COMMENCE AN ACTION IN THE NEW YORK COURTS TO ENFORCE AND
COLLECT CERTAIN CLAIMS WHICH THE DEBTOR HAD AGAINST ITS FORMER OFFICERS
AND DIRECTORS.  SEE 28 N.Y.S.2D 622.  IT ALSO AUTHORIZED RETENTION OF
PETITIONERS AS COUNSEL IN THE SUIT.  AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE PETITION
THE RESPONDENT TRUSTEES WERE AUTHORIZED TO PROSECUTE THE ACTION AND TO
BE SUBSTITUTED AS PLAINTIFFS.  THAT WAS DONE; AND OTHER ACTIONS WERE
INSTITUTED BY THE TRUSTEES UNDER ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WITH
PETITIONERS AS COUNSEL.  IN 1941 BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENTS WERE OBTAINED
IN ANY OF THE SUITS, THE TRUSTEES DISCONTINUED PETITIONERS' SERVICES. 
THEREAFTER PETITIONERS, PURSUANT TO A STIPULATION  FN1  WHICH RESERVED
RESPONDENTS' RIGHT TO QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT,
INSTITUTED THIS SUIT IN THAT COURT TO FIX AND ENFORCE THEIR LIENS ON
THE ACTIONS UNDER SEC. 475 OF THE NEW YORK JUDICIARY LAW.  FN2
RESPONDENTS' OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT WAS
OVERRULED, THE VALUE OF PETITIONERS' SERVICES DETERMINED, AND THE LIENS
FIXED.  THOSE ORDERS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (264 APP.
DIV. 852, 36 N.Y.S.2D 420) BUT REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  AND
AS WE READ THE OPINION OF THAT COURT THE BASIS OF ITS DECISION WAS THAT
"EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" TO FIX THESE FEES WAS IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
(290 N.Y. 472, 473, 475), NOT THAT NEW YORK AS A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW OR
POLICY WOULD NOT UNDERTAKE TO FIX THEM BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE
AMOUNT OF THESE FEES RESTS EXCLUSIVELY IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

SEC. 77B, LIKE SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,  FN3  HAD AS ONE OF ITS
PURPOSES THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MORE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER
REORGANIZATION FEES AND EXPENSES (DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL SITE V. COWAN,
309 U.S. 382, 388; CALLAGHAN V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 297 U.S.
464, 469) IN RECOGNITION OF THE EFFECT WHICH A DEPLETION OF THE CASH
RESOURCES OF THE ESTATE MAY HAVE ON BOTH THE FAIRNESS AND FEASIBILITY
OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. &
P.R. CO., 282 U.S. 311, 333-340(DISSENTING OPINION).  AND CH. X OF THE
CHANDLER ACT WHICH TOOK THE PLACE OF SEC. 77B SET UP EVEN MORE
COMPREHENSIVE SUPERVISION OVER COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES (H. REP. NO.
1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 45-46) AND PROVIDED A CENTRALIZED
CONTROL OVER ALL ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES, OF WHICH LAWYERS' FEES ARE A
PART.  WATKINS V. SEDBERRY, 261 U.S. 571.  SEC. 241 GIVES THE JUDGE
AUTHORITY TO FIX "REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED" BY
VARIOUS PERSONS, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FOR THE TRUSTEES.  ALLOWANCES MAY
BE MADE ONLY AFTER HEARING AND UPON NOTICE TO SPECIFIED PERSONS AND
GROUPS OF PERSONS.  SEC. 247.  WHERE THE REORGANIZATION SUPERSEDES A
PRIOR PROCEEDING IN EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE COURT THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT IS THE ONE WHICH IS AUTHORIZED TO ALLOW THE "REASONABLE COSTS AND
EXPENSES INCURRED" IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDING.  SEC. 258.  IN ALL CASES
PERSONS WHO SEEK COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES OR REIMBURSEMENT FOR
EXPENSES ARE HELD TO FIDUCIARY STANDARDS.  SEC. 249; WOODS V. CITY
NATIONAL BANK CO., 312 U.S. 262, 267-269.  AND SEC. 250 CONTAINS
SPECIAL APPEAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING ORDERS GRANTING OR DENYING
ALLOWANCES.  DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL SITE V. COWAN, SUPRA.  MOREOVER, A
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION MUST PROVIDE "FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL COSTS AND
EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER ALLOWANCES WHICH MAY BE APPROVED
OR MADE BY THE JUDGE."  SEC. 216(3).  IN ADDITION THE PLAN MUST
PROVIDE, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO PROTECT THE
SECURITY HOLDERS AGAINST PREVIOUS ACTS OF MISMANAGEMENT AND TO PRESERVE
ALL ASSETS OF THE ESTATE (S. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P.
22; H. REP. NO. 1409, SUPRA, PP. 42-44), FOR RETENTION AND ENFORCEMENT
BY THE TRUSTEE OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEBTOR OR THE ESTATE NOT SETTLED OR
ADJUSTED IN THE PLAN.  SEC. 216(13).  FINALLY, SEC. 221(4) PROVIDES
THAT IN APPROVING ANY PLAN THE JUDGE MUST BE SATISFIED THAT "ALL
PAYMENTS MADE OR PROMISED" BY THE DEBTOR, THE NEW COMPANY, OR ANY OTHER
PERSON, "FOR SERVICES AND FOR COSTS AND EXPENSES" ARE NOT ONLY FULLY
DISCLOSED BUT "ARE REASONABLE OR, IF TO BE FIXED AFTER CONFIRMATION OF
THE PLAN, WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE." 

THUS CH. X NOT ONLY CONTAINS DETAILED MACHINERY GOVERNING ALL CLAIMS
FOR ALLOWANCES FROM THE ESTATE, IT ALSO REQUIRES THE PLAN TO CONTAIN
PROVISIONS FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL ALLOWANCES AND PLACES ON THE JUDGE
THE DUTY TO PASS ON THEIR REASONABLENESS.  THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT EXCLUSIVELY. 
EVEN REPORTS ON PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION ARE "ADVISORY ONLY."  SEC. 172.  IT COULD HARDLY BE
CONTENDED THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MIGHT DISPENSE WITH THE FINDING
REQUIRED BY SEC. 221 (2) THAT THE PLAN IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE, AND
FEASIBLE" AND CONFIRM THE PLAN ON ANOTHER BASIS OR DELEGATE THE TASK TO
ANOTHER COURT OR AGENCY.  SEE CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO.,
308 U.S. 106, 114-115; CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312
U.S. 510.  BUT IF THAT CANNOT BE DONE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW A
PLAN COULD BE CONFIRMED WHICH LEFT THE APPROVAL OF CERTAIN ALLOWANCES
TO A STATE COURT.  THE FINDING AS TO ALLOWANCES REQUIRED BY SEC. 221(4)
IS AS EXPLICIT AND AS MANDATORY AS THE FINDING OF "FAIR AND EQUITABLE,
AND FEASIBLE" REQUIRED BY SEC. 221(2).  ON EACH CONGRESS HAS ASKED FOR
THE INFORMED JUDGMENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, NOT ANOTHER COURT OR
AGENCY.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WHICH WAS
APPROVED IN 1940 GAVE THE TRUSTEES FULL POWER TO RETAIN OR DISPLACE
ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THEM; AND IT RETAINED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER ALL CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF THE DEBTOR AND THE
PROSECUTION THEREOF.  AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPRESS REQUIREMENTS
OF SEC. 241(3) IT LEFT TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT THE POWER TO FIX THE
"REASONABLE COMPENSATION" TO BE PAID THE ATTORNEYS OF THE TRUSTEES. 
THOSE REQUIREMENTS, PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT, CAUSE ANY CONFLICTING
PROCEDURE IN THE STATE COURTS TO GIVE WAY.  FN4  KALB V. FEUERSTEIN,
308 U.S. 433.  THE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED ON THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT IS PARAMOUNT AND EXCLUSIVE.  GROSS V. IRVING TRUST
CO., 289 U.S. 342.  THUS THE SUPERVENTION OF BANKRUPTCY DEPRIVES A
STATE COURT, IN WHICH A RECEIVERSHIP WAS PENDING, OF POWER TO FIX THE
COMPENSATION OF THE RECEIVERS AND THEIR COUNSEL WHO WERE APPOINTED BY
THE STATE COURT AND WHO RENDERED SERVICE IN THE STATE PROCEEDINGS. 
GROSS V. IRVING TRUST CO., SUPRA; EMIL V. HANLEY, 318 U.S. 515, 519. 

SHERMAN V. BUCKLEY, 119 F.2D 280, WHICH AROSE IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY,
IS RELIED UPON FOR THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION.  IN THAT CASE AN ACTION
BROUGHT BY THE BANKRUPT HAD BEEN PENDING IN THE STATE COURT FOR SEVEN
YEARS BEFORE THE ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE TRUSTEE OBTAINED THE
CONSENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO ALLOW THE ACTION TO BE PROSECUTED IN
THE STATE COURT ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE AND TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEYS
OTHER THAN THOSE RETAINED BY THE BANKRUPT.  IT WAS HELD THAT THE STATE
COURT COULD REQUIRE AS A CONDITION UPON THE SUBSTITUTION THE
LIQUIDATION OF THE NEW YORK CHARGING LIEN OF THE DISPLACED ATTORNEYS. 
WHETHER THAT CASE WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED ON ITS FACTS WE NEED NOT STOP
TO INQUIRE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT IT DOES NOT STATE THE CORRECT
RULE OF LAW UNDER CH. X OF THE ACT. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT SEC. 77B RATHER THAN CH. X MEASURES THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SINCE THE MAIN SUIT WAS INSTITUTED
IN THE STATE COURT PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CH. X, SEPTEMBER 22,
1938.  SEE SEC. 7.  BUT THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT THE PETITION WAS
APPROVED AFTER THAT DATE AND THE PROVISIONS OF CH. X WERE THUS BROUGHT
INTO PLAY.  FN5  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SINCE SEC. 23 OF THE ACT  FN6
WAS APPLICABLE TO REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77B BUT INAPPLICABLE FN7
TO THOSE UNDER CH. X (SEC. 102), THERE WAS A GREATER LIMITATION ON THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OVER PLENARY SUITS AT THE TIME THE
MAIN SUIT WAS INSTITUTED THAN THERE WAS AFTER CH. X BECAME EFFECTIVE. 
FN8  FROM THAT IT IS ARGUED THAT SINCE CONGRESS LEFT THE ENFORCEMENT OF
SUCH CLAIMS TO THE STATE COURTS, IT PERMITTED THEM TO CONTROL ALL
INCIDENTS OF THE LITIGATION INCLUDING THE FIXING OF ATTORNEYS' LIENS. 
SEC. 23 DEALS WITH QUESTIONS OF THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS, E.G., WHETHER IN SUITS BY TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY AGAINST
ADVERSE CLAIMANTS THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS RESTS ON
CONSENT OF THE PARTIES REGARDLESS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP. 
SCHUMACHER V. BEELER, 293 U.S. 367.  THE FACT THAT THE SUITS AGAINST
THE FORMER OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE DEBTOR COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
IN THE STATE COURTS ALONE DOES NOT ADVANCE THE SOLUTION OF THE PRESENT
PROBLEM.  A BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WHO BY CHOICE OR BY NECESSITY RESORTS TO
A STATE COURT FOR THE PROSECUTION OF A CLAIM IS OF COURSE BOUND BY THE
ADJUDICATION MADE IN THE STATE PROCEEDING.  WINCHESTER V. HEISKELL, 119
U.S. 450; FISCHER V. PAULINE OIL & GAS CO., 309 U.S. 294, 303.  THE
STATE COURT HAS FULL CONTROL OVER THE LITIGATION.  BUT EVEN AS AN
INCIDENT THERETO, IT MAY NOT TAKE ACTION WHICH INVOLVES THE PERFORMANCE
OF FUNCTIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  SEE
EAU CLAIRE NATIONAL BANK V. JACKMAN, 204 U.S. 522, 537-538. 

THE SUGGESTION HAS BEEN MADE THAT NEW YORK COULD OPEN ITS COURTS TO
THE PROSECUTION OF SUCH SUITS AS THE TRUSTEES INSTITUTED ON CONDITION
THAT NEW YORK CONTROL THE LEGAL FEES INCIDENT TO THE LITIGATION; AND
THAT SO LONG AS NEW YORK DID NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THOSE ASSERTING
RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT SUCH CONDITION WOULD BE VALID.  CF.
DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377.  IT DOES NOT
APPEAR, HOWEVER, THAT NEW YORK HAS FOLLOWED THAT COURSE.  THE FACT THAT
NEW YORK HAS ADOPTED MEASURES DESIGNED TO PROTECT ATTORNEYS PRACTICING
IN ITS COURTS DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT NEW YORK HAS MADE ITS CONTROL
OVER THE FEES A CONDITION TO THE USE OF ITS TRIBUNALS.  THERE IS NO
SUCH INDICATION IN THE OPINION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  THUS
WE CANNOT SAY THAT NEW YORK HAS PROVIDED CONDITIONS FOR ENTRY INTO ITS
COURTS WHICH COLLIDE WITH A CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT.  WE CAN ONLY
ASSUME THEREFORE THAT THE CASE IS NO DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE FROM THE
ONE WHERE A STATE GRANTS TO CREDITORS ATTACHMENTS IN AID OF THE
COLLECTION OF THEIR CLAIMS.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT SUCH LIENS
COULD BE NULLIFIED BY SUPERVENING BANKRUPTCY WHETHER THE CREDITOR BE
LAWYER OR MERCHANT. 

BUT IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT NEW YORK MIGHT HAVE REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN
SUCH SUITS AS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THE OLD MANAGEMENT (CF. MONDOU V.
NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 223 U.S. 1, 56-59), IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
IT COULD TAKE JURISDICTION OF THEM BUT FAIL TO APPLY ANY FEDERAL LAW IN
WHICH THOSE CLAIMS MIGHT BE ROOTED.  GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO.,
317 U.S. 239.  WHERE CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED THE RULE TO GOVERN THE
COMPENSATION OF THOSE EMPLOYED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, THOSE CLAIMS
ARE NO LESS DEPENDENT ON THE FEDERAL RULE BECAUSE THEY ARE ASSERTED AS
AN INCIDENT TO ANOTHER SUIT.  IF THE STATE COURT COULD DISREGARD THE
FEDERAL RULE IN THAT SITUATION, THEN ANY OF THE DUTIES OF
ADMINISTRATION WHICH CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED ON THE BANKRUPTCY COURT COULD
BE ABSORBED BY THE STATE TRIBUNAL.  EAU CLAIRE NATIONAL BANK V.
JACKMAN, SUPRA.  CONGRESS HAS FIXED THE FEES WHICH VARIOUS
REPRESENTATIVES OR OFFICERS OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY RECEIVE FOR
THEIR SERVICES.  SECS. 40, 48.  AMONG THESE ARE THE BANKRUPTCY
TRUSTEES.  SEC. 48(C).  AS IN THE PRESENT CASE THOSE TRUSTEES MAY AT
TIMES CHOOSE TO ACT AS THEIR OWN ATTORNEYS.  BUT IT WOULD BE NOVEL
DOCTRINE INDEED TO HOLD THAT STATE COURTS COULD INCREASE ANY MAXIMUM
ALLOWANCE WHICH CONGRESS MIGHT AUTHORIZE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES TO RECEIVE
FROM THE ESTATE MERELY BECAUSE THE TRUSTEES RENDERED SOME OF THEIR
SERVICES IN STATE TRIBUNALS.  YET IF CONGRESS CAN PROTECT BANKRUPTCY
ESTATES BY ITSELF PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM FEES FOR THOSE REPRESENTING OR
RENDERING SERVICE TO THE ESTATE, IT IS NOT APPARENT WHY IT MAY NOT
REACH THE SAME RESULT BY DELEGATING THAT AUTHORITY TO THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT.  WHATEVER DOUBTS MAY HAVE ONCE EXISTED AS TO THE FUNCTIONS OF A
REORGANIZATION COURT, IT IS CLEAR UNDER THIS RECENT BANKRUPTCY
LEGISLATION THAT THE APPROVAL OF ALL FEES AS PART OF THE PLAN HAS BEEN
ENTRUSTED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT EXCLUSIVELY.  THE CASE IS THEREFORE
CONTROLLED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF HINES V. LOWREY, 305 U.S. 85.  IN THAT
CASE WE HELD THAT WHERE AN ACT OF CONGRESS LIMITED TO TEN DOLLARS THE
FEES FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH VETERANS' WAR RISK INSURANCE
CLAIMS, THE NEW YORK COURT COULD NOT AWARD A GREATER AMOUNT TO AN
ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A GUARDIAN OF AN INSANE VETERAN EVEN WHERE THE
GUARDIAN WAS APPOINTED BY THE NEW YORK COURT.  WE REVERSED A JUDGMENT
OF THE NEW YORK COURT GRANTING THE ATTORNEY $1,500 FOR HIS SERVICES. 
THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO PLACE THE CONTROL OF PETITIONERS' FEES IN
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS NO LESS CLEAR THAN ITS PURPOSE TO LIMIT THE
AMOUNT OF FEES IN THE HINES CASE.  IN EACH THE FEDERAL RULE IS THE
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. 

WE ONLY HOLD THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY UNDER
CH. X TO FIX THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWANCES FOR FEES.  WHETHER THE AMOUNT SO
FIXED COULD BE SECURED BY A LIEN CREATED BY LOCAL LAW RAISES A QUESTION
WHICH WE DO NOT REACH.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  RESPONDENTS SOUGHT AN ORDER FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DIRECTING
PETITIONERS TO TURN OVER THEIR PAPERS AND MEMORANDA.  THAT MOTION WAS
RESISTED BY PETITIONERS WHO CLAIMED THAT THE NEW YORK COURT HAD
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  THEREUPON A STIPULATION WAS ENTERED INTO WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WHEREBY RESPONDENTS WITHDREW THEIR
MOTION AND PETITIONERS AGREED TO INSTITUTE A SUIT IN THE STATE COURT
FOR FIXATION OF THEIR LIENS, IF ANY.  THE PARTIES RESERVED THEIR RIGHT
TO QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT OR BANKRUPTCY COURT
OVER THE MATTER. 

FN2  "FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION, SPECIAL OR OTHER PROCEEDING
IN ANY COURT OR BEFORE ANY STATE OR FEDERAL DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT A
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OR THE SERVICE OF AN ANSWER CONTAINING A
COUNTERCLAIM, THE ATTORNEY WHO APPEARS FOR A PARTY HAS A LIEN UPON HIS
CLIENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION, CLAIM OR COUNTERCLAIM, WHICH ATTACHES TO A
VERDICT, REPORT, DETERMINATION, DECISION, JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER IN
HIS CLIENT'S FAVOR, AND THE PROCEEDS THEREOF IN WHATEVER HANDS THEY MAY
COME; AND THE LIEN CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY ANY SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES BEFORE OR AFTER JUDGMENT, FINAL ORDER OR DETERMINATION.  THE
COURT UPON THE PETITION OF THE CLIENT OR ATTORNEY MAY DETERMINE AND
ENFORCE THE LIEN." 

FN3  SEE CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S.
648, 685; RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V. BANKERS TRUST CO., 318 U.S.
163. 

FN4  THE SUBMISSION OF THE MATTER TO THE STATE COURT WITH OBJECTIONS
TO ITS JURISDICTION WAS A PROCEDURE WHICH GAVE THAT "DUE REGARD FOR
COMITY" SUGGESTED BY THE COURT IN GROSS V. IRVING TRUST CO., 289 U.S.
342, 345. 

FN5  EVEN IF THE PETITION HAD BEEN APPROVED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF CH. X ITS PROVISIONS WOULD HAVE APPLIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY TO
THE PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED SUCH APPROVAL WAS WITHIN THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO
THAT DATE.  SEC. 276(C)(1). 

FN6  SEC. 23 PRESENTLY PROVIDES:  "A.  THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF ALL CONTROVERSIES AT LAW AND IN
EQUITY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, BETWEEN
RECEIVERS AND TRUSTEES AS SUCH AND ADVERSE CLAIMANTS, CONCERNING THE
PROPERTY ACQUIRED OR CLAIMED BY THE RECEIVERS OR TRUSTEES, IN THE SAME
MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH SUCH PROCEEDINGS HAD NOT BEEN
INSTITUTED AND SUCH CONTROVERSIES HAD BEEN BETWEEN THE BANKRUPTS AND
SUCH ADVERSE CLAIMANTS.  B. SUITS BY THE RECEIVER AND THE TRUSTEE SHALL
BE BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED ONLY IN THE COURTS WHERE THE BANKRUPT MIGHT
HAVE BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED THEM IF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT HAD NOT
BEEN INSTITUTED, UNLESS BY CONSENT OF THE DEFENDANT, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
IN SECTIONS 60, 67, AND 70 OF THIS ACT." 

FN7  SEE WEINSTEIN, THE BANKRUPTCY LAW OF 1938(1938), PP. 63-64; 2
COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.), PP. 435-436. 

FN8  SEE IN RE STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 119 F.2D 658. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

1.  SINCE 1789, RIGHTS DERIVED FROM FEDERAL LAW COULD BE ENFORCED IN
STATE COURTS UNLESS CONGRESS CONFINED THEIR ENFORCEMENT TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  THIS HAS BEEN SO PRECISELY FOR THE SAME REASON THAT RIGHTS
CREATED BY THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT OR BY THE LEGISLATURE OF VERMONT
COULD BE ENFORCED IN THE NEW YORK COURTS.  NEITHER CONGRESS NOR THE
BRITISH PARLIAMENT NOR THE VERMONT LEGISLATURE HAS POWER TO CONFER
JURISDICTION UPON THE NEW YORK COURTS.  BUT THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED
UPON THEM BY THE ONLY AUTHORITY THAT HAS POWER TO CREATE THEM AND TO
CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THEM - NAMELY THE LAW-MAKING POWER OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK - ENABLES THEM TO ENFORCE RIGHTS NO MATTER WHAT THE
LEGISLATIVE SOURCE OF THE RIGHT MAY BE.  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, UNITED
STATES V. JONES, 109 U.S. 513, 520. 

2.  IN SHORT, SUBJECT TO ONLY ONE LIMITATION, EACH STATE OF THE UNION
MAY ESTABLISH ITS OWN JUDICATURE, DISTRIBUTE JUDICIAL POWER AMONG THE
COURTS OF ITS CHOICE, DEFINE THE CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
JURISDICTION AND THE MODES OF THEIR PROCEEDING, TO THE SAME EXTENT AS
CONGRESS IS EMPOWERED TO ESTABLISH A SYSTEM OF INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER, AND THE STATES ARE AS FREE
FROM CONTROL BY CONGRESS IN ESTABLISHING STATE SYSTEMS FOR LITIGATION
AS IS CONGRESS FREE FROM STATE CONTROL IN ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL SYSTEM
FOR LITIGATION.  THE ONLY LIMITATION UPON THE FREEDOM OF A STATE TO
DEFINE THE JURISDICTION OF ITS OWN COURTS IS THAT IMPLIED BY ARTICLE
IV, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHEREBY "THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE
SEVERAL STATES."  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE NEW YORK TO GIVE
JURISDICTION TO ITS COURTS AGAINST ITS WILL.  BUT "IF THE STATE DOES
PROVIDE A COURT TO WHICH ITS OWN CITIZENS MAY RESORT IN A CERTAIN CLASS
OF CASES, IT MAY BE THAT CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES OF THE UNION ALSO
WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO RESORT TO IT IN CASES OF THE SAME CLASS."  ANGLO
AMERICAN PROVISION CO. V. DAVIS PROVISION CO., NO. 1, 191 U.S. 373,
374.  THE MATTER WAS WELL PUT BY JUDGE CUTHBERT POUND IN CONNECTION
WITH LITIGATION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IN THE STATE
COURTS:  "THE STATE COURTS MUST MAKE NO HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
LITIGANTS WHO COME WITHIN THE ACT IN QUESTION; ...  THEY MUST TREAT
LITIGANTS UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT AS OTHER LITIGANTS ARE TREATED; ...
THEY ARE TO ACT IN CONFORMITY WITH THEIR GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE AND ARE NOT TO DENY JURISDICTION MERELY BECAUSE THE RIGHT
OF ACTION ARISES UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS."  MURNAN V. WABASH RY. CO.,
246 N.Y. 244, 247, 158 N.E. 508, 509. 

3.  THE UPSHOT OF THE MATTER IS THAT "RIGHTS, WHETHER LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE, ACQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY BE
PROSECUTED IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS, OR IN THE STATE COURTS,
COMPETENT TO DECIDE RIGHTS OF THE LIKE CHARACTER AND CLASS; SUBJECT,
HOWEVER, TO THIS QUALIFICATION, THAT WHERE A RIGHT ARISES UNDER A LAW
OF THE UNITED STATES, CONGRESS MAY, IF IT SEE FIT, GIVE TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION."  CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 136
137.  WHETHER A STATE COURT IS "COMPETENT TO DECIDE RIGHTS OF THE LIKE
CHARACTER AND CLASS," WHETHER THE PARTICULAR LITIGATION IS TO BE TRIED
BY JURY AND, IF SO, HOW THE JURY IS TO BE COMPOSED, WHETHER IT IS TO BE
A JURY OF TWELVE OR LESS, WHETHER DECISION IS TO BE BY UNANIMITY OR
MAJORITY, WHETHER SECURITY IS TO BE FURNISHED AND OF WHAT NATURE - IN
SUM, WHETHER A STATE COURT CAN TAKE JURISDICTION AND WHAT THE INCIDENTS
OF THE LITIGATION SHOULD BE - ALL THESE ARE MATTERS WHOLLY WITHIN THE
CONTROL OF THE STATE CREATING THE COURT AND WITHOUT THE POWER OF
CONGRESS.  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V.
BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S. 211.  AS IT WAS PUT BY MR. JUSTICE STORY IN MARTIN
V. HUNTER'S LESSEE, 1 WHEAT.  304, 330-331, "CONGRESS CANNOT VEST ANY
PORTION OF THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT IN COURTS
ORDAINED AND ESTABLISHED BY ITSELF."  CONGRESS MAY AVAIL ITSELF OF
STATE COURTS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS, BUT IT MUST TAKE
THE STATE COURTS AS IT FINDS THEM, SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR
LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURTS THAT THE STATE HAS DECREED FOR EVERY
OTHER LITIGANT WHO SEEKS ACCESS TO ITS COURTS. 

4.  CONGRESS FROM THE BEGINNING HAS ALLOWED FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS
TO BE ENFORCED IN STATE COURTS NOT ONLY BY THE GENERAL IMPLICATIONS OF
OUR LEGAL SYSTEM BUT ALSO BY EXPLICIT AUTHORIZATION.  THE NATURE OF THE
OBLIGATION OF THE STATE COURT UNDER SUCH LEGISLATION HAS BEEN MOST
LITIGATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AND
AFTER THOROUGH CANVASS THE MATTER WAS THUS SUMMARIZED BY MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES IN DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377, 387-388,
"AS TO THE GRANT OF JURISDICTION IN THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THAT
STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO REQUIRE STATE COURTS TO ENTERTAIN SUITS
ARISING UNDER IT, BUT ONLY TO EMPOWER THEM TO DO SO, SO FAR AS THE
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED.  IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT
IF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK WERE GIVEN NO DISCRETION, BEING
OTHERWISE COMPETENT, IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A DUTY.  BUT THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE ACT OF CONGRESS THAT PURPORTS TO FORCE A DUTY UPON SUCH
COURTS AS AGAINST AN OTHERWISE VALID EXCUSE." 

5.  THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT FROM 1789 TO THIS DAY NO ACT OF CONGRESS
HAS ATTEMPTED TO FORCE UPON STATE COURTS THE DUTY OF ENFORCING ANY
RIGHT CREATED BY FEDERAL LAW ON TERMS OTHER THAN THOSE ON WHICH LIKE
LITIGATION INVOLVING RIGHTS OTHER THAN FEDERAL RIGHTS IS REQUIRED TO BE
CONDUCTED IN A STATE COURT.  IT CERTAINLY HAS NOT DONE SO BY THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT NOR CAN ANY IMPLICATION TO THAT EFFECT BE DERIVED FROM
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FOR THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
DOES NOT GIVE GREATER SUPREMACY TO THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OVER THE FREE
SCOPE OF THE STATES TO DETERMINE WHAT SHALL BE LITIGATED IN THEIR
COURTS AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS, THAN IT GIVES WITH REFERENCE TO
RIGHTS DIRECTLY SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH AS THOSE GUARANTEED
BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, SEE ANGLO-AMERICAN PROVISION CO.
V. DAVIS PROVISION CO., NO. 1, SUPRA, OR WITH REFERENCE TO THE POWER
EXERCISED BY CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SEE MINNEAPOLIS & ST.
LOUIS R. CO. V. BOMBOLIS, SUPRA. 

6.  THE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT SOUGHT TO EXERCISE
SINCE 1789 AND EVIDENTLY HAS NOT EXERCISED BECAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RELATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS TO THEIR ENFORCEMENT IN STATE
COURTS SHOULD NOT BE READ INTO CHAPTER X. C. 575, 52 STAT. 883, 11
U.S.C. SEC. 501 ET SEQ. WE SHOULD HESITATE LONG BEFORE WE FIND THAT
CONGRESS HAS ASSUMED THE POWER TO RENDER UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE
LEGISLATION BY WHICH ACCESS TO A STATE COURT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO A
LITIGANT ON NO DIFFERENT TERMS THAN THOSE WHICH THE STATE HAS
PRESCRIBED FOR ITS OWN LITIGANTS TO WHOM ACCESS TO ITS COURTS IS GIVEN
IN LIKE CASES.  AND CERTAINLY SUCH A WHOLLY NOVEL DOCTRINE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SHOULD NOT BE RESORTED TO GRATUITOUSLY WHEN THE CASE
BEFORE US CAN BE DISPOSED OF ON THE CONCLUSIVE GROUND THAT THE
LITIGATION CONDUCTED IN THE NEW YORK COURTS WAS CONDUCTED UNDER AN
ARRANGEMENT CONSONANT WITH NEW YORK LAW, NAMELY THAT THE ATTORNEYS'
FEES WERE TO BE FIXED NOT BY THE NEW YORK COURTS BUT BY THE BANKRUTCY
COURT.  SEE MATTER OF HEINSHEIMER, 214 N.Y. 361, 108 N.E. 636. 
RECOGNITION THAT SUCH IS NEW YORK LAW AND THAT THEREFORE THE REMISSION
OF FEE-FIXING IN THIS CASE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS NOT IN CONFLICT
WITH THAT LAW APPEARS FROM THE OPINION BELOW:  "AS A MATTER OF FACT THE
RETAINER OF THESE ATTORNEYS WAS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE
AMOUNT OF ANY FEES WOULD BE FIXED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT."  290 N.Y. 468, 475.  THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE REQUIRES
NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION MADE IN THE COURT'S OPINION RELATING TO NEW YORK
LAW, NOR THE APPLICATION GIVEN TO CHAPTER X, BOTH OF WHICH MUST BE
INESCAPABLE BEFORE WE EVEN REACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE NEEDLESSLY
PROJECTED. 

7.  HINES V. LOWREY, 305 U.S. 85, DOES NOT TOUCH THIS PROBLEM.  THAT
CASE INVOLVED SEC. 500 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT WHICH LIMITED TO
$10 THE FEE THAT MAY BE ALLOWED FOR SERVICES IN PRESSING A CLAIM BEFORE
THE UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU AND MADE IT A CRIME TO CHARGE MORE. 
A NEW YORK COURT GRANTED A FEE OF $1,500 FOR SUCH SERVICES BECAUSE THE
ESTATE OF THE VETERAN WAS BEING ADMINISTERED BY A COMMITTEE APPOINTED
BY THE STATE COURT WHICH HAD APPOINTED AN ATTORNEY TO PRESS THE CLAIM
BEFORE THE VETERANS' BUREAU.  OF COURSE THIS COURT HELD THAT A STATE
COURT CANNOT SANCTION THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS OUTLAWED AS A CRIME.  THE
NEW YORK COURT IN EFFECT DENIED THE AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL LAW TO FIX
FEES FOR LITIGATION BEFORE A FEDERAL TRIBUNAL - A VERY DIFFERENT THING
FROM DENYING TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK THE AUTHORITY TO FIX FEES FOR
LITIGATION IN ITS OWN COURTS.  THE LIMITATIONS IN THE HINES CASE FIXED
BY CONGRESS DID NOT RUN COUNTER TO ANY REQUIREMENT OF NEW YORK LAW
GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF SUITS IN ITS COURTS.  THAT CASE WAS NOT
CONCERNED WITH SUCH A SITUATION, AND THEREFORE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HOLD
THAT, IF NEW YORK HAD A POLICY FOR LITIGATION IN ITS COURTS CONTRARY TO
THAT EXPRESSED BY CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, A FEDERAL RIGHT COULD BE
PURSUED IN DISREGARD OF THE CONDITIONS FOR ENTRY INTO NEW YORK COURTS
APPLICABLE TO ALL OTHER LITIGANTS.  CONGRESS HAS NEVER SAID THAT IT CAN
SUBVERT THE DECLARED POLICY OF A STATE AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH, OR
THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH, LITIGATION IN STATE COURTS SHOULD BE
CONDUCTED. THE FEDERAL LAW IN ANY FIELD WITHIN WHICH CONGRESS IS
EMPOWERED TO LEGISLATE IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND IN THE SENSE THAT
IT MAY SUPPLANT STATE LEGISLATION IN THAT FIELD, BUT NOT IN THE SENSE
THAT IT MAY SUPPLANT THE EXISTING RULES OF LITIGATION IN STATE COURTS. 
CONGRESS HAS FULL POWER TO PROVIDE ITS OWN COURTS FOR LITIGATING
FEDERAL RIGHTS.  THE STATE COURTS BELONG TO THE STATES.  THEY ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF CONGRESS THOUGH OF COURSE STATE LAW MAY IN
WORDS OR BY IMPLICATION MAKE THE FEDERAL RULE FOR CONDUCTING LITIGATION
THE RULE THAT SHOULD GOVERN SUITS TO ENFORCE FEDERAL RIGHTS IN THE
STATE COURTS.  SURELY IT CANNOT BE THAT SHOULD NEW YORK DECIDE TO
REGULATE THE PUBLIC PROFESSION OF THE LAW BY PUTTING THE DETERMINATION
OF ALL ATTORNEYS' FEES IN CHARGE OF ITS COURTS, CONGRESS COULD PROVIDE
THAT ACTIONS THEREAFTER BROUGHT IN NEW YORK COURTS IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF FEDERAL RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO NEW YORK'S FEE SYSTEM.  I
REPEAT, HINES V. LOWREY, SUPRA, GIVES NO SUPPORT WHATEVER TO A CLAIM
WHICH WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THAT CASE, WHICH IT DID NOT CONSIDER, AND
WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO THE WHOLE COURSE OF FEDERAL JUDICIARY LEGISLATION
AND FEDERAL ADJUDICATION. 

WE OUGHT NOT TO GO OUT OF OUR WAY TO EMBARRASS CONSIDERATION OF SUCH
DELICATE QUESTIONS IN THE WORKING OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM WHENEVER IN THE
FUTURE THEY MAY CALL FOR DECISION BY THIS COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :























EASTERN-CENTRAL ASSN. V. U.S., 321 U.S. 194 


NO. 105.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 16, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 1944.  -
48 F.SUPP.  432, REVERSED. 


IN ORDER TO COMPETE WITH RAILROADS IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF
HARDSURFACE FLOOR-COVERING, MOTOR CARRIERS PROPOSED TO ESTABLISH RATES
47.5 PER CENT OF FIRST CLASS, MINIMUM 20,000 POUNDS (TRUCKLOAD), AND 45
PER CENT OF FIRST CLASS, MINIMUM 30,000 POUNDS (CARLOAD).  THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REJECTED THE PROPOSED RATES AS UNJUST
AND UNREASONABLE, AND UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY BETWEEN SHIPPERS, SO FAR
AS SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM OF 30,000 POUNDS.  HELD THAT, BECAUSE OF THE
INADEQUACY OF THE RECORD, THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONFORMS TO LAW; AND THE DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT REFUSING TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER MUST BE
REVERSED.  P. 209. 

EASTERN-CENTRAL MOTOR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, REFUSING TO
SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 34 M.C.C.
641. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS ARE MOTOR CARRIER ASSOCIATIONS WHO SEEK TO PUT INTO EFFECT
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULES IN ORDER TO MEET RAIL COMPETITION.  THE
SCHEDULES COVER TRANSPORTATION OF HARD SURFACE FLOOR COVERING, E.G.,
LINOLEUM, FROM POINTS IN NEW ENGLAND AND MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES TO
VARIOUS DESTINATIONS IN MIDDLE WESTERN STATES.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, THREE COMMISSIONERS DISSENTING, REJECTED THE SCHEDULES.  34
M.C.C. 641.  IN SO DOING IT UPHELD THE PREVIOUS CONCLUSION OF ITS
DIVISION 3.  31 M.C.C. 193.  A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT (28 U.S.C.
SEC. 47) SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S DECISION.  48 F.SUPP.  432.  THE
APPEAL, UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47A, 345, BRINGS THE DECREE HERE FOR
REVIEW.  EASTERN-CENTRAL IS THE PRINCIPAL APPELLANT.  WE THINK THE
JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. 

WHEN THE SCHEDULES WERE FILED, THE MOTOR CARRIERS' RATES ON CARPETING
GENERALLY WERE BASED ON MINIMUM WEIGHTS VARYING BETWEEN 16,000 AND
20,000 POUNDS, ROUGHLY APPROXIMATING A TRUCKLOAD.  BELOW THIS WEIGHT
THE RATE WAS EQUIVALENT TO 70 PER CENT OF FIRST CLASS.  ABOVE IT THE
RATE VARIED SOMEWHAT, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 45 TO 50 PER CENT OF FIRST
CLASS.  CORRESPONDING RAIL RATES THEN WERE 70 PER CENT OF FIRST CLASS
FOR SHIPMENTS OF LESS THAN 30,000 POUNDS (LESS THAN CARLOAD LOTS) AND
45 PER CENT FOR LARGER SHIPMENTS.  THUS, THE DIFFERENTIAL ACCORDING TO
WEIGHT WAS GEARED IN THE ONE CASE TO RAIL CARLOAD CAPACITY AND IN THE
OTHER TO TRUCKLOAD CAPACITY.  FN1 

CONCEIVING THAT THESE STRUCTURES GAVE THE RAILROADS AN UNDUE
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE ON LARGER SHIPMENTS, APPELLANTS PROPOSED SPECIFIC
RATES DESIGNED TO ENABLE THEM TO COMPETE WITH THE RAILROADS FOR SUCH
SHIPMENTS.  THEY SOUGHT TO UTILIZE A NEW MINIMUM WEIGHT.  THE RATES
TENDERED WERE APPROXIMATELY THE EQUIVALENT OF 70 PER CENT OF FIRST
CLASS FOR SHIPMENTS OF LESS THAN 20,000 POUNDS, 47.5 PER CENT FOR
20,000 TO 30,000 POUNDS, AND 45 PER CENT FOR 30,000 POUNDS OR MORE. 
THE SCHEDULES THEREFORE SUBSTANTIALLY PUT RAIL AND MOTOR RATES ON THE
SAME PLANE FOR LESS THAN 20,000 AND MORE THAN 30,000 POUNDS; BUT PLACED
MOTOR RATES SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER THAN RAIL RATES FOR SHIPMENTS OF 20,000
TO 30,000 POUNDS. 

CERTAIN WESTERN RAIL CARRIERS PROTESTED.  THEREUPON THE PROPOSED
RATES WERE MADE THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION
PROCEEDINGS.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 316(D), (G), 49 STAT. 558-560, 54 STAT.
924.  HEARINGS WERE BEGUN BEFORE DIVISION 3.  WHILE THEY WERE PENDING
APPELLANTS AGREED TO MAKE APPLICABLE IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR PROPOSED
RATE, MINIMUM 30,000 POUNDS, A TARIFF PROVISION THAT SUCH SHIPMENTS
"MUST BE RECEIVED AT AND TRANSPORTED FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN FROM ONE
SHIPPER IN ONE DAY AND ON ONE BILL OF LADING."  FN2  THE RAIL
PROTESTANTS THEREFORE PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE AND AFTER THE HEARING
WITHDREW THEIR PROTEST.  WHILE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING THE RAIL
CARRIERS ALSO REDUCED THEIR RATES MINIMUM 30,000 POUNDS TO 42.5 PER
CENT OF FIRST CLASS. 

THE HEARINGS CONTINUED AND APPELLANTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE WHICH
SHOWED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT ONE MOTOR CARRIER, BRADY TRANSFER AND
STORAGE COMPANY, OF FORT DODGE, IOWA, HAD RECEIVED "SINCE THESE RATES
WERE SUSPENDED, FOUR LOADS FROM THE WESTERN TRUNK LINE TERRITORY,
INSTEAD OF 398, AND THREE OF THOSE WE HAVEN'T COLLECTED THE CHARGES ON,
BECAUSE THE RATE WAS TOO HIGH  ...  "  IT APPEARED TOO THAT THE
EASTBOUND MOVEMENT CONSISTS LARGELY OF DAIRY PRODUCTS, REQUIRING
REFRIGERATION.  THE BULK OF THE WESTBOUND MOVEMENT IS FROZEN OR SALTED
FISH. 

DIVISION 3 MADE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FIRST THAT, BASED UPON THE
COSTS PROVEN AND COMPARISON WITH MOTOR CARRIERS' RATES ON NUMEROUS
COMMODITIES, THE PROPOSED RATES 45 PER CENT WERE "JUST AND REASONABLE
PROVIDED THE MINIMUM THAT IS APPLICABLE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH IS
REASONABLE."  ACCORDINGLY IT EXAMINED THE REASONS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT
OF THE PROPOSED MINIMUM OF 30,000 POUNDS. 

ON THIS, IT FOUND IN NO. M-1445  FN3  THAT LINOLEUM SHIPMENTS WHICH
MOVE BY RAIL TO THE OHIO POINTS GENERALLY ARE CONSIGNED TO WAREHOUSES
HAVING RAIL SIDINGS, WHILE LINOLEUM IS TENDERED TO THE APPELLANT MOTOR
CARRIERS IN QUANTITIES WEIGHING FROM 18,000 POUNDS UPWARD.  IT FOUND
ALSO, AND THE FINDING IS NOT QUESTIONED, THAT IT IS PHYSICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO LOAD 30,000 POUNDS OF LINOLEUM INTO A SINGLE UNIT OF
EQUIPMENT OPERATED BY APPELLANTS.  WHILE SOME OF IT CAN TRANSPORT
25,000 POUNDS, "THE NORMAL TRUCKLOAD OF LINOLEUM APPROXIMATES 22,000
POUNDS."  REJECTING APPELLANTS' CONTENTION BASED ON CARPETS AND
CARPETING FROM OFFICIAL TO SOUTHERN TERRITORY, 237 I.C.C. 651, THE
DIVISION STATED: 

"THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND REPEATEDLY THAT CARLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHTS
SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY RAIL CARRIERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE LOADING
CAPACITY OF THEIR FREIGHT CARS AND HAS CONDEMNED MINIMUM WEIGHTS IN
EXCESS OF THE LOADING POSSIBILITIES OF THE RAIL EQUIPMENT.  THE
RESPONDENTS (APPELLANTS HERE) HAVE NOT PRESENTED TO US A VALID REASON
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ECONOMY IN TRANSPORTATION OR OTHERWISE, SUCH
AS WE HAVE FOUND TO EXIST IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN TRAINLOAD
MOVEMENTS,  FN4 WHY THEY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM
WEIGHT GREATER THAN IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE TO LOAD IN THE MOTOR
EQUIPMENT USUALLY USED BY THEM, AND, IN OUR OPINION, NO SUCH REASON
EXISTS.  STRICTLY SPEAKING, THE PROPOSED MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 30,000
POUNDS IS NOT A TRUCKLOAD MINIMUM WEIGHT BUT RATHER IS A VOLUME MINIMUM
WEIGHT, WHICH NECESSITATES THE USE OF MORE THAN ONE UNIT OF EQUIPMENT
TO LOAD AND TRANSPORT THAT QUANTITY OF LINOLEUM.  WE ADOPT AS A POLICY,
THE CONDEMNATION AS UNREASONABLE OF A VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT, UNLESS IT
IS SHOWN CLEARLY THAT, AS A RESULT THEREOF, MOTOR CARRIERS CAN HANDLE
THE TRAFFIC AT THE VOLUME MINIMUM WEIGHT AT COSTS PER 100 POUNDS WHICH
ARE LESS THAN THE COSTS INCURRED AT A REASONABLE TRUCKLOAD MINIMUM
WEIGHT." 

THE DIVISION THEN FOUND THAT, ON THE RECORD, A REASONABLE TRUCKLOAD
MINIMUM ON LINOLEUM IS 20,000 POUNDS AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING OF
OPERATING ECONOMIES WHICH WOULD RESULT IF THE PROPOSED RATES WERE
RESTRICTED TO APPLY ONLY WHEN 30,000 POUNDS ARE TENDERED.  IT CONCLUDED
THAT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES "ARE JUST AND REASONABLE AND OTHERWISE
LAWFUL EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY PROPOSE TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM OF
30,000 POUNDS; THAT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM OF 30,000 POUNDS IS UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE; AND THAT A MINIMUM OF 20,000 POUNDS WOULD BE JUST AND
REASONABLE."  THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES THEREFORE, TO THE EXTENT FOUND NOT
JUST AND REASONABLE, WERE ORDERED CANCELLED "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT  ...  OF TRUCKLOAD RATES ON LINOLEUM, MINIMUM 20,000
POUNDS, WHICH ARE NOT LESS THAN 45 PERCENT OF THE CORRESPONDING FIRST
CLASS RATES."  31 M.C.C. 193. 

THEREAFTER ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HAD BEFORE THE FULL COMMISSION.  AT THIS
STAGE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE INTERVENED AND SUPPORTED
THE DIVISION'S POSITION.  FN5  THE COMMISSION AFFIRMED THE DIVISION'S
FINDINGS "THAT THE PROPOSED RATES 45 AND 47.5 PERCENT OF FIRST CLASS
ARE NOT UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROPOSED
RATES, 45 PERCENT OF FIRST CLASS, ARE SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM OF 30,000
POUNDS."  BOTH RATES, IT SAID, "ARE WITHIN THE ZONE OF
REASONABLENESS."  BUT "THE PROPOSED RATES, MINIMUM 30,000 POUNDS, WOULD
GIVE AN UNJUST ADVANTAGE TO SHIPPERS OF 30,000-POUND LOTS AND BE
UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY TO SHIPPERS OF 20,000-POUND LOTS."  SINCE AT
THAT TIME THE TARIFFS DISCLOSED APPELLANTS' RATES WERE EITHER 45 OR
47.5 PER CENT OF FIRST CLASS, MINIMUM 20,000 POUNDS, NO ORDER FOR THE
FUTURE WAS MADE.  THE COMMISSION, IN CONCLUDING ITS DISCUSSION, SAID: 

"WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT WE APPROVED CERTAIN (MOTOR CARRIER)
RATES SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 30,000 POUNDS ON LINOLEUM IN
CARPETS AND CARPETING, OFFICIAL TO SOUTHERN TERRITORY, SUPRA.  HOWEVER,
OUR REPORT THEREIN EXPRESSES OUR DOUBT AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF
ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM OF 30,000 POUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED
COLUMN 45 BASIS BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE UNIT OF
EQUIPMENT TO TRANSPORT 30,000 POUNDS.  THAT REPORT WAS ISSUED OVER A
YEAR AGO AND NOW WE ARE CONVINCED THAT NOT ONLY WERE OUR DOUBTS AS
EXPRESSED THEREIN WELL FOUNDED, BUT THAT FOR THE FUTURE WE SHALL FOLLOW
THE POLICY ANNOUNCED IN THE PRIOR REPORT HEREIN WITH RESPECT TO MINIMUM
WEIGHTS IN EXCESS OF THE LOADING CAPACITY OF THE EQUIPMENT CUSTOMARILY
USED BY THE MOTOR CARRIERS." 

THE DISTRICT COURT, SUSTAINING THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND
DECISION,  FN6  HELD THAT THE EXTENT TO WHICH COMPETITION SHOULD BE
RECOGNIZED IN ARRIVING AT JUST RATES IS A MATTER, WITHIN REASONABLE
LIMITS, FOR THE EXPERT JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT, IN
EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION, THAT BODY HAD MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
216(I) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  FN7  49 U.S.C. SEC. 316(I). 

                  I. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPARENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DIVISION AND THE
FULL COMMISSION, IN THE FORMER'S VIEW THAT THE PROPOSED RATE MINIMUM
30,000 POUNDS IS UNREASONABLE AND THE LATTER'S THAT IT IS BOTH
UNREASONABLE AND UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY, THE NET EFFECT IS THAT THE RATE
IS UNLAWFUL, AS A MATTER OF POLICY WHICH CONDEMNS ALL VOLUME MINIMUM
RATES UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY SHOWN THEY WILL OPERATE AT COSTS PER 100
POUNDS LESS THAN THE COSTS INCURRED AT REASONABLE LOADING CAPACITY
RATES. 

WHETHER THIS POLICY IS NOW INTENDED TO APPLY TO ALL FORMS OF
TRANSPORTATION, RAIL, MOTOR AND WATER, WITHOUT REGARD TO COMPETITIVE
CONDITIONS AFFECTING TWO OR MORE OF THEM, IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE
ABBREVIATED REPORTS MADE IN THIS CASE.  BUT THEIR CASTING OF THE MATTER
IN TERMS OF UNQUALIFIED POLICY, DEPENDENT ONLY UPON PROOF OF THE
REQUIRED REDUCTION IN OPERATING COSTS, GIVES BOTH APPEARANCE AND
SUBSTANCE TO THE VIEW THIS MAY BE TRUE, IF NOT WITH RESPECT TO ALL
CARRIERS, THEN CERTAINLY WITH REFERENCE TO MOTOR CARRIERS.  IF SO THE
EFFECT WILL BE, AS APPELLANTS URGE, NOT TO MAKE REDUCTION IN COSTS
MERELY ONE FACTOR, NOR INDEED EVEN THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR, IN
DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS AND DISCRIMINATORY OR CONTRARY CHARACTER
OF RATES.  IT WILL BE RATHER TO MAKE REDUCTION IN COSTS THE EXCLUSIVE
CRITERION, ELIMINATING ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING COMPETITIVE
CONDITIONS AMOUNTING TO NECESSITY.  THAT IS TRUE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO STATING ITS ADOPTION OF THE
POLICY ANNOUNCED BY THE DIVISION, GAVE EXPRESSION IN AN ABSTRACT WAY TO
A DIRECTLY CONTRARY PRINCIPLE, NAMELY, "THE EXTENT TO WHICH COMPETITION
BETWEEN CARRIERS MAY RENDER DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICE NOT UNLAWFUL
MUST BE DECIDED UPON THE FACTS IN EACH CASE."  FN8  THE LATTER
STATEMENT, TAKEN LITERALLY, SQUARELY CONTRADICTS THE POLICY UNLESS
INDEED THE STATEMENT WAS INTENDED TO QUALIFY IT IN SITUATIONS NOT
INDICATED OR CONTAINED AN IMPLICIT LIMITATION FROM CONTEXT THAT THE
ONLY "FACTS IN EACH CASE" WHICH WOULD BE MATERIAL ARE THOSE WHICH WOULD
PROVE A REDUCTION IN COSTS. 

THAT THE PURPOSE WAS NOT TO QUALIFY THE POLICY SEEMS APPARENT, NOT
ONLY FROM THE LATTER'S UNQUALIFIED FORMULATION AND ADOPTION AND FROM
THE FAILURE TO INTIMATE IN WHAT TYPES OF SITUATION THE QUALIFICATION
MIGHT OPERATE, BUT ALSO FROM TWO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.  ONE IS THAT THE
STATEMENT WAS FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY BY THE BROAD AND CONCLUSIVE
DECLARATION, IN GENERAL TERMS, WITHOUT SUPPORTING DATA OR REASONS,
EXCEPT AS SUPPLIED BY THE POLICY ITSELF, THAT "THE COMPETITION BETWEEN
RAIL AND MOTOR CARRIERS FOR LINOLEUM TRAFFIC DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUCH A
DISSIMILARITY IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS AS TO RENDER LEGAL THE
PROPOSED DISCRIMINATION."  THE STATEMENT WAS NOT LIMITED TO THE
PARTICULAR COMPETITIVE SITUATION.  IN TERMS IT APPLIED TO ALL BETWEEN
RAIL CARRIERS AND MOTOR CARRIERS.  IN SHORT, THE POLICY, AND THEREFORE
THE SINGLE FACTOR THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW REDUCTION IN COST,
WAS THE SOLE CRITERION OF DECISION.  OTHER FACTS, INCLUDING COMPETITIVE
DISADVANTAGE, BECAME IRRELEVANT.  AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE POLICY'S
APPLICATION BECOMES MORE MANIFEST BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE CASE,
THOUGH PRESENTED AND DECIDED ON ITS OWN RECORD, WAS REGARDED AND
DETERMINED AS A TEST CASE.  FN9  FINALLY, THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF
ITS PREVIOUS DECISIONS, UPON WHICH APPELLANTS RELIED, SHOWS, WE THINK,
THAT ITS PURPOSE, IN THE CASE OF MOTOR CARRIERS AT ANY RATE, IS TO
ADHERE STRICTLY TO THE POLICY AND, IN THE MANNER MADE, MAY BE TAKEN TO
INDICATE THAT IT CONTEMPLATES NO DEPARTURE WHATEVER.  IF SO, THE EFFECT
OF THE DECISION IS NOT MERELY TO ADOPT "A POLICY OF ADMINISTRATION," AS
THE COMMISSION AND THE INTERVENORS BEFORE IT ASSERT; BUT IS RATHER TO
ADOPT, AS A RULE OF LAW, THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONLY UPON A SHOWING OF
REDUCTION IN OPERATING COSTS MAY A VOLUME MINIMUM RATE BE FOUND
REASONABLE AND NOT UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY. 
   II. 

THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED CHIEFLY PREVIOUS DECISIONS IN CARPETS AND
CARPETING FROM OFFICIAL TO SOUTHERN TERRITORY, SUPRA; MOLASSES FROM NEW
ORLEANS, LA., TO PEORIA AND PEKIN, ILL., 235 I.C.C. 485; AND PETROLEUM
RAIL SHIPPERS' ASSN. V. ALTON AND SOUTHERN R., 243 I.C.C. 589.  IN THE
MOLASSES CASE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMISSION'S PREVIOUS REFUSAL TO
AUTHORIZE RAIL VOLUME RATES FOR MORE THAN CARLOAD LOTS AT LESS THAN
CARLOAD RATES, IT APPROVED A MULTIPLE CAR RATE, MINIMUM 1,800 TONS, ON
MOLASSES WHICH WAS LOWER THAN THE CARLOAD RATE.  THE EFFECT WAS TO
AUTHORIZE A LOWER RATE TO A NUMBER OF CARLOADS TENDERED AS A SINGLE
SHIPMENT.  THE DEPARTURE WAS MADE TO ENABLE THE RAIL CARRIERS TO MEET
WATER COMPETITION.  HOWEVER, THERE WAS A SHOWING THAT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES A MATERIAL SAVING IN COSTS PER 100 POUNDS WOULD BE MADE
IN TRANSPORTING SUCH MULTIPLE-CAR SHIPMENTS.  IN THE PETROLEUM SHIPPERS
CASE THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED AUTHORIZING MULTIPLE-CAR RATES ON
PETROLEUM, BUT DECLINED TO DO SO UPON FINDING THAT THE RECORD DID NOT
ESTABLISH EXISTENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL COST SAVING IN SUCH SHIPMENTS. 

IN THE CARPETS AND CARPETING CASE THE COMMISSION APPROVED CERTAIN
RATES SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM WEIGHT OF 30,000 POUNDS ON LINOLEUM.  IN
DOING SO, IT SAID: 

"WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE FOR THE MOTOR
CARRIERS TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM OF 30,000 POUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
POSTPONED COLUMN 45 BASIS, BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE UNIT
OF EQUIPMENT TO TRANSPORT 30,000 POUNDS.  ON THIS RECORD, HOWEVER, WE
ARE NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE COLUMN 45 RATES, MINIMUM 30,000
POUNDS, WHERE NOT LOWER THAN THE CORRESPONDING PROPOSED RAIL-WATER
CARLOAD RATES, WOULD BE UNLAWFUL, PROVIDED THAT A RULE IS MADE
APPLICABLE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH TO THE EFFECT THAT SHIPMENTS OF NOT
LESS THAN 30,000 POUNDS ACTUALLY WILL BE RECEIVED AT AND TRANSPORTED
FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN FROM ONE SHIPPER IN ONE DAY AND ON ONE BILL OF
LADING."  237 I.C.C. 651, 657-658. 

AND IN PEANUT BUTTER FROM MONTGOMERY, ALA., TO GEORGIA, 22 M.C.C.
375, DIVISION 2, ALTHOUGH DECLARING IN ONE BREATH THAT MOTOR CARRIERS
SHOULD NOT MAINTAIN VOLUME RATES SUBJECT TO MINIMUM WEIGHTS GREATER
THAN EQUIPMENT GENERALLY AVAILABLE CAN TRANSPORT, IN THE NEXT NOTED
THAT THE NATIONAL MOTOR-FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION IS REPLETE WITH SUCH
RATINGS, REFUSED TO CONDEMN THEM AND SAID THAT IF THEY WERE RESTRICTED
TO APPLY ONLY WHEN TENDERED BY ONE SHIPPER, IN ONE DAY AND ON ONE BILL
OF LADING, THEY WOULD BE "IN CONSONANCE WITH CARPETS AND CARPETING FROM
OFFICIAL TO SOUTHERN TERRITORY, SUPRA."

            III. 

THESE CASES DISCLOSE DEPARTURES, THOUGH TENTATIVELY MADE, FROM THE
COMMISSION'S LONG-STANDING FN10  POLICY IN THE SAME RESPECT, ADOPTED
WHEN ITS POWERS EXTENDED ONLY TO RAIL CARRIERS.  INFLUENCED PRIMARILY
BY THE DESIRE TO SECURE SHIPPING ADVANTAGES FOR THE SMALL SHIPPER EQUAL
TO THOSE GIVEN THE LARGE ONE AND THUS TO ENFORCE THE POLICY OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE LEGISLATION AGAINST UNDUE DISCRIMINATION, THE
COMMISSION AT FIRST DECLINED TO ADOPT WHOLESALE RATES.  FN11 THE MAJOR
DEPARTURE WAS IN ALLOWING LOWER RATES FOR CARLOAD LOTS THAN FOR LESS
THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENTS.  THIS WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE DIFFERENCE IN
COSTS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE STRUCTURE BECAME FIXED WITH THIS AS THE MAJOR
AND FOR LONG THE ONLY DIFFERENTIAL; AND WITH IT THE PRINCIPLE THAT SUCH
A SAVING IN OPERATIONS ALONE JUSTIFIES A DIFFERENTIAL.  THAT POLICY
RECEIVED JUDICIAL APPROVAL  FN12  AND REMAINED CONTROLLING SO LONG AS
THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY ONLY OVER RAILROADS. 

BUT WITH THE EVOLUTION OF OTHER FORMS OF CARRIAGE, PARTICULARLY MOTOR
CARRIAGE, AND THE COMMISSION'S ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OVER THEIR RATES
AND OPERATIONS, A NEW SITUATION AROSE.  THE COMMISSION'S TASK NO LONGER
WAS MERELY THE REGULATION OF A SINGLE FORM OF TRANSPORT, TO SECURE
REASONABLE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY RATES AND SERVICE.  IT BECAME, NOT
MERELY THE REGULATOR, BUT TO SOME EXTENT THE COORDINATOR OF DIFFERENT
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.  WITH THE ADDITION OF MOTOR AND WATER CARRIAGE
TO ITS PREVIOUS JURISDICTION OVER RAILS, IT WAS CHARGED NOT ONLY WITH
SEEING THAT THE RATES AND SERVICES OF EACH ARE REASONABLE AND NOT
UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY, BUT THAT THEY ARE COORDINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, AS DECLARED BY THE LATER
LEGISLATION.  FN13  THIS, WHILE INTENDED TO SECURE THE LOWEST RATES
CONSISTENT WITH ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND TO PRESERVE WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF THE POLICY THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH MODE OF
TRANSPORTATION, AT THE SAME TIME WAS DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE DESTRUCTIVE
COMPETITION NOT ONLY WITHIN EACH FORM BUT ALSO BETWEEN OR AMONG THE
DIFFERENT FORMS OF CARRIAGE. 

NECESSARILY THE IMPACT OF THESE CHANGES BROUGHT PROBLEMS THE
COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY HAD NOT FACED.  NECESSARILY TOO THE COMMISSION IN
FACING THEM, INCLUDING THOSE OF ADJUSTMENT AMONG THE VARIOUS FORMS OF
TRANSPORTATION, CALLED UPON ITS PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN THE RAILROAD
FIELD FOR GUIDANCE TO ITS JUDGMENT.  BUT THAT EXPERIENCE COULD NOT
APPLY FULLY TO THE OTHER AND DIFFERENT FORMS OF CARRIAGE.  NOR COULD IT
DO SO ALWAYS WHEN THE INTERESTS OF TWO OR MORE WERE FOUND IN CONFLICT. 
EACH FORM OF TRANSPORTATION PRESENTS, BY REASON OF ITS PECULIAR
OPERATING CONDITIONS, ITS OWN PROBLEMS FOR THE FUNCTION OF RATE
MAKING.  AND EACH, BY VIRTUE OF COMPETITION WITH OTHERS, PRESENTS
ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS ARISING FROM THE VARIED CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR
OPERATION.  HENCE, IN SUCH SITUATIONS, PRINCIPLES PREVIOUSLY
ESTABLISHED FOR APPLICATION WITHIN A SINGLE FORM OF TRANSPORTATION
CANNOT ALWAYS BE TRANSPLANTED TO CONTROL ITS RELATIONS WITH ANOTHER OR
THOSE OF BOTH WITH THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES UNDULY
HARMFUL TO ONE OR TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

THUS, IN THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THIS CASE, APPLICATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE THAT VOLUME MINIMUM RATES WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY WHEN GEARED TO
A CAPACITY LOADING WHICH MAKES POSSIBLE A REAL SAVING IN COSTS OF
OPERATION, MAY BE MADE WITHIN EITHER THE RAILROAD AREA OR THE MOTOR
AREA WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DISTURBANCE OR DIFFICULTY.  EACH HAS ITS UNIT
OF CARRIAGE OR LOADING AND THAT UNIT HAS A SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO
COSTS; HENCE, UPON THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RAILROAD PRINCIPLE, TO
REASONABLENESS AND THE DISCRIMINATORY OR NONDISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER OF
RATES.  BUT, AS BETWEEN RAILS AND MOTORS, THE TWO UNITS ARE DIFFERENT. 
AND THE TWO FORMS OF CARRIAGE COMPETE, UNLESS THE LOWER RATES GEARED TO
THE RESPECTIVE UNITS ARE OF A CHARACTER THAT EACH FORCES THE OTHER FORM
OF CARRIAGE FROM THE FIELD.  THE JUNCTION OF DIFFERENCE IN AVAILABLE
UNITS, WITH RATES GEARED TO THEM, AND THE FACT OF COMPETITION OR
COMPETITIVE POSSIBILITY PRODUCES OR MAY PRODUCE CONSEQUENCES NEITHER
THE CHARACTER OF THE UNIT NOR THE FACT OF COMPETITION, NOR BOTH
TOGETHER, COULD CREATE IN EITHER FORM OF SERVICE TAKEN ALONE.  IN
SHORT, THE VERY FACT A RAIL CARLOAD IS 30,000 POUNDS AND A TRUCKLOAD
20,000, WITH RATES RESPECTIVELY TIED TO THESE WEIGHTS, MAY MAKE A LIFE
OR-DEATH DIFFERENCE IN THE COMPETITIVE STRUGGLE, WITH CONSEQUENCES
AFFECTING NOT ONLY THE CARRIERS BUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL.  AND
APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT THAT A 30,000-POUND MINIMUM IS NECESSARY TO MEET
RAIL COMPETITION IS AT LEAST CONSONANT WITH THE FREQUENT RECOGNITION,
BOTH BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THIS COURT, THAT THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN
IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE FORMER TO CONSIDER A CARRIER'S NEED TO MEET
OTHER CARRIERS' COMPETITION AS A FACTOR JUSTIFYING WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD
BE AN UNREASONABLE OR AN UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY RATE.  FN14 

BUT WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT COMPETITION MAY HAVE DESTRUCTIVE
EFFECT, OR OTHER CONSEQUENCES HURTFUL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IN A
PARTICULAR SITUATION MAY DEPEND NOT MERELY ON THE DIFFERENCE IN SIZES
OF UNITS, BUT ON OTHER FACTORS.  EACH FORM OF CARRIAGE HAS SOME
INHERENT ADVANTAGES OVER THE OTHERS, SUCH AS MOBILITY, SPEED, NORMAL
VOLUME CAPACITY, ETC.  PURELY LEGAL RESTRICTIONS, SUCH AS LIMITATIONS
UPON TONNAGE PLACED ON TRUCKS BY STATE LAWS, CREATE LIKE OR CONTRARY
EFFECTS.  WHETHER, IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION, THE MERE DIFFERENCE IN
LOADING CAPACITY OR SOME OTHER OR OTHERS OF THE MANY IMPORTANT FACTORS
AFFECTING COMPETITIVE POSITION WILL BE CONTROLLING DEPENDS UPON THE
CHARACTER OF, AND THE FACTORS INVOLVED IN, THAT SITUATION.  AND THIS IS
AS TRUE OF ONE FORM OF TRANSPORTATION AS OF ANOTHER WHEN, BUT FOR RATE
STRUCTURES GEARED SOLELY TO COSTS OF OPERATION, IT COMES WITHIN A
COMPETITIVE TANGENT. 

                                 IV. 

IN SUCH A SITUATION, THEREFORE, TO TIE RATE DIFFERENTIALS EXCLUSIVELY
TO MINIMUM WEIGHTS BASED ON AVAILABLE UNIT SIZE CONCEIVABLY MIGHT
ALLOCATE ALL SHIPMENTS OF THAT SIZE TO THE FORM OF TRANSPORTATION TO
WHICH IT APPERTAINS.  OR, IF THE EFFECT WERE LESS EXTENSIVE, STILL IT
MIGHT IMPOSE CONDITIONS UPON THE COMPETITION UNDULY BURDENSOME OR NOT
REQUIRED BY THE COMPETITIVE SITUATION AND THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY
POLICIES.  THUS, APPELLANTS SAY THE COMMISSION'S RULING HAS SUCH
CONSEQUENCES IN THIS CASE, NAMELY, TO FORCE THEM TO MAKE THE 45 PER
CENT RATE AVAILABLE ON SHIPMENTS BETWEEN 20,000 AND 30,000 POUNDS, THUS
PLACING THE RAILROADS AT A DISADVANTAGE ON SUCH TONNAGES AND COMPELLING
THE MOTOR CARRIERS TO REDUCE THEIR RATES ON THEM BELOW WHAT THE
COMPETITION REQUIRES; OR TO COMPEL THEM TO FOREGO AN EQUALITY OF RATE
WITH THE RAILROADS ON SHIPMENTS OF 30,000 POUNDS AND MORE BY CHARGING
ONLY THE ONE RATE OF 47.5 PER CENT ON ALL SHIPMENTS OF 20,000 POUNDS
AND MORE.  FROM THESE ALTERNATIVES IT IS CHARGED THE CONSEQUENCE IS TO
FORCE THE TRUCKERS "OUT OF THAT VERY LARGE FIELD OF TRAFFIC" AND
ALLOCATE IT TO THE RAILROADS.  WHETHER THIS IS THE EFFECT OR NOT, WE
HAVE NO MEANS OF KNOWING ON THIS RECORD.  NOR CAN WE TELL, OTHER THAN
BY SHEER ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION, IN THE FORM OF ITS
STATEMENT OF THE RESULT AND CRYPTIC FORMULATION OF THE POLICY ON WHICH
IT IS RESTED, WHETHER THE PROPOSED RATES WILL GIVE THE MOTOR CARRIERS
AN UNDUE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AS TO SHIPMENTS OF 20,000 TO 30,000
POUNDS, WHETHER THERE WILL BE DISCRIMINATION IN FACT BETWEEN CLASSES OF
SHIPPERS, OR WHETHER THOUGH THESE THINGS MAY RESULT IN THE PARTICULAR
SITUATION THEY WILL DO SO ONLY BY VIRTUE OF ITS PECULIAR FEATURES OR BY
VIRTUE OF ITS CONFORMITY TO CONDITIONS GENERALLY PREVAILING IN REGIONS
COMPETITIVE AS BETWEEN RAIL AND MOTOR CARRIERS. 

THESE, AND OTHER QUESTIONS OF LIKE IMPORT, REMAIN UNANSWERED UPON THE
RECORD.  THE PROBLEM IS NOVEL.  IT IS NOT FREE FROM COMPLEXITY, AS
APPEARS FROM THE COMMISSION'S HESITANT DEPARTURES FROM, THEN ITS RETURN
TO, THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RAILROAD RULE, IN INTER-CARRIER SITUATIONS. 
FURTHER, THE MATTER IS ONE OF GENERAL IMPORTANCE.  IT AFFECTS NOT ONLY
SHIPMENTS OF LINOLEUM, AND MOTOR CARRIERS, BUT MANY KINDS OF SHIPMENT
AND ALL KINDS OF CARRIERS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  IT MAY
TOUCH VITALLY THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IT INVOLVES, TO SOME EXTENT, THE
IMPORTANT TASK OF RECONCILING PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED RAILROAD POLICIES
WITH, OR ADAPTING THEM TO, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRESENTLY EFFECTIVE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND ITS APPLICATION TO A COORDINATED
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  UPON A MATTER OF SUCH CONSEQUENCE AND
COMPLEXITY, OUR FUNCTION IN REVIEW CANNOT BE PERFORMED WITHOUT FURTHER
FOUNDATION THAN HAS BEEN MADE. 

WE DO NOT MEAN BY THIS TO IMPLY THAT THE RESULT THE COMMISSION HAS
REACHED WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IF A SUFFICIENT BASIS WERE SUPPLIED IN
THE RECORD.  WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE WHAT RESULT THE
COMMISSION SHOULD REACH.  BUT WE CANNOT SAY THE ONE AT WHICH IT HAS
ARRIVED HAS THE SANCTION OF LAW WITHOUT FURTHER BASIS THAN WE NOW
HAVE.  THIS IN ITSELF REQUIRES REVERSAL.  CONSEQUENTLY WE NEED NOT
SPEAK CONCERNING APPELLANTS' OTHER CONTENTIONS, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE
PERTINENCE OF SOME OF THEM TO THE NECESSARY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
REQUIRES. 

                           V. 

APPELLANTS' BROADEST CONTENTION MUST BE REJECTED AT THIS STAGE.  IT
IS, IN EFFECT, THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
COMPETITIVE NECESSITY BECOMES THE CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION, AND COSTS
OF OPERATION, THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT MINIMUM VOLUME RATES BE
GEARED TO LOADING CAPACITY, BECOME IMMATERIAL.  THAT VIEW MUST BE
REJECTED FOR THE SAME REASON AS REQUIRES REJECTION, ON THIS RECORD AND
UNTIL FURTHER BUTTRESSED, OF THE COMMISSION'S CONVERSE VIEW THAT COSTS
EXCLUSIVELY CONTROL AND COMPETITION BECOMES IMMATERIAL.  CONCEIVABLY
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT MAKE ONE OR THE OTHER FACTOR PREDOMINANT
AND, IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE CHOICE WOULD BE FOR THE COMMISSION TO
MAKE, UPON A PROPER WEIGHING OF THE FACTS AND OPPOSING POLICIES
POSSIBLY APPLICABLE.  WHETHER IN ANY CASE THIS CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS
COULD BE ACCEPTED MAY BE DOUBTFUL.  CERTAINLY IT SHOULD NOT BE IN
ADVANCE OF FURTHER ACTION BY THE COMMISSION AND THEN ONLY IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY IT AS BEING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST SO
CLEARLY THAT NO OTHER VIEW WOULD BE TENABLE. 

APPELLANTS ALSO SAY THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW THERE COULD BE NO UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, SINCE THEY INSIST THERE IS
NO SHOWING, UPON THE FACTS, THAT DIFFERENT CLASSES OF SHIPPERS WOULD BE
AFFECTED.  ON THE CONTRARY THEY ASSERT THAT ALL SHIPPERS ACTUALLY ARE
IN THE SAME CLASS AND ALL ARE FREE TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE
ALTERNATIVE RATES ABOVE 20,000 AND 30,000 POUNDS, 47.5 PER CENT AND 45
PER CENT, RESPECTIVELY, AS THEY PLEASE.  BUT THE ONLY BASES FOR THIS
ASSERTION ARE, FIRST, THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING THAT THE AVAILABILITY
OF THE 45 PER CENT RATE, MINIMUM 30,000 POUNDS, "WOULD IN PRACTICAL
EFFECT BE CONFINED TO ONLY A FEW OR A PARTICULAR CLASS OF SHIPPERS" AND
THE FURTHER ASSERTION THAT NO SUCH FINDING COULD BE MADE, SINCE 30,000
POUND SHIPMENTS OF LINOLEUM "ARE THE NORMAL UNITS OF QUANTITY PURCHASE
AND SALE AS REVEALED BY THE RAILROAD CARLOAD RATES WHICH APPLY BETWEEN
THE SAME LOCALITIES ONLY ON SHIPMENTS OF 30,000 POUNDS."  OBVIOUSLY, AS
THE COMMISSION NOTED, THE MERE EXISTENCE OF THESE RATES IN THE TARIFFS
HARDLY COULD BE TAKEN TO PROVE THE CONCLUSION APPELLANTS SOUGHT TO DRAW
FROM THAT FACT.  CERTAINLY IT COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE.  WHETHER OR NOT, HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED RATES IN FACT WOULD
OPERATE TO CREATE AN UNDUE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN SHIPPERS, OR CLASSES
OF THEM, IS A MATTER UPON WHICH THE RECORD FACTUALLY THROWS NO LIGHT. 
IT IS THEREFORE ONE FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSION.    IN
RETURNING THE CASE WE EMPHASIZE THAT WE DO NOT QUESTION THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO ADOPT AND APPLY GENERAL POLICIES APPROPRIATE
TO PARTICULAR CLASSES OF CASES, SO LONG AS THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
STATUTORY STANDARDS WHICH GOVERN ITS ACTION AND ARE FORMULATED NOT ONLY
AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTORS INVOLVED BUT WITH SUFFICIENT
EXPLICATION TO ENABLE THE PARTIES AND OURSELVES TO UNDERSTAND, WITH A
FAIR DEGREE OF ASSURANCE, WHY THE COMMISSION ACTS AS IT DOES.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475, 488,
489.  OBSERVANCE OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS AS NECESSARY WHEN AN
ESTABLISHED POLICY IS BEING EXTENDED TO NEW AND SIGNIFICANT SITUATIONS
AS WHEN A NEW POLICY IS BEING FORMULATED AND APPLIED IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE.  WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO TELL THE COMMISSION WHAT IT SHOULD DO
IN THIS CASE.  THAT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION.  WE ONLY REQUIRE THAT,
WHATEVER RESULT BE REACHED, ENOUGH BE PUT OF RECORD TO ENABLE US TO
PERFORM THE LIMITED TASK WHICH IS OURS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SO IT WAS FOUND, IN EACH INSTANCE, UPON THE EVIDENCE, AND THE
FINDING IS NOT DISPUTED.  THE FIGURES ARE ONLY APPROXIMATE; THAT IS,
30,000 POUNDS REPRESENTS NOT AN EXACT CARLOAD CAPACITY, SINCE
DIFFERENCES IN LOADING CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMODITIES AND SLIGHT
DIFFERENCES IN CARLOAD CAPACITIES, MAY MAKE POSSIBLE LOADING SLIGHTLY
MORE OR LESS IN A CAR.  SIMILAR, PERHAPS SOMEWHAT WIDER, VARIATIONS
AFFECT TRUCKS.  THE FINDINGS WERE THAT 20,000 POUNDS REASONABLY CAN BE
VIEWED AS A MINIMUM WEIGHT GEARED TO TRUCKLOAD CAPACITY, THOUGH IN SOME
INSTANCES AS MUCH AS 22,000 OR 25,000 POUNDS ACTUALLY CAN BE LOADED IN
ONE VEHICLE. 

FN2  CF. CARPETS AND CARPETING FROM OFFICIAL TO SOUTHERN TERRITORY,
237 I.C.C. 651; PEANUT BUTTER FROM MONTGOMERY, ALA., TO GEORGIA, 22
M.C.C. 375. 

FN3  TWO PROCEEDINGS, INVESTIGATION & SUSPENSION DOCKET NO. M-1216
AND NO. M-1445, WERE HEARD SEPARATELY, BUT CONSOLIDATED BEFORE THE
DIVISION. 

FN4  E.G., MOLASSES FROM NEW ORLEANS, LA., TO PEORIA AND PEKIN, ILL.,
235 I.C.C. 485. 

FN5  THIS INTERVENOR DID NOT APPEAR IN THE DISTRICT COURT, NOT HAVING
NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THERE UNTIL AFTER THE ARGUMENT THERE.  THE
APPEARANCE HERE IS BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER GRANTING A MOTION TO
INTERVENE. 

FN6  THE DECREE DISMISSED APPELLANTS' BILL TO SET ASIDE AND ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF SUSPENSION.  THE COURT AGREED
THAT THE PROPOSED RATE OF 45 PER CENT, MINIMUM 30,000 POUNDS, IS "A
MERE ADOPTION ON A VOLUME BASIS OF RATES FOR RAILROAD CARLOAD LOTS,"
HAVING "NO RELATION TO THE BUSINESS OF THE MOTOR CARRIERS," BOTH
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SHOWING OF ANY SAVING IN OPERATING COSTS WHEN
CARRYING MORE THAN 20,000 POUNDS AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NONE THAT A 45
TO 47.5 RATE, FOR ANYTHING BEYOND 20,000 POUNDS "WOULD NOT ENABLE THEM
TO MAINTAIN REASONABLE COMPETITION WITH THE RAILROADS."  AS TO THE
FINDING THAT RATES OF EITHER 45 OR 47.5 PER CENT, MINIMUM 20,000
POUNDS, WOULD NOT IN THEMSELVES BE UNREASONABLE, THE COURT SAID THIS
"DOES NOT NEGATIVE THE FINDING OF AN UNJUST ADVANTAGE TO SHIPPERS OF
30,000 POUND LOTS IN CASES WHERE SHIPPERS OF 20,000 POUND LOTS ARE NOT
GIVEN THE SAME TREATMENT." 

FN7  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE COMMISSION HAD MET THE SECTION'S
REQUIREMENTS "IN THAT IT HAS GIVEN 'DUE CONSIDERATION  ...  TO THE
INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF TRANSPORTATION BY SUCH CARRIERS, (AND)  ...  TO
THE NEED, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OF ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BY SUCH CARRIERS AT THE LOWEST COST CONSISTENT
WITH THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICE.  ...  '"  NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE
WAS MADE, HOWEVER, TO THE OVER-ALL NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, OR
ITS REQUIREMENTS PARTICULARLY IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION'S DUTY "TO
...  FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS  ...  AMONG THE SEVERAL CARRIERS;
TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF REASONABLE CHARGES,
...  WITHOUT  ...  UNFAIR OR DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; ...
ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING, COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER, HIGHWAY, AND RAIL.  ...  "  CF. NOTE 13
INFRA AND TEXT. 

FN8  THE COMMISSION LONG HAS RECOGNIZED THAT "REFERENCE TO AND  ...
CONSIDERATION OF ALL PERTINENT FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES, AND CONDITIONS
AFFECTING THE RATE IN EFFECT AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME" ARE NECESSARY.  20
I.C.C. 43.  INCLUDED AS PERTINENT HAVE BEEN SUCH "FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES,
AND CONDITIONS" AS THE EXPENSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
COMMODITY, E.G., WHETHER IT IS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL RISKS OR REQUIRES
SPECIAL SERVICES, CF. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. CHICAGO GREAT
WESTERN RY. CO., 209 U.S. 108; 113 I.C.C. 389; 87 I.C.C. 711, OR ITS
TRANSPORTATION CHARACTER IS AFFECTED BY THE MANNER OF PACKING, 98
I.C.C. 166; THE VALUE OF THE SERVICE RENDERED AND OF THE COMMODITY,
E.G., 83 I.C.C. 334; 100 I.C.C. 471; 102 I.C.C. 325; CF. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 64 F.
723(C.C.N.D.N.Y.); THE POSSIBILITY OF SECURING CONTINUOUS BUSINESS OR
ADDITIONAL TONNAGE, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO., 145 U.S. 263; PECULIAR NEEDS OR CONDITIONS AFFECTING SPECIFIC
AREAS, 9 I.C.C. 318; 113 I.C.C. 389; 146 I.C.C. 419; CF. TEXAS &
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 162 U.S. 197; RATES
ON THE SAME OR SIMILAR COMMODITIES ELSEWHERE, 113 I.C.C. 389; 122
I.C.C. 235; AND THE NEED TO MEET COMPETITION, EITHER BY THE SAME OR
OTHER TYPE OF CARRIER, TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, 162 U.S. 197; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. ALABAMA
MIDLAND RY. CO., 168 U.S. 144; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 627; UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 263
U.S. 515; MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
282; BARRINGER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 1.  SEE ALSO 142 I.C.C.
121; 235 I.C.C. 485; 235 I.C.C. 723; 237 I.C.C. 651. 

FN9  THE BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE, INTERVENOR,
POINTS OUT THAT APPELLANTS AND OTHER CARRIER ASSOCIATIONS JOINED IN A
PETITION TO THE COMMISSION FOR REARGUMENT AND RECONSIDERATION OF ELEVEN
CASES PREVIOUSLY DECIDED BY DIVISIONS 2 AND 3, INCLUDING THE ONE
PRESENTLY INVOLVED, I. AND S. NO. M-1216.  THE PETITION WAS REJECTED,
SINCE THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT PARTIES OF RECORD TO ALL THE
PROCEEDINGS.  BUT COINCIDENTALLY THE COMMISSION REOPENED I. AND S. NO.
M-1216, FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. 

FN10  E.G., PAINE BROS. & CO. V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 7 I.C.C. 218;
ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO. V. CHICAGO & ERIE R. CO., 19 I.C.C. 592,
596; RICKARDS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 23 I.C.C. 239, 240;
WOODWARD BENNETT CO. V. SAN PEDRO, L.A. & ST. L.R.R., 29 I.C.C. 664,
665; J.W. WELLS LUMBER CO. V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY., 38 I.C.C. 464,
465; AND COMPARE SCOFIELD V. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SO. RY. CO., 2
I.C.C. 90. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 10 SUPRA. 

FN12  COMPARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. DELAWARE, L. & W.
CO., 220 U.S. 235, 240-241. 

FN13  MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 543; TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1940, 54 STAT. 899. 

THAT POLICY DEMANDS THAT ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT BE SO REGULATED AS, IN THE
STATUTE'S LANGUAGE, TO "RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES
OF EACH; TO PROMOTE SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE
AND FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS; TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
REASONABLE CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST
DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES, OR UNFAIR OR
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; ...  ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING,
COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER,
HIGHWAY, AND RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE."  54 STAT. 899.  CF. MCLEAN TRUCKING CO. V. UNITED
STATES, ANTE, P. 67. 

FN14  CF. NOTE 8 SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE
REED CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

THIS CASE IN ITS ESSENTIALS CAN BE REDUCED TO SIMPLE TERMS; IN
EFFECT, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ACTED UNLAWFULLY IN HOLDING UNREASONABLE AND DISCRIMINATORY A PROPOSED
SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR THE SHIPMENT OF LINOLEUM IN TRUCKS OPERATED BY
MEMBERS OF APPELLANTS, ASSOCIATIONS OF MOTOR CARRIERS.  THE FACTS ARE
THESE.  ON LINOLEUM SHIPMENTS BETWEEN POINTS IN NEW ENGLAND, NEW
JERSEY, DELAWARE, PENNSYLVANIA, AND NEW YORK, AND DESTINATIONS IN IOWA,
KANSAS, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA, THE MEMBERS OF
THE EASTERN CENTRAL MOTOR CARRIERS ASSOCIATION CHARGED 50% OF FIRST
CLASS RATES, MINIMUM 20,000 POUNDS.  FN1  THIS MINIMUM IS APPROXIMATELY
THE WEIGHT WHICH CONVENTIONALLY IS A TRUCKLOAD.  RAILROAD RATES ON
LINOLEUM AT THIS TIME WERE 70% OF FIRST-CLASS FOR SHIPMENTS OF LESS
THAN 30,000 POUNDS AND 45% OF FIRST-CLASS FOR THOSE WEIGHING AT LEAST
30,000 POUNDS - A CONVENTIONAL RAILROAD CARLOAD. 

BY SCHEDULES FILED TO BECOME EFFECTIVE AUGUST 24TH, 1940, EASTERN
PROPOSED RATES OF 47.5% OF FIRST-CLASS, MINIMUM 20,000 POUNDS, AND 45%
OF FIRST-CLASS, MINIMUM 30,000 POUNDS.  THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS
CHANGE WOULD BE TO REQUIRE A SHIPPER WHO COULD SEND ONLY 20,000 POUNDS
OF LINOLEUM TO PAY A HIGHER RATE THAN ONE WHO COULD SHIP A CONSIGNMENT
OF 20,000 AND 10,000 POUNDS.  AND TWO SHIPPERS, ONE WITH 10,000 POUNDS
AND THE OTHER WITH 20,000 POUNDS COULD COMBINE THEIR SHIPMENTS AT THE
LOWER RATE, WHILE A SHIPPER OF 10,000 POUNDS WHO COULD NOT CONVENIENTLY
JOIN WITH OTHERS WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE HIGHER RATE.  THESE ARE THE
CHANGES HERE IN CONTROVERSY.  UPON THE PROTEST OF THE WESTERN TRUNK
LINE RAIL CARRIERS, LATER WITHDRAWN WHEN THE APPELLANTS AGREED THAT
THEIR 30,000 POUND MINIMUM RATE WOULD APPLY ONLY ON SHIPMENTS "RECEIVED
AT AND TRANSPORTED FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN, FROM ONE SHIPPER IN ONE
DAY AND ON ONE BILL OF LADING," OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES WAS
SUSPENDED AND DIVISION 3 OF THE COMMISSION HELD HEARINGS TO DETERMINE
THEIR VALIDITY.  UPON THEIR CONCLUSION, DIVISION 3 FOUND THAT THE
PROPOSED RATES WERE REASONABLY COMPENSATORY, BUT THAT IT WAS PHYSICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO LOAD 30,000 POUNDS OF LINOLEUM INTO A SINGLE UNIT OF
EQUIPMENT, AND THAT THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT OPERATING ECONOMIES
RESULT WHEN A 30,000 POUND MINIMUM SHIPMENT INVOLVING A TRUCKLOAD AND
FRACTION OF ANOTHER TRUCKLOAD IS TENDERED.  THE DIVISION THEREUPON
CONCLUDED THAT A MINIMUM WEIGHT GREATER THAN A TRUCKLOAD IS
UNREASONABLE UNLESS SUCH A RATE IS JUSTIFIED BY SAVINGS IN COST, AND
ORDERED THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES CANCELLED TO THE EXTENT FOUND UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE.  31 M.C.C. 193. 

THIS DECISION WAS FULLY REVIEWED BY THE ENTIRE COMMISSION UPON ORAL
AND PRINTED ARGUMENTS BY THE MOTOR CARRIERS, THE LINOLEUM SHIPPERS, AND
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE, A GROUP ORGANIZED TO PROMOTE
THE FREE INTERCHANGE OF COMMERCE.  THE SHIPPERS AND THE TRAFFIC LEAGUE
URGED THE COMMISSION TO LEAVE THE ORDER OF DIVISION 3 UNDISTURBED,
WHILE THE MOTOR CARRIERS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE RATES AS LEGITIMATE
MEANS OF MEETING RAIL COMPETITION.  THE COMMISSION AGREED WITH DIVISION
3 THAT THE RATES WERE UNREASONABLE AND HELD THAT THE 30,000 POUND
MINIMUM, BASED ON NO DIFFERENCE IN TRANSPORTATION COST, WOULD BE
DISCRIMINATORY.  34 M.C.C. 641. 

IF THE SOLE ISSUE WERE WHETHER THERE WOULD BE DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR
OF THE 30,000 POUND LOT SHIPPER AS AGAINST THE 20,000 POUND LOT
SHIPPER, CLEARLY THE COMMISSION COULD FIND AS IT DID, AND THE COURT
BELOW PROPERLY DID NOT UNDO WHAT THE COMMISSION DID.  48 F.SUPP.  432. 
IS THERE IN FACT MORE?  THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT RAIL COMPETITION
EXCUSES AND LEGALIZES THE DISCRIMINATION BEYOND THE COMMISSION'S POWER
TO CONDEMN.  THIS COURT DOES NOT YIELD TO THAT CLAIM, BUT IT DOES HOLD
THAT EITHER THE COMMISSION MUST STATE WITH PARTICULARITY WHY THE
EVIDENCE OF COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THIS RECORD IS SO VAGUE AND
INADEQUATE AS TO AFFORD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISCRIMINATION, OR, IN
EFFECT, REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH A FULL-DRESS
INVESTIGATION OF THE ENTIRE COMPETITIVE RELATIONS BETWEEN MOTOR AND
RAIL CARRIERS. 

THE COMMISSION, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, CONCLUDED
THAT "THE COMPETITION BETWEEN RAIL AND MOTOR CARRIERS FOR LINOLEUM
TRAFFIC DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUCH A DISSIMILARITY IN CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CONDITIONS AS TO RENDER LEGAL THE PROPOSED DISCRIMINATION."  PRIOR
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT SURELY DO NOT REQUIRE GREATER EXPLICATION OF
THE REASONS ON WHICH THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS ARE BASED.  SEE
BEAUMONT, S.L. & W. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 74, 86-87;
UNITED STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., 293 U.S. 454, 464-465.  THE COMMISSION
DID NOT ADOPT AN INFLEXIBLE "PRINCIPLE THAT VOLUME MINIMUM RATES WILL
BE ALLOWED ONLY WHEN GEARED TO A CAPACITY LOADING WHICH MAKES POSSIBLE
A REAL SAVING IN COSTS OF OPERATION," IF ITS STATEMENT THAT "THE EXTENT
TO WHICH COMPETITION BETWEEN CARRIERS MAY RENDER DISCRIMINATION AND
PREJUDICE NOT UNLAWFUL MUST BE DECIDED UPON THE FACTS IN EACH CASE" IS
TO BE ACCEPTED.  BURKE HAS SAID SOMEWHERE THAT HE COULD NOT IMAGINE
ENGLISH LAW WITHOUT THE LAW REPORTS.  SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
CONSIDERATIONS THAT CALL FOR GIVING REASONS IN RENDERING JUDICIAL
DECISIONS APPLY TO THE DETERMINATIONS OF SUCH AGENCIES AS THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  "WE MUST KNOW WHAT A DECISION MEANS
BEFORE THE DUTY BECOMES OURS TO SAY WHETHER IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG."  SEE
UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 511. 
BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE MORE EXACTING OF REPORTS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION EXPLAINING ITS ORDERS THAN WE ARE OF THE OPINIONS
OF LOWER COURTS WHOSE JUDGMENTS COME BEFORE US FOR REVIEW.    NOTHING
IN THIS RECORD CALLS FOR MORE EXPLICITNESS THAN IS ORDINARILY
DEMANDED.  FOR NOTHING IN THE RECORD REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS
THE CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY OF PROPOSED SCHEDULES WHICH, ASIDE FROM
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, ARE MANIFESTLY DISCRIMINATORY.  SUCH
DISCRIMINATORY RATES WERE SUPPORTED BY A BARE RECITAL THAT RAILROAD
RATES WERE NOMINALLY LOWER THAN MOTOR CARRIER RATES AND THAT THE
BUSINESS OF ONE MOTOR CARRIER HAD DECREASED.  AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE
DIVISION, A REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE MOTOR CARRIER STATED THAT THE
PROPOSED RATES WERE MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO COVER COSTS, THAT THEY DID
NOT VARY SUBSTANTIALLY FROM RATES IMPOSED ON THE SHIPMENT OF OTHER
COMPARABLE COMMODITIES, AND THAT RAILROAD COMPETITION HAD CAUSED HIS
COMPANY'S LINOLEUM BUSINESS TO DECLINE.  HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT HIS
FIRM COMPETED FOR LINOLEUM SHIPMENTS WITH OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS.  THIS
IS THE PROPOSED JUSTIFICATION FOR A RATE DIFFERENTIAL CONCEDEDLY BASED
ON NO DIFFERENCE IN TRANSPORTATION COST OR IN SERVICE RENDERED AND
WHICH THEREFORE DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN THOSE WHO SHIP 30,000 POUND LOTS
AND THOSE WHO SHIP 20,000 POUND LOTS.  AND THE RECORD BECOMES EVEN MORE
BARREN WHEN IT IS NOTED THAT THE COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS SAID TO REQUIRE
ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED DISCRIMINATORY TARIFFS WERE NOT SUCH AS TO
PREVENT THE RAIL CARRIERS' ACQUIESCENCE IN THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW
SCHEDULE WHEN, ON APPELLANTS' THEORY, THE RAIL CARRIERS HAD ADVANTAGES
INTENDED TO BE MITIGATED BY THE NEW RATES.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
EITHER 47.5% OR 45% WAS AN ALLOWABLE RATE FOR EITHER A 30,000 OR 20,000
POUND SHIPMENT - EITHER RATE "WAS WITHIN THE ZONE OF REASONABLENESS." 
IT THEREBY PERMITTED THE MOTOR CARRIERS TO COMPETE ON AN ENTIRE
EQUALITY WITH THE RAIL CARRIERS.  BUT IT FORBADE DISCRIMINATION AS
BETWEEN LINOLEUM SHIPPERS EQUALLY PLACED.  WHAT THE APPELLANTS REALLY
COMPLAIN OF IS NOT THAT THEY CANNOT MEET THE RAILROAD COMPETITION AT
THE 45% RATE ON 30,000 POUND LOTS, BUT THAT THEY CANNOT DO SO AND YET
COLLECT 47.5% ON LOTS OF 20,000 POUNDS WHICH ARE OUTSIDE RAIL
COMPETITION.  BE THAT AS IT MAY, A MERE ARITHMETIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
RAILROAD RATES AND MOTOR CARRIER RATES IS QUITE BLIND.  THE RATES
THEMSELVES MAY NOT BE AT ALL REVEALING ON COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS; THEY
MAY NOT TELL WHAT A SHIPPER GETS FOR HIS MONEY AND WHAT HE IS PAYING
FOR.  THAT IS, THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICE, THE ADVANTAGES OF ONE TYPE
OF SERVICE OVER THE OTHER, THE AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT, SAFETY, LABOR
COST, AND MANY OTHER FACTORS MAY ALL GIVE SIGNIFICANCE TO THE FIGURES
THAT FIGURES THEMSELVES DO NOT GIVE. 

THE PRESENT RULING APPARENTLY IMPOSES UPON THE COMMISSION THE DUTY OF
PURSUING SUCH COMPLICATED AND FARREACHING INVESTIGATIONS EVERY TIME A
MOTOR CARRIER RATE THAT MAY HAVE A RELATION TO A RAILROAD RATE IS FOUND
TO BE DISCRIMINATORY IN RELATION TO ANOTHER MOTOR CARRIER RATE
AFFECTING THE SAME COMMODITY.  SUCH AN INVESTIGATION IS AN UNDERTAKING
OF VAST SCOPE INVOLVING CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS WHICH IT WOULD REQUIRE
AN EXPERT MERELY TO CATALOGUE.  THE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS OF RAIL
AND MOTOR CARRIER SERVICES, THE ECONOMIC WISDOM OF EXCLUDING MOTOR
CARRIERS FROM LARGE-BULK LINOLEUM TRADE OR LIMITING THEIR PARTICIPATION
IN SUCH TRADE, THE AVAILABILITY OF OTHER COMMODITY SHIPMENTS TO REPLACE
LINOLEUM TRADE DIVERTED TO RAIL CARRIERS, THE AVAILABILITY OF AND COST
OF TRANSPORTING COMMODITIES WHICH MIGHT BE USED TO FILL THE TRUCK ONLY
PARTIALLY LOADED WITH LINOLEUM - THESE ARE ONLY A FEW OF THE FACTORS
WHICH MAY BECOME RELEVANT.  COMPARE III-B SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, PP. 572 ET SEQ. THE APPELLANTS INTRODUCED NO
EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE COMMISSION COULD INTELLIGENTLY WEIGH
THESE CONSIDERATIONS.  TO HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION MUST ON ITS OWN
INITIATIVE EMBARK ON SUCH AN INVESTIGATION IN A PROCEEDING OF THIS
NATURE IS TO IMPOSE WHAT MAY WELL BE A CRIPPLING BURDEN. 

TO SPEAK MORE PARTICULARLY OF THE TASK WHICH THE COMMISSION NOW
FACES, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT EASTERN FILES TARIFFS WITH THE
COMMISSION FOR ABOUT 650 CARRIER MEMBERS.  A TYPICAL COMMODITIES CLAUSE
FROM THE CARRIERS' CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
PROVIDES FOR THE SHIPMENT OF "GENERAL COMMODITIES, EXCEPT THOSE OF
UNUSUAL VALUE, AND EXCEPT DANGEROUS EXPLOSIVES, HOUSEHOLD GOODS AS
DEFINED IN PRACTICES OF MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS, 17
M.C.C. 467, COMMODITIES IN BULK, COMMODITIES REQUIRING SPECIAL
EQUIPMENT, AND THOSE INJURIOUS OR CONTAMINATING TO OTHER LADING, OVER
REGULAR ROUTES  ...  "  THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE EXCEPTIONS ARE FEW AND
THE ALLOWABLE SHIPMENTS MANY.  AN INVESTIGATION OF THE SCOPE APPARENTLY
REQUIRED BY THE COURT WOULD ENTAIL A DETAILED STUDY OF THE RELATIONS OF
THE RATE STRUCTURES IN A CASE MERELY INVOLVING THE RATES ON SPECIFIC
COMMODITIES ONE TO THE OTHER.  IF RAIL COMPETITION TURNS OUT TO BE
ACTUALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF APPELLANTS'
LINOLEUM BUSINESS, THE WAR-TIME LOAD ON THE RAILROADS MIGHT BECOME
RELEVANT, AND THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ATYPICAL
CIRCUMSTANCES AT THIS TIME JUSTIFY COMPETITIVE DISCRIMINATORY RATES
WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE UNREASONABLE. 

THAT THE COMMISSION IS AN EXPERT BODY TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT
TO COMMIT THE REGULATION OF THE INTRICATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE
VARIOUS MEANS OF NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION IS A WELL-WORN PHRASE WHICH
OUGHT NOT TO LOSE ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN PRACTICE WHEN THE ACTIONS OF THE
COMMISSION COME HERE FOR REVIEW.  WE SHOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO DEFINE
FOR THE COMMISSION THE OCCASIONS WHICH APPROPRIATELY DEMAND
INVESTIGATION OF GENERAL TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS, AND MORE PARTICULARLY
WHEN A CONTEST OVER THE RATE ON A PARTICULAR COMMODITY INCLUDED IN A
NETWORK OF TARIFFS CALLS FOR SUCH A GENERAL INVESTIGATION.  SURELY IT
IS WITHIN THE SPECIAL COMPETENCE OF THE COMMISSION TO PUT ON A
DISCRIMINATING CARRIER THE DUTY OF JUSTIFYING BY PROOF HIS PLAIN
DISCRIMINATION AS TO A PARTICULAR RATE AND NOT PERMIT HIM TO COMPEL THE
COMMISSION BY A MERE ASSERTION TO EMBARK UPON A FAR-FLUNG INQUIRY. 
THERE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY OCCASIONS WHEN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
WILL UNDERTAKE SUCH AN INVESTIGATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  BUT IT
OUGHT NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO DO SO UPON THE OCCURRENCE, FROM AN
ADMINISTRATIVE POINT OF VIEW, OF A MORE OR LESS ACCIDENTAL FILING OF A
TARIFF REVISION.  WHEN THE CARRIER SEEKS TO SUPPLANT A LAWFUL RATE, AS
IS THE CASE HERE, THE BURDEN IS ON IT TO SUPPLY ALL THE ESSENTIAL
INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED NEW RATE.  SEC. 216(G), PART II OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 316(G).  IF IT DOES NOT DO
SO, IT HAS FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE DUTY CAST UPON IT BY LAW, AND THE
COMMISSION IN SO FINDING HAS DULY EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY.  THE
COMMISSION'S DISPOSITIONS OF MOLASSES FROM NEW ORLEANS, LA., TO PEORIA
AND PEKIN, ILL., 235 I.C.C. 985 AND PETROLEUM RAIL SHIPPERS' ASSN. V.
ALTON & SOUTHERN R., 243 I.C.C. 589, ARE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT, SO FAR AS
THAT IS RELEVANT, WITH ITS ORDER IN THIS CASE. 

FN1  "FIRST-CLASS" IS USED TO DESIGNATE THE RATES APPLIED TO A CLASS
OF COMMODITIES.  PERCENTAGES OF A CLASS RATE ARE USED AS RATES FOR
DESIGNATED COMMODITIES. 
..END :



MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN S.S. CO., 321 U.S. 96 


NO. 200.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1944.  - 135
F.2D 602, REVERSED. 


1.  A FINDING OF SEAWORTHINESS BY A DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN
ADMIRALTY IS USUALLY A FINDING OF FACT, WHICH WILL NOT BE REVIEWED HERE
IF THE TWO COURTS BELOW CONCURRED IN IT.  BUT THE FINDING OF
SEAWORTHINESS IN THIS CASE IS REVIEWABLE HERE, SINCE BOTH COURTS BELOW,
HOLDING THEMSELVES BOUND BY A PREVIOUS DECISION OF THIS COURT, REACHED
THAT CONCLUSION AS A MATTER OF LAW.  P. 98. 

2.  A VESSEL AND ITS OWNER ARE LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY A SEAMAN FOR
INJURY CAUSED BY UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL OR ITS APPURTENANT
APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT.  P. 99. 

3.  A SEAMAN WHO WAS INJURED ON SHIPBOARD WHEN THE STAGING ON WHICH
HE WAS WORKING FELL AS A RESULT OF A BREAK IN DEFECTIVE ROPE WITH WHICH
IT WAS RIGGED, IS ENTITLED UNDER THE MARITIME LAW TO INDEMNITY FROM THE
SHIPOWNER FOR BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS.  P. 103. 

THE OWNER IS NOT RELIEVED OF LIABILITY IN SUCH CASE BY THE FACT THAT
THE USE OF THE DEFECTIVE ROPE IN RIGGING THE STAGING WAS DUE TO THE
NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP'S OFFICERS OR OF FELLOW SERVANTS OF THE SEAMAN,
FOR THE OWNER'S DUTY TO FURNISH THE SEAMAN WITH SAFE APPLIANCES AND A
SAFE PLACE TO WORK IS NONDELEGABLE; NOR IS THE OWNER RELIEVED BY THE
FACT THAT THERE WAS SOUND ROPE ABOARD, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN USED IN
RIGGING THE STAGING, FOR THE OWNER'S DUTY IS TO FURNISH THE SEAMAN WITH
SAFE APPLIANCES FOR USE IN HIS WORK WHEN AND WHERE IT IS TO BE DONE. 

4.  PLAMALS V. THE PINAR DEL RIO, 277 U.S. 151, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
CONFLICTS HEREWITH, IS DISAPPROVED.  P. 105. 

MAHNICH V. SOUTHERN STEAMSHIP CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 725, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE, 45
F.SUPP.  839, DENYING RECOVERY IN AN ACTION IN ADMIRALTY FOR INDEMNITY
FOR INJURIES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A SEAMAN ON RESPONDENT'S VESSEL, THE "WICHITA FALLS," WAS
INJURED, WHILE AT SEA, BY A FALL FROM A STAGING, WHICH GAVE WAY WHEN A
PIECE OF DEFECTIVE ROPE SUPPORTING IT PARTED.  THE ROPE WAS SUPPLIED BY
THE MATE WHEN THERE WAS AMPLE SOUND ROPE AVAILABLE FOR USE IN RIGGING
THE STAGING.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DEFECT IN THE STAGING WAS A
BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS RENDERING THE OWNER LIABLE TO
INDEMNIFY THE SEAMAN FOR HIS INJURY. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN PERSONAM IN ADMIRALTY IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, TO RECOVER INDEMNITY AND MAINTENANCE
AND CURE.  ON THE TRIAL THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THE MATE ORDERED
PETITIONER TO PAINT THE BRIDGE AND TO STAND ON THE STAGING FOR THAT
PURPOSE.  THE STAGING CONSISTED OF A BOARD SUPPORTED AT BOTH ENDS BY
ROPE WHICH, IF SOUND, WAS SUFFICIENT IN STRENGTH TO SUSTAIN THE STAGE
AND ITS LOAD.  THE BOATSWAIN, BY DIRECTION OF THE MATE, HAD CUT THE
ROPE FOR THE STAGING FROM A COIL, WHICH HAD BEEN STORED FOR TWO YEARS
IN THE LYLE GUN BOX.  THE ROPE, INTENDED FOR USE WITH THE LYLE LIFE
SAVING APPARATUS, HAD NEVER BEEN USED.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT IT HAD
BEEN EXAMINED AND TESTED BY THE BOATSWAIN AND THE MATE, AND THAT IT WAS
GENERALLY SOUND IN APPEARANCE.  AFTER THE ACCIDENT, EXAMINATION OF THE
ROPE AT THE POINT WHERE IT BROKE SHOWED THAT IT WAS SO ROTTEN AS TO BE
INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE STRAIN IMPOSED UPON IT. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE CONCLUDED FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS SOUND ROPE
ON BOARD AVAILABLE FOR RIGGING THE STAGING.  HE FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO
FAULT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STAGE HAD BEEN RIGGED, BUT THAT THE
ROPE SELECTED BY THE MATE WAS DEFECTIVE AND THAT PETITIONER'S INJURY
WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE BOATSWAIN AND THE MATE IN
FAILING TO OBSERVE THE DEFECT.  FN1  HE HELD THAT THE PROCEEDING WAS
BROUGHT TOO LATE TO RECOVER FOR THE NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE JONES ACT, AND
THAT THE "WICHITA FALLS" WAS NOT UNSEAWORTHY BY REASON OF THE DEFECTIVE
ROPE USED IN RIGGING THE STAGING, CITING PLAMALS V. THE PINAR DEL RIO,
277 U.S. 151, 155.  HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED INDEMNITY TO PETITIONER, BUT
GAVE JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 129 F.2D 857,
135 F.2D 602, BY A DIVIDED COURT, RESTING ITS DECISION ON THE STATEMENT
QUOTED FROM THE OPINION IN THE PINAR DEL RIO, SUPRA, 155, THAT "THE
RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SUGGESTION THAT THE 'PINAR DEL RIO' WAS
UNSEAWORTHY.  THE MATE SELECTED A BAD ROPE WHEN GOOD ONES WERE
AVAILABLE."  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 725, UPON A PETITION WHICH
URGED THAT THE STATEMENT QUOTED FROM THE PINAR DEL RIO, SUPRA, DOES NOT
RULE THIS CASE, AND THAT THE DECISION BELOW IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
DECISIONS IN THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158, AND IN SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V.
SMITH, 305 U.S. 424. 

THE SOLE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS THAT OF
RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY PETITIONER FOR THE INJURY SUFFERED
BY REASON OF THE DEFECTIVE STAGING.  NO QUESTION IS RAISED WITH RESPECT
TO PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO RECOVER UNDER THE JONES ACT OR HIS RIGHT TO
THE AWARD OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE OR ITS ADEQUACY. 

A FINDING OF SEAWORTHINESS IS USUALLY A FINDING OF FACT.  LUCKENBACH
V. MCCAHAN SUGAR CO., 248 U.S. 139, 145; STEEL V. STATE LINE S.S. CO.,
L.R. 3 A.C. 72, 81-82, 90-91.  ORDINARILY WE DO NOT, IN ADMIRALTY, MORE
THAN IN OTHER CASES, REVIEW THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT OF TWO
COURTS BELOW.  THE CARIB PRINCE, 170 U.S. 655, 658; THE WILDCROFT, 201
U.S. 378, 387; LUCKENBACH V. MCCAHAN SUGAR CO., SUPRA; PIEDMONT COAL
CO. V. SEABOARD FISHERIES CO., 254 U.S. 1, 13; JUST V. CHAMBERS, 312
U.S. 383, 385.  HERE, HOWEVER, BOTH COURTS BELOW, HOLDING THEMSELVES
BOUND BY THE PINAR DEL RIO, SUPRA, HAVE, ON THE FACTS FOUND, HELD AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT THE STAGING WAS SEAWORTHY DESPITE ITS DEFECT.  THAT
CONCLUSION OF LAW IS REVIEWABLE HERE. 

UNTIL THE ENACTMENT OF THE JONES ACT, 41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
688, THE MARITIME LAW AFFORDED NO REMEDY BY WAY OF INDEMNITY BEYOND
MAINTENANCE AND CURE, FOR THE INJURY TO A SEAMAN CAUSED BY THE MERE
NEGLIGENCE OF A SHIP'S OFFICER OR MEMBER OF THE CREW.  BUT THE
ADMIRALTY RULE THAT THE VESSEL AND OWNER ARE LIABLE TO INDEMNIFY A
SEAMAN FOR INJURY CAUSED BY UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL OR ITS
APPURTENANT APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT, HAS BEEN THE SETTLED LAW SINCE
THIS COURT'S RULING TO THAT EFFECT IN THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, 175. 
CHELENTIS V. LUCKENBACH S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372, 380-381; CARLISLE
PACKING CO. V. SANDANGER, 259 U.S. 255, 258-260; PACIFIC S.S. CO. V.
PETERSON, 278 U.S. 130, 134; CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S.
367, 370-371; WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155, 158; THE ARIZONA V.
ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110, 120 ET SEQ.; SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V. SMITH, SUPRA,
428-429; O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES CO., 318 U.S. 36, 40.  THE LATTER
RULE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE SEAMAN'S PRIVILEGE TO ABANDON
A SHIP IMPROPERLY FITTED OUT, AND WAS GENERALLY APPLIED, BEFORE ITS
STATEMENT IN THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, BY NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS DURING THE LAST CENTURY.  SEE THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH,
SUPRA, 121, FOOTNOTE 2. 

THIS WAS A RECOGNIZED DEPARTURE FROM THE RULE OF THE ENGLISH LAW,
WHICH ALLOWED NO RECOVERY OTHER THAN MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR INJURIES
CAUSED BY UNSEAWORTHINESS, COUCH V. STEEL, 3 EL. & BL. 402, UNTIL THE
ENACTMENT OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT OF 1876, 39 & 40 VICT., CHAP.
80, SEC. 5, REENACTED BY THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT OF 1894, 57 & 58
VICT., CHAP. 60, SEC. 458.  BY THAT STATUTE THERE IS ANNEXED TO EVERY
CONTRACT OF SERVICE BETWEEN THE OWNER OF A SHIP OR THE MASTER AND ANY
SEAMAN THEREOF, AN OBLIGATION THAT ALL REASONABLE MEANS BE USED TO
INSURE THE SEAWORTHINESS OF THE SHIP BEFORE AND DURING THE VOYAGE.  SEE
HEDLEY V. PINKNEY & SONS S.S. CO., (1894) A.C. 222. 

IN A NUMBER OF CASES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, DECIDED BEFORE THE
OSCEOLA, SUPRA, THE RIGHT OF THE SEAMAN TO RECOVER FOR INJURIES CAUSED
BY UNSEAWORTHINESS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN RESTED ON THE NEGLIGENT FAILURE,
USUALLY BY THE SEAMAN'S OFFICERS OR FELLOW SEAMEN, TO SUPPLY SEAWORTHY
APPLIANCES.  THE NODDLEBURN, 28 F. 855, AFF'D, 30 F. 142; THE NEPTUNO,
30 F. 925; THE FRANK AND WILLIE, 45 F. 494; THE JULIA FOWLER, 49 F.
277; WILLIAM JOHNSON & CO. V. JOHANSEN, 86 F. 886; AND SEE THE
COLUMBIA, 124 F. 745; THE LYNDHURST, 149 F. 900.  BUT LATER CASES IN
THIS AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE FOLLOWED THE RULING OF THE OSCEOLA,
SUPRA, THAT THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE DOES NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER OF
HIS OBLIGATION TO THE SEAMAN TO FURNISH ADEQUATE APPLIANCES.  FN2
CARLISLE PACKING CO. V. SANDANGER, SUPRA, 259-260; THE ARIZONA V.
ANELICH, SUPRA, 120 ET SEQ.; BEADLE V. SPENCER, 298 U.S. 124, 128-129;
SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V. SMITH, SUPRA, 428-429, 432; THE H. A. SCANDRETT,
87 F.2D 708, 710-711; CF. THE EDWIN I. MORRISON, 153 U.S. 199, 210. 

IF THE OWNER IS LIABLE FOR FURNISHING AN UNSEAWORTHY APPLIANCE, EVEN
WHEN HE IS NOT NEGLIGENT, A FORTIORI HIS OBLIGATION IS UNAFFECTED BY
THE FACT THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OFFICERS OF THE VESSEL CONTRIBUTED
TO ITS UNSEAWORTHINESS.  IT IS TRUE THAT BEFORE THE JONES ACT THE OWNER
WAS, IN OTHER RESPECTS, NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURIES TO A SEAMAN CAUSED
BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICERS OR MEMBERS OF THE CREW.  BUT THIS IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO INSULATE THE OWNER FROM LIABILITY FOR THEIR NEGLIGENT
FAILURE TO FURNISH SEAWORTHY APPLIANCES, SEE JUDGE ADDISON BROWN, IN
THE FRANK AND WILLIE, SUPRA, 495-497; CARLISLE PACKING CO. V.
SANDANGER, SUPRA, 259-260, MORE THAN THEIR NEGLIGENCE RELIEVES HIM FROM
HIS LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, 175;
PACIFIC S.S. CO. V. PETERSON, SUPRA, 134; CALMAR S.S. CORP. V. TAYLOR,
303 U.S. 525, 527. 

IT REQUIRED THE HARTER ACT TO RELAX THE EXACTING OBLIGATION TO CARGO
OF THE OWNER'S WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS OF SHIP AND TACKLE.  FN3  THAT
RELAXATION HAS NOT BEEN EXTENDED, EITHER BY STATUTE OR BY DECISION, TO
THE LIKE OBLIGATION OF THE OWNER TO THE SEAMAN.  THE DEFENSE OF THE
FELLOW SERVANT RULE TO SUITS IN ADMIRALTY FOR NEGLIGENCE, A DEFENSE
PRECLUDED BY THE JONES ACT, HAS NEVER AVOWEDLY BEEN DEEMED APPLICABLE
TO THE OWNER'S STRICTER OBLIGATION TO THE SEAMAN OF THE WARRANTY OF
SEAWORTHINESS. 

THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, IN ANSWER TO CERTIFIED QUESTIONS, LAID DOWN AS
SEPARATELY NUMBERED AND INDEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS THE RULE OF THE
OWNER'S UNQUALIFIED OBLIGATION TO FURNISH SEAWORTHY APPLIANCES, AND THE
RULE THAT THE OWNER IS NOT LIABLE TO A SEAMAN FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF HIS
FELLOW SERVANTS.  IT NOWHERE INTIMATED THAT THE OWNER IS RELIEVED FROM
LIABILITY FOR PROVIDING AN UNSEAWORTHY APPLIANCE, MERELY BECAUSE THE
UNSEAWORTHINESS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF FELLOW SERVANTS
OF THE INJURED SEAMAN RATHER THAN TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER. 
INDEED, TO SUPPORT THE RULE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY, THE COURT, SEE THE
OSCEOLA, SUPRA, 173-175, RELIED ON CASES IN WHICH THE VESSEL OR ITS
OWNER HAD BEEN HELD LIABLE FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM UNSEAWORTHINESS,
ALTHOUGH APPLICATION OF THE FELLOW SERVANT RULE WOULD HAVE BARRED
RECOVERY.  OF ONE, THE FRANK AND WILLIE, SUPRA, THE COURT, AFTER
POINTING OUT THAT THE SEAMAN WAS INJURED BY REASON OF THE NEGLIGENT
FAILURE OF THE MATE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE IN WHICH TO WORK, SAID,
"THE QUESTION WAS REALLY ONE OF UNSEAWORTHINESS AND NOT OF
NEGLIGENCE." 

THE COURT CITED, DISCUSSED AND RELIED UPON THE NODDLEBURN, SUPRA,
OLSON V. FLAVEL, 34 F. 477, THE FRANK AND WILLIE, SUPRA, AND THE JULIA
FOWLER, SUPRA.  IN EACH THE SEAMAN WAS INJURED AS A RESULT OF HIS USE
OF UNSEAWORTHY APPLIANCES RENDERED SO BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF A FELLOW
SERVANT.  IN THE JULIA FOWLER, SUPRA, THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A FALL
FROM A BOATSWAIN'S CHAIR WHICH THE COURT FOUND, AS IN THIS CASE, WAS
RIGGED WITH DEFECTIVE ROPE BY REASON OF THE FAULT OF THE MATE.  THE
INAPPLICABILITY OF THE FELLOW SERVANT RULE TO THIS TYPE OF CASE WAS
RECOGNIZED EXPLICITLY IN THE NODDLEBURN, SUPRA, 858, AND IN THE FRANK
AND WILLIE, SUPRA, 495-497.  AND SUCH WAS OUR HOLDING IN CARLISLE
PACKING CO. V. SANDANGER, SUPRA, WHERE IT WAS SAID, AT P. 259, "WITHOUT
REGARD TO NEGLIGENCE THE VESSEL WAS UNSEAWORTHY."  SEE ALSO THE
DISCUSSION IN THE H.A. SCANDRETT, SUPRA, 710-711. 

IN THUS REFUSING TO LIMIT, BY APPLICATION OF THE FELLOW SERVANT RULE,
THE LIABILITY OF THE VESSEL AND OWNER FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS, THIS COURT
WAS BUT APPLYING THE FAMILIAR AND THEN WELL ESTABLISHED RULE OF NON
MARITIME TORTS, THAT THE EMPLOYER'S DUTY TO FURNISH THE EMPLOYEE WITH
SAFE APPLIANCES AND A SAFE PLACE TO WORK, IS NONDELEGABLE AND NOT
QUALIFIED BY THE FELLOW SERVANT RULE.  HOUGH V. RAILWAY CO., 100 U.S.
213, 216-220; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. HERBERT, 116 U.S. 642, 647
648; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BAUGH, 149 U.S. 368, 386-388; UNION
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. DANIELS, 152 U.S. 684, 688-689.  IT WOULD BE AN
ANOMALY IF THE FELLOW SERVANT RULE, DISCREDITED BY THE JONES ACT AS A
DEFENSE IN SUITS FOR NEGLIGENCE, WERE TO BE RESUSCITATED AND EXTENDED
TO SUITS FOUNDED ON THE WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS, SO AS TO LOWER THE
STANDARD OF THE OWNER'S DUTY TO FURNISH SAFE APPLIANCES BELOW THAT OF
THE LAND EMPLOYER. 

THE STAGING FROM WHICH PETITIONER FELL WAS AN APPLIANCE APPURTENANT
TO THE SHIP.  IT WAS UNSEAWORTHY IN THE SENSE THAT IT WAS INADEQUATE
FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS ORDINARILY USED, BECAUSE OF THE
DEFECTIVE ROPE WITH WHICH IT WAS RIGGED.  ITS INADEQUACY RENDERED IT
UNSEAWORTHY, WHETHER THE MATE'S FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE DEFECT WAS
NEGLIGENT OR UNAVOIDABLE.  HAD IT BEEN ADEQUATE, PETITIONER WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN INJURED AND HIS INJURY WAS THE PROXIMATE AND IMMEDIATE
CONSEQUENCE OF THE UNSEAWORTHINESS.  SEE THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, 174-175,
AND CASES CITED.  ANY NEGLIGENCE OF THE MATE IN SELECTING THE ROPE AND
ORDERING ITS USE AS A PART OF THE STAGING, OR OF THE BOATSWAIN IN USING
IT FOR THAT PURPOSE, COULD NOT RELIEVE RESPONDENT OF THE DUTY TO
FURNISH A SEAWORTHY STAGING.  WHETHER PETITIONER KNEW OF THE DEFECTIVE
CONDITION OF THE ROPE DOES NOT APPEAR, BUT IN ANY CASE THE SEAMAN, IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES, IS NOT DEEMED TO ASSUME THE RISK OF
UNSEAWORTHY APPLIANCES.  THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, SUPRA, 123-124; BEADLE
V. SPENCER, SUPRA, 129-130; SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V. SMITH, SUPRA. 

NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THERE WAS SOUND ROPE ON BOARD, WHICH MIGHT
HAVE BEEN USED TO RIG A SAFE STAGING, AFFORD AN EXCUSE TO THE OWNER FOR
THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE ONE.  WE HAVE OFTEN HAD OCCASION TO
EMPHASIZE THE CONDITIONS OF THE SEAMAN'S EMPLOYMENT, SEE SOCONY-VACUUM
CO. V. SMITH, SUPRA, 430-431 AND CASES CITED, WHICH HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO
MAKE HIM A WARD OF THE ADMIRALTY AND TO PLACE LARGE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
HIS SAFETY ON THE OWNER.  HE IS SUBJECT TO THE RIGOROUS DISCIPLINE OF
THE SEA, AND ALL THE CONDITIONS OF HIS SERVICE CONSTRAIN HIM TO ACCEPT,
WITHOUT CRITICAL EXAMINATION AND WITHOUT PROTEST, WORKING CONDITIONS
AND APPLIANCES AS COMMANDED BY HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS.  THESE
CONDITIONS, WHICH HAVE GENERATED THE EXACTING REQUIREMENT THAT THE
VESSEL OR THE OWNER MUST PROVIDE THE SEAMAN WITH SEAWORTHY APPLIANCES
WITH WHICH TO DO HIS WORK, LIKEWISE REQUIRE THAT SAFE APPLIANCES BE
FURNISHED WHEN AND WHERE THE WORK IS TO BE DONE.  FOR, AS WAS SAID IN
THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, 175, THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION IS "TO SUPPLY AND KEEP
IN ORDER THE PROPER APPLIANCES APPURTENANT TO THE SHIP."  IT IS NOT
ENOUGH THAT THE "WICHITA FALLS" HAD ON BOARD SOUND ROPE WHICH COULD
HAVE BEEN USED TO MAKE THE STAGING SEAWORTHY, IF IN FACT THE STAGING
WAS UNSAFE BECAUSE SOUND ROPE WAS NOT USED.  THE JULIA FOWLER, SUPRA;
THE NAVARINO, 7 F.2D 743, 746; CF. THE PORTLAND, 213 F. 699. 

RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE DEFECTIVE ROPE WAS A CONSUMABLE SUPPLY
OF THE VESSEL, NOT FALLING WITHIN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE OWNER MUST
FURNISH SEAWORTHY EQUIPMENT APPURTENANT TO THE VESSEL, IS INAPPROPRIATE
HERE BECAUSE, AS WE HAVE SAID, IT WAS THE STAGE WHICH WAS UNSEAWORTHY,
BY REASON OF THE USE OF THE DEFECTIVE ROPE IN ITS CONSTRUCTION.  THE
STAGE WAS USED IN THE REPAIR OF THE SHIP, AND WAS AS INTIMATELY
ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND WITH THE SEAMAN'S EMPLOYMENT AS ARE THE GANGWAYS
OR OTHER APPLIANCES OR THE PASSAGEWAYS USED BY THE SEAMAN IN DOING HIS
WORK. 

MOREOVER IT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THIS CASE CONCERNS A
CONSUMABLE SUPPLY, FOR IN CARLISLE PACKING CO. V. SANDANGER, SUPRA, THE
OWNER WAS HELD LIABLE TO A SEAMAN FOR UNSEAWORTHINESS, WHERE A
CONSUMABLE SUPPLY OF THE SHIP WAS STORED IN SUCH FASHION AS TO RENDER
IT DANGEROUS TO THE SEAMAN WHO USED IT.  THERE GASOLINE HAD BEEN
NEGLIGENTLY PLACED IN A CAN MARKED "COAL OIL" AND THE SEAMAN WAS BURNED
BY AN EXPLOSION WHICH RESULTED WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO BUILD A FIRE WITH
THE GASOLINE, WHICH HE HAD TAKEN OUT OF THE CAN THINKING IT TO BE COAL
OIL. 

THE STATEMENT FROM THE PINAR DEL RIO, SUPRA, RELIED UPON BY THE TWO
COURTS BELOW, COULD BE TAKEN TO SUPPORT THEIR DECISION, ONLY ON THE
ASSUMPTION EITHER THAT THE PRESENCE OF SOUND ROPE ON THE "WICHITA
FALLS" AFFORDED AN EXCUSE FOR THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE STAGING, OR
THAT ANTECEDENT NEGLIGENCE OF THE MATE IN DIRECTING THE USE OF THE
DEFECTIVE ROPE RELIEVED THE OWNER FROM LIABILITY FOR FURNISHING THE
APPLIANCE THEREBY RENDERED UNSEAWORTHY.  BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, NEITHER
ASSUMPTION IS TENABLE IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISIONS BEFORE AND SINCE
THE PINAR DEL RIO, SUPRA.  SO FAR AS THIS STATEMENT SUPPORTS THESE
ASSUMPTIONS, IT IS DISAPPROVED.  WE CANNOT FOLLOW IT, AND ALSO FOLLOW
THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, THE CASES WHICH IT APPROVED AND CARLISLE PACKING
CO. V. SANDANGER, SUPRA.  WE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE LATTER AS THE MORE
CONSONANT WITH PRINCIPLE AND AUTHORITY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE DISSENTING JUDGE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT
THAT THIS FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE SHIP'S OFFICERS WAS
ERRONEOUS.  SEE 135 F.2D 602, 605.  THERE WAS NO ATTACK ON THIS FINDING
HERE, AND WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S
CONCLUSION, FOR, AS WE WILL POINT OUT, THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS
SUCH NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT CONTROL DECISION OF THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE. 

FN2  BY STATUTE THE OWNER'S SIMILAR OBLIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE
CARRIAGE OF GOODS IS MERELY TO EXERCISE "DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE THE  ...
VESSEL IN ALL RESPECTS SEAWORTHY."  HARTER ACT, SEC. 3, 27 STAT. 445,
46 U.S.C. SEC. 192.  SEE ALSO CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, SEC. 4(1),
49 STAT. 1210, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1304(1). 

FN3  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT IS WRONG.  THE CASE DOES NOT PRESENT A SITUATION
CALLING FOR LIBERALIZING THE MARITIME LAW IN FAVOR OF SEAMEN BY
ABOLISHING THE DEFENSE OF A FELLOW SEAMAN'S NEGLIGENCE.  CONGRESS DID
THAT IN 1920(41 STAT. 1007).  BUT IT REQUIRED ACTIONS IN SUCH
SITUATIONS TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS, WHICH IT SUBSEQUENTLY
EXTENDED TO THREE YEARS.  THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER RECOVERY SHOULD
BE PERMITTED BEYOND THE TIME WHEN CONGRESS SAID ACTION MUST BE
INSTITUTED.  I SHOULD SAY NOTHING FURTHER ON THIS QUESTION SAVE THAT
THE METHOD OF REACHING THE DECISION SEEMS TO ME CONTRARY TO RIGHT
EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION. 

THE PETITIONER HAS UNDOUBTEDLY OBTAINED CARE AND CURE TO WHICH, AS A
SEAMAN, HE WAS ENTITLED IRRESPECTIVE OF FAULT ON THE PART OF OWNER OR
MASTER.  HE FAILED TIMELY TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF HIS RIGHT TO SUE UNDER
SEC. 33 OF THE JONES ACT.  IN AN ACTION UNDER THAT STATUTE THE DEFENSE
OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF A FELLOW SERVANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OPEN TO THE
RESPONDENT.  IN AN EFFORT TO OBTAIN DAMAGES, HE BROUGHT THIS ACTION
UNDER THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW.  HIS RECOVERY VEL NON UNDER THE UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE TO OTHERS THAN HIMSELF AND
THE RESPONDENT.  BUT, IN ORDER TO GIVE HIM THE DEMANDED RELIEF, THE
COURT RESORTS TO NULLIFICATION OF AN EARLIER DECISION, PLAMALS V. PINAR
DEL RIO, 277 U.S. 151, INDISTINGUISHABLE IN FACT AND LAW, WHICH HAS
STOOD UNQUESTIONED FOR SIXTEEN YEARS, AND APPLIED PRINCIPLES SETTLED
YEARS BEFORE IN THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158. 

THE HISTORY OF PLAMALS V. PINAR DEL RIO IS IMPORTANT.  THE LIBELLANT,
A SEAMAN ON A BRITISH SHIP LYING IN UNITED STATES WATERS, WAS ORDERED
BY A MATE TO REPAIR A STACK.  A SLING WAS USED, FOR WHICH THE MATE
SELECTED A PIECE OF ROPE.  THE ROPE BROKE AND THE SEAMAN WAS INJURED. 
HE FILED A LIBEL IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL.  THE OWNER GAVE BOND AND
RELEASED THE SHIP. 

THE LIBEL, AFTER RECITING THE FACTS, ALLEGED THAT THE INJURIES WERE
DUE "TO THE FAULT OR NEGLECT OF THE SAID STEAMSHIP OR THOSE IN CHARGE
OF HER IN THAT THE SAID ROPE WAS OLD, WORN AND NOT SUITABLE FOR USE." 
THE LIBEL FAILED TO REFER TO SEC. 33 OF THE JONES ACT, BUT, AT THE
TRIAL, THE LIBELLANT'S PROCTOR STATED THAT HE RELIED UPON IT.  THE
CLAIMANT IN ITS ANSWER ASSERTED THAT THE VESSEL WAS OF BRITISH REGISTRY
AND, AS THE ONLY REDRESS OPEN TO THE LIBELLANT WAS UNDER THE BRITISH
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW, THE ADMIRALTY COURT SHOULD DECLINE
JURISDICTION.  THE CLAIMANT AMENDED ITS ANSWER TO DENY LIABILITY ON THE
GROUND THAT THE SHIP WAS PROVIDED WITH PROPER TACKLE BUT, THROUGH THE
NEGLIGENCE OF AN OFFICER, BAD TACKLE WAS SELECTED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE BRITISH LAW,  - THE LAW OF THE FLAG,
- AFFORDED NO ACTION IN REM NOR ANY ACTION FOR INDEMNITY SINCE THERE
WAS AN AMPLE SUPPLY OF GOOD ROPE ON BOARD AND THE MATE CHOSE AN
INSUFFICIENT ROPE FOR USE. 

ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE LIBELLANT'S
PLEADINGS WERE INADEQUATE BUT, AS NO POINT HAD BEEN MADE OF THEIR
INFIRMITY, WENT ON TO CONSIDER "WHETHER, ON THE FACTS PROVEN AND UNDER
ANY APPLICABLE LAW, LIBELLANT HAS A CASE."  FN1 IT SAID THE LIBELLANT
MUST MAKE OUT A CASE OF MARITIME TORT; THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF ENGLAND,
THERE COULD BE NO RECOVERY AND THAT IF THE APPLICABLE LAW WERE THE
MARITIME LAW OF THE UNITED STATES THE LIBELLANT COULD NOT RECOVER FOR
THE IMPROVIDENT OR NEGLIGENT ACT OF THE MATE, ADDING:  "IF THE VESSEL
HAD BEEN UNSUPPLIED WITH GOOD AND PROPER ROPE, A DIFFERENT QUESTION
WOULD ARISE." 

THAT COURT FURTHER HELD THAT, ALTHOUGH, UNDER THE JONES ACT,
LIBELLANT COULD HAVE SUED AT LAW OR FILED A LIBEL IN PERSONAM, THE
STATUTE GAVE NO RIGHT TO A LIBEL IN REM.  THE DECREE DISMISSING THE
LIBEL WAS, THEREFORE, AFFIRMED. 

PETITIONER SOUGHT REVIEW IN THIS COURT AND, IN HIS PETITION AND
BRIEFS, ASSERTED THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN A LIBEL IN REM UNDER THE JONES
ACT BUT, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSISTED THAT, UNDER THE GENERAL MARITIME
LAW, INDEPENDENT OF THE JONES ACT, THE LIBELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER FOR THE FAILURE TO SUPPLY, AND KEEP IN ORDER, PROPER
APPLIANCES, PROPERLY RIGGED, AND FOR THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL
IN THIS RESPECT. 

IT WILL BE NOTED HOW CLOSELY THAT CASE PARALLELS THE INSTANT ONE.  IN
BOTH, THOUGH FOR DIFFERING REASONS, THE LIBELLANT WAS PRECLUDED FROM
RELYING ON THE JONES ACT WHICH WOULD HAVE AVOIDED ALL QUESTION OF A
FELLOW SERVANT'S NEGLIGENCE.  IN BOTH, THE LIBELLANT THEN SOUGHT TO
RESORT TO HIS CLAIM FOR INDEMNITY FOR A MARITIME TORT.  IN THE PINAR
DEL RIO CASE IT WAS HELD THAT HE HAD MADE NO CASE ON THE LATTER THEORY,
AND IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS HELD THAT HE HAS MADE OUT SUCH A CASE. 
THIS COURT, IN THE EARLIER CASE, HELD TWO THINGS:  FIRST, THAT A LIBEL
IN REM CANNOT BE MAINTAINED UNDER THE JONES ACT, AND, SECOND, THAT, IF
THE CASE WERE TREATED AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD TREATED IT,
AS ONE FOR RECOVERY OF INDEMNITY FOR A MARITIME TORT,  - THE RECORD
WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM.  THE COURT SAID: 

"THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE SUGGESTION THAT THE 'PINAR DEL RIO'
WAS UNSEAWORTHY.  THE MATE SELECTED A BAD ROPE WHEN GOOD ONES WERE
AVAILABLE. 

"WE MUST TREAT THE PROCEEDING AS ONE TO ENFORCE THE LIABILITY
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 33.  IT WAS SO TREATED BY PETITIONER'S PROCTOR AT
THE ORIGINAL TRIAL; AND THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI HERE SPOKE OF IT
AS BASED UPON THAT SECTION.  THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT SUPPORT A RECOVERY
UPON ANY OTHER GROUND." 

THESE HOLDINGS WERE MADE IN ANSWER TO EXTENDED ARGUMENT IN THE
BRIEFS, THE PETITIONER ON THE ONE HAND CONTENDING THAT THE VESSEL
SHOULD BE TREATED AS AN AMERICAN VESSEL AND AS BEING UNSEAWORTHY,
RESPONDENT CONTENDING THAT, WHETHER BRITISH OR AMERICAN, SHE WAS NOT
UNSEAWORTHY UNDER THE LAW OF EITHER NATION AND THAT THE LIBELLANT'S
INJURIES WERE DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF A FELLOW SERVANT.  WHAT THE
COURT SAID, THEREFORE, WAS CLEARLY RESPONSIVE TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE
PARTIES.  THE PRESENT DECISION DOES NOT MERELY DISAPPROVE LANGUAGE USED
IN THE EARLIER CASE.  IT OVERRULES THE CASE AND ALTERS LONG-ESTABLISHED
LAW WITHOUT ADEQUATE REASON. 

THERE HAS BEEN SOME SUGGESTION THAT THE HOLDING IN THE PINAR DEL RIO
CASE TO WHICH I HAVE REFERRED CREPT INTO THE OPINION BY INADVERTENCE. 
BUT I CANNOT ASSUME ANY SUCH THING IN VIEW OF THE PROVERBIAL CARE WHICH
ALL THE JUSTICES EXERCISE TO PREVENT EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON QUESTIONS
NOT NECESSARY TO THE DECISION OF A CASE.  THE DECISION MUST BE TAKEN AT
FACE VALUE AS THE EXPRESSION OF THE VIEWS OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE
COURT. 

CASES NOW CITED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT WERE CITED AND CONSIDERED
BY THE COURT IN THE PINAR DEL RIO CASE.  FN2  THE MOST IMPORTANT OF
THEM, AND ONE ON WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RELIED IN THAT
CASE, WAS THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA.  FN3  THE INSTANT DECISION NOT ONLY
OVERRULES THE PINAR DEL RIO CASE BUT ASSERTS THAT IT IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE HOLDINGS IN THE OSCEOLA.  IF THIS BE TRUE IT MUST BE BECAUSE
THE COURT HAS A DIFFERENT CONCEPTION OF THE WORD CONSEQUENCE THAN THAT
I HAVE. 

IN THE OSCEOLA THIS COURT, AFTER THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION,
RECAPITULATED THE ADMIRALTY LAW RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF INJURED
SEAMEN, INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS (P. 175): 

"THAT THE VESSEL AND HER OWNER ARE, BOTH BY ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LAW,
LIABLE TO AN INDEMNITY FOR INJURIES RECEIVED BY SEAMEN IN CONSEQUENCE
OF THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE SHIP, OR A FAILURE TO SUPPLY AND KEEP IN
ORDER THE PROPER APPLIANCES APPURTENANT TO THE SHIP.  ...  " 

"THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CREW, EXCEPT PERHAPS THE MASTER, ARE, AS
BETWEEN THEMSELVES, FELLOW SERVANTS, AND HENCE SEAMEN CANNOT RECOVER
FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE
CREW BEYOND THE EXPENSE OF THEIR MAINTENANCE AND CURE." 

UNSEAWORTHINESS IN THE ABSTRACT DOES NOT AFFORD A CAUSE OF ACTION. 
AN INJURY MUST BE "IN CONSEQUENCE" OF THE UNSEAWORTHINESS,  - MUST BE
CONNECTED WITH AND RESULT FROM IT.  AND "UNSEAWORTHINESS" COVERS A
VARIETY OF SITUATIONS VARIOUSLY AFFECTING THE WORK AND RISKS OF
SEAMEN.  UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE KIND ON WHICH THE COURT BASES ITS
OPINION IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT DUE TO A FAULTY MECHANISM WHICH IS
AN INHERENT RISK TO LIFE AND LIMB.  IF THE DOCTRINE NOW ANNOUNCED IS
RIGHT, A VESSEL SUPPLIED WITH THE NEWEST CHARTS WOULD BE UNSEAWORTHY IF
THE OWNER FAILED TO REMOVE OLD CHARTS FROM THE PILOT HOUSE; IT WOULD
MAKE THE OWNER AN INSURER THAT, NO MATTER HOW MANY ADEQUATE FACILITIES
WERE AT HAND, NO INSUFFICIENT ONE WAS ANYWHERE ON THE SHIP.  HERE THE
SO-CALLED UNSEAWORTHINESS DID NOT CONSIST IN WANT OF ADEQUATE ROPES FOR
THE SEAMAN'S NEED.  HIS INJURY WAS DUE ENTIRELY TO THE NEGLIGENT
SELECTION BY THE MATE OF A PIECE OF BAD ROPE WHEN AMPLE GOOD ROPE WAS
AT HAND.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE MATE WAS NEGLIGENT, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ACCEPTED THE FINDING, AND THE DISPOSITION OF
THE CASE IN THIS COURT IS ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS
FINDING. 

THE QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE SHIP IS LIABLE FOR THE MATE'S
NEGLIGENT CHOICE OF A DEFECTIVE PIECE OF ROPE WHEN THERE WAS PLENTY OF
GOOD ROPE ABOARD.  UNDER THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE OSCEOLA,
RECOVERY IN ADMIRALTY FOR A MARITIME TORT IS BARRED BY THE MATE'S
NEGLIGENCE.  IT WAS TO AVOID THE INTERPOSITION OF SUCH A DEFENSE OF A
FELLOW SERVANT'S ACT THAT THE JONES ACT MADE THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT APPLICABLE TO THE CLAIMS OF INJURED SEAMEN. 

THE COURT PROFESSES TO HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE DOCTRINE IT READS
INTO THE DECISION IN THE OSCEOLA CASE AND THE RULING IN PINAR DEL RIO. 
BUT FURTHER IT ASSERTS THAT PINAR DEL RIO IS IN CONFLICT WITH CARLISLE
PACKING CO. V. SANDANGER, 259 U.S. 255, AN OPINION WRITTEN BY THE SAME
JUSTICE WHO WROTE THE OPINION IN THE PINAR DEL RIO CASE.  THE CITED
AUTHORITY, AS I READ IT, CLEARLY RULED THAT IN ORDER FOR A SEAMAN TO
RECOVER FOR AN INJURY WHERE THE SHIP IS UNSEAWORTHY THE UNSEAWORTHINESS
MUST BE THE DIRECT CAUSE OF HIS INJURY. 

THAT WAS AN ACTION BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT BY AN INJURED SEAMAN
AGAINST THE OWNER OF A MOTOR BOAT.  WHEN THE BOAT LEFT ON HER VOYAGE A
CAN INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE CREW, SUPPOSED TO CONTAIN COAL OIL, AND
SO LABELED, HAD BEEN FILLED WITH GASOLINE AND THE SEAMAN, WITHOUT
NOTICE OF THIS FACT, ATTEMPTED TO USE THE CONTENTS AND WAS BURNED.  THE
SUPPLY OF LIFE PRESERVERS WAS INSUFFICIENT AND HIS INJURIES WERE
AGGRAVATED BY HIS HAVING TO SEARCH FOR ONE BEFORE HE COULD JUMP
OVERBOARD AND EXTINGUISH THE FLAMES CONSUMING HIS CLOTHING.  A VERDICT
AND JUDGMENT FOR THE SEAMAN WAS SUSTAINED.  THIS COURT FOUND THAT
ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTIONS HAD BEEN GIVEN THE JURY BUT HELD THE ERROR
HARMLESS SINCE THE RECORD SHOWED THAT, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE OWNER'S
NEGLIGENCE, THE VESSEL WAS UNSEAWORTHY WHEN SHE LEFT THE DOCK, AND THE
COURT HELD (P. 259):  "  ...  IF THUS UNSEAWORTHY AND ONE OF THE CREW
RECEIVED DAMAGE AS THE DIRECT RESULT THEREOF, HE WAS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER COMPENSATORY DAMAGES."  THE COURT CITED, AMONGST OTHER CASES,
THE OSCEOLA.    I AM AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND THE CITATION OF THIS CASE
AS AUTHORITY FOR THE PRESENT DECISION.  THE REASONING OF THE COURT'S
OPINION SEEMS TO BE THIS:  IN THE CARLISLE PACKING CO. CASE RECOVERY
WAS PERMITTED BECAUSE THE INJURY WAS THE DIRECT RESULT OF
UNSEAWORTHINESS.  THAT DECISION, THEREFORE, REQUIRES THAT THE OWNER BE
HELD LIABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALTHOUGH THE SEAMAN'S INJURY WAS NOT
THE DIRECT RESULT OF UNSEAWORTHINESS, BUT OF THE MATE'S NEGLIGENCE.  IT
MUST BE UPON THE BASIS OF SUCH REASONING THAT THE PINAR DEL RIO CASE IS
OVERRULED AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW REVERSED. 

THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION THAT THE PINAR DEL RIO CASE WAS OVERRULED BY
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO. V. SMITH, 305 U.S. 424.  IT NEED ONLY BE SAID
THAT THE PINAR DEL RIO CASE WAS NOT CITED IN THE BRIEFS OF COUNSEL IN
THE SOCONY CASE NOR REFERRED TO IN THE OPINION AND THAT IN FACT THE
SOCONY DECISION INVOLVED AND PURPORTED TO DEAL ONLY WITH THE GENERAL
DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND NOT WITH THE DEFENSE OF FELLOW
SERVANT'S NEGLIGENCE.  THAT THE DEFENSES ARE NOT THE SAME IS MADE PLAIN
BY THE FACT THAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HELD THAT A FELLOW SERVANT'S
NEGLIGENCE IS NO DEFENSE IN ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT,  FN4  WHEREAS ASSUMPTION OF OTHER RISKS WAS A
DEFENSE  FN5  UNTIL CONGRESS RECENTLY EXPLICITLY ACTED TO ABOLISH IT AS
SUCH.  FN6 

INDEED, IF IN THE SOCONY CASE, THE SUIT HAD INVOLVED A FELLOW
SERVANT'S NEGLIGENCE INSTEAD OF THE SEAMAN'S ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK
INVOLVED IN THE USE OF AN UNSAFE APPLIANCE SUPPLIED BY THE VESSEL, THE
CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN SO PLAINLY RULED BY EARLIER DECISIONS  FN7  THAT
IT WOULD HAVE MERITED NO CONSIDERATION, MUCH LESS AN OPINION, BY THIS
COURT. 

THE STATEMENT IN THE OPINION THAT THE DEFENSE OF A FELLOW SERVANT'S
NEGLIGENCE HAD NEVER BEEN DEEMED APPLICABLE TO THE OWNER'S OBLIGATION
TO THE SEAMAN UNDER THE WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS IGNORES THE POINT
THAT IF THE SEAMAN IS TO RECOVER THE UNSEAWORTHINESS MUST, UNDER THE
AUTHORITIES CITED, BE THE DIRECT CAUSE OF THE INJURY.  IF IT IS NOT,
BUT A FELLOW SERVANT'S NEGLIGENCE IS THE CAUSE, THE SEAMAN COULD NOT
RECOVER,  FN8  UNTIL THE LAW WAS ALTERED BY THE JONES ACT. 

THE EVIL RESULTING FROM OVERRULING EARLIER CONSIDERED DECISIONS MUST
BE EVIDENT.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COURT BELOW NATURALLY FELT BOUND
TO FOLLOW AND APPLY THE LAW AS CLEARLY ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT.  IF
LITIGANTS AND LOWER FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT TO DO SO, THE LAW BECOMES
NOT A CHART TO GOVERN CONDUCT BUT A GAME OF CHANCE; INSTEAD OF SETTLING
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES IT UNSETTLES THEM.  COUNSEL AND PARTIES WILL
BRING AND PROSECUTE ACTIONS IN THE TEETH OF THE DECISIONS THAT SUCH
ACTIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE ON THE NOT IMPROBABLE CHANCE THAT THE
ASSERTED RULE WILL BE THROWN OVERBOARD.  DEFENDANTS WILL NOT KNOW
WHETHER TO LITIGATE OR TO SETTLE FOR THEY WILL HAVE NO ASSURANCE THAT A
DECLARED RULE WILL BE FOLLOWED.  BUT THE MORE DEPLORABLE CONSEQUENCE
WILL INEVITABLY BE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WILL FALL INTO
DISREPUTE.  RESPECT FOR TRIBUNALS MUST FALL WHEN THE BAR AND THE PUBLIC
COME TO UNDERSTAND THAT NOTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID IN PRIOR
ADJUDICATION HAS FORCE IN A CURRENT CONTROVERSY. 

OF COURSE THE LAW MAY GROW TO MEET CHANGING CONDITIONS.  I DO NOT
ADVOCATE SLAVISH ADHERENCE TO AUTHORITY WHERE NEW CONDITIONS REQUIRE
NEW RULES OF CONDUCT.  BUT THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE.  THE TENDENCY TO
DISREGARD PRECEDENTS IN THE DECISION OF CASES LIKE THE PRESENT HAS
BECOME SO STRONG IN THIS COURT OF LATE AS, IN MY VIEW, TO SHAKE
CONFIDENCE IN THE CONSISTENCY OF DECISION AND LEAVE THE COURTS BELOW ON
AN UNCHARTED SEA OF DOUBT AND DIFFICULTY WITHOUT ANY CONFIDENCE THAT
WHAT WAS SAID YESTERDAY WILL HOLD GOOD TOMORROW, UNLESS INDEED A MODERN
INSTANCE GROWS INTO A CUSTOM OF MEMBERS OF THIS COURT TO MAKE PUBLIC
ANNOUNCEMENT OF A CHANGE OF VIEWS AND TO INDICATE THAT THEY WILL CHANGE
THEIR VOTES ON THE SAME QUESTION WHEN ANOTHER CASE COMES BEFORE THE
COURT.  FN9  THIS MIGHT, TO SOME EXTENT, OBVIATE THE PREDICAMENT IN
WHICH THE LOWER COURTS, THE BAR, AND THE PUBLIC FIND THEMSELVES. 

FN1  16 F.2D 984, 985. 

FN2  THE JULIA FOWLER, 49 F. 277; THE NODDLEBURN, 28 F. 855; THE
OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158; THE NAVARINO, 7 F.2D 743.  THE PORTLAND, 213 F.
699, NOT CITED, WAS, HOWEVER, DECIDED PRIOR TO THIS COURT'S DECISION IN
THE PINAR DEL RIO CASE. 

FN3  THE OSCEOLA HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A LEADING CASE.  IT HAS
BEEN CITED FOR THE PROPOSITIONS IT LAID DOWN AT LEAST EIGHTEEN TIMES BY
THIS COURT, AND NEARLY TWO HUNDRED TIMES BY LOWER FEDERAL COURTS. 

FN4  ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. SKAGGS, 240 U.S. 66. 

FN5  SEABOARD AIR LINE V. HORTON, 233 U.S. 492. 

FN6  ACT OF AUG. 11, 1939, 53 STAT. 1404. 

FN7  JAMISON V. ENCARNACION, 281 U.S. 635; URAVIC V. JARKA CO., 282
U.S. 234. 

FN8  CHELENTIS V. LUCKENBACH S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372; THE ROSALIE
MAHONY, 218 F. 695; IN RE TONAWANDA IRON & STEEL CO., 234 F. 198; PAYNE
V. JACKSONVILLE FORWARDING CO., 280 F. 150; THE DAISY, 282 F. 261; WOOD
V. DAVIS, 290 F. 1; HAMMOND LUMBER CO. V. SANDIN, 17 F.2D 760;
BENEDICT, ADMIRALTY, 6 ED., VOL. 1, P. 256. 

FN9  SEE MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586; JONES
V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, 623; BARNETTE V. WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 47 F.SUPP.  251, 252-3; WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





















EX PARTE HAWK, 321 U.S. 114 


NO. - .  DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1944.  - APPLICATION DENIED. 


1.  SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE APPLICANT FOR HABEAS CORPUS,
CONFINED UNDER SENTENCE OF A STATE COURT, HAS EXHAUSTED HIS REMEDIES
UNDER THE STATE LAW, THE APPLICATION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  P.
118. 

2.  WHERE RESORT TO STATE COURT REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO AFFORD TO A
PETITIONER FOR HABEAS CORPUS A FULL AND FAIR ADJUDICATION OF THE
FEDERAL QUESTIONS RAISED, EITHER BECAUSE THE STATE AFFORDS NO REMEDY,
OR BECAUSE IN THE PARTICULAR CASE THE REMEDY AFFORDED PROVES IN
PRACTICE UNAVAILABLE OR SERIOUSLY INADEQUATE, A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD
ENTERTAIN THE PETITION; BUT IN SUCH CASE THE PETITIONER SHOULD PROCEED
IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BEFORE RESORTING TO THIS COURT.  P. 118. 

3.  THE STATEMENT OFTEN MADE THAT FEDERAL COURTS WILL INTERFERE WITH
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE STATE COURTS ONLY "IN RARE CASES
WHERE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF PECULIAR URGENCY ARE SHOWN TO EXIST"
IS INAPPLICABLE WHERE THE PETITIONER FOR HABEAS CORPUS HAS EXHAUSTED
HIS STATE REMEDIES AND MAKES A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF DENIAL OF FEDERAL
RIGHT.  P. 117. 

EX PARTE HAWK. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS CASE COMES HERE ON PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE IN
THIS COURT HIS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  PETITIONER IS
CONFINED IN THE NEBRASKA STATE PENITENTIARY UNDER SENTENCE FOR MURDER
IMPOSED BY THE NEBRASKA DISTRICT COURT. 

HIS PRESENT PROCEEDING HAS BEEN PREFACED BY SEVERAL EARLIER
APPLICATIONS TO BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  HIS PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS WAS DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BY THE NEBRASKA DISTRICT COURT
WHOSE DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT, HAWK V.
O'GRADY, 137 NEB. 639, 290 N.W. 911.  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 311
U.S. 645.  PETITIONER THEN FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR NEBRASKA A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, ALLEGING MATTERS NOT
PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE STATE COURTS.  THIS
APPLICATION WAS DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER
HAD NOT EXHAUSTED HIS STATE REMEDIES, HAWK V. OLSON, 130 F.2D 910.  WE
DENIED CERTIORARI.  317 U.S. 697.  PETITIONER THEN URGED HIS PRESENT
CONTENTIONS UPON THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT IN A PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS WHICH THAT COURT DENIED WITHOUT OPINION.  WE DENIED HIS
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS UPON LIKE ALLEGATIONS BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO PRESENTATION OF THE MATTERS ALLEGED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT, EX PARTE HAWK, 318 U.S. 746. 

PETITIONER ACCORDINGLY RENEWED HIS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NEBRASKA AND FILED A LIKE
PETITION WITH THE SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT; BOTH
PETITIONS HAVE BEEN DENIED, AND LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE SENIOR CIRCUIT
JUDGE OF THAT CIRCUIT.  PETITIONER THEREUPON FILED THE PRESENT
APPLICATION IN THIS COURT. 

IN THE APPLICATION NOW BEFORE US, AND IN THOSE FILED WITH THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT AND THE SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT, PETITIONER ALLEGES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE STATE COURT
FORCED HIM INTO TRIAL FOR A CAPITAL OFFENSE, NEB. COMP. STAT. SEC. 28
401, WITH SUCH EXPEDITION AS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL, GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45; SEE SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312
U.S. 329; COMPARE BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, AND THAT HIS CONVICTION
WAS BASED IN PART ON THE INTRODUCTION AT THE TRIAL OF EVIDENCE KNOWN BY
THE PROSECUTION TO BE PERJURED, MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103. 

FROM OUR EXAMINATION OF THE PAPERS PRESENTED TO US WE CANNOT SAY THAT
HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THESE CONTENTIONS, WALKER V.
JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275, 284-7; HOLIDAY V. JOHNSTON, 313 U.S. 342, 350;
WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101, 104-5; COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S.
255, 258.  BUT, AS WAS POINTED OUT BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND CIRCUIT
JUDGE, PETITIONER HAS NOT YET SHOWN THAT HE HAS EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE TO HIM IN THE STATE COURTS, AND HE IS THEREFORE NOT AT THIS
TIME ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN A FEDERAL COURT OR BY A FEDERAL JUDGE. 

SO FAR AS APPEARS, PETITIONER'S PRESENT CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED TO THE STATE COURTS ONLY IN AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
FILED IN THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT, WHICH IT DENIED WITHOUT OPINION. 
FROM OTHER OPINIONS OF THAT COURT IT APPEARS THAT IT DOES NOT USUALLY
ENTERTAIN ORIGINAL PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS, BUT REMITS THE
PETITIONER TO AN APPLICATION TO THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
STATE, FROM WHOSE DECISION AN APPEAL LIES TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT,
WILLIAMS V. OLSON, 143 NEB. 115, 8 N.W.2D 830, 831; SEE IN RE WHITE, 33
NEB. 812, 814-15, 51 N.W. 287.  FROM THAT COURT THE CAUSE MAY BE
BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW IF AN APPROPRIATE FEDERAL QUESTION IS PROPERLY
PRESENTED. 

OF THIS REMEDY IN THE STATE COURT PETITIONER HAS NOT AVAILED
HIMSELF.  MOREOVER, NEBRASKA RECOGNIZES AND EMPLOYS THE COMMON LAW WRIT
OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS WHICH, IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH HABEAS CORPUS
WILL NOT LIE, MAY BE ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT AS A REMEDY FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE COURSE OF
THE TRIAL, CARLSEN V. STATE, 129 NEB. 84, 94-8, 261 N.W. 339.  UNTIL
THAT REMEDY HAS BEEN SOUGHT WITHOUT AVAIL WE CANNOT SAY THAT
PETITIONER'S STATE REMEDIES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. 

ORDINARILY AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE DETAINED UNDER A
STATE COURT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR CRIME WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY A
FEDERAL COURT ONLY AFTER ALL STATE REMEDIES AVAILABLE, INCLUDING ALL
APPELLATE REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS AND IN THIS COURT BY APPEAL OR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  TINSLEY V. ANDERSON, 171 U.S.
101, 104-5; URQUHART V. BROWN, 205 U.S. 179; UNITED STATES EX REL.
KENNEDY V. TYLER, 269 U.S. 13; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA, 115; EX PARTE
ABERNATHY, 320 U.S. 219.  AND WHERE THOSE REMEDIES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED
THIS COURT WILL NOT ORDINARILY ENTERTAIN AN APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT
BEFORE IT HAS BEEN SOUGHT AND DENIED IN A DISTRICT COURT OR DENIED BY A
CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE.  EX PARTE HAWK, SUPRA; EX PARTE ABERNATHY,
SUPRA. 

THE DENIAL OF RELIEF TO PETITIONER BY THE FEDERAL COURTS AND JUDGES
IN THIS, AS IN A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ON THE
GROUND THAT IT IS A PRINCIPLE CONTROLLING ALL HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS
TO THE FEDERAL COURTS, THAT THOSE COURTS WILL INTERFERE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE STATE COURTS ONLY "IN RARE CASES WHERE
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF PECULIAR URGENCY ARE SHOWN TO EXIST."  SEE
IN RE ANDERSON, 117 F.2D 939, 940; IN RE MILLER, 126 F.2D 826, 827;
KELLY V. RAGEN, 129 F.2D 811, 814-15; HAWK V. OLSON, SUPRA, 911-13;
MARSINO V. HOGSETT, 37 F.2D 409, 414; UNITED STATES EX REL. FOLEY V.
RAGEN, 52 F.SUPP.  265, 269-270; CF. UNITED STATES EX REL. MURPHY V.
MURPHY, 108 F.2D 861, 862.  TO THIS, SOME COURTS HAVE ADDED THE
INTIMATION THAT WHEN THE WRIT IS SOUGHT BY ONE HELD UNDER A STATE
CONVICTION THE ONLY REMEDY ORDINARILY TO BE HAD IN A FEDERAL COURT IS
BY WAY OF APPLICATION TO THIS COURT.  EX PARTE JEFFERSON, 106 F.2D 471,
472; KRAMER V. NEVADA, 122 F.2D 417, 419; IN RE MILLER, SUPRA; HAWK V.
OLSON, SUPRA, 913; CF. KELLY V. RAGEN, SUPRA, 814. 

THE STATEMENT THAT THE WRIT IS AVAILABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ONLY
"IN RARE CASES" PRESENTING "EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF PECULIAR
URGENCY," OFTEN QUOTED FROM THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES
EX REL. KENNEDY V. TYLER, SUPRA, 17, WAS MADE IN A CASE IN WHICH THE
PETITIONER HAD NOT EXHAUSTED HIS STATE REMEDIES AND IS INAPPLICABLE TO
ONE IN WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS EXHAUSTED HIS STATE REMEDIES, AND IN
WHICH HE MAKES A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF A DENIAL OF FEDERAL RIGHT. 

WHERE THE STATE COURTS HAVE CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED THE MERITS OF
HIS CONTENTIONS, AND THIS COURT HAS EITHER REVIEWED OR DECLINED TO
REVIEW THE STATE COURT'S DECISION, A FEDERAL COURT WILL NOT ORDINARILY
RE-EXAMINE UPON WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS THE QUESTIONS THUS ADJUDICATED. 
SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S. 224, 230-32.  BUT WHERE RESORT TO STATE
COURT REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO AFFORD A FULL AND FAIR ADJUDICATION OF THE
FEDERAL CONTENTIONS RAISED, EITHER BECAUSE THE STATE AFFORDS NO REMEDY,
SEE MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA, 115, OR BECAUSE IN THE PARTICULAR CASE
THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY STATE LAW PROVES IN PRACTICE UNAVAILABLE OR
SERIOUSLY INADEQUATE, CF. MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86; EX PARTE
DAVIS, 318 U.S. 412, A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN HIS PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS, ELSE HE WOULD BE REMEDILESS.  IN SUCH A CASE HE SHOULD
PROCEED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BEFORE RESORTING TO THIS COURT BY
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 

AS PETITIONER DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE EXHAUSTED HIS STATE REMEDIES
HIS APPLICATION WILL BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS RESORT TO THE
PROCEDURE INDICATED AS APPROPRIATE BY THIS OPINION.  APPLICATION
DENIED. 
..END :
























NORTHWESTERN CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 321 U.S. 119 


NO. 195.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 5, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1944.  - 134
F.2D 740, AFFIRMED. 


PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL POWER ACT TO PRESCRIBE A
UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR UTILITIES SUBJECT TO THE ACT, THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, HAVING FOUND AN ITEM IN THE ACCOUNTS OF A
UTILITY COMPANY TO BE A "WRITE-UP" - BALANCING A LIABILITY ON AN ISSUE
OF COMMON STOCK IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE COMPANY RECEIVED NO VALUE -
ORDERED THE COMPANY TO DISPOSE OF IT BY APPLYING TOWARD ITS ELIMINATION
ALL NET INCOME ABOVE PREFERRED-STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS.  HELD THAT
THE ORDER WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT AND WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 123. 

1.  THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE
WRITE-UP, SUPPORTED BY EXPERT EVIDENCE AND NOT PLAINLY ARBITRARY, MAY
NOT BE SET ASIDE ON REVIEW, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT ACCORD WITH THE BEST
ACCOUNTING PRACTICE.  P. 124. 

2.  THAT THE ACCOUNTING METHOD PRESCRIBED INTERFERES WITH THE
FUNCTION OF MANAGEMENT IS NOT A VALID CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.  P.
124. 

3.  THAT THE ORDER PREVENTS THE COMPANY FROM REDRESSING THE
DEFICIENCY OF PAID-IN CAPITAL BY ENTERING AMONG ITS ASSETS SUBSEQUENT
APPRECIATION IN VALUE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE COMPANY OR ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  P. 124. 

4.  THAT A SUCCESSOR COMPANY MIGHT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CARRY AS AN
ASSET THE ACTUAL COST TO IT OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY IS
IRRELEVANT.  P. 124. 

5.  THE ORDER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES
UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 125. 

6.  NO CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY HERE EXERCISED BY THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AND THAT EXERCISED BY THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION.  P. 125. 

NORTHWESTERN ELECTRIC CO. ET AL. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 722, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  SEE ALSO 125 F.2D 882; 36 P.U.R. (N.S.) 
202; 43 P.U.R. (N.S.)  148. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION MADE
PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR
ELECTRIC UTILITIES IS INVALID BECAUSE IN EXCESS OF THE COMMISSION'S
STATUTORY POWER AND IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE CONSTITUTION. 

NORTHWESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY IS AN OPERATING UTILITY ALL OF WHOSE
COMMON SHARES ARE OWNED BY AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.  SHORTLY
AFTER ORGANIZATION NORTHWESTERN ISSUED 100,000 SHARES OF $100 PAR
COMMON STOCK TO PROMOTERS.  LATER THE TRANSACTION WAS ENTERED ON ITS
BOOKS AS "LAND AND WATER RIGHTS" WITH A CORRESPONDING CREDIT TO "COMMON
CAPITAL STOCK."  NORTHWESTERN RECEIVED NO CASH OR PROPERTY FOR THE
STOCK SO ISSUED.  THE COMPANY PROSPERED AND ITS COMMON STOCK BECAME
VALUABLE.  IN 1925 AMERICAN PURCHASED ALL THE COMMON STOCK FOR
$5,095,946.48.  IN 1936 NORTHWESTERN WAS PERMITTED BY THE REGULATORY
AUTHORITIES OF THE STATES OF OREGON AND WASHINGTON, IN WHICH IT
OPERATES, TO REDUCE THE PAR VALUE OF ITS COMMON STOCK FROM $100 TO $35,
THUS REDUCING THE OUTSTANDING COMMON TO $3,500,000.  THIS REDUCTION WAS
MADE IN ORDER THAT THE STOCK MIGHT THEN REPRESENT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
COMPANY'S ASSETS.  ENTRIES ON THE ASSET SIDE WERE WRITTEN DOWN
$6,500,000 TO OFFSET THE REDUCTION IN COMMON STOCK LIABILITY. 

ACTING UNDER SEC. 301(A) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT OF 1935  FN1  THE
COMMISSION PRESCRIBED A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR UTILITIES AND
ORDERED RECLASSIFICATION OF THEIR ELECTRIC PLANT ACCOUNTS WITH
NECESSARY ADJUSTING ENTRIES TO REFLECT SUCH NEW CLASSIFICATION AS OF
JANUARY 1, 1937.  NORTHWESTERN SUBMITTED A CLASSIFICATION AND THE
COMMISSION, AFTER INVESTIGATION, ISSUED A REPORT THEREON AND REQUESTED
NORTHWESTERN TO SUBMIT A PLAN FOR DISPOSITION OF THE ITEM OF $3,500,000
UPON ITS BOOKS AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO
ACCOUNT 107 - ELECTRIC PLANT ADJUSTMENTS - PENDING SUBMISSION OF SUCH A
PLAN.  NORTHWESTERN FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUESTS AND AN ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED UPON WHICH A HEARING WAS HELD.  THE COMMISSION
FOUND THAT THE COST OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY WAS ALL REPRESENTED BY
OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY THE COMPANY AND THAT THE COMMON STOCK DID NOT
REPRESENT MONEY OR PROPERTY RECEIVED.  THE COMMISSION FURTHER FOUND
THAT IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS, INVESTORS, AND THE PUBLIC, THE
$3,500,000 WRITE-UP TO BE ENTERED IN ACCOUNT 107 SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF
BY APPLYING NET INCOME ABOVE PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS TO
ITS ELIMINATION, AND ADDED THAT THIS DISPOSITION WOULD INSURE THE
COMPANY'S RECEIVING VALUE TO BALANCE COMMON STOCK LIABILITY AND THAT
DIVIDENDS OUGHT NOT TO BE PAID ON THE COMMON STOCK UNTIL IT HAD AN
EQUIVALENT PAID-IN VALUE.  AN ORDER WAS ENTERED REQUIRING NORTHWESTERN
TO COMPLY WITH THE FINDING. 

THE COMMISSION GRANTED A REHEARING ONLY AS RESPECTS THE REQUIRED
DISPOSITION OF THE ASSET ITEM OF $3,500,000, BUT REFUSED A REHEARING ON
ALL OTHER MATTERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE.  NORTHWESTERN OBTAINED A REVIEW
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,  FN2  WHICH SUSTAINED THE ORDER AS
AGAINST NORTHWESTERN'S CONTENTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT
POWER TO MAKE AN ORDER FOR THE KEEPING OF ITS ACCOUNTS, BECAUSE OF
EXISTING STATE REGULATION; THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION WAS NOT
SUSTAINED BY THE PROOFS BEFORE IT, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND
CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, SINCE THE SYSTEM OF
ACCOUNTS PRESCRIBED WAS TO SHOW THE COMPANY'S PLANT AT THE AMOUNT IT
COST RATHER THAN AT ITS PRESENT FAIR VALUE.  INASMUCH AS THE REHEARING
WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON THE DISPOSITION TO BE MADE OF THE
WRITE-UP, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECLINED TO PASS UPON THAT
MATTER.  FN3 

IN CONNECTION WITH THE REHEARING, THE COMMISSION REQUESTED THE
COMPANY TO SUGGEST ANY DISPOSITION OF THE $3,500,000 ITEM IT THOUGHT
APPROPRIATE.  THE COMPANY REFUSED TO MAKE ANY SUGGESTION, ITS POSITION
BEING THAT THE ENTRY SHOULD REMAIN IN ACCOUNT NO. 107.  THE RESULT OF
PERMITTING IT THUS TO REMAIN IN THE PLANT AND PROPERTY ACCOUNTS OF THE
COMPANY WOULD BE A CONTINUANCE OF A SHOWING ON ITS BOOKS OF ACTUAL
ASSET VALUE TO BALANCE THE OUTSTANDING COMMON STOCK LIABILITY.  THE
COMMISSION REAFFIRMED ITS ORDER AND NORTHWESTERN AGAIN SOUGHT REVIEW IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  AMERICAN, WHICH HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO
INTERVENE, JOINED IN THE APPLICATION FOR COURT REVIEW.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO DISTURB THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  FN4 

THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO PRESCRIBE A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING
AND TO REQUIRE NORTHWESTERN TO KEEP ACCOUNTS ACCORDINGLY IS NOT OPEN TO
DOUBT.  ITS ACTION WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED BY THE ACT, FN5  THE RELEVANT
PROVISIONS OF WHICH ARE WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.  FN6  THE ONLY
INQUIRIES NOW OPEN ARE WHETHER THE ORDER AS TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE
$3,500,000 ITEM APPEARING IN ACCOUNT 107 GOES BEYOND THE COMMISSION'S
STATUTORY MANDATE OR CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  WE HOLD THAT IT DOES
NEITHER. 

THE CASE PRESENTS ONLY A QUESTION OF PROPER ACCOUNTING.  IN THE LIGHT
OF THE ADMITTED FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A WRITE-UP OF THREE AND ONE
HALF MILLION DOLLARS ON THE ASSET SIDE OF THE ACCOUNTS TO BALANCE A
STOCK LIABILITY CREATED BY THE COMPANY IN THE SAME AMOUNT, WHICH
REPRESENTS NO VALUE RECEIVED FOR THE STOCK ISSUED, ANY ACCOUNTING WHICH
LIMITS PLANT ITEMS TO THEIR ACTUAL VALUE WHEN AND AS ACQUIRED DEMANDS
THAT THIS WRITE-UP BE ELIMINATED FROM THE ACCOUNTS.  THOSE IN WHICH THE
COMPANY PREVIOUSLY CARRIED THE ITEM WERE "LAND AND WATER RIGHTS,"
"MISCELLANEOUS NON-OPERATING INTANGIBLE CAPITAL," AND "ORGANIZATION." 
A MERE WRITE-UP BELONGS IN NONE OF THESE ACCOUNTS AND CANNOT PROPERLY
APPEAR IN ANY OTHER ACCOUNT ON THE ASSET SIDE OF THE LEDGER.  IF IT
SHOULD SO REMAIN, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN A NEW ACCOUNT REFLECTING
PRESENT VALUE IN EXCESS OF ACTUAL COST WHICH WOULD, IN EFFECT, BE A
PLANT APPRECIATION ACCOUNT AND THE COMMISSION'S FORM OF ACCOUNTING DOES
NOT PERMIT THE CARRYING OF ANY SUCH ITEM IN THE ASSET ACCOUNT SINCE ITS
SYSTEM IS A COST SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE WRITE-UP MUST BE WRITTEN OFF THE BOOKS IN
SOME MANNER.  NORTHWESTERN SAYS IT SHOULD NOT BE, BUT IT OFFERED NO
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO SHOW THAT IN ACCOUNTS BASED UPON COST
ANY SUCH ITEM SHOULD APPEAR IN PLANT ACCOUNT OR ELSEWHERE.  THERE WAS
EXPERT EVIDENCE BY COMMISSION'S WITNESSES THAT IT MUST BE ELIMINATED. 
NEVERTHELESS THE PETITIONERS INSIST THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AS TO
DISPOSITION IS ARBITRARY. 

ALTHOUGH, AS SUGGESTED IN A BRIEF FILED BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
ACCOUNTANTS, THE COMMISSION'S PRESCRIBED METHOD OF ELIMINATING THE
WRITE-UP MAY NOT ACCORD WITH THE BEST ACCOUNTING PRACTICE, IT IS
SUSTAINED BY EXPERT EVIDENCE.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO DETERMINE WHAT IS
THE BETTER PRACTICE SO LONG AS THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PLAINLY ADOPTED
AN OBVIOUSLY ARBITRARY PLAN.  FN7 

THE OBJECTIONS BASED UPON THE CONSTITUTION ARE WITHOUT MERIT AND NEED
BUT BRIEF NOTICE.  THAT THE ACCOUNTING METHOD PRESCRIBED INTERFERES
WITH THE FUNCTION OF MANAGEMENT TO SOME EXTENT IS BESIDE THE POINT. 
FN8  THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION PREVENTS THE COMPANY FROM REDRESSING
THE DEFICIENCY OF PAID-IN CAPITAL BY ENTERING AMONG ITS ASSETS
APPRECIATION OF VALUE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF THE COMMON STOCK TAKES
NOTHING FROM THE COMPANY OR THE STOCKHOLDERS.  ALTHOUGH IF AMERICAN HAD
PURCHASED THE ASSETS OF NORTHWESTERN IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO
PLACE AMONG ITS ASSETS ON ITS OWN BOOKS THE ACTUAL COST TO IT OF THE
PHYSICAL PROPERTY OF NORTHWESTERN, THE FACT IS IRRELEVANT UPON THE
QUESTION WHETHER NORTHWESTERN MAY CARRY A FICTITIOUS ASSET ACCOUNT
REPRESENTING ESTIMATED VALUE OF CAPITAL STOCK ISSUED NEITHER FOR MONEY
NOR FOR PROPERTY AT EXCHANGE VALUE. 

NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR THE ORDER PREVENTS NORTHWESTERN KEEPING
OTHER ACCOUNTS IF IT SO DESIRES WHICH WILL GIVE INFORMATION WITH REGARD
TO ESTIMATED PRESENT APPRECIATED VALUE OF ITS ASSETS. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE STATUTE WHICH WOULD HAVE PREVENTED A
READJUSTMENT OF THE COMMON STOCK ACCOUNT OR THE EARNED SURPLUS ACCOUNT
IF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN WILLING AND HAD PROPOSED SUCH READJUSTMENT TO
BRING THE STATUTORY ACCOUNTS INTO LINE WITH THE COMMISSION'S PRESCRIBED
SYSTEM. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE
STATES UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH WHAT
THE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES OF OREGON OR WASHINGTON MAY OR MAY NOT
DEMAND OR PERMIT.  WHATEVER THAT ACTION MAY BE, IT IS SUBORDINATE TO
CONGRESS' APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER DOES NOT PURPORT PRESENTLY TO AFFECT OR CONSTRAIN ACTION BY THE
STATES WITHIN THEIR FIELDS. 

WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO MAKE ANY DECISION AS TO THE ABILITY OF THE
COMPANY LEGALLY TO DECLARE AND PAY DIVIDENDS. 

THE PETITIONERS ATTACK THE REGULATIONS AS IN CONFLICT WITH THE POWERS
AND THE REGULATIONS OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, WHICH
ALSO HAS REGULATORY POWER OVER NORTHWESTERN; BUT AN EXAMINATION OF THE
STATUTE AND OF THE ORDERS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION SATISFIES US THAT NO CONFLICT EXISTS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 847, 854, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 825. 

FN2  AS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 313(B), 49 STAT. 860, 16 U.S.C. SEC.
825L. 

FN3  NORTHWESTERN ELECTRIC CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 125 F.2D
882. 

FN4  134 F.2D 740. 

FN5  SEC. 201(A), 49 STAT. 847, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 824 IMPOSES
REGULATIONS UPON INTERSTATE UTILITIES; SEC. 205, 49 STAT. 851, 16
U.S.C. SEC. 824D GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO REGULATE RATES, AND
SEC. 301(A) REQUIRES THE KEEPING OF ACCOUNTS BY UTILITIES AND
AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 

FN6  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 423;
NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 134; AMERICAN TEL.
& TEL. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232. 

FN7  SEE NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 141;
AMERICAN TEL. & TEL. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 236. 

FN8  NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 143. 
..END :



















B.F. GOODRICH CO. V. U.S., 321 U.S. 126 


NO. 158.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 4, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1944.  - 135
F.2D 456, AFFIRMED. 


THE PROVISO OF SEC. 9(A) OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT WHICH, IN
RESPECT OF THE "PROCESSING TAX" PAID ON PROCESSED COTTON, AUTHORIZES A
DEDUCTION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS' EXCISE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 602 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING A DEDUCTION
ALSO IN RESPECT OF THE TAX ON FLOOR STOCKS LEVIED BY SEC. 16 OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.  P. 129. 

B.F. GOODRICH CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 722, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE GOVERNMENT, 48 F.SUPP.  453, IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE TAXPAYER FOR
A TAX REFUND. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT FOR REFUND OF A PORTION OF THE MANUFACTURERS' EXCISE
TAX ON TIRES PAID BY THE PACIFIC GOODRICH RUBBER COMPANY, PETITIONER'S
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY, PURSUANT TO SEC. 602 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932.  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT WAS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, 48
F.SUPP.  453, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  135 F.2D
456.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED ON A PETITION WHICH ALLEGED THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT'S AFFIRMANCE RESTED ON ITS ERRONEOUS DECISION OF
PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS.  WE WERE ASKED IN THE PETITION TO PASS UPON THESE
ISSUES:  (1)  WHETHER THERE WAS A MATERIAL VARIANCE BETWEEN THE CLAIM
WHICH HAD BEEN DENIED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THAT SUED UPON IN THE
DISTRICT COURT.  SEE R.S. SEC. 3226, AS AMENDED; UNITED STATES V.
ANDREWS, 302 U.S. 517.  (2)  WHETHER, IF THERE WAS SUCH A VARIANCE, IT
HAD BEEN, OR COULD HAVE BEEN, WAIVED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. GARBUTT OIL
CO., 302 U.S. 528.  ARGUMENT AT THE BAR AND IN THE BRIEFS OF BOTH
PARTIES WAS NOT, HOWEVER, LIMITED TO THESE NARROW PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS
BUT ALSO DEALT WITH THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM FOR REFUND.  THIS ARGUMENT
HAS DISCLOSED THAT, REGARDLESS OF THE PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS, THE
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE SUPPORTED ON THE GROUND THAT
UNDER THE CONTROLLING TAX STATUTES PETITIONER'S CLAIM HAS NO MERIT. 
SEE HELEVERING V. GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238, 245.  WE PASS AT ONCE TO A
CONSIDERATION OF THAT DECISIVE ISSUE. 

PETITIONER CLAIMS IT IS ENTITLED TO THE TAX REFUND UNDER PROVISIONS
OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.  FN2  SECTION 9(A) OF THAT ACT
AUTHORIZED THE IMPOSITION OF A "PROCESSING TAX" ON THE "FIRST DOMESTIC
PROCESSING" OF BASIC AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, INCLUDING COTTON.  A
PROVISO AT THE END OF THE SECTION GRANTED TO MANUFACTURERS OF CERTAIN
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING TIRES, A DEDUCTION FROM THE EXCISE TAX ON THOSE
PRODUCTS BECAUSE OF THE PAYMENT OF THE "PROCESSING TAX" ON THE COTTON
USED IN THEM.  FN3  ANOTHER SECTION OF THE ACT, SEC. 16, IMPOSED A
DIFFERENT TAX, EQUAL TO THE PROCESSING TAX, ON ARTICLES HELD IN FLOOR
STOCKS ON A CERTAIN DATE FOR SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION WHICH ARTICLES
HAD BEEN "PROCESSED WHOLLY OR IN CHIEF VALUE" FROM A BASIC AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITY.  FN4  THIS LATTER SECTION DID NOT GRANT ANY DEDUCTION FROM
THE MANUFACTURERS' EXCISE TAX BECAUSE OF THE FLOOR STOCKS TAX. 
NEVERTHELESS WHEN THE PACIFIC GOODRICH RUBBER COMPANY COMPUTED ITS
MANUFACTURERS' EXCISE TAX ON TIRES IT CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF
THE TAX WHICH IT HAD PAID ON FLOOR STOCKS OF COTTON FABRICS.  THE
COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT, WHILE
DEDUCTIONS WERE ALLOWABLE FOR COTTON ON WHICH A "PROCESSING TAX" HAD
BEEN PAID UNDER SEC. 9(A), THEY WERE NOT ALLOWABLE FOR COTTON ON WHICH
A TAX ON FLOOR STOCKS HAD BEEN PAID UNDER SEC. 16.  THIS SUIT IS BASED
ON THE PREMISE THAT THE DEDUCTION PROVISO OF SEC. 9(A) SHOULD BE READ
INTO SEC. 16. 

WITHIN THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT A TAX
ON FLOOR STOCKS WAS NOT A "PROCESSING TAX," AND THEREFORE THE PROVISO
IN SEC. 9(A) WHICH SPOKE ONLY OF A "PROCESSING TAX" ON COTTON WAS NOT
LITERALLY APPLICABLE TO THE TAX ON FLOOR STOCKS IMPOSED UNDER SEC. 16. 
THE TAX ON FLOOR STOCKS, THOUGH COMPLEMENTING THE PROCESSING TAX, WAS
NOT A TAX UPON THE "PROCESSING" OF AN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY BUT UPON
ARTICLES ALREADY PROCESSED FROM SUCH A COMMODITY AND HELD FOR SALE OR
OTHER DISPOSITION ON THE DATE WHEN THE PROCESSING TAX ON THE COMMODITY
WENT INTO EFFECT.  ALTHOUGH THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE ACT DOES NOT
AUTHORIZE THE DEDUCTION WHICH IT CLAIMS, PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO RELIEVE TIRE MANUFACTURERS FROM SO-CALLED
"DOUBLE TAXATION" ON COTTON CONTAINED IN TIRES WILL BE DEFEATED  FN5
UNLESS WE READ INTO SEC. 16 THE PROVISO OF SEC. 9(A). 

WITH THIS CONTENTION WE CANNOT AGREE.  IN THE FORM IN WHICH THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT WAS INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS, NEITHER SEC.
9(A), WHICH AUTHORIZED THE "PROCESSING TAX," NOR SEC. 16, WHICH
AUTHORIZED THE FLOOR STOCKS TAX, CONTAINED A PROVISO GRANTING A
DEDUCTION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS' EXCISE TAX.  FN6  BUT SEC. 16 OF THE
BILL DID PROVIDE THAT UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES TAXPAYERS SUBJECT
TO THE FLOOR STOCKS TAX WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A TAX ADJUSTMENT IN THE
NATURE OF A REFUND.  FN7  WHEN THE BILL WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE
SENATE, SEC. 9(A) WAS AMENDED BY ADDING A PROVISO  FN8  WHICH
AUTHORIZED AN ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE "PROCESSING TAX" IN THE
NATURE OF A DEDUCTION FROM THE MANUFACTURERS' EXCISE TAX.  THUS THE
BILL AS FINALLY ENACTED PROVIDED ONE TYPE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE FLOOR
STOCKS TAX IN SEC. 16 AND A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE
PROCESSING TAX IN SEC. 9(A).  WE HAVE BEEN POINTED TO NOTHING IN THE
ACT AS A WHOLE OR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH SHOWS THAT CONGRESS
CONSIDERED THESE SEPARATE METHODS OF ADJUSTING THE TWO TAXES
INSUFFICIENT TO PREVENT THE BURDEN OF "DOUBLE TAXATION" ON THE TIRE
MANUFACTURERS SO FAR AS CONGRESS WANTED TO PREVENT IT.  WE CANNOT SAY,
THEREFORE, THAT THE EXPRESSED INTENTION OF CONGRESS IS DEFEATED BY A
LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT WHICH DECLINES TO READ THE PROVISO OF
SEC. 9(A) INTO SEC. 16.  FN9  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IS
ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  602.  TAX ON TIRES AND INNER TUBES. 

"THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES SOLD BY THE
MANUFACTURER, PRODUCER, OR IMPORTER, A TAX AT THE FOLLOWING RATES: 

"(1)  TIRES WHOLLY OR IN PART OF RUBBER, 2 1/4 CENTS A POUND ON TOTAL
WEIGHT  ..."  REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, 261. 

FN2  48 STAT. 31. 

FN3  "PROVIDED, THAT UPON ANY ARTICLE UPON WHICH A MANUFACTURERS'
SALES TAX IS LEVIED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AND
WHICH MANUFACTURERS' SALES TAX IS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF WEIGHT, SUCH
MANUFACTURERS' SALES TAX SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE WEIGHT
OF SAID FINISHED ARTICLE LESS THE WEIGHT OF THE PROCESSED COTTON
CONTAINED THEREIN ON WHICH A PROCESSING TAX HAS BEEN PAID."  48 STAT.
36.  ALTHOUGH THE COVERAGE OF THIS PROVISO WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY LIMITED
TO THE EXCISE TAX ON TIRES, THE PROVISO CAME INTO SEC. 9(A) AS A SENATE
FLOOR AMENDMENT INTRODUCED "TO AVOID AN UNDULY BURDENSOME TAX ON
AUTOMOBILE TIRES."  77 CONG. REC. 1959.  THE VIEW WAS EXPRESSED ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THE COTTON
USED IN TIRES WOULD BE TWICE TAXED BY WEIGHT; ONCE BY THE PROCESSING
TAX ON COTTON, AND AGAIN BY THE EXCISE TAX ON TIRES.  77 CONG. REC.
1960.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN4  SECTION 16, ENTITLED "FLOOR STOCKS," READ IN PART AS FOLLOWS:
"SEC.  16.  (A) UPON THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF ANY ARTICLE
PROCESSED WHOLLY OR IN CHIEF VALUE FROM ANY COMMODITY WITH RESPECT TO
WHICH A PROCESSING TAX IS TO BE LEVIED, THAT ON THE DATE THE TAX FIRST
TAKES EFFECT ...  WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMODITY, IS HELD FOR SALE OR
OTHER DISPOSITION  ... BY ANY PERSON, THERE SHALL BE MADE A TAX
ADJUSTMENT AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1)  WHENEVER THE PROCESSING TAX FIRST TAKES EFFECT, THERE SHALL BE
LEVIED  ...  A TAX TO BE PAID BY SUCH PERSON EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT
OF THE PROCESSING TAX WHICH WOULD BE PAYABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE
COMMODITY FROM WHICH PROCESSED IF THE PROCESSING HAD OCCURRED ON SUCH
DATE."  48 STAT. 40. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN6  SENATE HEARINGS ON H.R. 3835, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1, 3,
6. 

FN7  SECTION 16(A)(2) OF THE ORIGINAL BILL, SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED
WITHOUT AMENDMENT, PROVIDED THAT, "WHENEVER THE PROCESSING TAX IS
WHOLLY TERMINATED, THERE SHALL BE REFUNDED TO SUCH PERSON A SUM  ...
IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE PROCESSING TAX WITH RESPECT TO THE
COMMODITY FROM WHICH PROCESSED."  IN REPORTING ON SEC. 16 THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE STATED THAT, "A CORRESPONDING REFUND IS
PROVIDED ON FLOOR STOCKS WHEN THE PROCESSING TAX FINALLY TERMINATES." 
H.R. REP. NO. 6, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., 6. 

FN8  THE PROVISO, ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED AS AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 9(A),
AUTHORIZED AN ADJUSTMENT TO BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE
MANUFACTURERS' EXCISE TAXES ON CERTAIN ARTICLES, INCLUDING TIRES, "AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PROCESSING TAX PAID ON THE COTTON USED THEREIN." 
77 CONG. REC. 1959.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE
PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION WAS ALTERED.  SEE CONFERENCE REPORT ACCOMPANYING
H.R. 3835, PRINTED AS H.R. REPORT NO. 100, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., 3; SEE
ALSO NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN9  CF. MOORE V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., 141 F.2D 328. 
..END :















CARTER V. VIRGINIA, 321 U.S. 131 


ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1944.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1944.  - 181 VA. 306,
313, 24 S.E.2D 550, 569, AFFIRMED. 


1.  REGULATIONS BY A STATE OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING
LIQUOR THROUGH THE STATE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, REQUIRING (1) THAT THE
VEHICLE USE THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE AND CARRY A BILL OF LADING DESCRIBING
THE ROUTE; (2) THAT THE CARRIER POST A $1,000 BOND CONDITIONED ON
LAWFUL TRANSPORTATION; AND (3) THAT THE TRUE CONSIGNEE BE NAMED IN THE
BILL OF LADING AND BE ONE WHO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SHIPMENT
AT DESTINATION, HELD WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE, INDEPENDENTLY OF
THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, AND NOT (ABSENT CONFLICTING FEDERAL
REGULATION) IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 137. 

2.  AS NO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS POINT WAS RAISED, THE STATE COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATE PROCEDURE ONLY THE BONDSMAN,
WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING, HAD STANDING TO OBJECT
TO THE CANCELLATION OF A BOND GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE REGULATIONS, IS
ACCEPTED HERE.  P. 136. 

3.  THE POWER OF THE STATE BOARD TO CANCEL A BOND GIVEN PURSUANT TO
THE REGULATIONS, BECAUSE OF DOUBT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
BONDSMAN, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
P. 136. 

CARTER ET AL. V. VIRGINIA. 

NO. 134.  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 198, DICKERSON ET AL. V. VIRGINIA, ALSO ON APPEAL
FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

APPEALS FROM CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF STATE REGULATIONS RELATING
TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANTS WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT  FN1 AND CERTAIN REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO
IT, CONCERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR THROUGH THE
COMMONWEALTH.  THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT AND REGULATIONS  FN2  VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, ARTICLE I, SEC.
8(3), OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WAS REJECTED BY VIRGINIA'S HIGHEST
COURT, THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS.  181 VA. 306, 313, 24 S.E.2D 550,
569.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON APPEALS PURSUANT TO SEC. 237(A) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

THE ACT IN QUESTION CONTAINS A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR THE CONTROL
OF TRADE IN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF VIRGINIA.  BY
THE STATUTE AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD IS ESTABLISHED AND
AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT SUCH REGULATIONS "AS IT MAY DEEM NECESSARY" TO
CONFINE THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR "TO LEGITIMATE PURPOSES."  FN3
THE A.B.C. BOARD PROMULGATED REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION
THROUGH VIRGINIA.  FN4  THE REQUIREMENTS HERE IN ISSUE ARE THESE: (1)
THE VEHICLE MUST USE THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE AND CARRY A BILL OF LADING
SHOWING THE ROUTE IT WILL TRAVEL; (2) THE CARRIER MUST POST A BOND IN
THE PENAL SUM OF $1,000 CONDITIONED ON LAWFUL TRANSPORTATION; AND (3)
THE BILL OF LADING MUST SHOW THE NAME OF THE TRUE CONSIGNEE, AND THAT
CONSIGNEE MUST HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE BEVERAGES AT THE
STATED DESTINATION. 

BOTH CASES REACHED THE VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT ON STIPULATED FACTS. 
IN NO. 134, IT WAS AGREED THAT CARTER AND MACEMORE RECEIVED 168 GALLONS
OF WHISKEY FROM A WHOLESALER IN MARYLAND FOR TRANSPORTATION TO AN
INDIVIDUAL CONSIGNEE IN THOMASVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.  THE APPELLANTS
WERE APPREHENDED IN RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY, VIRGINIA, WHILE CARRYING THE
WHISKEY BY TRUCK.  THE APPELLANTS THEMSELVES DID NOT POST A BOND, AND A
BOND WHICH WAS POSTED BY THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE TRUCK WAS
CANCELLED BECAUSE HE WAS REPUTED TO BE A BOOTLEGGER.  THEIR BILL OF
LADING DID NOT SHOW THE ROUTE TO BE TRAVERSED THROUGH VIRGINIA, AND THE
INTENDED DELIVERY TO THE CONSIGNEE WAS FORBIDDEN BY THE LAWS OF NORTH
CAROLINA. 

THE FACTS STIPULATED IN NO. 198 ARE SIMILAR.  DICKERSON WAS ARRESTED
IN PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA, WHILE DRIVING A TRUCK CARRYING MORE
THAN ONE GALLON OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.  HE WAS TRAVELING BY THE MOST
DIRECT ROUTE FROM MARYLAND TO HIS EMPLOYER-CONSIGNEE, PAGE, IN NORTH
CAROLINA.  PAGE HAD POSTED THE REQUIRED BOND, BUT THE BILL OF LADING
DID NOT SHOW THE ROUTE TO BE TRAVELED, AND PAGE WAS FORBIDDEN BY THE
LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA TO ACCEPT DELIVERY THERE. 

ALL THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE TWO CASES WERE RESIDENTS OF NORTH
CAROLINA. 

THE APPELLANTS ARGUE, FIRST, THAT THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES
VIRGINIA NO POWER TO PROHIBIT ABSOLUTELY THE SHIPMENT OF LIQUOR FROM
MARYLAND TO NORTH CAROLINA THROUGH VIRGINIA; SECOND, THAT ITS POWER TO
REGULATE SUCH SHIPMENTS IS LIMITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
REGULATIONS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ENFORCE ITS LOCAL LIQUOR LAWS AND
NOT UNDULY BURDENSOME ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THIRD, THAT VIRGINIA HAS
NO AUTHORITY TO PENALIZE PROSPECTIVE VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF
NORTH CAROLINA OR THE UNITED STATES.  IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE
INTOXICATING LIQUORS IN QUESTION ARE INTENDED FOR CONTINUOUS SHIPMENT
THROUGH VIRGINIA, SO THAT HERE, AS IN THE DUCKWORTH CASE,  FN5  A
DIFFERENT QUESTION ARISES FROM THOSE CONSIDERED UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT, FN6  WHERE TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION INTO A STATE FOR
DELIVERY OR USE THEREIN WAS PROHIBITED.  BUT WE MAY PUT ASIDE THE FIRST
AND THIRD CONTENTIONS, FOR WE ARE SATISFIED THAT VIRGINIA MAY,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND INDEPENDENTLY OF THE TWENTY
FIRST AMENDMENT, IN ORDER TO PROTECT HERSELF FROM ILLICIT LIQUOR
TRAFFIC WITHIN HER BORDERS, SUBJECT THE SHIPMENT OF LIQUOR THROUGH
VIRGINIA TO THE REGULATIONS HERE IN QUESTION. 

WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE SEVERAL STATES IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL
LEGISLATION MAY REQUIRE REGULATORY LICENSES FOR THROUGH SHIPMENTS OF
LIQUOR IN ORDER TO GUARD AGAINST VIOLATIONS OF THEIR OWN LAWS. 
DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390.  THUS THIS COURT HAS EXTENDED TO
THIS VERY FIELD ITS RECOGNITION THAT REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
BY LOCAL AUTHORITY IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IS ADMISSIBLE
TO PROTECT THE STATE FROM INJURIES ARISING FROM THAT COMMERCE. 
CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113, 115, AND CASES CITED; CLARK
V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583, 591; MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407,
410; CLYDE MALLORY LINES V. ALABAMA, 296 U.S. 261, 267.  THE COMMERCE
POWER OF CONGRESS IS NOT INVADED BY SUCH POLICE REGULATIONS AS VIRGINIA
HAS HERE ENFORCED. 

THE STATE OF TRANSIT MAY COMPEL THE CARRIER TO FURNISH INFORMATION
NECESSARY FOR CHECKING THE SHIPMENT AGAINST UNLAWFUL DIVERSION, AND THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE TRUCK FOLLOW A DIRECT, STATED ROUTE IS WITHIN THE
RULE OF DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, SUPRA.  SIMILARLY, A STATE MAY REQUIRE A
REASONABLE BOND OF ONE WHO WISHES TO ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE TRADE OF A
KIND DANGEROUS TO WELL-RECOGNIZED LOCAL INTERESTS.  CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109. 

THE STATE COURT DID NOT PASS UPON THE LEGALITY UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL
LAW OF THE CANCELLATION OF THE BOND IN NO. 134, SINCE IT CONCLUDED THAT
ONLY THE BONDSMAN, WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING, HAD STANDING
TO OBJECT UNDER APPLICABLE STATE PROCEDURE.  AS NO PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS POINT IS RAISED, WE ACCEPT ITS CONCLUSION WITHOUT FURTHER
EXAMINATION.  UNITED GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123, 139.  IT IS URGED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE BOARD'S POWER TO CANCEL A BOND BECAUSE OF DOUBTS AS
TO THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE BONDSMAN AMOUNTS TO AN UNDUE BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE BOND IS TO BE FURNISHED, ACCORDING TO SEC. 42 OF THE REGULATIONS,
BY THE PERSON TRANSPORTING THE LIQUOR.  THUS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
BOND BE SIGNED BY A RESPONSIBLE PERSON APPEARS TO RAISE THE SAME TYPE
OF QUESTION AS THE REQUIREMENT THAT DELIVERY BE LAWFUL AT THE PLACE OF
CONSIGNMENT, AND THE TWO MAY BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.  OF THE LATTER
RULE, THE VIRGINIA COURT SAID, 

"WE CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT ONE WHO DELIBERATELY AND
INTENTIONALLY VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW OF HIS
RESIDENT STATE, IN THE UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR WOULD HARDLY
HESITATE TO VIOLATE THE LAWS OF THIS STATE WHILE PASSING THROUGH IT IF
HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT PROFIT THEREBY.  WE CANNOT SHUT OUR EYES TO THE
POSSIBILITIES OF SUCH A SITUATION AND THE NECESSITY OF PREVENTION." 

WE ARE THEREFORE DEALING WITH A CASE IN WHICH VIRGINIA IS ATTEMPTING
NO MORE THAN THE ENFORCEMENT OF HER OWN LAWS; SHE IS NOT SEEKING TO
INFLICT PUNISHMENT FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA. 
WHETHER OR NOT SHE IS ENTITLED THUS TO ENFORCE HER LAWS MUST BE JUDGED
IN THE LIGHT OF OUR LONG-STANDING RECOGNITION OF THE EXCEPTIONAL
PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN SUCCESSFULLY REGULATING TRADE IN INTOXICATING
LIQUORS.  CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 242 U.S.
311, 332; DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, SUPRA, AT 396.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE
APPELLEE'S SUGGESTION THAT COMPLETE EXCLUSION (AND HENCE THESE PARTIAL
RESTRAINTS) OF MOTOR CARRIERS FROM THE THROUGH LIQUOR TRAFFIC AND A
LIMITATION OF THROUGH TRANSIT TO RAIL CARRIERS WOULD BE CONSONANT WITH
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  CF. ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132, 140. 
WHATEVER MAY BE THE EFFECT OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, THIS RECORD
PRESENTS NO PROBLEM THAT MAY NOT BE RESOLVED UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
ALONE.  THAT CLAUSE REMAINS IN THE CONSTITUTION AS A GRANT OF POWER TO
CONGRESS TO CONTROL COMMERCE AND AS A DIMINUTION PRO TANTO OF ABSOLUTE
STATE SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER.  THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT LIMITS THAT GRANT OF POWER AS TO INTOXICATING LIQUOR BY
PROHIBITING "TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION INTO ANY STATE, TERRITORY,
OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR DELIVERY OR USE THEREIN  ...  IN
VIOLATION OF THE LAWS THEREOF."  BY INTERPRETATION OF THIS COURT THE
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO RELIEVE THE STATES OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE ON THEIR POWERS OVER SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR
IMPORTATION.  FN7  IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD THAT SHIPMENT THROUGH A STATE
IS NOT TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION INTO THE STATE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE AMENDMENT.  COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518, 535,
538.  BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE POWER OF
VIRGINIA UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT TO REGULATE THROUGH
SHIPMENTS.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT VIRGINIA COULD CONCLUDE, IN THE ABSENCE
OF CONTRARY FEDERAL LEGISLATION, THAT SHE COULD NOT SAFELY PERMIT THE
TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR THROUGH HER TERRITORY BY THOSE WHO CONCEDEDLY
MEAN TO BREAK FEDERAL LAWS  FN8  AND THE LAWS OF A NEIGHBORING STATE. 
BY HER RULING SHE HAS IMPOSED NO SUBSTANTIAL CLOG ON WHATEVER COGNATE
RIGHTS HER SISTER STATES MAY HAVE TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN POLICIES
REGARDING INTOXICATING LIQUORS AND TO RECEIVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IF THEY SO DESIRE. 

FOR THESE REASONS THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  MICHIE'S VIRGINIA CODE (1942) SEC. 4675. 

FN2  REGULATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD,
SECS. 42, 44. 

FN3  VIRGINIA CODE, SEC. 4675(49A).  "TRANSPORTATION; TRANSPORTATION
PERMITS; PENALTIES.  - THE TRANSPORTATION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, OTHER
THAN WINE AND BEER PURCHASED FROM PERSONS LICENSED TO SELL SAME IN THIS
STATE, AND THOSE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WHICH MAY BE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD
WITHOUT ANY LICENSE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, WITHIN, INTO OR
THROUGH THE STATE OF VIRGINIA IN QUANTITIES IN EXCESS OF ONE GALLON IS
PROHIBITED EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE
VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. 

"THE BOARD MAY ADOPT SUCH REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, OTHER THAN WINE AND BEER PURCHASED FROM PERSONS
LICENSED TO SELL SAME IN THIS STATE AND THOSE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WHICH
MAY BE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD WITHOUT ANY LICENSE UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT, WITHIN, INTO OR THROUGH VIRGINIA IN QUANTITIES IN EXCESS
OF ONE GALLON AS IT MAY DEEM NECESSARY TO CONFINE SUCH TRANSPORTATION
TO LEGITIMATE PURPOSES AND MAY ISSUE TRANSPORTATION PERMITS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH REGULATIONS.  ...  " 

FN4  SECTION 42 OF THE REGULATIONS PROVIDES:  "BEFORE ANY PERSON
SHALL TRANSPORT ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITHIN, INTO, OR THROUGH THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA, SUCH PERSON SHALL POST WITH THE VIRGINIA ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD A BOND WITH APPROVED SURETY, PAYABLE TO THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, IN THE PENALTY OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, UPON
CONDITION THAT SUCH PERSON WILL NOT UNLAWFULLY TRANSPORT AND/OR DELIVER
ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WITHIN, INTO, OR THROUGH THE STATE OF VIRGINIA,
AND EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUIRED BOND HAS BEEN POSTED SHALL ACCOMPANY THE
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT ALL TIMES DURING TRANSPORTATION.  ...  " 

TO BE TRANSPORTED WITHIN, INTO, OR THROUGH THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
(EXCEPT THOSE INSTANCES MENTIONED IN SECTIONS 42 AND 43 OF THESE
REGULATIONS), SUCH TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE ENGAGED IN ONLY WHEN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS: 

"(A)  THERE SHALL ACCOMPANY SUCH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT ALL TIMES
DURING TRANSPORTATION, A BILL OF LADING OR OTHER MEMORANDUM OF SHIPMENT
SIGNED BY THE CONSIGNOR SHOWING AN EXACT DESCRIPTION OF THE ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES BEING TRANSPORTED; THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CONSIGNOR; THE
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE CONSIGNEE; THE ROUTE TO BE TRAVELED BY SUCH
VEHICLE WHILE IN VIRGINIA AND SUCH ROUTE MUST BE THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE
FROM THE CONSIGNOR'S PLACE OF BUSINESS TO THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE
CONSIGNEE. 

"(B)  VEHICLES TRANSPORTING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SHALL NOT VARY FROM
THE ROUTE SPECIFIED IN THE BILL OF LADING OR OTHER MEMORANDUM OF
SHIPMENT. 

"(C)  THE NAME OF THE CONSIGNOR ON ANY SUCH BILL OF LADING OR OTHER
MEMORANDUM OF SHIPMENT SHALL BE THE NAME OF THE TRUE CONSIGNOR OF THE
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BEING TRANSPORTED AND SUCH CONSIGNOR SHALL ONLY BE
A PERSON WHO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH SHIPMENT.  THE NAME OF THE
CONSIGNEE ON ANY SUCH BILL OF LADING OR MEMORANDUM OF SHIPMENT SHALL BE
THE NAME OF THE TRUE CONSIGNEE OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BEING
TRANSPORTED AND WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED IN WRITING THE SHIPMENT
OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BEING TRANSPORTED AND WHO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT
TO RECEIVE SUCH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE POINT OF DESTINATION SHOWN
ON THE BILL OF LADING OR OTHER MEMORANDUM OF SHIPMENT." 

FN5  DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390, 392-3. 

FN6  SEE STATE BOARD V. YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59; MAHONEY V.
JOSEPH TRINER CORP., 304 U.S. 401; INDIANAPOLIS BREWING CO. V. LIQUOR
COMMISSION, 305 U.S. 391; JOSEPH S. FINCH & CO. V. MCKITTRICK, 305 U.S.
395.    FN7  STATE BOARD V. YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59;
INDIANAPOLIS BREWING CO. V. LIQUOR COMMISSION, 305 U.S. 391. 

FN8  TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, SEC. 2; 27 U.S.C. SEC. 122. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT ONLY, FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN HIS SEPARATE OPINION IN DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING: 

I AM NOT SURE THAT STATE STATUTES REGULATING INTOXICATING LIQUOR
SHOULD EVER BE INVALIDATED BY THIS COURT UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
EXCEPT WHERE THEY CONFLICT WITH VALID FEDERAL STATUTES.  CF. DISSENTING
OPINIONS, MCCARROLL V. DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES, 309 U.S. 176, 183; GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 442; ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO.
V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 316.  THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT HAS PLACED
LIQUOR IN A CATEGORY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF OTHER ARTICLES OF
COMMERCE.  THOUGH THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF POWER IT HAS LEFT IN CONGRESS
TO REGULATE LIQUOR UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN MARKED OUT BY
DECISIONS, THIS MUCH IS SETTLED:  LOCAL, NOT NATIONAL, REGULATION OF
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IS NOW THE GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY.  ZIFFRIN,
INC. V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132; INDIANAPOLIS BREWING CO. V. LIQUOR
CONTROL COMM'N, 305 U.S. 391; STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION V. YOUNG'S
MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59. 

WHATEVER LIMITED FORCE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE MAY RETAIN WITH REGARD TO
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC, IT SHOULD NOT REQUIRE THE INVALIDATION OF THE
VIRGINIA STATUTES HERE INVOLVED, WHICH DO NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY ACT OF
CONGRESS, AND WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO ENFORCE LOCAL LIQUOR POLICIES. 
VIRGINIA SEEMS TO THINK THAT, UNLESS ADEQUATE PRECAUTIONARY REGULATIONS
ARE DEVISED AND ENFORCED, LIQUOR SHIPMENTS OSTENSIBLY BEING TRANSPORTED
THROUGH HER TERRITORY TO A NEIGHBORING STATE COULD BE DIVERTED FOR
BOOTLEG PURPOSES CONTRARY TO HER LAWS.  SUCH PRECAUTIONARY REGULATIONS
MUST COME FROM EITHER VIRGINIA OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE
LEGISLATURE OF VIRGINIA HAS PROVIDED THEM; THE CONGRESS HAS NOT.  THIS
COURT COULD INVALIDATE THE VIRGINIA REGULATIONS, BUT ONLY THE CONGRESS
COULD DEVISE AND SUBSTITUTE EFFECTIVE FEDERAL REGULATIONS TO TAKE THEIR
PLACE.  I THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE COURT "THAT VIRGINIA COULD CONCLUDE,
IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY FEDERAL LEGISLATION, THAT SHE COULD NOT
SAFELY PERMIT THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR THROUGH HER TERRITORY BY
THOSE WHO CONCEDEDLY MEAN TO BREAK FEDERAL LAWS AND THE LAWS OF A
NEIGHBORING STATE." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

1.  AFTER AS THOROUGH A CONSIDERATION AS IT EVER GAVE TO A PROBLEM,
THIS COURT, IN A LONG SERIES OF CASES BEGINNING WITH BOWMAN V. CHICAGO
& NORTH WESTERN RY. CO., 125 U.S. 465, DECIDED THAT INTOXICATING LIQUOR
IS A LEGITIMATE SUBJECT OF COMMERCE, AS MUCH SO AS CABBAGES AND
CANDLESTICKS, AND AS SUCH WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF REGULATION BY CONGRESS, THE MOVEMENT OF
INTOXICANTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE LIKE THAT OF ALL OTHER MERCHANTABLE
GOODS WAS "FREE FROM ALL STATE CONTROL."  CLARK DISTILLING CO. V.
WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 242 U.S. 311, 323, 327, CITING LEISY V.
HARDIN, 135 U.S. 100; IN RE RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545; VANCE V. VANDERCOOK
COMPANY (NO. 1), 170 U.S. 438; RHODES V. IOWA, 170 U.S. 412.  ALL OF
THESE DECISIONS ARE STILL ON THE BOOKS.  AND SO, BEFORE THE TWENTY
FIRST AMENDMENT DISPLACED THE EIGHTEENTH, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES WAS ABLE
TO SAY:  "I CANNOT FOR A MOMENT BELIEVE THAT APART FROM THE EIGHTEENTH
AMENDMENT SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES EXIST AGAINST STRONG
DRINK.  THE FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION SO FAR AS I KNOW APPROVED IT." 
KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO. V. STEWART, 253 U.S. 149, 169. 

2.  IF THEN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BE THE MEASURE OF STATE ACTION, SUCH
A REQUIREMENT AS THE POSTING OF A BOND FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS FROM
WITHOUT VIRGINIA WOULD BE BEYOND VIRGINIA'S POWERS EVEN IF THE SHIPMENT
OF THE LIQUOR WERE FOR DELIVERY INTO VIRGINIA.  HEYMAN V. SOUTHERN RY.
CO., 203 U.S. 270; ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. KENTUCKY, 206 U.S. 129.  CASES
LIKE CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, WHICH RECOGNIZE THE POWER OF
STATES TO REGULATE LOCAL ACTIVITIES BY TAXATION OR OTHERWISE RELATED
EVEN THOUGH THEY BE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT NONE OF WHICH WAS
CONCERNED WITH RESTRICTING THE THROUGH-PASSAGE OF GOODS, LIQUOR OR ANY
OTHER, AFFORD NO BASIS FOR SUGGESTING THAT A STATE HAS POWER TO LICENSE
THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON OPPRESSIVE OR
PROHIBITIVE TERMS.  A FORTIORI, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WOULD PROHIBIT AND
NOT PERMIT SUCH LEGISLATION AS IS BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF LIQUOR
ARRIVING IN VIRGINIA FOR ULTIMATE DELIVERY WITHOUT.  HEYMAN V. HAYS,
236 U.S. 178. 

3.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNIFORM CURRENT OF DECISIONS UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE PRIOR TO THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, THE VIRGINIA
LEGISLATION COULD NOT SURVIVE AS TO SHIPMENTS BOUND BEYOND ITS
BORDERS.  IF THE LEGISLATION IS VALID, AS I BELIEVE IT TO BE, IT MUST
BE SOLELY BECAUSE THE RANGE OF STATE CONTROL OVER LIQUOR HAS BEEN
EXTENDED BY THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT BEYOND THE PERMISSIVE BOUNDS OF
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

4.  THE LEGISLATION IS SUSTAINABLE UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT
ON ONE OF TWO CONSIDERATIONS.  IT IS A NOTORIOUS FACT THAT STATE
PROHIBITION LAWS WERE TO NO SMALL MEASURE EVADED BY ILLICIT DIVERSION
OF LIQUOR CLAIMED TO BE TRANSPORTED THROUGH A STATE.  SINCE WE ARE
DEALING WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT SHOULD BE BROADLY AND
COLLOQUIALLY INTERPRETED, LIQUOR THAT ENTERS A STATE IN THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE LIQUOR HERE CAME INTO VIRGINIA MAY, WITHOUT UNDUE LIBERTY
WITH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, BE DEEMED TO BE FOR "DELIVERY" THERE EVEN
THOUGH IT IS CONSIGNED FOR ANOTHER STATE.  THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT
PROHIBITS THE "TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION INTO ANY STATE  ...  OF
INTOXICATING LIQUORS, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS THEREOF," NOT WHEN THE
LIQUOR IS FOR DELIVERY AND USE BUT FOR "DELIVERY OR USE THEREIN."  IN
OTHER WORDS, LIQUOR NEED NOT BE INTENDED FOR CONSUMPTION IN A STATE TO
BE DEEMED TO BE IMPORTED INTO THE STATE AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO
CONTROL BY THAT STATE.  THE DECISION IN COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK CO.,
304 U.S. 518, HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE RELATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE TO THE POWER GIVEN THE STATES BY THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT TO CONTROL THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.  THAT WAS A SUIT "TO RESTRAIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE (CALIFORNIA) ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT WITHIN
YOSEMITE PARK, ON THE THEORY THAT THE PARK IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  ALL THAT WAS THERE DECIDED, AFTER
EXTENDED CONSIDERATION OF THE RELATION OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE
YOSEMITE PARK, WAS THAT THE UNITED STATES DID EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE LAND CEDED BY CALIFORNIA TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR PARK PURPOSES, AND THAT OF COURSE WHEN "EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IS IN THE UNITED STATES, WITHOUT POWER IN THE STATE TO
REGULATE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, THE XXI AMENDMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE." 
304 U.S. AT 538.  STATE CONTROL MUST YIELD TO SUPERIOR FEDERAL POWER,
BUT STATE CONTROL BY ONE STATE, SINCE THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, NEED
NOT YIELD TO STATE CONTROL BY ANOTHER STATE. 

5.  IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SINCE VIRGINIA HAS POWER TO PROHIBIT THE
IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR WITHIN THAT COMMONWEALTH, IT MAY EFFECTUATE THAT
PURPOSE BY MEASURES DEEMED BY IT NECESSARY TO PREVENT EVASION OF ITS
POLICY BY PRETENDED THROUGH-SHIPMENTS.  IN A WORD, HAVING THE POWER TO
PROHIBIT LIQUOR FROM COMING INTO A STATE, A STATE MAY TAKE MEASURES
AGAINST FRUSTRATION OF THAT POWER BY RESORT TO THE CLAIM THAT LIQUOR
PASSING THROUGH A STATE ENJOYS THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
IF A STATE MAY TAKE THESE PROTECTIVE MEASURES, AS SURELY IT MAY, WHO IS
TO DECIDE WHAT MEASURES ARE NECESSARY FOR ITS PROTECTION?  IF A STATE
MAY ASK FOR THE POSTING OF A $1,000 BOND, MAY SHE NOT REQUIRE A $10,000
BOND?  IF A STATE SHOULD URGE THAT ITS EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT ANY
REGULATORY SYSTEM IS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE ILLICIT DIVERSION IS TOO
RESOURCEFUL FOR CONTROL BY MERE REGULATION AND REQUIRES PROHIBITION,
WHO IS TO SAY, IN VIEW OF THE HISTORY EMBEDDED IN THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT, THAT A STATE MAY NOT FAIRLY ACT ON SUCH A JUDGMENT?  ARE NOT
THESE PECULIARLY POLITICAL, THAT IS LEGISLATIVE, QUESTIONS WHICH WERE
NOT MEANT BY THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE TO BE THE FRUITFUL
APPLE OF JUDICIAL DISCORD, AS THEY WERE BEFORE THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT? 

6.  IT IS NOW SUGGESTED THAT A STATE MUST KEEP WITHIN "THE LIMITS OF
REASONABLE NECESSITY" AND THAT THIS COURT MUST JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT
VIRGINIA HAS ADOPTED "REGULATIONS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ENFORCE ITS
LOCAL LIQUOR LAWS."  SUCH CANONS OF ADJUDICATION OPEN WIDE THE DOOR OF
CONFLICT AND CONFUSION WHICH HAVE IN THE PAST CHARACTERIZED THE LIQUOR
CONTROVERSIES IN THIS COURT AND IN NO SMALL MEASURE FORMED PART OF THE
UNEDIFYING HISTORY WHICH LED FIRST TO THE EIGHTEENTH AND THEN TO THE
TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT. 

7.  LESS THAN SIX YEARS AGO THIS COURT REJECTED THE IMPOSSIBLE TASK
OF DECIDING, INSTEAD OF LEAVING IT FOR LEGISLATURES TO DECIDE, WHAT
CONSTITUTES A "REASONABLE REGULATION" OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.  THE ISSUE
WAS FAIRLY PRESENTED IN MAHONEY V. TRINER CORP., 304 U.S. 401.  AND
THIS WAS THE HOLDING: 

"WE ARE ASKED TO LIMIT THE POWER CONFERRED BY THE AMENDMENT SO THAT
ONLY THOSE IMPORTATIONS MAY BE FORBIDDEN WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT, VIOLATE A REASONABLE REGULATION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.  TO DO SO
WOULD, AS STATED IN THE YOUNG'S MARKET CASE, (299 U.S. 59) P. 62,
'INVOLVE NOT A CONSTRUCTION OF THE AMENDMENT, BUT A REWRITING OF IT.'" 
304 U.S. AT 404. 

THEREFORE IF A STATE, IN AID OF ITS POWERS OF PROHIBITION, MAY
REGULATE, WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE BY COURTS REGARDING THE
"REASONABLENESS" OF A REGULATION, IT MAY DO SO WHETHER THE LIQUOR IS
OPENLY CONSIGNED FOR CONSUMPTION WITHIN IT OR INTENDED FOR CONSUMPTION
THERE ALTHOUGH, BY SUBTERFUGE TOO DIFFICULT TO CHECK, NOMINALLY
DESTINED ELSEWHERE. 

8.  FULLER CONSIDERATION HAS THEREFORE CONVINCED ME THAT THE POWER
EXERCISED BY THE STATE IN DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390, AS WELL
AS IN THIS CASE MUST REST ON THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE STATES BY THE
TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT.  AND SINCE VIRGINIA DERIVES THE POWER TO
LEGISLATE AS SHE DID FROM THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY.  SO THIS COURT HAS TWICE RULED.  "SINCE
THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, AS HELD IN THE YOUNG CASE (299 U.S. 59),
THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO PROHIBIT OR REGULATE THE IMPORTATION OF
INTOXICATING LIQUOR IS NOT LIMITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE." 
INDIANAPOLIS BREWING CO. V. LIQUOR COMMISSION, 305 U.S. 391, 394; SEE
ALSO FINCH & CO. V. MCKITTRICK, 305 U.S. 395, 398. 
..END :













DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, 321 U.S. 144 


NO. 112.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1944.  - 137
F.2D 201, REVERSED. 


A PUBLIC WAREHOUSE IN CALIFORNIA, THE BUSINESS OF WHICH IS DECLARED BY
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE TO BE THAT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY AND WHICH
IS SUBJECT TO COMPREHENSIVE REGULATION (INCLUDING THE FIXING OF RATES
AND CHARGES) UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT OF THE STATE, HELD A
"PUBLIC UTILITY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISO OF SEC. 302(C) OF
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, AND THEREBY EXEMPT FROM
REGULATION UNDER THAT ACT.  PP. 152, 156. 

DAVIES WAREHOUSE CO. V. BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 721, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT IN A
PROCEEDING TO HAVE SET ASIDE, SO FAR AS APPLICABLE TO THE COMPLAINANT,
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, DAVIES WAREHOUSE COMPANY, IS INCORPORATED UNDER THE
LAWS OF CALIFORNIA AND CONDUCTS A PUBLIC WAREHOUSE IN LOS ANGELES.  ITS
BUSINESS IS DECLARED TO BE THAT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY BOTH BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA  FN1  AND ITS PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT.  FN2
THE ACT SUBJECTS TO REGULATION BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION ALL
WAREHOUSES WHICH SERVE THE PUBLIC GENERALLY FOR COMPENSATION.  SEC. 2
1/2.  NEW WAREHOUSES MAY BE ESTABLISHED ONLY AFTER OBTAINING
CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, WHICH THE COMMISSION
MAY REFUSE OR CONDITION AND MAY SUSPEND OR REVOKE AT ANY TIME FOR
CAUSE.  SEC. 50 1/2.  PETITIONER MUST GRANT NONDISCRIMINATORY AND EQUAL
RATES TO EVERYONE, AND IT MAY NOT ALTER ANY EXISTING RATE OR CHARGE
WITHOUT PERMISSION.  SECS. 19, 15.  THE COMMISSION UPON ITS OWN MOTION
OR UPON COMPLAINT MAY DETERMINE "THE JUST, REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT
RATES" AND FIX THE SAME BY ORDER.  SEC. 32.  PETITIONER IS REQUIRED TO
MAKE PERIODIC REPORTS AND IS SUBJECT TO NUMEROUS RESTRICTIONS AND
DISABILITIES.  SECS. 29, 51, 52, 75, 76, ET AL. 

SEVERAL PUBLIC WAREHOUSES, INCLUDING THE ONE BEFORE US, MADE
APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR GENERAL RATE INCREASES.  THE
COMMISSION GAVE A PUBLIC HEARING IN FEBRUARY 1942.  FROM UNDISPUTED
TESTIMONY IT APPEARED THAT:  NOTICE OF HEARING HAD BEEN SENT TO OVER
3,000 CUSTOMERS AND NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION; RATES HAD NOT BEEN
ADVANCED SINCE 1938; WAGES, HOWEVER, HAD BEEN ADVANCED ON FOUR
DIFFERENT OCCASIONS; MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES AND WAGES OF CLERICAL AND
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES HAD ALSO INCREASED; OVERALL COSTS OF OPERATION
HAD RISEN DURING THE PERIOD 20-26 PER CENT.  ON MAY 12, 1942, THE
COMMISSION AUTHORIZED A GENERAL 15 PER CENT ADVANCE WHICH, IT SAID,
"WILL PERMIT APPLICANTS TO INCREASE THEIR RATES TO REIMBURSE THEM IN
PART FOR THEIR ADDED LABOR EXPENSE."  THE PERMISSION WAS SO
CONDITIONED, HOWEVER, THAT THE REASONABLENESS OF ANY PARTICULAR RATE
COULD BE ATTACKED BY ANY CUSTOMER, EITHER BY WAY OF REPARATION
PROCEEDING, FOR WHICH THE ACT MAKES PROVISION, OR OTHERWISE.  THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE NEW RATES WAS SET BY THE COMMISSION AS MAY 22,
1942. 

IN THE MEANTIME THE UNITED STATES PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, ACTING UNDER
THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT,  FN3  ON APRIL 28, 1942 ISSUED A
GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION.  THE EFFECT OF THE FEDERAL REGULATION
AND LATER AMENDMENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN TO PROHIBIT PETITIONER AFTER JULY
1, 1942 FROM CHARGING THE RATE AUTHORIZED BY THE CALIFORNIA RAILROAD
COMMISSION. 

THIS FEDERAL ACT PROVIDES THAT "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE THE REGULATION OF  ...  (2) RATES CHARGED BY ANY
COMMON CARRIER OR OTHER PUBLIC UTILITY."  FN4 PETITIONER, ASSERTING
ITSELF TO BE WITHIN THIS EXEMPTION, MADE TIMELY PROTEST TO THE PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH WAS DENIED.  IT THEN FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE
UNITED STATES EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, ON WHICH THE ACT CONFERS
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF
REGULATIONS,  FN5  ASKING IT TO SET ASIDE THE GENERAL MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATIONS IN SO FAR AS THEY PURPORT TO REGULATE ITS CHARGES.  THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  IMPORTANCE OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT TO ITS ADMINISTRATION LED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI. 

CONGRESS, IN OMITTING TO DEFINE "PUBLIC UTILITY" AS USED IN THE ACT,
LEFT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COURTS A TASK OF UNEXPECTED
DIFFICULTY.  USE OF THAT TERM IN A CONTEXT OF GENERALITY WEARS AN
APPEARANCE OF PRECISION WHICH PROVES ILLUSORY WHEN EXACT APPLICATION
BECOMES NECESSARY.  RELEVANT AUTHORITIES AND CONSIDERATIONS ARE
NUMEROUS AND EQUIVOCAL, AND DIFFERENT PLAUSIBLE DEFINITIONS RESULT FROM
A MERE SHIFT OF EMPHASIS.  IT MAY BE CONTENDED THAT THE EXEMPTION RUNS
IN FAVOR OF ANY BUSINESS GENERALLY AND TRADITIONALLY REGARDED AS A
UTILITY, IRRESPECTIVE OF ACTUAL STATE REGULATION.  OR IT MAY BE URGED
TO INCLUDE ANY ENTERPRISE ACTUALLY REGULATED AS ARE UTILITIES,
REGARDLESS OF TRADITIONAL CLASSIFICATION.  OR IT MAY BE SAID TO EXTEND
ONLY TO THOSE BUSINESSES WHERE ACTUAL UTILITY REGULATION EXISTS ALONG
WITH GENERAL AND TRADITIONAL UTILITY CHARACTER. 

THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS WEIGHED THE CONFLICTING FACTORS IN
THOROUGH OPINIONS AND DIVIDED AS TO RESULT.  FN6  JUDGES MARIS AND
MAGRUDER GAVE LITTLE WEIGHT TO THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL REGULATION AND
HELD THE PHRASE TO COMPREHEND ENTERPRISES OF THE GENERAL UTILITY TYPE,
AMONG WHICH THEY THOUGHT THIS WAREHOUSE HAD NO PLACE.  THEY HELD THAT
THE FEDERAL PRICE REGULATION SUPERSEDED THAT OF THE STATE, BUT SAID,
"THIS IS ONE OF THOSE UNFORTUNATE CASES WHERE DOUBTS WOULD REMAIN
WHICHEVER WAY THE CASE WAS DECIDED"  - A RESERVATION WE SHARE.  CHIEF
JUDGE VINSON DECLARED THAT THIS PUBLIC WAREHOUSE POSSESSES THE BASIC
INDICIA OF A PUBLIC UTILITY AND IN ADDITION HAS ITS RATES FIXED BY AN
AGENCY OF THE STATE, AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE CONSIDERED A
PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  HE THOUGHT THE STATE
REGULATION SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THAT OF THE FEDERAL PRICE
ADMINISTRATOR. 

IN MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113(1877), THIS COURT RECOGNIZED THAT
THE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC WAREHOUSING IS "AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST"
AND THAT ITS REGULATION BY THE STATE IS APPROPRIATE AND
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE.  CF. BUDD V. NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517,
544.  TWENTY-ONE STATES REGULATE WAREHOUSES IN SOME RESPECTS.  FN7
THREE STATES INCLUDE WAREHOUSES IN THEIR STATUTORY DEFINITION OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES,  FN8  AND EIGHT INCLUDE LIMITED TYPES OF WAREHOUSES.  FN9
FORTY-SEVEN STATES HAVE ADOPTED THE UNIFORM WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS ACT,
WHICH GIVES WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS LEGAL STANDING SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THAT
OF A COMMON CARRIER'S BILL OF LADING.  FN10 

WE CANNOT, THEREFORE, ASSUME THAT CONGRESS WAS UNAWARE THAT A GENERAL
STATUTORY REFERENCE TO "PUBLIC UTILITIES" MIGHT WELL BE TAKEN AT LEAST
IN SOME STATES TO COMPREHEND PUBLIC WAREHOUSES.  BUT CONGRESS DID NOT
SEE FIT TO EMPLOY THAT PRECISION OF DEFINITION WHICH IT HAS USED WHEN
IT DESIRED TO MAKE SURE THAT ITS CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR
FEDERAL PURPOSES WOULD DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES
UNINFLUENCED BY ANY STATE POLICY.  FN11  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS
AMBIGUOUS, AND IN NO INSTANCE WAS ATTENTION DIRECTED TO THE PARTICULAR
PROBLEM PRESENTED HERE AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE TERM "PUBLIC UTILITY." 
BUT THE PHRASE WAS USED TO MEASURE INCLUSIONS AS WELL AS EXEMPTIONS AND
IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN A PRACTICAL RATHER THAN LEGALISTIC
SENSE.  AN EFFORT WAS MADE IN THE SENATE TO INSERT A PROVISION THAT
PUBLIC UTILITY RATES SHOULD NOT BE INCREASED WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE
PRESIDENT.  FN12  THAT PROPOSAL WAS REJECTED, HOWEVER, AND A PROVISION
WAS SUBSTITUTED WHICH REQUIRED ANY PUBLIC UTILITY WHICH ASKED FOR AN
INCREASE IN RATES TO NOTIFY THE PRESIDENT AND TO ASSENT TO THE
APPEARANCE OF SUCH AGENT AS THE PRESIDENT MAY DESIGNATE TO APPEAR IN
BEHALF OF THE CONSUMING PUBLIC BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE RAILROAD OR
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, BE IT A STATE, FEDERAL, OR MUNICIPAL
COMMISSION.  FN13  IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT A DIFFERENT SCOPE
WAS INTENDED TO BE GIVEN TO THE SAME WORDS IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE
LEGISLATION.  THE USE OF THE SAME GENERIC TERM IN THESE DIFFERENT
CONTEXTS INDICATES THAT IT HAD NO NARROWER CONNOTATION AND SHOULD
RECEIVE NO STRICTER INTERPRETATION IN THE EXEMPTION MERELY BECAUSE USED
TO DEFINE AN EXEMPTION. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS UNEQUIVOCAL IN ITS SHOWING THAT RATES ALREADY
SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION AS PUBLIC UTILITY RATES WERE NOT CONSIDERED
IN NEED OF FURTHER CONTROL.  MR. LEON HENDERSON, ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF
THE BILL AND THE FIRST PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, GAVE AS REASONS FOR
EXEMPTING UTILITIES THAT THEY SEEMED TO BE UNDER AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM OF
STATE REGULATION; FN14  THAT THIS WAS AN AREA NOT LIKELY TO GIVE
DIFFICULTY OR TO CAUSE, SO FAR AS COULD THEN BE SEEN, ANY INFLATIONARY
TREND; THAT UTILITIES HAD PROBLEMS PECULIAR TO THEMSELVES AND NO
FURTHER REGULATION SEEMED NECESSARY; FN15  AND THAT HE HAD FOUND THE
AGENCIES IN CONTROL OF UTILITY RATES "JUST AS EARNEST AS WE ARE ABOUT
KEEPING THOSE COSTS DOWN."  FN16 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE REASONABLE VIEW APPEARS TO BE THAT
CONGRESS BY THE TERM "PUBLIC UTILITIES" EXEMPTED THOSE WHOSE CHARGES
ALREADY WERE REGULATED AS PUBLIC UTILITIES AND HENCE WERE NOT PROBABLE
SOURCES OF INFLATIONARY DANGERS.  IT MAY BE AND PROBABLY IS THE CASE
THAT IN ITS RATE REGULATION THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION WILL TAKE ACCOUNT
OF DIFFERENT FACTORS AND HAVE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES THAN DOES THE
FEDERAL PRICE ADMINISTRATOR.  THAT MIGHT HAVE APPEALED TO CONGRESS AS A
REASON FOR NOT EXEMPTING UTILITIES AT ALL, BUT IT HARDLY HELPS DEFINE
THE LIMITS OF THE EXEMPTION, FOR THAT OBJECTION IS AS COGENT AGAINST
WHAT ADMITTEDLY IS INCLUDED AS AGAINST THAT WHICH IS LEFT IN DOUBT. 

WE THINK CONGRESS DESIRED TO DEPART FROM THE TRADITIONAL PARTITIONING
OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONLY SO FAR AS
REQUIRED TO ERECT EMERGENCY BARRIERS AGAINST INFLATION.  NO QUESTION AS
TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REACH AND REGULATE THIS BUSINESS, SHOULD IT
FIND IT NECESSARY TO DO SO, HAS BEEN RAISED HERE.  BUT AS MATTER OF
POLICY CONGRESS MAY WELL HAVE DESIRED TO AVOID CONFLICT OR OCCASIONS
FOR CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL AGENCIES AND STATE AUTHORITY WHICH ARE
DETRIMENTAL TO GOOD ADMINISTRATION AND TO PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF AN
EMERGENCY SYSTEM OF PRICE CONTROL THAT MIGHT FOUNDER IF FRICTION WITH
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES BE ADDED TO THE DIFFICULTIES OF BRINGING PRIVATE
SELF-INTEREST UNDER CONTROL.  FN17  WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT CLEARLY
INDICATED A PURPOSE TO PRECIPITATE CONFLICT, WE SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO
DO SO BY DECISION.  FN18  IN VIEW OF ASSURANCES TO CONGRESS THAT THE
EVIL WOULD PROCEED ONLY IN A MINOR DEGREE, IF AT ALL, FROM PUBLIC
UTILITIES ALREADY UNDER STATE PRICE CONTROL, WE THINK CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND, AND CERTAINLY HAS GIVEN NO CLEAR INDICATION THAT IT DID INTEND,
TO SUPERSEDE THE POWER OF A STATE REGULATORY COMMISSION, EXERCISING
COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL OVER THE PRICES OF A BUSINESS APPROPRIATELY
CLASSIFIED AS A UTILITY.  CLASSIFICATION BY CALIFORNIA OF THE PUBLIC
WAREHOUSE BUSINESS AS A UTILITY IS NOT NOVEL, SURPRISING, OR
CAPRICIOUS.  THE REGULATION IMPOSED IS NOT MERELY NOMINAL OR
SUPERFICIAL BUT APPEARS TO BE PENETRATING AND COMPLETE.  THEREFORE, WE
WOULD HAVE LITTLE HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'S PUBLIC
WAREHOUSE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS A PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE
EXEMPTION OF THE PRICE CONTROL ACT, BUT FOR CERTAIN PRACTICAL
OBJECTIONS TO THAT INTERPRETATION, URGED ON BEHALF OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
WITH AN EARNESTNESS WHICH DESERVES, IN VIEW OF THE DIFFICULTIES AND
IMPORTANCE OF HIS TASK, CAREFUL EXAMINATION. 

1.  IT IS URGED THAT IF THE STATUS OF AN INDUSTRY UNDER STATE LAW IS
TO BE CONSIDERED, THE ADMINISTRATOR "WOULD HAVE TO FACE THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE PARTICULAR BUSINESS CONCERNED WAS SUFFICIENTLY 'AFFECTED
WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST' CONSTITUTIONALLY TO JUSTIFY THE TYPE OF LEGAL
OBLIGATION WHICH THE STATE IMPOSES."  THE ARGUMENT, IN SHORT, IS THAT
THE ADMINISTRATOR WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE STATE REGULATION IS
CONSTITUTIONAL BEFORE HE SHOULD RECOGNIZE IT.  WE CANNOT GIVE WEIGHT TO
THIS VIEW OF HIS FUNCTIONS, WHICH WE THINK IT UNDULY MAGNIFIES.  STATE
STATUTES, LIKE FEDERAL ONES, ARE ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY UNTIL THEIR INVALIDITY IS JUDICIALLY DECLARED. 
CERTAINLY NO POWER TO ADJUDICATE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IS CONFERRED ON
THE ADMINISTRATOR.  COLLUSION BETWEEN A STATE AND A FAVORED INDUSTRY TO
IMPOSE FORMS OF LOCAL REGULATION AS A SHIELD AGAINST FEDERAL CONTROL
MIGHT BE CONCEIVABLE AND IF SUCH A SHAM OCCURRED THE ADMINISTRATOR
COULD PERHAPS CHALLENGE ITS EFFECTIVENESS TO SUPPORT AN EXEMPTION.  BUT
IT MORE NEARLY ACCORDS WITH EXPERIENCE TO ASSUME THAT AN INDUSTRY DOES
NOT SUBMIT TO PRICE REGULATION UNTIL IT HAS EXPLORED ALL POSSIBLE
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS AND LITIGATED HOPEFUL ONES.  WE THINK THE
ADMINISTRATOR WILL NOT BE REMISS IN HIS DUTIES IF HE ASSUMES THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE REGULATORY STATUTES, UNDER BOTH STATE AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION. 

2.  IT ALSO IS OBJECTED THAT IF WE CONSIDER THE STATUS OF AN INDUSTRY
UNDER STATE LAW, THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR "WOULD HAVE TO SCRUTINIZE AND
DIFFERENTIATE MANY KINDS OF FRANCHISES.  THUS THE ADMINISTRATOR, AS
INCIDENT TO THE TASK OF PRICE CONTROL, WOULD BE CALLED UPON TO
DETERMINE IN ANY NUMBER OF PARTICULAR INSTANCES QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW
WHICH REQUIRE THE MOST PAINSTAKING EXAMINATION OF STATUTES AND
DECISIONS."  WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO DENY THAT IN SOME DEGREE THIS WILL
BE TRUE, FOR WE DO NOT HOLD THAT ALL WAREHOUSES, OR EVEN THAT ALL
WAREHOUSES REGULATED IN SOME ASPECTS, COME WITHIN THE EXEMPTION.  WE
THINK THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL HAVE TO FORM JUDGMENTS AND THAT THEY WILL
BE JUDGMENTS OF SOME DIFFICULTY.  SIMPLICITY OF ADMINISTRATION IS A
MERIT THAT DOES NOT INHERE IN A FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, AS IT IS
CLAIMED TO DO IN A UNITARY ONE.  A FEDERAL SYSTEM MAKES A MERIT,
INSTEAD, OF THE VERY LOCAL AUTONOMY IN WHICH COMPLEXITIES ARE
INHERENT.  NOR WOULD THE INTERPRETATION ADVOCATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
AVOID THE NECESSITY OF ASCERTAINING AND CONSIDERING RIGHTS THOUGHT TO
BE POSSESSED UNDER LOCAL LAWS AND NOT LIKELY TO BE YIELDED READILY. 
ONE EFFECT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION WOULD BE TO POSTPONE
STUDY OF LOCAL LAWS FROM CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH WISE
ADMINISTRATION TO THE TIME OF LITIGATION, AS IN THIS CASE.  LOCAL
INSTITUTIONS, CUSTOMS, AND POLICIES WILL NOT BE OVERRIDDEN WITHOUT
FIGHTING FOR CONSIDERATION.  THE EXISTENCE AND FORCE AND FUNCTION OF
ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ARE ALWAYS IN THE
CONSCIOUSNESS OF LAWMAKERS AND, WHILE THEIR WEIGHT MAY VARY, THEY MAY
NEVER BE COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED IN THE TASK OF INTERPRETATION.  AT A
TIME WHEN GREAT MEASURES OF CONCENTRATION OF DIRECTION ARE CONCEDEDLY
NECESSARY, IT MAY BE THOUGHT MORE FARSIGHTED TO AVOID PARALYZING OR
EXTINGUISHING LOCAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH DO NOT SERIOUSLY CONFLICT WITH
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S PLACE.  CONGRESS HAS GIVEN NO INDICATION THAT
IT WOULD DRAW ALL SUCH STATE AUTHORITY INTO THE VORTEX OF THE WAR
POWER.  NOR SHOULD WE RUSH THE TREND TO CENTRALIZATION WHERE CONGRESS
HAS NOT.  IT COULD NEVER BE MORE APPROPRIATE THAN NOW TO HEED THE MAXIM
REITERATED RECENTLY BY THE COURT THAT "THE EXTENSION OF FEDERAL CONTROL
INTO THESE TRADITIONAL LOCAL DOMAINS IS A 'DELICATE EXERCISE OF
LEGISLATIVE POLICY IN ACHIEVING A WISE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE NEEDS
OF CENTRAL CONTROL AND THE LIVELY MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL INSTITUTIONS.'" 
YONKERS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 685, 690; PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS,
308 U.S. 79, 84.  AT LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE TO
THAT EFFECT, WE CANNOT ADOPT A RULE OF CONSTRUCTION, OTHERWISE
UNJUSTIFIED, TO RELIEVE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATORS OF WHAT WE MAY WELL
BELIEVE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN BUT ONE IMPLIED BY THE TERMS OF THE
LEGISLATION WHEN VIEWED AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF OUR FORM OF
GOVERNMENT. 

3.  IT ALSO IS CONTENDED THAN AN INTERPRETATION MUST PREVAIL AS
MATTER OF PRINCIPLE WHICH WILL GIVE THE EXEMPTION A GENERAL AND UNIFORM
OPERATION IN ALL STATES IRRESPECTIVE OF LOCAL LAW.  IT IS, OF COURSE,
TRUE THAT UNIFORM OPERATION OF A FEDERAL LAW IS A DESIRABLE END AND,
OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, WE OFTEN HAVE INTERPRETED STATUTES TO ACHIEVE
IT.  FN19  BUT IN NO CASE RELIED UPON DID WE ACHIEVE UNIFORMITY AT THE
COST OF ESTABLISHING OVERLAPPING AUTHORITY OVER THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER
IN THE STATE AND IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  WHEN WE DO AT TIMES ADOPT
FOR APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS WITHIN A STATE A RULE DIFFERENT FROM
THAT USED BY A STATE IN ADMINISTERING ITS LAWS, THE TWO RULES MAY
SUBSIST WITHOUT CONFLICT, EACH REIGNING IN ITS OWN REALM.  IT IS A MUCH
MORE SERIOUS THING TO ADOPT A RULE OF CONSTRUCTION, AS WE ARE ASKED TO
DO HERE, WHICH PRECLUDES THE EXECUTION OF STATE LAWS BY STATE AUTHORITY
IN A MATTER NORMALLY WITHIN STATE POWER.  THE GREAT BODY OF LAW IN THIS
COUNTRY WHICH CONTROLS ACQUISITION, TRANSMISSION, AND TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY, AND DEFINES THE RIGHTS OF ITS OWNERS IN RELATION TO THE STATE
OR TO PRIVATE PARTIES, IS FOUND IN THE STATUTES AND DECISIONS OF THE
STATE.  THE CUSTOM OF RESORTING TO THEM TO GIVE MEANING AND CONTENT TO
FEDERAL STATUTES IS TOO OLD AND ITS USE TOO DIVERSIFIED TO PERMIT US TO
SAY THAT CONSIDERATIONS OF NATION-WIDE UNIFORMITY MUST PREVAIL IN A
PARTICULAR CASE OVER OUR JUDGMENT THAT IT IS OUT OF HARMONY WITH OTHER
OBJECTIVES MORE IMPORTANT TO THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  FN20  WHAT
CONTENT WE SHOULD GIVE TO THE EXEMPTION IN THE CASE OF A CONVENTIONAL
UTILITY NOT SUBJECT TO A STATE REGULATORY STATUTE OR SUBJECT ONLY TO
PARTIAL REGULATION IS, OF COURSE, NOT BEFORE US. 

4.  LASTLY, IT IS CONTENDED THAT WE SHOULD ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
VIEW IN DEFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE
RULING IN THIS CASE WAS NO SOONER MADE THAN CHALLENGED.  WE CANNOT BE
CERTAIN HOW FAR IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE CONSIDERATIONS ADVANCED,
MISTAKENLY AS WE THINK, IN ITS DEFENSE IN THIS CASE.  IT HAS HARDLY
SEASONED OR BROADENED INTO A SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  IF
CONGRESS HAD DEEMED IT NECESSARY OR EVEN APPROPRIATE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER SHOULD IN EFFECT BE FINAL IN CONSTRUING THE SCOPE
OF THE NATIONAL PRICEFIXING POLICY, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AT A LOSS
FOR WORDS TO SAY SO.  WE DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD OVERWEIGH THE
CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE SET FORTH AS TO THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE PETITIONER'S BUSINESS IS THAT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY
WITHIN THE EXEMPTION OF THE ACT, AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS ACCORDINGLY
REVERSED. 

FN1  "THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PASS LAWS FOR THE REGULATION AND
LIMITATION OF THE CHARGES FOR SERVICES PERFORMED AND COMMODITIES
FURNISHED BY TELEGRAPH AND GAS CORPORATIONS, AND THE CHARGES BY
CORPORATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS FOR STORAGE AND WHARFAGE, IN WHICH THERE IS
A PUBLIC USE  ...  " CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ART. IV, SEC. 33. 

"EVERY PRIVATE CORPORATION, AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL OR ASSOCIATION OF
INDIVIDUALS, OWNING, OPERATING, MANAGING, OR CONTROLLING ANY COMMERCIAL
RAILROAD, INTERURBAN RAILROAD, STREET RAILROAD, CANAL, PIPE LINE,
PLANT, OR EQUIPMENT, OR ANY PART OF SUCH RAILROAD, CANAL, PIPE LINE,
PLANT OR EQUIPMENT WITHIN THIS STATE, FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OR
CONVEYANCE OF PASSENGERS, OR EXPRESS MATTER, OR FREIGHT OF ANY KIND,
INCLUDING CRUDE OIL, OR FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF TELEPHONE OR TELEGRAPH
MESSAGES, OR FOR THE PRODUCTION, GENERATION, TRANSMISSION, DELIVERY OR
FURNISHING OF HEAT, LIGHT, WATER OR POWER OR FOR THE FURNISHING OF
STORAGE OR WHARFAGE FACILITIES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO OR
FOR THE PUBLIC, AND EVERY COMMON CARRIER, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE A
PUBLIC UTILITY SUBJECT TO SUCH CONTROL AND REGULATION BY THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE  ...  "  CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION, ART. XII, SEC. 23. 

FN2  CALIFORNIA GEN. LAWS (DEERING, 1937) ACT 6386, SEC. 2(DD). 

FN3  56 STAT. 23, 50 U.S.C. (SUPP. II, 1942) SEC. 901 ET SEQ. 

FN4  SEC. 302(C), 50 U.S.C. (SUPP. II, 1942) SEC. 942(C), READS:
"THE TERM 'COMMODITY' MEANS COMMODITIES, ARTICLES, PRODUCTS, AND
MATERIALS (EXCEPT MATERIALS FURNISHED FOR PUBLICATION BY ANY PRESS
ASSOCIATION OR FEATURE SERVICE, BOOKS, MAGAZINES, MOTION PICTURES,
PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS, OTHER THAN AS WASTE OR SCRAP), AND IT ALSO
INCLUDES SERVICES RENDERED OTHERWISE THAN AS AN EMPLOYEE IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION, STORAGE, INSTALLATION, REPAIR, OR
NEGOTIATION OR PURCHASES OR SALES OF A COMMODITY, OR IN CONNECTION WITH
THE OPERATION OF ANY SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE SERVICING OF A
COMMODITY: PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO
AUTHORIZE THE REGULATION OF (1) COMPENSATION PAID BY AN EMPLOYER TO ANY
OF HIS EMPLOYEES, OR (2) RATES CHARGED BY ANY COMMON CARRIER OR OTHER
PUBLIC UTILITY, OR (3) RATES CHARGED BY ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF SELLING OR UNDERWRITING INSURANCE, OR (4) RATES CHARGED BY
ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING OR PUBLISHING A
NEWSPAPER, PERIODICAL, OR MAGAZINE, OR OPERATING A RADIO-BROADCASTING
STATION, A MOTION-PICTURE OR OTHER THEATER ENTERPRISE, OR OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING FACILITIES, OR (5) RATES CHARGED FOR ANY PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES." 

FN5  SEC. 204(D), 50 U.S.C. (SUPP. II, 1942) SEC. 924(D), PROVIDES:
"  ...  THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE SUPREME COURT UPON
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, SHALL
HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF ANY REGULATION
OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2, OF ANY PRICE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206, AND OF ANY PROVISION OF
ANY SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE.  ...  " 

FN6  137 F.2D 201. 

FN7  ARIZONA CODE (1939) SEC. 52-901; ARKANSAS ACTS 1935, ACT 83;
CALIFORNIA GEN. LAWS (DEERING, 1937) ACT 6386, SEC. 2 ET SEQ.; IDAHO
CODE ANN. (1932) SEC. 59-128; ILLINOIS REV. STAT. (BAR ASSN. ED. 1943)
C. 111 2/3, SEC. 10 ET SEQ., C. 114, SEC. 189 ET SEQ.; INDIANA STAT.
ANN. (BURNS, 1933) SEC. 54-105 ET SEQ.; KANSAS GEN. STAT. (1935) SEC.
34-224 ET SEQ.; MAINE REV. STAT. (1930) C. 62, SEC. 15 ET SEQ.;
MINNESOTA STAT. (1941) C. 233; MISSOURI REV. STAT. ANN. (1941) SEC.
14685.1 ET SEQ.; NEBRASKA COMP. STAT. (SUPP. 1941) C. 88, SEC. 219 ET
SEQ.; NEVADA COMP. LAWS (1929) SEC. 6106 ET SEQ.; NORTH CAROLINA CODE
ANN. (1939) SEC. 5124, LAWS 1941, C. 291; NORTH DAKOTA COMP. LAWS
(SUPP. 1925) SEC. 4609, C. 2, ET SEQ., LAWS 1931, C. 227; OKLAHOMA
STAT. (SUPP. 1943) TIT. 81; OREGON COMP. LAWS ANN. SEC. 60-301 ET SEQ.;
SOUTH DAKOTA CODE (1939) C. 60.03; TEXAS STAT. (VERNON, 1936) ART.
6445; UTAH CODE ANN. (1943) SEC. 76-2-1 ET SEQ.; WASHINGTON REV. STAT.
ANN. (REMINGTON) SECS. 10344, 10392, (SUPP. 1940) SEC. 11569-1 ET SEQ.;
WISCONSIN STAT. (1941) SEC. 195.21. 

FN8  CALIFORNIA, INDIANA, SOUTH DAKOTA, LOC.  CIT.  SUPRA NOTE 7. 

FN9  ARIZONA, IDAHO, ILLINOIS, MAINE, NEVADA, NORTH DAKOTA, UTAH,
WASHINGTON, LOC.  CIT.  SUPRA NOTE 7. 

FN10  3 UNIFORM LAWS ANN. (SUPP. 1942) 6. 

FN11  E. G., PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, SEC. 2(A),
49 STAT. 804, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79B (A); FEDERAL POWER ACT, SEC. 201(E),
49 STAT. 848, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 824(E). 

FN12  AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY SENATOR NORRIS TO S.J. RES. 161.  H.R.
7565, AS AMENDED BY SENATE, SEC. 1, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN13  56 STAT. 765, 50 U.S.C. (SUPP. II, 1942), SEC. 961. 

FN14  "  ...  AND PUBLIC UTILITIES WERE UNDER WHAT FOR THE TIME BEING
AT LEAST SEEMED TO BE AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM OF STATE REGULATION, AND
THEREFORE DID NOT NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO REVIEW."  HEARINGS BEFORE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY ON H.R. 5479, 77TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PT. I, REVISED, P. 444. 

FN15  "NOW, AS TO THE UTILITIES.  THERE IS, AS THE MEMBERS ARE AWARE,
AN ADEQUATE SET OF REGULATIONS AS TO THE CHARGES WHICH UTILITY
COMPANIES CAN MAKE.  THESE, AGAIN, ARE BASED UPON A LONG SERIES OF
JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONS, OF STATE REGULATIONS, AND OF STATE LAWS.  IT
SEEMED TO THOSE DRAFTING THE BILL THAT THIS WAS AN AREA WHICH WAS NOT
LIKELY TO GIVE DIFFICULTY OR TO CAUSE, SO FAR AS THEY COULD SEE AT THAT
TIME, ANY INFLATIONARY TREND.  THE BILL IS DESIGNED TO CONTROL AN
EMERGENCY INFLATIONARY SITUATION AND HAS LEFT THEM OUT, JUST AS IT HAS
TRANSPORTATION RATES.  THERE ARE QUESTIONS PECULIAR TO UTILITIES AND
NONE OF THEM, SO FAR AS I SEE AT THE PRESENT TIME, WOULD MAKE NECESSARY
FURTHER REGULATION BY MEANS OF A PRICE-CONTROL BILL."  ID., PP. 54-55. 

FN16  "  ...  I HAVE FOUND THAT EVERY ONE OF THE AGENCIES CHARGED
WITH THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS OF COST ARE JUST AS EARNEST AS WE ARE ABOUT
KEEPING THOSE COSTS DOWN."  ID., P. 445; SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF
CHIEF JUDGE VINSON IN THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, 137 F.2D 201,
209. 

FN17  THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES
COMMISSIONERS HAS FILED A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO WHAT
THEY CONSIDER AN INVASION BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR OF THEIR FIELD OF
PUBLIC REGULATION. 

FN18  TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN. V. BROTHERHOOD OF TRAINMEN, 318 U.S.
1. 

FN19  THE ADMINISTRATOR CITES CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. JOHNSON, 264
U.S. 1; LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188; MORGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S.
78; JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 101, 104.  SEE ALSO DEITRICK V.
GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190; D'OENCH, DUHME & CO. V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS.
CORP., 315 U.S. 447, 470; SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
317 U.S. 173, 176; CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S.
363. 

FN20  SEE MANGUS V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 178, CORN EXCHANGE BNK V.
KLAUDER, 318 U.S. 434, MYERS V. MATLEY, 318 U.S. 622(BANKRUPTCY);
UTERHART V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 598, 603, CROOKS V. HARRELSON, 282
U.S. 55, BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, HELVERING V. FULLER, 310
U.S. 69, 74, HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154(TAXATION); MCCLAINE V.
RANKIN, 197 U.S. 154, RAWLINGS V. RAY, 312 U.S. 96(STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS); BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 78(CONDEMNATION); NEW
YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. FRANK, 314 U.S. 360, 364-66(RAILROAD
CONSOLIDATION); UNITED STATES V. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 318 U.S.
206; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

I THINK THE PRESENT DECISION PLACES AN UNWARRANTED BURDEN ON THOSE
WHO ARE WAGING THE PRESENT WAR AGAINST INFLATION.  THE ACT EXEMPTS FROM
FEDERAL PRICE CONTROL THE "RATES CHARGED BY ANY COMMON CARRIER OR OTHER
PUBLIC UTILITY."  SEC. 302(C).  THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS ACCORDINGLY
GRANTED EXEMPTIONS TO ENTERPRISES FURNISHING THE PUBLIC WITH GAS,
ELECTRICITY, WATER, LIGHT, HEAT OR POWER, AND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
SERVICES.  THAT GROUP EMBRACES THOSE ENTERPRISES WHICH TOGETHER WITH
COMMON CARRIERS WERE TRADITIONALLY INCLUDED IN THE CATEGORY OF A
"PUBLIC UTILITY."  IT SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDED BY INTERPRETATION TO
INCLUDE THE FILIGREE VARIETY WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO PROVIDE AN INSTRUMENT FOR NATIONAL
CONTROL OF THE INFLATIONARY FORCES SET LOOSE BY THE WAR.  THE NEED FOR
UNIFORMITY IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT IS ACUTE - TO AVOID INEQUALITY
IN BURDEN AND SACRIFICE; TO WEIGH THE ODDS FOR SUCCESS AS HEAVILY AS
POSSIBLE ON THE SIDE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS IN
THE ACT APPLY UNIFORMLY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY - WAGES, INSURANCE
RATES, THEATRE ADMISSIONS, FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AND THE
LIKE.  IF THE "PUBLIC UTILITY" EXEMPTION IS CONFINED TO THE TRADITIONAL
CLASSES OF UTILITIES, SUBSTANTIAL UNIFORMITY WILL BE OBTAINED AS THEY
ARE ALMOST UNIVERSALLY SUBJECT TO RATE REGULATION IN THE STATES.  BUT
UNDER THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COURT WAREHOUSES WILL BE EXEMPT IN SOME
STATES BUT NOT IN OTHERS.  THE SAME WILL BE TRUE OF WHARVES AND DOCKS,
SLAUGHTER HOUSES, PUBLIC MARKETS, COTTON GINS AND WHAT NOT.  AND EVEN
IN THE SAME STATE THERE WILL BE EXEMPTIONS FOR SOME WAREHOUSES BUT NOT
FOR OTHERS.  THIS DEPENDENCE OF EXEMPTIONS ON THE VAGARIES OF STATE LAW
WOULD BE QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE IF THE FEDERAL ACT WERE DESIGNED TO MESH
WITH STATE CONTROL - FEDERAL CONTROL BEING INTERPOSED TO TAKE UP WHERE
STATE REGULATION WAS IMPOSSIBLE OR INEFFECTIVE, AS IN VARIOUS TYPES OF
PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION.  THEN THERE WOULD BE A GREAT NEED IN VIEW OF
OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM TO PRESERVE AS MUCH LOCAL AUTONOMY AS POSSIBLE.  THE
SAME WOULD ALSO BE TRUE WHERE ONLY A PARTIAL OVERRIDING OF STATE
CONTROLS WAS NECESSARY TO REACH THE LIMITED FEDERAL OBJECTIVE.  BUT THE
WAR AGAINST INFLATION IS A GRIM AFFAIR CALLING FOR QUITE DIFFERENT
REQUIREMENTS.  IT CANNOT BE WAGED ALONG THOSE TRADITIONAL LINES.  THE
LUXURIES OF PEACE-TIME ARRANGEMENTS DO NOT ALWAYS FIT THE EXIGENCIES OF
THIS WAR EMERGENCY.  NOR DO THE STATE RATEREGULATIONS IN QUESTION
SUPPLEMENT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.  THEY OVERRIDE IT.  AND STANDARDS WHICH
THEY PRESCRIBE ARE NOT THE STANDARDS FOR PRICE-FIXING UNDER THE PRESENT
ACT.  THE CONVENTIONAL POWER TO FIX RATES IS GOVERNED BY CRITERIA QUITE
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH CONTROL THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION.  HE IS
TO FIX THOSE MAXIMUM PRICES WHICH "WILL BE GENERALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE
AND WILL EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."  SEC. 2(A). 

EVERY EXCEPTION READ INTO THE ACT CREATES ANOTHER POINT OF LEAKAGE,
MULTIPLIES THE TASK OF ENFORCEMENT, AND CREATES A FAVORED CLASS OF
BUSINESSES.  I WOULD NOT READ THE ACT WITH SUCH A HOSTILE EYE.  WHERE
TWO INTERPRETATIONS ARE POSSIBLE I WOULD TAKE THE ONE WHICH AVOIDS
THOSE RESULTS.  THE CHOICE BETWEEN THE "LETTER" AND THE "SPIRIT" IS AN
ANCIENT ONE EVEN IN THE LAW.  SEE RADIN, A SHORT WAY WITH STATUTES, 56
HARV. L. REV. 388.  IN THIS CASE I THINK THE WRONG CHOICE HAS BEEN
MADE. 
..END :












PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158 


NO. 98.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1944.  - 313
MASS. 223, 46 N.E.2D 755, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT NO MINOR (BOY UNDER 12 OR GIRL UNDER
18) SHALL SELL, OR OFFER FOR SALE, UPON THE STREETS OR IN OTHER PUBLIC
PLACES, ANY NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, PERIODICALS, OR OTHER ARTICLES OF
MERCHANDISE.  THE STATUTE MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO FURNISH
TO A MINOR ANY ARTICLE WHICH HE KNOWS THE MINOR INTENDS TO SELL IN
VIOLATION OF THE LAW; AND FOR ANY PARENT OR GUARDIAN TO PERMIT A MINOR
TO WORK IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.  HELD - AS APPLIED TO A GUARDIAN WHO
FURNISHED A MINOR WARD WITH RELIGIOUS LITERATURE AND PERMITTED THE
MINOR TO DISTRIBUTE THE SAME ON THE STREETS, ALTHOUGH THE GUARDIAN
ACCOMPANIED THE MINOR AND BOTH WERE ACTING IN ACCORD WITH THEIR
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS - NOT VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOR A DENIAL
OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 167. 

2.  WHETHER THERE WAS A "SALE" OR "OFFER TO SELL," AND WHETHER WHAT
THE MINOR WAS DOING WAS "WORK," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATE
STATUTE, WERE QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW UPON WHICH, ON THIS RECORD, THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT IS BINDING HERE.  P. 163. 

3.  WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLIC PROCLAIMING OF RELIGION IN STREETS AND
OTHER PUBLIC PLACES, AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER FREEDOMS, THE POWER OF THE
STATE TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF CHILDREN IS BROADER THAN ITS POWER OVER
ADULTS.  P. 170. 

4.  THERE IS NO DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN EXCLUDING
CHILDREN OF A PARTICULAR SECT FROM SUCH USE OF THE STREETS AS IS BARRED
ALSO TO ALL OTHER CHILDREN.  P. 170. 

PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, PLYMOUTH COUNTY. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED ON A RESCRIPT FROM THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE, WHICH SUSTAINED CONVICTIONS ON TWO OF THREE COMPLAINTS
FOR VIOLATIONS OF A STATE STATUTE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE BRINGS FOR REVIEW ANOTHER EPISODE IN THE CONFLICT BETWEEN
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND STATE AUTHORITY.  THIS TIME SARAH PRINCE
APPEALS FROM CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLATING MASSACHUSETTS' CHILD LABOR LAWS,
BY ACTS SAID TO BE A RIGHTFUL EXERCISE OF HER RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS. 

WHEN THE OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED SHE WAS THE AUNT AND CUSTODIAN OF
BETTY M. SIMMONS, A GIRL NINE YEARS OF AGE.  ORIGINALLY THERE WERE
THREE SEPARATE COMPLAINTS.  THEY WERE, SHORTLY, FOR (1) REFUSAL TO
DISCLOSE BETTY'S IDENTITY AND AGE TO A PUBLIC OFFICER WHOSE DUTY WAS TO
ENFORCE THE STATUTES; (2) FURNISHING HER WITH MAGAZINES, KNOWING SHE
WAS TO SELL THEM UNLAWFULLY, THAT IS, ON THE STREET; AND (3) AS BETTY'S
CUSTODIAN, PERMITTING HER TO WORK CONTRARY TO LAW.  THE COMPLAINTS WERE
MADE, RESPECTIVELY, PURSUANT TO SECS. 79, 80 AND 81 OF CHAPTER 149,
GEN. LAWS OF MASS. (TER.  ED.).  THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT REVERSED
THE CONVICTION UNDER THE FIRST COMPLAINT ON STATE GROUNDS; FN1  BUT
SUSTAINED THE JUDGMENTS FOUNDED ON THE OTHER TWO.  FN2  313 MASS. 223,
46 N.E.2D 755.  THEY PRESENT THE ONLY QUESTIONS FOR OUR DECISION. 
THESE ARE WHETHER SECS. 80 AND 81, AS APPLIED, CONTRAVENE THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY DENYING OR ABRIDGING APPELLANT'S FREEDOM OF
RELIGION AND BY DENYING TO HER THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

LABOR LAW.  FN3  THEY PROVIDE METHODS FOR ENFORCING THE PROHIBITIONS OF
SEC. 69, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO BOY UNDER TWELVE AND NO GIRL UNDER EIGHTEEN SHALL SELL, EXPOSE OR
OFFER FOR SALE ANY NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, PERIODICALS OR ANY OTHER
ARTICLES OF MERCHANDISE OF ANY DESCRIPTION, OR EXERCISE THE TRADE OF
BOOTBLACK OR SCAVENGER, OR ANY OTHER TRADE, IN ANY STREET OR PUBLIC
PLACE." 


"WHOEVER FURNISHES OR SELLS TO ANY MINOR ANY ARTICLE OF ANY
DESCRIPTION WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE MINOR INTENDS TO SELL SUCH
ARTICLE IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF SECTIONS SIXTY-NINE TO SEVENTY
THREE, INCLUSIVE, OR AFTER HAVING RECEIVED WRITTEN NOTICE TO THIS
EFFECT FROM ANY OFFICER CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF, OR
KNOWINGLY PROCURES OR ENCOURAGES ANY MINOR TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISIONS OF
SAID SECTIONS, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN TEN NOR
MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO
MONTHS, OR BOTH."  SEC. 80. 

"ANY PARENT, GUARDIAN OR CUSTODIAN HAVING A MINOR UNDER HIS CONTROL
WHO COMPELS OR PERMITS SUCH MINOR TO WORK IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION
OF SECTIONS SIXTY TO SEVENTY-FOUR, INCLUSIVE,  ... SHALL FOR A FIRST
OFFENSE BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN TWO NOR MORE THAN TEN
DOLLARS OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE DAYS, OR BOTH; ...  "
SEC. 81. 

THE STORY TOLD BY THE EVIDENCE HAS BECOME FAMILIAR.  IT HARDLY NEEDS
REPEATING, EXCEPT TO GIVE SETTING TO THE VARIATIONS INTRODUCED THROUGH
THE PART PLAYED BY A CHILD OF TENDER YEARS.  MRS. PRINCE, LIVING IN
BROCKTON, IS THE MOTHER OF TWO YOUNG SONS.  SHE ALSO HAS LEGAL CUSTODY
OF BETTY SIMMONS, WHO LIVES WITH THEM.  THE CHILDREN TOO ARE JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES AND BOTH MRS. PRINCE AND BETTY TESTIFIED THEY WERE ORDAINED
MINISTERS.  THE FORMER WAS ACCUSTOMED TO GO EACH WEEK ON THE STREETS OF
BROCKTON TO DISTRIBUTE "WATCHTOWER" AND "CONSOLATION," ACCORDING TO THE
USUAL PLAN.  FN4  SHE HAD PERMITTED THE CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN THIS
ACTIVITY PREVIOUSLY, AND HAD BEEN WARNED AGAINST DOING SO BY THE SCHOOL
ATTENDANCE OFFICER, MR. PERKINS.  BUT, UNTIL DECEMBER 18, 1941, SHE
GENERALLY DID NOT TAKE THEM WITH HER AT NIGHT. 

THAT EVENING, AS MRS. PRINCE WAS PREPARING TO LEAVE HER HOME, THE
CHILDREN ASKED TO GO.  SHE AT FIRST REFUSED.  CHILDLIKE, THEY RESORTED
TO TEARS; AND, MOTHERLIKE, SHE YIELDED.  ARRIVING DOWNTOWN, MRS. PRINCE
PERMITTED THE CHILDREN "TO ENGAGE IN THE PREACHING WORK WITH HER UPON
THE SIDEWALKS."  THAT IS, WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO BETTY, SHE AND
MRS. PRINCE TOOK POSITIONS ABOUT TWENTY FEET APART NEAR A STREET
INTERSECTION.  BETTY HELD UP IN HER HAND, FOR PASSERS-BY TO SEE, COPIES
OF "WATCH TOWER" AND "CONSOLATION."  FROM HER SHOULDER HUNG THE USUAL
CANVAS MAGAZINE BAG, ON WHICH WAS PRINTED:  "WATCHTOWER AND CONSOLATION
5[ PER COPY."  NO ONE ACCEPTED A COPY FROM BETTY THAT EVENING AND SHE
RECEIVED NO MONEY.  NOR DID HER AUNT.  BUT ON OTHER OCCASIONS, BETTY
HAD RECEIVED FUNDS AND GIVEN OUT COPIES. 

MRS. PRINCE AND BETTY REMAINED UNTIL 8:45 P.M.  A FEW MINUTES BEFORE
THIS, MR. PERKINS APPROACHED MRS. PRINCE.  A DISCUSSION ENSUED.  HE
INQUIRED AND SHE REFUSED TO GIVE BETTY'S NAME.  HOWEVER, SHE STATED THE
CHILD ATTENDED THE SHAW SCHOOL.  MR. PERKINS REFERRED TO HIS PREVIOUS
WARNINGS AND SAID HE WOULD ALLOW FIVE MINUTES FOR THEM TO GET OFF THE
STREET.  MRS. PRINCE ADMITTED SHE SUPPLIED BETTY WITH THE MAGAZINES AND
SAID, "(NEITHER) YOU NOR ANYBODY ELSE CAN STOP ME  ...  THIS CHILD IS
EXERCISING HER GOD-GIVEN RIGHT AND HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PREACH
THE GOSPEL, AND NO CREATURE HAS A RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH GOD'S
COMMANDS."  HOWEVER, MRS. PRINCE AND BETTY DEPARTED.  SHE REMARKED AS
SHE WENT, "I'M NOT GOING THROUGH THIS ANY MORE.  WE'VE BEEN THROUGH IT
TIME AND TIME AGAIN.  I'M GOING HOME AND PUT THE LITTLE GIRL TO BED." 
IT MAY BE ADDED THAT TESTIMONY, BY BETTY, HER AUNT AND OTHERS, WAS
OFFERED AT THE TRIALS, AND WAS EXCLUDED, TO SHOW THAT BETTY BELIEVED IT
WAS HER RELIGIOUS DUTY TO PERFORM THIS WORK AND FAILURE WOULD BRING
CONDEMNATION "TO EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION AT ARMAGEDDON." 

AS THE CASE REACHES US, THE QUESTIONS ARE NO LONGER OPEN WHETHER WHAT
THE CHILD DID WAS A "SALE" OR AN "OFFER TO SELL" WITHIN SEC. 69  FN5
OR WAS "WORK" WITHIN SEC. 81.  THE STATE COURT'S DECISION HAS
FORECLOSED THEM ADVERSELY TO APPELLANT AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW.  FN6
THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING THEREFORE IS WHETHER, AS CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED, THE STATUTE IS VALID.  UPON THIS THE COURT SAID:  "WE THINK
THAT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND OF RELIGION IS SUBJECT TO INCIDENTAL
REGULATION TO THE SLIGHT DEGREE INVOLVED IN THE PROHIBITION OF THE
SELLING OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IN STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES BY BOYS
UNDER TWELVE AND GIRLS UNDER EIGHTEEN, AND IN THE FURTHER STATUTORY
PROVISIONS HEREIN CONSIDERED, WHICH HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AS MEANS OF
ENFORCING THAT PROHIBITION."  313 MASS. 223, 229, 46 N.E.2D 755, 758. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT STAND ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  REGARDING IT AS
SECULAR, SHE CONCEDES IT MAY BE RESTRICTED AS MASSACHUSETTS HAS DONE. 
FN7  HENCE, SHE RESTS SQUARELY ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, APPLIED BY THE FOURTEENTH TO THE STATES.  SHE BUTTRESSES
THIS FOUNDATION, HOWEVER, WITH A CLAIM OF PARENTAL RIGHT AS SECURED BY
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE LATTER AMENDMENT.  FN8  CF. MEYER V.
NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390.  THESE GUARANTIES, SHE THINKS, GUARD ALIKE
HERSELF AND THE CHILD IN WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.  THUS, TWO CLAIMED
LIBERTIES ARE AT STAKE.  ONE IS THE PARENT'S, TO BRING UP THE CHILD IN
THE WAY HE SHOULD GO, WHICH FOR APPELLANT MEANS TO TEACH HIM THE TENETS
AND THE PRACTICES OF THEIR FAITH.  THE OTHER FREEDOM IS THE CHILD'S, TO
OBSERVE THESE; AND AMONG THEM IS "TO PREACH THE GOSPEL  ...  BY PUBLIC
DISTRIBUTION" OF "WATCHTOWER" AND "CONSOLATION," IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
SCRIPTURE:  "A LITTLE CHILD SHALL LEAD THEM." 

IF BY THIS POSITION APPELLANT SEEKS FOR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE A
BROADER PROTECTION THAN FOR FREEDOM OF THE MIND, IT MAY BE DOUBTED THAT
ANY OF THE GREAT LIBERTIES INSURED BY THE FIRST ARTICLE CAN BE GIVEN
HIGHER PLACE THAN THE OTHERS.  ALL HAVE PREFERRED POSITION IN OUR BASIC
SCHEME.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296.  ALL ARE INTERWOVEN THERE TOGETHER.  DIFFERENCES THERE ARE,
IN THEM AND IN THE MODES APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR EXERCISE.  BUT THEY HAVE
UNITY IN THE CHARTER'S PRIME PLACE BECAUSE THEY HAVE UNITY IN THEIR
HUMAN SOURCES AND FUNCTIONINGS.  HEART AND MIND ARE NOT IDENTICAL. 
INTUITIVE FAITH AND REASONED JUDGMENT ARE NOT THE SAME.  SPIRIT IS NOT
ALWAYS THOUGHT.  BUT IN THE EVERYDAY BUSINESS OF LIVING, SECULAR OR
OTHERWISE, THESE VARIANT ASPECTS OF PERSONALITY FIND INSEPARABLE
EXPRESSION IN A THOUSAND WAYS.  THEY CANNOT BE ALTOGETHER PARTED IN LAW
MORE THAN IN LIFE. 

TO MAKE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THESE FREEDOMS AND AN EXERCISE OF STATE
AUTHORITY ALWAYS IS DELICATE.  IT HARDLY COULD BE MORE SO THAN IN SUCH
A CLASH AS THIS CASE PRESENTS.  ON ONE SIDE IS THE OBVIOUSLY EARNEST
CLAIM FOR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRACTICE.  WITH IT IS
ALLIED THE PARENT'S CLAIM TO AUTHORITY IN HER OWN HOUSEHOLD AND IN THE
REARING OF HER CHILDREN.  THE PARENT'S CONFLICT WITH THE STATE OVER
CONTROL OF THE CHILD AND HIS TRAINING IS SERIOUS ENOUGH WHEN ONLY
SECULAR MATTERS ARE CONCERNED.  IT BECOMES THE MORE SO WHEN AN ELEMENT
OF RELIGIOUS CONVICTION ENTERS.  AGAINST THESE SACRED PRIVATE
INTERESTS, BASIC IN A DEMOCRACY, STAND THE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY TO
PROTECT THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN, AND THE STATE'S ASSERTION OF AUTHORITY
TO THAT END, MADE HERE IN A MANNER CONCEDED VALID IF ONLY SECULAR
THINGS WERE INVOLVED.  THE LAST IS NO MERE CORPORATE CONCERN OF
OFFICIAL AUTHORITY.  IT IS THE INTEREST OF YOUTH ITSELF, AND OF THE
WHOLE COMMUNITY, THAT CHILDREN BE BOTH SAFEGUARDED FROM ABUSES AND
GIVEN OPPORTUNITIES FOR GROWTH INTO FREE AND INDEPENDENT WELL-DEVELOPED
MEN AND CITIZENS.  BETWEEN CONTRARY PULLS OF SUCH WEIGHT, THE SAFEST
AND MOST OBJECTIVE RECOURSE IS TO THE LINES ALREADY MARKED OUT, NOT
PRECISELY BUT FOR GUIDES, IN NARROWING THE NO MAN'S LAND WHERE THIS
BATTLE HAS GONE ON. 

THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN TO EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION, AND OF PARENTS TO
GIVE THEM RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND TO ENCOURAGE THEM IN THE PRACTICE OF
RELIGIOUS BELIEF, AS AGAINST PREPONDERANT SENTIMENT AND ASSERTION OF
STATE POWER VOICING IT, HAVE HAD RECOGNITION HERE, MOST RECENTLY IN
WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624. 
PREVIOUSLY IN PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, THIS COURT
HAD SUSTAINED THE PARENT'S AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE RELIGIOUS WITH SECULAR
SCHOOLING, AND THE CHILD'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT, AS AGAINST THE STATE'S
REQUIREMENT OF ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  AND IN MEYER V. NEBRASKA,
262 U.S. 390, CHILDREN'S RIGHTS TO RECEIVE TEACHING IN LANGUAGES OTHER
THAN THE NATION'S COMMON TONGUE WERE GUARDED AGAINST THE STATE'S
ENCROACHMENT.  IT IS CARDINAL WITH US THAT THE CUSTODY, CARE AND
NURTURE OF THE CHILD RESIDE FIRST IN THE PARENTS, WHOSE PRIMARY
FUNCTION AND FREEDOM INCLUDE PREPARATION FOR OBLIGATIONS THE STATE CAN
NEITHER SUPPLY NOR HINDER.  PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, SUPRA.  AND
IT IS IN RECOGNITION OF THIS THAT THESE DECISIONS HAVE RESPECTED THE
PRIVATE REALM OF FAMILY LIFE WHICH THE STATE CANNOT ENTER. 

BUT THE FAMILY ITSELF IS NOT BEYOND REGULATION IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, AS AGAINST A CLAIM OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.  REYNOLDS V. UNITED
STATES, 98 U.S. 145; DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333.  AND NEITHER RIGHTS
OF RELIGION NOR RIGHTS OF PARENTHOOD ARE BEYOND LIMITATION.  ACTING TO
GUARD THE GENERAL INTEREST IN YOUTH'S WELL BEING, THE STATE AS PARENS
PATRIAE MAY RESTRICT THE PARENT'S CONTROL BY REQUIRING SCHOOL
ATTENDANCE,  FN9  REGULATING OR PROHIBITING THE CHILD'S LABOR  FN10 AND
IN MANY OTHER WAYS.  FN11  ITS AUTHORITY IS NOT NULLIFIED MERELY
BECAUSE THE PARENT GROUNDS HIS CLAIM TO CONTROL THE CHILD'S COURSE OF
CONDUCT ON RELIGION OR CONSCIENCE.  THUS, HE CANNOT CLAIM FREEDOM FROM
COMPULSORY VACCINATION FOR THE CHILD MORE THAN FOR HIMSELF ON RELIGIOUS
GROUNDS.  FN12  THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE RELIGION FREELY DOES NOT INCLUDE
LIBERTY TO EXPOSE THE COMMUNITY OR THE CHILD TO COMMUNICABLE DISEASE OR
THE LATTER TO ILL HEALTH OR DEATH.  PEOPLE V. PIERSON, 176 N.Y. 201, 68
N.E. 243.  FN13  THE CATALOGUE NEED NOT BE LENGTHENED.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT TO SHOW WHAT INDEED APPELLANT HARDLY DISPUTES, THAT THE
STATE HAS A WIDE RANGE OF POWER FOR LIMITING PARENTAL FREEDOM AND
AUTHORITY IN THINGS AFFECTING THE CHILD'S WELFARE; AND THAT THIS
INCLUDES, TO SOME EXTENT, MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS
CONVICTION. 

BUT IT IS SAID THE STATE CANNOT DO SO HERE.  THIS, FIRST, BECAUSE
WHEN STATE ACTION IMPINGES UPON A CLAIMED RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, IT MUST
FALL UNLESS SHOWN TO BE NECESSARY FOR OR CONDUCIVE TO THE CHILD'S
PROTECTION AGAINST SOME CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, CF. SCHENCK V. UNITED
STATES, 249 U.S. 47; AND, IT IS ADDED, THERE WAS NO SUCH SHOWING HERE. 
THE CHILD'S PRESENCE ON THE STREET, WITH HER GUARDIAN, DISTRIBUTING OR
OFFERING TO DISTRIBUTE THE MAGAZINES, IT IS URGED, WAS IN NO WAY
HARMFUL TO HER, NOR IN ANY EVENT MORE SO THAN THE PRESENCE OF MANY
OTHER CHILDREN AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE, ENGAGED IN SHOPPING AND
OTHER ACTIVITIES NOT PROHIBITED.  ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE PREFERRED
POSITION THE FREEDOMS OF THE FIRST ARTICLE OCCUPY, THE STATUTE IN ITS
PRESENT APPLICATION MUST FALL.  IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BY ANY
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY.  CF. SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147.  AND,
FINALLY, IT IS SAID, THE STATUTE IS, AS TO CHILDREN, AN ABSOLUTE
PROHIBITION, NOT MERELY A REASONABLE REGULATION, OF THE DENOUNCED
ACTIVITY.    CONCEDEDLY A STATUTE OR ORDINANCE IDENTICAL IN TERMS WITH
SEC. 69, EXCEPT THAT IT IS APPLICABLE TO ADULTS OR ALL PERSONS
GENERALLY, WOULD BE INVALID.  YOUNG V. CALIFORNIA, 308 U.S. 147;
NICHOLS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 147; JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413;
MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105; MARTIN V. CITY OF STRUTHERS, 319
U.S. 141.  FN14  BUT THE MERE FACT A STATE COULD NOT WHOLLY PROHIBIT
THIS FORM OF ADULT ACTIVITY, WHETHER CHARACTERIZED LOCALLY AS A "SALE"
OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT MEAN IT CANNOT DO SO FOR CHILDREN.  SUCH A
CONCLUSION GRANTED WOULD MEAN THAT A STATE COULD IMPOSE NO GREATER
LIMITATION UPON CHILD LABOR THAN UPON ADULT LABOR.  OR, IF AN ADULT
WERE FREE TO ENTER DANCE HALLS, SALOONS, AND DISREPUTABLE PLACES
GENERALLY, IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE HIS CONCEIVED RELIGIOUS DUTY TO
ADMONISH OR DISSUADE PERSONS FROM FREQUENTING SUCH PLACES, SO WOULD BE
A CHILD WITH SIMILAR CONVICTIONS AND OBJECTIVES, IF NOT ALONE THEN IN
THE PARENT'S COMPANY, AGAINST THE STATE'S COMMAND. 

THE STATE'S AUTHORITY OVER CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES IS BROADER THAN OVER
LIKE ACTIONS OF ADULTS.  THIS IS PECULIARLY TRUE OF PUBLIC ACTIVITIES
AND IN MATTERS OF EMPLOYMENT.  A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY RESTS, FOR ITS
CONTINUANCE, UPON THE HEALTHY, WELL-ROUNDED GROWTH OF YOUNG PEOPLE INTO
FULL MATURITY AS CITIZENS, WITH ALL THAT IMPLIES.  IT MAY SECURE THIS
AGAINST IMPEDING RESTRAINTS AND DANGERS WITHIN A BROAD RANGE OF
SELECTION.  AMONG EVILS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH ACTION ARE THE
CRIPPLING EFFECTS OF CHILD EMPLOYMENT N15, MORE ESPECIALLY IN PUBLIC
PLACES, AND THE POSSIBLE HARMS ARISING FROM OTHER ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO
ALL THE DIVERSE INFLUENCES OF THE STREET.  FN16  IT IS TOO LATE NOW TO
DOUBT THAT LEGISLATION APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED TO REACH SUCH EVILS IS
WITHIN THE STATE'S POLICE POWER, WHETHER AGAINST THE PARENT'S CLAIM TO
CONTROL OF THE CHILD OR ONE THAT RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES DICTATE CONTRARY
ACTION. 

IT IS TRUE CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS, IN COMMON WITH OLDER PEOPLE, IN THE
PRIMARY USE OF HIGHWAYS.  BUT EVEN IN SUCH USE STREETS AFFORD DANGERS
FOR THEM NOT AFFECTING ADULTS.  AND IN OTHER USES, WHETHER IN WORK OR
IN OTHER THINGS, THIS DIFFERENCE MAY BE MAGNIFIED.  THIS IS SO NOT ONLY
WHEN CHILDREN ARE UNACCOMPANIED BUT CERTAINLY TO SOME EXTENT WHEN THEY
ARE WITH THEIR PARENTS.  WHAT MAY BE WHOLLY PERMISSIBLE FOR ADULTS
THEREFORE MAY NOT BE SO FOR CHILDREN, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT THEIR
PARENTS' PRESENCE. 

STREET PREACHING, WHETHER ORAL OR BY HANDING OUT LITERATURE, IS NOT
THE PRIMARY USE OF THE HIGHWAY, EVEN FOR ADULTS.  WHILE FOR THEM IT
CANNOT BE WHOLLY PROHIBITED, IT CAN BE REGULATED WITHIN REASONABLE
LIMITS IN ACCOMMODATION TO THE PRIMARY AND OTHER INCIDENTAL USES.  FN17
BUT, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, NOTWITHSTANDING APPELLANT'S CONTRARY VIEW,
FN18  THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A PROHIBITION APPLIED TO CHILDREN NOT
ACCOMPANIED BY AN OLDER PERSON HARDLY WOULD SEEM OPEN TO QUESTION.  THE
CASE REDUCES ITSELF THEREFORE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PRESENCE OF
THE CHILD'S GUARDIAN PUTS A LIMIT TO THE STATE'S POWER.  THAT FACT MAY
LESSEN THE LIKELIHOOD THAT SOME EVILS THE LEGISLATION SEEKS TO AVERT
WILL OCCUR.  BUT IT CANNOT FORESTALL ALL OF THEM.  THE ZEALOUS THOUGH
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN PROPAGANDIZING THE COMMUNITY,
WHETHER IN RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL OR OTHER MATTERS, MAY AND AT TIMES DOES
CREATE SITUATIONS DIFFICULT ENOUGH FOR ADULTS TO COPE WITH AND WHOLLY
INAPPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY OF TENDER YEARS, TO FACE.  OTHER
HARMFUL POSSIBILITIES COULD BE STATED, OF EMOTIONAL EXCITEMENT AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSICAL INJURY.  PARENTS MAY BE FREE TO BECOME
MARTYRS THEMSELVES.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THEY ARE FREE, IN IDENTICAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, TO MAKE MARTYRS OF THEIR CHILDREN BEFORE THEY HAVE
REACHED THE AGE OF FULL AND LEGAL DISCRETION WHEN THEY CAN MAKE THAT
CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES.  MASSACHUSETTS HAS DETERMINED THAT AN ABSOLUTE
PROHIBITION, THOUGH ONE LIMITED TO STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES AND TO THE
INCIDENTAL USES PROSCRIBED, IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH ITS LEGITIMATE
OBJECTIVES.  ITS POWER TO ATTAIN THEM IS BROAD ENOUGH TO REACH THESE
PERIPHERAL INSTANCES IN WHICH THE PARENT'S SUPERVISION MAY REDUCE BUT
CANNOT ELIMINATE ENTIRELY THE ILL EFFECTS OF THE PROHIBITED CONDUCT. 
WE THINK THAT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC PROCLAIMING OF RELIGION,
UPON THE STREETS AND IN OTHER SIMILAR PUBLIC PLACES, THE POWER OF THE
STATE TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF CHILDREN REACHES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF
ITS AUTHORITY OVER ADULTS, AS IS TRUE IN THE CASE OF OTHER FREEDOMS,
AND THE RIGHTFUL BOUNDARY OF ITS POWER HAS NOT BEEN CROSSED IN THIS
CASE. 

IN SO RULING WE DISPOSE ALSO OF APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT FOUNDED UPON
DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION.  IT FALLS WITH THAT BASED ON DENIAL OF
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, SINCE IN THIS INSTANCE THE ONE IS BUT ANOTHER
PHRASING OF THE OTHER.  SHORTLY, THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE STREET, FOR
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THEIR CHILDREN, IS THEIR CHURCH, SINCE THEIR
CONVICTION MAKES IT SO; AND TO DENY THEM ACCESS TO IT FOR RELIGIOUS
PURPOSES AS WAS DONE HERE HAS THE SAME EFFECT AS EXCLUDING ALTAR BOYS,
YOUTHFUL CHORISTERS, AND OTHER CHILDREN FROM THE EDIFICES IN WHICH THEY
PRACTICE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND WORSHIP.  THE ARGUMENT HARDLY
NEEDS MORE THAN STATEMENT, AFTER WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, TO REFUTE IT.
HOWEVER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MAY CONCEIVE THEM, THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS HAVE
NOT BECOME THEIR RELIGIOUS PROPERTY MERELY BY THEIR ASSERTION.  AND
THERE IS NO DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION IN EXCLUDING THEIR CHILDREN FROM
DOING THERE WHAT NO OTHER CHILDREN MAY DO. 

OUR RULING DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FACTS THE CASE PRESENTS.  WE
NEITHER LAY THE FOUNDATION "FOR ANY (THAT IS, EVERY) STATE INTERVENTION
IN THE INDOCTRINATION AND PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN IN RELIGION" WHICH
MAY BE DONE "IN THE NAME OF THEIR HEALTH AND WELFARE" NOR GIVE WARRANT
FOR "EVERY LIMITATION ON THEIR RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND ACTIVITIES."  THE
RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND INDOCTRINATION OF CHILDREN MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED
IN MANY WAYS, SOME OF WHICH, AS WE HAVE NOTED, HAVE RECEIVED
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION THROUGH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  THESE AND
ALL OTHERS EXCEPT THE PUBLIC PROCLAIMING OF RELIGION ON THE STREETS, IF
THIS MAY BE TAKEN AS EITHER TRAINING OR INDOCTRINATION OF THE
PROCLAIMER, REMAIN UNAFFECTED BY THE DECISION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1 THE COURT FOUND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT WAS ASKED
BETTY'S AGE.  IT THEN HELD THAT CONVICTION FOR REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE THE
CHILD'S NAME, BASED ON THE CHARGE UNDER SEC. 79, WOULD VIOLATE ARTICLE
12 OF THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH, WHICH PROVIDES IN
PART:  "NO SUBJECT SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR ANY CRIMES OR OFFENCE,
UNTIL THE SAME IS FULLY AND PLAINLY, SUBSTANTIALLY AND FORMALLY,
DESCRIBED TO HIM; OR BE COMPELLED TO ACCUSE, OR FURNISH EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIMSELF." 

FN2  APPELLANT RECEIVED MODERATE FINES ON EACH COMPLAINT, FIRST IN
THE DISTRICT COURT OF BROCKTON, THEN ON PLEAS OF NOT GUILTY BY TRIAL DE
NOVO WITHOUT A JURY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR PLYMOUTH COUNTY.  MOTIONS
TO DISMISS AND QUASH THE COMPLAINTS, FOR DIRECTED FINDINGS, AND FOR
RULINGS, WERE MADE SEASONABLY AND DENIED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT. 

FN3  MASS. GEN. LAWS (TER.  ED.)  C. 149, AS AMENDED BY ACTS AND
RESOLVES OF 1939, C. 461. 

FN4 CF. THE FACTS AS SET FORTH IN JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413;
LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418; MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105;
BUSEY V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 75 U.S. APP. D.C. 352, 129 F.2D 24.  A
COMMON FEATURE IS THAT SPECIFIED SMALL SUMS ARE GENERALLY ASKED AND
RECEIVED BUT THE PUBLICATIONS MAY BE HAD WITHOUT THE PAYMENT IF SO
DESIRED. 

FN5  IN THIS RESPECT THE MASSACHUSETTS DECISION IS CONTRARY TO THE
TREND IN OTHER STATES.  COMPARE STATE V. MEAD, 230 IOWA 1217, 300 N.W.
523; STATE V. MEREDITH, 197 S.C. 351, 15 S.E.2D 678; STATE EX REL.
SEMANSKY V. STARK, 196 LA. 307, 199 SO. 129; SHREVEPORT V. TEAGUE, 200
LA. 679, 8 SO.2D 640; PEOPLE V. BARBER, 289 N.Y. 378, 46 N.E.2D 329;
THOMAS V. ATLANTA, 59 GA. APP. 520, 1 S.E.2D 598; CINCINNATI V. MOSIER,
61 OHIO APP. 81, 22 N.E.2D 418.  CONTRA:  MCSPARRAN V. PORTLAND
(CIRCUIT COURT, MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON, JUNE 8, 1942), CERT. DENIED,
318 U.S. 768. 

FN6  THE COURT'S OPINION SAID:  "THE JUDGE COULD FIND THAT IF A
PASSER-BY SHOULD HAND OVER FIVE CENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGN ON
THE BAG AND SHOULD RECEIVE A MAGAZINE IN RETURN, A SALE WOULD BE
EFFECTED.  THE JUDGE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE DEFENDANT'S
CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT TRANSACTION AS A 'CONTRIBUTION.'  HE COULD
BELIEVE THAT SELLING THE LITERATURE PLAYED A MORE PROMINENT PART IN THE
ENTERPRISE THAN GIVING IT AWAY.  HE COULD FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT
FURNISHED THE MAGAZINES TO BETTY, KNOWING THAT THE LATTER INTENDED TO
SELL THEM, IF SHE COULD, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 69.  ...  THE JUDGE COULD
FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT PERMITTED BETTY TO 'WORK' IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
81.  ...  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE EVILS AT WHICH THE STATUTES WERE
DIRECTED ATTENDANT UPON THE SELLING BY CHILDREN OF NEWSPAPERS,
MAGAZINES, PERIODICALS, AND OTHER MERCHANDISE IN STREETS AND PUBLIC
PLACES DO NOT EXIST WHERE THE PUBLICATIONS ARE OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE." 
313 MASS. 223, 227-228. 

FN7  APPELLANT'S BRIEF SAYS:  "THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION IS TO
PROTECT CHILDREN FROM ECONOMIC EXPLOITATION AND KEEP THEM FROM THE
EVILS OF SUCH ENTERPRISES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEGRADATION OF
CHILDREN."  AND AT THE ARGUMENT COUNSEL STATED THE PROHIBITION WOULD BE
VALID AS AGAINST A CLAIM OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AS A NONRELIGIOUS
ACTIVITY. 

FN8  THE DUE PROCESS CLAIM, AS MADE AND PERHAPS NECESSARILY, EXTENDS
NO FURTHER THAN THAT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SINCE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ALL THAT IS COMPREHENDED IN THE FORMER IS INCLUDED IN THE LATTER. 

FN9  STATE V. BAILEY, 157 IND. 324, 61 N.E. 730; COMPARE MEYER V.
NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390; PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510;
WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624. 

FN10  STURGES & BURN MFG. CO. V. BEAUCHAMP, 231 U.S. 320; COMPARE
MULLER V. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412. 

FN11  CF. PEOPLE V. EWER, 141 N.Y. 129, 36 N.E. 4. 

FN12  JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11. 

FN13  SEE ALSO STATE V. CHENOWETH, 163 IND. 94, 71 N.E. 197; OWENS V.
STATE, 6 OKLA. CR. 110, 116 P. 345. 

FN14  PERTINENT ALSO ARE THE DECISIONS INVOLVING LICENSE FEATURES:
LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S.
147; HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, 307 U.S. 496. 

FN15  SEE, E.G., VOLUMES 1-4, 6-8, 14, 18, REPORT ON CONDITION OF
WOMEN AND CHILD WAGE EARNERS IN THE UNITED STATES, SEN. DOC. NO. 645,
61ST CONG., 2D SESS.; THE WORKING CHILDREN OF BOSTON, U.S. DEPT. OF
LABOR, CHILDREN'S BUREAU PUBLICATION NO. 89(1922); FULLER, THE MEANING
OF CHILD LABOR (1922); FULLER AND STRONG, CHILD LABOR IN MASSACHUSETTS
(1926). 

FN16  SEE, E.G., CLOPPER, CHILD LABOR IN CITY STREETS (1912);
CHILDREN IN STREET WORK, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, CHILDREN'S BUREAU
PUBLICATION NO. 183(1928); CHILDREN ENGAGED IN NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE
SELLING AND DELIVERING, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, CHILDREN'S BUREAU
PUBLICATION NO. 227(1935). 

FN17  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568. 

FN18  ALTHOUGH THE ARGUMENT POINTS TO THE GUARDIAN'S PRESENCE AS
SHOWING THE CHILD'S ACTIVITIES HERE WERE NOT HARMFUL, IT IS NOWHERE
CONCEDED IN THE BRIEFS THAT THE STATUTE COULD BE APPLIED, CONSISTENTLY
WITH THE GUARANTY OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, IF THE FACTS HAD BEEN ALTERED
ONLY BY THE GUARDIAN'S ABSENCE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

THIS ATTEMPT BY THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS TO PROHIBIT A CHILD FROM
EXERCISING HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE HER RELIGION ON THE
PUBLIC STREETS CANNOT, IN MY OPINION, BE SUSTAINED. 

THE RECORD MAKES CLEAR THE BASIC FACT THAT BETTY SIMMONS, THE NINE
YEAR OLD CHILD IN QUESTION, WAS ENGAGED IN A GENUINE RELIGIOUS, RATHER
THAN COMMERCIAL, ACTIVITY.  SHE WAS A MEMBER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND
HAD BEEN TAUGHT THE TENETS OF THAT SECT BY HER GUARDIAN, THE
APPELLANT.  SUCH TENETS INCLUDED THE DUTY OF PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTING
RELIGIOUS TRACTS ON THE STREET AND FROM DOOR TO DOOR.  PURSUANT TO THIS
RELIGIOUS DUTY AND IN THE COMPANY OF THE APPELLANT, BETTY SIMMONS ON
THE NIGHT OF DECEMBER 18, 1941, WAS STANDING ON A PUBLIC STREET CORNER
AND OFFERING TO DISTRIBUTE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS LITERATURE TO PASSERSBY. 
THERE WAS NO EXPECTATION OF PECUNIARY PROFIT TO HERSELF OR TO
APPELLANT.  IT IS UNDISPUTED, FURTHERMORE, THAT SHE DID THIS OF HER OWN
DESIRE AND WITH APPELLANT'S CONSENT.  SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS
MOTIVATED BY HER LOVE OF THE LORD AND THAT HE COMMANDED HER TO
DISTRIBUTE THIS LITERATURE; THIS WAS, SHE DECLARED, HER WAY OF
WORSHIPPING GOD.  SHE WAS OCCUPIED, IN OTHER WORDS, IN "AN AGE-OLD FORM
OF MISSIONARY EVANGELISM" WITH A PURPOSE "AS EVANGELICAL AS THE REVIVAL
MEETING."  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 108, 109. 

RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND ACTIVITY, WHETHER PERFORMED BY ADULT OR CHILD,
ARE PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY STATE
ACTION, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THEY VIOLATE REASONABLE REGULATIONS ADOPTED
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH, MORALS AND WELFARE.  OUR
PROBLEM HERE IS WHETHER A STATE, UNDER THE GUISE OF ENFORCING ITS CHILD
LABOR LAWS, CAN LAWFULLY PROHIBIT GIRLS UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN AND
BOYS UNDER THE AGE OF TWELVE FROM PRACTICING THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH
INSOFAR AS IT INVOLVES THE DISTRIBUTION OR SALE OF RELIGIOUS TRACTS ON
THE PUBLIC STREETS.  NO QUESTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF
PRESS IS PRESENT AND WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE THE
PERMISSIBLE RESTRAINTS ON THOSE RIGHTS.  NOR ARE ANY TRUANCY OR CURFEW
RESTRICTIONS IN ISSUE.  THE STATUTES IN QUESTION PROHIBIT ALL CHILDREN
WITHIN THE SPECIFIED AGE LIMITS FROM SELLING OR OFFERING TO SELL "ANY
NEWSPAPERS, MAGAZINES, PERIODICALS OR ANY OTHER ARTICLES OF MERCHANDISE
OF ANY DESCRIPTION  ...  IN ANY STREET OR PUBLIC PLACE."  CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS ARE IMPOSED ON THE PARENTS AND GUARDIANS WHO COMPEL OR PERMIT
MINORS IN THEIR CONTROL TO ENGAGE IN THE PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS.  THE
STATE COURT HAS CONSTRUED THESE STATUTES TO COVER THE ACTIVITIES HERE
INVOLVED, CF. STATE V. RICHARDSON, 92 N.H. 178, 27 A.2D 94, THEREBY
IMPOSING AN INDIRECT RESTRAINT THROUGH THE PARENTS AND GUARDIANS ON THE
FREE EXERCISE BY MINORS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  THIS INDIRECT
RESTRAINT IS NO LESS EFFECTIVE THAN A DIRECT ONE.  A SQUARE CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE
STATE'S LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE WELFARE OF ITS CHILDREN
IS THUS PRESENTED. 

AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT DEMONSTRATES, THE POWER OF THE STATE
LAWFULLY TO CONTROL THE RELIGIOUS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES OF CHILDREN IS
GREATER THAN ITS POWER OVER SIMILAR ACTIVITIES OF ADULTS.  BUT THAT
FACT IS NO MORE DECISIVE OF THE ISSUE POSED BY THIS CASE THAN IS THE
OBVIOUS FACT THAT THE FAMILY ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WE ARE CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE
REASONABLENESS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROHIBITION OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY BY
CHILDREN. 

IN DEALING WITH THE VALIDITY OF STATUTES WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
INFRINGE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO ENCOURAGE THEIR
CHILDREN IN THE PRACTICE OF A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, WE ARE NOT AIDED BY ANY
STRONG PRESUMPTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH LEGISLATION. 
UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152, NOTE 4.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THE HUMAN FREEDOMS ENUMERATED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND
CARRIED OVER INTO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE TO BE PRESUMED TO BE
INVULNERABLE AND ANY ATTEMPT TO SWEEP AWAY THOSE FREEDOMS IS PRIMA
FACIE INVALID.  IT FOLLOWS THAT ANY RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION MUST BE
JUSTIFIED BY THOSE WHO DENY THAT THE FREEDOMS HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY
INVADED.  THE BURDEN WAS THEREFORE ON THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS TO
PROVE THE REASONABLENESS AND NECESSITY OF PROHIBITING CHILDREN FROM
ENGAGING IN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY OF THE TYPE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

THE BURDEN IN THIS INSTANCE, HOWEVER, IS NOT MET BY VAGUE REFERENCES
TO THE REASONABLENESS UNDERLYING CHILD LABOR LEGISLATION IN GENERAL. 
THE GREAT INTEREST OF THE STATE IN SHIELDING MINORS FROM THE EVIL
VICISSITUDES OF EARLY LIFE DOES NOT WARRANT EVERY LIMITATION ON THEIR
RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND ACTIVITIES.  THE REASONABLENESS THAT JUSTIFIES
THE PROHIBITION OF THE ORDINARY DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE IN THE
PUBLIC STREETS BY CHILDREN IS NOT NECESSARILY THE REASONABLENESS THAT
JUSTIFIES SUCH A DRASTIC RESTRICTION WHEN THE DISTRIBUTION IS PART OF
THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH.  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 111.  IF THE
RIGHT OF A CHILD TO PRACTICE ITS RELIGION IN THAT MANNER IS TO BE
FORBIDDEN BY CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS, THERE MUST BE CONVINCING PROOF THAT
SUCH A PRACTICE CONSTITUTES A GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER TO THE STATE
OR TO THE HEALTH, MORALS OR WELFARE OF THE CHILD.  WEST VIRGINIA STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624, 639.  THE VITAL FREEDOM
OF RELIGION, WHICH IS "OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF A SCHEME OF ORDERED
LIBERTY," PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 325, CANNOT BE ERASED BY
SLENDER REFERENCES TO THE STATE'S POWER TO RESTRICT THE MORE SECULAR
ACTIVITIES OF CHILDREN. 

THE STATE, IN MY OPINION, HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN
OF PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY GRAVE OR IMMEDIATE DANGER TO ANY
INTEREST WHICH IT MAY LAWFULLY PROTECT.  THERE IS NO PROOF THAT BETTY
SIMMONS' MODE OF WORSHIP CONSTITUTED A SERIOUS MENACE TO THE PUBLIC. 
IT WAS CARRIED ON IN AN ORDERLY, LAWFUL MANNER AT A PUBLIC STREET
CORNER.  AND "ONE WHO IS RIGHTFULLY ON A STREET WHICH THE STATE HAS
LEFT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC CARRIES WITH HIM THERE AS ELSEWHERE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS IN AN ORDERLY FASHION.  THIS
RIGHT EXTENDS TO THE COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS BY HANDBILLS AND LITERATURE
AS WELL AS BY THE SPOKEN WORD."  JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413, 416. 
THE SIDEWALK, NO LESS THAN THE CATHEDRAL OR THE EVANGELIST'S TENT, IS A
PROPER PLACE, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, FOR THE ORDERLY WORSHIP OF GOD. 
SUCH USE OF THE STREETS IS AS NECESSARY TO THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, THE
SALVATION ARMY AND OTHERS WHO PRACTICE RELIGION WITHOUT BENEFIT OF
CONVENTIONAL SHELTERS AS IS THE USE OF THE STREETS FOR PURPOSES OF
PASSAGE. 

IT IS CLAIMED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH ACTIVITY WAS LIKELY TO AFFECT
ADVERSELY THE HEALTH, MORALS AND WELFARE OF THE CHILD.  REFERENCE IS
MADE IN THE MAJORITY OPINION TO "THE CRIPPLING EFFECTS OF CHILD
EMPLOYMENT, MORE ESPECIALLY IN PUBLIC PLACES, AND THE POSSIBLE HARMS
ARISING FROM OTHER ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO ALL THE DIVERSE INFLUENCES OF
THE STREET."  TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY FLOW FROM PARTICIPATION IN
ORDINARY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, THESE HARMS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THIS
CASE.  AND THE BARE POSSIBILITY THAT SUCH HARMS MIGHT EMANATE FROM
DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IS NOT, STANDING ALONE, SUFFICIENT
JUSTIFICATION FOR RESTRICTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION.  NOR
CAN PARENTS OR GUARDIANS BE SUBJECTED TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY BECAUSE OF
VAGUE POSSIBILITIES THAT THEIR RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS MIGHT CAUSE INJURY
TO THE CHILD.  THE EVILS MUST BE GRAVE, IMMEDIATE, SUBSTANTIAL.  CF.
BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, 262.  YET THERE IS NOT THE
SLIGHTEST INDICATION IN THIS RECORD, OR IN SOURCES SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
NOTICE, THAT CHILDREN ENGAGED IN DISTRIBUTING LITERATURE PURSUANT TO
THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS HAVE BEEN OR ARE LIKELY TO BE SUBJECT TO ANY OF
THE HARMFUL "DIVERSE INFLUENCES OF THE STREET."  INDEED, IF
PROBABILITIES ARE TO BE INDULGED IN, THE LIKELIHOOD IS THAT CHILDREN
ENGAGED IN SERIOUS RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOR ARE IMMUNE FROM SUCH INFLUENCES. 
GAMBLING, TRUANCY, IRREGULAR EATING AND SLEEPING HABITS, AND THE MORE
SERIOUS VICES ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE HIGH MORAL CHARACTER
ORDINARILY DISPLAYED BY CHILDREN FULFILLING RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS. 
MOREOVER, JEHOVAH'S WITNESS CHILDREN INVARIABLY MAKE THEIR
DISTRIBUTIONS IN GROUPS SUBJECT AT ALL TIMES TO ADULT OR PARENTAL
CONTROL, AS WAS DONE IN THIS CASE.  THE DANGERS ARE THUS EXCEEDINGLY
REMOTE, TO SAY THE LEAST.  AND THE FACT THAT THE ZEALOUS EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHT TO PROPAGANDIZE THE COMMUNITY MAY RESULT IN VIOLENT OR
DISORDERLY SITUATIONS DIFFICULT FOR CHILDREN TO FACE IS NO EXCUSE FOR
PROHIBITING THE EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT. 

NO CHAPTER IN HUMAN HISTORY HAS BEEN SO LARGELY WRITTEN IN TERMS OF
PERSECUTION AND INTOLERANCE AS THE ONE DEALING WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 
FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY, THE INGENUITY OF MAN HAS KNOWN
NO LIMITS IN ITS ABILITY TO FORGE WEAPONS OF OPPRESSION FOR USE AGAINST
THOSE WHO DARE TO EXPRESS OR PRACTICE UNORTHODOX RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. 
AND THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ARE LIVING PROOF OF THE FACT THAT EVEN IN
THIS NATION, CONCEIVED AS IT WAS IN THE IDEALS OF FREEDOM, THE RIGHT TO
PRACTICE RELIGION IN UNCONVENTIONAL WAYS IS STILL FAR FROM SECURE. 
THEIRS IS A MILITANT AND UNPOPULAR FAITH, PURSUED WITH A FANATICAL
ZEAL.  THEY HAVE SUFFERED BRUTAL BEATINGS; THEIR PROPERTY HAS BEEN
DESTROYED; THEY HAVE BEEN HARASSED AT EVERY TURN BY THE RESURRECTION
AND ENFORCEMENT OF LITTLE USED ORDINANCES AND STATUTES.  SEE MULDER AND
COMISKY, "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MOLD CONSTITUTIONAL LAW," 2 BILL OF
RIGHTS REVIEW, NO. 4, P. 262.  TO THEM, ALONG WITH OTHER PRESENT-DAY
RELIGIOUS MINORITIES, BEFALLS THE BURDEN OF TESTING OUR DEVOTION TO THE
IDEALS AND CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  WE SHOULD
THEREFORE HESITATE BEFORE APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF A STATUTE THAT
MIGHT BE USED AS ANOTHER INSTRUMENT OF OPPRESSION.  RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
IS TOO SACRED A RIGHT TO BE RESTRICTED OR PROHIBITED IN ANY DEGREE
WITHOUT CONVINCING PROOF THAT A LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF THE STATE IS IN
GRAVE DANGER. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 

THE NOVEL FEATURE OF THIS DECISION IS THIS:  THE COURT HOLDS THAT A
STATE MAY APPLY CHILD LABOR LAWS TO RESTRICT OR PROHIBIT AN ACTIVITY OF
WHICH, AS RECENTLY AS LAST TERM, IT HELD:  "THIS FORM OF RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITY OCCUPIES THE SAME HIGH ESTATE UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS DO
WORSHIP IN THE CHURCHES AND PREACHING FROM THE PULPITS.  IT HAS THE
SAME CLAIM TO PROTECTION AS THE MORE ORTHODOX AND CONVENTIONAL
EXERCISES OF RELIGION."  "  ...  THE MERE FACT THAT THE RELIGIOUS
LITERATURE IS 'SOLD' BY ITINERANT PREACHERS RATHER THAN 'DONATED' DOES
NOT TRANSFORM EVANGELISM INTO A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE.  IF IT DID, THEN
THE PASSING OF THE COLLECTION PLATE IN CHURCH WOULD MAKE THE CHURCH
SERVICE A COMMERCIAL PROJECT.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THOSE
SPREADING THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THROUGH THE SPOKEN AND PRINTED WORD
ARE NOT TO BE GAUGED BY STANDARDS GOVERNING RETAILERS OR WHOLESALERS OF
BOOKS."  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, 109, 111. 

IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT GOING UPON THE STREETS TO
ACCOST THE PUBLIC IS THE SAME THING FOR APPLICATION OF PUBLIC LAW AS
WITHDRAWING TO A PRIVATE STRUCTURE FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.  BUT IF
WORSHIP IN THE CHURCHES AND THE ACTIVITY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ON THE
STREETS "OCCUPY THE SAME HIGH ESTATE" AND HAVE THE "SAME CLAIM TO
PROTECTION" IT WOULD SEEM THAT CHILD LABOR LAWS MAY BE APPLIED TO BOTH
IF TO EITHER.  IF THE MURDOCK DOCTRINE STANDS ALONG WITH TODAY'S
DECISION, A FOUNDATION IS LAID FOR ANY STATE INTERVENTION IN THE
INDOCTRINATION AND PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN IN RELIGION, PROVIDED IT
IS DONE IN THE NAME OF THEIR HEALTH OR WELFARE. 

THIS CASE BRINGS TO THE SURFACE THE REAL BASIS OF DISAGREEMENT AMONG
MEMBERS OF THIS COURT IN PREVIOUS JEHOVAH'S WITNESS CASES.  MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105; MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141; JONES V.
OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, 319 U.S. 103; DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, 319 U.S.
157.  OUR BASIC DIFFERENCE SEEMS TO BE AS TO THE METHOD OF ESTABLISHING
LIMITATIONS WHICH OF NECESSITY BOUND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 

MY OWN VIEW MAY BE SHORTLY PUT:  I THINK THE LIMITS BEGIN TO OPERATE
WHENEVER ACTIVITIES BEGIN TO AFFECT OR COLLIDE WITH LIBERTIES OF OTHERS
OR OF THE PUBLIC.  RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES WHICH CONCERN ONLY MEMBERS OF
THE FAITH ARE AND OUGHT TO BE FREE - AS NEARLY ABSOLUTELY FREE AS
ANYTHING CAN BE.  BUT BEYOND THESE, MANY RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS OR
MEANS FROM UNBELIEVERS TO SUSTAIN THE WORSHIPPERS AND THEIR LEADERS. 
THEY RAISE MONEY, NOT MERELY BY PASSING THE PLATE TO THOSE WHO
VOLUNTARILY ATTEND SERVICES OR BY CONTRIBUTIONS BY THEIR OWN PEOPLE,
BUT BY SOLICITATIONS AND DRIVES ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLIC BY HOLDING
PUBLIC DINNERS AND ENTERTAINMENTS, BY VARIOUS KINDS OF SALES AND BINGO
GAMES AND LOTTERIES.  ALL SUCH MONEYRAISING ACTIVITIES ON A PUBLIC
SCALE ARE, I THINK, CAESAR'S AFFAIRS AND MAY BE REGULATED BY THE STATE
SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ONE BECAUSE HE IS DOING
THEM FOR A RELIGIOUS PURPOSE, AND THE REGULATION IS NOT ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS, IN VIOLATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE COURT IN THE MURDOCK CASE REJECTED THIS PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATING
IMMUNE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES FROM SECULAR ONES IN DECLARING THE
DISABILITIES WHICH THE CONSTITUTION IMPOSED ON LOCAL AUTHORITIES. 
INSTEAD, THE COURT NOW DRAWS A LINE BASED ON AGE THAT CUTS ACROSS BOTH
TRUE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND AUXILIARY SECULAR ACTIVITIES.  I THINK
THIS IS NOT A CORRECT PRINCIPLE FOR DEFINING THE ACTIVITIES IMMUNE FROM
REGULATION ON GROUNDS OF RELIGION, AND MURDOCK OVERRULES THE GROUNDS ON
WHICH I THINK AFFIRMANCE SHOULD REST.  I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO
DISSENT FROM THE GROUNDS OF AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT WHICH I THINK WAS
RIGHTLY DECIDED, AND UPON RIGHT GROUNDS, BY THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
OF MASSACHUSETTS.  313 MASS. 223. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS
OPINION. 
..END :



SNOWDEN V. HUGHES, 321 U.S. 1 


NO. 57.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1944.  - 132
F.2D 476, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ALLEGATIONS OF A COMPLAINT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, IN
SUBSTANCE THAT THE DEFENDANTS, MEMBERS OF A STATE BOARD ACTING AS SUCH
BUT IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, BY THEIR FAILURE AND REFUSAL TO CERTIFY
CORRECTLY THE RESULTS OF A PRIMARY, DEPRIVED THE COMPLAINANT OF
NOMINATION AND ELECTION AS A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY, HELD
INSUFFICIENT TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
OR THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871.  PP. 5, 13. 

2.  THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
DOES NOT PROTECT RIGHTS DERIVED SOLELY FROM THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE
CITIZEN AND HIS STATE ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW.  P. 6. 

3.  THE RIGHT TO BECOME A CANDIDATE FOR STATE OFFICE IS NOT A RIGHT
OR PRIVILEGE PROTECTED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE.  P. 7. 

4.  THE UNLAWFUL DENIAL BY STATE ACTION OF A RIGHT TO A STATE
POLITICAL OFFICE IS NOT A DENIAL OF A RIGHT OF PROPERTY OR OF LIBERTY
SECURED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 7. 

5.  THE ACTION OF THE STATE BOARD, THOUGH IT BE REGARDED AS STATE
ACTION, DID NOT DENY THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 7. 

(A)  WHERE A STATUTE REQUIRES OFFICIAL ACTION DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN
A SUCCESSFUL AND AN UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE, THE REQUIRED ACTION IS NOT
A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION, SINCE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
SUCCESSFUL AND THE UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE IS BASED ON A PERMISSIBLE
CLASSIFICATION.  P. 8. 

(B)  THE UNLAWFUL ADMINISTRATION OF A STATE STATUTE FAIR ON ITS FACE,
RESULTING IN ITS UNEQUAL APPLICATION TO THOSE ENTITLED TO BE TREATED
ALIKE, IS NOT A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNLESS THERE IS SHOWN TO BE
PRESENT AN ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL OR PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION.  P. 8. 

(C)  THE ILLEGALITY UNDER STATE LAW OF THE ACTION TAKEN NEITHER ADDS
TO NOR SUBTRACTS FROM ITS VALIDITY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P.
11. 

6.  WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE STATE BOARD IN THIS CASE WAS STATE
ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS NOT DECIDED. 
P. 13. 

SNOWDEN V. HUGHES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 738, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT
OF CIVIL RIGHTS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A CITIZEN OF ILLINOIS, BROUGHT THIS SUIT AT LAW IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN ILLINOIS AGAINST RESPONDENTS, CITIZENS OF
ILLINOIS, TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF HIS CIVIL RIGHTS IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND 8 U.S.C. SECS. 41, 43, AND
47(3).  HE ALLEGED THAT THE SUIT WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT AS A SUIT ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), A SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR
INJURY TO PROPERTY AND FOR DEPRIVATION OF A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(12), AND A SUIT FOR THE
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR DEPRIVATION, UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW, CUSTOM,
REGULATION OR USAGE, OF A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(14). 

THE COMPLAINT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ALLEGATIONS.  PETITIONER WAS ONE OF
SEVERAL CANDIDATES AT THE APRIL 9, 1940, REPUBLICAN PRIMARY ELECTION
HELD IN THE THIRD SENATORIAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PURSUANT TO ILL. REV.
STAT. (STATE BAR ASSN. ED.), CH. 46, ART. 8 FOR NOMINEES FOR THE OFFICE
OF REPRESENTATIVE IN THE ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.  BY REASON OF
APPROPRIATE ACTION TAKEN RESPECTIVELY BY THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC
SENATORIAL COMMITTEES OF THE THIRD SENATORIAL DISTRICT IN CONFORMITY TO
THE SCHEME OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AUTHORIZED BY ILL. REV.
STAT., CH. 46, SEC. 8-13, TWO CANDIDATES FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY WERE TO BE NOMINATED ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET AND ONE
ON THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET.  SINCE THREE REPRESENTATIVES WERE TO BE
ELECTED, ILL. CONST., ART. IV, SECS. 7 AND 8, AND ONLY THREE WERE TO BE
NOMINATED BY THE PRIMARY ELECTION, ELECTION AT THE PRIMARY AS ONE OF
THE TWO REPUBLICAN NOMINEES WAS, SO THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES, TANTAMOUNT
TO ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE. 

THE VOTES CAST AT THE PRIMARY ELECTION WERE DULY CANVASSED BY THE
CANVASSING BOARD OF COOK COUNTY, WHICH, AS REQUIRED BY ILL. REV. STAT.,
CH. 46, SEC. 8-15, CERTIFIED AND FORWARDED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE A
TABULATION SHOWING THE RESULTS OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION IN THE THIRD
SENATORIAL DISTRICT.  BY THIS TABULATION THE BOARD CERTIFIED THAT
PETITIONER AND ANOTHER HAD RECEIVED RESPECTIVELY THE SECOND HIGHEST AND
HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATIONS.  ILL. REV.
STAT., CH. 46, SEC. 8-13 REQUIRES THAT THE CANDIDATES RECEIVING THE
HIGHEST VOTES SHALL BE DECLARED NOMINATED. 

RESPONDENTS HUGHES AND LEWIS, AND HENRY HORNER WHOSE EXECUTORS WERE
JOINED AS DEFENDANTS AND ARE RESPONDENTS HERE, CONSTITUTED THE STATE
PRIMARY CANVASSING BOARD FOR THE ELECTION YEAR 1940.  BY ILL. REV.
STAT., CH. 46, SEC. 8-15 IT WAS MADE THEIR DUTY TO RECEIVE THE
CERTIFIED TABULATED STATEMENTS OF VOTES CAST, INCLUDING THAT PREPARED
BY THE CANVASSING BOARD OF COOK COUNTY, TO CANVASS THE RETURNS, TO
PROCLAIM THE RESULTS AND TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF NOMINATION TO THE
SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES.  SUCH A CERTIFICATE IS A PREREQUISITE TO THE
INCLUSION OF A CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT.  ILL. REV. STAT., CH.
46, SEC. 10-14.  ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS STATE PRIMARY
CANVASSING BOARD THEY ISSUED, ON APRIL 29, 1940, THEIR OFFICIAL
PROCLAMATION WHICH DESIGNATED ONLY ONE NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM THE THIRD SENATORIAL
DISTRICT ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET AND EXCLUDED FROM THE NOMINATION
PETITIONER, WHO HAD RECEIVED THE SECOND HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES FOR THE
REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. 

AFTER SETTING OUT THESE FACTS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT HORNER AND
RESPONDENTS HUGHES AND LEWIS, "WILLFULLY, MALICIOUSLY AND ARBITRARILY"
FAILED AND REFUSED TO FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE A CORRECT
CERTIFICATE SHOWING THAT PETITIONER WAS ONE OF THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEES,
THAT THEY CONSPIRED AND CONFEDERATED TOGETHER FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND
THAT THEIR ACTION CONSTITUTED "AN UNEQUAL, UNJUST AND OPPRESSIVE
ADMINISTRATION" OF THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS.  IT ALLEGES THAT HORNER,
HUGHES AND LEWIS, ACTING AS STATE OFFICIALS UNDER COLOR OF THE LAWS OF
ILLINOIS, THEREBY DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND OF ELECTION TO THAT OFFICE,
TO HIS DAMAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000, AND BY SO DOING DEPRIVED
PETITIONER, IN CONTRAVENTION OF 8 U.S.C. SECS. 41, 43 AND 47(3), OF
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED TO HIM AS A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, BOTH GUARANTEED
TO HIM BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED MOTIONS BY RESPONDENTS TO STRIKE THE
COMPLAINT AND DISMISS THE SUIT UPON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE
FACTS ALLEGED DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF ANY
RIGHT, PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT, THE ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION BEING
PREDICATED SOLELY UPON A CLAIM THAT STATE OFFICERS HAD FAILED TO
PERFORM DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THEM BY STATE LAW, THEIR FAILURE WAS NOT
STATE ACTION TO WHICH THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE
ALONE DIRECTED, AND HENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AN
INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS SECURED TO PETITIONER BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 132
F.2D 476, HOLDING ON AUTHORITY OF BARNEY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 193 U.S.
430, THAT THE ACTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE STATE BOARD, BEING CONTRARY
TO STATE LAW, WAS NOT STATE ACTION AND WAS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

IN SUBSTANCE PETITIONER'S ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION IS THAT THE MEMBERS
OF THE STATE PRIMARY CANVASSING BOARD, ACTING AS SUCH BUT IN VIOLATION
OF STATE LAW, HAVE BY THEIR FALSE CERTIFICATE OR PROCLAMATION AND BY
THEIR REFUSAL TO FILE A TRUE CERTIFICATE DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF
NOMINATION AND ELECTION AS REPRESENTATIVE IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY.  TO
ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS
PRESCRIBED BY 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), (12) AND (14), HE RELIES
PARTICULARLY ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTED
BY TWO SECTIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871, 8 U.S.C. SECS. 43,
47(3).  FN1 

STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF AND STATE  ... ,
SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
OR OTHER PERSON  ...  TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR
IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE
PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW ...  FOR REDRESS."  SECTION 47(3), SO
FAR AS NOW RELEVANT, GIVES AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES TO ANY PERSON "INJURED
IN HIS PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR DEPRIVED OF HAVING AND EXERCISING ANY
RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES," BY REASON OF A
CONSPIRACY OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS ENTERED INTO "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEPRIVING  ...  ANY PERSON  ...  OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS,
OR OF EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES UNDER THE LAWS."  IT IS THE
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER THAT THE RIGHT CONFERRED ON HIM BY STATE LAW
TO BECOME A CANDIDATE FOR AND TO BE ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF
REPRESENTATIVE UPON RECEIPT OF THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF VOTES IN THE
PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS, IS A RIGHT SECURED TO HIM BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT THE ACTION OF THE STATE PRIMARY
CANVASSING BOARD DEPRIVED HIM OF THAT RIGHT AND OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS FOR WHICH DEPRIVATION THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AUTHORIZES HIS
SUIT FOR DAMAGES. 

THREE DISTINCT PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE
RIGHTS OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY.  IT DECLARES THAT "NO STATE SHALL MAKE
OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON
OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO
ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

THE PROTECTION EXTENDED TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE INCLUDES THOSE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
WHICH, UNDER THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE
INCIDENT TO CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE
RIGHTS PERTAINING TO STATE CITIZENSHIP AND DERIVED SOLELY FROM THE
RELATIONSHIP OF THE CITIZEN AND HIS STATE ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW. 
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 74, 79; MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250
U.S. 525, 538; PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. CHEEK, 259 U.S. 530, 539;
MADDEN V. KENTUCKY, 309 U.S. 83, 90-93.  THE RIGHT TO BECOME A
CANDIDATE FOR STATE OFFICE, LIKE THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF
STATE OFFICERS, MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 21 WALL.  162, 170-78; POPE V.
WILLIAMS, 193 U.S. 621, 632; BREEDLOVE V. SUTTLES, 302 U.S. 277, 283,
IS A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF STATE CITIZENSHIP, NOT OF NATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP WHICH ALONE IS PROTECTED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE. 

MORE THAN FORTY YEARS AGO THIS COURT DETERMINED THAT AN UNLAWFUL
DENIAL BY STATE ACTION OF A RIGHT TO STATE POLITICAL OFFICE IS NOT A
DENIAL OF A RIGHT OF PROPERTY OR OF LIBERTY SECURED BY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  TAYLOR & MARSHALL V. BECKHAM, 178 U.S. 548.  ONLY ONCE SINCE
HAS THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION AND IT THEN
REAFFIRMED THAT CONCLUSION, CAVE V. NEWELL, 246 U.S. 650, AS WE
REAFFIRM IT NOW. 

NOR CAN WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ACTION OF THE STATE PRIMARY CANVASSING
BOARD, EVEN THOUGH IT BE REGARDED AS STATE ACTION WITHIN THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WAS A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  THE DENIAL ALLEGED IS OF THE RIGHT OF
PETITIONER TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR AND TO BE ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE
UPON RECEIVING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF VOTES.  THE RIGHT IS ONE SECURED
TO HIM BY STATE STATUTE AND THE DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT IS ALLEGED TO
RESULT SOLELY FROM THE BOARD'S FAILURE TO OBEY STATE LAW.  THERE IS NO
CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTES OF THE STATE ARE IN ANY RESPECT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GUARANTEES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THERE IS
NO ALLEGATION OF ANY FACTS TENDING TO SHOW THAT IN REFUSING TO CERTIFY
PETITIONER AS A NOMINEE, THE BOARD WAS MAKING ANY INTENTIONAL OR
PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PERSONS OR CLASSES.  ON THE ARGUMENT
BEFORE US PETITIONER DISCLAIMED ANY CONTENTION THAT CLASS OR RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION IS INVOLVED.  THE INSISTENCE IS RATHER THAT THE BOARD,
MERELY BY FAILING TO CERTIFY PETITIONER AS A DULY ELECTED NOMINEE, HAS
DENIED TO HIM A RIGHT CONFERRED BY STATE LAW AND HAS THEREBY DENIED TO
HIM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

BUT NOT EVERY DENIAL OF A RIGHT CONFERRED BY STATE LAW INVOLVES A
DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, EVEN THOUGH THE DENIAL OF
THE RIGHT TO ONE PERSON MAY OPERATE TO CONFER IT ON ANOTHER.  WHERE, AS
HERE, A STATUTE REQUIRES OFFICIAL ACTION DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN A
SUCCESSFUL AND AN UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE, THE REQUIRED ACTION IS NOT A
DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION SINCE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SUCCESSFUL
AND THE UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE IS BASED ON A PERMISSIBLE
CLASSIFICATION.  AND WHERE THE OFFICIAL ACTION PURPORTS TO BE IN
CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTORY CLASSIFICATION, AN ERRONEOUS OR MISTAKEN
PERFORMANCE OF THE STATUTORY DUTY, ALTHOUGH A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE,
IS NOT WITHOUT MORE A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

THE UNLAWFUL ADMINISTRATION BY STATE OFFICERS OF A STATE STATUTE FAIR
ON ITS FACE, RESULTING IN ITS UNEQUAL APPLICATION TO THOSE WHO ARE
ENTITLED TO BE TREATED ALIKE, IS NOT A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION
UNLESS THERE IS SHOWN TO BE PRESENT IN IT AN ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL OR
PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION.  THIS MAY APPEAR ON THE FACE OF THE ACTION
TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR CLASS OR PERSON, CF. MCFARLAND V.
AMERICAN SUGAR CO., 241 U.S. 79, 86-7, OR IT MAY ONLY BE SHOWN BY
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE SHOWING A DISCRIMINATORY DESIGN TO FAVOR ONE
INDIVIDUAL OR CLASS OVER ANOTHER NOT TO BE INFERRED FROM THE ACTION
ITSELF, YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 373-4.  BUT A DISCRIMINATORY
PURPOSE IS NOT PRESUMED, TARRANCE V. FLORIDA, 188 U.S. 519, 520; THERE
MUST BE A SHOWING OF "CLEAR AND INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION," GUNDLING
V. CHICAGO, 177 U.S. 183, 186; SEE AH SIN V. WITTMAN, 198 U.S. 500, 507
8; BAILEY V. ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219, 231.  THUS THE DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION BY THE EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM A JURY MAY BE SHOWN BY
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE OF A PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATORY ADMINISTRATION OF A
STATUTE FAIR ON ITS FACE.  NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370, 394, 397;
NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 589; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S.
354, 357; SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128, 130-31; HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S.
400, 404.  BUT A MERE SHOWING THAT NEGROES WERE NOT INCLUDED IN A
PARTICULAR JURY IS NOT ENOUGH; THERE MUST BE A SHOWING OF ACTUAL
DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF RACE.  VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313, 322
3; MARTIN V. TEXAS, 200 U.S. 316, 320-21; THOMAS V. TEXAS, 212 U.S.
278, 282; CF. WILLIAMS V. MISSISSIPPI, 170 U.S. 213, 225.    ANOTHER
FAMILIAR EXAMPLE IS THE FAILURE OF STATE TAXING OFFICIALS TO ASSESS
PROPERTY FOR TAXATION ON A UNIFORM STANDARD OF VALUATION AS REQUIRED BY
THE ASSESSMENT LAWS.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH A DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION THAT SOME ARE ASSESSED AT A HIGHER VALUATION THAN OTHERS. 
THE DIFFERENCE MUST BE DUE TO A PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION, WHICH MAY BE
EVIDENCED, FOR EXAMPLE, BY A SYSTEMATIC UNDER-VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY
OF SOME TAXPAYERS AND A SYSTEMATIC OVER-VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY OF
OTHERS, SO THAT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE OFFICIAL BREACH OF LAW IS
THE SAME AS THOUGH THE DISCRIMINATION WERE INCORPORATED IN AND
PROCLAIMED BY THE STATUTE.  COULTER V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO.,
196 U.S. 599, 607, 609-10; CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V. BABCOCK, 204
U.S. 585, 597; SUNDAY LAKE IRON CO. V. WAKEFIELD, 247 U.S. 350, 353;
SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. WATTS, 260 U.S. 519, 526.  FN2  SUCH DISCRIMINATION
MAY ALSO BE SHOWN TO BE PURPOSEFUL, AND HENCE A DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NEITHER SYSTEMATIC NOR LONG-CONTINUED. 
CF. MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR CO., SUPRA. 

THE LACK OF ANY ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT HERE, TENDING TO SHOW A
PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS IS NOT
SUPPLIED BY THE OPPROBRIOUS EPITHETS "WILLFUL" AND "MALICIOUS" APPLIED
TO THE BOARD'S FAILURE TO CERTIFY PETITIONER AS A SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE,
OR BY CHARACTERIZING THAT FAILURE AS AN UNEQUAL, UNJUST, AND OPPRESSIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS.  THESE EPITHETS DISCLOSE
NOTHING AS TO THE PURPOSE OR CONSEQUENCE OF THE FAILURE TO CERTIFY,
OTHER THAN THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE NOMINATION AND
ELECTION, AND THEREFORE ADD NOTHING TO THE BARE FACT OF AN INTENTIONAL
DEPRIVATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO BE CERTIFIED TO A NOMINATION TO
WHICH NO OTHER HAS BEEN CERTIFIED.  CF. UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 303 U.S. 239, 243.  SO FAR AS APPEARS THE BOARD'S
FAILURE TO CERTIFY PETITIONER WAS UNAFFECTED BY AND UNRELATED TO THE
CERTIFICATION OF ANY OTHER NOMINEE.  SUCH ALLEGATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT
UNDER OUR DECISIONS TO RAISE ANY ISSUE OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
OR TO CALL UPON A FEDERAL COURT TO TRY QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW IN ORDER
TO DISCOVER A PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
LAWS OF ILLINOIS WHICH IS NOT ALLEGED.  INDEED ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE COMPLAINT, THE ONE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD WAS
ENTITLED TO BE CERTIFIED AS THE NOMINEE RECEIVING THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF
VOTES, AND THE BOARD'S FAILURE TO CERTIFY PETITIONER, SO FAR AS
APPEARS, WAS UNAFFECTED BY AND UNRELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE
OTHER, SUCCESSFUL NOMINEE.  WHILE THE FAILURE TO CERTIFY PETITIONER FOR
ONE NOMINATION AND THE CERTIFICATION OF ANOTHER FOR A DIFFERENT
NOMINATION MAY HAVE INVOLVED A VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, WE FAIL TO SEE
IN THIS A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS MORE THAN IF THE
ILLINOIS STATUTES THEMSELVES HAD PROVIDED THAT ONE CANDIDATE SHOULD BE
CERTIFIED AND NO OTHER. 

IF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD IS OFFICIAL ACTION IT IS SUBJECT TO
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY TO THE SAME BUT NO GREATER EXTENT THAN IF THE
ACTION WERE TAKEN BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE.  ITS ILLEGALITY UNDER THE
STATE STATUTE CAN NEITHER ADD TO NOR SUBTRACT FROM ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY.  MERE VIOLATION OF A STATE STATUTE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  COMPARE OWENSBORO WATERWORKS CO. V. OWENSBORO,
200 U.S. 38, 47.  AND STATE ACTION, EVEN THOUGH ILLEGAL UNDER STATE
LAW, CAN BE NO MORE AND NO LESS CONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT THAN IF IT WERE SANCTIONED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE. 
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362, 369-70.  SEE ALSO
COULTER V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., SUPRA, 608-9; HAYMAN V.
GALVESTON, 273 U.S. 414, 416; IOWA-DES MOINES BANK V. BENNETT, 284 U.S.
239, 244.  A STATE STATUTE WHICH PROVIDED THAT ONE NOMINEE RATHER THAN
TWO SHOULD BE CERTIFIED IN A PARTICULAR ELECTION DISTRICT WOULD NOT BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE AND WOULD BE OPEN TO ATTACK ONLY IF IT
WERE SHOWN, AS IT IS NOT HERE, THAT THE EXCLUSION OF ONE AND THE
ELECTION OF ANOTHER WERE INVIDIOUS AND PURPOSELY DISCRIMINATORY. 
COMPARE MISSOURI V. LEWIS, 101 U.S. 22, 30, 32; YICK WO V. HOPKINS,
SUPRA. 

WHERE DISCRIMINATION IS SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN, THE RIGHT TO RELIEF UNDER
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IS NOT DIMINISHED BY THE FACT THAT THE
DISCRIMINATION RELATES TO POLITICAL RIGHTS.  MCPHERSON V. BLACKER, 146
U.S. 1, 23-4; NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536, 538; NIXON V. CONDON, 286
U.S. 73; SEE POPE V. WILLIAMS, SUPRA, 634.  BUT THE NECESSITY OF A
SHOWING OF PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION IS NO LESS IN A CASE INVOLVING
POLITICAL RIGHTS THAN IN ANY OTHER.  IT WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS THAT ALL MATTERS
FORMERLY WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE COGNIZANCE OF THE STATES SHOULD BECOME
MATTERS OF NATIONAL CONCERN. 

A CONSTRUCTION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE WHICH WOULD FIND A
VIOLATION OF FEDERAL RIGHT IN EVERY DEPARTURE BY STATE OFFICERS FROM
STATE LAW IS NOT TO BE FAVORED.  AND IT IS NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE
THAT WE ARE NOT CITED TO AND HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND A SINGLE INSTANCE
IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS ENTERTAINED THE NOTION THAT AN UNLAWFUL DENIAL
BY STATE AUTHORITY OF THE RIGHT TO STATE OFFICE IS WITHOUT MORE A
DENIAL OF ANY RIGHT SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE TAYLOR &
MARSHALL V. BECKHAM, SUPRA, AND AUTHORITIES CITED; CAVE V. NEWELL,
SUPRA.  ONLY ONCE HAS IT BEEN CONTENDED HERE THAT AN UNLAWFUL DENIAL BY
STATE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE RIGHT
TO STATE OFFICE IS FOR THAT REASON ALONE A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION. 
WILSON V. NORTH CAROLINA, 169 U.S. 586.  FN3  IN REJECTING THAT
CONTENTION THIS COURT SAID AT PAGES 594-5:  "IN ITS INTERNAL
ADMINISTRATION THE STATE (SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)
HAS ENTIRE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AS TO THE CREATION OF AN OFFICE FOR PURELY
STATE PURPOSES, AND OF THE TERMS UPON WHICH IT SHALL BE HELD BY THE
PERSON FILLING THE OFFICE.  ... 

"UPON THE CASE MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, THE FEDERAL QUESTION
WHICH HE ATTEMPTS TO RAISE IS SO UNFOUNDED IN SUBSTANCE THAT WE ARE
JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT IT DOES NOT REALLY EXIST; THAT THERE IS NO
FAIR COLOR FOR CLAIMING THAT HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, EITHER BY DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW OR BY DENYING HIM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." 

AS WE CONCLUDE THAT THE RIGHT ASSERTED BY PETITIONER IS NOT ONE
SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR A SUIT
BROUGHT UNDER THE SECTIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS RELIED UPON, WE
FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION BY THE STATE BOARD
OF WHICH PETITIONER COMPLAINS IS STATE ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE AUTHORITY OF BARNEY V. CITY OF NEW YORK,
SUPRA, ON WHICH THE COURT BELOW RELIED, HAS BEEN SO RESTRICTED BY OUR
LATER DECISIONS, SEE RAYMOND V. CHICAGO TRACTION CO., 207 U.S. 20, 37;
HOME TEL. & TEL. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S. 278, 294; IOWA-DES MOINES
BANK V. BENNETT, SUPRA, 246-7; CF. UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S.
299, 326, THAT OUR DETERMINATION MAY BE MORE PROPERLY AND MORE
CERTAINLY RESTED ON PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO ASSERT A RIGHT OF A NATURE
SUCH AS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AGAINST STATE ACTION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED FOR FAILURE OF THE COMPLAINT TO
STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  8 U.S.C. SEC. 41, ON WHICH PETITIONER ALSO RELIES, GUARANTIES TO
ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES "THE SAME RIGHT  ...  TO THE FULL
AND EQUAL BENEFIT OF ALL LAWS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SECURITY OF
PERSONS AND PROPERTY AS IS ENJOYED BY WHITE CITIZENS."  AS POINTED OUT
LATER IN THIS OPINION, NO CLAIM OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE IS
MADE. 

FN2  SEE ALSO RAYMOND V. CHICAGO UNION TRACTION CO., 207 U.S. 20, 36;
SIOUX CITY BRIDGE CO. V. DAKOTA CO., 260 U.S. 441, 447; BOHLER V.
CALLOWAY, 267 U.S. 479, 489; CUMBERLAND COAL CO. V. BOARD OF REVISION,
284 U.S. 23, 25, 28; CF. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. WEEKS, 297 U.S. 135,
139. 

FN3  IN UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, THIS COURT REFUSED TO
PASS ON A SIMILAR CONTENTION AS TO A REFUSAL TO COUNT BALLOTS CAST IN
AN ELECTION FOR FEDERAL OFFICERS.  THE HOLDING IN THAT CASE THAT A
REFUSAL TO COUNT VOTES CAST, AND THE CONSEQUENT FALSE CERTIFICATION OF
CANDIDATES, WAS A DENIAL OF A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE "SECURED  ...  BY THE
CONSTITUTION  ...  OF THE UNITED STATES" WAS RESTED ON THE GROUND THAT
THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR A FEDERAL OFFICER, WHETHER OR NOT IT BE DEEMED A
PRIVILEGE OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, SEE TWINING V. NEW JERSEY,
211 U.S. 78, 97, IS A RIGHT SECURED BY ART. 1, SECS. 2 AND 4 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  SEE 313 U.S. AT 314-5 AND CASES CITED; UNITED STATES V.
MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383.  THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT "THE INDICTMENT ON
ITS FACE DOES NOT PURPORT TO CHARGE A DEPRIVATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
TO VOTERS OR CANDIDATES," 313 U.S. AT 329, AND DECLINED TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THE FACTS ALLEGED COULD CONSTITUTE SUCH A DENIAL. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

THE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER
DAMAGES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED AT THE HANDS OF THE DEFENDANTS AS
MEMBERS OF THE STATE PRIMARY CANVASSING BOARD OF ILLINOIS.  THE THEORY
OF HIS CLAIM IS THAT THE DEFENDANTS, BEING IN LEGAL EFFECT THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS, DENIED TO THE PLAINTIFF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS. 

THE CRUCIAL ALLEGATIONS CHARGING SUCH A DENIAL ARE IN THE FOLLOWING
PARAGRAPH OF THE COMPLAINT: 

"11.  THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE CLEAR AND PLAIN MANDATES OF SECTION
454 AND SECTION 456, CHAPTER 46, ILLINOIS REVISED STATUTES, THE
DEFENDANTS EDWARD J. HUGHES AND LOUIE E. LEWIS, AND THE DECEDENT HENRY
HORNER, ACTING AS THE STATE PRIMARY CANVASSING BOARD OF ILLINOIS,
ENTERED INTO AN UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT AND COMBINED, CONSPIRED AND
CONFEDERATED TOGETHER TO WILLFULLY, MALICIOUSLY AND ARBITRARILY REFUSE
TO DESIGNATE PLAINTIFF AS ONE OF THE NOMINEES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
FOR THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM THE THIRD
SENATORIAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AND TO ISSUE THEIR OFFICIAL
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING PLAINTIFF AS ONE OF THE SAID NOMINEES AND TO
FILE THEIR PROPER AND CORRECT CERTIFICATE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE OF ILLINOIS SHOWING THAT PLAINTIFF WAS ONE OF THE
NOMINEES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE IN
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM THE THIRD SENATORIAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS." 

I SHOULD BE SILENT WERE THE COURT MERELY TO HOLD THAT AS A MATTER OF
PLEADING THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLICIT TO CHARGE AS
AN ARBITRARY ACT OF DISCRIMINATION THE CONCERTED AND PURPOSEFUL USE BY
THE DEFENDANTS OF THEIR OFFICIAL AUTHORITY OVER THE ELECTION MACHINERY
OF THE STATE SO AS TO WITHHOLD FROM THE PLAINTIFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT HIMSELF TO THE VOTERS OF THAT STATE "AS ONE OF THE NOMINEES OF
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY" FOR ELECTION TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
ILLINOIS.  I SHOULD BE SILENT EVEN THOUGH IT WERE AVOWED THAT SUCH A
CONSTRAINED READING OF THE COMPLAINT REFLECTED THE MOST EXACTING
ATTITUDE AGAINST DRAWING INTO THE FEDERAL COURTS CONTROVERSIES OVER
STATE ELECTIONS.  UNLESS I MISTAKE THE TENOR OF THE COURT'S OPINION,
THE DECISION IS BROADER THAN MERE INADEQUACY OF PLEADING. 

ALL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS OF STATE
GOVERNMENTS ARE, NO DOUBT, PECULIARLY OUTSIDE THE DOMAIN OF FEDERAL
AUTHORITY.  THE DISPOSITION OF STATE OFFICES, THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY
SHOULD BE FILLED AND CONTESTS CONCERNING THEM, ARE SOLELY FOR STATE
DETERMINATION, ALWAYS PROVIDED THAT THE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT REQUIRED
BY THE CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS IS RESPECTED.  AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT
THERE ARE STRONG CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WHICH SHOULD MAKE FEDERAL
COURTS INHOSPITABLE TOWARD LITIGATION INVOLVING THE ENFORCEMENT OF
STATE ELECTION LAWS.  BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT THE CRITERIA FOR
ESTABLISHING A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS ARE ANY
DIFFERENT IN CASES OF DISCRIMINATION IN GRANTING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PRESENTING ONESELF AS A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE "AS ONE OF THE NOMINEES OF
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY" THAN THOSE THAT ARE RELEVANT WHEN CLAIM IS MADE
THAT A STATE HAS DISCRIMINATED IN REGULATING THE PURSUIT OF A PRIVATE
CALLING.  IT APPEARS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY THAT THE PLAINTIFF COULD
ESTABLISH HIS CASE.  THE SOLE QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER, ASSUMING HE CAN
MAKE GOOD HIS ALLEGATIONS, HE SHOULD BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY OF A
TRIAL TO DO SO. 

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT ASSURE UNIFORMITY OF DECISIONS OR IMMUNITY
FROM MERELY ERRONEOUS ACTION, WHETHER BY THE COURTS OR THE EXECUTIVE
AGENCIES OF A STATE.  SEE MCGOVERN V. NEW YORK, 229 U.S. 363, 370-1. 
HOWEVER, IN FORBIDDING A STATE TO "DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS," THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT PERMIT A STATE TO DENY THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF ITS
LAWS BECAUSE SUCH DENIAL IS NOT WHOLESALE.  THE TALK IN SOME OF THE
CASES ABOUT SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION IS ONLY A WAY OF INDICATING THAT
IN ORDER TO GIVE RISE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL GRIEVANCE A DEPARTURE FROM A
NORM MUST BE ROOTED IN DESIGN AND NOT DERIVE MERELY FROM ERROR OR
FALLIBLE JUDGMENT.  SPEAKING OF A SITUATION IN WHICH CONSCIOUS
DISCRIMINATION BY A STATE TOUCHES "THE PLAINTIFF ALONE," THIS COURT
TERSELY EXPRESSED THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE BY OBSERVING THAT "WE SUPPOSE
THAT NO ONE WOULD CONTEND THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."  MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR CO., 241 U.S. 79,
86, 87.  AND IF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE SHOULD CANDIDLY DENY TO
ONE LITIGANT A RULE OF LAW WHICH IT CONCEDEDLY WOULD APPLY TO ALL OTHER
LITIGANTS IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS, COULD IT ESCAPE CONDEMNATION AS AN
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AND THEREFORE A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS?  SEE BACKUS V. FORT STREET UNION DEPOT CO., 169 U.S. 557,
571.    BUT TO CONSTITUTE SUCH UNJUST DISCRIMINATION THE ACTION MUST BE
THAT OF THE STATE.  SINCE THE STATE, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, CAN ONLY ACT
THROUGH FUNCTIONARIES, THE QUESTION NATURALLY ARISES WHAT
FUNCTIONARIES, ACTING UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE TO BE DEEMED THE
STATE FOR PURPOSES OF BRINGING SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ON THE BASIS
OF ILLEGAL STATE ACTION.  THE PROBLEM IS BESET WITH INHERENT
DIFFICULTIES AND NOT UNNATURALLY HAS HAD A FLUCTUATING HISTORY IN THE
DECISIONS OF THE COURT.  COMPARE BARNEY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 193 U.S.
430, WITH RAYMOND V. CHICAGO TRACTION CO., 207 U.S. 20, MEMPHIS V.
CUMBERLAND TELEPHONE CO., 218 U.S. 624, WITH HOME TEL. & TEL. CO. V.
LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S. 278.  IT IS NOT TO BE RESOLVED BY ABSTRACT
CONSIDERATIONS SUCH AS THE FACT THAT EVERY OFFICIAL WHO PURPORTS TO
WIELD POWER CONFERRED BY A STATE IS PRO TANTO THE STATE.  OTHERWISE
EVERY ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION BY A POLICEMAN ON THE BEAT WOULD BE STATE
ACTION FOR PURPOSE OF SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT. 

OUR QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER A REMEDY IS AVAILABLE FOR SUCH AN
ILLEGALITY, BUT WHETHER IT IS AVAILABLE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN A
FEDERAL COURT.  SUCH A PROBLEM OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL CONTROL MUST BE
PLACED IN THE HISTORIC CONTEXT OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS TO THE STATES, WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE NATURAL SENSITIVENESS OF
THE STATES AND FOR THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATE COURTS TO
CORRECT THE ACTION OF LOWER STATE COURTS AND STATE OFFICIALS.  SEE,
E.G., EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S. 241, 251.  TAKE THE PRESENT CASE.  THE
PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS THAT HE HAS BEEN DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS OF ILLINOIS PRECISELY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS, CONSTITUTING THE
STATE CANVASSING BOARD, HAVE WILLFULLY, WITH SET PURPOSE TO WITHDRAW
FROM HIM THE PRIVILEGES AFFORDED BY ILLINOIS, DISOBEYED THOSE LAWS.  TO
ADAPT THE LANGUAGE OF AN EARLIER OPINION, I AM UNABLE TO GRASP THE
PRINCIPLE ON WHICH THE STATE CAN HERE BE SAID TO DENY THE PLAINTIFF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE WHEN THE FOUNDATION OF HIS
CLAIM IS THAT THE BOARD HAD DISOBEYED THE AUTHENTIC COMMAND OF THE
STATE.  HOLMES, J., DISSENTING, IN RAYMOND V. CHICAGO TRACTION CO.,
SUPRA AT P. 41. 

I AM CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT THE ACTION OF THE CANVASSING BOARD TAKEN,
AS THE PLAINTIFF HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGES, IN DEFIANCE OF THE DUTY OF THAT
BOARD UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, CANNOT BE DEEMED THE ACTION OF THE STATE,
CERTAINLY NOT UNTIL THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE CONFIRMS SUCH ACTION
AND THEREBY MAKES IT THE LAW OF THE STATE.  I AGREE, IN A WORD, WITH
THE COURT BELOW THAT BARNEY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 193 U.S. 430, IS
CONTROLLING.  SEE ISSEKS, JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS TO
ENJOIN UNAUTHORIZED ACTION OF STATE OFFICIALS, 40 HARV. L. REV. 969. 
NEITHER THE WISDOM OF ITS REASONING NOR ITS HOLDING HAS BEEN IMPAIRED
BY SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS.  A DIFFERENT PROBLEM IS PRESENTED WHEN A CASE
COMES HERE ON REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF A STATE COURT AS THE ULTIMATE
VOICE OF STATE LAW.  SEE FOR INSTANCE IOWA-DES MOINES BANK V. BENNETT,
284 U.S. 239.  AND THE CASE IS WHOLLY UNLIKE LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S.
268, IN WHICH THE ELECTION OFFICIALS ACTED NOT IN DEFIANCE OF A STATUTE
OF A STATE BUT UNDER ITS AUTHORITY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS,
DISSENTING: 

MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT IS ON A NARROW GROUND. 
I AGREE THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SHOULD NOT BE DISTORTED TO MAKE THE FEDERAL COURTS THE SUPERVISOR OF
THE STATE ELECTIONS.  THAT WOULD PLACE THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY IN A
POSITION "TO SUPERVISE AND REVIEW THE POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION OF A
STATE GOVERNMENT BY ITS OWN OFFICIALS AND THROUGH ITS OWN COURTS"
(WILSON V. NORTH CAROLINA, 169 U.S. 586, 596) - MATTERS ON WHICH EACH
STATE HAS THE FINAL SAY.  I ALSO AGREE THAT A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC
OFFICE IS NOT DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE MERELY BECAUSE HE IS THE VICTIM OF UNLAWFUL
ADMINISTRATION OF A STATE ELECTION LAW.  I BELIEVE, AS THE OPINION OF
THE COURT INDICATES, THAT A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
REQUIRES AN INVIDIOUS, PURPOSEFUL DISCRIMINATION.  BUT I DEPART FROM
THE MAJORITY WHEN IT DENIES SNOWDEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING THAT HE
WAS IN FACT THE VICTIM OF SUCH DISCRIMINATORY ACTION.  HIS COMPLAINT
SEEMS TO ME TO BE ADEQUATE TO RAISE THE ISSUE.  HE CHARGES A CONSPIRACY
TO WILFULLY, MALICIOUSLY AND ARBITRARILY REFUSE TO DESIGNATE HIM AS ONE
OF THE NOMINEES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THAT SUCH ACTION WAS AN
"UNEQUAL" ADMINISTRATION OF THE ILLINOIS LAW AND A DENIAL TO HIM OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND THAT THE CONSPIRACY HAD THAT
PURPOSE.  WHILE THE COMPLAINT COULD HAVE DRAWN THE ISSUE MORE SHARPLY,
I THINK IT DEFINES IT SUFFICIENTLY TO SURVIVE THE MOTION TO DISMISS. 

NO DOUBT UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST A CLASS, SUCH AS
THOSE WHICH WE HAVE RECENTLY CONDEMNED IN LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268,
AND SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, MAY BE MORE READILY ESTABLISHED
THAN A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL PER SE.  BUT THOUGH THE
PROOF IS EXACTING, THE LATTER MAY BE SHOWN AS IN COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316
U.S. 255, WHERE A PRISONER WAS PREVENTED FROM PERFECTING AN APPEAL. 
THE CRITERIA ARE THE SAME WHETHER ONE HAS BEEN DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY
TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, TO ENTER PRIVATE BUSINESS, OR TO
HAVE THE PROTECTION OF THE COURTS.  IF THE LAW IS "APPLIED AND
ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY WITH AN EVIL EYE AND AN UNEQUAL HAND,
SO AS PRACTICALLY TO MAKE UNJUST AND ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN
PERSONS IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES" (YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356,
373-374), IT IS THE SAME AS IF THE INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION WERE
INCORPORATED IN THE LAW ITSELF.  IF THE ACTION OF THE ILLINOIS BOARD IN
EFFECT WERE THE SAME AS AN ILLINOIS LAW THAT SNOWDEN COULD NOT RUN FOR
OFFICE, IT WOULD RUN AFOUL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE WHETHER THAT
DISCRIMINATION WERE BASED ON THE FACT THAT SNOWDEN WAS A NEGRO,
CATHOLIC, PRESBYTERIAN, FREE MASON, OR HAD SOME OTHER CHARACTERISTIC OR
BELIEF WHICH THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT LIKE.  SNOWDEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT SHOWING NO MATTER HOW THIN HIS CHANCES OF
SUCCESS MAY SEEM. 
..END :










THOMSON V. UNITED STATES, 321 U.S. 19 


NO. 70.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1944.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  IN RESPECT OF OPERATIONS BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN A COORDINATED
RAILMOTOR FREIGHT SERVICE - THE MOTOR VEHICLES BEING OPERATED BY
CONTRACTORS UNDER ARRANGEMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE OPINION - ONLY THE
RAILROAD WAS A "COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE" ENTITLED TO
"GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 206(A) OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, SINCE IT ALONE HELD ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO
ENGAGE IN SUCH SERVICE.  P. 23. 

2.  THE COMMISSION'S SO-CALLED "CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY" TEST, SO
FAR AS IT LEADS TO A DIFFERENT RESULT, IS DISAPPROVED.  P. 26. 

THOMSON, TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY CO., V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 31 M.C.C. 299. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS DIRECT APPEAL FROM A STATUTORY THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
INVOLVES IMPORTANT PROBLEMS RELATING TO "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS TO A
CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN A SINGLE
COORDINATED RAIL-MOTOR FREIGHT SERVICE.  THE FINAL DECREE OF THAT COURT
DISMISSED APPELLANT'S PETITION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 31 M.C.C. 299.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HAD DENIED
TO THE CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, OF WHICH APPELLANT IS
TRUSTEE, A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AS A COMMON
CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER THE SO-CALLED "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF
SEC. 206(A) OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
306(A). 

THE ESSENTIAL FACTS ARE CLEAR.  THE CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE RAILROAD, HAS EXTENSIVE MILEAGE
IN NINE WESTERN STATES AND IS A LARGE CARRIER OF FREIGHT IN LESS THAN
CARLOAD LOTS.  PRIOR TO AND SINCE THE STATUTORY "GRANDFATHER" DATE OF
JUNE 1, 1935, IT HAS SUPPLEMENTED ITS RAIL FREIGHT SERVICE BY PROVIDING
MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE BETWEEN VARIOUS FREIGHT STATIONS ON ITS RAIL
LINES.  THERE ARE TWENTY-THREE SUCH MOTOR VEHICLE ROUTES ON HIGHWAYS
PARALLEL WITH AND ROUGHLY ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD'S LINES.  THE MOTOR
TRUCKS TRANSPORT LESS THAN CARLOAD LOTS OF FREIGHT IN COMPLETE
COORDINATION WITH THE RAIL SERVICE.  THE RAILROAD INSTITUTED THIS
ADDITIONAL METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION IN ORDER TO FURNISH AN IMPROVED AND
MORE CONVENIENT FREIGHT SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC IN CERTAIN AREAS OF LIGHT
TRAFFIC AND IN ORDER TO CURTAIL CAR MILEAGE AND WAY-FREIGHT SERVICE. 
MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION, IN OTHER WORDS, IS MERELY A NEW METHOD OF
CARRYING ON PART OF ITS ALL-RAIL FREIGHT BUSINESS IN WHICH IT HAD BEEN
ENGAGED FOR MANY YEARS. 

THE RAILROAD HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
AND TO SHIPPERS AS BEING ENGAGED IN THIS COORDINATED RAIL-MOTOR FREIGHT
SERVICE.  IT SOLICITS ALL THE FREIGHT TRANSPORTED BY THE TRUCKS
OPERATING AS PART OF THIS UNIFIED SERVICE AND ITS BILLS OF LADING AND
TARIFFS ARE USED THROUGHOUT.  THE SHIPPER DOES NOT KNOW IN A SPECIFIC
INSTANCE WHETHER HIS FREIGHT WILL BE SHIPPED ENTIRELY BY RAIL OR PARTLY
BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  BUT HE IS INFORMED BY THE RAILROAD'S TARIFFS THAT
THE RAILROAD AT ITS OPTION MAY SUBSTITUTE MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE FOR
RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN STATIONS ON ITS LINES AND THAT THE CHARGES IN SUCH
A CASE ARE THE SAME AS WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL-RAIL SERVICE. 

IN SO SUBSTITUTING MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE, THE RAILROAD HAS NOT DEEMED
IT ADVISABLE TO PURCHASE OR LEASE MOTOR TRUCKS OR EMPLOY ITS OWN
PERSONNEL IN SUCH OPERATIONS.  INSTEAD IT HAS ENTERED INTO WRITTEN
CONTRACTS FOR THIS SERVICE WITH MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS WHO ALSO SERVE
CUSTOMERS OTHER THAN THE RAILROAD.  BUT THE RAILROAD AT ALL TIMES
MAINTAINS DIRECT AND COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE MOVEMENT AND HANDLING OF
ITS FREIGHT BY THESE OPERATORS.  IT FIXES THE TRUCK SCHEDULES SO AS TO
COORDINATE THEM WITH THE RAIL SCHEDULES AND DESIGNATES THE AMOUNT AND
PARTICULAR SHIPMENTS OF FREIGHT TO BE MOVED.  THE MOTOR VEHICLE
OPERATORS ISSUE NO BILLING OF ANY KIND AND SOLICIT NONE OF THE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTED FOR THE RAILROAD.  THEY HAVE NO CONTRACTUAL OR OTHER
RELATIONSHIPS WITH EITHER THE SHIPPERS OR THE RECEIVERS OF THE
FREIGHT.  THEIR TRUCKS ARE LOADED AT THE FREIGHT STATIONS BY RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES, SOMETIMES ASSISTED BY THE TRUCK DRIVERS.  AFTER A TRUCK IS
LOADED A MANIFEST IS ISSUED BY THE RAILROAD'S AGENT, WHICH IS SIGNED BY
THE TRUCK DRIVER; UPON DELIVERY OF THE FREIGHT TO THE OTHER RAILROAD
FREIGHT STATION THE MANIFEST IS SIGNED BY ANOTHER RAILROAD AGENT, THUS
RELEASING THE MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATOR. 

THE WRITTEN CONTRACTS DESCRIBE THE OPERATORS AS "INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS" AND STATE THAT "NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE
CONSTRUED AS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT STATUS."  THE CONTRACTORS ARE BOUND
BY THESE CONTRACTS TO PROVIDE VEHICLES OF A TYPE SATISFACTORY TO THE
RAILROAD FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING FREIGHT BETWEEN CERTAIN
SPECIFIED FREIGHT STATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH SCHEDULES AND
INSTRUCTIONS AS SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE RAILROAD.  THE CONTRACTORS AGREE
TO TRANSPORT SUCH FREIGHT AS THE RAILROAD DESIGNATES IN A MANNER
SATISFACTORY TO THE RAILROAD.  ALL PERSONS OPERATING THE MOTOR VEHICLES
ARE UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT AND DIRECTION OF THE CONTRACTORS AND ARE NOT
CONSIDERED RAILROAD EMPLOYEES.  THE OPERATIONS ARE CONDUCTED UNDER THE
CONTRACTORS' OWN NAMES AND THE VEHICLES DO NOT DISPLAY THE RAILROAD'S
NAME.  THE CONTRACTORS FURTHER AGREE TO COMPLY WITH STATE, FEDERAL AND
MUNICIPAL LAWS AND TO INDEMNIFY THE RAILROAD AGAINST ANY FAILURE OR
DEFAULT IN THIS RESPECT.  THEY ALSO AGREE TO INDEMNIFY THE RAILROAD
AGAINST ALL LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION OF
THE MOTOR VEHICLES.  THE RAILROAD IS AUTHORIZED TO MAINTAIN FOR ITS OWN
PROTECTION PUBLIC LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE INSURANCE ON ALL THE
VEHICLES AT THE CONTRACTORS' EXPENSE UP TO A SPECIFIED AMOUNT. 
FINALLY, THE CONTRACTS PROVIDE THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THE HIGHWAYS
BETWEEN ANY OF THE STATIONS BECOME IMPASSABLE THE CONTRACTORS SHALL
IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE RAILROAD SO THAT IT CAN ARRANGE AND SUBSTITUTE
OTHER SERVICE IF IT DESIRES. 

WITH RESPECT TO THESE OPERATIONS, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE
RAILROAD DID NOT OPERATE MOTOR VEHICLES "EITHER AS OWNER OR UNDER LEASE
OR ANY OTHER EQUIVALENT ARRANGEMENT."  THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS WERE
FOUND TO "ESTABLISH THAT THE MOTOR VEHICLES ARE TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE
CONTRACTORS AND OPERATED UNDER THEIR DIRECTION AND CONTROL AND UNDER
THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS WELL AS TO THE SHIPPERS. 
IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT THE MOTOR-VEHICLE OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN AND
ARE THOSE OF OTHERS AS COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN THEIR OWN
RIGHT AND NOT THOSE OF APPLICANT."  THE COMMISSION ACCORDINGLY DENIED
THE RAILROAD'S "GRANDFATHER" APPLICATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED
WITHOUT OPINION THE RAILROAD'S SUIT TO SET ASIDE AND ENJOIN THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, AFTER FINDING THAT THE ORDER WAS LAWFUL AND WAS
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

IN LIGHT OF THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS, HOWEVER, WE HOLD THAT THE
COMMISSION ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE RAILROAD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A
CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  THIS ERROR ARISES
NOT FROM A LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION OR
FROM AN IMPROPER EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION.  RATHER IT IS DUE TO AN
INCORRECT APPLICATION TO THESE FACTS OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND
CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION RELATING TO "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS OF COMMON
CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE. 

UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE OF SEC. 206(A) OF PART II OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY CAN BE AWARDED ONLY TO ONE WHO IS A "COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR
VEHICLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  ORIGINALLY THE TERM "COMMON
CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE" WAS DEFINED TO INCLUDE ANY PERSON WHO
UNDERTAKES, "WHETHER DIRECTLY OR BY A LEASE OR ANY OTHER ARRANGEMENT,"
TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC BY MOTOR
VEHICLE.  FN1  FOR PURPOSES OF CLARITY, HOWEVER, THIS LANGUAGE WAS
STRICKEN AND THE TERM WAS REDEFINED BY CONGRESS IN 1940 TO INCLUDE ANY
PERSON "WHICH HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO ENGAGE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE" OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY.  FN2 

IN ADDITION, AS WE POINTED OUT IN UNITED STATES V. ROSENBLUM TRUCK
LINES, 315 U.S. 50, 53, 54, "WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND TO GRANT MULTIPLE 'GRANDFATHER' RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE."  THUS WHERE A PERSON HOLDS HIMSELF OUT TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC TO ENGAGE IN A SINGLE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, CONSISTING
ENTIRELY OR PARTLY OF MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATIONS, HE IS A "COMMON CARRIER
BY MOTOR VEHICLE" WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE STATUTE.  AND
CONGRESS INTENDED THAT HE ALONE SHOULD RECEIVE "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS ON
THE BASIS OF THAT SINGLE SERVICE UNDER SEC. 206(A) OF THE ACT. 

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS HERE DISCLOSE THAT ONLY THE RAILROAD HOLDS
ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO ENGAGE IN A SINGLE COMPLETE FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO AND FROM ALL POINTS ON ITS LINES.  AS AN
INTEGRAL AND ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS SERVICE TENDERED BY THE RAILROAD,
MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN CERTAIN STATIONS IS PROVIDED.  IT
IS COMPLETELY SYNCHRONIZED WITH THE RAIL SERVICE AND HAS NONE OF THE
ELEMENTS OF AN INDEPENDENT SERVICE OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLE OPERATORS.  THEIR OPERATIONS ARE THE OPERATIONS OFFERED BY THE
RAILROAD AS COMPONENT PARTS, NOT AS SEPARATE OR DISTINCT SEGMENTS, OF
ITS SINGLE SERVICE.  THEY MAY BE REPLACED OR ELIMINATED AT THE SOLE
DISCRETION OF THE RAILROAD. 

THE RAILROAD, FURTHERMORE, IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING THIS
SINGLE COORDINATED SERVICE.  AS TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATIONS
SUPPLEMENTING ITS RAIL SERVICE, IT IS NOT A MERE FREIGHT BROKER OR
FORWARDER.  CF. ACME FAST FREIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 30 F.SUPP.  968,
AFFIRMED 309 U.S. 638; O'MALLEY V. UNITED STATES, 38 F.SUPP.  1; MOORE
V. UNITED STATES, 41 F.SUPP.  786, AFFIRMED 316 U.S. 642.  NOR CAN IT
BE DESCRIBED AS THE CONSIGNOR OR CONSIGNEE OF THE FREIGHT SO
TRANSPORTED BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  CF. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 243 U.S. 444.  THE PROVISIONS AND ACTUAL OPERATION OF THE
CONTRACTS WITH THE OPERATORS DEMONSTRATE THE RAILROAD'S RIGID CONTROL
OVER THE MOVEMENT OF THE FREIGHT AND ITS RETENTION OF FULL
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE SHIPPERS.  THE OPERATORS ARE "INDEPENDENT" ONLY
BY GRACE OF CONTRACT NOMENCLATURE.  BY ANY REALISTIC TEST THEY ARE MERE
AIDS IN CARRYING OUT A PART OF THE RAILROAD'S COORDINATED RAIL-MOTOR
FREIGHT SERVICE. 

THUS THE RAILROAD CLEARLY IS UNDERTAKING TO TRANSPORT FREIGHT BY AN
"OTHER ARRANGEMENT," AS THOSE WORDS ARE USED IN THE ORIGINAL STATUTORY
DEFINITION OF "COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE."  CF. CHAIRMAN
EASTMAN'S CONCURRING OPINION IN MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. COMMON CARRIER
APPLICATION, 22 M.C.C. 321, 333.  EVEN MORE CLEARLY, UNDER THE AMENDED
DEFINITION, THE RAILROAD IS HOLDING ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO
ENGAGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PART OF ITS
COORDINATED RAIL-MOTOR FREIGHT SERVICE.  IN SHORT, IT IS A COMMON
CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  AND THE
APPLICATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION NOT TO GRANT MULTIPLE
"GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS IN SUCH A SITUATION BECOMES CLEAR.  THE RAILROAD
ALONE IS ENTITLED TO COMMON CARRIER "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS AS TO THE
MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE FORMING AN INTEGRAL PART OF ITS UNIFIED FREIGHT
SERVICE.  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD AUTHORIZE THE WHOLESALE GRANTING
OF TWENTY-THREE "GRANDFATHER" PERMITS TO THE VARIOUS MOTOR VEHICLE
OPERATORS ON THE BASIS OF THIS SINGLE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OFFERED BY
THE RAILROAD - A RESULT WHICH ASCRIBES TO CONGRESS "AN INTENT
INCOMPATIBLE WITH ITS PURPOSE OF REGULATION."  UNITED STATES V.
ROSENBLUM TRUCK LINES, SUPRA, 54.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THESE
OPERATORS ARE ENTITLED TO "GRANDFATHER" PERMITS AS TO OTHER FREIGHT
TRANSPORTED OVER THEIR ROUTES.  BUT ONLY THE RAILROAD ACQUIRED
"GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS AS TO THE FREIGHT WHICH THEY TRANSPORT AS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE RAILROAD'S COORDINATED RAIL-MOTOR SERVICE. 

THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ONLY ONE CERTIFICATE CAN BE
GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND THAT THE
"COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE" ENTITLED TO THE CERTIFICATE IS THE
ONE WHO EXERCISES DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATIONS
AND ASSUMES FULL RESPONSIBILITY THEREFOR BOTH TO SHIPPERS AND THE
GENERAL PUBLIC.  THIS SO-CALLED "CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY" TEST,
HOWEVER, IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE ONLY INSOFAR AS IT AIDS IN
DETERMINING THE PERSON OFFERING AND ENGAGING IN THE SINGLE COORDINATED
RAIL-MOTOR FREIGHT SERVICE.  TO THE EXTENT THAT IT LEADS TO A RESULT
DIFFERENT FROM THAT REACHED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS AND THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT WHICH WE HAVE INDICATED, IT
MUST BE DISAPPROVED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED.  THE CASE IS REMANDED TO
THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND IT TO THE COMMISSION FOR SUCH
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION, AS MAY BE
APPROPRIATE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 203(A)(14) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 543,
544. 

FN2  SEC. 203(A)(14) AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54
STAT. 898, 920.  NO CHANGE IN THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WITH RESPECT TO
THE DEFINITION OF COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE OF THE TYPE INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE WAS EVIDENCED BY THIS AMENDMENT.  SEE 86 CONG. REC.
11546. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING:    ONE WHO ARRANGES FOR ANOTHER TO DO SOME HAULING FOR HIM
MAY OR MAY NOT ENTER THE HAULING BUSINESS.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
ONE OR THE OTHER IS THE ENTREPRENEUR HAS OCCUPIED THE COURTS FROM AN
EARLY DAY.  HOLMES, AGENCY (1891), 5 HARV. L. REV. 1, 15-16.  THE
COMMISSION HAS DRAWN UPON THAT BODY OF LAW CONCERNING INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER IN CASE OF LINE-HAUL
TRANSPORTATION THE CARRIER DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THE SHIPPER OR THE ONE
PERFORMING THE ACTUAL MOTOR TRANSPORTATION WAS THE COMMON CARRIER
ENTITLED TO GRANDFATHER RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT.  THAT IS TO SAY IT HAS
HELD, AND CONSISTENTLY SO, THAT THE CARRIER WHICH EXERCISED DIRECTION
AND CONTROL OF THE ACTUAL MOTORVEHICLE OPERATIONS AND ASSUMED
RESPONSIBILITY THEREFOR TO SHIPPERS AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC WAS THE
ONE WHO WAS IN "OPERATION" DURING THE SPECIFIED PERIOD AS A "COMMON
CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE.  SEC. 206(A).  THAT TEST HAS BEEN APPLIED WHETHER THE CARRIER
DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THE SHIPPERS WAS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR
VEHICLE (DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO., 17 M.C.C. 735, 738-741; J. T.
O'MALLEY, 23 M.C.C. 276, 279) OR A COMMON CARRIER BY RAIL.  WILLETT
COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC., 21 M.C.C. 405, 408; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO.,
22 M.C.C. 321, 326-327.  IT HAS BEEN APPLIED AFTER AS WELL AS BEFORE
THE 1940 AMENDMENT.  FN1  BOSTON & MAINE TRANSPORTATION CO., 30 M.C.C.
697, 704-705.  AND IN APPLYING THE TEST TO RAILROAD APPLICANTS IT HAS
PLACED THEM ON A PARITY WITH MOTOR VEHICLE APPLICANTS.  BOSTON & MAINE
TRANSPORTATION CO., SUPRA.  AND SEE CROOKS TERMINAL WAREHOUSE, 34
M.C.C. 679.  THERE HAVE BEEN DISAGREEMENTS WITHIN THE COMMISSION
WHETHER PARTICULAR APPLICANTS SATISFY THE TEST.  MISSOURI PACIFIC R.
CO., SUPRA; BOSTON & MAINE TRANSPORTATION CO., SUPRA.  BUT THERE HAS
BEEN NO DISAGREEMENT OVER THE PROPRIETY OF THE CONTROL AND
RESPONSIBILITY TEST ITSELF. 

THE CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY TEST PROVIDES A FAIR MEASURE OF THE
GRANDFATHER RIGHTS.  HE WHO SHOWS THAT HE HAS BEEN AND IS AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR HAS ESTABLISHED HIS CLAIM TO THE TRANSPORTATION
BUSINESS AS CLEARLY AS ANY CONNECTING CARRIER.  THE FACT THAT THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OFFERED IS CLOSELY INTEGRATED AND HELD OUT TO
THE PUBLIC AS SUCH DOES NOT MEAN THAT SEGMENTS OF THE LINE-HAUL
OPERATION MAY NOT COMPRISE SEPARATE ENTERPRISES.  TO ATTACH GRANDFATHER
RIGHTS TO THE SEPARATE SEGMENTS IS NOT TO GRANT MULTIPLE RIGHTS.  IT IS
TO ALLOW THOSE RIGHTS TO FOLLOW OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTERPRISE.  I SEE NO
OTHER WAY TO EFFECTUATE THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF PRESERVING THROUGH
THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE THE POSITION WHICH MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS
"STRUGGLED TO OBTAIN IN OUR NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM."  UNITED
STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475, 488.  TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESENT ARRANGEMENT IS A MERE AGENCY IS TO DISAGREE
WITH THE COMMISSION IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE CONTROL AND
RESPONSIBILITY TEST.  TO REST GRANDFATHER RIGHTS ON THE INTEGRATED
RAILMOTOR SERVICE WHICH APPELLANT OFFERS THE PUBLIC IS TO GRANT IT
RIGHTS BASED ON ANOTHER MAN'S BUSINESS.  TO GRANT APPELLANT THESE
GRANDFATHER RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF A HOLDING OUT IS TO GIVE TO THE 1940
AMENDMENT AN EFFECT WHICH CONGRESS CONCEDEDLY DID NOT INTEND.  FN2  I
DO NOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO PUT APPLICANTS SUCH AS
APPELLANT IN A PREFERRED POSITION. 

SINCE THERE IS CONCEDEDLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS
OF THE COMMISSION ON THE CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY TEST, I WOULD
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

FN1  SEE NOTE 2, INFRA. 

FN2  PRIOR TO 1940 THE ACT DEFINED "COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE"
AS ONE WHO "UNDERTAKES, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR BY A LEASE OR ANY OTHER
ARRANGEMENT, TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY," ETC. SEC.
203(A)(14).  THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 AMENDED THAT DEFINITION. 
IT PROVIDED, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, THAT A "COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR
VEHICLE" WAS "ANY PERSON WHICH HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
TO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY."  AS THE OPINION OF THE
COURT STATES, THAT AMENDMENT MADE NO CHANGE AS RESPECTS COMMON CARRIERS
OF THE TYPE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  IT HAD THE "SOLE PURPOSE OF
ELIMINATING CARRIERS PERFORMING PICK-UP, DELIVERY, AND TRANSFER
SERVICE."  86 CONG. REC. 11546.  AND SEE BOSTON & MAINE TRANSPORTATION
CO., SUPRA, 703-705.  THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE CONTAINED IN SEC. 206(A)
PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE WITHOUT PROOF OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, IF THE CARRIER "WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION
AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE 1, 1935, OVER THE ROUTE OR
ROUTES OR WITHIN THE TERRITORY FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE AND HAS SO
OPERATED SINCE THAT TIME." 

THUS AFTER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE 1940 AMENDMENT THE BASIC QUESTION IN
THIS TYPE OF CASE WAS WHETHER THE CONNECTING CARRIER WAS IN "BONA FIDE
OPERATION" AS SUCH A CARRIER.  IF IT WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IT
WAS ENGAGED IN SUCH "OPERATION"; IF IT WAS PERFORMING A TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE AS A MERE AGENT FOR THE CARRIER WITH WHOM THE SHIPPER DEALT, IT
WAS NOT.  BOSTON & MAINE TRANSPORTATION CO., SUPRA.
..END :














TENNANT V. PEORIA & P.U. RY. CO., 321 U.S. 29 


NO. 94.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1944.  - 134
F.2D 860, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO RECOVER
FOR THE DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY
COULD REASONABLY INFER THAT FAILURE TO RING THE BELL BEFORE STARTING
THE LOCOMOTIVE WAS NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT AND THAT THAT NEGLIGENCE
WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DEATH; AND A JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT
NOTWITHSTANDING A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF DEPRIVED THE LATTER OF THE
RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.  P. 33. 

2.  A COURT IS NOT FREE TO REWEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND SET ASIDE THE
JURY VERDICT MERELY BECAUSE THE JURY COULD HAVE DRAWN DIFFERENT
INFERENCES OR CONCLUSIONS, OR BECAUSE THE COURT REGARDS ANOTHER RESULT
AS MORE REASONABLE.  P. 35. 

TENNANT, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. PEORIA & PEKIN UNION RAILWAY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 721, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS INSTITUTED BY PETITIONER, WHO IS THE ADMINISTRATRIX
OF THE ESTATE AND THE WIDOW OF THE DECEASED HAROLD C. TENNANT, UNDER
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FN1  RECOVERY WAS SOUGHT FOR THE
ALLEGED WRONGFUL DEATH OF TENNANT DURING THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT
AS A MEMBER OF A SWITCHING CREW IN ONE OF RESPONDENT'S RAILROAD
SWITCHING YARDS.  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO A JURY, WHICH RETURNED A
VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER AND AWARDED HER DAMAGES OF $26,250.  THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  ON APPEAL BY RESPONDENT,
THE COURT BELOW REVERSED THIS JUDGMENT AFTER FINDING THAT, WHILE THERE
WAS EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE BY RESPONDENT, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL
PROOF THAT THIS NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF TENNANT'S DEATH. 
134 F.2D 860.  IT HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED A
VERDICT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT OR ALLOWED ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
IMPORTANT PROBLEMS AS TO PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO A JURY DETERMINATION OF
THE ISSUE OF CAUSATION. 

TENNANT WAS EMPLOYED AS A SWITCHMAN IN THE "B" YARD OF RESPONDENT'S
SWITCHING YARDS IN EAST PEORIA, ILLINOIS.  HE HAD WORKED THERE FOR
SEVERAL YEARS AND HAD BEEN ATTACHED TO THE PARTICULAR FIVE-MAN
SWITCHING CREW FOR SEVERAL MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FATAL ACCIDENT.  ON THE
NIGHT OF JULY 12, 1940, THIS CREW WAS ENGAGED IN ONE OF ITS NIGHTLY
TASKS OF COUPLING FREIGHT CARS AND REMOVING THEM FROM TRACK B-28.  THE
ELECTRIC DIESEL ENGINE USED BY THE CREW WAS BROUGHT DOWN FROM THE NORTH
THROUGH DIVIDE SWITCH B-28 AND ONTO TRACK B-28, WHICH EXTENDED STRAIGHT
NORTH AND SOUTH.  THE FRONT OR PILOT END OF THE ENGINE WAS HEADED
SOUTH.  THERE WERE ABOUT TWENTY CARS IN VARIOUS GROUPS ON TRACK B-28 AT
THAT TIME; THEY WERE TO BE COUPLED TOGETHER AND MOVED NORTHWARD OUT OF
TRACK B-28 TO OTHER LOCATIONS. 

IN THE COURSE OF THESE COUPLING OPERATIONS, THE ENGINE STOPPED AND
STARTED SIX OR EIGHT TIMES, GRADUALLY MOVING SOUTHWARD.  AFTER ALL
TWENTY CARS HAD BEEN COUPLED, THE ENGINE REMAINED STATIONARY FOR FIVE
OR TEN MINUTES BEFORE THE ENGINEER RECEIVED THE BACK-UP SIGNAL FROM
HARKLESS, THE FOREMAN.  THE ENGINEER TESTIFIED THAT THE ENGINE AT THIS
POINT WAS STANDING ABOUT FIVE OR SIX CAR LENGTHS SOUTH OF SWITCH B-28,
A CAR LENGTH APPROXIMATING FORTY FEET.  THERE WAS OTHER TESTIMONY,
HOWEVER, INDICATING THAT THE ENGINE WAS SEVEN OR EIGHT CAR LENGTHS
SOUTH OF THE SWITCH.  WHILE THUS WAITING FOR THE BACK-UP SIGNAL, THE
ENGINEER SAW TENNANT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ENGINE PLACING HIS
RAINCOAT IN A CLOTHES COMPARTMENT BENEATH THE CAB WINDOW.  AFTER
PUTTING ON A CAP AND JACKET HE WALKED AROUND THE NORTH OR REAR END OF
THE ENGINE AND WAS NEVER SEEN ALIVE AFTER THAT. 

THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE AS TO TENNANT'S PRECISE LOCATION AT THE
MOMENT HE WAS KILLED.  THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT HE
NEVER WALKED BACK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ENGINE.  IT WAS HIS DUTY AS A
SWITCHMAN OR PIN-PULLER TO STAY AHEAD OF THE ENGINE AS IT MOVED BACK
OUT OF TRACK B-28, PROTECT IT FROM OTHER TRAIN MOVEMENTS, AND ATTEND TO
THE SWITCHES. 

THE ENGINE THEN PULLED THE TWENTY CARS OUT OF TRACK B-28.  THE FACT
THAT TENNANT WAS MISSING WAS FIRST NOTICED WHEN THE ENGINE REACHED A
POINT SOME DISTANCE NORTH OF SWITCH B-28.  AN INVESTIGATION REVEALED
BLOOD MARKS ON THE WEST RAIL OF TRACK B-28 SOME 315 FEET, OR ABOUT
SEVEN OR EIGHT CAR LENGTHS, SOUTH OF SWITCH B-28.  THERE WAS A POOL OF
BLOOD A FOOT AND A HALF NORTH OF THOSE MARKS; NEAR BY, BETWEEN THE
RAILS, WERE TENNANT'S RIGHT HAND, HIS CAP AND HIS LIGHTED LANTERN.  HIS
BODY WAS FOUND AT SWITCH B-28, WHILE HIS HEAD WAS DISCOVERED ABOUT
FOURTEEN CAR LENGTHS NORTH AND WEST OF THAT SWITCH.  AN EXAMINATION OF
THE ENGINE AND CARS DISCLOSED ONLY A TINY BIT OF FLESH ON THE OUTSIDE
RIM OF THE NORTH WHEEL OF THE THIRD CAR FROM THE ENGINE.  THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE OF HIS HAVING SLIPPED OR FALLEN FROM ANY PART OF THE ENGINE OR
CARS. 

THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THE ALLEGATION THAT TENNANT'S
DEATH RESULTED FROM RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE, IN THAT ITS ENGINEER
BACKED THE ENGINE AND CARS NORTHWARD OUT OF TRACK B-28 WITHOUT FIRST
RINGING THE ENGINE BELL.  THE FAILURE TO RING THE BELL, WHICH WAS NOT
DISPUTED, WAS ALLEGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 30 OF RESPONDENT'S
RULES FOR ITS EMPLOYEES.  THIS RULE PROVIDES THAT "THE ENGINE BELL MUST
BE RUNG WHEN AN ENGINE IS ABOUT TO MOVE AND WHILE APPROACHING AND
PASSING PUBLIC CROSSINGS AT GRADES, AND TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS."  THERE
WAS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER THIS RULE WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREW MEMBERS WHO PRESUMABLY WERE AWARE OF SWITCHING OPERATIONS AND AS
TO WHETHER IT WAS A CUSTOMARY PRACTICE FOR THE BELL TO BE RUNG UNDER
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN ADDITION, RESPONDENT PLACED GREAT RELIANCE ON
THE PROVISION OF RULE 32 THAT "THE UNNECESSARY USE OF EITHER THE
WHISTLE OR THE BELL IS PROHIBITED."  THIS WAS SAID TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
THE BELL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RUNG ON THIS OCCASION. 

IN ORDER TO RECOVER UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, IT
WAS INCUMBENT UPON PETITIONER TO PROVE THAT RESPONDENT WAS NEGLIGENT
AND THAT SUCH NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF
THE FATAL ACCIDENT.  TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54,
67.  PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO PRESENT PROBATIVE FACTS FROM WHICH THE
NEGLIGENCE AND THE CAUSAL RELATION COULD REASONABLY BE INFERRED.  "THE
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT IS THAT MERE SPECULATION BE NOT ALLOWED TO DO
DUTY FOR PROBATIVE FACTS, AFTER MAKING DUE ALLOWANCE FOR ALL REASONABLY
POSSIBLE INFERENCES FAVORING THE PARTY WHOSE CASE IS ATTACKED." 
GALLOWAY V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 372, 395; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY.
CO. V. TOOPS, 281 U.S. 351.  IF THAT REQUIREMENT IS MET, AS WE BELIEVE
IT WAS IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUES MAY PROPERLY BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY. 
NO COURT IS THEN JUSTIFIED IN SUBSTITUTING ITS CONCLUSIONS FOR THOSE OF
THE TWELVE JURORS. 

AS TO THE PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY HELD THAT IT
WAS SUFFICIENT TO PRESENT A JURY QUESTION.  IN VIEW OF RESPONDENT'S OWN
RULE THAT A BELL MUST BE RUNG "WHEN AN ENGINE IS ABOUT TO MOVE," IT WAS
NOT UNREASONABLE FOR THE JURY TO CONCLUDE THAT THE FAILURE TO RING THE
BELL UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE.  THIS WAS NOT AN
OPERATION WHERE BELL RINGING MIGHT BE TERMED UNNECESSARY OR
INDISCRIMINATE AS A MATTER OF LAW.  CF. AERKFETZ V. HUMPHREYS, 145 U.S.
418, 420; TOLEDO, ST. L. & W.R. CO. V. ALLEN, 276 U.S. 165, 171.  THE
ENGINE HAD REMAINED STATIONARY FOR SEVERAL MINUTES, DURING WHICH THE
ENGINEER SAW TENNANT DISAPPEAR IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SUBSEQUENT
ENGINE MOVEMENT.  STILL NOT KNOWING THE PRECISE WHEREABOUTS OF TENNANT,
THE ENGINEER THEN CAUSED THE ENGINE AND CARS TO MAKE AN EXTENDED
BACKWARD MOVEMENT.  SUCH A MOVEMENT, WITHOUT A WARNING, WAS CLEARLY
DANGEROUS TO LIFE AND LIMB.  NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. MARCONE, 281
U.S. 345, 349.  THERE WAS AMPLE THOUGH CONFLICTING EVIDENCE THAT
RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN RULE, AS WELL AS THE PRACTICE AND CUSTOM, REQUIRED
THE RINGING OF THE ENGINE BELL IN JUST SUCH A SITUATION.  WE CANNOT
SAY, THEREFORE, THAT THE JURY'S CONCURRENCE IN THAT VIEW WAS
UNJUSTIFIED. 

THE COURT BELOW ERRED, HOWEVER, IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT PROOF TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE THAT RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE IN
FAILING TO RING THE BELL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF TENNANT'S DEATH. 
THE ABSENCE OF EYE WITNESSES WAS NOT DECISIVE.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY
THAT HIS DUTIES INCLUDED STAYING NEAR THE NORTH OR REAR END OF THE
ENGINE AS IT MADE ITS BACKWARD MOVEMENT OUT OF TRACK B-28.  THE
LOCATION OF HIS SEVERED HAND, CAP, LANTERN AND THE POOL OF BLOOD WAS
STRONG EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS KILLED APPROXIMATELY AT THE POINT WHERE THE
ENGINE BEGAN THIS BACKWARD MOVEMENT AND WHERE HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN
LOCATED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.  TO THIS EVIDENCE MUST BE
ADDED THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DECEASED WAS ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THOSE DUTIES AND EXERCISED DUE CARE FOR HIS OWN SAFETY
AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.  LOONEY V. METROPOLITAN R. CO., 200 U.S. 480,
488; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. TOOPS, SUPRA, 356; NEW AETNA
PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. HATT, 231 F. 611, 617.  IN ADDITION, THE
EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE RULE AND CUSTOM OF RINGING A BELL "WHEN AN
ENGINE IS ABOUT TO MOVE" WARRANTED A FINDING THAT TENNANT WAS ENTITLED
TO RELY ON SUCH A WARNING UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE ULTIMATE
INFERENCE THAT TENNANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN KILLED BUT FOR THE FAILURE
TO WARN HIM IS THEREFORE SUPPORTABLE.  THE RINGING OF THE BELL MIGHT
WELL HAVE SAVED HIS LIFE.  THE JURY COULD THUS FIND THAT RESPONDENT WAS
LIABLE "FOR ...  DEATH RESULTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE
NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE  ...  EMPLOYEES."  FN2 

IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE THE JURY'S
INFERENCE AS TO CAUSATION, THE COURT BELOW EMPHASIZED OTHER INFERENCES
WHICH ARE SUGGESTED BY THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.  THUS IT WAS SAID TO
BE UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT TENNANT WAS STANDING ON THE TRACK NORTH
OF THE ENGINE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.  IT SEEMED MORE
PROBABLE TO THE COURT THAT HE SEATED HIMSELF ON THE FOOTBOARD OF THE
ENGINE AND FELL ASLEEP.  OR HE MAY HAVE WALKED BACK UNNOTICED TO A
POINT SOUTH OF THE ENGINE AND BEEN KILLED WHILE TRYING TO CLIMB THROUGH
THE CARS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACK.  THESE AND OTHER POSSIBILITIES
SUGGESTED BY DILIGENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ALL SUFFER FROM THE SAME
LACK OF DIRECT PROOF AS CHARACTERIZES THE ONE ADOPTED BY THE JURY.  BUT
TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY INVOLVE A DISOBEDIENCE OF DUTY BY TENNANT NO
PRESUMPTION IN THEIR FAVOR EXISTS.  NOR CAN ANY POSSIBLE ASSUMPTION OF
RISK OR CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON TENNANT'S PART BE PRESUMED IN ORDER
TO NEGATE AN INFERENCE THAT DEATH WAS DUE TO RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE. 

IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF A COURT TO SEARCH THE RECORD FOR
CONFLICTING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO TAKE THE CASE AWAY FROM
THE JURY ON A THEORY THAT THE PROOF GIVES EQUAL SUPPORT TO INCONSISTENT
AND UNCERTAIN INFERENCES.  THE FOCAL POINT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IS THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE PARTICULAR INFERENCE OR CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE
JURY.  IT IS THE JURY, NOT THE COURT, WHICH IS THE FACT-FINDING BODY. 
IT WEIGHS THE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE AND INFERENCES, JUDGES THE
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, RECEIVES EXPERT INSTRUCTIONS, AND DRAWS THE
ULTIMATE CONCLUSION AS TO THE FACTS.  THE VERY ESSENCE OF ITS FUNCTION
IS TO SELECT FROM AMONG CONFLICTING INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS THAT
WHICH IT CONSIDERS MOST REASONABLE.  WASHINGTON & GEORGETOWN R. CO. V.
MCDADE, 135 U.S. 554, 571, 572; TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.,
SUPRA, 68; BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT RY., 319 U.S. 350,353,354.  THAT
CONCLUSION, WHETHER IT RELATES TO NEGLIGENCE, CAUSATION OR ANY OTHER
FACTUAL MATTER, CANNOT BE IGNORED.  COURTS ARE NOT FREE TO REWEIGH THE
EVIDENCE AND SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT MERELY BECAUSE THE JURY COULD
HAVE DRAWN DIFFERENT INFERENCES OR CONCLUSIONS OR BECAUSE JUDGES FEEL
THAT OTHER RESULTS ARE MORE REASONABLE. 

UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE INFERENCE
DRAWN BY THIS JURY THAT RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE CAUSED THE FATAL
ACCIDENT IS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  THUS TO ENTER A JUDGMENT
FOR RESPONDENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT IS TO DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF
THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.  NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY WE SHOULD
ABDICATE OUR DUTY TO PROTECT AND GUARD THAT RIGHT IN THIS CASE.  WE
ACCORDINGLY REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW AND REMAND THE CASE
TO IT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED; 36 STAT. 291; 53 STAT. 1404; 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 51. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR IN THE
RESULT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :





DEMOREST V. CITY BANK CO., 321 U.S. 36 


ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1944.  - 289 N.Y. 423,
46 N.E.2D 501, AFFIRMED.  - 290 N.Y. 885, 50 N.E.2D 293, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SUBDIVISION 2 OF SEC. 17-C OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK WHICH, WHERE THERE IS NO EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE
WILL OR TRUST, IN RESPECT OF SALVAGE OPERATIONS (UNCOMPLETED AT THE
DATE OF THE ENACTMENT) OF MORTGAGED PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY A TRUSTEE BY
FORECLOSURE OR BY DEED IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE, PRESCRIBES A RULE FOR
APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROCEEDS BETWEEN LIFE TENANT AND REMAINDERMAN,
HELD - AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF REMAINDERMEN THAT THE STATUTE DEPRIVES
THEM OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN THAT THE STATUTORY RULE
IS LESS FAVORABLE TO REMAINDER INTERESTS THAN WERE RULES THERETOFORE
EXISTING - NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 48. 

2.  DECISIONS OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT
OF SUBDIVISION 2 OF SEC. 17-C, HELD NOT TO HAVE ESTABLISHED A RULE OF
PROPERTY WHEREBY THE REMAINDERMEN HERE ACQUIRED ANY VESTED RIGHTS.  P.
42. 

DEMOREST ET AL. V. CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, ET AL. 

NO. 52.  APPEAL FROM THE SURROGATE'S COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW
YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 227, DYETT, SPECIAL GUARDIAN, V. TITLE GUARANTEE &
TRUST CO. ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SURROGATE'S COURT OF NEW YORK
COUNTY, NEW YORK. 

APPEALS FROM DECREES, ENTERED ON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF NEW YORK, WHICH SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUBDIVISION 2 OF
SEC. 17-C OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS IN THESE TWO CASES CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
SUBDIVISION 2 OF SEC. 17-C OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY LAW OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, APPROVED APRIL 13, 1940.  FN1  BECAUSE OF RETROACTIVITY IT IS
SAID TO OFFEND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION BY TAKING FOR BENEFIT OF INCOME BENEFICIARIES
PROPERTY TO WHICH THE APPELLANTS AS BENEFICIARIES OF PRINCIPAL CLAIM
VESTED RIGHTS.  IT IS ASSERTED, ALSO, TO DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS. 

THE FACTS IN NO. 52 ARE THESE:  HENRY WEST DIED IN 1934.  HIS WILL,
SO FAR AS CONCERNS US, LEFT A RESIDUARY ESTATE IN TRUST.  NET INCOME
LESS CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO A BROTHER WAS GIVEN TO HIS WIFE DURING HER
LIFE OR WIDOWHOOD.  THEREAFTER, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN FURTHER TRUSTS, THE
RESIDUE WAS TO GO TO CONTINGENT REMAINDERMEN, AMONG WHOM ARE THE
APPELLANTS. 

AT DEATH WEST OWNED A NUMBER OF MORTGAGES.  OWING TO DEFAULTS, TITLES
TO NINE OF THE UNDERLYING PROPERTIES WERE ACQUIRED EITHER BY
FORECLOSURE SALE OR BY DEED IN LIEU THEREOF, AND HELD IN SEPARATE
ACCOUNTS AS ASSETS OF THE TRUST.  THE TRUSTEE'S ACCOUNTING DISCLOSED
THAT TWO SUCH SALVAGE OPERATIONS WERE COMPLETED BY SALE OF THE
PROPERTIES PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 17-C OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY
LAW.  NO DISTRIBUTION HAD BEEN MADE OF THE PROCEEDS.  OBJECTIONS ON
BEHALF OF REMAINDERMEN QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AS
APPLIED TO APPORTIONING SUCH PROCEEDS BETWEEN INCOME AND PRINCIPAL. 
SURROGATE FOLEY, HOWEVER, UPHELD THE STATUTE AND RESOLVED THE
APPORTIONMENT UNDER ITS TERMS.  HIS DECREE WAS UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED BY
THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT AND THEREAFTER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, TWO
JUDGES DISSENTING.  MATTER OF WEST, 289 N.Y. 423, 46 N.E.2D 501.  THE
CASE IS BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL. 

IN NO. 227, AUGUSTE SCHNITZLER DIED IN 1930, LEAVING A WILL WHICH PUT
HER RESIDUARY ESTATE IN TRUST WITH THE INCOME PAYABLE TO A SISTER FOR
LIFE.  THE INCOME BENEFICIARY DIED IN 1939.  SALVAGE OPERATIONS HAD
BEGUN IN THE LIFETIME OF THE BENEFICIARY AND WERE COMPLETED AFTER HER
DEATH.  SURROGATE DELEHANTY FOUND THAT OPERATION OF THE STATUTE
"RESULTED OVER THE WHOLE SALVAGE PERIOD IN TAKING FOR INCOME ACCOUNT
MORE THAN THE WHOLE OF WHAT THE PROPERTY EARNED IN THAT PERIOD.  THE
DEFICIT IN SO-CALLED 'INCOME' WAS MADE UP BY TAKING PRINCIPAL, OF
COURSE."  HE CONSIDERED THE RESULT "STARTLING" BUT SETTLED THE ACCOUNTS
UNDER THE STATUTE, LEAVING ITS VALIDITY TO BE DETERMINED BY APPELLATE
COURTS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION ON THE AUTHORITY
OF MATTER OF WEST AND THE CASE COMES HERE BY APPEAL. 

THE GRIEVANCE OF REMAINDERMEN IN THESE CASES IS NOT THAT THEY HAVE
SUFFERED LOSS OR DEPRIVATION OF ANY SPECIFIC PROPERTY TO WHICH THEY HAD
LEGAL TITLE.  UNDER THE LAW OF NEW YORK THE WHOLE LEGAL ESTATE VESTS IN
THE TRUSTEE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TRUST,  FN2  INCLUDING TITLE TO
MORTGAGES AND TO REAL ESTATE ACQUIRED UPON OR IN LIEU OF THEIR
FORECLOSURE, WHICH BECOMES PERSONALTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. 
FN3  WHERE THE INSTRUMENT CREATING THE TRUST DIRECTS PAYMENT OF INCOME
TO ONE SET OF BENEFICIARIES AND CORPUS TO ANOTHER, ALLOCATION OF
RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS AS BETWEEN CAPITAL AND INCOME IS SOMETIMES
ATTENDED WITH DIFFICULTY.  MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS MAY BE IMPERILED BY
DEFAULT IN INTEREST ONLY, OR PAYMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ALONE, OR OF BOTH,
BUT IN EITHER EVENT BOTH INCOME AND CAPITAL INTERESTS REQUIRE
PROTECTION.  ADVANCEMENTS OFTEN MUST BE MADE TO REMOVE TAX LIENS OR
OTHER PRIOR CHARGES, PAY COSTS OF FORECLOSURE, MAKE PROPERTY
TENANTABLE, OR TAKE CARE OF OPERATING LOSSES, WATCHMEN, OR INSURANCE. 
ON FINAL SALE THE PRICE, TOGETHER WITH RENTALS, MAY LEAVE EITHER A LOSS
OR A PROFIT, AND TO FOREGO INCOME FOR A PERIOD MAY RESULT IN A BETTER
SALE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET.  THE VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
TRUSTEES ARE CALLED UPON TO ALLOCATE ITEMS BETWEEN CAPITAL AND INCOME
ARE INNUMERABLE IN SALVAGE OPERATIONS, THE WILL RARELY PROVIDES
GUIDANCE, AND THE WISEST AND MOST FAITHFUL TRUSTEE IS UNABLE TO DRAW
THE LINE WITH ANY GREAT ASSURANCE.  EITHER THE INCOME BENEFICIARY OR
THE REMAINDERMEN MAY CHALLENGE HIS ACCOUNTS, FOR THEY HAVE EQUITABLE
INTERESTS WHICH CHANCERY WILL ENFORCE THAT THE TRUST BE ADMINISTERED
DILIGENTLY AND FAITHFULLY ACCORDING TO THE WILL AND THE LAW.  THE FLOOD
OF ISSUES AS TO ALLOTMENT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS TO CAPITAL OR
INCOME ACCOUNT, FOLLOWING THE DEPRESSION, LED THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY THE CHANCERY RULES ON THE SUBJECT FOR BETTER
GUIDANCE OF TRUSTEES AND THE COURTS THAT SUPERVISE THEM.  FN4  WHEN
THIS WAS ONLY PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL, THE PROBLEM OF CLARIFICATION WAS
CARRIED FURTHER BY LEGISLATION.  THE REMAINDERMEN CLAIM AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF THEIR PROPERTY RESULTS FROM THIS LEGISLATIVE
ENACTMENT OF RULES FOR DISTRIBUTION AS BETWEEN INCOME AND CAPITAL
BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST PROPERTY INVOLVED IN SALVAGE OPERATIONS, BECAUSE
THEY ARE LESS FAVORABLE TO THE REMAINDER INTERESTS IN THESE CASES THAN
THE RULES THEY CLAIM OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE APPLIED. 

APPELLANTS' CONTENTION IS THAT THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
ESTABLISHED A RULE OF APPORTIONMENT OF PROCEEDS OF SALVAGE OPERATIONS
OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY AS BETWEEN INCOME AND PRINCIPAL WHICH BECAME A
SETTLED RULE OF PROPERTY UNDER WHICH PROPERTY RIGHTS VESTED IN THEM
PRIOR TO ACCOUNTING BY THE TRUSTEES.  THIS, THEY SAY, WAS ACCOMPLISHED
BY THE DECISIONS IN MATTER OF CHAPAL, 269 N.Y. 464, 199 N.E. 762(1936),
AND MATTER OF OTIS, 276 N.Y. 101, 11 N.E.2D 556(1937).  THE COURT OF
APPEALS, HOWEVER, IN ONE OF THE PRESENT CASES HOLDS TO THE CONTRARY,
SAYING THAT THOSE OPINIONS REPRESENT TENTATIVE JUDICIAL EFFORTS TO
GUIDE THE DISCRETION OF TRUSTEES; THAT THEY DID NOT ESTABLISH RULES OF
PROPERTY; AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE APPEARS TO HAVE DONE NO MORE THAN TO
DIRECT TRUSTEES TO DO WHAT THEY ALREADY HAD DISCRETION TO DO, IN WHICH
CASE REMAINDERMEN COULD NOT HAVE INSISTED UPON THEIR BEING SURCHARGED
UNDER THE LAW BEFORE THE ENACTMENT. 

IN THUS REJECTING APPELLANTS' VERSION OF ITS PREVIOUS DECISIONS THE
COURT OF APPEALS DISPOSED OF THEIR CASES ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANTS
HAVE NEVER POSSESSED UNDER NEW YORK LAW SUCH A PROPERTY RIGHT AS THEY
CLAIM HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THEM.  IF THIS IS THE CASE, APPELLANTS HAVE
NO QUESTION FOR US UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT AS TO ITS PROVINCE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUMMARIZED IN BROAD
RIVER POWER CO. V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 281 U.S. 537, 540, AS FOLLOWS:
"WHETHER THE STATE COURT HAS DENIED TO RIGHTS ASSERTED UNDER LOCAL LAW
THE PROTECTION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES IS A QUESTION UPON
WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
COURT.  EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION INVOKED BE DENIED ON
NON-FEDERAL GROUNDS, IT IS THE PROVINCE OF THIS COURT TO INQUIRE
WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT RESTS UPON A FAIR OR
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS.  IF UNSUBSTANTIAL, CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS MAY
NOT BE THUS EVADED.  BUT IF THERE IS NO EVASION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE, AND THE NON-FEDERAL GROUND OF DECISION HAS FAIR SUPPORT, THIS
COURT WILL NOT INQUIRE WHETHER THE RULE APPLIED BY THE STATE COURT IS
RIGHT OR WRONG, OR SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN VIEW OF WHAT SHOULD BE DEEMED THE
BETTER RULE, FOR THAT OF THE STATE COURT."  FN5 

DESPITE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITHIN THE COURT OF APPEALS AS TO THE
EFFECT OF ITS EARLIER CASES, WE THINK THAT THE DECISION OF THE MAJORITY
THAT THEY DID NOT AMOUNT TO A RULE OF PROPERTY DOES REST ON A FAIR AND
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS.  THE OPINION IN THE OTIS CASE HAD INDICATED A
TENTATIVE QUALITY IN ITS PRONOUNCEMENTS, SAYING:  "PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE
ADDED THAT A GENERAL RULE FOR SUCH SITUATIONS CANNOT BE ATTAINED AT A
BOUND, THAT NO RULE CAN BE FINAL FOR ALL CASES AND THAT ANY RULE MUST
IN THE END BE SHAPED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF BUSINESS POLICY. 
ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE HERE PUT ASIDE INADEQUATE LEGAL ANALOGIES IN THE
ENDEAVOR TO EXPRESS FAIR, CONVENIENT, PRACTICAL GUIDES THAT WILL BE
LARGELY AUTOMATIC IN THEIR APPLICATION.  ONLY THE SURE RESULT OF TIME
WILL TELL HOW FAR WE HAVE SUCCEEDED."  AND THE OPINION HAD POINTED OUT
THAT THE DISBURSEMENT OF NET INCOME DURING SALVAGE OPERATIONS WAS LEFT
TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRUSTEE WITH THE ADMONITION THAT THE
DISCRETION "SHOULD BE EXERCISED WITH APPROPRIATE REGARD FOR THE FACT
THAT UNLESS A LIFE TENANT GETS CASH HE DOES NOT GET ANYTHING IN THE
HERE AND NOW."  276 N.Y. 101, 115. 

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SURROGATES' ASSOCIATION OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK, COMPOSED OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICERS IMMEDIATELY CHARGED WITH
APPLICATION OF THESE DECISIONS TO THE INSTRUCTION OF AND ACCOUNTINGS BY
TRUSTEES HELD A SIMILAR VIEW OF THE DISCRETION LEFT TO TRUSTEES.  THE
LEGISLATURE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN OF THE SAME MIND IN ADOPTING THE NEW
LEGISLATION.  FN6  THE JUDICIAL EFFORT WAS TO FORMULATE GENERAL RULES
TO GUIDE FIDUCIARY DISCRETION.  THE CHAPAL DECISION WAS RENDERED IN
RESPONSE TO A TRUSTEE'S PETITION FOR INSTRUCTIONS.  BUT WHILE SUCH
DECISIONS WERE USEFUL AS PRECEDENTS, THEY WERE FELT NOT ADEQUATE TO
PROTECT TRUSTEES AGAINST THE HAZARDS OF LITIGATION IN PARTICULAR CASES,
AND THE AVOWED EFFORT OF THE COURT TO ADAPT THE LAW TO THE SITUATION
RESULTING FROM THE DEPRESSION FAILED IN PRACTICE.  FN7  HENCE THE
LEGISLATURE INTERVENED, ADOPTED A RULE WHICH THE TRUSTEE MIGHT HAVE
APPLIED BEFORE, IN ITS DISCRETION, AND PRESCRIBED IT AS A DEFINITE
STANDARD FOR SETTING APART INCOME, PROTECTING TRUSTEES AGAINST
LIABILITY TO REMAINDERMEN IF THEY FOLLOWED IT.  WHAT APPEARS REALLY TO
HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE REMAINDERMAN IS HIS RIGHT TO QUESTION THE
EQUITY OF THE RULE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, A RIGHT WHICH HE
HAD WHILE IT WAS A RULE OF THE COURT.  IN THE CASE OF THE SCHNITZLER
TRUSTS WHERE THE RULE RESULTS IN INVASION OF THE REMAINDERMAN'S
PRINCIPAL TO MAKE GOOD TO THE LIFE BENEFICIARY THE STATUTORY ALLOWANCE
OF INCOME, SURROGATE DELEHANTY IMPLIED, AND NO ONE HAS DENIED, THAT THE
FLEXIBILITY OF THE FORMER RULE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE RESULTED IN A
SURCHARGE OF THE TRUSTEE'S ACCOUNTS, AND HENCE THAT THE REMAINDERMAN
HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE VALUE WHICH BENEFIT OF THE CHAPAL-OTIS RULE
WOULD LIKELY ADD TO HIS REMAINDER.  OF COURSE THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTE, AS SURROGATE FOLEY POINTS OUT, IS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THAT
OBJECTION TO THE ACCOUNTS, TO PROTECT THE TRUSTEE AGAINST THAT HAZARD,
AND TO GIVE THE REMAINDERMAN OTHER COMPENSATORY ADVANTAGES.  THE
LEGISLATURE HAS FURTHERED CERTAINTY AT COST OF FLEXIBILITY. 

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THIS LEGISLATION IF IT HAD BEEN MADE
APPLICABLE TO ESTATES OF DECEDENTS DYING AFTER ITS ENACTMENT IS NOT
QUESTIONED.  IT IS OBJECTED ONLY THAT APPLICATION TO AN ESTATE WHOSE
ADMINISTRATION BEGAN BEFORE THE ACT SO AS TO TAKE AWAY THE
REMAINDERMAN'S RIGHT TO JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OF THE TRUSTEE'S
COMPUTATION OF INCOME MAKES IT VOID FOR RETROACTIVITY. 

IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT INSOFAR AS APPELLANTS STAND ON THE CHAPAL
OTIS RULE IT CAN BENEFIT THEM ONLY IF IT MAY BE RETROACTIVE.  BOTH OF
THESE DECEDENTS DIED SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE EITHER OF THOSE DECISIONS. 
IF A PROPERTY RIGHT TO SOME PARTICULAR RULE OF INCOME ALLOTMENT IN
SALVAGE PROCEEDS VESTED AT ALL, IT WOULD SEEM TO HAVE DONE SO AT DEATH
OF THE TESTATOR.  IF SO, REMAINDERMEN WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT THEIR
PROPERTY RIGHT WAS ESTABLISHED BY DECISIONS THEN IN EXISTENCE, OR ELSE
THAT ADVANTAGES DERIVED FROM A LATER JUDICIAL DECISION MAY NOT BE
REPEALED.  THE CASE COMES TO THIS:  APPELLANTS TOOK REMAINDERS AT A
TIME WHEN THE RULES BY WHICH TO SEQUESTER THEIR INTERESTS IN PROCEEDS
FROM COMPLICATED OPERATIONS TO SALVAGE PROPERTY WERE SO INDEFINITE THAT
SEVERAL YEARS LATER THE COURT MADE AN EFFORT TO DEVISE MORE DEFINITIVE
RULES FOR THE PURPOSE.  THEY WERE BUT PARTLY SUCCESSFUL, AND A FEW
YEARS LATER THE LEGISLATURE MADE FURTHER AND PERHAPS MORE AUTHORITATIVE
AND FINAL RULES.  COMPARING THE LATER WITH THE EARLIER EFFORT, THE
REMAINDERMAN IN THESE PARTICULAR CASES FINDS HIMSELF PREJUDICED.  HE
SAYS WE MUST CONFIRM HIM IN THE EARLIER BY STRIKING DOWN THE LATER OF
TWO RETROACTIVE RULES OF LAW. 

THIS STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO OPEN ACCOUNTINGS ALREADY CLOSED OR
TO TAKE AWAY RIGHTS OR REMAINDERS JUDICIALLY SETTLED UNDER THE OLD
RULE.  THE STATUTE IS APPLIED ONLY TO JUDICIAL SETTLEMENTS PENDING AT
OR INSTITUTED AFTER ITS ENACTMENT.  RIGHTS TO SUCCESSION BY WILL ARE
CREATED BY THE STATE AND MAY BE LIMITED, CONDITIONED, OR ABOLISHED BY
IT.  IRVING TRUST CO. V. DAY, 314 U.S. 556.  THE WHOLE CLUSTER OF
VEXATIOUS PROBLEMS ARISING FROM USES AND TRUSTS, MORTMAIN, THE RULE
AGAINST PERPETUITIES, AND TESTAMENTARY DIRECTIONS FOR ACCUMULATIONS OR
FOR SUSPENSIONS OF THE POWER OF ALIENATION, IS ONE WHOSE HISTORY
ADMONISHES AGAINST UNNECESSARY RIGIDITY.  THE STATE MAY EXTEND THE
TESTAMENTARY PRIVILEGE ON TERMS WHICH PERMIT TYING UP OF PROPERTY IN
TRUST FOR POSSIBLY LONG PERIODS.  BUT THE STATE ON CREATION OF SUCH A
TRUST DOES NOT LOSE POWER TO DEVISE NEW AND REASONABLE DIRECTIONS TO
THE TRUSTEE TO MEET NEW CONDITIONS ARISING DURING ITS ADMINISTRATION,
SUCH AS THE DEPRESSION PRESENTED TO TRUSTS HOLDING MORTGAGES.  CF. HOME
BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398.  NOTHING IN THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WOULD WARRANT US IN HOLDING THAT JUDICIAL RULES
TENTATIVELY PUT FORWARD AND LEAVING MUCH TO DISCRETION WILL DEPRIVE THE
LEGISLATURE OF POWER TO MAKE FURTHER REASONABLE RULES WHICH IN ITS
OPINION WILL EXPEDITE AND MAKE MORE EQUITABLE THE DISTRIBUTION OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF PROPERTY LOCKED IN TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS, EVEN IF
THEY DO AFFECT THE VALUES OF VARIOUS INTERESTS AND EXPECTANCIES UNDER
THE TRUST.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ACT IN
QUESTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  N.Y. LAWS 1940, C. 452, P. 1182.  THE SUBSECTION PROVIDES: 

"2.  THE EXISTING RULES OF PROCEDURE APPLYING TO SALVAGE OPERATIONS
RESPECTING EXISTING MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS ARE CONTINUED EXCEPT AS
MODIFIED BY THE SUBPARAGRAPHS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH.  THE TERMS AND
RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL APPLY SPECIFICALLY (A) TO
THE ESTATES OF PERSONS DYING BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT AND (B) TO MORTGAGES
ON REAL PROPERTY HELD BY A TRUSTEE UNDER A DEED OF TRUST OR OTHER
INSTRUMENT EXECUTED BEFORE THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT AND (C) TO REAL
PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE OR REAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED
IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT IN
TRUSTS CREATED OR MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS MADE PRIOR THERETO, AND (D) TO
ANY PENDING PROCEEDING OR ACTION FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF THE TRANSACTIONS
OF AN EXECUTOR OR TRUSTEE. 

"(A) NET INCOME DURING THE SALVAGE OPERATION UP TO THREE PER CENTUM
PER ANNUM UPON THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE SHALL BE PAID TO
THE LIFE TENANT, REGARDLESS OF PRINCIPAL ADVANCES FOR THE EXPENSES OF
FORECLOSURE OR OF CONVEYANCE IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE AND ARREARS OF
TAXES AND OTHER LIENS WHICH OCCURRED PRIOR TO SUCH FORECLOSURE OR
CONVEYANCE AND THE COST OF ALL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.  ANY PAYMENT OF
NET INCOME HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER MADE TO THE LIFE TENANT UP TO SUCH
THREE PER CENTUM PER ANNUM SHALL BE FINAL AND SHALL BE NOT SUBJECT TO
RECOUPMENT FROM THE LIFE TENANT OR AS A SURCHARGE AGAINST THE TRUSTEE
OR EXECUTOR.  THE AMOUNT OF ALL SUCH PAYMENTS SHALL BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, IN THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SALE AND
SHALL BE CHARGED AGAINST THE SHARE OF THE LIFE TENANT. 

"(B)  THE FOREGOING PRINCIPAL ADVANCES SHALL BE REPAID OUT OF EXCESS
NET INCOME ABOVE SUCH THREE PER CENTUM PER ANNUM.  WHEN PRINCIPAL
ADVANCES HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, ANY EXCESS INCOME SHALL BE IMPOUNDED
(SUBJECT TO REINVESTMENT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE WILL OR DEED) TO AWAIT
SALE AND APPORTIONMENT. 

"(C)  THE UNPAID PRINCIPAL ADVANCES SHALL BE A PRIMARY LIEN UPON THE
PROCEEDS OF SALE AND SHALL BE PAID FIRST OUT OF ANY CASH SO DERIVED. 
IF INSUFFICIENT THE BALANCE SHALL BE A PRIMARY LIEN UPON ANY PURCHASE
MONEY MORTGAGE RECEIVED UPON THE SALE. 

"(D)  THE PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THIS SUBDIVISION IS DECLARED TO
BE THE SIMPLIFICATION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN MORTGAGE SALVAGE
OPERATIONS AND THE ELIMINATION OF PRESENT COMPLICATIONS WHICH WORK TO
THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE LIFE TENANT, WHO IS USUALLY THE PRINCIPAL
OBJECT OF THE TESTATOR'S OR SETTLOR'S BOUNTY, BY DEPRIVING HIM OF A
FIXED RIGHT TO THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF ANY NET INCOME EARNED BY THE
PROPERTY.  SUCH FIXED RIGHT IS GRANTED IN LIEU OF THE DISCRETION NOW
GIVEN TO THE TRUSTEE TO PAY NET INCOME OR ANY PART THEREOF TO THE LIFE
TENANT.  THE GENERAL RULES OF THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SALE
BETWEEN LIFE TENANT AND REMAINDERMAN ARE RETAINED SUBJECT TO THE
EXPRESS MODIFICATIONS MADE HEREIN.  ONLY EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS AND
BALANCES AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARE INTENDED TO BE EFFECTUATED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION.  IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS SUBDIVISION
OR THE APPLICATION THEREOF TO ANY MORTGAGE OR ACQUIRED PROPERTY BY
FORECLOSURE OR CONVEYANCE, OR TO ANY TRUST IS HELD INVALID, THE
REMAINDER OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE APPLICATION OF SUCH PROVISION TO
ANY OTHER MORTGAGE OR PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY FORECLOSURE OR CONVEYANCE OR
OTHER TRUST SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED THEREBY." 

FN2  KNOX V. JONES, 47 N.Y. 389; BENNETT V. GARLOCK, 79 N.Y. 302. 
CF. 1 SCOTT ON TRUSTS, P. 3. 

FN3  LOCKMAN V. REILLY, 95 N.Y. 64. 

FN4  IN NEW YORK, POWER TO "DIRECT AND CONTROL THE CONDUCT, AND
SETTLE THE ACCOUNTS" OF TRUSTEES IS ALLOTTED TO THE SURROGATE'S COURT. 
SURROGATE'S COURT ACT SEC. 40(3). 

FN5  SEE SAME CASE ON REHEARING, 282 U.S. 187, AND SAUER V. NEW YORK,
206 U.S. 536, 546; LEATHE V. THOMAS, 207 U.S. 93; VANDALIA R. CO. V.
INDIANA, 207 U.S. 359, 367; ENTERPRISE IRRIGATION DIST. V. FARMERS
MUTUAL CANAL CO., 243 U.S. 157, 164; WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17,
22; FOX RIVER PAPER CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 274 U.S. 651, 655. 
COMPARE UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 300, 307;
RISTY V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 378, 387. 

FN6  WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATURE, THE BILL PROPOSING
SEC. 17-C CARRIED THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATORY NOTE BY THE SURROGATES'
ASSOCIATION: 

"THIS AMENDMENT IS PROPOSED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
SURROGATES' ASSOCIATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  ITS GENERAL PURPOSES
ARE: 

"(1)  TO SIMPLIFY THE COMPLICATED RULES RESTATED IN MATTER OF CHAPAL
(269 N.Y. 464) AND IN MATTER OF OTIS (276 N.Y. 101) RELATING TO
MORTGAGE SALVAGE OPERATIONS (A) IN EXISTING TRUSTS AS TO MORTGAGES
HEREAFTER ACQUIRED AS A TRUST INVESTMENT AND (B) IN TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS
CREATED BY THE WILL OF DECEDENT DYING AFTER ITS ENACTMENT AND (C) IN
INTER VIVOS TRUSTS CREATED BY AN INSTRUMENT EXECUTED AFTER ITS
ENACTMENT.  SUCH SIMPLIFICATION IS PROVIDED IN THE FIRST SUBDIVISION OF
THE NEW SECTION. 

"IN RECENT YEARS SECTION 17-A OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY LAW WAS
ENACTED TO AVOID THE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS OF THE ALLOCATION OF STOCK
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED DURING THE PERIOD OF A TRUST.  UNDER THAT SECTION
THEY ARE NOW ALLOCATED WHOLLY TO CAPITAL.  SECTION 17-B OF THE PERSONAL
PROPERTY LAW WAS ENACTED TO ABOLISH THE INTRICATE RULE IN MATTER OF
BENSON (96 N.Y. 499) UNDER WHICH IT WAS NECESSARY TO CAPITALIZE THE
INCOME ON MONIES HELD WITHIN THE ESTATE FOR THE PAYMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES, DEBTS, TAXES AND PECUNIARY LEGACIES.  IN LINE
WITH THIS POLICY THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION CONTAINED IN THE FIRST
SUBDIVISION ABOLISHES, IN THE INSTANCES STATED ABOVE, THE CHAPAL-OTIS
RULES, AND WILL SUBSTITUTE A SIMPLE FORM OF THE TREATMENT OF THE
FORECLOSED REAL PROPERTY AS A PRINCIPAL ASSET OF THE TRUST.  IT IS TO
BE TREATED JUST AS A RAILROAD BOND UPON WHICH DEFAULT IN INTEREST
BEFORE SALE HAS OCCURRED. 

"(2)  FURTHER MODIFICATIONS ARE PROPOSED BY THE SECOND SUBDIVISION OF
THE SECTION AS TO MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS ALREADY MADE IN EXISTING
TRUSTS.  THE PRESENT RULES FOR APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN LIFE TENANT AND
REMAINDERMAN UNDER THE CHAPAL-OTIS CASES ARE CONTINUED AS TO EXISTING
TRUSTS WHERE THE INVESTMENT IN A MORTGAGE HAS BEEN MADE, WITH
MODIFICATION THEREOF IN TWO SPECIFIC INSTANCES. 

"(A)  THE CHAPAL-OTIS RULE AUTHORIZES THE TRUSTEE TO PAY SURPLUS NET
INCOME IN HIS DISCRETION.  TRUSTEES HAVE HESITATED TO PAY SUCH NET
INCOME BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF OVERPAYMENT TO THE LIFE TENANT, THE
TRUSTEE MIGHT BE SURCHARGED WITH THAT AMOUNT.  THE LIFE TENANT OF THE
TRUST MUST WAIT IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME
BEFORE HE BECOMES ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF ANY INCOME, BECAUSE OF THE
PRESENT REQUIREMENT THAT ADVANCES FROM PRINCIPAL FOR THE EXPENSES OF
FORECLOSURE AND FOR ARREARS OF TAXES AND OTHER LIENS MUST FIRST BE PAID
FROM THE NET INCOME OF THE PROPERTY.  THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR THE
IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF INCOME TO THE LIFE TENANT BEGINNING WITH THE DATE
OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE TRUSTEE BY FORECLOSURE OR
CONVEYANCE IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE.  UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS NET INCOME
UP TO THREE PER CENTUM OF THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE IS SO
PAYABLE.  UNDER THE CHAPAL-OTIS RULES THE LIFE TENANT IS ENTITLED IN
THE FINAL APPORTIONMENT TO THE INCLUSION OF INTEREST AT THE MORTGAGE
RATE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE SALVAGE OPERATION.  THE RATE OF THREE PER
CENTUM IN THE NEW SECTION HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED AS A FAIR RETURN TO THE
LIFE TENANT AND AT THE SAME TIME A PROTECTION TO THE REMAINDERMAN IN
THE EVENT THAT THE PROPERTY IS SOLD AT LESS THAN THE FACE AMOUNTS OF
THE INCOME AND PRINCIPAL SHARES EMPLOYED AT THE RATIO OF THE
APPORTIONMENT.  (B) SURPLUS NET INCOME ABOVE THREE PER CENTUM IS TO BE
APPLIED TO THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCES FROM PRINCIPAL UNTIL THE AMOUNT OF
SUCH ADVANCES ARE SATISFIED.  WHEN THE PROPERTY IN THE SALVAGE
OPERATION IS SOLD, THE UNPAID BALANCE OF PRINCIPAL ADVANCES MUST BE
SATISFIED FIRST OUT OF THE CASH RECEIVED FROM THE SALE.  IF THERE BE
ANY UNPAID BALANCE DUE FOR PRINCIPAL ADVANCES, IT IS MADE A PRIMARY
LIEN UPON THE PURCHASE MONEY MORTGAGE.  THE AMENDMENT FURTHER DIRECTS
THAT AFTER PRINCIPAL ADVANCES HAVE BEEN PAID, THE SURPLUS NET INCOME
ABOVE THREE PER CENTUM, ACCRUING DURING THE SALVAGE OPERATION, SHALL BE
HELD BY THE TRUSTEE TO AWAIT SALE AND APPORTIONMENT UNDER THE CHAPAL
OTIS RULES."  N.Y. LAWS 1940, P. 1181. 

FN7  SURROGATE FOLEY IN THE DEMOREST CASE STATES THE EFFECT OF THIS
ACT AS FOLLOWS (MATTER OF WEST, 175 MISC. 1044, 1048, 26 N.Y.S.2D
622): 

"TWO RELATIVELY SIMPLE MODIFICATIONS OF THE CHAPAL-OTIS RULES WERE
MADE IN THIS SUBDIVISION.  UNDER THOSE RULES AND PARTICULARLY UNDER THE
LANGUAGE OF THE OPINION OF JUDGE LOUGHRAN IN MATTER OF OTIS (SUPRA), A
DISCRETIONARY POWER WAS GIVEN TO A TRUSTEE DURING A MORTGAGE SALVAGE
OPERATION TO DISBURSE INCOME TO THE LIFE TENANT, AFTER ADVANCES MADE
FROM PRINCIPAL AS AN INCIDENT TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY HAD
BEEN REPAID.  IT WAS FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT TRUSTEES HESITATED TO MAKE
ANY PAYMENT TO THE LIFE TENANT OR TO EXERCISE THE JUDICIAL DISCRETION
GIVEN TO THEM BY MATTER OF OTIS, BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF A POSSIBLE
SURCHARGE IN THE EVENT OF AN OVERPAYMENT TO THE LIFE TENANT.  THE LIFE
TENANT IN ALMOST EVERY INSTANCE WAS THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE
TESTATOR'S BOUNTY.  THE BENEFICIARY INTENDED TO BE MOST FAVORED WAS
THUS DEPRIVED, BY THE TRUSTEE'S INACTION OR HESITANCY, OF RECEIVING
INCOME DURING THE ENTIRE SALVAGE PERIOD AND LARGE SUMS OF MONEY WERE
ACCUMULATED AND FROZEN.  THE INJUSTICE TO THE LIFE TENANT WAS
AGGRAVATED BY THE FACT THAT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF A READY MARKET FOR
THE RESALE OF THE PROPERTY, THE SALVAGE OPERATION WAS UNDULY EXTENDED
FOR A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS.  THIS SITUATION IS EMPHASIZED BY THE FACTS
REVEALED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING.  OF THE SEVEN MORTGAGES NOW
INVOLVED IN THE SALVAGE OPERATIONS IN WHICH NO RESALE HAS TAKEN PLACE,
THE LONGEST PERIOD OF OPERATION HAS BEEN SIX YEARS AND TWO MONTHS.  THE
SHORTEST PERIOD HAS BEEN FOUR YEARS AND TEN MONTHS.  THUS THE AVERAGE
PERIOD OF OPERATION OF ALL SEVEN MORTGAGES HAS BEEN APPROXIMATELY FIVE
YEARS.  IN THE TWO COMPLETED OPERATIONS THE PERIODS OF SALVAGE WERE TWO
YEARS AND SIX MONTHS AND TWO YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS.  THIS UNHAPPY
SITUATION HAS BEEN CORRECTED BY THE NEW LEGISLATION.  TRUSTEES ARE
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO PAY PROMPTLY NET INCOME DERIVED FROM THE
FORECLOSED OR ACQUIRED PROPERTY UP TO THREE PER CENTUM PER ANNUM UPON
THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE MORTGAGE.  FROM THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE
NEW ACT, IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION OF THE
SURROGATES THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WHICH HAD BEEN
THERETOFORE ACCUMULATED, WERE PAID OUT TO LIFE TENANTS UPON THE
AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE STATUTE.  WHERE THE TRUSTEE HAD PAID THE
YEARLY INCOME UP TO THE THREE PER CENT MAXIMUM TO THE LIFE TENANT, THE
STATUTE MADE THE PAYMENT FINAL.  IT WAS SPECIFICALLY STATED BY THE
LEGISLATURE THAT SUCH PAYMENT UP TO THE MAXIMUM WAS 'NOT SUBJECT TO
RECOUPMENT FROM THE LIFE TENANT OR AS A SURCHARGE AGAINST THE TRUSTEE
OR EXECUTOR.'  MOREOVER, UNDER THE NEW STATUTORY RULE, NET INCOME UP TO
THE MAXIMUM OF THREE PER CENT BECAME PAYABLE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF
THE SALVAGE OPERATION, THAT IS, FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION BY
FORECLOSURE OR BY DEED IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE. 

"THE OTHER AMENDMENT TO THE CHAPAL-OTIS RULES MADE BY THE SECOND
SUBDIVISION OF THE NEW SECTION IN THE BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES,
FURNISHED PROTECTION TO THE REMAINDERMEN INTERESTED IN THE PRINCIPAL OF
THE TRUST.  EXCESS NET INCOME EARNED IN ANY ONE YEAR DURING THE SALVAGE
OPERATION ABOVE THE THREE PER CENT MAXIMUM PAYABLE TO THE LIFE TENANT,
WAS DIRECTED TO BE APPLIED TO ADVANCEMENTS FROM PRINCIPAL FOR ARREARS
OF TAXES AND OTHER LIENS WHICH ACCRUED PRIOR TO THE FORECLOSURE OR
ACQUISITION IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE AND TO THE COST OF CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS.  WHERE ANY BALANCE OF UNPAID PRINCIPAL ADVANCES REMAINED
DUE AT THE CLOSE OF THE SALVAGE OPERATION, SUCH BALANCE WAS DECLARED TO
BE 'A PRIMARY LIEN UPON THE PROCEEDS OF SALE AND SHALL BE PAID FIRST
OUT OF ANY CASH SO DERIVED.  IF INSUFFICIENT THE BALANCE SHALL BE A
PRIMARY LIEN UPON ANY PURCHASE MONEY MORTGAGE RECEIVED UPON THE
SALE.'" 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS: 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS STATED THAT IN FORMULATING THE
STATUTORY RULE IN QUESTION THE STATE LEGISLATURE DID NO MORE "THAN
DIRECT A TRUSTEE TO DO WHAT UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HE HAS
DISCRETIONARY POWER TO DO."  289 N.Y. 423, 430, 46 N.E.2D 501.  AND IT
WENT ON TO SAY, "BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THIS STATUTE, THE LIFE TENANT
COULD NOT HAVE DEMANDED AS OF RIGHT THE PAYMENT TO HIM DURING
LIQUIDATION OF MORE OF THE SURPLUS INCOME THAN HE WILL RECEIVE UNDER
THE STATUTE.  NEITHER DOES IT APPEAR THAT THE REMAINDERMEN COULD
PROPERLY HAVE INSISTED THAT THE TRUSTEE SHOULD BE SURCHARGED IF IN THE
EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION HE HAD PAID TO THE LIFE TENANT THE AMOUNT
WHICH THE STATUTE NOW DIRECTS."  ID.  THAT IS A QUESTION OF NEW YORK
LAW ON WHICH THE NEW YORK COURT HAS THE FINAL SAY.  IT IS NONE OF OUR
BUSINESS - WHETHER WE DEEM THAT INTERPRETATION TO BE REASONABLE OR
UNREASONABLE, SOUND OR ERRONEOUS.  SAUER V. NEW YORK, 206 U.S. 536, 545
548.  AND THERE IS NO SUGGESTION HERE THAT STATE LAW HAS BEEN
MANIPULATED IN EVASION OF A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  FOX RIVER
PAPER CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 274 U.S. 651, 657; BROAD RIVER POWER
CO. V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 281 U.S. 537, 540.  CONSEQUENTLY I CAN SEE NO
POSSIBLE CLAIM TO SUBSTANTIALITY OF ANY FEDERAL QUESTION, WHATEVER VIEW
MAY BE TAKEN OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  I WOULD THEREFORE DISMISS THE
APPEAL. 
..END :







TRAINMEN V. TOLEDO, P. & W.R. CO., 321 U.S. 50 


NO. 28.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 10, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1944.  -
132 F.2D 265, REVERSED. 


1.  A RAILROAD COMPANY WHICH REFUSED TO SUBMIT A LABOR DISPUTE TO
ARBITRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT -
ALTHOUGH IT HAD SOUGHT TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE BY NEGOTIATION AND BY
MEDIATION - HAS NOT MADE "EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT" TO SETTLE THE
DISPUTE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, AND
IS THEREBY BARRED FROM INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  P.
56. 

2.  SECTION 8 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT EXTENDS TO RAILWAY LABOR
DISPUTES.  P. 58. 

3.  THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 8 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT THAT A
COMPLAINANT MUST MAKE "EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT"  - "EITHER BY
NEGOTIATION OR WITH THE AID OF ANY AVAILABLE GOVERNMENTAL MACHINERY OF
MEDIATION OR VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION"  - TO SETTLE THE LABOR DISPUTE
BEFORE HE MAY HAVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, IS NOT
SATISFIED BY HIS HAVING RESORTED TO ONE OR TWO OF THE THREE PRESCRIBED
METHODS OF CONCILIATION.  P. 60. 

4.  THAT UNDER SEC. 8 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT A COMPLAINANT MAY
NOT HAVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IF HE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE LABOR DISPUTE TO
ARBITRATION DOES NOT MAKE ARBITRATION COMPULSORY.  P. 62. 

5.  FAILURE TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 8 OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT DOES NOT LEAVE THE COMPLAINANT WITHOUT LEGAL PROTECTION
BUT DEPRIVES HIM ONLY OF ONE FORM OF REMEDY WHICH CONGRESS, EXERCISING
ITS PLENARY CONTROL OVER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, HAS
SEEN FIT TO WITHHOLD.  P. 63. 

6.  THE COURT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WISDOM OF ACTS OF CONGRESS. 
P. 64. 

7.  WHERE A COMPLAINANT HAS STEADFASTLY REFUSED TO SUBMIT A LABOR
DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION, SEC. 8 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IS NOT
NECESSARILY RENDERED INAPPLICABLE BY THE FACT THAT SOME VIOLENCE IS
INVOLVED.  P. 65. 

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, ENTERPRISE LODGE, NO. 27, ET AL. V.
TOLEDO, PEORIA & WESTERN RAILROAD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 755, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER
GRANTING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN A SUIT ARISING OUT OF A LABOR
DISPUTE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ISSUED
AN INJUNCTION WHICH RESTRAINED RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, CONDUCTORS,
YARDMEN, ENGINEMEN AND FIREMEN, FROM INTERFERING BY VIOLENCE OR THREATS
OF VIOLENCE WITH ITS PROPERTY AND INTERSTATE RAILROAD OPERATIONS.  THE
SOLE ISSUES THAT CONCERN US ARE THE EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION
AND WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT (29 U.S.C.
SECS. 107, 108, 47 STAT. 71, 72) WERE SATISFIED. 

THE CASE ARISES OUT OF A LONG-CONTINUED LABOR DISPUTE RELATING TO
WORKING CONDITIONS AND RATES OF PAY.  NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES,
BEGINNING IN OCTOBER, 1940, FAILED.  A LONG COURSE OF MEDIATION, WITH
THE AID OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, RESULTED LIKEWISE. 
ACCORDINGLY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1941, THE MEDIATOR PROPOSED ARBITRATION
PURSUANT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT'S PROVISIONS.  45 U.S.C. SEC. 155,
FIRST (B), 48 STAT. 1195.  BOTH PARTIES REFUSED.  THEREUPON, AS THE ACT
REQUIRES, THE BOARD TERMINATED ITS SERVICES.  IBID. THIS OCCURRED
NOVEMBER 21, 1941.  UNDER THE STATUTE, NO CHANGE IN RATES OF PAY,
RULES, WORKING CONDITIONS OR ESTABLISHED PRACTICES CAN BE MADE FOR
THIRTY DAYS, UNLESS IN THAT TIME THE PARTIES AGREE TO ARBITRATION OR AN
EMERGENCY BOARD IS CREATED UNDER SEC. 10.  IBID.  ANTICIPATING
RESPONDENT WOULD PUT INTO EFFECT ITS PROPOSED SEHEDULES AT THE END OF
THE PERIOD, THE EMPLOYEES VOTED TO STRIKE.  THE TIME FOR STOPPING WORK
WAS SET FOR DECEMBER 9 AT 11:00 A.M.  RESPONDENT KNEW OF THE VOTING ON
OR BEFORE DECEMBER 6, BUT DID NOT RECEIVE FORMAL NOTICE OF THE STRIKE
UNTIL ABOUT NOON OF DECEMBER 8. 

WITH THE BOMBING OF PEARL HARBOR ON DECEMBER 7, THE MEDIATION BOARD
AGAIN INTERVENED, STRONGLY URGING BOTH SIDES TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE IN
VIEW OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  AT THE BOARD'S REQUEST THE EMPLOYEES
HAD POSTPONED THE STRIKE INDEFINITELY.  FN1  FURTHER CONFERENCES FAILED
TO BRING AGREEMENT AND ON DECEMBER 17 THE BOARD AGAIN URGED THAT THE
DISPUTANTS AGREE TO ARBITRATION UNDER THE STATUTE.  THIS TIME THE
EMPLOYEES ACCEPTED.  FN2  BUT RESPONDENT CONTINUED ITS REFUSAL, THOUGH
IT ALSO CONTINUED TO URGE THE APPOINTMENT OF AN EMERGENCY BOARD.  AND,
WHILE THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOTIFIED FORMALLY OF
THE EMPLOYEES' AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE UNTIL DECEMBER 28, NEITHER DOES
IT APPEAR THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT KNOW OF THIS FACT BEFORE THAT TIME. 

ON DECEMBER 21, EXACTLY THE EXPIRATION OF THE THIRTY-DAY PERIOD,
RESPONDENT BY LETTER NOTIFIED THE EMPLOYEES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
THAT ITS PROPOSED SCHEDULES WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE AT 12:01 A.M.,
DECEMBER 29.  BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 27 AND RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT
BEFORE NOON ON DECEMBER 28, THE EMPLOYEES SERVED NOTICE THAT A STRIKE
WOULD TAKE EFFECT DECEMBER 28 AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING.  BY WIRE
WHICH RESPONDENT RECEIVED THAT DAY, THE BOARD AGAIN STRONGLY URGED
ARBITRATION, POINTING OUT THE EMPLOYEES HAD ACCEDED TO THE BOARD'S
REQUEST.  RESPONDENT AGAIN DECLINED AND URGED AN EMERGENCY BOARD BE
APPOINTED. 

THE STRIKE TOOK EFFECT AT THE APPOINTED TIME.  PICKET LINES WERE
FORMED.  RESPONDENT UNDERTOOK TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS WITH OTHER
EMPLOYEES.  IT EMPLOYED "SPECIAL AGENTS" TO PROTECT ITS TRAINS AND
PROPERTY.  FN3  CLASHES OCCURRED BETWEEN THEM AND THE WORKING
EMPLOYEES, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE STRIKING EMPLOYEES ON THE OTHER. 
VARIOUS INCIDENTS INVOLVING VIOLENCE OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE TOOK
PLACE.  SOME RESULTED IN PERSONAL ATTACKS, OTHERS IN DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
AND INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE.  THE RESPONDENT SOUGHT THE AID OF PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING THE SHERIFFS OF COUNTIES ALONG ITS RIGHT OF WAY
AND POLICE AUTHORITIES IN CITIES AND TOWNS WHICH IT SERVED.  SOME
ASSISTANCE WAS OFFERED, BUT IN SOME INSTANCES THE AUTHORITIES REPLIED
THEY HAD FORCES INADEQUATE TO SUPPLY THE AID RESPONDENT REQUESTED AND
IN OTHERS NO REPLY WAS GIVEN.  THE PARTIES ARE AT ODDS CONCERNING THE
EXTENT OF THE VIOLENCE, THE NEED FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION, AND THE
ADEQUACY OF WHAT WAS SUPPLIED OR AVAILABLE.  BUT THE FINDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT ARE THAT THE VIOLENCE WAS SUBSTANTIAL AND THE PROTECTION
SUPPLIED BY THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS WAS INADEQUATE.  THESE INCIDENTS TOOK
PLACE THROUGH THE PERIOD EXTENDING FROM DECEMBER 29, 1941, TO JANUARY
3, 1942. 

ON THE LATTER DATE RESPONDENT FILED ITS COMPLAINT, ASKING FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND, AFTER HEARING, AN INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING PETITIONERS FROM INTERFERING WITH ITS OPERATIONS AND
PROPERTY.  THE RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED EX PARTE THE SAME DAY,
RESPONDENT GIVING BOND AS REQUIRED (29 U.S.C. SEC. 107, 47 STAT. 71-72)
FOR INDEMNITY AGAINST LOSS OCCASIONED BY ITS IMPROVIDENT OR ERRONEOUS
ISSUANCE. 

HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION BEGAN JANUARY 8
AND CONTINUED TO JANUARY 19.  TWO EXTENSIONS CONTINUED THE RESTRAINING
ORDER IN FORCE UNTIL THE HEARING WAS COMPLETED.  PETITIONERS MOVED TO
VACATE THE EXTENSIONS ON JANUARY 15 AND AGAIN AT THE CLOSE OF THE
HEARING ON JANUARY 19, AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  THESE MOTIONS
WERE DENIED, AND THE COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SUSTAINING RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS.  THEREUPON THE TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION ISSUED.  IN DUE COURSE APPEAL WAS PERFECTED FROM THE ORDER
FOR ITS ISSUANCE AND THE PREVIOUS ORDERS DENYING PETITIONERS' VARIOUS
MOTIONS TO VACATE THE EXTENSIONS AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT. 
132 F.2D 265.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ISSUES PRESENTED.  318 U.S. 755.  FN4 

THREE PRINCIPAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE LOWER COURTS AND HERE. 
STATED IN THE FORM OF PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS, THEY ARE:  (1) THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, SINCE THERE IS NO CLAIM OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND, IT IS SAID, NO FEDERAL QUESTION IS
INVOLVED; FN5 (2) THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES WERE UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO FURNISH ADEQUATE
PROTECTION FOR RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY; FN6  AND (3) RESPONDENT DID NOT
MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE AS REQUIRED BY THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  FN7 WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE OTHERS, WE THINK
THE LAST CONTENTION MUST BE SUSTAINED. 

72) PROVIDES: 

"NO RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHALL BE GRANTED TO ANY
COMPLAINANT WHO HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH ANY OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY LAW
WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THE LABOR DISPUTE IN QUESTION, OR WHO HAS FAILED
TO MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO SETTLE SUCH DISPUTE EITHER BY
NEGOTIATION OR WITH THE AID OF ANY AVAILABLE GOVERNMENTAL MACHINERY OF
MEDIATION OR VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION." 

THE QUESTION, BROADLY STATED, IS WHETHER RESPONDENT MADE "EVERY
REASONABLE EFFORT" TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE, AS THE SECTION REQUIRES.  ON
THE FACTS THIS NARROWS TO WHETHER ITS STEADFAST REFUSAL TO AGREE TO
ARBITRATION UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT'S PROVISIONS MADE THE SECTION
OPERATIVE.  WE THINK IT DID, WITH THE CONSEQUENCE THAT THE FEDERAL
COURTS WERE DEPRIVED OF THE POWER TO AFFORD INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
RESPONDENT WAS REMITTED TO OTHER FORMS OF LEGAL REMEDY WHICH REMAINED
AVAILABLE.  FN8 

RESPONDENT WAS SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  ITS PROVISIONS AND
MACHINERY FOR VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION WERE "AVAILABLE."  RESORT TO THEM
WOULD HAVE BEEN A "REASONABLE EFFORT TO SETTLE" THE DISPUTE.  CLEARLY
ARBITRATION UNDER THE ACT WAS A METHOD, BOTH REASONABLE AND AVAILABLE,
FN9 WHICH RESPONDENT REFUSED TO EMPLOY, NOT ONCE, BUT REPEATEDLY AND
ADAMANTLY.  IF IT HAD BEEN USED, IT WOULD HAVE AVERTED THE STRIKE, THE
VIOLENCE WHICH FOLLOWED, AND THE NEED FOR AN INJUNCTION.  FN10 

WHOM IT IS AVAILABLE MAY HAVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  BROADLY, THE SECTION
IMPOSES TWO CONDITIONS.  IF A COMPLAINANT HAS FAILED (1) TO COMPLY WITH
ANY OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY LAW OR (2) TO MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO
SETTLE THE DISPUTE, HE IS FORBIDDEN RELIEF.  THE LATTER CONDITION IS
BROADER THAN THE FORMER.  ONE MUST NOT ONLY DISCHARGE HIS LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS.  HE MUST ALSO GO BEYOND THEM AND MAKE ALL REASONABLE
EFFORT, AT THE LEAST BY THE METHODS SPECIFIED IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE,
THOUGH NONE MAY INVOLVE COMPLYING WITH ANY LEGAL DUTY.  ANY OTHER VIEW
WOULD MAKE THE SECOND CONDITION WHOLLY REDUNDANT.  IT CLEARLY IS NOT
THE SECTION'S PURPOSE, THEREFORE, BY THAT CONDITION, TO REQUIRE ONLY
WHAT ONE IS COMPELLED BY LAW TO DO.  YET, AS WILL APPEAR, THIS WOULD BE
THE EFFECT OF ACCEPTING RESPONDENT'S POSITION. 

IT IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE SECTION'S LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE TO
CONSTRUE IT, AS HAVE RESPONDENT AND THE LOWER COURTS, TO REQUIRE
REASONABLE EFFORT BY ONLY ONE CONCILIATORY DEVICE WHEN OTHERS ARE
AVAILABLE.  THE EXPLICIT TERMS DEMAND "EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT" TO
SETTLE THE DISPUTE.  THREE MODES ARE SPECIFIED.  FN11  THEY WERE THE
NORMAL ONES FOR SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES BY THE EFFORTS OF THE
PARTIES THEMSELVES AND THE AID OF AGENCIES ADAPTED SPECIALLY FOR THE
PURPOSE.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT  FN12  PROVIDED FOR ALL OF THEM, WITH
THE AID OF GOVERNMENTAL MACHINERY IN THE STAGES OF MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION.  SECTION 8 IS NOT LIMITED TO RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.  BUT
IT INCLUDES THEM.  FN13  AND ITS VERY TERMS SHOW THEY WERE USED IN
EXPLICIT CONTEMPLATION OF THE PROCEDURES AND MACHINERY THEN EXISTING
UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND WITH THE INTENT OF MAKING THEIR
EXHAUSTION CONDITIONS FOR SECURING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, NOT SINGLY OR
ALTERNATIVELY, BUT CONJUNCTIVELY OR SUCCESSIVELY, WHEN AVAILABLE.  THIS
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IS PUT BEYOND QUESTION WHEN THE SECTION'S
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE HISTORY AND THE
BASIC COMMON POLICY OF THE TWO STATUTES, THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT. 

THE POLICY OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WAS TO ENCOURAGE USE OF THE
NONJUDICIAL PROCESSES OF NEGOTIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION FOR THE
ADJUSTMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES.  CF. GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT V.
MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO., 320 U.S. 323; GENERAL COMMITTEE OF
ADJUSTMENT V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 320 U.S. 338.  THE OVER-ALL POLICY
OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS THE SAME.  THE LATTER DID NOT ENTIRELY
ABOLISH JUDICIAL POWER TO IMPOSE PREVIOUS RESTRAINT IN LABOR
CONTROVERSIES.  BUT ITS PRIME PURPOSE WAS TO RESTRICT THE FEDERAL
EQUITY POWER IN SUCH MATTERS WITHIN GREATLY NARROWER LIMITS THAN IT HAD
COME TO OCCUPY.  FN14  IT SOUGHT TO MAKE INJUNCTION A LAST LINE OF
DEFENSE, AVAILABLE NOT ONLY AFTER OTHER LEGALLY REQUIRED METHODS, BUT
AFTER ALL REASONABLE METHODS AS WELL, HAVE BEEN TRIED AND FOUND
WANTING.  THIS PURPOSE RUNS THROUGHOUT THE ACT'S PROVISIONS.  IT IS
DOMINANT AND EXPLICIT IN SEC. 8.  IN SHORT, THE INTENT EVIDENCED BOTH
BY WORDS AND BY POLICY WAS TO GEAR THE SECTION'S REQUIREMENTS SQUARELY
INTO THE METHODS AND PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

SHORT REFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MAKES THIS PLAIN.  THERE
WAS EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF THE BILL IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, A
CONSIDERABLE PART RELATING TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT'S PROVISIONS AND
OPERATION.  FN15  NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT THE BILL AND THAT ACT WERE NOT
TO BE MESHED IN OPERATION OR THAT COMPLIANCE WITH ONLY ONE OF THE
METHODS PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 8 WOULD SATISFY ITS REQUIREMENT OF
"REASONABLE EFFORT."  ON THE CONTRARY, IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR
GRANTED THAT EXHAUSTION OF ALL IS DEMANDED.  NUMEROUS PROPOSALS FOR
AMENDMENT IN OTHER RESPECTS WERE MADE, BUT THERE WERE NONE FOR CHANGING
THIS REQUIREMENT.  AND REPRESENTATIVE LAGUARDIA, WHO SPONSORED THE BILL
IN THE HOUSE, AFTER QUOTING AND DISCUSSING PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT OF 1926, QUOTED SEC. 8 AND SAID, WITHOUT CHALLENGE TO HIS
CONSTRUCTION: 

"SO THAT THERE IS THE TIE-UP BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILROAD
LABOR ACT AND THE NECESSITY OF EXHAUSTING EVERY REMEDY TO ADJUST ANY
DIFFERENCE WHICH MIGHT ARISE.  THE WORKERS COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT
THINK OF GOING ON STRIKE BEFORE ALL THE REMEDIES PROVIDED IN THE LAW
HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  IF THE RAILROADS HAVE COMPLIED, THEY WOULD NOT,
AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED (BY REPRESENTATIVE BECK), BE DEPRIVED OF ANY
RELIEF WHICH THEY MAY HAVE IN LAW OR EQUITY." 

REPRESENTATIVE O'CONNOR, SUPPORTING THE SPONSOR'S VIEW, CHARACTERIZED
SEC. 8 AS "THE 'CLEAN HANDS' PROVISION" AND SAID: 

"THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT A COMPLAINANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO AN
INJUNCTION IF HE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH ANY CONTRACT OR OBLIGATION ON
HIS PART OR HAS NOT MADE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE
BY THE AVAILABLE METHODS OF ARBITRATION OR MEDIATION.  SURELY, THIS
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY THAT 'HE WHO SEEKS JUSTICE MUST DO
JUSTICE' SHOULD APPLY IN LABOR DISPUTES AS WELL AS IN OTHER JUDICIAL
CONTROVERSIES."  FN17    TO CONSTRUE THE SECTION THEREFORE AS REQUIRING
BUT ONE OF THE THREE METHODS TO BE USED, WHEN THE OTHER TWO ARE EQUALLY
AVAILABLE, WOULD EMASCULATE THE LANGUAGE AND WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE
AND THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE. 

IT WOULD DO THIS BY INVITING SEMBLANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITHOUT ITS
SUBSTANCE, MOTION OF SETTLEMENT WITHOUT PROGRESS TOWARD IT.  IN RAILWAY
DISPUTES, THE FIRST SHORT STEP IN THE SUCCESSION PROVIDED BY THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT COULD BE TAKEN AND THE REMAINDER THEN COULD BE
HURDLED BY INJUNCTION.  A PARTY ALWAYS COULD NEGOTIATE, THAT IS, ENGAGE
IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,  FN18  AND THEREBY BE RELIEVED OF THE
REQUIREMENTS, UNDER SEC. 8, OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION.  THUS, IN
THIS CASE, UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHEN
RESPONDENT COMPLETED NEGOTIATIONS WITHOUT THE AID OF MEDIATION, THERE
WAS NO NEED TO GO ON WITH MEDIATION.  IN THE COURT'S VIEW COMPLIANCE
WITH ONE OF THE SPECIFIED METHODS SATISFIES THE FULL REQUIREMENTS OF
SEC. 8.  FN19  YET NEGOTIATION, IN THE SENSE OF BARGAINING
COLLECTIVELY, UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS AN OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY
LAW.  SECTION 2, NINTH; ALSO FIRST, SECOND; VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 548; CF. TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF
CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT V. MISSOURI
KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO., 320 U.S. 323, 330-332.  OBVIOUSLY, IF THE VIEW OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS IS RIGHT, THE CONDITION REQUIRING "EVERY
REASONABLE EFFORT TO SETTLE" THE DISPUTE BECOMES A DEAD LETTER IN
RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES, SINCE NO MORE WOULD BE REQUIRED BY ITS TERMS IN
THAT APPLICATION THAN IS CALLED FOR BY THE FIRST CONDITION WHICH
DEMANDS COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.  RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, WHILE
APPARENTLY AGREEING WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT COMPLIANCE WITH ONE
METHOD IS SUFFICIENT, RELIES NOT ONLY UPON ITS NEGOTIATION, BUT ALSO
UPON ITS PARTICIPATION IN MEDIATION.  THIS SERVES IT IN NO BETTER
STEAD.  THE SECTION IS NOT DISJUNCTIVE AS TO ARBITRATION, BUT
CONJUNCTIVE AS TO NEGOTIATION AND MEDIATION.  THE CASE IS ONE, SO FAR
AS BOTH LANGUAGE AND POLICY GO, OF ONE OR ALL.  FN20 

RESPONDENT'S FINAL CONTENTION, IN THIS PHASE OF THE CASE, IS THE MOST
INSISTENT.  IT IS THAT IF "VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION," AS THE TERM IS USED
IN SEC. 8, ENCOMPASSES ARBITRATION UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, BY THAT
FACT THE ARBITRATION CEASES TO BE "VOLUNTARY" AND THE LATTER ACT'S
REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE SO IS VIOLATED.  IN SHORT, IT IS SAID THE EFFECT
IS TO FORCE RESPONDENT TO SUBMIT TO COMPULSORY ARBITRATION. 

WITHOUT QUESTION, AS RESPONDENT SAYS, ARBITRATION UNDER THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT IS VOLUNTARY.  SECTION 7, FIRST, REQUIRES THE MACHINERY TO BE
PUT IN MOTION BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.  A PROVISO ALSO DECLARES,
"THAT THE FAILURE OR REFUSAL OF EITHER PARTY TO SUBMIT A CONTROVERSY TO
ARBITRATION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A VIOLATION OF ANY LEGAL
OBLIGATION IMPOSED UPON SUCH PARTY BY THE TERMS OF THIS ACT OR
OTHERWISE."  45 U.S.C. SEC. 157, FIRST.  IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT'S PURPOSE IS NOT TO IMPOSE UPON THE PARTIES A
LEGAL DUTY TO ARBITRATE, ENFORCEABLE AS IS THE DUTY TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY IMPOSED BY SEC. 2, NINTH, DISCUSSED ABOVE.  AND IF THE
EFFECT OF BRINGING THAT FORM OF ARBITRATION WITHIN THE MANDATE OF SEC.
8 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WERE TO CREATE SUCH A DUTY, SO
ENFORCEABLE, RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION WOULD BE MORE IN POINT.  BUT IT
DOES NOT DO THAT.  AND THE CONTENTION THAT IT DOES ENTIRELY
MISCONCEIVES THE EFFECT OF SEC. 7, FIRST, OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AND
CONFUSES "VIOLATION" OF ITS TERMS WITH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE OF
SEC. 8 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  THE PROVISO OF SEC. 7, FIRST, AND
THE REQUIREMENT OF SUBMISSION BY AGREEMENT WERE IN FORCE SUBSTANTIALLY
IN THEIR PRESENT FORM UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926.  44 STAT.
582.  IT WAS EXACTLY IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PROVISIONS AND WITH THE
INTENT, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, TO MAKE IT INCLUDE ARBITRATION UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT THAT SEC. 8 USED THE TERM "VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION." 
OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS NO PURPOSE IN DOING SO TO CONTRADICT THE TERMS OF
BOTH STATUTES AND LABEL "VOLUNTARY" WHAT IN FACT IS COMPULSORY.  NOR
WAS THIS THE EFFECT.  SECTION 7, FIRST, MERELY PROVIDES THAT FAILURE TO
ARBITRATE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A VIOLATION OF ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION
IMPOSED UPON THE PARTY FAILING BY THAT ACT OR OTHERWISE.  RESPONDENT'S
FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO ARBITRATE HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY OBLIGATION IMPOSED
UPON IT, WHETHER BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OR BY THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT.  NO ONE HAS RECOURSE AGAINST IT BY ANY LEGAL MEANS ON ACCOUNT OF
THIS FAILURE.  RESPONDENT IS FREE TO ARBITRATE OR NOT, AS IT CHOOSES. 
BUT IF IT REFUSES, IT LOSES THE LEGAL RIGHT TO HAVE AN INJUNCTION
ISSUED BY A FEDERAL COURT OR, TO PUT THE MATTER MORE ACCURATELY, IT
FAILS TO PERFECT THE RIGHT TO SUCH RELIEF.  THIS IS NOT COMPULSORY
ARBITRATION.  IT IS COMPULSORY CHOICE BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO DECLINE
ARBITRATION AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE AID OF EQUITY IN A FEDERAL
COURT. 

TRUE, THIS DEPRIVES RESPONDENT OF A PROTECTION TO WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN ENTITLED IF THE CONDITION HAD NOT BEEN IMPOSED.  BUT THAT IS TRUE
OF EACH OF THE SECTION'S CONDITIONS.  AND IT IS HARDLY MORE TRUE WITH
RESPECT TO ONE CONDITION THAN WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS.  MEDIATION, OR
FOR THAT MATTER NEGOTIATION, DOES NOT BECOME COMPULSORY BECAUSE WITHOUT
THEM OR EITHER OF THEM INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CANNOT BE HAD.  NEITHER DOES
ARBITRATION. 

NOR DOES IT FOLLOW, AS RESPONDENT SEEMS TO IMPLY, THAT IT IS LEFT
WITHOUT REMEDY.  OTHER MEANS OF PROTECTION REMAIN.  SUITS FOR RECOVERY
OF DAMAGES STILL MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHEN FEDERAL
JURISDICTION IS SHOWN TO EXIST.  FEDERAL STATUTES SUPPLY CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS, ENFORCEABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, AGAINST PERSONS WHO
INTERFERE IN SPECIFIED WAYS WITH THE OPERATION OF INTERSTATE TRAINS OR
DESTROY THE PROPERTY OF INTERSTATE RAILROADS.  CF. 18 U.S.C. SEC.
412(A).  WITH THESE AND OTHER REMEDIES THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE WE ARE
CONCERNED NO FURTHER THAN TO POINT OUT THAT RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO
OBSERVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 8 HAS NOT LEFT IT WITHOUT LEGAL
PROTECTION.  THAT FAILURE HAS DEPRIVED IT MERELY OF ONE FORM OF REMEDY
WHICH THE CONGRESS, EXERCISING ITS PLENARY CONTROL OVER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS,  FN21 HAS SEEN FIT TO WITHHOLD. 
WITH THE WISDOM OF THAT ACTION WE HAVE NO CONCERN.  IT IS ENOUGH, FOR
ITS ENFORCEMENT, THAT IT IS WRITTEN PLAIN AND DOES NOT TRANSCEND THE
LIMITS OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.  CF. LAUF V. SHINNER & CO., 303 U.S.
323. 

THE FACT IS THAT RESPONDENT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH
SEC. 8 AND THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IN ALL BUT THE ONE ESSENTIAL RESPECT. 
IT RECOGNIZED THE EMPLOYEES' DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES, NEGOTIATED
WITH THEM, ENGAGED IN MEDIATION UNTIL IT WAS TERMINATED BY THE BOARD AS
THE STATUTE REQUIRED.  WHEN IT CAME, HOWEVER, TO THE FINAL AND CRUCIAL
STEP OF ARBITRATION, IT DECLINED TO GO FORWARD AS SEC. 8 REQUIRES IF,
LATER, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS TO BE HAD.  WHETHER THE REFUSAL WAS
MOTIVATED BY DISTRUST OF THE BOARD,  FN22  BY A DESIRE TO ESCAPE THE
BINDING EFFECT OF AN AWARD,  FN23  BY PREFERENCE FOR SOME OTHER
POSSIBLE PROCEDURE,  FN24  OR MERELY BY RESPONDENT'S MISTAKEN VIEW OF
THE SECTION'S REQUIREMENTS IS NOT MATERIAL.  ARBITRATION UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT WAS AVAILABLE, AFFORDED A METHOD FOR SETTLEMENT
CONGRESS ITSELF HAS PROVIDED, AND UNTIL RESPONDENT ACCEPTED THIS METHOD
IT HAD NOT MADE "EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO SETTLE" THE DISPUTE, AS
SEC. 8 REQUIRES. 

IT REMAINS TO REFUTE A FURTHER BASIS FOR THE RULING OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  THIS WAS THAT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PREVIOUS DECISIONS,
SEC. 8 DOES NOT APPLY WHEN VIOLENCE IS INVOLVED.  THE TERMS OF THE
EXIST, TO FIND ONE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN BY THIS RECORD WOULD BE
TO INVERT THE STATUTORY ORDER OF THINGS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION IS
TO HEAD OFF STRIKES AND THE VIOLENCE WHICH TOO OFTEN ACCOMPANIES THEM,
BY REQUIRING THE STATUTORY STEPS TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE AID OF FEDERAL
COURTS IS SOUGHT IN EQUITY.  DENIAL OF THAT ASSISTANCE IS THE SANCTION
THE STATUTE AFFORDS TO SECURE PERFORMANCE OF THE PRESCRIBED PREVENTIVE
MEASURES.  TO GIVE IT, WHEN THEY HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN, NOT ONLY VIOLATES
THE SECTION'S TERMS.  IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSES THEY WERE TO ACCOMPLISH
AND WHICH, WHEN ACHIEVED, MAKE UNNECESSARY INVOCATION OF THE COURT'S
AID. 

IN GENERAL THE ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO INTERFERE WITH THE POWER TO
RESTRAIN VIOLENT ACTS.  FN26 AND IT WAS CONTEMPLATED EXPRESSLY THE
COURT MIGHT INTERVENE TO PREVENT THEM, WHEN THE PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES SHOW THE COMPLAINANT HAS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY
WITH SUCH REQUIREMENTS AS THOSE OF SEC. 8.  FN27  BUT ONE MAJOR PURPOSE
OF THE ACT WAS TO PREVENT THE USE OF INJUNCTION IMPROPERLY AS A
STRIKEBREAKING IMPLEMENT.  FN28  AND THE DISCUSSION OF SEC. 8 IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES SHOWS THAT, WHILE IT WOULD NOT APPLY IF ON THE
FACTS THE COMPLAINANT COULD NOT MEET ITS TERMS, IT WAS INTENDED TO
APPLY WHEN HE HAD HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY BUT REFUSED TO DO SO.  FN29
THIS IS CLEAR NOT ONLY FROM REPRESENTATIVE O'CONNOR'S "CLEAN HANDS"
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SECTION,  FN30  BUT ALSO FROM THE GENERAL
CHARACTER OF THE DISCUSSION REGARDING IT.  MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THE
OBJECTION WAS UPON THE MISTAKEN VIEW THAT SEC. 8 WOULD APPLY EVEN
THOUGH THE COMPLAINANT MIGHT HAVE NO NOTICE OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS
CALLING FOR HIM TO TAKE THE CONCILIATORY STEPS BEFORE SEEKING
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  FN31  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE SHOWS THIS WAS NOT
THE INTENT OR EFFECT OF THE SECTION.  THERE WAS INDEED NO EXPRESSION OF
CONCERN FOR THE COMPLAINANT WHO, HAVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH
THE SECTION, MIGHT REFUSE DELIBERATELY AND STEADFASTLY TO DO SO.  ON
THE CONTRARY, IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD CLEARLY HE WOULD BE
REMITTED TO OTHER FORMS OF RELIEF NOT TOUCHED BY THE ACT. 

IN VIEW OF THE DISPOSITION WE HAVE MADE OF THE CASE, WE HAVE NOT
DETERMINED THE OTHER ISSUES WHICH WERE PRESENTED.  SOME ARE OF SUCH
IMPORTANCE THEY SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED IN ADVANCE OF NECESSITY FOR
DETERMINING THEM.  THAT NECESSITY IS NOT PRESENT IN THIS CASE. 
ACCORDINGLY, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION CONCERNING THOSE ISSUES. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PETITIONERS' BRIEF CHARACTERIZES THEIR ACTION AS AGREEMENT "TO
AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT."  RESPONDENT SAYS "THE STRIKE NOTICE WAS AT
NO TIME WITHDRAWN, ALTHOUGH IT WAS TEMPORARILY WITHHELD" UNTIL DECEMBER
28. 

FN2  THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE EXACT TIME OR MANNER OF
PETITIONERS' AGREEMENT, BUT CLEARLY INDICATES IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO
THIS PROPOSAL OF THE BOARD, NOT THE LATER ONE OF DECEMBER 28, WHICH WAS
ADDRESSED SOLELY TO RESPONDENT AND RECITED THE EMPLOYEES' PREVIOUS
AGREEMENT. 

FN3  THERE WERE TWENTY-NINE OF THESE.  THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE
DISPUTE NUMBERED ABOUT ONE HUNDRED. 

FN4  IT MAY BE ADDED TO THE BACKGROUND OF FACTS THAT, BETWEEN JANUARY
19, WHEN THE INJUNCTION ISSUED, AND THE TIME WHEN THE APPEAL WAS
PERFECTED, VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, PETITIONERS HERE, WERE CITED
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT FOR
VIOLATING THE INJUNCTION.  THE COURT ALSO ISSUED AN ORDER ON FEBRUARY 9
DIRECTING THE MARSHAL TO ENFORCE THE INJUNCTION BY PROPER MEANS,
INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL DEPUTIES IF NECESSARY.  THE
RECORD SHOWS THE CITATIONS WERE SET FOR HEARING BUT DOES NOT DISCLOSE
WHAT DISPOSITION WAS MADE OF THEM.  IT APPEARS, HOWEVER, FROM THE
BRIEFS THAT THE PERSONS CITED WERE CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR
VIOLATION OF THE INJUNCTION, SENTENCE LATER BEING SUSPENDED PENDING THE
FINAL DETERMINATION OF THIS CASE. 

FN5  IN THE LOWER COURTS AND HERE THIS ISSUE WAS HIGHLY
CONTROVERTED.  PETITIONERS SAY JURISDICTION IS LACKING SINCE THE CAUSE
OF ACTION IS ONE MERELY FOR EXERCISE OF THE GENERAL POLICE POWER IN THE
PROTECTION OF THE RAILROAD'S PROPERTY.  THE COMPLAINT, IT IS SAID, DOES
NOT SPECIFY ANY PROVISION OF FEDERAL LAW WHICH REQUIRES CONSTRUCTION OR
APPLICATION AND DOES NO MORE THAN AVER A GENERAL REFERENCE TO FEDERAL
STATUTES, INCLUDING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE STATUTE MAKING
CRIMINAL SPECIFIED INTERFERENCES WITH INTERSTATE RAILROAD PROPERTY.  18
U.S.C. SEC. 412(A); CF. COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264; NORTON V.
WHITESIDE, 239 U.S. 144; NILES-BEMENT-POND CO. V. IRON MOULDERS UNION,
254 U.S. 77; GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 109. 

RESPONDENT AND THE LOWER COURTS FIND THE JURISDICTIONAL BASIS
GENERALLY IN THE DUTIES IMPOSED UPON CARRIERS BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AND OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES, INCLUDING THE CRIMINAL STATUTE
REFERRED TO ABOVE.  THEY RELY UPON SUCH AUTHORITIES AS IN RE LENNON,
166 U.S. 548; TOLEDO, A.A. & N.M. RY. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA CO., 54 F.
730(C.C.N.D. OHIO); AND WABASH R. CO. V. HANNAHAN, 121 F. 563(C.C.E.D.
MO.). 

FN6  CF. THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 107(E), 47 STAT.
71. 

FN7  PETITIONERS ALSO URGE THAT THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
BECAME VOID ON THE EXPIRATION OF FIVE DAYS BY THE PROVISIONS OF 29
U.S.C. SEC. 107(E), AND COULD NOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THAT TIME; HENCE
THE ORDERS CONTINUING IT IN FORCE WERE NULLITIES; AND THAT THE EVIDENCE
WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW THEY HAD PARTICIPATED IN OR RATIFIED ANY ACT
OF VIOLENCE OR OF INTERFERENCE WITH RESPONDENT'S OPERATIONS OR
PROPERTY. 

FN8  CF. TEXT INFRA AT NOTE 21. 

FN9  CF. 45 U.S.C. SEC. 157, 44 STAT. 582-584, 48 STAT. 1197.  EACH
PARTY SELECTS AN EQUAL NUMBER OF ARBITRATORS WHO SELECT ANOTHER OR
OTHERS, BUT IN CASE OF FAILURE OF THE NAMED ARBITRATORS TO AGREE THE
MEDIATION BOARD SELECTS THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER OR MEMBERS. 

FN10  THE AWARD IS MADE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES, EXCEPT
FOR POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT OF THE JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON IT, IN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, ON GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE.  45 U.S.C. SEC.
158(L), (M), (N), 44 STAT. 584-586, 48 STAT. 1197; SEC. 159, SECOND,
THIRD, 44 STAT. 585.    FN11  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THEY ARE ILLUSTRATIVE OR EXCLUSIVE.  RESPONDENT'S EMPHASIS UPON THE
DISJUNCTIVE MEANING OF "EITHER  ...  OR  ...  OR" EFFECTUALLY
ELIMINATES "EVERY" FROM THE SECTION.  IT DISTORTS "EVERY REASONABLE
EFFORT" INTO MEANING, IN EFFECT, "ONE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONABLE
EFFORTS."  A SIMILAR DISTORTION IS ITS APPARENT VIEW THAT THE PHRASE
"WITH THE AID OF ANY AVAILABLE GOVERNMENTAL MACHINERY" QUALIFIES ONLY
"MEDIATION" AND NOT "VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION."  CF. THE FURTHER
DISCUSSION IN THE TEXT, INFRA AT NOTE 20.  AND IF THE SECTION USES "OR"
ONLY IN THE DISJUNCTIVE, IT WOULD BE ENOUGH EITHER TO COMPLY WITH LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS OR TO MAKE REASONABLE EFFORT, A VIEW SO OBVIOUSLY UNTENABLE
IT HAS NOT BEEN SUGGESTED. 

FN12  THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS ADOPTED MARCH 23, 1932.  47 STAT.
70.  AT THAT TIME THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926 WAS IN FORCE.  44 STAT.
577.  THOUGH IT DIFFERED IN SUBSTANTIAL RESPECTS FROM THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT OF 1934, NOW IN EFFECT (48 STAT. 1185), IT CONTAINED PROVISIONS FOR
THE THREE PROCEDURES OF NEGOTIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION WHICH,
FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, WERE IDENTICAL WITH OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO
THOSE OF THE LATER STATUTE.  THE 1934 CHANGES RELATED PRINCIPALLY TO
THE MACHINERY FOR MAKING THE PROCEDURES EFFECTIVE, THOUGH IN SOME
INSTANCES IT MORE DEFINITELY CRYSTALLIZED LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. 

FN13  MUCH OF THE DEBATE IN CONGRESS RELATED TO PREVIOUS RAILWAY
LABOR DISPUTES, INCLUDING THE PULLMAN CONTROVERSY OF 1894 AND THE
SHOPCRAFT STRIKE OF 1922, AND TO DECISIONS RELATING TO INJUNCTIONS
WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE DISPUTES, E.G., IN RE
DEBS, 158 U.S. 564; CF. 75 CONG. REC. 4618-4620, 5472-5479, 5503-5504. 

FN14  CF. THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS, 75 CONG. REC. 4505-4510, 4618
4626, 5462-5515. 

FN15  CF. NOTES 13, 14 SUPRA. 

FN16  75 CONG. REC. 5504.  AND, AT 5508, IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY
WHETHER OR NOT SEC. 8'S REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY WHERE IT MIGHT BE
IMPOSSIBLE TO MOVE FOR SETTLEMENT BY NEGOTIATION, MEDIATION OR
ARBITRATION, HE STATED: 

"THE ANSWER TO THAT IS SIMPLE.  IN SEEKING A RESTRAINING ORDER A
PARTY BELIEVED TO BE AGGRIEVED COMES INTO COURT AND UNDER A CERTAIN
STATE OF FACTS, WHICH ARE ENUMERATED IN THE BILL ITSELF, ASKS FOR A
RESTRAINING ORDER.  IF TIME HAS NOT PERMITTED HIM OR THE CORPORATION TO
AVAIL ITSELF OF THE EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL MACHINERY FOR THE SETTLEMENT
OF A LABOR DISPUTE, HE RECITES THAT AS ONE OF HIS FACTS, WHICH IS FULL
COMPLIANCE, OF COURSE, WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8, WHICH MAKES IT
A CONDITION PRECEDENT THAT EVERY REMEDY MUST BE EXHAUSTED TO SETTLE THE
STRIKE BEFORE THE INJUNCTION WILL ISSUE." 

FN17  75 CONG. REC. 5464.  IT WAS PARTLY FOR FEAR OF THE EFFECTS OF
REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 8'S PROVISIONS, UPON INTERRUPTION OF
SERVICE, THAT MR. BECK, WHO LED OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, URGENTLY
ADVOCATED AN AMENDMENT EXEMPTING PUBLIC UTILITIES.  75 CONG. REC. 5503
5504. 

FN18  IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE NEGOTIATION MUST BE DONE IN GOOD
FAITH, AS IS TRUE UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, CF. E.G.,
LABOR BOARD V. PILLING & SON CO., 119 F.2D 32(C.C.A.). 

FN19  "THE EMPLOYER IS NOT COMPELLED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF ALL THREE
METHODS; ANY ONE OF THEM WILL FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS.  THUS IN MAYO
V. DEAN, 82 F.2D 554, 556(C.C.A.)  IT WAS HELD THAT THE EMPLOYER IS NOT
OBLIGED TO PROPOSE BOTH MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION."  132 F.2D 265,
271. 

FN20  CF. NOTE 11 SUPRA. 

FN21  CF. LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN22  RESPONDENT'S BRIEF CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING: 

"  ...  RESPONDENT HAD REACHED THE POINT WHERE ITS ONLY RECOURSE WAS
TO REQUEST AN IMPARTIAL BODY, NAMELY:  AN EMERGENCY BOARD, TO HEAR THE
EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE ISSUES INVOLVED. 

"THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THIS GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY WOULD BE FAIR,
JUST AND IMPARTIAL, IN THE CONDUCT OF THE ARBITRATION, AND WITH THE
EXPERIENCE WHICH THE RESPONDENT HAD HAD IN THE MEDIATION, IT COULD NOT
BE CHARGED WITH BAD FAITH IN REFUSING TO SIGN AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT,
WHERE THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS WERE TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE SAME
ATMOSPHERE. 

"RESPONDENT HAS ALWAYS INSISTED UPON A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL HEARING OF
THIS LABOR DISPUTE BEFORE A BODY WHICH HAS NO CONNECTION WITH EITHER
THE BROTHERHOOD INTERESTS OR THE RAILROAD INTERESTS, AND TO THIS DATE
IT HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL TO HAVE ITS CASE PRESENTED TO A BODY OF THAT
CHARACTER." 

FN23  CF. NOTE 10 SUPRA; NOTE 24 INFRA. 

FN24  WHEN THE MEDIATION BOARD TERMINATED ITS SERVICES, RESPONDENT
FIRST SUGGESTED SUBMISSION TO "SOME IMPARTIAL FACT-FINDING COMMISSION,"
BUT FOR ADVISORY ACTION ONLY.  LATER IT REPEATEDLY URGED APPOINTMENT OF
AN EMERGENCY BOARD UNDER SEC. 10 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 160, 44 STAT. 586-587, 48 STAT. 1197.  UNDER THE SECTION, IF A
DISPUTE NOT ADJUSTED THREATENS IN THE BOARD'S JUDGMENT SUBSTANTIALLY TO
INTERRUPT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE BOARD SHALL NOTIFY THE PRESIDENT
WHO, IN HIS DISCRETION, MAY CREATE A BOARD TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
CONCERNING THE DISPUTE. 

FN25  FRANKFURTER AND GREENE, THE LABOR INJUNCTION (1930) 215. 

FN26  CF. 75 CONG. REC. 5478. 

FN27  CF. NOTE 16 SUPRA; 75 CONG. REC. 5508. 

FN28  CF. 75 CONG. REC. 5478. 

FN29  CF. NOTE 16 SUPRA; 75 CONG. REC. 5508. 

FN30  CF. NOTE 17 SUPRA AND TEXT. 

FN31  CF. 75 CONG. REC. 4688, 5471, 5508, SETTING FORTH THE
OBJECTIONS OF OPPONENTS TO THE BILL, WITH THE REPLIES OF ITS SPONSORS
AT 4760, 5508. 
..END :







MCLEAN TRUCKING CO. V. U.S., 321 U.S. 67 


NO. 31.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 15, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1944.  -
48 F.SUPP.  933, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZING, UNDER
SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED, THE CONSOLIDATION OF
CERTAIN MOTOR CARRIERS; AND, UNDER SEC. 214 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF
1935, THE ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES BY THE CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION,
SUSTAINED AS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION AND SUPPORTED BY
THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE.  P. 88. 

2.  THE COMMISSION HAVING MODIFIED ITS ORDERS BY EXCLUDING ONE OF THE
CARRIERS FROM THE CONSOLIDATION, AND THE COURT BELOW HAVING DETERMINED
THE CASE IN THAT POSTURE, THE ONLY QUESTIONS HERE CONSIDERED ARE THOSE
PRESENTED BY THE MODIFIED ORDERS.  P. 70. 

3.  IN AUTHORIZING THE CONSOLIDATION, THE COMMISSION DID NOT APPLY
IMPROPER STANDARDS AND DID NOT FAIL TO GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO
ANTITRUST LAWS AND POLICIES.  P. 77. 

4.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE CONSOLIDATIONS OF
MOTOR CARRIERS, WHICH BUT FOR THE EXEMPTION GRANTED BY SEC. 5(11) MIGHT
VIOLATE THE ANTITRUST LAWS, IS NOT RESTRICTED TO CONSOLIDATIONS WHICH
ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC.  P.
78. 

5.  IN DETERMINING THE PROPRIETY OF MOTOR CARRIER CONSOLIDATIONS, THE
PRESERVATION OF COMPETITION AMONG CARRIERS, ALTHOUGH STILL A FACTOR, IS
SIGNIFICANT CHIEFLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT AIDS IN ACHIEVING THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  P. 85. 

6.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION WAS
"CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST" DID NOT GO BEYOND THE STANDARDS
PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.  P. 89. 

7.  ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE ACCEDED TO THE ANTI-TRUST
DIVISION'S REQUEST FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHERS BEARING ON THE
QUESTION OF COMPETITION, ITS FAILURE SO TO DO DOES NOT ON THE RECORD
HERE REQUIRE THAT ITS CONCLUSIONS BE SET ASIDE.  P. 89. 

8.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT THE CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION
WOULD NOT BE "AFFILIATED" WITH A RAIL CARRIER, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SECS. 5(2) AND 5(6) OF THE ACT, WAS SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS AND THE
EVIDENCE.  P. 91. 

9.  ONLY THE CONSOLIDATION AS APPROVED IS RELIEVED FROM THE OPERATION
OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS; AND ANY CHANGE IN THE STATUS QUO MAY BE
CONSIDERED WHEN SUCH CHANGE OCCURS.  P. 91. 

MCLEAN TRUCKING CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, REFUSING TO
SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 38 M.C.C. 137. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A STATUTORY THREE JUDGE COURT,
FN1  48 F.SUPP.  933, REFUSING TO SET ASIDE CERTAIN ORDERS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH HAD AUTHORIZED CONSOLIDATION OF
SEVEN LARGE MOTOR CARRIERS. 

ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT, INC., WAS ORGANIZED IN DELAWARE IN MARCH, 1941,
TO BRING ABOUT THE PROPOSED MERGER.  IN JULY, 1941, IT APPLIED TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR PERMISSION, UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED (49 U.S.C. SEC. 5; 54 STAT. 898,
905), TO OBTAIN CONTROL OF EIGHT MOTOR CARRIERS, THROUGH PURCHASE OF
THEIR CAPITAL STOCK, AND TO CONSOLIDATE THEIR OPERATING RIGHTS AND
PROPERTIES INTO ONE UNIT WITHIN A YEAR FROM THE DATE IT ACQUIRED STOCK
CONTROL.  AT THE SAME TIME, ASSOCIATED APPLIED FOR PERMISSION UNDER
SEC. 214 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935(49 U.S.C. SEC. 314; 49 STAT.
543, 557, 52 STAT. 1240, 54 STAT. 924) TO ISSUE PREFERRED AND COMMON
STOCK TO BE USED MAINLY IN EXCHANGE FOR STOCKS OF THE EIGHT COMMON
CARRIERS AND FOUR ASSOCIATED NONCARRIERS. 

BEFORE THE COMMISSION, APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATIONS WAS OPPOSED BY
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, THE ANTI-TRUST DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, THE NATIONAL GRANGE, FOUR FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATIONS AND
SUPER SERVICE MOTOR FREIGHT COMPANY, A MOTOR CARRIER.  FN2  AN EXAMINER
HELD HEARINGS AT WHICH EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED, AND THE COMMISSION
HEARD ARGUMENT ON OBJECTIONS TO HIS REPORT BEFORE FINALLY AUTHORIZING
THE CONSOLIDATION.  FN3  38 M.C.C. 137.  MCLEAN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC.,
A MOTOR CARRIER WHICH CLAIMS TO COMPETE WITH SOME OF THE CARRIERS
INCLUDED IN THE MERGER, BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE
THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS.  THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE AMERICAN
FARM BUREAU FEDERATION INTERVENED AS PLAINTIFFS.  THE UNITED STATES
CONFESSED ERROR.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE PARTIES TO
THE MERGER DEFENDED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES, LATER SET FORTH WITH PARTICULARITY, ARE
INTERTWINED.  THEY RELATE TO WHETHER THE COMMISSION APPLIED A PROPER
STANDARD IN CONCLUDING TO APPROVE THE MERGER; WHETHER IT FAILED TO GIVE
DUE WEIGHT TO THE PROHIBITIONS AND POLICIES OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS; AND
WHETHER, UPON THE EVIDENCE AND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 5(2)(B) OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY COULD DETERMINE
THAT ASSOCIATED, UPON CONSUMMATION OF THE MERGER, WOULD NOT BE
AFFILIATED WITH ANY RAILROAD.  THE COMMISSION RESOLVED ALL OF THESE
QUESTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE MERGER, AS DID THE DISTRICT COURT. 

IN ONE RESPECT, HOWEVER, THE CASE AS PRESENTED TO THE COURT WAS IN
DIFFERENT POSTURE THAN AS IT CAME TO THE COMMISSION.  THIS CHANGE AROSE
FROM THE ELIMINATION OF ONE OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES, ARROW CARRIER
CORPORATION, FROM THE MERGER BETWEEN THE TIME THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS
WERE RENDERED AND THE HEARING IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  AFTER THE SUIT
WAS BEGUN THE COMMISSION, ON THE APPLICANT'S PETITION, MODIFIED ITS
ORDERS TO EXCLUDE ARROW.  ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION ALSO AMENDED ITS
ANSWER TO INDICATE THE CHANGE, AND THE CASE WAS DECIDED ON THE ORDERS
AS MODIFIED.  THEY PRESENT THE ONLY QUESTIONS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. 
IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE ELIMINATION OF ARROW HAS BEARING UPON THE
ISSUE RELATING TO ANTI-TRUST POLICY, BUT MORE PARTICULARLY ON THAT
RELATING TO RAILROAD AFFILIATION. 

THE EIGHT CARRIERS ORIGINALLY SOUGHT TO BE MERGED  FN4  WERE ARROW
CARRIER CORPORATION, PATERSON, N.J.; BARNWELL BROTHERS, INC.,
BURLINGTON, N.C.; CONSOLIDATED MOTOR LINES, INC., HARTFORD, CONN.;
HORTON MOTOR LINES, INC., CHARLOTTE, N.C.; MCCARTHY FREIGHT SYSTEM,
INC., TAUNTON, MASS.; M. MORAN TRANSPORTATION LINES, INC., BUFFALO,
N.Y.; SOUTHEASTERN MOTOR LINES, INC., BRISTOL VA.; AND TRANSPORTATION,
INC., ATLANTA, GA.  THE MERGER EMBRACES SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL OPERATORS
ALONG THE ATLANTIC SEABOARD FROM MASSACHUSETTS TO FLORIDA.  CERTAIN OF
THEM SERVE COMMUNITIES AS FAR WEST AS CLEVELAND, OHIO, NASHVILLE,
TENNESSEE, AND NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA.  BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT EFFECT
WILL BE TO CREATE AN END-TO-END CONSOLIDATION FROM POINTS IN THE FAR
SOUTH TO NEW ENGLAND, WITH OBVIOUSLY LARGE POSSIBILITIES FOR THROUGH
SERVICE.  ACCORDING TO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THE TOTAL ASSETS
OF THE COMPANIES INVOLVED, AS OF APRIL 30, 1941, EXCEED $8,000,000 AND
THEIR GROSS OPERATING REVENUES FOR 1940 EXCEEDED $19,000,000.  THE
CARRIERS OPERATE PRINCIPALLY AS MOTOR VEHICLE COMMON CARRIERS OF
GENERAL COMMODITIES OVER REGULAR ROUTES TOTALLING 37,884 MILES.  OVER
13,546 MILES BETWEEN IMPORTANT SERVICE POINTS ONE OR MORE COMPETES WITH
OTHERS IN THE GROUP.  FN5  THIS COMPETITIVE MILEAGE WILL BE ELIMINATED
BY THE MERGER, LEAVING A SINGLE CARRIER WITH ROUTES EXTENDING OVER
24,338 MILES. 

AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED MERGER ASSOCIATED WILL BE THE LARGEST
SINGLE MOTOR CARRIER IN THE UNITED STATES - AT LEAST IN TERMS OF ITS
ESTIMATED REVENUES - AND NO OTHER SINGLE MOTOR CARRIER WILL COMPETE
WITH IT THROUGHOUT ITS SERVICE AREA.  NEVERTHELESS, AFTER CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION AND ON EVIDENCE CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN IT, THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT ON COMPLETION OF THE MERGER "THERE WOULD REMAIN
AMPLE COMPETITIVE MOTOR-CARRIER SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE TERRITORY
INVOLVED" AND IN ADDITION THAT ONE OR MORE RAIL CARRIERS WOULD OFFER
SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION TO ASSOCIATED AT ALL PRINCIPAL POINTS.  IT ALSO
FOUND THAT THE CONSOLIDATION WOULD RESULT IN IMPROVED TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE.  THROUGH MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT WOULD BE SIMPLIFIED AND
EXPEDITED, EQUIPMENT WOULD BE UTILIZED MORE EFFICIENTLY, TERMINAL
FACILITIES IMPROVED, HANDLING OF SHIPMENTS REDUCED, RELATIONS WITH
SHIPPERS AND PUBLIC REGULATORY BODIES SIMPLIFIED, SAFE OPERATION
PROMOTED, AND SUBSTANTIAL OPERATING ECONOMIES WOULD BE ACHIEVED.  THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE APPLICANT'S ASSUMPTION OF THE FIXED
CHARGES OF THE CARRIERS WOULD NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, AND CONSUMMATION OF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION WOULD NOT RESULT
IN SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO THE CARRIER EMPLOYEES AFFECTED. 

IN CONNECTION WITH ARROW'S PARTICIPATION, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
THE TRANSPORT COMPANY, WHOSE STOCK WAS WHOLLY OWNED BY KUHN, LOEB AND
COMPANY, HAD AN OPTION TO PURCHASE ARROW'S COMMON STOCK AND WOULD
RECEIVE ASSOCIATED'S STOCK THEREFOR WHEN THE MERGER WAS EFFECTED.  THE
STOCK THUS RECEIVED, TOGETHER WITH 9,000 SHARES OF ASSOCIATED'S COMMON
STOCK ALREADY HELD, WOULD GIVE THE TRANSPORT COMPANY, AND THROUGH IT
KUHN, LOEB AND COMPANY, 6,877 SHARES OF ASSOCIATED'S PREFERRED AND
67,167 OF ASSOCIATED'S COMMON, A TOTAL OF 13 PER CENT AND 9.53 PER
CENT, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKS EXPECTED TO BE
OUTSTANDING AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRANSACTIONS.  FN6 KUHN, LOEB AND
COMPANY IS REPRESENTED ON THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF SEVERAL RAILROADS
AND FOR YEARS HAS HAD INVESTMENT BANKING CONNECTIONS WITH THE BALTIMORE
AND OHIO AND THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROADS, EACH OPERATING IN TERRITORY TO
BE SERVED BY ASSOCIATED.  A REPRESENTATIVE OF KUHN, LOEB AND COMPANY
WOULD BE ONE OF ASSOCIATED'S NINE DIRECTORS.  AFTER EXAMINING THE
BLOCKS OF STOCK WHICH OTHER PERSONS WOULD HOLD ON COMPLETION OF THE
CONSOLIDATION AND OTHER MATTERS BEARING ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
PROPOSED MERGER AND THE RAILROADS, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT
ASSOCIATED WOULD NOT BE AFFILIATED WITH ANY RAIL CARRIERS.  WITH THE
ELIMINATION OF ARROW, OF COURSE, THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANY INFLUENCE ON
ASSOCIATED'S POLICIES BY TRANSPORT, AND THUS BY KUHN, LOEB AND COMPANY
AND THE RAILROADS, WAS SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED. 

                     I. 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHICH IS
CONTROLLING, ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN7  SECTION 5(2) MAKES
LAWFUL A CONSOLIDATION OF THE SORT HERE ATTEMPTED ONLY IF THE
COMMISSION AUTHORIZES IT.  THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO AUTHORIZE AND
APPROVE A CONSOLIDATION EITHER AS APPLIED FOR OR AS QUALIFIED BY SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS IT DEEMS "JUST AND REASONABLE," IF IT FINDS
THAT THE MERGER "WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  SEC.
5(2)(B).  IN PASSING UPON A PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION THE COMMISSION IS
REQUIRED TO "GIVE WEIGHT TO THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS, AMONG OTHERS:
(1) THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION UPON ADEQUATE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC; ...  (3) THE TOTAL FIXED CHARGES
RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION; AND (4) THE INTEREST OF THE
CARRIER EMPLOYEES AFFECTED."  SEC. 5(2)(C).  THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS
SUPPLY THE GENERAL STATUTORY STANDARDS FOR GUIDING THE COMMISSION'S
JUDGMENT; AND WITHIN THEIR BROAD LIMITS, ITS AUTHORITY IS "EXCLUSIVE
AND PLENARY."  SEC. 5(11). 

HOWEVER, IN TWO PARTICULARS, PERTINENT ESPECIALLY TO THE ISSUES
CONCERNING ANTI-TRUST POLICY AND RAILROAD AFFILIATION, SEC. 5 LAYS DOWN
MORE EXPLICIT COMMANDS.  ONE IS A SPECIFIC EXEMPTION OF CARRIERS AND
INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN AN APPROVED MERGER "FROM THE OPERATION OF
THE ANTITRUST LAWS AND OF ALL OTHER RESTRAINTS, LIMITATIONS, AND
PROHIBITIONS OF LAW, FEDERAL, STATE, OR MUNICIPAL, INSOFAR AS MAY BE
NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE TRANSACTIONS SO
APPROVED  ...  AND TO HOLD, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE ANY PROPERTIES AND
EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OR FRANCHISES ACQUIRED THROUGH SUCH TRANSACTION." 
SEC. 5(11).  THE OTHER PROVIDES THE STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED IN CASES OF
AFFILIATION OF A MOTOR CARRIER WITH A RAILROAD.  WHERE A RAILROAD OR
"ANY PERSON WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY SUCH A CARRIER, OR AFFILIATED
THEREWITH"  FN8  IS AN APPLICANT IN A CONSOLIDATION PROCEEDING, THE
COMMISSION CANNOT APPROVE THE MERGER "UNLESS IT FINDS THAT THE
TRANSACTION PROPOSED WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
WILL ENABLE SUCH CARRIER TO USE SERVICE BY MOTOR VEHICLE TO PUBLIC
ADVANTAGE IN ITS OPERATIONS AND WILL NOT UNDULY RESTRAIN COMPETITION." 
SEC. 5(2)(B).  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONTROLLING STATUTORY PROVISIONS
THE ISSUES MUST BE STATED MORE SHARPLY FOR PROPER PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT
IS AT STAKE. 

                                 II. 

AS HAS BEEN SAID, THEY ARE INTERTWINED.  THIS IS TRUE ESPECIALLY OF
THE ISSUES CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF THE STANDARDS APPLIED AND
WHETHER DUE CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND
POLICIES, ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION OF RAIL AFFILIATION IS CLOSELY RELATED
TO BOTH. 

THE CHIEF ATTACK ON THE ORDERS IS THAT THE COMMISSION IMPROPERLY
CONSTRUED THE STANDARDS BY WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED IT TO DETERMINE THE
PROPRIETY OF A CONSOLIDATION; AND THE BURDEN OF THIS COMPLAINT IS THAT
IT DID SO "BY FAILING TO CONSIDER AND GIVE DUE WEIGHT TO THE ANTI-TRUST
AND OTHER LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE THAT
THE MERGER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL, VIOLATES THE
SHERMAN ACT; HENCE THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT POWER TO APPROVE THE
MERGER.  THIS PRESUPPOSES THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND, BY ENACTING THE
SPECIFIC EXEMPTION OF SEC. 5(11), TO GIVE THE COMMISSION LEEWAY TO
APPROVE ANY MERGER WHICH, BUT FOR THE EXEMPTION AND THE COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL, WOULD RUN AFOUL OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY IS NOT "EXCLUSIVE AND PLENARY," AS THE SECTION
DECLARES, WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES SET BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
INCLUDING THE EXEMPTION; BUT IT IS RESTRICTED ALSO BY ALL THE
RAMIFICATIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND POLICIES, TO WHICH THE
COMMISSION MUST GIVE STRICT REGARD IN APPROVING MOTOR CONSOLIDATIONS,
AS IF THE EXEMPTION DID NOT EXIST. 

IT IS CONCEDED THIS IS NOT TRUE OF RAIL CONSOLIDATIONS, THOUGH THEY
ARE AUTHORIZED, AND SUBJECTED TO THE SAME STANDARDS, BY THE IDENTICAL
IS SAID TO ARISE FROM THE DIFFERENCE WHICH EXISTED IN THE CONDITIONS
UNDER WHICH RAIL AND MOTOR CARRIERS, RESPECTIVELY, WERE BROUGHT WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTORY COMMANDS.  THUS, IT IS SAID, THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920(41 STAT. 456) MADE A BROAD DEPARTURE FROM
PREVIOUS POLICY BY RELIEVING RAIL CONSOLIDATIONS, WITH THE COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL, FROM ANTI-TRUST RESTRICTIONS IN ORDER TO REHABILITATE A
BROKENDOWN INDUSTRY.  BUT, IT IS ALSO SAID, SUCH A CONDITION DID NOT
CHARACTERIZE MOTOR CARRIERS WHEN THEY WERE BROUGHT UNDER REGULATION IN
1935 OR AT THE TIME OF ANY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION AFFECTING THEM. 
HENCE, IT IS ADMITTED THE COMMISSION WITH PROPRIETY MAY APPROVE A RAIL
CONSOLIDATION, OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, IN ORDER TO
BRING ABOUT NEEDED OR DESIRABLE IMPROVEMENT IN SERVICE AND ECONOMIES IN
OPERATION.  BUT, AS TO MOTOR CARRIERS, IT IS URGED THE CONSOLIDATION
CANNOT BE EFFECTED WITH ANY SUCH PURPOSES OR CONSEQUENCES.  ONLY WHEN
THE EXISTING SERVICE IS INADEQUATE AND CONSOLIDATION IS NECESSARY TO
BRING ABOUT ADEQUATE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC, THE ARGUMENT RUNS, CAN THE
COMMISSION APPROVE IT.    ON ITS FACE THE CONTENTION WOULD SEEM TO RUN
IN THE OF THE LANGUAGE AND THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 5(11).  NOTHING IN ITS
TERMS INDICATES AN INTENTION TO CREATE ONE AUTHORITY FOR RAIL
CONSOLIDATIONS AND ANOTHER FOR MOTOR MERGERS.  IDENTICAL PROVISIONS
GOVERN BOTH.  AND TO RESTRICT THE APPLICATION OF THE SECTION TO MOTOR
CARRIERS IN THE MANNER URGED WOULD NULLIFY ITS OPERATION AS TO THEM. 
THE ATTACK, WHEN CARRIED TO SUCH AN EXTENT, COMES DOWN TO ONE UPON THE
POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAS DECLARED.  IT HAS DONE SO IN TERMS WHICH DO
NOT ADMIT OF NULLIFICATION BY REFERENCE TO THE VARYING CONDITIONS UNDER
WHICH DIFFERENT TYPES OF CARRIERS WERE BROUGHT WITHIN THE STATUTE'S
OPERATION.  IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT, OR ANY OTHER, TO OVERRIDE A
POLICY, OR AN EXEMPTION FROM ONE, SO CLEARLY AND SPECIFICALLY DECLARED
BY CONGRESS, WHATEVER MAY BE OUR VIEWS OF THE WISDOM OF ITS ACTION. 
THE ARGUMENT IN ITS FULL SWEEP THEREFORE MUST BE REJECTED.  BUT, TAKEN
FOR LESS THAN THAT, IT POSES A PROBLEM OF ACCOMMODATION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT AND THE ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION, TO WHICH WE NOW
TURN.  IN DOING SO WE NOTE THAT THE FORMER IS THE LATER IN TIME AND
CONSTITUTES NOT ONLY A MORE RECENT BUT A MORE SPECIFIC EXPRESSION OF
POLICY. 

                                 III. 

TO SECURE THE CONTINUOUS, CLOSE AND INFORMED SUPERVISION WHICH
ENFORCEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE MANDATES FREQUENTLY REQUIRES, CONGRESS HAS
VESTED EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES SUCH AS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION WITH BROAD DISCRETION AND HAS CHARGED THEM WITH THE DUTY TO
EXECUTE STATED AND SPECIFIC STATUTORY POLICIES.  THAT DELEGATION DOES
NOT NECESSARILY INCLUDE EITHER THE DUTY OR THE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
NUMEROUS OTHER LAWS.  THUS, HERE, THE COMMISSION HAS NO POWER TO
ENFORCE THE SHERMAN ACT AS SUCH.  IT CANNOT DECIDE DEFINITIVELY WHETHER
THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED CONSTITUTES A RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR AN
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE WHICH IS FORBIDDEN BY THAT ACT.  THE COMMISSION'S
TASK IS TO ENFORCE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND OTHER LEGISLATION
WHICH DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND PROBLEMS. 
THAT LEGISLATION CONSTITUTES THE IMMEDIATE FRAME OF REFERENCE WITHIN
WHICH THE COMMISSION OPERATES; AND THE POLICIES EXPRESSED IN IT MUST BE
THE BASIC DETERMINANTS OF ITS ACTION. 

BUT IN EXECUTING THOSE POLICIES THE COMMISSION MAY BE FACED WITH
OVERLAPPING AND AT TIMES INCONSISTENT POLICIES EMBODIED IN OTHER
LEGISLATION ENACTED AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND WITH DIFFERENT PROBLEMS IN
VIEW.  WHEN THIS IS TRUE, IT CANNOT, WITHOUT MORE, IGNORE THE LATTER. 
THE PRECISE ADJUSTMENTS WHICH IT MUST MAKE, HOWEVER, WILL VARY FROM
INSTANCE TO INSTANCE DEPENDING ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONGRESS
INDICATES A DESIRE TO HAVE THOSE POLICIES LEAVENED OR IMPLEMENTED IN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE VARIOUS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATION
WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION IS PRIMARILY AND DIRECTLY CONCERNED.  CF.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 190; NEW YORK
CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12. 

THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY IS THE PRODUCT OF A LONG HISTORY
OF TRIAL AND ERROR BY CONGRESS IN ATTEMPTING TO REGULATE THE NATION'S
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES BEGINNING WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF
1887.  FN9  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TRACE THE
HISTORY OF THOSE ATTEMPTS IN DETAIL OTHER THAN TO NOTE THAT THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920 MARKED A SHARP CHANGE IN THE POLICIES AND
OBJECTIVES EMBODIED IN THOSE EFFORTS.  FN10  "THERETOFORE, THE EFFORT
OF CONGRESS HAD BEEN DIRECTED MAINLY TO THE PREVENTION OF ABUSES;
PARTICULARLY, THOSE ARISING FROM EXCESSIVE OR DISCRIMINATORY RATES";
FN11  AND EMPHASIS ON THE PRESERVATION OF FREE COMPETITION AMONG
CARRIERS WAS PART OF THAT EFFORT.  FN12  THE ACT OF 1920 ADDED "A NEW
AND IMPORTANT OBJECT TO PREVIOUS INTERSTATE COMMERCE LEGISLATION."  IT
SOUGHT "AFFIRMATIVELY TO BUILD UP A SYSTEM OF RAILWAYS PREPARED TO
HANDLE PROMPTLY ALL THE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC OF THE COUNTRY."  DAYTON
GOOSE CREEK RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456, 478; TEXAS &
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266, 277.  AND IN
ADMINISTERING IT, THE COMMISSION WAS TO BE GUIDED PRIMARILY BY
CONSIDERATION FOR "ADEQUACY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE,  ...  ITS
ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS OF ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY, AND  ...  APPROPRIATE
PROVISION AND BEST USE OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.  ...  "  NEW YORK
CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 25. 

SINCE THAT INITIAL EFFORT AT RESHAPING REGULATION OF RAILROADS TO
"ENSURE  ...  ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE,"  FN13  CONGRESS HAS
EXTENDED FEDERAL REGULATION IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER FORMS OF
TRANSPORTATION  FN14  AND HAS ELABORATED MORE FULLY THE OBJECTIVES TO
BE ACHIEVED BY ITS LEGISLATION.  IN 1935 IT ENACTED A COMPREHENSIVE
SCHEME OF REGULATION FOR MOTOR CARRIERS, DESIGNED TO RESULT IN "A
SYSTEM OF COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION FOR THE NATION WHICH WILL SUPPLY
THE MOST EFFICIENT MEANS OF TRANSPORT AND FURNISH SERVICE AS CHEAPLY AS
IS CONSISTENT WITH FAIR TREATMENT OF LABOR AND WITH EARNINGS WHICH WILL
SUPPORT ADEQUATE CREDIT AND THE ABILITY TO EXPAND AS NEED DEVELOPS AND
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ART."  FN15  THE POLICY
WHICH WAS TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION IN ADMINISTERING THAT ACT WAS FULLY
STATED  FN16  AND HAS SINCE BEEN ABSORBED INTO THE EQUALLY FULL
STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  THAT POLICY, WHICH IS
THE COMMISSION'S GUIDE TO "THE PUBLIC INTEREST," CF. NEW YORK CENTRAL
SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12; TEXAS V. UNITED STATES,
292 U.S. 522, DEMANDS THAT ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT BE SO REGULATED AS TO
"RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH; TO PROMOTE
SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND FOSTER SOUND
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE SEVERAL CARRIERS;
TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF REASONABLE CHARGES
FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE
PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES, OR UNFAIR OR DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE
PRACTICES; ...  ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING, COORDINATING, AND
PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER, HIGHWAY, AND
RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE
COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE."  54 STAT. 899. 

THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPECIAL NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
POLICY SUGGESTS, QUITE APART FROM THE EXPLICIT PROVISION OF SEC. 5(11),
THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS DETERMINE "THE PUBLIC
INTEREST" IN RAILROAD REGULATION ONLY IN A QUALIFIED WAY.  AND THE
ALTERED EMPHASIS IN RAILROAD LEGISLATION ON ACHIEVING AN ADEQUATE,
EFFICIENT, AND ECONOMICAL SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION THROUGH CLOSE
SUPERVISION OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND PRACTICES RATHER THAN THROUGH
HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF FREE COMPETITION IN VARIOUS PHASES
OF THE BUSINESS, CF. NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 12, HAS ITS COUNTERPART IN MOTOR CARRIER POLICY.  THE
PREMISES OF MOTOR CARRIER REGULATION POSIT SOME CURTAILMENT OF FREE AND
UNRESTRAINED COMPETITION.  FN17  THE ORIGINS  FN18 AND LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY  FN19  OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE THAT IN IT
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THERE MAY BE OCCASIONS WHEN "COMPETITION BETWEEN
CARRIERS MAY RESULT IN HARM TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS IN BENEFIT; AND
THAT WHEN A (CARRIER) INFLICTS INJURY UPON ITS RIVAL, IT MAY BE THE
PUBLIC WHICH ULTIMATELY BEARS THE LOSS."  CF. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO.
V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266, 277. 

WHATEVER MAY BE THE CASE WITH RESPECT EITHER TO OTHER KINDS OF
TRANSACTIONS BY OR AMONG CARRIERS FN20  OR TO CONSOLIDATIONS OF
DIFFERENT TYPES OF CARRIERS,  FN21  THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE
COMMISSION IS NOT TO MEASURE PROPOSALS FOR ALLRAIL OR ALL-MOTOR
CONSOLIDATIONS BY THE STANDARDS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED SUCH CONSOLIDATIONS BECAUSE IT RECOGNIZED THAT IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES THEY WERE APPROPRIATE FOR EFFECTUATION OF THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  IT WAS INFORMED THAT THIS POLICY WOULD BE
FURTHERED BY "ENCOURAGING THE ORGANIZATION OF STRONGER UNITS" IN THE
MOTOR CARRIER INDUSTRY.  FN22  AND IN AUTHORIZING THOSE CONSOLIDATIONS
IT DID NOT IMPORT THE GENERAL POLICIES OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS AS A
MEASURE OF THEIR PERMISSIBILITY.  FN23  IT IN TERMS RELIEVED
PARTICIPANTS IN APPROPRIATE MERGERS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE
LAWS.  SEC. 5(11).  IN DOING SO, IT PRESUMABLY TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE
FACT THAT THE BUSINESS AFFECTED IS SUBJECT TO STRICT REGULATION AND
SUPERVISION, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO RATES CHARGED THE PUBLIC - AN
EFFECTIVE SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE EVILS ATTENDING MONOPOLY, AT WHICH THE
SHERMAN ACT IS DIRECTED.  AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND, NO OTHER INFERENCE
IS POSSIBLE BUT THAT, AS A FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE PROPRIETY OF MOTOR
CARRIER CONSOLIDATIONS THE PRESERVATION OF COMPETITION AMONG CARRIERS,
ALTHOUGH STILL A VALUE,  FN24  IS SIGNIFICANT CHIEFLY AS IT AIDS IN THE
ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY. 

THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION IS NOT BOUND, AS APPELLANTS URGE, TO ACCEDE
TO THE POLICIES OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS SO COMPLETELY THAT ONLY WHERE
"INADEQUATE" TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ARE SOUGHT TO BE MADE "ADEQUATE"
BY CONSOLIDATION CAN THEIR DICTATES BE OVERBORNE BY "THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  THAT VIEW, IN EFFECT, WOULD REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO
PERMIT ONLY THOSE CONSOLIDATIONS WHICH WOULD NOT OFFEND THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS.  AS HAS BEEN SAID, THIS WOULD RENDER MEANINGLESS THE EXEMPTION
RELIEVING THE PARTICIPANTS IN A PROPERLY APPROVED MERGER OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE LAWS, AND WOULD IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT IS TO BE ADMINISTERED WITH AN EYE TO AFFIRMATIVELY
IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, NOT MERELY TO PRESERVING EXISTING
ARRANGEMENTS OR COMPETITIVE PRACTICES.  FN25 COMPARE DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; THE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE,
SUPRA. 

CONGRESS HOWEVER NEITHER HAS MADE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WHOLLY
INAPPLICABLE TO THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY NOR HAS AUTHORIZED THE
COMMISSION IN PASSING ON A PROPOSED MERGER TO IGNORE THEIR POLICY. 
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT THE PROCESS OF CONSOLIDATING MOTOR CARRIERS
WOULD RESULT IN SOME DIMINUTION OF COMPETITION AND MIGHT RESULT IN THE
CREATION OF MONOPOLIES.  TO PREVENT THE LATTER EFFECT AND TO MAKE
CERTAIN THAT THE FORMER WAS PERMITTED ONLY WHERE APPROPRIATE TO FURTHER
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, IT PLACED IN THE COMMISSION POWER
TO CONTROL SUCH DEVELOPMENTS.  FN26  THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO "PROMOTE ...  ECONOMICAL ...  SERVICE AND
FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS; TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
REASONABLE CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST
DISCRIMINATIONS, (OR) UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES.  ...  "  THE
PRESERVATION OF INDEPENDENT AND COMPETING MOTOR CARRIERS UNQUESTIONABLY
HAS BEARING ON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THOSE ENDS.  HENCE, THE FACT THAT THE
CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN A PROPERLY AUTHORIZED CONSOLIDATION MAY
OBTAIN IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IN NO SENSE
RELIEVES THE COMMISSION OF ITS DUTY, AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER, TO
CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE MERGER ON COMPETITORS AND ON THE GENERAL
COMPETITIVE SITUATION IN THE INDUSTRY IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF
THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY. 

IN SHORT, THE COMMISSION MUST ESTIMATE THE SCOPE AND APPRAISE THE
EFFECTS OF THE CURTAILMENT OF COMPETITION WHICH WILL RESULT FROM THE
PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION AND CONSIDER THEM ALONG WITH THE ADVANTAGES OF
IMPROVED SERVICE, SAFER OPERATION, LOWER COSTS, ETC., TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE CONSOLIDATION WILL ASSIST IN EFFECTUATING THE OVER-ALL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  RESOLVING THESE CONSIDERATIONS IS A COMPLEX
TASK WHICH REQUIRES EXTENSIVE FACILITIES, EXPERT JUDGMENT AND
CONSIDERABLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY.  CONGRESS LEFT
THAT TASK TO THE COMMISSION "TO THE END THAT THE WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE
OF THAT COMMISSION MAY BE USED NOT ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS FORM OF
TRANSPORTATION, BUT IN ITS COORDINATION OF ALL OTHER FORMS."  79 CONG.
REC. 12207.  "THE WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE OF THAT COMMISSION," NOT OF THE
COURTS, MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION IS
"CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  CF. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 215 U.S. 452; PENNSYLVANIA CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 236 U.S. 351; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS
TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344; PURCELL V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 381.  IF
THE COMMISSION DID NOT EXCEED THE STATUTORY LIMITS WITHIN WHICH
CONGRESS CONFINED ITS DISCRETION AND ITS FINDINGS ARE ADEQUATE AND
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO UPSET ITS ORDER. 

            IV. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THAT THE PROPOSED
CONSOLIDATION WOULD RESULT IN IMPROVED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, GREATER
EFFICIENCY OF OPERATION AND SUBSTANTIAL OPERATING ECONOMIES.  THE
HIGHER LOAD FACTOR ON TRUCKS, REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS USED
AND THE MILEAGE TRAVERSED WOULD LEAD TO MORE EFFICIENT USE OF EQUIPMENT
AND SAVE MOTOR FUEL.  TERMINAL FACILITIES WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED AND
USED MORE EFFECTIVELY, THROUGH MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT WOULD REDUCE COSTS
AND IN A MULTITUDE OF OTHER WAYS THE STABILITY AND SAFETY OF THE
SERVICE RENDERED WOULD BE ENHANCED.  FN27  THE COMMISSION ALSO
CONSIDERED THE EXTENT TO WHICH COMPETITION AMONG THE MERGING CARRIERS
WOULD BE DIMINISHED, THE EFFECTS OF THE CONSOLIDATION ON COMPETING
CARRIERS AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND MOTOR
CARRIER OPERATIONS IN GENERAL IN THE AREAS AFFECTED.  IT FOUND THAT IN
EACH OF THE AREAS SERVED BY THE PRESENT COMPONENTS OF THE MERGER THERE
ARE FROM 44 TO MORE THAN 100 CLASS I CARRIERS, MANY OF WHICH WERE
REGULAR ROUTE COMMON CARRIERS OF GENERAL COMMODITIES, COMPARABLE IN
SIZE - INSOFAR AS SIZE IS DISCLOSED BY OPERATING REVENUES - TO SOME OF
THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSOLIDATION.  BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL POINTS IN
EACH OF THE AREAS SERVED SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITION BY INDEPENDENT CLASS I
CARRIERS NOW EXISTS.  WHILE NONE OF THESE CARRIERS OPERATES A THROUGH
SERVICE OVER THE ENTIRE AREA TO BE SERVED BY ASSOCIATED, THE COMMISSION
FOUND THAT RAIL CARRIER SERVICE COMPETES AT ALL THE PRINCIPAL POINTS TO
BE SERVED BY ASSOCIATED, AND THAT CONTRACT CARRIERS ALSO OFFER
COMPETITION.    THE COMMISSION DETERMINED, ON THE BASIS OF FACTS
APPEARING IN THE RECORD AND ITS EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER CONSOLIDATIONS,
THAT IT WAS NOT LIKELY THAT ASSOCIATED'S SIZE AND COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGES WOULD ENABLE IT TO CONTROL THE PRICE AND CHARACTER OF
INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC, TO DRAIN OFF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF SHIPPERS'
BUSINESS OR IN OTHER WAYS TO SMOTHER THE COMPETITION OF OTHER MOTOR
CARRIERS.  IT CONCLUDED THAT AMPLE COMPETITION WOULD REMAIN AND,
WEIGHING ALL THE FACTORS, THAT THE CONSOLIDATION WAS "CONSISTENT WITH
THE PUBLIC INTEREST." 

NECESSARILY IN ITS INQUIRY THE COMMISSION HAD TO SPECULATE TO SOME
EXTENT AS TO THE FUTURE CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS OF A PRESENT
CONSOLIDATION.  BUT IT BASED ITS JUDGMENT ON AVAILABLE FACTS AS TO
PRESENT OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PAST EXPERIENCE WITH
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS AND ANALOGOUS TRANSACTIONS. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION MEASURED "THE PUBLIC INTEREST" BY
STANDARDS OTHER THAN THOSE CONGRESS PROVIDED OR THAT ITS FINDINGS DO
NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  THE MATERIAL FINDINGS ARE
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE; AND WHILE A MORE METICULOUS REGARD FOR ITS
FUNCTION MIGHT HAVE IMPELLED THE COMMISSION TO ACCEDE TO THE ANTI-TRUST
DIVISION'S REQUEST FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM OTHER SHIPPERS BEARING
ON THE QUESTION OF COMPETITION, WE DO NOT THINK ITS FAILURE TO DO SO
REQUIRES, ON THIS RECORD, THAT ITS CONCLUSIONS BE OVERTURNED. 

  V. 

APPELLANTS ALSO ATTACK THE PROPRIETY OF THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION
THAT ASSOCIATED IS NOT, AND WOULD NOT BE, ON CONSUMMATION OF THE
CONSOLIDATION, "AFFILIATED" WITH ANY RAILROAD.  WHATEVER MIGHT HAVE
BEEN THE CASE IF ARROW HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE MERGER, A DIFFERENT
QUESTION IS PRESENTED BY THE ORDERS NOW UNDER REVIEW. 


"THAT IF  ...  ANY PERSON WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY A (RAIL) CARRIER, OR
AFFILIATED THEREWITH WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH (6), IS AN
APPLICANT IN THE CASE OF ANY SUCH PROPOSED TRANSACTION INVOLVING A
MOTOR CARRIER, THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT ENTER SUCH AN ORDER UNLESS IT
FINDS THAT THE TRANSACTION PROPOSED WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND WILL ENABLE SUCH CARRIER TO USE SERVICE BY MOTOR VEHICLE
TO PUBLIC ADVANTAGE IN ITS OPERATIONS AND WILL NOT UNDULY RESTRAIN
COMPETITION." 


"FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION A PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO BE
AFFILIATED WITH A CARRIER IF, BY REASON OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF SUCH
PERSON TO SUCH CARRIER (WHETHER BY REASON OF THE METHOD OF, OR
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ORGANIZATION OR OPERATION, OR WHETHER
ESTABLISHED THROUGH COMMON DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, OR STOCKHOLDERS, A
VOTING TRUST OR TRUSTS, A HOLDING OR INVESTMENT COMPANY OR COMPANIES,
OR ANY OTHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT MEANS), IT IS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE
THAT THE AFFAIRS OF ANY CARRIER OF WHICH CONTROL MAY BE ACQUIRED BY
SUCH PERSON WILL BE MANAGED IN THE INTEREST OF SUCH OTHER CARRIER." 

THE ONLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE NOW POINTING TOWARD AFFILIATION OF THE
APPLICANT WITH RAIL CARRIERS ARE THE FACTS THAT KUHN, LOEB AND COMPANY
INDIRECTLY OWNS 9,000 SHARES OF ASSOCIATED'S COMMON STOCK, HAS ONE
REPRESENTATIVE AMONG THE NINE DIRECTORS OF ASSOCIATED, HAS INVESTMENT
BANKING CONNECTIONS WITH COMPETING RAIL CARRIERS, AND IS REPRESENTED ON
THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF OTHER RAILROADS.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE
MAY ASSUME THAT BY VIRTUE OF THOSE CONNECTIONS THE RAIL CARRIERS'
INTERESTS WILL BE THE BANKING HOUSE'S INTERESTS IN DIRECTING THE
AFFAIRS OF ASSOCIATED.  BUT ASIDE FROM THE PROPORTIONATELY SMALL (9,000
OUT OF 1,000,000 COMMON SHARES) STOCK OWNERSHIP AND THE PLACE ON THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE COMMISSION FOUND NO CONNECTION - EITHER IN THE
ORIGINS OF THE PRESENT PROPOSAL OR IN PERSONNEL, FINANCING OR OTHERWISE
- BETWEEN KUHN, LOEB AND COMPANY AND THE RAIL CARRIERS ON THE ONE HAND
AND ASSOCIATED ON THE OTHER.  THIS CONTRASTS SHARPLY WITH THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN TRANSPORT CO., 36 M.C.C. 61, WHERE A MUCH LARGER
MERGER OF EASTERN MOTOR CARRIER OPERATORS, SOUGHT TO BE CONSUMMATED
WITH AT LEAST THE ASSISTANCE OF KUHN, LOEB AND COMPANY, WAS DENIED
APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION.  AND IN THE PRESENT MERGER OTHERS, NOT
ASSOCIATED, SO FAR AS THIS RECORD SHOWS, WITH KUHN, LOEB AND COMPANY OR
RAIL CARRIERS WOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL BLOCKS OF STOCK.  FN28  WE CANNOT
FIND ANYTHING ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE IN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
CONSOLIDATION AS FINALLY AUTHORIZED WILL NOT RESULT IN ASSOCIATED'S
BEING AFFILIATED WITH A CARRIER BY RAIL.  IT MAY BE ADDED THAT UNDER
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THIS CASE THE RELATIVELY CLOSE HOLDINGS WHICH
WILL EMERGE FROM THE CONSOLIDATION CANNOT BE ALTERED WITHOUT THE
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.  AND IT IS THE CONSOLIDATION AS APPROVED WHICH
IS EXEMPTED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST RAIL AFFILIATION WITHOUT APPROVAL.  ANY FUTURE
CHANGE WHICH MAY BRING THE CONSOLIDATION INTO CLASH WITH EITHER
PROHIBITION MAY BE CONSIDERED WHEN IT ARISES. 

ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SECS. 44, 47, 47A, 345. 

FN2  OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS, SHIPPERS AND SHIPPERS' ORGANIZATIONS
INTERVENED IN THE PROCEEDING, AS DID ALSO THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA.  EXCEPT
FOR THE LATTER, WHICH AT FIRST OPPOSED BUT ULTIMATELY SUPPORTED THE
APPLICATION, THEY TOOK NO POSITION ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
APPLICATION SHOULD BE APPROVED. 

FN3  THREE COMMISSIONERS DISSENTED.  APPROVAL OF THE MERGER WAS
QUALIFIED BY THE IMPOSITION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS NOT HERE RELEVANT. 

FN4  THE FOUR NONCARRIERS, EACH ASSOCIATED WITH ONE OF THE CARRIERS,
ARE BARNWELL WAREHOUSE & BROKERAGE COMPANY (ASSOCIATED WITH BARNWELL),
BROWN EQUIPMENT & MANUFACTURING COMPANY (ASSOCIATED WITH HORTON),
CONGER REALTY COMPANY (ASSOCIATED WITH HORTON), AND SOUTHERN NEW
ENGLAND TERMINALS, INC. (ASSOCIATED WITH MCCARTHY). 

FN5  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT CONSOLIDATED AND MCCARTHY COMPETE
SUBSTANTIALLY THROUGHOUT CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND
BUT CONSOLIDATED ALONE OPERATES BETWEEN THOSE AREAS AND NEW YORK CITY. 
CONSOLIDATED AND MORAN COMPETE BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL POINTS IN NEW YORK
STATE, BUT MORAN'S ROUTES ALSO EXTEND TO CLEVELAND, OHIO, AND TO
SEVERAL POINTS IN NORTHERN PENNSYLVANIA.  THERE IS SOME COMPETITION
AMONG ARROW, CONSOLIDATED AND MORAN IN NEW YORK, AND OTHERS OF ARROW'S
ROUTES PARALLEL THOSE OF BARNWELL AND HORTON.  BARNWELL, HORTON AND
SOUTHEASTERN COMPETE TO SOME EXTENT IN PARTS OF THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC
STATES (EXCLUDING NEW YORK).  BARNWELL, HORTON AND TRANSPORTATION,
INC., COMPETE IN PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHERN REGION, AND SOUTHEASTERN
COMPETES SOMEWHAT WITH THEM IN THAT AREA. 

FN6  ASSOCIATED IS AUTHORIZED BY ITS CHARTER TO ISSUE 100,000 SHARES
OF $100 PAR VALUE PREFERRED STOCK DRAWING SIX PER CENT CUMULATIVE
DIVIDENDS ANNUALLY AND 1,000,000 SHARES OF $1.00 PAR VALUE COMMON
STOCK.  ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HERE IS THAT NO
PAR VALUE BE ASSIGNED THE COMMON STOCK.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT IN
EXCHANGE FOR ALL THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE MERGED COMPANIES (EXCEPT
A SMALL QUANTITY OF THE PREFERRED STOCK OF TWO OF THE CARRIERS WHICH
WAS TO BE REDEEMED FOR CASH) ASSOCIATED WAS TO ISSUE 648,643 SHARES OF
ITS COMMON AND 39,049 SHARES OF ITS PREFERRED STOCK, WHICH ON THE
CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN SHARES IN CONNECTION WITH THE STOCK OF ONE OF
THE NONCARRIERS WOULD LEAVE OUTSTANDING 633,171 SHARES OF COMMON AND
37,942 SHARES OF PREFERRED.  ANOTHER 15,000 SHARES OF PREFERRED WERE TO
BE OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC IN ORDER TO ENABLE ASSOCIATED TO OBTAIN
SURPLUS CASH.  THE PREFERRED, WHICH LIKE THE COMMON WAS ENTITLED TO ONE
VOTE PER SHARE, WAS CONVERTIBLE INTO COMMON AT THE OPTION OF THE
HOLDERS, ON TERMS NOT HERE RELEVANT. 

THERE WERE 71,480 SHARES OF ASSOCIATED'S COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING AT
THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS FILED, OF WHICH 31,240 WERE HELD BY THE
PRESIDENT OF ASSOCIATED, 9,000 BY THE TRANSPORT COMPANY (RECEIVED FOR
ENGINEERING ACCOUNTING DATA GIVEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE MERGER), AND
THE REMAINDER BY STOCKHOLDERS IN THE CORPORATIONS TO BE MERGED. 

FN7  SECTION 5 PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PARTS: 

"SEC. 5.  (1)  EXCEPT UPON SPECIFIC APPROVAL BY ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION AS IN THIS SECTION PROVIDED, AND EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
PARAGRAPH (16) OF SECTION 1 OF THIS PART, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THIS PART, PART II, OR PART III TO ENTER INTO
ANY CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, OR COMBINATION WITH ANY OTHER SUCH COMMON
CARRIER OR CARRIERS FOR THE POOLING OR DIVISION OF TRAFFIC, OR OF
SERVICE, OR OF GROSS OR NET EARNINGS, OR OF ANY PORTION THEREOF; AND IN
ANY CASE OF AN UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT FOR THE POOLING OR DIVISION OF
TRAFFIC, SERVICE, OR EARNINGS AS AFORESAID EACH DAY OF ITS CONTINUANCE
SHALL BE A SEPARATE OFFENSE:  PROVIDED, THAT WHENEVER THE COMMISSION IS
OF OPINION, AFTER HEARING UPON APPLICATION OF ANY SUCH CARRIER OR
CARRIERS OR UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE, THAT THE POOLING OR DIVISION, TO
THE EXTENT INDICATED BY THE COMMISSION, OF THEIR TRAFFIC, SERVICE, OR
GROSS OR NET EARNINGS, OR OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, WILL BE IN THE
INTEREST OF BETTER SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC OR OF ECONOMY IN OPERATION,
AND WILL NOT UNDULY RESTRAIN COMPETITION, THE COMMISSION SHALL BY ORDER
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE, IF ASSENTED TO BY ALL THE CARRIERS INVOLVED,
SUCH POOLING OR DIVISION, UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND FOR
SUCH CONSIDERATION AS BETWEEN SUCH CARRIERS AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, AS SHALL BE FOUND BY THE COMMISSION TO BE JUST AND
REASONABLE IN THE PREMISES:  ... 

"(2)(A)  IT SHALL BE LAWFUL, WITH THE APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE COMMISSION, AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (B) - 

(I)  FOR TWO OR MORE CARRIERS TO CONSOLIDATE OR MERGE THEIR
PROPERTIES OR FRANCHISES, OR ANY PART THEREOF, INTO ONE CORPORATION FOR
THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATION OF THE PROPERTIES THERETOFORE
IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP; OR FOR ANY CARRIER, OR TWO OR MORE CARRIERS
JOINTLY, TO PURCHASE, LEASE, OR CONTRACT TO OPERATE THE PROPERTIES, OR
ANY PART THEREOF, OF ANOTHER; OR FOR ANY CARRIER, OR TWO OR MORE
CARRIERS JOINTLY, TO ACQUIRE CONTROL OF ANOTHER THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF
ITS STOCK OR OTHERWISE; OR FOR A PERSON WHICH IS NOT A CARRIER TO
ACQUIRE CONTROL OF TWO OR MORE CARRIERS THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF THEIR
STOCK OR OTHERWISE; OR FOR A PERSON WHICH IS NOT A CARRIER AND WHICH
HAS CONTROL OF ONE OR MORE CARRIERS TO ACQUIRE CONTROL OF ANOTHER
CARRIER THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF ITS STOCK OR OTHERWISE; 

(II)  FOR A CARRIER BY RAILROAD TO ACQUIRE TRACKAGE RIGHTS OVER, OR
JOINT OWNERSHIP IN OR JOINT USE OF, ANY RAILROAD LINE OR LINES OWNED OR
OPERATED BY ANY OTHER SUCH CARRIER, AND TERMINALS INCIDENTAL THERETO. 

"(B)  WHENEVER A TRANSACTION IS PROPOSED UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH (A), THE
CARRIER OR CARRIERS OR PERSON SEEKING AUTHORITY THEREFOR SHALL PRESENT
AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION, AND THEREUPON THE COMMISSION SHALL
NOTIFY THE GOVERNOR OF EACH STATE IN WHICH ANY PART OF THE PROPERTIES
OF THE CARRIERS INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION IS SITUATED, AND
ALSO SUCH CARRIERS AND THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANTS (AND, IN CASE
CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE ARE INVOLVED, THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN
PARTIES TO BE HEARD.  IF THE COMMISSION SHALL CONSIDER IT NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FINDINGS SPECIFIED BELOW MAY PROPERLY BE
MADE, IT SHALL SET SAID APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING, AND A PUBLIC
HEARING SHALL BE HELD IN ALL CASES WHERE CARRIERS BY RAILROAD ARE
INVOLVED.  IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT, SUBJECT TO SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AND SUCH MODIFICATIONS AS IT SHALL FIND TO BE JUST AND
REASONABLE, THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
SUBPARAGRAPH (A) AND WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IT
SHALL ENTER AN ORDER APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SUCH TRANSACTION, UPON
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND WITH THE MODIFICATIONS, SO FOUND TO BE
JUST AND REASONABLE:  PROVIDED, THAT IF A CARRIER BY RAILROAD SUBJECT
TO THIS PART, OR ANY PERSON WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY SUCH A CARRIER, OR
AFFILIATED THEREWITH WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH (6), IS AN
APPLICANT IN THE CASE OF ANY SUCH PROPOSED TRANSACTION INVOLVING A
MOTOR CARRIER, THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT ENTER SUCH AN ORDER UNLESS IT
FINDS THAT THE TRANSACTION PROPOSED WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND WILL ENABLE SUCH CARRIER TO USE SERVICE BY MOTOR VEHICLE
TO PUBLIC ADVANTAGE IN ITS OPERATIONS AND WILL NOT UNDULY RESTRAIN
COMPETITION. 

"(C)  IN PASSING UPON ANY PROPOSED TRANSACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS PARAGRAPH (2), THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE WEIGHT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS, AMONG OTHERS:  (1) THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED
TRANSACTION UPON ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC; (2) THE
EFFECT UPON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE INCLUSION, OR FAILURE TO
INCLUDE, OTHER RAILROADS IN THE TERRITORY INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED
TRANSACTION; (3) THE TOTAL FIXED CHARGES RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED
TRANSACTION; AND (4) THE INTEREST OF THE CARRIER EMPLOYEES AFFECTED. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(6)  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION A PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO BE
AFFILIATED WITH A CARRIER IF, BY REASON OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF SUCH
PERSON TO SUCH CARRIER (WHETHER BY REASON OF THE METHOD OF, OR
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ORGANIZATION OR OPERATION, OR WHETHER
ESTABLISHED THROUGH COMMON DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, OR STOCKHOLDERS, A
VOTING TRUST OR TRUSTS, A HOLDING OR INVESTMENT COMPANY OR COMPANIES,
OR ANY OTHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT MEANS), IT IS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE
THAT THE AFFAIRS OF ANY CARRIER OF WHICH CONTROL MAY BE ACQUIRED BY
SUCH PERSON WILL BE MANAGED IN THE INTEREST OF SUCH OTHER CARRIER. 
"(11)  THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND
PLENARY,  ...  AND ANY CARRIERS OR OTHER CORPORATIONS, AND THEIR
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND ANY OTHER PERSONS, PARTICIPATING IN A
TRANSACTION APPROVED OR AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION
SHALL BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY RELIEVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
ANTITRUST LAWS AND OF ALL OTHER RESTRAINTS, LIMITATIONS, AND
PROHIBITIONS OF LAW, FEDERAL, STATE, OR MUNICIPAL, INSOFAR AS MAY BE
NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE TRANSACTIONS SO
APPROVED OR PROVIDED FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS,
IF ANY, IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION, AND TO HOLD, MAINTAIN, AND OPERATE
ANY PROPERTIES AND EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OR FRANCHISES ACQUIRED THROUGH
SUCH TRANSACTION." 

FN8  "AFFILIATED THEREWITH" IS DEFINED IN SEC. 5(6), SUPRA NOTE 7. 

FN9  24 STAT. 379.  SEE SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
(1935), PART I, 11-20, AND AUTHORITIES CITED, FOR A CONCISE COMPILATION
OF THE MORE IMPORTANT LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT OF 1887 AND A REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE IMPULSES LEADING TO THE
ADOPTION OF THAT ACT; SEE ALSO HEALY, THE ECONOMICS OF TRANSPORTATION
(1940) CH. 18 ET SEQ. 

FN10  COMPARE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF 1887, 24 STAT. 379, AND
THE STATUTES COLLECTED IN SHARFMAN, SUPRA NOTE 9, WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 456(SEE ALSO MACVEAGH, THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920(1923)), THE EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1933, 48 STAT. 211, AND THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 898. 
SEE ALSO ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR 1888,
PP. 25-26; 1892, PP. 47-55; 1893, P. 9; 1894, P. 63; 1897, PP. 48-51;
1898, PP. 18-22; 1900, P. 13; 1918, PP. 4-9; 1919, PP. 1-6.  SEE
GENERALLY, JOHNSON, GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION (1938);
NELSON, THE ROLE OF REGULATION REEXAMINED, TRANSPORTATION AND NATIONAL
POLICY, NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD (MAY, 1942) 197. 

FN11  THE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 189. 

FN12  CF. AUTHORITIES CITED SUPRA NOTES 9 AND 10.  THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT OF 1887(24 STAT. 379) WAS IN A SENSE A SHADOW CAST BY THE
COMING SHERMAN ACT (26 STAT. 209).  COMPARE SNYDER, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AND FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST LAWS (1904) 121-122. 

FN13  THE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 189. 

FN14  CF. E.G., AIR COMMERCE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 568, AS AMENDED BY
48 STAT. 1113; AIR MAIL ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 933; AIR MAIL ACT OF
1935, 49 STAT. 614; CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 973; MOTOR
CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 543; AND COMPARE TITLE II OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 898, 929. 

FN15  SEN. REP. NO. 482, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 3. 

FN16  "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE
TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR CARRIERS IN SUCH MANNER AS TO RECOGNIZE AND
PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF, AND FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS IN, SUCH TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG SUCH CARRIERS IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST; PROMOTE ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE BY
MOTOR CARRIERS, AND REASONABLE CHARGES THEREFOR, WITHOUT UNJUST
DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES, AND UNFAIR OR
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; IMPROVE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN, AND
COORDINATE TRANSPORTATION BY AND REGULATION OF, MOTOR CARRIERS AND
OTHER CARRIERS; DEVELOP AND PRESERVE A HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
PROPERLY ADAPTED TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES AND
OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE; AND COOPERATE WITH THE SEVERAL STATES AND THE
DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THEREOF AND WITH ANY ORGANIZATION OF MOTOR
CARRIERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS PART."  49 STAT.
543. 

FN17  NO MOTOR CARRIER CAN OPERATE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHOUT A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 306, 49
STAT. 551, 52 STAT. 1238, 54 STAT. 923.  COMPARE MONOGRAPH NO. 21,
TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., 268. 

THE REPORTS OF THE COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION (SEN. DOC. NO. 152,
73D CONG., 2D SESS.; H. DOC. 89, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) ON WHICH THE
ACT IS IN LARGE MEASURE BASED (79 CONG. REC. 12207; SEN. REP. NO. 482,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 1645, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.)
DISCLOSE GRAPHICALLY THAT AMONG THE EVILS WITH WHICH THE MOTOR CARRIER
INDUSTRY WAS AFFLICTED AND WHICH WOULD BE CURED BY THE ACT WAS
UNRESTRAINED COMPETITION.  IT WAS ANTICIPATED THAT THE ACT WOULD CONFER
BENEFITS ON THE INDUSTRY "BY PROMOTING A MORE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THE
BUSINESS, LESSENING IRRESPONSIBLE COMPETITION AND UNDUE INTERNAL
STRIFE, ENCOURAGING THE ORGANIZATION OF STRONGER UNITS, AND OTHERWISE
ENABLING THE INDUSTRY TO PUT ITSELF ON A SOUNDER AND MORE GENERALLY
PROFITABLE BASIS."  H. DOC. 89, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1934) 127. 

FN18  SEE PARTICULARLY THE REPORTS OF THE COORDINATOR OF
TRANSPORTATION, CITED SUPRA NOTE 17. 

FN19  SEN. REP. NO. 482, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 79 CONG. REC. 12206. 

FN20  EVEN AFTER THE MAJOR SHIFT IN POLICY REFLECTED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, CONGRESS LEFT IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE
PRESERVATION OF COMPETITION AND THE ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLISTIC
PRACTICES IN MANY PHASES OF THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY WAS A
DESIDERATUM.  SEE E.G., 15 U.S.C. SECS. 13, 14, 18-21; 38 STAT. 730 ET
SEQ., 48 STAT. 1102, 49 STAT. 1526-1528; 31 I.C.C. 32, 61; 31 I.C.C.
351, 413-414; AND SEC. 5(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 41 STAT.
480-481; 54 STAT. 905; AND COMPARE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 35. 

FN21  CF. 49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(14)-(16); 37 STAT. 566, 41 STAT. 482, 54
STAT. 909.  IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSOLIDATION OF RAIL AND MOTOR
CARRIERS CONGRESS WAS EXPLICIT ON THE SUBJECT OF COMPETITION IN ITS
MANDATE TO THE COMMISSION.  FEARFUL OF THE DANGEROUS POTENTIALITIES
WHICH SUCH COORDINATION MIGHT CREATE (SEE 79 CONG. REC. 5654-5655,
12206, 12222-12225) CONGRESS PRESCRIBED MORE RIGOROUS REQUIREMENTS FOR
THAT PROCESS THAN FOR SIMPLE MOTOR CARRIER CONSOLIDATIONS.  FOR THE
LATTER APPROVAL MAY BE GRANTED IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THE TRANSACTION
"CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  FOR A RAIL CARRIER TO
CONSOLIDATE WITH A MOTOR CARRIER, COMMISSION APPROVAL REQUIRES A
FINDING THAT THE TRANSACTION WILL "BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND WILL ENABLE SUCH CARRIER TO USE SERVICE BY MOTOR VEHICLE
TO PUBLIC ADVANTAGE IN ITS OPERATIONS AND WILL NOT UNDULY RESTRAIN
COMPETITION."  COMPARE THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 213(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 555-556, 52 STAT. 1239, (AND CF. 86 CONG. REC.
11546) WITH THAT OF SEC. 5 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940. 

FN22  CF. NOTE 17 SUPRA.  AUTHORIZATION OF CONSOLIDATION OF RAIL
CARRIERS STEMS HISTORICALLY FROM CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
IMPELLING THE AUTHORIZATION OF CONSOLIDATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS. 
COMPARE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTES 9 AND 10 SUPRA WITH THOSE IN NOTES
17-19 SUPRA THIS DIFFERENCE IN ORIGINS IS NOT ENTIRELY TO BE IGNORED
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE SAME PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5 NOW GOVERN BOTH MOTOR
CARRIER AND RAIL CARRIER CONSOLIDATIONS.  CF. 86 CONG. REC. 11546.  BUT
WHATEVER EFFECT THE DIFFERENCE MAY HAVE, AS A GUIDE TO THE COMMISSION
CONCERNING THE EXTENT TO WHICH AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH CONSOLIDATION
SHOULD BE ALLOWED, IT CANNOT NULLIFY THE POWER GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION
BY SEC. 5(11). 

FN23  COMPARE THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES CITED SUPRA NOTES 20 AND
21. 

FN24  CF. NOTE 26 INFRA; COMPARE ALSO 41 STAT. 481-482; CHESAPEAKE &
OHIO RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 35; MACVEAGH, THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920(1923) 275-292. 

FN25  CF. NOTE 17 SUPRA. 

FN26  E.G., SENATOR WHEELER, IN CHARGE OF THE MEASURE IN THE SENATE,
SAID: 

"AT PRESENT MOST TRUCK OPERATIONS ARE SMALL ENTERPRISES.  HOWEVER,
THERE ARE MANY RUMORS OF PLANS FOR THE MERGING OF EXISTING OPERATIONS
INTO SIZABLE SYSTEMS.  IN VIEW OF PAST EXPERIENCE WITH RAILROAD AND
PUBLIC-UTILITY UNIFICATIONS, IT IS REGARDED AS NECESSARY THAT THE
COMMISSION HAVE CONTROL OVER SUCH DEVELOPMENTS, WHERE THE NUMBER OF
VEHICLES INVOLVED IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE MATTER ONE OF MORE THAN
LOCAL IMPORTANCE."  79 CONG. REC. 5654-5655. 

FN27  E.G., TRACING SHIPMENTS AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS WOULD BE
FACILITATED, CONGESTION AT SHIPPING PLATFORMS WOULD BE REDUCED, THE
AVERAGE LIFE OF THE EQUIPMENT WOULD BE LENGTHENED BY SCIENTIFIC
MAINTENANCE AND SAFETY PROGRAMS ON A LARGE SCALE, VEHICLES WOULD BE
SHIFTED QUICKLY TO MEET PEAK DEMANDS ON CERTAIN ROUTES, ETC. 

FN28  E.G., H. D. HORTON AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY WILL OWN
14,917 SHARES OF ASSOCIATED'S PREFERRED STOCK AND 267,873 SHARES OF ITS
COMMON STOCK.  THE STOCKHOLDERS OF CONSOLIDATED ALSO WOULD OWN
SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER BLOCKS THAN THE 9,000 SHARES WHICH KUHN, LOEB AND
COMPANY CONTROLS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS,
DISSENTING: 

I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION MISCONCEIVED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE
MERGER AND CONSOLIDATION PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  I AGREE THAT THE
COMMISSION IS NOT TO MEASURE MOTOR VEHICLE CONSOLIDATIONS BY THE
STANDARDS OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD MAKE
LARGELY MEANINGLESS, AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT DEMONSTRATES, THE
POWER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 5(11) TO RELIEVE PARTICIPANTS IN
MERGERS OR CONSOLIDATIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE ACTS.  BUT I
THINK A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO GIVE
GREATER WEIGHT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPETITION THAN IT APPARENTLY HAS
DONE HERE. 

I AGREE THAT THE STANDARD OF THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" WHICH GOVERNS
MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS UNDER SEC. 5 EMBRACES THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY CONTAINED IN THE ACT.  THAT DECLARED POLICY
CALLS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR THE RECOGNITION AND PRESERVATION OF "THE
INHERENT ADVANTAGES" OF MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORTATION; THE PROMOTION OF
"SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE" AND THE FOSTERING
OF "SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE SEVERAL
CARRIERS"; THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF REASONABLE CHARGES
"WITHOUT UNJUST DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGES, OR
UNFAIR OR DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES" - TO THE END OF
"DEVELOPING, COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM" WHICH IS "ADEQUATE TO MEET" THE NATIONAL NEEDS.  54 STAT. 899. 
THOSE STANDARDS ARE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO IN SEC. 5(2)(C) WHERE AN
ITEMIZATION OF SOME OF THE FACTORS TO WHICH THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE
WEIGHT IS MADE.  AND THE PREAMBLE ITSELF STATES THAT "ALL OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW
TO CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE DECLARATION OF POLICY." 

BUT I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONCEPT OF THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" AS
USED IN SEC. 5 ALSO EMBRACES THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  THOSE LAWS EXTEND TO
CARRIERS AS WELL AS TO OTHER ENTERPRISES.  BUT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE
COMMISSION THE PRESENT CONSOLIDATION WOULD RUN AFOUL OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  UNITED STATES V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 259 U.S. 214.  AND THE
CLAYTON ACT (WHICH MAKES SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO COMMON CARRIERS) BY
SEC. 11 EXPRESSLY ENTRUSTS THE COMMISSION WITH THE AUTHORITY OF
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS PROVISIONS "WHERE APPLICABLE TO COMMON CARRIERS." 
38 STAT. 734, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 21.  THOSE LAWS STILL STAND.  WE THUS HAVE
A LONG STANDING POLICY OF CONGRESS TO SUBJECT THESE COMMON CARRIERS TO
THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  AND WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT, SO FAR AS MOTOR
VEHICLES ARE CONCERNED, WE ARE DEALING WITH TRANSPORTATION UNITS WHOSE
RIGHTS OF WAY - THE HIGHWAYS OF THE COUNTRY - HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY
THE PUBLIC.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS INDICATE TO ME THAT WHILE THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO LIFT THE BAN OF THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS IN FAVOR OF COMMON CARRIERS IS CLEAR (NEW YORK CENTRAL
SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 25-26), ADMINISTRATIVE
AUTHORITY TO REPLACE THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM WITH A CARTEL SHOULD BE
STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  I WOULD READ SEC. 5 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT SO
AS TO MAKE FOR THE GREATEST POSSIBLE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE
PRINCIPLES OF COMPETITION AND THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  THE
OCCASIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO GRANT
EXEMPTIONS FROM THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS SHOULD BE CLOSELY CONFINED TO THOSE
WHERE THE TRANSPORTATION NEED IS CLEAR. 

IF IT WERE THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE POLICY OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT WOULD BE THWARTED UNLESS A PARTICULAR TYPE OF MERGER
OR CONSOLIDATION WERE PERMITTED, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT IT WOULD BE
AUTHORIZED TO LIFT THE BAN OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  BUT UNLESS SUCH
NECESSITY OR NEED WERE SHOWN I DO NOT THINK THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS SHOULD
BE MADE TO GIVE WAY.  CONGRESS DID NOT GIVE THE COMMISSION CARTE
BLANCHE AUTHORITY TO SUBSTITUTE A CARTEL FOR A COMPETITIVE SYSTEM.  IT
MAY SO ACT ONLY WHEN THAT STEP "WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  SEC. 5(2)(B).  BUT SINCE THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" INCLUDES THE
PRINCIPLES OF FREE ENTERPRISE, WHICH HAVE LONG DISTINGUISHED OUR
ECONOMY, I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THEM TO BE SWEPT
ASIDE UNLESS THEY WERE IN FACT OBSTACLES TO THE REALIZATION OF THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  BUT SO FAR AS WE KNOW FROM THE PRESENT
RECORD THAT POLICY MAY BE AS READILY ACHIEVED ON A COMPETITIVE BASIS AS
THROUGH THE PRESENT TYPE OF CONSOLIDATION.  AT LEAST SUCH A POWERFUL
COMBINATION OF COMPETITORS AS IS PRESENTLY PROJECTED IS NOT SHOWN TO BE
NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IN THIS CASE THE HAND OF THE PROMOTER
SEEMS MORE APPARENT THAN A TRANSPORTATION NEED.    FOR THESE REASONS I
WOULD RESOLVE THE AMBIGUITIES OF THE ACT IN FAVOR OF THE MAINTENANCE OF
FREE ENTERPRISE.  IF THAT IS TOO NIGGARDLY AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
ACT, CONGRESS CAN RECTIFY IT.  BUT IF THE COMMISSION IS ALLOWED TO TAKE
THE OTHER VIEW,  FN1  A PATTERN OF CONSOLIDATION WILL HAVE BEEN
APPROVED WHICH WILL ALLOW THE CARTEL RATHER THAN THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM
TO DOMINATE THIS FIELD.  HISTORY SHOWS THAT IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO
TURN BACK THE CLOCK ONCE SUCH A TREND GETS UNDER WAY. 

BUT THERE IS ANOTHER PHASE OF THE CASE WHICH IN MY VIEW REQUIRES A
REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW.  THE COMMISSION HAS ALLOWED THE
INVESTMENT BANKER OF RAILROAD COMPANIES TO BE REPRESENTED ON THE BOARD
OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE COMPANY.  IT DID SO AFTER A FINDING THAT IT WAS
NOT "REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE AFFAIRS OF APPLICANT WOULD BE
MANAGED IN THE INTEREST OF ANY RAILROAD" AND THEREFORE THAT THE MOTOR
VEHICLE COMPANY WOULD NOT BE AFFILIATED WITH ANY RAILROAD WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  SEC. 5(5)(A), (6).  BUT THOUGH WE ASSUME THERE WAS
NO SUCH AFFILIATION, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PATTERSON THAT THAT IS
NOT THE END OF THE MATTER.  THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS WHETHER IT IS
"CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST" TO ALLOW SUCH A BANKER'S NEXUS
BETWEEN THE TWO COMPETITORS.  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
THE COMMISSION TO TREAT SUCH A MATTER AS INCONSEQUENTIAL.  THE WHOLE
HISTORY OF FINANCE URGES CAUTION WHEN ONE INVESTMENT BANKER STAKES OUT
HIS CLAIM TO TWO COMPETING COMPANIES.  EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT WHEN ONE
GAINS A SEAT AT HIS COMPETITOR'S TABLE, IT IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END
OF COMPETITION.  A NEW ZONE OF INFLUENCE HAS BEEN CREATED.  ITS
EFFICACY TURNS NOT ON THE AMOUNT OF STOCK OWNERSHIP BUT ON A HOST OF
SUBTLE AND IMPONDERABLE CONSIDERATIONS.  SUCH AN INTERTWINED
RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN "THE ROOT OF MANY EVILS" (BRANDEIS, OTHER
PEOPLE'S MONEY, P. 51) AND SO DEMONSTRABLY INIMICAL TO THE "PUBLIC
INTEREST" IN THE PAST AS NOT TO BE DISREGARDED TODAY. 

I AGREE THAT IF SEC. 5 WERE READ AS THE COURT READS IT, THE ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  BUT SINCE THE COMMISSION TOOK A
VIEW OF THE LAW WHICH IN MY OPINION WAS ERRONEOUS, I WOULD REVERSE THE
JUDGMENT BELOW SO THAT THE CASE MIGHT BE RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION UNDER THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF
SEC. 5. 

FN1  THE POSITION HERE TAKEN IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE VIEW WHICH
ORIGINALLY OBTAINED IN THE COMMISSION.  NORTHLAND-GREYHOUND LINES,
INC., 5 M.C.C. 123; RICHMOND-GREYHOUND LINES, INC., 35 M.C.C. 555.  BUT
THAT VIEW DID NOT LONG OBTAIN.  SEE NORTHLAND-GREYHOUND LINES, INC., 25
M.C.C. 109; RICHMOND-GREYHOUND LINES, INC., 36 M.C.C. 747.  AND SEE
MECK & BOGUE, FEDERAL REGULATION OF MOTOR CARRIER UNIFICATION, 50 YALE
L. JOURN.  1376, 1393-1397. 
..END :







DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. PACE, 320 U.S. 698 


NO. 117.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 10, 1944.  - 77
U.S. APP. D.C. 332, 135 F.2D 249, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE ACT CREATING THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS
POWER TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF THE BOARD CONFORMABLY TO THE EQUITY
PRACTICE, THAT IS, ON BOTH THE FACTS AND THE LAW, SUBJECT TO THE RULE
THAT FINDINGS OF FACT ARE TREATED AS PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT AND ARE
ACCEPTED UNLESS CLEARLY WRONG.  P. 702. 

2.  UPON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HAD POWER TO SET ASIDE A FINDING BY THE BOARD THAT THE DOMICILE OF A
DECEDENT WAS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHICH THE COURT FOUND TO BE
CLEARLY WRONG, AND TO FIND THAT THE DOMICILE WAS IN FLORIDA.  P. 703. 

3.  THE PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE ACT CREATING THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WERE NOT SUPERSEDED BY RULE 52 OF
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  P. 702. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. PACE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 726, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUSTAINING AN
INHERITANCE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CHARLES F. PACE CAME TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN 1913 FROM
FLORIDA, WHERE HE HAD THERETOFORE BEEN DOMICILED.  HIS ONLY PURPOSE IN
COMING WAS TO ENTER THE FEDERAL SERVICE.  HE BECAME FINANCIAL CLERK OF
THE SENATE AND SERVED CONTINUOUSLY UNTIL HIS DEATH IN THE DISTRICT IN
1940.  DURING THESE TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS HE LIVED IN BOARDING HOUSES AND
IN RENTED APARTMENTS AND OWNED NO REAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT.  AT
ALL TIMES HE MAINTAINED HIS REGISTRATION AND QUALIFICATION TO VOTE IN
THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND EXERCISED THAT RIGHT EITHER IN PERSON OR BY
ABSENTEE BALLOT.  HIS WILL, MADE IN 1937, RECITED THAT HE WAS "OF THE
CITY OF WASHINGTON, D.C."  IT WAS PROBATED IN FLORIDA, AND ANCILLARY
LETTERS WERE GRANTED IN THE DISTRICT TO THE RESPONDENT EXECUTRIX. 
DISTRICT AUTHORITIES, UPON THE PREMISE THAT PACE WAS DOMICILED IN THE
DISTRICT, ASSESSED AN INHERITANCE TAX UPON THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN
JOINTLY OWNED BANK DEPOSITS WITHIN THE DISTRICT.  RESPONDENTS PAID THE
TAX UNDER PROTEST AND THEN APPEALED THE ASSESSMENT TO THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT ON THE GROUND THAT DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED IN
FLORIDA AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AFTER
HEARING ARGUMENT DETERMINED THAT DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED IN FLORIDA, AND
ORDERED REFUND OF THE TAX PAID.  THE DISTRICT APPEALED TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS, BUT BEFORE HEARING THIS COURT DECIDED DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V.
MURPHY, 314 U.S. 441.  THE DISTRICT THEREUPON MOVED TO REMAND THE CASE
TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE
INTERVENING DECISION.  THE MOTION WAS GRANTED.  UPON RECONSIDERATION
THE BOARD RE-ADOPTED THE FINDINGS THERETOFORE MADE BUT CONCLUDED THAT
THE DECEDENT HAD NOT OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION, ARISING FROM MAINTAINING
A HOME IN THE DISTRICT, THAT HE WAS DOMICILED THEREIN, AND REVERSED ITS
FORMER RULING. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED.  IT
ACCEPTED AND APPLIED OUR DECISION IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. MURPHY
AND, WEIGHING THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PRINCIPLES, CONCLUDED THAT
THE DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED IN FLORIDA AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.  THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS TOOK A WIDE RANGE, AND WE DO
NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO RECITE IT IN DETAIL.  AS IS USUAL IN CASES
OF CONTESTED DOMICILE, IT GAVE RISE TO CONFLICTING INFERENCES, AND A
DECISION EITHER WAY WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
WHETHER THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION OR THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE DEEMED CORRECT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO
MANY DIFFERENT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, THE CREDIBILITY TO BE GIVEN TO
TESTIMONY, AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM MANY ADMITTED EVENTS. 
WE DID NOT TAKE THIS CASE TO DETERMINE WHERE MR. PACE WAS DOMICILED. 
BUT THE SCOPE OF REVIEW OF DECISIONS BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS IMPORTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
DISTRICT'S TAX LAWS, AND SINCE THAT QUESTION WAS NOT REACHED OR DECIDED
IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. MURPHY, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE. 

CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT IN CERTAIN OF THE DISTRICT'S TAX STATUTES TO
MAKE LIABILITY DEPENDENT UPON DOMICILE.  IN THE DISTRICT, WHERE A LARGE
PROPORTION OF THE POPULATION OWE THEIR PRESENCE TO GOVERNMENT SERVICE
AND HAVE THE STRONGEST MOTIVES FOR RETAINING THEIR POLITICAL
CONNECTIONS WITH AND DOMICILE IN THE ENFRANCHISED COMMUNITY FROM WHICH
THEY CAME, THIS TEST OF TAXABILITY IS BOUND TO GIVE RISE TO INNUMERABLE
AND DIFFICULT CONFLICTS.  THESE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS AUTHORIZED
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO RESOLVE. 

THE PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DECISIONS PRESENT
COMPLEXITIES ALMOST AS BAFFLING AS THE TEST OF TAXABILITY ITSELF. 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROVIDES THAT ITS DECISIONS MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND THAT UPON SUCH REVIEW THE COURT "SHALL HAVE THE
POWER TO AFFIRM, OR IF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW, TO MODIFY OR REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, WITH OR
WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE FOR HEARING, AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE."  52
STAT. 371, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 47-2404(A).  HAD THIS BEEN ALL, A
STRONG CASE WOULD BE MADE FOR APPLYING THE RULE OF FINALITY APPLICABLE
TO THE FEDERAL BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, NOW THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 489.  HOWEVER, THE SAME
ORGANIC ACT CONTAINS ANOTHER AND QUALIFYING PROVISION THAT IS NOT TO BE
FOUND IN THE ACTS CREATING THE TAX COURT:  "THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE
BOARD SHALL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS A FINDING OF FACT BY AN EQUITY
COURT OR A VERDICT OF A JURY."  52 STAT. 371, D.C. CODE (1940) SEC. 47
2404(A).  SINCE FINDINGS OF FACT BY AN EQUITY COURT AND THE VERDICT OF
A JURY HAVE FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL BEEN SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT RULES OF
FINALITY IT IS PUZZLING TO KNOW WHAT THE DRAFTSMEN OF THIS SECTION
MEANT BY INCLUDING BOTH IN THE ONE RULE FOR REVIEWING BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS FINDINGS. 

THIS STATUTE WAS ENACTED IN MAY, 1938.  THE LAW AT THAT TIME AS TO
THE REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF FACT IN EQUITY WAS, AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS FOR THE COURT, "IN EQUITY, MATTERS OF FACT AS WELL AS OF LAW
ARE REVIEWABLE  ..."  VIRGINIA RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 658,
675.  FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE TRIAL JUDGE OF COURSE WERE PRESUMPTIVELY
CORRECT AND WERE ACCEPTED BY REVIEWING COURTS UNLESS CLEARLY WRONG. 
BUTTE & SUPERIOR COPPER CO. V. CLARK-MONTANA REALTY CO., 249 U.S. 12,
30.  THIS RULE, HOWEVER, DID NOT DENY POWER TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TO REVIEW FACTS, BUT RATHER WENT TO THE WEIGHT TO BE ACCORDED
TO THE FINDINGS OF A LOWER COURT AND HAD SPECIAL PERTINENCE WHERE
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES WAS INVOLVED.  THIS COURT HAD A WELL-SETTLED
RULE THAT "WHEN TWO COURTS HAVE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION ON A
QUESTION OF FACT, THEIR FINDING WILL NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS IT IS
CLEAR THAT THEIR CONCLUSION WAS ERRONEOUS."  BAKER V. SCHOFIELD, 243
U.S. 114, 118.  SUCH A RULE WOULD HAVE NO SUPPORT IN REASON IF THE
SECOND COURT COULD NOT MAKE ITS FINDINGS AS A RESULT OF ITS OWN
JUDGMENT. 

THE STATUTE THEREFORE AUTHORIZES REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SUBJECT TO THE
ADMONITION THAT THEY ARE TO BE UNDISTURBED UNLESS CLEARLY WRONG, IF THE
FINDINGS ARE GIVEN THE EFFECT OF FINDINGS OF FACT BY AN EQUITY COURT. 
IF THE EFFECT OF THE JURY VERDICT, PROVIDED FOR IN THE SAME SENTENCE,
IS TO PREVAIL, THE REVIEW IS MUCH MORE RESTRICTED.  THE QUESTION AS TO
WHICH OF THE INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS SHALL GOVERN ARISES IN A LOCAL
STATUTE CONFINED IN ITS OPERATION TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  "WE
WILL NOT ORDINARILY REVIEW DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS, WHICH ARE BASED UPON STATUTES SO LIMITED OR WHICH DECLARE THE
COMMON LAW OF THE DISTRICT."  DEL VECCHIO V. BOWERS, 296 U.S. 280,
285.  CF. AMERICAN SECURITY & TRUST CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 224
U.S. 491; UNITED SURETY CO. V. AMERICAN FRUIT PRODUCT CO., 238 U.S.
140.  WHERE A LOCAL STATUTE CONTAINS A CONFLICT ON ITS FACE AS PATENT
AND AS IRRECONCILABLE AS THIS, WHERE EITHER CHOICE SEEMS EQUALLY
SUPPORTABLE, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITS ERROR IN
ASSUMING ITS REVIEW OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DECISION TO BE ENTITLED
TO THE SCOPE OF A REVIEW OF AN EQUITY COURT. 

AFTER THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS STATUTE, FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE NO. 52 WAS ADOPTED, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 1938.  IT PROVIDED
AS TO ALL ACTIONS TRIED UPON THE FACTS WITHOUT A JURY: "FINDINGS OF
FACT SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND DUE REGARD
SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO JUDGE OF THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES."  THIS GENERAL RULE, EVEN IF IT WERE
THOUGHT TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUS RULE AS TO REVIEW OF FINDINGS OF FACT IN
EQUITY CASES, WOULD HARDLY SUPERSEDE A SPECIAL STATUTORY MEASURE OF
REVIEW APPLICABLE TO A SPECIAL AND LOCAL TRIBUNAL. 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS POWER TO REVIEW
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AS UNDER THE EQUITY PRACTICE IN
WHICH THE WHOLE CASE, BOTH FACTS AND LAW, IS OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION IN
THE APPELLATE COURT, SUBJECT TO THE LONG-STANDING RULE THAT FINDINGS OF
FACT ARE TREATED AS PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT AND ARE ACCEPTED UNLESS
CLEARLY WRONG.  THE COURT OF APPEALS THEREFORE HAD POWER TO SET ASIDE
THE DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IF CONVINCED, AS IT WAS,
THAT THE BOARD WAS CLEARLY WRONG.  WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO SEPARATE
FACTUAL FROM LEGAL GROUNDS OF DECISION AND TO DETERMINE IF REVERSAL OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS COULD STAND ON
QUESTIONS OF LAW ALONE.  THE JUDGMENT THEREFORE IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :












ILLINOIS STEEL CO. V. B. & O.R. CO., 320 U.S. 508 


NO. 99.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 316
ILL. APP. 516, 46 N.E.2D 144, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE COURT DECISION INTERPRETING CLAUSES OF A UNIFORM BILL OF
LADING PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER AUTHORITY
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, IN A SUIT BY A CARRIER TO RECOVER
CHARGES FOR AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT, IS REVIEWABLE HERE BY CERTIORARI
UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(B).  P. 511. 

2.  THE CONSIGNOR OF AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT UPON A UNIFORM BILL OF
LADING STIPULATED THAT CHARGES WERE "TO BE PREPAID" AND ALSO SIGNED THE
"NON-RECOURSE" CLAUSE.  BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SHIPMENT WAS
HANDLED BY THE CONSIGNEE UPON DELIVERY, A HIGHER RATE THAN THAT
SPECIFIED IN THE BILL OF LADING BECAME APPLICABLE.  HELD THAT THE
CARRIER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE ADDITIONAL CHARGES FROM THE
CONSIGNOR.  P. 515. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARGES HERE, THE PREPAYMENT CLAUSE DID NOT,
EITHER BY ITS DESIGN OR BY THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES, CURTAIL THE
OPERATION OF THE "NON-RECOURSE" CLAUSE.  P. 515. 

3. A CARRIER MAY INSURE COLLECTION OF UNANTICIPATED FREIGHT CHARGES
BY DEMANDING, PURSUANT TO SEC. 7 OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BILL
OF LADING, THE CONSIGNOR'S GUARANTEE OF ALL CHARGES.  P. 515. 

ILLINOIS STEEL CO. V. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 721, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT IN A SUIT TO RECOVER FREIGHT CHARGES.  LEAVE
TO APPEAL TO THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE WAS DENIED BY THAT COURT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DECISION IN THIS CASE TURNS ON THE PROPER INTERPRETATION TO BE GIVEN
TO SEVERAL CLAUSES OF THE UNIFORM BILL OF LADING APPROVED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AS AUTHORIZED BY SECS. 1(6), 12 AND
15(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 1(6),
12, 15(1), WHICH MAKE IT THE DUTY OF INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIERS TO ADOPT
AND OBSERVE THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF BILLS OF LADING APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION.  MATTER OF BILLS OF LADING, 52 I.C.C. 671, 685, 686; 64
I.C.C. 347, 351-352; 64 I.C.C. 357; 66 I.C.C. 63; 167 I.C.C. 214; 172
I.C.C. 362; 245 I.C.C. 527. 

PETITIONER WAS THE CONSIGNOR UPON THROUGH BILLS OF LADING OF A NUMBER
OF RAIL SHIPMENTS OF SULPHATE OF AMMONIA FOR EXPORT.  THE SHIPMENTS
WERE FROM GARY, INDIANA TO BALTIMORE, MARYLAND OVER THE LINES OF
CONNECTING RAILROADS, OF WHICH RESPONDENT WAS THE TERMINAL CARRIER. 
EACH BILL OF LADING  FN1  CONTAINED A CLAUSE, INSERTED BY PETITIONER,
THE CONSIGNOR, IN CONFORMITY TO INSTRUCTIONS APPEARING ON THE BILL, AND
PROVIDING THAT FREIGHT WAS "TO BE PREPAID"; AND ALSO THE SO-CALLED NON
RECOURSE CLAUSE WHICH PETITIONER SIGNED AND WHICH READ:  "IF THIS
SHIPMENT IS TO BE DELIVERED TO THE CONSIGNEE WITHOUT RECOURSE ON THE
CONSIGNOR, THE CONSIGNOR SHALL SIGN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:  THE
CARRIER SHALL NOT MAKE DELIVERY OF THIS SHIPMENT WITHOUT PAYMENT OF
FREIGHT AND ALL OTHER LAWFUL CHARGES.  (SEE SECTION 7 OF CONDITIONS.)" 
FN2  PETITION AT SHIPMENT PAID THE FREIGHT CHARGES SPECIFIED IN THE
BILLS OF LADING, WHICH WERE COMPUTED AT THE EXPORT FREIGHT RATE.  THE
BILLS OF LADING INCLUDED A RECEIPT FOR SPECIFIED SUMS PAID TO THE
CARRIER "TO APPLY IN PREPAYMENT OF THE CHARGES."  THE RECORD DOES NOT
DISCLOSE WHO WAS THE OWNER OF THE SULPHATE, OR WHAT FURTHER RELATIONS
EXISTED BETWEEN CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE. 

THE PARTIES CONCEDE THAT UPON DELIVERY OF THE SHIPMENTS AT BALTIMORE,
THE CONSIGNEE DID NOT HANDLE THE SULPHATE AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS
OF THE EXPORT TARIFF, AND THAT THE DELIVERY OR THE METHOD OF HANDLING
SUBJECTED THE SHIPMENTS TO THE HIGHER DOMESTIC FREIGHT RATE.  THE
PARTIES HAVE ALSO STIPULATED THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER
FROM PETITIONER, ADDITIONAL FREIGHT CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXPORT RATE AND THE HIGHER DOMESTIC RATE, UNLESS
RECOVERY IS BARRED BY THE CLAUSES OF THE BILLS OF LADING TO WHICH WE
HAVE REFERRED. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE ILLINOIS SUPERIOR COURT TO
RECOVER THE ADDITIONAL FREIGHT DUE UPON THE SHIPMENTS.  THE SUPERIOR
COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER, WHICH THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT
REVERSED, 316 ILL. APP. 516, 46 N.E.2D 144, AND THE ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT DENIED LEAVE TO APPEAL.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, POST, P. 721, THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE UNIFORM BILL OF LADING IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE BEING A QUESTION OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAS PRESCRIBED UNIFORM FORMS OF BILLS OF LADING, INCLUDING
THAT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  MATTER OF BILLS OF LADING, SUPRA.  IN
PROMULGATING THEM, THE COMMISSION HAS STATED THAT IT WAS DOING SO IN
THE INTEREST OF UNIFORMITY AND TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATIONS.  52 I.C.C.
671, 676-677, 678; 64 I.C.C. 357, 363, 364.  IT HAS FOUND THAT THE
PRESCRIBED FORMS ARE JUST AND REASONABLE, 52 I.C.C. 671, 740, AND THAT
ANY OTHER WOULD BE UNREASONABLE, 64 I.C.C. 357, 360-361, 364. 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAUSES OF A BILL OF LADING, ADOPTED BY THE
COMMISSION AND PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS FOR INTERSTATE RAIL SHIPMENTS,
PRESENTS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  GEORGIA, F. & A. RY. CO. V. BLISH MILLING
CO., 241 U.S. 190, 194-195; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. MARTIN, 283
U.S. 209, 212-213.  SUCH HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT RULING OF THIS COURT
WHERE THE QUESTION PRESENTED CONCERNED THE CONDITIONS IN BILLS OF
LADING AFFECTING THE LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER SUCH AS ARE REQUIRED BY
THE CARMACK AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11).  GEORGIA, F.
& A. RY. CO. V. BLISH MILLING CO., SUPRA; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO.
V. HAROLD, 241 U.S. 371; ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S. RY. CO. V. STARBIRD, 243
U.S. 592; GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO. V. TEXAS PACKING CO., 244 U.S. 31,
34; AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. LINDENBURG, 260 U.S. 584;
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. MARTIN, SUPRA; CF. PEYTON V. RAILWAY
EXPRESS AGENCY, 316 U.S. 350. 

SINCE THE CLAUSES OF THE UNIFORM BILL OF LADING GOVERN THE RIGHTS OF
THE PARTIES TO AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT AND ARE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS
AND THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER, THEY HAVE THE
FORCE OF FEDERAL LAW AND QUESTIONS AS TO THEIR MEANING ARISE UNDER THE
LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  HENCE WE HAVE JURISDICTION
TO REVIEW THEIR DETERMINATION BY THE STATE COURTS, IN A SUIT BY THE
CARRIER TO RECOVER FREIGHT CHARGES.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237(B), 28
U.S.C. SEC. 344(B); PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. FINK, 250
U.S. 577, 581-583; NEW YORK CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. YORK & WHITNEY CO.,
256 U.S. 406, 408; CF. SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON CO., 317 U.S.
173, 176-177; PEYTON V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, SUPRA; SOUTHERN RAILWAY
CO. V. PRESCOTT, 240 U.S. 632, 639-640. 

THE SHIPMENTS BY PETITIONER BEING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE RAIL
FREIGHT RATES ARE THOSE STATED IN THE TARIFFS FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THEY CANNOT BE LAWFULLY RELEASED BY THE CARRIER
OR ALTERED BY OTHERS WHO HAVE ASSUMED THE DUTY TO PAY THEM.  SEE
MIDSTATE HORTICULTURAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., ANTE, P. 356;
PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. FINK, SUPRA, 581-583.  THE
TARIFFS DO NOT PRESCRIBE WHO IS TO PAY THE FREIGHT CHARGES, BUT SUBJECT
TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AND THE LIMITATIONS
IMPOSED BY THE UNIFORM BILL OF LADING, THE PARTIES TO THE SHIPMENT, AS
BETWEEN THEMSELVES, ARE FREE TO STIPULATE WHO SHALL PAY THEM.  SEE
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. CENTRAL IRON CO., 265 U.S. 59, 65-67. 

THAT THE OWNER OR CONSIGNEE SHALL PAY THE FREIGHT AND ALL OTHER LAWFUL
CHARGES UPON THE TRANSPORTED PROPERTY, AND EXCEPT IN THOSE INSTANCES
WHERE IT MAY BE LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, THAT NO RAILROAD CARRIER
SHALL DELIVER OR RELINQUISH, AT DESTINATION, POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY
COVERED BY THE BILL OF LADING UNTIL ALL TARIFF RATES AND CHARGES HAVE
BEEN PAID.  CF. SEC. 3(2) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED,
49 U.S.C. SEC. 3(2).  BUT IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT "THE CONSIGNOR SHALL
BE LIABLE FOR THE FREIGHT AND ALL OTHER LAWFUL CHARGES, EXCEPT THAT IF
THE CONSIGNOR STIPULATES, BY SIGNATURE, IN THE SPACE PROVIDED FOR THAT
PURPOSE ON THE FACE OF THIS BILL OF LADING THAT THE CARRIER SHALL NOT
MAKE DELIVERY WITHOUT REQUIRING PAYMENT OF SUCH CHARGES AND THE
CARRIER, CONTRARY TO SUCH STIPULATION, SHALL MAKE DELIVERY WITHOUT
REQUIRING SUCH PAYMENT, THE CONSIGNOR (EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED)
FN3  SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR SUCH CHARGES.  ...  NOTHING HEREIN SHALL
LIMIT THE RIGHT OF THE CARRIER TO REQUIRE AT TIME OF SHIPMENT THE
PREPAYMENT OR GUARANTEE OF THE CHARGES.  ..." 

UNDER THESE PROVISIONS, IF THE NON-RECOURSE CLAUSE IS NOT SIGNED BY
THE CONSIGNOR, HE REMAINS LIABLE TO THE CARRIER FOR ALL LAWFUL
CHARGES.  THE CARRIER IS FREE TO DEMAND PAYMENT IN ADVANCE BY THE
CONSIGNOR, OR IT MAY DECLINE TO MAKE DELIVERY TO THE CONSIGNEE UNTIL
THE FREIGHT CHARGES ARE PAID OR GUARANTEED, OR IF DELIVERY IS MADE TO
THE CONSIGNEE WITHOUT PAYMENT, THE CONSIGNEE IS ALSO LIABLE FOR ALL
FREIGHT CHARGES.  BUT IF THE NON-RECOURSE CLAUSE IS SIGNED BY THE
CONSIGNOR AND NO PROVISION IS MADE FOR PREPAYMENT OF FREIGHT, DELIVERY
OF THE SHIPMENT TO THE CONSIGNEE RELIEVES THE CONSIGNOR OF LIABILITY,
SEE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. CENTRAL IRON CO., SUPRA, 66, N. 3,
AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE DELIVERY ESTABLISHES THE LIABILITY OF THE
CONSIGNEE TO PAY ALL FREIGHT CHARGES.  PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY.
CO. V. FINK, SUPRA; NEW YORK CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. YORK & WHITNEY
CO., SUPRA. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULES OF LIABILITY THE FACTS
OF THE PRESENT CASE RAISE ONLY A SINGLE QUESTION, WHETHER THE
STIPULATION IN THE BILLS OF LADING FOR THE PREPAYMENT OF FREIGHT
RESTRICTS THE OPERATION OF THE NON-RECOURSE CLAUSE SO THAT, DESPITE ITS
PRESENCE IN THE BILLS OF LADING, RECOURSE MAY BE HAD TO PETITIONER FOR
CHARGES IN ADDITION TO THOSE WHICH IT PREPAID AT SHIPMENT, THE
ADDITIONAL CHARGES ARISING ONLY BY REASON OF EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED ON
OR AFTER THE DELIVERY OF THE SHIPMENTS TO THE CONSIGNEE. 

THE ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT THOUGHT, AND RESPONDENT ARGUES HERE,
THAT THIS LIABILITY WAS IMPOSED ON THE CONSIGNOR ONLY BECAUSE THE
PREPAYMENT CLAUSE WAS SO IN CONFLICT WITH THE NON-RECOURSE CLAUSE AS TO
NULLIFY THE LATTER AND THUS REVIVE THE OBLIGATION WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE
OF THAT CLAUSE, RESTS ON THE CONSIGNOR TO PAY ALL LAWFUL CHARGES ON HIS
SHIPMENTS.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE IS SUCH A CONFLICT AS TO
REQUIRE THIS RESULT.  FOR WE MUST ASSUME THAT BOTH CLAUSES WERE
INTENDED BY THE PARTIES TO HAVE SOME EFFECT, AND HENCE, UNLESS
UNAVOIDABLY IN CONFLICT, THEY MUST, SO FAR AS THEY REASONABLY MAY, BE
RECONCILED SO THAT EACH WILL HAVE SOME SCOPE FOR OPERATION. 

THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE NON-RECOURSE CLAUSE IS TO
RELIEVE THE SHIPPER FROM LIABILITY FOR FREIGHT CHARGES, UPON DELIVERY
TO THE CONSIGNEE.  SUCH A PURPOSE IS CONSISTENT WITH AN INTENTION THAT
IN CASE OF PREPAYMENT OF A PORTION OF THE FREIGHT CHARGE, THE CARRIER
SHOULD, AFTER DELIVERY, LOOK SOLELY TO THE CONSIGNEE FOR THE REMAINDER
OF THE CHARGE.  SINCE, BY THE UNIFORM BILL OF LADING, THE PARTIES TO A
RAIL SHIPMENT ARE LEFT FREE TO RELIEVE THE CONSIGNOR FROM LIABILITY BY
THEIR CONTRACT, SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WOULD BE WITHIN THEIR COMPETENCE
AND WOULD RELEASE THE CONSIGNOR FROM LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT OF THE
UNPAID FREIGHT CHARGES. 

IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT BY AGREEING TO PAY A PART OF THE CHARGES IN
ADVANCE, THE CONSIGNOR HAS AGREED TO PAY MORE, OR THAT THE NON-RECOURSE
CLAUSE WOULD CEASE TO BE EFFECTIVE AS TO THE UNPAID CHARGES BECAUSE THE
CONSIGNOR HAD PAID OR UNDERTAKEN TO PAY SOME OF THEM.  THE WORDS OF
SEC. 7 OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE BILL OF LADING ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT
IF THE CONSIGNOR STIPULATES THAT THE CARRIER SHALL NOT DELIVER "WITHOUT
REQUIRING PAYMENT OF SUCH CHARGES" AND THE CARRIER MAKES DELIVERY, THE
CONSIGNOR "SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR SUCH CHARGES."  IN THIS CONTEXT,
"SUCH CHARGES" ARE THE LAWFUL CHARGES WHICH THE CONSIGNOR HAS NOT PAID
OR STIPULATED TO PAY IN ADVANCE. 

WE DISCERN NO POLICY UNDERLYING THE UNIFORM BILL OF LADING OR IN THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7 WHICH WOULD DENY THE APPLICATION OF THE NON
RECOURSE CLAUSE WHERE THE CONSIGNOR HAS STIPULATED FOR ADVANCE PAYMENT
OF SOME BUT LESS THAN ALL OF THE LAWFUL CHARGES.  AND NO PLAUSIBLE
REASON IS ADVANCED WHY AN AGREEMENT BY THE CONSIGNOR TO PAY A PART OF
THE LAWFUL CHARGES SHOULD BE DEEMED TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THE BENEFIT OF
THE NON-RECOURSE CLAUSE BEYOND THE AMOUNT HE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO PAY. 

WE THINK THAT THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS POINT HERE TO THE
RECONCILIATION OF THE CONFLICT WHICH THE ILLINOIS COURT THOUGHT TO
EXIST IN THIS CASE.  FOR IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE PREPAYMENT CLAUSE CONTEMPLATED PAYMENT BY THE CONSIGNOR OF THE
ADDITIONAL CHARGES DEMANDED AT THE DOMESTIC TARIFF RATE AND HENCE WE
FIND NO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PREPAYMENT AND NON-RECOURSE
CLAUSES. 

PETITIONER'S STIPULATION WAS THAT THE FREIGHT CHARGES WERE "TO BE
PREPAID" AND THE BILL OF LADING ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF SPECIFIED SUMS
"TO APPLY IN PREPAYMENT OF THE CHARGES."  HENCE THE STIPULATION WAS FOR
AN OBLIGATION TO BE PERFORMED IN ADVANCE OF THE TRANSPORTATION OR AT
THE MOST IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERY TO THE CONSIGNEE.  THIS OBLIGATION
COULD NOT HAVE CONTEMPLATED PAYMENT OF MORE THAN ALL THE LAWFUL CHARGES
UPON THE CONSIGNOR'S SHIPMENT AS TENDERED AND TRANSPORTED IN CONFORMITY
TO THE BILLING.  NO MORE COULD PREPAYMENT BE MADE, BEFORE EITHER
SHIPMENT OR DELIVERY, OF A CHARGE WHICH MIGHT NEVER BE INCURRED, AND
WHICH COULD BE, ONLY AFTER THE TRANSPORTATION WAS COMPLETED AND
DELIVERY MADE TO THE CONSIGNEE. 

IT IS FAMILIAR EXPERIENCE, AS IN THIS CASE, THAT UNDERCHARGES MAY
OCCUR WHICH COULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO PREPAYMENT EITHER BECAUSE THEY ARE
NOT LAWFUL CHARGES ON THE SHIPMENT AS TENDERED AND BILLED, OR BECAUSE
THEY DEPEND UPON EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER THE TRANSPORTATION HAS BEEN
COMPLETED.  IN EITHER CASE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE PREPAYMENT CLAUSE IS THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THESE CHARGES, IT DID
NOT, EITHER BY ITS DESIGN OR BY THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES, CURTAIL
THE OPERATION OF THE NON-RECOURSE CLAUSE, SO AS TO DEPRIVE PETITIONER,
THE CONSIGNOR, OF THE IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY FOR WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED
TO STIPULATE BY THE NON-RECOURSE CLAUSE.  SEE CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RY.
CO. V. HOPKINS, 48 F.SUPP.  60.  THIS CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT LEAVE THE
CARRIER UNPROTECTED WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLECTION OF UNANTICIPATED
FREIGHT CHARGES, FOR IT MAY ALWAYS INSURE THEIR COLLECTION BY DEMANDING
THE CONSIGNOR'S GUARANTEE OF ALL CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SEC. 7 OF THE
CONDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BILL OF LADING, A PROVISION WHICH PRESUPPOSES
THAT THE PREPAYMENT OF FREIGHT CLAUSE IS NOT AS BROAD AS THE AUTHORIZED
GUARANTEE.    IN THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE BROADER CONTENTION OF PETITIONER THAT THE
PREPAYMENT CLAUSE CONTEMPLATED AN UNDERTAKING UPON ITS PART TO PAY ONLY
THE AMOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES SPECIFIED ON THE FACE OF THE BILL OF
LADING, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE COMPUTED AT THE LAWFUL RATE ON THE
SHIPMENTS AS TENDERED AND BILLED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SPECIMEN FORMS OF THE UNIFORM BILLS OF LADING, PRESCRIBED FOR
INTERSTATE RAIL SHIPMENTS DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE SHIPMENTS
CONCERNED IN THIS ACTION WERE MADE, MAY BE FOUND IN CONSOLIDATED
FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 7(1932) PP. 52-56. 

FN2  SEC. 7 OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE BILL OF LADING, SO FAR AS
RELEVANT, IS SET OUT AT PAGE 512, INFRA.  THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED
THAT THE NON-RECOURSE CLAUSE CONTAINED IN THE BILLS OF LADING IN THIS
CASE WERE IN THE FORM QUOTED IN THE TEXT.  THE FORM APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION VARIES SLIGHTLY IN DETAILS IMMATERIAL HERE.  SEE
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 7, SUPRA, P. 52. 

FN3  THE EXCEPTION, INAPPLICABLE HERE, IS IN THE CASE WHERE A
CONSIGNEE, OTHER THAN THE CONSIGNOR, IS AN AGENT WITH NO BENEFICIAL
TITLE IN THE GOODS, AND HAS NOTIFIED THE CARRIER OF THESE FACTS.  IN
SUCH A CASE THE CONSIGNEE IS NOT "LIABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION CHARGES
...  (BEYOND THOSE BILLED AGAINST HIM AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY FOR WHICH
HE IS OTHERWISE LIABLE) WHICH MAY BE FOUND TO BE DUE AFTER THE PROPERTY
HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO HIM," BUT THE CONSIGNOR IS LIABLE FOR SUCH
CHARGES.  CF. SEC. 3(2) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 3(2). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :











DIXIE PINE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 516 


NO. 84.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 15, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  -
134 F.2D 273, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A TAXPAYER WHO KEPT HIS BOOKS ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS DEDUCTED ON HIS
INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1937 STATE TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST HIM DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR.  HE WAS CONTESTING IN THE STATE COURTS HIS LIABILITY FOR
THE TAXES, WAS LATER ADJUDGED EXEMPT THEREFROM, AND NEVER ACTUALLY PAID
THEM.  HELD THAT, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, THE DEDUCTION WAS
PROPERLY DISALLOWED.  P. 519. 

2.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS APPLIED THE CORRECT RULE OF LAW IN THIS
CASE, AND THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISTURB ITS
DETERMINATION.  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 489.  P. 519. 

DIXIE PINE PRODUCTS CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 720, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 45 B.T.A. 286, WHICH SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A TAX DEFICIENCY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED CONCERNS THE PROPRIETY OF THE RESPONDENT'S
DISALLOWANCE OF A DEDUCTION FROM INCOME WHICH PETITIONER TOOK IN ITS
FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1937. 

IN 1936 THE MISSISSIPPI TAXING AUTHORITIES DECLARED THAT A SOLVENT
USED BY PETITIONER IN ITS BUSINESS WAS GASOLINE WITHIN THE MEANING OF A
STATE LAW DEFINING GASOLINE AND LAYING A TAX UPON ITS RECEIPT AND USE. 
ACCORDINGLY A TAX WAS ASSESSED AGAINST THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO
THE RECEIPT AND USE OF THE SOLVENT IN 1936.  PETITIONER PAID THE TAX,
AND, IN THE SAME YEAR, BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE
COMMISSIONER OF MISSISSIPPI ALLEGING THAT THE SOLVENT WAS NOT WITHIN
THE COMPREHENSION OF THE STATE LAW AND THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD BE
TEMPORARILY AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM FUTURE COLLECTIONS OF TAX IN
RESPECT OF IT.  THE COMMISSIONER'S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT WAS
SUSTAINED BUT, ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI DECIDED
THAT, ON THE PLEADINGS, THE SOLVENT WAS NOT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF
GASOLINE CONTAINED IN THE STATE STATUTE.  AFTER THIS DECISION
PETITIONER DENIED THAT IT OWED, AND CEASED AND REFUSED TO PAY, ANY
GASOLINE TAX ON SOLVENT USED BY IT. 

IN DECEMBER 1937, ON ADVICE OF COUNSEL, PETITIONER (WHICH KEPT ITS
BOOKS AND FILED ITS FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS)
MADE BOOK ENTRIES ACCRUING GASOLINE TAX ASSESSED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE
COMMISSIONER IN 1937.  THE ACTUAL ACCRUAL ENTRIES WERE MADE SOMETIME
BETWEEN JANUARY 1 AND MARCH 15, 1938, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1937, IN THE
AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $21,000, AND PETITIONER DEDUCTED THIS AMOUNT
FROM INCOME IN MAKING ITS 1937 FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN, ALTHOUGH THE
SUM HAD NOT BEEN, AND NEVER WAS, PAID. 

IN DECEMBER 1938 PETITIONER AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSISSIPPI
FILED AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS IN THE STATE COURT SUIT, AND, IN THE
SAME MONTH, THE TRIAL JUDGE ENTERED A FINAL DECREE PERPETUALLY
ENJOINING THE MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSIONER FROM ASSESSING GASOLINE TAX ON
THE SOLVENT USED BY PETITIONER.  THIS DECREE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AFFIRMED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI.  IN ITS 1938 FEDERAL INCOME TAX
RETURN PETITIONER, BY WAY OF COMPENSATING ENTRY, INCLUDED THE SUM OF
$21,000 AS INCOME AND AS A RECOVERY, IN VIEW OF THE MISSISSIPPI TRIAL
COURT'S DECREE OF DECEMBER 1938. 

THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER WAS RIGHT IN
DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION FOR THE TAX YEAR 1937.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS HELD THAT HE WAS,  FN1  AND THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED ITS
DECISION.  FN2  WE TOOK THE CASE BECAUSE OF A CONCEDED CONFLICT IN
PRINCIPLE WITH DECISIONS IN OTHER CIRCUITS.  FN3 

FROM GROSS INCOME OF TAXES "PAID OR ACCRUED WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR." 
ACCRUAL BASIS, WHERE THE TAXPAYER KEEPS HIS BOOKS ON THAT PRINCIPLE,
PROVIDED HIS METHOD CLEARLY REFLECTS HIS INCOME IN ANY TAXABLE YEAR. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 WORKED NO SIGNIFICANT
CHANGE OVER EARLIER ACTS RESPECTING THE PERMISSIBLE BASIS OF
CALCULATING ANNUAL TAXABLE INCOME.  THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF
ACCOUNTING ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS HAD  BEEN ADDUCED AND APPLIED BY THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS.  FN5  IT HAS NEVER BEEN
QUESTIONED THAT A TAXPAYER WHO ACCOUNTS ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS MAY, AND
SHOULD, DEDUCT FROM GROSS INCOME A LIABILITY WHICH REALLY ACCRUES IN
THE TAXABLE YEAR.  FN6  IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD THAT IN ORDER TRULY TO
REFLECT THE INCOME OF A GIVEN YEAR, ALL THE EVENTS MUST OCCUR IN THAT
YEAR WHICH FIX THE AMOUNT AND THE FACT OF THE TAXPAYER'S LIABILITY FOR
ITEMS OF INDEBTEDNESS DEDUCTED THOUGH NOT PAID; FN7  AND THIS CANNOT BE
THE CASE WHERE THE LIABILITY IS CONTINGENT AND IS CONTESTED BY THE
TAXPAYER.  FN8  HERE THE TAXPAYER WAS STRENUOUSLY CONTESTING LIABILITY
IN THE COURTS AND, AT THE SAME TIME, DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX,
ON THE THEORY THAT THE STATE'S EXACTION CONSTITUTED A FIXED AND CERTAIN
LIABILITY.  THIS IT COULD NOT DO.  IT MUST, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AWAIT
THE EVENT OF THE STATE COURT LITIGATION AND MIGHT CLAIM A DEDUCTION
ONLY FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH ITS LIABILITY FOR THE TAX WAS
FINALLY ADJUDICATED.  FN9 

TO THIS EFFECT ARE THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN
NUMEROUS CASES, AND THE INSTANT DECISION WAS IN LINE WITH EARLIER
RULINGS AS TO PROPER TAX ACCOUNTING PRACTICE.  SINCE THE BOARD APPLIED
THE CORRECT RULE OF LAW, ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE ITEM IN QUESTION
WAS NOT PROPERLY DEDUCTED ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS IS ENTITLED TO THE
FINALITY INDICATED BY DOBSON V. HELVERING, ANTE, P. 489.  THE COURT
BELOW PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISTURB THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  45 B.T.A. 286. 

FN2  134 F.2D 273. 

FN3  COMMISSIONER V. CENTRAL UNITED NATIONAL BANK, 99 F.2D 568; J. A.
DOUGHERTY'S SONS V. COMMISSIONER, 121 F.2D 700; DAVIES' ESTATE V.
COMMISSIONER, 126 F.2D 294. 

FN4  49 STAT. 1648, 1659. 

FN5  SEE LUCAS V. AMERICAN CODE CO., 280 U.S. 445, NOTES 1 AND 3, PP.
450, 452. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, 269 U.S. 422; AMERICAN NATIONAL CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 99; NILES BEMENT POND CO. V. UNITED STATES,
281 U.S. 357; ALUMINUM CASTINGS CO. V. ROUTZAHN, 282 U.S. 92; CF.
CONTINENTAL TIE & LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 290. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, SUPRA, 450, 451. 

FN8  LUCAS V. AMERICAN CODE CO., SUPRA, 450, 451. 

FN9  CF. BROWN V. HELVERING, 291 U.S. 193. 
..END :










HILL V. HAWES, 320 U.S. 520 


NO. 4.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 76 U.S.
APP. D.C. 308, 132 F.2D 569, REVERSED. 


1.  RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, LIMITING TO 20 DAYS THE TIME WITHIN WHICH AN
APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN TO THAT COURT FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SUSTAINED.  P. 522. 

THE STATUTORY POWER OF THE COURT TO ADOPT THE RULE (ACT OF JULY 30,
1894, AMENDING ACT OF FEB. 9, 1893) WAS NOT ALTERED BY THE JUDICIAL
CODE (1911), OR THE ACT OF FEB. 13, 1925, OR THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE. 

2.  THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAVING FAILED UPON ENTRY OF JUDGMENT TO NOTIFY THE
PARTIES AS REQUIRED BY RULE 77(D) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE
JUDGE AT THE SAME TERM ORDERED THE JUDGMENT VACATED AND ENTRY OF A NEW
JUDGMENT, OF WHICH NOTICE WAS SENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES.  HELD
THAT THE TIME FOR APPEAL BEGAN TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF THE ENTRY OF THE
SECOND JUDGMENT.  P. 523. 

HILL, ADMINISTRATOR, V. HAWES ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 753, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING AN APPEAL
AS OUT OF TIME. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE RULE-MAKING
POWER OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA TOUCHING APPEALS TO THAT COURT AND THE POWERS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO VACATE ITS
JUDGMENTS. 

RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, AS IT STOOD WHEN
APPLIED IN THIS CASE, WAS: 

"NO  ...  JUDGMENT  ...  OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR OF ANY JUSTICE THEREOF, SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, UNLESS THE APPEAL SHALL BE TAKEN
WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE  ...  JUDGMENT  ...  COMPLAINED OF SHALL HAVE
BEEN MADE OR PRONOUNCED.  ..."  FN1 

IN THE INSTANT CASE A JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER A HEARING ON
A COMPLAINT AND ANSWER, ON MAY 7, 1940, SIGNED A JUDGMENT DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT.  THE CLERK NOTED THE JUDGMENT IN THE DOCKET.  THIS
ENTRY, PURSUANT TO RULE 79(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, MADE THE
JUDGMENT EFFECTIVE AT THE DATE OF ENTRY.  (SEE RULE 58.) 

THE TWENTY-DAY PERIOD FOR APPEAL EXPIRED MAY 27 BUT NO NOTICE OF
APPEAL WAS FILED UNTIL JUNE 3.  RULE 77(D) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE IMPOSED ON THE CLERK THE DUTY, IMMEDIATELY UPON THE ENTRY OF
THE JUDGMENT, TO SEND NOTICE OF SUCH ENTRY, IN THE WAY SPECIFIED BY
RULE 5, BUT IT IS AGREED THAT NO SUCH NOTICE WAS SENT. 

JUNE 6 THE PETITIONER FILED A MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND TO DIRECT
THE CLERK TO NOTIFY THE PARTIES.  THE REASONS STATED IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION WERE THAT THE CLERK HAD FAILED TO ENTER THE DAY OR THE MONTH OF
THE JUDGMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF COURT AND HAD FAILED TO NOTIFY
THE PARTIES.  THE MOTION WAS NOT ACTED ON UNTIL JUNE 24, WHEN THE COURT
DENIED IT. 

IN THE MEANTIME, ON JUNE 13, THE TRIAL JUDGE ORDERED THE JUDGMENT OF
MAY 7 VACATED "FOR THE REASON THAT THE CLERK FAILED UNDER RULE 77(D) OF
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO SERVE A NOTICE OF THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
BY MAIL ON THE PLAINTIFF  ...  AND TO MAKE A NOTE IN THE DOCKET OF THE
MAILING."  THE SAME DAY THE JUDGE SIGNED AND FILED A SECOND JUDGMENT IN
THE SAME TERMS AS THAT OF MAY 7, WHICH WAS DULY NOTED IN THE DOCKET. 
THE PETITIONER FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THIS JUDGMENT ON JUNE 14. 
THE RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AS TAKEN OUT OF TIME.  THE
COURT BELOW GRANTED THE MOTION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL.  FN2 

THE PETITIONER URGES THAT THE RULE OF THE COURT BELOW FIXING 20 DAYS
AS THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND
THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE RULE IS VALID, THE APPEAL WAS TIMELY BECAUSE
TAKEN WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE JUDGMENT FINALLY ENTERED. 

FIRST.  WE HOLD THAT RULE 10 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS WITHIN THE
COMPETENCE OF THAT COURT.  THE COURT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 9, 1893,  FN3  WHICH, IN SEC. 6, EMPOWERED IT TO "MAKE SUCH
RULES AND REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR THE
TRANSACTION OF THE BUSINESS TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE IT, AND FOR THE TIME
AND METHOD OF THE ENTRY OF APPEALS."  THE ACT OF JULY 30, 1894,  FN4
AMENDED SEC. 6 TO READ THAT THE COURT MIGHT MAKE "SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR THE TRANSACTION OF ITS
BUSINESS AND THE TAKING OF APPEALS TO SAID COURT."  BOTH OF THESE
STATUTES WERE LATER THAN THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891,  FN5 WHICH CREATED
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND PROVIDED FOR APPEALS TO SUCH COURTS
WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.  THE JUDICIAL CODE
ADOPTED MARCH 3, 1911,  FN6  DID NOT ALTER OR ENLARGE THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, SUPRA. 

IN EX PARTE DANTE, 228 U.S. 429, DECIDED APRIL 28, 1913, THIS COURT
AFFIRMED THE VALIDITY OF RULE 10.  THIS DECISION NECESSARILY IMPORTS
THAT THE STATUTE CONFERRING POWER ON THE COURT OF APPEALS TO SET THE
TIME FOR APPEAL WAS NOT SUPERSEDED BY THE LEGISLATION CREATING AND
DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  NO REFERENCE
IS MADE TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IN SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, WHICH REDUCED TO
THREE MONTHS THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO TAKE APPEALS TO THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS.  FN7  THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HAVE NOT
ALTERED STATUTORY PROVISIONS RESPECTING THE TIME FOR TAKING APPEALS
FROM DISTRICT COURTS.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT BELOW POSSESSES THE
STATUTORY POWER TO SET THE TIME WITHIN WHICH AN APPEAL FROM THE
DISTRICT COURT MUST BE TAKEN. 

SECOND.  IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT
EXTEND THE PERIOD FIXED BY RULE 10.  THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE
VACATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF MAY 7, AND THE ENTRY OF A NEW JUDGMENT ON
JUNE 13, AMOUNTED MERELY TO AN ATTEMPTED EXTENSION OF THE TIME FOR
APPEAL; THAT JUDGMENT WAS DULY ENTERED AND BECAME FINAL ON MAY 7; THAT
THE CLERK'S NEGLECT TO COMPLY WITH RULE 77(D) IN THE MATTER OF NOTICE
DOES NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY OR ITS FINALITY, AND THAT THE NOTICE OF
APPEAL OF JUNE 14 WAS CONSEQUENTLY OUT OF TIME AND THE COURT BELOW
PROPERLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THAT GROUND.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT RULE 77(D) DOES NOT PURPORT TO ATTACH ANY CONSEQUENCE
TO THE FAILURE OF THE CLERK TO GIVE THE PRESCRIBED NOTICE; BUT WE CAN
THINK OF NO REASON FOR REQUIRING THE NOTICE IF COUNSEL IN THE CAUSE ARE
NOT ENTITLED TO RELY UPON THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE GIVEN.  IT MAY
WELL BE THAT THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO THE RULE IS THAT, ALTHOUGH THE
JUDGMENT IS FINAL FOR OTHER PURPOSES, IT DOES NOT BECOME FINAL FOR THE
PURPOSE OF STARTING THE RUNNING OF THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL UNTIL NOTICE
IS SENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE.  THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE PERMIT THE AMENDMENT OR VACATION OF A JUDGMENT FOR CLERICAL
MISTAKES OR ERRORS ARISING FROM OVERSIGHT OR OMISSION AND AUTHORIZE THE
COURT TO RELIEVE A PARTY FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER TAKEN AGAINST HIM
THROUGH HIS MISTAKE, INADVERTENCE, SURPRISE OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT.  (SEE
RULE 60(A)(B).)  THESE RULES DO NOT IN TERMS APPLY TO THE SITUATION
HERE PRESENT, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD.  BUT WE THINK IT WAS COMPETENT
FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE, IN THE VIEW THAT THE PETITIONER RELIED UPON THE
PROVISIONS OF RULE 77(D) WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE, AND IN THE EXERCISE OF
A SOUND DISCRETION, TO VACATE THE FORMER JUDGMENT AND TO ENTER A NEW
JUDGMENT OF WHICH NOTICE WAS SENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES.  THE
TERM HAD NOT EXPIRED AND THE JUDGMENT WAS STILL WITHIN CONTROL OF THE
TRIAL JUDGE FOR SUCH ACTION AS WAS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO A
PARTY TO THE CAUSE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT BELOW
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FEBRUARY 1, 1941, THE RULE WAS AMENDED TO SUBSTITUTE A PERIOD OF
30 DAYS FOR THE 20 DAYS THERETOFORE PROVIDED. 

FN2  132 F.2D 569; 76 U.S. APP. D.C. 308. 

FN3  C. 74, 27 STAT. 434. 

FN4  C. 172, 28 STAT. 160. 

FN5  C. 517, SEC. 11, 26 STAT. 826, 829. 

FN6  36 STAT. 1087. 

FN7  C. 229, 43 STAT. 936, 940. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURT RESTS ITS DECISION ON THE GROUND
THAT RULE 77(D) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE MAKES NOTICE OF ENTRY
PREREQUISITE TO THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL. 
IF IT DOES, MOST ELSE THAT IS SAID IS UNNECESSARY TO THE DECISION.  IN
ANY CASE WHAT IS SAID SEEMS TO ME TO BE UNTENABLE IN PRINCIPLE AND
WITHOUT SUPPORT IN AUTHORITY. 

TO SAY THAT A DISTRICT COURT CAN RIGHTLY EXTEND THE PRESCRIBED TIME
FOR TAKING AN APPEAL BY THE REENTRY, PRO FORMA, OF A FINAL JUDGMENT
AFTER THE TIME TO APPEAL FROM IT HAS EXPIRED, IS TO DISREGARD
CONSIDERATIONS OF CERTAINTY AND STABILITY WHICH HAVE HITHERTO BEEN
CONSIDERED OF FIRST IMPORTANCE IN THE APPELLATE PRACTICE OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  IT IS TO SANCTION THE REGULATION OF THE TIME FOR APPEAL BY
COURTS, CONTRARY TO THE APPEAL STATUTE, AND WITHOUT SUPPORT IN LAW OR
ANY RULE OF COURT.  RULE 60, WHICH PERMITS AMENDMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OR
RELIEF OF A PARTY FROM IT, IN CIRCUMSTANCES NOT HERE PRESENT, GIVES NO
WARRANT FOR ENLARGING THE TIME FOR APPEAL BY REENTRY OF A JUDGMENT
WHICH IS NOT AMENDED AND FROM NO PART OF WHICH ANY PARTY HAS BEEN
RELIEVED. 

IN THE FEDERAL COURTS THERE IS NO RIGHT TO APPEAL SAVE AS IT IS
GRANTED BY CONGRESS OR A RULE OF COURT WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
AND HAS THE FORCE OF LAW.  SEE HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 423,
428; EX PARTE DANTE, 228 U.S. 429, 432.  IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
AND IT IS THE VERY PURPOSE OF LIMITING THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL, TO SET A
DEFINITE AND ASCERTAINABLE POINT OF TIME WHEN LITIGATION SHALL BE AT AN
END UNLESS WITHIN THAT TIME APPLICATION FOR APPEAL HAS BEEN MADE; AND
IF IT HAS NOT, TO ADVISE PROSPECTIVE APPELLEES THAT THEY ARE FREED OF
THE APPELLANT'S DEMANDS.  MATTON STEAMBOAT CO. V. MURPHY, 319 U.S. 412,
415. 

THAT PURPOSE IS DEFEATED IF JUDGES MAY ENLARGE THE TIME FOR APPEAL
BEYOND THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WHETHER BY AN ORDER PURPORTING
DIRECTLY TO EXTEND IT OR BY REENTRY, WITHOUT CHANGE, OF A JUDGMENT
WHICH HAS ALREADY BECOME FINAL.  IT IS FOR THAT REASON THAT THIS COURT
HAS CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT NO FEDERAL JUDGE OR COURT POSSESSES THE
POWER TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR APPEAL BEYOND THE STATUTORY PERIOD BY ANY
FORM OF JUDICIAL ACTION WHICH FALLS SHORT OF A RECONSIDERATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE SO AS TO POSTPONE ITS
FINALITY. 

THE DECISIONS ARE NUMEROUS AND DILIGENCE OF COURT AND COUNSEL HAS
REVEALED NO EXCEPTIONS.  CREDIT COMPANY V. ARKANSAS CENTRAL RY. CO.,
128 U.S. 258, IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNBROKEN CURRENT OF AUTHORITY. 
THERE, IN DISMISSING AN APPEAL AS UNTIMELY THE COURT, SPEAKING BY MR.
JUSTICE BRADLEY, SAID AT PAGE 261:  "THE ATTEMPT MADE, IN THIS CASE, TO
ANTICIPATE THE ACTUAL TIME OF PRESENTING AND FILING THE APPEAL, BY
ENTERING AN ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC, DOES NOT HELP THE CASE.  WHEN THE TIME
FOR TAKING AN APPEAL HAS EXPIRED, IT CANNOT BE ARRESTED OR CALLED BACK
BY A SIMPLE ORDER OF COURT.  IF IT COULD BE, THE LAW WHICH LIMITS THE
TIME WITHIN WHICH AN APPEAL CAN BE TAKEN WOULD BE A DEAD LETTER." 

AT THE LAST TERM OF COURT WE HELD THAT THE REENTRY OF ITS FINAL
JUDGMENT BY A STATE APPELLATE COURT, WITH ONLY FORMAL CHANGES NOT
AFFECTING ANY MATTER ADJUDICATED, DID NOT ENLARGE THE TIME TO APPEAL TO
THIS COURT.  DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK, 317 U.S. 264.  AND AT THE
SAME TERM WE HELD THAT A MOTION TO AMEND A FINAL JUDGMENT WOULD NOT
TOLL THE TIME FOR APPEAL UNLESS THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED WERE OF
SUBSTANCE RATHER THAN FORM, LEISHMAN V. ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC CO., 318
U.S. 203, 205-6 - AN INQUIRY WHICH PRESUPPOSED THAT REENTRY OF THE
JUDGMENT WITHOUT FORMAL CHANGE COULD NOT ENLARGE THE TIME.  TO THE SAME
EFFECT ARE PFISTER V. NORTHERN ILLINOIS FINANCE CORP., 317 U.S. 144,
149-51; ZIMMERN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 167.  AND IN WAYNE GAS CO.
V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., 300 U.S. 131, 137, THIS COURT, CITING IN
RE STEARNS & WHITE CO., 295 F. 833; BONNER V. POTTERF, 47 F.2D 852,
855; UNITED STATES V. EAST, 80 F.2D 134, 135, DECLARED THAT WHERE IT
APPEARS THAT A REHEARING HAS BEEN GRANTED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXTENDING THE TIME OF APPEAL THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED - A STATEMENT
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE REENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT SOLELY FOR THAT
PURPOSE. 

PETITIONER, BY THE EXERCISE OF THE DILIGENCE REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE COULD HAVE LEARNED OF THE ENTRY OF THE
JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM AND HAVE TAKEN A TIMELY APPEAL.  HIS CASE IS NOT
HARD ENOUGH TO AFFORD EVEN THE PROVERBIAL APOLOGY FOR OUR SAYING THAT
FEDERAL JUDGES, BY THE REENTRY OF A JUDGMENT FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE, ARE
FREE TO MAKE A DEAD LETTER OF THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF THE PERIOD FOR
APPEAL. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. GASKIN, 320 U.S. 527 


NO. 68.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 8, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 50
F.SUPP.  607, REVERSED. 


1.  IT IS AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 269 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE TO ARREST A
PERSON WITH INTENT TO HOLD HIM IN PEONAGE.  P. 528. 

THAT THE PERSON SHALL HAVE RENDERED SERVICE IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE
ARREST IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE. 

2.  THE RULES REQUIRING DEFINITENESS AND STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF A
CRIMINAL STATUTE DO NOT REQUIRE DISTORTION OR NULLIFICATION OF ITS
EVIDENT MEANING AND PURPOSE.  P. 529. 

UNITED STATES V. GASKIN. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED AGAINST THE APPELLEE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR NORTHERN FLORIDA WHICH CHARGED THAT HE ARRESTED ONE JOHNSON "TO A
CONDITION OF PEONAGE," UPON A CLAIM THAT JOHNSON WAS INDEBTED TO HIM,
AND WITH INTENT TO CAUSE JOHNSON TO PERFORM LABOR IN SATISFACTION OF
THE DEBT, AND THAT HE FORCIBLY ARRESTED AND DETAINED JOHNSON AGAINST
HIS WILL AND TRANSPORTED HIM FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER WITHIN FLORIDA. 
THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT JOHNSON RENDERED ANY LABOR OR SERVICE IN
CONSEQUENCE OF THE ARREST.  FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER,  FN1
THE UNITED STATES APPEALED.  FN2 

THE CHARGE IS LAID UNDER SEC. 269 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE,  FN3  WHICH
IS:  "WHOEVER HOLDS, ARRESTS, RETURNS, OR CAUSES TO BE HELD, ARRESTED,
OR RETURNED, OR IN ANY MANNER AIDS IN THE ARREST OR RETURN OF ANY
PERSON TO A CONDITION OF PEONAGE, SHALL BE FINED  ...  OR IMPRISONED
...  " 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTE IMPOSES NO PENALTY FOR AN
ARREST WITH INTENT TO COMPEL THE PERFORMANCE OF LABOR OR SERVICE UNLESS
THE PERSON ARRESTED RENDERS LABOR OR SERVICE FOR A MASTER FOLLOWING THE
ARREST. 

WE THINK THIS WAS ERROR.  SECTION 269 DERIVES FROM SEC. 1 OF THE ACT
OF MARCH 2, 1867,  FN4 WHICH ABOLISHED AND PROHIBITED THE SYSTEM KNOWN
AS PEONAGE IN ANY TERRITORY OR STATE, NULLIFIED ANY LAW, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, OR USAGE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROHIBITION, AND ADDED
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS IN THE LANGUAGE NOW CONSTITUTING SEC. 269.  THE ACT
WAS PASSED FURTHER TO IMPLEMENT THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND IS
DIRECTED AT INDIVIDUALS WHETHER OR NOT ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW OR
ORDINANCE.  FN5 

THE SECTION MAKES ARREST OF A PERSON WITH INTENT TO PLACE HIM IN A
STATE OF PEONAGE A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT OFFENSE.  IT PENALIZES
"WHOEVER HOLDS, ARRESTS, RETURNS, OR CAUSES TO BE HELD, ARRESTED, OR
RETURNED  ...  ANY PERSON TO A CONDITION OF PEONAGE."  THE LANGUAGE IS
INARTISTIC.  THE APPROPRIATE QUALIFYING PREPOSITION FOR THE WORD
"HOLDS" IS "IN."  AN ACCURATE QUALIFYING PHRASE FOR THE VERB "ARRESTS"
WOULD BE "TO PLACE IN OR RETURN TO" PEONAGE.  BUT THE COMPACTNESS OF
PHRASING AND THE LACK OF STRICT GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT
OBSCURE THE INTENT OF THE ACT.  YEARS AGO THIS COURT INDICATED THAT THE
DISJUNCTIVE PHRASING IMPORTS THAT EACH OF THE ACTS,  - HOLDING,
ARRESTING, OR RETURNING,  - MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF INDICTMENT AND
PUNISHMENT.  FN6  WE THINK THAT VIEW IS SOUND APART FROM ANY
CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ENACTMENT.  BUT WHEN
VIEWED IN ITS SETTING NO DOUBT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE REMAINS. 

THE ACT OF 1867 WAS PASSED AS THE RESULT OF AGITATION IN CONGRESS FOR
FURTHER LEGISLATION BECAUSE OF THE USE OF FEDERAL TROOPS TO ARREST
PERSONS WHO HAD ESCAPED FROM A CONDITION OF PEONAGE.  FN7  THE FIRST
CONNECTION THEREWITH CRIMINAL.  THE SECOND SECTION IMPOSED A DUTY ON
ALL IN THE MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVICE TO AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
FIRST, AND PROVIDED THAT IF ANY OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON IN THE MILITARY
SERVICE SHOULD OFFEND AGAINST THE ACT'S PROVISIONS HE SHOULD, UPON
CONVICTION BY A COURT MARTIAL, BE DISHONORABLY DISMISSED FROM THE
SERVICE.  FN8  IT IS PLAIN THAT ARREST FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLACING A
PERSON IN OR RETURNING HIM TO A CONDITION OF PEONAGE WAS ONE OF THE
EVILS TO BE SUPPRESSED. 

THE APPELLEE INVOKES THE RULE THAT CRIMINAL LAWS ARE TO BE STRICTLY
CONSTRUED AND DEFENDANTS ARE NOT TO BE CONVICTED UNDER STATUTES TOO
VAGUE TO APPRISE THE CITIZEN OF THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE.  THAT
PRINCIPLE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT REQUIRE DISTORTION OR NULLIFICATION OF THE
EVIDENT MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION.  FN9 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  50 F.SUPP.  607. 

FN2  PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682. 

FN3  18 U.S.C. SEC. 444. 

FN4  14 STAT. 546. 

FN5  CLYATT V. UNITED STATES, 197 U.S. 207, 218; BAILEY V. ALABAMA,
219 U.S. 219, 241; UNITED STATES V. REYNOLDS, 235 U.S. 133; TAYLOR V.
GEORGIA, 315 U.S. 25. 

FN6  CLYATT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 218, 219. 

FN7  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 2D SESS., VOL. 74, PT. 1, PP. 239-241. 
IBID. VOL. 76, PT. 3, P. 1571.  SENATE REPORT NO. 156, 39TH CONG., 2D
SESS., PP. 325, 326. 

FN8  THIS SECTION BECAME SEC. 5527 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AND WAS
REPEALED AND REENACTED IN PART BY SEC. 270 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  SEE
18 U.S.C. SEC. 445. 

FN9  GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124, 128; UNITED STATES V.
GILES, 300 U.S. 41, 48; UNITED STATES V. RAYNOR, 302 U.S. 540, 552. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A CRIMINAL STATUTE, THE PENALTIES OF WHICH
CIRCUMSCRIBE PERSONAL FREEDOM.  BEFORE WE SANCTION THE IMPOSITION OF
SUCH PENALTIES NO DOUBTS SHOULD EXIST AS TO THE STATUTORY PROSCRIPTION
OF THE ACTS IN QUESTION.  OTHERWISE INDIVIDUALS ARE PUNISHED WITHOUT
HAVING BEEN ADEQUATELY WARNED AS TO THOSE ACTIONS WHICH SUBJECTED THEM
TO LIABILITY. 

IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER AN ARREST NOT FOLLOWED BY ACTUAL PEONAGE
CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY FALLS WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 269 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THE COURT BELOW, AT LEAST, FELT THAT THE STATUTE
DID NOT COVER SUCH A SITUATION.  OTHER JUDGES HAVE EXPRESSED SIMILAR
DOUBTS.  UNITED STATES V. EBERHART, 127 F. 252; DISSENTING OPINION IN
TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 244 F. 321, 332, 333.  AND IN ORDER TO REACH
THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION, THIS COURT LABELS THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AS
"INARTISTIC" AND AS LACKING IN "STRICT GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION."  IT
THEN PROCEEDS TO REWRITE THE STATUTE, IN CONFORMITY WITH WHAT IT
CONCEIVES TO HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF CONGRESS, SO AS TO
PENALIZE "WHOEVER  ...  ARRESTS  ...  ANY PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PLACING HIM IN A CONDITION OF PEONAGE."  I CANNOT ASSENT TO THIS
JUDICIAL REVISION OF A CRIMINAL LAW.  CONGRESS ALONE HAS POWER TO AMEND
OR CLARIFY THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS OF A STATUTE. 

APOLOGIA FOR INADEQUATE LEGISLATIVE DRAFTSMANSHIP AND RELIANCE ON THE
ADMITTED EVILS OF PEONAGE CANNOT REPLACE THE RIGHT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL
TO A FAIR WARNING FROM CONGRESS AS TO THOSE ACTIONS FOR WHICH PENALTIES
ARE INFLICTED.  PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CLEAR LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY MIGHT
CONCEIVABLY CONTAIN MORE POTENTIAL SEEDS OF OPPRESSION THAN THE ARREST
OF A PERSON "TO A CONDITION OF PEONAGE." 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. HARK, 320 U.S. 531 


NO. 83.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 9, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 49
F.SUPP.  95, REVERSED. 


1.  NEITHER THE DISTRICT COURT NOR THIS COURT HAS POWER TO EXTEND THE
TIME WITHIN WHICH APPEALS MAY BE TAKEN UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT. 
P. 533. 

2.  A FORMAL JUDGMENT SIGNED BY THE JUDGE - RATHER THAN A STATEMENT
IN AN OPINION OR A DOCKET ENTRY - IS PRIMA FACIE THE DECISION OR
JUDGMENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE TIME FOR APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT BEGINS TO RUN.  P. 534. 

3.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, HELD THAT THE FORMAL ORDER
SIGNED BY THE JUDGE AND ENTERED OF RECORD - RATHER THAN AN EARLIER
OPINION OR DOCKET ENTRY - WAS THE JUDGMENT FIXING THE DATE FROM WHICH
THE TIME FOR APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT RAN, AND THE APPEAL
HERE WAS TIMELY.  P. 535. 

4.  AN ORDER GRANTING A DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH, THE EFFECT OF
WHICH IS TO BAR PROSECUTION FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED, IS APPEALABLE
UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT AS A JUDGMENT "SUSTAINING A SPECIAL PLEA
IN BAR."  P. 535. 

5.  REVOCATION OF A PRICE REGULATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, HELD NOT A BAR TO AN INDICTMENT AND
PROSECUTION FOR A VIOLATION COMMITTED WHEN THE REGULATION WAS IN
FORCE.  P. 536. 

UNITED STATES V. HARK ET AL., CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS AS LIBERTY
BEEF CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM AN ORDER GRANTING THE
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL, PROSECUTED UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT,  FN1
PRESENTS QUESTIONS TOUCHING THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT AND THE
MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

APPELLEES WERE INDICTED DECEMBER 21, 1942, FOR SALES OF BEEF IN
VIOLATION OF MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 169, AS AMENDED, ISSUED
PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942.  FN2 THEY MOVED TO
QUASH.  THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED AN OPINION MARCH 5, 1943, HOLDING
THAT, SINCE THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION WHICH THE
APPELLEES WERE CHARGED TO HAVE VIOLATED HAD BEEN REVOKED PRIOR TO THE
RETURN OF THE INDICTMENT, THEY COULD NOT BE HELD TO ANSWER THE CHARGE. 
FN3  THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE OPINION WAS:  "THE MOTION TO QUASH IS
GRANTED." 

UNDER DATE OF MARCH 5 THE CLERK MADE AN ENTRY IN THE DOCKET AS
FOLLOWS:  "SWEENEY, J. OPINION - MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED."  THERE
SEEMS TO BE NO DISPUTE THAT SOME DAYS LATER AN ADDITIONAL ENTRY WAS
PLACED UPON THE DOCKET BEARING THE DATE MARCH 5 AND READING:  "SWEENEY,
J. INDICTMENT QUASHED."  IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT, UPON APPLICATION OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, JUDGE SWEENEY, ON MARCH 31, SIGNED A FORMAL
ORDER QUASHING THE INDICTMENT.  FN4  ON THE SAME DAY THE CLERK STRUCK
FROM THE DOCKET THE LAST MENTIONED ENTRY DATED MARCH 5 AND ENTERED,
UNDER THE DATE MARCH 31, THE FOLLOWING:  "SWEENEY, J. ORDER QUASHING
INDICTMENT."  ON APRIL 30 JUDGE SWEENEY ALLOWED A PETITION FOR APPEAL
TO THIS COURT. 

THE APPELLEES MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS
NOT SEASONABLY TAKEN FOR THE REASON THAT THE DECISION UPON THE MOTION
TO QUASH MADE BY JUDGE SWEENEY IN HIS OPINION OF MARCH 5 CONSTITUTED
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT; AND THAT, AS THE APPEAL IS NOT BASED UPON
THE INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT
WAS FOUNDED, IT WAS IMPROPERLY TAKEN TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT.  WE POSTPONED CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO THE HEARING
ON THE MERITS. 

FIRST.  THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT REQUIRES THAT ANY APPEAL TO THIS
COURT WHICH IT AUTHORIZES BE TAKEN "WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE
DECISION OR JUDGMENT  FN5  HAS BEEN RENDERED."  NEITHER THE DISTRICT
COURT NOR THIS COURT HAS POWER TO EXTEND THE PERIOD.  IF THE OPINION
FILED ON MARCH 5 CONSTITUTED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, THE
DECISION OR JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OR IF EITHER OF THE DOCKET
ENTRIES BEARING DATE MARCH 5 CONSTITUTED THE FINAL DECISION OR
JUDGMENT, THE APPEAL WAS UNTIMELY.  FN6  THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED
REQUIRE THAT WE DETERMINE WHAT CONSTITUTES THE DECISION OR JUDGMENT
FROM WHICH AN APPEAL LIES IN THIS CASE.  WE ARE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF
A RULE SUCH AS RULE 58 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH
PROVIDES THAT "THE NOTATION OF A JUDGMENT IN THE CIVIL DOCKET AS
PROVIDED BY RULE 79(A) CONSTITUTES THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT; AND THE
JUDGMENT IS NOT EFFECTIVE BEFORE SUCH ENTRY." 

THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT IS THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OR SENTENCE OF
THE COURT UPON A MATTER WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.  NO FORM OF WORDS AND
NO PECULIAR FORMAL ACT IS NECESSARY TO EVINCE ITS RENDITION OR TO
MATURE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL.  AND THE MODES OF EVIDENCING THE CHARACTER
OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF ATTESTING THE FACT AND TIME OF ITS RENDITION
VARY FROM STATE TO STATE ACCORDING TO LOCAL STATUTE OR CUSTOM, FROM A
SIMPLE DOCKET ENTRY OR THE STATEMENT OF A CONCLUSION IN AN OPINION, TO
A FORMAL ADJUDICATION, SIGNED BY THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK, IN A JOURNAL
OR ORDER BOOK, OR FILED AS PART OF THE RECORD IN THE CASE.  THE
PRACTICE IN FEDERAL COURTS DOUBTLESS VARIES BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL
TENDENCY TO FOLLOW LOCAL STATE PRACTICE.  UNAIDED BY STATUTE OR RULE OF
COURT WE MUST DECIDE ON THE BARE RECORD BEFORE US WHAT CONSTITUTES THE
DECISION OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW FROM WHICH APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION. 

IN VIEW OF THE DIVERSE PRACTICE AND CUSTOM IN DISTRICT COURTS WE
CANNOT LAY DOWN ANY HARD AND FAST RULE.  WHERE, AS HERE, A FORMAL
JUDGMENT IS SIGNED BY THE JUDGE, THIS IS PRIMA FACIE THE DECISION OR
JUDGMENT RATHER THAN A STATEMENT IN AN OPINION OR A DOCKET ENTRY.  FN7
IN RECENT CASES WE HAVE SO TREATED IT.  FN8  BUT WE ARE TOLD BY
APPELLEES THAT IT IS NOT THE PRACTICE OF THE COURT BELOW TO REQUIRE
WRITTEN ORDERS, AND THAT ENTRY ON THE DOCKET HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED
AS ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, AND FOR THIS SUPPORT IS FOUND IN A LETTER FROM A
DEPUTY CLERK OF THE COURT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT CALLS OUR
ATTENTION TO FIVE CASES BROUGHT HERE UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS IN EACH OF WHICH THE RECORD
CONTAINS A FORMAL ORDER QUASHING AN INDICTMENT, AND IN FOUR OF WHICH
THERE WAS AN OPINION AS WELL AS THE FORMAL ORDER.  FN9 IN VIEW OF THESE
FACTS, WE THINK WE SHOULD GIVE WEIGHT TO THE ACTION OF THE JUDGE RATHER
THAN TO THE OPINION OF COUNSEL OR OF A MINISTERIAL OFFICER OF THE
COURT.  THE JUDGE WAS CONSCIOUS, AS WE ARE, THAT HE WAS WITHOUT POWER
TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR APPEAL.  HE ENTERED A FORMAL ORDER OF RECORD. 
WE ARE UNWILLING TO ASSUME THAT HE DEEMED THIS AN EMPTY FORM OR THAT HE
ACTED FROM A PURPOSE INDIRECTLY TO EXTEND THE APPEAL TIME, WHICH HE
COULD NOT DO OVERTLY.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING OF RECORD TO LEAD TO
A CONTRARY CONCLUSION, WE TAKE THE FORMAL ORDER OF MARCH 31 AS IN FACT
AND IN LAW THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT AND AS FIXING THE
DATE FROM WHICH THE TIME FOR APPEAL RAN. 

SECOND.  THIS APPEAL IS AUTHORIZED BY THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  THAT
ACT PERMITS A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, INTER ALIA, FROM A JUDGMENT
OF A DISTRICT COURT "SUSTAINING A SPECIAL PLEA IN BAR."  THE MATERIAL
QUESTION IS NOT HOW THE DEFENDANT'S PLEADING IS STYLED BUT THE EFFECT
OF THE RULING SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED; FN10  AND WE HAVE, THEREFORE,
TREATED A MOTION TO QUASH, THE GRANT OF WHICH WOULD BAR PROSECUTION FOR
THE OFFENSE CHARGED, AS A PLEA IN BAR WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
STATUTE.  FN11  THE DEFENSE HERE WAS IN BAR OF THE PROSECUTION; TO
SUSTAIN IT WAS TO END THE CAUSE AND EXCULPATE THE DEFENDANTS. 

THIRD.  WE HOLD THAT REVOCATION OF THE REGULATION DID NOT PREVENT
INDICTMENT AND CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF ITS PROVISIONS AT A TIME
WHEN IT REMAINED IN FORCE.  THE REASON FOR THE COMMON LAW RULE THAT THE
REPEAL OF A STATUTE ENDS THE POWER TO PROSECUTE FOR PRIOR VIOLATIONS
FN12  IS ABSENT IN THE CASE OF A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF A
REGULATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO AN EXISTING STATUTE WHICH EXPRESSES A
CONTINUING POLICY, TO ENFORCE WHICH THE REGULATION WAS AUTHORIZED. 
REVOCATION OF THE REGULATION DOES NOT REPEAL THE STATUTE; AND THOUGH
THE REGULATION CALLS THE STATUTORY PENALTIES INTO PLAY, THE STATUTE,
NOT THE REGULATION, CREATES THE OFFENSE AND IMPOSES PUNISHMENT FOR ITS
VIOLATION.  FN13  UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., 299
U.S. 304, IS AUTHORITY FOR THE VIEW THAT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE WAS
CHARGED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C. SEC. 682. 

FN2  56 STAT. 23, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 901, ETC. 

FN3  49 F.SUPP.  95. 

FN4  "SWEENEY, J.:  THIS CAUSE CAME ON TO BE HEARD UPON THE
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT ALLEGING THAT MAXIMUM PRICE
REGULATION NO. 169 HAS BEEN REVOKED BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR,
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 16, 1942, BEFORE THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED.  THIS
ALLEGATION WAS NOT DENIED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  AFTER HEARING ARGUMENTS
OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT AND OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, IT IS 

ORDERED THAT THE INDICTMENT BE AND IT HEREBY IS QUASHED ON THE GROUND
THAT THE REGULATION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED WAS REVOKED PRIOR TO
THE RETURN OF THE INDICTMENT. 

BY THE COURT:

               ARTHUR M. BROWN, 

MARCH 31, 1943.                          DEPUTY CLERK. 

GEORGE C. SWEENEY, 

U.S.D.J." 

FN5  THE WORDS "DECISION" AND "JUDGMENT" AS USED IN THE ACT ARE NOT
INTENDED TO DESCRIBE TWO JUDICIAL ACTS, BUT A SINGLE ACT DESCRIBED IN
ALTERNATIVE PHRASES.  CF. EX PARTE TIFFANY, 252 U.S. 32, 36. 

FN6  THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ENTRY OF MARCH 5, "INDICTMENT
QUASHED," WAS IN FACT NOT PLACED UPON THE DOCKET FOR A NUMBER OF DAYS
AFTER MARCH 5, BUT IT WAS MADE BEFORE MARCH 29.  EVEN IF THE ACTUAL
DATE WHEN IT WAS PLACED ON THE DOCKET IS TO CONTROL, AN APPEAL TAKEN
APRIL 30 WOULD BE OUT OF TIME. 

FN7  IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AN OPINION IS NOT A PART OF THE RECORD
PROPER, ENGLAND V. GEBHARDT, 112 U.S. 502, 506; AND IN SOME
JURISDICTIONS THE DOCKET ENTRIES ARE NOT. 

FN8  UNITED STATES V. RESNICK, 299 U.S. 207; UNITED STATES V.
MIDSTATE HORTICULTURAL CO., 306 U.S. 161.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V.
SWIFT & CO., 318 U.S. 442, 446. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. STEVENSON, 215 U.S. 190; UNITED STATES V.
WINSLOW, 227 U.S. 202; UNITED STATES V. FOSTER, 233 U.S. 515; UNITED
STATES V. FARRAR, 281 U.S. 624; UNITED STATES V. SCHARTON, 285 U.S.
518. 

FN10  UNITED STATES V. THOMPSON, 251 U.S. 407, 412; UNITED STATES V.
BARBER, 219 U.S. 72, 78. 

FN11  UNITED STATES V. OPPENHEIMER, 242 U.S. 85, 86. 

FN12  UNITED STATES V. TYNEN, 11 WALL.  88, 95; CF. UNITED STATES V.
CHAMBERS, 291 U.S. 217 AT 226. 

FN13  CF. UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506, 522. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT THIS APPEAL WAS "TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER
THE DECISION OR JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED," AS REQUIRED BY THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682.  THIS APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY
JUDGE SWEENEY OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS ON APRIL 30, 1943,
AND IS TIMELY ONLY IF THE FORMAL ORDER SIGNED ON MARCH 31 CONSTITUTES
THE FINAL DECISION OR JUDGMENT.  THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, HOWEVER, FORBID SUCH A CONCLUSION. 

AS THE MAJORITY OPINION STATES, THE FINAL DECISION OR JUDGMENT FROM
WHICH THE THIRTY-DAY APPEAL PERIOD RUNS REQUIRES NO PECULIAR FORMAL ACT
OR FORM OF WORDS.  THE EFFECTIVE ACT VARIES FROM COURT TO COURT.  BUT
THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO THE PRACTICE IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS.  AS STATED BY THE DEPUTY CLERK OF THAT COURT, WHOSE
DUTIES AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE COURT'S PROCEDURE LEND GREAT WEIGHT TO
HIS STATEMENTS, "THE PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT, ON THE RECEIPT OF AN
OPINION GRANTING A MOTION TO QUASH, IS TO MAKE AN ENTRY ON THE DOCKET
UNDER THE JUDGE'S NAME, 'INDICTMENT QUASHED.'  IT IS NOT THE PRACTICE
TO HAVE A WRITTEN ORDER."  THIS STATEMENT, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE HAD
THE APPROVAL OF JUDGE SWEENEY, CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE FINAL
JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE IS TO BE FOUND IN THE DOCKET ENTRY UNDER THE
JUDGE'S NAME. 

JUDGE SWEENEY'S OPINION OF MARCH 5 GRANTED THE MOTION TO QUASH THE
INDICTMENT.  PURSUANT TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S PRACTICE, AN ENTRY ON THE
DOCKET UNDER THE JUDGE'S NAME, CONSTITUTING THE FINAL JUDGMENT, WOULD
NORMALLY HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE SAME DAY, MARCH 5.  BECAUSE OF
INADVERTENCE, HOWEVER, THE ENTRY WAS NOT MADE UNTIL SOME TIME BETWEEN
MARCH 25 AND MARCH 29.  AT THAT TIME THE DOCKET CLERK MADE THE
FOLLOWING ENTRY ON THE DOCKET:  "MARCH 5.  SWEENEY, J. INDICTMENT
QUASHED."  THAT ENTRY THEREBY CONSTITUTED THE FINAL AND EFFECTIVE
JUDGMENT.  AND ASSUMING THAT THIS JUDGMENT WAS NOT ENTERED UNTIL MARCH
29, THE ALLOWANCE OF THIS APPEAL ON APRIL 30 WAS OUT OF TIME. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE SUBSEQUENT FORMAL ORDER SIGNED ON MARCH 31
BY JUDGE SWEENEY IS THE EFFECTIVE JUDGMENT.  BUT THE PROCEDURE IN THIS
DISTRICT COURT MAKES CLEAR THAT SUCH FORMAL WRITTEN ORDERS ARE
UNNECESSARY.  IT IS THE SIMPLE DOCKET ENTRY WHICH IS THE FINAL DECISION
OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW. 

MOREOVER, THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE FORMAL ORDER OF MARCH 31
REVEAL NO INTENTION BY JUDGE SWEENEY TO SUPERSEDE THE EFFECT OF THE
PREVIOUS DOCKET ENTRY OR TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR APPEAL.  THE DEPUTY
CLERK, IN A LETTER WRITTEN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HAS DESCRIBED
THE SITUATION IN THESE WORDS: 

"ON OR ABOUT MARCH 31ST, THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTED A WRITTEN ORDER TO
ME, AND I ACCOMPANIED THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TO JUDGE SWEENEY'S
CHAMBERS.  IT WAS ENTIRELY NEW PROCEDURE FOR US TO HAVE A WRITTEN
ORDER.  I UNDERSTAND IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES REPRESENTED
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WANTED A WRITTEN ORDER IN THIS CASE, SO
AS TO CONFORM TO THE SUGGESTION CONTAINED IN MR. JUSTICE JACKSON'S
CONCURRING OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 318 U.S. 442, 446,
THAT JUDGE SWEENEY SIGNED THE ORDER.  I CAN RECALL THAT JUDGE SWEENEY
PROTESTED AGAINST THE NECESSITY OF SIGNING SUCH AN ORDER WHEN IT WAS
PRESENTED TO HIM, BUT DID SIGN IT AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY.  I ALSO REMEMBER THAT JUDGE SWEENEY SAID HE WAS NOT GOING TO
ADOPT THE PRACTICE OF SIGNING ORDERS IN ALL SUCH FUTURE CASES.  WHEN IT
CAME TIME TO MAKE AN ENTRY OF THIS ORDER IN THE BOOKS, I ASSUMED THAT
IT WAS TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE ENTRY 'SWEENEY, J. INDICTMENT QUASHED',
WHICH WAS MADE BETWEEN MARCH 25TH AND MARCH 29TH, AND I TOLD THE DOCKET
CLERK MAKING THE ENTRY TO CROSS OUT THE ENTRY WHICH HAD BEEN MADE
PREVIOUSLY BETWEEN MARCH 25TH AND MARCH 29TH.    "WHEN I WROTE MY
LETTER TO YOU, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT I HAD TOLD THE COURT THAT THE ENTRY
OF MARCH 5 WOULD NECESSARILY BE STRICKEN OUT, BUT I FIND THAT THE COURT
HAS NO RECOLLECTION OF BEING SO INFORMED.  THERE WAS NO INTENTION THAT
THE ORDER OF MARCH 31 SHOULD EXTEND THE TIME FOR APPEAL, AND IT IS THE
COURT'S RECOLLECTION THAT HE SO STATED TO COUNSEL. 

"BY DIRECTION OF THE COURT, I AM SENDING A COPY OF THIS LETTER TO
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT." 

IT THUS CLEARLY APPEARS THAT THE MARCH 5 ENTRY, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY
MADE BETWEEN MARCH 25 AND MARCH 29, WAS INTENDED TO BE THE FINAL
DECISION OR JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THAT THE APPEAL PERIOD
BEGAN TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF ACTUAL ENTRY.  THE MARCH 31 ORDER WAS
ENTERED AT THE GOVERNMENT'S INSISTENCE MERELY TO CONFORM TO A
SUGGESTION OF ONE JUSTICE OF THIS COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT "WE WOULD BE
GREATLY AIDED IF THE DISTRICT COURTS IN DISMISSING AN INDICTMENT WOULD
INDICATE IN THE ORDER THE GROUND, AND, IF MORE THAN ONE, WOULD
SEPARATELY STATE AND NUMBER THEM."  UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 318
U.S. 442, 446.  THAT ORDER WAS THUS NO MORE THAN A CLARIFICATION AND
REITERATION OF THE MARCH 5 JUDGMENT.  IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A
VACATION OF THE PRIOR JUDGMENT OR AS A NEW OR AMENDED JUDGMENT. 

THE VERY FACT THAT JUDGE SWEENEY STATED THAT THE MARCH 31 ORDER DID
NOT EXTEND THE TIME FOR APPEAL DEMONSTRATES HIS BELIEF AND INTENTION
THAT A VALID FINAL ORDER HAD THERETOFORE BEEN ENTERED.  SOME TIME AFTER
MARCH 31 THE DEPUTY CLERK ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE ORDERED THE MARCH 5
DOCKET ENTRY STRICKEN IN THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT IT HAD BEEN
SUPERSEDED.  IN ITS PLACE WAS INSERTED THE ENTRY:  "MARCH 31.  SWEENEY,
J. ORDER QUASHING INDICTMENT."  SUCH ACTION WAS OBVIOUSLY INSUFFICIENT
TO CHANGE EITHER JUDGE SWEENEY'S INTENTION OR THE FINALITY AND EFFECT
OF THE MARCH 5 ENTRY FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL TO THIS COURT. 

VARYING AND UNCERTAIN RULES GOVERNING CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE TO BE
AVOIDED WHENEVER POSSIBLE.  YET THE EFFECT OF HOLDING THIS APPEAL TO BE
TIMELY IS TO INJECT INTO THE PROCEDURE OF THE COURT BELOW AN ELEMENT OF
CONFUSION AND DOUBT.  HERETOFORE PARTIES TO A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN
THE DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS WERE ENTITLED TO RELY ON THE DOCKET
ENTRY, FOLLOWING AN OPINION GRANTING A MOTION TO QUASH, AS THE FINAL
DECISION OR JUDGMENT.  THEY COULD CALCULATE APPEAL PERIODS FROM THE
DATE OF THAT ENTRY.  NOW THEY MUST RISK THE POSSIBILITY THAT AT AN
UNDETERMINABLE LATER DATE ONE OF THE PARTIES WILL CONVINCE THE COURT
THAT A FORMAL ORDER SHOULD BE ENTERED AND THAT THE TIME FOR APPEAL WILL
START FROM THAT DATE.  NO REASON OF LAW OR POLICY SUGGESTS ITSELF IN
SUPPORT OF SUCH UNCERTAINTY. 

JUDGED BY THE FIXED AND SIMPLE PRACTICE OF THE COURT BELOW IN
ENTERING ITS FINAL JUDGMENTS, THIS APPEAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TIMELY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :








WALTON V. SOUTHERN PACKAGE CORP., 320 U.S. 540 


NO. 159.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 194
MISS.  573, 11 SO.2D 912, REVERSED. 


A NIGHT WATCHMAN FOR A MANUFACTURING PLANT WHICH SHIPPED A SUBSTANTIAL
PORTION OF ITS PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HELD COVERED BY THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AS ONE ENGAGED IN AN "OCCUPATION NECESSARY
TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 542. 

WALTON, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. SOUTHERN PACKAGE CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 726, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PETITIONER IN A SUIT TO RECOVER OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT BY AN EMPLOYEE, FRED
WALTON, IN A MISSISSIPPI STATE COURT TO RECOVER OVERTIME COMPENSATION
AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.  FN1  WALTON DIED BEFORE THE CASE WAS TRIED AND
THE SUIT WAS REVIVED BY HIS ADMINISTRATRIX, THE PETITIONER HERE.  A
JUDGMENT FOR THE PETITIONER RENDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS REVERSED BY
THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT  FN2  ON THE GROUND THAT WALTON HAD NOT
BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN
"ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION THEREOF,"  FN3
AND THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED BY THE ACT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT RAISED A FEDERAL QUESTION OF
IMPORTANCE AND BECAUSE OF THE CLAIM BY PETITIONER THAT THE
INTERPRETATION WAS IN CONFLICT WITH OUR DECISION IN A. B. KIRSCHBAUM
CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED ON AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH IN BRIEF
SUMMARY SHOWED: 

THE RESPONDENT OPERATED A PLANT IN MISSISSIPPI IN WHICH VENEER WAS
MANUFACTURED FROM LOGS.  A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE MANUFACTURED
PRODUCT WAS DESTINED FOR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WALTON
WORKED AT THE PLANT AS A NIGHT WATCHMAN.  HIS WORK WEEK EXCEEDED THE
MAXIMUM HOURS PRESCRIBED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DURING THE
PERIOD IN QUESTION.  HIS DUTIES WERE TO MAKE HOURLY ROUNDS OF THE
PLANT, PUNCH THE NIGHTWATCHMAN'S CLOCKS AT VARIOUS STATIONS ON THE
PLANT, AND REPORT ANY FIRES AND TRESPASSERS.  THE FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY WHICH INSURED THE PLANT'S BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, AND FIXTURES
REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO HAVE A NIGHT WATCHMAN AS A CONDITION TO GRANTING
REDUCED PREMIUM RATES.  RESPONDENT'S DESIRE TO OBTAIN THESE REDUCED
RATES WAS THE PRIMARY REASON WHY WALTON WAS EMPLOYED.  THE PLANT WAS
NOT OPERATED AT NIGHT WHILE WALTON WAS ON DUTY AND HE DID NOT
PHYSICALLY ASSIST IN THE MANUFACTURE OR SHIPMENT OF VENEER. 

IN HOLDING THAT THESE FACTS FELL SHORT OF PROVING THAT WALTON'S WORK
WAS "NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF RESPONDENT'S GOODS, THE
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT PARTICULARLY EMPHASIZED THAT WALTON HAD NO
OTHER DUTIES TO PERFORM IN ADDITION TO HIS REGULAR DUTIES AS A NIGHT
WATCHMAN; THAT HE ENGAGED IN NO MANUAL ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH
PRODUCTION; THAT HE WAS NOT SPECIALLY EMPLOYED TO PROTECT GOODS
ASSEMBLED FOR MANUFACTURE OR AWAITING SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
AND THAT NO GOODS WERE MANUFACTURED DURING THE HOURS HE WAS ON GUARD. 
UNDER OUR DECISION IN THE KIRSCHBAUM CASE, SUPRA, NO ONE OF THESE FACTS
STANDING ALONE, NOR ALL OF THEM TOGETHER, CAN SUPPORT THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION THAT THE NATURE OF WALTON'S EMPLOYMENT LEFT HIM WITHOUT THE
ACT'S PROTECTION.  HIS DUTY WAS TO AID IN PROTECTING THE BUILDING,
MACHINERY, AND EQUIPMENT FROM INJURY OR DESTRUCTION BY FIRE OR
TRESPASS.  THE VERY FACT THAT A FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS WILLING TO
REDUCE ITS PREMIUMS UPON CONDITIONS THAT A NIGHT WATCHMAN BE KEPT ON
GUARD IS EVIDENCE THAT A WATCHMAN WOULD MAKE A VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION TO
THE CONTINUOUS PRODUCTION OF RESPONDENT'S GOODS.  "THE MAINTENANCE OF A
SAFE, HABITABLE BUILDING IS INDISPENSABLE TO THAT ACTIVITY."  A.B.
KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, 524.  THE RELATIONSHIP OF WALTON'S
EMPLOYMENT TO PRODUCTION WAS THEREFORE NOT "TENUOUS" BUT HAD THAT
"CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE TIE WITH THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE"
WHICH BROUGHT HIM WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT.  IBID., 525. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE MISSISSIPPI
SUPREME COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1069; U.S.C. TITLE 29, SEC. 216(B). 

FN2  194 MISS.  573, 11 SO.2D 912. 

FN3  SECTION 3(J) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT, "AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE
DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE
WAS EMPLOYED IN PRODUCING  ...  SUCH GOODS, OR IN ANY PROCESS OR
OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION THEREOF."  52 STAT. 1061; U.S.C.
TITLE 29, SEC. 203(J). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, CONSIDERING HIMSELF BOUND BY THE DECISION IN
KIRSCHBAUM V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. LAUDANI, 320 U.S. 543 


NO. 71.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 134
F.2D 847, REVERSED. 


THE KICKBACK ACT OF JUNE 13, 1934, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "WHOEVER" SHALL
INDUCE ANY PERSON EMPLOYED ON ANY FEDERALLY FINANCED WORK "TO GIVE UP
ANY PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER HIS CONTRACT
OF EMPLOYMENT, BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT OF PROCURING DISMISSAL
FROM SUCH EMPLOYMENT, OR BY ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER," SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY THEREIN PRESCRIBED, HELD APPLICABLE TO A COMPANY
FOREMAN WHO HAD AUTHORITY TO HIRE AND DISCHARGE SUBORDINATES WHOM HE,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT, COMPELLED TO SURRENDER A
PORTION OF THEIR WAGES.  P. 547. 

UNITED STATES V. LAUDANI. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 720, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A CONVICTION OF
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL KICKBACK ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

INDICTMENTS RETURNED IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN NEW JERSEY
CHARGED THAT THE RESPONDENT LAUDANI, WHILE ACTING AS A COMPANY FOREMAN
WITH AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY AND DISCHARGE WORKERS ON A PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT FINANCED IN PART BY THE UNITED STATES, HAD CONTRARY TO SEC. 1
OF AN ACT OF JUNE 13, 1934,  FN1  FORCED CERTAIN OF HIS SUBORDINATES TO
GIVE HIM PART OF THEIR WAGES IN ORDER TO KEEP THEIR JOBS.  LAUDANI
MOVED TO QUASH, ASSIGNING AS ONE GROUND THAT THE INDICTMENTS FAILED TO
CHARGE CONDUCT PROHIBITED BY THIS ACT SINCE THEY DID NOT CONTAIN
ALLEGATIONS THAT HE WAS THE EMPLOYER OF THE COERCED MEN OR THAT HE HAD
ACTED AS AGENT OF THE EMPLOYER IN FORCING THE PAYMENTS.  THE GIST OF
HIS CONTENTION WAS THAT THE PROHIBITION OF THE ACT EXTENDS ONLY TO
EMPLOYERS AND PERSONS WHO ACT IN CONCERT WITH THEM.  THE DISTRICT COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THE ACT APPLIED TO A FOREMAN SUCH AS LAUDANI, OVERRULED
HIS MOTION, AND A JURY CONVICTED HIM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ACCEPTED LAUDANI'S CONTENTION, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTED THAT
THE INDICTMENTS BE QUASHED.  134 F.2D 847.  THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTION PRESENTED PROMPTED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

BOTH THE LANGUAGE AND HISTORY OF THE KICKBACK ACT ARGUE AGAINST THE
CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED ITS PROHIBITION TO APPLY ONLY TO
EMPLOYERS AND NOT TO FOREMEN WHO EXERCISE MANY OF THE POWERS OF
EMPLOYERS.  THE ACT PUNISHES "WHOEVER" SHALL INDUCE ANY PERSON EMPLOYED
ON A FEDERALLY FINANCED WORK "TO GIVE UP ANY PART OF THE COMPENSATION
TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER HIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT" BY "FORCE,
INTIMIDATION, THREAT OF PROCURING DISMISSAL FROM SUCH EMPLOYMENT, OR BY
ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER."  FN2  THE SWEEP OF THE WORD "WHOEVER," IF
THAT WORD STOOD ALONE, WOULD BE WIDE ENOUGH TO INCLUDE NOT ONLY AN
EMPLOYER BUT ANY OTHER PERSON.  AND THE COERCIVE METHODS OF INDUCEMENT
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY THE ACT ARE METHODS IN WHICH AT LEAST SOME
PERSONS OTHER THAN EMPLOYERS COULD ENGAGE WITHOUT LEGAL CAUSE OR
EXCUSE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE WORD
"WHOEVER" BE GIVEN ITS BROADEST SCOPE THE ACT MIGHT INCLUDE COMMON
BLACKMAILERS WHO HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR VICTIMS' EMPLOYMENT.  IN
AN EFFORT TO AVOID WHAT IT CONSIDERED TO BE SUCH AN EXTREME APPLICATION
OF THE ACT, THE COURT FOCUSED ATTENTION ON THE CLAUSE "TO GIVE UP ANY
PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER HIS CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT."  VIEWING THIS CLAUSE AS PROOF THAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS
WAS TO PROTECT THE EMPLOYEES' CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS TO RECEIVE WAGES FROM
THEIR EMPLOYER, THE COURT REASONED THAT NO ONE BUT THE EMPLOYER OR ONE
ACTING ON HIS BEHALF POSSESSED "THE REQUISITE PRIVITY OF CONTRACT" WITH
THE EMPLOYEES TO BE CAPABLE OF IMPAIRING THESE RIGHTS.  HAVING THUS
EMPHASIZED THE CONGRESSIONAL REFERENCE TO A "CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT,"
THE COURT STATED BROADLY THAT, "WHAT HAPPENS TO THE COMPENSATION AFTER
THE EMPLOYEE HAS RECEIVED IT IN FULL, AND WHOLLY WITHOUT RELATION TO OR
EFFECT UPON HIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, IS A MATTER WITH WHICH THIS
STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO DEAL." 

THE COURT'S STATEMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PERTINENT HAD THE INDICTMENTS
HERE BEEN AGAINST A COMMON BLACKMAILER, EXTORTIONER, OR SOME OTHER
PERSON NOT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VESTED BY THE EMPLOYER WITH POWER TO
FIX AND TERMINATE THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE STATUS.  BUT WE THINK THAT THE
COERCED SURRENDER OF WAGES BY EMPLOYEES AT THE INSTANCE OF A COMPANY
FOREMAN GIVEN AUTHORITY BY HIS EMPLOYER TO HIRE AND DISCHARGE THEM
CANNOT PROPERLY BE SAID TO BEAR NO RELATION TO OR HAVE NO EFFECT UPON
THEIR CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT, ESPECIALLY WHERE, AS HERE ALLEGED, THE
SURRENDER OF WAGES WAS INDUCED BY THE FOREMAN'S EXPRESS THREAT TO
DISMISS ALL EMPLOYEES WHO DID NOT COMPLY WITH HIS DEMAND.  EXECUTION OF
SUCH A THREAT AGAINST EMPLOYEES UNWILLING TO PAY WOULD IMMEDIATELY AND
COMPLETELY HAVE TERMINATED THEIR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS.  WE FIND NOTHING
IN THE ACT WHICH SUGGESTS THAT, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, A FOREMAN
MUST BE DEEMED INCAPABLE OF VIOLATING ITS PROVISIONS MERELY BECAUSE HE
MAY NOT STAND IN THAT RELATIONSHIP TO EMPLOYEES WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT
CHARACTERIZED AS "PRIVITY OF CONTRACT." 

THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TO EXTEND PROTECTION
NOT MERELY TO THE LEGAL FORM OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS BUT TO THE
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF WORKERS ACTUALLY TO RECEIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE
WAGE SCHEDULES WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR THEM.  THE EVIL AIMED AT
WAS THE WRONGFUL DEPRIVATION OF FULL WORK PAYMENTS.  THE ACT WAS
ADOPTED NEAR THE BOTTOM OF A GREAT BUSINESS DEPRESSION AS ONE PART OF A
BROAD CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM THE GOAL OF WHICH WAS TO STRENGTHEN THE
DOMESTIC ECONOMY BY INCREASING THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE NATION'S
CONSUMERS.  TO THIS END, CONGRESS ENACTED LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO
RELIEVE WIDESPREAD UNEMPLOYMENT AND ENABLE WORKING PEOPLE TO EARN JUST
AND REASONABLE WAGES.  A LARGE PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL FINANCING OF PUBLIC
WORKS WAS ESTABLISHED,  FN3  AND LEGISLATION WAS PASSED REQUIRING
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS TO PAY CERTAIN MINIMUM WAGE RATES.  FN4  IT WAS
THE PURPOSE OF THE KICKBACK ACT TO ASSURE THAT THE FEDERAL FUNDS THUS
PROVIDED FOR WORKERS SHOULD ACTUALLY BE RECEIVED BY THEM FOR THEIR OWN
USE EXCEPT WHERE DIVERTED UNDER AUTHORITY OF LAW OR A WORKER'S
VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.  FN5 

IN VIEW OF THIS BACKGROUND, WE CANNOT HOLD THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
EXCLUDE FROM THE ACT'S PROSCRIPTION A FOREMAN WITH THE AUTHORITY
LAUDANI IS ALLEGED TO HAVE POSSESSED.  FOREMEN VESTED WITH FULL POWER
TO EMPLOY AND DISCHARGE SUBORDINATES COULD FRUSTRATE THE OBJECTIVE OF
THE ACT JUST AS EFFECTIVELY AS COULD THEIR EMPLOYERS, AND FOREMEN NOT
GIVEN SUCH BROAD POWERS MIGHT NEVERTHELESS BE ABLE TO USE THEIR
AUTHORITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME RESULT.  THAT FOREMEN NOT ONLY COULD
BUT MIGHT DO THIS VERY THING WAS TESTIFIED AT SENATE HEARINGS WHEN THE
PROBLEM OF "KICKBACKS" WAS UNDER STUDY.  FN6  AND THE MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY REPORTING THE BILL USED LANGUAGE
BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE FOREMEN AMONG OTHERS WHEN THEY SAID THAT
HEARINGS HAD REVEALED, "THAT LARGE SUMS OF MONEY HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED
FROM THE POCKETS OF AMERICAN LABOR, TO ENRICH CONTRACTORS,
SUBCONTRACTORS, AND THEIR OFFICIALS."  FN7 

TO HOLD THAT A COMPANY FOREMAN VESTED WITH SUFFICIENT POWER
SUBSTANTIALLY TO AFFECT HIS SUBORDINATES' CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT IS
WITHIN THE ACT'S PROSCRIPTION IS NOT TO HOLD THAT THE ACT APPLIES TO
EVERY EXTORTIONER, BLACKMAILER, OR OTHER PERSON WHO EXTRACTS MONEY FROM
ONE WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED IT FOR LABOR ON A FEDERALLY FINANCED
PROJECT.  WE NEED NOT, AT THIS TIME, ATTEMPT TO DELINEATE THE OUTSIDE
SCOPE OF THE ACT'S APPLICATION.  BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION, NO
LESS THAN ITS LANGUAGE, SHOWS THAT THE POWER TO EMPLOY AND DISCHARGE
BRINGS AN EMPLOYING COMPANY'S FOREMAN WITHIN ITS PROHIBITION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF
OTHER QUESTIONS NOT HERE INVOLVED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS ACT IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE "KICKBACK" ACT.  SECTION 1
PROVIDES THAT, "WHOEVER SHALL INDUCE ANY PERSON EMPLOYED IN THE
CONSTRUCTION, PROSECUTION, OR COMPLETION OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING, PUBLIC
WORK, OR BUILDING OR WORK FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY LOANS OR
GRANTS FROM THE UNITED STATES, OR IN THE REPAIR THEREOF TO GIVE UP ANY
PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER HIS CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT, BY FORCE, INTIMIDATION, THREAT OF PROCURING DISMISSAL FROM
SUCH EMPLOYMENT, OR BY ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER, SHALL BE FINED NOT
MORE THAN $5,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH."  48
STAT. 948; U.S.C. TITLE 40, SEC. 276B. 

FN2  IBID. 

FN3  THE GRANT OF MONEY FOR THE WORK ON WHICH LAUDANI WAS EMPLOYED
WAS AUTHORIZED BY TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT
ENACTED JUNE 16, 1933, NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE DEPRESSION.  SECTION 1 OF
THIS ACT DECLARED THAT THE POLICY OF CONGRESS WAS "  ...  TO INCREASE
THE CONSUMPTION OF INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BY INCREASING
PURCHASING POWER, TO REDUCE AND RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT, TO IMPROVE
STANDARDS OF LABOR, AND OTHERWISE TO REHABILITATE INDUSTRY AND TO
CONSERVE NATURAL RESOURCES."  48 STAT. 195. 

FN4  TITLE II, SEC. 206, OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT OF
JUNE 16, 1933, PROVIDES IN PART THAT, "ALL CONTRACTS LET FOR
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND ALL LOANS AND GRANTS PURSUANT TO THIS TITLE
SHALL CONTAIN SUCH PROVISIONS AS ARE NECESSARY TO INSURE  ...  THAT ALL
EMPLOYEES SHALL BE PAID JUST AND REASONABLE WAGES WHICH SHALL BE
COMPENSATION SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE, FOR THE HOURS OF LABOR AS LIMITED,
A STANDARD OF LIVING IN DECENCY AND COMFORT  ...  "  48 STAT. 204-205;
U.S.C. TITLE 40, SEC. 406.  SEE ALSO AN ACT OF MARCH 3, 1931, AS
AMENDED, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DAVIS-BACON ACT, 46 STAT. 1494; 49 STAT.
1011; 54 STAT. 399; U.S.C. TITLE 40, SECS. 276A-276A-5; PERKINS V.
LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113, 128. 

FN5  SEE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON BILL S.
3041, H. REP. NO. 1750, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.  THE REPORT PRINTED A
LETTER FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, HAROLD
L. ICKES, WHICH URGED IMMEDIATE PASSAGE OF THE BILL "TO PREVENT A VERY
PREVALENT EVIL IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WHICH, TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT EXISTS ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF TITLE II OF
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT AND THE SUCCESS OF OUR PUBLIC
WORKS PROGRAM." 

FN6  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, HEARINGS, SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, S. RES. 74, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., VOL. I, PP. 790-792, 801,
826. 

FN7  S. REP. NO. 803, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.
..END :




















FALBO V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 549 


NO. 73.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 135
F.2D 464, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE
ACT OF 1940 FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY A LOCAL BOARD'S ORDER TO REPORT
FOR ASSIGNMENT TO WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, IT IS NO DEFENSE THAT
THE REGISTRANT'S CLASSIFICATION AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR RATHER THAN
AS A MINISTER WAS ERRONEOUS.  P. 554. 

2.  ASSUMING A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW BE
AVAILABLE TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE BOARD'S CLASSIFICATION, CONGRESS
WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH REVIEW PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE
OF THE REGISTRANT FOR SERVICE.  P. 554. 

FALBO V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 209, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR VIOLATION OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS INDICTED ON NOVEMBER 12, 1942, IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR KNOWINGLY FAILING TO PERFORM A DUTY
REQUIRED OF HIM UNDER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940. 
FN1 THE PARTICULAR CHARGE WAS THAT, AFTER HIS LOCAL BOARD HAD
CLASSIFIED HIM AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR, HE WILFULLY FAILED TO OBEY
THE BOARD'S ORDER TO REPORT FOR ASSIGNMENT TO WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE.  FN2  ADMITTING THAT HIS REFUSAL TO OBEY THE ORDER WAS
WILFUL, PETITIONER DEFENDED HIS CONDUCT ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS
ENTITLED TO A STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM ALL FORMS OF NATIONAL SERVICE,
SINCE THE FACTS HE HAD PRESENTED TO THE BOARD SHOWED THAT HE WAS A
"REGULAR OR DULY ORDAINED" MINISTER.  FN3  THE ACT, HE ARGUED, DOES NOT
MAKE IT A CRIME TO REFUSE TO OBEY AN ORDER TO REPORT FOR SERVICE IF
THAT ORDER IS BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUS CLASSIFICATION, BECAUSE THERE IS
NO "DUTY" TO COMPLY WITH A MISTAKEN ORDER.  THIS DEFENSE WAS SEASONABLY
URGED BUT THE DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO RECOGNIZE IT, EXPRESSING THE
VIEW THAT, "THE BOARD HAS THE DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS MAN IS TO
BE LISTED AS HE CLAIMS HE SHOULD BE"; AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
TRIAL THE JURY WAS CHARGED THAT, "IF YOU FIND FROM THE FACTS THAT HE
FAILED TO REPORT - AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY  ...  - IT
WOULD BE YOUR DUTY TO FIND HIM GUILTY."  THE RESULT OF THE TRIAL WAS A
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE TO IMPRISONMENT FOR FIVE YEARS. 

ON APPEAL PETITIONER URGED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ERRED IN
REFUSING TO PERMIT A TRIAL DE NOVO ON THE MERITS OF HIS CLAIMED
EXEMPTION.  IN THE ALTERNATIVE, HE ARGUED THAT AT LEAST THE COURT
SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CLASSIFICATION ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE
LOCAL BOARD HAD BEEN "PREJUDICIAL, UNFAIR, AND ARBITRARY" IN THAT IT
HAD FAILED TO ADMIT CERTAIN EVIDENCE WHICH HE OFFERED, HAD ACTED ON THE
BASIS OF AN ANTIPATHY TO THE RELIGIOUS SECT OF WHICH HE IS A MEMBER,
AND HAD REFUSED TO CLASSIFY HIM AS A MINISTER AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
DISTRICT COURT PER CURIAM, 135 F.2D 464.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION
OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, UPON WHICH PROBLEMS
THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE NOT EXPRESSED UNIFORM VIEWS.  FN4 

WHEN THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT WAS PASSED IN SEPTEMBER,
1940, MOST OF THE WORLD WAS AT WAR.  THE PREAMBLE OF THE ACT DECLARED
IT "IMPERATIVE TO INCREASE AND TRAIN THE PERSONNEL OF THE ARMED FORCES
OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE DANGER OF ATTACK BY OUR PRESENT ENEMIES, IF
NOT IMMINENT, WAS REAL, AS SUBSEQUENT EVENTS HAVE GRIMLY DEMONSTRATED. 
THE CONGRESS WAS FACED WITH THE URGENT NECESSITY OF INTEGRATING ALL THE
NATION'S PEOPLE AND FORCES FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE.  THAT DIRE
CONSEQUENCES MIGHT FLOW FROM APATHY AND DELAY WAS WELL UNDERSTOOD. 
ACCORDINGLY THE ACT WAS PASSED TO MOBILIZE NATIONAL MANPOWER WITH THE
SPEED WHICH THAT NECESSITY AND UNDERSTANDING REQUIRED. 

THE MOBILIZATION SYSTEM WHICH CONGRESS ESTABLISHED BY THE ACT IS
DESIGNED TO OPERATE AS ONE CONTINUOUS PROCESS FOR THE SELECTION OF MEN
FOR NATIONAL SERVICE.  UNDER THE SYSTEM, DIFFERENT AGENCIES ARE
ENTRUSTED WITH DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS BUT THE WORK OF EACH IS INTEGRATED
WITH THAT OF THE OTHERS.  SELECTION OF REGISTRANTS FOR SERVICE, AND
DEFERMENTS OR EXEMPTIONS FROM SERVICE, ARE TO BE EFFECTED WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF THIS MACHINERY AS IMPLEMENTED BY RULES AND REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT.  FN5  THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCESS BEGINS
WITH REGISTRATION WITH A LOCAL BOARD COMPOSED OF LOCAL CITIZENS.  THE
REGISTRANT THEN SUPPLIES CERTAIN INFORMATION ON A QUESTIONNAIRE
FURNISHED BY THE BOARD.  ON THE BASIS OF THAT INFORMATION AND, WHERE
APPROPRIATE, A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, THE BOARD CLASSIFIES HIM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE ACT AND THE SELECTIVE
SERVICE REGULATIONS.  IT THEN NOTIFIES HIM OF HIS CLASSIFICATION.  THE
REGISTRANT MAY CONTEST HIS CLASSIFICATION BY A PERSONAL APPEARANCE
BEFORE THE LOCAL BOARD, AND IF THAT BOARD REFUSES TO ALTER THE
CLASSIFICATION, BY CARRYING HIS CASE TO A BOARD OF APPEAL,  FN6 AND
THENCE, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO THE PRESIDENT. 

ONLY AFTER HE HAS EXHAUSTED THIS PROCEDURE IS A PROTESTING REGISTRANT
ORDERED TO REPORT FOR SERVICE.  IF HE HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED FOR MILITARY
SERVICE, HIS LOCAL BOARD ORDERS HIM TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION INTO THE
ARMED FORCES.  IF HE HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
OPPOSED TO NONCOMBATANT MILITARY SERVICE, AS WAS PETITIONER, HE
ULTIMATELY IS ORDERED BY THE LOCAL BOARD TO REPORT FOR WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE.  IN EACH CASE THE REGISTRANT IS UNDER THE SAME OBLIGATION
TO OBEY THE ORDER.  BUT IN NEITHER CASE IS THE ORDER TO REPORT THE
EQUIVALENT OF ACCEPTANCE FOR SERVICE.  COMPLETION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF
THE LOCAL BOARDS AND APPELLATE AGENCIES, IMPORTANT AS ARE THESE
FUNCTIONS, IS NOT THE END OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCESS.  THE
SELECTEE MAY STILL BE REJECTED AT THE INDUCTION CENTER AND THE
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR WHO IS OPPOSED TO NON-COMBATANT DUTY MAY BE
REJECTED AT THE CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE CAMP.  FN7  THE CONNECTED
SERIES OF STEPS INTO THE NATIONAL SERVICE WHICH BEGINS WITH
REGISTRATION WITH THE LOCAL BOARD DOES NOT END UNTIL THE REGISTRANT IS
ACCEPTED BY THE ARMY, NAVY, OR CIVILIAN PUBLIC SERVICE CAMP.  THUS A
BOARD ORDER TO REPORT IS NO MORE THAN A NECESSARY INTERMEDIATE STEP IN
A UNITED AND CONTINUOUS PROCESS DESIGNED TO RAISE AN ARMY SPEEDILY AND
EFFICIENTLY. 

IN THIS PROCESS THE LOCAL BOARD IS CHARGED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WITH
THE DUTY TO MAKE THE CLASSIFICATION OF REGISTRANTS WHICH CONGRESS IN
ITS COMPLETE DISCRETION  FN8  SAW FIT TO AUTHORIZE.  EVEN IF THERE
WERE, AS THE PETITIONER ARGUES, A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT
JUDICIAL REVIEW MUST BE AVAILABLE TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE DECISION
OF THE LOCAL BOARD, IT IS CERTAIN THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL FOR NATIONAL SERVICE.  THE NARROW QUESTION THEREFORE
PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF THE PROPRIETY OF A BOARD'S CLASSIFICATION IN A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION FOR WILFUL VIOLATION OF AN ORDER DIRECTING A REGISTRANT TO
REPORT FOR THE LAST STEP IN THE SELECTIVE PROCESS. 

WE THINK IT HAS NOT.  THE ACT NOWHERE EXPLICITLY PROVIDES FOR SUCH
REVIEW AND WE HAVE FOUND NOTHING IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH
INDICATES AN INTENTION TO AFFORD IT.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE
ACT WAS ADOPTED LEND NO SUPPORT TO A VIEW WHICH WOULD ALLOW LITIGIOUS
INTERRUPTION OF THE PROCESS OF SELECTION WHICH CONGRESS CREATED.  TO
MEET THE NEED WHICH IT FELT FOR MOBILIZING NATIONAL MANPOWER IN THE
SHORTEST PRACTICABLE PERIOD, CONGRESS ESTABLISHED A MACHINERY WHICH IT
DEEMED EFFICIENT FOR INDUCTING GREAT NUMBERS OF MEN INTO THE ARMED
FORCES.  CAREFUL PROVISION WAS MADE FOR FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ACT'S POLICIES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE PROCESS. 
BUT CONGRESS APPARENTLY REGARDED "A PROMPT AND UNHESITATING OBEDIENCE
TO ORDERS" ISSUED IN THAT PROCESS "INDISPENSABLE TO THE COMPLETE
ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECT" OF NATIONAL DEFENSE.  MARTIN V. MOTT, 12
WHEAT.  19, 30.  SURELY IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE
INTERFERENCE WITH THAT PROCESS BY INTERMEDIATE CHALLENGES OF ORDERS TO
REPORT, IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO. 

AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION FOR
SUCH CHALLENGES IN THE VERY SECTION PROVIDING FOR PROSECUTION OF
VIOLATIONS IN THE CIVIL COURTS PERMITS NO OTHER INFERENCE THAN THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THEY COULD BE MADE.  THE INSTANT CASE OFFERS A
STRIKING EXAMPLE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY OTHER VIEW.  PETITIONER, 25
YEARS OF AGE, UNMARRIED, AND APPARENTLY IN GOOD HEALTH, REGISTERED WITH
HIS LOCAL BOARD ON OCTOBER 16, 1940.  HE CLAIMED EXEMPTION AUGUST 23,
1941.  CONSIDERATION OF HIS CLAIM BY THE LOCAL BOARD AND THE BOARD OF
APPEAL DELAYED HIS CLASSIFICATION, SO THAT HIS FINAL ORDER TO REPORT
WAS NOT ISSUED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2, 1942.  TODAY, ONE YEAR AND FOUR
MONTHS AFTER THIS ORDER, HE IS STILL LITIGATING THE QUESTION. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  54 STAT. 885; 50 U.S.C. APPENDIX SECS. 301-318.  SECTION 11
IMPOSES CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR WILFUL FAILURE OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM ANY
DUTY REQUIRED BY THE ACT OR BY RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO
THE ACT. 

FN2  UNDER SEC. 5(G) OF THE ACT, A REGISTRANT WHO "BY REASON OF
RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF" IS CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO
PARTICIPATION IN WAR MAY BE INDUCTED INTO THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES BUT
MUST BE ASSIGNED TO NONCOMBATANT SERVICE AS DEFINED BY THE PRESIDENT. 
IF FOR SIMILAR REASONS A REGISTRANT IS CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED EVEN TO
PARTICIPATION IN NONCOMBATANT SERVICE HE IS NOT TO BE INDUCTED INTO THE
ARMED FORCES AT ALL BUT "SHALL  ...  BE ASSIGNED TO WORK OF NATIONAL
IMPORTANCE UNDER CIVILIAN DIRECTION."  REGULATIONS, NOT HERE
CHALLENGED, IMPOSE ON SELECTEES A DUTY TO OBEY BOARD ORDERS TO REPORT
FOR INDUCTION OR ASSIGNMENT. 

FN3  SECTION 5(D) OF THE ACT PROVIDES IN PART:  "REGULAR OR DULY
ORDAINED MINISTERS OF RELIGION ...  SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TRAINING AND
SERVICE (BUT NOT FROM REGISTRATION) UNDER THIS ACT."  THE LOCAL BOARD
REFUSED TO FIND THAT PETITIONER WAS A MINISTER AND FURTHER DECLINED TO
CLASSIFY HIM AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.  UPON REVIEW A BOARD OF
APPEAL, SET UP UNDER SEC. 10(A)(2), SUSTAINED THE LOCAL BOARD'S REFUSAL
TO EXEMPT PETITIONER AS A MINISTER, BUT DIRECTED THAT HE BE CLASSIFIED
AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. 

FN4  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, GOFF V. UNITED STATES, 135 F.2D 610,
612(C.C.A. 4); RASE V. UNITED STATES, 129 F.2D 204, 207(C.C.A. 6); EX
PARTE CATANZARO, 138 F.2D 100, 101(C.C.A. 3); UNITED STATES V. KAUTEN,
133 F.2D 703, 706, 707(C.C.A. 2); UNITED STATES V. GRIEME, 128 F.2D
811, 814, 815(C.C.A. 3). 

FN5  SECTION 10(A)(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES IN PART THAT "  ...  LOCAL
BOARDS, UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT, SHALL
HAVE POWER WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS TO HEAR AND DETERMINE,
SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE APPEAL BOARDS HEREIN AUTHORIZED,
ALL QUESTIONS OR CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO INCLUSION FOR, OR EXEMPTION OR
DEFERMENT FROM, TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THIS ACT OF ALL INDIVIDUALS
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH LOCAL BOARDS.  THE DECISIONS OF SUCH
LOCAL BOARDS SHALL BE FINAL EXCEPT WHERE AN APPEAL IS AUTHORIZED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY
PRESCRIBE."  PURSUANT TO THE GRANT OF AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE ACT
THE PRESIDENT, THROUGH APPROPRIATE EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, HAS PROMULGATED
AND FROM TIME TO TIME AMENDED COMPREHENSIVE SELECTIVE SERVICE
REGULATIONS. 

FN6  A REGISTRANT MAY NOT, HOWEVER, APPEAL FROM THE DETERMINATION OF
HIS PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION.  SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS, SEC.
627.2(A). 

FN7  SECTION 3(A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES IN PART THAT "  ...  NO MAN
SHALL BE INDUCTED FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE UNDER THIS ACT UNLESS AND
UNTIL HE IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES FOR SUCH TRAINING
AND SERVICE AND HIS PHYSICAL AND MENTAL FITNESS FOR SUCH TRAINING AND
SERVICE HAS BEEN SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED:  ...  "  WE ARE INFORMED BY
THE GOVERNMENT THAT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION APPROXIMATELY FORTY PER
CENT OF THE SELECTEES WHO REPORT UNDER ORDERS OF LOCAL BOARDS FOR
INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED FORCES ARE REJECTED, AND THAT, AS OF OCTOBER
15, 1943, SIX HUNDRED AND TEN OF THE EIGHT THOUSAND SELECTEES WHO HAD
REPORTED FOR CIVILIAN WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE HAD BEEN REJECTED. 

FN8  SEE HAMILTON V. REGENTS, CONCURRING OPINION, 293 U.S. 245, 265,
266-268; SEE ALSO JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11, 29; MACINTOSH
V. UNITED STATES, 42 F.2D 845, 847, 848; 283 U.S. 605, DISSENTING
OPINION, 627, 632; UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S.
289, 305. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING: 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT AND IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT EXCEPT IN ONE
RESPECT.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THE LOCAL BOARD'S ORDER OF CLASSIFICATION
WAS INVALID BECAUSE THAT BOARD REFUSED TO CLASSIFY PETITIONER AS A
MINISTER ON THE BASIS OF AN ANTIPATHY TO THE RELIGIOUS SECT OF WHICH HE
IS A MEMBER.  AND, IF THE QUESTION WERE OPEN, THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT
SOME EVIDENCE TENDERED TO SUSTAIN THIS CHARGE WAS EXCLUDED IN THE TRIAL
COURT.  BUT PETITIONER HAS MADE NO SUCH CHARGE CONCERNING THE ACTION OF
THE APPEAL BOARD WHICH REVIEWED AND AFFIRMED THE LOCAL BOARD'S ORDER. 
AND THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE APPEAL BOARD ACTED OTHERWISE THAN
ACCORDING TO LAW.  IF THEREFORE THE LOCAL BOARD'S ORDER WAS INVALID
ORIGINALLY FOR THE REASON CLAIMED, AS TO WHICH I EXPRESS NO OPINION,
WHATEVER DEFECT MAY HAVE EXISTED WAS CURED BY THE APPEAL BOARD'S
ACTION.  APART FROM SOME CHALLENGE UPON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, I HAVE
NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS COULD AND DID EXCLUDE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
SELECTIVE SERVICE ORDERS LIKE THAT IN QUESTION.  ACCORDINGLY I AGREE
THAT THE CONVICTION MUST BE SUSTAINED.    MR. JUSTICE MURPHY,
DISSENTING: 

THIS CASE PRESENTS ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE PERPLEXING PROBLEM OF
RECONCILING BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE WITH MILITARY NEEDS IN
WARTIME.  INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY OUR JURISPRUDENCE
ONLY AFTER LONG AND COSTLY STRUGGLES.  THEY SHOULD NOT BE STRUCK DOWN
BY ANYTHING LESS THAN THE GRAVEST NECESSITY.  WE ASSENT TO THEIR
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CONSTITUTE A CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR AND ONLY AS
A MEANS OF PRESERVING THOSE RIGHTS UNDIMINISHED FOR OURSELVES AND
FUTURE GENERATIONS.  BEFORE GIVING SUCH AN ASSENT, THEREFORE, WE SHOULD
BE CONVINCED OF THE EXISTENCE OF A REASONABLE NECESSITY AND BE
SATISFIED THAT THE SUSPENSION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENTION. 

THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT
OF 1940 MUST BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO DEPRIVE ALLEGED VIOLATORS OF THE
RIGHT TO A FULL HEARING AND OF THE RIGHT TO PRESENT EVERY REASONABLE
DEFENSE.  PETITIONER, A MEMBER OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, CLAIMED TO BE A
MINISTER EXEMPT FROM BOTH MILITARY TRAINING AND CIVILIAN WORK UNDER THE
ACT.  AFTER EXHAUSTING ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND APPEALS
AFFORDED BY THE ACT, HE WAS CLASSIFIED AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
(CLASS IV-E) RATHER THAN AS A MINISTER (CLASS IV-D).  PETITIONER
ALLEGES THAT THIS CLASSIFICATION WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND WAS THE RESULT
OF ARBITRARY ACTION BY HIS LOCAL BOARD.  ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE
ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE, THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER TO REPORT FOR ASSIGNMENT TO
WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, WHICH HE DISOBEYED, MUST THEREFORE BE
CONSIDERED INVALID.  OUR PROBLEM IS SIMPLY WHETHER PETITIONER CAN
INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT AS A DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY THE ORDER. 

COMMON SENSE AND JUSTICE DICTATE THAT A CITIZEN ACCUSED OF A CRIME
SHOULD HAVE THE FULLEST HEARING POSSIBLE, PLUS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT EVERY REASONABLE DEFENSE.  ONLY AN UNENLIGHTENED JURISPRUDENCE
CONDEMNS AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT ACCORDING HIM THOSE RIGHTS.  SUCH A
DENIAL IS ESPECIALLY OPPRESSIVE WHERE A FULL HEARING MIGHT DISCLOSE
THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNDERLYING THE PROSECUTION IS THE
PRODUCT OF EXCESS WARTIME EMOTIONS.  EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT IN
TIME OF WAR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES CANNOT ALWAYS BE ENTRUSTED SAFELY TO
UNCONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION.  ILLUSTRATIVE OF THIS
PROPOSITION IS THE REMARK ATTRIBUTED TO ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF
PETITIONER'S LOCAL BOARD TO THE EFFECT THAT "I DO NOT HAVE ANY DAMNED
USE FOR JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES."  THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST FORECLOSING THE
DEFENSE OF ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS THEREFORE
STRONG.  ONLY THE CLEAREST STATUTORY LANGUAGE OR AN UNMISTAKABLE THREAT
TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY CAN JUSTIFY A COURT IN SHUTTING THE DOOR TO SUCH A
DEFENSE.  BECAUSE I AM CONVINCED THAT NEITHER THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940 NOR THE WAR EFFORT COMPELS THE RESULT REACHED
BY THE MAJORITY OF THIS COURT, I AM FORCED TO DISSENT. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO EXPLICIT PROVISION IN THE ACT
PERMITTING THE RAISING OF THIS PARTICULAR DEFENSE AND THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS SILENT ON THE MATTER.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY,
HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE RECORD
PROSCRIBES THIS DEFENSE OR WARRANTS THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER
WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A FULL HEARING.  JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF AN
INDIVIDUAL AGAINST ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DOES NOT
DEPEND UPON THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF EXPRESS STATUTORY
AUTHORIZATION.  THE POWER TO ADMINISTER COMPLETE JUSTICE AND TO
CONSIDER ALL REASONABLE PLEAS AND DEFENSES MUST BE PRESUMED IN THE
ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION TO THE CONTRARY.  FN1 

MOREOVER, THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACT IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF INDUCTION ORDERS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  AS THE
MAJORITY STATES, THE ACT IS DESIGNED "TO OPERATE AS ONE CONTINUOUS
PROCESS FOR THE SELECTION OF MEN FOR NATIONAL SERVICE," AND IT IS
DESIRABLE THAT THIS PROCESS BE FREE FROM "LITIGIOUS INTERRUPTION."  BUT
WE ARE FACED HERE WITH A COMPLETE AND PERMANENT INTERRUPTION SPRINGING
NOT FROM ANY AFFIRMATIVE JUDICIAL INTERVENTION BUT FROM A FAILURE TO
OBEY AN ORDER.  A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING BEFORE A COURT IS THEREFORE
INEVITABLE AND THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THE AVAILABILITY OF A PARTICULAR
DEFENSE IN THAT PROCEEDING.  HENCE JUDICIAL REVIEW AT THIS STAGE HAS
NONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF A "LITIGIOUS INTERRUPTION" OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. 

NO OTHER BARRIERS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE INDUCTION ORDER IN A
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING ARE REVEALED BY THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACT.  THE
"CONTINUOUS PROCESS" OF SELECTION IS UNIQUE, UNLIKE ANY ORDINARY
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.  NORMAL CONCEPTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ARE
FOREIGN TO THIS SETTING.  THUS RULES PREVENTING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
INTERLOCUTORY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND REQUIRING EXHAUSTION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS HAVE NO APPLICATION HERE.  THOSE RULES ARE BASED
UPON THE UNNECESSARY INCONVENIENCE WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
WOULD SUFFER IF ITS PROCEEDINGS WERE INTERRUPTED BY PREMATURE JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION.  BUT SINCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS HAS ALREADY COME TO
A FINAL ENDING, THE REASON FOR APPLYING SUCH RULES NO LONGER EXISTS. 
AND EVEN IF THE ORDER IN THIS CASE WERE CONSIDERED INTERLOCUTORY RATHER
THAN FINAL, WHICH IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE, JUDICIAL REVIEW AT THIS POINT
IS NO LESS NECESSARY.  CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF AN
ARBITRARY AND INVALID ORDER IS OBJECTIONABLE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
ORDER BE INTERLOCUTORY OR FINAL. 

NOR DO FAMILIAR DOCTRINES OF THE EXCLUSIVENESS OF STATUTORY REMEDIES
HAVE ANY RELEVANCE HERE.  HAD CONGRESS CREATED A STATUTORY JUDICIAL
REVIEW PROCEDURE PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING INDUCTION, THE FAILURE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF SUCH A REVIEW OR THE JUDICIAL APPROVAL OF THE INDUCTION
ORDER UPON APPEAL MIGHT BAR A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE ORDER IN A
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  BUT CONGRESS HAS ERECTED NO SUCH SYSTEM OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  COURTS ARE LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES IN FASHIONING
WHATEVER REVIEW THEY DEEM JUST AND NECESSARY. 

THUS THERE IS NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BARRIER TO THE RAISING OF THIS
DEFENSE OR TO THE GRANTING OF A FULL JUDICIAL REVIEW OF INDUCTION
ORDERS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  COURTS HAVE NOT HESITATED TO MAKE SUCH
REVIEW AVAILABLE IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING INDUCTION
DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.  WHERE, AS
HERE, INDUCTION WILL NEVER OCCUR AND THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURE IS
UNAVAILABLE, JUDICIAL REVIEW IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING BECOMES
IMPERATIVE IF PETITIONER IS TO BE GIVEN ANY PROTECTION AGAINST
ARBITRARY AND INVALID ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  FN2 IT IS SIGNIFICANT
THAT IN ANALOGOUS SITUATIONS IN THE PAST, ALTHOUGH WITHOUT PASSING UPON
THE PRECISE ISSUE, WE HAVE SUPPLIED SUCH A NECESSARY REVIEW IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS.  CF. UNION BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 204 U.S. 364;
MONONGAHELA BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 216 U.S. 177; MCALLISTER,
"STATUTORY ROADS TO REVIEW OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS," 28
CALIFORNIA L. REV. 129, 165, 166.  SEE ALSO FIRE DEPARTMENT V. GILMOUR,
149 N.Y. 453, 44 N.E. 177; PEOPLE V. MCCOY, 125 ILL. 289, 17 N.E. 786. 

FINALLY, THE EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR IN NO WAY DEMANDS THAT
PETITIONER BE DENIED A FULL HEARING IN THIS CASE.  WE ARE CONCERNED
WITH A SPEEDY AND EFFECTIVE MOBILIZATION OF ARMED FORCES.  BUT THAT
MOBILIZATION IS NEITHER IMPEDED NOR AUGMENTED BY THE AVAILABILITY OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LOCAL BOARD ORDERS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  IN THE
RARE CASE WHERE THE ACCUSED PERSON CAN PROVE THE ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL
NATURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, THE INDUCTION ORDER SHOULD NEVER
HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE ARMED FORCES ARE DEPRIVED OF NO ONE WHO SHOULD
HAVE BEEN INDUCTED.  AND WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS UNABLE TO PROVE SUCH A
DEFENSE OR WHERE, PURSUANT TO THIS COURT'S OPINION, HE IS FORBIDDEN
EVEN TO ASSERT THIS DEFENSE, THE PRISON RATHER THAN THE ARMY OR NAVY IS
THE RECIPIENT OF HIS PRESENCE.  THUS THE MILITARY STRENGTH OF THIS
NATION GAINS NAUGHT BY THE DENIAL OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THIS INSTANCE. 

TO SAY THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH A REVIEW WOULD ENCOURAGE
DISOBEDIENCE OF INDUCTION ORDERS, OR THAT DENIAL OF A REVIEW WOULD HAVE
A DETERRENT EFFECT, IS NEITHER DEMONSTRABLE NOR REALISTIC.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER FAILED TO OBEY THE LOCAL BOARD ORDER BECAUSE
OF A BELIEF THAT HE COULD SECURE A JUDICIAL REVERSAL OF THE ORDER AND
THUS ESCAPE THE DUTY TO DEFEND HIS COUNTRY.  THOSE WHO SEEK SUCH A
REVIEW ARE INVARIABLY THOSE WHOSE CONSCIENTIOUS OR RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES
WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM REPORTING FOR INDUCTION REGARDLESS OF THE
AVAILABILITY OF THIS DEFENSE.  AND I AM NOT AWARE THAT DISOBEDIENCE HAS
MULTIPLIED IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, WHERE THIS DEFENSE HAS BEEN ALLOWED. 
BAXLEY V. UNITED STATES, 134 F.2D 998; GOFF V. UNITED STATES, 135 F.2D
610.  MOREOVER, ENGLISH COURTS UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE
LAST WAR UNHESITATINGLY PROVIDED A FULL HEARING AND REVIEWED ORDERS TO
REPORT FOR PERMANENT SERVICE.  OFFORD V. HISCOCK, 86 L.J.K.B. 941;
HAWKES V. MOXEY, 86 L.J.K.B. 1530.  YET THAT DID NOT NOTICEABLY IMPEDE
THE EFFICIENCY OR SPEED OF ENGLAND'S MUSTERING OF AN ADEQUATE MILITARY
FORCE. 

THAT AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD LANGUISH IN PRISON FOR FIVE YEARS WITHOUT
BEING ACCORDED THE OPPORTUNITY OF PROVING THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS
BASED UPON ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS NOT IN
KEEPING WITH THE HIGH STANDARDS OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  ESPECIALLY IS
THIS SO WHERE NEITHER PUBLIC NECESSITY NOR RULE OF LAW OR STATUTE LEADS
INEXORABLY TO SUCH A HARSH RESULT.  THE LAW KNOWS NO FINER HOUR THAN
WHEN IT CUTS THROUGH FORMAL CONCEPTS AND TRANSITORY EMOTIONS TO PROTECT
UNPOPULAR CITIZENS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AND PERSECUTION.  I CAN
PERCEIVE NO OTHER COURSE FOR THE LAW TO TAKE IN THIS CASE. 

FN1  OTHERWISE THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR STATUTORY PERMISSION WOULD
PRECLUDE COURT REVIEW OF INDUCTION ORDERS IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS
FOLLOWING ACTUAL INDUCTION, A RESULT WHICH THIS COURT'S OPINION
PRESUMABLY DOES NOT INTEND TO INFER.  JUDICIAL REVIEW IN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS HAS BECOME WELL SETTLED IN LOWER FEDERAL COURTS. 

FN2  JUDGE ROBERT C. BELL OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN MINNESOTA,
IN HIS ARTICLE "SELECTIVE SERVICE AND THE COURTS," 28 A.B.A. JOURNAL
164, 167, STATES, "THE COURTS ARE LIKELY TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE
QUESTION OF WHAT CAN BE PRESENTED AS A DEFENSE BY A SELECTEE IN A
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST HIM FOR A VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT OF 1940.  IT APPEARS THAT THIS QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED. 
ON PRINCIPLE, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO
OFFER AS A DEFENSE THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT HE COULD PRESENT IN A HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDING, THAT IS, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE BOARD HAD
JURISDICTION, WHETHER THERE WAS A FAIR HEARING, OR WHETHER THE ACTION
OF THE BOARD WAS ARBITRARY OR UNLAWFUL." 
..END :









UNITED STATES V. MYERS, 320 U.S. 561 


ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 17, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 99 CT.CLS. 
158, REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911, AS AMENDED, CREATES AN
OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO PAY CUSTOMS OFFICERS THE
EXTRA COMPENSATION THEREIN PRESCRIBED.  P. 567. 

2.  THE EXTRA COMPENSATION WHICH SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13,
1911, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT CUSTOMS INSPECTORS BE PAID FOR
OVERTIME, SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS, HELD PAYABLE, IN RESPECT OF WEEKDAY
SERVICE, ONLY FOR SERVICE BEYOND THE REGULAR DAILY TOUR OF DUTY,
WHETHER DAY OR NIGHT; AND FOR ALL SERVICE ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS.  PP.
573-574. 

3.  AS THE PROVISO OF SEC. 5 AUTHORIZES ADJUSTMENTS OF HOURS BUT IS
SILENT AS TO SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS, THE SECTION'S EARLIER GRANT OF EXTRA
COMPENSATION FOR SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS REMAINS UNAFFECTED BY THE
PROVISO.  P. 575. 

4.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911, AS
AMENDED, IN RESPECT OF EXTRA COMPENSATION, APPLY TO SERVICES OF CUSTOMS
INSPECTORS AT BRIDGES AND TUNNELS.  P. 575. 

5.  THE EXTRA COMPENSATION REQUIRED BY SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY
13, 1911, AS AMENDED, TO BE PAID FOR OVERTIME, SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS IS
EXCLUSIVE OF THE BASE PAY.  P. 576. 

UNITED STATES V. MYERS. 

NO. 142.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 143, UNITED STATES V. ARBLE, NO. 144, UNITED
STATES V. MARTIN, NO. 145, UNITED STATES V. PLITZ, AND NO. 146, UNITED
STATES V. SPITZ, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 722, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS
IN FIVE SUITS TO RECOVER EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY
THE PLAINTIFFS AS CUSTOMS INSPECTORS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE FIVE SUITS WERE FILED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY RESPONDENTS,
WHO ARE CUSTOMS INSPECTORS STATIONED AT THE PORT OF DETROIT.  FN1  THEY
HAVE BEEN SELECTED AS TEST CASES FROM A LARGER NUMBER OF SIMILAR
SUITS.  NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE CLAIMS AS TO SERVICES RENDERED
OR OTHERWISE IS POINTED OUT TO US, AND WE SEE NONE.  EVEN THE PERIODS
FOR WHICH RECOVERY IS SOUGHT, SEPTEMBER 1, 1931, THROUGH AUGUST 31,
1937, ARE IDENTICAL.  WE SHALL THEREFORE STATE THE ISSUES AND EXPLAIN
OUR CONCLUSION IN TERMS OF THE MYERS CASE ONLY, AND ITS DETERMINATION
REQUIRES A LIKE RESULT IN THE OTHER CASES. 

THE PRECISE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5 OF THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911, AS AMENDED,  FN2  AND SECS. 401, 450 AND 451
OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930,  FN3  ENTITLE MR. MYERS TO EXTRA
COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE HIS REGULAR SALARY AS CUSTOMS INSPECTOR FOR
NIGHT, SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY SERVICES PERFORMED DURING THE STATED PERIOD. 
ITS SOLUTION DEPENDS UPON WHETHER OR NOT, WHEN SEC. 5 SPEAKS OF
"OVERTIME SERVICES," IT INCLUDES, FIRST, ANY AUTHORIZED SERVICE
RENDERED BETWEEN 5 O'CLOCK P.M. AND 8 O'CLOCK A.M., WITHOUT REGARD TO
WHETHER THIS SERVICE IS WITHIN THE REGULAR HOURS OF HIS ASSIGNMENT TO
DUTY, AND, SECOND, SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TIME OF
DAY WHEN THE AUTHORIZED SERVICES ARE PERFORMED.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS
ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR BOTH NIGHTTIME AND SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY
SERVICES.  99 CT. CLS. 158. 

AS THE DIFFICULTIES OF APPLYING THE STATUTE CONTINUALLY ARISE AT ANY
PORT WHERE THE NORMAL WORKING HOURS OF THE CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES NAMED IN
THE SECTION ARE NOT LIMITED TO 8 A.M. TO 5 P.M. WITH SUNDAYS AND
HOLIDAYS OFF, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS.  WE THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AS TO NIGHTTIME
SERVICES AND AFFIRMED AS TO SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY SERVICES. 

THE PORT OF DETROIT POSSESSES A WIDE VARIETY OF TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES WHICH CONNECT IT WITH CANADA AND WHICH REQUIRE CUSTOMS
INSPECTION OF MERCHANDISE, BAGGAGE AND PASSENGERS.  FN4 EVIDENTLY A
ROTATION OF ASSIGNMENTS OF POSTS AND HOURS AMONG INSPECTORS AT DETROIT
WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE COLLECTOR.  MR. MYERS HAD EITHER NIGHT OR SUNDAY
AND HOLIDAY SERVICE OR BOTH AT ALL THE VARIOUS POSTS OF DUTY WHICH ARE
LISTED IN THE NOTE.  HE WAS PAID HIS ANNUAL SALARY THROUGHOUT THE
PERIOD.  THIS WAS A BASE PAY OF $2,100, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND
SUBTRACTIONS WHICH WERE GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
N5.  THE CLAIM IS FOR SERVICE PERFORMED AT NIGHTTIME N6 ON WEEKDAYS,
SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS, AND IN DAYTIME ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS. 

AT THE THRESHOLD THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE STATUTES HERETOFORE
QUOTED DO NOT CREATE AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO
PAY THE EXTRA COMPENSATION WHICH IS SOUGHT.  A CARRIER MAY PROCURE
CUSTOMS SERVICE AT NIGHT ONLY BY SPECIAL LICENSE, AND THE STATUTES SAY
THE EXTRA COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID "BY THE LICENSEE" TO THE COLLECTOR
OF CUSTOMS WHO SHALL PAY THE SAME "TO THE INSPECTORS."  N7  AS THE
EXTRA COMPENSATION HERE SUED FOR WAS NOT COLLECTED IN WHOLE OR PART
FROM THE CARRIERS CONCERNED, IT IS URGED THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT
LIABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF.  FN8 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE PROPONENTS OF EXTRA
COMPENSATION CONSTANTLY MADE THE POINT THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE
OUT OF POCKET BY THE LEGISLATION N9.  WHERE THE UNITED STATES STOOD AS
A PROTECTOR OF INDIANS WITH STATUTORY AUTHORITY, CAREFULLY MARKED OUT
BY A SERIES OF ENACTMENTS, TO COLLECT SUMS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS
DEPENDENTS, WE HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO COLLECT DID NOT
GIVE RISE TO A LIABILITY.  CREEK NATION V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 629,
637, 639.  IN THAT CASE WE SAID THAT AUTHORIZATION TO COLLECT DID NOT
CREATE A MANDATORY DUTY, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE INDIANS ALSO MIGHT HAVE
SUED.  LIKEWISE, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT
OVER-COLLECTION DID NOT CREATE LIABILITY FOR REIMBURSEMENT.  UNITED
STATES V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO., 305 U.S. 415, 418-19, 423.  BUT HERE THE
UNITED STATES IS NEITHER PROTECTOR NOR AGENT.  IT IS AN EMPLOYER WHO
ISSUES ORDERS TO THE INSPECTORS DIRECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES. 
THE WORK IS DONE UNDER THE STATUTES.  NO INSPECTOR MAY "RECEIVE ANY
SALARY IN CONNECTION WITH HIS SERVICES AS SUCH AN OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE
FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1917, C. 163, 39 STAT. 1106.  THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY
THE LICENSEES TO THE COLLECTOR AT RATES FIXED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY.  THIS IS EXTRA COMPENSATION OVER AND ABOVE THE ANNUAL SALARY,
NOT A PAYMENT FROM LICENSEES.  SECTION 451 REQUIRES A BOND FROM THE
LICENSEE TO "PAY THE COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES OF THE CUSTOMS
OFFICERS," BUT THE PAYMENT MUST BE MADE TO THE COLLECTOR UNDER SEC. 5. 
THESE FACTS LEAD US TO THE VIEW THAT THE STATUTES CREATE AN OBLIGATION
ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO PAY TO INSPECTORS SUCH SUMS AS THEY
MAY EARN UNDER THEIR PROVISIONS.  FN10 

WE COME THEN TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATION UNDER
THE SEVERAL SECTIONS HERETOFORE QUOTED IN NOTES 2 AND 3.  FROM THE
EARLIEST DAYS, CUSTOMS INSPECTIONS HAVE NORMALLY PROCEEDED IN
DAYLIGHT.  BY SPECIAL LICENSE, THE WORK OF THE CUSTOMS MIGHT BE
PERFORMED AT NIGHT.  FN11  INSPECTORS WERE ON DUTY CONTINUOUSLY AND AT
FIRST WERE PAID ON A PER DIEM BASIS.  FN12  BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3,
1873, R.S. SEC. 2871, THE PRACTICE OF LICENSEES OF PAYING EXTRA
COMPENSATION FOR NIGHTTIME SERVICE  FN13  (BETWEEN SUNSET AND SUNRISE)
WAS FORMALIZED BY AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTOR TO FIX REASONABLE EXTRA
COMPENSATION AND TO COLLECT AND DISTRIBUTE IT AMONG THE INSPECTORS. 
THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION GRADUALLY WERE EXTENDED TO ADDITIONAL
EMPLOYEES AND TO DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.  23 STAT. 53, 59; 34 STAT.
633.  IN 1911 FURTHER CHANGES WERE MADE BY AN ACT FOR LADING AND
UNLADING VESSELS.  36 STAT. 901.  SECTION 5 UNDER EXAMINATION HERE
EMERGES THERE IN NEARLY ITS PRESENT FORM.  EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR
NIGHTTIME SERVICES WAS CONTINUED AND WAS AUTHORIZED FOR THE FIRST TIME
FOR SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS.  FN14  THE LATEST CHANGES WERE MADE IN SEC. 5
IN 1920.  "NIGHT" SERVICES BECAME "OVERTIME" SERVICES.  SUNDAYS AND
HOLIDAYS WERE PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SECTION IN JUXTAPOSITION
WITH "HOURS" WHICH WERE FIXED AT FROM 8 A.M. TO 5 P.M.  THE LAST
PROVISO VESTING AUTHORITY IN THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS TO REGULATE THE
HOURS OF EMPLOYEES "SO AS TO AGREE WITH PREVAILING WORKING HOURS IN THE
PORTS" WAS ADDED.  FN15  THE TARIFF ACT OF 1922, SECS. 401, 450 AND
451, EXTENDED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5 OF THE LADING AND UNLADING ACT
SO AS TO COVER PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE ARRIVING BY VEHICLE.  THESE
SUPRA. 

THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AT DETROIT, DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION,
ASSIGNED INSPECTORS TO TOURS OF DUTY OF EIGHT HOURS EACH DAY, WHICH
TOURS MIGHT BE AT ANY TIME WITHIN A TWENTY-FOUR HOUR PERIOD.  FN16  THE
LENGTH OF THE WEEKLY TOUR VARIED WITH THE POST AND WITH THE STATE OF
THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS AS TO THE
ACTUAL RESULTS ARE SET OUT IN THE NOTE BELOW.  FN17  IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CUSTOMS, REGULATIONS BASED ON THE SECTIONS OF THE
TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AND SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF 1911 WERE ISSUED BY THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT.  CUSTOMS REGULATIONS 1931 AND 1937.  SO FAR AS
HERE PERTINENT THEY ARE SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE.  FN18 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE VARIOUS ACTS MAKES CLEAR THE INTENTION
OF CONGRESS TO ALLOW EXTRA COMPENSATION ONLY WHEN THERE ARE OVERTIME
SERVICES IN THE SENSE OF WORK HOURS IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR DAILY
TOUR OF DUTY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PERIOD WITHIN THE TWENTY-FOUR HOURS
WHEN THE REGULAR DAILY TOUR IS PERFORMED.  CONGRESSMAN MOORE EXPLAINED
THE PURPOSE AS FOLLOWS (HEARINGS ON H.R. 9525, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., AT
P. 470):  FN19 

"MR. FORDNEY.  THE COMPENSATION FOR NIGHT WORK WOULD BE MORE THAN
TWICE THE COMPENSATION FOR DAY WORK? 

"MR. MOORE.  I THINK NOT, BUT SO LONG AS A MAN WORKS IN THE DAYTIME
AND THEN CONTINUES HIS WORK THROUGH THE NIGHT, IF THE EXPENSE DOES NOT
COME OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT HE SHOULD BE PAID DOUBLE." 

AT THE HEARINGS, JUST PRIOR TO THE 1920 AMENDMENT TO SEC 5, THE
UNDERSTANDING APPARENTLY WAS THAT EXTRA COMPENSATION WOULD BEGIN ONLY
AFTER A DAY'S WORK OF TEN OR ELEVEN HOURS.  THE PAY OF AN INSPECTOR WAS
PER DIEM AND WAS PAID FOR EACH DAY IN THE YEAR.  THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT WROTE TO THE CHAIRMAN: 

"THE DEPARTMENT HAS UNDER CONSIDERATION A PLAN WHEREBY BOARDING
OFFICERS AND INSPECTORS OF CUSTOMS WILL BE ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN EIGHT
HOUR SHIFTS AND WILL NOT, THEREFORE, BE CALLED UPON TO WORK OVERTIME
AND NO EXTRA COMPENSATION PAID TO OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO THE NIGHT
SHIFT.  IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT SUCH PLAN IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO SECURE
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS, AND PENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN IT
WILL, OF COURSE, BE NECESSARY TO DETAIL INSPECTORS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES
FOR NIGHT WORK."  FN20 

THERE ARE OTHER REFERENCES IN THE HEARINGS TO THE USE OF THE "SHIFT"
SYSTEM TO SECURE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR SERVICE WITHOUT EXTRA COMPENSATION. 
THE LEGAL BASIS FOR A COLLECTOR'S AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN INSPECTORS IN
THIS WAY IS THE LAST PROVISO OF SEC. 5, NOTE 2, SUPRA.  IT GIVES THE
COLLECTOR AUTHORITY IN THOSE PORTS WHERE CUSTOMARY WORKING HOURS ARE
OTHER THAN 8 A.M. TO 5 P.M. TO REGULATE THE HOURS OF INSPECTORS SO AS
TO AGREE WITH PREVAILING WORKING HOURS IN THE PORTS.  IN SPEAKING OF
THE PROVISION AFTER ITS ADOPTION, AN OFFICIAL OF THE CUSTOMS INSPECTORS
ASSOCIATION SAID AT A HEARING ON AN IMMIGRATION INSPECTORS BILL
(HEARINGS ON S. 1504, S. 1774 AND S. 2188, 67TH CONG., 1ST AND 2D
SESS., P. 130): 

"TO MEET THE CONDITION AT NEW ORLEANS, WHERE THE HOURS OF LABOR ARE
FROM 7 O'CLOCK A.M. TO 4 O'CLOCK P.M., THIS PROVISO AT THE END OF THE
BILL WAS PUT IN ALLOWING COLLECTORS TO ADJUST THE INSPECTORS' HOURS TO
THE CUSTOMARY WORKING HOURS AT PORTS WHERE THE PRACTICES ARE
DIFFERENT.  THIS PROVISO ALSO APPLIES TO THE CANADIAN BORDER AT PLACES
WHERE TRAFFIC IS CONTINUOUS DURING THE 24 HOURS, SUCH BEING THE
'CUSTOMARY WORKING HOURS' - AND THE INSPECTORS WORK IN 8-HOUR SHIFTS
WITHOUT OVERTIME."  FN21 

WHEN WE EXAMINE THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 5, EITHER WITHOUT EXTRINSIC AID
OR WITH THE BENEFIT OF THE HISTORICAL AND LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND, WE
FIND CONVINCING AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW AS TO THE
MEANING OF OVERTIME.  "OVERTIME" AS WE POINTED OUT ABOVE WAS
SUBSTITUTED BY THE 1920 AMENDMENT OF SEC. 5 FOR "NIGHTTIME" SERVICES. 
THE SECTION REQUIRES EMPLOYEES TO "REMAIN" ON DUTY.  THE USUAL INSTANCE
OF THE PAYMENT OF EXTRA COMPENSATION WOULD BE FOR WORK AFTER 5 P.M. BY
AN INSPECTOR WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED FULL TIME.  THE GOVERNMENT IS
CORRECT IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE LAST PROVISO OF SEC. 5 AS
PERMITTING SHIFTS IN AN INSPECTOR'S REGULAR HOURS OF WORK.  NIGHT
ASSIGNMENTS ARE AN OLD ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE
PROVISO APPARENTLY WAS PASSED TO MEET A NEW ORLEANS SITUATION BUT THE
LANGUAGE IS GENERAL.  IT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE COLLECTOR TO MINOR
VARIATIONS IN HOURS.  WE ARE LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT OVERTIME, AS
APPLIED TO WEEK DAYS, REFERS TO HOURS LONGER THAN THE DAILY LIMIT OF 8
A.M. TO 5 P.M., NINE HOURS WITH ONE HOUR FOR FOOD AND REST. 
FURTHERMORE, THESE TOURS OF DUTY UNDER THE PROVISO ARE MOVABLE WITHIN
THE TWENTY-FOUR HOUR PERIOD IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING WORKING HOURS
AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVICE. 

WE DO NOT SEE THAT INTERNATIONAL RY. CO. V. DAVIDSON, 257 U.S. 506,
DECIDES OTHERWISE.  THAT WAS A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTOR FROM
ENFORCING THE LICENSE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5, NOTE 2, SUPRA, AS TO
PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE, AGAINST AN INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE.  THESE WERE
HELD INAPPLICABLE TO BRIDGES.  IN SPEAKING OF SEC. 5, THE OPINION
STATED:  "THIS SUBSTITUTED SECTION DEFINES WHAT SHALL BE DEEMED
OVERTIME, HOW THE RATE OF EXTRA PAY SHALL BE FIXED, AND WHAT THE WORK
IS, FOR WHICH EXTRA COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID."  IT DID NOT, HOWEVER,
INTERPRET THE STATUTE OR CONSIDER THE PROVISO BOTH OF WHICH WE ARE
CALLED UPON TO DO HERE.  CONTRA, SEE FERGUSON V. PORT HURON & SARNIA
FERRY CO., 13 F.2D 489, 492. 

AS TO SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS, WE CONSTRUE THE STATUTE TO REQUIRE EXTRA
COMPENSATION FOR INSPECTORS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE HOURS OF THE DAY OR
WHETHER SUCH SERVICES ARE ADDITIONAL TO A REGULAR WEEKLY TOUR OF DUTY. 
BEFORE SEC. 5 THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY TO PAY EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR
SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY WORK.  REVISED STATUTES, SEC. 2871, ALLOWED EXTRA
PAY FOR NIGHTTIME WORK ONLY.  SOMEWHAT INDIRECTLY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY
13, 1911, GAVE SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY PAY AND THE 1920 AMENDMENT MADE THE
RIGHT TO THAT EXTRA COMPENSATION CLEAR BY SAYING EXTRA COMPENSATION
SHALL BE PAID INSPECTORS "WHO MAY BE REQUIRED TO REMAIN ON DUTY BETWEEN
THE HOURS OF FIVE O'CLOCK POSTMERIDAN AND EIGHT O'CLOCK ANTEMERIDIAN,
OR ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS."  THIS LANGUAGE AND THE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS,
NOTE 18, SUPRA, GIVE AN EMPLOYEE WHO WORKS REGULAR HOURS WEEKDAYS IN
DAYTIME EXTRA PAY FOR SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY WORK.  THE STATUTE COVERS ALSO
THOSE WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE STATUTORY NORMAL HOURS.  LOGICALLY, IF
SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS WERE NOT TO RECEIVE EXTRA COMPENSATION, WITHOUT
REGARD TO WHETHER SERVICES ON THOSE DAYS WERE OVERTIME, THERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION TO ADD SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS TO THE OVERTIME. 
OVERTIME WOULD COVER EVERY SITUATION.    THE PROVISO OF SEC. 5 DOES NOT
GIVE THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY TO MAKE ASSIGNMENTS WHICH
DEPRIVE INSPECTORS OF THIS SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY PAY.  IT AUTHORIZES
ADJUSTMENTS OF HOURS BUT SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS ALTERATION OF OVERTIME
PAY.  IT IS SILENT AS TO SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS WHICH LEAVES THE EARLIER
GRANT OF EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR THOSE DAYS IN EFFECT.  OVERTIME PAY IS
ALSO APPLICABLE TO SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS WHEN INSPECTORS WORK LONGER
THAN NINE HOURS WITH ONE HOUR FOR FOOD AND REST.  THE RATE OF OVERTIME
EXTRA COMPENSATION ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS IS THE SAME AS THE RATE FOR
WEEK DAYS.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IS UNCERTAIN.  IT DOES NOT
SUPPORT A CONTRARY CONCLUSION.  THE GOVERNMENT CITES EXCERPTS FROM
TESTIMONY ON AMENDATORY BILLS, NOT HERE DIRECTLY INVOLVED, WHICH
INDICATE THE EXTRA COMPENSATION IS PAID FOR SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS.  FN22
FINDINGS 5 AND 6 OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, NOTE 17, SUPRA, SHOW THAT
EXTRA COMPENSATION WAS PAID AT TIMES FOR SUNDAY AND HOLIDAY SERVICES. 
FN23 

TWO FURTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION.  IT
IS SAID THAT SEC. 5 OF THE 1911 ACT AS AMENDED DOES NOT APPLY TO
SERVICES RENDERED AT A BRIDGE OR TUNNEL.  THIS COURT SO HELD IN 1922. 
INTERNATIONAL RY. CO. V. DAVIDSON, 257 U.S. 506, 512.  AT THAT TIME,
THE SECTION'S APPLICATION WAS LIMITED TO "VESSEL OR OTHER CONVEYANCE." 
SINCE THEN SECS. 401, 450 AND 451 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1922, 42 STAT.
858, 948, 954, AND OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, NOTE 3, SUPRA, HAVE
EXPANDED THE INSTRUMENTALITIES TO INCLUDE EVERY CONTRIVANCE CAPABLE OF
BEING USED AS A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION ON LAND OR WATER.  FN24  THE
DIFFERENCE IN DEFINITION, WE THINK, BRINGS BRIDGES AND TUNNELS UNDER
THE OVERTIME PAY REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 5. 

FINALLY THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT IN AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR
"OVERTIME" SERVICES CREDIT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO IT FOR THAT PART OF THE
BASE PAY RECEIVED FOR SUCH SERVICES.  WE THINK THE CONGRESSIONAL
INTENTION TO GIVE EXTRA COMPENSATION PRECLUDES SUCH A CLAIM.  THE
INSPECTORS IN ADDITION TO THEIR REGULAR SALARIES FOR WEEK DAYS ARE
ENTITLED TO THE STATUTORY ADDITIONAL PAY FOR OVERTIME, SUNDAYS AND
HOLIDAYS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS REVERSED AND THE PROCEEDING
REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE INSPECTORS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FEDERAL REGISTER, AUGUST 25, 1937; CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,
TITLE 19, CUSTOMS DUTIES, CHAP. 1, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS. 

FN2  41 STAT. 402, C. 61; 19 U.S.C. 267: 

"SEC. 5.  THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL FIX A REASONABLE
RATE OF EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME SERVICES OF INSPECTORS,
STOREKEEPERS, WEIGHERS, AND OTHER CUSTOMS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO
MAY BE REQUIRED TO REMAIN ON DUTY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF FIVE O'CLOCK
POSTMERIDIAN AND EIGHT O'CLOCK ANTEMERIDIAN, OR ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS,
TO PERFORM SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE LADING OR UNLADING OF CARGO,
OR THE LADING OF CARGO OR MERCHANDISE FOR TRANSPORTATION IN BOND OR FOR
EXPORTATION IN BOND OR FOR EXPORTATION WITH BENEFIT OF DRAWBACK, OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE RECEIVING OR DELIVERY OF CARGO ON OR FROM THE
WHARF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE UNLADING, RECEIVING, OR EXAMINATION OF
PASSENGERS' BAGGAGE, SUCH RATES TO BE FIXED ON THE BASIS OF ONE-HALF
DAY'S ADDITIONAL PAY FOR EACH TWO HOURS OR FRACTION THEREOF OF AT LEAST
ONE HOUR THAT THE OVERTIME EXTENDS BEYOND FIVE O'CLOCK POSTMERIDIAN
(BUT NOT TO EXCEED TWO AND ONE-HALF DAYS' PAY FOR THE FULL PERIOD FROM
FIVE O'CLOCK POSTMERIDIAN TO EIGHT O'CLOCK ANTEMERIDIAN), AND TWO
ADDITIONAL DAYS' PAY FOR SUNDAY OR HOLIDAY DUTY.  THE SAID EXTRA
COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID BY THE MASTER, OWNER, AGENT, OR CONSIGNEE OF
SUCH VESSEL OR OTHER CONVEYANCE WHENEVER SUCH SPECIAL LICENSE OR PERMIT
FOR IMMEDIATE LADING OR UNLADING OR FOR LADING OR UNLADING AT NIGHT OR
ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
WHO SHALL PAY THE SAME TO THE SEVERAL CUSTOMS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
ENTITLED THERETO ACCORDING TO THE RATES FIXED THEREFOR BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY:  PROVIDED, THAT SUCH EXTRA COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID
IF SUCH OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO REPORT FOR DUTY AND
HAVE SO REPORTED, WHETHER THE ACTUAL LADING, UNLADING, RECEIVING,
DELIVERY, OR EXAMINATION TAKES PLACE OR NOT.  CUSTOMS OFFICERS ACTING
AS BOARDING OFFICERS AND ANY CUSTOMS OFFICER WHO MAY BE DESIGNATED FOR
THAT PURPOSE BY THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO
ADMINISTER THE OATH OR AFFIRMATION HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, AND SUCH
BOARDING OFFICERS SHALL BE ALLOWED EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES IN
BOARDING VESSELS AT NIGHT OR ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS AT THE RATES
PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AS HEREIN PROVIDED, THE
SAID EXTRA COMPENSATION TO BE PAID BY THE MASTER, OWNER, AGENT, OR
CONSIGNEE OF SUCH VESSEL:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT IN THOSE PORTS WHERE
CUSTOMARY WORKING HOURS ARE OTHER THAN THOSE HEREINABOVE MENTIONED, THE
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS IS VESTED WITH AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE HOURS OF
CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES SO AS TO AGREE WITH PREVAILING WORKING HOURS IN SAID
PORTS, BUT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS PROVISO SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ANY
MANNER TO AFFECT OR ALTER THE LENGTH OF A WORKING DAY FOR CUSTOMS
EMPLOYEES OR THE OVERTIME PAY HEREIN FIXED." 

FN3  46 STAT. 708, 715, C. 497, TITLE IV; 19 U.S.C. 1401, 1450,
1451: 

"SEC. 401.  MISCELLANEOUS. 

"WHEN USED IN THIS TITLE OR IN PART I OF TITLE III - 

"(A)  VESSEL.  - THE WORD 'VESSEL' INCLUDES EVERY DESCRIPTION OF
WATER CRAFT OR OTHER CONTRIVANCE USED, OR CAPABLE OF BEING USED, AS A
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION IN WATER, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE AIRCRAFT. 

"(B)  VEHICLE.  - THE WORD 'VEHICLE' INCLUDES EVERY DESCRIPTION OF
CARRIAGE OR OTHER CONTRIVANCE USED, OR CAPABLE OF BEING USED, AS A
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION ON LAND, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE AIRCRAFT. 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"(F)  DAY.  - THE WORD 'DAY' MEANS THE TIME FROM EIGHT O'CLOCK
ANTEMERIDIAN TO FIVE O'CLOCK POSTMERIDIAN. 

"(G)  NIGHT.  - THE WORD 'NIGHT' MEANS THE TIME FROM FIVE O'CLOCK
POSTMERIDIAN TO EIGHT O'CLOCK ANTEMERIDIAN. 

     .       .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 450.  UNLADING ON SUNDAYS, HOLIDAYS, OR AT NIGHT. 

"NO MERCHANDISE, BAGGAGE, OR PASSENGERS ARRIVING IN THE UNITED STATES
FROM ANY FOREIGN PORT OR PLACE, AND NO BONDED MERCHANDISE OR BAGGAGE
BEING TRANSPORTED FROM ONE PORT TO ANOTHER, SHALL BE UNLADEN FROM THE
CARRYING VESSEL OR VEHICLE ON SUNDAY, A HOLIDAY, OR AT NIGHT, EXCEPT
UNDER SPECIAL LICENSE GRANTED BY THE COLLECTOR UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS
AS THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY MAY PRESCRIBE. 

"SEC. 451.  SAME - EXTRA COMPENSATION. 

"BEFORE ANY SUCH SPECIAL LICENSE TO UNLADE SHALL BE GRANTED, THE
MASTER, OWNER, OR AGENT, OF SUCH VESSEL OR VEHICLE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
GIVE A BOND IN THE PENAL SUM TO BE FIXED BY THE COLLECTOR CONDITIONED
TO INDEMNIFY THE UNITED STATES FOR ANY LOSS OR LIABILITY WHICH MIGHT
OCCUR OR BE OCCASIONED BY REASON OF THE GRANTING OF SUCH SPECIAL
LICENSE AND TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES OF THE CUSTOMS
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH
UNLADING AT NIGHT OR ON SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 OF THE ACT ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
LADING OR UNLADING OF VESSELS AT NIGHT, THE PRELIMINARY ENTRY OF
VESSELS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' APPROVED FEBRUARY 13, 1911, AS
AMENDED.  ...  AT THE REQUEST OF THE MASTER, OWNER, OR AGENT OF ANY
VESSEL, THE COLLECTOR SHALL ASSIGN CUSTOMS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES TO
DUTY AT NIGHT OR ON SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE ENTERING
OR CLEARING OF SUCH VESSEL, OR THE ISSUING AND RECORDING OF ITS MARINE
DOCUMENTS, BILLS OF SALE, MORTGAGES, OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF TITLE, BUT
ONLY IF THE MASTER, OWNER, OR AGENT GIVES A BOND IN A PENAL SUM TO BE
FIXED BY THE COLLECTOR, CONDITIONED TO PAY THE COMPENSATION AND
EXPENSES OF SUCH CUSTOMS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, WHO SHALL BE ENTITLED
TO RATES OF COMPENSATION FIXED ON THE SAME BASIS AND PAYABLE IN THE
SAME MANNER AND UPON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS IN THE CASE OF
CUSTOMS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH
LADING OR UNLADING AT NIGHT OR ON SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY." 

FN4  THE FACILITIES WERE LISTED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS AS FOLLOWS: 

DETROIT AND WINDSOR FERRY, 

WALKERVILLE FERRY, 

DETROIT AND CANADA TUNNEL, 

AMBASSADOR BRIDGE, 

MICHIGAN CENTRAL TUNNEL, 

WABASH RAILWAY FERRIES, 

PERE MARQUETTE RAILWAY FERRIES, 

GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SLIP DOCK. 

FN5  E.G., ECONOMY ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 382. 

FN6  NIGHTTIME IS DEFINED AS THE HOURS BETWEEN 5 P.M. AND 8 A.M.,
CUSTOMS REGULATIONS 1937, ART. 1462; 46 STAT. 708, SUPRA, NOTE 3. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA.  CUSTOMS REGULATIONS 1931, ART. 1232, WAS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"ART. 1232.  ACCOUNTING FOR OVERTIME.  - (A)  UPON RECEIPT OF ANY
PAYMENTS FOR THE SERVICES OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AT NIGHT OR ON
SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS, COLLECTORS SHALL IMMEDIATELY DEPOSIT THE SAME IN
THEIR SPECIAL DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS AND MAKE PAYMENT THEREFROM BY CHECK TO
THE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WHO RENDERED THE SERVICES, AND REFUND IN THE
SAME MANNER ANY FUNDS DEPOSITED IN EXCESS, THESE FUNDS TO BE ACCOUNTED
FOR IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER MONEYS DEPOSITED IN SPECIAL DEPOSIT
ACCOUNTS." 

FN8  WE DOUBT WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS THIS QUESTION IN
ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  AS IT IS THE BASIS OF THE LITIGATION,
HOWEVER, WE RESOLVE THAT DOUBT IN FAVOR OF AN ADJUDICATION OF THIS
ISSUE. 

FN9  HEARINGS ON H.R. 9525, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 461, 463, 464
465; HEARINGS ON H.R. 6577, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 13.  WHEN THE 1920
AMENDMENT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ITS SPONSOR, SENATOR CALDER, SAID:
"THE SHIPOWNER WOULD PAY THE COLLECTOR FOR IT, AND THEN, IN TURN, THE
MEN WOULD BE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT."  59 CONG. REC. 640. 

FN10  THE FIRST DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1936, 49
STAT. 1636, JUNE 22, 1936, AND SO WITHIN THE PERIOD COVERED BY THIS
SUIT, MADE THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS "AVAILABLE" FOR
PAYMENT OF THESE CLAIMS.  THIS HAS BEEN CONTINUED, 56 STAT. 150, 155. 
THE TREASURY AND POST OFFICE DEPARTMENTS APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1944,
PUBLIC LAW 102, 78TH CONG., 1ST SESS., C. 179, SLIP LAW P. 7, 57 STAT.
250, 256, CHANGED THE FORM OF THE AUTHORIZATION FROM MAKING THE
APPROPRIATIONS AVAILABLE FOR THIS PAYMENT TO A DIRECT APPROPRIATION FOR
PAYMENT.  BUT SEE HEARINGS, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS (HOUSE) ON H.R. 6577, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 13. 

FN11  1 STAT. 665, SEC. 50. 

FN12  THE GOVERNMENT BRIEF FURNISHES US A CONVENIENT SUMMARY OF THE
PAY LEGISLATION:  "THE PAY ORIGINALLY FIXED AT $2 PER DIEM (ACT OF
MARCH 2, 1799, 1 STAT. 704, 706) WAS GRADUALLY INCREASED TO A MAXIMUM
OF $6 IN 1909 AND $7.80 IN 1923(ACT OF APRIL 26, 1816, 3 STAT. 306;
REV. STAT. SEC. 2733; ACT OF APRIL 29, 1864, 13 STAT. 61; ACT OF MARCH
4, 1909, 35 STAT. 1065, SEC. 2; ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, 42 STAT. 1453). 
BY THE ACT OF MAY 29, 1928, 45 STAT. 955(19 U.S.C. 6(A)), CUSTOMS
INSPECTORS WERE GIVEN FIXED SALARIES AND PAID ON ANNUAL BASIS. 
COMPENSATION OF RESPONDENTS IS $2,100 PER ANNUM, WHICH MAY BE INCREASED
BY PROMOTION TO A MAXIMUM OF $3,300.  EVEN PRIOR TO 1928, WHEN
COMPENSATION WAS CHANGED TO AN ANNUAL BASIS, CUSTOMS INSPECTORS,
REGULARLY EMPLOYED AND PAID ON A PER DIEM BASIS, WERE PAID FOR 365 DAYS
...  THUS RECEIVING THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ANNUAL SALARY." 

FN13  S. REP. NO. 380, 41ST CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 42, 139. 

FN14  NIGHTTIME WAS APPARENTLY ADMINISTRATIVELY DETERMINED TO BE
BETWEEN 6 P.M. AND 7 A.M., 59 CONG. REC. 2171; HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.), ON H.R. 6738(ONE OF THE BILLS WHICH BECAME THE CUSTOMS
ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1938), AMENDING SEC. 451 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF
1930(ACT OF JUNE 25, 1938, C. 679, SEC. 9, 52 STAT. 1082), P. 185. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 2 AND FOR A GRAPHIC EXPLANATION OF THE CHANGES, SEE
INTERNATIONAL RY. CO. V. DAVIDSON, 257 U.S. 506, 510. 

FN16  THIS WAS SETTLED PRACTICE.  INTERNATIONAL RY. CO. V. DAVIDSON,
257 U.S. 506, 508. 

FN17  "4.  AS USED IN THESE FINDINGS THE WORD 'NIGHTTIME' REFERS TO
THE PERIOD 5 O'CLOCK P.M. OF ANY DAY TO 8 O'CLOCK A.M. OF THE NEXT DAY,
AND THE WORD 'DAYTIME' TO THE PERIOD 8 O'CLOCK A.M. OF ANY DAY TO 5
O'CLOCK P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.  'EXCESS PAY' REFERS TO PAY IN EXCESS OF
THE INSPECTOR'S ANNUAL SALARY.  THE WORD 'WEEK-DAY' REFERS TO ANY DAY
OF THE WEEK OTHER THAN SUNDAYS OR WHOLE HOLIDAYS, AND THE WORD
'HOLIDAY' REFERS TO A HOLIDAY OF NOT LESS THAN 24 HOURS. 

"5.  BEFORE THE OPENING OF THE AMBASSADOR BRIDGE NOVEMBER 15, 1929,
ALL CUSTOMS INSPECTORS AT THE PORT OF DETROIT WERE REGULARLY ASSIGNED
TO EIGHT-HOUR TOURS OF DUTY, WHICH MIGHT BE ANY PERIOD OF THAT LENGTH
WITHIN THE 24 HOURS OF ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, INCLUDING SUNDAYS AND
HOLIDAYS.  THEY DID NOT RECEIVE FOR NIGHTTIME SERVICES PERFORMED ON
SUCH TOURS WEEKDAYS, SUNDAYS, OR HOLIDAYS, ANY EXCESS PAY, BUT THEY DID
RECEIVE EXCESS PAY FOR DAYTIME SERVICE SO PERFORMED ON SUNDAYS OR
HOLIDAYS.  THE INSPECTORS HAD AN EIGHT-HOUR DAY AND A 56-HOUR WEEK. 
"THIS PRACTICE, HOWEVER, DID NOT WHOLLY PREVAIL AT THE MICHIGAN CENTRAL
RAILWAY, WHERE FOR CERTAIN PERIODS PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 15, 1929, EXCESS
PAY WAS NOT ALLOWED FOR DAYTIME SERVICE ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS. 

"6.  UPON THE OPENING OF THE AMBASSADOR BRIDGE NOVEMBER 15, 1929,
THERE WAS A CHANGE IN PRACTICE AT THE PORT OF DETROIT. 

"AT THE DETROIT AND WINDSOR FERRY, THE WALKERVILLE FERRY, THE DETROIT
AND CANADA TUNNEL, THE AMBASSADOR BRIDGE, AND THE FREIGHT YARD OF THE
MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILWAY, THE CUSTOMS INSPECTORS WERE GIVEN AN EIGHT
HOUR DAY AND A 48-HOUR WEEK.    "EXCESS PAY WAS DISCONTINUED FOR
DAYTIME SERVICE PERFORMED ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS, WITHIN THE 48-HOUR
WEEK.  NO EXCESS PAY WAS GIVEN FOR NIGHTTIME SERVICE PERFORMED SUNDAYS,
HOLIDAYS, OR WEEKDAYS, WITHIN THE 48-HOUR WEEK. 

"AT THE MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILWAY PASSENGER STATION AND THE WABASH
RAILWAY AND PERE MARQUETTE RAILWAY FERRIES, AND THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY
SLIP DOCK THE HOURS CONTINUED AS BEFORE, WITH AN EIGHT-HOUR DAY AND A
56-HOUR WEEK.  EXCESS PAY WAS CONTINUED AT THESE LAST FOUR PLACES FOR
DAYTIME SERVICE PERFORMED ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS, EVEN THOUGH WITHIN
THE 56-HOUR LIMIT, BUT NO EXCESS PAY WAS GIVEN FOR NIGHTTIME SERVICE
THERE ON SUNDAYS, HOLIDAYS, OR WEEKDAYS, PERFORMED WITHIN THE 56-HOUR
PERIOD. 

"AFTER MARCH 3, 1931, THE DATE OF GOING INTO EFFECT OF THE SATURDAY
HALF-HOLIDAY FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, THE HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT PER WEEK
WERE REDUCED TO 44 AT THE DETROIT AND WINDSOR FERRY, THE WALKERVILLE
FERRY, THE DETROIT AND CANADA TUNNEL, THE AMBASSADOR BRIDGE AND THE
FREIGHT YARD OF THE MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILWAY, AND TO 52 HOURS PER WEEK
AT THE PASSENGER STATION OF THE MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILWAY, AT THE WABASH
RAILWAY AND PERE MARQUETTE RAILWAY FERRIES, AND AT THE GRAND TRUNK
RAILWAY SLIP DOCK, WITH CONDITIONS OF EXCESS PAY AS BEFORE BUT WITHIN
AND BASED UPON THE NEW PERIOD OF 44 HOURS.  PAY IN EXCESS OF THEIR
ANNUAL SALARIES WAS GIVEN TO INSPECTORS FOR TIME SERVED IN EXCESS OF 44
HOURS PER WEEK AT THE PASSENGER STATION OF THE MICHIGAN CENTRAL
RAILWAY, AT THE WABASH RAILWAY AND PERE MARQUETTE RAILWAY FERRIES AND
AT THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY SLIP DOCK NOTWITHSTANDING THE 52-HOUR
WEEK." 

FN18  THE REFERENCES ARE TO THE 1937 EDITIONS: 

"ART. 1242.  EXTRA COMPENSATION.  - (A)  CUSTOMS OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES PERFORMING SERVICES AT NIGHT, OR ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS, FOR
LADING OR UNLADING OF CARGO OR MERCHANDISE  ...  SHALL RECEIVE EXTRA
COMPENSATION, TO BE PAID BY THE MASTER, OWNER, OR AGENT OF THE VESSEL,
OR BY THE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY.  ...  " 

"(E) THE EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME SERVICES IS IN ADDITION TO
THE REGULAR COMPENSATION PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE CASE OF OFFICERS
AND EMPLOYEES WHOSE COMPENSATION IS FIXED ON THE ORDINARY PER DIEM
BASIS AND THOSE RECEIVING A COMPENSATION PER MONTH OR PER ANNUM." 

"ART. 1462.  HOURS OF SERVICE.  - (A)  THE OFFICIAL HOURS OF
OFFICERS, CLERKS, EXAMINERS, AND EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT THOSE HEREINAFTER
SPECIFIED, WILL BE FROM 9 A.M. TO 4:30 P.M., WITH A HALF HOUR FOR
LUNCH. 

"(B)  THE OFFICIAL HOURS OF THE FOLLOWING EMPLOYEES WILL BE:  STAFF
OFFICERS, STATION INSPECTORS, AND INSPECTORS TO WHATEVER DUTY ASSIGNED,
SUGAR SAMPLERS, SAMPLERS, LABORERS, STOREKEEPERS, AND OUTSIDE
MESSENGERS, FROM 8 A.M. TO 5 P.M., 1 HOUR FOR LUNCH; VERIFIERS-OPENERS
PACKERS AND OPENERS AND PACKERS, 8 A.M. TO 4:30 P.M., ONE-HALF HOUR FOR
LUNCH; CUSTOMS GUARDS NOT LESS THAN 8 HOURS. 

"(C)  THE ABOVE HOURS MAY BE EXTENDED AS THE NEEDS OF THE SERVICE
DEMAND, AND SUCH EXTENSION SHALL BE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION,
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911, AS AMENDED BY
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 7, 1920. 

"(D)  THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 7, 1920, ALSO PROVIDES THAT IN THOSE PORTS
WHERE CUSTOMARY WORKING HOURS ARE OTHER THAN THOSE ABOVE MENTIONED, THE
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS IS VESTED WITH AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE HOURS OF
CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES SO AS TO AGREE WITH PREVAILING WORKING HOURS IN SAID
PORT, BUT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS PROVISO SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ANY
MANNER TO AFFECT OR ALTER THE LENGTH OF A WORKING-DAY FOR CUSTOMS
EMPLOYEES OR THE OVERTIME PAY FIXED FOR SUCH EMPLOYEES.  ... " 

FN19  THIS QUOTATION IS FROM HEARINGS MAY 5, 1910, ON A BILL SIMILAR
TO THE ONE WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911.  HEARINGS BEFORE
HOUSE COM. ON WAYS AND MEANS, ON H.R. 9525, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN20  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS (HOUSE) ON H.R. 6577, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., OCTOBER 11, 1919,
PP. 1-19, PARTICULARLY P. 11. 

FN21  SEE ALSO HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, 71ST CONG., 1ST
SESS., ON H.R. 2667, P. 494. 

FN22  HEARINGS ON S. 1504, S. 1774 AND S. 2188, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
(SENATE), 67TH CONG., 1ST AND 2D SESS., PP. 30, 31 AND 130. 

FN23  SEE T.D. 49658, APPROVED JULY 18, 1938, AFTER THE PERIOD HERE
IN QUESTION, WHERE ART. 1242(G) IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"(G)  EXTRA COMPENSATION IS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR ANY SERVICE PERFORMED
BY A CUSTOMS OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO HIS ASSIGNMENT TO A
REGULAR TOUR OF DUTY AT NIGHT OR ON A SUNDAY OR HOLIDAY." 

THERE ARE SIMILAR OVERTIME ACTS IN OTHER SERVICES.  THEY ALLOW
SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS EXTRA.  CF. 46 STAT. 1467, AND U.S. DEPT. OF
LABOR, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION GENERAL ORDER NO. 175, APRIL 27, 1931,
(D); 49 STAT. 1380 AND DEPT. OF COMMERCE CIRCULAR NO. 307, DECEMBER 17,
1938; BUREAU OF MARINE INSPECTION AND NAVIGATION, II; 48 STAT. 1064, AS
AMENDED, AND FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS,
PART 8, SEC. 8.301(I). 

FN24  SEE ALSO SEC. 9 OF THE CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1938. 

THE CHANGE WAS DEEMED SIGNIFICANT AS TO RAILROADS.  COMPARE MELLON V.
MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S.S.M. RY. CO., 285 F. 980, WITH MELLON V.
MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S.S.M. RY. CO., 11 F.2D 332, 334. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
REVERSED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THE SUITS DISMISSED. 

(THE FOREGOING OPINION OF THE COURT IS PRINTED AS AMENDED BY AN ORDER
OF FEBRUARY 28, 1944, UNITED STATES V. MYERS, 321 U.S.) 
..END :















CALIFORNIA V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 577 


ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 46 F.SUPP.  474,
AFFIRMED. 


THE MARITIME COMMISSION, UPON FINDING THAT WATERFRONT TERMINALS IN THE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WERE ENGAGED IN PREFERENTIAL AND UNREASONABLE
PRACTICES - RESULTING FROM EXCESSIVE FREE TIME AND NONCOMPENSATORY
DEMURRAGE CHARGES - IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 16 AND 17 OF THE SHIPPING ACT
OF 1916, AS AMENDED, PRESCRIBED SCHEDULES OF MAXIMUM FREE TIME AND
MINIMUM DEMURRAGE CHARGES.  THE STATE AND A MUNICIPALITY, WHICH
OPERATED TERMINALS BUT WHICH WERE NOT COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER,
CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER AS APPLIED TO THEM.  HELD: 

1.  THE ORDER WAS PROPER UNDER SEC. 17 WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
COMMISSION, WHEN IT FINDS UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE A REGULATION OR
PRACTICE RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE RECEIVING, HANDLING,
STORING, OR DELIVERING OF PROPERTY, TO "DETERMINE, PRESCRIBE, AND ORDER
ENFORCED A JUST AND REASONABLE REGULATION OR PRACTICE."  P. 584. 

2.  IT WAS PROPER TO FIX MINIMUM DEMURRAGE CHARGES WHICH WOULD
REFLECT THE COST OF THE SERVICE.  P. 583. 

3.  THE PHRASE "OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT" - DEFINED IN SEC. 1
AS "ANY PERSON NOT INCLUDED IN THE TERM 'COMMON CARRIER BY WATER,'
CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF FORWARDING OR FURNISHING WHARFAGE DOCK,
WAREHOUSE, OR OTHER TERMINAL FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON
CARRIER BY WATER" - INCLUDES THE STATE AND THE MUNICIPALITY.  P. 585. 

4.  REGULATION OF THE ACTIVITIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES HERE INVOLVED
WHETHER ACTIVITIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF PRIVATE OR PUBLIC AGENCIES
- WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 586. 

CALIFORNIA ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

NO. 20.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 22, OAKLAND V. UNITED STATES ET AL., ALSO ON
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEALS FROM DECREES OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES REFUSING TO
SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION, 2 U.S.M.C. 588. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION FOUND THAT TERMINALS ALONG THE
COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT IN THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO WERE ENGAGED IN
PREFERENTIAL AND UNREASONABLE PRACTICES IN THAT THEY ALLOWED EXCESSIVE
FREE TIME AND MADE NON-COMPENSATORY CHARGES FOR THEIR SERVICES, ALL IN
VIOLATION OF SECS. 16 AND 17 OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, AS AMENDED. 
FN1  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION ORDERED THE CESSATION OF THESE
PROSCRIBED PRACTICES, AND IN ORDER TO ASSURE LAWFUL PRACTICES IT
PRESCRIBED SCHEDULES OF MAXIMUM FREE TIME PERIODS AND OF MINIMUM
CHARGES TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL COST OF SERVICES.  2 U.S.M.C. 588.  TWO
OF THE TERMINAL OPERATORS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WERE THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF OAKLAND.  THEY BROUGHT THESE PROCEEDINGS
TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN SO FAR AS IT APPLIED TO THEM.  A
DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENIED RELIEF.  46 F.SUPP.  474.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL UNDER SEC. 31 OF THE SHIPPING ACT (C.
451, 39 STAT. 738, EX. ORD. NO. 6166, C. 858, 49 STAT. 1987, 2016, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 830) IN CONNECTION WITH THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF
1913(C. 32, 38 STAT. 220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47 AND 47A) AND THE JUDICIARY
ACT OF 1925(C. 229, 43 STAT. 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345(4)).  CALIFORNIA
AND OAKLAND DENIED THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO ISSUE THE KIND OF
ORDER THAT IT DID, AND IN ANY EVENT THEY URGED THAT THE AUTHORITY UNDER
WHICH THE COMMISSION ACTED DOES NOT OR, IF IT DOES, CANNOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY COVER THEIR OPERATIONS. 

THE LEGAL ISSUES DEPEND FOR THEIR SOLUTION UPON AN UNDERSTANDING OF
THE SITUATION TO WHICH THE COMMISSION ADDRESSED ITSELF - THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE COMMISSION FOUND THEM AND THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF
DEALING WITH THEM.  WHAT FOLLOWS IS A RAPID SUMMARY OF A VOLUMINOUS
RECORD. 

THROUGH ITS BOARD OF STATE HARBOR COMMISSIONERS, CALIFORNIA PROVIDES
FACILITIES FOR THE HANDLING OF FREIGHT AND PASSENGERS ON THE SAN
FRANCISCO WATERFRONT, UNDER A STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITS THE BOARD FROM
MAKING CHARGES BEYOND THE COST OF FURNISHING SUCH FACILITIES AND
ADMINISTERING THEM.  CALIFORNIA HARBORS AND NAVIGATION CODE SECS. 3080,
3084.  PIER AND OFFICE SPACE IS ASSIGNED BY THE BOARD TO VARIOUS
STEAMSHIP LINES, AND CHARGES FIXED BY THE BOARD ARE COLLECTED BY THESE
ASSIGNEES FOR THE BOARD.  EXCEPT AT TWO PIERS, THE ASSIGNEES HANDLE THE
CARGO, BUT THE BOARD EMPLOYS A STAFF OF MEN TO CHECK ALL CARGO AND
VESSEL MOVEMENTS AND COLLECT ITS CHARGES.  OAKLAND, THROUGH ITS BOARD
OF PORT COMMISSIONERS, OPERATES PIERS AND TERMINALS WHICH, LIKE THOSE
OF CALIFORNIA, ARE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE VESSELS IN COASTWISE,
INTERCOASTAL, OFFSHORE, AND FOREIGN TRADE.  WHETHER THE FACILITIES ARE
OPERATED BY THE CITY DIRECTLY OR LEASED TO ANOTHER, THE CITY PRESCRIBES
AND COLLECTS THE CHARGES. 

IN THUS PROVIDING FACILITIES FOR WATER-BORNE TRAFFIC, OAKLAND AND
CALIFORNIA HAVE FOR MANY YEARS COMPETED WITH PRIVATELY-OWNED TERMINALS
IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY.  CUTTHROAT COMPETITION ENSUED, WITH THE
INEVITABLE CHAOS FOLLOWING ABNORMALLY LOW RATES.  IN AN ATTEMPT TO
REMEDY THE SITUATION, THE CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION INVESTIGATED
THE OPERATIONS OF TERMINALS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY, AND, MORE
PARTICULARLY PERTINENT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THE PREVALENT
DISCRIMINATION AMONG USERS OF THE TERMINAL SERVICES.  THE CONCLUSIONS
FROM THIS INQUIRY WERE EMBODIED IN AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION IN 1936.  40 CALIF. R.R. COMM. DECISIONS 107.  BUT PUBLICLY
OWNED TERMINALS, AND THEREFORE THOSE OF CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND, ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION.  SINCE THESE
PUBLIC BODIES OPERATED THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE DOCK FACILITIES IN THE
AREA, THE RAILROAD COMMISSION NATURALLY FOUND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ORDER
ADJUSTMENTS IN THE PRACTICES OF THE PRIVATE TERMINALS UNLESS THE
COMPETING PUBLIC BODIES AGREED TO MAKE SIMILAR ADJUSTMENTS.  THE ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION WAS SO CONDITIONED.  CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND ACCEDED
TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN SOME RESPECTS BUT FAILED TO DO SO AS TO
PRACTICES NOW TO BE DESCRIBED. 

WHEN CARGO IS BROUGHT TO A WHARF FOR SHIPMENT OR REMOVED TO A WHARF
FROM A SHIP, IT IS THE CUSTOM TO ALLOW A PERIOD OF "FREE TIME" DURING
WHICH THE CARGO MAY REST ON THE WHARF WITHOUT CHARGE.  THE LENGTH OF
THE FREE TIME IS FIXED, BROADLY SPEAKING, BY DETERMINING THE PERIOD
REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE SHIPPER TO ASSEMBLE OR TO REMOVE HIS GOODS
AND FOR THE SHIP TO LOAD OR TO DISCHARGE.  WHEN CARGO IS LEFT ON THE
WHARF BEYOND THE FREE TIME PERIOD, A CHARGE CALLED "WHARF DEMURRAGE OR
STORAGE" IS ASSESSED.  THE RAILROAD COMMISSION RECOMMENDED FREE TIME
PERIODS SHORTER THAN WAS THE PRACTICE OF CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND, AND
WHARF DEMURRAGE CHARGES GREATER IN MANY INSTANCES THAN THOSE COLLECTED
BY THEM.  THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND REJECTED.  THIS
IMPASSE, DUE TO THE IMMUNITY OF CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND FROM STATE
REGULATION, WAS FOLLOWED BY THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
MARITIME COMMISSION WHICH RESULTED IN THE ORDER NOW BEFORE US.
EXTENDED HEARINGS WERE HELD BEFORE THE COMMISSION'S EXAMINER, AT WHICH
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES WERE OFFICIALS OF THE BOARD AND OAKLAND AND AN
EXPERT OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION.  AFTER FULL SUBMISSION OF THE
CONTROVERSY, THE EXAMINER MADE HIS REPORT AND FINDINGS.  ON EXCEPTIONS
TO SOME OF HIS FINDINGS, THE ISSUES WERE AGAIN THOROUGHLY CANVASSED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1941, IT MADE ITS ORDER. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THERE WAS A MARKED LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN
THE FREE TIME PERIODS ALLOWED BY THE VARIOUS TERMINALS, AND THAT TO THE
EXTENT THAT APPELLANTS' FREE TIME ALLOWANCES WERE GREATER THAN THOSE
RECOMMENDED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION THEY WERE UNREASONABLE AND LED
TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THOSE PERSONS WHO DID NOT AND COULD NOT USE
EXTENDED FREE TIME.  AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE COST STUDIES SUBMITTED
BY ITS EXPERTS AS WELL AS OF THE DATA INTRODUCED BY APPELLANTS, THE
COMMISSION FURTHER FOUND THAT APPELLANTS' DEMURRAGE CHARGES WERE LESS
THAN THE COST OF THE SERVICES AND THE CARRYING CHARGES OF THE
FACILITIES WHICH FURNISHED THEM.  IT CONCLUDED THAT UNLESS THOSE WHO
TOOK ADVANTAGE OF WHARF STORAGE SUPPLIED REVENUE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE
COST OF THE SERVICE, THE BURDEN WOULD BE SHIFTED TO THOSE WHO PAID
APPELLANTS FOR OTHER TERMINAL SERVICES, SUCH AS DOCKING OF VESSELS,
LOADING AND UNLOADING, AND TRANSPORTATION PRIVILEGES OVER AND THROUGH
THE TERMINALS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION ORDERED APPELLANTS TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM ALLOWING GREATER PERIODS OF FREE TIME THAN THOSE FOUND
REASONABLE BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION, AND TO ABSTAIN FROM COLLECTING
WHARF DEMURRAGE AND STORAGE RATES LESS THAN THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE
CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY FOR PRIVATE TERMINALS.  FN2 

HAVING FOUND VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 16 AND 17, THE COMMISSION WAS
CHARGED BY LAW WITH THE DUTY OF DEVISING APPROPRIATE MEANS FOR THEIR
CORRECTION.  IT COULD HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER GENERALLY PROHIBITING
FURTHER PREFERENTIAL AND UNREASONABLE PRACTICES, LEAVING THE PARTIES TO
TRANSLATE SUCH A GENERALITY INTO CONCRETENESS AND TO DEVISE THEIR OWN
REMEDIES.  THE COMMISSION CHOSE TO DO OTHERWISE.  IT CAN HARDLY BE
SUGGESTED THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OR EVEN THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES WOULD, AS A
MATTER OF SENSIBLE AND ECONOMIC ADMINISTRATION, LIMIT THE COMMISSION TO
SUCH NEGATIVE MEANS OF DEALING WITH THE EVILS REVEALED ON THIS RECORD
IN ONE OF OUR GREATEST PORTS.  CF. PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD,
313 U.S. 177, 194.  EXPLICIT FORMULATION OF DUTIES OWED BY A BUSINESS
SUBJECT TO LEGAL REGULATION IS DESIRABLE IF INDEED NOT NECESSARY.  ONLY
THUS CAN IT AVOID THE HAZARDS OF UNCERTAINTY WHETHER ITS ATTEMPTED
COMPLIANCE WITH AN UNDEFINED REQUIREMENT OF LAW IS IN FACT COMPLIANCE. 
NEITHER INDUSTRY NOR THE COMMUNITY WHICH IT SERVES IS BENEFITED BY THE
EXPLOSION OF INTERMITTENT LAWSUITS FOR DETERMINING THE RELATIVE RIGHTS
OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS.  WHAT MORE NATURAL FOR THE COMMISSION, HAVING
FOUND DISOBEDIENCE OF THE LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY AND UNREASONABLE
PRACTICES, THAN TO DEFINE THE OUTER BOUNDS OF PRACTICES THAT WOULD NOT
BE UNREASONABLE NOR DISCRIMINATORY.  FN3  AND SO THE COMMISSION FIXED A
SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM FREE TIME AND ANOTHER SCHEDULE FOR AVOIDING
DISCRIMINATION THROUGH NON-COMPENSATORY CHARGES.  IT ACTED ON
AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION AND FULLY CANVASSED TESTIMONY IN FIXING THE
MINIMUM CHARGES THAT WOULD REFLECT COST.  IT WAS PROPER TO CHOOSE THE
COST STANDARD, BECAUSE JUST AS UNREASONABLY LONG FREE TIME TENDS TO BE
PARASITIC ON RATES FOR OTHER SERVICES, NON-COMPENSATORY DEMURRAGE
RESULTS IN THE SAME MISCHIEF.  CF. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 305 U.S. 507, 524. 

APPELLANTS' OBJECTION IS THAT WHILE SECS. 17 AND 18 SPECIFICALLY GIVE
THE COMMISSION RATE-MAKING POWER OVER COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER,  FN4
NO SUCH POWER IS GIVEN OVER THOSE WHO, LIKE CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND, ARE
NOT COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER.  WE FULLY AGREE THAT NO RATE-MAKING POWER
SUCH AS THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN GIVEN OVER WATER CARRIERS IS CONFERRED
OVER OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE SHIPPING ACT.  BUT THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION, THOUGH IT PERTAINS TO DEMURRAGE CHARGES, IS NOT AN EXERCISE
OF CONVENTIONAL RATE-MAKING.  BY SEC. 17 ALL THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECT TO
THE ACT ARE UNDER A DUTY TO "ESTABLISH, OBSERVE, AND ENFORCE JUST AND
REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE
RECEIVING, HANDLING, STORING, OR DELIVERING OF PROPERTY."  WHEN THE
COMMISSION FINDS A BREACH OF THIS DUTY, THE SAME SECTION AUTHORIZES IT
TO "DETERMINE, PRESCRIBE, AND ORDER ENFORCED A JUST AND REASONABLE
REGULATION OR PRACTICE."  THE WITHHOLDING OF RATE-MAKING POWER FOR
SERVICES OTHER THAN WATER CARRIAGE DOES NOT QUALIFY THE UNLIMITED GRANT
TO THE COMMISSION OF THE POWER TO STOP EFFECTIVELY ALL UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE PRACTICES IN RECEIVING, HANDLING, STORING OR DELIVERING
PROPERTY.  FINDING A WRONG WHICH IT IS DUTY-BOUND TO REMEDY, THE
MARITIME COMMISSION, AS THE EXPERT BODY ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS FOR
SAFEGUARDING THIS SPECIALIZED ASPECT OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST, MAY,
WITHIN THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF THE SHIPPING ACT, FASHION THE TOOLS FOR
SO DOING.  CF. UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD S.S. CO., 284
U.S. 474, 487; MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501,
513.  THE ONLY WAY TO CORRECT THE PREFERENTIAL AND UNREASONABLE RESULTS
OF NON-COMPENSATORY CHARGES WAS TO REQUIRE COMPENSATORY CHARGES.  ALL
THAT THE COMMISSION DID WAS TO TRANSLATE THAT REQUIREMENT FROM A
GENERALITY INTO DOLLARS AND CENTS.  THAT THE PHRASE "REGULATION OR
PRACTICE" EXTENDS TO SUCH DISCRIMINATION AS THAT WHICH RESULTED FROM
NON-COMPENSATORY DEMURRAGE CHARGES IS AMPLY DEMONSTRATED BY THE
APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT "PRACTICE" IN COMPARABLE SITUATIONS UNDER
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  ADAMS V. MILLS, 286 U.S. 397, 409;
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507, 524. 

WE HAVE DISPOSED OF THE ONLY SERIOUS QUESTION RAISED.  THE NUMEROUS
OTHER QUESTIONS CALL FOR ONLY SUMMARY TREATMENT. 

SINCE OAKLAND AND CALIFORNIA ARE NOT COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER THEY
ARE SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION ONLY IF THEY COME WITHIN
THE DESIGNATION "OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT" AS DEFINED IN SEC. 1
OF THE SHIPPING ACT.  C. 451, 39 STAT. 728, C. 152, 40 STAT. 900, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 801.  THE PHRASE COVERS "ANY PERSON NOT INCLUDED IN THE
TERM 'COMMON CARRIER BY WATER,' CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF FORWARDING
OR FURNISHING WHARFAGE, DOCK, WAREHOUSE, OR OTHER TERMINAL FACILITIES
IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER."  AND "PERSON" "INCLUDES
CORPORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND ASSOCIATIONS  ...  "  WE NEED NOT WASTE
TIME ON USELESS GENERALITIES ABOUT STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO
CONCLUDE THAT ENTITIES OTHER THAN TECHNICAL CORPORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS
AND ASSOCIATIONS ARE "INCLUDED" AMONG THE "PERSONS" TO WHOM THE
SHIPPING ACT APPLIES IF ITS PLAIN PURPOSES PRECLUDE THEIR EXCLUSION. 
THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATUTE, READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT GAVE RISE TO ITS ENACTMENT AND FOR WHICH IT WAS
DESIGNED, APPLIES ALSO TO PUBLIC OWNERS OF WHARVES AND PIERS. 
CALIFORNIA AND OAKLAND FURNISHED PRECISELY THE FACILITIES SUBJECT TO
REGULATION UNDER THE ACT, AND WITH SO LARGE A PORTION OF THE NATION'S
DOCK FACILITIES, AS CONGRESS KNEW (53 CONG. REC. 8276), OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITIES, IT WOULD HAVE DEFEATED THE VERY
PURPOSE FOR WHICH CONGRESS FRAMED THE SCHEME FOR REGULATING WATERFRONT
TERMINALS TO EXEMPT THOSE OPERATED BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.  WE NEED
NOT REST ON INFERENCE TO AVOID A CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD HAVE SUCH
DISLOCATING CONSEQUENCES.  THE MANAGER OF THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE
SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, SPEAKING ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, LEFT NO DOUBT
THAT THE LEGISLATION WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION NO LESS BY
PUBLIC THAN BY PRIVATE OWNERS.  53 CONG. REC. 8276.  AND WHATEVER MAY
BE THE LIMITATIONS IMPLIED BY THE PHRASE "IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON
CARRIER BY WATER" WHICH MODIFIES THE GRANT OF JURISDICTION OVER THOSE
FURNISHING "WHARFAGE, DOCK, WAREHOUSE, OR OTHER TERMINAL FACILITIES,"
THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT WHARF STORAGE FACILITIES PROVIDED AT
SHIPSIDE FOR CARGO WHICH HAS BEEN UNLOADED FROM WATER CARRIERS ARE
SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  FINALLY, IT IS TOO LATE IN
THE DAY TO QUESTION THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
REGULATE SUCH AN ESSENTIAL PART OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRADE AS THE
ACTIVITIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH WERE HERE AUTHORIZED TO BE
REGULATED BY THE COMMISSION, WHETHER THEY BE THE ACTIVITIES AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF PRIVATE PERSONS OR OF PUBLIC AGENCIES.  UNITED
STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 184-5. 

DUE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO OTHER OBJECTIONS, REFERRING TO
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE ADEQUACY OF
ITS FINDINGS, AND ITS COMPETENCE, BUT THEY REQUIRE NO DISCUSSION. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 16, SO FAR AS HERE RELEVANT, PROVIDES:  "THAT IT SHALL
BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, OR OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO
THIS ACT, EITHER ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OTHER PERSON,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY - FIRST.  TO MAKE OR GIVE ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON,
LOCALITY, OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER, OR TO
SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, LOCALITY, OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC TO
ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT
WHATSOEVER."  C. 451, 39 STAT. 734, C. 581, 49 STAT. 1518, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 815. 

THE PERTINENT PORTION OF SEC. 17 READS:  "EVERY SUCH CARRIER AND
EVERY OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT SHALL ESTABLISH, OBSERVE, AND
ENFORCE JUST AND REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES RELATING TO OR
CONNECTED WITH THE RECEIVING, HANDLING, STORING, OR DELIVERING OF
PROPERTY.  WHENEVER THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ANY SUCH REGULATION OR
PRACTICE IS UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE IT MAY DETERMINE, PRESCRIBE, AND
ORDER ENFORCED A JUST AND REASONABLE REGULATION OR PRACTICE."  C. 451,
39 STAT. 734, EX. ORD. NO. 6166, C. 858, 49 STAT. 1987, 2016, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 816. 

FN2  THE CITY OF OAKLAND ASKS THIS COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
MARITIME COMMISSION PROPERLY FOUND THAT SEC. 15 OF THE SHIPPING ACT
REQUIRED OAKLAND TO SUBMIT CERTAIN LEASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL.  C. 451, 39 STAT. 733, EX. ORD. NO. 6166, C.
858, 49 STAT. 1987, 2016, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 814.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
DOES NOT APPEAR TO REQUIRE SUCH FILING.  IF THIS BE AN INADVERTENT OR
CLERICAL OMISSION, SINCE OAKLAND'S OBJECTION IS FOUNDED ON ITS BASIC
CONTENTION THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SHIPPING ACT, WE NEED NOT
FURTHER CONSIDER THIS SUBSIDIARY QUESTION. 

FN3  BOOTH S.S. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 29 F.SUPP.  221, IS AN OBJECT
LESSON.  IN THAT CASE, THE ORDER OF THE MARITIME COMMISSION AS TO THE
CHARGES TO BE IMPOSED AFTER FREE TIME WAS IN GENERAL TERMS.  ATTEMPTED
COMPLIANCE WITH THAT ORDER LED TO CONFLICT, AND THE COMMISSION FOUND IT
NECESSARY TO UNDERTAKE NEW PROCEEDINGS AND TO ISSUE A NEW, MORE
DEFINITE ORDER. 

FN4  THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RATE PROVISIONS IN SECS. 17 AND 18. 
DEMAND, CHARGE, OR COLLECT ANY RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE WHICH IS UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATORY BETWEEN SHIPPERS OR PORTS, OR UNJUSTLY PREJUDICIAL TO
EXPORTERS OF THE UNITED STATES AS COMPARED WITH THEIR FOREIGN
COMPETITORS.  WHENEVER THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ANY SUCH RATE, FARE,
OR CHARGE IS DEMANDED, CHARGED, OR COLLECTED IT MAY ALTER THE SAME TO
THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO CORRECT SUCH UNJUST DISCRIMINATION OR PREJUDICE
AND MAKE AN ORDER THAT THE CARRIER SHALL DISCONTINUE DEMANDING,
CHARGING, OR COLLECTING ANY SUCH UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY OR PREJUDICIAL
RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE."  SECTION 18:  "THAT EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY
WATER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHALL ESTABLISH, OBSERVE, AND ENFORCE JUST
AND REASONABLE RATES, FARES, CHARGES, CLASSIFICATIONS, AND TARIFFS, AND
JUST AND REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES RELATING THERETO.  ...
WHENEVER THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ANY RATE, FARE, CHARGE,
CLASSIFICATION, TARIFF, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE, DEMANDED, CHARGED,
COLLECTED, OR OBSERVED BY SUCH CARRIER IS UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE, IT
MAY DETERMINE, PRESCRIBE, AND ORDER ENFORCED A JUST AND REASONABLE
MAXIMUM RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE, OR A JUST AND REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION,
TARIFF, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE."  C. 451, 39 STAT. 735, EX. ORD. NO.
6166, C. 858, 49 STAT. 1987, 2016, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 817. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I DISSENT.  I PASS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS RESPECTING THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE STATE'S ACTIVITIES UNDER
CONSIDERATION, THE SCOPE OF THE TERM "PERSON" AS USED IN THE SHIPPING
ACT, AND THE ALLEGED ABSENCE OF ANY GRANT OF POWER TO THE COMMISSION TO
FIX MINIMUM RATES FOR WATER CARRIERS OR OTHERS.  THIS FOR THE REASON
THAT, IN MY OPINION, CONGRESS HAS WITHHELD FROM THE COMMISSION
AUTHORITY TO FIX OR REGULATE THE RATES OR CHARGES OF THOSE FURNISHING
WHARFAGE FACILITIES. 

THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, IN ALL PARTS HERE RELEVANT, HAS REMAINED AS
IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED, THOUGH AMENDED IN OTHER RESPECTS BY LATER
LEGISLATION.  IN SEC. 1,  FN1  AFTER DEFINING CARRIERS BY WATER, WHICH
ARE THE PRIMARY SUBJECT OF ITS REGULATORY PROVISIONS, THE ACT ADDS: 

"THE TERM 'OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT' MEANS ANY PERSON NOT
INCLUDED IN THE TERM 'COMMON CARRIER BY WATER,' CARRYING ON THE
BUSINESS OF FORWARDING OR FURNISHING WHARFAGE, DOCK, WAREHOUSE, OR
OTHER TERMINAL FACILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON CARRIER BY
WATER." 


"THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, OR OTHER
PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, EITHER ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY
OTHER PERSON, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY - 

"FIRST.  TO MAKE OR GIVE ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR
ADVANTAGE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, LOCALITY, OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC
IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER, OR TO SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON,
LOCALITY, OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC TO ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER." 


"NO COMMON CARRIER BY WATER IN FOREIGN COMMERCE SHALL DEMAND, CHARGE,
OR COLLECT ANY RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE WHICH IS UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY
BETWEEN SHIPPERS OR PORTS, OR UNJUSTLY PREJUDICIAL TO EXPORTERS OF THE
UNITED STATES AS COMPARED WITH THEIR FOREIGN COMPETITIORS.  WHENEVER
THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT ANY SUCH RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE IS DEMANDED,
CHARGED, OR COLLECTED IT MAY ALTER THE SAME TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO
CORRECT SUCH UNJUST DISCRIMINATION OR PREJUDICE AND MAKE AN ORDER THAT
THE CARRIER SHALL DISCONTINUE DEMANDING, CHARGING, OR COLLECTING ANY
SUCH UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY OR PREJUDICIAL RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE. 

"EVERY SUCH CARRIER AND EVERY OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS ACT SHALL
ESTABLISH, OBSERVE, AND ENFORCE JUST AND REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND
PRACTICES RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE RECEIVING, HANDLING,
STORING, OR DELIVERING OF PROPERTY.  WHENEVER THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT
ANY SUCH REGULATION OR PRACTICE IS UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE IT MAY
DETERMINE, PRESCRIBE, AND ORDER ENFORCED A JUST AND REASONABLE
REGULATION OR PRACTICE." 


"EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHALL
ESTABLISH, OBSERVE, AND ENFORCE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES, FARES,
CHARGES, CLASSIFICATIONS, AND TARIFFS, AND JUST AND REASONABLE
REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES RELATING THERETO AND TO THE ISSUANCE, FORM,
AND SUBSTANCE OF TICKETS, RECEIPTS, AND BILLS OF LADING, THE MANNER AND
METHOD OF PRESENTING, MARKING, PACKING, AND DELIVERING PROPERTY FOR
TRANSPORTATION, THE CARRYING OF PERSONAL, SAMPLE, AND EXCESS BAGGAGE,
THE FACILITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION, AND ALL OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO OR
CONNECTED WITH THE RECEIVING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, STORING, OR
DELIVERING OF PROPERTY." 

THE COMMISSION CONCEDES, AS IT MUST, THAT WHEREAS THE ACT DEFINITELY
DEALS WITH THE RATES OF WATER CARRIERS, AND PLACES THOSE RATES UNDER
THE REGULATORY JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, IT CONTAINS NO SUCH
SPECIFIC MANDATE TO THE COMMISSION CONCERNING THE RATES OR CHARGES OF
WHARFINGERS.  IT MUST EQUALLY BE CONCEDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION UNDER REVIEW DOES ESTABLISH MINIMUM RATES AND CHARGES FOR
SERVICES RENDERED BY THOSE MAINTAINING AND OPERATING WHARVES USED BY
WATER CARRIERS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC AUTHORITY IN THIS BEHALF,
THE COMMISSION TURNED TO THAT PORTION OF SEC. 16 WHICH PROHIBITS NOT
ONLY WATER CARRIERS BUT OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE ACT FROM GRANTING
PREFERENCES OR PRACTICING DISCRIMINATION, AND THAT PORTION OF SEC. 17
WHICH COMPREHENDS BOTH WATER CARRIERS AND OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE
ACT AND ENJOINS JUST AND REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES
RESPECTING RECEIVING, HANDLING, STORAGE OR DELIVERY OF PROPERTY. 

THE OVERSIMPLIFIED ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THIS POSITION IS THAT A
RATE OR CHARGE IS, IN A BROAD SENSE, A REGULATION OR PRACTICE.  THE
DIFFICULTY WITH THE ARGUMENT IS THAT, IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
AND ELSEWHERE, CONGRESS HAS ALWAYS SHARPLY DISTINGUISHED, AS IT DID IN
THE PRESENT ACT, BETWEEN RATES AND CHARGES ON THE ONE HAND, AND
REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES ON THE OTHER.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
SHIPPING ACT INDICATES THAT CONGRESS WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT STATES AND
MUNICIPALITIES, IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE THE FLOW OF COMMERCE THROUGH
THEIR PORTS, HAD ESTABLISHED PUBLIC WHARVES AND THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
THAT, AS RESPECTS SUCH PUBLIC FACILITIES, PREFERENCES AND
DISCRIMINATIONS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO INDICATE THAT, IN THE TEETH OF THE PLAIN WORDS
OF THE STATUTE AS ENACTED, CONGRESS HAD IN MIND CONFERRING POWER TO
REGULATE THE RATES AND CHARGES FOR SUCH PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITIES; MUCH
LESS THAT IF A STATE OR ITS AGENCY DEEMED IT ADVISABLE AND IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST TO OPERATE SUCH FACILITIES AT LOW RATES, TO ENCOURAGE
THE FLOW OF COMMERCE THROUGH ITS PORTS, THE COMMISSION COULD PUT A
FLOOR UNDER ITS RATES AND COMPEL IT IN EFFECT TO AID COMPETING PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE. 

LITTLE NEED BE, OR CAN BE, ADDED TO THE CLEARLY EXPRESSED WORDS OF
THE STATUTE.  IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, AND I THINK THE COURT OUGHT NOT TO
PERMIT THE USE OF A PROHIBITION AGAINST PRACTICES TO BE AVAILED OF TO
WRITE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS INTO THE SECTION DEALING WITH RATES AND
CHARGES. 

THE ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER THIS PROCESS, ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION,
BY REFERENCE TO THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT SEEMS TO ME FUTILE.  THE
COMMISSION AND THE GOVERNMENT RELY PRINCIPALLY UPON BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507.  THAT CASE OBVIOUSLY NOT ONLY FAILS
TO SUPPORT THE ORDER BUT SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN AUTHORITY AGAINST IT.
THE CASE AROSE UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  IT DEALT WITH A
PRACTICE OF CARRIERS WHICH WAS TO MAINTAIN WAREHOUSES IN RESPECT OF
WHICH LOW COST STORAGE WAS AFFORDED TO PERSONS WHO WOULD SHIP OVER THE
CARRIER'S LINES.  IN ESSENCE THE PRACTICE OF WAREHOUSING AT SUCH LOW
RATES OPERATED AS A REBATE OR DISCRIMINATION IN THE CARRIER'S
TRANSPORTATION RATE FAVORING ANY SHIPPER WHO WOULD USE THE CARRIER'S
LINES AND DISFAVORING THOSE WHO WOULD NOT, OR COULD NOT, DO SO.  HERE
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH WATER CARRIERS' RATES, FARES OR CHARGES.  THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IS DIRECTED AT SERVICES RENDERED BY PRIVATELY AND
PUBLICLY OWNED WHARVES, APPLICABLE TO ALL SEEKING TO AVAIL THEMSELVES
OF THE SERVICES WHICH ARE PROFFERED TO ALL ALIKE.  IF ANY
DISCRIMINATION BY THE APPELLANTS AS BETWEEN SHIPPERS WERE POINTED OUT
IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT ORDER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF
SUCH DISCRIMINATION.  THAT IS NOT THIS CASE.  THE COMMISSION PURPORTS
TO ORDER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF A DISCRIMINATION BUT, IN REALITY, ORDERS
A RISE IN THE LEVEL OF RATES APPLICABLE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION TO ALL
THOSE WHO CAN AND DO USE THE PROFFERED SERVICES.  ITS ORDER IS A THINLY
VEILED ATTEMPT TO CLOAK A RATE ORDER UNDER THE GUISE OF A REGULATION. 
I THINK IT PLAIN THAT CONGRESS GRANTED NO SUCH POWER. 

I WOULD REVERSE THE JUDGMENT. 

FN1  46 U.S.C. 801. 

FN2  46 U.S.C. 815. 

FN3  46 U.S.C. 816. 

FN4  46 U.S.C. 817. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






















POWER COMM'N V. HOPE GAS CO., 320 U.S. 591 


ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 21, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  - 134 F.2D
287, REVERSED. 


1.  THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FIXING
RATES UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT IS TO BE DETERMINED ON JUDICIAL REVIEW
BY WHETHER THE IMPACT OR TOTAL EFFECT OF THE ORDER IS JUST AND
REASONABLE RATHER THAN BY THE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE RATE BASE.  P.
602. 

2.  ONE WHO SEEKS TO HAVE SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION FIXING RATES UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT HAS THE BURDEN OF
SHOWING CONVINCINGLY THAT IT IS UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE IN ITS
CONSEQUENCES.  P. 602. 

3.  AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION REDUCING RESPONDENT'S
RATES FOR SALES OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HELD VALID UNDER
THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  P. 603. 

THE RATE BASE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION WAS FOUND BY IT TO BE THE
"ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST" OF THE COMPANY'S INTERSTATE PROPERTY, LESS
DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION, PLUS ALLOWANCES FOR UNOPERATED ACREAGE,
WORKING CAPITAL, AND FUTURE NET CAPITAL ADDITIONS.  "REPRODUCTION COST
NEW" AND "TRENDED ORIGINAL COST" WERE GIVEN NO WEIGHT.  ACCRUED
DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION AND THE ANNUAL ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION AND
DEPRECIATION WERE DETERMINED BY APPLICATION OF THE "ECONOMIC-SERVICE
LIFE" METHOD TO "ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST." 

4.  CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL RETURN WHICH THE COMPANY
WOULD BE PERMITTED TO EARN ON ITS PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE SERVICE, AND
THE VARIOUS FACTORS WHICH THAT RETURN REFLECTS, THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO
SAY THAT THE RATES FIXED BY THE COMMISSION ARE NOT "JUST AND
REASONABLE" UNDER THE ACT.  P. 604. 

5.  RATES WHICH ENABLE A NATURAL GAS COMPANY TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY,
TO MAINTAIN ITS FINANCIAL INTEGRITY, TO ATTRACT CAPITAL, AND TO
COMPENSATE ITS INVESTORS FOR THE RISKS ASSUMED CAN NOT BE CONDEMNED AS
UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT, EVEN THOUGH THEY
MIGHT PRODUCE ONLY A MEAGER RETURN ON A RATE BASE COMPUTED ON THE
"PRESENT FAIR VALUE" METHOD.  P. 605. 

6.  THE RATIONALE OF THE DECISION RENDERS IT UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S EXCLUSION FROM THE RATE BASE OF WELL-DRILLING
AND OTHER COSTS, PREVIOUSLY CHARGED TO OPERATING EXPENSES, WAS
CONSISTENT WITH THE "PRUDENT INVESTMENT" THEORY AS DEVELOPED AND
APPLIED IN PARTICULAR CASES.  P. 605. 

7.  UNITED RAILWAYS CO. V. WEST, 280 U.S. 234, SO FAR AS IT REJECTS
COST AS THE BASIS OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES, IS DISAPPROVED.  P. 606. 

8.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN RESPECT OF RATES ARE NOT
MORE EXACTING THAN THE STANDARDS OF THE ACT; AND A RATE ORDER VALID
UNDER THE LATTER IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FORMER.  P. 607. 

9.  IN FIXING "JUST AND REASONABLE" RATES UNDER SECS. 4 AND 5 OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT, FOR NATURAL GAS SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY A
PRIVATE OPERATOR THROUGH AN ESTABLISHED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, THE
COMMISSION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE INDIRECT
BENEFITS - AFFECTING THE ECONOMY, CONSERVATION POLICIES, AND TAX
REVENUES - WHICH THE PRODUCING STATE MIGHT DERIVE FROM HIGHER
VALUATIONS AND RATES.  P. 609. 

10.  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT ALLOW FOR GAS
PRODUCTION A RETURN SUFFICIENT TO INDUCE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO PERFORM
COMPLETELY AND EFFICIENTLY ITS FUNCTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC IS
UNSUPPORTED.  P. 615. 

11.  THE COMMISSION IS NOT EMPOWERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 4 AND
5, WHICH AUTHORIZE IT TO FIX "JUST AND REASONABLE" RATES, TO FIX RATES
CALCULATED TO DISCOURAGE INTRASTATE RESALES FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.  P.
616. 

12.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RATES CHARGED BY THE COMPANY
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST DOMESTIC USERS AND IN FAVOR OF INDUSTRIAL USERS IS
NOT PRESENTED.  P. 617. 

13.  FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF PAST RATES,
HELD NOT REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 19(B) OF THE ACT.  P. 618. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL. V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. 

NO. 34.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 35, CITY OF CLEVELAND V. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO.,
ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 735, TO REVIEW A DECREE SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 44 P.U.R. (N.S.)  1, UNDER THE NATURAL
GAS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRIMARY ISSUE IN THESE CASES CONCERNS THE VALIDITY UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938(52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717) OF A RATE
ORDER ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION REDUCING THE RATES
CHARGEABLE BY HOPE NATURAL GAS CO., 44 P.U.R. (N.S.)  1.  ON A PETITION
FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO SEC. 19(B) OF THE ACT, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SET IT ASIDE, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  134 F.2D
287.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 

HOPE IS A WEST VIRGINIA CORPORATION ORGANIZED IN 1898.  IT IS A
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF STANDARD OIL CO. (N.J.).  SINCE THE DATE OF
ITS ORGANIZATION, IT HAS BEEN IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCING, PURCHASING
AND MARKETING NATURAL GAS IN THAT STATE.  FN1  IT SELLS SOME OF THAT
GAS TO LOCAL CONSUMERS IN WEST VIRGINIA.  BUT THE GREAT BULK OF IT GOES
TO FIVE CUSTOMER COMPANIES WHICH RECEIVE IT AT THE WEST VIRGINIA LINE
AND DISTRIBUTE IT IN OHIO AND IN PENNSYLVANIA.  FN2  IN JULY 1938 THE
CITIES OF CLEVELAND AND AKRON FILED COMPLAINTS WITH THE COMMISSION
CHARGING THAT THE RATES COLLECTED BY HOPE FROM EAST OHIO GAS CO. (AN
AFFILIATE OF HOPE WHICH DISTRIBUTES GAS IN OHIO) WERE EXCESSIVE AND
UNREASONABLE.  LATER IN 1938 THE COMMISSION ON ITS OWN MOTION
INSTITUTED AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF ALL OF
HOPE'S INTERSTATE RATES.  IN MARCH 1939 THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF PENNSYLVANIA FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE COMMISSION CHARGING THAT THE
RATES COLLECTED BY HOPE FROM PEOPLES NATURAL GAS.  CO. (AN AFFILIATE OF
HOPE DISTRIBUTING GAS IN PENNSYLVANIA) AND TWO NON-AFFILIATED COMPANIES
WERE UNREASONABLE.  THE CITY OF CLEVELAND ASKED THAT THE CHALLENGED
RATES BE DECLARED UNLAWFUL AND THAT JUST AND REASONABLE RATES BE
DETERMINED FROM JUNE 30, 1939 TO THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 
THE LATTER FINDING WAS REQUESTED IN AID OF STATE REGULATION AND TO
AFFORD THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO A PROPER BASIS FOR
DISPOSITION OF A FUND COLLECTED BY EAST OHIO UNDER BOND FROM OHIO
CONSUMERS SINCE JUNE 30, 1939.  THE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED AND
HEARINGS WERE HELD. 

ON MAY 26, 1942, THE COMMISSION ENTERED ITS ORDER AND MADE ITS
FINDINGS.  ITS ORDER REQUIRED HOPE TO DECREASE ITS FUTURE INTERSTATE
RATES SO AS TO REFLECT A REDUCTION, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, OF NOT LESS
THAN $3,609,857 IN OPERATING REVENUES.  AND IT ESTABLISHED "JUST AND
REASONABLE" AVERAGE RATES PER M.C.F. FOR EACH OF THE FIVE CUSTOMER
COMPANIES.  FN3  IN RESPONSE TO THE PRAYER OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND THE
COMMISSION ALSO MADE FINDINGS AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF PAST RATES,
ALTHOUGH CONCEDEDLY IT HAD NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT TO FIX PAST RATES
OR TO AWARD REPARATIONS.  44 P.U.R. (N.S.)  P. 34.  IT FOUND THAT THE
RATES COLLECTED BY HOPE FROM EAST OHIO WERE UNJUST, UNREASONABLE,
EXCESSIVE AND THEREFORE UNLAWFUL, BY $830,892 DURING 1939, $3,219,551
DURING 1940, AND $2,815,789 ON AN ANNUAL BASIS SINCE 1940.  IT FURTHER
FOUND THAT JUST, REASONABLE, AND LAWFUL RATES FOR GAS SOLD BY HOPE TO
EAST OHIO FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION WERE THOSE
REQUIRED TO PRODUCE $11,528,608 FOR 1939, $11,507,185 FOR 1940 AND
$11,910,947 ANNUALLY SINCE 1940. 

THE COMMISSION ESTABLISHED AN INTERSTATE RATE BASE OF $33,712,526
WHICH, IT FOUND, REPRESENTED THE "ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST" OF THE
COMPANY'S INTERSTATE PROPERTY LESS DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION AND PLUS
UNOPERATED ACREAGE, WORKING CAPITAL AND FUTURE NET CAPITAL ADDITIONS. 
THE COMMISSION, BEGINNING WITH BOOK COST, MADE CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS NOT
NECESSARY TO RELATE HERE AND FOUND THE "ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST" OF THE
PLANT IN INTERSTATE SERVICE TO BE $51,957,416, AS OF DECEMBER 31,
1940.  IT DEDUCTED ACCRUED DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION, WHICH IT FOUND
TO BE $22,328,016 ON AN "ECONOMIC-SERVICE-LIFE" BASIS.  AND IT ADDED
$1,392,021 FOR FUTURE NET CAPITAL ADDITIONS, $566,105 FOR USEFUL
UNOPERATED ACREAGE, AND $2,125,000 FOR WORKING CAPITAL.  IT USED 1940
AS A TEST YEAR TO ESTIMATE FUTURE REVENUES AND EXPENSES.  IT ALLOWED
OVER $16,000,000 AS ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES - ABOUT $1,300,000 FOR
TAXES, $1,460,000 FOR DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION, $600,000 FOR
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS, $8,500,000 FOR GAS PURCHASED.  THE
COMMISSION ALLOWED A NET INCREASE OF $421,160 OVER 1940 OPERATING
EXPENSES, WHICH AMOUNT WAS TO TAKE CARE OF FUTURE INCREASE IN WAGES, IN
WEST VIRGINIA PROPERTY TAXES, AND IN EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
COSTS.  THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED FROM INTERSTATE REVENUES
WAS $13,495,584. 

HOPE INTRODUCED EVIDENCE FROM WHICH IT ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST OF
THE PROPERTY AT $97,000,000.  IT ALSO PRESENTED A SO-CALLED TRENDED
"ORIGINAL COST" ESTIMATE WHICH EXCEEDED $105,000,000.  THE LATTER WAS
DESIGNED "TO INDICATE WHAT THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE
BEEN IF 1938 MATERIAL AND LABOR PRICES HAD PREVAILED THROUGHOUT THE
WHOLE PERIOD OF THE PIECEMEAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY
SINCE 1898."  44 P.U.R. (N.S.), PP. 8-9.  HOPE ESTIMATED BY THE "PER
CENT CONDITION" METHOD ACCRUED DEPRECIATION AT ABOUT 35% OF
REPRODUCTION COST NEW.  ON THAT BASIS HOPE CONTENDED FOR A RATE BASE OF
$66,000,000.  THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO PLACE ANY RELIANCE ON
REPRODUCTION COST NEW, SAYING THAT IT WAS "NOT PREDICATED UPON FACTS"
AND WAS "TOO CONJECTURAL AND ILLUSORY TO BE GIVEN ANY WEIGHT IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS."  ID., P. 8.  IT LIKEWISE REFUSED TO GIVE ANY "PROBATIVE
VALUE" TO TRENDED "ORIGINAL COST" SINCE IT WAS "NOT FOUNDED IN FACT"
BUT WAS "BASICALLY ERRONEOUS" AND PRODUCED "IRRATIONAL RESULTS."  ID.,
P. 9.  IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF ACCRUED DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION
THE COMMISSION, FOLLOWING LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS BELL TEL. CO., 292
U.S. 151, 167-169; FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
CO., 315 U.S. 575, 592-593, BASED ITS COMPUTATION ON "ACTUAL LEGITIMATE
COST."  IT FOUND THAT HOPE DURING THE YEARS WHEN ITS BUSINESS WAS NOT
UNDER REGULATION DID NOT OBSERVE "SOUND DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION
PRACTICES" BUT "ACTUALLY ACCUMULATED AN EXCESSIVE RESERVE"  FN4  OF
ABOUT $46,000,000.  ID., P. 18.  ONE MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION THOUGHT
THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE RESERVE SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM "ACTUAL
LEGITIMATE COST" IN DETERMINING THE RATE BASE.  FN5  THE MAJORITY OF
THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE, AS HERE, A BUSINESS IS
BROUGHT UNDER REGULATION FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WHERE INCORRECT
DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION PRACTICES HAVE PREVAILED, THE DEDUCTION OF
THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT (ACTUAL EXISTING DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION)
RATHER THAN THE EXCESSIVE RESERVE SHOULD BE MADE SO AS TO LAY "A SOUND
BASIS FOR FUTURE REGULATION AND CONTROL OF RATES."  ID., P. 18.  AS WE
HAVE POINTED OUT, IT DETERMINED ACCRUED DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION TO
BE $22,328,016; AND IT ALLOWED APPROXIMATELY $1,460,000 AS THE ANNUAL
OPERATING EXPENSE FOR DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION.  FN6 

HOPE'S ESTIMATE OF ORIGINAL COST WAS ABOUT $69,735,000 -
APPROXIMATELY $17,000,000 MORE THAN THE AMOUNT FOUND BY THE
COMMISSION.  THE ITEM OF $17,000,000 WAS MADE UP LARGELY OF
EXPENDITURES WHICH PRIOR TO DECEMBER 31, 1938, WERE CHARGED TO
OPERATING EXPENSES.  CHIEF AMONG THOSE EXPENDITURES WAS SOME
$12,600,000 EXPENDED IN WELL-DRILLING PRIOR TO 1923.  MOST OF THAT SUM
WAS EXPENDED BY HOPE FOR LABOR, USE OF DRILLING-RIGS, HAULING, AND
SIMILAR COSTS OF WELL-DRILLING.  PRIOR TO 1923 HOPE FOLLOWED THE
GENERAL PRACTICE OF THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY AND CHARGED THE COST OF
DRILLING WELLS TO OPERATING EXPENSES.  HOPE CONTINUED THAT PRACTICE
UNTIL THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA IN 1923 REQUIRED
IT TO CAPITALIZE SUCH EXPENDITURES, AS DOES THE COMMISSION UNDER ITS
PRESENT UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS.  FN7  THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO ADD
SUCH ITEMS TO THE RATE BASE STATING THAT "NO GREATER INJUSTICE TO
CONSUMERS COULD BE DONE THAN TO ALLOW ITEMS AS OPERATING EXPENSES AND
AT A LATER DATE INCLUDE THEM IN THE RATE BASE, THEREBY PLACING MULTIPLE
CHARGES UPON THE CONSUMERS."  ID., P. 12.  FOR THE SAME REASON THE
COMMISSION EXCLUDED FROM THE RATE BASE ABOUT $1,600,000 OF EXPENDITURES
ON PROPERTIES WHICH HOPE ACQUIRED FROM OTHER UTILITIES, THE LATTER
HAVING CHARGED THOSE PAYMENTS TO OPERATING EXPENSES.  THE COMMISSION
DISALLOWED CERTAIN OTHER OVERHEAD ITEMS AMOUNTING TO OVER $3,000,000
WHICH ALSO HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY CHARGED TO OPERATING EXPENSES.  AND IT
REFUSED TO ADD SOME $632,000 AS INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION SINCE NO
INTEREST WAS IN FACT PAID. 

HOPE CONTENDED THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED A RETURN OF NOT LESS THAN
8%.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT AN 8% RETURN WOULD BE UNREASONABLE BUT
THAT 6 1/2% WAS A FAIR RATE OF RETURN.  THAT RATE OF RETURN, APPLIED TO
THE RATE BASE OF $33,712,526, WOULD PRODUCE $2,191,314 ANNUALLY, AS
COMPARED WITH THE PRESENT INCOME OF NOT LESS THAN $5,801,171. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.  (1) IT HELD THAT THE RATE BASE SHOULD
REFLECT THE "PRESENT FAIR VALUE" OF THE PROPERTY, THAT THE COMMISSION
IN DETERMINING THE "VALUE" SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED REPRODUCTION COST AND
TRENDED ORIGINAL COST, AND THAT "ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST" (PRUDENT
INVESTMENT) WAS NOT THE PROPER MEASURE OF "FAIR VALUE" WHERE PRICE
LEVELS HAD CHANGED SINCE THE INVESTMENT.  (2) IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
WELL-DRILLING COSTS AND OVERHEAD ITEMS IN THE AMOUNT OF SOME
$17,000,000 SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE.  (3) IT HELD
THAT ACCRUED DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION AND THE ANNUAL ALLOWANCE FOR
THAT EXPENSE SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF "PRESENT FAIR VALUE" OF
THE PROPERTY, NOT ON THE BASIS OF "ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST." 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ALSO HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO
POWER TO MAKE FINDINGS AS TO PAST RATES IN AID OF STATE REGULATION. 
BUT IT CONCLUDED THAT THOSE FINDINGS WERE PROPER AS A STEP IN THE
PROCESS OF FIXING FUTURE RATES.  VIEWED IN THAT LIGHT, HOWEVER, THE
FINDINGS WERE DEEMED TO BE INVALIDATED BY THE SAME ERRORS WHICH
VITIATED THE FINDINGS ON WHICH THE RATE ORDER WAS BASED. 

ORDER REDUCING RATES.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN SEC. 4(A) OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT THAT ALL NATURAL GAS RATES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMISSION "SHALL BE JUST AND REASONABLE, AND ANY SUCH RATE OR
CHARGE THAT IS NOT JUST AND REASONABLE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
UNLAWFUL."  SEC. 5(A) GIVES THE COMMISSION THE POWER, AFTER HEARING, TO
DETERMINE THE "JUST AND REASONABLE RATE" TO BE THEREAFTER OBSERVED AND
TO FIX THE RATE BY ORDER.  SEC. 5(A) ALSO EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO
ORDER A "DECREASE WHERE EXISTING RATES ARE UNJUST,  ...  UNLAWFUL, OR
ARE NOT THE LOWEST REASONABLE RATES."  AND CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN
SEC. 19(B) THAT ON REVIEW OF THESE RATE ORDERS THE "FINDING OF THE
COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL
BE CONCLUSIVE."  CONGRESS, HOWEVER, HAS PROVIDED NO FORMULA BY WHICH
THE "JUST AND REASONABLE" RATE IS TO BE DETERMINED.  IT HAS NOT FILLED
IN THE DETAILS OF THE GENERAL PRESCRIPTION  FN8  OF SEC. 4(A) AND SEC.
5(A).  IT HAS NOT EXPRESSED IN A SPECIFIC RULE THE FIXED PRINCIPLE OF
"JUST AND REASONABLE." 

WHEN WE SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT IN THE
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. CASE, WE STATED THAT THE "AUTHORITY OF
CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE PRICES OF COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS AT LEAST AS GREAT UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AS IS THAT OF THE STATES
UNDER THE FOURTEENTH TO REGULATE THE PRICES OF COMMODITIES IN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE."  315 U.S. P. 582.  RATE-MAKING IS INDEED BUT ONE
SPECIES OF PRICE-FIXING.  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113, 134.  THE
FIXING OF PRICES, LIKE OTHER APPLICATIONS OF THE POLICE POWER, MAY
REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS BEING REGULATED.  BUT THE
FACT THAT THE VALUE IS REDUCED DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE REGULATION IS
INVALID.  BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135, 155-157; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK,
291 U.S. 502, 523-539 AND CASES CITED.  IT DOES, HOWEVER, INDICATE THAT
"FAIR VALUE" IS THE END PRODUCT OF THE PROCESS OF RATE-MAKING NOT THE
STARTING POINT AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD.  THE HEART OF THE
MATTER IS THAT RATES CANNOT BE MADE TO DEPEND UPON "FAIR VALUE" WHEN
THE VALUE OF THE GOING ENTERPRISE DEPENDS ON EARNINGS UNDER WHATEVER
RATES MAY BE ANTICIPATED.  FN9 

WE HELD IN FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO.,
SUPRA, THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT BOUND TO THE USE OF ANY SINGLE
FORMULA OR COMBINATION OF FORMULAE IN DETERMINING RATES.  ITS RATE
MAKING FUNCTION, MOREOVER, INVOLVES THE MAKING OF "PRAGMATIC
ADJUSTMENTS."  ID., P. 586.  AND WHEN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS
CHALLENGED IN THE COURTS, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT ORDER "VIEWED IN
ITS ENTIRETY" MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  ID., P. 586.  UNDER
THE STATUTORY STANDARD OF "JUST AND REASONABLE" IT IS THE RESULT
REACHED NOT THE METHOD EMPLOYED WHICH IS CONTROLLING.  CF. LOS ANGELES
GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 287, 304-305,
314; WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (NO. 1), 294 U.S.
63, 70; WEST V. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TEL. CO., 295 U.S. 662, 692
693(DISSENTING OPINION).  IT IS NOT THEORY BUT THE IMPACT OF THE RATE
ORDER WHICH COUNTS.  IF THE TOTAL EFFECT OF THE RATE ORDER CANNOT BE
SAID TO BE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE, JUDICIAL INQUIRY UNDER THE ACT IS
AT AN END.  THE FACT THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED TO REACH THAT RESULT MAY
CONTAIN INFIRMITIES IS NOT THEN IMPORTANT.  MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER DOES NOT BECOME SUSPECT BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT IT IS
CHALLENGED.  IT IS THE PRODUCT OF EXPERT JUDGMENT WHICH CARRIES A
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY.  AND HE WHO WOULD UPSET THE RATE ORDER UNDER
THE ACT CARRIES THE HEAVY BURDEN OF MAKING A CONVINCING SHOWING THAT IT
IS INVALID BECAUSE IT IS UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE IN ITS CONSEQUENCES. 
CF. RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CUMBERLAND TEL. & T. CO., 212 U.S. 414;
LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS BELL TEL. CO., SUPRA, PP. 164, 169; RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 302 U.S. 388, 401. 

THE RATE-MAKING PROCESS UNDER THE ACT, I.E., THE FIXING OF "JUST AND
REASONABLE" RATES, INVOLVES A BALANCING OF THE INVESTOR AND THE
CONSUMER INTERESTS.  THUS WE STATED IN THE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO.
CASE THAT "REGULATION DOES NOT INSURE THAT THE BUSINESS SHALL PRODUCE
NET REVENUES."  315 U.S. P. 590.  BUT SUCH CONSIDERATIONS ASIDE, THE
INVESTOR INTEREST HAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN WITH THE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY
OF THE COMPANY WHOSE RATES ARE BEING REGULATED.  FROM THE INVESTOR OR
COMPANY POINT OF VIEW IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE ENOUGH REVENUE NOT
ONLY FOR OPERATING EXPENSES BUT ALSO FOR THE CAPITAL COSTS OF THE
BUSINESS.  THESE INCLUDE SERVICE ON THE DEBT AND DIVIDENDS ON THE
STOCK.  CF. CHICAGO & GRAND TRUNK RY. CO. V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339, 345
346.  BY THAT STANDARD THE RETURN TO THE EQUITY OWNER SHOULD BE
COMMENSURATE WITH RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS IN OTHER ENTERPRISES HAVING
CORRESPONDING RISKS.  THAT RETURN, MOREOVER, SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO
ASSURE CONFIDENCE IN THE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF THE ENTERPRISE, SO AS
TO MAINTAIN ITS CREDIT AND TO ATTRACT CAPITAL.  SEE MISSOURI EX REL.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 262 U.S. 276,
291(MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS CONCURRING).  THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH MORE
OR LESS MIGHT BE ALLOWED ARE NOT IMPORTANT HERE.  NOR IS IT IMPORTANT
TO THIS CASE TO DETERMINE THE VARIOUS PERMISSIBLE WAYS IN WHICH ANY
RATE BASE ON WHICH THE RETURN IS COMPUTED MIGHT BE ARRIVED AT.  FOR WE
ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE END RESULT IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE CONDEMNED
UNDER THE ACT AS UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE FROM THE INVESTOR OR COMPANY
VIEWPOINT. 

WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT HOPE IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE
STANDARD OIL CO. (N.J.).  IT HAS NO SECURITIES OUTSTANDING EXCEPT
STOCK.  ALL OF THAT STOCK HAS BEEN OWNED BY STANDARD SINCE 1908.  THE
PAR AMOUNT PRESENTLY OUTSTANDING IS APPROXIMATELY $28,000,000 AS
COMPARED WITH THE RATE BASE OF $33,712,526 ESTABLISHED BY THE
COMMISSION.  OF THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING STOCK $11,000,000 WAS ISSUED IN
STOCK DIVIDENDS.  THE BALANCE, OR ABOUT $17,000,000, WAS ISSUED FOR
CASH OR OTHER ASSETS.  DURING THE FOUR DECADES OF ITS OPERATIONS HOPE
HAS PAID OVER $97,000,000 IN CASH DIVIDENDS.  IT HAD, MOREOVER,
ACCUMULATED BY 1940 AN EARNED SURPLUS OF ABOUT $8,000,000.  IT HAD THUS
EARNED THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE COMPANY NEARLY SEVEN TIMES.  DOWN TO
1940 IT EARNED OVER 20% PER YEAR ON THE AVERAGE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF ITS
CAPITAL STOCK ISSUED FOR CASH OR OTHER ASSETS.  ON AN AVERAGE INVESTED
CAPITAL OF SOME $23,000,000 HOPE'S AVERAGE EARNINGS HAVE BEEN ABOUT 12%
A YEAR.  AND DURING THIS PERIOD IT HAD ACCUMULATED IN ADDITION RESERVES
FOR DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION OF ABOUT $46,000,000.  FURTHERMORE,
DURING 1939, 1940 AND 1941, HOPE PAID DIVIDENDS OF 10% ON ITS STOCK. 
AND IN THE YEAR 1942, DURING ABOUT HALF OF WHICH THE LOWER RATES WERE
IN EFFECT, IT PAID DIVIDENDS OF 7 1/2%.  FROM 1939-1942 ITS EARNED
SURPLUS INCREASED FROM $5,250,000 TO ABOUT $13,700,000, I.E., TO ALMOST
HALF THE PAR VALUE OF ITS OUTSTANDING STOCK. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE COMMISSION FIXED A RATE OF RETURN WHICH PERMITS
HOPE TO EARN $2,191,314 ANNUALLY.  IN DETERMINING THAT AMOUNT IT
STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF THE
COMPANY.  IT CONSIDERED THE FINANCIAL HISTORY OF HOPE AND A VAST ARRAY
OF DATA BEARING ON THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY, RELATED BUSINESSES, AND
GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.  IT NOTED THAT THE YIELDS ON BETTER ISSUES
OF BONDS OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES SOLD IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WERE
"CLOSE TO 3 PER CENT," 44 P.U.R. (N.S.), P. 33.  IT STATED THAT THE
COMPANY WAS A "SEASONED ENTERPRISE WHOSE RISKS HAVE BEEN MINIMIZED" BY
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION (PAST AND PRESENT)
WITH "CONCURRENT HIGH PROFITS," BY "PROTECTED ESTABLISHED MARKETS,
THROUGH AFFILIATED DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, IN POPULOUS AND
INDUSTRIALIZED AREAS," AND BY A SUPPLY OF GAS LOCALLY TO MEET ALL
REQUIREMENTS, "EXCEPT ON CERTAIN PEAK DAYS IN THE WINTER, WHICH IT IS
FEASIBLE TO SUPPLEMENT IN THE FUTURE WITH GAS FROM OTHER SOURCES." 
ID., P. 33.  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED, "THE COMPANY'S EFFICIENT
MANAGEMENT, ESTABLISHED MARKETS, FINANCIAL RECORD, AFFILIATIONS, AND
ITS PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS PLACE IT IN A STRONG POSITION TO ATTRACT
CAPITAL UPON FAVORABLE TERMS WHEN IT IS REQUIRED."  ID., P. 33. 

IN VIEW OF THESE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS WE CANNOT SAY THAT AN ANNUAL
RETURN OF $2,191,314 IS NOT "JUST AND REASONABLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT.  RATES WHICH ENABLE THE COMPANY TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY, TO
MAINTAIN ITS FINANCIAL INTEGRITY, TO ATTRACT CAPITAL, AND TO COMPENSATE
ITS INVESTORS FOR THE RISKS ASSUMED CERTAINLY CANNOT BE CONDEMNED AS
INVALID, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT PRODUCE ONLY A MEAGER RETURN ON THE SO
CALLED "FAIR VALUE" RATE BASE.  IN THAT CONNECTION IT WILL BE RECALLED
THAT HOPE CONTENDED FOR A RATE BASE OF $66,000,000 COMPUTED ON
REPRODUCTION COST NEW.  THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT IF THAT RATE
BASE WERE ACCEPTED, HOPE'S AVERAGE RATE OF RETURN FOR THE FOUR-YEAR
PERIOD FROM 1937-1940 WOULD AMOUNT TO 3.27%.  DURING THAT PERIOD HOPE
EARNED AN ANNUAL AVERAGE RETURN OF ABOUT 9% ON THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT. 
IT ASKED FOR NO RATE INCREASES.  ITS PROPERTIES WERE WELL MAINTAINED
AND OPERATED.  AS THE COMMISSION SAYS, SUCH A MODEST RATE OF 3.27%
SUGGESTS AN "INFLATION OF THE BASE ON WHICH THE RATE HAS BEEN
COMPUTED."  DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
292 U.S. 290, 312.  CF. LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS BELL TEL. CO., SUPRA, P.
164.  THE INCONGRUITY BETWEEN THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS AND THE RETURN
COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF REPRODUCTION COST SUGGESTS THAT THE COMMISSION
WAS WHOLLY JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE LATTER AS THE MEASURE OF THE RATE
BASE. 

IN VIEW OF THIS DISPOSITION OF THE CONTROVERSY WE NEED NOT STOP TO
INQUIRE WHETHER THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO ADD THE $17,000,000 OF
WELL-DRILLING AND OTHER COSTS TO THE RATE BASE WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE
PRUDENT INVESTMENT THEORY AS DEVELOPED AND APPLIED IN PARTICULAR
CASES. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE ADDED RESPECTING DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION.  WE
HELD IN THE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. CASE THAT THERE WAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT "THAT THE OWNER WHO EMBARKS IN A WASTING
ASSET BUSINESS OF LIMITED LIFE SHALL RECEIVE AT THE END MORE THAN HE
HAS PUT INTO IT."  315 U.S. P. 593.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID
NOT THINK THAT THAT RULE WAS APPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE HOPE WAS A UTILITY
REQUIRED TO CONTINUE ITS SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND NOT SCHEDULED TO END
ITS BUSINESS ON A DAY CERTAIN AS WAS STIPULATED TO BE TRUE OF THE
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. BUT THAT DISTINCTION IS QUITE IMMATERIAL.  THE
ULTIMATE EXHAUSTION OF THE SUPPLY IS INEVITABLE IN THE CASE OF ALL
NATURAL GAS COMPANIES.  MOREOVER, THIS COURT RECOGNIZED IN LINDHEIMER
V. ILLINOIS BELL TEL. CO., SUPRA, THE PROPRIETY OF BASING ANHUAL
DEPRECIATION ON COST.  FN10  BY SUCH A PROCEDURE THE UTILITY IS MADE
WHOLE AND THE INTEGRITY OF ITS INVESTMENT MAINTAINED.  FN11  NO MORE IS
REQUIRED.  FN12  WE CANNOT APPROVE THE CONTRARY HOLDING OF UNITED
RAILWAYS CO. V. WEST, 280 U.S. 234, 253-254.  SINCE THERE ARE NO
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS MORE EXACTING THAN THE STANDARDS OF THE
ACT, A RATE ORDER WHICH CONFORMS TO THE LATTER DOES NOT RUN AFOUL OF
THE FORMER. 

THE POSITION OF WEST VIRGINIA.  THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, AS WELL
AS ITS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, INTERVENED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE COMMISSION AND PARTICIPATED IN THE HEARINGS BEFORE IT.  THEY HAVE
ALSO FILED A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE HERE AND HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE
ARGUMENT AT THE BAR.  THEIR CONTENTION IS THAT THE RESULT ACHIEVED BY
THE RATE ORDER "BRINGS CONSEQUENCES WHICH ARE UNJUST TO WEST VIRGINIA
AND ITS CITIZENS" AND WHICH "UNFAIRLY DEPRESS THE VALUE OF GAS, GAS
LANDS AND GAS LEASEHOLDS, UNDULY RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR NATURAL
RESOURCES, AND ARBITRARILY TRANSFER THEIR PROPERTIES TO THE RESIDENTS
OF OTHER STATES WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION THEREFOR." 

WEST VIRGINIA POINTS OUT THAT THE HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. HOLDS A LARGE
NUMBER OF LEASES ON BOTH PRODUCING AND UNOPERATED PROPERTIES.  THE
OWNER OR GRANTOR RECEIVES FROM THE OPERATOR OR GRANTEE DELAY RENTALS AS
COMPENSATION FOR POSTPONED DRILLING.  WHEN A PRODUCING WELL IS
SUCCESSFULLY BROUGHT IN, THE GAS LEASE CUSTOMARILY CONTINUES
INDEFINITELY FOR THE LIFE OF THE FIELD.  IN THAT CASE THE OPERATOR PAYS
A STIPULATED GAS-WELL RENTAL OR IN SOME CASES A GAS ROYALTY EQUIVALENT
TO ONE-EIGHTH OF THE GAS MARKETED.  FN13  BOTH THE OWNER AND OPERATOR
HAVE VALUABLE PROPERTY INTERESTS IN THE GAS WHICH ARE SEPARATELY
TAXABLE UNDER WEST VIRGINIA LAW.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE
REVERSIONARY INTERESTS IN THE LEASEHOLDS SHOULD BE REPRESENTED IN THE
RATE PROCEEDINGS SINCE IT IS THEIR GAS WHICH IS BEING SOLD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS ARGUED, MOREOVER, THAT THE OWNERS OF THE
REVERSIONARY INTERESTS SHOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE "DISCOVERY VALUE"
OF THE GAS LEASEHOLDS, NOT THE INTERSTATE CONSUMERS.  FURTHERMORE, WEST
VIRGINIA CONTENDS THAT THE COMMISSION IN FIXING A RATE FOR NATURAL GAS
PRODUCED IN THAT STATE SHOULD CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE RATE ORDER ON
THE ECONOMY OF WEST VIRGINIA.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT GAS IS A WASTING
ASSET WITH A RAPIDLY DIMINISHING SUPPLY.  AS A RESULT WEST VIRGINIA'S
GAS DEPOSITS ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY VALUABLE.  NEVERTHELESS THE RATE
FIXED BY THE COMMISSION REDUCES THAT VALUE.  AND THAT REDUCTION, IT IS
SAID, HAS SEVERE REPERCUSSIONS ON THE ECONOMY OF THE STATE.  IT IS
ARGUED IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS RATE REDUCTION
HOPE'S WEST VIRGINIA PROPERTY TAXES MAY BE DECREASED IN VIEW OF THE
RELEVANCE WHICH EARNINGS HAVE UNDER WEST VIRGINIA LAW IN THE ASSESSMENT
OF PROPERTY FOR TAX PURPOSES.  FN14  SECONDLY, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT
WEST VIRGINIA HAS A PRODUCTION TAX  FN15 ON THE "VALUE" OF THE GAS
EXPORTED FROM THE STATE.  AND WE ARE TOLD THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THAT TAX
"VALUE" BECOMES UNDER WEST VIRGINIA LAW "PRACTICALLY THE SUBSTANTIAL
EQUIVALENT OF MARKET VALUE."  THUS WEST VIRGINIA ARGUES THAT
UNDERVALUATION OF HOPE'S GAS LEASEHOLDS WILL COST THE STATE MANY
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES.  THE EFFECT, IT IS URGED, IS TO IMPAIR
WEST VIRGINIA'S TAX STRUCTURE FOR THE BENEFIT OF OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA
CONSUMERS.  WEST VIRGINIA EMPHASIZES, MOREOVER, ITS DEEP INTEREST IN
THE CONSERVATION OF ITS NATURAL RESOURCES INCLUDING ITS NATURAL GAS. 
IT SAYS THAT A REDUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THESE LEASEHOLD VALUES WILL
JEOPARDIZE THESE CONSERVATION POLICIES IN THREE RESPECTS:  (1)
EXPLORATORY DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FIELDS WILL BE DISCOURAGED; (2)
ABANDONMENT OF LOW-YIELD HIGH-COST MARGINAL WELLS WILL BE HASTENED; AND
(3) SECONDARY RECOVERY OF OIL WILL BE HAMPERED.  FURTHERMORE, WEST
VIRGINIA CONTENDS THAT THE REDUCED VALUATION WILL HARM ONE OF THE GREAT
INDUSTRIES OF THE STATE AND THAT HARM TO THAT INDUSTRY MUST INEVITABLY
AFFECT THE WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE.  IT IS ALSO POINTED
OUT THAT WEST VIRGINIA HAS A LARGE INTEREST IN COAL AND OIL AS WELL AS
IN GAS AND THAT THESE FORMS OF FUEL ARE COMPETITIVE.  WHEN THE PRICE OF
GAS IS MATERIALLY CHEAPENED, CONSUMERS TURN TO THAT FUEL IN PREFERENCE
TO THE OTHERS.  AS A RESULT THIS LOWERING OF THE PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEPRECIATING THE PRICE OF WEST VIRGINIA COAL
AND OIL. 

WEST VIRGINIA INSISTS THAT IN NEGLECTING THIS ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM
THE COMMISSION FAILED TO PERFORM THE FUNCTION WHICH CONGRESS ENTRUSTED
TO IT AND THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION FOR A
MODIFICATION OF ITS ORDER.  FN16 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THESE CONTENTIONS AT LENGTH IN VIEW OF THE
EARNESTNESS WITH WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN URGED UPON US.  WE HAVE SEARCHED
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT FOR ANY INDICATION THAT
CONGRESS ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION THE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
WEST VIRGINIA HAS ADVANCED HERE.  AND OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT CONGRESS
DID NOT. 

WE POINTED OUT IN ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314
U.S. 498, 506, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS TO PROVIDE,
"THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE NATIONAL POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
AN AGENCY FOR REGULATING THE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANIES OF NATURAL GAS MOVING INTERSTATE, WHICH THIS COURT HAD
DECLARED TO BE INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TYPES OF
STATE REGULATION."  AS STATED IN THE HOUSE REPORT THE "BASIC PURPOSE"
OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS "TO OCCUPY" THE FIELD IN WHICH SUCH CASES AS
MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELECTRIC CO., 273 U.S. 83, HAD HELD THE
STATES MIGHT NOT ACT.  H. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 
IN ACCOMPLISHING THAT PURPOSE THE BILL WAS DESIGNED TO TAKE "NO
AUTHORITY FROM STATE COMMISSIONS" AND WAS "SO DRAWN AS TO COMPLEMENT
AND IN NO MANNER USURP STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY."  ID., P. 2.  AND
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WAS GIVEN NO AUTHORITY OVER THE
"PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS."  SEC. 1(B).    THE PRIMARY
AIM OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AGAINST EXPLOITATION
AT THE HANDS OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES.  DUE TO THE HIATUS IN REGULATION
WHICH RESULTED FROM THE KANSAS GAS CO. CASE AND RELATED DECISIONS STATE
COMMISSIONS FOUND IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCOVER WHAT IT COST
INTERSTATE PIPE-LINE COMPANIES TO DELIVER GAS WITHIN THE CONSUMING
STATES; AND THUS THEY WERE THWARTED IN LOCAL REGULATION.  H. REP. NO.
709, SUPRA, P. 3.  MOREOVER, THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION HAD DISCLOSED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PIPELINE MILEAGE IN
THE COUNTRY USED TO TRANSPORT NATURAL GAS, TOGETHER WITH AN INCREASING
PERCENTAGE OF THE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY FOR PIPE-LINE TRANSPORTATION, HAD
BEEN ACQUIRED BY A HANDFUL OF HOLDING COMPANIES.  FN17 STATE
COMMISSIONS, INDEPENDENT PRODUCERS, AND COMMUNITIES HAVING OR SEEKING
THE SERVICE WERE GROWING QUITE HELPLESS AGAINST THESE COMBINATIONS. 
FN18  THESE WERE THE TYPES OF PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THOSE PARTICIPATING
IN THE HEARINGS WERE PREOCCUPIED N19.  CONGRESS ADDRESSED ITSELF TO
THOSE SPECIFIC EVILS. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WAS GIVEN BROAD POWERS OF REGULATION. 
THE FIXING OF "JUST AND REASONABLE" RATES (SEC. 4) WITH THE POWERS
ATTENDANT THERETO  FN20  WAS THE HEART OF THE NEW REGULATORY SYSTEM. 
MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION WAS GIVEN CERTAIN AUTHORITY BY SEC. 7(A), ON A
FINDING THAT THE ACTION WAS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE "IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST," TO REQUIRE NATURAL GAS COMPANIES TO EXTEND OR IMPROVE THEIR
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND TO SELL GAS TO ANY AUTHORIZED LOCAL
DISTRIBUTOR.  BY SEC. 7(B) IT WAS GIVEN CONTROL OVER THE ABANDONMENT OF
FACILITIES OR OF SERVICE.  AND BY SEC. 7(C), AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED, NO
NATURAL GAS COMPANY COULD UNDERTAKE THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF
ANY FACILITIES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS TO A MARKET IN
WHICH NATURAL GAS WAS ALREADY BEING SERVED BY ANOTHER COMPANY, OR SELL
ANY NATURAL GAS IN SUCH A MARKET, WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE COMMISSION.  IN PASSING ON
SUCH APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY THE
COMMISSION WAS TOLD BY SEC. 7(C), AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED, THAT IT WAS
"THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS THAT NATURAL GAS SHALL BE SOLD IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE
REASONABLE RATE CONSISTENT WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE SERVICE IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  THE LATTER PROVISION WAS DELETED FROM SEC. 7(C)
WHEN THAT SUBSECTION WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 7, 1942, 56
STAT. 83.  BY THAT AMENDMENT LIMITED GRANDFATHER RIGHTS WERE GRANTED
COMPANIES DESIRING TO EXTEND THEIR FACILITIES AND SERVICES OVER THE
ROUTES OR WITHIN THE AREA WHICH THEY WERE ALREADY SERVING.  MOREOVER,
SEC. 7(C) WAS BROADENED SO AS TO REQUIRE CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY NOT ONLY WHERE THE EXTENSIONS WERE BEING MADE
TO MARKETS IN WHICH NATURAL GAS WAS ALREADY BEING SOLD BY ANOTHER
COMPANY BUT IN OTHER SITUATIONS AS WELL. 

THESE PROVISIONS WERE PLAINLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER
INTERESTS AGAINST EXPLOITATION AT THE HANDS OF PRIVATE NATURAL GAS
COMPANIES.  WHEN IT COMES TO CASES OF ABANDONMENT OR OF EXTENSIONS OF
FACILITIES OR SERVICE, WE MAY ASSUME THAT, APART FROM THE EXPRESS
EXEMPTIONS  FN21 CONTAINED IN SEC. 7, CONSIDERATIONS OF CONSERVATION
ARE MATERIAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY.  BUT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ASKED HERE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY UNDER SEC. 7 FOR ANY PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION.  IT WAS FACED WITH A DETERMINATION OF THE
AMOUNT WHICH A PRIVATE OPERATOR SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EARN FROM THE SALE
OF NATURAL GAS ACROSS STATE LINES THROUGH AN ESTABLISHED DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM.  SECS. 4 AND 5, NOT SEC. 7, PROVIDE THE STANDARDS FOR THAT
DETERMINATION.  WE CANNOT FIND IN THE WORDS OF THE ACT OR IN ITS
HISTORY THE SLIGHTEST INTIMATION OR SUGGESTION THAT THE EXPLOITATION OF
CONSUMERS BY PRIVATE OPERATORS THROUGH THE MAINTENANCE OF HIGH RATES
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE PROVIDED THE PRODUCING STATES OBTAIN
INDIRECT BENEFITS FROM IT.  THAT APPARENTLY WAS THE COMMISSION'S VIEW
OF THE MATTER, FOR THE SAME ARGUMENTS ADVANCED HERE WERE PRESENTED TO
THE COMMISSION AND NOT ADOPTED BY IT. 

WE DO NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS WAS UNMINDFUL OF THE
INTERESTS OF THE PRODUCING STATES IN THEIR NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES WHEN IT
DRAFTED THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE ACT DOES NOT INTRUDE
ON THE DOMAIN TRADITIONALLY RESERVED FOR CONTROL BY STATE COMMISSIONS;
AND THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WAS GIVEN NO AUTHORITY OVER "THE
PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS."  SEC. 1(B).  IN ADDITION,
CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE STATES IN THE
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL GAS.  BY SEC. 11 CONGRESS INSTRUCTED THE
COMMISSION TO MAKE REPORTS ON COMPACTS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE STATES
DEALING WITH THE CONSERVATION, PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL
GAS.  FN22  THE COMMISSION WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO RECOMMEND FURTHER
LEGISLATION APPROPRIATE OR NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT ANY PROPOSED COMPACT
AND "TO AID IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURALGAS RESOURCES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES AND IN THE ORDERLY, EQUITABLE, AND ECONOMIC PRODUCTION,
TRANSPORTATION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS."  SEC. 11(A).  THUS
CONGRESS WAS QUITE AWARE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE PRODUCING STATES IN
THEIR NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES.  FN23  BUT IT LEFT THE PROTECTION OF THOSE
INTERESTS TO MEASURES OTHER THAN THE MAINTENANCE OF HIGH RATES TO
PRIVATE COMPANIES.  IF THE COMMISSION IS TO BE COMPELLED TO LET THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES HAVE A FEAST SO THAT THE
PRODUCING STATES MAY RECEIVE CRUMBS FROM THAT TABLE, THE PRESENT ACT
MUST BE REDESIGNED.  SUCH A PROJECT RAISES QUESTIONS OF POLICY WHICH GO
BEYOND OUR PROVINCE. 

IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO ADD THAT A LIMITATION ON THE NET EARNINGS
OF A NATURAL GAS COMPANY FROM ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS NOT A
LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF THE PRODUCING STATE EITHER TO SAFEGUARD ITS
TAX REVENUES FROM THAT INDUSTRY N24 OR TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF
THOSE WHO SELL THEIR GAS TO THE INTERSTATE OPERATOR.  FN25  THE RETURN
WHICH THE COMMISSION ALLOWED WAS THE NET RETURN AFTER ALL SUCH
CHARGES. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS FAILED TO PERFORM ITS DUTY
UNDER THE ACT IN THAT IT HAS NOT ALLOWED A RETURN FOR GAS PRODUCTION
THAT WILL BE ENOUGH TO INDUCE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO PERFORM COMPLETELY
AND EFFICIENTLY ITS FUNCTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC.  THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER,
WAS NOT OBLIVIOUS OF THOSE MATTERS.  IT CONSIDERED THEM.  IT ALLOWED,
FOR EXAMPLE, DELAY RENTALS AND EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS IN
OPERATING EXPENSES.  FN26  NO SERIOUS ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE HERE TO
SHOW THAT THEY ARE INADEQUATE.  WE CERTAINLY CANNOT SAY THAT THEY ARE,
UNLESS WE ARE TO SUBSTITUTE OUR OPINIONS FOR THE EXPERT JUDGMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATORS TO WHOM CONGRESS ENTRUSTED THE DECISION.  MOREOVER, IF
IN LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE THEY TURN OUT TO BE INADEQUATE FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF NEW SOURCES OF SUPPLY, THE DOORS OF THE COMMISSION ARE OPEN FOR
INCREASED ALLOWANCES.  THIS IS NOT AN ORDER FOR ALL TIME.  THE ACT
CONTAINS MACHINERY FOR OBTAINING RATE ADJUSTMENTS.  SEC. 4. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THE COMMISSION PLACED TOO LOW A RATE ON GAS FOR
INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES AS COMPARED WITH GAS FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES AND THAT
INDUSTRIAL USES SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THE FIRST
PLACE THAT THE RATES WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS FIXED ARE HOPE'S
INTERSTATE WHOLESALE RATES TO DISTRIBUTORS, NOT INTERSTATE RATES TO
INDUSTRIAL USERS  FN27  AND DOMESTIC CONSUMERS.  WE HARDLY CAN ASSUME,
IN VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THE ACT AND ITS PROVISIONS, THAT THE RESALES
INTRASTATE BY THE CUSTOMER COMPANIES WHICH DISTRIBUTE THE GAS TO
ULTIMATE CONSUMERS IN OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA ARE SUBJECT TO THE RATE
MAKING POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.  FN28  BUT IN ANY EVENT THOSE RATES
ARE NOT IN ISSUE HERE.  MOREOVER, WE FAIL TO FIND IN THE POWER TO FIX
"JUST AND REASONABLE" RATES THE POWER TO FIX RATES WHICH WILL DISALLOW
OR DISCOURAGE RESALES FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.  THE COMMITTEE REPORT STATED
THAT THE ACT PROVIDED "FOR REGULATION ALONG RECOGNIZED AND MORE OR LESS
STANDARDIZED LINES" AND THAT THERE WAS "NOTHING NOVEL IN ITS
PROVISIONS."  H. REP. NO. 709, SUPRA, P. 3.  YET IF WE ARE NOW TO TELL
THE COMMISSION TO FIX THE RATES SO AS TO DISCOURAGE PARTICULAR USES, WE
WOULD INDEED BE INJECTING INTO A RATE CASE A "NOVEL" DOCTRINE WHICH HAS
NO EXPRESS STATUTORY SANCTION.  THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE IF WE WERE TO
HOLD THAT THE WASTING-ASSET NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY REQUIRED THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE LEVEL OF RATES SO THAT NATURAL GAS COMPANIES COULD
MAKE A GREATER PROFIT ON EACH UNIT OF GAS SOLD.  SUCH THEORIES OF RATE
MAKING FOR THIS INDUSTRY MAY OR MAY NOT BE DESIRABLE.  THE DIFFICULTY
IS THAT SEC. 4(A) AND SEC. 5(A) CONTAIN ONLY THE CONVENTIONAL STANDARDS
OF RATE-MAKING FOR NATURAL GAS COMPANIES.  FN29 THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 7,
1942, BY BROADENING SEC. 7 GAVE THE COMMISSION SOME ADDITIONAL
AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THE CONSERVATION ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM.  FN30
BUT SEC. 4(A) AND SEC. 5(A) WERE NOT CHANGED.  IF THE STANDARD OF "JUST
AND REASONABLE" IS TO SANCTION THE MAINTENANCE OF HIGH RATES BY A
NATURAL GAS COMPANY BECAUSE THEY RESTRICT THE USE OF NATURAL GAS FOR
CERTAIN PURPOSES, THE ACT MUST BE FURTHER AMENDED. 

IT IS FINALLY SUGGESTED THAT THE RATES CHARGED BY HOPE ARE
DISCRIMINATORY AS AGAINST DOMESTIC USERS AND IN FAVOR OF INDUSTRIAL
USERS.  THAT CHARGE IS APPARENTLY BASED ON SEC. 4(B) OF THE ACT WHICH
FORBIDS NATURAL GAS COMPANIES FROM MAINTAINING "ANY UNREASONABLE
DIFFERENCE IN RATES, CHARGES, SERVICE, FACILITIES, OR IN ANY OTHER
RESPECT, EITHER AS BETWEEN LOCALITIES OR AS BETWEEN CLASSES OF
SERVICE."  THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO ELIMINATE ANY SUCH
UNREASONABLE DIFFERENCES OR DISCRIMINATIONS IS PLAIN.  SEC. 5(A).  THE
COMMISSION, HOWEVER, MADE NO FINDINGS UNDER SEC. 4(B).  ITS FAILURE IN
THAT REGARD WAS NOT CHALLENGED IN THE PETITION TO REVIEW.  AND IT HAS
NOT BEEN RAISED OR ARGUED HERE BY ANY PARTY.  HENCE THE PROBLEM OF
DISCRIMINATION HAS NO PROPER PLACE IN THE PRESENT DECISION.  IT WILL BE
TIME ENOUGH TO PASS ON THAT ISSUE WHEN IT IS PRESENTED TO US.  CONGRESS
HAS ENTRUSTED THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO
THE COURTS.  APART FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IT IS NOT
FOR US TO ADVISE THE COMMISSION HOW TO DISCHARGE ITS FUNCTIONS. 

FINDINGS AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF PAST RATES.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE
COMMISSION MADE CERTAIN FINDINGS AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF PAST RATES
WHICH HOPE HAD CHARGED ITS INTERSTATE CUSTOMERS.  THOSE FINDINGS WERE
MADE ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND AND IN AID OF STATE
REGULATION.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT UNDER THE ACT THE COMMISSION HAS NO
POWER TO MAKE REPARATION ORDERS.  AND ITS POWER TO FIX RATES ADMITTEDLY
IS LIMITED TO THOSE "TO BE THEREAFTER OBSERVED AND IN FORCE."  SEC.
5(A).  BUT THE COMMISSION MAINTAINS THAT IT HAS THE POWER TO MAKE
FINDINGS AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF PAST RATES EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NO POWER
TO FIX THOSE RATES.  FN31  HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, WE DO NOT THINK THAT
THESE FINDINGS WERE REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 19(B) OF THE ACT.  THAT
REVIEW "OF SUCH ORDER" IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CIRCUIT
WHERE THE NATURAL GAS COMPANY IS LOCATED OR HAS ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS OR IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE FINDINGS IN QUESTION FALL WITHIN
THAT CATEGORY. 

THE COURT RECENTLY SUMMARIZED THE VARIOUS TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION OR DETERMINATION REVIEWABLE AS ORDERS UNDER THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 45, 47A, AND
KINDRED STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 307 U.S. 125.  IT WAS THERE POINTED OUT THAT WHERE "THE ORDER
SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED DOES NOT OF ITSELF ADVERSELY AFFECT COMPLAINANT
BUT ONLY AFFECTS HIS RIGHTS ADVERSELY ON THE CONTINGENCY OF FUTURE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION," IT IS NOT REVIEWABLE.  ID., P. 130.  THE COURT
SAID, "IN VIEW OF TRADITIONAL CONCEPTIONS OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER,
RESORT TO THE COURTS IN THESE SITUATIONS IS EITHER PREMATURE OR WHOLLY
BEYOND THEIR PROVINCE."  ID., P. 130.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. LOS
ANGELES & SALT LAKE R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 309, 310; SHANNAHAN V. UNITED
STATES, 303 U.S. 596.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE APPOSITE HERE.  THE
COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THESE FINDINGS.  THEY ARE "THE
EXERCISE SOLELY OF THE FUNCTION OF INVESTIGATION."  UNITED STATES V.
LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE R. CO., SUPRA, P. 310.  THEY ARE ONLY A
PRELIMINARY, INTERIM STEP TOWARDS POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION - ACTION NOT
BY THE COMMISSION BUT BY WHOLLY INDEPENDENT AGENCIES.  THE OUTCOME OF
THOSE PROCEEDINGS MAY TURN ON FACTORS OTHER THAN THESE FINDINGS.  THESE
FINDINGS MAY NEVER RESULT IN THE RESPONDENT FEELING THE PINCH OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  HOPE PRODUCES ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF ITS ANNUAL GAS REQUIREMENTS AND
PURCHASES THE REST UNDER SOME 300 CONTRACTS. 

FN2  THESE FIVE COMPANIES ARE THE EAST OHIO GAS CO., THE PEOPLES
NATURAL GAS CO., THE RIVER GAS CO., THE FAYETTE COUNTY GAS CO., AND THE
MANUFACTURERS LIGHT & HEAT CO. THE FIRST THREE OF THESE COMPANIES ARE,
LIKE HOPE, SUBSIDIARIES OF STANDARD OIL CO. (N.J.).  EAST OHIO AND
RIVER DISTRIBUTE GAS IN OHIO, THE OTHER THREE IN PENNSYLVANIA.  HOPE'S
APPROXIMATE SALES IN M.C.F. FOR 1940 MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 
LOCAL WEST VIRGINIA SALES ...................  11,000,000 

EAST OHIO ...................................  40,000,000 

PEOPLES .....................................  10,000,000 

RIVER .......................................     400,000 

FAYETTE .....................................     860,000 

MANUFACTURERS ...............................   2,000,000 

HOPE'S NATURAL GAS IS PROCESSED BY HOPE CONSTRUCTION & REFINING CO.,
AN AFFILIATE, FOR THE EXTRACTION OF GASOLINE AND BUTANE.  DOMESTIC COKE
CORP., ANOTHER AFFILIATE, SELLS COKE-OVEN GAS TO HOPE FOR BOILER FUEL. 

FN3  THESE REQUIRED MINIMUM REDUCTIONS OF 7[ PER M.C.F. FROM THE
36.5[ AND 35.5[ RATES PREVIOUSLY CHARGED EAST OHIO AND PEOPLES,
RESPECTIVELY, AND 3[ PER M.C.F. FROM THE 31.5[ RATE PREVIOUSLY CHARGED
FAYETTE AND MANUFACTURERS. 

FN4  THE BOOK RESERVE FOR INTERSTATE PLANT AMOUNTED AT THE END OF
1938 TO ABOUT $18,000,000 MORE THAN THE AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE
COMMISSION AS THE PROPER RESERVE REQUIREMENT.  THE COMMISSION ALSO
NOTED THAT "TWICE IN THE PAST THE COMPANY HAS TRANSFERRED AMOUNTS
AGGREGATING $7,500,000 FROM THE DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION RESERVE TO
SURPLUS.  WHEN THESE LATTER ADJUSTMENTS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE
EXCESS BECOMES $25,500,000, WHICH HAS BEEN EXACTED FROM THE RATEPAYERS
OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO COVER THE CONSUMPTION OF PROPERTY
IN THE SERVICE RENDERED AND THUS TO KEEP THE INVESTMENT UNIMPAIRED." 
44 P.U.R. (N.S.), P. 22. 

FN5  THAT CONTENTION WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT "EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR
IN THE DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION RESERVES" WAS TAKEN "FROM GROSS
OPERATING REVENUES WHOSE ONLY SOURCE WAS THE AMOUNTS CHARGED CUSTOMERS
IN THE PAST FOR NATURAL GAS.  IT IS, THEREFORE, A FACT THAT THE
DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION RESERVES HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTED BY THE
CUSTOMERS AND DO NOT REPRESENT ANY INVESTMENT BY HOPE."  ID., P. 40. 
AND SEE RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CUMBERLAND TEL. & T. CO., 212 U.S. 414,
424-425; 2 BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY (1937), P. 1139. 

FN6  THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE CASE WAS "FREE FROM THE USUAL
COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED IN THE ESTIMATE OF GAS RESERVES BECAUSE THE
GEOLOGISTS FOR THE COMPANY AND THE COMMISSION PRESENTED ESTIMATES OF
THE REMAINING RECOVERABLE GAS RESERVES WHICH WERE ABOUT ONE PER CENT
APART."  44 P.U.R. (N.S.), PP. 19-20. 

THE COMMISSION UTILIZED THE "STRAIGHT-LINE-BASIS" FOR DETERMINING THE
DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION RESERVE REQUIREMENTS.  IT USED ESTIMATES OF
THE AVERAGE SERVICE LIVES OF THE PROPERTY BY CLASSES BASED IN PART ON
AN INSPECTION OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY.  AND STUDIES
WERE MADE OF HOPE'S RETIREMENT EXPERIENCE AND MAINTENANCE POLICIES OVER
THE YEARS.  THE AVERAGE SERVICE LIVES OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF
PROPERTY WERE CONVERTED INTO DEPRECIATION RATES AND THEN APPLIED TO THE
COST OF THE PROPERTY TO ASCERTAIN THE PORTION OF THE COST WHICH HAD
EXPIRED IN RENDERING THE SERVICE. 

THE RECORD IN THE PRESENT CASE SHOWS THAT HOPE IS ON THE LOOKOUT FOR
NEW SOURCES OF SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS AND IS CONTEMPLATING AN EXTENSION
OF ITS PIPE LINE INTO LOUISIANA FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE COMMISSION
RECOGNIZED IN FIXING THE RATES OF DEPRECIATION THAT MUCH MATERIAL MAY
BE USED AGAIN WHEN VARIOUS PRESENT SOURCES OF GAS SUPPLY ARE EXHAUSTED,
THUS GIVING THAT PROPERTY MORE THAN SCRAP VALUE AT THE END OF ITS
PRESENT USE. 

FN7  SEE UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS PRESCRIBED FOR NATURAL GAS
COMPANIES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1940, ACCOUNT NO. 332.1. 

FN8  SEC. 6 OF THE ACT COMES THE CLOSEST TO SUPPLYING ANY DEFINITE
CRITERIA FOR RATE MAKING.  IT PROVIDES IN SUBSECTION (A) THAT, "THE
COMMISSION MAY INVESTIGATE AND ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST OF
THE PROPERTY OF EVERY NATURAL-GAS COMPANY, THE DEPRECIATION THEREIN,
AND, WHEN FOUND NECESSARY FOR RATE-MAKING PURPOSES, OTHER FACTS WHICH
BEAR ON THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH COST OR DEPRECIATION AND THE FAIR
VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY."  SUBSECTION (B) PROVIDES THAT EVERY NATURALGAS
COMPANY ON REQUEST SHALL FILE WITH THE COMMISSION A STATEMENT OF THE
"ORIGINAL COST" OF ITS PROPERTY AND SHALL KEEP THE COMMISSION INFORMED
REGARDING THE "COST" OF ALL ADDITIONS, ETC. 

FN9  WE RECENTLY STATED THAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD "VALUE" IS TO BE
GATHERED "FROM THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH A VALUATION IS BEING MADE.  THUS
THE QUESTION IN A VALUATION FOR RATE MAKING IS HOW MUCH A UTILITY WILL
BE ALLOWED TO EARN.  THE BASIC QUESTION IN A VALUATION FOR
REORGANIZATION PURPOSES IS HOW MUCH THE ENTERPRISE IN ALL PROBABILITY
CAN EARN."  INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO.,
318 U.S. 523, 540. 

FN10  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES SAID IN THAT CASE (292 U.S. PP. 168-169):
"IF THE PREDICTIONS OF SERVICE LIFE WERE ENTIRELY ACCURATE AND
RETIREMENTS WERE MADE WHEN AND AS THESE PREDICTIONS WERE PRECISELY
FULFILLED, THE DEPRECIATION RESERVE WOULD REPRESENT THE CONSUMPTION OF
CAPITAL, ON A COST BASIS, ACCORDING TO THE METHOD WHICH SPREADS THAT
LOSS OVER THE RESPECTIVE SERVICE PERIODS.  BUT IF THE AMOUNTS CHARGED
TO OPERATING EXPENSES AND CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT FOR DEPRECIATION
RESERVE ARE EXCESSIVE, TO THAT EXTENT SUBSCRIBERS FOR THE TELEPHONE
SERVICE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE, IN EFFECT, CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS, NOT
TO MAKE GOOD LOSSES INCURRED BY THE UTILITY IN THE SERVICE RENDERED AND
THUS TO KEEP ITS INVESTMENT UNIMPAIRED, BUT TO SECURE ADDITIONAL PLANT
AND EQUIPMENT UPON WHICH THE UTILITY EXPECTS A RETURN." 

FN11  SEE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS (DISSENTING) IN UNITED RAILWAYS CO. V.
WEST, 280 U.S. 234, 259-288, FOR AN EXTENDED ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM. 

FN12  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ACT PROVIDES NO SPECIFIC RULE
GOVERNING DEPLETION AND DEPRECIATION.  SEC. 9(A) MERELY STATES THAT THE
COMMISSION "MAY FROM TIME TO TIME ASCERTAIN AND DETERMINE, AND BY ORDER
FIX, THE PROPER AND ADEQUATE RATES OF DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION OF
THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF PROPERTY OF EACH NATURAL-GAS COMPANY USED OR
USEFUL IN THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS." 

FN13  SEE SIMONTON, THE NATURE OF THE INTEREST OF THE GRANTEE UNDER
AN OIL AND GAS LEASE (1918), 25 W. VA. L. QUAR.  295. 

FN14  WEST PENN POWER CO. V. BOARD OF REVIEW, 112 W. VA. 442, 164
S.E. 862. 

FN15  W. VA. REV. CODE OF 1943, CH. 11, ART. 13, SECS. 2A, 3A. 

FN16  WEST VIRGINIA SUGGESTS AS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION (1) THAT A "GOING
CONCERN VALUE" OF THE COMPANY'S TANGIBLE ASSETS BE INCLUDED IN THE RATE
BASE AND (2) THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF GAS DELIVERED TO CUSTOMERS
BE ADDED TO THE OUTLAY FOR OPERATING EXPENSES AND TAXES. 

FN17  S. DOC. 92, PT. 84-A, CH. XII, FINAL REPORT, FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION TO THE SENATE PURSUANT TO S. RES. NO. 83, 70TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN18  S. DOC. 92, PT. 84-A, CHS.  XII, XIII, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE
17. 

FN19  SEE HEARINGS ON H.R. 11662, SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.; HEARINGS ON H.R.
4008, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN20  THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE AND ASCERTAIN THE "ACTUAL LEGITIMATE
COST" OF PROPERTY (SEC. 6), THE REQUIREMENT AS TO BOOKS AND RECORDS
(SEC. 8), CONTROL OVER RATES OF DEPRECIATION (SEC. 9), THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR PERIODIC AND SPECIAL REPORTS (SEC. 10), THE BROAD POWERS OF
INVESTIGATION (SEC. 14) ARE AMONG THE CHIEF POWERS SUPPORTING THE RATE
MAKING FUNCTION. 

FN21  APART FROM THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE CONTAINED IN SEC. 7(C), THERE
IS THE PROVISION OF SEC. 7(F) THAT A NATURAL GAS COMPANY MAY ENLARGE OR
EXTEND ITS FACILITIES WITHIN THE "SERVICE AREA" DETERMINED BY THE
COMMISSION WITHOUT ANY FURTHER AUTHORIZATION. 

FN22  SEE ACT OF JULY 7, 1943, C. 194, 57 STAT. 383, CONTAINING AN
"INTERSTATE COMPACT TO CONSERVE OIL AND GAS" BETWEEN OKLAHOMA, TEXAS,
NEW MEXICO, ILLINOIS, COLORADO, AND KANSAS. 

FN23  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, SEC. 7(C) WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 7, 1942(56 STAT. 83) SO AS TO REQUIRE CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY NOT ONLY WHERE THE EXTENSIONS WERE BEING MADE
TO MARKETS IN WHICH NATURAL GAS WAS ALREADY BEING SOLD BY ANOTHER
COMPANY BUT TO OTHER SITUATIONS AS WELL.  CONSIDERATIONS OF
CONSERVATION ENTERED INTO THE PROPOSAL TO GIVE THE ACT THAT BROADER
SCOPE.  H. REP. NO. 1290, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 2-3.  AND SEE
ANNUAL REPORT, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION (1940) PP. 79, 80; BAUM, THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AND STATE UTILITY REGULATION (1942), P. 261. 

THE BILL AMENDING SEC. 7(C) ORIGINALLY CONTAINED A SUBSECTION (H)
READING AS FOLLOWS:  "NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE AUTHORITY OF A STATE WITHIN WHICH NATURAL GAS
IS PRODUCED TO AUTHORIZE OR REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF
FACILITIES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF SUCH GAS WITHIN SUCH
STATE:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING UPON
COMPLAINT OR UPON ITS OWN MOTION, MAY BY ORDER FORBID ANY INTRASTATE
CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION BY ANY NATURAL-GAS COMPANY WHICH IT SHALL
FIND WILL PREVENT SUCH COMPANY FROM RENDERING ADEQUATE SERVICE TO ITS
CUSTOMERS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN TERRITORY ALREADY BEING
SERVED."  SEE HEARINGS ON H.R. 5249, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE &
FOREIGN COMMERCE, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 7, 11, 21, 29, 32-33.  IN
EXPLANATION OF ITS DELETION THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT STATED, PP. 4-5:
"THE INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE DESIRE OF SEVERAL
STATES TO REGULATE THE USE OF THE NATURAL GAS PRODUCED THEREIN IN THE
INTEREST OF CONSUMERS WITHIN SUCH STATES, AS AGAINST THE FEDERAL POWER
TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE INTEREST OF BOTH INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE CONSUMERS, ARE DEEMED BY THE COMMITTEE TO WARRANT FURTHER
INTENSIVE STUDY AND PROBABLY A MORE DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
THE HANDLING THEREOF THAN THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE
STRICKEN SUBSECTION." 

FN24  WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN THE ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES OF SOME
$16,000,000 THE COMMISSION INCLUDED WEST VIRGINIA AND FEDERAL TAXES. 
AND IN THE NET INCREASE OF $421,160 OVER 1940 OPERATING EXPENSES
ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION WAS SOME $80,000 FOR INCREASED WEST VIRGINIA
PROPERTY TAXES.  THE ADEQUACY OF THESE AMOUNTS HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED
HERE. 

FN25  THE COMMISSION INCLUDED IN THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL OPERATING
EXPENSES WHICH IT ALLOWED SOME $8,500,000 FOR GAS PURCHASED.  IT ALSO
ALLOWED ABOUT $1,400,000 FOR NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION AND ABOUT $600,000
FOR EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT. 

IT IS SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION IN ASCERTAINING THE
COST OF HOPE'S NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION PLANT PROCEEDED CONTRARY TO SEC.
1(B) WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO "THE PRODUCTION OR
GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS."  BUT SUCH VALUATION, LIKE THE PROVISIONS FOR
OPERATING EXPENSES, IS ESSENTIAL TO THE RATE-MAKING FUNCTION AS
CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED IN THIS COUNTRY.  CF. SMITH, THE CONTROL OF POWER
RATES IN THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND (1932), 159 THE ANNALS 101. 
INDEED SEC. 14(B) OF THE ACT GIVES THE COMMISSION THE POWER TO
"DETERMINE THE PROPRIETY AND REASONABLENESS OF THE INCLUSION IN
OPERATING EXPENSES, CAPITAL, OR SURPLUS OF ALL DELAY RENTALS OR OTHER
FORMS OF RENTAL OR COMPENSATION FOR UNOPERATED LANDS AND LEASES." 

FN26  SEE NOTE 25, SUPRA. 

FN27  THE COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSED DOUBTS OVER ITS POWER TO FIX RATES
ON "DIRECT SALES TO INDUSTRIES" FROM INTERSTATE PIPELINES AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM "SALES FOR RESALE TO THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES."  ANNUAL REPORT, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
(1940).  P. 11. 

FN28  SEC. 1(B) OF THE ACT PROVIDES:  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE
FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL,
OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES ENGAGED IN SUCH
TRANSPORTATION OR SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER TRANSPORTATION
OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS OR TO THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS OR
TO THE FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH DISTRIBUTION OR TO THE PRODUCTION OR
GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS."  AND SEE SEC. 2(6), DEFINING A "NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY," AND H. REP. NO. 709, SUPRA, PP. 2, 3. 

FN29  THE WASTING-ASSET CHARACTERISTIC OF THE INDUSTRY WAS RECOGNIZED
PRIOR TO THE ACT AS REQUIRING THE INCLUSION OF A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
AMONG OPERATING EXPENSES.  SEE COLUMBUS GAS & FUEL CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, 292 U.S. 398, 404-405.  BUT NO SUCH THEORY OF
RATE-MAKING FOR NATURAL GAS COMPANIES AS IS NOW SUGGESTED EMERGED FROM
THE CASES ARISING DURING THE EARLIER PERIOD OF REGULATION. 

FN30  THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN ALERT TO THE PROBLEMS OF CONSERVATION
IN ITS ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  IT HAS INDEED SUGGESTED THAT IT
MIGHT BE WISE TO RESTRICT THE USE OF NATURAL GAS "BY FUNCTIONS RATHER
THAN BY AREAS."  ANNUAL REPORT (1940) P. 79. 

THE COMMISSION STATED IN THAT CONNECTION THAT NATURAL GAS WAS
PARTICULARLY ADAPTED TO CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL USES.  BUT IT ADDED THAT THE
GENERAL USE OF SUCH GAS "UNDER BOILERS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF STEAM" IS
"UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES OF VERY QUESTIONABLE SOCIAL ECONOMY."  IBID. 

FN31  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT SEC. 4(A) MAKES "UNLAWFUL" THE CHARGING OF
ANY RATE THAT IS NOT JUST AND REASONABLE.  AND SEC. 14(A) GIVES THE
COMMISSION POWER TO INVESTIGATE ANY MATTER "WHICH IT MAY FIND NECESSARY
OR PROPER IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY PERSON HAS VIOLATED" ANY
PROVISION OF THE ACT.  MOREOVER, SEC. 5(B) GIVES THE COMMISSION POWER
TO INVESTIGATE AND DETERMINE THE COST OF PRODUCTION OR TRANSPORTATION
OF NATURAL GAS IN CASES WHERE IT HAS "NO AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A RATE
GOVERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF SUCH NATURAL GAS."  AND SEC.
17(C) DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO "MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE SEVERAL STATE
COMMISSIONS SUCH INFORMATION AND REPORTS AS MAY BE OF ASSISTANCE IN
STATE REGULATION OF NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES."  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THESE
POINTS BY THE COMMISSION SEE 44 P.U.R. (N.S.)  PP. 34-35.    MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS
CASE. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY: 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT'S OPINION AND WOULD ADD NOTHING TO WHAT HAS
BEEN SAID BUT FOR WHAT IS PATENTLY A WHOLLY GRATUITOUS ASSERTION AS TO
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.  WE REFER
TO THE STATEMENT THAT "CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE TO DATE IN THE
DOCTRINE OF CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA, MAY
FAIRLY BE CLAIMED."  THAT WAS THE CASE IN WHICH A MAJORITY OF THIS
COURT WAS FINALLY INDUCED TO EXPAND THE MEANING OF "DUE PROCESS" SO AS
TO GIVE COURTS POWER TO BLOCK EFFORTS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL
GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE ECONOMIC AFFAIRS.  THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT
AFFORD A PROPER OCCASION TO DISCUSS THE SOUNDNESS OF THAT DOCTRINE
BECAUSE, AS STATED IN MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S DISSENT, "THAT ISSUE IS
NOT HERE IN CONTROVERSY."  THE SALUTARY PRACTICE WHEREBY COURTS DO NOT
DISCUSS ISSUES IN THE ABSTRACT APPLIES WITH PECULIAR FORCE TO
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  SINCE, HOWEVER, THE DISSENT ADVERTS TO A
HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL DUE PROCESS DOCTRINE AND IMPLIES ITS ACCEPTANCE BY
CONGRESS, WE FEEL COMPELLED TO SAY THAT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT
CONGRESS VOLUNTARILY HAS ACQUIESCED IN A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF
GOVERNMENT THAT COURTS, RATHER THAN LEGISLATIVE BODIES, POSSESS FINAL
AUTHORITY OVER REGULATION OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS.  EVEN THIS COURT HAS NOT
ALWAYS FULLY EMBRACED THAT PRINCIPLE, AND WE WISH TO REPEAT THAT WE
HAVE NEVER ACQUIESCED IN IT, AND DO NOT NOW.  SEE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575, 599-601. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE PROBLEM OF RATE MAKING UNDER THE NATURAL GAS
ACT.  ADDED IMPORTANCE ARISES FROM THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT THE PRINCIPLES
STATED ARE GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES WHICH ARE
ENTRUSTED WITH THE DETERMINATION OF RATES FOR UTILITIES.  BECAUSE MY
VIEWS DIFFER SOMEWHAT FROM THOSE OF MY BRETHREN, IT MAY BE OF SOME
VALUE TO SET THEM OUT IN A SUMMARY FORM. 

THE CONGRESS MAY FIX UTILITY RATES IN SITUATIONS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
CONTROL WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY STANDARD EXCEPT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS AND FOR TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE
WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.  WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 350.  A
COMMISSION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT HAVE THIS FREEDOM OF ACTION.  ITS POWERS
ARE LIMITED NOT ONLY BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS BUT ALSO BY THE
STANDARDS OF THE DELEGATION.  HERE THE STANDARD ADDED BY THE NATURAL
GAS ACT IS THAT THE RATE BE "JUST AND REASONABLE."  FN1  SECTION 6  FN2
THROWS ADDITIONAL LIGHT ON THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS. 

WHEN THE PHRASE WAS USED BY CONGRESS TO DESCRIBE ALLOWABLE RATES, IT
HAD RELATION TO SOMETHING ASCERTAINABLE.  THE RATES WERE NOT LEFT TO
THE WHIM OF THE COMMISSION.  THE RATES FIXED WOULD PRODUCE AN ANNUAL
RETURN AND THAT ANNUAL RETURN WAS TO BE COMPARED WITH A THEORETICAL
JUST AND REASONABLE RETURN, ALL RISKS CONSIDERED, ON THE FAIR VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AT THE TIME OF THE
DETERMINATION. 

SUCH AN ABSTRACT TEST IS NOT PRECISE.  THE AGENCY CHARGED WITH ITS
DETERMINATION HAS A WIDE RANGE BEFORE IT COULD PROPERLY BE SAID BY A
COURT THAT THE AGENCY HAD DISREGARDED STATUTORY STANDARDS OR HAD
CONFISCATED THE PROPERTY OF THE UTILITY FOR PUBLIC USE.  CF. CHICAGO,
M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 134 U.S. 418, 461-66, DISSENT.  THIS
IS AS CONGRESS INTENDS.  RATES ARE LEFT TO AN EXPERIENCED AGENCY
PARTICULARLY COMPETENT BY TRAINING TO APPRAISE THE AMOUNT REQUIRED. 

THE DECISION AS TO A REASONABLE RETURN HAD NOT BEEN A SOURCE OF GREAT
DIFFICULTY, FOR BORROWERS AND LENDERS REACHED SUCH AGREEMENTS DAILY IN
A MULTITUDE OF SITUATIONS; AND ALTHOUGH THE DETERMINATION OF FAIR VALUE
HAD BEEN TROUBLESOME, ITS ESSENTIALS HAD BEEN WORKED OUT IN FAIRNESS TO
INVESTOR AND CONSUMER BY THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT.  CF.
LOS ANGELES GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 287,
304 ET SEQ. THE RESULTS WERE WELL KNOWN TO CONGRESS AND HAD THAT BODY
DESIRED TO DEPART FROM THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF FAIR VALUE AND
EARNINGS, IT WOULD HAVE STATED ITS INTENTION PLAINLY.  HELVERING V.
GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371. 

IT WAS ALREADY CLEAR THAT WHEN RATES ARE IN DISPUTE, "EARNINGS
PRODUCED BY RATES DO NOT AFFORD A STANDARD FOR DECISION."  289 U.S. AT
305.  HISTORICAL COST, PRUDENT INVESTMENT AND REPRODUCTION COST  FN3
WERE ALL RELEVANT FACTORS IN DETERMINING FAIR VALUE.  INDEED,
DISREGARDING THE PIONEER INVESTOR'S RISK, IF PRUDENT INVESTMENT AND
REPRODUCTION COST WERE NOT DISTORTED BY CHANGES IN PRICE LEVELS OR
TECHNOLOGY, EACH OF THEM WOULD PRODUCE THE SAME RESULT.  THE
REALIZATION FROM THE RISK OF AN INVESTMENT IN A SPECULATIVE FIELD, SUCH
AS NATURAL GAS UTILITIES, SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE PRESENT FAIR
VALUE.  FN4  THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE TO BE ADMITTED ON ANY POINT WAS OF
COURSE IN THE AGENCY'S REASONABLE DISCRETION, AND IT WAS FREE TO GIVE
ITS OWN WEIGHT TO THESE OR OTHER FACTORS AND TO DETERMINE FROM ALL THE
EVIDENCE ITS OWN JUDGMENT AS TO THE NECESSARY RATES. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT IN NOT IMPOSING A RULE OF PRUDENT INVESTMENT
ALONE IN DETERMINING THE RATE BASE.  THIS LEAVES THE COMMISSION FREE,
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, TO USE ANY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE FOR ITS FINDING OF
FAIR VALUE, INCLUDING BOTH PRUDENT INVESTMENT AND THE COST OF
INSTALLING AT THE PRESENT TIME AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM FOR FURNISHING THE
NEEDED UTILITY SERVICE. 

MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE COURT ARISES PRIMARILY FROM ITS VIEW THAT IT
MAKES NO DIFFERENCE HOW THE COMMISSION REACHED THE RATE FIXED SO LONG
AS THE RESULT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE.  FOR ME THE STATUTORY COMMAND TO
THE COMMISSION IS MORE EXPLICIT.  ENTIRELY ASIDE FROM THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM OF WHETHER THE CONGRESS COULD VALIDLY DELEGATE
ITS RATE-MAKING POWER TO THE COMMISSION, IN TOTO AND WITHOUT STANDARDS,
IT DID LEGISLATE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELATION OF FAIR AND REASONABLE TO
FAIR VALUE AND REASONABLE RETURN.  THE COMMISSION MUST THEREFORE MAKE
ITS FINDINGS IN OBSERVANCE OF THAT RELATIONSHIP. 

THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION DID NOT, AS I CONSTRUE THEIR ACTION,
DISREGARD ITS STATUTORY DUTY.  THEY HEARD THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO
HISTORICAL AND REPRODUCTION COST AND TO THE REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN,
AND THEY APPRAISED ITS WEIGHT.  THE EVIDENCE OF REPRODUCTION COST WAS
REJECTED AS UNPERSUASIVE, BUT FROM THE OTHER EVIDENCE THEY FOUND A RATE
BASE, WHICH IS TO ME A DETERMINATION OF FAIR VALUE.  ON THAT BASE THE
EARNINGS ALLOWED SEEM FAIR AND REASONABLE.  SO FAR AS THE COMMISSION
WENT IN APPRAISING THE PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE, I FIND NOTHING
IN THE RESULT WHICH INDICATES CONFISCATION, UNFAIRNESS OR
UNREASONABLENESS.  GOOD ADMINISTRATION OF RATE-MAKING AGENCIES UNDER
THIS METHOD WOULD AVOID UNDUE DELAY AND RENDER REVALUATIONS UNNECESSARY
EXCEPT AFTER VIOLENT FLUCTUATIONS OF PRICE LEVELS.  RATE MAKING UNDER
THIS METHOD HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO CRITICISM.  BUT UNTIL CONGRESS
CHANGES THE STANDARDS FOR THE AGENCIES, THESE RATE-MAKING BODIES SHOULD
CONTINUE THE CONVENTIONAL THEORY OF RATE MAKING.  IT WILL PROBABLY BE
SIMPLER TO IMPROVE PRESENT METHODS THAN TO DEVISE NEW ONES. 

BUT A MAJOR ERROR, I THINK, WAS COMMITTED IN THE DISREGARD BY THE
COMMISSION OF THE INVESTMENT IN EXPLORATORY OPERATIONS AND OTHER
RECOGNIZED CAPITAL COSTS.  THESE WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION
BECAUSE THEY WERE CHARGED TO OPERATING EXPENSES BY THE COMPANY AT A
TIME WHEN IT WAS UNREGULATED.  CONGRESS DID NOT DIRECT THE COMMISSION
IN RATE MAKING TO DEDUCT FROM THE RATE BASE CAPITAL INVESTMENT WHICH
HAD BEEN RECOVERED DURING THE UNREGULATED PERIOD THROUGH EXCESS
EARNINGS.  IN MY VIEW THIS PART OF THE INVESTMENT SHOULD NO MORE HAVE
BEEN DISREGARDED IN THE RATE BASE THAN ANY OTHER CAPITAL INVESTMENT
WHICH PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN RECOVERED AND PAID OUT IN DIVIDENDS OR PLACED
TO SURPLUS.  EVEN IF PRUDENT INVESTMENT THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE
PROPERTY IS ACCEPTED AS THE FORMULA FOR FIGURING THE RATE BASE, IT
SEEMS TO ME ILLOGICAL TO THROW OUT THE ADMITTEDLY PRUDENT COST OF PART
OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE EARNINGS IN THE UNREGULATED PERIOD HAD BEEN
SUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE PRUDENT COST TO THE INVESTORS OVER AND ABOVE A
REASONABLE RETURN.  WHAT WOULD THE ANSWER BE UNDER THE THEORY OF THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURT, IF THE ONLY PRUDENT INVESTMENT IN THIS
UTILITY HAD BEEN THE SEVENTEEN MILLION CAPITAL CHARGES WHICH ARE NOW
DISALLOWED? 

FOR THE REASONS HERETOFORE STATED, I SHOULD AFFIRM THE ACTION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN RETURNING THE PROCEEDING TO THE COMMISSION
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND SHOULD DIRECT THE COMMISSION TO ACCEPT
THE DISALLOWED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN DETERMINING THE FAIR VALUE FOR
RATE-MAKING PURPOSES. 

FN1  NATURAL GAS ACT, SEC. 4(A), 52 STAT. 821, 822, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
717(A). 

FN2  52 STAT. 821, 824, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717E: 

"(A)  THE COMMISSION MAY INVESTIGATE AND ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL
LEGITIMATE  COST OF THE PROPERTY OF EVERY NATURAL-GAS COMPANY, THE
DEPRECIATION THEREIN, AND, WHEN FOUND NECESSARY FOR RATE-MAKING
PURPOSES, OTHER FACTS WHICH BEAR ON THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH COST OR
DEPRECIATION AND THE FAIR VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY. 

"(B)  EVERY NATURAL-GAS COMPANY UPON REQUEST SHALL FILE WITH THE
COMMISSION AN INVENTORY OF ALL OR ANY PART OF ITS PROPERTY AND A
STATEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL COST THEREOF, AND SHALL KEEP THE COMMISSION
INFORMED REGARDING THE COST OF ALL ADDITIONS, BETTERMENTS, EXTENSIONS,
AND NEW CONSTRUCTION." 

FN3  "REPRODUCTION COST" HAS BEEN VARIOUSLY DEFINED, BUT FOR RATE
MAKING PURPOSES THE MOST USEFUL SENSE SEEMS TO BE, THE MINIMUM AMOUNT
NECESSARY TO CREATE AT THE TIME OF THE INQUIRY A MODERN PLANT CAPABLE
OF RENDERING EQUIVALENT SERVICE.  SEE I BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF
PROPERTY (1937) 152.  REPRODUCTION COST AS THE COST OF BUILDING A
REPLICA OF AN OBSOLESCENT PLANT IS NOT OF REAL SIGNIFICANCE. 

"PRUDENT INVESTMENT" IS NOT DEFINED BY THE COURT.  IT MAY MEAN THE
SUM ORIGINALLY PUT IN THE ENTERPRISE, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT ADDITIONAL
AMOUNTS FROM EXCESS EARNINGS REINVESTED IN THE BUSINESS. 

FN4  IT IS OF NO MORE THAN BOOKKEEPING SIGNIFICANCE WHETHER THE
COMMISSION ALLOWS A RATE OF RETURN COMMENSURATE WITH THE RISK OF THE
ORIGINAL INVESTMENT OR THE LOWER RATE BASED ON CURRENT RISK AND A
CAPITALIZATION REFLECTING THE ESTABLISHED EARNING POWER OF A SUCCESSFUL
COMPANY AND THE PROBABLE COST OF DUPLICATING ITS SERVICES.  CF. A.T. &
T. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232.  BUT THE LATTER IS THE
TRADITIONAL METHOD. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

MY BROTHER JACKSON HAS ANALYZED WITH PARTICULARITY THE ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL ASPECTS OF NATURAL GAS AS WELL AS THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH LED TO
THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, ESPECIALLY THOSE ARISING OUT OF
THE ABORTIVE ATTEMPTS OF STATES TO REGULATE NATURAL GAS UTILITIES.  THE
NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938 SHOULD RECEIVE APPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
ANALYSIS, AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON HAS, I BELIEVE, DRAWN RELEVANT
INFERENCES REGARDING THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IN FIXING
NATURAL GAS RATES.  HIS EXPOSITION SEEMS TO ME UNANSWERED, AND I SHALL
SAY ONLY A FEW WORDS TO EMPHASIZE MY BASIC AGREEMENT WITH HIM. 

FOR OUR SOCIETY THE NEEDS THAT ARE MET BY PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE AS
TRULY PUBLIC SERVICES AS THE TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF
POLICE AND JUSTICE.  THEY ARE NOT LESS SO WHEN THESE SERVICES ARE
RENDERED BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE UNDER GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION.  WHO
ULTIMATELY DETERMINES THE WAYS OF REGULATION, IS THE DECISIVE ASPECT IN
THE PUBLIC SUPERVISION OF PRIVATELY-OWNED UTILITIES.  FORESHADOWED
NEARLY SIXTY YEARS AGO, RAILROAD COMMISSION CASES, 116 U.S. 307, 331,
IT WAS DECIDED MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS AGO THAT THE FINAL SAY UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION LIES WITH THE JUDICIARY AND NOT THE LEGISLATURE.  CHICAGO,
M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 134 U.S. 418. 

WHILE LEGAL ISSUES TOUCHING THE PROPER DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENTAL
POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION MAY ALWAYS BE RAISED, CONGRESSIONAL
ACQUIESCENCE TO DATE IN THE DOCTRINE OF CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V.
MINNESOTA, SUPRA, MAY FAIRLY BE CLAIMED.  BUT IN ANY EVENT THAT ISSUE
IS NOT HERE IN CONTROVERSY.  AS POINTED OUT IN THE OPINIONS OF MY
BRETHREN, CONGRESS HAS GIVEN ONLY LIMITED AUTHORITY TO THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION AND MADE THE EXERCISE OF THAT AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO FIX RATES CHARGEABLE
FOR NATURAL GAS.  BUT THE RATES THAT IT CAN FIX MUST BE "JUST AND
REASONABLE."  SEC. 5 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717(D). 
INSTEAD OF MAKING THE COMMISSION'S RATE DETERMINATIONS FINAL, CONGRESS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR COURT REVIEW OF SUCH ORDERS.  TO BE SURE,
"THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" WAS MADE "CONCLUSIVE," SEC. 19 OF THE ACT, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 717R.  BUT OBEDIENCE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF CONGRESS THAT
RATES BE "JUST AND REASONABLE" IS NOT AN ISSUE OF FACT OF WHICH THE
COMMISSION'S OWN DETERMINATION IS CONCLUSIVE.  OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD
BE NOTHING FOR A COURT TO REVIEW EXCEPT QUESTIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE
SEEN FIT SO TO CAST ITS LEGISLATION.  BUT IT HAS NOT DONE SO.  IT HAS
COMMITTED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION THE
DUTY OF APPLYING STANDARDS OF FAIR DEALING AND OF REASONABLENESS
RELEVANT TO THE PURPOSES EXPRESSED BY THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  THE
REQUIREMENT THAT RATES MUST BE "JUST AND REASONABLE" MEANS JUST AND
REASONABLE IN RELATION TO APPROPRIATE STANDARDS.  OTHERWISE CONGRESS
WOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE COMMISSION TO FIX SUCH RATES AS IN THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COMMISSION ARE JUST AND REASONABLE; IT WOULD NOT HAVE ALSO
PROVIDED THAT SUCH DETERMINATIONS BY THE COMMISSION ARE SUBJECT TO
COURT REVIEW.    TO WHAT SOURCES THEN ARE THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS
TO GO FOR ASCERTAINING THE STANDARDS RELEVANT TO THE REGULATION OF
NATURAL GAS RATES?  IT IS AT THIS POINT THAT MR. JUSTICE JACKSON'S
ANALYSIS SEEMS TO ME PERTINENT.  THERE APPEAR TO BE TWO ALTERNATIVES. 
EITHER THE FIXING OF NATURAL GAS RATES MUST BE LEFT TO THE UNGUIDED
DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION SO LONG AS THE RATES IT FIXES DO NOT
REVEAL A GLARINGLY BAD PROPHECY OF THE ABILITY OF A REGULATED UTILITY
TO CONTINUE ITS SERVICE IN THE FUTURE.  OR THE COMMISSION'S RATE ORDERS
MUST BE FOUNDED ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WHICH THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS INVOLVE
JUST BECAUSE IT IS NATURAL GAS.  THESE ELEMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE
NATURAL GAS ACT, IF THAT ACT BE APPLIED AS AN ENTIRETY.  SEE, FOR
INSTANCE, SECS. 4(A)(B)(C)(D), 6, AND 11, 15 U.S.C., SECS. 717C
(A)(B)(C)(D), 717C, AND 717J.  OF COURSE THE STATUTE IS NOT CONCERNED
WITH ABSTRACT THEORIES OF RATE-MAKING.  BUT ITS VERY FOUNDATION IS THE
"PUBLIC INTEREST," AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS A TEXTURE OF MULTIPLE
STRANDS.  IT INCLUDES MORE THAN CONTEMPORARY INVESTORS AND CONTEMPORARY
CONSUMERS.  THE NEEDS TO BE SERVED ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO IMMEDIACY, AND
SOCIAL AS WELL AS ECONOMIC COSTS MUST BE COUNTED. 

IT WILL NOT DO TO SAY THAT IT MUST ALL BE LEFT TO THE SKILL OF
EXPERTS.  EXPERTISE IS A RATIONAL PROCESS AND A RATIONAL PROCESS
IMPLIES EXPRESSED REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.  IT WILL LITTLE ADVANCE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE HODGE-PODGE OF THE RULE IN SMYTH
V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466, AN ENCOURAGEMENT OF CONSCIOUS OBSCURITY OR
CONFUSION IN REACHING A RESULT, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SO LONG AS THE
RESULT APPEARS HARMLESS ITS BASIS IS IRRELEVANT.  THAT MAY BE AN
APPROPRIATE ATTITUDE WHEN STATE ACTION IS CHALLENGED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  CF. DRISCOLL V. EDISON CO., 307 U.S. 104.  BUT IT IS
NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT IT WAS THE DESIGN OF CONGRESS TO MAKE THE
ACCOMMODATION OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS EXPOSED IN MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON'S OPINION THE OCCASION FOR A BLIND CLASH OF FORCES OR A PARTIAL
ASSESSMENT OF RELEVANT FACTORS, EITHER BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR HERE. 

THE OBJECTION TO THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IS NOT THAT THE RATES IT
GRANTED WERE TOO LOW BUT THAT THE RANGE OF ITS VISION WAS TOO NARROW. 
AND SINCE THE ISSUES BEFORE THE COMMISSION INVOLVED NO LESS THAN THE
TOTAL PUBLIC INTEREST, THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED
BY NARROW CONCEPTIONS OF COMMON LAW PLEADING.  AND SO I CONCLUDE THAT
THE CASE SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION.  IN ORDER TO ENABLE THIS
COURT TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTY OF REVIEWING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, THE
COMMISSION SHOULD SET FORTH WITH EXPLICITNESS THE CRITERIA BY WHICH IT
IS GUIDED IN DETERMINING THAT RATES ARE "JUST AND REASONABLE," AND IT
SHOULD DETERMINE THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IS IN ITS KEEPING IN THE
PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS SET FORTH BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. 

BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 

CERTAINLY THE THEORY OF THE COURT BELOW THAT TIES RATE-MAKING TO THE
FAIR-VALUE-REPRODUCTION-COST FORMULA SHOULD BE OVERRULED AS IN CONFLICT
WITH FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. FN1  BUT THE
CASE SHOULD, I THINK, BE THE OCCASION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR RATE
MAKING DOCTRINE AS APPLIED TO NATURAL GAS AND SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE
COMMISSION, FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT THEREOF. 

THE COMMISSION APPEARS TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE EFFECT OF THE TWO
OPINIONS IN THE PIPELINE CASE TO BE AT LEAST AUTHORITY AND PERHAPS
DIRECTION TO FIX NATURAL GAS RATES BY EXCLUSIVE APPLICATION OF THE
"PRUDENT INVESTMENT" RATE BASE THEORY.  THIS HAS NO WARRANT IN THE
OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE FOR THE COURT, HOWEVER, WHICH RELEASED THE
COMMISSION FROM SUBSERVIENCE TO "ANY SINGLE FORMULA OR COMBINATION OF
FORMULAS" PROVIDED ITS ORDER, "VIEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY, PRODUCES NO
ARBITRARY RESULT."  315 U.S. AT 586.  THE MINORITY OPINION I UNDERSTOOD
TO ADVOCATE THE "PRUDENT INVESTMENT" THEORY AS A SUFFICIENT GUIDE IN A
NATURAL GAS CASE.  THE VIEW WAS EXPRESSED IN THE COURT BELOW THAT SINCE
THIS OPINION WAS NOT EXPRESSLY CONTROVERTED IT MUST HAVE BEEN
APPROVED.  FN2  I DISCLAIM THIS IMPUTED APPROVAL WITH SOME
PARTICULARITY, BECAUSE I ATTACH IMPORTANCE AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF
FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY TO APPROACHING IT AS THE
PERFORMANCE OF ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS, NOT AS THE PERFORMANCE OF LEGALISTIC
RITUALS. 

                             I. 

SOLUTIONS OF THESE CASES MUST CONSIDER ECCENTRICITIES OF THE INDUSTRY
WHICH GIVES RISE TO THEM AND ALSO TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS BY WHICH THEY
ARE GOVERNED. 

THE HEART OF THIS PROBLEM IS THE ELUSIVE, EXHAUSTIBLE, AND
IRREPLACEABLE NATURE OF NATURAL GAS ITSELF.  GIVEN SUFFICIENT MONEY, WE
CAN PRODUCE ANY DESIRED AMOUNT OF RAILROAD, BUS, OR STEAMSHIP
TRANSPORTATION, OR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, OR CAPACITY FOR
GENERATION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY, OR FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF GAS OF A
KIND.  IN THE SERVICE OF SUCH UTILITIES ONE CUSTOMER HAS LITTLE CONCERN
WITH THE AMOUNT TAKEN BY ANOTHER, ONE'S WASTE WILL NOT DEPRIVE ANOTHER,
A VOLUME OF SERVICE CAN BE CREATED EQUAL TO DEMAND, AND TODAY'S DEMANDS
WILL NOT EXHAUST OR LESSEN CAPACITY TO SERVE TOMORROW.  BUT THE WEALTH
OF MIDAS AND THE WIT OF MAN CANNOT PRODUCE OR REPRODUCE A NATURAL GAS
FIELD.  WE CANNOT EVEN REPRODUCE THE GAS, FOR OUR MANUFACTURED PRODUCT
HAS ONLY ABOUT HALF THE HEATING VALUE PER UNIT OF NATURE'S OWN.  FN3 

NATURAL GAS IN SOME QUANTITY IS PRODUCED IN TWENTY-FOUR STATES.  IT
IS CONSUMED IN ONLY THIRTY-FIVE STATES, AND IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO ABOUT
7,600,000 CONSUMERS.  FN4  ITS AVAILABILITY HAS BEEN MORE LOCALIZED
THAN THAT OF ANY OTHER UTILITY SERVICE BECAUSE IT HAS DEPENDED MORE ON
THE CAPRICE OF NATURE. 

THE SUPPLY OF THE HOPE COMPANY IS DRAWN FROM THAT OLD AND RICH AND
VANISHING FIELD THAT FLANKS THE APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS.  ITS CENTER OF
PRODUCTION IS PENNSYLVANIA AND WEST VIRGINIA, WITH A FRINGE OF LESSER
PRODUCTION IN NEW YORK, OHIO, KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE, AND THE NORTH END OF
ALABAMA.  OIL WAS DISCOVERED IN COMMERCIAL QUANTITIES AT A DEPTH OF
ONLY 69 1/2 FEET NEAR TITUSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA, IN 1859.  ITS VALUE
THEN WAS ABOUT $16 PER BARREL N5.  THE OIL BRANCH OF THE PETROLEUM
INDUSTRY WENT FORWARD AT ONCE, AND WITH UNPRECEDENTED SPEED.  THE AREA
PRODUCTIVE OF OIL AND GAS WAS ROUGHED OUT BY THE DRILLING OF OVER
19,000 "WILDCAT" WELLS, ESTIMATED TO HAVE COST OVER $222,000,000.  OF
THESE, OVER 18,000, OR 94.9 PER CENT, WERE "DRY HOLES."  ABOUT FIVE PER
CENT, OR 990 WELLS, MADE DISCOVERIES OF COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE, 767 OF
THEM RESULTING CHIEFLY IN OIL AND 223 IN GAS ONLY.  FN6  PROSPECTING
FOR MANY YEARS WAS A SEARCH FOR OIL, AND TO STRIKE GAS WAS A
MISFORTUNE.  WASTE DURING THIS PERIOD AND EVEN LATER IS APPALLING.  GAS
WAS REGARDED AS HAVING NO COMMERCIAL VALUE UNTIL ABOUT 1882, IN WHICH
YEAR THE TOTAL YIELD WAS VALUED ONLY AT ABOUT $75,000.  FN7  SINCE
THEN, CONTRARY TO OIL, WHICH HAS BECOME CHEAPER, GAS IN THIS FIELD HAS
PRETTY STEADILY ADVANCED IN PRICE. 

WHILE FOR MANY YEARS NATURAL GAS HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED ON A SMALL
SCALE FOR LIGHTING,  FN8  ITS ACCEPTANCE WAS SLOW, FACILITIES FOR ITS
UTILIZATION WERE PRIMITIVE, AND NOT UNTIL 1885 DID IT TAKE ON THE
APPEARANCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL INDUSTRY N9.  SOON MONOPOLY OF PRODUCTION
OR MARKETS DEVELOPED N10.  TO GET GAS FROM THE MOUNTAIN COUNTRY, WHERE
IT WAS LARGELY FOUND, TO CENTERS OF POPULATION, WHERE IT WAS IN DEMAND,
REQUIRED VERY LARGE INVESTMENT.  BY OWNERSHIP OF SUCH FACILITIES A FEW
CORPORATE SYSTEMS, EACH INCLUDING SEVERAL COMPANIES, CONTROLLED ACCESS
TO MARKETS.  THEIR PURCHASES BECAME THE DOMINATING FACTOR IN GIVING A
MARKET VALUE TO GAS PRODUCED BY MANY SMALL OPERATORS.  HOPE IS THE
MARKET FOR OVER 300 SUCH OPERATORS.  BY 1928 NATURAL GAS IN THE
APPALACHIAN FIELD COMMANDED AN AVERAGE PRICE OF 21.1 CENTS PER M.C.F.
AT POINTS OF PRODUCTION AND WAS BRINGING 45.7 CENTS AT POINTS OF
CONSUMPTION.  FN11  THE COMPANIES WHICH CONTROLLED MARKETS, HOWEVER,
DID NOT RELY ON GAS PURCHASES ALONE.  THEY ACQUIRED AND HELD IN FEE OR
LEASEHOLD GREAT ACREAGE IN TERRITORY PROVED BY "WILDCAT" DRILLING. 
THESE LARGE MARKETING SYSTEM COMPANIES AS WELL AS MANY SMALL
INDEPENDENT OWNERS AND OPERATORS HAVE CARRIED ON THE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT OF PROVED TERRITORY.  THE DEVELOPMENT RISKS APPEAR FROM THE
ESTIMATE THAT UP TO 1928, 312,318 PROVED AREA WELLS HAD BEEN SUNK IN
THE APPALACHIAN FIELD OF WHICH 48,962, OR 15.7 PER CENT, FAILED TO
PRODUCE OIL OR GAS IN COMMERCIAL QUANTITY.  FN12 

WITH THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY THUS TAPPED TO SERVE CENTERS OF LARGE
DEMAND, LIKE PITTSBURGH, BUFFALO, CLEVELAND, YOUNGSTOWN, AKRON, AND
OTHER INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITIES, THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS FAST
BECAME BIG BUSINESS.  ITS ADVANTAGES AS A FUEL AND ITS PRICE COMMENDED
IT, AND THE BUSINESS YIELDED A HANDSOME RETURN.  ALL WAS MERRY AND THE
GOOSE HUNG HIGH FOR CONSUMERS AND GAS COMPANIES ALIKE UNTIL ABOUT THE
TIME OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR.  ALMOST UNNOTICED BY THE CONSUMING PUBLIC,
THE WHOLE APPALACHIAN FIELD PASSED ITS PEAK OF PRODUCTION AND STARTED
TO DECLINE.  PENNSYLVANIA, WHICH TO 1928 HAD GIVEN OFF ABOUT 38 PER
CENT OF THE NATURAL GAS FROM THIS FIELD, HAD ITS PEAK IN 1905; OHIO,
WHICH HAD PRODUCED 14 PER CENT, HAD ITS PEAK IN 1915; AND WEST
VIRGINIA, GREATEST PRODUCER OF ALL, WITH 45 PER CENT TO ITS CREDIT,
REACHED ITS PEAK IN 1917.  FN13 

WESTERN NEW YORK AND EASTERN OHIO, ON THE FRINGE OF THE FIELD, HAD
SOME PRODUCTION BUT RELIED HEAVILY ON IMPORTS FROM PENNSYLVANIA AND
WEST VIRGINIA.  PENNSYLVANIA, A PRODUCING AND EXPORTING STATE, WAS A
HEAVY CONSUMER AND SUPPLEMENTED HER PRODUCTION WITH IMPORTS FROM WEST
VIRGINIA.  WEST VIRGINIA WAS A CONSUMING STATE, BUT THE LION'S SHARE OF
HER PRODUCTION WAS EXPORTED.  THUS THE INTEREST OF THE STATES IN THE
NORTH APPALACHIAN SUPPLY WAS IN CONFLICT. 

COMPETITION AMONG LOCALITIES TO SHARE IN THE FAILING SUPPLY AND THE
HELPLESSNESS OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN THE PRESENCE OF STATE
LINES AND CORPORATE COMPLEXITIES IS A PART OF THE BACKGROUND OF FEDERAL
INTERVENTION IN THE INDUSTRY.  FN14  WEST VIRGINIA TOOK THE BOLDEST
MEASURE.  IT LEGISLATED A PRIORITY IN ITS ENTIRE PRODUCTION IN FAVOR OF
ITS OWN INHABITANTS.  THAT WAS FRUSTRATED BY AN INJUNCTION FROM THIS
COURT.  FN15  THROUGHOUT THE REGION CLASHES IN THE COURTS AND
CONFLICTING DECISIONS EVIDENCED PUBLIC ANXIETY AND CONFUSION.  IT WAS
HELD THAT THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE POWER TO
CLASSIFY CONSUMERS AND RESTRICT THEIR USE OF GAS.  FN16  THAT
COMMISSION HELD THAT A COMPANY COULD NOT ABANDON A PART OF ITS
TERRITORY AND STILL SERVE THE REST.  FN17  SOME COURTS ADMONISHED THE
COMPANIES TO TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT CONSUMERS N18.  SEVERAL COURTS HELD
THAT COMPANIES, REGARDLESS OF FAILING SUPPLY, MUST CONTINUE TO TAKE ON
CUSTOMERS, BUT SUCH COMPULSORY ADDITIONS WERE FINALLY HELD TO BE WITHIN
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION.  FN19  THERE WERE ATTEMPTS
TO THROW UP FRANCHISES AND QUIT THE SERVICE, AND MUNICIPALITIES
RESORTED TO THE COURTS WITH CONFLICTING RESULTS.  FN20  PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSIONS OF CONSUMING STATES WERE HANDICAPPED, FOR THEY HAD NO
CONTROL OF THE SUPPLY.  FN21 

SHORTAGES DURING WORLD WAR I OCCASIONED THE FIRST INTERVENTION IN THE
NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  UNDER PROCLAMATION OF
PRESIDENT WILSON THE UNITED STATES FUEL ADMINISTRATOR TOOK CONTROL,
STOPPED EXTENSIONS, CLASSIFIED CONSUMERS AND ESTABLISHED A PRIORITY FOR
DOMESTIC OVER INDUSTRIAL USE.  FN22  AFTER THE WAR FEDERAL CONTROL WAS
ABANDONED.  SOME CITIES ONCE SERVED WITH NATURAL GAS BECAME DEPENDENT
UPON A MIXED GAS OF REDUCED HEATING VALUE AND RELATIVELY HIGHER PRICE. 
FN23 

UTILIZATION OF NATURAL GAS OF HIGHEST SOCIAL AS WELL AS ECONOMIC
RETURN IS DOMESTIC USE FOR COOKING AND WATER HEATING, FOLLOWED CLOSELY
BY USE FOR SPACE HEATING IN HOMES.  THIS IS THE TRUE PUBLIC UTILITY
ASPECT OF THE ENTERPRISE, AND ITS PRESERVATION SHOULD BE THE FIRST
CONCERN OF REGULATION.  GAS DOES THE FAMILY COOKING CHEAPER THAN ANY
OTHER FUEL.  FN24  BUT ITS ADVANTAGES DO NOT END WITH DOLLARS AND CENTS
COST.  IT IS DELIVERED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION AT THE METER AS NEEDED AND
IS PAID FOR AFTER IT IS USED.  NO MONEY IS TIED UP IN A SUPPLY, AND NO
SPACE IS USED FOR STORAGE.  IT REQUIRES NO HANDLING, CREATES NO DUST,
AND LEAVES NO ASH.  IT RESPONDS TO THERMOSTATIC CONTROL.  IT IGNITES
EASILY AND IMMEDIATELY DEVELOPS ITS MAXIMUM HEATING CAPACITY.  THESE
INCIDENTAL ADVANTAGES MAKE DOMESTIC LIFE MORE LIVEABLE. 

INDUSTRIAL USE IS INDUCED LESS BY THESE QUALITIES THAN BY LOW COST IN
COMPETITION WITH OTHER FUELS.  OF THE GAS EXPORTED FROM WEST VIRGINIA
BY THE HOPE COMPANY A VERY SUBSTANTIAL PART IS USED BY INDUSTRIES. 
THIS WHOLESALE USE SPEEDS EXHAUSTION OF SUPPLY AND DISPLACES OTHER
FUELS.  COAL MINERS AND THE COAL INDUSTRY, A LARGE PART OF WHOSE COSTS
ARE WAGES, HAVE COMPLAINED OF UNFAIR COMPETITION FROM LOW-PRICED
INDUSTRIAL GAS PRODUCED WITH RELATIVELY LITTLE LABOR COST.  FN25 

GAS RATE STRUCTURES GENERALLY HAVE FAVORED INDUSTRIAL USERS.  IN
1932, IN OHIO, THE AVERAGE YIELD ON GAS FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION WAS
62.1 CENTS PER M.C.F. AND ON INDUSTRIAL, 38.7.  IN PENNSYLVANIA, THE
FIGURES WERE 62.9 AGAINST 31.7.  WEST VIRGINIA SHOWED THE LEAST SPREAD,
DOMESTIC CONSUMERS PAYING 36.6 CENTS; AND INDUSTRIAL, 27.7.  FN26
ALTHOUGH THIS SPREAD IS LESS THAN IN OTHER PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES,
FN27  IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID TO BE SELF-JUSTIFYING.  IT CERTAINLY IS A
VERY GREAT FACTOR IN HASTENING DECLINE OF THE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY. 
ABOUT THE TIME OF WORLD WAR I THERE WERE OCCASIONAL AND SHORT-LIVED
EFFORTS BY SOME HARD-PRESSED COMPANIES TO REVERSE THIS DISCRIMINATION
AND ADOPT GRADUATED RATES, GIVING A LOW RATE TO QUANTITIES ADEQUATE FOR
DOMESTIC USE AND GRADUATING IT UPWARD TO DISCOURAGE INDUSTRIAL USE. 
FN28 THESE RATES MET OPPOSITION FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES, OF COURSE, AND
SINCE DIMINISHED REVENUES FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES TENDED TO INCREASE
THE DOMESTIC PRICE, THEY MET LITTLE POPULAR OR COMMISSION FAVOR.  THE
FACT IS THAT NEITHER THE GAS COMPANIES NOR THE CONSUMERS NOR LOCAL
REGULATORY BODIES CAN BE DEPENDED UPON TO CONSERVE GAS.  UNLESS FEDERAL
REGULATION WILL TAKE ACCOUNT OF CONSERVATION, ITS EFFORTS SEEM, AS IN
THIS CASE, ACTUALLY TO CONSTITUTE A NEW THREAT TO THE LIFE OF THE
APPALACHIAN SUPPLY. 

    II. 

CONGRESS IN 1938 DECIDED UPON FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY.  IT
DID SO AFTER AN EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION OF ALL ASPECTS INCLUDING
FAILING SUPPLY AND COMPETITION FOR THE USE OF NATURAL GAS INTENSIFIED
BY GROWING SCARCITY.  FN29  PIPELINES FROM THE APPALACHIAN AREA TO
MARKETS WERE IN THE CONTROL OF A HANDFUL OF HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS. 
FN30  THIS CREATED A HIGHLY CONCENTRATED CONTROL OF THE PRODUCERS'
MARKET AND OF THE CONSUMERS' SUPPLIES.  WHILE HOLDING COMPANIES
DOMINATED BOTH PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION THEY SEGREGATED THOSE
ACTIVITIES IN SEPARATE SUBSIDIARIES,  FN31  THE EFFECT OF WHICH, IF NOT
THE PURPOSE, WAS TO ISOLATE SOME END OF THE BUSINESS FROM THE REACH OF
ANY ONE STATE COMMISSION.  THE COST OF NATURAL GAS TO CONSUMERS MOVED
STEADILY UPWARDS OVER THE YEARS, OUT OF PROPORTION TO PRICES OF OIL,
WHICH, EXCEPT FOR THE ELEMENT OF COMPETITION, IS PRODUCED UNDER
SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE CONDITIONS.  THE PUBLIC CAME TO FEEL THAT THE
COMPANIES WERE EXPLOITING THE GROWING SCARCITY OF LOCAL GAS.  THE
PROBLEMS OF THIS REGION HAD MUCH TO DO WITH CREATING THE DEMAND FOR
FEDERAL REGULATION. 

THE NATURAL GAS ACT DECLARED THE NATURAL GAS BUSINESS TO BE "AFFECTED
WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST," AND ITS REGULATION "NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  FN32  ORIGINALLY, AND AT THE TIME THIS PROCEEDING WAS
COMMENCED AND TRIED, IT ALSO DECLARED "THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS THAT
NATURAL GAS SHALL BE SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR RESALE FOR
ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR
ANY OTHER USE AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE REASONABLE RATE CONSISTENT WITH
THE MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE SERVICE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  FN33
WHILE THIS WAS LATER DROPPED, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT IT WAS
NOT AND IS NOT STILL AN ACCURATE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE OF THE ACT. 
EXTENSION OR IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES MAY BE ORDERED WHEN "NECESSARY
OR DESIRABLE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST," ABANDONMENT OF FACILITIES MAY BE
ORDERED WHEN THE SUPPLY IS "DEPLETED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CONTINUANCE
OF SERVICE IS UNWARRANTED, OR THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY PERMIT" ABANDONMENT AND CERTAIN EXTENSIONS CAN
ONLY BE MADE ON FINDING OF "THE PRESENT OR FUTURE CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY."  FN34  THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE
ULTIMATE USE OF THE GAS.  THUS IT IS GIVEN POWER TO SUSPEND NEW
SCHEDULES AS TO RATES, CHARGES, AND CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES EXCEPT
WHERE THE SCHEDULES ARE FOR THE SALE OF GAS "FOR RESALE FOR INDUSTRIAL
USE ONLY,"  FN35  WHICH GIVES THE COMPANIES GREATER FREEDOM TO INCREASE
RATES ON INDUSTRIAL GAS THAN ON DOMESTIC GAS.  MORE PARTICULARLY, THE
ACT EXPRESSLY FORBIDS ANY UNDUE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY PERSON
OR "ANY UNREASONABLE DIFFERENCE IN RATES  ...  EITHER AS BETWEEN
LOCALITIES OR AS BETWEEN CLASSES OF SERVICE."  FN36  AND THE POWER OF
THE COMMISSION EXPRESSLY INCLUDES THAT TO DETERMINE THE "JUST AND
REASONABLE RATE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION, RULE, REGULATION, PRACTICE, OR
CONTRACT TO BE THEREAFTER OBSERVED AND IN FORCE."  FN37 

IN VIEW OF THE COURT'S OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION IN ADMINISTERING
THE ACT MAY IGNORE DISCRIMINATION, IT IS INTERESTING THAT IN REPORTING
THIS BILL BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEES ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE POINTED OUT THAT IN 1934, ON A NATION-WIDE AVERAGE THE PRICE
OF NATURAL GAS PER M.C.F. WAS 74.6 CENTS FOR DOMESTIC USE, 49.6 CENTS
FOR COMMERCIAL USE, AND 16.9 FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.  FN38  I AM NOT READY
TO THINK THAT SUPPORTERS OF A BILL CALLED ATTENTION TO THE STRIKING
FACT THAT HOUSEHOLDERS WERE BEING CHARGED FIVE TIMES AS MUCH FOR THEIR
GAS AS INDUSTRIAL USERS ONLY AS A SITUATION WHICH THE BILL WOULD DO
NOTHING TO REMEDY.  ON THE OTHER HAND THE ACT GAVE TO THE COMMISSION
WHAT THE COURT APTLY DESCRIBES AS "BROAD POWERS OF REGULATION." 

                                 III. 

THIS PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED BY THE CITIES OF CLEVELAND AND AKRON. 
THEY ALLEGED THAT THE PRICE CHARGED BY HOPE FOR NATURAL GAS "FOR RESALE
TO DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL AND SMALL INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN CLEVELAND AND
ELSEWHERE IS EXCESSIVE, UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE
PRICE CHARGED BY HOPE TO NONAFFILIATED COMPANIES AT WHOLESALE FOR
RESALE TO DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL, AND SMALL INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS, AND
GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE PRICE CHARGED BY HOPE TO EAST OHIO FOR RESALE
TO CERTAIN FAVORED INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN OHIO, AND THEREFORE IS
FURTHER UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY BETWEEN CUSTOMERS AND BETWEEN CLASSES OF
SERVICE".  THE COMPANY ANSWERED ADMITTING DIFFERENCES IN PRICES TO
AFFILIATED AND NONAFFILIATED COMPANIES AND JUSTIFYING THEM BY
DIFFERENCES IN CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY.  AS TO THE ALLEGATION THAT THE
CONTRACT PRICE IS "GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE PRICE CHARGED BY HOPE TO
EAST OHIO FOR RESALE TO CERTAIN FAVORED INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN OHIO,"
HOPE DID NOT DENY A PRICE DIFFERENTIAL, BUT ALLEGED THAT INDUSTRIAL GAS
WAS NOT SOLD TO "FAVORED CONSUMERS" BUT WAS SOLD UNDER CONTRACTS AND
SCHEDULES FILED WITH AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF
OHIO, AND THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY MADE IT NOT "UNDULY
DISCRIMINATORY." 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN 1940 HOPE DELIVERED FOR INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMPTION 36,523,792 M.C.F. AND FOR DOMESTIC AND COMMERCIAL
CONSUMPTION, 50,343,652 M.C.F.  I FIND NO SEPARATE FIGURE FOR DOMESTIC
CONSUMPTION.  IT SERVED 43,767 DOMESTIC CONSUMERS DIRECTLY, 511,521
THROUGH THE EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY, AND 154,043 THROUGH THE PEOPLES
NATURAL GAS COMPANY, BOTH AFFILIATES OWNED BY THE SAME PARENT.  ITS
SPECIAL CONTRACTS FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION, SO FAR AS APPEAR, ARE
CONFINED TO ABOUT A DOZEN BIG INDUSTRIES. 

HOPE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH DISCRIMINATION AS EXISTS IN FAVOR OF
THESE FEW INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS.  IT CONTROLS BOTH THE RESALE PRICE AND
USE OF INDUSTRIAL GAS BY VIRTUE OF THE VERY INTERSTATE SALES CONTRACTS
OVER WHICH THE COMMISSION IS EXERCISING ITS JURISDICTION. 

HOPE'S CONTRACT WITH EAST OHIO COMPANY IS AN EXAMPLE.  HOPE AGREES TO
DELIVER, AND THE OHIO COMPANY TO TAKE, "(A) ALL NATURAL GAS REQUISITE
FOR THE SUPPLY OF THE DOMESTIC CONSUMERS OF THE OHIO COMPANY; (B) SUCH
AMOUNTS OF NATURAL GAS AS MAY BE REQUISITE TO FULFILL CONTRACTS MADE
WITH THE CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF THE HOPE COMPANY BY THE OHIO COMPANY,
OR COMPANIES WHICH IT SUPPLIES WITH NATURAL GAS, FOR THE SALE OF GAS
UPON SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR MANUFACTURING PURPOSES."  THE
OHIO COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO READ DOMESTIC CUSTOMERS' METERS ONCE A
MONTH AND METERS OF INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS DAILY AND TO FURNISH ALL METER
READINGS TO HOPE.  THE HOPE COMPANY IS TO HAVE ACCESS TO METERS OF ALL
CONSUMERS AND TO ALL OF THE OHIO COMPANY'S ACCOUNTS.  THE DOMESTIC
CONSUMERS OF THE OHIO COMPANY ARE TO BE FULLY SUPPLIED IN PREFERENCE TO
CONSUMERS PURCHASING FOR MANUFACTURING PURPOSES AND "HOPE COMPANY CAN
BE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY GAS TO BE USED FOR MANUFACTURING PURPOSES ONLY
WHERE THE SAME IS SOLD UNDER SPECIAL CONTRACTS WHICH HAVE FIRST BEEN
SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE HOPE COMPANY AND WHICH
EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT NATURAL GAS WILL BE SUPPLIED THEREUNDER ONLY IN
SO FAR AS THE SAME IS NOT NECESSARY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
DOMESTIC CONSUMERS SUPPLIED THROUGH PIPE LINES OF THE OHIO COMPANY." 
THIS BASIC CONTRACT WAS SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME, CHIEFLY AS TO
PRICE.  THE LAST AMENDMENT WAS IN A LETTER FROM HOPE TO EAST OHIO IN
1937.  IT CONTAINED A SPECIAL DISCOUNT ON INDUSTRIAL GAS AND A SCHEDULE
OF SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTS, HOPE RESERVING THE RIGHT TO MAKE
ELIMINATIONS THEREFROM AND AGREEING THAT OTHERS MIGHT BE ADDED FROM
TIME TO TIME WITH ITS APPROVAL IN WRITING.  IT SAID, "IT IS BELIEVED
THAT THE PRICE CONCESSIONS CONTAINED IN THIS LETTER, WHILE NOT BASED ON
OUR COSTS, ARE, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, TO OUR MUTUAL ADVANTAGE IN
MAINTAINING AND BUILDING UP THE VOLUMES OF GAS SOLD BY US."  FN39 

THE COMMISSION TOOK NO NOTE OF THE CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION AND MADE
NO DISPOSITION OF THE ISSUE TENDERED ON THIS POINT.  IT ORDERED A FLAT
REDUCTION IN THE PRICE PER M.C.F. OF ALL GAS DELIVERED BY HOPE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT MADE NO LIMITATION, CONDITION, OR PROVISION AS
TO WHAT CLASSES OF CONSUMERS SHOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF THE REDUCTION. 
WHILE THE CITIES HAVE ACCEPTED AND ARE DEFENDING THE REDUCTION, IT IS
MY VIEW THAT THE DISCRIMINATION OF WHICH THEY HAVE COMPLAINED IS
PERPETUATED AND INCREASED BY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT IT
VIOLATES THE ACT IN SO DOING. 

THE COMMISSION'S OPINION APTLY CHARACTERIZES ITS ENTIRE OBJECTIVE BY
SAYING THAT "BONA FIDE INVESTMENT FIGURES NOW BECOME ALL-IMPORTANT IN
THE REGULATION OF RATES."  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ALL-IMPORTANCE
OF THIS THEORY IS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY INSTRUCTION FROM CONGRESS. 
WHEN THE BILL TO REGULATE GAS WAS FIRST BEFORE CONGRESS IT CONTAINED
THE FOLLOWING:  "IN DETERMINING JUST AND REASONABLE RATES THE
COMMISSION SHALL FIX SUCH RATE AS WILL ALLOW A FAIR RETURN UPON THE
ACTUAL LEGITIMATE PRUDENT COST OF THE PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL FOR THE
SERVICE IN QUESTION."  H.R. 5423, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., TITLE III,
SEC. 312(C).  CONGRESS REJECTED THIS LANGUAGE.  SEE H.R. 5423, SEC.
213(211(C)), AND H.R. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 30. 

THE COMMISSION CONTENDS NEVERTHELESS THAT THE "ALL IMPORTANT" FORMULA
FOR FINDING A RATE BASE IS THAT OF PRUDENT INVESTMENT.  BUT IT EXCLUDED
FROM THE INVESTMENT BASE AN AMOUNT ACTUALLY AND ADMITTEDLY INVESTED OF
SOME $17,000,000.  IT DID SO BECAUSE IT SAYS THAT THE COMPANY RECOUPED
THESE EXPENDITURES FROM CUSTOMERS BEFORE THE DAYS OF REGULATION FROM
EARNINGS ABOVE A FAIR RETURN.  BUT IT WOULD NOT APPLY ALL OF SUCH
"EXCESS EARNINGS" TO REDUCE THE RATE BASE AS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS
SUGGESTED.  THE REASON FOR APPLYING EXCESS EARNINGS TO REDUCE THE
INVESTMENT BASE ROUGHLY FROM $69,000,000 TO $52,000,000 BUT REFUSING TO
APPLY THEM TO REDUCE IT FROM THAT TO SOME $18,000,000 IS NOT FOUND IN A
DIFFERENCE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE EARNINGS OR IN THEIR REINVESTMENT. 
THE REASON ASSIGNED IS A DIFFERENCE IN BOOKKEEPING TREATMENT MANY YEARS
BEFORE THE COMPANY WAS SUBJECT TO REGULATION.  THE $17,000,000,
REINVESTED CHIEFLY IN WELL DRILLING, WAS TREATED ON THE BOOKS AS
EXPENSE.  (THE COMMISSION NOW REQUIRES THAT DRILLING COSTS BE CARRIED
TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT.)  THE ALLOWED RATE BASE THUS ACTUALLY WAS
DETERMINED BY THE COMPANY'S BOOKKEEPING, NOT ITS INVESTMENT.  THIS
ATTRIBUTES A SIGNIFICANCE TO FORMAL CLASSIFICATION IN ACCOUNT KEEPING
THAT SEEMS INCONSISTENT WITH RATIONAL RATE REGULATION.  FN40  OF
COURSE, THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT AND SHOULD NOT ALLOW A RATE BASE TO BE
INFLATED BY BOOKKEEPING WHICH HAD IMPROPERLY CAPITALIZED EXPENSES.  I
HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT RESTING PUBLIC REGULATION UPON ANY RULE THAT IS TO BE
USED OR NOT DEPENDING ON WHICH SIDE IT FAVORS. 

THE COMPANY ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS NOT PUT ITS GAS FIELDS INTO ITS
CALCULATIONS ON THE PRESENT-VALUE BASIS, ALTHOUGH THAT, IT CONTENDS, IS
THE ONLY LAWFUL RULE FOR FINDING A RATE BASE.  TO DO SO WOULD RESULT IN
A RATE HIGHER THAN IT HAS CHARGED OR PROPOSES AS A MATTER OF GOOD
BUSINESS TO CHARGE. 

THE CASE BEFORE US DEMONSTRATES THE LACK OF RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL RATE-BASE FORMULAS AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION AND
THE EXTREMITIES TO WHICH REGULATING BODIES ARE BROUGHT BY THE EFFORT TO
RATIONALIZE THEM.  THE COMMISSION AND THE COMPANY EACH STANDS ON A
DIFFERENT THEORY, AND NEITHER VENTURES TO CARRY ITS THEORY TO LOGICAL
CONCLUSION AS APPLIED TO GAS FIELDS. 

                                 IV. 

THIS ORDER IS UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW NOT BECAUSE WE INTERPOSE
CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES BETWEEN A STATE AND THE BUSINESS IT SEEKS TO
REGULATE, BUT BECAUSE CONGRESS PUT UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS A DUTY
TOWARD ADMINISTRATION OF A NEW FEDERAL REGULATORY ACT.  IF WE ARE TO
HOLD THAT A GIVEN RATE IS REASONABLE JUST BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS
SAID IT WAS REASONABLE, REVIEW BECOMES A COSTLY, TIME-CONSUMING PAGEANT
OF NO PRACTICAL VALUE TO ANYONE.  IF ON THE OTHER HAND WE ARE TO BRING
JUDGMENT OF OUR OWN TO THE TASK, WE SHOULD FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE
REGULATORS AND THE REGULATED REVEAL SOMETHING OF THE PHILOSOPHY, BE IT
LEGAL OR ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL, WHICH GUIDES US.  WE NEED NOT BE SLAVES TO
A FORMULA BUT UNLESS WE CAN POINT OUT A RATIONAL WAY OF REACHING OUR
CONCLUSIONS THEY CAN ONLY BE ACCEPTED AS RESTING ON INTUITION OR
PREDILECTION.  I MUST ADMIT THAT I POSSESS NO INSTINCT BY WHICH TO KNOW
THE "REASONABLE" FROM THE "UNREASONABLE" IN PRICES AND MUST SEEK SOME
CONSCIOUS DESIGN FOR DECISION. 

THE COURT SUSTAINS THIS ORDER AS REASONABLE, BUT WHAT MAKES IT SO OR
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY MAKE IT OTHERWISE, I CANNOT LEARN.  IT HOLDS THAT:
"IT IS THE RESULT REACHED NOT THE METHOD EMPLOYED WHICH IS
CONTROLLING"; "THE FACT THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED TO REACH THAT RESULT
MAY CONTAIN INFIRMITIES IS NOT THEN IMPORTANT" AND IT IS NOT "IMPORTANT
TO THIS CASE TO DETERMINE THE VARIOUS PERMISSIBLE WAYS IN WHICH ANY
RATE BASE ON WHICH THE RETURN IS COMPUTED MIGHT BE ARRIVED AT."  THE
COURT DOES LEAN SOMEWHAT ON CONSIDERATIONS OF CAPITALIZATION AND
DIVIDEND HISTORY AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DIVIDENDS ON OUTSTANDING STOCK. 
BUT I CAN GIVE NO REAL WEIGHT TO THAT FOR IT IS GENERALLY AND I THINK
DESERVEDLY IN DISCREDIT AS ANY GUIDE IN RATE CASES.  FN41    OUR BOOKS
ALREADY CONTAIN SO MUCH TALK OF METHODS OF RATIONALIZING RATES THAT WE
MUST APPEAR AMBIGUOUS IF WE ANNOUNCE RESULTS WITHOUT OUR WORKING
METHODS.  WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH REGULATION OF A UNIQUE TYPE OF
ENTERPRISE WHICH I THINK REQUIRES CONSIDERED REJECTION OF MUCH
CONVENTIONAL UTILITY DOCTRINE AND ADOPTION OF CONCEPTS OF "JUST AND
REASONABLE" RATES AND PRACTICES AND OF THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" THAT WILL
TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE PECULIARITIES OF THE BUSINESS. 

THE COURT REJECTS THE SUGGESTIONS OF THIS OPINION.  IT SAYS THAT THE
COMMITTEES IN REPORTING THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT SAID IT PROVIDED
"FOR REGULATION ALONG RECOGNIZED AND MORE OR LESS STANDARDIZED LINES"
AND THAT THERE WAS "NOTHING NOVEL IN ITS PROVISIONS."  SO SAYING IT
SUSTAINS A RATE CALCULATED ON A NOVEL VARIATION OF A RATE BASE THEORY
WHICH ITSELF HAD AT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT OF THE LEGISLATION BEEN
RECOGNIZED ONLY IN DISSENTING OPINIONS.  OUR DIFFERENCE SEEMS TO BE
BETWEEN UNCONSCIOUS INNOVATION,  FN42  AND THE PURPOSEFUL AND
DELIBERATE INNOVATION I WOULD MAKE TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF
REGULATING THE INDUSTRY BEFORE US. 

HOPE'S BUSINESS HAS TWO COMPONENTS OF QUITE DIVERGENT CHARACTER. 
ONE, WHILE NOT A CONVENTIONAL COMMON-CARRIER UNDERTAKING, IS
ESSENTIALLY A TRANSPORTATION ENTERPRISE CONSISTING OF CONVEYING GAS
FROM WHERE IT IS PRODUCED TO POINT OF DELIVERY TO THE BUYER.  THIS IS A
RELATIVELY ROUTINE OPERATION NOT DIFFERING SUBSTANTIALLY FROM MANY
OTHER UTILITY OPERATIONS.  THE SERVICE IS PRODUCED BY AN INVESTMENT IN
COMPRESSION AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.  ITS RISKS ARE THOSE OF
INVESTING IN A TESTED MEANS OF CONVEYING A DISCOVERED SUPPLY OF GAS TO
A KNOWN MARKET.  A RATE BASE CALCULATED ON THE PRUDENT INVESTMENT
FORMULA WOULD SEEM A REASONABLY SATISFACTORY MEASURE FOR FIXING A
RETURN FROM THAT BRANCH OF THE BUSINESS WHOSE SERVICE IS ROUGHLY
PROPORTIONATE TO THE CAPITAL INVESTED.  BUT IT HAS OTHER CONSEQUENCES
WHICH MUST NOT BE OVERLOOKED.  IT GIVES MARKETABILITY AND HENCE "VALUE"
TO GAS OWNED BY THE COMPANY AND GIVES THE PIPELINE COMPANY A LARGE
POWER OVER THE MARKETABILITY AND HENCE "VALUE" OF THE PRODUCTION OF
OTHERS. 

THE OTHER PART OF THE BUSINESS - TO REDUCE TO POSSESSION AN ADEQUATE
SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS - IS OF OPPOSITE CHARACTER, BEING MORE ERRATIC
AND IRREGULAR AND UNPREDICTABLE IN RELATION TO INVESTMENT THAN ANY
PHASE OF ANY OTHER UTILITY BUSINESS.  A THOUSAND FEET OF GAS CAPTURED
AND SEVERED FROM REAL ESTATE FOR DELIVERY TO CONSUMERS IS RECOGNIZED
UNDER OUR LAW AS PROPERTY OF MUCH THE SAME NATURE AS A TON OF COAL, A
BARREL OF OIL, OR A YARD OF SAND.  THE VALUE TO BE ALLOWED FOR IT IS
THE REAL BATTLEGROUND BETWEEN THE INVESTOR AND CONSUMER.  IT IS FROM
THIS PART OF THE BUSINESS THAT THE CHIEF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES
AS TO A PROPER RATE BASE ARISES. 

IS IT NECESSARY TO A "REASONABLE" PRICE FOR GAS THAT IT BE ANCHORED
TO A RATE BASE OF ANY KIND?  WHY DID COURTS IN THE FIRST PLACE BEGIN
VALUING "RATE BASES" IN ORDER TO "VALUE" SOMETHING ELSE?  THE METHOD
CAME INTO VOGUE IN FIXING RATES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WHICH THE
PUBLIC OBTAINED FROM COMMON CARRIERS.  THE PUBLIC RECEIVED NONE OF THE
CARRIERS' PHYSICAL PROPERTY BUT DID MAKE SOME USE OF IT.  THE CARRIAGE
WAS OFTEN A MONOPOLY SO THERE WERE NO OPEN MARKET CRITERIA AS TO
REASONABLENESS.  THE "VALUE" OR "COST" OF WHAT WAS PUT TO USE IN THE
SERVICE BY THE CARRIER WAS NOT A REMOTE OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION IN
MAKING SUCH RATES.  MOREOVER THE DIFFICULTY OF APPRAISING AN INTANGIBLE
SERVICE WAS THOUGHT TO BE SIMPLIFIED IF IT COULD BE RELATED TO PHYSICAL
PROPERTY WHICH WAS VISIBLE AND MEASURABLE AND THE ITEMS OF WHICH MIGHT
HAVE MARKET VALUE.  THE COURT HOPED TO REASON FROM THE KNOWN TO THE
UNKNOWN.  BUT GAS FIELDS TURN THIS METHOD TOPSY TURVY.  GAS ITSELF IS
TANGIBLE, POSSESSIBLE, AND DOES HAVE A MARKET AND A PRICE IN THE
FIELD.  THE VALUE OF THE RATE BASE IS MORE ELUSIVE THAN THAT OF GAS. 
IT CONSISTS OF INTANGIBLES - LEASEHOLDS AND FREEHOLDS - OPERATED AND
UNOPERATED - OF LITTLE USE IN THEMSELVES EXCEPT AS RIGHTS TO REACH AND
CAPTURE GAS.  THEIR VALUE LIES ALMOST WHOLLY IN PREDICTIONS OF
DISCOVERY, AND OF PRICE OF GAS WHEN CAPTURED, AND BEARS LITTLE RELATION
TO COST OF TOOLS AND SUPPLIES AND LABOR TO DEVELOP IT. GAS IS WHAT HOPE
SELLS AND IT CAN BE DIRECTLY PRICED MORE REASONABLY AND EASILY AND
ACCURATELY THAN THE COMPONENTS OF A RATE BASE CAN BE VALUED.  HENCE THE
REASON FOR RESORT TO A ROUNDABOUT WAY OF RATE BASE PRICE FIXING DOES
NOT EXIST IN THE CASE OF GAS IN THE FIELD. 

BUT IF FOUND, AND BY WHATEVER METHOD FOUND, A RATE BASE IS LITTLE
HELP IN DETERMINING REASONABLENESS OF THE PRICE OF GAS.  APPRAISAL OF
PRESENT VALUE OF THESE INTANGIBLE RIGHTS TO PURSUE FUGITIVE GAS DEPENDS
ON THE VALUE ASSIGNED TO THE GAS WHEN CAPTURED.  THE "PRESENT FAIR
VALUE" RATE BASE, GENERALLY IN ILL REPUTE,  FN43  IS NOT EVEN URGED BY
THE GAS COMPANY FOR VALUING ITS FIELDS. 

THE PRUDENT INVESTMENT THEORY HAS RELATIVE MERITS IN FIXING RATES FOR
A UTILITY WHICH CREATES ITS SERVICE MERELY BY ITS INVESTMENT.  THE
AMOUNT AND QUALITY OF SERVICE RENDERED BY THE USUAL UTILITY WILL, AT
LEAST ROUGHLY, BE MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL IT PUTS INTO THE
ENTERPRISE.  BUT IT HAS NO RATIONAL APPLICATION WHERE THERE IS NO SUCH
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INVESTMENT AND CAPACITY TO SERVE.  THERE IS NO
SUCH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INVESTMENT AND AMOUNT OF GAS PRODUCED.  LET
US ASSUME THAT DOE AND ROE EACH PRODUCES IN WEST VIRGINIA FOR DELIVERY
TO CLEVELAND THE SAME QUANTITY OF NATURAL GAS PER DAY.  DOE, HOWEVER,
THROUGH LUCK OR FORESIGHT OR WHATEVER IT TAKES, GETS HIS GAS FROM
INVESTING $50,000 IN LEASES AND DRILLING.  ROE DRILLED POORER
TERRITORY, GOT SMALLER WELLS, AND HAS INVESTED $250,000.  DOES ANYBODY
IMAGINE THAT ROE CAN GET OR OUGHT TO GET FOR HIS GAS FIVE TIMES AS MUCH
AS DOE BECAUSE HE HAS SPENT FIVE TIMES AS MUCH?  THE SERVICE ONE
RENDERS TO SOCIETY IN THE GAS BUSINESS IS MEASURED BY WHAT HE GETS OUT
OF THE GROUND, NOT BY WHAT HE PUTS INTO IT, AND THERE IS LITTLE MORE
RELATION BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT AND THE RESULTS THAN IN A GAME OF
POKER. 

TWO-THIRDS OF THE GAS HOPE HANDLES IT BUYS FROM ABOUT 340 INDEPENDENT
PRODUCERS.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RATE-MAKING APPLIED TO
HOPE'S OWN GAS CANNOT BE APPLIED, AND HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED, TO THE BULK
OF THE GAS HOPE DELIVERS.  IT IS NOT PROBABLE THAT THE INVESTMENT OF
ANY TWO OF THESE PRODUCERS WILL BEAR THE SAME RATIO TO THEIR
INVESTMENTS.  THE GAS, HOWEVER, ALL GOES TO THE SAME USE, HAS THE SAME
UTILIZATION VALUE AND THE SAME ULTIMATE PRICE. 

TO REGULATE SUCH AN ENTERPRISE BY UNDISCRIMINATINGLY TRANSPLANTING
ANY BODY OF RATE DOCTRINE CONCEIVED AND ADAPTED TO THE ORDINARY UTILITY
BUSINESS CAN SERVE THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" AS THE NATURAL GAS ACT
REQUIRES, IF AT ALL, ONLY BY ACCIDENT.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, THE
PIONEER JURISTIC ADVOCATE OF THE PRUDENT INVESTMENT THEORY FOR MANMADE
UTILITIES, NEVER, SO FAR AS I AM ABLE TO DISCOVER, PROPOSED ITS
APPLICATION TO A NATURAL GAS CASE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, DISSENTING IN
PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, HE REVIEWED THE PROBLEMS OF GAS SUPPLY
AND SAID, "IN NO OTHER FIELD OF PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATION IS THE
CONTROLLING BODY CONFRONTED WITH FACTORS SO BAFFLING AS IN THE NATURAL
GAS INDUSTRY; AND IN NONE IS CONTINUOUS SUPERVISION AND CONTROL
REQUIRED IN SO HIGH A DEGREE."  262 U.S. 553, 621.  IF NATURAL GAS
RATES ARE INTELLIGENTLY TO BE REGULATED WE MUST FIT OUR LEGAL
PRINCIPLES TO THE ECONOMY OF THE INDUSTRY AND NOT TRY TO FIT THE
INDUSTRY TO OUR BOOKS. 

AS OUR DECISIONS STAND THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN BELIEVING THAT
IT WAS REQUIRED TO PROCEED BY THE RATE BASE METHOD EVEN AS TO GAS IN
THE FIELD.  FOR THIS REASON THE COURT MAY NOT MERELY WASH ITS HANDS OF
THE METHOD AND RATIONALE OF RATE MAKING.  THE FACT IS THAT THIS COURT,
WITH NO DISCUSSION OF ITS FITNESS, SIMPLY TRANSFERRED THE RATE BASE
METHOD TO THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY.  IT HAPPENED IN NEWARK NATURAL GAS
& FUEL CO. V. CITY OF NEWARK, OHIO, 242 U.S. 405(1917), IN WHICH THE
COMPANY WANTED 25 CENTS PER M.C.F., AND UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
CHALLENGED THE REDUCTION TO 18 CENTS BY ORDINANCE.  THIS COURT
SUSTAINED THE REDUCTION BECAUSE THE COURT BELOW "GAVE CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION TO THE QUESTIONS OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME
OF THE INQUIRY," AND WHETHER THE RATE "WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A
FAIR RETURN ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY."  THE COURT SAID THIS METHOD
WAS "BASED UPON PRINCIPLES THOROUGHLY ESTABLISHED BY REPEATED DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT," CITING MANY CASES, NOT ONE OF WHICH INVOLVED NATURAL
GAS OR A COMPARABLE WASTING NATURAL RESOURCE.  THEN CAME ISSUES AS TO
STATE POWER TO REGULATE AS AFFECTED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION V. LANDON, 249 U.S. 236(1919); PENNSYLVANIA GAS
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 252 U.S. 23(1920).  THESE QUESTIONS
SETTLED, THE COURT AGAIN WAS CALLED UPON IN NATURAL GAS CASES TO
CONSIDER STATE RATE-MAKING CLAIMED TO BE INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF KENTUCKY, 278
U.S. 300(1929); UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
WEST VIRGINIA, 278 U.S. 322(1929).  THEN, AS NOW, THE DIFFERENCES WERE
"DUE CHIEFLY TO THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE ASCRIBED BY EACH TO THE GAS
RIGHTS AND LEASEHOLDS."  278 U.S. 300, 311.  NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE
QUESTIONED THAT THE RATE BASE METHOD MUST BE PURSUED AND THE
CONTROVERSY WAS AS TO WHAT RATE BASE MUST BE USED.  LATER THE "VALUE"
OF GAS IN THE FIELD WAS QUESTIONED IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT A
REGULATED COMPANY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PAY AN AFFILIATE THEREFOR - A
STATE DETERMINATION ALSO REVIEWED UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO, 292
U.S. 290(1934); COLUMBUS GAS & FUEL CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF OHIO, 292 U.S. 398(1934).  IN BOTH CASES, ONE OF WHICH SUSTAINED AND
ONE OF WHICH STRUCK DOWN A FIXED RATE, THE COURT ASSUMED THE RATE BASE
METHOD AS THE LEGAL WAY OF TESTING REASONABLENESS OF NATURAL GAS PRICES
FIXED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY, WITHOUT EXAMINING ITS REAL RELEVANCY TO THE
INQUIRY. 

UNDER THE WEIGHT OF SUCH PRECEDENTS WE CANNOT EXPECT THE COMMISSION
TO INITIATE ECONOMICALLY INTELLIGENT METHODS OF FIXING GAS PRICES.  BUT
THE COURT NOW FACES A NEW PLAN OF FEDERAL REGULATION BASED ON THE POWER
TO FIX THE PRICE AT WHICH GAS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO MOVE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  I SHOULD NOW CONSIDER WHETHER THESE RULES DEVISED UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE THE EXCLUSIVE TESTS OF A JUST AND REASONABLE
RATE UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE, INVITING REARGUMENT DIRECTED TO THAT
POINT IF NECESSARY.  AS I SEE IT NOW I WOULD BE PREPARED TO HOLD THAT
THESE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO A NATURAL GAS CASE ARISING UNDER THE
NATURAL GAS ACT. 

SUCH A HOLDING WOULD LEAVE THE COMMISSION TO FIX THE PRICE OF GAS IN
THE FIELD AS ONE WOULD FIX MAXIMUM PRICES OF OIL OR MILK OR COAL, OR
ANY OTHER COMMODITY.  SUCH A PRICE IS NOT CALCULATED TO PRODUCE A FAIR
RETURN ON THE SYNTHETIC VALUE OF A RATE BASE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL
PRODUCER, AND WOULD NOT UNDERTAKE TO ASSURE A FAIR RETURN TO ANY
PRODUCER.  THE EMPHASIS WOULD SHIFT FROM THE PRODUCER TO THE PRODUCT,
WHICH WOULD BE REGULATED WITH AN EYE TO AVERAGE OR TYPICAL PRODUCING
CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD. 

SUCH A PRICE FIXING PROCESS ON ECONOMIC LINES WOULD OFFER LITTLE
TEMPTATION TO THE JUDICIARY TO BECOME BACK SEAT DRIVERS OF THE PRICE
FIXING MACHINE.  THE UNFORTUNATE EFFECT OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN
THIS FIELD IS TO DIVERT THE ATTENTION OF THOSE ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS
FROM WHAT IS ECONOMICALLY WISE TO WHAT IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE.  IT IS
PROBABLE THAT PRICE REDUCTIONS WOULD REACH ECONOMICALLY UNWISE AND SELF
DEFEATING LIMITS BEFORE THEY WOULD REACH CONSTITUTIONAL ONES.  ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS GROWING OUT OF PRICE FIXING ARE QUITE DIFFERENT
THAN THOSE THAT HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN CONSIDERED TO INHERE IN RATE
MAKING.  A PRODUCER WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY SHOWING THE INVALIDITY OF
SUCH A FIXED PRICE SO LONG AS HE VOLUNTARILY CONTINUED TO SELL HIS
PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SHOULD HE WITHDRAW AND OTHER AUTHORITY
BE INVOKED TO COMPEL HIM TO PART WITH HIS PROPERTY, A DIFFERENT PROBLEM
WOULD BE PRESENTED. 

ALLOWANCE IN A RATE TO COMPENSATE FOR GAS REMOVED FROM GAS LANDS,
WHETHER FIXED AS OF POINT OF PRODUCTION OR AS OF POINT OF DELIVERY,
PROBABLY BEST CAN BE MEASURED BY A FUNCTIONAL TEST APPLIED TO THE WHOLE
INDUSTRY.  FOR GOOD OR ILL WE DEPEND UPON PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO EXPLOIT
THESE NATURAL RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.  THE FUNCTION WHICH AN
ALLOWANCE FOR GAS IN THE FIELD SHOULD PERFORM FOR SOCIETY IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO BE ENOUGH AND NO MORE THAN ENOUGH TO INDUCE PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE COMPLETELY AND EFFICIENTLY TO UTILIZE GAS RESOURCES, TO
ACQUIRE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE ANY AVAILABLE GAS OR GAS RIGHTS AND TO
DELIVER GAS AT A RATE AND FOR USES WHICH WILL BE IN THE FUTURE AS WELL
AS IN THE PRESENT PUBLIC INTEREST. 

THE COURT FEARS THAT "IF WE ARE NOW TO TELL THE COMMISSION TO FIX THE
RATES SO AS TO DISCOURAGE PARTICULAR USES, WE WOULD INDEED BE INJECTING
INTO A RATE CASE A 'NOVEL' DOCTRINE  ...  "  WITH DUE DEFERENCE I
SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NOTHING NOVEL IN THE IDEA THAT ANY CHANGE IN
PRICE OF A SERVICE OR COMMODITY REACTS TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE ITS
USE.  THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER SUCH CONSEQUENCES WILL OR WILL NOT
FOLLOW; THE QUESTION IS WHETHER EFFECTS MUST BE SUFFERED BLINDLY OR MAY
BE INTELLIGENTLY SELECTED, WHETHER PRICE CONTROL SHALL HAVE TARGETS AT
WHICH IT DELIBERATELY AIMS OR SHALL BE HANDLED LIKE A GUN IN THE HANDS
OF ONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW IT IS LOADED.    WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE "PRICE"
FOR WHAT IT IS - A TOOL, A MEANS, AN EXPEDIENT.  IN PUBLIC HANDS IT HAS
MUCH THE SAME ECONOMIC EFFECTS AS IN PRIVATE HANDS.  HOPE KNEW THAT A
CONCESSION IN INDUSTRIAL PRICE WOULD TEND TO BUILD UP ITS VOLUME OF
SALES.  IT USED PRICE AS AN EXPEDIENT TO THAT END.  THE COMMISSION
MAKES ANOTHER CUT IN THAT SAME PRICE BUT THE COURT THINKS WE SHOULD
IGNORE THE EFFECT THAT IT WILL HAVE ON EXHAUSTION OF SUPPLY.  THE FACT
IS THAT IN NATURAL GAS REGULATION PRICE MUST BE USED TO RECONCILE THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT SOCIETY HAS PERMITTED TO VEST IN AN IMPORTANT
NATURAL RESOURCE WITH THE CLAIMS OF SOCIETY UPON IT - PRICE MUST DRAW A
BALANCE BETWEEN WEALTH AND WELFARE.    TO CARRY THIS INTO TECHNIQUES OF
INQUIRY IS THE TASK OF THE COMMISSIONER RATHER THAN OF THE JUDGE, AND
IT CERTAINLY IS NO TASK TO BE SOLVED BY MERE BOOKKEEPING BUT REQUIRES
THE BEST ECONOMIC TALENT AVAILABLE.  THERE WOULD DOUBTLESS BE INQUIRY
INTO THE PRICE GAS IS BRINGING IN THE FIELD, HOW FAR THAT PRICE IS
ESTABLISHED BY ARM'S LENGTH BARGAINING AND HOW FAR IT MAY BE INFLUENCED
BY AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR MONOPOLISTIC INFLUENCES.  WHAT
MUST HOPE REALLY PAY TO GET AND TO REPLACE GAS IT DELIVERS UNDER THIS
ORDER?  IF IT SHOULD GET MORE OR LESS THAN THAT FOR ITS OWN, HOW MUCH
AND WHY?  HOW FAR ARE SUCH PRICES INFLUENCED BY PIPE LINE ACCESS TO
MARKETS AND IF THE CONSUMERS PAY RETURNS ON THE PIPE LINES HOW FAR
SHOULD THE INCREMENT THEY CAUSE GO TO GAS PRODUCERS?  EAST OHIO IS
ITSELF A PRODUCER IN OHIO.  FN44  WHAT DO OHIO AUTHORITIES REQUIRE OHIO
CONSUMERS TO PAY FOR GAS IN THE FIELD?  PERHAPS THESE ARE REASONS WHY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PUT WEST VIRGINIA GAS AT LOWER OR AT
HIGHER RATES.  IF SO WHAT ARE THEY?  SHOULD EAST OHIO BE REQUIRED TO
EXPLOIT ITS HALF MILLION ACRES OF UNOPERATED RESERVE IN OHIO BEFORE
WEST VIRGINIA RESOURCES SHALL BE SUPPLIED ON A DEVALUED BASIS OF WHICH
THAT STATE COMPLAINS AND FOR WHICH SHE THREATENS MEASURES OF SELF
KEEP?  WHAT IS GAS WORTH IN TERMS OF OTHER FUELS IT DISPLACES? 

A PRICE CANNOT BE FIXED WITHOUT CONSIDERING ITS EFFECT ON THE
PRODUCTION OF GAS.  IS IT AN INCENTIVE TO CONTINUE TO EXPLOIT VAST
UNOPERATED RESERVES?  IS IT CONDUCIVE TO DEEP DRILLING TESTS THE RESULT
OF WHICH WE MAY KNOW ONLY AFTER TRIAL?  WILL IT INDUCE BRINGING GAS
FROM AFAR TO SUPPLEMENT OR EVEN TO SUBSTITUTE FOR APPALACHIAN GAS? 
FN45  CAN IT BE HAD FROM DISTANT FIELDS AS CHEAP OR CHEAPER?  IF SO,
THAT COMPETITIVE POTENTIALITY IS CERTAINLY A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION. 
WISE REGULATION MUST ALSO CONSIDER, AS A PRIVATE BUYER WOULD, WHAT
ALTERNATIVES THE PRODUCER HAS IF THE PRICE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.  HOPE HAS
INTRASTATE BUSINESS AND DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS.  WHAT CAN IT
DO BY WAY OF DIVERTING ITS SUPPLY TO INTRASTATE SALES?  WHAT CAN IT DO
BY WAY OF DISPOSING OF ITS OPERATED OR RESERVE ACREAGE TO INDUSTRIAL
CONCERNS OR OTHER BUYERS?  WHAT CAN WEST VIRGINIA DO BY WAY OF
CONSERVATION LAWS, SEVERANCE OR OTHER TAXATION, IF THE REGULATED RATE
OFFENDS?  IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT WHILE WEST VIRGINIA WAS
PROHIBITED FROM GIVING HER OWN INHABITANTS A PRIORITY THAT
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WE HAVE NEVER YET HELD THAT
A GOOD FAITH CONSERVATION ACT, APPLICABLE TO HER OWN, AS WELL AS TO
OTHERS, IS NOT VALID.  IN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVES, IT MUST BE NOTED
THAT FEDERAL REGULATION IS VERY INCOMPLETE, EXPRESSLY EXCLUDING
REGULATION OF "PRODUCTION OR GATHERING OF NATURAL GAS," AND THAT THE
ONLY PRESENT WAY TO GET THE GAS SEEMS TO BE TO CALL IT FORTH BY PRICE
INDUCEMENTS.  IT IS PLAIN THAT THERE IS A DOWNWARD ECONOMIC LIMIT ON A
SAFE AND WISE PRICE. 

BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAW WHICH COMPELS A COMMISSION TO FIX A
PRICE AT THAT "VALUE" WHICH A COMPANY MIGHT GIVE TO ITS PRODUCT BY
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SCARCITY, OR MONOPOLY OF SUPPLY.  THE VERY PURPOSE
OF FIXING MAXIMUM PRICES IS TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE SELLER HIS
OPPORTUNITY TO GET ALL THAT OTHERWISE THE MARKET WOULD AWARD HIM FOR
HIS GOODS.  THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL USE OF THE POWER TO FIX MAXIMUM
PRICES, BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135; MARCUS BROWN HOLDING CO. V.
FELDMAN, 256 U.S. 170; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234
U.S. 216; HIGHLAND V. RUSSELL CAR & SNOW PLOW CO., 279 U.S. 253, JUST
AS THE FIXING OF MINIMUM PRICES OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
CONSTITUTIONAL ALTHOUGH IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE BUYER THE ADVANTAGE IN
BARGAINING WHICH MARKET CONDITIONS WOULD GIVE HIM.  UNITED STATES V.
DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38; UNITED STATES V.
ROCK ROYAL COOPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533; SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V.
ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381.  THE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO FIX A PRICE THAT
WILL BE BOTH MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM AND IT HAS THE INCIDENTAL RIGHT, AND I
THINK THE DUTY, TO CHOOSE THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES IT WILL PROMOTE OR
RETARD IN PRODUCTION AND ALSO MORE IMPORTANTLY IN CONSUMPTION, TO WHICH
I NOW TURN. 

IF WE ASSUME THAT THE REDUCTION IN COMPANY REVENUES IS WARRANTED WE
THEN COME TO THE QUESTION OF TRANSLATING THE ALLOWED RETURN INTO RATES
FOR CONSUMERS OR CLASSES OF CONSUMERS.  HERE THE COMMISSION FIXED A
SINGLE RATE FOR ALL GAS DELIVERED IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS USE DESPITE THE
FACT THAT HOPE HAS ESTABLISHED WHAT AMOUNTS TO TWO RATES - A HIGH ONE
FOR DOMESTIC USE AND A LOWER ONE FOR INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTS.  FN46  THE
COMMISSION CAN FIX TWO PRICES FOR INTERSTATE GAS AS READILY AS ONE - A
PRICE FOR RESALE TO DOMESTIC USERS AND ANOTHER FOR RESALE TO INDUSTRIAL
USERS.  THIS IS THE PATTERN HOPE ITSELF HAS ESTABLISHED IN THE VERY
CONTRACTS OVER WHICH THE COMMISSION IS EXPRESSLY GIVEN JURISDICTION. 
CERTAINLY THE ACT IS BROAD ENOUGH TO PERMIT TWO PRICES TO BE FIXED
INSTEAD OF ONE, IF THE CONCEPT OF THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" IS NOT UNDULY
NARROWED. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCEPT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN NATURAL GAS CASES
WHICH IS CARRIED TODAY INTO THE COURT'S OPINION WAS FIRST ANNOUNCED IN
THE OPINION OF THE MINORITY IN THE PIPELINE CASE.  IT ENUMERATED ONLY
TWO "PHASES OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST:  (1) THE INVESTOR INTEREST; (2) THE
CONSUMER INTEREST," WHICH IT EMPHASIZED TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL
OTHERS.  315 U.S. 575, 606.  THIS WILL DO WELL ENOUGH IN DEALING WITH
RAILROADS OR UTILITIES SUPPLYING MANUFACTURED GAS, ELECTRIC POWER, A
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE OR TRANSPORTATION, WHERE UTILIZATION OF
FACILITIES DOES NOT IMPAIR THEIR FUTURE USEFULNESS.  LIMITATION OF
SUPPLY, HOWEVER, BRINGS INTO A NATURAL GAS CASE ANOTHER PHASE OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST THAT TO MY MIND OVERRIDES BOTH THE OWNER AND THE
CONSUMER OF THAT INTEREST.  BOTH PRODUCERS AND INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS
HAVE SERVED THEIR IMMEDIATE PRIVATE INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
LONG-RANGE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OF COURSE, REQUIRES
STOPPING UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF THE OWNER.  BUT IT ALSO REQUIRES STOPPING
UNJUST IMPOVERISHMENT OF FUTURE GENERATIONS.  THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
THE USE BY HOPE'S HALF MILLION DOMESTIC CONSUMERS IS QUITE A DIFFERENT
ONE FROM THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN USE BY A BAKER'S DOZEN OF INDUSTRIES. 

PRUDENT PRICE FIXING IT SEEMS TO ME MUST AT THE VERY THRESHOLD
DETERMINE WHETHER ANY PART OF AN ALLOWED RETURN SHALL BE PERMITTED TO
BE REALIZED FROM SALES OF GAS FOR RESALE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.  SUCH USE
DOES TEND TO LEVEL OUT DAILY AND SEASONAL PEAKS OF DOMESTIC DEMAND AND
TO SOME EXTENT PERMITS A LOWER CHARGE FOR DOMESTIC SERVICE.  BUT IS
THAT A WISE WAY OF MAKING GAS CHEAPER WHEN, IN COMPARISON WITH ANY
SUBSTITUTE, GAS IS ALREADY A CHEAP FUEL?  THE INTERSTATE SALES
CONTRACTS PROVIDE THAT AT TIMES WHEN DEMAND IS SO GREAT THAT THERE IS
NOT ENOUGH GAS TO GO AROUND DOMESTIC USERS SHALL FIRST BE SERVED. 
SHOULD THE OPERATION OF THIS PREFERENCE AWAIT THE DAY OF ACTUAL
SHORTAGE?  SINCE THE PROPRIETY OF A PREFERENCE SEEMS CONCEDED, SHOULD
IT NOT OPERATE TO PREVENT THE COMING OF A SHORTAGE AS WELL AS TO
MITIGATE ITS EFFECTS?  SHOULD INDUSTRIAL USE JEOPARDIZE TOMORROW'S
SERVICE TO HOUSEHOLDERS ANY MORE THAN TODAY'S?  IF, HOWEVER, IT IS
DECIDED TO CHEAPEN DOMESTIC USE BY RESORT TO INDUSTRIAL SALES, SHOULD
THEY BE LIMITED TO THE FEW USES FOR WHICH GAS HAS SPECIAL VALUES OR
EXTEND ALSO TO THOSE WHO USE IT ONLY BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER THAN
COMPETITIVE FUELS?  FN47  AND HOW MUCH CHEAPER SHOULD INDUSTRIAL GAS
SELL THAN DOMESTIC GAS, AND HOW MUCH ADVANTAGE SHOULD IT HAVE OVER
COMPETITIVE FUELS?  IF INDUSTRIAL GAS IS TO CONTRIBUTE AT ALL TO
LOWERING DOMESTIC RATES, SHOULD IT NOT BE MADE TO CONTRIBUTE THE VERY
MAXIMUM OF WHICH IT IS CAPABLE, THAT IS, SHOULD NOT ITS PRICE BE THE
HIGHEST AT WHICH THE DESIRED VOLUME OF SALES CAN BE REALIZED? 

IF I WERE TO ANSWER I SHOULD SAY THAT THE HOUSEHOLD RATE SHOULD BE
THE LOWEST THAT CAN BE FIXED UNDER COMMERCIAL CONDITIONS THAT WILL
CONSERVE THE SUPPLY FOR THAT USE.  THE LOWEST PROBABLE RATE FOR THAT
PURPOSE IS NOT LIKELY TO SPEED EXHAUSTION MUCH, FOR IT STILL WILL BE
HIGH ENOUGH TO INDUCE ECONOMY, AND USE FOR THAT PURPOSE HAS MORE NEARLY
REACHED THE SATURATION POINT.  ON THE OTHER HAND THE DEMAND FOR
INDUSTRIAL GAS AT PRESENT RATES ALREADY APPEARS TO BE INCREASING.  TO
LOWER FURTHER THE INDUSTRIAL RATE IS MERELY FURTHER TO SUBSIDIZE
INDUSTRIAL CONSUMPTION AND SPEED DEPLETION.  THE IMPACT OF THE FLAT
REDUCTION OF RATES ORDERED HERE ADMITTEDLY WILL BE TO INCREASE THE
INDUSTRIAL ADVANTAGES OF GAS OVER COMPETING FUELS AND TO INCREASE ITS
USE.  I THINK THIS IS NOT, AND THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE COMMISSION
THAT IT IS, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THIS RECORD FOR THE PRESENT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DOMESTIC USERS OF GAS IN FAVOR OF INDUSTRIAL
USERS.  IT IS ONE OF THE EVILS AGAINST WHICH THE NATURAL GAS ACT WAS
AIMED BY CONGRESS AND ONE OF THE EVILS COMPLAINED OF HERE BY CLEVELAND
AND AKRON.  IF HOPE'S REVENUES SHOULD BE CUT BY SOME $3,600,000 THE
WHOLE REDUCTION IS OWING TO DOMESTIC USERS.  IF IT BE CONSIDERED WISE
TO RAISE PART OF HOPE'S REVENUES BY INDUSTRIAL PURPOSE SALES, THE
UTMOST POSSIBLE REVENUE SHOULD BE RAISED FROM THE LEAST CONSUMPTION OF
GAS.  IF COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER FUELS WILL PERMIT, THE
INDUSTRIAL PRICE SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY ADVANCED, NOT FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE COMPANY, BUT THE INCREASED REVENUES FROM THE ADVANCE SHOULD BE
APPLIED TO REDUCE DOMESTIC RATES.  FOR IN MY OPINION THE "PUBLIC
INTEREST" REQUIRES THAT THE GREAT VOLUME OF GAS NOW BEING PUT TO
UNECONOMIC INDUSTRIAL USE SHOULD EITHER BE SAVED FOR ITS MORE IMPORTANT
FUTURE DOMESTIC USE OR THE PRESENT DOMESTIC USER SHOULD HAVE THE FULL
BENEFIT OF ITS EXCHANGE VALUE IN REDUCING HIS PRESENT RATES. 

OF COURSE THE COMMISSION'S POWER DIRECTLY TO REGULATE DOES NOT EXTEND
TO THE FIXING OF RATES AT WHICH THE LOCAL COMPANY SHALL SELL TO
CONSUMERS.  NOR IS SUCH POWER REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE.  AS
ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE VERY CONTRACT THE COMMISSION IS ALTERING
CLASSIFIES THE GAS ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT IS TO BE
RESOLD AND PROVIDES DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSIFICATIONS.  IT
WOULD ONLY BE NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSION TO ORDER THAT ALL GAS
SUPPLIED UNDER PARAGRAPH (A) OF HOPE'S CONTRACT WITH THE EAST OHIO
COMPANY SHALL BE AT A STATED PRICE FIXED TO GIVE TO DOMESTIC SERVICE
THE ENTIRE REDUCTION HEREIN AND ANY FURTHER REDUCTIONS THAT MAY PROVE
POSSIBLE BY INCREASING INDUSTRIAL RATES.  IT MIGHT FURTHER PROVIDE THAT
GAS DELIVERED UNDER PARAGRAPH (B) OF THE CONTRACT FOR INDUSTRIAL
PURPOSES TO THOSE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS HOPE HAS APPROVED IN WRITING
SHALL BE AT SUCH OTHER FIGURE AS MIGHT BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AS HEREIN DEFINED.  IT IS TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO
CONTEND THAT THE AUTHORITY OF A REGULATORY COMMISSION DOES NOT EXTEND
TO A CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC INTERESTS WHICH IT MAY NOT DIRECTLY
REGULATE AND A CONDITIONING OF ITS ORDERS FOR THEIR PROTECTION. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES ASSN., 315
U.S. 373; UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225. 

WHETHER THE COMMISSION WILL ASSERT ITS APPARENTLY BROAD STATUTORY
AUTHORIZATION OVER PRICES AND DISCRIMINATIONS IS, OF COURSE, ITS OWN
AFFAIR, NOT OURS.  IT IS ENTITLED TO ITS OWN NOTION OF THE "PUBLIC
INTEREST" AND ITS JUDGMENT OF POLICY MUST PREVAIL.  HOWEVER, WHERE
THERE IS GROUND FOR THINKING THAT VIEWS OF THIS COURT MAY HAVE
CONSTRAINED THE COMMISSION TO ACCEPT THE RATE-BASE METHOD OF DECISION
AND A PARTICULAR SINGLE FORMULA AS "ALL IMPORTANT" FOR A RATE BASE, IT
IS APPROPRIATE TO MAKE CLEAR THE REASONS WHY I, AT LEAST, WOULD NOT BE
SO UNDERSTOOD.  THE COMMISSION IS FREE TO FACE UP REALISTICALLY TO THE
NATURE AND PECULIARITY OF THE RESOURCES IN ITS CONTROL, TO FOSTER THEIR
DURATION IN FIXING PRICE, AND TO CONSIDER FUTURE INTERESTS IN ADDITION
TO THOSE OF INVESTORS AND PRESENT CONSUMERS.  IF WE RETURN THIS CASE IT
MAY ACCEPT OR DECLINE THE PROFFERED FREEDOM.  THIS PROBLEM PRESENTS THE
COMMISSION AN UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY IF IT WILL BOLDLY MAKE SOUND
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS, INSTEAD OF LEGAL AND ACCOUNTING THEORIES, THE
FOUNDATION OF FEDERAL POLICY.  I WOULD RETURN THE CASE TO THE
COMMISSION AND THEREBY BE CLEARLY QUIT OF WHAT NOW MAY APPEAR TO BE
SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR PERPETRATING A SHORT-SIGHTED PATTERN OF NATURAL
GAS REGULATION. 

FN1  315 U.S. 575. 

FN2  JUDGE DOBIE, DISSENTING BELOW, POINTED OUT THAT THE MAJORITY
OPINION IN THE PIPELINE CASE "CONTAINS NO EXPRESS DISCUSSION OF THE
PRUDENT INVESTMENT THEORY" AND THAT THE CONCURRING OPINION CONTAINED A
CLEAR ONE, AND SAID, "IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE
MAJORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT, BELIEVING OTHERWISE, WOULD LEAVE SUCH A
STATEMENT UNCHALLENGED."  THE FACT THAT TWO OTHER JUSTICES HAD AS
MATTER OF RECORD IN OUR BOOKS LONG OPPOSED THE REPRODUCTION COST THEORY
OF RATE BASES AND HAD COMMENTED FAVORABLY ON THE PRUDENT INVESTMENT
THEORY MAY HAVE INFLUENCED THAT CONCLUSION.  SEE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
FRANKFURTER IN DRISCOLL V. EDISON LIGHT & POWER CO., 307 U.S. 104, 122,
AND MY BRIEF AS SOLICITOR GENERAL IN THAT CASE.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED,
HOWEVER, THAT THESE STATEMENTS WERE MADE, NOT IN A NATURAL GAS CASE,
BUT IN AN ELECTRIC POWER CASE - A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, AS I
SHALL TRY TO MAKE PLAIN.    FN3  NATURAL GAS FROM THE APPALACHIAN FIELD
AVERAGES ABOUT 1,050 TO 1,150 B.T.U. CONTENT, WHILE BY-PRODUCT
MANUFACTURED GAS IS ABOUT 530 TO 540.  MOODY'S MANUAL OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES (1943) 1,350; YOUNGBERG, NATURAL GAS (1930) 7. 

FN4  SEN. REP. NO. 1162, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 2. 

FN5  ARNOLD AND KEMNITZER, PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES AND
POSSESSIONS (1931) 78. 

FN6  ID. AT 62-63.    FN7  ID., AT 61. 

FN8  AT FREDONIA, NEW YORK, IN 1821, NATURAL GAS WAS CONVEYED FROM A
SHALLOW WELL TO SOME THIRTY PEOPLE.  THE LIGHTHOUSE AT BARCELONA
HARBOR, NEAR WHAT IS NOW WESTFIELD, NEW YORK, WAS AT ABOUT THAT TIME
AND FOR MANY YEARS AFTERWARD LIGHTED BY GAS THAT ISSUED FROM A
CREVICE.  REPORT ON UTILITY CORPORATIONS BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
SEN. DOC. 92, PT. 84-A, 73TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 8-9. 

FN9  IN THAT YEAR PENNSYLVANIA ENACTED "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
INCORPORATION AND REGULATION OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES."  PENN.  LAWS
1885, NO. 32. 

FN10  SEE STEPTOE AND HOFFHEIMER'S MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR CORNWELL
OF WEST VIRGINIA (1917) 25 WEST VIRGINIA LAW QUARTERLY 257; SEE ALSO
REPORT ON UTILITY CORPORATIONS BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMSSION, SEN. DOC.
NO. 92, PT. 84-A, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN11  ARNOLD AND KEMNITZER, PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES AND
POSSESSIONS (1931) 73. 

FN12  ID. AT 63. 

FN13  ID. AT 64. 

FN14  SEE REPORT ON UTILITY CORPORATIONS BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
SEN. DOC. NO. 92, PT. 84-A, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN15  PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262 U.S. 553.  FOR CONDITIONS
THERE WHICH PROVOKED THIS LEGISLATION, SEE 25 WEST VIRGINIA LAW
QUARTERLY 257. 

FN16  PEOPLE EX REL. PAVILION GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
188 APP. DIV. 36, 176 N.Y.S. 163. 

FN17  VILLAGE OF FALCONER V. PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO., 17 STATE
DEPARTMENT REPORTS (N.Y.)  407. 

FN18  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. IROQUOIS NATURAL
GAS CO., 108 MISC. 696, 178 N.Y.S. 24; PARK ABBOTT REALTY CO. V.
IROQUOIS GAS CO., 102 MISC. 266, 168 N.Y.S. 673; PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION V. IROQUOIS NATURAL GAS CO., 189 APP. DIV. 545, 179 N.Y.S.
230. 

FN19  PEOPLE EX REL. PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, 196 APP. DIV. 514, 189 N.Y.S. 478. 

FN20  EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. AKRON, 81 OHIO ST. 33, 90 N.E. 40;
NEWCOMERSTOWN V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 100 OHIO ST. 494, 127 N.E. 414;
GRESS V. VILLAGE OF FT. LORAMIE, 100 OHIO ST. 35, 125 N.E. 112;
JAMESTOWN V. PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO., 263 F. 437, 264 F. 1009.  SEE ALSO
UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 300, 308. 

FN21  THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION SAID:  "WHILE THE
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS THROUGH PIPE LINES FROM ONE STATE TO
ANOTHER STATE IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  , CONGRESS HAS NOT TAKEN
OVER THE REGULATION OF THAT PARTICULAR INDUSTRY.  INDEED, IT HAS
EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED IT FROM THE OPERATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSIONS LAW (INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSIONS LAW, SECTION 1).  IT
IS QUITE CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT THIS COMMISSION CAN NOT REQUIRE A
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION PRODUCING GAS IN PENNSYLVANIA TO TRANSPORT IT
AND DELIVER IT IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND THAT THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION IS LIKEWISE POWERLESS.  IF THERE EXISTS SUCH A
POWER, AND IT SEEMS THAT THERE DOES, IT IS A POWER VESTED IN CONGRESS
AND BY IT NOT YET EXERCISED.  THERE IS NO AVAILABLE SOURCE OF SUPPLY
FOR THE CRYSTAL CITY COMPANY AT PRESENT EXCEPT THROUGH PURCHASING FROM
THE POTTER GAS COMPANY.  IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS COMMISSION MIGHT FIX
A PRICE AT WHICH THE POTTER GAS COMPANY SHOULD SELL IF IT SOLD AT ALL,
BUT AS THE COMMISSION CAN NOT REQUIRE IT TO SUPPLY GAS IN THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A POWER TO FIX THE PRICE, IF SUCH POWER
EXISTS, WOULD MERELY SAY, SELL AT THIS PRICE OR KEEP OUT OF THE
STATE."  LANE V. CRYSTAL CITY GAS CO., 8 NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMM.
REPORTS, SECOND DISTRICT, 210, 212. 

FN22  PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1918; RULES AND
REGULATIONS OF H.A. GARFIELD, FUEL ADMINISTRATOR, SEPTEMBER 24, 1918. 

FN23  FOR EXAMPLE, THE IROQUOIS GAS CORPORATION WHICH FORMERLY SERVED
BUFFALO, NEW YORK, WITH NATURAL GAS RANGING FROM 1050 TO 1150 B.T.U.
PER CU. FT., NOW MIXES A BY-PRODUCT GAS OF BETWEEN 530 AND 540 B.T.U.
IN PROPORTIONS TO PROVIDE A MIXED GAS OF ABOUT 900 B.T.U. PER CU. FT.
FOR SPACE HEATING OR WATER HEATING ITS CHARGES RANGE FROM 65 CENTS FOR
THE FIRST 10 M.C.F. PER MONTH TO 55 CENTS FOR ALL ABOVE 25 M.C.F. PER
MONTH.  MOODY'S MANUAL OF PUBLIC UTILITIES (1943) 1350. 

FN24  THE UNITED STATES FUEL ADMINISTRATION MADE THE FOLLOWING
COOKING VALUE COMPARISONS, BASED ON TESTS MADE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOME ECONOMICS OF OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY: 

NATURAL GAS AT 1.12 PER M. IS EQUIVALENT TO COAL AT $6.50 PER TON. 

NATURAL GAS AT 2.00 PER M. IS EQUIVALENT TO GASOLINE AT 27[ PER GAL. 

NATURAL GAS AT 2.20 PER M. IS EQUIVALENT TO ELECTRICITY AT 3[ PER
K.W.H. 

NATURAL GAS AT 2.40 PER M. IS EQUIVALENT TO COAL OIL AT 15[ PER GAL. 

USE AND CONSERVATION OF NATURAL GAS, ISSUED BY U.S. FUEL
ADMINISTRATION (1918) 5. 

FN25  SEE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF LEGISLATION IMPOSING AN EXCISE TAX ON
NATURAL GAS, SUBMITTED TO N.R.A. BY THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
AND THE NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION. 

FN26  BRIEF OF NATIONAL GAS ASSOCIATION AND UNITED MINE WORKERS,
SUPRA NOTE 26, PP. 35, 36, COMPILED FROM BUREAU OF MINES REPORTS. 

FN27  FROM THE SOURCE QUOTED IN THE PRECEDING NOTE THE SPREAD
ELSEWHERE IS SHOWN TO BE: 

STATE                   INDUSTRIAL    DOMESTIC 

ILLINOIS ................          29.2       1.678 

LOUISIANA ...............          10.4      59.7 

OKLAHOMA ................  11.2      41.5 

TEXAS ...................          13.1   59.7 

ALABAMA .................          17.8       1.227 

GEORGIA .................          22.9       1.043 

FN28  IN CORNING, NEW YORK, RATES WERE INITIATED BY THE CRYSTAL CITY
GAS COMPANY AS FOLLOWS: 70[ FOR THE FIRST 5,000 CU. FT. PER MONTH; 80[
FROM 5,000 TO 12,000; $1.00 FOR ALL OVER 12,000.  THE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION REJECTED THESE RATES AND FIXED A FLAT RATE OF 58[ PER M.C.F.
LANE V. CRYSTAL CITY GAS CO., 8 NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMM. REPORTS,
SECOND DISTRICT, 210. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA GAS COMPANY (NATIONAL FUEL GAS COMPANY GROUP) ALSO
ATTEMPTED A SLIDING SCALE RATE FOR NEW YORK CONSUMERS, NET PER MONTH AS
FOLLOWS:  FIRST 5,000 FEET, 35[; SECOND 5,000 FEET, 45[; THIRD 5,000
FEET, 50[; ALL ABOVE 15,000, 55[.  THIS WAS EVENTUALLY ABANDONED,
HOWEVER.  THE COMPANY'S PRESENT SCALE IN PENNSYLVANIA APPEARS TO BE
REVERSED TO THE FOLLOWING NET MONTHLY RATE: FIRST 3 M.C.F., 75[; NEXT 4
M.C.F., 60[; NEXT 8 M.C.F., 55[; OVER 15 M.C.F., 50[.  MOODY'S MANUAL
OF PUBLIC UTILITIES (1943) 1350.  IN NEW YORK IT NOW SERVES A MIXED
GAS. 

FOR A STUDY OF EFFECT OF SLIDING SCALE RATES IN REDUCING CONSUMPTION
SEE 11 PROCEEDINGS OF NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (1919) 287. 

FN29  SEE REPORT ON UTILITY CORPORATIONS BY FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
SEN. DOC. 92, PT. 84-A, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN30  FOUR HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS CONTROL OVER 55 PER CENT OF ALL
NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION LINES IN THE UNITED STATES.  THEY ARE COLUMBIA
GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION, CITIES SERVICE CO., ELECTRIC BOND AND
SHARE CO., AND STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY.  COLUMBIA ALONE CONTROLS
NEARLY 25 PER CENT, AND FIFTEEN COMPANIES ACCOUNT FOR OVER 80 PER CENT
OF THE TOTAL.  REPORT ON UTILITY CORPORATIONS BY FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, SEN. DOC. 92, PT. 84-A, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 28. 

IN 1915, SO IT WAS REPORTED TO THE GOVERNOR OF WEST VIRGINIA, 87 PER
CENT OF THE TOTAL GAS PRODUCTION OF THAT STATE WAS UNDER CONTROL OF
EIGHT COMPANIES.  STEPTOE AND HOFFHEIMER, LEGISLATIVE REGULATION OF
NATURAL GAS SUPPLY IN WEST VIRGINIA, 17 WEST VIRGINIA LAW QUARTERLY
257, 260.  OF THESE, THREE WERE SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COLUMBIA SYSTEM AND
OTHERS WERE SUBSIDIARIES OF LARGER SYSTEMS.  IN VIEW OF INTERSYSTEM
SALES AND INTERLOCKING INTERESTS IT MAY BE DOUBTED WHETHER THERE IS
MUCH REAL COMPETITION AMONG THESE COMPANIES. 

FN31  THIS PATTERN WITH ITS EFFECTS ON LOCAL REGULATORY EFFORTS WILL
BE OBSERVED IN OUR DECISIONS.  SEE UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 300; UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 322; DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, 292 U.S. 290; COLUMBUS GAS & FUEL CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, 292 U.S. 398, AND THE PRESENT CASE. 

FN32  15 U.S.C. SEC. 717(A). 

FN33  SEC. 7(C), 52 STAT. 825. 

FN34  15 U.S.C. SEC. 717F. 

FN35  ID., SEC. 717C (E). 

FN36  ID., SEC. 717C (B). 

FN37  ID., SEC. 717D (A). 

FN38  SEN. REP. NO. 1162, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 2. 

FN39  THE LIST OF EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY'S SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL
CONTRACTS THUS EXPRESSLY UNDER HOPE'S CONTROL AND THEIR DEMANDS ARE AS
FOLLOWS:

           CUSTOMER       ORDINARY DAILY REQUIREMENTS. 

REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION ........               15,000,000 CU.FT. 

OTIS STEEL COMPANY ................              10,000,000 

TIMKEN ROLLER BEARING CO ..........               7,500,000 

YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO ........               7,000,000 

U.S. STEEL CORP. - SUBSIDIARIES ...               6,500,000 

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ..........               2,500,000 

PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO .........               2,000,000 

NILES ROLLING MILL COMPANY ........               1,500,000 

CHASE BRASS & COPPER COMPANY ......                700,000 

U.S. ALUMINUM COMPANY .............                 400,000 

MAHONING VALLEY STEEL COMPANY .....                 400,000 

BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY ..........                 400,000 

CANTON STAMPING & ENAMELING CO ....                350,000 

FN40  TO MAKE A FETISH OF MERE ACCOUNTING IS TO SHIELD FROM
EXAMINATION THE DEEPER CAUSES, FORCES, MOVEMENTS, AND CONDITIONS WHICH
SHOULD GOVERN RATES.  EVEN AS A RECORDING OF CURRENT TRANSACTIONS,
BOOKKEEPING IS HARDLY AN EXACT SCIENCE.  AS A REPRESENTATION OF THE
CONDITION AND TREND OF A BUSINESS, IT USES SYMBOLS OF CERTAINTY TO
EXPRESS VALUES THAT ACTUALLY ARE IN CONSTANT FLUX.  IT MAY BE SAID THAT
IN COMMERCIAL OR INVESTMENT BANKING OR ANY BUSINESS EXTENDING CREDIT
SUCCESS DEPENDS ON KNOWING WHAT NOT TO BELIEVE IN ACCOUNTING.  FEW
CONCERNS GO INTO BANKRUPTCY OR REORGANIZATION WHOSE BOOKS DO NOT SHOW
THEM SOLVENT AND OFTEN EVEN PROFITABLE.  IF ONE CANNOT RELY ON
ACCOUNTANCY ACCURATELY TO DISCLOSE PAST OR CURRENT CONDITIONS OF A
BUSINESS, THE FALLACY OF USING IT AS A SOLE GUIDE TO FUTURE PRICE
POLICY OUGHT TO BE APPARENT.  HOWEVER, OUR QUEST FOR CERTITUDE IS SO
ARDENT THAT WE PAY AN IRRATIONAL REVERENCE TO A TECHNIQUE WHICH USES
SYMBOLS OF CERTAINTY, EVEN THOUGH EXPERIENCE AGAIN AND AGAIN WARNS US
THAT THEY ARE DELUSIVE.  FEW WRITERS HAVE VENTURED TO CHALLENGE THIS
AMERICAN IDOLATRY, BUT SEE HAMILTON, COST AS A STANDARD FOR PRICE, 4
LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 321, 323-25.  HE OBSERVES THAT "AS THE
APOSTLE WOULD PUT IT, ACCOUNTANCY IS ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN.  ...  ITS
PURPOSE DETERMINES THE CHARACTER OF A SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS."  HE ANALYZES
THE HYPOTHETICAL CHARACTER OF ACCOUNTING AND SAYS "IT WAS NO ETERNAL
MOLD FOR PECUNIARY VERITIES HANDED DOWN FROM ON HIGH.  IT WAS - LIKE
LOGIC, OR ALGEBRA, OR THE DEVICE OF ANALOGY IN THE LAW - AN INGENIOUS
CONTRIVANCE OF THE HUMAN MIND TO SERVE A LIMITED AND PRACTICAL
PURPOSE."  "ACCOUNTANCY IS FAR FROM BEING A PECUNIARY EXPRESSION OF ALL
THAT IS INDUSTRIAL REALITY.  IT IS AN INSTRUMENT, HIGHLY SELECTIVE IN
ITS APPLICATION, IN THE SERVICE OF THE INSTITUTION OF MONEY MAKING." 
AS TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT HE OBSERVES "IN AN ENTERPRISE IN LUSTY
COMPETITION WITH OTHERS OF ITS KIND, SURVIVAL IS THE THING AND THE
SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS HAS ITS FOCUS IN SOLVENCY.  ...  ACCORDINGLY
DEPRECIATION, OBSOLESCENCE, AND OTHER FACTORS WHICH CARRY NO IMMEDIATE
THREAT ARE MATTERS OF LESSER CONCERN AND THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS LIKELY
TO BE REGARDED AS A SECONDARY PHENOMENON.  ...  BUT IN AN ENTERPRISE,
SUCH AS A PUBLIC UTILITY, WHERE CONTINUED SURVIVAL SEEMS ASSURED,
SOLVENCY IS LIKELY TO BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.  ...  A PERSISTENT AND
INGENIOUS ATTENTION IS LIKELY TO BE DIRECTED NOT SO MUCH TO SECURING
THE UPKEEP OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY AS TO MAKING IT CERTAIN THAT
CAPITALIZATION FAILS IN NOT ONE WHIT TO GIVE FULL RECOGNITION TO EVERY
ITEM THAT SHOULD GO INTO THE ACCOUNT." 

FN41  SEE 2 BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY (1937) 1112. 

FN42  BONBRIGHT SAYS, "  ...  THE VICE OF TRADITIONAL LAW LIES, NOT
IN ITS ADOPTION OF EXCESSIVELY RIGID CONCEPTS OF VALUE AND RULES OF
VALUATION, BUT RATHER IN ITS TENDENCY TO PERMIT SHIFTS IN MEANING THAT
ARE INEPT, OR ELSE THAT ARE ILL-DEFINED BECAUSE THE JUDGES THAT MAKE
THEM WILL NOT OPENLY ADMIT THAT THEY ARE DOING SO."  ID., 1170. 

FN43  "THE ATTEMPT TO REGULATE RATES BY REFERENCE TO A PERIODIC OR
OCCASIONAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTIES HAS NOW BEEN TESTED LONG
ENOUGH TO CONFIRM THE WORST FEARS OF ITS CRITICS.  UNLESS ITS PLACE IS
TAKEN BY SOME MORE PROMISING SCHEME OF RATE CONTROL, THE DAYS OF
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP UNDER GOVERNMENT REGULATION MAY BE NUMBERED."  2
BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY (1937) 1190. 

FN44  EASH OHIO ITSELF OWNS NATURAL GAS RIGHTS IN 550,600 ACRES,
518,526 OF WHICH ARE RESERVED AND 32,074 OPERATED, BY 375 WELLS. 
MOODY'S MANUAL OF PUBLIC UTILITIES (1943) 5. 

FN45  HOPE HAS ASKED A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO
LAY 1,140 MILES OF 22-INCH PIPELINE FROM HUGOTON GAS FIELDS IN
SOUTHWEST KANSAS TO WEST VIRGINIA TO CARRY 285 MILLION CU. FT. OF
NATURAL GAS PER DAY.  THE COST WAS ESTIMATED AT $51,000,000.  MOODY'S
MANUAL OF PUBLIC UTILITIES (1943) 1760.    FN46  I FIND LITTLE
INFORMATION AS TO THE RATES FOR INDUSTRIES IN THE RECORD AND NONE AT
ALL IN SUCH USUAL SOURCES AS MOODY'S MANUAL. 

FN47  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS TOUCHED UPON THE PROBLEM OF
CONSERVATION IN CONNECTION WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE
PERMITTING CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,500-MILE PIPELINE FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS TO
NEW YORK CITY AND SAYS:  "THE NATURAL GAS ACT AS PRESENTLY DRAFTED DOES
NOT ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO TREAT FULLY THE SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS OF
SUCH A PROBLEM.  THE QUESTION SHOULD BE RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE
PROPOSED USE OF NATURAL GAS WOULD NOT RESULT IN DISPLACING A LESS
VALUABLE FUEL AND CREATE HARDSHIPS IN THE INDUSTRY ALREADY SUPPLYING
THE MARKET, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME RAPIDLY DEPLETING THE COUNTRY'S
NATURALGAS RESERVES.  ALTHOUGH, FOR A PERIOD OF PERHAPS 20 YEARS, THE
NATURAL GAS COULD BE SO PRICED AS TO APPEAR TO OFFER AN APPARENT SAVING
IN FUEL COSTS, THIS WOULD MEAN SIMPLY THAT SOCIAL COSTS WHICH MUST
EVENTUALLY BE PAID HAD BEEN IGNORED. 

"CAREFUL STUDY OF THE ENTIRE PROBLEM MAY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
USE OF NATURAL GAS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED BY FUNCTIONS RATHER THAN BY
AREAS.  THUS, IT IS ESPECIALLY ADAPTED TO SPACE AND WATER HEATING IN
URBAN HOMES AND OTHER BUILDINGS AND TO THE VARIOUS INDUSTRIAL HEAT
PROCESSES WHICH REQUIRE CONCENTRATION OF HEAT, FLEXIBILITY OF CONTROL,
AND UNIFORMITY OF RESULTS.  INDUSTRIAL USES TO WHICH IT APPEARS
PARTICULARLY ADAPTED INCLUDE THE TREATING AND ANNEALING OF METALS, THE
OPERATION OF KILNS IN THE CERAMIC, CEMENT, AND LIME INDUSTRIES, THE
MANUFACTURE OF GLASS IN ITS VARIOUS FORMS, AND USE AS A RAW MATERIAL IN
THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY.  GENERAL USE OF NATURAL GAS UNDER BOILERS FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF STEAM IS, HOWEVER, UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES OF VERY
QUESTIONABLE SOCIAL ECONOMY."  TWENTIETH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION (1940) 79. 
..END :





















MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT CO., 320 U.S. 661 


NOS. 54 AND 55.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  -
133 F.2D 803, REVERSED. 


1.  THE OWNER OF A SYSTEM PATENT MAY NOT USE IT TO SECURE A LIMITED
MONOPOLY OF AN UNPATENTED DEVICE EMPLOYED IN PRACTICING THE INVENTION,
EVEN THOUGH THE UNPATENTED DEVICE IS ITSELF AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
PATENTED SYSTEM.  P. 665. 

2.  IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A COMBINATION PATENT, MISUSE OF THE
PATENT TO PROTECT AN UNPATENTED ELEMENT FROM COMPETITION IS A DEFENSE
AVAILABLE TO A CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGER.  LEEDS & CATLIN CO. V. VICTOR
TALKING MACHINE CO. (NO. 2), 213 U.S. 325, LIMITED.  P. 668. 

3.  EXERCISE BY AN EQUITY COURT OF ITS DISCRETION TO WITHHOLD RELIEF
FROM A PATENTEE WHO HAS MISUSED HIS PATENT TO SECURE A LIMITED MONOPOLY
OF UNPATENTED MATERIAL, CAN NOT BE FORECLOSED BY THE FAILURE OF THE
DEFENDANT TO INTERPOSE THAT DEFENSE IN EARLIER LITIGATION TO WHICH THE
ALLEGED INFRINGER WAS PRIVY.  P. 670. 

4.  A JUDGMENT IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT DOES NOT BAR A
CLAIM BASED ON SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WAS
NOT, ASSERTED AS A COUNTERCLAIM IN THE PRIOR SUIT.  P. 671. 

WHERE THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS UPON A
DIFFERENT CLAIM, THE PRIOR JUDGMENT IS RES JUDICATA NOT AS TO ISSUES
WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TENDERED BUT ONLY AS TO THOSE UPON THE
DETERMINATION OF WHICH THE FINDING OR VERDICT WAS RENDERED.  P. 671. 

5.  A COUNTERCLAIM BASED ON SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT MAY, UNDER THE
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, BE ASSERTED IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT. 
P. 671. 

MERCOID CORPORATION V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 737, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH AFFIRMED IN PART
AND REVERSED IN PART A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 43 F.SUPP.  692,
IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT, MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO.,
AGAINST PETITIONER, MERCOID CORPORATION, FOR CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
OF THE CROSS COMBINATION PATENT NO. 1,758,146, ISSUED MAY 13, 1930, FOR
A DOMESTIC HEATING SYSTEM.  MERCOID IN ITS ANSWER DENIED CONTRIBUTORY
INFRINGEMENT AND ALLEGED THAT MID-CONTINENT SHOULD BE BARRED FROM
RELIEF BECAUSE IT WAS SEEKING TO EXTEND THE GRANT OF THE PATENT TO
UNPATENTED DEVICES.  THE ALLEGED IMPROPER USE OF THE PATENT WAS ALSO
THE BASIS OF A COUNTERCLAIM FILED BY MERCOID IN WHICH IT WAS AVERRED
THAT MID-CONTINENT AND ITS EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE UNDER THE PATENT,
RESPONDENT MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO., WHO WAS BROUGHT IN AS A
PARTY PLAINTIFF, HAD CONSPIRED TO EXPAND THE MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT IN
VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  MERCOID ASKED NOT ONLY FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF BUT FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND TREBLE DAMAGES AS WELL. 
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT MERCOID DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE
INFRINGEMENT OF THE CROSS PATENT; THAT RESPONDENTS HAD CONSPIRED TO
ESTABLISH A MONOPOLY IN AN UNPATENTED APPLIANCE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE
PATENT AND IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS; AND THAT RESPONDENTS
WERE IN NO POSITION TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT BECAUSE OF THAT CONSPIRACY. 
MERCOID WAS GRANTED AN INJUNCTION BUT ITS PRAYER FOR DAMAGES WAS
DENIED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN DISALLOWING DAMAGES UNDER THE COUNTERCLAIM.  IN ALL
OTHER RESPECTS IT REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT, HOLDING THAT MERCOID WAS
GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE RULE OF LEEDS & CATLIN
CO. V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO. (NO. 2), 213 U.S. 325, AND THAT
CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27 AND LEITCH MFG.
CO. V. BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458, DID NOT BAR RECOVERY AS THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD THOUGHT.  133 F.2D 803.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 

THE CONTROVERSY CENTERS AROUND THE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MID
CONTINENT AND MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL.  BY THAT AGREEMENT MINNEAPOLIS
HONEYWELL RECEIVED AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO MAKE, USE, SELL, AND TO SUB
LICENSE OTHERS TO MAKE, USE, AND SELL THE CROSS COMBINATION PATENT NO.
1,758,146.  THE ROYALTY PAYMENTS UNDER THE LICENSE, HOWEVER, WERE TO BE
BASED ONLY UPON SALES OF THE COMBUSTION STOKER SWITCH WHICH WAS AN
ELEMENT OF THE COMBINATION PATENT EMBODIED IN THE PATENTED ARTICLE BUT
WHICH WAS ITSELF UNPATENTED.  THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WAS CONSTRUED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO MEAN THAT THE ROYALTY PAYMENTS WERE TO
BE MADE ONLY ON SWITCHES USED FOR FIRE MAINTENANCE PURPOSES UNDER THE
CROSS PATENT.  AND MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL IN ADVERTISING ITS STOKER
SWITCHES STATED THAT THE "RIGHT TO USE" THE CROSS SYSTEM PATENT WAS
"ONLY GRANTED TO THE USER" WHEN THE STOKER SWITCHES OF MINNEAPOLIS
HONEYWELL WERE PURCHASED FROM IT AND USED IN THE SYSTEM.  NEITHER MID
CONTINENT NOR MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL MANUFACTURES OR INSTALLS HEATING
SYSTEMS UNDER THE CROSS COMBINATION PATENT.  THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE
TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT RESPONDENTS
ENDEAVORED TO USE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT SO AS TO PREVENT THE SALE OR
USE OF COMBUSTION STOKER SWITCHES IN THESE HEATING SYSTEMS UNLESS THEY
WERE THE SWITCHES MADE BY MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL AND PURCHASED FROM IT
OR ITS SUB-LICENSEES. 

THE PATENT IS A COMBINATION OR SYSTEM PATENT, COVERING A DOMESTIC
HEATING SYSTEM WHICH COMPRISES THREE MAIN ELEMENTS - A MOTOR DRIVEN
STOKER FOR FEEDING FUEL TO THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER OF A FURNACE, A ROOM
THERMOSTAT FOR CONTROLLING THE FEEDING OF FUEL, AND A COMBUSTION STOKER
SWITCH TO PREVENT EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE FIRE.  THE ROOM THERMOSTAT
FUNCTIONS TO SUPPLY, OR DISCONTINUE THE SUPPLY OF, HEAT BY CLOSING OR
THEN OPENING THE CIRCUIT TO THE STOKER MOTOR AT THE REQUIRED
TEMPERATURES.  THE COMBUSTION STOKER SWITCH, OR HOLDFIRE CONTROL, IS
RESPONSIVE TO A LOW TEMPERATURE IN THE FURNACE CAUSING THE STOKER TO
FEED FUEL SO AS TO PREVENT THE FURNACE FIRE FROM GOING OUT.  THE
CONTROL OF THE COMBUSTION STOKER SWITCH IS SAID TO BE EFFECTIVE IN MILD
WEATHER WHEN THE ROOM THERMOSTAT MAY NOT CALL FOR HEAT FOR A
CONSIDERABLE PERIOD. 

MERCOID, LIKE MID-CONTINENT AND MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL, DOES NOT SELL
OR INSTALL THE CROSS HEATING SYSTEM.  BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOUND THAT MERCOID MANUFACTURED AND SOLD COMBUSTION STOKER SWITCHES FOR
USE IN THE CROSS COMBINATION PATENT.  AND WE MAY ASSUME THAT MERCOID
DID NOT ACT INNOCENTLY.  INDEED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID THAT
IT COULD FIND NO USE FOR THE ACCUSED DEVICES OTHER THAN IN THE CROSS
COMBINATION PATENT.  AND IT ASSUMED, AS WAS HELD IN SMITH V. MID
CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., 106 F.2D 622, THAT THE CROSS PATENT WAS
VALID.  BUT THOUGH WE ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT AND ACCEPT
FULLY THE FINDINGS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WE THINK THE
JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

EVER SINCE HENRY V. A.B. DICK CO., 224 U.S. 1, WAS OVERRULED BY
MOTION PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 243 U.S. 502, THIS COURT HAS
CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE OWNER OF A PATENT MAY NOT EMPLOY IT TO
SECURE A LIMITED MONOPOLY OF AN UNPATENTED MATERIAL USED IN APPLYING
THE INVENTION.  CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., SUPRA; LEITCH
MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO., SUPRA; MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO.,
314 U.S. 488; B.B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS, 314 U.S. 495.  IN THOSE CASES
BOTH DIRECT AND CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT SUITS WERE DISALLOWED ON A
SHOWING THAT THE OWNER OF THE PATENT WAS USING IT "AS THE EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF RESTRAINING COMPETITION WITH ITS SALE OF AN UNPATENTED
ARTICLE."  MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO., SUPRA, P. 490.  THE
COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT TO ALLOW SUCH SUITS WOULD BE TO EXTEND
THE AID OF A COURT OF EQUITY IN EXPANDING THE PATENT BEYOND THE
LEGITIMATE SCOPE OF ITS MONOPOLY.  IT IS TRUE THAT THOSE CASES INVOLVED
THE USE OF THE PATENT FOR A MACHINE OR PROCESS TO SECURE A PARTIAL
MONOPOLY IN SUPPLIES CONSUMED IN ITS OPERATION OR UNPATENTED MATERIALS
EMPLOYED IN IT.  BUT WE CAN SEE NO DIFFERENCE IN PRINCIPLE WHERE THE
UNPATENTED MATERIAL OR DEVICE IS ITSELF AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
STRUCTURE EMBODYING THE PATENT. 

THE GRANT OF A PATENT IS THE GRANT OF A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE "TO PROMOTE
THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS."  CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8.  IT
CARRIES, OF COURSE, A RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM COMPETITION IN THE PRACTICE
OF THE INVENTION.  BUT THE LIMITS OF THE PATENT ARE NARROWLY AND
STRICTLY CONFINED TO THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE GRANT.  ETHYL GASOLINE
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 456; UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS
CO., 316 U.S. 241, 251.  IT IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH IS DOMINANT IN
THE PATENT SYSTEM.  PENNOCK V. DIALOGUE, 2 PET. 1; KENDALL V. WINSOR,
21 HOW.  322, 329; ADAMS V. BURKE, 17 WALL.  453; MOTION PICTURE CO. V.
UNIVERSAL FILM CO., SUPRA, PP. 510-511; MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S.
SUPPIGER CO., SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265,
278.  IT IS THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC IN A SYSTEM OF FREE ENTERPRISE
WHICH ALIKE NULLIFIES A PATENT WHERE ANY PART OF IT IS INVALID (MARCONI
WIRELESS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 1, 58; AND SEE GENERAL ELECTRIC
CO. V. WABASH CORP., 304 U.S. 364, 372) AND DENIES TO THE PATENTEE
AFTER ISSUANCE THE POWER TO USE IT IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ACQUIRE A
MONOPOLY WHICH IS NOT PLAINLY WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE GRANT.  THE
NECESSITIES OR CONVENIENCE OF THE PATENTEE DO NOT JUSTIFY ANY USE OF
THE MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT TO CREATE ANOTHER MONOPOLY.  THE FACT THAT
THE PATENTEE HAS THE POWER TO REFUSE A LICENSE DOES NOT ENABLE HIM TO
ENLARGE THE MONOPOLY OF THE PATENT BY THE EXPEDIENT OF ATTACHING
CONDITIONS TO ITS USE.  UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORP., SUPRA, P.
277.  THE METHOD BY WHICH THE MONOPOLY IS SOUGHT TO BE EXTENDED IS
IMMATERIAL.  UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., SUPRA, PP. 251-252.  THE
PATENT IS A PRIVILEGE.  BUT IT IS A PRIVILEGE WHICH IS CONDITIONED BY A
PUBLIC PURPOSE.  IT RESULTS FROM INVENTION AND IS LIMITED TO THE
INVENTION WHICH IT DEFINES.  WHEN THE PATENTEE TIES SOMETHING ELSE TO
HIS INVENTION, HE ACTS ONLY BY VIRTUE OF HIS RIGHT AS THE OWNER OF
PROPERTY TO MAKE CONTRACTS CONCERNING IT AND NOT OTHERWISE.  HE THEN IS
SUBJECT TO ALL THE LIMITATIONS UPON THAT RIGHT WHICH THE GENERAL LAW
IMPOSES UPON SUCH CONTRACTS.  THE CONTRACT IS NOT SAVED BY ANYTHING IN
THE PATENT LAWS BECAUSE IT RELATES TO THE INVENTION.  IF IT WERE, THE
MERE ACT OF THE PATENTEE COULD MAKE THE DISTINCTIVE CLAIM OF THE PATENT
ATTACH TO SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT POSSESS THE QUALITY OF INVENTION. 
THEN THE PATENT WOULD BE DIVERTED FROM ITS STATUTORY PURPOSE AND BECOME
A READY INSTRUMENT FOR ECONOMIC CONTROL IN DOMAINS WHERE THE ANTI-TRUST
ACTS OR OTHER LAWS NOT THE PATENT STATUTES DEFINE THE PUBLIC POLICY. 

THE INSTANT CASE IS A GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE EVILS OF AN
EXPANSION OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY BY PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS.  THE PATENT IN
QUESTION EMBRACES FURNACE ASSEMBLIES WHICH NEITHER THE PATENTEE NOR THE
LICENSEE MAKES OR VENDS.  THE STRUGGLE IS NOT OVER A COMBINATION PATENT
AND THE RIGHT TO MAKE OR VEND IT.  THE CONTEST IS SOLELY OVER
UNPATENTED WARES WHICH GO INTO THE PATENTED PRODUCT.  RESPONDENTS POINT
OUT THAT THE ROYALTIES UNDER THE LICENSE ARE MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF
UNPATENTED CONTROLS WHICH ARE SOLD AND THAT NO ROYALTY IS PAID UNLESS A
FURNACE COVERED BY THE PATENT HAS BEEN INSTALLED.  BUT THE FACT REMAINS
THAT THE COMPETITION WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE CONTROLLED IS NOT
COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF THE PATENTED ASSEMBLY BUT MERELY COMPETITION
IN THE SALE OF THE UNPATENTED THERMOSTATIC CONTROLS.  THE PATENT IS
EMPLOYED TO PROTECT THE MARKET FOR A DEVICE ON WHICH NO PATENT HAS BEEN
GRANTED.  BUT FOR THE PATENT SUCH RESTRAINT ON TRADE WOULD PLAINLY RUN
AFOUL OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  IF THE RESTRAINT IS LAWFUL BECAUSE OF
THE PATENT, THE PATENT WILL HAVE BEEN EXPANDED BY CONTRACT.  THAT ON
WHICH NO PATENT COULD BE OBTAINED WOULD BE AS EFFECTIVELY PROTECTED AS
IF A PATENT HAD BEEN ISSUED.  PRIVATE BUSINESS WOULD FUNCTION AS ITS
OWN PATENT OFFICE AND IMPOSE ITS OWN LAW UPON ITS LICENSEES.  IT WOULD
OBTAIN BY CONTRACT WHAT LETTERS PATENT ALONE MAY GRANT.  SUCH A VAST
POWER "TO MULTIPLY MONOPOLIES" AT THE WILL OF THE PATENTEE (CHIEF
JUSTICE WHITE DISSENTING IN HENRY V. A.B. DICK CO., SUPRA, P. 53) WOULD
CARVE OUT EXCEPTIONS TO THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT
SANCTIONED.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, STATED IN
THE CARBICE CASE THAT "CONTROL OVER THE SUPPLY OF SUCH UNPATENTED
MATERIAL IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY; AND THIS
LIMITATION, INHERENT IN THE PATENT GRANT, IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE
PECULIAR FUNCTION OR CHARACTER OF THE UNPATENTED MATERIAL OR ON THE WAY
IN WHICH IT IS USED."  283 U.S. P. 33.  WE NOW ADD THAT IT MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE THAT THE UNPATENTED DEVICE IS PART OF THE PATENTED WHOLE. 

THAT RESULT MAY NOT BE OBVIATED IN THE PRESENT CASE BY CALLING THE
COMBUSTION STOKER SWITCH THE "HEART OF THE INVENTION" OR THE "ADVANCE
IN THE ART."  THE PATENT IS FOR A COMBINATION ONLY.  SINCE NONE OF THE
SEPARATE ELEMENTS OF THE COMBINATION IS CLAIMED AS THE INVENTION, NONE
OF THEM WHEN DEALT WITH SEPARATELY IS PROTECTED BY THE PATENT
MONOPOLY.  LEEDS & CATLIN CO. V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO. (NO. 1),
213 U.S. 301, 318.  WHETHER THE PARTS ARE NEW OR OLD, THE COMBINATION
IS THE INVENTION AND IT IS DISTINCT FROM ANY OF THEM.  SEE SCHUMACHER
V. CORNELL, 96 U.S. 549, 554; ROWELL V. LINDSAY, 113 U.S. 97, 101.  IF
A LIMITED MONOPOLY OVER THE COMBUSTION STOKER SWITCH WERE ALLOWED, IT
WOULD NOT BE A MONOPOLY ACCORDED INVENTIVE GENIUS BY THE PATENT LAWS
BUT A MONOPOLY BORN OF A COMMERCIAL DESIRE TO AVOID THE RIGORS OF
COMPETITION FOSTERED BY THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  IF SUCH AN EXPANSION OF
THE PATENT MONOPOLY COULD BE EFFECTED BY CONTRACT, THE INTEGRITY OF THE
PATENT SYSTEM WOULD BE SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED. 

LEEDS & CATLIN CO. V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO. (NO. 2), SUPRA, IS
AUTHORITY FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT HE WHO SELLS AN UNPATENTED PART OF A
COMBINATION PATENT FOR USE IN THE ASSEMBLED MACHINE MAY BE GUILTY OF
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT.  THE PROTECTION WHICH THE COURT IN THAT CASE
EXTENDED TO THE PHONOGRAPH RECORD, WHICH WAS AN UNPATENTED PART OF THE
PATENTED PHONOGRAPH, IS IN SUBSTANCE INCONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW WHICH
WE HAVE EXPRESSED IN THIS CASE.  THE RULE OF THE LEEDS & CATLIN CASE
(NO. 2) ACCORDINGLY MUST NO LONGER PREVAIL AGAINST THE DEFENSE  FN1
THAT A COMBINATION PATENT IS BEING USED TO PROTECT AN UNPATENTED PART
FROM COMPETITION.  THAT RESULT OBTAINS HERE THOUGH WE ASSUME FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THAT MERCOID WAS A CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGER AND
THAT RESPONDENTS COULD HAVE ENJOINED THE INFRINGEMENT HAD THEY NOT
MISUSED THE PATENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MONOPOLIZING UNPATENTED
MATERIAL.  INASMUCH AS THEIR MISUSE OF THE PATENT WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED
THEM FROM ENJOINING A DIRECT INFRINGEMENT (MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S.
SUPPIGER CO., SUPRA) THEY CANNOT STAND IN ANY BETTER POSITION WITH
RESPECT TO A CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGER.  WHERE THERE IS A COLLISION
BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CARBICE CASE AND THE CONVENTIONAL RULES
GOVERNING EITHER DIRECT OR CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, THE FORMER
PREVAILS.    THE RESULT OF THIS DECISION, TOGETHER WITH THOSE WHICH
HAVE PRECEDED IT, IS TO LIMIT SUBSTANTIALLY THE DOCTRINE OF
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT.  WHAT RESIDUUM MAY BE LEFT WE NEED NOT STOP
TO CONSIDER.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT IN WHATEVER POSTURE THE
ISSUE MAY BE TENDERED COURTS OF EQUITY WILL WITHHOLD RELIEF WHERE THE
PATENTEE AND THOSE CLAIMING UNDER HIM ARE USING THE PATENT PRIVILEGE
CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO.,
SUPRA, P. 492. 

THERE REMAIN THE QUESTIONS OF RES JUDICATA AND MERCOID'S RIGHT TO
RELIEF UNDER THE COUNTERCLAIM. 

RESPONDENTS POINT OUT THAT MERCOID KNEW OF MID-CONTINENT'S ACTIONS
AND THE LICENSE AGREEMENT PRIOR TO 1935 WHEN THE EARLIER SUIT INVOLVING
THE VALIDITY OF THE CROSS PATENT (SMITH V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT
CO., SUPRA) WAS INSTITUTED.  THEY STATE, AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND,
THAT ALTHOUGH MERCOID WAS NOT MADE A PARTY TO THE EARLIER SUIT IT
PROVIDED THE DEFENSE.  THE CONTENTION THEREFORE IS THAT THE DOCTRINE OF
RES JUDICATA BINDS MERCOID AS RESPECTS ISSUES WHICH WERE ACTUALLY
LITIGATED AND ALL ISSUES WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THAT EARLIER
SUIT.  AND IT IS POINTED OUT THAT AMONG THE DEFENSES WHICH MIGHT HAVE
BEEN INTERPOSED WERE THOSE RELATING TO THE MISUSE OF THE PATENT AND THE
VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  IT IS ARGUED, MOREOVER, THAT
ALTHOUGH MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE EARLIER
LITIGATION, IT IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE JUDGMENT SINCE ITS
TITLE OR CLAIM DERIVES FROM THE PATENTEE.  WE DO NOT STOP TO EXAMINE
THE PREMISES ON WHICH THE ARGUMENT IS BASED; FOR THOUGH WE ASSUME THAT
THEY ARE CORRECT, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
FORECLOSES THE DEFENSE WHICH IS TENDERED. 

RESPONDENTS ASK THE EQUITY COURT FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
INFRINGEMENT BY PETITIONER OF THE PATENT IN QUESTION AND FOR AN
ACCOUNTING.  SHOULD SUCH A DECREE BE ENTERED, THE COURT WOULD BE
PLACING ITS IMPRIMATUR ON A SCHEME WHICH INVOLVES A MISUSE OF THE
PATENT PRIVILEGE AND A VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  IT WOULD AID
IN THE CONSUMMATION OF A CONSPIRACY TO EXPAND A PATENT BEYOND ITS
LEGITIMATE SCOPE.  BUT PATENTEES AND LICENSEES CANNOT SECURE AID FROM
THE COURT TO BRING SUCH AN EVENT TO PASS, "UNLESS IT IS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH POLICY TO GRANT THAT HELP."  BEASLEY V. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO.,
191 U.S. 492, 497.  AND THE DETERMINATION OF THAT POLICY IS NOT "AT THE
MERCY" OF THE PARTIES (ID., P. 498) NOR DEPENDENT ON THE USUAL RULES
GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF PRIVATE LITIGATION.  "COURTS OF EQUITY MAY,
AND FREQUENTLY DO, GO MUCH FARTHER BOTH TO GIVE AND WITHHOLD RELIEF IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAN THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO GO WHEN
ONLY PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED."  VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552.  "WHERE AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC INTEREST
WOULD BE PREJUDICED," THE REASONS FOR DENYING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF "MAY BE
COMPELLING."  HARRISONVILLE V. DICKEY CLAY CO., 289 U.S. 334, 338.  AND
SEE UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 194.  THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE
WHICH HAS LED THIS COURT IN THE PAST TO WITHHOLD AID FROM A PATENTEE IN
SUITS FOR EITHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT WHERE THE PATENT WAS
BEING MISUSED.  MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO., SUPRA, P. 492. 
THAT PRINCIPLE IS CONTROLLING HERE.  THE PARTIES CANNOT FORECLOSE THE
COURTS FROM THE EXERCISE OF THAT DISCRETION BY THE FAILURE TO INTERPOSE
THE SAME DEFENSE IN AN EARLIER LITIGATION.  CF. SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V.
JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S. 173. 

WHAT WE HAVE JUST SAID DOES NOT, OF COURSE, DISPOSE OF MERCOID'S
COUNTERCLAIM FOR DAMAGES.  THAT WAS BASED ON SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT
WHICH PROVIDES:  "ANY PERSON WHO SHALL BE INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS OR
PROPERTY BY REASON OF ANYTHING FORBIDDEN IN THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS MAY SUE
THEREFOR IN ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT IN
WHICH THE DEFENDANT RESIDES OR IS FOUND OR HAS AN AGENT, WITHOUT
RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, AND SHALL RECOVER THREEFOLD THE
DAMAGES BY HIM SUSTAINED, AND THE COST OF SUIT, INCLUDING A REASONABLE
ATTORNEY'S FEE."  38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 15.  THOUGH MERCOID WERE
BARRED IN THE PRESENT CASE FROM ASSERTING ANY DEFENSE WHICH MIGHT HAVE
BEEN INTERPOSED IN THE EARLIER LITIGATION, IT WOULD NOT FOLLOW THAT ITS
COUNTERCLAIM FOR DAMAGES WOULD LIKEWISE BE BARRED.  THAT CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES IS MORE THAN A DEFENSE; IT IS A SEPARATE STATUTORY CAUSE OF
ACTION.  THE FACT THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ASSERTED AS A COUNTERCLAIM IN
THE PRIOR SUIT BY REASON OF RULE 13(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FAILURE TO DO SO RENDERS THE PRIOR JUDGMENT RES
JUDICATA AS RESPECTS IT. VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO. V. KIRVEN, 215
U.S. 252; LARSEN V. NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION CO., 292 U.S. 20.  AND SEE
SCOTT, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT, 56 HARV. L. REV. 1, 26-28;
RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF JUDGMENTS, SEC. 58.  THE CASE IS THEN
GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHERE THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BETWEEN
THE PARTIES IS UPON A DIFFERENT CLAIM THE PRIOR JUDGMENT IS RES
JUDICATA NOT AS TO ISSUES WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TENDERED BUT "ONLY AS
TO THOSE MATTERS IN ISSUE OR POINTS CONTROVERTED, UPON THE
DETERMINATION OF WHICH THE FINDING OR VERDICT WAS RENDERED."  CROMWELL
V. COUNTY OF SAC, 94 U.S. 351, 353.  AND SEE RUSSELL V. PLACE, 94 U.S.
606.  IT WAS HELD IN FLEITMANN V. WELSBACH STREET LIGHTING CO., 240
U.S. 27, THAT THE STATUTORY LIABILITY IN QUESTION MAY BE ENFORCED ONLY
THROUGH THE VERDICT OF A JURY IN A COURT OF COMMON LAW.  BUT THERE IS
NO REASON UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHY THAT MAY NOT BE DONE
UNDER THIS COUNTERCLAIM.  RULES 12(H), 13, 38, 42(B).  WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE WILL SHOW DAMAGES WITHIN THE RULE OF STORY PARCHMENT CO. V.
PATERSON CO., 282 U.S. 555, IS OF COURSE A DISTINCT QUESTION ON WHICH
WE INTIMATE NO OPINION. 

WE HAVE MENTIONED THE STATUTORY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BECAUSE BOTH THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED THAT RELIEF. 
BUT SINCE THE CAUSE MUST BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, WE THINK
THE QUESTION WHETHER RES JUDICATA BARS ANY OTHER PART OF THE RELIEF
SOUGHT BY THE COUNTERCLAIM MAY APPROPRIATELY BE RESERVED FOR IT.
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COURT IN THAT CASE DID NOT REFER TO THE DOCTRINE OF MISUSE
OF A PATENT.  THAT DOCTRINE INDEED WAS DEVELOPED IN THIS COURT SOME
YEARS LATER AS SHOWN BY THE MOTION PICTURE CASE.  THE RECORD IN THE
LEEDS & CATLIN CASE INDICATES THAT THE POINT WHICH WE DEEM CRUCIAL IN
THE INSTANT CASE WAS ADVERTED TO ONLY OBLIQUELY IN THE BRIEFS.  THE
COURT WAS CHIEFLY CONCERNED WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT A SUBSTITUTION OR
RENEWAL OF AN UNPATENTED ELEMENT OF A COMBINATION PATENT, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS REPAIR, IS A "RECONSTRUCTION" OF THE COMBINATION
213 U.S. PP. 333, 336. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK: 

ALTHOUGH I ENTIRELY AGREE WITH THE COURT'S JUDGMENTS AND THE GROUNDS
ON WHICH THEY REST, I FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADD A FEW REMARKS IN ORDER
THAT SILENCE MAY NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS ACQUIESCENCE IN THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.  THERE
IS NO INCLINATION ON MY PART TO CHALLENGE THE WISDOM OF THE ESTABLISHED
PRACTICE WHEREBY WE DO NOT DISCUSS ISSUES IN THE ABSTRACT.  AS I SEE
IT, THAT SALUTARY PRACTICE HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE COURT'S DISCUSSION
OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE COURT BELOW
RESTED ITS DECISION ON WHAT IT CONSIDERED TO BE A DOCTRINE OF
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, AND COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT HAVE DISCUSSED
AND RELIED UPON IT HERE.  THE COURT'S OPINION DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
SUBJECT CANNOT BE IGNORED SINCE AT LEAST ONE ELEMENT OF THE
"COMPLICATED IDEA" WHICH IS "COMPRESSED" IN THE JUDICIALLY CREATED
"FORMULA" OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT CLASHES HEAD-ON WITH ELEMENTS OF
THE CARBICE DOCTRINE. 

BUT MY DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS DISSENTING OPINION RUNS MUCH DEEPER
THAN THE MERE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE COURT HAS HERE DISCUSSED THE SO
CALLED FORMULA OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT AT AN IMPROPER OR
INOPPORTUNE TIME.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE JUDICIAL ERROR OF DISCUSSING
ABSTRACT QUESTIONS IS SLIGHT COMPARED TO THE ERROR OF INTERPRETING
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS ON THE BASIS OF A COURT'S PRECONCEIVED VIEWS ON
"MORALS" AND "ETHICS." 

IF THERE IS SUCH A WRONG AS CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, IT MUST HAVE
BEEN CREATED BY THE FEDERAL PATENT STATUTES.  SINCE THEY MAKE NO DIRECT
MENTION OF SUCH A WRONG, ITS EXISTENCE COULD ONLY BE RESTED ON
INFERENCES AS TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  IN SEARCHING FOR CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT WE ORDINARILY LOOK TO SUCH SOURCES AS STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  THE DISSENT IN QUESTION MENTIONS NEITHER OF THESE
GUIDES; IN FACT, IT MENTIONS NO STATUTE AT ALL.  INSTEAD, THE CHIEF
RELIANCE APPEARS TO BE UPON THE LAW OF TORTS, A QUOTATION FROM A
DECISION OF A LOWER FEDERAL COURT WHICH HELD THAT NO INFRINGEMENT WAS
SHOWN, AND THE WRITER'S PERSONAL VIEWS ON "MORALS" AND "ETHICS."  NOT
ONE OF THESE REFERENCES, UNLESS IT BE THE LATTER, THROWS ENOUGH LIGHT
ON THE PATENT STATUTES TO JUSTIFY ITS USE IN CONSTRUING THESE STATUTES
AS CREATING, IN ADDITION TO A RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR INFRINGEMENT, A
MORE EXPANSIVE RIGHT JUDICIALLY CHARACTERIZED AS A "FORMULA" OF
"CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT."  AND FOR JUDGES TO REST THEIR
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES ON NOTHING BUT THEIR OWN CONCEPTIONS OF
"MORALS" AND "ETHICS" IS, TO SAY THE LEAST, DANGEROUS BUSINESS. 

IF THE PRESENT CASE COMPELLED CONSIDERATION OF THE MORALS AND ETHICS
OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT, I SHOULD BE MOST RELUCTANT TO CONCLUDE
THAT THE SCALES OF MORAL VALUE ARE WEIGHTED AGAINST THE RIGHT OF
PRODUCERS TO SELL THEIR UNPATENTED GOODS IN A FREE MARKET.  AT LEAST
SINCE ADAM SMITH WROTE, UNHAMPERED COMPETITION HAS NOT GENERALLY BEEN
CONSIDERED IMMORAL.  WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN OBJECTIONS TO THE SHERMAN
ANTI-TRUST ACT, FEW IF ANY OF THE OBJECTORS HAVE QUESTIONED ITS
MORALITY. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT A SOCIALLY UNDESIRABLE PRACTICE MAY
SEEK ACCEPTANCE UNDER THE GUISE OF CONVENTIONAL MORAL SYMBOLS.  AND
REPEATED JUDICIAL ASSERTION THAT A BAD PRACTICE IS HALLOWED BY MORALS
MAY, IF UNCHALLENGED, HELP IT TO RECEIVE THE ACCEPTANCE WHICH IT
SEEKS.  WITH THIS IN MIND, I WISH TO MAKE EXPLICIT MY PROTEST AGAINST
TALKING ABOUT THE JUDICIAL DOCTRINE OF "CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT" AS
THOUGH IT WERE ENTITLED TO THE SAME RESPECT AS A UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED
MORAL TRUTH. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

FIRST.  I AGREE THAT THE PATENTEE MAY NOT EXTEND HIS EXCLUSIVE
STATUTORY RIGHT TO MAKE, USE, AND VEND BY FORBIDDING ONE PRACTICING THE
INVENTION FROM USING IN SUCH PRACTICE AN UNPATENTED ARTICLE SUSCEPTIBLE
TO SUCH USE.  HE MAY NOT OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION AGAINST SUCH USER FOR
INFRINGEMENT.  THIS IS A PURE QUESTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE RIGHT OF
EXCLUSION CONFERRED BY THE PATENT STATUTE.  FN1  IT NOWISE INVOLVES THE
ANTITRUST ACTS.  A PATENT IS PROPERTY AND IT MAY, LIKE OTHER PROPERTY,
BE SO USED AS TO VIOLATE THOSE ACTS,  FN2  BUT THAT IS NOT THIS CASE. 

SECOND.  I THINK THE OPINION MAY CREATE CONFUSION RESPECTING
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT.  THE COURT BELOW, THINKING THE DOCTRINE OF
THE CARBICE AND LEITCH CASES INAPPLICABLE, NECESSARILY CONCLUDED THAT
THE USER OF THE SYSTEM INFRINGED THE PATENT IF HE USED ANY THERMOSTAT
OTHER THAN THAT MANUFACTURED BY RESPONDENT'S EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE.  BUT
THOSE CASES SHOW THAT SO TO DO WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE INFRINGEMENT OF THE
PATENT.  AND IF THE PURCHASER AND USER COULD NOT BE AMERCED AS AN
INFRINGER CERTAINLY ONE WHO SOLD TO HIM WITH THE PURPOSE THAT HE SHOULD
USE THE THERMOSTAT CANNOT BE AMERCED FOR CONTRIBUTING TO A NON-EXISTENT
INFRINGEMENT.  ONE MAY DISAGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN
LEEDS & CATLIN CO. V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO. (NO. 2), 213 U.S. 325,
THAT THE SUBSTITUTION BY THE USER OF THE TALKING MACHINE OF A RECORD
NOT MADE BY THE LICENSOR CONSTITUTED AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT,
BUT, ACCEPTING THE PREMISE THAT SUCH CONDUCT WAS INFRINGEMENT, ONE WHO
PARTICIPATED IN IT BY KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY SELLING RECORDS TO
THE USER BECAME AN AIDER AND PARTICIPANT IN THE INFRINGEMENT AND, AS
SUCH, LIABLE TO THE OWNER OF THE PATENT.  I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE
COURT'S OPINION IS INTENDED TO LAY DOWN A DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE. 

THIRD.  I DISAGREE WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE RES JUDICATA TO
ONE PHASE OF THE LITIGATION.  MERCOID DEFENDED AN EARLIER SUIT BROUGHT
BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST A USER OF THE PATENTED COMBINATION WHO BOUGHT
AND INSTALLED AS PART OF THE SYSTEM A MERCOID THERMOSTAT.  CONFESSEDLY
THE DEFENSE NOW ASSERTED UNDER THE CARBICE DOCTRINE WAS AVILABLE, WAS
NOT MADE, AND JUDGMENT OF VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT WAS ENTERED. 

I FAIL TO SEE WHAT GREAT QUESTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR PUBLIC POLICY
IS VIOLATED BY HOLDING THAT ONE TO WHOM A DEFENSE WAS AVAILABLE, IN
REBUTTAL OF A CLAIM BROADER THAN WAS WARRANTED BY THE STATUTE ON WHICH
THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT WAS FOUNDED, IS BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT RENDERED. 
THAT JUDGMENT STANDS UNREVERSED.  THE DEFENSE, IF MADE, AS IT COULD
HAVE BEEN, WOULD HAVE BENEFITED THE DEFENDANT IN ITS POCKETBOOK.  WE
ARE NOW TOLD THAT A MISCONSTRUCTION OF THE PATENT LAW BY A LICENSOR IS
SO VIOLENT AND FLAGRANT A FLOUTING OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT A COURT
OF EQUITY MUST HOLD ITS HAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF A DEFENDANT WHENEVER HE
CHOOSES TO INVOKE THAT INTEREST FOR HIS PRIVATE BENEFIT, THOUGH HE HAS
FAILED TO MAKE THE DEFENSE IN AN EARLIER LITIGATION AND STANDS OF
RECORD AN INFRINGER.  IF A WRONG AGAINST THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN
PERPETRATED IT MAY BE REDRESSED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF GOVERNMENT.    I CAN ONLY SPECULATE AS TO THE RESULTS OF SUCH A
HOLDING.  IF APPLICABLE HERE, I CANNOT SEE WHY THE PRINCIPLE SHOULD NOT
APPLY TO EVERY SUIT OR ACTION BASED UPON, OR ARISING OUT OF, STATUTORY
PROVISIONS, AND TO EVERY DEFENSE BOTTOMED ON PUBLIC POLICY, WHETHER
EXPRESSED IN STATUTE OR NOT.  SURELY THE DEFENDANT IN THE EARLIER SUIT,
AFTER THE DECREE AGAINST HIM BECAME FINAL, COULD NOT HAVE DEFENDED A
CHARGE OF CONTEMPT FOR DISOBEYING THE DECREE ON THE GROUND NOW
ASSERTED.  AND IF THE JUDGMENT CONCLUDED HIM THUS DIRECTLY, I CANNOT
AGREE THAT HE MAY NOW DISREGARD IT OR COLLATERALLY ATTACK IT.  AND
CONFESSEDLY MERCOID STANDS IN HIS SHOES.  FN3    I SHOULD AFFIRM THE
JUDGMENT. 

FN1  CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27; LEITCH
MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458. 

FN2  STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20; UNITED
STATES V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265. 

FN3  BRYANT ELECTRIC CO. V. MARSHALL, 169 F. 426; AFFIRMED 185 F.
499.  COMPARE SOUFFRONT V. LA COMPAGNIE, 217 U.S. 475.  AND SEE CASES
COLLECTED 139 A.L.R. 41. 

MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

THE COURT HOLDS IN EFFECT THAT THE OWNER OF A PATENT WHO EXACTS, AS
THE CONDITION OF A LICENSE, THAT UNPATENTED MATERIALS USED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE INVENTION SHALL BE PURCHASED ONLY FROM THE LICENSOR
CANNOT OBTAIN RELIEF FROM EQUITY AGAINST ONE WHO SUPPLIES SUCH
UNPATENTED MATERIALS EVEN THOUGH THE UNPATENTED APPLIANCE WAS NOT FOR
COMMON USE BUT WAS DESIGNEDLY ADAPTED FOR THE PRACTICE OF THE
INVENTION, BUT WHEN SO USED DID NOT INVOLVE AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE
PATENT.  THE DECISION IS THUS MERELY AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF WHAT
HAS COME TO BE KNOWN AS THE DOCTRINE IN THE CARBICE CASE, 283 U.S. 27. 
IN THIS VIEW I CONCUR. 

BUT IN THE SERIES OF CASES IN WHICH THAT DOCTRINE HAS HERETOFORE BEEN
APPLIED (MOTION PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 243 U.S. 502;
CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., SUPRA; MORTON SALT CO. V.
SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488; B.B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS, 314 U.S. 495),
NOT ONCE HAS THIS COURT FOUND IT RELEVANT TO REJECT, EITHER EXPLICITLY
OR BY INDIRECTION, ANOTHER DOCTRINE OF THE LAW, THAT OF CONTRIBUTORY
INFRINGEMENT, NOR HAS IT SEEN FIT TO MAKE ANIMADVERSIONS UPON IT. THIS
IS SO DOUBTLESS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT APPROPRIATE OCCASIONS FOR
RELIEF AGAINST CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT ARE UNRELATED TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH BRING THE CARBICE DOCTRINE INTO PLAY.  IN A WORD,
IF THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT THERE CAN BE NO CONTRIBUTORY
INFRINGER. 

WITHIN ITS TRUE LIMITS THE IDEA OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT WAS
WOVEN INTO THE FABRIC OF OUR LAW AND HAS BEEN PART OF IT FOR NOW MORE
THAN SEVENTY YEARS.  SEE ROBERTS, CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT
RIGHTS, 12 HARV. L. REV. 35, AND E.G. THOMSON-HOUSTON ELECTRIC CO. V.
OHIO BRASS CO., 80 F. 712.  THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN PUT PERHAPS MOST
SIMPLY BY JUDGE SHEPLEY:  "DIFFERENT PARTIES MAY ALL INFRINGE, BY
RESPECTIVELY MAKING OR SELLING, EACH OF THEM, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF A
PATENTED COMBINATION, PROVIDED THOSE SEPARATE ELEMENTS ARE MADE FOR THE
PURPOSE, AND WITH THE INTENT, OF THEIR BEING COMBINED BY A PARTY HAVING
NO RIGHT TO COMBINE THEM.  BUT THE MERE MANUFACTURE OF A SEPARATE
ELEMENT OF A PATENTED COMBINATION, UNLESS SUCH MANUFACTURE BE PROVED TO
HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED FOR THE PURPOSE, AND WITH THE INTENT OF AIDING
INFRINGEMENT, IS NOT, IN AND OF ITSELF, INFRINGEMENT."  SAXE V.
HAMMOND, FED. CAS. NO. 12,411, 1 BAN.  & A. 629, 632.  SO UNDERSTOOD,
THE DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT IS AN EXPRESSION BOTH OF LAW
AND MORALS.  IT IS BUT ONE PHASE OF A MORE COMPREHENDING DOCTRINE OF
LEGAL LIABILITY ENFORCED BY THIS COURT BOTH IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
CASES.  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO. V. FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK, 256 U.S. 350, AND DIRECT SALES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S.
703.  INDEED, THE OPINION IN THE CARBICE CASE EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZES A
PROPER SCOPE FOR THE DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT AS A PHASE
OF THE LAW OF TORTS:  "INFRINGEMENT, WHETHER DIRECT OR CONTRIBUTORY, IS
ESSENTIALLY A TORT, AND IMPLIES INVASION OF SOME RIGHT OF THE
PATENTEE."  CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27, 33. 

TO BE SURE, THE DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT MAY BE
MISCONCEIVED AND HAS BEEN MISAPPLIED.  THAT IS THE FATE OF ALL
SHORTHAND STATEMENTS OF COMPLICATED IDEAS, WHETHER IN LAW OR IN THE
NATURAL SCIENCES.  BUT THE MISAPPLICATION OF A FORMULA INTO WHICH A
COMPLICATED IDEA IS COMPRESSED AND THEREBY MUTILATED IS A POOR EXCUSE
FOR REJECTING THE IDEA.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO DEFINE THE
APPROPRIATE LIMITS OF THE DOCTRINE OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT WHEN WE
ARE REQUIRED TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM.  UNTIL THEN LITIGANTS AND LOWER
COURTS OUGHT NOT TO BE EMBARRASSED BY GRATUITOUS INNUENDOES AGAINST A
PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW WHICH, WITHIN ITS PROPER BOUNDS, IS ACCREDITED BY
LEGAL HISTORY AS WELL AS ETHICS.  THE LONG AND ON THE WHOLE NOT
UNWORTHY HISTORY OF OUR JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION ADMONISHES US AGAINST
EXPRESSING VIEWS ON MATTERS NOT BEFORE US.  THE HISTORY OF THIS COURT
ESPECIALLY ADMONISHES US AGAINST THE EVILS OF GIVING OPINIONS NOT
CALLED FOR.  SEE E.G. HUGHES, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
P. 50, AND 49 HARV. L. REV. 68, 98.  THE DUTY OF NOT GOING BEYOND THE
NECESSITIES OF A CASE IS NOT A LIFELESS TECHNICALITY.  THE EXPERIENCE
OF CENTURIES IS BEHIND THE WISDOM OF NOT DECIDING, WHETHER EXPLICITLY
OR BY ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE, MATTERS THAT DO NOT COME TO THE COURT WITH
THE IMPACT OF NECESSITY. 

FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BY MY BROTHER ROBERTS, RES JUDICATA CALLS
FOR AFFIRMANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, IN DISSENT: 

"A PATENT," SAID MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, "IS PROPERTY CARRIED TO THE
HIGHEST DEGREE OF ABSTRACTION - A RIGHT IN REM TO EXCLUDE, WITHOUT A
PHYSICAL OBJECT OR CONTENT."  FN1  HERE THE PATENT COVERS A COMBINATION
- A SYSTEM - A SEQUENCE - WHICH IS SAID TO BE NEW, ALTHOUGH EVERY
ELEMENT AND FACTOR IN IT IS OLD AND UNPATENTABLE.  THUS WE HAVE AN
ABSTRACT RIGHT IN AN ABSTRUSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THINGS IN WHICH
INDIVIDUALLY THERE IS NO RIGHT - A LEGAL CONCEPT WHICH EITHER IS VERY
PROFOUND OR ALMOST UNINTELLIGIBLE, I CANNOT BE QUITE SURE WHICH. 

UNDOUBTEDLY THE MAN WHO FIRST DEVISED A THERMOSTAT TO CONTROL THE
FLOW OF ELECTRIC ENERGY GAVE SOMETHING TO THE WORLD.  BUT ONE WHO
MERELY CARRIED IT TO A NEW LOCATION, OR USED TWO INSTEAD OF ONE, OR
THREE INSTEAD OF TWO, OR USED IT TO CONTROL CURRENT FOR A STOKER MOTOR
RATHER THAN FOR A DAMPER, DID NOT DO MUCH THAT I WOULD NOT EXPECT OF A
GOOD MECHANIC FAMILIAR WITH THE INSTRUMENT.  BUT THAT QUESTION OF
VALIDITY IS NOT HERE.  I ASSUME THAT THIS PATENT CONFERS SOME RIGHTS
AND ASK WHAT THEY ARE. 

OF COURSE THE ABSTRACT RIGHT TO THE "SEQUENCE" HAS LITTLE ECONOMIC
IMPORTANCE UNLESS ITS MONOPOLY COMPREHENDS NOT ONLY THE ARRANGEMENT BUT
SOME, AT LEAST, OF ITS COMPONENTS.  IF THE PATENTEE MAY NOT EXCLUDE
COMPETITORS FROM MAKING AND VENDING STRATEGIC UNPATENTED ELEMENTS SUCH
AS THE THERMOSTAT, ADAPTED TO USE IN THE COMBINATION, THE PATENTED
SYSTEM IS SO VULNERABLE TO COMPETITION AS TO BE ALMOST WORTHLESS.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, IF HE MAY PROHIBIT SUCH COMPETITION, HIS SYSTEM PATENT
GATHERS UP INTO ITS MONOPOLY DEVICES LONG KNOWN TO THE ART AND HENCE
NOT THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO ANY PATENT. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SUCH A PATENT SHOULD PROTECT THE PATENTEE AT
LEAST AGAINST ONE WHO KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY BUILDS A DEVICE FOR
USE IN THE COMBINATION AND VENDS IT FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THAT IS WHAT
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DONE HERE.  AS TO ETHICS, THE PARTIES SEEM TO ME
AS MUCH ON A PARITY AS THE POT AND THE KETTLE.  BUT WANT OF KNOWLEDGE
OR INNOCENT INTENT IS NOT ORDINARILY AVAILABLE TO DIMINISH PATENT
PROTECTION.  I DO NOT SEE HOW INTENT CAN MAKE INFRINGEMENT OF WHAT
OTHERWISE IS NOT.  THE LESS LEGAL RIGHTS DEPEND ON SOMEONE'S STATE OF
MIND, THE BETTER. 

THE PRACTICAL ISSUE IS WHETHER WE WILL LEAVE SUCH A COMBINATION
PATENT WITH LITTLE VALUE INDEED OR WHETHER WE WILL GIVE IT VALUE BY
PROJECTING ITS ECONOMIC EFFECTS TO ELEMENTS NOT BY THEMSELVES A PART OF
ITS LEGAL MONOPOLY.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I THINK WE SHOULD PROTECT
THE PATENT OWNER IN THE ENJOYMENT OF JUST WHAT HE HAS BEEN GRANTED - AN
ABSTRACT RIGHT IN AN ABSTRUSE COMBINATION - WORTH WHATEVER SUCH A
TOTALITY MAY BE WORTH.  I SEE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY AUTHORITY
FOR GIVING IT ADDITIONAL VALUE BY BRINGING INTO ITS MONOPOLY ALL OR ANY
OF THE UNPATENTABLE PARTS. 

FOR THESE REASONS I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT NO CASE OF INFRINGEMENT
COULD HAVE BEEN MADE OUT HAD THE ISSUE BEEN RAISED WHEN IT WAS TIMELY. 
BUT I AGREE WITH THE VIEWS OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES ADJUDICATA EXPRESSED
BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND FOR THAT REASON JOIN THE DISSENT. 

FN1  I HOLMES-POLLOCK LETTERS, P. 53. 
..END :





















MERCOID CORP. V. HONEYWELL CO., 320 U.S. 680 


NOS. 58 AND 59.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 10, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3,
1944.  - 133 F.2D 811, REVERSED. 


AN OWNER OF A COMBINATION PATENT MAY NOT SO USE IT AS TO CONTROL
COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF AN UNPATENTED DEVICE, EVEN THOUGH THE
UNPATENTED DEVICE MAY BE THE DISTINGUISHING PART OF THE INVENTION; AND
A COURT OF EQUITY WILL GRANT OR WITHHOLD RELIEF ACCORDINGLY.  MERCOID
CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., ANTE, P. 661.  P. 684. 

MERCOID CORPORATION V. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 739, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH REVERSED IN PART
AND AFFIRMED IN PART A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 43 F.SUPP.  878,
IN A PATENT INFRINGMENT SUIT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE COMPANION CASES TO MERCOID CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT
INVESTMENT CO., ANTE, P. 661.  ONE SUIT WAS INSTITUTED BY PETITIONER,
THE OTHER BY RESPONDENT.  PETITIONER SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO
THE EFFECT THAT THE FREEMAN PATENT NO. 1,813,732 WAS INVALID AND THAT
PETITIONER DID NOT INFRINGE IT, THAT RESPONDENT HAD USED THE FREEMAN
PATENT IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, THAT RESPONDENT BE
RESTRAINED FROM THREATENING PETITIONER AND ITS CUSTOMERS WITH
INFRINGEMENT SUITS, THAT AN ACCOUNTING BE HAD AND TREBLE DAMAGES
AWARDED.  RESPONDENT IN ITS BILL SOUGHT A DECREE SUSTAINING THE
VALIDITY OF THE FREEMAN PATENT AND DECLARING THAT PETITIONER HAD
INFRINGED AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE INFRINGEMENT OF ITS CLAIMS.  IN THE
LATTER ACTION PETITIONER FILED A COUNTERCLAIM PRAYING FOR SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME RELIEF AS IN ITS EARLIER BILL.  AFTER ISSUES WERE JOINED THE
CAUSES WERE CONSOLIDATED AND TRIED TOGETHER.  THE DISTRICT COURT SAID
THAT THE FREEMAN PATENT WAS VALID AND THAT MERCOID WAS GUILTY OF
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT.  BUT IT HELD THAT MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL WAS
USING THE PATENT AS A MEANS OF CONTROLLING AN UNPATENTED DEVICE
CONTRARY TO THE RULE OF MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S.
488.  ACCORDINGLY, IT DISMISSED BOTH COMPLAINTS.  43 F.SUPP.  878.  ON
APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE PATENT CLAIMS IN
ISSUE WERE VALID AND THAT MERCOID HAD INFRINGED THEM.  BUT IT DISAGREED
WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT RESPONDENT HAD SOUGHT TO EXTEND THE SCOPE
OF THE PATENT IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  ACCORDINGLY, IT
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING RESPONDENT'S
BILL AND AFFIRMED IT AS RESPECTS THE RELIEF CLAIMED BY PETITIONER.  133
F.2D 811. 

THE FREEMAN PATENT, AS FOUND BELOW, COVERS A SYSTEM OF HOT AIR
FURNACE CONTROL WHICH REQUIRES THREE THERMOSTATS FOR ITS OPERATION.  A
ROOM THERMOSTAT STARTS THE STOKER.  ANOTHER THERMOSTAT (OR LIMIT
SWITCH) BREAKS THE STOKER CIRCUIT WHEN THE AIR IN THE FURNACE REACHES A
PREDETERMINED TEMPERATURE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ROOM
THERMOSTAT MAY STILL CALL FOR HEAT.  THIS SECOND THERMOSTAT OPERATES TO
PREVENT UNSAFE CONDITIONS DUE TO OVERHEATING.  THE THIRD THERMOSTAT IS
ALSO IN THE FURNACE.  IT CONTROLS A FAN WHICH FORCES HOT AIR FROM THE
FURNACE TO THE ROOMS.  IT DOES NOT PERMIT THE FAN TO START UNTIL THE
AIR IN THE FURNACE REACHES A SPECIFIED DEGREE OF HEAT.  BUT AT THAT
POINT IT STARTS THE FAN WHICH CONTINUES TO RUN, EVEN THOUGH THE LIMIT
SWITCH HAS STOPPED THE STOKER, SO LONG AS THE FURNACE IS HOT AND THE
ROOM THERMOSTAT CALLS FOR HEAT.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE
FREEMAN PATENT WAS A COMBINATION PATENT ON A SYSTEM OF FURNACE CONTROL
WHICH REQUIRES THOSE THREE THERMOSTATS FOR ITS OPERATION AND THAT IT
WAS NOT A PATENT ON "EITHER THE FAN SWITCH OR THE LIMIT SWITCH OR BOTH
OF THEM."  THAT FINDING WAS NOT DISTURBED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, WHICH HELD THAT FREEMAN'S "ADVANCE IN THE ART" WAS THE
ARRANGEMENT OF THERMOSTATIC SWITCHES, SUBJECT TO FURNACE HEAT TO SECURE
IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER PARTS THE "SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS" WHICH WE
HAVE DESCRIBED. 

MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL HAS LICENSED FIVE OF ITS MANUFACTURING
COMPETITORS UNDER THE FREEMAN PATENT.  THE LICENSEES ARE GRANTED A NON
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT UNDER THE PATENT TO MAKE, USE AND SELL A "COMBINATION
FURNACE CONTROL" WHICH IS DEFINED AS A THERMOSTATIC SWITCH USABLE FOR A
FREEMAN INSTALLATION AND DESIGNED IN ONE UNIT TO CONTROL THE FAN AND
LIMIT CIRCUITS.  ROYALTY PAYMENTS TO MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL ARE BASED ON
THE SALES OF THE COMBINATION FURNACE CONTROLS, ALTHOUGH THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE ONLY MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL CONTROL
"WHICH GETS PROTECTION AS A RESULT OF THE LICENSES IS THE CONTROL
USABLE ONLY FOR A FREEMAN TYPE INSTALLATION."  EACH LICENSEE IS
REQUIRED TO INSERT IN ITS CATALOGUES OR OTHER SALES LITERATURE AND TO
ATTACH TO EACH COMBINATION FURNACE CONTROL SOLD A NOTICE TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE CONTROL INCLUDES A LICENSE FOR ONE INSTALLATION OF THE FREEMAN
HEATING SYSTEM.  THE LICENSES ESTABLISH MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE SALE OF
THE CONTROLS; AND THOSE PRICES MUST NOT BE CUT BY THE LICENSEES THROUGH
THE INCLUSION OF "EXTRAS" OR THROUGH THE REDUCTION OF CHARGES FOR
SERVICES.  PRICE LISTS ARE ATTACHED GOVERNING SALES TO MANUFACTURERS,
JOBBERS, WHOLESALERS, AND DEALERS.  EQUAL TERMS TO ALL LICENSEES ARE
PROVIDED.  MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL TRIED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO INDUCE
MERCOID TO TAKE A LICENSE.  BEING UNSUCCESSFUL IT BROUGHT ITS PRESENT
SUIT. 

NEITHER THE PETITIONER NOR THE RESPONDENT SELLS OR INSTALLS THE
FREEMAN SYSTEM IN FURNACES; THAT IS TO SAY, THEY DO NOT PRACTICE THE
INVENTION.  THEY ARE COMPETITORS IN SUPPLYING THE SWITCH TO CONTROL THE
FAN AND LIMIT CIRCUITS EMPLOYED IN SUCH SYSTEMS.  THAT SWITCH OR
COMBUSTION FURNACE CONTROL IS UNPATENTED  FN1  AND RESPONDENT CONCEDES
THAT IT IS "LESS THAN THE COMPLETE CLAIMED INVENTION."  BUT, AS WE HAVE
SAID, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TOOK THE VIEW THAT THAT CONTROL
PROVIDES "THE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS WHICH IS THE PRECISE ESSENCE OF
FREEMAN'S ADVANCE IN THE ART."  AND THE ACCUSED DEVICE HAS, ACCORDING
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, "NO OTHER USE THAN FOR ACCOMPLISHING
THE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS OF THE FREEMAN PATENT."  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT ALTHOUGH THE COMBUSTION FURNACE CONTROL WAS
UNPATENTED, IT SERVED "TO DISTINGUISH THE INVENTION" AND TO MARK THE
"ADVANCE IN THE ART" ACHIEVED BY THE FREEMAN PATENT.  IT ACCORDINGLY
HELD THAT THE PATENT LAWS PERMIT AND THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS DO NOT FORBID
THE CONTROL OVER THE SALE AND USE OF THE UNPATENTED DEVICE WHICH
MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE THROUGH ITS LICENSING
AGREEMENTS.  WE DO NOT AGREE, EVEN THOUGH WE ASSUME THE PATENT TO BE
VALID. 

THE FACT THAT AN UNPATENTED PART OF A COMBINATION PATENT MAY
DISTINGUISH THE INVENTION DOES NOT DRAW TO IT THE PRIVILEGES OF A
PATENT.  THAT MAY BE DONE ONLY IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.  HOWEVER
WORTHY IT MAY BE, HOWEVER ESSENTIAL TO THE PATENT, AN UNPATENTED PART
OF A COMBINATION PATENT IS NO MORE ENTITLED TO MONOPOLISTIC PROTECTION
THAN ANY OTHER UNPATENTED DEVICE.  FOR AS WE POINTED OUT IN MERCOID V.
MID-CONTINENT INVESTMENT CO., SUPRA, A PATENT ON A COMBINATION IS A
PATENT ON THE ASSEMBLED OR FUNCTIONING WHOLE, NOT ON THE SEPARATE
PARTS.  THE LEGALITY OF ANY ATTEMPT TO BRING UNPATENTED GOODS WITHIN
THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENT IS MEASURED BY THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS NOT BY
THE PATENT LAW.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN MERCOID V. MID-CONTINENT
INVESTMENT CO., SUPRA, THE EFFORT HERE MADE TO CONTROL COMPETITION IN
THIS UNPATENTED DEVICE PLAINLY VIOLATES THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, EVEN APART
FROM THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS.  IT FOLLOWS
THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO BE RELIEVED AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THOSE ACTS.  IT LIKEWISE FOLLOWS THAT RESPONDENT MAY NOT OBTAIN FROM A
COURT OF EQUITY ANY DECREE WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY HELPS IT TO
SUBVERT THE PUBLIC POLICY WHICH UNDERLIES THE GRANT OF ITS PATENT. 
MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488, 494; B.B. CHEMICAL
CO. V. ELLIS, 314 U.S. 495. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION THAT THIS DEVICE IS PATENTED.  BUT
ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT ANY SUCH PATENT "IS OWNED BY SOME
PERSON OTHER THAN MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL AND MERCOID, SO THAT AS TO THEM
AND SO FAR AS THIS CASE IS CONCERNED, IT IS AN UNPATENTED DEVICE." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR IN THE RESULT ON THE AUTHORITY OF MORTON
SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488. 
..END :

















YONKERS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 685 


NO. 109.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 14, 1943.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1944.  -
50 F.SUPP.  497, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UPON THE
APPLICATION OF A CARRIER, UNDER SEC. 1(18)-(20) OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, FOR A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING ABANDONMENT OF PART OF ITS
LINES, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION BEING CHALLENGED UNDER SEC.
1(22) OF THE ACT - WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION
TO PERMIT ABANDONMENT OF LINES "SHALL NOT EXTEND" TO "STREET, SUBURBAN,
OR INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAYS, WHICH ARE NOT OPERATED AS A PART OR
PARTS OF A GENERAL STEAM RAILROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION" - THE
COMMISSION SHOULD MAKE JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS; AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH FINDINGS, AN ORDER GRANTING THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD, ON REVIEW, BE
SET ASIDE.  P. 689. 

2.  A PROPER REGARD FOR LOCAL INTERESTS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES REQUIRES THAT FEDERAL POWER BE EXERCISED ONLY
WHERE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS.  P. 691. 

CITY OF YONKERS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, REFUSING TO
SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT CONFERS UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY ALLOWING ANY CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE ACT TO ABANDON "ALL OR
ANY PORTION" OF ITS LINE OF RAILROAD.  SEC. 1(18), (19), (20), 49
U.S.C. SEC. 1(18), (19), (20), 24 STAT. 379, 41 STAT. 477-478.  BUT THE
ACT ALSO PROVIDES THAT THAT AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION "SHALL NOT
EXTEND" TO THE ABANDONMENT "OF STREET, SUBURBAN, OR INTERURBAN ELECTRIC
RAILWAYS, WHICH ARE NOT OPERATED AS A PART OR PARTS OF A GENERAL STEAM
RAILROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION."  SEC. 1(22), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(22). 

THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. FILED AN APPLICATION WITH THE
COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE UNDER SEC. 1(18)-(20) OF THE ACT
AUTHORIZING IT TO ABANDON AN ELECTRIC BRANCH LINE EXTENDING 3.1 MILES
FROM VAN CORTLANDT PARK JUNCTION, NEW YORK CITY, TO GETTY SQUARE,
YONKERS, NEW YORK.  THIS LINE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1888 BY A PREDECESSOR
COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING SUBURBAN BUSINESS BETWEEN YONKERS
AND NEW YORK CITY.  THE LINE WAS ELECTRIFIED IN 1926 WITH THE HOPE THAT
THE SURBURBAN BUSINESS WOULD INCREASE.  IT IS NOW A PHYSICAL PART OF
THE NEW YORK CENTRAL'S PUTNAM DIVISION WITH WHICH IT CONNECTS AT VAN
CORTLANDT PARK JUNCTION.  THE PUTNAM DIVISION IN TURN CONNECTS WITH THE
HUDSON DIVISION WHICH IS PART OF THE MAIN LINE OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL
FROM NEW YORK CITY TO CHICAGO.  THE HUDSON DIVISION FOLLOWS THE EAST
BANK OF THE HUDSON RIVER THROUGH YONKERS TO ALBANY.  THE PUTNAM
DIVISION EXTENDS NORTH FROM SEDGWICK AVENUE AND WEST 161ST STREET, NEW
YORK CITY, THROUGH YONKERS TO BREWSTER, NEW YORK.  THE PUTNAM DIVISION
LIES EAST OF, AND IS ROUGHLY PARALLEL WITH, THE HUDSON DIVISION.  IN
THE CITY OF YONKERS THE TWO DIVISIONS ARE ABOUT A MILE APART.  THE
ELECTRIC LINE IN QUESTION IS BETWEEN THE HUDSON AND PUTNAM DIVISIONS. 
GETTY SQUARE, ITS TERMINAL IN YONKERS, IS .3 MILE EAST OF THE YONKERS
STATION ON THE HUDSON DIVISION.  THE NEW YORK CENTRAL SYSTEM IS FOR THE
MOST PART OPERATED BY STEAM.  SOME PORTIONS OF ITS LINES ARE
ELECTRIFIED, INCLUDING THE HUDSON DIVISION BETWEEN NEW YORK CITY AND
HARMON, NEW YORK, AND HARLEM DIVISION SO FAR AS WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK,
THE PUTNAM DIVISION BETWEEN SEDGWICK AVENUE AND VAN CORTLANDT PARK
JUNCTION, AND THE YONKERS LINE IN QUESTION.  WITH THE EXCEPTION NOTED,
NO PART OF THE PUTNAM DIVISION IS ELECTRIFIED, ITS TRAINS BEING
OPERATED BY STEAM. 

THIS YONKERS ELECTRIC BRANCH HANDLES NO FREIGHT, MAIL, EXPRESS, OR
MILK TRAFFIC AND NO INDUSTRIES ARE DEPENDENT ON IT FOR SUCH SERVICE. 
ITS TRAFFIC IS EXCLUSIVELY PASSENGER TRAFFIC, PRINCIPALLY COMMUTER
TRAVEL BETWEEN GETTY SQUARE AND THREE OTHER STATIONS IN YONKERS AND
GRAND CENTRAL STATION IN NEW YORK CITY.  THE TRAINS SERVING STATIONS ON
THIS YONKERS ELECTRIC BRANCH DO NOT GO THROUGH TO GRAND CENTRAL STATION
ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONGESTED CONDITION OF THE MAIN-LINE TRACKS
FUNNELLING INTO GRAND CENTRAL STATION.  ACCORDINGLY, THESE TRAINS RUN
ONLY FROM GETTY SQUARE TO VAN CORTLANDT PARK JUNCTION AND THENCE OVER
THE MAIN LINE OF THE PUTNAM DIVISION TO THE TERMINAL AT SEDGWICK
AVENUE.  PASSENGERS FROM YONKERS TO GRAND CENTRAL STATION MUST TRANSFER
TO HUDSON DIVISION TRAINS AT EITHER HIGH BRIDGE OR UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
STATIONS WHICH ARE NORTH OF THE SEDGWICK AVENUE STATION.  TARIFFS OF
THE NEW YORK CENTRAL PROVIDE FOR ONE-WAY, MONTHLY-COMMUTATION, AND
OTHER TICKETS USABLE BETWEEN THE STATIONS IN YONKERS AND GRAND CENTRAL
STATION.  TIME TABLES OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL DISCLOSE THE SERVICE ON
THIS ELECTRIC BRANCH.  AND ITS OPERATING RESULTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE
ACCOUNTS OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL. 

THE TRAINS RUNNING ON THIS ELECTRIC BRANCH ARE COMPOSED OF TWO, THREE
OR FOUR CARS.  THE TRAINS ARE HAULED NOT BY A LOCOMOTIVE BUT BY SO
CALLED MULTIPLE UNIT CARS.  THE STRUCTURE OF THE LINE IS SUCH THAT
LOCOMOTIVES CANNOT BE USED ON IT.  THE TRAINS ON THIS ELECTRIC BRANCH
PROCEED ONLY TO GETTY SQUARE, YONKERS, AND NOT BEYOND. 

THE COMMISSION THOUGH ADVERTING TO A NUMBER OF THE FACTS WHICH WE
HAVE MENTIONED DID NOT ADDRESS ITSELF TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THIS
ELECTRIC BRANCH LINE WAS OR WAS NOT "OPERATED AS A PART OR PARTS OF A
GENERAL STEAM RAILROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 1(22).  THE COMMISSION DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE
RELEVANT TO THAT ISSUE.  IT MADE NO FINDINGS RESPECTING IT.  IT
AUTHORIZED THE ABANDONMENT ON THE GROUNDS THAT CONTINUED OPERATION
WOULD IMPOSE "AN UNDUE AND UNNECESSARY BURDEN" UPON THE NEW YORK
CENTRAL AND UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN1 THE COMMISSION SAYS THAT THE
QUESTION OF ITS JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 1(22) WAS NEITHER PRESENTED IN
LIMINE NOR URGED IN THE BRIEFS, IN THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXAMINER'S
REPORT, OR IN THE ORAL ARGUMENTS.  IT WAS, HOWEVER, PRESENTED IN
PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH THE COMMISSION DENIED WITHOUT
OPINION. 

THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, BROUGHT BEFORE A
DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES (38 STAT. 219, 220, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47)
WAS INITIATED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK, THE CITY OF
YONKERS, AND A COMMITTEE OF YONKERS COMMUTERS.  FN2  THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMISSION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT.  AND THAT
OBJECTION WHICH WAS OVERRULED THERE (50 F.SUPP.  497) HAS BEEN RENEWED
ON THE APPEAL WHICH BRINGS THE CASE HERE.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 47A, SEC.
345. 

THE DISTRICT COURT IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION,
REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE OPERATION OF THIS ELECTRIC
BRANCH WAS "INTERTWINED WITH THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE." 
IT RELIED ESPECIALLY ON THE FACT THAT THE BULK OF THE TRAFFIC ON THIS
ELECTRIC BRANCH TRANSFERS AT HIGH BRIDGE OR UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS TO THE
HUDSON DIVISION AND THAT THOSE TRANSFERS MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THE NEW
YORK CENTRAL TO PROVIDE SEATS ON THE HUDSON DIVISION TRAINS FOR ALL THE
TRANSFERRED YONKERS PASSENGERS FOR THE REMAINING SHORT RUN TO GRAND
CENTRAL STATION. 

THE COMMISSION ITSELF HAS NOTED THAT IN THE "CONSTRUCTION OF THESE
EXCLUSION CLAUSES GREAT DIFFICULTY HAS BEEN EXPERIENCED, PARTICULARLY
IN DETERMINING THE ROADS PROPERLY CLASSIFIABLE AS INTERURBAN ELECTRIC
RAILWAYS."  ANNUAL REPORT (1928), P. 80.  THAT DIFFICULTY IS APPARENT
HERE BY THE DIVISION OF OPINION WHICH EXISTS IN THE COURT WHETHER THIS
YONKERS BRANCH IS AN "INTERURBAN ELECTRIC" RAILWAY WHICH IS "OPERATED
AS A PART" OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL SYSTEM.  FN3  SEC. 1(22).  AS STATED
BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN UNITED STATES V. IDAHO, 298 U.S. 105, 109,
THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE EXEMPTION OF SEC.
1(22) INVOLVES A "MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW."  CONGRESS HAS NOT
LEFT THAT QUESTION EXCLUSIVELY TO ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION; IT HAS
GIVEN THE COURTS THE FINAL SAY.  ID., P. 109.  IT IS SETTLED THAT THE
AID OF THE COMMISSION NEED NOT BE SOUGHT BEFORE THE JURISDICTION OF A
COURT IS INVOKED TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION. 
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266.  AND
THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION FAILS TO MAKE A FINDING ON THIS
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE REVIEWING COURT
FROM MAKING THAT DETERMINATION INITIALLY.  BUT WE DEEM IT ESSENTIAL IN
CASES INVOLVING A REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE COURTS TO
DECLINE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WITHOUT THE BASIC JURISDICTIONAL
FINDINGS FIRST HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE COMMISSION. 

THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO CONTROL THE ABANDONMENT OF INTRASTATE
BRANCHES OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS STEMS FROM THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM UNDUE BURDENS OR DISCRIMINATIONS. 
COLORADO V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 153; TRANSIT COMMISSION V. UNITED
STATES, 284 U.S. 360; PURCELL V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 381.  AND SEE
UNITED STATES V. HUBBARD, 266 U.S. 474, FOR AN APPLICATION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF THE SHREVEPORT CASE (HOUSTON, E. & W.T.R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 234 U.S. 342) TO THE INTRASTATE RATES OF INTERURBAN ELECTRIC
RAILROADS.  THE EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 1(22) DO NOT NECESSARILY
REFLECT THE LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DEAL WITH THE EXCEPTED
PHASES OF RAILROAD ENTERPRISE.  UNDERLYING SEC. 1(22) IS A
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF RESERVING EXCLUSIVELY TO THE STATES CONTROL
OVER THAT GROUP OF ESSENTIALLY LOCAL ACTIVITIES.  SEE H. REP. NO. 456,
66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 18.  WE RECENTLY STATED THAT THE EXTENSION OF
FEDERAL CONTROL INTO THESE TRADITIONAL LOCAL DOMAINS IS A "DELICATE
EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY IN ACHIEVING A WISE ACCOMMODATION
BETWEEN THE NEEDS OF CENTRAL CONTROL AND THE LIVELY MAINTENANCE OF
LOCAL INSTITUTIONS."  PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79, 84.  IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SHREVEPORT CASE, THIS COURT HAS
REQUIRED THE COMMISSION TO SHOW METICULOUS RESPECT FOR THE INTERESTS OF
THE STATES.  IT HAS INSISTED ON A "SUITABLE REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLE
THAT WHENEVER THE FEDERAL POWER IS EXERTED WITHIN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE
BE THE DOMAIN OF STATE POWER, THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THE
FEDERAL POWER MUST CLEARLY APPEAR."  FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S.
194, 211-212.  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT SET ASIDE AN INTRASTATE RATE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION BECAUSE OF THE "LACK OF THE BASIC OR ESSENTIAL
FINDINGS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER."  ID., P. 215. 
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE FLORIDA CASE IS APPLICABLE HERE.  THE QUESTION IS
NOT MERELY ONE OF ELABORATING THE GROUNDS OF DECISION AND BRINGING INTO
FOCUS WHAT IS VAGUE AND OBSCURE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST.
P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499.  CF. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V.
CHENERY CORP., 318 U.S. 80.  HERE AS IN THE FLORIDA CASE THE PROBLEM IS
WHETHER THE COURTS SHOULD SUPPLY THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
WHICH THE COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE AND TO WHICH IT EVEN FAILED TO MAKE
ANY REFERENCE.  FN4 

CONGRESS HAS WITHHELD FROM THE COMMISSION ANY POWER TO AUTHORIZE
ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN TYPES OF RAILROAD LINES.  IT IS HARDLY ENOUGH TO
SAY THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS MAY BE SET ASIDE BY THE COURTS WHERE
THE COMMISSION EXCEEDS ITS AUTHORITY.  THE COMMISSION HAS A SPECIAL
COMPETENCE TO DEAL WITH THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS WHICH ARE REFLECTED
IN THESE QUESTIONS.  THE CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION THE
INITIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING THROUGH APPLICATION OF THE
STATUTORY STANDARDS THE APPROPRIATE LINE BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE
DOMAINS.  PROPER REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL CONCERN OF LOCAL INTERESTS IN
THE MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES MAKES DESIRABLE THE
REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL POWER BE EXERCISED ONLY WHERE THE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS.  THE SACRIFICE OF THESE LEGITIMATE
LOCAL INTERESTS MAY BE AS READILY ACHIEVED THROUGH THE COMMISSION'S
OVERSIGHT OR NEGLECT (ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION V. THOMSON, 318 U.S.
675) AS BY IMPROPER FINDINGS.  THE INSISTENCE THAT THE COMMISSION MAKE
THESE JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS BEFORE IT UNDERTAKES TO ACT NOT ONLY
GIVES ADDED ASSURANCE THAT THE LOCAL INTERESTS FOR WHICH CONGRESS
EXPRESSED ITS SOLICITUDE WILL BE SAFEGUARDED.  IT ALSO GIVES TO THE
REVIEWING COURTS THE ASSISTANCE OF AN EXPERT JUDGMENT ON A KNOTTY PHASE
OF A TECHNICAL SUBJECT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO PRESUME THAT THE COMMISSION, KNOWING THE LIMIT OF ITS
AUTHORITY, CONSIDERED THIS JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION AND DECIDED TO ACT
BECAUSE OF ITS CONVICTION THAT THIS BRANCH LINE WAS NOT EXEMPT BY
REASON OF SEC. 1(22).  BUT THAT IS TO DEAL TOO CAVALIERLY WITH THE
CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE AND WITH THE LOCAL INTERESTS WHICH ARE PRESSING
FOR RECOGNITION.  WHERE A FEDERAL AGENCY IS AUTHORIZED TO INVOKE AN
OVERRIDING FEDERAL POWER EXCEPT IN CERTAIN PRESCRIBED SITUATIONS AND
THEN TO LEAVE THE PROBLEM TO TRADITIONAL STATE CONTROL, THE EXISTENCE
OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO ACT SHOULD APPEAR AFFIRMATIVELY AND NOT REST ON
INFERENCE ALONE. 

THIS IS NOT TO INSIST ON FORMALITIES AND TO BURDEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS WITH RITUALISTIC REQUIREMENTS.  IT ENTAILS A MATTER OF GREAT
SUBSTANCE.  IT REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO HEED THE MANDATES OF THE ACT
AND TO MAKE THE EXPERT DETERMINATIONS WHICH ARE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO
ITS AUTHORITY TO ACT. 

WE INTIMATE NO OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY.  FOR IN
ABSENCE OF THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS WE THINK THE ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZES A COMPLETE ABANDONMENT OF THE YONKERS
BRANCH, INCLUDING DISMANTLEMENT AND SALVAGING. 

FN2  THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK, WHICH TOOK THE LEAD
IN ATTACKING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT BUT
WHICH HAS NOT APPEARED HERE, ASSERTED IN ITS COMPLAINT THAT AUTHORITY
TO DISCONTINUE THE FOUR STATIONS WAS REQUIRED BY NEW YORK LAW BUT HAD
NOT BEEN SOUGHT OR OBTAINED.    FN3  CF. PIEDMONT & NORTHERN R. CO. V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 299, 307, AND UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO NORTH SHORE & M.R. CO., 288 U.S. 1, 9-12, WHICH EMPHASIZE IN
DETERMINING THE STATUS OF INDEPENDENT ELECTRIC ROADS THE DOMINANCE OF
INTERURBAN PASSENGER SERVICE AND THE PREPONDERANCE OF LOCAL TRAFFIC. 

FN4  FOR CASES DEALING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SUBURBAN OR INTERURBAN
ELECTRIC RAILWAYS WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS PASSED ON THE JURISDICTIONAL
QUESTION SEE IN THE MATTER OF MICHIGAN UNITED RYS.  CO., 67 I.C.C. 452;
ABANDONMENT OF LINE BY BOISE VALLEY TRACTION CO., 79 I.C.C. 167;
PROPOSED ABANDONMENT BY LEWISTON & YOUNGSTOWN FRONTIER RY. CO., 124
I.C.C. 219; PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION BY PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY. CO., 138
I.C.C. 363, 372; UNIFIED OPERATION AT LOS ANGELES HARBOR, 150 I.C.C.
649, 661; GLENDALE & MONTROSE RY. PROPOSED ABANDONMENT, 166 I.C.C.
625. 

THE REQUISITE FINDING WAS MADE BY THE COMMISSION IN THE OREGON SHORT
LINE CASE (193 I.C.C. 697, 705) IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
WAS SET ASIDE BY UNITED STATES V. IDAHO, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

CONGRESS HAS EMPOWERED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO
AUTHORIZE A RAILROAD, WHEN PUBLIC CONVENIENCE PERMITS, TO ABANDON ANY
PORTION OF ITS LINE.  BUT WHEN SUCH PORTION IS A SUBURBAN OR INTERURBAN
ELECTRIC RAILWAY, ABANDONMENT MAY BE AUTHORIZED ONLY IF IT IS PART OF A
GENERAL STEAM RAILROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION.  SEC. 1(18) AND (22)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(18) AND
(22).  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT WHETHER SUCH A LINE IS OF A CHARACTER
TO PERMIT ABANDONMENT UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY NEED NOT BE DETERMINED IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; AND SUCH
DETERMINATION WHEN MADE DOES NOT FORECLOSE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL
JUDGMENT.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S.
266, AND UNITED STATES V. IDAHO, 298 U.S. 105.  ON SUCH AN INDEPENDENT
EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE THE COURT BELOW HAD NO DOUBT THAT THE YONKERS
BRANCH OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL, THE PORTION OF THE CENTRAL LINES FOR
WHICH ABANDONMENT WAS HERE SOUGHT, WAS NOT "A SUBURBAN OR INTERURBAN
LINE UNCONNECTED WITH THE REST OF THE CENTRAL'S RAILROAD SYSTEM" BUT
WAS IN FACT "INTERTWINED WITH THE OPERATION OF THE (NEW YORK CENTRAL
RAILROAD) SYSTEM AS A WHOLE."  50 F.SUPP.  497, 498.  THE RECORD AMPLY
SUSTAINS THIS CONCLUSION.  IF THIS COURT, HOWEVER, ON ITS OWN ESTIMATE
OF THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS IN THE FINANCIAL, PHYSICAL AND TRANSPORTATION
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE REST OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES AND THIS
YONKERS BRANCH, HAD STRUCK A CONTRARY BALANCE AND FOUND THAT THE
YONKERS BRANCH WAS NOT OPERATED AS A PART OF THE GENERAL NEW YORK
CENTRAL SYSTEM, I SHOULD NOT HAVE DEEMED THE MATTER OF SUFFICIENT
IMPORTANCE TO WARRANT EXPRESSION OF DISSENT. 

BUT THE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE ON THE MERITS.  IN EFFECT, IT REMITS
THE CONTROVERSY TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ON THE GROUND
THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE A FORMAL FINDING, DESCRIBED AS
"JURISDICTIONAL," THAT THE YONKERS BRANCH WAS IN FACT "OPERATED AS A
PART  ...  OF A GENERAL STEAM RAILROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION."  THE
COMMISSION MAY VERY WELL NOW FORMALLY MAKE SUCH A FINDING OF A
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE YONKERS BRANCH AND THE NEW YORK CENTRAL, WHICH
IN FACT IS WRIT LARGE IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT IN GRANTING THE
APPLICATION FOR ABANDONMENT, AND THE WEARY ROUND OF LITIGATION MAY BE
REPEATED TO THE FUTILE END OF HAVING THIS COURT THEN, FORSOOTH, EXPRESS
AN OPINION ON THE MERITS OPPOSED TO THAT OF THE COMMISSION AND THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THIS DANGER IF NOT LIKELIHOOD OF THUS MARCHING THE
KING'S MEN UP THE HILL AND THEN MARCHING THEM DOWN AGAIN SEEMS TO ME A
MODE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION TO WHICH I CANNOT YIELD CONCURRENCE.  I
THINK THE CASE SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF ON THE MERITS BY AFFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THIS SEEMS TO ME ALL THE MORE CALLED FOR SINCE I FIND NO DEFECT IN
THE FOUNDATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  NO DOUBT THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION LIKE OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES SHOULD KEEP
WITHIN LEGAL BOUNDS AND COURTS SHOULD KEEP THEM THERE, IN SO FAR AS
CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED THEM WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTS.  OF COURSE WHEN A STATUTE MAKES INDISPENSABLE "AN EXPRESS
FINDING," AN EXPRESS FINDING IS IMPERATIVE, SEE WICHITA RAILROAD &
LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 260 U.S. 48, 59.  BUT THE HISTORY
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND ITS AMENDMENTS ILLUMINE THE
DIFFERENT LEGAL FUNCTIONS EXPRESSED BY THE TERM FINDINGS.  WHEN
CONGRESS EXACTS FROM THE COMMISSION FORMAL FINDINGS THERE IS AN END TO
THE MATTER.  FOR CERTAIN DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION AND AT CERTAIN STAGES
IN THE HISTORY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, CONGRESS DID REQUIRE
FORMAL FINDINGS, BUT EXPERIENCE LED CONGRESS LATER TO DISPENSE WITH
SUCH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS.  SEE MANUFACTURERS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
246 U.S. 457, 489-90.  BUT COURTS HAVE ALSO SPOKEN OF THE NEED OF
FINDINGS AS THE BASIS OF VALIDITY OF AN ORDER BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION FOR
FINDINGS.  THE REQUIREMENT OF FINDINGS IN SUCH A CONTEXT IS MERELY PART
OF THE NEED FOR COURTS TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS
REALLY DETERMINED IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY KNOW WHAT TO REVIEW.  "WE MUST
KNOW WHAT A DECISION MEANS BEFORE THE DUTY BECOMES OURS TO SAY WHETHER
IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG."  SEE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R.
CO., 294 U.S. 499, 509-511. 

THIS IS THE REAL GROUND FOR THE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE FOUND INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERS WANTING IN NECESSARY FINDINGS.  THEY HAVE
ALL BEEN CASES WHERE THE DETERMINATION OF AN ISSUE IS NOT OPEN TO
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT BY THIS COURT, AND WHERE THE CASE AS IT CAME HERE
RESTED ON CONFLICTING INFERENCES OF FACT LEFT UNRESOLVED BY THE
COMMISSION.  SUCH WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR INSTANCE, IN FLORIDA V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, PARTICULARLY AT 214-215, AND UNITED STATES
V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 293 U.S. 454, 455, PARTICULARLY AT 463
464.  FINDINGS IN THIS SENSE IS A WAY OF DESCRIBING THE DUTY OF THE
COMMISSION TO DECIDE ISSUES ACTUALLY IN CONTROVERSY BEFORE IT.
ANALYSIS IS NOT FURTHERED BY SPEAKING OF SUCH FINDINGS AS
"JURISDICTIONAL" AND NOT EVEN WHEN - TO ADAPT A FAMOUS PHRASE -
JURISDICTIONAL IS SOFTENED BY A QUASI.  "JURISDICTION" COMPETES WITH
"RIGHT" AS ONE OF THE MOST DECEPTIVE OF LEGAL PITFALLS.  THE OPINIONS
IN CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, AND THE CASUISTRIES TO WHICH THEY
HAVE GIVEN RISE BEAR UNEDIFYING TESTIMONY OF THE MORASS INTO WHICH ONE
IS LED IN WORKING OUT PROBLEMS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS BY LOOSE TALK ABOUT JURISDICTION. 

THE NUB OF THE MATTER REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT OF FINDINGS, WHERE
THE FORMAL MAKING OF THEM IS NOT LEGISLATIVELY COMMANDED, IS INDICATED
IN UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70.  REVIEWING THE VALIDITY OF
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS THE SERIOUS BUSINESS OF SITTING IN JUDGMENT
UPON A TRIBUNAL OF GREAT TRADITIONS AND LARGE RESPONSIBILITY.  AN ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED IN A HYPERCRITICAL SPIRIT NOR
EVEN AS THOUGH ELEGANTIA JURIS WERE OUR CONCERN.  WE SHOULD JUDGE A
CHALLENGED ORDER OF THE COMMISSION BY "THE REPORT, READ AS A WHOLE,"
290 U.S. SUPRA AT 80, AND BY THE RECORD AS A WHOLE OUT OF WHICH THE
REPORT AROSE. 

VIEWING ITS ORDER IN THIS LIGHT MAKES PLAIN ENOUGH WHY THE COMMISSION
NEVER FORMALLY STATED THAT THE LINE WHICH IT AUTHORIZED TO BE ABANDONED
WAS IN FACT OPERATED AS PART OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL SYSTEM.  IT NEVER
FORMALLY MADE THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER QUESTIONED BEFORE IT.
ON THE FACE OF THE APPLICATION, IN THE REPORT PROPOSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER'S EXAMINER, AND IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION, BY
DIVISION 4, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF ABANDONMENT,
THE FACTS SHOWING THAT THE YONKERS BRANCH WAS A PART OF THE OPERATING
SYSTEM OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL ARE SET FORTH IN DETAIL.  EXTENSIVE
EXCEPTIONS WERE TAKEN TO THE EXAMINER'S REPORT BY THE CITY OF YONKERS
AND A COMMITTEE OF YONKERS COMMUTERS BUT NOT EVEN REMOTELY DID THEY
TAKE THE POINT WHICH IS NOW MADE THE GROUND FOR INVALIDATING THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  ELABORATE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING WERE FILED BY
THE PROTESTANTS, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK,
AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE LOCAL INTERESTS OF NEW YORK,  FN1  BUT NOT ONE
OF THESE PETITIONS RAISED THE OBJECTION NOW RAISED.  THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMISSION WAS QUESTIONED, BUT NO CLAIM WAS MADE THAT THE
YONKERS BRANCH WAS NOT AN OPERATING PART OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL.  THE
CITY OF YONKERS ENUMERATED FOUR GROUNDS IN CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMISSION, BUT IT DID NOT SPECIFY THE ONE NOW TAKEN BY THE
COURT.  THE COMMITTEE OF COMMUTERS RESTED THEIR CLAIM OF WANT OF
JURISDICTION ON THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS THAT "(1) THE LINE SOUGHT TO BE
ABANDONED IS AN INTERURBAN ELECTRIC PASSENGER RAILWAY LOCATED WHOLLY
WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND (2)  ...  THE ALLEGED ANNUAL OPERATING
DEFICIT" OF THE YONKERS BRANCH WAS TOO INSIGNIFICANT TO BURDEN THE
OPERATION OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL.  EXERCISING THE DISCRETION WHICH
CONGRESS EXPLICITLY CONFERRED UPON IT, THE FULL COMMISSION DENIED THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SEC. 17(6).  IN ANY
FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION SUCH A DENIAL IS AN
ADVERSE FINDING OF SUCH CLAIMS AS WERE MADE IN THE PETITIONS FOR
REHEARING.  THE CRUCIAL FACT IS THAT ONLY WHEN THE PRESENT BILL WAS
FILED IN THE COURT BELOW DID THE OBJECTION WHICH THE COURT NOW SUSTAINS
EMERGE IN THE SPECIFIC CLAIM THAT THE YONKERS "BRANCH IS NOT OPERATED
AS A PART OR PARTS OF A GENERAL STEAM RAILROAD SYSTEM OF
TRANSPORTATION." 

CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT THIS CONTENTION WAS NOT PUT TO THE
COMMISSION BECAUSE IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT?  THIS ISSUE WAS NEVER
TENDERED TO THE COMMISSION BECAUSE THE FACTS WHICH DENY IT WERE NEVER
QUESTIONED IN THE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BEFORE IT WITH VIGOR AND
ABILITY BY SEVERAL PROTESTANTS DURING THE THREE SUCCESSIVE STAGES THAT
PRECEDED A CHALLENGE IN THE COURTS. 

THE CASE IS NOW SENT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.  THE FACTS REGARDING THE
RELATION OF THE YONKERS BRANCH TO THE NEW YORK CENTRAL ARE SPREAD AT
LARGE UPON THE RECORD AND ARE NOT IN CONTROVERSY.  IN VIEW OF THE THREE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE
COMMISSION WILL ADD TO ITS REPORT THE FORMAL FINDING NOW REQUESTED OF
IT.  IF THE CASE THEN RETURNS HERE I FIND IT TOO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT
THIS COURT WOULD REJECT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION AND OF THE
LOWER COURT THAT THE YONKERS BRANCH IS AN OPERATING PART OF THE NEW
YORK CENTRAL WITHIN SEC. 1(22).  IS NOT INSISTENCE ON SUCH AN EMPTY
FORMALISM A REVERSION TO SEVENTEENTH CENTURY PLEADING WHICH REQUIRED
TALISMANIC PHRASES, AS FOR INSTANCE THAT A SELLER COULD NOT BE HELD TO
WARRANT THAT HE SOLD WHAT HE PURPORTED TO SELL UNLESS THE BUYER PLEADED
WARRANTIZANDO VENDIDIT OR BARGANIZASSET?  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE
COURT WITH ALL THE FACTS BEFORE IT DOES NOT THINK THE YONKERS BRANCH IS
A PART OF THE RAILWAY OPERATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL, NOW IS THE
TIME TO SAY SO. 

FN1  DUE CONCERN FOR LOCAL INTERESTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT HARDLY CALLS FOR AN EXAGGERATED CONCERN FOR
FORMAL FINDINGS.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT RELIES PRIMARILY ON STATE
AUTHORITIES FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF LOCAL INTERESTS.  IT IS THEREFORE
RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WHICH IS
CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF PROTECTING THE LOCAL INTERESTS OF NEW YORK
AGAINST FEDERAL ENCROACHMENTS AND WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN
UNALERT IN DOING SO, HAS ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION BELOW AND IS NOT
HERE URGING THE LOCAL INTEREST ON WHICH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT
SEEMS TO BE BASED.  THAT THE STATE AGENCY HAD BEST BE LOOKED TO FOR THE
VINDICATION OF CONFLICTING LOCAL INTERESTS WITHIN A STATE IS WELL
ILLUSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT WHILE THE CITY OF YONKERS PROTESTED
AGAINST THE ABANDONMENT OF THE BRANCH LINE, THE CITY OF NEW YORK URGED
IT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
















MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT, 320 U.S. 430 


NO. 29.  SUBMITTED OCTOBER 20, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1943.  - 10
SO.2D 109, REVERSED. 


1.  SINCE EACH OF THE STATES OF THE UNION HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
TO MAKE ITS OWN LAW WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS AND EVENTS WITHIN ITS
BORDERS, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT ORDINARILY REQUIRE
IT TO SUBSTITUTE FOR ITS OWN LOCAL LAW THE CONFLICTING LAW OF ANOTHER
STATE, EVEN THOUGH THAT LAW IS OF CONTROLLING FORCE IN THE COURTS OF
THAT STATE WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME PERSONS AND EVENTS.  P. 436. 

2.  UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, JUDGMENTS ARE, FOR MOST
PURPOSES, UPON A FOOTING DIFFERENT FROM THE LOCAL LAW OF A STATE, WHEN
JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF EITHER IS SOUGHT IN ANOTHER STATE.  P. 437. 

3.  WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE RENDERS
THAT WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN ONE STATE RES JUDICATA TO THE SAME
EXTENT IN EVERY OTHER.  P. 438. 

WHEN A STATE COURT REFUSES CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE,
AN ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT IS DENIED AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE GROUNDS
OF DENIAL ARE FOR THIS COURT TO DETERMINE.  P. 443. 

THESE RESULTS FLOW FROM THE UNIFYING PURPOSE OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE TO GIVE NATION-WIDE EFFECT TO RIGHTS JUDICIALLY
ESTABLISHED IN ANY PART OF THE NATION.  P. 439. 

4.  RESPONDENT, RESIDENT IN LOUISIANA AND THERE EMPLOYED BY
PETITIONER, WAS INJURED IN TEXAS IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. 
RESPONDENT SOUGHT AND WAS AWARDED COMPENSATION UNDER THE TEXAS
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW.  PAYMENTS WERE MADE AS REQUIRED BY THE
AWARD, WHICH BECAME FINAL.  IN TEXAS, A COMPENSATION AWARD WHICH HAS
BECOME FINAL IS RES JUDICATA, AND IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME FAITH AND
CREDIT AS A JUDGMENT OF A COURT, AND AN AWARD MAY NOT BE HAD WHEN AN
EMPLOYEE HAS SOUGHT AND RECEIVED FOR HIS INJURY COMPENSATION UNDER THE
LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE.  RESPONDENT LATER BROUGHT SUIT IN A LOUISIANA
COURT FOR A FURTHER RECOVERY UNDER THE LOUISIANA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAW, AND OBTAINED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE EMPLOYER FOR THE AMOUNT OF
COMPENSATION FIXED BY THAT LAW, LESS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED UNDER THE
TEXAS AWARD.  HELD: 

(1) UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, THE TEXAS COMPENSATION
AWARD WAS A BAR TO RECOVERY IN THE LOUISIANA PROCEEDING.  CHICAGO, R.I.
& P. RY. CO. V. SCHENDEL, 270 U.S. 611, FOLLOWED.  P. 441. 

(2)  THE INTEREST OF LOUISIANA IN AWARDING COMPENSATION TO LOUISIANA
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE INJURED OUT OF THE STATE - VIS-A-VIS THE INTEREST OF
TEXAS IN AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR AN INJURY OCCURRING WITHIN ITS
BORDERS - IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT IT TO IGNORE THE BAR OF THE TEXAS
AWARD.  P. 440. 

(3)  THE LIABILITY ESTABLISHED BY THE LOUISIANA JUDGMENT IS NOT
RECONCILABLE WITH THE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON THE EMPLOYER BY THE TEXAS
AWARD AND THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  P. 442. 

(4)  WHETHER THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE TEXAS BOARD BE REGARDED AS A
"JUDICIAL PROCEEDING" OR ITS AWARD IS A "RECORD" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS IMPLEMENTING
IT, BOTH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND RECORDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT.  P. 443. 

(5)  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE TEXAS AWARD DOES NOT BAR THE RECOVERY IN
LOUISIANA BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE'S SUIT THERE WAS ON A DIFFERENT CAUSE OF
ACTION IS UNTENABLE.  P. 443. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHAT EFFECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN
TO THE TEXAS AWARD IF UNDER TEXAS LAW AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION IN
ANOTHER STATE WOULD NOT BAR AN AWARD IN TEXAS.  P. 443. 

MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. V. HUNT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, OF LOUISIANA. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 734, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT BY AN EMPLOYEE AGAINST AN EMPLOYER TO RECOVER
COMPENSATION FOR AN INJURY RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT. 
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE REFUSED WRITS OF CERTIORARI AND REVIEW. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER, UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE, ART. IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AN
AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURY UNDER THE TEXAS WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAW, TITLE 130 OF THE REVISED CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS,
BARS A FURTHER RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR THE SAME INJURY UNDER THE
LOUISIANA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW, TITLE 34, CHAPTER 15 OF THE
LOUISIANA GENERAL STATUTES. 

MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM COMPANY, PETITIONER HERE, EMPLOYED RESPONDENT IN
LOUISIANA AS A LABORER IN CONNECTION WITH THE DRILLING OF OIL WELLS. 
IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT RESPONDENT, A LOUISIANA RESIDENT, WENT
FROM LOUISIANA TO TEXAS, AND WHILE WORKING THERE FOR PETITIONER ON AN
OIL WELL, HE WAS INJURED BY A FALLING DRILL STEM.  HE SOUGHT AND
PROCURED IN TEXAS AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR HIS INJURY UNDER ITS
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW,  FN1  AND PETITIONER'S INSURER MADE
PAYMENTS OF COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE AND THE AWARD.  THE
AWARD BECAME FINAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE TEXAS STATUTE. 
FN2 

RESPONDENT THEN BROUGHT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IN THE LOUISIANA
DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR HIS INJURY UNDER THE
LOUISIANA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW.  FN3  PETITIONER FILED EXCEPTIONS
TO RESPONDENT'S PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECOVERY SOUGHT WAS
BARRED AS RES JUDICATA BY THE TEXAS AWARD WHICH, BY VIRTUE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND, WAS ENTITLED IN THE LOUISIANA COURTS TO FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT.  THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE EXCEPTIONS AND GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE COMPENSATION FIXED BY THE LOUISIANA
STATUTE, AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF THE TEXAS PAYMENTS.  THE
LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED, 10 SO.2D 109, AND THE SUPREME COURT
OF LOUISIANA REFUSED WRITS OF CERTIORARI AND REVIEW FOR THE REASON THAT
IT FOUND "NO ERROR OF LAW IN THE JUDGMENT COMPLAINED OF."  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 734, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED AND TO RESOLVE AN APPARENT CONFLICT
OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH OUR DECISIONS IN CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO.
V. SCHENDEL, 270 U.S. 611, AND WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S.
287; CF. ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 294 U.S.
532; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 306 U.S.
493. 

IN TEXAS A COMPENSATION AWARD AGAINST THE EMPLOYER'S INSURER (WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE APPLICABLE, CF. REVISED CIVIL STATUTES, ART. 8306,
SEC. 5) IS EXPLICITLY MADE BY STATUTE IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER RECOVERY FOR
INJURY TO THE EMPLOYEE, SINCE ART. 8306, SEC. 3 PROVIDES THAT EMPLOYEES
SUBJECT TO THE ACT "SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THEIR
EMPLOYER OR AGAINST ANY AGENT, SERVANT OR EMPLOYE OF SAID EMPLOYER FOR
DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES  ...  BUT SUCH EMPLOYES ...  SHALL LOOK
FOR COMPENSATION SOLELY TO THE ASSOCIATION (THE INSURER)."  A
COMPENSATION AWARD WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL "IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME
FAITH AND CREDIT AS A JUDGMENT OF A COURT."  SEE OCEAN ACCIDENT &
GUARANTEE CORP. V. PRUITT, 58 S.W.2D 41, 44-45(TEX.  COMM.  APP.),
HOLDING THAT AN AWARD IS RES JUDICATA, NOT ONLY AS TO ALL MATTERS
LITIGATED, BUT AS TO ALL MATTERS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN LITIGATED IN THE
PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURY. 
TO THE SAME EFFECT ARE TRADERS & GENERAL INS. CO. V. BAKER, 111 S.W.2D
837.  839, 840(TEX.  COMM. APP.); MIDDLEBROOK V. TEXAS INDEMNITY INS.
CO., 112 S.W.2D 311, 315(TEX.  CIV.  APP.); CF. FEDERAL SURETY CO. V.
COOK, 119 TEX. 89, 24 S.W.2D 394.  THE TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
FORMERLY HELD THAT A TEXAS EMPLOYEE COULD RECOVER COMPENSATION OF HIS
TEXAS EMPLOYER FOR AN INJURY IN ANOTHER STATE FOR WHICH HE HAD ALREADY
RECOVERED COMPENSATION IN THAT STATE.  TEXAS EMPLOYERS' INS. ASSN. V.
PRICE, 300 S.W. 667.  BUT IN DECLINING TO REVIEW THE CASE, THE TEXAS
SUPREME COURT EXPRESSLY POINTED OUT THAT THIS RULING HAD NOT BEEN
CHALLENGED, AND THAT IT WAS LEAVING THE QUESTION UNDECIDED, 300 S.W.
672.  THE RIGHT OF A SECOND RECOVERY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WAS PROMPTLY
ABOLISHED BY STATUTE.  REVISED CIVIL STATUTES, ART. 8306, SEC. 19.  AND
UNDER THIS STATUTE A COMPENSATION AWARD MAY NOT BE HAD IN TEXAS IF THE
EMPLOYEE HAS CLAIMED AND RECEIVED COMPENSATION FOR HIS INJURY UNDER THE
LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE.  TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. V. CASON, 132 TEX. 393,
396, 124 S.W.2D 321. 

THE LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL RECOGNIZED THAT TEXAS HAD JURISDICTION
TO AWARD COMPENSATION TO RESPONDENT FOR THE INJURY RECEIVED WHILE
WORKING FOR PETITIONER WITHIN THE STATE, AND THAT THE AWARD HAS THE
SAME FORCE AND EFFECT IN TEXAS AS A JUDGMENT RENDERED BY A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THAT STATE.  BUT IT THOUGHT THAT FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT DID NOT REQUIRE THE LOUISIANA COURTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
JUDGMENT AS RES JUDICATA BECAUSE LOUISIANA, DESPITE THE COMMAND OF THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, WAS ENTITLED TO GIVE EFFECT TO ITS OWN
STATUTE PRESCRIBING COMPENSATION FOR RESIDENT EMPLOYEES OF A RESIDENT
EMPLOYER EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY OCCURRED OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

IT DOES NOT APPEAR, NOR IS IT CONTENDED, THAT LOUISIANA MORE THAN
TEXAS ALLOWS IN ITS OWN COURTS A SECOND RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR A
SINGLE INJURY.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT SINCE LOUISIANA IS BETTER
SATISFIED WITH THE MEASURE OF RECOVERY ALLOWED BY ITS OWN LAWS, IT MAY
DENY FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE TEXAS AWARD, WHICH RESPONDENT HAS
PROCURED BY HIS ELECTION TO PURSUE HIS REMEDY IN THAT STATE.  IN THUS
REFUSING, ON THE BASIS OF STATE LAW AND POLICY, TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
TEXAS AWARD AS A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF RESPONDENT'S CLAIM FOR
COMPENSATION FOR HIS INJURY SUFFERED IN TEXAS, THE LOUISIANA COURT
IGNORED THE DISTINCTION, LONG RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED BY THIS COURT, AND
RECENTLY EMPHASIZED IN WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, 294-296,
BETWEEN THE FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO JUDGMENTS AND THAT
TO WHICH LOCAL COMMON AND STATUTORY LAW IS ENTITLED UNDER HTE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

IN THE CASE OF LOCAL LAW, SINCE EACH OF THE STATES OF THE UNION HAS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE ITS OWN LAW WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS
AND EVENTS WITHIN ITS BORDERS, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES
NOT ORDINARILY REQUIRE IT TO SUBSTITUTE FOR ITS OWN LAW THE CONFLICTING
LAW OF ANOTHER STATE, EVEN THOUGH THAT LAW IS OF CONTROLLING FORCE IN
THE COURTS OF THAT STATE WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME PERSONS AND EVENTS. 
PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201, 209-211 AND CASES CITED;
KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487, 496-498.  IT WAS FOR THIS
REASON THAT WE HELD THAT THE STATE OF THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IS FREE
TO APPLY ITS OWN COMPENSATION LAW TO THE INJURY OF THE EMPLOYEE RATHER
THAN THE LAW OF ANOTHER STATE WHERE THE INJURY OCCURRED.  ALASKA
PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, SUPRA, 544-550.  AND FOR
LIKE REASONS WE HELD ALSO THAT THE STATE OF THE PLACE OF INJURY IS FREE
TO APPLY ITS OWN LAW TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE LAW OF THE STATE OF THE
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL
ACCIDENT COMM'N, SUPRA, 502-505. 

BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE EMPLOYEE WHO HAS SOUGHT AND RECOVERED
AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION IN EITHER STATE MAY THEN HAVE RECOURSE TO THE
LAWS AND COURTS OF THE OTHER TO RECOVER A SECOND OR ADDITIONAL AWARD
FOR THE SAME INJURY.  WHERE A COURT MUST MAKE CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO
CONFLICTING STATUTES OF DIFFERENT STATES AND APPLY IT TO A CAUSE OF
ACTION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED, THERE CAN BE NO PLEA OF
RES JUDICATA.  BUT WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WHO HAS RECOVERED COMPENSATION FOR
HIS INJURY IN ONE STATE SEEKS A SECOND RECOVERY IN ANOTHER HE MAY BE
MET BY THE PLEA THAT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIRES THAT HIS DEMAND,
WHICH HAS BECOME RES JUDICATA IN ONE STATE, MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS SUCH
IN EVERY OTHER. 

THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS IMPLEMENTING
IT HAVE, FOR MOST PURPOSES, PLACED A JUDGMENT ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING
FROM A STATUTE OF ONE STATE, JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF WHICH IS SOUGHT IN
ANOTHER.  ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS THAT "FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS,
RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE," AND PROVIDES
THAT "CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH
ACTS, RECORDS, AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE EFFECT
THEREOF."  AND CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT JUDGMENTS "SHALL HAVE SUCH
FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY
ARE TAKEN."  ACT OF MAY 26, 1790, C. 11, 1 STAT. 122, AS AMENDED, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 687. 

FROM THE BEGINNING THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THESE PROVISIONS HAVE
MADE THAT WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN ONE STATE RES JUDICATA TO THE
SAME EXTENT IN EVERY OTHER.  HAMPTON V. MCCONNELL, 3 WHEAT.  234, 235;
CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290; FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, 210 U.S. 230;
KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, 252 U.S. 411; MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO.,
296 U.S. 268; DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, 40; TITUS V. WALLICK, 306
U.S. 282, 291-292; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA.  EVEN THOUGH WE
ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE COMMAND OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE STATUTE IS NOT ALL-EMBRACING, AND THAT THERE MAY BE EXCEPTIONAL
CASES IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF ONE STATE MAY NOT OVERRIDE THE LAWS AND
POLICY OF ANOTHER,  FN4  THIS COURT IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF THE EXTENT
OF THE EXCEPTIONS.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N,
SUPRA, 547; TITUS V. WALLICK, SUPRA, 291.  AND WE POINTED OUT IN
WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, 294-295, THAT "THE ACTUAL EXCEPTIONS
HAVE BEEN FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.  ...  " 

WE ARE AWARE OF NO SUCH EXCEPTION IN THE CASE OF A MONEY JUDGMENT
RENDERED IN A CIVIL SUIT.  NOR ARE WE AWARE OF ANY CONSIDERATIONS OF
LOCAL POLICY OR LAW WHICH COULD RIGHTLY BE DEEMED TO IMPAIR THE FORCE
AND EFFECT WHICH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE ACT OF
CONGRESS REQUIRE TO BE GIVEN TO SUCH A JUDGMENT OUTSIDE THE STATE OF
ITS RENDITION.  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., SUPRA, 277, 278. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND REQUIRES A STATE TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT OF
A SISTER STATE FOR ITS TAXES, MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., SUPRA, OR
FOR A GAMBLING DEBT, FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, SUPRA, OR FOR DAMAGES FOR
WRONGFUL DEATH, KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, SUPRA, ALTHOUGH THE SUIT IN
WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED UNDER
THE LAWS AND POLICY OF THE FORUM TO WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS BROUGHT.  IT
COMPELS ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT IN THAT FORUM, EVEN THOUGH A SUIT
UPON THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION WAS BARRED THERE BY LIMITATIONS
BEFORE THE JUDGMENT WAS PROCURED, CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, SUPRA; ROCHE V.
MCDONALD, 275 U.S. 449.  IT DEMANDS RECOGNITION OF IT EVEN THOUGH THE
STATUTE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS FOUNDED NEED NOT BE APPLIED IN THE
STATE OF THE FORUM BECAUSE IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAWS AND POLICY OF THAT
STATE.  KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, SUPRA; TITUS V. WALLICK, SUPRA;
WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA. 

THESE CONSEQUENCES FLOW FROM THE CLEAR PURPOSE OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE TO ESTABLISH THROUGHOUT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM THE SALUTARY
PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON LAW THAT A LITIGATION ONCE PURSUED TO JUDGMENT
SHALL BE AS CONCLUSIVE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN EVERY OTHER
COURT AS IN THAT WHERE THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, SO THAT A CAUSE OF
ACTION MERGED IN A JUDGMENT IN ONE STATE IS LIKEWISE MERGED IN EVERY
OTHER.  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE LIKE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THUS
BECAME A NATIONALLY UNIFYING FORCE.  IT ALTERED THE STATUS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES AS INDEPENDENT FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTIES, EACH FREE TO
IGNORE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS CREATED UNDER THE LAWS OR ESTABLISHED BY
THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE OTHERS, BY MAKING EACH AN INTEGRAL PART
OF A SINGLE NATION, IN WHICH RIGHTS JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED IN ANY PART
ARE GIVEN NATION-WIDE APPLICATION.  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO.,
SUPRA, 276, 277; WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, 295.  BECAUSE THERE
IS A FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE A DEFENDANT MAY NOT A SECOND TIME
CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT WHICH HAS RIPENED INTO
A JUDGMENT AND A PLAINTIFF MAY NOT FOR HIS SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION
SECURE A SECOND OR A GREATER RECOVERY. 

HERE BOTH TEXAS AND LOUISIANA HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO ADJUDICATE THE
RIGHTS OF THE SAME PARTIES ARISING FROM A SINGLE INJURY SUSTAINED IN
THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE SAME CONTRACT.  EACH STATE HAS
AWARDED TO RESPONDENT COMPENSATION FOR THAT INJURY.  BUT WHETHER THE
TEXAS AWARD PURPORTED ALSO TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE
PARTIES UNDER THE LOUISIANA LAW OR TO CONTROL PERSONS AND COURTS IN
LOUISIANA IS IRRELEVANT TO OUR PRESENT INQUIRY.  FOR TEXAS IS WITHOUT
POWER TO GIVE EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT TO ITS LAWS.  SEE NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE CO. V. HEAD, 234 U.S. 149; HOME INSURANCE CO. V. DICK, 281
U.S. 397.  THE SIGNIFICANT QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE HAS DEPRIVED LOUISIANA OF THE POWER TO DENY
THAT THE TEXAS AWARD HAS THE SAME BINDING EFFECT ON THE PARTIES IN
LOUISIANA AS IT HAS IN TEXAS.    IT IS NOT, AS THE STATE COURT THOUGHT,
A SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO THE BAR OF THE TEXAS AWARD TO ASSERT THAT
LOUISIANA HAS A RECOGNIZED INTEREST IN AWARDING COMPENSATION TO
LOUISIANA EMPLOYEES WHO ARE INJURED OUT OF THE STATE, SEE ALASKA
PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, SUPRA, FOR TEXAS, THE
STATE IN WHICH THE INJURY OCCURRED, HAS A LIKE INTEREST IN MAKING AN
AWARD, SEE PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N,
SUPRA.  AND IN EACH OF THE CASES WE HAVE CITED, THE STATE TO WHICH THE
JUDGMENT WAS BROUGHT HAD AN INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT
AND A PUBLIC POLICY CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT
WAS OBTAINED.  NO CONVINCING REASON IS ADVANCED FOR SAYING THAT
LOUISIANA HAS A GREATER INTEREST IN AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR AN INJURY
SUFFERED IN AN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT, THAN NORTH CAROLINA HAD IN
DETERMINING THE MARITAL STATUS OF ITS DOMICILIARY AGAINST WHOM A
DIVORCE DECREE HAD BEEN RENDERED IN ANOTHER STATE, WILLIAMS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, SUPRA, OR MISSISSIPPI IN STAMPING OUT GAMBLING WITHIN ITS
BORDERS, FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, SUPRA, OR SOUTH CAROLINA IN REQUIRING A
PARENT TO SUPPORT HIS CHILD WHO WAS DOMICILED WITHIN THAT STATE,
YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THE WORDS AND PURPOSE OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE WERE THOUGHT TO DEMAND THAT THE INTEREST OF THE STATE IN
WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED AND WAS RES JUDICATA, SHOULD OVERRIDE
THE LAWS AND POLICY OF THE FORUM TO WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN.  AND
WE CAN PERCEIVE NO TENABLE GROUND FOR SAYING THAT A COMPENSATION AWARD
NEED NOT BE GIVEN THE SAME EFFECT AS RES JUDICATA IN ANOTHER STATE AS
IT HAS IN THE STATE WHERE RENDERED.  FN5  SUCH WAS THE DECISION OF THIS
COURT IN CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. SCHENDEL, SUPRA, IN WHICH
RECOVERY OF AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION UNDER THE IOWA WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT WAS HELD TO BAR RECOVERY IN A SUIT AGAINST THE
EMPLOYER IN MINNESOTA TO RECOVER FOR THE SAME INJURY UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  BOTH STATES HAD, AS IN THIS CASE, ALLOWED
RECOVERY, AS THEY WERE FREE TO DO BUT FOR THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE EMPLOYEE, HAVING HAD HIS REMEDY BY
THE JUDGMENT IN IOWA, WAS PRECLUDED BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
FROM PURSUING A REMEDY FOR HIS INJURY IN ANOTHER STATE.  THE REMEDIES
AFFORDED TO RESPONDENT BY THE TEXAS AND LOUISIANA WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAWS ARE LIKEWISE RENDERED MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE BY THE TEXAS
JUDGMENT AND THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  THE TEXAS AWARD, BEING
A BAR TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR RESPONDENT'S INJURY,
IS, BY VIRTUE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, EXCLUSIVE OF HIS
REMEDY UNDER THE LOUISIANA ACT. 

IT LENDS NO SUPPORT TO THE DECISION OF THE LOUISIANA COURT IN THIS
CASE TO SAY THAT LOUISIANA HAS CHOSEN TO BE MORE GENEROUS WITH AN
EMPLOYEE THAN TEXAS HAS.  INDEED NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WOULD BE
PRESENTED IF LOUISIANA CHOSE TO BE GENEROUS TO THE EMPLOYEE OUT OF THE
GENERAL FUNDS IN ITS TREASURY.  BUT HERE IT IS PETITIONER WHO IS
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FURTHER PAYMENTS TO RESPONDENT, CONTRARY TO THE
TERMS OF THE TEXAS AWARD, WHICH, IF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS
TO BE GIVEN ANY EFFECT, WAS A CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION BETWEEN THE
PARTIES THAT PETITIONER SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR NO MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF
THE TEXAS AWARD.  FOR THIS REASON IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT A
PRACTICAL RECONCILIATION OF THE INTERESTS OF TEXAS AND LOUISIANA HAS
BEEN EFFECTED BY THE LOUISIANA COURT.  THERE HAS BEEN NO RECONCILIATION
OF THE LIABILITY ESTABLISHED BY THE LOUISIANA JUDGMENT WITH THE RIGHTS
CONFERRED ON PETITIONER BY THE TEXAS AWARD AND THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE. 

HERE THE FINDING OF THE LOUISIANA COURT THAT THE TEXAS AWARD HAD THE
FORCE AND EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF THAT STATE AND IS RES
JUDICATA THERE, IS IN CONFORMITY TO THE DETERMINATIONS OF THE COURTS OF
TEXAS AND HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE PARTIES.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION
TO CONSIDER WHAT EFFECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE TEXAS
AWARD IF THE TEXAS COURTS HELD THAT AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION IN ANOTHER
STATE WOULD NOT BAR AN AWARD IN TEXAS, FOR AS WE HAVE SEEN, TEXAS DOES
NOT ALLOW SUCH A SECOND RECOVERY.  AND IF THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION IN
TEXAS WERE NOT RES JUDICATA THERE, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WOULD, OF
COURSE, BE NO BAR TO THE RECOVERY OF AN AWARD IN ANOTHER STATE. 
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. ELDER, 270 U.S. 611, 622-623. 

WHETHER THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD IN
TEXAS BE REGARDED AS A "JUDICIAL PROCEEDING," OR ITS AWARD IS A
"RECORD" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE
ACT OF CONGRESS, THE RESULT IS THE SAME.  FOR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND
RECORDS OF THE STATE ARE BOTH REQUIRED TO HAVE "SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT
GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AS THEY HAVE BY
LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN." 

THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUGGESTION
THAT THE TEXAS AWARD IS NOT RES JUDICATA IN LOUISIANA BECAUSE
RESPONDENT'S SUIT THERE WAS ON A DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION.  WHEN A
STATE COURT REFUSES CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE BECAUSE OF
ITS OPINION OF THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR THE JUDGMENT IN
WHICH IT IS MERGED, AN ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT IS DENIED AND THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE GROUNDS OF DENIAL ARE FOR THIS COURT TO DECIDE. 
TITUS V. WALLICK, SUPRA, 291 AND CASES CITED; AND SEE ADAM V. SAENGER,
303 U.S. 59, 64 AND CASES CITED.  RESPONDENT'S INJURY IN TEXAS DID NOT
GIVE RISE TO TWO CAUSES OF ACTION MERELY BECAUSE RECOVERY IN EACH STATE
IS UNDER A DIFFERENT STATUTE, OR BECAUSE EACH AFFORDS A DIFFERENT
MEASURE OF RECOVERY.  FN6  CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. SCHENDEL,
SUPRA; BALTIMORE STEAMSHIP CO. V. PHILLIPS, 274 U.S. 316; SEE WABASH R.
CO. V. HAYES, 234 U.S. 86, 90.  THE GROUNDS OF RECOVERY ARE THE SAME IN
ONE STATE AS IN THE OTHER - THE INJURY TO THE EMPLOYEE IN THE COURSE OF
HIS EMPLOYMENT.  THE WHOLE TENDENCY OF OUR DECISIONS UNDER THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS TO REQUIRE A PLAINTIFF TO TRY HIS WHOLE
CAUSE OF ACTION AND HIS WHOLE CASE AT ONE TIME.  HE CANNOT SPLIT UP HIS
CLAIM AND "A FORTIORI HE CANNOT DIVIDE THE GROUNDS OF RECOVERY." 
UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA & OREGON LAND CO., 192 U.S. 355, 358. 
RESPONDENT WAS FREE TO PURSUE HIS REMEDY IN EITHER STATE BUT, HAVING
CHOSEN TO SEEK IT IN TEXAS, WHERE THE AWARD WAS RES JUDICATA, THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE PRECLUDES HIM FROM AGAIN SEEKING A REMEDY IN
LOUISIANA UPON THE SAME GROUNDS.  THE FACT THAT A SUITOR HAS BEEN
DENIED A REMEDY BY ONE STATE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT AFFORD A REMEDY FOR
THE PARTICULAR WRONG ALLEGED, MAY NOT BAR RECOVERY IN ANOTHER STATE
WHICH DOES PROVIDE A REMEDY.  SEE TROXELL V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO.,
227 U.S. 434; CF. ASH SHEEP CO. V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S. 159, 170. 
BUT AS WE DECIDED IN THE SCHENDEL CASE IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT MATTER TO
SAY THAT RECOVERY CAN BE HAD IN EVERY STATE WHICH AFFORDS A REMEDY. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE IS A SECOND AND DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION
IN LOUISIANA, MERELY BECAUSE LOUISIANA LAW AUTHORIZES COMPENSATION, AND
IN A DIFFERENT MEASURE THAN DOES TEXAS, OR BECAUSE THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT OF ONE STATE DEPENDS ON THE PLACE OF THE INJURY AND THAT OF
THE OTHER ON THE PLACE OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, WOULD IF ACCEPTED
PROVE TOO MUCH.  APART FROM THE DEMANDS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT,
RECOVERY IN A TRANSITORY ACTION FOR INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY,
WHETHER IN TORT OR FOR COMPENSATION, CAN OF COURSE ONLY BE HAD IN
CONFORMITY TO THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE ACTION IS MAINTAINED. 
EVEN WHERE THE STATE OF THE FORUM ADOPTS AND APPLIES AS ITS OWN THE LAW
OF THE STATE WHERE THE INJURY WAS INFLICTED, THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT
SHALL APPLY IN ITS OWN COURTS A RULE OF LAW OF ANOTHER STATE IS ITSELF
A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW OF THE FORUM.  FINNEY V. GUY, 189 U.S. 335;
KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., SUPRA, 496, 497; CF. WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST
CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 299.  AND THE LAW OF A STATE IS EMBODIED AS
WELL IN ITS COMMON LAW RULES AS IN ITS STATUTES.  ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 79; SEE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, DISSENTING IN
BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276 U.S. 518,
532-536. 

IF AN EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN ONE STATE BUT INJURED IN ANOTHER HAS A
DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR COMPENSATION IN EACH STATE BECAUSE EACH
HAS ITS OWN COMPENSATION STATUTE, IT COULD AS WELL BE ARGUED IN ANY
CASE WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS RECOVERED A JUDGMENT IN ONE STATE, AND SEEKS A
SECOND RECOVERY IN A SECOND STATE FOR THE SAME INJURY, THAT HE IS SUING
UPON A SECOND AND DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION.  BUT IT HAS NEVER BEEN
THOUGHT THAT AN ACTIONABLE PERSONAL INJURY GIVES RISE TO AS MANY CAUSES
OF ACTION AS THERE ARE STATES WHOSE LAWS WILL PERMIT A SUIT TO RECOVER
FOR THE INJURY OR THAT DESPITE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE THE
INJURED PERSON, MORE THAN ONE ENTITLED TO RECOVER FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT, COULD GO FROM STATE TO STATE TO RECOVER IN EACH DAMAGES OR
COMPENSATION FOR HIS INJURY.  A JUDGMENT IN TORT OR IN CONTRACT IS NOT
IMMUNE FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BECAUSE THE
SUCCESSFUL PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE MAINTAINED HIS SUIT UNDER THE LAW OF
OTHER STATES AND HAVE SECURED A LARGER RECOVERY IN SOME, OR BECAUSE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN ONE STATE TO HEAR THE CAUSE MAY DEPEND
UPON SOME FACTS DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN THE
JURISDICTION IN ANOTHER.  CF. BALTIMORE STEAMSHIP CO. V. PHILLIPS,
SUPRA; ELDRED V. BANK, 17 WALL.  545; WABASH R. CO. V. HAYES, SUPRA;
KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, SUPRA.  AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT A WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION AWARD FOR INJURY STANDS ON ANY DIFFERENT FOOTING.  IN FACT
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. SCHENDEL, SUPRA, HELD THAT IT DID NOT AND
WE SEE NO REASON TO DEPART FROM ITS RULING.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AN EMPLOYER BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE ACT BY BECOMING A SUBSCRIBER
UNDER IT BY GIVING NOTICE TO THE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD (TEXAS REV.
CIV. STAT., TITLE 130, ART. 8308, SEC. 18 A) AND PROVIDING INSURANCE
REQUIRED BY THE ACT (ART. 8308).  IF AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBSCRIBER
SUSTAINS AN INJURY IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, HE IS ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FAULT OF THE EMPLOYER (ART. 8306,
SEC. 3 B), UNLESS HE HAS GIVEN TIMELY NOTICE OF HIS INTENTION NOT TO
WAIVE HIS RIGHTS OF ACTION AT COMMON LAW AND UNDER OTHER STATUTES OF
TEXAS.  IN THAT EVENT HE MAY SUE FOR THE REMEDIES WHICH THEY AFFORD
(ART. 8306, SEC. 3 A).  EMPLOYEES OF NON-SUBSCRIBERS ARE NOT ENTITLED
TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, BUT MAY SUE TO RECOVER FOR INJURIES RECEIVED
IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
COMMON LAW DEFENSES (ART. 8306, SECS. 1, 4).  WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION, HE HAS NO OTHER RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE
EMPLOYER FOR INJURIES (ART. 8306, SEC. 3). 

THE STATUTE SPECIFIES THE AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION, INCLUDING
EXPENSES, PAYABLE FOR VARIOUS INJURIES (ART. 8306, SECS. 6-18).  IT
PROVIDES THAT AWARDS ARE TO BE MADE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD (ART. 8307).  IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REVIEW OF
AN AWARD, A PARTY MUST WITHIN 20 DAYS GIVE NOTICE THAT HE WILL NOT
ABIDE BY IT AND WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER GIVING NOTICE, MUST FILE SUIT IN
AN APPROPRIATE COURT (ART. 8307, SEC. 5).  IN SUCH A SUIT THE TRIAL IS
DE NOVO (ID.).  IF NO SUCH NOTICE IS GIVEN, OR NO SUCH SUIT IS FILED
WITHIN THE TIMES PRESCRIBED, THE AWARD BECOMES FINAL (ID.). 

FN2  RESPONDENT FILED WITH THE TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD A
CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR HIS INJURY UNDER THE TEXAS WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAW, AS IS THE USUAL METHOD OF INSTITUTING A PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE BOARD.  WITHOUT AWAITING AN AWARD ON RESPONDENT'S CLAIM
PETITIONER'S INSURER PAID RESPONDENT COMPENSATION FOR HIS INJURY AT THE
STATUTORY MAXIMUM RATE FOR SEVENTY-THREE WEEKS.  A DISPUTE AS TO THE
PROPER PROGNOSIS OF RESPONDENT'S INJURY, A REQUEST FOR ADVICE MADE BY
RESPONDENT TO THE BOARD, AND A SUSPENSION BY THE INSURER OF FURTHER
COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO RESPONDENT, ON THE GROUND THAT HIS TOTAL
DISABILITY HAD TERMINATED, ALL PROMPTED THE BOARD TO SET THE CASE FOR A
HEARING ON HIS PENDING CLAIM.  RESPONDENT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE
HEARING AND WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH MEDICAL EVIDENCE OF HIS CONTINUED
DISABILITY.  UPON HIS FAILURE TO DO THIS, THE BOARD ENTERED ON DECEMBER
3, 1940, AS THE FULL COMPENSATION FOR HIS INJURY, AN AWARD OF A LUMP
SUM FOR TOTAL DISABILITY FOR 75 WEEKS AND OF WEEKLY PAYMENTS FOR
PARTIAL DISABILITY FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 125 WEEKS, AND DIRECTED THAT
PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE BY THE INSURER BE CREDITED UPON THE AWARD. 
RESPONDENT WAS NOTIFIED AS TO THE APPEAL HE WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE IF HE
WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE AWARD.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN, AND THE AWARD
BECAME FINAL.  TEX. REV. CIV. STAT., ART. 8307, SEC. 5.  RESPONDENT HAS
REFUSED PAYMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN TENDERED TO HIM SUBSEQUENT TO THE
MAKING OF THE TEXAS AWARD.  ON DECEMBER 18, 1940, HE BEGAN THE PRESENT
SUIT IN LOUISIANA. 

FN3  THE STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED
HAZARDOUS OCCUPATIONS (INCLUDING THE WORK PERFORMED BY RESPONDENT), AND
TO EMPLOYEES IN OTHER OCCUPATIONS BY VOLUNTARY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE.  LA. GEN. STAT., TITLE 34, CH. 15, SEC.
4391.  SUCH EMPLOYEES AS RECEIVE INJURIES IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION (SEC. 4392) IN SPECIFIED
AMOUNTS (SEC. 4398), UNLESS THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDES
OTHERWISE (SEC. 4393), WHETHER THE INJURY IS OR IS NOT DUE TO THE FAULT
OF THE EMPLOYER (SEC. 4427).  IF THE EMPLOYEE ELECTS TO BE COVERED
UNDER THE ACT, BUT THE EMPLOYER ELECTS NOT TO BE, THEN IN SUITS BY THE
EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER FOR INJURIES RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT, CERTAIN COMMON LAW DEFENSES ARE ABOLISHED (SEC. 4394).  THE
COMPENSATION AWARD MAY BE FIXED BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES (SEC.
4407), OR MAY BE OBTAINED BY SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT (SEC. 4408),
WITH RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE APPROPRIATE APPELLATE COURTS (SEC. 4409). 
AND AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE STATUTE IS DEEMED UNDER SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE APPLICABLE TO INJURIES RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEE
WITHOUT THE STATE.  HARGIS V. MCWILLIAMS CO., 9 LA. APP. 108, 119 SO.
88; SELSER V. BRAGMANS BLUFF LUMBER CO., 146 SO. 690(LA. APP.).    FN4
SEE, E.G., HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146 U.S. 657; FALL V. EASTIN, 215
U.S. 1; OLMSTED V. OLMSTED, 216 U.S. 386; CONVERSE V. HAMILTON, 224
U.S. 243; HOOD V. MCGEHEE, 237 U.S. 611; BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S.
629, 642; CF. WISCONSIN V. PELICAN INS. CO., 127 U.S. 265, 293 WITH
MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., SUPRA, 278. 

FN5  BUT CF. AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS
(1934) SEC. 403: 

"AWARD ALREADY HAD UNDER THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT OF ANOTHER
STATE WILL NOT BAR A PROCEEDING UNDER AN APPLICABLE ACT, BUT THE AMOUNT
PAID ON A PRIOR AWARD IN ANOTHER STATE WILL BE CREDITED ON THE SECOND
AWARD." 

THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE INTENDED AS NOTHING MORE THAN A STATEMENT OF
LOCAL RULES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS WHEN UNAFFECTED BY THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE, SINCE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, IF IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT
A FIRST AWARD BAR A SECOND, WOULD NOT COMPEL CREDITS UPON THE SECOND
AWARD OF PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE FIRST.  IF MORE WAS INTENDED, THE
STATEMENT IS, AS THE ADVISERS TO THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE STATED,
"SURPRISING."  PROCEEDINGS OF AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE (1932) VOL. X, P.
76.  IT IS THE MORE SO AS THE STATEMENT WOULD THEN CONFLICT WITH THE
RATIO DECIDENDI OF CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. SCHENDEL, 270 U.S.
611, WHICH HAD BEEN DECIDED SOME SIX YEARS BEFORE.  EVEN AS A MATTER OF
LOCAL LAW WHILE THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURTS ON THIS POINT ARE IN
CONFLICT, THE FOLLOWING ARE CONTRARY TO THE RULE EXPRESSED IN THE
RESTATEMENT:  HUGHEY V. WARE, 34 N.M. 29, 276 P. 27; TIDWELL V.
CHATTANOOGA BOILER & T. CO., 163 TENN. 420, 648, 43 S.W.2D 221, 45
S.W.2D 528; DEGRAY V. MILLER BROS. CONST. CO., 106 VT. 259.  277-278,
173 A. 556. 

FN6  ANY IMPLICATION TO THE CONTRARY IN TROXELL V. DELAWARE, L. &
W.R. CO., 227 U.S. 434, MUST BE CONSIDERED AS OVERRULED BY WABASH R.
CO. V. HAYES, 234 U.S. 86, 90; CF. BALTIMORE STEAMSHIP CO. V. PHILLIPS,
274 U.S. 316, 323. 

BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 

I CONCUR WITH THE OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 

IF THE COURT WERE TO RECONSIDER WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S.
287, IN THE LIGHT OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, I SHOULD
ADHERE TO THE VIEWS I EXPRESSED IN DISSENT THERE.  UNTIL WE DO SO, I
CONSIDER MYSELF BOUND BY THAT DECISION.  WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE LAW IF
THAT CASE HAD NEVER BEEN DECIDED, I AM UNABLE TO SEE WHY THE
CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES IT ANNOUNCED UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE TO REVERSE THE NORTH CAROLINA DECISION THEREIN DO NOT REQUIRE
REVERSAL OF THE LOUISIANA DECISION UNDER REVIEW.  I AGREE WITH THE
DISSENT THAT LOUISIANA HAS A LEGITIMATE INTEREST TO PROTECT IN THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS LITIGATION, BUT SO DID NORTH CAROLINA IN THE
WILLIAMS CASE.  I AM UNABLE TO SEE HOW LOUISIANA CAN BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY FREE TO APPLY ITS OWN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW TO
ITS CITIZENS DESPITE A PREVIOUS ADJUDICATION IN ANOTHER STATE IF NORTH
CAROLINA WAS NOT FREE TO APPLY ITS OWN MATRIMONIAL POLICY TO ITS OWN
CITIZENS AFTER JUDGMENT ON THE SUBJECT IN NEVADA.  IS LOUISIANA'S
SOCIAL INTEREST IN SEEING THAT ITS LABOR CONTRACTS CARRY ADEQUATE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SUPERIOR CONSTITUTIONALLY TO NORTH CAROLINA'S
INTEREST IN SEEING THAT PEOPLE WHO CONTRACT MARRIAGE THERE ARE
PROTECTED IN THE RIGHTS THEY ACQUIRE?  IT IS TRUE THAT SOMEONE MIGHT
HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THE LOUISIANA CITIZEN WHO IS INJURED BUT
INADEQUATELY COMPENSATED IN TEXAS, AS IT WAS TRUE IN THE WILLIAMS CASE
THAT SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE TO CARE FOR THOSE DEPRIVED OF THEIR MARRIAGE
STATUS BY THE FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE. 

OVERRULING A PRECEDENT ALWAYS INTRODUCES SOME CONFUSION AND THE
NECESSITY FOR IT MAY BE UNFORTUNATE.  BUT IT IS AS NOTHING TO KEEPING
ON OUR BOOKS UTTERANCES TO WHICH WE OURSELVES WILL GIVE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT ONLY IF THE OUTCOME PLEASES US.  I SHALL ABIDE BY THE WILLIAMS
CASE UNTIL IT IS TAKEN OFF OUR BOOKS, AND FOR THAT REASON CONCUR IN THE
DECISION HEREIN. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

WHILE I HAVE JOINED IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CERTAIN
OBSERVATIONS IN THE CONCURRING OPINION LEAD ME TO ADD A FEW WORDS. 

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS
TO BE ENFORCED "ONLY IF THE OUTCOME PLEASES US."  WE ARE DEALING HERE
WITH HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS WHERE HONEST DIFFERENCES OF OPINION
ARE ALMOST CERTAIN TO OCCUR.  EACH CASE INVOLVES A CLASH BETWEEN THE
POLICIES OF TWO SOVEREIGN STATES.  THE QUESTION IS NOT WHICH POLICY WE
PREFER; IT IS WHETHER THE TWO CONFLICTING POLICIES CAN SOMEHOW BE
ACCOMMODATED.  THE COMMAND OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
FREQUENTLY MAKES A RECONCILIATION OF THE TWO INTERESTS IMPOSSIBLE.  ONE
MUST GIVE WAY IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF THE FEDERAL UNION.  THE
QUESTION IN EACH CASE IS WHETHER AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THERE IS ROOM
FOR ADJUSTMENT, CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT.  WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, IS A RECENT
EXAMPLE.  ONE DOMICILED IN NEVADA WAS GRANTED A DIVORCE FROM HIS NORTH
CAROLINA SPOUSE ON NOTICE BY PUBLICATION.  THE QUESTION FOR US WAS
WHETHER THAT DECREE WAS A DEFENSE TO A PROSECUTION FOR BIGAMY IN NORTH
CAROLINA.  SUCH QUESTIONS OF STATUS, I.E., MARITAL CAPACITY, INVOLVE
CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE POLICIES OF TWO STATES WHICH ARE QUITE
IRRECONCILABLE AS COMPARED WITH THE PRESENT SITUATION. 

IF THE CLAIM UNDER THE TEXAS ACT HAD BEEN DENIED BECAUSE OF STATUTORY
DEFENSES ACCORDED THE EMPLOYER, I DO NOT SUPPOSE THAT THE REQUIREMENTS
OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WOULD BAR THE SUBSEQUENT CLAIM UNDER A
LOUISIANA STATUTE WHICH DID NOT RECOGNIZE SUCH DEFENSES.  AT LEAST
TROXELL V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 227 U.S. 434, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN
OVERRULED, POINTS TO THAT RESULT FOR IT HELD THAT A DENIAL OF RECOVERY
UNDER A STATE ACT WAS NO BARRIER TO A SUIT UNDER A FEDERAL ACT FOR THE
SAME INJURY.  IF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE WOULD NOT PREVENT A
RECOVERY UNDER THE LOUISIANA ACT WHERE AN AWARD UNDER THE TEXAS ACT HAD
BEEN DENIED, I DO NOT SEE HOW LOUISIANA CAN BE PREVENTED FROM GRANTING
A RECOVERY AFTER TEXAS HAS MADE AN AWARD.  THE ACTION OF TEXAS WOULD BE
AS DEFINITE AND FINAL AN ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE
PARTIES UNDER THE TEXAS STATUTE IN THE ONE CASE AS IN THE OTHER. 
MOREOVER, THE TWO STATUTES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AS WAS TRUE IN
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. SCHENDEL, 270 U.S. 611.  THUS A
DETERMINATION THAT AN EMPLOYER IS UNDER THE TEXAS ACT DOES NOT MEAN
CONVERSELY THAT HE IS EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF LOUISIANA'S LAW. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE TROXELL CASE SEEMS APPOSITE HERE SINCE THE CLAIM
IN TEXAS WAS ONLY ONE FOR "COMPENSATION UNDER THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY
ACT" OF THAT STATE.  AND THE TEXAS AWARD PURPORTED TO DO NO MORE THAN
TO ADJUDICATE RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE TEXAS ACT.  FOR IT PROVIDED
THAT WHEN FULLY PAID IT WOULD DISCHARGE THE INSURER "FROM ALL LIABILITY
BY REASON OF THIS CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION."  IF THE TEXAS AWARD HAD
UNDERTAKEN TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PARTIES UNDER THE
LOUISIANA CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, WHICH WE ARE TOLD CARRIES THE RIGHT
TO COMPENSATION UNDER THE LOUISIANA ACT (10 SO.2D 109, 112), THE RESULT
WOULD BE QUITE DIFFERENT.  THEN THE JUDGMENT, LIKE THE DIVORCE DECREE
IN THE WILLIAMS CASE, WOULD UNDERTAKE TO REGULATE THE RELATIONSHIP OF
THE PARTIES, OR THEIR RIGHTS AND DUTIES WHICH FLOW FROM IT, AS RESPECTS
THEIR UNDERTAKINGS IN ANOTHER STATE.  AND SINCE TEXAS WOULD HAVE HAD
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES ITS DECREE WOULD BE A BAR TO THE PRESENT
ACTION IN LOUISIANA.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE TEXAS PROCEEDING OR
IN THE TEXAS AWARD TO INDICATE THAT THAT WAS EITHER INTENDED OR DONE. 
THE MOST CHARITABLE CONSTRUCTION IS THAT TEXAS UNDERTOOK TO ADJUST THE
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PARTIES AND TO REGULATE THEIR RELATIONSHIP
ONLY SO LONG AS THEY REMAINED SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF TEXAS. 

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED THE SITUATION IS THUS QUITE
DIFFERENT FROM THE USUAL TRANSITORY ACTION OR FROM A DECREE WHICH
UNDERTAKES TO SEVER MARITAL BONDS BETWEEN ONE DOMICILED IN A STATE AND
A NON-RESIDENT.  BUT EVEN IF THE TEXAS AWARD WERE LESS CLEAR THAN I
THINK IT IS, I WOULD RESOLVE ALL DOUBTS AGAINST AN INFERENCE THAT
RIGHTS UNDER THE LOUISIANA CONTRACT WERE ADJUDICATED IN TEXAS.  SUCH A
COURSE SEEMS TO ME ESSENTIAL SO THAT THE GREATEST POSSIBLE
ACCOMMODATIONS OF THE INTERESTS OF THE TWO STATES, CONSISTENT WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, MAY BE HAD WHETHER THE MATTER BE
DIVORCE, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT ON WHICH STATE
POLICIES DIFFER. 

ON ITS FACE YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202, MIGHT SEEM TO
LOOK THE OTHER WAY.  THERE A GEORGIA DECREE OF PERMANENT ALIMONY FOR A
CHILD WAS HELD TO BE ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN SOUTH
CAROLINA WHERE THE CHILD SUBSEQUENTLY SOUGHT ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES. 
BUT THE GEORGIA DECREE WAS MORE CLEARLY AN ADJUDICATION OF THE
AGGREGATE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT THAN WAS THE TEXAS AWARD IN THE
PRESENT CASE, FOR IT RELIEVED THE FATHER ON COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
PROVISIONS OF "ALL PAYMENTS OF ALIMONY."  290 U.S. P. 207.  MOREOVER,
THE FATHER WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BUT HAD LONG BEEN
DOMICILED IN GEORGIA.  THE COURT SPECIFICALLY RESERVED THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE GEORGIA DECREE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
AS A FINAL DISCHARGE OF THE DUTY TO SUPPORT HAD THE FATHER BEEN
DOMICILED IN SOUTH CAROLINA.  290 U.S. P. 213.  HERE THE TEXAS AWARD IS
NOT ONLY A LIMITED ONE.  THE EMPLOYEE IS DOMICILED IN LOUISIANA, THE
EMPLOYER IS AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN LOUISIANA.  THE EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT IS A LOUISIANA CONTRACT.  LOUISIANA HAS SUCH A CONSIDERABLE
INTEREST AT STAKE THAT I WOULD ALLOW ITS POLICY TO BE OBLITERATED OR
SUBORDINATED ONLY IN CASE WHAT TOOK PLACE IN TEXAS IS IRRECONCILABLE
WITH WHAT LOUISIANA NOW SEEKS TO DO.  I DO NOT THINK IT IS. 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE DECISION OF WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA
IS NO SHELTER IN THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

THE RESPONDENT HUNT IS A RESIDENT OF LOUISIANA, EMPLOYED IN THAT
STATE BY THE PETITIONER AND SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO DO WORK IN
TEXAS.  WHILE IN TEXAS HE WAS SERIOUSLY INJURED IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT.  CONFINED TO A HOSPITAL HE WAS TOLD THAT HE COULD NOT
RECOVER COMPENSATION UNLESS HE SIGNED TWO FORMS PRESENTED TO HIM.  AS
FOUND BY THE LOUISIANA TRIAL JUDGE THERE WAS PRINTED ON EACH OF THE
FORMS "IN SMALL TYPE" THE DESIGNATION "INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD,
AUSTIN, TEXAS."  TO GET HIS COMPENSATION HUNT SIGNED THE FORMS AND THE
TEXAS INSURER BEGAN TO PAY.  RETURNING TO HIS HOME IN LOUISIANA HUNT
APPARENTLY DISCOVERED THAT HIS INTERESTS WOULD BE MORE FULLY PROTECTED
UNDER LOUISIANA LAW AND NOTIFIED THE INSURER OF AN INTENTION TO CLAIM
UNDER THE STATUTE OF THAT STATE.  THE INSURER IMMEDIATELY STOPPED
PAYMENT TO HIM AND NOTIFIED THE TEXAS BOARD TO THAT EFFECT.  FOUR DAYS
LATER, WITHOUT ANY REQUEST FROM HUNT, THE BOARD NOTIFIED HIM AT HIS
LOUISIANA HOME THAT A HEARING WOULD BE HELD IN TEXAS WITHIN TWO AND A
HALF WEEKS "TO DETERMINE THE LIABILITY OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY" UNDER
TEXAS LAW.  HUNT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROCEEDING.  THE TEXAS
BOARD THEREAFTER MADE AN AWARD TO HIM WHICH, UNDER THE LAW OF TEXAS,
WAS EQUIVALENT TO A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURER.  BEFORE THE TEXAS
AWARD BECAME FINAL HUNT, WHO HAD DECLINED TO ACCEPT ANY MONEY UNDER IT,
FILED SUIT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER IN THE COURTS OF LOUISIANA UNDER THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW OF LOUISIANA.  HE RECOVERED A JUDGMENT FOR A
SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER SUM THAN HAD BEEN ALLOWED HIM UNDER THE TEXAS
AWARD, FROM WHICH THE LOUISIANA COURT DEDUCTED THE SUM HE HAD ALREADY
RECEIVED FROM THE TEXAS INSURER. 

THE EMPLOYER HAS CONTENDED HERE THAT THE TEXAS AWARD AGAINST THE
INSURER WAS A JUDGMENT WHICH UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
PRECLUDED THE EMPLOYEE FROM ANY FURTHER RELIEF IN THE COURTS OF
LOUISIANA.  THE COURT TODAY AGREES WITH THE EMPLOYER, HOLDING THAT
WHILE IN "EXCEPTIONAL CASES  ...  THE JUDGMENT OF ONE STATE MAY NOT
OVERRIDE THE LAWS AND POLICY OF ANOTHER, THIS COURT IS THE FINAL
ARBITER OF THE EXTENT OF THE EXCEPTIONS."  THE COURT DECLINES TO
RECOGNIZE AN EXCEPTION IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE US, BUTTRESSING ITS
CONCLUSION WITH A CONTENTION THAT THE CASE OF CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY.
CO. V. SCHENDEL, 270 U.S. 611, REQUIRES SUCH A RESULT. 

I DISAGREE.  AS I SEE IT, THIS CASE PROPERLY INVOLVES TWO SEPARATE
LEGAL QUESTIONS:  (1) DID TEXAS INTEND THE AWARD OF ITS INDUSTRIAL
ACCIDENT BOARD AGAINST THE INSURER TO BAR THE RIGHT GRANTED THE
EMPLOYEE BY THE LOUISIANA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW TO COLLECT FROM
HIS EMPLOYER FOR THE SAME INJURY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
COMPENSATION ALLOWED BY TEXAS AND THE MORE GENEROUS COMPENSATION
ALLOWED BY LOUISIANA?  (2) ASSUMING THE TEXAS AWARD WAS INTENDED TO
CONSTITUTE SUCH A BAR, DOES THE INTEREST OF LOUISIANA IN REGULATING THE
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS OF ITS RESIDENTS NEVERTHELESS PERMIT IT TO GRANT
THAT LARGER MEASURE OF COMPENSATION WHICH AS A MATTER OF LOCAL POLICY
IT BELIEVES NECESSARY?  THE DECISION OF THE COURT ON BOTH OF THESE
ISSUES APPEARS TO ME TO BE WRONG. 
I. 

WHERE A STATE COURT REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE THE JUDGMENT OF A SISTER
STATE AS A BAR TO AN ASSERTED CAUSE OF ACTION, THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE CANNOT RAISE A FEDERAL QUESTION UNLESS THE JUDGMENT WOULD
HAVE BEEN A BAR TO A SIMILAR SUIT IN THAT SISTER STATE.  R.S. SEC. 905,
U.S.C. TITLE 28, SEC. 687; TITUS V. WALLICK, 306 U.S. 282.  EVEN WHERE
THE JUDGMENT WOULD BAR THE SUIT IN THE SISTER STATE, "AS THIS COURT HAS
OFTEN RECOGNIZED, THERE ARE MANY JUDGMENTS WHICH NEED NOT BE GIVEN THE
SAME FORCE AND EFFECT ABROAD WHICH THEY HAVE AT HOME, AND THERE ARE
SOME, THOUGH VALID IN THE STATE WHERE RENDERED, TO WHICH THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE GIVES NO FORCE ELSEWHERE."  DISSENTING OPINION,
YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202, 213, 214, 215.  WHETHER TEXAS
INTENDED THAT ITS AWARD SHOULD BAR THE EMPLOYEE HERE FROM RECOVERING
COMPENSATION UNDER THE LOUISIANA LAW IS AN ISSUE UPON WHICH TEXAS
COURTS HAVE NOT SPOKEN.  IN FACT, THEY ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO ENTERTAIN
ANY SUITS AT ALL BASED ON THE LOUISIANA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW. 
JOHNSON V. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY CORP., 99 S.W.2D 979. 

THE GENERAL RULE OF RES JUDICATA ANNOUNCED BY TEXAS COURTS IS THAT A
JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS CONSTITUTES "A FINALITY AS TO THE CLAIM OR
DEMAND IN CONTROVERSY, CONCLUDING PARTIES AND THOSE IN PRIVITY WITH
THEM  ...  AS TO EVERY MATTER WHICH WAS OFFERED AND RECEIVED TO SUSTAIN
OR DEFEAT THE CLAIM OR DEMAND, (AND) AS TO ANY OTHER ADMISSIBLE MATTER
WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR THAT PURPOSE."  RIO BRAVO OIL CO. V.
HEBERT, 130 TEX. 1, 8, 9, 106 S.W.2D 242, 246.  THE OPINION OF SECTION
A OF THE TEXAS COMMISSION OF APPEALS IN OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTEE
CORP. V. PRUITT, 58 S.W.2D 41, 44-45, RELIED UPON BY THE COURT,
PRESENTS AN APPLICATION OF THIS RULE TO TEXAS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
AWARDS.  THERE IT WAS HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAD BEEN DENIED A
COMPENSATION AWARD BY THE ACCIDENT BOARD COULD NOT BRING A SECOND
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD AGAINST THE SAME INSURER TO RECOVER
COMPENSATION FOR THE SAME INJURIES.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE SITUATION
IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.  THE PARTIES ARE NOT THE SAME; THE ISSUES ARE
NOT THE SAME; AND THE TWO PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT UNDER THE SAME ACT.  THE
PROCEEDING IN THIS CASE BEFORE THE TEXAS BOARD WAS AGAINST THE INSURER
ONLY AND THE AWARD ENTERED, BY ITS EXPRESS TERMS, WAS LIMITED TO A
RELEASE OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY FROM FURTHER LIABILITY.  THE LIABILITY
OF THE EMPLOYER UNDER LOUISIANA LAW WAS NOT IN ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD
AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT IN ISSUE.  THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT A PARTY TO
THAT PROCEEDING; NOR WAS THERE "PRIVITY" BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE
EMPLOYER SINCE THE INSURER'S LIABILITY DID NOT EXTEND TO RIGHTS WHICH
THE EMPLOYEE MIGHT HAVE AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER UNDER LOUISIANA LAW. 
MOREOVER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ACCIDENT BOARD IS LIMITED TO
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEXAS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT; EVEN IF THE
ISSUES OF LIABILITY UNDER LOUISIANA LAW HAD BEEN RAISED THEY COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THAT BOARD.  THE DECISION OF THIS COURT TODAY,
THEREFORE, IS TANTAMOUNT TO HOLDING THAT TEXAS INTENDED TO EXTINGUISH A
CLAIM AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE EMPLOYER WAS
NOT A PARTY AND THE ISSUE OF ITS LIABILITY UNDER LOUISIANA LAW WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO BE RAISED.  I CANNOT IMPUTE SUCH AN INTENTION TO TEXAS. 

THE STATUTES OF TEXAS LEND SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT THE ACCIDENT
BOARD'S AWARD WAS NOT INTENDED TO BAR THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS AGAINST HIS
EMPLOYER ARISING UNDER THE LAW OF LOUISIANA.  UNDER THE TEXAS STATUTES
AN AWARD OF THE ACCIDENT BOARD NEITHER ADDS TO NOR SUBTRACTS FROM AN
EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY TO AN INJURED EMPLOYEE.  THAT LIABILITY IS FIXED,
NOT BY AN AWARD, BUT BY A TRIPARTITE CONTRACT IMPLIED BY THE TEXAS
STATUTE BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER, THE EMPLOYEE, AND THE INSURER, UNDER
WHICH THE EMPLOYEE AGREES NOT TO SUE THE EMPLOYER FOR OCCUPATIONAL
INJURIES UNDER THE COMMON LAW OR STATUTES OF TEXAS.  FN1  AN EMPLOYEE
WHO FAILS TO ELECT TO RETAIN HIS COMMON LAW REMEDIES AGAINST HIS
EMPLOYER IS DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED ONLY HIS "RIGHT OF ACTION AT COMMON
LAW OR UNDER ANY STATUTE OF THIS STATE."  FN2  CLEARLY THIS TEXAS
STATUTE DID NOT INTEND THAT A WORKMAN WHO ELECTED TO COME UNDER THE
COMPENSATION ACT SHOULD THEREBY LOSE ANY RIGHTS CREATED BY THE LAWS OF
OTHER STATES.  THAT SECTION OF THE TEXAS STATUTES RELIED UPON BY THE
COURT REQUIRES NO DIFFERENT RESULT.  IT PROVIDES THAT AN EMPLOYEE
INJURED "OUTSIDE OF THE STATE" CANNOT RECOVER UNDER THE TEXAS ACT IF
"HE HAS ELECTED TO PURSUE HIS REMEDY AND RECOVERS IN THE STATE WHERE
SUCH INJURY OCCURRED."  FN3  PLAINLY THIS LATTER STATUTE PERTAINS ONLY
TO THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY UNDER TEXAS LAW; IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO AFFECT
RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF OTHER STATES.  NOR DOES IT PROCEED ON ANY
THEORY OF RES JUDICATA FOR IF AN EMPLOYEE FAILS TO RECOVER IN THE OTHER
STATE HE CAN NEVERTHELESS RECOVER AN AWARD IN TEXAS.  AND IN ANY EVENT
THE STATUTE COULD NOT APPLY TO THE INSTANT CASE, FOR THIS EMPLOYEE'S
INJURY DID NOT OCCUR "OUTSIDE" OF TEXAS.  THE DICTUM OF THE TRAVELERS
INSURANCE CO. V. CASON, 132 TEX. 393, 396, 124 S.W.2D 321, REFERRED TO
BY THE COURT, PERTAINS TO THE RIGHTS OF A TEXAS WORKMAN WHO WAS INJURED
IN PENNSYLVANIA. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPELLING LANGUAGE THIS COURT SHOULD NOT CONSTRUE
THE STATUTES OF TEXAS IN SUCH A MANNER THAT GRAVE QUESTIONS OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONALITY ARE RAISED.  CF. YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, SUPRA,
213, 214.  IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL WHETHER TEXAS HAS THE POWER, BY ANY
LEGAL DEVICE, TO PRECLUDE A SISTER STATE FROM GRANTING TO ITS OWN
RESIDENTS EMPLOYED WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS THAT MEASURE OF COMPENSATION
FOR OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES WHICH IT DEEMS ADVISABLE.  "A STATE CAN
LEGISLATE ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO ITS OWN JURISDICTION; AND THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ENFORCEMENT OF EVERY RIGHT
WHICH HAS RIPENED INTO A JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER STATE OR HAS BEEN
CONFERRED BY ITS STATUTES."  BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, 642. 
THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE DECISION HERE IS TO HOLD THAT TEXAS HAS
POWER TO NULLIFY A LOUISIANA STATUTE WHICH GIVES THE BENEFICIAL
PROTECTION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION TO AN INJURED WORKMAN WHO IS A
RESIDENT OF LOUISIANA AND MADE HIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT THERE.  I "AM
NOT PERSUADED THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE GIVES SANCTION TO
SUCH CONTROL BY ONE STATE OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF ANOTHER." 
YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, SUPRA, 214. 

                                 II. 

IT IS APPARENTLY CONCEDED THAT LOUISIANA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED
TO APPLY THE TEXAS STATUTE HAD THERE NOT BEEN A JUDGMENT IN THE
PARTICULAR CASE BY THE TEXAS TRIBUNAL.  THIS FREEDOM OF THE STATE TO
APPLY ITS OWN POLICY IN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CASES DESPITE A
CONFLICTING STATUTE IN THE STATE IN WHICH THE ACCIDENT OCCURS RESTS ON
THE THEORY THAT THE STATE WHERE THE WORKMAN IS HIRED OR IS DOMICILED
HAS A GENUINE AND SPECIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION. 
ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 294 U.S. 532, 541
543, 549; CF. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N,
306 U.S. 493, 503.  THESE CASES MARK RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE
AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO ACT IN ANY FIELD IS TO BE MEASURED AS MUCH
BY VITAL STATE INTERESTS AS BY TECHNICAL LEGAL CONCEPTS.  CF. HOOPESTON
CANNING CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313.  THE ARGUMENT OF STATE INTEREST IS
HARDLY LESS COMPELLING WHEN LOUISIANA CHOOSES TO REJECT AS DECISIVE OF
THE ISSUES OF THE CASE A FOREIGN JUDGMENT THAN WHEN IT REJECTS A
FOREIGN STATUTE. 

THE INTEREST OF TEXAS IN PROVIDING COMPENSATION FOR AN INJURED
EMPLOYEE WHO LIKE RESPONDENT WAS ONLY TEMPORARILY EMPLOYED IN THE STATE
IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT OF LOUISIANA WHERE THE RESPONDENT WAS DOMICILED
AND WHERE THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WAS MADE.  SOMEONE HAS TO TAKE
CARE OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS RECEIVED, AS HAS RESPONDENT, AN INJURY
WHICH PERMANENTLY DISABLES HIM FROM PERFORMANCE OF HIS WORK.  IF
EMPLOYERS OR THE CONSUMERS OF THEIR GOODS DO NOT SHOULDER THIS
RESPONSIBILITY, THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF A STATE MUST.  NEITHER STATE
MERELY VINDICATES A PRIVATE WRONG GROWING OUT OF TORTIOUS CONDUCT. 
MCKANE V. NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO., 199 SO. 175, 179(CT. OF APP. OF
LA., ORLEANS); TEXAS EMPLOYERS' INS. ASSN. V. PRICE, 291 S.W. 287,
290.  THE LOUISIANA ACT WAS PASSED IN THE INTEREST OF THE GENERAL
WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA.  PUCHNER V. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
CORP., 198 LA. 922, 5 SO.2D 288.  FN4  IF IT CHOOSES TO BE MORE
GENEROUS TO INJURED WORKMEN THAN TEXAS, NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS
PRESENTED. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE SCHENDEL CASE.  IN
THAT CASE AN EMPLOYEE BROUGHT AN ACTION IN A MINNESOTA COURT UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  HIS EMPLOYER BROUGHT AN ACTION IN
IOWA UNDER THE STATE LAW, THE RESULT OF WHICH WAS A HOLDING BY THE IOWA
COURT THAT THE ACTION HAD OCCURRED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  THIS COURT
HELD IN THE SCHENDEL CASE, WHICH WAS A REVIEW OF THE MINNESOTA
PROCEEDINGS, THAT THE DECISION OF THE IOWA COURT THAT THE ACCIDENT
OCCURRED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE WAS RES JUDICATA AND THAT THE EMPLOYEE
COULD NOT ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT THE ACCIDENT HAD IN FACT OCCURRED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY TO BRING THE CASE
WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  THE CASE IS WHOLLY
DISTINGUISHABLE SINCE THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT HAS NOT BEEN THOUGHT TO REQUIRE THAT A FEDERAL AWARD SUPPLEMENT A
STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AWARD.  THE STATUTES INVOLVED WERE NOT
CONFLICTING BUT WERE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, THE FEDERAL ACT COVERING ONLY
INJURIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, U.S.C. TITLE 45, SEC. 51 ET SEQ. 

TODAY'S DECISION IS FLATLY IN CONFLICT WITH ACCEPTED LAW AND
PRACTICE.  THE RESTATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 403 STATES
CATEGORICALLY THAT AN "AWARD ALREADY HAD UNDER THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT OF ANOTHER STATE WILL NOT BAR A PROCEEDING UNDER AN
APPLICABLE ACT, BUT THE AMOUNT PAID ON A PRIOR AWARD IN ANOTHER STATE
WILL BE CREDITED ON THE SECOND AWARD," AND ONE OF THE FOREMOST STUDIES
OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATES THE SAME RULE.  FN5  EVEN IN THE
ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS STATUTE SEVERAL STATE COURTS HAVE EXPLICITLY
APPROVED THIS PRACTICE.  GILBERT V. DES LAURIERS COLUMN MOULD CO., 180
APP. DIV. 59, 167 N.Y.S. 274; INTERSTATE POWER CO. V. INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSION, 203 WIS. 466, 234 N.W. 889; SEE SIMILARLY MCLAUGHLIN'S
CASE, 274 MASS. 217, 174 N.E. 338; MIGUES'S CASE, 281 MASS. 373, 183
N.E. 847.  TEXAS ITSELF FOR A TIME APPLIED A SIMILAR RULING.  TEXAS
EMPLOYERS' INS. ASSN. V. PRICE, 300 S.W. 667. 

NORTH CAROLINA PROVIDES BY STATUTE IN CASES LIKE THE PRESENT THAT THE
EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION PROVIDED THAT IF HE
RECEIVES COMPENSATION FROM A STATE OTHER THAN NORTH CAROLINA, HE WILL
BE GIVEN NO MORE COMPENSATION BY NORTH CAROLINA THAN WOULD RAISE THE
TOTAL RECOVERY TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA LAW.  FN6
SIX OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR STATUTES.  FN7  THE COMMITTEE ON
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LEGISLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HAS DRAFTED A UNIFORM STATE
LAW ON THE SUBJECT WHICH, WERE IT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE, WOULD
PERMIT THE EMPLOYEE TO WAIVE HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE LOUISIANA LAW BY
BRINGING AN ACTION UNDER THE TEXAS LAW ONLY BY FILING A WRITTEN WAIVER
WITH A LOUISIANA COMMISSION WHICH WOULD NOT BE BINDING UNTIL APPROVED
BY SUCH A COMMISSION.  FN8  THIS PROPOSED UNIFORM STATE LAW WOULD
PRESUMABLY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE DECISION ANNOUNCED TODAY SINCE
IT WOULD LEAVE IN LOUISIANA THE POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE
SHOULD RECEIVE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION DESPITE THE EFFECT WHICH TEXAS
MIGHT SEEK TO GIVE TO ITS AWARD. 

WHETHER THE THEORY IS THAT TEXAS DID NOT INTEND ITS JUDGMENT TO BAR A
PROCEEDING IN LOUISIANA OR THAT THE TEXAS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW IS
SO INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE POLICY OF LOUISIANA THAT LOUISIANA IS NOT
BOUND BY THE TEXAS JUDGMENT, THE RESULT SHOULD BE THE SAME:  THERE
SHOULD BE NO CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER PREVENTING A STATE IN EFFECT FROM
INCREASING THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AWARD OF ANOTHER STATE IN A CASE
IN WHICH IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RESULTS.  WHERE TWO STATES BOTH HAVE A
LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LITIGATION, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SECOND STATE WHICH CONSIDERS
THE CASE SHOULD ABIDE BY THE DECISION OF THE FIRST IS A QUESTION OF
POLICY WHICH SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURES AND COURTS. 
FN9  CERTAINLY FAIR ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE FOR EITHER DISPOSITION OF THE
POLICY QUESTION.  TEXAS ITSELF DECIDED THE QUESTION ONE WAY BY DECISION
IN THE PRICE CASE, 300 S.W. 667, SUPRA, AND, TO A LIMITED EXTENT, THE
OTHER WAY BY STATUTE.  FN10  STATE LAWS VARY, AND UNIFORMITY IS NOT THE
HIGHEST VALUE IN THE LAW OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, A POINT WELL MADE
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS VERY
PROBLEM IN INTERSTATE POWER CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, SUPRA, 477:
"THIS STATE ADOPTED A VERY LIBERAL ACT, AND IT IS REASONABLY TO BE
INFERRED THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH MAKING CERTAIN
THAT WORKMEN WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION SHOULD GET ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE
ACT THAN IT WAS WITH ANY CONFLICTS OR LEGAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH MIGHT
ARISE OUT OF LACK OF UNIFORMITY.  OUR PLAIN DUTY IS TO GIVE TO THE ACT
ITS INTENDED EFFECT, AND TO LEAVE TO THE LEGISLATURE THE ENACTMENT OF
PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO LIMIT ITS OPERATION IN THE INTEREST OF
UNIFORMITY." 

MUCH HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ARGUMENT HERE OF THE ALLEGED VICE OF DOUBLE
RECOVERY WHICH IS SAID TO BE ALLOWED THE RESPONDENT.  LET ME EMPHASIZE
THAT THERE IS NO DOUBLE RECOVERY.  IN THE FIRST PLACE THE LOUISIANA
COURT HAS DEDUCTED FROM ITS JUDGMENT THE AMOUNT OF THE TEXAS PAYMENTS. 
IN THE SECOND PLACE THE AGGREGATE OF THE AWARDS FROM BOTH STATES, IF
ADDED TOGETHER, WOULD BE FAR LESS THAN THE TOTAL LOSS SUFFERED BY
RESPONDENT.  THE TEXAS ALLOWANCE SCARCELY AMOUNTS TO A "RECOVERY" IN
THE SENSE OF GIVING FULL COMPENSATION FOR LOSS, AND HAS BEEN DESCRIBED
BY A TEXAS COURT TO BE "MORE IN THE NATURE OF A PENSION THAN A
LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR DAMAGES INTACT."  TEXAS EMPLOYERS'
INS. ASSN. V. PRICE, 300 S.W. 667, SUPRA, 669.  SEE ALSO BIDDINGER V.
STEININGER-TAYLOR CO., 25 OHIO DEC. 603, 608.    THE COURT SEEMS IN
SOME PARTS OF ITS OPINION TO ADOPT A WHOLLY NEW AND FAR REACHING POLICY
RELATING TO THE POWER OF STATES TO ALLOW COMPLETE INDEMNIFICATION FOR A
PERSONAL INJURY BY PERMITTING MORE THAN ONE SUIT AGAINST THE WRONGDOER,
AND TO ENGRAFT THIS POLICY ON TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE. 
COURTS SCHOOLED IN THE COMMON LAW HAVE LONG OBJECTED TO WHAT HAS BEEN
DESIGNATED "SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION."  THEY HAVE PHRASED THIS
POLICY OBJECTION IN MANY COMMON LAW CONCEPTS, ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN THE
DOCTRINE OF "ELECTION OF REMEDIES."  THIS PREDILECTION OF COMMON LAW
JUDGES IN FAVOR OF COMPELLING THE AGGREGATION OF ALL POSSIBLE ELEMENTS
OF DAMAGE INTO ONE LAW SUIT IS HERE APPARENTLY ELEVATED TO A POSITION
OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMPREGNABILITY IN THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE. 
THE COURT NOW SEEMS TO INTERPRET THAT CLAUSE TO PROHIBIT A RECOVERY OF
FULL COMPENSATION FOR A PERSONAL INJURY IN MORE THAN ONE SUIT EVEN IF
ONE OR MORE STATES THINK FULL COMPENSATION CAN BEST BE ACCORDED IN THIS
MANNER.  THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF THIS DRASTIC NEW CONSTITUTIONAL
DOCTRINE IS THAT STATE B MUST GIVE MORE FAITH AND CREDIT TO STATE A'S
JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY THAN STATE A ITSELF INTENDED
THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN.  STATE A'S AND STATE B'S JUDGMENTS ARE
SAID TO BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, NOT BECAUSE EITHER STATE MADE THEM SO,
BUT APPARENTLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
IMPOSES A RULE OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW WHICH REQUIRES THIS RESULT.  THIS
DOCTRINE WOULD ACCORD TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE A MEANING
WHICH IT WOULD HAVE HAD IF ITS AUTHORS HAD STATED, "FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE  ...  JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
OF EVERY OTHER STATE, AND IN ADDITION TWO RECOVERIES SHALL NEVER BE
ALLOWED BY SEPARATE STATES FOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM A SINGLE PERSONAL
INJURY."  WHEN THE AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION DESIRED TO PROHIBIT TWO
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, THEY HAD NO DIFFICULTY IN
EXPRESSING THEIR VIEWS.  FN11  HAD THEY WISHED TO HOBBLE THE STATES IN
THEIR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE MORE THAN ONE REMEDY IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH
FULL JUSTICE IN CIVIL CASES, I THINK THEY COULD AND WOULD HAVE
EXPRESSED THEMSELVES WITH EQUAL CLARITY AND EMPHASIS. 

                                 III. 

THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT TODAY IS TO STRIKE DOWN AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AN IMPORTANT PROVISION OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAWS OF AT LEAST ELEVEN STATES.  FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY THE POWER
OF THE STATES TO REGULATE THEIR DOMESTIC ECONOMIC AFFAIRS HAS BEEN
NARROWLY RESTRICTED BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  THE CHIEF WEAPON IN THE ARSENAL OF RESTRICTION, ONLY
RECENTLY FALLING INTO DISREPUTE BECAUSE OF OVERUSE, IS THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, USED TODAY TO SERVE THE SAME
PURPOSES, IS NO BETTER SUITED TO CONTROL THE FREEDOM OF THE STATES. 
THE PRACTICAL QUESTION NOW BEFORE US CAN BE DECIDED BY THE STATES IN
MANY WAYS AND MOST OF THE STATES WHICH HAVE EXPRESSED THEMSELVES SELVES
SEEM READY TO DISPOSE OF THE PROBLEM AS HAS LOUISIANA.  OUR NOTIONS OF
POLICY SHOULD NOT PERMIT THE CONSTITUTION TO BECOME A BARRIER TO FREE
EXPERIMENTATION BY THE STATES WITH THE PROBLEMS OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION. 

FN1  CF. ANDERSON-BERNEY REALTY CO. V. PLASIDA SORIA, 123 TEX. 100,
67 S.W.2D 222.  IF PETITIONER HAD ANY DEFENSE TO HUNT'S SUIT UNDER
LOUISIANA LAW, IT WAS NOT THE AWARD BUT THE IMPLIED CONTRACT.  SEE
MIDDLETON V. TEXAS POWER & LIGHT CO., 108 TEX. 96, 185 S.W. 556, AFF'D
249 U.S. 152.  PETITIONER, HOWEVER, PLEADED ONLY THE AWARD FOR ITS
DEFENSE. 

FN2  TEXAS REV. CIV. STAT., TITLE 130, ART. 8306, SEC. 3(A).  I DO
NOT AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT SEC. 3 OF THIS ARTICLE PURPORTS TO COMPEL
AN EMPLOYEE TO WAIVE RIGHTS WHICH ARISE UNDER THE LAWS OF ANOTHER
STATE.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD REDUCE THE ABOVE QUOTED LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 3(A) TO DECEPTIVE VERBIAGE. 

FN3  REV. CIV. STAT., ARTICLE 8306, SEC. 19.  APPARENTLY ONLY ONE
OTHER STATE, OREGON, HAS A STATUTE COMPARABLE TO THIS.  SEE OREGON CODE
(1935, SUPPLEMENT) SEC. 49-1813A. 

FN4  THE CLASSIC THEORY OF THE INTEREST OF A STATE IN WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION WAS EXPRESSED BY THIS COURT IN UPHOLDING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE COMPENSATION SYSTEM:  IN THE ABSENCE OF A
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SYSTEM, "THE INJURED WORKMAN IS LEFT TO BEAR THE
GREATER PART OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT LOSS, WHICH BECAUSE OF HIS LIMITED
INCOME HE IS UNABLE TO SUSTAIN, SO THAT HE AND THOSE DEPENDENT UPON HIM
ARE OVERCOME BY POVERTY AND FREQUENTLY BECOME A BURDEN UPON PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE CHARITY."  NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. WHITE, 243 U.S. 188,
197. 

FN5  DODD, ADMINISTRATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (1936) PP. 819,
820.  SEE ALSO TO THE SAME EFFECT 2 BEALE, THE CONFLICT OF LAWS (1935)
SEC. 403.1. 

FN6  N.C. CODE (1939) SEC. 8081(RR). 

FN7  FLORIDA:  FLORIDA STATUTES (1941) SEC. 440.09(1); GEORGIA:
GEORGIA CODE (1933) SEC. 114-411; MARYLAND:  MARYLAND ANNOTATED CODE
(1939), FLACK'S EDITION, ART. 101, SEC. 80(3); OHIO:  PAGE'S OHIO
GENERAL CODE, SEC. 1465-68; SOUTH CAROLINA:  S.C. CODE (1942) SEC. 7035
39; AND VIRGINIA:  VIRGINIA CODE (1942) SEC. 1887(37).  NO LESS THAN
THIRTY-FOUR STATES HAVE ENACTED STATUTES WHICH EXPRESSLY PERMIT
RECOVERY OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES FOR
INJURIES RECEIVED IN ANOTHER STATE.  AND THE COURTS OF NINE ADDITIONAL
STATES HAVE CONSTRUED STATUTES WHICH ARE NOT EXPRESS TO ACHIEVE THE
SAME RESULT.  SEE SCHNEIDER, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW (1941) VOL. 1,
C. 5, PP. 441-568; SCHNEIDER, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTES (1939),
VOLS.  1-4. 

FN8  U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS BULLETIN NO. 577(1933) PP. 15
16. 

FN9  "THE INTEREST, WHICH NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS, IN EXERCISING THAT
CONTROL, DERIVED FROM THE PRESENCE OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE WITHIN ITS
BORDERS, AND THE COMMISSION OF THE TORTIOUS ACT THERE, IS AT LEAST AS
VALID AS THAT OF VERMONT, DERIVED FROM THE FACT THAT THE STATUS IS THAT
OF ITS CITIZENS, AND ORIGINATED WHEN THEY WERE IN VERMONT, BEFORE GOING
TO NEW HAMPSHIRE.  I CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OF THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE, OR THE DECISIONS UNDER IT, WHICH LENDS SUPPORT TO
THE VIEW THAT IT COMPELS ANY STATE TO SUBORDINATE ITS DOMESTIC POLICY,
WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS AND THEIR ACTS WITHIN ITS BORDERS, TO THE LAWS
OF ANY OTHER."  CONCURRING OPINION IN BRADFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V.
CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, 163, 164. 

FN10  REV. CIV. STAT., ARTICLE 8306, SEC. 19. 

FN11  UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IT HAS BEEN HELD
THAT, CONSISTENT WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN
IMPOSE CRIMINAL LIABILITY UPON AN INDIVIDUAL FOR THE SAME CONDUCT FOR
WHICH HE HAS BEEN TRIED AND CONVICTED UNDER A STATE CRIMINAL STATUTE. 
UNITED STATES V. LANZA, 260 U.S. 377. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. MOLLER, 320 U.S. 462 


NO. 56.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1943.  - 134
F.2D 1000, REVERSED. 


ANCHOR VESSELS OR OTHER CRAFT IN NAVIGABLE CHANNELS IN SUCH A MANNER AS
TO PREVENT OR OBSTRUCT THE PASSAGE OF OTHER VESSELS OR CRAFT."  HELD: 

1.  AN EXCEPTION TO SEC. 15 IS RECOGNIZED WHERE LITERAL COMPLIANCE
WITH ITS TERMS WOULD CREATE A DANGER TO NAVIGATION WHICH A DEPARTURE
FROM ITS TERMS COULD AVOID OR LESSEN.  P. 466. 

2.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A VESSEL IN THIS CASE WAS TWICE
ANCHORED IN A NAVIGABLE CHANNEL DURING A FOG WARRANTED AN EXCEPTION TO
SEC. 15 IN EACH INSTANCE.  P. 467. 

ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. MOLLER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 737, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE WHICH,
IN A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY ARISING OUT OF A COLLISION, AWARDED DAMAGES TO
THE LIBELLANT AND DISMISSED A CROSSLIBEL, 40 F.SUPP.  641.  THE
REVIEWING COURT FOUND STATUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE
LIBELLANT'S VESSEL, AND ORDERED A DIVISION OF THE DAMAGES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WHILE LYING AT ANCHOR IN THE CHANNEL OF THE DELAWARE RIVER THE TANKER
"BOHEMIAN CLUB," OWNED BY THE PETITIONER, WAS STRUCK BY THE MOTOR
VESSEL "LAURA MAERSK," OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT.  DAMAGE TO EACH VESSEL
RESULTED, FOR WHICH THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS SOUGHT RECOVERY IN THIS
ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE COLLISION WAS
CAUSED BY THE EXCESSIVE RATE OF SPEED AT WHICH THE "LAURA MAERSK" WAS
PROCEEDING DOWN THE CHANNEL, RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF
DAMAGES INFLICTED UPON THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB," AND DISMISSED THE CROSS
LIBEL OF RESPONDENT AGAINST THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB."  40 F.SUPP.  641.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS APPROVED THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE
"LAURA MAERSK" WAS NEGLIGENT BUT CONCLUDED, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING,
THAT THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" WAS ALSO NEGLIGENT, AND REVERSED WITH
DIRECTIONS THAT THE RULE OF DIVIDED DAMAGES BE APPLIED.  134 F.2D
1000.  SEE THE SCHOONER CATHARINE V. DICKINSON, 17 HOW.  170, 177-178;
THE NORTH STAR, 106 U.S. 17, 20.  THE CIRCUIT COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT
THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" WAS NEGLIGENT RESTED UPON ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE
FOLLOWING PORTION OF SEC. 15 OF AN ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899:  "IT SHALL NOT
BE LAWFUL TO TIE UP OR ANCHOR VESSELS OR OTHER CRAFT IN NAVIGABLE
CHANNELS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO PREVENT OR OBSTRUCT THE PASSAGE OF
OTHER VESSELS OR CRAFT."  FN1  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN
ALLEGED CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUITS AS TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION TO
BE GIVEN THIS ACT.  FN2 

THE FINDINGS OF BOTH COURTS SHOW THAT THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED UNDER THE
FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES.  AT ABOUT 7:30 A.M. THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB," 435
FEET LONG, WAS PROCEEDING NORTHWARD ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE CHANNEL OF
THE DELAWARE RIVER WHEN SHE ENCOUNTERED A DENSE FOG.  UNABLE TO MOVE
WITHOUT ENDANGERING HERSELF AND OTHER VESSELS, AND UNABLE TO OBTAIN
ANCHORAGE WITHIN A DISTANCE OF FIVE MILES, SHE DROPPED ANCHOR ALONG HER
COURSE IN THE CHANNEL.  AT THIS POINT THE CHANNEL WAS APPROXIMATELY
1,200 FEET WIDE, AND NORTHBOUND VESSELS WERE REQUIRED TO USE THE 400
FEET ADJACENT TO THE CHANNEL'S EASTERN BOUNDARY.  UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SAFEST COURSE OF CONDUCT FOR THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" WAS
TO ANCHOR WHERE IT DID.  ABOUT 10 A.M. THE FOG LIFTED SLIGHTLY AND THE
MASTER DISCOVERED A LARGE STEEL BUOY ABOUT 150 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST OF
THE VESSEL.  THE TIDE WAS THEN EBB, AND WAS FLOWING AWAY FROM THE BUOY,
BUT WAS DUE TO CHANGE TO FLOOD SHORTLY.  FEARING THAT THIS CHANGE MIGHT
CAUSE THE VESSEL TO FOUL THE BUOY, THE MASTER HAD THE ANCHOR LIFTED,
THE ENGINES PUT SLOW AHEAD, AND THE RUDDER PUT HARD RIGHT.  IN LESS
THAN FIVE MINUTES, HOWEVER, THE FOG AGAIN DROPPED, AND THE VESSEL WAS
AGAIN ANCHORED.  THIS TIME, APPARENTLY BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN CARRIED BY
THE TIDE, THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" LAY SOMEWHAT SOUTH AND WEST OF HER
ORIGINAL POSITION SO THAT SHE PARTIALLY OBSTRUCTED THE WESTERN PART OF
THE CHANNEL USED BY SOUTHBOUND VESSELS.  THERE WAS, HOWEVER, AMPLE ROOM
IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE CHANNEL FOR A SOUTHBOUND VESSEL TO PASS THE
"BOHEMIAN CLUB"; IN FACT, SINCE THE WESTERN PART OF THE CHANNEL WAS
TWICE AS WIDE AS THE EASTERN PART, THERE WAS MORE SPACE FOR SOUTHBOUND
VESSELS TO PASS THAN THERE HAD BEEN FOR NORTHBOUND VESSELS TO PASS WHEN
THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" WAS ANCHORED IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE CHANNEL. 
THERE ARE NO FINDINGS THAT THE MASTER OF THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" HAD ANY
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HIS VESSEL CONSTITUTED A MORE DANGEROUS
OBSTRUCTION TO RIVER TRAFFIC IN GENERAL  FN3  IN HER SECOND POSITION
THAN IN HER ORIGINAL POSITION.  IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT IMPOSED ON VESSELS WHICH ARE COMPELLED TO ANCHOR IN THE
FOG, THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB'S" FOG BELL WAS RUNG RAPIDLY FOR FIVE SECONDS
AT MINUTE INTERVALS; FN4  AND, IN ADDITION, LOOKOUTS WERE STATIONED ON
THE BRIDGE AND FORECASTLE.  DESPITE THESE PRECAUTIONS THE "LAURA
MAERSK," SOUTHBOUND AT WHAT BOTH COURTS AGREED WAS AN UNREASONABLE
SPEED, CRASHED INTO THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" ABOUT ONE HOUR AND FIFTEEN
MINUTES AFTER SHE ANCHORED THE SECOND TIME. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT CORRECTLY HELD
THAT THE ACTION OF THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" IN ANCHORING IN THE CHANNEL AT
THE POINT OF THE COLLISION WAS UNLAWFUL UNDER SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1899.  THE COMMAND OF SEC. 15 FORBIDDING VESSELS TO "ANCHOR
... IN NAVIGABLE CHANNELS" HAS UNIFORMLY BEEN INTERPRETED NOT TO BE
ABSOLUTE.  FN5  AN EXCEPTION TO THE DUTY REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION HAS
BEEN RECOGNIZED WHERE LITERAL COMPLIANCE WITH ITS TERMS WOULD CREATE A
DANGER TO NAVIGATION WHICH COULD BE AVOIDED OR REDUCED BY VIOLATION OF
ITS TERMS.  SEE THE SOCONY NO. 9, 74 F.2D 233, 234.  AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER AN OPPOSITE CONSTRUCTION WOULD DEFEAT THE PLAIN PURPOSE OF SEC.
15 TO MAINTAIN AND PROMOTE THE SAFETY OF NAVIGATION.  IT WOULD, IN
ADDITION, BE OUT OF HARMONY WITH ARTICLE 27 OF THE GENERAL NAVIGATION
RULES FOR HARBORS, RIVERS, AND INLAND WATERS, WHICH REQUIRES THAT "IN
OBEYING AND CONSTRUING THESE RULES DUE REGARD SHALL BE HAD TO ALL
DANGERS OF NAVIGATION AND COLLISION, AND TO ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH MAY RENDER A DEPARTURE FROM THE  ...  RULES NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
AVOID IMMEDIATE DANGER."  FN6 CF. THE CAYUGA, 14 WALL.  270, 275, 276. 
FURTHERMORE ARTICLE 15 OF THESE GENERAL RULES, ABOVE REFERRED TO,
CONTEMPLATED THAT UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES VESSELS MAY BE COMPELLED TO
ANCHOR IN FOGGY WEATHER, AND PRESCRIBED SOUND SIGNALS WHICH VESSELS SO
ANCHORED MUST USE. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RECOGNIZED THAT THE
DUTY IMPOSED BY SEC. 15 IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND HELD THAT, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACT OF THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" IN ANCHORING ON THE EAST
SIDE OF THE CHANNEL WAS LAWFUL.  THE COURT FELT COMPELLED, HOWEVER, TO
HOLD THAT THE ACT OF ANCHORING ON THE WEST SIDE WAS UNLAWFUL UNDER SEC.
15.  WE THINK THIS SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH A HOLDING.  WHETHER
ANCHORED ON THE EAST OR THE WEST SIDE OF THE CHANNEL THE "BOHEMIAN
CLUB" WOULD, WITHIN THE LITERAL TERMS OF THE SECTION, "OBSTRUCT THE
PASSAGE OF OTHER VESSELS."  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT WHEN THE FOG
ENVELOPED THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" FOR THE SECOND TIME, "THE LEAST DANGEROUS
COURSE" WAS TO ANCHOR ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CHANNEL; AND THIS FINDING
WAS NOT DISTURBED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT.  UNDER A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF
SEC. 15, THEREFORE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH NECESSITATED BOTH THE FIRST
AND SECOND ANCHORINGS OF THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" WERE EQUALLY SUFFICIENT TO
WARRANT AN EXCEPTION TO THE DUTY WHICH IT REQUIRES.  WHETHER THE ACT OF
LIFTING ANCHOR AND MOVING TO THE WESTERN PART OF THE CHANNEL TO AVOID
THE DANGER OF THE BUOY CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE IS A QUESTION WHOLLY
OUTSIDE SEC. 15.  SINCE THE HOLDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT RESTED UPON AN
ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THIS SECTION, ITS JUDGMENT
MUST BE REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  30 STAT. 1152; U.S.C. TITLE 33, SEC. 409.  THE ACT IMPOSES PENAL
SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 15.  SEE SECS. 16-18.  HOWEVER THIS
APPLICABLE IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES.  SEE OTTO MARMET
COAL CO. V. FIEGER-AUSTIN DREDGING CO., 259 F. 435; THE WILLIAM C.
ATWATER, 110 F.2D 644; THE SOUTHERN CROSS, 93 F.2D 297. 

FN2  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF NORFOLK, 266 F. 641; THE A.P.
SKIDMORE, 115 F. 791; THE SOCONY NO. 9, 74 F.2D 233. 

FN3  THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT EMPHASIZES THE FACT THAT THE
"BOHEMIAN CLUB" DID NOT OBSTRUCT SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC IN HER FIRST
POSITION BUT DID OBSTRUCT THIS TRAFFIC IN HER SECOND POSITION.  SINCE,
HOWEVER, THE "BOHEMIAN CLUB" OBSTRUCTED THE NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC IN HER
FIRST POSITION, THIS FACT COULD NOT BE MATERIAL UNLESS THERE WAS
EVIDENCE THAT HER MASTER SHOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT THE VOLUME OF
SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC WOULD BE HEAVIER THAN THAT OF NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC. 
NO FINDING ON THIS QUESTION IS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD. 

FN4  ARTICLE 15, NAVIGATION RULES FOR HARBORS, RIVERS, AND INLAND
WATERS; 30 STAT. 99; U.S.C. TITLE 33, SEC. 191(2)(D). 

FN5  THE EUROPE, 190 F. 475, 479; THE CALDY, 153 F. 837, 840; SEE
ALSO THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  30 STAT. 102, U.S.C. TITLE 33, SEC. 212. 
..END :
























COMMISSIONER V. HEININGER, 320 U.S. 467 


NO. 63.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1943.  - 133
F.2D 567, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ATTORNEY'S FEES AND OTHER LEGAL EXPENSES, REASONABLE IN AMOUNT,
INCURRED BY A TAXPAYER (A LICENSED DENTIST ENGAGED IN SELLING
ARTIFICIAL DENTURES BY MAIL) IN RESISTING ISSUANCE BY THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL OF A "FRAUD ORDER" WHICH WOULD DESTROY HIS BUSINESS, AND IN
CONNECTION WITH SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ON JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE FINAL
RESULT OF WHICH WAS UNSUCCESSFUL FOR THE TAXPAYER, HELD, IN COMPUTING
INCOME TAX UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938, DEDUCTIBLE UNDER
SEC. 23(A) AS "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" EXPENSES OF THE BUSINESS.  P.
472. 

2.  THE POLICY OF 39 U.S.C. SECS. 259 AND 732, WHICH AUTHORIZE THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL TO ISSUE FRAUD ORDERS, WILL NOT BE FRUSTRATED BY
ALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION.  P. 474. 

3.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGARD AN
ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING OF GUILT UNDER 39 U.S.C. SECS. 259 AND 732 AS
BARRING THE DEDUCTION.  P. 475. 

4.  WHETHER AN EXPENDITURE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO A BUSINESS AND
WHETHER IT IS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY ARE IN MOST INSTANCES QUESTIONS OF
FACT, THE DECISION OF WHICH BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS BINDING ON
THE COURTS; BUT HERE THE BOARD DENIED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION NOT BY AN
INDEPENDENT EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT BUT UPON THE ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT
DENIAL WAS REQUIRED AS A MATTER OF LAW.  P. 475. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. HEININGER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 740, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 47 B.T.A. 95, WHICH AFFIRMED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER LAWYER'S FEES AND RELATED LEGAL EXPENSES
PAID BY RESPONDENT ARE DEDUCTIBLE FROM HIS GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC.
23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938 AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY
EXPENSES INCURRED IN CARRYING ON HIS BUSINESS.  FN1 

THE FEES AND EXPENSES WERE INCURRED UNDER THE FOLLOWING
CIRCUMSTANCES.  FROM 1926 THROUGH 1938 RESPONDENT, A LICENSED DENTIST
OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MADE AND SOLD FALSE TEETH.  DURING THE TAX YEARS
1937 AND 1938 THIS WAS HIS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY.  HIS WAS A MAIL
ORDER BUSINESS.  HIS PRODUCTS WERE ORDERED, DELIVERED, AND PAID FOR BY
MAIL.  CIRCULARS AND ADVERTISEMENTS SENT THROUGH THE MAIL PROCLAIMED
THE VIRTUES OF HIS GOODS IN LAVISH TERMS.  AT HEARINGS HELD BEFORE THE
SOLICITOR OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO U.S.C., TITLE 39,
SECS. 259 AND 732, RESPONDENT STRONGLY DEFENDED THE QUALITY OF HIS
WORKMANSHIP AND THE TRUTHFULNESS OF EVERY STATEMENT MADE IN HIS
ADVERTISEMENTS, BUT THE POSTMASTER GENERAL FOUND THAT SOME OF THE
STATEMENTS WERE MISLEADING AND SOME CLAIMED VIRTUES FOR HIS GOODS WHICH
DID NOT EXIST.  THEREUPON, ON FEBRUARY 19, 1938, A FRAUD ORDER WAS
ISSUED FORBIDDING THE POSTMASTER OF CHICAGO TO PAY ANY MONEY ORDERS
DRAWN TO RESPONDENT AND DIRECTING THAT ALL LETTERS ADDRESSED TO HIM BE
STAMPED "FRAUDULENT" AND RETURNED TO THE SENDERS.  SUCH A SWEEPING
DEPRIVATION OF ACCESS TO THE MAILS MEANT DESTRUCTION OF RESPONDENT'S
BUSINESS.  HE THEREFORE PROMPTLY SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION IN A UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT CONTENDING THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER EVIDENTIAL
BASIS FOR THE FRAUD ORDER.  ON REVIEW OF THE RECORD THAT COURT AGREED
WITH HIM AND ENJOINED ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DREW
DIFFERENT INFERENCES FROM THE RECORD, HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE DID
SUPPORT THE ORDER, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISSOLVE THE
INJUNCTION AND DISMISS THE BILL.  FARLEY V. HEININGER, 105 F.2D 79. 
RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS DENIED BY THIS COURT ON
OCTOBER 9, 1969.  HEININGER V. FARLEY, 308 U.S. 587. 

DURING THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION IN THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT AND
THE COURTS RESPONDENT INCURRED LAWYER'S FEES AND OTHER LEGAL EXPENSES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,600, ADMITTED TO BE REASONABLE.  IN FILING HIS TAX
RETURNS FOR THE YEARS 1937 AND 1938 HE CLAIMED THESE LITIGATION
EXPENSES AS PROPER DEDUCTIONS FROM HIS GROSS RECEIPTS OF $287,000 AND
$150,000.  THE COMMISSIONER DENIED THEM ON THE GROUND THAT THEY DID NOT
CONSTITUTE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS. 
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS  FN2  AFFIRMED THE COMMISSIONER, 47 B.T.A. 95,
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED.  133 F.2D 567. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS
OF OTHER CIRCUITS.  FN3 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE LEGAL EXPENSES OF RESPONDENT WERE
DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH "CARRYING ON" HIS BUSINESS.  KORNHAUSER V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 145, 153; CF. APPEAL OF BACKER, 1 B.T.A. 214;
PANTAGES THEATRE CO. V. WELCH, 71 F.2D 68.  OUR ENQUIRY THEREFORE IS
LIMITED TO THE NARROW ISSUE OF WHETHER THESE EXPENSES WERE "ORDINARY
AND NECESSARY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A).  IN DETERMINING THIS
ISSUE WE DO NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF AN INTERPRETATIVE DEPARTMENTAL
REGULATION DEFINING THE APPLICATION OF THE WORDS "ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY" TO THE PARTICULAR EXPENSES HERE INVOLVED.  CF. TEXTILE MILLS
SECURITIES CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 326, 338.  NOR DO WE HAVE
THE BENEFIT OF THE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 
IT DID NOT DENY THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY RESPONDENT UPON ITS OWN
INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" AS APPLIED TO ITS
FINDINGS OF FACT.  CF. HORMEL V. HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552, 555, 556. 
THE INTERPRETATION IT ADOPTED WAS DECLARED TO BE REQUIRED BY THE SECOND
CIRCUIT COURT'S REVERSAL OF THE BOARD'S VIEW IN NATIONAL OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING BUREAU V. COMMISSIONER, 32 B.T.A. 1025.  FN4 

IT IS PLAIN THAT RESPONDENT'S LEGAL EXPENSES WERE BOTH "ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY" IF THOSE WORDS BE GIVEN THEIR COMMONLY ACCEPTED MEANING. 
FOR RESPONDENT TO EMPLOY A LAWYER TO DEFEND HIS BUSINESS FROM
THREATENED DESTRUCTION WAS "NORMAL"; IT WAS THE RESPONSE ORDINARILY TO
BE EXPECTED.  CF. DEPUTY V. DU PONT, 308 U.S. 488, 495; WELCH V.
HELVERING, 290 U.S. 111, 114; KORNHAUSER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
SINCE THE RECORD CONTAINS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE DEFENSE WAS IN BAD
FAITH OR THAT THE ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE UNREASONABLE, THE EXPENSES
INCURRED IN DEFENDING THE BUSINESS CAN ALSO BE ASSUMED APPROPRIATE AND
HELPFUL, AND THEREFORE "NECESSARY."  CF. WELCH V. HELVERING, SUPRA,
113; KORNHAUSER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 152.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT
DENY THAT THE LITIGATION EXPENSES WOULD HAVE BEEN ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY HAD THE PROCEEDING FAILED TO CONVINCE THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
THAT RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIONS WERE FRAUDULENT.  FN5  ITS ARGUMENT
IS THAT DENTISTS IN THE MAIL ORDER BUSINESS DO NOT ORDINARILY AND
NECESSARILY ATTEMPT TO SELL FALSE TEETH BY FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS
AS TO THEIR QUALITY; THAT RESPONDENT WAS FOUND BY THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL TO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SELL HIS PRODUCTS IN THIS MANNER; AND THAT
THEREFORE THE LITIGATION EXPENSES, WHICH HE WOULD NOT HAVE INCURRED BUT
FOR THIS ATTEMPT, CANNOT THEMSELVES BE DEEMED ORDINARY AND NECESSARY. 
WE THINK THAT THIS REASONING, THOUGH PLAUSIBLE, IS UNSOUND IN THAT IT
FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT
INCURRED THE LITIGATION EXPENSES.  CF. WELCH V. HELVERING, SUPRA, 113,
114.  UPON BEING SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED FRAUD ORDER
RESPONDENT WAS CONFRONTED WITH A NEW BUSINESS PROBLEM WHICH INVOLVED
FAR MORE THAN THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE USING HIS OLD ADVERTISEMENTS.  HE
WAS PLACED IN A POSITION IN WHICH NOT ONLY HIS SELLING METHODS BUT ALSO
THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF HIS LAWFUL BUSINESS WERE THREATENED WITH
COMPLETE DESTRUCTION.  SO FAR AS APPEARS FROM THE RECORD RESPONDENT DID
NOT BELIEVE, NOR UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE WAS HE BOUND TO
BELIEVE, THAT A FRAUD ORDER DESTROYING HIS BUSINESS WAS JUSTIFIED BY
THE FACTS OR THE LAW.  THEREFORE HE DID NOT VOLUNTARILY ABANDON THE
BUSINESS BUT DEFENDED IT BY ALL AVAILABLE LEGAL MEANS.  TO SAY THAT
THIS COURSE OF CONDUCT AND THE EXPENSES WHICH IT INVOLVED WERE
EXTRAORDINARY OR UNNECESSARY WOULD BE TO IGNORE THE WAYS OF CONDUCT AND
THE FORMS OF SPEECH PREVAILING IN THE BUSINESS WORLD.  CF. WELCH V.
HELVERING, SUPRA, 115.  SURELY THE EXPENSES WERE NO LESS ORDINARY OR
NECESSARY THAN EXPENSES RESULTING FROM THE DEFENSE OF A DAMAGE SUIT
BASED ON MALPRACTICE, OR FRAUD, OR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.  YET IN
THESE LATTER CASES LEGAL EXPENSES HAVE BEEN HELD DEDUCTIBLE WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE SUCCESS OF THE DEFENSE.  FN6 

THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, AND THE
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME, HOWEVER, NARROWED THE GENERALLY
ACCEPTED MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE USED IN SEC. 23(A) IN ORDER THAT TAX
DEDUCTION CONSEQUENCES MIGHT NOT FRUSTRATE SHARPLY DEFINED NATIONAL OR
STATE POLICIES PROSCRIBING PARTICULAR TYPES OF CONDUCT.  A REVIEW OF
THE SITUATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD TO BELONG IN THIS CATEGORY WOULD
SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE FOR EACH CASE SHOULD DEPEND UPON ITS PECULIAR
CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN7  A FEW EXAMPLES WILL SUFFICE TO ILLUSTRATE THE
PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.  WHERE A TAXPAYER HAS VIOLATED A FEDERAL OR A STATE
STATUTE AND INCURRED A FINE OR PENALTY HE HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED A TAX
DEDUCTION FOR ITS PAYMENT.  FN8  SIMILARLY, ONE WHO HAS INCURRED
EXPENSES FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF LOBBYING AND POLITICAL PRESSURE
ACTIVITIES WITH A VIEW TO INFLUENCING FEDERAL LEGISLATION HAS BEEN
DENIED A DEDUCTION.  FN9  AND A TAXPAYER WHO HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO AN
INFLUENTIAL PARTY PRECINCT CAPTAIN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A STATE PRINTING
CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO DEDUCT THEIR AMOUNT FROM GROSS
INCOME.  FN10  IT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT, HOWEVER, THAT THE MERE FACT
THAT AN EXPENDITURE BEARS A REMOTE RELATION TO AN ILLEGAL ACT MAKES IT
NON-DEDUCTIBLE.  THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 23(A) CONTAINS NO EXPRESS
REFERENCE TO THE LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS EXPENSES
WHICH ARE DECLARED TO BE DEDUCTIBLE.  AND THE BRIEF OF THE GOVERNMENT
IN THE INSTANT CASE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY CONTENTION THAT THE PURPOSE
OF TAX LAWS IS TO PENALIZE ILLEGAL BUSINESS BY TAXING GROSS INSTEAD OF
NET INCOME.  CF. UNITED STATES V. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259. 

IF THE RESPONDENT'S LITIGATION EXPENSES ARE TO BE DENIED DEDUCTION,
IT MUST BE BECAUSE ALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION WOULD FRUSTRATE THE
SHARPLY DEFINED POLICIES OF 39 U.S.C. SECS. 259 AND 732 WHICH AUTHORIZE
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL TO ISSUE FRAUD ORDERS.  THE SINGLE POLICY OF
THESE SECTIONS IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM FRAUDULENT PRACTICES
COMMITTED THROUGH THE USE OF THE MAILS.  IT IS NOT THEIR POLICY TO
IMPOSE PERSONAL PUNISHMENT ON VIOLATORS; SUCH PUNISHMENT IS PROVIDED BY
SEPARATE STATUTE,  FN11  AND CAN BE IMPOSED ONLY IN A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE ACCUSED HAS THE BENEFIT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY SAFEGUARDS APPROPRIATE TO TRIAL FOR A CRIME.  NOR IS IT THEIR
POLICY TO DETER PERSONS ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THEIR TERMS FROM EMPLOYING
COUNSEL TO ASSIST IN PRESENTING A BONA FIDE DEFENSE TO A PROPOSED FRAUD
ORDER.  IT FOLLOWS THAT TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RESPONDENT'S
LITIGATION EXPENSES WOULD NOT FRUSTRATE THE POLICY OF THESE STATUTES;
AND TO DENY THE DEDUCTION WOULD ATTACH A SERIOUS PUNITIVE CONSEQUENCE
TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S FINDING WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSLY OR
IMPLIEDLY INDICATED SHOULD RESULT FROM SUCH A FINDING.  WE HOLD
THEREFORE THAT THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REGARD THE
ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING OF GUILT UNDER 39 U.S.C. SECS. 259 AND 732 AS A
RIGID CRITERION OF THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF RESPONDENT'S LITIGATION
EXPENSES. 

WHETHER AN EXPENDITURE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO A BUSINESS AND WHETHER
IT IS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY ARE DOUBTLESS PURE QUESTIONS OF FACT IN
MOST INSTANCES.  EXCEPT WHERE A QUESTION OF LAW IS UNMISTAKABLY
INVOLVED A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ON THESE ISSUES, HAVING
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE PRESUMPTION SUPPORTING THE COMMISSIONER'S
RULING,  FN12  SHOULD NOT BE REVERSED BY THE FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS. 
FN13  CAREFUL ADHERENCE TO THIS PRINCIPLE WILL RESULT IN A MORE ORDERLY
AND UNIFORM SYSTEM OF TAX DEDUCTIONS IN A FIELD NECESSARILY BESET BY
INNUMERABLE COMPLEXITIES.  CF. HORMEL V. HELVERING, SUPRA.  HOWEVER, AS
WE HAVE POINTED OUT ABOVE, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HERE DENIED THE
CLAIMED DEDUCTION NOT BY AN INDEPENDENT EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT BUT UPON A
MISTAKEN CONVICTION THAT DENIAL WAS REQUIRED AS A MATTER OF LAW.  WE
THEREFORE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING
AND REMANDING THE CAUSE TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1936, C. 690, 49 STAT. 1658. 

"SEC. 23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

"(A)  EXPENSES.  - ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR
INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS,
..." 

IDENTICAL WITH SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936. 

FN2  SECTION 504(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, C. 619, 56 STAT. 798,
957, U.S.C., TITLE 26, SEC. 1100 CHANGES THE NAME OF THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS TO "THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN3  HELVERING V. NATIONAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BUREAU, 89 F.2D
878(C.C.A. 2); HELVERING V. SUPERIOR WINES & LIQUORS, 134 F.2D
373(C.C.A. 8). 

FN4  HELVERING V. NATIONAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENT BUREAU, SUPRA, NOTE
3.  IN THAT CASE THE TAXPAYER HAD INCURRED LEGAL EXPENSES DEFENDING A
SUIT BEGUN BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  IT HAD SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED PART OF THE CHARGES AGAINST IT, BUT
HAD AGREED TO THE ENTRY OF A CONSENT DECREE OF INJUNCTION AS TO THE
BALANCE.  THE BOARD HELD THAT ALL OF THE LEGAL EXPENSES WERE ORDINARY
AND WERE PROXIMATELY CONNECTED WITH THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS, AND THAT
TO ALLOW THEM AS DEDUCTIONS WOULD NOT BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT REVERSED AS TO THAT PORTION OF THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE CONSENT DECREE.  SEE ALSO HELVERING V. SUPERIOR WINES & LIQUORS,
SUPRA, NOTE 3, WHERE THE BOARD WAS REVERSED FOR ALLOWING A TAXPAYER IN
THE LIQUOR BUSINESS TO DEDUCT LAWYER'S FEES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH
A COMPROMISE OF LIABILITY FOR CIVIL PENALTIES ASSESSED FOR IMPROPER
BOOKKEEPING UNDER U.S.C., TITLE 26, SECS. 2857 ET SEQ. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 8, INFRA. 

FN6  MALPRACTICE:  C.B.V.-1, 226; FRAUD:  HELVERING V. HAMPTON, 79
F.2D 358; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY:  KEELER V. COMMISSIONER, 23 B.T.A.
467.  SEE ALSO THE EXAMPLES OF DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES SET FORTH IN
KORNHAUSER V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 145.    FN7  FOR A COLLECTION AND
ANALYSIS OF MANY OF THE CASES SEE NOTE (1941) 54 HARV. L. REV. 852; 4
MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1942) SECS. 25.35-25.37,
25.102-25.105. 

FN8  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 40 F.2D 372; BONNIE
BROS. V. COMMISSIONER, 15 B.T.A. 1231; BURROUGHS BLDG. MATERIAL CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 47 F.2D 178; APPEAL OF COLUMBUS BREAD CO., 4 B.T.A.
1126.  A TAXPAYER WHO HAS BEEN PROSECUTED UNDER A FEDERAL OR STATE
STATUTE AND CONVICTED OF A CRIME HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED A TAX DEDUCTION
FOR HIS ATTORNEY'S FEE.  ESTATE OF THOMPSON V. COMMISSIONER, 21 B.T.A.
568; BURROUGHS BLDG. MATERIAL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  BUT IF HE
HAS BEEN ACQUITTED, A DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED.  COMMISSIONER V.
PEOPLE'S-PITTSBURGH TRUST CO., 60 F.2D 187; CF. CITRON-BYER CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 21 B.T.A. 308; HEADLEY V. COMMISSIONER, 37 B.T.A. 738. 
CF. HELVERING V. SUPERIOR WINES & LIQUORS, SUPRA, NOTE 3. 

FN9  TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 326,
338.  CF. COMMISSIONER V. SUNSET SCAVENGER CO., 84 F.2D 453. 

FN10  RUGEL V. COMMISSIONER, 127 F.2D 393.  CF. KELLEY-DEMPSEY & CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 31 B.T.A. 351, WHERE DEDUCTION WAS DENIED FOR THE
EXPENSE OF COMMERCIAL EXTORTION. 

FN11  CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 215; 25 STAT. 873; 35 STAT. 1130; U.S.C.,
TITLE 18, SEC. 338. 

FN12  SEE WELCH V. HELVERING, 290 U.S. 111, 115. 

FN13 CF. HELVERING V. LAZARUS & CO., 308 U.S. 252, 255; DOBSON V.
COMMISSIONER, POST, P. 489. 
..END :















BRADY V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 320 U.S. 476 


NO. 26.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1943.  - 222
N.C. 367, 23 S.E.2D 334, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF A STATE COURT DECISION UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY IS FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF THIS COURT.  P. 479. 

2.  ONLY BY A UNIFORM FEDERAL RULE AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE MAY LITIGANTS UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT RECEIVE SIMILAR TREATMENT
IN ALL STATES.  P. 479. 

3.  WHERE IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT THE
EVIDENCE IS SUCH THAT A VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT IS THE ONLY
REASONABLE CONCLUSION, THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD DETERMINE THE PROCEEDING
BY NON-SUIT, DIRECTED VERDICT, OR OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
APPLICABLE PRACTICE WITHOUT SUBMISSION TO THE JURY, OR BY JUDGMENT NON
OBSTANTE VEREDICTO.  P. 479. 

4.  THE RULE AS TO WHEN A DIRECTED VERDICT IS PROPER IS APPLICABLE TO
QUESTIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE.  P. 483. 

5.  EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
HELD INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY.  P.
480. 

(A)  THAT THE DERAILER WAS NOT EQUIPPED WITH A LIGHT WAS NOT EVIDENCE
OF NEGLIGENCE OF THE CARRIER.  P. 480. 

(B)  RELATIVE TO MISUSE OF THE DERAILER, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FROM
WHICH THE JURY COULD FIND NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF EMPLOYEES OF THE
CARRIER OTHER THAN THE DECEDENT.  P. 481. 

(C)  THE DEGREE OF CARE WHICH IT MUST EXERCISE DID NOT REQUIRE THE
CARRIER TO GUARD AGAINST A CAR STRIKING THE DERAILER FROM AN UNEXPECTED
DIRECTION.  P. 483. 

(D)  LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER CAN NOT BE PREDICATED ON THE EXISTENCE
OF THE DEFECTIVE RAIL, SINCE THE RAIL WAS SUITABLE FOR ORDINARY USE,
WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, AND MISUSE OF THE DERAILER
WAS NOT A DANGER REASONABLY TO BE ANTICIPATED.  P. 482. 

BRADY, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 777, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE AROSE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FN1
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA WAS SOUGHT AND
GRANTED TO CONSIDER THE RETROACTIVITY OF THE LAST AMENDMENT TO THE ACT
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN THE RULING
WHICH HELD THE CASE IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY BY THE TRIAL
COURT.  319 U.S. 777.  OUR CONCLUSION MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
THE FORMER PROBLEM. 

THE DECEDENT, EARLE A. BRADY, WAS A BRAKEMAN.  AT THE TIME OF HIS
DEATH HE WAS EMPLOYED IN THAT CAPACITY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY THE
RESPONDENT, SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.  THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED DURING A
SWITCHING MOVEMENT IN VIRGINIA.  THE FREIGHT TRAIN UPON WHICH DECEDENT
WAS ACTING AS BRAKEMAN CAME NORTH OVER A MAIN LINE AND PASSED A SWITCH
WHICH LED INTO A STORAGE TRACK RUNNING SOUTH PARALLEL TO AND ON THE
EAST OF THE MAIN LINE.  THERE WERE FOUR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CREW - THE
ENGINEER, THE FIREMAN, THE FLAGMAN AND THE CONDUCTOR. 

AFTER THE ENTIRE TRAIN PASSED THE SWITCH, IT WAS STOPPED AND BACKED
INTO THE STORAGE TRACK TO PERMIT ANOTHER NORTH-BOUND TRAIN TO GO
THROUGH ON THE MAIN LINE AND TO PICK UP TWELVE CARS AT THE SOUTH END OF
THE STORAGE TRACK.  AFTER THE OTHER TRAIN PASSED, DECEDENT'S TRAIN,
WITHOUT PICKING UP THE STORAGE TRACK CARS, PULLED OUT ON TO THE MAIN
LINE, BACKED SOUTHWARDLY BEYOND A VEHICULAR GRADE CROSSING WHICH PASSED
OVER THE MAIN LINE AND THE STORAGE TRACK ABOUT ONE-EIGHTH OF A MILE
SOUTH OF THE SWITCHPOINTS, LEFT THE CABOOSE AND ALL THE CARS EXCEPT THE
FOUR NEAREST THE ENGINE ON THE MAIN LINE AND RETURNED NORTH FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AGAIN BACKING INTO THE STORAGE TRACK TO PICK UP THE STORAGE
TRACK CARS.  AFTER COUPLING THESE CARS ON TO THE FOUR NEXT TO THE
ENGINE, THE INTENDED MOVEMENT WAS TO PULL OUT AGAIN ON THE MAIN LINE,
BACK THE TRAIN SOUTHWARDLY TO THE CARS LEFT ON THE MAIN LINE, COUPLE UP
ALL THE CARS AND PROCEED ON THE JOURNEY TO THE NORTH. 

AS THE ENGINE AND FOUR CARS BACKED SLOWLY INTO THE STORAGE TRACK, THE
DECEDENT WAS RIDING THE SOUTHEASTERN STEP OF THE REAR CAR, A GONDOLA. 
IT WAS 6:30 A.M. ON CHRISTMAS MORNING AND SO DARK THE WORK WAS CARRIED
ON BY LANTERN SIGNALS.  THE TRUCKS HIT THE WRONG END OF A DERAILER,
LOCATED THREE OR FOUR CAR LENGTHS FROM THE SWITCH, WHICH WAS CLOSED SO
AS TO PREVENT CARS ON THE STORAGE TRACK FROM DRIFTING ACCIDENTALLY ONTO
THE MAIN LINE.  FN2  THE CONTACT DERAILED THE CARS AND THREW DECEDENT
TO INSTANT DEATH UNDER THE WHEELS. 

DAMAGES WERE SOUGHT FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE CARRIER IN
FAILING TO FURNISH A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE TO WORK BY REASON OF DEFECTS
IN THE TRACK AND DERAILER AND, WE ASSUME SINCE IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY AND PASSED UPON BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, 222 N.C.
AT 370, 23 S.E.2D 334, 337, BY THE ACT OF SOME OTHER EMPLOYEE IN
IMPROPERLY CLOSING THE DERAILER AFTER THE BEGINNING AND BEFORE THE
FATAL PHASE OF THE SWITCHING MOVEMENT.  FURTHER THERE WAS A CHARGE OF
NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO PROVIDE A LIGHT OR OTHER WARNING TO INDICATE
THE DANGEROUS POSITION OF THE DERAILER.  A JUDGMENT FOR $20,000 WAS
OBTAINED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT WHICH WAS REVERSED IN THE STATE SUPREME
COURT ON THE GROUND OF THE FAILURE OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
JURY'S VERDICT. 

THERE IS THUS PRESENTED THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF
NEGLIGENCE IS FURNISHED BY THE RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE SUBMISSION OF THE
CASE TO THE JURY.  IN EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, THIS QUESTION MUST BE
DETERMINED BY THIS COURT FINALLY.  THROUGH THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, ART. VI, WE ARE CHARGED WITH ASSURING THE ACT'S AUTHORITY
IN STATE COURTS.  ONLY BY A UNIFORM FEDERAL RULE AS TO THE NECESSARY
AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE MAY LITIGANTS UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT RECEIVE SIMILAR
TREATMENT IN ALL STATES.  WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. CO. V. HUGHES, 278 U.S.
496, 498; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. COOGAN, 271 U.S. 472, 474. 
CF. UNITED GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123, 143.  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS
COURT HAS HELD THAT A STATE NEED NOT PROVIDE IN F.E.L.A. CASES ANY
TRIAL BY JURY ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT. 
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V. BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S. 211.  BUT WHEN A
STATE'S JURY SYSTEM REQUIRES THE COURT TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF
THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF A FEDERAL RIGHT TO RECOVER, THE
CORRECTNESS OF ITS RULING IS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  THE WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE UNDER THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT MUST BE MORE THAN A
SCINTILLA BEFORE THE CASE MAY BE PROPERLY LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE
TRIER OF FACT - IN THIS CASE, THE JURY.  WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. CO. V.
HUGHES, SUPRA; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. GROEGER, 266 U.S. 521, 524. 
CF. GUNNING V. COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90, 94; COMMISSIONERS V. CLARK, 94 U.S.
278, 284.  WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS SUCH THAT WITHOUT WEIGHING THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES THERE CAN BE BUT ONE REASONABLE CONCLUSION
AS TO THE VERDICT, THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE THE PROCEEDING BY NON
SUIT, DIRECTED VERDICT OR OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE
PRACTICE WITHOUT SUBMISSION TO THE JURY, OR BY JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING
THE VERDICT.  BY SUCH DIRECTION OF THE TRIAL THE RESULT IS SAVED FROM
THE MISCHANCE OF SPECULATION OVER LEGALLY UNFOUNDED CLAIMS.  GALLOWAY
V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 372; PENCE V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 332;
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. GROEGER, 266 U.S. 521, N. 1; ANDERSON V.
SMITH, 226 U.S. 439; COUGHRAN V. BIGELOW, 164 U.S. 301, 307; GUNNING V.
COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90, 93, NOTE; SEABOARD AIR LINE V. PADGETT, 236 U.S.
668, 673; PARKS V. ROSS, 11 HOW.  362, 373.  SEE IX WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE
(3D ED., 1940), SECS. 2494 ET SEQ. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE PROVEN FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE
SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT A VERDICT BY THE JURY FOR THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE
BASED UPON REASON IS OF NO DOCTRINAL IMPORTANCE.  EVERY CASE VARIES. 
HOWEVER, THE SOUNDNESS OF THE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE STATE SUPREME
COURT DEPENDS UPON AN APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND, AS TO THIS, THERE
IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION HERE.  OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THERE IS
FAILURE TO SHOW IN THE RECORD ANY NEGLIGENCE OF THE CARRIER FROM NOT
PUTTING A LIGHT ON THE DERAILER OR BY THE ACTION OF OTHER EMPLOYEES
THAN DECEDENT IN CLOSING THE DERAILER. 

AS TO THE LIGHT, IT IS NOWHERE SHOWN THAT IT WAS CUSTOMARY OR EVEN
DESIRABLE IN THE OPERATION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER RAILROAD TO EQUIP
DERAILERS WITH SUCH A SIGNAL.  APPARENTLY LIGHTS ON A DERAILER ARE NOT
USED ON STORAGE TRACKS WHERE, AS AT THE PLACE OF THE ACCIDENT, AN
AUTOMATIC BLOCK SYSTEM FUNCTIONS. 

NOR DO WE FIND ANY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A JURY COULD FIND NEGLIGENCE
OF OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE CARRIER IN SETTING THE DERAILER WITHOUT
WARNING THE DECEDENT.  ON THE FIRST BACKWARD MOVEMENT INTO THE STORAGE
TRACK, THE ENGINEER AND FIREMAN WERE IN THE ENGINE CAB AT THE FRONT OF
THE TRAIN.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT EITHER LEFT THAT POSITION UNTIL
AFTER THE ACCIDENT.  AS THE ENTIRE TRAIN PASSED THE DERAILER THEN
WITHOUT INCIDENT AND AGAIN UPON ITS EXIT FROM THE STORAGE TRACK TO
RETURN TO THE MAIN LINE TO CUT THE TRAIN, THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT
THE DERAILER WAS NOT OPEN DURING THAT PART OF THE MOVEMENT.  AS
PETITIONER STATES, "DURING SWITCHING OPERATIONS IT IS THE USUAL RULE
AND CUSTOM FOR THE DERAILER TO BE KEPT OFF THE TRACK UNTIL THE
SWITCHING OPERATION IS COMPLETED."  THIS TIME THE SWITCH WAS CLOSED
BETWEEN THE MOVEMENT JUST REFERRED TO AND THE RETURN OF THE ENGINE AND
FOUR CARS TO THE STORAGE TRACK TO PICK UP THE CARS WAITING
TRANSPORTATION. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS WITHOUT CONTRARY INTIMATION THAT ON THE FIRST
MOVEMENT INTO THE STORAGE TRACK THE TWELVE CARS TO BE PICKED UP LATER
WERE SOUTH OF THE CROSSING AND THEREFORE MORE THAN AN EIGHTH OF A MILE
FROM THE SWITCH.  "WHEN THE CARS OR THE TRAIN WAS BACKED INTO THE PASS
TRACK TO LET THE NORTHBOUND TRAIN PASS, I (THE CONDUCTOR) THREW THE
SWITCH AND THE DERAILER AND THEN CAME BACK TO THE CROSSING TO AWAIT THE
OTHER MOVEMENT - TO KEEP FROM HITTING AN AUTOMOBILE."  "WHEN THAT
MOVEMENT WAS MADE - WHEN THEY BACKED OUT ON THE MAIN LINE - I WAS AT
THIS CROSSING, PROTECTING THE CROSSING.  IN THE BACKING UP MOVEMENT I
PROTECTED THE CROSSING AND THEN THEY CUT OUT THE FOUR CARS.  THE ENGINE
CAME OVER THE CROSSING; CUT OFF SOMEWHERE FIVE OR SIX CARS SOUTH OF THE
CROSSING.  I WAS NOT UP NORTH OF THE ENGINE WHEN THEY CUT THE CARS
OUT.  I WAS BACK UP HERE.  I RODE THE CABOOSE CAR BACK.  WHEN THEY CAME
ON DOWN I STAYED ON THE CABOOSE CAR AND MR. BRADY STAYED WHERE THE FOUR
OR FIVE CARS WERE.  HE CUT THOSE OUT.  I DIDN'T SEE HIM.  I WAS
CHECKING ON THOSE CARS.  I HAD LEFT THE CABOOSE.  I WAS NOT FAR FROM
THOSE TWELVE CARS SO I LEFT THE CABOOSE TO CHECK UP ON THE CARS.  WHILE
I WAS OVER THERE I HEARD THE BLAST OF THE LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE.  I DIDN'T
SEE HOW THE CARS WERE DERAILED - LEFT THE TRACK - NOR DID I SEE WHERE
MR. BRADY WAS AT THAT TIME."  OBVIOUSLY THE CONDUCTOR, IN ORDER TO GET
NEAR THE TWELVE STORED CARS, HOPPED THE CABOOSE AT THE CROSSING AS IT
BACKED UP ON THE MAIN LINE.  THE FLAGMAN TESTIFIED THAT THE CONDUCTOR
CAME BACK AND WATCHED THE CROSSING AFTER THE TRAIN FIRST BACKED INTO
THE STORAGE TRACK.  THE FLAGMAN ALSO TESTIFIED THAT ON LEAVING THE
CABOOSE AFTER THE SECOND TRAIN PASSED HE, THE FLAGMAN, WENT SOUTH TO
CHECK UP ON THE TWELVE STORED CARS AND NEVER TOUCHED EITHER THE SWITCH
OR THE DERAILER. 

THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY AS TO THE SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENTS OF THE
DECEDENT, BRADY, AS GIVEN BY THE ENGINEER, FOLLOWS:  "WHEN WE BACKED
INTO THE PASS OR STORAGE TRACK THE FIRST TIME AND GOT IN THERE TO WAIT
FOR NO. 30 TO GO BY, I SAW MR. BRADY CLOSE THE SWITCH AND THE
DERAILER.  MR. BRADY GAVE ME THE SIGNAL TO COME BACK OUT.  HE SET THE
DERAILER NOT TO DERAIL AND OPENED THE SWITCH FOR ME TO COME OUT AND I
CAME ON OUT.  THEN I PULLED OUT AND BACK DOWN SOUTH ON THE NORTHBOUND
TRACK BEYOND THE CROSSING.  MR. BRADY WAS ON THE FOUR CARS AND I SAW
HIM GET OFF THESE FOUR CARS.  HE RODE BACK NORTH ON THESE FOUR CARS
'TIL HE GOT NORTH OF THE SWITCH.  HE GOT OFF THE CAR AND THROWED THE
SWITCH AND GOT BACK AND SIGNALED ME BACK.  FROM THE TIME I CAME OUT OF
THE SWITCH UNTIL I CAME BACK IN THERE I NEVER SEEN ANYBODY ELSE IN
THERE, OTHER THAN MR. BRADY."  WITH THE RECORD EVIDENCE AS TO THE
ACTION OF THE CREW IN THIS CONDITION, IT APPEARS OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS
NOTHING TO SHOW NEGLIGENCE BY ANY OF THE OTHER SERVANTS OF THE
CARRIER. 

WE NOW TURN TO THE THIRD INSTANCE OF ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE.  THIS IS THE
EXISTENCE TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CARRIER OF A RAIL, OPPOSITE THE
DERAILER, SO WORN ON TOP AND SIDES THAT IN THE OPINION OF QUALIFIED
EXPERTS IT PERMITTED THE THRUST OF THE EAST WHEELS OF THE CAR, AS THEY
ROSE OVER THE "WRONG END" OF THE DERAILER, TO FORCE THE FLANGE ON THE
WEST WHEELS OVER THE DEFECTIVE RAIL AND SO TO DERAIL THE CARS, WHEN NO
SUCH DERAILMENT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED, "NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN, IF THE
BEST TYPE" RAIL WAS IN USE.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE UNSUITABILITY
OF THE RAIL FOR ORDINARY USE. 

SUCH EVIDENCE, WE ASSUME, WOULD JUSTIFY A FINDING FOR PETITIONERS, IF
THE DEFECTIVE RAIL WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DERAILMENT AND THE
BACKING OF THE TRAIN IMPROPERLY OVER THE CLOSED DERAILER A DANGER
REASONABLY TO BE ANTICIPATED.  AS TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF CARS PASSING
OVER THE WRONG END OF DERAILERS, ONE WITNESS WITH TEN YEARS' EXPERIENCE
AS A BRAKEMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE RECALLED THREE OR FOUR INSTANCES. 
ANOTHER, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE RAILROAD WITH 22 YEARS' EXPERIENCE
SAID, "IT HAPPENS VERY FREQUENTLY.  I WOULD SAY YES, I HAVE SEEN IT 25
TO 50 TIMES."  THE RULE AS TO WHEN A DIRECTED VERDICT IS PROPER,
HERETOFORE REFERRED TO, IS APPLICABLE TO QUESTIONS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE. 
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. TOOPS, 281 U.S. 351; ST. LOUIS-SAN
FRANCISCO RY. CO. V. MILLS, 271 U.S. 344, 348; NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO.
V. AMBROSE, 280 U.S. 486; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. TINDALL, 47 F.2D
19; TEXAS GULF SULPHUR CO. V. PORTLAND GAS LIGHT CO., 57 F.2D 801.  CF.
STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO., 282 U.S. 555, 566. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA WAS OF THE VIEW THAT STRIKING A
DERAILER FROM THE UNEXPECTED DIRECTION "WAS SO UNUSUAL, SO CONTRARY TO
THE PURPOSE" OF THE DERAILER THAT PROVISION TO GUARD AGAINST SUCH A
HAPPENING WAS BEYOND THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE CARE.  WITH THIS WE AGREE. 
BARE POSSIBILITY IS NOT SUFFICIENT.  MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RY. CO. V.
KELLOGG, 94 U.S. 469, AT 475: 

"BUT IT IS GENERALLY HELD, THAT, IN ORDER TO WARRANT A FINDING THAT
NEGLIGENCE, OR AN ACT NOT AMOUNTING TO WANTON WRONG, IS THE PROXIMATE
CAUSE OF AN INJURY, IT MUST APPEAR THAT THE INJURY WAS THE NATURAL AND
PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OR WRONGFUL ACT, AND THAT IT
OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FORESEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE ATTENDING
CIRCUMSTANCES." 

EVENTS TOO REMOTE TO REQUIRE REASONABLE PREVISION NEED NOT BE
ANTICIPATED.  IT WAS SO HELD AS TO AN INTERVENING EMBARGO AFTER A DELAY
IN TRANSIT WHICH WAS CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE.  THE MALCOLM BAXTER, 277
U.S. 323, 334.  CF. NORTHERN RY. CO. V. PAGE, 274 U.S. 65, 74; ST.
LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. V. MILLS, SUPRA.  LIABILITY ARISES FROM
NEGLIGENCE NOT FROM INJURY UNDER THIS ACT.  AND THAT NEGLIGENCE MUST BE
THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.  TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318
U.S. 54, 67.  HERE THE RAIL WAS SUFFICIENT FOR ORDINARY USE, AND THE
CARRIER WAS NOT OBLIGED TO FORESEE AND GUARD AGAINST MISUSE OF THE
DERAILER, EVEN THOUGH THE MISUSE OCCURRED AS OFTEN AS THE EVIDENCE
INDICATED.  IT WAS THE WRONGFUL USE OF THE DERAILER THAT IMMEDIATELY
OCCASIONED THE HARM.  DECEDENT HAD FIRST CLOSED AND THEN OPENED THE
DERAILER ON THE FIRST MOVEMENT.  HE SIGNALLED THE TRAIN TO BACK INTO
THE STORAGE TRACK JUST BEFORE THE FATAL ACCIDENT.  ALTHOUGH THIS MISUSE
OF THE DERAILER WAS AN ACT OF NEGLIGENCE, IT IS MERE SPECULATION AS TO
WHETHER THAT NEGLIGENCE IS CHARGEABLE TO THE DECEDENT OR ANOTHER. 
WITHOUT THIS UNEXPECTED OCCURRENCE, THE ADEQUACY OF THE RAIL VIS-A-VIS
A PROPERLY USED DERAILER IS UNQUESTIONED.  IT WAS ENTIRELY DISCONNECTED
FROM THE EARLIER ACT OF THE CARRIER IN PLACING THE WEAK RAIL IN THE
TRACK.  THE MERE FACT THAT WITH A SOUND RAIL THE ACCIDENT MIGHT NOT
HAVE HAPPENED IS NOT ENOUGH.  THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE MUST BE A LINK
IN AN UNBROKEN CHAIN OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE EVENTS.  FN3  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED; 36 STAT. 291; AND 53 STAT. 1404. 

FN2  A DERAILER IS A SMALL BUT HEAVY IRON DEVICE ATTACHED TO A RAIL
WHICH OPENS AND CLOSES OVER THE RAIL BY A LEVER, SO AS TO DERAIL OR
TURN OFF THE TRACK CARS APPROACHING THE CLOSED DERAILER FROM THE
EXPECTED DIRECTION.  WHEN THE DERAILER IS OPEN TRAINS MAY PASS IN
EITHER DIRECTION WITHOUT INTERFERENCE.  A TRAIN OR CAR APPROACHING A
CLOSED DERAILER FROM THE UNEXPECTED OR WRONG DIRECTION MAY SUCCESSFULLY
ROLL OVER THE OBSTRUCTION BUT MORE PROBABLY THEY, TOO, WOULD BE
DERAILED.  THE APPARATUS IS NOT DESIGNED WHEN CLOSED TO SAFELY PERMIT
THE PASSAGE OF CARS FROM THE UNEXPECTED DIRECTION. 

FN3  SEE E.G., THE SQUIB CASE, 2 W. BL. 892.  CF. 1 COOLEY ON TORTS
(4TH ED., 1932) SEC. 50, N. 25, AND COLLECTION OF CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

TWELVE NORTH CAROLINA CITIZENS WHO HEARD MANY WITNESSES AND SAW MANY
EXHIBITS FOUND ON THEIR OATHS THAT THE RAILROAD'S EMPLOYEES WERE
NEGLIGENT.  THE LOCAL TRIAL JUDGE SUSTAINED THEIR FINDING.  FOUR
MEMBERS OF THIS COURT AGREE WITH THE LOCAL TRIAL JUDGE THAT THE JURY'S
CONCLUSION WAS REASONABLE.  NEVERTHELESS FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT
PURPORT TO WEIGH ALL THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY BOTH PARTIES TO THE SUIT,
AND HOLD THE CONCLUSION WAS UNREASONABLE.  TRULY, APPELLATE REVIEW OF
JURY VERDICTS BY APPLICATION OF A SUPPOSED NORM OF REASONABLENESS GIVES
RISE TO PUZZLING RESULTS.  FN1 

ALTHOUGH I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE "UNIFORM FEDERAL RULE" ON DIRECTED
VERDICTS ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT CORRECTLY STATES THE LAW, I PLACE MY
DISSENT ON THE GROUND THAT, WHATEVER RULE BE APPLIED, PETITIONER
SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED AND PROVED AT LEAST TWO SEPARATE ACTS OF
NEGLIGENCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD BUT FOR WHICH THE
DECEDENT BRADY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE ESCAPED DEATH.  THE FIRST WAS THE
ACT OF ONE OF RESPONDENT'S TRAINMEN IN NEGLIGENTLY CLOSING THE
DERAILER; THE SECOND, THE ACT OF RESPONDENT'S MAINTENANCE CREW IN
NEGLIGENTLY KEEPING A DEFECTIVE RAIL OPPOSITE THAT DERAILER.  PROOF OF
EITHER WAS SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO SUPPORT A JURY VERDICT AGAINST
RESPONDENT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 
FN2 

NEGLIGENCE IN CLOSING DERAILER.  A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE TO DECEDENT'S
DEATH WAS THAT THE DERAILER WAS IN A CLOSED POSITION AT THE TIME THE
ENGINEER BACKED THE ENGINE AND FOUR CARS INTO IT.  THAT THE DERAILER
SHOULD HAVE BEEN OPEN IS NOT DISPUTED.  THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO
SHOW THAT THE EMPLOYEE WHO NEGLIGENTLY CLOSED THE DERAILER MUST HAVE
BEEN EITHER THE FLAGMAN, THE CONDUCTOR, OR THE DECEDENT.  THE FLAGMAN
EXPRESSLY DENIED THAT HE CLOSED THE DERAILER, BUT THE CONDUCTOR MADE NO
SUCH DENIAL.  PETITIONER, ALTHOUGH DEPRIVED OF DECEDENT'S TESTIMONY,
DID PRODUCE EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD FIND THAT IT WAS NOT
DECEDENT WHO CLOSED IT.  TESTIMONY ESTABLISHED THAT DECEDENT KNEW OF
THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF THE DERAILER, THAT HE WAS AN EXPERIENCED
BRAKEMAN, AND THAT HE WOULD BE AWARE OF THE DANGER OF RIDING A FREIGHT
CAR OVER A CLOSED DERAILER.  FROM THESE FACTS THE JURY COULD FIND THAT
DECEDENT THOUGHT THE DERAILER WAS OPEN SINCE HE WOULD NOT LIKELY HAVE
SIGNALLED THE TRAIN OVER A CLOSED DERAILER AT THE PERIL OF HIS OWN
SAFETY AND PROTECTION.  CF. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. TOOPS, 281
U.S. 351, 356.  A SIMILAR INFERENCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS REGARDS THE
FLAGMAN AND CONDUCTOR FOR THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME OF THE
ACCIDENT BOTH WERE A HALF MILE AWAY AND THEREFORE WERE NOT IMPERILED BY
THE DECEDENT'S SIGNALLING BACK THE TRAIN AND WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO
HAVE PREVENTED THE SIGNAL.  FN3 

HAVING THUS BROUGHT FORTH EVIDENCE THAT ONE OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES
NEGLIGENTLY CLOSED THE DERAILER AND THAT DECEDENT WAS NOT THAT
EMPLOYEE, PETITIONER HAD PROVED A CASE FOR THE JURY.  I CANNOT AGREE
WITH THE VIEW APPARENTLY ADOPTED BY THE COURT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS
REQUIRED TO PIN THE NEGLIGENCE ON A PARTICULAR ONE OF DECEDENT'S FELLOW
EMPLOYEES.  NO SUCH BURDEN IS IMPOSED BY THE FEDERAL ACT.  IT PROVIDES
MERELY THAT A RAILROAD IS LIABLE "FOR  ...  DEATH RESULTING IN WHOLE OR
IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE  ...  EMPLOYEES."  FN4 

NEGLIGENCE IN KEEPING DEFECTIVE RAIL OPPOSITE DERAILER.  THERE WAS
EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE RAIL OF THE PASS TRACK OPPOSITE THE DERAILER
HAD BEEN USED FOR TWENTY-SIX YEARS; THAT THE TOP OF THE RAIL WAS
DECAYED, RUSTY, BADLY WORN, AND THIN; THAT WITH BARE FINGERS METAL
SLIVERS COULD EASILY BE PICKED FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE RAIL; AND THAT
SOME OF THE CROSS TIES WERE OLD, NOT PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY BALLAST, AND
SLOPED TOWARD THE DEFECTIVE RAIL.  PETITIONER THEN OFFERED EXPERT
EVIDENCE, CONTRADICTED BY RESPONDENT'S EXPERT EVIDENCE, THAT THE
DERAILMENT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED BUT FOR THIS DEFECTIVE RAIL.  THE
COURT DECLINES TO GIVE ANY EFFECT WHATEVER TO ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE ON
TWO STATED GROUNDS:  (1) THAT THE RAIL WAS SUITABLE FOR ORDINARY USE
AND THE BACKING OF THE TRAIN IMPROPERLY OVER THE CLOSED DERAILER WAS
NOT "A DANGER REASONABLY TO HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED"; (2) THAT THE "WEAK
RAIL" WAS NOT THE "PROXIMATE CAUSE" OF THE DEATH. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE HOW, EXCEPT BY SHEER GUESSING, OR BY
DRAWING UPON SOME UNDISCLOSED SUPERIOR FUND OF WISDOM, THE COURT
REACHES THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT NEED NOT HAVE FORESEEN THAT
TRAINS WOULD BE BACKED OVER THE WRONG END OF CLOSED DERAILERS.  THE
EVIDENCE OF RAILROAD MEN WHO HAD WORKED ON RAILROADS SHOWED IT WAS
FORESEEABLE.  DOUBTLESS JUDGES KNOW MORE ABOUT FORMAL LOGIC AND LEGAL
PRINCIPLES THAN DO BRAKEMEN, ENGINEERS, AND DIVISIONAL
SUPERINTENDENTS.  I AM NOT SO CERTAIN THAT THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT THE
DANGER OF KEEPING A DEFECTIVE RAIL IMMEDIATELY OPPOSITE A DERAILER. 
THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, PUT ON
THE STAND BY THE RESPONDENT, TESTIFIED THAT TRAINS BACKED OVER CLOSED
DERAILERS "VERY FREQUENTLY."  HE HIMSELF HAD SEEN IT HAPPEN "ON 25 TO
50 OCCASIONS."  AND UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS, SHOWED
THAT RESPONDENT HAD FORESEEN THIS LIKELIHOOD TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TOP
OF THE DERAILER HAD A SPECIAL GROOVE TO HOLD THE FLANGE OF A WHEEL AS
IT PASSED OVER THE BACK OF THE DERAILER.  THAT A TRAIN WOULD ORDINARILY
NOT BE BACKED OVER A CLOSED DERAILER EXCEPT FOR THE PERSONAL NEGLIGENCE
OF THE TRAIN CREW IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUE OF FORESEEABILITY. 
THE STANDARD OF REASONABLE CONDUCT MAY REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO PROTECT
THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST "THAT OCCASIONAL NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS ONE OF THE
ORDINARY INCIDENTS OF HUMAN LIFE AND THEREFORE TO BE ANTICIPATED.  ...
"  FN5 AND THE MERE FACT THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RESPONDENT IN
PLACING THE WEAK RAIL IN THE TRACK OCCURRED SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE THE
ACCIDENT DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBSEQUENT INJURY WAS NOT
FORESEEABLE.  THE NEGLIGENT CONDUCT OF RESPONDENT NOT ONLY CONSISTED OF
"PLACING THE WEAK RAIL IN THE TRACK"; IT ALSO CONSISTED OF KEEPING THE
"WEAK RAIL" THERE. 

NOR IS IT EASY TO COMPREHEND WHY THE DEFECTIVE RAIL WAS NOT THE
"PROXIMATE CAUSE" OF THE INJURY.  IT WAS THE LAST "LINK IN AN UNBROKEN
CHAIN OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE EVENTS" WHICH COST THE EMPLOYEE HIS
LIFE.  SURELY THIS RAIL WAS THE "PROXIMATE CAUSE" IF THOSE WORDS BE
USED TO MEAN AN EVENT WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO PRODUCE A RESULT, WHICH IS
THE MEANING CONGRESS INTENDED WHEN IT MADE RAILROADS LIABLE FOR THE
INJURY OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE "DUE TO" OR "RESULTING IN WHOLE OR IN
PART FROM" THE RAILROAD'S NEGLIGENCE N6.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT TWO
EXPERT WITNESSES WITH MANY YEARS OF RAILROAD EXPERIENCE TESTIFIED THAT
THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY THE DEFECTIVE RAIL.  THAT ONE OF THESE
WITNESSES ON CROSS-EXAMINATION STATED THE DERAILMENT WOULD NOT HAVE
OCCURRED "NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN" IF THERE HAD BEEN A SOUND RAIL HARDLY
JUSTIFIES A DIRECTED VERDICT AGAINST PETITIONER.  THE FACT OF CAUSATION
IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER FACT AND DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PROVED WITH
ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY; NINETY PER CENT CERTAINTY SHOULD SUFFICE TO MAKE IT
AN ISSUE FOR THE JURY.  THAT A SOUND RAIL WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE DECEASED
NINE CHANCES OUT OF TEN TO ESCAPE DEATH SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO GIVE HIS
FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY THE PROTECTION WHICH THE ACT CONTEMPLATES. 

FN1  FOR AN ENLIGHTENING EXPOSITION OF THE UNCERTAINTIES GENERATED BY
EXCESSIVE JUDICIAL USE OF THE NORM OF REASONABLENESS, SEE JACKSON,
TRIAL PRACTICE IN ACCIDENT LITIGATION (1930), 15 CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY,
194 ET SEQ. IT WAS THE WRITER'S OPINION THAT THERE WAS "A PERSISTENT,
INSIDIOUS, AND PLAUSIBLE TENDENCY TOWARD UNCERTAINTY IN EVERYTHING THAT
LEGAL REASONING TOUCHES," AND THAT THIS TENDENCY WAS "EASIER TO
ILLUSTRATE THAN TO DESCRIBE."  HAD TODAY'S DECISION THEN BEEN
AVAILABLE, IT COULD WELL HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE SEVERAL DECISIONS WHICH
WERE USED AS ILLUSTRATIONS.  LIKEWISE THE CRITICISM WHICH THE WRITER
DIRECTED AT THESE ILLUSTRATIVE DECISIONS IS EXACTLY APPLICABLE TO WHAT
THE COURT TODAY, BY APPLYING A LEGAL DOCTRINE MISNAMED "PROXIMATE
CAUSE," HAS DONE TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FOR WHAT IT
HAS DONE IS TO CHOOSE "BETWEEN TWO LINES OF PUBLIC POLICY.  IT COULD
NOT THINK IN THE SIMPLE TERMS OF THE STATUTORY COMMAND; IT REVERTED TO
THE COMPLEX LEGAL REASONING INVOLVING A COMBINATION OF PRINCIPLES AND
DEPENDING UPON MULTIPLIED CONDITIONS WHICH THE STATUTE TRIED TO
SUPERSEDE." 

FN2  "EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD WHILE ENGAGING IN COMMERCE
BETWEEN ANY OF THE SEVERAL STATES OR TERRITORIES  ...  SHALL BE LIABLE
IN DAMAGES TO ANY PERSON SUFFERING INJURY WHILE HE IS EMPLOYED BY SUCH
CARRIER IN SUCH COMMERCE, OR, IN CASE OF THE DEATH OF SUCH EMPLOYEE, TO
HIS OR HER PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE  ...  FOR SUCH INJURY OR DEATH
RESULTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE
OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES OF SUCH CARRIER, OR BY REASON OF ANY
DEFECT OR INSUFFICIENCY, DUE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS CARS, ENGINES,
APPLIANCES, MACHINERY, TRACK, ROADBED,  ...  OR OTHER EQUIPMENT."  35
STAT. 65, AS AMENDED; 53 STAT. 1404; U.S.C., TITLE 45, SEC. 51. 

FN3  UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY SHOWED THAT BOTH THE FLAGMAN AND THE
CONDUCTOR WERE UNDER THE DUTY TO OPERATE THE DERAILER IN SWITCHING
OPERATIONS WHEN THE TRAIN WAS LONG.  HERE THE TRAIN WAS FOUR HUNDRED
YARDS IN LENGTH.  THE CONDUCTOR ADMITTED THAT HE HAD OPERATED THE
DERAILER ONCE DURING THE SWITCHING OPERATION, AND THAT HE HAD BEEN IN A
PLACE WHERE HE COULD HAVE CLOSED IT BEFORE THE ENGINE AND FOUR CARS
BACKED INTO IT.  NOT ONE OF THE CONDUCTOR'S FELLOW EMPLOYEES TESTIFIED
AS TO WHAT THE CONDUCTOR WAS DOING AT THE TIME WHEN THE DERAILER MUST
HAVE BEEN CLOSED. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN5  RESTATEMENT OF TORTS SEC. 302, COMMENT L. SEE ALSO PROSSER ON
TORTS (1941) SEC. 37, P. 243. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE
CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 489 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1943.  - 133 F.2D 732,
AFFIRMED IN PART - REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  THE TAX COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED BY ANY STATUTE, APPLICABLE
REGULATION, OR PRINCIPLE OF LAW TO TREAT AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE
TAXPAYER A RECOVERY - IN RESPECT OF A LOSS (ON A SALE OF STOCK)
DEDUCTED AND ALLOWED ON RETURNS FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, ADJUSTMENT OF THE
TAX LIABILITY FOR WHICH WAS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS - WHERE IT FOUND
THAT, VIEWING AS A WHOLE THE TRANSACTIONS OUT OF WHICH THE RECOVERY
AROSE, THE TAXPAYER HAD REALIZED NO ECONOMIC GAIN AND HAD DERIVED NO
TAX BENEFIT FROM THE LOSS DEDUCTION; AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ON REVIEW WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ORDER THAT THE RECOVERY BE TREATED AS
TAXABLE INCOME RATHER THAN AS A RETURN OF CAPITAL.  P. 506. 

2.  WHERE NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS INVOLVED, AND IN THE ABSENCE
OF A CONTROLLING STATUTE OR REGULATION, A DETERMINATION OF THE TAX
COURT AS TO WHETHER PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS ARE INTEGRATED OR SEPARATED
FOR TAX PURPOSES IS NO MORE REVIEWABLE THAN ANY OTHER QUESTION OF
FACT.  P. 502. 

3.  WHEN THE REVIEWING COURT CAN NOT SEPARATE THE ELEMENTS OF A
DECISION SO AS TO IDENTIFY A CLEAR-CUT MISTAKE OF LAW, THE DECISION OF
THE TAX COURT MUST STAND.  P. 502. 

4.  IN DETERMINING QUESTIONS OF LAW, COURTS MAY PROPERLY ATTACH
WEIGHT TO DECISIONS OF SUCH QUESTIONS BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY HAVING
SPECIAL COMPETENCE TO DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER; AND THOUGH
DECISIONS OF THE TAX COURT MAY NOT BE BINDING PRECEDENTS FOR COURTS
DEALING WITH SIMILAR PROBLEMS, UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE PROMOTED
BY CONFORMING TO THEM WHERE POSSIBLE.  P. 502. 

DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

NO. 44.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 45, DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
NO. 46, ESTATE OF COLLINS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND NO.
47, HARWICK V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ALSO ON WRITS OF
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 739-740, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, ON REVIEW
OF DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REDETERMINING DEFICIENCIES IN
INCOME TAX, IN NO. 47 AFFIRMED AND IN NOS. 44-46 REVERSED.  SEE 46
B.T.A. 765, 770. 

THESE FOUR CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE
FACTS OF ONE WILL DEFINE THE ISSUE PRESENT IN ALL. 

THE TAXPAYER, COLLINS, IN 1929 PURCHASED 300 SHARES OF STOCK OF THE
NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK WHICH CARRIED CERTAIN BENEFICIAL
INTERESTS IN STOCK OF THE NATIONAL CITY COMPANY.  THE LATTER COMPANY
WAS THE SELLER AND THE TRANSACTION OCCURRED IN MINNESOTA.  IN 1930
COLLINS SOLD 100 SHARES, SUSTAINING A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS OF $41,600.80,
WHICH WAS CLAIMED ON HIS RETURN FOR THAT YEAR AND ALLOWED.  IN 1931 HE
SOLD ANOTHER 100 SHARES, SUSTAINING A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS OF $28,163.78,
WHICH WAS CLAIMED IN HIS RETURN AND ALLOWED.  THE REMAINING 100 SHARES
HE RETAINED.  HE REGARDED THE PURCHASES AND SALES AS CLOSED AND
COMPLETED TRANSACTIONS. 

IN 1936 COLLINS LEARNED THAT THE STOCK HAD NOT BEEN REGISTERED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINNESOTA BLUE SKY LAWS AND LEARNED OF FACTS
INDICATING THAT HE HAD BEEN INDUCED TO PURCHASE BY FRAUDULENT
REPRESENTATIONS.  HE FILED SUIT AGAINST THE SELLER ALLEGING FRAUD AND
FAILURE TO REGISTER.  HE ASKED RESCISSION OF THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION AND
OFFERED TO RETURN THE PROCEEDS OF THE STOCK, OR AN EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF
SHARES PLUS SUCH INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS AS HE HAD RECEIVED.  IN 1939
THE SUIT WAS SETTLED, ON A BASIS WHICH GAVE HIM A NET RECOVERY OF
$45,150.63, OF WHICH $23,296.45 WAS ALLOCABLE TO THE STOCK SOLD IN 1930
AND $6,454.18 ALLOCABLE TO THAT SOLD IN 1931.  IN HIS RETURN FOR 1939
HE DID NOT REPORT AS INCOME ANY PART OF THE RECOVERY.  THROUGHOUT THAT
YEAR ADJUSTMENT OF HIS 1930 AND 1931 TAX LIABILITY WAS BARRED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

THE COMMISSIONER ADJUSTED COLLINS' 1939 GROSS INCOME BY ADDING AS
ORDINARY GAIN THE RECOVERY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SHARES SOLD, BUT NOT
THAT PORTION OF IT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SHARES UNSOLD.  THE RECOVERY
UPON THE SHARES SOLD WAS NOT, HOWEVER, SUFFICIENT TO MAKE GOOD THE
TAXPAYER'S ORIGINAL INVESTMENT IN THEM.  AND IF THE AMOUNTS RECOVERED
HAD BEEN ADDED TO THE PROCEEDS RECEIVED IN 1930 AND 1931 THEY WOULD NOT
HAVE ALTERED COLLINS' INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR THOSE YEARS, FOR EVEN IF
THE ENTIRE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF THESE LOSSES HAD BEEN
DISALLOWED, THE RETURNS WOULD STILL HAVE SHOWN NET LOSSES. 

COLLINS SOUGHT A REDETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, NOW THE
TAX COURT.  HE CONTENDED THAT THE RECOVERY OF 1939 WAS IN THE NATURE OF
A RETURN OF CAPITAL FROM WHICH HE REALIZED NO GAIN AND NO INCOME EITHER
ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY, AND THAT HE HAD RECEIVED NO TAX BENEFIT
FROM THE LOSS DEDUCTIONS.  IN THE ALTERNATIVE HE ARGUED THAT IF THE
RECOVERY COULD BE CALLED INCOME AT ALL IT WAS TAXABLE AS CAPITAL GAIN. 
THE COMMISSIONER INSISTED THAT THE ENTIRE RECOVERY WAS TAXABLE AS
ORDINARY GAIN AND THAT IT WAS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE TAXPAYER HAD
OBTAINED ANY TAX BENEFITS FROM THE LOSS DEDUCTION REPORTED IN PRIOR
YEARS.  THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED THE TAXPAYER'S CONTENTION THAT HE HAD
REALIZED NO TAXABLE GAIN FROM THE RECOVERY.  FN1 

THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE "TAX BENEFIT THEORY" APPLIED
BY THE TAX COURT "SEEMS TO BE AN INJECTION INTO THE LAW OF AN EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLE, FOUND NEITHER IN THE STATUTES NOR IN THE REGULATIONS." 
BECAUSE THE TAX COURT'S REASONING WAS NOT EMBODIED IN ANY STATUTORY
PRECEPT, THE COURT HELD THAT THE TAX COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO RESORT
TO IT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE RECOVERY SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME
OR RETURN OF CAPITAL.  IT HELD AS MATTER OF LAW THAT THE RECOVERIES
WERE NEITHER RETURN OF CAPITAL NOR CAPITAL GAIN, BUT WERE ORDINARY
INCOME IN THE YEAR RECEIVED.  FN2  QUESTIONS IMPORTANT TO TAX
ADMINISTRATION WERE INVOLVED, CONFLICT WAS SAID TO EXIST, AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN3 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS PROPERLY
INTERPRETED FORBID THE METHOD OF CALCULATION FOLLOWED BY THE TAX
COURT.  IF THIS WERE TRUE, THE TAX COURT'S DECISION WOULD NOT BE "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW" AND THE COURT WOULD BE EMPOWERED TO MODIFY OR
REVERSE IT. FN4 WHETHER IT IS TRUE IS A CLEAR-CUT QUESTION OF LAW AND
IS FOR DECISION BY THE COURTS. 

THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT THE TAX COURT'S DECISION "EVADED OR
IGNORED" THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION, THE PROVISION OF THE REGULATIONS
THAT "EXPENSES, LIABILITIES, OR DEFICIT OF ONE YEAR CANNOT BE USED TO
REDUCE THE INCOME OF A SUBSEQUENT YEAR,"  FN5  AND THE PRINCIPLE THAT
RECOGNITION OF A CAPITAL LOSS PRESUPPOSES SOME EVENT OF "REALIZATION"
WHICH CLOSES THE TRANSACTION FOR GOOD.  WE DO NOT AGREE.  THE TAX COURT
HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO REVISE LIABILITY FOR EARLIER YEARS CLOSED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATION, NOR USED ANY EXPENSE, LIABILITY, OR DEFICIT OF A
PRIOR YEAR TO REDUCE THE INCOME OF A SUBSEQUENT YEAR.  IT WENT TO PRIOR
YEARS ONLY TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE RECOVERY, WHETHER RETURN OF
CAPITAL OR INCOME.  NOR HAS THE TAX COURT REOPENED ANY CLOSED
TRANSACTION; IT WAS COMPELLED TO DETERMINE THE VERY QUESTION WHETHER
SUCH A RECOGNITION OF LOSS HAD IN FACT TAKEN PLACE IN THE PRIOR YEAR AS
WOULD NECESSITATE CALLING THE RECOVERY IN THE TAXABLE YEAR INCOME
RATHER THAN RETURN OF CAPITAL. 

THE 1928 ACT PROVIDES THAT "THE BOARD IN REDETERMINING A DEFICIENCY
IN RESPECT OF ANY TAXABLE YEAR SHALL CONSIDER SUCH FACTS WITH RELATION
TO THE TAXES FOR OTHER TAXABLE YEARS AS MAY BE NECESSARY CORRECTLY TO
REDETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEFICIENCY.  ..."  FN6  THE TAX COURT'S
INQUIRY AS TO PAST YEARS WAS AUTHORIZED IF "NECESSARY CORRECTLY TO
REDETERMINE" THE DEFICIENCY.  THE TAX COURT THOUGHT IN THIS CASE THAT
IT WAS NECESSARY; THE COURT OF APPEALS APPARENTLY THOUGHT IT WAS NOT. 
THIS PRECIPITATES A QUESTION NOT RAISED BY EITHER COUNSEL AS TO WHETHER
THE COURT IS EMPOWERED TO REVISE THE TAX COURT'S DECISION AS "NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW" BECAUSE OF SUCH A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 

WITH THE 1926 REVENUE ACT, CONGRESS PROMULGATED, AND AT ALL TIMES
SINCE HAS MAINTAINED, A LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF COURTS TO REVIEW
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (NOW THE TAX COURT) DETERMINATIONS.  "...  SUCH
COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO AFFIRM OR, IF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS
NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, TO MODIFY OR TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE
BOARD  ..."  FN7  HOWEVER, EVEN A CASUAL SURVEY OF DECISIONS IN TAX
CASES, NOW OVER 5,000 IN NUMBER, WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT COURTS,
INCLUDING THIS COURT, HAVE NOT PAID THE SCRUPULOUS DEFERENCE TO THE TAX
LAWS' ADMONITIONS OF FINALITY WHICH THEY HAVE TO SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN
STATUTES RELATING TO OTHER TRIBUNALS.  FN8 AFTER THIRTY YEARS OF INCOME
TAX HISTORY THE VOLUME OF TAX LITIGATION NECESSARY MERELY FOR STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION WOULD SEEM DUE TO SUBSIDE.  THAT IT SHOWS NO SIGN OF
DIMINUTION SUGGESTS THAT MANY DECISIONS HAVE NO VALUE AS PRECEDENTS
BECAUSE THEY DETERMINE ONLY FACT QUESTIONS PECULIAR TO PARTICULAR
CASES.  OF COURSE FREQUENT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE CAUSES CONTINUING
UNCERTAINTY AND LITIGATION, BUT ALL TOO OFTEN AMENDMENTS ARE THEMSELVES
MADE NECESSARY BY COURT DECISIONS.  INCREASE OF POTENTIAL TAX
LITIGATION DUE TO MORE TAXPAYERS AND HIGHER RATES LENDS NEW IMPORTANCE
TO OBSERVANCE OF STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW OF TAX DECISIONS.  NO
OTHER BRANCH OF THE LAW TOUCHES HUMAN ACTIVITIES AT SO MANY POINTS.  IT
CAN NEVER BE MADE SIMPLE, BUT WE CAN TRY TO AVOID MAKING IT NEEDLESSLY
COMPLEX. 

IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN SHARP SEPARATION OF COURT AND
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS IN TAX THAN IN OTHER FIELDS.  ONE REASON IS
THAT TAX CASES REACH CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES
AND DO NOT ALWAYS CALL FOR OBSERVANCE OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE SPHERE OF
DECISION.  QUESTIONS WHICH THE TAX COURT CONSIDERS AT THE INSTANCE OF
ONE TAXPAYER MAY BE CONSIDERED BY MANY DISTRICT COURTS AT THE INSTANCE
OF OTHERS. 

THE TUCKER ACT AUTHORIZES DISTRICT COURTS, SITTING WITHOUT JURY AS
COURTS OF CLAIMS, TO HEAR SUITS FOR RECOVERY OF TAXES ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN "ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED."  FN9  DISTRICT
COURTS ALSO ENTERTAIN COMMON LAW ACTIONS AGAINST COLLECTORS TO RECOVER
TAXES ERRONEOUSLY DEMANDED AND PAID UNDER PROTEST.  TRIAL MAY BE BY
JURY, BUT WAIVER OF JURY IS AUTHORIZED  FN10  AND IN TAX CASES JURY
FREQUENTLY IS WAIVED.  IN SUCH CASES THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT MAY BE
EITHER SPECIAL OR GENERAL.  THE SCOPE OF REVIEW ON APPEAL MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING, THE KIND OF FINDINGS, AND
WHETHER THE JURY WAS WAIVED UNDER A PARTICULAR STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION
OR INDEPENDENTLY OF IT.  FN11  THE MULTIPLICITY AND COMPLEXITY OF RULES
IS SUCH THAT OFTEN IT IS EASIER TO REVIEW THE WHOLE CASE ON THE MERITS
THAN TO DECIDE WHAT PART OF IT IS REVIEWABLE AND UNDER WHAT RULE.  THE
REPORTS CONTAIN MANY CASES IN WHICH THE QUESTION IS PASSED OVER WITHOUT
MENTION. 

ANOTHER REASON WHY COURTS HAVE DEFERRED LESS TO THE TAX COURT THAN TO
OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IS THE MANNER IN WHICH TAX COURT
FINALITY WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE LAW. 

THE COURTS HAVE RATHER STRICTLY OBSERVED LIMITATIONS ON THEIR
REVIEWING POWERS WHERE THE LIMITATION CAME INTO EXISTENCE
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THEIR DUTY TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN NEW
FIELDS OF REGULATION.  BUT THIS WAS NOT THE HISTORY OF THE TAX LAW. 
OUR MODERN INCOME TAX EXPERIENCE BEGAN WITH THE REVENUE ACT OF 1913. 
THE WORLD WAR SOON BROUGHT HIGH RATES.  THE LAW WAS AN INNOVATION, ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS WERE STILL BEING DEBATED, INTERPRETATION WAS
JUST BEGINNING, AND ADMINISTRATORS WERE INEXPERIENCED.  THE ACT
PROVIDED NO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATIONS.  IT DID NOT ALTER THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED UNDER THE
CIVIL WAR INCOME TAX BY WHICH AN AGGRIEVED TAXPAYER COULD PAY UNDER
PROTEST AND THEN SUE THE COLLECTOR TO TEST THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TAX. 
FN12  THE COURTS BY FORCE OF THIS SITUATION ENTERTAINED ALL MANNER OF
TAX QUESTIONS, AND PRECEDENTS RAPIDLY ESTABLISHED A PATTERN OF JUDICIAL
THOUGHT AND ACTION WHEREBY THE ASSESSMENTS OF INCOME TAX WERE REVIEWED
WITHOUT MUCH RESTRAINT OR LIMITATION.  ONLY AFTER THAT PRACTICE BECAME
ESTABLISHED DID ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW MAKE ITS APPEARANCE IN TAX
MATTERS. 

ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE TAXPAYER'S
CONTENTIONS EXISTED IN THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE FROM ABOUT 1918
BUT IT WAS SUBORDINATE TO THE COMMISSIONER.  FN13  IN 1923, THE
SITUATION WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY, WHO PROPOSED CREATION OF A BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, WITHIN
THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WHOSE DECISION WAS TO CONCLUDE GOVERNMENT AND
TAXPAYER ON THE QUESTION OF ASSESSMENT AND LEAVE THE TAXPAYER TO PAY
THE TAX AND THEN TEST ITS VALIDITY BY SUIT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR.  FN14
CONGRESS RESPONDED BY CREATING THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AS "AN
INDEPENDENT AGENCY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT."  FN15
THE BOARD WAS TO GIVE HEARINGS AND NOTICE THEREOF AND "MAKE A REPORT IN
WRITING OF ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN EACH CASE."  FN16  BUT
CONGRESS DEALT CAUTIOUSLY WITH FINALITY FOR THE BOARD'S CONCLUSIONS,
GOING ONLY SO FAR AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN LATER PROCEEDINGS THE FINDINGS
SHOULD BE "PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS THEREIN STATED."  FN17  SO
THE BOARD'S DECISIONS FIRST CAME BEFORE THE COURTS UNDER A STATUTE
WHICH LEFT THEM FREE TO GO INTO BOTH FACT AND LAW QUESTIONS.  TWO YEARS
LATER CONGRESS REVIEWED AND COMMENDED THE WORK OF THE NEW BOARD,  FN18
INCREASED SALARIES AND LENGTHENED THE TENURE OF ITS MEMBERS,  FN19
PROVIDED FOR A DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE BOARD'S DECISIONS TO THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS OR THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
FN20  AND ENACTED THE PRESENT PROVISION LIMITING REVIEW TO QUESTIONS OF
LAW.  FN21 

BUT THIS RESTRICTION UPON JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DECISIONS
CAME ONLY AFTER THIRTEEN YEARS OF INCOME TAX EXPERIENCE HAD ESTABLISHED
A CONTRARY HABIT.  PRECEDENTS HAD ACCUMULATED IN WHICH COURTS HAD LAID
DOWN MANY RULES OF TAXATION NOT BASED ON STATUTE BUT UPON THEIR IDEAS
OF RIGHT ACCOUNTING OR TAX PRACTICE.  IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SHIFT TO A
NEW BASIS.  THIS COURT APPLIED THE LIMITATION, BUT WITH LESS EMPHASIS
AND LESS FORCEFUL RESOLUTION OF BORDERLINE CASES IN FAVOR OF
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY THAN IT HAS EMPLOYED IN REFERENCE TO OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS.  FN22 

THAT NEGLECT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INSTRUCTION IS A FORTUITOUS
CONSEQUENCE OF THIS EVOLUTION OF THE TAX COURT RATHER THAN A DELIBERATE
OR PURPOSEFUL JUDICIAL POLICY IS THE MORE EVIDENT WHEN WE CONSIDER THAT
EVERY REASON EVER ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY
APPLIES TO THE TAX COURT.    THE COURT IS INDEPENDENT, AND ITS
NEUTRALITY IS NOT CLOUDED BY PROSECUTING DUTIES.  ITS PROCEDURES ASSURE
FAIR HEARINGS.  ITS DELIBERATIONS ARE EVIDENCED BY CAREFUL OPINIONS. 
ALL GUIDES TO JUDGMENT AVAILABLE TO JUDGES ARE HABITUALLY CONSULTED AND
RESPECTED.  IT HAS ESTABLISHED A TRADITION OF FREEDOM FROM BIAS AND
PRESSURES.  FN23  IT DEALS WITH A SUBJECT THAT IS HIGHLY SPECIALIZED
AND SO COMPLEX AS TO BE THE DESPAIR OF JUDGES.  IT IS RELATIVELY BETTER
STAFFED FOR ITS TASK THAN IS THE JUDICIARY.  FN24  ITS MEMBERS NOT
INFREQUENTLY BRING TO THEIR TASK LONG LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPERIENCE IN THEIR SUBJECT.  THE VOLUME OF TAX MATTERS FLOWING THROUGH
THE TAX COURT KEEPS ITS MEMBERS ABREAST OF CHANGING STATUTES,
REGULATIONS, AND BUREAU PRACTICES, INFORMED AS TO THE BACKGROUND OF
CONTROVERSIES AND AWARE OF THE IMPACT OF THEIR DECISIONS ON BOTH
TREASURY AND TAXPAYER.  INDIVIDUAL CASES ARE DISPOSED OF WHOLLY ON
RECORDS PUBLICLY MADE, IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS, AND THE COURT HAS NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PREVIOUS HANDLING.  TESTED BY EVERY THEORETICAL AND
PRACTICAL REASON FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY, NO ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISIONS ARE ENTITLED TO HIGHER CREDIT IN THE COURTS.  CONSIDERATION
OF UNIFORM AND EXPEDITIOUS TAX ADMINISTRATIONS REQUIRE THAT THEY BE
GIVEN ALL CREDIT TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED UNDER THE LAW. 

TAX COURT DECISIONS ARE CHARACTERIZED BY SUBSTANTIAL UNIFORMITY. 
APPEALS FAN OUT INTO COURTS OF APPEAL OF TEN CIRCUITS AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.  THIS DIVERSIFICATION OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY INEVITABLY
PRODUCES CONFLICT OF DECISION, EVEN IF REVIEW IS LIMITED TO QUESTIONS
OF LAW.  BUT CONFLICTS ARE MULTIPLIED BY TREATING AS QUESTIONS OF LAW
WHAT REALLY ARE DISPUTES OVER PROPER ACCOUNTING.  THE MERE NUMBER OF
SUCH QUESTIONS AND THE MASS OF DECISIONS THEY CALL FORTH BECOME A
MENACE TO THE CERTAINTY AND GOOD ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.  FN25 

TO ACHIEVE UNIFORMITY BY RESOLVING SUCH CONFLICTS IN THE SUPREME
COURT IS AT BEST SLOW, EXPENSIVE, AND UNSATISFACTORY.  STUDENTS OF
FEDERAL TAXATION AGREE THAT THE TAX SYSTEM SUFFERS FROM DELAY IN
GETTING THE FINAL WORD IN JUDICIAL REVIEW, FROM RETROACTIVITY OF THE
DECISION WHEN IT IS OBTAINED, AND FROM THE LACK OF A ROUNDLY TAX
INFORMED VIEWPOINT OF JUDGES.  FN26 

PERHAPS THE CHIEF DIFFICULTY IN CONSISTENT AND UNIFORM COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL LIMITATION UPON COURT REVIEW LIES IN THE WANT OF
A CERTAIN STANDARD FOR DISTINGUISHING "QUESTIONS OF LAW" FROM
"QUESTIONS OF FACT."  THIS IS THE TEST CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED, BUT ITS
DIFFICULTIES IN PRACTICE ARE WELL KNOWN AND HAVE BEEN SUBJECT OF
FREQUENT COMMENT.  ITS DIFFICULTY IS REFLECTED IN OUR LABELING SOME
QUESTIONS AS "MIXED QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT"  FN27  AND IN A GREAT
NUMBER OF OPINIONS DISTINGUISHING "ULTIMATE FACTS" FROM EVIDENTIARY
FACTS.  FN28 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO LAY DOWN RULES AS TO WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE
REVIEWED IN TAX CASES EXCEPT IN TERMS SO GENERAL THAT THEIR
EFFECTIVENESS IN A PARTICULAR CASE WILL DEPEND LARGELY UPON THE
ATTITUDE WITH WHICH THE CASE IS APPROACHED.  HOWEVER, ALL THAT WE HAVE
SAID OF THE FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IN OTHER FIELDS IS
APPLICABLE TO DETERMINATIONS OF THE TAX COURT.  ITS DECISION, OF
COURSE, MUST HAVE "WARRANT IN THE RECORD" AND A REASONABLE BASIS IN THE
LAW.  BUT "THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IS EXHAUSTED WHEN THERE IS FOUND TO BE
A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSIONS APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE
BODY."  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 146;
SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 304; MISSISSIPPI
VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 282, 286-7; GRAY V.
POWELL, 314 U.S. 402, 412; HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 336;
UNITED STATES V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 235 U.S. 314, 320;
WILMINGTON TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 316 U.S. 164, 168. 

CONGRESS HAS INVESTED THE TAX COURT WITH PRIMARY AUTHORITY FOR
REDETERMINING DEFICIENCIES, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE GREATER PART OF TAX
LITIGATION.  THIS REQUIRES IT TO CONSIDER BOTH LAW AND FACTS.  WHATEVER
LATITUDE EXISTS IN RESOLVING QUESTIONS SUCH AS THOSE OF PROPER
ACCOUNTING, TREATING A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS AS ONE FOR TAX PURPOSES,
OR TREATING APPARENTLY SEPARATE ONES AS SINGLE IN THEIR TAX
CONSEQUENCES, EXISTS IN THE TAX COURT AND NOT IN THE REGULAR COURTS;
WHEN THE COURT CANNOT SEPARATE THE ELEMENTS OF A DECISION SO AS TO
IDENTIFY A CLEAR-CUT MISTAKE OF LAW, THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT MUST
STAND.  IN VIEW OF THE DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE TAX COURT AND
REVIEWING COURTS IT IS OF COURSE THE DUTY OF THE TAX COURT TO
DISTINGUISH WITH CLARITY BETWEEN WHAT IT FINDS AS FACT AND WHAT
CONCLUSION IT REACHES ON THE LAW.  IN DECIDING LAW QUESTIONS COURTS MAY
PROPERLY ATTACH WEIGHT TO THE DECISION OF POINTS OF LAW BY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY HAVING SPECIAL COMPETENCE TO DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT
MATTER.  THE TAX COURT IS INFORMED BY EXPERIENCE AND KEPT CURRENT WITH
TAX EVOLUTION AND NEEDS BY THE VOLUME AND VARIETY OF ITS WORK.  WHILE
ITS DECISIONS MAY NOT BE BINDING PRECEDENTS FOR COURTS DEALING WITH
SIMILAR PROBLEMS, UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE PROMOTED BY
CONFORMING TO THEM WHERE POSSIBLE. 

THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT "THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE TURNS
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT THE SINGLE YEAR IS THE
UNIT OF TAXATION."  BUT THE TAX COURT WAS AWARE OF THIS PRINCIPLE AND
IN NO WAY DENIED IT.  WHETHER AN APPARENTLY INTEGRATED TRANSACTION
SHALL BE BROKEN UP INTO SEVERAL SEPARATE STEPS AND WHETHER WHAT
APPARENTLY ARE SEVERAL STEPS SHALL BE SYNTHESIZED INTO ONE WHOLE
TRANSACTION IS FREQUENTLY A NECESSARY DETERMINATION IN DECIDING TAX
CONSEQUENCES.  FN29  WHERE NO STATUTE OR REGULATION CONTROLS, THE TAX
COURT'S SELECTION OF THE COURSE TO FOLLOW IS NO MORE REVIEWABLE THAN
ANY OTHER QUESTION OF FACT.  OF COURSE WE ARE NOT HERE CONSIDERING THE
SCOPE OF REVIEW WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE INVOLVED.  THE TAX
COURT ANALYZED THE BASIS OF THE LITIGATION WHICH PRODUCED THE RECOVERY
IN THIS CASE AND THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT "REGARDING THE SERIES OF
TRANSACTIONS AS A WHOLE IT IS APPARENT THAT NO GAIN WAS ACTUALLY
REALIZED."  IT FOUND THAT THE TAXPAYER HAD REALIZED NO TAX BENEFITS
FROM REPORTING THE TRANSACTION IN SEPARATE YEARS.  IT SAID THE QUESTION
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS WHETHER THE AMOUNT THE TAXPAYER RECOVERED
IN 1939 "CONSTITUTES TAXABLE INCOME, EVEN THOUGH HE REALIZED NO
ECONOMIC GAIN."  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE ITEM SHOULD BE TREATED AS A
RETURN OF CAPITAL RATHER THAN AS TAXABLE INCOME.  THERE IS NO STATUTE
LAW TO THE CONTRARY, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS IN EFFECT AT THE
TIME TENDED TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION.  FN30  IT IS TRUE THAT THE BOARD
IN A WELL CONSIDERED OPINION REVIEWED A NUMBER OF COURT HOLDINGS, BUT
IT DID SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THEY DID NOT FETTER ITS
FREEDOM TO REACH THE DECISION IT THOUGHT SOUND.  WITH THIS WE AGREE. 

VIEWING THE PROBLEM FROM A DIFFERENT ASPECT, THE GOVERNMENT URGES IN
THIS COURT THAT ALTHOUGH THE RECOVERY IS CAPITAL RETURN, IT IS TAXABLE
IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE TAXPAYER'S BASIS FOR THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION
IS ZERO.  THE ARGUMENT RELIES UPON SEC. 113(B)(1)(A) OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR ADJUSTING THE BASIS OF PROPERTY FOR
"EXPENDITURES, RECEIPTS, LOSSES, OR OTHER ITEMS, PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO
CAPITAL ACCOUNT."  THIS PROVISION, IT IS SAID, REQUIRES THAT THE RIGHT
TO A DEDUCTION FOR A CAPITAL LOSS BE TREATED AS A RETURN OF CAPITAL. 
CONSEQUENTLY, BY DEDUCTING IN 1930 AND 1931 THE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE COST OF HIS STOCK AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALES, TAXPAYER
REDUCED HIS BASIS TO ZERO.  BUT THE STATUTE CONTAINS NO SUCH FIXED RULE
AS THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE US READ INTO IT.  IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OR MANNER IN WHICH ADJUSTMENTS OF THE BASIS ARE TO BE
MADE, BUT MERELY PROVIDES THAT "PROPER ADJUSTMENT  ...  SHALL IN ALL
CASES BE MADE" FOR THE ITEMS NAMED IF "PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL
ACCOUNT."  WHAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WAS A PROPER
ADJUSTMENT OF THE BASIS WAS THUS PURELY AN ACCOUNTING PROBLEM AND
THEREFORE A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE TAX COURT TO DETERMINE.  EVIDENTLY
THE TAX COURT THOUGHT THAT THE PREVIOUS DEDUCTIONS WERE NOT ALTOGETHER
"PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT" AND THAT TO TREAT THEM AS AN
ENTIRE RECOUPMENT OF THE VALUE OF TAXPAYER'S STOCK WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
A "PROPER ADJUSTMENT."  WE THINK THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION. 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIES UPON BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS CO., 282 U.S.
359, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT LOSSES OF ONE YEAR MAY NOT OFFSET
RECEIPTS OF ANOTHER YEAR.  BUT THE CASE SUGGESTED ITS OWN DISTINCTION:
"WHILE (THE MONEY RECEIVED) EQUALLED, AND IN A LOOSE SENSE WAS A RETURN
OF, EXPENDITURES MADE IN PERFORMING THE CONTRACT, STILL, AS THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS FOUND, THE EXPENDITURES WERE MADE IN DEFRAYING THE
EXPENSES.  ...  THEY WERE NOT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, THE COST OF WHICH,
IF CONVERTED, MUST FIRST BE RESTORED FROM THE PROCEEDS BEFORE THERE IS
A CAPITAL GAIN TAXABLE AS INCOME."  282 U.S. AT 363-64.  IT IS ALSO
WORTH NOTING THAT THE COURT AFFIRMED THE BOARD'S DECISION, WHICH HAD
BEEN UPSET BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND ANSWERED, IN PART, THE
CONTENTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT THAT CERTAIN REGULATIONS WERE
APPLICABLE BY SAYING,  "...  NOR ON THIS RECORD DO ANY FACTS APPEAR
TENDING TO SUPPORT THE BURDEN, RESTING ON THE TAXPAYER, OF ESTABLISHING
THAT THE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THEM."  282 U.S. AT 366
67. 

IT IS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE COURT SHOULD
OVERRULE THE BOARD BY APPLYING TO THIS QUESTION RULES OF LAW LAID DOWN
IN DECISIONS ON THE ANALOGOUS PROBLEM RAISED BY RECOVERY OF BAD DEBTS
CHARGED OFF WITHOUT TAX BENEFIT IN PRIOR YEARS.  THE COURT BELOW
ACCEPTED THE ARGUMENT.  HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF AFFORDING A REASON FOR
OVERRULING THE TAX COURT, THE HISTORY OF THE BAD DEBT RECOVERY QUESTION
ILLUSTRATES THE MISCHIEF OF OVERRULING THE TAX COURT IN MATTERS OF TAX
ACCOUNTING.  COURTS WERE PERSUADED TO RULE AS MATTER OF LAW THAT BAD
DEBT RECOVERIES CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME, REGARDLESS OF TAX BENEFIT
FROM THE CHARGE-OFF.  FN31  THE TAX COURT HAD FIRST MADE A SIMILAR
HOLDING,  FN32  BUT HAD COME TO HOLD TO THE CONTRARY.  FN33
SUBSTITUTION OF THE COURTS' RULE FOR THAT OF THE TAX COURT LED TO SUCH
HARDSHIPS AND INEQUITIES THAT THE TREASURY APPEALED TO CONGRESS TO
EXTEND RELIEF.  FN34  IT DID SO.  FN35  THE GOVERNMENT NOW ARGUES THAT
BY EXTENDING LEGISLATIVE RELIEF IN BAD DEBT CASES CONGRESS RECOGNIZED
THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC EXEMPTION RECOVERIES ARE TAXABLE AS
INCOME.  WE DO NOT FIND THAT SIGNIFICANCE IN THE AMENDMENT.  A SPECIFIC
STATUTORY EXCEPTION WAS NECESSARY IN BAD DEBT CASES ONLY BECAUSE THE
COURTS REVERSED THE TAX COURT AND ESTABLISHED AS MATTER OF LAW A
"THEORETICALLY PROPER" RULE WHICH DISTORTED THE TAXPAYER'S INCOME. 
CONGRESS WOULD HARDLY EXPECT THE COURTS TO REPEAT THE SAME ERROR IN
ANOTHER CLASS OF CASES, AS WE WOULD DO WERE WE TO AFFIRM IN THIS CASE. 
FN36 

THE GOVERNMENT ALSO SUGGESTED THAT "IF THE TAX BENEFIT RULE WERE
JUDICIALLY ADOPTED THE QUESTION WOULD THEN ARISE OF HOW IT SHOULD BE
DETERMINED," AND THE DIFFICULTIES OF DETERMINING TAX BENEFITS, IT SAYS,
CREATE "AN OBJECTION IN ITSELF TO AN ATTEMPT TO ADOPT SUCH A RULE BY
JUDICIAL ACTION."  WE ARE NOT ADOPTING ANY RULE OF TAX BENEFITS.  WE
ONLY HOLD THAT NO STATUTE OR REGULATION HAVING THE FORCE OF ONE AND NO
PRINCIPLE OF LAW COMPELS THE TAX COURT TO FIND TAXABLE INCOME IN A
TRANSACTION WHERE AS MATTER OF FACT IT FOUND NO ECONOMIC GAIN AND NO
USE OF THE TRANSACTION TO GAIN TAX BENEFIT.  THE ERROR OF THE COURT
BELOW CONSISTED OF TREATING AS A RULE OF LAW WHAT WE THINK IS ONLY A
QUESTION OF PROPER TAX ACCOUNTING. 

THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS OF THESE CASES.  IN TWO OF THEM
THE TAX COURT SUSTAINED DEFICIENCIES BECAUSE IT FOUND THAT THE
DEDUCTIONS IN PRIOR YEARS HAD OFFSET GROSS INCOME FOR THOSE YEARS AND
THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE RECOVERIES MUST TO THAT EXTENT BE TREATED
AS TAXABLE GAIN.  FN37  THE TAXPAYERS OBJECT THAT THIS CONCLUSION
DISREGARDS CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS AND CREDITS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
AVAILABLE TO OFFSET THE INCREASED GROSS INCOME IN THE PRIOR YEARS, SO
THAT THE DEDUCTIONS RESULTED IN NO TAX SAVINGS.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER
THE RECOVERIES WERE TAXABLE GAIN, HOWEVER, THE TAX COURT WAS FREE TO
DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHAT SIGNIFICANCE IT WOULD ATTACH TO THE PREVIOUS
REDUCTION OF TAXABLE INCOME AS CONTRASTED WITH REDUCTION OF TAX.  THE
STATUTE GIVES NO INKLING AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OR INCORRECTNESS OF THE
TAX COURT'S VIEW, AND WE CAN FIND NO COMPELLING REASON TO SUBSTITUTE
OUR JUDGMENT.  IN NO. 47 THE DECISION OF THE TAX COURT WAS UPHELD BY
THE COURT BELOW, AND IN THAT CASE THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  IN NOS.
44, 45, AND 46, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE TAX COURT, AND FOR
THE REASONS STATED ITS JUDGMENTS IN THOSE CASES ARE REVERSED.  NO. 47
AFFIRMED.  NOS. 44, 45, 46 REVERSED. 

FN1  ESTATE OF COLLINS V. COMMISSIONER, 46 B.T.A. 765. 

FN2  133 F.2D 732. 

FN3  319 U.S. 739. 

FN4  REVENUE ACT OF 1926 SEC. 1003(B), 44 STAT. 9, 110, NOW INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE SEC. 1141(C)(1). 

FN5  TREASURY REGULATIONS 103, SEC. 19.43-2. 

FN6  REVENUE ACT OF 1928 SEC. 272(G), 45 STAT. 854, NOW INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE SEC. 272(G). 

FN7  REVENUE ACT OF 1926 SEC. 1003(B), 44 STAT. 9, 110, NOW INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE SEC. 1141(C)(1). 

FN8  COMPARE HELVERING V. TEX-PENN OIL CO., 300 U.S. 481, AND
BOGARDUS V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 34, WITH ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125(FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION);
SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177(INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION); SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 399-400; GRAY
V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402(BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION); LABOR BOARD V.
WATERMAN S.S. CORP., 309 U.S. 206(NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD). 
FN9  28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20). 

FN10  28 U.S.C. SEC. 773; ACT OF MAY 29, 1930, C. 357, 46 STAT. 486. 

FN11  28 U.S.C. SEC. 875.  SEE CARLOSS, MONOGRAPH ON FINDINGS OF FACT
(SUPT.  OF DOCUMENTS, 1934) 4.  SOME 280 CASES ON THE REVIEW OF
FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONSIDERED. 

FN12  SEE CHEATHAM V. UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 85, 89. 

FN13  FOR AN ACCOUNT THEREOF, SEE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN
WILLIAMSPORT WIRE ROPE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 551, 562, N. 7. 

FN14  ANNUAL REPORT OF SECRETARY OF TREASURY, FINANCE 1(1923) 10;
HAMEL, PRACTICE AND EVIDENCE BEFORE THE U.S. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
(1938) 5. 

FN15 REVENUE ACT OF 1924 SEC. 900(K), 43 STAT. 253, 336. 

FN16  ID., SEC. 900(H). 

FN17  ID., SEC. 900(G). 

FN18  H.R. REP. NO. 1, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; SEN. REP. NO. 52, 69TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN19  REVENUE ACT OF 1926 SECS. 901(A), 900, 44 STAT. 9, 106, 105. 

FN20  ID., SEC. 1001(A), 44 STAT. 9, 109. 

FN21  ID., SEC. 1003(B), 44 STAT. 9, 110. 

FN22  E.G., HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131; HELVERING V. TEX
PENN OIL CO., 300 U.S. 481, 491; BOGARDUS V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 34,
38-39.  FOR A SAMPLE OF THE DIVERSE TREATMENT OF BOARD DECISIONS WHEN
REVIEWED BY THIS COURT, SEE ELMHURST CEMETERY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 300
U.S. 37; PALMER V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 63, 70; HELVERING V. NATIONAL
GROCERY CO., 304 U.S. 282, 294; COLORADO NATIONAL BANK V. COMMISSIONER,
305 U.S. 23; HELVERING V. LAZARUS & CO., 308 U.S. 252; GRIFFITHS V.
COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 355; HELVERING V. KEHOE, 309 U.S. 277; HIGGINS
V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 212; POWERS V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 259;
WILMINGTON TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 316 U.S. 164, 168; MERCHANTS
NATIONAL BANK V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 256.  COMPARE THE FOREGOING
WITH THE CASES CITED SUPRA NOTE 8. 

FN23  SEE REPORTS OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES ON THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926, CITED SUPRA NOTE 18. 

FN24  SEE MILLER, SUPPORTING PERSONNEL OF FEDERAL COURTS, 29 A.B.A.
JOURNAL 130, 131. 

FN25  "JUDGE-MADE LAW IS PARTICULARLY PROLIFIC IN CONNECTION WITH
FEDERAL TAXATION, COMING, AS IT DOES, FROM SO MANY COURTS OF COORDINATE
JURISDICTION.  AND THE CONSTANT OUTPOURING OF DECISIONS HAS STEADILY
INCREASED IN VOLUME.  FOR THE YEAR 1920 A LEADING TAX SERVICE
CATALOGUED ONLY 300 DECISIONS; CCH FEDERAL TAX SERVICE (1921).  ...
TODAY ONE MUST LOOK TO APPROXIMATELY 20,000 COURT AND BOARD DECISIONS,
MANY PAGES OF REGULATIONS, AND ABOUT 5,000 RULINGS.  SINCE 1924 THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ALONE HAS PUBLISHED ABOUT 8,500 OPINIONS, AS WELL
AS APPROXIMATELY 4,000 UNREPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINIONS.  FOR THE FISCAL
YEARS 1935, 1936 AND 1937, THE NUMBER OF BOARD DOCKETS APPEALED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL HAS AMOUNTED, ON THE AVERAGE, TO 509 EACH
YEAR.  THE SUPREME COURT'S BALANCE SHEET SHOWS THAT FEDERAL TAXATION
WAS THE PRINCIPAL CONCERN OF THAT COURT DURING THE 1934 TERM, WITH 44
DECISIONS BEING HANDED DOWN IN THAT FIELD.  DURING THE THREE YEARS,
1935, 1936, AND 1937, THE SUPREME COURT RENDERED DECISIONS IN 84
FEDERAL TAX CASES."  PAUL, SELECTED STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION (1938)
2, N. 2. 

"AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1936, 4,700 DECISIONS HAD BEEN APPEALED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL (OR THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA) OF WHICH 3,996 HAD BEEN DISPOSED OF.  THIS LEFT A PENDING
APPELLATE DOCKET OF 704."  ID., 140, N. 133. 

FN26  PAUL, SELECTED STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION (1938) 204, N. 18,
COMMENTS ON THE NUMBER AND VARIETY OF THE SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO TAX
LAW. 

SEE GRISWOLD, BOOK REVIEW, 56 HARV. L. REV. 1354. 

MAGILL, THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL TAXES (1943) 209, SAYS:  "AT THE
PRESENT TIME, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN A REALLY AUTHORITATIVE
DECISION OF GENERAL APPLICATION UPON IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF LAW FOR
MANY YEARS AFTER THE CLOSE OF ANY TAXABLE YEAR.  THE AVERAGE PERIOD
BETWEEN THE TAXABLE YEAR IN DISPUTE AND A SUPREME COURT DECISION
RELATING THERETO IS NINE YEARS.  MEANWHILE CONFUSION REIGNS IN THE DAY
BY-DAY SETTLEMENT OF THE MORE DEBATABLE QUESTIONS OF THE TAX LAW.  ONE
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDS THAT A CERTAIN SITUATION GIVES RISE TO TAX
LIABILITY; ANOTHER CIRCUIT HOLDS THE CONTRARY.  THE COMMISSIONER AND
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS ARE BOTH CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF
RECONCILING THE IRRECONCILABLE.  A GREAT PART OF THE CRITICISM OF
CHANGING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW ANNOUNCED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE IS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MULTITUDE OF TRIBUNALS
WITH ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN TAX CASES, AND TO THE ABSENCE OF
PROVISION FOR DECISIONS WITH NATIONWIDE AUTHORITY IN THE MAJORITY OF
CASES.  IF WE WERE SEEKING TO SECURE A STATE OF COMPLETE UNCERTAINTY IN
TAX JURISPRUDENCE, WE COULD HARDLY DO BETTER THAN TO PROVIDE FOR 87
COURTS WITH ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, 11 APPELLATE BODIES OF COORDINATE
RANK, AND ONLY A DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF RELATIVELY FEW CASES BY THE
SUPREME COURT." 

FN27  E.G., HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131; HELVERING V. TEX
PENN OIL CO., 300 U.S. 481, 491; BOGARDUS V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 34,
39. 

FN28  E.G., ANDERSON V. COMMISSIONER, 78 F.2D 636; CHILDERS V.
COMMISSIONER, 80 F.2D 27; EATON V. COMMISSIONER, 81 F.2D 332; RANKIN V.
COMMISSIONER, 84 F.2D 551. 

FN29  SEE PAUL, "STEP TRANSACTIONS," SELECTED STUDIES IN FEDERAL
TAXATION (1938) 203. 

FN30  GENERAL COUNSEL'S MEMORANDUM 20854, 1939-1 CUM. BULL.  102,
FOLLOWING G.C.M. 18525, 1937-1 CUM. BULL.  80; REVOKED BY G.C.M. 22163,
1940-2 CUM. BULL.  76.  THIS DEALT WITH BAD DEBT RECOVERIES. 

FN31  COMMISSIONER V. UNITED STATES & INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES CORP.,
130 F.2D 894; HELVERING V. STATE-PLANTERS BANK & TRUST CO., 130 F.2D
44. 

FN32  LAKE VIEW TRUST & SAVINGS BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 27 B.T.A. 290. 

FN33  CENTRAL LOAN & INVESTMENT CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 39 B.T.A. 981;
CITIZENS STATE BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 46 B.T.A. 964. 

FN34  MR. RANDOLPH PAUL, TAX ADVISER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY, IN A STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS SAID:
"THE SECRETARY HAS POINTED OUT THAT WARTIME RATES MAKE IT IMPERATIVE
TO ELIMINATE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE EXISTING INEQUITIES WHICH DISTORT THE
TAX BURDEN OF CERTAIN TAXPAYERS.  I SHOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE
INEQUITIES WHICH THE SECRETARY MENTIONED, AS WELL AS A FEW ADDITIONAL
HARDSHIPS.  ... 

"(C)  RECOVERIES OF BAD DEBTS AND TAXES.  - IF A TAXPAYER WHO HAS
TAKEN A BAD DEBT DEDUCTION LATER RECEIVES PAYMENT OF SUCH DEBT, SUCH
PAYMENT MUST BE INCLUDED IN HIS INCOME EVEN THOUGH HE OBTAINED NO TAX
BENEFIT FROM THE DEDUCTION IN THE PRIOR YEAR.  WHILE THIS RESULT IS
THEORETICALLY PROPER UNDER OUR ANNUAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION, IT MAY
PRODUCE SEVERE HARDSHIPS IN CERTAIN CASES THROUGH A DISTORTION OF THE
TAXPAYER'S REAL INCOME.  AT THE SAME TIME, ANY DEPARTURE FROM OUR
ANNUAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION ALWAYS PRODUCES ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES
WHICH SERVE TO IMPEDE THE COLLECTION OF TAXES. 

"IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE HARDSHIPS CAN BE REMOVED AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES KEPT TO A MINIMUM BY EXCLUDING FROM INCOME
AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN PAYMENT OF THE DEBT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEBT IN THE PRIOR YEAR DID NOT PRODUCE A
TAX BENEFIT.  THE TROUBLESOME QUESTION WHETHER A BENEFIT RESULTED
SHOULD BE DETERMINED PURSUANT TO REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY.  IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED
THAT THIS TREATMENT BE EXTENDED TO REFUNDS OF TAXES PREVIOUSLY
DEDUCTED."  HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON REVENUE
REVISION OF 1942, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., VOL. I, 80, 87-88. 

FN35  REVENUE ACT OF 1942 SEC. 116, 56 STAT. 798, 812. 

FN36  THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A RECOVERY IS PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR AS
INCOME IN THE YEAR RECEIVED OR SHOULD BE RELATED TO A PREVIOUS REPORTED
DEDUCTION WITHOUT TAX BENEFIT IS ONE WITH A LONG HISTORY AND MUCH
CONFLICT.  IT ARISES NOT ONLY IN CASE OF RECOVERIES OF PREVIOUSLY
CHARGEDOFF BAD DEBTS AND RECOVERIES OF THE TYPE WE HAVE HERE.  IT IS
ALSO PRESENT IN CASE OF REFUND OF TAXES OR CANCELLATION OF EXPENSES OR
INTEREST PREVIOUSLY REPORTED AS ACCRUED, ADJUSTMENTS OF DEPRECIATION
AND DEPLETION OR AMORTIZATION, AND OTHER SIMILAR SITUATIONS. 

FN37  DOBSON V. COMMISSIONER, 46 B.T.A. 770. 
..END :



















COLGATE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 422 


NOS. 38 AND 39.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 13, 1943. 
- 130 F.2D 913, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 602 1/2 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 UPON
THE "FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING" OF DESIGNATED OILS APPLIES TO THE FIRST
DOMESTIC PROCESSING AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH
THERE WAS DOMESTIC PROCESSING PRIOR TO THAT DATE.  P. 424. 

2.  THE 1936 AMENDMENT OF SEC. 602 1/2 DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT
RESULT.  P. 427. 

3.  THIS CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 602 1/2 IS IN ACCORD WITH ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ITS GENERAL PURPOSE TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF
DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCERS.  P. 429. 

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 778, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS, 37
F.SUPP.  794, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINTS IN TWO SUITS FOR THE RECOVERY
OF TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE TWO WRITS OF CERTIORARI WERE GRANTED TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT DENYING RECOVERY TO
THE PETITIONER OF TAXES PAID TO THE UNITED STATES AGGREGATING
$2,532,643.16.  THE ISSUES IN THE TWO CASES ARE IDENTICAL.  EACH CASE
COVERS A SEPARATE PERIOD OF TIME. 

THE SUITS WERE BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 24(20).  RECOVERY WAS THERE ALSO DENIED.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF DECISIONS.  319 U.S. 778. 
SEE HARRISON V. DURKEE FAMOUS FOODS, 136 F.2D 303; LOOSE-WILES BISCUIT
CO. V. RASQUIN, 95 F.2D 438; TASTY BAKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 38
F.SUPP 844; CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, 22 F.SUPP.  141. 

THE ISSUE IS NARROW AND MAY BE SIMPLY STATED.  IN THE REVENUE ACT OF
1934, SEC. 602 1/2, 48 STAT. 763, AN EXCISE TAX WAS LEVIED ON THE
"FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING" OF CERTAIN FOREIGN OILS - COCONUT, SESAME,
PALM, ET CETERA.  FN1  WHEN THE ACT WAS APPROVED ON MAY 10, 1934, THIS
PETITIONER HAD ON HAND LARGE QUANTITIES OF THESE OILS WHICH HAD GONE
THROUGH ONE OR MORE DOMESTIC PROCESSINGS.  AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE,
ALL OF THIS OIL WAS SUBJECTED TO FURTHER PROCESSING UPON WHICH
PETITIONER PAID A TAX, RECOVERY OF WHICH IS HERE SOUGHT.  THE TAXPAYER
URGES THAT THE TAXABLE EVENT FIXED BY THE STATUTE IS THE FIRST DOMESTIC
PROCESSING, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHEN IT OCCURS.  THE PHRASE IS DEFINED BY
THE STATUTE AS "THE FIRST USE IN THE UNITED STATES  ...  OF THE
ARTICLE" TAXED.  SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT IS MAY 10, 1934,
THE TAXPAYER CONCLUDES THAT IF THE FIRST USE IN THIS COUNTRY OCCURS
AFTER THAT DATE, IT IS A TAXABLE EVENT, AND IF IT OCCURS BEFORE MAY 10,
1934, IT IS NOT A TAXABLE EVENT.  THE GOVERNMENT READS THE ACT
DIFFERENTLY.  TO IT, THE ACT IMPOSES A TAX ON THE FIRST DOMESTIC
PROCESSING AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, REGARDLESS OF THE PRIOR
DOMESTIC PROCESSING.  THE LITIGANTS AGREE THAT THE SECTION IS NOT
RETROACTIVE.  THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. 

THE SECTION IN QUESTION DOES NOT MAKE CLEAR WHETHER THE "FIRST
DOMESTIC PROCESSING" IS THE FIRST WHICH TAKES PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY OR
THE FIRST AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT.  THE DEFINITION IN SEC. 602 1/2
DOES NOT AID THE INTERPRETATION.  "FIRST USE" MAY BE FIRST AFTER
IMPORTATION OR FIRST AFTER THE ACT.  THE LIKELIHOOD THAT TAX STATUTES
LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND NOT THE PAST INDICATES THAT PROCESSINGS AFTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE WERE MEANT TO BE TAXED.  CF. HASSETT V. WELCH, 303;
SHWAB V. DOYLE, 258 U.S. 529.  THIS LIKELIHOOD DOES NOT DEPEND UPON ANY
TAXATION OF A PAST EVENT BUT UPON THE REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT
CONGRESS WOULD WISH TO TAX FUTURE PROCESSINGS.  THE INSERTION OF THE
QUALIFYING ADJECTIVE "FIRST" WAS PROBABLY DUE TO A DESIRE TO AVOID
ACCUMULATIVE TAXES ON SUCCESSIVE PROCESSINGS.  TREAS. REG. 48, ART. 1,
AS AMENDED BY T.D. 4695. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSES INTENDED TO BE
SERVED BY THE ACT WILL FURTHER AID IN THE RESOLUTION OF THIS DISPUTE. 
THIS TAX HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT TO BE A VALID EXERCISE OF THE
TAXING POWER.  CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 308,
312.  BUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CANNOT BE READ WITHOUT REACHING A
CONVICTION THAT THE ADVANTAGES WHICH WOULD RESULT TO AMERICAN VEGETABLE
OIL PRODUCERS FROM THE HEAVY TAX ON OILS NOT PRODUCED IN THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES PLAYED A LEADING PART IN PROMOTING THE
LEGISLATION.  FN2  ID., 320.  THE TAX YIELDED SUBSTANTIAL REVENUES,
WHICH WERE REMITTED TO THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT, SINCE THE PHILIPPINES
WERE THE SOURCE OF MANY OF THE PRODUCTS TAXED. 

A DESIRE FOR EQUALITY AMONG TAXPAYERS IS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO
CONGRESS, RATHER THAN THE REVERSE.  YET THE OMISSION BY CONGRESS OF A
TAX UPON THE FIRST PROCESSING WHICH FOLLOWED THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT
WOULD GIVE USERS OF THE OILS WHO HAD TREATED THEM PRIOR TO THE ACT A
DEFINITE ADVANTAGE OVER THEIR COMPETITORS WHO HAD NOT DONE SO.  THE
ADVANTAGE WOULD BE SLIGHT IF CONGRESS HAD SUPPOSED THE TAX WOULD
FINALLY BE BORNE BY THE CONSUMER RATHER THAN BY THE MANUFACTURER, BUT
HERE THE PURPOSE WAS TO RESTRICT THE DOMESTIC MARKET FOR IMPORTED OILS,
AND CONGRESS PROBABLY WOULD NOT INTEND THAT MANUFACTURERS SHOULD FIND A
MARKET FOR THE FOREIGN OIL AT A PRICE ENHANCED BY THE FULL AMOUNT OF
THE TAX.  AGAIN, IF PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS SOUND, THE CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE TO CREATE AN ADVANTAGE FOR DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCERS WOULD BE
FRUSTRATED TO THE EXTENT THAT TAXFREE FOREIGN OILS ON HAND COULD
CONTINUE TO COMPETE WITH THE DOMESTIC PRODUCT.  A MAJOR PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION WOULD BE TEMPORARILY DEFEATED IN PART BY FREEING FROM THE
TAX OIL WHICH HAD RECEIVED ONE DOMESTIC PROCESSING. 

THE TREASURY PROMPTLY INTERPRETED THE ACT TO APPLY TO ALL FIRST
PROCESSINGS AFTER ITS EFFECTIVE DATE.  TREAS. REG. 48, ART. 1(L),
AUGUST 17, 1934.  THIS ACTION OF THE TREASURY, WITH ITS WIDE EXPERIENCE
IN TAX MATTERS, HAS WEIGHT IN OUR CONCLUSION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROMPT CHALLENGE OF THE TAXPAYER AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED.  UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, 549. 

IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE "FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING" IS
THE FIRST AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT DISREGARD SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES VIGOROUSLY PRESSED UPON US BY PETITIONER WHICH GIVE COLOR
TO THE OPPOSITE INTERPRETATION.  THE TAXPAYER POINTS TO THE FACT THAT
THE PHRASE "FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING" WAS USED EARLIER IN SEC. 9(A) OF
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF MAY 12, 1933, 48 STAT. 31, 35, WHICH
LEVIED A SIMILAR PROCESSING TAX UPON THE FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING OF
THE BASIC AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES - WHEAT, COTTON, CORN, HOGS, RICE,
TOBACCO AND MILK - AND THAT, AT THE TIME THIS TAX WAS PLACED ON FOREIGN
OILS, A REGULATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE WAS IN
EFFECT WHICH INTERPRETED THE PHRASE AS BEING THE FIRST DOMESTIC
PROCESSING WHENEVER IT OCCURRED AND THEREFORE AS RELIEVING A PROCESSOR
OF THE TAX WHEN THE FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE A.A.A.  TREAS. REG. 81, AS AMENDED, T.D. 4403,
NOVEMBER 2, 1933. 

THE ANSWER TO THIS ARGUMENT ARISES FROM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO ACTS AS TO THE TAXATION OF FLOOR STOCKS.  UNDER THE A.A.A.
COMMODITIES WHICH HAD UNDERGONE THEIR FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING PRIOR
TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT BORE A CORRESPONDING FLOOR STOCK TAX.  48
STAT. 40, SEC. 16.  A SUBSEQUENT PROCESSING TAX WOULD HAVE CREATED
DOUBLE TAXATION AND AN INEQUALITY AMONG TAXPAYERS WHICH THE
COMPENSATING FLOOR STOCK TAX HAD OBVIATED.  THE EXEMPTION OF SUBSEQUENT
DOMESTIC PROCESSING BY THE TREASURY REGULATIONS WAS THUS COMPELLED BY
THE ACT ITSELF.  CF. TREAS. REG. 82, FLOOR STOCKS UNDER THE A.A.A.  NO
SUCH PROVISION APPEARS IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 OR ANY LATER
LEGISLATION SUPPLEMENTING SEC. 602 1/2.  PHRASES WITHOUT DEFINITE LEGAL
CONNOTATION WHICH ARE ALIKE TAKE THEIR MEANING FROM THEIR CONTEXT.  THE
"FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING" OF THE A.A.A. NATURALLY REFERS TO THE FIRST
IN POINT OF TIME TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION, WHILE THE SAME WORDS IN THIS
ACT JUST AS NATURALLY REFER TO THE FIRST AFTER THE ACT TO AVOID
INEQUALITIES.  DOUBLE TAXATION DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE LATER ACT. 

FOR A FURTHER POINT, PETITIONER CALLS ATTENTION TO THE ACTION OF
CONGRESS IN AMENDING SEC. 602 1/2 IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT.
1742, BY ADDING FATTY ACIDS AND SALTS DERIVED FROM THE TAXED OILS WITH
THE PROVISO THAT THE TAX SHOULD NOT APPLY: 

"(1)  WITH RESPECT TO ANY FATTY ACID OR SALT RESULTING FROM A
PREVIOUS FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING TAXED UNDER THIS SECTION OR UPON
WHICH AN IMPORT TAX HAS BEEN PAID UNDER SECTION 601(C)(8) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AS AMENDED, OR (2) WITH RESPECT TO ANY COMBINATION
OR MIXTURE BY REASON OF ITS CONTAINING AN OIL, FATTY ACID, OR SALT WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH THERE HAS BEEN A PREVIOUS FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING OR
UPON WHICH AN IMPORT TAX HAS BEEN PAID UNDER SUCH SECTION 601(C)(8)." 

THIS AMENDMENT CAME FROM THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WITHOUT COMMENT. 
H. REP. NO. 3068, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 17.  ITS ORIGIN WAS IN THE
SENATE.  THE PURPOSE OF THE EXEMPTION WAS SAID TO BE "TO AVOID DOUBLE
TAXATION."  S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., TITLE V.
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IS THAT "THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WROTE INTO
THE AMENDMENT TWO DIFFERENT CLAUSES, ONE OF THEM  ...  CREATING AN
EXEMPTION OF MIXTURES AND COMBINATIONS CONDITIONED UPON A 'PREVIOUS
FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING' AND THE OTHER CREATING AN EXEMPTION OF FATTY
ACIDS AND SALTS CONDITIONED UPON THEIR 'RESULTING FROM A PREVIOUS FIRST
DOMESTIC PROCESSING TAXED UNDER THIS SECTION.'"  THEREFORE, CONGRESS IS
SAID BY PETITIONER TO HAVE RECOGNIZED TWO CLASSES OF FIRST DOMESTIC
PROCESSINGS; ONE TAXED UNDER THE SECTION, THE OTHER NOT TAXED.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF SOME EXPRESSION OF SUCH INTENTION, HOWEVER, BEYOND THE WORDS
QUOTED, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE WAS MEANT
TO EVIDENCE A DIFFERENCE IN MEANING.  CF. HAGGAR CO. V. HELVERING, 308
U.S. 389, 400.  THE CAREFUL PROVISION REQUIRING PAYMENTS OF APPLICABLE
IMPORT TAXES UNDER ALL CONDITIONS TENDS TO THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION.  WE
THINK THE PURPOSE OF THE 1936 AMENDMENT WAS TO ADD NEW TAXABLE ARTICLES
AND TO MAKE PLAIN THE PURPOSE TO FREE THEM FROM DOUBLE TAXATION.  IF
THE ARTICLES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE 3 CENT EXCISE BECAUSE OF FOREIGN
PROCESSING, WE SEE NO REASON TO EXEMPT THEM BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC
PROCESSING PRIOR TO THE ACT. 

FINALLY WE CONSIDER PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT HOUSE REPORT
(CONFERENCE) NO. 1385, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 30, MANIFESTS THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO TAX ONLY THE "FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING" WHICH
OCCURS AFTER THE ACT WHEN THERE HAS BEEN NO PREVIOUS DOMESTIC
PROCESSING PRIOR TO THE ACT.  THIS REPORT DEALS WITH THE REVENUE ACT OF
1934.  THE SENATE AMENDED THE SECTION OF THE HOUSE BILL WHICH TAXED
FOREIGN OILS BY THE ADDITION OF OTHER FOREIGN VEGETABLE OILS AND MARINE
OILS.  THE CONFERENCE ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENT IN REGARD TO THE MARINE
OILS BUT CHANGED "THE POINT OF IMPOSITION OF THE TAX IN THE CASE OF
IMPORTED WHALE OIL, IMPORTED FISH OIL, AND IMPORTED MARINE ANIMAL OIL
TO THE IMPORTATION INSTEAD OF THE FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING."  THESE
WERE ALL THE MARINE OILS IN THE SENATE AMENDMENT. 

BY THE CONFERENCE AMENDMENT THESE MARINE OILS WERE PLACED IN AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SECTION, 602, OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  IT
AMENDED 601(C), REVENUE ACT OF 1932, WHICH IMPOSED AN EXCISE TAX ON THE
DOMESTIC PRODUCER OR THE IMPORTER OF LUBRICATING OILS, GRAIN EXTRACTS,
PETROLEUM, COAL, LUMBER, ET CETERA, BY ADDING THESE MARINE OILS TO THE
TAXABLE ARTICLES.  FN3  REGULATIONS TREATED MARINE OILS UPON THE SAME
BASIS AS THE OTHER TAXED IMPORTS IN THE SECTION.  FN4  CONSEQUENTLY
MARINE OILS IMPORTED PRIOR TO THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 ESCAPED TAXATION
WHEN EVENTUALLY PROCESSED.  THIS INEQUALITY OF TREATMENT, UNDER THE
GOVERNMENT THEORY, BETWEEN IMPORTATIONS OF VEGETABLE OILS AND
IMPORTATIONS OF MARINE OILS INDICATES, SAYS THE PETITIONER, THAT THE
GOVERNMENT IS WRONG AND CONGRESS INTENDED TO TAX PROCESSING ONLY WHEN A
PRIOR DOMESTIC PROCESSING EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE ACT HAD NOT
OCCURRED.  THE CONFERENCE CHANGE, SAYS PETITIONER, "WAS MERELY A SHIFT
OF THE TAX ON THESE PARTICULAR OILS FROM THE FIRST PROCESSING AFTER THE
ENTRY (THE POINT OF IMPOSITION UNDER SECTION 602 1/2) TO THE ENTRY
ITSELF."  BUT THOUGH CONGRESS MAY HAVE BEEN WILLING TO DEFER PROTECTION
OF AMERICAN PRODUCERS FROM MARINE OILS, IT NOWHERE INDICATED THAT
HANDLERS OF OTHER OILS ALREADY PROCESSED SHOULD OBTAIN A TRADE
ADVANTAGE THROUGH EXEMPTION. 

WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH AN AMBIGUITY OF PHRASE WHICH YIELDS TO THE
INTENT OF CONGRESS AS DISCLOSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FOLLOW THE GENERAL  PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO PROMOTE THE
INTERESTS OF DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCERS THROUGH AN EXCISE TAX.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 763, SEC. 602 1/2.  PROCESSING TAX ON CERTAIN OILS. 

"(A)  THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON THE FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING OF
COCONUT OIL, SESAME OIL, PALM OIL, PALM KERNEL OIL, OR SUNFLOWER OIL,
OR OF ANY COMBINATION OR MIXTURE CONTAINING A SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITY OF
ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH OILS WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF WHICH OILS THERE
HAS BEEN NO PREVIOUS FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING, A TAX OF 3 CENTS PER
POUND, TO BE PAID BY THE PROCESSOR.  ...  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
UNITED STATES, IN THE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE INTENDED
FOR SALE, OF THE ARTICLE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE TAX IS IMPOSED, BUT
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE USE OF PALM OIL IN THE MANUFACTURE OF TIN PLATE." 

FN2  78 CONG. REC. 2785, 2793, 2930, 3007, 6311-16, 6380-95, 7246,
7976. 

FN3  48 STAT. 762, SEC. 602.  TAX ON CERTAIN OILS.    "SECTION 601(C)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THEREOF A
NEW PARAGRAPH AS FOLLOWS: 

"'(8)  WHALE OIL (EXCEPT SPERM OIL), FISH OIL (EXCEPT COD OIL, COD
LIVER OIL, AND HALIBUT-LIVER OIL), MARINE ANIMAL OIL, AND ANY
COMBINATION OR MIXTURE CONTAINING A SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITY OF ANY ONE OR
MORE OF SUCH OILS, 3 CENTS PER POUND.  THE TAX ON THE ARTICLES
DESCRIBED IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL APPLY ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE
IMPORTATION OF SUCH ARTICLES AFTER THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934, AND SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTION (B)(4) OF THIS SECTION (PROHIBITING DRAWBACK) OR SECTION
629(RELATING TO EXPIRATION OF TAXES).'" 

FN4  TREASURY DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF CUSTOMS CIRCULAR LETTER, NO 1202,
MAY 11, 1934; T.D. 45751; T.D. 47448. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















I.C.C. V. HOBOKEN R. CO., 320 U.S. 368 


NO. 43.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1943.  - 47
F.SUPP.  779, REVERSED. 


APPELLEE, A TERMINAL SWITCHING RAILROAD, MAINTAINED WITH TRUNK LINES
JOINT RATES ON TRAFFIC WHICH IT INTERCHANGED WITH (INTER ALIA)
SEATRAIN.  MUCH OF THE TRAFFIC SO INTERCHANGED MOVED ON LIGHTERAGEFREE
RATES, UNDER WHICH APPELLEE WAS OBLIGATED TO LOAD AND UNLOAD CARS AT
SHIPSIDE.  SEATRAIN OPERATED VESSELS ON WHICH IT TRANSPORTED LOADED
RAILROAD CARS.  BY SEATRAIN'S METHOD, CARS WERE LOADED ON AND UNLOADED
FROM ITS VESSELS BY MEANS OF A CRADLE; AND THE NECESSITY AND EXPENSE OF
LOADING AND UNLOADING FREIGHT TO AND FROM THE CARS, USUAL ON
INTERCHANGE WITH OTHER WATER CARRIERS, WERE ELIMINATED.  UNDER A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM, APPELLEE MADE PAYMENTS TO SEATRAIN IN RESPECT OF
INTERCHANGED TRAFFIC MOVING ON LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES, THE PAYMENTS
APPROXIMATING THE COST OF UNLOADING OR LOADING FREIGHT CARS.  IN 1936
APPELLEE FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION A COMPLAINT
SEEKING AN INCREASE OF ITS DIVISIONS OF THE JOINT LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES
AND AN ADJUSTMENT WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC MOVING ON COMMISSION
PRESCRIBED RATES SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, SO AS TO
COMPENSATE IT FOR ITS CONTRACT PAYMENTS TO SEATRAIN.  THE COMMISSION
FOUND THAT APPELLEE'S DIVISIONS WITH THE PAYMENTS TO SEATRAIN EXCLUDED
WERE "NOT UNJUST, UNREASONABLY LOW, INEQUITABLE, OR UNDULY
PREJUDICIAL"; THAT THE CORRESPONDING DIVISIONS RECEIVED BY THE TRUNK
LINES WERE "NOT UNJUST, UNREASONABLY HIGH, INEQUITABLE, OR UNDULY
PREFERENTIAL OF THEM"; AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  HELD: 

1.  ALTHOUGH SEATRAIN'S SERVICE HAS SINCE FEBRUARY, 1942, BEEN
DISCONTINUED, THE COMPLAINT SOUGHT ADJUSTMENT OF DIVISIONS RECEIVED ON
COMMISSION-PRESCRIBED RATES SUBSEQUENT TO ITS FILING, AND TO THAT
EXTENT AT LEAST THE CASE IS NOT MOOT.  P. 376. 

2.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT APPELLEE'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
WITH RESPECT TO CARLOAD FREIGHT INTERCHANGED WITH SEATRAIN BEGINS AND
ENDS AT SEATRAIN'S CRADLE; THAT THE RAIL LINES PERFORM THE INTERCHANGE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE COVERED BY THEIR TARIFFS "WHEN THEY PLACE THE
CARS IN OR TAKE THEM FROM THE SEATRAIN CRADLE"; AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY
THE PAYMENTS MADE BY APPELLEE TO SEATRAIN "COVER NO PART OF ITS
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE UNDER THE LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES AND ARE IN
ADDITION TO THE FULL COSTS OF THAT SERVICE," ARE SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE.  P. 377. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF THE POINT IN TIME AND SPACE AT
WHICH A CARRIER'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BEGINS OR ENDS IS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING WHICH, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, IS CONCLUSIVE
ON THE COURTS.  P. 378. 

4.  APPELLEE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE BY WAY OF DIVISIONS ONLY ITS JUST
AND EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE JOINT RAIL TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE RENDERED, AND CAN NOT CLAIM AS A PART OF ITS SHARE THE COSTS OF
A SERVICE WHICH IS NOT A PART OF THE RAIL SERVICE CALLED FOR BY THE
JOINT RATES.  P. 379. 

5.  FROM THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE LOADING AND UNLOADING OF
ITS VESSELS IS INCIDENT TO SEATRAIN'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, IT
FOLLOWS THAT SEATRAIN IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION THEREFOR IN ITS
TARIFFS, WHICH IF INADEQUATE MAY BE INCREASED, RATHER THAN THROUGH
PARTICIPATION, BY WAY OF ALLOWANCES PAID TO IT BY APPELLEE, IN THE
PROCEEDS OF A JOINT RAIL SERVICE OF WHICH IT PERFORMS NO PART.  P.
379. 

6.  WHETHER THE PAYMENTS TO SEATRAIN INDUCED THE PERFORMANCE OF AN
INTERCHANGE SERVICE RESULTING IN SAVINGS TO THE RAIL CARRIERS IS
IRRELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION OF DIVISIONS OF THE JOINT RATES FOR THE
RAIL SERVICE OF WHICH THE SHIP LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICE PERFORMED
BY SEATRAIN IS NOT A PART.  P. 380. 

7.  SECTION 15(6) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHICH AUTHORIZES
THE DIVISION OF JOINT RATES APPLICABLE TO A TRANSPORTATION SERVICE,
CONTEMPLATES ONLY THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THAT SERVICE
AMONG THE PARTIES TO IT AND NOT THE COMPENSATION OF OTHERS FOR A
SERVICE NOT COVERED BY THE JOINT RATES TO BE DIVIDED.  P. 380. 

8.  PRESCRIPTION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF DIVISIONS
OF JOINT RATES IS NOT A MERE PARTITION OF PROPERTY, BUT IS AN ASPECT OF
THE GENERAL RATE POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED THE COMMISSION TO
ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  AT LEAST WHERE THE
COMMISSION PRESCRIBES FOR THE COMPLAINING PARTY A FAIR RETURN FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WHICH IT RENDERS, THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT IS A
PROPER DIVISION IS ONE FOR THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION, REVIEWABLE ONLY
FOR UNREASONABLENESS, DEPARTURE FROM STATUTORY STANDARDS, OR LACK OF
EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT.  P. 381. 

9.  THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATIONS OF RATE POLICY IN THIS CASE CAN
NOT BE SET ASIDE AS ARBITRARY OR AS RESULTING IN UNJUST DIVISIONS.  P.
382. 

10.  THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO INCLUDE IN APPELLEE'S DIVISIONS
PAYMENTS WHICH WERE VOLUNTARILY MADE TO SEATRAIN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
CONFISCATION OF APPELLEE'S PROPERTY.  P. 382. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. HOBOKEN MANUFACTURERS'
RAILROAD CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES SETTING
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47A, 345, FROM A JUDGMENT BY
WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW JERSEY, THREE JUDGES SITTING, SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 47 F.SUPP.  779. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER APPELLEE, A TERMINAL SWITCHING RAIL CARRIER,
IS ENTITLED TO AN INCREASE IN THE DIVISIONS WHICH IT NOW RECEIVES OUT
OF JOINT CLASS AND COMMODITY FREIGHT RATES MAINTAINED BY IT AND
NUMEROUS TRUNK LINE CARRIERS, APPELLANTS HERE, ON TRAFFIC INTERCHANGED
BY APPELLEE AT HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY, WITH SEATRAIN LINES, INC., A COMMON
CARRIER BY WATER.  THE ANSWER DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THE COMMISSION IS
REQUIRED TO TREAT AS PART OF APPELLEE'S COSTS OF PERFORMING ITS CARRIER
SERVICE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE JOINT RATES, ALLOWANCES PAID BY APPELLEE
FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY SEATRAIN IN EFFECTING THE INTERCHANGE.  THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER DISMISSED A COMPLAINT BY WHICH APPELLEE SOUGHT TO
HAVE THE COMMISSION PRESCRIBE FOR IT INCREASED DIVISIONS.  234 I.C.C.
114.  THE ORDER, REVIEWABLE BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IS REVIEWABLE BY
THIS COURT ON APPEAL.  ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 229, 237
40; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 349, 358;
ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 142. 

APPELLEE, HOBOKEN MANUFACTURERS' RAILROAD COMPANY, OPERATES A
TERMINAL SWITCHING LINE EXTENDING ALONG THE WATERFRONT OF HOBOKEN, NEW
JERSEY, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1.632 MILES.  IT CONNECTS WITH THE ERIE
RAILROAD AND OVER IT WITH OTHER TRUNK LINES REACHING NEW YORK HARBOR. 
NUMEROUS PIERS ON NEW YORK HARBOR ARE SERVED BY HOBOKEN, AT WHICH THE
VESSELS OF VARIOUS STEAMSHIP LINES REGULARLY DOCK, INCLUDING THOSE OF
SEATRAIN. 

SEATRAIN IS A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 1(1A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 1(1A), BY REASON OF ITS CONTROL OF HOBOKEN.  INVESTIGATION OF
SEATRAIN LINES, INC., 195 I.C.C. 215, 206 I.C.C. 328.  SINCE 1932 IT
HAS OPERATED VESSELS IN WHICH IT TRANSPORTS FREIGHT IN LOADED RAILROAD
CARS BETWEEN HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY, HAVANA, CUBA, AND BELLE CHASSE,
LOUISIANA, A POINT ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER NEAR NEW ORLEANS.  THE
LOADED CARS WHICH IT TRANSPORTS ARE PLACED UPON STANDARD GAUGE RAILROAD
TRACKS LOCATED UPON FOUR DECKS OF THE SEATRAIN VESSELS.  IN LOADING THE
VESSEL, EACH CAR IS SWITCHED ONTO A TRACK LOCATED ON A CRADLE PLACED
ALONGSIDE THE VESSEL.  AN OVERHEAD CRANE LIFTS THE CRADLE CONTAINING
THE CAR, SWINGS IT OVER THE VESSEL AND LOWERS IT THROUGH A HATCH TO THE
APPROPRIATE DECK WHERE THE CAR IS MOVED ONTO ONE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS
ON THE DECK. 

IN UNLOADING THE PROCEDURE IS REVERSED.  EACH CAR IS MOVED FROM THE
DECK TRACK ONTO THE CRADLE.  THE CRADLE CONTAINING THE CAR IS THEN
LIFTED BY THE CRANE AND PLACED ON THE DOCK ALONGSIDE THE VESSEL WHERE
THE CAR IS SWITCHED BY HOBOKEN OVER ITS OWN TRACKS TO A CONNECTING
TRUNK LINE OVER WHICH IT PROCEEDS TO ITS RAIL DESTINATION.  BY THIS
OPERATION THE EXPENSE IS AVOIDED OF LOADING AND UNLOADING FREIGHT INTO
AND FROM THE CARS AT SHIPSIDE, ORDINARILY INCIDENT TO EXCHANGE OF
TRAFFIC BETWEEN RAIL AND WATER CARRIERS. 

IN 1932 SEATRAIN SECURED CONTROL OF HOBOKEN BY THE ACQUISITION OF ALL
OF ITS SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK EXCEPT THE QUALIFYING SHARES OF FIVE
DIRECTORS, AND THE TWO CORPORATIONS WERE BROUGHT UNDER THE MANAGEMENT
OF COMMON OFFICERS.  IN 1936 HOBOKEN FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER SECS. 1(4) AND 15(6) ALLEGING THAT
THE DIVISIONS IT WAS RECEIVING OUT OF JOINT CLASS AND COMMODITY RATES
MAINTAINED BY IT AND THE TRUNK LINES, APPELLANTS HERE, ON CARLOAD RAIL
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGED WITH SEATRAIN WERE TOO LOW, AND ASKING AN
INCREASE.  IT ALSO SOUGHT ADJUSTMENT OF ALL DIVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO
SUCH TRAFFIC MOVING UNDER RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION SUBSEQUENT
TO THE DATE OF FILING THE COMPLAINT. 

PART OF THE TRAFFIC INTERCHANGED WITH SEATRAIN MOVES ON SO-CALLED
LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES, AND PART ON NON-LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES.  UNDER
THE LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES THE RAIL CARRIERS OBLIGATE THEMSELVES TO
PLACE FREIGHT WITHIN REACH OF SHIP'S TACKLE, AND TO RECEIVE FREIGHT AT
THE FOOT OF SHIP'S TACKLE - AN OBLIGATION WHICH NORMALLY REQUIRES
UNLOADING AND LOADING OF CARS AND MAY ALSO REQUIRE LIGHTERAGE AND
VARIOUS OTHER SERVICES.  HOBOKEN HAS GENERALLY PROVIDED FOR THIS
LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICE BY CONTRACT WITH THE STEAMSHIP COMPANIES
WITH WHICH IT INTERCHANGES TRAFFIC.  THE WORK IS DONE WITH STEAMSHIP
STEVEDORE LABOR FOR WHICH HOBOKEN HAS PAID THE STEAMSHIP COMPANIES AT
THE RATE OF APPROXIMATELY 75 CENTS A TON.  UNDER NON-LIGHTERAGE-FREE
RATES THE SHIPPER PERFORMS OR PROVIDES FOR NECESSARY LOADING OR
UNLOADING OF CARS, IN WHICH CASE HOBOKEN HAS ONLY A SWITCHING SERVICE
TO PERFORM. 

ON CARLOAD TRAFFIC INTERCHANGED WITH WATER CARRIERS OTHER THAN
SEATRAIN'S AND MOVING ON LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES, WHICH IS LOADED OR
UNLOADED BY HOBOKEN OR AT ITS EXPENSE, HOBOKEN'S DIVISION OF THE JOINT
THROUGH RATE HAS BEEN $1.35 PER TON.  ON CARLOAD TRAFFIC MOVING TO AND
FROM HOBOKEN ON NON-LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES, WHICH IS LOADED OR UNLOADED
BY THE SHIPPER OR CONSIGNEE OR AT HIS EXPENSE, HOBOKEN'S DIVISION HAS
BEEN 60 CENTS PER TON.  FN1 

SINCE NOVEMBER, 1932, WHICH WAS SHORTLY AFTER SEATRAIN ACQUIRED STOCK
OWNERSHIP CONTROL OF HOBOKEN, IT HAS PAID TO SEATRAIN A TONNAGE
ALLOWANCE ON INTERCHANGED FREIGHT OTHER THAN COAL.  AT FIRST 40 CENTS A
TON, THE ALLOWANCE ON LIGHTERAGE-FREE FREIGHT WAS, IN 1937, INCREASED
TO 73 CENTS A TON, WHICH IS THE APPROXIMATE COST OF LOADING OR
UNLOADING CARLOAD FREIGHT.  AT THE SAME TIME THE 40 CENTS ALLOWANCE ON
NON-LIGHTERAGE-FREE FREIGHT WAS ABOLISHED.  UPON SEATRAIN FREIGHT
MOVING ON LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES, THE TRUNK LINES ACCORD TO HOBOKEN A 60
CENTS PER TON SWITCHING DIVISION, THE SAME AS FOR FREIGHT MOVING ON NON
LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES, SINCE WITH THE ONE AS WITH THE OTHER THERE IS NO
NECESSITY FOR THE CAR LOADING SERVICE. 

IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION HOBOKEN ASKED FOR THE
EXISTING DIVISION OF 60 CENTS PER TON OUT OF NON-LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES
AND FOR AN INCREASE TO $1.35 PER TON IN ITS DIVISION OUT OF LIGHTERAGE
FREE RATES ON TRAFFIC INTERCHANGED WITH SEATRAIN, ON THE GROUND THAT
ITS TONNAGE ALLOWANCES TO SEATRAIN ARE A PART OF ITS COSTS OF
PERFORMING ITS RAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO THE SEATRAIN
TRAFFIC, AND THAT IN ANY CASE THE TRUNK LINES, PARTIES TO THE JOINT
RATES, ARE BENEFITED BY SEATRAIN'S SHIPLOADING DEVICES TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE RAIL CARRIERS ARE RELIEVED OF THE 75 CENTS PER TON LOADING AND
UNLOADING CHARGE WHICH THEY WOULD OTHERWISE INCUR. 

THE COMMISSION RENDERED ITS REPORT AFTER A FULL HEARING AT WHICH
EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN.  FN2  IT FOUND FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT SEATRAIN HAD
ESTABLISHED ITS SHIPLOADING DEVICES AT LARGE EXPENSE AND HAD BY THEIR
ADOPTION MADE UNNECESSARY, IN THE INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC WITH SEATRAIN,
THE LOADING AND UNLOADING OF THE CARS AT SHIPSIDE, WHICH WOULD
OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED BY THE LIGHTERAGE-FREE TARIFFS; THAT IN EFFECTING
THE INTERCHANGE "THE RAIL LINES DO ALL THAT IS REQUIRED WHEN THEY PLACE
THE CARS IN OR TAKE THEM FROM THE SEATRAIN CRADLE"; AND THAT "THE
PAYMENTS WHICH COMPLAINANT MAKES TO SEATRAIN COVER NO PART OF ITS
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE UNDER THE LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES AND ARE IN
ADDITION TO THE FULL COSTS OF THAT SERVICE." 

THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THAT IF THE PAYMENTS BY HOBOKEN TO SEATRAIN
ARE NOT BORNE IN PART BY THE RAIL LINES THROUGH A DECREASE IN THEIR
DIVISIONS AND A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN HOBOKEN'S DIVISIONS "THEY
WILL RECEIVE AN UNEARNED BENEFIT" SINCE, BY REASON OF SEATRAIN'S
SHIPLOADING METHOD, THEY ARE RELIEVED OF THE NECESSITY OF COMPENSATING
HOBOKEN FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICE ORDINARILY
CALLED FOR BY THEIR LIGHTERAGE-FREE TARIFFS.  IT POINTED OUT, HOWEVER,
THAT LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES "ARE BASED ON AVERAGE CONDITIONS," AND SAID
THAT IF A STEAMSHIP LINE NOW DOCKING ON THE NEW YORK WATERFRONT AND
SERVED BY LIGHTER AT THE NEW JERSEY RAIL CARRIERS' EXPENSE SHOULD SHIFT
TO A DOCK WITH DIRECT RAIL CONNECTIONS ON THE NEW JERSEY SHORE A
SIMILAR UNEARNED BENEFIT WOULD RESULT; YET "IT WOULD HARDLY BE
SUGGESTED" THAT THE RAIL CARRIERS SHOULD COMPENSATE THE STEAMSHIP
COMPANY FOR THE SHIFT.  MOREOVER IT FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PAYMENTS
WERE NECESSARY TO INDUCE SEATRAIN TO FURNISH ITS SHIPLOADING SERVICE. 
IT STATED THAT HOBOKEN'S CONTRACT WITH SEATRAIN WAS NOT SUCH EVIDENCE
IN VIEW OF SEATRAIN'S CONTROL OF HOBOKEN; THAT IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT
SEATRAIN RECEIVED SUCH PAYMENTS FROM ANY INDEPENDENT RAIL CONNECTION;
AND THAT SEATRAIN'S METHOD OF TRANSFER BY WHICH IT RECEIVES AND
DELIVERS LOADED CARS HAS SUFFICIENT ADVANTAGES TO IMPEL ITS USE BY
SEATRAIN REGARDLESS OF CONTRIBUTING PAYMENTS BY ITS RAIL CONNECTIONS. 

IT CONCLUDED THAT SEATRAIN'S IMPROVED METHOD OF TRANSFER IS ONLY AN
INCIDENT TO ITS PLAN OF TRANSPORTATION, THAT THE TRANSFER IS
CONSEQUENTLY NOT A NECESSARY PART OF THE RAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
AND THAT HOBOKEN IS ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED FOR ITS PART IN THAT SERVICE
WITHOUT INCLUDING THE PAYMENTS TO SEATRAIN IN ITS DIVISIONS.  THE
COMMISSION ACCORDINGLY FOUND THAT HOBOKEN'S DIVISIONS WITH THE PAYMENTS
TO SEATRAIN EXCLUDED "ARE NOT UNJUST, UNREASONABLY LOW, INEQUITABLE, OR
UNDULY PREJUDICIAL" AND THAT THE CORRESPONDING DIVISIONS RECEIVED BY
THE TRUNK LINES "ARE NOT UNJUST, UNREASONABLY HIGH, INEQUITABLE, OR
UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OF THEM," AND ORDERED HOBOKEN'S COMPLAINT
DISMISSED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT HOBOKEN'S
RAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BEGINS AND ENDS AT SEATRAIN'S CRADLE, AND
THAT THE PAYMENTS BY HOBOKEN TO SEATRAIN "DO NOT CONSTITUTE A
LEGITIMATE TRANSPORTATION COST," AND HELD THAT UPON THESE FINDINGS
"SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE" THE COMMISSION'S "JUDGMENT IS FINAL."  BUT IT
THOUGHT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACT PAYMENTS SHOULD BE DISREGARDED
HOBOKEN MIGHT BE OBLIGATED TO PAY TO SEATRAIN THE REASONABLE VALUE TO
IT OF THE USE OF THE SEATRAIN METHOD OF INTERCHANGE, AND THAT IF THAT
USE WERE FOUND TO HAVE NO VALUE, AT LEAST ANY "WINDFALL" RESULTING TO
THE RAIL CARRIERS AS A WHOLE SHOULD BE DIVIDED EQUITABLY AMONG THEM. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ACCORDINGLY SET THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ASIDE AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE COMMISSION, DIRECTING IT TO CONSIDER WHETHER
THE SEATRAIN DEVICES "ARE AN EFFICIENT AID TO RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION";
IF IT FOUND THAT THEY WERE, TO EVALUATE THEIR WORTH TO HOBOKEN AND TO
INCLUDE IN HOBOKEN'S COSTS THE AMOUNT OF A LEGITIMATE PAYMENT FOR THEIR
USE; AND IF IT FOUND THAT THEY WERE NOT, TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY
WINDFALL TO THE RAIL CARRIERS RESULTED FROM THEIR USE AND TO ESTABLISH
AN EQUITABLE BASIS FOR ITS DIVISION AMONG THE RAIL CARRIERS.  THE
COMMISSION HAS BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
CHALLENGING THE DISTRICT COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT COMPENSATION FOR
ANY PART OF HOBOKEN'S PAYMENTS TO SEATRAIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN
HOBOKEN'S DIVISIONS. 

THE COMMISSION, UPON COMPLAINT OR ON ITS OWN MOTION, DETERMINES THAT
THE DIVISIONS OF JOINT RATES APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY, "ARE OR WILL BE UNJUST, UNREASONABLE,
INEQUITABLE, OR UNDULY PREFERENTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL" AS BETWEEN CARRIERS
PARTIES TO SUCH RATES, "THE COMMISSION SHALL BY ORDER PRESCRIBE THE
JUST, REASONABLE, AND EQUITABLE DIVISIONS THEREOF TO BE RECEIVED BY THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS."  IN CASES WHERE THE JOINT RATE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
PURSUANT TO A FINDING OR ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, IT MAY ALSO DETERMINE
AND ORDER JUST AND REASONABLE DIVISIONS FOR THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO
THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT "AND REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE" IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DETERMINATION. 

AT THE OUTSET IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE SUGGESTION THAT THE
CASE MAY HAVE BECOME MOOT BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT SINCE FEBRUARY,
1942, SEATRAIN'S VESSELS HAVE BEEN IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND SEATRAIN'S
SERVICE HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE RESUMPTION OF
THE SERVICE IS SO UNCERTAIN AS TO RENDER IT CONJECTURAL WHETHER THE
COMMISSION'S PRESENT DETERMINATION WILL BE GIVEN ANY FUTURE OPERATION. 
BUT THAT DETERMINATION UNDER SEC. 15(6) IS DECISIVE OF APPELLEE'S
REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE DIVISIONS OF JOINT RATES PRESCRIBED BY
THE COMMISSION WHICH HAVE BEEN COLLECTED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE
PRESENT PROCEEDING.  BRIMSTONE RAILROAD & CANAL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
276 U.S. 104, 121-3.  WHILE THE PRESENT RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE
FULL EXTENT TO WHICH JOINT RATES, DIVISIONS OF WHICH ARE HERE SOUGHT,
WERE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE COMMISSION
HAS IN PRIOR PROCEEDINGS PRESCRIBED JOINT RAIL-WATER-RAIL RATES BETWEEN
EASTERN TRUNK LINE AND NEW ENGLAND TERRITORIES AND SOUTHWESTERN
TERRITORY APPLICABLE OVER SEATRAIN LINES, TO WHICH HOBOKEN, SEATRAIN,
AND MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE TRUNK LINES WHICH ARE APPELLANTS HERE ARE
PARTIES.  SEATRAIN LINES V. AKRON, C. & Y. RY. CO., 226 I.C.C. 7, 243
I.C.C. 199.  AS TO THEM DECISION OF THIS CASE CONTROLS THE DIVISION OF
RATES FOR THE PERIOD SINCE APPELLEE'S COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITH THE
COMMISSION.  TO THAT EXTENT AT LEAST THE CASE IS NOT MOOT.    APART
FROM THE COMMISSION'S EXCLUSION OF HOBOKEN'S TONNAGE ALLOWANCES TO
SEATRAIN, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
PRESENT DIVISIONS TO HOBOKEN.  THE COMMISSION FOUND, UPON ABUNDANT
EVIDENCE, THAT THEY "ARE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE COST OF THE SERVICE
PERFORMED BY COMPLAINANT AND ALSO A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY
OWNED OR USED BY IT IN PERFORMING SUCH SERVICE."  AND APPELLEE CONCEDED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT IF THE PAYMENTS TO SEATRAIN ARE NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED A PART OF APPELLEE'S COSTS THE DIVISIONS ARE ADEQUATE AND
"WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING MORE." 

AS ESSENTIAL STEPS IN DETERMINING WHETHER HOBOKEN'S PAYMENTS TO
SEATRAIN ARE A PART OF THE RAIL TRANSPORTATION COSTS, WE THINK THE
COURT BELOW CORRECTLY SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT
HOBOKEN'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO CARLOAD FREIGHT
INTERCHANGED WITH SEATRAIN BEGINS AND ENDS AT SEATRAIN'S CRADLES; THAT
THE RAIL LINES PERFORM THE INTERCHANGE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE COVERED
BY THEIR TARIFFS "WHEN THEY PLACE THE CARS IN OR TAKE THEM FROM THE
SEATRAIN CRADLE"; AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE ALLOWANCES PAID BY HOBOKEN
"COVER NO PART OF ITS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE UNDER THE LIGHTERAGE-FREE
RATES AND ARE IN ADDITION TO THE FULL COSTS OF THAT SERVICE."  THESE
FINDINGS WERE BASED UPON AN EXTENSIVE EXAMINATION OF THE METHOD OF
INTERCHANGE OF FREIGHT BETWEEN RAIL AND WATER CARRIERS GENERALLY AND
BETWEEN HOBOKEN AND SEATRAIN.  IT IS NOT AND COULD NOT BE SERIOUSLY
CONTENDED THAT THEY ARE UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THESE FINDINGS ARE DECISIVE OF THIS APPEAL. 
THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF THE POINT IN TIME AND SPACE AT WHICH
A CARRIER'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE BEGINS OR ENDS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDING WHICH, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, IS CONCLUSIVE ON THE COURTS. 
LOS ANGELES SWITCHING CASE, 234 U.S. 294, 311-14; UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S. 402, 408; UNITED STATES V. PAN
AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP., 304 U.S. 156, 158; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507, 525-6; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 316
U.S. 216, 222-5 AND CASES CITED.  IN THE TIN PLATE AND PAN AMERICAN
CASES THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER PROHIBITING, AS IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(7) OF THE ACT, PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES TO AN INDUSTRY
BY RAIL CARRIERS FOR SPOTTING CARS ON ITS INDUSTRIAL TRACKS.  THE COURT
ACCEPTED AS CONTROLLING THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS THAT UNDER PREVAILING
CONDITIONS AND PRACTICE THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS OF THE INDUSTRY WERE
CONVENIENT AND USUAL POINTS FOR THE RECEIPT AND DELIVERY OF THE
INTERCHANGED CARS, THAT THE RAIL LINE-HAUL SERVICE ACCORDINGLY ENDED
THERE AND THAT FOR THAT REASON THE INDUSTRY PERFORMED NO SERVICE IN
SPOTTING CARS ON ITS OWN TRACKS FOR WHICH THE RAIL CARRIER WAS
COMPENSATED UNDER ITS LINE-HAUL TARIFFS AND FOR WHICH THE INDUSTRY WAS
ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED BY ALLOWANCES OUT OF THE LINE-HAUL CHARGES. 

THE SAME PRINCIPLES APPLY IN PRESCRIBING DIVISIONS OF JOINT RAIL
CARRIER CHARGES WHERE, INDEPENDENTLY OF CONSIDERATIONS NOT PRESENT
HERE, THE MEASURE OF THE CARRIER'S PARTICIPATION IN THE JOINT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IS THE MEASURE OF ITS DIVISIONS OF THE JOINT
TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 195;
UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN RY. CO., 265 U.S. 274, 284;
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 360-62; SHARFMAN,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, VOL. III-B, PP. 287-8, AND THE CARRIER
IS ENTITLED TO "JUST COMPENSATION ONLY FOR WHAT IT ACTUALLY DOES," TAP
LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 1, 29; CF. LOUISIANA & PINE BLUFF RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 114, 118. 

HERE THE COMMISSION WAS CONCERNED WITH THE DIVISIONS OF JOINT RAIL
RATES WHICH COVERED THE RAIL CARRIER SERVICE BETWEEN INLAND POINTS OF
RAIL SHIPMENT OR DESTINATION AND THE POINT OF INTERCHANGE AT HOBOKEN. 
THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT THIS POINT IS THE SEATRAIN CRADLE AT
SHIPSIDE, AND THAT THE SERVICE RENDERED BY SEATRAIN IN LOADING AND
UNLOADING THE LOADED FREIGHT CARS UPON AND FROM ITS VESSELS IS NO PART
OF THE RAIL CARRIER SERVICE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH DIVISIONS ARE HERE
SOUGHT.  CONSEQUENTLY NEITHER HOBOKEN NOR SEATRAIN IS ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION OUT OF THE JOINT RAIL HAUL CHARGES FOR THE SHIP LOADING
AND UNLOADING SERVICE.  SINCE HOBOKEN IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE BY WAY OF
DIVISIONS ONLY ITS JUST AND EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE
JOINT RAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE RENDERED, IT CANNOT CLAIM AS A PART
OF ITS SHARE THE COSTS OF A SERVICE WHICH IS NOT A PART OF THE RAIL
SERVICE CALLED FOR BY THE JOINT RATES.  NEITHER THE JOINT RATES OF THE
RAIL CARRIERS NOR THE RATES OF SEATRAIN ARE HERE UNDER ATTACK AND
PRESUMPTIVELY THEY YIELD ADEQUATE BUT NOT EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES RENDERED UNDER THEM.  BEAUMONT, S.L. & W.
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 74, 90; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 356. 

FROM THESE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, AND ITS FURTHER FINDING THAT
THE INTERCHANGE SERVICE RENDERED BY SEATRAIN IS INCIDENT TO SEATRAIN'S
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, IT WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW THAT SEATRAIN IS
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR IT AS SUCH, AND PRESUMABLY IS SO
COMPENSATED BY ITS TARIFFS.  IF THE COMPENSATION IS INADEQUATE THE
REMEDY LIES IN AN INCREASE IN SEATRAIN'S RATES OR IN ITS DIVISIONS OF
JOINT RAIL AND WATER TRANSPORTATION RATES - FOR WHICH IT HAS AN
APPLICATION PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, SEATRAIN LINES V. AKRON,
CANTON & YOUNGSTOWN RY. CO., NO. 28668, FILED MAY 22, 1941 - RATHER
THAN IN ITS PARTICIPATION, BY WAY OF ALLOWANCES PAID TO IT BY HOBOKEN,
IN THE PROCEEDS OF A JOINT RAIL SERVICE OF WHICH IT PERFORMS NO PART. 

HENCE THE DISTRICT COURT'S DIRECTION TO THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE
WHAT PART OF THE VALUE OF THE INTERCHANGE SERVICE RENDERED BY SEATRAIN
SHOULD "BE ALLOWED IN ESTABLISHING HOBOKEN'S LEGITIMATE COSTS," AS AN
"AID TO RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION," IS INCONSISTENT WITH ITS CONCLUSION
THAT THE COMMISSION CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE PAYMENTS BY HOBOKEN TO
SEATRAIN "DO NOT CONSTITUTE A LEGITIMATE TRANSPORTATION COST," AND THAT
SEATRAIN'S INTERCHANGE SERVICE IS NO PART OF THE RAIL TRANSPORTATION. 
IF THESE FINDINGS BE SUSTAINED, AS THEY MUST, INQUIRY WHETHER THE
PAYMENTS TO SEATRAIN HAVE INDUCED THE PERFORMANCE OF AN INTERCHANGE
SERVICE RESULTING IN SAVINGS TO THE RAIL CARRIERS IS IRRELEVANT TO A
DETERMINATION OF DIVISIONS OF THE JOINT RATES FOR THE RAIL SERVICE OF
WHICH THE SHIP LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICE PERFORMED BY SEATRAIN IS
NOT A PART.  CF. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 444,
446-7. 

APPLICABLE TO A TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, CONTEMPLATES ONLY THE
APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THAT SERVICE AMONG THE PARTIES TO IT
AND NOT THE COMPENSATION OF OTHERS FOR A SERVICE NOT COVERED BY THE
JOINT RATES TO BE DIVIDED.  SEATRAIN IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS PROCEEDING
AND IT IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING TO FIX DIVISIONS OF A
JOINT RAIL RATE - OR OF A PORTION OF A JOINT RAIL-WATER RATE - IN WHICH
IT DOES NOT PARTICIPATE.  UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN RY. CO.,
SUPRA, 283; BEAUMONT, S.L. & W. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  WE
ARE ACCORDINGLY NOT CONCERNED WITH THE ADEQUACY OF SEATRAIN'S TARIFFS
TO COMPENSATE FOR ITS SHIP LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICE OR WITH THE
LAWFULNESS OF THE PAYMENTS TO IT BY HOBOKEN.  A DETERMINATION BY THE
COMMISSION OF THE EXTENT OF THE SAVING TO THE RAIL CARRIERS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO HOBOKEN'S PAYMENTS TO SEATRAIN WAS THEREFORE NOT
PREREQUISITE TO ITS ORDER PRESCRIBING DIVISIONS.  AND ITS ORDER IS
ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY ITS FINDINGS THAT THE RAIL TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE BEGINS AND ENDS WITH THE PLACING OF THE CARS IN SEATRAIN'S
CRADLES, AND THAT THE SHIP LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICE FORMS NO PART
OF THE RAIL TRANSPORTATION. 

THESE FINDINGS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, ARE BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
AND SINCE THEY ARE DISPOSITIVE OF THE CASE WE NEED NOT EXAMINE THE
EVIDENCE FURTHER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT SUPPORTS THE COMMISSION'S
ADDITIONAL FINDING THAT PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCES TO SEATRAIN WAS NOT
NECESSARY TO INDUCE SEATRAIN TO PERFORM ITS SHIP LOADING SERVICE IN A
MANNER WHICH RESULTED IN SAVINGS TO THE RAIL CARRIERS. 

THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL REASON WHY THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE SENT BACK TO
THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER ITS DECISION THAT HOBOKEN SHOULD RECEIVE
NO PART OF WHATEVER WINDFALL MAY RESULT TO THE RAIL CARRIERS FROM THE
USE OF SEATRAIN'S METHOD OF LOADING AND UNLOADING.  THE PRESCRIPTION OF
DIVISIONS WHERE CARRIERS ARE UNABLE TO AGREE IS NOT A MERE PARTITION OF
PROPERTY.  IT IS ONE ASPECT OF THE GENERAL RATE POLICY WHICH CONGRESS
HAS DIRECTED THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH AND ADMINISTER IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, SUPRA, 195; UNITED STATES V.
ABILENE & SOUTHERN RY. CO., SUPRA, 284-5; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 358-60.  ON SUCH AN ISSUE, AT LEAST WHERE THE
COMMISSION PRESCRIBES FOR THE COMPLAINING PARTY A FAIR RETURN FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WHICH IT RENDERS, THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT IS A
PROPER DIVISION IS ONE FOR THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION, REVIEWABLE ONLY
FOR UNREASONABLENESS, DEPARTURE FROM STATUTORY STANDARDS, OR LACK OF
EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT.  NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, SUPRA, 204; BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO., SUPRA, 359; MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 282, 286-7; BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S.
534, 546; BARRINGER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 1, 6-7. 

THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE
NATURE OF LIGHTERAGE-FREE RATES, WHICH ARE "BASED ON AVERAGE
CONDITIONS," THAT THE SWITCHING CARRIER RECEIVE ONLY FAIR COMPENSATION
FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF WHATEVER SERVICE MAY BE REQUIRED OF IT BY THE
TARIFFS AND THE METHOD OF RAIL-WATER INTERCHANGE, THAN THAT IT SHARE IN
ANY WINDFALL RESULTING FROM THE USE OF AN ECONOMICAL METHOD OF
INTERCHANGE.  AND IT STATED IN ITS REPORT THAT IN GENERAL THE DIVISIONS
OF A SHORT SWITCHING LINE SHOULD BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF FULL
REMUNERATION FOR ITS SERVICES, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LEVEL OF THE JOINT
RATES, UNLESS THEY ARE AS A WHOLE UNREMUNERATIVE.  FN3 WE CAN HARDLY
SAY THAT SUCH DETERMINATIONS OF RATE POLICY ARE ARBITRARY, OR RESULT IN
SUCH UNJUST DIVISIONS THAT THE COURT MUST SET THEM ASIDE.  CF. O'KEEFE
V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 294, 303-4. 

WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER IS CONFISCATORY ADDS ANYTHING TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE
DIVISIONS WHICH THE COMMISSION APPROVED ARE UNJUST, UNREASONABLY LOW,
OR INEQUITABLE.  COMPARE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 364-9 WITH ID. 383-5.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE CLAIM OF
CONFISCATION IS RESTRICTED TO THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW AS A
PART OF APPELLEE'S DIVISIONS THE PAYMENTS MADE BY IT TO SEATRAIN. 
THESE PAYMENTS, VOLUNTARILY MADE BY APPELLEE, WERE NOT EXACTED BY THE
COMMISSION.  THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO INCLUDE THEM IN DIVISIONS OF
WHICH THEY WERE NOT LAWFULLY A PART, NOT BEING AN INFRINGEMENT OF ANY
RIGHT OF APPELLEE, IS OBVIOUSLY NOT CONFISCATION OF ITS PROPERTY.  CF.
GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V. TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422, 428;
LOUISIANA & PINE BLUFF RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IS SUSTAINED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
SETTING IT ASIDE IS REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THESE DIVISIONS HAVE BEEN INCREASED BY 5 OR 10%, DEPENDING ON
THE COMMODITY SHIPPED, AS A RESULT OF A GENERAL RATE INCREASE
AUTHORIZED IN FIFTEEN PERCENT CASE, 1937-1938, 226 I.C.C. 41. 

FN2  FOR PRIOR REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION DEALING WITH VARIOUS ASPECTS
OF SEATRAIN'S METHOD OF OPERATION SEE INVESTIGATION OF SEATRAIN LINES,
INC., 195 I.C.C. 215, 206 I.C.C. 328; SEATRAIN LINES V. AKRON, C. & Y.
RY. CO., 226 I.C.C. 7, 243 I.C.C. 199; HOBOKEN MFRS.  R. CO. V. ABILENE
& SOUTHERN RY. CO., 237 I.C.C. 97, 248 I.C.C. 109. 

FN3  SEE ALSO DIVISIONS OF JOINT RATES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF STONE,
41 I.C.C. 321, 328; RATES OF PEORIA & PEKIN UNION RY. CO., 93 I.C.C. 3,
22; 115 I.C.C. 469, 481-97, 501; HOBOKEN MFRS.  R. CO. V. ATCHISON, T.
& S.F. RY. CO., 132 I.C.C. 579; WESTERN M. RY. CO. V. MARYLAND & P.R.
CO., 167 I.C.C. 57, 63. 
..END :






















COLORADO V. KANSAS, 320 U.S. 383 


NO. 5, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 12, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6,
1943. 


IN A SUIT INVOLVING USE OF THE WATERS OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER, BROUGHT
BY COLORADO AGAINST KANSAS AND A KANSAS USER, HELD: 

1.  COLORADO IS ENTITLED TO AN INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER PROSECUTION
OF SUITS BY THE KANSAS USER AGAINST COLORADO USERS.  P. 391. 

2.  KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46, MADE NO ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE
STATES OF THE WATERS OF THE RIVER.  P. 391. 

3.  KANSAS IS NOT ENTITLED ON THE RECORD TO AN APPORTIONMENT IN SECOND
FEET OR ACRE-FEET.  P. 391. 

4.  IN CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF STATES, THE
BURDEN ON THE COMPLAINING STATE IS MUCH HEAVIER THAN THAT GENERALLY
REQUIRED TO BE BORNE BY PRIVATE PARTIES, AND THIS COURT WILL INTERVENE
ONLY WHERE A CASE IS FULLY AND CLEARLY PROVED.  P. 393. 

5.  KANSAS' ALLEGATIONS THAT COLORADO'S USE HAS MATERIALLY INCREASED
SINCE THE DECISION IN KANSAS V. COLORADO, AND THAT THE INCREASE HAS
WORKED A SERIOUS DETRIMENT TO THE SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS OF KANSAS, ARE
NOT SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 400. 

6.  RELIEF OTHER THAN THE RESTRAINT OF FURTHER PROSECUTION OF SUITS
BY THE KANSAS USER AGAINST COLORADO USERS IS DENIED TO BOTH STATES.  P.
400. 

COLORADO V. KANSAS ET AL. 

BILL IN EQUITY. 

ORIGINAL SUIT IN EQUITY BY COLORADO AGAINST KANSAS AND THE FINNEY
COUNTY (KANSAS) WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT IS THE LATEST OF A SERIES OF LITIGATIONS BETWEEN KANSAS, OR
HER CITIZENS, AND COLORADO, OR HER CITIZENS, CONCERNING THEIR
RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE WATERS OF THE ARKANSAS
RIVER. 

THE RIVER HAS ITS ORIGIN IN CENTRAL COLORADO, AND IS A MOUNTAIN
TORRENT FOR 130 MILES TO A POINT NEAR CANON CITY WHERE IT ENTERS A
FOOTHILL REGION ENDING NEAR PUEBLO.  THENCE IT TRAVERSES THE HIGH
PLAINS OF EASTERN COLORADO AND WESTERN KANSAS.  IN THE AREAS MENTIONED
THE STREAM IS NON-NAVIGABLE. 

IN 1901 KANSAS BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST COLORADO IN THIS COURT FOR AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE LATTER FROM DIVERTING, OR PERMITTING ANYONE
UNDER HER AUTHORITY TO DIVERT, WATERS OF THE RIVER WITHIN COLORADO, AND
FOR GENERAL RELIEF.  KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46.  FN1  KANSAS IN
HER BILL ALLEGED THAT THE WATERS OF THE RIVER HAD BEEN USED FOR
IRRIGATION IN HER WESTERN COUNTIES AND THAT, AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF
THESE USES, COLORADO BEGAN SYSTEMATICALLY TO APPROPRIATE AND DIVERT
THEM BETWEEN CANON CITY AND THE KANSAS STATE LINE FOR IRRIGATING NON
RIPARIAN ARID LANDS; THAT, BY 1891, ALL THE NATURAL FLOW, AND MUCH OF
THE FLOOD WATERS, HAD BEEN APPROPRIATED IN COLORADO SO THAT THE AVERAGE
FLOW HAD BEEN GREATLY REDUCED AND THE NATURAL FLOW COMPLETELY CUT OFF. 

COLORADO REPLIED THAT THE STREAM WAS NOT CONTINUOUS EXCEPT AT TIMES
OF FLOOD; THAT, IN A STATE OF NATURE, ITS BED EAST OF PUEBLO WAS
FREQUENTLY DRY; THAT COLORADO AND HER CITIZENS HAD DIVERTED AND USED
ONLY THE PERENNIAL FLOW ABOVE CANON CITY AND WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN
EFFECT CONSERVED WATER FOR DELIVERY INTO KANSAS.  SHE DENIED SHE HAD
SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISHED THE FLOW OF THE RIVER AT THE STATE LINE.  SHE
ASSERTED SHE WAS ENTITLED TO CONSUME THE ENTIRE FLOW; BUT ALLEGED THAT,
IN ANY VIEW, HER TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN INFRINGEMENT
OF KANSAS' RIGHTS CALLING FOR JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE. 

THE COURT DENIED KANSAS' CONTENTION THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE
STREAM FLOW AS IT FLOWED IN A STATE OF NATURE.  IT DENIED COLORADO'S
CLAIM THAT SHE COULD DISPOSE OF ALL THE WATERS WITHIN HER BORDERS, AND
OWED NO OBLIGATION TO PASS ANY OF THEM ON TO KANSAS.  IT DECLARED THAT
AS EACH STATE HAD AN EQUALITY OF RIGHT EACH STOOD BEFORE THE COURT ON
THE SAME LEVEL AS THE OTHER; THAT INQUIRY WAS NOT CONFINED TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER ANY PORTION OF THE RIVER WATERS WERE WITHHELD BY
COLORADO BUT MUST INCLUDE THE EFFECT OF WHAT HAD BEEN DONE UPON THE
CONDITIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE STATES; AND THAT THE COURT MUST ADJUST THE
DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF EQUALITY OF RIGHTS TO SECURE, SO FAR AS
POSSIBLE, TO COLORADO, THE BENEFITS OF IRRIGATION, WITHOUT DEPRIVING
KANSAS OF THE BENEFITS OF A FLOWING STREAM.  THE MEASURE OF THE
RECIPROCAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATES WAS DECLARED TO BE AN
EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE BENEFITS OF THE RIVER.  THE COURT ADDED
THAT, BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENTS IN COLORADO CONSEQUENT UPON IRRIGATION
WERE TO BE DESTROYED OR MATERIALLY AFFECTED, KANSAS MUST SHOW NOT
MERELY SOME TECHNICAL RIGHT BUT ONE WHICH CARRIED CORRESPONDING
BENEFITS. 

ON EXAMINATION OF THE PROOFS, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT DIVERSIONS
AUTHORIZED BY COLORADO EMBRACED MORE WATER THAN THE TOTAL FLOW AT CANON
CITY.  IT FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT NO CLEAR SHOWING WAS MADE AS TO WHAT
SURPLUS WATER, IF ANY, WAS CONTRIBUTED BY THE TRIBUTARIES BELOW THAT
POINT OR AS TO THE PROPORTION OF THE DIVERTED WATER RETURNED TO THE
RIVER BY SEEPAGE.  THE OPINION DESCRIBED THE DIVERSIONS IN EACH STATE,
ANALYZED THE USE MADE OF THE WATER AND THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM IT IN
EACH, CONSIDERED POPULATION TABLES AND AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BEARING
UPON THE GROWTH OF THE COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO THE RIVER IN EACH, AND
STATED CONCLUSIONS, NOW MATERIAL, AS FOLLOWS:  THAT THE RESULT OF
COLORADO'S APPROPRIATIONS HAD BEEN BENEFICIAL RECLAMATION OF MANY
ACRES; THAT, WHILE THE INFLUENCE OF COLORADO'S DIVERSIONS HAD BEEN OF
PERCEPTIBLE INJURY TO PORTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS VALLEY IN KANSAS, YET TO
THE GREAT BODY OF THE VALLEY THE DIMINUTION OF FLOW HAD WORKED LITTLE,
IF ANY, DETRIMENT; THAT REGARDING THE INTERESTS OF BOTH STATES, AND THE
RIGHT OF EACH TO RECEIVE BENEFIT THROUGH IRRIGATION AND OTHERWISE FROM
THE WATERS OF THE STREAM, THE COURT WAS NOT SATISFIED THAT KANSAS HAD
MADE OUT A CASE ENTITLING IT TO A DECREE.  THE COURT ADDED THAT IF
DEPLETION BY COLORADO CONTINUED TO INCREASE THERE WOULD COME A TIME
WHEN KANSAS MIGHT JUSTLY SAY THAT THERE WAS NO LONGER AN EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS AND MIGHT RIGHTLY CALL FOR RELIEF AGAINST
COLORADO AND HER CITIZENS.  ACCORDINGLY THE BILL WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO FUTURE ACTION BY KANSAS.  THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ENDED
JUNE 16, 1905, AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT WAS ANNOUNCED MAY 13,
1907. 

OCTOBER 30, 1909, THE FINNEY COUNTY WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, WHICH
MAINTAINED THE SO-CALLED FARMERS' DITCH IN KANSAS, APPLIED TO A KANSAS
COURT FOR ADJUDICATION OF PRIORITIES AS BETWEEN VARIOUS KANSAS USERS OF
THE RIVER WATER.  ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS, THE UNITED STATES IRRIGATING
COMPANY, REMOVED THE CAUSE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.  A
CONSENT DECREE WAS ENTERED MAY 16, 1911, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE
ALLOCATION AND ROTATION OF USE AMONGST CERTAIN, BUT NOT ALL, OF THE
KANSAS DITCHES, INCLUDING THE FARMERS' DITCH.  IT WAS, HOWEVER,
PROVIDED THAT THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD REMAIN BINDING UPON THE PARTIES
ONLY UNTIL THE ADJUDICATION OF OTHER LITIGATION NEXT TO BE NOTICED. 

AUGUST 27, 1910, UNITED STATES IRRIGATING COMPANY SUED GRAHAM DITCH
CO. AND OTHERS HOLDING COLORADO PRIORITIES, IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR COLORADO, TO OBTAIN AN ADJUDICATION OF PRIORITIES AS
BETWEEN KANSAS USERS AND COLORADO USERS.  THE FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION
WAS DENIED LEAVE TO INTERVENE.  EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN, BUT THE SUIT WAS
SETTLED BY A CONTRACT OF FEBRUARY 19, 1916.  BY THIS SETTLEMENT, THE
COLORADO DEFENDANTS AGREED TO RECOGNIZE PRIORITIES AS OF AUGUST 27,
1910, FOR ALL THE KANSAS DITCHES IN FINNEY COUNTY EXCEPT THE FARMERS'
DITCH; NOT TO APPLY FOR, OR CLAIM, PRIORITIES FOR STORAGE PURPOSES ON
THE PURGATOIRE RIVER, A TRIBUTARY OF THE ARKANSAS, OR BELOW THE MOUTH
OF THE PURGATOIRE, OF A DATE EARLIER THAN AUGUST 27, 1910; AND TO PAY
THE COSTS OF SUIT AND AN ADDITIONAL SUM TO THE KANSAS INTERESTS.  THE
KANSAS DITCHES AGREED TO ACCEPT THE PRIORITY DATE OF AUGUST 27, 1910,
AND THE QUANTITIES OF WATER SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT, AS A DEFINITION
AND DETERMINATION OF THEIR RIGHTS.  THE DEFENDANTS COMPLIED WITH THE
TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. 

THE FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION DECLINED TO BECOME A PARTY TO THE
CONTRACT AND, ON NOVEMBER 27, 1916, BROUGHT SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR COLORADO AGAINST THE SAME DEFENDANTS FOR RELIEF LIKE
THAT SOUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES IRRIGATING COMPANY'S SUIT.  JANUARY
29, 1923, THE FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION BROUGHT A SECOND SUIT IN THE
SAME COURT AGAINST OTHER COLORADO DEFENDANTS FOR SIMILAR RELIEF. 
JANUARY 24, 1928, COLORADO FILED THE PRESENT BILL AGAINST KANSAS AND
THE FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION. 

AFTER FORMAL RECITALS, THE BILL REFERS TO OUR EARLIER DECISION,
STATES THAT, IN RELIANCE UPON IT, MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT IN THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN COLORADO, RECITES THE PRIOR
AND THE PENDING PRIVATE LITIGATION AGAINST COLORADO APPROPRIATORS,
ALLEGES THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERSTATE PRIORITY SCHEDULE
SOUGHT IN THE PENDING SUITS WOULD DISRUPT AND DESTROY COLORADO'S
ADMINISTRATION OF THE WATERS OF THE ARKANSAS BASIN AND RESULT IN
CONFLICT OF STATE AUTHORITY, ASSERTS THAT NO PROPER SETTLEMENT OF THE
RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE STATES CAN BE OBTAINED IN SUITS BY KANSAS
APPROPRIATORS AGAINST COLORADO APPROPRIATORS, OUTLINES OTHER INJURY TO
COLORADO THREATENED BY PROSECUTION OF THE PENDING CASES TO JUDGMENT,
AND PRAYS THAT THE FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION BE ENJOINED FROM FURTHER
PRESSING THOSE SUITS, THAT KANSAS AND HER CITIZENS BE ENJOINED FROM
LITIGATING, OR ATTEMPTING TO LITIGATE, THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE TWO
STATES AND THEIR CITIZENS TO THE WATERS OF THE RIVER ON CLAIMS SIMILAR
TO THOSE MADE BY THE ASSOCIATION IN ITS PENDING SUITS, AND THAT THE
RIGHTS OF COLORADO AND HER CITIZENS AS DETERMINED BY THE JUDGMENT IN
KANSAS V. COLORADO BE PROTECTED. 

KANSAS' ANSWER ADMITS SOME ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL AND DENIES OTHERS,
SETS FORTH HER ALLEGED RIGHTS IN THE WATERS OF THE RIVER, RECITES
APPROPRIATIONS BY KANSAS RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS, DIVERSIONS BY COLORADO
CITIZENS UNDER APPROPRIATIONS JUNIOR IN TIME AND INFERIOR IN RIGHT TO
THOSE MADE IN KANSAS, AND ASSERTS THAT, SINCE THE FILING OF THE
COMPLAINT IN KANSAS V. COLORADO, COLORADO USERS HAVE LARGELY INCREASED
THEIR APPROPRIATIONS AND DIVERSIONS, AND THREATEN FURTHER TO INCREASE
THEM, TO THE INJURY OF KANSAS USERS.  SHE PRAYS THAT THE COURT PROTECT
AND QUIET HER RIGHTS AND THOSE OF HER CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS, INCLUDING
THE FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION, TO THEIR APPROPRIATIONS, THAT THE RIGHTS
OF HER CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS TO DIVERT WATER FROM THE RIVER FOR
IRRIGATION BE DECREED IN SECOND FEET AND THAT COLORADO, HER OFFICERS,
AGENTS, AND CITIZENS BE PERPETUALLY ENJOINED FROM DIVERTING ANY WATERS
FROM THE RIVER OR ITS TRIBUTARIES IN COLORADO UNTIL THE RIGHTS OF
KANSAS, HER CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS, ARE SATISFIED. 

THE FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION FILED AN ANSWER ADMITTING AND DENYING
AVERMENTS OF THE BILL AND AFFIRMATIVELY PRAYING THAT COLORADO AND HER
CITIZENS BE ENJOINED FROM DIVERTING WATER FROM THE RIVER UNTIL THE
ASSOCIATION'S RIGHT TO 250 SECOND FEET IS SATISFIED.  THE ISSUES WERE
MADE UP BY COLORADO'S REPLY. 

PURSUANT TO OUR ORDER, EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN BY A COMMISSIONER. 
THEREUPON THE CAUSE WAS REFERRED TO A MASTER WITH LEAVE TO TAKE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AND DIRECTION, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE,
TO STATE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND TO RECOMMEND A FORM
OF DECREE.  THE EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF SOME SEVEN THOUSAND TYPEWRITTEN
PAGES OF TESTIMONY AND 368 EXHIBITS COVERING THOUSANDS OF PAGES. 

THE MASTER STATES THAT THE "EVIDENCE IS VOLUMINOUS AND CONFLICTING ON
MANY OF THE MATERIAL ISSUES OF FACT," BUT HIS REPORT CONTAINS NO
DISCUSSION OR ANALYSIS OF THE PROOFS.  APART FROM FORMAL RECITALS, THE
REPORT CONSISTS OF FOURTEEN FINDINGS OF FACT,  - MORE PROPERLY
CONCLUSIONS OF FACT,  - NINE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND A RECOMMENDED FORM
OF DECREE.  EACH PARTY HAS FILED EXCEPTIONS. 

THREE QUESTIONS EMERGE FROM THE PLEADINGS.  (1) IS COLORADO ENTITLED
TO AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE FURTHER PROSECUTION OF LITIGATION BY
KANSAS USERS AGAINST COLORADO USERS?  (2) DOES THE SITUATION CALL FOR
ALLOCATION OF THE WATERS OF THE BASIN AS BETWEEN COLORADO AND KANSAS IN
SECOND FEET OR ACRE FEET?  (3) HAS KANSAS PROVED THAT COLORADO HAS
SUBSTANTIALLY AND INJURIOUSLY AGGRAVATED CONDITIONS WHICH EXISTED AT
THE TIME OF HER EARLIER SUIT? 

THE MASTER CONCLUDED THAT THE FIRST QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE.  KANSAS HAS NOT EXCEPTED TO THE CONCLUSION OR TO THE
CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED DECREE. 

BEARING UPON THE SECOND QUESTION, THE MASTER FOUND THAT "THE AVERAGE
ANNUAL NATURAL FLOW OF THE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES" IS 1,240,000 ACRE
FEET, AND THE "AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPENDABLE AND FAIRLY CONTINUOUS WATER
SUPPLY AND FLOW" 1,110,000 ACRE FEET.  HE RECOMMENDS THAT THE
DEPENDABLE FLOW BE ALLOCATED 925,000 ACRE FEET TO COLORADO AND 185,000
ACRE FEET TO KANSAS, 150,000 THEREOF BETWEEN APRIL 1 AND OCTOBER 1, AND
35,000 BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND APRIL 1 OF EACH YEAR - THAT IS, FIVE
SIXTHS TO COLORADO AND ONE-SIXTH TO KANSAS.  HE SUBMITS A FORM OF
DECREE EMBODYING THIS ALLOCATION AND ADJUSTING REQUIRED DELIVERIES IN
THE SAME PROPORTIONS UPWARD OR DOWNWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANNUAL FLOWS
IN EXCESS OF, OR LESS THAN, THE STATED AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPENDABLE FLOW. 
HE HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO DEFINE FLOOD WATERS OR THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY
ARE UNUSABLE BY EITHER STATE, AND SUGGESTS NO PROVISION WHEREBY THEIR
OCCURRENCE MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DEFINING COLORADO'S OBLIGATION
TO DELIVER WATER TO KANSAS.  THE FORM OF DECREE REQUIRES MEASUREMENT OF
FLOW BY GAUGES, ONE AT CANON CITY AND THE OTHER AT THE MOUTH OF THE
PURGATOIRE, AND DELIVERIES TO KANSAS PRORATED TO THE TOTAL OF THE FLOWS
AT THOSE POINTS. 

BOTH STATES EXCEPT TO THESE FEATURES OF THE DECREE AS AMBIGUOUS AND
IMPOSSIBLE OF ADMINISTRATION.  KANSAS, WHILE ASSERTING THAT THE AWARD
TO HER IS INADEQUATE, PROFESSES HER WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT THE
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION, BUT INSISTS THAT THE DECREE REQUIRE COLORADO TO
DELIVER THE QUANTITY OF WATER AWARDED TO KANSAS WHEN AND AS DEMANDED BY
HER.  COLORADO ASSERTS THAT THE RECOMMENDED DECREE - MUCH MORE KANSAS'
PROPOSED AMENDMENT - WOULD ENTAIL SERIOUS AND UNJUSTIFIED DAMAGE TO HER
INTERESTS, IF INDEED COMPLIANCE WITH ITS TERMS WERE POSSIBLE. 

IN RESPECT OF THE THIRD QUESTION, THE MASTER FINDS: 

"THERE HAS BEEN SINCE THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY IN THE CASE OF KANSAS
AGAINST COLORADO CITED IN 206 U.S. 46, IN 1907, A MATERIAL INCREASE IN
THE RIVER DEPLETION BY COLORADO OF THE WATER SUPPLY OF THE ARKANSAS
RIVER, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSUMED AND USED BY COLORADO USERS FOR
IRRIGATION PURPOSES AND WHICH HAS DIMINISHED THE FLOW OF THE WATER INTO
THE STATE OF KANSAS AND THAT BY REASON THEREOF THERE HAVE BEEN INJURIES
TO THE SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS IN KANSAS."    NO EXCEPTION IS TAKEN TO
THE MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT AN INJUNCTION ISSUE AGAINST FURTHER
PROSECUTION OF THE FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION SUITS AGAINST COLORADO
USERS.  IN OUR VIEW SUCH AN INJUNCTION IS APPROPRIATE, AND SHOULD BE
GRANTED. 

COLORADO URGES THAT OUR DECISION IN KANSAS V. COLORADO, SUPRA,
AMOUNTED TO AN ALLOCATION OF THE FLOW OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER BETWEEN THE
TWO STATES.  WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS VIEW.  IN THAT CASE KANSAS LABORED
UNDER A BURDEN OF PROOF APPLICABLE IN LITIGATION BETWEEN QUASI
SOVEREIGN STATES, OF WHICH MORE HEREAFTER.  THE DISMISSAL OF HER BILL
RESULTED FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT SHE HAD FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE
BURDEN.  BUT FROM THE DECISION THEN RENDERED IT FOLLOWS THAT UNLESS
KANSAS CAN SHOW A PRESENT SITUATION MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT
DISCLOSED IN THE EARLIER CASE SHE CANNOT NOW OBTAIN RELIEF. 

THE PRAYER OF KANSAS FOR AN APPORTIONMENT IN SECOND FEET OR ACRE FEET
CANNOT BE GRANTED.  IN OUR FORMER DECISION WE RULED THAT KANSAS WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO A SPECIFIC SHARE OF THE WATERS AS THEY FLOWED IN A STATE OF
NATURE, THAT IT DID NOT THEN APPEAR THAT COLORADO HAD APPROPRIATED MORE
THAN HER EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE FLOW, AND THAT IF KANSAS WERE LATER TO
BE ACCORDED RELIEF, SHE MUST SHOW ADDITIONAL TAKINGS WORKING SERIOUS
INJURIES TO HER SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS.  THIS WAS IN ACCORD WITH OTHER
DECISIONS IN SIMILAR CONTROVERSIES.  FN2 

THE REASON FOR JUDICIAL CAUTION IN ADJUDICATING THE RELATIVE RIGHTS
OF STATES IN SUCH CASES IS THAT, WHILE WE HAVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH
DISPUTES,  FN3  THEY INVOLVE THE INTERESTS OF QUASI-SOVEREIGNS, PRESENT
COMPLICATED AND DELICATE QUESTIONS, AND, DUE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF
FUTURE CHANGE OF CONDITIONS, NECESSITATE EXPERT ADMINISTRATION RATHER
THAN JUDICIAL IMPOSITION OF A HARD AND FAST RULE.  SUCH CONTROVERSIES
MAY APPROPRIATELY BE COMPOSED BY NEGOTIATION AND AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO
THE COMPACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  WE SAY OF THIS CASE,
AS THE COURT HAS SAID OF INTERSTATE DIFFERENCES OF LIKE NATURE, THAT
SUCH MUTUAL ACCOMMODATION AND AGREEMENT SHOULD, IF POSSIBLE, BE THE
MEDIUM OF SETTLEMENT, INSTEAD OF INVOCATION OF OUR ADJUDICATORY POWER. 
FN4 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE MASTER ERRED IN ATTEMPTING TO DIVIDE WHAT HE
DESIGNATED AS THE "AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPENDABLE" WATER SUPPLY OF THE
ARKANSAS RIVER IN COLORADO INTO FRACTIONS AND AWARDING THOSE FRACTIONS
TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY.  SUCH A CONTROVERSY AS IS HERE PRESENTED IS
NOT TO BE DETERMINED AS IF IT WERE ONE BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE RIPARIAN
PROPRIETORS OR APPROPRIATORS.  FN5 

THE LOWER STATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE THE STREAM FLOW AS IT WOULD
IN NATURE REGARDLESS OF NEED OR USE.  FN6  IF, THEN, THE UPPER STATE IS
DEVOTING THE WATER TO A BENEFICIAL USE, THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED, IN
THE LIGHT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS IN BOTH STATES, IS WHETHER, AND TO
WHAT EXTENT, HER ACTION INJURES THE LOWER STATE AND HER CITIZENS BY
DEPRIVING THEM OF A LIKE, OR AN EQUALLY VALUABLE, BENEFICIAL USE.  FN7 

WE COME NOW TO THE VITAL QUESTION WHETHER KANSAS HAS MADE GOOD HER
CLAIM TO RELIEF FOUNDED ON THE CHARGE THAT COLORADO HAS, SINCE OUR
PRIOR DECISION, INCREASED DEPLETION OF THE WATER SUPPLY TO THE MATERIAL
DAMAGE OF KANSAS' SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS.  THE QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED
IN THE LIGHT OF RULES OF DECISION APPROPRIATE TO THE QUALITY OF THE
PARTIES AND THE NATURE OF THE SUIT. 

IN SUCH DISPUTES AS THIS, THE COURT IS CONSCIOUS OF THE GREAT AND
SERIOUS CAUTION WITH WHICH IT IS NECESSARY TO APPROACH THE INQUIRY
WHETHER A CASE IS PROVED.  NOT EVERY MATTER WHICH WOULD WARRANT RESORT
TO EQUITY BY ONE CITIZEN AGAINST ANOTHER WOULD JUSTIFY OUR INTERFERENCE
WITH THE ACTION OF A STATE, FOR THE BURDEN ON THE COMPLAINING STATE IS
MUCH GREATER THAN THAT GENERALLY REQUIRED TO BE BORNE BY PRIVATE
PARTIES.  BEFORE THE COURT WILL INTERVENE THE CASE MUST BE OF SERIOUS
MAGNITUDE AND FULLY AND CLEARLY PROVED.  FN8  AND IN DETERMINING
WHETHER ONE STATE IS USING, OR THREATENING TO USE, MORE THAN ITS
EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE BENEFITS OF A STREAM, ALL THE FACTORS WHICH
CREATE EQUITIES IN FAVOR OF ONE STATE OR THE OTHER MUST BE WEIGHED AS
OF THE DATE WHEN THE CONTROVERSY IS MOOTED. 

ON THIS RECORD THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT A DECREE SUCH AS THE MASTER
RECOMMENDS, OR AN AMENDMENT OR ENLARGEMENT OF THAT DECREE IN THE FORM
KANSAS ASKS, WOULD INFLICT SERIOUS DAMAGE ON EXISTING AGRICULTURAL
INTERESTS IN COLORADO.  HOW GREAT THE INJURY WOULD BE IT IS DIFFICULT
TO DETERMINE, BUT CERTAINLY THE PROPOSED DECREE WOULD OPERATE TO
DEPRIVE SOME CITIZENS OF COLORADO, TO SOME EXTENT, OF THEIR MEANS OF
SUPPORT.  IT MIGHT INDEED RESULT IN THE ABANDONMENT OF VALUABLE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTUAL MIGRATION FROM FARMS.  THROUGH PRACTICE OF
IRRIGATION, COLORADO'S AGRICULTURE IN THE BASIN HAS GROWN STEADILY FOR
FIFTY YEARS.  WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS GONE A LARGE INVESTMENT IN
CANALS, RESERVOIRS, AND FARMS.  THE PROGRESS HAS BEEN OPEN.  THE FACTS
WERE OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE. 

THE CONTROVERSY WAS LITIGATED IN 1901.  KANSAS WAS DENIED RELIEF IN
1907.  THE DISPUTE BETWEEN APPROPRIATORS IN THE TWO STATES WAS BROUGHT
INTO COURT IN 1910 AND SETTLED IN 1916.  THE FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION
SUED COLORADO APPROPRIATORS IN 1916 AND 1923.  EVEN IF KANSAS' CLAIMS
OF INCREASED DEPLETION AND ENSUING DAMAGE ARE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, IT
IS NEVERTHELESS EVIDENT THAT WHILE IMPROVEMENTS BASED UPON IRRIGATION
WENT FORWARD IN COLORADO FOR TWENTY-ONE YEARS, KANSAS TOOK NO ACTION
UNTIL COLORADO FILED THE INSTANT COMPLAINT IN 1928. 

THESE FACTS MIGHT WELL PRECLUDE THE AWARD OF THE RELIEF KANSAS ASKS. 
BUT, IN ANY EVENT, THEY GRAVELY ADD TO THE BURDEN SHE WOULD OTHERWISE
BEAR, AND MUST BE WEIGHED IN ESTIMATING THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE.  FN9 

THE MASTER CONCLUDES THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MATERIAL INCREASE IN
DEPLETION BY COLORADO, A CONSEQUENT DIMINUTION OF FLOW ACROSS THE STATE
LINE, AND INJURY TO THE SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS OF KANSAS.  HIS REPORT
DOES NOT STATE WHAT HE CONSIDERS MATERIAL; OR THE EXTENT OF THE
DIMINUTION OF FLOW; OR THE INTERESTS OF KANSAS WHICH HAVE BEEN INJURED
AND THE EXTENT OF THE INJURY.  WE MUST, THEREFORE, TURN TO THE EVIDENCE
TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES. 

KANSAS ASSERTS THAT SINCE THE DECISION OF KANSAS V. COLORADO, SUPRA,
COLORADO HAS INCREASED HER CONSUMPTIVE USE OF THE WATER OF THE ARKANSAS
RIVER BY AN ANNUAL AVERAGE OF BETWEEN 300,000 AND 400,000 ACRE FEET. 
WITNESSES SO TESTIFIED AND, TO SUPPORT THEIR CONCLUSIONS, SUBMITTED
ELABORATE CALCULATIONS AND ANALYSES EXHIBITING THE ALLEGED TOTAL WATER
SUPPLY OF THE RIVER BASIN IN COLORADO AND THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF WATER
PASSING IN THE BED OF THE STREAM ACROSS THE STATE LINE.  A WITNESS
SUBMITTED TABLES COVERING THE PERIOD 1895-1930 FROM WHICH HE DEDUCED AN
AVERAGE YEARLY WATER SUPPLY OF 1,240,000 ACRE FEET AND AN AVERAGE
ANNUAL DEPENDABLE SUPPLY OF 1,110,000 ACRE FEET.  HE PRESENTED FIGURES
TO SHOW THAT COLORADO'S CONSUMPTIVE USE HAD INCREASED TO THE EXTENT OF
AN ANNUAL AVERAGE OF 300,000 ACRE FEET.  HE REACHED THIS RESULT BY
USING ESTIMATED FLOW ACROSS THE STATE LINE BETWEEN 1895 AND 1908 AND
MEASURED FLOW BETWEEN 1908 AND 1930, DURING WHICH PERIOD A GAUGING
STATION WAS MAINTAINED AT HOLLY NEAR THE LINE.  MEASUREMENTS INDICATE
THAT, DURING THE LATTER PERIOD, THE AVERAGE ANNUAL STATE LINE FLOW WAS
260,700 ACRE FEET.  FN10  IF, AS CLAIMED, THIS FLOW REMAINED AFTER AN
ADDITIONAL AVERAGE ANNUAL DEPLETION OF 300,000 ACRE FEET BY COLORADO,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOW IN THE EARLIER PERIOD, 1895 TO 1908, WOULD
NECESSARILY HAVE BEEN GREATER BY 300,000, OR WOULD HAVE AVERAGED
560,700 ACRE FEET.  THE WITNESS' OWN EXHIBIT SHOWS THAT HE ASSUMED AN
AVERAGE ANNUAL STATE LINE FLOW FOR THE PERIOD 1895-1899 OF 300,000 ACRE
FEET, FOR 1900-1904, OF 470,000 ACRE FEET, AND, FOR 1905-1909, OF
454,000 ACRE FEET, OR AN ANNUAL AVERAGE OVER THE TOTAL PERIOD, 1895
1909, OF 408,000 ACRE FEET.  ON HIS OWN ESTIMATES THE CLAIMED AVERAGE
ANNUAL DEPLETION OF 300,000 ACRE FEET COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE. 
MOREOVER, THE FORCE OF THIS EVIDENCE IS WEAKENED BY KANSAS' ALLEGATIONS
IN KANSAS V. COLORADO, SUPRA.  IN HER BILL IN THAT CASE SHE ALLEGED
COLORADO HAD TOTALLY DESTROYED THE NORMAL FLOW OF THE RIVER EXCLUSIVE
OF FLOODS WHEREAS SHE NOW ASSERTS THAT THE FLOW AT THE TIME OF THE
EARLIER SUIT WAS SUCH THAT COLORADO HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEPLETE IT ON AN
ANNUAL AVERAGE OF 300,000 ACRE FEET. 

THE RECORDS OF COLORADO'S CONSUMPTION AND DITCH DIVERSIONS, AND THE
COLORADO AND KANSAS EXHIBITS SHOWING THE DIVERTIBLE AND USABLE STATE
LINE FLOW, REBUT SUCH AN INCREASE AS KANSAS ASSERTS.  KANSAS' EXPERT
WITNESS HIMSELF TESTIFIED THAT THE DIVERSION RECORDS SHOW NO MATERIAL
CHANGE IN COLORADO DIVERSIONS SINCE 1905 AND THAT IF ACREAGE IN
COLORADO HAS EXPANDED UNDER THE DITCHES ON THE MAIN STEM OF THE RIVER
IT HAS DONE SO BECAUSE OF AN IMPROVED DUTY OF WATER; THAT, DURING THE
PERIOD, THE RIVER GAINS DUE TO RETURN FLOW HAVE INCREASED, THE
CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WATER HAS DECLINED, AND RELATIVELY THE STREAM FLOWS
HAVE IMPROVED. 

THE KANSAS DITCHES ARE CAPABLE OF DIVERTING WATER ONLY UP TO 2,000
C.F.S.  WHEN THE FLOW IS GREATER THE EXCESS CANNOT BE DIVERTED AND
USED.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE FLOW OF THE RIVER IN
COLORADO IS VARIABLE FROM YEAR TO YEAR, FROM SEASON TO SEASON, AND FROM
DAY TO DAY, AND THE MAIN RIVER BELOW CANON CITY MAY BE ALMOST WITHOUT
WATER ONE DAY, RUN A FLOOD THE NEXT DAY, AND, ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, BE
IN PRACTICALLY ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION.  THUS IT APPEARS THAT BOTH IN
COLORADO AND IN KANSAS THERE MAY AT ONE TIME BE FLOOD WATER UNAVAILABLE
FOR DIRECT DIVERSION AND, AT ANOTHER, NOT ENOUGH WATER TO SUPPLY THE
CAPACITY OF DIVERSION DITCHES.  THE CRITICAL MATTER IS THE AMOUNT OF
DIVERTIBLE FLOW AT TIMES WHEN WATER IS MOST NEEDED FOR IRRIGATION. 
CALCULATIONS OF AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOW, WHICH INCLUDE FLOOD FLOWS, ARE,
THEREFORE, NOT HELPFUL IN ASCERTAINING THE DEPENDABLE SUPPLY OF WATER
USABLE FOR IRRIGATION.  THAT SUPPLY HAS, IN COLORADO, BEEN SUPPLEMENTED
BY THE EXTENSIVE USE OF RESERVOIRS FOR STORAGE OF FLOOD WATERS AND
WINTER FLOWS NOT USABLE OR NEEDED FOR IRRIGATION.  THOUGH WESTERN
KANSAS AFFORDS SITES FOR SIMILAR STORAGE RESERVOIRS, BUT ONE SMALL
BASIN HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THAT STATE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
STORAGE IN COLORADO, AND THE RELEASE OF STORED WATER TO SUPPLEMENT THE
NATURAL FLOW OF THE STREAM IN TIMES OF NEED, OPERATES BY SEEPAGE AND
RETURN TO THE CHANNEL TO STABILIZE AND IMPROVE THE FLOW AT THE STATE
LINE AND, TO THAT EXTENT, BENEFITS IRRIGATION IN KANSAS. 

KANSAS RELIES HEAVILY UPON THE INCREASE OF IRRIGATED ACREAGE IN
COLORADO SINCE OUR DECISION IN 1907.  THE TESTIMONY IN THE EARLIER CASE
WAS CLOSED IN 1905.  THE THEN LATEST AVAILABLE CENSUS - FOR 1902 -
REPORTED 300,115 ACRES UNDER IRRIGATION IN THE ARKANSAS BASIN IN
COLORADO.  IN ITS OPINION THE COURT REFERRED TO THIS FIGURE.  THE NEXT
CENSUS - FOR 1909 - GIVES THE COLORADO ACREAGE AS 464,236.  THE LATER
REPORTS DISCLOSE AN ADDITION OF LESS THAN 5,000 ACRES BETWEEN 1909 AND
1939.  THUS A TOTAL OF ABOUT 170,000 ADDITIONAL ACRES HAS BEEN PUT
UNDER IRRIGATION SINCE 1902.  ON ITS FACE THIS RECORD WOULD SEEM TO
INDICATE A LARGE INCREASE OF CONSUMPTIVE USE BY COLORADO, BUT THE
ACREAGE UNDER IRRIGATION DOES NOT AFFORD A RELIABLE MEASURE OF ACTUAL
CONSUMPTION.  WHEN FIRST TURNED IN, THE WATER IS RAPIDLY ABSORBED BY
THE SUB-SOIL WITH CONSEQUENT HIGH CONSUMPTION.  BY CONTINUED IRRIGATION
THE SUB-SOIL BECOMES SATURATED, THE WATER TABLE RISES, AND WATER, IN
INCREASING QUANTITIES, FLOWS BACK TO THE STREAM.  ULTIMATELY
CONSUMPTION FALLS WELL BELOW DIVERSION.  THE RETURNED WATER AGAIN MAY
BE DIVERTED AND AGAIN SUPPLY RETURN FLOWS.  SINCE THE DECISION IN THE
EARLIER CASE, STUDIES OF RETURN FLOWS HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH INDICATE A
STEADY REDUCTION IN THE QUANTITY OF WATER CONSUMED PER ACRE OF
IRRIGATED LAND. 

PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE AFFECTED KANSAS DITCHES ARE IN THREE WESTERN
COUNTIES.  TABLES TAKEN FROM THE UNITED STATES CENSUS SHOW THAT, IN
1899, ACREAGE IRRIGATED IN THESE COUNTIES WAS 6% OF THAT IRRIGATED IN
THE COLORADO BASIN.  IN 1909 IT WAS 7%, IN 1929, 9.7%, AND, IN 1939,
10.7%.  IT SEEMS THAT COLORADO CANNOT HAVE DEPLETED THE USABLE SUPPLY
PASSING INTO KANSAS IF ACREAGE UNDER IRRIGATION IS ANY MEASURE OF
DEPLETION. 

WHATEVER MAY BE SAID OF THE PRACTICES OF COLORADO SINCE 1905, KANSAS
IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNLESS SHE SHOWS THEY CLEARLY HAVE ENTAILED
SERIOUS DAMAGE TO HER SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS AND THOSE OF HER CITIZENS. 
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO QUOTE THE FINDINGS OF THIS COURT MADE IN THE
EARLIER CASE.  WE NEED ONLY SAY THEY DISCLOSE THAT SOME DITCHES IN
WESTERN KANSAS HAD BEEN ABANDONED FOR LACK OF AVAILABLE WATER AND ALL
DITCHES WERE SUFFERING FROM SHORTAGES OF FLOW.  THE COURT POINTED OUT
THAT COLORADO HAD AUTHORIZED DIVERSIONS IN EXCESS OF THE FLOW AT CANON
CITY.  AND THE RECORD IN THE PRESENT CASE INDICATES THAT, EXCEPT FOR
SEEPAGE AND RETURN FLOW, THE APPROPRIATIONS COLORADO HAS AUTHORIZED
FROM THE BASIN, AS A WHOLE, EXCEED THE AVAILABLE DEPENDABLE FLOW OF THE
STREAM AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, AND THIS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TRUE ALSO IN
1901.  IT APPEARS, NEVERTHELESS, THAT, SINCE 1904, AN INCREASED
QUANTITY OF USABLE WATER HAS PASSED THE STATE LINE, FOR IT IS TESTIFIED
BY KANSAS' EXPERT WITNESS THAT, BETWEEN 1895 AND 1902, NO DIVERTIBLE
WATER PASSED THE LINE AND NONE BETWEEN 1903 AND 1907, EXCEPT IN 1903
AND 1905, WHEREAS IN EACH YEAR SINCE 1908 DIVERTIBLE WATER HAS CROSSED
THE STATE LINE IN VARYING QUANTITIES AND, IN MOST YEARS, IN SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNTS.    KANSAS, HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT 414,000 ACRES IN WESTERN
KANSAS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF SUCCESSFUL IRRIGATION, AND MUCH OF THIS LAND
WOULD HAVE BEEN IRRIGATED HAD COLORADO NOT DEPRIVED KANSAS OF HER
EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE FLOW.  THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THE ACREAGE NOW
IRRIGATED IN KANSAS LIES CLOSE TO THE RIVER AND ALONG THE RIVER
BOTTOM.  THE LAND CLAIMED TO BE SUSCEPTIBLE OF IRRIGATION EXTENDS MANY
MILES FROM THE BED OF THE RIVER.  WE ARE ASKED TO SPECULATE AS TO HOW
MUCH OF THIS LAND WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT UNDER IRRIGATION UNDER MORE
FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, DESPITE COLORADO'S ALLEGED INCREASED
DEPLETION, THE ACREAGE UNDER IRRIGATION IN WESTERN KANSAS THROUGH
EXISTING DITCHES HAS STEADILY INCREASED, OVER THE PERIOD 1895-1939,
FROM APPROXIMATELY 15,000 ACRES TO APPROXIMATELY 56,000 ACRES. 
MOREOVER, THE ARID LANDS IN WESTERN KANSAS ARE UNDERLAID AT SHALLOW
DEPTHS WITH GREAT QUANTITIES OF GROUND WATER AVAILABLE FOR IRRIGATION
BY PUMPING AT LOW INITIAL AND MAINTENANCE COST.  THERE IS PERSUASIVE
TESTIMONY THAT FARMERS WHO COULD BE SERVED FROM EXISTING DITCHES HAVE
ELECTED NOT TO TAKE WATER THEREFROM BUT TO INSTALL PUMPING SYSTEMS
BECAUSE OF LOWER COST. 

AGAIN, THERE IS SERIOUS QUESTION WHETHER LANDS WHICH ARE NOT RIPARIAN
MAY DIVERT THE WATER FROM THE STREAM FOR IRRIGATION.  IN THE EARLIER
SUIT KANSAS ASSERTED,  FN11  AND THE COURT HELD,  FN12 THAT THE COMMON
LAW PREVAILED IN KANSAS AND GOVERNED THE RIGHTS OF RIPARIAN OWNERS.  IT
IS TRUE THAT THE RULE AS TO RIPARIAN RIGHTS HAS BEEN EXPANDED BY THE
COMMON LAW OF KANSAS TO PERMIT A RIPARIAN PROPRIETOR REASONABLE USE OF
THE WATERS OF A STREAM FOR IRRIGATION.  FN13  BUT SUCH USE IS SUBJECT
TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHER RIPARIAN OWNERS TO A LIKE REASONABLE USE.  WHAT
IS REASONABLE MUST, IN EACH INSTANCE, BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF
TOTAL SUPPLY AND TOTAL NEED OF ALL RIPARIAN OWNERS.  FN14  IT IS ALSO
TRUE THAT, BEGINNING IN 1886, KANSAS, BY STATUTE, RECOGNIZED
APPROPRIATION FOR IRRIGATION.  BUT THERE IS DOUBT WHETHER THE PRIVILEGE
IS NOT RESTRICTED TO RIPARIAN OWNERS IN SOME PORTIONS OF THE STATE. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS HAS HELD THAT, WHERE A TITLE ORIGINATES IN
A GRANT ANTEDATING THE ACT OF 1886, THE RIGHT OF APPROPRIATION IS
LIMITED BY THE COMMON LAW AS TO RIPARIAN RIGHTS, WHICH ARE RIGHTS OF
PROPERTY DERIVED FROM THE ORIGINAL PATENT OR DEED IN THE LINE OF
TITLE.  FN15  IT SEEMS THAT TITLE TO MUCH OF THE LAND ALONG THE
ARKANSAS VALLEY IN WESTERN KANSAS WAS ORIGINALLY GRANTED OR PATENTED
PRIOR TO 1886.  THE BRIEF AND ARGUMENT OF KANSAS, WHILE REFERRING TO
THE STATUTES OF THE STATE AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION, MAKE NO REFERENCE
TO THE KANSAS DECISIONS AND NO SHOWING WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHT OF NON
RIPARIAN OWNERS TO APPROPRIATE WATERS AGAINST OBJECTION BY OTHER SUCH
OWNERS. 

THE OFFICIAL CENSUS FIGURES SUBMITTED BEARING UPON POPULATION OF THE
WESTERN COUNTIES OF KANSAS, AND THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN THEM,
GIVE NO SUPPORT TO A CLAIM THAT THE INHABITANTS HAVE SUFFERED FOR LACK
OF ARABLE AND PRODUCTIVE LAND.  GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE POPULATION HAS
STEADILY INCREASED AND THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION HAS ALSO RISEN
THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD IN QUESTION. 

ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS PERSUADE US THAT KANSAS HAS NOT SUSTAINED
HER ALLEGATIONS THAT COLORADO'S USE HAS MATERIALLY INCREASED, AND THAT
THE INCREASE HAS WORKED A SERIOUS DETRIMENT TO THE SUBSTANTIAL
INTERESTS OF KANSAS. 

A DECREE SHOULD BE ENTERED ENJOINING THE FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE
FINNEY COUNTY ASSOCIATION'S SUITS, AND DISMISSING THE PRAYERS OF BOTH
STATES FOR OTHER RELIEF.  THE PARTIES MAY SUBMIT SUCH A DECREE. 

FN1  THE COURT OVERRULED A DEMURRER TO THE BILL AND REQUIRED COLORADO
TO ANSWER.  KANSAS V. COLORADO, 185 U.S. 125. 

FN2  SEE THE CASES IN NOTES 3, 4 AND 6 INFRA.  IN NEW JERSEY V. NEW
YORK, 283 U.S. 336, 347, THE PRAYER OF PENNSYLVANIA FOR SUCH AN
ALLOCATION WAS DENIED.  WYOMING V. COLORADO, 259 U.S. 419, IS NOT AN
EXCEPTION.  AS IT HAPPENED, THE DOCTRINE OF APPROPRIATION HAD ALWAYS
PREVAILED IN EACH OF THE STATES THERE CONCERNED AND FURNISHED THE MOST
APPROPRIATE AND ACCURATE MEASURE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF
APPROPRIATION OF THE FLOW OF THE LARAMIE RIVER.  IT WAS, THEREFORE,
POSSIBLE IN ENFORCING EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT, TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF
WATER WHICH COLORADO MIGHT, WITHOUT INJURY TO WYOMING'S INTERESTS,
DIVERT TO ANOTHER WATER SHED, TO AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING THE
UNAPPROPRIATED FLOW. 

FN3  MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, 180 U.S. 208; KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S.
46, 95, 96. 

FN4  SEE WASHINGTON V. OREGON, 214 U.S. 205, 218; MINNESOTA V.
WISCONSIN, 252 U.S. 273, 283; NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY, 256 U.S. 296,
313.  COMPARE THE COLORADO RIVER COMPACT OF NOV. 24, 1922, AUTHORIZED
BY ACT OF AUGUST 19, 1921, 42 STAT. 171, AND DISMISSED IN ARIZONA V.
CALIFORNIA, 292 U.S. 341, 345; AND COMPARE HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA
RIVER CO., 304 U.S. 92. 

FN5  KANSAS V. COLORADO, SUPRA, 100. 

FN6  KANSAS V. COLORADO, SUPRA, 85, 101-102; CONNECTICUT V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 282 U.S. 660, 669-670; WASHINGTON V. OREGON, 297 U.S.
517, 523, 526. 

FN7  CASES CITED IN NOTE 8. 

FN8  MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, 200 U.S. 496, 520-521; NEW YORK V. NEW
JERSEY, 256 U.S. 296, 309; NORTH DAKOTA V. MINNESOTA, 263 U.S. 365,
374; CONNECTICUT V. MASSACHUSETTS, 282 U.S. 660, 669; ALABAMA V.
ARIZONA, 291 U.S. 286, 292; WASHINGTON V. OREGON, 297 U.S. 517, 522. 

FN9  WASHINGTON V. OREGON, 297 U.S. 517, 526. 

FN10  IN COMPUTING AVERAGE ANNUAL FLOWS, FLOOD WATERS ARE INCLUDED IN
THE RECKONING.  AS LATER SHOWN, SUCH ANNUAL AVERAGES DO NOT REPRESENT
THE QUANTITIES OF WATER USABLE BY DIVERSION DITCHES FOR IRRIGATION. 

FN11  206 U.S. 51, 52, 58, 59, 60, 61. 

FN12  IBID., 95, 99, 102, 104. 

FN13  CAMPBELL V. GRIMES, 62 KAN. 503, 64 P. 62. 

FN14  CLARK V. ALLAMAN, 71 KAN. 206, 80 P. 571. 

FN15  FRIZELL V. BINDLEY, 144 KAN. 84, 58 P.2D 95.  CF. SMITH V.
MILLER, 147 KAN. 40, 75 P.2D 273. 
..END :







CRESCENT EXPRESS LINES V. U.S., 320 U.S. 401 


NO. 65.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1943.  - 49
F.SUPP.  92, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING OPERATIONS AS A
COMMON CARRIER UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT,
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ISSUED A CERTIFICATE MORE LIMITED
THAN THAT INDICATED IN ITS EARLIER "COMPLIANCE ORDER."  HELD THAT THE
APPLICANT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF ANY PROCEDURAL RIGHT.  P. 404. 

2.  UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ISSUED A COMMON CARRIER CERTIFICATE
LIMITED TO "SPECIAL OPERATIONS," "NON-SCHEDULED DOOR-TO-DOOR SERVICE,"
"IRREGULAR ROUTES," AND "TRANSPORTATION OF NOT MORE THAN SIX PERSONS IN
ANY ONE VEHICLE."  HELD AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT AND SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE.  P. 405. 

3.  THE LIMITATION OF THE CERTIFICATE TO "TRANSPORTATION OF NOT MORE
THAN SIX PERSONS IN ANY ONE VEHICLE" IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PROVISO OF SEC. 208 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT FORBIDDING RESTRICTION OF
THE RIGHT OF A CARRIER TO ADD EQUIPMENT.  PP. 406, 409. 

4.  IT WAS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS TO LIMIT APPLICANTS UNDER THE
"GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" TO THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE PREVIOUSLY
OFFERED.  P. 410. 

CRESCENT EXPRESS LINES, INC. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT
FN1  UPHOLDING AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
SPECIFYING LIMITATIONS IN A CERTIFICATE PROPOSED TO BE ISSUED TO
APPELLANT AS A COMMON CARRIER. 

THE ORDER BEARS THE LIMITATIONS UPON ITS FACE, AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED BY APPLICANT, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ORDER
OF WHICH THIS IS A PART, IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE AS A COMMON
CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE OF PASSENGERS AND THEIR BAGGAGE, IN SPECIAL
OPERATIONS, IN NON-SCHEDULED DOOR-TO-DOOR SERVICE, LIMITED TO THE
TRANSPORTATION OF NOT MORE THAN SIX PASSENGERS IN ANY ONE VEHICLE, BUT
NOT INCLUDING THE DRIVER THEREOF, AND NOT INCLUDING CHILDREN UNDER TEN
YEARS OF AGE WHO DO NOT OCCUPY A SEAT OR SEATS, DURING THE SEASON
EXTENDING FROM JUNE 1 TO OCTOBER 1, INCLUSIVE, OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES,"
BETWEEN NEW YORK, N.Y., AND POINTS IN SULLIVAN AND ULSTER COUNTIES, NEW
YORK. 

FOLLOWING THE ENACTMENT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT.
543, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 301 ET SEQ., THE APPELLANT'S PREDECESSOR, A
PARTNERSHIP, MADE TIMELY APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY UNDER THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE OF THE ACT, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 306(A). 

AS APPEARS FROM THE APPLICATION AND THE EVIDENCE, THE APPELLANT'S
OPERATIONS BEGAN IN 1928 WHEN HERMAN TREVAX PURCHASED A SEVEN-PASSENGER
SEDAN AND BEGAN CARRYING PASSENGERS TO SUMMER RESORTS IN THE MOUNTAINS
OF NEW YORK STATE.  BETWEEN 1930 AND 1933, THREE OTHERS PURCHASED CARS,
JOINED TREVAX IN THIS BUSINESS AND OPENED AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK.  ALL
THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE CRITICAL DATE OF JUNE 1, 1935, FIXED BY SEC.
306(A) TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICANTS FOR CERTIFICATES
BECAUSE OF THEIR FORMER (GRANDFATHER) OPERATION. 

THE PARTNERS ADVERTISED "7 PASSENGERS CARS LEAVING DAILY TO ALL PARTS
OF THE MOUNTAINS," "FROM YOUR HOME TO YOUR HOTEL."  AN AFFIDAVIT STATED
THAT THE PARTNERS WOULD "TRANSPORT PEOPLE TO HOTELS LOCATED IN ALL
ROADS AND BY-ROADS."  THE OWNERS OF SEVERAL RESORT HOTELS STATED THAT
THE APPLICANT HAD SUPPLIED CARS FOR CARRYING GUESTS BETWEEN THEIR
HOTELS AND NEW YORK CITY.  FORMER PASSENGERS DESCRIBED THE CONVENIENCE
OF THE SERVICE AND FROM THEIR DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TRIPS, IT APPEARS
THAT THE ROUTES FOLLOWED WERE IRREGULAR AND TAKEN TO FIT THE NEEDS OF
EACH PASSENGER.  THE FIRM OWNED NO BUSES OF ANY KIND. 

ON JUNE 20, 1938, THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER THAT IT WOULD, ON
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS NOT HERE PERTINENT, GRANT A CERTIFICATE
AUTHORIZING CRESCENT TO OPERATE "AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE
OF PASSENGERS AND THEIR BAGGAGE, OVER THE REGULAR ROUTE, BETWEEN FIXED
TERMINI, AND TO AND FROM INTERMEDIATE AND OFF-ROUTE POINTS, DURING THE
SEASON EXTENDING FROM THE 1ST OF JUNE TO THE 1ST OF OCTOBER,
INCLUSIVE," BETWEEN NEW YORK CITY AND NAMED TOWNS IN SULLIVAN AND
ULSTER COUNTIES, NEW YORK, BY WAY OF NEW JERSEY. 

PROTESTS WERE FILED BY SEVERAL COMPETING CARRIERS, WHO CONSIDERED THE
COMPLIANCE ORDER TOO BROAD.  ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1938, THE PARTIES WERE
NOTIFIED THAT THE OBJECTIONS HAD BEEN DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT
REFERRING THE CASE BACK TO THE FIELD FORCE FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. 
AN INFORMAL HEARING, WHICH THE APPLICANT DID NOT ATTEND, WAS HELD ON
DECEMBER 1, 1938. 

THE COMMISSION THEN DEFERRED DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICANT'S RIGHTS
UNTIL THE DECISION OF A NUMBER OF TEST CASES INVOLVING CARRIERS
PERFORMING A SIMILAR SERVICE.  SEE SULLIVAN COUNTY HIGHWAY LINE
APPLICATION, 21 M.C.C. 717, RECONSIDERED, 30 M.C.C. 133; IRVING
NUDELMAN APPLICATION, 22 M.C.C. 275, RECONSIDERED, 28 M.C.C. 91.  IN
THE MEANTIME, THE PARTNERS SOLD THEIR BUSINESS TO THE PRESENT
APPELLANT, WHICH WAS SUBSTITUTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION BY ORDER OF
OCTOBER 31, 1940.  ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1941, THE SECOND ORDER, PROVIDING
FOR A MORE LIMITED CERTIFICATE, QUOTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS
OPINION, WAS ISSUED. 

(1)  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE CHANGES TO WHICH IT OBJECTS IN THE
LAST ORDER AS COMPARED WITH THE EARLIER WERE MADE WITHOUT PROPER
HEARING OR EVIDENCE.  THIS ARGUMENT PROCEEDS UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THE EARLIER CONCLUSIONS, AS EMBODIED IN THE 1938 ORDER, ENDOW APPELLANT
WITH SOMETHING AKIN TO A RIGHT TO RECEIVE ULTIMATELY A CERTIFICATE
EMBODYING THE TERMS OF THE ORDER.  FN2  HOWEVER, UNDER SEC. 306 THE
COMMISSION WAS DIRECTED TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATES TO APPLICANTS UNDER
THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF OF CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY AND WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  ITS ROUTINE PRACTICE WAS TO
REFER THE APPLICATION TO ITS FIELD FORCE FOR INVESTIGATION N3.  THE
APPLICANT APPEARED BEFORE THIS EXAMINER PRIOR TO THE FIRST ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION.  THE COMPLIANCE ORDER WAS MADE UPON THE APPLICATION, THE
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS AND QUESTIONNAIRE.  THE MASS OF APPLICATIONS
FORCED THIS SUMMARY PROCEDURE.  FN4  THE COMPLIANCE ORDER GAVE
OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT OR OTHER PARTIES IN INTEREST TO PROTEST
ITS CONCLUSIONS.  THE ORDER REMAINS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
COMMISSION.  SEC. 321(B).  THIS APPLICATION WAS TREATED IN THE
FOREGOING MANNER. 

NOTHING INIMICAL TO THE APPLICANT ON THE PROTESTS OF ITS COMPETITORS
DEVELOPED FROM THE HEARING OF DECEMBER 1, 1938.  APPLICANT PROTESTED IN
WRITING THE ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1941, FILED A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
PROTEST AND UPON THE REFUSAL OF DIVISION 5 ON MARCH 17, 1942, TO ALLOW
THE PROTEST, RENEWED IT BEFORE THE ENTIRE COMMISSION WHERE IT WAS AGAIN
DENIED JULY 13, 1942.  AT NO TIME HAS APPELLANT OFFERED TO PRESENT
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF OPERATIONS PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1935.  IT SEEMS
PLAIN TO US THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN AFFORDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT ITS APPLICATION WITH ALL SUPPORTING DATA.  IN VIEW OF THESE
FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT APPELLANT HAD ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1938. 

(2)  A FURTHER CONTENTION OF APPELLANT IS THAT THE RECORD "DOES NOT
SUPPORT THE COMMISSION IN RESTRICTING THE APPELLANT TO DOOR-TO-DOOR
SERVICE OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES IN NON-SCHEDULED OPERATIONS," WHICH WERE
DESCRIBED AS SPECIAL OPERATIONS.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT'S
INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDER, THAT "DOOR-TO-DOOR SERVICE" ALLOWED THE
APPELLANT TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS FROM THEIR OFFICE OR STATION IN THE
CITY AS WELL AS FROM THE PASSENGERS' RESIDENCES TO THE MOUNTAINS AND
VICE VERSA, IS NOT CHALLENGED, THAT PROVISION REQUIRES NO FURTHER
EXAMINATION.  EVIDENTLY FROM THE ADVERTISEMENT QUOTED ON P. 403, SUPRA,
BOTH OF THESE TYPES OF BUSINESS WERE SOUGHT. 

THE OBJECTION OF APPELLANT TO "IRREGULAR ROUTES" APPEARS TO BE THAT
ONLY SPECIAL OR CHARTER OPERATIONS ENTITLE A MOTOR CARRIER TO A
CERTIFICATE FOR IRREGULAR ROUTES.  SEC. 307.  THEREFORE IF APPELLANT'S
OPERATIONS ARE SCHEDULED OPERATIONS BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI, AS APPELLANT
ALSO CONTENDS, THE ORDER OUGHT TO REQUIRE A REGULAR ROUTE.  HOWEVER, WE
THINK THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT PRIOR TO THE CRITICAL DATE, JUNE 1,
1935, THE OPERATIONS OF APPELLANT WERE SPECIAL AND NON-SCHEDULED. 
CONSEQUENTLY THE INSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE FOR IRREGULAR ROUTES WAS
CORRECT. 

IN ANSWER TO THE INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER SPECIAL OR CHARTER OPERATIONS
WERE CONDUCTED PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1935, APPELLANT ANSWERED, "NO SPECIAL
OPERATIONS."  FN5  HOWEVER, THE RECORD SHOWS A NUMBER OF INSTANCES
WHERE PASSENGERS MADE INDIVIDUAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEIR TRANSPORTATION
TO AND FROM THE MOUNTAINS.  NO SCHEDULE OF ARRIVAL OR DEPARTURE APPEARS
IN THE RECORD.  INSTEAD OF PUBLISHING ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES, ROUTES,
STOPS, ET CETERA, THE ADVERTISEMENTS REFERRED TO DAILY TRIPS AND ASKED
PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS TO ARRANGE FOR RESERVATIONS.  THERE WAS
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT APPLICANT'S SERVICE PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1935, WAS
SPECIAL AND NON-SCHEDULED. 

THE EVIDENCE ALSO IS PLAIN THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT OPERATE BETWEEN
FIXED TERMINI.  A MAP WAS FILED WITH THE APPLICATION SHOWING NOT A
SINGLE DESTINATION IN THE MOUNTAINS BUT NUMEROUS ONES, WHICH ARE
DESCRIBED BY APPELLANT IN ITS APPLICATION AS FOLLOWS: 

"APPLICANT OBTAINS ITS TRAFFIC IN THE BOROUGHS OF MANHATTAN AND
BRONX, NEW YORK, AND TRANSPORTS SAID TRAFFIC TO THE COUNTIES OF
SULLIVAN AND ULSTER, IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  ON RETURN TRIPS THE
APPLICANT OBTAINS ITS TRAFFIC IN AND ABOUT WOODBOURNE, NEW YORK, MORE
SPECIFICALLY WITHIN A RADIUS OF TWENTY (20) MILES FROM WOODBOURNE, NEW
YORK, AND TRANSPORTS SUCH TRAFFIC TO THE FIVE BOROUGHS OF NEW YORK
CITY." 

(3)  FINALLY, APPELLANT URGES THAT IT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO LIMIT ITS OPERATIONS TO "TRANSPORTATION OF NOT MORE THAN
SIX PASSENGERS IN ANY ONE VEHICLE."  THE FREEDOM IS CLAIMED TO USE
BUSES OR OTHER MULTIPLE PASSENGER TYPE OF CONVEYANCE. 

PROVIDES, WITH REFERENCE TO GRANDFATHER CLAUSE CARRIERS, "THAT NO
TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR LIMITATIONS SHALL RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE
CARRIER TO ADD TO HIS OR ITS EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES OVER THE ROUTES,
BETWEEN THE TERMINI, OR WITHIN THE TERRITORY SPECIFIED IN THE
CERTIFICATE, AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND THE DEMANDS OF THE
PUBLIC SHALL REQUIRE."  FN6 

THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION DEPENDS
UPON THE MEANING GIVEN TO THE WORD, "BUSINESS."  THE APPELLANT ARGUES
THAT IT WOULD BE ENGAGED IN THE SAME BUSINESS IF, IN LIEU OF USING
SEVEN-PASSENGER SEDANS, IT UNDERTOOK TO HAUL LARGER NUMBERS OF
PASSENGERS IN BUSES.  BUT THE SPECIAL ADVANTAGE TO THE PUBLIC INHERENT
IN THE USE OF SMALL VEHICLES OPERATING AS OCCASION DEMANDS FROM DOOR-TO
DOOR RATHER THAN BETWEEN TERMINALS, SETS OFF THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS
FROM THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY REGULAR LINES OPERATING HEAVIER
EQUIPMENT.  IRVING NUDELMAN APPLICATION, 28 M.C.C. 91, 95-6.  THE
LIMITATION TO SIX PASSENGERS IN ONE LOAD IS LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN
LIMITATION TO A PARTICULAR TYPE OF VEHICLE SINCE IT ALLOWS THE CARRIER
TO EMPLOY SEDANS, OPEN CARS, STATION WAGONS, OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE
MOTOR VEHICLE.  28 M.C.C. AT 96.  THIS ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY IN EQUIPMENT
WHILE CONTINUING THE SAME BUSINESS.  22 M.C.C. 285.  THE LINE BETWEEN
SIX-PASSENGER AND LARGER SCALE OPERATION MUST BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE, AND
THE COMMISSION HAS FIXED IT WHERE THE APPELLANT CONDUCTED ITS BUSINESS
ON JUNE 1, 1935.  THE CRESCENT PARTNERSHIP GAVE SOME INDICATION THAT IT
APPRECIATED THESE SPECIAL DIFFERENCES WHEN IN 1938 IT PROPOSED TO
CHANGE ITS NAME TO CRESCENT CADILLAC SERVICE, "FOR THE SAKE OF A BETTER
BUSINESS NAME," THUS EMPHASIZING THE COMMERCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
SEDAN-TYPE VEHICLE.  IT APPEARS FROM THE APPLICATION THAT CRESCENT
OWNED NO BUSES; IT OPERATED NOTHING BUT SEDANS.  TO AUTHORIZE THE
APPELLANT TO CHANGE TO THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING PASSENGERS BY BUS WOULD
ALTER THE POSITION IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH IT OCCUPIED ON
JUNE 1, 1935.  NOBLE V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 88.  FN7 

IF THE HOLDER OF A GRANDFATHER CERTIFICATE FOR THIS DISTINCTIVE DOOR
TO-DOOR SERVICE COULD DEVELOP HIS OPERATIONS SO THAT THEY WOULD BE
SUBSTANTIALLY THOSE OF A BUS LINE, THE ABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO
CARRY OUT ITS DUTIES OF REGULATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE
SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED.  SINCE SEC. 308 REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO SPECIFY
THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED, THIS COULD NOT BE DONE WITHOUT POWER ALSO
TO SPECIFY THE GENERAL TYPE OF VEHICLE TO BE USED.  WE AGREE WITH THE
COMMISSION THAT THE PROVISO IS A PROHIBITION AGAINST A LIMITATION ON
THE ADDITION OF MORE VEHICLES OF THE AUTHORIZED TYPE, NOT A PROHIBITION
OF THE SPECIFICATION OF THE TYPE.  SEE IRVING NUDELMAN APPLICATION, 28
M.C.C. 91.  FN8 

WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO LIMIT THE
CERTIFICATE AS IT PROPOSES TO DO IS IN ACCORD WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  WHEN CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR CERTIFICATES TO COVER
ALL CARRIERS WHICH WERE ALREADY IN OPERATION, IT DID NOT THROW OPEN THE
MOTOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO MORE DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION THAN THAT
ALREADY EXISTING.  THE RIGHT TO CERTIFICATES WAS LIMITED TO THOSE THEN
IN BONA FIDE OPERATION "OVER THE ROUTE OR ROUTES OR WITHIN THE
TERRITORY FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 306. 

THE STATUTE, WE HAVE SAID, CONTEMPLATED "SUBSTANTIAL PARITY" BETWEEN
FUTURE AND PRIOR OPERATIONS.  ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S.
15, 22.  "AS THE ACT IS REMEDIAL AND TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY, THE
PROVISO DEFINING EXEMPTIONS IS TO BE READ IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE
OF THE MEASURE AND HELD TO EXTEND ONLY TO CARRIERS PLAINLY WITHIN ITS
TERMS."  MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 263, 266; GREGG CARTAGE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 74, 83.  CONSEQUENTLY WE HELD IN UNITED STATES
V. MAHER, 307 U.S. 148, THAT OPERATIONS OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES DID NOT
PROVIDE THE REQUISITE CONTINUITY TO SUPPORT AN APPLICATION FOR REGULAR
SERVICE BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI, EVEN WHEN THE HIGHWAY BETWEEN THE FIXED
TERMINI HAD BEEN OCCASIONALLY USED FOR PART OF THE DISTANCE IN THE
IRREGULAR ROUTE OPERATIONS.    WHEN THE COMMISSION REQUIRES THE
APPLICANT UNDER THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE TO LIMIT ITS FUTURE OPERATIONS
TO THE TYPE OF EQUIPMENT AND SERVICE PREVIOUSLY OFFERED, IT ACTS WITHIN
ITS POWER AND IN ACCORD WITH THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO MAINTAIN MOTOR
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES APPROPRIATE TO THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC.  S.
REP. NO. 482, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  IF THERE IS A NEED FOR A DIFFERENT
TYPE OF SERVICE FOR THIS TRANSPORTATION, APPLICATIONS MAY BE FILED
UNDER SEC. 307.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SECS. 47, 47A.    FN2  THESE PRELIMINARY ORDERS ARE
SPOKEN OF AS COMPLIANCE ORDERS.  SUCH A DESCRIPTIVE WORD IS APPLICABLE
BECAUSE THE ORDERS DIRECT THE ISSUE OF A CERTIFICATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE TERMS OF THE COMPLIANCE ORDER, IF NO OBJECTION IS FILED AND IF THE
APPLICANT COMPLIES WITH THE STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS OF
SECURITY FOR PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC, RATES, FARES, CHARGES AND
TARIFFS.  49 U.S.C. SECS. 315-317. 

FN3  51ST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, PP. 70
72. 

FN4  51ST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, PP.
67, 68, 71; 55TH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
P. 110.  SEE GREGG CARTAGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 74, 84. 

FN5  THE COMMISSION CONSTRUES "CHARTER" TO REFER TO ONE CONTRACTOR
TAKING OVER ALL THE VEHICLE FOR A TRIP OR TRIPS AND "SPECIAL" TO
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ON WEEK-END, HOLIDAYS OR OTHER SPECIAL
OCCASIONS WHEN THE CARRIER ASSEMBLES THE PASSENGERS AND SELLS
INDIVIDUAL TICKETS.  RE FORDHAM BUS CORP., 29 M.C.C. 293, 297, 41
F.SUPP.  712. 

FN6  THE BILL AS DRAFTED BY THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION
DID NOT CONTAIN THE PROVISO.  S. DOC. NO. 152, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP.
47 AND 357.  THE ADDITION WAS EXPLAINED BY SENATOR WHEELER, THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE, AS FOLLOWS:  "SECTION
208(A), PAGE 26, AS AMENDED, PERMITS THE COMMISSION TO ATTACH TO ALL
CERTIFICATES, WHETHER GRANTED UNDER THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE OR
OTHERWISE, REASONABLE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS.  IN ORDER TO
MEET CRITICISMS THAT THE EFFECT OF THESE PROVISIONS WOULD BE TO CHECK
THE NATURAL GROWTH OF OPERATIONS IF EVERY INCREASE IN FACILITIES
REQUIRED AUTHORIZATION BY THE COMMISSION, THE COMMITTEE HAS AMENDED

FN7  THE NOBLE CASE WAS A CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION UNDER 49
U.S.C. SEC. 309.  UNDER SUBSECTION (B) THE COMMISSION WAS REQUIRED TO
SPECIFY IN THE PERMIT THE "BUSINESS OF THE CONTRACT CARRIER COVERED
THEREBY." 

WE HELD THAT IT WAS PROPER TO LIMIT THE PERMIT SO THAT ONLY SHIPPERS
WHO "OPERATE FOOD CANNERIES OR MEAT PACKING BUSINESSES," IN PARTICULAR
LOCALITIES, MIGHT BE SERVED.  THIS LIMITATION CORRESPONDED TO THE TYPE
OF TRADE PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED BY THE CARRIER.  THE CARRIER CONTENDED FOR
A LIMITATION ONLY AS TO COMMODITIES.  THE PROVISO IN SEC. 309(B),
APPLICABLE IN THE NOBLE CASE, COVERS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME GROUND AS
THE PROVISO IN SEC. 308 DEALT WITH IN THE PRESENT OPINION. 

FN8  NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF LIMITATION OF TYPE ARE GIVEN IN THE
NUDELMAN OPINION.  THE RULE OF THE NUDELMAN CASE HAS BEEN APPLIED IN
RUBIN AND GREENFIELD APPLICATION, 33 M.C.C. 383, AND GREENBERG
APPLICATION, 33 M.C.C. 725.  SEE ALSO DAVIDSON TRANSFER & STORAGE CO.
APPLICATION, 32 M.C.C. 777. 
..END :





















ESTATE OF ROGERS V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 410 


NO. 66.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 19, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1943.  -
135 F.2D 35, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE VALUE OF PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH A DECEDENT EXERCISED BY
WILL A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT, HELD, UNDER SEC. 302(F) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, INCLUDIBLE IN HIS GROSS ESTATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, WITHOUT DEDUCTION FOR ANY PROPERTY APPOINTED TO
PERSONS WHO (UNDER THE WILL OF THE CREATOR OF THE POWER) WOULD HAVE
COME INTO ENJOYMENT OF OTHER INTERESTS IN THE PROPERTY HAD THE POWER
NOT BEEN EXERCISED.  P. 413. 

2.  WHETHER UNDER SEC. 302(F) THERE HAS BEEN A "PASSING" OF PROPERTY
BY A TESTAMENTARY EXERCISE OF A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT IS A
FEDERAL QUESTION, ONCE STATE LAW HAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE APPOINTMENT
HAD LEGAL VALIDITY AND BROUGHT INTO BEING NEW INTERESTS IN PROPERTY. 
P. 414. 

3.  HELVERING V. GRINNELL, 294 U.S. 153, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 415. 

ESTATE OF ROGERS ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 320 U.S. 210, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHICH DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS AN OVERPAYMENT OF
ESTATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE REQUIRES US TO DETERMINE WHETHER AND WHAT INTERESTS THAT
CAME INTO ENJOYMENT UPON THE DEATH OF THE DONEE OF A GENERAL POWER OF
APPOINTMENT SHOULD BE INCLUDED FOR FEDERAL ESTATE TAX PURPOSES IN THE
DONEE'S GROSS ESTATE.  SEC. 302(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, C. 27,
44 STAT. (PART 2) 9, 71, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 803(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, 279, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 811(F). 

THE PROBLEM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES.  ROGERS SR. GAVE
HIS SON, THE DECEDENT, A GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT OVER
CERTAIN PROPERTY, WITH LIMITATIONS IN DEFAULT OF THE APPOINTMENT TO THE
HEIRS, UNDER NEW YORK LAW, OF THE SON.  ON THE SON'S DEATH THESE HEIRS
WERE HIS WIDOW, A DAUGHTER AND A SON, TO EACH OF WHOM WOULD HAVE COME
UPON DEFAULT ONE-THIRD OF THE PROPERTY.  HOWEVER, THE DECEDENT DID
EXERCISE HIS POWER.  HIS WILL, AS DETERMINED BY A DECREE OF THE
SURROGATE'S COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK (NEW YORK LAW
JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 9, 1938, P. 1542, AND 170 MISC. 85, 9 N.Y.S.2D 586),
CREATED THE FOLLOWING INTERESTS SO FAR AS HERE RELEVANT:  A FRACTION OF
THE APPOINTABLE PROPERTY, 6.667%, WENT IN THREE EQUAL SHARES TO THE
WIDOW, THE DAUGHTER, AND A GRANDSON; OF THE BALANCE, TWO EQUAL SHARES
WERE PUT IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WIDOW AND DAUGHTER,
RESPECTIVELY, WHILE THE OTHER THIRD WAS APPOINTED OUTRIGHT TO THE
GRANDSON.  THE DECEDENT MADE NO APPOINTMENT TO HIS SON. 

IN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE, THE COMMISSIONER
INCLUDED THE VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY OF WHICH DECEDENT DISPOSED BY
APPOINTMENT.  HE DID SO BY APPLYING THE DIRECTION OF SEC. 302 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, WHEREBY 

"THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(F)  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF
APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY THE DECEDENT (1) BY WILL  ..."  44 STAT. (PART
2) 9, 70-71, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 803(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C.
209, 47 STAT. 169, 279, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 811(F). 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REDUCED THE VALUE OF HIS GROSS ESTATE BY
EXCLUDING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH PASSED TO THE WIDOW AND
DAUGHTER.  FN1  IT DID SO ON THE GROUND THAT THAT WHICH CAME TO THESE
TWO UNDER THE POWER WAS LESS IN VALUE THAN WOULD HAVE COME TO THEM
UNDER THE WILL OF THE DONOR OF THE POWER HAD THAT POWER NOT BEEN
EXERCISED BY THE DONEE.  ON REVIEW THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED THE BOARD AND REINSTATED THE DEFICIENCY
DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER, TAXING ALL THE PROPERTY WHICH THE
DECEDENT APPOINTED.  TWO OF THE JUDGES EXPRESSED DISTINCT VIEWS, THE
THIRD CONCURRED IN THE RESULT WITHOUT JOINING EITHER OF HIS BRETHREN. 
135 F.2D 35.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAXATION AS WELL AS TO SETTLE AN
ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SECOND CIRCUIT AND THE THIRD AND FOURTH
CIRCUITS (ROTHENSIES V. FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO., 112 F.2D 758;
LEGG'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 114 F.2D 760, AND SEE LEWIS V.
ROTHENSIES, 138 F.2D 129), WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  320 U.S. 210. 

WE AGREE WITH THE DECISION BELOW.  A CONTRARY VIEW WOULD MEAN THAT
THE DECEDENT DID NOTHING SO FAR AS HE CREATED INTERESTS FOR HIS WIDOW
AND DAUGHTER, ALTHOUGH UNDENIABLY THE DONEE, BY HIS WILL, EXERCISED HIS
POWER OF APPOINTMENT.  NOTHING OF A TAXABLE NATURE HAPPENED, IT IS
URGED, NO PROPERTY "PASSED" THROUGH THIS EXERCISE OF HIS POWER BECAUSE
BY HIS WILL THE DONEE GAVE INTERESTS TO APPOINTEES WHO, IF HE HAD NOT
EXERCISED THE POWER, WOULD HAVE COME INTO ENJOYMENT OF INTERESTS IN THE
PROPERTY THOUGH TO BE SURE OTHER INTERESTS THAN THE DONEE SAW FIT TO
GIVE THEM. 

THE ARGUMENT DERIVES FROM CONSIDERATIONS IRRELEVANT TO THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF THE INCIDENCE OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  IN LAW ALSO
THE RIGHT ANSWER USUALLY DEPENDS ON PUTTING THE RIGHT QUESTION.  FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE CORPUS ON WHICH AN ESTATE TAX IS TO BE
ASSESSED, WHAT IS DECISIVE IS WHAT VALUES WERE INCLUDED IN DISPOSITIONS
MADE BY A DECEDENT, VALUES WHICH BUT FOR SUCH DISPOSITIONS COULD NOT
HAVE EXISTED.  THAT OTHER VALUES, WHETHER WORTH MORE OR LESS AS TO SOME
OF THE BENEFICIARIES, WOULD HAVE RIPENED INTO ENJOYMENT IF A TESTATOR
HAD NOT EXERCISED HIS PRIVILEGE OF TRANSMITTING PROPERTY DOES NOT ALTER
THE FACT THAT HE AND NO ONE ELSE DID TRANSMIT PROPERTY WHICH IT WAS HIS
TO DO WITH AS HE WILLED.  AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THE FEDERAL ESTATE
TAX HITS - AN EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE OF DIRECTING THE COURSE OF
PROPERTY AFTER A MAN'S DEATH.  WHETHER FOR PURPOSES OF LOCAL PROPERTY
LAW TESTAMENTARY DOMINION OVER PROPERTY IS DEEMED A "SPECIAL" OR A
"GENERAL" POWER OF APPOINTMENT, MORGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78;
WHETHER LOCAL TAX LEGISLATION DEEMS THE APPOINTED INTEREST TO DERIVE
FROM THE WILL OF THE DONOR OR THAT OF THE DONEE OF THE POWER, MATTER OF
DURYEA, 277 N.Y. 310, 14 N.E.2D 369; WHETHER FOR SOME PURPOSES IN
MATTERS OF LOCAL PROPERTY LAW TITLE IS SOMETIMES TRACED TO THE DONEE OF
A POWER AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES TO THE DONOR, CF. CHANLER V. KELSEY, 205
U.S. 466, 474, ARE MATTERS OF COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL
FISC. 

WHETHER BY A TESTAMENTARY EXERCISE OF A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT
PROPERTY PASSED UNDER SEC. 302(F) IS A QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW, ONCE
STATE LAW HAS MADE CLEAR, AS IT HAS HERE, THAT THE APPOINTMENT HAD
LEGAL VALIDITY AND BROUGHT INTO BEING NEW INTERESTS IN PROPERTY.  SEE
HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154.  WERE IT NOT SO, FEDERAL TAX
LEGISLATION WOULD BE THE VICTIM OF CONFLICTING STATE DECISIONS ON
MATTERS RELATING TO LOCAL CONCERNS AND QUITE UNRELATED TO THE SINGLE
UNIFORM PURPOSE OF FEDERAL TAXATION.  LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 191
194.  IN TAXING "PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT
EXERCISED  ...  BY WILL," CONGRESS DID NOT DEAL WITH RECONDITE NICETIES
OF PROPERTY LAW NOR INCORPORATE A CRAZY-QUILT OF LOCAL FORMALISMS OR
HISTORIC SURVIVALS.  "THE IMPORTATION OF THESE DISTINCTIONS AND
CONTROVERSIES FROM THE LAW OF PROPERTY INTO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ESTATE TAX PRECLUDES A FAIR AND WORKABLE TAX SYSTEM."  HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 118.  CONGRESS USED APT LANGUAGE TO TAX
DISPOSITIONS WHICH CAME INTO BEING BY THE EXERCISE OF A TESTAMENTARY
PRIVILEGE AVAILED OF BY A DECEDENT AND WHICH IN NO OTHER WAY COULD HAVE
COME INTO BEING.  SUCH IS THE PRESENT CASE.  TO BRING ABOUT THE RESULTS
WHICH DECEDENT SOUGHT TO BRING ABOUT, HE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE WHOLE OF
THE CORPUS OVER WHICH HE HAD THE POWER OF DISPOSITION.  TO GIVE WHAT HE
WANTED TO GIVE AND TO WITHHOLD WHAT HE WANTED TO WITHHOLD, ROGERS JR.
HAD TO DO WHAT HE DID.  AND SO WHAT IS TAXED IS WHAT ROGERS JR. GAVE,
NOT WHAT ROGERS SR. LEFT.  THE SON'S APPOINTEES GOT WHAT THEY GOT NOT
BECAUSE HE CHOSE TO USE ONE SET OF WORDS RATHER THAN ANOTHER SET OF
WORDS, BUT BECAUSE HE WILLED TO GIVE THEM THE PROPERTY THAT HE WILLED. 
IF THE RESULT OF HIS TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION IS TO SUBJECT HIS
BENEFICENCE TO THE ESTATE TAX, THAT IS ALWAYS THE EFFECT OF AN ESTATE
TAX. 

NOTHING THAT WAS DECIDED OR SAID IN HELVERING V. GRINNELL, 294 U.S.
153, STANDS IN THE WAY OF THIS CONCLUSION.  WHERE A DONEE OF A POWER
MERELY ECHOES THE LIMITATIONS OVER UPON DEFAULT OF APPOINTMENT HE MAY
WELL BE DEEMED NOT TO HAVE EXERCISED HIS POWER, AND THEREFORE NOT TO
HAVE PASSED ANY PROPERTY UNDER SUCH A POWER.  THAT CASE IS A FAR CRY
FROM THIS.  TO SUGGEST THAT ALL THE PROPERTY NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE
THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY DECEDENT'S WILL DID NOT CONSTITUTE PROPERTY
PASSING UNDER HIS TESTAMENTARY POWER WOULD DISREGARD THE FACT THAT HE
HAD COMPLETE DOMINION OVER THIS PROPERTY AND DISPOSED OF ALL OF IT AS
HIS FANCY, NOT AT ALL AS HIS FATHER'S WILL, DICTATED.  INDULGENCE OF
THAT TESTAMENTARY FANCY TO THE FULL EXTENT ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER
IS WHAT SEC. 302(F) TAXES.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAD ORIGINALLY TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW. 
LESER V. COMMISSIONER, 17 B.T.A. 266, 273.  BUT HELVERING V. GRINNELL,
294 U.S. 153, LED IT TO CHANGE ITS VIEW.  WEBSTER V. COMMISSIONER, 38
B.T.A. 273, 284-289. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING: 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THIS LITIGATION IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE TAX TO BE PAID ON THE
EXERCISE OF THE TESTAMENTARY POWER WHICH PURPORTED TO GIVE OUTRIGHT TO
DECEDENT'S WIFE AND DAUGHTER, EACH, ABOUT 7% OF ONE-THIRD OF THE TRUST
FUND CREATED UNDER THE EARLIER WILL AND THE INCOME FOR LIFE FROM THE
REMAINDER OF THAT THIRD, INSTEAD OF THE OUTRIGHT GIFT OF A FULL ONE
THIRD OF THE TRUST FUND WHICH, IN DEFAULT OF APPOINTMENT, EACH WAS
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UNDER THE EARLIER AND THEN OPERATIVE WILL. 

THE ONLY EFFECT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER UPON THE SHARES OF THE
WIFE AND DAUGHTER WAS TO DIMINISH THE GIFTS WHICH THEY WERE ALREADY
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UNDER THE EARLIER WILL.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
HAS FOUND THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER, THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY WHICH THE TWO APPOINTEES WILL RECEIVE IS LESS THAN EACH
WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE UNDER THE FIRST WILL, WHICH FIXED THEIR RIGHTS
AS LEGATEES SUBJECT ONLY TO EXERCISE OF THE POWER. 

WE THINK THAT NEITHER THE HISTORY NOR THE WORDS OF THE TAXING STATUTE
JUSTIFY ANY ASSUMPTION THAT IN ENACTING A TAX ON TESTAMENTARY GIFTS IT
WAS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO TAX ALSO THE EXERCISE OF A TESTAMENTARY
POWER TO DEPRIVE A LEGATEE OF PART OF HIS LEGACY IN ADDITION TO TAXING
THE USE OF THE POWER TO APPOINT THAT PART TO A THIRD PERSON.  THE
STATUTE LAYS A TAX ON GIFTS SUCH AS THE EARLIER WILL IN THIS CASE MADE
TO THE WIFE AND TO THE DAUGHTER AND AS NOW INTERPRETED THE STATUTE
IMPOSES A SECOND TAX ON THE TESTAMENTARY EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO
DIMINISH THE GIFTS PREVIOUSLY MADE TO THEM BY WILL.  AUTHORITY FOR SO
INCONGRUOUS A RESULT IS FOUND IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 302(F) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, WHICH DIRECTS THE INCLUSION IN THE DECEDENT'S
ESTATE FOR TAXATION, OF "THE VALUE" OF PROPERTY "TO THE EXTENT OF ANY
PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT" EXERCISED BY A
DECEDENT.  THE STATUTE THUS SELECTS PROPERTY VALUES PASSING UNDER THE
EXERCISE OF A POWER OF APPOINTMENT AS THE MEASURE OF THE TAX.  IT GIVES
NO INDICATION THAT BEYOND THIS IT IS CONCERNED WITH THE TECHNICAL
QUALITY OF ESTATES PASSING UNDER EITHER THE WILL OR THE SUBSEQUENT
EXERCISE OF THE POWER.  AND, UNLIKE LATER AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTATE TAX
STATUTE, REVENUE ACT OF 1942, SEC. 403, 56 STAT. 942; CF. 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 811(D), IT TAXES NOT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A POWER TO AFFECT THE
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, BUT ITS EXERCISE TO BESTOW ON THE APPOINTEE
SUCH PROPERTY VALUES. 

LOOKING TO THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSE, WE
THINK THAT THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO
TRANSFER PROPERTY VALUES WAS THE INTENDED SUBJECT OF THE TAX, AND NOT A
USE OF THE POWER WHICH ADDS NOTHING TO, BUT SUBTRACTS FROM, GIFTS
ALREADY MADE AND SUBJECT TO TAXATION.  THIS COURT SO STATED IN
HELVERING V. GRINNELL, 294 U.S. 153.  WE CAN HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT A
PURPORTED EXERCISE OF A POWER TO MAKE TO THE WIFE AND DAUGHTER GIFTS,
IDENTICAL WITH THOSE TO WHICH THEY WERE ALREADY ENTITLED UNDER THE
WILL, OR TO APPOINT TO A THIRD PERSON AN INTEREST LESS THAN THE WHOLE
IN THE SHARES GIVEN TO THEM BY THE WILL, WOULD RESULT IN A TAX ON THE
SHARES WHICH THE WIFE AND DAUGHTER WERE PERMITTED TO RETAIN. 

TO SAY THAT SUCH A TAX MUST BE IMPOSED BECAUSE BY A DIFFERENT FORM OF
WORDS THE SAME END IS ATTAINED, IS TO SACRIFICE SUBSTANCE TO FORM IN
THE APPLICATION OF A TAXING STATUTE WHICH IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH
SUBSTANCE, THE EFFECTIVE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY VALUES TO AN APPOINTEE. 
HELVERING V. GRINNELL, SUPRA, 156; ROTHENSIES V. FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA
TRUST CO., 112 F.2D 758; LEGG'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER, 114 F.2D 760. 
WE HAVE TOO OFTEN COMMITTED OURSELVES TO THE PROPOSITION THAT TAXATION
IS A PRACTICAL MATTER CONCERNED WITH SUBSTANCE RATHER THAN FORM, SEE
BOWERS V. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174; CHASE NATIONAL BANK
V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 327, 336; CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376,
378; GRIFFITHS V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 355, 357-8; HELVERING V.
HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 116-19; HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112, 116
19, TO DEPART FROM IT NOW. 
..END :












COMMISSIONER V. GOOCH CO., 320 U.S. 418 


NO. 53.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1943.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1943.  - 133
F.2D 131, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON A TAXPAYER'S APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF
A DEFICIENCY IN TAX FOR 1936, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF A 1935 OVERPAYMENT (REFUND OF
WHICH WAS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS) AND TO CREDIT SUCH OVERPAYMENT AGAINST
THE DEFICIENCY.  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SEC. 272(G).  P.419. 

2.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN SUCH CASE TO
APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE RECOUPMENT.  P. 420. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. GOOCH MILLING & ELEVATOR CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 737, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REDETERMINING DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME AND EXCESS
PROFITS TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS  FN1  TO DETERMINE AND
TO APPLY A PRIOR TAX OVERPAYMENT AGAINST A TAX DEFICIENCY FOR A
PARTICULAR YEAR IS THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE.  THE BOARD
HELD THAT IT DID NOT POSSESS SUCH JURISDICTION, BUT THE COURT BELOW
REVERSED, 133 F.2D 131.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 737, THE
PROBLEM BEING ONE OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE
LAWS. 

AN AUDIT MADE IN 1938 OF THE BOOKS OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION
DISCLOSED AN ERRONEOUS VALUATION OF ITS INVENTORY OF JUNE 30, 1935. 
FN2  BECAUSE OF THIS ERROR, RESPONDENT HAD BEEN OVERASSESSED AND HAD
OVERPAID ITS INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES FOR THE 1935 FISCAL YEAR. 
THIS EXCESS PAYMENT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO REFUND BECAUSE BARRED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  ON THE BASIS OF THE ADJUSTED INVENTORY,
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A TAX DEFICIENCY
FOR THE 1936 FISCAL YEAR.  THE OVERPAYMENT OF THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR
EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF THIS DEFICIENCY.  ON APPEAL TO THE BOARD FOR A
REDETERMINATION OF THE DEFICIENCY, THE RESPONDENT SOUGHT IN ITS AMENDED
PETITION TO HAVE THE 1935 OVERPAYMENT APPLIED AS AN OFFSET OR
RECOUPMENT AGAINST THE 1936 DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD, CONSISTENT WITH ITS
PAST DECISIONS,  FN3 REFUSED TO GRANT THIS RELIEF "FOR JURISDICTIONAL
REASONS." 

WE HOLD THAT THE BOARD'S POSITION WAS CORRECT AND THAT IT HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE OR TO APPLY ANY OVERPAYMENT OF THE TAXES FOR
THE 1935 FISCAL YEAR AGAINST THE 1936 DEFICIENCY. 

THE BOARD IS BUT "AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF
THE GOVERNMENT,"  FN4  AND THE LEGISLATIVE PATTERN OF ITS JURISDICTION
IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS.  THE BOARD IS CONFINED TO A DETERMINATION OF
THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY OR OVERPAYMENT FOR THE PARTICULAR TAX YEAR AS
TO WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINES A DEFICIENCY AND AS TO WHICH THE
TAXPAYER SEEKS A REVIEW OF THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT.  INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE, SECS. 272, 322(D).  IT HAS NO POWER TO ORDER A REFUND OR CREDIT
SHOULD IT FIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN OVERPAYMENT IN THE YEAR IN
QUESTION.  UNITED STATES EX REL. GIRARD TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 301
U.S. 540, 542.  SECTION 272(G) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT "THE BOARD IN REDETERMINING A DEFICIENCY IN
RESPECT OF ANY TAXABLE YEAR SHALL CONSIDER SUCH FACTS WITH RELATION TO
THE TAXES FOR OTHER TAXABLE YEARS AS MAY BE NECESSARY CORRECTLY TO
REDETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEFICIENCY, BUT IN SO DOING SHALL HAVE
NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE TAX FOR ANY OTHER
TAXABLE YEAR HAS BEEN OVERPAID OR UNDERPAID." 

THE BOARD'S WANT OF JURISDICTION TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE
RECOUPMENT IN THIS CASE IS MANIFEST FROM THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. 
THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY ONLY FOR THE 1936 FISCAL YEAR
AND IT WAS THIS ASSESSMENT OF WHICH THE RESPONDENT SOUGHT A REVIEW. 
THE BOARD THUS HAD JURISDICTION TO DO NO MORE THAN REDETERMINE THE 1936
DEFICIENCY DISTINCT FROM ANY OVERPAYMENT OR UNDERPAYMENT IN ANY PRIOR
OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR.  THERE WAS NO OCCASION HERE FOR THE BOARD TO
EXERCISE ITS POWER UNDER SEC. 272(G) TO CONSIDER ANY FACTS RELATING TO
THE TAXES FOR THE 1935 FISCAL YEAR.  FN5  THE REDETERMINATION OF THE
TAX LIABILITY FOR THE 1936 FISCAL YEAR WAS IN NO WAY DEPENDENT ON ANY
PRIOR TAX ASSESSMENT OR OVERPAYMENT.  LIKEWISE, NEITHER THE FACT THAT
THE PRIOR OVERPAYMENT COULD NO LONGER BE REFUNDED NOR THE FACT THAT THE
OVERPAYMENT EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIENCY HAD ANY RELEVANCE
WHATEVER TO THE REDETERMINATION OF THE CORRECT TAX FOR THE 1936 FISCAL
YEAR.  THE RESPONDENT, IN OTHER WORDS, WAS SEEKING TO HAVE THE 1935
OVERPAYMENT USED, NOT AS AN AID IN REDETERMINING THE 1936 DEFICIENCY,
BUT AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OR OFFSET TO THAT DEFICIENCY.  FN6  THIS
NECESSARILY INVOLVED A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THERE WAS AN
OVERPAYMENT DURING THE 1935 FISCAL YEAR.  THE ABSOLUTE AND UNEQUIVOCAL
LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO OF SEC. 272(G), HOWEVER, PLACED SUCH A
DETERMINATION OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD.  THUS TO ALLOW THE
BOARD TO GIVE EFFECT TO AN EQUITABLE DEFENSE WHICH OF NECESSITY IS
BASED UPON A DETERMINATION FOREIGN TO THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION WOULD BE
CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESSED WILL OF CONGRESS.  FN7 

WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF EQUIPTABLE
RECOUPMENT WHEN IT IS ASSERTED IN A SUIT FOR REFUND OF TAXES IN
TRIBUNALS POSSESSING GENERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION.  CF. BULL V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 247; STONE V. WHITE, 301 U.S. 532.  BUT ITS USE IN
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD IS GOVERNED BY THE CIRCUMSCRIBED
JURISDICTION OF THAT AGENCY.  THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, NOT GENERAL
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, IS THE MAINSPRING OF THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION. 
UNTIL CONGRESS DEEMS IT ADVISABLE TO ALLOW THE BOARD TO DETERMINE THE
OVERPAYMENT OR UNDERPAYMENT IN ANY TAXABLE YEAR OTHER THAN THE ONE FOR
WHICH A DEFICIENCY HAS BEEN ASSESSED, THE BOARD MUST REMAIN IMPORTENT
WHEN THE PLEA OF EQUITABLE RECOUPMENT IS BASED UPON AN OVERPAYMENT OR
UNDERPAYMENT IN SUCH OTHER YEAR.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS
THEREFORE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 504(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, C. 619, 56 STAT. 798,
957, CHANGED THE NAME OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS TO THE TAX COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES.  SECTION 504(B) PROVIDED THAT THIS CHANGE IN NAME
WAS TO HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE JURISDICTION, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE
AGENCY.  SEE ALSO H. REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 172-173. 

FN2  THE RESPONDENT FILED ITS TAX RETURNS ON THE BASIS OF A FISCAL
YEAR ENDING ON JUNE 30.  THE INVENTORY OF JUNE 30, 1935, WAS COMMON TO
SUCCESSIVE YEARS, BEING THE CLOSING INVENTORY FOR THE 1935 FISCAL YEAR
AND THE OPENING INVENTORY FOR THE 1936 FISCAL YEAR. 

FN3  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, APPEAL OF R.P. HAZZARD CO., 4 B.T.A. 150;
APPEAL OF CORNELIUS COTTON MILLS, 4 B.T.A. 255; APPEAL OF DICKERMAN &
ENGLIS, INC., 5 B.T.A. 633; B.T. COUCH GLUE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 12
B.T.A. 1321; GOULD-MERSEREAU CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 21 B.T.A. 1316; HEYL
V. COMMISSIONER, 34 B.T.A. 223; RED WING POTTERIES V. COMMISSIONER, 43
B.T.A. 841; ELBERT V. COMMISSIONER, 2 T.C., NO. 113. 

FN4  53 STAT. 158, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1100. 

FN5  THE BOARD HAS NOT HESITATED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION UNDER
SEC. 272(G) TO CONSIDER THE TAXES FOR OTHER TAXABLE YEARS INSOFAR AS
RELEVANT TO THE CORRECT REDETERMINATION OF THE DEFICIENCY IN QUESTION. 
SEE EVENS & HOWARD FIRE BRICK CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 8 B.T.A. 867;
COMMERCIAL TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 8 B.T.A. 1138; D.N. & E. WALTER &
CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 10 B.T.A. 620; J.C. BLAIR CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 11
B.T.A. 673; GREENLEAF TEXTILE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 26 B.T.A. 737,
AFFIRMED 65 F.2D 1017; W.M. RITTER LUMBER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 30
B.T.A. 231, 277. 

FN6  AS WE SAID IN BULL V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 247, 262,
"RECOUPMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF A DEFENSE ARISING OUT OF SOME FEATURE
OF THE TRANSACTION UPON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF'S ACTION IS GROUNDED." 

FN7  BEFORE SEC. 272(G) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE WAS ENACTED, THE
BOARD HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE AN OVERPAYMENT FOR A
YEAR AS TO WHICH NO DEFICIENCY HAD BEEN FOUND BY THE COMMISSIONER AND
TO APPLY THAT OVERPAYMENT AGAINST THE LIABILITY FOR THE YEAR AS TO
WHICH HE HAD FOUND A DEFICIENCY, THUS GIVING EFFECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF
EQUITABLE RECOUPMENT.  APPEAL OF E. J. BARRY, 1 B.T.A. 156.  SOON
THEREAFTER, HOWEVER, CONGRESS PASSED SEC. 274(G) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926(NOW SEC. 272(G) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE) TAKING SUCH
JURISDICTION AWAY FROM THE BOARD. 
..END :










ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 264 


NO. 19.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 18, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1943.  -
131 F.2D 392, REVERSED. 


A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, HAVING BY A VALID JUDGMENT SENTENCED A
DEFENDANT TO A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT (LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM) AND ORDERED
SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE AND RELEASE OF THE DEFENDANT ON
PROBATION, IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY THEREAFTER ON REVOCATION OF PROBATION
TO SET ASIDE THAT SENTENCE AND INCREASE THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT. 
CONSTRUING PROBATION ACT, SECS. 1, 2.  PP. 266, 272. 

ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 753, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
REVOKING PROBATION AND RESENTENCING A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN APRIL, 1938, PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY TO A VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C.
409 AND THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A JUDGMENT SENTENCING HIM TO PAY A
FINE OF $250 AND TO SERVE TWO YEARS IN A FEDERAL PENITENTIARY.  ACTING
UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE PROBATION ACT  FN1  THE COURT THEN SUSPENDED
EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT OF THE FINE, AND
ORDERED PETITIONER'S RELEASE ON PROBATION FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.  THE
FINE WAS PAID AND HE WAS RELEASED.  IN JUNE, 1942, THE COURT AFTER A
HEARING REVOKED THE PROBATION, SET ASIDE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE OF TWO
YEARS, AND IMPOSED A NEW SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED, 131 F.2D 392.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF QUESTIONS RAISED CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF THE
PROBATION ACT. 

THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO INCREASE THE SENTENCE FROM TWO TO
THREE YEARS IS CHALLENGED ON TWO GROUNDS:  (1) PROPERLY INTERPRETED THE
PROBATION ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A SENTENCE IMPOSED BEFORE PROBATION,
THE EXECUTION OF WHICH HAS BEEN SUSPENDED, TO BE SET ASIDE AND
INCREASED UPON REVOCATION OF PROBATION; (2) IF CONSTRUED TO GRANT SUCH
POWER, THE ACT TO THAT EXTENT VIOLATES THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE
JEOPARDY CONTAINED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WE DO NOT REACH THIS SECOND
QUESTION. 

IF THE AUTHORITY EXISTS IN FEDERAL COURTS TO SUSPEND OR TO INCREASE A
SENTENCE FIXED BY A VALID JUDGMENT, IT MUST BE DERIVED FROM THE
PROBATION ACT.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT FEDERAL COURTS HAD NO SUCH
POWER PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF THAT ACT.  SEE EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 242
U.S. 27; UNITED STATES V. MAYER, 235 U.S. 55; EX PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL. 
163; UNITED STATES V. BENZ, 282 U.S. 304.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT
PART OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT WHICH SUSPENDED EXECUTION OF THE TWO-YEAR
SENTENCE AND RELEASED THE PETITIONER ON PROBATION WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE
LITERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1 OF THE PROBATION ACT (U.S.C. TITLE 18, SEC.
724) GRANTING THE DISTRICT COURT POWER "TO SUSPEND THE  ...  EXECUTION
OF SENTENCE AND TO PLACE THE DEFENDANT UPON PROBATION.  ...  "  BUT
BEFORE WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE ACT AUTHORIZED THE DISTRICT COURT
THEREAFTER TO INCREASE THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT WE
MUST FIND IN IT A LEGISLATIVE GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO DO FOUR THINGS:
REVOKE PROBATION; REVOKE SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION OF THE ORIGINAL
SENTENCE; SET ASIDE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE; AND ENTER A NEW JUDGMENT FOR
A LONGER IMPRISONMENT. 

WE ARE ASKED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO FIND THIS LEGISLATIVE GRANT IN SEC.
2 OF THE ACT AS AMENDED (U.S.C. TITLE 18, SEC. 725) A PART OF WHICH IS
SET OUT BELOW.  FN2  IT IS CLEAR THAT POWER TO DO THE FIRST TWO THINGS,
REVOKE THE PROBATION AND THE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE, IS EXPRESSLY
GRANTED BY SEC. 2.  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT POWER TO DO THE THIRD, SET
ASIDE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE, IS NOT EXPRESSLY GRANTED.  IF WE FIND THIS
POWER WE MUST RESORT TO INFERENCE. 

EXCEPT BY STRAINED CONSTRUCTION WE COULD NOT INFER FROM THE EXPRESS
GRANT OF POWER TO REVOKE PROBATION OR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE THE
FURTHER POWER TO SET ASIDE THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE.  NEITHER PROBATION
NOR SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION RESCINDED THE JUDGMENT SENTENCING
PETITIONER TO IMPRISONMENT; FN3  THE ONE MERELY ORDERED THAT PETITIONER
BE RELEASED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PROBATION OFFICIALS, THE OTHER
THAT ENFORCEMENT OF HIS SENTENCE BE POSTPONED.  UPON THEIR REVOCATION,
WITHOUT FURTHER COURT ACTION, THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE REMAINED FOR
EXECUTION AS THOUGH IT HAD NEVER BEEN SUSPENDED.  CF. MILLER V.
ADERHOLD, 288 U.S. 206, 211. 

IF THEN THE POWER TO SET ASIDE AND INCREASE THE PRISON TERM OF THE
ORIGINAL SENTENCE IS TO BE INFERRED AT ALL FROM SEC. 2, IT MUST BE
DRAWN FROM THE CLAUSE WHICH EMPOWERS THE COURT AFTER REVOCATION OF THE
PROBATION AND THE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE TO "IMPOSE ANY SENTENCE WHICH
MIGHT ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN IMPOSED."  IT IS UNDISPUTED IN THE INSTANT
CASE THAT THE COURT COULD ORIGINALLY HAVE IMPOSED A THREE-YEAR
SENTENCE.  THEREFORE THE EXISTENCE OF POWER TO SET ASIDE THE FIRST
JUDGMENT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE SENTENCE WOULD BE A PERFECTLY LOGICAL
INFERENCE FROM THE CLAUSE IF IT STOOD ALONE, BECAUSE TWO VALID
SENTENCES FOR THE SAME CONVICTION CANNOT COEXIST.  BUT THE CLAUSE
CANNOT BE READ IN ISOLATION; IT MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
ENTIRE ACT.  AND IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPELLING LANGUAGE WE SHOULD NOT
READ INTO IT AN INFERRED GRANT OF POWER WHICH NECESSARILY WOULD BRING
IT INTO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THIS CLAUSE WOULD
PRODUCE SUCH A CONFLICT.  SECTION 1 OF THE THE PROBATION ACT PROVIDES
THE PROCEDURAL PLAN FOR RELEASE ON PROBATION.  AFTER JUDGMENT OF GUILT,
THE TRIAL COURT IS AUTHORIZED "TO SUSPEND THE IMPOSITION OR EXECUTION
OF SENTENCE AND TO PLACE THE DEFENDANT UPON PROBATION.  ..."  BY THIS
LANGUAGE CONGRESS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT A CHOICE BETWEEN IMPOSING
SENTENCE BEFORE PROBATION IS AWARDED OR AFTER PROBATION IS REVOKED.  IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE THE DEFENDANT WOULD BE SENTENCED IN OPEN COURT TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR A DEFINITE PERIOD; IN THE SECOND, HE WOULD BE INFORMED
IN OPEN COURT THAT THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE WAS BEING POSTPONED.  IN
BOTH INSTANCES HE THEN WOULD BE INFORMED OF HIS RELEASE ON PROBATION
UPON CONDITIONS FIXED BY THE COURT.  THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ALTERNATIVE
METHODS IS PLAIN.  UNDER THE FIRST, WHERE EXECUTION OF SENTENCE IS
SUSPENDED, THE DEFENDANT LEAVES THE COURT WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT A FIXED
SENTENCE FOR A DEFINITE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT HANGS OVER HIM; UNDER THE
SECOND, HE IS MADE AWARE THAT NO DEFINITE SENTENCE HAS BEEN IMPOSED AND
THAT IF HIS PROBATION IS REVOKED THE COURT WILL AT THAT TIME FIX THE
TERM OF HIS IMPRISONMENT.  IT IS AT ONCE APPARENT THAT IF WE ACCEPT THE
GOVERNMENT'S INTERPRETATION THIS EXPRESS DISTINCTION WHICH SEC. 1 DRAWS
BETWEEN THE ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF IMPOSING SENTENCE WOULD BE
COMPLETELY OBLITERATED.  IN THE WORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT, ANY SENTENCE
PRONOUNCED UPON THE DEFENDANT BEFORE HIS RELEASE ON PROBATION WOULD BE
A "DEAD LETTER."  THUS THE EXPRESS POWER TO SUSPEND EXECUTION OF
SENTENCE GRANTED BY SEC. 1 WOULD, BY AN INFERENCE DRAWN FROM SEC. 2, BE
REDUCED TO A MEANINGLESS FORMALITY.  NO PERSUASIVE REASONS RELATING TO
CONGRESSIONAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED TO US WHICH
JUSTIFY CONSTRUING SEC. 2 IN THIS MANNER. 

THE TEN-YEAR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PROBATION ACT STRONGLY
SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO DRAW A SHARP DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
POWER TO SUSPEND EXECUTION OF A SENTENCE AND THE ALTERNATIVE POWER TO
DEFER ITS IMPOSITION.  THE FIRST PROBATION LEGISLATION WAS PASSED BY
CONGRESS IN 1917 BUT FAILED TO RECEIVE THE PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE.  AS
ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED THIS BILL PROVIDED ONLY FOR THE SUSPENSION OF
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE.  FN4  AFTER EXTENDED HEARINGS THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORTED IT WITH AMENDMENTS INCLUDING TWO WHICH
WERE INTENDED TO GRANT COURTS POWER TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SUSPENDING
IMPOSITION AND SUSPENDING EXECUTION.  FN5  BUT WHEN THE BILL FINALLY
PASSED BOTH HOUSES THE POWER TO SUSPEND IMPOSITION HAD BEEN ELIMINATED
AND ONLY THE POWER TO SUSPEND EXECUTION REMAINED.  FN6  BETWEEN 1917
AND 1925, WHEN THE PRESENT ACT WAS PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE
PRESIDENT, THE SEVERAL CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES INTERESTED IN PROBATION
LEGISLATION CONSIDERED NUMEROUS BILLS.  SOME PROVIDED ONLY FOR
SUSPENSION OF IMPOSITION, SOME ONLY FOR SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION, AND
SOME FOR EITHER METHOD AS THE COURT SAW FIT.  FN7  DURING THIS PERIOD
THERE WERE ADVOCATES OF THOSE BILLS WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SUSPENSION
OF IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE, BUT OTHERS OPPOSED SUCH BILLS.  ATTORNEY
GENERAL PALMER, BELONGING TO THE LATTER GROUP, EXPRESSED HIS OPPOSITION
TO A BILL WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE SUSPENSION OF IMPOSITION, POINTING OUT
THAT, "THE JUDGE MAY ALSO, IN HIS DISCRETION, TERMINATE THE PROBATION
AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED AND REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT TO
SERVE NOT A SENTENCE WHICH HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY PRONOUNCED UPON HIM, BUT
A SENTENCE TO BE PRONOUNCED AT THE TIME OF THE TERMINATION OF THE
PROBATION FOR THE ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT IN GRANTING PROBATION A COURT
SUSPENDS EVEN THE IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE.  ...  THE CONFERRING OF
SUCH POWERS UPON JUDGES WOULD NOT, IT SEEMS TO ME, CONTRIBUTE TO THE
PROPER AND UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE."  FN8  IN THE
END CONGRESS DECLINED TO ADOPT ONE METHOD OF SUSPENSION TO THE
EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER AND INSTEAD GRANTED THE COURTS POWER TO APPLY
EITHER METHOD ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. 
FROM THIS COMPROMISE OF THE CONFLICTING VIEWS ON THE PROPER METHOD OF
SUSPENSION WE MAY CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS INDICATED APPROVAL OF THE
NATURAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE APPLICATION OF EACH METHOD.  AS UNDERSTOOD
BY ATTORNEY GENERAL PALMER ONE OF THESE CONSEQUENCES WAS THAT WHEN THE
METHOD OF SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION WAS USED THE DEFENDANT COULD BE
REQUIRED TO SERVE ONLY THE SENTENCE WHICH HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY
PRONOUNCED UPON HIM. 

A CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT TO PRESERVE THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE TWO METHODS OF SUSPENSION IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE MANNER IN
WHICH IT HAS BEEN ENFORCED AND ADMINISTERED.  FROM THE PASSAGE OF THE
ACT UNTIL 1940  FN9  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXERCISED SUPERVISION OVER
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  FN10  IN 1930 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN A
CAREFULLY CONSIDERED OPINION REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT IF CONGRESS
HAD INTENDED BY SEC. 2 OF THE PROBATION ACT "TO CREATE SUCH AN
IMPORTANT POWER, (AS THAT FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HERE CONTENDS) IT
WOULD SEEM THAT MORE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN USED."  36
O.A.G. 186, 192.  A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-VOLUME REPORT BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL ENTITLED "SURVEY OF RELEASE PROCEDURES" PUBLISHED IN 1939
ADOPTED THIS INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 2:  "WHERE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
WAS ORIGINALLY SUSPENDED AND PROBATION GRANTED, AND THE PROBATION AND
SUSPENSION ARE LATER REVOKED, IT IS PLAIN THAT BEFORE THE OFFENDER CAN
BE IMPRISONED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE IS NECESSARY.  AND SINCE THE CASE
REVERTS TO ITS STATUS AT THE TIME PROBATION WAS GRANTED, THE COURT
CLEARLY IS FREE TO IMPOSE 'ANY SENTENCE WHICH MIGHT ORIGINALLY HAVE
BEEN IMPOSED.'  18 U.S.C. SEC. 725(1934).  BUT WHERE THE COURT IMPOSED
SENTENCE BUT SUSPENDED THE EXECUTION OF IT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT WHEN THE
SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION IS REVOKED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE BECOMES
OPERATIVE."  SIGNIFICANTLY, THE REPORT FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT "NO
CASE HAS BEEN FOUND WHEREIN THE COURT, UPON REVOCATION OF SUSPENSION OF
EXECUTION, INCREASED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE."  FN11 

SO FAR AS POINTED OUT TO US THE PRESENT AND TWO OTHER CASES ARE THE
ONLY ONES IN WHICH FEDERAL COURTS HAVE, UPON REVOCATION OF PROBATION,
INCREASED A DEFINITE SENTENCE WHICH HAD BEEN IMPOSED UPON AN OFFENDER
PRIOR TO HIS RELEASE ON PROBATION.  CF. UNITED STATES V. MOORE, 101
F.2D 56; REMER V. REGAN, 104 F.2D 704.  THE MOORE CASE WAS DECIDED
JANUARY 16, 1939, WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE POWER OF THE COURT TO
INCREASE THE SENTENCE.  THE REGAN CASE WAS DECIDED MAY 26, 1939, AND
THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT DEFENDANT APPARENTLY CONCEDED THAT
IMPOSITION OF AN INCREASED SENTENCE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE PROBATION
ACT.  WE HAVE, THEREFORE, AN ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROBATION LAW FROM
ITS PASSAGE IN 1925 UNTIL 1939, IN WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOT ONLY
ASSUMED BUT EXPRESSLY STATED BY OFFICIAL OPINION THAT A DEFINITE
SENTENCE, EXECUTION OF WHICH HAD BEEN SUSPENDED, COULD NOT BE INCREASED
AFTER THE SUSPENSION HAD BEEN REVOKED FOR BREACH OF PROBATION
CONDITIONS; AND IN WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS HAD APPARENTLY NOT
UNDERTAKEN TO ACT CONTRARY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S INTERPRETATION. 

TO CONSTRUE THE PROBATION ACT AS NOT PERMITTING THE INCREASE OF A
DEFINITE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FIXED BY A PRIOR VALID SENTENCE GIVES
FULL MEANING AND EFFECT BOTH TO THE FIRST AND SECOND SECTIONS OF THE
ACT.  IN NO WAY DOES IT IMPAIR THE ACT'S USEFULNESS AS AN INSTRUMENT TO
ACCOMPLISH THE BASIC PURPOSE OF PROBATION, NAMELY TO PROVIDE AN
INDIVIDUALIZED PROGRAM OFFERING A YOUNG OR UNHARDENED OFFENDER AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REHABILITATE HIMSELF WITHOUT INSTITUTIONAL CONFINEMENT
UNDER THE TUTELAGE OF A PROBATION OFFICIAL AND UNDER THE CONTINUING
POWER OF THE COURT TO IMPOSE INSTITUTIONAL PUNISHMENT FOR HIS ORIGINAL
OFFENSE IN THE EVENT THAT HE ABUSE THIS OPPORTUNITY.  TO ACCOMPLISH
THIS BASIC PURPOSE CONGRESS VESTED WIDE DISCRETION IN THE COURTS.  SEE
BURNS V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 216.  THUS CONGRESS CONFERRED UPON THE
COURTS THE POWER TO DECIDE IN EACH CASE WHETHER TO IMPOSE A DEFINITE
TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IN ADVANCE OF PROBATION OR TO DEFER THE IMPOSITION
OF SENTENCE, THE ALTERNATIVE TO BE ADOPTED TO DEPEND UPON THE CHARACTER
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INDIVIDUAL OFFENDER.  ALL WE NOW HOLD IS THAT
HAVING EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION BY SENTENCING AN OFFENDER TO A DEFINITE
TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IN ADVANCE OF PROBATION, A COURT MAY NOT LATER
UPON REVOCATION OF PROBATION SET ASIDE THAT SENTENCE AND INCREASE THE
TERM OF IMPRISONMENT.  REVERSED.    FN1  43 STAT. 1259; 46 STAT. 503;
48 STAT. 256; 53 STAT. 1223, 1225; U.S.C. TITLE 18, SECS. 724-728. 

FN2  "AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE PROBATION PERIOD THE PROBATION OFFICER
MAY ARREST THE PROBATIONER ...  OR THE COURT WHICH HAS GRANTED THE
PROBATION MAY ISSUE A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST,  ...  (AND) SUCH
PROBATIONER SHALL FORTHWITH BE TAKEN BEFORE THE COURT.  ...  THEREUPON
THE COURT MAY REVOKE THE PROBATION OR THE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE, AND
MAY IMPOSE ANY SENTENCE WHICH MIGHT ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN IMPOSED."  43
STAT. 1260; 48 STAT. 256. 

FN3  CF. UNITED STATES V. PILE, 130 U.S. 280; UNITED STATES V. WEISS,
28 F.SUPP.  598, 599; PERNATTO V. UNITED STATES, 107 F.2D 372; KRIEBEL
V. UNITED STATES, 10 F.2D 762; ACKERSON V. UNITED STATES, 15 F.2D 268,
269; MOSS V. UNITED STATES, 72 F.2D 30, 32; KING V. COMMONWEALTH, 246
MASS. 57, 60, 140 N.E. 253; BELDEN V. HUGO, 88 CONN. 500, 504, 91 A.
369; IN RE HALL, 100 VT. 197, 202, 136 A. 24. 

FN4  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
U.S. SENATE, ON S. 1092, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., MARCH 25, 1916, PP. 5,
6. 

FN5  REPORT NO. 887, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 64TH CONG.,
2D SESS. 

FN6  54 CONG. REC. 3637, 4373; HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 340, 1111 AND 12036, MARCH
9, 1920, PP. 106-107, 112-113. 

FN7  SUMMARIES OF STATE LEGISLATION WERE INSERTED INTO THE RECORDS OF
THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MANY WITNESSES DISCUSSED SUCH LEGISLATION. 
SEE, E. G., IBID., 123-130, 38-44.  LIKE THE BILLS BEFORE CONGRESS, THE
STATE PROBATION ACTS WERE NOT UNIFORM IN THEIR TREATMENT OF SUSPENSION
OF SENTENCE. 

FN8  IBID., 105. 

FN9  IN 1940 ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROBATION SYSTEM WAS TRANSFERRED
TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF AN ACT PASSED AUGUST 7, 1939.  53 STAT. 1223, 1225. 

FN10  THE ORIGINAL ACT REQUIRED PROBATION OFFICERS TO "MAKE SUCH
REPORTS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS HE MAY AT ANY TIME REQUIRE."  43
STAT. 1261.  IN JUNE, 1925, THREE MONTHS AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE LAW,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SENT TO ALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES A
MEMORANDUM OF SUGGESTIONS IN WHICH HE COMPREHENSIVELY DISCUSSED THE
DUTIES OF JUDGES AND PROBATION OFFICERS AND REQUESTED THAT MONTHLY
REPORTS BE MADE TO HIM CONCERNING THE PROBATION ACTIVITIES IN EACH
COURT.  SEE 1925 ANNUAL REPORTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL
PROBATION ASSOCIATION, 227-230.  IN 1930 AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROBATION
ACT STATED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD "ENDEAVOR BY ALL SUITABLE
MEANS TO PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROBATION SYSTEM
AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROBATION LAWS IN ALL UNITED STATES
COURTS."  46 STAT. 503, 504.  SEE ALSO 53 STAT. 1225. 

FN11  ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SURVEY OF RELEASE PROCEDURES, VOL. I, P.
13.  ASSERTING THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A DECREASE AND AN
INCREASE OF SENTENCE, THE REPORT FURTHER STATED:  "HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN
HELD THAT WHEN SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION IS REVOKED THE COURT MAY MODIFY
THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE SO AS TO DECREASE THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT." 
IBID.  TWO CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAD CONSTRUED THE ACT AS
AUTHORIZING IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE A JUDGMENT WHICH REDUCED THE TERM OF
THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE.  UNITED STATES V. ANTINORI (C.C.A. 5), 59 F.2D
171; SCALIA V. UNITED STATES (C.C.A. 1), 62 F.2D 220. 

DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, IN WHICH THE CHIEF
JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR. 

THE DEVICE OF PROBATION GREW OUT OF A REALIZATION THAT TO MAKE THE
PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIMINAL REQUIRES WISDOM SELDOM AVAILABLE
IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONVICTION.  IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE AT THAT TIME IS
MUCH TOO OFTEN AN OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE CAPRICE, AND TO MAKE CONVICTED
PERSONS SERVE SUCH A SENTENCE IS APT TO MAKE LAW A COLLABORATOR IN NEW
ANTI-SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES.  PROBATION IS AN EXPERIMENTAL DEVICE SERVING
BOTH SOCIETY AND THE OFFENDER.  IT ADDS THE MEANS FOR EXERCISING WISELY
THAT DISCRETION WHICH, WITHIN APPROPRIATE LIMITS, IS GIVEN TO COURTS. 
THE PROBATION SYSTEM WAS DEVISED TO ALLOW PERSONS GUILTY OF ANTISOCIAL
CONDUCT TO CONTINUE AT LARGE BUT UNDER APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS.  THE
HOPE OF THE SYSTEM IS THAT THE PROBATIONER WILL DERIVE ENCOURAGEMENT
AND COLLABORATION IN HIS ENDEAVORS TO REMAIN IN SOCIETY AND NEVER SERVE
A DAY IN PRISON.  THE FULFILLMENT OF THAT HOPE LARGELY RESTS ON THE
EFFICACY OF THE PROBATION SYSTEM, AND THAT DEPENDS ON A SUFFICIENT
NUMBER OF TRAINED AND SKILFUL PROBATION OFFICERS.  THUS THE PROBATION
SYSTEM IS IN EFFECT A RELIANCE ON THE FUTURE TO REVEAL TREATMENT
APPROPRIATE TO THE PROBATIONER.  IN THE NATURE OF THINGS, KNOWLEDGE
WHICH MAY THUS BE GAINED IS NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE MOMENT FOR
CONVENTIONAL SENTENCING ARRIVES.  SINCE ASSESSMENT OF AN APPROPRIATE
PUNISHMENT IMMEDIATELY UPON CONVICTION BECOMES VERY LARGELY A JUDGMENT
BASED ON SPECULATION, THE FUNCTION OF PROBATION IS TO SUPPLANT SUCH
SPECULATIVE JUDGMENT BY JUDGMENT BASED ON EXPERIENCE.  FOR THIS REASON
PROBATION LAWS FIX A TOLERABLY LONG PERIOD OF PROBATION, AS, FOR
INSTANCE, THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD OF THE FEDERAL PROBATION ACT. 

IN VIEW OF ALL THAT LED TO THE ADOPTION OF PROBATION AND THE LIGHT
ITS WORKINGS HAVE CAST, THE IMPOSITION OF A SUSPENDED TERM SENTENCE IS
MEANINGLESS IF INDEED IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE CENTRAL IDEA
UNDERLYING PROBATION.  A CONVICTED PERSON WHO IS GIVEN A TERM SENTENCE
AND THEN PLACED ON PROBATION HOPES NEVER TO SPEND A DAY IN PRISON.  THE
COURT RETURNING THE PROBATIONER TO THE COMMUNITY LIKEWISE ASSUMES THAT
THE INFLUENCE OF PROBATION WILL SAVE THE PROBATIONER FROM FUTURE
IMPRISONMENT.  TO TREAT THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF A TERM SENTENCE AS A KIND
OF BARGAIN WHEREBY THE PROBATIONER KNOWS THAT, NO MATTER WHAT, HE
CANNOT BE PUT IN PRISON BEYOND THE TERM SO NAMED IS TO GIVE A WHOLLY
UNREAL INTERPRETATION TO THE PROCEDURE.  WE CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT
COUNTENANCE THE NOTION THAT A PROBATIONER HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE
ORIGINAL SENTENCE NOR ENCOURAGE HIM TO WEIGH THE LENGTH OF SUCH A
SENTENCE AGAINST ANY ADVANTAGES HE MAY FIND IN VIOLATING HIS
PROBATION.  TO BIND THE COURT TO SUCH A SENTENCE IS UNDESIRABLE IN ITS
CONSEQUENCES AND VIOLATIVE OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF PROBATION.  AS WE
POINTED OUT VERY RECENTLY, THE DIFFERENCE TO A PROBATIONER BETWEEN
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE FOLLOWED BY PROBATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE "IS ONE OF TRIFLING DEGREE."  KOREMATSU V.
UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 432, 435.  THE FACT IS THAT TERM SENTENCES OF
WHICH THE EXECUTION IS SUSPENDED ARE LIKELY TO BE AS FULL OF VAGARIES
AND AS UNRELATED TO INSIGHT RELEVANT TO TREATMENT FOR PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUALS, AS ARE TERM SENTENCES THE EXECUTION OF WHICH IS NOT
SUSPENDED.  THE CAPRICIOUS NATURE OF SUCH DEFINED SENTENCES DOMINATES
ALL STATISTICAL AND OTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING CONVENTIONAL JUDICIAL
SENTENCING, E.G., CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN CLEVELAND (1922) 303 ET SEQ. AND
PARTICULARLY TABLES 20 AND 21, AND AMBARD V. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (1936) A.C. 322, AND HAS LED TO SUGGESTIONS FOR
MORE SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF SENTENCING, SEE SMITH, ALFRED E.,
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY (1928) 209 ET SEQ.; WARNER AND CABOT, JUDGES AND
LAW REFORM (1936) 156 ET SEQ.; CANTOR, CRIME AND SOCIETY (1939) 254 ET
SEQ.; GLUECK, CRIMINAL CAREERS IN RETROSPECT (1943) C. XVII. 

IF THE EXPERIENCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK - THE DISTRICT HAVING THE HEAVIEST VOLUME OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS - IS A FAIR GUIDE, THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE IS MORE
FREQUENTLY SUSPENDED THAN IS ITS EXECUTION.  THE ONLY PRACTICAL RESULT
OF THE STRAINED READING OF THE POWERS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS BY THE
DECISION TODAY MAY WELL LEAD TRIAL JUDGES GENERALLY TO PLACE
PROBATIONERS ON PROBATION WITHOUT ANY TENTATIVE SENTENCE.  A
CONSTRUCTION WHICH LEADS TO SUCH A MERELY FORMAL RESULT, ONE SO EASILY
DEFEATED IN PRACTICE, SHOULD BE AVOIDED UNLESS THE PURPOSE, THE TEXT
AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT CONVERGE TOWARD IT.  THE POLICY
OF PROBATION CLEARLY COUNSELS AGAINST IT, AND NEITHER THE WORDS OF THE
ACT NOR THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CONTRADICT THAT POLICY.  SO FAR AS IT
IS SIGNIFICANT ON THIS PHASE, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY LOOKS AGAINST
RATHER THAN FOR SUCH AN UNDESIRABLE CONSTRUCTION.  IN CONTRAST TO THE
PRESENT ACT, THE FIRST MEASURE PASSED BY CONGRESS CONFERRED ONLY THE
POWER TO SUSPEND EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND UPON ITS REVOCATION REQUIRED
THE DEFENDANT "TO SERVE THE SENTENCE  ...  ORIGINALLY IMPOSED."  H.R.
20414, 64TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1917).  THIS ENACTMENT SUFFERED A POCKET
VETO.  IN REPORTING THE PRESENT LEGISLATION TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, ITS COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY EXPLAINED THAT "IN CASE
OF FAILURE TO OBSERVE THESE CONDITIONS (OF PROBATION), THOSE ON
PROBATION MAY BE RETURNED TO THE COURT FOR SENTENCE."  H. REPORT NO.
1377, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., 2. 

AND THE TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION DOES NOT DEFEAT THIS POLICY. 
INDUBITABLY PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED AND BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT DURING
HIS PERIOD OF PROBATION.  IN THAT EVENT THE STATUTE IS EXPLICIT IN ITS
DIRECTION THAT "THE COURT MAY REVOKE THE PROBATION  ...  AND MAY IMPOSE
ANY SENTENCE WHICH MIGHT ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN IMPOSED."  THE COURT
HAVING FOLLOWED THE MANDATE OF THE STATUTE, IT SEEMS IRRELEVANT AND
UNIMPORTANT WHETHER PETITIONER BECAME A PROBATIONER EITHER BY A
POSTPONEMENT OF SENTENCE OR BY A SUSPENSION OF A SENTENCE ALREADY
IMPOSED.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT THE
NEW SENTENCE WHICH IT AUTHORIZES SHALL BE EFFECTIVE.  THE OBVIOUS
PURPOSE IS THAT IT SHOULD BECOME SO EITHER BY SUPERSEDING ANY SENTENCE
EARLIER IMPOSED OR BY REVOKING THE SUSPENSION OF IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
IF NONE WAS IMPOSED.  SUCH IS THE PLAIN MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE
DIRECTION THAT UPON THE ARREST OF THE PROBATIONER "THE COURT MAY REVOKE
THE PROBATION OR THE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE, AND MAY IMPOSE ANY
SENTENCE WHICH MIGHT ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN IMPOSED."  IN OTHER WORDS,
SUSPENSION WHETHER OF THE SENTENCE OR OF ITS EXECUTION LEAVES A TRIAL
COURT FREE TO COMMIT THE CRIMINAL TO PRISON IF HE FAILS TO MEET THE
TEST OF FREEDOM DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD. 

IT WOULD BE STRANGE IF THE CONSTITUTION STOOD IN THE WAY OF A SYSTEM
SO DESIGNED FOR THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS.  TO VEST IN COURTS
THE POWER OF ADJUSTING THE CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT TO THE
CHARACTER AND CAPACITY OF AN OFFENDER, AS REVEALED BY A TESTING PERIOD
OF PROBATION, OF COURSE DOES NOT OFFEND THE SAFEGUARD OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT AGAINST DOUBLE PUNISHMENT.  BY FORBIDDING THAT NO PERSON
SHALL "BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF
LIFE OR LIMB," THAT AMENDMENT GUARDED AGAINST THE REPETITION OF HISTORY
BY TRYING A MAN TWICE IN A NEW AND INDEPENDENT CASE WHEN HE ALREADY HAD
BEEN TRIED ONCE, SEE HOLMES, J., IN KEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S.
100, 134, OR PUNISHING HIM FOR AN OFFENSE WHEN HE HAD ALREADY SUFFERED
THE PUNISHMENT FOR IT.  BUT TO SET A MAN AT LARGE AFTER CONVICTION ON
CONDITION OF HIS GOOD BEHAVIOR AND ON DEFAULT OF SUCH CONDITION TO
INCARCERATE HIM, IS NEITHER TO TRY HIM TWICE NOR TO PUNISH HIM TWICE. 
IF CONGRESS SEES FIT, AS IT HAS SEEN FIT, TO EMPLOY SUCH A SYSTEM OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION TO HINDER. 
..END :
















UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH, 320 U.S. 277 


NO. 5.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1943.  - 131
F.2D 500, REVERSED. 


UPON REVIEW OF THE CONVICTION OF A CORPORATE OFFICER ON INFORMATIONS
CHARGING THE CORPORATION AND HIM WITH SHIPPING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ADULTERATED AND MISBRANDED DRUGS, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 301 OF THE
FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, HELD: 

1.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 305 OF THE ACT, THAT BEFORE REPORTING A
VIOLATION TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL GIVE TO
THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM SUCH PROCEEDING IS CONTEMPLATED A NOTICE AND AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS VIEWS, DOES NOT CREATE A CONDITION PRECEDENT
TO A PROSECUTION UNDER THE ACT.  P. 278. 

2.  IT WAS OPEN TO THE JURY TO FIND THE OFFICER GUILTY THOUGH FAILING
TO FIND THE CORPORATION GUILTY.  P. 279. 

3.  WHERE THERE IS NO GUARANTY SUCH AS UNDER SEC. 303(C) OF THE ACT
AFFORDS IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION, THAT SECTION CAN NOT BE READ AS
RELIEVING CORPORATE OFFICERS AND AGENTS FROM LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF
SEC. 301.  P. 283. 

4.  THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY LEFT TO THE JURY THE QUESTION OF THE
OFFICER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SHIPMENT; AND THE EVIDENCE WAS
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT.  P. 285. 

UNITED STATES V. DOTTERWEICH. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 753, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A CONVICTION FOR
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WAS A PROSECUTION BEGUN BY TWO INFORMATIONS, CONSOLIDATED FOR
TRIAL, CHARGING BUFFALO PHARMACAL COMPANY, INC., AND DOTTERWEICH, ITS
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS
OF JUNE 25, 1938, C. 675, 52 STAT. 1040, 21 U.S.C. SECS. 301-392, KNOWN
AS THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT.  THE COMPANY, A JOBBER IN
DRUGS, PURCHASED THEM FROM THEIR MANUFACTURERS AND SHIPPED THEM,
REPACKED UNDER ITS OWN LABEL, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  (NO QUESTION IS
RAISED IN THIS CASE REGARDING THE IMPLICATIONS THAT MAY PROPERLY ARISE
WHEN, ALTHOUGH THE MANUFACTURER GIVES THE JOBBER A GUARANTY, THE LATTER
THROUGH HIS OWN LABEL MAKES REPRESENTATIONS.)  THE INFORMATIONS WERE
BASED ON SEC. 301 OF THAT ACT (21 U.S.C. SEC. 331), PARAGRAPH (A) OF
WHICH PROHIBITS "THE INTRODUCTION OR DELIVERY FOR INTRODUCTION INTO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ANY  ...  DRUG  ...  THAT IS ADULTERATED OR
MISBRANDED."  "ANY PERSON" VIOLATING THIS PROVISION IS, BY PARAGRAPH
(A) OF SEC. 303(21 U.S.C. SEC. 333), MADE "GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR." 
THREE COUNTS WENT TO THE JURY - TWO, FOR SHIPPING MISBRANDED DRUGS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND A THIRD, FOR SO SHIPPING AN ADULTERATED DRUG. 
THE JURY DISAGREED AS TO THE CORPORATION AND FOUND DOTTERWEICH GUILTY
ON ALL THREE COUNTS.  WE START WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT OF
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING.  131 F.2D 500, 502. 

TWO OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED
AGAINST DOTTERWEICH CALL ONLY FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION TO CLEAR THE PATH
FOR THE MAIN QUESTION BEFORE US.  HE INVOKED SEC. 305 OF THE ACT
REQUIRING THE ADMINISTRATOR, BEFORE REPORTING A VIOLATION FOR
PROSECUTION BY A UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, TO GIVE THE SUSPECT AN
"OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS VIEWS."  WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THE GIVING OF SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY, WHICH WAS NOT ACCORDED
TO DOTTERWEICH, IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO PROSECUTION.  THIS COURT SO
HELD IN UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 222 U.S. 274, IN CONSTRUING THE FOOD
AND DRUGS ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 768, AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO
WHICH THE COURT BELOW CALLED ATTENTION ABUNDANTLY PROVES THAT CONGRESS,
IN THE CHANGED PHRASEOLOGY OF 1938, DID NOT INTEND TO INTRODUCE A
CHANGE OF SUBSTANCE.  83 CONG. REC. 7792-94.  EQUALLY BASELESS IS THE
CLAIM OF DOTTERWEICH THAT, HAVING FAILED TO FIND THE CORPORATION
GUILTY, THE JURY COULD NOT FIND HIM GUILTY.  WHETHER THE JURY'S VERDICT
WAS THE RESULT OF CARELESSNESS OR COMPROMISE OR A BELIEF THAT THE
RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD SUFFER THE PENALTY INSTEAD OF MERELY
INCREASING, AS IT WERE, THE COST OF RUNNING THE BUSINESS OF THE
CORPORATION, IS IMMATERIAL.  JURIES MAY INDULGE IN PRECISELY SUCH
MOTIVES OR VAGARIES.  DUNN V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 390. 

AND SO WE ARE BROUGHT TO OUR REAL PROBLEM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED THE CONVICTION ON THE GROUND
THAT ONLY THE CORPORATION WAS THE "PERSON" SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION
UNLESS, PERCHANCE, BUFFALO PHARMACAL WAS A COUNTERFEIT CORPORATION
SERVING AS A SCREEN FOR DOTTERWEICH.  ON THAT ISSUE, AFTER REHEARING,
IT REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR A NEW TRIAL.  WE THEN BROUGHT THE CASE HERE,
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 753, BECAUSE THIS
CONSTRUCTION RAISED QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT. 

THE COURT BELOW DREW ITS CONCLUSION NOT FROM THE PROVISIONS DEFINING
THE OFFENSES ON WHICH THIS PROSECUTION WAS BASED (SECS. 301(A) AND
303(A)), BUT FROM THE TERMS OF SEC. 303(C).  THAT SECTION AFFORDS
IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED.  THE
CONDITION RELEVANT TO THIS CASE IS A GUARANTY FROM THE SELLER OF THE
INNOCENCE OF HIS PRODUCT.  SO FAR AS HERE RELEVANT, THE PROVISION FOR
AN IMMUNIZING GUARANTY IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO PERSON SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF SUBSECTION (A) OF
THIS SECTION  ...  (2) FOR HAVING VIOLATED SECTION 301(A) OR (D), IF HE
ESTABLISHES A GUARANTY OR UNDERTAKING SIGNED BY, AND CONTAINING THE
NAME AND ADDRESS OF, THE PERSON RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES FROM WHOM
HE RECEIVED IN GOOD FAITH THE ARTICLE, TO THE EFFECT, IN CASE OF AN
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SECTION 301(A), THAT SUCH ARTICLE IS NOT
ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS ACT, DESIGNATING
THIS ACT  ...  " 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND IT "DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT
CONGRESS EXPECTED ANYONE EXCEPT THE PRINCIPAL TO GET SUCH A GUARANTY,
OR TO MAKE THE GUILT OF AN AGENT DEPEND UPON WHETHER HIS EMPLOYER HAD
GOTTEN ONE."  131 F.2D 500, 503.  AND SO IT CUT DOWN THE SCOPE OF THE
PENALIZING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO THE RESTRICTIVE VIEW, AS A MATTER
OF LANGUAGE AND POLICY, IT TOOK OF THE RELIEVING EFFECT OF A GUARANTY. 

THE GUARANTY CLAUSE CANNOT BE READ IN ISOLATION.  THE FOOD AND DRUGS
ACT OF 1906 WAS AN EXERTION BY CONGRESS OF ITS POWER TO KEEP IMPURE AND
ADULTERATED FOOD AND DRUGS OUT OF THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE.  BY THE ACT
OF 1938, CONGRESS EXTENDED THE RANGE OF ITS CONTROL OVER ILLICIT AND
NOXIOUS ARTICLES AND STIFFENED THE PENALTIES FOR DISOBEDIENCE.  THE
PURPOSES OF THIS LEGISLATION THUS TOUCH PHASES OF THE LIVES AND HEALTH
OF PEOPLE WHICH, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF MODERN INDUSTRIALISM, ARE
LARGELY BEYOND SELF-PROTECTION.  REGARD FOR THESE PURPOSES SHOULD
INFUSE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LEGISLATION IF IT IS TO BE TREATED AS A
WORKING INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND NOT MERELY AS A COLLECTION OF
ENGLISH WORDS.  SEE HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 45, 57,
AND MCDERMOTT V. WISCONSIN, 228 U.S. 115, 128.  THE PROSECUTION TO
WHICH DOTTERWEICH WAS SUBJECTED IS BASED ON A NOW FAMILIAR TYPE OF
LEGISLATION WHEREBY PENALTIES SERVE AS EFFECTIVE MEANS OF REGULATION. 
SUCH LEGISLATION DISPENSES WITH THE CONVENTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR
CRIMINAL CONDUCT - AWARENESS OF SOME WRONGDOING.  IN THE INTEREST OF
THE LARGER GOOD IT PUTS THE BURDEN OF ACTING AT HAZARD UPON A PERSON
OTHERWISE INNOCENT BUT STANDING IN RESPONSIBLE RELATION TO A PUBLIC
DANGER.  UNITED STATES V. BALINT, 258 U.S. 250.  AND SO IT IS CLEAR
THAT SHIPMENTS LIKE THOSE NOW IN ISSUE ARE "PUNISHED BY THE STATUTE IF
THE ARTICLE IS MISBRANDED (OR ADULTERATED), AND THAT THE ARTICLE MAY BE
MISBRANDED (OR ADULTERATED) WITHOUT ANY CONSCIOUS FRAUD AT ALL.  IT WAS
NATURAL ENOUGH TO THROW THIS RISK ON SHIPPERS WITH REGARD TO THE
IDENTITY OF THEIR WARES  ...  "  UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 221 U.S.
488, 497-98. 

THE STATUTE MAKES "ANY PERSON" WHO VIOLATES SEC. 301(A) GUILTY OF A
"MISDEMEANOR."  IT SPECIFICALLY DEFINES "PERSON" TO INCLUDE
"CORPORATION."  SEC. 201(E).  BUT THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH A CORPORATION
CAN ACT IS THROUGH THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ACT ON ITS BEHALF.  NEW YORK
CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 212 U.S. 481.  AND THE HISTORIC
CONCEPTION OF A "MISDEMEANOR" MAKES ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT
EQUALLY GUILTY, UNITED STATES V. MILLS, 7 PET. 138, 141, A DOCTRINE
GIVEN GENERAL APPLICATION IN SEC. 332 OF THE PENAL CODE (18 U.S.C. SEC.
550).  IF, THEN, DOTTERWEICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ACT, IT MUST BE
SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE IMMUNE WHEN THE "PERSON" WHO
VIOLATES SEC. 301(A) IS A CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH FROM THE POINT OF VIEW
OF ACTION THE INDIVIDUALS ARE THE CORPORATION.  AS A MATTER OF LEGAL
DEVELOPMENT, IT HAS TAKEN TIME TO ESTABLISH CRIMINAL LIABILITY ALSO FOR
A CORPORATION AND NOT MERELY FOR ITS AGENTS.  SEE NEW YORK CENTRAL &
H.R.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL FOOD AND
DRUG LEGISLATION IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF THE ELABORATE PHRASING THAT
WAS IN EARLIER DAYS DEEMED NECESSARY TO FASTEN CRIMINAL LIABILITY ON
CORPORATIONS.  SECTION 12 OF THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT OF 1906 PROVIDED
THAT, "THE ACT, OMISSION, OR FAILURE OF ANY OFFICER, AGENT, OR OTHER
PERSON ACTING FOR OR EMPLOYED BY ANY CORPORATION, COMPANY, SOCIETY, OR
ASSOCIATION, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT OR OFFICE, SHALL IN
EVERY CASE BE ALSO DEEMED TO BE THE ACT, OMISSION, OR FAILURE OF SUCH
CORPORATION, COMPANY, SOCIETY, OR ASSOCIATION AS WELL AS THAT OF THE
PERSON."  BY 1938, LEGAL UNDERSTANDING AND PRACTICE HAD RENDERED SUCH
STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS SUPERFLUOUS.  DELETION OF WORDS - IN THE
INTEREST OF BREVITY AND GOOD DRAFTSMANSHIP  FN1  - SUPER-FLUOUS FOR
HOLDING A CORPORATION CRIMINALLY LIABLE CAN HARDLY BE FOUND GROUND FOR
RELIEVING FROM SUCH LIABILITY THE INDIVIDUAL AGENTS OF THE
CORPORATION.  TO HOLD THAT THE ACT OF 1938 FREED ALL INDIVIDUALS,
EXCEPT WHEN PROPRIETORS, FROM THE CULPABILITY UNDER WHICH THE EARLIER
LEGISLATION HAD PLACED THEM IS TO DEFEAT THE VERY OBJECT OF THE NEW
ACT.  NOTHING IS CLEARER THAN THAT THE LATER LEGISLATION WAS DESIGNED
TO ENLARGE AND STIFFEN THE PENAL NET AND NOT TO NARROW AND LOOSEN IT.
THIS PURPOSE WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY AVOWED BY THE TWO COMMITTEES WHICH
REPORTED THE BILLS TO THE CONGRESS.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORTED THAT
THE ACT "SEEKS TO SET UP EFFECTIVE PROVISIONS AGAINST ABUSES OF
CONSUMER WELFARE GROWING OUT OF INADEQUACIES IN THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
OF JUNE 30, 1906."  (H. REP. NO. 2139, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 1.) 
AND THE SENATE COMMITTEE EXPLICITLY POINTED OUT THAT THE NEW
LEGISLATION "MUST NOT WEAKEN THE EXISTING LAWS," BUT ON THE CONTRARY
"IT MUST STRENGTHEN AND EXTEND THAT LAW'S PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER." 
(S. REP. NO. 152, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1.)  IF THE 1938 ACT WERE
CONSTRUED AS IT WAS BELOW, THE PENALTIES OF THE LAW COULD BE IMPOSED
ONLY IN THE RARE CASE WHERE THE CORPORATION IS MERELY AN INDIVIDUAL'S
ALTER EGO.  CORPORATIONS CARRYING ON AN ILLICIT TRADE WOULD BE SUBJECT
ONLY TO WHAT THE HOUSE COMMITTEE DESCRIBED AS A "LICENSE FEE FOR THE
CONDUCT OF AN ILLEGITIMATE BUSINESS."  FN2  A CORPORATE OFFICER, WHO
EVEN WITH "INTENT TO DEFRAUD OR MISLEAD" (SEC. 303B), INTRODUCED
ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED DRUGS INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE COULD NOT BE
HELD CULPABLE FOR CONDUCT WHICH WAS INDUBITABLY OUTLAWED BY THE 1906
ACT.  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. MAYFIELD, 177 F. 765.  THIS ARGUMENT
PROVES TOO MUCH.  IT IS NOT CREDIBLE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD BY
IMPLICATION HAVE EXONERATED WHAT IS PROBABLY A PREPONDERANT NUMBER OF
PERSONS INVOLVED IN ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE - FOR THE NUMBER OF NON
CORPORATE PROPRIETORS IS RELATIVELY SMALL.  CONGRESS, OF COURSE, COULD
REVERSE THE PROCESS AND HOLD ONLY THE CORPORATION AND ALLOW ITS AGENTS
TO ESCAPE.  IN VERY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES IT MAY HAVE REQUIRED THIS
RESULT.  SEE SHERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 25.  BUT THE HISTORY OF
THE PRESENT ACT, ITS PURPOSES, ITS TERMS, AND EXTENDED PRACTICAL
CONSTRUCTION LEAD AWAY FROM SUCH A RESULT ONCE "WE FREE OUR MINDS FROM
THE NOTION THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST BE CONSTRUED BY SOME ARTIFICIAL
AND CONVENTIONAL RULE."  UNITED STATES V. UNION SUPPLY CO., 215 U.S.
50, 55. 

THE ACT IS CONCERNED NOT WITH THE PROPRIETORY RELATION TO A
MISBRANDED OR AN ADULTERATED DRUG BUT WITH ITS DISTRIBUTION.  IN THE
CASE OF A CORPORATION SUCH DISTRIBUTION MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED, AND MAY
BE FURTHERED, BY PERSONS STANDING IN VARIOUS RELATIONS TO THE
INCORPOREAL PROPRIETOR.  IF A GUARANTY IMMUNIZES SHIPMENTS OF COURSE IT
IMMUNIZES ALL INVOLVED IN THE SHIPMENT.  BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE IF THERE
HAD BEEN A GUARANTY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PROPRIETOR,
WHETHER CORPORATE OR INDIVIDUAL, AS A SAFEGUARD FOR THE ENTERPRISE, THE
WANT OF A GUARANTY DOES NOT CUT DOWN THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL
WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH TRANSACTIONS FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 301.  TO BE SURE,
THAT CASTS THE RISK THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTY UPON ALL WHO ACCORDING TO
SETTLED DOCTRINES OF CRIMINAL LAW ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMMISSION OF
A MISDEMEANOR.  TO READ THE GUARANTY SECTION, AS DID THE COURT BELOW,
SO AS TO RESTRICT LIABILITY FOR PENALTIES TO THE ONLY PERSON WHO
NORMALLY WOULD RECEIVE A GUARANTY - THE PROPRIETOR - DISREGARDS THE
ADMONITION THAT "THE MEANING OF A SENTENCE IS TO BE FELT RATHER THAN TO
BE PROVED."  UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 221 U.S. 488, 496.  IT ALSO
READS AN EXCEPTION TO AN IMPORTANT PROVISION SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC
WELFARE WITH A LIBERALITY WHICH MORE APPROPRIATELY BELONGS TO
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS EVIDENTLY TEMPTED TO MAKE SUCH A
DEVITALIZING USE OF THE GUARANTY PROVISION THROUGH FEAR THAT AN
ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 301(A) AS WRITTEN MIGHT OPERATE TOO HARSHLY BY
SWEEPING WITHIN ITS CONDEMNATION ANY PERSON HOWEVER REMOTELY ENTANGLED
IN THE PROSCRIBED SHIPMENT.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO READ
LEGISLATION.  LITERALISM AND EVISCERATION ARE EQUALLY TO BE AVOIDED. 
TO SPEAK WITH TECHNICAL ACCURACY, UNDER SEC. 301 A CORPORATION MAY
COMMIT AN OFFENSE AND ALL PERSONS WHO AID AND ABET ITS COMMISSION ARE
EQUALLY GUILTY.  WHETHER AN ACCUSED SHARES RESPONSIBILITY IN THE
BUSINESS PROCESS RESULTING IN UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION DEPENDS ON THE
EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT THE TRIAL AND ITS SUBMISSION - ASSUMING THE
EVIDENCE WARRANTS IT - TO THE JURY UNDER APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE.  THE
OFFENSE IS COMMITTED, UNLESS THE ENTERPRISE WHICH THEY ARE SERVING
ENJOYS THE IMMUNITY OF A GUARANTY, BY ALL WHO DO HAVE SUCH A
RESPONSIBLE SHARE IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH THE
STATUTE OUTLAWS, NAMELY, TO PUT INTO THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED DRUGS.  HARDSHIP THERE DOUBTLESS MAY BE UNDER
A STATUTE WHICH THUS PENALIZES THE TRANSACTION THOUGH CONSCIOUSNESS OF
WRONGDOING BE TOTALLY WANTING.  BALANCING RELATIVE HARDSHIPS, CONGRESS
HAS PREFERRED TO PLACE IT UPON THOSE WHO HAVE AT LEAST THE OPPORTUNITY
OF INFORMING THEMSELVES OF THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS IMPOSED FOR THE
PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS BEFORE SHARING IN ILLICIT COMMERCE, RATHER THAN
TO THROW THE HAZARD ON THE INNOCENT PUBLIC WHO ARE WHOLLY HELPLESS. 

IT WOULD BE TOO TREACHEROUS TO DEFINE OR EVEN TO INDICATE BY WAY OF
ILLUSTRATION THE CLASS OF EMPLOYEES WHICH STANDS IN SUCH A RESPONSIBLE
RELATION.  TO ATTEMPT A FORMULA EMBRACING THE VARIETY OF CONDUCT
WHEREBY PERSONS MAY RESPONSIBLY CONTRIBUTE IN FURTHERING A TRANSACTION
FORBIDDEN BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, TO WIT, TO SEND ILLICIT GOODS ACROSS
STATE LINES, WOULD BE MISCHIEVOUS FUTILITY.  IN SUCH MATTERS THE GOOD
SENSE OF PROSECUTORS, THE WISE GUIDANCE OF TRIAL JUDGES, AND THE
ULTIMATE JUDGMENT OF JURIES MUST BE TRUSTED.  OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE NECESSARILY DEPENDS ON "CONSCIENCE AND CIRCUMSPECTION IN
PROSECUTING OFFICERS," NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 378, EVEN
WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES ARE FAR MORE DRASTIC THAN THEY ARE UNDER THE
PROVISION OF LAW BEFORE US.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BALINT, SUPRA
(INVOLVING A MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS).  FOR PRESENT PURPOSE IT
SUFFICES TO SAY THAT IN WHAT THE DEFENSE CHARACTERIZED AS "A VERY FAIR
CHARGE" THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY LEFT THE QUESTION OF THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF DOTTERWEICH FOR THE SHIPMENT TO THE JURY, AND THERE
WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS VERDICT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "THE BILL HAS BEEN MADE SHORTER AND LESS VERBOSE THAN PREVIOUS
BILLS.  THAT HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT DELETING ANY EFFECTIVE PROVISIONS." 
S. REP. NO. 152, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

FN2  IN DESCRIBING THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 303, THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE REPORTED THAT THE BILL "INCREASES SUBSTANTIALLY THE CRIMINAL
PENALTIES  ...  WHICH SOME MANUFACTURERS HAVE REGARDED AS SUBSTANTIALLY
A LICENSE FEE FOR THE CONDUCT OF AN ILLEGITIMATE BUSINESS."  H. REP.
NO. 2139, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 4. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

OUR PRIME CONCERN IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS OF
THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT OF 1938 PLAINLY AND
UNMISTAKABLY APPLY TO THE RESPONDENT IN HIS CAPACITY AS A CORPORATE
OFFICER.  HE IS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING SEC. 301(A) OF THE ACT, WHICH
PROHIBITS THE INTRODUCTION OR DELIVERY FOR INTRODUCTION INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF ANY ADULTERATED OR MISBRANDED DRUG.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
IN THIS CASE OF ANY PERSONAL GUILT ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT. 
THERE IS NO PROOF OR CLAIM THAT HE EVER KNEW OF THE INTRODUCTION INTO
COMMERCE OF THE ADULTERATED DRUGS IN QUESTION, MUCH LESS THAT HE
ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THEIR INTRODUCTION.  GUILT IS IMPUTED TO THE
RESPONDENT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY AS
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CORPORATION. 

IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF ANGLO-SAXON JURISPRUDENCE THAT GUILT
IS PERSONAL AND THAT IT OUGHT NOT LIGHTLY TO BE IMPUTED TO A CITIZEN
WHO, LIKE THE RESPONDENT, HAS NO EVIL INTENTION OR CONSCIOUSNESS OF
WRONGDOING.  IT MAY BE PROPER TO CHARGE HIM WITH RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
CORPORATION AND THE STOCKHOLDERS FOR NEGLIGENCE AND MISMANAGEMENT.  BUT
IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH
ESTABLISHED CANONS OF CRIMINAL LAW TO REST LIABILITY ON AN ACT IN WHICH
THE ACCUSED DID NOT PARTICIPATE AND OF WHICH HE HAD NO PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE.  BEFORE WE PLACE THE STIGMA OF A CRIMINAL CONVICTION UPON
ANY SUCH CITIZEN THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE MUST BE CLEAR AND
UNAMBIGUOUS.  ACCORDINGLY THAT WHICH CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL HAS CALLED
"THE TENDERNESS OF THE LAW FOR THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS"  FN1
ENTITLES EACH PERSON, REGARDLESS OF ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL STATUS, TO AN
UNEQUIVOCAL WARNING FROM THE LEGISLATURE AS TO WHETHER HE IS WITHIN THE
CLASS OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY.  CONGRESS CANNOT BE
DEEMED TO HAVE INTENDED TO PUNISH ANYONE WHO IS NOT "PLAINLY AND
UNMISTAKABLY" WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V.
LACHER, 134 U.S. 624, 628; UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476,
485. 

MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS
MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY AND PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC HEALTH AND
WELFARE MEASURE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THIS COURT TO IMPOSE SUCH LIABILITY
WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT CLEARLY INTENDED OR ACTUALLY DONE SO.  CONGRESS
ALONE HAS THE POWER TO DEFINE A CRIME AND TO SPECIFY THE OFFENDERS. 
UNITED STATES V. WILTBERGER, 5 WHEAT.  76, 95.  IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION
TO SUPPLY ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THESE RESPECTS, NO MATTER HOW GRAVE THE
CONSEQUENCES.  STATUTORY POLICY AND PURPOSE ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL
SUBSTITUTES FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE SPECIFY WITH
REASONABLE CERTAINTY THOSE INDIVIDUALS IT DESIRES TO PLACE UNDER THE
INTERDICT OF THE ACT.  UNITED STATES V. HARRIS, 177 U.S. 305; SARLLS V.
UNITED STATES, 152 U.S. 570. 

LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE ACTUALLY USED IN THIS STATUTE, WE FIND A
COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE TO CORPORATE OFFICERS.  THERE IS
MERELY A PROVISION IN SEC. 303(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT "ANY PERSON"
INADVERTENTLY VIOLATING SEC. 301(A) SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. 
PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, AND ASSOCIATION."  FN2  THE FACT THAT A
CORPORATE OFFICER IS BOTH A "PERSON" AND AN "INDIVIDUAL" IS NOT
INDICATIVE OF AN INTENT TO PLACE VICARIOUS LIABILITY ON THE OFFICER. 
SUCH WORDS MUST BE READ IN LIGHT OF THEIR STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT N3. 
ONLY IF CONGRESS HAS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED AN INTENT TO PLACE CORPORATE
OFFICERS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE ACT CAN THEY BE SAID TO BE EMBRACED
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS "PERSON" OR "INDIVIDUAL" AS HERE USED. 

NOR DOES THE CLEAR IMPOSITION OF LIABILITY ON CORPORATIONS REVEAL THE
NECESSARY INTENT TO PLACE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS ON THEIR OFFICERS.  A
CORPORATION IS NOT THE NECESSARY AND INEVITABLE EQUIVALENT OF ITS
OFFICERS FOR ALL PURPOSES.  FN4  IN MANY RESPECTS IT IS DESIRABLE TO
DISTINGUISH THE LATTER FROM THE CORPORATE ENTITY AND TO IMPOSE
LIABILITY ONLY ON THE CORPORATION.  IN THIS RESPECT IT IS SIGNIFICANT
THAT THIS COURT HAS NEVER HELD THE IMPOSITION OF LIABILITY ON A
CORPORATION SUFFICIENT, WITHOUT MORE, TO EXTEND LIABILITY TO ITS
OFFICERS WHO HAVE NO CONSCIOUSNESS OF WRONGDOING.  FN5  INDEED, IN A
CLOSELY ANALOGOUS SITUATION, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE VICARIOUS PERSONAL
LIABILITY OF RECEIVERS IN ACTUAL CHARGE AND CONTROL OF A CORPORATION
COULD NOT BE PREDICATED ON THE STATUTORY LIABILITY OF A "COMPANY," EVEN
WHEN THE POLICY AND PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT WERE CONSISTENT WITH
PERSONAL LIABILITY.  UNITED STATES V. HARRIS, SUPRA.  FN6  IT FOLLOWS
THAT EXPRESS STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENT THAT OFFICERS AS INDIVIDUALS BE GIVEN CLEAR AND
UNMISTAKABLE WARNING AS TO THEIR VICARIOUS PERSONAL LIABILITY.  THIS
ACT GIVES NO SUCH WARNING. 

THIS FATAL HIATUS IN THE ACT IS FURTHER EMPHASIZED BY THE ABILITY OF
CONGRESS, DEMONSTRATED ON MANY OCCASIONS, TO APPLY STATUTES IN NO
UNCERTAIN TERMS TO CORPORATE OFFICERS AS DISTINCT FROM CORPORATIONS. 
FN7  THE FAILURE TO MENTION OFFICERS SPECIFICALLY IS THUS SOME
INDICATION OF A DESIRE TO EXEMPT THEM FROM LIABILITY.  IN FACT THE
HISTORY OF FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUG LEGISLATION IS ITSELF ILLUSTRATIVE OF
THIS CAPACITY FOR SPECIFICATION AND LENDS STRONG SUPPORT TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON
CORPORATE OFFICERS IN THIS PARTICULAR ACT. 

AND PASSED IN THE SENATE, CONTAINED A PROVISION TO THE EFFECT THAT ANY
VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY A CORPORATION SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE ACT OF
THE OFFICER RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR AND THAT SUCH OFFICER MIGHT BE
PUNISHED AS THOUGH IT WERE HIS PERSONAL ACT.  FN8  THIS CLEAR
IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ON CORPORATE OFFICERS, HOWEVER,
WAS NOT CARRIED OVER INTO THE STATUTE AS FINALLY ENACTED.  IN ITS PLACE
APPEARED MERELY THE PROVISION THAT "WHEN CONSTRUING AND ENFORCING THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, THE ACT, OMISSION, OR FAILURE OF ANY OFFICER,
AGENT, OR OTHER PERSON ACTING FOR OR EMPLOYED BY ANY CORPORATION  ...
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT OR OFFICE, SHALL IN EVERY CASE BE
ALSO DEEMED TO BE THE ACT, OMISSION, OR FAILURE OF SUCH CORPORATION
...  AS WELL AS THAT OF THE PERSON."  FN9  THIS PROVISION HAD THE
EFFECT ONLY OF MAKING CORPORATIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ILLEGAL ACTS OF
THEIR OFFICERS AND PROVED UNNECESSARY IN VIEW OF THE CLARITY OF THE LAW
TO THAT EFFECT.  NEW YORK CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 212
U.S. 481. 

THE FRAMERS OF THE 1938 ACT WERE AWARE THAT THE 1906 ACT WAS
DEFICIENT IN THAT IT FAILED "TO PLACE RESPONSIBILITY PROPERLY UPON
CORPORATE OFFICERS."  FN10  IN ORDER "TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL SCOPE
NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE USE OF THE CORPORATE FORM AS A SHIELD TO
INDIVIDUAL WRONGDOERS," FN11  THESE FRAMERS INSERTED A CLEAR PROVISION
THAT "WHENEVER A CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION VIOLATES ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SUCH VIOLATION SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED TO BE A
VIOLATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, OR AGENTS OF SUCH
CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION WHO AUTHORIZED, ORDERED, OR DID ANY OF THE
ACTS CONSTITUTING, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, SUCH VIOLATION."  FN12  THIS
PARAGRAPH, HOWEVER, WAS DELETED FROM THE FINAL VERSION OF THE ACT. 

WE CANNOT PRESUME THAT THIS OMISSION WAS INADVERTENT ON THE PART OF
CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES V. HARRIS, SUPRA AT 309.  EVEN IF IT WERE,
COURTS HAVE NO POWER TO REMEDY SO SERIOUS A DEFECT, NO MATTER HOW
PROBABLE IT OTHERWISE MAY APPEAR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO INCLUDE
OFFICERS; "PROBABILITY IS NOT A GUIDE WHICH A COURT, IN CONSTRUING A
PENAL STATUTE, CAN SAFELY TAKE."  UNITED STATES V. WILTBERGER, SUPRA AT
105.  BUT THE FRAMERS OF THE 1938 ACT HAD AN INTELLIGENT COMPREHENSION
OF THE INADEQUACIES OF THE 1906 ACT AND OF THE UNSETTLED STATE OF THE
LAW.  THEY RECOGNIZED THE NECESSITY OF INSERTING CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE
LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON CORPORATE OFFICERS.  IT IS
THUS UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE OMISSION OF SUCH LANGUAGE WAS DUE
TO A BELIEF THAT THE ACT AS IT NOW STANDS WAS SUFFICIENT TO IMPOSE
LIABILITY ON CORPORATE OFFICERS.  SUCH DELIBERATE DELETION IS
CONSISTENT ONLY WITH AN INTENT TO ALLOW SUCH OFFICERS TO REMAIN FREE
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY.  THUS TO APPLY THE SANCTIONS OF THIS ACT TO
THE RESPONDENT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF CONGRESS AS EXPRESSED
IN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

THE DANGERS INHERENT IN ANY ATTEMPT TO CREATE LIABILITY WITHOUT
EXPRESS CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION OR AUTHORIZATION ARE ILLUSTRATED BY
THIS CASE.  WITHOUT ANY LEGISLATIVE GUIDES, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE
PROBLEM OF DETERMINING PRECISELY WHICH OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS
OF A CORPORATION ARE TO BE SUBJECT TO THIS ACT BY OUR FIAT.  TO ERECT
STANDARDS OF RESPONSIBILITY IS A DIFFICULT LEGISLATIVE TASK AND THE
OPINION OF THIS COURT ADMITS THAT IT IS "TOO TREACHEROUS" AND A
"MISCHIEVOUS FUTILITY" FOR US TO ENGAGE IN SUCH PURSUITS.  BUT THE ONLY
ALTERNATIVE IS A BLIND RESORT TO "THE GOOD SENSE OF PROSECUTORS, THE
WISE GUIDANCE OF TRIAL JUDGES, AND THE ULTIMATE JUDGMENT OF JURIES." 
YET THAT SITUATION IS PRECISELY WHAT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM SOUGHT
TO AVOID.  RELIANCE ON THE LEGISLATURE TO DEFINE CRIMES AND CRIMINALS
DISTINGUISHES OUR FORM OF JURISPRUDENCE FROM CERTAIN LESS DESIRABLE
ONES.  THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO RESTRAIN THE LIBERTY AND TO IMPERIL THE
GOOD REPUTATION OF CITIZENS MUST NOT REST UPON THE VARIABLE ATTITUDES
AND OPINIONS OF THOSE CHARGED WITH THE DUTIES OF INTERPRETING AND
ENFORCING THE MANDATES OF THE LAW.  I THEREFORE CANNOT APPROVE THE
DECISION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. WILTBERGER, 5 WHEAT.  76, 95. 

FN2  THE NORMAL AND NECESSARY MEANING OF SUCH A DEFINITION OF
"PERSON" IS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISES AND THOSE
ENTERPRISES THAT ARE INCORPORATED OR OPERATED AS A PARTNERSHIP OR
ASSOCIATION, IN ORDER TO SUBJECT THEM ALL TO THE ACT.  THIS PHRASE
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL
OFFICERS OF A CORPORATION AND THE CORPORATE ENTITY.  LEE, "CORPORATE
CRIMINAL LIABILITY," 28 COL. L. REV. 1, 181, 190. 

FN3  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. COOPER CORP., 312 U.S. 600, 606, AND
DAVIS V. PRINGLE, 268 U.S. 315, 318, HOLDING THAT THE CONTEXT AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PARTICULAR STATUTES THERE INVOLVED INDICATED
THAT THE WORDS "ANY PERSON" DID NOT INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES.  BUT IN
GEORGIA V. EVANS, 316 U.S. 159, AND OHIO V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360,
THESE CONSIDERATIONS LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT "ANY PERSON" DID
INCLUDE A STATE.  SEE ALSO 40 STAT. 1143, WHICH SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES
OFFICERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF "ANY PERSON" AS USED IN THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1918. 

FN4  IN PARK BANK V. REMSEN, 158 U.S. 337, 344, THIS COURT SAID, "IT
IS THE CORPORATION WHICH IS GIVEN THE POWERS AND PRIVILEGES AND MADE
SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITIES.  DOES THIS CARRY WITH IT AN IMPOSITION OF
LIABILITY UPON THE TRUSTEE OR OTHER OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION?  THE
OFFICER IS NOT THE CORPORATION; HIS LIABILITY IS PERSONAL, AND NOT THAT
OF THE CORPORATION, NOR CAN IT BE COUNTED AMONG THE POWERS AND
PRIVILEGES OF THE CORPORATION." 

FN5  FOR AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONFUSION ON THIS MATTER IN THE STATE AND
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, SEE LEE, "CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY," 28 COL.
L. REV. 1, 181.    FN6  IN THAT CASE WE HAD BEFORE US REV. STAT. SECS.
4386-4389, WHICH PENALIZED "ANY COMPANY, OWNER OR CUSTODIAN OF SUCH
ANIMALS" WHO FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS TO
LIVESTOCK TRANSPORTATION.  A RAILROAD COMPANY VIOLATED THE STATUTE AND
THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO IMPOSE LIABILITY ON THE RECEIVERS WHO WERE IN
ACTUAL CHARGE OF THE COMPANY.  IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE WORD "COMPANY"
EMBRACED THE NATURAL PERSONS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY AND THAT
TO HOLD SUCH OFFICERS AND RECEIVERS LIABLE WAS WITHIN THE POLICY AND
PURPOSE OF SO HUMANE A STATUTE.  WE REJECTED THIS CONTENTION IN
LANGUAGE PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE TO THIS CASE (177 U.S. AT 309): 

"IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT, IN ORDER TO HOLD THE RECEIVERS, THEY MUST
BE REGARDED AS INCLUDED IN THE WORD 'COMPANY.'  ONLY BY A STRAINED AND
ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTION, BASED CHIEFLY UPON A CONSIDERATION OF THE
MISCHIEF WHICH THE LEGISLATURE SOUGHT TO REMEDY, CAN RECEIVERS BE
BROUGHT WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE LAW.  BUT CAN SUCH A KIND OF
CONSTRUCTION BE RESORTED TO IN ENFORCING A PENAL STATUTE?  GIVING ALL
PROPER FORCE TO THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL OF THE GOVERNMENT, THAT
THERE HAS BEEN SOME RELAXATION ON THE PART OF THE COURTS IN APPLYING
THE RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION TO SUCH STATUTES, IT STILL REMAINS THAT
THE INTENTION OF A PENAL STATUTE MUST BE FOUND IN THE LANGUAGE ACTUALLY
USED, INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO ITS FAIR AND OBVIOUS MEANING.  IT IS NOT
PERMITTED TO COURTS, IN THIS CLASS OF CASES, TO ATTRIBUTE INADVERTENCE
OR OVERSIGHT TO THE LEGISLATURE WHEN ENUMERATING THE CLASSES OF PERSONS
WHO ARE SUBJECTED TO A PENAL ENACTMENT, NOR TO DEPART FROM THE SETTLED
MEANING OF WORDS OR PHRASES IN ORDER TO BRING PERSONS NOT NAMED OR
DISTINCTLY DESCRIBED WITHIN THE SUPPOSED PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE." 

FN7  "WHENEVER A CORPORATION SHALL VIOLATE ANY OF THE PENAL
PROVISIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, SUCH VIOLATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
ALSO THAT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, OR AGENTS OF SUCH
CORPORATION WHO SHALL HAVE AUTHORIZED, ORDERED, OR DONE ANY OF THE ACTS
CONSTITUTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART SUCH VIOLATION."  15 U.S.C. SEC. 24. 

"THE COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY  ...  ARE HEREBY INVESTED  ...  WITH SUCH
JURISDICTION AT LAW AND IN EQUITY AS WILL ENABLE THEM TO  ...  (4)
ARRAIGN, TRY, AND PUNISH BANKRUPTS, OFFICERS, AND OTHER PERSONS, AND
THE AGENTS, OFFICERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR TRUSTEES, OR
OTHER SIMILAR CONTROLLING BODIES, OF CORPORATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF
THIS ACT."  30 STAT. 545. 

"ANY SUCH COMMON CARRIER, OR ANY OFFICER OR AGENT THEREOF, REQUIRING
OR PERMITTING ANY EMPLOYEE TO GO, BE, OR REMAIN ON DUTY IN VIOLATION OF
THE NEXT PRECEDING SECTION OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE LIABLE TO A PENALTY
...  "  45 U.S.C. SEC. 63. 

"A MORTGAGOR WHO, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD, VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF
SUBSECTION F, SECTION 924, AND IF THE MORTGAGOR IS A CORPORATION OR
ASSOCIATION, THE PRESIDENT OR OTHER PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE
CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION, SHALL UPON CONVICTION THEREOF BE HELD
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR  ...  "  46 U.S.C. SEC. 941(B). 

FN8  S. 88, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  SENATOR HEYBURN, ONE OF THE
SPONSORS OF S. 88, STATED THAT THIS WAS "A NEW FEATURE IN BILLS OF THIS
KIND.  IT WAS INTENDED TO OBVIATE THE POSSIBILITY OF ESCAPE BY THE
OFFICERS OF A CORPORATION UNDER A PLEA, WHICH HAS BEEN MORE THAN ONCE
MADE, THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS BEING DONE ON THE CREDIT OF
OR ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CORPORATION."  40 CONG. REC. 894. 

FN9  34 STAT. 772, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 4. 

FN10  SENATE REPORT NO. 493, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 21. 

FN11  IBID., P. 22.  THIS REPORT ALSO STATED THAT "IT IS NOT,
HOWEVER, THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARAGRAPH TO SUBJECT TO LIABILITY THOSE
DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES, WHO MERELY AUTHORIZE THEIR
SUBORDINATES TO PERFORM LAWFUL DUTIES AND SUCH SUBORDINATES, ON THEIR
OWN INITIATIVE, PERFORM THOSE DUTIES IN A MANNER WHICH VIOLATES THE
PROVISIONS OF THE LAW.  HOWEVER, IF A DIRECTOR OR OFFICER PERSONALLY
ORDERS HIS SUBORDINATE TO DO AN ACT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, THERE IS
NO REASON WHY HE SHOULD BE SHIELDED FROM PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY MERELY
BECAUSE THE ACT WAS DONE BY ANOTHER AND ON BEHALF OF A CORPORATION." 

FN12  THIS PROVISION APPEARS IN SEVERAL OF THE EARLY VERSIONS OF THE
ACT INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS.  S. 1944, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 18(B);
S. 2000, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., SEC. 18(B); S. 2800, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.,
SEC. 18(B); S. 5, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 709(B); S. 5, 74TH CONG.,
2D SESS., SEC. 707(B), AS REPORTED TO THE HOUSE, WHICH SUBSTITUTED THE
WORD "PERSONALLY" FOR THE WORD "AUTHORIZED" IN THE LAST CLAUSE OF THE
PARAGRAPH QUOTED ABOVE.  A VARIATION OF THIS PROVISION APPEARED IN S.
5, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEC. 2(F), AND MADE A MARKED DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE USE OF THE WORD "PERSON" AND THE WORDS "DIRECTOR, OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT ACTING FOR OR EMPLOYED BY ANY PERSON."  ALL OF THESE
BILLS ALSO CONTAINED THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF "PERSON" AS INCLUDING
"INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, AND ASSOCIATION." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :





CAFETERIA UNION V. ANGELOS, 320 U.S. 293 


ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1943.  - 289 N.Y. 498,
507, 46 N.E.2D 903, 908, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE STATE COURT'S BROAD
INJUNCTION AGAINST PICKETING OF PLACES OF BUSINESS BY MEMBERS OF A
LABOR ORGANIZATION INFRINGED THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH.  P. 295. 

2.  A STATE CAN NOT, BY DRAWING THE CIRCLE OF ECONOMIC COMPETITION
BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS SO SMALL AS TO CONTAIN ONLY AN EMPLOYER
AND THOSE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY HIM, EXCLUDE WORKMEN IN A PARTICULAR
INDUSTRY FROM PRESENTING THEIR CASE TO THE PUBLIC IN A PEACEFUL WAY. 
P. 296. 

3.  THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PICKETING CAN NOT BE TAKEN AWAY MERELY
BECAUSE IN THE COURSE OF THE PICKETING THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ISOLATED
INCIDENTS OF ABUSE FALLING FAR SHORT OF VIOLENCE.  DRIVERS' UNION V.
MEADOWMOOR CO., 312 U.S. 287, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 296. 

CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 302, ET AL. V. ANGELOS ET AL. 

NO. 36.  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 37, CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 302, ET AL.
V. TSAKIRES ET AL., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 778, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCES OF DECREES GRANTING
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PICKETING.  SEE ALSO 264 APP. DIV. 708, 34 N.Y.S.2D
408. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE BROUGHT THESE TWO CASES HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER INJUNCTIONS
SANCTIONED BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS WITHIN
WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONFINES STATE POWER.  319 U.S. 778. 
THEY WERE ARGUED TOGETHER AND, BEING SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE, CAN BE
DISPOSED OF IN A SINGLE OPINION. 

WE START WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS' VIEW OF THE FACTS.  IN NO. 36,
PETITIONERS, A LABOR UNION AND ITS PRESIDENT, PICKETED A CAFETERIA IN
AN ATTEMPT TO ORGANIZE IT.  THE CAFETERIA WAS OWNED BY THE RESPONDENTS,
WHO THEMSELVES CONDUCTED THE BUSINESS WITHOUT THE AID OF ANY
EMPLOYEES.  PICKETING WAS CARRIED ON BY A PARADE OF ONE PERSON AT A
TIME IN FRONT OF THE PREMISES.  THE SUCCESSIVE PICKETS WERE "AT ALL
TIMES ORDERLY AND PEACEFUL."  THEY CARRIED SIGNS WHICH TENDED TO GIVE
THE IMPRESSION THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE "UNFAIR" TO ORGANIZED LABOR
AND THAT THE PICKETS HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED IN THE CAFETERIA. 
THESE REPRESENTATIONS WERE TREATED BY THE COURT BELOW AS KNOWINGLY
FALSE IN THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO EMPLOYEES IN THE CAFETERIA AND THE
RESPONDENTS WERE "NOT UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR."  IT ALSO FOUND THAT
PICKETS TOLD PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS THAT THE CAFETERIA SERVED BAD FOOD,
AND THAT BY "PATRONIZING" IT "THEY WERE AIDING THE CAUSE OF FASCISM." 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN NO. 37 DIFFER FROM THOSE IN NO. 36 ONLY IN THAT
PICKETS WERE FOUND TO HAVE TOLD PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS THAT A STRIKE WAS
IN PROGRESS AND TO HAVE "INSULTED CUSTOMERS  ...  WHO WERE ABOUT TO
ENTER" THE CAFETERIA.  UPON A FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS REQUIRED
EQUITABLE RELIEF TO AVOID IRREPARABLE DAMAGES AND THAT THERE WAS NO
"LABOR DISPUTE" UNDER THE NEW YORK ANALOGUE OF THE NORRIS-LA GUARDIA
ACT (SEC. 876-A OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT), THE TRIAL COURT
ENJOINED PETITIONERS IN BROAD TERMS FROM PICKETING AT OR NEAR
RESPONDENTS' PLACES OF BUSINESS.  THE DECREES WERE AFFIRMED BY THE
APPELLATE DIVISION (264 APP. DIV. 708, 34 N.Y.S.2D 408), AND WERE
FINALLY SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, ITS CHIEF JUDGE AND TWO
JUDGES DISSENTING.  289 N.Y. 498, 507, 46 N.E.2D 903. 

IN SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468, THIS COURT RULED THAT
MEMBERS OF A UNION MIGHT, "WITHOUT SPECIAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION BY A
STATE, MAKE KNOWN THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE, FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH
IS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION."  301 U.S. AT 478.  LATER
CASES APPLIED THE SENN DOCTRINE BY ENFORCING THE RIGHT OF WORKERS TO
STATE THEIR CASE AND TO APPEAL FOR PUBLIC SUPPORT IN AN ORDERLY AND
PEACEFUL MANNER REGARDLESS OF THE AREA OF IMMUNITY AS DEFINED BY STATE
POLICY.  A.F. OF L. V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321; BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V.
WOHL, 315 U.S. 769.  TO BE SURE, THE SENN CASE RELATED TO THE
EMPLOYMENT OF "PEACEFUL PICKETING AND TRUTHFUL PUBLICITY."  301 U.S. AT
482.  THAT THE PICKETING UNDER REVIEW WAS PEACEFUL IS NOT QUESTIONED. 
AND TO USE LOOSE LANGUAGE OR UNDEFINED SLOGANS THAT ARE PART OF THE
CONVENTIONAL GIVE-AND-TAKE IN OUR ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES
LIKE "UNFAIR" OR "FASCIST" - IS NOT TO FALSIFY FACTS.  IN A SETTING
LIKE THE PRESENT, CONTINUING REPRESENTATIONS UNQUESTIONABLY FALSE AND
ACTS OF COERCION GOING BEYOND THE MERE INFLUENCE EXERTED BY THE FACT OF
PICKETING, ARE OF COURSE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES.  BUT HERE WE
HAVE NO ATTEMPT BY THE STATE THROUGH ITS COURTS TO RESTRICT CONDUCT
JUSTIFIABLY FOUND TO BE AN ABUSIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO PICKET.  WE
HAVE BEFORE US A PROHIBITION AS UNRESTRICTED AS THAT WHICH WE FOUND TO
TRANSGRESS STATE POWER IN A.F. OF L. V. SWING, SUPRA.  THE COURT HERE,
AS IN THE SWING CASE, WAS PROBABLY LED INTO ERROR BY ASSUMING THAT IF A
CONTROVERSY DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF STATE LEGISLATION
LIMITING THE ISSUE OF INJUNCTIONS, EFFORTS TO MAKE KNOWN ONE SIDE OF AN
INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSY BY PEACEFUL MEANS MAY BE ENJOINED.  BUT, AS WE
HAVE HERETOFORE DECIDED, A STATE CANNOT EXCLUDE WORKING MEN IN A
PARTICULAR INDUSTRY FROM PUTTING THEIR CASE TO THE PUBLIC IN A PEACEFUL
WAY "BY DRAWING THE CIRCLE OF ECONOMIC COMPETITION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS
AND WORKERS SO SMALL AS TO CONTAIN ONLY AN EMPLOYER AND THOSE DIRECTLY
EMPLOYED BY HIM."  A.F. OF L. V. SWING, 312 U.S. AT 326. 

THE PRESENT SITUATION IS THUS WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
DECISION IN MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR CO., 312 U.S. 287. 
THERE WE SUSTAINED THE EQUITY POWER OF A STATE BECAUSE THE RECORD
DISCLOSED ABUSES DEEMED NOT EPISODIC AND ISOLATED BUT OF THE VERY
TEXTURE AND PROCESS OF THE ENJOINED PICKETING.  BUT WE ALSO MADE CLEAR
"THAT THE POWER TO DENY WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE LAWFUL PICKETING
DERIVES FROM THE POWER OF THE STATES TO PREVENT FUTURE COERCION.  RIGHT
TO FREE SPEECH IN THE FUTURE CANNOT BE FORFEITED BECAUSE OF DISSOCIATED
ACTS OF PAST VIOLENCE."  312 U.S. AT 296.  STILL LESS CAN THE RIGHT TO
PICKET ITSELF BE TAKEN AWAY MERELY BECAUSE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ISOLATED
INCIDENTS OF ABUSE FALLING FAR SHORT OF VIOLENCE OCCURRING IN THE
COURSE OF THAT PICKETING. 

THE JUDGMENTS MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES RETURNED TO THE STATE
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 
..END :























SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. BOARD, 320 U.S. 297 


NO. 48.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1943.  - 135
F.2D 785, REVERSED. 


A DISPUTE HAVING ARISEN BETWEEN TWO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AS TO
REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES OF A CARRIER FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, THE
SERVICES OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD WERE INVOKED PURSUANT TO SEC.
2, NINTH OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  ONE OF THE ORGANIZATIONS SOUGHT TO
BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL YARDMEN; THE OTHER, TO BE THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF CERTAIN SMALLER GROUPS.  THE BOARD DIRECTED AN
ELECTION, DESIGNATING ALL YARDMEN AS PARTICIPANTS.  THE FIRST
ORGANIZATION WAS CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVE, AND THE BOARD CERTIFIED THE
RESULT TO THE CARRIER.  THE SECOND ORGANIZATION AND SOME OF ITS MEMBERS
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, CHALLENGING THE BOARD'S
DETERMINATION AS TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE ELECTION AND SEEKING
CANCELLATION OF THE CERTIFICATE.  HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE BOARD IN ISSUING THE
CERTIFICATE.  P. 300. 

1.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF SEC. 2, NINTH THEREOF SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS WAS THAT THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SHOULD NOT BE JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE.  P. 306. 

(A)  CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ASIDE, IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE
HOW THE RIGHTS WHICH IT CREATES SHALL BE ENFORCED.  P. 301. 

(B)  WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE
TYPE OF PROBLEM INVOLVED AND THE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE IN QUESTION ARE
RELEVANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY NONETHELESS BE
SUPPLIED.  P. 301. 

2.  THE BROAD GRANT TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, BY JUD.  CODE
SEC. 24(8), OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF ALL "SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS
ARISING UNDER ANY LAW REGULATING COMMERCE," CAN NOT SUSTAIN
JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE.  P. 300. 

3.  THAT THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES
FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS CONCLUSIVE DOES NOT OF ITSELF MAKE SUCH
CERTIFICATION JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE.  P. 303. 

4.  SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 306. 

SWITCHMEN'S UNION OF NORTH AMERICA ET AL. V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 736, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD IN CERTIFYING REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION BY THE PETITIONERS, THE SWITCHMEN'S UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA AND SOME OF ITS MEMBERS AGAINST THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD,
ITS MEMBERS, THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, AND THE NEW YORK
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE MICHIGAN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. 
THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS ARE MEMBERS AND OFFICIALS OF THE SWITCHMEN'S
UNION AND EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT CARRIERS. 

PETITIONERS WERE PLAINTIFFS IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  A CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNDER SEC. 2, NINTH OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT (44 STAT. 577, 48 STAT. 1185) WAS MADE BY THE BOARD
TO THE CARRIERS.  FN1  THIS CERTIFICATION FOLLOWED THE INVOCATION OF
THE SERVICES OF THE BOARD TO INVESTIGATE A DISPUTE AMONG THE YARDMEN AS
TO THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.  THE BROTHERHOOD SOUGHT TO BE THE
REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL THE YARDMEN OF THE RAIL LINES OPERATED BY THE
NEW YORK CENTRAL SYSTEM.  THE SWITCHMEN CONTENDED THAT YARDMEN OF
CERTAIN DESIGNATED PARTS OF THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO VOTE FOR
SEPARATE REPRESENTATIVES INSTEAD OF BEING COMPELLED TO TAKE PART IN A
SYSTEMWIDE ELECTION. 

THE BOARD DESIGNATED ALL YARDMEN OF THE CARRIERS AS PARTICIPANTS IN
THE ELECTION.  THE ELECTION WAS HELD AND THE BROTHERHOOD WAS CHOSEN AS
THE REPRESENTATIVE.  UPON THE CERTIFICATION OF THE RESULT TO THE
CARRIERS, PETITIONERS SOUGHT TO HAVE THE DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF
THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE CERTIFICATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE
CANCELLED.  THIS SUIT FOR CANCELLATION WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THAT COURT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE BOARD TO THE EFFECT THAT
ALL YARDMEN IN THE SERVICE OF A CARRIER SHOULD SELECT A SINGLE
REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED VOTE.  135 F.2D 785.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEMS WHICH ARE RAISED. 

WE DO NOT REACH THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY.  FOR WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW THE
ACTION OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD IN ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE. 

SEC. 24(8) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(8), GIVES THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS "ORIGINAL JURISDICTION" OF ALL "SUITS AND
PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER ANY LAW REGULATING COMMERCE."  WE MAY ASSUME
THAT IF ANY JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE BOARD COULD BE
HAD, THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION BY REASON OF THAT
PROVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  SEE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V.
RICE, 247 U.S. 201; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38; PEYTON V. RAILWAY
EXPRESS AGENCY, 316 U.S. 350.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT THAT BROAD
GRANT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION MAY BE INVOKED IN FACE OF THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH OBTAIN HERE. 

IF THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS MEANT A
SACRIFICE OR OBLITERATION OF A RIGHT WHICH CONGRESS HAD CREATED, THE
INFERENCE WOULD BE STRONG THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF THOSE COURTS TO
CONTROL.  THAT WAS THE PURPORT OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN TEXAS
& NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, AND
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515.  IN THOSE CASES
IT WAS APPARENT THAT BUT FOR THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS THERE WOULD BE NO REMEDY TO ENFORCE THE STATUTORY COMMANDS WHICH
CONGRESS HAD WRITTEN INTO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  THE RESULT WOULD HAVE
BEEN THAT THE "RIGHT" OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WAS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY
LEGAL SANCTION.  THAT WOULD HAVE ROBBED THE ACT OF ITS VITALITY AND
THWARTED ITS PURPOSE.  SUCH CONSIDERATIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE HERE. 
THE ACT IN SEC. 2, FOURTH WRITES INTO LAW THE "RIGHT" OF THE "MAJORITY
OF ANY CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES" TO "DETERMINE WHO SHALL BE THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." 
THAT "RIGHT" IS PROTECTED BY SEC. 2, NINTH WHICH GIVES THE MEDIATION
BOARD THE POWER TO RESOLVE CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING IT AND AS AN
INCIDENT THERETO TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE CRAFT OR CLASS IN
WHICH THE ELECTION SHOULD BE HELD.  SEE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
TRAINMEN V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 88 F.2D 757; BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 135 F.2D 780.  A REVIEW
BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION IS NOT
NECESSARY TO PRESERVE OR PROTECT THAT "RIGHT."  CONGRESS FOR REASONS OF
ITS OWN DECIDED UPON THE METHOD FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE "RIGHT" WHICH
IT CREATED.  IT SELECTED THE PRECISE MACHINERY AND FASHIONED THE TOOL
WHICH IT DEEMED SUITED TO THAT END.  WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW ON TOP OF THE MEDIATION BOARD'S ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
WOULD STRENGTHEN THAT PROTECTION IS A CONSIDERABLE QUESTION N2.  ALL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ASIDE, IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE HOW THE
RIGHTS WHICH IT CREATES SHALL BE ENFORCED.  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270
U.S. 568, 576-577.  IN SUCH A CASE THE SPECIFICATION OF ONE REMEDY
NORMALLY EXCLUDES ANOTHER.  SEE ARNSON V. MURPHY, 109 U.S. 238; WILDER
MFG. CO. V. CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO., 236 U.S. 165, 174-175; UNITED
STATES V. BABCOCK, 250 U.S. 328, 331; SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V.
ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 404. 

GENERALIZATIONS AS TO WHEN JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
MAY OR MAY NOT BE OBTAINED ARE OF COURSE HAZARDOUS.  WHERE CONGRESS HAS
NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE TYPE OF PROBLEM INVOLVED
AND THE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE IN QUESTION BECOME HIGHLY RELEVANT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE NONETHELESS SUPPLIED.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, 232-237.  AS IS INDICATED AT
SOME LENGTH IN GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT V. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS
R. CO., POST, P. 323, THE EMERGENCE OF RAILWAY LABOR PROBLEMS FROM THE
FIELD OF CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION INTO THAT OF LEGALLY ENFORCIBLE
RIGHTS HAS BEEN QUITE RECENT.  UNTIL THE 1926 ACT THE LEGAL SANCTIONS
OF THE VARIOUS ACTS HAD BEEN FEW.  THE EMPHASIS OF THE LEGISLATION HAD
BEEN ON CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION; THE SANCTIONS WERE PUBLICITY AND
PUBLIC OPINION.  SINCE 1926 THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASING NUMBER OF
LEGALLY ENFORCIBLE COMMANDS INCORPORATED INTO THE ACT.  AND CONGRESS
HAS UTILIZED ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY MORE FREELY IN THE SETTLEMENT OF
DISPUTES.  BUT LARGE AREAS OF THE FIELD STILL REMAIN IN THE REALM OF
CONCILIATION, MEDIATION, AND ARBITRATION.  ON ONLY A FEW PHASES OF THIS
CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HAS CONGRESS UTILIZED ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL
MACHINERY AND INVOKED THE COMPULSIONS OF THE LAW.  WE NEED NOT
RECAPITULATE THAT HISTORY HERE.  NOR NEED WE REITERATE WHAT WE HAVE
SAID IN THE MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. CASE BEYOND OUR CONCLUSION
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO GO NO FURTHER IN ITS USE OF THE PROCESSES OF
ADJUDICATION AND LITIGATION THAN THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
INDICATE. 

IN THAT CONNECTION THE HISTORY OF SEC. 2, NINTH IS HIGHLY RELEVANT. 
IT WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE ACT IN 1934 AS A DEVICE TO STRENGTHEN AND
MAKE MORE EFFECTIVE THE PROCESSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  VIRGINIAN
RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, SUPRA, PP. 543-549.  IT WAS AIMED NOT
ONLY AT COMPANY UNIONS WHICH HAD LONG PLAGUED LABOR RELATIONS (ID., PP.
545-547) BUT ALSO AT NUMEROUS JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES BETWEEN UNIONS. 
COMMISSIONER EASTMAN, DRAFTSMAN OF THE 1934 AMENDMENTS, EXPLAINED THE
BILL AT THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS.  HE STATED THAT WHETHER ONE
ORGANIZATION OR ANOTHER WAS THE PROPER REPRESENTATIVE OF A PARTICULAR
GROUP OF EMPLOYEES WAS "ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH LABOR ORGANIZATION MATTERS."  HEARINGS, COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 7650,
73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 40.  HE STATED THAT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT "TO
PROVIDE A NEUTRAL TRIBUNAL WHICH CAN MAKE THE DECISION AND GET THE
MATTER SETTLED."  ID., P. 41.  BUT THE PROBLEM WAS DEEMED TO BE SO
"HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL" THAT IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE PRESTIGE OF THE
MEDIATION BOARD MIGHT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE RULINGS WHICH IT
WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IN THESE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES.  ID., P. 40.  AND
SEE HEARINGS, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, U.S. SENATE, ON S.
3266, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 134-135.  ACCORDINGLY SEC. 2, NINTH WAS
DRAFTED SO AS TO GIVE TO THE MEDIATION BOARD THE POWER TO "APPOINT A
COMMITTEE OF THREE NEUTRAL PERSONS WHO AFTER HEARING SHALL WITHIN TEN
DAYS DESIGNATE THE EMPLOYEES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION." 
THAT WAS ADDED SO THAT THE BOARD'S "OWN USEFULNESS OF SETTLING DISPUTES
THAT MIGHT ARISE THEREAFTER MIGHT NOT BE IMPAIRED."  S. REP. NO. 1065,
73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 3.  WHERE CONGRESS TOOK SUCH GREAT PAINS TO
PROTECT THE MEDIATION BOARD IN ITS HANDLING OF AN EXPLOSIVE PROBLEM, WE
CANNOT HELP BUT BELIEVE THAT IF CONGRESS HAD DESIRED TO IMPLICATE THE
FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND TO PLACE ON THE FEDERAL COURTS THE BURDEN OF
HAVING THE FINAL SAY ON ANY ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM, IT WOULD HAVE MADE
ITS DESIRE PLAIN. 

THE FACT THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF THE MEDIATION BOARD IS CONCLUSIVE IS
OF COURSE NO GROUND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 172, 182.  CONGRESS HAS LONG DELEGATED TO
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OR EXECUTIVE AGENCIES THE DETERMINATION OF
COMPLICATED QUESTIONS OF FACT AND OF LAW.  AND WHERE NO JUDICIAL REVIEW
WAS PROVIDED BY CONGRESS THIS COURT HAS OFTEN REFUSED TO FURNISH ONE
EVEN WHERE QUESTIONS OF LAW MIGHT BE INVOLVED.  SEE LOUISIANA V.
MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627, 633; UNITED STATES V. GEORGE S. BUSH & CO., 310
U.S. 371; WORK V. RIVES, 267 U.S. 175; UNITED STATES V. BABCOCK, SUPRA.
WE NEED NOT DETERMINE THE FULL REACH OF THAT RULE.  SEE BATES & GUILD
CO. V. PAYNE, 194 U.S. 106; HOUSTON V. ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING
CO., 249 U.S. 479.  BUT ITS APPLICATION HERE IS MOST APPROPRIATE BY
REASON OF THE PATTERN OF THIS ACT. 

WHILE THE MEDIATION BOARD IS GIVEN SPECIFIED POWERS IN THE CONDUCT OF
ELECTIONS, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT AS TO HEARINGS.  AND THERE IS NO
EXPRESS GRANT OF SUBPOENA POWER.  THE MEDIATION BOARD MAKES NO
"ORDER."  AND ITS ONLY ULTIMATE FINDING OF FACT IS THE CERTIFICATE. 
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, SUPRA, P. 562.  THE FUNCTION OF
THE BOARD UNDER SEC. 2, NINTH IS MORE THE FUNCTION OF A REFEREE.  TO
THIS DECISION OF THE REFEREE CONGRESS HAS ADDED A COMMAND ENFORCIBLE BY
JUDICIAL DECREE.  BUT THE "COMMAND" IS THAT "OF THE STATUTE, NOT OF THE
BOARD."  ID., P. 562. 

THE STATUTORY MANDATE IS THAT "THE CARRIER SHALL TREAT WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVE SO CERTIFIED."  SEC. 2, NINTH.  BUT THE SCHEME OF SEC.
2, NINTH IS ANALOGOUS TO THAT WHICH EXISTED IN BUTTE, A. & P. RY. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 127.  IN THAT CASE CONGRESS PROVIDED
COMPENSATION TO THE OWNERS OF SHORT-LINE RAILROADS FOR LOSSES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO FEDERAL CONTROL OF THE MAIN SYSTEMS DURING THE FIRST
WORLD WAR.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS DIRECTED BY SEC. 204
OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920 TO ASCERTAIN THE AMOUNT OF DEFICITS
OR LOSSES AND TO "CERTIFY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY THE SEVERAL
AMOUNTS PAYABLE" TO THE CARRIERS.  AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
WAS "AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED THEREUPON TO DRAW WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF
EACH SUCH CARRIER UPON THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE AMOUNT
SHOWN IN SUCH CERTIFICATE AS PAYABLE THERETO."  PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO
THE BUTTE COMPANY ON SUCH A CERTIFICATE AND THE UNITED STATES
INSTITUTED SUIT TO RECOVER ON THE THEORY THAT THE MONEY HAD BEEN
DISBURSED ON AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE.  THIS COURT,
SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, HELD THAT SINCE AUTHORITY TO
INTERPRET THE STATUTE WAS "ESSENTIAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTY
IMPOSED UPON THE COMMISSION" AND SINCE "CONGRESS DID NOT PROVIDE A
METHOD OF REVIEW," THE GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS THE CARRIER, WAS
"REMEDILESS WHETHER THE ERROR BE ONE OF FACT OR OF LAW."  ID., PP. 142
143.  CF. UNITED STATES V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO., 287 U.S. 144. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AUTHORITY OF THE MEDIATION BOARD IN ELECTION
DISPUTES TO INTERPRET THE MEANING OF "CRAFT" AS USED IN THE STATUTE IS
NO LESS CLEAR AND NO LESS ESSENTIAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTY. 
THE STATUTORY COMMAND THAT THE DECISION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE OBEYED IS
NO LESS EXPLICIT.  UNDER THIS ACT CONGRESS DID NOT GIVE THE BOARD
DISCRETION TO TAKE OR WITHHOLD ACTION, TO GRANT OR DENY RELIEF.  IT
GAVE IT NO ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS.  IT WAS TO FIND THE FACT AND THEN
CEASE.  CONGRESS PRESCRIBED THE COMMAND.  LIKE THE COMMAND IN THE BUTTE
RY. CASE IT CONTAINED NO EXCEPTION.  HERE AS IN THAT CASE THE INTENT
SEEMS PLAIN - THE DISPUTE WAS TO REACH ITS LAST TERMINAL POINT WHEN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING WAS MADE.  THERE WAS TO BE NO DRAGGING OUT OF
THE CONTROVERSY INTO OTHER TRIBUNALS OF LAW.    THAT CONCLUSION IS
REINFORCED BY THE HIGHLY SELECTIVE MANNER IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS OR DETERMINATIONS
UNDER THE ACT.  THERE IS NO GENERAL PROVISION FOR SUCH REVIEW.  BUT
CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR IT IN TWO INSTANCES.  THUS CONGRESS
GAVE THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD JURISDICTION OVER DISPUTES
GROWING OUT OF "GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION
OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS." 
SEC. 3, FIRST (I).  THE VARIOUS DIVISIONS OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAVE
AUTHORITY TO MAKE AWARDS.  SEC. 3, FIRST (K)-(O).  AND SUITS BASED ON
THOSE AWARDS MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS.  SEC. 3,
FIRST (P).  IN SUCH SUITS "THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE DIVISION OF
THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS THEREIN
STATED."  THE OTHER INSTANCE IN THE ACT WHERE CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS UNDER SEC. 9.  THE ACT PRESCRIBES MACHINERY FOR THE
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION OF LABOR CONTROVERSIES.  SEC. 5, THIRD; SEC. 7;
SEC. 8.  IT IS PROVIDED IN SEC. 9 THAT AN AWARD OF A BOARD OF
ARBITRATION MAY BE IMPEACHED BY AN ACTION INSTITUTED IN A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 9, ONE OF WHICH IS THAT
"THE AWARD PLAINLY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS
LAID DOWN BY THIS ACT FOR SUCH AWARDS, OR THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS ACT."  SEC. 9, THIRD (A).  WHEN
CONGRESS IN SEC. 3 AND IN SEC. 9 PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF TWO
TYPES OF ORDERS OR AWARDS AND IN SEC. 2 OF THE SAME ACT OMITTED ANY
SUCH PROVISION AS RESPECTS A THIRD TYPE, IT DREW A PLAIN LINE OF
DISTINCTION.  AND THE INFERENCE IS STRONG FROM THE HISTORY OF THE ACT
THAT THAT DISTINCTION WAS NOT INADVERTENT.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT
READ IN LIGHT OF THAT HISTORY SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS GAVE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNDER SEC. 2, NINTH A FINALITY WHICH IT DENIED
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNDER THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT. 

SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177, IS NOT OPPOSED TO
THAT VIEW.  THAT CASE INVOLVED A DETERMINATION BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 1, FIRST OF THE ACT THAT THE LINES OF
THE CARRIER IN QUESTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN INTERURBAN ELECTRIC
RAILWAY.  THE RESULT WAS THAT THE RAILROAD COMPANY WAS A "CARRIER"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT AND SUBJECT TO ITS CRIMINAL PENALTIES. 
THE CARRIER BROUGHT A SUIT IN EQUITY AGAINST A UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE ACT.  THIS COURT ALLOWED
THE ACTION TO BE MAINTAINED EVEN THOUGH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT CONTAINED
NO PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUCH RULINGS.  BUT THE DECISION WAS
PLACED ON THE TRADITIONAL USE OF EQUITY PROCEEDINGS TO ENJOIN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS.  305 U.S. P. 183.  MOREOVER, IT WAS THE ACTION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH THIS COURT HELD TO BE REVIEWABLE. 
ALTHOUGH THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION DERIVED FROM THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT, THIS COURT QUITE PROPERLY RELATED THE ISSUE NOT TO RAILWAY LABOR
DISPUTES BUT TO THOSE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION
HAD LONG BEEN ENGAGED.  AND SEE SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S.
596.  THE LATTER HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT TRADITION IN FEDERAL LAW THAN
THOSE PERTAINING TO CARRIER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS. 

WHAT IS OPEN WHEN A COURT OF EQUITY IS ASKED FOR ITS AFFIRMATIVE HELP
BY GRANTING A DECREE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF THE
MEDIATION BOARD UNDER SEC. 2, NINTH RAISES QUESTIONS NOT NOW BEFORE US.
SEE VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, SUPRA, PP. 559-562. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 2, NINTH PROVIDES:  "IF ANY DISPUTE SHALL ARISE AMONG A
CARRIER'S EMPLOYEES AS TO WHO ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH EMPLOYEES
DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
ACT, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE MEDIATION BOARD, UPON REQUEST OF
EITHER PARTY TO THE DISPUTE, TO INVESTIGATE SUCH DISPUTE AND TO CERTIFY
TO BOTH PARTIES, IN WRITING, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF
THE INVOCATION OF ITS SERVICES, THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR
ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE
EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE, AND CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE
CARRIER.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH CERTIFICATION THE CARRIER SHALL TREAT
WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE SO CERTIFIED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT
OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT.  IN SUCH AN INVESTIGATION, THE
MEDIATION BOARD SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO TAKE A SECRET BALLOT OF THE
EMPLOYEES INVOLVED, OR TO UTILIZE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE METHOD OF
ASCERTAINING THE NAMES OF THEIR DULY DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES IN SUCH MANNER AS SHALL INSURE THE CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVES BY THE EMPLOYEES WITHOUT INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE, OR
COERCION EXERCISED BY THE CARRIER.  IN THE CONDUCT OF ANY ELECTION FOR
THE PURPOSES HEREIN INDICATED THE BOARD SHALL DESIGNATE WHO MAY
PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION AND ESTABLISH THE RULES TO GOVERN THE
ELECTION, OR MAY APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF THREE NEUTRAL PERSONS WHO AFTER
HEARING SHALL WITHIN TEN DAYS DESIGNATE THE EMPLOYEES WHO MAY
PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION.  THE BOARD SHALL HAVE ACCESS TO AND HAVE
POWER TO MAKE COPIES OF THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE CARRIERS TO OBTAIN
AND UTILIZE SUCH INFORMATION AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY BY IT TO CARRY
OUT THE PURPOSES AND PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH." 

FN2  "EVEN COURTS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO MAKE RULINGS THOUGHT BY COUNSEL
TO BE ERRONEOUS."  CRANE V. HAHLO, 258 U.S. 142, 148. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

THIS IS AN ACTION BY THE PETITIONERS, THE SWITCHMEN'S UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SWITCHMEN) AND SOME OF ITS
MEMBERS AGAINST THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, ITS MEMBERS, THE
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
BROTHERHOOD) AND THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE MICHIGAN
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, CARRIER EMPLOYERS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
BEFORE-MENTIONED UNIONS.  THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS ARE MEMBERS AND
OFFICIALS OF THE SWITCHMEN'S UNION AND EMPLOYEES OF ONE OR THE OTHER OF
THE CARRIERS. 

PETITIONERS WERE PLAINTIFFS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  A CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNDER SEC. 2, NINTH, OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT
FN1  WAS MADE BY THE BOARD TO THE CARRIERS.  THIS CERTIFICATION
FOLLOWED THE INVOCATION OF THE SERVICES OF THE BOARD TO INVESTIGATE A
DISPUTE AMONG THE YARDMEN OF THE CARRIERS AS TO THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. 
THE BROTHERHOOD SOUGHT TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL THE YARDMEN OF
RAIL LINES, INCLUDING THE MICHIGAN CENTRAL, OPERATED BY THE NEW YORK
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY AND OBTAINED THE DESIGNATION OF PARTICIPANTS
IN THE ELECTION FOR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES UPON THIS WIDE
BASIS.  THE SWITCHMEN CONTENDED THAT YARDMEN OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED
PARTS OF THE CARRIER PROPERTY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CHOOSE SEPARATELY
THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVES INSTEAD OF BEING COMPELLED TO TAKE PART IN A
CARRIER-WIDE ELECTION.  FN2 

THE BOARD OF MEDIATION IS THE AGENCY CREATED BY STATUTE TO DESIGNATE
EMPLOYEES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES UNDER
THE ACT.  FN3  THE BOARD UNDERTOOK TO PERFORM THIS FUNCTION AND MADE
ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AFTER PRESENTATION OF THE ISSUES BY THE
BROTHERHOOD, THE SWITCHMEN AND OTHER INTERVENORS.  THE BOARD CONCLUDED
THAT THE 

"RAILWAY LABOR ACT VESTS THE BOARD WITH NO DISCRETION TO SPLIT A
SINGLE CARRIER OR COMBINE TWO OR MORE CARRIERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING WHO SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE FOR A REPRESENTATIVE OF A
CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 2, NINTH, OF THE ACT, AND THE
ARGUMENT THAT IT HAS SUCH POWER FAILS TO FURNISH ANY BASIS OF LAW FOR
SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION." 

CONSEQUENTLY THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE "NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY AND ALL OF ITS OPERATED SUBSIDIARIES  ...  IS A SINGLE CARRIER"
AND 

"ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY GIVEN CRAFT OR CLASS, SUCH AS YARDMEN,
IN THE SERVICE OF A CARRIER SO DETERMINED MUST THEREFORE BE TAKEN
TOGETHER AS CONSTITUTING THE PROPER BASIS FOR DETERMINING THEIR
REPRESENTATION IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 2, NINTH, OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT. 

"THE MEDIATOR ASSIGNED TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS DISPUTE WILL
THEREFORE PROCEED ACCORDINGLY WITH THE COMPLETION OF HIS DUTIES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE BOARD'S INVESTIGATION OF THIS DISPUTE.  THAT IS TO
SAY, HE SHALL REGARD AS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
YARDMEN IN THE SERVICE OF THE ENTIRE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
ALL OF THE YARDMEN IN SUCH SERVICE."  THE ELECTION BASED UPON THIS
DETERMINATION AND CERTIFICATION FOLLOWED IN DUE COURSE. 

AFTER THE BOARD'S DESIGNATION OF ALL YARDMEN OF THE CARRIER LINES AS
PARTICIPANTS IN THE ELECTION, THE ELECTION WAS HELD AND THE BROTHERHOOD
CHOSEN AS THE REPRESENTATIVE.  AS STATED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, UPON
THE CERTIFICATION OF THE RESULT TO THE CARRIERS, PETITIONERS SOUGHT TO
HAVE THE DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE
CERTIFICATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES CANCELLED.  BUT IN ADDITION AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE BROTHERHOOD AND THE CARRIERS WAS ASKED TO
RESTRAIN THEM FROM NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE CRAFT OF
YARDMEN ON THE CARRIERS' LINES.  THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  IT WAS THERE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
BOARD THAT ALL YARDMEN IN THE SERVICE OF A SINGLE CARRIER MAY BE TAKEN
TOGETHER AS CONSTITUTING A PROPER BASIS FOR SELECTING A REPRESENTATIVE
FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING "IS REASONABLE, PROPER AND NOT AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION" AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE.  THIS DECREE WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA BUT UPON THE GROUND OF LACK OF POWER IN THE BOARD TO ACT
OTHERWISE IF THE LINES INVOLVED WERE A SINGLE CARRIER.  THE UNITY OF
THE CARRIER IS ACCEPTED.  FN4 

AS TREATED BY THE BOARD AND THE COURTS BELOW THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY
THIS CASE IS ONE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, WHETHER OR NOT SEC. 2,
NINTH, GIVES DISCRETION TO THE BOARD TO SPLIT THE CRAFTS OF A SINGLE
CARRIER INTO SMALLER UNITS SO THAT THE MEMBERS OF SUCH UNITS MAY CHOOSE
REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES.  THIS COURT BASES ITS CONCLUSION UPON THE
LACK OF POWER IN ANY COURT TO PASS UPON SUCH AN ISSUE AND LEAVES THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SEC. 2, NINTH, FINALLY TO
THE BOARD.  WITH THIS DENIAL OF JUDICIAL POWER, I CANNOT AGREE. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
CONCERNING "GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF
AGREEMENTS COVERING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS"  FN5
OF EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS IS ACCEPTED.  FN6  IT FOLLOWS THAT
THE CONGRESS, AS AN INCIDENT TO SUCH LEGISLATION, HAS THE POWER TO
DESIGNATE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES OR GROUP OR CRAFT OF
EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BARGAINING.  INSTEAD OF MAKING SUCH
SELECTION ITSELF CONGRESS HAS DELEGATED TO THE EMPLOYEES THE CHOICE OF
THE REPRESENTATIVES  FN7 AND THE DETERMINATION OF THESE
REPRESENTATIVES, IN CASE OF ANY DISPUTE AS TO THEIR IDENTITY, TO THE
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.  AS THESE DELEGATIONS ARE SURROUNDED BY
ADEQUATE STANDARDS NO QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR THE SELECTION OR DETERMINATION OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES.  CF. OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR OF WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION, 312 U.S. 126, 142-146. 

WHERE DUTIES ARE DELEGATED, AS HERE, TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS,
THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS ARE AUTHORIZED TO ACT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY STANDARDS ENACTED FOR THEIR GUIDANCE.  OTHERWISE WE
SHOULD RISK ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BEYOND OR CONTRARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE
WILL.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S.
475, 489.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE SPECIFICALLY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE CERTIFICATION BY THE MEDIATION BOARD UNDER SEC.
2, NINTH, OF REPRESENTATIVES, EVEN THOUGH THAT CERTIFICATION IS BASED
UPON AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE.  NOR IS THERE ANY
CLAUSE IN THE ACT GRANTING TO INTERESTED PARTIES, GENERALLY, A RIGHT TO
HAVE ACTIONS OF THE BOARD REVIEWED.  WHERE AN ACT FAILS TO PROVIDE FOR
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY RULINGS DETERMINING STATUS IN PREPARATION FOR
SUBSEQUENT ACTION,  FN8  OR PERFORMING ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES WHICH WERE
NOT FINAL IN CHARACTER N9, SUCH RULINGS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS
SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY VIRTUE OF GENERAL STATUTORY REVIEW PROVISIONS. 
THE REASON THAT REVIEW IS NOT ALLOWED AT SUCH A STAGE IS THAT THE
RULINGS OR ORDERS ARE ONLY PREPARATION FOR FUTURE EFFECTIVE ACTION. 
THE ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION CASE, 307 U.S. AT 143-4, TEACHES
THAT WHERE THIS OTHERWISE ABSTRACT DETERMINATION OF STATUS HAS
INSTANTANEOUS, FINAL EFFECT, SUCH DETERMINATION COMES UNDER GENERAL
STATUTORY REVIEW PROVISIONS.  IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE THE CERTIFICATION
OF SEC. 2, NINTH, IS BUT A PREPARATORY STEP TO BRING ABOUT THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WHICH IS THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT BUT IT
DOES HAVE AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT SINCE IT DESTROYS THE PETITIONERS'
ALLEGED RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN AN ELECTION BASED ON THEIR VIEW OF THE
PROPER ELECTORAL UNIT.  YET THERE IS NO DIRECT REVIEW OF THE
CERTIFICATION, GENERAL OR SPECIAL, BY THE TERMS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT. 

NOR IS THERE NECESSARILY AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK THE CERTIFICATION
IN LATER PROCEEDINGS.  AN AWARD OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD PROBABLY COULD
NOT BE CHALLENGED BY THE PARTIES, IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING FOR ITS
ENFORCEMENT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES WERE NOT PROPERLY
CHOSEN SINCE THIS ERROR WOULD BE IRRELEVANT TO THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHTS. 
FN10  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AWARD OF A BOARD OF ARBITRATION UNDER SEC.
7 IS SUBJECT TO ATTACK THROUGH STATUTORY REVIEW PROVIDED BY SEC. 9,
FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD.  WE CONSTRUE THE PROVISION OF THIRD (A) THAT
THE AWARD MAY BE IMPEACHED BECAUSE "THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS ACT" TO REFER TO THE SELECTION OF
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES.  FN11  NO OTHER ORDERS UNDER THE ACT,
LEGALLY BINDING ON EMPLOYEES, SPRING FROM ACTS OF BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES.  FN12    THE PETITIONERS MAY NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO IMPEACH OR CONTEST AN AWARD OF A BOARD OF ARBITRATION REACHED AFTER
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CERTIFIED
REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CARRIERS MAY NOT REQUIRE ORDERS OF THE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD OR THE BOARD OF ARBITRATION.  MEDIATION MAY COMPOSE
THE DIFFERENCES.  SEC. 5.  IN SUCH CASES THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE PETITIONERS TO INTERVENE.  AS A CONSEQUENCE THE SWITCHMEN'S UNION
AND ITS MEMBERS ARE LEFT WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
BY THE ACT TO CONTEST THE RULING OF THE BOARD OF MEDIATION THAT THE ACT
"VESTS THE BOARD WITH NO DISCRETION TO SPLIT A SINGLE CARRIER ...  FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHO SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE FOR A
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES UNDER SECTION 2, NINTH,
OF THE ACT,  ...  " THEY EXHAUSTED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY WHEN
THEY APPEARED BEFORE THE MEDIATION BOARD.  303 U.S. 41, 50. 

THE MEMBERS OF THE SWITCHMEN'S UNION AND THE UNION ITSELF, IN VIEW OF
THE FACT THAT IT WAS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS MEMBERS PRIOR
TO THIS CONTROVERSY (R. 79), HAVE AN INTEREST RECOGNIZED BY LAW IN THE
SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES.  TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V.
BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 571.  THIS RIGHT ADHERES TO HIS
CONDITION AS AN EMPLOYEE AS A RIGHT OF PRIVACY DOES TO A PERSON.  THIS
RIGHT IS CREATED FOR THESE EMPLOYEES BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND, IN
APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS, A REMEDY, PROVIDED BY THE GENERAL JURISDICTION
OF DISTRICT COURTS, TO TEST THE EXTENT OF THIS RIGHT TO SELECT
REPRESENTATIVES FOLLOWS FROM THE CREATION OF THE RIGHT UNLESS NEGATIVED
BY STATUTE, WITHDRAWAL OF JURISDICTION OR THE LIKE, WHEN THE RIGHT IS
CLAIMED TO BE INFRINGED.  ID., 569-70 VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 543.  THE REMEDY MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE TO
PARTIES WITH A STANDING TO ENFORCE IT BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
INFRINGEMENT MAY BE BY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO BE SUED FOR A WRONG COMMITTED BY IT.  THE FACT THAT THE
REMEDY MAY COME FROM THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS RATHER THAN
FROM THE REVIEW PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  WE CANNOT
CONCLUDE THAT BECAUSE NO STATUTORY REVIEW EXISTS NO REMEDY FOR
MISINTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY POWERS IS LEFT.  NO SUCH PRESUMPTION OF
OBLITERATION OF RIGHTS MAY BE ENTERTAINED.  A.F. OF L. V. LABOR BOARD,
308 U.S. 401, 412; UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, 238;
SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 596, 603. 

THE COURT IN THIS CASE AND IN GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT V.
MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO., POST, P. 323, GIVES AS REASONS FOR
DENYING POWER TO THE COURTS TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE THE
HISTORY OF FEDERAL RAILWAY LABOR LEGISLATION AND THE OMISSION OF ANY
PROVISION IN THIS ACT FOR REVIEW OF THE DETERMINATION OF VOTING
PARTICIPANTS UNDER SEC. 2, NINTH. 

THE HISTORY OF THIS LEGISLATION IS ADEQUATELY STATED IN THE OPINIONS
TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.  FROM THEIR
REVIEW OF THE SUCCESSIVE ENACTMENTS IN THIS FIELD, IT IS PLAIN THAT
UNTIL THE 1926 ACT, THE SCHEME FOR ADJUSTMENT OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES
WAS WITHOUT LEGAL SANCTIONS.  IN THAT ACT, SEC. 2, THIRD,  FN13  SEC.
9, SECOND,  FN14  PROVIDING FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AWARDS,
AND SEC. 10, AUTHORIZING EMERGENCY BOARDS AND FORBIDDING CHANGES IN THE
CONDITIONS OUT OF WHICH THE CONTROVERSY AROSE FOR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE
CREATION OF AN EMERGENCY BOARD, ESTABLISHED RIGHTS WHICH WERE LEGALLY
ENFORCEABLE.  THE STATUTE MADE THE AWARDS OF SEC. 9 SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
CONTROL BUT ONLY A DICTUM OF THIS COURT AS TO SEC. 10 AND JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 2, THIRD, PROVIDED JUDICIAL SANCTION TO COMPEL
COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR PROVISIONS.  TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V.
BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 564, 566-70. 

THE 1934 ACT WAS DIRECTED PARTICULARLY AT CONTROL OVER THE INITIAL
STEP IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - THE DETERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYEES'
REPRESENTATIVES.  SECTION 2, NINTH, HERE UNDER EXAMINATION, WAS AN
ENTIRELY NEW PROVISION.  FN15  BY THE CLERKS CASE, JUST CITED, DECIDED
IN 1929 AND WELL KNOWN AS A LANDMARK OF LABOR LAW, THIS COURT HAD
UPHELD JUDICIAL COMPULSION ON THE CARRIER TO PROHIBIT ITS INTERFERENCE
IN THE SELECTION OF EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO
STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR SUCH JUDICIAL ACTION.  FN16  SECTION 2, NINTH,
OF THE 1934 ACT CREATED BY ITS TERMS A RIGHT IN EMPLOYEES TO
PARTICIPATE IN AN ELECTION UNDER THE DESIGNATION OF THE BOARD IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE STATUTE.  IT WAS ONLY NATURAL
THEREFORE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD ASSUME THAT WHERE ITS OWN CREATURE, THE
MEDIATION BOARD, WAS CHARGED WITH INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT OF
EMPLOYEES BY A MISCONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH IT EXISTED,
THAT ERROR OF LAW WOULD BE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL EXAMINATION TO DETERMINE
THE CORRECT MEANING. 

NOTHING TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED APPEARS IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATING A DETERMINATION OF CONGRESS TO EXCLUDE
THE COURTS FROM THEIR CUSTOMARY POWER TO INTERPRET THE LAWS OF THE
NATION IN CASES OR CONTROVERSIES ARISING FROM ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS
OF STATUTORY STANDARDS.  NO INTENTION TO REFUSE JUDICIAL AID IN
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT IS APPARENT.  ATTENTION WAS CALLED JUST ABOVE
TO THE CRIMINAL SANCTIONS WRITTEN INTO SEC. 2, TENTH.  IN ADDITION
PROVISION IS MADE IN THE ACT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ORDERS OF THE
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, SEC. 3, FIRST (P), AND BOARD OF
ARBITRATION AWARDS, SEC. 9, THIRD.  FURTHERMORE, THE NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD HAS APPEARED IN MANY COURT CASES, AS HERE, INVOLVING ITS
CERTIFICATIONS AND SO FAR AS APPEARS NEITHER THE PARTIES NOR THE COURTS
HAVE QUESTIONED JUDICIAL POWER.  FN17 THE BOARD FEELS THAT SUCH REVIEW
HAS BEEN PROFITABLE.  FN18  AGAINST THESE LATER FACTS, THE EARLIER
RELIANCE, PRIOR TO 1926, ON VOLUNTARY ACTION TO ENFORCE THE RAILWAY
LABOR STATUTES HAS LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE. 

NOR IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENTS AND THE DECISION IN THE CLERKS CASE, DO
WE THINK THAT THE OMISSION OF STATUTORY REVIEW FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 2, NINTH, IS IMPORTANT.  THE REQUIREMENT OF THAT VERY SUBSECTION
THAT "THE CARRIER SHALL TREAT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES SO CERTIFIED"
WAS CONSTRUED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE COMMAND OPEN TO JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT
WITHOUT SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 544. 

BUTTE, A. & P. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 127, IS CITED AS
AUTHORITY FOR A CONCLUSION THAT DELEGATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DUTY
CARRIES TO THE APPOINTEE THE AUTHORITY TO FINALLY CONSTRUE THE STATUTE
SINCE SUCH AUTHORITY WAS "'ESSENTIAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTY
IMPOSED UPON THE COMMISSION' AND SINCE 'CONGRESS DID NOT PROVIDE A
METHOD OF REVIEW,' THE GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS THE CARRIER, WAS
'REMEDILESS WHETHER THE ERROR BE ONE OF FACT OR OF LAW.'"  THIS WAS A
CASE IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ORDERED PAYMENTS TO CARRIERS AS
COMPENSATION FOR DEFICITS INCURRED DURING FEDERAL OPERATION OF THE
RAILWAYS.  IT WAS DETERMINED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO LEAVE FINALLY
THE DETERMINATION OF THE BENEFICIARIES TO ITS AGENT, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THIS INTENTION IS FAR EASIER TO DEDUCE WHEN THE
CONGRESS IS DEALING WITH ITS OWN MONEY THAN WHERE IT CREATES RIGHTS OF
SUFFRAGE FOR CITIZENS TO EXERCISE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR ECONOMIC
CONDITION. 

THE VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CASE PRESENTS A MUCH CLOSER ANALOGY TO THE
PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, IT DEALT WITH THE CARRIER'S
DUTY TO "TREAT WITH" EMPLOYEES DECLARED BY SEC. 2, NINTH.  EMPLOYEES
SOUGHT AND OBTAINED A JUDICIAL ORDER DIRECTING THE RAILROAD TO
NEGOTIATE ON THE GROUND THAT NEW DUTIES, REQUIREMENTS AND RIGHTS WERE
CREATED "MANDATORY IN FORM AND CAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT BY JUDICIAL
PROCESS."  DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR COURT ACTION
IT WAS HELD CONGRESS INTENDED LEGAL SANCTION.  A PROHIBITION OF
NEGOTIATION, SUCH AS PETITIONERS SEEK HERE, IS A FORTIORI, WITHIN
JUDICIAL COMPETENCE.  FN19 

ONE FACTOR TO TEST THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS, IT IS SUGGESTED IN THE
M.K.T. OPINION OF TODAY, POST, P. 323, IS WHETHER CONGRESS WAS WILLING
TO CRYSTALLIZE THE PROBLEM INTO "STATUTORY COMMANDS."  THE STATUTORY
COMMAND FOR WHICH DETERMINATION IS SOUGHT HERE IS THAT THE BOARD
EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION.  IN THE SAME OPINION, IT IS SAID, "THE COMMAND
OF THE ACT SHOULD BE EXPLICIT AND THE PURPOSE TO AFFORD A JUDICIAL
REMEDY PLAIN BEFORE AN OBLIGATION ENFORCIBLE IN THE COURTS SHOULD BE
IMPLIED."  HERE, CONGRESS HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVIDED THAT "EMPLOYEES
SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES" CHOSEN BY THE MAJORITY OF EACH "CRAFT OR CLASS."  THE
SPECIAL COMPETENCE OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD LIES IN THE FIELD OF
LABOR RELATIONS RATHER THAN IN THAT OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  OF
COURSE THE JUDICIARY DOES NOT MAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION. 
"THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURTS CEASE WHEN IT IS ASCERTAINED THAT THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION MEET THE STATUTORY TEST."  SUNSHINE COAL CO.
V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 400.  LIKEWISE, THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
MAY BE CONCEDED DISCRETION TO MAKE ANY REASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE
MEANING OF THE WORDS, "CRAFT OR CLASS."  CF. GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S.
402.  BY REQUIRING A PLAIN SANCTION FOR A JUDICIAL REMEDY, THE COURT
AUTHORIZES THE MEDIATION BOARD TO DETERMINE NOT ONLY QUESTIONS
JUDICIALLY FOUND TO BE COMMITTED TO ITS DISCRETION, AS IN GRAY V.
POWELL, SUPRA, BUT THE STATUTORY LIMITS OF ITS OWN POWERS AS WELL.  IT
SEEMS MORE CONSONANT WITH THE GENIUS OF OUR INSTITUTIONS  FN20  TO
ASSUME, NOT THAT THE PURPOSE TO APPLY A LEGAL SANCTION MUST BE PLAIN,
BUT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPRESS PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY,
CONGRESS INTENDED THE GENERAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE
JUDICIAL CODE TO BE AVAILABLE TO A UNION AND ITS MEMBERS AGGRIEVED BY
AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER PRESUMABLY IRRECONCILABLE WITH A STATUTORY
RIGHT SO EXPLICITLY FRAMED AS THE RIGHT TO BARGAIN THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES' OWN CHOOSING.  FN21 

THE PETITIONERS ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS AS RIGHTS ARISING UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, WHICH IS STATED TO BE A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES
RELATING TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IF THIS ALLEGATION IS CORRECT, AND WE
THINK IT IS, THERE IS JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT
UNDER JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 24(8):  "THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS FOLLOWS: ...  EIGHTH.  OF ALL SUITS AND
PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER ANY LAW REGULATING COMMERCE."  THE GENERAL
PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO AVOID INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE BY PROHIBITION
OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE EMPLOYEES' FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND BY
PROVISION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO SETTLE LABOR DISPUTES.  FN22
THIS REGULATES COMMERCE. 

THE RIGHT TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES WITH WHOM CARRIERS MUST BARGAIN
WAS CREATED BY THE ACT AND THE REMEDY SOUGHT HERE ARISES UNDER THAT
LAW.  SINCE THE CAUSE OF ACTION "HAD ITS ORIGIN AND IS CONTROLLED BY"
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, IT ARISES UNDER IT.  PEYTON V. RAILWAY EXPRESS
AGENCY, 316 U.S. 350; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38, 46; TURNER LUMBER
CO. V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO., 271 U.S. 259, 261; LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE R. CO. V. RICE, 247 U.S. 201. 

SINCE THE COURT DECLINES FEDERAL JURISDICTION, IT IS USELESS TO
DISCUSS EITHER THE MERITS OR THE OTHER PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS SUCH AS
JURISDICTION IN EQUITY TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION REQUESTED, THE POWER TO
VACATE THE ORDER OF THE MEDIATION BOARD OR THE EFFECT OF THE NORRIS-LA
GUARDIA ACT. 

FN1  44 STAT. 577, AS AMENDED 48 STAT. 1185. 

FN2  FINDING 7 OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOWS THE DISTRIBUTION OF
YARDMEN OF THE NEW YORK CENTRAL LINES BASED UPON UNION AFFILIATION, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"7.  THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 6,087 YARDMEN EMPLOYED BY THE RAILROAD
COMPANY.  AT THE TIME THE BOARD'S SERVICES WERE INVOKED THE PLAINTIFF
SWITCHMEN'S UNION REPRESENTED THE YARDMEN IN ALL BUT NINE YARDS ON THE
NEW YORK CENTRAL - LINES WEST OF BUFFALO AND IN ALL YARDS ON THE
MICHIGAN CENTRAL WEST OF THE DETROIT RIVER, INCLUDING THE SOUTH BEND
TRANSFER CREWS.  THE DEFENDANT BROTHERHOOD REPRESENTED YARDMEN IN YARDS
ON THE MICHIGAN CENTRAL EAST OF THE DETROIT RIVER, IN NINE YARDS ON THE
NEW YORK CENTRAL - LINES WEST OF BUFFALO, AND ALL YARDMEN ON THE NEW
YORK CENTRAL - LINES EAST OF BUFFALO, THE TOLEDO AND OHIO CENTRAL, THE
BIG FOUR, AND THE BOSTON AND ALBANY; AND AT THAT TIME NO ONE QUESTIONED
THE RIGHT OF THE BROTHERHOOD TO REPRESENT THE YARDMEN EMPLOYED ON THE
FOUR LAST MENTIONED LINES." 

FN3  48 STAT. 1185, 1188-9, SEC. 2: 

"NINTH. IF ANY DISPUTE SHALL ARISE AMONG A CARRIER'S EMPLOYEES AS TO
WHO ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH EMPLOYEES DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY
OF THE MEDIATION BOARD, UPON REQUEST OF EITHER PARTY TO THE DISPUTE, TO
INVESTIGATE SUCH DISPUTE AND TO CERTIFY TO BOTH PARTIES, IN WRITING,
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE INVOCATION OF ITS SERVICES,
THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN THE
DISPUTE, AND CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE CARRIER.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH
CERTIFICATION THE CARRIER SHALL TREAT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE SO
CERTIFIED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THIS ACT.  IN SUCH AN INVESTIGATION, THE MEDIATION BOARD SHALL BE
AUTHORIZED TO TAKE A SECRET BALLOT OF THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED, OR TO
UTILIZE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE NAMES OF THEIR
DULY DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES IN SUCH MANNER AS SHALL
INSURE THE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE EMPLOYEES WITHOUT
INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE, OR COERCION EXERCISED BY THE CARRIER.  IN THE
CONDUCT OF ANY ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN INDICATED THE BOARD
SHALL DESIGNATE WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION AND ESTABLISH THE
RULES TO GOVERN THE ELECTION, OR MAY APPOINT A COMMITTEE OF THREE
NEUTRAL PERSONS WHO AFTER HEARING SHALL WITHIN TEN DAYS DESIGNATE THE
EMPLOYEES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION.  THE BOARD SHALL HAVE
ACCESS TO AND HAVE POWER TO MAKE COPIES OF THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE
CARRIERS TO OBTAIN AND UTILIZE SUCH INFORMATION AS MAY BE DEEMED
NECESSARY BY IT TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND PROVISIONS OF THIS
PARAGRAPH."  FN4  SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 135
F.2D 785, 796: 

"THE ARGUMENT WAS MADE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES THAT THE
PRECISE LANGUAGE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD BRING POSSIBLE
REPERCUSSION IN RAILWAY LABOR RELATIONS.  SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS WERE
PROPOSED WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE DIVISION OF A CRAFT OR CLASS. 
CONGRESS WAS NOT PERSUADED THAT THE UNIFICATION PROCESS WAS NOT IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF EMPLOYEES AND CARRIERS.  IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO
DETERMINE POLICY.  OUR PROVINCE IS TO KEEP THE BOARD WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF THAT POLICY.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE BOARD
CORRECTLY DETERMINED IT HAD NO DISCRETION TO DENY THE REQUEST OF A
MAJORITY OF THE YARDMEN EMPLOYED BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY TO APPOINT A
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THEIR CRAFT." 

FN5  48 STAT. 1185, 1186-7, SEC. 2: 

"(1) TO AVOID ANY INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE OR TO THE OPERATION OF ANY
CARRIER ENGAGED THEREIN; (2) TO FORBID ANY LIMITATION UPON FREEDOM OF
ASSOCIATION AMONG EMPLOYEES OR ANY DENIAL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT
OR OTHERWISE, OF THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO JOIN A LABOR ORGANIZATION;
(3) TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF CARRIERS AND OF
EMPLOYEES IN THE MATTER OF SELF-ORGANIZATION TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES
OF THIS ACT; (4) TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROMPT AND ORDERLY SETTLEMENT OF
ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS; (5)
TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROMPT AND ORDERLY SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES
GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION
OF AGREEMENTS COVERING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS." 

FN6  VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 553; TEXAS
& NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 570. 

FN7  48 STAT. 1185, 1187, SEC. 2: 

"FOURTH.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.  THE
MAJORITY OF ANY CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DETERMINE WHO SHALL BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT.  NO CARRIER, ITS OFFICERS OR AGENTS, SHALL DENY
OR IN ANY WAY QUESTION THE RIGHT OF ITS EMPLOYEES TO JOIN, ORGANIZE, OR
ASSIST IN ORGANIZING THE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF THEIR CHOICE, AND IT
SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CARRIER TO INTERFERE IN ANY WAY WITH THE
ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR TO USE THE FUNDS OF THE CARRIER IN
MAINTAINING OR ASSISTING OR CONTRIBUTING TO ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION,
LABOR REPRESENTATIVE, OR OTHER AGENCY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, OR IN
PERFORMING ANY WORK THEREFOR, OR TO INFLUENCE OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN AN
EFFORT TO INDUCE THEM TO JOIN OR REMAIN OR NOT TO JOIN OR REMAIN
MEMBERS OF ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION, OR TO DEDUCT FROM THE WAGES OF
EMPLOYEES ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS PAYABLE
TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, OR TO COLLECT OR TO ASSIST IN THE COLLECTION OF
ANY SUCH DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS:  PROVIDED,
THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT A CARRIER FROM
PERMITTING AN EMPLOYEE, INDIVIDUALLY, OR LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
EMPLOYEES FROM CONFERRING WITH MANAGEMENT DURING WORKING HOURS WITHOUT
LOSS OF TIME, OR TO PROHIBIT A CARRIER FROM FURNISHING FREE
TRANSPORTATION TO ITS EMPLOYEES WHILE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF A
LABOR ORGANIZATION." 

FN8  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 130;
SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 596, 599. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, 234; UNITED STATES V.
LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 309-310. 

FN10  SEC. 3(M), (N), (O), (P). 

FN11  44 STAT. 577, 585, SEC. 9: 

"THIRD.  SUCH PETITION FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OR CONTESTING OF ANY AWARD
SO FILED SHALL BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT ONLY ON ONE OR MORE OF THE
FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 

"(A)  THAT THE AWARD PLAINLY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE SUBSTANTIVE
REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY THIS ACT FOR SUCH AWARDS, OR THAT THE
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS ACT; ...  " 

THAT "PROCEEDING" HAS SUCH A MEANING IS STRONGLY INDICATED BY SEC. 7,
FIRST, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 7.  FIRST.  WHENEVER A CONTROVERSY SHALL ARISE BETWEEN A
CARRIER OR CARRIERS AND ITS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES WHICH IS NOT SETTLED
EITHER IN CONFERENCE BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES OR BY THE
APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT BOARD OR THROUGH MEDIATION, IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED IN THE PRECEDING SECTIONS, SUCH CONTROVERSY MAY, BY AGREEMENT
OF THE PARTIES TO SUCH CONTROVERSY, BE SUBMITTED TO THE ARBITRATION OF
A BOARD OF THREE (OR, IF THE PARTIES TO THE CONTROVERSY SO STIPULATE,
OF SIX) PERSONS:  ...  " 

A BINDING ARBITRATION BROUGHT ABOUT BY IMPROPERLY CHOSEN
REPRESENTATIVES WOULD BE FARCICAL. 

FN12  44 STAT. 577, 586-7, AS AMENDED BY 48 STAT. 1185, 1197, SEC.
7: 

"EMERGENCY BOARD.  SEC. 10.  IF A DISPUTE BETWEEN A CARRIER AND ITS
EMPLOYEES BE NOT ADJUSTED UNDER THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
AND SHOULD, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE MEDIATION BOARD, THREATEN
SUBSTANTIALLY TO INTERRUPT INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO A DEGREE SUCH AS TO
DEPRIVE ANY SECTION OF THE COUNTRY OF ESSENTIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE,
THE MEDIATION BOARD SHALL NOTIFY THE PRESIDENT, WHO MAY THEREUPON, IN
HIS DISCRETION, CREATE A BOARD TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT RESPECTING
SUCH DISPUTE.  SUCH BOARD SHALL BE COMPOSED OF SUCH NUMBER OF PERSONS
AS TO THE PRESIDENT MAY SEEM DESIRABLE:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO
MEMBER APPOINTED SHALL BE PECUNIARILY OR OTHERWISE INTERESTED IN ANY
ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES OR ANY CARRIER.  THE COMPENSATION OF THE
MEMBERS OF ANY SUCH BOARD SHALL BE FIXED BY THE PRESIDENT.  SUCH BOARD
SHALL BE CREATED SEPARATELY IN EACH INSTANCE AND IT SHALL INVESTIGATE
PROMPTLY THE FACTS AS TO THE DISPUTE AND MAKE A REPORT THEREON TO THE
PRESIDENT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ITS CREATION." 

FN13  44 STAT. 577, 578, SEC. 2: 

"THIRD.  REPRESENTATIVES, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE
DESIGNATED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN SUCH MANNER AS MAY BE PROVIDED
IN THEIR CORPORATE ORGANIZATION OR UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, OR BY
OTHER MEANS OF COLLECTIVE ACTION, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE, OR
COERCION EXERCISED BY EITHER PARTY OVER THE SELF-ORGANIZATION OR
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE OTHER." 

FN14  ID., 585, SEC. 9: 

"SECOND.  AN AWARD ACKNOWLEDGED AND FILED AS HEREIN PROVIDED SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTIES AS TO THE MERITS AND FACTS OF THE CONTROVERSY
SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION, AND UNLESS, WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE FILING
OF THE AWARD, A PETITION TO IMPEACH THE AWARD, ON THE GROUNDS
HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, SHALL BE FILED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE
COURT IN WHICH THE AWARD HAS BEEN FILED, THE COURT SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT
ON THE AWARD, WHICH JUDGMENT SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ON THE
PARTIES." 

FN15  OTHER COMPLETELY NEW SECTIONS WERE THE "GENERAL PURPOSES" OF
SEC. 2 AND SEC. 2, FOURTH, FIFTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND TENTH.  BY TENTH
CRIMINAL SANCTIONS WERE APPLIED TO COMPEL CARRIER COMPLIANCE WITH THE
COMMANDS OF FOURTH, FIFTH, SEVENTH AND EIGHTH.  THESE SUBDIVISIONS WERE
CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE AND TO CHOOSE FREELY
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. 

FN16  281 U.S. 548, 569: 

"THE ABSENCE OF PENALTY IS NOT CONTROLLING.  THE CREATION OF A LEGAL
RIGHT BY LANGUAGE SUITABLE TO THAT END DOES NOT REQUIRE FOR ITS
EFFECTIVENESS THE IMPOSITION OF STATUTORY PENALTIES.  MANY RIGHTS ARE
ENFORCED FOR WHICH NO STATUTORY PENALTIES ARE PROVIDED.  IN THE CASE OF
THE STATUTE IN QUESTION, THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF PENALTY, IN THE SENSE
OF SPECIALLY PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENT, WITH RESPECT TO THE ARBITRAL AWARDS
AND THE PROHIBITION OF CHANGE IN CONDITIONS PENDING THE INVESTIGATION
AND REPORT OF AN EMERGENCY BOARD, BUT IN EACH INSTANCE A LEGAL
OBLIGATION IS CREATED AND THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF
ENFORCEMENT BY PROCEEDINGS APPROPRIATE TO EACH.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF
THE PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE OR COERCION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES.  THE RIGHT IS CREATED AND THE REMEDY
EXISTS.  MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137, 162, 163." 

FN17  BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD,
88 F.2D 757; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF RAILWAY WORKERS V. NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD, 110 F.2D 529; ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS V. NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD, 113 F.2D 531.  SEE ALSO ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 85 F.2D 152; BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS V.
VIRGINIAN RY. CO., 125 F.2D 853; BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN &
ENGINEMEN V. KENAN, 87 F.2D 651; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. RAILWAY
EMPLOYEES' DEPT., 93 F.2D 340; BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS V. NASHVILLE, C. &
ST. L. RY. CO., 94 F.2D 97. 

FN18  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 1938, P. 5: 

"THE TWO CASES DECIDED BY THE COURTS CLARIFYING THE DISCRETION VESTED
IN THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH REPRESENTATION
DISPUTES BOTH AROSE ON THE NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY,
AND BOTH WERE DECIDED BY THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.  THE FIRST CASE (NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V.
RAILWAY EMPLOYEES DEPARTMENT, A.F. OF L., 93 F.2D 340) SETTLED THE
ISSUE CONCERNING THE RIGHT OF FURLOUGHED EMPLOYEES RETAINING AN
EMPLOYMENT STATUS TO VOTE IN REPRESENTATION ELECTIONS.  THE SECOND
DECISION (BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS V. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 94
F.2D 97) HELD THAT THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, WHEN ESTABLISHING
ELIGIBLE LISTS OF VOTERS AND CONDUCTING ELECTIONS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES OF A CARRIER BY CRAFT OR CLASS MUST DO
SO WITH DUE REGARD FOR ALL OF THE FACTS, HISTORICAL AND OTHERWISE,
WHICH HAVE OPERATED TO SHAPE THE CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES ON THE
CARRIER CONCERNED AS WELL AS ON RAILROADS GENERALLY.  BOTH DECISIONS
ARE VERY HELPFUL TO THE BOARD IN THAT THEY SERVE TO SETTLE ISSUES
WHICH, IN THE PAST, HAVE FREQUENTLY ARISEN TO TROUBLE THE ORDERLY AND
PROMPT ADJUSTMENT OF DISPUTES OVER REPRESENTATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT
FACTIONS AMONG EMPLOYEES." 

ID., 1942, P. 7: 

"DURING THE 8-YEAR EXPERIENCE OF THE BOARD UNDER THE REPRESENTATION
PROVISIONS OF THE LAW IT IS GRATIFIED TO BE ABLE TO REPORT THAT IN ALL
BUT A FEW INSTANCES ITS ACTIONS IN INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THESE
PROVISIONS OF THE LAW HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS.  IN ALL
INSTANCES, HOWEVER, THE BOARD HAS BENEFITED BY COURT REVIEW AND
ANALYSIS OF ITS ACTIONS AND THE FACTS OF THE DISPUTES.  THE COURT
RULINGS AND OPINIONS HAVE CLARIFIED AND SETTLED MANY DISPUTED POINTS OF
THE LAW AND THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY.  THUS THEY CONSTITUTE A VALUABLE
CONTRIBUTION IN THE SOLUTION OF LABOR DISPUTES." 

FN19  COMPARE SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381,
391, WHERE THIS COURT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF A SUIT SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WITHOUT SUCH AUTHORITY IN THE STATUTE UNDER
ATTACK.  SEE SEC. 6, BITUMINOUS COAL ACT, 50 STAT. 85.  REVIEW WAS HAD
UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 24(1) AND 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380(A). 

FN20  AN ERRONEOUS ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WAS
SIMILARLY CANCELED WHEN, WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY, HE STRUCK THE
NAME OF AN ENROLLEE FROM THE ROLLS OF AN INDIAN NATION.  THIS COURT
SAID: "BUT, AS HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT IN FORMER DECISIONS,
THERE IS NO PLACE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM FOR THE EXERCISE OF
ARBITRARY POWER, AND IF THE SECRETARY HAS EXCEEDED THE AUTHORITY
CONFERRED UPON HIM BY LAW, THEN THERE IS POWER IN THE COURTS TO RESTORE
THE STATUS OF THE PARTIES AGGRIEVED BY SUCH UNWARRANTED ACTION." 
GARFIELD V. GOLDSBY, 211 U.S. 249, 262.  CF. NESS V. FISHER, 223 U.S.
683, 694.  COMPARE ICKES V. FOX, 300 U.S. 82; WEST V. STANDARD OIL CO.,
278 U.S. 200, 220; WORK V. LOUISIANA, 269 U.S. 250, 254. 

FN21  WHEN CONGRESS HAS INTENDED TO BAR ACCESS TO THE COURTS, IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, IT HAS UNDERSTOOD HOW TO EXPRESS ITS DETERMINATION. 
EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, SEC. 204, 56 STAT. 23; CHAP. 335,
23 STAT. 350; SEC. 4(B), 44 STAT. 828. 

FN22  48 STAT. 1185, 1187, SEC. 2: 

"FIRST.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL CARRIERS, THEIR OFFICERS,
AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES TO EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE AND
MAINTAIN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, AND WORKING
CONDITIONS, AND TO SETTLE ALL DISPUTES, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF THE
APPLICATION OF SUCH AGREEMENTS OR OTHERWISE, IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY
INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE OR TO THE OPERATION OF ANY CARRIER GROWING OUT
OF ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE EMPLOYEES THEREOF."  SEE
NOTE 5. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



















GENERAL COMMITTEE V. M.-K.-T. R. CO., 320 U.S. 323 


NO. 23.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1943.  - 132
F.2D 91, REVERSED. 


BETWEEN A LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH WAS THE DULY DESIGNATED BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CRAFT OF ENGINEERS EMPLOYED BY CERTAIN CARRIERS,
AND ANOTHER WHICH WAS THE DULY DESIGNATED BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR
THE CRAFT OF FIREMEN EMPLOYED ON THE SAME LINES, A DISPUTE AROSE
RELATIVE TO THE CALLING OF MEN FOR EMERGENCY SERVICE AS ENGINEERS. 
EFFORTS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE HAVING FAILED, THE MATTER WAS SUBMITTED
TO THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, AND A MEDIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
FIREMEN AND THE CARRIERS RESULTED.  THE ENGINEERS THEN BROUGHT AN
ACTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT
THE AGREEMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THAT THE
ENGINEERS SHOULD BE DECLARED TO BE THE SOLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT
OF ENGINEERS WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO BARGAIN FOR THEM.  THE
CARRIERS IN THEIR ANSWER PRAYED THAT THE COURT DECLARE THE RESPECTIVE
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  THE FIREMEN, THOUGH CHALLENGING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, IN THE ALTERNATIVE ASKED THAT THE AGREEMENT
BE DECLARED VOID.  HELD THAT THE ISSUES TENDERED WERE NOT JUSTICIABLE
AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE
CONTROVERSY.  P. 327. 

1.  THE CASE INVOLVES NO RIGHT WHICH UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS
ENFORCIBLE BY THE COURTS; AND THEREFORE THE ACTION IS NOT ONE "ARISING
UNDER ANY LAW REGULATING COMMERCE" AND NOT WITHIN THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(8).  P.
337. 

IN VIEW OF THE PATTERN OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND ITS HISTORY, THE
COMMAND OF THE ACT SHOULD BE EXPLICIT AND THE PURPOSE TO AFFORD A
JUDICIAL REMEDY PLAIN BEFORE AN OBLIGATION ENFORCIBLE IN THE COURTS
SHOULD BE IMPLIED.  P. 337. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ENTER A DECLARATORY
DECREE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY OF THE PARTIES.  P. 337. 

GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINEERS FOR THE MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD V. MISSOURI-KANSAS
TEXAS RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 736, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED A DECREE DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES A DISPUTE UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT CONCERNING
THE AUTHORITY OF TWO RAILROAD BROTHERHOODS TO REPRESENT CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE DEFENDANT-CARRIERS.  THE
PETITIONER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ENGINEERS) IS A COMMITTEE OF THE
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS WHICH HAS BEEN AND IS THE DULY
DESIGNATED BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CRAFT OF ENGINEERS
EMPLOYED BY THE CARRIERS.  THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT (HEREINAFTER
CALLED THE FIREMEN) IS A COMMITTEE OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN WHICH HAS BEEN AND IS THE DULY DESIGNATED
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CRAFT OF FIREMEN ON THE SAME LINES. 
EACH CRAFT HAS LONG HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CARRIERS CONCERNING
RULES, RATES OF PAY, AND WORKING CONDITIONS.  THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
ENGINEERS STATES THAT THE RIGHT TO MAKE AND INTERPRET CONTRACTS, RULES,
RATES AND WORKING AGREEMENTS FOR LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS IS VESTED IN THAT
COMMITTEE.  THE AGREEMENT WITH THE FIREMEN CONTAINS A SIMILAR PROVISION
CONCERNING MEMBERS OF THAT CRAFT.  BOTH AGREEMENTS ALSO CONTAIN RULES
GOVERNING THE DEMOTION OF ENGINEERS TO BE FIREMEN, THE PROMOTION OF
FIREMEN TO BE ENGINEERS, AND RETURN OF DEMOTED ENGINEERS TO THEIR
FORMER WORK.  FN1  FOR MANY YEARS THE TWO BROTHERHOODS HAD AN AGREEMENT
WHICH ESTABLISHED RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THESE SUBJECTS AND WHICH
PROVIDED MACHINERY FOR RESOLVING DISPUTES WHICH MIGHT ARISE BETWEEN
THEM.  THIS AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED IN 1927.  THE PRESENT DISPUTE AROSE
SINCE THAT TIME AND RELATES TO THE CALLING OF ENGINEERS FOR EMERGENCY
SERVICE.  IN GENERAL THE ENGINEERS AND THE CARRIERS HAD A WORKING
ARRANGEMENT PROVIDING (1) THAT, EXCEPTING SMITHVILLE, TEXAS, THE SENIOR
AVAILABLE DEMOTED ENGINEER WHOSE HOME TERMINAL WAS AT THE PLACE WHERE
THE SERVICE WAS REQUIRED OR THE MAN ASSIGNED TO THE PARTICULAR RUN AS
FIREMAN, IF HE HAD GREATER SENIORITY AS ENGINEER, WOULD BE CHOSEN WHEN
IT WAS NECESSARY TO CALL AN ENGINEER FOR EMERGENCY SERVICE; (2) THAT
THE REGULATION OF THE ENGINEERS' WORKING LISTS WAS TO BE HANDLED BY THE
ENGINEERS' LOCAL CHAIRMAN, NOT BY THE MANAGEMENT; AND (3) THAT AT
SMITHVILLE, EMERGENCY WORK WOULD BE PERFORMED BY ADVANCING THE
ASSIGNMENT OF ENGINEERS IN THE SO-CALLED "POOL,"  FN2  INSTEAD OF
CALLING IN EMERGENCY ENGINEERS.  THESE ARRANGEMENTS WERE NOT
SATISFACTORY TO THE FIREMEN.  AFTER PROTEST TO THE CARRIERS AND AFTER A
FAILURE OF THE BROTHERHOODS TO RESOLVE THEIR DISPUTE THE MATTER WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD FOR MEDIATION.  THE ENGINEERS
DID NOT PARTICIPATE.  THE FIREMEN AND THE CARRIERS ENTERED INTO THE
MEDIATION AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER 12, 1940, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH IS HERE
CHALLENGED.  THE EFFECT OF THAT AGREEMENT WAS IN GENERAL TO ELIMINATE
THE PREFERENCE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN TO ENGINEERS OF THE HOME TERMINAL AND
THE SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT AT SMITHVILLE IN FAVOR OF THE POOL ENGINEERS. 
IT ALSO CHANGED THE PRACTICE RESPECTING THE HANDLING OF THE ENGINEERS'
WORKING LISTS - THEREAFTER THE ASSIGNMENTS WOULD BE HANDLED BY THE
MANAGEMENT ASSISTED BY THE LOCAL CHAIRMEN OF THE TWO GROUPS.  AFTER
MAKING THE AGREEMENT THE CARRIERS GAVE NOTICE TO THE ENGINEERS THAT
THEY WERE CANCELLING PREVIOUS ARRANGEMENTS WITH THAT BROTHERHOOD. 

THE ENGINEERS THEN BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (48
STAT. 955, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400) THAT THE AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER 12, 1940,
WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT (44 STAT. 577, 48 STAT. 1185,
45 U.S.C. SEC. 151) AND THAT THE ENGINEERS SHOULD BE DECLARED TO BE THE
SOLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS WITH THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO BARGAIN FOR THEM.  THE CARRIERS IN THEIR ANSWER PRAYED THAT
THE COURT DECLARE THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  AND THE
FIREMEN, THOUGH CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE ASKED THAT THE AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER 12, 1940, BE DECLARED
VALID.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION, HOLDING THAT THE
CARRIERS HAD A RIGHT TO CONTRACT WITH EITHER OF THE CRAFTS WITH
REFERENCE TO THE PROBLEMS IN QUESTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HELD THAT BOTH CRAFTS WERE INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
DISPUTE, THAT NEITHER CRAFT HAD AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO BARGAIN
CONCERNING THE MATTERS IN ISSUE, THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH
CRAFTS SHOULD CONFER AND IF POSSIBLE AGREE, AND THAT THE AGREEMENT OF
DECEMBER 12, 1940, MIGHT BE TERMINATED BY THE CARRIERS IF NOT
ACQUIESCED IN BY THE ENGINEERS.  132 F.2D 91. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION OVER SUCH CONTROVERSIES BY THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE BULK OF THE ARGUMENT HERE RELATES TO THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE. 
BUT WE DO NOT INTIMATE AN OPINION CONCERNING THEM.  FOR WE ARE OF THE
VIEW THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO RESOLVE THE
CONTROVERSY. 

IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE ISSUES TENDERED BY THE PRESENT LITIGATION ARE
NOT JUSTICIABLE - THAT IS TO SAY THAT CONGRESS BY THIS ACT HAS
FORECLOSED RESORT TO THE COURTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAIMS ASSERTED
BY THE PARTIES. 

THE HISTORY OF THIS LEGISLATION HAS BEEN TRACED IN EARLIER CASES
COMING BEFORE THIS COURT.  SEE PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. RAILROAD LABOR
BOARD, 261 U.S. 72; PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM FEDERATION V. PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO., 267 U.S. 203; TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS,
281 U.S. 548; VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S.
515.  THE PRESENT ACT IS THE PRODUCT OF SOME FIFTY YEARS OF EVOLUTION. 
FN3  FOR MANY YEARS THE ONLY SANCTIONS UNDER THE VARIOUS CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENTS IN THIS FIELD WERE PUBLICITY AND PUBLIC OPINION.  A
CONSPICUOUS EXAMPLE CONCERNS THE RAILROAD LABOR BOARD, CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920.  IT HAD IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS TO
PERFORM.  BUT THIS COURT HELD IN THE FEDERATION NO. 90 CASE (267 U.S.
203) THAT THE BOARD'S DECISIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY LEGAL
SANCTIONS.  THE PARTIES TO THE LABOR CONTROVERSIES COVERED BY THE ACT
WERE NOT "IN ANY WAY TO BE FORCED INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE OR
WITH THE JUDGMENTS PRONOUNCED BY THE LABOR BOARD, EXCEPT THROUGH THE
EFFECT OF ADVERSE PUBLIC OPINION."  ID., P. 216.  THE 1926 ACT (44
STAT. 577) MADE A BASIC CHANGE IN THE PATTERN OF THE RAILWAY LABOR
LEGISLATION WHICH HAD PRECEDED.  FN4  CONCILIATORY MEANS WERE ADHERED
TO; PROVISIONS FOR MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION WERE ADOPTED; AND THE USE
OF THAT MACHINERY ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS WAS ENCOURAGED.  FN5  BUT
CONGRESS ALSO SUPPORTED ITS POLICY WITH THE IMPOSITION OF SOME RULES OF
CONDUCT FOR BREACH OF WHICH THE COURTS AFFORD A SANCTION.  THUS
CONGRESS STATED IN SEC. 2, THIRD OF THE 1926 ACT THAT THE CHOICE BY
EMPLOYEES OF THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE FREE
FROM THE CARRIERS' COERCION AND INFLUENCE.  THAT "DEFINITE STATUTORY
PROHIBITION OF CONDUCT WHICH WOULD THWART THE DECLARED PURPOSE" OF THE
ACT WAS HELD BY THIS COURT IN THE CLERKS CASE TO BE ENFORCIBLE IN AN
APPROPRIATE SUIT.  281 U.S. 548, 568.  AS STATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE
HUGHES IN THAT CASE: 

"FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN THE SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES ON EACH SIDE
OF THE DISPUTE IS THE ESSENTIAL FOUNDATION OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME. 
ALL THE PROCEEDINGS LOOKING TO AMICABLE ADJUSTMENTS AND TO AGREEMENTS
FOR ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES, THE ENTIRE POLICY OF THE ACT, MUST DEPEND
FOR SUCCESS ON THE UNCOERCED ACTION OF EACH PARTY THROUGH ITS OWN
REPRESENTATIVES TO THE END THAT AGREEMENTS SATISFACTORY TO BOTH MAY BE
REACHED AND THE PEACE ESSENTIAL TO THE UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE OF THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE MAINTAINED.  THERE IS
NO IMPAIRMENT OF THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE
ADJUSTMENT OF DISPUTES IN THE IMPOSITION OF A LEGAL OBLIGATION NOT TO
INTERFERE WITH THE FREE CHOICE OF THOSE WHO ARE TO MAKE SUCH
ADJUSTMENTS.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF A VOLUNTARY
SCHEME, IF IT IS TO ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE, THAT THIS LIBERTY SHOULD BE
SAFEGUARDED.  THE DEFINITE PROHIBITION WHICH CONGRESS INSERTED IN THE
ACT CAN NOT THEREFORE BE OVERRIDDEN IN THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
IT TO BE IGNORED.  AS THE PROHIBITION WAS APPROPRIATE TO THE AIM OF
CONGRESS, AND IS CAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE THAT
ENFORCEMENT WAS CONTEMPLATED."  281 U.S. P. 569.  THUS WHAT HAD LONG
BEEN A "RIGHT" OF EMPLOYEES ENFORCIBLE ONLY BY STRIKES AND OTHER
METHODS OF INDUSTRIAL WARFARE EMERGED AS A "RIGHT" ENFORCIBLE BY
JUDICIAL DECREE.  THE RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WAS NO LONGER
DEPENDENT ON ECONOMIC POWER ALONE. 

FURTHER PROTECTION WAS ACCORDED THAT RIGHT BY THE AMENDMENTS WHICH
WERE ADDED IN 1934.  THUS SEC. 2, NINTH PROVIDED MACHINERY
STRENGTHENING THE REPRESENTATION PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  H. REP. NO.
1944, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2.  THAT NEW PROVISION GAVE THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD AN ADJUDICATORY FUNCTION IN THE SETTLEMENT OF
REPRESENTATION DISPUTES.  IT PROVIDED FOR A REFERENCE TO THAT BOARD OF
REPRESENTATION DISPUTES ARISING AMONG A CARRIER'S EMPLOYEES.  IT
CHARGED THE BOARD WITH THE "DUTY" UPON THE REQUEST OF EITHER PARTY TO
THE DISPUTE TO INVESTIGATE THE CONTROVERSY AND TO CERTIFY THE NAME OR
NAMES OF THE DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  AND CONGRESS ADDED THE COMMAND THAT "UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH
CERTIFICATION THE CARRIER SHALL TREAT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE SO
CERTIFIED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THIS ACT."  IT WAS THAT SPECIFIC COMMAND FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF WHICH
THIS COURT HELD IN THE VIRGINIAN RY. CO. CASE (300 U.S. 515) THAT
COURTS WOULD PROVIDE A REMEDY.  THAT RESULT WAS REACHED OVER THE
OBJECTION THAT SEC. 2, NINTH STATED A POLICY BUT CREATED NO RIGHTS OR
DUTIES ENFORCIBLE BY JUDICIAL DECREE.  THIS COURT REVIEWED THE HISTORY
OF SEC. 2, NINTH - ITS PURPOSE AND MEANING.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
PROVISION IN QUESTION WAS "MANDATORY IN FORM AND CAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT
BY JUDICIAL PROCESS."  ID., P. 545.  IT OBSERVED THAT IF THE PROVISION
WERE CONSTRUED AS BEING PRECATORY ONLY, ITS ADDITION TO THE ACT WAS
"PURPOSELESS"; THAT ONLY A REQUIREMENT OF "SOME AFFIRMATIVE ACT ON THE
PART OF THE EMPLOYER" WOULD ADD TO THE 1926 ACT.  ID., P. 547.  THE
COURT ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMAND OF SEC. 2, NINTH COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO BE WITHOUT LEGAL SANCTION. 

OTHER SIMILAR STATUTORY COMMANDS OR PROHIBITIONS WERE PROVIDED BY
CONGRESS.  THE RIGHT OF THE MAJORITY OF A CRAFT OR CLASS TO DETERMINE
WHO SHALL BE THE CRAFT OR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE (SEC. 2, FOURTH); THE
RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEES TO DESIGNATE AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE ONE WHO IS
NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CARRIER (SEC. 2, THIRD); THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
"YELLOW DOG" CONTRACTS (SEC. 2, FIFTH) ARE ILLUSTRATIVE.  FN6
MOREOVER, ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY WAS PROVIDED FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF
CERTAIN CONTROVERSIES.  CONGRESS ESTABLISHED THE NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF DISPUTES OR
GRIEVANCES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND THE CARRIER.  SEC. 3.  AND CONGRESS
GAVE THE COURTS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUITS BASED ON THE AWARDS OF
THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  SEC. 3, FIRST (P).  THAT FEATURE OF THE ACT, AS
WELL AS SEC. 2, NINTH WHICH PLACED ON THE MEDIATION BOARD DEFINITE
ADJUDICATORY FUNCTIONS, TRANSFERRED CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF RAILWAY LABOR
PROBLEMS FROM THE REALM OF CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION TO TRIBUNALS OF
THE LAW.  THE NEW ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY PLUS THE STATUTORY COMMANDS
AND PROHIBITIONS MARKED A GREAT ADVANCE IN SUPPLEMENTING NEGOTIATION
AND SELF-HELP WITH SPECIFIC LEGAL SANCTIONS IN ENFORCEMENT OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY. 

BUT IT IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE ACT THAT WHILE CONGRESS DEALT
WITH THIS SUBJECT COMPREHENSIVELY, IT LEFT THE SOLUTION OF ONLY SOME OF
THOSE PROBLEMS TO THE COURTS OR TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  IT
ENTRUSTED LARGE SEGMENTS OF THIS FIELD TO THE VOLUNTARY PROCESSES OF
CONCILIATION, MEDIATION, AND ARBITRATION.  THUS BY SEC. 5, FIRST,
CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT EITHER PARTY TO A DISPUTE MIGHT INVOKE THE
SERVICES OF THE MEDIATION BOARD IN A "DISPUTE CONCERNING CHANGES IN
RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS NOT ADJUSTED BY THE PARTIES
IN CONFERENCE" AND ANY OTHER "DISPUTE NOT REFERABLE" TO THE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD AND "NOT ADJUSTED IN CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR WHERE
CONFERENCES ARE REFUSED."  FN7  BEYOND THE MEDIATION MACHINERY
FURNISHED BY THE BOARD LIES ARBITRATION.  SEC. 5, FIRST AND THIRD, SEC.
7.  IN CASE BOTH FAIL THERE IS THE EMERGENCY BOARD WHICH MAY BE
ESTABLISHED BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER SEC. 10.  IN SHORT, CONGRESS BY THIS
LEGISLATION HAS FREELY EMPLOYED THE TRADITIONAL INSTRUMENTS OF
MEDIATION, CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION.  THOSE INSTRUMENTS, IN
ADDITION TO THE AVAILABLE ECONOMIC WEAPONS, REMAIN UNCHANGED IN LARGE
AREAS OF THIS RAILWAY LABOR FIELD.  ON ONLY CERTAIN PHASES OF THIS
CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HAS CONGRESS UTILIZED ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL
MACHINERY AND INVOKED THE COMPULSIONS OF THE LAW.  CONGRESS WAS DEALING
WITH A SUBJECT HIGHLY CHARGED WITH EMOTION.  ITS APPROACH HAS NOT ONLY
BEEN SLOW; IT HAS BEEN PIECEMEAL.  CONGRESS HAS BEEN HIGHLY SELECTIVE
IN ITS USE OF LEGAL MACHINERY.  THE DELICACY OF THESE PROBLEMS HAS MADE
IT HESITANT TO GO TOO FAST OR TOO FAR.  THE INFERENCE IS STRONG THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO GO NO FURTHER IN ITS USE OF THE PROCESSES OF
ADJUDICATION AND LITIGATION THAN THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
INDICATE.    THAT HISTORY HAS A SPECIAL CLAIM HERE.  IT MUST BE KEPT IN
MIND IN ANALYZING A BILL OF COMPLAINT WHICH, LIKE THE PRESENT ONE,
SEEKS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND ASKS
THAT JUDICIAL POWER BE EXERTED IN ENFORCEMENT OF AN OBLIGATION WHICH IT
IS CLAIMED CONGRESS HAS CREATED. 

THE ENGINEERS ASSERT THAT THE CARRIERS HAD NO RIGHT UNDER THE ACT TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE FIREMEN ON THE SUBJECT OF EMERGENCY ENGINEERS AND
THAT THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER 12, 1940, IS THEREFORE VOID. 
THEY RELY ON SEC. 2, FOURTH OF THE ACT AND ON SEC. 2, FIRST AND NINTH. 
FN8 SEC. 2, FOURTH STATES THAT "EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING."  BUT THAT GREAT RIGHT, WHICH CONGRESS IN 1926 AT LAST
SUPPORTED WITH LEGAL SANCTIONS, IS NOT CHALLENGED HERE.  THE ENGINEERS
AND THE FIREMEN ARE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENTS FOR THEIR
RESPECTIVE CRAFTS AND ARE ACKNOWLEDGED AS SUCH.  THEIR AUTHORITY SO TO
ACT IS NOT CHALLENGED.  NOR IS IT APPARENT HOW THE MAJORITY RULE
PROVISION OF SEC. 2, FOURTH IS INVOLVED HERE.  IT STATES THAT "THE
MAJORITY OF ANY CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DETERMINE WHO SHALL BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."  BUT CONCEDEDLY THE ENGINEERS REPRESENT A
MAJORITY OF THE CRAFT OF ENGINEERS AND THE FIREMEN A MAJORITY OF THE
FIREMEN'S CRAFT.  THE PRINCIPLE OF MAJORITY REPRESENTATION IS NOT
CHALLENGED.  NOR DOES SEC. 2, SECOND MAKE JUSTICIABLE WHAT OTHERWISE IS
NOT.  IT PROVIDES THAT "ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN A CARRIER OR CARRIERS AND
ITS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES SHALL BE CONSIDERED, AND, IF POSSIBLE, DECIDED,
WITH ALL EXPEDITION, IN CONFERENCE BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED
AND AUTHORIZED SO TO CONFER, RESPECTIVELY, BY THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS
AND BY THE EMPLOYEES THEREOF INTERESTED IN THE DISPUTE."  AS WE HAVE
ALREADY POINTED OUT, SEC. 2, NINTH, AFTER PROVIDING FOR A CERTIFICATION
BY THE MEDIATION BOARD OF THE PARTICULAR CRAFT OR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE,
STATES THAT "THE CARRIER SHALL TREAT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE SO
CERTIFIED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THIS ACT."  THAT COMMAND OF SEC. 2, NINTH WAS ENFORCED IN THE
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. CASE.  BUT SEC. 2, SECOND, LIKE SEC. 2, FIRST,  FN9
MERELY STATES THE POLICY WHICH THOSE OTHER PROVISIONS BUTTRESS WITH
MORE PARTICULARIZED COMMANDS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY GROWS OUT OF AN APPLICATION
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND MAJORITY RULE.  IT
INVOLVES A JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE - AN ASSERTED OVERLAPPING OF THE
INTERESTS OF TWO CRAFTS.  IT NECESSITATES A DETERMINATION OF THE POINT
WHERE THE AUTHORITY OF ONE CRAFT ENDS AND THE OTHER BEGINS OR OF THE
ZONES WHERE THEY HAVE JOINT AUTHORITY.  IN THE CLERKS CASE AND IN THE
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. CASE THE COURT WAS ASKED TO ENFORCE STATUTORY
COMMANDS WHICH WERE EXPLICIT AND UNEQUIVOCAL.  BUT THE SITUATION HERE
IS DIFFERENT.  CONGRESS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE ANY CODIFICATION OF
RULES GOVERNING THESE JURISDICTIONAL CONTROVERSIES.  IT DID NOT
UNDERTAKE A STATEMENT OF THE VARIOUS PRINCIPLES OF AGENCY WHICH WERE TO
GOVERN THE SOLUTION OF DISPUTES ARISING FROM AN OVERLAPPING OF THE
INTERESTS OF TWO OR MORE CRAFTS.  IT ESTABLISHED THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND APPLIED A COMMAND OR PROHIBITION
ENFORCIBLE BY JUDICIAL DECREE TO ONLY SOME OF ITS PHASES.  THE
CONTENTION, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE RULE WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO GOVERN
CAN BE FOUND FROM THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ACT.  THUS IT IS ARGUED THAT
THE REASONS WHICH SUPPORT THE HOLDING IN THE VIRGINIAN RY. CO. CASE
THAT THE RIGHT OF MAJORITY CRAFT REPRESENTATION IS EXCLUSIVE ALSO
SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO WRITE INTO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT A
RESTRICTION ON THE RULES AND WORKING CONDITIONS CONCERNING WHICH THE
CRAFT HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IF THE
JURISDICTION OF A CRAFT WITHIN WHICH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT MAY BE
EXERCISED IS NOT LIMITED, THEN DISPUTES BETWEEN UNIONS MAY DEFEAT THE
EXPRESS PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  IN THAT CONNECTION REFERENCE IS MADE TO
THE STATEMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE VIRGINIAN RY. CO. CASE (300 U.S. P.
548) THAT THE ACT IMPOSES UPON THE CARRIER "THE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO
TREAT ONLY WITH THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE, AND HENCE THE NEGATIVE DUTY TO
TREAT WITH NO OTHER."  THAT EXPRESSES THE BASIC PHILOSOPHY OF SEC. 2,
NINTH.  BUT THE DECISION DOES NOT IMPLY, AS IS ARGUED HERE, THAT EVERY
REPRESENTATION PROBLEM ARISING UNDER THE ACT PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE
CONTROVERSY.  IT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE RESPECTIVE DOMAINS FOR TWO
OR MORE OVERLAPPING CRAFTS SHOULD BE LITIGATED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS. 

IT SEEMS TO US PLAIN THAT WHEN CONGRESS CAME TO THE QUESTION OF THESE
JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES, IT CHOSE NOT TO LEAVE THEIR SOLUTION TO THE
COURTS.  AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT, CONGRESS LEFT THE PRESENT
PROBLEMS FAR BACK IN THE PENUMBRA OF THOSE FEW PRINCIPLES WHICH IT
CODIFIED.  MOREOVER, IT SELECTED DIFFERENT MACHINERY FOR THEIR
SOLUTION.  CONGRESS DID NOT LEAVE THE PROBLEM OF INTER-UNION DISPUTES
UNTOUCHED.  IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 2, NINTH
THAT IT WAS DESIGNED NOT ONLY TO HELP FREE THE UNIONS FROM THE
INFLUENCE, COERCION AND CONTROL OF THE CARRIERS BUT ALSO TO RESOLVE A
WIDE RANGE OF JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES BETWEEN UNIONS OR BETWEEN GROUPS
OF EMPLOYEES.  FN10  H. REP. NO. 1944, SUPRA, P. 2; S. REP. NO. 1065,
73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 3.  HOWEVER WIDE MAY BE THE RANGE OF
JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES EMBRACED WITHIN SEC. 2, NINTH, FN11  CONGRESS
DID NOT SELECT THE COURTS TO RESOLVE THEM.  TO THE CONTRARY, IT
FASHIONED AN ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY AND LEFT THAT GROUP OF DISPUTES TO
THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.  IF THE PRESENT DISPUTE FALLS WITHIN SEC.
2, NINTH, THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY IS EXCLUSIVE.  FN12  IF A NARROWER
VIEW OF SEC. 2, NINTH IS TAKEN, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT
CONGRESS SAVED SOME JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES FOR THE MEDIATION BOARD AND
SENT THE PARTIES INTO THE FEDERAL COURTS TO RESOLVE THE OTHERS.  RATHER
THE CONCLUSION IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT CONGRESS CARVED OUT OF THE FIELD OF
CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION ONLY THE SELECT LIST OF
PROBLEMS WHICH IT WAS READY TO PLACE IN THE ADJUDICATORY CHANNEL.  ALL
ELSE IT LEFT TO THOSE VOLUNTARY PROCESSES WHOSE USE CONGRESS HAD LONG
ENCOURAGED TO PROTECT THESE ARTERIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE.  THE CONCEPT OF MEDIATION IS THE ANTITHESIS OF
JUSTICIABILITY. 

IN VIEW OF THE PATTERN OF THIS LEGISLATION AND ITS HISTORY THE
COMMAND OF THE ACT SHOULD BE EXPLICIT AND THE PURPOSE TO AFFORD A
JUDICIAL REMEDY PLAIN BEFORE AN OBLIGATION ENFORCIBLE IN THE COURTS
SHOULD BE IMPLIED.  UNLESS THAT TEST IS MET THE ASSUMPTION MUST BE THAT
CONGRESS FASHIONED A REMEDY AVAILABLE ONLY IN OTHER TRIBUNALS.  THERE
MAY BE AS A RESULT MANY AREAS IN THIS FIELD WHERE NEITHER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE NOR THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION CAN BE UTILIZED.  BUT THAT IS
ONLY TO BE EXPECTED WHERE CONGRESS STILL PLACES SUCH GREAT RELIANCE ON
THE VOLUNTARY PROCESS OF CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION.  SEE
H. REP. NO. 1944, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2.  COURTS SHOULD NOT RUSH IN
WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT CHOSEN TO TREAD. 

WE ARE HERE CONCERNED SOLELY WITH LEGAL RIGHTS UNDER THIS FEDERAL ACT
WHICH ARE ENFORCIBLE BY COURTS.  FOR UNLESS SUCH A RIGHT IS FOUND IT IS
APPARENT THAT THIS IS NOT A SUIT OR PROCEEDING "ARISING UNDER ANY LAW
REGULATING COMMERCE" OVER WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION BY REASON OF SEC. 24(8) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 41(8).  CF. PUERTO RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., 288 U.S. 476, 483; GULLY
V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 109; PEYTON V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY,
316 U.S. 350, 352.  WHEN A COURT HAS JURISDICTION IT HAS OF COURSE
"AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE CASE EITHER WAY."  THE FAIR V. KOHLER DIE CO.,
228 U.S. 22, 25.  BUT IN THIS CASE NO DECLARATORY DECREE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN ENTERED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY OF THE PARTIES.  ANY DECISION ON
THE MERITS WOULD INVOLVE THE GRANTING OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES WHICH
CONGRESS CHOSE NOT TO CONFER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  GENERALLY SPEAKING, EMPLOYEES HIRED UNDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS AS FIREMEN IMMEDIATELY BEGIN TO ACQUIRE SENIORITY AS SUCH. 
AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD FIREMEN ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN ENGINEER'S
EXAMINATION.  VACANT POSITIONS AS ENGINEERS ARE FILLED FROM THE LIST OF
THOSE WHO HAVE PASSED THE QUALIFYING TESTS.  WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO
REDUCE THE FORCE OF WORKING ENGINEERS THOSE WITH THE LOWEST SENIORITY
ARE DROPPED AND THEY RESUME THEIR POSITIONS AS FIREMEN IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SENIORITY IN THAT CRAFT.  AS A RESULT, FIREMEN WITH A LOWER
SENIORITY ARE MOVED DOWN THE LADDER OF JOBS.  THUS THE MOST JUNIOR
FIREMEN ARE DEPRIVED OF WORK AND FURLOUGHED UNTIL THEIR SERVICES ARE
NEEDED.  WHEN A VACANCY OCCURS IN THE ENGINEERS' RANKS OR WHEN THE WORK
OF ENGINEERS INCREASES, ALL MOVE UP THE LADDER OF JOBS AGAIN. 

FN2  ENGINEERS ARE GENERALLY ASSIGNED IN ORDER OF SENIORITY TO
REGULAR RUNS (BOTH PASSENGER AND FREIGHT), THEN TO POOL FREIGHT SERVICE
(WHICH ROTATES IRREGULAR RUNS AMONG THE POOL MEMBERS ON A FIRST IN
FIRST OUT BASIS), AND THEN TO EXTRA BOARDS OF ENGINEERS FROM WHICH
ASSIGNMENTS ARE MADE AS POSITIONS ARE AVAILABLE.  IF NO ENGINEER IN
THOSE CATEGORIES IS AVAILABLE, THE SENIOR AVAILABLE QUALIFIED ENGINEER
WORKING AS A FIREMAN IS CALLED AS AN "EMERGENCY" ENGINEER. 

FN3  THE FIRST OF SEVEN STATUTES ENACTED DURING THIS PERIOD WAS THE
ARBITRATION ACT OF 1888, 25 STAT. 501.  THIS ACT PROVIDED FOR THE
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES AND AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO SET
UP INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES.  IT WAS SUPERSEDED IN 1898 BY THE ERDMAN
ACT (30 STAT. 424) WHICH PROVIDED MACHINERY FOR ARBITRATION AND ALSO
INTRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME THE POLICY OF MEDIATION.  THE MEDIATORS
WERE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE UNITED
STATES COMMISSIONER OF LABOR.  NEXT CAME THE NEWLANDS ACT OF 1913(38
STAT. 103) WHICH ESTABLISHED A PERMANENT BOARD OF MEDIATION AND
CONCILIATION.  UNDER BOTH THE ERDMAN AND NEWLANDS ACTS, MEDIATION WAS
TO BE EMPLOYED FIRST, AND UPON FAILURE OF THAT THE MEDIATORS WERE TO
ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE PARTIES ARBITRATE.  IN 1916 CONGRESS PASSED THE
ADAMSON ACT (39 STAT. 721) IN SETTLEMENT OF A DISPUTE OVER THE EIGHT
HOUR DAY.  THAT ACT PROVIDED FOR AN EIGHT-HOUR DAY FOR TRAIN OPERATORS
AND A COMMISSION TO ENFORCE IT.  UPON RETURN OF THE RAILROADS TO
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, THE ESCH-CUMMINS LAW WAS PASSED.  SEE TITLE III OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41STAT.  456.  THIS ACT DIFFERED FROM
THE EARLIER LEGISLATION BY PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION ON A
NEWLY CREATED RAILROAD LABOR BOARD, BY PERMITTING THE BOARD TO
INVESTIGATE ALL DISPUTES OF ITS OWN INITIATIVE, AND BY PLACING THE
PRIMARY BURDEN OF SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES ON DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
THE PARTIES.  IN 1926 CONGRESS PASSED THE FIRST RAILWAY LABOR ACT (44
STAT. 577) WHICH WAS AMENDED IN 1934, 48 STAT. 1185.  SEE ALDERMAN, THE
HISTORY OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION DEALING WITH MACHINERY FOR SETTLING
DISPUTES CONCERNING WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES OF
INTERSTATE RAILROADS (1938); THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD (1940), PP. 7-8, 67-76; FISHER, INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
(1940), PP. 154-86; JOHNSON, GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION
(1938), PP. 190-206; PARMELEE, THE MODERN RAILWAY (1940), PP. 420-35;
SPENCER, THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD (1938), PP. 1-16;
WITTE, THE GOVERNMENT IN LABOR DISPUTES (1932), PP. 238-44; WOLF, THE
RAILROAD LABOR BOARD (1927), PP. 1-13; GARRISON, THE NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD:  A UNIQUE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, 46 YALE L.J. 567. 

FN4  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD (1940),
PP. 1-8. 

FN5  S. REP. NO. 222, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4. 

FN6  CRIMINAL PENALTIES WERE ADDED BY SEC. 2, TENTH FOR THE WILFUL
VIOLATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INCLUDING THE THREE JUST
MENTIONED. 

FN7  THE MEDIATION BOARD ALSO HAS POWER OF INTERPRETATION OF
MEDIATION AGREEMENTS.  SEC. 5, SECOND.  IT LIKEWISE HAS DUTIES WITH
RESPECT TO THE ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES.  SEE SEC. 5, THIRD.  MEDIATION
IS THE BOARD'S "MOST IMPORTANT TASK."  EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT, NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD (1942) P. 4. 

FN8  RESPONDENTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PRAYERS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
RELY NOT ONLY ON THE IMPLICATIONS FROM THESE AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
ACT BUT ALSO ON THE PROVISO CLAUSE OF SEC. 1, FIFTH TO THE EFFECT "THAT
NO OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION MADE BY ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO DEFINE THE CRAFTS ACCORDING TO WHICH
RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MAY BE ORGANIZED BY THEIR VOLUNTARY ACTION, NOR SHALL
THE JURISDICTION OR POWERS OF SUCH EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS BE REGARDED
AS IN ANY WAY LIMITED OR DEFINED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OR BY
THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION." 

FN9  SEC. 2, FIRST PROVIDES:  "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL CARRIERS,
THEIR OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES TO EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT
TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, AND
WORKING CONDITIONS, AND TO SETTLE ALL DISPUTES, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF
THE APPLICATION OF SUCH AGREEMENTS OR OTHERWISE, IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY
INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE OR TO THE OPERATION OF ANY CARRIER GROWING OUT
OF ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE EMPLOYEES THEREOF."    FN10
THIS IS MADE CLEAR BY COMMISSIONER EASTMAN, THE DRAFTSMAN OF THE 1934
AMENDMENTS, IN HIS TESTIMONY AT THE HEARINGS.  SEE HEARINGS, COMMITTEE
ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 7650, PP. 39-41, 45, 57-58, 59.  TIVES, 

FN11  IT IS APPARENTLY THE VIEW OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD THAT
SEC. 2, NINTH WAS DESIGNED TO COVER ONLY THOSE DISPUTES ENTAILING AN
ELECTION BY EMPLOYEES OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.  SEE BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 135 F.2D 780, 782.  IN
AN ELECTION CASE THE BOARD MAY HAVE TO MAKE A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION
AS TO THE ELIGIBILITY OF VOTERS INVOLVING THE TYPE OF PROBLEM PRESENTED
HERE.  SEE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD, 88 F.2D 757, DEALING WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER BRAKEMEN HAVING
SENIORITY AS CONDUCTORS COULD VOTE IN THE CONDUCTORS' ELECTION. 

FN12  WHETHER JUDICIAL POWER MAY EVER BE EXERTED TO REQUIRE THE
MEDIATION BOARD TO EXERCISE THE "DUTY" IMPOSED UPON IT UNDER SEC. 2,
NINTH AND, IF SO, THE TYPE OR TYPES OF SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT MAY BE
INVOKED PRESENT QUESTIONS NOT INVOLVED HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE
COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN JURISDICTION OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY FOR THE
REASONS SET OUT IN THE DISSENT IN SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD, ANTE, P. 307. 
..END :
















GENERAL COMMITTEE V. SOU. PAC. CO., 320 U.S. 338 


ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 15, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1943.  - 132 F.2D
194, REVERSED. 


UPON THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT V. MISSOURI
KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO., ANTE, P. 323, AND SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD, ANTE, P. 297, HELD THAT THE QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE -
ARISING OUT OF A SO-CALLED JURISDICTIONAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN LABOR
UNIONS - ARE NOT JUSTICIABLE ISSUES UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO RESOLVE THEM.  P. 343. 

GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINEERS FOR THE PACIFIC LINES OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. ET AL. 

NO. 27.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 41, GENERAL GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE BROTHERHOOD
OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN V. GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS FOR THE PACIFIC LINES OF
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. ET AL., ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 736, ON CROSS-PETITIONS TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT
WHICH MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED A DECREE DETERMINING ON THE MERITS A SUIT
FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE COMPANION CASES TO GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT V.
MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO., ANTE, P. 323, AND SWITCHMEN'S UNION V.
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, ANTE, P. 297.  THEY ARE HERE ON A PETITION
AND ON A CROSSPETITION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.  NO. 41, THE CROSS-PETITION, INVOLVES A
DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND OF THE LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN ON THE PACIFIC LINES
OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVES THE SAME BASIC
QUESTION AS IS PRESENT IN THE MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. CASE.  THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE ENGINEERS (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ENGINEERS) BROUGHT
THIS ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT PROVISIONS OF A JUNE, 1939
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE COMMITTEE FOR THE FIREMEN
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE FIREMEN) CONCERNING THE DEMOTION OF ENGINEERS
TO FIREMEN AND THE CALLING OF FIREMEN FOR SERVICE AS EMERGENCY
ENGINEERS WERE INVALID UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  THE COURTS BELOW
UNDERTOOK TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY.  SEE 132 F.2D 194, 202-206.  FOR
THE REASONS STATED IN THE MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. CASE WE THINK
THAT THE QUESTIONS ARE NOT JUSTICIABLE ISSUES UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN NO. 27 IS RELATED TO THE QUESTIONS IN THE
OTHER TWO CASES.  IN THE SUIT BROUGHT BY THE ENGINEERS (NO. 41) A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WAS ALSO ASKED THAT ARTICLE 51, SEC. 1 OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE FIREMEN WAS
INVALID UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  THAT SECTION PROVIDES:  "THE
RIGHT OF ANY ENGINEER, FIREMAN, HOSTLER OR HOSTLER HELPER TO HAVE THE
REGULARLY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF HIS ORGANIZATION REPRESENT HIM IN
THE HANDLING OF HIS GRIEVANCES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF HIS
ORGANIZATION AND UNDER THE RECOGNIZED INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL
COMMITTEE MAKING THE SCHEDULE INVOLVED, IS CONCEDED." 

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ENGINEERS WERE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES
OF ENGINEERS IN THE HANDLING OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCES WAS THE
SUBJECT OF DISPUTE BY THE ENGINEERS WITH THIS CARRIER AND ALSO WITH THE
FIREMEN.  IT WAS ONE OF SEVERAL SUBJECTS ON WHICH THE FIREMEN HAD A
STRIKE BALLOT TAKEN IN 1937.  FOLLOWING THE VOTE TO STRIKE, THE
PRESIDENT APPOINTED AN EMERGENCY BOARD  FN1  UNDER SEC. 10 OF THE ACT
TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THIS AND OTHER DISPUTES.  THE BOARD
REPORTED IN 1937.  THE DISPUTE HAS CONTINUED TO DATE. 

THE ENGINEERS AND THE FIREMEN ARE THE MAJORITY REPRESENTATIVES OF
THEIR RESPECTIVE CRAFTS UNDER THE ACT.  THE ENGINEERS CONTEND THAT THE
FIREMEN HAVE NO RIGHT TO REPRESENT MEN WORKING AS ENGINEERS IN THE
HANDLING OF INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCES INVOLVING AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH THE ENGINEERS NEGOTIATED.  THEIR
POSITION IS THAT UNDER THE ACT THEY ARE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE INDIVIDUAL ENGINEER IN THAT CLASS OF DISPUTES WHICH HE HAS WITH THE
CARRIER AS WELL AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT FOR
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO
DECLARE THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE WORD "ENGINEER" IN ARTICLE 51, SEC. 1
OF THE AGREEMENT WAS UNLAWFUL UNDER THE ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT JUDGMENT.  132 F.2D 194-202. 

THE ENGINEERS PLACE THEIR CHIEF RELIANCE ON THOSE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
2, FOURTH WHICH STATE:  (1) THAT EMPLOYEES "SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING"; AND (2) THAT THE "MAJORITY OF ANY CRAFT OR CLASS OF
EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO SHALL BE THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." 
AND IT IS POINTED OUT THAT BY REASON OF SEC. 2, EIGHTH THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 2, FOURTH BECOME A PART OF EACH CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.  SOME
SUPPORT IS ALSO SOUGHT FROM SEC. 2, SECOND AND SIXTH.  THE FORMER
PROVIDES THAT "ALL DISPUTES" BETWEEN A CARRIER AND ITS EMPLOYEES SHALL
BE CONSIDERED IN CONFERENCE BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. 
THE LATTER PROVISION SAYS THAT IN CASE OF A DISPUTE AS TO GRIEVANCES
"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE" OF THE CARRIER
AND OF THE EMPLOYEES TO SPECIFY A TIME AND PLACE FOR A CONFERENCE. 
FROM THESE PROVISIONS IT IS ARGUED THAT THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CRAFT BECOMES THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL
PURPOSES OF THE ACT - THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S AS WELL AS THE
CRAFT'S INTERESTS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CARRIER AND THE FIREMEN
CONTEND THAT THE ACT LIMITS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT TO THE INTERESTS OF THE CRAFT.  THEY
CONTEND THAT THIS IS THE TRUE MEANING OF SEC. 2, FOURTH.  THEY ALSO
RELY ON SEC. 3, FIRST (I) WHICH STATES THAT PRIOR TO A REFERENCE OF
DISPUTES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND CARRIERS TO THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD THEY
"SHALL BE HANDLED IN THE USUAL MANNER UP TO AND INCLUDING THE CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CARRIER DESIGNATED TO HANDLE SUCH DISPUTES." 
THEY CLAIM THAT "USUAL MANNER" MEANS THE PRIOR PRACTICE AND THAT THAT
SHOWS A UNIFORM ACCEPTANCE OF THE RIGHT OF THE AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEE TO
SELECT HIS OWN REPRESENTATIVE.  THEY POINT OUT THAT SEC. 2, THIRD AND
FOURTH PROHIBIT THE CARRIER FROM INFLUENCING EMPLOYEES IN THEIR CHOICE
OF REPRESENTATIVES.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT A CONTRACT BY THE CARRIER
WITH THE ENGINEERS GIVING THE LATTER THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO REPRESENT
ENGINEERS IN THE PRESENTATION OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS WOULD IN
EFFECT COERCE ALL ENGINEERS INTO JOINING THAT UNION IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 2, THIRD AND FOURTH. 

THE PARTIES BASE THEIR RESPECTIVE ARGUMENTS NOT ONLY ON THE LANGUAGE
OF THE ACT AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY BUT ALSO ON VARIOUS TRADE UNION
PRACTICES AND ANALOGOUS PROBLEMS ARISING UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  FROM THESE VARIOUS MATERIALS EACH SEEKS TO PROVE THAT
CONGRESS HAS FASHIONED A FEDERAL RULE (ENFORCIBLE IN THE COURTS)
CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENTS TO REPRESENT
VARIOUS CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL GRIEVANCES.  FN2 ALL
OF THESE WOULD BE RELEVANT DATA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT IF THE
COURTS HAD BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE TASK OF RESOLVING THIS TYPE OF
CONTROVERSY.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THEY WERE. 

WE HAVE HERE NO QUESTION INVOLVING THE REPRESENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES BEFORE THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD.  FN3  WE ARE
CONCERNED ONLY WITH A PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES BEFORE THE
CARRIERS ON CERTAIN TYPES OF GRIEVANCES  FN4  WHICH, THOUGH AFFECTING
INDIVIDUALS, PRESENT A DISPUTE LIKE THE ONE AT ISSUE IN THE MISSOURI
KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. CASE.  IT INVOLVES, THAT IS TO SAY, A
JURISDICTIONAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO UNIONS.  IT RAISES THE QUESTION
WHETHER ONE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT OR THE OTHER IS THE PROPER
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PRESENTATION OF CERTAIN CLAIMS TO THE EMPLOYER. 
IT INVOLVES A DETERMINATION OF THE POINT WHERE THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF ONE CRAFT ENDS AND WHERE THE AUTHORITY OF ANOTHER CRAFT
BEGINS.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINIONS IN THE MISSOURI-KANSAS
TEXAS R. CO. CASE AND IN THE SWITCHMEN'S CASE, WE BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS
LEFT THE SOCALLED JURISDICTIONAL CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN UNIONS TO
AGENCIES OR TRIBUNALS OTHER THAN THE COURTS.  WE SEE NO REASON FOR
DIFFERENTIATING THIS JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE FROM THE OTHERS.  WHETHER
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN CASE AN EMPLOYEE WERE
ASSERTING THAT THE ACT GAVE HIM THE PRIVILEGE OF CHOOSING HIS OWN
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROSECUTION OF HIS CLAIMS IS NOT BEFORE US. 

REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE BOARD WAS APPOINTED APRIL 14, 1937, AND WAS COMPOSED OF G.
STANLEIGH ARNOLD, CHARLES KERR, AND DEXTER M. KEEZER. 

FN2  REFERENCE IS ALSO MADE TO CERTAIN INFORMAL RULINGS BY THE
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD THAT THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE HAS THE RIGHT
UNDER THE ACT TO SELECT HIS OWN REPRESENTATIVE IN SUCH A CASE.  AND
CONSIDERABLE STRESS IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF THE
EMERGENCY BOARD, SUPRA NOTE 1, APPOINTED IN 1937: 

"THIS LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES OF LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN
CARRIERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.  IT WAS DEVISED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF
MANAGEMENT, THE EMPLOYEES, AND THE PUBLIC.  IT SECURED THE BENEFITS OF
UNHAMPERED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO THE SEVERAL CRAFTS OR CLASSES
ENGAGED IN THE WORK OF RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION.  WHEN A CRAFT OR CLASS,
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES CHOSEN BY A MAJORITY, NEGOTIATES A CONTRACT
WITH A CARRIER, ALL MEMBERS OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS SHARE IN THE RIGHTS
SECURED BY THE CONTRACT, REGARDLESS OF THEIR AFFILIATIONS WITH ANY
ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES.  IT IS CLEARLY PROVIDED THAT THESE RIGHTS
MAY BE PROTECTED BY NEGOTIATION OR BY THE SEVERAL METHODS OF ADJUSTMENT
ESTABLISHED BY THE ACT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
MAJORITY REPRESENT THE WHOLE CRAFT OR CLASS IN THE MAKING OF AN
AGREEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL, BUT IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT NOTHING
IN THE ACT DENIES THE RIGHT TO ANY EMPLOYEE, OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES, TO
ENFORCE THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS OR THEIR OWN CHOOSING, HIS OR
THEIR RIGHTS UNDER ANY SUCH AGREEMENT.  THE WHOLE SPIRIT AND INTENTION
OF THE ACT IS CONTRARY TO THE USE OF ANY COERCION OR INFLUENCE AGAINST
THE EXERCISE OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S LIBERTY IN HIS CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN PROTECTING HIS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS SECURED BY LAW OR
CONTRACT." 

FN3  THE ACT PROVIDES FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD IN
DISPUTES GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR
APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES OR WORKING
CONDITIONS.  SEC. 3, FIRST (I).  IN SUCH CASES THE PARTIES "MAY BE
HEARD EITHER IN PERSON, BY COUNSEL, OR BY OTHER REPRESENTATIVES, AS
THEY MAY RESPECTIVELY ELECT."  SEC. 3, FIRST (J). 

FN4  THESE DO NOT INCLUDE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS AND THE LIKE.  THEY
EMBRACE CLAIMS WHICH THOUGH STRICTLY PERSONAL ARISE OUT OF AND INVOLVE
AN INTERPRETATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH THE
ENGINEERS NEGOTIATED AND UNDER WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL ENGINEER IS
WORKING. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE
COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN JURISDICTION OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSIES FOR
THE REASONS SET OUT IN THE DISSENT IN SWITCHMEN'S UNION V. NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD, ANTE, P. 307. 
..END :



S.E.C. V. JOINER CORP., 320 U.S. 344 


NO. 24.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1943.  - 133
F.2D 241, REVERSED. 


1.  THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WERE NOT SIMPLY SALES AND
ASSIGNMENTS OF INTERESTS IN LAND, BUT BY THE NATURE OF THE OFFERS WERE
WITHIN THE TERMS "INVESTMENT CONTRACTS" AND "ANY INTEREST OR INSTRUMENT
COMMONLY KNOWN AS A 'SECURITY,'" AND WERE THEREFORE SALES OF
"SECURITIES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(1) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933.  P. 351. 

2.  THE EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE AND THE MAXIM EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST
EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE DOCTRINE THAT COURTS WILL
CONSTRUE THE DETAILS OF AN ACT IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS DOMINATING
GENERAL PURPOSE, WILL READ TEXT IN THE LIGHT OF CONTEXT, AND, SO FAR AS
THE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS FAIRLY PERMIT, WILL INTERPRET THE TEXT SO AS
TO CARRY OUT IN PARTICULAR CASES THE GENERALLY EXPRESSED LEGISLATIVE
POLICY.  P. 350. 

3.  THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ACT MERELY
BECAUSE THE OFFERINGS WERE OF LEASES AND ASSIGNMENTS WHICH UNDER STATE
LAW CONVEYED INTERESTS IN REAL ESTATE.  P. 352. 

4.  IN A CIVIL ACTION A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT
TO ESTABLISH THAT WHAT WERE BEING SOLD WERE "SECURITIES" UNDER THE
ACT.  P. 355. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. C.M. JOINER LEASING CORPORATION
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 755, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DENYING AN INJUNCTION IN A SUIT INSTITUTED BY THE COMMISSION TO
RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN
DISTRICT COURT TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENTS FROM FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF SECS.
5(A) AND 17(A)(2) AND (3) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.  FN1  THE
DISTRICT COURT DENIED RELIEF AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED
UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH EXCLUDES FROM ITS OPERATION
ALL TRADING IN OIL AND GAS LEASES.  133 F.2D 241.  AS THIS PRESENTS A
QUESTION IMPORTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  FN2 

RESPONDENTS AND ONE JOHNSON, A DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM A DECREE WAS
TAKEN BY CONSENT, ENGAGED IN A CAMPAIGN TO SELL ASSIGNMENTS OF OIL
LEASES.  THE UNDERLYING LEASES, ACREAGE FROM WHICH WAS BEING SOLD, ARE
NOT IN THE RECORD.  THEY REQUIRED, AS APPEARS FROM THE ASSIGNMENTS,
ANNUAL RENTAL IN CASE OF DELAYED DRILLING OF $1 PER YEAR.  IT ALSO
SEEMS THAT THESE LEASES WERE GRANTED BY THE LANDOWNERS ON AN AGREEMENT
THAT A TEST WELL WOULD BE DRILLED BY THE LESSEES.  ONE ANTHONY BLOCKED
UP LEASES ON ABOUT 4,700 ACRES OF LAND IN MCCULLOCH COUNTY, TEXAS, IN
CONSIDERATION OF DRILLING A TEST WELL.  DEFENDANT JOINER TESTIFIED THAT
HE ACQUIRED 3,002 OF THESE ACRES FOR "PRACTICALLY NOTHING EXCEPT TO
DRILL A WELL."  ANTHONY WAS A DRILLER AND AGREED TO DO THE DRILLING
WHICH THE JOINER COMPANY UNDERTOOK TO FINANCE, EXPECTING TO RAISE MOST
OF THE FUNDS FOR THIS PURPOSE FROM THE RESALE OF SMALL PARCELS OF
ACREAGE.  THE SALES CAMPAIGN WAS BY MAIL ADDRESSED TO UPWARDS OF 1,000
PROSPECTS IN WIDELY SCATTERED PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AND ACTUAL
PURCHASERS, ABOUT FIFTY IN NUMBER, WERE LOCATED IN AT LEAST EIGHTEEN
STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  LEASEHOLD SUBDIVISIONS OFFERED
NEVER EXCEEDED TWENTY ACRES AND USUALLY COVERED TWO AND A HALF TO FIVE
ACRES.  THE PRICES RANGED FROM $5 TO $15 PER ACRE.  THE LARGEST SINGLE
PURCHASE SHOWN BY THE RECORD WAS $100, AND THE GREAT MAJORITY OF
PURCHASES AMOUNTED TO $25 OR LESS.  ALL BUYERS WERE GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THESE SUMS IN INSTALLMENTS, AND SOME DID SO. 

THE SALES LITERATURE NOWHERE MENTIONED DRILLING CONDITIONS WHICH THE
PURCHASER WOULD MEET OR COSTS WHICH HE WOULD INCUR IF HE ATTEMPTED TO
DEVELOP HIS OWN ACREAGE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT ASSURED THE PROSPECT
THAT THE JOINER COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN AND WOULD COMPLETE THE DRILLING
OF A TEST WELL SO LOCATED AS TO TEST THE OIL-PRODUCING POSSIBILITIES OF
THE OFFERED LEASEHOLDS.  THE LEASES WERE OFFERED ON THESE TERMS:  "YOU
MAY HAVE TEN ACRES AROUND ONE OR BOTH WELLS AT $5 PER ACRE CASH PAYABLE
BY AUGUST 1ST, 1941 AND $5 PER ACRE ADDITIONAL PAYABLE NOVEMBER 1ST,
1941 OR THIRTY DAYS AFTER BOTH WELLS ARE COMPLETED."  OTHER LANGUAGE IN
THE ADVERTISING LITERATURE EMPHASIZED THE CHARACTER OF THE PURCHASE AS
AN INVESTMENT AND AS A PARTICIPATION IN AN ENTERPRISE.  FN3 

THE TRIAL COURT MADE FINDINGS OF WHAT AMOUNTED TO FRAUD, AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS APPROVED, SAYING, "THE EVIDENCE WOULD JUSTIFY
STRONGER FINDINGS OF FRAUD."  FN4  HOWEVER, BOTH COURTS REFUSED
INJUNCTION BECAUSE, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS STATED, IT COULD "FIND
SIMPLY SALES AND ASSIGNMENTS OF LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE OIL AND GAS
LEASES, I.E., SALES OF INTERESTS IN LAND."  IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THESE
ASSIGNMENTS COULD NOT BE PROVED TO BE "SECURITIES" OR "INVESTMENT
CONTRACTS" UNDER SEC. 2(1) OF THE ACT. 

UNDISPUTED FACTS SEEM TO US, HOWEVER, TO ESTABLISH THE CONCLUSION
THAT DEFENDANTS WERE NOT, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, OFFERING NAKED
LEASEHOLD RIGHTS.  HAD THE OFFER MAILED BY DEFENDANTS OMITTED THE
ECONOMIC INDUCEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED AND PROMISED EXPLORATION WELL, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN A QUITE DIFFERENT PROPOSITION.  PURCHASERS THEN WOULD
HAVE BEEN LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES FOR REALIZING UPON THEIR RIGHTS. 
THEY WOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED WAITING AN INDEFINITE TIME, PAYING DELAYED
DRILLING RENTAL MEANWHILE UNTIL SOME CHANCE EXPLORATION PROVED OR
DISPROVED THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THEIR ACRES.  THEIR ALTERNATIVE WOULD
HAVE BEEN TO TEST THEIR OWN LEASES AT A COST OF $5,000 OR MORE PER
WELL.  FN5 

BUT DEFENDANTS OFFERED NO SUCH DISMAL PROSPECT.  THEIR PROPOSITION
WAS TO SELL DOCUMENTS WHICH OFFERED THE PURCHASER A CHANCE, WITHOUT
UNDUE DELAY OR ADDITIONAL COST, OF SHARING IN DISCOVERY VALUES WHICH
MIGHT FOLLOW A CURRENT EXPLORATION ENTERPRISE.  THE DRILLING OF THIS
WELL WAS NOT AN UNCONNECTED OR UNCONTROLLED PHENOMENON TO WHICH
SALESMEN POINTED MERELY TO SHOW THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE OFFERED
LEASES.  THE EXPLORATION ENTERPRISE WAS WOVEN INTO THESE LEASEHOLDS, IN
BOTH AN ECONOMIC AND A LEGAL SENSE; THE UNDERTAKING TO DRILL A WELL
RUNS THROUGH THE WHOLE TRANSACTION AS THE THREAD ON WHICH EVERYBODY'S
BEADS WERE STRUNG.  AN AGREEMENT TO DRILL FORMED THE CONSIDERATION UPON
WHICH ANTHONY WAS ABLE TO COLLECT LEASES ON 4,700 ACRES.  IT WAS IN
RETURN FOR ASSUMPTION OF THIS AGREEMENT THAT JOINER GOT 3,002 OF THE
ACRES, LEAVING ANTHONY ABOUT 1,700 ACRES FOR HIS TROUBLE.  AND IT WAS
HIS UNDERTAKING TO DRILL THE WELL WHICH ENABLED JOINER TO FINANCE IT BY
THE SALE OF ACREAGE.  BY SELLING FROM 1,000 TO 2,000 ACRES AT FROM $5
TO $15 PER ACRE, HE COULD FULFILL HIS OBLIGATION TO DRILL THE WELL,
RECOUP HIS INCIDENTAL EXPENSES AND THOSE OF THE SELLING INTERMEDIARIES,
AND HAVE A THOUSAND ACRES LEFT FOR THE GAMBLE, WITH NO INVESTMENT OF
HIS OWN; AND IF HE SOLD MORE, HE WOULD HAVE A PRESENT PROFIT.  WITHOUT
THE DRILLING OF THE WELL, NO ONE'S LEASES HAD ANY VALUE, AND EXCEPT FOR
THAT UNDERTAKING THEY HAD BEEN OBTAINED AT NO SUBSTANTIAL COST.  THE
WELL WAS NECESSARY NOT ONLY TO FULFILL THE HOPES OF PURCHASERS BUT
APPARENTLY EVEN TO AVOID FORFEITURE OF THEIR LEASES. 

WHETHER, AS THE DISSENTING JUDGE BELOW SUGGESTS, THE ASSIGNEE
ACQUIRED A LEGAL RIGHT TO COMPEL THE DRILLING OF THE TEST WELL IS A
QUESTION OF STATE LAW WHICH WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE.  THE
TERMS OF THE OFFERING AS QUOTED ABOVE, EITHER BY ITSELF OR WHEN READ IN
CONNECTION WITH THE AGREEMENT TO DRILL AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE
ORIGINAL LEASES, MIGHT BE TAKEN TO EMBODY AN IMPLIED AGREEMENT TO
COMPLETE THE WELLS.  BUT AT ANY RATE, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER
QUOTED MADE A CONTRACT IN WHICH PAYMENTS WERE TIMED AND CONTINGENT UPON
COMPLETION OF THE WELL AND THEREFORE A FORM OF INVESTMENT CONTRACT IN
WHICH THE PURCHASER WAS PAYING BOTH FOR A LEASE AND FOR A DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THIS WELL-DRILLING
UNDERTAKING WAS WHAT BROUGHT INTO BEING THE INSTRUMENTS THAT DEFENDANTS
WERE SELLING AND GAVE TO THE INSTRUMENTS MOST OF THEIR VALUE AND ALL OF
THEIR LURE.  THE TRADING IN THESE DOCUMENTS HAD ALL THE EVILS INHERENT
IN THE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS WHICH IT WAS THE AIM OF THE SECURITIES
ACT TO END. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE DEFINITION OF "SECURITY" WHICH CONTROLS THE
SCOPE OF THIS ACT  FN6  FALLS SHORT OF INCLUDING THESE TRANSACTIONS. 
RESPONDENTS INVOKE THE "EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE" TO CONSTRICT THE MORE
GENERAL TERMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE SPECIFIC TERMS WHICH THEY FOLLOW. 
AND THEY INVOKE THE ANCIENT MAXIM "EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO
ALTERIUS" TO EXCLUDE SALES OF LEASEHOLD SUBDIVISIONS BY THE ACRE
BECAUSE THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY INCLUDES SALES OF LEASEHOLD SUBDIVISIONS
BY UNDIVIDED SHARES. 

SOME RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION COME DOWN TO US FROM SOURCES
THAT WERE HOSTILE TOWARD THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS ITSELF AND THOUGHT IT
GENERALLY WISE TO RESTRICT THE OPERATION OF AN ACT TO ITS NARROWEST
PERMISSIBLE COMPASS.  FN7  HOWEVER WELL THESE RULES MAY SERVE AT TIMES
TO AID IN DECIPHERING LEGISLATIVE INTENT, THEY LONG HAVE BEEN
SUBORDINATED TO THE DOCTRINE THAT COURTS WILL CONSTRUE THE DETAILS OF
AN ACT IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS DOMINATING GENERAL PURPOSE, WILL READ
TEXT IN THE LIGHT OF CONTEXT AND WILL INTERPRET THE TEXT SO FAR AS THE
MEANING OF THE WORDS FAIRLY PERMITS SO AS TO CARRY OUT IN PARTICULAR
CASES THE GENERALLY EXPRESSED LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  FN8 

IN THE SECURITIES ACT THE TERM "SECURITY" WAS DEFINED TO INCLUDE BY
NAME OR DESCRIPTION MANY DOCUMENTS IN WHICH THERE IS COMMON TRADING FOR
SPECULATION OR INVESTMENT.  SOME, SUCH AS NOTES, BONDS, AND STOCKS, ARE
PRETTY MUCH STANDARDIZED AND THE NAME ALONE CARRIES WELL-SETTLED
MEANING.  OTHERS ARE OF MORE VARIABLE CHARACTER AND WERE NECESSARILY
DESIGNATED BY MORE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS, SUCH AS "TRANSFERABLE SHARE,"
"INVESTMENT CONTRACT," AND "IN GENERAL ANY INTEREST OR INSTRUMENT
COMMONLY KNOWN AS A SECURITY."  WE CANNOT READ OUT OF THE STATUTE THESE
GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE DESIGNATIONS MERELY BECAUSE MORE SPECIFIC ONES HAVE
BEEN USED TO REACH SOME KINDS OF DOCUMENTS.  INSTRUMENTS MAY BE
INCLUDED WITHIN ANY OF THESE DEFINITIONS, AS MATTER OF LAW, IF ON THEIR
FACE THEY ANSWER TO THE NAME OR DESCRIPTION.  HOWEVER, THE REACH OF THE
ACT DOES NOT STOP WITH THE OBVIOUS AND COMMONPLACE.  NOVEL, UNCOMMON,
OR IRREGULAR DEVICES, WHATEVER THEY APPEAR TO BE, ARE ALSO REACHED IF
IT BE PROVED AS MATTER OF FACT THAT THEY WERE WIDELY OFFERED OR DEALT
IN UNDER TERMS OR COURSES OF DEALING WHICH ESTABLISHED THEIR CHARACTER
IN COMMERCE AS "INVESTMENT CONTRACTS," OR AS "ANY INTEREST OR
INSTRUMENT COMMONLY KNOWN AS A 'SECURITY.'"  THE PROOF HERE SEEMS CLEAR
THAT THESE DEFENDANTS' OFFERS BROUGHT THEIR INSTRUMENTS WITHIN THESE
TERMS. 

IT IS URGED THAT BECAUSE THE DEFINITION MENTIONS "FRACTIONAL
UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN OIL, GAS OR OTHER MINERAL RIGHTS," IT EXCLUDES
SALES OF LEASEHOLD SUBDIVISIONS BY PARCELS.  OIL AND GAS RIGHTS POSED A
DIFFICULT PROBLEM TO THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFTSMAN.  SUCH RIGHTS WERE
NOTORIOUS SUBJECTS OF SPECULATION AND FRAUD, BUT LEASES AND ASSIGNMENTS
WERE ALSO INDISPENSABLE INSTRUMENTS OF LEGITIMATE OIL EXPLORATION AND
PRODUCTION.  TO INCLUDE LEASES AND ASSIGNMENTS BY NAME MIGHT EASILY
BURDEN THE OIL INDUSTRY BY CONTROLS THAT WERE DESIGNED ONLY FOR THE
TRAFFIC IN SECURITIES.  THIS WAS AVOIDED BY INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY ONLY
THAT FORM OF SPLITTING UP OF MINERAL INTERESTS WHICH HAD BEEN MOST
UTILIZED FOR SPECULATIVE PURPOSES.  WE DO NOT THINK THE DRAFTSMEN
THEREBY IMMUNIZED OTHER FORMS OF CONTRACTS AND OFFERINGS WHICH ARE
PROVED AS MATTER OF FACT TO ANSWER TO SUCH DESCRIPTIVE TERMS AS
"INVESTMENT CONTRACTS" AND "SECURITIES." 

NOR CAN WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT DEFENDANTS' OFFERINGS WERE
BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ACT BECAUSE THEY OFFERED LEASES AND ASSIGNMENTS
WHICH UNDER TEXAS LAW CONVEYED INTERESTS IN REAL ESTATE.  FN9  IN
APPLYING ACTS OF THIS GENERAL PURPOSE, THE COURTS HAVE NOT BEEN GUIDED
BY THE NATURE OF THE ASSETS BACK OF A PARTICULAR DOCUMENT OR OFFERING. 
FN10  THE TEST RATHER IS WHAT CHARACTER THE INSTRUMENT IS GIVEN IN
COMMERCE BY THE TERMS OF THE OFFER, THE PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION, AND THE
ECONOMIC INDUCEMENTS HELD OUT TO THE PROSPECT.  IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ACT SUCH AS THIS IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE THAT PROMOTERS' OFFERINGS
BE JUDGED AS BEING WHAT THEY WERE REPRESENTED TO BE. 

FINALLY IT IS URGED THAT WE MUST INTERPRET WITH STRICTNESS THE SCOPE
OF THIS ACT BECAUSE VIOLATIONS OF IT ARE CRIMES.  FN11  SOME AUTHORITY
IS CITED AND A GREAT ARRAY COULD BE ASSEMBLED TO SUPPORT THE GENERAL
PROPOSITION THAT PENAL STATUTES MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  AN ALMOST
EQUALLY IMPRESSIVE COLLECTION CAN BE MADE OF DECISIONS HOLDING THAT
REMEDIAL STATUTES SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED.  WHAT, THEN, SHALL WE
SAY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECTION LIKE THIS WHICH MAY BE THE BASIS
OF EITHER CIVIL PROCEEDINGS OF A PREVENTIVE OR REMEDIAL NATURE OR OF
PUNITIVE PROCEEDINGS, OR PERHAPS BOTH? 

DIFFERENT COURTS HAVE GIVEN DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO THE GENERAL
QUESTION.  FN12  SINCE 1911, ALL STATES EXCEPT NEVADA HAVE ENACTED SOME
TYPE OF "BLUE SKY LAW."  WHILE THE LAWS ARE NOT UNIFORM, THEY GENERALLY
CONTAIN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SANCTIONS, AND ALL HAVE THE DOMINATING
PURPOSE TO PREVENT AND PUNISH FRAUDULENT FLOATING OF SECURITIES.  FN13
THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IS COMMITTED TO A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION N14,
ALTHOUGH SOME COURTS TEND TOWARD STRICT CONSTRUCTION N15, AND SOME HAVE
SEEMED TO DIFFERENTIATE ACCORDING TO THE USE BEING MADE OF THE STATUTE,
INCLINING TO A STRICT CONSTRUCTION WHEN A CRIMINAL PENALTY IS BEING
IMPOSED AND A MORE LIBERAL ONE WHEN CIVIL REMEDIES ARE BEING APPLIED. 
FN16 

BUT THIS COURT, AS EARLY AS 1820, SPEAKING THROUGH CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL, SAID:  "THE RULE THAT PENAL LAWS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
STRICTLY, IS PERHAPS NOT MUCH LESS OLD THAN CONSTRUCTION ITSELF.  ...
IT IS SAID, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THIS RULE, THE INTENTION OF THE LAW
MAKER MUST GOVERN IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL, AS WELL AS OTHER
STATUTES.  THIS IS TRUE.  BUT THIS IS NOT A NEW INDEPENDENT RULE WHICH
SUBVERTS THE OLD.  IT IS A MODIFICATION OF THE ANCIENT MAXIM, AND
AMOUNTS TO THIS, THAT THOUGH PENAL LAWS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY,
THEY ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED SO STRICTLY AS TO DEFEAT THE OBVIOUS
INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE.  THE MAXIM IS NOT TO BE SO APPLIED AS TO
NARROW THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE TO THE EXCLUSION OF CASES WHICH THOSE
WORDS, IN THEIR ORDINARY ACCEPTATION, OR IN THAT SENSE IN WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS OBVIOUSLY USED THEM, WOULD COMPREHEND."  UNITED STATES
V. WILTBERGER, 5 WHEAT.  76, 95.    THIS RULE IN SUBSTANCE WAS REPEATED
IN UNITED STATES V. HARTWELL, 6 WALL.  385, 396, WHICH SAID ALSO:  "THE
RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION IS NOT VIOLATED BY PERMITTING THE WORDS OF
THE STATUTE TO HAVE THEIR FULL MEANING, OR THE MORE EXTENDED OF TWO
MEANINGS, AS THE WIDER POPULAR INSTEAD OF THE MORE NARROW TECHNICAL
ONE; BUT THE WORDS SHOULD BE TAKEN IN SUCH A SENSE, BENT NEITHER ONE
WAY NOR THE OTHER, AS WILL BEST MANIFEST THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT."  THE
PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN UNITED STATES V. CORBETT, 215 U.S. 233,
242; DONNELLEY V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 505, 512; UNITED STATES V.
GILES, 300 U.S. 41, 48. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE WE DO NOTHING TO THE WORDS OF THE ACT; WE MERELY
ACCEPT THEM.  IT WOULD BE NECESSARY IN ANY CASE FOR ANY KIND OF RELIEF
TO PROVE THAT DOCUMENTS BEING SOLD WERE SECURITIES UNDER THE ACT.  IN
SOME CASES IT MIGHT BE DONE BY PROVING THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, WHICH ON
ITS FACE WOULD BE A NOTE, A BOND, OR A SHARE OF STOCK.  IN OTHERS PROOF
MUST GO OUTSIDE THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF AS WE DO HERE.  WHERE THIS PROOF
IS OFFERED IN A CIVIL ACTION, AS HERE, A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
WILL ESTABLISH THE CASE; IF IT WERE OFFERED IN A CRIMINAL CASE, IT
WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE STRICTER REQUIREMENT OF SATISFYING THE JURY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 

WE HOLD THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN DENYING AN INJUNCTION UNDER THE
UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THIS CASE AND ITS FINDINGS.  THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 74, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77E (A) AND SEC. 77Q (A), (2), (3). 

FN2  318 U.S. 755. 

FN3  THE FOLLOWING ARE EXTRACTS FROM LETTERS SIGNED BY THE JOINER
COMPANY AND BY JOINER:  "WE ARE PLEASED TO REPORT OUR CONCHO COUNTY
WELL DRILLING AT APPROXIMATELY 2510 FEET IN A VERY GOOD FORMATION.  WE
ARE SENDING OUT 800 FEET OF 8 1/4 INCH CASING TO BE RUN IN THE
MCCULLOCH COUNTY WELL TOMORROW.  BOTH WELLS SHOULD BE COMPLETED DURING
NEXT MONTH  ...  THIS OFFER GOES TO YOU WHO NOW HAVE A LEASE AROUND ONE
OR BOTH OF THESE LOCATIONS, AND ALSO TO YOU WHO HAVE AT SOME TIME
INVESTED IN A LEASE OR LEASES AROUND SOME WELL THAT THE C.M. JOINER
INTERESTS HAVE DRILLED.  ... WE ARE SUBMITTING THIS PROPOSITION TO YOU
IN LANGUAGE THAT WILL APPEAL ONLY TO BUSINESS PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED
IN MAKING AN INVESTMENT WHERE THEY HAVE A GOOD CHANCE FOR SPLENDID
RETURNS ON THE INVESTMENT."  "THERE HAS NOTHING HAPPENED TO EITHER OF
THESE WELLS THAT WOULD LESSEN THE PROSPECTS FOR THE OPENING OF A NEW
OIL FIELD.  ...  WE FEEL THAT IF WE ARE TO GET THE LAW OF AVERAGE THAT
ONE OR BOTH THESE WELLS SHOULD BE PRODUCERS.  I KNOW YOU WOULD LIKE THE
THRILL THAT COMES TO THOSE OWNING A LEASE AROUND A PRODUCING WELL.  ...
IF YOU SEND IN AN ORDER FOR TWENTY ACRES  ...  YOU WILL GET TEN ACRES
FREE IN THE NEXT BLOCK OF ACREAGE WE DRILL WHICH IS MOST LIKELY TO BE
IN CONCHO COUNTY, TEXAS.  YOU WILL REALLY BE IN THE OIL BUSINESS." 
"REMEMBER, IF YOU DO NOT MAKE MONEY ON YOUR INVESTMENT IT WILL BE
IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO MAKE MONEY.  ...  FORTUNES MADE IN OIL GO TO THOSE
WHO INVEST.  WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD INVEST HERE, AND NOW." 

THERE IS ALSO ON THE CIRCULARS AND SELLING LETTERS THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT: 

"BECAUSE THESE SECURITIES ARE BELIEVED EXEMPTED FROM REGISTRATION
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION; BUT SUCH EXEMPTION, IF AVAILABLE, DOES NOT INDICATE THAT
THE SECURITIES HAVE BEEN EITHER APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THE
COMMISTION OR THAT THE COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED THE ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF THE STATEMENTS IN THIS COMMUNICATION." 

THE ORIGIN OF THIS IS UNCERTAIN FROM THE EVIDENCE.  JOINER SAYS HE
"GOT IT" FROM THE COMMISSION.  WHAT WEIGHT, IF ANY, SHOULD BE GIVEN
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO THIS CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT WAS BEING SOLD
AS "SECURITIES" IS NOT CLEAR.  THEY HAD TO BE SECURITIES TO BE EXEMPT
SECURITIES UNDER THE ACT.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 77C. 

FN4  THE NATURE OF THE MISREPRETENTATIONS IS NOT MATERIAL TO THE
QUESTION HERE.  THEY RELATED GENERALLY TO THE LOCATION OF THE
PROPERTIES IN RESPECT OF PRODUCING TERRITORY. 

FN5  JOINER'S WELL WAS TO COST OVER $5,000.  THE ESTIMATED AVERAGE
COST OF DRILLING WELLS IN WEST CENTRAL TEXAS IS ABOUT $10,000.  SEE
TABLE REPRODUCED IN HOUSE HEARINGS ON H. RES. 290 AND H.R. 7372, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS. (1939) PT. I, P. 350. 

FN6  SECTION 2(1) OF THE ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77B (1), PROVIDES: 

"THE TERM 'SECURITY' MEANS ANY NOTE, STOCK, TREASURY STOCK, BOND,
DEBENTURE, EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS, CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST OR
PARTICIPATION IN ANY PROFIT-SHARING AGREEMENT, COLLATERAL-TRUST
CERTIFICATE, PREORGANIZATION CERTIFICATE OR SUBSCRIPTION, TRANSFERABLE
SHARE, INVESTMENT CONTRACT, VOTING-TRUST CERTIFICATE, CERTIFICATE OF
DEPOSIT FOR A SECURITY, FRACTIONAL UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN OIL, GAS, OR
OTHER MINERAL RIGHTS, OR, IN GENERAL, ANY INTEREST OR INSTRUMENT
COMMONLY KNOWN AS A 'SECURITY,' OR ANY CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST OR
PARTICIPATION IN, TEMPORARY OR INTERIM CERTIFICATE FOR, RECEIPT FOR,
GUARANTEE OF, OR WARRANT OR RIGHT TO SUBSCRIBE TO OR PURCHASE, ANY OF
THE FOREGOING." 

FN7  IN THE FIRST EDITION OF STATUTES AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BY
SUTHERLAND HE NO DOUBT EXPRESSED THE IMPRESSION GLEANED FROM EXTENSIVE
READING OF CASES WHEN HE WROTE IN THE PREFACE (1890):  "THE NATURAL
TENDENCY AND GROWTH OF THE LAW IS TOWARDS SYSTEM AND TOWARDS CERTAINTY,
TOWARDS MODES OF OPERATION AT ONCE PRACTICAL AND JUST, BY THE PROCESS
OF ITS INTELLIGENT JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION; BUT THIS PROCESS IS
IMPAIRED BY OVERWORK AND LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE."  IN THE THIRD
EDITION (1943) HORACK OBSERVES IN THE PREFACE:  "THE THIRD EDITION
REFLECTS THE GROWING ACCEPTANCE OF STATUTES AS A CREATIVE ELEMENT IN
THE LAW RATHER THAN, AS SUTHERLAND SUGGESTED IN THE FIRST EDITION, AS
'LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE'." 

FN8  THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE "EJUSDEM GENERIS" RULE,
EVEN IN CRIMINAL CASES, WHERE ITS APPLICATION SEEMED TO CONFLICT WITH
THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF AN ACT.  UNITED STATES V. GILLILAND, 312 U.S.
86, 93; PRUSSIAN V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 675, 679; AND GOOCH V.
UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124, 128; SEE ALSO HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS
ENSKILDA BANK, 293 U.S. 84, 88-89. 

IT HAS ALSO TREATED THE MAXIM "EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS"
AS BUT AN AID TO CONSTRUCTION.  UNITED STATES V. BARNES, 222 U.S. 513,
519; SPRINGER V. PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 277 U.S. 189, 206; NEUBERGER V.
COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 83, 88. 

FN9  DOWNMAN V. TEXAS, 231 U.S. 353; TEXAS CO. V. DAUGHERTY, 107 TEX.
226, 176 S.W.2D 717; RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO.,
310 U.S. 573, 579. 

FN10  ONE'S CEMETERY LOT IS NOT ORDINARILY THOUGHT OF AS AN
INVESTMENT AND IS MOST CERTAINLY REAL ESTATE.  BUT WHEN SUCH INTERESTS
BECOME THE SUBJECTS OF SPECULATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE CEMETERY
ENTERPRISE, COURTS HAVE HELD CONVEYANCES OF THESE LOTS TO BE
SECURITIES.  MATTER OF WALDSTEIN, 160 MISC. 763, 291 N.Y.S. 697;
HOLLOWAY V. THOMPSON, 42 N.E.2D 421(IND.  APP.).  FOR OTHER INSTANCES
WHERE PURPORTED SALES OF PROPERTY HAVE BEEN HELD "INVESTMENT CONTRACTS"
SEE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N V. CRUDE OIL CORP., 93 F.2D
844(INTEREST IN OIL ROYALTIES SOLD AS BILL OF SALE FOR SPECIFIED NUMBER
OF BARRELS OF OIL); SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N V. TUNG CORPORATION,
32 F.SUPP.  371; SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N V. BAILEY, 41 F.SUPP. 
647(LAND BEARING TUNG TREES, TO BE DEVELOPED BY SELLER); SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMM'N V. PAYNE, 35 F.SUPP.  873(SILVER FOXES); PROHASKA V.
HEMMER-MILLER DEVELOPMENT CO., 256 ILL. APP. 331(FARM LAND, TO BE PAID
FOR WITH PROCEEDS OF CROPS RAISED BY VENDOR); KERST V. NELSON, 171
MINN. 191, 213 N.W. 904(LAND TO BE CULTIVATED AS A VINEYARD BY A THIRD
PARTY); STEVENS V. LIBERTY PACKING CORP., 111 N.J. EQ. 61, 161 A.
193(RABBITS). 

FN11  15 U.S.C. SEC. 77T. 

FN12  SEE 3 SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION (3D ED. 1943) SEC.
5703. 

FN13  SMITH, STATE BLUE SKY LAWS AND THE FEDERAL SECURITIES ACT, 34
MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 1135. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 10 SUPRA; WAGNER V. KELSO, 195 IOWA 959, 193 N.W. 1;
WIGINGTON V. MID-CONTINENT ROYALTY CO., 130 KAN. 785, 288 P. 749;
PEOPLE V. MONTAGUE, 280 MICH. 610, 274 N.W. 347; STATE V. HOFACRE, 206
MINN. 167, 288 N.W. 13; STATE V. PULLEN, 58 R.I. 294, 192 A. 473;
KADANE V. CLARK, 135 TEX. 496, 143 S.W.2D 197; KLATT V. GUARANTEED BOND
CO., 213 WIS. 12, 250 N.W. 825. 

IN TEXAS ITSELF, OIL AND GAS LEASES HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE SUPREME
COURT TO BE SECURITIES WITHIN THE STATE ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT
THAT THE ACT EXPRESSLY INCLUDES ONLY "ANY INTEREST IN OR UNDER" SUCH
LEASES.  KADANE V. CLARK, SUPRA. 

FN15  WESTENHAVER V. DUNNAVANT, 225 ALA. 400, 143 SO. 823; SOMERS V.
COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORP., 245 MASS. 286, 139 N.E. 837; NEW AMSTERDAM
CASUALTY CO. V. HYDE, 148 ORE.  229, 34 P.2D 930, 35 P.2D 980; MILLER
V. STUART, 69 UTAH 250, 253 P. 900. 

FN16  SEE 3 SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION (3D ED. 1943) SEC.
7104 AND CASES CITED IN NOTE 8 THEREUNDER. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




MIDSTATE CO. V. PENNA. R. CO., 320 U.S. 356 


NO. 40.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 22, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1943.  -
21 CAL.2D 243, 131 P.2D 544, REVERSED. 


AN ACTION BY A CARRIER TO RECOVER FROM A SHIPPER THE FULL AMOUNT OF
TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FOR SHIPMENTS OVER ITS OWN AND CONNECTING
CARRIERS' LINES IS SUBJECT TO THE THREE YEARS' LIMITATION OF SEC.
16(3)(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT; AND THE LIMITATION CANNOT BE
EXTENDED BY AN EXPRESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND SHIPPER
ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD.  P. 358. 

MIDSTATE HORTICULTURAL CO., INC. V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 735, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT (124
P.2D 902) FOR THE CARRIER IN AN ACTION AGAINST A SHIPPER TO RECOVER THE
AMOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 
RESPONDENT SUED TO RECOVER THE FULL AMOUNT OF FREIGHT CHARGES ON TWENTY
ONE CARLOADS OF GRAPES SHIPPED BY PETITIONER OVER ITS OWN AND
CONNECTING CARRIERS' LINES FROM CALIFORNIA TO STATED DESTINATIONS IN
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.  THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ACTION
WAS BROUGHT IN TIME UNDER SEC. 16(3)(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  THIS PROVIDED: 

"ALL ACTIONS AT LAW BY CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THIS ACT FOR RECOVERY OF
THEIR CHARGES, OR ANY PART THEREOF, SHALL BE BEGUN WITHIN THREE YEARS
FROM THE TIME THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES, AND NOT AFTER."  FN1 

IN THE APPLICATION PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD, THE QUESTION TURNS ON
WHETHER THE SECTION'S LIMITATION CAN BE WAIVED BY EXPRESS AGREEMENT
MADE BEFORE THE PERIOD ENDS.  THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE, AT PETITIONER'S
REQUEST, THREE DAYS BEFORE THE TERM EXPIRED FOR SUING ON ACCOUNT OF THE
FIRST SHIPMENT.  BY ITS TERMS, IN CONSIDERATION OF RESPONDENT'S
FORBEARANCE TO SUE FOR A SPECIFIED TIME, PETITIONER UNDERTOOK NOT TO
"PLEAD IN ANY SUCH SUIT THE DEFENSE OF ANY GENERAL OR SPECIAL STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS."  FN2  TWO MONTHS LATER, BUT WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME,
PETITIONER FINALLY DECLINED TO PAY AND RESPONDENT BEGAN THIS ACTION. 
FN3 

IN ALL STAGES OF THE LITIGATION PETITIONER HAS CONTENDED THAT THE
STATUTE PROHIBITS MAINTENANCE OF THE ACTION, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS
AGREEMENT.  RESPONDENT HAS TAKEN THE CONTRARY VIEW, AS HAVE THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING (124 P.2D
902), AND THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT (21 CAL.2D 243, 131 P.2D 544). 
WE THINK PETITIONER'S POSITION MUST BE SUSTAINED.  IN SHORT THIS IS
THAT THE AGREEMENT IS INVALID AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE INTENT AND
EFFECT OF THE SECTION AND THE ACT. 

IN CLASSICAL STATEMENT, THE QUESTION HAS BEEN POSED AS WHETHER THE
IS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE CLAIM OR MERELY TO BAR THE REMEDY FOR ITS
ENFORCEMENT; FN4  AND IN THIS CASE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PATTERN, THE
DEBATE HAS MOVED BACK TO WHETHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS ONE CREATED BY
THE STATUTE OR ONE ARISING FROM THE COMMON LAW,  FN5  WITH THE
ATTRIBUTED CONSEQUENCE IN THE ONE CASE THAT THE BAR IS ABSOLUTE AND
INVARIABLE BY ANY ACT OF THE PARTIES, IN THE OTHER THAT IT MAY BE
WAIVED BY CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE.  FN6  PETITIONER URGES THAT THE
CARRIER'S COMMON LAW RIGHT TO COLLECT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FROM THE
SHIPPER, WHICH WAS STRICTLY CONTRACTUAL, NO LONGER EXISTS, BUT HAS BEEN
REPLACED WITH ONE PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT.  THIS, IT SAYS, NOW FIXES THE
CHARACTER AND DIMENSIONS OF THE CARRIER'S RECOVERY, INCLUDING THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH IT MAY BE HAD.  RESPONDENT HOWEVER INSISTS THE ACT HAS NOT
SUPERSEDED, BUT HAS MERELY MODIFIED ITS COMMON LAW CONTRACTUAL RIGHT;
AND IN THIS RESPECT IT ASSERTS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN CASES, LIKE THIS
ONE, IN WHICH THE CARRIER SEEKS THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE TRANSPORTATION
CHARGES AND OTHERS IN WHICH THE SUIT IS FOR ONLY A PART OF THEM  FN7 OR
IN WHICH THE SHIPPER SUES THE CARRIER TO RECOVER EXCESS CHARGES PAID OR
DAMAGES FOR THE CHARGING OF UNREASONABLE RATES.  FN8 

WE DO NOT THINK THE DECISION SHOULD TURN ON REFINEMENTS OVER WHETHER
THE RESIDUUM OF FREEDOM TO CONTRACT WHICH THE ACT LEAVES TO THE PARTIES
OR THE QUANTUM OF RESTRICTION IT IMPOSES  FN9 CONSTITUTES THE GIST OF
THE ACTION.  ORIGIN OF THE RIGHT IS NOT PER SE CONCLUSIVE WHETHER THE
LIMITATION OF TIME "EXTINGUISHES" IT OR "MERELY BARS THE REMEDY" WITH
THE ACCEPTED ALTERNATIVE CONSEQUENCES RESPECTING WAIVER.  SOURCE IS
MERELY EVIDENTIARY, WITH OTHER FACTORS, OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT WHETHER
THE RIGHT SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE IN ANY EVENT AFTER THE PRESCRIBED TIME,
WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE QUESTION.  FN10  THE TEST OF CREATION MAY AID
WHEN ORIGIN IS CLEAR.  FN11  IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE WHEN THE SOURCE IS
HYBRID, AS IS TRUE OF THE CARRIER'S CONTRACT, WHICH HAS BECOME A
COMPLEX OR RESULTANT OF THE FORMER FREEDOM OF CONTRACT AND STATUTORY
RESTRICTIONS.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE SURVIVAL OF THE COMMON LAW
ELEMENTS, AS RESPONDENT MAINTAINS, THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE
LIMITATION TO BE ABSOLUTE.  AND THIS SEEMS IMPLIEDLY CONCEDED WHEN THE
DEBATE SHIFTS, AS IT HAS, TO WHETHER THE POLICY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
LEGISLATION CONTEMPLATES THE ONE RESULT OR THE OTHER.  THIS IS THE
CONTROLLING QUESTION.  RESPECTING IT THE CONSISTENT PATTERNS OF
LEGISLATION FOLLOWED IN THE ACT AND OF JUDICIAL DECISION IN TREATING
PROBLEMS OF TIME LIMITATION AND RELATED QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER IT
FURNISH THE MORE PERSUASIVE INDICIA OF CONGRESS' INTENTION. 

THE COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF REGULATION IT IMPOSES.  THE ACT IS AFFECTED
THROUGHOUT ITS PROVISIONS, WITH THE OBJECT NOT MERELY OF REGULATING THE
RELATIONS OF CARRIER AND SHIPPER INTER SE, BUT OF SECURING THE GENERAL
PUBLIC INTEREST IN ADEQUATE, NONDISCRIMINATORY TRANSPORTATION AT
REASONABLE RATES.  FN12  ACCORDINGLY, IN RESPECT TO MANY MATTERS
CONCERNING WHICH VARIATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXIGENCIES OF
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT BE PERMISSIBLE, IF ONLY THE PARTIES'
PRIVATE INTERESTS OR EQUITIES WERE INVOLVED, RIGID ADHERENCE TO THE
STATUTORY SCHEME AND STANDARDS IS REQUIRED.  THIS "OBVIOUSLY MAY WORK
HARDSHIP IN SOME CASES, BUT IT EMBODIES THE POLICY WHICH HAS BEEN
ADOPTED BY CONGRESS IN THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER
TO PREVENT UNJUST DISCRIMINATION."  LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V.
MAXWELL, 237 U.S. 94, 97. 

WITH SETTING IN SUCH A STATUTE, SEC. 16 EXPRESSES THE SPECIFIC POLICY
OF THE ACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSERTION OF STALE CLAIMS.  ON THE
TREATMENT, AS BETWEEN CARRIER AND SHIPPER.  THE SECTION CONTAINS NOT
ONE, BUT SEVERAL LIMITATIONS.  ALL ARE OF SHORT DURATION.  FN13  THEY
APPLY TO VARIOUS KINDS OF RELIEF ALLOWED IN RELATION TO MATTERS
GOVERNED BY THE ACT.  THESE INCLUDE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND IN THE COURTS, BY BOTH SHIPPERS AND CARRIERS.  THE SEVERAL
PROVISIONS ARE CAST IN UNIFORM TERMS.  FN14  NOT ALL WERE BROUGHT INTO
THE SECTION AT THE SAME TIME.  BUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS A
CONSTANT TENDENCY TOWARD MAKING THEM UNIFORM IN TIME AND THE PURPOSE OF
PLACING THE CARRIER AND THE SHIPPER ON EQUAL TERMS IN THIS RESPECT. 
FN15  UPON THE FACE OF THE SECTION NOTHING SUGGESTS THAT THE
LIMITATIONS ARE TO BE GIVEN OTHER THAN IDENTICAL EFFECTS, EXCEPT AS THE
LANGUAGE SPECIFIES VARIATIONS.  IN PARTICULAR, CONTRARY TO RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT, IN APPLYING THE SECTION, THE
CARRIER SHALL BE GIVEN AN ADVANTAGE NOT ALLOWED TO THE SHIPPER OR ONE,
IN SOME INSTANCES, WHEN THE CARRIER IS PLAINTIFF, WHICH IT CANNOT ENJOY
IN OTHERS.  RATHER, THE SECTION'S TERMS, PARTICULARLY IN SUBDIVISION
(A),  FN16  THEIR UNIFORMITY IN ALL THE LIMITATIONS, ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, AND ITS SETTING IN A STATUTE DESIGNED CERTAINLY AS MUCH FOR
THE SHIPPER'S AS FOR THE CARRIER'S BENEFIT AND IN SO MANY RESPECTS TO
AVOID DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES AND EFFECTS, ALL POINT TO UNIFORM
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED.  AND THIS, WE THINK, IS THE
EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE CONSTRUED THEM OR PREDECESSOR
PROVISIONS.  FN17 

WITH A SINGLE EXCEPTION, PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. SUSQUEHANNA
COLLIERIES CO., 23 F.2D 499(D.C.), THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOT DECIDED
SQUARELY WHETHER AN AGREEMENT SUCH AS IS PRESENTED HERE IS VALID.  IN
THAT SUIT TO RECOVER DEMURRAGE CHARGES THE COURT SUSTAINED AND GAVE
EFFECT TO THE CONTRACT.  BUT WE THINK THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL
COURSE OF DECISION WHICH HAS CONSTRUED THE SECTION AND PREDECESSOR
LIMITATIONS. 

WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION, THE DECISIONS HAVE FIXED THE PATTERN, IN
RESPECT TO A VARIETY OF ISSUES RELATING TO APPLICATION OF THE
LIMITATIONS, THAT LAPSE OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD "NOT ONLY BARS THE
REMEDY BUT DESTROYS THE LIABILITY."  THAT IS TRUE OF THIS COURT'S
DECISIONS  FN18  AND THOSE OF THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS.  FN19  IT IS
TRUE OF SUITS BY SHIPPERS AGAINST CARRIERS AND OF SUITS BY CARRIERS
AGAINST SHIPPERS.  FN20  IT IS TRUE WITH RESPECT TO EVERY LIMITATION
IMPOSED BY SEC. 16, UNLESS THAT OF SUBDIVISION (A) IN FAVOR OF THE
CARRIER IS TO BE EXCEPTED WHEN ITS SUIT IS FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF ITS
CHARGES, THOUGH NOT WHEN IT IS FOR ONLY PART OF THEM.  FN21 

THE PURPORT OF THE DECISIONS IS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED, WHEN THE
PERIOD HAS RUN, TO PUT AN END TO THE SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM AND THE
CORRESPONDING LIABILITY.  THE CAUSE OF ACTION, THE VERY FOUNDATION FOR
RELIEF, IS EXTINGUISHED.  THUS, IN A.J. PHILLIPS CO. V. GRAND TRUNK
WESTERN RY. CO., THIS COURT HELD THE OBJECTION TO THE TIMELINESS OF THE
SHIPPER'S SUIT PROPERLY WAS RAISED BY DEMURRER, AND SAID THAT "THE
LAPSE OF TIME  ...  DESTROYS THE LIABILITY  ...  WHETHER COMPLAINT IS
FILED WITH THE COMMISSION OR SUIT IS BROUGHT IN A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION."  236 U.S. 662, 667.  AND IT ASSIGNED AS A REASON FOR
THIS VIEW "THE REQUIREMENTS OF UNIFORMITY WHICH, IN THIS AS IN SO MANY
OTHER INSTANCES MUST BE BORNE IN MIND IN CONSTRUING THE COMMERCE ACT,"
INCLUDING THE CARRIER'S OBLIGATIONS TO ADHERE TO THE LEGAL RATE, MAKE
ONLY LAWFUL REFUNDS, AND REFRAIN FROM DISCRIMINATING AMONG SHIPPERS "BY
SILENCE OR BY EXPRESS WAIVER, TO PRESERVE TO THE PHILLIPS COMPANY A
RIGHT OF ACTION WHICH THE STATUTE REQUIRED SHOULD BE ASSERTED WITHIN A
FIXED PERIOD."  IBID.  IN UNITED STATES EX REL. LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO.
V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 246 U.S. 638, THE CONCEPTION OF THE
PHILLIPS CASE WAS APPLIED TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AS THE
PHILLIPS OPINION HAD FORECAST.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE LIMITATION GOES
TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, SO THAT ON THE ONE HAND IT HAS NO
POWER TO ACT WHEN THE TIME HAS EXPIRED, ON THE OTHER MANDAMUS WILL LIE
TO COMPEL EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION WHEN THE PERIOD HAS NOT PASSED. 
FN22  THE OTHER DECISIONS CITED ABOVE GIVE EFFECT TO THIS PATTERN IN
VARIOUS APPLICATIONS. 

RESPONDENT ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE CONCLUSION TO WHICH THE PATTERN
POINTS BY URGING THAT WHEN THE CHOICE OF EXTENDING THE PERIOD IS THE
CARRIER'S RATHER THAN THE SHIPPER'S, OPPORTUNITIES FOR DISCRIMINATION
DISAPPEAR; AND THE POLICY OTHERWISE EMBEDDED IN SEC. 16 DOES NOT
REQUIRE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS TERMS.  RATHER, IT SAYS, TO ENFORCE THEM
WOULD VIOLATE THE VERY POLICY UPON WHICH THE PHILLIPS CASE BASED THE
CARRIER'S IMMUNITY TO SUIT AFTER THE PERIOD.  AND FURTHER TO SUPPORT
THIS VIEW, ESPECIALLY AS IT REQUIRES DISTINGUISHING RESULTS FAVORABLE
TO THE CARRIER FROM THOSE ADVERSE TO IT, IT IS SAID THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE INCORPORATION INTO SEC. 16 OF THE LIMITATION UPON THE
CARRIER'S RECOVERY OF ITS FULL CHARGES REQUIRES IT TO BE GIVEN A
DIFFERENT EFFECT FROM THAT GIVEN ALL OTHER LIMITATIONS CREATED BY THE

THE ARGUMENT IS INGENIOUS, BUT NOT CONVINCING.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
EXPLICIT DIRECTION, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED OR INFERRED THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO ADOPT ONE POLICY FOR THE CARRIER AND ANOTHER FOR THE
SHIPPER, TO GIVE THE FORMER AN ABSOLUTE SHIELD, THE LATTER ONE
PENETRABLE BY ALL THE DEVICES AND OCCASIONS WHICH INTERRUPT OR EXTEND
THE PERIOD OF AN ORDINARY GENERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  STILL LESS
CAN IT BE IMPLIED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE IDENTICAL PROVISION,
SUBDIVISION (A), TO WORK ONE WAY WHEN THE CARRIER SUES ONLY FOR PART,
ANOTHER WHEN IT SUES FOR THE WHOLE OF ITS CHARGES.  THAT IT IS
PROHIBITED TO DISCRIMINATE AMONG SHIPPERS, IN APPLYING THE SECTION'S
LIMITATIONS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN ADOPTING THEM CONGRESS INTENDED TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ALL SHIPPERS IN FAVOR OF THE CARRIER.  NOR DOES IT
MEAN THE CARRIER MAY DISCRIMINATE AMONG SHIPPERS WHEN IT SUES FOR ALL,
BUT MAY NOT DO SO WHEN IT SUES FOR ONLY PART OF ITS CHARGES.  THE
FALLACY IS IN ASSUMING, FIRST, THAT THE SECTION REFLECTS ONLY THE ACT'S
GENERAL POLICY AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN RESPECT TO RATES, REBATES,
ETC.; AND, SECOND, THAT THIS WOULD BE MADE EFFECTIVE BY TREATING THE
LIMITATION AS ABSOLUTE TO CUT OFF THE CARRIER'S LIABILITY, BUT VARIABLE
WHEN THE SHIPPER'S IS INVOLVED.  NEITHER ASSUMPTION IS TRUE. 

THAT THE SECTION DOES INVOLVE THE STATUTE'S GENERAL POLICY AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION IS CLEAR FROM THE OPINION IN THE PHILLIPS CASE AND
OTHERS CITED.  BUT THIS IS TRUE ONLY SO FAR AS THAT POLICY IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PARTICULAR POLICY LAID DOWN BY THE SECTION, NAMELY,
THAT OF STRICTLY LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS MAY BE ASSERTED,
AS LIKEWISE APPEARS FROM THE DECISIONS.  IN THE PHILLIPS CASE, THERE
WAS NO APPARENT CLASH BETWEEN THE TWO POLICIES.  NOR IN THIS CASE IS
THERE MORE THAN AN APPARENT ONE. 

IT IS TRUE THE EFFECT OF HOLDING THE PERIOD INVARIABLE WILL BE, WHEN
IT HAS RUN, TO RELIEVE THE SHIPPER ENTIRELY OF PAYING; AND THUS THE
CARRIER, BY AGREEING NOT TO SUE UNTIL LATER, MAY IN EFFECT ALLOW THE
SHIPPER A PREFERENCE.  BUT IT HAS THIS WITHIN ITS CONTROL.  AND THE
SAME EFFECT MAY FOLLOW WHEN THE AMOUNT UNPAID IS ONLY A PART OF THE
TOTAL CHARGE.  IT MAY FOLLOW IN ANY CASE, WHETHER THE SUIT IS FOR ALL
OR MERELY PART, SINCE THE CARRIER, WITHOUT AGREEMENT, MAY NEGLECT OR
FAIL TO SUE AND THUS IN EFFECT ALLOW THE PREFERENCE.  LIKEWISE, WHEN
THE SHIPPER SUES, THE CARRIER MAY SUFFER JUDGMENT BY CONFESSION OR
DEFAULT AND SO, IN EFFECT, ACCOMPLISH THE "PREFERENCE," IF THE AMOUNT
CLAIMED IS MORE THAN IS RIGHTFULLY DUE THE SHIPPER.  WHEN IT IS THAT
AND NO MORE, ALLOWING THE CARRIER TO ESCAPE BY PLEADING THE BAR OF THE
STATUTE HAS THE EFFECT OF PERMITTING IT TO INFLICT A DISCRIMINATION, AS
RESPONDENT CONCEDES THE STATUTE REQUIRES.    THE CONCESSION DESTROYS
ITS CASE.  THE CONSEQUENCES FOR DISCRIMINATION ARE THE SAME, WHETHER
THE CARRIER OR THE SHIPPER SUES, SINCE IN THE ONE CASE IT MAY CREATE A
PREFERENCE BY FOREGOING SUIT, IN THE OTHER BY FAILING TO DEFEND.  AND
IT IS AS MUCH AN ANSWER, IN THE ONE CASE AS IN THE OTHER, THAT THE
CARRIER'S FAILURE TO ASSERT ITS RIGHTS WOULD VIOLATE ITS DUTY TO
COLLECT.  FN23  THAT DUTY, AND THE RESULTS OF FAILURE TO DISCHARGE IT,
MAY BE THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CARRIER SUES OR DEFENDS,
DEPENDING UPON WHETHER THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IS RIGHTFULLY DUE. 

THE PARAMOUNT POLICY OF SEC. 16 IS TO SECURE PROMPTNESS IN
COLLECTION.  THAT POLICY WOULD NOT BE PROMOTED BY CONSTRUING THE PERIOD
AS VARIABLE WHEN IT WORKS TO BAR THE CARRIER'S CLAIM BUT INVARIABLE
WHEN THE SHIPPER SUES.  NOR DOES A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH DISCLOSES
A PURPOSE TO PUT CARRIER AND SHIPPER IN EQUAL POSITION WITH REFERENCE
TO LIMITATIONS OF TIME SUSTAIN AN INFERENCE THAT THEY ARE TO BE GIVEN
EFFECTS FAVORABLE ONLY TO THE CARRIER. 

WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE HARDSHIP TO RESPONDENT IN THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, THOUGH PETITIONER ASSERTS IT WOULD SUFFER EQUAL HARDSHIP
IF THE DECISION WERE THE OTHER WAY.  NOR DO WE IGNORE THE STRONG
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH, IN RELATION TO OTHER TYPES OF
LEGISLATION NOT SO PERMEATED WITH PROVISIONS AND POLICIES FOR
PROTECTING THE GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST, MIGHT MOVE AGAINST DENYING
EFFECT TO SUCH AN AGREEMENT.  BUT THIS CASE BOILS DOWN TO AN OLD ADAGE
ABOUT SAUCE AND GEESE, WHICH NEED NOT BE GIVEN CITATION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(3)(A), 43 STAT. 633.  OTHER PERTINENT PARTS OF
SEC. 16, AS IT WAS IN FORCE WHEN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, WERE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"(3)(B)  ALL COMPLAINTS AGAINST CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THIS ACT FOR THE
RECOVERY OF DAMAGES NOT BASED ON OVERCHARGES SHALL BE FILED WITH THE
COMMISSION WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE TIME THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES,
AND NOT AFTER, SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION (D). 

"(C)  FOR RECOVERY OF OVERCHARGES ACTION AT LAW SHALL BE BEGUN OR
COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE COMMISSION AGAINST CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THIS
ACT WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE TIME THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES, AND
NOT AFTER, SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION (D), EXCEPT THAT IF CLAIM FOR THE
OVERCHARGE HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN WRITING TO THE CARRIER WITHIN THE
THREE-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATION SAID PERIOD SHALL BE EXTENDED TO
INCLUDE SIX MONTHS FROM THE TIME NOTICE IN WRITING IS GIVEN BY THE
CARRIER TO THE CLAIMANT OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM, OR ANY PART OR
PARTS THEREOF, SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE. 

"(D)  IF ON OR BEFORE EXPIRATION OF THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATION
IN SUBDIVISION (B) OR OF THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN
SUBDIVISION (C) A CARRIER SUBJECT TO THIS ACT BEGINS ACTION UNDER
SUBDIVISION (A) FOR RECOVERY OF CHARGES IN RESPECT OF THE SAME
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, OR, WITHOUT BEGINNING ACTION, COLLECTS CHARGES
IN RESPECT OF THAT SERVICE, SAID PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHALL BE EXTENDED
TO INCLUDE NINETY DAYS FROM THE TIME SUCH ACTION IS BEGUN OR SUCH
CHARGES ARE COLLECTED BY THE CARRIER." 

AS TO THE SECTION'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, INCLUDING CHANGES MADE SINCE
THIS SUIT AROSE, SEE NOTE 15 INFRA. 

FN2  AFTER VARIOUS RECITALS INCLUDING ONE FIXING THE TIME WITHIN
WHICH THE DEFERRED SUIT MIGHT BE BROUGHT, THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED: 

"NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FORBEARANCE OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY TO BRING SUCH A SUIT AGAINST THE MID
STATE HORTICULTURAL COMPANY, INC. PRIOR TO OCTOBER 28, 1935, THE SAID
MID STATE HORTICULTURAL COMPANY, INC. HEREBY AGREES THAT IF AND WHEN
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY MAY FIND IT NECESSARY TO BRING SUCH
AN ACTION, IT, THE SAID MID STATE HORTICULTURAL COMPANY, INC., WILL NOT
PLEAD IN ANY SUCH SUIT THE DEFENSE OF ANY GENERAL OR SPECIAL STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  ...  " 

FN3  THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL FACTS REVEAL MORE OF THE FULL CHARACTER
OF THE CONTROVERSY: 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH PETITIONER'S DIVERSION ORDERS, RESPONDENT
DELIVERED THE SHIPMENTS TO JEROME DISTRIBUTING COMPANY IN OCTOBER AND
NOVEMBER, 1932.  JEROME GAVE RESPONDENT ITS CHECKS TO COVER THE FREIGHT
AND RECEIVED RECEIPTED FREIGHT BILLS, WHICH IT USED TO OBTAIN A
SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS WITH PETITIONER THE LATTER SAYS IT WOULD NOT
HAVE MADE WITHOUT THEM.  THE CHECKS WERE DISHONORED ON PRESENTMENT FOR
PAYMENT.  THEREAFTER RESPONDENT SOUGHT WITHOUT SUCCESS TO COLLECT FROM
JEROME.  IT SUED AND OBTAINED A JUDGMENT WHICH IT COULD NOT SATISFY
BECAUSE OF JEROME'S INSOLVENCY. 

THE TIME FOR SUING ON ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST SHIPMENT EXPIRED OCTOBER
28, 1935.  SOME TIME BEFORE THIS, RESPONDENT APPARENTLY THREATENED TO
SUE PETITIONER AND THE LATTER REQUESTED TIME TO INVESTIGATE. 
RESPONDENT ACCEDED, AND ON OCTOBER 25, 1935, PETITIONER EXECUTED THE
AGREEMENT NOT TO PLEAD THE STATUTE. 

FN4  THE INQUIRY TRADITIONALLY IS CAST IN THIS MOLD REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE ULTIMATE QUESTION CONCERNS SUCH VARIED PROBLEMS AS THE
PROPRIETY OF INVOKING THE LEX FORI RATHER THAN THE LEX LOCI, OF WAIVING
THE DEFENSE OR ESTOPPING THE DEFENDANT FROM ASSERTING IT, OR OF
EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AFTER IT HAS ONCE LAPSED.  SEE,
E.G., STORY, CONFLICT OF LAWS (8TH ED.)  SEC.  582; BEALE, CONFLICT OF
LAWS (1935) SECS. 604, 605; GOODRICH, CONFLICT OF LAWS (1927) SECS. 85,
86; AILES, LIMITATION OF ACTIONS AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 31 MICH. L.
REV. 474; BEMENT V. GRAND RAPIDS & INDIANA RY. CO., 194 MICH. 64, 160
N.W. 424; GAUTHIER V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 176 WIS. 245, 186
N.W. 619; MCLEARN V. HILL, 276 MASS. 519, 177 N.E. 617; DANZER & CO. V.
GULF & SHIP ISLAND R. CO., 268 U.S. 633. 

FN5  CHARACTERISTICALLY THE INQUIRY FOLLOWS THIS COURSE TOO, HOWEVER
DIVERSE THE ULTIMATE QUESTIONS, IN ACTIONS UNDER WRONGFUL DEATH
STATUTES, THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, OR DIRECTORS' LIABILITY
STATUTES, WHETHER THE LIMITATION IS IMPOSED IN THE ACT CREATING THE
LIABILITY OR A DIFFERENT ONE.  SEE NOTE 4 SUPRA AND CF. DAVIS V. MILLS,
194 U.S. 451. 

FN6 COMPARE, E.G., BEMENT V. GRAND RAPIDS & INDIANA RY. CO., 194
MICH. 64, 160 N.W. 424, WITH MCLEARN V. HILL, 276 MASS. 519, 177 N.E.
617. 

FN7  E.G., WISCONSIN BRIDGE & IRON CO. V. ILLINOIS TERMINAL CO., 88
F.2D 459(C.C.A.); CF. BUTTON V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 1 F.2D
709(C.C.A.); GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. WEBSTER CO., 27 F.2D
765(D.C.). 

FN8  E.G., A.J. PHILLIPS CO. V. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RY. CO., 236 U.S.
662; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. WOLF, 261 U.S. 133. 

FN9  CF. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. CENTRAL IRON & COAL CO.,
265 U.S. 59; ALTON R. CO. V. GILLARDE, 379 ILL. 308; PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO. V. LORD & SPENCER, 295 MASS. 179, 3 N.E.2D 213; GALVESTON, H. &
S.A. RY. CO. V. WEBSTER CO., 27 F.2D 765(D.C.). 

FN10  DAVIS V. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451, 454; SEE ALSO GREGORY V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO., 157 F. 113(C.C.D. ORE.); OSBORNE V. GRAND TRUNK RY. CO.,
87 VT. 104, 88 A. 512. 

FN11  IBID. 

FN12  CF. PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. FINK, 250 U.S. 577;
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. MAXWELL, 237 U.S. 94; ARKANSAS
FERTILIZER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 F. 667(COMMERCE COURT). 

FN13  THE UNIFORM PERIOD IS NOW TWO YEARS.  CF. NOTE 15 INFRA. 

FN14  ALL FOLLOW THE FORMULA "WITHIN - YEARS, BUT NOT AFTER." 
RESPONDENT RIGHTLY SAYS THE FORMULA ITSELF, PARTICULARLY AS IT INCLUDES
"AND NOT AFTER," IS NOT CONCLUSIVE, SINCE IT HAS RECEIVED DIFFERENT
CONSTRUCTIONS IN RESPECT TO THE PRESENT ISSUE.  THUS, THE PHRASE
APPEARED IN THE EARLIEST ENGLISH GENERAL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, CF. 7
CHITTY'S ENGLISH STATUTES (6TH ED.)  618-619, 619-625; AND IS FOUND
FREQUENTLY IN STATE STATUTES WITHOUT HAVING THE EFFECT TO OUTLAW
WAIVERS.  CF. BEWLEY V. POWER, HAYES & JONES EXCH.  REP.  368(1833);
CRANE V. ABEL, 67 MICH. 242, 34 N.W. 658; IN RE ESTATE OF KING, 94
MICH. 411, 54 N.W. 178; DICKSON V. SLATER STEEL RIG CO., 138 OKLA. 238,
280 P. 817.  ON THE OTHER HAND, SPECIAL STATUTES EMPLOYING THE PHRASE
HAVE RECEIVED OPPOSING CONSTRUCTIONS.  CF. THE STATE WRONGFUL DEATH
STATUTE INVOLVED IN THE HARRISBURG, 119 U.S. 199.  SEE GENERALLY 132
A.L.R. 292 ET SEQ. 

FN15  FOR THE SUCCESSION OF ENACTMENTS BY WHICH SEC. 16(3) ASSUMED
ITS PRESENT FORM SEE 34 STAT. 590; 41 STAT. 491-2; 43 STAT. 633; 54
STAT. 912-13; CF. 49 U.S.C.A. SEC. 16(3), HISTORICAL NOTE.  BRIEFLY,
SEC. 16(3)(A) WAS ENACTED FIRST AS PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1920, 41 STAT. 491-2.  PREVIOUSLY STATE STATUTES SUPPLIED LIMITATIONS
UPON CARRIERS' SUITS FOR THEIR CHARGES, CF. BUTTON V. ATCHISON, T. &
S.F. RY. CO., 1 F.2D 709, AND UPON CERTAIN SHIPPERS' SUITS AGAINST
CARRIERS (NOT BASED UPON AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION), CF. LOUISIANA & WESTERN R. CO. V. GARDINER, 273 U.S. 280. 
CONCURRENTLY FROM 1906 THE HEPBURN ACT (34 STAT. 590) SUPPLIED
LIMITATIONS UPON SHIPPERS' ASSERTION OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES BEFORE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND IN SUITS TO ENFORCE ITS ORDERS. 
7, 1924, 43 STAT. 633; ALTHOUGH AFTER THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 912-13, REDUCED THE PERIOD FOR
CARRIERS' SUITS FROM THREE TO TWO YEARS, TO MAKE IT CONFORM FINALLY
WITH THE TIME ALLOWED SHIPPERS FOR TESTING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE
CARRIER'S RATE, ETC.  FROM 1920 TO 1940 THIS CONFORMITY HAD BEEN
ACHIEVED BY EXTENDING THE TIME FOR SHIPPERS' PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE
CARRIER IN DUE SEASON BEGAN SUIT TO RECOVER ITS CHARGES.  CF. 43. 
STAT.  633, SEC. 16(3)(D). 

FN16  THE SUBDIVISION APPLIES A SINGLE LIMITATION TO "ALL ACTIONS AT
LAW BY CARRIERS," WHETHER "FOR RECOVERY OF THEIR CHARGES, OR ANY PART
THEREOF."  CF. NOTE 1 SUPRA. 

FN17  CF. NOTE 15 SUPRA. 

FN18  CF., E.G., A.J.PHILLIPS CO. V. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RY. CO., 236
U.S. 662; UNITED STATES EX REL. LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO. V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N, 246 U.S. 638; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. WOLF,
261 U.S. 133; WILLIAM DANZER & CO. V. GULF & SHIP ISLAND R. CO., 268
U.S. 633. 

FN19  CF. WISCONSIN BRIDGE & IRON CO. V. ILLINOIS TERMINAL CO., 88
F.2D 459(C.C.A.); BUTTON V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 1 F.2D
709(C.C.A.); PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. CAROLINA PORTLAND CEMENT CO., 16
F.2D 760(C.C.A.). 

FN20  CF. NOTES 18, 19 SUPRA. 

FN21  CF. NOTE 7 SUPRA. 

FN22  THE LATTER WAS THE PARTICULAR RESULT IN THE CASE, SINCE THE
COURT FOUND THE PERIOD HAD NOT RUN PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF THE
PROCEEDING. 

FN23  CF. A.J. PHILLIPS CO. V. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RY. CO., 236 U.S.
662, 667-668; ARKANSAS FERTILIZER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 F. 667,
671(COMMERCE COURT). 
..END :
























MERCHANTS BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 320 U.S. 256 


NO. 30.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 15, 1943.  - 132
F.2D 483, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 303(A)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, WHICH ALLOWS
DEDUCTION FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES OF AMOUNTS BEQUEATHED TO OR FOR THE
USE OF CHARITIES, WAS VALIDLY IMPLEMENTED BY TREASURY REGULATIONS
80(1934 ED.), ARTS. 44 AND 47, WHICH PROVIDE THAT, WHERE A TRUST IS
CREATED FOR BOTH CHARITABLE AND PRIVATE PURPOSES, THE CHARITABLE
BEQUEST, TO BE DEDUCTIBLE, MUST HAVE AT THE TESTATOR'S DEATH A VALUE
"PRESENTLY ASCERTAINABLE, AND HENCE SEVERABLE FROM THE INTEREST IN
FAVOR OF THE PRIVATE USE," AND FURTHER, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS A
POWER IN A PRIVATE DONEE OR TRUSTEE TO DIVERT THE PROPERTY FROM THE
CHARITY, "DEDUCTION WILL BE LIMITED TO THAT PORTION, IF ANY, OF THE
PROPERTY OR FUND WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM AN EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER."  P.
260. 

2.  UNDER A TRUST CREATED BY WILL, THE INCOME WAS TO BE PAID TO THE
TESTATOR'S WIDOW FOR LIFE, AND ON HER DEATH ALL BUT A SPECIFIED AMOUNT
OF THE PRINCIPAL WAS TO GO TO DESIGNATED CHARITIES.  THE TRUSTEE WAS
AUTHORIZED, IN HIS DISCRETION, TO INVADE THE CORPUS FOR THE "COMFORT,
SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE, AND/OR HAPPINESS" OF THE WIDOW, AND WAS DIRECTED
TO EXERCISE THAT DISCRETION WITH LIBERALITY TOWARDS THE WIDOW AND TO
CONSIDER HER "WELFARE, COMFORT AND HAPPINESS PRIOR TO CLAIMS OF
RESIDUARY BENEFICIARIES," I.E., THE CHARITIES.  IN 1937 THE TRUST
REALIZED GAINS FROM THE SALE OF SECURITIES.  HELD: 

(1)  A DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 303(A)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, FOR
PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED.  P. 261. 

(2)  A DEDUCTION FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, UNDER SEC. 162(A)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, WICH PERMITS A DEDUCTION OF THAT PART OF
GROSS INCOME "WHICH PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE WILL ...  IS DURING
THE TAXABLE YEAR  ...  PERMANENTLY SET ASIDE" FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES,
WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED.  P. 263. 

MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, EXECUTOR, V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 734, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 45 B.T.A. 270, WHICH SET ASIDE A DETERMINATION OF
DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME AND ESTATE TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OZRO M. FIELD DIED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 1936, LEAVING A GROSS ESTATE
OF SOME $366,000.  IN HIS WILL HE PROVIDED, AFTER CERTAIN MINOR
BEQUESTS, THAT THE RESIDUE OF HIS ESTATE BE HELD IN TRUST, THE INCOME
TO GO TO HIS WIFE FOR LIFE, AND ON HER DEATH ALL BUT $100,000 OF THE
PRINCIPAL  FN1 TO GO "FREE AND DISCHARGED OF THIS TRUST" TO CERTAIN
NAMED CHARITIES.  UNDER THE TRUST SET UP BY THE WILL, THE TRUSTEE,
PETITIONER HERE, WAS AUTHORIZED TO INVADE THE CORPUS "AT SUCH TIME OR
TIMES AS MY SAID TRUSTEE SHALL IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION DEEM WISE AND
PROPER FOR THE COMFORT, SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE, AND/OR HAPPINESS OF MY
SAID WIFE, AND IT IS MY WISH AND WILL THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
DISCRETION WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH PAYMENTS FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF THE
TRUST FUND TO MY SAID WIFE, MAY L. FIELD, MY SAID TRUSTEE SHALL
EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION WITH LIBERALITY TO MY SAID WIFE, AND CONSIDER
HER WELFARE, COMFORT AND HAPPINESS PRIOR TO CLAIMS OF RESIDUARY
BENEFICIARIES UNDER THIS TRUST." 

IN 1937 THE TRUST REALIZED GAINS OF $100,900.31 FROM THE SALE OF
SECURITIES IN ITS PORTFOLIO. 

IN FILING ESTATE AND INCOME TAX RETURNS PETITIONER, WHICH WAS ALSO
MR. FIELD'S EXECUTOR, SOUGHT TO DEDUCT $128,276.94 FROM THE GROSS
ESTATE AND THE $100,900.31 FROM THE 1937 INCOME OF THE TRUST, ON THE
THEORY THAT THOSE SUMS CONSTITUTED PORTIONS OF A DONATION TO CHARITY
AND WERE THEREFORE DEDUCTIBLE RESPECTIVELY UNDER SEC. 303(A)(3) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926(44 STAT. 72)  FN2  AND SEC. 162(A) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1936(49 STAT. 1706).  FN3 

THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTIONS AND DETERMINED
DEFICIENCIES OF $26,290.93 IN ESTATE TAX AND $42,825.69 IN INCOME TAX
FOR 1937, BUT ON THE TAXPAYER'S PETITION FOR REVIEW THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS (NOW THE TAX COURT) UPHELD THE LATTER'S CONTENTIONS.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 132 F.2D 483, AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF
OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS  FN4  AND THIS COURT.  FN5  319 U.S. 734. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE REMAINDERMEN HERE WERE CHARITIES.  THE
CASE, AT LEAST UNDER SEC. 303(A)(3), TURNS ON WHETHER THE BEQUESTS TO
THE CHARITIES HAVE, AS OF THE TESTATOR'S DEATH, A "PRESENTLY
ASCERTAINABLE" VALUE OR, PUT ANOTHER WAY, ON WHETHER, AS OF THAT TIME,
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE WIDOW WOULD DIVERT THE CORPUS FROM THE
CHARITIES COULD BE MEASURED ACCURATELY. 

ALTHOUGH CONGRESS, IN PERMITTING ESTATE TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR CHARITABLE
BEQUESTS, USED THE LANGUAGE OF OUTRIGHT TRANSFER, IT APPARENTLY
ENVISAGED DEDUCTIONS IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONTINGENCIES, NOT
RESOLVED AT THE TESTATOR'S DEATH, CREATE THE POSSIBILITY THAT ONLY A
CALCULABLE PORTION OF THE BEQUEST MAY REACH ULTIMATELY ITS CHARITABLE
DESTINATION.  FN6  THE TREASURY HAS LONG ACCOMMODATED THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SECTION TO THE NARROW LEEWAY THUS ALLOWED TO
CHARITABLE DONORS WHO WISH TO COMBINE SOME PRIVATE BENEFACTION WITH
THEIR CHARITABLE GIFTS.  THE LIMIT OF PERMISSIBLE CONTINGENCIES HAS
BEEN BLOCKED OUT IN A MORE CONVENIENT ADMINISTRATIVE FORM IN TREASURY
REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDE THAT, WHERE A TRUST IS CREATED FOR BOTH
CHARITABLE AND PRIVATE PURPOSES THE CHARITABLE BEQUEST, TO BE
DEDUCTIBLE, MUST HAVE, AT THE TESTATOR'S DEATH, A VALUE "PRESENTLY
ASCERTAINABLE, AND HENCE SEVERABLE FROM THE INTEREST IN FAVOR OF THE
PRIVATE USE,"  FN7  AND FURTHER, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS A POWER IN
A PRIVATE DONEE OR TRUSTEE TO DIVERT THE PROPERTY FROM THE CHARITY,
"DEDUCTION WILL BE LIMITED TO THAT PORTION, IF ANY, OF THE PROPERTY OR
FUND WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM AN EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER."  FN8  THESE
REGULATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF SEC. 303(A)(3), AND,
HAVING BEEN IN EFFECT UNDER SUCCESSIVE REENACTMENTS OF THAT PROVISION,
DEFINE THE FRAMEWORK OF THE INQUIRY IN CASES OF THIS SORT.  CF.
HELVERING V. WINMILL, 305 U.S. 79; TAFT V. COMMISSIONER, 304 U.S. 351. 

WHATEVER MAY BE SAID WITH RESPECT TO COMPUTING THE PRESENT VALUE OF
THE BEQUEST OF THE TESTATOR WHO DILUTES HIS CHARITY ONLY TO THE EXTENT
OF FIRST AFFORDING SPECIFIC PRIVATE LEGATEES THE USUFRUCT OF HIS
PROPERTY FOR A FIXED PERIOD, A DIFFERENT PROBLEM IS PRESENTED BY THE
TESTATOR WHO, PREFERRING TO INSURE THE COMFORT AND HAPPINESS OF HIS
PRIVATE LEGATEES, HEDGES HIS PHILANTHROPY, AND PERMITS INVASION OF THE
CORPUS FOR THEIR BENEFIT.  AT THE VERY LEAST A POSSIBILITY THAT PART OF
THE PRINCIPAL WILL BE USED IS THEN CREATED, AND THE PRESENT VALUE OF
THE REMAINDER WHICH THE CHARITY WILL RECEIVE BECOMES LESS READILY
ASCERTAINABLE.  NOT INFREQUENTLY THE STANDARDS BY WHICH THE EXTENT OF
PERMISSIBLE DIVERSION OF CORPUS IS TO BE MEASURED EMBRACE FACTORS WHICH
CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR ACCURATELY BY RELIABLE STATISTICAL DATA AND
TECHNIQUES.  SINCE, THEREFORE, NEITHER THE AMOUNT WHICH THE PRIVATE
BENEFICIARY WILL USE NOR THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE GIFT CAN BE COMPUTED,
DEDUCTION IS NOT PERMITTED.  CF. HUMES V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 487. 

FOR A DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 303(A)(3) TO BE ALLOWED, CONGRESS AND THE
TREASURY REQUIRE THAT A HIGHLY RELIABLE APPRAISAL OF THE AMOUNT THE
CHARITY WILL RECEIVE BE AVAILABLE, AND MADE, AT THE DEATH OF THE
TESTATOR.  ROUGH GUESSES, APPROXIMATIONS, OR EVEN THE RELATIVELY
ACCURATE VALUATIONS ON WHICH THE MARKET PLACE MIGHT BE WILLING TO ACT
ARE NOT SUFFICIENT.  CF. HUMES V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 487, 494. 
ONLY WHERE THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH THE EXTENT OF INVASION OF THE CORPUS
DEPENDS ARE FIXED BY REFERENCE TO SOME READILY ASCERTAINABLE AND
RELIABLY PREDICTABLE FACTS DO THE AMOUNT WHICH WILL BE DIVERTED FROM
THE CHARITY AND THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE BEQUEST BECOME ADEQUATELY
MEASURABLE.  AND, IN THESE CASES, THE TAXPAYER HAS THE BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING THAT THE AMOUNTS WHICH WILL EITHER BE SPENT BY THE PRIVATE
BENEFICIARY OR REACH THE CHARITY ARE THUS ACCURATELY CALCULABLE.  CF.
BANK OF AMERICA ASSN. V. COMMISSIONER, 126 F.2D 48(C.C.A.). 

IN THIS CASE THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT SUSTAIN THAT BURDEN.  DECEDENT'S
WILL PERMITTED INVASION OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST FOR "THE COMFORT,
SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE AND/OR HAPPINESS OF MY WIFE."  IT ENJOINED THE
TRUSTEE TO BE LIBERAL IN THE MATTER, AND TO CONSIDER HER "WELFARE,
COMFORT AND HAPPINESS PRIOR TO THE CLAIMS OF RESIDUARY BENEFICIARIES,"
I.E., THE CHARITIES. 

UNDER THIS WILL THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PRINCIPAL MIGHT BE USED WAS
NOT RESTRICTED BY A FIXED STANDARD BASED ON THE WIDOW'S PRIOR WAY OF
LIFE.  COMPARE ITHACA TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 151.  HERE,
FOR EXAMPLE, HER "HAPPINESS" WAS AMONG THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY
THE TRUSTEE.  THE SUMS WHICH HER HAPPINESS MIGHT REQUIRE TO BE EXPENDED
ARE OF COURSE AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE TRUST INCOME WAS NOT
INSUBSTANTIAL AND THAT SHE WAS SIXTY-SEVEN YEARS OLD WITH SUBSTANTIAL
INDEPENDENT MEANS AND NO DEPENDENT CHILDREN.  FN9  AND THE LAWS OF
MASSACHUSETTS MAY RESTRICT THE EXERCISE OF THE TRUSTEE'S DISCRETION
SOMEWHAT MORE NARROWLY THAN A LIBERAL READING OF THE WILL WOULD
SUGGEST, ALTHOUGH THAT IS DOUBTFUL.  CF. DANA V. DANA, 185 MASS. 156,
70 N.E. 49, AND COMPARE SPARHAWK V. GOLDTHWAITE, 225 MASS. 414, 114
N.E. 718.  INDEED ONE MIGHT WELL "GUESS, OR GAMBLE  ...,  OR EVEN
INSURE AGAINST" THE PRINCIPAL BEING EXPENDED HERE.  CF. HUMES V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  BUT CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED A MORE RELIABLE MEASURE OF
POSSIBLE EXPENDITURES AND PRESENT VALUE THAN IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR
COMPUTING WHAT THE CHARITY WILL RECEIVE.  THE SALIENT FACT IS THAT THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE WIDOW COULD, AND MIGHT WISH TO HAVE THE FUNDS
SPENT DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO RELIABLE PREDICTION.  FN10  THIS IS NOT
A "STANDARD FIXED IN FACT AND CAPABLE OF BEING STATED IN DEFINITE TERMS
OF MONEY."  CF. ITHACA TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. INTRODUCING
THE ELEMENT OF THE WIDOW'S HAPPINESS AND INSTRUCTING THE TRUSTEE TO
EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION WITH LIBERALITY TO MAKE HER WISHES PRIOR TO THE
CLAIMS OF RESIDUARY BENEFICIARIES BROUGHT INTO THE CALCULATION ELEMENTS
OF SPECULATION TOO LARGE TO BE OVERCOME, NOTWITHSTANDING THE WIDOW'S
PREVIOUS MODE OF LIFE WAS MODEST AND HER OWN RESOURCES SUBSTANTIAL.  WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION FOR
ESTATE TAX PURPOSES. 

THE DEDUCTION FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES STANDS ON NO BETTER FOOTING. 
CONGRESS PERMITTED A DEDUCTION OF THAT PART OF GROSS INCOME "WHICH
PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE WILL  ...  IS DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR  ...
PERMANENTLY SET ASIDE" FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.  IN VIEW OF THE
EXPLICIT REQUIREMENT THAT THE INCOME BE PERMANENTLY SET ASIDE, THERE IS
CERTAINLY NO MORE OCCASION HERE THAN IN THE CASE OF THE ESTATE TAX TO
PERMIT DEDUCTION OF SUMS WHOSE ULTIMATE CHARITABLE DESTINATION IS SO
UNCERTAIN. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE $100,000 WAS TO REMAIN IN TRUST, THE INCOME TO GO IN EQUAL
SHARES TO HIS THREE ADOPTED CHILDREN AND A NIECE OF HIS WIFE, AND ON
THE DEATH OF THE LAST OF THESE BENEFICIARIES THE CORPUS WAS ALSO TO GO
TO THE NAMED CHARITIES. 

FN2  SECTION 303 PROVIDES: 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX THE VALUE OF THE NET ESTATE SHALL BE
DETERMINED - 

"(A)  IN THE CASE OF A RESIDENT, BY DEDUCTING FROM THE VALUE OF THE
GROSS ESTATE - 

     .         .         . .         . 

"(3)  THE AMOUNT OF ALL BEQUESTS, LEGACIES, DEVISES, OR TRANSFERS, TO
OR FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY STATE, TERRITORY, ANY
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FOR
EXCLUSIVELY PUBLIC PURPOSES, OR TO OR FOR THE USE OF ANY CORPORATION
ORGANIZED AND OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE,
SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES,  ..." 

FN3  SECTION 162 PROVIDES: 

"THE NET INCOME OF THE ESTATE OR TRUST SHALL BE COMPUTED IN THE SAME
MANNER AND ON THE SAME BASIS AS IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, EXCEPT
THAT - 

"(A)  THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION (IN LIEU OF THE DEDUCTION
FOR CHARITABLE, ETC., CONTRIBUTIONS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 23(O)) ANY
PART OF THE GROSS INCOME, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHICH PURSUANT TO THE
TERMS OF THE WILL OR DEED CREATING THE TRUST, IS DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR PAID OR PERMANENTLY SET ASIDE FOR THE PURPOSES AND IN THE MANNER
SPECIFIED IN SECTION 23(O), OR IS TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR RELIGIOUS,
CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.  ..." 

FN4  COMPARE THE DECISION BELOW WITH HARTFORD-CONNECTICUT TRUST CO.
V. EATON, 36 F.2D 710(C.C.A.2D); FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. SNEAD, 24 F.2D
186(C.C.A.5TH); LUCAS V. MERCANTILE TRUST CO., 43 F.2D 39(C.C.A.8TH);
COMMISSIONER V. BANK OF AMERICA ASSN., 133 F.2D 753(C.C.A.9TH);
COMMISSIONER V. F.G. BONFILS TRUST, 115 F.2D 788(C.C.A. 10TH). 

FN5  SEE ITHACA TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 151. 

FN6  E.G., THE NOT UNUSUAL CASE OF A BEQUEST OF INCOME FOR LIFE
INTERVENING BETWEEN THE TESTATOR AND THE CHARITY, REQUIRING
COMPUTATION, WITH THE AID OF RELIABLE ACTUARIAL TECHNIQUES AND DATA, OF
PRESENT VALUE FROM FUTURE WORTH.  COMPARE THE PROVISIONS FOR CHARITABLE
DEDUCTIONS IN THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1918 - SEC. 403(A)(3)(40 STAT. 1098);
1921 - SEC. 403(A)(3)(42 STAT. 279); 1924 - SEC. 303(A)(3)(43 STAT.
306); 1926 - SEC. 303(A)(3)(44 STAT. 72). 

FN7  TREASURY REGULATIONS 80(1934 ED.)  ART.  44. 

FN8  TREASURY REGULATIONS 80(1934 ED.)  ART.  47. 

FN9  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND THAT DECEDENT HAD ADOPTED THREE
CHILDREN - TWO GIRLS AND A BOY - BEFORE HIS MARRIAGE TO THE PRESENT
MRS. FIELD.  SHE NEVER ADOPTED THE CHILDREN.  THE TWO GIRLS WERE
MARRIED TO HUSBANDS FULLY ABLE TO SUPPORT THEM, AND THE BOY WAS NEARLY
TWENTY-ONE AT THE TESTATOR'S DEATH. 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER DECEDENT'S DEATH THE WIDOW OWNED INCOME-PRODUCING
PROPERTY WORTH ABOUT $104,000.  HER TOTAL INCOME FROM HER OWN PROPERTY
AND THE TRUST, AND THE AMOUNTS SHE HAS ACTUALLY EXPENDED HAVE BEEN AS
FOLLOWS: 

PERIOD                   INCOME    EXPENDITURES 

1936(7 MONTHS)................  $10,735.35       $1,853.99 

1937..........................   24,738.57       10,357.91 

1938..........................   17,480.85       11,055.91 

1939..........................   17,448.23       12,024.92 

1940..........................   16,959.66       13,389.31

          $87,362.66      $48,682.04 

FN10  E.G., THE BOARD FOUND THAT SINCE HER HUSBAND'S DEATH, MRS.
FIELD PURCHASED TWO AUTOMOBILES AND A FUR COAT, TOOK TWO PLEASURE
TRIPS, GAVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO A NIECE, HELPED SEND A GRAND NEPHEW
THROUGH MEDICAL SCHOOL, AND PURCHASED A FUR COAT FOR ONE OF HER
HUSBAND'S DAUGHTERS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURS,
DISSENTING: 

THE TAX COURT APPLIED THE CORRECT RULE OF LAW IN DETERMINING WHETHER
THE GIFTS TO CHARITY WERE SO UNCERTAIN AS TO DISALLOW THEIR DEDUCTION. 
THAT RULE IS THAT THE DEDUCTION MAY BE MADE IF ON THE FACTS PRESENTED
THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARITABLE GIFTS ARE AFFECTED BY "NO UNCERTAINTY
APPRECIABLY GREATER THAN THE GENERAL UNCERTAINTY THAT ATTENDS HUMAN
AFFAIRS."  ITHACA TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 151, 154.  IN
THAT EVENT THE STANDARD FIXED BY THE WILL IS "CAPABLE OF BEING STATED
IN DEFINITE TERMS OF MONEY."  ID., P. 154.  THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF
INVASION OF THE CORPUS IS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT THE DEDUCTION.  THE TAX
COURT APPLIED THAT TEST TO THESE FACTS.  45 B.T.A. 270, 273-274.  WHERE
ITS FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THEY ARE
CONCLUSIVE.  WE MAY MODIFY OR REVERSE SUCH A DECISION ONLY IF IT IS
"NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  44 STAT. 110, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
1141(C)(I).  SEE WILMINGTON TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 316 U.S. 164, 168. 
THE DISCRETION TO PAY TO THE WIFE SUCH PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS AS THE TRUSTEE
DEEMS PROPER FOR HER "HAPPINESS" INTRODUCES OF COURSE AN ELEMENT OF
UNCERTAINTY BEYOND THAT WHICH EXISTED IN THE ITHACA TRUST CO. CASE. 
THERE THE TRUSTEE ONLY HAD AUTHORITY TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PRINCIPAL AND
PAY TO THE WIFE A SUM "NECESSARY TO SUITABLY MAINTAIN HER IN AS MUCH
COMFORT AS SHE NOW ENJOYS."  BUT THE FRUGALITY AND CONSERVATISM OF THIS
NEW ENGLAND CORPORATE TRUSTEE, THE HABITS AND TEMPERAMENT OF THIS SIXTY
SEVEN YEAR OLD LADY, HER SCALE OF LIVING, THE NATURE OF THE INVESTMENTS
- THESE FACTS MIGHT WELL MAKE CERTAIN WHAT ON THE FACE OF THE WILL
MIGHT APPEAR QUITE UNCERTAIN.  WE SHOULD LET THAT FACTUAL DETERMINATION
OF THE TAX COURT STAND, EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD DECIDE DIFFERENTLY WERE WE
THE TRIERS OF FACT. 
..END :








U.S. EX REL. MCCANN V. ADAMS, 320 U.S. 220 


NO. 371.  DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1943.  - 136 F.2D 680, REVERSED. 


THE PETITION TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
ADEQUATELY RAISED THE ISSUE, NOT PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED, WHETHER, IN A
PROSECUTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH RESULTED IN A JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION, THE PETITIONER HAD INTELLIGENTLY - WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF
HIS RIGHTS AND CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THEM - WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND TO TRIAL BY JURY; AND, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM. 
P. 221. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN V. ADAMS, WARDEN, ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN
ORDER DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS PROCEEDING IS A SEQUEL TO ADAMS V. U.S. EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S.
269.  WE THERE REVERSED AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
SECOND CIRCUIT DISCHARGING THE PRESENT RELATOR FROM CUSTODY.  WE DID SO
BECAUSE WE HELD THAT, IF HIS WAIVER WAS THE EXERCISE OF AN INTELLIGENT
CHOICE MADE WITH THE CONSIDERED APPROVAL OF THE TRIAL COURT, HE COULD
AS A MATTER OF LAW WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WITHOUT BEING
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  AFTER THE CASE WENT BACK TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS ON MANDATE AND FURTHER STEPS NOT NECESSARY HERE TO RECOUNT
WERE TAKEN, THE RELATOR FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN
THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH, WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, ADEQUATELY RAISED
THE ISSUE WHETHER IN FACT HE INTELLIGENTLY - WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF HIS
RIGHTS AND CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THEM - WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND TO TRIAL BY JURY.  THAT ISSUE, AS APPEARS
FROM OUR FORMER OPINION, WAS EXPLICITLY WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION ON
THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  126 F.2D 774.  THAT ISSUE, NOW FAIRLY TENDERED BY THE
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS BELOW, HAS NEVER BEEN ADJUDICATED ON ITS
MERITS BY THE LOWER COURTS.  BUT IT IS NO LONGER WITHIN THE BOSOM OF
THE TRIAL COURT.  NOR CAN IT BE DISPOSED OF ON THE APPEAL OF HIS
CONVICTION, FOR THE CLAIM RESTS ON MATERIALS DEHORS THE TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS.  IT IS A CLAIM WHICH THE RELATOR SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
ESTABLISH, IF HE CAN.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS
PALPABLY UNMERITORIOUS, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT MORE. 
WE ARE COMPELLED THEREFORE TO ACCEDE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT TO A
REVERSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE
ORDER DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI ARE THEREFORE GRANTED AND THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  PETITIONER'S
APPLICATIONS FOR OTHER RELIEF ARE DENIED.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :


















HUNTER CO. V. MCHUGH, 320 U.S. 222 


NO. 25.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 19, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1943.  -
DISMISSED. 


1.  THE ONLY ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF CONSERVATION WHICH WAS
BEFORE THE STATE COURTS IN THIS CASE HAVING BEEN SUPERSEDED BY LATER
ORDERS, THE CAUSE HAS BECOME MOOT SO FAR AS IT IS CONCERNED WITH THE
ORIGINAL ORDER; AND THIS COURT, IN REVIEWING ON APPEAL THE JUDGMENT OF
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, IS NOT FREE TO, AND WILL NOT,
ADJUDICATE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LATER ORDERS, WHERE THE STATE
COURT HAS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO PASS UPON THEIR VALIDITY UNDER STATE
LAW OR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 226. 

2.  A STATE HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE PRODUCTION OF OIL
AND GAS SO AS TO PREVENT WASTE AND TO SECURE EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT
AMONG LANDHOLDERS OF THE MIGRATORY GAS AND OIL UNDERLYING THEIR LAND,
FAIRLY DISTRIBUTING AMONG THEM THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND OF THE
APPORTIONMENT.  P. 227. 

3.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, ACT NO. 157 OF THE LOUISIANA ACTS
OF 1940 CAN NOT BE HELD INVALID ON ITS FACE.  P. 228. 

HUNTER COMPANY, INC. V. MCHUGH, COMMISSIONER OF CONSERVATION, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT, 202 LA. 97, 11 SO.2D 495, WHICH, REVERSING A
DECISION OF A LOWER STATE COURT, SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY,
AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT, OF AN ORDER PROMULGATED BY THE STATE
COMMISSIONER OF CONSERVATION UNDER AUTHORITY OF A STATE STATUTE
PROVIDING FOR REGULATION OF THE PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS. 

PER CURIAM. 

APPELLANT IS THE LESSEE UNDER AN OIL AND GAS LEASE OF 190 ACRES IN
THE LOGANSPORT FIELD IN LOUISIANA.  UNDER PERMIT FROM THE STATE IT HAS
DRILLED A WELL ON THE LEASED AREA, WHICH WAS COMPLETED ABOUT JUNE 1,
1938, AND CAME INTO PRODUCTION IN DECEMBER, 1940.  TO ENABLE IT TO
REACH A MARKET FOR THE NATURAL GAS PRODUCED BY THIS WELL, APPELLANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED AND OWNS A PIPE LINE WHICH EXTENDS FROM ITS WELL TO THE
LINE OF THE UNITED GAS PIPE LINE COMPANY. 

"FOR THE PREVENTION OF WASTE AND TO AVOID THE DRILLING OF UNNECESSARY
WELLS," SEC. 8(B) OF ACT NO. 157 OF THE LOUISIANA ACTS OF 1940,
AUTHORIZES THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF CONSERVATION TO ESTABLISH DRILLING
UNITS FOR ANY OIL OR GAS POOL, EXCEPT "WHERE CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT
IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE OR UNREASONABLE TO USE A DRILLING UNIT AT THE
PRESENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT."  THE STATUTE DEFINES A DRILLING UNIT AS
"THE MAXIMUM AREA WHICH MAY BE EFFICIENTLY AND ECONOMICALLY DRAINED BY
ONE WELL." 

OWNED TRACTS THE OWNERS MAY AGREE TO POOL THEIR INTERESTS, BUT PROVIDES
THAT IN DEFAULT OF SUCH AGREEMENT "THE COMMISSIONER SHALL, IF FOUND BY
HIM TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE PREVENTION OF WASTE OR TO AVOID THE
DRILLING OF UNNECESSARY WELLS, REQUIRE SUCH OWNERS TO DO SO AND TO
DEVELOP THEIR LANDS AS A DRILLING UNIT"; SUCH ORDERS "SHALL BE MADE
AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, AND SHALL BE UPON TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH
ARE JUST AND REASONABLE, AND WILL AFFORD TO THE OWNER OF EACH TRACT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER OR RECEIVE HIS JUST AND EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE
OIL AND GAS IN THE POOL WITHOUT UNNECESSARY EXPENSE."  THE SECTION ALSO
PROVIDES:  "THE PORTION OF THE PRODUCTION ALLOCATED TO THE OWNER OF
EACH TRACT INCLUDED IN A DRILLING UNIT FORMED BY A POOLING ORDER SHALL,
WHEN PRODUCED, BE CONSIDERED AS IF IT HAD BEEN PRODUCED FROM SUCH TRACT
BY A WELL DRILLED THEREON.  IN THE EVENT SUCH POOLING IS REQUIRED, THE
COST OF DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE POOLED UNIT CHARGEABLE BY THE
OPERATOR TO THE OTHER INTERESTED OWNER OR OWNERS SHALL BE LIMITED TO
THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REQUIRED FOR SUCH PURPOSE, NOT IN EXCESS OF
WHAT ARE REASONABLE, INCLUDING A REASONABLE CHARGE FOR SUPERVISION.  IN
THE EVENT OF ANY DISPUTE RELATIVE TO SUCH COSTS, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL
DETERMINE THE PROPER COSTS, AFTER DUE NOTICE TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES
AND HEARING THEREON." 

PROCEEDING UNDER ACT NO. 157, THE COMMISSIONER, AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING, ON OCTOBER 16, 1941, PROMULGATED ORDER NO. 28-B, WHICH
DESIGNATED DRILLING UNITS OF 320 ACRES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF GAS FROM
THE LOGANSPORT FIELD, ALLOWED THE DRILLING OF ONLY ONE WELL ON EACH
SUCH UNIT, REQUIRED THE OPERATOR OF A WELL DRILLED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ORDER TO DESIGNATE HIS DRILLING AREA, REQUIRED HIM TO
ACCOUNT TO EACH OWNER OR LESSEE OF LAND WITHIN THE UNIT FOR THE OIL AND
GAS PRODUCED, AND PROVIDED FOR A BI-MONTHLY DETERMINATION BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWABLE GAS PRODUCTION FOR EACH
UNIT.  THE ORDER ALSO AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSIONER, UPON A SHOWING BY
ANY OPERATOR THAT ANY PART OF THE ORDER AS APPLIED TO HIS WELL "WILL
RESULT IN WASTE, OR AS TO SUCH OPERATOR IS UNREASONABLE" TO MAKE AN
EXCEPTION TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ORDER, PROVIDED THAT SUCH EXCEPTION
"WILL NOT RESULT IN WASTE IN THE FIELD AS A WHOLE" OR GIVE THE OPERATOR
AN "INEQUITABLE AND UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER ANOTHER OPERATOR OR OTHER
OPERATORS IN THE FIELD." 

LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE PROMULGATION OF THIS ORDER, NO
APPLICATION HAVING BEEN MADE BY AN ADJACENT LANDOWNER TO REQUIRE
POOLING, APPELLANT, WITHOUT HAVING DESIGNATED A DRILLING UNIT OR MADE
APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO THE ORDER,
BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE LOUISIANA CIVIL DISTRICT COURT TO
ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ACT NO. 157 AND OF ORDER NO. 28-B OR ANY
SIMILAR ORDER.  BY ITS BILL OF COMPLAINT APPELLANT ASSERTED THAT THE
ORDER WAS INVALID UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, AND VIOLATED
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN THAT IT MADE NO PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT
TO APPELLANT OF THE REASONABLE VALUE OF ITS LEASE AND FOR REIMBURSING
IT FOR THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAS, INCLUDING THE COST OF
DRILLING ITS WELL AND LAYING ITS PIPE LINE. 

THE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT HELD ACT NO. 157 AND ORDER NO. 28-B AS
APPLIED TO APPELLANT TO BE NULL AND VOID AND ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF
THE ACT AND ORDER OR ANY SIMILAR ORDER AGAINST APPELLANT.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF LOUISIANA, 202 LA. 97, 11 SO.2D 495, SET THIS JUDGMENT ASIDE
AND ORDERED THE COMPLAINT DISMISSED.  IT HELD THAT THE ORDER WAS A
VALID EXERCISE OF STATE POWER TO PREVENT FUTURE WASTE OF A NATURAL
RESOURCE OF THE STATE AND THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9(A) OF THE
ACT AND OF THE ORDER APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO RETAIN ITS PROPORTIONATE
SHARE OF THE GAS, AND TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ALL THE
GAS FOR THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE COST OF DRILLING AND OPERATION
CHANGEABLE TO THE OTHER LANDOWNERS IN THE DRILLING UNIT. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), APPELLANT ASSIGNING AS ERROR THAT THE ACT AND
ORDER DEPRIVE IT OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY COMPELLING
IT TO COMBINE ITS LEASEHOLD WITH THE LAND OF OTHERS WITHIN THE DRILLING
UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAS PRODUCTION AND TO SHARE WITH THEM ITS PIPE
LINE AND OTHER FACILITIES FOR THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF GAS, FOR
WHICH NO COMPENSATION IS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OR ORDER. 

AFTER THE APPEAL WAS DOCKETED IN THIS COURT APPELLEE SOUTHERN
PRODUCTS CO., WHICH HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE STATE COURTS,
MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AS MOOT BY REASON OF THE PROMULGATION BY
THE COMMISSIONER OF NEW ORDERS NO. 28-C AND NO. 28-C-10, WHICH OPERATED
TO SUPERSEDE ORDER NO. 28-B SO FAR AS APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT'S
LEASEHOLD.  ORDER NO. 28-C PRESCRIBED ENLARGED DRILLING UNITS
COMPRISING 640 ACRES FOR THE LOGANSPORT FIELD.  IT MADE OTHER
PROVISIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL FOR THE REGULATION OF PRODUCTION APPLICABLE
TO THE PRESCRIBED UNITS.  A LATER ORDER, NO. 28-C-10, DESIGNATED
APPELLANT AS THE OPERATOR OF A UNIT AND DIRECTED THAT IT SHOULD BE
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE AND RETAIN ALL PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF
THE PRODUCT OF THE WELL AFTER DEDUCTION OF ROYALTIES AND COSTS OF
PRODUCTION UNTIL IT SHOULD HAVE RECOVERED THE COSTS OF DRILLING AND
EQUIPPING THE WELL AND LAYING AND OPERATING THE PIPE LINE, AND THAT THE
BALANCE OF THE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE LANDHOLDERS
WITHIN THE UNIT, INCLUDING APPELLANT, IN PROPORTION TO THEIR ACREAGE
WITHIN THE UNIT. 

ORDER NO. 28-C WAS PROMULGATED ON FEBRUARY 10, 1942, BEFORE THE
JUDGMENTS OF BOTH THE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT ON FEBRUARY 26, 1942 AND THE
LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT ON NOVEMBER 30, 1942.  ALTHOUGH NO REASON
APPEARS WHY ITS INVALIDITY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN URGED BEFORE THOSE
COURTS, THE ORDER IS NOT IN THE RECORD AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED BY EITHER STATE COURT.  ORDER NO. 28-C-10 WAS PROMULGATED ON
FEBRUARY 25, 1943, AFTER THE DECISION AND JUDGMENT OF THE LOUISIANA
SUPREME COURT.  THE ONLY ORDER BEFORE THE STATE COURTS WAS NO. 28-B, TO
WHICH ALONE THEIR DECISIONS RELATE AND TO WHICH ALONE APPELLANT'S
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IN THIS COURT ARE DIRECTED.  ITS OPERATION HAS
BEEN SUPERSEDED BY ORDERS NO. 28-C AND NO. 28-C-10, UNDER WHICH IT
APPEARS THAT BOTH THE COMMISSIONER AND APPELLANT ARE NOW PROCEEDING AS
CONTROLLING THE OPERATION OF APPELLANT'S WELL, AND THOSE ORDERS WERE
NOT BEFORE THE STATE COURTS OR CONSIDERED BY THEM. 

THE CAUSE HAS THUS BECOME MOOT SO FAR AS IT IS CONCERNED WITH ORDER
NO. 28-B AND THIS COURT, IN REVIEWING ON APPEAL THE JUDGMENT OF THE
STATE SUPREME COURT IS NOT FREE TO, AND WILL NOT ADJUDICATE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ORDERS NO. 28-C AND NO. 28-C-10 WHERE THE STATE
COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT IS UNDER REVIEW HAS HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO PASS
UPON THEIR VALIDITY UNDER STATE LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  SEE MCGOLDRICK V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE, 309 U.S. 430, 433 ET
SEQ. 

A MINORITY OF THE COURT ARE OF OPINION THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
THERE IS NO OUTSTANDING ORDER WHICH THIS COURT CAN REVIEW AND THAT THE
APPEAL SHOULD FOR THAT REASON ALONE BE DISMISSED. 

IN THE PRESENT POSTURE OF THE RECORD, SO FAR AS THE APPEAL SEEKS TO
BRING BEFORE US FOR REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT SUSTAINING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE, THE RECORD PRESENTS NO
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  WE HAVE HELD THAT A STATE HAS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS SO AS TO
PREVENT WASTE AND TO SECURE EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT AMONG LANDHOLDERS
OF THE MIGRATORY GAS AND OIL UNDERLYING THEIR LAND, FAIRLY DISTRIBUTING
AMONG THEM THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND OF THE APPORTIONMENT.  LINDSLEY
V. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61, 77; BANDINI PETROLEUM CO. V.
SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8, 22; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. CORPORATION
COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, 232-4; THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CORP.,
300 U.S. 55, 76-7; PATTERSON V. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO., 305 U.S. 376,
379, AND CASES CITED.  ON THIS APPEAL, ABSENT FROM THE RECORD ANY
OPERATIVE ORDER IMPLEMENTING ACT NO. 157, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
APPLICATION OF THE ACT CAN BE ENJOINED AS INVALID ON ITS FACE, FOR WE
CANNOT SAY THAT NO ORDER COULD BE MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER WHICH WOULD
APPORTION THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTE THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND OF
THE APPORTIONMENT IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD BE CONSONANT BOTH WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, COMPARE
PATTERSON V. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO., SUPRA, WITH THOMPSON V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS CORP., SUPRA.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY PARTICULAR APPORTIONMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF
COSTS WHEN WE HAVE BEFORE US THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF AN ORDER
DIRECTING THEM WHICH HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO THE SCRUTINY OF THE STATE
COURT.  SEE BANDINI PETROLEUM CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, SUPRA. 

THE APPEAL WILL BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A PROPERLY PRESENTED
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :







MEREDITH V. WINTER HAVEN, 320 U.S. 228 


NO. 42.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1943.  - 134
F.2D 202, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A FEDERAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF A CASE, THOUGH SOLELY BY
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE DIFFICULTIES OF ASCERTAINING WHAT THE
STATE COURTS MAY THEREAFTER DETERMINE THE STATE LAW TO BE DO NOT IN
THEMSELVES AFFORD A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR DECLINING TO EXERCISE THE
JURISDICTION.  P. 234. 

SO HELD IN RESPECT OF A SUIT INSTITUTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
IN FLORIDA, THE DECISION OF WHICH WAS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE EXTENT
OF THE LIABILITY OF A FLORIDA MUNICIPALITY UPON ITS REFUNDING BONDS. 

2.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME RECOGNIZED PUBLIC POLICY OR DEFINED
PRINCIPLE GUIDING THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED, WHICH
WOULD IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WARRANT ITS NON-EXERCISE, IT HAS FROM THE
FIRST BEEN DEEMED TO BE THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, IF THEIR
JURISDICTION IS PROPERLY INVOKED, TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW
WHENEVER NECESSARY TO THE RENDITION OF JUDGMENT.  WHEN SUCH EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT PRESENT, DENIAL OF THAT OPPORTUNITY BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS, MERELY BECAUSE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OF STATE
LAW ARE DIFFICULT OR UNCERTAIN OR HAVE NOT YET BEEN GIVEN BY THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, WOULD THWART THE PURPOSE OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL ACT.  P. 234. 

MEREDITH ET AL. V. WINTER HAVEN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 736, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, IN A SUIT BASED
ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, DIRECTED DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO PROCEED IN THE STATE COURT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS SOUGHT A JUDGMENT GRANTING EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE
DISTRICT COURT BELOW, WHOSE JURISDICTION RESTED SOLELY ON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ON
APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, RIGHTLY DECLINED TO
EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT DECISION OF THE CASE ON
THE MERITS TURNED ON QUESTIONS OF FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
LAW WHICH THE DECISIONS OF THE FLORIDA COURTS HAD LEFT IN A STATE OF
UNCERTAINTY. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN
FLORIDA, ALLEGING BY THEIR BILL OF COMPLAINT THAT THEY ARE OWNERS AND
HOLDERS OF GENERAL REFUNDING BONDS ISSUED IN 1933 BY RESPONDENT, THE
CITY OF WINTER HAVEN, FLORIDA; THAT BY THEIR TERMS THE BONDS ARE
CALLABLE BY THE CITY ON ANY INTEREST DATE ON TENDER OF THEIR PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT AND ACCRUED INTEREST, INCLUDING A SPECIFIED AMOUNT (DEPENDING ON
THE DATE OF CALL) OF THE INTEREST PAYABLE UPON THE DEFERRED-INTEREST
COUPONS ATTACHED TO THE BONDS; THAT THE CITY IS ABOUT TO CALL AND
RETIRE THE BONDS WITHOUT PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF THE DEFERRED-INTEREST
COUPONS.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT PRAYED A DECLARATION THAT THIS COULD
NOT LAWFULLY BE DONE AND AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE CITY FROM DOING
IT. 

IN THE EVENT THAT THE COURT SHOULD DETERMINE THAT THE OBLIGATION OF
THE DEFERRED-INTEREST COUPONS IS UNENFORCEABLE, THEN IT WAS PRAYED THAT
THE COURT DECLARE THAT PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE
OBLIGATION FOR PAYMENT, PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
ORIGINAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY WHICH WAS REFUNDED BY THE
GENERAL REFUNDING BONDS NOW HELD BY PETITIONERS, AND THAT THE COURT
ENJOIN THE CITY AND ITS OFFICIALS, RESPONDENTS HERE, FROM FAILING OR
REFUSING TO PAY THE INTEREST DUE ON SUCH REFUNDED BONDS, AS PROVIDED BY
THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE AND SALE
OF THE GENERAL REFUNDING BONDS IN 1933. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND
THAT THE QUESTIONS OF LAW INVOLVED HAD BEEN DETERMINED ADVERSELY TO
PETITIONERS BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.  THE COURT OF APPEALS,
WITHOUT PASSING ON THE MERITS, REVERSED AND DIRECTED THAT THE CAUSE BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO PROCEED IN THE
STATE COURTS TO SECURE A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW
INVOLVED.  134 F.2D 202. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AGREED WITH PETITIONERS THAT THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT PRESENTED A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY REQUIRING DETERMINATION,
THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT DECLARING THE LAW OF FLORIDA WITH
RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE DEFERRED-INTEREST COUPONS, AND THAT IF
PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS WERE SUSTAINED THEY WERE ENTITLED TO A
DECLARATION IN THEIR FAVOR AND AN INJUNCTION IMPLEMENTING THE
DECLARATION.  BUT UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE FLORIDA DECISIONS THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE APPLICABLE LAW OF FLORIDA WAS NOT CLEARLY
SETTLED AND STABLE, BUT WAS QUITE THE CONTRARY, CITING SULLIVAN V.
TAMPA, 101 FLA. 298, 134 SO. 211; COLUMBIA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V.
KING, 13 FLA. 451; STATE EX REL. NUVEEN V. GREER, 88 FLA. 249, 102 SO.
739; HUMPHREYS V. STATE EX REL. PALM BEACH CO., 108 FLA. 92, 145 SO.
858; ALTA-CLIFF CO. V. SPURWAY, 113 FLA. 633, 152 SO. 731; LEE V. BOND
HOWELL LUMBER CO., 123 FLA. 202, 166 SO. 733; AND ANDREWS V. WINTER
HAVEN, 148 FLA. 144, 3 SO.2D 805.  IT EXPRESSED DOUBT AS TO WHAT THE
FLORIDA LAW, APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS PRESENTED, NOW IS OR WILL BE
DECLARED TO BE, AND IN VIEW OF THIS UNCERTAINTY, SINCE NO FEDERAL
QUESTION WAS PRESENTED AND THE JURISDICTION WAS INVOKED SOLELY ON
GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, IT THOUGHT THAT PETITIONERS SHOULD
BE REQUIRED TO PROCEED IN THE STATE COURTS. 

ALTHOUGH THE OPINION BELOW REFERS TO THE SUIT AS ONE FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS PRAYED, AS IS USUALLY
THE CASE IN SUITS FOR AN INJUNCTION, IS AN INDISPENSABLE PREREQUISITE
TO THE AWARD OF ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE FORMS OF EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH
PETITIONERS SEEK IN THE ALTERNATIVE.  HENCE, SO FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED
WITH THE NECESSITY AND PROPRIETY OF A DETERMINATION BY A FEDERAL COURT
OF QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW, THE CASE DOES NOT DIFFER FROM AN ORDINARY
EQUITY SUIT IN WHICH, BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64, FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN CALLED UPON TO DECIDE STATE
QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO RENDER A JUDGMENT. 

THE FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT AND THE
MOTION TO DISMISS RAISE TWO ISSUES OF STATE LAW, ONE AND POSSIBLY BOTH
OF WHICH MUST BE DECIDED IF PETITIONERS ARE TO HAVE THE BENEFIT WHICH
THEY SEEK OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON DISTRICT COURTS IN DIVERSITY
CASES.  THE FIRST QUESTION ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT THE REFUNDING
BONDS OF 1933 WERE ISSUED WITHOUT A REFERENDUM TO THE FREEHOLD VOTERS
OF THE CITY.  ARTICLE IX, SEC. 6 OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES
THAT MUNICIPALITIES "SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE BONDS ONLY AFTER THE
SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN AN
ELECTION," IN WHICH A MAJORITY OF THE FREEHOLDERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY
SHALL PARTICIPATE, BUT DISPENSES WITH THIS REQUIREMENT IN THE CASE OF
"REFUNDING" BONDS.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, UNDER THE APPLICABLE
DECISIONS OF THE FLORIDA COURTS, THE PROVISION FOR DEFERRED-INTEREST
COUPONS COULD RIGHTLY BE INCLUDED IN THE OBLIGATION OF THE REFUNDING
BONDS OF 1933 WITHOUT A REFERENDUM.  IF IT BE DECIDED THAT THE
PROVISION COULD NOT BE INCLUDED AND THAT THE COUPONS ARE INVALID, THE
SECOND QUESTION IS WHETHER PETITIONERS, AS HOLDERS OF REFUNDING BONDS,
ARE ENTITLED, UNDER SEC. 20 OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS
AUTHORIZING THE REFUNDING BOND ISSUE,  FN1  TO RECOVER THE PRINCIPAL
AND INTEREST OF AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF THE BONDS REFUNDED.  THIS
QUESTION, UNLIKE THE FIRST, SO FAR AS APPEARS, HAS NOT BEEN PASSED UPON
BY THE FLORIDA COURTS. 

SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HAVE DECLARED THAT
WHERE BONDS TO BE REFUNDED CONTAIN NO PROVISION FOR DEFERRED-INTEREST
COUPONS, REFUNDING BONDS CONTAINING SUCH COUPONS WOULD IMPOSE "NEW AND
ADDITIONAL OR MORE BURDENSOME TERMS" (OUTMAN V. CONE, 141 FLA. 196,
199, 192 SO. 611, 613) WHICH MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN REFUNDING BONDS
UNLESS THEY ARE APPROVED BY REFERENDUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE IX,
SEC. 6.  OUTMAN V. CONE, SUPRA; TAYLOR V. WILLIAMS, 142 FLA. 402, 195
SO. 175; ANDREWS V. WINTER HAVEN, SUPRA. 

AS APPEARS FROM THE AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT, AFTER THE PRESENT SUIT
WAS BEGUN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DECIDED THE CASE OF ANDREWS V.
WINTER HAVEN, SUPRA.  THIS CASE INVOLVED THE SAME ISSUE OF REFUNDING
BONDS AS IS HERE IN QUESTION.  THE FLORIDA COURT HELD THAT THE DEFERRED
INTEREST COUPONS ARE INVALID; THAT THE PURPORTED OBLIGATION OF THE
INVALID COUPONS IS SEVERABLE FROM THE OBLIGATIONS TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL
OF THE BONDS AND CURRENT INTEREST ON THE OTHER COUPONS, WHICH
OBLIGATIONS ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; AND THAT THE BONDS ARE SUBJECT
TO CALL UPON TENDER OF THE STIPULATED PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST WITHOUT
INCLUDING ANY AMOUNT PURPORTING TO BE PAYABLE ON THE DEFERRED-INTEREST
COUPONS. 

IT IS THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS THAT THE ANDREWS CASE IS NOT
CONTROLLING BECAUSE IT, AS WELL AS OUTMAN V. CONE, SUPRA, AND TAYLOR V.
WILLIAMS, SUPRA, WHICH IT CITED AND FOLLOWED, IS INCONSISTENT WITH
EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ANTEDATING THE
REFUNDING BONDS OF 1933, PARTICULARLY SULLIVAN V. TAMPA, SUPRA; STATE
V. MIAMI, 103 FLA. 54, 137 SO. 261; STATE V. SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL
DISTRICT, 107 FLA. 93, 144 SO. 356; BAY COUNTY V. STATE, 116 FLA. 656,
157 SO. 1; STATE V. CITRUS COUNTY, 116 FLA. 676, 157 SO. 4; STATE V.
SARASOTA COUNTY, 118 FLA. 629, 159 SO. 797.  PETITIONERS ALSO INSIST
THAT, IN DECIDING THE ANDREWS CASE, THE ATTENTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF FLORIDA WAS NOT DIRECTED TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH IT HAD EARLIER
ANNOUNCED IN COLUMBIA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. KING, SUPRA, AND IN STATE
EX REL. NUVEEN V. GREER, SUPRA, THAT BY THE LAW OF FLORIDA A CONTRACT
IS GOVERNED BY THE LAWS DECLARED AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS MADE, AND
THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE COURT DID NOT APPLY THE DOCTRINE.  AND FINALLY IT
IS SAID THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE OUTMAN AND ANDREWS CASES AS PRECEDENTS
IS IMPAIRED BY THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH THEY APPEAR ON THE RECORD TO BE
ADVERSARY LITIGATIONS THEY WERE NOT IN FACT VIGOROUSLY CONTESTED. 

WHILE THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN THE ANDREWS CASE
MUST BE TAKEN AS CONTROLLING HERE UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID WITH SOME
ASSURANCE THAT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM IN THE
FUTURE, SEE WICHITA ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 306 U.S. 103,
107; FIDELITY TRUST CO. V. FIELD, 311 U.S. 169, 177-178; WEST V.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., 311 U.S. 223, 236, WE ASSUME, AS
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS INDICATED, THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
MAY MODIFY OR EVEN SET THEM ASIDE IN FUTURE DECISIONS.  BUT WE ARE OF
OPINION THAT THE DIFFICULTIES OF ASCERTAINING WHAT THE STATE COURTS MAY
HEREAFTER DETERMINE THE STATE LAW TO BE DO NOT IN THEMSELVES AFFORD A
SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR A FEDERAL COURT TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS
JURISDICTION TO DECIDE A CASE WHICH IS PROPERLY BROUGHT TO IT FOR
DECISION. 

THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WAS NOT CONFERRED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS OR TO SERVE THEIR CONVENIENCE.  ITS PURPOSE WAS
GENERALLY TO AFFORD TO SUITORS AN OPPORTUNITY IN SUCH CASES, AT THEIR
OPTION, TO ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL RATHER THAN IN THE STATE
COURTS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME RECOGNIZED PUBLIC POLICY OR DEFINED
PRINCIPLE GUIDING THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED, WHICH
WOULD IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WARRANT ITS NON-EXERCISE, IT HAS FROM THE
FIRST BEEN DEEMED TO BE THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, IF THEIR
JURISDICTION IS PROPERLY INVOKED, TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW
WHENEVER NECESSARY TO THE RENDITION OF A JUDGMENT.  COMMONWEALTH TRUST
CO. V. BRADFORD, 297 U.S. 613, 618; RISTY V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY.
CO., 270 U.S. 378, 387; KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226,
234-235; MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268, 281-282.  WHEN SUCH
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT PRESENT, DENIAL OF THAT OPPORTUNITY
BY THE FEDERAL COURTS MERELY BECAUSE THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OF
STATE LAW ARE DIFFICULT OR UNCERTAIN OR HAVE NOT YET BEEN GIVEN BY THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, WOULD THWART THE PURPOSE OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL ACT. 

THE EXCEPTIONS RELATE TO THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF COURTS OF
EQUITY.  AN APPEAL TO THE EQUITY JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS IS AN APPEAL TO THE SOUND DISCRETION WHICH GUIDES THE
DETERMINATIONS OF COURTS OF EQUITY.  BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO.,
312 U.S. 45, 50.  EXERCISE OF THAT DISCRETION BY THOSE, AS WELL AS BY
OTHER COURTS HAVING EQUITY POWERS, MAY REQUIRE THEM TO WITHHOLD THEIR
RELIEF IN FURTHERANCE OF A RECOGNIZED, DEFINED PUBLIC POLICY.  DI
GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN INSURANCE ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 73, AND CASES CITED. 
IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT A FEDERAL COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE
CAUSE MAY DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH STATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS EXCEPT
WHEN MOVED BY MOST URGENT CONSIDERATIONS, SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE,
295 U.S. 89, 95; BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA, 49-51; DOUGLAS
V. JEANNETTE, 319 U.S. 157; OR WITH THE COLLECTION OF STATE TAXES OR
WITH THE FISCAL AFFAIRS OF THE STATE, MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S.
521; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 284 U.S. 530; GREAT
LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293; OR WITH THE STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION OF PRESCRIBING THE LOCAL RATES OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES, CENTRAL KENTUCKY GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 290 U.S.
264, 271 ET SEQ. AND CASES CITED; OR TO INTERFERE, BY APPOINTING A
RECEIVER, WITH THE LIQUIDATION OF AN INSOLVENT STATE BANK BY A STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, WHERE THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE INTERESTS
OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WILL NOT BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED,
PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176; GORDON V. OMINSKY, 294 U.S.
186; GORDON V. WASHINGTON, 295 U.S. 30; CF. KELLEAM V. MARYLAND
CASUALTY CO., 312 U.S. 377, 381.  SIMILARLY IT MAY REFUSE TO APPRAISE
OR SHAPE DOMESTIC POLICY OF THE STATE GOVERNING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 311 U.S.
570; BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315.  AND IT MAY OF COURSE
DECLINE TO EXERCISE THE EQUITY JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON IT AS A
FEDERAL COURT WHEN THE PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION. 
CAVANAUGH V. LOONEY, 248 U.S. 453; GILCHRIST V. INTERBOROUGH RAPID
TRANSIT CO., 279 U.S. 159.  SO TOO A FEDERAL COURT, ADHERING TO THE
SALUTARY POLICY OF REFRAINING FROM THE UNNECESSARY DECISION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, MAY STAY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT, TO ENABLE THE
PARTIES TO LITIGATE FIRST IN THE STATE COURTS QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW,
DECISION OF WHICH IS PRELIMINARY TO, AND MAY RENDER UNNECESSARY,
DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496; CF. THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA
PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478.  IT IS THE COURT'S DUTY TO DO SO WHEN A
SUIT IS PENDING IN THE STATE COURTS, WHERE THE STATE QUESTIONS CAN BE
CONVENIENTLY AND AUTHORITATIVELY ANSWERED, AT LEAST WHERE THE PARTIES
TO THE FEDERAL COURT ACTION ARE NOT STRANGERS TO THE STATE ACTION. 
CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES, 316 U.S. 168.  IN THUS DECLINING TO
EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE RIGHTS ARISING UNDER STATE LAWS,
FEDERAL COURTS ARE FOLLOWING THE SAME PRINCIPLES WHICH TRADITIONALLY
HAVE MOVED THEM, BECAUSE OF LIKE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY, TO REFUSE TO
GIVE AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY FOR THE PROTECTION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS. 
UNITED STATES EX REL. GREATHOUSE V. DERN, 289 U.S. 352, 359-361; SEE
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 551-552 AND CASES
CITED; CF. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N V. UNITED STATES REALTY CO.,
310 U.S. 434, 455 ET SEQ. 

BUT NONE OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, NOR ANY SIMILAR ONE, IS PRESENT
HERE.  CONGRESS HAVING ADOPTED THE POLICY OF OPENING THE FEDERAL COURTS
TO SUITORS IN ALL DIVERSITY CASES INVOLVING THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT,
WE CAN DISCERN IN ITS ACTION NO RECOGNITION OF A POLICY WHICH WOULD
EXCLUDE CASES FROM THE JURISDICTION MERELY BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE STATE
LAW OR BECAUSE THE LAW IS UNCERTAIN OR DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE.  THE
DECISION OF THIS CASE IS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE EXTENT OF THE
LIABILITY OF THE CITY ON ITS REFUNDING BONDS.  DECISION HERE DOES NOT
REQUIRE THE FEDERAL COURT TO DETERMINE OR SHAPE STATE POLICY GOVERNING
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  IT ENTAILS NO INTERFERENCE WITH SUCH AGENCIES
OR WITH THE STATE COURTS.  NO LITIGATION IS PENDING IN THE STATE COURTS
IN WHICH THE QUESTIONS HERE PRESENTED COULD BE DECIDED.  WE ARE POINTED
TO NO PUBLIC POLICY OR INTEREST WHICH WOULD BE SERVED BY WITHHOLDING
FROM PETITIONERS THE BENEFIT OF THE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS
CREATED WITH THE PURPOSE THAT IT SHOULD BE AVAILED OF AND EXERCISED
SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS TRADITIONALLY JUSTIFY COURTS IN
DECLINING TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION WHICH THEY POSSESS.  TO REMIT
THE PARTIES TO THE STATE COURTS IS TO DELAY FURTHER THE DISPOSITION OF
THE LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN PENDING FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND WHICH
IS NOW READY FOR DECISION.  IT IS TO PENALIZE PETITIONERS FOR RESORTING
TO A JURISDICTION WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED TO INVOKE, IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD WARRANT A REFUSAL TO EXERCISE
IT. 

ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, DID NOT FREE THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM
THE DUTY OF DECIDING QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW IN DIVERSITY CASES. 
INSTEAD IT PLACED ON THEM A GREATER RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING AND
APPLYING STATE LAWS IN ALL CASES WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION IN WHICH
FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT GOVERN.  ACCEPTING THIS RESPONSIBILITY, AS WAS ITS
DUTY, THIS COURT HAS NOT HESITATED TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW
WHEN NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSITION OF A CASE BROUGHT TO IT FOR
DECISION, ALTHOUGH THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAD NOT ANSWERED
THEM, THE ANSWERS WERE DIFFICULT, AND THE CHARACTER OF THE ANSWERS
WHICH THE HIGHEST STATE COURTS MIGHT ULTIMATELY GIVE REMAINED
UNCERTAIN.  WICHITA ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA; WEST V.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., SUPRA, 236-237; FIDELITY TRUST CO.
V. FIELD, SUPRA, 177-180; SIX COMPANIES V. JOINT HIGHWAY DISTRICT, 311
U.S. 180, 188; STONER V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 311 U.S. 464; PALMER
V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109, 116-118.  EVEN THOUGH OUR DECISIONS COULD NOT
FINALLY SETTLE THE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW INVOLVED, THEY DID ADJUDICATE
THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES WITH THE AID OF SUCH LIGHT AS WAS AFFORDED BY
THE MATERIALS FOR DECISION AT HAND, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES FOR DETERMINING STATE LAW.  IN THIS CASE, AS IN
THOSE, IT BEING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL COURTS
BY CONGRESS, WE THINK THE PLAINTIFFS, PETITIONERS HERE, WERE ENTITLED
TO HAVE SUCH AN ADJUDICATION. 

THE JUDGMENT WILL BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SECTION 20.  THAT IF ANY CLAUSE, SECTION, PARAGRAPH OR
PROVISION OF THIS RESOLUTION OR OF THE GENERAL REFUNDING BONDS HEREBY
AUTHORIZED BE DECLARED UNENFORCIBLE BY ANY COURT OF FINAL JURISDICTION,
IT SHALL NOT AFFECT OR INVALIDATE ANY REMAINDER THEREOF, AND IF ANY OF
THE BONDS HEREBY AUTHORIZED BE ADJUDGED ILLEGAL OR UNENFORCIBLE IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, THE HOLDERS THEREOF SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ASSUME THE
POSITION OF HOLDERS OF A LIKE AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS HEREBY
PROVIDED TO BE REFUNDED AND AS SUCH ENFORCE THEIR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 134 F.2D 202. 
..END :















BELL V. PREFERRED LIFE SOCIETY, 320 U.S. 238 


NO. 17.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 13, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1943.  -
131 F.2D 516, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE BOTH ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE RECOVERABLE UNDER A
COMPLAINT INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON
THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, EACH MUST BE CONSIDERED TO THE
EXTENT CLAIMED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IS
INVOLVED.  P. 240. 

2.  A COMPLAINT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, INVOKING JURISDICTION ON
THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, ALLEGED THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD
BEEN INDUCED TO PURCHASE A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE THROUGH FRAUDULENT
MISREPRESENTATIONS BY THE DEFENDANTS' AGENT AS TO THE VALUE, AND
CLAIMED $200,000 AS ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES.  THE RECORD SHOWED
THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD PAID $202.35 ON THE CERTIFICATE, WHICH HAD A
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL VALUE OF $1,000.  HELD: 

(1)  WHETHER THE DECISION BE CONTROLLED BY THE LAW OF ALABAMA, WHERE
THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED AND MAILED, OR BY THE LAW OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
WHERE THE ALLEGED FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE, AND EVEN
THOUGH RECOVERY OF ACTUAL DAMAGES BE LIMITED TO $1,000, THE PLAINTIFF'S
ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD, IF PROPERLY PROVED, MIGHT JUSTIFY AN AWARD
EXCEEDING $3,000; AND THEREFORE THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WAS
INVOLVED.  PP. 240-241. 

(2)  THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE EQUIVALENT OF "GROSS
FRAUD," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAW OF ALABAMA, EVEN THOUGH THE FRAUD
WAS NOT FORMALLY ALLEGED TO BE "GROSS."  P. 241. 

(3)  THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE ALABAMA LAW AS TO PUNITIVE
DAMAGES PRECLUDES IN THIS CASE A VERDICT FOR ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE
DAMAGES EXCEEDING $3,000.  P. 242. 

(4)  THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT CAN NOT BE DETERMINED ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT A VERDICT FOR THAT AMOUNT WOULD BE EXCESSIVE AND
COULD BE SET ASIDE.  P. 243. 

3.  A COMPLAINT FILED IN A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION MERELY BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL DEFECT SUCH AS MAY
BE THE SUBJECT OF A SPECIAL MOTION TO CLARIFY.  P. 242. 

BELL V. PREFERRED LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 755, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A SUIT BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUND OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY
DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY DID NOT REALLY
AND SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEED $3,000 AS REQUIRED BY SECS. 24 AND 37 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  FN1 

FILED IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA,
PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT HE HAD BEEN INDUCED TO PURCHASE AN
INSURANCE CERTIFICATE THROUGH FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS OF
RESPONDENTS' AGENT BEARING UPON ITS ACTUAL VALUE, AND CLAIMED $200,000
AS ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES.  FN2  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AT THE TIME
OF THE DISMISSAL PETITIONER HAD PAID ONLY $202.35 ON HIS CERTIFICATE,
AND THAT ITS MAXIMUM POTENTIAL VALUE WAS ONLY $1,000.  FROM THIS THE
DISTRICT COURT DECLARED THAT IT WAS "APPARENT TO A LEGAL CERTAINTY,"
ST. PAUL MERCURY INDEMNITY CO. V. RED CAB CO., 303 U.S. 283, 289, THAT
PETITIONER COULD IN NO EVENT BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN $1,000, AND
THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE REQUISITE $3,000 WAS NOT REALLY AND
SUBSTANTIALLY INVOLVED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, FN3
HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF $200,000 DAMAGES WAS "ENTIRELY COLORABLE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONFERRING JURISDICTION" SINCE IT WAS "LEGALLY
INCONCEIVABLE" THAT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS COULD JUSTIFY AN AWARD IN
EXCESS OF THE VALUE OF HIS $1,000 CERTIFICATE. 

WHERE BOTH ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE RECOVERABLE UNDER A
COMPLAINT EACH MUST BE CONSIDERED TO THE EXTENT CLAIMED IN DETERMINING
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  FN4  THEREFORE EVEN THOUGH THE PETITIONER IS
LIMITED TO ACTUAL DAMAGES OF $1,000, AS BOTH COURTS HELD, THE QUESTION
REMAINS WHETHER IT IS APPARENT TO A LEGAL CERTAINTY FROM THE COMPLAINT
THAT HE COULD NOT RECOVER, IN ADDITION, SUFFICIENT PUNITIVE DAMAGES TO
MAKE UP THE REQUISITE $3,000.  IF THE CONTROLLING LAW IS THAT OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, WHERE THE ALLEGED FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS ARE SAID TO
HAVE OCCURRED, PETITIONER CLEARLY MIGHT RECOVER AN AWARD EXCEEDING
$3,000.  FN5  RESPONDENTS URGE HOWEVER THAT THE LAW OF ALABAMA, WHERE
THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED AND MAILED, MUST CONTROL.  WE NEED
NOT PASS UPON THIS QUESTION FOR WE ARE SATISFIED THAT UNDER THE LAW OF
ALABAMA AS WELL AS THAT OF SOUTH CAROLINA PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS OF
FRAUD IF PROPERLY PROVED MIGHT JUSTIFY AN AWARD EXCEEDING $3,000. 

RESPONDENTS ASSERT THAT PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT
TYPE OF "GROSS FRAUD" ESSENTIAL FOR AN AWARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES UNDER
ALABAMA LAW.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HAS DECLARED THAT IN AN
ACTION FOR DECEIT "GROSS FRAUD" WHICH WILL SUPPORT PUNITIVE DAMAGES MAY
BE DEFINED AS "REPRESENTATIONS MADE WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR FALSENESS
(OR SO RECKLESSLY MADE AS TO AMOUNT TO THE SAME THING), AND WITH THE
PURPOSE OF INJURING THE PLAINTIFF."  SOUTHERN BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V.
DINSMORE, 225 ALA. 550, 552, 144 SO. 21, 23.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS "WERE FALSE, AND
WERE KNOWN TO BE FALSE WHEN MADE AND UTTERED WITH A RECKLESS DISREGARD
FOR THE TRUTH"; THAT PETITIONER "RELIED UPON THEM, AND HAD A RIGHT TO
RELY UPON THEM"; AND THAT HE "WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED FOR SUCH
CERTIFICATE EXCEPT FOR SUCH FALSE REPRESENTATIONS."  PLAINLY, THEN,
THIS COMPLAINT ALLEGES THE EQUIVALENT OF "GROSS FRAUD" AS THOSE WORDS
ARE DEFINED BY THE ALABAMA COURTS.  FN6  AND, EVEN IF THE FRAUD WERE
NOT FORMALLY ALLEGED TO BE "GROSS," A COMPLAINT FILED IN A FEDERAL
COURT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF A
MERE TECHNICAL DEFECT SUCH AS WOULD MAKE IT SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL MOTION
TO CLARIFY.  SEE SPARKS V. ENGLAND, 113 F.2D 579; CF. CHICAGO, R.I. &
P. RY. CO. V. SCHWYHART, 227 U.S. 184, 194. 

RESPONDENTS ALSO MAINTAIN THAT, EVEN IF IT WOULD WARRANT SOME
PUNITIVE DAMAGES, THE COMPLAINT COULD NOT UNDER ALABAMA LAW WARRANT
ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OF $3,000.  IT IS TRUE AS RESPONDENTS
POINT OUT THAT THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT THE AMOUNT OF
PUNITIVE DAMAGES "OUGHT  ...  TO BEAR PROPORTION TO THE ACTUAL DAMAGES
SUSTAINED," MOBILE & MONTGOMERY R. CO. V. ASHCRAFT, 48 ALA. 15, 33; AND
THAT, WHILE SUCH DAMAGES "MUST REST IN LARGE MEASURE WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE JURY," THIS IS NOT AN "UNBRIDLED DISCRETION." 
ALABAMA WATER SERVICE CO. V. HARRIS, 221 ALA. 516, 519, 129 SO. 5, 7. 
BUT NEITHER IN THESE CASES, NOR IN ANY OTHERS CITED TO US, HAS THAT
COURT HELD THAT PUNITIVE AND ACTUAL DAMAGES MUST BEAR A DEFINITE
MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIP.  FN7  THAT THERE IS NO SUCH LEGAL FORMULA
SEEMS APPARENT FROM THE RULE RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENTS AS THE CORRECT
ALABAMA RULE REGARDING THE MEASURE OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES, NAMELY, THAT
"THE NATURE OF THE CASE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT
OF INJURY LIKELY TO RESULT FROM DISREGARD OF DUTY, AND ALL THE
ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES."  ALABAMA WATER SERVICE CO. V. HARRIS, SUPRA,
519.  IN THE HARRIS CASE THE COURT FURTHER EMPHASIZED THE WIDE SCOPE OF
ALLOWABLE PUNITIVE DAMAGES BY SAYING THAT A JURY'S AWARD IS NOT TO BE
DISTURBED IF, "ALLOWING ALL PRESUMPTIONS IN FAVOR OF" IT, THE COURT IS
NOT "CLEARLY CONVINCED IT IS SO EXCESSIVE AS TO DEMAND THE
INTERPOSITION OF THIS COURT."  IBID.  CONSIDERING THESE GENERAL
PRINCIPLES OF ALABAMA LAW, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT UNDER PETITIONER'S
COMPLAINT EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE INTRODUCED AT A TRIAL JUSTIFYING A JURY
VERDICT FOR ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES EXCEEDING $3,000.  NOR CAN THIS
CONTROVERSY AS TO JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT BE DECIDED ON THE ASSUMPTION
"THAT A VERDICT, IF RENDERED FOR THAT AMOUNT, WOULD BE EXCESSIVE AND
SET ASIDE FOR THAT REASON - A STATEMENT WHICH COULD NOT, AT ANY RATE,
BE JUDICIALLY MADE BEFORE SUCH A VERDICT WAS IN FACT RENDERED."  BARRY
V. EDMUNDS, SUPRA, 565. 

THE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  36 STAT. 1091, 1098; U.S.C. TIT. 28, SECS. 41, 80.  THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGED DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AS THE BASIS FOR FEDERAL
JURISDICTION. 

FN2  THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF
CERTAIN OFFICERS OF RESPONDENT SOCIETY, AND JOINED THEM AS SEPARATE
DEFENDANTS.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS WITH THE
ACCOMPANYING PRAYERS FOR RELIEF ARE SUFFICIENT IN THEMSELVES TO
ESTABLISH THAT THE MATTER IN DISPUTE EXCEEDS $3,000, ON ANY OF THREE
THEORIES:  A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE; A DERIVATIVE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE SOCIETY; OR AN ORIGINAL ACTION TO REORGANIZE A MUTUAL INSURANCE
SOCIETY PROPERLY BROUGHT BY A MEMBER.  AS OUR DECISION INDICATES, WE
FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THESE CONTENTIONS. 

FN3  131 F.2D 516. 

FN4  BARRY V. EDMUNDS, 116 U.S. 550, 560; SCOTT V. DONALD, 165 U.S.
58, 89, 90. 

FN5 RESPONDENTS DID NOT SERIOUSLY CONTEND OTHERWISE, AND THE SOUTH
CAROLINA CASES CITED TO US APPARENTLY FORECLOSED SUCH A CONTENTION:
EADDY V. GREENSBORO-FAYETTEVILLE BUS LINES, 191 S.C. 538, 5 S.E.2D 281;
COOK V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 186 S.C. 77, 194 S.E. 636; CROSBY
V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 167 S.C. 255, 166 S.E. 266.  IN THIS
LATTER CASE IT APPEARS THAT PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF $1,211.70 WERE ALLOWED
ALTHOUGH THE ACTUAL DAMAGES WERE ONLY $11.70. 

FN6  HAD PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT BEEN FILED IN A STATE COURT IN
ALABAMA, IT WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED A VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR PUNITIVE
DAMAGES.  THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT, "IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
CLAIM PUNITIVE DAMAGES SPECIALLY, FOR THEY ARE NOT SPECIAL DAMAGES.  IT
IS NOT NECESSARY TO ALLEGE THE MATTER OF AGGRAVATION WHICH JUSTIFIES
THEIR RECOVERY."  FIDELITY-PHENIX FIRE INS. CO. V. MURPHY, 226 ALA.
226, 232, 146 SO. 387. 

FN7  IN U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. MILLONAS, 206 ALA. 147, 154,
89 SO. 732, THE COURT PERMITTED AN AWARD OF $6,000 AFTER FINDING THAT
THE ACTUAL DAMAGE SUFFERED COULD IN NO EVENT EXCEED $1,000.  AND IN
ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SELLERS, 93 ALA. 9, 9 SO. 375, WHERE
THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF $500, IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT
DID NOT ERR IN REFUSING TO CHARGE THAT PUNITIVE DAMAGES COULD NOT BE
IMPOSED IF THE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED ONLY NOMINAL ACTUAL DAMAGE. 
..END :

















CARTER V. KUBLER, 320 U.S. 243 


NO. 18.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1943.  - 131
F.2D 222, AFFIRMED. 


THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, MAKING A REAPPRAISAL OF THE DEBTOR'S
PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SEC. 75(S)(3) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, ERRED IN
BASING THE VALUATION PARTLY ON EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY HIS PERSONAL
INVESTIGATION WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF THE PARTIES; BUT, IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE ERROR WAS CURED UPON REVIEW IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, WHICH REEXAMINED ALL THE COMPETENT EVIDENCE INTRODUCED
AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AND THEREUPON MODIFIED THE
LATTER'S VALUATION.  P. 246. 

CARTER V. KUBLER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 753, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE, UPON APPEAL BY
THE DEBTOR, OF A JUDGMENT MODIFYING AN ORDER OF A CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NARROW ISSUES PRESENTED BY THIS CASE ARE WHETHER IT WAS ERROR
UNDER SEC. 75(S)(3) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN1  FOR A CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER TO FIX A VALUATION PARTLY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL
INVESTIGATION AND, IF SO, WHETHER THAT ERROR WAS CURED ON REVIEW BY THE
DISTRICT COURT. 

PETITIONER, THE FARMER DEBTOR, WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT UNDER SEC.
75(S).  AFTER A $5,800 APPRAISAL OF HIS FARM HAD BEEN APPROVED BY A
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, PETITIONER WAS PERMITTED TO RETAIN
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE STATUTORY THREE-YEAR PERIOD.  AT THE
END OF THAT TIME, HE PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A REAPPRAISAL OF
THE PROPERTY FOR REDEMPTION PURPOSES, PURSUANT TO SEC. 75(S)(3).  FN2
THE JUDGE THEN REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE SAME CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER WHO HAD APPROVED THE ORIGINAL APPRAISAL AND DIRECTED THAT
HE "HAVE A REAPPRAISEMENT OF THE FARM MADE AND THAT THE SECURED
CREDITOR BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE
PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF SUCH FARM AND THAT THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER
DETERMINE THE CORRECT APPRAISED VALUE AND FIX A REASONABLE TIME WITHIN
WHICH THE DEBTOR SHALL REDEEM THE FARM FROM THE MORTGAGE LIEN, FAILING
IN WHICH A PUBLIC SALE IS ORDERED." 

PURSUANT TO THIS ORDER, THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER HELD HEARINGS
TO DETERMINE THE FAIR AND REASONABLE VALUE OF THE FARM IN QUESTION. 
RESPONDENT, THE SECURED MORTGAGE HOLDER, CALLED FIVE WITNESSES WHOSE
ESTIMATES OF THE VALUE OF THE FARM RANGED FROM APPROXIMATELY $29,000 TO
$33,000.  THE VALUES GIVEN BY PETITIONER'S FIVE WITNESSES WERE FROM
$6,500 TO $12,000.  ALL BUT ONE OF THESE WITNESSES WERE SUBJECTED TO
CROSS-EXAMINATION.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER MADE
THE FOLLOWING FINDING:  "AFTER HEARING THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE
SEVERAL WITNESSES, AND STUDYING THE BRIEFS FURNISHED BY THE DEFENDANT
AND THE PLAINTIFF, AND UPON A PERSONAL INVESTIGATION BY THE
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER OF THE VALUE OF SAID FARM, I HEREBY FIX THE
VALUE OF SAID FARM AT $150 PER ACRE (APPROXIMATELY $25,000 FOR THE
ENTIRE FARM)."  THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT INDICATE WHEN OR UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES HIS PERSONAL INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN MADE. 

PETITIONER THEN REQUESTED THE DISTRICT COURT TO REVIEW AND REVERSE
THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER ALLOWING HIM TO REDEEM THE FARM ON PAYMENT OF
$25,000.  INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS WAS THE CLAIM THAT
THE VALUATION WAS ERRONEOUS AND VOID "BECAUSE MADE AND FIXED BY THE
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER UPON A PERSONAL INVESTIGATION  ...  MADE
OUTSIDE OF AND INDEPENDENT OF THE HEARINGS  ...  AT WHICH PERSONAL
INVESTIGATION NEITHER THE PETITIONER HEREIN NOR HIS COUNSEL WAS
AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COUNTER EVIDENCE OR TO CROSS-EXAMINE
CONCERNING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY SAID PERSONAL INVESTIGATION."  THE
DISTRICT COURT, AFTER REVIEWING THE ENTIRE TESTIMONY INTRODUCED AT THE
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AND AFTER READING THE BRIEFS SUBMITTED
BY THE PARTIES, CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S ESTIMATE WAS TOO HIGH
AND REDUCED THE VALUATION TO $20,000.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT MADE ANY USE OR MENTION OF THE COMMISSIONER'S PERSONAL
INVESTIGATION IN ARRIVING AT THIS VALUATION OR THAT ANY EVIDENCE WAS
UTILIZED OTHER THAN THAT PROPERLY INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER. 

PETITIONER RENEWED HIS OBJECTION TO THE PERSONAL INVESTIGATION IN HIS
APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE LATTER, HOWEVER, MERELY
STATED THAT THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY THE DISTRICT
COURT IN FIXING THE VALUATION AT $20,000 AND THAT THERE WAS NO
REVERSIBLE ERROR.  131 F.2D 222.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO THE
QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S PERSONAL INVESTIGATION,
BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH MOSER V. MORTGAGE GUARANTEE CO.,
123 F.2D 423. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER ERRED IN
FIXING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PARTLY UPON HIS PERSONAL
INVESTIGATION, BUT THAT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, SUCH
ERROR WAS CURED INASMUCH AS THE DISTRICT COURT REEXAMINED ALL THE
EVIDENCE PROPERLY INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AND
THEREUPON MODIFIED THE LATTER'S VALUATION. 

COMMISSIONER'S ACTION.  IF THE DISTRICT COURT CONDUCTS A HEARING TO
DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OR IF THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER
IS AUTHORIZED TO HOLD SUCH A HEARING, THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE
VALUATION SHALL BE FIXED "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED" AT
THE HEARING.  THE STATUTE CONFERS NO AUTHORITY ON EITHER THE JUDGE OR
THE COMMISSIONER TO ACT PERSONALLY AS AN APPRAISER OR TO CONDUCT HIS
OWN FACTUAL INQUIRY ABSENT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO
THE HEARING.  THE VALUATION MUST THUS BE DETERMINED SOLELY FROM THE
EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING AND THE USE OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN ANY
OTHER MANNER IS IMPROPER.  MOSER V. MORTGAGE GUARANTEE CO., SUPRA;
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. DEUTSCHLE, 132 F.2D 525.  AND THE
PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO A VALUATION BASED ON A STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS
ORDERLY PROCEDURE.  JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. BARTELS, 308
U.S. 180; BORCHARD V. CALIFORNIA BANK, 310 U.S. 311. 

MOREOVER, ONCE A HEARING HAS BEEN ORDERED, SEC. 75(S)(3) NECESSARILY
GUARANTEES THAT IT SHALL BE A FAIR AND FULL HEARING.  THE BASIC
ELEMENTS OF SUCH A HEARING INCLUDE THE RIGHT OF EACH PARTY TO BE
APPRIZED OF ALL THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH A FACTUAL ADJUDICATION RESTS,
PLUS THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE, EXPLAIN OR REBUT ALL SUCH EVIDENCE.  TESTED
BY THAT STANDARD, THE PERSONAL INVESTIGATION BY THE CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED.  IT WAS APPARENTLY MADE WITHOUT
PETITIONER'S KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT AND NO OPPORTUNITY WAS ACCORDED
PETITIONER TO EXAMINE OR REBUT THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN THE COURSE OF
SUCH INVESTIGATION.  THE USE OF THIS EVIDENCE WAS THEREFORE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND FULL HEARING.  MOSER V.
MORTGAGE GUARANTEE CO., SUPRA, WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, SEC. 1169(3RD
EDITION).  FN3 

THE IRREGULARITY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S PERSONAL INVESTIGATION,
HOWEVER, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CURED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S REVIEW AND
MODIFICATION OF THE COMMISSIONER'S VALUATION.  ORDER 47 OF THE GENERAL
ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY,  FN4  WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSIONER'S VALUATION,  FN5  PROVIDES IN EFFECT THAT THE
COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL BE ACCEPTED BY THE JUDGE "UNLESS
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS."  ORDER 47 FURTHER PROVIDES THAT "THE JUDGE AFTER
HEARING MAY ADOPT THE REPORT OR MAY MODIFY IT OR MAY REJECT IT IN WHOLE
OR IN PART OR MAY RECEIVE FURTHER EVIDENCE OR MAY RECOMMIT IT WITH
INSTRUCTIONS." 

HAD THE DISTRICT COURT DONE NO MORE THAN SUMMARILY AFFIRM AND ADOPT
WITHOUT CHANGE THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDING OF A $25,000 VALUE, THE
DEFECT UPON WHICH THAT FINDING RESTED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURED AND
PETITIONER WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE FAIR HEARING TO WHICH HE WAS
ENTITLED.  MOSER V. MORTGAGE GUARANTEE CO., SUPRA.  BUT HERE THE
COMMISSIONER'S ERROR WAS BROUGHT TO THE JUDGE'S ATTENTION BY PETITIONER
AND WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE JUDGE WAS UNMINDFUL OF THIS OBJECTION. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DISREGARDED THE COMMISSIONER'S $25,000 VALUATION,
HEARD ARGUMENT BY COUNSEL, MADE AN INDEPENDENT AND COMPLETE REVIEW OF
THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER, AND FIXED THE VALUATION AT $20,000 "UNDER THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE ME."  ALL OF THIS WAS AUTHORIZED BY ORDER 47 INASMUCH AS THE
COMMISSIONER'S PERSONAL INVESTIGATION MADE HIS FINDING AS TO VALUE
"CLEARLY ERRONEOUS." 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE ERROR OF WHICH PETITIONER COMPLAINS WAS
CURED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  SINCE NONE OF THE EVIDENCE PROCURED BY
THE COMMISSIONER THROUGH HIS PERSONAL INVESTIGATION WAS INCLUDED IN THE
RECORD CERTIFIED TO THE JUDGE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE JUDGE'S
$20,000 VALUATION WAS IN ANY WAY GROUNDED ON SUCH IMPROPER EVIDENCE. 
PETITIONER HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE AND REBUT ALL THE EVIDENCE
UTILIZED BY THE JUDGE IN FIXING THIS VALUATION. 

THIS PROCEDURE, FURTHERMORE, GAVE PETITIONER THE FULL AND FAIR
HEARING GUARANTEED TO HIM BY CONGRESS.  IF THE CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER IS PROPERLY AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT A REAPPRAISAL HEARING
AND COMMITS AN ERROR WHICH CAN BE AND IS CORRECTED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT ON APPEAL, THE HEARING CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 75(S)(3) HAS BEEN
HAD.  A PARTY IS NOT ENTITLED TO A TRIAL DE NOVO AS OF RIGHT ON THE
REVIEW IN THE DISTRICT COURT, EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V.
CARMODY, 131 F.2D 318, AND NONE WAS REQUESTED BY PETITIONER.  NOR IS
THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE JUDGE MUST REVERSE AND REMAND THE CASE
TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER HEARINGS OR FOR HIS CONSIDERED JUDGMENT
BASED SOLELY ON THE COMPETENT EVIDENCE.  TO SO HOLD WOULD RENDER
NUGATORY THE DISCRETIONARY POWER GIVEN THE JUDGE BY ORDER 47 TO RECEIVE
FURTHER EVIDENCE HIMSELF OR TO MODIFY OR REJECT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS ON APPEAL.  IN ADDITION, IT WOULD MAKE
MANDATORY WHAT IS AT MOST A DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE JUDGE UNDER SEC.
75(S)(3) TO AUTHORIZE A HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

FN1  11 U.S.C. SEC. 203(S)(3). 

FN2  THE PERTINENT PORTION OF SEC. 75(S)(3) PROVIDES THAT "UPON
REQUEST OF ANY SECURED OR UNSECURED CREDITOR, OR UPON REQUEST OF THE
DEBTOR, THE COURT SHALL CAUSE A REAPPRAISAL OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY,
OR IN ITS DISCRETION SET A DATE FOR HEARING, AND AFTER SUCH HEARING,
FIX THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED, AND THE DEBTOR SHALL THEN PAY THE VALUE SO ARRIVED AT INTO
COURT  ...  AND THEREUPON THE COURT SHALL, BY AN ORDER, TURN OVER FULL
POSSESSION AND TITLE OF SAID PROPERTY, FREE AND CLEAR OF ENCUMBRANCES
TO THE DEBTOR." 

FN3  SEE ALSO ATLANTIC & BIRMINGHAM RY. CO. V. CORDELE, 125 GA. 373,
54 S.E. 155; RALPH V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 160 S.C. 229, 158 S.E. 409;
DENVER OMNIBUS & CAB CO. V. J.R. WARD AUCTION CO., 47 COLO. 446, 107 P.
1073; ELSTON V. MCGLAUFLIN, 79 WASH. 355, 140 P. 396; ANDERSON V.
LEBLANG, 125 MISC. 820, 211 N.Y.S. 613. 

FN4  11 U.S.C. FOLLOWING SEC. 53. 

FN5  SEC. 75(S)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 203(S)(4);
ORDER 50(11) OF THE GENERAL ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY, 11 U.S.C. FOLLOWING
SEC. 53; EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. CARMODY, 131 F.2D 318,
322; RAIT V. FEDERAL LAND BANK, 135 F.2D 447, 450. 
..END :




CONSUMERS CO. V. KABUSHIKI KAISHA, 320 U.S. 249 


NO. 32.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1943.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1943.  - 133
F.2D 781, AFFIRMED. 


1.  FOR DAMAGE TO CARGO BY FIRE NOT CAUSED BY THE "DESIGN OR NEGLECT"
OF THE SHIPOWNER, THE FIRE STATUTE EXTINGUISHES CLAIMS AGAINST THE
VESSEL AS WELL AS CLAIMS AGAINST THE OWNER.  P. 253. 

2.  THAT THE CONTRACTS OF AFFREIGHTMENT WERE SIGNED "FOR MASTER" DOES
NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT.  P. 252. 

3. THERE WAS IN THIS CASE NO WAIVER OF IMMUNITY UNDER THE FIRE
STATUTE.  P. 254. 

4.  THE ETNA MARU, 33 F.2D 232, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CONFLICTS
HEREWITH, IS DISAPPROVED.  P. 256. 

CONSUMERS IMPORT CO. ET AL. V. KABUSHIKI KAISHA KAWASAKI ZOSENJO ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 319 U.S. 734, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE (39
F.SUPP.  349) WHICH, IN A SUIT BY CARGO CLAIMANTS, EXONERATED THE OWNER
AND BAREBOAT CHARTERER OF THE VESSEL FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE BY
FIRE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS, CONSUMERS IMPORT COMPANY AND OTHERS, HOLD BILLS OF
LADING COVERING SEVERAL HUNDRED SHIPMENTS OF MERCHANDISE.  THE
SHIPMENTS WERE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY FIRE OR BY THE MEANS USED TO
EXTINGUISH FIRE ON BOARD THE JAPANESE SHIP VENICE MARU ON AUGUST 6,
1934, ON VOYAGE FROM JAPAN TO ATLANTIC PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
RESPONDENT KABUSHIKI KAISHA KAWASAKI ZOSENJO OWNED THE VENICE MARU AND
LET HER TO THE OTHER RESPONDENT, KAWASAKI KISEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA, UNDER
A BAREBOAT FORM OF CHARTER.  THE LATTER WAS OPERATING HER AS A COMMON
CARRIER. 

DAMAGE TO THE CARGO IS CONCEDED FROM CAUSES WHICH ARE SETTLED BY THE
FINDINGS BELOW, WHICH WE DECLINE TO REVIEW.  FN1  UPWARDS OF 660 TONS
OF SARDINE MEAL IN BAGS WAS STOWED IN A SUBSTANTIALLY SOLID MASS IN THE
HOLD.  IN VIEW OF ITS SUSCEPTIBILITY TO HEATING AND COMBUSTION IT HAD
INADEQUATE VENTILATION.  AS THE SHIP NEARED THE PANAMA CANAL, FIRE
BROKE OUT, RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO CARGO AND SHIP.  THE CAUSE OF THE
FIRE IS FOUND TO BE NEGLIGENT STOWAGE OF THE FISH MEAL, WHICH MADE THE
VESSEL UNSEAWORTHY.  THE NEGLIGENCE WAS THAT OF A PERSON EMPLOYED TO
SUPERVISE LOADING TO WHOM RESPONSIBILITY WAS PROPERLY DELEGATED AND WHO
WAS QUALIFIED BY EXPERIENCE TO PERFORM THE WORK.  NO NEGLIGENCE OR
DESIGN OF THE OWNER OR CHARTERER IS FOUND. 

THE CARGO CLAIMANTS FILED LIBELS IN REM AGAINST THE SHIP AND IN
PERSONAM AGAINST THE CHARTERER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTS OF CARRIAGE. 
THE OWNER JOINED THE CHARTERER IN A PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY TO DECREE
EXEMPTION FROM OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.  STIPULATION AND SECURITY
WERE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE SHIP IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COURT.  FN2  THE
DISTRICT COURT APPLIED THE SO-CALLED "FIRE STATUTE" TO EXONERATE THE
OWNER ENTIRELY AND THE CHARTERER AND THE SHIP IN ALL EXCEPT MATTERS NOT
MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE HERE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,
TAKING A VIEW OF THE STATUTE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE ETNA MARU, 33 F.2D 232.  TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO THE QUESTION, "DOES THE FIRE STATUTE
EXTINGUISH MARITIME LIENS FOR CARGO DAMAGE, OR IS ITS OPERATION
CONFINED TO IN PERSONAM LIABILITY ONLY?"  FN3 

THE FIRE STATUTE READS:  "NO OWNER OF ANY VESSEL SHALL BE LIABLE TO
ANSWER FOR OR MAKE GOOD TO ANY PERSON ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, WHICH MAY
HAPPEN TO ANY MERCHANDISE WHATSOEVER, WHICH SHALL BE SHIPPED, TAKEN IN,
OR PUT ON BOARD ANY SUCH VESSEL, BY REASON OR BY MEANS OF ANY FIRE
HAPPENING TO OR ON BOARD THE VESSEL, UNLESS SUCH FIRE IS CAUSED BY THE
DESIGN OR NEGLECT OF SUCH OWNER."  FN4 THE STATUTE ALSO PROVIDES THAT A
CHARTERER SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE STANDS IN THE POSITION OF THE OWNER FOR
PURPOSES OF LIMITATION OR EXEMPTION OF LIABILITY.  FN5 

SINCE "NEGLECT OF THE OWNER" MEANS HIS PERSONAL NEGLIGENCE, OR IN
CASE OF A CORPORATE OWNER, NEGLIGENCE OF ITS MANAGING OFFICERS AND
AGENTS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THAT OF THE MASTER OR SUBORDINATES,  FN6
THE FINDINGS BELOW TAKE THE CASE OUT OF THE ONLY EXCEPTION PROVIDED BY
STATUTE. 

APART FROM THIS INAPPLICABLE EXCEPTION THE IMMUNITY GRANTED APPEARS
ON ITS FACE COMPLETE.  BUT CLAIMANTS CONTEND THAT BECAUSE THEIR
CONTRACTS OF AFFREIGHTMENT WERE SIGNED "FOR MASTER" THEY BECAME UNDER
MARITIME LAW SHIP'S CONTRACTS, INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY OWNERS' CONTRACTS,
AND THAT THE SHIP ITSELF STANDS BOUND TO THE CARGO THOUGH THE OWNER MAY
BE FREED.  IT SEEMS UNNECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIM
THAT APART FROM THE STATUTE CLAIMANTS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD
HAVE A LIEN ON THE VESSEL, OR TO REVIEW THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF
THE FICTION THAT THE SHIP FOR SOME PURPOSES IS TREATED AS A JURAL
PERSONALITY APART FROM THAT OF ITS OWNER.  IF WE ASSUME THAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPROPRIATE OTHERWISE FOR SUCH A LIEN AS CLAIMANTS
ASSERT, IT ONLY BRINGS US TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FIRE STATUTE CUTS
ACROSS IT AS WELL AS OTHER DOCTRINES OF LIABILITY AND EXTINGUISHES
CLAIMS AGAINST THE VESSEL AS WELL AS AGAINST THE OWNER. 

THE PROVISION HERE IN CONTROVERSY IS SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3,
1851.  DESPITE ITS ALL BUT A CENTURY OF EXISTENCE, THE CONTENTION HERE
MADE HAS NEVER BEEN BEFORE THIS COURT.  SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE SAME
ACT IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES PROVIDED LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY, AND AS TO
THEM A QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN THE CITY OF NORWICH,
118 U.S. 468, 502(1886), STATED THUS:  "IT IS NEXT CONTENDED THAT THE
ACT OF CONGRESS DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE EXONERATION OF THE SHIP, BUT
ONLY EXONERATES THE OWNERS BY A SURRENDER OF THE SHIP AND FREIGHT, AND,
THEREFORE, THAT THE PLEA OF LIMITED LIABILITY CANNOT BE RECEIVED IN A
PROCEEDING IN REM."  THE COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION AND HELD THAT
WHEN THE OWNER SATISFIED THE LIMITED OBLIGATION FIXED ON HIM BY
STATUTE, OWNER AND VESSEL WERE BOTH DISCHARGED.  THE COURT SAID THAT
"TO SAY THAT AN OWNER IS NOT LIABLE, BUT THAT HIS VESSEL IS LIABLE,
SEEMS TO US LIKE TALKING IN RIDDLES."  THE RIDDLE AFTER MORE THAN HALF
A CENTURY REPEATED TO US IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT DOES NOT APPEAR TO US TO
HAVE IMPROVED WITH AGE. 

IN THE MEANTIME, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ETNA MARU, THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE UNIFORMLY CONSTRUED THE STATUTES AS EXONERATING THE
SHIP AS WELL AS THE OWNER.  FN7  WE WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO OVERTURN AN
INTERPRETATION SUPPORTED BY SUCH CONSENSUS OF OPINION AMONG COURTS OF
ADMIRALTY, EVEN IF ITS JUSTIFICATION WERE MORE DOUBTFUL THAN THIS
APPEARS.  FN8 

PETITIONERS SAY, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH OF THESE DECISIONS AS ARE NOT
DISTINGUISHABLE WERE "ILL-CONSIDERED."  WE THINK THAT THE BETTER REASON
AS WELL AS THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY REFUTES PETITIONERS.  TO SUSTAIN
THEIR CONTENTION WOULD DENY EFFECT TO THE FIRE STATUTE AS AN IMMUNITY
AND CONVERT IT INTO A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY TO THE VALUE OF THE
SHIP.  THIS IS WHAT CONGRESS DID IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE SAME ACT  FN9
AND ELSEWHERE,  FN10  WHICH SUGGESTS THAT IT USED DIFFERENT LANGUAGE
HERE BECAUSE IT HAD A DIFFERENT PURPOSE TO ACCOMPLISH.  CONGRESS HAS
SAID THAT THE OWNER SHALL NOT "ANSWER FOR" THIS LOSS IN QUESTION. 
CLAIMANT SAYS THIS MEANS IN EFFECT THAT HE SHALL ANSWER ONLY WITH HIS
SHIP.  BUT THE OWNER WOULD NEVER ANSWER FOR A LOSS EXCEPT WITH HIS
PROPERTY, SINCE EXECUTION AGAINST THE BODY WAS NOT AT ANY TIME IN
LEGISLATIVE CONTEMPLATION.  THERE COULD BE NO PRACTICAL EXONERATION OF
THE OWNER THAT DID NOT AT THE SAME TIME EXEMPT HIS PROPERTY.  IF THE
OWNER BY STATUTE IS TOLD THAT HE NEED NOT "MAKE GOOD" TO THE SHIPPER,
HOW MAY WE SAY THAT HE SHALL GIVE UP HIS SHIP FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE? 
IT SEEMS TO US THAT CONGRESS HAS, WITH THE EXCEPTION STATED IN THE ACT,
EXTINGUISHED FIRE CLAIMS AS AN INCIDENT OF CONTRACTS OF CARRIAGE, AND
THAT NO FICTION AS TO SEPARATE PERSONALITY OF THE SHIP MAY REVIVE
THEM.  THERE MAY, OF COURSE, BE A WAIVER OF THE BENEFITS OF THE FIRE
STATUTE, BUT NONE IS PRESENT IN THIS CASE. 

CLAIMANTS URGE THAT THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED GOES BEYOND ANY OTHER
EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE ALLOWED TO A COMMON CARRIER,
AND THAT IT SHOULD THEREFORE BE CURTAILED BY STRICT CONSTRUCTION.  WE
THINK, HOWEVER, THAT CLAIMANTS' CONTENTION WOULD RESULT IN A
FRUSTRATION OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT. 

AT COMMON LAW THE SHIPOWNER WAS LIABLE AS AN INSURER FOR FIRE DAMAGE
TO CARGO.  FN11  WE MAY BE SURE THAT THIS LEGAL POLICY OF ANNEXING AN
INSURER'S LIABILITY TO THE CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE LOADED THE
TRANSPORTATION RATES OF PRUDENT CARRIERS TO COMPENSATE THE RISK.  LONG
BEFORE CONGRESS DID SO, ENGLAND HAD SEPARATED THE INSURANCE LIABILITY
FROM THE CARRIER'S DUTY.  FN12  TO ENABLE OUR MERCHANT MARINE TO
COMPETE, CONGRESS ENACTED THIS STATUTE.  FN13  IT WAS A SHARP DEPARTURE
FROM THE CONCEPTS THAT HAD USUALLY GOVERNED THE COMMON CARRIER
RELATION, BUT IT IS NOT TO BE JUDGED AS IF APPLIED TO LAND CARRIAGE,
WHERE SHIPMENTS ARE RELATIVELY MULTITUDINOUS AND SMALL AND WHERE IT
MIGHT WELL WORK INJUSTICE AND HARDSHIP.  THE CHANGE ON SEA TRANSPORT
SEEMS LESS DRASTIC IN ECONOMIC EFFECTS THAN IN TERMS OF DOCTRINE.  IT
ENABLED THE CARRIER TO COMPETE BY OFFERING A CARRIAGE RATE THAT PAID
FOR CARRIAGE ONLY, WITHOUT LOADING IT FOR FIRE LIABILITY.  THE SHIPPER
WAS FREE TO CARRY HIS OWN FIRE RISK, BUT IF HE DID NOT CARE TO DO SO IT
WAS WELL KNOWN THAT THOSE WHO MADE A BUSINESS OF RISK-TAKING WOULD
ISSUE HIM A SEPARATE CONTRACT OF FIRE INSURANCE.  CONGRESS HAD SIMPLY
SEVERED THE INSURANCE FEATURES FROM THE CARRIAGE FEATURES OF SEA
TRANSPORT AND LEFT THE SHIPPER TO BUY EACH SEPARATELY.  WHILE IT DOES
NOT OFTEN COME TO THE SURFACE OF THE RECORD IN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS,
WE ARE NOT UNAWARE THAT IN COMMERCIAL PRACTICE THE SHIPPER WHO BUYS
CARRIAGE FROM THE SHIPOWNER USUALLY BUYS FIRE PROTECTION FROM AN
INSURANCE COMPANY, THUS OBTAINING IN TWO CONTRACTS WHAT ONCE MIGHT HAVE
BEEN EMBODIED IN ONE.  THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO RELIEVE CARRIAGE
RATES OF THE INSURANCE BURDEN WOULD BE LARGELY DEFEATED IF WE WERE TO
ADOPT AN INTERPRETATION WHICH WOULD ENABLE CARGO CLAIMANTS AND THEIR
SUBROGEES TO SHIFT TO THE SHIP THE RISK OF WHICH CONGRESS RELIEVED THE
OWNER.  THIS WOULD RESTORE THE INSURANCE BURDEN AT LEAST IN LARGE PART
TO THE COST OF CARRIAGE AND HAMPER THE COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITY IT WAS
PURPOSED TO FOSTER BY PUTTING OUR LAW ON AN EQUAL BASIS WITH THAT OF
ENGLAND. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT ANY MARITIME LIENS FOR CLAIMANTS' CARGO DAMAGE
ARE EXTINGUISHED BY THE FIRE STATUTE.  IN SO FAR AS THE DECISION IN THE
ETNA MARU CONFLICTS, IT IS DISAPPROVED, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE FACTS ARE CONSIDERED AT LENGTH IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS, 133 F.2D 781. 

FN2  ADMIRALTY RULE 51. 

THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN ON JULY 30, 1942, VESTED IN HIMSELF ALL
PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES OF RESPONDENT KAWASAKI KISEN KABUSHIKI
KAISHA.  VESTING ORDERS 77 AND 80, 7 FEDERAL REGISTER 7048, 7049.  ON
MARCH 15, 1943, HE VESTED IN HIMSELF ALL PROPERTY OF TOKYO MARINE &
FIRE INSURANCE CO. LTD., A JAPANESE CORPORATION WHICH ADVANCED CASH
COLLATERAL TO THE SURETY WHO BECAME SUCH IN THE AD INTERIM
STIPULATION.  VESTING ORDER 1084, 8 FEDERAL REGISTER 3647. 

FN3  319 U.S. 734. 

FN4  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1851, SEC. 1, NOW 46 U.S.C. SEC. 182, FORMERLY
R.S. SEC. 4282. 

FN5  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1851, SEC. 5, NOW 46 U.S.C. SEC. 186. 

FN6  WALKER V. TRANSPORTATION CO., 3 WALL.  150; CRAIG V. CONTINENTAL
INS. CO., 141 U.S. 638, 647; EARLE & STODDART V. ELLERMAN'S WILSON
LINE, 287 U.S. 420, 424. 

FN7  DILL V. THE BERTRAM, FED. CAS. 3910; KEENE V. THE WHISTLER, FED.
CAS. 7645; THE RAPID TRANSIT, 52 F. 320; THE SALVORE, 60 F.2D 683; THE
OLDER, 65 F.2D 359; THE PRESIDENT WILSON, 5 F.SUPP.  684; SEE EARLE &
STODDART V. ELLERMAN'S WILSON LINE, 287 U.S. 420, 427, N. 3; THE
BUCKEYE STATE, 39 F.SUPP.  344, 346-47. 

FN8  SEE UNITED STATES V. RYAN, 284 U.S. 167, 174; MISSOURI V. ROSS,
299 U.S. 72, 75. 

FN9  SECS. 2, 3, ACT OF MARCH 3, 1851. 

FN10  HARTER ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1893, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 190-96. 

FN11  NEW JERSEY STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V. MERCHANTS' BANK, 6 HOW. 
344, 381.  THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1851, FOLLOWED SOON AFTER AND PROBABLY
WAS ENACTED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS DECISION.  SEE THE GREAT WESTERN,
118 U.S. 520, 533. 

FN12  THIS COURT HAS HERETOFORE POINTED OUT THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 3,
1851 WAS PATTERNED ON ENGLISH STATUTES, INCLUDING ACT OF 7 GEORGE II,
C. 15, PASSED IN 1734, AND 26 GEORGE III, C. 86(1786).  SEE NORWICH CO.
V. WRIGHT, 13 WALL.  104, 117 ET SEQ.; THE MAIN V. WILLIAMS, 152 U.S.
122, 124. 

FN13  SENATOR HAMLIN REPORTED THE BILL FROM THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
ON JANUARY 25, 1851 AND SAID, "THIS BILL IS PREDICATED ON WHAT IS NOW
THE ENGLISH LAW, AND IT IS DEEMED ADVISABLE BY THE COMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE THAT THE AMERICAN MARINE SHOULD STAND AT HOME AND ABROAD AS
WELL AS THE ENGLISH MARINE."  23 CONG. GLOBE 332. 

ON FEBRUARY 26, 1851, SPEAKING TO THE BILL, SENATOR HAMLIN SAID:
"THESE ARE THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE CHANGES ARE
MOST RADICAL FROM THE COMMON LAW UPON THE SUBJECT; BUT THEY ARE
RENDERED NECESSARY, FIRST, FROM THE FACT THAT THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW
SYSTEM REALLY NEVER HAD AN APPLICATION TO THIS COUNTRY, AND, SECOND,
THAT THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT HAS CHANGED THE LAW, WHICH IS A VERY STRONG
AND ESTABLISHED REASON WHY WE SHOULD PLACE OUR COMMERCIAL MARINE UPON
AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH HERS.  WHY NOT GIVE TO THOSE WHO NAVIGATE THE
OCEAN AS MANY INDUCEMENTS TO DO SO AS ENGLAND HAS DONE?  WHY NOT PLACE
THEM UPON THAT GREAT THEATRE WHERE WE ARE TO HAVE THE GREAT CONTEST FOR
THE SUPREMACY OF THE COMMERCE OF THE WORLD?  THAT IS WHAT THIS BILL
SEEKS TO DO, AND IT ASKS NO MORE."  23 CONG. GLOBE 715. 
..END :




















EX PARTE ABERNATHY, 320 U.S. 219 


DECIDED OCTOBER 18, 1943.  - APPLICATIONS DENIED. 


1.  THE EXERCISE BY THIS COURT OF THE POWER CONFERRED UPON IT TO ISSUE
WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS (28 U.S.C. SECS. 377, 451) IN AID OF ITS
APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS DISCRETIONARY; AND, SAVE IN EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT DOES NOT EXERCISE THE POWER WHERE AN ADEQUATE
REMEDY MAY BE HAD IN A LOWER FEDERAL COURT OR WHERE, IF THE RELIEF
SOUGHT IS FROM A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, THE PETITIONER HAS NOT
EXHAUSTED HIS REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS.  P. 219. 

2.  REFUSAL OF THE WRIT, WITHOUT MORE, IS NOT AN ADJUDICATION ON THE
MERITS AND IS TO BE TAKEN AS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AN APPLICATION TO ANY
OTHER COURT FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  P. 220. 

EX PARTE ABERNATHY. 

NO. - .   ONE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. - , EX PARTE DEXTER C. DAYTON; NO. - , EX PARTE
FREDERICK T. HANSEN AND SAM BONJIORNO; NO. - , EX PARTE FLOYD J.
KESLING; NO. - , EX PARTE LOUIS BURALL; NO. - , EX PARTE OLIVER GOBIN;
NO. - , EX PARTE PETER J. C. DONNELLY; NO. - , EX PARTE ALFRED MAURICE;
NO. - , EX PARTE SOL GOLDSMITH; NO. - , EX PARTE PAUL DAVIS; NO. - , EX
PARTE ROBERT HUTTO; NO. - , EX PARTE ALFRED FRITERS; NO. - , EX PARTE
WILFRED DOZA; NO. - , EX PARTE R. J. HUGHES; AND NO. - , EX PARTE JOHN
RUSSELL MILLER, ALSO ON MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR WRITS
OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE APPLICATIONS ARE SEVERALLY DENIED. 

IN THESE CASES PETITIONERS INVOKE THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION
CONFERRED ON THIS COURT BY 28 U.S.C. SECS. 377, 451, TO ISSUE WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN AID OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  CF. EX PARTE PERU,
318 U.S. 578, 582-3.  THAT JURISDICTION IS DISCRETIONARY, ID. 584;
BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 27, AND THIS COURT DOES NOT, SAVE IN
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, EXERCISE IT IN CASES WHERE AN ADEQUATE
REMEDY MAY BE HAD IN A LOWER FEDERAL COURT, EX PARTE CURRENT, 314 U.S.
578; EX PARTE SPAULDING, 317 U.S. 593; EX PARTE HAWK, 318 U.S. 746, OR,
IF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, WHERE THE
PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED HIS REMEDIES IN THE STATE COURTS, MOONEY
V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, 115; EX PARTE BOTWINSKI, 314 U.S. 586; EX
PARTE DAVIS, 317 U.S. 592, 318 U.S. 412; EX PARTE WILLIAMS, 317 U.S.
604.  REFUSAL OF THE WRIT, WITHOUT MORE, IS NOT AN ADJUDICATION ON THE
MERITS AND IS TO BE TAKEN AS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AN APPLICATION TO ANY
OTHER COURT FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT. 
..END :























MARCONI WIRELESS CO. V. U.S., 320 U.S. 1 


NO. 369.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 12, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1943.  - 99
CT.CLS.  1, AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  THE BROAD CLAIMS OF THE MARCONI PATENT NO. 763,772, FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN APPARATUS FOR WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY - BRIEFLY, FOR A
STRUCTURE AND ARRANGEMENT OF FOUR HIGH-FREQUENCY CIRCUITS WITH MEANS OF
INDEPENDENTLY ADJUSTING EACH SO THAT ALL FOUR MAY BE BROUGHT INTO
ELECTRICAL RESONANCE WITH ONE ANOTHER - HELD INVALID BECAUSE
ANTICIPATED.  P. 38. 

MARCONI SHOWED NO INVENTION OVER STONE (PATENT NO. 714,756) BY MAKING
THE TUNING OF HIS ANTENNA CIRCUIT ADJUSTABLE, OR BY USING LODGE'S
(PATENT NO. 609,154) VARIABLE INDUCTANCE FOR THAT PURPOSE.  WHETHER
STONE'S PATENT INVOLVED INVENTION IS NOT HERE DETERMINED. 

2.  MERELY MAKING A KNOWN ELEMENT OF A KNOWN COMBINATION ADJUSTABLE
BY A MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT KNOWN TO THE ART, WHEN NO NEW OR UNEXPECTED
RESULT IS OBTAINED, IS NOT INVENTION.  P. 32. 

3.  AS BETWEEN TWO INVENTORS, PRIORITY OF INVENTION WILL BE AWARDED
TO THE ONE WHO BY SATISFYING PROOF CAN SHOW THAT HE FIRST CONCEIVED OF
THE INVENTION.  P. 34. 

4.  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS ACHIEVED BY THE LATER INVENTOR AND PATENTEE
CANNOT SAVE HIS PATENT FROM THE DEFENSE OF ANTICIPATION BY A PRIOR
INVENTOR.  P. 35. 

5.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE POWER, THIS COURT MAY CONSIDER
ANY EVIDENCE OF RECORD WHICH, WHETHER OR NOT CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE COURT BELOW, IS RELEVANT TO AND MAY AFFECT THE CORRECTNESS OF ITS
DECISION SUSTAINING OR DENYING ANY CONTENTION WHICH A PARTY HAS MADE
BEFORE IT.  P. 44. 

6.  ALTHOUGH THE INTERLOCUTORY DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN
THIS CASE THAT CLAIM 16 OF MARCONI PATENT NO. 763,772 WAS VALID AND
INFRINGED WAS APPEALABLE, THE DECISION WAS NOT FINAL UNTIL THE
CONCLUSION OF THE ACCOUNTING; HENCE, THE COURT DID NOT LACK POWER AT
ANY TIME PRIOR TO ENTRY OF ITS FINAL JUDGMENT AT THE CLOSE OF THE
ACCOUNTING TO RECONSIDER ANY PORTION OF ITS DECISION AND REOPEN ANY
PART OF THE CASE, AND IT WAS FREE IN ITS DISCRETION TO GRANT A
REARGUMENT BASED EITHER ON ALL THE EVIDENCE THEN OF RECORD OR ONLY THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT WHEN IT RENDERED ITS INTERLOCUTORY DECISION,
OR TO REOPEN THE CASE FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE.  P. 47. 

7.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS HOLDING VALID AND INFRINGED
CLAIM 16 OF MARCONI PATENT NO. 763,772 IS VACATED AND REMANDED IN ORDER
THAT THAT COURT MAY DETERMINE WHETHER TO RECONSIDER ITS DECISION IN THE
LIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PRESENT CONTENTION THAT CLAIM 16, AS
CONSTRUED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, WAS ANTICIPATED BY THE PATENTS TO
PUPIN, NO. 640,516, AND FESSENDEN, NO. 706,735.  P. 48. 

8.  A DEFENDANT IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT WHO HAS ADDED NON
INFRINGING AND VALUABLE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE MAKING OF
THE PROFITS IS NOT LIABLE FOR BENEFITS RESULTING FROM SUCH
IMPROVEMENTS.  P. 50. 

9.  DISCLOSURE BY PUBLICATION MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE APPLICATION
FOR A PATENT BARS ANY CLAIM FOR A PATENT FOR AN INVENTION EMBODYING THE
PUBLISHED DISCLOSURE.  P. 57. 

10.  INVALIDITY IN PART OF A PATENT DEFEATS THE ENTIRE PATENT UNLESS
THE INVALID PORTION WAS CLAIMED THROUGH INADVERTENCE, ACCIDENT, OR
MISTAKE, AND WITHOUT ANY FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE INTENTION, AND IS
DISCLAIMED WITHOUT UNREASONABLE NEGLECT OR DELAY.  P. 57. 

11.  FLEMING PATENT NO. 803,864 HELD INVALID BY REASON OF AN IMPROPER
DISCLAIMER.  P. 58. 

THE SPECIFICATIONS PLAINLY CONTEMPLATED THE USE OF THE CLAIMED DEVICE
WITH LOW AS WELL AS HIGH FREQUENCY CURRENTS, AND THE PATENT WAS INVALID
FOR WANT OF INVENTION SO FAR AS APPLICABLE TO USE WITH LOW FREQUENCY
CURRENTS; THE CLAIM WAS NOT INADVERTENT, AND THE DELAY OF TEN YEARS IN
MAKING THE DISCLAIMER WAS UNREASONABLE. 

12.  THAT THE PATENTEE'S CLAIM FOR MORE THAN HE HAD INVENTED WAS NOT
INADVERTANT, AND THAT HIS DELAY IN MAKING DISCLAIMER WAS UNREASONABLE,
WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT; BUT, SINCE THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN ITS OPINION
IN THIS CASE PLAINLY STATES ITS CONCLUSIONS AS TO THEM, AND THOSE
CONCLUSIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, ITS OMISSION TO MAKE
FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 58. 

13.  THE DISCLAIMER STATUTES ARE APPLICABLE TO ONE WHO ACQUIRES A
PATENT UNDER AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE APPLICATION.  P. 59. 

MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF AMERICA V. UNITED STATES* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 373, UNITED STATES V. MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH
COMPANY OF AMERICA, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 620, TO THE
COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 620, ON CROSS-PETITIONS TO REVIEW A
JUDGMENT IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS.  SEE 81 CT. CLS. 741. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE MARCONI COMPANY BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS PURSUANT
TO 35 U.S.C. SEC. 68, TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF FOUR
UNITED STATES PATENTS.  TWO, NO. 763,772, AND REISSUE NO. 11,913, WERE
ISSUED TO MARCONI, A THIRD, NO. 609,154, TO LODGE, AND A FOURTH, NO.
803,684, TO FLEMING.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE MARCONI REISSUE PATENT
WAS NOT INFRINGED.  IT HELD ALSO THAT THE CLAIMS IN SUIT, OTHER THAN
CLAIM 16, OF THE MARCONI PATENT NO. 763,772, ARE INVALID; AND THAT
CLAIM 16 OF THE PATENT IS VALID AND WAS INFRINGED.  IT GAVE JUDGMENT
FOR PETITIONER ON THIS CLAIM IN THE SUM OF $42,984.93 WITH INTEREST. 
IT HELD THAT THE LODGE PATENT WAS VALID AND INFRINGED, AND THAT THE
FLEMING PATENT WAS NOT INFRINGED AND WAS RENDERED VOID BY AN IMPROPER
DISCLAIMER.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 620, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 288(B), ON PETITION OF THE MARCONI COMPANY IN NO. 369, TO REVIEW
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS HOLDING INVALID THE CLAIMS IN SUIT,
OTHER THAN CLAIM 16, OF THE MARCONI PATENT, AND HOLDING THE FLEMING
PATENT INVALID AND NOT INFRINGED, AND ON PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN
NO. 373, TO REVIEW THE DECISION ALLOWING RECOVERY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF
CLAIM 16 OF THE MARCONI PATENT.  NO REVIEW WAS SOUGHT BY EITHER PARTY
OF SO MUCH OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT AS SUSTAINED THE LODGE PATENT AND
HELD THE FIRST MARCONI REISSUE PATENT NOT INFRINGED. 

MARCONI PATENT NO. 763,772. 

THIS PATENT, GRANTED JUNE 28, 1904, ON AN APPLICATION FILED NOVEMBER
10, 1900, AND ASSIGNED TO THE MARCONI COMPANY ON MARCH 6, 1905,  FN1
IS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN APPARATUS FOR WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BY MEANS OF
HERTZIAN OSCILLATIONS OR ELECTRICAL WAVES.  IN WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY,
SIGNALS GIVEN BY MEANS OF CONTROLLED ELECTRICAL PULSATIONS ARE
TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE ETHER BY MEANS OF THE SOCALLED HERTZIAN OR
RADIO WAVES.  HERTZIAN WAVES ARE ELECTRICAL OSCILLATIONS WHICH TRAVEL
WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND HAVE VARYING WAVE LENGTHS AND CONSEQUENT
FREQUENCIES INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN THE FREQUENCY RANGES OF LIGHT AND
SOUND WAVES.  THE TRANSMITTING APPARATUS USED FOR SENDING THE SIGNALS
IS CAPABLE, WHEN ACTUATED BY A TELEGRAPH KEY OR OTHER SIGNALLING
DEVICE, OF PRODUCING, FOR SHORT PERIODS OF VARIABLE LENGTHS, ELECTRICAL
OSCILLATIONS OF RADIO FREQUENCY (OVER 10,000 CYCLES PER SECOND) IN AN
ANTENNA OR OPEN CIRCUIT FROM WHICH THE OSCILLATIONS ARE RADIATED TO A
DISTANT RECEIVING APPARATUS.  THE RECEIVER HAS AN OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT
WHICH IS ELECTRICALLY RESPONSIVE TO THE TRANSMITTED WAVES AND IS
CAPABLE OF USING THOSE RESPONSES TO ACTUATE BY MEANS OF A RELAY OR
AMPLIFIER ANY CONVENIENT FORM OF SIGNALLING APPARATUS FOR MAKING
AUDIBLE AN ELECTRICALLY TRANSMITTED SIGNAL, SUCH AS A TELEGRAPH SOUNDER
OR A LOUD SPEAKER.  IN BRIEF, SIGNALS AT THE TRANSMITTER ARE UTILIZED
TO CONTROL HIGH FREQUENCY ELECTRICAL OSCILLATIONS WHICH ARE RADIATED BY
AN ANTENNA THROUGH THE ETHER TO THE DISTANT RECEIVER AND THERE PRODUCE
AN AUDIBLE OR VISIBLE SIGNAL. 

ALL OF THESE WERE FAMILIAR DEVICES AT THE TIME OF MARCONI'S
APPLICATION FOR THE PATENT NOW IN SUIT.  BY THAT TIME RADIO HAD PASSED
FROM THE THEORETICAL TO THE PRACTICAL AND COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL. 
FOUR YEARS BEFORE, MARCONI HAD APPLIED FOR HIS ORIGINAL AND BASIC
PATENT, WHICH WAS GRANTED AS NO. 586,193, JULY 13, 1897 AND REISSUED
JUNE 4, 1901 AS REISSUE NO. 11,913.  HE APPLIED FOR HIS CORRESPONDING
BRITISH PATENT, NO. 12039 OF 1896, ON JUNE 2, 1896.  MARCONI'S ORIGINAL
PATENT SHOWED A TWO-CIRCUIT SYSTEM, IN WHICH THE HIGH FREQUENCY
OSCILLATIONS ORIGINATED IN THE TRANSMITTER ANTENNA CIRCUIT AND THE
DETECTING DEVICE WAS CONNECTED DIRECTLY IN THE RECEIVER ANTENNA
CIRCUIT.  BETWEEN 1896 AND 1900 HE DEMONSTRATED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS
THE PRACTICAL SUCCESS OF HIS APPARATUS, ATTAINING SUCCESSFUL
TRANSMISSION AT DISTANCES OF 70 AND 80 MILES.  DURING THOSE YEARS HE
APPLIED FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF PATENTS IN THIS AND OTHER COUNTRIES FOR
IMPROVEMENTS ON HIS SYSTEM OF RADIO COMMUNICATION.  FN2 

THE PARTICULAR ADVANCE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED BY THE MARCONI
PATENT WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WAS THE USE OF TWO HIGH
FREQUENCY CIRCUITS IN THE TRANSMITTER AND TWO IN THE RECEIVER, ALL FOUR
SO ADJUSTED AS TO BE RESONANT TO THE SAME FREQUENCY OR MULTIPLES OF IT.
THE CIRCUITS ARE SO CONSTRUCTED THAT THE ELECTRICAL IMPULSES IN THE
ANTENNA CIRCUIT OF THE TRANSMITTER VIBRATE LONGER WITH THE APPLICATION
TO THE TRANSMITTER OF A GIVEN AMOUNT OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY THAN HAD BEEN
THE CASE IN THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURES KNOWN TO THE ART, AND THE
SELECTIVITY AND SENSITIVITY OF THE RECEIVER IS LIKEWISE ENHANCED.  THUS
INCREASED EFFICIENCY IN THE TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION OF SIGNALS IS
OBTAINED.  THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE MARCONI PATENT STATE THAT ITS
OBJECT IS "TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SYSTEM AND TO PROVIDE NEW
AND SIMPLE MEANS WHEREBY OSCILLATIONS OF ELECTRICAL WAVES FROM A
TRANSMITTING STATION MAY BE LOCALIZED WHEN DESIRED AT ANY ONE SELECTED
RECEIVING STATION OR STATIONS OUT OF A GROUP OF SEVERAL RECEIVING
STATIONS." 

THE SPECIFICATIONS DESCRIBE AN ARRANGEMENT OF FOUR HIGH FREQUENCY
CIRCUITS TUNED TO ONE ANOTHER - TWO AT THE SENDING STATION ASSOCIATED
WITH A SOURCE OF LOW FREQUENCY OSCILLATIONS, AND TWO AT THE RECEIVING
STATION ASSOCIATED WITH A RELAY OR AMPLIFIER OPERATING A SIGNALLING
DEVICE.  AT THE SENDING STATION THERE IS AN OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT WHICH
IS "A GOOD RADIATOR," CONNECTED WITH THE SECONDARY COIL OF A
TRANSFORMER, AND THROUGH IT INDUCTIVELY COUPLED WITH A CLOSED CIRCUIT,
WHICH IS CONNECTED WITH THE PRIMARY COIL OF THE TRANSFORMER, THIS
CLOSED CIRCUIT BEING A "PERSISTENT OSCILLATOR."  AT THE RECEIVING
STATION THERE IS AN OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT CONSTITUTING A "GOOD ABSORBER"
INDUCTIVELY COUPLED WITH A CLOSED CIRCUIT CAPABLE OF ACCUMULATING THE
RECEIVED OSCILLATIONS. 

THE PATENT, IN DESCRIBING THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE APPARATUS SO AS TO
SECURE THE DESIRED RESONANCE OR TUNING, SPECIFIES:  "THE CAPACITY AND
SELF-INDUCTION OF THE FOUR CIRCUITS - I.E., THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
CIRCUITS AT THE TRANSMITTING-STATION AND THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
CIRCUITS AT ANY ONE OF THE RECEIVING-STATIONS IN A COMMUNICATING SYSTEM
ARE EACH AND ALL TO BE SO INDEPENDENTLY ADJUSTED AS TO MAKE THE PRODUCT
OF THE SELF-INDUCTION MULTIPLIED BY THE CAPACITY THE SAME IN EACH CASE
OR MULTIPLES OF EACH OTHER - THAT IS TO SAY, THE ELECTRICAL TIME
PERIODS OF THE FOUR CIRCUITS ARE TO BE THE SAME OR OCTAVES OF EACH
OTHER."  FN3  AND AGAIN, "IN EMPLOYING THIS INVENTION TO LOCALIZE THE
TRANSMISSION OF INTELLIGENCE AT ONE OF SEVERAL RECEIVING-STATIONS THE
TIME PERIOD OF THE CIRCUITS AT EACH OF THE RECEIVING-STATIONS IS SO
ARRANGED AS TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF THE OTHER STATIONS.  IF THE
TIME PERIODS OF THE CIRCUITS OF THE TRANSMITTING-STATION ARE VARIED
UNTIL THEY ARE IN RESONANCE WITH THOSE OF ONE OF THE RECEIVING
STATIONS, THAT ONE ALONE OF ALL THE RECEIVING-STATIONS WILL RESPOND,
PROVIDED THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING
STATIONS IS NOT TOO SMALL." 

THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOW A CLOSED CIRCUIT AT THE
TRANSMITTING STATION CONNECTED WITH THE PRIMARY OF AN INDUCTION COIL,
AND EMBRACING A SOURCE OF ELECTRICAL CURRENT AND A CIRCUIT-CLOSING KEY
OR OTHER SIGNALLING DEVICE.  THE SECONDARY OF THE INDUCTION COIL IS
CONNECTED IN A CIRCUIT WHICH INCLUDES A SPARK GAP OR OTHER PRODUCER OF
HIGH FREQUENCY OSCILLATIONS AND, IN A SHUNT AROUND THE SPARK GAP, THE
PRIMARY COIL OF AN OSCILLATION TRANSFORMER AND A CONDENSER, PREFERABLY
SO ARRANGED THAT ITS CAPACITY CAN READILY BE VARIED.  THIS SHUNT
CIRCUIT CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE TWO TUNED CIRCUITS OF THE TRANSMITTER,
AND IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS THE CLOSED OR CHARGING CIRCUIT.  THE
SECONDARY COIL OF THE TRANSFORMER IS CONNECTED IN THE OPEN OR ANTENNA
CIRCUIT, ONE END OF WHICH IS CONNECTED WITH THE EARTH, THE OTHER TO A
VERTICAL WIRE ANTENNA OR AN ELEVATED PLATE.  THIS ANTENNA CIRCUIT ALSO
INCLUDES AN INDUCTION COIL, PREFERABLY ONE WHOSE INDUCTANCE IS READILY
VARIABLE, LOCATED BETWEEN THE ANTENNA OR PLATE AND THE TRANSFORMER. 

THE RECEIVER CONSISTS OF A SIMILAR ANTENNA CIRCUIT CONNECTED WITH THE
PRIMARY COIL OF A TRANSFORMER, AND HAVING A VARIABLE INDUCTION COIL
LOCATED BETWEEN THE ANTENNA OR PLATE AND THE TRANSFORMER.  A SHUNT
CIRCUIT BRIDGING THE TRANSFORMER AND CONTAINING A CONDENSER WHICH IS
PREFERABLY ADJUSTABLE MAY ALSO BE ADDED.  THE SECONDARY COIL OF THE
TRANSFORMER IS CONNECTED THROUGH ONE OR MORE INTERPOSED INDUCTANCE
COILS, "PREFERABLY OF VARIABLE INDUCTANCE," WITH THE TERMINALS OF A
COHERER  FN4  OR OTHER SUITABLE DETECTOR OF ELECTRICAL OSCILLATIONS. 
THE CLOSED RECEIVER CIRCUIT ALSO CONTAINED ONE OR MORE CONDENSERS. 

THE DEVICES AND ARRANGEMENTS SPECIFIED ARE SUITABLE FOR EFFECTING THE
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION OF SIGNALS IN THE MANNER ALREADY INDICATED.  BY
THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SAME HIGH FREQUENCY THROUGHOUT THE FOUR-CIRCUIT
SYSTEM THE CUMULATIVE RESONANCE IS ATTAINED WHICH GIVES THE DESIRED
INCREASED EFFICIENCY IN TRANSMISSION AND INCREASED SELECTIVITY AT THE
RECEIVING STATION. 

THE PATENT DESCRIBES THE OPERATION OF THE FOUR CIRCUITS AS FOLLOWS,
BEGINNING WITH THE TRANSMITTER: 

"IN OPERATION THE SIGNALLING-KEY B IS PRESSED, AND THIS CLOSES THE
PRIMARY OF THE INDUCTION-COIL.  CURRENT THEN RUSHES THROUGH THE
TRANSFORMER-CIRCUIT AND THE CONDENSER E IS CHARGED AND SUBSEQUENTLY
DISCHARGES THROUGH THE SPARK-GAP.  IF THE CAPACITY, THE INDUCTANCE, AND
THE RESISTANCE OF THE CIRCUIT ARE OF SUITABLE VALUES, THE DISCHARGE IS
OSCILLATORY, WITH THE RESULT THAT ALTERNATING CURRENTS OF HIGH
FREQUENCY PASS THROUGH THE PRIMARY OF THE TRANSFORMER AND INDUCE
SIMILAR OSCILLATIONS IN THE SECONDARY, THESE OSCILLATIONS BEING RAPIDLY
RADIATED IN THE FORM OF ELECTRIC WAVES BY THE ELEVATED CONDUCTOR
(ANTENNA). 

"FOR THE BEST RESULTS AND IN ORDER TO EFFECT THE SELECTION OF THE
STATION OR STATIONS WHEREAT THE TRANSMITTED OSCILLATIONS ARE TO BE
LOCALIZED I INCLUDE IN THE OPEN SECONDARY CIRCUIT OF THE TRANSFORMER,
AND PREFERABLY BETWEEN THE RADIATOR F AND THE SECONDARY COIL D', AN
INDUCTANCE-COIL G, FIG. 1, HAVING NUMEROUS COILS, AND THE CONNECTION IS
SUCH THAT A GREATER OR LESS NUMBER OF TURNS OF THE COIL CAN BE PUT IN
USE, THE PROPER NUMBER BEING ASCERTAINED BY EXPERIMENT." 

THE INVENTION THUS DESCRIBED MAY SUMMARILY BE STATED TO BE A
STRUCTURE AND ARRANGEMENT OF FOUR HIGH FREQUENCY CIRCUITS, WITH MEANS
OF INDEPENDENTLY ADJUSTING EACH SO THAT ALL FOUR MAY BE BROUGHT INTO
ELECTRICAL RESONANCE WITH ONE ANOTHER.  THIS IS THE BROAD INVENTION
COVERED BY CLAIM 20.  COMBINATIONS COVERING SO MUCH OF THE INVENTION AS
IS EMBODIED IN THE TRANSMITTER AND THE RECEIVER RESPECTIVELY ARE
SEPARATELY CLAIMED.  FN5 

LONG BEFORE MARCONI'S APPLICATION FOR THIS PATENT THE SCIENTIFIC
PRINCIPLES OF WHICH HE MADE USE WERE WELL UNDERSTOOD AND THE PARTICULAR
APPLIANCES CONSTITUTING ELEMENTS IN THE APPARATUS COMBINATION WHICH HE
CLAIMED WERE WELL KNOWN.  ABOUT SEVENTY YEARS AGO CLERK MAXWELL
DESCRIBED THE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION THROUGH THE
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY BY ETHER WAVES.  FN6  BETWEEN 1878
AND 1890 HERTZ DEVISED APPARATUS FOR ACHIEVING THAT RESULT WHICH WAS
DESCRIBED BY DE TUNZELMANN IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN THE
LONDON ELECTRICIAN IN 1888.  ONE, OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1888, SHOWED A
TRANSMITTER COMPRISING A CLOSED CIRCUIT INDUCTIVELY COUPLED WITH AN
OPEN CIRCUIT.  THE CLOSED CIRCUIT INCLUDED A SWITCH OR CIRCUIT BREAKER
CAPABLE OF USE FOR SENDING SIGNALS, AND AN AUTOMATIC CIRCUIT BREAKER
CAPABLE, WHEN THE SWITCH WAS CLOSED, OF SETTING UP AN INTERMITTENT
CURRENT IN THE CLOSED CIRCUIT WHICH IN TURN INDUCED THROUGH A
TRANSFORMER AN INTERMITTENT CURRENT OF HIGHER VOLTAGE IN THE OPEN
CIRCUIT.  THE OPEN CIRCUIT INCLUDED A SPARK GAP ACROSS WHICH A
SUCCESSION OF SPARKS WERE CAUSED TO LEAP WHENEVER THE SIGNAL SWITCH WAS
CLOSED, EACH SPARK PRODUCING A SERIES OF HIGH FREQUENCY OSCILLATIONS IN
THE OPEN CIRCUIT. 

BY CONNECTING THE SPARK GAP TO LARGE AREA PLATES IN THE OPEN CIRCUIT
HERTZ INCREASED THE CAPACITY AND THUS NOT ONLY INCREASED THE FORCE OF
THE SPARKS BUT ALSO CHANGED ONE OF THE TWO FACTORS DETERMINING THE
FREQUENCY OF THE OSCILLATIONS IN THE CIRCUIT, AND HENCE THE WAVE LENGTH
OF THE OSCILLATIONS TRANSMITTED.  HERTZ'S RECEIVER WAS SHOWN AS A
RECTANGLE OF WIRE CONNECTED TO THE KNOBS OF A SPARK GAP, BOTH THE WIRE
AND THE SPARK GAP BEING OF SPECIFIED LENGTHS OF SUCH RELATIONSHIP AS TO
RENDER THE CIRCUIT RESONANT TO THE WAVE LENGTHS IN THE TRANSMITTER.  AT
TIMES HERTZ ATTACHED TO THE RECTANGLE ADDITIONAL VERTICAL WIRES WHICH
PROVIDED ADDITIONAL CAPACITY, AND WHOSE LENGTH COULD READILY BE VARIED
SO AS TO VARY THE WAVE LENGTHS TO WHICH THE RECEIVER WAS RESPONSIVE,
THUS PROVIDING A "METHOD OF ADJUSTING THE CAPACITY" OF THE RECEIVER. 
FN7  THUS HERTZ AT THE OUTSET OF RADIO COMMUNICATION RECOGNIZED THE
IMPORTANCE OF RESONANCE AND PROVIDED MEANS FOR SECURING IT BY TUNING
BOTH HIS TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING CIRCUITS TO THE SAME FREQUENCY, BY
ADJUSTING THE CAPACITY OF EACH.  FN8    LODGE, WRITING IN THE LONDON
ELECTRICIAN IN 1894, ELABORATED FURTHER ON THE DISCOVERIES OF HERTZ AND
ON HIS OWN EXPERIMENTS ALONG THE SAME LINES.  IN ONE ARTICLE, OF JUNE
8, 1894, HE DISCUSSED PHENOMENA OF RESONANCE AND MADE AN OBSERVATION
WHICH UNDERLIES SEVERAL OF THE DISCLOSURES IN MARCONI'S PATENT.  LODGE
POINTED OUT THAT SOME CIRCUITS WERE BY THEIR NATURE PERSISTENT
VIBRATORS, I.E., WERE ABLE TO SUSTAIN FOR A LONG PERIOD OSCILLATIONS
SET UP IN THEM, WHILE OTHERS WERE SO CONSTRUCTED THAT THEIR
OSCILLATIONS WERE RAPIDLY DAMPED.  HE SAID THAT A RECEIVER SO
CONSTRUCTED AS TO BE RAPIDLY DAMPED WOULD RESPOND TO WAVES OF ALMOST
ANY FREQUENCY, WHILE ONE THAT WAS A PERSISTENT VIBRATOR WOULD RESPOND
ONLY TO WAVES OF ITS OWN NATURAL PERIODICITY.  LODGE POINTED OUT
FURTHER THAT HERTZ'S TRANSMITTER "RADIATES VERY POWERFULLY" BUT THAT
"IN CONSEQUENCE OF ITS RADIATION OF ENERGY, ITS VIBRATIONS ARE RAPIDLY
DAMPED, AND IT ONLY GIVES SOME THREE OR FOUR GOOD STRONG SWINGS.  HENCE
IT FOLLOWS THAT IT HAS A WIDE RANGE OF EXCITATION, I.E., IT CAN EXCITE
SPARKS IN CONDUCTORS BARELY AT ALL IN TUNE WITH IT."  ON THE OTHER HAND
HERTZ'S RECEIVER WAS "NOT A GOOD ABSORBER BUT A PERSISTENT VIBRATOR,
WELL ADAPTED FOR PICKING UP DISTURBANCES OF PRECISE AND MEASURABLE WAVE
LENGTH."  LODGE CONCLUDED THAT "THE TWO CONDITIONS, CONSPICUOUS ENERGY
OF RADIATION AND PERSISTENT VIBRATION ELECTRICALLY PRODUCED, ARE AT
PRESENT INCOMPATIBLE."  (PP. 154-5.) 

IN 1892, CROOKES PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE IN THE FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW IN
WHICH HE DEFINITELY SUGGESTED THE USE OF HERTZIAN WAVES FOR WIRELESS
TELEGRAPHY AND POINTED OUT THAT THE METHOD OF ACHIEVING THAT RESULT WAS
TO BE FOUND IN THE USE AND IMPROVEMENT OF THEN KNOWN MEANS OF
GENERATING ELECTRICAL WAVES OF ANY DESIRED WAVE LENGTH, TO BE
TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE ETHER TO A RECEIVER, BOTH SENDING AND RECEIVING
INSTRUMENTS BEING ATTUNED TO A DEFINITE WAVE LENGTH.  FN9  A YEAR LATER
TESLA, WHO WAS THEN PREOCCUPIED WITH THE WIRELESS TRANSMISSION OF POWER
FOR USE IN LIGHTING OR FOR THE OPERATION OF DYNAMOS, PROPOSED, IN A
LECTURE BEFORE THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE IN PHILADELPHIA, THE USE OF
ADJUSTABLE HIGH FREQUENCY OSCILLATIONS FOR WIRELESS TRANSMISSION OF
SIGNALS.  FN10 

MARCONI'S ORIGINAL PATENT NO. 586,193, WHICH WAS GRANTED JULY 13,
1897, AND BECAME REISSUE NO. 11,913, DISCLOSED A TWO-CIRCUIT SYSTEM FOR
THE TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION OF HERTZIAN WAVES.  THE TRANSMITTER
COMPRISED AN ANTENNA CIRCUIT CONNECTED AT ONE END TO AN AERIAL PLATE
AND AT THE OTHER TO THE GROUND, AND CONTAINING A SPARK GAP.  TO THE
KNOBS OF THE SPARK GAP WAS CONNECTED A TRANSFORMER WHOSE SECONDARY WAS
CONNECTED WITH A SOURCE OF CURRENT AND A SIGNALLING KEY.  THE LOW
FREQUENCY CURRENT THEREBY INDUCED IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT WAS CAUSED TO
DISCHARGE THROUGH THE SPARK GAP, PRODUCING THE HIGH FREQUENCY
OSCILLATIONS WHICH WERE RADIATED BY THE ANTENNA.  THE RECEIVER
SIMILIARLY CONTAINED AN ANTENNA CIRCUIT BETWEEN AN ELEVATED PLATE AND
THE GROUND, IN WHICH A COHERER WAS DIRECTLY CONNECTED.  MARCONI CLAIMED
THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER SO AS TO BE RESONANT TO
THE SAME FREQUENCY, AND DESCRIBED MEANS OF DOING SO BY CAREFUL
DETERMINATION OF THE SIZE OF THE AERIAL PLATES. 

THE TESLA PATENT NO. 645,576, APPLIED FOR SEPTEMBER 2, 1897 AND
ALLOWED MARCH 20, 1900, DISCLOSED A FOUR-CIRCUIT SYSTEM, HAVING TWO
CIRCUITS EACH AT TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER, AND RECOMMENDED THAT ALL
FOUR CIRCUITS BE TUNED TO THE SAME FREQUENCY.  TESLA'S APPARATUS WAS
DEVISED PRIMARILY FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY TO ANY FORM OF ENERGY
CONSUMING DEVICE BY USING THE RARIFIED ATMOSPHERE AT HIGH ELEVATIONS AS
A CONDUCTOR WHEN SUBJECTED TO THE ELECTRICAL PRESSURE OF A VERY HIGH
VOLTAGE.  BUT HE ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT HIS APPARATUS COULD, WITHOUT
CHANGE, BE USED FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION, WHICH IS DEPENDENT UPON THE
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY.  HIS SPECIFICATIONS DECLARE:  "THE
APPARATUS WHICH I HAVE SHOWN WILL OBVIOUSLY HAVE MANY OTHER VALUABLE
USES - AS, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN IT IS DESIRED TO TRANSMIT INTELLIGIBLE
MESSAGES TO GREAT DISTANCES ...  "  FN11 

TESLA'S SPECIFICATIONS DISCLOSED AN ARRANGEMENT OF FOUR CIRCUITS, AN
OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT COUPLED, THROUGH A TRANSFORMER, TO A CLOSED
CHARGING CIRCUIT AT THE TRANSMITTER, AND AN OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT AT THE
RECEIVER SIMILARLY COUPLED TO A CLOSED DETECTOR CIRCUIT.  HIS PATENT
ALSO INSTRUCTED THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART THAT THE OPEN AND CLOSED
CIRCUITS IN THE TRANSMITTING SYSTEM AND IN THE RECEIVING SYSTEM SHOULD
BE IN ELECTRICAL RESONANCE WITH EACH OTHER.  HIS SPECIFICATIONS STATE
THAT THE "PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CIRCUITS IN THE TRANSMITTING APPARATUS"
ARE "CAREFULLY SYNCHRONIZED."  THEY DESCRIBE THE METHOD OF ACHIEVING
THIS BY ADJUSTING THE LENGTH OF WIRE IN THE SECONDARY WINDING OF THE
OSCILLATION TRANSFORMER IN THE TRANSMITTER, AND SIMILARLY IN THE
RECEIVER, SO THAT "THE POINTS OF HIGHEST POTENTIAL ARE MADE TO COINCIDE
WITH THE ELEVATED TERMINALS" OF THE ANTENNA, I.E., SO THAT THE ANTENNA
CIRCUIT WILL BE RESONANT TO THE FREQUENCY DEVELOPED IN THE CHARGING
CIRCUIT OF THE TRANSMITTER.  THE SPECIFICATIONS FURTHER STATE THAT "THE
RESULTS WERE PARTICULARLY SATISFACTORY WHEN THE PRIMARY COIL OR SYSTEM
A' WITH ITS SECONDARY C' (OF THE RECEIVER) WAS CAREFULLY ADJUSTED, SO
AS TO VIBRATE IN SYNCHRONISM WITH THE TRANSMITTING COIL OR SYSTEM AC." 

TESLA THUS ANTICIPATED THE FOLLOWING FEATURES OF THE MARCONI PATENT:
A CHARGING CIRCUIT IN THE TRANSMITTER FOR CAUSING OSCILLATIONS OF THE
DESIRED FREQUENCY, COUPLED, THROUGH A TRANSFORMER, WITH THE OPEN
ANTENNA CIRCUIT, AND THE SYNCHRONIZATION OF THE TWO CIRCUITS BY THE
PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE INDUCTANCE IN EITHER THE CLOSED OR THE
ANTENNA CIRCUIT OR BOTH.  BY THIS AND THE ADDED DISCLOSURE OF THE TWO
CIRCUIT ARRANGEMENT IN THE RECEIVER WITH SIMILAR ADJUSTMENT, HE
ANTICIPATED THE FOUR-CIRCUIT TUNED COMBINATION OF MARCONI.  A FEATURE
OF THE MARCONI COMBINATION NOT SHOWN BY TESLA WAS THE USE OF A VARIABLE
INDUCTANCE AS A MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT OF
TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER.  THIS WAS DEVELOPED BY LODGE AFTER TESLA'S
PATENT BUT BEFORE THE MARCONI PATENT IN SUIT. 

IN PATENT NO. 609,154, APPLIED FOR FEBRUARY 1, 1898 AND ALLOWED
AUGUST 16, 1898, BEFORE MARCONI'S APPLICATION, LODGE DISCLOSED AN
ADJUSTABLE INDUCTION COIL IN THE OPEN OR ANTENNA CIRCUIT IN A WIRELESS
TRANSMITTER OR RECEIVER OR BOTH TO ENABLE TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER TO
BE TUNED TOGETHER.  HIS PATENT PROVIDED FOR THE USE, IN THE OPEN
CIRCUITS OF A TRANSMITTER AND A RECEIVER OF HERTZIAN WAVES, OF A SELF
INDUCTION COIL BETWEEN A PAIR OF CAPACITY AREAS WHICH HE STATED MIGHT
BE ANTENNA AND EARTH.  HIS SPECIFICATIONS STATE THAT A COIL LOCATED AS
DESCRIBED COULD BE MADE ADJUSTABLE AT WILL SO AS TO VARY THE VALUE OF
ITS SELF-INDUCTANCE; THAT THE ADJUSTMENT, TO SECURE THE "DESIRED
FREQUENCY OF VIBRATION OR SYNTONY WITH A PARTICULAR DISTANT STATION,"
MAY BE ATTAINED EITHER "BY REPLACING ONE COIL BY ANOTHER" OR BY THE USE
OF A COIL CONSTRUCTED WITH A MOVABLE SWITCH SO RELATED TO THE COIL AS
TO SHORT CIRCUIT, WHEN CLOSED, ANY DESIRED NUMBER OF TURNS OF THE WIRE,
"SO THAT THE WHOLE OR ANY SMALLER PORTION OF THE INDUCTANCE AVAILABLE
MAY BE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CORRESPONDINGLY-ATTUNED RECEIVER AT
THE PARTICULAR STATION TO WHICH IT IS DESIRED TO SIGNAL."  THUS LODGE
ADJUSTED HIS TUNING BY VARYING THE SELF-INDUCTANCE OF THE ANTENNA
CIRCUITS, FOR, AS HE EXPLAINED, THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAVE LENGTHS, AND
HENCE OF FREQUENCY IN THE CIRCUITS, COULD BE MADE BY VARYING EITHER OR
BOTH THE INDUCTANCE AND CAPACITY, WHICH ARE THE FACTORS CONTROLLING
WAVE LENGTH AND HENCE FREQUENCY IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS. 

LODGE THUS BROADLY CLAIMED THE TUNING, BY MEANS OF A VARIABLE
INDUCTANCE, OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS IN A SYSTEM OF RADIO
COMMUNICATION.  HIS SPECIFICATIONS DISCLOSE WHAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY A TWO
CIRCUIT SYSTEM, WITH ONE HIGH FREQUENCY CIRCUIT AT THE TRANSMITTER AND
ONE AT THE RECEIVER.  HE ALSO SHOWED A TWO-CIRCUIT RECEIVER WITH A
TUNED ANTENNA CIRCUIT, HIS DETECTOR CIRCUIT AT THE RECEIVER BEING
CONNECTED WITH THE TERMINALS OF A SECONDARY COIL WOUND AROUND THE
VARIABLE INDUCTANCE COIL IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT AND THUS INDUCTIVELY
COUPLED THROUGH A TRANSFORMER WITH THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT.  FN12  LODGE
THUS SUPPLIED THE MEANS OF VARYING INDUCTANCE AND HENCE TUNING WHICH
WAS LACKING IN THE TESLA PATENT.  HE ALSO SHOWED A RECEIVER WHICH
COMPLETELY ANTICIPATED THOSE OF THE MARCONI RECEIVER CLAIMS WHICH
PRESCRIBE ADJUSTABLE MEANS OF TUNING ONLY IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT
(CLAIMS 2, 13 AND 18) AND PARTIALLY ANTICIPATED THE OTHER RECEIVER
CLAIMS. 

THE STONE PATENT NO. 714,756, APPLIED FOR FEBRUARY 8, 1900, NINE
MONTHS BEFORE MARCONI'S APPLICATION, AND ALLOWED DECEMBER 2, 1902, A
YEAR AND A HALF BEFORE THE GRANT OF MARCONI'S PATENT, SHOWED A FOUR
CIRCUIT WIRELESS TELEGRAPH APPARATUS SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE THAT LATER
SPECIFIED AND PATENTED BY MARCONI.  IT DESCRIBED ADJUSTABLE TUNING, BY
MEANS OF A VARIABLE INDUCTANCE, OF THE CLOSED CIRCUITS OF BOTH
TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER.  IT ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE TWO ANTENNA
CIRCUITS BE SO CONSTRUCTED AS TO BE RESONANT TO THE SAME FREQUENCIES AS
THE CLOSED CIRCUITS.  THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS ADDED BY AMENDMENT TO THE
SPECIFICATIONS MADE AFTER MARCONI HAD FILED HIS APPLICATION, AND THE
PRINCIPAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS WERE IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE
A DEPARTURE FROM STONE'S INVENTION AS DISCLOSED BY HIS APPLICATION. 

STONE'S APPLICATION SHOWS AN INTIMATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING RADIO COMMUNICATION AND
ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS IN GENERAL.  IT CONTAINS A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE
STATE OF THE ART OF RADIO TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION.  HE SAID THAT AS
YET IT HAD NOT BEEN FOUND POSSIBLE SO TO TUNE STATIONS USING A VERTICAL
ANTENNA AS TO MAKE POSSIBLE SELECTIVE RECEPTION BY A PARTICULAR STATION
TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS.  HIS EFFORT, ACCORDINGLY, WAS TO TRANSMIT A
"SIMPLE HARMONIC WAVE" OF WELL DEFINED PERIODICITY TO A RECEIVER WHICH
WOULD BE SELECTIVELY RESPONSIVE TO THE PARTICULAR FREQUENCY
TRANSMITTED, AND THEREBY TO ACHIEVE GREATER PRECISION OF TUNING AND A
HIGHER DEGREE OF SELECTIVITY. 

STONE DISCUSSES IN SOME DETAIL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "NATURAL" AND
"FORCED" OSCILLATIONS.  HE SAYS "IF THE ELECTRICAL EQUILIBRIUM OF A
CONDUCTOR BE ABRUPTLY DISTURBED AND THE CONDUCTOR THEREAFTER BE LEFT TO
ITSELF, ELECTRIC CURRENTS WILL FLOW IN THE CONDUCTOR, WHICH TEND TO
ULTIMATELY RESTORE THE CONDITION OF ELECTRICAL EQUILIBRIUM."  HE POINTS
OUT THAT A CLOSED CIRCUIT CONTAINING A CONDENSER AND A COIL IS "CAPABLE
OF OSCILLATORY RESTORATION OF EQUILIBRIUM UPON THE SUDDEN DISCHARGE OF
THE CONDENSER" AND THAT "THE ELECTRICAL OSCILLATIONS WHICH IT SUPPORTS
WHEN ITS EQUILIBRIUM IS ABRUPTLY DISTURBED AND IT IS THEN LEFT TO
ITSELF ARE KNOWN AS THE NATURAL VIBRATIONS OR OSCILLATIONS OF THE
SYSTEM." 

IN ADDITION TO ITS ABILITY TO ORIGINATE "NATURAL VIBRATIONS" WHEN ITS
ELECTRICAL EQUILIBRIUM IS DISTURBED, STONE SAYS THAT AN ELECTRICAL
CIRCUIT IS ALSO "CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING WHAT ARE TERMED FORCED
VIBRATIONS" WHEN ELECTRICAL OSCILLATIONS ELSEWHERE CREATED ARE
IMPRESSED UPON IT.  IN CONTRAST TO THE "NATURAL" VIBRATIONS OF A
CIRCUIT, WHOSE FREQUENCY DEPENDS UPON "THE RELATION BETWEEN THE
ELECTROMAGNETIC CONSTANTS (CAPACITY AND SELF-INDUCTANCE) OF THE
CIRCUIT," THE FREQUENCY OF THE "FORCED" VIBRATIONS IS "INDEPENDENT OF
THE CONSTANTS OF THE CIRCUIT" ON WHICH THEY ARE IMPRESSED AND "DEPENDS
ONLY UPON THE PERIOD (FREQUENCY) OF THE IMPRESSED FORCE."  IN OTHER
WORDS, STONE FOUND THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE NOT ONLY TO ORIGINATE HIGH
FREQUENCY OSCILLATIONS IN A CIRCUIT, AND TO DETERMINE THEIR FREQUENCY
BY PROPER DISTRIBUTION OF CAPACITY AND SELF-INDUCTANCE IN THE CIRCUIT,
BUT ALSO TO TRANSFER THOSE OSCILLATIONS TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT AND RETAIN
THEIR ORIGINAL FREQUENCY. 

STONE POINTS OUT THAT IN THE EXISTING SYSTEMS OF RADIO TRANSMISSION
THE ELECTRIC OSCILLATIONS ARE "NATURALLY" DEVELOPED IN THE ANTENNA
CIRCUIT BY THE SUDDEN DISCHARGE OF ACCUMULATED ELECTRICAL FORCE THROUGH
A SPARK GAP IN THAT CIRCUIT.  SUCH OSCILLATIONS ARE "NECESSARILY OF A
COMPLEX CHARACTER AND CONSIST OF A GREAT VARIETY OF SUPERIMPOSED SIMPLE
HARMONIC VIBRATIONS OF DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES."  "SIMILARLY THE VERTICAL
CONDUCTOR AT THE RECEIVING STATION IS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING AND
RESPONDING TO VIBRATIONS OF A GREAT VARIETY OF FREQUENCIES SO THAT THE
ELECTRO-MAGNETIC WAVES WHICH EMANATE FROM ONE VERTICAL CONDUCTOR USED
AS A TRANSMITTER ARE CAPABLE OF EXCITING VIBRATIONS IN ANY OTHER
VERTICAL WIRE AS A RECEIVER  ...  AND THE MESSAGES FROM THE
TRANSMITTING STATION WILL NOT BE SELECTIVELY RECEIVED BY THE PARTICULAR
RECEIVING STATION WITH WHICH IT IS DESIROUS TO COMMUNICATE, AND WILL
INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION OF OTHER RECEIVING STATIONS WITHIN ITS
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE." 

IN CONTRAST TO THE TWO-CIRCUIT SYSTEM WHOSE INADEQUACIES HE HAD THUS
DESCRIBED, STONE'S DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS DISCLOSE A FOUR-CIRCUIT
SYSTEM FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING RADIO WAVES WHICH WAS VERY
SIMILAR TO THAT LATER DISCLOSED BY MARCONI.  THE TRANSMITTER INCLUDED A
SOURCE OF LOW FREQUENCY OSCILLATING CURRENT AND A TELEGRAPH OR
SIGNALLING KEY CONNECTED IN A CIRCUIT WHICH WAS INDUCTIVELY COUPLED
WITH ANOTHER CLOSED CIRCUIT.  THIS INCLUDED AN INDUCTION COIL, A
CONDENSER, AND A SPARK GAP CAPABLE OF GENERATING HIGH FREQUENCY
OSCILLATIONS.  IT IN TURN WAS INDUCTIVELY COUPLED THROUGH A TRANSFORMER
WITH AN OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT CONNECTED TO AN AERIAL CAPACITY AT ONE END
AND THE EARTH AT THE OTHER.  THE RECEIVER INCLUDED A SIMILAR ANTENNA
CIRCUIT, INDUCTIVELY COUPLED WITH A CLOSED OSCILLATING CIRCUIT
CONTAINING AN INDUCTION COIL, A CONDENSER, AND A COHERER OR OTHER
DETECTOR OF RADIO WAVES.    STONE THUS RECOGNIZED, ALTHOUGH HE USED
DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY, THE FACT, PREVIOUSLY OBSERVED BY LODGE, THAT AN
OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT, SO CONSTRUCTED AS TO BE AN EFFICIENT RADIATOR,
WAS NOT AN OSCILLATOR CAPABLE OF PRODUCING NATURAL WAVES OF A SINGLE
WELL-DEFINED PERIODICITY, AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD A WIDE RANGE OF
EXCITATION.  HE ADOPTED THE SAME REMEDY FOR THIS DEFECT AS MARCONI
LATER DID, NAMELY TO PRODUCE THE OSCILLATIONS IN A CLOSED CIRCUIT
CAPABLE OF GENERATING PERSISTENT VIBRATIONS OF WELL-DEFINED
PERIODICITY, AND THEN INDUCE THOSE OSCILLATIONS IN AN OPEN ANTENNA
CIRCUIT CAPABLE OF RADIATING THEM EFFICIENTLY TO A DISTANT RESONANT
RECEIVER.  HE STATES THAT THE VIBRATIONS IN HIS CLOSED CIRCUIT "BEGIN
WITH A MAXIMUM OF AMPLITUDE AND GRADUALLY DIE AWAY," A GOOD DESCRIPTION
OF THE RESULTS OBTAINABLE BY A "PERSISTENT OSCILLATOR."  FN13
SIMILARLY IN HIS RECEIVER STONE RECOGNIZED THAT AN OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT
(LODGE'S "GOOD ABSORBER") WAS NOT A HIGHLY SENSITIVE RESPONDER TO WAVES
OF A PARTICULAR FREQUENCY, AND ACCORDINGLY HE SOUGHT TO AUGMENT THE
SELECTIVITY OF TUNING AT THE RECEIVER BY INTERPOSING BETWEEN THE
ANTENNA CIRCUIT AND THE RESPONDING DEVICE A CLOSED CIRCUIT WHICH WOULD
BE A MORE PERSISTENT VIBRATOR AND HENCE RENDER THE RECEIVING APPARATUS
MORE SELECTIVELY RESPONSIVE TO WAVES OF A PARTICULAR FREQUENCY.  IN SO
DOING, HOWEVER, AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR, HE DID NOT DISREGARD THE
FAVORABLE EFFECT ON SELECTIVITY OF TUNING AFFORDED BY MAKING THE
ANTENNA CIRCUITS RESONANT TO THE TRANSMITTED FREQUENCY. 

STONE'S APPLICATION RECOMMENDS THAT THE INDUCTANCE COILS IN THE
CLOSED CIRCUITS AT TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER "BE MADE ADJUSTABLE AND
SERVE AS A MEANS WHEREBY THE OPERATORS MAY ADJUST THE APPARATUS TO THE
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY WHICH IT IS INTENDED TO EMPLOY."  HE THUS
DISCLOSED A MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE TUNING OF THE CLOSED CIRCUITS BY
VARIABLE INDUCTANCE.  HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOWHERE STATES IN SO
MANY WORDS THAT THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS SHOULD BE TUNED, NOR DO ITS
SPECIFICATIONS OR DRAWINGS EXPLICITLY DISCLOSE ANY MEANS FOR ADJUSTING
THE TUNING OF THOSE CIRCUITS.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THEM TO SUGGEST
THAT STONE DID NOT INTEND TO HAVE THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS TUNED, AND WE
THINK THAT THE PRINCIPLES WHICH HE RECOGNIZED IN HIS APPLICATION, THE
PURPOSE WHICH HE SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE, AND CERTAIN PASSAGES IN HIS
SPECIFICATIONS, SHOW THAT HE RECOGNIZED, AS THEY PLAINLY SUGGEST TO
THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART, THE DESIRABILITY OF TUNING THE ANTENNA
CIRCUITS AS WELL.  THE DISCLOSURES OF HIS APPLICATION WERE THUS AN
ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION, LATER ADDED BY
AMENDMENT, AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS
SO AS TO BE RESONANT TO THE FREQUENCY PRODUCED IN THE CHARGING CIRCUIT
OF THE TRANSMITTER. 

THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF STONE'S SYSTEM WAS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF GREATER
SELECTIVITY OF TUNING.  HIS OBJECTIVE WAS TO TRANSMIT WAVES "OF BUT A
SINGLE FREQUENCY" AND TO RECEIVE THEM AT A STATION WHICH "SHALL BE
OPERATED ONLY BY ELECTRIC WAVES OF A SINGLE FREQUENCY AND NO OTHERS." 
HE STATES: 

"BY MY INVENTION THE VERTICAL CONDUCTOR OF THE TRANSMITTING STATION
IS MADE THE SOURCE OF ELECTRO-MAGNETIC WAVES OF BUT A SINGLE
PERIODICITY, AND THE TRANSLATING APPARATUS AT THE RECEIVING STATION IS
CAUSED TO BE SELECTIVELY RESPONSIVE TO WAVES OF BUT A SINGLE
PERIODICITY SO THAT THE TRANSMITTING APPARATUS CORRESPONDS TO A TUNING
FORK SENDING BUT A SINGLE SIMPLE MUSICAL TONE, AND THE RECEIVING
APPARATUS CORRESPONDS TO AN ACOUSTIC RESONATOR CAPABLE OF ABSORBING THE
ENERGY OF THAT SINGLE, SIMPLE MUSICAL TONE ONLY." 

HE SAYS THAT "WHEN THE APPARATUS AT A PARTICULAR (RECEIVING) STATION"
IS PROPERLY TUNED TO A PARTICULAR TRANSMITTING STATION THE RECEIVER
WILL SELECTIVELY RECEIVE MESSAGES FROM IT.  HE ADDS: 

"MOREOVER, BY MY INVENTION THE OPERATOR AT THE TRANSMITTING OR
RECEIVING STATION MAY AT WILL ADJUST THE APPARATUS AT HIS COMMAND IN
SUCH A WAY AS TO PLACE HIMSELF IN COMMUNICATION WITH ANY ONE OF A
NUMBER OF STATIONS  ...  BY BRINGING HIS APPARATUS INTO RESONANCE WITH
THE PERIODICITY EMPLOYED." 

AND WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSMITTER HE SAYS, "IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD
THAT ANY SUITABLE DEVICE MAY BE EMPLOYED TO DEVELOP THE SIMPLE HARMONIC
FORCE IMPRESSED UPON THE VERTICAL WIRE (ANTENNA).  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO
DEVELOP IN THE VERTICAL WIRE PRACTICALLY SIMPLE HARMONIC VIBRATIONS OF
A FIXED AND HIGH FREQUENCY." 

THESE STATEMENTS SUFFICIENTLY INDICATE STONE'S BROAD PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING A HIGH DEGREE OF TUNING AT SENDING AND RECEIVING STATIONS. 
IN SEEKING TO ACHIEVE THAT END HE NOT UNNATURALLY PLACED EMPHASIS ON
THE TUNING OF THE CLOSED CIRCUITS, THE ASSOCIATION OF WHICH WITH THE
ANTENNA CIRCUITS WAS AN IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT WHICH HE WAS THE FIRST TO
MAKE.  BUT HE ALSO MADE IT PLAIN THAT IT WAS THE SENDING AND RECEIVING
"APPARATUS" WHICH HE WISHED TO TUNE, SO THAT THE SENDING "APPARATUS"
"WOULD CORRESPOND TO A TUNING FORK" AND THE RECEIVING "APPARATUS" TO
"AN ACOUSTIC RESONATOR" CAPABLE OF ABSORBING THE ENERGY OF THE "SINGLE,
SIMPLE MUSICAL TONE" TRANSMITTED.  AND THIS HE SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE BY
"ANY SUITABLE DEVICE." 

STONE THUS EMPHASIZED THE DESIRABILITY OF MAKING THE ENTIRE
TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING "APPARATUS" RESONANT TO A PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY.  AS NONE OF THE CIRCUITS ARE RESONANT TO A DESIRED FREQUENCY
UNLESS THEY ARE TUNED TO THAT FREQUENCY, THIS REFERENCE TO THE
TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING APPARATUS AS BEING BROUGHT INTO RESONANCE
WITH EACH OTHER CANNOT FAIRLY BE SAID TO MEAN THAT ONLY SOME OF THE
CIRCUITS AT THE TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER WERE TO BE TUNED.  TO SAY THAT
BY THIS REFERENCE TO THE TUNING OF SENDING AND RECEIVING APPARATUS HE
MEANT TO CONFINE HIS INVENTION TO THE TUNING OF SOME ONLY OF THE
CIRCUITS IN THAT APPARATUS IS TO READ INTO HIS SPECIFICATIONS A
RESTRICTION WHICH IS PLAINLY NOT THERE AND WHICH CONTRADICTS EVERYTHING
THEY SAY ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF RESONANCE OF THE APPARATUS.  IT IS
TO READ THE SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH TAKEN IN THEIR ENTIRETY ARE MERELY
DESCRIPTIVE OR ILLUSTRATIVE OF HIS INVENTION, COMPARE CONTINENTAL PAPER
BAG CO. V. EASTERN PAPER BAG CO., 210 U.S. 405, 418, 419-20, AS THOUGH
THEY WERE CLAIMS WHOSE FUNCTION IS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE PATENT ALL THAT
IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CLAIMED.  MAHN V. HARWOOD, 112 U.S. 354, 361;
MCCLAIN V. ORTMAYER, 141 U.S. 419, 423-5; MILCOR STEEL CO. V. FULLER
CO., 316 U.S. 143, 146. 

STONE HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS SHOWN
IN THE PRIOR ART DID NOT OF ITSELF AFFORD SUFFICIENT SELECTIVITY.  IT
WAS FOR THAT REASON THAT HE USED THE TUNED CLOSED CIRCUIT IN
ASSOCIATION WITH THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT.  BUT IN THE FACE OF HIS EMPHASIS
ON THE DESIRABILITY OF TUNING THE TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING APPARATUS,
WE CANNOT IMPUTE TO HIM AN INTENTION TO EXCLUDE FROM HIS APPARATUS THE
WELL KNOWN USE OF TUNING IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS AS AN AID TO THE
SELECTIVITY WHICH IT WAS HIS PURPOSE TO ACHIEVE.  THE INFERENCE TO BE
DRAWN IS RATHER THAT HE INTENDED THE TUNED CLOSED CIRCUITS WHICH HE
PROPOSED TO ADD TO THE THEN KNOWN SYSTEMS OF RADIO COMMUNICATION, TO BE
USED IN ASSOCIATION WITH ANY EXISTING TYPE OF VERTICAL WIRE ANTENNA
CIRCUIT, INCLUDING ONE SO CONSTRUCTED AS TO BE EITHER RESONANT TO A
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY, OR ADJUSTABLY RESONANT TO ANY DESIRED FREQUENCY,
BOTH OF WHICH INVOLVED TUNING. 

STONE'S FULL APPRECIATION OF THE VALUE OF MAKING ALL OF HIS CIRCUITS
RESONANT TO THE SAME FREQUENCY IS SHOWN BY HIS SUGGESTION TO INSERT,
BETWEEN THE CLOSED AND ANTENNA CIRCUITS AT THE TRANSMITTER AND
RECEIVER, ONE OR MORE ADDITIONAL CLOSED CIRCUITS, SO CONSTRUCTED AS TO
BE HIGHLY RESONANT TO THE PARTICULAR FREQUENCY EMPLOYED.  HE SAYS THAT
THE PURPOSE OF SUCH AN INTERMEDIATE CIRCUIT IS "TO WEED OUT AND THEREBY
SCREEN" THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT AT THE TRANSMITTER AND THE DETECTING DEVICE
AT THE RECEIVER FROM ANY HARMONICS OR OTHER IMPURITIES IN THE WAVE
STRUCTURE. 

HE STATES:  "THIS SCREENING ACTION OF AN INTERPOSED RESONANT CIRCUIT
IS DUE TO THE WELL KNOWN PROPERTY OF SUCH CIRCUITS BY WHICH A RESONANT
CIRCUIT FAVORS THE DEVELOPMENT IN IT OF SIMPLE HARMONIC CURRENTS OF THE
PERIOD TO WHICH IT IS ATTUNED AND STRONGLY OPPOSES THE DEVELOPMENT IN
IT OF SIMPLE HARMONIC CURRENTS OF OTHER PERIODICITIES."  HIS ORIGINAL
APPLICATION THUS DISCLOSED THE ADVANTAGE, WHERE VIBRATIONS CREATED IN
ONE CIRCUIT ARE TO BE IMPRESSED ON ANOTHER, OF MAKING THE LATTER
CIRCUIT RESONANT TO THE SAME FREQUENCY AS THE FORMER, IN VIEW OF THE
"WELL KNOWN PROPERTY" OF A RESONANT CIRCUIT TO FAVOR THE "DEVELOPMENT"
IN IT OF FORCED VIBRATIONS OF THE SAME FREQUENCY AS ITS NATURAL
PERIODICITY. 

STONE'S APPLICATION SHOWS THAT THESE PRINCIPLES OF RESONANT CIRCUITS
WERE NO LESS APPLICABLE TO THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT, AND SUGGESTS THE USE OF
"ANY SUITABLE DEVICE" TO "DEVELOP" IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT THE "SIMPLE
HARMONIC FORCE IMPRESSED" UPON IT.  IT WAS THEN WELL KNOWN IN THE ART
THAT EVERY ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT IS TO SOME DEGREE RESONANT TO A
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY TO WHICH IT RESPONDS MORE READILY AND POWERFULLY
THAN TO OTHERS.  ALTHOUGH THE DEGREE OF RESONANCE ATTAINED BY A
VERTICAL WIRE IS SMALL, ITS NATURAL RESONANCE IS NO DIFFERENT IN KIND
FROM THAT OF A CLOSED CIRCUIT SUCH AS STONE'S SCREENING CIRCUIT.  STONE
RECOGNIZED THIS IN HIS APPLICATION.  IN DESCRIBING THE COMPLEX NATURAL
VIBRATIONS SET UP BY A SUDDEN DISCHARGE IN AN ANTENNA CIRCUIT, SUCH AS
THAT COMMONLY USED AT THE TIME OF HIS APPLICATION, STONE SAID THAT "THE
VIBRATIONS CONSIST OF A SIMPLE HARMONIC VIBRATION OF LOWER PERIOD THAN
ALL THE OTHERS, KNOWN AS THE FUNDAMENTAL WITH A GREAT VARIETY OF
SUPERIMPOSED SIMPLE HARMONICS OF HIGHER PERIODICITY SUPERIMPOSED
THEREON."  AND HE SAYS THAT THE OSCILLATIONS DEVELOPED IN THE CHARGING
CIRCUIT OF HIS SYSTEM "INDUCE CORRESPONDING OSCILLATIONS IN THE
VERTICAL WIRE," WHICH ARE "VIRTUALLY" FORCED VIBRATIONS, AND
"PRACTICALLY INDEPENDENT, AS REGARDS THEIR FREQUENCY, OF THE CONSTANTS
OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN WHICH THEY ARE INDUCED" - A PLAIN RECOGNITION
THAT THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT HAS ELECTRO-MAGNETIC CONSTANTS WHICH AFFECT
ITS NATURAL PERIODICITY, AND THAT THAT NATURAL PERIODICITY DOES HAVE
SOME EFFECT ON THE FREQUENCY OF THE VIBRATIONS IMPRESSED UPON THE
ANTENNA CIRCUIT.  FN14 

THUS STONE DID NOT, AS THE MARCONI COMPANY SUGGESTS, SAY THAT THE
ANTENNA CIRCUIT HAD NO NATURAL PERIODICITY.  HE RECOGNIZED THAT ITS
NATURAL PERIODICITY WAS LESS STRONGLY MARKED THAN THAT OF HIS CLOSED
CIRCUIT, AND HENCE THAT THE WAVE STRUCTURE COULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED BY
CREATING THE OSCILLATIONS IN A CLOSED CIRCUIT SUCH AS HE DESCRIBED. 
BUT HE ALSO PLAINLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT, LIKE HIS
SCREENING CIRCUIT, WAS A CIRCUIT HAVING A NATURAL PERIOD OF VIBRATION
WHICH WOULD THEREFORE BE MORE RESPONSIVE TO IMPRESSED OSCILLATIONS OF
THAT SAME PERIODICITY.  SINCE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID THAT "ANY SUITABLE
DEVICE MAY BE EMPLOYED TO DEVELOP THE SIMPLE HARMONIC FORCE IMPRESSED
UPON THE VERTICAL WIRE," WE THINK THAT STONE'S SPECIFICATIONS PLAINLY
SUGGESTED TO THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART THAT THEY AVAIL THEMSELVES OF
THIS MEANS OF DEVELOPING IN THE ANTENNA THIS SIMPLE HARMONIC FORCE, AND
THAT THEY TUNE THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE STRENGTH AND
QUALITY OF THE "FORCED" VIBRATIONS IMPRESSED UPON IT. 

THE MARCONI COMPANY ARGUES THAT STONE'S THEORY OF "FORCED"
OSCILLATIONS PRESUPPOSES THAT THE OPEN TRANSMITTER CIRCUIT BE UNTUNED. 
IT IS TRUE THAT STONE SAID THAT SUCH "FORCED" OSCILLATIONS HAVE A
PERIOD OF VIBRATION WHICH IS "INDEPENDENT OF THE ELECTRICAL CONSTANTS
OF THE CIRCUIT" ON WHICH THEY ARE IMPRESSED.  BUT THE FACT THAT THE
"FORCED" VIBRATION WILL RETAIN ITS NATURAL PERIOD WHATEVER THE
FREQUENCY OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT MAY BE, DOES NOT PRECLUDE, AS STONE
SHOWED, THE TUNING OF THAT CIRCUIT SO AS TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM
RESPONSIVENESS TO THE VIBRATIONS IMPRESSED UPON IT.  STONE'S
SPECIFICATIONS INDICATE THAT HE USED THE TERM "FORCED" MERELY AS
MEANING THAT THE VIBRATIONS ARE DEVELOPED IN ANOTHER CIRCUIT AND THEN
TRANSFERRED TO THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT BY INDUCTIVE COUPLING, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM "NATURAL" VIBRATIONS WHICH ORIGINATE IN THE ANTENNA
OR RADIATING CIRCUIT - IN SHORT THAT "FORCED" IS MERELY USED AS A
SYNONYM FOR "INDUCED."  THUS HE STATES IN DESCRIBING THE OPERATION OF
HIS TRANSMITTER, "THE HIGH FREQUENCY CURRENT  ...  PASSING THROUGH THE
PRIMARY I1(OF THE ANTENNA TRANSFORMER) INDUCES A CORRESPONDING HIGH
FREQUENCY ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE AND CURRENT IN THE SECONDARY I2 AND
FORCED ELECTRIC VIBRATIONS RESULT IN THE VERTICAL CONDUCTOR V  ...  "
FN15 

HENCE THERE IS AMPLE SUPPORT FOR THE FINDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT 

"BY FREE OSCILLATIONS IS MEANT THAT THEIR FREQUENCY WAS DETERMINED BY
THE CONSTANTS OF THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH THEY WERE GENERATED.  THE STONE
APPLICATION AS FILED IMPRESSED THESE OSCILLATIONS UPON THE OPEN
CIRCUIT, AND THEREFORE USED 'FORCED' OSCILLATIONS IN THE OPEN CIRCUIT
OF THE TRANSMITTER, THAT IS, THE FREQUENCY OF THE OSCILLATIONS IN THE
OPEN CIRCUIT WAS DETERMINED BY THE FREQUENCY OF THE OSCILLATIONS IN THE
CLOSED CIRCUIT. 

"THE EFFECT OF FORCING VIBRATIONS UPON A TUNED AND UNTUNED CIRCUIT
MAY BE LIKENED UNTO THE EFFECT OF A TUNING FORK UPON A STRETCHED CORD
IN A VISCOUS MEDIUM.  WHEN THE CORD IS VIBRATED BY THE TUNING FORK IT
HAS THE SAME PERIOD AS DOES THE FORK REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH PERIOD
BE THAT OF THE NATURAL PERIOD OF THE CORD, BUT WHEN THE FORK VIBRATIONS
ARE IN TUNE WITH THE NATURAL PERIOD OR FUNDAMENTAL OF THE CORD, THEN
THE AMPLITUDE OF VIBRATIONS IN THE CORD IS A MAXIMUM." 

THUS STONE'S APPLICATION, PRIOR TO MARCONI, SHOWED A FOUR-CIRCUIT
SYSTEM, IN WHICH THE OSCILLATIONS WERE PRODUCED IN A CLOSED CHARGING
CIRCUIT AND IMPRESSED ON AN OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT IN THE TRANSMITTER,
AND WERE SIMILARLY RECEIVED IN AN OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT AND BY IT
INDUCED IN A CLOSED CIRCUIT CONTAINING A DETECTOR.  HE SHOWED THE
EFFECT OF RESONANCE ON THE CIRCUITS RESULTING FROM THEIR TUNING TO A
DESIRED FREQUENCY, AND EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING THE
TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING APPARATUS RESONANT TO THAT FREQUENCY. 
STONE'S PATENT,  FN16  GRANTED A YEAR AND A HALF BEFORE MARCONI -
ALTHOUGH AFTER MARCONI'S APPLICATION WAS FILED - MAKES EXPLICIT, AS THE
PATENT LAW PERMITS, WHAT WAS IMPLICIT IN STONE'S APPLICATION.  BY
AMENDMENTS TO HIS SPECIFICATIONS MADE APRIL 8, 1902, HE RECOMMENDED
THAT THE FREQUENCY IMPRESSED UPON THE VERTICAL CONDUCTOR AT THE
TRANSMITTER "MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS THE NATURAL PERIOD OR
FUNDAMENTAL OF SUCH CONDUCTOR" AND THAT THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT AT THE
TRANSMITTER "MAY WITH ADVANTAGE BE SO CONSTRUCTED AS TO BE HIGHLY
RESONANT TO A PARTICULAR FREQUENCY AND THE HARMONIC VIBRATIONS
IMPRESSED THEREON MAY WITH ADVANTAGE BE OF THAT FREQUENCY."  SINCE
STONE USED A VARIABLE INDUCTANCE TO ALTER AT WILL THE FREQUENCY OF THE
CHARGING CIRCUIT, THIS DIRECTION PLAINLY INDICATED THAT THE FREQUENCY
OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT MIGHT ALSO BE VARIABLE, AND SUGGESTED THE
INCLUSION OF THE WELL-KNOWN LODGE VARIABLE INDUCTANCE IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT TO ACHIEVE THAT RESULT.  AND SINCE
STONE HAD SPECIFIED THAT "BY MY INVENTION" THE OPERATOR AT THE
RECEIVING STATION IS ABLE TO "ADJUST" THE RECEIVING APPARATUS SO AS TO
PLACE IT IN RESONANCE WITH ANY PARTICULAR TRANSMITTING STATION, HIS
PATENT EQUALLY PLAINLY SUGGESTED THE USE OF THE LODGE VARIABLE
INDUCTANCE AS A MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE TUNING OF THE RECEIVING
ANTENNA. 

STONE'S 1902 AMENDMENTS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT AN "ELEVATED CONDUCTOR
THAT IS APERIODIC MAY BE EMPLOYED" - I.E., ONE HAVING VERY WEAK NATURAL
PERIODICITY AND CONSEQUENTLY "ADAPTED TO RECEIVE OR TRANSMIT ALL
FREQUENCIES."  BUT THIS SUGGESTION WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE ALTERNATIVE
RECOMMENDATION IN THE 1902 AMENDMENTS THAT THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS AT
TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER "MAY WITH ADVANTAGE BE MADE RESONANT TO A
PARTICULAR FREQUENCY," I.E., BE PERIODIC.  NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN
FROM THIS THAT ONLY AN APERIODIC ANTENNA WAS CONTEMPLATED EITHER BY THE
APPLICATION OR THE AMENDMENTS.  THE APPLICATION WAS SUFFICIENTLY BROAD
TO COVER BOTH TYPES, SINCE BOTH WERE SUITABLE MEANS OF ACHIEVING UNDER
DIFFERENT CONDITIONS THE RESULTS WHICH THE APPLICATION DESCRIBED AND
SOUGHT TO ATTAIN.  THE AMENDMENTS THUS MERELY CLARIFIED AND EXPLAINED
IN FULLER DETAIL TWO ALTERNATIVE MEANS WHICH COULD BE EMPLOYED IN THE
INVENTION DESCRIBED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, ONE OF THOSE MEANS
BEING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTENNA SO AS TO BE HIGHLY RESONANT,
I.E., TUNED, TO A PARTICULAR FREQUENCY.  FN17 

THE ONLY RESPECTS IN WHICH IT IS SERIOUSLY CONTENDED THAT MARCONI
DISCLOSED INVENTION OVER STONE ARE THAT MARCONI EXPLICITLY CLAIMED FOUR
CIRCUIT TUNING BEFORE STONE HAD MADE IT EXPLICIT BY HIS 1902 AMENDMENT,
AND THAT MARCONI DISCLOSED MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE TUNING OF EACH OF HIS
FOUR CIRCUITS WHEREAS STONE HAD EXPLICITLY SHOWN ADJUSTABLE TUNING ONLY
IN THE TWO CLOSED CIRCUITS.  BUT WE THINK THAT NEITHER MARCONI'S TUNING
OF THE TWO ANTENNA CIRCUITS NOR HIS USE OF THE LODGE VARIABLE
INDUCTANCE TO THAT END INVOLVED ANY INVENTION OVER STONE.  TWO
QUESTIONS ARE INVOLVED, FIRST, WHETHER THERE WAS ANY INVENTION OVER
STONE IN TUNING THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS, AND, SECOND, WHETHER THERE WAS
ANY INVENTION IN THE USE OF THE LODGE VARIABLE INDUCTANCE OR ANY OTHER
KNOWN MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE TUNING OF THE ANTENNA
CIRCUITS ADJUSTABLE. 

FOR REASONS ALREADY INDICATED WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT STONE SHOWED
TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS BEFORE MARCONI, AND IF THIS INVOLVED
INVENTION STONE WAS THE FIRST INVENTOR.  STONE'S APPLICATION EMPHASIZED
THE DESIRABILITY OF TUNING, AND DISCLOSED MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE TUNING
OF THE CLOSED CIRCUITS.  HIS VERY EXPLICIT RECOGNITION OF THE INCREASED
SELECTIVITY ATTAINED BY INDUCTIVE COUPLING OF SEVERAL RESONANT CIRCUITS
PLAINLY SUGGESTED TO THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART THAT THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT
COULD WITH ADVANTAGE BE A RESONANT CIRCUIT, THAT IS TO SAY A TUNED
CIRCUIT, AND HENCE THAT IT WAS ONE OF THE CIRCUITS TO BE TUNED.  HE
STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF TUNING "BY ANY SUITABLE DEVICE" THE
"APPARATUS" AT TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER, WHICH INCLUDED AT BOTH AN
ANTENNA CIRCUIT. 

TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT WAS NOTHING NEW; LODGE HAD NOT ONLY
TAUGHT THAT THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS AT TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER SHOULD BE
TUNED TO EACH OTHER BUT HAD SHOWN A MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE TUNING WHICH
WAS THE PRECISE MEANS ADOPTED BY MARCONI, AND WHICH STONE HAD, PRIOR TO
MARCONI, USED TO TUNE HIS CLOSED CIRCUIT - THE VARIABLE INDUCTANCE. 
TESLA, TOO, HAD SHOWN THE TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT AT THE
TRANSMITTER TO THE FREQUENCY DEVELOPED BY THE CHARGING CIRCUIT, AND THE
TUNING OF BOTH CIRCUITS AT THE RECEIVER TO THE FREQUENCY THUS
TRANSMITTED.  THUS MARCONI'S IMPROVEMENT IN TUNING THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS
IS ONE THE PRINCIPLES OF WHICH WERE WELL UNDERSTOOD AND STATED BY STONE
HIMSELF BEFORE MARCONI, AND THE MECHANISM FOR ACHIEVING WHICH HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED BY LODGE AND STONE.  FN18 

SINCE NO INVENTION OVER STONE WAS INVOLVED IN TUNING THE ANTENNA
CIRCUITS, NEITHER MARCONI NOR STONE MADE AN INVENTION BY PROVIDING
ADJUSTABLE TUNING OF ANY OF THE CIRCUITS OR BY EMPLOYING LODGE'S
VARIABLE INDUCTANCE AS A MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE TUNING OF THE RESONANT
FOUR-CIRCUIT ARRANGEMENT EARLIER DISCLOSED BY STONE'S APPLICATION AND
PATENTED BY HIM.  NO INVENTION WAS INVOLVED IN EMPLOYING THE LODGE
VARIABLE INDUCTANCE FOR TUNING EITHER THE CLOSED OR THE OPEN CIRCUITS
IN LIEU OF OTHER STRUCTURAL MODES OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE
VARIABLE INDUCTANCE IMPARTED NO NEW FUNCTION TO THE CIRCUIT; AND MERELY
MAKING A KNOWN ELEMENT OF A KNOWN COMBINATION ADJUSTABLE BY A MEANS OF
ADJUSTMENT KNOWN TO THE ART, WHEN NO NEW OR UNEXPECTED RESULT IS
OBTAINED, IS NOT INVENTION.  PETERS V. HANSON, 129 U.S. 541, 550-51,
553; ELECTRIC CABLE CO. V. EDISON CO., 292 U.S. 69, 79, 80, AND CASES
CITED; SMYTH MFG. CO. V. SHERIDAN, 149 F. 208, 211; CF. BASSICK MFG.
CO. V. HOLLINGSHEAD CO., 298 U.S. 415, 424-5 AND CASES CITED. 

STONE'S CONCEPTION OF HIS INVENTION AS DISCLOSED BY HIS PATENT
ANTEDATED HIS APPLICATION.  IT IS CARRIED BACK TO JUNE 30, 1899, SEVEN
MONTHS BEFORE HIS APPLICATION, WHEN, IN A LETTER TO BAKER, HE DESCRIBED
IN TEXT AND DRAWINGS HIS FOUR-CIRCUIT SYSTEM FOR WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AS THAT DISCLOSED BY THE APPLICATION.  HIS
LETTER IS EXPLICIT IN RECOMMENDING THE TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS. 
IN PART HE WROTE AS FOLLOWS:  "INSTEAD OF UTILIZING THE VERTICAL WIRE
(ANTENNA) ITSELF AT THE TRANSMITTING STATION AS THE OSCILLATOR, I
PROPOSE TO IMPRESS UPON THIS VERTICAL WIRE, OSCILLATIONS FROM AN
OSCILLATOR, WHICH OSCILLATIONS SHALL BE OF A FREQUENCY CORRESPONDING TO
THE FUNDAMENTAL OF THE WIRE.  SIMILARLY AT THE RECEIVING STATION, I
SHALL DRAW FROM THE VERTICAL WIRE, ONLY THAT COMPONENT OF THE COMPLEX
WAVE WHICH IS OF LOWEST FREQUENCY. 

"IF NOW THE FUNDAMENTAL OF THE WIRE AT THE RECEIVING STATION BE THE
SAME AS THAT OF THE WIRE AT THE TRANSMITTING STATION, THEN THE
RECEIVING STATION MAY RECEIVE SIGNALS FROM THE TRANSMITTING STATION,
BUT IF IT BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE TRANSMITTING STATION, IT MAY
NOT RECEIVE THOSE SIGNALS. 

     .         .         .         .   . 

"THE TUNING OF THESE CIRCUITS ONE TO ANOTHER AND ALL TO THE SAME
FREQUENCY WILL PROBABLY BE BEST ACCOMPLISHED EMPIRICALLY, THOUGH THE
BEST GENERAL PROPORTIONS MAY BE DETERMINED MATHEMATICALLY." 

ON JULY 18, 1899, STONE AGAIN WROTE TO BAKER, MATHEMATICALLY
DEMONSTRATING HOW TO ACHIEVE THE SINGLE FREQUENCY BY MEANS OF FORCED
VIBRATIONS.  HE EXPRESSED AS A TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTION THE FORM TAKEN BY
THE FORCED WAVE "IF THE PERIOD OF THE IMPRESSED FORCE BE THE SAME AS
THAT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL OF THE VERTICAL WIRE."  HE ALSO POINTED OUT
THAT THE TRANSMITTING CIRCUIT WHICH HE HAD DISCLOSED IN HIS EARLIER
LETTER TO BAKER, "IS PRACTICALLY THE SAME AS THAT EMPLOYED BY TESLA,"
EXCEPT THAT STONE ADDED AN INDUCTANCE COIL IN THE CLOSED CIRCUIT "TO
GIVE ADDITIONAL MEANS OF TUNING" AND TO "SWAMP" THE REACTIONS FROM THE
COIL OF THE OSCILLATION TRANSFORMER AND THUS LOOSEN THE COUPLING
BETWEEN THE OPEN AND CLOSED CIRCUIT OF THE TRANSMITTER N19.  HIS
RECOGNITION OF THE EFFECT UPON THE CURRENT IN THE ANTENNA IF IT IS OF
THE SAME PERIOD AS THE CHARGING CIRCUIT; HIS STATEMENT THAT HIS
TRANSMITTING SYSTEM WAS THE SAME AS THAT EMPLOYED BY TESLA; HIS
RECOGNITION THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL OF THE RECEIVER SHOULD BE THE SAME AS
THAT OF THE TRANSMITTER ANTENNA WHEN USED FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF A
SINGLE FREQUENCY, AND FINALLY HIS STATEMENT THAT ALL FOUR CIRCUITS ARE
TO BE TUNED, "ONE TO ANOTHER AND ALL TO THE SAME FREQUENCY," ALL
INDICATE HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PRINCIPLES OF RESONANCE AND OF THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF TUNING THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS. 

STONE DISCLOSED HIS INVENTION TO OTHERS, AND IN JANUARY, 1900,
DESCRIBED IT TO HIS CLASS AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY.  BEFORE 1900 HE WAS DILIGENT IN OBTAINING CAPITAL TO
PROMOTE HIS INVENTION.  EARLY IN 1901 A SYNDICATE WAS ORGANIZED TO
FINANCE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS.  THE STONE TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CO.
WAS ORGANIZED IN DECEMBER, 1901.  IT CONSTRUCTED SEVERAL EXPERIMENTAL
STATIONS IN 1902 AND 1903; BEGINNING IN 1904 OR 1905 IT BUILT WIRELESS
STATIONS AND SOLD APPARATUS, EQUIPPED A NAVY COLLIER AND SOME
BATTLESHIPS, AND IT APPLIED FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF PATENTS.  THE
APPARATUS USED IN THE STATIONS IS DESCRIBED BY STONE'S TESTIMONY IN
THIS SUIT AS HAVING RESONANT OPEN AND CLOSED CIRCUITS LOOSELY COUPLED
INDUCTIVELY TO EACH OTHER, AT BOTH THE TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER, AND
ALL TUNED TO THE SAME WAVE LENGTH, AS DESCRIBED IN HIS LETTERS TO BAKER
AND HIS PATENT. 

WE THINK THAT STONE'S ORIGINAL APPLICATION SUFFICIENTLY DISCLOSED THE
DESIRABILITY THAT THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS IN TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER BE
RESONANT TO THE SAME FREQUENCY AS THE CLOSED CIRCUITS, AS HE EXPRESSLY
RECOMMENDED IN HIS PATENT.  BUT IN ANY EVENT IT IS PLAIN THAT NO
DEPARTURE FROM OR IMPROPER ADDITION TO THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS INVOLVED
IN THE 1902 AMENDMENTS, WHICH MERELY MADE EXPLICIT WHAT WAS ALREADY
IMPLICIT.  HOBBS V. BEACH, 180 U.S. 383, 395-7.  WE WOULD ORDINARILY BE
SLOW TO RECOGNIZE AMENDMENTS MADE AFTER THE FILING OF MARCONI'S
APPLICATION AND DISCLOSING FEATURES SHOWN IN THAT APPLICATION.  CF.
SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO., 305 U.S. 47, 57; POWERS
KENNEDY CORPORATION V. CONCRETE CO., 282 U.S. 175, 185-6; MACKAY RADIO
CO. V. RADIO CORPORATION, 306 U.S. 86.  BUT HERE STONE'S LETTERS TO
BAKER, WHOSE AUTHENTICITY HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED IN THIS CASE, AFFORD
CONVINCING PROOF THAT STONE HAD CONCEIVED OF THE IDEA OF TUNING ALL
FOUR CIRCUITS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF MARCONI'S INVENTION.  CF. BICKELL V.
SMITH-HAMBURY-SCOTT WELDING CO., 53 F.2D 356, 358. 

IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT AS BETWEEN TWO INVENTORS PRIORITY OF
INVENTION WILL BE AWARDED TO THE ONE WHO BY SATISFYING PROOF CAN SHOW
THAT HE FIRST CONCEIVED OF THE INVENTION.  PHILADELPHIA & TRENTON R.
CO. V. STIMPSON, 14 PET. 448, 462; LOOM CO. V. HIGGINS, 105 U.S. 580,
593; RADIO CORPORATION V. RADIO LABORATORIES, 293 U.S. 1, 11-13;
CHRISTIE V. SEYBOLD, 55 F. 69, 76; AUTOMATIC WEIGHING MACH. CO. V.
PNEUMATIC SCALE CORP., 158 F. 415, 417-22; HARPER V. ZIMMERMANN, 41
F.2D 261, 265; SACHS V. HARTFORD ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., 47 F.2D 743,
748. 

COMMERCIAL SUCCESS ACHIEVED BY THE LATER INVENTOR AND PATENTEE CANNOT
SAVE HIS PATENT FROM THE DEFENSE OF ANTICIPATION BY A PRIOR INVENTOR. 
FN20  COMPARE SMITH V. HALL, 301 U.S. 216 WITH SMITH V. SNOW, 294 U.S.
1.  TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF HIS PRIOR CONCEPTION, THE INVENTOR MUST
NOT ABANDON HIS INVENTION, GAYLER V. WILDER, 10 HOW.  477, 481, BUT
MUST PROCEED WITH DILIGENCE TO REDUCE IT TO PRACTICE.  WE THINK STONE
HAS SHOWN THE NECESSARY DILIGENCE.  COMPARE RADIO CORPORATION V. RADIO
LABORATORIES, SUPRA, 13, 14.  THE DELAY UNTIL 1902 IN INCLUDING IN HIS
PATENT SPECIFICATIONS THE SENTENCES ALREADY REFERRED TO, WHICH
EXPLICITLY PROVIDE FOR TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS, DOES NOT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE SHOW ANY ABANDONMENT OF THAT FEATURE OF
STONE'S INVENTION SINCE, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE IDEA OF SUCH TUNING WAS
AT LEAST IMPLICIT IN HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION, AND THE 1902 AMENDMENTS
MERELY CLARIFIED THAT APPLICATION'S EFFECT AND PURPORT. 

MARCONI'S PATENT NO. 763,772 WAS SUSTAINED BY A UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT IN MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH CO. V. NATIONAL SIGNALLING CO., 213
F. 815, AND HIS INVENTION AS SPECIFIED IN HIS CORRESPONDING BRITISH
PATENT NO. 7777 OF 1900, WAS UPHELD IN MARCONI V. BRITISH RADIO &
TELEGRAPH CO., 27 T.L.R. 274, 28 R.P.C. 18.  THE FRENCH COURT LIKEWISE
SUSTAINED HIS FRENCH PATENT, CIVIL TRIBUNAL OF THE SEINE, DEC. 24,
1912.  NONE OF THESE COURTS CONSIDERED THE STONE PATENT OR HIS
LETTERS.  ALL REST THEIR FINDINGS OF INVENTION ON MARCONI'S DISCLOSURE
OF A FOUR-CIRCUIT SYSTEM AND ON HIS TUNING OF THE FOUR CIRCUITS, IN THE
SENSE OF RENDERING THEM RESONANT TO THE SAME FREQUENCY, IN BOTH OF
WHICH RESPECTS STONE ANTICIPATED MARCONI, AS WE HAVE SEEN.  NONE OF
THESE OPINIONS SUGGESTS THAT IF THE COURTS HAD KNOWN OF STONE'S
ANTICIPATION, THEY WOULD HAVE HELD THAT MARCONI SHOWED INVENTION OVER
STONE BY MAKING THE TUNING OF HIS ANTENNA CIRCUIT ADJUSTABLE, OR BY
USING LODGE'S VARIABLE INDUCTANCE FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IN MARCONI
WIRELESS TELEGRAPH CO. V. KILBOURNE & CLARK MFG. CO., 239 F. 328,
AFFIRMED 265 F. 644, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED DEVICE
DID NOT INFRINGE.  WHILE IT ENTERED FORMAL FINDINGS OF VALIDITY WHICH
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS APPROVED, NEITHER COURT'S OPINION
DISCUSSED THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY AND THAT QUESTION WAS NOT ARGUED IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN21    MARCONI'S REPUTATION AS THE MAN
WHO FIRST ACHIEVED SUCCESSFUL RADIO TRANSMISSION RESTS ON HIS ORIGINAL
PATENT, WHICH BECAME REISSUE NO. 11,913, AND WHICH IS NOT HERE IN
QUESTION.  THAT REPUTATION, HOWEVER WELL-DESERVED, DOES NOT ENTITLE HIM
TO A PATENT FOR EVERY LATER IMPROVEMENT WHICH HE CLAIMS IN THE RADIO
FIELD.  PATENT CASES, LIKE OTHERS, MUST BE DECIDED NOT BY WEIGHING THE
REPUTATIONS OF THE LITIGANTS, BUT BY CAREFUL STUDY OF THE MERITS OF
THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS AND PROOFS.  AS THE RESULT OF SUCH A STUDY
WE ARE FORCED TO CONCLUDE, WITHOUT UNDERTAKING TO DETERMINE WHETHER
STONE'S PATENT INVOLVED INVENTION, THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS RIGHT
IN DECIDING THAT STONE ANTICIPATED MARCONI, AND THAT MARCONI'S PATENT
DID NOT DISCLOSE INVENTION OVER STONE.  HENCE THE JUDGMENT BELOW
HOLDING INVALID THE BROAD CLAIMS OF THE MARCONI PATENT MUST BE
AFFIRMED.  IN VIEW OF OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE STONE APPLICATION AND
PATENT WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COURT'S CONCLUSION
THAT EVEN IF STONE'S DISCLOSURES SHOULD BE READ AS FAILING TO DIRECT
THAT THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS BE MADE RESONANT TO A PARTICULAR FREQUENCY,
MARCONI'S PATENT INVOLVED NO INVENTION OVER LODGE, TESLA, AND STONE. 

CLAIM 16 OF MARCONI PATENT NO. 763,772. 

THE GOVERNMENT ASKS US TO REVIEW SO MUCH OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS AS HELD VALID AND INFRINGED CLAIM 16 OF MARCONI'S PATENT NO.
763,772.  THAT CLAIM IS FOR AN ANTENNA CIRCUIT AT THE RECEIVER
CONNECTED AT ONE END TO "AN OSCILLATION-RECEIVING CONDUCTOR" AND AT THE
OTHER TO A CAPACITY (WHICH COULD BE THE EARTH), CONTAINING THE PRIMARY
WINDING OF A TRANSFORMER, "MEANS FOR ADJUSTING THE TWO TRANSFORMER
CIRCUITS IN ELECTRICAL RESONANCE WITH EACH OTHER," AND "AN ADJUSTABLE
CONDENSER IN A SHUNT CONNECTED WITH THE OPEN CIRCUIT, AND AROUND SAID
TRANSFORMER-COIL."  MARCONI THUS DISCLOSES AND CLAIMS THE ADDITION TO
THE RECEIVER ANTENNA OF AN ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER CONNECTED IN A SHUNT
AROUND THE PRIMARY OF THE TRANSFORMER.  THE SPECIFICATIONS DESCRIBE THE
CONDENSER AS "PREFERABLY ONE PROVIDED WITH TWO TELESCOPING METALLIC
TUBES SEPARATED BY A DIELECTRIC AND ARRANGED TO READILY VARY THE
CAPACITY BY BEING SLID UPON EACH OTHER."  MARCONI, HOWEVER, MAKES NO
CLAIM FOR THE PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONDENSER. 

ALTHOUGH THE CLAIM BROADLY PROVIDES FOR "MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE TWO
TRANSFORMER-CIRCUITS IN ELECTRICAL RESONANCE," MARCONI'S DRAWINGS
DISCLOSE THE USE OF A VARIABLE INDUCTANCE CONNECTED BETWEEN THE AERIAL
CONDUCTOR AND THE TRANSFORMER-COIL IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE VARIABLE
INDUCTANCE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT PART OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT WHICH IS
BRIDGED BY THE CONDENSER.  THE CONDENSER IS THUS ARRANGED IN PARALLEL
WITH THE TRANSFORMER COIL AND IN SERIES WITH THE VARIABLE INDUCTANCE. 
IN HIS SPECIFICATIONS MARCONI ENUMERATES A NUMBER OF PREFERRED
ADJUSTMENTS FOR TUNING THE TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING STATIONS, SHOWING
THE PRECISE EQUIPMENT TO BE USED TO ACHIEVE TUNING TO THE DESIRED WAVE
LENGTH.  THE TWO TUNINGS WHICH SHOW THE USE OF THE ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER
IN THE RECEIVER ANTENNA ALSO MAKE USE OF THE VARIABLE INDUCTANCE.  AND
HIS SPECIFICATIONS STATE:  "IN A SHUNT AROUND SAID PRIMARY J1(THE
PRIMARY OF THE TRANSFORMER) I USUALLY PLACE A CONDENSER H  ...  AN
INDUCTANCE COIL G1 OF VARIABLE INDUCTANCE IS INTERPOSED IN THE PRIMARY
CIRCUIT OF THE TRANSFORMER, BEING PREFERABLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE
CYLINDER F1(THE AERIAL CAPACITY) AND THE COIL J1." 

IN THIS RESPECT THE DEVICES WHICH THE COURT BELOW FOUND TO INFRINGE
CLAIM 16 EXHIBIT SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENTS.  APPARATUS
MANUFACTURED BY THE KILBOURNE AND CLARK COMPANY, AND USED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, HAD A RECEIVER ANTENNA CIRCUIT CONTAINING A VARIABLE
INDUCTANCE IN ADDITION TO THE TRANSFORMER COIL, AND HAVING AN
ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER SO CONSTRUCTED THAT IT COULD BE CONNECTED EITHER
IN SERIES WITH THE TWO INDUCTANCES, OR IN A SHUNT BRIDGING BOTH OF
THEM.  APPARATUS MANUFACTURED BY THE TELEFUNKEN COMPANY SHOWED A
SIMILAR ANTENNA CIRCUIT HAVING NO VARIABLE INDUCTANCE, BUT HAVING AN
ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER SO ARRANGED THAT IT COULD BE CONNECTED EITHER IN
SERIES WITH THE TRANSFORMER COIL, OR IN PARALLEL WITH IT BY PLACING THE
CONDENSER IN A SHUNT CIRCUIT WHICH WOULD THUS BRIDGE ALL THE INDUCTANCE
IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT. 

THE MARCONI PATENT DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE FUNCTION WHICH IS SERVED BY
THE ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER DISCLOSED BY CLAIM 16, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS
MARCONI IN HIS SPECIFICATIONS, IN DESCRIBING THE MEANS OF TUNING THE
RECEIVER CIRCUITS TO A PARTICULAR DESIRED FREQUENCY, PRESCRIBES
SPECIFIC VALUES FOR BOTH THE VARIABLE INDUCTANCE AND THE ADJUSTABLE
CONDENSER IN THE RECEIVER ANTENNA CIRCUIT.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND
THAT THIS INDICATED "THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONDENSER CONNECTED IN
SHUNT WITH THE PRIMARY WINDING OF THE TRANSFORMER OF THE RECEIVER, IS
TO ENABLE THE ELECTRICAL PERIODICITY OR TUNING OF THE OPEN CIRCUIT OF
THE RECEIVER TO BE ALTERED." 

THE COURT THUS BASED ITS HOLDING THAT CLAIM 16 DISCLOSED PATENTABLE
INVENTION ON ITS FINDING THAT MARCONI, BY THE USE OF AN ADJUSTABLE
CONDENSER IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT, DISCLOSED A NEW AND USEFUL METHOD OF
TUNING THAT CIRCUIT.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE ARRANGEMENT OF
THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT DISCLOSED BY MARCONI'S SPECIFICATIONS - WITH THE
CONDENSER SHUNTED AROUND THE TRANSFORMER COIL BUT NOT AROUND THE
VARIABLE INDUCTANCE - IS SUCH THAT THE CONDENSER CANNOT INCREASE THE
WAVE-LENGTH OVER WHAT IT WOULD BE WITHOUT SUCH A CONDENSER, AND THAT IT
CAN DECREASE THAT WAVE-LENGTH ONLY WHEN ADJUSTED TO HAVE A VERY SMALL
CAPACITY.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THEREFORE THAT ITS PRINCIPAL
FUNCTION IS NOT THAT OF TUNING BUT OF PROVIDING "LOOSE COUPLING."  FN22
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DENY THAT THIS PRECISE ARRANGEMENT IS NOVEL
AND USEFUL, BUT IT CONTENDS THAT ITS DEVICES DO NOT INFRINGE THAT
PRECISE ARRANGEMENT, AND THAT CLAIM 16, IF MORE BROADLY CONSTRUED SO AS
TO COVER ITS APPARATUS, IS INVALID BECAUSE ANTICIPATED BY THE PRIOR
ART, PARTICULARLY THE PATENTS OF PUPIN AND FESSENDEN. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN FROM OUR DISCUSSION OF THE OTHER CLAIMS OF THE
MARCONI PATENT, THE IDEA OF TUNING THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS INVOLVED NO
PATENTABLE INVENTION.  IT WAS WELL KNOWN THAT TUNING WAS ACHIEVED BY
THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF EITHER THE INDUCTANCE OR THE CAPACITY IN A
CIRCUIT, OR BOTH.  LODGE AND STONE HAD ACHIEVED TUNING BY THE USE OF AN
ADJUSTABLE INDUCTION COIL, SO ARRANGED THAT ITS EFFECTIVE INDUCTANCE
COULD READILY BE VARIED. 

BUT CAPACITY WAS NO LESS IMPORTANT IN TUNING.  DE TUNZELMANN'S
DESCRIPTIONS OF HERTZ'S EXPERIMENTS SHOW THAT HERTZ, IN ORDER TO MAKE
HIS RECEIVING APPARATUS RESONANT TO THE PARTICULAR FREQUENCY RADIATED
BY THE TRANSMITTER, CAREFULLY DETERMINED THE CAPACITY OF BOTH, AND
INDEED DISCLOSED A MEANS OF ADJUSTING THE CAPACITY OF THE RECEIVER BY
ATTACHING TO IT WIRES WHOSE LENGTH COULD READILY BE VARIED.  MARCONI IN
HIS PRIOR PATENT NO. 586,193, GRANTED JULY 13, 1897, WHICH BECAME
REISSUE NO. 11,913, HAD DISCLOSED A TWO-CIRCUIT SYSTEM FOR THE
TRANSMISSION OF RADIO WAVES IN WHICH BOTH TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER HAD
LARGE METAL PLATES SERVING AS CAPACITY AREAS.  HIS SPECIFICATIONS
DESCRIBE THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING STATIONS SO AS
TO BE RESONANT TO THE SAME FREQUENCY BY CALCULATION OF THE LENGTH OF
THESE METAL PLATES, THEREBY DETERMINING THE CAPACITY OF THE ANTENNA
CIRCUITS OF TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER RESPECTIVELY.  HE STATES THAT THE
PLATES ARE "PREFERABLY OF SUCH A LENGTH AS TO BE ELECTRICALLY TUNED
WITH THE ELECTRIC OSCILLATIONS TRANSMITTED," AND DESCRIBES MEANS OF
ACHIEVING THIS RESULT SO AS TO DETERMINE "THE LENGTH MOST APPROPRIATE
TO THE LENGTH OF WAVE EMITTED BY THE OSCILLATOR."  CLAIM 24 OF HIS
PATENT CLAIMS "THE COMBINATION OF A TRANSMITTER CAPABLE OF PRODUCING
ELECTRICAL OSCILLATIONS OR RAYS OF DEFINITE CHARACTER AT THE WILL OF
THE OPERATOR, AND A RECEIVER LOCATED AT A DISTANCE AND HAVING A
CONDUCTOR TUNED TO RESPOND TO SUCH OSCILLATIONS  ...  "  THE ONLY MEANS
OF ACHIEVING THIS TUNING DISCLOSED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS IS THE
DETERMINATION OF THE CAPACITY OF THE ANTENNA OF TRANSMITTER AND
RECEIVER IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED. 

MOREOVER THE USE OF AN ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER AS A MEANS OF TUNING WAS
KNOWN TO THE PRIOR ART. PUPIN IN PATENT NO. 640,516, APPLIED FOR MAY
28, 1895, AND GRANTED JANUARY 2, 1900, BEFORE MARCONI, DISCLOSED THE
USE OF AN ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER AS A MEANS OF TUNING A RECEIVING CIRCUIT
IN A SYSTEM OF WIRED TELEGRAPHY.  PUPIN'S PATENT WAS DESIGNED TO PERMIT
THE SIMULTANEOUS TRANSMISSION OVER A WIRE OF SEVERAL MESSAGES AT
DIFFERENT FREQUENCIES, AND THE SELECTIVE RECEPTION AT A GIVEN RECEIVING
STATION OF THE PARTICULAR MESSAGE DESIRED, BY TUNING THE RECEIVING
CIRCUIT TO THE FREQUENCY AT WHICH THAT MESSAGE WAS TRANSMITTED.  HIS
SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS DISCLOSE AT THE RECEIVER A TELEGRAPH KEY OR
OTHER SUITABLE DETECTING INSTRUMENT LOCATED IN A SHUNT FROM THE WIRE
ALONG WHICH THE MESSAGES WERE PASSED.  THE SHUNT CIRCUIT INCLUDED A
CONDENSER "OF ADJUSTABLE CAPACITY," AN ADJUSTABLE INDUCTION COIL, AND A
DETECTING INSTRUMENT.  HIS SPECIFICATIONS STATE THAT "THE CAPACITY OF
THE CONDENSER H AND THE SELF-INDUCTION OF THE (INDUCTION) COIL I BEING
SUCH THAT THE NATURAL PERIOD OR FREQUENCY OF THE SHUNT OR RESONANCE
CIRCUIT HI IS THE SAME AS THE PERIOD OF ONE OF THE ELECTROMOTIVE FORCES
WHICH PRODUCE THE CURRENT COMING OVER THE LINE  ... THIS CIRCUIT HI
WILL BE IN RESONANCE WITH THE CURRENT AND THEREFORE WILL ACT
SELECTIVELY WITH RESPECT TO IT."  HE DISCLOSED AN ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM IN
WHICH A SIMILAR SHUNT CIRCUIT CONTAINING A CONDENSER, ALREADY DESCRIBED
AS OF ADJUSTABLE CAPACITY, AND THE PRIMARY OF A TRANSFORMER, WAS
INDUCTIVELY COUPLED WITH ANOTHER CIRCUIT CONTAINING THE SECONDARY OF
THE TRANSFORMER, AN INDUCTION COIL, AN ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER, AND A
RECEIVING DEVICE.  HE THUS IN EFFECT DISCLOSED AN OPEN RECEIVING
CIRCUIT WITH EARTH CONNECTION INCLUDING THE PRIMARY OF AN OSCILLATION
TRANSFORMER - THE SECONDARY OF WHICH IS CONNECTED IN A CIRCUIT WITH A
TELEGRAPH KEY OR OTHER SUITABLE DETECTING INSTRUMENT - AND AN
ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER IN A SHUNT BRIDGING THE PRIMARY OF THE TRANSFORMER
AND THUS CONNECTED IN PARALLEL WITH IT. 

THUS PUPIN SHOWED THE USE OF AN ADJUSTABLE CONDENSER AS A MEANS OF
TUNING AN ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT SO AS TO BE SELECTIVELY RECEPTIVE TO
IMPULSES OF A PARTICULAR FREQUENCY.  IT IS TRUE THAT HIS PATENT RELATED
NOT TO THE RADIO ART BUT TO THE ART OF WIRED TELEGRAPHY, AN ART WHICH
EMPLOYED MUCH LOWER FREQUENCIES.  BUT SO FAR AS WE ARE INFORMED THE
PRINCIPLES OF RESONANCE, AND THE METHODS OF ACHIEVING IT, APPLICABLE TO
THE LOW FREQUENCIES USED BY PUPIN ARE THE SAME AS THOSE APPLICABLE TO
HIGH FREQUENCY RADIO TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION. 

FESSENDEN, IN PATENT NO. 706,735, APPLIED FOR DEC. 15, 1899, BEFORE
MARCONI, AND GRANTED AUG. 12, 1902, DISCLOSED, IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT
OF A RADIO RECEIVER, A CONDENSER IN A SHUNT AROUND A COIL.  THE COIL
WAS USED IN EFFECT AS A TRANSFORMER; BY THE MAGNETIC LINES OF FORCE SET
UP WHEN A CURRENT PASSED THROUGH IT AN INDICATOR WAS CAUSED TO MOVE,
THEREBY EITHER CLOSING AN ELECTRICAL CONNECTION OR GIVING A VISIBLE
SIGNAL.  FESSENDEN'S SPECIFICATIONS DO NOT CLEARLY DISCLOSE THE PURPOSE
OF HIS CONDENSER, BUT THEY SPECIFY THAT IT MUST BE "OF THE PROPER
SIZE."  HE ALSO DISCLOSES A CONDENSER IN A SHUNT CIRCUIT AROUND THE
TERMINALS OF A SPARK GAP IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT OF THE TRANSMITTER, AND
HIS SPECIFICATIONS PRESCRIBE THAT "THIS SHUNT-CIRCUIT MUST BE TUNED TO
THE RECEIVING-CONDUCTOR; OTHERWISE THE OSCILLATIONS PRODUCED BY IT WILL
HAVE NO ACTION UPON THE WAVE-RESPONSIVE DEVICE AT THE RECEIVING
STATION." 

WE HAVE REFERRED TO THE PUPIN AND FESSENDEN PATENTS, NOT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THEY ANTICIPATE CLAIM 16 OF MARCONI, AS
THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS, BUT TO INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERING
THEM IN THAT ASPECT, TOGETHER WITH THE RELEVANT TESTIMONY, WHICH THE
COURT BELOW DID NOT DO.  IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD WE DO NOT
UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THESE DISCLOSURES
EITHER ANTICIPATE CLAIM 16 OF THE MARCONI PATENT OR REQUIRE THAT CLAIM
TO BE SO NARROWLY CONSTRUED THAT DEFENDANTS' ACCUSED DEVICES OR SOME OF
THEM DO NOT INFRINGE MARCONI. 

ALTHOUGH THE PUPIN AND FESSENDEN PATENTS WERE IN THE RECORD BEFORE
THE COURT OF CLAIMS WHEN IT ENTERED ITS DECISION FINDING CLAIM 16 VALID
AND INFRINGED, THEY WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN CONNECTION WITH CLAIM 16
EITHER IN THE COURT'S OPINION OR IN ITS FINDINGS, EVIDENTLY BECAUSE NOT
URGED UPON THAT COURT BY THE GOVERNMENT AS ANTICIPATING CLAIM 16.  BUT
THIS COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE POWER, IS NOT PRECLUDED
FROM LOOKING AT ANY EVIDENCE OF RECORD WHICH, WHETHER OR NOT CALLED TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT BELOW, IS RELEVANT TO AND MAY AFFECT THE
CORRECTNESS OF ITS DECISION SUSTAINING OR DENYING ANY CONTENTION WHICH
A PARTY HAS MADE BEFORE IT.  MUNCIE GEAR CO. V. OUTBOARD MOTOR CO., 315
U.S. 759, 766-8; ACT OF MAY 22, 1939, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 288; CF. HORMEL V.
HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552, 556. 

IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT NOW PRESSES UPON IT, AND SHOULD ON THE BASIS OF
THAT EVIDENCE EITHER DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHETHER CLAIM 16 IS VALID AND
INFRINGED OR REMAND THAT QUESTION TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION, IT IS NECESSARY TO SET OUT IN SOME DETAIL THE RELEVANT
PROCEEDINGS BELOW.  THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO A SPECIAL COMMISSIONER FOR
THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY UNDER A STIPULATION THAT THE ISSUE OF
REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES AND PROFITS BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE
DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES OF VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT.  ON JUNE 26,
1933, THE COMMISSIONER FILED A REPORT IN WHICH HE MADE THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO CLAIM 16, WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS LATER
ADOPTED IN SUBSTANCE:    "LXII.  CLAIM 16 OF MARCONI #763772 IS
DIRECTED TO SUBJECT MATTER WHICH IS NEW AND USEFUL  ... 

"LXV.  THE RECEIVING APPARATUS OF THE KILBOURNE & CLARK COMPANY,
SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 95, AND THE RECEIVER MADE BY THE TELEFUNKEN COMPANY,
ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT 79, EACH HAS APPARATUS COMING WITHIN THE
TERMINOLOGY OF CLAIM 16." 

BOTH PARTIES FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT.  THE
MARCONI COMPANY EXCEPTED TO PART OF FINDING LXII, AND TOOK SEVERAL
EXCEPTIONS WHICH WERE FORMALLY ADDRESSED TO FINDING LXV.  THE
GOVERNMENT, IN A MEMORANDUM, OPPOSED THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THESE
FINDINGS.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT FILED NO EXCEPTIONS TO THESE TWO
FINDINGS, NOR DID IT, IN ITS EXTENSIVE BRIEF BEFORE THE COURT OF
CLAIMS, MAKE ANY CONTENTION THAT CLAIM 16 EITHER IS INVALID OR WAS NOT
INFRINGED. 

AFTER THE COURT HAD RENDERED ITS INTERLOCUTORY DECISION HOLDING CLAIM
16 VALID AND INFRINGED, THE CASE WAS SENT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER TO
TAKE EVIDENCE ON THE ACCOUNTING.  MUCH EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN BEARING ON
THE FUNCTION SERVED BY THE CONDENSER IN THE ARRANGEMENT DESCRIBED IN
CLAIM 16 AND IN THE GOVERNMENT'S RECEIVERS, AND IN THAT CONNECTION THE
PUPIN AND FESSENDEN PATENTS WERE AGAIN INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  WHEN THE PUPIN PATENT WAS OFFERED THE COMMISSIONER STATED:
"OBVIOUSLY, AS I UNDERSTAND THE OFFER OF THIS PATENT OF PUPIN, IT DOES
NOT IN ANY WAY ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF CLAIM 16 OF THE MARCONI PATENT IN
SUIT.  AS YOU STATE MR. BLACKMAR, THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COURT,
AND I DO NOT RECALL JUST NOW WHAT PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED AFTER THE
DECISION AND PRIOR TO THIS ACCOUNTING PROCEEDING; BUT THE DEFENDANT HAD
AT THAT TIME OPPORTUNITY FOR A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND PRESENTATION
OF NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AND ALL THOSE MATTERS."  ACCORDINGLY, THE
COMMISSIONER STATED THAT HE RECEIVED THE PATENT IN EVIDENCE "FOR THE
SOLE PURPOSE OF AIDING THE WITNESS AND THE COMMISSIONER AND THE COURT
IN AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE CONDENSER IN THE MARCONI PATENT
OPERATES."  AND IN OFFERING THE FESSENDEN PATENT COUNSEL FOR THE
GOVERNMENT SIMILARLY STATED THAT IT WAS OFFERED "NOT TO SHOW INVALIDITY
BUT AS SHOWING JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEFENDANT'S USE." 

IN ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT ON THE ACCOUNTING THE
GOVERNMENT ASKED THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO MAKE CERTAIN SPECIFIC FINDINGS
AS TO THE MODE OF OPERATION OF THE ARRANGEMENTS DISCLOSED IN THE PUPIN
AND FESSENDEN PATENTS, AND ALSO TO FIND THAT 

"THE MODE OF CONNECTING THE PRIMARY CONDENSER IN PARALLEL WITH THE
ANTENNA-TO-EARTH CAPACITY USED BY THE DEFENDANT FOLLOWED THE DISCLOSURE
OF PUPIN 640,516 AND THE FESSENDEN PATENT 706,735 ... AND HENCE DOES
NOT INFRINGE THE MARCONI CLAIM 16 WHICH IS BASED UPON A DIFFERENT
ARRANGEMENT, OPERATING IN A DIFFERENT MANNER TO OBTAIN A DIFFERENT
RESULT."  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO FINDING OF FACT
THAT CLAIM 16 HAD BEEN INFRINGED, AND THAT THE COURT, IN THE COURSE OF
THE ACCOUNTING PROCEEDING HAD BY AN ORDER OF OCTOBER 22, 1937, REOPENED
THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF INFRINGEMENT.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT THE
COMMISSIONER'S FINDING LXV, WHICH THE COURT ADOPTED AS FINDING LXIII,
WAS A FINDING OF INFRINGEMENT, AND WE SEE NO REASON TO QUESTION THE
COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT ITS ORDER HAD NOT REOPENED THE SUBJECT OF
INFRINGEMENT. 

IN VIEW, HOWEVER, OF THE GOVERNMENT'S APPARENT MISUNDERSTANDING OF
THE SCOPE OF THE ISSUES LEFT OPEN ON THE ACCOUNTING WE THINK THAT ITS
REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF NON-INFRINGEMENT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED TO THE
PUPIN AND FESSENDEN PATENTS WAS A SUFFICIENT REQUEST TO THE COURT TO
RECONSIDER ITS PREVIOUS DECISION OF INFRINGEMENT.  AND WHILE MOST OF
THE ARGUMENT ON THE GOVERNMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER'S
REPORT WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE TAKEN UPON THE ACCOUNTING, THE
GOVERNMENT'S BRIEFS SUFFICIENTLY DISCLOSED TO THE COURT THAT THE PUPIN
AND FESSENDEN PATENTS, AT LEAST, HAD BEEN IN THE RECORD PRIOR TO THE
INTERLOCUTORY DECISION. 

THE COURT, IN REJECTING THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF NON
INFRINGEMENT, STATED: "THE QUESTION OF INFRINGEMENT OF MARCONI CLAIM 16
...  IS NOT BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT ACCOUNTING."  "THE SOLE PURPOSE
AND FUNCTION OF AN ACCOUNTING IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE IS TO
ASCERTAIN THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION DUE, AND NO OTHER ISSUE CAN BE
BROUGHT INTO THE ACCOUNTING TO CHANGE OR ALTER THE COURT'S PRIOR
DECISION."  WE CANNOT SAY WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER IN REJECTING THE
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST THE COURT THOUGHT THAT IT LACKED POWER TO
RECONSIDER ITS PRIOR DECISION, OR WHETHER IT HELD MERELY THAT IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION IT SHOULD NOT DO SO.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR
THAT, ASSUMING IT CONSIDERED THE QUESTION TO BE ONE OF DISCRETION, IT
RECOGNIZED THAT IN PART AT LEAST THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST WAS BASED ON
EVIDENCE, HAVING AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE VALIDITY AND CONSTRUCTION
OF CLAIM 16, WHICH HAD BEEN BEFORE THE COURT BUT HAD NOT BEEN
CONSIDERED BY IT WHEN IT HELD CLAIM 16 VALID AND INFRINGED. 

ALTHOUGH THE INTERLOCUTORY DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON THE
QUESTION OF VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT WAS APPEALABLE, UNITED STATES V.
ESNAULT-PELTERIE, 299 U.S. 201, 303 U.S. 26; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 288(B), AS
ARE INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS OF DISTRICT COURTS IN SUITS TO ENJOIN
INFRINGMENT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 227(A); SIMMONS CO. V. GRIER BROS. CO., 258
U.S. 82, 89, THE DECISION WAS NOT FINAL UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE
ACCOUNTING.  BARNARD V. GIBSON, 7 HOW.  649; HUMISTON V. STAINTHORP, 2
WALL.  106; SIMMONS CO. V. GRIER BROS. CO., SUPRA, 89.  HENCE THE COURT
DID NOT LACK POWER AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ENTRY OF ITS FINAL JUDGMENT AT
THE CLOSE OF THE ACCOUNTING TO RECONSIDER ANY PORTION OF ITS DECISION
AND REOPEN ANY PART OF THE CASE.  PERKINS V. FOURNIQUET, 6 HOW.  206,
208; MCGOURKEY V. TOLEDO ,& OHIO CENTRAL RY. CO., 146 U.S. 536, 544;
SIMMONS CO. V. GRIER BROS. CO., SUPRA, 90-91.  IT WAS FREE IN ITS
DISCRETION TO GRANT A REARGUMENT BASED EITHER ON ALL THE EVIDENCE THEN
OF RECORD OR ONLY THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT WHEN IT RENDERED ITS
INTERLOCUTORY DECISION, OR TO REOPEN THE CASE FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE. 

WHETHER IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN ANY OF THESE COURSES WAS A MATTER
PRIMARILY FOR ITS DISCRETION, TO BE EXERCISED IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH THIS COURT CANNOT PROPERLY APPRAISE WITHOUT MORE
INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE THAN IT HAS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN A LONG AND COMPLEX
TRIAL.  AMONG THOSE CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE QUESTIONS WHETHER, AS
APPEARS TO BE THE CASE FROM SUCH PORTIONS OF THE RECORD AS HAVE BEEN
FILED IN THIS COURT OR CITED TO US BY COUNSEL, THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO
MAKE ANY CONTENTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM 16 IN
THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE INTERLOCUTORY DECISION; WHETHER THE
SHOWING OF NON-INFRINGEMENT WHICH IT NOW MAKES IS SUFFICIENTLY STRONG,
AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT AN INVALID PATENT BE NOT SUSTAINED IS
SUFFICIENTLY GREAT, TO JUSTIFY RECONSIDERING THE DECISION AS TO CLAIM
16 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT COUNSEL TO PRESS ITS CONTENTION AT
THE PROPER TIME; WHETHER ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF NON
INFRINGEMENT CAN BE HAD ON THE EXISTING RECORD, OR WHETHER ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY SHOULD BE RECEIVED; AND WHETHER, BALANCING THE STRENGTH OR
WEAKNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PRESENT SHOWING OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
AGAINST THE UNDESIRABILITY OF FURTHER PROLONGING THIS ALREADY EXTENDED
LITIGATION, THE CASE IS ONE WHICH JUSTIFIES RECONSIDERATION. 

THESE ARE ALL MATTERS REQUIRING CAREFUL CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIAL
COURT.  IN ORDER THAT THE CASE MAY RECEIVE THAT CONSIDERATION, WE
VACATE THE JUDGMENT AS TO CLAIM 16 AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION. 

IF ON THE REMAND THE COURT SHOULD EITHER DECLINE TO RECONSIDER ITS
DECISION OF INFRINGEMENT, OR SHOULD UPON RECONSIDERATION ADHERE TO THAT
DECISION, IT SHOULD PASS UPON THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT, URGED
HERE AND BELOW, AS TO THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE
COURT MADE NO FINDINGS.  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION IS THAT THE
VARIABLE CAPACITY SHUNT OF THE ACCUSED DEVICES BRIDGED ALL THE
INDUCTANCE IN THE RECEIVING ANTENNA CIRCUIT, AND THAT EVEN THOUGH THOSE
DEVICES INFRINGED THEY NEVERTHELESS EMBODY AN IMPROVEMENT OVER
MARCONI'S CLAIM 16, IN WHICH ONLY THE TRANSFORMER COIL WAS BRIDGED.  IN
COMPUTING THE DAMAGES THE COURT MEASURED THEM BY 65% OF THE COST TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE INDUCTION COILS WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE IN
THE ACCUSED DEVICES THE ADJUSTABLE CONDENSERS AS A MEANS OF TUNING,
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GREATER CONVENIENCE AND EFFICIENCY OF CONDENSER
TUNING.  THE ALLOWANCE OF ONLY 65% WAS ON THE THEORY THAT IF THE
PARTIES HAD NEGOTIATED FOR THE USE OF THE INVENTION THE PRICE WOULD
HAVE BEEN LESS THAN THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE AVAILABLE
ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF TUNING. 

IN COMPUTING THE DAMAGES THE COURT APPARENTLY DID NOT TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT OR ATTEMPT TO APPRAISE ANY CONTRIBUTION WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
MADE BY THE IMPROVEMENT OVER MARCONI WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS WAS
INCLUDED IN THE ACCUSED DEVICES.  THE COURT FOUND THAT WHERE THE
CONDENSER IS CONNECTED IN SERIES WITH THE INDUCTANCE COILS IN THE
ANTENNA IT "CAN BE USED TO SHORTEN THE NATURAL RESONANT WAVE LENGTH OF
THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT BUT CANNOT LENGTHEN IT BEYOND WHAT WOULD BE THE
RESONANT WAVE LENGTH IF THE CONDENSER WERE NOT PRESENT."  ON THE OTHER
HAND, IT FOUND THAT WHEN THE CONDENSER IS CONNECTED IN PARALLEL IT
ENABLES THE PERIODICITY OF THE ANTENNA TO BE LOWERED, PERMITTING THE
RECEPTION OF LONGER WAVE-LENGTHS. 

THE COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES WAS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE
ADVANTAGE TO THE GOVERNMENT RESULTING FROM THE INFRINGEMENT WAS DERIVED
FROM THE ABILITY WHICH THE ACCUSED DEVICES HAD THUS ACQUIRED TO RECEIVE
LONGER WAVE-LENGTHS.  BUT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL TESTIMONY THAT THE
ARRANGEMENT DISCLOSED BY MARCONI'S SPECIFICATIONS WAS IN EFFECT A
CONNECTION IN SERIES WHICH DID NOT MAKE POSSIBLE RECEPTION OF LONGER
WAVE-LENGTHS, AS DID THE ARRANGEMENT IN THE ACCUSED DEVICES.  AND THE
COURT NOWHERE FOUND THAT THE ARRANGEMENT COVERED BY MARCONI'S CLAIM 16
DID MAKE POSSIBLE SUCH RECEPTION.  THE APPROPRIATE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN
TO THIS TESTIMONY IS IMPORTANT IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECOGNIZED DOCTRINE
THAT IF A DEFENDANT HAS ADDED "NON-INFRINGING AND VALUABLE IMPROVEMENTS
WHICH HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE MAKING OF THE PROFITS," IT IS NOT LIABLE
FOR BENEFITS RESULTING FROM SUCH IMPROVEMENTS.  WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC
CO. V. WAGNER MFG. CO., 225 U.S. 604, 614-15, 616-17; SHELDON V. METRO
GOLDWYN CORP., 309 U.S. 390, 402-406, AND CASES CITED.  FINDING LXIII
THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS USING "APPARATUS COMING WITHIN THE TERMINOLOGY
OF CLAIM 16," AND FINDING 23 ON THE ACCOUNTING THAT THE ACCUSED DEVICES
"INFRINGE CLAIM 16 OF THE MARCONI PATENT," GIVE NO AID IN SOLVING THIS
PROBLEM FOR THEY ARE NOT ADDRESSED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER, ASSUMING
INFRINGEMENT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH OF THEMSELVES
ARE NON-INFRINGING.  THAT CAN ONLY BE AFFORDED BY FINDINGS WHICH
APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE, ESTABLISH THE SCOPE OF MARCONI'S CLAIM AND THE
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTION, IF ANY, BETWEEN THE
DEVICE CLAIMED BY MARCONI AND THOSE USED BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND
DETERMINE WHETHER ANY DIFFERENCES SHOWN TO EXIST CONSTITUTE A "NON
INFRINGING IMPROVEMENT" FOR WHICH MARCONI DESERVES NO CREDIT. 

THE JUDGMENT AS TO CLAIM 16 WILL BE VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

THE FLEMING PATENT NO. 803,684. 

THE FLEMING PATENT, ENTITLED:  "INSTRUMENT FOR CONVERTING ALTERNATING
ELECTRIC CURRENTS INTO CONTINUOUS CURRENTS" WAS APPLIED FOR APRIL 19,
1905, AND GRANTED ON NOVEMBER 7, 1905 TO THE MARCONI COMPANY, AS
ASSIGNEE OF FLEMING.  ITS SPECIFICATIONS STATE THAT "THIS INVENTION
RELATES TO CERTAIN NEW AND USEFUL DEVICES FOR CONVERTING ALTERNATING
ELECTRIC CURRENTS, AND ESPECIALLY HIGH-FREQUENCY ALTERNATING ELECTRIC
CURRENTS OR ELECTRIC OSCILLATIONS, INTO CONTINUOUS ELECTRIC CURRENTS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THEM DETECTABLE BY AND MEASURABLE WITH
ORDINARY DIRECTCURRENT INSTRUMENTS, SUCH AS A 'MIRROR-GALVANOMETER' OF
THE USUAL TYPE OR ANY ORDINARY DIRECT-CURRENT AMMETER."  FLEMING'S
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOW A COMBINATION APPARATUS BY WHICH
ALTERNATING CURRENT IMPULSES RECEIVED THROUGH AN ANTENNA CIRCUIT
CONTAINING THE PRIMARY OF A TRANSFORMER ARE INDUCED IN THE SECONDARY OF
THE TRANSFORMER.  TO ONE END OF THE SECONDARY COIL IS CONNECTED A
CARBON FILAMENT LIKE THAT OF AN INCANDESCENT ELECTRIC LAMP, WHICH IS
HEATED BY A BATTERY.  SURROUNDING, BUT NOT TOUCHING THE FILAMENT, IS A
CYLINDER OF ALUMINUM OPEN AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM, WHICH IS CONNECTED
WITH THE OTHER END OF THE SECONDARY.  THE CYLINDER AND FILAMENT ARE
ENCLOSED IN AN EVACUATED VESSEL SUCH AS AN ORDINARY ELECTRIC LAMP
BULB.  AN INDICATING INSTRUMENT OR GALVANOMETER IS SO LOCATED IN THIS
CIRCUIT AS TO RESPOND TO THE FLOW OF CURRENT IN IT.  THE SPECIFICATIONS
EXPLAIN THE OPERATION OF THIS DEVICE: 

"THIS ARRANGEMENT DESCRIBED ABOVE OPERATES AS AN ELECTRIC VALVE AND
PERMITS NEGATIVE ELECTRICITY TO FLOW FROM THE HOT CARBON B TO THE METAL
CYLINDER C, BUT NOT IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION, SO THAT THE ALTERNATIONS
INDUCED IN THE COIL K BY THE HERTZIAN WAVES RECEIVED BY THE AERIAL WIRE
N ARE RECTIFIED OR TRANSFORMED INTO A MORE OR LESS CONTINUOUS CURRENT
CAPABLE OF ACTUATING THE GALVANOMETER L BY WHICH THE SIGNALS CAN BE
READ." 

THE SPECIFICATIONS FURTHER STATE: 

"  ...  THE AERIAL WIRE N MAY BE REPLACED BY ANY CIRCUIT IN WHICH
THERE IS AN ALTERNATING ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE, WHETHER OF LOW FREQUENCY
OR OF HIGH FREQUENCY  ...  " 

"HENCE THE DEVICE MAY BE USED FOR RECTIFYING EITHER HIGH-FREQUENCY OR
LOW-FREQUENCY ALTERNATING CURRENTS OF ELECTRICAL OSCILLATIONS  ...  " 
ONLY CLAIMS 1 AND 37 OF THE PATENT ARE IN SUIT.  THEY READ AS
FOLLOWS: 

"1.  THE COMBINATION OF A VACUOUS VESSEL, TWO CONDUCTORS ADJACENT TO
BUT NOT TOUCHING EACH OTHER IN THE VESSEL, MEANS FOR HEATING ONE OF THE
CONDUCTORS, AND A CIRCUIT OUTSIDE THE VESSEL CONNECTING THE TWO
CONDUCTORS. 

"37.  AT A RECEIVING-STATION IN A SYSTEM OF WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY
EMPLOYING ELECTRICAL OSCILLATIONS OF HIGH FREQUENCY A DETECTOR
COMPRISING A VACUOUS VESSEL, TWO CONDUCTORS ADJACENT TO BUT NOT
TOUCHING EACH OTHER IN THE VESSEL, MEANS FOR HEATING ONE OF THE
CONDUCTORS, A CIRCUIT OUTSIDE OF THE VESSEL CONNECTING THE TWO
CONDUCTORS, MEANS FOR DETECTING A CONTINUOUS CURRENT IN THE CIRCUIT,
AND MEANS FOR IMPRESSING UPON THE CIRCUIT THE RECEIVED OSCILLATIONS." 

THE CURRENT APPLIED TO THE FILAMENT OR CATHODE BY THE BATTERY SETS UP
A FLOW OF ELECTRONS (NEGATIVE ELECTRIC CHARGES) FROM THE HEATED
CATHODE, WHICH ARE ATTRACTED TO THE COLD PLATE OR ANODE WHEN THE LATTER
IS POSITIVELY CHARGED.  WHEN AN ALTERNATING CURRENT IS SET UP IN THE
CIRCUIT CONTAINING THE CATHODE, ANODE, AND SECONDARY OF THE
TRANSFORMER, THE ELECTRONIC DISCHARGE FROM THE CATHODE CLOSES THE
CIRCUIT AND PERMITS A CONTINUOUS FLOW OF ELECTRICITY THROUGH IT WHEN
THE PHASE OF THE CURRENT IS SUCH THAT THE ANODE IS POSITIVELY CHARGED,
WHILE PREVENTING ANY FLOW OF CURRENT THROUGH THE TUBE WHEN THE ANODE IS
NEGATIVELY CHARGED.  THE ALTERNATING CURRENT IS THUS RECTIFIED SO AS TO
PRODUCE A CURRENT FLOWING ONLY IN ONE DIRECTION.  SEE DEFOREST RADIO
CO. V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 283 U.S. 664; RADIO CORPORATION V. RADIO
LABORATORIES, 293 U.S. 1; DETROLA RADIO CORP. V. HAZELTINE CORPORATION,
313 U.S. 259. 

CLAIMS 1 AND 37 OF THE FLEMING PATENT ARE IDENTICAL IN THEIR
STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS.  BOTH CLAIM THE VACUUM TUBE, AND THE TWO
ELECTRODES CONNECTED BY A CIRCUIT OUTSIDE THE TUBE, ONE ELEMENT BEING
HEATED.  THE CLAIMS DIFFER ONLY IN THAT CLAIM 37 INCLUDES "MEANS FOR
DETECTING" THE CONTINUOUS OR DIRECT CURRENT IN THE ANODE-CATHODE
CIRCUIT, AND "MEANS FOR IMPRESSING UPON THE CIRCUIT THE RECEIVED
OSCILLATIONS" FROM THE TRANSFORMER COIL OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT. 

IN THE PATENT AS ORIGINALLY ISSUED THERE HAD BEEN ANOTHER DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE TWO CLAIMS.  CLAIM 37 DESCRIBES THE TUBE AS BEING USED "IN
A SYSTEM OF WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY EMPLOYING ELECTRICAL OSCILLATIONS OF
HIGH FREQUENCY."  NO SUCH LIMITATION WAS PLACED ON CLAIM 1 AS
ORIGINALLY CLAIMED, AND THE SPECIFICATIONS ALREADY QUOTED PLAINLY
CONTEMPLATED THE USE OF THE CLAIMED DEVICE WITH LOW AS WELL AS HIGH
FREQUENCY CURRENTS.  THIS DISTINCTION WAS ELIMINATED BY A DISCLAIMER
FILED BY THE MARCONI COMPANY NOVEMBER 17, 1915, RESTRICTING THE
COMBINATION OF THE ELEMENTS OF CLAIM 1 TO A USE "IN CONNECTION WITH
HIGH FREQUENCY ALTERNATING ELECTRIC CURRENTS OR ELECTRIC OSCILLATIONS
OF THE ORDER EMPLOYED IN HERTZIAN WAVE TRANSMISSION," AND DELETING
CERTAIN REFERENCES TO LOW FREQUENCIES IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.  THE
RESULT OF THE DISCLAIMER WAS TO LIMIT BOTH CLAIMS TO THE USE OF THE
PATENTED DEVICE FOR RECTIFYING HIGH FREQUENCY ALTERNATING WAVES OR
CURRENTS SUCH AS WERE EMPLOYED IN WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY. 

THE EARLIEST DATE ASSERTED FOR FLEMING'S INVENTION, AS LIMITED BY THE
DISCLAIMER, IS NOVEMBER 16, 1904.  TWENTY YEARS BEFORE, ON OCTOBER 21,
1884, EDISON HAD SECURED UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 307,031.  IN HIS
SPECIFICATIONS HE STATED: 

"I HAVE DISCOVERED THAT IF A CONDUCTING SUBSTANCE IS INTERPOSED
ANYWHERE IN THE VACUOUS SPACE WITHIN THE GLOBE OF AN INCANDESCENT
ELECTRIC LAMP, AND SAID CONDUCTING SUBSTANCE IS CONNECTED OUTSIDE OF
THE LAMP WITH ONE TERMINAL, PREFERABLY THE POSITIVE ONE, OF THE
INCANDESCENT CONDUCTOR, A PORTION OF THE CURRENT WILL, WHEN THE LAMP IS
IN OPERATION, PASS THROUGH THE SHUNT-CIRCUIT THUS FORMED, WHICH SHUNT
INCLUDES A PORTION OF THE VACUOUS SPACE WITHIN THE LAMP.  THIS CURRENT
I HAVE FOUND TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF INCANDESCENCE OF THE
CONDUCTOR OR CANDLEPOWER OF THE LAMP."  EDISON PROPOSED TO USE THIS
DISCOVERY AS A MEANS OF "INDICATING, VARIATIONS IN THE ELECTRO-MOTIVE
FORCE IN AN ELECTRIC CIRCUIT," BY CONNECTING A LAMP THUS EQUIPPED AT A
POINT WHERE THE CURRENT WAS TO BE MEASURED.  THE DRAWINGS OF HIS PATENT
SHOW AN ELECTRIC CIRCUIT, INCLUDING A FILAMENT (CATHODE) AND A PLATE
(ANODE) BOTH "IN THE VACUOUS SPACE WITHIN THE GLOBE" - AN ELECTRIC
LIGHT BULB.  THE SHUNT-CIRCUIT EXTENDS FROM THE PLATE THROUGH A
GALVANOMETER TO THE FILAMENT.  HIS SPECIFICATIONS DISCLOSE THAT THE
VACUOUS SPACE WITHIN THE GLOBE IS A CONDUCTOR OF CURRENT BETWEEN THE
PLATE ANODE AND THE FILAMENT; THAT THE STRENGTH OF THE CURRENT IN THE
FILAMENT-TO-PLATE CIRCUIT THROUGH THE VACUUM DEPENDS UPON THE DEGREE OF
INCANDESCENCE AT THE FILAMENT; AND THAT THE PLATE ANODE IS PREFERABLY
CONNECTED TO THE POSITIVE SIDE OF THE CURRENT SUPPLY.  THE CLAIMS OF
THE PATENT ARE FOR THE COMBINATION OF THE FILAMENT, PLATE AND
INTERCONNECTING CIRCUIT, INCLUDING THE GALVANOMETER.  CLAIM 5, A
TYPICAL CLAIM, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE COMBINATION, WITH AN INCANDESCENT ELECTRIC LAMP, OF A CIRCUIT
HAVING ONE TERMINAL IN THE VACUOUS SPACE WITHIN THE GLOBE OF SAID LAMP,
AND THE OTHER CONNECTED WITH ONE SIDE OF THE LAMP-CIRCUIT, AND
ELECTRICALLY CONTROLLED OR OPERATED APPARATUS IN SAID CIRCUIT,
SUBSTANTIALLY AS SET FORTH." 

THE STRUCTURE DISCLOSED IN FLEMING'S CLAIMS 1 AND 37 THUS DIFFERED IN
NO MATERIAL RESPECT FROM THAT DISCLOSED BY EDISON.  SINCE FLEMING'S
ORIGINAL CLAIM 1 IS MERELY FOR THE STRUCTURE, IT READS DIRECTLY ON
EDISON'S CLAIM 5 AND COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS INVENTION OVER IT. 

FLEMING USED THIS STRUCTURE FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE THAN EDISON. 
EDISON DISCLOSED THAT HIS DEVICE OPERATED TO PASS A CURRENT ACROSS THE
VACUOUS SPACE WITHIN THE TUBE BETWEEN FILAMENT AND PLATE.  HE USED THIS
CURRENT AS A MEANS OF MEASURING THE CURRENT PASSING THROUGH THE
FILAMENT CIRCUIT.  FLEMING, IN HIS SPECIFICATIONS, DISCLOSED THE USE OF
HIS TUBE AS A RECTIFIER OF ALTERNATING CURRENTS, AND IN CLAIM 37 HE
CLAIMED THE USE OF THAT APPARATUS AS A MEANS OF RECTIFYING ALTERNATING
CURRENTS OF RADIO FREQUENCY.  BUT IN THIS USE OF THE TUBE TO CONVERT
ALTERNATING INTO DIRECT CURRENTS THERE WAS NO NOVELTY FOR IT HAD BEEN
DISCLOSED BY OTHERS AND BY FLEMING HIMSELF LONG BEFORE FLEMING'S
INVENTION DATE. 

ON JANUARY 9, 1890, TEN YEARS BEFORE FLEMING FILED HIS APPLICATION,
HE STATED IN A PAPER READ BEFORE THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON: 

"IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT IF A PLATINUM PLATE OR WIRE IS
SEALED THROUGH THE GLASS BULB OF AN ORDINARY CARBON FILAMENT
INCANDESCENT LAMP, THIS METALLIC PLATE BEING QUITE OUT OF CONTACT WITH
THE CARBON CONDUCTOR, A SENSITIVE GALVANOMETER CONNECTED BETWEEN THIS
INSULATED METAL PLATE ENCLOSED IN THE VACUUM AND THE EXTERNAL POSITIVE
ELECTRODE OF THE LAMP INDICATES A CURRENT OF SOME MILLIAMPERES PASSING
THROUGH IT WHEN THE LAMP IS SET IN ACTION, BUT THE SAME INSTRUMENT WHEN
CONNECTED BETWEEN THE NEGATIVE ELECTRODE OF THE LAMP AND THE INSULATED
METAL PLATE INDICATES NO SENSIBLE CURRENT.  THIS PHENOMENON IN CARBON
INCANDESCENCE LAMPS WAS FIRST OBSERVED BY MR. EDISON, IN 1884, AND
FURTHER EXAMINED BY MR. W. H. PREECE, IN 1885."  PROCEEDINGS OF THE
ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, VOL. 47, PP. 118-9. 

FLEMING'S 1890 PAPER FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE VACUOUS SPACE
"POSSESSES A CURIOUS UNILATERAL CONDUCTIVITY"; THAT IS, IT PERMITS
CURRENT TO "FLOW ACROSS THE VACUOUS SPACE FROM THE HOT CARBON (CATHODE)
TO THE COOLER METAL PLATE (ANODE), BUT NOT IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION." 
ID. 122.  HE NOTED THE ABILITY OF THE TUBE TO ACT AS A RECTIFIER OF
ALTERNATING CURRENT, SAYING: 

"WHEN THE LAMP IS ACTUATED BY AN ALTERNATING CURRENT A CONTINUOUS
CURRENT IS FOUND FLOWING THROUGH A GALVANOMETER, CONNECTED BETWEEN THE
INSULATED PLATE AND EITHER TERMINAL OF THE LAMP.  THE DIRECTION OF THE
CURRENT THROUGH THE GALVANOMETER IS SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT NEGATIVE
ELECTRICITY IS FLOWING FROM THE PLATE THROUGH THE GALVANOMETER TO THE
LAMP TERMINAL."  ID. 120. 

FLEMING'S PAPER THUS NOTED, CONTRARY TO THE THEN POPULAR CONCEPTION,
THAT IT IS NEGATIVE ELECTRICITY WHICH FLOWS FROM CATHODE TO ANODE, BUT
HE EMPHASIZED THAT EVEN THIS HAD BEEN A PART OF GENERAL SCIENTIFIC
KNOWLEDGE, AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE EFFECT OF HEATING THE NEGATIVE ELECTRODE IN FACILITATING
DISCHARGE THROUGH VACUOUS SPACES HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DESCRIBED BY W.
HITTORF ('ANNALEN DER PHYSIK UND CHEMIE,' VOL. 21, 1884, P. 90-139),
AND IT IS ABUNDANTLY CONFIRMED BY THE ABOVE EXPERIMENTS.  WE MAY SAY
THAT A VACUOUS SPACE BOUNDED BY TWO ELECTRODES - ONE INCANDESCENT, AND
THE OTHER COLD - POSSESSES A UNILATERAL CONDUCTIVITY FOR ELECTRIC
DISCHARGE WHEN THESE ELECTRODES ARE WITHIN A DISTANCE OF THE MEAN FREE
PATH OF PROJECTION OF THE MOLECULES WHICH THE IMPRESSED ELECTROMOTIVE
FORCE CAN DETACH AND SEND OFF FROM THE HOT NEGATIVE ELECTRODE. 

"THIS UNILATERAL CONDUCTIVITY OF VACUOUS SPACES HAVING UNEQUALLY
HEATED ELECTRODES HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY MM. ELSTER AND GEITEL (SEE
'WIEDEMANN'S ANNALEN,' VOL. 38, 1889, P. 40), AND ALSO BY GOLDSTEIN
('WIED.  ANN.,' VOL. 24, 1885, P. 83), WHO IN EXPERIMENTS OF VARIOUS
KINDS HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT WHEN AN ELECTRIC DISCHARGE ACROSS A
VACUOUS SPACE TAKES PLACE FROM A CARBON CONDUCTOR TO ANOTHER ELECTRODE,
THE DISCHARGE TAKES PLACE AT LOWER ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE WHEN THE CARBON
CONDUCTOR IS THE NEGATIVE ELECTRODE AND IS RENDERED INCANDESCENT."  ID.
125-6. 

FLEMING'S REFERENCE IN THIS PUBLICATION TO THE UNILATERAL
CONDUCTIVITY OF THE VACUOUS SPACE BETWEEN CATHODE AND ANODE, AND THE
CONSEQUENT ABILITY OF THE TWO TO DERIVE A CONTINUOUS UNIDIRECTIONAL
CURRENT FROM AN ALTERNATING CURRENT WAS A RECOGNITION THAT THE EDISON
TUBE EMBODYING THE STRUCTURE DESCRIBED COULD BE USED AS A RECTIFIER OF
ALTERNATING CURRENT.  THIS KNOWLEDGE, DISCLOSED BY PUBLICATION MORE
THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE FLEMING'S APPLICATION, WAS A BAR TO ANY CLAIM FOR
A PATENT FOR AN INVENTION EMBODYING THE PUBLISHED DISCLOSURE.  R.S.
SECS. 4886, 4920; 35 U.S.C. SECS. 31, 69.  WAGNER V. MECCANO LTD., 246
F. 603, 607; CF. MUNCIE GEAR CO. V. OUTBOARD CO., SUPRA, 766. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER FLEMING'S USE OF THE EDISON
DEVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECTIFYING HIGH FREQUENCY HERTZIAN WAVES, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM LOW FREQUENCY WAVES, INVOLVED INVENTION OVER THE
PRIOR ART, OR WHETHER THE COURT BELOW RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE DEVICES
USED BY THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT INFRINGE THE CLAIMS SUED UPON, FOR WE
ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COURT WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT FLEMING'S
PATENT WAS RENDERED INVALID BY AN IMPROPER DISCLAIMER.  IT IS PLAIN
THAT FLEMING'S ORIGINAL CLAIM 1, SO FAR AS APPLICABLE TO USE WITH LOW
FREQUENCY ALTERNATING CURRENTS, INVOLVED NOTHING NEW, AS FLEMING
HIMSELF MUST HAVE KNOWN IN VIEW OF HIS 1890 PAPER, AND AS HE RECOGNIZED
BY HIS DISCLAIMER IN 1915, MADE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS PAPER WAS
PUBLISHED AND TEN YEARS AFTER HIS PATENT HAD BEEN ALLOWED.  ITS
INVALIDITY WOULD DEFEAT THE ENTIRE PATENT UNLESS THE INVALID PORTION
HAD BEEN CLAIMED "THROUGH INADVERTENCE, ACCIDENT, OR MISTAKE, AND
WITHOUT ANY FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE INTENTION," AND WAS ALSO DISCLAIMED
WITHOUT "UNREASONABLE" NEGLECT OR DELAY.  R.S. SECS. 4917, 4922; 35
U.S.C. SECS. 65, 71; ENSTEN V. SIMON ASCHER & CO., 282 U.S. 445, 452;
ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477, 493; MAYTAG CO. V.
HURLEY CO., 307 U.S. 243. 

WE NEED NOT STOP TO INQUIRE WHETHER, AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISCLAIMER WAS IMPROPER AS IN EFFECT ADDING A NEW
ELEMENT TO THE CLAIM.  SEE MILCOR STEEL CO. V. FULLER CO., 316 U.S.
143, 147-8.  FOR WE THINK THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING
THAT THE FLEMING PATENT WAS INVALID BECAUSE FLEMING'S CLAIM FOR "MORE
THAN HE HAD INVENTED" WAS NOT INADVERTENT, AND HIS DELAY IN MAKING THE
DISCLAIMER WAS "UNREASONABLE."  BOTH OF THESE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT,
BUT SINCE THE COURT IN ITS OPINION PLAINLY STATES ITS CONCLUSIONS AS TO
THEM, AND THOSE CONCLUSIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, ITS
OMISSION TO MAKE FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT IS IMMATERIAL.  ACT OF MAY 22,
1939, 53 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 288(B); CF. AMERICAN PROPELLER CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 475, 479-80; GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO.
V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE THAT A PATENT IS INVALID IN ITS ENTIRETY IF
ANY PART OF IT BE INVALID IS THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE
THREAT OF AN INVALID PATENT, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE DISCLAIMER STATUTE
IS TO ENABLE THE PATENTEE TO RELIEVE HIMSELF FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF
MAKING AN INVALID CLAIM IF HE IS ABLE TO SHOW BOTH THAT THE INVALID
CLAIM WAS INADVERTENT AND THAT THE DISCLAIMER WAS MADE WITHOUT
UNREASONABLE NEGLECT OR DELAY.  ENSTEN V. SIMON ASCHER & CO., SUPRA.
HERE THE PATENTEE HAS SUSTAINED NEITHER BURDEN. 

FLEMING'S PAPER OF 1890 SHOWED HIS OWN RECOGNITION THAT HIS CLAIM OF
USE OF HIS PATENT FOR LOW FREQUENCY CURRENTS WAS ANTICIPATED BY EDISON
AND OTHERS.  IT TAXES CREDULITY TO SUPPOSE, IN THE FACE OF THIS
PUBLICATION, THAT FLEMING'S CLAIM FOR USE OF THE EDISON TUBE WITH LOW
FREQUENCY CURRENTS WAS MADE "THROUGH INADVERTENCE, ACCIDENT OR
MISTAKE," WHICH IS PREREQUISITE TO A LAWFUL DISCLAIMER.  NO EXPLANATION
OR EXCUSE IS FORTHCOMING FOR HIS CLAIM OF INVENTION OF A DEVICE WHICH
HE HAD SO OFTEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE OLD IN THE ART, AND WHICH HE HAD
SPECIFICALLY AND CONSISTENTLY ATTRIBUTED TO EDISON.  NOR IS ANY
EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR THE DELAY OF THE PATENTEE - THE MARCONI COMPANY
- IN WAITING TEN YEARS TO DISCLAIM THE USE OF THE DEVICE WITH LOW
FREQUENCY CURRENTS AND TO RESTRICT IT TO A USE WITH HIGH FREQUENCY
HERTZIAN WAVES WHICH EDISON HAD PLAINLY FORESHADOWED BUT NOT CLAIMED. 
FOR TEN YEARS THE FLEMING PATENT WAS HELD OUT TO THE PUBLIC AS A
MONOPOLY OF ALL ITS CLAIMED FEATURES.  THAT WAS TOO LONG IN THE ABSENCE
OF ANY EXPLANATION OR EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, AND HENCE IN THIS CASE WAS
LONG ENOUGH TO INVALIDATE THE PATENT.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS NOT ONLY HAS SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE, BUT WE CAN HARDLY SEE HOW
ON THIS RECORD ANY OTHER COULD HAVE BEEN REACHED.    THE MARCONI
COMPANY'S CONTENTION THAT IT NOWHERE APPEARS THAT FLEMING WAS NOT THE
FIRST INVENTOR OF THE USE OF THE PATENTED DEVICE TO RECTIFY HIGH
FREQUENCY ALTERNATING CURRENTS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE DISCLAIMER.  THE DISCLAIMER ITSELF IS AN ASSERTION
THAT THE CLAIMED USE OF THE INVENTION WITH LOW FREQUENCIES WAS NOT THE
INVENTION OF THE PATENTEE, WHOSE RIGHTS WERE DERIVED WHOLLY FROM
FLEMING.  THIS IMPROPER CLAIM FOR SOMETHING NOT THE INVENTION OF THE
PATENTEE RENDERED THE WHOLE PATENT INVALID UNLESS SAVED BY A TIMELY
DISCLAIMER WHICH WAS NOT MADE. 

THE MARCONI COMPANY ALSO ASSERTS THAT, AS IT IS SUING AS ASSIGNEE OF
THE PATENTEE, IT IS UNAFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE DISCLAIMER
STATUTES, WHICH IT CONSTRUES AS RESTRICTING TO THE "PATENTEE" THE
CONSEQUENCES OF UNREASONABLE DELAY IN MAKING THE DISCLAIMER AND AS
EXEMPTING THE ASSIGNEE FROM THOSE CONSEQUENCES BY THE SENTENCE "BUT NO
PATENTEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THIS SECTION IF HE HAS
UNREASONABLY NEGLECTED OR DELAYED TO ENTER A DISCLAIMER."  35 U.S.C.
71.  AS THE COURT BELOW FOUND, THE MARCONI COMPANY WAS ITSELF THE
PATENTEE TO WHOM THE PATENT WAS ISSUED ON THE ASSIGNMENT OF FLEMING'S
APPLICATION IN CONFORMITY TO 35 U.S.C. SEC. 44.  THE RIGHT GIVEN BY
SEC. 71 TO THE PATENTEE OR HIS ASSIGNEES TO SUE FOR INFRINGEMENT UPON A
PROPER DISCLAIMER OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT RELIEVE THE PATENTEE FROM THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE BECAUSE HE
ACQUIRED HIS PATENT UNDER AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE APPLICATION.  ALTOONA
THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., SUPRA; MAYTAG CO. V. HURLEY CO., SUPRA;
FRANCE MFG. CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 106 F.2D 605, 610.  SUCH A
CONTENTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND IF ALLOWED
WOULD PERMIT THE NULLIFICATION OF THE DISCLAIMER STATUTE BY THE
EXPEDIENT OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE APPLICATION.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER
WHETHER ONE WHO HAS TAKEN AN ASSIGNMENT OF A PATENT AFTER ITS ISSUANCE
WOULD HAVE ANY GREATER RIGHTS THAN HIS ASSIGNOR IN THE EVENT OF THE
LATTER'S UNDUE DELAY IN FILING A DISCLAIMER.  COMPARE APEX ELECTRICAL
MFG. CO. V. MAYTAG CO., 122 F.2D 182, 189. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 373 IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE
COURT OF CLAIMS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 369 IS AFFIRMED.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  ON NOVEMBER 20, 1919, THE MARCONI COMPANY ASSIGNED TO THE RADIO
CORPORATION OF AMERICA ALL OF ITS ASSETS, INCLUDING THE PATENTS HERE IN
SUIT, BUT RESERVED, AND AGREED TO PROSECUTE, THE PRESENT CLAIMS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, ON WHICH IT HAD INSTITUTED SUIT ON JULY 29, 1916. 

FN2  SEE MARCONI WIRELESS TEL. CO. V. NATIONAL ELECTRIC SIGNALLING
CO., 213 F. 815, 825, 829-31; ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA (14TH ED.)  VOL. 
14, P. 869; DUNLAP, MARCONI, THE MAN AND HIS WIRELESS; JACOT AND
COLLIER, MARCONI - MASTER OF SPACE; VYVYAN, WIRELESS OVER THIRTY YEARS;
FLEMING, ELECTRIC WAVE TELEGRAPHY, 426-443. 

MARCONI WAS GRANTED EIGHT OTHER UNITED STATES PATENTS FOR WIRELESS
APPARATUS ON APPLICATIONS FILED BETWEEN THE FILING DATES OF NOS.
586,193 AND 763,772.  THEY ARE NOS. 624,516, 627,650, 647,007, 647,008,
647,009, 650,109, 650,110, 668,315. 

FN3  CAPACITY IS THE PROPERTY OF AN ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT WHICH ENABLES
IT TO RECEIVE AND STORE AN ELECTRICAL CHARGE WHEN A VOLTAGE IS APPLIED
TO IT, AND TO RELEASE THAT CHARGE AS THE APPLIED VOLTAGE IS WITHDRAWN,
THEREBY CAUSING A CURRENT TO FLOW IN THE CIRCUIT.  ALTHOUGH ANY
CONDUCTOR OF ELECTRICITY HAS CAPACITY TO SOME DEGREE, THAT PROPERTY IS
SUBSTANTIALLY ENHANCED IN A CIRCUIT BY THE USE OF A CONDENSER,
CONSISTING OF TWO OR MORE METAL PLATES SEPARATED BY A NON-CONDUCTOR,
SUCH THAT WHEN A VOLTAGE IS APPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT ONE PLATE WILL
BECOME POSITIVELY AND THE OTHER NEGATIVELY CHARGED. 

SELF-INDUCTANCE IS THE PROPERTY OF A CIRCUIT BY WHICH, WHEN THE
AMOUNT OR DIRECTION OF THE CURRENT PASSING THROUGH IT IS CHANGED, THE
MAGNETIC STRESSES CREATED INDUCE A VOLTAGE OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE. 
ALTHOUGH ANY CONDUCTOR HAS SELF-INDUCTANCE TO SOME DEGREE, THAT
PROPERTY IS MOST MARKED IN A COIL. 

SEE GENERALLY ALBERT, ELECTRICAL FUNDAMENTALS OF COMMUNICATION, CHS. 
V, VI, VII, AND IX; TERMAN, RADIO ENGINEERING, CHS.  II AND III;
MORECROFT, PRINCIPLES OF RADIO COMMUNICATION, CHS.  I, II, III; LAUER
AND BROWN, RADIO ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES, CHS.  I AND II. 

FN4  A COHERER WAS A DEVICE DISCLOSED BY BRANLY AS EARLY AS 1891.  IT
WAS USED BY LODGE IN EXPERIMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE LONDON ELECTRICIAN
FOR JUNE 15, 1894, P. 189, AND WAS IN COMMON USE THEREAFTER AS A
DETECTOR OF RADIO WAVES UNTIL REPLACED BY THE CRYSTAL AND THE
CATHODEANODE TUBE.  THE MOST COMMON FORM CONSISTED OF A TUBE CONTAINING
METAL FILINGS WHICH, IN THEIR NORMAL STATE, WERE A NON-CONDUCTOR.  WHEN
PLACED IN A CIRCUIT THROUGH WHICH HIGH FREQUENCY OSCILLATIONS PASSED,
THE FILINGS ALIGNED THEMSELVES IN A CONTINUOUS STREAM THROUGH WHICH THE
LOW FREQUENCY ELECTRICAL CURRENT OPERATING A KEY OR OTHER SIGNALLING
DEVICE COULD PASS.  BY MEANS OF A DEVICE WHICH TAPPED THE SIDES OF THE
TUBE, THE STREAM OF FILINGS WAS BROKEN WHEN THE HIGH-FREQUENCY
OSCILLATIONS CEASED.  THUS THE COHERER WAS A SENSITIVE DEVICE BY WHICH
WEAK, HIGH-FREQUENCY SIGNALS COULD BE MADE TO ACTUATE A LOW-FREQUENCY
CURRENT OF SUFFICIENT POWER TO OPERATE A TELEGRAPHIC KEY OR OTHER
DEVICE PRODUCING A VISIBLE OR AUDIBLE SIGNAL. 

FN5  OF THE CLAIMS IN SUIT IN NO. 369, CLAIMS 10 AND 20 COVER THE
FOUR-CIRCUIT SYSTEM, WHILE CLAIMS 1, 3, 6, 8, 11 AND 12 COVER THE TWO
TRANSMITTER CIRCUITS AND CLAIMS 2, 13, 14, 17, 18 AND 19 COVER THE TWO
RECEIVER CIRCUITS.  CLAIM 10 MERELY PROVIDES THAT THE FOUR CIRCUITS BE
IN RESONANCE WITH EACH OTHER AND HENCE DOES NOT PRESCRIBE MEANS OF
ADJUSTING THE TUNING.  CLAIM 11 LIKEWISE PRESCRIBES NO MEANS OF
ADJUSTMENT.  THE OTHER CLAIMS PROVIDE MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT, EITHER A
"VARIABLE INDUCTANCE" (CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 13, 18, AND 19) OR MORE
GENERALLY "MEANS" FOR ADJUSTING THE PERIOD OF THE CIRCUITS (CLAIMS 3,
6, 14 AND 17).  SOME OF THE CLAIMS MERELY PROVIDE MEANS OF ADJUSTING
THE TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT (CLAIMS 1, 2, 8, 12, AND 13) AND
HENCE DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THE CLOSED CIRCUITS BE TUNED.  OTHERS EITHER
SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBE THE ADJUSTABLE TUNING OF BOTH CIRCUITS AT
TRANSMITTER (CLAIMS 3, 6) OR RECEIVER (CLAIMS 18 AND 19) OR BOTH (CLAIM
20) OR ELSE PRESCRIBE "MEANS FOR ADJUSTING THE TWO TRANSFORMER-CIRCUITS
IN ELECTRICAL RESONANCE WITH EACH OTHER, SUBSTANTIALLY AS DESCRIBED"
(CLAIMS 14 AND 17). 

FN6  A DYNAMICAL THEORY OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD (1864), 155
PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY 459; 1 SCIENTIFIC
PAPERS OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL 526. 

FN7  SEE THE LONDON ELECTRICIAN FOR SEPTEMBER 21, 1888, P. 628. 

EBERT, IN THE LONDON ELECTRICIAN FOR JULY 6, 1894, P. 333, LIKEWISE
POINTED OUT THAT HERTZ'S RECEIVERS ARE "SO ARRANGED THAT THEY SHOW THE
MAXIMUM RESONANT EFFECT WITH A GIVEN EXCITER; THEY ARE 'ELECTRICALLY
TUNED.'" 

FN8  DE TUNZELMANN SHOWS THAT HERTZ CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THE PRINCIPLES
OF ELECTRICAL RESONANCE.  SOME OF HIS EARLY EXPERIMENTS WERE DESIGNED
TO DETERMINE WHETHER PRINCIPLES OF RESONANCE WERE APPLICABLE TO HIGH
FREQUENCY ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS.  FROM THEM HERTZ CONCLUDED THAT "AN
OSCILLATORY CURRENT OF DEFINITE PERIOD WOULD, OTHER CONDITIONS BEING
THE SAME, EXERT A MUCH GREATER INDUCTIVE EFFECT UPON ONE OF EQUAL
PERIOD THAN UPON ONE DIFFERING EVEN SLIGHTLY FROM IT."  ID. P. 626. 
HERTZ KNEW THAT THE FREQUENCY TO WHICH A CIRCUIT WAS RESONANT WAS A
FUNCTION OF THE SQUARE ROOT OF THE PRODUCT OF THE SELF-INDUCTANCE AND
CAPACITY IN THE CIRCUIT AND BY A FORMULA SIMILAR TO THAT NOW USED HE
CALCULATED THE APPROXIMATE FREQUENCY OF THE OSCILLATIONS PRODUCED BY
HIS TRANSMITTER.  ID., SEPTEMBER 28, 1888, 664-5. 

FN9  FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW, NO. 101, FEBRUARY, 1892, 173, 174-5. 

FN10  MARTIN, INVENTIONS, RESEARCHES AND WRITINGS OF NIKOLA TESLA,
PP. 346-8. 

FN11  TESLA'S SPECIFICATIONS STATE THAT THE CURRENT SHOULD PREFERABLY
BE "OF VERY CONSIDERABLE FREQUENCY."  IN DESCRIBING APPARATUS USED
EXPERIMENTALLY BY HIM, THE SPECIFICATIONS STATE THAT THE OSCILLATIONS
ARE GENERATED IN THE CHARGING CIRCUIT BY THE PERIODIC DISCHARGE OF A
CONDENSER BY MEANS OF "A MECHANICALLY OPERATED BREAK," A MEANS WHOSE
EFFECTS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE SPARK GAP GENERALLY USED AT THIS
PERIOD IN THE RADIO ART. HE FURTHER STATES THAT THE INDUCTANCE OF THE
CHARGING CIRCUIT IS SO CALCULATED THAT THE "PRIMARY CIRCUIT VIBRATES
GENERALLY ACCORDING TO ADJUSTMENT, FROM TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND
TO TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND TIMES PER SECOND."  THE RANGE OF
RADIO FREQUENCIES IN USE IN 1917 WAS SAID BY A WITNESS FOR THE
PLAINTIFF TO EXTEND FROM 30,000 TO 1,500,000 CYCLES PER SECOND.  THE
RANGE OF FREQUENCIES ALLOCATED FOR RADIO USE BY THE INTERNATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATION CONVENTION, PROCLAIMED JUNE 27, 1934, 49 STAT. 2391,
2459, IS FROM 10 TO 60,000 KILOCYCLES (10,000 TO 60,000,000 CYCLES) PER
SECOND, AND THE SPECTRUM OF WAVES OVER WHICH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION CURRENTLY EXERCISES JURISDICTION EXTENDS FROM 10 TO 500,000
KILOCYCLES.  CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 47, CH. I, SEC. 2.71. 
THUS TESLA'S APPARATUS WAS INTENDED TO OPERATE AT RADIO FREQUENCIES. 

FN12  MARCONI'S PATENT NO. 627,650, OF JUNE 27, 1899, SIMILARLY
SHOWED A TWO-CIRCUIT RECEIVING SYSTEM, IN WHICH THE COHERER WAS PLACED
IN A CLOSED CIRCUIT WHICH WAS INDUCTIVELY COUPLED WITH A TUNED ANTENNA
CIRCUIT.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PATENT DID NOT
CLEARLY DISCLOSE THE DESIRABILITY OF TUNING BOTH CIRCUITS. 

FN13  THAT THE CLOSED CIRCUIT WAS INTENDED TO BE A "PERSISTENT
OSCILLATOR" IS ALSO BROUGHT OUT BY STONE'S EMPHASIS ON "LOOSE
COUPLING."  STONE'S APPLICATION EXPLAINED IN DETAIL THE FACT THAT WHEN
TWO CIRCUITS ARE INDUCTIVELY COUPLED TOGETHER THERE NORMALLY RESULT
"TWO DEGREES OF FREEDOM," THAT IS TO SAY, THE SUPERPOSITION OF TWO
FREQUENCIES IN THE SAME CIRCUIT BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT ON EACH OF THE
MAGNETIC LINES OF FORCE SET UP BY THE OTHER.  HE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL
METHODS OF ELIMINATING THIS SUPERPOSITION, WHICH INTERFERED WITH
ACCURATE SELECTIVITY OF TUNING, BY SO CONSTRUCTING HIS CIRCUITS AS TO
BE "LOOSELY COUPLED."  THIS HE ACHIEVED BY INCLUDING IN THE CLOSED
CIRCUITS A LARGE INDUCTANCE COIL, WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF "SWAMPING"
THE UNDESIRABLE EFFECT OF THE LINES OF FORCE SET UP IN THE PRIMARY OF
THE TRANSFORMER BY THE CURRENT INDUCED IN THE SECONDARY.  SINCE THE
TURNS OF WIRE IN THE PRIMARY OF THE TRANSFORMER CONSTITUTED A
RELATIVELY SMALL PART OF THE TOTAL INDUCTANCE IN THE CLOSED CIRCUIT THE
EFFECT OF THOSE TURNS ON THE FREQUENCY OF THE CIRCUIT WAS MINIMIZED. 

BUT THE TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL WAS IN SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT THAT THE
LOOSER THE COUPLING THE SLOWER IS THE TRANSFER OF ENERGY FROM THE
CLOSED CHARGING CIRCUIT TO THE OPEN ANTENNA CIRCUIT.  HENCE THE USE OF
LOOSE COUPLING PRESUPPOSES A CHARGING CIRCUIT THAT WILL STORE ITS
ENERGY FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD, I.E., THAT WILL MAINTAIN PERSISTENT
OSCILLATIONS. 

FN14  STONE'S RECOGNITION OF THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN HIS ANTENNA
CIRCUIT AND HIS SCREENING CIRCUIT IS FURTHER SHOWN BY HIS DIRECTION
THAT THE COUPLING BETWEEN THE SCREENING CIRCUIT AND THE CHARGING
CIRCUIT, LIKE THAT BETWEEN THE ANTENNA AND CHARGING CIRCUITS WHERE NO
SCREENING CIRCUIT IS USED, BE LOOSE.  SEE NOTE 12, SUPRA. 

FN15  STONE'S LANGUAGE HERE MAKES IT PLAIN THAT THROUGHOUT HIS
ALLUSIONS TO A FREQUENCY DEVELOPED IN ONE CIRCUIT AS BEING "IMPRESSED"
OR "FORCED" ON ANOTHER CIRCUIT WHEN THE TWO CIRCUITS ARE COUPLED
THROUGH A TRANSFORMER, ARE USED FIGURATIVELY OR METAPHORICALLY ONLY AS
SYNONYMOUS WITH "INDUCED."  SCIENTIFICALLY THE OSCILLATIONS IN THE
CHARGING CIRCUIT ARE NOT IMPRESSED OR FORCED ON THE OTHER.  THE STRESS
IN THE MAGNETIC FIELD OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT SETS UP OR INDUCES
CORRESPONDING STRESSES IN THE MAGNETIC FIELD OF THE OTHER CIRCUIT.  THE
RESULTING FREQUENCY IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT IS AFFECTED BOTH BY THE
FREQUENCY OF THE OSCILLATIONS IN THE CHARGING CIRCUIT AND THE
INDUCTANCE AND CAPACITY IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  THE RESULT MAY BE THE
SUPERPOSITION OF TWO FREQUENCIES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  THIS MAY BE
AVOIDED AND A SINGLE FREQUENCY DEVELOPED, AS STONE SHOWED, BY TUNING
THE SECOND CIRCUIT SO AS TO BE RESONANT TO THE FREQUENCIES CREATED IN
THE FIRST. 

FN16  AT THE INSISTENCE OF THE PATENT OFFICE STONE DIVIDED HIS
ORIGINAL APPLICATION, AND WAS GRANTED TWO PATENTS, NO. 714,756 FOR A
METHOD AND NO. 714,831 FOR APPARATUS.  THE FORMER IS THE ONE
PARTICULARLY RELIED ON HERE. 

FN17  THIS IS BORNE OUT BY THE SUBSEQUENT LETTER FROM STONE TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS DATED JUNE 7, 1902.  STONE THERE REFERS TO A
LETTER BY THE PATENT OFFICE SAYING THAT THE STATEMENT THAT A SIMPLE
HARMONIC WAVE DEVELOPED IN THE CLOSED CIRCUIT "CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO
THE ELEVATED CONDUCTOR AND FROM THE LATTER TO THE ETHER WITHOUT CHANGE
OF FORM" IS "AN ARGUMENT THE SOUNDNESS OF WHICH THE OFFICE HAS NO MEANS
OF TESTING."  STONE REPLIED WITH ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT THE VIBRATIONS
RADIATED BY THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT WOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY PURE FOR
PRACTICAL PURPOSES EITHER IF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT WERE APERIODIC, OR IF
IT HAD A FUNDAMENTAL WHICH WAS OF THE SAME FREQUENCY AS THAT OF THE
FORCED VIBRATIONS IMPRESSED UPON IT, ALTHOUGH THEY WOULD NOT BE PURE IF
THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT HAD A MARKED NATURAL PERIODICITY AND WAS UNTUNED. 
THIS LETTER, WHILE SOMEWHAT LATER IN DATE THAN THE AMENDMENTS,
REINFORCES THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PURPOSE OF THOSE AMENDMENTS WAS TO
EXPLAIN MORE FULLY THE DETAILS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE NECESSARY TO THE
SUCCESS OF THE IDEA UNDERLYING STONE'S ORIGINAL INVENTION.    FN18  IT
IS NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE THAT MARCONI'S APPLICATION WAS AT ONE TIME
REJECTED BY THE PATENT OFFICE BECAUSE ANTICIPATED BY STONE, AND WAS
ULTIMATELY ALLOWED, ON RENEWAL OF HIS APPLICATION, ON THE SOLE GROUND
THAT MARCONI SHOWED THE USE OF A VARIABLE INDUCTANCE AS A MEANS OF
TUNING THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS, WHEREAS STONE, IN THE OPINION OF THE
EXAMINER, TUNED HIS ANTENNA CIRCUITS BY ADJUSTING THE LENGTH OF THE
AERIAL CONDUCTOR.  ALL OF MARCONI'S CLAIMS WHICH INCLUDED THAT ELEMENT
WERE ALLOWED, AND THE EXAMINER STATED THAT THE REMAINING CLAIMS WOULD
BE ALLOWED IF AMENDED TO INCLUDE A VARIABLE INDUCTANCE.  APPARENTLY
THROUGH OVERSIGHT, CLAIMS 10 AND 11, WHICH FAILED TO INCLUDE THAT
ELEMENT, WERE INCLUDED IN THE PATENT AS GRANTED.  IN ALLOWING THESE
CLAIMS THE EXAMINER MADE NO REFERENCE TO LODGE'S PRIOR DISCLOSURE OF A
VARIABLE INDUCTANCE IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT. 

FN19  SEE FOOTNOTE 13, SUPRA. 

FN20  EVEN IF THE LACK OF INVENTION IN MARCONI'S IMPROVEMENT OVER
STONE - MAKING ADJUSTABLE THE TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS WHICH
STONE HAD SAID SHOULD BE TUNED - COULD BE SAID TO BE IN SUFFICIENT
DOUBT SO THAT COMMERCIAL SUCCESS COULD AID IN RESOLVING THE DOUBT,
THROPP'S SONS CO. V. SEIBERLING, 264 U.S. 320, 330; DEFOREST RADIO CO.
V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 283 U.S. 664, 685; ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI
ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477, 488, IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE
ALLEGED IMPROVEMENT CONTRIBUTED IN ANY MATERIAL DEGREE TO THAT
SUCCESS.  COMPARE ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., SUPRA.
MARCONI'S SPECIFICATIONS DISCLOSE A LARGE NUMBER OF DETAILS OF
CONSTRUCTION, NONE OF WHICH IS CLAIMED AS INVENTION IN THIS PATENT, IN
WHICH HIS APPARATUS DIFFERED FROM, AND MAY HAVE BEEN GREATLY SUPERIOR
TO, STONE'S.  MANY OF THESE FORMED THE SUBJECT OF PRIOR PATENTS.  AFTER
HIS APPLICATION FOR HIS PATENT, AS WELL AS BEFORE, MARCONI MADE OR
ADOPTED A GREAT NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS IN HIS SYSTEM OF WIRELESS
TELEGRAPHY.  TWO OF HIS ENGINEERS HAVE WRITTEN THAT A MAJOR FACTOR IN
HIS SUCCESSFUL TRANSMISSION ACROSS THE ATLANTIC IN DECEMBER, 1901, WAS
THE USE OF MUCH GREATER POWER AND HIGHER ANTENNAE THAN HAD PREVIOUSLY
BEEN ATTEMPTED, AN IMPROVEMENT IN NO WAY SUGGESTED BY THE PATENT HERE
IN SUIT.  FLEMING, ELECTRIC WAVE TELEGRAPHY, 449-53; VYVYAN, WIRELESS
OVER THIRTY YEARS, 22-33.  INDEED BOTH ARE AGREED THAT IN THE ACTUAL
TRANSMISSION ACROSS THE ATLANTIC TUNING PLAYED NO PART; THE RECEIVER
ANTENNA CONSISTED OF A WIRE SUSPENDED BY A KITE WHICH ROSE AND FELL
WITH THE WIND, VARYING THE CAPACITY SO MUCH AS TO MAKE TUNING
IMPOSSIBLE.  IBID. 

BY 1913, WHEN HE TESTIFIED IN THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC SIGNALLING CO.
CASE, THAT "DUE TO THE UTILIZATION OF THE INVENTION" OF THIS PATENT HE
HAD SUCCESSFULLY TRANSMITTED MESSAGES 6,600 MILES, HE HAD, AFTER ALMOST
CONTINUOUS EXPERIMENTATION, FURTHER INCREASED THE POWER USED, DEVELOPED
NEW APPARATUS CAPABLE OF USE WITH HEAVY POWER, ENLARGED HIS ANTENNAE
AND ADOPTED THE USE OF HORIZONTAL, "DIRECTIONAL" ANTENNAE, AND MADE USE
OF IMPROVED TYPES OF SPARK GAPS AND DETECTING APPARATUS, INCLUDING THE
FLEMING CATHODE-ANODE TUBE, THE CRYSTAL DETECTOR, AND SOUND RECORDING
OF THE SIGNALS - TO MENTION BUT A FEW OF THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE.  HE HAD
ALSO DISCOVERED THAT MUCH GREATER DISTANCES COULD BE ATTAINED AT
NIGHT.  SEE VYVYAN, SUPRA, 34-47, 55-60.  THE SUCCESS ATTAINED BY THE
APPARATUS DEVELOPED BY MARCONI AND HIS FELLOW ENGINEERS BY CONTINUOUS
EXPERIMENTATION OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS - HOWEVER RELEVANT IT MIGHT BE
IN RESOLVING DOUBTS WHETHER THE BASIC FOUR-CIRCUIT, TUNED SYSTEM
DISCLOSED BY MARCONI, AND BEFORE HIM BY STONE, INVOLVED INVENTION -
CANNOT, WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF, BE ATTRIBUTED IN SIGNIFICANT DEGREE TO
ANY PARTICULAR ONE OF THE MANY IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY MARCONI OVER STONE
DURING A PERIOD OF YEARS.  THE FACT THAT MARCONI'S APPARATUS AS A WHOLE
WAS SUCCESSFUL DOES NOT ENTITLE HIM TO RECEIVE A PATENT FOR EVERY
FEATURE OF ITS STRUCTURE. 

FN21  A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT WAS ENTERED
IN MARCONI WIRELESS TEL. CO. V. DEFOREST CO., 225 F. 65, AFFIRMED, 225
F. 373, BOTH COURTS, WITHOUT INDEPENDENT DISCUSSION OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE PATENT, DETERMINING THAT THE DECISION IN THE NATIONAL SIGNALLING
CO. CASE JUSTIFIED THE GRANT OF PRELIMINARY RELIEF.  A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION WAS ALSO GRANTED IN MARCONI WIRELESS TEL. CO. V. ATLANTIC
COMMUNICATIONS CO., AN ACTION BROUGHT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK. 

STONE'S LETTERS WERE INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE IN THE ATLANTIC
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY CASE AND THE KILBOURNE & CLARK CASE.  HIS
DEPOSITION IN THE LATTER CASE, TAKEN FEBRUARY 28 AND 29, 1916, WAS
INCORPORATED IN THE RECORD IN THIS CASE.  HE THERE TESTIFIED THAT HE
HAD REFRAINED FROM PRODUCING PROOFS OF THE PRIORITY OF HIS INVENTION
WHEN CALLED UPON TO TESTIFY IN PRIOR LITIGATION IN 1911 AND 1914
BECAUSE HE WISHED THE PRIORITY OF HIS INVENTION TO BE ESTABLISHED BY
THE OWNERS OF THE PATENT - THE STONE TELEGRAPH CO. AND ITS BONDHOLDERS
IN ORDER TO BE SURE THAT A BONA FIDE DEFENSE WOULD BE MADE.  HE SAID
THAT BY MAY 1915, WHEN HE TESTIFIED IN THE ATLANTIC COMMUNICATIONS CO.
CASE, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE OWNERS OF THE PATENT WERE NOT IN A
FINANCIAL POSITION TO LITIGATE, AND THAT THE ATLANTIC CO. "WOULD MAKE A
BONA FIDE STONE DEFENSE." 

FN22  SEE NOTE 13, SUPRA.  MOST OF THE CURRENT IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT
IS SAID TO PASS THROUGH THE CONDENSER SHUNT AND NOT THROUGH THE
TRANSFORMER COIL, THUS MINIMIZING THE EFFECT UPON THE FREQUENCY OF
VIBRATIONS IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT OF THE MAGNETIC STRESSES SET UP IN
THE PRIMARY OF THE TRANSFORMER BY THE CURRENT INDUCED IN THE
SECONDARY. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING IN PART: 

I REGRET TO FIND MYSELF UNABLE TO AGREE TO THE COURT'S CONCLUSION
REGARDING THE INVALIDITY OF THE BROAD CLAIMS OF MARCONI'S PATENT. 
SINCE BROAD CONSIDERATIONS CONTROL THE SIGNIFICANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF
THE DETAILS ON WHICH JUDGMENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE LIKE THIS
IS BASED, I SHALL INDICATE THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF MY VIEWS. 

IT IS AN OLD OBSERVATION THAT THE TRAINING OF ANGLO-AMERICAN JUDGES
ILL FITS THEM TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES CAST UPON THEM BY PATENT
LEGISLATION.  FN1  THE SCIENTIFIC ATTAINMENTS OF A LORD MOULTON ARE
PERHAPS UNIQUE IN THE ANNALS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING JUDICIARY. 
HOWEVER, SO LONG AS THE CONGRESS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF PATENTABILITY,
MAKES THE DETERMINATION OF ORIGINALITY A JUDICIAL FUNCTION, JUDGES MUST
OVERCOME THEIR SCIENTIFIC INCOMPETENCE AS BEST THEY CAN.  BUT
CONSCIOUSNESS OF THEIR LIMITATIONS SHOULD MAKE THEM VIGILANT AGAINST
IMPORTING THEIR OWN NOTIONS OF THE NATURE OF THE CREATIVE PROCESS INTO
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, WHEREBY CONGRESS "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF
SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS" HAS SECURED "FOR LIMITED TIMES TO  ...
INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR  ...  DISCOVERIES."  ABOVE ALL,
JUDGES MUST AVOID THE SUBTLE TEMPTATION OF TAKING SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENA
OUT OF THEIR CONTEMPORANEOUS SETTING AND READING THEM WITH A
RETROSPECTIVE EYE. 

THE DISCOVERIES OF SCIENCE ARE THE DISCOVERIES OF THE LAWS OF NATURE,
AND LIKE NATURE DO NOT GO BY LEAPS.  EVEN NEWTON AND EINSTEIN, HARVEY
AND DARWIN, BUILT ON THE PAST AND ON THEIR PREDECESSORS.  SELDOM INDEED
HAS A GREAT DISCOVERER OR INVENTOR WANDERED LONELY AS A CLOUD.  GREAT
INVENTIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PARTS OF AN EVOLUTION, THE CULMINATION AT A
PARTICULAR MOMENT OF AN ANTECEDENT PROCESS.  SO TRUE IS THIS THAT THE
HISTORY OF THOUGHT RECORDS STRIKING COINCIDENTAL DISCOVERIES - SHOWING
THAT THE NEW INSIGHT FIRST DECLARED TO THE WORLD BY A PARTICULAR
INDIVIDUAL WAS "IN THE AIR" AND RIPE FOR DISCOVERY AND DISCLOSURE. 

THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW SIGNIFICANT A JUMP IS THE NEW DISCLOSURE
FROM THE OLD KNOWLEDGE.  RECONSTRUCTION BY HINDSIGHT, MAKING OBVIOUS
SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT AT ALL OBVIOUS TO SUPERIOR MINDS UNTIL SOMEONE
POINTED IT OUT, - THIS IS TOO OFTEN A TEMPTING EXERCISE FOR ASTUTE
MINDS.  THE RESULT IS TO REMOVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF OBTAINING WHAT
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO MAKE AVAILABLE. 

THE INESCAPABLE FACT IS THAT MARCONI IN HIS BASIC PATENT HIT UPON
SOMETHING THAT HAD ELUDED THE BEST BRAINS OF THE TIME WORKING ON THE
PROBLEM OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION - CLERK MAXWELL AND SIR OLIVER LODGE
AND NIKOLA TESLA.  GENIUS IS A WORD THAT OUGHT TO BE RESERVED FOR THE
RAREST OF GIFTS.  I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO SAY WHETHER MARCONI WAS A
GENIUS.  CERTAINLY THE GREAT EMINENCE OF CLERK MAXWELL AND SIR OLIVER
LODGE AND NIKOLA TESLA IN THE FIELD IN WHICH MARCONI WAS WORKING IS NOT
QUESTIONED.  THEY WERE, I SUPPOSE, MEN OF GENIUS.  THE FACT IS THAT
THEY DID NOT HAVE THE "FLASH" (A CURRENT TERM IN PATENT OPINIONS
HAPPILY NOT USED IN THIS DECISION) THAT BEGOT THE IDEA IN MARCONI WHICH
HE GAVE TO THE WORLD THROUGH THE INVENTION EMBODYING THE IDEA.  BUT IT
IS NOW HELD THAT IN THE IMPORTANT ADVANCE UPON HIS BASIC PATENT MARCONI
DID NOTHING THAT HAD NOT ALREADY BEEN SEEN AND DISCLOSED. 

TO FIND IN 1943 THAT WHAT MARCONI DID REALLY DID NOT PROMOTE THE
PROGRESS OF SCIENCE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN ANTICIPATED IS MORE THAN A
MIRAGE OF HINDSIGHT.  WIRELESS IS SO UNCONSCIOUS A PART OF US, LIKE THE
AUTOMOBILE TO THE MODERN CHILD, THAT IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE
OURSELVES BACK INTO THE TIME WHEN MARCONI GAVE TO THE WORLD WHAT FOR US
IS PART OF THE ORDER OF OUR UNIVERSE.  AND YET, BECAUSE A JUDGE OF
UNUSUAL CAPACITY FOR UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC MATTERS IS ABLE TO
DEMONSTRATE BY A PROCESS OF INTRICATE RATIOCINATION THAT ANYONE COULD
HAVE DRAWN PRECISELY THE INFERENCES THAT MARCONI DREW AND THAT STONE
HINTED AT ON PAPER, THE COURT FINDS THAT MARCONI'S PATENT WAS INVALID
ALTHOUGH NOBODY EXCEPT MARCONI DID IN FACT DRAW THE RIGHT INFERENCES
THAT WERE EMBODIED INTO A WORKABLE BOON FOR MANKIND.  FOR ME IT SPEAKS
VOLUMES THAT IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN FORTY YEARS TO REVEAL THE FATAL
BEARING OF STONE'S RELATION TO MARCONI'S ACHIEVEMENT BY A RETROSPECTIVE
READING OF HIS APPLICATION TO MEAN THIS RATHER THAN THAT.  THIS IS FOR
ME, AND I SAY IT WITH MUCH DIFFIDENCE, TOO EASY A TRANSITION FROM WHAT
WAS NOT TO WHAT BECAME. 

I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT, IN SO FAR AS I AM ENTITLED TO EXPRESS AN
OPINION, THAT THE VAST TRANSFORMING FORCES OF TECHNOLOGY HAVE RENDERED
OBSOLETE MUCH IN OUR PATENT LAW.  FOR ALL I KNOW THE BASIC ASSUMPTION
OF OUR PATENT LAW MAY BE FALSE, AND INVENTORS AND THEIR FINANCIAL
BACKERS DO NOT NEED THE INCENTIVE OF A LIMITED MONOPOLY TO STIMULATE
INVENTION.  BUT WHATEVER REVAMPING OUR PATENT LAWS MAY NEED, IT IS THE
BUSINESS OF CONGRESS TO DO THE REVAMPING.  WE HAVE NEITHER
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY NOR SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE FOR THE TASK. 

FN1  "CONSIDERING THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO INVENTION AS GIVEN NOT OF
NATURAL RIGHT, BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY, I KNOW WELL THE
DIFFICULTY OF DRAWING A LINE BETWEEN THE THINGS WHICH ARE WORTH TO THE
PUBLIC THE EMBARRASSMENT OF AN EXCLUSIVE PATENT, AND THOSE WHICH ARE
NOT.  AS A MEMBER OF THE PATENT BOARD FOR SEVERAL YEARS, WHILE THE LAW
AUTHORIZED A BOARD TO GRANT OR REFUSE PATENTS, I SAW WITH WHAT SLOW
PROGRESS A SYSTEM OF GENERAL RULES COULD BE MATURED.  ...  INSTEAD OF
REFUSING A PATENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AS THE BOARD WAS AUTHORIZED TO
DO, THE PATENT NOW ISSUES OF COURSE, SUBJECT TO BE DECLARED VOID ON
SUCH PRINCIPLES AS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY THE COURTS OF LAW.  THIS
BUSINESS, HOWEVER, IS BUT LITTLE ANALOGOUS TO THEIR COURSE OF READING,
SINCE WE MIGHT IN VAIN TURN OVER ALL THE LUBBERLY VOLUMES OF THE LAW TO
FIND A SINGLE RAY WHICH WOULD LIGHTEN THE PATH OF THE MECHANIC OR THE
MATHEMATICIAN.  IT IS MORE WITHIN THE INFORMATION OF A BOARD OF
ACADEMICAL PROFESSORS, AND A PREVIOUS REFUSAL OF PATENT WOULD BETTER
GUARD OUR CITIZENS AGAINST HARASSMENT BY LAW-SUITS.  BUT ENGLAND HAD
GIVEN IT TO HER JUDGES, AND THE USUAL PREDOMINANCY OF HER EXAMPLES
CARRIED IT TO OURS."  THOMAS JEFFERSON TO MR. ISAAC M'PHERSON, AUGUST
13, 1813, WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, WASH. ED., VOL. VI, PP. 181-82. 

"I CANNOT STOP WITHOUT CALLING ATTENTION TO THE EXTRAORDINARY
CONDITION OF THE LAW WHICH MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR A MAN WITHOUT ANY
KNOWLEDGE OF EVEN THE RUDIMENTS OF CHEMISTRY TO PASS UPON SUCH
QUESTIONS AS THESE.  THE INORDINATE EXPENSE OF TIME IS THE LEAST OF THE
RESULTING EVILS, FOR ONLY A TRAINED CHEMIST IS REALLY CAPABLE OF
PASSING UPON SUCH FACTS, E.G., IN THIS CASE THE CHEMICAL CHARACTER OF
VON FURTH'S SOCALLED 'ZINC COMPOUND,' OR THE PRESENCE OF INACTIVE
ORGANIC SUBSTANCES.  ...  HOW LONG WE SHALL CONTINUE TO BLUNDER ALONG
WITHOUT THE AID OF UNPARTISAN AND AUTHORITATIVE SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANCE
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, NO ONE KNOWS; BUT ALL FAIR PERSONS
NOT CONVENTIONALIZED BY PROVINCIAL LEGAL HABITS OF MIND OUGHT, I SHOULD
THINK, UNITE TO EFFECT SOME SUCH ADVANCE."  JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN PARKE
DAVIS & CO. V. MULFORD CO., 189 F. 95, 115(1911). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, DISSENTING IN PART: 

UNTIL NOW LAW  FN1  HAS UNITED WITH ALMOST UNIVERSAL REPUTE N2 IN
ACKNOWLEDGING MARCONI AS THE FIRST TO ESTABLISH WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ON
A COMMERCIAL BASIS.  BEFORE HIS INVENTION, NOW IN ISSUE, FN3  ETHER
BORNE COMMUNICATION TRAVELED SOME EIGHTY MILES.  HE LENGTHENED THE ARC
TO 6,000.  WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS "INVENTIVE" LEGALLY, IT WAS A GREAT
AND BENEFICIAL ACHIEVEMENT.  FN4 TODAY, FORTY YEARS AFTER THE EVENT,
THE COURT'S DECISION REDUCES IT TO AN ELECTRICAL MECHANIC'S APPLICATION
OF MERE SKILL IN THE ART. 

BY PRESENT KNOWLEDGE, IT WOULD BE NO MORE.  SCHOOL BOYS AND MECHANICS
NOW COULD PERFORM WHAT MARCONI DID IN 1900.  BUT BEFORE THEN WIZARDS
HAD TRIED AND FAILED.  THE SEARCH WAS AT THE PINNACLE OF ELECTRICAL
KNOWLEDGE.  THERE, SEEKING, AMONG OTHERS, WERE TESLA, LODGE AND STONE,
OLD HANDS AND GREAT ONES.  WITH THEM WAS MARCONI, STILL YOUNG AS THE
COMPANY WENT  FN5  OBSESSED WITH YOUTH'S ZEAL FOR THE HUNT.    AT SUCH
AN ALTITUDE, TO WORK AT ALL WITH SUCCESS IS TO QUALIFY FOR GENIUS, IF
THAT IS IMPORTANT.  AND A SHORT STEP FORWARD GIVES EVIDENCE OF
INVENTIVE POWER.  FOR AT THAT HEIGHT A MERELY SLIGHT ADVANCE COMES
THROUGH INSIGHT ONLY A FIRST-RATE MIND CAN PRODUCE.  THIS IS SO,
WHETHER IT COMES BY YEARS OF HARD WORK TRACKING DOWN THE SOUGHT SECRET
OR BY INTUITION FLASHED FROM SUBCONSCIOUSNESS MADE FERTILE BY LONG
EXPERIENCE OR SHORTER INTENSIVE CONCENTRATION.  AT THIS LEVEL AND IN
THIS COMPANY MARCONI WORKED AND WON.    HE WON BY THE TEST OF RESULTS. 
NO ONE DISPUTES THIS.  HIS INVENTION HAD IMMEDIATE AND VAST SUCCESS,
WHERE ALL THAT HAD BEEN DONE BEFORE, INCLUDING HIS OWN WORK, GAVE BUT
NARROWLY LIMITED UTILITY.  TO MAKE USEFUL IMPROVEMENT AT THIS PLANE, BY
SUCH A LEAP, ITSELF SHOWS HIGH CAPACITY.  AND THAT IS TRUE, ALTHOUGH IT
WAS INHERENT IN THE SITUATION THAT MARCONI'S SUCCESS SHOULD COME BY
ONLY A SMALL MARGIN OF DIFFERENCE IN CONCEPTION.  THERE WAS NOT ROOM
FOR ANY GREAT LEAP OF THOUGHT, BEYOND WHAT HE AND OTHERS HAD DONE, TO
BRING TO BIRTH THE PRACTICAL AND USEFUL RESULT.  THE MOST EMINENT MEN
OF THE TIME WERE CONSCIOUS OF THE PROBLEM, WERE INTERESTED IN IT, HAD
SOUGHT FOR YEARS THE EXACTLY RIGHT ARRANGEMENT, ALWAYS APPROACHING MORE
NEARLY BUT NEVER QUITE REACHING THE STAGE OF PRACTICAL SUCCESS.  THE
INVENTION WAS, SO TO SPEAK, HOVERING IN THE GENERAL CLIMATE OF SCIENCE,
MOMENTARILY AWAITING BIRTH.  BUT JUST THE RIGHT RELEASING TOUCH HAD NOT
BEEN FOUND.  MARCONI ADDED IT. 

WHEN TO ALTITUDE OF THE PLANE OF CONCEPTION AND RESULTS SO IMMEDIATE
AND USEFUL IS ADDED WELL-NIGH UNANIMOUS CONTEMPORARY JUDGMENT, ONE WHO
LONG AFTERWARD WOULD OVERTURN THE INVENTION ASSUMES A DOUBLE BURDEN. 
HE UNDERTAKES TO OVERCOME WHAT WOULD OFFER STRONG RESISTANCE FRESH IN
ITS ORIGINAL SETTING.  HE SEEKS ALSO TO OVERTHROW THE VERDICT OF TIME. 
LONG-RANGE RETROACTIVE DIAGNOSIS, HOWEVER COMPETENT THE PHYSICIAN,
BECOMES HAZARDOUS BY PROGRESSION AS THE PASSING YEARS ADD DISTORTIONS
OF THE PAST AND DESTROY ITS PERSPECTIVE.  NO LIGHT TASK IS ACCEPTED
THEREFORE IN UNDERTAKING TO OVERTHROW A VERDICT SETTLED SO LONG AND SO
WELL, AND ESPECIALLY ONE SO FOREIGN TO THE ART OF JUDGES. 

IN LAWYERS' TERMS THIS MEANS A BURDEN OF PROOF, NOT INSURMOUNTABLE,
BUT INHOSPITABLE TO IMPLICATIONS AND INFERENCES WHICH IN LESS SETTLED
SITUATIONS WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO SWING THE BALANCE OF JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE CLAIMED INVENTION.  THAT MARCONI RECEIVED PATENTS ELSEWHERE
WHICH, ONCE ESTABLISHED, HAVE STOOD THE TEST OF TIME AS WELL AS OF
CONTEMPORARY JUDGMENT, AND SECURED HIS AMERICAN PATENT ONLY AFTER YEARS
WERE REQUIRED TO CONVINCE OUR OFFICE HE HAD FOUND WHAT SO MANY OTHERS
SOUGHT, BUT EMPHASIZES THE WEIGHT AND CLARITY OF PROOF REQUIRED TO
OVERCOME HIS CLAIM. 

MARCONI RECEIVED PATENTS HERE, IN ENGLAND, AND IN FRANCE.  FN6  THE
AMERICAN PATENT WAS NOT ISSUED PERFUNCTORILY.  IT CAME FORTH ONLY AFTER
A LONG STRUGGLE HAD BROUGHT ABOUT REVERSAL OF THE PATENT OFFICE'S
ORIGINAL AND LATER REJECTIONS.  THE APPLICATION WAS FILED IN NOVEMBER,
1900.  IN DECEMBER IT WAS REJECTED ON LODGE,  FN7  AND AN EARLIER
PATENT TO MARCONI.  FN8  IT WAS AMENDED AND AGAIN REJECTED.  FURTHER
AMENDMENTS FOLLOWED AND OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM WAS EXPLAINED.  AGAIN
REJECTION TOOK PLACE, THIS TIME ON LODGE, THE EARLIER MARCONI, BRAUN
AND OTHER PATENTS.  AFTER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, THE CLAIMS WERE REJECTED
ON TESLA.  FN9  A YEAR ELAPSED, BUT IN MARCH, 1904, RECONSIDERATION WAS
GRANTED.  SOME CLAIMS THEN WERE REJECTED ON STONE,  FN10  OTHERS WERE
AMENDED, STILL OTHERS WERE CANCELLED, AND FINALLY ON JUNE 28, 1904, THE
PATENT ISSUED.  FRENCH AND BRITISH PATENTS HAD BEEN GRANTED IN 1900. 

LITIGATION FOLLOWED AT ONCE.  AMONG MARCONI'S AMERICAN VICTORIES WERE
THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE.  FN11  ABROAD THE RESULTS WERE SIMILAR. 
FN12  UNTIL 1935, WHEN THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD IT INVALID IN THIS
CASE, 81 CT. CL. 671, NO COURT HAD FOUND MARCONI'S PATENT WANTING IN
INVENTION.  IT STOOD WITHOUT ADVERSE JUDICIAL DECISION FOR OVER THIRTY
YEARS.  IN THE FACE OF THE BURDEN THIS HISTORY CREATES, WE TURN TO THE
REFERENCES, CHIEFLY TESLA, LODGE AND STONE.  THE COURT RELIES
PRINCIPALLY ON STONE, BUT WITHOUT DECIDING WHETHER THIS WAS INVENTIVE. 

IT IS IMPORTANT, IN CONSIDERING THE REFERENCES, TO STATE THE PARTIES'
CONTENTIONS CONCISELY.  THE GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENT IS THAT THEY DIFFER
OVER WHETHER MARCONI WAS FIRST TO CONCEIVE FOUR-CIRCUIT "TUNING" FOR
TRANSMISSION OF SOUND BY HERTZIAN WAVES.  IT SAYS THIS WAS TAUGHT
PREVIOUSLY BY TESLA, LODGE AND STONE.  PETITIONER HOWEVER SAYS NONE OF
THEM TAUGHT WHAT MARCONI DID.  IT CONTENDS THAT MARCONI WAS THE FIRST
TO ACCOMPLISH THE KIND OF TUNING HE ACHIEVED, AND IN EFFECT URGES THIS
WAS PATENTABLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER FORMS FOUND EARLIER. 

SPECIFICALLY PETITIONER URGES THAT TESLA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH
EITHER HERTZIAN WAVES OR TUNING, BUT IN FACT HIS TRANSMITTING AND
RECEIVING WIRES COULD NOT BE TUNED.  FN13  LODGE, IT CLAIMS, DISCLOSED
A TUNED ANTENNA, FOR EITHER TRANSMITTER OR RECEIVER OR BOTH, BUT THE
CLOSED CIRCUITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANTENNA ONES WERE NOT TUNED. 
FINALLY IT IS SAID STONE DOES NOT DESCRIBE TUNING THE ANTENNA, BUT DOES
SHOW TUNING OF THE ASSOCIATED CLOSED CIRCUIT.  AND MARCONI TUNED BOTH. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT CLAIM THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TUNING.  IT
ADMITS THEY HAD LONG BEEN FAMILIAR TO PHYSICISTS AND THAT LODGE AND
OTHERS FULLY UNDERSTOOD THEM.  BUT IT ASSERTS LODGE DID NOT KNOW WHAT
CIRCUITS SHOULD BE TUNED, TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT MARCONI ACHIEVED, AND
THAT, TO SECURE THIS, "KNOWLEDGE THAT TUNING IS POSSIBLE IS NOT ENOUGH
THERE IS ALSO REQUIRED THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHETHER OR NOT TO TUNE AND HOW
MUCH." 

LIKEWISE, PETITIONER DOES NOT DENY THAT STONE KNEW AND UTILIZED THE
PRINCIPLES OF TUNING; BUT URGES, WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM HE APPLIED
THEM TO ALL OF THE FOUR CIRCUITS, THAT THE ONLY ONES TUNED, IN HIS
ORIGINAL APPLICATION, WERE THE CLOSED CIRCUITS AND THEREFORE THAT THE
ANTENNA CIRCUITS WERE NOT TUNED; ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE
EFFECTS OF TUNING THE CLOSED CIRCUITS WERE REFLECTED IN THE OPEN ONES
BY WHAT STONE DESCRIBES AS "PRODUCING FORCED SIMPLE HARMONIC ELECTRIC
VIBRATIONS OF THE SAME PERIODICITY IN AN ELEVATED CONDUCTOR." 

THE STONE AMENDMENTS OF 1902, MADE MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER MARCONI'S
FILING DATE, ADMITTEDLY DISCLOSE TUNING OF BOTH THE CLOSED AND THE OPEN
CIRCUITS, AND WERE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STATING EXPRESSLY THE LATTER
EFFECT, CLAIMED TO BE IMPLICIT IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.  PETITIONER
DENIES THIS WAS IMPLICIT AND ARGUES, IN EFFECT, THAT WHAT STONE
ORIGINALLY MEANT BY "PRODUCING FORCED  ...  VIBRATIONS" WAS CREATING
THE DESIRED EFFECTS IN THE ANTENNA BY FORCE, NOT BY TUNING; AND
THEREFORE THAT THE TWO METHODS WERE PATENTABLY DIFFERENT. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE PARTIES USE THE WORD "TUNING" TO MEAN
DIFFERENT THINGS AND THE AMBIGUITY, IF THERE IS ONE, MUST BE RESOLVED
BEFORE THE CRUCIAL QUESTIONS CAN BE STATED WITH MEANING.  IT WILL AID,
IN DECIDING WHETHER THERE IS AMBIGUITY OR ONLY CONFUSION, TO CONSIDER
THE TERM AND THE POSSIBLE CONCEPTIONS IT MAY CONVEY IN THE LIGHT OF THE
PROBLEMS MARCONI AND STONE, AS WELL AS OTHER REFERENCES, WERE SEEKING
TO SOLVE. 

MARCONI HAD IN MIND FIRST A SPECIFIC DIFFICULTY, AS DID THE PRINCIPAL
REFERENCES.  IT AROSE FROM WHAT, TO THE TIME OF HIS INVENTION, HAD BEEN
A BAFFLING PROBLEM IN THE ART. SHORTLY AND SIMPLY, IT WAS THAT AN
ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT WHICH IS A GOOD CONSERVER OF ENERGY IS A BAD
RADIATOR AND, CONVERSELY, A GOOD RADIATOR IS A BAD CONSERVER OF
ENERGY.  EFFECTIVE USE OF HERTZIAN WAVES OVER LONG DISTANCES REQUIRED
BOTH EFFECTS.  TO STATE THE MATTER DIFFERENTLY, LODGE HAD EXPLAINED IN
1894 THE DIFFICULTIES OF FULLY UTILIZING THE PRINCIPLE OF SYMPATHETIC
RESONANCE IN DETECTING ETHER WAVES.  TO SECURE THIS, IT WAS NECESSARY,
ON THE ONE HAND, TO DISCHARGE A LONG SERIES OF WAVES OF EQUAL OR
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL LENGTH.  SUCH A SERIES CAN BE PRODUCED ONLY BY A
CIRCUIT WHICH CONSERVES ITS ENERGY WELL, WHAT MARCONI CALLS A
PERSISTENT OSCILLATOR.  ON THE OTHER HAND, FOR DISTANT DETECTION, THE
WAVES MUST BE OF SUBSTANTIAL AMPLITUDE, AND ONLY A CIRCUIT WHICH LOSES
ITS ENERGY RAPIDLY CAN TRANSMIT SUCH WAVES WITH MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY. 
OBVIOUSLY IN A SINGLE CIRCUIT THE TWO DESIRED EFFECTS TEND TO CANCEL
EACH OTHER, AND THEREFORE TO LIMIT THE DISTANCE OF DETECTION.  SIMILAR
DIFFICULTY CHARACTERIZED THE RECEIVER, FOR A GOOD RADIATOR IS A GOOD
ABSORBER, AND THAT VERY QUALITY DISABLES IT TO STORE UP AND HOLD THE
EFFECT OF A TRAIN OF WAVES, UNTIL ENOUGH IS ACCUMULATED TO BREAK DOWN
THE COHERER, AS DETECTION REQUIRES. 

SINCE THE DIFFICULTY WAS INHERENT IN A SINGLE CIRCUIT, WHETHER AT ONE
END OR THE OTHER, MARCONI USED TWO IN BOTH TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER,
FOUR IN ALL.  IN EACH STATION HE USED ONE CIRCUIT TO OBTAIN ONE OF THE
NECESSARY ADVANTAGES AND THE OTHER CIRCUIT TO SECURE THE OTHER
ADVANTAGE.  THE ANTENNA (OR OPEN) CIRCUITS HE MADE "GOOD RADIATORS" (OR
ABSORBERS).  THE CLOSED CIRCUITS HE CONSTRUCTED AS "GOOD CONSERVERS." 
BY COUPLING THE TWO AT EACH END LOOSELY HE SECURED FROM THEIR
COMBINATION THE DUAL ADVANTAGES HE SOUGHT.  AT THE TRANSMITTER, THE
CLOSED CIRCUIT, BY VIRTUE OF ITS CAPACITY FOR CONSERVING ENERGY, GAVE
PERSISTENT OSCILLATION, WHICH PASSED SUBSTANTIALLY UNDIMINISHED THROUGH
THE COUPLING TRANSFORMER TO THE "GOOD RADIATOR" OPEN CIRCUIT AND FROM
IT WAS DISCHARGED WITH LITTLE LOSS OF ENERGY INTO THE ETHER.  THENCE IT
WAS PICKED UP BY THE "GOOD ABSORBER" OPEN CIRCUIT AND PASSED, WITHOUT
SERIOUS LOSS OF ENERGY, THROUGH THE COUPLING TRANSFORMER, INTO THE
CLOSED "GOOD CONSERVING" CIRCUIT, WHERE IT ACCUMULATED TO BREAK THE
COHERER AND GIVE DETECTION. 

MOREOVER, AND FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THIS IS THE IMPORTANT THING,
MARCONI BROUGHT THE CLOSED AND OPEN CIRCUITS INTO ALMOST COMPLETE
HARMONY BY PLACING VARIABLE INDUCTANCE IN EACH.  THROUGH THIS THE
PERIODICITY OF THE OPEN CIRCUIT WAS ADJUSTED AUTOMATICALLY TO THAT OF
THE CLOSED ONE; AND, SINCE THE CIRCUITS OF THE RECEIVING STATION WERE
SIMILARLY ADJUSTABLE, THE MAXIMUM RESONANCE WAS SECURED THROUGHOUT THE
SYSTEM.  MARCONI THUS NOT ONLY SOLVED THE DILEMMA OF A SINGLE CIRCUIT
ARRANGEMENT; HE ATTAINED THE MAXIMUM OF RESONANCE AND SELECTIVITY BY
PROVIDING IN EACH CIRCUIT INDEPENDENT MEANS OF TUNING. 

IN 1911 THIS SOLUTION WAS HELD INVENTIVE, AS AGAINST LODGE, MARCONI'S
PRIOR PATENTS, BRAUN AND OTHER REFERENCES, IN MARCONI V. BRITISH RADIO
TEL. & TEL. CO., 27 T.L. R. 274.  MR. JUSTICE PARKER CAREFULLY REVIEWED
THE PRIOR ART, STATED THE PROBLEM, MARCONI'S SOLUTION, AND IN DISPOSING
OF BRAUN'S SPECIFICATION CONCLUDED IT "DID NOT CONTAIN EVEN THE
REMOTEST SUGGESTION OF THE PROBLEM ...  , MUCH LESS ANY SUGGESTION
BEARING ON ITS SOLUTION.  ...  "  AS TO LODGE, MR. JUSTICE PARKER
OBSERVED, REFERRING FIRST TO MARCONI: 

"  ...  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTICE THAT IN THE RECEIVER THE MERE
INTRODUCTION OF TWO CIRCUITS INSTEAD OF ONE WAS NO NOVELTY.  A FIGURE
IN LODGE'S 1897 PATENT SHOWS THE OPEN CIRCUIT OF HIS RECEIVING AERIAL
LINKED THROUGH A TRANSFORMER WITH A CLOSED CIRCUIT CONTAINING THE
COHERER, HIS IDEA BEING, AS HE STATES, TO LEAVE HIS RECEIVING AERIAL
FREER TO VIBRATE ELECTRICALLY WITHOUT DISTURBANCE FROM ATTACHED WIRES. 
THIS SECONDARY CIRCUIT, AS SHOWN, IS NOT TUNED TO, NOR CAN IT BE TUNED
TO, THE CIRCUIT OF THE AERIAL.  THIS, IN MY OPINION, IS EXCEEDINGLY
STRONG EVIDENCE THAT MARCONI'S 1900 INVENTION WAS NOT SO OBVIOUS AS TO
DEPRIVE IT OF SUBJECT MATTER.  IN THE LITERATURE QUOTED THERE IS NO
TRACE OF THE IDEA UNDERLYING MR. MARCONI'S INVENTION, NOR, SO FAR AS I
CAN SEE, A SINGLE SUGGESTION FROM WHICH A COMPETENT ENGINEER COULD
ARRIVE AT THIS IDEA." 

IT WAS THEREFORE CLEARLY MR. JUSTICE PARKER'S VIEW, IN HIS CLOSER
PERSPECTIVE TO THE ORIGIN OF THE INVENTION AND THE REFERENCES HE
CONSIDERED, THAT IN NONE OF THEM, AND PARTICULARLY NOT IN LODGE OR
BRAUN, WAS THERE ANTICIPATION OF MARCONI'S SOLUTION. 

HE DID NOT MEAN THAT THE REFERENCES DID NOT APPLY "THE PRINCIPLE OF
RESONANCE AS BETWEEN TRANSMITTER AND RECEIVER" OR UTILIZE "THE
PRINCIPLE OF SYMPATHETIC RESONANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETECTION OF
ETHER WAVES."  FOR HE EXPRESSLY ATTRIBUTED TO LODGE, IN HIS 1894
LECTURES, EXPLANATION "WITH GREAT EXACTNESS (OF) THE VARIOUS
DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING THE FULL UTILIZATION" OF THAT PRINCIPLE.  AND IN
REFERRING TO MARCONI'S FIRST PATENT, OF 1896, THE OPINION STATES THAT
MARCONI "FOR WHAT IT WAS WORTH  ...  TUNED THE TWO CIRCUITS (I.E., THE
SENDING AND RECEIVING ONES) TOGETHER AS HERTZ HAD DONE." 

FROM THESE AND OTHER STATEMENTS IN THE OPINION IT IS OBVIOUS THAT MR.
JUSTICE PARKER FOUND MARCONI'S INVENTION IN SOMETHING MORE THAN MERELY
THE APPLICATION OF THE "PRINCIPLE OF RESONANCE," OR "SYMPATHETIC
RESONANCE," OR ITS USE TO "TUNE" TOGETHER THE TRANSMITTING AND
RECEIVING CIRCUITS.  FOR MARCONI IN HIS OWN PRIOR INVENTIONS, LODGE AND
THE OTHER REFERENCES, IN FACT ALL WHO HAD CONSTRUCTED ANY SYSTEM USING
HERTZIAN WAVES CAPABLE OF TRANSMITTING AND DETECTING SOUND, NECESSARILY
HAD MADE USE, IN SOME MANNER AND TO SOME EXTENT, OF "THE PRINCIPLE OF
RESONANCE" OR "SYMPATHETIC RESONANCE."  THAT PRINCIPLE IS INHERENT IN
THE IDEA OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION BY HERTZIAN WAVES.  SO THAT,
NECESSARILY, ALL THE PRIOR CONCEPTIONS INCLUDED THE IDEA THAT COMMON
PERIODICITY MUST APPEAR IN ALL OF THE CIRCUITS EMPLOYED. 

NOR DID MR. JUSTICE PARKER'S OPINION FIND THE INVENTIVE FEATURE IN
THE USE OF TWO CIRCUITS INSTEAD OF ONE, AT ANY RATE IN THE RECEIVER. 
FOR HE EXPRESSLY NOTES THIS IN LODGE.  BUT HE POINTS OUT THAT LODGE
ADDED THE SEPARATE CIRCUIT "TO LEAVE HIS RECEIVING AERIAL FREER TO
VIBRATE ELECTRICALLY WITHOUT DISTURBANCE FROM ATTACHED WIRES."  AND HE
GOES ON TO NOTE THAT THIS SECONDARY (OR CLOSED) CIRCUIT NOT ONLY WAS
NOT, BUT COULD NOT BE, "TUNED" TO THE AERIAL CIRCUIT.  AND THIS HE
FINDS "EXCEEDINGLY STRONG EVIDENCE" THAT "MARCONI'S 1900 INVENTION WAS
NOT SO OBVIOUS AS TO DEPRIVE IT OF SUBJECT MATTER."  LODGE HAD "TUNED"
THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT, BY PLACING IN IT A VARIABLE INDUCTANCE.  BUT HE
DID NOT DO THIS OR ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING BY ANY OTHER DEVICE, SUCH
AS A CONDENSER, IN THE CLOSED CIRCUIT.  AND THE FACT THAT SO EMINENT A
SCIENTIST, THE ONE WHO IN FACT POSED THE PROBLEM AND ITS DIFFICULTIES,
DID NOT SEE THE NEED FOR EXTENDING THIS "INDEPENDENT TUNING" (TO USE
MARCONI'S PHRASE) TO THE CLOSED CIRCUIT, SO AS TO BRING IT THUS IN TUNE
WITH THE OPEN ONE, WAS ENOUGH TO CONVINCE MR. JUSTICE PARKER, AND I
THINK RIGHTLY, THAT WHAT MARCONI DID OVER LODGE WAS NOT SO OBVIOUS AS
TO BE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE. 

IN SHORT, MR. JUSTICE PARKER FOUND THE GIST OF MARCONI'S INVENTION,
NOT IN MERE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OR PRINCIPLES OF
RESONANCE TO A FOUR-CIRCUIT SYSTEM, OR IN THE USE OF FOUR CIRCUITS OR
THE SUBSTITUTION OF TWO FOR ONE IN EACH OR EITHER STATION; BUT, AS
PETITIONER NOW CONTENDS, IN RECOGNITION OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT, WHETHER
IN THE TRANSMITTER OR THE RECEIVER, ATTAINMENT OF THE MAXIMUM RESONANCE
REQUIRED THAT MEANS FOR TUNING THE CLOSED TO THE OPEN CIRCUIT BE
INSERTED IN BOTH.  THAT RECOGNIZED, THE METHOD OF ACCOMPLISHING THE
ADJUSTMENT WAS OBVIOUS, AND DIFFERENT METHODS, AS BY USING VARIABLE
INDUCTANCE OR A CONDENSER, WERE AVAILABLE.  AS PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF
STATES THE MATTER, "THE MARCONI INVENTION WAS NOT THE USE OF A VARIABLE
INDUCTANCE, NOR INDEED ANY OTHER SPECIFIC WAY OF TUNING AN ANTENNA -
BEFORE MARCONI IT WAS KNOWN THAT ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS COULD BE TUNED OR
NOT TUNED, BY INDUCTANCE COILS OR CONDENSERS.  HIS BROAD INVENTION WAS
THE COMBINATION OF A TUNED ANTENNA CIRCUIT AND A TUNED CLOSED
CIRCUIT."  AND IT IS ONLY IN THIS VIEW THAT THE ACTION OF THE PATENT
OFFICE IN FINALLY AWARDING THE PATENT TO MARCONI CAN BE EXPLAINED OR
SUSTAINED, FOR IT ALLOWED CLAIMS BOTH LIMITED TO AND NOT SPECIFYING
VARIABLE INDUCTANCE.  THAT FEATURE WAS ESSENTIAL FOR BOTH CIRCUITS IN
PRINCIPLE, BUT NOT IN THE PARTICULAR METHOD BY WHICH MARCONI
ACCOMPLISHED IT.  AND IT WAS RECOGNITION OF THIS WHICH EVENTUALLY
INDUCED ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIMS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PREVIOUS
REJECTIONS ON LODGE, STONE AND OTHER REFERENCES, INCLUDING ALL IN ISSUE
HERE. 

IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF THIS DECADE, MARCONI'S ADVANCE, IN REQUIRING
"INDEPENDENT TUNING," THAT IS, POSITIVE MEANS OF TUNING LOCATED IN BOTH
CLOSED AND OPEN CIRCUITS, SEEMS SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS.  IT WAS SIMPLE. 
BUT, AS IS OFTEN TRUE WITH GREAT INVENTIONS, THE SIMPLEST AND THEREFORE
GENERALLY THE BEST SOLUTION IS NOT OBVIOUS AT THE TIME, THOUGH IT
BECOMES SO IMMEDIATELY IT IS SEEN AND STATED.  LOOKING BACK NOW AT
EDISON'S LIGHT BULB ONE MIGHT THINK IT ABSURD THAT THAT HIGHLY USEFUL
AND BENEFICIAL IDEA HAD NOT BEEN WORKED OUT LONG BEFORE, BY ANYONE WHO
KNEW THE ELEMENTARY LAWS OF RESISTANCE IN THE FIELD OF ELECTRIC
CONDUCTION.  BUT IT WOULD BE SHOCKING, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRESENTLY
OBVIOUS CHARACTER OF WHAT EDISON DID, FOR ANY COURT NOW TO RULE HE MADE
NO INVENTION. 

THE SAME THING APPLIES TO MARCONI.  THOUGH WHAT HE DID WAS SIMPLE, IT
WAS BRILLIANT, AND IT BROUGHT BIG RESULTS.  ADMITTEDLY THE MARGIN OF
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS CONCEPTION AND THOSE OF THE REFERENCES,
ESPECIALLY LODGE AND STONE, WAS SMALL.  IT CAME DOWN TO THIS, THAT
LODGE SAW THE NEED FOR AND USED MEANS FOR PERFORMING THE FUNCTION WHICH
VARIABLE INDUCTANCE ACHIEVES IN THE ANTENNA OR OPEN CIRCUIT, STONE DID
THE SAME THING IN THE CLOSED CIRCUIT, BUT MARCONI FIRST DID IT IN
BOTH.  SLIGHT AS EACH OF THESE STEPS MAY SEEM NOW, IN DEPARTURE FROM
THE OTHERS, IT IS AS TRUE AS IT WAS IN 1911, WHEN MR. JUSTICE PARKER
WROTE, THAT THE VERY FACT MEN OF THE EMINENCE OF LODGE AND STONE SAW
THE NECESSITY OF TAKING THE STEP FOR ONE CIRCUIT BUT NOT FOR THE OTHER
IS STRONG, IF NOT CONCLUSIVE, EVIDENCE THAT TAKING IT FOR BOTH CIRCUITS
WAS NOT OBVIOUS.  IF THIS WAS SO CLEARLY INDICATED THAT ANYONE SKILLED
IN THE ART SHOULD HAVE SEEN IT, THE UNANSWERED AND I THINK UNANSWERABLE
QUESTION REMAINS, WHY DID NOT LODGE AND STONE, BOTH ASSIDUOUSLY
SEARCHING FOR THE SECRET AND BOTH PREEMINENT IN THE FIELD, RECOGNIZE
THE FACT AND MAKE THE APPLICATION?  THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THE NOVELTY OF
MARCONI'S ADVANCE LIES NOT IN ANY JUDGMENT, SCIENTIFIC OR LAY, WHICH
COULD NOW BE FORMED ABOUT IT.  IT IS RATHER IN THE CAREFUL, CONSIDERED
AND SUBSTANTIALLY CONTEMPORANEOUS JUDGMENTS, FORMED AND RENDERED BY
BOTH THE PATENT TRIBUNALS AND THE COURTS WHEN YEARS HAD NOT DISTORTED
EITHER THE SCIENTIFIC OR THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE DAY WHEN THE
INVENTION WAS MADE.  ALL OF THE REFERENCES NOW USED TO INVALIDATE
MARCONI WERE IN ISSUE, AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, BEFORE THESE TRIBUNALS,
THOUGH NOT ALL OF THEM WERE PRESENTED TO EACH.  THEIR UNANIMOUS
CONCLUSION, BACKED BY THE FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN STATED, IS MORE
PERSUASIVE THAN THE MOST COMPETENT CONTRARY OPINION FORMED NOW ABOUT
THE MATTER COULD BE. 

IT REMAINS TO GIVE FURTHER ATTENTION CONCERNING STONE.  ADMITTEDLY
HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION DID NOT REQUIRE TUNING, IN MARCONI'S SENSE, OF
THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT, THOUGH IT SPECIFIED THIS FOR THE CLOSED ONE.  HE
INCLUDED VARIABLE INDUCTANCE IN THE LATTER, BUT NOT IN THE FORMER.  HIS
DEVICE THEREFORE WAS, IN THIS RESPECT, EXACTLY THE CONVERSE OF LODGE. 
BUT IT IS SAID HIS OMISSION TO SPECIFY THE FUNCTION (AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM THE APPARATUS WHICH PERFORMED IT) FOR THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT WAS NOT
IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THE FUNCTION WAS IMPLICIT IN THE SPECIFICATION AND
THEREFORE SUPPORTED HIS LATER AMENDMENT, FILED MORE THAN A YEAR
FOLLOWING MARCONI'S DATE, EXPRESSLY SPECIFYING THIS FEATURE FOR THE
OPEN CIRCUIT. 

SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ANSWER MAY BE MADE TO THIS AS MR. JUSTICE
PARKER MADE TO THE CLAIM BASED ON LODGE.  TUNING BOTH CIRCUITS, THAT
IS, INCLUDING IN EACH INDEPENDENT MEANS FOR VARIABLE ADJUSTMENT, WAS
THE VERY GIST OF MARCONI'S INVENTION.  AND IT WAS WHAT MADE POSSIBLE
THE HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL RESULT.  IT SEEMS STRANGE THAT ONE WHO SAW NOT
ONLY THE PROBLEM, BUT THE COMPLETE SOLUTION, SHOULD SPECIFY ONLY HALF
WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE IT, NEGLECTING TO MENTION THE OTHER AND
EQUALLY IMPORTANT HALF AS WELL, PARTICULARLY WHEN, AS IS CLAIMED, THE
TWO WERE SO NEARLY IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR LOCATION.  THE VERY OMISSION OF
EXPLICIT STATEMENT OF SO IMPORTANT AND, IT IS CLAIMED, SO OBVIOUS A
FEATURE IS EVIDENCE IT WAS NEITHER OBVIOUS NOR CONCEIVED.  AND THE
FORCE OF THE OMISSION IS MAGNIFIED BY THE FACT THAT ITS AUTHOR, WHEN HE
FULLY RECOGNIZED ITS EFFECT, FOUND IT NECESSARY TO MAKE AMENDMENT TO
INCLUDE IT, AFTER THE FEATURE WAS EXPRESSLY AND FULLY DISCLOSED BY
ANOTHER.  AMENDMENT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT
TO A MATTER WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT RATHER THAN AN INCIDENT OR A DETAIL
OF THE INVENTION, IS ALWAYS TO BE REGARDED CRITICALLY AND, WHEN THE
FOUNDATION CLAIMED FOR IT IS IMPLICIT EXISTENCE IN THE ORIGINAL
APPLICATION, AS IT MUST BE, THE CLEAREST AND MOST CONVINCING EVIDENCE
SHOULD BE REQUIRED WHEN THE EFFECT IS TO GIVE PRIORITY, BY BACKWARD
RELATION, OVER ANOTHER APPLICATION INTERMEDIATELY FILED. 

APART FROM THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OMITTING TO EXPRESS A FEATURE SO
IMPORTANT, I AM UNABLE TO FIND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THE IDEA WAS
IMPLICIT IN STONE AS HE ORIGINALLY FILED.  HIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN
"NATURAL" AND "FORCED" OSCILLATIONS SEEMS TO ME TO PROVE, IN THE LIGHT
OF HIS ORIGINAL DISCLOSURE, NOT THAT "TUNING" OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT AS
MARCONI REQUIRED THIS WAS IMPLICIT, BUT RATHER THAT IT WAS NOT PRESENT
IN THAT APPLICATION AT ALL.  IT IS TRUE HE SOUGHT, AS MARCONI DID, TO
MAKE THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT AT THE TRANSMITTER THE SOURCE OF WAVES OF BUT
A SINGLE PERIODICITY AND THE SAME CIRCUIT AT THE RECEIVER AN ABSORBER
ONLY OF THE WAVES SO TRANSMITTED.  BUT THE METHODS THEY USED WERE NOT
THE SAME.  STONE'S METHOD WAS TO PROVIDE "WHAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY FORCED
VIBRATIONS" IN THE TRANSMITTER'S ANTENNA CIRCUIT AND, AT THE RECEIVER,
TO IMPOSE "BETWEEN THE VERTICAL CONDUCTOR (THE ANTENNA)  ...  AND THE
TRANSLATING DEVICES (IN THE CLOSED CIRCUIT)(OTHER) RESONANT CIRCUITS
ATTUNED TO THE PARTICULAR FREQUENCY OF THE ELECTRO-MAGNETIC WAVES WHICH
IT IS DESIRED TO HAVE OPERATE THE TRANSLATING DEVICES."  IN SHORT, HE
PROVIDED FOR "TUNING," AS MARCONI DID, THE TRANSMITTER'S CLOSED
CIRCUIT, THE RECEIVER'S CLOSED CIRCUIT AND THE INTERMEDIATE CIRCUITS
WHICH HE INTERPOSED IN THE RECEIVER BETWEEN THE OPEN OR ANTENNA ONE AND
THE CLOSED ONE.  BUT NOWHERE DID HE PROVIDE FOR OR SUGGEST "TUNING," AS
MARCONI DID AND IN HIS MEANING, THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT OF THE TRANSMITTER
OR THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT OF THE RECEIVER.  FOR RESONANCE IN THE FORMER HE
DEPENDED UPON THE INTRODUCTION, FROM THE CLOSED CIRCUIT, OF
"SUBSTANTIALLY FORCED ELECTRIC VIBRATIONS" AND FOR SELECTIVITY IN THE
LATTER HE USED THE INTERMEDIATE TUNED CIRCUITS.  STONE AND MARCONI USED
THE SAME MEANS FOR CREATING PERSISTENT OSCILLATION, NAMELY, THE USE OF
THE SEPARATE CLOSED CIRCUIT; AND IN THIS BOTH ALSO DEVELOPED SINGLE
PERIODICITY TO THE EXTENT THE VARIABLE INDUCTANCE INCLUDED THERE AND
THERE ONLY COULD DO SO.  BUT WHILE BOTH CREATED PERSISTENT OSCILLATION
IN THE SAME WAY, MARCONI WENT FARTHER THAN STONE WITH SINGLE
PERIODICITY AND SECURED ENHANCEMENT OF THIS BY PLACING MEANS FOR TUNING
IN THE ANTENNA CIRCUIT, WHICH ADMITTEDLY STONE NOWHERE EXPRESSLY
REQUIRED IN HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION.  AND, SINCE THIS IS THE GIST OF
THE INVENTION IN ISSUE AND OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, IT WILL
NOT DO TO DISMISS THIS OMISSION MERELY WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THERE IS
NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT STONE "DID NOT DESIRE TO HAVE THOSE CIRCUITS
TUNED."  NOR IN MY OPINION DO THE PASSAGES IN THE SPECIFICATIONS RELIED
UPON AS "SUGGESTING" THE "INDEPENDENT" TUNING OF THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS
BEAR OUT THIS INFERENCE. 

WHEN STONE STATES THAT "THE VERTICAL CONDUCTOR AT THE TRANSMITTER
STATION IS MADE THE SOURCE OF ...  WAVES OF BUT A SINGLE PERIODICITY,"
I FIND NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED BY SPECIALLY TUNING
THAT CIRCUIT, OR, IN FACT, ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT THIS CIRCUIT IS A
GOOD CONDUCTOR SENDING OUT THE SINGLE PERIOD WAVES FORCED INTO IT FROM
THE CLOSED CIRCUIT.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE FURTHER STATEMENT THAT
"THE TRANSLATING APPARATUS AT THE RECEIVING STATION IS CAUSED TO BE
SELECTIVELY RESPONSIVE TO WAVES OF BUT A SINGLE PERIODICITY" (WHICH
TUNING THE INTERMEDIATE AND/OR CLOSED CIRCUITS THERE ACCOMPLISHES), SO
THAT "THE TRANSMITTING APPARATUS CORRESPONDS TO A TUNING FORK SENDING
BUT A SINGLE MUSICAL TONE, AND THE RECEIVING APPARATUS CORRESPONDS TO
AN ACOUSTIC RESONATOR CAPABLE OF ABSORBING THE ENERGY OF THAT SINGLE
SIMPLE MUSICAL TONE ONLY."  THIS MEANS NOTHING MORE THAN THAT THE
TRANSMITTER, WHICH INCLUDES THE ANTENNA, AND THE RECEIVER, WHICH ALSO
INCLUDES THE ANTENNA, SEND OUT AND RECEIVE RESPECTIVELY A SINGLE PERIOD
WAVE.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ANTENNA, IN EITHER STATION, WAS TUNED,
IN MARCONI'S SENSE, NOR DOES IT SUGGEST THIS. 

THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE OTHER PASSAGES RELIED UPON BY THE COURT FOR
SUGGESTION.  NO WORD OR HINT CAN BE FOUND IN THEM THAT STONE INTENDED
OR CONTEMPLATED INDEPENDENTLY TUNING THE ANTENNA.  THEY MERELY
SUGGESTED, ON THE ONE HAND, THAT WHEN "THE APPARATUS" AT THE RECEIVING
STATION IS PROPERLY TUNED TO A PARTICULAR TRANSMITTER, IT WILL RECEIVE
SELECTIVELY MESSAGES FROM THE LATTER AND, FURTHER, THAT THE OPERATOR
MAY AT WILL ADJUST "THE APPARATUS AT HIS COMMAND" SO AS TO COMMUNICATE
WITH ANY ONE OF SEVERAL SENDING STATIONS; ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT "ANY
SUITABLE DEVICE" MAY BE USED AT THE TRANSMITTER "TO DEVELOP THE SIMPLE
HARMONIC FORCE IMPRESSED UPON" THE ANTENNA.  "THE APPARATUS," AS USED
IN THE STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE ADJUSTMENTS AT THE RECEIVING STATION,
CLEARLY MEANS "THE APPARATUS AT HIS COMMAND," THAT IS, THE WHOLE OF
THAT STATION'S EQUIPMENT, WHICH CONTAINED IN THE INTERMEDIATE AND
CLOSED CIRCUITS, BUT NOT IN THE OPEN ONE, THE MEANS FOR MAKING THE
ADJUSTMENTS DESCRIBED.  THERE IS NOTHING WHATEVER TO SUGGEST INCLUDING
A TUNING DEVICE ALSO IN THE OPEN CIRCUIT.  THE STATEMENT CONCERNING THE
USE OF "ANY SUITABLE DEVICE" TO "DEVELOP THE SIMPLE HARMONIC FORCE
IMPRESSED UPON THE VERTICAL WIRE" MIGHT BE TAKEN, IN OTHER CONTEXT,
POSSIBLY TO SUGGEST MAGNIFYING THE IMPRESSED FORCE BY INSERTING A
DEVICE FOR THAT PURPOSE IN THE OPEN CIRCUIT AND THEREFORE TO COME MORE
CLOSELY THAN THE OTHER PASSAGES TO SUGGESTING MARCONI'S IDEA.  BUT SUCH
A CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE WHOLLY STRAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER
REFERENCE OR SUGGESTION IN THE LONG APPLICATION TO SUCH A PURPOSE. 
STANDING WHOLLY ALONE AS IT DOES, IT WOULD BE GOING FAR TO BASE
ANTICIPATION OF MARCONI'S IDEA UPON THIS LANGUAGE ONLY.  THE MORE
REASONABLE AND, IN VIEW OF THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF SUGGESTION ELSEWHERE,
THE ONLY TENABLE VIEW IS THAT THE LANGUAGE WAS INTENDED TO SAY, NOT
THAT STONE CONTEMPLATED INCLUDING ANY DEVICE FOR TUNING IN THE OPEN
CIRCUIT, BUT THAT HE LEFT TO THE MECHANIC OR BUILDER THE CHOICE OF THE
VARIOUS DEVICES WHICH MIGHT BE USED, ACCORDING TO PREFERENCE, TO CREATE
OR "DEVELOP," IN THE CLOSED CIRCUIT, THE FORCE TO BE IMPRESSED UPON THE
ANTENNA. 

FINALLY, STONE WAS NO NOVICE.  HE TOO WAS "A VERY EXPERT PERSON AND
ONE OF THE BEST MEN IN THE ART."  NATIONAL ELECTRIC SIGNALLING CO. V.
TELEFUNKEN WIRELESS TEL. CO., 209 F. 856, 864(D.C.).  HE KNEW THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TUNED AND UNTUNED CIRCUITS, HOW TO DESCRIBE THEM,
AND HOW TO APPLY THEM WHEN HE WANTED TO DO SO.  HE USED THIS KNOWLEDGE
WHEN HE SPECIFIED INCLUDING MEANS FOR TUNING IN HIS CLOSED CIRCUIT.  HE
DID NOT USE IT TO SPECIFY SIMILARLY TUNING THE OPEN ONE.  THE OMISSION,
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONAL.  IN MY
OPINION HE DELIBERATELY SELECTED AN APERIODIC AERIAL, ONE TO WHICH THE
MANY RECEIVING CIRCUITS HIS APPLICATION CONTEMPLATED COULD BE ADJUSTED
AND ONE WHICH WOULD CARRY TO THEM, FROM HIS TRANSMITTER'S TUNED
PERIODICITY AND BY ITS FORCE ALONE, WHAT IT SENT FORWARD.  IN SHORT,
STONE DELIBERATELY SELECTED AN UNTUNED ANTENNA, A TUNED CLOSED CIRCUIT,
AND CONTROLLED THE PERIODICITY OF BOTH, NOT BY INDEPENDENT MEANS IN
EACH MAKING THEM MUTUALLY AND RECIPROCALLY ADJUSTABLE, BUT BY
IMPRESSING UPON THE UNTUNED ANTENNA THE FORCED PERIODICITY OF THE
CLOSED CIRCUIT.    IT MAY BE THAT BY HIS METHOD HE ATTAINED RESULTS
COMPARABLE, OR NEARLY SO, TO THOSE MARCONI ACHIEVED.  THE RECORD DOES
NOT SHOW THAT HE DID SO PRIOR TO HIS AMENDMENT.  IF HE DID, THAT ONLY
GOES TO SHOW HE ACCOMPLISHED IN CONSEQUENCE WHAT MARCONI DID, BUT BY A
DIFFERENT METHOD.  THAT BOTH HAD THE SAME "BROAD PURPOSE" OF PROVIDING
A HIGH DEGREE OF TUNING AT BOTH STATIONS, AND THAT BOTH MAY HAVE
ACCOMPLISHED THIS OBJECT SUBSTANTIALLY, DOES NOT SHOW THAT THEY DID SO
IN THE SAME WAY OR THAT STONE, BY HIS DIFFERENT METHOD, ANTICIPATED
MARCONI. 

IN MY OPINION THEREFORE STONE'S AMENDMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
ANYTHING IN HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 
AS PETITIONER SAYS, IT ADDED THE NEW FEATURE OF TUNING THE ANTENNA AND
IN THAT RESPECT RESEMBLED THE AMENDMENT OF A FESSENDEN APPLICATION "TO
INCLUDE THE TUNING OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT."  NATIONAL ELECTRIC
SIGNALLING CO. V. TELEFUNKEN WIRELESS TEL. CO., SUPRA. THE AMENDMENT
HERE SHOULD RECEIVE THE SAME FATE AS BEFELL THE ONE THERE INVOLVED. 

STONE'S LETTERS TO BAKER, QUOTED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, SHOW NO MORE
THAN HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION DISCLOSED.  THERE IS NO HINT OR
SUGGESTION IN THEM OF TUNING THE ANTENNA CIRCUITS "INDEPENDENTLY" AS
MARCONI DID.  AND THE CORRESPONDENCE GIVES FURTHER PROOF HE
CONTEMPLATED INTRODUCING THE INDUCTANCE COIL (OR A DEVICE EQUIVALENT IN
FUNCTION) INTO THE CLOSED CIRCUIT, BUT EXPRESSED NO IDEA OF DOING THE
SAME THING IN THE OPEN ONE. 

IN MY OPINION THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED, IN SO FAR AS
IT HOLDS MARCONI'S BROAD CLAIMS INVALID. 

FN1  MARCONI V. BRITISH RADIO TEL. & TEL. CO., 27 T.L.R. 274; MARCONI
V. HELSBY WIRELESS TEL. CO., 30 T.L.R. 688; SOCIETE MARCONI V. SOCIETE
GENERALE, ETC., CIVIL TRIBUNAL OF THE SEINE, 3D CHAMBER, DEC. 24, 1912;
MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH CO. V. NATIONAL ELECTRIC SIGNALLING CO., 213
F. 815(D.C.); MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH CO. V. KILBOURNE & CLARK MFG.
CO., 265 F. 644(C.C.A.), AFF'G 239 F. 328(D.C.). 

FN2  CF., E.G., 14 ENCYC.  BRITANNICA (14TH ED.)  869. 

FN3  HIS EARLIEST AMERICAN PATENT, U.S. PATENT NO. 586,193, GRANTED
ON JULY 13, 1897, LATER BECOMING REISSUE PATENT NO. 11,913, IS NOT IN
SUIT HERE.  THAT PATENT DID NOT EMBRACE MANY OF THE CRUCIAL CLAIMS HERE
INVOLVED AND ITS PRODUCT CANNOT COMPARE IN COMMERCIAL USEFULNESS WITH
THAT OF THE PATENT IN SUIT. 

FN4  COURTS CLOSER TO IT CHRONOLOGICALLY THAN WE ARE HAVE
CHARACTERIZED IT AS A "CONSPICUOUS ADVANCE IN WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY"; "A
REAL ACCOMPLISHMENT" AND THE IDEAS INVOLVED IN THE PATENT WERE SAID TO
"HAVE PROVEN OF GREAT VALUE TO THE WORLD," TO HAVE BROUGHT ABOUT "AN
ENTIRELY NEW AND USEFUL RESULT," "A NEW AND VERY IMPORTANT INDUSTRIAL
RESULT" AND "A WONDERFUL CONQUEST."  "THE MARCONI PATENT STANDS OUT AS
AN UNASSAILABLE MONUMENT UNTIL NEW DISCOVERIES ARE MADE."  CF. THE
AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN5  HE WAS ONLY TWENTY-SIX YEARS OLD AT THE TIME HE APPLIED FOR THE
PATENT IN SUIT, BUT HE HAD ALREADY MADE SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO
THE FIELD. 

FN6  U.S. PATENT NO. 763,772; BRITISH PATENT NO. 7777 OF 1900; FRENCH
PATENT NO. 305,060 OF NOV. 3, 1900. 

FN7  BRITISH PATENT TO LODGE NO. 29,505. 

FN8  CF. NOTE 3 SUPRA. 

FN9  U.S. PATENT TO TESLA NO. 649,621, MAY 15, 1900, DIVISION OF
645,576, MARCH 20, 1900(FILED SEPT. 2, 1897). 

FN10  CF. TEXT INFRA. 

FN11  CF. NOTE 1 SUPRA. 

FN12  IBID. 

FN13  TESLA IN FACT DID NOT USE HERTZIAN WAVES.  HIS IDEA WAS TO MAKE
THE ETHER A CONDUCTOR FOR LONG DISTANCES BY USING EXTREMELY HIGH
VOLTAGE, 20,000,000 TO 30,000,000 VOLTS, AND EXTREMELY HIGH ALTITUDES,
30,000 TO 40,000 FEET OR MORE, TO SECURE TRANSMISSION FROM AERIAL TO
AERIAL.  BALLOONS, WITH WIRES ATTACHED REACHING TO THE GROUND, WERE HIS
SUGGESTED AERIALS.  HIS SYSTEM WAS REALLY ONE FOR TRANSMITTING POWER
FOR MOTORS, LIGHTING, ETC., TO "ANY TERRESTRIAL DISTANCE," THOUGH HE
INCIDENTALLY MENTIONS "INTELLIGIBLE MESSAGES."  AS HE DID NOT USE
HERTZIAN WAVES, HE HAD NO SUCH PROBLEM OF SELECTIVITY AS MARCONI,
LODGE, STONE AND OTHERS WERE WORKING ON LATER. 
..END :














HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 81 


NO. 870.  ARGUED MAY 10, 11, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1943.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE A DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED ON TWO COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT AND
THE SENTENCES ARE ORDERED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, IT IS UNNECESSARY ON
REVIEW TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE SENTENCE ON BOTH OF THE COUNTS
IF THE SENTENCE ON ONE OF THEM IS SUSTAINABLE.  P. 85. 

2.  PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, PROMULGATED BY THE
PRESIDENT ON FEBRUARY 19, 1942 WHILE THE UNITED STATES WAS AT WAR WITH
JAPAN, THE MILITARY COMMANDER OF THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND
PROMULGATED AN ORDER REQUIRING, INTER ALIA, THAT ALL PERSONS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY WITHIN A DESIGNATED MILITARY AREA "BE WITHIN THEIR
PLACE OF RESIDENCE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8 P.M. AND 6 A.M."  APPELLANT,
A UNITED STATES CITIZEN OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, WAS CONVICTED IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR VIOLATION OF THIS CURFEW ORDER.  HELD: 

(1)  BY THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, CONGRESS RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, AND THEREBY AUTHORIZED AND IMPLEMENTED SUCH
CURFEW ORDERS AS THE MILITARY COMMANDER SHOULD PROMULGATE PURSUANT TO
THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER.  P. 91. 

(2)  IT WAS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS AND THE
EXECUTIVE, ACTING TOGETHER, TO PRESCRIBE THIS CURFEW ORDER AS AN
EMERGENCY WAR MEASURE.  P. 92. 

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION, IN WHICH CONGRESS AND THE
MILITARY COMMANDER UNITED, THAT THE CURFEW AS APPLIED WAS A PROTECTIVE
MEASURE NECESSARY TO MEET THE THREAT OF SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE WHICH
WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE WAR EFFORT AND WHICH MIGHT REASONABLY BE
EXPECTED TO AID A THREATENED ENEMY INVASION.  P. 95. 

(3)  THE CURFEW ORDER DID NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY.  P. 101. 

(A)  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT CONTAINS NO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND IT
RESTRAINS ONLY SUCH DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS AS AMOUNTS
TO A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 100. 

(B)  THE CURFEW ORDER AS APPLIED, AND AT THE TIME IT WAS APPLIED, WAS
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WAR POWER.  P. 102. 

(C)  THE ADOPTION BY THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE CRISIS OF WAR AND OF
THREATENED INVASION, OF MEASURES FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY, BASED UPON THE
RECOGNITION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INDICATE THAT A GROUP OF
ONE NATIONAL EXTRACTION MAY MENACE THAT SAFETY MORE THAN OTHERS, IS NOT
TO BE CONDEMNED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MERELY BECAUSE IN OTHER AND IN MOST
CIRCUMSTANCES RACIAL DISTINCTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT.  P. 101. 

(D)  AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER IS NOT RENDERED INVALID
BY THE FACT THAT IT RESTRICTS THE LIBERTY OF CITIZENS.  P. 99. 

(4)  THE PROMULGATION OF THE CURFEW ORDER BY THE MILITARY COMMANDER
WAS BASED ON NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  P.
102. 

THE ESSENTIALS OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION ARE PRESERVED WHEN
CONGRESS PROVIDES THAT A STATUTORY COMMAND SHALL BECOME OPERATIVE UPON
ASCERTAINMENT OF A BASIC CONCLUSION OF FACT BY A DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, WHICH
AUTHORIZED THAT CURFEW ORDERS BE MADE PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.
9066 FOR THE PROTECTION OF WAR RESOURCES FROM ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE,
SATISFIES THOSE REQUIREMENTS.  P. 104. 

HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CERTIFIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON
AN APPEAL TO THAT COURT FROM A CONVICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT UPON
TWO COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF ORDERS PROMULGATED
BY THE MILITARY COMMANDER OF THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND.  THIS COURT
DIRECTED THAT THE ENTIRE RECORD BE CERTIFIED SO THAT THE CASE COULD BE
DETERMINED AS IF BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL.  SEE 46 F.SUPP.  657. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, WAS CONVICTED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT OF VIOLATING THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 21, 1942,
56 STAT. 173, WHICH MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR KNOWINGLY TO DISREGARD
RESTRICTIONS MADE APPLICABLE BY A MILITARY COMMANDER TO PERSONS IN A
MILITARY AREA PRESCRIBED BY HIM AS SUCH, ALL AS AUTHORIZED BY AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE WHETHER THE PARTICULAR RESTRICTION
VIOLATED, NAMELY THAT ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY RESIDING IN SUCH
AN AREA BE WITHIN THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE DAILY BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
8:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M., WAS ADOPTED BY THE MILITARY COMMANDER IN THE
EXERCISE OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION BY CONGRESS OF ITS
LEGISLATIVE POWER, AND WHETHER THE RESTRICTION UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
DISCRIMINATED BETWEEN CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY AND THOSE OF OTHER
ANCESTRIES IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE INDICTMENT IS IN TWO COUNTS.  THE SECOND CHARGES THAT APPELLANT,
BEING A PERSON OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, HAD ON A SPECIFIED DATE, CONTRARY
TO A RESTRICTION PROMULGATED BY THE MILITARY COMMANDER OF THE WESTERN
DEFENSE COMMAND, FOURTH ARMY, FAILED TO REMAIN IN HIS PLACE OF
RESIDENCE IN THE DESIGNATED MILITARY AREA BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00
O'CLOCK P.M. AND 6:00 A.M.  THE FIRST COUNT CHARGES THAT APPELLANT, ON
MAY 11 AND 12, 1942, HAD, CONTRARY TO A CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER ISSUED
BY THE MILITARY COMMANDER, FAILED TO REPORT TO THE CIVIL CONTROL
STATION WITHIN THE DESIGNATED AREA, IT APPEARING THAT APPELLANT'S
REQUIRED PRESENCE THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY STEP TO THE EXCLUSION FROM
THAT AREA OF PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY. 

BY DEMURRER AND PLEA IN ABATEMENT, WHICH THE COURT OVERRULED (46
F.SUPP.  657), APPELLANT ASSERTED THAT THE INDICTMENT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED BECAUSE HE WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HAD NEVER BEEN A
SUBJECT OF AND HAD NEVER BORNE ALLEGIANCE TO THE EMPIRE OF JAPAN, AND
ALSO BECAUSE THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  ON THE TRIAL TO A JURY IT APPEARED
THAT APPELLANT WAS BORN IN SEATTLE IN 1918, OF JAPANESE PARENTS WHO HAD
COME FROM JAPAN TO THE UNITED STATES, AND WHO HAD NEVER AFTERWARD
RETURNED TO JAPAN; THAT HE WAS EDUCATED IN THE WASHINGTON PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AND AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST WAS A SENIOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON; THAT HE HAD NEVER BEEN IN JAPAN OR HAD ANY ASSOCIATION WITH
JAPANESE RESIDING THERE. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO REPORT TO THE CIVIL
CONTROL STATION ON MAY 11 OR MAY 12, 1942, AS DIRECTED, TO REGISTER FOR
EVACUATION FROM THE MILITARY AREA.  HE ADMITTED FAILURE TO DO SO, AND
STATED IT HAD AT ALL TIMES BEEN HIS BELIEF THAT HE WOULD BE WAIVING HIS
RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN BY SO DOING.  THE EVIDENCE ALSO SHOWED
THAT FOR LIKE REASON HE WAS AWAY FROM HIS PLACE OF RESIDENCE AFTER 8:00
P.M. ON MAY 9, 1942.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY ON BOTH
COUNTS AND APPELLANT WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF THREE
MONTHS ON EACH, THE SENTENCES TO RUN CONCURRENTLY. 

ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CERTIFIED TO US
QUESTIONS OF LAW UPON WHICH IT DESIRED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DECISION OF
THE CASE.  SEE SEC. 239 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
346.  ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON US BY THAT SECTION WE
ORDERED THAT THE ENTIRE RECORD BE CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT SO THAT WE
MIGHT PROCEED TO A DECISION OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IN THE SAME
MANNER AS IF IT HAD BEEN BROUGHT HERE BY APPEAL.  SINCE THE SENTENCES
OF THREE MONTHS EACH IMPOSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE TWO COUNTS
WERE ORDERED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY, IT WILL BE UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
QUESTIONS RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST COUNT IF WE FIND THAT THE
CONVICTION ON THE SECOND COUNT, FOR VIOLATION OF THE CURFEW ORDER, MUST
BE SUSTAINED.  BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432, 441; GORIN V.
UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 19, 33. 

THE CURFEW ORDER WHICH APPELLANT VIOLATED, AND TO WHICH THE SANCTION
PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN DEEMED TO ATTACH, PURPORTED
TO BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT.  IN
PASSING UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE MILITARY COMMANDER TO MAKE AND
EXECUTE THE ORDER, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO CONSIDER IN SOME DETAIL THE
OFFICIAL ACTION WHICH PRECEDED OR ACCOMPANIED THE ORDER AND FROM WHICH
IT DERIVES ITS PURPORTED AUTHORITY. 

ON DECEMBER 8, 1941, ONE DAY AFTER THE BOMBING OF PEARL HARBOR BY A
JAPANESE AIR FORCE, CONGRESS DECLARED WAR AGAINST JAPAN.  55 STAT.
795.  ON FEBRUARY 19, 1942, THE PRESIDENT PROMULGATED EXECUTIVE ORDER
NO. 9066.  7 FEDERAL REGISTER 1407.  THE ORDER RECITED THAT "THE
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE WAR REQUIRES EVERY POSSIBLE PROTECTION
AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND AGAINST SABOTAGE TO NATIONAL-DEFENSE MATERIAL,
NATIONAL-DEFENSE PREMISES, AND NATIONAL-DEFENSE UTILITIES AS DEFINED IN
OF NOVEMBER 30, 1940, 54 STAT. 1220, AND THE ACT OF AUGUST 21, 1941, 55
STAT. 655."  BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN HIM AS PRESIDENT AND
AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY, THE PRESIDENT PURPORTED TO
"AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF WAR, AND THE MILITARY COMMANDERS
WHOM HE MAY FROM TIME TO TIME DESIGNATE, WHENEVER HE OR ANY DESIGNATED
COMMANDER DEEMS SUCH ACTION NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE, TO PRESCRIBE
MILITARY AREAS IN SUCH PLACES AND OF SUCH EXTENT AS HE OR THE
APPROPRIATE MILITARY COMMANDER MAY DETERMINE, FROM WHICH ANY OR ALL
PERSONS MAY BE EXCLUDED, AND WITH RESPECT TO WHICH, THE RIGHT OF ANY
PERSON TO ENTER, REMAIN IN, OR LEAVE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER
RESTRICTIONS THE SECRETARY OF WAR OR THE APPROPRIATE MILITARY COMMANDER
MAY IMPOSE IN HIS DISCRETION." 

ON FEBRUARY 20, 1942, THE SECRETARY OF WAR DESIGNATED LT. GENERAL
J.L. DEWITT AS MILITARY COMMANDER OF THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND,
COMPRISING THE PACIFIC COAST STATES AND SOME OTHERS, TO CARRY OUT THERE
THE DUTIES PRESCRIBED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066.  ON MARCH 2, 1942,
GENERAL DEWITT PROMULGATED PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 1.  7 FEDERAL
REGISTER 2320.  THE PROCLAMATION RECITED THAT THE ENTIRE PACIFIC COAST
"BY ITS GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION IS PARTICULARLY SUBJECT TO ATTACK, TO
ATTEMPTED INVASION BY THE ARMED FORCES OF NATIONS WITH WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS NOW AT WAR, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, IS SUBJECT TO
ESPIONAGE AND ACTS OF SABOTAGE, THEREBY REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF
MILITARY MEASURES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH SAFEGUARDS AGAINST SUCH ENEMY
OPERATIONS."  IT STATED THAT "THE PRESENT SITUATION REQUIRES AS A
MATTER OF MILITARY NECESSITY THE ESTABLISHMENT IN THE TERRITORY
EMBRACED BY THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND OF MILITARY AREAS AND ZONES
THEREOF"; IT SPECIFIED AND DESIGNATED AS MILITARY AREAS CERTAIN AREAS
WITHIN THE WESTERN DEFENSE COMMAND; AND IT DECLARED THAT "SUCH PERSONS
OR CLASSES OF PERSONS AS THE SITUATION MAY REQUIRE" WOULD, BY
SUBSEQUENT PROCLAMATION, BE EXCLUDED FROM CERTAIN OF THESE AREAS, BUT
MIGHT BE PERMITTED TO ENTER OR REMAIN IN CERTAIN OTHERS, UNDER
REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS TO BE LATER PRESCRIBED.  AMONG THE
MILITARY AREAS SO DESIGNATED BY PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 1 WAS MILITARY
AREA NO. 1, WHICH EMBRACED, BESIDES THE SOUTHERN PART OF ARIZONA, ALL
THE COASTAL REGION OF THE THREE PACIFIC COAST STATES, INCLUDING THE
CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, WHERE APPELLANT RESIDED.  MILITARY AREA
NO. 2, DESIGNATED BY THE SAME PROCLAMATION, INCLUDED THOSE PARTS OF THE
COASTAL STATES AND OF ARIZONA NOT PLACED WITHIN MILITARY AREA NO. 1. 

PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 2 OF MARCH 16, 1942, ISSUED BY GENERAL
DEWITT, MADE LIKE RECITALS AND DESIGNATED FURTHER MILITARY AREAS AND
ZONES.  IT CONTAINED LIKE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE EXCLUSION, BY
SUBSEQUENT PROCLAMATION, OF CERTAIN PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS FROM
THESE AREAS, AND THE FUTURE PROMULGATION OF REGULATIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS APPLICABLE TO PERSONS REMAINING WITHIN THEM.  7 FEDERAL
REGISTER 2405. 

AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT, NO. 9102, OF MARCH 18, 1942,
ESTABLISHED THE WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY, IN THE OFFICE FOR EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; IT AUTHORIZED THE
DIRECTOR OF WAR RELOCATION AUTHORITY TO FORMULATE AND EFFECTUATE A
PROGRAM FOR THE REMOVAL, RELOCATION, MAINTENANCE AND SUPERVISION OF
PERSONS DESIGNATED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, ALREADY REFERRED TO;
AND IT CONFERRED ON THE DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS
NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE TO PROMOTE THE EFFECTIVE EXECUTION OF THE
PROGRAM.  7 FEDERAL REGISTER 2165. 

CONGRESS, BY THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, PROVIDED:  "THAT WHOEVER
SHALL ENTER, REMAIN IN, LEAVE, OR COMMIT ANY ACT IN ANY MILITARY AREA
OR MILITARY ZONE PRESCRIBED, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
OF THE PRESIDENT, BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR, OR BY ANY MILITARY COMMANDER
DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR, CONTRARY TO THE RESTRICTIONS
APPLICABLE TO ANY SUCH AREA OR ZONE OR CONTRARY TO THE ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF WAR OR ANY SUCH MILITARY COMMANDER, SHALL, IF IT APPEARS
THAT HE KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF THE
RESTRICTIONS OR ORDER AND THAT HIS ACT WAS IN VIOLATION THEREOF, BE
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION SHALL BE LIABLE" TO FINE OR
IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH. 

THREE DAYS LATER, ON MARCH 24, 1942, GENERAL DEWITT ISSUED PUBLIC
PROCLAMATION NO. 3.  7 FEDERAL REGISTER 2543.  AFTER REFERRING TO THE
PREVIOUS DESIGNATION OF MILITARY AREAS BY PUBLIC PROCLAMATIONS NOS. 1
AND 2, IT RECITED THAT  "...  THE PRESENT SITUATION WITHIN THESE
MILITARY AREAS AND ZONES REQUIRES AS A MATTER OF MILITARY NECESSITY THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO ALL ENEMY ALIENS AND
ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY WITHIN SAID MILITARY AREAS AND ZONES
..."  IT ACCORDINGLY DECLARED AND ESTABLISHED THAT FROM AND AFTER MARCH
27, 1942, "ALL ALIEN JAPANESE, ALL ALIEN GERMANS, ALL ALIEN ITALIANS,
AND ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY RESIDING OR BEING WITHIN THE
GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF MILITARY AREA NO. 1  ... SHALL BE WITHIN THEIR
PLACE OF RESIDENCE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M., WHICH
PERIOD IS HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE HOURS OF CURFEW."  IT ALSO
IMPOSED CERTAIN OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, AND
PROVIDED THAT ANY PERSON VIOLATING THE REGULATIONS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 21,
1942. 

BEGINNING ON MARCH 24, 1942, THE MILITARY COMMANDER ISSUED A SERIES
OF CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDERS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC
PROCLAMATION NO. 1.  EACH SUCH ORDER RELATED TO A SPECIFIED AREA WITHIN
THE TERRITORY OF HIS COMMAND.  THE ORDER APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT WAS
CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 57 OF MAY 10, 1942.  7 FEDERAL REGISTER
3725.  IT DIRECTED THAT FROM AND AFTER 12:00 NOON, MAY 16, 1942, ALL
PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, BOTH ALIEN AND NONALIEN, BE EXCLUDED FROM
A SPECIFIED PORTION OF MILITARY AREA NO. 1 IN SEATTLE, INCLUDING
APPELLANT'S PLACE OF RESIDENCE, AND IT REQUIRED A MEMBER OF EACH
FAMILY, AND EACH INDIVIDUAL LIVING ALONE, AFFECTED BY THE ORDER TO
REPORT ON MAY 11 OR MAY 12 TO A DESIGNATED CIVIL CONTROL STATION IN
SEATTLE.  MEANWHILE THE MILITARY COMMANDER HAD ISSUED PUBLIC
PROCLAMATION NO. 4 OF MARCH 27, 1942, WHICH RECITED THE NECESSITY OF
PROVIDING FOR THE ORDERLY EVACUATION AND RESETTLEMENT OF JAPANESE
WITHIN THE AREA, AND PROHIBITED ALL ALIEN JAPANESE AND ALL PERSONS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY FROM LEAVING THE MILITARY AREA UNTIL FUTURE ORDERS
SHOULD PERMIT.  7 FEDERAL REGISTER 2601. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT DENY THAT HE KNOWINGLY FAILED TO OBEY THE CURFEW
ORDER AS CHARGED IN THE SECOND COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT, OR THAT THE
ORDER WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE TERMS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, OR THAT
THE CHALLENGED ACT OF CONGRESS PURPORTS TO PUNISH WITH CRIMINAL
PENALTIES DISOBEDIENCE OF SUCH AN ORDER.  HIS CONTENTIONS ARE ONLY THAT
CONGRESS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATED ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE
MILITARY COMMANDER BY AUTHORIZING HIM TO IMPOSE THE CHALLENGED
REGULATION, AND THAT, EVEN IF THE REGULATION WERE IN OTHER RESPECTS
LAWFULLY AUTHORIZED, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE DISCRIMINATION
MADE BETWEEN CITIZENS OF JAPANESE DESCENT AND THOSE OF OTHER ANCESTRY. 

IT WILL BE EVIDENT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT THE ACT OF MARCH
21, 1942, CONTEMPLATED AND AUTHORIZED THE CURFEW ORDER WHICH WE HAVE
BEFORE US.  THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, WAS
INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE ON MARCH 9TH AND IN THE HOUSE ON MARCH 10TH AT
THE REQUEST OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR WHO, IN LETTERS TO THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS AND TO THE SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE, STATED EXPLICITLY THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO PROVIDE MEANS FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS ISSUED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066.  THIS
APPEARS IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE BILL, WHICH SET OUT IN FULL THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER AND THE SECRETARY'S LETTER.  88 CONG. REC. 2722, 2725;
H.R. REP. NO. 1906, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 1171, 77TH CONG.,
2D SESS.  AND EACH OF THE COMMITTEE REPORTS EXPRESSLY MENTIONS CURFEW
ORDERS AS ONE OF THE TYPES OF RESTRICTIONS WHICH IT WAS DEEMED
DESIRABLE TO ENFORCE BY CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.    WHEN THE BILL WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION, GENERAL DEWITT HAD PUBLISHED HIS PROCLAMATION NO. 1 OF
MARCH 2, 1942, ESTABLISHING MILITARY AREAS NOS. 1 AND 2, AND THAT
PROCLAMATION WAS BEFORE CONGRESS.  S. REP. NO. 1171, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 2; SEE ALSO 88 CONG. REC. 2724.  A LETTER OF THE SECRETARY TO
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, OF MARCH 14,
1942, INFORMED CONGRESS THAT "GENERAL DEWITT IS STRONGLY OF THE OPINION
THAT THE BILL, WHEN ENACTED, SHOULD BE BROAD ENOUGH TO ENABLE THE
SECRETARY OF WAR OR THE APPROPRIATE MILITARY COMMANDER TO ENFORCE
CURFEWS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS WITHIN MILITARY AREAS AND ZONES"; AND
THAT GENERAL DEWITT HAD "INDICATED THAT HE WAS PREPARED TO ENFORCE
CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AT ONCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING CERTAIN
VITAL NATIONAL DEFENSE INTERESTS BUT DID NOT DESIRE TO PROCEED UNTIL
ENFORCEMENT MACHINERY HAD BEEN SET UP."  H.R. REP. NO. 1906, 77TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 3.  SEE ALSO LETTER OF THE ACTING SECRETARY OF WAR
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, MARCH 13,
1942, 88 CONG. REC. 2725. 

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE EXPLAINED ON
THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
WAS TO PROVIDE MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT OF CURFEW ORDERS AND OTHER MILITARY
ORDERS MADE PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066.  HE READ GENERAL
DEWITT'S PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 1, AND STATEMENTS FROM NEWSPAPER
REPORTS THAT "EVACUATION OF THE FIRST JAPANESE ALIENS AND AMERICAN-BORN
JAPANESE" WAS ABOUT TO BEGIN.  HE ALSO STATED TO THE SENATE THAT
"REASONS FOR SUSPECTED WIDESPREAD FIFTH-COLUMN ACTIVITY AMONG JAPANESE"
WERE TO BE FOUND IN THE SYSTEM OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP WHICH JAPAN DEEMED
APPLICABLE TO AMERICANBORN JAPANESE, AND IN THE PROPAGANDA DISSEMINATED
BY JAPANESE CONSULS, BUDDHIST PRIESTS AND OTHER LEADERS, AMONG AMERICAN
BORN CHILDREN OF JAPANESE.  SUCH WAS STATED TO BE THE EXPLANATION OF
THE CONTEMPLATED EVACUATION FROM THE PACIFIC COAST AREA OF PERSONS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY, CITIZENS AS WELL AS ALIENS.  88 CONG. REC. 2722-26;
SEE ALSO PP. 2729-30.  CONGRESS ALSO HAD BEFORE IT THE PRELIMINARY
REPORT OF A HOUSE COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING NATIONAL DEFENSE MIGRATION,
OF MARCH 19, 1942, WHICH APPROVED THE PROVISIONS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO.
9066, AND WHICH RECOMMENDED THE EVACUATION, FROM MILITARY AREAS
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ORDER, OF ALL PERSONS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY,
INCLUDING CITIZENS.  H.R. REP. NO. 1911, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS.  THE
PROPOSED LEGISLATION PROVIDED CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF
ORDERS, IN TERMS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THE CURFEW ORDER NOW BEFORE
US, AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT CONGRESS WAS ADVISED
THAT CURFEW ORDERS WERE AMONG THOSE INTENDED, AND WAS ADVISED ALSO THAT
REGULATION OF CITIZEN AND ALIEN JAPANESE ALIKE WAS CONTEMPLATED. 

THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT CONGRESS, BY THE ACT OF MARCH 21,
1942, RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066.  PRIZE CASES, 2
BLACK 635, 671; HAMILTON V. DILLIN, 21 WALL.  73, 96-97; UNITED STATES
V. HEINSZEN & CO., 206 U.S. 370, 382-84; TIACO V. FORBES, 228 U.S. 549,
556; ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 139, 146-48;
SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 300-03; MASON CO.
V. TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S. 186, 208.  AND SO FAR AS IT LAWFULLY COULD,
CONGRESS AUTHORIZED AND IMPLEMENTED SUCH CURFEW ORDERS AS THE
COMMANDING OFFICER SHOULD PROMULGATE PURSUANT TO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF
THE PRESIDENT.  THE QUESTION THEN IS NOT ONE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO
DELEGATE TO THE PRESIDENT THE PROMULGATION OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, BUT
WHETHER, ACTING IN COOPERATION, CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE HAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THE CURFEW RESTRICTION HERE
COMPLAINED OF.  WE MUST CONSIDER ALSO WHETHER, ACTING TOGETHER,
CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE COULD LEAVE IT TO THE DESIGNATED MILITARY
COMMANDER TO APPRAISE THE RELEVANT CONDITIONS AND ON THE BASIS OF THAT
APPRAISAL TO SAY WHETHER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TIME AND PLACE
WERE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROMULGATION OF THE CURFEW ORDER AND WHETHER
THE ORDER ITSELF WAS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER FOR THE "PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND AGAINST SABOTAGE" TO
NATIONAL DEFENSE MATERIALS, PREMISES AND UTILITIES.  FOR REASONS
PRESENTLY TO BE STATED, WE CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE ARM OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO PRESCRIBE THIS CURFEW ORDER FOR THE PERIOD UNDER
CONSIDERATION AND THAT ITS PROMULGATION BY THE MILITARY COMMANDER
INVOLVED NO UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, PROMULGATED IN TIME OF WAR FOR THE DECLARED
PURPOSE OF PROSECUTING THE WAR BY PROTECTING NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES
FROM SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE, AND THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, RATIFYING
AND CONFIRMING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, WERE EACH AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER
TO WAGE WAR CONFERRED ON THE CONGRESS AND ON THE PRESIDENT, AS
COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES, BY ARTICLES I AND II OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  SEE EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, 25-26.  WE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT, ACTING ALONE, COULD
LAWFULLY HAVE MADE THE CURFEW ORDER IN QUESTION, OR HAVE AUTHORIZED
OTHERS TO MAKE IT.  FOR THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE
ACT OF CONGRESS, AND WE ARE IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTION
WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE JOINT ACTION OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, TO
IMPOSE THIS RESTRICTION AS AN EMERGENCY WAR MEASURE.  THE EXERCISE OF
THAT POWER HERE INVOLVES NO QUESTION OF MARTIAL LAW OR TRIAL BY
MILITARY TRIBUNAL.  CF. EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2; EX PARTE QUIRIN,
SUPRA.  APPELLANT HAS BEEN TRIED AND CONVICTED IN THE CIVIL COURTS AND
HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS FOR THE ACTS
COMMITTED. 

THE WAR POWER OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS "THE POWER TO WAGE WAR
SUCCESSFULLY."  SEE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES, WAR POWERS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, 42 A.B.A. REP. 232, 238.  IT EXTENDS TO EVERY MATTER AND
ACTIVITY SO RELATED TO WAR AS SUBSTANTIALLY TO AFFECT ITS CONDUCT AND
PROGRESS.  THE POWER IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE WINNING OF VICTORIES IN
THE FIELD AND THE REPULSE OF ENEMY FORCES.  IT EMBRACES EVERY PHASE OF
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, INCLUDING THE PROTECTION OF WAR MATERIALS AND THE
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES FROM INJURY AND FROM THE DANGERS WHICH
ATTEND THE RISE, PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS OF WAR.  PRIZE CASES, SUPRA;
MILLER V. UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  268, 303-14; STEWART V. KAHN, 11
WALL.  493, 506-07; SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366; MCKINLEY
V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 397; UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S.
605, 622-23.  SINCE THE CONSTITUTION COMMITS TO THE EXECUTIVE AND TO
CONGRESS THE EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER IN ALL THE VICISSITUDES AND
CONDITIONS OF WARFARE, IT HAS NECESSARILY GIVEN THEM WIDE SCOPE FOR THE
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THE NATURE AND
EXTENT OF THE THREATENED INJURY OR DANGER AND IN THE SELECTION OF THE
MEANS FOR RESISTING IT.  EX PARTE QUIRIN, SUPRA, 28-29; CF. PRIZE
CASES, SUPRA, 670; MARTIN V. MOTT, 12 WHEAT.  19, 29.  WHERE, AS THEY
DID HERE, THE CONDITIONS CALL FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AND
DISCRETION AND FOR THE CHOICE OF MEANS BY THOSE BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT ON WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS PLACED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
WAR-MAKING, IT IS NOT FOR ANY COURT TO SIT IN REVIEW OF THE WISDOM OF
THEIR ACTION OR SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THEIRS. 

THE ACTIONS TAKEN MUST BE APPRAISED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONDITIONS
WITH WHICH THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS WERE CONFRONTED IN THE EARLY
MONTHS OF 1942, MANY OF WHICH, SINCE DISCLOSED, WERE THEN PECULIARLY
WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES.  ON DECEMBER 7, 1941,
THE JAPANESE AIR FORCES HAD ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES NAVAL BASE AT
PEARL HARBOR WITHOUT WARNING, AT THE VERY HOUR WHEN JAPANESE DIPLOMATIC
REPRESENTATIVES WERE CONDUCTING NEGOTIATIONS WITH OUR STATE DEPARTMENT
OSTENSIBLY FOR THE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO
COUNTRIES.  SIMULTANEOUSLY OR NEARLY SO, THE JAPANESE ATTACKED
MALAYSIA, HONG KONG, THE PHILIPPINES, AND WAKE AND MIDWAY ISLANDS.  ON
THE FOLLOWING DAY THEIR ARMY INVADED THAILAND.  SHORTLY AFTERWARDS THEY
SANK TWO BRITISH BATTLESHIPS.  ON DECEMBER 13TH, GUAM WAS TAKEN.  ON
DECEMBER 24TH AND 25TH THEY CAPTURED WAKE ISLAND AND OCCUPIED HONG
KONG.  ON JANUARY 2, 1942, MANILA FELL, AND ON FEBRUARY 10TH SINGAPORE,
BRITAIN'S GREAT NAVAL BASE IN THE EAST, WAS TAKEN.  ON FEBRUARY 27TH
THE BATTLE OF THE JAVA SEA RESULTED IN A DISASTROUS NAVAL DEFEAT TO THE
UNITED NATIONS.  BY THE 9TH OF MARCH JAPANESE FORCES HAD ESTABLISHED
CONTROL OVER THE NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES; RANGOON AND BURMA WERE
OCCUPIED; BATAAN AND CORREGIDOR WERE UNDER ATTACK. 

ALTHOUGH THE RESULTS OF THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR WERE NOT FULLY
DISCLOSED UNTIL MUCH LATER, IT WAS KNOWN THAT THE DAMAGE WAS EXTENSIVE,
AND THAT THE JAPANESE BY THEIR SUCCESSES HAD GAINED A NAVAL SUPERIORITY
OVER OUR FORCES IN THE PACIFIC WHICH MIGHT ENABLE THEM TO SEIZE PEARL
HARBOR, OUR LARGEST NAVAL BASE AND THE LAST STRONGHOLD OF DEFENSE LYING
BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE WEST COAST.  THAT REASONABLY PRUDENT MEN CHARGED
WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE HAD AMPLE GROUND FOR
CONCLUDING THAT THEY MUST FACE THE DANGER OF INVASION, TAKE MEASURES
AGAINST IT, AND IN MAKING THE CHOICE OF MEASURES CONSIDER OUR INTERNAL
SITUATION, CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 

THE CHALLENGED ORDERS WERE DEFENSE MEASURES FOR THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF
SAFEGUARDING THE MILITARY AREA IN QUESTION, AT A TIME OF THREATENED AIR
RAIDS AND INVASION BY THE JAPANESE FORCES, FROM THE DANGER OF SABOTAGE
AND ESPIONAGE.  AS THE CURFEW WAS MADE APPLICABLE TO CITIZENS RESIDING
IN THE AREA ONLY IF THEY WERE OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, OUR INQUIRY MUST BE
WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS ANY
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION, IN WHICH CONGRESS AND THE
MILITARY COMMANDER UNITED, THAT THE CURFEW AS APPLIED WAS A PROTECTIVE
MEASURE NECESSARY TO MEET THE THREAT OF SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE WHICH
WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE WAR EFFORT AND WHICH MIGHT REASONABLY BE
EXPECTED TO AID A THREATENED ENEMY INVASION.  THE ALTERNATIVE WHICH
APPELLANT INSISTS MUST BE ACCEPTED IS FOR THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES TO
IMPOSE THE CURFEW ON ALL CITIZENS WITHIN THE MILITARY AREA, OR ON
NONE.  IN A CASE OF THREATENED DANGER REQUIRING PROMPT ACTION, IT IS A
CHOICE BETWEEN INFLICTING OBVIOUSLY NEEDLESS HARDSHIP ON THE MANY, OR
SITTING PASSIVE AND UNRESISTING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE THREAT.  WE
THINK THAT CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, IN TIME OF WAR, IS NOT SO
POWERLESS AND DOES NOT COMPEL SO HARD A CHOICE IF THOSE CHARGED WITH
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE HAVE REASONABLE GROUND FOR
BELIEVING THAT THE THREAT IS REAL. 

WHEN THE ORDERS WERE PROMULGATED THERE WAS A VAST CONCENTRATION,
WITHIN MILITARY AREAS NOS. 1 AND 2, OF INSTALLATIONS AND FACILITIES FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT, ESPECIALLY SHIPS AND AIRPLANES. 
IMPORTANT ARMY AND NAVY BASES WERE LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA AND
WASHINGTON.  APPROXIMATELY ONE-FOURTH OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MAJOR
AIRCRAFT CONTRACTS THEN LET BY GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT OFFICERS WERE TO
BE PERFORMED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  CALIFORNIA RANKED SECOND, AND
WASHINGTON FIFTH, OF ALL THE STATES OF THE UNION WITH RESPECT TO THE
VALUE OF SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS TO BE PERFORMED.  FN1 

IN THE CRITICAL DAYS OF MARCH 1942, THE DANGER TO OUR WAR PRODUCTION
BY SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE IN THIS AREA SEEMS OBVIOUS.  THE GERMAN
INVASION OF THE WESTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES HAD GIVEN AMPLE WARNING TO
THE WORLD OF THE MENACE OF THE "FIFTH COLUMN."  ESPIONAGE BY PERSONS IN
SYMPATHY WITH THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE IN THE SURPRISE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR.  FN2  AT
A TIME OF THREATENED JAPANESE ATTACK UPON THIS COUNTRY, THE NATURE OF
OUR INHABITANTS' ATTACHMENTS TO THE JAPANESE ENEMY WAS CONSEQUENTLY A
MATTER OF GRAVE CONCERN.  OF THE 126,000 PERSONS OF JAPANESE DESCENT IN
THE UNITED STATES, CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS, APPROXIMATELY 112,000
RESIDED IN CALIFORNIA, OREGON AND WASHINGTON AT THE TIME OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE MILITARY REGULATIONS.  OF THESE APPROXIMATELY TWO
THIRDS ARE CITIZENS BECAUSE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.  NOT ONLY DID
THE GREAT MAJORITY OF SUCH PERSONS RESIDE WITHIN THE PACIFIC COAST
STATES BUT THEY WERE CONCENTRATED IN OR NEAR THREE OF THE LARGE CITIES,
SEATTLE, PORTLAND AND LOS ANGELES, ALL IN MILITARY AREA NO. 1.  FN3 

THERE IS SUPPORT FOR THE VIEW THAT SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL
CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE PREVAILED SINCE THE CLOSE OF THE LAST CENTURY,
WHEN THE JAPANESE BEGAN TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY IN SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS,
HAVE INTENSIFIED THEIR SOLIDARITY AND HAVE IN LARGE MEASURE PREVENTED
THEIR ASSIMILATION AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WHITE POPULATION.  FN4
IN ADDITION, LARGE NUMBERS OF CHILDREN OF JAPANESE PARENTAGE ARE SENT
TO JAPANESE LANGUAGE SCHOOLS OUTSIDE THE REGULAR HOURS OF PUBLIC
SCHOOLS IN THE LOCALITY.  SOME OF THESE SCHOOLS ARE GENERALLY BELIEVED
TO BE SOURCES OF JAPANESE NATIONALISTIC PROPAGANDA, CULTIVATING
ALLEGIANCE TO JAPAN.  FN5  CONSIDERABLE NUMBERS, ESTIMATED TO BE
APPROXIMATELY 10,000, OF AMERICAN-BORN CHILDREN OF JAPANESE PARENTAGE
HAVE BEEN SENT TO JAPAN FOR ALL OR A PART OF THEIR EDUCATION.  FN6 
CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, INCLUDING THE MILITARY COMMANDER, COULD
HAVE ATTRIBUTED SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE, IN ITS BEARING ON THE LOYALTIES
OF PERSONS OF JAPANESE DESCENT, TO THE MAINTENANCE BY JAPAN OF ITS
SYSTEM OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP.  CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF
JAPANESE ALIEN PARENTS, AND ESPECIALLY THOSE CHILDREN BORN BEFORE
DECEMBER 1, 1924, ARE UNDER MANY CIRCUMSTANCES DEEMED, BY JAPANESE LAW,
TO BE CITIZENS OF JAPAN.  FN7  NO OFFICIAL CENSUS OF THOSE WHOM JAPAN
REGARDS AS HAVING THUS RETAINED JAPANESE CITIZENSHIP IS AVAILABLE, BUT
THERE IS GROUND FOR THE BELIEF THAT THE NUMBER IS LARGE.  FN8 

THE LARGE NUMBER OF RESIDENT ALIEN JAPANESE, APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD
OF ALL JAPANESE INHABITANTS OF THE COUNTRY, ARE OF MATURE YEARS AND
OCCUPY POSITIONS OF INFLUENCE IN JAPANESE COMMUNITIES.  THE ASSOCIATION
OF INFLUENTIAL JAPANESE RESIDENTS WITH JAPANESE CONSULATES HAS BEEN
DEEMED A READY MEANS FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF PROPAGANDA AND FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT WITH THE
JAPANESE POPULATION IN THIS COUNTRY.  FN9 

AS A RESULT OF ALL THESE CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE LIFE OF THE
JAPANESE, BOTH ALIENS AND CITIZENS, IN THE PACIFIC COAST AREA, THERE
HAS BEEN RELATIVELY LITTLE SOCIAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THEM AND THE
WHITE POPULATION.  THE RESTRICTIONS, BOTH PRACTICAL AND LEGAL,
AFFECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO PERSONS OF
JAPANESE EXTRACTION RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES, HAVE BEEN SOURCES OF
IRRITATION AND MAY WELL HAVE TENDED TO INCREASE THEIR ISOLATION, AND IN
MANY INSTANCES THEIR ATTACHMENTS TO JAPAN AND ITS INSTITUTIONS. 

VIEWING THESE DATA IN ALL THEIR ASPECTS, CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE
COULD REASONABLY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THESE CONDITIONS HAVE ENCOURAGED
THE CONTINUED ATTACHMENT OF MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP TO JAPAN AND JAPANESE
INSTITUTIONS.  THESE ARE ONLY SOME OF THE MANY CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
THOSE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE COULD
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE DANGER OF
ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE, IN THE EVENT OF INVASION OR AIR RAID ATTACK. 
THE EXTENT OF THAT DANGER COULD BE DEFINITELY KNOWN ONLY AFTER THE
EVENT AND AFTER IT WAS TOO LATE TO MEET IT.  WHATEVER VIEWS WE MAY
ENTERTAIN REGARDING THE LOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY OF THE CITIZENS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY, WE CANNOT REJECT AS UNFOUNDED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
MILITARY AUTHORITIES AND OF CONGRESS THAT THERE WERE DISLOYAL MEMBERS
OF THAT POPULATION, WHOSE NUMBER AND STRENGTH COULD NOT BE PRECISELY
AND QUICKLY ASCERTAINED.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE WAR-MAKING BRANCHES OF
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT IN A CRITICAL
HOUR SUCH PERSONS COULD NOT READILY BE ISOLATED AND SEPARATELY DEALT
WITH, AND CONSTITUTED A MENACE TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SAFETY,
WHICH DEMANDED THAT PROMPT AND ADEQUATE MEASURES BE TAKEN TO GUARD
AGAINST IT. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT DENY THAT, GIVEN THE DANGER, A CURFEW WAS AN
APPROPRIATE MEASURE AGAINST SABOTAGE.  IT IS AN OBVIOUS PROTECTION
AGAINST THE PERPETRATION OF SABOTAGE MOST READILY COMMITTED DURING THE
HOURS OF DARKNESS.  IF IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWER
ITS VALIDITY IS NOT IMPAIRED BECAUSE IT HAS RESTRICTED THE CITIZEN'S
LIBERTY.  LIKE EVERY MILITARY CONTROL OF THE POPULATION OF A DANGEROUS
ZONE IN WAR TIME, IT NECESSARILY INVOLVES SOME INFRINGEMENT OF
INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, JUST AS DOES THE POLICE ESTABLISHMENT OF FIRE LINES
DURING A FIRE, OR THE CONFINEMENT OF PEOPLE TO THEIR HOUSES DURING AN
AIR RAID ALARM - NEITHER OF WHICH COULD BE THOUGHT TO BE AN
INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  LIKE THEM, THE VALIDITY OF THE
RESTRAINTS OF THE CURFEW ORDER DEPENDS ON ALL THE CONDITIONS WHICH
OBTAIN AT THE TIME THE CURFEW IS IMPOSED AND WHICH SUPPORT THE ORDER
IMPOSING IT. 

BUT APPELLANT INSISTS THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER IS INAPPROPRIATE
AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST CITIZENS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT CONTAINS NO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND IT RESTRAINS ONLY
SUCH DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS AS AMOUNTS TO A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS.  DETROIT BANK V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 329, 337-38, AND
CASES CITED.  CONGRESS MAY HIT AT A PARTICULAR DANGER WHERE IT IS SEEN,
WITHOUT PROVIDING FOR OTHERS WHICH ARE NOT SO EVIDENT OR SO URGENT. 
KEOKEE COKE CO. V. TAYLOR, 234 U.S. 224, 227. 

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CITIZENS SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR ANCESTRY ARE BY
THEIR VERY NATURE ODIOUS TO A FREE PEOPLE WHOSE INSTITUTIONS ARE
FOUNDED UPON THE DOCTRINE OF EQUALITY.  FOR THAT REASON, LEGISLATIVE
CLASSIFICATION OR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE ALONE HAS OFTEN BEEN
HELD TO BE A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION.  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S.
356; YU CONG ENG V. TRINIDAD, 271 U.S. 500; HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S.
400.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS WOULD BE CONTROLLING HERE
WERE IT NOT FOR THE FACT THAT THE DANGER OF ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE, IN
TIME OF WAR AND OF THREATENED INVASION, CALLS UPON THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES TO SCRUTINIZE EVERY RELEVANT FACT BEARING ON THE LOYALTY OF
POPULATIONS IN THE DANGER AREAS.  BECAUSE RACIAL DISCRIMINATIONS ARE IN
MOST CIRCUMSTANCES IRRELEVANT AND THEREFORE PROHIBITED, IT BY NO MEANS
FOLLOWS THAT, IN DEALING WITH THE PERILS OF WAR, CONGRESS AND THE
EXECUTIVE ARE WHOLLY PRECLUDED FROM TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THOSE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO MEASURES FOR OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE
AND FOR THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE WAR, AND WHICH MAY IN FACT
PLACE CITIZENS OF ONE ANCESTRY IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY FROM OTHERS. 
"WE MUST NEVER FORGET, THAT IT IS A CONSTITUTION WE ARE EXPOUNDING," "A
CONSTITUTION INTENDED TO ENDURE FOR AGES TO COME, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, TO
BE ADAPTED TO THE VARIOUS CRISES OF HUMAN AFFAIRS."  MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 407, 415.  THE ADOPTION BY GOVERNMENT, IN THE
CRISIS OF WAR AND OF THREATENED INVASION, OF MEASURES FOR THE PUBLIC
SAFETY, BASED UPON THE RECOGNITION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
INDICATE THAT A GROUP OF ONE NATIONAL EXTRACTION MAY MENACE THAT SAFETY
MORE THAN OTHERS, IS NOT WHOLLY BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND IS NOT TO BE CONDEMNED MERELY BECAUSE IN OTHER AND IN MOST
CIRCUMSTANCES RACIAL DISTINCTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT.  CF. CLARKE V.
DECKEBACH, 274 U.S. 392, AND CASES CITED. 

HERE THE AIM OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE WAS THE PROTECTION AGAINST
SABOTAGE OF WAR MATERIALS AND UTILITIES IN AREAS THOUGHT TO BE IN
DANGER OF JAPANASE INVASION AND AIR ATTACK.  WE HAVE STATED IN DETAIL
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WITH RESPECT TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS OF
JAPANESE ANCESTRY RESIDING ON THE PACIFIC COAST WHICH SUPPORT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE WAR-WAGING BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT SOME
RESTRICTIVE MEASURE WAS URGENT.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THESE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDERED IN THE PARTICULAR WAR SETTING, COULD AFFORD
NO GROUND FOR DIFFERENTIATING CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY FROM OTHER
GROUPS IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE FACT ALONE THAT ATTACK ON OUR SHORES
WAS THREATENED BY JAPAN RATHER THAN ANOTHER ENEMY POWER SET THESE
CITIZENS APART FROM OTHERS WHO HAVE NO PARTICULAR ASSOCIATIONS WITH
JAPAN. 

OUR INVESTIGATION HERE DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE INQUIRY WHETHER, IN THE
LIGHT OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES PRECEDING AND ATTENDING THEIR
PROMULGATION, THE CHALLENGED ORDERS AND STATUTE AFFORDED A REASONABLE
BASIS FOR THE ACTION TAKEN IN IMPOSING THE CURFEW.  WE CANNOT CLOSE OUR
EYES TO THE FACT, DEMONSTRATED BY EXPERIENCE, THAT IN TIME OF WAR
RESIDENTS HAVING ETHNIC AFFILIATIONS WITH AN INVADING ENEMY MAY BE A
GREATER SOURCE OF DANGER THAN THOSE OF A DIFFERENT ANCESTRY.  NOR CAN
WE DENY THAT CONGRESS, AND THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES ACTING WITH ITS
AUTHORIZATION, HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO APPRAISE THE DANGER IN THE
LIGHT OF FACTS OF PUBLIC NOTORIETY.  WE NEED NOT NOW ATTEMPT TO DEFINE
THE ULTIMATE BOUNDARIES OF THE WAR POWER.  WE DECIDE ONLY THE ISSUE AS
WE HAVE DEFINED IT - WE DECIDE ONLY THAT THE CURFEW ORDER AS APPLIED,
AND AT THE TIME IT WAS APPLIED, WAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WAR
POWER.  IN THIS CASE IT IS ENOUGH THAT CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AFFORDED A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE DECISION WHICH THEY
MADE.  WHETHER WE WOULD HAVE MADE IT IS IRRELEVANT. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID ALSO DISPOSES OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE CURFEW
ORDER INVOLVED AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION BY CONGRESS OF ITS LEGISLATIVE
POWER.  THE MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT ALL LEGISLATIVE POWER
GRANTED "SHALL BE VESTED IN CONGRESS" HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT, EVEN IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL AFFAIRS, TO PRECLUDE CONGRESS FROM
RESORTING TO THE AID OF EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN
DETERMINING BY FINDINGS WHETHER THE FACTS ARE SUCH AS TO CALL FOR THE
APPLICATION OF PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS OR DEFINITIONS
OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY. 

THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066, AND THE STANDARD WHICH THE
PRESIDENT APPROVED FOR THE ORDERS AUTHORIZED TO BE PROMULGATED BY THE
MILITARY COMMANDER - AS DISCLOSED BY THE PREAMBLE OF THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER - WAS THE PROTECTION OF OUR WAR RESOURCES AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND
SABOTAGE.  PUBLIC PROCLAMATIONS NOS. 1 AND 2 BY GENERAL DEWITT, CONTAIN
FINDINGS THAT THE MILITARY AREAS CREATED AND THE MEASURES TO BE
PRESCRIBED FOR THEM WERE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH SAFEGUARDS AGAINST
ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE.  BOTH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND THE PROCLAMATIONS
WERE BEFORE CONGRESS WHEN THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORIZED
ORDERS TO BE PROMULGATED BY THE MILITARY COMMANDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE
DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE ORDER, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FINDINGS IN
THE PROCLAMATIONS ESTABLISH THAT SUCH WAS THEIR PURPOSE, BOTH HAVE BEEN
APPROVED BY CONGRESS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE ACT DOES NOT IN TERMS ESTABLISH A PARTICULAR
STANDARD TO WHICH ORDERS OF THE MILITARY COMMANDER ARE TO CONFORM, OR
REQUIRE FINDINGS TO BE MADE AS A PREREQUISITE TO ANY ORDER.  BUT THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE PROCLAMATIONS AND THE STATUTE ARE NOT TO BE READ
IN ISOLATION FROM EACH OTHER.  THEY WERE PARTS OF A SINGLE PROGRAM AND
MUST BE JUDGED AS SUCH.  THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, WAS AN ADOPTION BY
CONGRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER AND OF THE PROCLAMATIONS.  THE
PROCLAMATIONS THEMSELVES FOLLOWED A STANDARD AUTHORIZED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER - THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING MILITARY RESOURCES IN THE
DESIGNATED AREAS AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE.  AND BY THE ACT,
CONGRESS GAVE ITS APPROVAL TO THAT STANDARD.  WE HAVE NO NEED TO
CONSIDER NOW THE VALIDITY OF ACTION IF TAKEN BY THE MILITARY COMMANDER
WITHOUT CONFORMING TO THIS STANDARD APPROVED BY CONGRESS, OR THE
VALIDITY OF ORDERS MADE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF FINDINGS SHOWING THAT
THEY DO SO CONFORM.  HERE THE FINDINGS OF DANGER FROM ESPIONAGE AND
SABOTAGE, AND OF THE NECESSITY OF THE CURFEW ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST
THEM, HAVE BEEN DULY MADE.  GENERAL DEWITT'S PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 3,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE CURFEW, MERELY PRESCRIBED REGULATIONS OF THE TYPE
AND IN THE MANNER WHICH PUBLIC PROCLAMATIONS NOS. 1 AND 2 HAD ANNOUNCED
WOULD BE PRESCRIBED AT A FUTURE DATE, AND WAS THUS FOUNDED ON THE
FINDINGS OF PROCLAMATIONS NOS. 1 AND 2. 

THE MILITARY COMMANDER'S APPRAISAL OF FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE
AUTHORIZED STANDARD, AND THE INFERENCES WHICH HE DREW FROM THOSE FACTS,
INVOLVED THE EXERCISE OF HIS INFORMED JUDGMENT.  BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN,
THOSE FACTS, AND THE INFERENCES WHICH COULD BE RATIONALLY DRAWN FROM
THEM, SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT OF THE MILITARY COMMANDER, THAT THE DANGER
OF ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE TO OUR MILITARY RESOURCES WAS IMMINENT, AND
THAT THE CURFEW ORDER WAS AN APPROPRIATE MEASURE TO MEET IT. 

WHERE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE STANDARD SET UP FOR THE GUIDANCE
OF THE MILITARY COMMANDER, AND THE ACTION TAKEN AND THE REASONS FOR IT,
ARE IN FACT RECORDED IN THE MILITARY ORDERS, SO THAT CONGRESS, THE
COURTS AND THE PUBLIC ARE ASSURED THAT THE ORDERS, IN THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COMMANDER, CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND
CONGRESS, THERE IS NO FAILURE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTION.  OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 142-46, AND
CASES CITED.  THE ESSENTIALS OF THAT FUNCTION ARE THE DETERMINATION BY
CONGRESS OF THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND ITS APPROVAL OF A RULE OF
CONDUCT TO CARRY THAT POLICY INTO EXECUTION.  THE VERY NECESSITIES
WHICH ATTEND THE CONDUCT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS IN TIME OF WAR IN THIS
INSTANCE AS IN MANY OTHERS PRECLUDE CONGRESS FROM HOLDING COMMITTEE
MEETINGS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS DANGER, BEFORE IT ENACTS
LEGISLATION TO COMBAT THE DANGER. 

THE CONSTITUTION AS A CONTINUOUSLY OPERATING CHARTER OF GOVERNMENT
DOES NOT DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE OR THE IMPRACTICAL.  THE ESSENTIALS OF
THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION ARE PRESERVED WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZES A
STATUTORY COMMAND TO BECOME OPERATIVE, UPON ASCERTAINMENT OF A BASIC
CONCLUSION OF FACT BY A DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
CF. THE AURORA, 7 CRANCH 382; UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272
U.S. 1, 12.  THE PRESENT STATUTE, WHICH AUTHORIZED CURFEW ORDERS TO BE
MADE PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9066 FOR THE PROTECTION OF WAR
RESOURCES FROM ESPIONAGE AND SABOTAGE, SATISFIES THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THE BASIC FACTS, DETERMINED BY THE MILITARY
COMMANDER IN THE LIGHT OF KNOWLEDGE THEN AVAILABLE, WERE WHETHER THAT
DANGER EXISTED AND WHETHER A CURFEW ORDER WAS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF
MINIMIZING THE DANGER.  SINCE HIS FINDINGS TO THAT EFFECT WERE, AS WE
HAVE SAID, NOT WITHOUT ADEQUATE SUPPORT, THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION WAS
PERFORMED AND THE SANCTION OF THE STATUTE ATTACHED TO VIOLATIONS OF THE
CURFEW ORDER.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR TO WHAT EXTENT
SUCH FINDINGS WOULD SUPPORT ORDERS DIFFERING FROM THE CURFEW ORDER. 
THE CONVICTION UNDER THE SECOND COUNT IS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL
INFIRMITY.  HENCE WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO REVIEW THE CONVICTION ON THE
FIRST COUNT SINCE, AS ALREADY STATED, THE SENTENCES ON THE TWO COUNTS
ARE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY AND CONVICTION ON THE SECOND IS SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THE SENTENCE.  FOR THIS REASON ALSO IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
CONSIDER THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER TO
REPORT AT THE CIVILIAN CONTROL STATION DID NOT NECESSARILY ENTAIL
CONFINEMENT IN A RELOCATION CENTER.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  STATE DISTRIBUTION OF WAR SUPPLY AND FACILITY CONTRACTS - JUNE
1940 THROUGH DECEMBER 1941(ISSUED BY OFFICE OF PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT,
BUREAU OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS, JANUARY 18, 1942); IBID. -
CUMULATIVE THROUGH FEBRUARY 1943(ISSUED BY WAR PRODUCTION BOARD,
STATISTICS DIVISION, APRIL 3, 1943). 

FN2  SEE "ATTACK UPON PEARL HARBOR BY JAPANESE ARMED FORCES," REPORT
OF THE COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT, DATED JANUARY 23, 1942,
S. DOC. NO. 159, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 12-13. 

FN3  SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR 1940, POPULATION,
SECOND SERIES, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION (DEPT. OF COMMERCE):
CALIFORNIA, PP. 10, 61; OREGON, PP. 10, 50; WASHINGTON, PP. 10, 52. 
SEE ALSO H.R. REP. NO. 2124, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 91-100. 

FN4  FEDERAL LEGISLATION HAS DENIED TO THE JAPANESE CITIZENSHIP BY
NATURALIZATION (R.S. SEC. 2169; 8 U.S.C. SEC. 703; SEE OZAWA V. UNITED
STATES, 260 U.S. 178), AND THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924 EXCLUDED THEM
FROM ADMISSION INTO THE UNITED STATES.  43 STAT. 161, 8 U.S.C. SEC.
213.  STATE LEGISLATION HAS DENIED TO ALIEN JAPANESE THE PRIVILEGE OF
OWNING LAND.  1 CALIFORNIA GENERAL LAWS (DEERING, 1931), ACT 261; 5
OREGON COMP. LAWS ANN. (1940), SEC. 61-102; 11 WASHINGTON REV. STAT.
ANN. (REMINGTON, 1933), SECS. 10581-10582.  IT HAS ALSO SOUGHT TO
PROHIBIT INTERMARRIAGE OF PERSONS OF JAPANESE RACE WITH CAUCASIANS. 
MONTANA REV. CODES (1935), SEC. 5702.  PERSONS OF JAPANESE DESCENT HAVE
OFTEN BEEN UNABLE TO SECURE PROFESSIONAL OR SKILLED EMPLOYMENT EXCEPT
IN ASSOCIATION WITH OTHERS OF THAT DESCENT, AND SUFFICIENT EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES OF THIS CHARACTER HAVE NOT BEEN AVAILABLE.  MEARS,
RESIDENT ORIENTALS ON THE AMERICAN PACIFIC COAST (1927), PP. 188, 198
209, 402-03; H.R. REP. NO. 2124, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 101-38. 

FN5  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING NATIONAL
DEFENSE MIGRATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP.
11702, 11393-94, 11348. 

FN6  H.R. REP. NO. 1911, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 16. 

FN7  NATIONALITY LAW OF JAPAN, ARTICLE 1 AND ARTICLE 20, SEC. 3, AND
REGULATIONS (ORDINANCE NO. 26) OF NOVEMBER 17, 1924,  - ALL PRINTED IN
FLOURNOY AND HUDSON, NATIONALITY LAWS (1929), PP. 382, 384-87.  SEE
ALSO FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1924, VOL. 2, PP. 411-13. 

FN8  STATISTICS RELEASED IN 1927 BY THE CONSUL GENERAL OF JAPAN AT
SAN FRANCISCO ASSERTED THAT OVER 51,000 OF THE APPROXIMATELY 63,000
AMERICAN-BORN PERSONS OF JAPANESE PARENTAGE THEN IN THE WESTERN PART OF
THE UNITED STATES HELD JAPANESE CITIZENSHIP.  MEARS, RESIDENT ORIENTALS
ON THE AMERICAN PACIFIC COAST, PP. 107-08, 429.  A CENSUS CONDUCTED
UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT IN 1930 ASSERTED THAT
APPROXIMATELY 47% OF AMERICAN-BORN PERSONS OF JAPANESE PARENTAGE IN
CALIFORNIA HELD DUAL CITIZENSHIP.  STRONG, THE SECOND-GENERATION
JAPANESE PROBLEM (1934), P. 142. 

FN9  H.R. REP. NO. 1911, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 17. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

WHILE I CONCUR IN THE RESULT AND AGREE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE OPINION
OF THE COURT, I WISH TO ADD A FEW WORDS TO INDICATE WHAT FOR ME IS THE
NARROW GROUND OF DECISION. 

AFTER THE DISASTROUS BOMBING OF PEARL HARBOR THE MILITARY HAD A GRAVE
PROBLEM ON ITS HANDS.  THE THREAT OF JAPANESE INVASION OF THE WEST
COAST WAS NOT FANCIFUL BUT REAL.  THE PRESENCE OF MANY THOUSANDS OF
ALIENS AND CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY IN OR NEAR TO THE KEY POINTS
ALONG THAT COAST LINE AROUSED SPECIAL CONCERN IN THOSE CHARGED WITH THE
DEFENSE OF THE COUNTRY.  THEY BELIEVED THAT NOT ONLY AMONG ALIENS BUT
ALSO AMONG CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY THERE WERE THOSE WHO WOULD
GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE JAPANESE INVADER AND ACT AS A FIFTH COLUMN
BEFORE AND DURING AN INVASION.  FN1 IF THE MILITARY WERE RIGHT IN THEIR
BELIEF THAT AMONG CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY THERE WAS AN ACTUAL OR
INCIPIENT FIFTH COLUMN, WE WERE INDEED FACED WITH THE IMMINENT THREAT
OF A DIRE EMERGENCY.  WE MUST CREDIT THE MILITARY WITH AS MUCH GOOD
FAITH IN THAT BELIEF AS WE WOULD ANY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIAL ACTING
PURSUANT TO HIS DUTIES.  WE CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW ALL THE FACTS WHICH
LAY BEHIND THAT DECISION.  SOME OF THEM MAY HAVE BEEN AS INTANGIBLE AND
AS IMPONDERABLE AS THE FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE PERSONAL OR BUSINESS
DECISIONS IN DAILY LIFE.  THE POINT IS THAT WE CANNOT SIT IN JUDGMENT
ON THE MILITARY REQUIREMENTS OF THAT HOUR.  WHERE THE ORDERS UNDER THE
PRESENT ACT HAVE SOME RELATION TO "PROTECTION AGAINST ESPIONAGE AND
AGAINST SABOTAGE," OUR TASK IS AT AN END. 

MUCH OF THE ARGUMENT ASSUMES THAT AS A MATTER OF POLICY IT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN WISER FOR THE MILITARY TO HAVE DEALT WITH THESE PEOPLE ON AN
INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND THROUGH THE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION AND HEARINGS
SEPARATED THOSE WHO WERE LOYAL FROM THOSE WHO WERE NOT.  BUT THE WISDOM
OR EXPEDIENCY OF THE DECISION WHICH WAS MADE IS NOT FOR US TO REVIEW. 
NOR ARE WE WARRANTED WHERE NATIONAL SURVIVAL IS AT STAKE IN INSISTING
THAT THOSE ORDERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ANYONE WITHOUT SOME
EVIDENCE OF HIS DISLOYALTY.  THE ORDERS AS APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER
ARE NOT TO BE TESTED BY THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE.  PEACETIME
PROCEDURES DO NOT NECESSARILY FIT WARTIME NEEDS.  IT IS SAID THAT IF
CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY WERE GENERALLY DISLOYAL, TREATMENT ON A
GROUP BASIS MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED.  BUT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN POWER
WHEN THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO ARE FINALLY SHOWN TO BE DISLOYAL OR
SUSPECT IS REDUCED TO A SMALL PER CENT. THE SORTING PROCESS MIGHT
INDEED BE AS TIME-CONSUMING WHETHER THOSE WHO WERE DISLOYAL OR SUSPECT
CONSTITUTED NINE OR NINETY-NINE PER CENT.  AND THE PINCH OF THE ORDER
ON THE LOYAL CITIZENS WOULD BE AS GREAT IN ANY CASE.  BUT WHERE THE
PERIL IS GREAT AND THE TIME IS SHORT, TEMPORARY TREATMENT ON A GROUP
BASIS MAY BE THE ONLY PRACTICABLE EXPEDIENT WHATEVER THE ULTIMATE
PERCENTAGE OF THOSE WHO ARE DETAINED FOR CAUSE.  NOR SHOULD THE
MILITARY BE REQUIRED TO WAIT UNTIL ESPIONAGE OR SABOTAGE BECOMES
EFFECTIVE BEFORE IT MOVES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT WE MIGHT NOW SAY THAT THERE WAS AMPLE TIME TO HANDLE
THE PROBLEM ON THE INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN THE GROUP BASIS.  BUT
MILITARY DECISIONS MUST BE MADE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT.  THE
ORDERS MUST BE JUDGED AS OF THE DATE WHEN THE DECISION TO ISSUE THEM
WAS MADE.  TO SAY THAT THE MILITARY IN SUCH CASES SHOULD TAKE THE TIME
TO WEED OUT THE LOYAL FROM THE OTHERS WOULD BE TO ASSUME THAT THE
NATION COULD AFFORD TO HAVE THEM TAKE THE TIME TO DO IT.  BUT AS THE
OPINION OF THE COURT MAKES CLEAR, SPEED AND DISPATCH MAY BE OF THE
ESSENCE.  CERTAINLY WE CANNOT SAY THAT THOSE CHARGED WITH THE DEFENSE
OF THE NATION SHOULD HAVE PROCRASTINATED UNTIL INVESTIGATIONS AND
HEARINGS WERE COMPLETED.  AT THAT TIME FURTHER DELAY MIGHT INDEED HAVE
SEEMED TO BE WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH MILITARY RESPONSIBILITIES. 

SINCE WE CANNOT OVERRIDE THE MILITARY JUDGMENT WHICH LAY BEHIND THESE
ORDERS, IT SEEMS TO ME NECESSARY TO CONCEDE THAT THE ARMY HAD THE POWER
TO DEAL TEMPORARILY WITH THESE PEOPLE ON A GROUP BASIS.  PETITIONER
THEREFORE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISOBEYING THE ORDERS. 

BUT I THINK IT IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A
PROBLEM OF LOYALTY NOT ASSIMILATION.  LOYALTY IS A MATTER OF MIND AND
OF HEART NOT OF RACE.  THAT INDEED IS THE HISTORY OF AMERICA. 
MOREOVER, GUILT IS PERSONAL UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  DETENTION
FOR REASONABLE CAUSE IS ONE THING.  DETENTION ON ACCOUNT OF ANCESTRY IS
ANOTHER. 

IN THIS CASE THE PETITIONER TENDERED BY A PLEA IN ABATEMENT THE
QUESTION OF HIS LOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES.  I THINK THAT PLEA WAS
PROPERLY STRICKEN; MILITARY MEASURES OF DEFENSE MIGHT BE PARALYZED IF
IT WERE NECESSARY TO TRY OUT THAT ISSUE PRELIMINARILY.  BUT A DENIAL OF
THAT OPPORTUNITY IN THIS CASE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT PETITIONER
COULD NOT HAVE HAD A HEARING ON THAT ISSUE IN SOME APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDING.  OBEDIENCE TO THE MILITARY ORDERS IS ONE THING.  WHETHER AN
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF A GROUP MUST BE AFFORDED AT SOME STAGE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT, BEING LOYAL, HE SHOULD BE RECLASSIFIED IS A
WHOLLY DIFFERENT QUESTION. 

THERE ARE OTHER INSTANCES IN THE LAW WHERE ONE MUST OBEY AN ORDER
BEFORE HE CAN ATTACK AS ERRONEOUS THE CLASSIFICATION IN WHICH HE HAS
BEEN PLACED.  THUS IT IS COMMONLY HELD THAT ONE WHO IS A CONSCIENTIOUS
OBJECTOR HAS NO PRIVILEGE TO DEFY THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT AND TO
REFUSE OR FAIL TO BE INDUCTED.  HE MUST SUBMIT TO THE LAW.  BUT THAT
LINE OF AUTHORITY HOLDS THAT AFTER INDUCTION HE MAY OBTAIN THROUGH
HABEAS CORPUS A HEARING ON THE LEGALITY OF HIS CLASSIFICATION BY THE
DRAFT BOARD.  FN2  WHETHER IN THE PRESENT SITUATION THAT REMEDY WOULD
BE AVAILABLE IS ONE OF THE LARGE AND IMPORTANT ISSUES RESERVED BY THE
PRESENT DECISION.  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO RELIEVE AGAINST UNWARRANTED
APPLICATIONS OF THESE ORDERS.  WHETHER IN THAT EVENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDY WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE AVAILABLE OR WOULD HAVE TO BE FIRST
EXHAUSTED IS ALSO RESERVED.  THE SCOPE OF ANY RELIEF WHICH MIGHT BE
AFFORDED - WHETHER THE LIBERTIES OF AN APPLICANT COULD BE RESTORED ONLY
OUTSIDE THE AREAS IN QUESTION - IS LIKEWISE A DISTINCT ISSUE.  BUT IF
IT WERE PLAIN THAT NO MACHINERY WAS AVAILABLE WHEREBY THE INDIVIDUAL
COULD DEMONSTRATE HIS LOYALTY AS A CITIZEN IN ORDER TO BE RECLASSIFIED,
QUESTIONS OF A MORE SERIOUS CHARACTER WOULD BE PRESENTED.  THE UNITED
STATES, HOWEVER, TAKES NO SUCH POSITION.  WE NEED GO NO FURTHER HERE
THAN TO DENY THE INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO DEFY THE LAW.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT HE CANNOT TEST IN THAT WAY THE VALIDITY OF THE
ORDERS AS APPLIED TO HIM. 

FN1  JUDGE FEE STATED IN UNITED STATES V. YASUI, 48 F.SUPP.  40, 44
45, THE COMPANION CASE TO THE PRESENT ONE, "THE AREAS AND ZONES
OUTLINED IN THE PROCLAMATIONS BECAME A THEATRE OF OPERATIONS, SUBJECTED
IN LOCALITIES TO ATTACK AND ALL THREATENED DURING THIS PERIOD WITH A
FULL SCALE INVASION.  THE DANGER AT THE TIME THIS PROSECUTION WAS
INSTITUTED WAS IMMINENT AND IMMEDIATE.  THE DIFFICULTY OF CONTROLLING
MEMBERS OF AN ALIEN RACE, MANY OF WHOM, ALTHOUGH CITIZENS, WERE
DISLOYAL WITH OPPORTUNITIES OF SABOTAGE AND ESPIONAGE, WITH INVASION
IMMINENT, PRESENTED A PROBLEM REQUIRING FOR SOLUTION ABILITY AND
DEVOTION OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." 

FN2  SEE UNITED STATES V. POWELL, 38 F.SUPP.  183; APPLICATION OF
GREENBERG, 39 F.SUPP.  13; UNITED STATES V. BAIRD, 39 F.SUPP.  392;
MICHELI V. PAULLIN, 45 F.SUPP.  687; UNITED STATES V. EMBREY, 46
F.SUPP.  916; IN RE ROGERS, 47 F.SUPP.  265; EX PARTE STEWART, 47
F.SUPP.  410; UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 48 F.SUPP.  842; EX PARTE ROBERT,
49 F.SUPP.  131; UNITED STATES V. GRIEME, 128 F.2D 811; FLETCHER V.
UNITED STATES, 129 F.2D 262; DRUMHELLER V. BERKS COUNTY LOCAL BOARD NO.
1, 130 F.2D 610, 612.  FOR CASES ARISING UNDER THE SELECTIVE DRAFT ACT
OF 1917, SEE UNITED STATES V. KINKEAD, 250 F. 692; EX PARTE MCDONALD,
253 F. 99; EX PARTE COHEN, 254 F. 711; ARBITMAN V. WOODSIDE, 258 F.
441; EX PARTE THIERET, 268 F. 472, 476.  AND SEE 10 GEO. WASH. L. REV.
827. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING: 

IT IS NOT TO BE DOUBTED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE MILITARY
COMMANDER IN PURSUANCE OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON HIM WAS TAKEN IN
COMPLETE GOOD FAITH AND IN THE FIRM CONVICTION THAT IT WAS REQUIRED BY
CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND MILITARY SECURITY.  NEITHER IS IT
DOUBTED THAT THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE WORKING TOGETHER MAY
GENERALLY EMPLOY SUCH MEASURES AS ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND TO WAGE WAR "WITH ALL THE FORCE
NECESSARY TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE."  UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S.
605, 622.  THIS INCLUDES AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE MEASURES OF CONTROL OVER
PERSONS AND PROPERTY WHICH WOULD NOT IN ALL CASES BE PERMISSIBLE IN
NORMAL TIMES.  FN1 

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, HOWEVER, THAT THE BROAD GUARANTIES OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTING ESSENTIAL
LIBERTIES ARE SUSPENDED BY THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF WAR.  IT
HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY STATED AND RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT THAT THE WAR
POWER, LIKE THE OTHER GREAT SUBSTANTIVE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, IS
SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE EX PARTE MILLIGAN,
4 WALL.  2; HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. 146, 156;
HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 426.  WE GIVE
GREAT DEFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONGRESS AND OF THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES AS TO WHAT IS NECESSARY IN THE EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION OF THE
WAR, BUT WE CAN NEVER FORGET THAT THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES
WHICH IT IS OUR DUTY TO UPHOLD.  IT WOULD NOT BE SUPPOSED, FOR
INSTANCE, THAT PUBLIC ELECTIONS COULD BE SUSPENDED OR THAT THE
PREROGATIVES OF THE COURTS COULD BE SET ASIDE, OR THAT PERSONS NOT
CHARGED WITH OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR (SEE EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317
U.S. 1) COULD BE DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE BENEFITS OF
TRIAL BY JURY, IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW. 
CF. EX PARTE MILLIGAN, SUPRA. 

DISTINCTIONS BASED ON COLOR AND ANCESTRY ARE UTTERLY INCONSISTENT
WITH OUR TRADITIONS AND IDEALS.  THEY ARE AT VARIANCE WITH THE
PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH WE ARE NOW WAGING WAR.  WE CANNOT CLOSE OUR EYES
TO THE FACT THAT FOR CENTURIES THE OLD WORLD HAS BEEN TORN BY RACIAL
AND RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS AND HAS SUFFERED THE WORST KIND OF ANGUISH
BECAUSE OF INEQUALITY OF TREATMENT FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS.  THERE WAS ONE
LAW FOR ONE AND A DIFFERENT LAW FOR ANOTHER.  NOTHING IS WRITTEN MORE
FIRMLY INTO OUR LAW THAN THE COMPACT OF THE PLYMOUTH VOYAGERS TO HAVE
JUST AND EQUAL LAWS.  TO SAY THAT ANY GROUP CANNOT BE ASSIMILATED IS TO
ADMIT THAT THE GREAT AMERICAN EXPERIMENT HAS FAILED, THAT OUR WAY OF
LIFE HAS FAILED WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE NORMAL ATTACHMENT OF CERTAIN
GROUPS TO THE LANDS OF THEIR FOREFATHERS.  AS A NATION WE EMBRACE MANY
GROUPS, SOME OF THEM AMONG THE OLDEST SETTLEMENTS IN OUR MIDST, WHICH
HAVE ISOLATED THEMSELVES FOR RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL REASONS.    TODAY
IS THE FIRST TIME, SO FAR AS I AM AWARE, THAT WE HAVE SUSTAINED A
SUBSTANTIAL RESTRICTION OF THE PERSONAL LIBERTY OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES BASED UPON THE ACCIDENT OF RACE OR ANCESTRY.  UNDER THE
CURFEW ORDER HERE CHALLENGED NO LESS THAN 70,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE
BEEN PLACED UNDER A SPECIAL BAN AND DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY BECAUSE
OF THEIR PARTICULAR RACIAL INHERITANCE.  IN THIS SENSE IT BEARS A
MELANCHOLY RESEMBLANCE TO THE TREATMENT ACCORDED TO MEMBERS OF THE
JEWISH RACE IN GERMANY AND IN OTHER PARTS OF EUROPE.  THE RESULT IS THE
CREATION IN THIS COUNTRY OF TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS FOR THE PURPOSES OF
A CRITICAL AND PERILOUS HOUR - TO SANCTION DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN
GROUPS OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS ON THE BASIS OF ANCESTRY.  IN MY
OPINION THIS GOES TO THE VERY BRINK OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER. 

EXCEPT UNDER CONDITIONS OF GREAT EMERGENCY A REGULATION OF THIS KIND
APPLICABLE SOLELY TO CITIZENS OF A PARTICULAR RACIAL EXTRACTION WOULD
NOT BE REGARDED AS IN ACCORD WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
CONTAINED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT
ATTEMPTS TO APPLY REGULATORY ACTION TO PARTICULAR GROUPS SOLELY ON THE
BASIS OF RACIAL DISTINCTION OR CLASSIFICATION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS PRESCRIBED BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS.  CF. YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 369; YU CONG ENG V.
TRINIDAD, 271 U.S. 500, 524-28.  SEE ALSO BOYD V. FRANKFORT, 117 KY.
199, 77 S.W. 669; OPINION OF THE JUSTICES, 207 MASS. 601, 94 N.E. 558. 
IT IS TRUE THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, UNLIKE THE FOURTEENTH, CONTAINS NO
GUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  CF. CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306
U.S. 1, 14.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT EVEN THE GUARANTY OF EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS ALLOWS A MEASURE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION.  IT BY NO
MEANS FOLLOWS, HOWEVER, THAT THERE MAY NOT BE DISCRIMINATION OF SUCH AN
INJURIOUS CHARACTER IN THE APPLICATION OF LAWS AS TO AMOUNT TO A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  FN2
I THINK THAT POINT IS DANGEROUSLY APPROACHED WHEN WE HAVE ONE LAW FOR
THE MAJORITY OF OUR CITIZENS AND ANOTHER FOR THOSE OF A PARTICULAR
RACIAL HERITAGE. 

IN VIEW, HOWEVER, OF THE CRITICAL MILITARY SITUATION WHICH PREVAILED
ON THE PACIFIC COAST AREA IN THE SPRING OF 1942, AND THE URGENT
NECESSITY OF TAKING PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE ACTION TO SECURE DEFENSE
INSTALLATIONS AND MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST THE RISK OF SABOTAGE AND
ESPIONAGE, THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO CONFORM
TO STANDARDS OF REGULATORY ACTION APPROPRIATE TO NORMAL TIMES.  BECAUSE
OF THE DAMAGE WROUGHT BY THE JAPANESE AT PEARL HARBOR AND THE
AVAILABILITY OF NEW WEAPONS AND NEW TECHNIQUES WITH GREATER CAPACITY
FOR SPEED AND DECEPTION IN OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS, THE IMMEDIATE
POSSIBILITY OF AN ATTEMPT AT INVASION SOMEWHERE ALONG THE PACIFIC COAST
HAD TO BE RECKONED WITH.  HOWEVER DESIRABLE SUCH A PROCEDURE MIGHT HAVE
BEEN, THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES COULD HAVE REASONABLY CONCLUDED AT THE
TIME THAT DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE LOYALTY AND DEPENDABILITY OF
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE LARGE AND WIDELY SCATTERED GROUP OF PERSONS
OF JAPANESE EXTRACTION ON THE WEST COAST COULD NOT BE MADE WITHOUT
DELAY THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES.  MODERN WAR DOES NOT
ALWAYS WAIT FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE
CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL AND APPROPRIATE UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS. 
ACCORDINGLY I THINK THAT THE MILITARY ARM, CONFRONTED WITH THE PERIL OF
IMMINENT ENEMY ATTACK AND ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE
CONGRESS, MADE AN ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT AT THE TIME THE CURFEW RESTRICTION
WAS IMPOSED.  WHETHER SUCH A RESTRICTION IS VALID TODAY IS ANOTHER
MATTER. 

IN VOTING FOR AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT I DO NOT WISH TO BE
UNDERSTOOD AS INTIMATING THAT THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES IN TIME OF WAR
ARE SUBJECT TO NO RESTRAINTS WHATSOEVER, OR THAT THEY ARE FREE TO
IMPOSE ANY RESTRICTIONS THEY MAY CHOOSE ON THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF
INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS OR GROUPS OF CITIZENS IN THOSE PLACES WHICH MAY BE
DESIGNATED AS "MILITARY AREAS."  WHILE THIS COURT SITS, IT HAS THE
INESCAPABLE DUTY OF SEEING THAT THE MANDATES OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE
OBEYED.  THAT DUTY EXISTS IN TIME OF WAR AS WELL AS IN TIME OF PEACE,
AND IN ITS PERFORMANCE WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT FEW INDEED HAVE BEEN THE
INVASIONS UPON ESSENTIAL LIBERTIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY
PLEAS OF URGENT NECESSITY ADVANCED IN GOOD FAITH BY RESPONSIBLE MEN. 
CF. MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS CONCURRING IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S.
357, 372. 

NOR DO I MEAN TO INTIMATE THAT CITIZENS OF A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP
WHOSE FREEDOM MAY BE CURTAILED WITHIN AN AREA THREATENED WITH ATTACK
SHOULD BE GENERALLY PREVENTED FROM LEAVING THE AREA AND GOING AT LARGE
IN OTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT IN DANGER OF ATTACK AND WHERE SPECIAL
PRECAUTIONS ARE NOT NEEDED.  THEIR STATUS AS CITIZENS, THOUGH SUBJECT
TO REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND MILITARY NECESSITY, SHOULD AT
ALL TIMES BE ACCORDED THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION AND RESPECT.  WHEN THE
DANGER IS PAST, THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON THEM SHOULD BE PROMPTLY
REMOVED AND THEIR FREEDOM OF ACTION FULLY RESTORED. 

FN1  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47; DEBS V. UNITED STATES,
249 U.S. 211; UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S. 289,
305; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 135; DAKOTA
CENTRAL TEL. CO. V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 163; HIGHLAND V. RUSSELL CAR
CO., 279 U.S. 253; SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366. 

FN2  FOR INSTANCE, IF PERSONS OF AN ACCUSED'S RACE WERE
SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM A JURY IN A FEDERAL COURT, ANY CONVICTION
UNDOUBTEDLY WOULD BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE GROUND COMMONLY STATED FOR SETTING
ASIDE CONVICTIONS SO OBTAINED IN STATE COURTS IS DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  CF. GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60,
WITH SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING: 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S OPINION, EXCEPT FOR THE SUGGESTION, IF THAT
IS INTENDED (AS TO WHICH I MAKE NO ASSERTION), THAT THE COURTS HAVE NO
POWER TO REVIEW ANY ACTION A MILITARY OFFICER MAY "IN HIS DISCRETION"
FIND IT NECESSARY TO TAKE WITH RESPECT TO CIVILIAN CITIZENS IN MILITARY
AREAS OR ZONES, ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT AN EMERGENCY HAS CREATED THE
CONDITIONS REQUIRING OR JUSTIFYING THE CREATION OF THE AREA OR ZONE AND
THE INSTITUTION OF SOME DEGREE OF MILITARY CONTROL SHORT OF SUSPENDING
HABEAS CORPUS.  GIVEN THE GENERATING CONDITIONS FOR EXERCISE OF
MILITARY AUTHORITY AND RECOGNIZING THE WIDE LATITUDE FOR PARTICULAR
APPLICATIONS THAT ORDINARILY CREATES, I DO NOT THINK IT IS NECESSARY IN
THIS CASE TO DECIDE THAT THERE IS NO ACTION A PERSON IN THE POSITION OF
GENERAL DEWITT HERE MAY TAKE, AND WHICH HE MAY REGARD AS NECESSARY TO
THE REGION'S OR THE COUNTRY'S SAFETY, WHICH WILL CALL JUDICIAL POWER
INTO PLAY.  THE OFFICER OF COURSE MUST HAVE WIDE DISCRETION AND ROOM
FOR ITS OPERATION.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THERE MAY NOT BE BOUNDS
BEYOND WHICH HE CANNOT GO AND, IF HE OVERSTEPS THEM, THAT THE COURTS
MAY NOT HAVE POWER TO PROTECT THE CIVILIAN CITIZEN.  BUT IN THIS CASE
THAT QUESTION NEED NOT BE FACED AND I MERELY ADD MY RESERVATION WITHOUT
INDICATION OF OPINION CONCERNING IT.
..END :






YASUI V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 115 


NO. 871.  ARGUED MAY 11, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 21, 1943.  - 48 F.SUPP. 
40, AFFIRMED. 


THE CONVICTION OF A PERSON OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY FOR VIOLATION OF A
CURFEW ORDER IS SUSTAINED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED
STATES, ANTE, P. 81; ALTHOUGH, FOR PURPOSES STATED IN THE OPINION, THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 117. 

YASUI V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CERTIFIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON
AN APPEAL TO THAT COURT FROM A CONVICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
VIOLATION OF A CURFEW ORDER.  THIS COURT DIRECTED THAT THE ENTIRE
RECORD BE CERTIFIED SO THAT THE CASE COULD BE DETERMINED AS IF BROUGHT
HERE BY APPEAL. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO HIRABAYASHI V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P.
81. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT, CERTIFYING TO US QUESTIONS OF LAW UPON WHICH IT DESIRES
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE.  SEC. 239 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346.  ACTING UNDER THAT SECTION WE
ORDERED THE ENTIRE RECORD TO BE CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT SO THAT WE
MIGHT PROCEED TO A DECISION, AS IF THE CASE HAD BEEN BROUGHT HERE BY
APPEAL. 

APPELLANT, AN AMERICAN-BORN PERSON OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY, WAS
CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF AN OFFENSE DEFINED BY THE ACT OF
MARCH 21, 1942.  56 STAT. 173.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED HIM WITH
VIOLATION, ON MARCH 28, 1942, OF A CURFEW ORDER MADE APPLICABLE TO
PORTLAND, OREGON, BY PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 3, ISSUED BY LT. GENERAL
J.L. DE.WITT ON MARCH 24, 1942.  7 FEDERAL REGISTER 2543.  THE VALIDITY
OF THE CURFEW WAS CONSIDERED IN THE HIRABAYASHI CASE, AND THIS CASE
PRESENTS THE SAME ISSUES AS THE CONVICTION ON COUNT 2 OF THE INDICTMENT
IN THAT CASE.  FROM THE EVIDENCE IT APPEARED THAT APPELLANT WAS BORN IN
OREGON IN 1916 OF ALIEN PARENTS; THAT WHEN HE WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD HE
SPENT A SUMMER IN JAPAN; THAT HE ATTENDED THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN OREGON,
AND ALSO, FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS, A JAPANESE LANGUAGE SCHOOL; THAT HE
LATER ATTENDED THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, FROM WHICH HE RECEIVED A.B.
AND LL.B. DEGREES; THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF OREGON, AND A
SECOND LIEUTENANT IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, INFANTRY RESERVE;
THAT HE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE JAPANESE CONSULATE IN CHICAGO, BUT HAD
RESIGNED ON DECEMBER 8, 1941, AND IMMEDIATELY OFFERED HIS SERVICES TO
THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES; THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED WITH AN AGENT OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THE ADVISABILITY OF TESTING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CURFEW; AND THAT WHEN HE VIOLATED THE CURFEW
ORDER HE REQUESTED THAT HE BE ARRESTED SO THAT HE COULD TEST ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 21, 1942, WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO AMERICAN CITIZENS, BUT HELD THAT
APPELLANT, BY REASON OF HIS COURSE OF CONDUCT, MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE
RENOUNCED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  48 F.SUPP.  40.  THE GOVERNMENT
DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION ON THAT GROUND, SINCE NO
SUCH ISSUE WAS TENDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT, ALTHOUGH APPELLANT TESTIFIED
AT THE TRIAL THAT HE HAD NOT RENOUNCED HIS CITIZENSHIP.  SINCE WE HOLD,
AS IN THE HIRABAYASHI CASE, THAT THE CURFEW ORDER WAS VALID AS APPLIED
TO CITIZENS, IT FOLLOWS THAT APPELLANT'S CITIZENSHIP WAS NOT RELEVANT
TO THE ISSUE TENDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CONVICTION MUST BE
SUSTAINED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE HIRABAYASHI CASE. 

BUT AS THE SENTENCE OF ONE YEAR'S IMPRISONMENT - THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED BY THE STATUTE - WAS IMPOSED AFTER THE FINDING THAT APPELLANT
WAS NOT A CITIZEN, AND AS THE GOVERNMENT STATES THAT IT HAS NOT AND
DOES NOT NOW CONTROVERT HIS CITIZENSHIP, THE CASE IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE
FOR RESENTENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE HUSTY V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 694, 703.  THE CONVICTION WILL BE SUSTAINED BUT
THE JUDGMENT WILL BE VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR RESENTENCE OF APPELLANT, AND TO AFFORD THAT COURT OPPORTUNITY
TO STRIKE ITS FINDINGS AS TO APPELLANT'S LOSS OF UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :

















SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118 


NO. 2.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1942.  REARGUED MARCH 12, 1943.  - DECIDED
JUNE 21, 1943.  - 119 F.2D 500, REVERSED. 


1.  ASSUMING THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD, A CERTIFICATE OF
CITIZENSHIP CAN BE SET ASIDE UNDER SEC. 15 OF THE NATURALIZATION ACT OF
1906 AS "ILLEGALLY PROCURED" BECAUSE THE FINDING BY THE NATURALIZATION
COURT THAT THE APPLICANT WAS ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION WAS ERRONEOUS, THE BURDEN IS UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE
THE ERROR BY CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; A MERE
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE WHICH LEAVES THE ISSUE IN DOUBT WILL NOT
SUFFICE.  P. 124. 

2.  IN CONSTRUING THE ACTS OF CONGRESS GOVERNING NATURALIZATION AND
DENATURALIZATION, GENERAL EXPRESSIONS SHOULD NOT BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO
CIRCUMSCRIBE LIBERTY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT.  P. 132. 

3.  THE GOVERNMENT SUED IN 1939 TO CANCEL A CERTIFICATE OF
CITIZENSHIP, GRANTED IN 1927, CHARGING THAT IT HAD BEEN "ILLEGALLY
PROCURED," IN THAT THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE NATURALIZATION AND
FOR FIVE YEARS PRECEDING WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION, BUT WAS IN FACT A MEMBER OF, AND AFFILIATED WITH, AND
BELIEVED IN AND SUPPORTED THE PRINCIPLES OF, CERTAIN COMMUNISTIC
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WERE OPPOSED TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS REVIEWED IN THE OPINION, FAILS TO
SHOW WITH THE REQUISITE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THAT DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  P. 135. 

(2)  ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT
NECESSARILY INCOMPATIBLE WITH A DESIRE TO HAVE IT AMENDED.  P. 137. 

(3)  UTTERANCES OF CERTAIN LEADERS OF THE PARTY ORGANIZATIONS IN
QUESTION, ADVOCATING FORCE AND VIOLENCE, ARE NOT IMPUTABLE TO THE
DEFENDANT.  P. 146. 

(4)  UNDER THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THE COURT CAN NOT
SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVED WITH THE REQUISITE CERTAINTY THAT THE
ATTITUDE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1927 TOWARDS
FORCE AND VIOLENCE WAS IN THE CATEGORY OF AGITATION AND EXHORTATION
CALLING FOR PRESENT VIOLENT ACTION WHICH CREATES A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER OF PUBLIC DISORDER OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE EVIL, RATHER THAN A MERE
DOCTRINAL JUSTIFICATION OR PREDICTION OF THE USE OF FORCE UNDER
HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS AT SOME INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME, NOT CALCULATED
OR INTENDED TO BE PRESENTLY ACTED UPON, BUT LEAVING OPPORTUNITY FOR
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CALM REASON.  P. 157. 

4.  THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER FINDINGS MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT
IN THIS CASE UPON ISSUES OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE COMPLAINT; IN A
DENATURALIZATION CASE, AS IN A CRIMINAL CASE, THE GOVERNMENT IS LIMITED
TO THE MATTERS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT.  P. 159. 

SCHNEIDERMAN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 597, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT (33
F.SUPP.  510) WHICH CANCELED A CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 597, BECAUSE OF ITS
IMPORTANCE AND ITS POSSIBLE RELATION TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE NATURALIZATION OF PETITIONER, AN ADMITTED
MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS PROPERLY SET
ASIDE BY THE COURTS BELOW SOME TWELVE YEARS AFTER IT WAS GRANTED.  WE
AGREE WITH OUR BRETHREN OF THE MINORITY THAT OUR RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA,
AS WELL AS OUR VIEWS REGARDING ITS GOVERNMENT AND THE MERITS OF
COMMUNISM ARE IMMATERIAL TO A DECISION OF THIS CASE.  OUR CONCERN IS
WITH WHAT CONGRESS MEANT BY CERTAIN STATUTES AND WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT
HAS PROVED ITS CASE UNDER THEM. 

WHILE IT IS OUR HIGH DUTY TO CARRY OUT THE WILL OF CONGRESS, IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THIS DUTY WE SHOULD HAVE A JEALOUS REGARD FOR THE RIGHTS
OF PETITIONER.  WE SHOULD LET OUR JUDGMENT BE GUIDED SO FAR AS THE LAW
PERMITS BY THE SPIRIT OF FREEDOM AND TOLERANCE IN WHICH OUR NATION WAS
FOUNDED, AND BY A DESIRE TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY IN THOUGHT
AND ACTION TO ALL THOSE UPON WHOM THE RIGHT OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP HAS
BEEN CONFERRED BY STATUTE, AS WELL AS TO THE NATIVE BORN.  AND WE
CERTAINLY SHOULD PRESUME THAT CONGRESS WAS MOTIVATED BY THESE LOFTY
PRINCIPLES. 

WE ARE DIRECTLY CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE RIGHTS OF THIS PETITIONER AND
THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS NATURALIZATION, BUT WE SHOULD NOT
OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT WE ARE A HETEROGENEOUS PEOPLE.  IN SOME OF OUR
LARGER CITIES A MAJORITY OF THE SCHOOL CHILDREN ARE THE OFFSPRING OF
PARENTS ONLY ONE GENERATION, IF THAT FAR, REMOVED FROM THE STEERAGE OF
THE IMMIGRANT SHIP, CHILDREN OF THOSE WHO SOUGHT REFUGE IN THE NEW
WORLD FROM THE CRUELTY AND OPPRESSION OF THE OLD, WHERE MEN HAVE BEEN
BURNED AT THE STAKE, IMPRISONED, AND DRIVEN INTO EXILE IN COUNTLESS
NUMBERS FOR THEIR POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  HERE THEY HAVE
HOPED TO ACHIEVE A POLITICAL STATUS AS CITIZENS IN A FREE WORLD IN
WHICH MEN ARE PRIVILEGED TO THINK AND ACT AND SPEAK ACCORDING TO THEIR
CONVICTIONS, WITHOUT FEAR OF PUNISHMENT OR FURTHER EXILE SO LONG AS
THEY KEEP THE PEACE AND OBEY THE LAW. 

THIS PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN ON JUNE 30, 1939, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 34 STAT. 596, TO CANCEL
PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP GRANTED IN 1927.  THIS SECTION
GIVES THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO SET ASIDE AND CANCEL
CERTIFICATES OF CITIZENSHIP ON THE GROUND OF "FRAUD" OR ON THE GROUND
THAT THEY WERE "ILLEGALLY PROCURED."  FN1 THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT
THE CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY PROCURED IN THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT,
AT THE TIME OF HIS NATURALIZATION, AND DURING THE FIVE YEARS PRECEDING
HIS NATURALIZATION "HAD NOT BEHAVED AS, A PERSON ATTACHED TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND WELL DISPOSED
TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE UNITED STATES,  FN2  BUT IN
TRUTH AND IN FACT DURING ALL OF SAID TIMES, RESPONDENT (PETITIONER) WAS
A MEMBER OF AND AFFILIATED WITH AND BELIEVED IN AND SUPPORTED THE
PRINCIPLES OF CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS THEN KNOWN AS THE WORKERS
(COMMUNIST) PARTY OF AMERICA AND THE YOUNG WORKERS (COMMUNIST) LEAGUE
OF AMERICA, WHOSE PRINCIPLES WERE OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND ADVISED, ADVOCATED AND TAUGHT THE
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT, CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE."  THE COMPLAINT ALSO CHARGED FRAUDULENT
PROCUREMENT IN THAT PETITIONER CONCEALED HIS COMMUNIST AFFILIATION FROM
THE NATURALIZATION COURT.  THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDS HERE NOT UPON THE
CHARGE OF FRAUD BUT UPON THE CHARGE OF ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT. 

THIS IS NOT A NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS
BEING ASKED TO CONFER THE PRIVILEGE OF CITIZENSHIP UPON AN APPLICANT. 
INSTEAD THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO TURN THE CLOCK BACK TWELVE YEARS AFTER
FULL CITIZENSHIP WAS CONFERRED UPON PETITIONER BY A JUDICIAL DECREE,
AND TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THE PRICELESS BENEFITS THAT DERIVE FROM THAT
STATUS.  IN ITS CONSEQUENCES IT IS MORE SERIOUS THAN A TAKING OF ONE'S
PROPERTY, OR THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE OR OTHER PENALTY.  FOR IT IS SAFE
TO ASSERT THAT NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY IS THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP
OF GREATER WORTH TO AN INDIVIDUAL THAN IT IS IN THIS COUNTRY.  IT WOULD
BE DIFFICULT TO EXAGGERATE ITS VALUE AND IMPORTANCE.  BY MANY IT IS
REGARDED AS THE HIGHEST HOPE OF CIVILIZED MEN.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT
ONCE GRANTED TO AN ALIEN, CITIZENSHIP CANNOT BE REVOKED OR CANCELLED ON
LEGAL GROUNDS UNDER APPROPRIATE PROOF.  BUT SUCH A RIGHT ONCE CONFERRED
SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT THE CLEAREST SORT OF JUSTIFICATION AND
PROOF.  SO, WHATEVER MAY BE THE RULE IN A NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING
(SEE UNITED STATES V. MANZI, 276 U.S. 463, 467), IN AN ACTION
INSTITUTED UNDER SEC. 15 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING ONE OF THE
PRECIOUS RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP PREVIOUSLY CONFERRED WE BELIEVE THE FACTS
AND THE LAW SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS FAR AS IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE IN
FAVOR OF THE CITIZEN.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS SO WHEN THE ATTACK IS MADE
LONG AFTER THE TIME WHEN THE CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP WAS GRANTED AND
THE CITIZEN HAS MEANWHILE MET HIS OBLIGATIONS AND HAS COMMITTED NO ACT
OF LAWLESSNESS.  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE
GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE.  FOR REASONS PRESENTLY TO BE STATED THIS
BURDEN MUST BE MET WITH EVIDENCE OF A CLEAR AND CONVINCING CHARACTER
THAT WHEN CITIZENSHIP WAS CONFERRED UPON PETITIONER IN 1927 IT WAS NOT
DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STRICT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A COURT DECREE ENTERED AFTER AN OPPORTUNITY
TO BE HEARD.  AT THE TIME PETITIONER SECURED HIS CERTIFICATE OF
CITIZENSHIP FROM THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE NATURALIZATION PETITION WAS
REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN NINETY DAYS BEFORE THE PETITION WAS ACTED ON (SEC.
6 OF THE ACT OF 1906), THE HEARING ON THE PETITION WAS TO TAKE PLACE IN
OPEN COURT (SEC. 9), AND THE UNITED STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAR, TO
CROSS-EXAMINE PETITIONER AND HIS WITNESSES, TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE, AND
TO OPPOSE THE PETITION (SEC. 11).  IN ACTING UPON THE PETITION THE
DISTRICT COURT EXERCISED THE JUDICIAL POWER CONFERRED BY ARTICLE III OF
THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE GOVERNMENT HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM THE
DECISION GRANTING NATURALIZATION.  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S.
568.  THE RECORD BEFORE US DOES NOT REVEAL THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH PETITIONER WAS NATURALIZED EXCEPT THAT IT TOOK PLACE IN OPEN
COURT.  WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISED ITS
RIGHT TO APPEAR AND TO APPEAL.  WHETHER IT DID OR NOT, THE HARD FACT
REMAINS THAT WE ARE HERE RE-EXAMINING A JUDGMENT, AND THE RIGHTS
SOLEMNLY CONFERRED UNDER IT. 

THIS IS THE FIRST CASE TO COME BEFORE US IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS
SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE A DECREE OF NATURALIZATION YEARS AFTER IT WAS
GRANTED ON A CHARGE THAT THE FINDING OF ATTACHMENT WAS ERRONEOUS. 
ACCORDINGLY FOR THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE HAD TO CONSIDER THE NATURE AND
SCOPE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT IN A DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING TO RE
EXAMINE A FINDING AND JUDGMENT OF ATTACHMENT UPON A CHARGE OF ILLEGAL
PROCUREMENT.  BECAUSE OF THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE WE DO NOT REACH,
AND THEREFORE DO NOT CONSIDER, TWO QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED
CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF THAT RIGHT. 

THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER, ASIDE FROM GROUNDS SUCH AS LACK OF
JURISDICTION OR THE KIND OF FRAUD WHICH TRADITIONALLY VITIATES
JUDGMENTS, CF. UNITED STATES V. THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61; KIBBE V.
BENSON, 17 WALL.  624, CONGRESS CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY ATTACH TO THE
EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION,
AUTHORITY TO RE-EXAMINE A JUDGMENT GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF
CITIZENSHIP AFTER THAT JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL BY EXHAUSTION OF THE
APPELLATE PROCESS OR BY A FAILURE TO INVOKE IT.  FN3 

THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHETHER UNDER THE ACT OF 1906 AS IT WAS IN
1927 THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLAIM OF FRAUD AND RELYING
WHOLLY UPON A CHARGE OF ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT, CAN SECURE A DE NOVO RE
EXAMINATION OF A NATURALIZATION COURT'S FINDING AND JUDGMENT THAT AN
APPLICANT FOR CITIZENSHIP WAS ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

WE DO NOT CONSIDER THESE QUESTIONS.  FOR THOUGH WE ASSUME, WITHOUT
DECIDING, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION
CAN BE SET ASIDE UNDER SEC. 15 AS "ILLEGALLY PROCURED" BECAUSE THE
FINDING AS TO ATTACHMENT WOULD LATER SEEM TO BE ERRONEOUS, WE ARE OF
THE OPINION THAT THIS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED.  IF A FINDING OF
ATTACHMENT CAN BE SO RECONSIDERED IN A DENATURALIZATION SUIT, OUR
DECISIONS MAKE IT PLAIN THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS MORE THAN A BARE
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE TO PREVAIL.  THE REMEDY AFFORDED THE
GOVERNMENT BY THE DENATURALIZATION STATUTE HAS BEEN SAID TO BE A
NARROWER ONE THAN THAT OF DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE GRANTING OF A
PETITION.  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568, 579; CF. UNITED STATES
V. NESS, 245 U.S. 319, 325.  JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES STATES THAT A
CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP IS "AN INSTRUMENT GRANTING POLITICAL
PRIVILEGES, AND OPEN LIKE OTHER PUBLIC GRANTS TO BE REVOKED IF AND WHEN
IT SHALL BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY OR FRAUDULENTLY PROCURED.  IT
IS IN THIS RESPECT CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO A PUBLIC GRANT OF LAND,  ...  "
225 U.S. 227, 238.  SEE ALSO TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  TO SET
ASIDE SUCH A GRANT THE EVIDENCE MUST BE "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND
CONVINCING" - "IT CANNOT BE DONE UPON A BARE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
WHICH LEAVES THE ISSUE IN DOUBT."  MAXWELL LAND-GRANT CASE, 121 U.S.
325, 381; UNITED STATES V. SAN JACINTO TIN CO., 125 U.S. 273, 300; CF.
UNITED STATES V. ROVIN, 12 F.2D 942, 944.  SEE WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, (3D
ED.)  SEC. 2498.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE RIGHTS ONCE CONFERRED SHOULD NOT
BE LIGHTLY REVOKED.  AND MORE ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE WHEN THE RIGHTS
ARE PRECIOUS AND WHEN THEY ARE CONFERRED BY SOLEMN ADJUDICATION, AS IS
THE SITUATION WHEN CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED.  THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE
IN THIS CASE DOES NOT MEASURE UP TO THIS EXACTING STANDARD. 

CERTAIN FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.  PETITIONER CAME TO THIS COUNTRY FROM
RUSSIA IN 1907 OR 1908 WHEN HE WAS APPROXIMATELY THREE.  IN 1922, AT
THE AGE OF SIXTEEN, HE BECAME A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE YOUNG WORKERS
(NOW COMMUNIST) LEAGUE IN LOS ANGELES AND REMAINED A MEMBER UNTIL 1929
OR 1930.  IN 1924, AT THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN, HE FILED HIS DECLARATION OF
INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN.  LATER IN THE SAME YEAR OR EARLY IN 1925
HE BECAME A MEMBER OF THE WORKERS PARTY, THE PREDECESSOR OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THAT MEMBERSHIP HAS CONTINUED TO
THE PRESENT.  HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION WAS FILED ON JANUARY 18,
1927, AND HIS CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 10, 1927,
BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA.  HE HAD NOT BEEN ARRESTED OR SUBJECTED TO CENSURE PRIOR TO
1927,  FN4  AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATING THAT HE WAS
EVER CONNECTED WITH ANY OVERT ILLEGAL OR VIOLENT ACTION OR WITH ANY
DISTURBANCE OF ANY SORT. 

FOR ITS CASE THE UNITED STATES CALLED PETITIONER, ONE HUMPHREYS, A
FORMER MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, AND ONE HYNES, A LOS ANGELES
POLICE OFFICER FORMERLY IN CHARGE OF THE RADICAL SQUAD, AS WITNESSES,
AND INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS.  PETITIONER TESTIFIED
ON HIS OWN BEHALF, INTRODUCED SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AND READ INTO
THE RECORD TRANSCRIPTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF TWO UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
GIVEN IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING. 

PETITIONER TESTIFIED TO THE FOLLOWING:  AS A BOY HE LIVED IN LOS
ANGELES IN POVERTY-STRICKEN CIRCUMSTANCES AND JOINED THE YOUNG WORKERS
LEAGUE TO STUDY WHAT THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE
CONDITIONS OF SOCIETY.  HE CONSIDERED HIS MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES IN
THE LEAGUE AND THE PARTY DURING THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD BETWEEN THE AGES
OF SIXTEEN AND TWENTY-ONE BEFORE HE WAS NATURALIZED, AS AN ATTEMPT TO
INVESTIGATE AND STUDY THE CAUSES AND REASONS BEHIND SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS.  MEANWHILE HE WAS WORKING HIS WAY THROUGH NIGHT HIGH SCHOOL
AND COLLEGE.  FROM 1922 TO ABOUT 1925 HE WAS "EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR" OF
THE LEAGUE.  THE DUTIES OF THIS NON-SALARIED POSITION WERE TO ORGANIZE
CLASSES, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, FOR THE STUDY OF MARXIST THEORY, TO
REGISTER STUDENTS AND TO SEND OUT NOTICES FOR MEETINGS; PETITIONER DID
NO TEACHING.  DURING 1925 AND 1926 HE WAS CORRESPONDING SECRETARY OF
THE PARTY IN LOS ANGELES; THIS WAS A CLERICAL, NOT AN EXECUTIVE
POSITION.  IN 1928 HE BECAME AN ORGANIZER OR OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN FOR THE
LEAGUE.  HIS FIRST EXECUTIVE POSITION WITH THE PARTY CAME IN 1930 WHEN
HE WAS MADE AN ORGANIZATIONAL SECRETARY FIRST IN CALIFORNIA, THEN IN
CONNECTICUT AND LATER IN MINNESOTA WHERE HE WAS THE COMMUNIST PARTY
CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR IN 1932.  SINCE 1934 HE HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE
PARTY'S NATIONAL COMMITTEE.  AT PRESENT HE IS SECRETARY OF THE PARTY IN
CALIFORNIA.    PETITIONER TESTIFIED FURTHER THAT DURING ALL THE TIME HE
HAS BELONGED TO THE LEAGUE AND THE PARTY HE HAS SUBSCRIBED TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.  HE STATED THAT HE "BELIEVED IN THE
ESSENTIAL CORRECTNESS OF THE MARX THEORY AS APPLIED BY THE COMMUNIST
PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES," THAT HE SUBSCRIBED "TO THE PHILOSOPHY AND
PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALISM AS MANIFESTED IN THE WRITINGS OF LENIN," AND
THAT HIS UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION OF THE PROGRAM, PRINCIPLES
AND PRACTICE OF THE PARTY SINCE HE JOINED "WERE AND ARE ESSENTIALLY THE
SAME AS THOSE ENUNCIATED" IN THE PARTY'S 1938 CONSTITUTION.  HE DENIED
THE CHARGES OF THE COMPLAINT AND SPECIFICALLY DENIED THAT HE OR THE
PARTY ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE, AND THAT HE WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  HE CONSIDERED MEMBERSHIP IN THE PARTY COMPATIBLE
WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  HE STATED THAT HE
BELIEVED IN RETENTION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR PERSONAL USE BUT
ADVOCATED SOCIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE,
WITH COMPENSATION TO THE OWNERS.  HE BELIEVED AND HOPED THAT
SOCIALIZATION COULD BE ACHIEVED HERE BY DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES BUT
HISTORY SHOWED THAT THE RULING MINORITY HAS ALWAYS USED FORCE AGAINST
THE MAJORITY BEFORE SURRENDERING POWER.  BY DICTATORSHIP OF THE
PROLETARIAT PETITIONER MEANT THAT THE "MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE SHALL
REALLY DIRECT THEIR OWN DESTINIES AND USE THE INSTRUMENT OF THE STATE
FOR THESE TRULY DEMOCRATIC ENDS."  HE STATED THAT HE WOULD BEAR ARMS
AGAINST HIS NATIVE RUSSIA IF NECESSARY. 

HUMPHREYS TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
AND UNDERSTOOD HE WAS EXPELLED BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO TAKE ORDERS FROM
PETITIONER.  HE HAD BEEN TAUGHT THAT PRESENT FORMS OF GOVERNMENT WOULD
HAVE TO BE ABOLISHED "THROUGH THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT"
WHICH WOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY A "REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS."  HE ASSERTED
THAT THE PROGRAM OF THE PARTY WAS THE SOCIALIZATION OF ALL PROPERTY
WITHOUT COMPENSATION.  WITH REGARD TO ADVOCACY OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE HE
SAID:  "THE COMMUNIST PARTY TOOK THE DEFENSIVE, AND PUT THE FIRST USERS
OF FORCE UPON THE CAPITALISTIC GOVERNMENT; THEY CLAIMED THAT THE
CAPITALISTIC GOVERNMENT WOULD RESIST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOVIET
SYSTEM, THROUGH FORCE AND VIOLENCE, AND THAT THE WORKING CLASS WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED IN USING FORCE AND VIOLENCE TO ESTABLISH THE SOVIET SYSTEM OF
SOCIETY." 

HYNES TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THE PARTY FOR EIGHT
MONTHS IN 1922.  HE STATED THAT THE COMMUNIST METHOD OF BRINGING ABOUT
A CHANGE IN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS ONE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE; HE
BASED THIS STATEMENT UPON:  "KNOWLEDGE I HAVE GAINED AS A MEMBER IN
1922 AND FROM WHAT FURTHER KNOWLEDGE I HAVE GAINED FROM READING VARIOUS
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS, PUBLISHED AND CIRCULATED BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY
AND FROM OBSERVATION AND ACTUAL CONTACT WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY  ...  " FN5  ON CROSS-EXAMINATION HYNES ADMITTED THAT
HE NEVER ATTEMPTED A PHILOSOPHIC ANALYSIS OF THE LITERATURE HE READ,
BUT ONLY READ IT TO SECURE EVIDENCE, READING AND UNDERSCORING THOSE
PORTIONS WHICH, IN HIS OPINION, "HAD TO DO WITH FORCE OR VIOLENCE OR
OVERTHROWING OF THIS SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN BY LAWFUL MEANS
PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION."  HE TESTIFIED THAT HE NEVER SAW ANY
BEHAVIOR ON PETITIONER'S PART THAT BROUGHT HIM INTO CONFLICT WITH ANY
LAW. 

THE TESTIMONY OF THE TWO PROFESSORS DISCUSSED MARXIAN THEORY AS
EVIDENCED BY THE WRITINGS OF MARX, ENGELS AND LENIN, AND CONCLUDED THAT
IT DID NOT ADVOCATE THE USE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE AS A METHOD OF
ATTAINING ITS OBJECTIVE. 

IN ITS WRITTEN OPINION THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT PETITIONER'S
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION WAS ILLEGALLY PROCURED BECAUSE THE
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH PETITIONER BELONGED WERE OPPOSED TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ADVISED, TAUGHT AND ADVOCATED THE
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, AND THEREFORE
PETITIONER, "BY REASON OF HIS MEMBERSHIP IN SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AND
PARTICIPATION IN THEIR ACTIVITIES, WAS NOT 'ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD
ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME.'"  33 F.SUPP.  510, 513. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO MADE PURPORTED FINDINGS OF FACTS TO THE
EFFECT THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE
SAME, AND WAS A DISBELIEVER IN ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT, THAT HE
FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LEAGUE AND THE PARTY FROM
THE NATURALIZATION COURT, AND THAT HIS OATH OF ALLEGIANCE WAS FALSE. 
THE CONCLUSION OF LAW WAS THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS ILLEGALLY AND
FRAUDULENTLY PROCURED.  THE PERTINENT FINDINGS OF FACT ON THESE POINTS,
SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN, FN6  ARE BUT THE MOST GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF
ULTIMATE FACT.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL FROM THEM UPON WHAT UNDERLYING
FACTS THE COURT RELIED, AND WHETHER PROPER STATUTORY STANDARDS WERE
OBSERVED.  IF IT WERE NOT RENDERED UNNECESSARY BY THE BROAD VIEW WE
TAKE OF THIS CASE, WE WOULD BE INCLINED TO REVERSE AND REMAND TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADEQUATE FINDINGS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
CERTIFICATE WAS ILLEGALLY PROCURED, HOLDING THAT THE FINDING THAT
PETITIONER'S OATH WAS FALSE WAS NOT "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS."  119 F.2D
500.  FN7  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, AND AFTER HAVING HEARD ARGUMENT AND
REARGUMENT, NOW REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS BELOW. 

        I 

THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES CONGRESS "TO ESTABLISH AN UNIFORM RULE OF
NATURALIZATION" (ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 4), AND WE MAY ASSUME THAT
NATURALIZATION IS A PRIVILEGE, TO BE GIVEN OR WITHHELD ON SUCH
CONDITIONS AS CONGRESS SEES FIT.  CF. UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283
U.S. 605, 615, AND THE DISSENTING OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES,
IBID. AT P. 627.  SEE ALSO TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568, 578;
TURNER V. WILLIAMS, 194 U.S. 279.  BUT BECAUSE OF OUR FIRMLY ROOTED
TRADITION OF FREEDOM OF BELIEF, WE CERTAINLY WILL NOT PRESUME IN
CONSTRUING THE NATURALIZATION AND DENATURALIZATION ACTS THAT CONGRESS
MEANT TO CIRCUMSCRIBE LIBERTY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT BY GENERAL PHRASES
IN THOSE STATUTES.  AS CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES SAID IN DISSENT IN THE
MACINTOSH CASE, SUCH GENERAL PHRASES "SHOULD BE CONSTRUED, NOT IN
OPPOSITION TO, BUT IN ACCORD WITH, THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OUR
GOVERNMENT IN RELATION TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE."  283 U.S. AT 635. 
SEE ALSO HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S.
644, 653-55. 

WHEN PETITIONER WAS NATURALIZED IN 1927, THE APPLICABLE STATUTES DID
NOT PROSCRIBE COMMUNIST BELIEFS OR AFFILIATION AS SUCH.  FN8  THEY DID
FORBID THE NATURALIZATION OF DISBELIEVERS IN ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT OR
MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS TEACHING SUCH DISBELIEF.  POLYGAMISTS AND
ADVOCATES OF POLITICAL ASSASSINATION WERE ALSO BARRED.  FN9  APPLICANTS
FOR CITIZENSHIP WERE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH TO SUPPORT THE
CONSTITUTION, TO BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME AND THE
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO RENOUNCE ALL ALLEGIANCE TO ANY
FOREIGN PRINCE, POTENTATE, STATE OR SOVEREIGNTY.  FN10  AND, IT WAS TO
"BE MADE TO APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT" OF NATURALIZATION
THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT "HAS RESIDED
CONTINUOUSLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FIVE YEARS AT LEAST,  ...  AND
THAT DURING THAT TIME HE HAS BEHAVED AS A MAN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,
ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME."  FN11
WHETHER PETITIONER SATISFIED THIS LAST REQUIREMENT IS THE CRUCIAL ISSUE
IN THIS CASE. 

TO APPLY THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF ATTACHMENT CORRECTLY TO THE
PROOF ADDUCED, IT IS NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN ITS MEANING.  ON ITS FACE
THE STATUTORY CRITERION IS NOT ATTACHMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT
BEHAVIOR FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS AS A MAN ATTACHED TO ITS PRINCIPLES
AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  SINCE THE NORMAL CONNOTATION OF BEHAVIOR IS CONDUCT, THERE IS
SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE 1906 ACT CREATED A
PURELY OBJECTIVE QUALIFICATION, LIMITING INQUIRY TO AN APPLICANT'S
PREVIOUS CONDUCT.  FN12  IF THIS OBJECTIVE STANDARD IS THE REQUIREMENT,
PETITIONER SATISFIED THE STATUTE.  HIS CONDUCT HAS BEEN LAW ABIDING IN
ALL RESPECTS.  ACCORDING TO THE RECORD HE HAS NEVER BEEN ARRESTED, OR
CONNECTED WITH ANY DISORDER, AND NOT A SINGLE WRITTEN OR SPOKEN
STATEMENT OF HIS, DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD FROM 1922 TO 1927 OR
THEREAFTER, ADVOCATING VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT, OR INDEED
EVEN A STATEMENT, APART FROM HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING, THAT HE
DESIRED ANY CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN PRODUCED.  THE SOLE
POSSIBLE CRITICISM IS PETITIONER'S MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITY IN THE
LEAGUE AND THE PARTY, BUT THOSE MEMBERSHIPS QUA MEMBERSHIPS WERE
IMMATERIAL UNDER THE 1906 ACT. 

IN UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER, 279 U.S. 644, AND UNITED STATES V.
MACINTOSH, 283 U.S. 605, HOWEVER, IT WAS HELD THAT THE STATUTE CREATED
A TEST OF BELIEF - THAT AN APPLICANT UNDER THE 1906 ACT MUST NOT ONLY
BEHAVE AS A MAN ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, BUT
MUST BE SO ATTACHED IN FACT AT THE TIME OF NATURALIZATION.  WE DO NOT
STOP TO REEXAMINE THIS CONSTRUCTION FOR EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THE
RESULT IS NOT CHANGED.  AS MENTIONED BEFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE
STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN DISSENT IN MACINTOSH'S CASE THAT
THE BEHAVIOR REQUIREMENT IS "A GENERAL PHRASE WHICH SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED, NOT IN OPPOSITION TO, BUT IN ACCORD WITH, THE THEORY AND
PRACTICE OF OUR GOVERNMENT IN RELATION TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE."  283
U.S. AT 635.  SEE ALSO THE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE HOLMES IN THE
SCHWIMMER CASE, SUPRA, 653-55.  AS POINTED OUT BEFORE, THIS IS A
DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, AND IT IS A JUDGMENT, NOT MERELY A CLAIM
OR A GRANT, WHICH IS BEING ATTACKED.  ASSUMING AS WE HAVE THAT THE
UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO ATTACK A FINDING OF ATTACHMENT UPON A
CHARGE OF ILLEGALITY, IT MUST SUSTAIN THE HEAVY BURDEN WHICH THEN RESTS
UPON IT TO PROVE LACK OF ATTACHMENT BY "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND
CONVINCING" EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT LEAVE THE ISSUE IN DOUBT.  WHEN THE
ATTACHMENT REQUIREMENT IS CONSTRUED AS INDICATED ABOVE, WE DO NOT THINK
THE GOVERNMENT HAS CARRIED ITS BURDEN OF PROOF. 

THE CLAIM THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT IN FACT ATTACHED TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE
UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF HIS NATURALIZATION AND FOR THE PREVIOUS
FIVE YEAR PERIOD IS TWOFOLD:  FIRST, THAT HE BELIEVED IN SUCH SWEEPING
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT HE SIMPLY COULD NOT BE ATTACHED TO IT;
SECOND, THAT HE BELIEVED IN AND ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT IN FACT ATTACHED
TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE OF HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE
LEAGUE AND THE PARTY, THE GOVERNMENT HAS DIRECTED OUR ATTENTION FIRST
TO PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY THAT HE SUBSCRIBED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEN TO CERTAIN ALLEGED PARTY PRINCIPLES AND
STATEMENTS BY PARTY LEADERS WHICH ARE SAID TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY AT
VARIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  AT THIS POINT IT IS
APPROPRIATE TO MENTION WHAT WILL BE MORE FULLY DEVELOPED LATER - THAT
UNDER OUR TRADITIONS BELIEFS ARE PERSONAL AND NOT A MATTER OF MERE
ASSOCIATION, AND THAT MEN IN ADHERING TO A POLITICAL PARTY OR OTHER
ORGANIZATION NOTORIOUSLY DO NOT SUBSCRIBE UNQUALIFIEDLY TO ALL OF ITS
PLATFORMS OR ASSERTED PRINCIPLES.  SAID TO BE AMONG THOSE COMMUNIST
PRINCIPLES IN 1927 ARE:  THE ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT
COMPENSATION; THE ERECTION OF A NEW PROLETARIAN STATE UPON THE RUINS OF
THE OLD BOURGEOIS STATE; THE CREATION OF A DICTATORSHIP OF THE
PROLETARIAT; DENIAL OF POLITICAL RIGHTS TO OTHERS THAN MEMBERS OF THE
PARTY OR OF THE PROLETARIAT; AND THE CREATION OF A WORLD UNION OF
SOVIET REPUBLICS.  STATEMENTS THAT AMERICAN DEMOCRACY "IS A FRAUD"
FN13  AND THAT THE PURPOSES OF THE PARTY ARE "UTTERLY ANTAGONISTIC TO
THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, SO CALLED, WAS FORMED,"
FN14  ARE STRESSED. 

THOSE PRINCIPLES AND VIEWS ARE NOT GENERALLY ACCEPTED - IN FACT THEY
ARE DISTASTEFUL TO MOST OF US - AND THEY CALL FOR CONSIDERABLE CHANGE
IN OUR PRESENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THE
GOVERNMENT HAS CARRIED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING BY EVIDENCE WHICH DOES NOT
LEAVE THE ISSUE IN DOUBT THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT IN FACT ATTACHED TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER
AND HAPPINESS OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN HE WAS NATURALIZED IN 1927. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FATHERS, FRESH FROM A REVOLUTION, DID NOT FORGE A
POLITICAL STRAIT-JACKET FOR THE GENERATIONS TO COME.  FN15  INSTEAD
THEY WROTE ARTICLE V AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT, GUARANTEEING FREEDOM OF
THOUGHT, SOON FOLLOWED.  ARTICLE V CONTAINS PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE BY AMENDMENT WITHOUT ANY PRESENT LIMITATION
WHATSOEVER EXCEPT THAT NO STATE MAY BE DEPRIVED OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION
IN THE SENATE WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  CF. NATIONAL PROHIBITION CASES, 253
U.S. 350.  THIS PROVISION AND THE MANY IMPORTANT AND FAR-REACHING
CHANGES MADE IN THE CONSTITUTION SINCE 1787 REFUTE THE IDEA THAT
ATTACHMENT TO ANY PARTICULAR PROVISION OR PROVISIONS IS ESSENTIAL, OR
THAT ONE WHO ADVOCATES RADICAL CHANGES IS NECESSARILY NOT ATTACHED TO
THE CONSTITUTION.  UNITED STATES V. ROVIN, 12 F.2D 942, 944-45.  FN16
AS JUSTICE HOLMES SAID, "SURELY IT CANNOT SHOW LACK OF ATTACHMENT TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT  ...  (ONE) THINKS IT CAN BE
IMPROVED."  UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER, SUPRA (DISSENT).  CRITICISM OF,
AND THE SINCERITY OF DESIRES TO IMPROVE, THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE
JUDGED BY CONFORMITY TO PREVAILING THOUGHT BECAUSE, "IF THERE IS ANY
PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT MORE IMPERATIVELY CALLS FOR
ATTACHMENT THAN ANY OTHER IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE THOUGHT - NOT
FREE THOUGHT FOR THOSE WHO AGREE WITH US, BUT FREEDOM FOR THE THOUGHT
THAT WE HATE." ID.  SEE ALSO CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DISSENTING IN UNITED
STATES V. MACINTOSH, SUPRA, P. 635.  WHATEVER ATTITUDE WE MAY
INDIVIDUALLY HOLD TOWARD PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT BELIEVE IN OR
ADVOCATE EXTENSIVE CHANGES IN OUR EXISTING ORDER, IT SHOULD BE OUR
DESIRE AND CONCERN AT ALL TIMES TO UPHOLD THE RIGHT OF FREE DISCUSSION
AND FREE THINKING TO WHICH WE AS A PEOPLE CLAIM PRIMARY ATTACHMENT.  TO
NEGLECT THIS DUTY IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH WE ARE CALLED UPON TO JUDGE
WHETHER A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL HAS FAILED TO MANIFEST ATTACHMENT TO
THE CONSTITUTION WOULD BE IRONICAL INDEED. 

OUR CONCERN IS WITH WHAT CONGRESS MEANT TO BE THE EXTENT OF THE AREA
OF ALLOWABLE THOUGHT UNDER THE STATUTE.  BY THE VERY GENERALITY OF THE
TERMS EMPLOYED IT IS EVIDENT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED AN ELASTIC TEST,
ONE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE CIRCUMSCRIBED BY ATTEMPTS AT PRECISE
DEFINITION.  IN VIEW OF OUR TRADITION OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, IT IS NOT
TO BE PRESUMED THAT CONGRESS IN THE ACT OF 1906, OR ITS PREDECESSORS OF
1795 AND 1802,  FN17  INTENDED TO OFFER NATURALIZATION ONLY TO THOSE
WHOSE POLITICAL VIEWS COINCIDE WITH THOSE CONSIDERED BEST BY THE
FOUNDERS IN 1787 OR BY THE MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY.  ESPECIALLY
IS THIS SO SINCE THE LANGUAGE USED, POSING THE GENERAL TEST OF
"ATTACHMENT" IS NOT NECESSARILY SUSCEPTIBLE OF SO REPRESSIVE A
CONSTRUCTION.  FN18  THE GOVERNMENT AGREES THAT AN ALIEN "MAY THINK
THAT THE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE AMENDED IN SOME OR MANY
RESPECTS" AND STILL BE ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE NATURE AND
EXTENT OF THOSE PERMISSIBLE CHANGES, THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT AN
ALIEN MUST BELIEVE IN AND SINCERELY ADHERE TO THE "GENERAL POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY" OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN19  PETITIONER IS SAID TO BE
OPPOSED TO THAT "POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY," THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF
WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN20  IT WAS ARGUED AT THE BAR THAT
SINCE ARTICLE V CONTAINS NO LIMITATIONS, A PERSON CAN BE ATTACHED TO
THE CONSTITUTION NO MATTER HOW EXTENSIVE THE CHANGES ARE THAT HE
DESIRES, SO LONG AS HE SEEKS TO ACHIEVE HIS ENDS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
OF ARTICLE V. BUT WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THIS EXTREME
POSITION FOR IF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSTRUCTION IS ACCEPTED, IT HAS NOT
CARRIED ITS BURDEN OF PROOF EVEN UNDER ITS OWN TEST. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT STATE IN ITS FINDINGS WHAT PRINCIPLES HELD
BY PETITIONER OR BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY WERE OPPOSED TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND INDICATED LACK OF ATTACHMENT.  SEE NOTE 6, ANTE.  IN
ITS OPINION THAT COURT MERELY RELIED UPON IN RE SARALIEFF, 59 F.2D 436,
AND UNITED STATES V. TAPOLCSANYI, 40 F.2D 255, WITHOUT FRESH
EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESENT RECORD.  33
F.SUPP.  510.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DEDUCED AS PARTY PRINCIPLES
ROUGHLY THE SAME ONES WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HERE PRESSES AND STATED
"THESE VIEWS ARE NOT THOSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION."  119 F.2D AT 503-04. 

WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES HE DESIRED PETITIONER
TESTIFIED THAT HE BELIEVED IN THE NATIONALIZATION OF THE MEANS OF
PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE WITH COMPENSATION, AND THE PRESERVATION AND
UTILIZATION OF OUR "DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURE  ...  AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FOR
THE ADVANTAGE OF THE WORKING CLASSES."  HE STATED THAT THE
"DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT" TO HIM MEANT "NOT A GOVERNMENT, BUT A
STATE OF THINGS" IN WHICH "THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE SHALL REALLY
DIRECT THEIR OWN DESTINIES AND USE THE INSTRUMENT OF THE STATE FOR
THESE TRULY DEMOCRATIC ENDS."  NONE OF THIS IS NECESSARILY INCOMPATIBLE
WITH THE "GENERAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY" OF THE CONSTITUTION AS OUTLINED
ABOVE BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS
PRIVATE PROPERTY, EVEN AGAINST TAKING FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT
COMPENSATION.  BUT THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY MANY SINCERE PEOPLE WHOSE
ATTACHMENT TO THE GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME CANNOT BE DOUBTED HAVE,
FOR VARIOUS AND EVEN DIVERGENT REASONS, URGED DIFFERING DEGREES OF
GOVERNMENTAL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, BASIC MEANS OF
PRODUCTION, AND BANKS AND THE MEDIA OF EXCHANGE, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT
COMPENSATION.  AND SOMETHING ONCE REGARDED AS A SPECIES OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY WAS ABOLISHED WITHOUT COMPENSATING THE OWNERS WHEN THE
INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY WAS FORBIDDEN.  FN21  CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE
AUTHOR OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION AND THE SUPPORTERS OF THE
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE CONSTITUTION?  WE
CONCLUDE THAT LACK OF ATTACHMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT SHOWN ON
THE BASIS OF THE CHANGES WHICH PETITIONER TESTIFIED HE DESIRED IN THE
CONSTITUTION. 

TURNING NOW TO A SERIATIM CONSIDERATION OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT
ASSERTS ARE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, WHICH PETITIONER
BELIEVED AND WHICH ARE OPPOSED TO OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR CONCLUSION
REMAINS THE SAME - THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PROVED BY "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL
AND CONVINCING" EVIDENCE THAT THE NATURALIZATION COURT COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN SATISFIED THAT PETITIONER WAS ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION WHEN HE WAS NATURALIZED. 

WE HAVE ALREADY DISPOSED OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATIONALIZATION OF THE
AGENTS OF PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE WITH OR WITHOUT COMPENSATION.  THE
ERECTION OF A NEW PROLETARIAT STATE UPON THE RUINS OF THE OLD BOURGEOIS
STATE, AND THE CREATION OF A DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT MAY BE
CONSIDERED TOGETHER.  THE CONCEPT OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE
PROLETARIAT IS ONE LOOSELY USED, UPON WHICH MORE WORDS THAN LIGHT HAVE
BEEN SHED.  MUCH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN DIRECTED AS TO HOW IT IS TO BE
ACHIEVED, BUT WE HAVE BEEN OFFERED NO PRECISE DEFINITION HERE.  IN THE
GENERAL SENSE THE TERM MAY BE TAKEN TO DESCRIBE A STATE IN WHICH THE
WORKERS OR THE MASSES, RATHER THAN THE BOURGEOISIE OR CAPITALISTS ARE
THE DOMINANT CLASS.  THEORETICALLY IT IS CONTROL BY A CLASS, NOT A
DICTATORSHIP IN THE SENSE OF ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL RULE BY ONE
INDIVIDUAL.  SO FAR AS THE RECORD BEFORE US INDICATES, THE CONCEPT IS A
FLUID ONE, CAPABLE OF ADJUSTMENT TO DIFFERENT CONDITIONS IN DIFFERENT
COUNTRIES.  THERE ARE ONLY MEAGER INDICATIONS OF THE FORM THE
"DICTATORSHIP" WOULD TAKE IN THIS COUNTRY.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT IT
WOULD NECESSARILY MEAN THE END OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT OR THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM.  THE PROGRAM AND CONSTITUTION OF THE WORKERS PARTY
(1921-24) CRITICIZED THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES,
THE SENATE'S POWER TO PASS ON LEGISLATION, AND THE INVOLVED PROCEDURE
FOR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION, CHARACTERIZING THEM AS DEVICES DESIGNED
TO FRUSTRATE THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.  FN22  THE 1928 PLATFORM OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES, ADOPTED AFTER PETITIONER'S
NATURALIZATION AND HENCE NOT STRICTLY RELEVANT, ADVOCATED THE ABOLITION
OF THE SENATE, OF THE SUPREME COURT, AND OF THE VETO POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT, AND REPLACEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS WITH "COUNCILS OF
WORKERS" IN WHICH LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POWER WOULD BE UNITED. 
THESE WOULD INDEED BE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN OUR PRESENT GOVERNMENTAL
STRUCTURE - CHANGES WHICH IT IS SAFE TO SAY ARE NOT DESIRED BY THE
MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY - BUT WHATEVER OUR PERSONAL
VIEWS, AS JUDGES WE CANNOT SAY THAT A PERSON WHO ADVOCATES THEIR
ADOPTION THROUGH PEACEFUL AND CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS IS NOT IN FACT
ATTACHED TO THE CONSTITUTION - THOSE INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT ENUMERATED AS
NECESSARY IN THE GOVERNMENT'S TEST OF "GENERAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY,"
AND IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT "ORDERED LIBERTY" COULD BE MAINTAINED
WITHOUT THEM.  THE SENATE HAS NOT GONE FREE OF CRITICISM AND ONE OBJECT
OF THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS TO MAKE IT MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE
PUBLIC WILL.  FN23  THE UNICAMERAL LEGISLATURE IS NOT UNKNOWN IN THE
COUNTRY.  FN24  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT HAS PLAYED A LARGE PART IN
THE UNFOLDING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PLAN (SOMETIMES TOO MUCH SO IN THE
OPINION OF SOME OBSERVERS), BUT WE WOULD BE ARROGANT INDEED IF WE
PRESUMED THAT A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, WITH PROTECTION FOR MINORITY
GROUPS, WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT IT.  LIKE OTHER AGENCIES OF
GOVERNMENT, THIS COURT AT VARIOUS TIMES IN ITS EXISTENCE HAS NOT
ESCAPED THE SHAFTS OF CRITICS WHOSE SINCERITY AND ATTACHMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION IS BEYOND QUESTION - CRITICS WHO HAVE ACCUSED IT OF
ASSUMING FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW NOT INTENDED TO BE CONFERRED UPON
IT, OR OF ABUSING THOSE FUNCTIONS TO THWART THE POPULAR WILL, AND WHO
HAVE ADVOCATED VARIOUS REMEDIES TAKING A WIDE RANGE  FN24  A. AND IT IS
HARDLY CONCEIVABLE THAT THE CONSEQUENCE OF FREEING THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH FROM THE RESTRAINT OF THE EXECUTIVE VETO WOULD BE THE END OF
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT  FN24 B. BY THIS DISCUSSION WE CERTAINLY DO
NOT MEAN TO INDICATE THAT WE WOULD FAVOR SUCH CHANGES.  OUR PREFERENCE
AND AVERSIONS HAVE NO BEARING HERE.  OUR CONCERN IS WITH THE EXTENT OF
THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF THOUGHT UNDER THE STATUTE.  WE DECIDE ONLY THAT
IT IS POSSIBLE TO ADVOCATE SUCH CHANGES AND STILL BE ATTACHED TO THE
CONSTITUTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GOVERNMENT'S MINIMUM TEST. 

IF ANY PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE SINGLED OUT AS REQUIRING
UNQUALIFIED ATTACHMENT, THEY ARE THE GUARANTIES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
AND ESPECIALLY THAT OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT CONTAINED IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  CF. JUSTICE HOLMES' DISSENT IN UNITED STATES V. SCHWIMMER,
SUPRA.  WE DO NOT REACH, HOWEVER, THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER WAS
ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION IF HE BELIEVED IN
DENYING POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS TO PERSONS NOT MEMBERS OF THE PARTY
OR OF THE SOCALLED PROLETARIAT, FOR ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD BEFORE
US IT HAS NOT BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN THAT SUCH DENIAL WAS A PRINCIPLE OF
THE ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH PETITIONER BELONGED.  SINCE IT IS DOUBTFUL
THAT THIS WAS A PRINCIPLE OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS, IT IS CERTAINLY MUCH
MORE SPECULATIVE WHETHER THIS WAS PART OF PETITIONER'S PHILOSOPHY. 
SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS IN THE RECORD INDICATE THAT "CLASS ENEMIES" OF
THE PROLETARIAT SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR POLITICAL RIGHTS.  FN25
LENIN, HOWEVER, WROTE THAT THIS WAS NOT NECESSARY TO REALIZE THE
DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.  FN26  THE PARTY'S 1928 PLATFORM
DEMANDED THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, TO STRIKE AND TO PICKET
AND THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS AND FREE
ASSEMBLAGE FOR THE WORKING CLASS.  THE 1928 PROGRAM OF THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL STATES THAT THE PROLETARIAN STATE WILL GRANT RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IT WILL CARRY ON ANTIRELIGIOUS
PROPAGANDA. 

WE SHOULD NOT HOLD THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE
CONSTITUTION BY REASON OF HIS POSSIBLE BELIEF IN THE CREATION OF SOME
FORM OF WORLD UNION OF SOVIET REPUBLICS UNLESS WE ARE WILLING SO TO
HOLD WITH REGARD TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN PAN-AMERICANISM, THE LEAGUE OF
NATIONS, UNION NOW, OR SOME OTHER FORM OF INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
OR COLLECTIVE SECURITY WHICH MAY GROW OUT OF THE PRESENT HOLOCAUST.  A
DISTINCTION HERE WOULD BE AN INVIDIOUS ONE BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE
MIGHT AGREE WITH OR TOLERATE THE LATTER BUT DISLIKE OR DISAGREE WITH
THE FORMER. 

IF ROOM IS ALLOWED, AS WE THINK CONGRESS INTENDED, FOR THE FREE PLAY
OF IDEAS, NONE OF THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES, WHICH MIGHT BE HELD TO
STAND FORTH WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY TO BE IMPUTED TO PETITIONER ON THE
BASIS OF HIS MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITY IN THE LEAGUE AND THE PARTY AND
HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE SUBSCRIBED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS, IS ENOUGH, WHATEVER OUR OPINION AS TO THEIR MERITS, TO
PROVE THAT HE WAS NECESSARILY NOT ATTACHED TO THE CONSTITUTION WHEN HE
WAS NATURALIZED.  THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT IS NO GREATER. 

APART FROM THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ALLEGED PRINCIPLES OF THE PARTY
WHICH PETITIONER ASSERTEDLY BELIEVED WERE SO FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO
THE CONSTITUTION THAT HE WAS NOT ATTACHED TO ITS PRINCIPLES IN 1927,
THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ATTACHED BECAUSE HE
BELIEVED IN THE USE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE INSTEAD OF PEACEFUL
DEMOCRATIC METHODS TO ACHIEVE HIS DESIRES.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS PHASE OF
ITS ARGUMENT THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT THE ORGANIZATIONS WITH WHICH
PETITIONER WAS ACTIVELY AFFILIATED ADVISED, ADVOCATED AND TAUGHT THE
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT, CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, AND THAT PETITIONER THEREFORE BELIEVED IN THAT
METHOD OF GOVERNMENTAL CHANGE. 

APART FROM HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LEAGUE AND THE PARTY, THE RECORD IS
BARREN OF ANY CONDUCT OR STATEMENT ON PETITIONER'S PART WHICH INDICATES
IN THE SLIGHTEST THAT HE BELIEVED IN AND ADVOCATED THE EMPLOYMENT OF
FORCE AND VIOLENCE, INSTEAD OF PEACEFUL PERSUASION, AS A MEANS OF
ATTAINING POLITICAL ENDS.  TO FIND THAT HE SO BELIEVED AND ADVOCATED IT
IS NECESSARY, THEREFORE, TO FIND THAT SUCH WAS A PRINCIPLE OF THE
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH HE BELONGED AND THEN IMPUTE THAT PRINCIPLE TO
HIM ON THE BASIS OF HIS ACTIVITY IN THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AND HIS
STATEMENT THAT HE SUBSCRIBED TO THEIR PRINCIPLES.  THE GOVERNMENT
FRANKLY CONCEDES THAT "IT IS NORMALLY TRUE  ...  THAT IT IS UNSOUND TO
IMPUTE TO AN ORGANIZATION THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE WRITINGS OF ALL
ITS MEMBERS, OR TO IMPUTE SUCH WRITINGS TO EACH MEMBER  ...  "  FN27
BUT THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS PROPER TO IMPUTE TO
PETITIONER CERTAIN EXCERPTS FROM THE DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE UPON WHICH
IT PARTICULARLY RELIES TO SHOW THAT ADVOCACY OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE WAS
A PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1927,
BECAUSE THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS CAREFULLY SUPERVISED
BY THE PARTY, BECAUSE OF THE PARTY'S NOTORIOUS DISCIPLINE OVER ITS
MEMBERS, AND BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS NOT A MERE "RANK AND FILE OR
ACCIDENTAL MEMBER OF THE PARTY," BUT "AN INTELLIGENT AND EDUCATED
INDIVIDUAL" WHO "BECAME A LEADER OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS AS AN
INTELLECTUAL REVOLUTIONARY."  FN28  SINCE THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM IS THE
DETERMINATION WITH CERTAINTY OF PETITIONER'S BELIEFS FROM 1922 TO 1927,
EVENTS AND WRITINGS SINCE THAT TIME HAVE LITTLE RELEVANCE, AND BOTH
PARTIES HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CONFINE THEMSELVES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THAT
CRITICAL PERIOD.    FOR SOME TIME THE QUESTION WHETHER ADVOCACY OF
GOVERNMENTAL OVERTHROW BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE IS A PRINCIPLE OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES HAS PERPLEXED COURTS,
ADMINISTRATORS, LEGISLATORS, AND STUDENTS.  ON VARYING RECORDS IN
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS SOME COURTS HAVE HELD THAT ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDINGS THAT THE PARTY DID SO ADVOCATE WERE NOT SO WANTING IN
EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT AS TO AMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS,  FN29
OTHERS HAVE HELD TO THE CONTRARY ON DIFFERENT RECORDS,  FN30  AND SOME
SEEM TO HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THEY WILL JUDICIALLY NOTICE THAT
FORCE AND VIOLENCE IS A PARTY PRINCIPLE.  FN31  THIS COURT HAS NEVER
PASSED UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PARTY DOES SO ADVOCATE, AND IT IS
UNNECESSARY FOR US TO DO SO NOW. 

WITH COMMENDABLE CANDOR THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THE PRESENCE OF SHARPLY
CONFLICTING VIEWS ON THE ISSUE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE AS A PARTY
PRINCIPLE,  FN32  AND IT ALSO CONCEDES THAT "SOME COMMUNIST LITERATURE
IN RESPECT OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF AN INTERPRETATION
MORE RHETORICAL THAN LITERAL."  FN33  IT INSISTS, HOWEVER, THAT
EXCERPTS FROM THE DOCUMENTS ON WHICH IT PARTICULARLY RELIES, ARE ENOUGH
TO SHOW THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY
ADVOCATED VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT "CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS," AND HENCE CAN NOT BE SET ASIDE.  FN34  AS PREVIOUSLY
POINTED OUT, THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS DO NOT INDICATE THE BASES FOR
ITS CONCLUSIONS, BUT THE DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED PRIOR TO 1927 STRESSED BY
THE GOVERNMENT, WITH THE PERTINENT EXCERPTS NOTED IN THE MARGIN, ARE:
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO OF MARX AND ENGELS; FN35  THE STATE AND
REVOLUTION BY LENIN; FN36  THE STATUTES, THESES AND CONDITIONS OF
ADMISSION TO THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL; FN37  AND THE THEORY AND
PRACTICE OF LENINISM, WRITTEN BY STALIN.  FN38  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO
SETS FORTH EXCERPTS FROM OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE ENTITLED TO LITTLE
WEIGHT BECAUSE THEY WERE PUBLISHED AFTER THE CRITICAL PERIOD.  FN39 

THE BOMBASTIC EXCERPTS SET FORTH IN NOTES 35 TO 38 INCLUSIVE, UPON
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT PARTICULARLY RELIES, LEND CONSIDERABLE SUPPORT TO
THE CHARGE.  WE DO NOT SAY THAT A REASONABLE MAN COULD NOT POSSIBLY
HAVE FOUND, AS THE DISTRICT COURT DID, THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN 1927
ACTIVELY URGED THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE. 
FN40 BUT THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE
QUESTION WHETHER A REASONABLE MAN MIGHT SO CONCLUDE, NOR WITH THE
NARROW ISSUE WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS TO THAT EFFECT ARE SO
LACKING IN EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT AS TO AMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  AS POINTED OUT BEFORE, THIS IS A DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING
IN WHICH, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO ATTACK A FINDING OF
ATTACHMENT AS WE HAVE ASSUMED, THE BURDEN RESTS UPON IT TO PROVE THE
ALLEGED LACK OF ATTACHMENT BY "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL AND CONVINCING"
EVIDENCE.  THAT BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT
PROVED THAT PETITIONER'S BELIEFS ON THE SUBJECT OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE
WERE SUCH THAT HE WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE CONSTITUTION IN 1927. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE THIS PHASE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE IS SUBJECT TO
THE ADMITTED INFIRMITIES OF PROOF BY IMPUTATION N41.  THE DIFFICULTIES
OF THIS METHOD OF PROOF ARE HERE INCREASED BY THE FACT THAT THERE IS,
UNFORTUNATELY, NO ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE TEST OF WHAT A POLITICAL PARTY'S
PRINCIPLES ARE.  FN42  POLITICAL WRITINGS ARE OFTEN OVER-EXAGGERATED
POLEMICS BEARING THE IMPRINT OF THE PERIOD AND THE PLACE IN WHICH
WRITTEN.  FN43  PHILOSOPHIES CANNOT GENERALLY BE STUDIED IN VACUO. 
MEANING MAY BE WHOLLY DISTORTED BY LIFTING SENTENCES OUT OF CONTEXT,
INSTEAD OF CONSTRUING THEM AS PART OF AN ORGANIC WHOLE.  EVERY
UTTERANCE OF PARTY LEADERS IS NOT TAKEN AS PARTY GOSPEL.  AND WE WOULD
DENY OUR EXPERIENCE AS MEN IF WE DID NOT RECOGNIZE THAT OFFICIAL PARTY
PROGRAMS ARE UNFORTUNATELY OFTEN OPPORTUNISTIC DEVICES AS MUCH HONORED
IN THE BREACH AS IN THE OBSERVANCE.  FN44  ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT
RECORD WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS SO DIFFERENT IN THIS
RESPECT THAT ITS PRINCIPLES STAND FORTH WITH PERFECT CLARITY, AND
ESPECIALLY IS THIS SO WITH RELATION TO THE CRUCIAL ISSUE OF ADVOCACY OF
FORCE AND VIOLENCE, UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THE EVIDENCE IS
SHARPLY CONFLICTING.  THE PRESENCE OF THIS CONFLICT IS THE SECOND
WEAKNESS IN THE GOVERNMENT'S CHAIN OF PROOF.  IT IS NOT ELIMINATED BY
ASSIDUOUSLY ADDING FURTHER EXCERPTS FROM THE DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE TO
THOSE CULLED OUT BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

THE REALITY OF THE CONFLICT IN THE RECORD BEFORE US CAN BE POINTED
OUT QUICKLY.  OF THE RELEVANT PRIOR TO 1927 DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY
THE GOVERNMENT THREE ARE WRITINGS OF OUTSTANDING MARXIST PHILOSOPHERS,
AND LEADERS, THE FOURTH IS A WORLD PROGRAM.  FN45  THE MANIFESTO OF
1848 WAS PROCLAIMED IN AN AUTOCRATIC EUROPE ENGAGED IN SUPPRESSING THE
ABORTIVE LIBERAL REVOLUTIONS OF THAT YEAR.  WITH THIS BACKGROUND, ITS
TONE IS NOT SURPRISING.  FN46  ITS AUTHORS LATER STATED, HOWEVER, THAT
THERE WERE CERTAIN COUNTRIES, "SUCH AS THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND IN
WHICH THE WORKERS MAY HOPE TO SECURE THEIR ENDS BY PEACEFUL MEANS." 
FN47  LENIN DOUBTED THIS IN HIS MILITANT WORK, THE STATE AND
REVOLUTION, BUT THIS WAS WRITTEN ON THE EVE OF THE BOLSHEVIST
REVOLUTION IN RUSSIA AND MAY BE INTERPRETED AS INTENDED IN PART TO
JUSTIFY THE BOLSHEVIST COURSE AND REFUTE THE ANARCHISTS AND SOCIAL
DEMOCRATS.  FN48  STALIN DECLARED THAT MARX'S EXEMPTION FOR THE UNITED
STATES AND ENGLAND WAS NO LONGER VALID.  FN49  HE WROTE, HOWEVER, THAT
"THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PRESTIGE OF THE PARTY CAN BE BUILT UPON
VIOLENCE  ...  IS ABSURD AND ABSOLUTELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH LENINISM." 
FN50  AND LENIN WROTE "IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE POWER OF THE STATE THE
CLASS CONSCIOUS WORKERS MUST WIN THE MAJORITY TO THEIR SIDE.  AS LONG
AS NO VIOLENCE IS USED AGAINST THE MASSES, THERE IS NO OTHER ROAD TO
POWER.  WE ARE NOT BLANQUISTS, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE SEIZURE OF
POWER BY A MINORITY."  FN51  THE 1938 CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNIST
PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH PETITIONER CLAIMED TO BE THE FIRST
AND ONLY WRITTEN CONSTITUTION EVER OFFICIALLY ADOPTED BY THE PARTY AND
WHICH HE ASSERTED ENUNCIATED THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PARTY AS HE
UNDERSTOOD THEM FROM THE BEGINNING OF HIS MEMBERSHIP, OSTENSIBLY
ESCHEWS RESORT TO FORCE AND VIOLENCE AS AN ELEMENT OF PARTY TACTICS. 
FN52 

A TENABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE FOREGOING IS THAT THE PARTY IN 1927
DESIRED TO ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSE BY PEACEFUL AND DEMOCRATIC MEANS, AND AS
A THEORETICAL MATTER JUSTIFIED THE USE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE ONLY AS A
METHOD OF PREVENTING AN ATTEMPTED FORCIBLE COUNTER-OVERTHROW ONCE THE
PARTY HAD OBTAINED CONTROL IN A PEACEFUL MANNER, OR AS A METHOD OF LAST
RESORT TO ENFORCE THE MAJORITY WILL IF AT SOME INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME
BECAUSE OF PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTIONAL OR PEACEFUL CHANNELS
WERE NO LONGER OPEN. 

THERE IS A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGITATION AND EXHORTATION
CALLING FOR PRESENT VIOLENT ACTION WHICH CREATES A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER OF PUBLIC DISORDER OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE EVIL, AND MERE DOCTRINAL
JUSTIFICATION OR PREDICTION OF THE USE OF FORCE UNDER HYPOTHETICAL
CONDITIONS AT SOME INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME - PREDICTION THAT IS NOT
CALCULATED OR INTENDED TO BE PRESENTLY ACTED UPON, THUS LEAVING
OPPORTUNITY FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION AND THE CALM PROCESSES OF THOUGHT
AND REASON.  CF. BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252, AND JUSTICE
BRANDEIS' CONCURRING OPINION IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357,
372-80.  SEE ALSO TAYLOR V. MISSISSIPPI, 319 U.S. 583.  BECAUSE OF THIS
DIFFERENCE WE MAY ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED, BY THE GENERAL TEST OF
"ATTACHMENT" IN THE 1906 ACT, TO DENY NATURALIZATION TO PERSONS FALLING
INTO THE FIRST CATEGORY BUT NOT TO THOSE IN THE SECOND.  SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IS TO BE FAVORED BECAUSE IT PRESERVES FOR
NOVITIATES AS WELL AS CITIZENS THE FULL BENEFIT OF THAT FREEDOM OF
THOUGHT WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF OUR POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS. 
UNDER THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAS PROVED BY SUCH A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE
ISSUE IS NOT IN DOUBT, THAT THE ATTITUDE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE
UNITED STATES IN 1927 TOWARDS FORCE AND VIOLENCE WAS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF
CLASSIFICATION IN THE SECOND CATEGORY.  PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT HE
SUBSCRIBED TO THIS INTERPRETATION OF PARTY PRINCIPLES WHEN HE WAS
NATURALIZED, AND NOTHING IN HIS CONDUCT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT
TESTIMONY.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT CARRIED ITS BURDEN
OF PROVING BY "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL, AND CONVINCING" EVIDENCE WHICH DOES
NOT LEAVE "THE ISSUE IN DOUBT," THAT PETITIONER OBTAINED HIS
CITIZENSHIP ILLEGALLY.  IN SO HOLDING WE DO NOT DECIDE WHAT
INTERPRETATION OF THE PARTY'S ATTITUDE TOWARD FORCE AND VIOLENCE IS THE
MOST PROBABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD, OR THAT PETITIONER'S
TESTIMONY IS ACCEPTABLE AT FACE VALUE.  WE HOLD ONLY THAT WHERE TWO
INTERPRETATIONS OF AN ORGANIZATION'S PROGRAM ARE POSSIBLE, THE ONE
REPREHENSIBLE AND A BAR TO NATURALIZATION AND THE OTHER PERMISSIBLE, A
COURT IN A DENATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, ASSUMING THAT IT CAN RE-EXAMINE
A FINDING OF ATTACHMENT UPON A CHARGE OF ILLEGAL PROCUREMENT, IS NOT
JUSTIFIED IN CANCELING A CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP BY IMPUTING THE
REPREHENSIBLE INTERPRETATION TO A MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION IN THE
ABSENCE OF OVERT ACTS INDICATING THAT SUCH WAS HIS INTERPRETATION.  SO
UNCERTAIN A CHAIN OF PROOF DOES NOT ADD UP TO THE REQUISITE "CLEAR,
UNEQUIVOCAL, AND CONVINCING" EVIDENCE FOR SETTING ASIDE A
NATURALIZATION DECREE.  WERE THE LAW OTHERWISE, VALUABLE RIGHTS WOULD
REST UPON A SLENDER REED, AND THE SECURITY OF THE STATUS OF OUR
NATURALIZED CITIZENS MIGHT DEPEND IN CONSIDERABLE DEGREE UPON THE
POLITICAL TEMPER OF MAJORITY THOUGHT AND THE STRESSES OF THE TIMES. 
THOSE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOREIGN TO THE BEST TRADITIONS OF THIS NATION
AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF OUR INSTITUTIONS. 

                                  II 

THIS DISPOSES OF THE ISSUES FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT WHICH
ARE HERE PRESSED.  AS ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR ITS CONCLUSION THAT
PETITIONER'S NATURALIZATION WAS FRAUDULENTLY AND ILLEGALLY PROCURED,
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT PETITIONER WAS A DISBELIEVER
IN, AND A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION TEACHING DISBELIEF IN, ORGANIZED
GOVERNMENT,  FN53  AND THAT HIS OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, REQUIRED BY 8
U.S.C. SEC. 381, WAS FALSE.  THESE ISSUES ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
COMPLAINT,  FN54  AS IS ANOTHER GROUND URGED IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT
BELOW AS TO WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT MADE NO FINDINGS.  FN55  BECAUSE
THEY ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COMPLAINT, WE DO NOT CONSIDER THEM. 
AS WE SAID IN DE JONGE V. OREGON, "CONVICTION UPON A CHARGE NOT MADE
WOULD BE SHEER DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS."  299 U.S. 353, 362.  A
DENATURALIZATION SUIT IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  BUT NEITHER IS IT
AN ORDINARY CIVIL ACTION SINCE IT INVOLVES AN IMPORTANT ADJUDICATION OF
STATUS.  CONSEQUENTLY WE THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED, AS IN
A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, TO THE MATTERS CHARGED IN ITS COMPLAINT. 

ONE OTHER GROUND ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW WAS NOT
CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER COURTS AND DOES NOT MERIT DETAILED TREATMENT. 
IT IS THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO NATURALIZATION BECAUSE HE WAS
DEPORTABLE IN 1927 UNDER THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1918(40 STAT. 1012, AS
AMENDED BY 41 STAT. 1008; 8 U.S.C. SEC. 137) AS AN ALIEN MEMBER OF AN
ORGANIZATION ADVOCATING OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  THIS ISSUE IS ANSWERED BY OUR PRIOR
DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD RELATING TO FORCE AND
VIOLENCE.  ASSUMING THAT DEPORTABILITY AT THE TIME OF NATURALIZATION
SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF ILLEGALITY UNDER SEC. 15 WHICH GOVERNS
THIS PROCEEDING, THE SAME FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ADEQUATELY THE ATTITUDE
TOWARD FORCE AND VIOLENCE OF THE ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH PETITIONER
BELONGED FORBIDS HIS DENATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF MEMBERSHIP. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  AT THE TIME THIS PROCEEDING WAS STARTED THIS SECTION READ IN
PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR THE
RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, OR THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION, UPON AFFIDAVIT SHOWING GOOD CAUSE THEREFOR, TO
INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO NATURALIZE
ALIENS IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN MAY
RESIDE AT THE TIME OF BRINGING THE SUIT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING
ASIDE AND CANCELING THE CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP ON THE GROUND OF
FRAUD OR ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP WAS
ILLEGALLY PROCURED  ...  "  8 U.S.C. SEC. 405. 

THIS PROVISION IS CONTINUED IN SUBSTANCE BY SEC. 338 OF THE
NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1137, 1158, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 738. 

FN2  SECTION 4 OF THE ACT OF 1906 PROVIDED: 

"FOURTH.  IT SHALL BE MADE TO APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
ADMITTING ANY ALIEN TO CITIZENSHIP THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE
OF HIS APPLICATION HE HAS RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
FIVE YEARS AT LEAST, AND WITHIN THE STATE OR TERRITORY WHERE SUCH COURT
IS AT THE TIME HELD ONE YEAR AT LEAST, AND THAT DURING THAT TIME HE HAS
BEHAVED AS A MAN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD
ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME.  IN ADDITION TO THE OATH OF THE
APPLICANT, THE TESTIMONY OF AT LEAST TWO WITNESSES, CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, AS TO THE FACTS OF RESIDENCE, MORAL CHARACTER, AND
ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION SHALL BE REQUIRED, AND
THE NAME, PLACE OF RESIDENCE, AND OCCUPATION OF EACH WITNESS SHALL BE
SET FORTH IN THE RECORD."  34 STAT. 598; 8 U.S.C. SEC. 382.    FN3
SINCE 1790 CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED THE FUNCTION OF ADMITTING ALIENS TO
CITIZENSHIP EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE COURTS.  IN EXERCISING THEIR AUTHORITY
UNDER THIS MANDATE THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE EXERCISING THE JUDICIAL POWER
OF THE UNITED STATES, CONFERRED UPON THEM BY ARTICLE III OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568.  FOR THIS REASON
IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT A DECREE OF NATURALIZATION, EVEN THOUGH THE
UNITED STATES DOES NOT APPEAR, CANNOT BE COMPARED (AS WAS DONE IN
JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 227, 238) TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
GRANT OF LAND OR OF LETTERS PATENT FOR INVENTION, AND THAT THE
PERMISSIBLE AREA OF RE-EXAMINATION IS DIFFERENT IN THE TWO SITUATIONS. 

FN4  THE RECORD CONTAINS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE SAME IS NOT
TRUE FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 1927. 

FN5  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE ADEQUACY OF SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TESTIMONY
BY HYNES SEE EX PARTE FIERSTEIN, 41 F.2D 53. 

FN6  IV.  "THE COURT FINDS THAT IT IS TRUE THAT SAID DECREE AND
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION WERE ILLEGALLY PROCURED AND OBTAINED IN
THIS:  THAT RESPONDENT (PETITIONER) WAS NOT, AT THE TIME OF HIS
NATURALIZATION BY SAID COURT, AND DURING THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION HAD
NOT BEHAVED AS, A PERSON ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS
OF THE SAME. 

"THE COURT FINDS THAT IT IS NOT TRUE THAT AT THE TIME OF THE FILING
OF HIS PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION RESPONDENT WAS NOT A DISBELIEVER IN
OR OPPOSED TO ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT OR A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH
ANY ORGANIZATION OR BODY OF PERSONS TEACHING DISBELIEF IN OR OPPOSED TO
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT. 

"THE COURT FINDS THAT IN TRUTH AND IN FACT DURING ALL OF SAID TIMES
RESPONDENT HAD NOT BEHAVED AS A MAN ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER
AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME, BUT WAS A MEMBER OF AND AFFILIATED WITH AND
BELIEVED IN AND SUPPORTED THE PRINCIPLES OF CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS KNOWN
AS THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA, THE WORKERS (COMMUNIST) PARTY OF
AMERICA, THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE YOUNG
WORKERS LEAGUE OF AMERICA, THE YOUNG WORKERS (COMMUNIST) LEAGUE OF
AMERICA AND THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE OF AMERICA, WHICH ORGANIZATIONS
WERE, AND EACH OF THEM WAS, AT ALL TIMES HEREIN MENTIONED, A SECTION OF
THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL, THE PRINCIPLES OF ALL OF WHICH SAID
ORGANIZATIONS WERE OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND ADVISED, ADVOCATED, AND TAUGHT THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT, CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE AND TAUGHT DISBELIEF IN AND OPPOSITION TO ORGANIZED
GOVERNMENT. 

V. "THE COURT FURTHER FINDS THAT DURING ALL OF SAID TIMES THE
RESPONDENT HAS BEEN AND NOW IS A MEMBER OF SAID ORGANIZATIONS AND HAS
CONTINUED TO BELIEVE IN, ADVOCATE AND SUPPORT THE SAID PRINCIPLES OF
SAID ORGANIZATIONS." 

VI.  (THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS FINDING IS THAT PETITIONER FRAUDULENTLY
CONCEALED HIS COMMUNIST AFFILIATION FROM THE NATURALIZATION COURT.  IT
IS NOT SET FORTH BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE.  SEE NOTE 7, INFRA.) 

VII.  "THE COURT FURTHER FINDS THAT IT IS TRUE THAT SAID DECREE AND
CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION WERE ILLEGALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY PROCURED
AND OBTAINED IN THIS:  THAT BEFORE RESPONDENT (PETITIONER) WAS ADMITTED
TO CITIZENSHIP AS AFORESAID, HE DECLARED ON OATH IN OPEN COURT THAT HE
WOULD SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT HE
ABSOLUTELY AND ENTIRELY RENOUNCED AND ABJURED ALL ALLEGIANCE AND
FIDELITY TO ANY FOREIGN PRINCE, POTENTATE, STATE, OR SOVEREIGNTY, AND
THAT HE WOULD SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND BEAR TRUE
FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME, WHEREAS IN TRUTH AND IN FACT, AT THE
TIME OF MAKING SUCH DECLARATIONS ON OATH IN OPEN COURT, RESPONDENT
(PETITIONER) DID NOT INTEND TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND DID NOT INTEND ABSOLUTELY AND ENTIRELY TO RENOUNCE AND
ABJURE ALL ALLEGIANCE AND FIDELITY TO ANY FOREIGN PRINCE, POTENTATE,
STATE, OR SOVEREIGNTY, AND DID NOT INTEND TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN
AND DOMESTIC, AND/OR TO BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME, BUT
RESPONDENT AT SAID TIME INTENDED TO AND DID MAINTAIN ALLEGIANCE AND
FIDELITY TO THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND TO THE SAID
THIRD INTERNATIONAL, AND INTENDED TO ADHERE TO AND SUPPORT AND DEFEND
AND ADVOCATE THE PRINCIPLES AND TEACHINGS OF SAID THIRD INTERNATIONAL,
WHICH PRINCIPLES AND TEACHINGS WERE OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND ADVISED, ADVOCATED AND TAUGHT THE
OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT, CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE." 

FN7  THAT COURT SAID IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE CHARGE OF
FRAUDULENT PROCUREMENT BY CONCEALMENT OF PETITIONER'S COMMUNIST
AFFILIATION.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PRESSED THIS CHARGE HERE, AND WE
DO NOT CONSIDER IT. 

FN8  THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, WHILE ENLARGING THE CATEGORY OF
BELIEFS DISQUALIFYING PERSONS THEREAFTER APPLYING FOR CITIZENSHIP, DOES
NOT IN TERMS MAKE COMMUNIST BELIEFS OR AFFILIATION GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL
OF NATURALIZATION.  SEC. 305, 54 STAT. 1137, 1141; 8 U.S.C. SEC. 705. 

BILLS TO WRITE A DEFINITION OF "COMMUNIST" INTO THE IMMIGRATION AND
DEPORTATION ACT OF 1918 AS AMENDED (40 STAT. 1012, 41 STAT. 1008) AND
TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEPORTATION OF "COMMUNISTS" FAILED TO PASS CONGRESS
IN 1932 AND AGAIN IN 1935.  SEE H.R. 12044, H. REP. NO. 1353, S. REP.
NO. 808, 75 CONG. REC. 12097-108, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.  SEE ALSO H.R.
7120, H. REP. NO. 1023, PTS.  1 AND 2, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN9  SEC. 7 OF ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 364. 

FN10  SEC. 4 OF ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 381. 

FN11  SEC. 4 OF ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 382. 

FN12  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PHRASE GIVES SOME SUPPORT TO
THIS VIEW.  THE BEHAVIOR REQUIREMENT FIRST APPEARED IN THE
NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1795, 1 STAT. 414, WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO TIGHTEN
THE ACT OF 1790, 1 STAT. 103.  THE DISCURSIVE DEBATES ON THE 1795 ACT
CAST LITTLE LIGHT UPON THE MEANING OF "BEHAVED," BUT INDICATE THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE REQUIREMENT WAS TO PROVIDE A PROBATIONARY PERIOD DURING
WHICH ALIENS COULD LEARN OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PLAN.  SOME MEMBERS WERE
DISTURBED BY THE POLITICAL FERMENT OF THE AGE AND SPOKE ACCORDINGLY,
WHILE OTHERS REGARDED THE UNITED STATES AS AN ASYLUM FOR THE OPPRESSED
AND MISTRUSTED EFFORTS TO PROBE MINDS FOR BELIEFS.  IT IS PERHAPS
SIGNIFICANT THAT THE OATH, WHICH WAS ADOPTED OVER THE PROTEST OF
MADISON, THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL, DID NOT REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO
SWEAR THAT HE WAS ATTACHED TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT ONLY THAT HE WOULD
SUPPORT IT.  SEE 4 ANNALS OF CONGRESS, PP. 1004-09, 1021-23, 1026-27,
1030-58, 1062, 1064-66.  SEE ALSO FRANKLIN, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
NATURALIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES (1906), CHAPTER IV. 

THE BEHAVIOR REQUIREMENT WAS REENACTED IN 1802(2 STAT. 153) AT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF JEFFERSON FOR THE REPEAL OF THE STRINGENT ACT OF
1798, 1 STAT. 566.  SEE FRANKLIN, OP. CIT., CHAPTER VI.  IT CONTINUED
UNCHANGED UNTIL THE ACT OF 1906 WHICH FOR THE FIRST TIME IMPORTED THE
TEST OF PRESENT BELIEF INTO THE NATURALIZATION LAWS WHEN IT PROVIDED IN
SEC. 7 THAT DISBELIEVERS IN ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT AND POLYGAMISTS COULD
NOT BECOME CITIZENS.  THE CONTINUATION OF THE BEHAVIOR TEST FOR
ATTACHMENT IS SOME INDICATION THAT A LESS SEARCHING EXAMINATION WAS
INTENDED IN THIS FIELD - THAT CONDUCT AND NOT BELIEF (OTHER THAN
ANARCHIST OR POLYGAMIST) WAS THE CRITERION.  THE NATIONALITY ACT OF
1940 CHANGED THE BEHAVIOR REQUIREMENT TO A PROVISION THAT NO PERSON
COULD BE NATURALIZED UNLESS HE "HAS BEEN AND STILL IS A PERSON OF GOOD
MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE
UNITED STATES," 54 STAT. 1142, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 707.  THE REPORT OF THE
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE TO REVISE THE NATIONALITY LAWS (1939) INDICATES
THIS CHANGE IN LANGUAGE WAS NOT REGARDED AS A CHANGE IN SUBSTANCE.  P.
23.  THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE REPORTS ARE SILENT ON THE QUESTION. 
THE SPONSORS OF THE ACT IN THE HOUSE, HOWEVER, DECLARED GENERALLY AN
INTENT TO TIGHTEN AND RESTRICT THE NATURALIZATION LAWS.  SEE 86 CONG.
REC. 11939, 11942, 11947, 11949.  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE WHO
HAD CHARGE OF THE BILL STATED THAT "SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES ARE NECESSARY
IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN RIGHTS, WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING PERSONS
WHO HAVE NO REAL ATTACHMENT TO THE UNITED STATES FROM ENJOYING THE HIGH
PRIVILEGE OF AMERICAN NATIONALITY."  86 CONG. REC. 11948.  THIS REMARK
SUGGESTS THAT THE CHANGE FROM "BEHAVED AS A MAN ATTACHED" TO "HAS BEEN
AND STILL IS A PERSON ATTACHED" WAS A CHANGE IN MEANING. 

FN13  PROGRAM AND CONSTITUTION OF THE WORKERS PARTY (1921-24). 

FN14  ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF WILLIAM Z. FOSTER, THE PARTY'S NOMINEE FOR
THE PRESIDENCY IN 1928. 

FN15  WRITING IN 1816 JEFFERSON SAID:  "SOME MEN LOOK AT
CONSTITUTIONS WITH SANCTIMONIOUS REVERENCE, AND DEEM THEM LIKE THE ARK
OF THE COVENANT, TOO SACRED TO BE TOUCHED.  THEY ASCRIBE TO THE MEN OF
THE PRECEDING AGE A WISDOM MORE THAN HUMAN, AND SUPPOSE WHAT THEY DID
TO BE BEYOND AMENDMENT.  I KNEW THAT AGE WELL; I BELONGED TO IT, AND
LABORED WITH IT.  IT DESERVED WELL OF ITS COUNTRY.  IT WAS VERY LIKE
THE PRESENT, BUT WITHOUT THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PRESENT; AND FORTY YEARS
OF EXPERIENCE IN GOVERNMENT IS WORTH A CENTURY OF BOOKREADING; AND THIS
THEY WOULD SAY THEMSELVES, WERE THEY TO RISE FROM THE DEAD.  I AM
CERTAINLY NOT AN ADVOCATE FOR FREQUENT AND UNTRIED CHANGES IN LAWS AND
CONSTITUTIONS.  I THINK MODERATE IMPERFECTIONS HAD BETTER BE BORNE
WITH; BECAUSE, WHEN ONCE KNOWN, WE ACCOMMODATE OURSELVES TO THEM, AND
FIND PRACTICAL MEANS OF CORRECTING THEIR ILL EFFECTS.  BUT I KNOW ALSO,
THAT LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS MUST GO HAND IN HAND WITH THE PROGRESS OF
THE HUMAN MIND.  AS THAT BECOMES MORE DEVELOPED, MORE ENLIGHTENED, AS
NEW DISCOVERIES ARE MADE, NEW TRUTHS DISCLOSED, AND MANNERS AND
OPINIONS CHANGE WITH THE CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, INSTITUTIONS MUST
ADVANCE ALSO, AND KEEP PACE WITH THE TIMES.  WE MIGHT AS WELL REQUIRE A
MAN TO WEAR STILL THE COAT WHICH FITTED HIM WHEN A BOY, AS CIVILIZED
SOCIETY TO REMAIN EVER UNDER THE REGIMEN OF THEIR BARBAROUS
ANCESTORS."  FORD, JEFFERSON'S WRITINGS, VOL. X, P. 42. 

COMPARE HIS FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS:  "AND LET US REFLECT THAT,
HAVING BANISHED FROM OUR LAND THAT RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE UNDER WHICH
MANKIND SO LONG BLED AND SUFFERED, WE HAVE YET GAINED LITTLE IF WE
COUNTENANCE A POLITICAL INTOLERANCE AS DESPOTIC, AS WICKED, AND CAPABLE
OF AS BITTER AND BLOODY PERSECUTIONS.  DURING THE THROES AND
CONVULSIONS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD, DURING THE AGONIZING SPASMS OF
INFURIATED MAN, SEEKING THROUGH BLOOD AND SLAUGHTER HIS LONG-LOST
LIBERTY, IT WAS NOT WONDERFUL THAT THE AGITATION OF THE BILLOWS SHOULD
REACH EVEN THIS DISTANT AND PEACEFUL SHORE; THAT THIS SHOULD BE MORE
FELT AND FEARED BY SOME AND LESS BY OTHERS, AND SHOULD DIVIDE OPINIONS
AS TO MEASURES OF SAFETY.  BUT EVERY DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IS NOT A
DIFFERENCE OF PRINCIPLE.  WE HAVE CALLED BY DIFFERENT NAMES BRETHREN OF
THE SAME PRINCIPLE.  WE ARE ALL REPUBLICANS, WE ARE ALL FEDERALISTS. 
IF THERE BE ANY AMONG US WHO WOULD WISH TO DISSOLVE THIS UNION OR TO
CHANGE ITS REPUBLICAN FORM, LET THEM STAND UNDISTURBED AS MONUMENTS OF
THE SAFETY WITH WHICH ERROR OF OPINION MAY BE TOLERATED WHERE REASON IS
LEFT FREE TO COMBAT IT.  I KNOW, INDEED, THAT SOME HONEST MEN FEAR THAT
A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE STRONG, THAT THIS GOVERNMENT IS NOT
STRONG ENOUGH; BUT WOULD THE HONEST PATRIOT, IN THE FULL TIDE OF
SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENT, ABANDON A GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS SO FAR KEPT US
FREE AND FIRM ON THE THEORETIC AND VISIONARY FEAR THAT THIS GOVERNMENT,
THE WORLD'S BEST HOPE, MAY BY POSSIBILITY WANT ENERGY TO PRESERVE
ITSELF?  I TRUST NOT."  RICHARDSON, MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE
PRESIDENTS, VOL. I, P. 310. 

FN16  SEE ALSO 18 CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY 251; FREUND, UNITED STATES V.
MACINTOSH, A SYMPOSIUM, 26 ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 375, 385; 46 HARVARD LAW
REVIEW 325. 

AS A MATTER OF FACT ONE VERY MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION AS
IT STOOD IN 1927 WHEN PETITIONER WAS NATURALIZED HAS SINCE BEEN
EFFECTED BY THE REPEAL OF THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 12, ANTE. 

FN18  IN 1938 CONGRESS FAILED TO PASS A BILL DENYING NATURALIZATION
TO ANY PERSON "WHO BELIEVES IN ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE UNITED
STATES CONTRARY TO THAT NOW EXISTING IN THE UNITED STATES, OR WHO IS A
MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION WHICH ADVOCATES ANY FORM
OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES CONTRARY TO THAT NOW EXISTING IN
THE UNITED STATES."  H.R. 9690, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. 

FN19  BRIEF, PP. 103-04.  SUPPORTING THIS VIEW ARE IN RE SARALIEFF,
59 F.2D 436; IN RE VAN LAEKEN, 22 F.SUPP.  145; IN RE SHANIN, 278 F.
739.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. TAPOLCSANYI, 40 F.2D 255; EX PARTE
SAUER, 81 F. 355; UNITED STATES V. OLSSON, 196 F. 562, REVERSED ON
STIPULATION, 201 F. 1022. 

FN20  "THE TEST IS  ...  WHETHER HE SUBSTITUTES REVOLUTION FOR
EVOLUTION, DESTRUCTION FOR CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER HE BELIEVES IN AN
ORDERED SOCIETY, A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, UNDER WHICH THE POWERS OF
GOVERNMENT ARE GRANTED BY THE PEOPLE BUT UNDER A GRANT WHICH ITSELF
PRESERVES TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND TO MINORITIES CERTAIN RIGHTS OR
FREEDOMS WHICH EVEN THE MAJORITY MAY NOT TAKE AWAY; WHETHER, IN SUM,
THE EVENTS WHICH BEGAN AT LEAST NO FURTHER BACK THAN THE DECLARATION OF
INDEPENDENCE, FOLLOWED BY THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, ESTABLISH PRINCIPLES WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNMENT, THE
INDIVIDUAL, THE MINORITY AND THE MAJORITY, BY WHICH ORDERED LIBERTY IS
REPLACED BY DISORGANIZED LIBERTY."  BRIEF, P. 105.    FN21  SEE
GENERALLY THORPE, CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (1901),
VOL. III, BOOK V. 

COMPARE THE EFFECT OF THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT.    FN22  PETITIONER
TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS NEVER ADOPTED, BUT WAS MERELY A DRAFT FOR
STUDY. 

FN23  SEE HAYNES, THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES (1938), PP. 11, 96
98.  106-115, 1068-74. 

FN24  COMPARE NEBRASKA'S EXPERIMENT WITH SUCH A BODY.  NEBRASKA
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, SEC. 1.  SEE 13 NEBRASKA LAW BULLETIN 341. 

FN24  A  E.G., THE RECALL OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS.  SEE THEODORE
ROOSEVELT, A CHARTER OF DEMOCRACY, S. DOC. NO. 348, 62D CONG., 2D SESS.
FOR PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE JUDICIARY AND
THIS COURT SEE H. DOC. NO. 353, PT. 2, 54TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 144
64; S. DOC. NO. 93, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 83, 86, 93, 101, 111,
123, 133. 

FN24  B  FOR AN ACCOUNT OF THE ATTACKS ON THE VETO POWER SEE H. DOC.
NO. 353, PT. 2, 54TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 129-34. 

FN25  ABC OF COMMUNISM; LENIN, STATE AND REVOLUTION; STATUTES, THESES
AND CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION TO THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL; STALIN,
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LENINISM; 1928 PROGRAM OF THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL. 

FN26  "IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE QUESTION OF DEPRIVING THE
EXPLOITERS OF THE FRANCHISE IS PURELY A RUSSIAN QUESTION, AND NOT A
QUESTION OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT IN GENERAL.  ...  IT
WOULD BE A MISTAKE, HOWEVER, TO GUARANTEE IN ADVANCE THAT THE IMPENDING
PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONS IN EUROPE WILL ALL, OR FOR THE MOST PART, BE
NECESSARILY ACCOMPANIED BY THE RESTRICTION OF THE FRANCHISE FOR THE
BOURGEOISIE.  PERHAPS THEY WILL.  AFTER OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE WAR AND
OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION WE CAN SAY THAT IT WILL PROBABLY BE SO; BUT
IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REALIZING THE
DICTATORSHIP, IT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL SYMPTOM OF THE LOGICAL CONCEPT
'DICTATORSHIP,' IT DOES NOT ENTER AS AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION IN THE
HISTORICAL AND CLASS CONCEPT 'DICTATORSHIP.'"  SELECTED WORKS, VOL.
VII, PP. 142-3.  (PLACED IN EVIDENCE BY PETITIONER.) 

FN27  BRIEF, PP. 23-24. 

FN28  BRIEF, PP. 25-26. 

FN29  IN RE SADERQUIST, 11 F.SUPP.  525; SKEFFINGTON V. KATZEFF, 277
F. 129; UNITED STATES V. CURRAN, 11 F.2D 683; KENMOTSU V. NAGLE, 44
F.2D 953; SORMUNEN V. NAGLE, 59 F.2D 398; BRANCH V. CAHILL, 88 F.2D
545; EX PARTE VILARINO, 50 F.2D 582; KJAR V. DOAK, 61 F.2D 566; BERKMAN
V. TILLINGHAST, 58 F.2D 621; UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 2 F.2D 90; UNITED
STATES V. WALLIS, 268 F. 413. 

FN30  STRECKER V. KESSLER, 95 F.2D 976, 96 F.2D 1020, AFFIRMED ON
OTHER GROUNDS, 307 U.S. 22; EX PARTE FIERSTEIN, 41 F.2D 53; COLYER V.
SKEFFINGTON, 265 F. 17, REVERSED SUB NOM. SKEFFINGTON V. KATZEFF, 277
F. 129. 

FN31  UNITED STATES EX REL. YOKINEN V. COMMISSIONER, 57 F.2D 707;
UNITED STATES V. PERKINS, 79 F.2D 533; UNITED STATES EX REL. FERNANDAS
V. COMMISSIONER, 65 F.2D 593; UNGAR V. SEAMAN, 4 F.2D 80; EX PARTE
JURGANS, 17 F.2D 507; UNITED STATES EX REL. FORTMUELLER V.
COMMISSIONER, 14 F.SUPP.  484; MURDOCH V. CLARK, 53 F.2D 155; WOLCK V.
WEEDIN, 58 F.2D 928. 

FN32  BRIEF, P. 60. 

FN33  BRIEF, P. 77.  SEE ALSO COLYER V. SKEFFINGTON, 265 F. 17, 59,
REVERSED SUB NOM. SKEFFINGTON V. KATZEFF, 277 F. 129.  AND SEE EVATT,
J., IN KING V. HUSH (EX PARTE DEVANNY), 48 C.L.R. 487, 516-18. 

FN34  RULE 52(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 U.S.C.A.,
FOLLOWING SEC. 723(C). 

FN35  THE MANIFESTO WAS PROCLAIMED IN 1848.  THE EDITION IN EVIDENCE
WAS PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHERS IN 1932.  PETITIONER
TESTIFIED THAT HE BELIEVED IT TO BE AN AUTHORIZED PUBLICATION, THAT HE
WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK, THAT IT WAS USED IN CLASSES, AND THAT HE
THOUGHT ITS PRINCIPLES WERE CORRECT "PARTICULARLY AS THEY APPLIED TO
THE PERIOD IN WHICH THEY WERE WRITTEN AND THE COUNTRY ABOUT WHICH THEY
WERE WRITTEN." 

THE EXCERPTS STRESSED ARE:  "THE COMMUNISTS DISDAIN TO CONCEAL THEIR
VIEWS AND AIMS.  THEY OPENLY DECLARE THAT THEIR ENDS CAN BE ATTAINED
ONLY BY THE FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF ALL EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS." 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THOUGH NOT IN SUBSTANCE, YET IN FORM, THE STRUGGLE OF THE
PROLETARIAT WITH THE BOURGEOISIE IS AT FIRST A NATIONAL STRUGGLE.  THE
PROLETARIAT OF EACH COUNTRY MUST, OF COURSE, FIRST OF ALL SETTLE
MATTERS WITH ITS OWN BOURGEOISIE. 

"IN DEPICTING THE MOST GENERAL PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROLETARIAT, WE TRACED THE MORE OR LESS VEILED CIVIL WAR, RAGING WITHIN
EXISTING SOCIETY, UP TO THE POINT WHERE THAT WAR BREAKS OUT INTO OPEN
REVOLUTION, AND WHERE THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE BOURGEOISIE LAYS THE
FOUNDATION FOR THE SWAY OF THE PROLETARIAT." 

FN36  THIS WORK WAS WRITTEN IN 1917 BETWEEN THE FEBRUARY AND OCTOBER
REVOLUTIONS IN RUSSIA.  THE COPY IN EVIDENCE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1924 BY
THE DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING COMPANY.  PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS
CIRCULATED BY THE PARTY AND THAT IT WAS PROBABLY USED IN THE CLASSES OF
WHICH HE WAS "EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR." 

THE EXCERPTS ARE: 

"FIFTH, IN THE SAME WORK OF ENGELS,  ...  THERE IS ALSO A
DISQUISITION ON THE NATURE OF A VIOLENT REVOLUTION; AND THE HISTORICAL
APPRECIATION OF ITS ROLE BECOMES, WITH ENGELS, A VERITABLE PANEGYRIC OF
A REVOLUTION BY FORCE.  THIS, OF COURSE, NO ONE REMEMBERS.  TO TALK OR
EVEN TO THINK OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS IDEA, IS NOT CONSIDERED
RESPECTABLE BY OUR MODERN SOCIALIST PARTIES, AND IN THE DAILY
PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION AMONG THE MASSES IT PLAYS NO PART WHATEVER. 
YET IT IS INDISSOLUBLY BOUND UP WITH THE 'WITHERING AWAY' OF THE STATE
IN ONE HARMONIOUS WHOLE.  HERE IS ENGELS' ARGUMENT: 

"'THAT FORCE ALSO PLAYS ANOTHER PART IN HISTORY (OTHER THAN THAT OF A
PERPETUATION OF EVIL), NAMELY A REVOLUTIONARY PART; THAT AS MARX SAYS,
IT IS THE MIDWIFE OF EVERY OLD SOCIETY WHEN IT IS PREGNANT WITH A NEW
ONE; THAT FORCE IS THE INSTRUMENT AND THE MEANS BY WHICH SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS HACK THEIR WAY THROUGH AND BREAK UP THE DEAD AND FOSSILIZED
POLITICAL FORMS - OF ALL THIS NOT A WORD BY HERR DUEHRING.  DULY, WITH
SIGHS AND GROANS, DOES HE ADMIT THE POSSIBILITY THAT FOR THE OVERTHROW
OF THE SYSTEM OF EXPLOITATION FORCE MAY, PERHAPS, BE NECESSARY, BUT
MOST UNFORTUNATE IF YOU PLEASE, BECAUSE ALL USE OF FORCE, FORSOOTH,
DEMORALIZES ITS USER.  AND THIS IS SAID IN FACE OF THE GREAT MORAL AND
INTELLECTUAL ADVANCE WHICH HAS BEEN THE RESULT OF EVERY VICTORIOUS
REVOLUTION.  ...  AND THIS TURBID, FLABBY, IMPOTENT, PARSON'S MODE OF
THINKING DARES OFFER ITSELF FOR ACCEPTANCE TO THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY
PARTY HISTORY HAS EVER KNOWN.'" 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE NECESSITY OF SYSTEMATICALLY FOSTERING AMONG THE MASSES THIS AND
ONLY THIS POINT OF VIEW ABOUT VIOLENT REVOLUTION LIES AT THE ROOT OF
THE WHOLE OF MARX'S AND ENGELS' TEACHING, AND IT IS JUST THE NEGLECT OF
SUCH PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION BOTH BY THE PRESENT PREDOMINANT SOCIAL
CHAUVINISTS AND THE KAUTSKIAN SCHOOLS THAT BRINGS THEIR BETRAYAL OF IT
INTO PROMINENT RELIEF." 

     .         .         .         .         . 

(QUOTING  ENGELS) "'REVOLUTION IS AN ACT IN WHICH PART OF THE
POPULATION FORCES ITS WILL ON THE OTHER PARTS BY MEANS OF RIFLES,
BAYONETS, CANNON, I.E., BY MOST AUTHORITATIVE MEANS.  AND THE
CONQUERING PARTY IS INEVITABLY FORCED TO MAINTAIN ITS SUPREMACY BY
MEANS OF THAT FEAR WHICH ITS ARMS INSPIRE IN THE REACTIONARIES.'" 

FN37  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS NEVER INTRODUCED IN
EVIDENCE, AND THE RECORD SHOWS ONLY THAT IT WAS MARKED FOR
IDENTIFICATION.  THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE MAKES IT IMMATERIAL
WHETHER THIS DOCUMENT IS IN EVIDENCE OR NOT.  THE COPY FURNISHED US WAS
PRINTED IN 1923 UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE WORKERS PARTY.  HYNES
TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS AN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION, BUT NOT WIDELY
CIRCULATED.  PETITIONER HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF THE PARTICULAR PAMPHLET
AND TESTIFIED THAT THE AMERICAN PARTY WAS NOT BOUND BY IT. 

THE EXCERPTS ARE: 

"THAT WHICH BEFORE THE VICTORY OF THE PROLETARIAT SEEMS BUT A
THEORETICAL DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF 'DEMOCRACY,'
BECOMES INEVITABLY ON THE MORROW OF THE VICTORY, A QUESTION WHICH CAN
ONLY BE DECIDED BY FORCE OF ARMS." 

.         .         .         .         . 

"THE WORKING CLASS CANNOT ACHIEVE THE VICTORY OVER THE BOURGEOISIE BY
MEANS OF THE GENERAL STRIKE ALONE, AND BY THE POLICY OF FOLDED ARMS THE
PROLETARIAT MUST RESORT TO AN ARMED UPRISING." 

     .     .         .         .         . 

"THE ELEMENTARY MEANS OF THE STRUGGLE OF THE PROLETARIAT AGAINST THE
RULE OF THE BOURGEOISIE IS, FIRST OF ALL, THE METHOD OF MASS
DEMONSTRATIONS.  SUCH MASS DEMONSTRATIONS ARE PREPARED AND CARRIED OUT
BY THE ORGANIZED MASSES OF THE PROLETARIAT, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A
UNITED, DISCIPLINED, CENTRALIZED COMMUNIST PARTY.  CIVIL WAR IS WAR. 
IN THIS WAR THE PROLETARIAT MUST HAVE ITS EFFICIENT POLITICAL OFFICERS,
ITS GOOD POLITICAL GENERAL STAFF, TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS DURING ALL THE
STAGES OF THAT FIGHT. 

"THE MASS STRUGGLE MEANS A WHOLE SYSTEM OF DEVELOPING DEMONSTRATIONS
GROWING EVER MORE ACUTE IN FORM, AND LOGICALLY LEADING TO AN UPRISING
AGAINST THE CAPITALIST ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT.  IN THIS WARFARE OF THE
MASSES DEVELOPING INTO A CIVIL WAR, THE GUIDING PARTY OF THE
PROLETARIAT MUST, AS A GENERAL RULE, SECURE EVERY AND ALL LAWFUL
POSITIONS, MAKING THEM ITS AUXILIARIES IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WORK, AND
SUBORDINATING SUCH POSITIONS TO THE PLANS OF THE GENERAL CAMPAIGN, THAT
OF THE MASS STRUGGLE." 

FN38  THE COPY IN EVIDENCE WAS PRINTED BY THE DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING
COMPANY EITHER IN 1924 OR 1925.  PETITIONER WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK,
BUT NOT THE PARTICULAR EDITION, AND TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS PROBABLY
CIRCULATED BY THE PARTY.  HE HAD READ IT, BUT PROBABLY AFTER HIS
NATURALIZATION.  HYNES AND HUMPHREYS TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS USED IN
COMMUNIST CLASSES. 

THE EXCERPTS ARE: 

"MARX'S LIMITATION WITH REGARD TO THE 'CONTINENT' HAS FURNISHED THE
OPPORTUNISTS AND MENSHEVIKS OF EVERY COUNTRY WITH A PRETEXT FOR
ASSERTING THAT MARX ADMITTED THE POSSIBILITY OF A PEACEFUL
TRANSFORMATION OF BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY INTO PROLETARIAN DEMOCRACY, AT
LEAST (IN) SOME COUNTRIES (ENGLAND AND AMERICA).  MARX DID IN FACT
RECOGNIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS IN THE ENGLAND AND AMERICA OF 1860,
WHERE MONOPOLIST CAPITALISM AND IMPERIALISM DID NOT EXIST AND WHERE
MILITARISM AND BUREAUCRACY WERE AS YET LITTLE DEVELOPED.  BUT NOW THE
SITUATION IN THESE COUNTRIES IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT; IMPERIALISM HAS
REACHED ITS APOGEE THERE, AND THERE MILITARISM AND BUREAUCRACY ARE
SOVEREIGN.  IN CONSEQUENCE, MARX'S RESTRICTION NO LONGER APPLIES." 

"WITH THE REFORMIST, REFORM IS EVERYTHING, WHILST IN REVOLUTIONARY
WORK IT ONLY APPEARS AS A FORM.  THIS IS WHY WITH THE REFORMIST TACTIC
UNDER A BOURGEOIS GOVERNMENT, ALL REFORM TENDS INEVITABLY TO
CONSOLIDATE THE POWERS THAT BE, AND TO WEAKEN THE REVOLUTION. 

"WITH THE REVOLUTIONARY, ON THE CONTRARY, THE MAIN THING IS THE
REVOLUTIONARY WORK AND NOT THE REFORM.  FOR HIM, REFORM IS ONLY AN
ACCESSORY OF REVOLUTION." 

FN39  (A)  PROGRAM OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL, ADOPTED IN 1928
AND PUBLISHED BY THE WORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISHERS, INC., IN 1929: 

"HENCE, REVOLUTION IS NOT ONLY NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER
WAY OF OVERTHROWING THE RULING CLASS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE, ONLY IN THE
PROCESS OF REVOLUTION IS THE OVERTHROWING CLASS ABLE TO PURGE ITSELF OF
THE DROSS OF THE OLD SOCIETY AND BECOME CAPABLE OF CREATING A NEW
SOCIETY." 

PETITIONER "AGREED WITH THE GENERAL THEORETICAL CONCLUSIONS STATED
IN" THIS PROGRAM, BUT HE REGARDED "THE APPLICATION OF THAT THEORY" AS
"SOMETHING ELSE." 

(B)  PROGRAMME OF THE YOUNG COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL, PUBLISHED IN
1929:  "AN OPPRESSED CLASS WHICH DOES NOT ENDEAVOR TO POSSESS AND LEARN
TO HANDLE ARMS WOULD DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS SLAVES.  WE WOULD BECOME
BOURGEOIS PACIFISTS OR OPPORTUNISTS IF WE FORGET THAT WE ARE LIVING IN
A CLASS SOCIETY, AND THAT THE ONLY WAY OUT IS THROUGH CLASS STRUGGLE
AND THE OVERTHROW OF THE POWER OF THE RULING CLASS.  OUR SLOGAN MUST
BE:  'ARMING OF THE PROLETARIAT, TO CONQUER, EXPROPRIATE AND DISARM THE
BOURGEOISIE.'  ONLY AFTER THE PROLETARIAT HAS DISARMED THE BOURGEOISIE
WILL IT BE ABLE, WITHOUT BETRAYING ITS HISTORIC TASK, TO THROW ALL ARMS
ON THE SCRAP HEAP.  THIS THE PROLETARIAT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY DO.  BUT ONLY
THEN, AND ON NO ACCOUNT SOONER." 

(C)  WHY COMMUNISM, WRITTEN BY OLGIN, AND PUBLISHED FIRST IN 1933, BY
THE WORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISHERS: 

"WE COMMUNISTS SAY THAT THERE IS ONE WAY TO ABOLISH THE CAPITALIST
STATE, AND THAT IS TO SMASH IT BY FORCE.  TO MAKE COMMUNISM POSSIBLE
THE WORKERS MUST TAKE HOLD OF THE STATE MACHINERY OF CAPITALISM AND
DESTROY IT." 

PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NOT READ THIS BOOK, BUT THAT IT HAD
BEEN WIDELY CIRCULATED BY THE PARTY. 

FN40  SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT SPECIFY UPON WHAT EVIDENCE ITS
CONCLUSORY FINDINGS RESTED, IT IS WELL TO MENTION THE REMAINING
DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED BEFORE 1927 WHICH WERE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AND
EXCERPTS FROM WHICH WERE READ INTO THE RECORD, BUT UPON WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY RELY WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF
FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE: LENIN, LEFT WING COMMUNISM,
FIRST PUBLISHED IN ENGLISH ABOUT 1920; BUCHARIN AND PREOBRASCHENSKY,
ABC OF COMMUNISM, WRITTEN IN 1919 AND PUBLISHED AROUND 1921 IN THIS
COUNTRY (PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS NEVER AN ACCEPTED WORK AND
THAT ITS AUTHORS WERE LATER EXPELLED FROM THE INTERNATIONAL);
INTERNATIONAL OF YOUTH, A PERIODICAL PUBLISHED IN 1925; THE 4TH
NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA, PUBLISHED IN 1925;
THE SECOND YEAR OF THE WORKERS PARTY IN AMERICA (1924); AND, THE
PROGRAM AND CONSTITUTION OF THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA, CIRCULATED
AROUND 1924.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THESE LAST TWO DOCUMENTS, THE
EXCERPTS READ INTO THE RECORD FROM THESE PUBLICATIONS CONTAIN NOTHING
EXCEPTIONAL ON THE ISSUE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  THE EXCERPTS FROM THE
LAST TWO DOCUMENTS STRESS THE NECESSITY FOR PARTY PARTICIPATION IN
ELECTIONS, BUT DECLARE THAT THE PARTY FOSTERS NO ILLUSIONS THAT THE
WORKERS CAN VOTE THEIR WAY TO POWER, THE EXPULSION OF THE SOCIALIST
MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY (SEE CHAFEE, FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED
STATES (1941), PP. 269-82) BEING CITED AS AN EXAMPLE IN POINT.  THESE
STATEMENTS ARE OPEN TO AN INTERPRETATION OF PREDICTION, NOT ADVOCACY OF
FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  CF. NOTE 48, INFRA. 

FN41  AS CHIEF JUSTICE (THEN MR.)  HUGHES SAID IN OPPOSING THE
EXPULSION OF THE SOCIALIST MEMBERS OF THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY:  "  ...
IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF LIBERTY THAT IT BE
RECOGNIZED THAT GUILT IS PERSONAL AND CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE
HOLDING OF OPINION OR TO MERE INTENT IN THE ABSENCE OF OVERT ACTS; ...
"  MEMORIAL OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF
THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS, VOL.
5.  143D SESSION (1920), NO. 30, P. 4. 

FN42  SEE CHAFEE, FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES (1941), PP. 219
24. 

FN43  SEE NOTE 33, ANTE. 

FN44  SEE BRYCE, THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH (1915) VOL. II, P. 334;
III ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, P. 164. 

FN45  SEE NOTES 35 TO 38 INCLUSIVE, ANTE. 

FN46  PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT HE BELIEVED ITS PRINCIPLES,
PARTICULARLY AS THEY APPLIED TO THE PERIOD AND COUNTRY IN WHICH
WRITTEN.  SEE NOTE 35, ANTE. 

FN47  MARX, AMSTERDAM SPEECH OF 1872; SEE ALSO ENGELS' PREFACE TO THE
FIRST ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF CAPITAL (1886). 

FN48  LENIN'S REMARKS ON ENGLAND HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED AS SIMPLY
PREDICTING, NOT ADVOCATING, THE USE OF VIOLENCE THERE.  SEE THE
INTRODUCTION TO STRACHEY, THE COMING STRUGGLE FOR POWER (1935). 

FN49  SEE NOTE 38, ANTE. 

FN50  STALIN, LENINISM, VOL. I, PP. 282-83.  PUT IN EVIDENCE BY
PETITIONER. 

FN51  LENIN, SELECTED WORKS, VOL. VI.  PUT IN EVIDENCE BY
PETITIONER.  IN THE SAME WORK IS THE FOLLOWING: 

"MARXISM IS AN EXTREMELY PROFOUND AND MANY SIDED DOCTRINE.  IT IS,
THEREFORE, NOT SURPRISING THAT SCRAPS OF QUOTATIONS FROM MARX -
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE QUOTATIONS ARE NOT TO THE POINT - CAN ALWAYS BE
FOUND AMONG THE 'ARGUMENTS' OF THOSE WHO ARE BREAKING WITH MARXISM.  A
MILITARY CONSPIRACY IS BLANQUISM IF IT IS NOT ORGANIZED BY THE PARTY OF
A DEFINITE CLASS; IF ITS ORGANIZERS HAVE NOT RECKONED WITH THE
POLITICAL SITUATION IN GENERAL AND THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION IN
PARTICULAR; IF THE PARTY IN QUESTION DOES NOT ENJOY THE SYMPATHY OF THE
MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, AS PROVED BY DEFINITE FACTS; IF THE DEVELOPMENT
OF EVENTS IN THE REVOLUTION HAS NOT LED TO THE VIRTUAL DISSIPATION OF
THE ILLUSIONS OF COMPROMISE ENTERTAINED BY THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE; IF
THE MAJORITY OF THE ORGANS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE WHICH ARE
RECOGNIZED TO BE 'AUTHORITATIVE' OR HAVE OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED
THEMSELVES, SUCH AS THE SOVIETS, HAVE NOT BEEN WON OVER; IF IN THE ARMY
(IN TIME OF WAR) SENTIMENTS HOSTILE TO A GOVERNMENT WHICH DRAGS OUT AN
UNJUST WAR AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT BECOME FULLY
MATURED; IF THE SLOGANS OF THE INSURRECTION (SUCH AS 'ALL POWER TO THE
SOVIETS,' 'LAND TO THE PEASANTS,' 'IMMEDIATE PROPOSAL OF A DEMOCRATIC
PEACE TO ALL THE BELLIGERENT PEOPLES, COUPLED WITH THE IMMEDIATE
ABROGATION OF ALL SECRET TREATIES AND SECRET DIPLOMACY,' ETC.) HAVE NOT
ACQUIRED THE WIDEST RENOWN AND POPULARITY; IF THE ADVANCED WORKERS ARE
NOT CONVINCED OF THE DESPERATE SITUATION OF THE MASSES AND OF THE
SUPPORT OF THE COUNTRYSIDE, AS DEMONSTRATED BY AN ENERGETIC PEASANT
MOVEMENT, OR BY A REVOLT AGAINST THE LANDLORDS AND AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT THAT DEFENDS THE LANDLORDS; IF THE ECONOMIC SITUATION IN THE
COUNTRY OFFERS ANY REAL HOPE OF A FAVORABLE SOLUTION OF THE CRISIS BY
PEACEFUL AND PARLIAMENTARY MEANS." 

FN52  ARTICLE X, SEC. 5.  PARTY MEMBERS FOUND TO BE STRIKE-BREAKERS,
DEGENERATES, HABITUAL DRUNKARDS, BETRAYERS OF PARTY CONFIDENCE,
PROVOCATEURS, ADVOCATES OF TERRORISM AND VIOLENCE AS A METHOD OF PARTY
PROCEDURE, OR MEMBERS WHOSE ACTIONS ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTY AND
THE WORKING CLASS, SHALL BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED FROM POSITIONS OF
RESPONSIBILITY, EXPELLED FROM THE PARTY AND EXPOSED BEFORE THE GENERAL
PUBLIC. 

FN53  IN 1927 NATURALIZATION WAS FORBIDDEN TO SUCH PERSONS BY SEC. 7
OF THE ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 598, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 364.  COMPARE SEC. 305
OF THE NATIONALITY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 1141, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 705. 

FN54  THE COMPLAINT DID INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE AN AFFIDAVIT OF
CAUSE, REQUIRED BY 8 U.S.C. SEC. 405, IN WHICH THE AFFIANT AVERRED THAT
PETITIONER'S NATURALIZATION WAS ILLEGALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED, IN
THAT HE DID NOT BEHAVE AS A MAN AND WAS NOT A MAN ATTACHED TO THE
CONSTITUTION BUT WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY WHICH WAS OPPOSED
TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ADVOCATED ITS OVERTHROW BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE,
AND IN THAT:  "AT THE TIME HE TOOK SAID OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, HE DID NOT
IN FACT INTEND TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND BEAR TRUE
FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME." 

WHILE THIS AFFIDAVIT IS PART OF THE COMPLAINT, WE THINK IT WAS NOT
INTENDED TO BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE, BUT WAS INCLUDED ONLY TO SHOW
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE.  THE ATTACHMENT AVERMENT OF THE AFFIDAVIT
IS ELABORATED AND SET FORTH AS A SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE COMPLAINT.  THE
FAILURE TO DO LIKEWISE WITH THE AVERMENT OF A FALSE OATH IS PERSUASIVE
THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE RAISED.  WHEN PETITIONER MOVED
FOR A NON-SUIT AT THE CLOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE, THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY DID NOT CONTEND, IN STATING WHAT HE CONCEIVED THE ISSUES WERE,
THAT THE QUESTION OF A FALSE OATH WAS AN ISSUE. 

FN55  THIS CONTENTION IS THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT WELL DISPOSED TO THE
GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE HE BELIEVED IN
AND ADVOCATED GENERAL RESORT TO ILLEGAL ACTION, OTHER THAN FORCE AND
VIOLENCE, AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL ENDS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND AGREE THAT PETITIONER'S WANT OF
ATTACHMENT IN 1927 TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT BEEN
SHOWN BY "CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL AND CONVINCING" EVIDENCE.  THE UNITED
STATES, WHEN IT SEEKS TO DEPRIVE A PERSON OF HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP,
CARRIES A HEAVY BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT HE PROCURED IT UNLAWFULLY.  THAT
BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN SUSTAINED ON THE PRESENT RECORD, AS THE OPINION OF
THE COURT MAKES PLAIN, UNLESS THE MOST EXTREME VIEWS WITHIN
PETITIONER'S PARTY ARE TO BE IMPUTED OR ATTRIBUTED TO HIM AND UNLESS
ALL DOUBTS WHICH MAY EXIST CONCERNING HIS BELIEFS IN 1927 ARE TO BE
RESOLVED AGAINST HIM RATHER THAN IN HIS FAVOR.  BUT THERE IS ANOTHER
VIEW OF THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THIS TYPE OF CASE WHICH IS SO BASIC AS TO
MERIT SEPARATE STATEMENT. 

SEC. 15 OF THE NATURALIZATION ACT GIVES THE UNITED STATES THE POWER
AND DUTY TO INSTITUTE ACTIONS TO SET ASIDE AND CANCEL CERTIFICATES OF
CITIZENSHIP ON THE GROUND OF "FRAUD" OR ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE
"ILLEGALLY PROCURED."  SEC. 15 "MAKES NOTHING FRAUDULENT OR UNLAWFUL
THAT WAS HONEST AND LAWFUL WHEN IT WAS DONE.  IT IMPOSES NO NEW PENALTY
UPON THE WRONGDOER.  BUT IF, AFTER FAIR HEARING, IT IS JUDICIALLY
DETERMINED THAT BY WRONGFUL CONDUCT HE HAS OBTAINED A TITLE TO
CITIZENSHIP, THE ACT PROVIDES THAT HE SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF A PRIVILEGE
THAT WAS NEVER RIGHTFULLY HIS."  JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S.
227, 242-243.  AND SEE LURIA V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 9, 24. 
"WRONGFUL CONDUCT" - LIKE THE STATUTORY WORDS "FRAUD" OR "ILLEGALLY
PROCURED" - ARE STRONG WORDS.  FRAUD CONNOTES PERJURY, CONCEALMENT,
FALSIFICATION, MISREPRESENTATION OR THE LIKE.  BUT A CERTIFICATE IS
ILLEGALLY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM FRAUDULENTLY, PROCURED WHEN IT IS
OBTAINED WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH A "CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE
AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO GRANT A PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION."  MANEY
V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 17, 22. 

UNDER THE ACT IN QUESTION, AS UNDER EARLIER AND LATER ACTS,  FN1
CONGRESS PRESCRIBED NUMEROUS CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A
CERTIFICATE.  THEY INCLUDED THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPLICANT NOT BE
AN ANARCHIST OR POLYGAMIST (SEC. 7), THE PRESENTATION OF A CERTIFICATE
OF ARRIVAL (UNITED STATES V. NESS, 245 U.S. 319), THE REQUIREMENT THAT
THE FINAL HEARING BE HAD IN OPEN COURT (UNITED STATES V. GINSBERG, 243
U.S. 472), THE RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT (R.S. SEC. 2170), THE GENERAL
REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPLICANT BE ABLE TO SPEAK THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
(SEC. 8), ETC.  THE FOREGOING ARE ILLUSTRATIVE OF ONE TYPE OF CONDITION
WHICH CONGRESS SPECIFIED.  ANOTHER TYPE IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE REQUIRED
FINDING OF ATTACHMENT.  SEC. 4, AS IT THEN READ, STATED THAT IT "SHALL
BE MADE TO APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT" THAT THE APPLICANT
"HAS BEHAVED AS A MAN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHED TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED
TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME."  FN2  IT IS MY VIEW THAT
CONGRESS BY THAT PROVISION MADE THE FINDING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT,
NOT THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING THE FINDING.  SUCH A FINDING
CAN OF COURSE BE SET ASIDE UNDER SEC. 15 ON GROUNDS OF FRAUD.  BUT SO
FAR AS CERTIFICATES "ILLEGALLY PROCURED" ARE CONCERNED, THIS COURT HAS
HERETOFORE PERMITTED SEC. 15 TO BE USED MERELY TO ENFORCE THE EXPRESS
CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE ACT.  IT IS OF COURSE TRUE THAT AN
APPLICANT FOR CITIZENSHIP WAS REQUIRED TO COME FORWARD AND MAKE THE
SHOWING NECESSARY FOR THE REQUIRED FINDINGS.  SEC. 4.  BUT UNDER THIS
EARLIER ACT, IT WAS NOT THAT SHOWING BUT THE FINDING OF THE COURT WHICH
CONGRESS EXPRESSED IN THE FORM OF A CONDITION.  IF SEC. 15 SHOULD BE
BROADENED BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION TO PERMIT THE FINDINGS OF ATTACHMENT
TO BE SET ASIDE FOR REASONS OTHER THAN FRAUD, THEN THE ISSUE OF
ILLEGALITY WOULD BE MADE TO TURN NOT ON THE JUDGE BEING SATISFIED AS TO
APPLICANT'S ATTACHMENT BUT ON THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING THAT FINDING. 
SUCH A CONDITION SHOULD NOT BE READILY IMPLIED. 

IF AN ANARCHIST IS NATURALIZED, THE UNITED STATES MAY BRING AN ACTION
UNDER SEC. 15 TO SET ASIDE THE CERTIFICATE ON THE GROUNDS OF
ILLEGALITY.  SINCE CONGRESS BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT FORBIDS THE
NATURALIZATION OF ANARCHISTS, THE ALIEN ANARCHIST WHO OBTAINS THE
CERTIFICATE HAS PROCURED IT ILLEGALLY WHATEVER THE NATURALIZATION COURT
MIGHT FIND.  THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE OF COMMUNISTS IF CONGRESS DECLARED
THEY SHOULD BE INELIGIBLE FOR CITIZENSHIP.  THEN PROOF THAT ONE WAS NOT
A COMMUNIST AND DID NOT ADHERE TO THAT PARTY OR ITS BELIEF WOULD BECOME
LIKE THE OTHER EXPRESS CONDITIONS IN THE ACT A SO-CALLED
"JURISDICTIONAL" FACT "UPON WHICH THE GRANT IS PREDICATED." 
JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 240.  BUT UNDER THIS ACT
CONGRESS DID NOT TREAT COMMUNISTS LIKE ANARCHISTS.  NEITHER THE STATUTE
NOR THE OFFICIAL FORMS USED BY APPLICANTS CALLED FOR AN EXPRESSION BY
PETITIONER OF HIS ATTITUDE ON, OR HIS RELATIONSHIP TO, COMMUNISM, OR
ANY OTHER FOREIGN POLITICAL CREED EXCEPT ANARCHY AND THE LIKE. 

THE FINDINGS OF ATTACHMENT ARE ENTRUSTED TO THE NATURALIZATION COURT
WITH ONLY THE MOST GENERAL STANDARD TO GUIDE IT.  THAT COURT HAS BEFORE
IT, HOWEVER, NOT ONLY THE APPLICANT BUT AT LEAST TWO WITNESSES.  IT
MAKES ITS APPRAISAL OF THE APPLICANT AND IT WEIGHS THE EVIDENCE.  ITS
CONCLUSION MUST OFTEN REST ON IMPONDERABLE FACTORS.  IN THE PRESENT
CASE WE DO NOT KNOW HOW FAR THE NATURALIZATION COURT PROBED INTO
PETITIONER'S POLITICAL BELIEFS AND AFFILIATIONS.  WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT
INQUIRY IT MADE.  ALL WE DO KNOW IS THAT IT WAS SATISFIED THAT
PETITIONER WAS "ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES."  BUT WE MUST ASSUME THAT THAT FINDING WHICH UNDERLIES
THE JUDGMENT GRANTING CITIZENSHIP (CF. TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S.
568) WAS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE EVIDENCE
EMBRACED ALL RELEVANT FACTS SINCE NO CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT OR
MISREPRESENTATION IS NOW MADE BY RESPONDENT.  AND WE MUST ASSUME THAT
THE APPLICANT AND THE JUDGE BOTH ACTED IN UTMOST GOOD FAITH. 

IF THE APPLICANT ANSWERS ALL QUESTIONS REQUIRED OF HIM, IF THERE IS
NO CONCEALMENT OR MISREPRESENTATION, THE FINDINGS OF ATTACHMENT CANNOT
BE SET ASIDE ON THE GROUNDS OF ILLEGALITY IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.
15.  IT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH ANY ACCEPTED NOTION OF ILLEGALITY TO SAY
THAT IN SPITE OF THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH ON THE PART OF APPLICANT AND
JUDGE AND IN SPITE OF FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXPRESS STATUTORY
CONDITIONS A CERTIFICATE WAS ILLEGALLY PROCURED BECAUSE ANOTHER JUDGE
WOULD APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE DIFFERENTLY.  THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE
UNITED STATES AT ANY TIME COULD OBTAIN A TRIAL DE NOVO ON THE POLITICAL
FAITH OF THE APPLICANT. 

IT IS HARDLY CONCEIVABLE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT RESULT UNDER
THIS EARLIER ACT EXCEPT FOR THE NARROW GROUP OF POLITICAL CREEDS SUCH
AS ANARCHY FOR WHICH IT SPECIALLY PROVIDED.  CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES
STATED IN HIS DISSENT IN UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S. 605, 635,
THAT THE PHRASE "ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION" IS A
GENERAL ONE "WHICH SHOULD BE CONSTRUED, NOT IN OPPOSITION TO, BUT IN
ACCORD WITH, THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OUR GOVERNMENT IN RELATION TO
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE."  WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF THAT CRITERION IN OUR
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 15.  IF FINDINGS OF ATTACHMENT WHICH UNDERLY
CERTIFICATES MAY BE SET ASIDE YEARS LATER ON THE EVIDENCE, THEN THE
CITIZENSHIP OF THOSE WHOSE POLITICAL FAITHS BECOME UNPOPULAR WITH THE
PASSAGE OF TIME BECOMES VULNERABLE.  IT IS ONE THING TO AGREE THAT
CONGRESS COULD TAKE THAT STEP IF IT CHOSE.  SEE TURNER V. WILLIAMS, 194
U.S. 279.  BUT WHERE IT HAS NOT DONE SO IN PLAIN WORDS, WE SHOULD BE
LOATH TO IMPLY THAT CONGRESS SANCTIONED A PROCEDURE WHICH IN ABSENCE OF
FRAUD PERMITTED A MAN'S CITIZENSHIP TO BE ATTACKED YEARS AFTER THE
GRANT BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS, SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, OR ECONOMIC
THEORIES.  WE SHOULD NOT TREAD SO CLOSE TO THE DOMAIN OF FREEDOM OF
CONSCIENCE WITHOUT AN EXPLICIT MANDATE FROM THOSE WHO SPECIFY THE
CONDITIONS ON WHICH CITIZENSHIP IS GRANTED TO OR WITHHELD FROM ALIENS. 
AT LEAST WHEN TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF THE NATURALIZATION ACT ARE
POSSIBLE WE SHOULD CHOOSE THE ONE WHICH IS THE MORE HOSPITABLE TO THAT
IDEAL FOR WHICH AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP ITSELF STANDS. 

CITIZENSHIP CAN BE GRANTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATUTORY RIGHT
WHICH CONGRESS HAS CREATED.  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  BUT WHERE
IT IS GRANTED AND WHERE ALL THE EXPRESS STATUTORY CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
ARE SATISFIED WE SHOULD ADHERE TO THE VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT OF
NATURALIZATION IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE EXCEPT FOR FRAUD.  SINCE THE
UNITED STATES DOES NOT NOW CONTEND THAT FRAUD VITIATES THIS CERTIFICATE
THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  FOR THE ACT IN ITS PRESENT FORM SEE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 501 ET SEQ. 

FN2  THIS PROVISION WAS RECAST BY THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1929, 45 STAT.
1513-1514, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 707(A)(3), INTO SUBSTANTIALLY ITS PRESENT
FORM.  FOR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SEE 69 CONG. REC. 841; S. REP. NO.
1504, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS.  THE PROVISION NOW READS:  "NO PERSON,
EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER, SHALL BE NATURALIZED
UNLESS SUCH PETITIONER  ... (3) DURING ALL THE PERIODS REFERRED TO IN
THIS SUBSECTION HAS BEEN AND STILL IS A PERSON OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,
ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE, CONCURRING: 

I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  I ADD WHAT FOLLOWS ONLY TO EMPHASIZE
WHAT I THINK IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS CASE. 

IMMEDIATELY WE ARE CONCERNED WITH ONLY ONE MAN, WILLIAM
SCHNEIDERMAN.  ACTUALLY, THOUGH INDIRECTLY, THE DECISION AFFECTS
MILLIONS.  IF, SEVENTEEN YEARS AFTER A FEDERAL COURT ADJUDGED HIM
ENTITLED TO BE A CITIZEN, THAT JUDGMENT CAN BE NULLIFIED AND HE CAN BE
STRIPPED OF THIS MOST PRECIOUS RIGHT, BY NOTHING MORE THAN
REEXAMINATION UPON THE MERITS OF THE VERY FACTS THE JUDGMENT
ESTABLISHED, NO NATURALIZED PERSON'S CITIZENSHIP IS OR CAN BE SECURE. 
IF THIS CAN BE DONE AFTER THAT LENGTH OF TIME, IT CAN BE DONE AFTER
THIRTY OR FIFTY YEARS.  IF IT CAN BE DONE FOR SCHNEIDERMAN, IT CAN BE
DONE FOR THOUSANDS OR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHERS. 

FOR ALL THAT WOULD BE NEEDED WOULD BE TO PRODUCE SOME EVIDENCE FROM
WHICH ANY ONE OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGES COULD DRAW A CONCLUSION,
CONCERNING ONE OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS IN ISSUE, OPPOSITE FROM THAT DRAWN
BY THE JUDGE DECREEING ADMISSION.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT IN TERMS
PRESCRIBE "JURISDICTIONAL" FACTS.  FN1  BUT ALL OF THE IMPORTANT ONES
ARE "JURISDICTIONAL," OR HAVE THAT EFFECT, IF BY MERELY DRAWING
CONTRARY CONCLUSION FROM THE SAME, THOUGH CONFLICTING, EVIDENCE AT ANY
LATER TIME A COURT CAN OVERTURN THE JUDGMENT.  AN APPLICANT MIGHT BE
ADMITTED TODAY UPON EVIDENCE SATISFYING THE COURT HE HAD COMPLIED WITH
ALL REQUIREMENTS.  THAT JUDGMENT MIGHT BE AFFIRMED ON APPEAL AND AGAIN
ON CERTIORARI HERE.  YET THE DAY AFTER, OR TEN YEARS LATER, ANY
DISTRICT JUDGE COULD OVERTHROW IT, ON THE SAME EVIDENCE, IF IT WAS
CONFLICTING OR GAVE ROOM FOR CONTRARY INFERENCES, OR ON DIFFERENT
EVIDENCE ALL OF WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE FIRST COURT. 
FN2 

IF THIS IS THE LAW AND THE RIGHT THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN ACQUIRES,
HIS ADMISSION CREATES NOTHING MORE THAN CITIZENSHIP IN ATTENUATED, IF
NOT SUSPENDED, ANIMATION.  HE ACQUIRES BUT PRIMA FACIE STATUS, IF
THAT.  UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT MOVES TO CANCEL HIS CERTIFICATE AND HE
KNOWS THE OUTCOME, HE CANNOT KNOW WHETHER HE IS IN OR OUT.  AND WHEN
THAT IS DONE, NOTHING FORBIDS REPEATING THE HARROWING PROCESS AGAIN AND
AGAIN, UNLESS THE WEARINESS OF THE COURTS SHOULD LEAD THEM FINALLY TO
SPEAK RES JUDICATA. 

NO CITIZEN WITH SUCH A THREAT HANGING OVER HIS HEAD COULD BE FREE. 
IF HE BELONGED TO "OFF-COLOR" ORGANIZATIONS OR HELD TOO RADICAL OR,
PERHAPS, TOO REACTIONARY VIEWS, FOR SOME SEGMENT OF THE JUDICIAL
PALATE, WHEN HIS ADMISSION TOOK PLACE, HE COULD NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH
WITHOUT FEAR HIS WORDS WOULD BE HELD AGAINST HIM.  FOR WHATEVER HE
MIGHT SAY OR WHATEVER ANY SUCH ORGANIZATION MIGHT ADVOCATE COULD BE
HAULED FORTH AT ANY TIME TO SHOW "CONTINUITY" OF BELIEF FROM THE DAY OF
HIS ADMISSION, OR "CONCEALMENT" AT THAT TIME.  SUCH A CITIZEN WOULD NOT
BE ADMITTED TO LIBERTY.  HIS BEST COURSE WOULD BE SILENCE OR
HYPOCRISY.  THIS IS NOT CITIZENSHIP.  NOR IS IT ADJUDICATION. 

IT MAY BE DOUBTED THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED TO
CREATE TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS, ONE FREE AND INDEPENDENT, ONE HALTERED
WITH A LIFETIME STRING TIED TO ITS STATUS.  HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, AND
CONCEDING THAT THE POWER TO REVOKE EXISTS AND RIGHTLY SHOULD EXIST TO
SOME EXTENT, THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE POWER TO ADMIT CAN BE
DELEGATED TO THE COURTS IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEIR DETERMINATION, ONCE
MADE, DETERMINES AND CONCLUDES NOTHING WITH FINALITY. 

IF EVERY FACT IN ISSUE, GOING TO THE RIGHT TO BE A CITIZEN, CAN BE
REEXAMINED, UPON THE SAME OR DIFFERENT PROOF, YEARS OR DECADES LATER;
AND IF THIS CAN BE DONE DE NOVO, AS IF NO JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED,
WHETHER WITH RESPECT TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED TO REACH A
DIFFERENT DECISION OR OTHERWISE, WHAT DOES THE JUDGMENT DETERMINE? 
WHAT DOES IT SETTLE WITH FINALITY?  IF REVIEW IS HAD AND THE ADMISSION
IS AFFIRMED, WHAT FACT IS ADJUDICATED, IF NEXT DAY ANY OR ALL INVOLVED
CAN BE REDECIDED TO THE CONTRARY?  CAN CONGRESS, WHEN IT HAS EMPOWERED
A COURT TO DETERMINE AND OTHERS TO REVIEW AND CONFIRM, AT THE SAME TIME
OR LATER AUTHORIZE ANY TRIAL COURT TO OVERTURN THEIR DECREES, FOR
CAUSES OTHER THAN SUCH AS HAVE BEEN HELD SUFFICIENT TO OVERTURN OTHER
DECREES?  FN3 

I DO NOT UNDERTAKE NOW TO DECIDE THESE QUESTIONS.  NOR DOES THE
COURT.  BUT THEY HAVE A BEARING ON THE ONE WHICH IS DECIDED.  IT IS A
JUDGMENT WHICH IS BEING ATTACKED.  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S.
568.  ACCORDINGLY, IT WILL NOT DO TO SAY THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL WITH
WHAT IS PRESENTED IN A NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, IS MERELY ONE OF
FACT, UPON WHICH THEREFORE THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDES,
AND CONSEQUENTLY WE HAVE NO BUSINESS TO SPEAK OR OUR SPEAKING IS
APPELLATE INTERMEDDLING.  THAT IGNORES THE VITAL FACT THAT IT IS A
JUDGMENT, RENDERED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICAL POWER CREATED BY
ARTICLE III, WHICH IT IS SOUGHT TO OVERTHROW,  FN4  NOT MERELY A GRANT
LIKE A PATENT TO LAND OR FOR INVENTION.  FN5  CONGRESS HAS PLENARY
POWER OVER NATURALIZATION.  THAT NO ONE DISPUTES.  NOR THAT THIS POWER,
FOR ITS APPLICATION, CAN BE DELEGATED TO THE COURTS.  BUT THIS IS NOT
TO SAY, WHEN CONGRESS HAS SO PLACED IT, THAT BODY CAN DECREE IN THE
SAME BREATH THAT THE JUDGMENT RENDERED SHALL HAVE NO CONCLUSIVE
EFFECT.  LIMITS IT MAY PLACE.  BUT THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER FROM MAKING
AN ADJUDICATION UNDER ARTICLE III MERELY AN ADVISORY OPINION OR PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACT OR ALL THE FACTS DETERMINED.  CONGRESS HAS,
WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, PLENARY POWER OVER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  FN6  BUT TO CONFER THE JURISDICTION AND AT THE SAME
TIME NULLIFY ENTIRELY THE EFFECTS OF ITS EXERCISE ARE NOT MATTERS
HERETOFORE THOUGHT, WHEN SQUARELY FACED, WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY.  FN7  TO
SAY THEREFORE THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S FUNCTION IN THIS CASE IS THE SAME
AS WAS THAT OF THE ADMITTING COURT IS TO IGNORE THE VAST DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN OVERTURNING A JUDGMENT, WITH ITS ADJUDICATED FACTS, AND
DECIDING INITIALLY UPON FACTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUDGED.  THE
ARGUMENT MADE FROM THE DEPORTATION STATUTES LIKEWISE IGNORES THIS
DIFFERENCE. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR THE REDETERMINATION
AS A PART OF THE STATUTE CONFERRING THE RIGHT TO ADMISSION AND
THEREFORE AS A CONDITION OF IT.  FOR THAT TOO IGNORES THE QUESTION
WHETHER CONGRESS CAN SO CONDITION THE JUDGMENT AND IS BUT ANOTHER WAY
OF SAYING THAT A DETERMINATION, MADE BY AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER
UNDER ARTICLE III, CAN BE CONDITIONED BY LEGISLATIVE MANDATE SO AS NOT
TO DETERMINE FINALLY ANY ULTIMATE FACT IN ISSUE. 

THE EFFECT OF CANCELLATION IS TO NULLIFY THE JUDGMENT OF ADMISSION. 
IF IT IS A JUDGMENT, AND NO ONE DISPUTES THAT IT IS, THAT QUALITY IN
ITSELF REQUIRES THE BURDEN OF PROOF THE COURT HAS HELD THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED IN ORDER TO OVERTURN IT.  THAT IT IS A JUDGMENT, AND ONE OF AT
LEAST A COORDINATE COURT, WHICH THE CANCELLATION PROCEEDING ATTACKS AND
SEEKS TO OVERTHROW, REQUIRES THIS MUCH AT LEAST, THAT SOLEMN DECREES
MAY NOT BE LIGHTLY OVERTURNED AND THAT CITIZENS MAY NOT BE DEPRIVED OF
THEIR STATUS MERELY BECAUSE ONE JUDGE VIEWS THEIR POLITICAL AND OTHER
BELIEFS WITH A MORE CRITICAL EYE OR A DIFFERENT SLANT, HOWEVER HONESTLY
AND SINCERELY, THAN ANOTHER.  BEYOND THIS WE NEED NOT GO NOW IN
DECISION.  BUT WE DO NOT GO BEYOND OUR FUNCTION OR USURP ANOTHER
TRIBUNAL'S WHEN WE GO THIS FAR.  THE DANGER, IMPLICIT IN FINDING TOO
EASILY THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO DENATURALIZE COMMUNISTS, IS THAT BY
DOING SO THE STATUS OF ALL OR MANY OTHER NATURALIZED CITIZENS MAY BE
PUT IN JEOPARDY.  THE OTHER AND UNDERLYING QUESTIONS NEED NOT BE
DETERMINED UNLESS OR UNTIL NECESSITY COMPELS IT. 

FN1  CF., HOWEVER, THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS,
ANTE, P. 161. 

FN2  THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT
WAS PRESENTED ON ADMISSION OR "NEWLY DISCOVERED." 

FN3  CF. UNITED STATES V. THROCKMORTON, 98 U.S. 61; KIBBE V. BENSON,
17 WALL.  624.  NO SUCH CAUSE FOR CANCELLATION IS INVOLVED HERE. 

FN4  TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568. 

FN5 CF. JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 227. 

FN6  CF. LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182. 

FN7  CF. UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA, 13 HOW.  40; GORDON V. UNITED
STATES, 2 WALL.  561; ID., 117 U.S. 697; UNITED STATES V. JONES, 119
U.S. 477; POCONO PINES ASSEMBLY HOTELS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 73 CT.
CLS. 447; 76 CT. CLS. 334; EX PARTE POCONO PINES ASSEMBLY HOTELS CO.,
285 U.S. 526. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

THE TWO COURTS BELOW HAVE FOUND THAT PETITIONER, AT THE TIME HE WAS
NATURALIZED, BELONGED TO COMMUNIST PARTY ORGANIZATIONS WHICH WERE
OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND WHICH ADVISED,
ADVOCATED AND TAUGHT THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE.  THEY HAVE FOUND THAT PETITIONER BELIEVED IN AND SUPPORTED
THE PRINCIPLES OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.  THEY HAVE FOUND ALSO THAT
PETITIONER "WAS NOT, AT THE TIME OF HIS NATURALIZATION  ...  , AND
DURING THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF HIS
PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION HAD NOT BEHAVED AS, A PERSON ATTACHED TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND WELL
DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME." 

I THINK THESE FINDINGS ARE ABUNDANTLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, AND
HENCE THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR JUDICIAL COMPETENCE TO SET THEM ASIDE -
EVEN THOUGH, SITTING AS TRIAL JUDGES, WE MIGHT HAVE MADE SOME OTHER
FINDING.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW, CANCELLING PETITIONER'S CITIZENSHIP ON
THE GROUND THAT IT WAS ILLEGALLY OBTAINED, SHOULD THEREFORE BE
AFFIRMED.  THE FINALITY WHICH ATTACHES TO THE TRIAL COURT'S
DETERMINATIONS OF FACT FROM EVIDENCE HEARD IN OPEN COURT, AND WHICH
ORDINARILY SAVES THEM FROM AN APPELLATE COURT'S INTERMEDDLING, SHOULD
NOT BE REMEMBERED IN EVERY CASE SAVE THIS ONE ALONE. 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS MUCH
SIMPLER THAN IT HAS BEEN MADE TO APPEAR.  IT IS WHETHER PETITIONER, IN
SECURING HIS CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION, HAS FULFILLED A CONDITION
WHICH CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED ON EVERY APPLICANT FOR NATURALIZATION - THAT
DURING THE FIVE YEARS PRECEDING HIS APPLICATION "HE HAS BEHAVED AS A
MAN  ...  ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE
SAME."  FN1  DECISION WHETHER HE WAS LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO THE
CITIZENSHIP WHICH HE PROCURED, AND CONSEQUENTLY WHETHER HE IS NOW
ENTITLED TO RETAIN IT, MUST TURN ON THE EXISTENCE OF HIS ATTACHMENT TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN HE APPLIED FOR CITIZENSHIP, AND
THAT MUST BE INFERRED BY THE TRIER OF FACT FROM HIS CONDUCT DURING THE
FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.  WE MUST DECIDE NOT WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
COMPELLED TO FIND WANT OF ATTACHMENT, BUT WHETHER THE RECORD WARRANTS
SUCH A FINDING. 

THE QUESTION THEN IS NOT OF PETITIONER'S OPINIONS OR BELIEFS - SAVE
AS THEY MAY HAVE INFLUENCED OR MAY EXPLAIN HIS CONDUCT SHOWING
ATTACHMENT, OR WANT OF IT, TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT
IS NOT A QUESTION OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, OF SPEECH OR OF OPINION, OR OF
PRESENT IMMINENT DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES FROM OUR ACCEPTANCE AS
CITIZENS OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR FORM OF
GOVERNMENT.  THE CASE OBVIOUSLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR RELATIONS
WITH RUSSIA, WHERE PETITIONER WAS BORN, OR WITH OUR PAST OR PRESENT
VIEWS OF THE RUSSIAN POLITICAL OR SOCIAL SYSTEM.  THE UNITED STATES HAS
THE SAME INTEREST AS OTHER NATIONS IN DEMANDING OF THOSE WHO SEEK ITS
CITIZENSHIP SOME MEASURE OF ATTACHMENT TO ITS INSTITUTIONS.  OUR
CONCERN IS ONLY THAT THE DECLARED WILL OF CONGRESS SHALL PREVAIL - THAT
NO MAN SHALL BECOME A CITIZEN OR RETAIN HIS CITIZENSHIP WHOSE BEHAVIOR
FOR FIVE YEARS BEFORE HIS APPLICATION DOES NOT SHOW ATTACHMENT TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE CONSTITUTION HAS CONFERRED ON CONGRESS THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO
PRESCRIBE UNIFORM RULES GOVERNING NATURALIZATION.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 8,
CL. 4.  CONGRESS HAS EXERCISED THAT POWER BY PRESCRIBING THE
CONDITIONS, IN CONFORMITY TO WHICH ALIENS MAY OBTAIN THE PRIVILEGE OF
CITIZENSHIP.  UNDER THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, NO
PERSON IS GIVEN ANY RIGHT TO DEMAND CITIZENSHIP, SAVE UPON COMPLIANCE
WITH THOSE CONDITIONS.  "AN ALIEN WHO SEEKS POLITICAL RIGHTS AS A
MEMBER OF THIS NATION CAN RIGHTFULLY OBTAIN THEM ONLY UPON TERMS AND
CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY CONGRESS.  COURTS ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
SANCTION CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS; THEIR DUTY IS RIGIDLY TO ENFORCE THE
LEGISLATIVE WILL IN RESPECT OF A MATTER SO VITAL TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE."  UNITED STATES V. GINSBERG, 243 U.S. 472, 474.  AND WHENEVER
A PERSON'S RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP IS DRAWN IN QUESTION, IT IS THE JUDGE'S
DUTY LOYALLY TO SEE TO IT THAT THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE NOT BEEN
DISREGARDED. 

THE PRESENT SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES, TO CANCEL PETITIONER'S
PREVIOUSLY GRANTED CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP, WAS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO
AN ACT OF CONGRESS (SEC. 15 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 34 STAT. 601),
ENACTED LONG PRIOR TO PETITIONER'S NATURALIZATION.  SECTION 15
AUTHORIZES ANY COURT BY A SUIT INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
TO SET ASIDE A CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION "ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD OR
ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP WAS ILLEGALLY
PROCURED."  UNTIL NOW THIS COURT, WITHOUT A DISSENTING VOICE, HAS MANY
TIMES HELD THAT IN A SUIT UNDER THIS STATUTE IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
COURT TO RENDER A JUDGMENT CANCELLING THE CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION
IF THE COURT FINDS UPON EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT SATISFY THE
CONDITIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAD MADE PREREQUISITE TO THE AWARD OF
CITIZENSHIP.  JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 227; LURIA V.
UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 9; MAIBAUM V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 714;
UNITED STATES V. GINSBERG, 243 U.S. 472; UNITED STATES V. NESS, 245
U.S. 319; MANEY V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 17, 23; SCHWINN V. UNITED
STATES, 311 U.S. 616. 

PROVISION FOR SUCH A REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT AWARDING CITIZENSHIP IS
WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS AND PLAINLY IS SUBJECT TO NO
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY, JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 236-40,
ESPECIALLY WHERE, AS HERE, THE STATUTE ANTEDATED PETITIONER'S
CITIZENSHIP AND THE REVIEW WAS THUS A CONDITION OF ITS AWARD.  LURIA V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 24.  OUR DECISIONS HAVE UNIFORMLY RECOGNIZED THAT
CONGRESS, WHICH HAS POWER TO DENY CITIZENSHIP TO ALIENS ALTOGETHER, MAY
SAFEGUARD THE GRANT OF THIS PRIVILEGE, PRECIOUS TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND
VITAL TO THE COUNTRY'S WELFARE, BY SUCH PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE
EXISTENCE OF INDISPENSABLE REQUISITES TO CITIZENSHIP AS HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED IN SEC. 15.  "NO ALIEN HAS THE SLIGHTEST RIGHT TO
NATURALIZATION UNLESS ALL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE COMPLIED WITH; AND
EVERY CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP MUST BE TREATED AS GRANTED UPON
CONDITION THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY CHALLENGE IT AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 15
AND DEMAND ITS CANCELLATION UNLESS ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH
REQUIREMENTS.  IF PROCURED WHEN PRESCRIBED QUALIFICATIONS HAVE NO
EXISTENCE IN FACT IT IS ILLEGALLY PROCURED; A MANIFEST MISTAKE BY THE
JUDGE CANNOT SUPPLY THESE NOR RENDER THEIR EXISTENCE NON-ESSENTIAL." 
UNITED STATES V. GINSBERG, SUPRA, 475.  SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT,
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS THUS STATED WHAT WAS, UNTIL TODAY, THE SETTLED
LAW:  "IF A CERTIFICATE IS PROCURED WHEN THE PRESCRIBED QUALIFICATIONS
HAVE NO EXISTENCE IN FACT, IT MAY BE CANCELLED BY SUIT."  TUTUN V.
UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568, 578.  CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO
INTERPOSE ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  AND THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT
THE GOVERNMENT WAS DERELICT IN NOT BRINGING THE SUIT EARLIER OR THAT
PETITIONER HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY DELAY.  HENCE THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS
WHETHER PETITIONER, WHEN NATURALIZED, SATISFIED THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS.  IT IS THE SAME ISSUE AS WOULD BE PRESENTED BY AN APPEAL
FROM A JUDGMENT GRANTING OR DENYING NATURALIZATION UPON THE EVIDENCE
HERE PRESENTED, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT IN THIS PROCEEDING THE
BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS ON THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH HAS BROUGHT THE SUIT, TO
ESTABLISH PETITIONER'S WANT OF QUALIFICATIONS. 

WE NEED NOT STOP TO CONSIDER WHETHER PETITIONER'S FAILURE, IN HIS
NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING, TO DISCLOSE FACTS WHICH COULD HAVE RESULTED
IN A DENIAL OF HIS APPLICATION, CONSTITUTED FRAUD WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE STATUTE.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE EVIDENCE
SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURTS BELOW AS TO PETITIONER'S WANT OF
ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND, THAT SEC. 15
HAS, EVER SINCE ITS ENACTMENT IN 1906, BEEN CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT AS
REQUIRING CERTIFICATES OF CITIZENSHIP TO BE CANCELLED AS ILLEGALLY
PROCURED WHENEVER THE COURT FINDS ON EVIDENCE THAT AT THE TIME OF
NATURALIZATION THE APPLICANT DID NOT IN FACT SATISFY THE STATUTORY
PREREQUISITES. 

TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF THIS CASE, IT IS NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME
PROPOSED BY THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS THAT A NEW
CONSTRUCTION BE GIVEN TO THE STATUTE WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE ANY INQUIRY
CONCERNING THE FACT OF PETITIONER'S ATTACHMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  IT
IS SAID THAT IN A SEC. 15 PROCEEDING THE ONLY INQUIRY PERMITTED, APART
FROM FRAUD, IS AS TO THE REGULARITY OF THE NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS
ON THEIR FACE; THAT - HOWEVER MUCH PETITIONER FELL SHORT OF MEETING THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZENSHIP - IF HE FILED, AS HE DID, PRO
FORMA AFFIDAVITS OF TWO PERSONS, BARELY STATING THAT HE MET THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF RESIDENCE, MORAL CHARACTER AND ATTACHMENT TO
THE CONSTITUTION, AND IF THE COURT ON THE BASIS OF THE AFFIDAVITS MADE
THE REQUISITE FINDINGS AND ORDER, THEN ALL FURTHER INQUIRY IS
FORECLOSED. 

TO THIS EASY PROPOSAL FOR THE EMASCULATION OF THE STATUTE THERE ARE
SEVERAL PLAIN AND OBVIOUS ANSWERS. 

SUIT TO CANCEL THE CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD
OR ON THE GROUND THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS ILLEGALLY PROCURED.  UNTIL
NOW IT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT THAT A CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP
PROCURED BY ONE WHO HAS NOT SATISFIED THE STATUTORY CONDITIONS FOR
CITIZENSHIP, IS NEVERTHELESS LAWFULLY PROCURED.  BUT THE CONCURRING
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS SUGGESTS THAT, FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 15,
"ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION" IS NOT A CONDITION
OF BECOMING A CITIZEN.  IT SUGGESTS THAT THE STATUTE IS SATISFIED, EVEN
THOUGH THE APPLICANT WAS NEVER IN FACT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE CONSTITUTION, SO LONG AS SUCH ATTACHMENT WAS MADE TO APPEAR, FROM
PRO FORMA AFFIDAVITS, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE NATURALIZATION COURT. 
THIS IS SAID TO BE THE CASE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IN FACT THE
AFFIDAVITS, AND THE CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP BASED ON THEM, ARE
WHOLLY MISTAKEN, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE NATURALIZATION
PROCEEDING, AS APPARENTLY IT WAS HERE, IS AN EX PARTE PROCEEDING IN
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT REPRESENTED. 

IT WOULD SEEM PASSING STRANGE THAT CONGRESS - WHICH AUTHORIZED
CANCELLATION OF CITIZENSHIP UNDER SEC. 15 FOR FAILURE TO HOLD THE
NATURALIZATION HEARING IN OPEN COURT INSTEAD OF IN THE JUDGE'S CHAMBERS
(UNITED STATES V. GINSBERG, SUPRA), OR FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT THE
REQUISITE CERTIFICATE OF ARRIVAL IN THIS COUNTRY (MANEY V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA) - SHOULD BE THOUGHT LESS CONCERNED WITH THE APPLICANT'S
ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT HE BE WELL
DISPOSED TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE UNITED STATES.  FOR
WHAT COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT IN THE SELECTION OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES THAN THAT THE PROSPECTIVE CITIZEN BE ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES
OF THE CONSTITUTION? 

MOREOVER, IF IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD THE FINDING OF THE
NATURALIZATION COURT IN THIS CASE IS FINAL AND HENCE BEYOND THE REACH
OF A SEC. 15 PROCEEDING, IT WOULD BE EQUALLY FINAL IN THE CASE OF A
FINDING, CONTRARY TO THE ACTUAL FACT, THAT THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN FOR
FIVE YEARS A CONTINUOUS RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES, SINCE THAT
REQUIREMENT TOO IS SET FORTH IN THE SENTENCE OF SEC. 4 WHICH PROVIDES
THAT "IT SHALL BE MADE TO APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT." 
YET IT IS SETTLED THAT A CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP BASED ON A MISTAKEN
FINDING OF FIVE YEARS RESIDENCE IS SUBJECT TO REVOCATION.  UNITED
STATES V. GINSBERG, SUPRA.  AND IN SCHWINN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, IT
APPEARED, FROM EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE FIRST OFFERED IN A SEC. 15
PROCEEDING, THAT THE WITNESSES AT THE NATURALIZATION HEARING HAD BEEN
MISTAKEN AS TO THE LENGTH OF TIME THEY HAD KNOWN THE APPLICANT, AND
THAT FOR A PART OF THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD NO WITNESS HAD BEEN PRODUCED
WITH ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPLICANT'S RESIDENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS. 
WE HELD, WITHOUT DISSENT, 311 U.S. 616, "THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF
CITIZENSHIP WAS ILLEGALLY PROCURED," AND FOR THAT REASON WE AFFIRMED A
JUDGMENT CANCELLING IT.  FN2  IF WE ARE TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE LANGUAGE
AND PURPOSE OF CONGRESS, IT WOULD SEEM THAT WE MUST REACH THE SAME
RESULT IN THE CASE OF THE NATURALIZATION COURT'S MISTAKEN OR
UNWARRANTED FINDING OF ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION, EVEN THOUGH THE CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT AND HIS
WITNESSES AT THE NATURALIZATION HEARING FELL SHORT OF PERJURY. 

THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 15 - LIKE THAT OF SEC. 11, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE
GOVERNMENT TO APPEAR IN A NATURALIZATION PROCEEDING TO CONTEST THE
APPLICATION - IS NOT MERELY TO INSURE THE FORMAL REGULARITY OF THE
PROCEEDING, BUT TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES FROM THE INJURY WHICH
WOULD RESULT FROM THE ACCEPTANCE AS CITIZENS OF ANY WHO ARE NOT
LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO BECOME CITIZENS.  CONGRESS LEFT THE NATURALIZATION
PROCEEDING SIMPLE AND INEXPENSIVE, BY PERMITTING IT ORDINARILY TO BE
CONDUCTED EX PARTE.  THUS APPROXIMATELY 200,000 CERTIFICATES OF
NATURALIZATION WERE ISSUED DURING THE YEAR IN WHICH PETITIONER BECAME A
CITIZEN.  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, 1940, P. 115.  BUT
BY SEC. 15 CONGRESS AFFORDED THE GOVERNMENT AN INDEPENDENT OPPORTUNITY
TO INQUIRE INTO ANY NATURALIZATION IF UPON LATER SCRUTINY IT APPEARED
THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP HAD NOT BEEN LAWFULLY PROCURED.  AS
THE COURT DECLARED IN UNITED STATES V. NESS, SUPRA, 327, "SEC.  11 AND
SEC. 15 WERE DESIGNED TO AFFORD CUMULATIVE PROTECTION AGAINST
FRAUDULENT OR ILLEGAL NATURALIZATION."  ALL THIS WAS MADE ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO.  SEE
JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; LURIA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. GINSBERG, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. NESS, SUPRA, 325
27.  IN THE INTERVENING YEARS CONGRESS HAS OFTEN REVISED THE
NATURALIZATION LAWS, BUT IT HAS NOT THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO MODIFY
THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE FUNCTION OF SEC. 15 IN THE
NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE. 

THIS IS PERSUASIVE THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 15 NOW PROPOSED
DEFIES THE PURPOSE AND WILL OF CONGRESS.  IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT
CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE INTENDED THAT A NATURALIZED CITIZEN'S ATTACHMENT
TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION - THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL
REQUIREMENT FOR CITIZENSHIP - SHOULD BE THE ONE ISSUE WHICH, IN THE
ABSENCE OF FRAUD, THE GOVERNMENT IS FORECLOSED FROM EXAMINING.  TO
LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO PROOF OF FRAUD IN SUCH CASES IS TO READ
"ILLEGALITY" OUT OF THE STATUTE IN EVERY INSTANCE WHERE AN ALIEN
DEMONSTRABLY NOT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS
PROCURED A CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP.  EVEN IF WE WERE TO RECAST AN
ACT OF CONGRESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR OWN NOTIONS OF POLICY, IT WOULD
BE DIFFICULT TO DISCOVER ANY CONSIDERATIONS WARRANTING THE ADOPTION OF
A DEVICE WHOSE ONLY EFFECT WOULD BE TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT PERSONS NEVER
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF CITIZENSHIP COULD SECURE AND RETAIN THEM. 
THAT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE OBJECT OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING SEC. 15. 

AS WE ARE NOT HERE CONSIDERING WHETHER PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE OF
NATURALIZATION WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD, THERE IS NO OCCASION, AND INDEED
NO JUSTIFICATION, FOR IMPORTING INTO THIS CASE THE RULE, DERIVED FROM
LAND FRAUD CASES, THAT FRAUD, WHICH INVOLVES PERSONAL MORAL OBLIQUITY,
MUST BE PROVED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.  THE ISSUE IS NOT
WHETHER PETITIONER COMMITTED A CRIME BUT WHETHER HE SHOULD BE PERMITTED
TO ENJOY CITIZENSHIP WHEN HE HAS NEVER SATISFIED THE BASIC CONDITIONS
WHICH CONGRESS REQUIRED FOR THE GRANT OF THAT PRIVILEGE.  WE ARE
CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER'S QUALIFICATIONS
WERE SO LACKING THAT HE WAS NOT LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGE OF
CITIZENSHIP WHICH HE HAS PROCURED.  THERE IS NOTHING IN SEC. 15, NOR IN
ANY OF OUR NUMEROUS DECISIONS UNDER IT, TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH AN ISSUE
IS TO BE TRIED AS FRAUD IS TRIED, OR THAT IT IS NOT TO BE RESOLVED, AS
ARE OTHER CASES, BY THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.  NO PLAUSIBLE REASON HAS
BEEN ADVANCED WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE.  BUT THE POINT NEED NOT BE LABORED,
FOR NO MATTER HOW IT IS DETERMINED IT CAN GIVE NO AID OR COMFORT TO
PETITIONER.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO WHICH I SHALL REFER AND ON
WHICH THE COURTS BELOW WERE ENTITLED TO RELY IS CLEAR, NOT SPECULATIVE;
AND SINCE PETITIONER HIMSELF HAS NOT CHALLENGED IT, THE TRIAL COURT WAS
ENTITLED TO ACCEPT IT AS CONVINCING, WHICH IT EVIDENTLY DID. 

THE STATUTE DOES NOT, AS SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTED, REQUIRE AS A
CONDITION OF CITIZENSHIP THAT A MAN MERELY BE CAPABLE OF ATTACHMENT TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION - A REQUIREMENT WHICH PRESUMABLY ALL
MANKIND COULD SATISFY.  IT REQUIRES INSTEAD THAT THE APPLICANT BE IN
FACT ATTACHED TO THOSE PRINCIPLES WHEN HE SEEKS NATURALIZATION, AND
SEC. 15 MAKES PROVISION FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO INSTITUTE AN INDEPENDENT
SUIT, SUBSEQUENT TO NATURALIZATION, TO INQUIRE WHETHER THAT CONDITION
WAS THEN IN FACT FULFILLED.  CONGRESS HAS EXHIBITED NO INTEREST IN
PETITIONER'S CAPABILITIES.  NOR DID CONGRESS REQUIRE ONLY THAT IT BE
NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PETITIONER TO HAVE AN ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE ACT SPECIFIES THE FACT OF ATTACHMENT AS THE
TEST, REQUIRING THIS TO BE AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWN BY THE APPLICANT; AND BY
SEC. 15 CONGRESS PROVIDED A MEANS FOR THE UNITED STATES TO ASCERTAIN
THAT FACT BY A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.    THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS FOR
THE AWARD OF CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION ARE FEW AND READILY
UNDERSTOOD, AND WE MUST ACCEPT THEM AS THE EXPRESSION OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL JUDGMENT THAT ALIENS NOT SATISFYING THOSE REQUIREMENTS
ARE NOT WORTHY TO BE ADMITTED TO THE PRIVILEGE OF CITIZENSHIP. 
CONGRESS HAS DECLARED THAT BEFORE ONE IS ENTITLED TO THAT PRIVILEGE HE
MUST TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE "THAT HE WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN
AND DOMESTIC, AND BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME."  ACT OF
JUNE 29, 1906, SEC. 4(THIRD), 34 STAT. 597.  AND AS I HAVE SAID, THE
APPLICANT MUST MAKE IT APPEAR TO THE COURT ADMITTING HIM TO CITIZENSHIP
THAT FOR THE FIVE YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE OF HIS APPLICATION HE HAS
RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND "THAT DURING THAT
TIME HE HAS BEHAVED AS A MAN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHED TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED
TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME." 

MOREOVER, AT THE TIME OF PETITIONER'S NATURALIZATION, THE STATUTES OF
THE UNITED STATES EXCLUDED FROM ADMISSION INTO THIS COUNTRY "ALIENS WHO
BELIEVE IN, ADVISE, ADVOCATE, OR TEACH, OR WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR
AFFILIATED WITH ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, OR GROUP, THAT
BELIEVES IN, ADVISES, ADVOCATES, OR TEACHES:  (1) THE OVERTHROW BY
FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  ACT
OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, SEC. 1, 40 STAT. 1012, AS AMENDED BY SUBSECTION
(C) OF THE ACT OF JUNE 5, 1920, 41 STAT. 1008, 1009.  THE STATUTES ALSO
BARRED ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES OF "ALIENS WHO  ...  KNOWINGLY
CIRCULATE, DISTRIBUTE, PRINT, OR DISPLAY, OR KNOWINGLY CAUSE TO BE
CIRCULATED, DISTRIBUTED, PRINTED, PUBLISHED, OR DISPLAYED  ...  ANY
WRITTEN OR PRINTED MATTER  ...  ADVISING, ADVOCATING, OR TEACHING:  (1)
THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES  ...  "  IBID., SUBSECTION (D).  AND BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF
OCTOBER 16, 1918, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT ANY ALIEN WHO, AFTER ENTERING
THE UNITED STATES, "IS FOUND  ...  TO HAVE BECOME THEREAFTER, A MEMBER
OF ANY ONE OF THE CLASSES OF ALIENS" JUST ENUMERATED, SHALL BE TAKEN
INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED.  SEE KESSLER V. STRECKER, 307 U.S. 22. 
QUITE APART FROM THE WANT OF ATTACHMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
CONSEQUENT DISQUALIFICATION OF SUCH ALIENS FOR CITIZENSHIP, THEIR
BELONGING TO ANY OF THESE CLASSES WOULD DISQUALIFY THEM FOR CITIZENSHIP
SINCE THEIR PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES, WITHOUT WHICH THEY CANNOT
APPLY FOR CITIZENSHIP, WOULD BE UNLAWFUL.  AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE - PRESENTLY TO BE DISCUSSED - EVEN THE COURT'S OPINION
CONCEDES (P. 153) "WE DO NOT SAY THAT A REASONABLE MAN COULD NOT
POSSIBLY HAVE FOUND, AS THE DISTRICT COURT DID, THAT THE COMMUNIST
PARTY IN 1927 ACTIVELY URGED THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE
AND VIOLENCE."  IN ADDITION, THE EVIDENCE MAKES IT CLEAR BEYOND ALL
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT PETITIONER, UP TO THE TIME OF HIS NATURALIZATION,
WAS AN ALIEN WHO KNOWINGLY CIRCULATED OR DISTRIBUTED, OR CAUSED TO BE
CIRCULATED OR DISTRIBUTED, PRINTED MATTER ADVOCATING THE OVERTHROW OF
THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE. 

WHOLLY APART FROM THE DEPORTATION STATUTE, THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT
PETITIONER, IN 1927, WAS NOT AND HAD NOT BEEN ATTACHED TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  MY BRETHREN OF THE MAJORITY DO NOT
DENY THAT THERE ARE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE CONGRESS OF
1795, WHICH PASSED THE STATUTE REQUIRING AN APPLICANT FOR
NATURALIZATION TO ESTABLISH THAT HE HAS "BEHAVED AS A MAN  ...
ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION" (1 STAT. 414),
EVIDENTLY DID NOT DOUBT THAT THERE WERE.  FOR SOME OF ITS MEMBERS HAD
SAT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCLAIMER
I SHALL ASSUME THAT THERE ARE SUCH PRINCIPLES AND THAT AMONG THEM ARE
AT LEAST THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND
OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, THE PRINCIPLE OF REPRESENTATIVE
GOVERNMENT, AND THE PRINCIPLE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ARE NOT TO BE
BROKEN DOWN BY PLANNED DISOBEDIENCE.  I ASSUME ALSO THAT ALL THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE HOSTILE TO DICTATORSHIP AND MINORITY
RULE; AND THAT IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF OUR CONSTITUTION THAT CHANGE IN THE
ORGANIZATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT IS TO BE EFFECTED BY THE ORDERLY
PROCEDURES ORDAINED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT BY FORCE OR FRAUD. 
WITH THESE IN MIND, WE MAY EXAMINE PETITIONER'S BEHAVIOR AS DISCLOSED
BY THE RECORD, DURING THE FIVE YEARS WHICH PRECEDED HIS NATURALIZATION,
IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE WAS BASIS IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
TRIAL JUDGE'S FINDINGS.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING THE FINDING OF PETITIONER'S WANT OF ATTACHMENT TO
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, COURTS MUST LOOK, AS THE STATUTE ADMONISHES,
TO SEE WHETHER IN THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD PETITIONER BEHAVED AS A MAN
ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  AND WE MUST RECOGNIZE
THAT SUCH ATTACHMENT OR WANT OF IT IS A PERSONAL ATTRIBUTE TO BE
INFERRED FROM ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH TEND TO
REVEAL PETITIONER'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THOSE PRINCIPLES. 

PETITIONER, WHO IS AN EDUCATED AND INTELLIGENT MAN, TOOK OUT HIS
FIRST PAPERS IN 1924, WHEN HE WAS EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND WAS
ADMITTED TO CITIZENSHIP ON JUNE 10, 1927, WHEN NEARLY TWENTY-TWO. 
SINCE HIS SIXTEENTH YEAR HE HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY AND ACTIVELY ENGAGED
IN PROMOTING IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE INTERESTS OF VARIOUS COMMUNIST
PARTY ORGANIZATIONS AFFILIATED WITH AND CONTROLLED AS TO THEIR POLICY
AND ACTION BY THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL, THE PARENT COMMUNIST
ORGANIZATION, WHICH HAD ITS HEADQUARTERS AND ITS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IN
MOSCOW.  FN3  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS PETITIONER'S LOYALTY TO THE COMMUNIST
PARTY ORGANIZATIONS; THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE PARTY HE WAS SUBJECT TO
AND ACCEPTED ITS POLITICAL CONTROL, AND THAT AS A PARTY MEMBER HIS
ADHERENCE TO ITS POLITICAL PRINCIPLES AND TACTICS WAS REQUIRED BY ITS
CONSTITUTION. 

PETITIONER WAS BORN IN RUSSIA ON AUGUST 1, 1905, AND CAME TO THE
UNITED STATES IN 1907 OR 1908.  IN 1922, WHEN A 16-YEAR OLD STUDENT AT
A NIGHT HIGH SCHOOL IN LOS ANGELES, HE BECAME ONE OF THE ORGANIZERS AND
CHARTER MEMBERS OF THE YOUNG WORKERS LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA.  FOR TWO OR
THREE YEARS - AND DURING THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WHICH WE ARE EXAMINING -
HE WAS EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE LEAGUE; IT WAS HIS DUTY "TO ORGANIZE
FORUMS AND STUDIES FOR CLASSES."  "MY JOB WAS TO REGISTER STUDENTS IN
THE CLASSES AND SEND OUT NOTICES FOR MEETINGS; IN OTHER WORDS, TO
ORGANIZE THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES OF THE LEAGUE FOR WHICH INSTRUCTORS
WERE SUPPLIED."  THE OUTLINES OF THE CURRICULUM OF THIS EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAM WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE LEAGUE'S NATIONAL COMMITTEE.  THE
LEAGUE (WHOSE NAME WAS LATER CHANGED TO THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE) WAS
AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.  FN4  IN 1928, JUST AFTER
HE WAS NATURALIZED, PETITIONER BECAME "ORGANIZER" OR "DIRECTOR" OF THE
LEAGUE - "I WAS THE OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN FOR THE LEAGUE AND DIRECTED ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS AND EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS." 
PETITIONER WAS A DELEGATE TO THE LEAGUE'S NATIONAL CONVENTION IN 1922,
AND AGAIN IN 1925.  MEANWHILE, ON FEBRUARY 8, 1924, HE HAD FILED A
DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. 

AT THE END OF 1924, PETITIONER JOINED THE WORKERS PARTY (WHICH LATER
CHANGED ITS NAME TO THE WORKERS COMMUNIST PARTY AND STILL LATER TO THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA).  THE PARTY WAS A
TIME PETITIONER BECAME A MEMBER, PROVIDED (ARTICLE III, SEC. 1) THAT
"EVERY PERSON WHO ACCEPTS THE PRINCIPLES AND TACTICS OF THE WORKERS
PARTY OF AMERICA AND AGREES TO SUBMIT TO ITS DISCIPLINE AND ENGAGE
ACTIVELY IN ITS WORK SHALL BE ELIGIBLE TO MEMBERSHIP."  APPLICANTS FOR
MEMBERSHIP WERE REQUIRED (ARTICLE III, SEC. 2) TO SIGN AN APPLICATION
CARD READING AS FOLLOWS:  "THE UNDERSIGNED DECLARES HIS ADHERENCE TO
THE PRINCIPLES AND TACTICS OF THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA AS EXPRESSED
IN ITS PROGRAM AND CONSTITUTION AND AGREES TO SUBMIT TO THE DISCIPLINE
OF THE PARTY AND TO ENGAGE ACTIVELY IN ITS WORK."  IT WAS LIKEWISE
PROVIDED (ARTICLE X, SECS. 1, 2) THAT "ALL DECISIONS OF THE GOVERNING
BODIES OF THE PARTY SHALL BE BINDING UPON THE MEMBERSHIP AND
SUBORDINATE UNITS OF THE ORGANIZATION," AND THAT "ANY MEMBER OR
ORGANIZATION VIOLATING THE DECISIONS OF THE PARTY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
SUSPENSION OR EXPULSION."  FN5  DURING 1925 AND 1926 PETITIONER WAS
"CORRESPONDING SECRETARY" OF THE WORKERS PARTY IN LOS ANGELES.  AS
SUCH, HE WROTE DOWN THE MINUTES AND SENT OUT COMMUNICATIONS FOR
MEETINGS; AND A LETTER WHICH HE SIGNED IN HIS CAPACITY AS "CITY CENTRAL
SECRETARY" INDICATES THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE OF OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
WITH AFFILIATES OF THE PARTY.  IN 1925 HE ATTENDED THE PARTY
CONVENTION. 

AFTER HIS NATURALIZATION, PETITIONER ATTENDED THE SIXTH WORLD
CONGRESS OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL, AT MOSCOW, IN 1928; AND FROM
1929 TO 1930 HE WAS DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONAL SECRETARY OF THE PARTY FOR
A DISTRICT WHICH INCLUDED ARIZONA, NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA.  AT VARIOUS
SUBSEQUENT TIMES HE WAS DISTRICT ORGANIZER IN CONNECTICUT, IN
MINNESOTA, AND IN CALIFORNIA.  HE RAN TWICE AS THE PARTY'S CANDIDATE
FOR GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA.  HE HELD OTHER OFFICIAL POSITIONS IN THE
PARTY, AND AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
CALIFORNIA STATE SECRETARY OF THE PARTY AND A MEMBER OF THE STATE
CENTRAL COMMITTEE.  THESE FACTS, WHILE NOT DIRECTLY PROBATIVE OF HIS
BEHAVIOR DURING THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD 1922-1927, AT LEAST ESTABLISH THAT
HIS EARLY DEVOTION TO THE PARTY ORGANIZATIONS WAS NOT TRANSITORY, NOR
INCONSISTENT WITH HIS GENUINE AND SETTLED CONVICTIONS. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS AND IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY
ORGANIZATION AT THE TIME IN QUESTION WAS A REVOLUTIONARY PARTY HAVING
AS ITS ULTIMATE AIM GENERALLY, AND PARTICULARLY IN ENGLAND AND THE
UNITED STATES, THE OVERTHROW OF CAPITALISTIC GOVERNMENT, AND THE
SUBSTITUTION FOR IT OF THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.  IT SOUGHT
TO ACCOMPLISH THIS THROUGH PERSISTENT INDOCTRINATION OF THE PEOPLE IN
CAPITALISTIC COUNTRIES WITH PARTY PRINCIPLES, BY THE ORGANIZATION IN
THOSE COUNTRIES OF SECTIONS OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL, BY SYSTEMATIC
TEACHING OF PARTY PRINCIPLES AT MEETINGS AND CLASSES HELD UNDER PARTY
AUSPICES, AND BY THE PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNIST
LITERATURE WHICH CONSTITUTED ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF PARTY
ACTION. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY ESTABLISHED AT ITS SECOND WORLD
CONGRESS IN 1920, THE PARTY PRESS WAS BROUGHT UNDER PARTY CONTROL
THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF THE VARIOUS PUBLICATION AGENCIES.  STRICT
ADHERENCE TO PARTY PRINCIPLES WAS DEMANDED OF ALL PUBLICATIONS, WHICH
WERE REQUIRED TO BE EDITED BY PARTY MEMBERS OF PROVED LOYALTY TO THE
PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION.  PROPAGANDA WAS REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO THE
PROGRAM AND DECISIONS OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL.  EDITORS WERE REMOVED
AND PARTY MEMBERS EXPELLED FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.  PUBLICATIONS NOT
CONFORMING TO PARTY PRINCIPLES WERE BARRED FROM PARTY CLASSES. 

MANY SUCH COMMUNIST PARTY PUBLICATIONS WERE INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL
AND CONSTITUTE A LARGE PART OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  PERUSAL OF
THE RECORD CAN LEAVE NO DOUBT OF PETITIONER'S UNQUALIFIED LOYALTY TO
THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  HIS CONTINUOUS SERVICES TO THE PARTY FOR TWENTY
YEARS IN A GREAT VARIETY OF CAPACITIES, AND HIS FAMILIARITY WITH PARTY
PROGRAMS AND LITERATURE, ARE CONVINCING PROOF OF HIS COMPLETE DEVOTION
TO COMMUNIST PARTY PRINCIPLES, AND HIS DESIRE TO ADVANCE THEM. 
THROUGHOUT HE HAS BEEN A DILIGENT STUDENT OF PARTY PUBLICATIONS.  MANY
OF THEM WERE USED IN THE COMMUNIST CLASSES OF WHICH HE WAS EDUCATIONAL
DIRECTOR IN THE YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING HIS NATURALIZATION.  ALL
WERE PARTICULARLY BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION AS THEY WERE INTRODUCED IN
EVIDENCE AND EXCERPTS RELATIVE TO THE ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED IN OPEN
COURT.  EXCEPT AS MAY BE LATER NOTED, HE DID NOT DENY FAMILIARITY WITH
THEM OR DISAVOW THEIR TEACHINGS.  THEY WERE THE OFFICIAL EXPOSITION OF
THE DOCTRINES OF THE PARTY TO WHICH HE HAD FORMALLY PLEDGED HIS
ALLEGIANCE, DILIGENTLY DISSEMINATED BY HIM FOR THE INDOCTRINATION OF
HIS FELLOW COUNTRYMEN, ESPECIALLY THE MEMBERS OF THE YOUTH
ORGANIZATIONS OF THE PARTY.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ESPECIALLY IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISAVOWAL BY PETITIONER OR THE ASSERTION BY HIM OF
IGNORANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES WHICH THEY PROCLAIMED, THEY ARE PERSUASIVE
EVIDENCE OF THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF HIS WANT OF ATTACHMENT TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN APPRAISING THEM IN THIS ASPECT IT
WILL BE MOST USEFUL TO STATE IN SOMEWHAT SUMMARY FORM SOME OF THE
TEACHINGS OF THESE PUBLICATIONS, CLASSIFIED WITH REFERENCE TO
PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION TO WHICH THEY RELATE, AND TO GIVE A FEW
TYPICAL EXAMPLES, OF WHICH MANY MORE COULD BE GIVEN FROM THE EVIDENCE. 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, I SHALL REFER ONLY TO THOSE WITH WHICH
PETITIONER WAS FAMILIAR AND WHICH WERE PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF
THE PARTY AND BY ITS OFFICIAL PUBLICATION AGENCIES. 

AS I HAVE SAID, IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE ULTIMATE AIM OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY IN 1927 AND THE YEARS PRECEDING WAS THE TRIUMPH OF THE
DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AND THE CONSEQUENT OVERTHROW OF
CAPITALISTIC OR BOURGEOIS GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY.  ATTACHMENT TO SUCH
DICTATORSHIP CAN HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO INDICATE ATTACHMENT TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT WHICH FORBIDS DICTATORSHIP
AND PRECLUDES THE RULE OF THE MINORITY OR THE SUPPRESSION OF MINORITY
RIGHTS BY DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT POINTS ESPECIALLY
TO THE METHODS BY WHICH THAT END WAS TO BE ACHIEVED TO SHOW THAT THOSE
WHO PURSUE OR ADVOCATE SUCH METHODS EXHIBIT THEIR WANT OF ATTACHMENT TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  METHODS REPEATEDLY AND
SYSTEMATICALLY ADVOCATED, IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY LITERATURE TO WHICH I
HAVE REFERRED, INCLUDE FIRST A SOFTENING UP PROCESS BY WHICH THE
BREAKDOWN AND DISINTEGRATION OF CAPITALISTIC GOVERNMENTS WAS TO BE
ACHIEVED BY SYSTEMATIC AND GENERAL RESORT TO VIOLATION OF THE LAWS, AND
SECOND, THE OVERTHROW OF CAPITALISTIC GOVERNMENTS BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE.    IT WAS PROCLAIMED THAT "FOR ALL COUNTRIES, EVEN FOR MOST
FREE 'LEGAL' AND 'PEACEFUL' ONES IN THE SENSE OF A LESSER ACUTENESS IN
THE CLASS STRUGGLE, THE PERIOD HAS ARRIVED, WHEN IT HAS BECOME
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR EVERY COMMUNIST PARTY TO JOIN SYSTEMATICALLY
LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL WORK, LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL ORGANIZATION.  ...  THE
CLASS STRUGGLE IN ALMOST EVERY COUNTRY OF EUROPE AND AMERICA IS
ENTERING THE PHASE OF CIVIL WAR.  UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS THE COMMUNISTS
CAN HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN BOURGEOIS LAWS.  THEY SHOULD CREATE
EVERYWHERE A PARALLEL ILLEGAL APPARATUS, WHICH AT THE DECISIVE MOMENT
SHOULD DO ITS DUTY BY THE PARTY, AND IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE ASSIST THE
REVOLUTION.  IN EVERY COUNTRY WHERE, IN CONSEQUENCE OF MARTIAL LAW OR
OF OTHER EXCEPTIONAL LAWS, THE COMMUNISTS ARE UNABLE TO CARRY ON THEIR
WORK LAWFULLY, A COMBINATION OF LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL WORK IS ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY."  FN6  "OPPOSITION IN PRINCIPLE TO UNDERGROUND (ILLEGAL)
WORK AND AN UNWILLINGNESS TO UNDERSTAND THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR A
COMMUNIST PARTY OF COMBINING LEGAL WITH ILLEGAL WORK" WAS IN FACT ONE
GROUND FOR EXPULSION FROM THE PARTY OF A MINORITY FACTION.  FN7
ADVOCACY OF ILLEGAL CONDUCT GENERALLY WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ADVOCACY OF
PARTICULAR TYPES OF ILLEGALITY.  THE PARTY WAS INSTRUCTED TO AROUSE
WORKERS TO "MASS VIOLATION" OF AN INJUNCTION "WHENEVER AND WHEREVER AN
INJUNCTION IS ISSUED BY COURTS AGAINST STRIKERS."  FN8  IN THE
LITERATURE OF THE PERIOD NOW IN QUESTION UNLAWFUL TACTICS WERE
PARTICULARLY TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD GOVERNMENT ARMED FORCES.  IN
ADDITION TO "SYSTEMATIC UNLAWFUL WORK," "IT IS ESPECIALLY NECESSARY TO
CARRY ON UNLAWFUL WORK IN THE ARMY, NAVY, AND POLICE."  FN9  REFUSAL TO
PARTICIPATE IN "PERSISTENT AND SYSTEMATIC PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION" IN
THE ARMY WAS "EQUAL TO TREASON TO THE REVOLUTIONARY CAUSE, AND
INCOMPATIBLE WITH AFFILIATION WITH THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL," FN10  AND
THIS BECAUSE "IT IS NECESSARY, ABOVE ALL THINGS, TO UNDERMINE AND
DESTROY THE ARMY IN ORDER TO OVERCOME THE BOURGEOISIE."  FN11 

THERE IS ABUNDANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE CHARACTER ALREADY
DESCRIBED TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S FINDING THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY
ORGANIZATIONS, OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS A MEMBER, DILIGENTLY CIRCULATED
PRINTED MATTER WHICH ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, AND THAT PETITIONER AIDED IN THAT
CIRCULATION AND ADVOCACY.  FROM THE BEGINNING, AND DURING ALL TIMES
RELEVANT TO THIS INQUIRY, THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY
ORGANIZATIONS ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW OF CAPITALISTIC GOVERNMENTS BY
REVOLUTION TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, IF NEED BE, BY FORCE OF ARMS.  WE NEED
NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THE MUCH DISCUSSED QUESTION WHETHER THIS MEANT
MORE THAN THAT FORCE WAS TO BE USED IF ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENTS SHOULD
BE SO MISGUIDED AS TO REFUSE TO MAKE THEMSELVES OVER INTO PROLETARIAN
DICTATORSHIPS BY AMENDMENT OF THEIR GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES, OR SHOULD
HAVE THE EFFRONTERY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM LAWLESS OR SUBVERSIVE
ATTACKS.  FOR IN ANY CASE THE END CONTEMPLATED WAS THE OVERTHROW OF
GOVERNMENT, AND THE MEASURES ADVOCATED WERE FORCE AND VIOLENCE. 

THE FOUNTAINHEAD OF COMMUNIST PRINCIPLES, THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO,
PUBLISHED BY MARX AND ENGELS IN 1848, HAD OPENLY PROCLAIMED THAT
COMMUNIST ENDS COULD BE ATTAINED "ONLY BY THE FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF ALL
EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS."  AFTER 1920 THESE TEACHINGS WERE REVIVED
AND RESTATED IN PARTY PUBLICATIONS WHICH, IN THE PERIOD WE ARE NOW
CONSIDERING, WERE USED IN THE COMMUNIST EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM THAT
PETITIONER WAS DIRECTING.  THEY RECOGNIZED THAT "THE PROLETARIAN
REVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THE VIOLENT DESTRUCTION OF THE
BOURGEOIS GOVERNMENTAL MACHINE AND THE PUTTING OF A NEW ONE IN ITS
PLACE"; THAT "THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT CANNOT BE THE RESULT
OF THE PEACEFUL DEVELOPMENT OF BOURGEOIS SOCIETY AND DEMOCRACY; IT CAN
BE THE RESULT ONLY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BOURGEOIS ARMY AND STATE
MACHINE, THE BOURGEOIS ADMINISTRATIVE APPARATUS AND THE WHOLE BOURGEOIS
POLITICAL SYSTEM"; THAT "THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT IS BORN
NOT OF THE BOURGEOIS STATE OF THINGS, BUT OF ITS DESTRUCTION AFTER THE
OVERTHROW OF THE BOURGEOISIE, OF THE EXPROPRIATION OF LANDED
PROPRIETORS AND CAPITALISTS, OF THE SOCIALIZATION OF THE ESSENTIAL
INSTRUMENTS AND MEANS OF PRODUCTION, OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION THROUGH VIOLENCE.  THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE
PROLETARIAT IS THE REVOLUTIONARY POWER RESTING ON VIOLENCE AGAINST THE
BOURGEOISIE."  FN12 

PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS NATURALIZATION HE
SUBSCRIBED TO THE PHILOSOPHY AND PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALISM AS MANIFESTED
IN THE WRITINGS OF LENIN.  THE STATE AND REVOLUTION, BY LENIN, WITH
WHICH PETITIONER WAS FAMILIAR, AND WHICH WAS CIRCULATED BY THE
LITERATURE DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN 1924 AND 1925 AND USED
BY COMMUNIST PARTY CLASSES, DECLARED:  "THE NECESSITY OF SYSTEMATICALLY
FOSTERING AMONG THE MASSES THIS AND ONLY THIS POINT OF VIEW ABOUT
VIOLENT REVOLUTION LIES AT THE ROOT OF THE WHOLE OF MARX'S AND ENGELS'
TEACHING, AND IT IS JUST THE NEGLECT OF SUCH PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION
BOTH BY THE PRESENT PREDOMINANT SOCIAL-CHAUVINISTS AND THE KAUTSKIAN
SCHOOLS THAT BRINGS THEIR BETRAYAL OF IT INTO PROMINENT RELIEF."  FN13
AND IN ORDER THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM
"REVOLUTION," ENGELS' DEFINITION OF REVOLUTION WAS REVIVED AND RESTATED
AS FOLLOWS:  "REVOLUTION IS AN ACT IN WHICH PART OF THE POPULATION
FORCES ITS WILL ON THE OTHER PARTS BY MEANS OF RIFLES, BAYONETS,
CANNON, I.E., BY MOST AUTHORITATIVE MEANS.  AND THE CONQUERING PARTY IS
INEVITABLY FORCED TO MAINTAIN ITS SUPREMACY BY MEANS OF THAT FEAR WHICH
ITS ARMS INSPIRE IN THE REACTIONARIES."  FN14  "THAT WHICH BEFORE THE
VICTORY OF THE PROLETARIAT SEEMS BUT A THEORETICAL DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF 'DEMOCRACY,' BECOMES INEVITABLY ON THE
MORROW OF THE VICTORY, A QUESTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE DECIDED BY FORCE OF
ARMS."  FN15  "THE WORKING CLASS CANNOT ACHIEVE VICTORY OVER THE
BOURGEOIS BY MEANS OF THE GENERAL STRIKE ALONE, AND BY THE POLICY OF
FOLDED ARMS.  THE PROLETARIAT MUST RESORT TO AN ARMED UPRISING."  FN16
"TO SAY THAT THE REVOLUTION CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT CIVIL WAR IS TO SAY
THAT A 'PEACEFUL' REVOLUTION IS POSSIBLE.  ...  MARX WAS A BELIEVER IN
CIVIL WAR - THAT IS, THE ARMED STRUGGLE OF THE PROLETARIAT AGAINST THE
BOURGEOISIE.  ...  THE TEACHERS OF SOCIALISM TOOK THE REVOLUTION VERY
SERIOUSLY.  IT WAS CLEAR TO THEM THAT THE PROLETARIAT COULD NOT CONVERT
THE BOURGEOISIE, AND THAT THE WORKERS WOULD HAVE TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL
UPON THEIR ENEMIES THROUGH A WAR CARRIED ON BY GUNS AND BAYONETS." 
FN17 

THE PARTY TEACHINGS IN THIS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS WERE THAT
REVOLUTION BY FORCE OF ARMS WAS A UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE AND CONSEQUENTLY
ONE WHICH EMBRACED THE UNITED STATES, AND OBVIOUSLY WAS INTENDED TO DO
SO WHEN TAUGHT IN COMMUNIST CLASSES IN THE UNITED STATES.  COMMUNIST
PUBLICATIONS IN EVIDENCE WERE AT PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT "MARX'S
LIMITATION WITH REGARD TO THE 'CONTINENT' HAS FURNISHED THE
OPPORTUNISTS AND MENSHEVIKS OF EVERY COUNTRY WITH A PRETEXT FOR
ASSERTING THAT MARX ADMITTED THE POSSIBILITY OF A PEACEFUL
TRANSFORMATION OF BOURGEOIS DEMOCRACY INTO PROLETARIAT DEMOCRACY, AT
LEAST (IN) SOME COUNTRIES (ENGLAND AND AMERICA).  ...  BUT NOW THE
SITUATION IN THESE COUNTRIES IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT.  IMPERIALISM HAS
REACHED ITS APOGEE THERE, AND THERE MILITARISM AND BUREAUCRACY ARE
SOVEREIGN.  IN CONSEQUENCE MARX'S RESTRICTION NO LONGER APPLIES." 
FN18 

IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER PETITIONER'S BEHAVIOR ESTABLISHED HIS
ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE ARE ENTITLED TO
CONSIDER THE POLITICAL SYSTEM WHICH HIS PARTY PROPOSED TO ESTABLISH AND
TOWARD WHICH HIS OWN EFFORTS IN PROMOTING THE COMMUNIST CAUSE WERE
DIRECTED.  ABOUT THIS THERE IS AND CAN BE NO SERIOUS DISPUTE.  UNDER
THE NEW SYSTEM EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES WERE TO BE
ABANDONED.  IN THE NEW GOVERNMENT TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNISTS,
THE FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS WERE TO BE ENDED.  "  ...
THERE CAN BE NO TALK OF 'FREEDOM' FOR EVERYBODY.  THE DICTATORSHIP OF
THE PROLETARIAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE BOURGEOISIE. 
THE DICTATORSHIP IS, IN FACT, NECESSARY TO DEPRIVE THE BOURGEOISIE OF
THEIR FREEDOM, TO CHAIN THEM HAND AND FOOT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT
ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO FIGHT THE REVOLUTIONARY
PROLETARIAT."  FN19  THERE WAS TO BE "IMMEDIATE AND UNCONDITIONAL
CONFISCATION OF THE ESTATES OF THE LANDOWNERS AND BIG LANDLORDS" AND
"NO PROPAGANDA CAN BE ADMITTED IN THE RANKS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTIES IN
FAVOR OF AN INDEMNITY TO BE PAID TO THE OWNERS OF LARGE ESTATES FOR
THEIR EXPROPRIATION."  FN20  THE NEW STATE WAS NOT TO INCLUDE
"REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FORMER RULING CLASSES."  FN21  "THE
DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT CANNOT BE A 'COMPLETE DEMOCRACY, A
DEMOCRACY FOR ALL, FOR RICH AND POOR ALIKE; IT HAS TO BE A STATE THAT
IS DEMOCRATIC, BUT ONLY FOR THE PROLETARIAT AND THE PROPERTYLESS, A
STATE THAT IS DICTATORIAL, BUT ONLY AGAINST THE BOURGEOISIE.'   ...
UNDER THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT, DEMOCRACY IS PROLETARIAN:
IT IS DEMOCRACY FOR THE EXPLOITED MAJORITY, BASED ON THE LIMITATION OF
THE RIGHTS OF THE EXPLOITING MINORITY AND DIRECTED AGAINST THIS
MINORITY."  FN22 

THE AIMS OF THE COMMUNISTS COULD BE ACHIEVED ONLY BY "THE
ANNIHILATION OF THE ENTIRE BOURGEOIS GOVERNMENTAL APPARATUS,
PARLIAMENTARY, JUDICIAL, MILITARY, BUREAUCRATIC, ADMINISTRATIVE,
MUNICIPAL," AND IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE COMMUNISTS "TO BREAK AND
DESTROY" THE "APPARATUS."  FN23 THE ANNIHILATION OF THE EXISTING
POLITICAL STRUCTURE WAS DEEMED AS NECESSARY IN THE UNITED STATES AS
ELSEWHERE.  FN24  IF ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE THE COMMUNIST WAS
DIRECTED TO "FACILITATE THIS TASK OF DESTRUCTION" OF THE EXISTING
"APPARATUS," SINCE THE "BOURGEOIS STATE ORGANIZATIONS" WERE TO BE
UTILIZED ONLY "WITH THE OBJECT OF DESTROYING THEM."  FN25 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO GIVE FURTHER EXAMPLES OF THE TEACHINGS OF
COMMUNIST PARTY ORGANIZATIONS WITH WHICH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS
SHOT THROUGH AND THROUGH.  APPENDED TO THIS OPINION ARE EXCERPTS FROM
TWO EXHIBITS.  THESE HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, NOT BECAUSE THEY PROVE MORE THAN
OTHERS BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY EXPRESS IN SHORT FORM IDEAS WHICH PERMEATE
ALL.  THE EVIDENCE, AS A WHOLE, AND THE EXHIBITS WHICH WE HAVE
ESPECIALLY MENTIONED, SHOW A BASIS FOR FINDING IN THE PARTY TEACHINGS,
DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, AN UNQUALIFIED HOSTILITY TO THE MOST
FUNDAMENTAL AND UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
ON THE ARGUMENT WE WERE ADMONISHED THAT PETITIONER FAVORED CHANGE IN
OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS ITSELF A PRINCIPLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, SINCE THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR ITS OWN AMENDMENT,
AND THAT IN ANY CASE THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAD GREATLY MODIFIED ITS AIMS
IN MORE RECENT YEARS.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR
ITS OWN AMENDMENT BY AN ORDERLY PROCEDURE BUT NOT THROUGH THE BREAKDOWN
OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM BY LAWLESS CONDUCT AND BY FORCE.  IT CAN
HARDLY SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF "ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION" THAT ONE IS ATTACHED TO THE MEANS FOR ITS DESTRUCTION. 
AND WHETHER AT SOME TIME AFTER 1927 THE PARTY MAY HAVE ABANDONED THESE
DOCTRINES IS IMMATERIAL. 

IT WOULD BE LITTLE SHORT OF PREPOSTEROUS TO ASSERT THAT VIGOROUS AID
KNOWINGLY GIVEN BY A PLEDGED PARTY MEMBER IN DISSEMINATING THE PARTY
TEACHINGS, TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE, IS COMPATIBLE WITH
ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ON THE RECORD BEFORE
US IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR A TRIAL JUDGE TO CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER
WAS NOT WELL AWARE THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF AND AIDING A PARTY WHICH
TAUGHT AND ADVOCATED THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT ALSO TO FIND AS A
FACT THAT PETITIONER BEHAVED AS A MAN ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND THAT HE DID NOT.  AND THE SAME
EVIDENCE WOULD SEEM TO FURNISH PLAIN ENOUGH SUPPORT FOR THE TRIAL
JUDGE'S FURTHER FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT BEHAVE AS A MAN
ATTACHED "TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS" OF THE UNITED STATES. 

PETITIONER'S PLEDGE OF ADHERENCE TO COMMUNIST PARTY PRINCIPLES AND
TACTICS, AND HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS, WERE
NEITHER PASSIVE NOR INDOLENT.  HIS TESTIMONY SHOWS CLEARLY THAT DURING
THE CRUCIAL YEARS HE WAS A YOUNG MAN OF VIGOROUS INTELLECT AND STRONG
CONVICTIONS.  HE SPENT HIS TIME ACTIVELY ARRANGING FOR THE
DISSEMINATION OF A GOSPEL OF WHICH HE NEVER HAS ASSERTED EITHER
IGNORANCE OR DISBELIEF.  HIS WIDE ACQUAINTANCE WITH PARTY LITERATURE,
AND HIS ZEALOUS PROMOTION OF PARTY INTERESTS FOR MANY YEARS, PRECLUDE
THE SUPPOSITION THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THE CHARACTER OF ITS TEACHINGS AND
DID NOT AID IN THEIR ADVOCACY.  THEY ARE PERSUASIVE THAT HE WAS WITHOUT
ATTACHMENT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES WHICH THOSE TEACHINGS AIMED
TO DESTROY.  YET THE COURT'S OPINION SEEMS TO TELL US THAT THE TRIER OF
FACT MUST NOT EXAMINE PETITIONER'S GOSPEL TO FIND OUT WHAT KIND OF MAN
HE WAS, OR EVEN WHAT HIS GOSPEL WAS; THAT THE TRIER OF FACT COULD NOT
"IMPUTE" TO PETITIONER ANY GENUINE ATTACHMENT TO THE DOCTRINES OF THESE
ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE TEACHINGS HE SO ASSIDUOUSLY SPREAD.  IT MIGHT AS
WELL BE SAID THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO INFER THAT A MAN IS ATTACHED TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF A RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT FROM THE FACT THAT HE CONDUCTS
ITS PRAYER MEETINGS, OR, TO TAKE A MORE SINISTER EXAMPLE, THAT IT COULD
NOT BE INFERRED THAT A MAN IS A NAZI AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT ATTACHED TO
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES WHO, FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, HAD DILIGENTLY
CIRCULATED THE DOCTRINES OF MEIN KAMPF.    IN NEITHER CASE OF COURSE IS
THE INFERENCE INEVITABLE.  IT IS POSSIBLE, THOUGH NOT PROBABLE OR
NORMAL, FOR ONE TO BE ATTACHED TO PRINCIPLES DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO
THOSE, TO THE DISSEMINATION OF WHICH HE HAS GIVEN HIS LIFE'S BEST
EFFORT.  BUT IT IS A NORMAL AND SENSIBLE INFERENCE WHICH THE TRIER OF
FACT IS FREE TO MAKE THAT HIS ATTACHMENT IS TO THOSE PRINCIPLES RATHER
THAN TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES WITH WHICH THEY ARE AT WAR.  A MAN
CAN BE KNOWN BY THE IDEAS HE SPREADS AS WELL AS BY THE COMPANY HE
KEEPS.  AND WHEN ONE DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE PROOF THAT HE HAS GIVEN HIS
LIFE TO SPREADING A PARTICULAR CLASS OF WELL-DEFINED IDEAS, IT IS
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HIS ATTACHMENT IS TO THEM RATHER THAN THEIR
OPPOSITES.  IN THIS CASE IT IS CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER, AT
THE TIME OF HIS NATURALIZATION, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CITIZENSHIP HE
PROCURED BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND BECAUSE HE WAS NOT WELL DISPOSED
TO THE GOOD ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME. 

FN1  BY SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, 34 STAT. 598, IT IS
PROVIDED: 

"FOURTH.  IT SHALL BE MADE TO APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
ADMITTING ANY ALIEN TO CITIZENSHIP THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE
OF HIS APPLICATION HE HAS RESIDED CONTINUOUSLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
FIVE YEARS AT LEAST, AND WITHIN THE STATE OR TERRITORY WHERE SUCH COURT
IS AT THE TIME HELD ONE YEAR AT LEAST, AND THAT DURING THAT TIME HE HAS
BEHAVED AS A MAN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WELL DISPOSED TO THE GOOD
ORDER AND HAPPINESS OF THE SAME.  IN ADDITION TO THE OATH OF THE
APPLICANT, THE TESTIMONY OF AT LEAST TWO WITNESSES, CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, AS TO THE FACTS OF RESIDENCE, MORAL CHARACTER, AND
ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION SHALL BE REQUIRED, AND
THE NAME, PLACE OF RESIDENCE, AND OCCUPATION OF EACH WITNESS SHALL BE
SET FORTH IN THE RECORD." 

FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION WAS BASED ON BOTH FRAUD AND
ILLEGALITY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RELIED UPON FRAUD ALONE, 112
F.2D 74, BUT OUR AFFIRMANCE WAS RESTED "ON THE SOLE GROUND" OF
ILLEGALITY. 

FN3 DURING THE WHOLE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THIS LITIGATION, THE
COMMUNIST PARTY WAS A WORLD ORGANIZATION, KNOWN AS THE THIRD COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL (OR COMINTERN), CREATED IN 1919, OF WHICH THE COMMUNIST
PARTIES IN EACH COUNTRY WERE SECTIONS.  THE SUPREME GOVERNING BODY OF
THE THIRD COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL - WHICH EXERCISED CONTROL OF THE
PARTY PROGRAM, TACTICS AND ORGANIZATION - WAS THE WORLD CONGRESS OF THE
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.  BETWEEN MEETINGS OF THE CONGRESS ITS
AUTHORITY WAS VESTED IN THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL.  THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE CONGRESS, AND BETWEEN MEETINGS
THOSE OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, WERE BINDING ON ALL SECTIONS.  IN THE
UNITED STATES THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA, A COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION,
WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1921.  IT WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL, AND HAD SENT DELEGATES TO THE THIRD WORLD CONGRESS OF
THE INTERNATIONAL EARLIER IN THAT YEAR.  THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA
HAS BEEN SINCE CONTINUED, AND SUCCESSIVELY KNOWN AS THE WORKERS
(COMMUNIST) PARTY AND AS THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA.  THE PARTY SENT ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVES TO THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL AND RECOGNIZED THE LEADERSHIP OF THE INTERNATIONAL.  IT
WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL, OF WHICH IT CONSTITUTED A
OCCURRED LONG PRIOR TO THE DISSOLUTION OF THE COMINTERN IN MAY 1943. 

FN4  THE YOUNG WORKERS LEAGUE WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE YOUNG COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL AND THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.  IT SENT DELEGATES TO
THE CONGRESS OF THE YOUNG COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.  IT WAS ALSO CLOSELY
RELATED TO THE WORKERS PARTY, AND SENT DELEGATES TO THE PARTY
CONVENTIONS.  AT ITS THIRD NATIONAL CONVENTION, THE PARTY ADOPTED THE
FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: 

"THE TASK OF REACHING THE YOUTH WITH THE MESSAGE OF COMMUNISM, OF
INTERESTING THEM IN OUR CAUSE AND ORGANIZING THEM FOR THE MILITANT
STRUGGLE AGAINST THE EXISTING SOCIAL ORDER AND ITS OPPRESSION AND
EXPLOITATION IS OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT. 
IN CARRYING ON THIS WORK THE YOUNG WORKERS LEAGUE IS PREPARING THE
FIGHTERS FOR COMMUNISM WHO WILL SOON STAND IN THE RANKS OF THE PARTY AS
PART OF ITS BEST FIGHTERS." 

THE SECOND YEAR OF THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA.  REPORT OF THE
CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO THE THIRD NATIONAL CONVENTION.  HELD IN
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, DEC. 30, 31, 1923 AND JAN. 1, 2, 1924.  THESES,
PROGRAM, RESOLUTIONS.  PUBLISHED BY THE LITERATURE DEPARTMENT, WORKERS
PARTY OF AMERICA, 1009 N. STATE ST., CHICAGO, ILL. (P. 122.) 

FN5 PROGRAM AND CONSTITUTION, WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA.  ADOPTED AT
NATIONAL CONVENTION, NEW YORK CITY, DECEMBER 24-25-26-27, 1921. 
AMENDED AT NATIONAL CONVENTION, CHICAGO, ILL., DECEMBER 30-31, 1923,
AND JANUARY 1, 1924.  PUBLISHED BY LITERATURE DEPARTMENT, WORKERS PARTY
OF AMERICA, 1113 W. WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, CHICAGO, ILL. 

FN6  SEE PP. 18, 28, OF STATUTES, THESES AND CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION
TO THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.  ADOPTED BY THE SECOND CONGRESS OF THE
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL, JULY 17 TO AUGUST 7, 1920.  THE EDITION OF
THIS DOCUMENT IN EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS PUBLISHED IN MARCH,
1923, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA, AND CONTAINED
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ON THE INSIDE FRONT COVER: 

"THE WORKERS PARTY DECLARES ITS SYMPATHY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL AND ENTERS THE STRUGGLE AGAINST AMERICAN
CAPITALISM, THE MOST POWERFUL OF THE CAPITALIST GROUPS, UNDER THE
INSPIRATION AND LEADERSHIP OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL. 

"IT RALLIES TO THE CALL 'WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE.'" 

PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NO RECOLLECTION OF "THIS PARTICULAR
EDITION" BUT THAT "I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT POSSIBLY A PAMPHLET" LIKE IT
WAS SOLD IN PARTY BOOKSTORES.  THIS DOCUMENT WAS MARKED FOR
IDENTIFICATION AND THE COURT LATER DENIED A MOTION TO EXCLUDE IT AND
OTHER EXHIBITS FROM THE EVIDENCE.  DURING THE TRIAL PETITIONER'S
COUNSEL TWICE REFERRED TO THE DOCUMENT AS HAVING BEEN PUT IN EVIDENCE. 
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL INCLUDED IT, WITH ALL OTHER EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE
OR OFFERED FOR IDENTIFICATION, IN HIS DESIGNATION OF THE RECORD TO BE
MADE UP IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT WAS SO INCLUDED BY ORDER
OF THE COURT.  DESPITE THE GOVERNMENT'S OVERSIGHT IN FAILING FORMALLY
TO SAY THAT THE EXHIBIT WAS BEING INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE, IT OBVIOUSLY
WAS DEEMED TO BE IN EVIDENCE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE TRIAL COURT. 
THE EXHIBIT IS UNQUESTIONABLY RELEVANT AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE, AND IT
BECAME A PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURTS BELOW. 

FN7  SEE P. 94 OF THE 4TH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE WORKERS
(COMMUNIST) PARTY OF AMERICA.  HELD IN CHICAGO, ILL., AUGUST 21-30,
1925.  PUBLISHED BY THE DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING CO., 1113 W. WASHINGTON
BLVD., CHICAGO, ILL.  THE PUBLISHER'S NOTICE INSIDE THE BACK COVER
STATED THAT THIS PAMPHLET WAS "ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE TO ANY MEMBER
OF THE PARTY."  THE PAMPHLET, WHICH WAS THE OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE
CONVENTION, WAS SOLD AND CIRCULATED BY THE PARTY IN LOS ANGELES IN
1925.  PETITIONER DISCLAIMED FAMILIARITY WITH THE LITERATURE OF THIS
CONVENTION, BUT TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD ATTENDED THE CONVENTION.  HE ALSO
TESTIFIED HE WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE GENERAL PROGRAM AND PRINCIPLES
OF THE WORKERS (COMMUNIST) PARTY. 

FN8  IBID. P. 107.  THIS WAS PART OF A RESOLUTION, ADOPTED
UNANIMOUSLY BY THE PARTY CONVENTION, RELATING TO "PARTY POLICIES FOR
TRADE UNION WORK." 

FN9  STATUTES, THESE AND CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION TO THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL (SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA), P. 19. 

FN10  IBID. P. 28. 

FN11  A B C OF COMMUNISM, P. 69.  THIS WAS WRITTEN BY N. BUCHARIN &
E. PREOBRASCHENSKY, IN 1919, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH IN JUNE, 1921, AND
PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1920 AND 1924 BY THE LYCEUM-LITERATURE DEPARTMENT,
WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA, 799 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY.  THERE WAS
EVIDENCE THAT THIS PAMPHLET WAS A BASIC WORK OF PARTY STUDY CLASSES IN
1924 AND 1925; THAT IT WAS EXPRESSLY DESIGNED FOR SUCH PURPOSES, WAS
OFFICIALLY CIRCULATED BY THE PARTY, AND WAS STILL ADVERTISED BY THE
WORKERS LIBRARY PUBLISHERS IN 1928.  PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD
READ THE WORK AND WAS FAMILIAR WITH IT, ALTHOUGH HE SAID THAT THE
AUTHORS HAD LATER BEEN EXPELLED FROM THE RUSSIAN COMMUNIST PARTY. 

FN12  THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LENINISM, BY STALIN, PP. 33, 32, 30
31.  PUBLISHED FOR THE WORKERS PARTY OF AMERICA BY THE DAILY WORKER
PUBLISHING CO., CHICAGO, ILL.  THIS PAMPHLET WAS USED IN COMMUNIST
PARTY CLASSES IN 1924 AND 1925, AND WAS CIRCULATED BY THE LITERATURE
DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND SOLD IN PARTY BOOKSHOPS.  FIVE
THOUSAND COPIES WERE PUBLISHED BETWEEN JANUARY 15 AND AUGUST 1, 1925. 

FN13  P. 16, NEW EDITION, APRIL, 1924.  PUBLISHED FOR THE WORKERS
PARTY OF AMERICA BY THE DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING CO., CHICAGO, ILL. 

FN14  IBID., P. 44. 

FN15  STATUTES, THESES AND CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION TO THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL (SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA), P. 15. 

FN16  IBID., P. 36. 

FN17  ABC OF COMMUNISM (SEE NOTE 12, SUPRA), PP. 109-10. 

FN18  THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LENINISM, BY STALIN (SEE NOTE 12,
SUPRA), P. 32.  TO THE SAME EFFECT SEE THE STATE AND REVOLUTION, BY
LENIN (NOTE 13, SUPRA), P. 26. 

FN19  ABC OF COMMUNISM (SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA), PP. 65-66. 

FN20  STATUTES, THESES AND CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION TO THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL (SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA), P. 82. 

FN21  IBID., P. 46. 

FN22  THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LENINISM, BY STALIN (SEE NOTE 12,
SUPRA), PP. 31-32. 

FN23  STATUTES, THESES AND CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION TO THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL (SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA), PP. 11, 44. 

FN24  SEE NOTE 18, SUPRA. 

FN25  STATUTES, THESES AND CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION TO THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL (SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA), PP. 44, 45, 46. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN IN THIS
DISSENT. 

APPENDIX. 

EXCERPTS FROM EXHIBIT 26 - STATUTES, THESES AND CONDITIONS OF
ADMISSION TO THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL (SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA): 

"THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL MAKES ITS AIM TO PUT UP AN ARMED
STRUGGLE FOR THE OVERTHROW OF THE INTERNATIONAL BOURGEOISIE AND TO
CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL SOVIET REPUBLIC AS A TRANSITION STAGE TO THE
COMPLETE ABOLITION OF THE STATE.  THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERS
THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT AS THE ONLY MEANS FOR THE
LIBERATION OF HUMANITY FROM THE HORRORS OF CAPITALISM.  THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERS THE SOVIET FORM OF GOVERNMENT AS THE
HISTORICALLY EVOLVED FORM OF THIS DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT."  P.
4. 

"UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN CREATED IN THE WHOLE WORLD,
AND ESPECIALLY IN THE MOST ADVANCED, MOST POWERFUL, MOST ENLIGHTENED
AND FREEST CAPITALIST COUNTRIES BY MILITARIST IMPERIALISM - OPPRESSION
OF COLONIES AND WEAKER NATIONS, THE UNIVERSAL IMPERIALIST SLAUGHTER,
THE 'PEACE' OF VERSAILLES - TO ADMIT THE IDEA OF A VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION
OF THE CAPITALISTS TO THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE EXPLOITED, OF A
PEACEFUL, REFORMIST PASSAGE TO SOCIALISM, IS NOT ONLY TO GIVE PROOF OF
AN EXTREME PETTY BOURGEOIS STUPIDITY, BUT IT IS A DIRECT DECEPTION OF
THE WORKMEN, A DISGUISAL OF CAPITALIST WAGE-SLAVERY, A CONCEALMENT OF
THE TRUTH.  THIS TRUTH IS THAT THE BOURGEOISIE, THE MOST ENLIGHTENED
AND DEMOCRATIC PORTION OF THE BOURGEOISIE, IS EVEN NOW NOT STOPPING AT
DECEIT AND CRIME, AT THE SLAUGHTER OF MILLIONS OF WORKMEN AND PEASANTS,
IN ORDER TO RETAIN THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OVER THE MEANS OF
PRODUCTION.  ONLY A VIOLENT DEFEAT OF THE BOURGEOISIE, THE CONFISCATION
OF ITS PROPERTY, THE ANNIHILATION OF THE ENTIRE BOURGEOIS GOVERNMENTAL
APPARATUS, PARLIAMENTARY, JUDICIAL, MILITARY, BUREAUCRATIC,
ADMINISTRATIVE, MUNICIPAL, ETC., EVEN THE INDIVIDUAL EXILE OR
INTERNMENT OF THE MOST STUBBORN AND DANGEROUS EXPLOITERS, THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A STRICT CONTROL OVER THEM FOR THE REPRESSION OF ALL
INEVITABLE ATTEMPTS AT RESISTANCE AND RESTORATION OF CAPITALIST SLAVERY
- ONLY SUCH MEASURES WILL BE ABLE TO GUARANTEE THE COMPLETE SUBMISSION
OF THE WHOLE CLASS OF EXPLOITERS."  P. 11. 

"THAT WHICH BEFORE THE VICTORY OF THE PROLETARIAT SEEMS BUT A
THEORETICAL DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF 'DEMOCRACY,'
BECOMES INEVITABLY ON THE MORROW OF THE VICTORY, A QUESTION WHICH CAN
ONLY BE DECIDED BY FORCE OF ARMS."  P. 15. 

"FOR ALL COUNTRIES, EVEN FOR MOST FREE 'LEGAL' AND 'PEACEFUL' ONES IN
THE SENSE OF A LESSER ACUTENESS IN THE CLASS STRUGGLE, THE PERIOD HAS
ARRIVED, WHEN IT HAS BECOME ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR EVERY COMMUNIST
PARTY TO JOIN SYSTEMATICALLY LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL WORK, LAWFUL AND
UNLAWFUL ORGANIZATION."  P. 18. 

"IT IS ESPECIALLY NECESSARY TO CARRY ON UNLAWFUL WORK IN THE ARMY,
NAVY, AND POLICE, AS, AFTER THE IMPERIALIST SLAUGHTER, ALL THE
GOVERNMENTS IN THE WORLD ARE BECOMING AFRAID OF THE NATIONAL ARMIES,
OPEN TO ALL PEASANTS AND WORKINGMEN, AND THEY ARE SETTING UP IN SECRET
ALL KINDS OF SELECT MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS RECRUITED FROM THE
BOURGEOISIE AND ESPECIALLY PROVIDED WITH IMPROVED TECHNICAL
EQUIPMENT."  P. 19. 

"THE CLASS STRUGGLE IN ALMOST EVERY COUNTRY OF EUROPE AND AMERICA IS
ENTERING THE PHASE OF CIVIL WAR.  UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS THE COMMUNISTS
CAN HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN BOURGEOIS LAWS.  THEY SHOULD CREATE
EVERYWHERE A PARALLEL ILLEGAL APPARATUS, WHICH AT THE DECISIVE MOMENT
SHOULD DO ITS DUTY BY THE PARTY, AND IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE ASSIST THE
REVOLUTION.  IN EVERY COUNTRY WHERE, IN CONSEQUENCE OF MARTIAL LAW OR
OF OTHER EXCEPTIONAL LAWS, THE COMMUNISTS ARE UNABLE TO CARRY ON THEIR
WORK LAWFULLY, A COMBINATION OF LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL WORK IS ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY."  P. 28.    "A PERSISTENT AND SYSTEMATIC PROPAGANDA AND
AGITATION IS NECESSARY IN THE ARMY, WHERE COMMUNIST GROUPS SHOULD BE
FORMED IN EVERY MILITARY ORGANIZATION.  WHEREVER, OWING TO REPRESSIVE
LEGISLATION, AGITATION BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE, IT IS NECESSARY TO CARRY ON
SUCH AGITATION ILLEGALLY.  BUT REFUSAL TO CARRY ON OR PARTICIPATE IN
SUCH WORK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED EQUAL TO TREASON TO THE REVOLUTIONARY
CAUSE, AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH AFFILIATION WITH THE THIRD
INTERNATIONAL."  P. 28.    "EACH PARTY DESIROUS OF AFFILIATING WITH THE
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL SHOULD BE OBLIGED TO RENDER EVERY POSSIBLE
ASSISTANCE TO THE SOVIET REPUBLICS IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST ALL
COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY FORCES.  THE COMMUNIST PARTIES SHOULD CARRY ON A
PRECISE AND DEFINITE PROPAGANDA TO INDUCE THE WORKERS TO REFUSE TO
TRANSPORT ANY KIND OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR FIGHTING AGAINST
THE SOVIET REPUBLICS, AND SHOULD ALSO BY LEGAL OR ILLEGAL MEANS CARRY
ON A PROPAGANDA AMONGST THE TROOPS SENT AGAINST THE WORKERS' REPUBLICS,
ETC."  P. 30. 

"THE WORLD PROLETARIAT IS CONFRONTED WITH DECISIVE BATTLES.  WE ARE
LIVING IN AN EPOCH OF CIVIL WAR.  THE CRITICAL HOUR HAS STRUCK.  IN
ALMOST ALL COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS A LABOR MOVEMENT OF ANY IMPORTANCE
THE WORKING CLASS, ARMS IN HAND, STANDS IN THE MIDST OF FIERCE AND
DECISIVE BATTLES.  NOW MORE THAN EVER IS THE WORKING CLASS IN NEED OF A
STRONG ORGANIZATION.  WITHOUT LOSING AN HOUR OF INVALUABLE TIME, THE
WORKING CLASS MUST KEEP ON INDEFATIGABLY PREPARING FOR THE IMPENDING
DECISIVE STRUGGLE."  P. 33. 

"UNTIL THE TIME WHEN THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE BEEN FINALLY
CONQUERED BY THE PROLETARIAT, UNTIL THE TIME WHEN THE PROLETARIAN RULE
WILL HAVE BEEN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY OF A BOURGEOIS
RESTORATION, THE COMMUNIST PARTY WILL HAVE IN ITS ORGANIZED RANKS ONLY
A MINORITY OF THE WORKERS.  UP TO THE TIME WHEN THE POWER WILL HAVE
BEEN SEIZED BY IT, AND DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD, THE COMMUNIST
PARTY MAY, UNDER FAVORABLE CONDITIONS, EXERCISE UNDISPUTED MORAL AND
POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON ALL THE PROLETARIAN AND SEMI-PROLETARIAN CLASSES
OF THE POPULATION; BUT IT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UNITE THEM WITHIN ITS
RANKS.  ONLY WHEN THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE WORKERS HAS DEPRIVED THE
BOURGEOISIE OF SUCH POWERFUL WEAPONS AS THE PRESS, THE SCHOOL,
PARLIAMENT, THE CHURCH, THE GOVERNMENT APPARATUS, ETC.; ONLY WHEN THE
FINAL OVERTHROW OF THE CAPITALIST ORDER WILL HAVE BECOME AN EVIDENT
FACT - ONLY THEN WILL ALL OR ALMOST ALL THE WORKERS ENTER THE RANKS OF
THE COMMUNIST PARTY."  PP. 33-34. 

"THE WORKING CLASS CANNOT ACHIEVE THE VICTORY OVER THE BOURGEOISIE BY
MEANS OF THE GENERAL STRIKE ALONE, AND BY THE POLICY OF FOLDED ARMS. 
THE PROLETARIAT MUST RESORT TO AN ARMED UPRISING."  P. 36. 

"AS SOON AS COMMUNISM COMES TO LIGHT, IT MUST BEGIN TO ELUCIDATE THE
CHARACTER OF THE PRESENT EPOCH (THE CULMINATIONS OF CAPITALISM,
IMPERIALISTIC SELF-NEGATION AND SELF-DESTRUCTION, UNINTERRUPTED GROWTH
OF CIVIL WAR, ETC.).  POLITICAL RELATIONSHIPS AND POLITICAL GROUPINGS
MAY BE DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, BUT THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER
IS EVERYWHERE THE SAME:  WE MUST START WITH THE DIRECT PREPARATION FOR
A PROLETARIAN UPRISING, POLITICALLY AND TECHNICALLY, FOR THE
DESTRUCTION OF THE BOURGEOISIE AND FOR THE CREATION OF THE NEW
POLETARIAN STATE. 

"PARLIAMENT AT PRESENT CAN IN NO WAY SERVE AS THE ARENA OF A STRUGGLE
FOR REFORM, FOR IMPROVING THE LOT OF THE WORKING PEOPLE, AS IT HAS AT
CERTAIN PERIODS OF THE PRECEDING EPOCH.  THE CENTRE OF GRAVITY OF
POLITICAL LIFE AT PRESENT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY AND FINALLY TRANSFERRED
BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PARLIAMENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, OWING NOT ONLY TO
ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE WORKING MASSES, BUT ALSO TO THE COMPLICATED
MUTUAL RELATIONS WITHIN THE VARIOUS GROUPS OF THE BOURGEOIS ITSELF, THE
BOURGEOISIE IS FORCED TO HAVE SOME OF ITS POLICIES IN ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER PASSED THROUGH PARLIAMENT, WHERE THE VARIOUS CLIQUES HAGGLE FOR
POWER, EXHIBIT THEIR STRONG SIDES AND BETRAY THEIR WEAK ONES, GET
THEMSELVES UNMASKED, ETC., ETC.  THEREFORE IT IS THE IMMEDIATE
HISTORICAL TASK OF THE WORKING CLASS TO TEAR THIS APPARATUS OUT OF THE
HANDS OF THE RULING CLASSES, TO BREAK AND DESTROY IT, AND TO CREATE IN
ITS PLACE A NEW PROLETARIAN APPARATUS.  AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE
REVOLUTIONARY GENERAL STAFF OF THE WORKING CLASS IS VITALLY CONCERNED
IN HAVING ITS SCOUTING PARTIES IN THE PARLIAMENTARY INSTITUTIONS OF THE
BOURGEOISIE, IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THIS TASK OF DESTRUCTION."  PP. 44
45. 

"PARLIAMENTARISM CANNOT BE A FORM OF PROLETARIAN GOVERNMENT DURING
THE TRANSITION PERIOD BETWEEN THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE AND
THAT OF THE PROLETARIAT.  AT THE MOMENT WHEN THE ACCENTUATED CLASS
STRUGGLE TURNS INTO CIVIL WAR, THE PROLETARIAT MUST INEVITABLY FORM ITS
STATE ORGANIZATION AS A FIGHTING ORGANIZATION, WHICH CANNOT CONTAIN ANY
OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FORMER RULING CLASSES; ALL FICTIONS OF A
'NATIONAL WILL' ARE HARMFUL TO THE PROLETARIAT AT THAT TIME, AND A
PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION OF AUTHORITY IS NEEDLESS AND INJURIOUS TO IT;
THE ONLY FORM OF PROLETARIAN DICTATORSHIP IS A REPUBLIC OF SOVIETS. 

"THE BOURGEOIS PARLIAMENTS, WHICH CONSTITUTE ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT APPARATUS OF THE STATE MACHINERY OF THE BOURGEOISIE, CANNOT
BE WON OVER BY THE PROLETARIAT ANY MORE THAN CAN THE BOURGEOIS ORDER IN
GENERAL.  THE TASK OF THE PROLETARIAT CONSISTS IN BLOWING UP THE WHOLE
MACHINERY OF THE BOURGEOISIE, IN DESTROYING IT, AND ALL THE
PARLIAMENTARY INSTITUTIONS WITH IT, WHETHER THEY BE REPUBLICAN OR
CONSTITUTIONAL-MONARCHICAL."  PP. 45-46. 

"CONSEQUENTLY, COMMUNISM REPUDIATES PARLIAMENTARISM AS THE FORM OF
THE FUTURE; IT RENOUNCES THE SAME AS A FORM OF THE CLASS DICTATORSHIP
OF THE PROLETARIAT; IT REPUDIATES THE POSSIBILITY OF WINNING OVER THE
PARLIAMENTS; ITS AIM IS TO DESTROY PARLIAMENTARISM.  THEREFORE IT IS
ONLY POSSIBLE TO SPEAK OF UTILIZING THE BOURGEOIS STATE ORGANIZATIONS
WITH THE OBJECT OF DESTROYING THEM.  THE QUESTION CAN ONLY AND
EXCLUSIVELY BE DISCUSSED ON SUCH A PLANE. 

"ALL CLASS STRUGGLE IS A POLITICAL STRUGGLE, BECAUSE IT IS FINALLY A
STRUGGLE FOR POWER.  ANY STRIKE, WHEN IT SPREADS THROUGH THE WHOLE
COUNTRY, IS A MENACE TO THE BOURGEOIS STATE, AND THUS ACQUIRES A
POLITICAL CHARACTER.  TO STRIVE TO OVERTHROW THE BOURGEOISIE, AND TO
DESTROY ITS STATE, MEANS TO CARRY ON POLITICAL WARFARE.  TO CREATE
ONE'S OWN CLASS APPARATUS - FOR THE BRIDLING AND SUPPRESSION OF THE
RESISTING BOURGEOISIE, WHATEVER SUCH AN APPARATUS MAY BE - MEANS TO
GAIN POLITICAL POWER."  P. 46. 

"THE MASS STRUGGLE MEANS A WHOLE SYSTEM OF DEVELOPING DEMONSTRATIONS
GROWING EVER MORE ACUTE IN FORM, AND LOGICALLY LEADING TO AN UPRISING
AGAINST THE CAPITALIST ORDER OF GOVERNMENT.  IN THIS WARFARE OF THE
MASSES DEVELOPING INTO A CIVIL WAR, THE GUIDING PARTY OF THE
PROLETARIAT MUST, AS A GENERAL RULE, SECURE EVERY AND ALL LAWFUL
POSITIONS, MAKING THEM ITS AUXILIARIES IN THE REVOLUTIONARY WORK, AND
SUBORDINATING SUCH POSITIONS TO THE PLANS OF THE GENERAL CAMPAIGN, THAT
OF THE MASS STRUGGLE."  P. 47. 

"ON THE OTHER HAND, AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE VALUE OF PARLIAMENTARY
WORK IN NO WISE LEADS TO AN ABSOLUTE, IN-ALL-AND-ANY CASE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE NECESSITY OF CONCRETE ELECTIONS AND A CONCRETE
PARTICIPATION IN PARLIAMENTARY SESSIONS.  THE MATTER DEPENDS UPON A
SERIES OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.  UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT MAY
BECOME NECESSARY TO LEAVE THE PARLIAMENT.  THE BOLSHEVIKS DID SO WHEN
THEY LEFT THE PRE-PARLIAMENT IN ORDER TO BREAK IT UP, TO WEAKEN IT, AND
TO SET UP AGAINST IT THE PETROGRAD SOVIET, WHICH WAS THEN PREPARED TO
HEAD THE UPRISING; THEY ACTED IN THE SAME WAY IN THE CONSTITUENT
ASSEMBLY ON THE DAY OF ITS DISSOLUTION, CONVERTING THE THIRD CONGRESS
OF SOVIETS INTO THE CENTRE OF POLITICAL EVENTS.  IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES
A BOYCOTTING OF THE ELECTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY, AND A DIRECT, VIOLENT
STORMING OF BOTH THE GREAT BOURGEOIS STATE APPARATUS AND THE
PARLIAMENTARY BOURGEOIS CLIQUE, OR A PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTIONS
WITH A BOYCOTT OF THE PARLIAMENT ITSELF, ETC. 

"IN THIS WAY, WHILE RECOGNIZING AS A GENERAL RULE THE NECESSITY OF
PARTICIPATING IN THE ELECTION TO THE CENTRAL PARLIAMENT, AND THE
INSTITUTIONS OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS IN THE WORK IN SUCH
INSTITUTIONS, THE COMMUNIST PARTY MUST DECIDE THE QUESTION CONCRETELY,
ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF THE GIVEN MOMENT.  BOYCOTTING
THE ELECTIONS OR THE PARLIAMENT, OR LEAVING THE PARLIAMENT, IS
PERMISSIBLE, CHIEFLY WHEN THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF AN IMMEDIATE
TRANSITION TO AN ARMED FIGHT FOR POWER."  P. 49. 

"A COMMUNIST DELEGATE, BY DECISION OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE, IS BOUND
TO COMBINE LAWFUL WORK WITH UNLAWFUL WORK.  IN COUNTRIES WHERE THE
COMMUNIST DELEGATE ENJOYS A CERTAIN INVIOLABILITY, THIS MUST BE
UTILIZED BY WAY OF RENDERING ASSISTANCE TO ILLEGAL ORGANIZATIONS AND
FOR THE PROPAGANDA OF THE PARTY."  P. 51. 

"EACH COMMUNIST MEMBER (OF THE LEGISLATURE) MUST REMEMBER THAT HE IS
NOT A 'LEGISLATOR' WHO IS BOUND TO SEEK AGREEMENTS WITH THE OTHER
LEGISLATORS, BUT AN AGITATOR OF THE PARTY, DETAILED INTO THE ENEMY'S
CAMP IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE ORDERS OF THE PARTY THERE.  THE
COMMUNIST MEMBER IS ANSWERABLE NOT TO THE WIDE MASS OF HIS
CONSTITUENTS, BUT TO HIS OWN COMMUNIST PARTY - WHETHER LAWFUL OR
UNLAWFUL."  P. 52. 

"THE PROPAGANDA OF THE RIGHT LEADERS OF THE INDEPENDENTS (HILFERDING,
KAUTSKY, AND OTHERS), PROVING THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE SOVIET 'SYSTEM'
WITH THE BOURGEOIS CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY, IS EITHER A COMPLETE
MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE LAWS OF DEVELOPMENT OF A PROLETARIAN
REVOLUTION, OR A CONSCIOUS DECEIVING OF THE WORKING CLASS.  THE SOVIETS
ARE THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT.  THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY IS
THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE BOURGEOISIE.  TO UNITE AND RECONCILE THE
DICTATORSHIP OF THE WORKING CLASS WITH THAT OF THE BOURGEOISIE IS
IMPOSSIBLE."  P. 64. 

"AFTER THE VICTORY OF THE PROLETARIAT IN THE TOWNS, THIS CLASS (THE
LANDED PEASANTS OR FARMERS) WILL INEVITABLY OPPOSE IT BY ALL MEANS,
FROM SABOTAGE TO OPEN ARMED COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY RESISTANCE.  THE
REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT MUST, THEREFORE, IMMEDIATELY BEGIN TO PREPARE
THE NECESSARY FORCE FOR THE DISARMAMENT OF EVERY SINGLE MAN OF THIS
CLASS, AND TOGETHER WITH THE OVERTHROW OF THE CAPITALISTS IN INDUSTRY,
THE PROLETARIAT MUST DEAL A RELENTLESS, CRUSHING BLOW TO THIS CLASS. 
TO THAT END IT MUST ARM THE RURAL PROLETARIAT AND ORGANIZE SOVIETS IN
THE COUNTRY, WITH NO ROOM FOR EXPLOITERS, AND A PREPONDERANT PLACE MUST
BE RESERVED TO THE PROLETARIANS AND THE SEMI-PROLETARIANS."  P. 80. 

"THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT MUST PROCEED TO AN IMMEDIATE AND
UNCONDITIONAL CONFISCATION OF THE ESTATES OF THE LANDOWNERS AND BIG
LANDLORDS  ...  NO PROPAGANDA CAN BE ADMITTED IN THE RANKS OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTIES IN FAVOR OF AN INDEMNITY TO BE PAID TO THE OWNERS OF
LARGE ESTATES FOR THEIR EXPROPRIATION."  P. 82. 

EXCERPTS FROM EXHIBIT 8 - THE STATE AND REVOLUTION, BY LENIN (SEE
NOTE 13, SUPRA): 

"WE HAVE ALREADY SAID ABOVE AND SHALL SHOW MORE FULLY AT A LATER
STAGE THAT THE TEACHING OF MARX AND ENGELS REGARDING THE INEVITABILITY
OF A VIOLENT REVOLUTION REFERS TO THE CAPITALIST STATE.  IT CANNOT BE
REPLACED BY THE PROLETARIAN STATE (THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT)
THROUGH MERE 'WITHERING AWAY,' BUT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
RULE, CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY A VIOLENT REVOLUTION.  THE HYMN SUNG
IN ITS HONOR BY ENGELS AND FULLY CORRESPONDING TO THE REPEATED
DECLARATIONS OF MARX (SEE THE CONCLUDING PASSAGES OF THE POVERTY OF
PHILOSOPHY AND THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, WITH ITS PROUD AND OPEN
DECLARATION OF THE INEVITABILITY OF A VIOLENT REVOLUTION; ALSO MARX'S
CRITICISM OF THE GOTHA PROGRAM OF 1875, IN WHICH, THIRTY YEARS AFTER,
HE MERCILESSLY CASTIGATES ITS OPPORTUNIST CHARACTER) - THIS PRAISE IS
BY NO MEANS A MERE 'IMPULSE,' A MERE DECLAMATION, OR A MERE POLEMICAL
SALLY.  THE NECESSITY OF SYSTEMATICALLY FOSTERING AMONG THE MASSES THIS
AND ONLY THIS POINT OF VIEW ABOUT VIOLENT REVOLUTION LIES AT THE ROOT
OF THE WHOLE OF MARX'S AND ENGELS' TEACHING, AND IT IS JUST THE NEGLECT
OF SUCH PROPAGANDA AND AGITATION BOTH BY THE PRESENT PREDOMINANT SOCIAL
CHAUVINISTS AND THE KAUTSKIAN SCHOOLS THAT BRINGS THEIR BETRAYAL OF IT
INTO PROMINENT RELIEF. 

"THE SUBSTITUTION OF A PROLETARIAN FOR THE CAPITALIST STATE IS
IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT VIOLENT REVOLUTION, WHILE THE ABOLITION OF THE
PROLETARIAN STATE, THAT IS, OF ALL STATES, IS ONLY POSSIBLE THROUGH
'WITHERING AWAY.'"  PP. 15-16. 

"THE STATE IS A PARTICULAR FORM OF ORGANIZATION OF FORCE; IT IS THE
ORGANIZATION OF VIOLENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING DOWN SOME CLASS. 
WHAT IS THE CLASS WHICH THE PROLETARIAT MUST HOLD DOWN?  IT CAN ONLY
BE, NATURALLY, THE EXPLOITING CLASS, I.E., THE BOURGEOISIE.  THE
TOILERS NEED THE STATE ONLY TO OVERCOME THE RESISTANCE OF THE
EXPLOITERS, AND ONLY THE PROLETARIAT CAN GUIDE THIS SUPPRESSION AND
BRING IT TO FULFILMENT - THE PROLETARIAT, THE ONLY CLASS REVOLUTIONARY
TO THE FINISH, THE ONLY CLASS WHICH CAN UNITE ALL THE TOILERS AND THE
EXPLOITED IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE CAPITALIST CLASS FOR ITS COMPLETE
DISPLACEMENT FROM POWER."  PP. 17-18. 

"THE DOCTRINE OF THE CLASS-WAR, AS APPLIED BY MARX TO THE QUESTION OF
THE STATE AND OF THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, LEADS INEVITABLY TO THE
RECOGNITION OF THE POLITICAL SUPREMACY OF THE PROLETARIAT, OF ITS
DICTATORSHIP, I.E., OF AN AUTHORITY SHARED WITH NONE ELSE AND RELYING
DIRECTLY UPON THE ARMED FORCE OF THE MASSES.  THE OVERTHROW OF THE
CAPITALIST CLASS IS FEASIBLE ONLY BY THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE
PROLETARIAT INTO THE RULING CLASS, ABLE TO CRUSH THE INEVITABLE AND
DESPERATE RESISTANCE OF THE BOURGEOISIE, AND TO ORGANIZE, FOR THE NEW
SETTLEMENT OF ECONOMIC ORDER, ALL THE TOILING AND EXPLOITED MASSES. 
"THE PROLETARIAT NEEDS THE STATE, THE CENTRALIZED ORGANIZATION OF FORCE
AND VIOLENCE, BOTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUIDING THE GREAT MASS OF THE
POPULATION - THE PEASANTRY, THE LOWER MIDDLE-CLASS, THE SEMI
PROLETARIAT - IN THE WORK OF ECONOMIC SOCIALIST RECONSTRUCTION."  PP.
18-19. 

"BUT, IF THE PROLETARIAT NEEDS THE STATE, AS A PARTICULAR FORM OF
ORGANIZATION OF FORCE AGAINST THE CAPITALIST CLASS, THE QUESTION ALMOST
SPONTANEOUSLY FORCES ITSELF UPON US:  IS IT THINKABLE THAT SUCH AN
ORGANIZATION CAN BE CREATED WITHOUT A PRELIMINARY BREAKING UP AND
DESTRUCTION OF THE MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CREATED FOR ITS OWN USE BY
THE CAPITALIST CLASS?  THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO LEADS US STRAIGHT TO
THIS CONCLUSION, AND IT IS OF THIS CONCLUSION THAT MARX WROTE SUMMING
UP THE PRACTICAL RESULTS OF THE REVOLUTIONARY EXPERIENCE GAINED BETWEEN
1849 AND 1851."  P. 19. 

"HENCE MARX EXCLUDED ENGLAND, WHERE A REVOLUTION, EVEN A PEOPLE'S
REVOLUTION, COULD BE IMAGINED AND WAS THEN POSSIBLE, WITHOUT THE
PRELIMINARY CONDITION OF THE DESTRUCTION 'OF THE AVAILABLE READY
MACHINERY OF THE STATE.' 

"TODAY, IN 1917, IN THE EPOCH OF THE FIRST GREAT IMPERIALIST WAR,
THIS DISTINCTION OF MARX'S BECOMES UNREAL, AND ENGLAND AND AMERICA, THE
GREATEST AND LAST REPRESENTATIVES OF ANGLO-SAXON 'LIBERTY,' IN THE
SENSE OF THE ABSENCE OF MILITARISM AND BUREAUCRACY, HAVE TODAY
COMPLETELY ROLLED DOWN INTO THE DIRTY, BLOODY MORASS OF MILITARY
BUREAUCRATIC INSTITUTIONS COMMON TO ALL EUROPE, SUBORDINATING ALL ELSE
TO THEMSELVES.  TODAY, BOTH IN ENGLAND AND IN AMERICA, THE 'PRELIMINARY
CONDITION OF ANY REAL PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION' IS THE BREAK-UP, THE
SHATTERING OF THE 'AVAILABLE READY MACHINERY OF THE STATE' (PERFECTED
IN THOSE COUNTRIES BETWEEN 1914 AND 1917, UP TO THE 'EUROPEAN' GENERAL
IMPERIALIST STANDARD)."  P. 26. 

"BUT FROM THIS CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY - INEVITABLY NARROW, STEALTHILY
THRUSTING ASIDE THE POOR, AND THEREFORE TO ITS CORE, HYPOCRITICAL AND
TREACHEROUS - PROGRESS DOES NOT MARCH ALONG A SIMPLE, SMOOTH AND DIRECT
PATH TO 'GREATER AND GREATER DEMOCRACY,' AS THE LIBERAL PROFESSORS AND
THE LOWER MIDDLE CLASS OPPORTUNISTS WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE.  NO,
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT - THAT IS, TOWARDS COMMUNISM - MARCHES THROUGH
THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT; AND CANNOT DO OTHERWISE, FOR THERE
IS NO ONE ELSE WHO CAN BREAK THE RESISTANCE OF THE EXPLOITING
CAPITALISTS, AND NO OTHER WAY OF DOING IT. 

"AND THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT - THAT IS, THE ORGANIZATION
OF THE ADVANCE-GUARD OF THE OPPRESSED AS THE RULING CLASS, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CRUSHING THE OPPRESSORS - CANNOT PRODUCE MERELY AN EXPANSION
OF DEMOCRACY.  TOGETHER WITH AN IMMENSE EXPANSION OF DEMOCRACY - FOR
THE FIRST TIME BECOMING DEMOCRACY FOR THE POOR, DEMOCRACY FOR THE
PEOPLE, AND NOT DEMOCRACY FOR THE RICH FOLK - THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE
PROLETARIAT WILL PRODUCE A SERIES OF RESTRICTIONS OF LIBERTY IN THE
CASE OF THE OPPRESSORS, EXPLOITERS, AND CAPITALISTS.  WE MUST CRUSH
THEM IN ORDER TO FREE HUMANITY FROM WAGE-SLAVERY; THEIR RESISTANCE MUST
BE BROKEN BY FORCE.  IT IS CLEAR THAT WHERE THERE IS SUPPRESSION THERE
MUST ALSO BE VIOLENCE, AND THERE CANNOT BE LIBERTY OR DEMOCRACY. 

"ENGELS EXPRESSED THIS SPLENDIDLY IN HIS LETTER TO BEBEL WHEN HE
SAID, AS THE READER WILL REMEMBER, THAT 'THE PROLETARIAT NEEDS THE
STATE, NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF LIBERTY, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CRUSHING
ITS OPPONENTS; AND, WHEN ONE WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK OF FREEDOM, THE
STATE WILL HAVE CEASED TO EXIST.' 

"DEMOCRACY FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE NATION, AND THE SUPPRESSION
BY FORCE - THAT IS, THE EXCLUSION FROM DEMOCRACY - OF THE EXPLOITERS
AND OPPRESSORS OF THE NATION:  THIS IS THE MODIFICATION OF DEMOCRACY
WHICH WE SHALL SEE DURING THE TRANSITION FROM CAPITALISM TO
COMMUNISM."  PP. 63-64. 

"AGAIN, DURING THE TRANSITION FROM CAPITALISM TO COMMUNISM,
SUPPRESSION IS STILL NECESSARY; BUT IN THIS CASE IT IS THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE MINORITY OF EXPLOITERS BY THE MAJORITY OF EXPLOITED.  A SPECIAL
INSTRUMENT, A SPECIAL MACHINE FOR SUPPRESSION - THAT IS, THE 'STATE' -
IS NECESSARY, BUT THIS IS NOW A TRANSITIONAL STATE, NO LONGER A STATE
IN THE ORDINARY SENSE OF THE TERM.  FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE MINORITY
OF EXPLOITERS BY THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO WERE BUT YESTERDAY WAGE
SLAVES, IS A MATTER COMPARATIVELY SO EASY, SIMPLE AND NATURAL THAT IT
WILL COST FAR LESS BLOODSHED THAN THE SUPPRESSION OF THE RISINGS OF THE
SLAVES, SERFS OR WAGE LABORERS, AND WILL COST THE HUMAN RACE FAR
LESS."  PP. 64-65. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 

I DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS DECISION.  THIS CASE WAS INSTITUTED IN
JUNE OF 1939 AND TRIED IN DECEMBER OF THAT YEAR.  IN JANUARY 1940, I
BECAME ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AND SUCCEEDED TO OFFICIAL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.  309 U.S. III.  THIS I HAVE CONSIDERED A CAUSE
FOR DISQUALIFICATION, AND I DESIRE THE REASON TO BE A MATTER OF
RECORD. 
..END :

















BUSEY V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 319 U.S. 579 


NO. 235.  ARGUED JUNE 1, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1943.  - 75 U.S. APP.
D.C. 352, VACATED. 


IN VIEW OF JONES V. OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 103, AND MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE IS VACATED AND
THE CAUSE IS REMANDED IN ORDER THAT THE COURT BELOW MAY REEXAMINE THE
QUESTIONS WHETHER SEC. 47-2336 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE (1940),
WHICH FORBIDS UNLICENSED SALES UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, OR FROM PUBLIC
SPACE, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, AND
WHETHER, IF APPLICABLE, IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 580. 

BUSEY ET AL. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 735, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE (129 F.2D 24) OF A
JUDGMENT OF THE POLICE COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS CASE PETITIONERS, WHO ARE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WERE CONVICTED
OF SELLING, ON THE STREETS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MAGAZINES WHICH
EXPOUND THEIR RELIGIOUS VIEWS, WITHOUT FIRST PROCURING THE LICENSE AND
PAYING THE LICENSE TAX REQUIRED BY SEC. 47-2336 OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA CODE (1940).  IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BELOW HAD TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE IT:
WHETHER THE STATUTE WAS APPLICABLE TO PETITIONERS, AND IF SO WHETHER
ITS APPLICATION AS TO THEM INFRINGED THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THE COURT
CONSTRUED THE STATUTE AS APPLICABLE AND SUSTAINED ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY
(75 U.S. APP. D.C. 352, 129 F.2D 24), FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN COLE V.
FORT SMITH, 202 ARK. 614, 151 S.W.2D 1000, THE JUDGMENT IN WHICH WAS
AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT IN BOWDEN V. FORT SMITH, 316 U.S. 584, ONE OF
THE CASES ARGUED TOGETHER WITH JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584.  SINCE
THE DECISION BELOW, AND AFTER HEARING REARGUMENT IN THE OPELIKA CASE,
WE HAVE VACATED OUR EARLIER JUDGMENT AND HELD THE LICENSE TAX IMPOSED
IN THAT CASE TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  JONES V. OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 103;
MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105.  PETITIONERS URGE US TO CONSTRUE
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATUTE AS INAPPLICABLE IN ORDER TO AVOID THE
CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE EXIST - AN INFIRMITY
CONCEDED BY RESPONDENT ON THE ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE US.  IN VIEW OF OUR
DECISIONS IN THE OPELIKA AND MURDOCK CASES, WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN
THIS CASE AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA TO ENABLE IT TO REEXAMINE ITS RULINGS ON THE CONSTRUCTION
AND VALIDITY OF THE DISTRICT ORDINANCE IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE
DECISIONS.  CF. NEW YORK EX REL. WHITMAN V. WILSON, 318 U.S. 688, 690
691, AND CASES CITED.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















COLE V. VIOLETTE, 319 U.S. 581 


NO. 892.  DECIDED JUNE 14, 1943.  - 312 MASS. 523, 45 N.E.2D 400, APPEAL
DISMISSED. 


1.  IN DETERMINING WHAT IS A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE OF A STATE
SUPREME COURT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, THIS
COURT IS NOT CONTROLLED BY THE DESIGNATION APPLIED TO IT IN STATE
PRACTICE.  P. 582. 

2.  A RESCRIPT FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS TO
THE STATE SUPERIOR COURT EMBODIED AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE FINAL
DECREE OF THE LATTER COURT DISMISSING A SUIT ON THE MERITS BE MODIFIED
BY THE INSERTION OF A CLAUSE "TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BILL IS DISMISSED
ON THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTIONS RAISED HAVE BECOME MOOT"; AND
DECLARING THAT "THE DECREE AS SO MODIFIED IS AFFIRMED WITH COSTS," HELD
FINAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE SO THAT AN
APPEAL APPLIED FOR MORE THAN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER
WAS TOO LATE.  P. 582. 

COLE V. VIOLETTE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER THE APPEAL WAS APPLIED FOR
WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS' PERIOD PROVIDED BY LAW.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 350. 
THE SUIT WAS DISMISSED ON THE MERITS BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUFFOLK
COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS, AND APPEALED TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS, WHICH ON DECEMBER 4, 1942, DECIDED THAT THE CASE HAD
BECOME MOOT.  312 MASS. 523, 45 N.E.2D 400.  ON THE SAME DAY, THAT
COURT SENT TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FROM WHICH THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN A
RESCRIPT WHICH CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING ORDER:  "ORDERED, THAT THE CLERK
OF SAID COURT ...  MAKE THE FOLLOWING ENTRY UNDER SAID CASE IN THE
DOCKET OF SAID COURT:  VIZ., FINAL DECREE TO BE MODIFIED BY THE
INSERTION OF A CLAUSE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BILL IS DISMISSED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE QUESTIONS RAISED HAVE BECOME MOOT; DECREE AS SO
MODIFIED IS AFFIRMED WITH COSTS."  THE RESCRIPT WAS FILED THAT DAY IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT, WHICH, ON JANUARY 7, 1943, ENTERED A DECREE AS HAD
BEEN DIRECTED. 

APPLICATIONS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT, PRESENTED
WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER DECEMBER 4TH, WERE DENIED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS AND BY AN ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE OF THIS COURT.  AN APPLICATION PRESENTED TO ANOTHER ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE ON MARCH 6TH WAS ALLOWED.  BUT THIS LAST APPLICATION WAS NOT
TIMELY IF THE TIME TO TAKE AN APPEAL RAN FROM DECEMBER 4TH.  MATTON
STEAMBOAT CO. V. MURPHY, 319 U.S. 412. 

MASSACHUSETTS LOCAL PRACTICE REGARDS THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE
SUPERIOR COURT ON THE RESCRIPT, RATHER THAN THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT CONTAINED IN THE RESCRIPT, AS THE "FINAL DECREE" IN THE
CASE.  SEE BOSTON V. SANTOSUOSSO, 308 MASS. 189, 194, 31 N.E.2D 564;
CARILLI V. HERSEY, 303 MASS. 82, 84, 20 N.E.2D 492.  BUT IN DETERMINING
WHAT IS A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 237 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344, WE ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE
DESIGNATION APPLIED TO IT IN STATE PRACTICE.  DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V.
PINK, 317 U.S. 264, 268; GORMAN V. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, 316 U.S. 98,
101.  THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
INCORPORATED IN ITS RESCRIPT WAS AN ORDER OF THE SAME NATURE AND WITH
THE SAME INCIDENTS AS THOSE OF THE HIGHEST COURTS OF OTHER STATES WHICH
WE REVIEW.  IT WAS AN ORDER OF THE COURT, AND ONE WHICH FINALLY
DISPOSED OF ALL THE ISSUES IN THE CASE, LEAVING NOTHING TO BE DONE BUT
THE MINISTERIAL ACT OF ENTERING JUDGMENT IN THE TRIAL COURT.  THE
APPEAL IS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT APPLIED FOR WITHIN
THE TIME PROVIDED BY LAW.  DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK, SUPRA, AND
MATTON STEAMBOAT CO. V. MURPHY, SUPRA.  DISMISSED. 
..END :





TAYLOR V. MISSISSIPPI, 319 U.S. 583 


NO. 826.  ARGUED APRIL 15, 16, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1943.  - 194
MISS.  1, 59, 74, 11 SO.2D 663, 683, 689, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS PUNISHMENT UNDER A STATE
STATUTE FOR URGING AND ADVISING THAT, ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS, CITIZENS
REFRAIN FROM SALUTING THE FLAGS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE.  P.
588. 

2.  CONVICTION UNDER A STATE STATUTE DENOUNCING AS A CRIME THE
DISSEMINATING OF LITERATURE TENDING TO CREATE "AN ATTITUDE OF STUBBORN
REFUSAL TO SALUTE, HONOR, OR RESPECT" THE NATIONAL AND STATE FLAGS AND
GOVERNMENTS DENIES THE LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
P. 589. 

3.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THAT A STATE SHOULD PUNISH THE
COMMUNICATION OF ONE'S VIEWS OF GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES AND ONE'S
PROPHECIES OF THE FUTURE OF THIS AND OTHER NATIONS, WHEN THIS IS
WITHOUT SINISTER PURPOSE AND IS NOT IN ADVOCACY OF, OR INCITEMENT TO,
SUBVERSIVE ACTION AGAINST THE NATION OR STATE AND DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR INSTITUTIONS OR GOVERNMENT.  P. 589. 

TAYLOR V. MISSISSIPPI* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 827, BENOIT V. MISSISSIPPI, AND NO. 828, CUMMINGS
V. MISSISSIPPI, ALSO ON APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS BY AN EVENLY DIVIDED COURT AFFIRMING SENTENCES
IMPOSED IN THREE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MARCH 20, 1942, THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ENACTED A STATUTE N1 THE
TITLE OF WHICH DECLARES THAT IT IS INTENDED TO SECURE THE PEACE AND
SAFETY OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DURING WAR
AND TO PROHIBIT ACTS DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY.  THE FIRST

"THAT ANY PERSON WHO INDIVIDUALLY, OR AS A MEMBER OF ANY
ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, OR OTHERWISE, SHALL INTENTIONALLY PREACH,
TEACH, OR DISSEMINATE ANY TEACHINGS, CREED, THEORY, OR SET OF ALLEGED
PRINCIPLES, ORALLY, OR BY MEANS OF A PHONOGRAPH OR OTHER CONTRIVANCE OF
ANY KIND OR NATURE, OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS OR METHOD, OR BY THE
DISTRIBUTION OF ANY SORT OF LITERATURE, OR WRITTEN OR PRINTED MATTER,
DESIGNED AND CALCULATED TO ENCOURAGE VIOLENCE, SABOTAGE, OR DISLOYALTY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, OR
WHO BY ACTION OR SPEECH, ADVOCATES THE CAUSE OF THE ENEMIES OF THE
UNITED STATES OR WHO GIVES INFORMATION AS TO THE MILITARY OPERATIONS,
OR PLANS OF DEFENSE OR MILITARY SECRETS OF THE NATION OR THIS STATE, BY
SPEECH, LETTER, MAP OR PICTURE WHICH WOULD INCITE ANY SORT OF RACIAL
DISTRUST, DISORDER, PREJUDICES OR HATREDS, OR WHICH REASONABLY TENDS TO
CREATE AN ATTITUDE OF STUBBORN REFUSAL TO SALUTE, HONOR OR RESPECT THE
FLAG OR GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A FELONY AND PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT
IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY UNTIL TREATY OF PEACE BE DECLARED BY THE
UNITED STATES BUT SUCH IMPRISONMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN YEARS." 

AT THE JUNE 1942 TERM OF THE MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, TAYLOR,
THE APPELLANT IN NO. 826, WAS INDICTED FOR ORALLY DISSEMINATING
TEACHINGS DESIGNED AND CALCULATED TO ENCOURAGE DISLOYALTY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI;
AND FOR ORALLY DISSEMINATING TEACHINGS AND DISTRIBUTING LITERATURE AND
PRINTED MATTER REASONABLY TENDING TO CREATE AN ATTITUDE OF STUBBORN
REFUSAL TO SALUTE, HONOR, AND RESPECT THE FLAG AND GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, AND DESIGNED AND
CALCULATED TO ENCOURAGE DISLOYALTY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

AT THE JUNE 1942 TERM OF THE MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, BETTY
BENOIT, THE APPELLANT IN NO. 827, WAS INDICTED FOR DISSEMINATING AND
DISTRIBUTING LITERATURE AND PRINTED MATTER DESIGNED AND CALCULATED, AND
WHICH REASONABLY TENDED, TO CREATE AN ATTITUDE OF STUBBORN REFUSAL TO
SALUTE, HONOR, AND RESPECT THE FLAG AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

AT THE JULY 1942 TERM OF THE WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CUMMINGS,
THE APPELLANT IN NO. 828, WAS INDICTED FOR DISTRIBUTING PRINTED MATTER
DESIGNED AND CALCULATED TO ENCOURAGE DISLOYALTY TO THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT AND TO THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, AND TENDING TO CREATE AN
ATTITUDE OF STUBBORN REFUSAL TO SALUTE, HONOR OR RESPECT THE FLAG OR
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. 

DEMURRERS AND MOTIONS TO QUASH, CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE, WERE OVERRULED.  THE DEFENDANTS PLEADED TO THE
INDICTMENTS AND, AFTER TRIAL, WERE CONVICTED.  EACH WAS SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE AT THE END
OF THE EXISTING WAR, BUT NOT TO EXCEED TEN YEARS.  APPEALS WERE
PERFECTED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI WHICH, BY AN EVENLY
DIVIDED COURT, AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS.  FN2 

THE APPELLANTS MAINTAINED BELOW, AND ASSERT HERE, THAT THEIR
CONVICTIONS DENIED THEM THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AND
FIRST AMENDMENTS, IN THAT, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED TO THEM, THE ACT
ABRIDGES FREEDOM OF PRESS AND OF SPEECH AND IS SO VAGUE, INDEFINITE,
AND UNCERTAIN AS TO FURNISH NO REASONABLY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF
GUILT. 

THE EVIDENCE WAS CONTRADICTORY AND CONFLICTING BUT THE JURIES
RESOLVED THE CONFLICTS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS.  WE MUST, THEREFORE,
EXAMINE THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON THE BASIS OF THE PROOFS SUBMITTED BY
THE STATE. 

IN NO. 826 THE PROSECUTION OFFERED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT TAYLOR, IN
THE COURSE OF INTERVIEWS WITH SEVERAL WOMEN, THE SONS OF TWO OF WHOM
HAD BEEN KILLED IN BATTLE OVERSEAS, STATED THAT IT WAS WRONG FOR OUR
PRESIDENT TO SEND OUR BOYS ACROSS IN UNIFORM TO FIGHT OUR ENEMIES; THAT
IT WAS WRONG TO FIGHT OUR ENEMIES; THAT THESE BOYS WERE BEING SHOT DOWN
FOR NO PURPOSE AT ALL; THAT THE TWO WOMEN'S SONS MAY HAVE THOUGHT THEY
WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING TO FIGHT OUR ENEMIES, BUT IT WAS WRONG; THAT
HITLER WOULD RULE BUT WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME HERE TO RULE; THAT THE
QUICKER PEOPLE HERE QUIT BOWING DOWN AND WORSHIPING AND SALUTING OUR
FLAG AND GOVERNMENT THE SOONER WE WOULD HAVE PEACE.  BOOKS AND
PAMPHLETS DISTRIBUTED BY TAYLOR WERE PLACED IN EVIDENCE.  CERTAIN
STATEMENTS IN THESE BOOKS, SAID BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI TO
BE TYPICAL, ARE COPIED IN THE MARGIN.  FN3 

IN NO. 827 IT WAS PROVED THAT THE APPELLANT BETTY BENOIT DISTRIBUTED
VOLUME XXIII, NO. 583, OF A PUBLICATION ENTITLED "CONSOLATION," WHICH
CONTAINED A REPRINT OF AN EDITORIAL FROM A LEWISTON, MAINE, NEWSPAPER
COMMENTING ADVERSELY UPON THE DECISION IN MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586, AND VIGOROUSLY ASSERTING THAT THE SALUTE OF
THE NATIONAL FLAG AMOUNTED TO A CONTEMPTIBLE FORM OF PRIMITIVE IDOL
WORSHIP.  THE PUBLICATION ALSO CONTAINED AN ALLEGED FOREIGN DISPATCH
WHICH STATED THAT THE FLAG SALUTE CEREMONY, A DAILY EVENT IN FRENCH
SCHOOLS, ORIGINATED IN THE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS OF FRANCE; COMMENTED THAT
THE TYPE OF MIND WHICH FINDS SATISFACTION IN WORSHIPING IMAGES WOULD
ALSO BE MOST INCLINED TOWARDS VARIOUS KINDS OF EMBLEM WORSHIP, AND
ADDED THAT THE DISPATCH CONFIRMS THE CLAIM THAT THE FLAG SALUTE IN THE
UNITED STATES HAS BEEN COVERTLY PUSHED BY THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY HERE. 

IN NO. 828 THE STATE PROVED THAT THE APPELLANT CUMMINGS DISTRIBUTED A
BOOK CALLED "CHILDREN."  THE VOLUME WAS PLACED IN EVIDENCE.  LONG
EXCERPTS WERE READ TO THE JURY MOST OF WHICH SEEM IRRELEVANT TO THE
CHARGES IN THE INDICTMENT.  ONE PASSAGE, HOWEVER, APPEARS TO BE THAT ON
WHICH THE PROSECUTION ESPECIALLY RELIED.  IT IS COPIED IN THE MARGIN. 
FN4 

THE APPELLANTS ARE ALL MEMBERS OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE RECORDS TO INDICATE THAT, IN MAKING THE STATEMENTS AND
DISTRIBUTING THE PRINTED MATTER IN QUESTION, THEY WERE COMMUNICATING
AND TEACHING ANY DOCTRINE IN WHICH THEY DID NOT SINCERELY BELIEVE. 

826 AND 828 CHARGE THE COMMISSION OF TWO OF THEM  FN5  IN A SINGLE
COUNT, - (1) TEACHING AND DISSEMINATION OF PRINTED MATTER DESIGNED AND
CALCULATED TO ENCOURAGE DISLOYALTY TO THE NATIONAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS, AND (2) DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATTER REASONABLY TENDING
TO CREATE AN ATTITUDE OF STUBBORN REFUSAL TO HONOR OR RESPECT THE FLAG
OR GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.  IN
NO. 827 THE SINGLE OFFENSE CHARGED IS THE DISSEMINATION OF LITERATURE
REASONABLY TENDING TO CREATE THE DENOUNCED ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE FLAG
AND GOVERNMENT. 

IN WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, POST, P. 624,
THE COURT HAS DECIDED THAT A STATE MAY NOT ENFORCE A REGULATION
REQUIRING CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO SALUTE THE NATIONAL
EMBLEM.  THE STATUTE HERE IN QUESTION SEEKS TO PUNISH AS A CRIMINAL ONE
WHO TEACHES RESISTANCE TO GOVERNMENTAL COMPULSION TO SALUTE.  IF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BANS ENFORCEMENT OF THE SCHOOL REGULATION, A
FORTIORI IT PROHIBITS THE IMPOSITION OF PUNISHMENT FOR URGING AND
ADVISING THAT, ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS, CITIZENS REFRAIN FROM SALUTING THE
FLAG.  IF THE STATE CANNOT CONSTRAIN ONE TO VIOLATE HIS CONSCIENTIOUS
RELIGIOUS CONVICTION BY SALUTING THE NATIONAL EMBLEM, THEN CERTAINLY IT
CANNOT PUNISH HIM FOR IMPARTING HIS VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT TO HIS FELLOWS
AND EXHORTING THEM TO ACCEPT THOSE VIEWS. 

INASMUCH AS BETTY BENOIT WAS CHARGED ONLY WITH DISSEMINATING
LITERATURE REASONABLY TENDING TO CREATE AN ATTITUDE OF STUBBORN REFUSAL
TO SALUTE, HONOR, OR RESPECT THE NATIONAL AND STATE FLAGS AND
GOVERNMENTS, HER CONVICTION DENIES HER THE LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HER CONVICTION AND THE CONVICTIONS OF TAYLOR AND
CUMMINGS, FOR ADVOCATING AND TEACHING REFUSAL TO SALUTE THE FLAG,
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

THE LAST-MENTIONED APPELLANTS WERE ALSO CHARGED WITH ORAL TEACHINGS
AND THE DISSEMINATION OF LITERATURE CALCULATED TO ENCOURAGE DISLOYALTY
TO THE STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS.  THEIR CONVICTIONS ON THIS
CHARGE MUST ALSO BE SET ASIDE. 

THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED IN THESE CASES MAKES IT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
TO COMMUNICATE TO OTHERS VIEWS AND OPINIONS RESPECTING GOVERNMENTAL
POLICIES, AND PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE FUTURE OF OUR OWN AND OTHER
NATIONS.  AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANTS, IT PUNISHES THEM ALTHOUGH WHAT
THEY COMMUNICATED IS NOT CLAIMED OR SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN DONE WITH AN
EVIL OR SINISTER PURPOSE, TO HAVE ADVOCATED OR INCITED SUBVERSIVE
ACTION AGAINST THE NATION OR STATE,  FN6  OR TO HAVE THREATENED ANY
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR INSTITUTIONS OR OUR GOVERNMENT.  FN7
WHAT THESE APPELLANTS COMMUNICATED WERE THEIR BELIEFS AND OPINIONS  FN8
CONCERNING DOMESTIC MEASURES AND TRENDS IN NATIONAL AND WORLD
AFFAIRS. 

UNDER OUR DECISIONS CRIMINAL SANCTIONS CANNOT BE IMPOSED FOR SUCH
COMMUNICATION. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED. 

FN1  CHAP. 178, GENERAL LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI, 1942. 

FN2  194 MISS.  1, 59, 74; 11 SO.2D 663, 683, 689. 

FN3  "ALL NATIONS OF THE EARTH TODAY ARE UNDER THE INFLUENCE AND
CONTROL OF THE DEMONS.  ... ALL THE NATIONS SUFFER THE SAME FATE OR
COME TO THE SAME END, BECAUSE ALL NATIONS OF EARTH ARE ON THE WRONG
SIDE, THAT IS, ON THE LOSING SIDE.  ALL OF SUCH NATIONS ARE AGAINST THE
THEOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, THAT IS, THE GOVERNMENT OF KINGDOM OF ALMIGHTY
GOD  ...  AND ALL ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE INVISIBLE HOST OF
DEMONS,  ...  " 

"BUT TO COMPEL PEOPLE TO SALUTE A FLAG OR ANY OTHER IMAGE IS WRONG,
AND PARTICULARLY IF THAT PERSON BELIEVES ON GOD AND CHRIST JESUS.  FOR
THE CHRISTIAN TO SALUTE A FLAG IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF GOD'S SPECIFIC
COMMANDMENT." 

"ALMIGHTY GOD COMMANDS THAT THEY MUST REMAIN ENTIRELY NEUTRAL IN THE
CONTROVERSY.  BECAUSE HIS COVENANT PEOPLE ARE SERVANTS AND
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE THEOCRACY THEY MUST HOLD THEMSELVES ENTIRELY
ALOOF FROM WARRING FACTIONS OF THIS WORLD." 

"NON-CHRISTIANS MAY SALUTE THE FLAG WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
FOREGOING RULES.  THOSE WHO ARE REAL CONSCIENTIOUS CHRISTIANS ARE IN A
CLASS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS OF THE WORLD.  JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
ARE CHRISTIANS AND IN A COVENANT TO BE ENTIRELY OBEDIENT TO GOD'S LAW. 
THEY MUST TEACH THEIR CHILDREN AND ADMONISH THEM TO OBEY GOD'S LAW, AS
HE HAS COMMANDED.  THEY ARE CONSCIENTIOUS AND THEY SINCERELY BELIEVE
THAT FOR THEM TO INDULGE IN THE FORMALISM OR CEREMONY OF SALUTING ANY
FLAG IS A VIOLATION OF GOD'S SPECIFIC COMMANDMENT.  ...  " 

IN ITS OPINION THE COURT ADDED: 

"OTHER PASSAGES IN THIS LITERATURE TEACH THAT 'THE SO-CALLED
DEMOCRACIES' HOLD OUT NO HOPE OF PEACE, SECURITY, LIFE OR HAPPINESS -
THAT THE ONLY PLACE OF SAFETY IS IN THEOCRACY; THAT IF THERE IS A
CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE LAW AND WHAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CONCEIVE TO BE
JEHOVAH'S LAW, THE STATE LAW SHOULD NOT BE OBEYED; THAT JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES TAKE A PLEDGE NOT TO SALUTE THE FLAG AND THAT TO UNDERTAKE BY
LAW TO FORCE A CHILD TO SALUTE THE FLAG IS TO 'FRAME MISCHIEF BY
LAW.'" 

FN4  "SATAN KNOWS THAT HIS TIME IS SHORT, AND THEREFORE HE IS
DESPERATELY TRYING TO TURN ALL PERSONS, INCLUDING THE CHILDREN, AGAINST
GOD.  (REVELATION 12:  12, 17.)  THEREFORE SATAN INFLUENCES PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND OTHERS TO COMPEL LITTLE CHILDREN TO INDULGE IN IDOLATROUS
PRACTICES BY BOWING DOWN TO SOME IMAGE OR THING, SUCH AS SALUTING FLAGS
AND HAILING MEN, AND WHICH IS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF GOD'S
COMMANDMENT.  (EXODUS 20:  1-5.)  THAT IS WHY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS
RULES ARE MADE AND ENFORCED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMPELLING CHILDREN
OF THE JONADABS, WHO ARE IN A COVENANT TO DO GOD'S WILL, TO INDULGE IN
THE IDOLATROUS PRACTICE OF FLAG-SALUTING AND HAILING MEN.  IT IS THE
INFLUENCE OF THAT SUBTLE FOE, THE DEVIL, THAT HAS BROUGHT ABOUT THIS
STATE OF AFFAIRS, AND NOW SATAN'S AGENTS CAUSE GREAT PERSECUTION TO BE
BROUGHT UPON THE PARENTS AND THE CHILDREN WHO INSIST ON OBEYING THE
COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.  THIS MAKES THE WAY OF BOTH PARENTS AND CHILDREN
MORE DIFFICULT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT PUTS A TEST UPON THEM AND
AFFORDS THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEIR FAITH AND OBEDIENCE AND TO
MAINTAIN THEIR INTEGRITY TOWARDS GOD AND HIS KING." 

FN5  THERE IS NO CHARGE IN ANY OF THE INDICTMENTS OF (1) PREACHING,
TEACHING, DISSEMINATION OF TEACHINGS, OR DISTRIBUTION OF WRITTEN OR
PRINTED MATTER DESIGNED OR CALCULATED TO ENCOURAGE VIOLENCE OR
SABOTAGE; (2) ADVOCACY, BY ACTION OR SPEECH, OF THE CAUSE OF THE
ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES; (3) THE GIVING OF INFORMATION AS TO
MILITARY AFFAIRS; (4) INCITEMENT OF RACIAL DISTURBANCES, DISORDER,
PREJUDICE OR HATRED.    FN6  SEE SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47;
ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S.
357. 

FN7  SEE DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S.
242. 

FN8  SEE STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA,
310 U.S. 88. 
..END :



















INTERSTATE TRANSIT LINES V. COMM'R, 319 U.S. 590 


NO. 552.  ARGUED APRIL 19, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1943.  - 130 F.2D
136, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CORPORATION, OPERATING A BUS LINE INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE,
FINDING THAT IN A PARTICULAR STATE IT COULD NOT LAWFULLY ENGAGE IN THE
LOCAL BUSINESS BECAUSE IT HAD NOT BEEN THERE INCORPORATED, ORGANIZED,
PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THAT STATE, A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY WHICH
TOOK OVER THE PARENT COMPANY'S TRAFFIC FROM THE STATE LINE AND OPERATED
INTRASTATE AS WELL.  PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM, THE PARENT
CORPORATION KEPT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY, MANAGED ITS FINANCES,
PAID ITS BILLS, AND ABSORBED ALL OF ITS PROFITS AND DEFICITS.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT A PAYMENT MADE BY THE PARENT COMPANY TO COVER AN OPERATING
DEFICIT OF THE SUBSIDIARY DURING A TAX YEAR WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE BY THE
PARENT COMPANY UNDER SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 FROM GROSS
INCOME AS AN ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSE OF THAT COMPANY. 
P. 593. 

(2)  IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF ALLOCATING THE DEFICIT AS BETWEEN THE
INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE BUSINESS OF THE SUBSIDIARY, THE ENTIRE
DEFICIT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  P. 594. 

(3)  THE MERE FACT THAT THE EXPENSE WAS INCURRED UNDER CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION DID NOT SUSTAIN THE DEDUCTION.  P. 594. 

2.  AN INCOME TAX DEDUCTION IS BY LEGISLATIVE GRADE; AND THE BURDEN
OF SHOWING HIS RIGHT TO THE DEDUCTION IS ON THE TAXPAYER.  P. 593. 

INTERSTATE TRANSIT LINES V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 751, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A RULING (44
B.T.A. 957) SUSTAINING A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES A CLAIM BY THE TAXPAYER TO TREATMENT OF ITSELF AND
A SUBSIDIARY AS A SINGLE TAXABLE PERSON.  THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTIES IN THIS AREA OF IMPORTANT FEDERAL TAX
LAW.  SEE MOLINE PROPERTIES V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 436, N. 1. 
PETITIONER, INTERSTATE TRANSIT LINES, SOUGHT TO DEDUCT $28,100.66 AS AN
ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSE FOR THE YEAR 1936.  SEC. 23(A),
REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  FN1  THIS SUM REPRESENTED A CREDIT TO ITS
SUBSIDIARY, UNION PACIFIC STAGES OF CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT
BY WHICH PETITIONER WAS TO BE LIABLE FOR ALL OPERATING DEFICITS OF THE
SUBSIDIARY.  THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION WAS DISALLOWED AND A DEFICIENCY
DETERMINED.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS AFFIRMED THE BOARD.  INTERSTATE
TRANSIT LINES V. COMMISSIONER, 44 B.T.A. 957; 130 F.2D 136. 

PETITIONER, A NEBRASKA CORPORATION, OPERATED AN INTERSTATE BUS
TRANSPORTATION LINE BETWEEN ILLINOIS AND CALIFORNIA, AND MISSOURI AND
WYOMING, AND DID AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN MOST OF THE STATES EN
ROUTE.  BECAUSE OF ITS FOREIGN INCORPORATION, PETITIONER WAS BARRED,
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION OF CALIFORNIA
LAW, FROM OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE TO DO
INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.  TO AVOID THIS SITUATION, PETITIONER
IN 1930 ORGANIZED STAGES IN CALIFORNIA AS ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY
TO DO THE BUSINESS IT WAS UNABLE TO DO.  IT CONTRACTED WITH STAGES THAT
STAGES WAS TO OPERATE SOLELY FOR PETITIONER'S BENEFIT AND UNDER
PETITIONER'S DIRECTION; ALL PROFITS WERE TO BE PAID TO PETITIONER AND
IT WAS TO REIMBURSE STAGES FOR ANY OPERATING DEFICIT.  IN ADDITION TO
ITS OWN INTRASTATE BUSINESS, STAGES WAS TO CARRY ON ALL OF PETITIONER'S
INTERSTATE BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, THE AGREEMENT PROVIDING THAT AS EACH
PARTY'S BUSES CROSSED THE STATE LINE, THE OTHER BECAME ITS LESSEE.  THE
LESSEE WAS TO PAY THE LESSOR FIVE CENTS PER MILE OPERATED BY THE BUS IN
THE LESSEE'S CUSTODY.  ALL THIS RESULTED IN NO CHANGE AND NO ADDED
EXPENSE IN THE BUSINESS FORMERLY DONE IN RESPECTS OTHER THAN ACCOUNTING
EXCEPT FOR THE ADDITION TO THE GROSS REVENUES OF THE ENTERPRISE OF THE
PROCEEDS OF INTRASTATE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS.  PETITIONER KEPT STAGES'
ACCOUNTS, MANAGED ITS FINANCES AND PAID ITS BILLS AND PAYROLL.  EACH
MONTH PETITIONER APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES THE REVENUES AND
EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF PASSENGER AND TRAFFIC MILEAGE.  ON THE BOOKS
OF EACH A "CLEARING ACCOUNT" WITH THE OTHER SHOWED THE ABSORPTION BY
PETITIONER OF STAGES' ANNUAL DEFICIT OR PROFIT.  IT IS THE 1936
OPERATING DEFICIT OF STAGES, ENTERED ON THE BOOKS OF BOTH ON DECEMBER
31 OF THAT YEAR, WHICH PETITIONER NOW SEEKS TO DEDUCT AS ITS BUSINESS
EXPENSE.  SOME YEARS AFTER 1936, BY REASON OF A CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA
LAW OR ITS INTERPRETATION, PETITIONER BECAME ABLE TO CONDUCT INTRASTATE
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.  CONSEQUENTLY STAGES WAS DISSOLVED AND ITS
ASSETS AND FRANCHISES TRANSFERRED TO PETITIONER.  IN 1932 AND 1933,
CONSOLIDATED INCOME TAX RETURNS WERE FILED BY PETITIONER PURSUANT TO
SEC. 141 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 213. 

WHETHER PHRASED AS THE PAYMENT OF AN EXPENSE IN A BUSINESS CONDUCTED
FOR A PRINCIPAL BY AN AGENT OR AS A CASE WHERE EQUITY AND REALITY
REQUIRE THAT THE SEPARATE CORPORATE IDENTITIES BE IGNORED OR AS THE
INCURRING UNDER CONTRACT OF A NECESSARY EXPENSE, PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT
FOR ITS SUCCESS DEPENDS ON THE CONTENTION THAT STAGES' OPERATING
DEFICIT IS AN EXPENSE OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS.  WITHOUT THIS KEYSTONE
THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT MUST FALL.  AND WE EXAMINE THE ARGUMENT IN THE
LIGHT OF THE NOW FAMILIAR RULE THAT AN INCOME TAX DEDUCTION IS A MATTER
OF LEGISLATIVE GRACE AND THAT THE BURDEN OF CLEARLY SHOWING THE RIGHT
TO THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION IS ON THE TAXPAYER.  NEW COLONIAL ICE CO. V.
HELVERING, 292 U.S. 435, 440; DEPUTY V. DU PONT, 308 U.S. 488, 493. 
THE DECISION OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW IS THAT THIS BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN
MET. 

THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF A MERE BRANCH OR DIVISION OF A BUSINESS
CONDUCTED SOLELY FOR CONVENIENCE' SAKE UNDER A SEPARATE CORPORATE
FORM.  PETITIONER DID AN INTERSTATE BUS BUSINESS AND WAS A CORPORATION
FOREIGN TO CALIFORNIA.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BUSINESS OF STAGES IN
THE TAX YEAR IN QUESTION WAS BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE.  FOR
PETITIONER TO ENGAGE IN INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA WAS, ON THE
FINDINGS, ILLEGAL.  THUS, THE BUSINESSES OF THE TWO COMPANIES WERE
DISTINCT.  CF. EDWARDS V. CHILE COPPER CO., 270 U.S. 452, 454, 456;
TEXAS-EMPIRE PIPE LINE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 127 F.2D 220.  EVEN
ASSUMING THAT THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS OF STAGES COULD BE THE BUSINESS
OF THE PETITIONER,  FN2  IT FOLLOWS THAT AT MOST ONLY THAT PART OF THE
DEFICIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO STAGES' INTERSTATE BUSINESS COULD BE AN EXPENSE
OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS AND PETITIONER COULD NOT CONCEIVABLY DEDUCT AS
A BUSINESS EXPENSE THE COST OF STAGES' INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  THERE WAS
NO SHOWING BELOW AS TO THE ALLOCATION OF THE DEDUCTIONS SOUGHT AS
BETWEEN STAGES' INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THERE IS THUS NO
RECORD REQUIRING A FURTHER EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT SINCE
IN THE ABSENCE OF AFFIRMATIVE PROOF TO THE CONTRARY WE MUST ASSUME THAT
THE ENTIRE DEFICIENCY WAS FOUND CORRECTLY BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THAT
THE DEFICIT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO STAGES' INTRASTATE BUSINESS. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO THIS DEFECT OF PROOF THAT PETITIONER WAS OBLIGATED
BY CONTRACT TO ASSUME STAGES' DEFICIT.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE EXPENSE
WAS INCURRED UNDER CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION DOES NOT OF COURSE MAKE IT
THE EQUIVALENT OF A RIGHTFUL DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 23(A).  THAT
SUBSECTION LIMITS PERMITTED DEDUCTIONS TO THOSE PAID OR INCURRED "IN
CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS."  THE ORIGIN AND NATURE, AND NOT THE
LEGAL FORM, OF THE EXPENSE SOUGHT TO BE DEDUCTED DETERMINES THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE WORDS OF SEC. 23(A).  DEPUTY V. DU PONT, SUPRA,
494.  IT WAS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER TO PAY THE COSTS OF
OPERATING AN INTRASTATE BUS LINE IN CALIFORNIA.  THE CARRIAGE OF
INTRASTATE PASSENGERS DID NOT INCREASE THE BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER. 
THE PROFIT EARNED ON THEIR CARRIAGE INCREASED THE TAXPAYER'S PROFIT BUT
SO WOULD ANY OTHER PROFITABLE ACTIVITY WHOLLY DISCONNECTED FROM THE
TAXPAYER'S OWN BUSINESS.  AS THE CIRCUIT COURT POINTED OUT, THE
ASSUMPTION OF THE DEFICIT WAS NOT DEPENDENT UPON A CORRESPONDING
SERVICE OR BENEFIT RENDERED TO THE PETITIONER BY STAGES IN CONNECTION
WITH PETITIONER'S BUSINESS.  130 F.2D 136, 139. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONCLUSIONS, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CHARACTERIZE THE
PAYMENT BY PETITIONER AS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR OTHERWISE, OR TO
DECIDE WHETHER IF THE RECORD WERE COMPLETE PETITIONER AND STAGES SHOULD
BE TREATED AS A TAXABLE ENTITY FOR THE CLAIMED PURPOSE.  CF. MOLINE
PROPERTIES V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 436.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1 49 STAT. 1648: 

"SEC. 23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

"(A)  EXPENSES.  - ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR
INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS
..." 

FN2  CF. MOLINE PROPERTIES V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 436; HIGGINS V.
SMITH, 308 U.S. 473, 477, N. 8-10. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

THIS TAXPAYER OPERATED A BUS SYSTEM BETWEEN CHICAGO AND LOS ANGELES. 
IT COULD NOT PICK UP INTRASTATE PASSENGERS IN CALIFORNIA, AS IT DID
ELSEWHERE, BECAUSE THE STATE DENIED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS PERMISSION TO
DO SO.  IN ORDER TO OBTAIN LOCAL TRAFFIC TO HELP CARRY THE COST OF
OPERATING THE INTERSTATE BUSES, TAXPAYER ORGANIZED A WHOLLY-OWNED AND
DOMINATED CALIFORNIA SUBSIDIARY.  THIS CONTENTED THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES,
AND IT WAS GRANTED PERMISSION TO CARRY LOCAL BUSINESS.  IT TOOK OVER
BUSES ARRIVING AT THE STATE LINE, OPERATED THEM IN CALIFORNIA, THUS
PERFORMING A PART OF THE TAXPAYER'S AGREEMENTS OF THROUGH CARRIAGE AND
BENEFITING FROM LOCAL TRAFFIC TO REDUCE THE COST.  IT WAS A COMMON
SENSE BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ITS BUSINESS
PROFITABLE. 

THE TAXPAYER MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE SUBSIDIARY, BY WHICH THE
SUBSIDIARY UNDERTOOK THE SERVICE; THE PARENT COMPANY BECAME ENTITLED TO
THE PROFITS AND ASSUMED THE LOSSES.  THE TAXPAYER AGREED TO REIMBURSE
THE SUBSIDIARY FOR ANY OPERATING DEFICIT.  THIS, TOO, WAS A COMMON
SENSE BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT.  TO PAY ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY MORE
WOULD BE POINTLESS, FOR IT WOULD ONLY COME BACK.  TO PAY IT LESS WOULD
RESULT IN ITS BANKRUPTCY TO THE INJURY OF CREDITORS.  SO THE TAXPAYER
AGREED THAT THE OPERATING DEFICITS SHOULD BE THE MEASURE OF ITS
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO THE SUBSIDIARY. 

THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS FOR TAX AVOIDANCE,
OR FOR THAT MATTER THAT IT DID NOT ACTUALLY REDUCE TAXPAYER'S COSTS AND
THUS INCREASE ITS TAX LIABILITY.  THE COMMISSIONER RULED, HOWEVER, THAT
THE AMOUNT OF OPERATING DEFICIT PAID BY THE TAXPAYER WAS NOT A BUSINESS
EXPENSE. 

TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER IN ALL CASES TO ALLOW A DEDUCTION SO
FIXED MIGHT BE TURNED BY THE UNSCRUPULOUS TO TAX-EVASION ENDS.  IT
COULD THEN, THROUGH ITS CONTROLLED SUBSIDIARY, MAKE EXPENDITURES NOT
PROPERLY ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENSE, BUT GET THEM ALLOWED AS PART OF
THE DEFICIT ASSUMED BY CONTRACT.  OF COURSE THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT
OBLIGED TO ALLOW THIS, OR ANY OTHER ARRANGEMENT, WHEN IT IS USED AS A
COVER FOR TAX SKULLDUGGERY.  EXAMINATION OF THE ITEMS IS OPEN TO THE
COMMISSIONER.  BUT THIS DEDUCTION HAS BEEN DENIED, NOT FOR SUCH
REASONS, BUT UPON A LEGAL THEORY WHICH I THINK IS ERRONEOUS. 

THE TAXPAYER TOOK INCONSISTENT POSITIONS:  FIRST, THAT THE CORPORATE
ENTITY OF THE SUBSIDIARY SHOULD BE DISREGARDED AND THE TWO COMPANIES
TAXED ON A CONSOLIDATED BASIS; SECOND, THAT THE AMOUNT WAS A PROPER
DEDUCTION UNDER THE CONTRACT, WHICH OF COURSE IMPLIES EXISTENCE OF TWO
PARTIES TO CONTRACT.  THE GOVERNMENT, NOT TO BE OUTDONE IN THE MATTER
OF INCONSISTENCY, DENIED THE SEPARATE ENTITY THEORY AND ALSO
DISREGARDED THE CONTRACT, AND ARGUES TO US "THE CONTRACT OF THE
TAXPAYER TO MAKE GOOD STAGES' OPERATING DEFICITS IS ONE PERVADED BY THE
STOCKHOLDER-CORPORATION RELATION.  ANY CONTRIBUTION TO STAGES UNDER
THIS CONTRACT MUST THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS INCIDENT TO THE TAXPAYER'S
STOCKHOLDER STATUS."  SO THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THE PAYMENT WAS NOT A
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES WHICH THE CONTRACT PROVIDES THAT IT WAS, BUT
WAS A "CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION" WHICH THE CONTRACT SAYS IT WAS NOT. 

I THINK THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE TAXPAYER'S THEORY THAT THE
COMMISSIONER MUST DISREGARD THE CORPORATE ENTITY OF THE SUBSIDIARY.  IF
A TAXPAYER ITSELF CREATES AND USES A CORPORATION, HE CANNOT REQUIRE THE
COMMISSIONER TO SAY IT ISN'T THERE. 

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE COMMISSIONER SAYS THERE ARE TWO
ENTITIES, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTRACT WITH EACH
OTHER, ONE TO PERFORM A SERVICE AND THE OTHER TO PAY A PRICE.  THE
SERVICE MAY BE, AND OFTEN IS, ONE THAT THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT PERFORM
FOR ITSELF, BUT IF IT IS HIRED TO BUILD UP ITS BUSINESS, I SEE NO
REASON WHY ITS PROPER COST IS NOT A BUSINESS EXPENSE DEDUCTION.  THE
PRICE NEED NOT BE A FIXED ONE, BUT MAY BE DETERMINABLE BY COSTS OR
OTHER CONTINGENCIES; BUT WHEN FIXED, ITS AMOUNT (BARRING USE AS A
DEVICE TO EVADE) IS THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTION.  COST OR "COST PLUS"
IS ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN METHODS OF CONTRACTING.  IT IS NOT AN
ILLICIT METHOD FOR A TAXPAYER TO EMPLOY. 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT SINCE THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT ITSELF PICK UP
LOCAL BUSINESS UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, IT CANNOT BE THE BUSINESS OF THE
TAXPAYER IN A LEGAL SENSE TO HAVE A SUBSIDIARY DO SO, AND DISBURSEMENTS
TO HAVE LOCAL BUSINESS BROUGHT IN ARE LEGALLY FOREIGN TO ITS BUSINESS,
ALTHOUGH FOR ITS BENEFIT.  I DO NOT SUPPOSE THE TAXPAYER CORPORATION
CAN ITSELF LEGALLY PRACTICE LAW OR MEDICINE, BUT I WOULD SUPPOSE IF IT
NEEDED LEGAL SERVICE FOR ITS BUSINESS OR THOUGHT IT GOOD BUSINESS TO
SUPPLY MEDICAL ATTENTION TO INJURED OR AILING EMPLOYEES, THE COST WOULD
BE A BUSINESS DEDUCTION, EVEN THOUGH THE AGENT WAS DOING WHAT THE
TAXPAYER COULD NOT LEGALLY DO FOR ITSELF.  THE TAXPAYER MAY NOT BE
AUTHORIZED TO RUN A NEWSPAPER OR PUT UP BILLBOARDS, BUT IF IT
CONTRACTED FOR SERVICES OF THOSE WHO ARE, IN ORDER TO FILL VACANT SEATS
IN ITS BUSES, I DO NOT SUPPOSE ITS COST WOULD BE DISALLOWED FOR THAT
REASON. 

THIS COMPANY HAS NOT VIOLATED THE LAW, EVEN OF CALIFORNIA.  INDEED,
IT WENT TO THIS TROUBLE TO COMPLY WITH IT.  THE FACT THAT IT USED A
SUBSIDIARY TO BENEFIT ITS BUSINESS IN AREAS WHERE ITS OWN COMPETENCE
WAS LACKING CAN HARDLY INVALIDATE THE ARRANGEMENT, PARTICULARLY SINCE
IT IS INSISTED THAT THE SUBSIDIARY HAD SEPARATE LEGAL AND TAX
EXISTENCE.  IF STATES CREATE DUMMIES, BUSINESS MEN MAY UTILIZE THEM SO
LONG AS THEY KEEP WITHIN THE LAW, AND THE FUNCTION OF THE REVENUE LAWS
IS NOT TO TELL THEM HOW THEY SHALL MANAGE BUSINESS, BUT TO SEE THAT
WHAT THEY DO HAS PROPER TAX CONSEQUENCES.   SINCE THE DECISION OF THIS
CASE THE TAX COURT HAS HELD IN A VERY SIMILAR CASE THAT WHERE A WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY EXCLUSIVELY PERFORMS SERVICES ESSENTIAL TO THE
BUSINESS OF THE PARENT CORPORATION, ADVANCES MADE BY THE PARENT TO MEET
THE SUBSIDIARY'S OPERATING DEFICIT ARE DEDUCTIBLE AS A BUSINESS
EXPENSE.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, NO. 105730, MARCH
25, 1943.  I THINK THIS IS A CORRECT RULE.  JUDGE HARRON THERE AVOIDS
THE FORCE OF THIS CASE ONLY UPON THE GROUND THAT THE PARENT CORPORATION
HERE COULD NOT ITSELF ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS DONE IN ITS BEHALF BY THE
SUBSIDIARY.  THAT DISTINCTION IS GOOD ENOUGH TO GET THE TAX COURT AWAY
FROM A BAD RULE, BUT I SEE NO REASON WHY SUCH A DEDUCTION SHOULD BE
AVAILABLE IN CASE OF AN UNNECESSARY SUBSIDIARY AND BE REFUSED IN THE
CASE OF ONE NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAWS IN MAKING A PROFITABLE
ENTERPRISE.  I WOULD REVERSE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :























OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. U.S., 319 U.S. 598 


NOS. 623, 624, AND 625.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 14,
1943.  - 131 F.2D 635, REVERSED. 


1.  THE STATUTES OF OKLAHOMA TAXING TRANSFERS OF ESTATES OF DECEDENTS
APPLY TO INDIANS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES.  P. 600. 

2.  THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF "RESTRICTED"
INDIAN LANDS FROM STATE ESTATE TAXATION, BASED ON THE FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITY THEORY, HAS IN EFFECT BEEN OVERRULED BY HELVERING V.
MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376.  P. 603. 

3.  THE ACT OF JANUARY 27, 1933, BY DECLARING THAT ALL FUNDS AND
SECURITIES UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
BELONGING TO INDIANS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA OF ONE
HALF OR MORE INDIAN BLOOD ARE "RESTRICTED," DID NOT INTEND TO EXEMPT
TRANSFERS OF SUCH PROPERTY FROM ESTATE TAXES IMPOSED BY THE STATE.  P.
604. 

4.  THE STATUS OF MEMBERS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA AS
WARDS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EXEMPT TRANSFERS OF THEIR
PROPERTY FROM ESTATE TAXATION BY THE STATE; EXEMPTION DEPENDS ON THE
PLAINLY EXPRESSED INTENTION OF CONGRESS.  P. 607. 

5.  "RESTRICTED" CASH AND SECURITIES, LANDS NOT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT
BY ACTS OF CONGRESS FROM DIRECT TAXATION, AND MISCELLANEOUS PERSONAL
PROPERTY AND INSURANCE, ALL BELONGING TO MEMBERS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED
TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA, HELD NOT EXEMPT BY ANY EXISTING LEGISLATION FROM
STATE ESTATE TAXATION.  P. 610. 

6.  LANDS IN OKLAHOMA BELONGING TO INDIANS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED
TRIBES AND WHICH, BY ACT OF CONGRESS, HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED
FROM DIRECT TAXATION BY THE STATE, HELD EXEMPT ALSO FROM STATE ESTATE
TAXATION.  P. 610. 

OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 748, TO REVIEW REVERSALS OF JUDGMENTS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEYS
COLLECTED BY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA AS TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THESE THREE ACTIONS TO RECOVER INHERITANCE
TAXES IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA UPON THE TRANSFER OF THE ESTATES
OF THREE DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES AND PAID UNDER
PROTEST BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FROM FUNDS UNDER HIS CONTROL
BELONGING TO THOSE ESTATES.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT ON THE
MERITS FOR THE STATE IN EACH CASE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  131 F.2D 635.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE CASES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND TO
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.  THE BASIC QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED ARE WHETHER,
AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW, THE STATE TAXING STATUTES REACH THESE
ESTATES, AND WHETHER CONGRESS HAS TAKEN FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA THE
POWER TO LEVY TAXES UPON THE TRANSFER OF ALL OR A PART OF PROPERTY AND
FUNDS OF THESE DECEASED INDIANS. 

THE PROPERTIES OF WHICH THE ESTATES ARE COMPOSED FALL INTO FOUR MAIN
CATEGORIES:  LAND EXEMPT FROM DIRECT TAXATION; LAND NOT EXEMPT FROM
DIRECT TAXATION; RESTRICTED CASH AND SECURITIES HELD FOR THE INDIANS BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; AND MISCELLANEOUS PERSONAL PROPERTIES
AND INSURANCE.  THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE THREE ESTATES WAS ASSESSED AT
APPROXIMATELY $1,245,000, OF WHICH ABOUT 90% REPRESENTS THE VALUE OF
THE CASH AND SECURITIES.  FN1 

INITIALLY WE ARE MET WITH THE CONTENTION THAT OKLAHOMA DID NOT INTEND
TO TAX THE ESTATES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES.  WE
CANNOT AGREE WITH THIS VIEW.  THE TWO CONTROLLING STATUTES BROADLY
PROVIDE FOR A TAX UPON ALL TRANSFERS MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH OR
INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT AFTER DEATH AS WELL AS TRANSFERS "BY WILL OR
THE INTESTATE LAWS OF THIS STATE."  FN2  THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTES
DOES NOT EXCEPT EITHER INDIANS OR ANY OTHER PERSONS FROM THEIR SCOPE. 
EFFORTS OF OKLAHOMA TO APPLY THIS TAX TO THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED
QUAPAW INDIAN WERE FRUSTRATED BY THIS COURT'S OPINION IN CHILDERS V.
BEAVER, 270 U.S. 555, DECIDED IN 1926.  SHORTLY AFTERWARDS THE OKLAHOMA
SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO SUSTAIN THE TAX ON AN OSAGE ESTATE UNDER THE
IMPRESSION THAT THIS RESULT WAS REQUIRED BY THE BEAVER DECISION; BUT,
SIGNIFICANTLY, THE OKLAHOMA COURT HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF THE STATE LAW
SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED "FURTHER THAN THE RULE THEREIN ESTABLISHED." 
CHILDERS V. POPE, 119 OKLA. 300, 303, 249 P. 726, 729.  ABOUT 1938, THE
OKLAHOMA TAXING AUTHORITIES APPARENTLY INITIATED NEW EFFORTS TO COLLECT
AN ESTATE TAX FROM INDIANS.  THIS STATE ACTION FOLLOWED OUR DECISION IN
SUPERINTENDENT V. COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S. 418, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT THE
RESTRICTED INCOME OF INDIANS WAS SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, AND
OUR DECISION IN HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376,
WHICH OVERRULED PREVIOUS DECISIONS LIMITING THE POWER OF THE STATE TO
IMPOSE CERTAIN TYPES OF TAXES ON INCOMES DERIVED FROM TAX-EXEMPT AND
RESTRICTED INDIAN PROPERTY.  THE STATE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE WITH
REASONABLE CONSISTENCY INTERPRETED THEIR ACTS AS COVERING ESTATES SUCH
AS THESE, AND HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ENFORCE THE STATUTES EXCEPT WHEN THEY
CONSIDERED ENFORCEMENT PRECLUDED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE STATE LAW DOES APPLY TO THESE ESTATES. 
THIS INTERPRETATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT GIVEN BY THE STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES, WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACTS THEMSELVES
AND WITH THE STATE SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN CHILDERS V. POPE, SUPRA. 

THE RESPONDENT'S SECOND AND MAJOR CONTENTION IS THAT THE STATE MAY
NOT IMPOSE AN ESTATE TAX UPON THE TRANSFER OF THE RESTRICTED CASH AND
SECURITIES BECAUSE CONGRESS BY PLACING RESTRICTIONS UPON THIS PROPERTY
MANIFESTED A PURPOSE TO EXEMPT IT FROM OKLAHOMA ESTATE TAXES. 
RESTRICTED PROPERTY OF AN INDIAN IS THAT WHICH MAY NOT BE FREELY
ALIENATED OR USED BY THE INDIAN WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR.  WE FIND, UPON AN EXAMINATION OF BOTH THE CASES
DEALING GENERALLY WITH THE TAXATION OF INDIAN PROPERTY AND THE STATUTE
WHICH IMPOSES THE RESTRICTION, THAT THE RESTRICTION, WITHOUT MORE, IS
NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF ESTATE TAX IMMUNITY FOR
THE CASH AND SECURITIES.  FN3 

THE MANY CASES DEALING GENERALLY WITH THE PROBLEM OF INDIAN TAX
EXEMPTIONS PROVIDE NO BASIS FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THAT
CONGRESS, IN VIEW OF THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK, MUST HAVE ASSUMED
THAT IT WOULD IMMUNIZE THE SECURITIES AND CASH FROM ESTATE TAXES BY
RESTRICTING THEIR ALIENATION.  WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, HELD
THAT A STATE MIGHT NOT REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF PERSONS IN INDIAN
TERRITORY ON THE THEORY THAT THE INDIAN TRIBES WERE SEPARATE POLITICAL
ENTITIES WITH ALL THE RIGHTS OF INDEPENDENT STATUS - A CONDITION WHICH
HAS NOT EXISTED FOR MANY YEARS IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.  THE SAME
PRINCIPLE WAS CARRIED INTO THE TAX FIELD IN THE KANSAS INDIANS, 5
WALL.  737, AND FOR THE SAME REASONS.  THAT CASE ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT
THE INDIANS COULD "NOT LOOK TO KANSAS FOR PROTECTION," 759, AND THAT
KANSAS WAS NOT "OBLIGED TO CONFER ANY RIGHTS ON THEM," 758.  THE TAX
EXEMPTION, SAID THE COURT, MUST LAST UNTIL THE INDIANS WERE "CLOTHED
WITH THE RIGHTS AND BOUND TO ALL THE DUTIES OF CITIZENS," 756.  A
SIMILAR RESULT WAS REACHED IN THE NEW YORK INDIANS, 5 WALL.  761,
DECIDED THE SAME DAY, WHERE THE STATE SOUGHT TO RAISE MONEY BY TAXES TO
BUILD ROADS IN INDIAN RESERVATIONS AND WHERE EXISTING TREATIES FORBADE
THE STATE'S BUILDING SUCH ROADS.  LATER, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, INDIAN
LANDS HELD IN TRUST BY THE UNITED STATES WERE FOUND TO BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX-EXEMPT ON THE THEORY THAT THEY WERE FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES, I.E., THAT THE LANDS WERE HELD BY THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE INDIANS, AND WERE THEREFORE NON-TAXABLE.  UNITED STATES V.
RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432.  IN TIME, THIS CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT WAS
EXPANDED TO GRANT TAX EXEMPTION TO THE INCOME DERIVED FROM INDIAN
LANDS, WHETHER TRIBALLY OR INDIVIDUALLY OWNED, EVEN WHEN THE PRIVILEGE
OF EXPLOITATION HAD BEEN GRANTED TO NON-INDIAN LESSEES.  FN4  THE
INSTRUMENTALITY CONCEPT ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN A DECISION EXEMPTING
INDIAN ESTATES FROM TAXATION.  CHILDERS V. BEAVER, SUPRA.  NONE OF
THESE CASES HELD, NOR HAS THIS COURT EVER DECIDED, THAT CONGRESSIONAL
RESTRICTION OF AN INDIAN'S INCOME CARRIED AN IMPLICATION OF ESTATE TAX
EXEMPTION. 

THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THESE DECISIONS ARE BASED DO NOT
FIT THE SITUATION OF THE OKLAHOMA INDIANS.  ALTHOUGH THERE ARE REMNANTS
OF THE FORM OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, THESE INDIANS HAVE NO EFFECTIVE
TRIBAL AUTONOMY AS IN WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, SUPRA; AND, UNLIKE THE
INDIANS INVOLVED IN THE KANSAS INDIANS CASE, SUPRA, THEY ARE ACTUALLY
CITIZENS OF THE STATE WITH LITTLE TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM ALL OTHER
CITIZENS EXCEPT FOR THEIR LIMITED PROPERTY RESTRICTIONS AND THEIR TAX
EXEMPTIONS.  FN5  THEIR LANDS ARE HELD IN FEE, NOT IN TRUST, AS IN THE
RICKERT CASE, AND THE DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION
FOR THE INCOME OF THEIR HOLDINGS ON THE FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY THEORY
HAS BEEN RENOUNCED, HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S.
376.  CHILDERS V. BEAVER, SUPRA, WAS IN EFFECT OVERRULED BY THE
MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS DECISION.  THE IMMUNITY FORMERLY SAID TO REST ON
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATION CANNOT NOW BE RESURRECTED IN THE FORM OF
STATUTORY IMPLICATION. 

THE CASH AND SECURITIES OF WHICH THESE ESTATES ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY
COMPOSED WERE RESTRICTED BY THE ACT OF JANUARY 27, 1933.  FN6  UNLESS
THE TAX IMMUNITY IS GRANTED BY THE RESTRICTION CLAUSE ITSELF, THERE IS
NOT A WORD IN THE ACT WHICH EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS MEANT
TO EXEMPT INDIANS' CASH AND SECURITIES FROM OKLAHOMA'S ESTATE TAXES. 
WE CONCLUDE THAT THIS ACT DOES NOT EXEMPT THE RESTRICTED PROPERTY FROM
TAXATION FOR TWO REASONS:  (1) THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT
REFUTES THE CONTENTION THAT AN EXEMPTION WAS INTENDED; AND (2)
APPLICATION OF THE NORMAL RULE AGAINST TAX EXEMPTION BY STATUTORY
IMPLICATION PREVENTS OUR READING SUCH AN IMPLICATION INTO THE ACT. 

THE 1933 ACT WAS INTENDED TO SERVE TWO PURPOSES RELEVANT TO THIS
CASE.  ONE WAS TO CONTINUE THE RESTRICTIONS ON INDIAN PROPERTY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE INDIANS FROM LOSS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM; AND THE OTHER WAS TO PRESERVE THE STATUS OF
CERTAIN INDIAN LAND AS NON-TAXABLE UNTIL 1956.  SEE THE CONCURRING
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE IN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER, 318
U.S. 705, 719.  THIS ACT WAS BEFORE TWO CONGRESSES, THE 71ST AND THE
72D.  IT WAS THE SUBJECT OF EXHAUSTIVE DEBATE, AS WELL AS OF SEVERAL
COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND THERE IS NO INDICATION WHATEVER IN ALL THAT
DISCUSSION OF AN INTENTION TO EXEMPT INDIANS FROM ESTATE TAXES.  FN7 

THE BILL WAS SPONSORED BY OKLAHOMA CONGRESSMEN WHO SAID NOTHING WHICH
SUPPORTS THE IMPUTATION THAT THEY INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THEIR STATE OF
THIS INCOME.  IT WAS DESCRIBED BY ITS SPONSOR, CONGRESSMAN HASTINGS, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"YOU ASK ME WHAT THE BILL DOES.  IF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
UNDERSTOOD THE BILL THERE WOULD NOT BE A VOTE AGAINST IT.  OIL HAS BEEN
STRUCK UNDERNEATH SOME OF THE LANDS ALLOTTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THESE
TRIBES.  SOME OF THESE FULLBLOOD ALLOTTEES WITHOUT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE,
NOW HAVE TO THEIR CREDIT $100,000, $200,000 AND, IT IS ESTIMATED, UP TO
$1,000,000.  SUPPOSE ONE OF THESE INDIAN ALLOTTEES DIED AFTER APRIL 26,
1931.  THEN THIS MONEY MUST BE TURNED OVER TO THESE HEIRS WITHOUT
SUPERVISION.  DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT?  IS THERE A MAN ON THE FLOOR OF
THE HOUSE WHO WOULD WANT TO DO THAT?"  FN8  THIS PURPOSE, AND NONE
OTHER, IS REITERATED THROUGHOUT THE DISCUSSION - NOT A WORD OF AN
INTENTION TO EXPAND TAX EXEMPTIONS WAS SPOKEN BY ANY CONGRESSMAN. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY NOT ONLY FAILS TO GIVE ANY AFFIRMATIVE
SUPPORT TO SUCH AN IMPLICATION BUT EXPRESSLY NEGATIVES THAT INTENT. 
THE PRINCIPAL CLAUSE OF THE BILL DEALING WITH TAXATION IS THAT WHICH
CONTINUES A LIMITED LAND TAX-EXEMPTION FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  ON TWO
SEPARATE OCCASIONS, IN TWO CONGRESSES, THE BILL'S SPONSOR ASSURED THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:  "THIS (BILL) ONLY APPLIES TO RESTRICTED AND
TAX-EXEMPT LAND.  THIS DOES NOT INCREASE TAX-EXEMPT LAND AT ALL."  FN9
SUCH A BILL, CAREFULLY DRAWN SO AS NOT TO WIDEN TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR
LAND, AND WITHOUT A WORD OF SUCH INTENT IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
CANNOT BE SUPPOSED BY IMPLICATION TO HAVE PROHIBITED ESTATE TAXES.  IF
THERE COULD BE ANY DOUBT OF THIS PROPOSITION IT IS SURELY REMOVED BY A
LATER CLAUSE OF THE 1933 STATUTE WHICH PROVIDES THAT ALL MINERALS
EXTRACTED FROM THE LAND SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION.  FN10
CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED THAT THE MINERALS THEMSELVES SHOULD BE
SUBJECT TO TAXATION, BUT THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THEIR SALE, EVEN FURTHER
REMOVED FROM THE LAND ITSELF, SHOULD BE IMMUNE. 

THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THAT TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE NOT GRANTED BY
IMPLICATION.  UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 307 U.S. 57, 60. 
IT HAS APPLIED THAT RULE TO TAXING ACTS AFFECTING INDIANS AS TO ALL
OTHERS.  AS WAS SAID OF AN EXCISE TAX ON TOBACCO PRODUCED BY THE
CHEROKEE INDIANS IN 1870, "IF THE EXEMPTION HAD BEEN INTENDED, IT WOULD
DOUBTLESS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED."  CHEROKEE TOBACCO, 11 WALL.  616, 620. 
IN HOLDING THE INCOME TAX APPLICABLE TO INDIANS, THE COURT SAID, "THE
TERMS OF THE 1928 REVENUE ACT ARE VERY BROAD, AND NOTHING THERE
INDICATES THAT INDIANS ARE TO BE EXCEPTED.  ...  IF EXEMPTION EXISTS IT
MUST DERIVE PLAINLY FROM AGREEMENTS WITH THE CREEKS OR SOME ACT OF
CONGRESS DEALING WITH THEIR AFFAIRS."  SUPERINTENDENT V. COMMISSIONER,
SUPRA, 420.  IF CONGRESS INTENDS TO PREVENT THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA FROM
LEVYING A GENERAL NON-DISCRIMINATORY ESTATE TAX APPLYING ALIKE TO ALL
ITS CITIZENS, IT SHOULD SAY SO IN PLAIN WORDS.  SUCH A CONCLUSION
CANNOT REST ON DUBIOUS INFERENCES.  "NONTAXABILITY AND RESTRICTION UPON
ALIENATION ARE DISTINCT THINGS," SUPERINTENDENT V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA,
421, AND WHEN CONGRESS WANTS TO REQUIRE BOTH NONALIENABILITY AND
NONTAXABILITY IT CAN, AS IT HAS SO OFTEN DONE, SAY SO EXPLICITLY. 
FN11 

IT IS TRUE THAT OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE 1933 STATUTE MUST BE IN
ACCORD WITH THE GENEROUS AND PROTECTIVE SPIRIT WHICH THE UNITED STATES
PROPERLY FEELS TOWARD ITS INDIAN WARDS, BUT WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS WILL CHOOSE TO AID THE INDIANS BY PERMANENTLY GRANTING THEM
IMMUNITY FROM TAXES WHICH THEY ARE AS ABLE AS OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY. 
IT RUNS COUNTER TO ANY TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARD
RELATIONSHIP TO SUPPOSE THAT A WARD SHOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION BY
THE NATURE OF HIS STATUS, AND THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
THE GUARDIAN OF ITS INDIAN WARD IS NO REASON, BY ITSELF, WHY A STATE
SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM TAXING THE ESTATE OF THE INDIAN.  WE HAVE HELD
THAT THE INDIANS, LIKE ALL OTHER CITIZENS, MUST PAY FEDERAL INCOME
TAXES.  SUPERINTENDENT V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, 421.  "WARDSHIP WITH
LIMITED POWER OVER HIS PROPERTY" DID NOT THERE "WITHOUT MORE RENDER
(THE INDIAN) IMMUNE FROM THE COMMON BURDEN."  A FEDERAL COURT HAS HELD,
IN A WELL-REASONED DECISION DEFENDED BEFORE US BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS ACTION, THAT AN
INDIAN'S ESTATE IS SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  LANDMAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 123 F.2D 787.  FN12  CONGRESS CANNOT HAVE INTENDED TO
IMPOSE FEDERAL INCOME AND INHERITANCE TAXES ON THE INDIANS AND AT THE
SAME TIME EXEMPT THEM BY IMPLICATION FROM SIMILAR STATE TAXES. 
RECOGNIZING THAT EQUALITY OF PRIVILEGE AND EQUALITY OF OBLIGATION
SHOULD BE INSEPARABLE ASSOCIATES, WE HAVE RECENTLY SWEPT AWAY MANY OF
THE MEANS OF TAX FAVORITISM.  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306
U.S. 466, PERMITTED STATES TO IMPOSE INCOME TAXES UPON GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AND HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, PERMITTED THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE TAXES ON STATE EMPLOYEES.  O'MALLEY V.
WOODROUGH, 307 U.S. 277, OVERRULED A PREVIOUS DECISION WHICH HELD THAT
JUDGES SHOULD NOT PAY TAXES JUST AS OTHER CITIZENS, AND HELVERING V.
MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., SUPRA, REPUDIATED FORMER DECISIONS SERIOUSLY
LIMITING STATE AND FEDERAL POWER TO TAX.  SEE ALSO METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, AND JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S.
134.  THE TREND OF THESE CASES SHOULD NOT NOW BE REVERSED. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID REQUIRES THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CASH AND
SECURITIES ARE NOT EXEMPTED BY ANY EXISTING LEGISLATION FROM STATE
ESTATE TAXATION, AND THIS IS LIKEWISE TRUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
TWO OF THESE ESTATES. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE TAXES ON THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND PRESENTS A
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT PROBLEM.  SOME OF THESE LANDS ARE EXEMPT FROM DIRECT
TAXATION BY VIRTUE OF EXPLICIT CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND.  THE ACT OF MAY
10, 1928, 45 STAT. 495, FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDES THAT INDIANS OF A CLASS
WHICH INCLUDES THE THREE DECEASED SHOULD SELECT UP TO 160 ACRES OF HIS
ALLOTTED, INHERITED OR DEVISED RESTRICTED LANDS, WHICH "SHALL REMAIN
EXEMPT FROM TAXATION WHILE THE TITLE REMAINS IN THE INDIAN DESIGNATED
...  OR IN ANY FULLBLOOD INDIAN HEIR OR DEVISEE," WHILE ALL OTHER
RESTRICTED LANDS ARE MADE SUBJECT TO TAXATION BY OKLAHOMA.  THE STATE
ARGUES THAT CONGRESSIONAL EXEMPTION OF THE LAND FROM DIRECT STATE
TAXATION DOES NOT EXEMPT THE LAND FROM AN ESTATE TAX, BECAUSE OF THE
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, SUPRA.  A
MAJORITY OF THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THIS PRINCIPLE DOES NOT APPLY TO
INDIAN LANDS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM DIRECT TAXATION.  WE THEREFORE
HOLD THAT THE TRANSFER OF THOSE LANDS WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXEMPTED FROM
DIRECT TAXATION BY THE STATE ARE ALSO EXEMPTED FROM ESTATE TAXES. 

TO SUMMARIZE: 

IN NO. 623, THE TRANSFER OF THE CASH AND SECURITIES IS TAXABLE, THE
TRANSFER OF THE HOMESTEAD AND OTHER ALLOTTED LAND, EXEMPTED UNDER THE
ACT OF MAY 10, 1928, IS NOT.  THE 43 ACRES PURCHASED FOR THE INTESTATE
FROM HER RESTRICTED FUNDS WAS TAXABLE AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH, SHAW V.
GIBSON-ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575, AND HENCE IS SUBJECT TO THE
ESTATE TAX. 

IN NO. 624, THE TRANSFER OF THE CASH AND SECURITIES AND THE PERSONAL
PROPERTY IS TAXABLE.  THE DECEASED DIED BEFORE THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1928,
TOOK EFFECT, BUT HER 240-ACRE HOLDING WAS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT FROM
DIRECT TAXATION AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH UNDER SEC. 19 OF THE ACT OF
APRIL 26, 1906, AND THE TRANSFER OF LANDS IS THEREFORE NOT TAXABLE. 

IN NO. 625, THE SAME RESULT AS IN NO. 623 FOLLOWS FOR THE RESTRICTED
LANDS WHICH WERE APPROPRIATELY SELECTED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THE ACT OF
MAY 10, 1928, AND FOR THE PERSONAL PROPERTY, CASH, AND SECURITIES.  THE
JUDGMENT AND THE INSURANCE POLICY ARE TO BE TREATED AS IN A CLASS WITH
THE PERSONAL PROPERTY, CASH, AND SECURITIES.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE
160 ACRES OF INHERITED PROPERTY HELD BY THE DECEASED WAS TAXABLE AT THE
TIME OF HIS DEATH BECAUSE IN EXCESS OF THE EXEMPTION PERMITTED BY THE
1928 ACT, AND THIS LAND IS, THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE TAX. 
WHILE THE STATUS OF THE DECEASED'S FOUR-FIFTHS INTEREST IN A 40-ACRE
TRACT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD, NO SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE THAT IT IS
NOT TAXABLE. 

THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVERY OF THE ESTATE TAX PAID ON THE
TRANSFER OF LANDS EXEMPT FROM DIRECT TAXATION, AND TO NO MORE.  THE
JUDGMENT BELOW IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  THE TAXES ASSESSED ON THIS PROPERTY TOTALLED APPROXIMATELY
$37,000.  THE PROPERTIES OF WHICH THE ESTATES WERE COMPOSED WAS AS
FOLLOWS: 

NO. 623:  APPROXIMATELY 70 ACRES OF RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LAND; 40
ACRES OF LAND PURCHASED FROM RESTRICTED FUNDS; RESTRICTED CASH AND
SECURITIES.  ASSESSED VALUE:  $250,000. 

NO. 624:  240 ACRES OF RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LAND; PERSONAL PROPERTY;
RESTRICTED CASH AND SECURITIES.  ASSESSED VALUE:  $677,000. 

NO. 625:  160 ACRES OF ALLOTTED RESTRICTED LAND; 160 ACRES OF
INHERITED RESTRICTED LAND; A FOUR-FIFTHS INTEREST IN 40 ACRES; AN
AUTOMOBILE; MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTY, AND INSURANCE; RESTRICTED CASH AND
SECURITIES.  ASSESSED VALUE:  $318,000. 

FN2 CH. 162, SESS. LAWS, 1915; CH. 66, ART. 5, SESS. LAWS, 1935. 

FN3  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE STATE'S ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS
IS WITHOUT POWER TO EXEMPT THESE ESTATES FROM TAXATION.  THIS ISSUE IS
NOT FORECLOSED BY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER, 318 U.S. 705, SINCE
THERE WE DECIDED NO MORE THAN THAT CONGRESS MIGHT AUTHORIZE THE
EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS FROM TAXATION BECAUSE OF AN HISTORIC
POLICY IN RESPECT TO THOSE LANDS.  CF. MCCURDY V. UNITED STATES, 246
U.S. 263, 269. 

CHOATE V. TRAPP, 224 U.S. 665, HOLDING THAT UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT WITHDRAW A TAX EXEMPTION ONCE
ASSURED, HAS NO BEARING ON THE INSTANT PROBLEM SINCE IT IS CONCEDED
THAT THE QUESTION HERE IS ENTIRELY ONE OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS IN FACT
DIRECTED. 

FN4  CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292; INDIAN
TERRITORY OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 240 U.S. 522; JAYBIRD MINING CO. V.
WEIR, 271 U.S. 609; HOWARD V. GYPSY OIL CO., 247 U.S. 503; LARGE OIL
CO. V. HOWARD, 248 U.S. 549; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501. 

FN5  UNDER THE ACTS OF JUNE 18, 1934, 48 STAT. 984, AND JUNE 26,
1936, 49 STAT. 1967, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 501 ET SEQ., SOME PROGRESS HAS BEEN
MADE IN THE RESTORATION OF TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.  COHEN, HANDBOOK OF
FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, 455, 129-133, 142-143. 

FN6  47 STAT. 777. 

"  ...  THAT ALL FUNDS AND OTHER SECURITIES NOW HELD BY OR WHICH MAY
HEREAFTER COME UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
BELONGING TO AND ONLY SO LONG AS BELONGING TO INDIANS OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES IN OKLAHOMA OF ONE-HALF OR MORE INDIAN BLOOD, ENROLLED
OR UNENROLLED, ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE RESTRICTED  ...  PROVIDED,
THAT WHERE THE ENTIRE INTEREST IN ANY TRACT OF RESTRICTED AND TAX
EXEMPT LAND BELONGING TO MEMBERS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IS
ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE, DEVISE, GIFT, OR PURCHASE, WITH RESTRICTED
FUNDS, BY OR FOR RESTRICTED INDIANS, SUCH LANDS SHALL REMAIN RESTRICTED
AND TAX-EXEMPT DURING THE LIFE OF AND AS LONG AS HELD BY SUCH
RESTRICTED INDIANS, BUT NOT LONGER THAN APRIL 26, 1956,  ...  AND
PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT ALL MINERALS INCLUDING OIL AND GAS, PRODUCED
FROM SAID LAND SO ACQUIRED SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL STATE AND FEDERAL
TAXES AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3 OF THE ACT APPROVED MAY 10, 1928(45
STAT. L. 495)." 

FN7  ELEMENTS OF THE 1933 STATUTE WERE INCLUDED IN H.R. 15603, 71ST
CONGRESS.  THE BILL WAS RECOMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, 74 CONG. REC. 3956-3958.  THIS DISCUSSION
INCLUDES A REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RECOMMENDING
LEGISLATION SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT FINALLY ENACTED IN 1933.  THE
HOUSE LATER AMENDED THE PROVISIONS OF ITS OWN BILL INTO S. 6169.  74
CONG. REC. 7219-7222.  THE BILL AS AMENDED WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE
SENATE.  THE PLAN WAS RE-INTRODUCED IN THE 72D CONGRESS AS H.R. 8750
AND WAS DISCUSSED BY THE HOUSE AT 75 CONG. REC. 8163-8170, AND BY THE
SENATE AT 76 CONG. REC. 2200.  THIS BILL WAS PASSED BY THE 72D CONGRESS
AND BECAME THE STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

FN8  75 CONG. REC. 8163. 

FN9  74 CONG. REC. 7222 AND, SIMILARLY, 75 CONG. REC. 8170. 

FN10  SEE THE LAST CLAUSE OF THE STATUTE AS SET FORTH IN NOTE 6,
SUPRA. 

FN11  SEE, FOR EXAMPLES, ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, 30 STAT. 567, TRACT
MADE "INALIENABLE AND NONTAXABLE"; ACT OF MARCH 1, 1901, 31 STAT. 861,
TRACT MADE "NONTAXABLE AND INALIENABLE"; ACT OF JUNE 30, 1902, 32 STAT.
500, TRACT TO REMAIN "NONTAXABLE, INALIENABLE, AND FREE FROM ANY
INCUMBRANCE"; ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137, "ALL LANDS UPON
WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE REMOVED SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION, AND THE
OTHER LANDS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  CF. FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT
OF THE QUAPAW INDIANS THE ACT OF APRIL 17, 1937, 50 STAT. 68. 

FN12  CERT. DEN., 315 U.S. 810.  THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IN
THE LANDMAN CASE MADE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ARGUMENT IT MAKES HERE
AGAINST TAXATION OF INDIANS' ESTATES.  IT EMPHASIZES THAT THE DECISION
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WOULD LEAD TO SIMILAR TAXATION BY
STATES.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, OPPOSING THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR IN
THE LANDMAN CASE, INSISTED THAT UNDER SUPERINTENDENT V. COMMISSIONER,
295 U.S. 418, AND CHOTEAU V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 691, THE INDIANS' ESTATES
SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO TAXATION; AND THAT EVEN IF THE INDIANS' LANDS
WERE EXEMPT FROM DIRECT TAXATION, THE ESTATE TAX SHOULD BE UPHELD AS AN
EXCISE TAX, INDIRECT IN ITS NATURE, CITING UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V.
HELVERING, 307 U.S. 57; PLUMMER V. COLER, 178 U.S. 115; GREINER V.
LEWELLYN, 258 U.S. 384.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IN
SEEKING TO UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF A FEDERAL ESTATE TAX AS APPLIED TO
INDIAN ESTATES OPPOSED THE ARGUMENT WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR MADE THEN AND WHICH IT MAKES NOW, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING
THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IS SEEKING TO
INVALIDATE A STATE INSTEAD OF A FEDERAL TAX. 

CONGRESS HAS PASSED LAWS UNDER WHICH INDIANS HAVE BECOME FULL-FLEDGED
CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.  FN13  OKLAHOMA SUPPLIES FOR THEM
AND THEIR CHILDREN SCHOOLS, ROADS, COURTS, POLICE PROTECTION AND ALL
THE OTHER BENEFITS OF AN ORDERED SOCIETY.  CITIZENS OF OKLAHOMA MUST
PAY FOR THESE BENEFITS.  IF SOME PAY LESS, OTHERS MUST PAY MORE.  SINCE
OKLAHOMA HAS BECOME A STATE, IT HAS BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY STATED THAT
TAX LOSSES RESULTING FROM TAX IMMUNITY OF INDIANS HAVE TOTALLED MORE
THAN $125,000,000, A SUM ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THE BONDED
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE STATE.  FN14  IF CONGRESS INTENDED TO RELIEVE THESE
INDIANS FROM THE BURDEN OF A STATE INHERITANCE TAX AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
OUR NATIONAL POLICY TOWARD INDIANS, THERE IS STILL NO REASON WHY WE
SHOULD IMPLY THAT IT INTENDED THE BURDEN TO BE BORNE SO HEAVILY BY ONE
STATE.  BUT THERE IS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL BELIEF THAT THESE EXEMPTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON EQUITABLE
GROUNDS, NO MATTER ON WHICH SOVEREIGN THE BURDEN FALLS.  HERE IS A TAX
BASED SOLELY ON ABILITY TO PAY.  FN15  "ONLY THE SAME DUTIES ARE
EXACTED AS FROM OUR OWN CITIZENS.  THE BURDEN MUST REST SOMEWHERE. 
REVENUE IS INDISPENSABLE TO MEET THE PUBLIC NECESSITIES.  IS IT
UNREASONABLE THAT THIS SMALL PORTION OF IT SHALL REST UPON THESE
INDIANS?"  CHEROKEE TOBACCO, SUPRA, P. 621. 

FN13  IT MUST NOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE OKLAHOMA INDIANS ARE ALL UNABLE
TO PAY ESTATE TAXES.  THE ESTATES OF THE THREE INDIANS HERE INVOLVED,
AS HAS BEEN NOTED, TOTAL WELL OVER $1,200,000.  OIL AND GAS RECEIPTS OF
THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES FROM 1904 TO 1937 WERE IN EXCESS OF ONE
HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.  HEARING ON S. RES. 168, SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INDIAN AFFAIRS, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 36.  THE OSAGES IN THE SAME
PERIOD RECEIVED $261,000,000.  P. 34.  ANNUAL PER CAPITA INCOME FOR THE
OSAGE TRIBE AS SHOWN BY A CAREFUL STUDY MADE IN 1928 WAS $19,119.  THE
PROBLEM OF INDIAN ADMINISTRATION, INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT RESEARCH,
LEWIS MERIAM, DIRECTOR, CHAPTER 10, GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, 430,
450.  2,826 OSAGE INDIANS ARE REPORTED TO OWN TRIBAL AND INDIVIDUAL
PROPERTY VALUED AT $31,968,000.  P. 443.  THE ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE
OSAGES IS DISCUSSED IN MCCURDY V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 263, 265. 

FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE RESPECTED POSITION OF INDIANS IN OKLAHOMA,
SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WILLIAMS, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V.
SEBER, 130 F.2D 663, 681-683.  THE 1933 ACT DISCUSSED ABOVE WAS
SPONSORED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY CONGRESSMAN HASTINGS OF
OKLAHOMA, WHO WAS HIMSELF OF INDIAN DESCENT. 

FN14  HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, NOTE
13, SUPRA, P. 4. 

FN15  "THE VIEW OF THE SURVEY STAFF IS THAT THE INDIANS MUST BE
EDUCATED TO PAY TAXES JUST AS THEY MUST BE EDUCATED TO DO OTHER
THINGS.  THE TAXES IMPOSED UPON THEM MUST ALWAYS BE PROPERLY RELATED TO
THEIR CAPACITY TO PAY.  FOR THEM AN INCOME TAX WOULD BE INFINITELY
BETTER THAN A GENERAL PROPERTY TAX BECAUSE OF ITS DIRECT RELATIONSHIP
TO THEIR CAPACITY TO PAY.  THE RETURNS FROM SUCH A TAX WOULD OBVIOUSLY
BE EXTREMELY SMALL AT THE OUTSET, BUT THEY WOULD INCREASE WITH THE
INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY OF THE INDIANS."  THE PROBLEM OF INDIAN
ADMINISTRATION, NOTE 13, SUPRA, 478; AND SEE ALSO 43, 98. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS: 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT AND IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE.  WHILE I
AGREE THAT TRANSFERS OF THE RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
OKLAHOMA'S ESTATE TAX, I TAKE THE CONTRARY VIEW AS RESPECTS THE FUNDS
AND SECURITIES COVERED BY THE ACT OF JANUARY 27, 1933, 47 STAT. 777. 
IN MY OPINION TRANSFERS OF THOSE FUNDS AND SECURITIES ARE SUBJECT TO
THE TAX FOR THE TWO REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING IN PART:    I DISSENT BECAUSE THE
OPINION OF THE COURT REJECTS A CENTURY AND A HALF OF HISTORY.  WE ARE
NOT HERE DEALING WITH MERE PROPERTY OR INCOME THAT IS TAX-EXEMPT.  THIS
IS NOT THE ORDINARY CASE OF GOVERNMENT AND ITS CITIZENS, OR A GROUP OF
CITIZENS WHO SEEK TO AVOID THEIR OBLIGATIONS.  OUR CONCERN HERE IS
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.  IT IS WITH A PEOPLE WHO ARE OUR WARDS AND TOWARDS
WHOM CONGRESS HAS FASHIONED A POLICY OF PROTECTION DUE TO OBLIGATIONS
WELL KNOWN TO ALL OF US.  IT RESTS WITH CONGRESS TO CHOOSE WHEN WE ARE
DONE WITH THAT TRUSTEESHIP.  MEANWHILE IT IS OUR OBLIGATION TO
INTERPRET IN THE LIGHT OF THE HISTORY OF THAT RELATIONSHIP ALL
LEGISLATION WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENACTED TO CARRY OUT ITS INDIAN POLICY. 
NORMALLY IT IS TRUE THAT STRONG CONSIDERATIONS OF FISCAL AND SOCIAL
POLICY VIEW TAX EXEMPTIONS WITH A HOSTILE EYE.  SUCH EXEMPTIONS ARE NOT
TO BE LIGHTLY IMPLIED, AND EVERY REASONABLE IMPLICATION IN CONSTRUING
LEGISLATION IS TO BE MADE AGAINST THEIR GRANT.  BUT THIS GENERAL
DOCTRINE AGAINST TAX EXEMPTION IS IRRELEVANT IN CONSIDERING THE TAXING
POWER OF A STATE IN RELATION TO INDIANS.  FOR AS TO THEM A TOTALLY
DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE COMES INTO OPERATION, NAMELY, THE SPECIAL STATUS OF
INDIANS DURING THE WHOLE COURSE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL
HISTORY.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF CONGRESS' PLENARY POWER TO EXEMPT
INDIANS AND THEIR PROPERTY FROM ALL FORMS OF STATE TAXATION.  SUCH
POWER EXISTS TO PREVENT IMPAIRMENT OF THE MANNER IN, OR MEANS BY WHICH
CONGRESS EFFECTUATES ITS INDIAN POLICY, AT LEAST SO LONG AS CONGRESS
HAS NOT DETERMINED THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIANS REQUIRE THEIR
COMPLETE RELEASE FROM TUTELAGE OR THE FINAL TERMINATION OF THE UNITED
STATES' GUARDIANSHIP OVER THEM.  BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER, 318
U.S. 705; CF. TIGER V. WESTERN INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286, 315-16;
BRADER V. JAMES, 246 U.S. 88, 96; UNITED STATES V. MCGOWAN, 302 U.S.
535, 538.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SANDOVAL, 231 U.S. 28, 45-47.  TO DENY
SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS TO DENY THE PRESUPPOSITION OF ALL
LEGISLATION RELATING TO INDIANS AS WELL AS AN UNBROKEN LINE OF
DECISIONS ON INDIAN LAW IN THIS COURT AND ALL THAT UNDERLIES THEM. 
THIS COURSE OF LEGISLATION AND ADJUDICATION MAY BE FAIRLY SUMMARIZED AS
RECOGNIZING THE SPECIAL RELATION OF INDIANS TOWARD THE UNITED STATES
AND THE EXCLUSION OF STATE POWER WITH RELATION TO THEM, EXCEPT IN SO
FAR AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ACTUALLY RELEASED TO THE STATE
GOVERNMENTS ITS CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY OVER THIS SPECIAL FIELD. 
THEREFORE, SO FAR AS THE POWER OF A STATE TO TAX INDIAN PROPERTY IS
CONCERNED, THE ORDINARY RULE OF TAX EXEMPTION IS REVERSED; A STATE MUST
MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING OF A GRANT BY CONGRESS OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF
THE IMMUNITY OF INDIAN PROPERTY FROM STATE TAXATION.  THIS IS SO
BECAUSE IT IS INDIAN PROPERTY AND BECAUSE INDIANS STAND IN A SPECIAL
RELATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM WHICH THE STATES ARE EXCLUDED
UNLESS THE CONGRESS HAS MANIFESTED A CLEAR PURPOSE TO TERMINATE SUCH AN
IMMUNITY AND ALLOW STATES TO TREAT INDIANS AS PART OF THE GENERAL
COMMUNITY. 

CONGRESS HAS MANIFESTED NO SUCH PURPOSE WITH REGARD TO THE ESTATES OF
THE DECEASED INDIANS BEFORE US.  ON THE CONTRARY, THOSE INDIANS WERE
SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL.  FN1  MOST OF THEIR ALLOTTED LANDS WERE
EXPRESSLY EXEMPT FROM TAXATION, AND, AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT
RECOGNIZES, THIS REMOVED THEM FROM THE OPERATION OF OKLAHOMA'S ESTATE
TAX.  FN2  BUT APART FROM THESE EXPRESS EXEMPTIONS, THE BULK OF THE
PROPERTIES IN THE THREE ESTATES WERE RESTRICTED AGAINST ALIENATION AND
ENCUMBRANCE BY VARIOUS ACTS OF CONGRESS.  FN3  HISTORY, AS WELL AS
STATEMENTS OF CONGRESS ITSELF, FN4  LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT PROPERTY SO
RESTRICTED IS BEYOND THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES, UNLESS AND UNTIL
CONGRESS GIVES ITS CONSENT.  IN OTHER WORDS RESTRICTION IS TANTAMOUNT
TO IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION.  THAT WAS THE BASIS OF DECISION IN
CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292; INDIAN TERRITORY OIL
CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 240 U.S. 522; JAYBIRD MINING CO. V. WEIR, 271 U.S.
609; HOWARD V. GIPSY OIL CO., 247 U.S. 503; LARGE OIL CO. V. HOWARD,
248 U.S. 549; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501.  IN ALL THOSE CASES
A NON-INDIAN LESSEE OF RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS WAS HELD IMMUNE FROM
STATE TAXATION OF VARIOUS KINDS BECAUSE, AND ONLY BECAUSE, THE LANDS
THEMSELVES AND THE LEASING OF THEM WERE HELD TO BE IMMUNE FROM
TAXATION, AND THIS IN TURN BECAUSE THEY WERE THE LANDS OF INDIANS HELD
IN GOVERNMENT TUTELAGE, WHO WERE PERMITTED TO LEASE THE LANDS ONLY WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  THIS IMMUNITY FOR
LESSEES WAS WITHDRAWN BY HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303
U.S. 376, WHICH OVERRULED GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA.  CF. THE
DISSENTING OPINIONS IN BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393. 
IN NEITHER THE CORONADO CASE NOR IN THE MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CASE WAS
THERE ANY CONTENTION THAT THE LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE LESSORS WAS
SUBJECT TO TAXATION.  THAT WAS RECOGNIZED AND ACCEPTED AS CORRECT.  THE
POINT WAS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE LAND WAS TAX IMMUNE IN THE HANDS OF THE
LESSOR, THE LESSOR'S IMMUNITY DID NOT EXTEND TO THE LESSEE WHO HAD NO
PERSONAL IMMUNITY AND WHO ACQUIRED THE LAND FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES AND
MADE A PROFIT FROM IT.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE WITHDRAWAL OF IMMUNITY FROM
A NON-INDIAN LESSEE OF RESTRICTED INDIAN LAND RESTS UPON THE REMOTENESS
OF THE EFFECT OF THAT TAXATION UPON SUCH INDIAN PROPERTY, CF. GRAVES V.
NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, NOT UPON A NOTION THAT CONGRESS
DID NOT INTEND BY IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS TO PROHIBIT STATE TAXATION OF
THE INTEREST OF INDIANS IN THEIR RESTRICTED PROPERTY, NOR UPON THE
SUPPOSITION THAT CONGRESS LACKS POWER TO DO SO. CONGRESS PLAINLY HAS
POWER TO IMPLEMENT ITS INDIAN POLICY BY FORBIDDING STATE TAXATION TO
BURDEN THE INTEREST OF AN INDIAN IN HIS PROPERTY.  CF. SHAW V. GIBSON
ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER, 318
U.S. 705.  IT EXERCISES THAT POWER SIMPLY BY IMPOSING THE
RESTRICTIONS. 

THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSIDERED THE RESTRICTION OF INDIAN PROPERTY
AGAINST ALIENATION AND ENCUMBRANCE AS CARRYING WITH IT IMMUNITY FROM
STATE TAXATION FOR THE PERIOD OF THE RESTRICTION IS CLEAR NOT ONLY FROM
STATEMENTS OF CONGRESS ITSELF TO THAT EFFECT,  FN5  BUT ALSO FROM THE
LONG HISTORY OF SUCH RESTRICTIONS AND THE PURPOSE SOUGHT TO BE
ACHIEVED, THE PROTECTION OF A DEPENDENT PEOPLE FROM THEIR OWN
IMPROVIDENCE AND THE EXPLOITATION OF OTHERS. 

CONGRESS EARLY ESTABLISHED THE COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER THE PURCHASE AND DISPOSITION OF INDIAN LANDS,
BOTH TRIBAL AND INDIVIDUAL.  FN6  THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THOSE AND
SUBSEQUENT RESTRICTIVE ACTS AND TREATIES EXTENDED TO TRESPASSES,
TRANSFERS, TAX SALES, TAX LIENS, AND OTHER ATTEMPTED INTERFERENCES BY
THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WITH FEDERAL CONTROL OVER INDIAN LANDS.  SEE
WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515; THE KANSAS INDIANS, 5 WALL.  737; THE
NEW YORK INDIANS, 5 WALL.  761. 

THE UNITED STATES WAS UNABLE, HOWEVER, TO PREVENT STATE INTERFERENCE
WITH THE CREEKS AND THE SEMINOLES IN THEIR DOMAINS EAST OF THE
MISSISSIPPI, AND ACCORDINGLY PROPOSED REMOVAL WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
GUARANTEEING THAT THERE NO STATE OR TERRITORY SHOULD "EVER HAVE A RIGHT
TO PASS LAWS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SUCH INDIANS, BUT THEY SHALL BE
ALLOWED TO GOVERN THEMSELVES, SO FAR AS MAY BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
GENERAL JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS MAY THINK PROPER TO EXERCISE OVER
THEM."  ARTICLE XIV, TREATY OF MARCH 24, 1832(7 STAT. 366).  LONG AFTER
THE REMOVAL THIS GUARANTEE WAS REAFFIRMED.  ARTICLE IV, TREATY OF
AUGUST 7, 1856(11 STAT. 699).  NOTHING IN THE SUBSEQUENT TREATIES AND
ALLOTMENT ACTS RELATING SPECIFICALLY TO THE CREEKS AND THE SEMINOLES
WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM FROM STATE CONTROL. 
FN7  AND CONGRESS WAS CAREFUL TO PROVIDE THAT NOTHING IN THE CREATION
OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA SHOULD QUALIFY THIS PROMISE.  THUS THE
OKLAHOMA ENABLING ACT (34 STAT. 267) PROVIDED THAT THE OKLAHOMA
CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT "LIMIT OR AFFECT THE AUTHORITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE ANY LAW OR REGULATION
RESPECTING SUCH INDIANS, THEIR LANDS, PROPERTY, OR OTHER RIGHTS BY
TREATIES, AGREEMENT, LAW, OR OTHERWISE, WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPETENT TO MAKE IF THIS ACT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED."  THE CONSTITUTION
ADOPTED BY THE PEOPLE OF OKLAHOMA RENOUNCED ANY CLAIMS TO INDIAN LANDS
(ART. 1, SEC. 3), AND EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION "SUCH PROPERTY AS MAY BE
EXEMPT BY REASON OF TREATY STIPULATIONS, EXISTING BETWEEN THE INDIANS
AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, OR BY FEDERAL LAWS, DURING THE FORCE
AND EFFECT OF SUCH TREATIES OR FEDERAL LAWS" (ART. X, SEC. 6).  SEE
TIGER V. WESTERN INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286, 309; EX PARTE WEBB, 225
U.S. 663, 682-83; WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17; CARPENTER V. SHAW,
280 U.S. 363, 366. 

AS WE RECENTLY SAID IN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER, SUPRA,
CONGRESS IN 1887 TURNED FROM A POLICY OF PROTECTING INDIAN TRIBES IN
THE POSSESSION OF THEIR DOMAINS TO A PROGRAM, NOW DISCONTINUED, OF
ASSIMILATING THE INDIANS THROUGH DISSOLUTION OF THEIR TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS AND THE COMPULSORY INDIVIDUALIZATION OF THEIR LANDS.  THIS
ALLOTMENT PROGRAM EVOLVED OUT OF THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND SKETCHED
ABOVE, AND TOOK ITS CUE FROM THE PREVIOUS PROTECTION AND FREEDOM FROM
STATE CONTROL ACCORDED INDIANS AND THEIR LANDS.  THE INDIAN SURRENDERED
TRIBAL LAND, PROTECTED AGAINST STATE TAXATION AS WELL AS AGAINST ALL
OTHER FORMS OF VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY ENCUMBRANCE AND ALIENATION. 
CF. THE KANSAS INDIANS, SUPRA; THE NEW YORK INDIANS, SUPRA.  UNDER THE
VARIOUS ALLOTMENT ACTS HE RECEIVED IN RETURN LAND WHICH WAS INTENDED TO
HAVE THE SAME MEASURE OF PROTECTION FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD, GENERALLY
SUBJECT TO EXTENSION.  THUS THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT OF 1887(24 STAT.
388) PROVIDED FOR THE ISSUANCE TO ALLOTTEES OF TRUST PATENTS WHICH WERE
TO DECLARE:  "THE UNITED STATES DOES  ... HOLD THE LAND THUS ALLOTTED,
FOR THE PERIOD OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, IN TRUST  ...  AND THAT AT THE
EXPIRATION OF SAID PERIOD THE UNITED STATES WILL CONVEY THE SAME BY
PATENT TO SAID INDIAN  ...  IN FEE, DISCHARGED OF SAID TRUST AND FREE
OF ALL CHARGE OR INCUMBRANCE WHATSOEVER."  FN8  LANDS SO HELD IN TRUST
ARE IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION.  UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S.
432. 

THE LANDS HERE INVOLVED WERE NOT ALLOTTED UNDER "TRUST PATENTS"; THEY
WERE GRANTS IN FEE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ALIENATION AND
ENCUMBRANCE.  FN9  BUT THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES OF SUBSTANCE BETWEEN
THE TWO FORMS OF TENURE WHICH SUGGEST THAT WHILE THE ONE IS EXEMPT FROM
STATE TAXATION, THE OTHER IS NOT, OR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO FAVOR
INDIANS HOLDING UNDER "TRUST PATENTS" OVER THOSE HOLDING RESTRICTED
FEES.  CF. THE KANSAS INDIANS, SUPRA, AT P. 755.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS
OVER "TRUST" AND "RESTRICTED" LANDS IS THE SAME, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
V. SEBER, SUPRA, AND IN PRACTICE THE TERMS HAVE BEEN USED
INTERCHANGEABLY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BOWLING, 256 U.S. 484; CF.
MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382.  BOTH DEVICES HAD A COMMON
PURPOSE, TO PROTECT A DEPENDENT PEOPLE AGAINST LOSS OF THEIR PROPERTY
THROUGH THEIR OWN IMPROVIDENCE OR THE GREED OF OTHERS DURING THE PERIOD
OF TRANSITION IN WHICH THEY BEGAN TO ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
CITIZENSHIP.  TO ACHIEVE THIS PURPOSE THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY
CONGRESS WAS NOT NIGGARDLY.  SEE TIGER V. WESTERN INVESTMENT CO., 221
U.S. 286; HECKMAN V. UNITED STATES, 224 U.S. 413; BRADER V. JAMES, 246
U.S. 88. 

STATE TAXATION OF "RESTRICTED" LANDS AS WELL AS TAXATION OF "TRUST"
LANDS, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION, IS A POSSIBLE
CAUSE OF THE LOSS WHICH CONGRESS HAS SAID SHALL NOT OCCUR.  THE
RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT LIMITED TO VOLUNTARY SALE - CONSISTENTLY WITH
THEIR PURPOSE THEY EXTEND TO ALL FORMS OF TRANSFER OR ENCUMBRANCE,
INVOLUNTARY AS WELL AS VOLUNTARY.  CF. GOUDY V. MEATH, 203 U.S. 146. 
THE INTERFERENCE OF STATE TAXATION WITH CONGRESS' PROGRAM OF PROTECTION
IS MADE CLEAR BY THE FACT THAT THE INSTANT OKLAHOMA INHERITANCE TAX
ACTS IMPOSE LIENS UPON THE PROPERTY UNTIL THE TAXES ARE PAID.  FN10
THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF A TAX LIEN UPON INDIAN PROPERTY ARE
POINTED OUT IN THE NEW YORK INDIANS, SUPRA, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE
MERE EXISTENCE OF A LIEN IN A STATE TAXING ACT INVALIDATES IT, DESPITE
A PROVISION TO THE EFFECT THAT NO FORECLOSURE OF A LIEN SHOULD AFFECT
THE INDIAN'S RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY.  AND, EVEN WHEN PERMITTING SPECIFIED
FORMS OF STATE TAXATION OF RESTRICTED INDIAN PROPERTY, CONGRESS HAS
SIGNIFICANTLY PROVIDED IN NUMEROUS STATUTES THAT NO TAX LIEN SHOULD
ATTACH.  FN11  I CONCLUDE THAT WHEN CONGRESS IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS UPON
INDIAN PROPERTY, IT MEANT, AND WAS SAYING IN EFFECT, THAT THE PROPERTY
WAS EXEMPT FROM STATE TAXATION WHILE THE RESTRICTIONS CONTINUE OR UNTIL
CONGRESS WAIVES THE IMMUNITY.  INDEED, CONGRESS HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT
THIS WAS ITS INTENTION BY DECLARING IN THE ACT OF APRIL 17, 1937, 50
STAT. 68, WHICH PERMITTED A GROSS PRODUCTION TAX TO BE IMPOSED BY
OKLAHOMA ON LEAD AND ZINC PRODUCED FROM RESTRICTED QUAPAW LANDS:  "IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFORM POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO
HOLD THE LANDS OF THE QUAPAW INDIANS WHILE RESTRICTED AND THE INCOME
THEREFROM FREE FROM STATE TAXATION OF WHATSOEVER NATURE, EXCEPT AS SAID
IMMUNITY IS EXPRESSLY WAIVED, AND, IN PURSUANCE OF SAID FIXED POLICY,
IT IS HEREIN EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THE WAIVER OF TAX IMMUNITY HEREIN
PROVIDED SHALL BE IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER STATE TAXES OF WHATSOEVER NATURE
ON SAID RESTRICTED LANDS OR THE INCOME THEREFROM,  ...  "  FN12 

WHEN CONGRESS HAS INTENDED THAT RESTRICTED PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAXED,
IT HAS EXPLICITLY SAID SO. FN13  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ASSENT
RESTRICTED PROPERTY REMAINS BEYOND THE REACH OF A STATE'S TAXING
POWER.  NON-ALIENABILITY AND TAX EXEMPTION HAVE BEEN SAID TO BE
DISTINCT THINGS SO FAR AS VESTED RIGHTS ARE CONCERNED, SEE CHOATE V.
TRAPP, 224 U.S. 665, 673, BUT THIS OF COURSE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
CONCEPTS OF RESTRICTION AND IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION ARE
UNRELATED.  NOR DOES THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT SOME OF THE APPLICABLE
STATUTES EXPRESSLY PROVIDE SPECIFIC TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR RESTRICTED LANDS
INDICATE THAT RESTRICTION IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO IMMUNITY FROM STATE
TAXATION.  FN14  AT THE TIME THE ALLOTMENTS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES WERE MADE THERE WAS NO STATE OF OKLAHOMA.  IT HAD BEEN
HELD THAT CONGRESS HAD POWER TO LAY TAXES UPON INDIAN PROPERTY WITHIN
INDIAN TERRITORY, CHEROKEE TOBACCO, 11 WALL.  616, AND ITS CREATURE,
THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT, WAS AGITATING FOR THE TAXATION OF INDIAN
PROPERTY.  FN15  RESTRICTIONS, DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INDIANS FROM
THEMSELVES AND THE ACTIONS OF THIRD PARTIES, INCLUDING STATE
GOVERNMENTS, DID NOT BAR TAXATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS
THE GUARDIAN OF THEIR INTERESTS.  FN16 ACCORDINGLY, SPECIFIC TAX
EXEMPTIONS WERE WRITTEN INTO THE ALLOTMENT ACTS.  FN17  EXPRESS
PROVISIONS AS TO THE TAXABLE STATUS OF RESTRICTED PROPERTY IN THE LATER
LEGISLATION APPEAR ONLY WHERE THE IMMUNITY IS BEING LIMITED AND
EXPRESSLY WAIVED IN PART OR THE RESTRICTIONS ARE BEING CHANGED.  FN18 

ALL OF THE LANDS WHICH THE OPINION OF THE COURT HOLDS IMMUNE FROM
OKLAHOMA'S ESTATE TAX BECAUSE OF EXPRESS EXEMPTIONS WERE THEREFORE ALSO
EXEMPT AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT THEY WERE
THEN SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY CONGRESS AND THE CONCOMITANT
TAX IMMUNITY HAD NOT BEEN WAIVED.  THE OTHER RESTRICTED LANDS IN THE
ESTATES ARE LANDS TO WHOSE TAXATION CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY
CONSENTED, OR ELSE WERE OF THE TYPE TO BE TAXABLE AT THE TIME OF DEATH
UNDER THE DECISION IN SHAW V. GIBSON-ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575. 

THE ORIGIN OF RESTRICTIONS UPON THE FUND OF MEMBERS OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THAT UPON THE LANDS, BUT
THE EFFECT OF THE RESTRICTIONS UPON THE TAXABILITY OF THE CASH AND
SECURITIES IN THE THREE ESTATES WITH WHICH WE ARE DEALING IS THE SAME. 
PROCEEDS FROM SALES OR LEASES OF RESTRICTED LANDS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN
REGARDED AS "TRUST" OR "RESTRICTED" FUNDS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, WHO BY REGULATIONS HAS REQUIRED THEM TO BE PAID TO HIM OR HIS
REPRESENTATIVES AND HELD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN OWNER.  FN19
THE VALIDITY OF THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND THE POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE THEM HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED.  PARKER V. RICHARD,
250 U.S. 235; MOTT V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 747.  AND IT HAS BEEN
HELD THAT FUNDS SO RESTRICTED BY DEPARTMENTAL REGULATION ARE EXEMPT
FROM STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION.  SEE UNITED STATES V. THURSTON COUNTY,
143 F. 287; UNITED STATES V. HUGHES, 6 F.SUPP.  972.  BUT WE DO NOT
HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTION ALONE IS
SUFFICIENT TO CONFER TAX EXEMPTION UPON THE CASH AND SECURITIES IN THE
THREE ESTATES.  FN20 

THE ACT OF JANUARY 27, 1933(47 STAT. 777), IMPOSES CONGRESSIONAL
RESTRICTIONS BY PROVIDING: 

"THAT ALL FUNDS  ...  NOW HELD BY OR WHICH MAY HEREAFTER COME UNDER
THE SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, BELONGING TO AND ONLY
SO LONG AS BELONGING TO INDIANS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN
OKLAHOMA OF ONE-HALF OR MORE INDIAN BLOOD, ENROLLED OR UNENROLLED, ARE
HEREBY ...  RESTRICTED AND SHALL REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
SAID SECRETARY UNTIL APRIL 26, 1956,  ...  " 

THIS ACT DOES NOT STAND ALONE.  IT IS PART OF CONGRESS' LONG
CONTINUED PROGRAM OF PROTECTION AND IT CARRIES WITH IT THE GLOSS OF THE
HISTORY OF THE RESTRICTIONS OUTLINED ABOVE.  CONGRESS WAS NOT IMPOSING
RESTRICTIONS FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THEM TO HAVE LESS THAN THEIR TRADITIONAL HISTORICAL
MEANING OF TAX EXEMPTION IN THIS ACT.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT IS SILENT WITH REGARD TO THE TAX STATUS
OF INDIAN FUNDS.  WE ARE DEALING NOT WITH A WORD, NOR WITH AN ACT, BUT
WITH A COURSE OF HISTORY.  THAT COURSE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE
RESTRICTED FUNDS IN THESE ESTATES WERE BEYOND THE TAXING POWER OF
OKLAHOMA.  FN21 

IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO SPECULATE WHETHER IT IS WISE AT THIS LATE
DAY TO RELIEVE FROM THE ORDINARY BURDEN OF TAXATION INDIANS WHO ENJOY
THE PRIVILEGES OF CITIZENSHIP AND WHO IN SOME INSTANCES ARE PERSONS OF
SUBSTANTIAL MEANS.  NOR IS IT OUR LEGITIMATE CONCERN THAT GRANTS OF TAX
EXEMPTION TO INDIAN INHABITANTS MAY CREATE SERIOUS FISCAL PROBLEMS IN
SOME STATES OR IN THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISIONS.  THOSE
MATTERS, AS WELL AS THE CHARACTER, EXTENT AND DURATION OF TAX
EXEMPTIONS FOR THE INDIANS, ARE QUESTIONS OF POLICY FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.  BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V.
SEBER, SUPRA.  OUR INQUIRY IS NOT WITH WHAT CONGRESS MIGHT OR SHOULD
HAVE DONE, BUT WITH WHAT IT HAS DONE.  THAT INQUIRY CAN BE ANSWERED
HERE ONLY BY HOLDING THAT THE RESTRICTED FUNDS IN THESE ESTATES, AS
WELL AS THE LANDS WHICH THE COURT HOLDS IMMUNE, WERE NOT SUBJECT TO
OKLAHOMA'S ESTATE TAX. 

FN1  THE DECEASED INDIANS IN THESE THREE CASES WERE ENROLLED FULL
BLOOD INDIANS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES.  TWO WERE SEMINOLES AND ONE
WAS A CREEK.  CONGRESS HAS NOT TERMINATED THE GUARDIANSHIP RELATION
WITH RESPECT TO THESE TRIBES.  THEY STILL EXIST (SEC. 28 OF ACT OF
APRIL 26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137), AND HAVE RECENTLY BEEN AUTHORIZED TO
RESUME SOME OF THEIR FORMER POWERS (ACT OF JUNE 26, 1936, 49 STAT.
1967).  CONGRESS HAS REGARDED THEIR MEMBERS OF THE HALF INDIAN BLOOD OR
MORE, WHETHER ENROLLED OR NOT, AS RESTRICTED TRIBAL INDIANS SUBJECT TO
FEDERAL CONTROL.  THE FACT THAT THESE INDIANS ARE CITIZENS IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR RESTRICTED STATUS OR THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL
SUPERVISION OVER THEM.  SEE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER, SUPRA;
GLENN V. LEWIS, 105 F.2D 398. 

FN2  SEE ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, 30 STAT. 567; ACT OF MARCH 1, 1901, 31
STAT. 861; ACT OF JUNE 30, 1902, 32 STAT. 500; SEC. 19 OF ACT OF APRIL
26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137; SEC. 4 OF ACT OF MAY 10, 1928, 45 STAT. 495 AND
733. 

THE FACT THAT THE EXEMPTIONS DO NOT MENTION INHERITANCE OR ESTATE
TAXES IS UNIMPORTANT.  AS POINTED OUT BEFORE, CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL
RULE INDIAN TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED.  SEE
CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363, 366-67.  FOR THAT REASON DECISIONS,
SUCH AS U.S. TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 307 U.S. 57, THAT STATUTORY
EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION DO NOT INCLUDE AN EXEMPTION FROM ESTATE TAXES,
HAVE NO APPLICATION HERE. 

FN3  IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTES CITED IN NOTE 2, SUPRA, SEE ALSO ACT
OF MAY 27, 1908, 35 STAT. 312; AND ACT OF JANUARY 27, 1933, 47 STAT.
777. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 12, INFRA. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 12, INFRA. 

FN6  INDIAN TRADE AND INTERCOURSE ACTS OF JULY 22, 1790, 1 STAT. 137;
MARCH 1, 1793, 1 STAT. 329; MARCH 3, 1799, SEC. 12, 1 STAT. 743, 25
U.S.C. SEC. 177. 

FN7  SEE TREATY OF MARCH 21, 1866, 14 STAT. 755; TREATY OF JUNE 14,
1866, 14 STAT. 785; CURTIS ACT OF 1898, 30 STAT. 495; ACT OF JULY 1,
1898, 30 STAT. 567; ACT OF MARCH 1, 1901, 31 STAT. 861; ACT OF JUNE 30,
1902, 32 STAT. 500. 

FN8  THE PRESIDENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXTEND THE TRUST PERIOD IN HIS
DISCRETION. 

FN9  SEE ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, 30 STAT. 567; ACT OF JUNE 2, 1900, 31
STAT. 250; ACT OF MARCH 1, 1901, 31 STAT. 861; ACT OF JUNE 30, 1902, 32
STAT. 500; SEC. 19 OF ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137; SEC. 1 OF
ACT OF MAY 27, 1908, 35 STAT. 312; ACT OF MAY 10, 1928, 45 STAT. 495. 

FN10  OKLA. S.L. 1915, C. 162, SEC. 8, AS AMENDED BY C. 296, SEC. 5,
OKLA. S.L. 1919; OKLA. S.L. 1935, C. 66, ART. 5, SEC. 9. 

FN11  SEE ACT OF MAY 6, 1910, 36 STAT. 348; ACT OF MARCH 3, 1921, 41
STAT. 1225, 1249; ACT OF MAY 27, 1924, 43 STAT. 176; ACT OF MAY 29,
1924, 43 STAT. 244; ACT OF APRIL 17, 1937, 50 STAT. 68. 

FN12  THERE ARE VARIOUS OTHER EXPRESSIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL
UNDERSTANDING ON THIS POINT.  FOR EXAMPLE, H. REP. NO. 2415, 71ST
CONG., 3D SESS., P. 1, ADVOCATING PASSAGE OF WHAT IS NOW THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 14, 1931, 46 STAT. 1108, DECLARES:  "UNDER EXISTING LAW THE
RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LANDS OF INDIANS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES ARE
TAX EXEMPT WHILE RESTRICTED."  SEE ALSO S. REP. NO. 982, 70TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 3, 4, 5; S. REP. NO. 330, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4. 

THE ACT OF MAY 27, 1908, 35 STAT. 312, BY SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING IN
SEC. 4 THAT LANDS FROM WHICH "RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN OR SHALL BE
REMOVED SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION," STRONGLY INDICATES A
CONGRESSIONAL UNDERSTANDING THAT RESTRICTION AMOUNTED TO TAX
EXEMPTION. 

FN13  FOR EXAMPLE, AMONG THE STATUTES APPLICABLE TO THE CREEKS AND
SEMINOLES, SEE SECS. 3 AND 4 OF THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1928, 45 STAT. 495
AND 733.  SEE GENERALLY THE STATUTES COLLECTED IN NOTE 11, SUPRA. 

FN14  ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, 30 STAT. 567; ACT OF MARCH 1, 1901, 31
STAT. 861; ACT OF JUNE 30, 1902, 32 STAT. 500; SEC. 19 OF ACT OF APRIL
26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137; SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1928, 45 STAT. 495
AND 733. 

FN15  SEE SEN. DOC. 169, 58TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN16  IT IS FOR THIS HISTORICAL REASON THAT CASES SUCH AS
SUPERINTENDENT V. COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S. 418, AND LANDMAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 123 F.2D 787, HAVE NO BEARING UPON A CONSIDERATION OF THE
EFFECT OF RESTRICTIONS UPON THE POWER OF A STATE TO TAX. 

FN17  SEE ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, 30 STAT. 567; ACT OF MARCH 1, 1901, 31
STAT. 861; ACT OF JUNE 30, 1902, 32 STAT. 500. 

FN18  ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137; ACT OF MAY 10, 1928, 45
STAT. 495. 

FN19  SINCE 1908 THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY UNDER
SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1908, 35 STAT. 312 AND RELATED STATUTES GOVERNING
OIL, GAS AND OTHER MINING LEASES OF RESTRICTED LANDS, HAVE RECOGNIZED
THAT PROCEEDS FROM SUCH LEASES ARE RESTRICTED AND HAVE REQUIRED THAT
ALL SUCH MONEY BE PAID TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY.  SEE 25
C.F.R. SECS. 183.18, 183.20; SEE ALSO SEC. 20 OF THE REGULATIONS
APPROVED APRIL 20, 1908. 

FN20  IN SHAW V. GIBSON-ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575, THE
INTEREST OF AN OIL LESSEE IN LAND PURCHASED FOR AN INDIAN BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WITH THE INDIAN'S RESTRICTED FUNDS AND
CONVEYED TO THE INDIAN BY A RESTRICTED FORM OF DEED PURSUANT TO
CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE SECRETARY, WAS HELD SUBJECT TO AN OKLAHOMA
OIL PRODUCTION TAX.  THE OPINION EMPHASIZED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "A
MERE CONVEYANCER'S RESTRICTION" AND ACTION BY CONGRESS. 

FN21  TWO OF THE DECEDENTS DIED BEFORE THE ACT WAS PASSED.  THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE REPORT, HOWEVER, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE RESTRICTION ON FUNDS
WAS INTENDED TO BE DECLARATORY AND RETROACTIVE.  H. REP. NO. 1015, 72D
CONG., 1ST SESS.  IN VIEW OF THIS THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE RESTRICTED
FUNDS IN THE ESTATES OF THOSE DECEDENTS, HELD BY THE SECRETARY, SHOULD
NOT BE DEEMED COVERED BY THAT ACT, AND HENCE TAX EXEMPT BY VIRTUE OF
THE RESTRICTIONS. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




















BOARD OF EDUCATION V. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 


NO. 591.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1943.  - 47
F.SUPP.  251, AFFIRMED. 


1.  STATE ACTION AGAINST WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS
INCLUDES ACTION BY A STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.  P. 637. 

2.  THE ACTION OF A STATE IN MAKING IT COMPULSORY FOR CHILDREN IN THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO SALUTE THE FLAG AND PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE - BY EXTENDING
THE RIGHT ARM, PALM UPWARD, AND DECLARING, "I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE
FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT
STANDS; ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" -
VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  P. 642. 

SO HELD AS APPLIED TO CHILDREN WHO WERE EXPELLED FOR REFUSAL TO
COMPLY, AND WHOSE ABSENCE THEREBY BECAME "UNLAWFUL," SUBJECTING THEM
AND THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS TO PUNISHMENT. 

3.  THAT THOSE WHO REFUSED COMPLIANCE DID SO ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS
DOES NOT CONTROL THE DECISION OF THIS QUESTION; AND IT IS UNNECESSARY
TO INQUIRE INTO THE SINCERITY OF THEIR VIEWS.  P. 634. 

4.  UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, COMPULSION AS HERE EMPLOYED IS
NOT A PERMISSIBLE MEANS OF ACHIEVING "NATIONAL UNITY."  P. 640. 

5.  MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DIST. V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586, OVERRULED;
HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 642, 632. 

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. V. BARNETTE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINING
THE ENFORCEMENT OF A REGULATION OF THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION REQUIRING CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TO SALUTE THE
AMERICAN FLAG. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FOLLOWING THE DECISION BY THIS COURT ON JUNE 3, 1940, IN MINERSVILLE
SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586, THE WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE
AMENDED ITS STATUTES TO REQUIRE ALL SCHOOLS THEREIN TO CONDUCT COURSES
OF INSTRUCTION IN HISTORY, CIVICS, AND IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE "FOR THE PURPOSE OF TEACHING, FOSTERING
AND PERPETUATING THE IDEALS, PRINCIPLES AND SPIRIT OF AMERICANISM, AND
INCREASING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND MACHINERY OF THE
GOVERNMENT."  APPELLANT BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS DIRECTED, WITH ADVICE OF
THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, TO "PRESCRIBE THE COURSES OF STUDY
COVERING THESE SUBJECTS" FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  THE ACT MADE IT THE DUTY
OF PRIVATE, PAROCHIAL AND DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS TO PRESCRIBE COURSES
OF STUDY "SIMILAR TO THOSE REQUIRED FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS."  FN1 

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION ON JANUARY 9, 1942, ADOPTED A RESOLUTION
CONTAINING RECITALS TAKEN LARGELY FROM THE COURT'S GOBITIS OPINION AND
ORDERING THAT THE SALUTE TO THE FLAG BECOME "A REGULAR PART OF THE
PROGRAM OF ACTIVITIES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS," THAT ALL TEACHERS AND
PUPILS "SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SALUTE HONORING THE
NATION REPRESENTED BY THE FLAG; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT REFUSAL TO
SALUTE THE FLAG BE REGARDED AS AN ACT OF INSUBORDINATION, AND SHALL BE
DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY."  FN2 

THE RESOLUTION ORIGINALLY REQUIRED THE "COMMONLY ACCEPTED SALUTE TO
THE FLAG" WHICH IT DEFINED.  OBJECTIONS TO THE SALUTE AS "BEING TOO
MUCH LIKE HITLER'S" WERE RAISED BY THE PARENT AND TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
THE BOY AND GIRL SCOUTS, THE RED CROSS, AND THE FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S
CLUBS.  FN3 SOME MODIFICATION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN DEFERENCE TO
THESE OBJECTIONS, BUT NO CONCESSION WAS MADE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. 
FN4  WHAT IS NOW REQUIRED IS THE "STIFF-ARM" SALUTE, THE SALUTER TO
KEEP THE RIGHT HAND RAISED WITH PALM TURNED UP WHILE THE FOLLOWING IS
REPEATED:  "I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS; ONE NATION,
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." 

FAILURE TO CONFORM IS "INSUBORDINATION" DEALT WITH BY EXPULSION. 
READMISSION IS DENIED BY STATUTE UNTIL COMPLIANCE.  MEANWHILE THE
EXPELLED CHILD IS "UNLAWFULLY ABSENT" N5 AND MAY BE PROCEEDED AGAINST
AS A DELINQUENT.  FN6  HIS PARENTS OR GUARDIANS ARE LIABLE TO
PROSECUTION,  FN7 AND IF CONVICTED ARE SUBJECT TO FINE NOT EXCEEDING
$50 AND JAIL TERM NOT EXCEEDING THIRTY DAYS.  FN8 

APPELLEES, CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF WEST VIRGINIA,
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEMSELVES AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED ASKING ITS INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT
OF THESE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AGAINST JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  THE
WITNESSES ARE AN UNINCORPORATED BODY TEACHING THAT THE OBLIGATION
IMPOSED BY LAW OF GOD IS SUPERIOR TO THAT OF LAWS ENACTED BY TEMPORAL
GOVERNMENT.  THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INCLUDE A LITERAL VERSION OF
EXODUS, CHAPTER 20, VERSES 4 AND 5, WHICH SAYS:  "THOU SHALT NOT MAKE
UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS OF ANYTHING THAT IS IN
HEAVEN ABOVE, OR THAT IS IN THE EARTH BENEATH, OR THAT IS IN THE WATER
UNDER THE EARTH; THOU SHALT NOT BOW DOWN THYSELF TO THEM NOR SERVE
THEM."  THEY CONSIDER THAT THE FLAG IS AN "IMAGE" WITHIN THIS COMMAND. 
FOR THIS REASON THEY REFUSE TO SALUTE IT. 

CHILDREN OF THIS FAITH HAVE BEEN EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL AND ARE
THREATENED WITH EXCLUSION FOR NO OTHER CAUSE.  OFFICIALS THREATEN TO
SEND THEM TO REFORMATORIES MAINTAINED FOR CRIMINALLY INCLINED
JUVENILES.  PARENTS OF SUCH CHILDREN HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND ARE
THREATENED WITH PROSECUTIONS FOR CAUSING DELINQUENCY. 

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SETTING FORTH
THESE FACTS AND ALLEGING THAT THE LAW AND REGULATIONS ARE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, AND OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
AND ARE INVALID UNDER THE "DUE PROCESS" AND "EQUAL PROTECTION" CLAUSES
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE CAUSE WAS
SUBMITTED ON THE PLEADINGS TO A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES.  IT
RESTRAINED ENFORCEMENT AS TO THE PLAINTIFFS AND THOSE OF THAT CLASS. 
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL.  FN9 

THIS CASE CALLS UPON US TO RECONSIDER A PRECEDENT DECISION, AS THE
COURT THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY OFTEN HAS BEEN REQUIRED TO DO.  FN10
BEFORE TURNING TO THE GOBITIS CASE, HOWEVER, IT IS DESIRABLE TO NOTICE
CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS BY WHICH THIS CONTROVERSY IS DISTINGUISHED. 

THE FREEDOM ASSERTED BY THESE APPELLEES DOES NOT BRING THEM INTO
COLLISION WITH RIGHTS ASSERTED BY ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL.  IT IS SUCH
CONFLICTS WHICH MOST FREQUENTLY REQUIRE INTERVENTION OF THE STATE TO
DETERMINE WHERE THE RIGHTS OF ONE END AND THOSE OF ANOTHER BEGIN.  BUT
THE REFUSAL OF THESE PERSONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CEREMONY DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH OR DENY RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO SO.  NOR IS THERE ANY
QUESTION IN THIS CASE THAT THEIR BEHAVIOR IS PEACEABLE AND ORDERLY. 
THE SOLE CONFLICT IS BETWEEN AUTHORITY AND RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 
THE STATE ASSERTS POWER TO CONDITION ACCESS TO PUBLIC EDUCATION ON
MAKING A PRESCRIBED SIGN AND PROFESSION AND AT THE SAME TIME TO COERCE
ATTENDANCE BY PUNISHING BOTH PARENT AND CHILD.  THE LATTER STAND ON A
RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION IN MATTERS THAT TOUCH INDIVIDUAL OPINION
AND PERSONAL ATTITUDE. 

AS THE PRESENT CHIEF JUSTICE SAID IN DISSENT IN THE GOBITIS CASE, THE
STATE MAY "REQUIRE TEACHING BY INSTRUCTION AND STUDY OF ALL IN OUR
HISTORY AND IN THE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT,
INCLUDING THE GUARANTIES OF CIVIL LIBERTY, WHICH TEND TO INSPIRE
PATRIOTISM AND LOVE OF COUNTRY."  310 U.S. AT 604.  HERE, HOWEVER, WE
ARE DEALING WITH A COMPULSION OF STUDENTS TO DECLARE A BELIEF.  THEY
ARE NOT MERELY MADE ACQUAINTED WITH THE FLAG SALUTE SO THAT THEY MAY BE
INFORMED AS TO WHAT IT IS OR EVEN WHAT IT MEANS.  THE ISSUE HERE IS
WHETHER THIS SLOW AND EASILY NEGLECTED  FN11  ROUTE TO AROUSED
LOYALTIES CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY BE SHORT-CUT BY SUBSTITUTING A
COMPULSORY SALUTE AND SLOGAN.  FN12  THIS ISSUE IS NOT PREJUDICED BY
THE COURT'S PREVIOUS HOLDING THAT WHERE A STATE, WITHOUT COMPELLING
ATTENDANCE, EXTENDS COLLEGE FACILITIES TO PUPILS WHO VOLUNTARILY
ENROLL, IT MAY PRESCRIBE MILITARY TRAINING AS PART OF THE COURSE
WITHOUT OFFENSE TO THE CONSTITUTION.  IT WAS HELD THAT THOSE WHO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF ITS OPPORTUNITIES MAY NOT ON GROUND OF CONSCIENCE REFUSE
COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH CONDITIONS.  HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245. 
IN THE PRESENT CASE ATTENDANCE IS NOT OPTIONAL.  THAT CASE IS ALSO TO
BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PRESENT ONE BECAUSE, INDEPENDENTLY OF COLLEGE
PRIVILEGES OR REQUIREMENTS, THE STATE HAS POWER TO RAISE MILITIA AND
IMPOSE THE DUTIES OF SERVICE THEREIN UPON ITS CITIZENS. 

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLEDGES, THE FLAG
SALUTE IS A FORM OF UTTERANCE.  SYMBOLISM IS A PRIMITIVE BUT EFFECTIVE
WAY OF COMMUNICATING IDEAS.  THE USE OF AN EMBLEM OR FLAG TO SYMBOLIZE
SOME SYSTEM, IDEA, INSTITUTION, OR PERSONALITY, IS A SHORT CUT FROM
MIND TO MIND.  CAUSES AND NATIONS, POLITICAL PARTIES, LODGES AND
ECCLESIASTICAL GROUPS SEEK TO KNIT THE LOYALTY OF THEIR FOLLOWINGS TO A
FLAG OR BANNER, A COLOR OR DESIGN.  THE STATE ANNOUNCES RANK, FUNCTION,
AND AUTHORITY THROUGH CROWNS AND MACES, UNIFORMS AND BLACK ROBES; THE
CHURCH SPEAKS THROUGH THE CROSS, THE CRUCIFIX, THE ALTAR AND SHRINE,
AND CLERICAL RAIMENT.  SYMBOLS OF STATE OFTEN CONVEY POLITICAL IDEAS
JUST AS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS COME TO CONVEY THEOLOGICAL ONES.  ASSOCIATED
WITH MANY OF THESE SYMBOLS ARE APPROPRIATE GESTURES OF ACCEPTANCE OR
RESPECT:  A SALUTE, A BOWED OR BARED HEAD, A BENDED KNEE.  A PERSON
GETS FROM A SYMBOL THE MEANING HE PUTS INTO IT, AND WHAT IS ONE MAN'S
COMFORT AND INSPIRATION IS ANOTHER'S JEST AND SCORN. 

OVER A DECADE AGO CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES LED THIS COURT IN HOLDING THAT
THE DISPLAY OF A RED FLAG AS A SYMBOL OF OPPOSITION BY PEACEFUL AND
LEGAL MEANS TO ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT WAS PROTECTED BY THE FREE SPEECH
GUARANTIES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S.
359.  HERE IT IS THE STATE THAT EMPLOYS A FLAG AS A SYMBOL OF ADHERENCE
TO GOVERNMENT AS PRESENTLY ORGANIZED.  IT REQUIRES THE INDIVIDUAL TO
COMMUNICATE BY WORD AND SIGN HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE POLITICAL IDEAS IT
THUS BESPEAKS.  OBJECTION TO THIS FORM OF COMMUNICATION WHEN COERCED IS
AN OLD ONE, WELL KNOWN TO THE FRAMERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  FN13 

IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE COMPULSORY FLAG SALUTE AND PLEDGE
REQUIRES AFFIRMATION OF A BELIEF AND AN ATTITUDE OF MIND.  IT IS NOT
CLEAR WHETHER THE REGULATION CONTEMPLATES THAT PUPILS FOREGO ANY
CONTRARY CONVICTIONS OF THEIR OWN AND BECOME UNWILLING CONVERTS TO THE
PRESCRIBED CEREMONY OR WHETHER IT WILL BE ACCEPTABLE IF THEY SIMULATE
ASSENT BY WORDS WITHOUT BELIEF AND BY A GESTURE BARREN OF MEANING.  IT
IS NOW A COMMONPLACE THAT CENSORSHIP OR SUPPRESSION OF EXPRESSION OF
OPINION IS TOLERATED BY OUR CONSTITUTION ONLY WHEN THE EXPRESSION
PRESENTS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF ACTION OF A KIND THE STATE IS
EMPOWERED TO PREVENT AND PUNISH.  IT WOULD SEEM THAT INVOLUNTARY
AFFIRMATION COULD BE COMMANDED ONLY ON EVEN MORE IMMEDIATE AND URGENT
GROUNDS THAN SILENCE.  BUT HERE THE POWER OF COMPULSION IS INVOKED
WITHOUT ANY ALLEGATION THAT REMAINING PASSIVE DURING A FLAG SALUTE
RITUAL CREATES A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT WOULD JUSTIFY AN EFFORT
EVEN TO MUFFLE EXPRESSION.  TO SUSTAIN THE COMPULSORY FLAG SALUTE WE
ARE REQUIRED TO SAY THAT A BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH GUARDS THE INDIVIDUAL'S
RIGHT TO SPEAK HIS OWN MIND, LEFT IT OPEN TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO
COMPEL HIM TO UTTER WHAT IS NOT IN HIS MIND. 

WHETHER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION WILL PERMIT OFFICIALS
TO ORDER OBSERVANCE OF RITUAL OF THIS NATURE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON
WHETHER AS A VOLUNTARY EXERCISE WE WOULD THINK IT TO BE GOOD, BAD OR
MERELY INNOCUOUS.  ANY CREDO OF NATIONALISM IS LIKELY TO INCLUDE WHAT
SOME DISAPPROVE OR TO OMIT WHAT OTHERS THINK ESSENTIAL, AND TO GIVE OFF
DIFFERENT OVERTONES AS IT TAKES ON DIFFERENT ACCENTS OR
INTERPRETATIONS.  FN14  IF OFFICIAL POWER EXISTS TO COERCE ACCEPTANCE
OF ANY PATRIOTIC CREED, WHAT IT SHALL CONTAIN CANNOT BE DECIDED BY
COURTS, BUT MUST BE LARGELY DISCRETIONARY WITH THE ORDAINING AUTHORITY,
WHOSE POWER TO PRESCRIBE WOULD NO DOUBT INCLUDE POWER TO AMEND. HENCE
VALIDITY OF THE ASSERTED POWER TO FORCE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN PUBLICLY TO
PROFESS ANY STATEMENT OF BELIEF OR TO ENGAGE IN ANY CEREMONY OF ASSENT
TO ONE, PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF POWER THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED
INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY IDEA WE MAY HAVE AS TO THE UTILITY OF THE CEREMONY
IN QUESTION. 

NOR DOES THE ISSUE AS WE SEE IT TURN ON ONE'S POSSESSION OF
PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS VIEWS OR THE SINCERITY WITH WHICH THEY ARE HELD. 
WHILE RELIGION SUPPLIES APPELLEES' MOTIVE FOR ENDURING THE DISCOMFORTS
OF MAKING THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE, MANY CITIZENS WHO DO NOT SHARE THESE
RELIGIOUS VIEWS HOLD SUCH A COMPULSORY RITE TO INFRINGE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  FN15  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO INQUIRE
WHETHER NON-CONFORMIST BELIEFS WILL EXEMPT FROM THE DUTY TO SALUTE
UNLESS WE FIRST FIND POWER TO MAKE THE SALUTE A LEGAL DUTY. 

THE GOBITIS DECISION, HOWEVER, ASSUMED, AS DID THE ARGUMENT IN THAT
CASE AND IN THIS, THAT POWER EXISTS IN THE STATE TO IMPOSE THE FLAG
SALUTE DISCIPLINE UPON SCHOOL CHILDREN IN GENERAL.  THE COURT ONLY
EXAMINED AND REJECTED A CLAIM BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF IMMUNITY
FROM AN UNQUESTIONED GENERAL RULE.  FN16  THE QUESTION WHICH UNDERLIES
THE FLAG SALUTE CONTROVERSY IS WHETHER SUCH A CEREMONY SO TOUCHING
MATTERS OF OPINION AND POLITICAL ATTITUDE MAY BE IMPOSED UPON THE
INDIVIDUAL BY OFFICIAL AUTHORITY UNDER POWERS COMMITTED TO ANY
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION.  WE EXAMINE RATHER THAN
ASSUME EXISTENCE OF THIS POWER AND, AGAINST THIS BROADER DEFINITION OF
ISSUES IN THIS CASE, REEXAMINE SPECIFIC GROUNDS ASSIGNED FOR THE
GOBITIS DECISION. 

1.  IT WAS SAID THAT THE FLAG-SALUTE CONTROVERSY CONFRONTED THE COURT
WITH "THE PROBLEM WHICH LINCOLN CAST IN MEMORABLE DILEMMA:  'MUST A
GOVERNMENT OF NECESSITY BE TOO STRONG FOR THE LIBERTIES OF ITS PEOPLE,
OR TOO WEAK TO MAINTAIN ITS OWN EXISTENCE?'"  AND THAT THE ANSWER MUST
BE IN FAVOR OF STRENGTH.  MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS,
SUPRA, AT 596. 

WE THINK THESE ISSUES MAY BE EXAMINED FREE OF PRESSURE OR RESTRAINT
GROWING OUT OF SUCH CONSIDERATIONS. 

IT MAY BE DOUBTED WHETHER MR. LINCOLN WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE
STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT TO MAINTAIN ITSELF WOULD BE IMPRESSIVELY
VINDICATED BY OUR CONFIRMING POWER OF THE STATE TO EXPEL A HANDFUL OF
CHILDREN FROM SCHOOL.  SUCH OVERSIMPLIFICATION, SO HANDY IN POLITICAL
DEBATE, OFTEN LACKS THE PRECISION NECESSARY TO POSTULATES OF JUDICIAL
REASONING.  IF VALIDLY APPLIED TO THIS PROBLEM, THE UTTERANCE CITED
WOULD RESOLVE EVERY ISSUE OF POWER IN FAVOR OF THOSE IN AUTHORITY AND
WOULD REQUIRE US TO OVERRIDE EVERY LIBERTY THOUGHT TO WEAKEN OR DELAY
EXECUTION OF THEIR POLICIES.    GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED POWER NEED NOT BE
ANEMIC GOVERNMENT.  ASSURANCE THAT RIGHTS ARE SECURE TENDS TO DIMINISH
FEAR AND JEALOUSY OF STRONG GOVERNMENT, AND BY MAKING US FEEL SAFE TO
LIVE UNDER IT MAKES FOR ITS BETTER SUPPORT.  WITHOUT PROMISE OF A
LIMITING BILL OF RIGHTS IT IS DOUBTFUL IF OUR CONSTITUTION COULD HAVE
MUSTERED ENOUGH STRENGTH TO ENABLE ITS RATIFICATION.  TO ENFORCE THOSE
RIGHTS TODAY IS NOT TO CHOOSE WEAK GOVERNMENT OVER STRONG GOVERNMENT. 
IT IS ONLY TO ADHERE AS A MEANS OF STRENGTH TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OF
MIND IN PREFERENCE TO OFFICIALLY DISCIPLINED UNIFORMITY FOR WHICH
HISTORY INDICATES A DISAPPOINTING AND DISASTROUS END. 

THE SUBJECT NOW BEFORE US EXEMPLIFIES THIS PRINCIPLE.  FREE PUBLIC
EDUCATION, IF FAITHFUL TO THE IDEAL OF SECULAR INSTRUCTION AND
POLITICAL NEUTRALITY, WILL NOT BE PARTISAN OR ENEMY OF ANY CLASS,
CREED, PARTY, OR FACTION.  IF IT IS TO IMPOSE ANY IDEOLOGICAL
DISCIPLINE, HOWEVER, EACH PARTY OR DENOMINATION MUST SEEK TO CONTROL,
OR FAILING THAT, TO WEAKEN THE INFLUENCE OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. 
OBSERVANCE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL NOT WEAKEN
GOVERNMENT IN THE FIELD APPROPRIATE FOR ITS EXERCISE. 

2.  IT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED IN THE GOBITIS CASE THAT FUNCTIONS OF
EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS IN STATES, COUNTIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS WERE SUCH
THAT TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR AUTHORITY "WOULD IN EFFECT MAKE US THE
SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE COUNTRY."  ID. AT 598. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS NOW APPLIED TO THE STATES, PROTECTS THE
CITIZEN AGAINST THE STATE ITSELF AND ALL OF ITS CREATURES - BOARDS OF
EDUCATION NOT EXCEPTED.  THESE HAVE, OF COURSE, IMPORTANT, DELICATE,
AND HIGHLY DISCRETIONARY FUNCTIONS, BUT NONE THAT THEY MAY NOT PERFORM
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THAT THEY ARE EDUCATING THE
YOUNG FOR CITIZENSHIP IS REASON FOR SCRUPULOUS PROTECTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL, IF WE ARE NOT TO STRANGLE
THE FREE MIND AT ITS SOURCE AND TEACH YOUTH TO DISCOUNT IMPORTANT
PRINCIPLES OF OUR GOVERNMENT AS MERE PLATITUDES. 

SUCH BOARDS ARE NUMEROUS AND THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OFTEN
SMALL.  BUT SMALL AND LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY FEEL LESS SENSE OF
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CONSTITUTION, AND AGENCIES OF PUBLICITY MAY BE
LESS VIGILANT IN CALLING IT TO ACCOUNT.  THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN
MAKING FLAG OBSERVANCE VOLUNTARY  FN17  AND RESPECTING THE CONSCIENCE
OF THE OBJECTOR IN A MATTER SO VITAL AS RAISING THE ARMY  FN18
CONTRASTS SHARPLY WITH THESE LOCAL REGULATIONS IN MATTERS RELATIVELY
TRIVIAL TO THE WELFARE OF THE NATION.  THERE ARE VILLAGE TYRANTS AS
WELL AS VILLAGE HAMPDENS, BUT NONE WHO ACTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW IS
BEYOND REACH OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

3.  THE GOBITIS OPINION REASONED THAT THIS IS A FIELD "WHERE COURTS
POSSESS NO MARKED AND CERTAINLY NO CONTROLLING COMPETENCE," THAT IT IS
COMMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURES AS WELL AS THE COURTS TO GUARD CHERISHED
LIBERTIES AND THAT IT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE TO "FIGHT OUT THE
WISE USE OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IN THE FORUM OF PUBLIC OPINION AND
BEFORE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES RATHER THAN TO TRANSFER SUCH A CONTEST TO
THE JUDICIAL ARENA," SINCE ALL THE "EFFECTIVE MEANS OF INDUCING
POLITICAL CHANGES ARE LEFT FREE."  ID. AT 597-598, 600. 

THE VERY PURPOSE OF A BILL OF RIGHTS WAS TO WITHDRAW CERTAIN SUBJECTS
FROM THE VICISSITUDES OF POLITICAL CONTROVERSY, TO PLACE THEM BEYOND
THE REACH OF MAJORITIES AND OFFICIALS AND TO ESTABLISH THEM AS LEGAL
PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED BY THE COURTS.  ONE'S RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY,
AND PROPERTY, TO FREE SPEECH, A FREE PRESS, FREEDOM OF WORSHIP AND
ASSEMBLY, AND OTHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED TO VOTE;
THEY DEPEND ON THE OUTCOME OF NO ELECTIONS. 

IN WEIGHING ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS AN
INSTRUMENT FOR TRANSMITTING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND
THOSE CASES IN WHICH IT IS APPLIED FOR ITS OWN SAKE.  THE TEST OF
LEGISLATION WHICH COLLIDES WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT
ALSO COLLIDES WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST, IS MUCH MORE DEFINITE
THAN THE TEST WHEN ONLY THE FOURTEENTH IS INVOLVED.  MUCH OF THE
VAGUENESS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DISAPPEARS WHEN THE SPECIFIC
PROHIBITIONS OF THE FIRST BECOME ITS STANDARD.  THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO
REGULATE, FOR EXAMPLE, A PUBLIC UTILITY MAY WELL INCLUDE, SO FAR AS THE
DUE PROCESS TEST IS CONCERNED, POWER TO IMPOSE ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS
WHICH A LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE A "RATIONAL BASIS" FOR ADOPTING.  BUT
FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND OF PRESS, OF ASSEMBLY, AND OF WORSHIP MAY NOT BE
INFRINGED ON SUCH SLENDER GROUNDS.  THEY ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF RESTRICTION
ONLY TO PREVENT GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER TO INTERESTS WHICH THE STATE
MAY LAWFULLY PROTECT.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHILE IT IS THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH BEARS DIRECTLY UPON THE STATE IT IS THE MORE
SPECIFIC LIMITING PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT FINALLY GOVERN
THIS CASE. 

NOR DOES OUR DUTY TO APPLY THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO ASSERTIONS OF
OFFICIAL AUTHORITY DEPEND UPON OUR POSSESSION OF MARKED COMPETENCE IN
THE FIELD WHERE THE INVASION OF RIGHTS OCCURS.  TRUE, THE TASK OF
TRANSLATING THE MAJESTIC GENERALITIES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, CONCEIVED
AS PART OF THE PATTERN OF LIBERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY,
INTO CONCRETE RESTRAINTS ON OFFICIALS DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS OF THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY, IS ONE TO DISTURB SELF-CONFIDENCE.  THESE PRINCIPLES
GREW IN SOIL WHICH ALSO PRODUCED A PHILOSOPHY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WAS
THE CENTER OF SOCIETY, THAT HIS LIBERTY WAS ATTAINABLE THROUGH MERE
ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL RESTRAINTS, AND THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
ENTRUSTED WITH FEW CONTROLS AND ONLY THE MILDEST SUPERVISION OVER MEN'S
AFFAIRS.  WE MUST TRANSPLANT THESE RIGHTS TO A SOIL IN WHICH THE
LAISSEZ-FAIRE CONCEPT OR PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERFERENCE HAS WITHERED AT
LEAST AS TO ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, AND SOCIAL ADVANCEMENTS ARE INCREASINGLY
SOUGHT THROUGH CLOSER INTEGRATION OF SOCIETY AND THROUGH EXPANDED AND
STRENGTHENED GOVERNMENTAL CONTROLS.  THESE CHANGED CONDITIONS OFTEN
DEPRIVE PRECEDENTS OF RELIABILITY AND CAST US MORE THAN WE WOULD CHOOSE
UPON OUR OWN JUDGMENT.  BUT WE ACT IN THESE MATTERS NOT BY AUTHORITY OF
OUR COMPETENCE BUT BY FORCE OF OUR COMMISSIONS.  WE CANNOT, BECAUSE OF
MODEST ESTIMATES OF OUR COMPETENCE IN SUCH SPECIALTIES AS PUBLIC
EDUCATION, WITHHOLD THE JUDGMENT THAT HISTORY AUTHENTICATES AS THE
FUNCTION OF THIS COURT WHEN LIBERTY IS INFRINGED. 

4.  LASTLY, AND THIS IS THE VERY HEART OF THE GOBITIS OPINION, IT
REASONS THAT "NATIONAL UNITY IS THE BASIS OF NATIONAL SECURITY," THAT
THE AUTHORITIES HAVE "THE RIGHT TO SELECT APPROPRIATE MEANS FOR ITS
ATTAINMENT," AND HENCE REACHES THE CONCLUSION THAT SUCH COMPULSORY
MEASURES TOWARD "NATIONAL UNITY" ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  ID. AT 595.  UPON
THE VERITY OF THIS ASSUMPTION DEPENDS OUR ANSWER IN THIS CASE. 

NATIONAL UNITY AS AN END WHICH OFFICIALS MAY FOSTER BY PERSUASION AND
EXAMPLE IS NOT IN QUESTION.  THE PROBLEM IS WHETHER UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTION COMPULSION AS HERE EMPLOYED IS A PERMISSIBLE MEANS FOR ITS
ACHIEVEMENT. 

STRUGGLES TO COERCE UNIFORMITY OF SENTIMENT IN SUPPORT OF SOME END
THOUGHT ESSENTIAL TO THEIR TIME AND COUNTRY HAVE BEEN WAGED BY MANY
GOOD AS WELL AS BY EVIL MEN.  NATIONALISM IS A RELATIVELY RECENT
PHENOMENON BUT AT OTHER TIMES AND PLACES THE ENDS HAVE BEEN RACIAL OR
TERRITORIAL SECURITY, SUPPORT OF A DYNASTY OR REGIME, AND PARTICULAR
PLANS FOR SAVING SOULS.  AS FIRST AND MODERATE METHODS TO ATTAIN UNITY
HAVE FAILED, THOSE BENT ON ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT MUST RESORT TO AN EVER
INCREASING SEVERITY.  AS GOVERNMENTAL PRESSURE TOWARD UNITY BECOMES
GREATER, SO STRIFE BECOMES MORE BITTER AS TO WHOSE UNITY IT SHALL BE.
PROBABLY NO DEEPER DIVISION OF OUR PEOPLE COULD PROCEED FROM ANY
PROVOCATION THAN FROM FINDING IT NECESSARY TO CHOOSE WHAT DOCTRINE AND
WHOSE PROGRAM PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL OFFICIALS SHALL COMPEL YOUTH TO UNITE
IN EMBRACING.  ULTIMATE FUTILITY OF SUCH ATTEMPTS TO COMPEL COHERENCE
IS THE LESSON OF EVERY SUCH EFFORT FROM THE ROMAN DRIVE TO STAMP OUT
CHRISTIANITY AS A DISTURBER OF ITS PAGAN UNITY, THE INQUISITION, AS A
MEANS TO RELIGIOUS AND DYNASTIC UNITY, THE SIBERIAN EXILES AS A MEANS
TO RUSSIAN UNITY, DOWN TO THE FAST FAILING EFFORTS OF OUR PRESENT
TOTALITARIAN ENEMIES.  THOSE WHO BEGIN COERCIVE ELIMINATION OF DISSENT
SOON FIND THEMSELVES EXTERMINATING DISSENTERS.  COMPULSORY UNIFICATION
OF OPINION ACHIEVES ONLY THE UNANIMITY OF THE GRAVEYARD. 

IT SEEMS TRITE BUT NECESSARY TO SAY THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO OUR
CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO AVOID THESE ENDS BY AVOIDING THESE
BEGINNINGS.  THERE IS NO MYSTICISM IN THE AMERICAN CONCEPT OF THE STATE
OR OF THE NATURE OR ORIGIN OF ITS AUTHORITY.  WE SET UP GOVERNMENT BY
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS DENIES THOSE IN POWER
ANY LEGAL OPPORTUNITY TO COERCE THAT CONSENT.  AUTHORITY HERE IS TO BE
CONTROLLED BY PUBLIC OPINION, NOT PUBLIC OPINION BY AUTHORITY. 

THE CASE IS MADE DIFFICULT NOT BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLES OF ITS DECISION
ARE OBSCURE BUT BECAUSE THE FLAG INVOLVED IS OUR OWN.  NEVERTHELESS, WE
APPLY THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH NO FEAR THAT FREEDOM TO
BE INTELLECTUALLY AND SPIRITUALLY DIVERSE OR EVEN CONTRARY WILL
DISINTEGRATE THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION.  TO BELIEVE THAT PATRIOTISM WILL
NOT FLOURISH IF PATRIOTIC CEREMONIES ARE VOLUNTARY AND SPONTANEOUS
INSTEAD OF A COMPULSORY ROUTINE IS TO MAKE AN UNFLATTERING ESTIMATE OF
THE APPEAL OF OUR INSTITUTIONS TO FREE MINDS.  WE CAN HAVE INTELLECTUAL
INDIVIDUALISM AND THE RICH CULTURAL DIVERSITIES THAT WE OWE TO
EXCEPTIONAL MINDS ONLY AT THE PRICE OF OCCASIONAL ECCENTRICITY AND
ABNORMAL ATTITUDES.  WHEN THEY ARE SO HARMLESS TO OTHERS OR TO THE
STATE AS THOSE WE DEAL WITH HERE, THE PRICE IS NOT TOO GREAT.  BUT
FREEDOM TO DIFFER IS NOT LIMITED TO THINGS THAT DO NOT MATTER MUCH. 
THAT WOULD BE A MERE SHADOW OF FREEDOM.  THE TEST OF ITS SUBSTANCE IS
THE RIGHT TO DIFFER AS TO THINGS THAT TOUCH THE HEART OF THE EXISTING
ORDER. 

IF THERE IS ANY FIXED STAR IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTELLATION, IT IS
THAT NO OFFICIAL, HIGH OR PETTY, CAN PRESCRIBE WHAT SHALL BE ORTHODOX
IN POLITICS, NATIONALISM, RELIGION, OR OTHER MATTERS OF OPINION OR
FORCE CITIZENS TO CONFESS BY WORD OR ACT THEIR FAITH THEREIN.  IF THERE
ARE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PERMIT AN EXCEPTION, THEY DO NOT NOW OCCUR
TO US.  FN19 

WE THINK THE ACTION OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN COMPELLING THE FLAG
SALUTE AND PLEDGE TRANSCENDS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THEIR POWER
AND INVADES THE SPHERE OF INTELLECT AND SPIRIT WHICH IT IS THE PURPOSE
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION TO RESERVE FROM ALL OFFICIAL
CONTROL. 

THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS
AND THE HOLDINGS OF THOSE FEW PER CURIAM DECISIONS WHICH PRECEDED AND
FORESHADOWED IT ARE OVERRULED, AND THE JUDGMENT ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT
OF THE WEST VIRGINIA REGULATION IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 1734, WEST VIRGINIA CODE (1941 SUPP.): 

"IN ALL PUBLIC, PRIVATE, PAROCHIAL AND DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS LOCATED
WITHIN THIS STATE THERE SHALL BE GIVEN REGULAR COURSES OF INSTRUCTION
IN HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CIVICS, AND IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TEACHING, FOSTERING AND PERPETUATING THE IDEALS, PRINCIPLES AND SPIRIT
OF AMERICANISM, AND INCREASING THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORGANIZATION AND
MACHINERY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF
WEST VIRGINIA.  THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHALL, WITH THE ADVICE OF
THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, PRESCRIBE THE COURSES OF STUDY
COVERING THESE SUBJECTS FOR THE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND GRAMMAR SCHOOLS,
PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS AND STATE NORMAL SCHOOLS.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF
THE OFFICIALS OR BOARDS HAVING AUTHORITY OVER THE RESPECTIVE PRIVATE,
PAROCHIAL AND DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS TO PRESCRIBE COURSES OF STUDY FOR
THE SCHOOLS UNDER THEIR CONTROL AND SUPERVISION SIMILAR TO THOSE
REQUIRED FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS." 

FN2  THE TEXT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHEREAS, THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION HOLDS IN HIGHEST
REGARD THOSE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF WEST VIRGINIA, SPECIFICALLY, THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESTATED IN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE SAME DOCUMENT AND IN THE GUARANTEE OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM IN ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE, AND 

"WHEREAS, THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION HONORS THE BROAD
PRINCIPLE THAT ONE'S CONVICTIONS ABOUT THE ULTIMATE MYSTERY OF THE
UNIVERSE AND MAN'S RELATION TO IT IS PLACED BEYOND THE REACH OF LAW;
THAT THE PROPAGATION OF BELIEF IS PROTECTED WHETHER IN CHURCH OR
CHAPEL, MOSQUE OR SYNAGOGUE, TABERNACLE OR MEETING HOUSE; THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
ASSURE GENEROUS IMMUNITY TO THE INDIVIDUAL FROM IMPOSITION OF PENALTY
FOR OFFENDING, IN THE COURSE OF HIS OWN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES, THE
RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF OTHERS, BE THEY A MINORITY OR THOSE WHO ARE DOMINANT
IN THE GOVERNMENT, BUT 

"WHEREAS, THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RECOGNIZES THAT
THE MANIFOLD CHARACTER OF MAN'S RELATIONS MAY BRING HIS CONCEPTION OF
RELIGIOUS DUTY INTO CONFLICT WITH THE SECULAR INTERESTS OF HIS
FELLOWMAN; THAT CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES HAVE NOT IN THE COURSE OF THE
LONG STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS TOLERATION RELIEVED THE INDIVIDUAL FROM
OBEDIENCE TO THE GENERAL LAW NOT AIMED AT THE PROMOTION OR RESTRICTION
OF THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; THAT THE MERE POSSESSION OF CONVICTIONS WHICH
CONTRADICT THE RELEVANT CONCERNS OF POLITICAL SOCIETY DOES NOT RELIEVE
THE CITIZEN FROM THE DISCHARGE OF POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND 
"WHEREAS, THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION HOLDS THAT
NATIONAL UNITY IS THE BASIS OF NATIONAL SECURITY; THAT THE FLAG OF OUR
NATION IS THE SYMBOL OF OUR NATIONAL UNITY TRANSCENDING ALL INTERNAL
DIFFERENCES, HOWEVER LARGE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION;
THAT THE FLAG IS THE SYMBOL OF THE NATION'S POWER; THAT EMBLEM OF
FREEDOM IN ITS TRUEST, BEST SENSE; THAT IT SIGNIFIES GOVERNMENT RESTING
ON THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, LIBERTY REGULATED BY LAW, PROTECTION OF
THE WEAK AGAINST THE STRONG, SECURITY AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY
POWER, AND ABSOLUTE SAFETY FOR FREE INSTITUTIONS AGAINST FOREIGN
AGGRESSION, AND 

"WHEREAS, THE WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MAINTAINS THAT
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ESTABLISHED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA AND SUPPORTED BY TAXES IMPOSED BY LEGALLY CONSTITUTED
MEASURES, ARE DEALING WITH THE FORMATIVE PERIOD IN THE DEVELOPMENT IN
CITIZENSHIP THAT THE FLAG IS AN ALLOWABLE PORTION OF THE PROGRAM OF
SCHOOLS THUS PUBLICLY SUPPORTED. 

"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION
DOES HEREBY RECOGNIZE AND ORDER THAT THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED SALUTE TO
THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES - THE RIGHT HAND IS PLACED UPON THE
BREAST AND THE FOLLOWING PLEDGE REPEATED IN UNISON:  'I PLEDGE
ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE
REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS; ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL' - NOW BECOMES A REGULAR PART OF THE PROGRAM OF
ACTIVITIES IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SUPPORTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY
PUBLIC FUNDS, AND THAT ALL TEACHERS AS DEFINED BY LAW IN WEST VIRGINIA
AND PUPILS IN SUCH SCHOOLS SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
SALUTE, HONORING THE NATION REPRESENTED BY THE FLAG; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT REFUSAL TO SALUTE THE FLAG BE REGARDED AS AN ACT OF
INSUBORDINATION, AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY." 

FN3  THE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS OF THE UNITED STATES FLAG ASSOCIATION
TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE EXTENSION OF THE RIGHT ARM IN THIS SALUTE
TO THE FLAG IS NOT THE NAZI-FASCIST SALUTE, "ALTHOUGH QUITE SIMILAR TO
IT.  IN THE PLEDGE TO THE FLAG THE RIGHT ARM IS EXTENDED AND RAISED,
PALM UPWARD, WHEREAS THE NAZIS EXTEND THE ARM PRACTICALLY STRAIGHT TO
THE FRONT (THE FINGER TIPS BEING ABOUT EVEN WITH THE EYES), PALM
DOWNWARD, AND THE FASCISTS DO THE SAME EXCEPT THEY RAISE THE ARM
SLIGHTLY HIGHER."  JAMES A. MOSS, THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES:  ITS
HISTORY AND SYMBOLISM (1914) 108. 

FN4  THEY HAVE OFFERED IN LIEU OF PARTICIPATING IN THE FLAG SALUTE
CEREMONY "PERIODICALLY AND PUBLICLY" TO GIVE THE FOLLOWING PLEDGE: 

"I HAVE PLEDGED MY UNQUALIFIED ALLEGIANCE AND DEVOTION TO JEHOVAH,
THE ALMIGHTY GOD, AND TO HIS KINGDOM, FOR WHICH JESUS COMMANDS ALL
CHRISTIANS TO PRAY. 

"I RESPECT THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AND ACKNOWLEDGE IT AS A
SYMBOL OF FREEDOM AND JUSTICE TO ALL. 

"I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE AND OBEDIENCE TO ALL THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH GOD'S LAW, AS SET FORTH IN THE BIBLE." 

FN5  SEC. 1851(1), WEST VIRGINIA CODE (1941 SUPP.): 

"IF A CHILD BE DISMISSED, SUSPENDED, OR EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL BECAUSE
OF REFUSAL OF SUCH CHILD TO MEET THE LEGAL AND LAWFUL REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SCHOOL AND THE ESTABLISHED REGULATIONS OF THE COUNTY AND/OR STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION, FURTHER ADMISSION OF THE CHILD TO SCHOOL SHALL BE
REFUSED UNTIL SUCH REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS BE COMPLIED WITH.  ANY
SUCH CHILD SHALL BE TREATED AS BEING UNLAWFULLY ABSENT FROM SCHOOL
DURING THE TIME HE REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH SUCH REQUIREMENTS AND
REGULATIONS, AND ANY PERSON HAVING LEGAL OR ACTUAL CONTROL OF SUCH
CHILD SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ARTICLE FOR THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CHILD FROM SCHOOL." 

FN6  SEC. 4904(4), WEST VIRGINIA CODE (1941 SUPP.). 

FN7  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN8  SECS. 1847, 1851, WEST VIRGINIA CODE (1941 SUPP.). 

FN9  SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380. 

FN10  SEE AUTHORITIES CITED IN HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371,
401, NOTE 52. 

FN11  SEE THE NATION-WIDE SURVEY OF THE STUDY OF AMERICAN HISTORY
CONDUCTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE RESULTS OF WHICH ARE PUBLISHED IN
THE ISSUE OF JUNE 21, 1942, AND ARE THERE SUMMARIZED ON P. 1, COL. 1,
AS FOLLOWS: 

"82 PER CENT OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING IN THE UNITED
STATES DO NOT REQUIRE THE STUDY OF UNITED STATES HISTORY FOR THE
UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE.  EIGHTEEN PER CENT OF THE COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES REQUIRE SUCH HISTORY COURSES BEFORE A DEGREE IS AWARDED. 
IT WAS FOUND THAT MANY STUDENTS COMPLETE THEIR FOUR YEARS IN COLLEGE
WITHOUT TAKING ANY HISTORY COURSES DEALING WITH THIS COUNTRY. 

"SEVENTY-TWO PER CENT OF THE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES DO NOT REQUIRE
UNITED STATES HISTORY FOR ADMISSION, WHILE 28 PER CENT REQUIRE IT.  AS
A RESULT, THE SURVEY REVEALED, MANY STUDENTS GO THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL,
COLLEGE AND THEN TO THE PROFESSIONAL OR GRADUATE INSTITUTION WITHOUT
HAVING EXPLORED COURSES IN THE HISTORY OF THEIR COUNTRY. 

"LESS THAN 10 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL UNDERGRADUATE BODY WAS ENROLLED
IN UNITED STATES HISTORY CLASSES DURING THE SPRING SEMESTER JUST
ENDED.  ONLY 8 PER CENT OF THE FRESHMAN CLASS TOOK COURSES IN UNITED
STATES HISTORY, ALTHOUGH 30 PER CENT WAS ENROLLED IN EUROPEAN OR WORLD
HISTORY COURSES." 

FN12  THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT ADOPT THE FLAG
SALUTE BECAUSE IT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE EDUCATIONAL VALUE.  IT SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH PROMOTION OF NATIONAL UNITY (SEE FOOTNOTE 2),
WHICH JUSTIFICATION IS CONSIDERED LATER IN THIS OPINION.  NO
INFORMATION AS TO ITS EDUCATIONAL ASPECT IS CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION
EXCEPT OLANDER, CHILDREN'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE FLAG SALUTE, 35 JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 300, 305, WHICH SETS FORTH A STUDY OF THE ABILITY
OF A LARGE AND REPRESENTATIVE NUMBER OF CHILDREN TO REMEMBER AND STATE
THE MEANING OF THE FLAG SALUTE WHICH THEY RECITED EACH DAY IN SCHOOL. 
HIS CONCLUSION WAS THAT IT REVEALED "A RATHER PATHETIC PICTURE OF OUR
ATTEMPTS TO TEACH CHILDREN NOT ONLY THE WORDS BUT THE MEANING OF OUR
FLAG SALUTE." 

FN13  EARLY CHRISTIANS WERE FREQUENTLY PERSECUTED FOR THEIR REFUSAL
TO PARTICIPATE IN CEREMONIES BEFORE THE STATUE OF THE EMPEROR OR OTHER
SYMBOL OF IMPERIAL AUTHORITY.  THE STORY OF WILLIAM TELL'S SENTENCE TO
SHOOT AN APPLE OFF HIS SON'S HEAD FOR REFUSAL TO SALUTE A BAILIFF'S HAT
IS AN ANCIENT ONE.  21 ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA (14TH ED.)  911-912. 
THE QUAKERS, WILLIAM PENN INCLUDED, SUFFERED PUNISHMENT RATHER THAN
UNCOVER THEIR HEADS IN DEFERENCE TO ANY CIVIL AUTHORITY.  BRAITHWAITE,
THE BEGINNINGS OF QUAKERISM (1912) 200, 229-230, 232-233, 447, 451;
FOX, QUAKERS COURAGEOUS (1941) 113. 

FN14 FOR EXAMPLE:  USE OF "REPUBLIC," IF RENDERED TO DISTINGUISH OUR
GOVERNMENT FROM A "DEMOCRACY," OR THE WORDS "ONE NATION," IF INTENDED
TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM A "FEDERATION," OPEN UP OLD AND BITTER
CONTROVERSIES IN OUR POLITICAL HISTORY; "LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL,"
IF IT MUST BE ACCEPTED AS DESCRIPTIVE OF THE PRESENT ORDER RATHER THAN
AN IDEAL, MIGHT TO SOME SEEM AN OVERSTATEMENT. 

FN15  CUSHMAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN 1939-40, 35 AMERICAN POLITICAL
SCIENCE REVIEW 250, 271, OBSERVES:  "ALL OF THE ELOQUENCE BY WHICH THE
MAJORITY EXTOL THE CEREMONY OF FLAG SALUTING AS A FREE EXPRESSION OF
PATRIOTISM TURNS SOUR WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE THE BRUTAL COMPULSION WHICH
REQUIRES A SENSITIVE AND CONSCIENTIOUS CHILD TO STULTIFY HIMSELF IN
PUBLIC."  FOR FURTHER CRITICISM OF THE OPINION IN THE GOBITIS CASE BY
PERSONS WHO DO NOT SHARE THE FAITH OF THE WITNESSES SEE:  POWELL,
CONSCIENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION, IN DEMOCRACY AND NATIONAL UNITY
(UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS, 1941) 1; WILKINSON, SOME ASPECTS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF CIVIL LIBERTY, 11 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 50;
FENNELL, THE "RECONSTRUCTED COURT" AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: THE GOBITIS
CASE IN RETROSPECT, 19 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY REVIEW 31;
GREEN, LIBERTY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 27 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
LAW QUARTERLY 497; 9 INTERNATIONAL JURIDICAL ASSOCIATION BULLETIN 1; 39
MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 149; 15 ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW 95. 

FN16  THE OPINION SAYS "THAT THE FLAG-SALUTE IS AN ALLOWABLE PORTION
OF A SCHOOL PROGRAM FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT INVOKE CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES
IS SURELY NOT DEBATABLE.  BUT FOR US TO INSIST THAT, THOUGH THE
CEREMONY MAY BE REQUIRED, EXCEPTIONAL IMMUNITY MUST BE GIVEN TO
DISSIDENTS, IS TO MAINTAIN THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT THAT SUCH AN EXEMPTION MIGHT INTRODUCE ELEMENTS OF DIFFICULTY
INTO THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE, MIGHT CAST DOUBTS IN THE MINDS OF THE OTHER
CHILDREN WHICH WOULD THEMSELVES WEAKEN THE EFFECT OF THE EXERCISE." 
310 U.S. AT 599-600.  AND ELSEWHERE THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION
WAS STATED, "WHEN DOES THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE COMPEL EXEMPTION
FROM DOING WHAT SOCIETY THINKS NECESSARY FOR THE PROMOTION OF SOME
GREAT COMMON END, OR FROM A PENALTY FOR CONDUCT WHICH APPEARS DANGEROUS
TO THE GENERAL GOOD?"  ID. AT 593.  AND AGAIN,  "...  WHETHER SCHOOL
CHILDREN, LIKE THE GOBITIS CHILDREN, MUST BE EXCUSED FROM CONDUCT
REQUIRED OF ALL THE OTHER CHILDREN IN THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL
COHESION.  ..."  ID. AT 595. 

FN17  SECTION 7 OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 359, APPROVED DECEMBER 22,
1942, 56 STAT. 1074, 36 U.S.C. (1942 SUPP.) SEC. 172, PRESCRIBES NO
PENALTIES FOR NONCONFORMITY BUT PROVIDES: 

"THAT THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, 'I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO
THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH
IT STANDS, ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL,'
BE RENDERED BY STANDING WITH THE RIGHT HAND OVER THE HEART.  HOWEVER,
CIVILIANS WILL ALWAYS SHOW FULL RESPECT TO THE FLAG WHEN THE PLEDGE IS
GIVEN BY MERELY STANDING AT ATTENTION, MEN REMOVING THE HEADDRESS  ...
" 

FN18  SEC. 5(A) OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 50
U.S.C. (APP.) SEC. 307(G). 

FN19  THE NATION MAY RAISE ARMIES AND COMPEL CITIZENS TO GIVE
MILITARY SERVICE.  SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366.  IT
FOLLOWS, OF COURSE, THAT THOSE SUBJECT TO MILITARY DISCIPLINE ARE UNDER
MANY DUTIES AND MAY NOT CLAIM MANY FREEDOMS THAT WE HOLD INVIOLABLE AS
TO THOSE IN CIVILIAN LIFE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED ADHERE TO THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED BY THE COURT IN MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310
U.S. 586, AND ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

WE ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OPINION JUST READ, BUT
SINCE WE ORIGINALLY JOINED WITH THE COURT IN THE GOBITIS CASE, IT IS
APPROPRIATE THAT WE MAKE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR OUR CHANGE OF
VIEW. 

RELUCTANCE TO MAKE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION A RIGID BAR AGAINST STATE
REGULATION OF CONDUCT THOUGHT INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE WAS THE
CONTROLLING INFLUENCE WHICH MOVED US TO CONSENT TO THE GOBITIS
DECISION.  LONG REFLECTION CONVINCED US THAT ALTHOUGH THE PRINCIPLE IS
SOUND, ITS APPLICATION IN THE PARTICULAR CASE WAS WRONG.  JONES V.
OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, 623.  WE BELIEVE THAT THE STATUTE BEFORE US
FAILS TO ACCORD FULL SCOPE TO THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION SECURED TO THE
APPELLEES BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS. 

THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE APPELLEES TO PARTICIPATE IN A CEREMONY AIMED
AT INCULCATING RESPECT FOR THE FLAG AND FOR THIS COUNTRY.  THE
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WITHOUT ANY DESIRE TO SHOW DISRESPECT FOR EITHER
THE FLAG OR THE COUNTRY, INTERPRET THE BIBLE AS COMMANDING, AT THE RISK
OF GOD'S DISPLEASURE, THAT THEY NOT GO THROUGH THE FORM OF A PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FLAG.  THE DEVOUTNESS OF THEIR BELIEF IS EVIDENCED BY
THEIR WILLINGNESS TO SUFFER PERSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT, RATHER THAN
MAKE THE PLEDGE. 

NO WELL-ORDERED SOCIETY CAN LEAVE TO THE INDIVIDUALS AN ABSOLUTE
RIGHT TO MAKE FINAL DECISIONS, UNASSAILABLE BY THE STATE, AS TO
EVERYTHING THEY WILL OR WILL NOT DO.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT GO
SO FAR.  RELIGIOUS FAITHS, HONESTLY HELD, DO NOT FREE INDIVIDUALS FROM
RESPONSIBILITY TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES OBEDIENTLY TO LAWS WHICH ARE
EITHER IMPERATIVELY NECESSARY TO PROTECT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE FROM GRAVE
AND PRESSINGLY IMMINENT DANGERS OR WHICH, WITHOUT ANY GENERAL
PROHIBITION, MERELY REGULATE TIME, PLACE OR MANNER OF RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITY.  DECISION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PARTICULAR LAWS
WHICH STRIKE AT THE SUBSTANCE OF RELIGIOUS TENETS AND PRACTICES MUST BE
MADE BY THIS COURT.  THE DUTY IS A SOLEMN ONE, AND IN MEETING IT WE
CANNOT SAY THAT A FAILURE, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES, TO ASSUME A
PARTICULAR PHYSICAL POSITION AND TO REPEAT THE WORDS OF A PATRIOTIC
FORMULA CREATES A GRAVE DANGER TO THE NATION.  SUCH A STATUTORY
EXACTION IS A FORM OF TEST OATH, AND THE TEST OATH HAS ALWAYS BEEN
ABHORRENT IN THE UNITED STATES. 

WORDS UTTERED UNDER COERCION ARE PROOF OF LOYALTY TO NOTHING BUT SELF
INTEREST.  LOVE OF COUNTRY MUST SPRING FROM WILLING HEARTS AND FREE
MINDS, INSPIRED BY A FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF WISE LAWS ENACTED BY THE
PEOPLE'S ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF EXPRESS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS.  THESE LAWS MUST, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE FIRST AMENDMENT, PERMIT THE WIDEST TOLERATION OF CONFLICTING
VIEWPOINTS CONSISTENT WITH A SOCIETY OF FREE MEN. 

NEITHER OUR DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY IN PEACE NOR OUR MARTIAL EFFORT IN
WAR DEPEND ON COMPELLING LITTLE CHILDREN TO PARTICIPATE IN A CEREMONY
WHICH ENDS IN NOTHING FOR THEM BUT A FEAR OF SPIRITUAL CONDEMNATION. 
IF, AS WE THINK, THEIR FEARS ARE GROUNDLESS, TIME AND REASON ARE THE
PROPER ANTIDOTES FOR THEIR ERRORS.  THE CEREMONIAL, WHEN ENFORCED
AGAINST CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, MORE LIKELY TO DEFEAT THAN TO SERVE
ITS HIGH PURPOSE, IS A HANDY IMPLEMENT FOR DISGUISED RELIGIOUS
PERSECUTION.  AS SUCH, IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR CONSTITUTION'S PLAN
AND PURPOSE.    MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING: 

I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT AND JOIN IN IT. 

THE COMPLAINT CHALLENGES AN ORDER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
WHICH REQUIRES TEACHERS AND PUPILS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PRESCRIBED
SALUTE TO THE FLAG.  FOR REFUSAL TO CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENT, THE
STATE LAW PRESCRIBES EXPULSION.  THE OFFENDER IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE
TREATED AS UNLAWFULLY ABSENT FROM SCHOOL AND THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN IS
MADE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT FOR SUCH ABSENCE.  THUS NOT
ONLY IS THE PRIVILEGE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION CONDITIONED ON COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENT, BUT NONCOMPLIANCE IS VIRTUALLY MADE UNLAWFUL.  IN
EFFECT COMPLIANCE IS COMPULSORY AND NOT OPTIONAL.  IT IS THE CLAIM OF
APPELLEES THAT THE REGULATION IS INVALID AS A RESTRICTION ON RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH, SECURED TO THEM AGAINST STATE
INFRINGEMENT BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES. 

A RELUCTANCE TO INTERFERE WITH CONSIDERED STATE ACTION, THE FACT THAT
THE END SOUGHT IS A DESIRABLE ONE, THE EMOTION AROUSED BY THE FLAG AS A
SYMBOL FOR WHICH WE HAVE FOUGHT AND ARE NOW FIGHTING AGAIN,  - ALL OF
THESE ARE UNDERSTANDABLE.  BUT THERE IS BEFORE US THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM
TO BELIEVE, FREEDOM TO WORSHIP ONE'S MAKER ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF
ONE'S CONSCIENCE, A RIGHT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY
SHELTERS.  REFLECTION HAS CONVINCED ME THAT AS A JUDGE I HAVE NO
LOFTIER DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY THAN TO UPHOLD THAT SPIRITUAL FREEDOM TO
ITS FARTHEST REACHES. 

THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND OF RELIGION AS GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AGAINST STATE ACTION INCLUDES BOTH THE RIGHT TO SPEAK
FREELY AND THE RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SPEAKING AT ALL, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS
ESSENTIAL OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT MAY REQUIRE IT FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF AN ORDERLY SOCIETY,  - AS IN THE CASE OF COMPULSION TO GIVE EVIDENCE
IN COURT.  WITHOUT WISHING TO DISPARAGE THE PURPOSES AND INTENTIONS OF
THOSE WHO HOPE TO INCULCATE SENTIMENTS OF LOYALTY AND PATRIOTISM BY
REQUIRING A DECLARATION OF ALLEGIANCE AS A FEATURE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION,
OR UNDULY BELITTLE THE BENEFITS THAT MAY ACCRUE THEREFROM, I AM
IMPELLED TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH A REQUIREMENT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT AND ORDERLY SOCIETY.  TO MANY IT IS
DEEPLY DISTASTEFUL TO JOIN IN A PUBLIC CHORUS OF AFFIRMATION OF PRIVATE
BELIEF.  BY SOME, INCLUDING THE MEMBERS OF THIS SECT, IT IS APPARENTLY
REGARDED AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH A PRIMARY RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION AND
THEREFORE A RESTRICTION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  OFFICIAL COMPULSION TO
AFFIRM WHAT IS CONTRARY TO ONE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IS THE ANTITHESIS OF
FREEDOM OF WORSHIP WHICH, IT IS WELL TO RECALL, WAS ACHIEVED IN THIS
COUNTRY ONLY AFTER WHAT JEFFERSON CHARACTERIZED AS THE "SEVEREST
CONTESTS IN WHICH I HAVE EVER BEEN ENGAGED."  FN1 

I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THE BENEFITS THAT MAY ACCRUE TO SOCIETY
FROM THE COMPULSORY FLAG SALUTE ARE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND TANGIBLE
TO JUSTIFY THE INVASION OF FREEDOM AND PRIVACY THAT IS ENTAILED OR TO
COMPENSATE FOR A RESTRAINT ON THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE VOCAL
OR SILENT ACCORDING TO HIS CONSCIENCE OR PERSONAL INCLINATION.  THE
TRENCHANT WORDS IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM REMAIN UNANSWERABLE:  "  ...  ALL ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE (THE
MIND) BY TEMPORAL PUNISHMENTS, OR BURDENS, OR BY CIVIL INCAPACITATIONS,
TEND ONLY TO BEGET HABITS OF HYPOCRISY AND MEANNESS,  ...  "  ANY SPARK
OF LOVE FOR COUNTRY WHICH MAY BE GENERATED IN A CHILD OR HIS ASSOCIATES
BY FORCING HIM TO MAKE WHAT IS TO HIM AN EMPTY GESTURE AND RECITE WORDS
WRUNG FROM HIM CONTRARY TO HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IS OVERSHADOWED BY THE
DESIRABILITY OF PRESERVING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE TO THE FULL.  IT IS IN
THAT FREEDOM AND THE EXAMPLE OF PERSUASION, NOT IN FORCE AND
COMPULSION, THAT THE REAL UNITY OF AMERICA LIES. 

FN1  SEE JEFFERSON, AUTOBIOGRAPHY, VOL. 1, PP. 53-59. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

ONE WHO BELONGS TO THE MOST VILIFIED AND PERSECUTED MINORITY IN
HISTORY IS NOT LIKELY TO BE INSENSIBLE TO THE FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY
OUR CONSTITUTION.  WERE MY PURELY PERSONAL ATTITUDE RELEVANT I SHOULD
WHOLEHEARTEDLY ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE GENERAL LIBERTARIAN VIEWS IN
THE COURT'S OPINION, REPRESENTING AS THEY DO THE THOUGHT AND ACTION OF
A LIFETIME.  BUT AS JUDGES WE ARE NEITHER JEW NOR GENTILE, NEITHER
CATHOLIC NOR AGNOSTIC.  WE OWE EQUAL ATTACHMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND
ARE EQUALLY BOUND BY OUR JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS WHETHER WE DERIVE OUR
CITIZENSHIP FROM THE EARLIEST OR THE LATEST IMMIGRANTS TO THESE
SHORES.  AS A MEMBER OF THIS COURT I AM NOT JUSTIFIED IN WRITING MY
PRIVATE NOTIONS OF POLICY INTO THE CONSTITUTION, NO MATTER HOW DEEPLY I
MAY CHERISH THEM OR HOW MISCHIEVOUS I MAY DEEM THEIR DISREGARD.  THE
DUTY OF A JUDGE WHO MUST DECIDE WHICH OF TWO CLAIMS BEFORE THE COURT
SHALL PREVAIL, THAT OF A STATE TO ENACT AND ENFORCE LAWS WITHIN ITS
GENERAL COMPETENCE OR THAT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO REFUSE OBEDIENCE BECAUSE
OF THE DEMANDS OF HIS CONSCIENCE, IS NOT THAT OF THE ORDINARY PERSON. 
IT CAN NEVER BE EMPHASIZED TOO MUCH THAT ONE'S OWN OPINION ABOUT THE
WISDOM OR EVIL OF A LAW SHOULD BE EXCLUDED ALTOGETHER WHEN ONE IS DOING
ONE'S DUTY ON THE BENCH.  THE ONLY OPINION OF OUR OWN EVEN LOOKING IN
THAT DIRECTION THAT IS MATERIAL IS OUR OPINION WHETHER LEGISLATORS
COULD IN REASON HAVE ENACTED SUCH A LAW.  IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THE HISTORY OF THIS QUESTION IN THIS COURT, IT
WOULD REQUIRE MORE DARING THAN I POSSESS TO DENY THAT REASONABLE
LEGISLATORS COULD HAVE TAKEN THE ACTION WHICH IS BEFORE US FOR REVIEW. 
MOST UNWILLINGLY, THEREFORE, I MUST DIFFER FROM MY BRETHREN WITH REGARD
TO LEGISLATION LIKE THIS.  I CANNOT BRING MY MIND TO BELIEVE THAT THE
"LIBERTY" SECURED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE GIVES THIS COURT AUTHORITY
TO DENY TO THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA THE ATTAINMENT OF THAT WHICH WE
ALL RECOGNIZE AS A LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE END, NAMELY, THE PROMOTION OF
GOOD CITIZENSHIP, BY EMPLOYMENT OF THE MEANS HERE CHOSEN. 

NOT SO LONG AGO WE WERE ADMONISHED THAT "THE ONLY CHECK UPON OUR OWN
EXERCISE OF POWER IS OUR OWN SENSE OF SELF-RESTRAINT.  FOR THE REMOVAL
OF UNWISE LAWS FROM THE STATUTE BOOKS APPEAL LIES NOT TO THE COURTS BUT
TO THE BALLOT AND TO THE PROCESSES OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT."  UNITED
STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 79(DISSENT).  WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT
GENERALITIES DO NOT DECIDE CONCRETE CASES.  BUT THE INTENSITY WITH
WHICH A GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS HELD MAY DETERMINE A PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND
WHETHER WE PUT FIRST THINGS FIRST MAY DECIDE A SPECIFIC CONTROVERSY. 

THE ADMONITION THAT JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT ALONE LIMITS ARBITRARY
EXERCISE OF OUR AUTHORITY IS RELEVANT EVERY TIME WE ARE ASKED TO
NULLIFY LEGISLATION.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE US GREATER VETO
POWER WHEN DEALING WITH ONE PHASE OF "LIBERTY" THAN WITH ANOTHER, OR
WHEN DEALING WITH GRADE SCHOOL REGULATIONS THAN WITH COLLEGE
REGULATIONS THAT OFFEND CONSCIENCE, AS WAS THE CASE IN HAMILTON V.
REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245.  IN NEITHER SITUATION IS OUR FUNCTION COMPARABLE
TO THAT OF A LEGISLATURE OR ARE WE FREE TO ACT AS THOUGH WE WERE A
SUPER-LEGISLATURE.  JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT IS EQUALLY NECESSARY
WHENEVER AN EXERCISE OF POLITICAL OR LEGISLATIVE POWER IS CHALLENGED. 
THERE IS NO WARRANT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THIS COURT'S
AUTHORITY FOR ATTRIBUTING DIFFERENT ROLES TO IT DEPENDING UPON THE
NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE TO THE LEGISLATION.  OUR POWER DOES NOT VARY
ACCORDING TO THE PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH IS
INVOKED.  THE RIGHT NOT TO HAVE PROPERTY TAKEN WITHOUT JUST
COMPENSATION HAS, SO FAR AS THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL POWER IS CONCERNED,
THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL DIGNITY AS THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, AND THE LATTER HAS NO LESS CLAIM
THAN FREEDOM OF THE PRESS OR FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 
IN NO INSTANCE IS THIS COURT THE PRIMARY PROTECTOR OF THE PARTICULAR
LIBERTY THAT IS INVOKED.  THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED, WHAT HARDLY COULD
BE DENIED, THAT ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS ARE
"SPECIFIC" PROHIBITIONS, UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304
U.S. 144, 152, N. 4.  BUT EACH SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, IN SO FAR AS
EMBRACED WITHIN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, MUST BE EQUALLY RESPECTED,
AND THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT DOES NOT DIFFER IN PASSING ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION CHALLENGED UNDER DIFFERENT
AMENDMENTS. 

WHEN MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR THIS COURT, WROTE THAT "IT MUST
BE REMEMBERED THAT LEGISLATURES ARE ULTIMATE GUARDIANS OF THE LIBERTIES
AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IN QUITE AS GREAT A DEGREE AS THE COURTS,"
MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. MAY, 194 U.S. 267, 270, HE WENT TO THE
VERY ESSENCE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AND THE DEMOCRATIC CONCEPTION
OF OUR SOCIETY.  HE DID NOT MEAN THAT FOR ONLY SOME PHASES OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT THIS COURT WAS NOT TO SUPPLANT LEGISLATURES AND SIT IN
JUDGMENT UPON THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF A CHALLENGED MEASURE.  HE WAS
STATING THE COMPREHENSIVE JUDICIAL DUTY AND ROLE OF THIS COURT IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME WHENEVER LEGISLATION IS SOUGHT TO BE NULLIFIED ON
ANY GROUND, NAMELY, THAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEGISLATION LIES WITH
LEGISLATURES, ANSWERABLE AS THEY ARE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE, AND THIS
COURT'S ONLY AND VERY NARROW FUNCTION IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER WITHIN
THE BROAD GRANT OF AUTHORITY VESTED IN LEGISLATURES THEY HAVE EXERCISED
A JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION CAN BE OFFERED. 

THE FRAMERS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MIGHT HAVE CHOSEN TO ASSIGN
AN ACTIVE SHARE IN THE PROCESS OF LEGISLATION TO THIS COURT.  THEY HAD
BEFORE THEM THE WELL-KNOWN EXAMPLE OF NEW YORK'S COUNCIL OF REVISION,
WHICH HAD BEEN FUNCTIONING SINCE 1777.  AFTER STATING THAT "LAWS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THIS CONSTITUTION, OR WITH THE PUBLIC
GOOD, MAY BE HASTILY AND UNADVISEDLY PASSED," THE STATE CONSTITUTION
MADE THE JUDGES OF NEW YORK PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BY
PROVIDING THAT "ALL BILLS WHICH HAVE PASSED THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY
SHALL, BEFORE THEY BECOME LAWS," BE PRESENTED TO A COUNCIL OF WHICH THE
JUDGES CONSTITUTED A MAJORITY, "FOR THEIR REVISAL AND CONSIDERATION." 
ART. III, NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OF 1777.  JUDGES EXERCISED THIS
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION IN NEW YORK FOR NEARLY FIFTY YEARS.  SEE ART. I,
SEC. 12, NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OF 1821.  BUT THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION DENIED SUCH LEGISLATIVE POWERS TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. 
THEY CHOSE INSTEAD TO INSULATE THE JUDICIARY FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTION.  THEY DID NOT GRANT TO THIS COURT SUPERVISION OVER
LEGISLATION. 

THE REASON WHY FROM THE BEGINNING EVEN THE NARROW JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
TO NULLIFY LEGISLATION HAS BEEN VIEWED WITH A JEALOUS EYE IS THAT IT
SERVES TO PREVENT THE FULL PLAY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.  THE FACT
THAT IT MAY BE AN UNDEMOCRATIC ASPECT OF OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT DOES
NOT CALL FOR ITS REJECTION OR ITS DISUSE.  BUT IT IS THE BEST OF
REASONS, AS THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY RECOGNIZED, FOR THE GREATEST
CAUTION IN ITS USE. 

THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THE QUESTION BEFORE US DEFINES THE LIMITS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER THAT IS IN ISSUE.  THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
REQUIRES ALL PUPILS TO SHARE IN THE SALUTE TO THE FLAG AS PART OF
SCHOOL TRAINING IN CITIZENSHIP.  THE PRESENT ACTION IS ONE TO ENJOIN
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS REQUIREMENT BY THOSE IN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.  WE
HAVE NOT BEFORE US ANY ATTEMPT BY THE STATE TO PUNISH DISOBEDIENT
CHILDREN OR VISIT PENAL CONSEQUENCES ON THEIR PARENTS.  ALL THAT IS IN
QUESTION IS THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO COMPEL PARTICIPATION IN THIS
EXERCISE BY THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 

WE ARE NOT REVIEWING MERELY THE ACTION OF A LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD.  THE
FLAG SALUTE REQUIREMENT IN THIS CASE COMES BEFORE US WITH THE FULL
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA.  WE ARE IN FACT PASSING
JUDGMENT ON "THE POWER OF THE STATE AS A WHOLE."  RIPPEY V. TEXAS, 193
U.S. 504, 509; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69, 79.  PRACTICALLY WE
ARE PASSING UPON THE POLITICAL POWER OF EACH OF THE FORTY-EIGHT
STATES.  MOREOVER, SINCE THE FIRST AMENDMENT HAS BEEN READ INTO THE
FOURTEENTH, OUR PROBLEM IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE IF WE HAD
BEFORE US AN ACT OF CONGRESS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  TO SUGGEST
THAT WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH THE HEEDLESS ACTION OF SOME VILLAGE
TYRANTS IS TO DISTORT THE AUGUSTNESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AND
THE REACH OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR DECISION. 

UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM THE LEGISLATURE IS CHARGED SOLELY
WITH CIVIL CONCERNS OF SOCIETY.  IF THE AVOWED OR INTRINSIC LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE IS EITHER TO PROMOTE OR TO DISCOURAGE SOME RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY
OR CREED, IT IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED
ON LEGISLATURES AND CANNOT STAND.  BUT IT BY NO MEANS FOLLOWS THAT
LEGISLATIVE POWER IS WANTING WHENEVER A GENERAL NON-DISCRIMINATORY
CIVIL REGULATION IN FACT TOUCHES CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES OR RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP.  REGARD FOR SUCH SCRUPLES OR
BELIEFS UNDOUBTEDLY PRESENTS ONE OF THE MOST REASONABLE CLAIMS FOR THE
EXERTION OF LEGISLATIVE ACCOMMODATION.  IT IS, OF COURSE, BEYOND OUR
POWER TO REWRITE THE STATE'S REQUIREMENT, BY PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS FOR
THOSE WHO DO NOT WISH TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FLAG SALUTE OR BY MAKING
SOME OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS TO MEET THEIR SCRUPLES.  THAT WISDOM MIGHT
SUGGEST THE MAKING OF SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS AND THAT SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT FIND IT TOO DIFFICULT TO MAKE THEM AND YET
MAINTAIN THE CEREMONY FOR THOSE NOT REFUSING TO CONFORM, IS OUTSIDE OUR
PROVINCE TO SUGGEST.  TACT, RESPECT, AND GENEROSITY TOWARD VARIANT
VIEWS WILL ALWAYS COMMEND THEMSELVES TO THOSE CHARGED WITH THE DUTIES
OF LEGISLATION SO AS TO ACHIEVE A MAXIMUM OF GOOD WILL AND TO REQUIRE A
MINIMUM OF UNWILLING SUBMISSION TO A GENERAL LAW.  BUT THE REAL
QUESTION IS, WHO IS TO MAKE SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS, THE COURTS OR THE
LEGISLATURE?    THIS IS NO DRY, TECHNICAL MATTER.  IT CUTS DEEP INTO
ONE'S CONCEPTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS - IT CONCERNS NO LESS THE
PRACTICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEANS FOR MAKING THESE ACCOMMODATIONS
THAT ARE OPEN TO COURTS AND TO LEGISLATURES.  A COURT CAN ONLY STRIKE
DOWN.  IT CAN ONLY SAY "THIS OR THAT LAW IS VOID."  IT CANNOT MODIFY OR
QUALIFY, IT CANNOT MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO A GENERAL REQUIREMENT.  AND IT
STRIKES DOWN NOT MERELY FOR A DAY.  AT LEAST THE FINDING OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OUGHT NOT TO HAVE EPHEMERAL SIGNIFICANCE UNLESS THE
CONSTITUTION IS TO BE REDUCED TO THE FUGITIVE IMPORTANCE OF MERE
LEGISLATION.  WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND MORE PARTICULARLY WITH THE GREAT SAFEGUARDS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS, WE ARE DEALING WITH PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE "SO
ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AS TO BE RANKED
AS FUNDAMENTAL" - SOMETHING WITHOUT WHICH "A FAIR AND ENLIGHTENED
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S.
319, 325; HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516, 530, 531.  IF THE
FUNCTION OF THIS COURT IS TO BE ESSENTIALLY NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A
LEGISLATURE, IF THE CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THOSE THAT UNDERLIE LEGISLATION,
THEN INDEED JUDGES SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFE TENURE AND THEY SHOULD BE MADE
DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE ELECTORATE.  THERE HAVE BEEN MANY BUT
UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSALS IN THE LAST SIXTY YEARS TO AMEND THE
CONSTITUTION TO THAT END.  SEE SEN. DOC. NO. 91, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
PP. 248-51. 

CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES, ALL WOULD ADMIT, CANNOT STAND AGAINST EVERY
LEGISLATIVE COMPULSION TO DO POSITIVE ACTS IN CONFLICT WITH SUCH
SCRUPLES.  WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT SUCH COMPULSIONS OVERRIDE RELIGIOUS
SCRUPLES ONLY AS TO MAJOR CONCERNS OF THE STATE.  BUT THE DETERMINATION
OF WHAT IS MAJOR AND WHAT IS MINOR ITSELF RAISES QUESTIONS OF POLICY. 
FOR THE WAY IN WHICH MEN EQUALLY GUIDED BY REASON APPRAISE IMPORTANCE
GOES TO THE VERY HEART OF POLICY.  JUDGES SHOULD BE VERY DIFFIDENT IN
SETTING THEIR JUDGMENT AGAINST THAT OF A STATE IN DETERMINING WHAT IS
AND WHAT IS NOT A MAJOR CONCERN, WHAT MEANS ARE APPROPRIATE TO PROPER
ENDS, AND WHAT IS THE TOTAL SOCIAL COST IN STRIKING THE BALANCE OF
IMPONDERABLES. 

WHAT ONE CAN SAY WITH ASSURANCE IS THAT THE HISTORY OUT OF WHICH GREW
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FOR RELIGIOUS EQUALITY AND THE WRITINGS OF
THE GREAT EXPONENTS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM - JEFFERSON, MADISON, JOHN
ADAMS, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN - ARE TOTALLY WANTING IN JUSTIFICATION FOR A
CLAIM BY DISSIDENTS OF EXCEPTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM CIVIC MEASURES OF
GENERAL APPLICABILITY, MEASURES NOT IN FACT DISGUISED ASSAULTS UPON
SUCH DISSIDENT VIEWS.  THE GREAT LEADERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
WERE DETERMINED TO REMOVE POLITICAL SUPPORT FROM EVERY RELIGIOUS
ESTABLISHMENT.  THEY PUT ON AN EQUALITY THE DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS SECTS -
EPISCOPALIANS, PRESBYTERIANS, CATHOLICS, BAPTISTS, METHODISTS, QUAKERS,
HUGUENOTS - WHICH, AS DISSENTERS, HAD BEEN UNDER THE HEEL OF THE
VARIOUS ORTHODOXIES THAT PREVAILED IN DIFFERENT COLONIES.  SO FAR AS
THE STATE WAS CONCERNED, THERE WAS TO BE NEITHER ORTHODOXY NOR
HETERODOXY.  AND SO JEFFERSON AND THOSE WHO FOLLOWED HIM WROTE
GUARANTIES OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM INTO OUR CONSTITUTIONS.  RELIGIOUS
MINORITIES AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS MAJORITIES WERE TO BE EQUAL IN THE EYES
OF THE POLITICAL STATE.  BUT JEFFERSON AND THE OTHERS ALSO KNEW THAT
MINORITIES MAY DISRUPT SOCIETY.  IT NEVER WOULD HAVE OCCURRED TO THEM
TO WRITE INTO THE CONSTITUTION THE SUBORDINATION OF THE GENERAL CIVIL
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO SECTARIAN SCRUPLES. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TERMINATED
DISABILITIES, IT DID NOT CREATE NEW PRIVILEGES.  IT GAVE RELIGIOUS
EQUALITY, NOT CIVIL IMMUNITY.  ITS ESSENCE IS FREEDOM FROM CONFORMITY
TO RELIGIOUS DOGMA, NOT FREEDOM FROM CONFORMITY TO LAW BECAUSE OF
RELIGIOUS DOGMA.  RELIGIOUS LOYALTIES MAY BE EXERCISED WITHOUT
HINDRANCE FROM THE STATE, NOT THE STATE MAY NOT EXERCISE THAT WHICH
EXCEPT BY LEAVE OF RELIGIOUS LOYALTIES IS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF TEMPORAL
POWER.  OTHERWISE EACH INDIVIDUAL COULD SET UP HIS OWN CENSOR AGAINST
OBEDIENCE TO LAWS CONSCIENTIOUSLY DEEMED FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD BY THOSE
WHOSE BUSINESS IT IS TO MAKE LAWS. 

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ANY RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT
PLACED DENOMINATIONS ON AN EQUAL FOOTING - IT ASSURED FREEDOM FROM
SUPPORT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ANY MODE OF WORSHIP AND THE FREEDOM OF
INDIVIDUALS TO SUPPORT ANY MODE OF WORSHIP.  ANY PERSON MAY THEREFORE
BELIEVE OR DISBELIEVE WHAT HE PLEASES.  HE MAY PRACTICE WHAT HE WILL IN
HIS OWN HOUSE OF WORSHIP OR PUBLICLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PUBLIC
ORDER.  BUT THE LAWMAKING AUTHORITY IS NOT CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE VARIETY
OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, OTHERWISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY WOULD BE
NOT A PROTECTION OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION BUT A DENIAL OF THE
EXERCISE OF LEGISLATION. 

THE ESSENCE OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM GUARANTEED BY OUR CONSTITUTION
IS THEREFORE THIS:  NO RELIGION SHALL EITHER RECEIVE THE STATE'S
SUPPORT OR INCUR ITS HOSTILITY.  RELIGION IS OUTSIDE THE SPHERE OF
POLITICAL GOVERNMENT.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL MATTERS ON WHICH
RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS OR BELIEFS MAY PRONOUNCE ARE OUTSIDE THE SPHERE
OF GOVERNMENT.  WERE THIS SO, INSTEAD OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE, THERE WOULD BE THE SUBORDINATION OF THE STATE ON ANY MATTER
DEEMED WITHIN THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE.  MUCH THAT
IS THE CONCERN OF TEMPORAL AUTHORITY AFFECTS THE SPIRITUAL INTERESTS OF
MEN.  BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO STRIKE DOWN A NON-DISCRIMINATORY LAW THAT
IT MAY HURT OR OFFEND SOME DISSIDENT VIEW.  IT WOULD BE TOO EASY TO
CITE NUMEROUS PROHIBITIONS AND INJUNCTIONS TO WHICH LAWS RUN COUNTER IF
THE VARIANT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE WERE MADE THE TESTS OF
OBEDIENCE TO LAW.  THE VALIDITY OF SECULAR LAWS CANNOT BE MEASURED BY
THEIR CONFORMITY TO RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES.  IT IS ONLY IN A THEOCRATIC
STATE THAT ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINES MEASURE LEGAL RIGHT OR WRONG. 

AN ACT COMPELLING PROFESSION OF ALLEGIANCE TO A RELIGION, NO MATTER
HOW SUBTLY OR TENUOUSLY PROMOTED, IS BAD.  BUT AN ACT PROMOTING GOOD
CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONAL ALLEGIANCE IS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF
GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY AND IS THEREFORE TO BE JUDGED BY THE SAME
CONSIDERATIONS OF POWER AND OF CONSTITUTIONALITY AS THOSE INVOLVED IN
THE MANY CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL OBEDIENCE BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS
SCRUPLES. 

THAT CLAIMS ARE PRESSED ON BEHALF OF SINCERE RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS
DOES NOT OF ITSELF ESTABLISH THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY.  NOR DOES
WAVING THE BANNER OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RELIEVE US FROM EXAMINING INTO
THE POWER WE ARE ASKED TO DENY THE STATES.  OTHERWISE THE DOCTRINE OF
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, SO CARDINAL IN THE HISTORY OF THIS
NATION AND FOR THE LIBERTY OF OUR PEOPLE, WOULD MEAN NOT THE
DISESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE CHURCH BUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL
CHURCHES AND OF ALL RELIGIOUS GROUPS. 

THE SUBJECTION OF DISSIDENTS TO THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT OF SALUTING
THE FLAG, AS A MEASURE CONDUCIVE TO THE TRAINING OF CHILDREN IN GOOD
CITIZENSHIP, IS VERY FAR FROM BEING THE FIRST INSTANCE OF EXACTING
OBEDIENCE TO GENERAL LAWS THAT HAVE OFFENDED DEEP RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES. 
COMPULSORY VACCINATION, SEE JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11,
FOOD INSPECTION REGULATIONS, SEE SHAPIRO V. LYLE, 30 F.2D 971, THE
OBLIGATION TO BEAR ARMS, SEE HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245, 267,
TESTIMONIAL DUTIES, SEE STANSBURY V. MARKS, 2 DALL.  213, COMPULSORY
MEDICAL TREATMENT, SEE PEOPLE V. VOGELGESANG, 221 N.Y. 290, 116 N.E.
977 - THESE ARE BUT ILLUSTRATIONS OF CONDUCT THAT HAS OFTEN BEEN
COMPELLED IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF LEGISLATION OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
EVEN THOUGH THE RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCES OF PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS
REBELLED AT THE EXACTION. 

LAW IS CONCERNED WITH EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR AND NOT WITH THE INNER LIFE
OF MAN.  IT RESTS IN LARGE MEASURE UPON COMPULSION.  SOCRATES LIVES IN
HISTORY PARTLY BECAUSE HE GAVE HIS LIFE FOR THE CONVICTION THAT DUTY OF
OBEDIENCE TO SECULAR LAW DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE CONSENT TO ITS ENACTMENT
OR BELIEF IN ITS VIRTUE.  THE CONSENT UPON WHICH FREE GOVERNMENT RESTS
IS THE CONSENT THAT COMES FROM SHARING IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING AND
UNMAKING LAWS.  THE STATE IS NOT SHUT OUT FROM A DOMAIN BECAUSE THE
INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE MAY DENY THE STATE'S CLAIM.  THE INDIVIDUAL
CONSCIENCE MAY PROFESS WHAT FAITH IT CHOOSES.  IT MAY AFFIRM AND
PROMOTE THAT FAITH - IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT MAY
"EXERCISE" IT FREELY - BUT IT CANNOT THEREBY RESTRICT COMMUNITY ACTION
THROUGH POLITICAL ORGANS IN MATTERS OF COMMUNITY CONCERN, SO LONG AS
THE ACTION IS NOT ASSERTED IN A DISCRIMINATORY WAY EITHER OPENLY OR BY
STEALTH.  ONE MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE ONE'S RELIGION AND AT THE
SAME TIME OWE THE DUTY OF FORMAL OBEDIENCE TO LAWS THAT RUN COUNTER TO
ONE'S BELIEFS.  COMPELLING BELIEF IMPLIES DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO
COMBAT IT AND TO ASSERT DISSIDENT VIEWS.  SUCH COMPULSION IS ONE
THING.  QUITE ANOTHER MATTER IS SUBMISSION TO CONFORMITY OF ACTION
WHILE DENYING ITS WISDOM OR VIRTUE AND WITH AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR
SEEKING ITS CHANGE OR ABROGATION. 

IN HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245, THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY HELD
THAT ONE ATTENDING A STATE-MAINTAINED UNIVERSITY CANNOT REFUSE
ATTENDANCE ON COURSES THAT OFFEND HIS RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES.  THAT
DECISION IS NOT OVERRULED TODAY, BUT IS DISTINGUISHED ON THE GROUND
THAT ATTENDANCE AT THE INSTITUTION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION WAS VOLUNTARY
AND THEREFORE A STUDENT COULD NOT REFUSE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS CONDITIONS
AND YET TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ITS OPPORTUNITIES.  BUT WEST VIRGINIA DOES
NOT COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE AT ITS PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE CHILDREN HERE
CONCERNED.  WEST VIRGINIA DOES NOT SO COMPEL, FOR IT CANNOT.  THIS
COURT DENIED THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO REQUIRE ITS CHILDREN TO ATTEND
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510.  AS TO ITS
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WEST VIRGINIA IMPOSES CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEEMS
NECESSARY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE CITIZENS PRECISELY AS CALIFORNIA
DEEMED NECESSARY THE REQUIREMENTS THAT OFFENDED THE STUDENT'S
CONSCIENCE IN THE HAMILTON CASE.  THE NEED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE
DUTY OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE IT AS PART OF A PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM,
ARE PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC FAITH OF MOST OF OUR STATES.  THE RIGHT TO
SECURE SUCH EDUCATION IN INSTITUTIONS NOT MAINTAINED BY PUBLIC FUNDS IS
UNQUESTIONED.  BUT THE PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR OBTAINING WHAT IS
BECOMING IN INCREASING MEASURE THE CONVENTIONAL EQUIPMENT OF AMERICAN
YOUTH MAY BE NO LESS BURDENSOME THAN THAT WHICH PARENTS ARE
INCREASINGLY CALLED UPON TO BEAR IN SENDING THEIR CHILDREN TO PAROCHIAL
SCHOOLS BECAUSE THE EDUCATION PROVIDED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THOUGH
SUPPORTED BY THEIR TAXES, DOES NOT SATISFY THEIR ETHICAL AND
EDUCATIONAL NECESSITIES.  I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE, SO FAR AS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS CONCERNED, TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT WAS SANCTIONED
IN THE HAMILTON CASE FROM WHAT IS NULLIFIED IN THIS CASE.  AND FOR ME
IT STILL REMAINS TO BE EXPLAINED WHY THE GROUNDS OF MR. JUSTICE
CARDOZO'S OPINION IN HAMILTON V. REGENTS, SUPRA, ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THE FLAG SALUTE REQUIREMENT.  SUCH A REQUIREMENT, LIKE THE
REQUIREMENT IN THE HAMILTON CASE, "IS NOT AN INTERFERENCE BY THE STATE
WITH THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION WHEN THE LIBERTIES OF THE
CONSTITUTION ARE READ IN THE LIGHT OF A CENTURY AND A HALF OF HISTORY
DURING DAYS OF PEACE AND WAR."  293 U.S. 245, 266.  THE RELIGIOUS
WORSHIPER, "IF HIS LIBERTIES WERE TO BE THUS EXTENDED, MIGHT REFUSE TO
CONTRIBUTE TAXES  ...  IN FURTHERANCE OF ANY OTHER END CONDEMNED BY HIS
CONSCIENCE AS IRRELIGIOUS OR IMMORAL.  THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT
HAS NEVER YET BEEN SO EXALTED ABOVE THE POWERS AND THE COMPULSION OF
THE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT."  ID., AT 268. 

PARENTS HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF CHOOSING WHICH SCHOOLS THEY WISH THEIR
CHILDREN TO ATTEND.  AND THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE STATE MAY
MAKE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT SEEM TO IT DESIRABLE OR IMPORTANT FOR
THE PROPER EDUCATION OF THOSE FUTURE CITIZENS WHO GO TO SCHOOLS
MAINTAINED BY THE STATES, OR WHETHER THE PUPILS IN THOSE SCHOOLS MAY BE
RELIEVED FROM THOSE REQUIREMENTS IF THEY RUN COUNTER TO THE CONSCIENCES
OF THEIR PARENTS.  NOT ONLY HAVE PARENTS THE RIGHT TO SEND CHILDREN TO
SCHOOLS OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING BUT THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO BRING SUCH
SCHOOLS "UNDER A STRICT GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL" OR GIVE "AFFIRMATIVE
DIRECTION CONCERNING THE INTIMATE AND ESSENTIAL DETAILS OF SUCH
SCHOOLS, ENTRUST THEIR CONTROL TO PUBLIC OFFICERS, AND DENY BOTH OWNERS
AND PATRONS REASONABLE CHOICE AND DISCRETION IN RESPECT OF TEACHERS,
CURRICULUM, AND TEXTBOOKS."  FARRINGTON V. TOKUSHIGE, 273 U.S. 284,
298.  WHY SHOULD NOT THE STATE LIKEWISE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
MAKE REASONABLE PROVISIONS FOR THE PROPER INSTRUCTION OF CHILDREN IN
SCHOOLS MAINTAINED BY IT? 

WHEN DEALING WITH RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES WE ARE DEALING WITH AN ALMOST
NUMBERLESS VARIETY OF DOCTRINES AND BELIEFS ENTERTAINED WITH EQUAL
SINCERITY BY THE PARTICULAR GROUPS FOR WHICH THEY SATISFY MAN'S NEEDS
IN HIS RELATION TO THE MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE.  THERE ARE IN THE
UNITED STATES MORE THAN 250 DISTINCTIVE ESTABLISHED RELIGIOUS
DENOMINATIONS.  IN THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA THERE ARE 120 OF THESE,
AND IN WEST VIRGINIA AS MANY AS 65.  BUT IF RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES AFFORD
IMMUNITY FROM CIVIC OBEDIENCE TO LAWS, THEY MAY BE INVOKED BY THE
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF ANY INDIVIDUAL EVEN THOUGH HE HOLDS NO MEMBERSHIP
IN ANY SECT OR ORGANIZED DENOMINATION.  CERTAINLY THIS COURT CANNOT BE
CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE WHAT CLAIMS OF CONSCIENCE SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED
AND WHAT SHOULD BE REJECTED AS SATISFYING THE "RELIGION" WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION PROTECTS.  THAT WOULD INDEED RESURRECT THE VERY
DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF RELIGION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION SOUGHT
FOREVER TO FORBID.  AND SO, WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE TASK OF
CONSIDERING THE CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY FROM OBEDIENCE TO A LAW DEALING WITH
CIVIL AFFAIRS BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES, WE CANNOT CONCEIVE
RELIGION MORE NARROWLY THAN IN THE TERMS IN WHICH JUDGE AUGUSTUS N.
HAND RECENTLY CHARACTERIZED IT:    "IT IS UNNECESSARY TO ATTEMPT A
DEFINITION OF RELIGION; THE CONTENT OF THE TERM IS FOUND IN THE HISTORY
OF THE HUMAN RACE AND IS INCAPABLE OF COMPRESSION INTO A FEW WORDS. 
RELIGIOUS BELIEF ARISES FROM A SENSE OF THE INADEQUACY OF REASON AS A
MEANS OF RELATING THE INDIVIDUAL TO HIS FELLOWMEN AND TO HIS UNIVERSE. 
...  (IT) MAY JUSTLY BE REGARDED AS A RESPONSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO AN
INWARD MENTOR, CALL IT CONSCIENCE OR GOD, THAT IS FOR MANY PERSONS AT
THE PRESENT TIME THE EQUIVALENT OF WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THOUGHT A
RELIGIOUS IMPULSE."  UNITED STATES V. KAUTEN, 133 F.2D 703, 708. 

CONSIDER THE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE OF COMPULSORY BIBLE-READING IN
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  THE EDUCATIONAL POLICIES OF THE STATES ARE IN GREAT
CONFLICT OVER THIS, AND THE STATE COURTS ARE DIVIDED IN THEIR DECISIONS
ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT OF BIBLE-READING OFFENDS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  THE
REQUIREMENT OF BIBLE-READING HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED BY VARIOUS STATE COURTS
AS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF INCLUCATING ETHICAL PRECEPTS AND
FAMILIARIZING PUPILS WITH THE MOST LASTING EXPRESSION OF GREAT ENGLISH
LITERATURE.  IS THIS COURT TO OVERTHROW SUCH VARIANT STATE EDUCATIONAL
POLICIES BY DENYING STATES THE RIGHT TO ENTERTAIN SUCH CONVICTIONS IN
REGARD TO THEIR SCHOOL SYSTEMS, BECAUSE OF A BELIEF THAT THE KING JAMES
VERSION IS IN FACT A SECTARIAN TEXT TO WHICH PARENTS OF THE CATHOLIC
AND JEWISH FAITHS AND OF SOME PROTESTANT PERSUASIONS MAY RIGHTLY OBJECT
TO HAVING THEIR CHILDREN EXPOSED?  ON THE OTHER HAND THE RELIGIOUS
CONSCIENCES OF SOME PARENTS MAY REBEL AT THE ABSENCE OF ANY BIBLE
READING IN THE SCHOOLS.  SEE WASHINGTON EX REL. CLITHERO V. SHOWALTER,
284 U.S. 573.  OR IS THIS COURT TO ENTER THE OLD CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
SCIENCE AND RELIGION BY UNDULY DEFINING THE LIMITS WITHIN WHICH A STATE
MAY EXPERIMENT WITH ITS SCHOOL CURRICULA?  THE RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCES OF
SOME PARENTS MAY BE OFFENDED BY SUBJECTING THEIR CHILDREN TO THE
BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF CREATION, WHILE ANOTHER STATE MAY OFFEND PARENTS BY
PROHIBITING A TEACHING OF BIOLOGY THAT CONTRADICTS SUCH BIBLICAL
ACCOUNT.  COMPARE SCOPES V. STATE, 154 TENN. 105, 289 S.W. 363.  WHAT
OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS TO WHAT IS DEVOUTLY FELT BY PARENTS TO BE
THE POISONING OF IMPRESSIONABLE MINDS OF CHILDREN BY CHAUVINISTIC
TEACHING OF HISTORY?  THIS IS VERY FAR FROM A FANCIFUL SUGGESTION FOR
IN THE BELIEF OF MANY THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE NATIONALISM IS THE SEED-BED OF
WAR. 

THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES IN THE OFFING WHICH ADMONISH US OF THE
DIFFICULTIES AND COMPLEXITIES THAT CONFRONT STATES IN THE DUTY OF
ADMINISTERING THEIR LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS.  ALL CITIZENS ARE TAXED FOR
THE SUPPORT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS ALTHOUGH THIS COURT HAS DENIED THE RIGHT
OF A STATE TO COMPEL ALL CHILDREN TO GO TO SUCH SCHOOLS AND HAS
RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO SEND CHILDREN TO PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED SCHOOLS.  PARENTS WHO ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS THUS CARRY A DOUBLE EDUCATIONAL BURDEN.  CHILDREN WHO GO TO
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENJOY IN MANY STATES DERIVATIVE ADVANTAGES SUCH AS FREE
TEXTBOOKS, FREE LUNCH, AND FREE TRANSPORTATION IN GOING TO AND FROM
SCHOOL.  WHAT OF THE CLAIMS FOR EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF THOSE PARENTS
WHO, BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES, CANNOT SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO
PUBLIC SCHOOLS?  WHAT OF THE CLAIM THAT IF THE RIGHT TO SEND CHILDREN
TO PRIVATELY MAINTAINED SCHOOLS IS PARTLY AN EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS
CONVICTION, TO RENDER EFFECTIVE THIS RIGHT IT SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY
EQUALITY OF TREATMENT BY THE STATE IN SUPPLYING FREE TEXTBOOKS, FREE
LUNCH, AND FREE TRANSPORTATION TO CHILDREN WHO GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS? 
WHAT OF THE CLAIM THAT SUCH GRANTS ARE OFFENSIVE TO THE CARDINAL
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? 

THESE QUESTIONS ASSUME INCREASING IMPORTANCE IN VIEW OF THE STEADY
GROWTH OF PAROCHICAL SCHOOLS BOTH IN NUMBER AND IN POPULATION.  I AM
NOT BORROWING TROUBLE BY ADUMBRATING THESE ISSUES NOR AM I PARADING
HORRIBLE EXAMPLES OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF TODAY'S DECISION.  I AM AWARE
THAT WE MUST DECIDE THE CASE BEFORE US AND NOT SOME OTHER CASE.  BUT
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A CASE IS DISSOCIATED FROM THE PAST AND
UNRELATED TO THE FUTURE.  WE MUST DECIDE THIS CASE WITH DUE REGARD FOR
WHAT WENT BEFORE AND NO LESS REGARD FOR WHAT MAY COME AFTER.  IS IT
REALLY A FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT AS THE RIGHT
FREELY TO EXERCISE ONE'S RELIGION THAT A STATE CANNOT CHOOSE TO REQUIRE
ALL CHILDREN WHO ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL TO MAKE THE SAME GESTURE OF
ALLEGIANCE TO THE SYMBOL OF OUR NATIONAL LIFE BECAUSE IT MAY OFFEND THE
CONSCIENCE OF SOME CHILDREN, BUT THAT IT MAY COMPEL ALL CHILDREN TO
ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL TO LISTEN TO THE KING JAMES VERSION ALTHOUGH IT
MAY OFFEND THE CONSCIENCES OF THEIR PARENTS?  AND WHAT OF THE LARGER
ISSUE OF CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM OBEDIENCE TO A GENERAL CIVIL REGULATION
THAT HAS A REASONABLE RELATION TO A PUBLIC PURPOSE WITHIN THE GENERAL
COMPETENCE OF THE STATE?  SEE PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S.
510, 535.  ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE SECT NOW BEFORE US INSISTED THAT IN
FORBIDDING HER TWO LITTLE GIRLS, AGED NINE AND TWELVE, TO DISTRIBUTE
PAMPHLETS OREGON INFRINGED HER AND THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN THAT
THE CHILDREN WERE ENGAGED IN "PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF GOD'S KINGDOM." 
A PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY LED TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE, BUT THE
PROBLEM REMAINS.  MCSPARRAN V. PORTLAND, 318 U.S. 768. 

THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT LIGHTLY STIRRED.  THEY TOUCH THE MOST
DELICATE ISSUES AND THEIR SOLUTION CHALLENGES THE BEST WISDOM OF
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS STATESMEN.  BUT IT PRESENTS AWFUL POSSIBILITIES
TO TRY TO ENCASE THE SOLUTION OF THESE PROBLEMS WITHIN THE RIGID
PROHIBITIONS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT A FLAG SALUTE IS A DOUBTFUL SUBSTITUTE FOR ADEQUATE
UNDERSTANDING OF OUR INSTITUTIONS.  THE STATES THAT REQUIRE SUCH A
SCHOOL EXERCISE DO NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT AS THE ONLY MEANS FOR
PROMOTING GOOD CITIZENSHIP IN CHILDREN, BUT MERELY AS ONE OF DIVERSE
MEANS FOR ACCOMPLISHING A WORTHY END.  WE MAY DEEM IT A FOOLISH
MEASURE, BUT THE POINT IS THAT THIS COURT IS NOT THE ORGAN OF
GOVERNMENT TO RESOLVE DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER IT WILL FULFILL ITS
PURPOSE.  ONLY IF THERE BE NO DOUBT THAT ANY REASONABLE MIND COULD
ENTERTAIN CAN WE DENY TO THE STATES THE RIGHT TO RESOLVE DOUBTS THEIR
WAY AND NOT OURS. 

THAT WHICH TO THE MAJORITY MAY SEEM ESSENTIAL FOR THE WELFARE OF THE
STATE MAY OFFEND THE CONSCIENCES OF A MINORITY.  BUT, SO LONG AS NO
INROADS ARE MADE UPON THE ACTUAL EXERCISE OF RELIGION BY THE MINORITY,
TO DENY THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE MAJORITY TO ENACT LAWS CONCERNED
WITH CIVIL MATTERS, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY MAY OFFEND THE CONSCIENCES OF A
MINORITY, REALLY MEANS THAT THE CONSCIENCES OF A MINORITY ARE MORE
SACRED AND MORE ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION THAN THE CONSCIENCES OF A
MAJORITY. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT SYMBOLISM IS A DRAMATIC BUT PRIMITIVE WAY OF
COMMUNICATING IDEAS.  SYMBOLISM IS INESCAPABLE.  EVEN THE MOST
SOPHISTICATED LIVE BY SYMBOLS.  BUT IT IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO MAKE
PSYCHOLOGICAL JUDGMENTS AS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A PARTICULAR SYMBOL
IN INCULCATING CONCEDEDLY INDISPENSABLE FEELINGS, PARTICULARLY IF THE
STATE HAPPENS TO SEE FIT TO UTILIZE THE SYMBOL THAT REPRESENTS OUR
HERITAGE AND OUR HOPES.  AND SURELY ONLY FLIPPANCY COULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SUGGESTION THAT CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A REQUIREMENT TO
SALUTE OUR FLAG IMPLIES EQUAL VALIDITY OF A REQUIREMENT TO SALUTE A
DICTATOR.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A SYMBOL LIES IN WHAT IT REPRESENTS.  TO
REJECT THE SWASTIKA DOES NOT IMPLY REJECTION OF THE CROSS.  AND SO IT
BEARS REPETITION TO SAY THAT IT MOCKS REASON AND DENIES OUR WHOLE
HISTORY TO FIND IN THE ALLOWANCE OF A REQUIREMENT TO SALUTE OUR FLAG ON
FITTING OCCASIONS THE SEEDS OF SANCTION FOR OBEISANCE TO A LEADER.  TO
DENY THE POWER TO EMPLOY EDUCATIONAL SYMBOLS IS TO SAY THAT THE STATE'S
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM MAY NOT STIMULATE THE IMAGINATION BECAUSE THIS MAY
LEAD TO UNWISE STIMULATION. 

THE RIGHT OF WEST VIRGINIA TO UTILIZE THE FLAG SALUTE AS PART OF ITS
EDUCATIONAL PROCESS IS DENIED BECAUSE, SO IT IS ARGUED, IT CANNOT BE
JUSTIFIED AS A MEANS OF MEETING A "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TO
NATIONAL UNITY.  IN PASSING IT DESERVES TO BE NOTED THAT THE FOUR CASES
WHICH UNANIMOUSLY SUSTAINED THE POWER OF STATES TO UTILIZE SUCH AN
EDUCATIONAL MEASURE AROSE AND WERE ALL DECIDED BEFORE THE PRESENT WORLD
WAR.  BUT TO MEASURE THE STATE'S POWER TO MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS AS ARE
HERE RESISTED BY THE IMMINENCE OF NATIONAL DANGER IS WHOLLY TO
MISCONCEIVE THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE CONCEPT OF "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER."  TO APPLY SUCH A TEST IS FOR THE COURT TO ASSUME, HOWEVER
UNWITTINGLY, A LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO IT.
TO TALK ABOUT "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" AS THE TOUCHSTONE OF ALLOWABLE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY BY THE STATES WHENEVER SCHOOL CURRICULA MAY IMPINGE
UPON THE BOUNDARIES OF INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE, IS TO TAKE A FELICITOUS
PHRASE OUT OF THE CONTEXT OF THE PARTICULAR SITUATION WHERE IT AROSE
AND FOR WHICH IT WAS ADAPTED.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES USED THE PHRASE
"CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" IN A CASE INVOLVING MERE SPEECH AS A MEANS
BY WHICH ALONE TO ACCOMPLISH SEDITION IN TIME OF WAR.  BY THAT PHRASE
HE MEANT MERELY TO INDICATE THAT, IN VIEW OF THE PROTECTION GIVEN TO
UTTERANCE BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, IN ORDER THAT MERE UTTERANCE MAY NOT
BE PROSCRIBED, "THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE
OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THEY WILL
BRING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS THAT CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO
PREVENT."  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52.  THE "SUBSTANTIVE
EVILS" ABOUT WHICH HE WAS SPEAKING WERE INDUCEMENT OF INSUBORDINATION
IN THE MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OBSTRUCTION
OF ENLISTMENT WHILE THE COUNTRY WAS AT WAR.  HE WAS NOT ENUNCIATING A
FORMAL RULE THAT THERE CAN BE NO RESTRICTION UPON SPEECH AND, STILL
LESS, NO COMPULSION WHERE CONSCIENCE BALKS, UNLESS IMMINENT DANGER
WOULD THEREBY BE WROUGHT "TO OUR INSTITUTIONS OR OUR GOVERNMENT." 

THE FLAG SALUTE EXERCISE HAS NO KINSHIP WHATEVER TO THE OATH TESTS SO
ODIOUS IN HISTORY.  FOR THE OATH TEST WAS ONE OF THE INSTRUMENTS FOR
SUPPRESSING HERETICAL BELIEFS.  SALUTING THE FLAG SUPPRESSES NO BELIEF
NOR CURBS IT.  CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS MAY BELIEVE WHAT THEY PLEASE,
AVOW THEIR BELIEF AND PRACTICE IT.  IT IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTED
THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR SALUTING THE FLAG INVOLVES THE SLIGHTEST
RESTRICTION AGAINST THE FULLEST OPPORTUNITY ON THE PART BOTH OF THE
CHILDREN AND OF THEIR PARENTS TO DISAVOW AS PUBLICLY AS THEY CHOOSE TO
DO SO THE MEANING THAT OTHERS ATTACH TO THE GESTURE OF SALUTE.  ALL
CHANNELS OF AFFIRMATIVE FREE EXPRESSION ARE OPEN TO BOTH CHILDREN AND
PARENTS.  HAD WE BEFORE US ANY ACT OF THE STATE PUTTING THE SLIGHTEST
CURBS UPON SUCH FREE EXPRESSION, I SHOULD NOT LAG BEHIND ANY MEMBER OF
THIS COURT IN STRIKING DOWN SUCH AN INVASION OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
THOUGHT AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

I AM FORTIFIED IN MY VIEW OF THIS CASE BY THE HISTORY OF THE FLAG
SALUTE CONTROVERSY IN THIS COURT.  FIVE TIMES HAS THE PRECISE QUESTION
NOW BEFORE US BEEN ADJUDICATED.  FOUR TIMES THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY FOUND
THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SUCH A SCHOOL EXERCISE WAS NOT BEYOND THE
POWERS OF THE STATES.  INDEED IN THE FIRST THREE CASES TO COME BEFORE
THE COURT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM NOW SUSTAINED WAS DEEMED SO CLEARLY
UNMERITORIOUS THAT THIS COURT DISMISSED THE APPEALS FOR WANT OF A
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  LEOLES V. LANDERS, 302 U.S. 656; HERING
V. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 303 U.S. 624; GABRIELLI V. KNICKERBOCKER,
306 U.S. 621.  IN THE FOURTH CASE THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
UPHOLDING THE STATE LAW WAS SUMMARILY AFFIRMED ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE
EARLIER CASES.  JOHNSON V. DEERFIELD, 306 U.S. 621.  THE FIFTH CASE,
MINERSVILLE DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586, WAS BROUGHT HERE BECAUSE
THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT RAN
COUNTER TO OUR RULINGS.  THEY WERE REAFFIRMED AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION,
WITH ONE JUSTICE DISSENTING. 

WHAT MAY BE EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THIS UNIFORM RECOGNITION OF
STATE AUTHORITY IS THE FACT THAT EVERY JUSTICE - THIRTEEN IN ALL - WHO
HAS HITHERTO PARTICIPATED IN JUDGING THIS MATTER HAS AT ONE OR MORE
TIMES FOUND NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IN WHAT IS NOW CONDEMNED.  ONLY
THE TWO JUSTICES SITTING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THIS MATTER HAVE NOT
HERETOFORE FOUND THIS LEGISLATION INOFFENSIVE TO THE "LIBERTY"
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  AND AMONG THE JUSTICES WHO SUSTAINED
THIS MEASURE WERE OUTSTANDING JUDICIAL LEADERS IN THE ZEALOUS
ENFORCEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES - MEN LIKE
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, TO
MENTION ONLY THOSE NO LONGER ON THE COURT. 

ONE'S CONCEPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE SEVERED FROM ONE'S
CONCEPTION OF A JUDGE'S FUNCTION IN APPLYING IT.  THE COURT HAS NO
REASON FOR EXISTENCE IF IT MERELY REFLECTS THE PRESSURES OF THE DAY. 
OUR SYSTEM IS BUILT ON THE FAITH THAT MEN SET APART FOR THIS SPECIAL
FUNCTION, FREED FROM THE INFLUENCES OF IMMEDIACY AND FROM THE
DEFLECTIONS OF WORLDLY AMBITION, WILL BECOME ABLE TO TAKE A VIEW OF
LONGER RANGE THAN THE PERIOD OF RESPONSIBILITY ENTRUSTED TO CONGRESS
AND LEGISLATURES.  WE ARE DEALING WITH MATTERS AS TO WHICH LEGISLATORS
AND VOTERS HAVE CONFLICTING VIEWS.  ARE WE AS JUDGES TO IMPOSE OUR
STRONG CONVICTIONS ON WHERE WISDOM LIES?  THAT WHICH THREE YEARS AGO
HAD SEEMED TO FIVE SUCCESSIVE COURTS TO LIE WITHIN PERMISSIBLE AREAS OF
LEGISLATION IS NOW OUTLAWED BY THE DECIDING SHIFT OF OPINION OF TWO
JUSTICES.  WHAT REASON IS THERE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY OR THEIR
SUCCESSORS MAY NOT HAVE ANOTHER VIEW A FEW YEARS HENCE?  IS THAT WHICH
WAS DEEMED TO BE OF SO FUNDAMENTAL A NATURE AS TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE
CONSTITUTION TO ENDURE FOR ALL TIMES TO BE THE SPORT OF SHIFTING WINDS
OF DOCTRINE?  OF COURSE, JUDICIAL OPINIONS, EVEN AS TO QUESTIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY, ARE NOT IMMUTABLE.  AS HAS BEEN TRUE IN THE PAST,
THE COURT WILL FROM TIME TO TIME REVERSE ITS POSITION.  BUT I BELIEVE
THAT NEVER BEFORE THESE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CASES (EXCEPT FOR MINOR
DEVIATIONS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACED) HAS THIS COURT OVERRULED DECISIONS SO
AS TO RESTRICT THE POWERS OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.  ALWAYS HERETOFORE,
IT HAS WITHDRAWN NARROW VIEWS OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY SO AS TO
AUTHORIZE WHAT FORMERLY IT HAD DENIED. 

IN VIEW OF THIS HISTORY IT MUST BE PLAIN THAT WHAT THIRTEEN JUSTICES
FOUND TO BE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF A STATE, LEGISLATORS
CAN NOT BE DEEMED UNREASONABLE IN ENACTING.  THEREFORE, IN DENYING TO
THE STATES WHAT HERETOFORE HAS RECEIVED SUCH IMPRESSIVE JUDICIAL
SANCTION, SOME OTHER TESTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY MUST SURELY BE
GUIDING THE COURT THAN THE ABSENCE OF A RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
LEGISLATION.  BUT I KNOW OF NO OTHER TEST WHICH THIS COURT IS
AUTHORIZED TO APPLY IN NULLIFYING LEGISLATION. 

IN THE PAST THIS COURT HAS FROM TIME TO TIME SET ITS VIEWS OF POLICY
AGAINST THAT EMBODIED IN LEGISLATION BY FINDING LAWS IN CONFLICT WITH
WHAT WAS CALLED THE "SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION."  SUCH UNDEFINED
DESTRUCTIVE POWER WAS NOT CONFERRED ON THIS COURT BY THE CONSTITUTION. 
BEFORE A DULY ENACTED LAW CAN BE JUDICIALLY NULLIFIED, IT MUST BE
FORBIDDEN BY SOME EXPLICIT RESTRICTION UPON POLITICAL AUTHORITY IN THE
CONSTITUTION.  EQUALLY INADMISSIBLE IS THE CLAIM TO STRIKE DOWN
LEGISLATION BECAUSE TO US AS INDIVIDUALS IT SEEMS OPPOSED TO THE "PLAN
AND PURPOSE" OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THAT IS TOO TEMPTING A BASIS FOR
FINDING IN ONE'S PERSONAL VIEWS THE PURPOSES OF THE FOUNDERS. 

THE UNCONTROLLABLE POWER WIELDED BY THIS COURT BRINGS IT VERY CLOSE
TO THE MOST SENSITIVE AREAS OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.  AS APPEAL FROM
LEGISLATION TO ADJUDICATION BECOMES MORE FREQUENT, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
MORE FAR-REACHING, JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT BECOMES MORE AND NOT LESS
IMPORTANT, LEST WE UNWARRANTABLY ENTER SOCIAL AND POLITICAL DOMAINS
WHOLLY OUTSIDE OUR CONCERN.  I THINK I APPRECIATE FULLY THE OBJECTIONS
TO THE LAW BEFORE US.  BUT TO DENY THAT IT PRESENTS A QUESTION UPON
WHICH MEN MIGHT REASONABLY DIFFER APPEARS TO ME TO BE INTOLERANCE.  AND
SINCE MEN MAY SO REASONABLY DIFFER, I DEEM IT BEYOND MY CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO ASSERT MY VIEW OF THE WISDOM OF THIS LAW AGAINST THE VIEW OF
THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA. 

JEFFERSON'S OPPOSITION TO JUDICIAL REVIEW HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY
HISTORY, BUT IT STILL SERVES AS AN ADMONITION AGAINST CONFUSION BETWEEN
JUDICIAL AND POLITICAL FUNCTIONS.  AS A RULE OF JUDICIAL SELF
RESTRAINT, IT IS STILL AS VALID AS LINCOLN'S ADMONITION.  FOR THOSE WHO
PASS LAWS NOT ONLY ARE UNDER DUTY TO PASS LAWS.  THEY ARE ALSO UNDER
DUTY TO OBSERVE THE CONSTITUTION.  AND EVEN THOUGH LEGISLATION RELATES
TO CIVIL LIBERTIES, OUR DUTY OF DEFERENCE TO THOSE WHO HAVE THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING THE LAWS IS NO LESS RELEVANT OR LESS
EXACTING.  AND THIS IS SO ESPECIALLY WHEN WE CONSIDER THE ACCIDENTAL
CONTINGENCIES BY WHICH ONE MAN MAY DETERMINE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND
THEREBY CONFINE THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE LEGISLATURES OF FORTY-EIGHT STATES.  THE ATTITUDE OF
JUDICIAL HUMILITY WHICH THESE CONSIDERATIONS ENJOIN IS NOT AN
ABDICATION OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  IT IS A DUE OBSERVANCE OF ITS
LIMITS.  MOREOVER, IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT IN A QUESTION LIKE
THIS WE ARE NOT PASSING ON THE PROPER DISTRIBUTION OF POLITICAL POWER
AS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.  WE ARE NOT
DISCHARGING THE BASIC FUNCTION OF THIS COURT AS THE MEDIATOR OF POWERS
WITHIN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.  TO STRIKE DOWN A LAW LIKE THIS IS TO DENY A
POWER TO ALL GOVERNMENT. 

THE WHOLE COURT IS CONSCIOUS THAT THIS CASE REACHES ULTIMATE
QUESTIONS OF JUDICIAL POWER AND ITS RELATION TO OUR SCHEME OF
GOVERNMENT.  IT IS APPROPRIATE, THEREFORE, TO RECALL AN UTTERANCE AS
WISE AS ANY THAT I KNOW IN ANALYZING WHAT IS REALLY INVOLVED WHEN THE
THEORY OF THIS COURT'S FUNCTION IS PUT TO THE TEST OF PRACTICE.  THE
ANALYSIS IS THAT OF JAMES BRADLEY THAYER: 

"  ...  THERE HAS DEVELOPED A VAST AND GROWING INCREASE OF JUDICIAL
INTERFERENCE WITH LEGISLATION.  THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT STATE OF
THINGS FROM WHAT OUR FATHERS CONTEMPLATED, A CENTURY AND MORE AGO, IN
FRAMING THE NEW SYSTEM.  SELDOM, INDEED, AS THEY IMAGINED, UNDER OUR
SYSTEM, WOULD THIS GREAT, NOVEL, TREMENDOUS POWER OF THE COURTS BE
EXERTED,  - WOULD THIS SACRED ARK OF THE COVENANT BE TAKEN FROM WITHIN
THE VEIL.  MARSHALL HIMSELF EXPRESSED TRULY ONE ASPECT OF THE MATTER,
WHEN HE SAID IN ONE OF THE LATER YEARS OF HIS LIFE:  'NO QUESTIONS CAN
BE BROUGHT BEFORE A JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL OF GREATER DELICACY THAN THOSE
WHICH INVOLVE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTS.  IF THEY
BECOME INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY TO THE CASE, THE COURT MUST MEET AND
DECIDE THEM; BUT IF THE CASE MAY BE DETERMINED ON OTHER GROUNDS, A JUST
RESPECT FOR THE LEGISLATURE REQUIRES THAT THE OBLIGATION OF ITS LAWS
SHOULD NOT BE UNNECESSARILY AND WANTONLY ASSAILED.'  AND AGAIN, A
LITTLE EARLIER THAN THIS, HE LAID DOWN THE ONE TRUE RULE OF DUTY FOR
THE COURTS.  WHEN HE WENT TO PHILADELPHIA AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER, IN
1831, ON THAT PAINFUL ERRAND OF WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN, IN ANSWERING A
CORDIAL TRIBUTE FROM THE BAR OF THAT CITY HE REMARKED THAT IF HE MIGHT
BE PERMITTED TO CLAIM FOR HIMSELF AND HIS ASSOCIATES ANY PART OF THE
KIND THINGS THEY HAD SAID, IT WOULD BE THIS, THAT THEY HAD 'NEVER
SOUGHT TO ENLARGE THE JUDICIAL POWER BEYOND ITS PROPER BOUNDS, NOR
FEARED TO CARRY IT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT THAT DUTY REQUIRED.' 

"THAT IS THE SAFE TWOFOLD RULE; NOR IS THE FIRST PART OF IT ANY WHIT
LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE SECOND; NAY, MORE; TODAY IT IS THE PART WHICH
MOST REQUIRES TO BE EMPHASIZED.  FOR JUST HERE COMES IN A CONSIDERATION
OF VERY GREAT WEIGHT.  GREAT AND, INDEED, INESTIMABLE AS ARE THE
ADVANTAGES IN A POPULAR GOVERNMENT OF THIS CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCE,  -
THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY TO DISREGARD UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION,
IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT THE EXERCISE OF IT, EVEN WHEN
UNAVOIDABLE, IS ALWAYS ATTENDED WITH A SERIOUS EVIL, NAMELY, THAT THE
CORRECTION OF LEGISLATIVE MISTAKES COMES FROM THE OUTSIDE, AND THE
PEOPLE THUS LOSE THE POLITICAL EXPERIENCE, AND THE MORAL EDUCATION AND
STIMULUS THAT COME FROM FIGHTING THE QUESTION OUT IN THE ORDINARY WAY,
AND CORRECTING THEIR OWN ERRORS.  IF THE DECISION IN MUNN V. ILLINOIS
AND THE 'GRANGER CASES,' TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, AND IN THE 'LEGAL
TENDER CASES,' NEARLY THIRTY YEARS AGO, HAD BEEN DIFFERENT; AND THE
LEGISLATION THERE IN QUESTION, THOUGHT BY MANY TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND BY MANY MORE TO BE ILL-ADVISED, HAD BEEN SET ASIDE, WE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN SAVED SOME TROUBLE AND SOME HARM.  BUT I VENTURE TO THINK THAT THE
GOOD WHICH CAME TO THE COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE FROM THE VIGOROUS
THINKING THAT HAD TO BE DONE IN THE POLITICAL DEBATES THAT FOLLOWED,
FROM THE INFILTRATION THROUGH EVERY PART OF THE POPULATION OF SOUND
IDEAS AND SENTIMENTS, FROM THE ROUSING INTO ACTIVITY OF OPPOSITE
ELEMENTS, THE ENLARGEMENT OF IDEAS, THE STRENGTHENING OF MORAL FIBRE,
AND THE GROWTH OF POLITICAL EXPERIENCE THAT CAME OUT OF IT ALL,  - THAT
ALL THIS FAR MORE THAN OUTWEIGHED ANY EVIL WHICH EVER FLOWED FROM THE
REFUSAL OF THE COURT TO INTERFERE WITH THE WORK OF THE LEGISLATURE. 

"THE TENDENCY OF A COMMON AND EASY RESORT TO THIS GREAT FUNCTION, NOW
LAMENTABLY TOO COMMON, IS TO DWARF THE POLITICAL CAPACITY OF THE
PEOPLE, AND TO DEADEN ITS SENSE OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.  IT IS NO
LIGHT THING TO DO THAT. 

"WHAT CAN BE DONE?  IT IS THE COURTS THAT CAN DO MOST TO CURE THE
EVIL; AND THE OPPORTUNITY IS A VERY GREAT ONE.  LET THEM RESOLUTELY
ADHERE TO FIRST PRINCIPLES.  LET THEM CONSIDER HOW NARROW IS THE
FUNCTION WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONS HAVE CONFERRED ON THEM - THE OFFICE
MERELY OF DECIDING LITIGATED CASES; HOW LARGE, THEREFORE, IS THE DUTY
INTRUSTED TO OTHERS, AND ABOVE ALL TO THE LEGISLATURE.  IT IS THAT BODY
WHICH IS CHARGED, PRIMARILY, WITH THE DUTY OF JUDGING OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ITS WORK.  THE CONSTITUTIONS GENERALLY GIVE THEM
NO AUTHORITY TO CALL UPON A COURT FOR ADVICE; THEY MUST DECIDE FOR
THEMSELVES, AND THE COURTS MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO SAY A WORD.  SUCH A
BODY, CHARGED, IN EVERY STATE, WITH ALMOST ALL THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF
THE PEOPLE, IS ENTITLED TO THE MOST ENTIRE AND REAL RESPECT; IS
ENTITLED, AS AMONG ALL RATIONALLY PERMISSIBLE OPINIONS AS TO WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION ALLOWS, TO ITS OWN CHOICE.  COURTS, AS HAS OFTEN BEEN
SAID, ARE NOT TO THINK OF THE LEGISLATORS, BUT OF THE LEGISLATURE - THE
GREAT, CONTINUOUS BODY ITSELF, ABSTRACTED FROM ALL THE TRANSITORY
INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY HAPPEN TO HOLD ITS POWER.  IT IS THIS MAJESTIC
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE WHOSE ACTION IS IN QUESTION, A COORDINATE
DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, CHARGED WITH THE GREATEST FUNCTIONS, AND
INVESTED, IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, WITH WHATSOEVER WISDOM, VIRTUE, AND
KNOWLEDGE THE EXERCISE OF SUCH FUNCTIONS REQUIRES. 

"TO SET ASIDE THE ACTS OF SUCH A BODY, REPRESENTING IN ITS OWN FIELD,
WHICH IS THE VERY HIGHEST OF ALL, THE ULTIMATE SOVEREIGN, SHOULD BE A
SOLEMN, UNUSUAL, AND PAINFUL ACT.  SOMETHING IS WRONG WHEN IT CAN EVER
BE OTHER THAN THAT.  AND IF IT BE TRUE THAT THE HOLDERS OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER ARE CARELESS OR EVIL, YET THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF THE COURT
REMAINS UNTOUCHED; IT CANNOT RIGHTLY ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, BY
UNDERTAKING A FUNCTION NOT ITS OWN.  ON THE OTHER HAND, BY ADHERING
RIGIDLY TO ITS OWN DUTY, THE COURT WILL HELP, AS NOTHING ELSE CAN, TO
FIX THE SPOT WHERE RESPONSIBILITY LIES, AND TO BRING DOWN ON THAT
PRECISE LOCALITY THE THUNDERBOLT OF POPULAR CONDEMNATION.  THE
JUDICIARY, TODAY, IN DEALING WITH THE ACTS OF THEIR COORDINATE
LEGISLATORS, OWE TO THE COUNTRY NO GREATER OR CLEARER DUTY THAN THAT OF
KEEPING THEIR HANDS OFF THESE ACTS WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO IT.
FOR THAT COURSE - THE TRUE COURSE OF JUDICIAL DUTY ALWAYS - WILL
POWERFULLY HELP TO BRING THE PEOPLE AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO A
SENSE OF THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITY.  THERE WILL STILL REMAIN TO THE
JUDICIARY AN AMPLE FIELD FOR THE DETERMINATIONS OF THIS REMARKABLE
JURISDICTION, OF WHICH OUR AMERICAN LAW HAS SO MUCH REASON TO BE PROUD;
A JURISDICTION WHICH HAS HAD SOME OF ITS CHIEF ILLUSTRATIONS AND ITS
GREATEST TRIUMPHS, AS IN MARSHALL'S TIME, SO IN OURS, WHILE THE COURTS
WERE REFUSING TO EXERCISE IT."  J. B. THAYER, JOHN MARSHALL, (1901) 104
10. 

OF COURSE PATRIOTISM CAN NOT BE ENFORCED BY THE FLAG SALUTE.  BUT
NEITHER CAN THE LIBERAL SPIRIT BE ENFORCED BY JUDICIAL INVALIDATION OF
ILLIBERAL LEGISLATION.  OUR CONSTANT PREOCCUPATION WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION RATHER THAN WITH ITS WISDOM TENDS TO
PREOCCUPATION OF THE AMERICAN MIND WITH A FALSE VALUE.  THE TENDENCY OF
FOCUSSING ATTENTION ON CONSTITUTIONALITY IS TO MAKE CONSTITUTIONALITY
SYNONYMOUS WITH WISDOM, TO REGARD A LAW AS ALL RIGHT IF IT IS
CONSTITUTIONAL.  SUCH AN ATTITUDE IS A GREAT ENEMY OF LIBERALISM. 
PARTICULARLY IN LEGISLATION AFFECTING FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND FREEDOM OF
SPEECH MUCH WHICH SHOULD OFFEND A FREE-SPIRITED SOCIETY IS
CONSTITUTIONAL.  RELIANCE FOR THE MOST PRECIOUS INTERESTS OF
CIVILIZATION, THEREFORE, MUST BE FOUND OUTSIDE OF THEIR VINDICATION IN
COURTS OF LAW.  ONLY A PERSISTENT POSITIVE TRANSLATION OF THE FAITH OF
A FREE SOCIETY INTO THE CONVICTIONS AND HABITS AND ACTIONS OF A
COMMUNITY IS THE ULTIMATE RELIANCE AGAINST UNABATED TEMPTATIONS TO
FETTER THE HUMAN SPIRIT. 
..END :







I.C.C. V. INLAND WATERWAYS CORP., 319 U.S. 671 


NO. 175.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 12, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1943.  - 44
F.SUPP.  368, REVERSED. 


PROPORTIONAL RATES ON RESHIPMENTS FROM CHICAGO TO EASTERN DESTINATIONS
OF GRAIN COMING FROM DISTANT POINTS NORTHWEST ON THROUGH SHIPMENT WITH
TRANSIT PRIVILEGES AND ARRIVING AT CHICAGO BY RAIL OR BY LAKE STEAMER,
BECAME APPLICABLE BY REASON OF TARIFF WORDINGS TO GRAIN COMING FROM
POINTS CLOSE TO CHICAGO ARRIVING BY BARGE OVER THE ILLINOIS WATERWAYS
ROUTE WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED AFTER THE TARIFFS WERE ADOPTED.  THE
RAILROADS FILED TARIFF AMENDMENTS WHICH WOULD DENY TO THE EX-BARGE
GRAIN THE PRIVILEGE OF MOVING EASTWARD ON THE PROPORTIONAL RATES, AND
REMIT IT TO THE HIGHER LOCAL RATES WHICH GRAIN ENTERING CHICAGO BY
TRUCK OR FROM LOCAL ORIGINS BY RAIL WAS OBLIGED TO PAY.  HELD: 

1. THAT AN ORDER BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 15(7) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHICH
RELIEVED THE PROPOSED TARIFF AMENDMENTS FROM SUSPENSION, AS NOT
"UNLAWFUL," BUT WHICH DID NOT PREVENT FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS ON SPECIFIC
COMPLAINT OF THE RATES ON THE EX-BARGE TRAFFIC, WAS A DETERMINATION
WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY OF THE COMMISSION WITH WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERFERED.  P. 685. 

2.  PROPORTIONAL RATES DIFFERING FROM EACH OTHER ACCORDING TO THE
ORIGIN OF THE COMMODITY MAY BE FIXED LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES AND MAY
APPLY TO OUTBOUND MOVEMENTS AFTER STOPOVER IN TRANSIT.  P. 684. 

3.  SINCE THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO APPROVE OR PRESCRIBE THE RATES
HERE IN CONTROVERSY, THEY STAND ONLY AS CARRIER-MADE RATES AND ARE
SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE RECOVERY OF REPARATIONS.  P. 686. 

4.  TO PERPETUATE THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE BY SUSTAINING THE
DISTRICT COURT'S INJUNCTION WOULD FAVOR THE EX-BARGE GRAIN OVER GRAIN
MOVING EAST FROM CHICAGO ON LOCAL RATES, THEREBY ENTAILING VIOLATIONS
OF SEC. 4(1) OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD BEFORE AND AFTER AMENDMENT BY THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  P. 687. 

5.  NOTHING IN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 WARRANTS HOLDING THAT
THE EX-BARGE GRAIN (MOSTLY CORN), MERELY BECAUSE IT MOVED OVER A
COMPARATIVELY SLIGHT DISTANCE BY WATER, MUST AS A MATTER OF LAW BE
GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF PROPORTIONALS FIXED WITH REFERENCE TO GRAIN
(MOSTLY WHEAT) FROM THE NORTHWEST, INCLUDING POINTS IN CANADA AND AS
FAR WEST IN THE UNITED STATES AS WASHINGTON AND THE DAKOTAS.  P. 687. 

6.  SEC. 15(7) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PROVIDING THAT AFTER
SUSPENSION OF A CARRIER-PROPOSED RATE THE COMMISSION "MAY MAKE SUCH
ORDER WITH REFERENCE THERETO AS WOULD BE PROPER IN A PROCEEDING
INITIATED AFTER IT HAD BECOME EFFECTIVE," DID NOT OBLIGE THE
COMMISSION, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, TO CONTINUE THE
SUSPENSION PROCEEDINGS AND ESTABLISH SPECIAL PROPORTIONALS FOR THE
BARGE LINES UNDER SEC. 6(1) OF THE ACT.  P. 689. 

7.  THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT DOES NOT PERMIT IT TO PRESCRIBE OR
APPROVE RATES, AND THE DECISION IN THIS CASE CARRIES NO IMPLICATION OF
APPROVAL OF ANY RATES HERE INVOLVED; NOR CAN THE COURT PRESCRIBE
GENERAL ATTITUDES THE COMMISSION MUST ADOPT TOWARDS THE EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION LEFT TO IT, RATHER THAN TO THE COURTS, BY THE ACT OF
CONGRESS.  P. 691. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. INLAND WATERWAYS CORP. ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINING
THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE
BILL WAS FILED BY THE INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION.  OTHER PARTIES,
INCLUDING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, WERE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR REASONS EXPLAINED IN THE OPINION, INFRA (P.
683), DID NOT PARTICIPATE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY SCHEDULES FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO BECOME
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 15, 1939, THE APPELLANT EASTERN RAILROADS  FN1
SOUGHT TO DENY GRAIN ARRIVING AT CHICAGO BY BARGE OVER THE ILLINOIS
WATERWAYS THE PRIVILEGE OF MOVING OUT OF CHICAGO BY RAIL ON
"PROPORTIONAL" RATES APPLICABLE TO COMPETING GRAIN ARRIVING AT CHICAGO
BY LAKE STEAMER OR RAIL.  THE ONLY OTHER RATES ON WHICH THE EX-BARGE
GRAIN COULD MOVE EASTWARD BY RAIL FROM CHICAGO WERE "LOCAL" RATES,
WHICH WERE IN ALL CASES HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING "PROPORTIONAL" RATES. 
THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES WERE PROTESTED BY BARGE LINES AND OTHERS
DESIROUS OF MAINTAINING THE EXISTING PROPORTIONALS AS TO EX-BARGE
GRAIN. 

UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTROVERSY THUS PRECIPITATED AND THE CONSEQUENT
LITIGATION WHICH HAS BROUGHT IT TO THIS COURT REQUIRES A STATEMENT OF
THE RATHER COMPLICATED RATE STRUCTURE TO WHICH THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES
RELATED. 

THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES APPLIED TO GRAIN, GRAIN PRODUCTS AND GRAIN BY
PRODUCTS, BUT FOR CONVENIENCE WE REFER TO THEM ALL AS "GRAIN."  THEY
DEALT NOT ONLY WITH GRAIN COMING BY BARGE VIA THE ILLINOIS WATERWAYS TO
CHICAGO, BUT ALSO WITH GRAIN SO ARRIVING AT PEORIA, ILLINOIS, ST.
LOUIS, MISSOURI, AND OTHER RELATED RATE-BREAK POINTS.  CHICAGO IS
ILLUSTRATIVE OF ALL, AND FOR CONVENIENCE WE SHALL FOLLOW THE PRACTICE
EMPLOYED BY THE PARTIES IN BRIEFS AND ARGUMENT, AND CONFINE OUR
DISCUSSION TO IT. 

GRAIN ORIGINATING AT CHICAGO, GRAIN BROUGHT THERE BY TRUCK, OR BY
RAIL UNDER INTRASTATE RATES, AND GRAIN WHICH HAD FORFEITED ITS TRANSIT
PRIVILEGES, MOVED EASTWARD BY RAIL FROM CHICAGO ON LOCAL RATES.  THEIR
VALIDITY AS SUCH HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED IN THIS CASE. 

GRAIN ORIGINATING AT CERTAIN PLACES DISTANT FROM CHICAGO HAD THE
PRIVILEGE, HOWEVER, OF MOVING EASTWARD FROM CHICAGO BY RAIL ON THE
LOWER PROPORTIONAL RATES, ALTHOUGH IT CAME TO REST AT CHICAGO FOR
MARKETING OR PROCESSING.  THESE "PROPORTIONALS" VARIED ACCORDING TO THE
REGION OF ORIGIN OR THE REGION OF DESTINATION; AND, IN SOME INSTANCES,
ACCORDING TO BOTH. 

"OFFICIAL TERRITORY" LIES EAST OF CHICAGO, AND IS DIVIDED INTO
"CENTRAL TERRITORY," "TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY," AND "NEW ENGLAND
TERRITORY."  CENTRAL TERRITORY LIES WEST OF A LINE DRAWN THROUGH
PITTSBURGH AND BUFFALO.  TO THIS TERRITORY THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT
SETS OF PROPORTIONALS, SET WITH REFERENCE TO THE TERRITORY OF ORIGIN. 

GRAIN ORIGINATING AT CERTAIN POINTS IN ILLINOIS MOVED OUT OF CHICAGO
BY RAIL TO CENTRAL TERRITORY ON "ILLINOIS RE-SHIPPING" PROPORTIONALS,
WHICH, HOWEVER, DID NOT APPLY TO EX-BARGE GRAIN AND WERE NOT AFFECTED
BY THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES. 

GRAIN ORIGINATING IN "NORTHWEST TERRITORY" MOVED OUT OF CHICAGO BY
RAIL TO CENTRAL TERRITORY ON "NORTHWEST" PROPORTIONALS, WHICH WERE IN
SOME INSTANCES HIGHER, AND IN OTHERS LOWER, THAN THE ILLINOIS RE
SHIPPING PROPORTIONALS.  AS FIRST PUBLISHED, THESE PROPORTIONALS
APPLIED ONLY TO GRAIN ORIGINATING IN NORTHWEST TERRITORY, WHICH
COMPRISES GENERALLY NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN,
THE UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN, MONTANA, WYOMING, IDAHO, OREGON,
WASHINGTON, AND CERTAIN CANADIAN PROVINCES.  THE NORTHWEST
PROPORTIONALS WERE ORIGINALLY AND HAVE CONTINUED TO BE APPLICABLE ON
GRAIN ARRIVING AT CHICAGO BY LAKE.  IN 1932 THE NORTHWEST PROPORTIONALS
WERE AMENDED TO MAKE THEM APPLY TO SHIPMENTS WHICH "ARRIVED BY BOAT
LINE AT CHICAGO ...  "  AT THE TIME THIS WORDING WAS PUT INTO THE
TARIFFS THE ONLY WATER-BORNE GRAIN TO WHICH THEY APPLIED WAS THAT
ARRIVING FROM THE NORTHWEST BY BOAT OVER THE GREAT LAKES.  THE
COMMISSION HAS DECIDED THAT THE EFFECT OF THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO MAKE
THE NORTHWEST PROPORTIONALS APPLY TO GRAIN ARRIVING BY BARGE OVER THE
ILLINOIS WATERWAYS, WHICH WERE OPENED IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, 1933; AND
WE ACCEPT ITS DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE.  WHILE SHIPPING POINTS ALONG
THE WATERWAYS VARY FROM 57.5 TO 200.9 MILES IN DISTANCE FROM CHICAGO,
SOME GRAIN ARRIVING THERE BY BARGE ORIGINATED AT POINTS AS FAR BEYOND
AS KANSAS CITY AND ST. LOUIS.  THE NORTHWEST PROPORTIONALS WERE THE
ONLY ONES WHICH APPLIED TO EX-BARGE GRAIN MOVING OUT OF CHICAGO BY RAIL
TO CENTRAL TERRITORY, AND THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES CANCELLED THEM AS TO
SUCH GRAIN. 

GRAIN BROUGHT BY RAIL FROM "TRANS-MISSISSIPPI TERRITORY," WHICH
INCLUDED, AMONG OTHER PLACES, KANSAS CITY AND ST. LOUIS, MOVED OUT OF
CHICAGO TO CENTRAL TERRITORY ON "TRANS-MISSISSIPPI" PROPORTIONALS,
WHICH HAD BEEN SET BY THE COMMISSION 3 CENTS LOWER THAN THE NORTHWEST
PROPORTIONALS, IN ORDER TO EQUALIZE THE TWIN CITIES WITH KANSAS CITY. 
THE TRANS-MISSISSIPPI PROPORTIONALS DID NOT APPLY TO GRAIN COMING FROM
THESE POINTS BY BARGE, AND THEREFORE SUCH GRAIN HAD TO PAY A HIGHER
RATE FOR THE OUTBOUND HAUL THAN WAS REQUIRED OF GRAIN COMING FROM THEM
BY RAIL.  NO COMPLAINT HAS BEEN MADE, HOWEVER, OF THIS; AND THE
APPELLEES HAVE BEEN CONTENT TO ASSERT THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE
NORTHWEST PROPORTIONALS AS TO SUCH GRAIN. 

"TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY" LIES BETWEEN CENTRAL TERRITORY AND NEW ENGLAND
TERRITORY, WHICH COMPRISES THE NEW ENGLAND STATES.  TO TRUNK-LINE AND
NEW ENGLAND TERRITORIES THE PROPORTIONALS DID NOT VARY WITH THE POINT
OF ORIGIN OF THE GRAIN.  THESE PROPORTIONALS APPLIED TO GRAIN COMING TO
CHICAGO BY BARGE OVER THE ILLINOIS WATERWAYS, AND THE PROPOSED
SCHEDULES CANCELLED THEM AS TO SUCH GRAIN.  THE EXISTING SCHEDULES
PROVIDED THAT "IN NO CASE SHALL THE COMBINATION THROUGH RATE TO AND
FROM THE RESHIPPING POINT VIA RAIL BE LESS THAN THE LOCAL RATE FROM THE
RE-SHIPPING POINT TO DESTINATION, THE DIFFERENCE NECESSARY TO PROTECT
THE LOCAL RATE FROM THE RE-SHIPPING POINT TO BE ADDED TO THE RE
SHIPPING RATE THEREFROM."  NO SUCH PROVISION WAS MADE WITH RESPECT TO
THE BARGE-RAIL TRAFFIC, AND THE COMMISSION FOUND ACCORDINGLY THAT "THE
BARGE-RAIL RATES ARE FAR BELOW THE LOCAL RATES FROM THE RE-SHIPPING
POINTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FOURTH-SECTION RULE,  FN2 WHILE THE ALL
RAIL RATES ARE IN STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THAT RULE." 

WHEN THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES WERE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION, THAT
BODY, ACTING PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 15(7) OF THE ACT,
FN3  SUSPENDED THEM FOR THE ALLOWABLE PERIOD OF SEVEN MONTHS AND
ENTERED UPON A HEARING OF THEIR LAWFULNESS.  THE LAST TESTIMONY WAS
HEARD, AND THE RECORD IN THE CASE CLOSED, ON JANUARY 26, 1940.  ON
SEPTEMBER 18, 1940, THE PRESIDENT APPROVED THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1940.  FN4  THEREAFTER THE APPELLEE INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION
REQUESTED THE COMMISSION TO DISPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING IN THE LIGHT OF
THE NEW ACT.  ON JULY 31, 1941, DIVISION 2 OF THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
"THE PROPORTIONAL RATES HERE IN ISSUE HAVE NEVER BEEN APPLICABLE ON
THIS BARGE TRAFFIC MOVING ON UNFILED RATES," AND THAT "THE SCHEDULES
UNDER SUSPENSION ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE UNLAWFUL."  IT ANNOUNCED THAT AN
ORDER WOULD BE ENTERED VACATING THE ALREADY EXPIRED ORDER OF SUSPENSION
AND DISCONTINUING THE PROCEEDINGS.  FN5  WHEN THE PERIOD OF COMPULSORY
SUSPENSION ENDED, THE CARRIERS HAD VOLUNTARILY CONTINUED THE
SUSPENSION. 

IN ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION OF THIS REPORT THE
INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION ASSERTED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD PERMITTED
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A CONNECTING LINE FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 3(4) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940. 
FN6  IT SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMISSION FIX THE EXISTING PROPORTIONAL
RATES AS THE PROPER ONES, STATING THAT:  "THEORETICALLY, THE COMMISSION
IS NOT LIMITED TO A CHOICE BETWEEN THE UNLAWFUL PROPOSED RATES AND THE
PRESENT RATES, BUT MAY, UPON AN ADEQUATE RECORD, PRESCRIBE SOME
DIFFERENT BASIS OF RATES FOR THE FUTURE.  ACTUALLY, NO DIFFERENT
PROPOSAL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED WHICH COULD SUPPORT A DIFFERENT BASIS OF
RATES THAN THOSE PRESENTLY IN EFFECT.  THAT FACT, HOWEVER, CANNOT
POSSIBLY MILITATE TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED RATES, BUT COULD ONLY COMPEL
THE POSTPONEMENT OF ANY CHANGE IN THE PRESENT TARIFFS PENDING FURTHER
HEARING, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF A LAWFUL PROPOSAL."  FN7 

THE DECISION OF THE WHOLE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION WAS ANNOUNCED
ON DECEMBER 1, 1941.  FN8 IN IT THE COMMISSION TOOK OFFICIAL NOTICE
THAT CERTAIN OF THE PROTESTANT BARGE CARRIERS HAD ATTAINED COMMON
CARRIER STATUS UNDER THE ACT, AND STATED THAT "NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD
BE SERVED BY FURTHER HEARING OR REARGUMENT."  FN9  THE COMMISSION
REVIEWED THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE AND THE PROBABLE EFFECTS OF THE
PROPOSED CHANGES IN OPERATION AS CONTRASTED TO THE EFFECTS OF DENYING
THEM, AND SAID: 

"THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES WILL NOT PROHIBIT THE MOVEMENT BY BARGE-RAIL
EVEN TO TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY, THEIR PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL EFFECT BEING
TO REDUCE THE PROFITS OF THE CHICAGO ELEVATOR OPERATORS.  ...  FN10 

"PROTESTANTS MAINTAIN THAT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES WILL BE
UNREASONABLE, UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY, AND UNDULY PREJUDICIAL  ...  AND
UNDULY PREFERENTIAL.  ...  THIS IS BASED PRIMARILY ON THE FACT THAT
UNDER THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES THE EX-BARGE RATES WILL BE HIGHER THAN THE
EX-RAIL OR EX-LAKE RATES, ALTHOUGH IN EACH INSTANCE THE PHYSICAL
CARRIAGE BEYOND THE RESHIPPING POINT IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.  BUT
THE LATTER IS ALSO TRUE OF LOCAL GRAIN, GRAIN BROUGHT IN BY TRUCK, OR
BY RAIL UNDER INTRASTATE RATES, OR GRAIN WHICH HAS FORFEITED ITS
TRANSIT PRIVILEGES.  TO ADOPT PROTESTANTS' PREMISE WOULD MEAN THAT ALL
PROPORTIONAL RATES LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES AND DIFFERING FROM EACH OTHER
ACCORDING TO THE ORIGIN OF THE COMMODITY WOULD HAVE TO BE CONDEMNED. 
AS POINTED OUT BY THE DIVISION, RESHIPPING OR PROPORTIONAL RATES ARE IN
THEIR ESSENCE BALANCES OF THROUGH RATES.  SUCH BALANCES ARE, OF COURSE,
DETERMINED BY THE MEASURE OF THE IN-BOUND AND THROUGH RATES, AND
PROPERLY MAY VARY ACCORDING TO THE RELATIVE LENGTH AND NATURE OF THE IN
BOUND AND THROUGH SERVICE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROTESTANTS'
ALLEGATIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THIS PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH IN A
PROPER PROCEEDING WE MIGHT PRESCRIBE PROPORTIONAL RATES ON THE EX-BARGE
TRAFFIC LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES OR JOINT BARGE-RAIL RATES LOWER THAN THE
COMBINATIONS. 

"THE FACTS OF RECORD, AS DETAILED BY THE DIVISION AND SUMMARIZED
HEREIN, CLEARLY SHOW THAT RESPONDENTS ARE JUSTIFIED UNDER SECTION 1 IN
TREATING THE EX-BARGE TRAFFIC THE SAME AS LOCAL OR EX-TRUCK TRAFFIC AND
THAT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES CANNOT BE CONDEMNED AS UNLAWFUL UNDER

"ON RECONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE PETITIONS AND
REPLIES THERETO AND OUR PRIOR DECISIONS, WE FIND THAT: 

"(1)  THE PROPORTIONAL RATES HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE LEGALLY
APPLICABLE ON THE EX-BARGE TRAFFIC WHERE THE SO-CALLED POLICING
PROVISIONS WERE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH. 

"(2)  THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES ARE SHOWN TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE AND
ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL." 

ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION ORDERED: 

"THAT THE ORDER HERETOFORE ENTERED IN THIS PROCEEDING, SUSPENDING THE
OPERATION OF THE SCHEDULES ENUMERATED AND DESCRIBED IN SAID ORDER, BE,
AND IT IS HEREBY, VACATED AND SET ASIDE AS OF DECEMBER 22, 1941, AND
THAT THIS PROCEEDING BE DISCONTINUED." 

AFTER THE COMMISSION HAD ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION AND ON DECEMBER 12,
1941, APPELLANT MECHLING BARGE LINES SOUGHT TO INTERVENE ON THE GROUND
THAT SINCE THE RECORD HAD BEEN CLOSED IT HAD BECOME A REGULAR COMMON
CARRIER BY WATER OF GRAIN BY BARGE TO CHICAGO AND OTHER RATEBREAK
POINTS, AND WAS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO SUCH CARRIERS BY
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  IT URGED THAT THE DECISION BE SET
ASIDE AND, IF IT SHOULD BE THOUGHT NECESSARY TO THIS END, THAT IT BE
GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE.  THIS WAS THE FIRST OFFER
TO ASSIST THE COMMISSION IN ANY WAY IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
PROPORTIONAL RATES FIXED WITH REFERENCE TO THE EX-BARGE GRAIN.  NO
SPECIFIC SUGGESTION WAS MADE, HOWEVER, AS TO THE AMOUNT OF SUCH RATES
OR AS TO THE EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE INTRODUCED IN SUPPORT.  THIS
PETITION WAS DENIED BY THE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 21, 1942. 

ON JANUARY 16, 1942, THE INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION HAD FILED ITS
COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEEKING AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  VARIOUS OTHER
PARTIES WERE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE CASE AS PLAINTIFFS AND
DEFENDANTS.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT PARTICIPATE, GIVING AS HIS
REASON THE EXISTENCE OF A CONFLICT IN LITIGATION BETWEEN COORDINATE
AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION
AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE OPINION OF THE SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT WAS ANNOUNCED ON APRIL 16,
1942.  FN11  IT STATED THAT "THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TOOK NO
EVIDENCE ADDRESSED TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE RATE PROPOSAL IN QUESTION
IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 3(4) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS
AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, OR CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY ENACTED BY THE LAST SAID ACT; BUT THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION PASSED UPON THE LEGALITY OF SAID RATE PROPOSAL UPON
EVIDENCE TAKEN WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SUCH ISSUES AND BEFORE THEY
EXISTED."  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER WAS OF A "CHARACTER WHICH THIS
COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO ENJOIN AND SET ASIDE," AND SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
ON THE GROUND THAT IT "DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WATER COMPETITION BY THE
USERS OF BARGES."  IT DECREED THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER VACATING THE
ALREADY-EXPIRED SUSPENSION OF THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES AND DISCONTINUING
THE PROCEEDINGS BE ANNULLED AND THAT THE RAILROADS BE "PERMANENTLY
ENJOINED  ...  FROM ACTING UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER." 

THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  FN12 

IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION THE PROTESTANTS PITCHED
THEIR CASE UPON TWO PROPOSITIONS:  (1) TO DENY THE EX-BARGE GRAIN THE
BENEFIT OF PROPORTIONALS SOUGHT TO BE CANCELLED WAS NECESSARILY
UNLAWFUL SINCE THE PHYSICAL CARRIAGE BEYOND CHICAGO WAS SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME, NO MATTER WHERE THE GRAIN ORIGINATED; (2) SINCE DENIAL OF
THAT BENEFIT WAS NECESSARILY UNLAWFUL, THE COMMISSION WAS BOUND TO
MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO BY CANCELLING THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES AND THUS
PERPETUATING THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE, WHATEVER MIGHT BE ITS
DEFECTS. 

AS THE COMMISSION CORRECTLY OBSERVED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FIRST
CONTENTION, "TO ADOPT PROTESTANTS' PREMISE WOULD MEAN THAT ALL
PROPORTIONAL RATES LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES AND DIFFERING FROM EACH OTHER
ACCORDING TO THE ORIGIN OF THE COMMODITY WOULD HAVE TO BE CONDEMNED." 

PROPORTIONAL RATES SO DIFFERING AND LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES FOR LIKE
OUTBOUND TRANSPORTATION HAVE A LONG HISTORY, ANTEDATING THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT ITSELF.  LONG HAULS HAVE GENERALLY BEEN THOUGHT ENTITLED
TO MOVE AT A RATE LESS THAN THE SUM OF THE RATES FOR LOCAL OR SHORT
HAULS BETWEEN INTERMEDIATE POINTS.  THE PRACTICE OF ROUTING COMMODITIES
SUCH AS GRAIN TO CENTERS FOR MARKETING AND PROCESSING HAS BEEN
WIDESPREAD AND OFTEN A NECESSARY FEATURE OF THE PROCESS OF
DISTRIBUTION.  IN MANY INSTANCES STOPOVERS FOR MARKETING AND PROCESSING
HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS DISRUPTING THE CONTINUITY OF TRANSPORTATION
TO MORE DISTANT POINTS, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE GRAIN HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO
MOVE ON AT A RATE LOWER THAN THE OUTBOUND RATE ON GRAIN ORIGINATING
LOCALLY AND NOT FROM A DISTANCE.  FN13  TO GET THE OUTBOUND BUSINESS
COMPETING CARRIERS FREQUENTLY WOULD OFFER RATES SIMILARLY COMPUTED. 
FN14  PROPORTIONAL RATES ESTABLISHED ON THIS REASONING  FN15  HAVE
BECOME DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF THE COUNTRY, AND
HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,  FN16  BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS, THIS ONE INCLUDED N17; AND, SO FAR AS IT HAS SPOKEN ON
THE SUBJECT, BY CONGRESS ITSELF.  FN18  WE SEE NO REASON FOR
REPUDIATING THEM NOW. 

HAVING POINTED OUT THE ERROR OF THE PROTESTANTS' BASIC CONTENTION,
THE COMMISSION STATED THAT: "IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROTESTANTS'
ALLEGATIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THIS PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH IN A
PROPER PROCEEDING WE MIGHT PRESCRIBE PROPORTIONAL RATES ON THE EX-BARGE
TRAFFIC LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES OR JOINT BARGE-RAIL RATES LOWER THAN THE
COMBINATIONS."  PENDING THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH A PROCEEDING IT
ORDERED THE VACATION OF THE ALREADY-EXPIRED ORDER OF SUSPENSION AND
ORDERED THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS. 

DESPITE THIS STATEMENT, MUCH OF THE ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT HAS
PROCEEDED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER RESULTED FROM
ITS BELIEF AND FINDINGS THAT THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE PROPORTIONAL
RATES NOT CANCELLED IN THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES AND THE LOCAL RATES AS
APPLIED TO EX-BARGE GRAIN WERE IN ALL RESPECTS LAWFUL, AND THAT IT
ACTUALLY APPROVED OR PRESCRIBED A RATE STRUCTURE CONTAINING SUCH
DISCREPANCIES.  WE DO NOT SO UNDERSTAND THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION. 

TRUE, THE COMMISSION STATED THAT THE RAILROADS "ARE JUSTIFIED UNDER
TRUCK TRAFFIC," AND FOUND THAT "THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES ARE SHOWN TO BE
JUST AND REASONABLE."  BUT THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING THAT THE
RATES WERE LAWFUL; THEY "MAY LIE WITHIN THE ZONE OF REASONABLENESS AND
YET RESULT IN UNDUE PREJUDICE" OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE THE ACT.  FN19  THE
COMMISSION ALSO STATED THAT THE FACTS OF RECORD SHOW THAT "THE PROPOSED
SCHEDULES CANNOT BE CONDEMNED AS UNLAWFUL UNDER SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE
ACT."  FN20 BUT THIS STATEMENT FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY UPON THE
COMMISSION'S STATEMENT THAT FROM ITS CONCLUSION THAT PROTESTANTS' CLAIM
AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO THE EXISTING PROPORTIONALS WAS ERRONEOUS, "IT
FOLLOWS THAT THE PROTESTANTS' ALLEGATIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THIS
PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH IN A PROPER PROCEEDING WE MIGHT PRESCRIBE
PROPORTIONAL RATES ON THE EX-BARGE TRAFFIC LOWER THAN LOCAL RATES OR
JOINT BARGE-RAIL RATES LOWER THAN THE COMBINATIONS."  READ IN THE
CONTEXT, WE THINK IT MEANT ONLY THAT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES COULD NOT
BE STRUCK DOWN UPON THE ERRONEOUS VIEW ADVANCED BY THE PROTESTANTS. 
THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES "ARE NOT
SHOWN TO BE OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL" IS, WE THINK, TO BE SIMILARLY READ. 
THIS FORM OF FINDING HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COMMISSION NOT TO CONSTITUTE
AN APPROVAL OR A PRESCRIPTION OF THE RATES UNDER SUSPENSION.  FN21
SINCE THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO APPROVE OR PRESCRIBE THEM, THEY STAND
ONLY AS CARRIER-MADE RATES WHICH, UNDER THE COMMISSION'S DECISIONS,
LEAVES THEM OPEN TO POSSIBLE RECOVERY OF REPARATIONS.  FN22  LIKE THE
COMMISSION, WE ALSO REFRAIN FROM APPROVING OR PRESCRIBING THEM. 

THE CASE HAD BEEN DEVELOPED BEFORE THE COMMISSION UPON THE THEORY
THAT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES MUST STAND OR FALL IN THEIR ENTIRETY. 
THERE HAS BEEN NO SUGGESTION, NOR IS IT APPARENT, THAT IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN FEASIBLE FOR THE COMMISSION TO PICK AND CHOOSE AMONG THE ITEMS IN
THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED SCHEDULES. 

TO PERPETUATE THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE BY SUSTAINING THE DISTRICT
COURT'S INJUNCTION WOULD ENTAIL NUMEROUS AND SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF SEC.
4(1).  FN23  UNDER THAT RATE STRUCTURE, EX-BARGE GRAIN MOVED FROM
ILLINOIS RIVER POINTS TO BALTIMORE, NEW YORK AND BOSTON AT COMBINATION
RATES LOWER THAN THE LOCAL RATES FOR DOMESTIC GRAIN FROM ALL POINTS IN
CENTRAL TERRITORY WEST OF A LINE RUNNING SOUTH FROM BAY CITY, MICHIGAN,
THROUGH FORT WAYNE AND INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA.  SO ALSO DID THE EX-BARGE
GRAIN MOVE OUT AT COMBINATION RATES LOWER THAN LOCAL EXPORT RATES ON
GRAIN FROM ALL POINTS IN CENTRAL TERRITORY WEST OF A LINE RUNNING
SOUTHWARDLY AND SOUTH ALONG THE INDIANA-OHIO LINE; AND LOWER THAN THE
LOCAL EXPORT RATES ON CORN FROM ALL POINTS IN CENTRAL TERRITORY WEST OF
A LINE BETWEEN PAYNESVILLE AND EAST LIVERPOOL, OHIO, NEAR THE
PENNSYLVANIA LINE.  UNLIKE THE BARGE-RAIL RATE, THE ALL-RAIL RATES ARE,
AS THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND, IN STRICT CONFORMITY WITH SEC. 4(1). 
CONGRESS BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 AMENDED SEC. 4(1), BUT
NOWHERE IN THE ACT OR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS THERE ANY
SUGGESTION THAT FROM THE MERE FACT THAT GRAIN MOVING FROM BEYOND
CHICAGO TO NEW YORK TRAVELS BY BARGE FOR THE 60-MILE LEG OF ITS JOURNEY
TO CHICAGO - LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL HAUL - IT SHALL AS
MATTER OF LAW BE ENTITLED TO A RATE FROM BEYOND CHICAGO TO THE SEABOARD
LESS THAN THAT FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA LINE TO THE SEABOARD.  FN24 

APPELLEES MAKE NO BETTER SHOWING WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT OF THE
INJUNCTION ON THE RATE STRUCTURE WEST OF CHICAGO.  TO SUSTAIN THE
INJUNCTION WOULD REQUIRE A HOLDING THAT GRAIN ORIGINATING 60 MILES FROM
CHICAGO MUST AS MATTER OF LAW BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF PROPORTIONALS
FIXED WITH REFERENCE TO GRAIN FROM THE NORTHWEST TERRITORY, EMBRACING
POINTS IN CANADA AND AS FAR WEST IN THE UNITED STATES AS WASHINGTON AND
THE DAKOTAS.  IN ADDITION TO THE DISPARITY IN DISTANCES, THERE IS THE
FURTHER FACT THAT THE GRAIN FROM THE NORTHWEST IS PREDOMINATELY WHEAT,
WHILE THAT FROM THE TERRITORY SERVED BY THE BARGE LINES IS
PREDOMINATELY CORN FROM ILLINOIS.  NOTHING IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, OR IN THE STATEMENTS
OF EVEN THE MOST ARDENT CONGRESSIONAL CHAMPIONS OF WATER
TRANSPORTATION, AFFORDS THE SLIGHTEST WARRANT FOR A DECISION THAT THE
COMMISSION MUST TREAT AS LEGALLY IDENTICAL SUCH WIDELY DISPARATE
FACTUAL SITUATIONS. 

FINALLY IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS OBLIGED TO CONTINUE THE
SEC. 15(7) PROCEEDINGS AND ESTABLISH SPECIAL PROPORTIONALS FOR THE
BARGE LINES UNDER SEC. 6(11) OF THE ACT.  FN25  THIS DUTY IS CLAIMED BY
APPELLEES TO DERIVE FROM THE PROVISION OF SEC. 15(7) THAT AFTER
SUSPENSION AND HEARING OF A PROPOSED RATE CHANGE THE COMMISSION "MAY
MAKE SUCH ORDER WITH REFERENCE THERETO AS WOULD BE PROPER IN A
PROCEEDING INITIATED AFTER IT HAD BECOME EFFECTIVE."  THE CONSTRUCTION
CONTENDED FOR WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT EITHER OF IMPOSING A PRACTICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN UPON THE COMMISSION OR OF MAKING RESORT TO THE
COMMISSION'S POWERS UNDER SEC. 15(7) SO RARE AS TO MAKE SUCH POWERS OF
LITTLE PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.  SUSPENSION CASES ARE VERY NUMEROUS, AND
IN MANY OF THEM THE CONSTRUCTION CONTENDED FOR WOULD REQUIRE THE
COMMISSION TO "READJUST THE ENTIRE RATE STRUCTURE OF AN IMPORTANT
RATE STRUCTURE HERE INVOLVED.  TO REQUIRE THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE
CONTINUED UNTIL PROPORTIONALS CAN BE SET WITH REFERENCE TO THE BARGE
TRANSPORTATION WOULD HARDLY BE WITHIN THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS, WHICH
IN TERMS MADE THE COMMISSION'S POWER DISCRETIONARY, AND LEGISLATED UPON
THE ASSUMPTION, FORMED AFTER MUCH EXPERIMENTATION WITH THE PERIOD OF
SUSPENSION,  FN27  THAT SUSPENSION CASES COULD NORMALLY BE CARRIED TO
COMPLETION WITHIN SEVEN MONTHS AND TO THAT END COMMANDED IN SEC. 15(7)
THAT "THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE TO THE HEARING AND DECISION OF SUCH
QUESTIONS PREFERENCE OVER ALL OTHER QUESTIONS PENDING BEFORE IT AND
DECIDE THE SAME AS SPEEDILY AS POSSIBLE." 

THE RECORD HAD BEEN CLOSED ON JANUARY 26, 1940, WHEN THE LAST
TESTIMONY WAS HEARD.  THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 WAS NOT ENACTED
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 18.  AT THE TIME THE EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN IT WAS NOT
CLEAR WHETHER SOME OF THE BARGE LINES OPERATING IN THE WATERWAY WERE
COMMON CARRIERS, AND NONE HAD OBTAINED CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FROM THE COMMISSION AS NOW REQUIRED.  THEY HAD NOT FILED
REPORTS WITH THE COMMISSION FROM WHICH THE RESULTS OF THEIR OWN
OPERATIONS MIGHT BE JUDGED, AND THEY HAD NOT FILED TARIFFS SHOWING
THEIR RATES.  ALL OF THIS HAS SINCE CHANGED.  THE APPLICABLE LAW HAS
CHANGED.  THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES DID NOT CALL
FOR A FIXING OF NEW COMBINATION RATES, FOR IT WAS CONTENDED BARGE GRAIN
WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXISTING PROPORTIONALS. 

THE POLICY PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, AS WELL AS
THE SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISIONS, PROVIDE ONLY STANDARDS OF
CONSIDERABLE GENERALITY AND SOME OVERLAPPING.  IT REQUIRES
ADMINISTRATION TO "RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF
EACH" - RAIL, WATER, AND MOTOR TRANSPORT.  IT ALSO SEEKS "SOUND
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS" FOR ALL KINDS OF TRANSPORTATION.  FN28 FOR MORE
THAN A YEAR AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, AND UNTIL AFTER THE
COMMISSION HAD FINALLY DISPOSED OF THE CASE, APPELLEES SHOWED NO
DISPOSITION TO MAKE PROPOSALS OR TO DEVELOP A RECORD UPON THE BASIS OF
WHICH THE COMMISSION MIGHT PRESCRIBE RATES IN VIEW OF THEIR PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DESIGNED WITH
REFERENCE TO THEM.  INSTEAD THEY RELIED UPON THE ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT
THEY WERE BY LAW ENTITLED TO THE FORTUITOUS AND IN MANY RESPECTS
UNLAWFUL BENEFITS OF THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE.  THEIR NEARLY FOUR
YEARS OF LITIGATION HAVE NOT, HOWEVER, BEEN IN VAIN, FOR DURING ALL
THIS TIME THEY HAVE MANAGED TO KEEP THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES IN ABEYANCE
FIRST BY COMPULSORY SUSPENSION FOR THE ALLOWABLE PERIOD OF 7 MONTHS AT
THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION, THEN BY THE RAILROADS' VOLUNTARY ACT AT
THE EXPIRATION OF THAT PERIOD, AND FINALLY BY THE COMPULSION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S INJUNCTION. 

OUR FUNCTION DOES NOT PERMIT US EITHER TO PRESCRIBE OR APPROVE RATES,
AND OUR DECISION CARRIES NO IMPLICATION OF APPROVAL OF ANY RATES HERE
INVOLVED.  NOR ARE WE AT LIBERTY TO PRESCRIBE GENERAL ATTITUDES THE
COMMISSION MUST ADOPT TOWARDS THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION LEFT TO IT
RATHER THAN TO COURTS.  WE DECIDE ONLY WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS ACTED
WITHIN THE POWER DELEGATED TO IT BY LAW.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IT HAS
AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY, NEW YORK, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY, PENNSYLVANIA
RAILROAD COMPANY, ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO
RAILWAY COMPANY. 

FN2  SEC. 4.  "(1)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER
SUBJECT TO THIS PART OR PART III TO CHARGE OR RECEIVE ANY GREATER
COMPENSATION IN THE AGGREGATE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS, OR
OF LIKE KIND OF PROPERTY, FOR A SHORTER THAN FOR A LONGER DISTANCE OVER
THE SAME LINE OR ROUTE IN THE SAME DIRECTION, THE SHORTER BEING
INCLUDED WITHIN THE LONGER DISTANCE, OR TO CHARGE ANY GREATER
COMPENSATION AS A THROUGH RATE THAN THE AGGREGATE OF THE INTERMEDIATE
RATES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART OR PART III, BUT THIS
SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING ANY COMMON CARRIER WITHIN THE
TERMS OF THIS PART OR PART III TO CHARGE OR RECEIVE AS GREAT
COMPENSATION FOR A SHORTER AS FOR A LONGER DISTANCE:  PROVIDED, THAT
UPON APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION SUCH COMMON CARRIER MAY IN SPECIAL
CASES, AFTER INVESTIGATION, BE AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION TO CHARGE
LESS FOR LONGER THAN FOR SHORTER DISTANCES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY; AND THE COMMISSION MAY FROM TIME TO TIME
PRESCRIBE THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH DESIGNATED COMMON CARRIER MAY BE
RELIEVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THIS SECTION, BUT IN EXERCISING THE
AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON IT IN THIS PROVISO THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT
PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY CHARGE TO OR FROM THE MORE DISTANT
POINT THAT IS NOT REASONABLY COMPENSATORY FOR THE SERVICE PERFORMED;
AND NO SUCH AUTHORIZATION SHALL BE GRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF MERELY
POTENTIAL WATER COMPETITION NOT ACTUALLY IN EXISTENCE:  AND PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT TARIFFS PROPOSING RATES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
PARAGRAPH MAY BE FILED WHEN APPLICATION IS MADE TO THE COMMISSION UNDER
THE PROVISIONS HEREOF, AND IN THE EVENT SUCH APPLICATION IS APPROVED,
THE COMMISSION SHALL PERMIT SUCH TARIFFS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON ONE
DAY'S NOTICE."  54 STAT. 904, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 4(1). 

FN3  44 STAT. 1447 AS AMENDED BY 54 STAT. 912, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(7),
READING: 

"WHENEVER THERE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION ANY SCHEDULE
STATING A NEW INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE, OR ANY NEW
INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT CLASSIFICATION, OR ANY NEW INDIVIDUAL OR JOINT
REGULATION OR PRACTICE AFFECTING ANY RATE, FARE, OR CHARGE, THE
COMMISSION SHALL HAVE, AND IT IS HEREBY GIVEN, AUTHORITY, EITHER UPON
COMPLAINT OR UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE WITHOUT COMPLAINT, AT ONCE, AND IF
IT SO ORDERS WITHOUT ANSWER OR OTHER FORMAL PLEADING BY THE INTERESTED
CARRIER OR CARRIERS, BUT UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, TO ENTER UPON A
HEARING CONCERNING THE LAWFULNESS OF SUCH RATE, FARE, CHARGE,
CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE; AND PENDING SUCH HEARING AND
THE DECISION THEREON THE COMMISSION, UPON FILING WITH SUCH SCHEDULE AND
DELIVERING TO THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS AFFECTED THEREBY A STATEMENT IN
WRITING OF ITS REASONS FOR SUCH SUSPENSION, MAY FROM TIME TO TIME
SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF SUCH SCHEDULE AND DEFER THE USE OF SUCH RATE,
FARE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE, BUT NOT FOR A
LONGER PERIOD THAN SEVEN MONTHS BEYOND THE TIME WHEN IT WOULD OTHERWISE
GO INTO EFFECT; AND AFTER FULL HEARING, WHETHER COMPLETED BEFORE OR
AFTER THE RATE, FARE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE
GOES INTO EFFECT, THE COMMISSION MAY MAKE SUCH ORDER WITH REFERENCE
THERETO AS WOULD BE PROPER IN A PROCEEDING INITIATED AFTER IT HAD
BECOME EFFECTIVE.  IF THE PROCEEDING HAS NOT BEEN CONCLUDED AND AN
ORDER MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF
RATE, FARE, CHARGE, CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE SHALL GO
INTO EFFECT AT THE END OF SUCH PERIOD; BUT IN CASE OF A PROPOSED
INCREASED RATE OR CHARGE FOR OR IN RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PROPERTY, THE COMMISSION MAY BY ORDER REQUIRE THE INTERESTED CARRIER OR
CARRIERS TO KEEP ACCURATE ACCOUNT IN DETAIL OF ALL AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY
REASON OF SUCH INCREASE, SPECIFYING BY WHOM AND IN WHOSE BEHALF SUCH
AMOUNTS ARE PAID, AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE HEARING AND DECISION MAY
BY FURTHER ORDER REQUIRE THE INTERESTED CARRIER OR CARRIERS TO REFUND,
WITH INTEREST, TO THE PERSONS IN WHOSE BEHALF SUCH AMOUNTS WERE PAID,
SUCH PORTION OF SUCH INCREASED RATES OR CHARGES AS BY ITS DECISION
SHALL BE FOUND NOT JUSTIFIED.  AT ANY HEARING INVOLVING A CHANGE IN A
RATE, FARE, CHARGE, OR CLASSIFICATION, OR IN A RULE, REGULATION, OR
PRACTICE, AFTER SEPTEMBER 18, 1940, THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE UPON
THE CARRIER TO SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGED RATE, FARE, CHARGE,
CLASSIFICATION, RULE, REGULATION, OR PRACTICE IS JUST AND REASONABLE,
AND THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE TO THE HEARING AND DECISION OF SUCH
QUESTIONS PREFERENCE OVER ALL OTHER QUESTIONS PENDING BEFORE IT AND
DECIDE THE SAME AS SPEEDILY AS POSSIBLE." 

FN4  THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PARTICULARLY
RELIED UPON BY APPELLEES WHICH WERE AMENDED OR ADDED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF
THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES
OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO
ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF
EACH; TO PROMOTE SAFE, ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND
FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS; TO ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF
REASONABLE CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WITHOUT UNJUST
DISCRIMINATIONS, UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES, OR UNFAIR OR
DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; TO COOPERATE WITH THE SEVERAL STATES
AND THE DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS THEREOF; AND TO ENCOURAGE FAIR WAGES
AND EQUITABLE WORKING CONDITIONS; - ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING,
COORDINATING, AND PRESERVING A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WATER,
HIGHWAY, AND RAIL, AS WELL AS OTHER MEANS, ADEQUATE TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE, AND OF THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE.  ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE
ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW TO CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE
DECLARATION OF POLICY."  54 STAT. 899. 

"SEC. 3(1).  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART TO MAKE, GIVE, OR CAUSE ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, COMPANY,
FIRM, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LOCALITY, PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY,
TRANSIT POINT, REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR
DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC, IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER; OR TO SUBJECT ANY
PARTICULAR PERSON, COMPANY, FIRM, CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LOCALITY,
PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY, TRANSIT POINT, REGION, DISTRICT,
TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC TO ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY
TO DISCRIMINATION, PREJUDICE, OR DISADVANTAGE TO THE TRAFFIC OF ANY
OTHER CARRIER OF WHATEVER DESCRIPTION."  54 STAT. 902, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
3(1). 

"SEC. 3(4).  ALL CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART
SHALL, ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE POWERS, AFFORD ALL REASONABLE,
PROPER, AND EQUAL FACILITIES FOR THE INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC BETWEEN
THEIR RESPECTIVE LINES AND CONNECTING LINES, AND FOR THE RECEIVING,
FORWARDING, AND DELIVERING OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY TO AND FROM
CONNECTING LINES; AND SHALL NOT DISCRIMINATE IN THEIR RATES, FARES, AND
CHARGES BETWEEN CONNECTING LINES, OR UNDULY PREJUDICE ANY CONNECTING
LINE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ROUTED BY
THE SHIPPER.  AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH THE TERM 'CONNECTING LINE'
MEANS THE CONNECTING LINE OF ANY CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS PART OR ANY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER SUBJECT TO PART III."  54
STAT. 903, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 3(4). 

"PART III, SEC. 305(C)  ... DIFFERENCES IN THE CLASSIFICATIONS,
RATES, FARES, CHARGES, RULES, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES OF A WATER
CARRIER IN RESPECT OF WATER TRANSPORTATION FROM THOSE IN EFFECT BY A
RAIL CARRIER WITH RESPECT TO RAIL TRANSPORTATION SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO
CONSTITUTE UNJUST DISCRIMINATION, PREJUDICE, OR DISADVANTAGE, OR AN
UNFAIR OR DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANY
PROVISION OF THIS ACT."  54 STAT. 935, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 905(C). 

FN5  246 I.C.C. 353. 

FN6  SEE FOOTNOTE 4, SUPRA, FOR THE TEXT OF THIS PROVISION. 

FN7  PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION WERE ALSO FILED BY "CHICAGO
PROTESTANTS," OPERATING ELEVATORS AND DEALING IN GRAIN AT CHICAGO;
ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING SHIPPERS LOCATED ON THE
ILLINOIS WATERWAYS; FINNEGAN WAREHOUSE COMPANY, OPERATING AN ELEVATOR
ON THE WATERWAYS; AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
THESE PETITIONS ARE NOT INCORPORATED IN THE RECORD, BUT IT APPEARS THAT
THE ACTION OF DIVISION 2 WAS ASSAILED BY THESE PROTESTANTS UNDER SEC.
3(1), SET OUT IN FOOTNOTE 4. 

FN8  248 I.C.C. 307. 

FN9  FROM THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION IT APPEARS THAT THE INLAND
WATERWAYS CORPORATION WAS THE ONLY ONE ASKING FURTHER HEARINGS.  IT
STATED THAT FURTHER HEARINGS COULD BE USEFUL ONLY TO ESTABLISH THE
INFORMATION OF WHICH THE COMMISSION TOOK OFFICIAL NOTICE, AND SUGGESTED
THAT THE COMMISSION AVOID THE NECESSITY FOR THEM BY TAKING SUCH
NOTICE. 

FN10  EVEN UNDER THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES, THE COMBINATION BARGE-RAIL
RATES ARE IN MANY INSTANCES LOWER THAN THE ALL-RAIL RATES.  MUCH GRAIN
THAT ARRIVES AT CHICAGO IS CONSUMED LOCALLY OR IS SHIPPED OUT BY LAKE. 
IN THE CASE OF GRAIN ARRIVING BY RAIL, SUCH DISPOSITION OFTEN LEAVES
THE ELEVATOR WITH A "TRANSIT BALANCE" AS A RESULT OF WHICH EX-BARGE
GRAIN MAY MOVE EASTWARD BY RAIL ON THE PROPORTIONAL RATES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT APPARENTLY DID NOT FIND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT IT WAS THE ELEVATOR OPERATOR,
RATHER THAN THE FARMER, WHO IS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES.  IN
ANY EVENT, THE FOREGOING WOULD SEEM SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING, AND WE DO NOT SUPPOSE THAT THE FINDING MAKES ANY
DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW TO BE APPLIED. 

FN11  44 F.SUPP.  368. 

FN12  URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 208, 220,
28 U.S.C. SECS. 47, 47A; SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

FN13  E.G., UNLAWFUL RATES IN TRANS.  COTTON BY K.C., M. & B.R.R.
CO., 8 I.C.C. 121; CENTRAL YELLOW PINE ASSN. V. V., S. & P.R. CO., 10
I.C.C. 193. 

FN14  BERRY, A STUDY OF PROPORTIONAL RATES, 10 I.C.C. PRACTITIONER'S
JOURNAL 545, 602. 

FN15  FOR THE VARIETY OF PRACTICES SO SUSTAINED, SEE LOCKLIN,
ECONOMICS OF TRANSPORTATION (1935), PP. 122-123, 629-631. 

FN16  SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF CHAIRMAN EASTMAN IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  OTHER CASES ARE COLLECTED IN BERRY, SUPRA, FOOTNOTE 14. 

FN17  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768;
GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. SULLIVAN, 294 U.S. 458; CF. BOARD OF TRADE V.
UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534. 

FN18  SEC. 11 OF THE PANAMA CANAL ACT, 1912, 37 STAT. 566, NOW 49
U.S.C. SEC. 6(11), SET OUT IN ITS PRESENT FORM IN FOOTNOTE 25, INFRA. 
CF. SEN. REPT. NO. 433, 76TH CONG., IST SESS., P. 10. 

FN19  UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 263 U.S. 515, 524. 

FN20  SEC. 2, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 2, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER
SHALL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ANY SPECIAL RATE, REBATE, DRAWBACK,
OR OTHER DEVICE, CHARGE, DEMAND, COLLECT, OR RECEIVE FROM ANY PERSON OR
PERSONS A GREATER OR LESS COMPENSATION FOR ANY SERVICE RENDERED OR TO
BE RENDERED, IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY, SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, THAN IT CHARGES, DEMANDS, COLLECTS,
OR RECEIVES FROM ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS FOR DOING FOR HIM OR THEM
A LIKE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF A LIKE KIND
OF TRAFFIC UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS,
SUCH COMMON CARRIER SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF UNJUST DISCRIMINATION,
WHICH IS PROHIBITED AND DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL." 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3 ARE SET FORTH IN FOOTNOTE 4,
SUPRA. 

FN21  STANDARD PACKING CO. V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 190 I.C.C. 433;
PARKERSBURG RIG & REEL CO. V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 198 I.C.C. 709;
WILLIAM KELLY MILLING CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 211 I.C.C.
53; KANSAS CITY ICE CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 215 I.C.C. 616,
619; HALIFAX COAL & WOOD CO. V. ATLANTIC & Y. RY. CO., 219 I.C.C. 594;
MOREHEAD COTTON MILLS CO. V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO., 231 I.C.C.
437. 

FN22  SEE CASES CITED IN FOOTNOTE 21, SUPRA.  COMPARE ARIZONA GROCERY
CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 284 U.S. 370; 50 YALE LAW JOURNAL
714. 

FN23  SEE FOOTNOTE 2, SUPRA, FOR THE TEXT. 

FN24  INDEED, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE WATER INTERESTS
VIGOROUSLY CHAMPIONED THE LONG-AND-SHORT-HAUL CLAUSE AS A MEASURE
NECESSARY TO PREVENT RUINOUS COMPETITION. 

FN25  SEC. 6(11) PROVIDES: 

"WHEN PROPERTY MAY BE OR IS TRANSPORTED FROM POINT TO POINT IN THE
UNITED STATES BY RAIL AND WATER THROUGH THE PANAMA CANAL OR OTHERWISE,
THE TRANSPORTATION BEING BY A COMMON CARRIER OR CARRIERS, AND NOT
ENTIRELY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A SINGLE STATE, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION AND OF THE
CARRIERS, BOTH BY RAIL AND BY WATER, WHICH MAY OR DO ENGAGE IN THE
SAME, IN THE FOLLOWING PARTICULARS, IN ADDITION TO THE JURISDICTION
OTHERWISE GIVEN BY THIS CHAPTER: 

"...  (B)  TO ESTABLISH PROPORTIONAL RATES OR MAXIMUM, OR MINIMUM, OR
MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PROPORTIONAL RATES, BY RAIL TO AND FROM THE PORTS
TO WHICH THE TRAFFIC IS BROUGHT, OR FROM WHICH IT IS TAKEN BY THE WATER
CARRIER, AND TO DETERMINE TO WHAT TRAFFIC AND IN CONNECTION WITH WHAT
VESSELS AND UPON WHAT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SUCH RATES SHALL APPLY.  BY
PROPORTIONAL RATES ARE MEANT THOSE WHICH DIFFER FROM THE CORRESPONDING
LOCAL RATES TO AND FROM THE PORT AND WHICH APPLY ONLY TO TRAFFIC WHICH
HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE PORT OR IS CARRIED FROM THE PORT BY A COMMON
CARRIER BY WATER."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(11). 

FN26  SALT FROM LOUISIANA MINES TO CHICAGO, 69 I.C.C. 312, 313.   SEE
ALSO, LIVESTOCK TO EASTERN DESTINATIONS, 156 I.C.C. 498. 

FN27  IN THE ORIGINAL FORM PROVIDED BY SEC. 12 OF THE MANN-ELKINS
ACT, 1910, 36 STAT. 539, 552, THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION WAS NOT TO
EXCEED 120 DAYS, WITH THE PROVISO THAT IF THE HEARING COULD NOT BE
CONCLUDED WITHIN THAT PERIOD THE COMMISSION MIGHT IN ITS DISCRETION
EXTEND THE TIME FOR A FURTHER PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS.  SEC. 4
OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION ACT, 1917, 40 STAT. 270, 272, PROVIDED THAT
UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1920, COMMISSION APPROVAL MUST BE HAD FOR THE FILING
OF INCREASED RATES.  BY SEC. 418 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41
STAT. 456, 486, THE INITIAL SUSPENSION PERIOD OF 120 DAYS WAS RETAINED,
BUT THE PERMISSIBLE PERIOD OF FURTHER SUSPENSION WAS SHORTENED TO
THIRTY DAYS.  "THE INCREASED SIZE OF THE COMMISSION AND ITS DIVISIONAL
ORGANIZATION RENDERED THE SHORTENING OF THE SUSPENSION PERIOD
FEASIBLE."  1 SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 203.  THE
COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED, HOWEVER, TO REQUIRE THE CARRIER TO KEEP
ACCURATE ACCOUNT IN DETAIL OF ALL AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY REASON OF AN
INCREASE GOING INTO EFFECT AT THE END OF THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, AND
TO REQUIRE AT THE END OF THE HEARING THAT THEY BE REFUNDED.  THE
PRESENT PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE COMMISSION'S POWER OF SUSPENSION
AND OF REQUIRING AN ACCOUNTING WERE ENACTED BY SEC. 2 OF THE MAYTON
NEWFIELD ACT, 1927, 44 STAT. 1446, 1447.    FN28  SEE FOOTNOTE 4,
SUPRA.    MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION
OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE FARMERS AND SHIPPERS OF THE
MIDDLE WEST CAN BE COMPELLED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND
THE RAILROADS TO USE HIGH-PRICED RAIL INSTEAD OF LOW-PRICED BARGE
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE SHIPMENT OF GRAIN TO THE EAST.  I AGREE THAT, IN
THE WORDS OF DIVISION 2 OF THE COMMISSION, "THIS RECORD IS REPLETE WITH
COMPLEXITIES AND TECHNICALITIES" WHICH HAVE ALMOST, BUT I THINK NOT
QUITE, SUCCESSFULLY OBSCURED THAT SIMPLE ISSUE.  THE DISTRICT COURT,
WHICH HELD THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S ORDER
"DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WATER COMPETITION BY THE USERS OF BARGES,"
UNDERSTOOD THE ISSUE.  FN1  THE RAILROADS, WHICH PROPOSED THE INCREASE
IN THE COST TO BARGE SHIPPERS, ALSO UNDERSTOOD THE ISSUE AS IS SHOWN BY
THE FRANK STATEMENT OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVE AT THE COMMISSION HEARING:
"WE MADE THIS PROPOSAL, AS I HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES, AND FILED THESE
TARIFFS WITH THE HOPE THAT WE COULD DRIVE THIS BUSINESS OFF OF THE
WATER AND BACK ONTO THE RAILS WHERE IT BELONGS.  ...  WE ARE NOT IN
LOVE WITH WATER TRANSPORTATION  ...  AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE
ENTITLED TO THAT GRAIN BUSINESS."  FROM BEHIND A VERBAL CAMOUFLAGE OF
"COMPLEXITIES AND TECHNICALITIES" THERE EMERGES ONE SINGLE EASILY
UNDERSTANDABLE QUESTION:  RAILROADS PICK UP GRAIN IN CHICAGO WHICH MAY
BE BROUGHT THERE BY RAIL, LAKE TRANSPORT, OR INLAND WATERWAY BARGE.  IS
IT LAWFUL FOR A RAILROAD TO DEPRIVE MIDWESTERN GRAIN FARMERS AND
SHIPPERS OF THE BENEFITS OF CHEAP BARGE TRANSPORTATION BY CHARGING A
HIGHER TARIFF FOR RE-SHIPMENT OF GRAIN ORIGINALLY TRANSPORTED TO
CHICAGO BY BARGE THAN THE SAME RAILROAD CHARGES FOR RE-SHIPMENT OF THE
SAME GRAIN FROM CHICAGO TO THE SAME PLACES WHEN THE GRAIN IS BROUGHT TO
THE RE-SHIPPING POINT BY RAIL OR BY LAKE? 

THE RECORD SHOWS, AND IT WAS ADMITTED AT THE BAR, THAT BARGES CAN BY
REASON OF THEIR INHERENT ADVANTAGES CARRY GRAIN MORE CHEAPLY THAN
RAILROADS.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT INBOUND GRAIN BARGE RATES TO
CHICAGO RANGED FROM 2.75 TO 4.5 CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS FOR HAULS OF
DISTANCES OF 57 TO 200 MILES AS CONTRASTED WITH RAIL RATES FOR THE SAME
DISTANCES RANGING FROM 9.5 TO 13 CENTS.  GRAIN CAN THUS BE BROUGHT TO
CHICAGO FAR MORE CHEAPLY BY BARGE THAN BY RAIL.  HOWEVER, ONLY A SMALL
PROPORTION OF THE GRAIN WHICH IS SENT TO CHICAGO STAYS IN THAT CITY,
AND THE NEW TARIFF APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THIS COURT WILL
CHARGE SO MUCH MORE FOR THE SHIPMENT OF GRAIN TO THE EAST WHEN THE
GRAIN IS BROUGHT TO CHICAGO BY BARGE THAN IS CHARGED FOR SHIPMENT OF
GRAIN BROUGHT IN BY RAIL THAT THIS NATURAL ADVANTAGE OF BARGE
TRANSPORTATION WILL BE DESTROYED.  HEREAFTER IT WILL COST 8.5 CENTS
MORE TO SHIP EX-BARGE THAN EX-RAIL GRAIN TO THE EAST.  FN2  UNDER THE
EXISTING RATES, A FARMER CAN SHIP HIS GRAIN FROM KANSAS CITY TO NEW
YORK BY BARGE TO CHICAGO AND RAIL FROM CHICAGO TO NEW YORK FOR 4.625
CENTS LESS THAN IF HE USES RAIL TRANSPORT ALL THE WAY FROM KANSAS CITY
TO NEW YORK.  UNDER THE NEW SCHEDULE APPROVED TODAY, THAT DIFFERENTIAL
IS WIPED OUT, AND HE WILL HEREAFTER PAY 3.875 MORE TO SHIP BY BARGE AND
RAIL THAN IF HE SHIPS RAIL ALL THE WAY.  THIS ORDER IN SUBSTANCE GIVES
EX-BARGE TRAFFIC A 4-CENT DISADVANTAGE WHERE IT PREVIOUSLY HAD A 4-CENT
ADVANTAGE.  SIMILAR PENALTIES ARE IMPOSED UPON SHIPPERS WHO USE BARGE
LINES IN MISSOURI, IOWA, AND ILLINOIS.  THE COMMISSION, AS ITS SOLE
FINDING ON THE IMPACT OF THE RATES ON THE BARGE LINES, FOUND THAT THE
NEW RATES WOULD NOT "PROHIBIT" BARGE SHIPMENTS.  SUCH A FINDING IS
IRRELEVANT.  A RATE NEED NOT BE PROHIBITIVE TO BE DISCRIMINATORY.  THE
NEW RATE IS MANIFESTLY INTENDED TO AND WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF
TRANSFERRING MOST OF THE BARGE TRAFFIC TO THE RAILROADS, SINCE SHIPPERS
WILL NOT CUSTOMARILY PAY 10% MORE TO SHIP BY BARGE-RAIL THAN BY RAIL
ALONE.  FN3 

CERTAIN QUESTIONS MAY BE PUT TO ONE SIDE WITHOUT ELABORATE
DISCUSSION.  THE NEW RATES CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON A THEORY OF
DISTINCTION BETWEEN LONG AND SHORT HAULS SINCE THE DISTANCES COVERED
ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WHETHER BARGE-RAIL OR ALL-RAIL
TRANSPORTATION IS USED.  THE COURT ASSERTS THAT THE EXISTING ALL-RAIL
RATES ARE LAWFUL UNDER THE LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSES, WHILE THE
EXISTING BARGE-RAIL RATES ARE UNLAWFUL.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE WHICH REQUIRES THAT SHIPPERS BY RAIL TO
CHICAGO FROM POINTS IN ILLINOIS, IOWA, KANSAS, AND MISSOURI MUST BE
GRANTED A LOW RATE FOR SHIPMENT BEYOND CHICAGO WHICH IS DENIED TO THOSE
WHO SHIP INTO CHICAGO BY BARGE.  NOR IS THE FACT THAT THE RATES
DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE NEW TARIFF ARE "PROPORTIONAL" OF ANY
SIGNIFICANCE.  FN4  A THROUGH RATE MAY BE INVALID BECAUSE OF ONE FACTOR
ONLY OF THE COMBINATION OF RATES WHICH MAKE IT UP, "AND THAT FACTOR MAY
BE A PROPORTIONAL RATE."  FN5 THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER
THE BARGE SHIPPER SHIPPING FROM A GIVEN POINT TO CHICAGO SHOULD BE
GIVEN ANY DIFFERENT PROPORTIONAL RATE THAN RAIL SHIPPERS SHIPPING FROM
THE SAME POINT TO CHICAGO FOR EQUAL SERVICE OUT OF CHICAGO, AND, FOR
REASONS TO BE SET FORTH BELOW, I FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH A
DISCRIMINATION.  FN6 

THERE IS NO FACTUAL ISSUE HERE ON WHICH WE ARE BOUND TO ACCEPT THE
COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT AS WE WERE IN UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS
TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344.  HERE WE HAVE A RATE REVISION WHICH CAN
SERVE NO CONCEIVABLE PURPOSE EXCEPT TO FORCE SHIPPERS TO USE RAILROADS
INSTEAD OF BARGE LINES.  REASONABLE PERSONS MAY DIFFER AS TO THE WISDOM
OF SUCH A POLICY, BUT NOT AS TO THE CERTAINTY OF ITS RESULT; AND, AS
WILL BE SHOWN, CONGRESS HAS MADE THE POLICY JUDGMENT AND HAS FLATLY
FORBIDDEN THE COMMISSION TO DO WHAT IT HAS DONE.  THE SITUATION IS
SIMILAR TO MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 80, 97, IN WHICH THE
COMMISSION SOUGHT TO SHELTER A FLATLY FORBIDDEN DISCRIMINATION BEHIND
THE SHIELD OF EXPERTISE.  THERE, TOO, WE WERE CITED TO THE CHICAGO
HEIGHTS CASE AND OUR MANY OTHER DECISIONS UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES TO MAKE FACTUAL JUDGMENTS.  WE REPLIED THAT "ON
THE FACTS HERE PRESENTED, THERE IS NO ROOM, AS THE GOVERNMENT PROPERLY
SAYS, FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXPERT JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE DISCRIMINATION SHOWN WAS PALPABLY
UNJUST AND FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT."  SUCH I THINK SHOULD BE OUR ANSWER
HERE. 

THIS TARIFF IS AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 2, WHICH PROHIBITS A
CARRIER FROM DEMANDING A CHARGE EITHER HIGHER OR LOWER THAN IS CHARGED
BY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR DOING FOR HIM "A LIKE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS
SERVICE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF A LIKE KIND OF TRAFFIC UNDER
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS."  MANY DECISIONS
MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS SECTION DOES IN FACT REQUIRE A REAL EQUALITY. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 225 U.S.
326; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768.  THE
COMMISSION COUNTERS WITH A CONTENTION THAT HERE THERE IS "A
DISSIMILARITY OF CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE RENDERING OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FOR WHICH THE CHARGE IN ISSUE IS ASSESSED." 
TRUE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, IF ONLY ONE, IN THE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE
RENDERING OF THE SERVICE FROM CHICAGO TO THE EAST.  THE DIFFERENCE IS
SOLELY THAT ONE CLASS OF GRAIN MOVES IN TO CHICAGO BY BARGE AND ANOTHER
MOVES IN BY OTHER MEANS; AND THIS IS A GROUND NOT OF LEGITIMATE
DISTINCTION, BUT OF UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION.  THE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE
NO WORSE IF THE BENEFITS OF THE CHEAP THROUGH RATES WERE GIVEN ONLY TO
SHIPPERS ON A FAVORED RAILROAD COMING INTO CHICAGO, AND NOT TO OTHER
SHIPPERS BY RAIL.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
773.  HERE ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR,
AND THE COURT OUGHT TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO OBEY THE LAW BY
FOLLOWING ITS OWN PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED RULE IN CHATTANOOGA PACKET CO.
V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 33 I.C.C. 384, 392, 393, IN WHICH THE
COMMISSION SAID:  "IF CARRIERS ARE PERMITTED TO APPLY HIGHER RATES FOR
THE SAME SERVICE ON TRAFFIC ROUTED OVER CONNECTING WATER LINES THAN ON
TRAFFIC VIA THEIR ALL-RAIL CONNECTIONS, THEY WILL BE IN A POSITION TO
DESTROY ALL WATER COMPETITION AND TO DEPRIVE SHIPPERS OF THE ADVANTAGE
OF THEIR LOCATION UPON NAVIGABLE WATERS.  ...  WE ARE OF THE OPINION
AND FIND THAT, BY RESTRICTING THEIR PROPORTIONAL RATES TO TRAFFIC
ROUTED OVER THEIR SOUTHERN RAIL CONNECTIONS, DEFENDANTS ARE UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST COMPLAINANT AND AGAINST SHIPPERS WHO DESIRE TO
ROUTE THEIR GOODS OVER COMPLAINANT'S BOAT LINE." 

THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION ALSO VIOLATES SEC. 3(4) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 3(4), WHICH UNDER THE 1940
AMENDMENT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE
APPELLEES, AND WHICH FORBIDS CARRIERS TO "DISCRIMINATE IN THEIR RATES,
FARES, AND CHARGES BETWEEN CONNECTING LINES."  THIS SECTION BECAME
APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLEES IN THE COURSE OF THE COMMISSION'S
DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE, BUT BEFORE ITS OPINION WAS FILED.  THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT, AS THE COMMISSION SEEMS TO HAVE SUPPOSED, A REASON
FOR IGNORING THE SECTION.  NO MORE OBVIOUS "DISCRIMINATION IN THEIR
RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES" CAN BE IMAGINED, PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT
OF THE GENERAL POLICY OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940. 

I THINK THAT APPROVAL OF THIS TARIFF IS A DEFIANCE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  54 STAT. 899.  THIS ACT DECLARED IT TO BE
"THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR FAIR
AND IMPARTIAL REGULATION OF ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SO ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE
THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF EACH."  TITLE I, SEC. 1.  THE ACT COMMANDS
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THAT "ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT SHALL BE ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED WITH A VIEW OF CARRYING OUT THE
ABOVE DECLARATION OF POLICY."  CONGRESS, FEARFUL, IN THE WORDS OF
SEVERAL MEMBERS, THAT THE COMMISSION WAS "ESSENTIALLY A RAILROAD MINDED
BODY,"  FN7  TOOK EVERY PRECAUTION TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
WATER CARRIERS.  FN8 

SENATORS, PARTICULARLY THOSE FROM THE MIDWESTERN STATES WHERE THE
BARGE LINES INVOLVED HERE WERE OPERATING, WERE ESPECIALLY FEARFUL THAT
THE COMMISSION WOULD DO SUBSTANTIALLY WHAT IT HAS DONE IN THIS CASE. 
THEY REQUIRED REPEATED ASSURANCE BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE THAT THE BILL WAS WRITTEN IN SUCH
MANNER THAT THE COMMISSION COULD NOT IF IT DESIRED PERMIT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WATER CARRIERS.  AT GREAT LENGTH THE CHAIRMAN OF
THAT COMMITTEE EXPLAINED TO APPREHENSIVE SENATORS THAT THE BILL
CONTAINED PROVISIONS IN THREE DIFFERENT PLACES WHICH IMPOSED UPON THE
COMMISSION THE IMPERATIVE DUTY OF STANDING IN CONSTANT OPPOSITION TO
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SHIPPERS BY WATER.  FN9 

HOUSE MEMBERS SHARED THE SAME FEARS.  THE FIRST CONFERENCE REPORT WAS
DEFEATED IN THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE BILL DID NOT
OFFER ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR WATER CARRIERS AGAINST HOSTILE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ACTION.  FN10  A PROPONENT OF THE BILL TOLD THE
HOUSE THAT "IT IS NOT FAIR TO SUGGEST, IN MY OPINION, THAT THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURTS WILL NOT LOOK TO THIS DECLARATION OF POLICY
WHENEVER THEY ARE CALLED UPON TO MAKE SUCH CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
AND APPLICATION OF IT  ...  THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE BILL CARRY
OUT THE DECLARATION OF POLICY.  THE COURTS AND COMMISSIONS WILL
RECOGNIZE THAT.  ..."  FN11  DEFENDING THE POLICY PROVISIONS AS A
COMPLETE PROTECTION AGAINST COMMISSION ACTION ANTAGONISTIC TO BARGE
TRANSPORTATION, ANOTHER SPONSOR OF THE BILL, OPPOSING A SAFEGUARDING
AMENDMENT, DECLARED THAT TO CONSIDER IT NECESSARY "YOU WILL HAVE TO
FURTHER ASSUME THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WILL NOT ENFORCE
IT.  YOU WILL HAVE TO ASSUME THAT IF A CASE GOES TO THE COURTS, THE
COURTS WILL NEITHER CONSTRUE NOR ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
POLICY."  FN12  AS I SEE IT, THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE HAS DECLINED
TO ENFORCE CONGRESS' POLICY AND THE COURT HAS FAILED TO CONSTRUE AND
ENFORCE THE ACT AS CONGRESS CLEARLY INTENDED IT SHOULD. 

THIS IS NOT ALL.  THE FIRST CONFERENCE REPORT HAVING BEEN DEFEATED,
THE SECOND CONFERENCE REPORT BROUGHT IN CHANGES INTENDED TO OFFER MORE
PROTECTION TO WATER CARRIERS.  THE CONFEREES REPORTED THAT:  "THIS
MEASURE WILL PLACE UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, NOT ONLY
THE POWER, BUT THE DUTY, TO PROTECT AND FOSTER WATER TRANSPORTATION AND
PRESERVE ITS INHERENT ADVANTAGES."  FN13 AS A CLOSING, CLINCHING
ARGUMENT INTENDED TO PERSUADE THE HOUSE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE
FAIR TO WATER CARRIERS, THE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER EASTMAN (WHO
DISSENTED FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION HERE) WAS QUOTED.  EASTMAN
ASSURED THE CONGRESSMEN INTERESTED IN WATER TRANSPORTATION THAT CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL "COUPLED WITH THE ADMONITION IN THE DECLARATION
OF POLICY IN SECTION 1 THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BE SO
ADMINISTERED AS TO RECOGNIZE AND PRESERVE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES OF
EACH MODE OF TRANSPORTATION, WILL AFFORD ADEQUATE PROTECTION IN THIS
RESPECT.  IF EXPERIENCE SHOULD SHOW THAT FURTHER PROTECTION IS NEEDED,
CONTRARY TO OUR EXPECTATION, CONGRESS CAN AMEND THE ACT, BUT SUCH A
RESTRICTION AS IS NOW PROPOSED IS, WE BELIEVE, BOTH UNNECESSARY AND
UNDESIRABLE."  FN14    THE FINAL STATEMENT OF THE LAST PROPONENT OF THE
1940 ACT, SPOKEN JUST BEFORE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE SECOND
CONFERENCE REPORT, WERE THESE:  "THERE IS NOTHING WHATEVER IN THE
PENDING MEASURE WHICH COULD BY ANY FAIR INTERPRETATION BE REGARDED AS
UNJUST TO WATER TRANSPORTATION OR TO ANY OTHER KIND OF
TRANSPORTATION."  THE SPEAKER THEN READ THE POLICY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1
AND ASKED: "HOW MUCH PLAINER COULD LANGUAGE BE THAN THAT IS?  IT IS
CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE BILL FOR THE APPREHENSION
EXPRESSED BY THOSE OPPOSED TO THE MEASURE."  FN15 

ALTHOUGH THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT INITIATED UNDER THE 1940 ACT,
FN16  THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE FELT ITSELF BOUND BY THAT
CONGRESSIONAL EXPRESSION OF POLICY.  YET THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY JUST
RECITED MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION HAS FLAGRANTLY FLOUTED THE
EXPRESS MANDATE OF CONGRESS.  IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION
RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN A "PROPER PROCEEDING" IN
WHICH IT "MIGHT PRESCRIBE PROPORTIONAL RATES (ON THE EX-BARGE TRAFFIC)
OR JOINT BARGE-RAIL RATES LOWER THAN THE COMBINATIONS."  AT SOME FUTURE
DAY THE COMMISSION MAY CORRECT THIS DISCRIMINATION.  BUT THE DAY FOR
COMMISSION ACTION WAS THE DAY THIS CASE WAS DECIDED, AND THE DAY FOR
ACTION BY THIS COURT IS NOW.  THE COMMISSION IS NOT BOUND BY THE
TECHNICAL PROCEDURES OF THE COMMON LAW, AND IT SHOULD NOT STRAIN TO
AVOID THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL WILL BECAUSE OF THE FORMAL
FASHION IN WHICH QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED TO IT.  IN THIS PROCEEDING IT
WAS THE COMMISSION'S DUTY "TO PROTECT AND MAINTAIN A TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM FREE FROM PARTIALITY TO PARTICULAR SHIPPERS.  THE COMMISSION
ACTED IN ITS CAPACITY AS A PUBLIC AGENCY" AND WAS OBLIGATED TO CARRY
OUT "DUTIES IMPOSED UPON IT BY CONGRESS IN THE INTEREST OF SHIPPERS
GENERALLY, THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS TRUCKING CO., SUPRA, 354. 
THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT A FORMAL PROCEEDING TO FIX PROPORTIONAL
RATES UNDER SEC. 6(11)(B) DID NOT DETRACT FROM THE COMMISSION'S
POWERS.  CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 29, 36;
UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 272 U.S. 457, 462.  THE
COMMISSION ITSELF IN CASES WHERE THE COMMAND OF CONGRESS WAS FAR LESS
EMPHATIC THAN HERE, HAS STATED THAT AN INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION
PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS ONE "OPENS FOR CONSIDERATION THE LAWFULNESS OF
THE SUSPENDED RATES UNDER ALL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT."  SUGAR FROM GULF
COAST PORT GROUPS TO NORTHERN POINTS, 234 I.C.C. 247, 251.  "THE
REPROACH OF DEALING WITH THE MATTER PIECEMEAL" IS INCURRED BY THE
COMMISSION HERE AS IT WAS IN UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. &
P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499, 510.  IT CANNOT, WITH DUE REGARD TO ITS DUTY,
SHIFT RESPONSIBILITY "FROM THE SHOULDERS OF THE PRESENT TO THE
SHOULDERS OF THE DAYS TO COME."  HERE AS IN THAT CASE, POSTPONEMENT
SERVES TO LEAVE "THIS PARTICULAR CARRIER HELPLESS IN THE INTERVAL." 
FN17 

CONGRESSMAN BLAND, WHO OPPOSED THE 1940 ACT ON THE GROUND THAT IT
LACKED SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT ACTION BY THE COMMISSION
HOSTILE TO WATER TRANSPORTATION CALLED ATTENTION TO THE PROCEDURAL
DELAYS IN RATE CASES BEFORE THAT BODY, DELAYS WHICH HE DECLARED WOULD
BE USED TO STRANGLE FINANCIALLY WEAK WATER CARRIERS, FORCING THEM TO
"YIELD OR TRANSFER THEIR OPERATION TO OTHER STREAMS."  HE POINTED OUT
THIS "WOULD MEAN THE DEATH OF WATER CARRIERS"; THAT THE RAILROADS KNEW
HOW TO OBTAIN DELAY AND KNEW THE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD
FOLLOW TO THEIR COMPETITORS; THAT RAILROADS "SEEK TO PROFIT" BY
PROCEDURAL DELAY; AND THAT THE DIVERSITY OF THEIR INTERESTS AND EXTENT
OF THEIR REVENUES WAS SO GREAT THAT THEY COULD SURVIVE DELAYS WHICH
WOULD BE UNENDURABLE FOR COMPETITORS.  FN18  THE CONGRESSMAN WAS A GOOD
OBSERVER AND A SOUND PROPHET. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF THIS
ORDER WAS CORRECT AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  44 F.SUPP.  368, 375. 

FN2  THE FIGURE GIVEN IS THE INCREASE IN COST OF SHIPMENT TO THE BEST
EASTERN MARKET.  THE COST VARIES, DEPENDING ON THE DESTINATION OF THE
GRAIN. 

FN3  THE NEW RATES FOR SHIPMENT FROM CHICAGO TO THE EAST OF COURSE DO
NOT "PROHIBIT" BARGE SHIPMENTS TO CHICAGO SINCE THE SMALL AMOUNT OF
GRAIN CONSUMED IN THAT CITY WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE OUTGOING RATES,
AND SOME GRAIN CAN STILL BE CARRIED TO THE EAST BY LAKE TRANSPORTATION
FOR SO MUCH OF THE YEAR AS THE LAKES ARE OPEN TO TRAFFIC. 

THE COURT QUOTES THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION THAT "THE PROPOSED
SCHEDULES ARE NOT PROHIBITIVE" AND THAT THEIR PRINCIPAL EFFECT WILL BE
TO REDUCE THE PROFITS OF THE CHICAGO ELEVATOR OPERATORS.  IF THE
SCHEDULES OPERATE UNFAIRLY, AS I THINK THEY DO, IT IS IMMATERIAL
WHETHER THE FARMERS OR THE ELEVATOR OPERATORS BEAR THE BURDEN OF THE
UNFAIRNESS; BUT THE COURT IN RELYING ON THIS FINDING PAYS LITTLE REGARD
TO THE FACT THAT THE COURT BELOW FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE SAVING FROM
BARGE TRANSPORATION "ACCRUES TO THE PRODUCER" AND "DOES NOT ACCRUE TO
THE CHICAGO ELEVATOR OPERATOR."  UNLESS THE COURT IS WILLING, AS
APPARENTLY IT IS NOT, TO REEXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE COURT BELOW IS IN ERROR, WE MUST TAKE THE FACTS AS THEY ARE GIVEN
TO US BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  IN ANY CASE, I THINK THE DISTRICT COURT
WAS CORRECT. 

FN4  "A THROUGH RATE IS ORDINARILY LOWER THAN THE COMBINATION OF THE
LOCAL RATES.  WHEN A THROUGH RATE IS MADE BY COMBINATION OF RATES FOR
INTERMEDIATE DISTANCES THE RATE FOR THE LATER LINK IN THE SHIPMENT IS,
WHEN LOWER THAN THE LOCAL, SPOKEN OF AS A PROPORTIONAL RATE." 
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768, 771. 

FN5  IBID., 776. 

FN6  THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT REFER TO THE FACT THAT EX-BARGE
RATES ARE NOW EQUAL TO EX-TRUCK RATES.  THIS IS IRRELEVANT.  IF THERE
IS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRUCK SHIPPERS, THE REMEDY IS AN
IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR SITUATION, NOT A DESTRUCTION OF BARGE SHIPPING. 
IN THE WORDS OF CHAIRMAN EASTMAN IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION, "MY
TENTATIVE OPINION UPON IT IS THAT WHERE THE MOVEMENT BY TRUCK IS FROM
TERRITORY FROM WHICH GRAIN CAN BE MOVED BY RAIL OR BY WATER TO CHICAGO
SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE RESHIPPING RATES EAST-BOUND, THE
FAILURE TO APPLY SUCH RATES TO THE GRAIN BROUGHT IN BY TRUCK DOES
RESULT IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 2 AND 3, PROVIDED ADEQUATE PROVISIONS
FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND POLICING OF SUCH SHIPMENTS ARE PRACTICABLE
AND ENFORCEABLE." 

FN7  84 CONG. REC. 5965, 5883, 5880-81.  LEGISLATION SIMILAR IN
PURPOSE TO THE 1940 ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES IN
THE 74TH AND SUBSEQUENT CONGRESSES.  OPPOSITION TO LEGISLATION GIVING
THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY OVER WATER TRANSPORTATION CAME FROM
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WATER SHIPPERS.  A TYPICAL PROTEST WAS MADE BY
CLEVELAND A. NEWTON, GENERAL COUNSEL, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION,
IN THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 5379:  "THIS
BILL IF ENACTED INTO LAW WILL PLACE WATER CARRIERS ALONG THE COAST AND
UPON OUR INLAND RIVERS UNDER THE ABSOLUTE DOMINATION AND CONTROL OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THAT COMMISSION WAS CREATED TO
REGULATE, CONSERVE, AND CONTROL RAILWAYS.  IT IS A RAILWAY-REGULATING
AGENCY.  IT NATURALLY HAS THE RAILWAY VIEWPOINT, AND PAST EXPERIENCE
CONVINCES US THAT THE COMMISSION, AS NOW CONSTITUTED, IS RAILWAY-MINDED
AND THAT IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO PLACE WATER SERVICES
UNDER ITS DOMINATION AND CONTROL.  ...  WE HAVE OBSERVED THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMISSION IN THE PAST, UNDER A COMPREHENSIVE
DECLARATION OF POLICY ENACTED BY CONGRESS, AND THAT EXPERIENCE, WE
REGRET TO SAY, HAS NOT INSPIRED CONFIDENCE."  HEARINGS, P. 471. 

FN8  "MR. LUCAS:  ...  UNDER THE BILL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE POWER, AND IT WOULD BE
ITS DUTY, TO FIX RATES ON THE ILLINOIS RIVER WITH RESPECT TO THE
TRANSPORTATION OF THAT WHEAT AND CORN.  WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO FIX THE RATE THE SAME AS THE RAILROAD
RATE FROM THAT POINT TO ST. LOUIS? 

"MR. WHEELER:  NOT IF THE COMMISSION DOES ITS DUTY, BECAUSE THE BILL
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT IT MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE INHERENT
ADVANTAGES OF THE WATER CARRIER.  EVERYONE AGREES THAT GOODS CAN BE
SHIPPED MORE CHEAPLY BY WATER THAN BY RAIL."  84 CONG. REC. 5879. 

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES, AMONG OTHERS, EITHER
REQUIRED ASSURANCE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
WATER CARRIERS OR EXPRESSED THE CONVICTION THAT UNDER THE STATEMENT OF
POLICY, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE UNABLE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WATER
CARRIERS: SENATORS AUSTIN, CLARK OF MISSOURI, CONNALLY, ELLENDER,
LUCAS, MILLER, MCNARY, NORRIS, PEPPER, SHIPSTEAD, TRUMAN, AND WHEELER;
REPRESENTATIVES BLAND, BULWINKLE, CROSSER, CULKIN, HALLECK, LEA, PIERCE
OF OREGON, SPARKMAN, AND WADSWORTH. 

FN9  84 CONG. REC. 6125-6128. 

FN10  THE FIRST CONFERENCE REPORT WAS REJECTED BY THE HOUSE ON MAY 9,
1940, 86 CONG. REC. 5886.  THE SECOND REPORT WAS ACCEPTED ON AUG. 12,
1940, 86 CONG. REC. 10193. 

FN11  84 CONG. REC. 9865. 

FN12 84 CONG. REC. 9863. 

FN13  86 CONG. REC. 10172. 

FN14  86 CONG. REC. 10191.  IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION, CHAIRMAN
EASTMAN SAID:  "THE REPORT STATES THAT THE 'PROPOSED SCHEDULES WILL NOT
PROHIBIT THE MOVEMENT BY BARGE-RAIL EVEN TO TRUNK-LINE TERRITORY, THEIR
PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL EFFECT BEING TO REDUCE THE PROFIT OF THE CHICAGO
ELEVATOR OPERATORS.'  I DO NOT SO UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE.  ...  AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED SCHEDULES, UNLESS THE PRICES
PAID TO THE FARMERS WHOSE GRAIN IS BARGED ARE REDUCED, WILL BE TO LIMIT
THE OUTLET OF THE EX-BARGE GRAIN TO LOCAL CONSUMPTION IN CHICAGO AND TO
THE LAKE AND LAKE-RAIL ROUTES TO EASTERN POINTS." 

FN15  86 CONG. REC. 10192. 

FN16  THE 1940 ACT GAVE THE COMMISSION JURISDICTION TO REGULATE WATER
TRANSPORTATION DIRECTLY.  HERE THE SAME EFFECT IS ACHIEVED UNDER THE
COMMISSION'S OTHER POWERS BY A TARIFF AIMED AT SHIPPERS WHO HAVE
PREVIOUSLY USED WATER TRANSPORTATION.  FOR THE BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF
THE 1940 ACT SEE EASTMAN, THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM, 30 AMER.  ECON. 
REV. 124; STEIN, FEDERAL REGULATION OF WATER CARRIERS, 16 JOUR.  LAND
AND PUB. UTIL.  ECON.  478; HARBESON, THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940,
17 IBID. 291; REGULATION OF WATER CARRIERS, 50 YALE L. JOUR.  654. 

FN17  THE COURT INTERPRETS THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AS LEAVING OPEN THE
RIGHT OF THE SHIPPERS AFFECTED TO BRING ACTIONS FOR REPARATIONS FOR
INJURIES SUFFERED UNDER THE NEW RATES.  THIS WILL BRING SMALL PRACTICAL
COMFORT TO THE BARGE LINES SINCE THE SHIPPERS WILL BE UNLIKELY TO SHIP
BY BARGE WHEN THE PRICE OF EVERY SHIPMENT IS DEPENDENT ON FUTURE LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS.  THE BARGE LINES, "HELPLESS IN THE INTERVAL" PENDING NEW
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, RISK SERIOUS FINANCIAL INJURY, IF NOT BANKRUPTCY. 
WHILE THE SHIPPERS CAN SHIP BY BARGE NOW AND SUE LATER, THEY ARE
PRESUMABLY INTERESTED IN BUYING TRANSPORTATION, NOT LAWSUITS. 

FN18 86 CONG. REC. 10181. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :










DIRECT SALES CO. V. U.S., 319 U.S. 703 


NO. 593.  ARGUED APRIL 12, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1943.  - 131 F.2D
835, AFFIRMED. 


A MAIL-ORDER WHOLESALE DRUG CORPORATION MADE SALES OF MORPHINE
SULPHATE TO A PHYSICIAN IN UNUSUALLY LARGE QUANTITIES, FREQUENTLY, AND
OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD.  HELD, THAT THE EVIDENCE, FROM WHICH IT COULD
BE INFERRED THAT THE SELLER NOT ONLY KNEW THE PHYSICIAN WAS SELLING THE
DRUG ILLEGALLY BUT INTENDED TO COOPERATE WITH HIM THEREIN, WAS
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE SELLER'S CONVICTION OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
THE HARRISON NARCOTIC ACT.  UNITED STATES V. FALCONE, 311 U.S. 205,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 714. 

DIRECT SALES CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 749, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE HARRISON NARCOTIC ACT.  SEE ALSO 44
F.SUPP.  623. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A CORPORATION, WAS CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE
HARRISON NARCOTIC ACT.  FN1  IT CHALLENGES THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION.  BECAUSE OF ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH
UNITED STATES V. FALCONE, 311 U.S. 205, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

PETITIONER IS A REGISTERED DRUG MANUFACTURER AND WHOLESALER N2.  IT
CONDUCTS A NATIONWIDE MAIL-ORDER BUSINESS FROM BUFFALO, NEW YORK.  THE
EVIDENCE RELATES CHIEFLY TO ITS TRANSACTIONS WITH ONE DR. JOHN V. TATE
AND HIS DEALINGS WITH OTHERS.  HE WAS A REGISTERED PHYSICIAN,
PRACTICING IN CALHOUN FALLS, SOUTH CAROLINA, A COMMUNITY OF ABOUT 2,000
PERSONS.  HE DISPENSED ILLEGALLY VAST QUANTITIES OF MORPHINE SULPHATE
PURCHASED BY MAIL FROM PETITIONER.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED PETITIONER,
DR. TATE, AND THREE OTHERS, BLACK, JOHNSON AND FOSTER, TO AND THROUGH
WHOM TATE ILLEGALLY DISTRIBUTED THE DRUGS, WITH CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE
SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THIS ACT,  FN3  OVER A PERIOD EXTENDING FROM 1933 TO
1940.  FOSTER WAS GRANTED A SEVERANCE, BLACK AND JOHNSON PLEADED
GUILTY, AND PETITIONER AND DR. TATE WERE CONVICTED.  DIRECT SALES ALONE
APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  131 F.2D 835. 

THE PARTIES HERE ARE AT ODDS CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF THE FALCONE
DECISION AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS PROVED IN THIS CASE.  THE SALIENT
FACTS ARE THAT DIRECT SALES SOLD MORPHINE SULPHATE TO DR. TATE IN SUCH
QUANTITIES, SO FREQUENTLY AND OVER SO LONG A PERIOD IT MUST HAVE KNOWN
HE COULD NOT DISPENSE THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN LAWFUL PRACTICE AND WAS
THEREFORE DISTRIBUTING THE DRUG ILLEGALLY.  NOT ONLY SO, BUT IT
ACTIVELY STIMULATED TATE'S PURCHASES. 

HE WAS A SMALL-TOWN PHYSICIAN PRACTICING IN A RURAL SECTION.  ALL OF
HIS BUSINESS WITH DIRECT SALES WAS DONE BY MAIL.  THROUGH ITS
CATALOGUES PETITIONER FIRST MADE CONTACT WITH HIM PRIOR TO 1933. 
ORIGINALLY HE PURCHASED A VARIETY OF PHARMACEUTICALS.  BUT GRADUALLY
THE CHARACTER OF HIS PURCHASES NARROWED, SO THAT DURING THE LAST TWO
YEARS OF THE PERIOD ALLEGED FOR THE CONSPIRACY HE ORDERED ALMOST
NOTHING BUT MORPHINE SULPHATE.  AT ALL TIMES DURING THE PERIOD HE
PURCHASED THE MAJOR PORTION OF HIS MORPHINE SULPHATE FROM PETITIONER. 
THE ORDERS WERE MADE REGULARLY ON HIS OFFICIAL ORDER FORMS.  THE
TESTIMONY SHOWS THE AVERAGE PHYSICIAN IN THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT
REQUIRE MORE THAN 400 ONE-QUARTER GRAIN TABLETS ANNUALLY FOR LEGITIMATE
USE.  ALTHOUGH TATE'S INITIAL PURCHASES IN 1933 WERE SMALLER, THEY
GRADUALLY INCREASED UNTIL, FROM NOVEMBER, 1937, TO JANUARY, 1940, THEY
AMOUNTED TO 79,000 ONE-HALF GRAIN TABLETS.  IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS OF
1939, PETITIONER'S SHIPMENTS TO HIM AVERAGED 5,000 TO 6,000 HALF-GRAIN
TABLETS A MONTH, ENOUGH AS THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT TO ENABLE HIM TO
GIVE 400 AVERAGE DOSES EVERY DAY. 

THESE QUANTITY SALES WERE IN LINE WITH THE GENERAL MAIL-ORDER
CHARACTER OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS.  BY PRINTED CATALOGUES CIRCULATED
ABOUT THREE TIMES A MONTH, IT SOLICITS ORDERS FROM RETAIL DRUGGISTS AND
PHYSICIANS LOCATED FOR THE MOST PART IN SMALL TOWNS THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY.  OF ANNUAL SALES OF FROM $300,000 TO $350,000 IN THE PERIOD
1936 TO 1940, ABOUT FIFTEEN PER CENT BY REVENUE AND TWO AND A HALF PER
CENT BY VOLUME WERE IN NARCOTICS.  THE MAIL-ORDER PLAN ENABLED
PETITIONER TO SELL AT PRICES CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN WERE CHARGED BY
ITS LARGER COMPETITORS, WHO MAINTAINED SALES FORCES AND TRAVELING
REPRESENTATIVES.  BY OFFERING FIFTY PER CENT DISCOUNTS ON NARCOTICS, IT
"PUSHED" QUANTITY SALES.  INSTEAD OF LISTING NARCOTICS, LIKE MORPHINE
SULPHATE, IN QUANTITIES NOT EXCEEDING 100 TABLETS, AS DID MANY
COMPETITORS, DIRECT SALES FOR SOME TIME LISTED THEM IN 500, 1,000 AND
5,000 TABLET UNITS.  BY THIS POLICY IT ATTRACTED CUSTOMERS, INCLUDING A
DISPROPORTIONATELY LARGE GROUP OF PHYSICIANS WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF
VIOLATING THE HARRISON ACT. 

ALL THIS WAS NOT WITHOUT WARNING, PURPOSE OR DESIGN.  IN 1936 THE
BUREAU OF NARCOTICS INFORMED PETITIONER IT WAS BEING USED AS A SOURCE
OF SUPPLY BY CONVICTED PHYSICIANS THE SAME AGENT ALSO WARNED THAT THE
AVERAGE PHYSICIAN WOULD ORDER NO MORE THAN 200 TO 400 QUARTER-GRAIN
TABLETS ANNUALLY  FN5  AND REQUESTED IT TO ELIMINATE THE LISTING OF
5,000 LOTS.  IT DID SO, BUT CONTINUED THE 1,000 AND 500 LOT LISTINGS AT
ATTRACTIVE DISCOUNTS.  IT FILLED NO MORE ORDERS FROM TATE FOR MORE THAN
1,000 TABLETS, BUT CONTINUED TO SUPPLY HIM FOR THAT AMOUNT AT HALF
GRAIN STRENGTH.  ON ONE OCCASION IN 1939 HE ORDERED ON ONE FORM 1,000
HALF AND 100 QUARTER GRAINS.  PETITIONER SENT HIM THE 1,000 AND ADVISED
HIM TO REORDER THE 100 ON A SEPARATE ORDER FORM.  IT ATTACHED TO THIS
LETTER A STICKER PRINTED IN RED SUGGESTING ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE NEEDS
AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF DISCOUNTS OFFERED.  THREE DAYS LATER TATE
ORDERED 1,000 MORE TABLETS, WHICH PETITIONER SENT OUT.  IN 1940, AT THE
BUREAU'S SUGGESTION, DIRECT SALES ELIMINATED ITS FIFTY AND TEN PER CENT
DISCOUNTS.  BUT ON DOING SO IT TRANSLATED ITS DISCOUNT INTO ITS NET
PRICE. 

TATE DISTRIBUTED THE DRUGS TO AND THROUGH ADDICTS AND PURVEYORS,
INCLUDING JOHNSON, BLACK AND FOSTER.  ALTHOUGH HE PURCHASED FROM
PETITIONER AT LESS THAN TWO DOLLARS, HE SOLD AT PRICES RANGING FROM
FOUR TO EIGHT DOLLARS PER 100 HALF-GRAIN TABLETS AND PURVEYORS FROM HIM
CHARGED ADDICTS AS MUCH AS $25 PER HUNDRED. 

ON THIS EVIDENCE, THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THE CASE IS IN DIFFERENT
POSTURE FROM THAT PRESENTED IN UNITED STATES V. FALCONE.  IT URGES THAT
THE EFFORT THERE WAS TO CONNECT THE RESPONDENTS WITH A CONSPIRACY
BETWEEN THE DISTILLERS ON THE BASIS OF THE AIDING AND ABETTING
STATUTE.  FN6  THE ATTEMPT FAILED BECAUSE THE COURT HELD THE EVIDENCE
DID NOT ESTABLISH THE RESPONDENTS KNEW OF THE DISTILLERS' CONSPIRACY. 
THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO LINK THE SUPPLIER AND THE DISTILLER IN A
CONSPIRACY INTER SESE.  BUT IN THIS CASE THAT TYPE OF PROBLEM IS
PRESENTED.  DIRECT SALES WAS TRIED, AND ITS CONVICTION HAS BEEN
SUSTAINED, ACCORDING TO THE CLAIM, ON THE THEORY IT COULD BE CONVICTED
ONLY IF IT WERE FOUND THAT IT AND TATE CONSPIRED TOGETHER TO SUBVERT
THE ORDER FORM PROVISIONS OF THE HARRISON ACT.  AS THE BRIEF PUTS THE
GOVERNMENT'S VIEW, "PETITIONER'S GUILT WAS NOT MADE TO DEPEND AT ALL
UPON ANY GUILT OF DR. TATE GROWING OUT OF HIS RELATIONSHIP TO
DEFENDANTS OTHER THAN PETITIONER OR UPON WHETHER THESE OTHER DEFENDANTS
WERE LINKED WITH THE TATE-DIRECT SALES CONSPIRACY." 

ON THE OTHER HAND, PETITIONER ASSERTS THIS CASE FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN
THE FACTS AND THE RULING IN THE FALCONE CASE.  IT INSISTS THERE IS NO
MORE TO SHOW CONSPIRACY BETWEEN ITSELF AND TATE THAN THERE WAS TO SHOW
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT SELLERS AND THE PURCHASING DISTILLERS
THERE.  AT MOST, IT URGES, THERE WERE ONLY LEGAL SALES BY ITSELF TO DR.
TATE, ACCOMPANIED BY KNOWLEDGE HE WAS DISTRIBUTING GOODS ILLEGALLY. 
BUT THIS, IT CONTENDS, CANNOT AMOUNT TO CONSPIRACY ON ITS PART WITH
HIM, SINCE IN THE FALCONE CASE THE RESPONDENTS SOLD TO THE DISTILLERS,
KNOWING THEY WOULD USE THE GOODS IN ILLEGAL DISTILLATION. 

PETITIONER OBVIOUSLY MISCONSTRUES THE EFFECT OF THE FALCONE DECISION
IN ONE RESPECT.  THIS IS IN REGARDING IT AS DECIDING THAT ONE WHO SELLS
TO ANOTHER WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE BUYER WILL USE THE ARTICLE FOR AN
ILLEGAL PURPOSE CANNOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BE FOUND GUILTY OF
CONSPIRACY WITH THE BUYER TO FURTHER HIS ILLEGAL END.  THE ASSUMPTION
SEEMS TO BE THAT, UNDER THE RULING, SO LONG AS THE SELLER DOES NOT KNOW
THERE IS A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE BUYER AND OTHERS, HE CANNOT BE GUILTY
OF CONSPIRING WITH THE BUYER, TO FURTHER THE LATTER'S ILLEGAL AND KNOWN
INTENDED USE, BY SELLING GOODS TO HIM. 

THE FALCONE CASE CREATES NO SUCH SWEEPING INSULATION FOR SELLERS TO
KNOWN ILLICIT USERS.  THAT DECISION COMES DOWN MERELY TO THIS, THAT ONE
DOES NOT BECOME A PARTY TO A CONSPIRACY BY AIDING AND ABETTING IT,
THROUGH SALES OF SUPPLIES OR OTHERWISE, UNLESS HE KNOWS OF THE
CONSPIRACY; AND THE INFERENCE OF SUCH KNOWLEDGE CANNOT BE DRAWN MERELY
FROM KNOWLEDGE THE BUYER WILL USE THE GOODS ILLEGALLY.  THE GOVERNMENT
DID NOT CONTEND, IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE OPINION POINTS OUT,
THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE SELLER ALONE.  IT
CONCEDED THAT ON THE EVIDENCE NEITHER THE ACT OF SUPPLYING ITSELF NOR
THE OTHER PROOF WAS OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS IMPORTED AN AGREEMENT OR
CONCERT OF ACTION BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE SELLER AMOUNTING TO
CONSPIRACY.  THIS WAS TRUE, NOTWITHSTANDING SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS
COULD BE TAKEN TO KNOW THEIR CUSTOMERS WOULD USE THE PURCHASED GOODS IN
ILLEGAL DISTILLATION. 

THE SCOPE OF THE CONCESSION MUST BE MEASURED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH IT WAS MADE.  THIS RELATED TO BOTH THE
VOLUME OF THE SALES AND TO CASUAL AND UNEXPLAINED MEETINGS OF SOME OF
THE RESPONDENTS WITH OTHERS WHO WERE CONVICTED AS CONSPIRATORS.  THE
COURT FOUND THIS EVIDENCE TOO VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN TO SUPPORT A FINDING
THE RESPONDENTS KNEW OF THE DISTILLERS' CONSPIRACY, THOUGH NOT
INADEQUATE IN SOME INSTANCES TO SUSTAIN ONE THAT THE SELLER KNEW THE
BUYER WOULD USE THE GOODS FOR ILLEGAL DISTILLING.  IT MUST BE TAKEN
ALSO THAT THE GOVERNMENT REGARDED THE SAME EVIDENCE AS INSUFFICIENT TO
SHOW THE SELLER CONSPIRED DIRECTLY WITH THE BUYER, BY SELLING TO HIM
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF HIS INTENDED ILLEGAL USE. 

WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS CONSISTENT IN MAKING THIS CONCESSION AND IN
REGARDING THE SAME EVIDENCE AS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE SELLERS KNEW
OF AND JOINED THE BUYERS' DISTILLING RING IS NOT MATERIAL.  NOR NEED IT
BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED TOO MUCH.  WE DO NOT NOW
UNDERTAKE TO SAY WHAT THE COURT WAS NOT ASKED AND THEREFORE DECLINED TO
SAY IN THE FALCONE CASE, NAMELY, THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THAT
CASE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE
SELLER AND THE BUYER INTER SESE.  FOR, REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE FACTS
PROVED IN THIS CASE SHOW MUCH MORE THAN THE EVIDENCE DID THERE. 

THE COMMODITIES SOLD THERE WERE ARTICLES OF FREE COMMERCE, SUGAR,
CANS, ETC.  THEY WERE NOT RESTRICTED AS TO SALE BY ORDER FORM,
REGISTRATION, OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS.  WHEN THEY LEFT THE SELLER'S STOCK
AND PASSED TO THE PURCHASER'S HANDS, THEY WERE NOT IN THEMSELVES
RESTRICTED COMMODITIES, INCAPABLE OF FURTHER LEGAL USE EXCEPT BY
COMPLIANCE WITH RIGID REGULATIONS, SUCH AS APPLY TO MORPHINE SULPHATE. 
THE DIFFERENCE IS LIKE THAT BETWEEN TOY PISTOLS OR HUNTING-RIFLES AND
MACHINE GUNS.  ALL ARTICLES OF COMMERCE MAY BE PUT TO ILLEGAL ENDS. 
BUT ALL DO NOT HAVE INHERENTLY THE SAME SUSCEPTIBILITY TO HARMFUL AND
ILLEGAL USE.  NOR, BY THE SAME TOKEN, DO ALL EMBODY THE SAME CAPACITY,
FROM THEIR VERY NATURE, FOR GIVING THE SELLER NOTICE THE BUYER WILL USE
THEM UNLAWFULLY.  GANGSTERS, NOT HUNTERS OR SMALL BOYS, COMPRISE THE
NORMAL PRIVATE MARKET FOR MACHINE GUNS.  SO DRUG ADDICTS FURNISH THE
NORMAL OUTLET FOR MORPHINE WHICH GETS OUTSIDE THE RESTRICTED CHANNELS
OF LEGITIMATE TRADE. 

THIS DIFFERENCE IS IMPORTANT FOR TWO PURPOSES.  ONE IS FOR MAKING
CERTAIN THAT THE SELLER KNOWS THE BUYER'S INTENDED ILLEGAL USE.  THE
OTHER IS TO SHOW THAT BY THE SALE HE INTENDS TO FURTHER, PROMOTE AND
COOPERATE IN IT.  THIS INTENT, WHEN GIVEN EFFECT BY OVERT ACT, IS THE
GIST OF CONSPIRACY.  WHILE IT IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH MERE KNOWLEDGE THAT
ANOTHER PURPOSES UNLAWFUL ACTION, IT IS NOT UNRELATED TO SUCH
KNOWLEDGE.  WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE, THE INTENT CANNOT EXIST.  UNITED
STATES V. FALCONE, SUPRA.  FN7  FURTHERMORE, TO ESTABLISH THE INTENT,
THE EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE MUST BE CLEAR, NOT EQUIVOCAL.  IBID.  THIS,
BECAUSE CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY ARE NOT TO BE MADE OUT BY PILING
INFERENCE UPON INFERENCE, THUS FASHIONING WHAT, IN THAT CASE, WAS
CALLED A DRAGNET TO DRAW IN ALL SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES. 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUGAR, CANS, AND OTHER ARTICLES OF NORMAL
TRADE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND NARCOTIC DRUGS, MACHINE GUNS AND SUCH
RESTRICTED COMMODITIES, ON THE OTHER, ARISING FROM THE LATTERS'
INHERENT CAPACITY FOR HARM AND FROM THE VERY FACT THEY ARE RESTRICTED,
MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY OF PROOF REQUIRED TO SHOW KNOWLEDGE
THAT THE BUYER WILL UTILIZE THE ARTICLE UNLAWFULLY.  ADDITIONAL FACTS,
SUCH AS QUANTITY SALES, HIGH-PRESSURE SALES METHODS, ABNORMAL INCREASES
IN THE SIZE OF THE BUYER'S PURCHASES, ETC., WHICH WOULD BE WHOLLY
INNOCUOUS OR NOT MORE THAN GROUND FOR SUSPICION IN RELATION TO
UNRESTRICTED GOODS, MAY FURNISH CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, IN RESPECT TO
RESTRICTED ARTICLES, THAT THE SELLER KNOWS THE BUYER HAS AN ILLEGAL
OBJECT AND ENTERPRISE.  KNOWLEDGE, EQUIVOCAL AND UNCERTAIN AS TO ONE,
BECOMES SURE AS TO THE OTHER.  SO FAR AS KNOWLEDGE IS THE FOUNDATION OF
INTENT, THE LATTER THEREBY ALSO BECOMES THE MORE SECURE. 

THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COMMODITIES HAS A FURTHER BEARING UPON THE
EXISTENCE AND THE PROOF OF INTENT.  THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
THE EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE IS CLEAR, YET THE FURTHER STEP OF FINDING THE
REQUIRED INTENT CANNOT BE TAKEN.  CONCEDEDLY, NOT EVERY INSTANCE OF
SALE OF RESTRICTED GOODS, HARMFUL AS ARE OPIATES, IN WHICH THE SELLER
KNOWS THE BUYER INTENDS TO USE THEM UNLAWFULLY, WILL SUPPORT A CHARGE
OF CONSPIRACY.  FN8  BUT THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT A SELLER OF HARMFUL
RESTRICTED GOODS HAS LICENSE TO SELL IN UNLIMITED QUANTITIES, TO
STIMULATE SUCH SALES BY ALL THE HIGH-PRESSURE METHODS, LEGAL IF NOT
ALWAYS APPROPRIATE, IN THE SALE OF FREE COMMODITIES; AND THEREBY BRING
ABOUT SUBVERSION OF THE ORDER FORMS, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD PROTECT HIM,
AND VIOLATION OF THE ACT'S OTHER RESTRICTIONS.  SUCH A VIEW WOULD
ASSUME THAT THE MARKET FOR OPIATES MAY BE DEVELOPED AS ANY OTHER
MARKET.  BUT THAT IS NOT TRUE.  MASS ADVERTISING AND BARGAIN-COUNTER
DISCOUNTS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE TO COMMODITIES SO SURROUNDED WITH
RESTRICTIONS.  THEY DO NOT CREATE NEW LEGAL DEMAND AND NEW CLASSES OF
LEGITIMATE PATRONS, AS THEY DO FOR SUGAR, TOBACCO AND OTHER FREE
COMMODITIES.  BEYOND NARROW LIMITS, THE NORMAL LEGAL MARKET FOR OPIATES
IS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING EXTENDED BY SUCH METHODS.  THE PRIMARY EFFECT
IS RATHER TO CREATE BLACK MARKETS FOR DOPE AND TO INCREASE ILLEGAL
DEMAND AND CONSUMPTION. 

WHEN THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSES SUCH A SYSTEM, WORKING IN PROLONGED
COOPERATION WITH A PHYSICIAN'S UNLAWFUL PURPOSE TO SUPPLY HIM WITH HIS
STOCK IN TRADE FOR HIS ILLICIT ENTERPRISE, THERE IS NO LEGAL OBSTACLE
TO FINDING THAT THE SUPPLIER NOT ONLY KNOWS AND ACQUIESCES, BUT JOINS
BOTH MIND AND HAND WITH HIM TO MAKE ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT POSSIBLE.  THE
STEP FROM KNOWLEDGE TO INTENT AND AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN.  THERE IS
MORE THAN SUSPICION, MORE THAN KNOWLEDGE, ACQUIESCENCE, CARELESSNESS,
INDIFFERENCE, LACK OF CONCERN.  THERE IS INFORMED AND INTERESTED
COOPERATION, STIMULATION, INSTIGATION.  AND THERE IS ALSO A "STAKE IN
THE VENTURE" WHICH, EVEN IF IT MAY NOT BE ESSENTIAL, IS NOT IRRELEVANT
TO THE QUESTION OF CONSPIRACY.  FN9  PETITIONER'S STAKE HERE WAS IN
MAKING THE PROFITS WHICH IT KNEW COULD COME ONLY FROM ITS ENCOURAGEMENT
OF TATE'S ILLICIT OPERATIONS.  IN SUCH A POSTURE THE CASE DOES NOT FALL
DOUBTFULLY OUTSIDE EITHER THE SHADOWY BORDER BETWEEN LAWFUL COOPERATION
AND CRIMINAL ASSOCIATION OR THE NO LESS ELUSIVE LINE WHICH SEPARATES
CONSPIRACY FROM OVERLAPPING FORMS OF CRIMINAL COOPERATION. 

UNLESS, THEREFORE, PETITIONER HAS BEEN EXEMPTED ARBITRARILY BY THE
STATUTE'S TERMS, THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN ITS
CONVICTION FOR CONSPIRING WITH TATE.  ITS POSITION HERE COMES DOWN
ULTIMATELY TO THE VIEW ALLUDED TO ABOVE THAT THE STATUTE HAS, IN FACT,
THUS IMMUNIZED ITS ACTION.  IN EFFECT THIS MEANS THE ONLY RESTRICTION
IMPOSED UPON IT, APART FROM OTHER PROVISIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, SUCH AS
THOSE AFFECTING REGISTRATION, WAS THE REQUIREMENT IT SHOULD RECEIVE
FROM PURCHASING PHYSICIANS A SIGNED ORDER FORM FOR EACH SALE.  THAT
DONE, IN ITS VIEW, ITS FULL DUTY TO THE LAW WAS FULFILLED, IT ACQUIRED
A COMPLETE IMMUNITY, AND WHAT THE PHYSICIAN HAD DONE OR MIGHT DO WITH
THE DRUGS BECAME OF NO FURTHER CONCERN TO ITSELF.  SUCH A VIEW WOULD
LEGALIZE AN EXPRESS WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A REGISTERED WHOLESALER
AND A PHYSICIAN FOR THE FORMER TO SUPPLY HIM WITH ALL HIS REQUIREMENTS
FOR DRUGS FOR BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION, CONDITIONED ONLY
UPON HIS USING THE REQUIRED ORDER FORMS.  THE STATUTE CONTAINS NO SUCH
EXEMPTION IN EXPLICIT TERMS.  NOR WAS ONE IMPLIED.  FN10 

THIS BEING TRUE, IT CAN MAKE NO DIFFERENCE THE AGREEMENT WAS A TACIT
UNDERSTANDING, CREATED BY A LONG COURSE OF CONDUCT AND EXECUTED IN THE
SAME WAY.  FN11  NOT THE FORM OR MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDERSTANDING IS
MADE, BUT THE FACT OF ITS EXISTENCE AND THE FURTHER ONE OF MAKING IT
EFFECTIVE BY OVERT CONDUCT ARE THE CRUCIAL MATTERS.  THE PROOF, BY THE
VERY NATURE OF THE CRIME, MUST BE CIRCUMSTANTIAL N12 AND THEREFORE
INFERENTIAL TO AN EXTENT VARYING WITH THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE
CRIME MAY BE COMMITTED.  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN EITHER THAT THE
EVIDENCE MAY BE EQUIVOCAL OR THAT PETITIONER IS EXEMPT FROM ITS EFFECTS
WHEN IT IS NOT SO, MERELY BECAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF EXCESSES SUCH AS
WERE COMMITTED AND IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER FORM WOULD HAVE
GIVEN IT PROTECTION.  IT FOLLOWS THE MERE FACT THAT NONE OF
PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVES EVER MET DR. TATE FACE TO FACE OR HELD
PERSONAL COMMUNION WITH HIM IS IMMATERIAL.  CONSPIRACIES, IN SHORT, CAN
BE COMMITTED BY MAIL AND BY MAIL-ORDER HOUSES.  THIS IS TRUE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE OVERT ACTS CONSIST SOLELY OF SALES, WHICH BUT FOR
THEIR VOLUME, FREQUENCY AND PROLONGED REPETITION, COUPLED WITH THE
SELLER'S UNLAWFUL INTENT TO FURTHER THE BUYER'S PROJECT, WOULD BE
WHOLLY LAWFUL TRANSACTIONS. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE, R.S. SEC. 5440, AS AMENDED, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 88, PROVIDES: 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE EITHER TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN ANY MANNER OR FOR
ANY PURPOSE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PARTIES DO ANY ACT TO EFFECT THE
OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH OF THE PARTIES TO SUCH CONSPIRACY SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS,
OR BOTH." 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE HARRISON ACT ARE SET OUT IN NOTE 3,
INFRA. 

FN2  38 STAT. 785, AS AMENDED, 26 U.S.C. SECS. 3220, 3221. 

FN3  38 STAT. 785, AS AMENDED, 26 U.S.C. SECS. 2553, 2554.  THE
INDICTMENT CHARGED THE CONSPIRACY'S OBJECT WAS TO VIOLATE THOSE
PORTIONS OF THE ACT (AS AMENDED) WHICH PROVIDE: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON REQUIRED TO REGISTER UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PART OR SECTION 2551(A) TO IMPORT, MANUFACTURE,
PRODUCE, COMPOUND, SELL, DEAL IN, DISPENSE, DISTRIBUTE, ADMINISTER, OR
GIVE AWAY ANY OF THE AFORESAID DRUGS WITHOUT HAVING REGISTERED AND PAID
THE SPECIAL TAX AS IMPOSED BY THIS PART, OR SECTION 2551(A)."  26
U.S.C. SEC. 3224. 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO PURCHASE, SELL, DISPENSE, OR
DISTRIBUTE ANY OF THE DRUGS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2550(A) EXCEPT IN THE
ORIGINAL STAMPED PACKAGE OR FROM THE ORIGINAL STAMPED PACKAGE; ...  "
26 U.S.C. SEC. 2553. 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO SELL, BARTER, EXCHANGE, OR
GIVE AWAY ANY OF THE DRUGS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2550(A) EXCEPT IN
PURSUANCE OF A WRITTEN ORDER OF THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH ARTICLE IS
SOLD, BARTERED, EXCHANGED, OR GIVEN, ON A FORM TO BE ISSUED IN BLANK
FOR THAT PURPOSE BY THE SECRETARY."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 2554(A). 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO OBTAIN BY MEANS OF SAID ORDER
FORMS ANY OF THE AFORESAID DRUGS FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE USE,
SALE, OR DISTRIBUTION THEREOF BY HIM IN THE CONDUCT OF A LAWFUL
BUSINESS IN SAID DRUGS OR IN THE LEGITIMATE PRACTICE OF HIS
PROFESSION."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 2554(G). 

FN4  THUS, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE MORE THAN 1,350 WHOLESALE DRUG DEALERS
IN THE UNITED STATES FROM WHOM PHYSICIANS MIGHT ORDER NARCOTICS
(TRAFFIC IN OPIUM AND OTHER DANGEROUS DRUGS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1941, UNITED STATES TREASURY, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS), ABOUT 27% OF
THE 204 DOCTORS CONVICTED WERE PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS. 

FN5  TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT THE PRACTICE IN THE
PROFESSION IS TO GIVE ONE-EIGHTH OR ONE-FOURTH GRAIN DOSES, AND ONLY
RARELY ONE-HALF GRAIN DOSES.  CF. UNITED STATES V. BERMAN, 258 U.S.
280, 289.  FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS EXPERT TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT THAT
CODEIN MAY BE, AND PREFERABLY IS, USED FOR THE SAME MEDICAL PURPOSES AS
MORPHINE SULPHATE.  DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1934 TO 1940, HOWEVER, THE
RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT TATE EVER ORDERED CODEIN FROM PETITIONER. 

FN6  R.S. SEC. 5323, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 550. 

FN7  ALTHOUGH THIS PRINCIPLE WAS THERE APPLIED TO AIDING AND ABETTING
A CONSPIRACY AMONG OTHERS, IT HAS AT LEAST EQUAL FORCE IN A SITUATION
WHERE THE CHARGE IS CONSPIRING WITH ANOTHER TO FURTHER HIS UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY CONSPIRACY BETWEEN HIM AND THIRD
PERSONS. 

FN8  THIS MAY BE TRUE, FOR INSTANCE, OF SINGLE OR CASUAL
TRANSACTIONS, NOT AMOUNTING TO A COURSE OF BUSINESS, REGULAR, SUSTAINED
AND PROLONGED, AND INVOLVING NOTHING MORE ON THE SELLER'S PART THAN
INDIFFERENCE TO THE BUYER'S ILLEGAL PURPOSE AND PASSIVE ACQUIESCENCE IN
HIS DESIRE TO PURCHASE, FOR WHATEVER END.  A CONSIDERABLE DEGREE OF
CARELESSNESS COUPLED WITH CASUAL TRANSACTIONS IS TOLERABLE OUTSIDE THE
BOUNDARY OF CONSPIRACY.  THERE MAY BE ALSO A FAIRLY BROAD LATITUDE OF
IMMUNITY FOR A MORE CONTINUOUS COURSE OF SALES, MADE EITHER WITH STRONG
SUSPICION OF THE BUYER'S WRONGFUL USE OR WITH KNOWLEDGE, BUT WITHOUT
STIMULATION OR ACTIVE INCITEMENT TO PURCHASE. 

FN9  CF. UNITED STATES V. FALCONE, 109 F.2D 579, 581(C.C.A.); AND
COMPARE BACKUN V. UNITED STATES, 112 F.2D 635, 637(C.C.A.); UNITED
STATES V. HARRISON, 121 F.2D 930, 933(C.C.A.); UNITED STATES V.
PECORARO, 115 F.2D 245, 246(C.C.A.). 

FN10  CF. GEBARDI V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 112; SEE ALSO 81 U. OF
PA. L. REV. 474. 

FN11  GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 80; UNITED STATES V.
MANTON, 107 F.2D 834, 839(C.C.A.); UNITED STATES V. HARRISON, 121 F.2D
930, 934(C.C.A.); CF. EASTERN STATES RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS' ASSN. V.
UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600; INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306
U.S. 208. 

FN12  IBID.
..END :






OWENS V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 319 U.S. 715 


NO. 580.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 14, 1943.  - 129 F.2D
1013, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THERE WAS AN
ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY THE DECEDENT; HIS CONDUCT AMOUNTED, AT MOST, TO
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, WHICH MAY REDUCE THE DAMAGES BUT DOES NOT BAR
RECOVERY.  P. 724. 

2.  IT IS UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE 1939
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, ABOLISHING THE
DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK, APPLIES WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED
BEFORE, BUT THE SUIT IS BROUGHT AFTER, THAT ENACTMENT.  P. 725. 

OWENS, EXECUTRIX, V. UNION PACIFIC 

RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 623, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER IS THE WIDOW OF AN EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENT.  IN 1941 SHE
BROUGHT THIS SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C.
SECS. 51-59.  HER HUSBAND'S DEATH OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT AS FOREMAN OF A SWITCHING CREW ON FEBRUARY 16, 1939.  SHE
CLAIMS THIS WAS DUE TO RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE.  PETITIONER SOUGHT TO
RECOVER IN ONE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR OWENS' SUFFERING BEFORE DEATH AND IN
ANOTHER FOR HIS DEATH.  THE TRIAL JUDGE WITHDREW FROM THE JURY, FOR
INSUFFICIENCY OF PROOF, FOUR OF THE FIVE SEPARATE GROUNDS OF NEGLIGENCE
ALLEGED.  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED ON THE REMAINING GROUND, AN ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF COMPANY RULE 30, AND THE DEFENSES OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK
AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.  RULE 30 PROVIDED: 

"ENGINE BELL MUST BE RUNG WHEN AN ENGINE IS ABOUT TO MOVE AND WHEN
APPROACHING OR PASSING PUBLIC CROSSINGS AT GRADE, STATIONS, TUNNELS AND
SNOWSHEDS."  THE JURY FOUND FOR PETITIONER AND A JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED
ON THE VERDICT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE
QUESTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.  IT HELD THAT AS A
MATTER OF LAW OWENS ASSUMED THE RISK OF DEATH IN THE ACTIVITIES IN
WHICH HE WAS ENGAGED WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED.  129 F.2D 1013.  WE
THINK THIS RULING WAS ERRONEOUS. 

AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND FOR FIFTEEN YEARS BEFORE, OWENS WAS
EMPLOYED IN THE SPOKANE RAILROAD YARDS AS AN ENGINE OR SWITCHING CREW
FOREMAN.  HIS CREW WAS COMPOSED OF HIMSELF, THE ENGINEER, THE FIREMAN,
AND TWO OTHERS.  THE CREW'S WORK CONSISTED IN SHUTTLING FREIGHT CARS
ABOUT THE YARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RAILROAD'S
FREIGHT SCHEDULE. 

THE FATAL SWITCHING MANEUVER WAS THE SHIFTING OF TWO BOXCARS FROM
THEIR POSITION ON THE "LEAD" TRACK, WEST OF A SWITCH DESIGNATED NO. 7,
TO TRACK 13.  TO ACCOMPLISH THIS THE ENGINE WAS REQUIRED TO PROCEED
WESTERLY ALONG THE "LEAD" LINE UNTIL IT HOOKED UP THE TWO FREIGHT CARS,
THEN TO BACK THE TRAIN THUS FORMED ALONG THAT LINE OVER SWITCH 7 AND,
AFTER THE SWITCH WAS SET, TO "KICK" THE CARS SO THEY WOULD ROLL OVER
THE SWITCH ON TO TRACK 13, WHILE THE ENGINE STOPPED AND STARTED BACK TO
GET ANOTHER CAR.  THE ENGINEER'S CAB WAS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE
TRACK, THE SWITCH STAND AND HANDLE WERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. 

WHILE THE ENGINE WAS SLOWLY BACKING AFTER BEING COUPLED TO THE
FREIGHT CARS, OWENS AND ONE OF HIS MEN, KOEFOD, RODE ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF THE TRAIN, CLINGING TO THE FACING STIRRUPS AND HANDRAILS BETWEEN THE
TWO BOXCARS.  AS THE CARS CROSSED THE SWITCH, OWENS DROPPED OFF ON THE
NORTH SIDE, TELLING KOEFOD TO "LET THESE CARS GO 13."  WHEN THE TRAIN
HAD PASSED, OWENS CROSSED TO THE SOUTH SIDE IN ORDER TO SET THE
SWITCH.  THE TRAIN STOPPED WITH ITS WESTERN END AT A DISTANCE ESTIMATED
VARIOUSLY AT SEVEN TO THIRTY FEET FROM, BUT IN ANY EVENT UNUSUALLY
CLOSE TO, THE SWITCH POINT.  KOEFOD DROPPED OFF ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE TRACK AND TOOK A POSITION ABOUT 20 FEET NORTH OF THE TRACK FROM
WHICH HE COULD SEE THE SWITCH POINTS BUT COULD NOT SEE EITHER THE
SWITCH HANDLE OR OWENS, BOTH BEING OBSTRUCTED FROM HIS VIEW BY THE
CARS.  SIMILARLY, THE ENGINEER, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TRAIN, COULD
NOT SEE OWENS.  THE OTHER TWO MEN ALSO WERE OUT OF VISION.  WHEN KOEFOD
SAW THE SWITCH POINT MOVE INTO LINE, WITHOUT AWAITING ANY SIGN FROM
OWENS HE SIGNALLED THE ENGINEER TO "KICK" THE CARS.  THIS THE LATTER
PROMPTLY DID.  NO WARNING WAS GIVEN TO OWENS EITHER BY BELL, BY
WHISTLE, OR BY CALL ON STARTING THE "KICK."  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT, ALL TOLD, BETWEEN THE STOPPING OF THE RECEDING TRAIN AND THE
"KICK" ABOUT TEN SECONDS ELAPSED. 

IN THIS INTERVAL, OWENS, HAVING SET THE SWITCH, BEGAN TO WALK ACROSS
THE TRACK TO THE NORTH SIDE.  NO EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE OR INTRODUCED
TO SHOW HIS REASON FOR DOING SO.  FN1  SINCE HE WAS LOOKING NORTHWARD,
HE DID NOT SEE THE "KICKED" CARS COMING TOWARD HIM UNTIL TOO LATE.  HE
THEN TRIED TO LEAP OUT OF THE WAY, BUT FAILED AND WAS STRUCK BY THE
CARS, WHICH ROLLED OVER HIM.  HIS LEGS WERE SEVERED FROM HIS BODY. 
ALTHOUGH HE WAS REMOVED TO A HOSPITAL ALMOST AT ONCE, HE DIED WITHIN A
FEW HOURS. 

IF THIS WERE ALL THE EVIDENCE, THE CASE WOULD BE CLEARLY ONE IN WHICH
THE JURY MIGHT FIND THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF KOEFOD OR THE
ENGINEER, OR BOTH, AND THAT OWENS' CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO NO MORE THAN
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, IF IT WAS THAT. 

BUT THE COMPANY SOUGHT TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF THESE FACTS BY PROVING
THAT RULE 30 WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN ORDINARY SWITCHING OPERATIONS, THAT
IT WAS NOT CUSTOMARY TO RING THE ENGINE'S BELL DURING THEM, THAT IT WAS
CUSTOMARY FOR THE MAN AT THE SWITCH HANDLE TO REMAIN THERE UNTIL
MOVEMENT OF THE "KICKED" CARS STOPPED, THAT IT WAS THE PRACTICE FOR THE
MAN IN KOEFOD'S POSITION TO SIGNAL FOR THE KICK WITHOUT WAITING EITHER
FOR A SIGNAL FROM THE MAN AT THE SWITCH, OR TO SEE WHETHER THE LATTER
REMAINED THERE, AND THAT OWENS HAD FOLLOWED THESE PRACTICES IN THE
PAST. 

THE PURPOSE OF THIS EVIDENCE APPARENTLY WAS TWOFOLD.  THE FIRST
OBJECT WAS TO SHOW THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT NEGLIGENT.  IT SOUGHT
PARTICULARLY TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF A FINDING THAT THE ENGINEER'S
FAILURE TO RING THE BELL WAS A VIOLATION OF RULE 30 AND THEREFORE WAS
NEGLIGENCE PER SE.  BUT THE EVIDENCE ALSO WAS DIRECTED TO PROVE THAT,
APART FROM THE RINGING OF THE BELL, NEITHER KOEFOD NOR THE ENGINEER
ACTED NEGLIGENTLY IN ASSUMING THAT OWENS KNEW THE MATTERS SOUGHT TO BE
PROVED AND WOULD REMAIN AT THE SWITCH UNTIL THE CARS HAD PASSED BY; AND
THEREFORE THAT THEY ACTED PROPERLY IN GOING AHEAD WITHOUT TAKING THE
PRECAUTIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN
ENTITLED TO MAKE THIS ASSUMPTION. 

THE SAME EVIDENCE ALSO WAS THE BASIS OF THE COMPANY'S CONTENTION THAT
OWENS ASSUMED THE RISK OF HIS INJURY.  ALTHOUGH THE COURT OF APPEALS
DECLINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WOULD SUPPORT A LEGAL CONCLUSION THERE
WAS NO NEGLIGENCE, IT APPARENTLY ACCEPTED THE COMPANY'S VIEW THAT IT
ESTABLISHED ASSUMPTION OF RISK AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS RULING IS THAT IT IGNORES CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.  THIS CONSISTED IN
TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MEN IN THE SWITCHING CREW CUSTOMARILY
"LOOK OUT" FOR EACH OTHER, PARTICULARLY WHEN A MAN WAS NOT IN SIGHT
DURING OPERATIONS, THAT ONE IN KOEFOD'S POSITION WOULD NOT SIGNAL FOR
THE "KICK" UNTIL HE SAW THAT THE MAN AT THE SWITCH WAS OUT OF HARM'S
WAY, AND THAT THERE WAS A CUSTOM TO WAIT BEFORE ORDERING THE "KICK"
UNTIL THE MAN AT THE SWITCH SIGNALLED TO THE MAN IN KOEFOD'S POSITION. 

IN THIS STATE OF THE RECORD THERE WAS A SQUARE CLASH OF EVIDENCE
BEARING ON WHETHER OWENS KNEW THAT THE CARS WOULD BE "KICKED" WITHOUT
ANY PRIOR INDICATION TO HIM - EITHER BY RINGING THE BELL OR BY SIGNAL
FROM OTHERS IN THE CREW - AND DECIDED TO CROSS THE TRACK ANYWAY.  AND
THESE QUESTIONS WERE CRUCIAL, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO WHETHER HE
VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED THE RISK OF THE CONDUCT WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT HIS
DEATH. 

THAT IS TRUE, UNLESS IT IS TO BE HELD THAT OWENS, WHEN HE ACCEPTED
AND CONTINUED IN HIS EMPLOYMENT, KNEW THAT RISKS OF THE GENERAL
CHARACTER WHICH CAUSED HIS DEATH WOULD BE INCURRED AND, BY TAKING OR
CONTINUING IN THE WORK, ACCEPTED THEIR BURDEN; IN OTHER WORDS, NOT THAT
HE KNEW OF AND ACCEPTED THE PARTICULAR RISK AT THE TIME IT DESCENDED,
BUT KNEW GENERALLY THAT RISKS OF SUCH A CHARACTER MIGHT FALL AND
ELECTED IN ADVANCE TO SUSTAIN THEM.  WE THINK NO SUCH VIEW IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS. 

RECENTLY THIS COURT REVIEWED "THE MAZE OF LAW WHICH CONGRESS SWEPT
INTO THE DISCARD,"  FN2 WHEN IN 1939 IT AMENDED THE EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT TO ABOLISH THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  FN3 IN
VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT, NO GOOD PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN GOING OVER
THIS MORASS AGAIN MERELY TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE.  BUT WE POINT TO A
FEW LODESTARS. 

THE COMMON-LAW DEFENSES, ASSUMPTION OF RISK, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE,
AND THE FELLOW-SERVANT RULE WERE ORIGINATED AND DEVELOPED IN COMMON
GROUND.  FN4  NOT ENTIRELY IDENTICAL IN CONCEPTION, THEY CONJOINED AND
OVERLAPPED IN MANY APPLICATIONS.  THE OVERLAPPING AREAS FIRST
CONCEALED, THEN CREATED A CONFUSION WHICH ONLY SERVED TO CREATE MORE;
FN5  SO THAT IN TIME THE THREE BECAME MORE, RATHER THAN LESS,
INDISTINGUISHABLE, AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK TOOK OVER ALSO, IN MISGUIDED
APPELLATION, LARGE REGIONS OF THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE.  WHAT IN FACT WAS
ABSENCE OF DEPARTURE FROM DUE CARE BY THE DEFENDANT CAME TO BE LABELLED
"ASSUMPTION OF RISK."  FN6  APART FROM THIS EFFECT, SO LONG AS THE AREA
OF APPLICATION WAS OVERLAPPING  FN7  AND EACH WHEN ESTABLISHED HAD THE
EFFECT OF DEFEATING LIABILITY, IT WAS NOT A MATTER OF GREAT MOMENT TO
DISTINGUISH THE DEFENSES SHARPLY OR CAREFULLY, WHEN THE FACTS WOULD
SUSTAIN ONE. 

BUT UNDER THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT PRIOR TO 1939 THERE WAS
INESCAPABLE REASON FOR MAKING ACCURATE DIFFERENTIATION OF THE THREE. 
FOR EACH PRODUCED DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES.  ASSUMPTION OF RISK REMAINED
A COMPLETE DEFENSE TO LIABILITY.  CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE MERELY
REDUCED THE DAMAGES.  FN8  THE FELLOW-SERVANT RULE WAS ABOLISHED.  FN9 

THESE DISTINCT CONSEQUENCES REQUIRED DISTINCT TREATMENT OF THE THREE
CONCEPTIONS.  THIS MEANT THAT SO FAR AS ASSUMPTION OF RISK, WHICH
REMAINED A COMPLETE DEFENSE, HAD SWALLOWED UP CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
AND THE FELLOW-SERVANT RULE, THE LATTER, HAVING DIFFERENT EFFECTS,
SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM ITS ENFOLDING EMBRACE.  IN THAT WAY ONLY COULD
THE CLEAR LEGISLATIVE MANDATE BE CARRIED OUT AND THE DISTINCT
CONSEQUENCES ATTRIBUTED BY IT TO EACH BE ATTAINED.  TO PERMIT
ASSUMPTION OF RISK STILL TO ENGULF ALL THE PROPER TERRITORY OF
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND THE FELLOW-SERVANT RULE WOULD BE ONLY AND
PLAINLY TO NULLIFY CONGRESS' COMMAND. 

UNFORTUNATELY THE INJUNCTION HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY. 
THERE ARE DECISIONS WHICH, IN THE GUISE OF APPLYING ASSUMPTION OF RISK,
DO NO MORE THAN SHIFT TO THE INJURED EMPLOYEE THE BURDEN OF HIS FELLOW
SERVANTS' NEGLIGENCE, WHILE OTHERS APPEAR TO IDENTIFY THE DOCTRINE WITH
MERE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.  OLD CONFUSIONS DIE HARD.  AND IN THIS
INSTANCE SOME REFUSED TO DIE AT ALL OR DID SO ONLY INTERMITTENTLY.  WE
DO NOT NOW ATTEMPT THE REFINED DISTINCTIONS OR THE BROADER
OBLITERATIONS WHICH MIGHT BE REQUIRED, IF THE 1939 AMENDMENT HAD NOT
BECOME LAW, IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORIGINAL CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE.  IT IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THAT OBJECT AND WITH THE
STATUTE'S WORDING TO HOLD THAT THE EMPLOYEE, MERELY BY ACCEPTING OR
CONTINUING IN THE EMPLOYMENT, ASSUMES THE RISK OF HIS FELLOW-SERVANTS'
NEGLIGENCE OR THAT CONDUCT ON HIS PART IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION WHICH
AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE CAN HAVE THAT EFFECT. 

IN THIS CASE, IF THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE UPON THE EMPLOYER'S PART, AS TO
WHICH WE EXPRESS NO OPINION, IT LAY EITHER IN THE COMPANY'S FAILURE TO
ENFORCE RULE 30, IF THAT RULE WAS APPLICABLE TO SWITCHING OPERATIONS,
OR IN THE NEGLIGENCE OF A FELLOW SERVANT OF OWENS AND NOTHING MORE THAN
THAT.  FN10  IN THE FORMER CASE, ASSUMPTION OF RISK WOULD NOT APPLY, AT
ANY RATE AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT
THE EMPLOYEE KNEW THE RULE WAS NOT APPLICABLE OR HAD BEEN ABANDONED AND
ELECTED TO TAKE HIS CHANCES IN CROSSING THE TRACK. 

IF WE TURN TO THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE, THE FELLOW-SERVANT DOCTRINE
CONTEMPLATED THAT AN EMPLOYEE KNEW AND ASSUMED, WHEN HE ACCEPTED
EMPLOYMENT, THE RISKS WHICH NEGLIGENCE OF HIS FELLOW EMPLOYEES MIGHT
CREATE.  IT WAS IN FACT A BRANCH OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  WHEN THEREFORE
CONGRESS ABOLISHED THE FELLOW-SERVANT RULE AS A DEFENSE UNDER THE
STATUTE, IT NECESSARILY ABOLISHED THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK TO
THIS EXTENT.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT ELIMINATED THE GENERAL ANTICIPATION OF
FELLOW-SERVANTS' NEGLIGENCE, UPON WHICH THE FELLOW-SERVANT RULE WAS
FOUNDED.  IF ANYTHING OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK REMAINED IN RELATION TO THE
NEGLIGENCE OF A FELLOW EMPLOYEE, IT WAS SUCH AS REQUIRED A SHOWING THAT
THE INJURED ONE KNEW OF AND ACCEPTED THE RISK IN THE PARTICULAR
INCIDENT OR SITUATION WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT HIS INJURY.  THERE WAS
THEREFORE IN THIS CASE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE STATUTE, NO GENERAL
ASSUMPTION BY OWENS, BY VIRTUE OF HIS ACCEPTANCE OR RETENTION OF THE
WORK, OF THE RISK WHICH CAUSED HIS DEATH IN SO FAR AS IT CONSISTED IN
NEGLIGENCE BY KOEFOD OR THE ENGINEER. 

WHAT REMAINED OF THE DEFENSE, THEREFORE, NARROWS THE INQUIRY TO
WHETHER OWENS CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE ANTICIPATED AND DECIDED TO CHANCE
THE PARTICULAR RISK HERE CREATED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF HIS FELLOW
EMPLOYEES.  CF. REED V. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, 258 U.S. 92.  AS
HAS BEEN SHOWN, RESPONDENT HAS NOT SUSTAINED THIS BURDEN.  THAT IS
TRUE, WHETHER THE INJURY IS COUCHED IN TERMS OF OWENS' ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE
FN11 AND DELIBERATE CHOICE  FN12  OR OF THE "OBVIOUS" AND "APPARENT"
CHARACTER OF THE RISK.  FN13  FOR, TO PREVAIL ON THIS DEFENSE,
RESPONDENT HAD THE BURDEN OF PERSUADING THE JURY THAT THE RISK OF BEING
RUN DOWN WAS "SO PLAINLY OBSERVABLE" THAT OWENS WAS IN FACT AWARE OF IT
AND DECIDED TO CHANCE IT.  LESS THAN THAT, UNDER THIS STATUTE, WOULD BE
NO MORE THAN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, WHICH CANNOT BE INTERCHANGED OR
OVERLAPPED WITH ASSUMPTION OF RISK AS A DEFENSE.  THE JURY DECIDED THAT
RESPONDENT HAD NOT SUSTAINED THE BURDEN IMPOSED.  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH
THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW IT HAS.  THE RECORD SHOWS
NEITHER SUCH CLEAR EVIDENCE OF AN INFORMED AND DELIBERATE CHOICE BY
OWENS AS WOULD PRECLUDE A CONTRARY VERDICT NOR SO "OBVIOUS" OR
"APPARENT" A DANGER AS WOULD DO SO.  FN14    IF THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE BY
THE RESPONDENT, THE STATUTE REQUIRES SOMETHING MORE THAN CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE TO DEFEAT RECOVERY, THOUGH THAT MAY MINIMIZE THE DAMAGES. 
THE JURY FOUND THIS ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.  AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS DID NOT PURPORT TO DEAL WITH IT AND DID NOT DO SO UNLESS, IN
THE GUISE OF FINDING ASSUMPTION OF RISK, IT IDENTIFIED THE TWO.  SINCE
IT DID NOT DEAL WITH THE QUESTION, WE DO NOT DECIDE IT.  BUT WE THINK
IT IS CLEAR THAT ON THE FACTS OWENS' CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO NO MORE THAN
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, IF IT WAS THAT. 

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CHARGED THE JURY THAT A VIOLATION OF
COMPANY RULE 30 WAS IPSO FACTO NEGLIGENCE  FN15  AND TOOK FROM IT THE
OTHER CLAIMED GROUNDS OF NEGLIGENCE  FN16  ARE QUESTIONS THE COURT OF
APPEALS DID NOT REACH AND WE THEREFORE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE. 
SIMILARLY, IN VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSION ON ASSUMPTION OF RISK, WE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE 1939 AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, ABOLISHING THAT DEFENSE, OPERATES WHERE THE
ACCIDENT OCCURRED BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT BUT SUIT IS BROUGHT AFTER. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  INDEED, THE ONLY EVIDENCE ON THE QUESTION OF DECEDENT'S
MOVEMENTS DURING THIS TIME IS FURNISHED BY AN ENGINEER WHO SAW THE
ACCIDENT FROM THE CAB OF A NEARBY ENGINE.  HE TESTIFIED: 

"HE WAS LOOKING NORTH - JUST FOR AN INSTANT HE TURNED HIS HEAD DOWN
TO THE YARD AND WHEN HE STRAIGHTENED HIS HEAD UP - WHY JUST BEFORE HE
STRAIGHTENED HIS HEAD UP I GOT SCARED AND I SAYS 'THEM CARS ARE GOING
TO CORNER HIM' - THEY WERE COMING ABOUT SIX MILES AN HOUR - I HAD NO
WAY OF TELLING HOW FAST THEY WERE GOING - I HAD A HEAD END VIEW OF THE
CARS AND BEFORE I COULD DO A THING, OR GIVE HIM ANY WARNING, I WAS TOO
FAR AWAY - JUST AS HE TURNED AROUND HE SEEN THE CARS COMING ALMOST ON
TOP OF HIM - HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GET OUT OF THE WAY - HE THROWED
HIMSELF BACK AND SIDEWAYS, AND AS I RECOLLECT A DRAW BAR HIT HIM ABOUT
IN HERE - HIS RIGHT SIDE - " 

Q. "WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM?" 

A. "IT KNOCKED HIM DOWN RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THE TRACK; AS NEAR AS
I COULD UNDERSTAND THE FIRST PART OF THE TRUCKS RUN OVER HIM." 

FN2  TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54. 

FN3  53 STAT. 1404, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 54. 

FN4  CF. PRIESTLEY V. FOWLER, 3 M. & W. 1(1837); FARWELL V. BOSTON &
WORCESTER R. CORP., 4 METC.  (MASS.)  49; BOHLEN, VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION
OF RISK, 20 HARV. L. REV. 14, 91(1906); BUTTERFIELD V. FORRESTER, 11
EAST 60(1809); DAVIES V. MANN, 10 M. & W. 546(1842); BOHLEN,
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, 21 HARV. L. REV. 233(1908). 

FN5  CF. TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54, AND
AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN6  IBID., CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER; HOCKING
VALLEY RY. CO. V. WHITAKER, 299 F. 416(C.C.A.); HARPER, TORTS (1933)
292, AND AUTHORITIES CITED, NOTE 11; BOHLEN, VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF
RISK, 20 HARV. L. REV. 14, 91. 

FN7  CF. BOHLEN, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, 21 HARV. L. REV. 233, 243,
ET SEQ. 

FN8  35 STAT. 66. 

FN9  35 STAT. 65; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. DE ATLEY, 241 U.S.
310; SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1; REED V. DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF RAILROADS, 258 U.S. 92. 

FN10  THIS IS TRUE WHETHER THE FELLOW-SERVANT'S NEGLIGENCE CONSISTED
IN A VIOLATION OF RULE 30, AS THE TRIAL COURT PERMITTED THE JURY TO
FIND, OR IN ANY OF THE OTHER ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT ACTS OR OMISSIONS,
WHICH THE COURT REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY.  FOR IN ANY EVENT THE
CONDUCT CLAIMED TO BE NEGLIGENT WAS THAT OF KOEFOD OR THE ENGINEER,
BOTH OF WHOM WERE FELLOW SERVANTS.  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE COURT,
WHEN IT CAST ITS DECISION IN TERMS OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK, INTENDED TO
RULE THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE (CF. NOTE 6, SUPRA),
SINCE ITS OPINION EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS DETERMINING THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF RULE 30, WHETHER ITS VIOLATION WOULD CONSTITUTE
NEGLIGENCE PER SE, AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PARTIES ON THE
APPEAL. 

FN11  CF. 3 LABATT, MASTER AND SERVANT (1913), SECS. 1190-1192; YORK
V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO., 184 WIS. 110, 198 N.W. 377; DOLLAR
SAVINGS FUND & TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA CO., 272 PA. 364, 116 A. 299;
RUMMELL V. DILWORTH, PORTER & CO., 111 PA. 343, 2 A. 355, 363. 

FN12  CF. THOMAS V. QUARTERMAINE, L.R. 18 Q.B.D. 685; YARMOUTH V.
FRANCE, L.R. 19 Q.B.D. 647; SMITH V. BAKER & SONS (1891) A.C. 325. 

FN13  CF. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. HORTON, 233 U.S. 492; GILA
VALLEY, G. & N. RY. CO. V. HALL, 232 U.S. 94; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO.
V. DE ATLEY, 241 U.S. 310; CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN R. CO. V. BOWER, 241
U.S. 470; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. PROFFITT, 241 U.S. 462; AND
COMPARE SCHLEMMER V. BUFFALO, R. & P. RY. CO., 205 U.S. 1, 220 U.S.
590; BOHLEN, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, 21 HARV. L. REV. 233; ALEXANDER,
RE-THINKING NEGLIGENCE, 11 MISS.  L.J. 290. 

FN14  CF. GILA VALLEY, G. & N. RY. CO. V. HALL, 232 U.S. 94;
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. DE ATLEY, 241 U.S. 310; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO
RY. CO. V. PROFFITT, 241 U.S. 462; CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. WARD,
252 U.S. 18; CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RY. CO. V. BOWER, 241 U.S. 470. 

FN15  CF. GILDNER V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 90 F.2D 635(C.C.A.);
PACHECO V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 15 F.2D 467(C.C.A.). 

FN16  "(A)  THAT DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT'S EMPLOYEES CARELESSLY AND
NEGLIGENTLY FAILED AND NEGLECTED TO KEEP A PROPER LOOKOUT FOR
PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT AND TO ASCERTAIN HIS WHEREABOUTS BEFORE MOVING
SAID CARS; WHICH SAID LOOKOUT WAS THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE KNOWN TO AND
ADOPTED BY DEFENDANT; (B) THAT DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT'S EMPLOYEES
CARELESSLY AND NEGLIGENTLY MOVED SAID CARS UPON SAID TRACK WITHOUT ANY
NOTICE OR WARNING WHATSOEVER TO PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT; (C) THAT
DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT'S YARDMEN CARELESSLY AND NEGLIGENTLY FAILED AND
NEGLECTED TO RECEIVE A HAND OR OTHER SIGNAL FROM PLAINTIFF'S DECEDENT
BEFORE SIGNALING DEFENDANT'S ENGINEER TO KICK OR MOVE THE AFORESAID
CARS; THE RECEIPT OF WHICH SAID SIGNAL WAS THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE
KNOWN TO AND ADOPTED BY DEFENDANT; ...  (E) THAT DEFENDANT CARELESSLY
AND NEGLIGENTLY FAILED AND NEGLECTED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A SAFE
PLACE TO WORK." 

MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENTS BECAUSE HE READS THE EVIDENCE AS SHOWING
WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT RULE 30 WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THESE
SWITCHING OPERATIONS AND THAT IT WAS THE PRACTICE OF SWITCHING CREWS
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS MOVEMENT TO "KICK" THE CARS WITHOUT
WAITING FOR A SIGNAL FROM THE MAN IN DECEDENT'S POSITION AT THE
SWITCH.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS GOOD. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






















TOT V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 463 


NO. 569.  ARGUED APRIL 5, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1943.  - 131 F.2D
261, REVERSED.  - 131 F.2D 614, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SEC. 2(F) OF THE FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT, WHERE IT PROVIDES THAT IT
SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF
VIOLENCE OR IS A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE TO RECEIVE ANY FIREARM OR
AMMUNITION "WHICH HAS BEEN SHIPPED OR TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE," IS CONFINED TO THE RECEIPT OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION
AS A PART OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE
RECEIPT, IN AN INTRASTATE TRANSACTION, OF SUCH ARTICLES WHICH, AT SOME
PRIOR TIME, HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED INTERSTATE.  P. 466. 

2.  CONGRESS WAS WITHOUT POWER TO CREATE THE PRESUMPTIONS SOUGHT TO
BE CREATED BY SEC. 2(F) OF THE FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT, TO WIT:  THAT,
FROM THE PRISONER'S PRIOR CONVICTION OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE AND HIS
PRESENT POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION, IT SHALL BE PRESUMED (1)
THAT THE ARTICLE WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE,
AND (2) THAT SUCH RECEIPT OCCURRED AFTER JULY 30, 1938, THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE STATUTE.  P. 466. 

3.  A STATUTORY PRESUMPTION CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED IF THERE BE NO
RATIONAL CONNECTION IN COMMON EXPERIENCE BETWEEN THE FACT PROVED AND
THE ULTIMATE FACT PRESUMED.  P. 467. 

TOT V. UNITED STATES* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 636, UNITED STATES V. DELIA, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, - ARGUED APRIL
5, 6, 1943. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 623(NO. 569), TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A
CONVICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT, AND CERTIORARI, 318 U.S.
748(NO. 636), TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A LIKE CONVICTION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES INVOLVE THE CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDITY OF SEC. 2(F) OF THE
FEDERAL FIREARMS ACT,  FN1 WHICH IS: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A
CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR IS A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE TO RECEIVE ANY FIREARM
OR AMMUNITION WHICH HAS BEEN SHIPPED OR TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND THE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION BY ANY
SUCH PERSON SHALL BE PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE THAT SUCH FIREARM OR
AMMUNITION WAS SHIPPED OR TRANSPORTED OR RECEIVED, AS THE CASE MAY BE,
BY SUCH PERSON IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT." 

IN NO. 569, TOT, THE PETITIONER, WAS CONVICTED  FN2  UPON AN
INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED THAT HE, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF
TWO CRIMES OF VIOLENCE, A BURGLARY AND AN ASSAULT AND BATTERY, WITH
INTENT TO BEAT, WOULD, AND ILLTREAT  FN3  ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 20,
1938, AT NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, KNOWINGLY, UNLAWFULLY, AND FELONIOUSLY
RECEIVED A DESCRIBED FIREARM WHICH "HAD BEEN SHIPPED AND TRANSPORTED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE SAID CITY OF NEWARK."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  FN4 

THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE WAS THAT TOT HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF ASSAULT
AND BATTERY IN 1925, AND HAD PLEADED NON VULT TO A CHARGE OF BURGLARY
IN 1932 IN STATE COURTS, AND THAT, ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1938, HE WAS FOUND
IN POSSESSION OF A LOADED AUTOMATIC PISTOL. 

AFTER DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT, TOT TOOK THE STAND
AND TESTIFIED THAT HE PURCHASED THE PISTOL IN 1933 OR 1934.  HE
ADMITTED THE CRIMINAL RECORD CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND OTHER
CONVICTIONS.  HIS SISTER AND HIS WIFE TESTIFIED IN CORROBORATION OF HIS
EVIDENCE, BUT THEIR TESTIMONY WAS SHAKEN ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.  IN
REBUTTAL THE GOVERNMENT PRODUCED A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MANUFACTURER
WHO TESTIFIED THAT THE PISTOL HAD BEEN MADE IN CONNECTICUT IN 1919 AND
SHIPPED BY THE MAKER TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE CASE
PETITIONER RENEWED HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT, WHICH WAS
DENIED. 

IN NO. 636, DELIA, THE RESPONDENT, WAS CONVICTED UPON TWO COUNTS. 
THE FIRST ALLEGED THAT, ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1941, HE WAS A PERSON
PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE - ROBBERY WHILE ARMED  FN5
- AND THAT HE RECEIVED AND POSSESSED A FIREARM, DESCRIBED IN THE
INDICTMENT, "WHICH FIREARM HAD THERETOFORE BEEN SHIPPED AND TRANSPORTED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THE SECOND REPEATED THE ALLEGATION OF
PREVIOUS CONVICTION AND CHARGED THAT, ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1941, HE
RECEIVED AND POSSESSED CERTAIN CARTRIDGES WHICH "HAD BEEN THERETOFORE
SHIPPED AND TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THE GOVERNMENT'S
PROOF WAS THAT DELIA HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF ARMED ROBBERY AND, ON
SEPTEMBER 25, 1941, HAD IN HIS POSSESSION A LOADED REVOLVER WHICH HAD
BEEN MANUFACTURED IN MASSACHUSETTS PRIOR TO 1920; THAT SOME OF THE
CARTRIDGES IN THE PISTOL HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED IN OHIO AND SOME IN
GERMANY, THE FORMER AFTER 1934 AND THE LATTER AT AN UNKNOWN DATE.  THE
RESPONDENT TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD, AT ABOUT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST,
PICKED UP THE REVOLVER WHEN IT WAS DROPPED BY A PERSON WHO ATTACKED
HIM, BUT THERE WAS TESTIMONY WHICH TENDED TO CONTRADICT THIS DEFENSE. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE CONVICTION ON EACH COUNT. 
FN6 

BOTH COURTS BELOW HELD THAT THE OFFENSE CREATED BY THE ACT IS
CONFINED TO THE RECEIPT OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION AS A PART OF
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE RECEIPT, IN AN
INTRASTATE TRANSACTION, OF SUCH ARTICLES WHICH, AT SOME PRIOR TIME,
HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED INTERSTATE.  THE GOVERNMENT AGREES THAT THIS
CONSTRUCTION IS CORRECT.  THERE REMAINS FOR DECISION THE QUESTION OF
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CREATE THE PRESUMPTION WHICH SEC. 2(F)
DECLARES, NAMELY, THAT, FROM THE PRISONER'S PRIOR CONVICTION OF A CRIME
OF VIOLENCE AND HIS PRESENT POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION, IT
SHALL BE PRESUMED (1) THAT THE ARTICLE WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND (2) THAT SUCH RECEIPT OCCURRED
SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 30, 1938, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE PRESUMPTION CREATED BY THE STATUTE
MEETS THE TESTS OF DUE PROCESS HERETOFORE LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT.  THE
DEFENDANTS ASSERT THAT IT FAILS TO MEET THEM BECAUSE THERE IS NO
RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FACTS PROVED AND THE ULTIMATE FACT
PRESUMED, THAT THE STATUTE IS MORE THAN A REGULATION OF THE ORDER OF
PROOF BASED UPON THE RELATIVE ACCESSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE TO PROSECUTION
AND DEFENSE, AND CASTS AN UNFAIR AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN OF
PERSUASION UPON THE DEFENDANT. 

AN INDICTMENT CHARGES THE DEFENDANT WITH ACTION OR FAILURE TO ACT
CONTRARY TO THE LAW'S COMMAND.  IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF OF THE
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.  PROOF OF SOME SORT ON THE PART OF THE
PROSECUTOR IS REQUISITE TO A FINDING OF GUILT; IT MAY CONSIST OF
TESTIMONY OF THOSE WHO WITNESSED THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT.  ALTHOUGH THE
GOVERNMENT MAY BE UNABLE TO PRODUCE TESTIMONY OF EYE WITNESSES TO THE
CONDUCT ON WHICH GUILT DEPENDS, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT CANNOT
PRODUCE PROOF SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A VERDICT.  THE JURY IS PERMITTED
TO INFER FROM ONE FACT THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER ESSENTIAL TO GUILT, IF
REASON AND EXPERIENCE SUPPORT THE INFERENCE.  IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES
COURTS HOLD THAT PROOF OF THE FIRST FACT FURNISHES A BASIS FOR
INFERENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE SECOND.  FN7 

THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, ARE ESTABLISHED NOT ALONE BY THE
COURTS BUT BY THE LEGISLATURE.  THE CONGRESS HAS POWER TO PRESCRIBE
WHAT EVIDENCE IS TO BE RECEIVED IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
FN8  THE SECTION UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SUCH LEGISLATION.  BUT THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS SET LIMITS UPON
THE POWER OF CONGRESS OR THAT OF A STATE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE THE PROOF
OF ONE FACT OR GROUP OF FACTS EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ULTIMATE
FACT ON WHICH GUILT IS PREDICATED.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN THIS
INSTANCE, THE ACT TRANSGRESSES THOSE LIMITS. 

THE GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO ARGUE THAT THERE ARE TWO ALTERNATIVE TESTS OF
THE VALIDITY OF A PRESUMPTION CREATED BY STATUTE.  THE FIRST IS THAT
THERE BE A RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FACTS PROVED AND THE FACT
PRESUMED; THE SECOND THAT OF COMPARATIVE CONVENIENCE OF PRODUCING
EVIDENCE OF THE ULTIMATE FACT.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THESE ARE NOT
INDEPENDENT TESTS BUT THAT THE FIRST IS CONTROLLING AND THE SECOND BUT
A COROLLARY.  UNDER OUR DECISIONS, A STATUTORY PRESUMPTION CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED IF THERE BE NO RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FACT PROVED
AND THE ULTIMATE FACT PRESUMED, IF THE INFERENCE OF THE ONE FROM PROOF
OF THE OTHER IS ARBITRARY BECAUSE OF LACK OF CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO
IN COMMON EXPERIENCE.  FN9  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT A VALID PRESUMPTION
MAY NOT BE CREATED UPON A VIEW OF RELATION BROADER THAN THAT A JURY
MIGHT TAKE IN A SPECIFIC CASE.  FN10  BUT WHERE THE INFERENCE IS SO
STRAINED AS NOT TO HAVE A REASONABLE RELATION TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
LIFE AS WE KNOW THEM, IT IS NOT COMPETENT FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE
IT AS A RULE GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE OF COURTS. 

THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO SUPPORT THE PRESUMPTION BY A SHOWING THAT, IN
MOST STATES, LAWS FORBID THE ACQUISITION OF FIREARMS WITHOUT A RECORD
OF THE TRANSACTION OR REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF OWNERSHIP.  FROM THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS ARGUED THAT MERE POSSESSION TENDS STRONGLY TO
INDICATE THAT ACQUISITION MUST HAVE BEEN IN AN INTERSTATE TRANSACTION. 
BUT WE THINK THE CONCLUSION DOES NOT RATIONALLY FOLLOW.  ASIDE FROM THE
FACT THAT A NUMBER OF STATES HAVE NO SUCH LAWS, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION
THAT A FIREARM MUST HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY ACQUIRED OR THAT IT WAS NOT
TRANSFERRED INTERSTATE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF STATE REGULATION.  EVEN
LESS BASIS EXISTS FOR THE INFERENCE FROM MERE POSSESSION THAT
ACQUISITION OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE STATUTE,
JULY 30, 1938.  AND, AS NO STATE LAWS OR REGULATIONS ARE CITED WITH
RESPECT TO THE ACQUISITION OF AMMUNITION, THERE SEEMS NO REASONABLE
GROUND FOR A PRESUMPTION THAT ITS PURCHASE OR PROCUREMENT WAS IN
INTERSTATE RATHER THAN IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  FN11  IT IS NOT TOO
MUCH TO SAY THAT THE PRESUMPTIONS CREATED BY THE LAW ARE VIOLENT, AND
INCONSISTENT WITH ANY ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM EXPERIENCE. 

NOR CAN THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS THE BETTER MEANS OF
INFORMATION, STANDING ALONE, JUSTIFY THE CREATION OF SUCH A
PRESUMPTION.  IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE THE DEFENDANT HAS AT LEAST AN
EQUAL FAMILIARITY WITH THE FACTS AND IN MOST A GREATER FAMILIARITY WITH
THEM THAN THE PROSECUTION.  IT MIGHT, THEREFORE, BE ARGUED THAT TO
PLACE UPON ALL DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES THE BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD
WITH THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE PROPER.  BUT THE ARGUMENT PROVES TOO MUCH. 
IF IT WERE SOUND, THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT VALIDLY COMMAND THAT THE
FINDING OF AN INDICTMENT, OR MERE PROOF OF THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED,
SHOULD CREATE A PRESUMPTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALL THE FACTS ESSENTIAL
TO GUILT.  THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.  FN12 

WHETHER THE STATUTE IN QUESTION BE TREATED AS EXPRESSING THE NORMAL
BALANCE OF PROBABILITY, OR AS LAYING DOWN A RULE OF COMPARATIVE
CONVENIENCE IN THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE, IT LEAVES THE JURY FREE TO
ACT ON THE PRESUMPTION ALONE ONCE THE SPECIFIED FACTS ARE PROVED,
UNLESS THE DEFENDANT COMES FORWARD WITH OPPOSING EVIDENCE.  AND THIS WE
THINK ENOUGH TO VITIATE THE STATUTORY PROVISION. 

DOUBTLESS THE DEFENDANTS IN THESE CASES KNEW BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE
WHETHER THEY ACQUIRED THE FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IT WOULD, THEREFORE, BE A CONVENIENCE TO THE GOVERNMENT TO
RELY UPON THE PRESUMPTION AND CASE ON THE DEFENDANTS THE BURDEN OF
COMING FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE TO REBUT IT.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SHOWN, IT IS
NOT PERMISSIBLE THUS TO SHIFT THE BURDEN BY ARBITRARILY MAKING ONE
FACT, WHICH HAS NO RELEVANCE TO GUILT OF THE OFFENSE, THE OCCASION OF
CASTING ON THE DEFENDANT THE OBLIGATION OF EXCULPATION.  THE ARGUMENT
FROM CONVENIENCE IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY WHERE THE INFERENCE IS A
PERMISSIBLE ONE, WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS MORE CONVENIENT ACCESS TO THE
PROOF, AND WHERE REQUIRING HIM TO GO FORWARD WITH PROOF WILL NOT
SUBJECT HIM TO UNFAIRNESS OR HARDSHIP.  FN13  EVEN IF THE PRESUMPTION
IN QUESTION WERE IN ITSELF REASONABLE, WE THINK THAT THE NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE, AND THE ELEMENTS WHICH GO TO CONSTITUTE IT, RENDER IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN THE STATUTE, FOR THE REASON THAT ONE ELEMENT OF
THE OFFENSE IS THE PRIOR CONVICTION OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE.  IF THE
PRESUMPTION WARRANTS CONVICTION UNLESS THE DEFENDANT COMES FORWARD WITH
EVIDENCE IN EXPLANATION AND IF, AS IS NECESSARILY TRUE, SUCH EVIDENCE
MUST BE CREDITED BY THE JURY IF THE PRESUMPTION IS TO BE REBUTTED, THE
DEFENDANT IS UNDER THE HANDICAP, IF HE TAKES THE WITNESS STAND, OF
ADMITTING PRIOR CONVICTIONS OF VIOLENT CRIMES.  HIS EVIDENCE AS TO
ACQUISITION OF THE FIREARM OR AMMUNITION IS THUS DISCREDITED IN THE
EYES OF THE JURY BEFORE IT IS GIVEN. 

ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES THAT THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN NOTE
9 ANNOUNCE THE RULE BY WHICH THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT IS TO BE TESTED,
IT RELIES ON CERTAIN OTHER DECISIONS AS SUPPORTING THE LEGISLATION.  WE
THINK THAT WHAT WAS DECIDED IN THOSE CASES WAS NOT A DEPARTURE FROM THE
RULE AND THAT THEY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE INSTANT CASES. 

IN ADAMS V. NEW YORK, 192 U.S. 585, A STATE STATUTE MADE IT AN
OFFENSE "KNOWINGLY" TO POSSESS POLICY SLIPS AND PROVIDED THAT
POSSESSION SHOULD BE PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE "OF POSSESSION THEREOF
KNOWINGLY."  THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION WAS SUSTAINED.  ACCIDENTAL AND
INNOCENT POSSESSION OF SUCH A PAPER WOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY AND UNUSUAL
AND THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION WAS HARDLY NEEDED TO JUSTIFY A JURY IN
INFERRING KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE POLICY SLIP BY ONE FOUND IN
POSSESSION OF IT. 

IN HAWES V. GEORGIA, 258 U.S. 1, THE STATUTORY OFFENSE WAS THAT OF
KNOWINGLY PERMITTING A STILL UPON THE DEFENDANT'S PREMISES.  THE
STATUTE PROVIDED THAT WHEN DISTILLING APPARATUS WAS FOUND ON THE
PREMISES THIS SHOULD BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON IN ACTUAL
POSSESSION HAD KNOWLEDGE OF ITS EXISTENCE.  THE DEFENDANT'S PREMISES
WERE A FARM ON WHICH A STILL WAS FOUND.  THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE
PRESUMPTION.  THE INFERENCE SO ACCORDED WITH COMMON EXPERIENCE THAT A
STATUTORY PROVISION SCARCELY WAS NECESSARY TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF
PROOF. 

IN FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, AN ACT OF CONGRESS
WAS INVOLVED WHICH REQUIRED EVERY CHINESE ALIEN WITHIN ONE YEAR TO
PROCURE FROM THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE A CERTIFICATE OF
RESIDENCE AND MADE IT THE DUTY OF SUCH ALIEN TO PRODUCE THE CERTIFICATE
ON REQUEST.  ANY OFFICER WAS AUTHORIZED TO ARREST A CHINESE ALIEN
FAILING TO PRODUCE THE CERTIFICATE ON REQUEST AND TO HOLD HIM FOR
DEPORTATION.  THE ACT PLACED ON THE ALIEN THE BURDEN OF PROVING AT THE
DEPORTATION HEARING HIS RESIDENCE AND OF EXCUSING HIS FAILURE TO
PROCURE A CERTIFICATE.  FAILURE TO HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION THE
CERTIFICATE THE LAW REQUIRED HIM TO HAVE GAVE RISE TO A NATURAL
INFERENCE OF INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO PROCURE IT OR UNLAWFUL RESIDENCE IN
THE COUNTRY WHICH PRECLUDED HIS PROCURING IT.  IN SUCH A SITUATION THE
SHIFTING TO THE ALIEN OF THE BURDEN OF EXPLANATION IMPOSED NO
UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP UPON HIM.    IN YEE HEM V. UNITED STATES, 268
U.S. 178, IT APPEARED THAT AN ACT OF CONGRESS PROHIBITED IMPORTATION OF
OPIUM EXCEPT UNDER TREASURY REGULATIONS AND THE LATTER FORBADE
IMPORTATION OF SMOKING OPIUM.  THE STATUTE MADE IT AN OFFENSE KNOWINGLY
TO CONCEAL OPIUM ILLEGALLY IMPORTED AND THREW UPON A DEFENDANT FOUND IN
POSSESSION OF SMOKING OPIUM THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT HE HAD NOT
ACQUIRED IT THROUGH ILLEGAL IMPORTATION.  THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE
PRESUMPTION ON THE GROUND THAT NO LAWFUL PURCHASE OF SMOKING OPIUM
COULD OCCUR IN THIS COUNTRY AND THAT, THEREFORE, POSSESSION GAVE RISE
TO SINISTER IMPLICATIONS.  IT CONCLUDED IT WAS NOT UNREASONABLE TO
CREATE A PRESUMPTION OF UNLAWFUL IMPORTATION AS THE SOURCE OF THE
COMMODITY THE POSSESSION OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT CONCEALED. 

IN CASEY V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 413, THE OFFENSES CREATED BY ACT
OF CONGRESS WERE THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF MORPHINE FROM PACKAGES NOT
STAMPED WITH AN INTERNAL REVENUE TAX STAMP.  THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED
WITH A PURCHASE FROM SUCH A PACKAGE.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT HE
DISPENSED THE DRUG IN CLANDESTINE FASHION AND NOT FROM A STAMPED
PACKAGE.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE PRESUMPTION
CREATED BY THE STATUTE THAT A SALE OF MORPHINE FROM AN UNSTAMPED
PACKAGE SHOULD BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR PURCHASE WAS NOT
UNREASONABLE OR BEYOND THE REALM OF COMMON EXPERIENCE. 

THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO SUSTAIN THE STATUTE ON AN ALTERNATIVE
GROUND.  IT URGES THAT CONGRESS, IN VIEW OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
FIREARMS, MIGHT, IN ORDER TO REGULATE IT, HAVE PROHIBITED THE
POSSESSION OF ALL FIREARMS BY PERSONS HERETOFORE CONVICTED OF CRIMES OF
VIOLENCE; THAT, AS THE POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS SO FAR, THE
PRESUMPTION THAT ACQUISITION WAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS THE LESSER
EXERTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER AND MAY BE UPHELD.  FN14  TWO
CONSIDERATIONS RENDER THE ARGUMENT INADMISSIBLE.  FIRST, IT WILL NOT
SERVE TO SUSTAIN THE PRESUMPTION OF ACQUISITION AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ACT, AND SECONDLY, IT IS PLAIN THAT CONGRESS, FOR WHATEVER
REASON, DID NOT SEEK TO PRONOUNCE GENERAL PROHIBITION OF POSSESSION BY
CERTAIN RESIDENTS OF THE VARIOUS STATES OF FIREARMS IN ORDER TO PROTECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT DEALT ONLY WITH THEIR FUTURE ACQUISITION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 569 IS REVERSED AND THAT IN
NO. 636 IS AFFIRMED.  NO. 569, REVERSED.  NO. 636, AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 850, 52 STAT. 1250, 1251; 15 U.S.C. SEC. 902(F). 

FN2  SEE 42 F.SUPP.  252. 

FN3  THESE ARE CRIMES OF VIOLENCE ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION
CONTAINED IN SEC. 1(6) OF THE ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 901(6). 

FN4  131 F.2D 261. 

FN5  ARMED ROBBERY IS A CRIME OF VIOLENCE AS DEFINED IN SEC. 1(6) OF
THE ACT. 

FN6  131 F.2D 614. 

FN7  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 162 U.S. 613, 619. 

FN8  EX PARTE FISK, 113 U.S. 713, 721; ADAMS V. NEW YORK, 192 U.S.
585, 599; MOBILE, J. & K.C.R. CO. V. TURNIPSEED, 219 U.S. 35, 42;
BAILEY V. ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219, 238; LURIA V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S.
9; HAWES V. GEORGIA, 258 U.S. 1, 4. 

FN9  MOBILE, J. & K.C.R. CO. V. TURNIPSEED, SUPRA, P. 43; BAILEY V.
ALABAMA, SUPRA, 239; LINDSLEY V. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61,
81; LURIA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 25; MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR
RFG.  CO., 241 U.S. 79, 86; MANLEY V. GEORGIA, 279 US. 1; WESTERN &
ATLANTIC R. CO. V. HENDERSON, 279 U.S. 639, 642; MORRISON V.
CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 82, 90. 

FN10  BAILEY V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 235. 

FN11  DELIA WAS CONVICTED UPON AN INDICTMENT WHICH CHARGED, INTER
ALIA, RECEIPT OF AMMUNITION. 

FN12  MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR RFG.  CO., SUPRA, 86. 

FN13  MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 94, 96. 

FN14  SEE FERRY V. RAMSEY, 277 U.S. 88. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS,
CONCURRING: 

I AGREE THAT THE MERE POSSESSION OF A PISTOL COUPLED WITH CONVICTION
OF A PRIOR CRIME IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT THE POSSESSOR OF THE PISTOL
HAS ACQUIRED IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR OBTAINED IT SINCE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION.  THE ACT AUTHORIZES, AND
IN EFFECT CONSTRAINS, JURIES TO CONVICT DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH
VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE EVEN THOUGH NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER HAS BEEN
OFFERED WHICH TENDS TO PROVE AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE. 
THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE BILL OF
RIGHTS, CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 237, STAND AS A
CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER AGAINST THUS OBTAINING A CONVICTION, IBID., 235
238.  THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS CONTEMPLATE THAT A JURY MUST
DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE IN A PUBLIC TRIAL IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT
IS CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AND IN WHICH HE ENJOYS THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; AND WHERE GUILT IS IN ISSUE, A VERDICT AGAINST A
DEFENDANT MUST BE PRECEDED BY THE INTRODUCTION OF SOME EVIDENCE WHICH
TENDS TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED.  COMPLIANCE WITH
THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, WHICH OF COURSE CONSTITUTE THE SUPREME
LAW OF THE LAND, IS ESSENTIAL TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND A CONVICTION
OBTAINED WITHOUT THEIR OBSERVANCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS STATUTE, WHICH PUTS THE
DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM NO EVIDENCE OF GUILT HAS BEEN OFFERED IN A
PROCEDURAL SITUATION FROM WHICH HE CAN ESCAPE CONVICTION ONLY BY
TESTIFYING, COMPELS HIM TO GIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIMSELF IN VIOLATION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
..END :















MAHNOMEN COUNTY V. U.S., 319 U.S. 474 


NO. 684.  ARGUED MAY 4, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1943.  - 131 F.2D 936,
REVERSED. 


1.  IN AN ACTION BY THE UNITED STATES ON BEHALF OF AN EMANCIPATED
INDIAN AGAINST A COUNTY TO RECOVER MONEY PAID AS TAXES ON THE INDIAN'S
NON-TAXABLE ALLOTMENT, WHERE THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE PAYMENT WAS
VOLUNTARY, THE BURDEN OF PROVING IT INVOLUNTARY IS ON THE GOVERNMENT. 
P. 477. 

2.  AN INDIAN ALLOTMENT WAS TAXED BY A COUNTY FOR A SUCCESSION OF
YEARS, IN PART BEFORE AND IN PART AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWENTY
FIVE YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LAND WAS DECLARED IMMUNE TO
TAXATION.  THE INDIAN THEN, BEING EMANCIPATED, VOLUNTARILY MADE A
COMPROMISE WITH THE COUNTY WHEREBY THE LAND WAS RELIEVED OF ALL THE
TAXES AND OF TAX SALES BASED THEREON, UPON PAYMENT BY THE INDIAN OF AN
AMOUNT LESS THAN THE PART OF THE TAXES WHICH HAD BEEN LAID AFTER THE
TWENTY-FIVE YEAR PERIOD HAD EXPIRED.  HELD THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT
RECOVERABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN A SUIT ON BEHALF OF THE INDIAN.  P.
477. 

COUNTY OF MAHNOMEN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 752, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING AND
EXPANDING A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED
STATES TO RECOVER FROM THE COUNTY, MONEY PAID THE COUNTY BY AN INDIAN
AS TAXES ON THE INDIAN'S ALLOTMENT OF LAND. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
TO RECOVER REAL ESTATE TAXES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY COLLECTED
BY MAHNOMEN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, FROM ISABELLE GARDEN, AN INDIAN
ALLOTTEE.  FN1  THE SUIT, BROUGHT IN 1940, SEEKS A REFUND OF TAXES FOR
THE YEARS 1911 TO 1927 INCLUSIVE.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT ANY LIMITATION
ON THE COUNTY'S POWER TO TAX EXPIRED IN 1928 WITH THE TERMINATION OF
THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR TRUST DESCRIBED BELOW.  THE DISTRICT COURT
RENDERED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COUNTY FOR THE YEARS 1911 TO 1921,
INCLUSIVE, GIVING A TOTAL JUDGMENT OF $405.97.  ON APPEAL BY BOTH THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE COUNTY, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BUT
GAVE AN ADDED JUDGMENT FOR THE YEARS 1922 THROUGH 1925.  131 F.2D 936. 

IN ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THE COUNTY CLAIMED THAT GARDEN WAS AN
EMANCIPATED INDIAN WHO HAD PAID THE TAXES VOLUNTARILY, AND THAT HENCE
THE JUDGMENT GRANTING A REFUND CONFLICTS WITH WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253
U.S. 17.  THE COUNTY ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT WAS WHOLLY WITHIN AN INDIAN
RESERVATION; THAT IT HAD LONG BEEN DEPENDENT ON TAXATION OF ALLOTTED
LANDS; THAT AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE FIRST CLAPP AMENDMENT IN 1906, 34
STAT. 325, 353, WHICH EMANCIPATED THE MAHNOMEN COUNTY INDIANS, AND
LIFTED "ALL RESTRICTIONS AS TO THE SALE, INCUMBRANCE, OR TAXATION FOR
ALLOTMENTS," THE COUNTY HAD ASSUMED THAT THE INDIANS COULD VOLUNTARILY
CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUPPORT OF COUNTY INSTITUTIONS; AND THAT WHILE THE
INSTANT JUDGMENT IS SMALL, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH JUDGMENTS WHICH
MIGHT BE OBTAINED IN SIMILAR ACTIONS WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE
SOLVENCY OF THE COUNTY AND IMPERIL THE CONTINUANCE OF COUNTY
INSTITUTIONS.  ON THESE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE
CASE, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

IN 1902, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ACTING UNDER CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY, ISSUED A PATENT TO THIS INDIAN ALLOTTEE, AGREEING TO HOLD A
TRACT OF LAND IN TRUST FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS "FOR THE SOLE USE AND
BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN" AND THEN TO CONVEY THE LAND TO HER "DISCHARGED
OF SAID TRUST AND FREE OF ALL CHARGE OR INCUMBRANCE WHATSOEVER."  FN2
INDIAN LAND SO HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SAID TO BE EXEMPT FROM
ALL STATE TAXATION.  UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432, 436-438. 
THE FIRST AND SECOND CLAPP AMENDMENTS, PASSED IN 1906 AND 1907,  FN3
LIFTED RESTRICTIONS PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED UPON THE SALE, ENCUMBRANCE AND
TAXATION OF THE ALLOTMENTS OF ADULT MIXED-BLOOD INDIANS, AND IN
ADDITION DECLARED THAT "THE TRUST DEEDS HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER
EXECUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR SUCH ALLOTMENTS, ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO
PASS THE TITLE IN FEE SIMPLE."  GARDEN IS AN ADULT MIXED-BLOOD INDIAN
AND HAS BEEN AN ADULT SINCE 1911, WHEN THE FIRST CONTROVERTED TAX
PAYMENT WAS MADE.  THESE AMENDMENTS EVIDENCE "A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT
THAT ADULT MIXED-BLOOD INDIANS ARE, IN THE RESPECTS DEALT WITH IN THE
ACT, CAPABLE OF MANAGING THEIR OWN AFFAIRS, AND FOR THAT REASON THEY
ARE GIVEN FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF ALLOTTED LANDS." 
UNITED STATES V. WALLER, 243 U.S. 452, 462; BAKER V. MCCARTHY, 145
MINN. 167, 170, 176 N.W. 643. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THESE ACTS THE COUNTY CONCEDES, AND WE ASSUME
ARGUENDO, THAT IT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO IMPOSE A TAX UPON THESE ALLOTTED
LANDS PRIOR TO 1928 AGAINST THE CONSENT OF THE INDIANS.  CHOATE V.
TRAPP, 224 U.S. 665.  FN4  THE CLAPP AMENDMENT GIVES THE CONSENT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO STATE TAXATION, THUS REMOVING THE BARRIER TO TAXATION
FOUND TO EXIST IN UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, SUPRA; BUT UNDER CHOATE V.
TRAPP THE INDIAN, WHO HAS GAINED A "VESTED RIGHT" NOT TO BE TAXED, MUST
ALSO CONSENT.  ACCEPTANCE OF CHOATE V. TRAPP DOES NOT MEAN THAT AN
INDIAN, LEGISLATIVELY DECLARED TO BE COMPETENT TO HANDLE HIS OWN
AFFAIRS, CANNOT VOLUNTARILY DECIDE TO PAY TAXES FOR HIS OWN ADVANTAGE
AND WELFARE.  IF, AS THE PETITIONER ARGUED, AND AS THE GOVERNMENT DOES
NOT DENY, THE CAPACITY OF THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE SCHOOLS, ROADS, AND
OTHER NECESSARY SERVICES WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZED, IF NOT
DESTROYED, BY THE FAILURE OF THE INDIANS TO CONTRIBUTE TO A TAX FUND,
THEIR NEWLY GRANTED EMANCIPATION WOULD HAVE BEEN OF LITTLE VALUE.  IN
ADDITION, THE MARKET VALUE OF THEIR LANDS WOULD HAVE BEEN GREATLY
REDUCED BY THE COMPLETE INABILITY OF THE COUNTY TO SECURE FUNDS
ESSENTIAL TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MEANS OF TRAVEL AND COMMUNICATION AND
THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ORDERLY SOCIETY.  NOTHING THAT WAS SAID IN CHOATE
V. TRAPP, OR IN ANY OTHER DECISION OF THIS COURT, DEPRIVED AN
EMANCIPATED INDIAN OF FREEDOM VOLUNTARILY TO PAY TAXES IN HIS OWN
INTEREST.  WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17, 22, ASSUMED THAT THE TEST
OF THE RIGHT TO RECOVER A TAX ILLEGALLY COLLECTED FROM AN INDIAN IS
WHETHER THE TAX WAS PAID VOLUNTARILY, AND THAT THE BURDEN IS UPON ONE
SEEKING RECOVERY OF THE TAX TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE
INVOLUNTARILY.  THE ISSUE BEFORE US, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT HAS SUSTAINED THAT BURDEN. 

THERE IS NO ALLEGATION, STIPULATION, OR FINDING BY EITHER COURT THAT
THESE TAXES WERE INVOLUNTARILY PAID.  BOTH COURTS BELOW ERRONEOUSLY
ASSUMED THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ORIGINAL OBLIGATION TO HOLD THE LAND IN
TRUST AND DELIVER IT FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES PERMITS THE GOVERNMENT TO
MAINTAIN THIS SUIT EVEN THOUGH THE INDIAN HAS WILLINGLY PAID TAXES. 
1911-1921 TAXES WERE EVIDENTLY PAID WITHOUT PROTEST, AND THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO PERMIT A DEDUCTION THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE
INVOLUNTARY.  FN5 

THE 1922-25 TAXES WERE DISCHARGED IN SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FASHION.  THE
ALLOTTEE BECAME DELINQUENT IN THE PAYMENT AND THE LANDS WERE SOLD TO
THE STATE.  SUBSEQUENTLY, IN 1936, SHE MADE A COMPROMISE ARRANGEMENT
WITH THE STATE, FOR A PERIOD INCLUDING NOT ONLY THE YEARS 1922-27, FOR
WHICH TAX EXEMPTION IS CLAIMED, BUT ALSO FOR THE YEARS 1928-34, FOR
WHICH THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION.  THIS COMPROMISE,
MADE IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE OF TWO TAX CERTIFICATES FOR THE ALLOTTEE,
RESULTED IN PAYMENT BY GARDEN FOR THE ENTIRE 1922-34 PERIOD OF LESS
THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE 1928-34 TAXES.  THE COMPROMISE, MADE AT A TIME
WHEN THE INDIAN WAS FULLY AS FREE AS ANY OTHER CITIZEN, WAS, IN THE
WORDS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, A "VOLUNTARY ACTION AND ELECTION OF THE
ALLOTTEE TO PROCEED IN A MANNER WHICH SHE DEEMED WISE AND PRUDENT."  IT
RESULTED IN A NET SAVING TO THE ALLOTTEE OF $66.42 FOR THE TAXABLE
YEARS 1928-1934.  FN6  THE VOLUNTARY NATURE AND THE FAIRNESS OF THE
1936 SETTLEMENT ARE FURTHER INDICATED BY THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY, IN
ITS ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT, HAS DECLARED ITS WILLINGNESS TO REFUND THE
SUM PAID IN SETTLEMENT IN ORDER THAT IT MAY RELEVY THE TAXES FOR THE
YEARS 1928 AND 1934 AND THUS COLLECT THE TAXES WHICH GARDEN ADMITTEDLY
OWED. 

THE ALLOTTEE PAID THE 1911-21 TAXES VOLUNTARILY AND SETTLED THE
BALANCE OF HER TAXES TO HER ADVANTAGE IN 1936.  NEITHER MINNESOTA LAW
FN7  NOR FEDERAL LAW  FN8  REQUIRES THAT A COUNTY REFUND TAXES WHICH AN
EMANCIPATED INDIAN HAS VOLUNTARILY PAID.  THE COUNTY IS ENTITLED TO
JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE GOVERNMENT'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT INCLUDED ADDITIONAL CLAIMS
AGAINST MAHNOMEN AND OTHER COUNTIES, BUT THESE OTHER CLAIMS ARE NOT
INVOLVED IN THE CASE AS IT REACHES US. 

FN2  24 STAT. 388, 389; 25 STAT. 642. 

FN3  34 STAT. 325, 353; 34 STAT. 1034. 

FN4  WE DO NOT CONSIDER WHETHER CHOATE V. TRAPP IS CONTROLLING HERE. 
IN THAT CASE THE GOVERNMENT HAD PATENTED LAND WITH A PROVISION THAT
"THE LAND SHOULD BE NON-TAXABLE" AND THE AGREEMENT WITH THE INDIANS WAS
HELD TO BE A CONTRACT WHICH, "HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA IN ITS CONSTITUTION UPON ADMISSION TO STATEHOOD, WAS A
LIMITATION UPON THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE."  CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280
U.S. 363, 366. 

FN5  IN 1923 GARDEN SUED IN A STATE COURT FOR RECOVERY OF HER 1911
1921 TAXES.  A DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED IN THE TRIAL COURT AND NO APPEAL
WAS TAKEN.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT SHE HAD MADE THE TAX PAYMENTS
UNDER PROTEST, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY HAVE ENTITLED HER TO RECOVERY UNDER
STATE LAW ACCORDING TO THE DOCTRINE OF WARREN V. MAHNOMEN COUNTY, 192
MINN. 464, 257 N.W. 77.  THIS ACTION, BROUGHT AFTER THE TAX BENEFITS
HAD BEEN ENJOYED, IS NO INDICATION THAT SHE DID NOT ORIGINALLY PAY THE
TAXES WILLINGLY IN ORDER TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT. 
WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNTY THAT THE 1923 ACTION
IS RES ADJUDICATA.  CF. BRYAN COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 123 F.2D 782. 

FN6  THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION AS TO THE
PAYMENT OF THESE TAXES:  "THAT SAID TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1922 TO 1927,
BOTH INCLUSIVE, WERE PAID AND DISCHARGED BY THE SAID ALLOTTEE BY THE
PURCHASE BY HER OF STATE ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE NO. 76 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$33.22 COVERING THE TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1922 TO 1925, BOTH INCLUSIVE,
AND STATE ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE NO. 232 IN THE AMOUNT OF $145.93
COVERING TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1926 TO 1934, BOTH INCLUSIVE, ALL PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 387 LAWS OF MINNESOTA FOR 1935, THAT THE AGGREGATE FOR SAID
STATE ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATES IS THE SUM OF $179.15 AND THAT THE VALID
TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1928 TO 1934, BOTH INCLUSIVE, THEREBY DISCHARGED
AMOUNTED TO $245.57 WITHOUT PENALTY OR INTEREST AND THAT THEREFORE SAID
ALLOTTEE EFFECTED A SAVING OF $66.42 PLUS PENALTY AND INTEREST BY THE
PURCHASE OF SAID STATE TAX ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATES." 

THE GOVERNMENT IN EFFECT CONCEDES THE MERIT OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
1936 SETTLEMENT WAS A FAIR AND VOLUNTARY COMPROMISE BUT SEEKS TO AVOID
ITS FORCE BY AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE TWO TAX CERTIFICATES ARE TO BE
TREATED IN DIFFERENT FASHION.  AS THE STIPULATION MAKES CLEAR,
CERTIFICATE NO. 76 FORMALLY COVERS THE YEARS 1922-25, AND NO. 232
COVERS THE YEARS 1926-34.  IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT RECEIVED
BY THE ALLOTTEE FROM THE COMPROMISE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS WAIVED ITS
CLAIM FOR ANY REFUND FOR THE YEARS 1926-27, BUT IT APPARENTLY ASSUMED
THAT CERTIFICATE NO. 76 WAS UNRELATED TO THIS COMPROMISE.  HOWEVER,
BOTH CERTIFICATES WERE PURCHASED AT THE SAME TIME, BOTH COVERED THE
SAME LANDS, AND EACH WOULD BE WORTHLESS WITHOUT THE OTHER SINCE THE
MINNESOTA LAW UNDER WHICH THE ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE IS AIMED AT THE
SETTLEMENT OF ALL DELINQUENT TAXES.  C. 387, MINN. LAWS, 1935; MINN.
STAT. (HENDERSON, 1941), SEC. 280.11-13; CF. SECURITY TRUST CO. V.
HEYDERSTAEDT, 64 MINN. 409, 67 N.W. 219.  THE REASON FOR THE USE OF TWO
CERTIFICATES, ONE FOR THE YEARS PRIOR TO 1925 AND THE OTHER FOR THE
YEARS THEREAFTER, MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM THE FACT THAT THE MINNESOTA
STATUTE APPLIES DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF VALUE TO COMPROMISES OF TAXES
DELINQUENT PRIOR TO 1925 AND THOSE DELINQUENT THEREAFTER.  AS IS
INDICATED BY THE STIPULATION, THE TRANSACTION FOR THE TWO CERTIFICATES
WAS CONSIDERED AS A UNIT AND IS IN FACT ONE COMPROMISE, TERMED BY THE
TRIAL JUDGE A SETTLEMENT FOR A "LUMP SUM." 

FN7  FALVEY V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS, 76 MINN. 257, 79 N.W. 302;
WARREN V. MAHNOMEN COUNTY, SUPRA. 

FN8  WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, SUPRA; CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCUR IN THE
RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

I DISSENT BECAUSE THE COURT TODAY TAKES TOO NARROW A VIEW OF OUR
OBLIGATIONS TO OUR INDIAN CITIZENS - OBLIGATIONS ENGENDERED BY A
HISTORY MARKED AT TIMES WITH TRESPASS, DEPREDATION AND CORRUPTION, AND
BY THE CONCOMITANT NECESSITY OF AIDING AND PROTECTING A PEOPLE ONCE
DEPENDENT AND UNLEARNED IN OUR WAYS DURING THEIR DIFFICULT PERIOD OF
TRANSITION FROM THAT SITUATION TO THE ASSUMPTION OF CIVIC
RESPONSIBILITIES AND ASSIMILATION INTO THE MASS OF OUR CITIZENRY. 

THE ASSUMPTIONS WHICH THE OPINION OF THE COURT MAKES REGARDING THE
TAX STATUS OF ISABELLE GARDEN'S ALLOTTED LAND BUT STATE THE APPLICABLE
LAW.  THE LAND WHICH SHE RECEIVED IN 1902 UNDER A TRUST PATENT, ISSUED
PURSUANT TO THE NELSON ACT (25 STAT. 642) AND THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT
(24 STAT. 388), WAS EXEMPT FROM STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION FOR A PERIOD
OF 25 YEARS, OR UNTIL 1928.  UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432;
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. SEBER, 318 U.S. 705.  SINCE THE TRIBE TO
WHICH SHE BELONGED GAVE UP ITS EXTENSIVE HOLDINGS AFTER ASSURANCES THAT
THE FORTH-COMING ALLOTMENTS WOULD BE NON-TAXABLE FOR 25 YEARS,  FN1
THIS TAX EXEMPTION WAS A VESTED RIGHT OF WHICH SHE COULD NOT BE
DEPRIVED WITHOUT HER CONSENT.  CHOATE V. TRAPP, 224 U.S. 665; WARD V.
LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17; CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363. 
CONSEQUENTLY, ALTHOUGH ISABELLE GARDEN UPON REACHING HER MAJORITY IN
1911 BECAME EMANCIPATED BY VIRTUE OF THE CLAPP AMENDMENTS OF 1906 AND
1907(34 STAT. 353, 1034), THAT LEGISLATION DID NOT DISTURB HER VESTED
TAX EXEMPTION. 

THE COURT'S RELIANCE UPON WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17, AS THE
BASIS FOR ITS DECISION WITH REGARD TO THE 1911-21 TAXES PAID BY
ISABELLE GARDEN IS UNWARRANTED.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS ASSUMED THAT AN
EMANCIPATED INDIAN POSSESSING A VESTED TAX EXEMPTION COULD NOT RECOVER
BACK TAXES ILLEGALLY ASSESSED BUT VOLUNTARILY PAID.  253 U.S. AT 22. 
BUT THAT CASE DID NOT HOLD, AS THE COURT NOW ASSERTS THAT IT DID, THAT
THE BURDEN WAS ON THE INDIAN CLAIMANT TO ESTABLISH THE INVOLUNTARY
CHARACTER OF THE PAYMENT.  STILL LESS, SINCE THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT
A PARTY, DID IT CONSIDER WHAT THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE
SHOULD IT BRING SUIT ON BEHALF OF THE INDIAN.  THAT IS THE INSTANT
QUESTION, AND WHILE IT IS ORDINARILY TRUE THAT THE BURDEN OF
DEMONSTRATING THE ILLEGALITY OF A COLLECTED TAX AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR REFUND ARE UPON THE TAXPAYER SEEKING
RECOVERY, STRONG REASONS OF POLICY SUGGEST AN OPPOSITE RULE SHOULD
PREVAIL IN THIS CASE.  WHILE "EMANCIPATED" UPON ATTAINING TWENTY-ONE,
ISABELLE GARDEN WAS AN INDIAN "JUST EMERGING FROM A STATE OF DEPENDENCY
AND WARDSHIP," WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, SUPRA, AT P. 23, AND THE UNITED
STATES HAD THE RIGHT, IF NOT THE DUTY, TO ENFORCE FOR HER BENEFIT ITS
GUARANTEE OF TAX IMMUNITY EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS A CITIZEN, THE
RESTRICTIONS ON HER PROPERTY WERE REMOVED, AND SHE WAS OTHERWISE
EMANCIPATED FROM A WARDSHIP STATUS.  CF. CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, 261
U.S. 219, 232; HECKMAN V. UNITED STATES, 224 U.S. 413, 437; UNITED
STATES V. MINNESOTA, 270 U.S. 181, 194.  TO HOLD THAT THE UNITED STATES
IS FORECLOSED BY ACTION WHICH ISABELLE GARDEN MAY HAVE TAKEN OR FAILED
TO TAKE IN IGNORANCE OF HER LEGAL RIGHTS IS TO HINDER THE UNITED STATES
IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS CONSIDERED POLICY OF PROTECTION AND TO
DEPRIVE HER INDIRECTLY OF THAT OF WHICH SHE COULD NOT DIRECTLY BE
DEPRIVED - HER VESTED TAX EXEMPTION.  WITHOUT LEGAL RIGHT THE COUNTY
PLACED HER TAX-EXEMPT PROPERTY UPON ITS TAX ROLLS IMMEDIATELY UPON HER
REACHING ADULTHOOD, ASSESSED IT, AND SHE PAID THE TAXES UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES NOT FULLY DISCLOSED.  IN THIS SITUATION IT IS ONLY FAIR
TO PUT THE BURDEN ON THE COUNTY, WHOSE UNAUTHORIZED ACTION BROUGHT IT
ABOUT, OF ESTABLISHING THAT SHE PAID THE TAXES OF HER OWN FREE WILL
WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF HER LEGAL RIGHTS.  A CONTRARY RULE FAILS TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT THE LONG AND NOT ALTOGETHER CREDITABLE HISTORY OF OUR
RELATIONS WITH THE INDIANS AND THE OBLIGATIONS WE OWE TO THOSE PEOPLE
TO PROTECT THEM IN THEIR RIGHTS. 

APART FROM THE QUESTION OF BURDEN OF PROOF, HOWEVER, I CANNOT AGREE
WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  THE CRUCIAL ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE
1911-21 TAXES IS ASSUMED TO BE THE VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER
OF THOSE PAYMENTS.  THE TRIAL COURT ADMITTEDLY MADE NO FINDINGS ON THIS
ISSUE, AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDINGS, THE PROPER PROCEDURE WOULD
BE TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT.  CF. SEMINOLE NATION V.
UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 286, 300.  BUT IF WE ARE TO DECIDE THE CASE
HERE BY INDULGING IN PRESUMPTIONS, I THINK THE ONLY TENABLE ASSUMPTION
IS THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE UNDER COMPULSION.  ISABELLE GARDEN'S
LAND WAS ASSESSED IMMEDIATELY AFTER SHE BECAME TWENTY-ONE, AND SHE RAN
THE RISK OF LOSING IT UNLESS SHE PAID THE TAXES.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
SOME OF THE INDIANS, ORIGINALLY INCLUDED IN THIS ACTION, WHO FAILED TO
PAY THEIR TAXES DID LOSE THEIR ALLOTMENTS.  ON THE RECORD IT CANNOT BE
SAID WITH CERTAINTY THAT ISABELLE GARDEN PAID THE TAXES FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE THAN TO PREVENT HER ALLOTMENT FROM BEING SOLD FOR UNPAID
TAXES.  THIS IS BORNE OUT BY THE FACT THAT SHE HERSELF BROUGHT SUIT IN
1923 TO RECOVER THE 1911-21 TAXES.  FN2  SUGGESTED REASONS FOR FINDING
THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE VOLUNTARY ARE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  ISABELLE
GARDEN DID NOT HAVE TO PAY THOSE TAXES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF MANAGING
HER ALLOTMENT AS SHE WISHED.  THAT RIGHT WAS HERS UNDER THE CLAPP
AMENDMENTS WHICH WERE COMPETENT TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTIONS UPON HER
LAND, BUT NOT THE VESTED TAX IMMUNITY.  CF. CHOATE V. TRAPP, SUPRA, P.
673.  AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD, APART FROM ARGUMENT CONTAINED
IN THE COUNTY'S UNSUCCESSFUL MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, TO SUPPORT THE
ASSUMPTION THAT SHE VOLUNTARILY PAID THE TAXES TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF
COUNTY GOVERNMENT.  PAYMENTS MADE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THIS,
WHERE AN EXEMPT INDIAN RUNS THE RISK OF LOSING HER ALLOTMENT UNLESS THE
TAXES ARE PAID, SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS.  CF. WARD
V. LOVE COUNTY, SUPRA, P. 23; CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363, 369. 

FINALLY, I CANNOT ASSENT TO THE PROPOSITION THAT SINCE ISABELLE
GARDEN SETTLED HER TAXES FOR 1922 THROUGH 1934 FOR LESS THAN THE AMOUNT
SHE OWED FOR TAXES VALIDLY ASSESSED FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING IN 1928
WHEN HER LAND BECAME TAXABLE, THE UNITED STATES CANNOT RECOVER FOR HER
THE AMOUNTS SHE PAID TO DISCHARGE THE 1922-25 TAXES.  THOSE TAXES WERE
DISCHARGED IN 1936 BY THE PURCHASE OF STATE ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE NO.
76.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE TAXES FOR 1926-34 WERE DISCHARGED BY THE
PURCHASE OF ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE.  THE FACT, UNEXPLAINED BY
THE STIPULATION, THAT TWO CERTIFICATES WERE USED TO DISCHARGE THE TAXES
SUGGESTS THAT THERE WAS NO RELATION BETWEEN THE DISCHARGE OF THE 1922
25 TAXES AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ADMITTEDLY DUE TAXES FOR 1928-34. 
BUT EVEN IF A RELATION IS ASSUMED, THE UNITED STATES SHOULD STILL BE
ALLOWED TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT PAID FOR ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE NO. 76. 
ISABELLE GARDEN PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPROMISE HER 1928-34
TAXES EVEN MORE ADVANTAGEOUSLY IF THE COUNTY HAD NOT ASSERTED ITS
UNWARRANTED CLAIMS FOR THE YEARS 1922-25 DURING WHICH PERIOD THE
PROPERTY WAS STILL TAX EXEMPT.  THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECOVERY
OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE NO. 76 IN DISCHARGE OF
THE 1922-25 TAXES.  FN3 

FN1  HOUSE EX. DOC. 247, 51ST CONG., 1ST SESS. (SER.  NO. 2747), PP.
93, 103, 104, 138(1890).  SEE ALSO MORROW V. UNITED STATES, 243 F.
854. 

FN2  THIS UNSUCCESSFUL SUIT IS NO BAR TO THE PRESENT ACTION BY THE
UNITED STATES.  THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IN HAVING ITS
OBLIGATIONS AND POLICIES RESPECTED CANNOT BE DEFEATED BY JUDGMENTS IN
ACTIONS TO WHICH IT IS NOT A PARTY.  UNITED STATES V. CANDELARIA, 271
U.S. 432, 443-44; SUNDERLAND V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 226, 232;
PRIVETT V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 201, 204; BRYAN COUNTY V. UNITED
STATES, 123 F.2D 782. 

FN3  THIS ANALYSIS ALSO INDICATES THAT THE PORTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT
CERTIFICATE COVERING THE PERIOD 1926-34 WHICH DISCHARGED THE TAXES
LEVIED FOR 1926 AND 1927 SHOULD BE RETURNED.  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER,
PRESSES NO CLAIM FOR THESE AMOUNTS HERE. 
..END :











BARTCHY V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 484 


NO. 762.  ARGUED MAY 12, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1943.  - 132 F.2D 348,
REVERSED. 


1.  SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT AND SEC. 641.3
OF THE RULES MADE PURSUANT THERETO, DECLARING IT THE DUTY OF EACH
REGISTRANT TO KEEP HIS LOCAL BOARD ADVISED OF THE ADDRESS WHERE MAIL
WILL REACH HIM, DO NOT REQUIRE A REGISTRANT WHO IS EXPECTING A NOTICE
OF INDUCTION TO REMAIN AT ANY ONE PLACE OR TO NOTIFY THE LOCAL BOARD OF
HIS EVERY MOVE OR OF HIS EVERY TEMPORARY ADDRESS.  P. 488. 

2.  THE REQUIREMENT OF THE RULE IS SATISFIED WHEN THE REGISTRANT, IN
GOOD FAITH, PROVIDES A CHAIN OF FORWARDING ADDRESSES BY WHICH MAIL,
SENT TO THE ADDRESS WHICH IS FURNISHED THE BOARD, MAY BE BY THE
REGISTRANT REASONABLY EXPECTED TO COME INTO HIS HANDS IN TIME FOR
COMPLIANCE.  P. 489. 

3.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE INFERENCE THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD NOT SHOWN DILIGENCE IN KEEPING THE LOCAL BOARD ADVISED
OF HIS WHEREABOUTS, OR HAD ENDEAVORED TO AVOID DELIVERY OF THE BOARD'S
NOTICE OF INDUCTION.  P. 489. 

BARTCHY V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 754, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A CONVICTION
UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT PETITIONER'S CONVICTION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING
AND SERVICE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER,  FN1  FOR A
KNOWING FAILURE TO KEEP HIS LOCAL BOARD  FN2  ADVISED OF THE ADDRESS
WHERE MAIL WOULD REACH PETITIONER, A REGISTRANT UNDER THE ACT.  A
SECOND COUNT, ON WHICH PETITIONER WAS ACQUITTED AND WHICH NEED NOT
CONCERN US FURTHER, CHARGED A KNOWING FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER
TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED FORCES.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED
BECAUSE THE CONVICTION INVOLVED AN INTERPRETATION OF AN IMPORTANT
REGULATION UNDER THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT. 

WITH THE APPROVAL OF BOTH PARTIES AND THE COURT, PETITIONER WAS TRIED
BY THE COURT WITHOUT A JURY AND ON CONVICTION WAS SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR SIXTY DAYS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  132 F.2D 348. 

PETITIONER WAS PLACED IN CLASS 1-A, AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL MILITARY
SERVICE, BY LOCAL BOARD NO. 9 IN HOUSTON, TEXAS.  HE HAD ALREADY BEEN
GIVEN A FINAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION BY THE ARMY.  ON FEBRUARY 4, 1942,
PETITIONER WAS ADVISED BY HIS BOARD THAT HIS INDUCTION WOULD PROBABLY
TAKE PLACE IN TWENTY OR THIRTY DAYS.  HE IMMEDIATELY SOUGHT EMPLOYMENT
AS A MERCHANT SEAMAN FOR A SHORT COASTWISE TRIP.  EMPLOYMENT AS MESSMAN
WAS SECURED THROUGH THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION WHICH HAD ACTIVE
OFFICES IN HOUSTON AND IN NEW YORK.  THE LATTER CITY WAS THE PORT OF
DESTINATION OF THE SHIP PAN RHODE ISLAND UPON WHICH PETITIONER FIRST
SHIPPED.  BARTCHY SECURED A UNION PERMIT CARD PRIOR TO THE VOYAGE AND
LATER BECAME A REGULAR MEMBER OF THE UNION.  THE PAN RHODE ISLAND
SAILED FROM TEXAS CITY FEBRUARY 11TH AND PETITIONER RECEIVED HIS
CERTIFICATE OF DISCHARGE FROM HER EMPLOYMENT IN NEW YORK FEBRUARY
20TH. 

ON FEBRUARY 10TH BARTCHY ADVISED THE BOARD BY LETTER THAT HE WAS
SHIPPING AS A SEAMAN ON THE S.C. CALICHE.  HE CORRECTED THE NAME ON THE
SAME DAY TO THE S.S. PAN MAINE.  NO NOTICE WAS GIVEN THE BOARD AS TO
THE SHIP UPON WHICH HE ACTUALLY SAILED.  IN THE LETTER HE SUGGESTED
DEFERMENT FROM INDUCTION INTO MILITARY SERVICE ON THE GROUND OF
EMPLOYMENT IN THE MERCHANT MARINE AND REQUESTED THAT IN CASE DEFERMENT
WAS GRANTED IT BE ADDRESSED TO 8045 HARRISBURG BOULEVARD, HOUSTON. 
THIS WAS THE OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION AND WAS DIFFERENT
FROM HIS ADDRESS, 7543 HARRISBURG BOULEVARD, PREVIOUSLY GIVEN THE
BOARD.  BARTCHY ARRANGED WITH THE HOUSTON OFFICE OF THE UNION TO
FORWARD HIS INDUCTION NOTICE TO THE UNION'S NEW YORK OFFICE. 

ON, OR SHORTLY AFTER, FEBRUARY 20, 1942, A NOTICE TO REPORT FOR
INDUCTION ON MARCH 4 WAS MAILED TO PETITIONER.  IT ARRIVED AT THE
HOUSTON OFFICE OF THE UNION PROMPTLY AND WAS FORWARDED TO ITS NEW YORK
OFFICE PURSUANT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS LEFT BY PETITIONER.  THE RECORD
DOES NOT SHOW THE EXACT TIME THE LETTER REACHED NEW YORK.  THE NOTICE
WAS RETURNED MARCH 12TH TO THE BOARD BY THE UNION IN AN ENVELOPE
BEARING THE UNION'S NEW YORK RETURN ADDRESS AND POSTMARKED HOUSTON,
TEXAS, THE SAME DAY.  IT WAS NOT DELIVERED TO PETITIONER ALTHOUGH, AS
WILL LATER APPEAR, HE WAS IN NEW YORK HARBOR AT THE TIME. 

ON ARRIVAL IN NEW YORK ABOUT FEBRUARY 20TH, PETITIONER TALKED WITH
MERRELL, AN EXECUTIVE AT THAT OFFICE OF THE UNION, AND INQUIRED FOR
MAIL FROM HIS LOCAL BOARD.  NONE WAS THERE.  ON FEBRUARY 25TH THROUGH
THE UNION HE OBTAINED A JOB ON THE S.S. AMERICAN PACKARD, BERTHED AT
HOBOKEN, AND WAS ON BOARD UNTIL MARCH 11TH.  SOMETIME BETWEEN FEBRUARY
20TH, WHEN THE NOTICE WAS MAILED AT HOUSTON, AND MARCH 12TH, WHEN IT
WAS RECEIVED BY THE LOCAL BOARD AT HOUSTON, THE LETTER WAS IN MERRELL'S
HANDS IN NEW YORK AT THE UNION OFFICE.  BARTCHY WAS NOT ADVISED BY
MERRELL OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION.  THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FIRST SOUGHT INFORMATION FROM MERRELL
AS TO BARTCHY'S WHEREABOUTS ON MARCH 10TH AND 11TH.  MERRELL THEREUPON
INFORMED BARTCHY THAT HE WAS SOUGHT AFTER BY THE F.B.I. AND HE CAME
INTO THE UNION OFFICE ON MARCH 11TH AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. 

BARTCHY ADMITTED THAT HE KNEW THAT THE AMERICAN PACKARD WAS BOUND FOR
A FOREIGN PORT AND THAT HE WAS WILLING TO MAKE THE TRIP UNLESS THE
INDUCTION NOTICE WAS RECEIVED.  THE SHIP WAS NOT TO SAIL IMMEDIATELY ON
FEBRUARY 25TH AND HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SIGN ARTICLES FOR THE TRIP;
THAT WOULD BE REQUESTED OF HIM JUST BEFORE SAILING AND AFTER THE
EXAMINATION OF THE SEAMEN BY THE FEDERAL, PARTICULARLY NAVAL,
REPRESENTATIVES.  HE "HAD EVERY REASON TO THINK" THAT BEFORE SAILING
DATE HE WOULD HAVE WORD FROM THE BOARD.  ASKED WHAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE
IF HE WERE REQUESTED TO SIGN ARTICLES FOR THE FOREIGN VOYAGE ON MARCH
10TH, THE DAY BEFORE THE ARREST, HE SAID THAT HE WOULD HAVE FIRST
COMMUNICATED WITH THE BOARD.  PAY AND LODGING WERE EARNED BY BARTCHY
THROUGH HIS SERVICE ON THE AMERICAN PACKARD.  DURING HIS STAY ON BOARD
THE AMERICAN PACKARD, BARTCHY DID NOT RETURN TO NEW YORK UNION
HEADQUARTERS TO INQUIRE FOR MAIL. 

MERRELL TESTIFIED THAT IN THEIR FIRST CONVERSATION PETITIONER SAID
THAT HE WAS EXPECTING AN INDUCTION LETTER, THAT HE WISHED IMMEDIATELY
TO BE INFORMED OF ITS ARRIVAL AND THAT HE ASKED FOR ADVICE "ON HOW WE
HANDLED THAT TYPE OF CASES, OF MEN WHO WENT TO SEA."  PETITIONER ALSO
SAID THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO WORK IN THE MEANTIME AND ASKED WHETHER HE
SHOULD SHIP.  MERRELL TOLD HIM TO CONTINUE SHIPPING UNTIL THE TIME CAME
TO GO INTO THE ARMY.  THE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT HIS CUSTOMARY ADVICE
WAS FOR SUCH MEN TO STAY ABOARD SHIP "UNTIL THE INDUCTION COMES IN, AND
THEN WHEN THE INDUCTION COMES IN, WE ALWAYS ARRANGE, WE ALWAYS GET HOLD
OF THEM OURSELVES FOR THE DRAFT BOARD."  WHEN THE INDUCTION NOTICE
ARRIVED IN THE NEW YORK OFFICE, IT WAS ROUTED TO MERRELL AND HE
RETURNED IT TO THE BOARD UNDER THE MISTAKEN IMPRESSION THAT THE
AMERICAN PACKARD HAD LEFT THE HARBOR BOUND FOR A WAR ZONE. 

AS PETITIONER WAS ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGE OF KNOWINGLY FAILING TO
REPORT AND SUBMIT TO INDUCTION INTO THE ARMED FORCES, WE SHALL NOT DEAL
OF COURSE WITH THE SITUATION OF A REGISTRANT, SO CHARGED, WHO COMPLIED
WITH THE DUTY OF KEEPING HIS LOCAL BOARD ADVISED OF HIS ADDRESS AND
FAILED NEVERTHELESS TO RECEIVE HIS NOTICE.  THIS PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED ONLY OF THE CHARGE THAT HE KNOWINGLY FAILED AND NEGLECTED "TO
KEEP HIS LOCAL BOARD ADVISED AT ALL TIMES OF THE ADDRESS WHERE MAIL
WILL REACH HIM." 

WE THINK THE GOVERNMENT CORRECTLY INTERPRETS THE ACT, SEC. 11, AND
THE REGULATION, SEC. 641.3, NOT TO REQUIRE A REGISTRANT WHO IS
EXPECTING A NOTICE OF INDUCTION TO REMAIN AT ONE PLACE OR TO NOTIFY THE
LOCAL BOARD OF EVERY MOVE OR EVERY ADDRESS, EVEN IF THE ADDRESS BE
TEMPORARY.  THE GOVERNMENT MAKES THE POINT, HOWEVER, THAT A REGISTRANT
WITH KNOWLEDGE, AS HERE, OF THE IMMINENCE OF THE POSTING OF THE NOTICE
"IS PLAINLY OBLIGATED TO KEEP IN CLOSE COMMUNICATION WITH THE
FORWARDING ADDRESS."  IF THIS SUGGESTION IS MEANT AS A RULE OF LAW THAT
AT HIS PERIL THE REGISTRANT MUST AT SHORT INTERVALS INQUIRE AT HIS LAST
ADDRESS GIVEN TO THE BOARD, HERE 7543 HARRISBURG BOULEVARD, HOUSTON, OR
AT HIS OWN FORWARDING ADDRESS, HERE THE MARITIME UNION IN NEW YORK, WE
ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE GOVERNMENT DEMANDS MORE THAN THE REGULATION
REQUIRES.  THE REGULATION, IT SEEMS TO US, IS SATISFIED WHEN THE
REGISTRANT, IN GOOD FAITH, PROVIDES A CHAIN OF FORWARDING ADDRESSES BY
WHICH MAIL, SENT TO THE ADDRESS WHICH IS FURNISHED THE BOARD, MAY BE BY
THE REGISTRANT REASONABLY EXPECTED TO COME INTO HIS HANDS IN TIME FOR
COMPLIANCE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD NOT SHOWN DILIGENCE IN KEEPING THE BOARD ADVISED OF HIS
WHEREABOUTS AND HAD AFFIRMATIVELY ENDEAVORED TO AVOID DELIVERY OF THE
COMMUNICATION.  WE DO NOT THINK EITHER OF THESE INFERENCES IS JUSTIFIED
BY THIS RECORD. 

THE PETITIONER LEFT WITH THE BOARD AN ADDRESS WHICH IN REGULAR COURSE
OF MAIL SHOULD AND DID BRING THE NOTICE TO THE HARBOR WHERE PETITIONER
WAS LOCATED.  THE FACT THAT BARTCHY SHIPPED ON ONE SHIP RATHER THAN
ANOTHER TO REACH NEW YORK IS IMMATERIAL.  ON ARRIVAL THERE HE WENT TO
HIS FORWARDING ADDRESS, INQUIRED FOR MAIL, TOLD THE OFFICIAL IN CHARGE
HE WAS EXPECTING AN INDUCTION NOTICE AND ARRANGED FOR NOTIFICATION TO
HIM BY THE UNION OF ITS ARRIVAL.  BARTCHY FAILED TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE
BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE OF THE OFFICIAL OF THE UNION WHEN THE LATTER
CONCLUDED, WITHOUT VERIFICATION, THAT THE S.S. AMERICAN PACKARD HAD
SAILED.  THE UNION HAD INFORMATION THE REGISTRANT WAS WORKING ON THAT
SHIP. 

PETITIONER MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE DILIGENT BY TELEPHONING OR CALLING AT
THE UNION AT INTERVALS BETWEEN THE TWENTY-FIFTH OF FEBRUARY AND THE
TENTH OF MARCH BUT WE CONCLUDE THAT HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON
THE EFFICIENCY OF THIS EXPERIENCED ORGANIZATION TO ADVISE HIM OF THE
ARRIVAL OF THE NOTICE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 11 PUNISHES WITH A MAXIMUM OF FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT AND A
FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000 "ANY PERSON  ...  WHO IN ANY MANNER SHALL
KNOWINGLY FAIL OR NEGLECT TO PERFORM ANY DUTY REQUIRED OF HIM UNDER OR
IN THE EXECUTION OF THIS ACT, OR RULES OR REGULATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO
THIS ACT,  ...  "  54 STAT. 885, 894.  THE REGULATION INVOLVED
PROVIDES:  "SEC.  641.3 COMMUNICATION BY MAIL.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF
EACH REGISTRANT TO KEEP HIS LOCAL BOARD ADVISED AT ALL TIMES OF THE
ADDRESS WHERE MAIL WILL REACH HIM.  THE MAILING OF ANY ORDER, NOTICE,
OR BLANK FORM BY THE LOCAL BOARD TO A REGISTRANT AT THE ADDRESS LAST
REPORTED BY HIM TO THE LOCAL BOARD SHALL CONSTITUTE NOTICE TO HIM OF
THE CONTENTS OF THE COMMUNICATION, WHETHER HE ACTUALLY RECEIVES IT OR
NOT."  6 FED. REG. 6851-52. 

FN2  SEC. 603, 6 FED. REG. 6827. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

THE DECISION OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW THAT PETITIONER KNOWINGLY FAILED
"TO KEEP HIS LOCAL BOARD ADVISED AT ALL TIMES OF THE ADDRESS WHERE MAIL
WOULD REACH HIM" IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE. 

THE ADDRESS WHICH PETITIONER GAVE THE BOARD WAS THAT OF THE MARITIME
UNION IN HOUSTON, TEXAS.  MAIL WOULD NOT REACH HIM THERE BECAUSE HE WAS
NOT IN HOUSTON.  ASSUMING THAT A FORWARDING ADDRESS TO A PLACE WHERE
MAIL WOULD REACH HIM, IF FORWARDED, WOULD SATISFY THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT, MAIL WOULD NOT REACH HIM AT HIS FORWARDING ADDRESS IN NEW
YORK CITY, FOR HE WAS NOT IN NEW YORK CITY IN THE CRITICAL TIME FROM
FEBRUARY 25 TO MARCH 11, DURING WHICH HE KNEW FROM THE ADVICE OF THE
BOARD THAT HIS NOTICE OF INDUCTION WOULD PROBABLY BE MAILED.  HE WAS
THEN LIVING IN HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY ON THE S.S. AMERICAN PACKARD, ON
WHICH HE HAD SOUGHT EMPLOYMENT AS A SEAMAN FOR A VOYAGE OF MANY MONTHS
TO THE FAR EAST, AND WHICH, PENDING HER SAILING, WAS UNDERGOING REPAIRS
IN HOBOKEN. 

DURING THAT TIME MAIL WOULD NOT REACH HIM IN NEW YORK CITY, FOR HE
WAS AT NO TIME IN NEW YORK CITY, AND HE AT NO TIME WENT OR SENT THERE
FOR MAIL, OR INQUIRED WHETHER MAIL HAD COME FOR HIM.  MAIL WOULD NOT
REACH HIM IN HOBOKEN OR ON THE AMERICAN PACKARD, OR "IN NEW YORK
HARBOR," BECAUSE HE HAD NOT GIVEN EITHER AS A FORWARDING ADDRESS OR
GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS TO ANY ONE THAT MAIL BE SENT OR DELIVERED TO HIM AT
EITHER PLACE.  THE COURTS BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT
DURING A PERIOD OF SOME WEEKS, WHEN HE EXPECTED TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE
OF THE DRAFT BOARD, AND WHEN HE WAS PREPARING TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY FOR
A PERIOD OF MONTHS, HE KNOWINGLY FAILED TO KEEP THE BOARD ADVISED OF
ANY ADDRESS WHERE MAIL WOULD REACH HIM.  THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






















MCLEOD V. THRELKELD, 319 U.S. 491 


NO. 787.  ARGUED MAY 6, 7, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1943.  - 131 F.2D
880, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE WORK IS TO PREPARE MEALS AND SERVE THEM TO
MAINTENANCE-OF-WAY EMPLOYEES OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD IN PURSUANCE OF
A CONTRACT BETWEEN HIS EMPLOYER AND THE RAILROAD COMPANY IS NOT
"ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P. 493. 

2.  THE TEST IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE IS "ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, SECS. 6
AND 7, IS NOT WHETHER HIS ACTIVITIES AFFECT OR INDIRECTLY RELATE TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT WHETHER THEY ARE ACTUALLY IN OR SO CLOSELY
RELATED TO THE MOVEMENT OF COMMERCE AS TO BE A PART OF IT.  P. 497. 

THE WORK OF THE EMPLOYEE DECIDES THIS QUESTION; IT IS NOT IMPORTANT
IN THIS CASE WHETHER HIS EMPLOYER WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

MCLEOD V. THRELKELD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 754, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 46 F.SUPP.  208, IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY MCLEOD
AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER UNDER SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI BRINGS HERE FOR EXAMINATION A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, 131 F.2D 880, WHICH HELD THAT A
COOK, EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENTS TO PREPARE AND SERVE MEALS TO MAINTENANCE
OF-WAY EMPLOYEES OF THE TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD COMPANY, IS NOT
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE UNDER SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
AND THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER FOR AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THAT
ACT.  FN1 

THE RESPONDENTS ARE A PARTNERSHIP WITH A CONTRACT TO FURNISH MEALS TO
MAINTENANCE-OF-WAY EMPLOYEES OF THE RAILROAD, AN INTERSTATE CARRIER. 
THE MEALS ARE SERVED IN A COOK AND DINING CAR ATTACHED TO A PARTICULAR
GANG OF WORKMEN AND RUNNING ON THE RAILROAD'S TRACKS.  THE CAR IS SET
CONVENIENTLY TO THE PLACE OF WORK OF THE BOARDERS AND IN EMERGENCIES
FOLLOWS THE GANG TO THE SCENE OF ITS ACTIVITIES.  EMPLOYEES PAY THE
CONTRACTOR FOR THEIR MEALS BY ORDERS AUTHORIZING THE RAILROAD COMPANY
TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF THEIR BOARD FROM WAGES DUE AND PAY IT OVER TO
THE CONTRACTOR.  THE PETITIONER WORKED AS COOK AT VARIOUS POINTS IN
TEXAS ALONG THE LINE OF THE ROAD DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION. 

AS THE EXTENT OF THE COVERAGE BY REASON OF THE PHRASE "ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE" IS IMPORTANT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

IN DRAFTING LEGISLATION UNDER THE POWER GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION
TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO MAKE ALL LAWS NECESSARY AND
PROPER TO CARRY THOSE REGULATIONS INTO EFFECT, CONGRESS IS FACED
CONTINUALLY WITH THE DIFFICULTY OF DEFINING ACCURATELY THE PRECISE
SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED BILL.  IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, CONGRESS
DID NOT INTEND THAT THE REGULATION OF HOURS AND WAGES SHOULD EXTEND TO
THE FURTHEST REACHES OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  THE PROPOSAL TO HAVE THE
BILL APPLY TO EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE IN ANY INDUSTRY AFFECTING
COMMERCE" WAS REJECTED IN FAVOR OF THE LANGUAGE, NOW IN THE ACT, "EACH
OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  FN2  SECS. 6 AND 7.  SEE THE DISCUSSION AND
REFERENCE TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S.
517, AND WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564.  THE
SELECTION OF THE SMALLER GROUP WAS DELIBERATE AND PURPOSEFUL. 

MCLEOD WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  HIS
DUTIES AS COOK AND CARETAKER FOR MAINTENANCE-OF-WAY MEN ON A RAILROAD
LIE COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THAT CLAUSE.  FN3  OUR QUESTION IS WHETHER HE
WAS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE."  FN4  WE HAVE HELD THAT THIS CLAUSE COVERED
EVERY EMPLOYEE IN THE "CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE," WALLING V.
JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE WHO
MERELY AFFECTED THAT COMMERCE.  SO HANDLERS OF GOODS FOR A WHOLESALER
WHO MOVES THEM INTERSTATE ON ORDER OR TO MEET THE NEEDS OF SPECIFIED
CUSTOMERS ARE IN COMMERCE, WHILE THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO HANDLE GOODS AFTER
ACQUISITION BY A MERCHANT FOR GENERAL LOCAL DISPOSITION ARE NOT.  FN5
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN OPERATING AND MAINTAINING PRIVATELY OWNED TOLL
ROADS AND BRIDGES OVER NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS ARE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE." 
OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125.  SO ARE EMPLOYEES OF
CONTRACTORS WHEN THE EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED IN REPAIRING BRIDGES OF
INTERSTATE RAILROADS.  PEDERSEN V. J.F. FITZGERALD CONSTRUCTION CO.,
318 U.S. 740, 742. 

IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, IT IS URGED THAT THE CONCEPTION OF "IN
COMMERCE" BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN ACTUAL WORK UPON
THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.  FN6  IT IS SAID THAT THIS COURT DECIDED
AN EMPLOYEE, ENGAGED IN SIMILAR WORK WAS "IN COMMERCE," UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT  FN7  AND THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL
WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE IS HIRED BY THE ONE ENGAGED IN THE INTERSTATE
BUSINESS SINCE IT IS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EMPLOYEE AND NOT OF THE
EMPLOYER WHICH ARE DECISIVE.  FN8 

JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE REACH OF THE COVERAGE OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT "IN COMMERCE" MUST DEAL WITH DOUBTFUL INSTANCES.  THERE
IS NO SINGLE CONCEPT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH CAN BE APPLIED TO
EVERY FEDERAL STATUTE REGULATING COMMERCE.  SEE KIRSCHBAUM CO. V.
WALLING, SUPRA, 520.  HOWEVER, THE TEST OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT THAT ACTIVITIES SO CLOSELY RELATED TO INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION AS TO BE IN PRACTICE AND LEGAL RELATION A PART THEREOF
ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THAT COMMERCE, IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYMENTS "IN
COMMERCE" UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FN9 

THE EFFECT OF THE OVER-REFINEMENT OF FACTUAL SITUATIONS WHICH
HAMPERED THE APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, PRIOR
TO THE RECENT AMENDMENT,  FN10  WE HOPE, IS NOT TO BE REPEATED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  WHERE
THE ACCIDENT OCCURS ON OR IN DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF TRANSPORTATION, SUCH AS TRACKS AND ENGINES,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS BEEN USED INTERCHANGEABLY WITH INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  FN11 BUT WHERE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT A COMMON
CARRIER BY RAILROAD DOES WHILE ENGAGING IN COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES,
I.E., TRANSPORTATION, AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN GENERAL IS IMPORTANT,
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WAS CONSTRUED PRIOR TO THE 1939
AMENDMENT AS APPLYING TO TRANSPORTATION ONLY.  FN12 

THE SMITH  FN13  CASE CONSTRUED THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO APPLY
TO A COOK AND CARETAKER EMPLOYED BY THE RAILROAD TO CARE FOR A CAMP CAR
USED FOR FEEDING AND HOUSING A GROUP OF THE RAILROAD'S BRIDGE
CARPENTERS.  AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT THE COOK WAS ENGAGED IN THESE
DUTIES.  IN HOLDING THE COOK WAS "IN COMMERCE" THIS COURT SAID: 

"THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE RISKS OF PERSONAL INJURY TO WHICH
PLAINTIFF WAS SUBJECTED WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE THAT ATTENDED THE WORK OF
TRAIN EMPLOYEES GENERALLY AND OF THE BRIDGE WORKERS THEMSELVES WHEN OFF
DUTY, WHILE NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE, IS OF LITTLE MOMENT.  THE
SIGNIFICANT THING, IN OUR OPINION, IS THAT HE WAS EMPLOYED BY DEFENDANT
TO ASSIST, AND ACTUALLY WAS ASSISTING, THE WORK OF THE BRIDGE
CARPENTERS BY KEEPING THEIR BED AND BOARD CLOSE TO THEIR PLACE OF WORK,
THUS RENDERING IT EASIER FOR DEFENDANT TO MAINTAIN A PROPER
ORGANIZATION OF THE BRIDGE GANG AND FORWARDING THEIR WORK BY REDUCING
THE TIME LOST IN GOING TO AND FROM THEIR MEALS AND THEIR LODGING
PLACE.  IF, INSTEAD, HE HAD BROUGHT THEIR MEALS TO THEM DAILY AT THE
BRIDGE UPON WHICH THEY HAPPENED TO BE WORKING, IT HARDLY WOULD BE
QUESTIONED THAT HIS WORK IN SO DOING WAS A PART OF THEIRS.  WHAT HE WAS
IN FACT DOING WAS THE SAME IN KIND, AND DID NOT DIFFER MATERIALLY IN
DEGREE.  HENCE HE WAS EMPLOYED, AS THEY WERE, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT."  250 U.S. 101,
104. 

SUCH A RULING UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AFTER THE
BOLLE, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION AND BEZUE CASES, SUPRA, NOTE 9, SHOULD NOT
GOVERN OUR CONCLUSIONS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THESE THREE
LATER CASES LIMITED THE COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT TO THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND ACTS SO CLOSELY
RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION AS TO BE THEMSELVES REALLY A PART OF IT.
THEY RECOGNIZED THE FACT THAT RAILROADS CARRIED COMMERCE AND WERE THUS
A PART OF IT BUT THAT EACH EMPLOYMENT THAT INDIRECTLY ASSISTED THE
FUNCTIONING OF THAT TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT A PART.  THE TEST UNDER THIS
PRESENT ACT, TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE,
IS NOT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES AFFECT OR INDIRECTLY RELATE TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT WHETHER THEY ARE ACTUALLY IN OR SO CLOSELY
RELATED TO THE MOVEMENT OF THE COMMERCE AS TO BE A PART OF IT. FN14
EMPLOYEE ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THIS MOVEMENT, SO FAR AS THEY ARE
COVERED BY WAGE-HOUR REGULATION, ARE GOVERNED BY THE OTHER PHRASE,
"PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  FN15 

IT IS NOT IMPORTANT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER, IN THIS CASE THE
CONTRACTOR, IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS THE WORK OF THE
EMPLOYEE WHICH IS DECISIVE.  HERE THE EMPLOYEE SUPPLIES THE PERSONAL
NEEDS OF THE MAINTENANCE-OF-WAY MEN.  FOOD IS CONSUMED APART FROM THEIR
WORK.  THE FURNISHING OF BOARD SEEMS TO US AS REMOTE FROM COMMERCE, IN
THIS INSTANCE, AS IN THE CASES WHERE EMPLOYEES SUPPLY THEMSELVES.  IN
ONE INSTANCE THE FOOD WOULD BE AS NECESSARY FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF
THEIR LABOR AS IN THE OTHER. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THAT THIS EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE UNDER
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1062-63.  "SEC.  6.  (A) EVERY EMPLOYER SHALL PAY TO
EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION
OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE WAGES AT THE FOLLOWING RATES - 

   .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 7.  (A)  NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN
THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR
IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE  ...  " 

FN2  THE DISTINCTION IN THE COVERAGE ARISING FROM THIS CHOICE OF
LANGUAGE WAS WELL KNOWN TO CONGRESS.  CF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
49 STAT. 449, 450.  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1, 31 ET
SEQ.; BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, SEC. 4-A, 50 STAT. 72, 83;
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, 50 STAT. 246; PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 803, SEC. 1(C). 

FN3  52 STAT. 1061.  "(I) 'GOODS' MEANS GOODS (INCLUDING SHIPS AND
MARINE EQUIPMENT), WARES, PRODUCTS, COMMODITIES, MERCHANDISE, OR
ARTICLES OR SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE OF ANY CHARACTER, OR ANY PART OR
INGREDIENT THEREOF, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE GOODS AFTER THEIR DELIVERY
INTO THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER THEREOF
OTHER THAN A PRODUCER, MANUFACTURER, OR PROCESSOR THEREOF." 

FN4  COOKS EMPLOYED TO FEED WORKERS ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE SIMILARLY ENGAGED.  HANSON V.
LAGERSTROM, 133 F.2D 120; CONSOLIDATED TIMBER CO. V. WOMACK, 132 F.2D
101. 

FN5  WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., SUPRA; HIGGINS V. CARR BROS.
CO., 317 U.S. 572. 

FN6  THE CONTENTION THAT THE WORK OF THE EMPLOYEE IS COVERED BY THE
EXEMPTION OF SEC. 13(A)(2) - "ANY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN ANY RETAIL OR
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF WHOSE SELLING OR SERVICING IS
IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE" - SEEMS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  IF THE WORK IS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY.  COMPARE
CONSOLIDATED TIMBER CO. V. WOMACK, 132 F.2D 101, 106 ET SEQ.; HANSON V.
LAGERSTROM, 133 F.2D 120. 

FN7  PHILADELPHIA, B. & W.R. CO. V. SMITH, 250 U.S. 101.  THIS CASE
CONSTRUED THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OF APRIL 22, 1908, 35
STAT. 65, SEC. 1; "EVERY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD WHILE ENGAGING IN
COMMERCE  ...  SHALL BE LIABLE IN DAMAGES  ...  " 

FN8  WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564; KIRSCHBAUM CO.
V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 524. 

FN9  SHANKS V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 239 U.S. 556, 558; CHICAGO &
NORTH WESTERN RY. CO. V. BOLLE, 284 U.S. 74, 78; CHICAGO & EASTERN
ILLINOIS R. CO. V. COMMISSION, 284 U.S. 296; NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO.
V. BEZUE, 284 U.S. 415, 419. 

FN10  ACT OF AUGUST 11, 1939, 53 STAT. 1404; HEARINGS, SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, AMENDING THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, MARCH 28 AND 29, 1939, PP. 3-9, 26-30; S. REP. NO. 661, 76TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN11  PEDERSEN V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 229 U.S. 146, 151; CF.
OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125. 

FN12  SEE THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN13  PHILADELPHIA, B. & W.R. CO. V. SMITH, 250 U.S. 101. 

FN14  THUS WE SAID AS TO A RATE CLERK EMPLOYED BY A MOTOR
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY: 

"IT IS PLAIN THAT THE RESPONDENT AS A TRANSPORTATION WORKER WAS
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT  ...  "  OVERNIGHT
MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 575. 

FN15  52 STAT. 1060-61. 

SEC. 3.  "(B)  'COMMERCE' MEANS TRADE, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION,
TRANSMISSION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR FROM ANY
STATE TO ANY PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(J)  'PRODUCED' MEANS PRODUCED, MANUFACTURED, MINED, HANDLED, OR IN
ANY OTHER MANNER WORKED ON IN ANY STATE; AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
ACT AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION
OF GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN PRODUCING, MANUFACTURING,
MINING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WORKING ON SUCH
GOODS, OR IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION
THEREOF, IN ANY STATE." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

I THINK THAT PETITIONER IS COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

IN USING THE PHRASE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" CONGRESS MEANT TO EXTEND
THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT TO EMPLOYEES "THROUGHOUT THE FARTHEST REACHES
OF THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER
CO., 317 U.S. 564, 567.  WE RECENTLY CONSTRUED THE PHRASE TO INCLUDE
EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES ARE SO CLOSELY RELATED TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE "AS TO BE IN PRACTICE AND IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION A PART OF
IT."  OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125, 129, 130, 132. 
THIS PRACTICAL TEST WAS DERIVED FROM CASES SUCH AS PEDERSEN V.
DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 229 U.S. 146, 151, AND PHILADELPHIA, B. & W.R.
CO. V. SMITH, 250 U.S. 101, CONSTRUING SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FN1  THE ACTIVITIES OF PETITIONER IN COOKING
FOR A TRAVELING MAINTENANCE CREW OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD ARE
SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THIS TEST.  IT WAS SO HELD IN THE SMITH CASE, 250
U.S. 101, THE FACTS OF WHICH ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE INSTANT
CASE EXCEPT FOR THE IMMATERIAL DIFFERENCE THAT PETITIONER HERE WAS
EMPLOYED BY AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RATHER THAN BY THE RAILROAD
ITSELF.  FN2  THE REASONING OF THE SMITH CASE IS PERSUASIVE AND SHOULD
CONTROL THIS ONE. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT, HOWEVER, REJECTS THE CONCEPT OF COVERAGE
USED IN THE SMITH CASE FOR THE NARROWER TEST OF WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE IS
ENGAGED "IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR IN WORK SO CLOSELY RELATED TO
IT AS TO BE PRACTICALLY A PART OF IT," USED IN ANOTHER LINE OF CASES
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FN3  I THINK THIS IS WRONG
FOR SEVERAL REASONS. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT EXTENDS TO EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE," NOT MERELY TO THOSE ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION.  FN4  AS THE
BOLLE CASE ITSELF POINTS OUT:  "COMMERCE COVERS THE WHOLE FIELD OF
WHICH TRANSPORTATION IS ONLY A PART."  284 U.S. AT 78.  HENCE, WHATEVER
BASIS THERE MAY HAVE BEEN FOR RESTRICTING THE COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO EMPLOYEES ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ACT APPLIED ONLY TO THOSE
WORKING FOR EMPLOYERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL,
FN5  CAN HAVE NO POSSIBLE APPLICATION OR BEARING ON THE INTERPRETATION
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE COVERAGE OF THIS ACT IS MUCH MORE
EXTENSIVE.  IT IS NOT LIMITED TO EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS BUT
EXTENDS GENERALLY TO EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN ALL KINDS OF COMMERCE,
INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION.  NOTHING IN THE ACT SUGGESTS THAT IT HAS A
NARROWER APPLICATION TO EMPLOYEES WHOSE WORK "IN COMMERCE" IS
TRANSPORTATION OR WORK CONNECTED THEREWITH, THAN IT HAS TO EMPLOYEES
WHO ARE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE BUT WHOSE WORK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
TRANSPORTATION.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS UNTENABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD
DISCRIMINATE WITHOUT REASON BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF EMPLOYEES, ALL
OF WHOM FALL WITHIN THE SAME GENERAL STATUTORY CLASSIFICATION OF
"ENGAGED IN COMMERCE." 

THE NECESSARY EFFECT OF REJECTING THE SMITH CASE FOR THE RESTRICTIVE
CONCEPT OF "IN COMMERCE" WHICH WAS USED IN THE SHANKS,  FN6  BOLLE,
FN7  COMMISSION,  FN8  AND BEZUE  FN9  CASES IS TO INTRODUCE INTO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT THAT CONCEDEDLY
UNDESIRABLE CONFUSION WHICH CHARACTERIZED THE APPLICATION OF THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND PROMPTED THE 1939 AMENDMENT (53
STAT. 1404) WHICH IN EFFECT REPUDIATED THE NARROW TEST OF THE SHANKS
LINE OF CASES.  THE REALITY OF THIS CONFUSION IS READILY DEMONSTRABLE. 
WE HAVE HELD THAT A RATE CLERK EMPLOYED BY AN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER
FN10  AND A SELLER OF TICKETS ON A TOLL BRIDGE OVER WHICH INTERSTATE
TRAFFIC MOVES  FN11  ARE BOTH "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  YET, IN THE VIEW OF THE MAJORITY OF
THE COURT, WHEN THE EMPLOYEES' ACTIVITIES ARE IN THE FIELD OF
TRANSPORTATION, THE ACT APPARENTLY WILL NOT COVER  FN12  THOSE WHO WORK
IN AN INTERSTATE CARRIER'S REPAIR SHOP ON FACILITIES TO SUPPLY POWER
FOR MACHINERY USED IN REPAIRING INSTRUMENTALITIES OF TRANSPORTATION,
FN13  OR WHO HEAT CARS AND DEPOTS USED BY INTERSTATE PASSENGERS,  FN14
OR WHO STORE FUEL FOR THE USE OF INTERSTATE VEHICLES,  FN15  OR WHO
WORK ON SUCH VEHICLES WHEN WITHDRAWN FOR THE MOMENT FROM COMMERCE FOR
REPAIRS.  FN16  THE ANOMALY OF THIS IS CLEAR - THERE IS NO SOUND REASON
FOR EXTENDING THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT TO A RATE CLERK EMPLOYED IN THE
OFFICE OF AN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER AND DENYING THEM TO THE JANITOR
WHO KEEPS THE OFFICE CLEAN AND WARM, OR THE EMPLOYEE WHO WORKS IN THE
CARRIER'S SHOP ON MACHINERY USED TO REPAIR INTERSTATE VEHICLES, OR ON
THE VEHICLES THEMSELVES. 

IF THE APPLICABLE PROVISION WERE "ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS
FOR COMMERCE" INSTEAD OF "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE," OUR DECISIONS MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT EMPLOYEES SUCH AS THE JANITOR AND THE SHOP TENDER AND
PROBABLY PETITIONER WOULD BE WITHIN THE ACT.  CF. KIRSCHBAUM CO. V.
WALLING, 316 U.S. 517; WARREN-BRADSHAW CO. V. HALL, 317 U.S. 88.  FN17
THE PHRASE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" SHOULD BE AS BROADLY CONSTRUED.  IN
THE WORDS OF ONE OF THE ACT'S SPONSORS, THE PHRASE EXTENDS TO
"EMPLOYEES WHO ARE A NECESSARY PART OF CARRYING ON" A BUSINESS
OPERATING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN18  PETITIONER'S WORK WAS
EVIDENTLY CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO THE OPERATION OF THE RAILROAD, ELSE
IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO PROVISION FOR BOARDING ITS MAINTENANCE CREWS.  WE
HAVE CAST THE RELEVANT TESTS FOR DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE TWO
PHRASES OF COVERAGE IN SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR LANGUAGE.  IN KIRSCHBAUM
CO. V. WALLING, WORK WHICH "HAD SUCH A CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE TIE WITH THE
PROCESS OF PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE" AS TO BE "AN ESSENTIAL PART OF IT"
WAS HELD TO BE "NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE." 
316 U.S. AT 525-26.  CORRESPONDINGLY, IN OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE
CORP., WE HELD THAT THE PHRASE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" INCLUDES WORK
WHICH "IS SO INTIMATELY RELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE 'AS TO BE IN
PRACTICE AND IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION A PART OF IT.'"  318 U.S. AT 130. 
THE PURPOSE OF THE "PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" PHRASE WAS
OBVIOUSLY NOT TO CUT DOWN THE SCOPE OF "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE," BUT TO
BROADEN THE ACT'S APPLICATION BY REACHING CONDITIONS IN THE PRODUCTION
OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE WHICH CONGRESS CONSIDERED INJURIOUS TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100.  THE EFFECT OF THE
COURT'S DECISION TODAY, HOWEVER, IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT FEDERAL POWER
OVER COMMERCE HAS BEEN SWEEPINGLY EXERCISED WHEN AN EMPLOYEE'S WORK IS
IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE, BUT TO LIMIT IT, WHEN THE
EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES ARE IN TRANSPORTATION OR CONNECTED THEREWITH, TO
THE NARROW AND LEGISLATIVELY REPUDIATED VIEW OF THE SHANKS, BOLLE,
COMMISSION AND BEZUE CASES.  SUCH AN UNBALANCED APPLICATION OF THE
STATUTE IS CONTRARY TO ITS PURPOSE OF AFFORDING COVERAGE BROADLY
"THROUGHOUT THE FARTHEST REACHES OF THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE" TO EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE." 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF APRIL 22, 1908, 35 STAT. 65, AS IT WAS BEFORE THE
AMENDMENT OF 1939, 53 STAT. 1404.  45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ. 

FN2 THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, OF COURSE,
DEPENDS UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE EMPLOYEES' ACTIVITIES, NOT THE NATURE
OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS.  OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S.
125, 132, AND CASES CITED. 

FN3  SHANKS V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 239 U.S. 556, 558; CHICAGO &
NORTH WESTERN RY. CO. V. BOLLE, 284 U.S. 74; CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS
R. CO. V. COMMISSION, 284 U.S. 296; NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. BEZUE,
284 U.S. 415. 

FN4  THE ACT DEFINES "COMMERCE" AS:  "TRADE, COMMERCE,
TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
OR FROM ANY STATE TO ANY PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF."  52 STAT. 1060, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 203. 

FN5  SEE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RY. CO. V. BOLLE, 284 U.S. 74, 78. 

FN6  239 U.S. 556. 

FN7  284 U.S. 74. 

FN8  284 U.S. 296. 

FN9  284 U.S. 415. 

FN10  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572. 

FN11  OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125. 

FN12  THIS IS DISCUSSED WHOLLY APART FROM THE QUESTION OF THE
APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 7 BECAUSE OF THE EXEMPTION CONTAINED IN SEC.
13(B)(1) OF THE ACT.  SEE SOUTHLAND GASOLINE CO. V. BAYLEY, ANTE, P.
44. 

FN13  CF. SHANKS V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 239 U.S. 556. 

FN14  CF. CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RY. CO. V. BOLLE, 284 U.S. 74. 

FN15  CF. CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS R. CO. V. COMMISSION, 284 U.S.
296. 

FN16  CF. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. BEZUE, 284 U.S. 415. 

FN17  EMPLOYEES COOKING FOR WORKERS ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE SIMILARLY ENGAGED AND COVERED
BY THE ACT.  CONSOLIDATED TIMBER CO. V. WOMACK, 132 F.2D 101; HANSON V.
LAGERSTROM, 133 F.2D 120. 

FN18  SPEAKING FOR THE SENATE CONFEREES ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT,
SENATOR BORAH SAID:  "  ... IF THE BUSINESS IS SUCH AS TO OCCUPY THE
CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ANY OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE A
NECESSARY PART OF CARRYING ON THAT BUSINESS ARE WITHIN THE TERMS OF
THIS BILL, AND, IN MY OPINION, ARE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES."  83 CONG. REC. 9170. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 319 U.S. 503 


NO. 4.  ARGUED APRIL 10, 13, 1942.  REARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1942.  -
DECIDED JUNE 7, 1943.  - 123 F.2D 111, 142, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 284, A GRAND JURY CAN BE AUTHORIZED TO SIT
BEYOND THE TERM OF COURT AT WHICH IT WAS ORGANIZED ONLY TO FINISH
INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN DURING THAT TERM.  P. 510. 

2.  WHERE A GRAND JURY SAT TO THE END OF THE TERM AT WHICH IT WAS
ORGANIZED AND, BY AUTHORITY OF AN ORDER OF COURT, THROUGH THE TERM NEXT
FOLLOWING, A FURTHER ORDER AUTHORIZING IT TO CONTINUE TO SIT DURING THE
TERM NEXT SUCCEEDING "TO FINISH INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED"
BY IT DURING THE ORIGINAL AND INTERMEDIATE TERMS IS TO BE READ, NOT AS
ATTEMPTING TO AUTHORIZE THE FINISHING OF INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN CONTRARY
TO JUD.  CODE SEC. 284 IN THE INTERMEDIATE TERM, BUT AS AUTHORIZING
ONLY THE FINISHING OF INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN DURING THE ORIGINAL TERM. 
P. 509. 

3.  A GRAND JURY IS INVESTED WITH BROAD INVESTIGATORIAL POWERS INTO
WHAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE OFFENSES AGAINST FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW.  ITS
WORK IS NOT CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF GUILT ONCE IT HAS MADE THE CHARGES THAT CULMINATE ITS
INQUIRIES.  P. 510. 

4.  THAT FOR WHICH A GRAND JURY MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE ITS
SITTING AFTER THE TERM DURING WHICH IT WAS ORGANIZED IS THE GENERAL
SUBJECT MATTER ON WHICH IT ORIGINALLY BEGAN TO INVESTIGATE IN THAT
TERM.  AND WHERE ITS SESSIONS HAVE BEEN EXTENDED BY ORDER TO A
FOLLOWING TERM, IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN TO INQUIRE INTO NEW MATTERS WITHIN
THE GENERAL SCOPE OF ITS ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION.  P. 511. 

5.  A GRAND JURY, WHICH BEGAN ITS INVESTIGATION OF SYSTEMATIC INCOME
TAX EVASIONS DURING A DECEMBER 1939 TERM IN WHICH IT WAS ORGANIZED, AND
WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE ITS SITTING DURING THE NEXT TWO TERMS
(FEBRUARY AND MARCH) FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINISHING THE INVESTIGATION,
PROPERLY INCLUDED IN ITS INDICTMENT FOR AN ATTEMPTED EVASION OF TAXES
FOR THE YEAR 1939 THE FILING OF A FALSE RETURN IN MARCH 1940 WHICH WAS
A PART OF THE SYSTEMATIC, FRAUDULENT PRACTICE INVESTIGATED.  P. 511. 

6.  WHERE AN INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT THE GRAND JURY'S INVESTIGATION
OF THE MATTERS CHARGED WAS BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED AT THE TERM OF COURT
AT WHICH THE JURY WAS ORGANIZED, AND THAT THE JURY, PURSUANT TO ORDERS
OF COURT, HAD CONTINUED TO SIT DURING THE TWO FOLLOWING TERMS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FINISHING SUCH INVESTIGATION; AND PLEAS AND MOTIONS WERE
FILED SEEKING TO PUT THESE ALLEGATIONS IN ISSUE AND TO HAVE THE
INDICTMENT QUASHED UPON THE GROUND THAT IT RESULTED FROM AN
INVESTIGATION BEGUN AFTER THE ORIGINAL TERM, BEYOND THE COMPETENCY OF
THE GRAND JURY, HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ANSWER OR
TO ASSUME THE BURDEN OF SUPPORTING WITH PROOF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
INDICTMENT; AND THAT THE MOTION TO QUASH WAS PROPERLY STRICKEN ON A
PRELIMINARY MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 512. 

7.  WHERE ONE PERSON WAS CHARGED IN SEVERAL COUNTS WITH ATTEMPTS TO
DEFEAT AND EVADE THE PAYMENT OF HIS INCOME TAXES FOR EACH OF SEVERAL
YEARS (MADE A FELONY BY SEC. 145(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE), AND
WITH FILING FALSE RETURNS ON MARCH 15TH OF EACH OF THE YEARS IN THE
PROCESS OF SUCH ATTEMPTS AND NOT MERELY WITH THE OFFENSE OF FILING
FALSE RETURNS, WHICH IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR BY SEC. 145(A) OF THAT CODE;
AND OTHERS WERE JOINED AS AIDERS AND ABETTORS (WHO UNDER SEC. 332 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE ARE PRINCIPALS) CHARGED WITH ASSISTING HIM BY THEIR
CONDUCT DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE RETURNS
WERE FILED, BUT NOT AS PARTICIPATING IN THE ACTS OF FILING, HELD THAT
THE COUNTS, AS AGAINST THE AIDERS AND ABETTORS, WERE NEITHER
INCONSISTENT NOR DUPLICITOUS, NOR OBJECTIONABLE AS CHARGING THEM IN THE
SAME COUNT AS ACCESSORIES BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE FACT.  P. 514. 

8.  THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE CONNECTION OF THE DEFENDANT JOHNSON
WITH A NETWORK OF GAMBLING HOUSES, HIS WINNINGS, AND HIS PRIVATE
EXPENDITURES DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT
LEAVING THE CASE TO THE JURY.  P. 515. 

9.  IN A PROSECUTION FOR ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES,
THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT'S PRIVATE EXPENDITURES DURING THE YEARS IN
QUESTION EXCEEDED HIS AVAILABLE DECLARED RESOURCES HELD COMPETENT AS
EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD SOME UNREPORTED INCOME.  P. 517. 

10.  ONE MAY AID AND ABET ANOTHER IN ATTEMPTS TO EVADE INCOME TAXES,
WITHOUT PARTICIPATING IN THE MAKING OF THE OTHER'S FALSE RETURNS, BY
FALSELY PRETENDING TO BE THE PROPRIETOR OF ESTABLISHMENTS FROM WHICH
THE OTHER'S INCOME WAS DERIVED.  P. 518. 

EVIDENCE OF THE CONDUCT, ACTS AND ADMISSIONS OF PERSONS CHARGED AS
AIDERS AND ABETTORS AMPLY WARRANTED SENDING THEIR CASES TO THE JURY. 
P. 518. 

11.  ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY OF AN EXPERT WITNESS REGARDING INCOME AND
EXPENDITURES OF ONE OF THE ACCUSED IN THIS CASE, ALTHOUGH CONSISTING OF
COMPUTATIONS BASED ON SUBSTANTIALLY THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD,
HELD NOT AN INVASION OF THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY, WHERE, IN THE LIGHT
OF THE JUDGE'S CHARGE, ALL ISSUES ARE LEFT TO THE INDEPENDENT,
UNFORECLOSED DETERMINATION OF THE JURY.  P. 519. 

UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 5, UNITED STATES V. SOMMERS ET AL., ALSO ON WRIT
OF CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 790, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 790, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF SENTENCES IMPOSED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN A PROSECUTION OF JOHNSON AND OTHERS FOR
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PENAL PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND
1938 AND FOR CONSPIRACY. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN INDICTMENT IN FIVE COUNTS.  FOUR CHARGE JOHNSON WITH
ATTEMPTS TO DEFRAUD THE INCOME TAX FOR EACH OF THE YEARS FROM 1936 TO
1939, INCLUSIVE, AND CHARGE A DOZEN OTHERS WITH AIDING AND ABETTING
JOHNSON'S EFFORTS.  THE FIFTH COUNT CHARGES JOHNSON AND THE OTHERS WITH
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE INCOME TAX DURING THOSE YEARS.  THE
SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS CHARGE VIOLATIONS OF THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF THE
REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938, NOW EMBODIED IN GENERAL FORM IN SEC.
145(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 53 STAT. 63, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
145(B).  THE CONSPIRACY COUNT IS BASED ON THE OLD SEC. 5440 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES, WHICH LATER BECAME SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 35
STAT. 1096, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88. 

AS TO FOUR OF THE DEFENDANTS, THE CAUSE WAS DISMISSED UPON MOTION OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY; THREE OTHERS WERE ACQUITTED BY THE JURY. 
OF THE SIX REMAINING DEFENDANTS, THE JURY BROUGHT IN A VERDICT OF
GUILTY ON ALL FIVE COUNTS AGAINST JOHNSON, SOMMERS, HARTIGAN, FLANAGAN,
AND KELLY, AND AGAINST BROWN ON COUNTS THREE AND FOUR, THE SUBSTANTIVE
COUNTS FOR THE YEARS 1938 AND 1939, AND ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT IMPOSED ON JOHNSON A SENTENCE OF FIVE YEARS ON EACH OF
THE FIRST FOUR COUNTS AND OF TWO YEARS ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT, AS WELL
AS A FINE OF $10,000 ON EACH OF THE FIVE COUNTS.  THE TERMS OF
IMPRISONMENT WERE TO RUN CONCURRENTLY AND THE PAYMENT OF $10,000 WOULD
DISCHARGE ALL FINES.  LESSER CONCURRENT SENTENCES AND FINES WERE
IMPOSED ON THE OTHER DEFENDANTS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENTS.  ITS HOLDING
UNDERMINED THE ENTIRE PROSECUTION IN THAT IT FOUND THE INDICTMENT VOID
BECAUSE IT WAS RETURNED BY AN ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED GRAND JURY.  BUT IT
WENT BEYOND THAT MAJOR RULING.  IT FOUND THE FOUR SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS OF
THE INDICTMENT, IN SO FAR AS THEY CHARGED DEFENDANTS AS AIDERS AND
ABETTORS, FATALLY DEFECTIVE.  PROCEEDING TO THE MERITS, THE COURT HELD
THAT THE CASE PROPERLY WENT TO THE JURY AGAINST JOHNSON ON THE LAST
FOUR COUNTS AND THAT THE EVIDENCE SUSTAINED THE VERDICT AGAINST ALL THE
DEFENDANTS ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT, BUT THAT A VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DIRECTED FOR JOHNSON ON THE FIRST COUNT AND FOR THE OTHER DEFENDANTS ON
ALL BUT THE CONSPIRACY COUNT.  FINALLY, IT FOUND THAT THE TESTIMONY OF
AN EXPERT ACCOUNTANT FOR THE GOVERNMENT INVADED THE JURY'S PROVINCE AND
THAT ITS ADMISSION WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR.  123 F.2D 111.  JUDGE EVANS
DISSENTED ON ALL POINTS.  HE FOUND NO INFIRMITIES IN THE INDICTMENT OR
IN THE RULINGS BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, AND THOUGHT THAT THE CASE WAS
PROPERLY COMMITTED TO THE JURY.  ID., 128.  ON REHEARING, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS ADHERED TO ITS VIEWS, BUT WITHDREW AN ERRONEOUS PART
OF ITS GROUNDS FOR DEEMING ADMISSION OF THE EXPERT ACCOUNTANT'S
TESTIMONY TO BE PREJUDICIAL.  123 F.2D 142.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE
BECAUSE IT CONCERNS SERIOUS ASPECTS OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  315
U.S. 790. 

INASMUCH AS THE INITIATION OF PROSECUTION THROUGH GRAND JURIES FORMS
A VITAL FEATURE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THE LAW
GOVERNING ITS PROCEDURES AND THE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATIONS FOR
DETERMINING THE LEGALITY OF ITS ACTIONS ARE MATTERS OF FIRST
IMPORTANCE.  THEREFORE, IN DECIDING THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE HELD TO
ANSWER FOR AN INFAMOUS CRIME ON WHAT WAS MERELY A SCRAP OF PAPER AND
NOT "THE INDICTMENT OF THE GRAND JURY" AS REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, THE LOWER COURT WENT BEYOND THAT WHICH RELATES TO THE
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR CASE.  UNLIKE MOST OF THE OTHER
RULINGS BELOW, THE COURT HERE DEALT WITH A MATTER OF DEEP CONCERN TO
THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW.  AT THE ROOT OF THE COURT'S
DECISION IS ITS FINDING THAT AN ORDER EXTENDING THE LIFE OF THE GRAND
JURY WAS VOID, AND THAT THE INDICTMENT WAS THEREFORE RETURNED BY A BODY
NOT LAWFULLY EMPOWERED TO ACT.  A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
WHICH LED TO THE FILING OF THIS INDICTMENT IN OPEN COURT ON MARCH 29,
1940, IS THEREFORE ESSENTIAL. 

TERMS OF COURT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DIVISION OF THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ARE, BY STATUTE, FIXED FOR THE FIRST
MONDAY IN FEBRUARY, MARCH, APRIL, MAY, JUNE, JULY, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER,
AND NOVEMBER, AND ON THE THIRD MONDAY IN DECEMBER.  28 U.S.C. SEC.
152.  THIS GRAND JURY WAS IMPANELED AT THE DECEMBER 1939 TERM OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, AND WAS THEREFORE EMPOWERED TO SIT THROUGH JANUARY
1940.  BY AN ORDER, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH IS UNDISPUTED, ITS LIFE WAS
CONTINUED INTO THE FEBRUARY TERM.  AND ON FEBRUARY 28, 1940, THE
DISTRICT COURT AUTHORIZED A FURTHER CONTINUANCE OF THIS GRAND JURY
DURING THE MARCH 1940 TERM.  THIS IS THE ORDER WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE
CONTROVERSY, FOR UPON ITS LEGALITY DEPENDS THE VALIDITY OF THE
INDICTMENT THEREAFTER RETURNED BY THE GRAND JURY.  THE DISPUTED ORDER
READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOW COMES THE SECOND DECEMBER TERM 1939 GRAND JURY FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, BY DOROTHY W. BINDER,
FOREWOMAN, AND IN OPEN COURT REQUESTS THAT AN ORDER BE ENTERED
AUTHORIZING THEM, THE SAID SECOND DECEMBER, 1939 GRAND JURY, HERETOFORE
AUTHORIZED TO SIT DURING THE FEBRUARY 1940 TERM OF THIS COURT, TO
CONTINUE TO SIT DURING THE TERM OF COURT SUCCEEDING THE SAID FEBRUARY
TERM OF COURT, TO-WIT, THE MARCH 1940 TERM OF COURT, TO FINISH
INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED BY SAID GRAND JURY DURING THE
SAID DECEMBER 1939 AND THE SAID FEBRUARY 1940 TERMS OF THIS COURT, AND
WHICH SAID INVESTIGATIONS CANNOT BE FINISHED DURING THE SAID FEBRUARY
1940 TERM OF COURT; AND THE COURT BEING FULLY ADVISED IN THE PREMISES, 

"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT THE SECOND DECEMBER 1939 GRAND JURY,
NOW SITTING IN THIS DIVISION AND DISTRICT, BE, AND IT IS HEREBY
AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE TO SIT DURING THE MARCH 1940 TERM OF COURT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF FINISHING SAID INVESTIGATIONS." 

THE COURT BELOW CONSTRUED THIS ORDER AS AUTHORIZING THE GRAND JURY TO
SIT DURING MARCH TO ENABLE IT TO FINISH INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN IN
FEBRUARY, WHILE UNDER THE GOVERNING STATUTE, SEC. 284 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 421, IT COULD BE AUTHORIZED ONLY "TO FINISH
INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED BY SUCH GRAND JURY" DURING ITS
ORIGINAL TERM, I.E., THE DECEMBER 1939 TERM.  SO TO READ THE ORDER,
HOWEVER, IS TO DISSOCIATE LANGUAGE FROM ITS APPROPRIATE FUNCTION AND TO
DISREGARD THE HISTORIC ROLE OF THE GRAND JURY IN OUR FEDERAL JUDICIAL
SYSTEM.  SINCE THE LAW PERMITS A CONTINUANCE OF THE GRAND JURY "TO
FINISH INVESTIGATIONS" BEGUN DURING ITS ORIGINAL TERM, THE MOST
ELEMENTARY REQUIREMENT OF ATTRIBUTING LEGALITY TO JUDICIAL ACTION
SHOULD, UNLESS VIOLENCE IS DONE TO ENGLISH SPEECH, LEAD TO A READING OF
THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 28 SO AS TO RESTRICT THE GRAND JURY TO THAT WHICH
IT LEGALLY COULD DO INSTEAD OF TO AN EXPANSIVE READING MAKING FOR
ILLEGALITY. 

THE FOUNDATION FOR THE HOLDING THAT THE ORDER EXTENDING THE GRAND
JURY INTO THE MARCH TERM PURPORTED TO GIVE AUTHORITY IN DEFIANCE OF THE
STATUTE IS THE PHRASE IN THE ORDER RECITING THE GRAND JURY'S REQUEST
THAT IT BE AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE ITS SITTING DURING THE MARCH TERM "TO
FINISH INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED BY SAID GRAND JURY DURING
THE SAID DECEMBER 1939 AND THE SAID FEBRUARY 1940 TERMS OF THIS COURT,
AND WHICH SAID INVESTIGATIONS CANNOT BE FINISHED DURING THE SAID
FEBRUARY 1940 TERM OF COURT."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS READ THIS
TO MEAN THAT THE GRAND JURY REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE INTO THE MARCH TERM
TO FINISH INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN IN THE FEBRUARY AS WELL AS IN THE
ORIGINAL DECEMBER TERM.  BUT SURELY THE RECITAL "TO FINISH
INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED BY SAID GRAND JURY DURING THE
SAID DECEMBER 1939 AND THE SAID FEBRUARY 1940 TERMS," IS, AT THE WORST,
DUBIOUS AS TO WHAT WAS BEGUN AND WHAT WAS FINISHED.  JUDGE EVANS
RIGHTLY RESOLVED THE AMBIGUITY BY READING THE DISPUTED LANGUAGE "DURING
THE SAID DECEMBER 1939 AND THE SAID FEBRUARY 1940 TERMS" AS QUALIFYING
"FINISHED" RATHER THAN "BEGUN," AND THEREFORE MEANING THAT THE GRAND
JURY WAS UNABLE TO FINISH DURING THE DECEMBER AND FEBRUARY TERMS THAT
WHICH IT HAD BEGUN WHEN IT FIRST CAME INTO BEING IN THE DECEMBER TERM. 
SUCH A RENDERING MAKES GOOD ENGLISH AS WELL AS GOOD SENSE.  TO READ IT
AS THE COURT BELOW READ IT IS TO GO OUT OF ONE'S WAY IN FINDING THAT
THE JUDGE WHO GRANTED THE ORDER OF EXTENSION EITHER WILFULLY OR
IRRESPONSIBLY DID A LEGALLY FORBIDDEN ACT, NAMELY, TO ALLOW A GRAND
JURY TO SIT BEYOND THE TERM AND TAKE UP NEW INSTEAD OF FINISHING OLD
BUSINESS.  FOR THE LEGAL LIMITATIONS GOVERNING EXTENSION OF THE LIFE OF
A GRAND JURY DO NOT LIE IN A RECONDITE FIELD OF LAW IN WHICH A FEDERAL
DISTRICT JUDGE MAY EASILY SLIP.  CERTAINLY EVERY DISTRICT JUDGE IN A
GREAT METROPOLITAN CENTER LIKE CHICAGO KNOWS THAT IN AUTHORIZING A
GRAND JURY TO CONTINUE TO SIT "FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINISHING" THEIR
"INVESTIGATIONS," THE "INVESTIGATIONS" MUST HAVE BEEN BEGUN DURING THE
GRAND JURY'S ORIGINAL TERM AND THAT NEW DOMAINS OF INQUIRY MAY NOT
THEREAFTER BE ENTERED BY THE GRAND JURY. 

THE FAILURE OF THE COURT BELOW TO RECOGNIZE THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF
THE GRAND JURY IN OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS REVEALED BY ITS
SUBSIDIARY ARGUMENT IN REGARD TO THE FOURTH COUNT.  SINCE THAT CHARGES
AN ATTEMPTED EVASION OF JOHNSON'S TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1939, AND SINCE
SUCH AN ATTEMPT COULD NOT HAVE BECOME MANIFEST PRIOR TO THE FILING OF
HIS RETURN ON MARCH 15, 1940, THE COURT REASONED THAT THE
"INVESTIGATION" INTO THIS CHARGE NECESSARILY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BEGUN
PRIOR TO THE MARCH TERM AND THAT IT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED A "NEW"
INVESTIGATION.  SUCH A VIEW MISCONCEIVES THE DUTIES AND WORKINGS OF A
GRAND JURY.  IT IS INVESTED WITH BROAD INVESTIGATORIAL POWERS INTO WHAT
MAY BE FOUND TO BE OFFENSES AGAINST FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW.  ITS WORK IS
NOT CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF GUILT ONCE IT HAS MADE THE CHARGES THAT CULMINATE ITS
INQUIRIES.  A GRAND JURY THAT BEGINS THE INVESTIGATION OF WHAT MAY BE
FOUND TO BE OBSTRUCTIONS TO JUSTICE OR PASSPORT FRAUDS OR TAX EVASIONS
OPENS UP ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE PARTICULAR FIELD OF INQUIRY.  ITS
INVESTIGATION IN SUCH CASES MAY BE INTO A COURSE OF CONDUCT CONTINUING
DURING, AND PERHAPS EVEN AFTER, ITS INQUIRY.  AND CONGRESS CERTAINLY
DID NOT RESTRICT A GRAND JURY IN DEALING WITH ALL CRIMES DISCLOSED BY
ITS INVESTIGATION.  THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1931,
46 STAT. 1417, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 421, ALLOWING GRAND JURIES TO CONTINUE
INVESTIGATIONS BEYOND THE ARBITRARY PERIODS THAT CONSTITUTE TERMS OF
COURT IN THE VARIOUS FEDERAL DISTRICTS, WAS TO MAKE THE GRAND JURY A
MORE CONTINUOUS AND THEREFORE MORE COMPETENT INSTRUMENT OF WHAT HAVE
BECOME INCREASINGLY MORE COMPLICATED INQUIRIES INTO VIOLATIONS OF THE
ENLARGED DOMAIN OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW.  THAT CONGRESS DID NOT HAVE A
RESTRICTIVE VIEW OF THE "INVESTIGATIONS" WHICH A GRAND JURY WAS
AUTHORIZED TO PURSUE TO COMPLETION BEYOND ITS ORIGINAL TERM IS
EMPHASIZED BY THE ACT OF APRIL 17, 1940, 54 STAT. 110, AMENDING THE ACT
OF 1931, SUPRA. UNDER THE ORIGINAL ACT A GRAND JURY WAS NOT PERMITTED
TO SIT "DURING MORE THAN THREE TERMS."  BUT SINCE THE TERMS OF COURT
ARE OF VARYING DURATION, A FACT TO WHICH THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS WAS
DIRECTED BY THE EXPERIENCE PARTICULARLY IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK, CONGRESS EXTENDED THE POTENTIAL LIFE OF A GRAND JURY FROM "THREE
TERMS," WHICH IN SOME DISTRICTS MIGHT BE ONLY THREE MONTHS, TO
"EIGHTEEN MONTHS."  THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH INDUCED CONGRESS TO
ENLARGE STILL FURTHER THE ALREADY AMPLE SCOPE OF GRAND JURY
INVESTIGATIONS AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT SPOKE
OF A GRAND JURY'S WORK, SEE H. REP. NO. 1747, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., ARE
BUT CONFIRMATION THAT THAT FOR WHICH A GRAND JURY MAY CONTINUE ITS
SITTING IS THE GENERAL SUBJECT-MATTER ON WHICH IT ORIGINALLY BEGAN ITS
LABORS.  IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN TO INQUIRE INTO NEW MATTERS WITHIN THE
GENERAL SCOPE OF ITS INQUIRY BUT ONLY INTO A TRULY NEW, IN THE SENSE OF
DISSOCIATED, SUBJECTMATTER. 

ONE CAN HARDLY CONCEIVE OF A CLEARER CASE OF A CONTINUING
INVESTIGATION OF AN OLD SUBJECT-MATTER THAN THAT PRESENTED HERE.  THE
GRAND JURY IN DECEMBER 1939 BEGAN INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED TAX
EVASIONS BY JOHNSON.  IT WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE ITS SITTING DURING THE
FEBRUARY TERM, AND ITS AUTHORITY WAS FURTHER EXTENDED TO PERMIT IT TO
SIT DURING MARCH.  THE GRAND JURY FOUND A SYSTEMATIC PRACTICE OF TAX
EVASION OVER A COURSE OF YEARS, AND YET, SO WE ARE URGED, IT COULD NOT
CONTINUE TO FERRET OUT ONE MORE PHASE OF THIS CONTINUOUS COURSE OF
FRAUDULENT CONDUCT BECAUSE THAT DID NOT RIPEN INTO A SEPARATE OFFENSE
UNTIL THE LAST TERM OF THE GRAND JURY'S SITTING.  SO TO HOLD IS TO MAKE
OF THE GRAND JURY A PAWN IN A TECHNICAL GAME INSTEAD OF RESPECTING IT
AS A GREAT HISTORIC INSTRUMENT OF LAY INQUIRY INTO CRIMINAL
WRONGDOING.  SEE HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43, 65; BLAIR V. UNITED
STATES, 250 U.S. 273, 282; COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 323,
327.    BY WAY OF REINSURANCE OF ITS MAIN BASIS FOR INVALIDATING THE
INDICTMENT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RELIED ON A WHOLLY DIFFERENT
LINE OF ARGUMENT FROM THAT WHICH WE HAVE JUST REJECTED.  IT HELD THAT
THE PRELIMINARY MOTIONS, BY WHICH THE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO QUASH THE
INDICTMENT BECAUSE OF THE GRAND JURY'S ILLEGALITY, RAISED ISSUES OF
FACT.  IT THEREFORE FOUND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT, INSTEAD OF GRANTING
THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE PLEAS IN ABATEMENT, SHOULD HAVE
PUT THE GOVERNMENT TO ANSWER.  THE INDICTMENT ITSELF ALLEGED THAT THE
GRAND JURY "HAVING BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED DURING SAID DECEMBER TERM
...  AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTERS CHARGED IN THIS INDICTMENT, AND
HAVING CONTINUED TO SIT BY ORDER OF THIS COURT  ...  DURING THE
FEBRUARY AND MARCH TERMS  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINISHING
INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED DURING SAID DECEMBER TERM.  ..." 
THE COURT BELOW WAS APPARENTLY OF THE VIEW THAT A MERE DENIAL OF SUCH A
SOLEMN ALLEGATION BY THE GRAND JURY PUTS ITS TRUTH IN ISSUE, THAT THE
BURDEN IS UPON THE GOVERNMENT "TO SUPPORT IT WITH PROOF," AND THAT
FAILURE TO VINDICATE THE AUTHORITY OF THE GRAND JURY IS "FATAL." 
ASSUMING THAT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES A GRAND JURY'S ALLEGATION THAT
THE INDICTMENT WHICH IT RETURNS WAS THE OUTCOME OF AN INVESTIGATION
"BEGUN" DURING ITS ORIGINAL TERM AND WAS NOT A FORBIDDEN NEW
INVESTIGATION "BEGUN" DURING AN EXTENDED TERM, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 284 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 421, PRESENTED A
TRAVERSABLE ISSUE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD RAISE SUCH AN ISSUE
WOULD INDEED HAVE TO BE EXTRAORDINARY AND THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING IT
WOULD REST HEAVILY ON DEFENDANTS.  COMPARE ROCHE V. EVAPORATED MILK
ASSN., ANTE, P. 21. 

WERE THE RULING OF THE COURT BELOW ALLOWED TO STAND, THE MERE
CHALLENGE, IN EFFECT, OF THE REGULARITY OF A GRAND JURY'S PROCEEDINGS
WOULD CAST UPON THE GOVERNMENT THE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY OF PROVING SUCH
REGULARITY.  NOTHING COULD BE MORE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE WORKINGS OF OUR
GRAND JURY SYSTEM OR MORE HOSTILE TO ITS HISTORIC STATUS.  THAT
INSTITUTION, UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN MANY STATES, IS PART OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  TO ALLOW THE INTRUSION, IMPLIED BY THE
LOWER COURT'S ATTITUDE, INTO THE INDISPENSABLE SECRECY OF GRAND JURY
PROCEEDINGS - AS IMPORTANT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INNOCENT AS FOR
THE PURSUIT OF THE GUILTY - WOULD SUBVERT THE FUNCTIONS OF FEDERAL
GRAND JURIES BY ALL SORTS OF DEVICES WHICH SOME STATES HAVE SEEN FIT TO
PERMIT IN THEIR LOCAL PROCEDURE, SUCH AS READY RESORT TO INSPECTION OF
GRAND JURY MINUTES.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS QUITE WITHIN ITS RIGHT IN
STRIKING THE PRELIMINARY MOTIONS WHICH CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE
GRAND JURY THAT RETURNED THE INDICTMENT.  TO CONSTRUE THESE PLEADINGS
AS THE COURT BELOW DID WOULD BE TO RESUSCITATE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
NOTIONS OF INTERPRETING PLEADINGS AND TO DO SO IN AN AGGRAVATED FORM BY
APPLYING THEM TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW IN THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY.  PROTECTIONS OF SUBSTANCE WHICH NOW SAFEGUARD THE
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DO NOT REQUIRE THE INVENTION OF SUCH NEW
REFINEMENTS OF CRIMINAL PLEADING. 

ANOTHER RULING OF GENERAL IMPORTANCE IN THE LAW OF CRIMINAL PLEADING
WAS MADE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT WILL BE RECALLED THAT THE
FIRST FOUR COUNTS CHARGE JOHNSON WITH ATTEMPTS TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE,
AND THAT THE OTHER DEFENDANTS ARE IN THE SAME COUNTS CHARGED AS AIDERS
AND ABETTORS OF JOHNSON.  THE COURT BELOW RULED THAT A DEMURRER OF THE
DEFENDANTS OTHER THAN JOHNSON TO THOSE FOUR COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUSTAINED.  IT FOUND THAT THESE COUNTS WERE, AS TO THE CO-DEFENDANTS,
BOTH INCONSISTENT AND DUPLICITOUS.  THEY WERE DEEMED INCONSISTENT IN
THAT THE OFFENSES AGAINST JOHNSON WERE CHARGED AS OF MARCH 15TH OF EACH
YEAR, WHEREAS THE CO-DEFENDANTS "AS AIDERS AND ABETTORS ARE CHARGED
WITH AN OFFENSE WHICH EXTENDED OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS."  THEY WERE
DEEMED DUPLICITOUS IN THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS WERE IN EACH COUNT CHARGED
WITH CONDUCT THAT AIDED AND ABETTED JOHNSON BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER MARCH
15TH OF THE RELEVANT YEAR, AND WERE THEREFORE, IN THE COURT'S VIEW,
CHARGED IN THE SAME COUNT AS ACCESSORIES BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
FACT. 

WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO SAY THAT THE COURT WAS LED INTO ERROR BY A
MISREADING OF THE STATUTES WHICH UNDERLIE THESE COUNTS AND THE
ALLEGATIONS WHICH LAID THE OFFENSES.  THE BASIS OF EACH OF THE FOUR
COUNTS, WE HAVE NOTED, IS A PENAL SANCTION IN SUCCESSIVE REVENUE LAWS,
NOW GENERALIZED BY THE PROVISION IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 53 STAT.
63, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 145(B), WHICH MAKES IT A FELONY FOR ANY PERSON WHO,
BEING SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX, "WILLFULLY ATTEMPTS IN ANY MANNER TO
EVADE OR DEFEAT ANY TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER OR THE PAYMENT
THEREOF."  SECTION 332 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE (18 U.S.C. SEC. 550) MAKES
EVERY PERSON WHO "DIRECTLY COMMITS ANY ACT CONSTITUTING AN OFFENSE
DEFINED IN ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, OR AIDS, ABETS, COUNSELS,
COMMANDS, INDUCES, OR PROCURES ITS COMMISSION" A "PRINCIPAL."  THE VICE
OF THE LOWER COURT'S RULING IS ITS MISCONCEPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE DEFINED BY SEC. 145(B) WITH WHICH JOHNSON IS CHARGED, AS WELL
AS THAT OF THE RELATION OF AIDERS AND ABETTORS, MADE PRINCIPALS BY SEC.
332 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE TO SUCH AN OFFENSE.  IN SHORT, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS READ THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS AS THOUGH THEY CHARGED
JOHNSON MERELY WITH THE FILING OF FALSE RETURNS ON MARCH 15TH.  THAT
MAY ONLY BE A MISDEMEANOR UNDER SEC. 145(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE, BUT THAT IS NOT THE OFFENSE WITH WHICH JOHNSON WAS CHARGED.  HE
WAS CHARGED WITH A FELONY MADE SO BY SEC. 145(B), THE MUCH MORE
COMPREHENSIVE VIOLATION OF ATTEMPTING "IN ANY MANNER TO DEFEAT AND
EVADE" THE PAYMENT OF AN INCOME TAX.  THE FALSE RETURN FILED ON MARCH
15TH WAS ONLY ONE ASPECT OF WHAT WAS A PROCESS OF TAX EVASION.  AND ALL
WHO CONTRIBUTED CONSCIOUSLY TO FURTHERING THAT ILLICIT ENTERPRISE AIDED
AND ABETTED ITS COMMISSION AND THEREBY, UNDER SEC. 332 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, BECAME PRINCIPALS IN THE COMMON ENTERPRISE.  THEREFORE,
NONPARTICIPATION IN MERELY ONE PHASE OF JOHNSON'S ATTEMPTED EVASION,
NAMELY, THE FILING OF A FALSE RETURN ON MARCH 15TH, IS IN ITSELF
IRRELEVANT, AND IT IS EQUALLY IRRELEVANT THAT THE AID WHICH THE CO
DEFENDANTS GAVE JOHNSON CONTINUED AFTER MARCH 15TH AS WELL AS PRECEDED
IT.  THE CRIME OF EACH OF THE FIRST FOUR COUNTS IS THE WILFUL ATTEMPT
TO EVADE THE PAYMENT OF WHAT WAS DUE TO THE REVENUE.  ALL WHO
PARTICIPATED IN THAT ATTEMPT WERE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ILLICIT
ENTERPRISE.  THERE WAS ONLY ONE OFFENSE IN EACH COUNT, AND ALL WHO
SHARED IN ITS EXECUTION HAVE EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE THE LAW,
WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE DIFFERENT ROLES OF LEADERSHIP AND
SUBORDINATION AMONG THEMSELVES.  THERE IS NEITHER INCONSISTENCY NOR
DUPLICITY IN THESE FOUR COUNTS AND THE DEMURRERS TO THEM WERE PROPERLY
OVERRULED. 

THERE REMAIN ONLY QUESTIONS PERTINENT TO THIS CASE, AND MORE
PARTICULARLY WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WARRANTED LEAVING THE CASE TO THE
JURY.  THIS WAS A SIX WEEKS' TRIAL OF WHICH THE RECORD, EVEN IN THE
ABBREVIATED FORM USED ON APPEAL, RUNS OVER A THOUSAND PRINTED PAGES. 
WE HAVE PAINSTAKINGLY EXAMINED IT ALL, BUT IT WOULD BE UNPROFITABLE TO
GIVE MORE THAN THE BAREST OUTLINE OF WHAT WENT TO THE JURY.  THE
DETAILS SUFFICIENTLY APPEAR FROM THE TWO OPINIONS BELOW. 

JOHNSON WAS A GAMBLER ON A MAGNIFICENT SCALE.  THE INCOME WHICH HE
HIMSELF REPORTED FROM WINNINGS FOR ONE OF THE YEARS IN QUESTION
EXCEEDED A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS.  THE LOWEST ANNUAL INCOME SO
REPORTED FOR THE PERIOD IS MORE THAN $100,000.  HIS CO-DEFENDANTS WERE
PLAINLY SMALLER FRY IN CHICAGO'S GAMBLING WORLD.  THEIR REPORTED ANNUAL
GAMBLING INCOME DURING THE SAME PERIOD RANGED FROM $3,600 TO $19,000. 
CONCEDEDLY JOHNSON FREQUENTED SOME HALF-DOZEN GAMBLING HOUSES,
OSTENSIBLY SEPARATELY OWNED BY THE OTHERS FOUND GUILTY, EXCEPTING ONLY
BROWN WHO WAS THE NOMINAL OWNER OF A SO-CALLED CURRENCY EXCHANGE WHICH
FURNISHED PRIVATE BANKING FACILITIES FOR THESE GAMBLING HOUSES. 
INDISPUTABLY, ALSO, JOHNSON HAD A CONTINUOUS AND CLOSE RELATION TO
THESE GAMBLING HOUSES.  THE DECISIVE ISSUE OF FACT WAS WHETHER
JOHNSON'S RELATION TO THESE RESORTS WAS THAT OF A PATRON OR OF A
PROPRIETOR.  THE TESTIMONY BOTH FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR THE
DEFENDANTS FOCUSSED ON THAT QUESTION.  DURING THE COURSE OF HIS
EXTENSIVE TESTIMONY, JOHNSON HIMSELF PUT SIMPLY AND COMPLETELY THE ONLY
REAL PROBLEM BEFORE THE JURY WHEN HE SWORE THAT HE "NEVER HAD ANY
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ANY GAMBLING CLUB OPERATED BY ANY OF THE
DEFENDANTS." 

THE JURY DECIDED THIS CENTRAL ISSUE AGAINST JOHNSON.  AND THE
ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE ON WHICH A JURY WAS
ENTITLED TO MAKE SUCH A FINDING DOES NOT CALL FOR EXTENDED DISCUSSION. 
IN MAKING THIS ULTIMATE FINDING THE JURY MUST HAVE FOUND THAT THE
STRING OF GAMBLING HOUSES WITH WHICH JOHNSON WAS ASSOCIATED OVER A
PERIOD OF YEARS, WHILE OSTENSIBLY CONDUCTED AS SEPARATE ENTERPRISES BY
HIS CO-DEFENDANTS IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP, WAS IN FACT A SINGLE UNIFIED
GAMBLING ENTERPRISE.  A VOLUMINOUS BODY OF LURID AND TEDIOUS TESTIMONY,
OFTEN THROUGH OBVIOUSLY UNWILLING WITNESSES, AMPLY JUSTIFIED THE JURY
IN FINDING THAT THESE PRETENDED SEPARATE HOUSES WERE UNDER A SINGLE
DOMINATION.  THE TESTIMONY ALSO AMPLY JUSTIFIED THE CONCLUSION THAT
JOHNSON OWNED A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THIS NETWORK OF GAMBLING HOUSES
AND WAS NOT MERELY A PATRON OR AN OCCASIONAL ACCOMMODATING DEALER WHEN
OTHER PATRONS DESIRED TO PLAY FOR STAKES BEYOND THE CONVENTIONAL
LIMIT.  HAVING BEEN JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
WERE SCREENS BEHIND WHICH JOHNSON OPERATED, THE JURY WAS ALSO JUSTIFIED
IN FINDING THAT THERE WERE WINNINGS FROM THESE HOUSES ON WHICH JOHNSON
ATTEMPTED TO EVADE INCOME TAX PAYMENTS.  EVEN SUCH RECORDS AS WERE KEPT
IN THESE HOUSES WERE DESTROYED.  BUT THAT THESE GAMBLING TRANSACTIONS
WERE ON AN ENORMOUS SCALE WAS OVERWHELMINGLY ESTABLISHED.  IT IS NOT TO
BE EXPECTED THAT THE ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF SUCH A VAST
ILLICIT BUSINESS WOULD APPEAR BY DIRECT PROOF.  COMPARE UNITED STATES
V. WEXLER, 79 F.2D 526.  THE LONG DURATION OF THIS GAMBLING BUSINESS,
THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE OPERATION OF THE LAW OF PROBABILITY IN
FAVOR OF THE HOUSES, SUCH RECORDS AS THERE WERE PERTAINING TO THE
PRIVATE BANKING FACILITIES AND CURRENCY EXCHANGES WHICH WERE AT THE
SERVICE OF THESE HOUSES, MADE IT NOT A MATTER OF TENUOUS SPECULATION
BUT OF SOLID PROOF THAT THERE WERE WINNINGS OF A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT
WHICH JOHNSON DID NOT REPORT. 

THAT HE HAD LARGE, UNREPORTED INCOME WAS REINFORCED BY PROOF WHICH
WARRANTED THE JURY IN FINDING THAT CERTAINLY FOR THE YEARS 1937, 1938,
AND 1939, THE PRIVATE EXPENDITURES OF JOHNSON EXCEEDED HIS AVAILABLE
DECLARED RESOURCES.  IT IS ON THIS LATTER GROUND - NAMELY, THAT
PRESUMABLY JOHNSON'S EXPENDITURES JUSTIFIED THE FINDING THAT HE HAD
SOME UNREPORTED INCOME WHICH WAS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIS EARNINGS
FROM THE GAMBLING HOUSES - THAT THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT THE
EVIDENCE ON THREE OF THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS, THOSE FOR 1937, 1938, AND
1939, WAS SUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE JURY.  THAT IS ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THE
JUDGMENT AGAINST JOHNSON, FOR THE SENTENCES ON ALL THE COUNTS WERE
IMPOSED TO RUN CONCURRENTLY. 

OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE THE EXACT AMOUNTS OF
UNREPORTED INCOME BY JOHNSON.  TO REQUIRE MORE OR MORE METICULOUS PROOF
THAN THIS RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THERE WERE UNREPORTED PROFITS FROM AN
ELABORATELY CONCEALED ILLEGAL BUSINESS, WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO HOLDING
THAT SKILFUL CONCEALMENT IS AN INVINCIBLE BARRIER TO PROOF.  "...  THE
PROBATIVE SUFFICIENCY OF THE TESTIMONY HAS THE SUPPORT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT (IN WHICH IS INCLUDED THE VERDICT OF THE JURY) AND OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  IT WOULD TAKE SOMETHING MORE THAN INGENIOUS
CRITICISM TO BRING EVEN INTO QUESTION THAT CONCURRENCE OR TO DETRACT
FROM ITS ASSURING STRENGTH - SOMETHING MORE THAN THIS RECORD
PRESENTS."  DELANEY V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 586, 589-90.  AND THIS
CONSIDERATION - THE CONCURRENCE OF BOTH COURTS BELOW IN THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE JURY'S VERDICT - RENDERS UNNECESSARY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE
VERDICT AGAINST ALL THE DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING BROWN, ON THE CONSPIRACY
COUNT.  FOR WHILE BROWN WAS ALSO CONVICTED ON TWO SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS,
THE CONSPIRACY CHARGE IS SUFFICIENT TO ABSORB HIS SENTENCE. 

NOT MANY WORDS ARE NEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE QUESTION OF THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUBMISSION TO THE JURY OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS AGAINST THE OTHER AIDERS AND ABETTORS, SOMMERS,
HARTIGAN, FLANAGAN, AND KELLY.  IN HOLDING THAT THE MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICTS ON THE COUNTS CHARGING AIDING AND ABETTING SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GRANTED, THE COURT BELOW WAS LARGELY MISLED BY ITS ERRONEOUS
CONCEPTION, WITH WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT, OF THE CRIME OF AIDING
AND ABETTING IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  IN OTHER WORDS, AS A
MATTER OF EVIDENCE AS WELL AS A MATTER OF PLEADING, THE COURT WAS
DOMINATED BY THE NOTION THAT THE CO-DEFENDANTS DID NOT AID AND ABET
JOHNSON IF THEY ACTUALLY DID NOT SHARE IN THE MAKING OF HIS FALSE
RETURN ON EACH MARCH 15TH.  THE NUB OF THE MATTER IS THAT THEY AIDED
AND ABETTED IF THEY CONSCIOUSLY WERE PARTIES TO THE CONCEALMENT OF HIS
INTEREST IN THESE GAMBLING CLUBS OF WHICH THEY THEMSELVES PRETENDED TO
BE PROPRIETORS.  EVIDENCE OF CONDUCT, ACTS AND ADMISSIONS, AMPLY
WARRANTED THE TRIAL COURT TO SEND THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS AGAINST THE
AIDERS AND ABETTORS TO THE JURY. 

A RULING ON EVIDENCE, MUCH PRESSED UPON US, MUST FINALLY BE NOTICED. 
THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THE ADMISSION OF THE TESTIMONY OF AN EXPERT
WITNESS REGARDING JOHNSON'S INCOME AND EXPENDITURES DURING THE DISPUTED
PERIOD INVADED THE JURY'S PROVINCE.  THE WITNESS GAVE COMPUTATIONS
BASED ON SUBSTANTIALLY THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AS TO
JOHNSON'S INCOME.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT WHILE
UNDOUBTEDLY "A PROPER HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION COULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED AND
PROPOUNDED," IN FACT THE WITNESS WAS NOT GIVING ANSWERS ON THE BASIS OF
ANY ASSUMPTION OR HYPOTHESIS BUT AS TESTIMONY ON THE "CONTROVERTED
ISSUE" IN THE CASE.  123 F.2D AT 128.  WE DO NOT SO READ THE MEANING OF
THIS TESTIMONY.  NO ISSUE WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE JURY.  THE CORRECTNESS
OR CREDIBILITY OF NO MATERIALS UNDERLYING THE EXPERT'S ANSWERS WAS EVEN
REMOTELY FORECLOSED BY THE EXPERT'S TESTIMONY OR WITHDRAWN FROM PROPER
INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION BY THE JURY.  THE JUDGE'S CHARGE WAS SO CLEAR
AND CORRECT THAT NO OBJECTION WAS MADE, THOUGH, OF COURSE, THERE WERE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE REFUSAL TO GRANT THE USUAL REQUESTS FOR CHARGES THAT
WERE EITHER REDUNDANT OR UNDULY PARTICULARIZED ITEMS OF TESTIMONY.  THE
WORTH OF OUR JURY SYSTEM IS CONSTANTLY AND PROPERLY EXTOLLED, BUT AN
ARGUMENT SUCH AS THAT WHICH WE ARE REJECTING TACITLY ASSUMES THAT
JURIES ARE TOO STUPID TO SEE THE DRIFT OF EVIDENCE.  THE JURY IN THIS
CASE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN MISLED INTO THE NOTION THAT THEY MUST
ACCEPT THE CALCULATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT EXPERT ANY MORE THAN THAT
THEY WERE BOUND BY THE CALCULATIONS MADE BY THE DEFENSE'S EXPERT BASED
ON THE DEFENDANTS' ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CASE.  SO LONG AS PROPER GUIDANCE
BY A TRIAL COURT LEAVES THE JURY FREE TO EXERCISE ITS UNTRAMMELED
JUDGMENT UPON THE WORTH AND WEIGHT OF TESTIMONY, AND NOTHING IS DONE TO
IMPAIR ITS FREEDOM TO BRING IN ITS VERDICT AND NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S WE
OUGHT NOT BE TOO FINICKY OR FEARFUL IN ALLOWING SOME DISCRETION TO
TRIAL JUDGES IN THE CONDUCT OF A TRIAL AND IN THE APPROPRIATE
SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE WITHIN THE GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF FAMILIAR
EXCLUSIONARY RULES. 

THE DECISION BELOW MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR PROPER DISPOSITION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS OPINION.  FN1  REVERSED. 

FN1  AFTER THE CASE CAME HERE, THE GOVERNMENT ASKED THAT THE PETITION
AS TO FLANAGAN, WHO HAD DIED, BE DISMISSED.  ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS
THE WRIT AS TO FLANAGAN AND LEAVE THE DISPOSITION OF THE FINE THAT WAS
IMPOSED ON HIM TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
POMEROY, 152 F. 279, REVERSED IN 164 F. 324. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THAT PORTION OF THE OPINION WHICH
DEALS WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE INDICTMENT.  HE IS OF OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE, IN
THE CASE OF JOHNSON, SUBSTANTIAL TRIAL ERRORS IN THE ADMISSION OF
EVIDENCE OPERATED TO HIS PREJUDICE, AND, IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER
DEFENDANTS, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER TO PROVE THAT THEY
AIDED OR ABETTED JOHNSON IN ANY EFFORT TO COMMIT A FRAUD UPON THE
REVENUE AND NONE TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE PARTIES TO A CONSPIRACY WITH
HIM HAVING THE SAME OBJECT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. BELT, 319 U.S. 521 


NO. 919.  DECIDED JUNE 7, 1943.  - 47 F.SUPP.  239, VACATED AND
REMANDED. 


THIS COURT FROM FINAL DECREES OF THE "SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA," WAS REPEALED BY SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925.  P. 522. 

UNITED STATES V. BELT ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE
UNITED STATES TO QUIET TITLE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS
BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ACT OF APRIL 27, 1912, C. 96, 37
STAT. 93, TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE CLEAR ITS TITLE TO CERTAIN PARCELS OF
LAND ADJACENT TO THE ANACOSTIA RIVER.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS, AND THE UNITED STATES SEEKS A DIRECT
APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER SEC. 5 OF THAT ACT, WHICH PROVIDES:  "THAT
FROM THE FINAL DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
...  AN APPEAL SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE UNITED STATES, AND TO ANY OTHER
PARTY IN THE CAUSE COMPLAINING OF SUCH DECREE, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES.  ...  " 

13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345, PERMITS DIRECT REVIEW
BY THIS COURT OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IN ONLY FIVE
SPECIFIED CATEGORIES, "AND NOT OTHERWISE."  THE CASE AT BAR IS WITHIN
NEITHER THOSE CATEGORIES NOR THAT RECOGNIZED BY EX PARTE KAWATO, 317
U.S. 69, AND EX PARTE PERU, 318 U.S. 578, VIZ., THE USE OF AUXILIARY
WRITS IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES IN AID OF THIS COURT'S APPELLATE
JURISDICTION.  THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO REMOVE THIS CASE FROM THE
RESTRICTIONS OF THE ACT OF 1925 ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED
TO AFFECT SUCH SPECIAL INSTANCES OF DIRECT REVIEW AS THAT AFFORDED BY
THE ACT OF APRIL 27, 1912.  BUT WE CANNOT READ SUCH AN EXCEPTION INTO
THE 1925 ACT. 

NOR IS THE CONTRARY RESULT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS KNOWN AS THE "SUPREME COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" WHEN THE ACT OF 1925 BECAME LAW.  AT THAT TIME
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POSSESSED THE
JURISDICTION OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, SEE CODE OF LAW
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1924) SECS. 61, 62, 84, AND IT WAS
TREATED AS A "DISTRICT COURT" FOR PURPOSES OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS, SEE
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. KLESNER, 274 U.S. 145, 153-54, AND SWIFT & CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 311, 324-25.  CONSIDERATIONS NO LESS
CONTROLLING EXIST FOR TREATING IT AS A "DISTRICT COURT" WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF SEC. 238.  THE DOMINATING POLICY OF THE ACT OF 1925 WAS TO
RESTRICT DIRECT REVIEW TO THIS COURT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, AND MORE
PARTICULARLY TO SHUT OFF SUCH DIRECT REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS OF FEDERAL
NISI PRIUS COURTS.  IT WOULD BE WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THAT ACT TO
EXCLUDE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM THE SCOPE
OF ITS PROVISIONS MERELY BECAUSE THAT COURT DID NOT BECOME A DISTRICT
COURT IN NAME UNTIL THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1936, C. 804, 49 STAT. 1921. 
CF. H.R. REP. NO. 1075, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 6-7. 

WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR DIRECT REVIEW TO THIS
COURT CONTAINED IN SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 27, 1912, WERE REPEALED
BY SEC. 13 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, BECAUSE THEY WERE
"INCONSISTENT THEREWITH."  THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM IS VACATED AND
THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT SO THAT IT MAY ENTER A NEW
JUDGMENT FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY, IF IT WISHES, PERFECT A
TIMELY APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
CF. PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 254.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DISSENT. 
..END :






















VIRGINIAN HOTEL CO. V. HELVERING, 319 U.S. 523 


NO. 766.  ARGUED MAY 12, 13, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1943.  - 132 F.2D
909, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE BASIS ON WHICH
DEPRECIATION SHALL BE "ALLOWED" AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING NET INCOME
IS THE COST OF THE PROPERTY WITH PROPER ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEPRECIATION TO
THE EXTENT "ALLOWED (BUT NOT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE)" UNDER
THAT AND PRIOR INCOME TAX LAWS, EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS CLAIMED BY THE
TAXPAYER FOR DEPRECIATION IN HIS RETURNS FOR EARLIER YEARS WERE
PROPERLY DEDUCTED FROM COST IN READJUSTING THE DEPRECIATION BASIS OF
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, ALTHOUGH IN THOSE YEARS NO TAX BENEFIT
RESULTED TO THE TAXPAYER FROM THE USE OF DEPRECIATION AS A DEDUCTION. 
P. 526. 

VIRGINIAN HOTEL CORPORATION V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 754, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A RULING OF THE
TAX COURT AGAINST A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE STIPULATED.  PETITIONER OPERATES AN
HOTEL.  FROM 1927 THROUGH 1937 PETITIONER (OR ITS PREDECESSOR) REPORTED
IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURNS DEPRECIATION ON CERTAIN OF ITS ASSETS ON A
STRAIGHT-LINE BASIS.  FN1  NO OBJECTION WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER
OR HIS AGENTS TO THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED AND DEDUCTED.  IN 1938 PETITIONER
CLAIMED A DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE SAME RATES.  THE
COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THE USEFUL LIFE OF THE EQUIPMENT WAS
LONGER THAN PETITIONER CLAIMED AND THAT THEREFORE LOWER DEPRECIATION
RATES SHOULD BE USED.  FN2  ACCORDINGLY A DEFICIENCY WAS COMPUTED.  THE
DEPRECIATION THERETOFORE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIONS WAS SUBTRACTED FROM THE
COST OF THE PROPERTY.  THE REMAINDER WAS TAKEN AS THE NEW BASIS FOR
COMPUTING DEPRECIATION.  A LESSER DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION
ACCORDINGLY WAS ALLOWED.  FN3  THERE HAD BEEN A NET GAIN FOR SOME OF
THE YEARS IN QUESTION.  FOR THE YEARS 1931 TO 1936 INCLUSIVE THERE WAS
A NET LOSS AND, SAYS THE STIPULATION, "THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF
DEPRECIATION DEDUCTED ON THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THOSE YEARS DID NOT
SERVE TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME."  PETITIONER DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE
NEW RATES.  IT CONTENDS THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED FOR THE
YEARS 1931 TO 1936 INCLUSIVE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT PROPERLY ALLOWABLE
SHOULD NOT BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE DEPRECIATION BASIS, SINCE IT DID NOT
SERVE TO REDUCE TAXABLE INCOME IN THOSE YEARS.  THE TAX COURT, IN
RELIANCE ON AN EARLIER RULING,  FN4  HELD FOR THE PETITIONER.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  132 F.2D 909.  THE CASE IS HERE ON
A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND PITTSBURGH BREWING CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 107 F.2D 155, DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION IS ONE OF SEVERAL ITEMS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS DECLARED SHALL BE "ALLOWED" AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING
NET INCOME.  INT. REV. CODE SEC. 23(1).  THE BASIS UPON WHICH
DEPRECIATION IS TO BE "ALLOWED" IS THE COST OF THE PROPERTY WITH PROPER
ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEPRECIATION "TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED (BUT NOT LESS THAN
THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE) UNDER THIS ACT OR PRIOR INCOME TAX LAWS."  FN5
THAT PROVISION MAKES PLAIN THAT THE DEPRECIATION BASIS IS REDUCED BY
THE AMOUNT "ALLOWABLE" EACH YEAR WHETHER OR NOT IT IS CLAIMED. 
FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 47 F.2D 36.  MOREOVER
THE BASIS MUST BE REDUCED BY THAT AMOUNT EVEN THOUGH NO TAX BENEFIT
RESULTS FROM THE USE OF DEPRECIATION AS A DEDUCTION.  WEAR AND TEAR DO
NOT WAIT ON NET INCOME.  NOR CAN DEPRECIATION BE ACCUMULATED AND HELD
FOR USE IN THAT YEAR IN WHICH IT WILL BRING THE TAXPAYER THE MOST TAX
BENEFIT.  CONGRESS HAS ELECTED TO MAKE THE YEAR THE UNIT OF TAXATION. 
BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS CO., 282 U.S. 359.  THUS THE AMOUNT
"ALLOWABLE" MUST BE TAKEN EACH YEAR.  UNITED STATES V. LUDEY, 274 U.S.
295, 304. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT "ALLOWED," UNLIKE "ALLOWABLE," CONNOTES THE
RECEIPT OF A TAX BENEFIT.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THOUGH DEPRECIATION IN
EXCESS OF AN "ALLOWABLE" AMOUNT IS CLAIMED BY THE TAXPAYER AND NOT
DISALLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER, IT IS NEVERTHELESS NOT "ALLOWED" IF THE
DEDUCTIONS OTHER THAN DEPRECIATION ARE SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE A LOSS FOR
THE YEAR IN QUESTION.  "ALLOWED" IN THIS SETTING PLAINLY HAS THE EFFECT
OF REQUIRING A REDUCTION OF THE DEPRECIATION BASIS BY AN AMOUNT WHICH
IS IN EXCESS OF DEPRECIATION PROPERLY DEDUCTIBLE.  WE DO NOT AGREE,
HOWEVER, WITH THE CONTENTION THAT SUCH A REDUCTION MUST BE MADE ONLY TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION HAS RESULTED IN A TAX
BENEFIT.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE BASIS SHOULD BE ADJUSTED FOR
DEPRECIATION "TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED (BUT NOT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT
ALLOWABLE)" FIRST APPEARED IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  47 STAT. 169,
201.  PRIOR TO THAT TIME THE ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED WAS FOR THE AMOUNT OF
DEPRECIATION "ALLOWABLE."  FN6  THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IN 1932
WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT TAXPAYERS WHO HAD MADE EXCESSIVE DEDUCTIONS IN
ONE YEAR COULD NOT REDUCE THE DEPRECIATION BASIS BY THE LESSER AMOUNT
OF DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS "ALLOWABLE."  IF THEY COULD, THEN THE
GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE BARRED FROM COLLECTING ADDITIONAL TAXES WHICH WOULD
HAVE BEEN PAYABLE HAD THE LOWER RATE BEEN USED ORIGINALLY.  FN7  BUT WE
FIND NO SUGGESTION THAT "ALLOWED," AS DISTINGUISHED FROM "ALLOWABLE,"
DEPRECIATION IS CONFINED TO THOSE DEDUCTIONS WHICH RESULT IN TAX
BENEFITS.  "ALLOWED" CONNOTES A GRANT.  UNDER OUR FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM
THERE IS NO MACHINERY FOR FORMAL ALLOWANCES OF DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS
INCOME.  DEDUCTIONS STAND IF THE COMMISSIONER TAKES NO STEPS TO
CHALLENGE THEM.  INCOME TAX RETURNS ENTAIL NUMEROUS DEDUCTIONS.  IF THE
DEDUCTIONS ARE NOT CHALLENGED, THEY CERTAINLY ARE "ALLOWED," SINCE TAX
LIABILITY IS THEN DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURNS.  APART FROM
CONTESTED CASES, THAT IS INDEED THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH DEDUCTIONS ARE
"ALLOWED."  AND WHEN ALL DEDUCTIONS ARE TREATED ALIKE BY THE TAXPAYER
AND BY THE COMMISSIONER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY SOME ITEMS MAY BE
SAID TO BE "ALLOWED" AND OTHERS NOT "ALLOWED."  FN8  IT WOULD TAKE
CLEAR AND COMPELLING INDICATIONS FOR US TO CONCLUDE THAT "ALLOWED" AS
USED IN SEC. 113(B)(1)(B) MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN IT DOES IN THE
GENERAL SETTING OF THE REVENUE ACTS.  SEE HELVERING V. STATE-PLANTERS
BANK & TRUST CO., 130 F.2D 44. 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR DEDUCTIONS OF ANNUAL AMOUNTS OF
DEPRECIATION WHICH, ALONG WITH SALVAGE VALUE, WILL REPLACE THE ORIGINAL
INVESTMENT OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF ITS RETIREMENT.  UNITED
STATES V. LUDEY, SUPRA; DETROIT EDISON CO. V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P.
98.  THE RULE WHICH HAS BEEN FASHIONED BY THE COURT BELOW DEPRIVES THE
TAXPAYER OF NO PORTION OF THAT DEDUCTION.  UNDER THAT RULE, TAXPAYERS
OFTEN WILL NOT RECOVER THEIR INVESTMENT TAX-FREE.  BUT CONGRESS HAS
MADE NO SUCH GUARANTEE.  NOR HAS CONGRESS INDICATED THAT A TAXPAYER WHO
HAS OBTAINED NO TAX ADVANTAGE FROM A DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION SHOULD BE
ALLOWED TO TAKE IT A SECOND TIME.  THE POLICY WHICH DOES NOT PERMIT THE
SECOND DEDUCTION IN CASE OF "ALLOWABLE" DEPRECIATION (BECKRIDGE CORP.
V. COMMISSIONER, 129 F.2D 318) IS EQUALLY COGENT AS RESPECTS
DEPRECIATION WHICH IS "ALLOWED."  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  15% ON CARPETS AND 10% ON ALL OTHER EQUIPMENT.  AT THOSE RATES
THE PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY DEPRECIATED IN 6 2/3 AND 10 YEARS
RESPECTIVELY. 

FN2  8% ON CARPETS AND 5% ON THE OTHER EQUIPMENT, THE ESTIMATED LIFE
BEING 12 1/2 YEARS AND 20 YEARS RESPECTIVELY. 

FN3  $1,295.47 FOR 1938 AS COMPARED WITH $4,341.97 WHICH WAS
CLAIMED.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED IN THE LOSS
YEARS AND THE DEPRECIATION PROPERLY ALLOWABLE IN SUCH YEARS IS
$31,400.25. 

FN4  KENNEDY LAUNDRY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 46 B.T.A. 70, WHICH
FOLLOWED PITTSBURGH BREWING CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 107 F.2D 155.  PRIOR
TO THE KENNEDY LAUNDRY CO. CASE AND PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN PITTSBURGH
BREWING CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 37 B.T.A. 439, WAS OVERRULED, THE TAX
COURT TOOK A CONTRARY VIEW.  ITS DECISION IN THE KENNEDY LAUNDRY CO.
CASE WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  133 F.2D 660. 

FN5  SEC. 113(B)(1)(B), WHICH IS MADE APPLICABLE BY REASON OF SEC.
23(N), SEC. 114, AND SEC. 113(A). 

FN6  FOR A SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, SEE 40 COL. L. REV.
540. 

FN7  S. REP. NO. 665, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 29:  "THE TREASURY HAS
FREQUENTLY ENCOUNTERED CASES WHERE A TAXPAYER, WHO HAS TAKEN AND BEEN
ALLOWED DEPRECIATION DEDUCTIONS AT A CERTAIN RATE CONSISTENTLY OVER A
PERIOD OF YEARS, LATER FINDS IT TO HIS ADVANTAGE TO CLAIM THAT THE
ALLOWANCES SO MADE TO HIM WERE EXCESSIVE AND THAT THE AMOUNTS WHICH
WERE IN FACT 'ALLOWABLE' WERE MUCH LESS.  BY THIS TIME THE GOVERNMENT
MAY BE BARRED FROM COLLECTING THE ADDITIONAL TAXES WHICH WOULD BE DUE
FOR THE PRIOR YEARS UPON THE STRENGTH OF THE TAXPAYER'S PRESENT
CONTENTIONS.  THE TREASURY IS OBLIGED TO RELY VERY LARGELY UPON THE
GOOD FAITH AND JUDGMENT OF THE TAXPAYER IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE
ALLOWANCES FOR DEPRECIATION, SINCE THESE ARE PRIMARILY MATTERS OF
JUDGMENT AND ARE GOVERNED BY FACTS PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF
THE TAXPAYER, AND THE TREASURY SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR HAVING
APPROVED THE TAXPAYER'S DEDUCTIONS.  WHILE THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT
REGARD THE EXISTING LAW AS COUNTENANCING ANY SUCH INEQUITABLE RESULTS,
IT BELIEVES THE NEW BILL SHOULD SPECIFICALLY PRECLUDE ANY SUCH
POSSIBILITY." 

FN8  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE STIPULATION OF FACTS STATES THAT "THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION DEDUCTED ON THE INCOME TAX RETURNS" FOR
THE YEARS IN QUESTION "DID NOT SERVE TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME." 
THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN TO MEAN THAT NO PART OF THE DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION
RESULTED IN TAX BENEFITS.  WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE HOW THAT COULD BE
TRUE WHEN THE DEPRECIATION DEDUCTED ON EACH RETURN FROM 1931 THROUGH
1936 WAS LARGER THAN THE NET LOSS FOR EACH OF THOSE YEARS.  IF THE
STIPULATION WERE NOT ACCEPTED, ONE OTHER PROBLEM WOULD BE PRESENTED. 
THAT IS THE THEORY THAT WHEN THERE IS A LOSS, DEPRECIATION MAY BE
SINGLED OUT AS NOT OFFSETTING GROSS INCOME, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ONLY ONE
OF SEVERAL DEDUCTIONS WHICH IS CLAIMED.  SEE KENNEDY LAUNDRY CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 46 B.T.A. 70, 75, JUDGE DISNEY DISSENTING.  IN VIEW OF
THE STIPULATION, WE DO NOT REACH THAT QUESTION.  CF. BUTLER BROS. V.
MCCOLGAN, 315 U.S. 501, 508-509. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE 1938 REVENUE ACT DOES NOT SPEAK OF A "TAX
BENEFIT" TO THE TAXPAYER.  SECTION 23 SPEAKS ONLY OF DEDUCTIONS FROM
GROSS INCOME WHICH "SHALL BE ALLOWED" IN COMPUTING NET INCOME, AMONG
WHICH IT INCLUDES, SEC. 23(1), "A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR THE
EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR OF PROPERTY USED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS."  AND
BY SEC. 113(B)(1)(B) THE BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY IS ITS COST
ADJUSTED BY DEPRECIATION "TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED (BUT NOT LESS THAN THE
AMOUNT ALLOWABLE)."  IT IS EQUALLY TRUE AND OBVIOUS, AND OF SOME
IMPORTANCE TO THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE, THAT ANY
DEPRECIATION IN EXCESS OF THE REASONABLE ALLOWANCE AUTHORIZED CAN,
UNDER THE STATUTE, RESULT IN NO TAX ADVANTAGE TO THE TAXPAYER AND IN NO
TAX PREJUDICE TO THE GOVERNMENT, UNLESS THE EXCESS HAS IN FACT BEEN
DEDUCTED FROM THE TAXPAYER'S GROSS INCOME. 

I CAN FIND NO WARRANT IN THE PURPOSE OR THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, OR
IN THE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING, FOR OUR SAYING THAT THE TAXPAYER IS
REQUIRED TO REDUCE HIS DEPRECIATION BASE BY ANY AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE
DEPRECIATION "ALLOWABLE," WHICH EXCESS HE NEVER HAS IN FACT DEDUCTED
FROM GROSS INCOME.  WHATEVER ELSE THE STATUTORY REFERENCE TO
DEPRECIATION "ALLOWED" MAY MEAN, IT OBVIOUSLY CANNOT AND OUGHT NOT TO
BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT A DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION WHICH HAS NEVER
IN FACT BEEN SUBTRACTED FROM GROSS INCOME IS A DEDUCTION "ALLOWED." 

AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY SUCH SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE ITS MEANING. 
THE ONLY FUNCTION OF DEPRECIATION IN THE INCOME TAX LAWS IS THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AMOUNT, WHICH MAY BE DEDUCTED ANNUALLY FROM GROSS
INCOME, SUFFICIENT IN THE AGGREGATE TO RESTORE A WASTING CAPITAL ASSET
AT THE END OF ITS ESTIMATED LIFE.  THE SCHEME OF THE 1938 REVENUE ACT
IS TO PRESCRIBE THE PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION, AND TO
PRECLUDE THE TAXPAYER FROM GAINING ANY UNWARRANTED ADVANTAGE BY THE
AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF THOSE DEDUCTIONS.  THE ACT ACCOMPLISHES THE
LATTER BY COMPELLING THE TAXPAYER TO REDUCE HIS DEPRECIATION BASE BY
THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWABLE ANNUAL DEPRECIATION, WHETHER DEDUCTED FROM
GROSS INCOME OR NOT, AND BY SUCH FURTHER AMOUNT AS HE HAS IN FACT
DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME.  NO REASON IS SUGGESTED WHY THE TAXPAYER'S
TAX FOR FUTURE YEARS SHOULD BE INCREASED BY REDUCING HIS DEPRECIATION
BASE BY ANY AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE DEPRECIATION "ALLOWABLE," UNLESS
THE EXCESS HAS AT SOME TIME AND IN SOME MANNER BEEN DEDUCTED FROM GROSS
INCOME.  SO INEQUITABLE A RESULT CANNOT RIGHTLY BE ACHIEVED BY SAYING
THAT A "DEDUCTION" FOR DEPRECIATION WHICH NEVER HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM
GROSS INCOME HAS NEVERTHELESS BEEN "ALLOWED." 

WHAT I HAVE SAID DOES NOT IMPLY THAT A TAXPAYER, WHO HAS DEDUCTED
EXCESSIVE DEPRECIATION FROM HIS GROSS INCOME IN ANY YEAR, IS NOT
SUBJECT TO A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT AS THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBE; OR THAT EXCESSIVE DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPRECIATION TAKEN FROM
GROSS INCOME - OR ALLOWABLE DEPRECIATION, WHETHER SO DEDUCTED OR NOT -
MAY NOT PROPERLY BE USED TO REDUCE THE TAXPAYER'S DEPRECIATION BASE. 
THE STATUTE SO PROVIDES.  BUT I DO ASSERT THAT, UNDER THE SYSTEM OF
TAXATION WHICH WE HAVE ESTABLISHED, THE OVERSTATEMENT OF THE TAXPAYER'S
DEPRECIATION BASE ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS IS NOT TO BE
JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER MAY IN SOME OTHER YEAR HAVE DEDUCTED
FROM GROSS INCOME EXCESSIVE DEPRECIATION WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN
SUBTRACTED FROM HIS DEPRECIATION BASE.  SEE BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS
CO., 282 U.S. 359, 365.  THE STATUTE NEITHER COMPELS NOR PERMITS SO
INCONGRUOUS A RESULT.  THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED.    MR. JUSTICE
ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS
DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

THE FIRST AND FUNDAMENTAL STEP IN DETERMINING ACCRUED DEPRECIATION IS
TO ESTIMATE THE PROBABLE USEFUL LIFE OF THE PROPERTY TO BE
DEPRECIATED.  THIS DEPENDS UPON JUDGMENT AND IS NOT CAPABLE OF EXACT
DETERMINATION.  WHEN IT IS FOUND, AND AFTER MAKING ALLOWANCE FOR
PROBABLE SALVAGE VALUE AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT, IT IS A MERE MATTER
OF MATHEMATICS TO COMPUTE UNDER THE STRAIGHT-LINE METHOD THE RATE OF
ANNUAL ACCRUAL. 

THIS RATE WHEN APPLIED TO THE COST OF THE DEPRECIABLE PROPERTY FIXES
TWO THINGS:  (1)  THE AMOUNT OF THE DEPRECIATION ACCRUAL TO DEDUCT FROM
GROSS, BEFORE DETERMINING NET, INCOME.  FOR THIS PURPOSE A HIGH RATE
WORKS IN FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYER FOR ANY GIVEN YEAR.  (2)  IT ALSO
DETERMINES THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE COST BASE MUST BE REDUCED FOR
APPLICATION OF DEPRECIATION RATES THE FOLLOWING YEAR.  IN THIS ASPECT A
HIGH DEPRECIATION RATE WORKS IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

THE VIRGINIAN HOTEL CORPORATION MISCONCEIVED, AS THE COMMISSIONER
THINKS, THE PROBABLE LIFE OF ITS DEPRECIABLE PROPERTY.  ATTRIBUTING TO
IT A LONGER LIFE SPAN, HE CORRECTED THAT JUDGMENT.  TO APPLY THAT
CORRECTION CONSISTENTLY WOULD LOWER THE RATE AND CONSEQUENT DEDUCTION
ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AND CAUSE A SMALLER SUBTRACTION FROM THE
VALUATION BASE, LEAVING A LARGER BASE TO WHICH THE SMALLER RATE WOULD
BE APPLIED. 

THE COMMISSIONER PROPOSED TO CORRECT TAXPAYER'S RETURNS BY
CONSIDERING ONLY THE YEAR IN QUESTION.  HE ELIMINATED THE ERROR AS FAR
AS IT AFFECTED THE RATE AND THUS REDUCED THE DEPRECIATION ACCRUAL AND
INCREASED THE TAX.  BUT HE RETAINED THE BASE AS REDUCED BY THE
TAXPAYER'S ACCUMULATED ERRORS, REFUSING TO READJUST THE BASE
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CORRECTED DEPRECIATION RATES. 

TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TAXPAYER HAD OBTAINED ADVANTAGE FROM THE USE
OF THE HIGHER DEPRECIATION RATE, I WOULD THINK IT QUITE JUSTIFIABLE TO
REFUSE TO MAKE A CORRECTION.  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, STIPULATES AS TO
THE YEARS IN QUESTION THAT "THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE DEPRECIATION
DEDUCTED ON THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THOSE YEARS DID NOT SERVE TO
REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME."  WE SHOULD NOT DISREGARD A DELIBERATELY
MADE STIPULATION, EVEN IF, ON OUR LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF ITS BACKGROUND,
WE ARE IN DOUBT AS TO WHY IT WAS MADE.  THE QUESTION COMES SIMPLY TO
THIS:  WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER, UPON DETERMINING WHETHER TAXPAYER HAS
IN GOOD FAITH ERRED, MAY USE A CORRECTION IN SO FAR AS IT HELPS THE
GOVERNMENT AND ADHERE TO THE MISTAKE IN SO FAR AS IT INJURES THE
TAXPAYER.  I THINK THAT NO STRAINING SHOULD BE DONE TO FIND A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTES THAT WILL SUPPORT THE RESULT. 

I AM THE LESS INCLINED TO LAY DOWN A RULE THAT WILL PERMIT THE
GOVERNMENT TO MAKE INCONSISTENT CORRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF
DEPRECIATION BECAUSE CONSISTENCY IN THE MATTER OF DEPRECIATION IS ONE
OF THE FEW IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF ITS APPLICATION.  THERE HAS BEEN NO
MORE FUTILE TAX LITIGATION THAN THAT OVER DEPRECIATION RATES.  IN AN
ERA OF RISING TAXES THE FASTER A TAXPAYER DEPLETED HIS BASE FOR
DEPRECIATION THE MORE THE GOVERNMENT REALIZED IN REVENUE FROM HIM.  IF
THIS PRESENT TAXPAYER HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO CONTINUE ITS HIGH
DEPRECIATION RATES, IT WOULD HAVE COME INTO THE PRESENT ERA OF
EXCEEDINGLY HIGH TAXES WITH ITS DEPRECIATION BASE CORRESPONDINGLY
EXHAUSTED.  WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE REVENUES IS
THAT ACCRUAL FOR DEPRECIATION BE APPLIED ONLY TO PROPERTY THAT IS
PROPERLY DEPRECIABLE, THAT IT BE STOPPED WHEN THE PROPERTY IS FULLY
DEPRECIATED, AND THAT THE RATE BE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED SO THAT THE
TAXPAYER CANNOT CHOOSE TO TAKE ONLY A LITTLE DEPRECIATION WHEN HE HAS A
LITTLE INCOME AND A LOT OF DEPRECIATION WHEN HE HAS A LARGE INCOME.  IF
THESE CONDITIONS ARE OBSERVED, LITIGATION ABOUT THE RATE SERVES CHIEFLY
TO VINDICATE THEORIES RATHER THAN TO PROTECT THE REVENUES. 

IF THE GOVERNMENT DESIRES TO MAKE REVISIONS OF THEORETICAL RATES,
THERE IS NO REASON WHY IT SHOULD NOT OBSERVE THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY
THAT IS ONE OF THE CARDINAL RULES TO IMPOSE ON THE TAXPAYER.  HENCE, I
JOIN IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 
..END :



VIRGINIA ELECTRIC CO. V. BOARD, 319 U.S. 533 


NO. 709.  ARGUED MAY 6, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1943.  - 132 F.2D 390,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN REQUIRING THE DISESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPANY UNION, THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WAS AUTHORIZED, BY SEC. 10(C) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, UPON THE FACTS IT FOUND IN THIS CASE, SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, TO ORDER THAT THE EMPLOYER REIMBURSE ITS EMPLOYEES IN FULL
FOR AMOUNTS WHICH HAD BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THEIR WAGES AND PAID TO THAT
UNION AS DUES.  P. 539. 

2.  THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION THAT REIMBURSEMENT IN FULL OF THE
CHECKED-OFF DUES IS NECESSARY TO "EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT"
SHOULD STAND, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT THE ORDER WAS A PATENT
ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE ENDS OTHER THAN CAN FAIRLY BE SAID TO EFFECTUATE THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT.  P. 540. 

3.  THE ORDER IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS ADJUDICATING A RIGHT TO
DAMAGES OR AS IMPOSING A PENALTY.  P. 543. 

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 752, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD.  THE CASE WAS HERE BEFORE AND WAS REMANDED FOR A
REDETERMINATION, 314 U.S. 469. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AFTER THE REMAND OF THIS CASE IN 314 U.S. 469, THE BOARD RECONSIDERED
IT UPON THE ORIGINAL RECORD, MADE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUDED
THAT THE COMPANY HAD VIOLATED SEC. 8(1), (2) AND (3) OF THE ACT.  29
U.S.C. SEC. 158.  A NEW ORDER WAS ENTERED REQUIRING THE COMPANY TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FOUND AND FROM GIVING
EFFECT TO ITS CONTRACT WITH THE INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES. 
THE ORDER ALSO DIRECTED THE COMPANY TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM AND
DISESTABLISH THE I.O.E. AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, TO
REINSTATE WITH BACK PAY TWO OF THREE EMPLOYEES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
DISCRIMINATORILY DISCHARGED, TO REIMBURSE ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE AMOUNT
OF DUES AND ASSESSMENTS DEDUCTED FROM THEIR WAGES BY THE COMPANY AND
PAID TO THE I.O.E., AND TO POST APPROPRIATE NOTICES.  44 N.L.R.B. 404. 
THE COURT BELOW, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING IN PART, UPHELD THE ORDER IN
FULL.  132 F.2D 390.  THE I.O.E. THEN APPARENTLY DECIDED TO DISSOLVE,
AND THE COMPANY WITHDREW RECOGNITION FROM AND DISESTABLISHED IT.
BECAUSE OF AN APPARENT CONFLICT OF DECISIONS, WE GRANTED THE COMPANY'S
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH CHALLENGED ONLY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
BOARD TO REQUIRE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CHECKED-OFF DUES, A POINT NOT
REACHED WHEN THE CASE WAS HERE BEFORE.  FN1 

THE NEW FINDINGS ARE MUCH MORE ELABORATE THAN THOSE ORIGINALLY BEFORE
US IN 314 U.S. 469, AND IT WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE TO DISCUSS
THEM MINUTELY.  THE FOLLOWING OUTLINE IS SUFFICIENT FOR AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES RAISED: THE FINDINGS SKETCH IN CONSIDERABLE
DETAIL THE ANTIUNION BACKGROUND OF THE COMPANY AND THE ACTIVITIES OF
BISHOP, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE COMPANY'S NORFOLK TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING HIS SUGGESTIONS TO EMPLOYEES RUETT AND ELLIOTT
THAT THEY FORM UNAFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS.  THE GROWTH OF THE I.O.E. IS
TRACED FROM THE SPEECHES AND MEETINGS OF MAY 24, 1937, WHICH WERE HELD
AFTER REQUESTS FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WERE RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY
FROM SEVERAL SMALL GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES AS A RESULT OF THE BULLETIN OF
APRIL 26, AND WHICH WERE ATTENDED BY REPRESENTATIVES SELECTED BY THE
EMPLOYEES AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE COMPANY.  THE TRACING CONTINUES WITH
A DISCUSSION OF THE REACTIONS OF THOSE REPRESENTATIVES AFTER THE
COMPANY OFFICIALS LEFT THE MEETINGS AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT REPORTS
DELIVERED TO THE EMPLOYEES ON COMPANY PROPERTY AND IN SOME INSTANCES ON
COMPANY TIME WITH THE HELP OF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES.  EMPHASIS IS
PLACED UPON THE FREQUENT MEETINGS ON COMPANY PROPERTY HELD BY THE
RESULTANT NORFOLK AND RICHMOND STEERING COMMITTEES DURING THE FIRST
PART OF JUNE.  THE CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE I.O.E. WERE ADOPTED
ON JUNE 15.  THE MEMBERSHIP CAMPAIGN BEGAN JUNE 17, AND WITHIN TWO
WEEKS THE I.O.E. HAD A MAJORITY OF THE COMPANY'S 3,000 WIDELY SCATTERED
EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD CONTRASTED THIS WITH ITS FINDINGS THAT DURING THE
CRITICAL FORMATIVE PERIOD OF THE I.O.E. THE COMPANY DISCHARGED ONE
MANN, AN OUTSPOKEN FOE OF AN "INSIDE" UNION, THAT EDWARDS, A
SUPERVISOR, KEPT C.I.O. MEETINGS UNDER SURVEILLANCE AND WARNED SOME
EMPLOYEES AGAINST "MESSING WITH THE C.I.O.," AND THAT THE COMPANY
DENIED THE USE OF ITS PREMISES TO REPRESENTATIVES OF NATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEN DREW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE QUICK SUCCESS OF
THE I.O.E. MEMBERSHIP CAMPAIGN "MUST BE ATTRIBUTED IN LARGE PART TO THE
RESPONDENT'S (COMPANY'S) SPONSORSHIP OF AND ASSISTANCE TO THE I.O.E.
AND ITS PERSISTENT AND WELL-KNOWN OPPOSITION TO NATIONAL UNIONS." 

CONTINUING, THE FINDINGS RELATE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
I.O.E. IN CONVENTION ON JULY 17 AND 18, DREW UP A PROPOSED CONTRACT,
EMBODYING DEMANDS FOR A CLOSED-SHOP, CHECK-OFF OF I.O.E. DUES AND
SUBSTANTIAL WAGE INCREASES, WHICH WAS SENT TO THE COMPANY WITH A
REQUEST FOR A BARGAINING CONFERENCE.  THE CONFERENCE BEGAN ON JULY 30,
AND THE COMPANY QUICKLY GAVE RECOGNITION AND OFFERED NO OBJECTION TO
THE CHECK-OFF PROVISION, WITH THE ADDITION OF A PROVISO THAT THE
EMPLOYEES MIGHT REVOKE THEIR AUTHORIZATIONS AT ANY TIME.  THE BY-LAWS
OF THE I.O.E., HOWEVER, REQUIRED ALL MEMBERS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEDUCTION
OF DUES, AND THE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS CONTAINED SUCH
AUTHORIZATIONS.  THE CLOSED-SHOP PROVISION WAS DISCUSSED FOR TWO HOURS
AND THEN POSTPONED FOR OTHER MATTERS UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY, WHEN IT
WAS AGAIN TAKEN UP FOR TWO HOURS AND THEN AGREED TO WITH THE ADDITION,
AT THE INSTANCE OF THE COMPANY, OF A PROVISION THAT NOTHING IN THE
CONTRACT SHOULD PREVENT EMPLOYEES FROM JOINING OR REMAINING MEMBERS OF
ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION.  WAGE INCREASES, COSTING THE COMPANY
$600,000 ANNUALLY, WERE GRANTED, AND, AS PRESIDENT HOLTZCLAW HAD
PROMISED AT THE MAY 24 MEETING IN RICHMOND, THEY WERE MADE RETROACTIVE
TO JUNE 1.  THE CONTRACT WAS FORMALLY EXECUTED AUGUST 5, AND ON AUGUST
20 THE COMPANY PAID $3,784.50 TO THE I.O.E. AS DUES UNDER THE CHECK-OFF
PROVISION, ALTHOUGH IT HAD NOT YET DEDUCTED THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT FROM THE
WAGES OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD CONSIDERED "THE PROMPTNESS WITH
WHICH THE RESPONDENT (COMPANY) AGREED TO GRANT THE I.O.E. A CHECK-OFF
OF DUES AND A CLOSED SHOP  ...  AFTER A COMPARATIVELY FEW HOURS
DISCUSSION," AND THEN FOUND THAT THE COMPANY "AGREED TO THE CLOSED SHOP
AND THE CHECK-OFF OF I.O.E. DUES IN ORDER TO ENTRENCH THE I.O.E. AMONG
THE EMPLOYEES AND TO INSURE ITS FINANCIAL STABILITY." 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT: 

"THE RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN A COURSE OF CONDUCT CALCULATED TO
RESTRAIN AND DISCOURAGE ITS EMPLOYEES FROM SELF-ORGANIZATION IN
NATIONALLY AFFILIATED UNIONS AND TO DIVERT AND CANALIZE THEIR
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORTS TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPANY-WIDE
UNAFFILIATED LABOR ORGANIZATION; THAT IN ITS TOTALITY, THE RESPONDENT'S
CONDUCT HAS BEEN COERCIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, WITH THE RESULT THAT WHEN THEY FORMED THE
I.O.E. THEY WERE NOT AS FREE AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES; THAT THE I.O.E.
IS THE FRUIT OF THE RESPONDENT'S ILLEGAL INTERFERENCE WITH, AND
RESTRAINT AND COERCION OF ITS EMPLOYEES; AND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS
DOMINATED THE FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE I.O.E., AND HAS
CONTRIBUTED FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUPPORT TO IT." 

AND AGAIN THAT: 

"THE I.O.E. WAS NOT THE RESULT OF THE EMPLOYEES' FREE CHOICE; THAT IT
WAS INITIATED IN RESPONSE TO THE URGINGS OF THE RESPONDENT AT THE MAY
24 MEETINGS TO SET UP THEIR 'OWN' ORGANIZATION; THAT THE RESPONDENT'S
SUPPORT OF THE ORGANIZATION DURING THE CRITICAL FORMATIVE PERIOD AND
ITS CONSISTENT OPPOSITION TO NATIONALLY AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS ARE
LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADHERENCE OF THE EMPLOYEES TO THE
ORGANIZATION; AND THAT THE CONTRACT WITH THE I.O.E. GRANTING A CLOSED
SHOP AND THE CHECK-OFF OF THE I.O.E. DUES MARKED THE CLIMAX OF THE
RESPONDENT'S EFFORTS TO ERECT AN UNAFFILIATED ORGANIZATION AS A BULWARK
AGAINST NATIONALLY AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS.  WE FIND THAT THE
RESPONDENT HAS DOMINATED AND INTERFERED WITH THE FORMATION AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE I.O.E. AND HAS CONTRIBUTED SUPPORT TO IT,  ...
" 

IN DISCUSSING THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
FOUND, THE BOARD STATED THAT THE COMPANY'S DOMINATION AND INTERFERENCE
IN THE FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE I.O.E. CONSTITUTED "A
CONTINUING OBSTACLE TO THE EXERCISE BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE RIGHTS
GUARANTEED THEM BY THE ACT" AND THEREFORE THE DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE
I.O.E. WAS NECESSARY.  IN ADDITION THE BOARD WAS OF OPINION THAT "UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE" THE COMPANY SHOULD BE ORDERED TO
REIMBURSE ITS EMPLOYEES FOR THE AMOUNTS CHECKED-OFF THEIR WAGES AND
PAID TO THE I.O.E.  FN2 

THE COMPANY NO LONGER ATTACKS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE I.O.E. WAS
DOMINATED BY IT, BUT IT DOES CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS
RELATING TO DOMINATION IN SO FAR AS MAY BE PERTINENT TO THE
REIMBURSEMENT ORDER, AND IT CHALLENGES THE POWER OF THE BOARD TO MAKE
THAT ORDER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 

UNDER THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE SCOPE OF OUR REVIEW OF
BOARD ORDERS, WE THINK THE BOARD'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING
THE COMPANY'S DOMINATION OF AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE I.O.E. ARE
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND THEREFORE CONCLUSIVE.  SEE LABOR
BOARD V. LINK-BELT CO., 311 U.S. 584; I.A. OF M. V. LABOR BOARD, 311
U.S. 72; LABOR BOARD V. AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE MACHINERY CO., 315 U.S.
282; LABOR BOARD V. NEVADA COPPER CO., 316 U.S. 105; LABOR BOARD V.
SOUTHERN BELL TEL. CO., ANTE, P. 50.  THESE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE INFIRMITIES OF THE ORIGINAL ONES WHICH PROMPTED
OUR DECISION IN 314 U.S. 469.  WHILE THE BULLETIN OF APRIL 26 AND THE
SPEECHES OF MAY 24 ARE STILL STRESSED, THEY ARE CONSIDERED NOT IN
ISOLATION BUT AS PART OF A PATTERN OF EVENTS ADDING UP TO THE
CONCLUSION OF DOMINATION AND INTERFERENCE.  WE ARE ALSO OF OPINION THAT
THE BOARD HAD POWER TO ENTER THE CHECK-OFF REIMBURSEMENT ORDER IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

PERSONS FOUND ENGAGED OR ENGAGING IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES "TO TAKE
SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  THE
DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT IN SEC. 1 IS TO PREVENT, BY ENCOURAGING AND
PROTECTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION FOR
WORKERS, THE COSTLY DISLOCATION AND INTERRUPTION OF THE FLOW OF
COMMERCE CAUSED BY UNNECESSARY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE AND UNREST.  SEE LABOR
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1.  WITHIN THIS LIMIT THE BOARD HAS
WIDE DISCRETION IN ORDERING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION; ITS POWER IS NOT
LIMITED TO THE ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE OF ONE TYPE OF PERMISSIBLE
AFFIRMATIVE ORDER, NAMELY, REINSTATEMENT WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY. 
PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 187-89.  THE
PARTICULAR MEANS BY WHICH THE EFFECTS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ARE TO
BE EXPUNGED ARE MATTERS "FOR THE BOARD NOT THE COURTS TO DETERMINE." 
I.A. OF M. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, AT P. 82; LABOR BOARD V. LINK-BELT
CO., SUPRA, AT P. 600.  HERE THE BOARD, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS INFORMED
DISCRETION, HAS EXPRESSLY DETERMINED THAT REIMBURSEMENT IN FULL OF THE
CHECKED-OFF DUES IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT. 
WE GIVE CONSIDERABLE WEIGHT TO THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION.  IT
SHOULD STAND UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE ORDER IS A PATENT ATTEMPT
TO ACHIEVE ENDS OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH CAN FAIRLY BE SAID TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  THERE IS NO SUCH SHOWING HERE. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE COMPANY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF
THE I.O.E. BY PROVIDING ITS INITIAL IMPETUS AND DIRECTION AND BY
CONTRIBUTING SUPPORT DURING ITS CRITICAL FORMATIVE PERIOD.  IT FURTHER
FOUND THAT THE COMPANY QUICKLY AGREED TO GIVE ITS CREATURE CLOSED-SHOP
AND CHECK-OFF PRIVILEGES "IN ORDER TO ENTRENCH THE I.O.E. AMONG THE
EMPLOYEES AND TO INSURE ITS FINANCIAL STABILITY."  THE RESULT WAS THAT
THE EMPLOYEES, UNDER THE I.O.E. BY-LAWS, HAD TO AUTHORIZE WAGE
DEDUCTIONS FOR DUES TO REMAIN MEMBERS OF THE I.O.E., AND THEY HAD TO
REMAIN MEMBERS TO RETAIN THEIR JOBS.  FN4  THUS, AS A PRICE OF
EMPLOYMENT THEY WERE REQUIRED BY THE COMPANY TO SUPPORT AN ILLEGAL
ORGANIZATION WHICH FORECLOSED THEIR RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF ORGANIZATION
AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  TO HOLD THAT THE BOARD IS WITHOUT POWER
HERE TO ORDER REIMBURSEMENT OF THE AMOUNTS SO EXACTED IS TO HOLD THAT
AN EMPLOYER IS FREE TO FASTEN FIRMLY UPON HIS EMPLOYEES THE COST OF
MAINTAINING AN ORGANIZATION BY WHICH HE EFFECTIVELY DEFEATS THE FREE
EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  THAT THIS MAY PERVERT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS CLEAR.  IT
IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE UNDOING OF THE EFFECTS OF SUCH A PRACTICE
MAY, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD, REMOVE A VERY REAL BARRIER TO THE
EFFECTUATION OF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT, THE PROTECTION OF COMMERCE
THROUGH THE ELIMINATION OF INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT BY GUARANTEEING FULL
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND GENUINE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO EMPLOYEES. 
AN ORDER SUCH AS THIS, WHICH DEPRIVES AN EMPLOYER OF ADVANTAGES
ACCRUING FROM A PARTICULAR METHOD OF SUBVERTING THE ACT, IS A
PERMISSIBLE METHOD OF EFFECTUATING THE STATUTORY POLICY. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE I.O.E. SUFFICIENTLY
EFFECTUATES THE POLICIES OF THE ACT BY RESTORING TO THE EMPLOYEES OF
THE COMPANY THEIR FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.  BUT THE BOARD NEED NOT BE
SATISFIED WITH THE REMEDY ALONE.  IT HAS HERE DETERMINED THAT, TO
EFFECTUATE FULLY THE POLICIES OF THE ACT, IT IS NECESSARY TO EXPUNGE
THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY ORDERING THE REIMBURSEMENT
OF CHECKED-OFF DUES.  SUCH A DETERMINATION SEEMS MANIFESTLY
REASONABLE.  IT RETURNS TO THE EMPLOYEES WHAT HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THEM
TO SUPPORT AN ORGANIZATION NOT OF THEIR FREE CHOICE AND PLACES THE
BURDEN UPON THE COMPANY WHOSE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BROUGHT ABOUT THE
SITUATION.  THE DEDUCTION OF DUES FROM WAGES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE IS NOT UNLIKE A LOSS OCCASIONED BY A DISCRIMINATORY
DISCHARGE, AND AN ORDER FOR THE RETURN OF THOSE CHECKED-OFF DUES
PROMOTES THE POLICIES OF THE ACT IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME MANNER AS
WOULD A BACK PAY AWARD.  BY RETURNING THEIR MONEY TO THE EMPLOYEES, THE
ORDER SEVERS POSSIBLE ECONOMIC TIES WHICH THEY MAY HAVE WITH THE
EMPLOYER-DOMINATED I.O.E. AND TO THIS EXTENT AIDS IN COMPLETELY
DISESTABLISHING THAT ORGANIZATION AND RESTORING TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT
TRULY UNFETTERED FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHICH THE ACT DEMANDS.  IF EMPLOYEES
HAVE SOME ASSURANCE THAT AN EMPLOYER MAY NOT WITH IMPUNITY IMPOSE UPON
THEM THE COST OF MAINTAINING AN ORGANIZATION WHICH HE HAS DOMINATED,
ANY MORE THAN HE CAN MAKE THEM BEAR THE BURDEN OF A DISCRIMINATORY
DISCHARGE, THEY MAY BE MORE CONFIDENT IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
STATUTORY RIGHTS. 

THE COMPANY CONTENDS THAT THE BOARD DID NOT FIND THAT IT CONTINUED TO
INTERFERE WITH THE I.O.E. AFTER ITS ORGANIZATION, EXCEPT WITH REGARD TO
THE CLOSED-SHOP AND CHECK-OFF CLAUSES OF THE CONTRACT, AND THIS FINDING
IS ATTACKED AS WITHOUT FOUNDATION IN EVIDENCE.  IT IS SAID THAT THE
DEMAND FOR A CLOSED-SHOP AND CHECK-OFF ORIGINATED WITH THE EMPLOYEES
WHO WERE FREE TO ABANDON THOSE PROVISIONS AT ANY TIME BY CHANGING THEIR
BY-LAWS OR THE CONTRACT, AND THAT THEREFORE THE CONTINUATION OF THOSE
REQUIREMENTS WAS THE VOLUNTARY ACTION OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR WHICH THE
COMPANY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.  FINALLY IT IS URGED THAT THE COMPANY
SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO REIMBURSE THESE VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS BECAUSE
THE EMPLOYEES RECEIVED BENEFITS, INCLUDING SUBSTANTIAL WAGE INCREASES,
FROM THE I.O.E. 

THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT THE BOARD HAS RESOLVED ALL THESE CONTENTIONS
AGAINST THE COMPANY, AND WE CANNOT SAY IT EXCEEDED ITS COMPETENCE IN SO
DOING.  IT MADE NO FINDING OF SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT INTERFERENCE IN THE
I.O.E. AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT, BUT IT DID CONCLUDE THAT
THE I.O.E.'S EXISTENCE WAS A "CONTINUING OBSTACLE" TO THE EMPLOYEES'
EXERCISE OF THEIR STATUTORY RIGHTS.  THIS CONCLUSION OF CONTINUATION OF
THE EFFECTS OF AN EMPLOYER-DOMINATED BEGINNING IS A PERMISSIBLE ONE FOR
THE BOARD TO DRAW.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. SOUTHERN BELL TEL. CO., ANTE, P.
50.  IT DISPOSES OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE MEN WERE FREE AT ANY TIME TO
ELIMINATE THE CHECK-OFF; BECAUSE OF THE I.O.E.'S ORIGIN THE BOARD COULD
CONCLUDE, AS IT DID, THAT THEY WERE NOT AS FREE AS THE STATUTE
REQUIRES.  ALSO, IN VIEW OF THE COMPANY'S INTERFERENCE IN AND SUPPORT
GIVEN TO THE I.O.E. AND THE CELERITY OF AGREEMENT IN THE BARGAINING
CONFERENCE, THE BOARD COULD INFER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT DEMANDS FOR
THE CLOSED-SHOP AND THE CHECK-OFF ORIGINATED WITH THE I.O.E., THAT THE
COMPANY SEIZED UPON THOSE PROVISIONS TO ESTABLISH THE I.O.E. FIRMLY. 
THE FACT THAT A CONTRARY INFERENCE IS POSSIBLE FROM THE EVIDENCE DOES
NOT ALLOW US TO SET ASIDE THE ONE DRAWN BY THE BOARD.  LABOR BOARD V.
NEVADA COPPER CO., 316 U.S. 105.  THIS DISSIPATES THE FORCE OF THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE CLOSED-SHOP AND CHECK-OFF PROVISIONS WERE FORCED UPON
THE COMPANY AGAINST ITS WILL. 

THE INSTANT REIMBURSEMENT ORDER IS NOT A REDRESS FOR A PRIVATE
WRONG.  LIKE A BACK PAY ORDER, IT DOES RESTORE TO THE EMPLOYEES IN SOME
MEASURE WHAT WAS TAKEN FROM THEM BECAUSE OF THE COMPANY'S UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES.  IN THIS, BOTH THESE TYPES OF MONETARY AWARDS SOMEWHAT
RESEMBLE COMPENSATION FOR PRIVATE INJURY, BUT IT MUST BE CONSTANTLY
REMEMBERED THAT BOTH ARE REMEDIES CREATED BY STATUTE - THE ONE
EXPLICITLY AND THE OTHER IMPLICITLY IN THE CONCEPT OF EFFECTUATION OF
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT - WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO AID IN ACHIEVING THE
ELIMINATION OF INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT.  THEY VINDICATE PUBLIC, NOT
PRIVATE, RIGHTS.  CF. AGWILINES, INC. V. LABOR BOARD, 87 F.2D 146, 150
51; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177.  FOR THIS REASON
IT IS ERRONEOUS TO CHARACTERIZE THIS REIMBURSEMENT ORDER AS PENAL OR AS
THE ADJUDICATION OF A MASS TORT.  IT IS EQUALLY WRONG TO FETTER THE
BOARD'S DISCRETION BY COMPELLING IT TO OBSERVE CONVENTIONAL COMMON LAW
OR CHANCERY PRINCIPLES IN FASHIONING SUCH AN ORDER, OR TO FORCE IT TO
INQUIRE INTO THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES ACTUALLY SUSTAINED.  WHETHER AND TO
WHAT EXTENT SUCH MATTERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM FOR
THE BOARD TO DECIDE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE AND
KNOWLEDGE.  THE BOARD HAS HERE DETERMINED THAT THE EMPLOYEES SUFFERED A
DEFINITE LOSS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE DUES DEDUCTED FROM THEIR WAGES AND
THAT THE EFFECTUATION OF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT REQUIRES REIMBURSEMENT
OF THOSE DUES IN FULL.  WE CANNOT SAY THIS CONSIDERED JUDGMENT DOES NOT
EFFECTUATE THE STATUTORY PURPOSE. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE EMPLOYEES RECEIVED SOME VALUE FROM THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS VIA THE CHECK-OFF TO THE COMPANY-DOMINATED I.O.E., IS
BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SUCH AN ORGANIZATION NECESSARILY GIVES
SOME QUID PRO QUO.  BUT IN VIEW OF THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, A CONTRARY
ASSUMPTION, THAT EMPLOYEES RECEIVE NO BENEFIT FROM A TYPE OF
ORGANIZATION WHICH CONGRESS HAS CHARACTERIZED AS DETRIMENTAL TO THE
INTERESTS OF EMPLOYEES AND PROVOCATIVE OF INDUSTRIAL UNREST, IS
POSSIBLE.  THESE ARE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE BOARD TO DECIDE ACCORDING
TO ITS REASONED JUDGMENT.  WE HOLD THAT THE BOARD HERE MADE AN
ALLOWABLE JUDGMENT.  THAT JUDGMENT CANNOT BE UPSET BY POINTING TO
SUBSTANTIAL WAGE INCREASES WHICH THE I.O.E. WAS GRANTED.  AS THE COURT
BELOW SAID, "IT IS MANIFESTLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT GREATER BENEFITS
MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SECURED IF THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF A BARGAINING
AGENT HAD NOT BEEN INTERFERED WITH."  132 F.2D AT 398.  CF. TEXAS & NEW
ORLEANS R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 559. 

THIS REIMBURSEMENT ORDER CANNOT BE LABELLED "PENAL."  THE PURPOSE OF
THE ORDER IS NOT TO PENALIZE THE COMPANY BY REQUIRING REPAYMENT OF SUMS
IT DID NOT RETAIN IN ITS TREASURY.  THOSE SUMS DID GO INTO THE TREASURY
OF THE COMPANY'S CREATURE TO ACCOMPLISH PURPOSES THE COMPANY EVIDENTLY
BELIEVED TO BE TO ITS ADVANTAGE, AND THE ORDER OF REIMBURSEMENT IS
INTENDED TO REMOVE THE EFFECTS OF THIS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BY
RESTORING TO THE EMPLOYEES WHAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THEM IF
THE COMPANY HAD NOT CONTRAVENED THE ACT.  THIS IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH
THE BOARD HAS ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF SUMS TO THIRD PARTIES, OR HAS MADE
EMPLOYEES MORE THAN WHOLE.  CF. REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD,
311 U.S. 7.  THE FACT THAT THE BOARD MAY ONLY HAVE APPROXIMATED ITS
EFFORTS TO MAKE THE EMPLOYEES WHOLE, BECAUSE OF ASSERTED BENEFITS OF
DUBIOUS AND UNASCERTAINABLE NATURE FLOWING FROM THE I.O.E., DOES NOT
CONVERT THIS REIMBURSEMENT ORDER INTO THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY.  CF.
OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572, 583-84. 

WE NEED NOT NOW EXAMINE THE VARIOUS SITUATIONS THAT WERE BEFORE THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS IN THE CASES COLLECTED IN NOTE 1, ANTE, OR
CONSIDER HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITIES.  WE DECIDE ONLY THE CASE BEFORE US
AND SUSTAIN THE POWER OF THE BOARD TO ORDER REIMBURSEMENT IN FULL UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DISCLOSED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN ELEVEN CASES FIVE CIRCUITS, UNDER VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND
ON DIVERSE REASONING, HAVE REFUSED TO ENFORCE BOARD ORDERS REQUIRING
REIMBURSEMENT OF CHECKED-OFF DUES.  SEE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 113 F.2D 992(C.C.A. 2); CORNING GLASS WORKS V. LABOR
BOARD, 118 F.2D 625(C.C.A. 2); LABOR BOARD V. WEST KENTUCKY COAL CO.,
116 F.2D 816(C.C.A. 6); LABOR BOARD V. U.S. TRUCK CO., 124 F.2D
887(C.C.A. 6); LABOR BOARD V. GERITY WHITAKER CO., 137 F.2D 198(C.C.A.
6); LABOR BOARD V. J. GREENEBAUM TANNING CO., 110 F.2D 984(C.C.A. 7);
A.E. STALEY MFG. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 117 F.2D 868(C.C.A. 7); RELIANCE
MFG. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 125 F.2D 311(C.C.A. 7); KANSAS CITY POWER &
LIGHT CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 111 F.2D 340(C.C.A. 8); LABOR BOARD V.
SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, 126 F.2D 883(C.C.A. 8); LABOR BOARD V.
CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 121 F.2D 120(C.C.A. 10). 

FN2  THE BOARD'S FULL STATEMENT ON THIS POINT FOLLOWS: 

"THE RESPONDENT CONCLUDED A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WITH THE I.O.E., A
COMPANY-DOMINATED ORGANIZATION, THUS COMPELLING ITS EMPLOYEES TO BECOME
AND REMAIN MEMBERS OF THE ILLEGAL ORGANIZATION.  EMPLOYEES WERE IN FACT
DISCHARGED BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO JOIN THE I.O.E.  THE CHECK-OFF
PROVISION, A DEVICE BY WHICH THE RESPONDENT ASSURED THE FINANCIAL
STABILITY OF THE COMPANY-DOMINATED ORGANIZATION, COULD NO MORE BE
AVOIDED BY THE EMPLOYEES THAN COULD THE COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP
REQUIREMENT.  THE BYLAWS OF THE I.O.E. REQUIRED ITS MEMBERS TO EXECUTE
CHECK-OFF AUTHORIZATIONS UNDER PENALTY OF BEING DROPPED FROM MEMBERSHIP
IN THE I.O.E., AND THEREBY, UNDER THE CLOSED-SHOP PROVISION, FROM THEIR
JOBS.  WE FIND THAT THE MONIES THUS DEDUCTED FROM THE WAGES OF THE
EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTED THE PRICE OF RETAINING THEIR JOBS, A PRICE
COERCED FROM THEM FOR RESPONDENT'S PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING AND
MAINTAINING THE ORGANIZATION WHICH RESPONDENT HAD DOMINATED IN ORDER TO
THWART BONA FIDE REPRESENTATION.  WE FURTHER FIND THAT, AS A RESULT OF
THE IMPOSITION OF THE ILLEGAL CLOSED-SHOP AND CHECK-OFF REQUIREMENTS,
THE EMPLOYEES SUFFERED A DEFINITE LOSS AND DEPRIVATION OF WAGES EQUAL
TO THE AMOUNTS DEDUCTED FROM THEIR WAGES AND PAID OVER TO THE I.O.E.
IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT THE EMPLOYEES BE MADE WHOLE BY REIMBURSEMENT OF
AMOUNTS EXACTED FROM THEM FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES.  WE FIND THAT IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES MAY BE FULLY
REMEDIED AND THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE ACT MAY BE COMPLETELY
EFFECTUATED ONLY BY RESTORING THE STATUS QUO.  HENCE, WE SHALL ORDER
THE RESPONDENT TO REIMBURSE ITS EMPLOYEES FOR THE AMOUNTS DEDUCTED FROM
THEIR WAGES FOR DUES AND ASSESSMENTS IN THE I.O.E." 

FN3  49 STAT. 449; 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN4  THE PROVISO IN THE CHECK-OFF AGREEMENT THAT EMPLOYEES MIGHT
REVOKE THEIR INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZATIONS AT ANY TIME WAS ADMITTEDLY
MEANINGLESS IN VIEW OF THE CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT AND THE REQUIREMENT IN
THE I.O.E. BY-LAWS THAT ITS MEMBERS AUTHORIZE THE CHECK-OFF. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

IF THE CONTROLLING FACTS IN THIS CASE WERE LIKE THOSE IN WESTERN
UNION TEL. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 113 F.2D 992, I TOO WOULD ACCEPT THE
REASONING OF JUDGE LEARNED HAND'S OPINION IN THAT CASE AND JOIN MY
BROTHER ROBERTS.  BUT THE VITAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WESTERN UNION
AND THIS CASE IS THAT, IN THE FORMER, "THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT ALL
THOSE WHO ASKED TO HAVE THEIR WAGES STOPPED, DID SO IN ANY PART BECAUSE
THEY WERE COERCED."  ID., AT 997.  HERE THE EMPLOYEES HAD NO SUCH
CHOICE; THEY COULD AVOID THE CHECK-OFF OF UNION DUES ONLY BY GIVING UP
THEIR JOBS. 

WE START WITH THE BOARD'S FINDING - A FINDING NOT HERE FOR REVIEW -
THAT THROUGH ITS DOMINATION OF THE I.O.E. THE COMPANY INDULGED IN AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  BUT NOT ONLY DID IT FOSTER THAT COMPANY UNION,
IT FOISTED MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION UPON ALL ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD
HAD A RIGHT TO FIND THAT MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION, WHICH THE EMPLOYEES
HAD NO POWER TO REJECT, EQUALLY DENIED THE EMPLOYEES THE POWER TO
REJECT THE COSTS OF THAT MEMBERSHIP.  IT WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN
CONCLUDING THAT THE EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE MADE WHOLE FOR THAT WHICH WAS
THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE COMPANY'S COMPULSION UPON THEM.  THEREIN THIS
CASE DIFFERS NOT ONLY FROM THE WESTERN UNION CASE BUT ALSO FROM THE
DECISIONS IN FOUR OTHER CIRCUITS UPON WHICH MY BROTHER ROBERTS RELIES:
LABOR BOARD V. WEST KENTUCKY COAL CO., 116 F.2D 816, 823(C.C.A. 6);
RELIANCE MFG. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 125 F.2D 311(C.C.A. 7); LABOR BOARD
V. SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, 126 F.2D 883, 887(C.C.A. 8); LABOR
BOARD V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 121 F.2D 120, 125(C.C.A. 10). 

NEEDLESS TO SAY, WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WISDOM OF THE BOARD'S
REQUIREMENT THAT THE COERCED DUES BE RESTORED TO THE EMPLOYEES.  OUR
DECISION CAN GO NO FURTHER THAN THAT, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE
GENERAL AUTHORITY GIVEN TO IT BY CONGRESS, THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO
FIND THAT WHEN MEN PAY DUES TO A COMPANY-DOMINATED UNION, UPON PAIN OF
FORFEITING THEIR JOBS, IT IS THE COMPANY WHICH HAS IN FACT COMMANDED
THE PAYMENT OF THE DUES AND IT IS THE COMPANY WHICH MUST MAKE
RESTORATION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

THE SINGLE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, IN ORDERING DISESTABLISHMENT OF AN UNAFFILIATED UNION, MAY, IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED, ORDER REIMBURSEMENT OF DUES PAID BY THE
EMPLOYES TO THE UNION PURSUANT TO INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENTS BY EMPLOYES
AND A UNION AGREEMENT FOR A CLOSED SHOP AND A CHECK-OFF OF DUES. 

THE COURT BELOW (ONE JUDGE DISSENTING) HAS SUSTAINED THIS FEATURE OF
THE ORDER.  I AM OF OPINION THAT ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE ONLY PROVISION OF THE ACT ON WHICH THE BOARD RELIES IS THAT FOUND
IN SEC. 10(C) FN1  WHICH IS THAT THE BOARD MAY REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER "TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND TO TAKE SUCH
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  THE
CRITICAL PHRASE IS "TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION  ...  AS WILL
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  THE POLICIES OF THE ACT ARE
STATED IN SEC. 1  FN2  AS THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND THE PROTECTION OF THE EXERCISE
BY WORKERS OF FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION, AND
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF NEGOTIATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION.  FN3 IT IS PLAIN THAT A REIMBURSEMENT ORDER
MAY BE MADE BY THE BOARD ONLY IF IT WILL EFFECTUATE THESE POLICIES. 

THE COURT BELOW HAS INTERPRETED THIS GRANT OF POWER TO THE BOARD AS
PERMITTING WHAT THE COURT CHARACTERIZES AS A RESTORATION OF THE STATUS
QUO.  THE ACT, HOWEVER, CONTAINS NO SUCH EXPRESSION AND IF IT IS GIVEN,
AS I THINK IT HAS BEEN IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, THE MEANING OF REDRESS
OF PRIVATE WRONGS, IT MISREPRESENTS THE CLEAR INTENT OF THE STATUTE. 
FN4    THE ACT GIVES THE BOARD NO POWER TO IMPOSE LIABILITY FOR ANY
SUPPOSED INJURY ARISING OUT OF THE COMPULSION OF EMPLOYES TO CONTRIBUTE
DUES TO THE UNION.  NOR CAN THE ORDER OF RESTITUTION BE GROUNDED UPON
ANY THEORY THAT, ALTHOUGH THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CONSTITUTES A
PUBLIC RATHER THAN A PRIVATE WRONG, THE POWER GRANTED TO EFFECTUATE THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT ENVISAGES IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY FOR WRONGFUL
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER.  FN5 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW CAN BE
JUSTIFIED AS APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  THIS
QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE
RECORD.  THE BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS GUILTY OF UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES IN INFLUENCING EMPLOYES IN FAVOR OF A COMPANY UNION. 
THE ORDER REQUIRES THE COMPANY TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE PRACTICES,
TO CEASE GIVING EFFECT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION, AND TO
WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM AND DISESTABLISH THAT ORGANIZATION AS A
BARGAINING UNIT.  THIS ORDER IS SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS THAT, AT A TIME
WHEN NO UNION EXISTED, THE COMPANY THREW ITS INFLUENCE IN FAVOR OF AN
UNAFFILIATED OR COMPANY UNION.  ALL THE FACTS FOUND IN THIS CONNECTION
RELATE TO A TIME ANTERIOR TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNION.  THERE IS
NO FINDING, AND NO FACTS WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A FINDING, THAT SUBSEQUENT
TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNION THE EMPLOYER INTERFERED WITH IT,
DOMINATED IT, OR SUPPORTED IT IN ANY MANNER.  THE UNION THEN ORGANIZED
MADE DEMANDS UPON THE COMPANY WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS
AND OUT OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS GREW AN INCREASE OF WAGES TOTALING ABOUT
$600,000 PER ANNUM AND A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH
CONTAINED PROVISIONS FOR A CLOSED SHOP AND FOR THE CHECK-OFF OF UNION
DUES, BOTH OF WHICH FEATURES WERE DEMANDED AND INSISTED UPON BY THE
UNION.  THERE IS NO FINDING AND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE EMPLOYER IN FACT
INSPIRED, INSTIGATED, OR COERCED THE EMPLOYES TO MAKE THESE DEMANDS OR
HAD, EVEN REMOTELY, ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM OTHER THAN THEY FOLLOWED
ITS EARLIER ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNION.  FROM THE
DAY THAT CONTRACT WAS SIGNED, NO ACT OF INTERFERENCE OR DOMINATION, AND
NO WORD EVEN OF SUGGESTION FROM THE COMPANY AS TO THE UNION POLICY OR
PRACTICES IS SHOWN.  THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT THE EMPLOYER INSISTED
THAT THE CHECK-OFF OF UNION DUES SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED BY EACH EMPLOYE
INDIVIDUALLY, SUBJECT TO HIS UNTRAMMELED RIGHT OF REVOCATION, AND THAT
THE CLOSED-SHOP PROVISION SHOULD NOT PREVENT ANY MEMBER OF THE COMPANY
UNION FROM ALSO JOINING ANY OTHER UNION OF HIS CHOICE.  THE FIXATION OF
THE UNION DUES WAS A MATTER WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE UNION MEMBERS AND
CONTINUANCE OF CHECK-OFF AS RESPECTS ANY EMPLOYE WAS A MATTER FOR HIS
VOLUNTARY DETERMINATION SO FAR AS THE EMPLOYER WAS CONCERNED.  WHILE IT
IS NOT DENIED THAT THE UNION PROCURED SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS FOR ITS
MEMBERS OR THAT IT REPRESENTED THEM FAITHFULLY AND FAIRLY,
NEVERTHELESS, BECAUSE OF THE COMPANY'S INTERFERENCE AT THE TIME OF THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE UNION, THAT ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN DISESTABLISHED
AND INDEED HAS NOW BEEN DISSOLVED. 

IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE DEFECT WHICH TAINTED
ITS CAPACITY TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYES, ITS OTHER ACTIVITIES WOULD HAVE
BEEN WHOLLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  NOTHING IN THAT ACT INVALIDATES A COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A CLOSED SHOP OR FOR A CHECK-OFF OF
DUES.  IF IN FACT THOSE FEATURES OF THE AGREEMENT WERE THE VOLUNTARY
ACT OF THE EMPLOYES, AS ON THIS RECORD THEY MUST BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN,
IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE POLICIES OF THE ACT ARE TO BE
EFFECTUATED BY REPAYMENT TO THE EMPLOYES OF THE DUES HERETOFORE PAID
WHEN SUCH REPAYMENT CAN IN NO WISE BENEFIT THE ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS
BEEN DISESTABLISHED. 

THE COMPANY UNION HAVING BEEN DISESTABLISHED, THE EMPLOYES ARE FREE
TO FORM OR JOIN ANY UNION AND MAKE IT THEIR BARGAINING AGENT.  ANY
POSSIBLE EFFECT OF COMPANY INFLUENCE HAS BEEN DISSIPATED.  THE ONLY
POSSIBLE EFFECT OF RESTITUTION OF DUES TO EMPLOYES WHO HAVE NOT ASKED
FOR REPAYMENT, WHO HAVE RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS FROM THEIR
CONTRIBUTION OF DUES, IS TO PUNISH THE EMPLOYER AND PERCHANCE OPERATE
AS A WARNING TO OTHER EMPLOYERS THAT THEY WILL SIMILARLY BE PUNISHED
FOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. 

THE BOARD SEEKS TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACT
AUTHORIZES, AS ONE FORM OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO EFFECTUATE THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT, THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK
PAY.  THE AWARD OF BACK PAY, HOWEVER, STANDS ON A DIFFERENT BASIS.  IF
EMPLOYES ARE TO BE FACED WITH DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE FOR ADVOCATING
UNION REPRESENTATION BY AN ORGANIZATION OF THEIR CHOICE, THE THREAT
WILL RENDER DOUBTFUL, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, FREE AND UNCONTROLLED ACTION
ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYES.  THE ACT, THEREFORE, IS AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO
EMPLOYES THAT IF THEY ARE DISCHARGED FOR SUCH ACTIVITY THEY MAY HAVE
REINSTATEMENT AND, IN PROPER CASES, BACK PAY.  SUCH A PROMISE TO
EMPLOYES WAS ESSENTIAL TO ASSURE THEM IMMUNITY FOR CONDUCT MADE LAWFUL
BY THE ACT.  BUT THE PAYMENT OF UNION DUES IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER,
PARTICULARLY WHERE, AS HERE, NO EMPLOYE WAS OBLIGED TO JOIN THE UNION,
AND NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN EMPLOYES RESULTED FROM JOINING OR PAYING
DUES TO THE RECOGNIZED UNION.  IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE HOPE OF
REIMBURSEMENT OF DUES PAID TO THE UNION IN QUESTION WOULD HAVE ANY
EFFECT ON THE CONDUCT OF THE MEMBERS TO JOIN OR REFRAIN FROM JOINING
THIS UNION OR JOINING ANOTHER AS THEY WERE FREE TO DO.  MOREOVER, THE
EMPLOYES WERE FREE UNDER THE ACT TO ADHERE TO ANOTHER ORGANIZATION AND
TO BRING ABOUT AN ELECTION FOR THE CHOICE OF ANOTHER BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE.  THE BOARD MADE NO INQUIRY AND NO FINDING RESPECTING
COERCION OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYES. 

AS I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, THE ONLY EFFECT OF THE ORDER IS TO
REDRESS A SUPPOSED PRIVATE WRONG TO EMPLOYES WHICH THE EVIDENCE AND
FINDINGS INDICATE NEVER WAS INFLICTED, AND TO INFLICT DRASTIC
PUNISHMENT OF THE EMPLOYER FOR ITS EARLIER VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE BY
ENCOURAGING ITS EMPLOYES TO ORGANIZE.  NEITHER IS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE
OF THE BOARD, AS THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD.  FN6 

LIKE ORDERS HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE COURTS IN ELEVEN OTHER CASES, AS
SHOWN BY THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  ALL HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE SUCH AN ORDER.  FN7  I THINK THAT
SHOULD BE THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE. 

FN1  29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(C). 

FN2  29 U.S.C. SEC. 151. 

FN3  SEE REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7, 10; LABOR
BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP., 306 U.S. 240, 257. 

FN4  H.R. 972, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 21; H.R. 1147, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 24.  NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350,
362, 363. 

FN5  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 236;
REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7, 11, 12. 

FN6  SEE NOTES 4 AND 5, SUPRA. 

FN7  I MIGHT WELL HAVE CONTENTED MYSELF, IN LIEU OF WRITING, WITH A
REFERENCE TO THE OPINION IN WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 113
F.2D 992, WHICH EXHAUSTIVELY AND CONVINCINGLY DEALS WITH THE SUBJECT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :












I.C.C. V. COLUMBUS & GREENVILLE RY., 319 U.S. 551 


NO. 628.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 8, 1943.  REARGUED MAY 13, 1943.  - DECIDED
JUNE 7, 1943.  - 46 F.SUPP.  204, REVERSED. 


ONE OF SEVERAL RAILROADS WHOSE LINES CONNECTED AT POINTS WHERE
COTTONSEED WAS MILLED, AND WHOSE RESPECTIVE TARIFFS ALLOWED "CUT-BACKS"
ON RATES ON INBOUND HAULS OF COTTONSEED THE MILLED PRODUCTS OF WHICH
WERE HAULED OUTBOUND BY THE SAME CARRIER THAT HAULED IN THE SEED FROM
WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED, FILED A TARIFF ALLOWING SHIPPERS THE BENEFIT
OF THE CUT-BACKS ON SHIPMENTS OUTBOUND OVER ITS LINE, WHETHER THE
CORRESPONDING INBOUND HAUL WAS OVER THAT LINE OR ONE OF THE CONNECTING
LINES.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERED THE TARIFF CANCELED
UPON THE GROUND THAT, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(4) OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, IT OPERATED TO REDUCE ESTABLISHED OUTBOUND JOINT RATES TO
POINTS BEYOND THAT CARRIER'S LINE WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF
PARTICIPATING CARRIERS, AND UPON THE GROUND THAT ITS OPERATION ENTAILED
VIOLATIONS ALSO OF SECS. 1(6) AND 6(7).  HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENJOINED.  P. 555. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. COLUMBUS & GREENVILLE RAILWAY
CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
ENJOINED THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES  FN1  ENJOINING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
CANCELLING CERTAIN "CUT-BACKS" ON COTTONSEED AND ITS PRODUCTS CONTAINED
IN APPELLEE'S I.C.C. TARIFF NO. 81.  FN2 

THE APPELLEE OPERATES 168 MILES OF RAILWAY EXTENDING EAST AND WEST
WITHIN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI.  COTTONSEED AND ITS PRODUCTS, TO WHICH
THE TARIFF IN QUESTION RELATES, ARE IMPORTANT ITEMS OF TRAFFIC IN THE
REGION, AND THERE ARE COTTONSEED MILLS AT A NUMBER OF POINTS ON
APPELLEE'S LINE.  APPELLEE ORIGINATES ABOUT 15 OR 20 PER CENT OF THE
COTTONSEED MILLED THERE; TRUCKS ORIGINATE ABOUT 50 PER CENT; AND THE
BALANCE COMES TO THE MILLS ON OTHER LINES WITH WHICH THE APPELLEE
CONNECTS AT THESE POINTS, INCLUDING THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY, THE MOBILE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, THE ST. LOUIS-SAN
FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILWAY
COMPANY. 

SINCE 1931, THESE RAILROADS AND APPELLEE HAVE MAINTAINED A SYSTEM OF
CUT-BACKS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, AND SUCCESSIVELY REVISED, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MEETING THE COMPETITION OF TRUCK LINES.  SPEAKING GENERALLY,
THE SYSTEM PERMITTED ONE WHO SHIPPED COTTONSEED INTO THE MILL POINT AND
PAID THE FULL LOCAL RATE FOR THAT INBOUND HAUL TO RECEIVE BACK PART OF
THE AMOUNT SO PAID IF HE LATER SHIPPED THE PRODUCT OUTBOUND BY THE SAME
CARRIER.  IF THE OUTBOUND HAUL WAS NOT BY THE CARRIER THAT HAD MADE THE
INBOUND HAUL, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CUT-BACK. 

TO BETTER ITS POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE OUTBOUND HAULS OF
COTTONSEED ORIGINATED BY OTHER LINES, APPELLEE TOOK MEASURES WHICH IT
CALLS "SELF-HELP TO MEET COMPETITION."  IT SOUGHT BY ITS I.C.C. TARIFF
NO. 81 TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULES OF PAYMENTS TO SHIPPERS WHICH WOULD GIVE
THEM THE BENEFIT OF THE CUT-BACKS ON COTTONSEED AND ITS PRODUCTS
SHIPPED OUTBOUND OVER ITS LINE, WHETHER THE INBOUND HAUL WAS OVER ITS
OWN LINE OR OVER A CONNECTING LINE.  THIS TARIFF WAS NEITHER PROTESTED
NOR SUSPENDED, AND BECAME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 16, 1938.  AFTER THE
COMMISSION'S BUREAU OF TRAFFIC HAD CRITICIZED THIS TARIFF AND REQUESTED
ITS CORRECTION, APPELLEE FILED ITS I.C.C. TARIFF NO. 83, DIFFERING IN
IMMATERIAL PARTICULARS FROM ITS TARIFF NO. 81.  THE COMMISSION ORDERED
NO. 83 SUSPENDED AND ENTERED UPON AN INVESTIGATION OF ITS LAWFULNESS. 
FN3 

IN ITS REPORT,  FN4  DIVISION 3 OF THE COMMISSION HELD:  THE
SUSPENDED TARIFF WAS AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE OUTBOUND JOINT RATES,
ESTABLISHED TO POINTS BEYOND APPELLEE'S LINE WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF
THE PARTICIPATING CARRIERS, WITHOUT OBTAINING THEIR CONCURRENCE IN SUCH
REDUCTION, AND THEREFORE IT VIOLATED SEC. 6(4) OF THE ACT.  FN5  THE
SUSPENDED SCHEDULES DID NOT "LAWFULLY NAME OR PROVIDE ANY LEGAL RATES
WHATSOEVER," N6 AND WERE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(7),  FN7  SINCE THE
CONTEMPLATED "REFUND WOULD BE, ESSENTIALLY, A REBATE, WHEREBY THE
PROPERTY WOULD BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE MILL POINT TO THE DESTINATION ON
ANOTHER LINE AT A LOWER RATE THAN THAT NAMED IN THE JOINT TARIFF
PUBLISHED AND FILED BY THE SEVERAL CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN THE
MOVEMENT AND LAWFULLY IN EFFECT.  ...  RESPONDENT'S SUSPENDED TARIFF,
GRANTING AN ALLEGED ALLOWANCE TO THE SHIPPER NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE
PERFORMS NO PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, AS THE RESULT OF WHICH
HE WOULD OBTAIN THE OUT-BOUND TRANSPORTATION AT LESS THAN THE RATES
LAWFULLY IN EFFECT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN UNREASONABLE PRACTICE, IN
VIOLATION OF SECTION 1(6)  FN8  AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT."  FN9  ALTHOUGH NOT SHOWN TO BE UNLAWFUL AS APPLIED TO
TRAFFIC ORIGINATED AND CARRIED TO THE MILLS BY APPELLEE OVER ITS LINE,
THE TARIFF WAS DEFECTIVE IN THE PROPOSED FORM, AND SHOULD BE
CANCELLED. 

THE COMMISSION THEN OF ITS OWN MOTION ENTERED UPON AN INVESTIGATION
OF THE LAWFULNESS OF APPELLEE'S I.C.C. TARIFF NO. 81, WHICH HAD
REMAINED IN EFFECT AS THE RESULT OF THE SUSPENSION OF NO. 83. 

THE BRIEF AND NOT ALTOGETHER CLEAR OPINION OF THE FULL COMMISSION
CONCLUDED WITH THE STATEMENT THAT "WE FIND THAT, TO THE EXTENT
RESPONDENT'S TARIFF I.C.C. NO. 81 PROVIDES FOR REFUND, OR CUT-BACK, TO
THE SHIPPER ON TRAFFIC ORIGINATED AND HAULED TO THE MILL POINTS BY
OTHER RAIL CARRIERS, IT IS UNLAWFUL IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 1(6),
FROM THIS AND OTHER STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE OPINION OF THE FULL
COMMISSION IT APPEARS THAT THE COMMISSION SHARED THE VIEWS OF DIVISION
3 AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE SCHEDULE UPON THE OUTBOUND JOINT RATES AND
THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THAT EFFECT.  THE COMMISSION'S VIEW THAT THE TARIFF
OPERATED TO REDUCE SUCH OUTBOUND RATES WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF THE
PARTICIPATING CARRIERS IS AT LEAST A TENABLE ONE, AND ONE WE ARE NOT
DISPOSED TO GAINSAY.  WHEN THAT VIEW IS TAKEN, VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(4)
FN11  IS CLEAR.  WITH THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE TARIFF UNDER SEC. 6(4)
ESTABLISHED, THE COMMISSION COULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT ITS
OPERATION ENTAILED VIOLATIONS ALSO OF SECS. 1(6) AND 6(7).  FN12 

DISREGARD OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
JOINT TARIFFS MAY HAVE IMPORTANT SUBSTANTIVE CONSEQUENCES.  THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT JOINT RAILROAD RATES SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED ONLY BY CONCURRENCE OF THE PARTICIPATING CARRIERS OR BY THE
COMMISSION IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 15.  FN13  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
POWER UNDER SEC. 15 TO FIX JOINT RATES WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF THE
PARTICIPATING CARRIERS, THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 15(4) TO
PROTECT, IN STATED CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LONG HAULS OF PARTICIPATING
CARRIERS, AND TO GIVE REASONABLE PREFERENCE TO ORIGINATING CARRIERS. 
FN14  THE APPELLANT RAILROAD CARRIERS CLAIM, WITH WHAT FOUNDATION WE DO
NOT DECIDE, TO BE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION IN BOTH REGARDS, AND THAT TO
DENY THEM SUCH PROTECTION MAY FORCE THE ABANDONMENT OF BRANCH LINES
WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT BY AMENDMENT TO SEC. 15(4) TO AVOID.  IT IS SAID
THAT IN RECENT YEARS THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL SYSTEM HAS ALREADY ABANDONED
BRANCH LINES IN MISSISSIPPI HAVING GREATER MILEAGE THAN THE WHOLE OF
APPELLEE'S LINE.  FN15  DIVISION 3 FOUND THAT THE EXISTING CUT-BACK
RATES WERE "EXTREMELY LOW, AVERAGING ONLY ABOUT 8.5 PERCENT OF THE
FIRSTCLASS RATES, WHEREAS IN THE GENERAL COTTONSEED PROCEEDING THE
COMMISSION PRESCRIBED 18.5 PERCENT OF FIRST CLASS AS REASONABLE, AND
THAT THESE LOW CUT-BACK RATES CAN BE JUSTIFIED ONLY IN CONSIDERATION OF
THE IN-BOUND CARRIER'S OBTAINING THE OUT-BOUND MOVEMENT."  FN16 THE
FULL COMMISSION REITERATED DIVISION 3'S FURTHER FINDING THAT "INSTEAD
OF PLACING ITSELF ON AN EQUAL BASIS WITH ITS COMPETITORS, RESPONDENT'S
PRESENT EFFECTIVE AND SUSPENDED TARIFFS PLACE IT IN A MORE FAVORABLE
POSITION THAN ANY OF THEM, SINCE THE TARIFFS OF NONE OF THEM GO SO FAR
AS TO GRANT A REFUND TO THE SHIPPER ON TRAFFIC MOVING INTO THE MILL
OVER THE LINE OF ANOTHER CARRIER."  FN17 

ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THAT BY FAR THE GREATEST PART OF THE OUTBOUND
TRAFFIC OVER THE APPELLEE'S LINE MOVES BEYOND ON THE LINES OF
CONNECTING CARRIERS AT JOINTLY ESTABLISHED RATES, IT APPEARS THAT SOME
TRAFFIC DOES REACH ITS ULTIMATE DESTINATION AT POINTS ALONG APPELLEE'S
LINE.  IT WAS APPARENTLY WITH REFERENCE TO THIS TRAFFIC THAT THE
COMMISSION STATED THAT "THE FORM AND MANNER IN WHICH RESPONDENT'S
TARIFF IS PUBLISHED CLEARLY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
RATE OVER THE THROUGH ROUTE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE SEVERAL CARRIERS
IN SUCH THROUGH ROUTE SHALL FILE, PRINT, AND KEEP OPEN TO PUBLIC
INSPECTION  ...  THE SEPARATELY ESTABLISHED RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES
APPLIED TO THE THROUGH TRANSPORTATION."  FN19  THE CHALLENGED TARIFF
PROVIDED THAT UPON SHIPMENT OUTBOUND OVER APPELLEE'S LINE "THE FREIGHT
CHARGES  ...  TO THE MANUFACTURING OR MILL POINT WILL BE REDUCED" IN
STATED AMOUNTS, ALTHOUGH SUCH CHARGES HAD BEEN MADE BY OTHER CARRIERS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN TARIFFS FOR TRANSPORTATION OVER THEIR OWN
LINES.  THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HOLD THAT A CARRIER IN "SEPARATELY
ESTABLISHING" ITS RATES FOR A PORTION OF A THROUGH HAUL MUST NOT
PURPORT TO ALTER THE RATES ESTABLISHED BY CONNECTING LINES, SURELY IS A
PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 6(1). 

WHETHER CUT-BACKS EVEN AS APPLIED TO PREVIOUS TRANSPORTATION OVER THE
CARRIER'S OWN LINES ARE EVER PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT, WE DO NOT
DECIDE; AND, LIKE THE COMMISSION, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION WHETHER THE
PARTICULAR CUT-BACKS EMPLOYED BY APPELLEE'S COMPETITORS ARE VALID.  WE
SIMPLY HOLD THAT, WHATEVER MAY BE THE APPELLEE'S RIGHTS IN APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS, CF. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
768, THE APPELLEE MAY NOT REALIZE UPON THEM BY MEANS WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAS PROPERLY FOUND TO BE UNLAWFUL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 208, 220,
28 U.S.C. SECS. 47, 47A; SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

FN2  248 I.C.C. 441; 46 F.SUPP.  204. 

FN3  SEC. 15(7) INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(7). 

FN4  238 I.C.C. 309. 

FN5  "THE NAMES OF THE SEVERAL CARRIERS WHICH ARE PARTIES TO ANY
JOINT TARIFF SHALL BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES
THERETO, OTHER THAN THE ONE FILING THE SAME, SHALL FILE WITH THE
COMMISSION SUCH EVIDENCE OF CONCURRENCE THEREIN OR ACCEPTANCE THEREOF
AS MAY BE REQUIRED OR APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, AND WHERE SUCH
EVIDENCE OF CONCURRENCE OR ACCEPTANCE IS FILED IT SHALL NOT BE
NECESSARY FOR THE CARRIERS FILING THE SAME TO ALSO FILE COPIES OF THE
TARIFFS IN WHICH THEY ARE NAMED AS PARTIES."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(4). 

FN6  238 I.C.C. AT 315. 

FN7  "NO CARRIER, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THIS CHAPTER, SHALL
ENGAGE OR PARTICIPATE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY,
AS DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER, UNLESS THE RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES UPON
WHICH THE SAME ARE TRANSPORTED BY SAID CARRIER HAVE BEEN FILED AND
PUBLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER; NOR SHALL
ANY CARRIER CHARGE OR DEMAND OR COLLECT OR RECEIVE A GREATER OR LESS OR
DIFFERENT COMPENSATION FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR
PROPERTY, OR FOR ANY SERVICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, BETWEEN THE
POINTS NAMED IN SUCH TARIFFS THAN THE RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES WHICH
ARE SPECIFIED IN THE TARIFF FILED AND IN EFFECT AT THE TIME; NOR SHALL
ANY CARRIER REFUND OR REMIT IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY DEVICE ANY PORTION
OF THE RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES SO SPECIFIED, NOR EXTEND TO ANY
SHIPPER OR PERSON ANY PRIVILEGES OR FACILITIES IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY, EXCEPT SUCH AS ARE SPECIFIED IN SUCH TARIFFS." 
49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(7). 

FN8  "IT IS MADE THE DUTY OF ALL COMMON CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER TO ESTABLISH, OBSERVE, AND ENFORCE  ...
JUST AND REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES AFFECTING
CLASSIFICATIONS, RATES, OR TARIFFS,  ...  AND EVERY UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, AND PRACTICE IS PROHIBITED AND
DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(6). 

FN9  238 I.C.C. AT 317-318. 

FN10  248 I.C.C. AT 446.  FOR THE TEXTS OF SECS. 1(6), 6(4) AND (7),
SEE FOOTNOTES 8, 5 AND 7, SUPRA. 

FN11  FOR THE TEXT, SEE FOOTNOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN12  FOR THE TEXTS, SEE FOOTNOTES 8 AND 7, SUPRA. 

FN13  SEC. 15(3), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(3). 

FN14  "IN ESTABLISHING ANY SUCH THROUGH ROUTE THE COMMISSION SHALL
NOT (EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3 OF THIS TITLE, AND EXCEPT WHERE
ONE OF THE CARRIERS IS A WATER LINE) REQUIRE ANY CARRIER BY RAILROAD,
WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, TO EMBRACE IN SUCH ROUTE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN
THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF ITS RAILROAD AND OF ANY INTERMEDIATE RAILROAD
OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION AND UNDER A COMMON MANAGEMENT OR CONTROL
THEREWITH, WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE TERMINI OF SUCH PROPOSED THROUGH
ROUTE, (A) UNLESS SUCH INCLUSION OF LINES WOULD MAKE THE THROUGH ROUTE
UNREASONABLY LONG AS COMPARED WITH ANOTHER PRACTICABLE THROUGH ROUTE
WHICH COULD OTHERWISE BE ESTABLISHED, OR (B) UNLESS THE COMMISSION
FINDS THAT THE THROUGH ROUTE PROPOSED TO BE ESTABLISHED IS NEEDED IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE, AND MORE EFFICIENT OR MORE ECONOMIC,
TRANSPORTATION:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IN PRESCRIBING THROUGH ROUTES
THE COMMISSION SHALL, SO FAR AS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
AND SUBJECT TO THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS IN CLAUSES (A) AND (B), GIVE
REASONABLE PREFERENCE TO THE CARRIER BY RAILROAD WHICH ORIGINATES THE
TRAFFIC.  NO THROUGH ROUTE AND JOINT RATES APPLICABLE THERETO SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING ANY CARRIER
THAT WOULD PARTICIPATE THEREIN TO MEET ITS FINANCIAL NEEDS.  ...  "  49
U.S.C. SEC. 15(4). 

FN15  SEE, E.G., ABANDONMENT OF LINE BY MISSISSIPPI VALLEY CO. AND
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 145 I.C.C. 289; ABANDONMENT OF BRANCH LINE BY
Y. & M.V.R. CO., 145 I.C.C. 393; HELM AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD CO.
ABANDONMENT, 170 I.C.C. 33; GULF & SHIP ISLAND R. CO. ABANDONMENT, 193
I.C.C. 749; Y. & M.V.R. CO. ABANDONMENT, 249 I.C.C. 561; Y. & M.V.R.
CO. ABANDONMENT, 249 I.C.C. 613.    FN16  238 I.C.C. AT 314. 

FN17  238 I.C.C. AT 313; 248 I.C.C. AT 445. 

FN18  248 I.C.C. AT 445. 

FN19  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(1). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

COMMISSIONER SPLAWN DISSENTED FROM THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION IN
THIS CASE.  248 I.C.C. 441, 446-447.  HE NOTED THAT RESPONDENT'S TARIFF
"IN NO WISE AFFECTS THE AMOUNT OF THE RATES PAID FOR THE INBOUND
SERVICE TO THE MILL POINT," ITS ONLY EFFECT BEING TO "REDUCE THE
OUTBOUND RATE AND THUS MAKE APPLICABLE THE SAME RATE AS APPLIES WHEN
THE OUTBOUND HAUL IS PERFORMED ENTIRELY BY THE TRUNK LINES."  IN HIS
VIEW, THE OUTBOUND TRAFFIC IS "FREE" TRAFFIC, AS THAT TERM WAS USED IN
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768.  THAT IS TO
SAY, "IT IS TRAFFIC WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY MOVED IN ON LOCAL OR JOINT
RATES TO THE MILLING POINT AND HAS THERE COME TO REST."  HENCE THE FACT
THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT A PARTY TO THE INBOUND RATES IS "WITHOUT LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE."  COMMISSIONER SPLAWN CONCLUDED THAT THE DECISION OF THE
COMMISSION VIOLATED "ALL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTNESS AND FAIRNESS AS IT
PRECLUDES RESPONDENT FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE OUTBOUND MOVEMENT OR IN
THE THROUGH MOVEMENT OF THE TRAFFIC FROM COMMON ORIGINS ON AN EQUALITY
OF RATES WITH THE TRUNK LINES."  THE FACT THAT NO OTHER CARRIER IS A
PARTY TO RESPONDENT'S TARIFF CONTAINING THE CUT-BACK PROVISION AND THAT
RESPONDENT ABSORBS THE ALLOWANCES OUT OF ITS PROPORTION OF THE JOINT
OUTBOUND RATE WAS UNIMPORTANT IN HIS VIEW.  AS HE STATED, "THE
IDENTICAL FACTS ARE TRUE OF THE TARIFFS AND PRACTICE OF AT LEAST ONE OF
THE INTERVENING TRUNK LINES" - TARIFFS WHICH CONCEDEDLY CONSTITUTED THE
NECESSITY FOR RESPONDENT'S TARIFF.  MOREOVER, AS HE OBSERVED, "THERE
CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PROVISION IS LAWFUL AS TO OUTBOUND TRAFFIC TO
POINTS REACHED BY RESPONDENT OVER ITS LINE."  THAT TRAFFIC WOULD SEEM
TO BE AS "LOCAL" AS THE TRANSIT PRIVILEGE WHICH THIS COURT HELD IN
CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 247, A CARRIER
MIGHT ESTABLISH FOR ITS INDIVIDUAL TARIFF, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A
JOINT THROUGH ROUTE WITH JOINT RATES.  SO I WOULD BE INCLINED TO
SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT ALLOWED THE TARIFF
TO APPLY ON OUTBOUND TRAFFIC TO POINTS ON RESPONDENT'S OWN LINE. 

BUT I AM VOTING FOR A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IN
THE VIEW THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR
ADEQUATE FINDINGS. 

ALTHOUGH THERE ARE TWO REPORTS ON THIS PROBLEM - ONE BY THE FULL
COMMISSION AND ONE BY A DIVISION OF THE COMMISSION - THEY HAVE AN
OBSCURITY AND VAGUENESS WHICH TWO FULL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THIS COURT HAVE
NOT DISPELLED.  COMMISSIONER SPLAWN COMPLAINED WITHOUT SUCCESS OF THE
LACK OF FINDINGS UNDER SEC. 1(6), SEC. 6(1), AND SEC. 6(4).  BUT IF WE
PASS BY THOSE DEFICIENCIES AND CUT AND SEW THE MEAGER MATERIALS AT HAND
INTO THE PATTERN WHICH WE GUESS THE COMMISSION HAD IN MIND, THERE ARE
STILL IMPORTANT QUESTIONS LEFT UNANSWERED.  (1) THE TARIFFS CONTAINING
THE JOINT OUTBOUND RATES SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE "PRIVILEGES, CHARGES
AND RULES" TO BE COVERED BY SEPARATE TARIFFS EVEN THOUGH THE JOINT OR
THROUGH RATE IS AFFECTED, PROVIDED THE CARRIER GRANTING THE PRIVILEGE
DOES SO UPON ITS OWN RESPONSIBILITY AND AT ITS OWN COST.  WE ARE NOT
INFORMED WHY THAT PROVISION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE APPELLEE'S PROPOSED
TARIFF AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT IT APPLIES TO OUTBOUND TRAFFIC TO
POINTS ON APPELLEE'S LINE.  (2) IF CONCURRENCE OF THE OTHER CARRIERS TO
APPELLEE'S TARIFF IS NECESSARY, WE ARE NOT TOLD WHY THE FOREGOING
PROVISION OF THE JOINT TARIFF IS NOT ADEQUATE.  (3) IN CASE THAT
PROVISION OF THE TARIFF COVERING JOINT RATES IS NOT APPLICABLE, THERE
IS ANOTHER PHASE OF THE PROBLEM WHICH IS IN THE DARK.  THE COMMISSION
DOES NOT SEEM TO DENY THAT THIS TRAFFIC WAS "FREE" TRAFFIC WITHIN THE
RULE OF ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IT WAS
MERELY CONCERNED WITH THE "FORM AND MANNER" OF THE TARIFF.  BUT WE ARE
NOT TOLD WHY APPELLEE'S TARIFF IS NOT WITHIN THE RULE OF CENTRAL R. CO.
OF NEW JERSEY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, SO FAR AS THE TARIFF SPECIFIES
THE RATE FROM MILLING POINTS TO DESTINATIONS ON APPELLEE'S LINE.  THE
RULE GOVERNING THE RIGHT OF CARRIERS TO INITIATE RATES HAS NOT
CHANGED.  UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S.
499, 506. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO SPEAKING FOR THE COURT STATED IN THAT CASE, "WE
MUST KNOW WHAT A DECISION MEANS BEFORE THE DUTY BECOMES OURS TO SAY
WHETHER IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG."  294 U.S. P. 511.  THAT WAS SAID ABOUT
ANOTHER OBSCURE AND VAGUE REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  WE SHOULD SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT THE PRESENT REPORT. 
THE QUESTIONS LEFT UNANSWERED BY THIS REPORT MAY BE SIMPLE ONES TO
EXPERTS.  BUT WE SHOULD HAVE THOSE ANSWERS BEFORE WE PUT THE IMPRIMATUR
OF THIS COURT ON THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN
IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :


















BOONE V. LIGHTNER, 319 U.S. 561 


NO. 698.  ARGUED MAY 3, 4, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 7, 1943.  - 222 N.C.
205, 22 S.E. 426, AFFIRMED. 


PROVIDING FOR STAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING PERSONS IN MILITARY
SERVICE, ADDRESSES TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT THE QUESTION WHETHER
"THE ABILITY OF  ...  THE DEFENDANT TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE IS NOT
MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY REASON OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE."  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, DENIAL OF A STAY AT THE INSTANCE OF A
DEFENDANT IN MILITARY SERVICE WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF THAT DISCRETION.  PP.
565, 572. 

BOONE V. LIGHTNER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 750, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO DURING THE TIME OF THE 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST A DEFENDANT IN MILITARY SERVICE HAS BEEN REFUSED UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DENIED RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS'
CIVIL RELIEF ACT OF 1940.  THE CONTROVERSY IN WHICH HE WAS ENGAGED IS
FOR STATE COURTS TO SETTLE, AND WE DEAL WITH THE FACTS ONLY AS THEY
RELATE TO THIS FEDERAL QUESTION. 

THE PETITIONER BOONE WAS SUMMONED INTO A STATE COURT IN NORTH
CAROLINA IN AN ACTION TO REQUIRE HIM TO ACCOUNT AS TRUSTEE OF A FUND
FOR HIS MINOR DAUGHTER, TO REMOVE HIM AS TRUSTEE, TO SURCHARGE HIS
ACCOUNTS FOR LOSSES CAUSED BY ILLEGAL MANAGEMENT, AND TO OBTAIN
PERSONAL JUDGMENT FOR DEFICIENCY IN THE FUND. 

BOONE'S MOTHER-IN-LAW, BY WILL OF WHICH HE WAS EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE,
CREATED A TRUST FUND FOR THE EDUCATION OF HER GRANDCHILDREN, INCLUDING
ONE CHILD OF BOONE'S.  SHORTLY AFTER HER DEATH, AND IN SEPTEMBER, 1938,
ANOTHER CHILD WAS BORN TO HIM.  SINCE THIS CHILD WAS UNPROVIDED FOR IN
THE WILL, THE FATHER-IN-LAW MADE ARRANGEMENTS WHICH UPON HIS DEATH PUT
INTO BOONE'S HANDS A FUND OF ABOUT $15,000.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE
FUND WAS A TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DAUGHTER.  THERE WAS
CONTROVERSY WHETHER IT WAS GOVERNED, AS BOONE CLAIMED, BY A LETTER
SIGNED BY THE FATHER-IN-LAW WHICH PLACED NO RESTRICTION ON HIS
DISCRETION; OR, AS MRS. BOONE, WHO HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS OF
NORTH CAROLINA, CLAIMED, BY THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THE TESTAMENTARY
TRUST SET UP BY HER MOTHER.  FOR OUR PURPOSES IT IS ENOUGH THAT IT WAS
ADMITTEDLY A TRUST AND THAT GROUNDS WERE ALLEGED SUFFICIENT TO MOVE THE
STATE COURT TO REQUIRE AN ACCOUNTING. 

THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WERE SERVED ON BOONE PERSONALLY IN NORTH
CAROLINA ON JUNE 23, 1941.  HE WAS THEN IN MILITARY SERVICE OF THE
UNITED STATES AS A CAPTAIN STATIONED IN THE OFFICE OF THE UNDER
SECRETARY OF WAR IN WASHINGTON. 

BOONE FILED A VERIFIED ANSWER DENYING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT,
CLAIMING THAT ON JUNE 23, 1941, THE SAME DAY THE SUMMONS WAS SERVED, HE
CHANGED HIS "DOMICILE AND LEGAL RESIDENCE" TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND HIS
DAUGHTER'S AS WELL.  HE ADMITTED RECEIPT OF THE FUND IN TRUST, ASSERTED
THE TRUST WAS GOVERNED BY THE LETTER REFERRED TO AND PLEADED THAT HE
"IS NOT BOUND TO REPORT TO ANY COURT."  HE DENIED ALL CHARGES OF
MISCONDUCT OF THE FUND, DENIED THAT THERE WERE GROUNDS FOR APPREHENSION
THAT THE FUNDS WERE UNSAFE, AND ASSERTED THAT "HE HAS EXERCISED AT ALL
TIMES GOOD FAITH IN CARING FOR THIS FUND."  HE ALSO STATED THAT "HE HAS
NOT DISSIPATED ONE PENNY OF THE FUND, NOR HAS HE MADE ANY WITHDRAWAL
FROM THE FUND SINCE THE DAY THE MONEY WAS TURNED OVER TO HIM."  HE
PLEADED AT LENGTH FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT HE WAS NO LONGER
DOMICILED IN NORTH CAROLINA AND TO SUPPORT HIS ALLEGATION THAT THE
TRUST WAS "A VOLUNTARY TRUST NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF ANY
COURT OR RESTRICTED IN ANY WAY BY THE TERMS OF ANY WILL." 

ON FEBRUARY 2, 1942, THE CAUSE CAME ON FOR HEARING.  BOONE MOVED FOR
A CONTINUANCE TO THE 25TH OF MAY, 1942, HIS COUNSEL, ROY L. DEAL,
STATING THAT HE EXPECTED SOON TO BE CALLED INTO SERVICE AND WOULD BE
UNABLE TO TRY THE CASE, AND ASKING THE CONTINUANCE IN ORDER TO GIVE
DEFENDANT AMPLE TIME TO EMPLOY OTHER COUNSEL.  THE REQUEST WAS GRANTED,
AND THAT DATE PEREMPTORILY SET FOR THE TRIAL.  THE COURT FORBADE
TRANSFER OF SECURITIES CONSTITUTING THE TRUST AND REQUIRED THAT ON THE
TRIAL DATE THEY AND ANY FUNDS OF THE TRUST BE TURNED OVER TO THE CLERK
OF THE COURT TO ABIDE FURTHER ORDERS.  ITS ORDER ADMONISHED THAT THE
COURT WOULD AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICAL DATE ASCERTAIN THE STATUS OF THE
TRUST FUND AND THAT THE PRESENCE OF BOONE HIMSELF AT THE TRIAL "IS
HIGHLY DESIRABLE," BUT LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF BOONE AND HIS COUNSEL
WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY.  IN ORDER, HOWEVER, TO ADVISE DEFENDANT BOONE
AND HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LITIGATION, THE
COURT DIRECTED THAT A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER BE SENT TO THE
ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AT WASHINGTON. 

WHEN THE TRIAL DAY CAME, BOONE INVOKED THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS'
CIVIL RELIEF ACT OF 1940, AND DEMANDED THAT THE TRIAL BE CONTINUED
UNTIL AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE IN THE ARMY OR UNTIL "SUCH
TIME AS HE CAN PROPERLY CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE."  AT THIS TIME THERE WERE
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT NOT ONLY THE PLEADINGS AND THE AFFIDAVITS
SUBMITTED BY BOONE AND HIS COUNSEL BUT ALSO CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS WHICH
BOONE HAD MADE AND PROCURED AND WHICH HAD BEEN RETURNED TO THE COURT,
AND ALSO BOONE'S OWN STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH ACCOMPANIED
CERTAIN SECURITIES AND FUNDS WHICH HE TURNED OVER TO THE CLERK OF THE
COURT.  BOONE WAS NOT PRESENT, BUT COUNSEL APPEARED FOR HIM TO MOVE FOR
A FURTHER CONTINUANCE UNDER THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF
ACT.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED, COUNSEL WHO HAD PRESENTED THE MOTION
WITHDREW FROM THE CASE, AND THE TRIAL PROCEEDED.  THE VERDICT OF THE
JURY WENT AGAINST BOONE; AND JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED THAT THE TRUST WAS
GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF THE WILL, THAT BOONE HAD BEEN GUILTY OF
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT OF THE TRUST FUND, AND THAT HE BE HELD PERSONALLY
LIABLE FOR THE CONSEQUENT LOSS TO THE TRUST FUND OF MORE THAN $11,000,
AND REMOVED AS TRUSTEE. 

BOONE THEN APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE
MERITS AS WELL AS ON DENIAL OF THE CONTINUANCE, AND THAT COURT
AFFIRMED.  222 N.C. 205, 22 S.E.2D 426.  AS THE DECISION BELOW
PRESENTED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

THE SECTION OF THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT OF 1940
PRINCIPALLY INVOKED IS SEC. 201,  FN1  WHICH READS: 

"AT ANY STAGE THEREOF ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING IN ANY COURT IN WHICH
A PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE IS INVOLVED, EITHER AS PLAINTIFF OR
DEFENDANT, DURING THE PERIOD OF SUCH SERVICE OR WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
THEREAFTER MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT IN WHICH IT IS PENDING,
ON ITS OWN MOTION, AND SHALL, ON APPLICATION TO IT BY SUCH PERSON OR
SOME PERSON ON HIS BEHALF, BE STAYED AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, UNLESS,
IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THE ABILITY OF PLAINTIFF TO PROSECUTE THE
ACTION OR THE DEFENDANT TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE IS NOT MATERIALLY
AFFECTED BY REASON OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE." 

THE POSITIONS URGED BY PETITIONER COME TO THESE:  FIRST, THAT
DEFENDANT'S MILITARY SERVICE IN WASHINGTON RENDERED A CONTINUANCE
MANDATORY; SECOND, IF NOT MANDATORY, THAT THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT HE
COULD ATTEND OR WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY HIS ABSENCE WAS NOT ON HIM,
BUT ON THOSE WHO WOULD FORCE THE PROCEEDINGS; THIRD, THAT THE COURT DID
NOT MAKE THE FINDING REQUIRED BY THE ACT FOR DENIAL OF A STAY; AND
LAST, THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE LAW THE TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION
IN THIS CASE.  THE PETITION RAISES OTHER QUESTIONS, INCLUDING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ONE AS TO WHETHER HE HAS BEEN DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW,
WHICH WE DO NOT DISCUSS BECAUSE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE
THEY ARE FRIVOLOUS. 

1.  THE ACT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE CONTINUANCE ON MERE
SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS IN WASHINGTON IN THE MILITARY SERVICE. 
CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ADMONISH US THAT WE SHOULD NOT
NEEDLESSLY RENDER AS MEANINGLESS THE LANGUAGE WHICH, AFTER AUTHORIZING
STAYS, SAYS "UNLESS, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THE ABILITY OF
PLAINTIFF TO PROSECUTE THE ACTION OR THE DEFENDANT TO CONDUCT HIS
DEFENSE IS NOT MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY REASON OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE." 

THE ACT OF 1940 WAS A SUBSTANTIAL REENACTMENT OF THAT OF 1918.  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF ITS ANTECEDENT SHOWS THAT THIS CLAUSE WAS
DELIBERATELY CHOSEN AND THAT JUDICIAL DISCRETION THEREBY CONFERRED ON
THE TRIAL COURT INSTEAD OF RIGID AND UNDISCRIMINATING SUSPENSION OF
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS WAS THE VERY HEART OF THE POLICY OF THE ACT.  FN2
WHILE THIS COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT, THE ACT WAS
GENERALLY CONSTRUED CONSISTENTLY WITH THIS POLICY.  FN3 

REENACTED AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND WITHOUT RECONSIDERATION OF THE
QUESTION BEYOND A STATEMENT IN THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT THAT "THERE
ARE ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS INCORPORATED IN THE BILL TO PREVENT ANY PERSON
FROM TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE" OF ITS PROVISIONS,  FN4  WE ARE UNABLE TO
IGNORE OR STERILIZE THE CLAUSE WHICH PLAINLY VESTS JUDICIAL DISCRETION
IN THE TRIAL COURT. 

2.  THE ACT MAKES NO EXPRESS PROVISION AS TO WHO MUST CARRY THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT A PARTY WILL OR WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED, IN
PURSUANCE NO DOUBT OF ITS POLICY OF MAKING THE LAW FLEXIBLE TO MEET THE
GREAT VARIETY OF SITUATIONS NO LEGISLATOR AND NO COURT IS WISE ENOUGH
TO FORESEE.  WE, TOO, REFRAIN FROM DECLARING ANY RIGID DOCTRINE OF
BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS MATTER, BELIEVING THAT COURTS CALLED UPON TO
USE DISCRETION WILL USUALLY HAVE ENOUGH SOUND SENSE TO KNOW FROM WHAT
DIRECTION THEIR INFORMATION SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO COME.  ONE CASE MAY
TURN ON AN ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHICH THE PARTY IS AN IMPORTANT WITNESS,
WHERE IT ONLY APPEARS THAT HE IS IN SERVICE AT A REMOTE PLACE OR AT A
PLACE UNKNOWN.  THE NEXT MAY INVOLVE AN ACCIDENT CAUSED BY ONE OF HIS
FAMILY USING HIS CAR WITH HIS PERMISSION, WHICH HE DID NOT WITNESS, AND
AS TO WHICH HE IS FULLY COVERED BY INSURANCE.  SUCH A NOMINAL
DEFENDANT'S ABSENCE IN MILITARY SERVICE IN WASHINGTON MIGHT BE URGED BY
THE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE REAL DEFENDANT, AS GROUND FOR DEFERRING
TRIAL UNTIL AFTER THE WAR.  TO SAY THAT THE MERE FACT OF A PARTY'S
MILITARY SERVICE HAS THE SAME SIGNIFICANCE ON BURDEN OF PERSUASION IN
THE TWO CONTEXTS WOULD BE TO PUT INTO THE ACT THROUGH A BURDEN OF PROOF
THEORY THE RIGIDITY AND LACK OF DISCRIMINATING APPLICATION WHICH
CONGRESS SOUGHT TO REMOVE BY MAKING STAYS DISCRETIONARY.  WE THINK THE
ULTIMATE DISCRETION INCLUDES A DISCRETION AS TO WHOM THE COURT MAY ASK
TO COME FORWARD WITH FACTS NEEDFUL TO A FAIR JUDGMENT. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHOEVER MIGHT HAVE HAD THE BURDEN ORIGINALLY,
THE CONTINUANCE WAS FINALLY DENIED UPON A RECORD WHICH DISCLOSED THE
FACTS SO FAR AS EITHER PARTY SAW FIT TO DO SO.  THE DEFENDANT AND HIS
COUNSEL SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS AND THE DEPOSITIONS AND ACCOUNTS BEFORE
THE COURT REVEALED FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE. 

WHETHER, IF THE COURT KNEW ONLY THE EXISTENCE OF THIS COMPLICATED
CONTROVERSY AND THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS ABSENT IN MILITARY SERVICE, IT
COULD HAVE CAST UPON THE DEFENDANT THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE
LITIGATION COULD NOT GO AHEAD WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIM, IS NOT BEFORE
US. THE COURT MADE NO SUCH RULING.  THE DEFENDANT APPEARED, HE PLEADED
HIS DEFENSE, HE TOOK DEPOSITIONS SHOWING FULLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THE
FUND, AND HE SUPPLIED HIS OWN AFFIDAVIT SHOWING WHERE HE WAS AND WHAT
HE WAS DOING.  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS UNDER A DUTY TO MAKE
A DISCLOSURE OF HIS SITUATION, ONCE HE UNDERTOOK TO DO SO, THE
SIGNIFICANCE ALIKE OF WHAT HIS AFFIDAVIT SAID AND OF WHAT IT OMITTED
WAS TO BE JUDGED BY ORDINARY TESTS.  ONE OF THESE IS THAT "ALL EVIDENCE
IS TO BE WEIGHED ACCORDING TO THE PROOF WHICH IT WAS IN THE POWER OF
ONE SIDE TO HAVE PRODUCED AND IN THE POWER OF THE OTHER SIDE TO HAVE
CONTRADICTED."  COOPER V. DASHER, 290 U.S. 106, 109.  THE TRIAL COURT
AND THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA DID JUST THIS.  THEY DID NOT
DENY HIS STAY BECAUSE HE FAILED TO MEET THEIR IDEAS OF BURDEN; THEY
WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE HE OFFERED AND FOUND ITS CONCLUSIONS DISCREDITED
BY ITS AVOIDANCE OF SUPPORTING FACTS WITHIN HIS KNOWLEDGE AND NOT
WITHIN THAT OF HIS ADVERSARY.  THAT IS NOT A RULING ON BURDEN OF
PROOF.  FINDING THAT THE COURTS BELOW HAVE PROCEEDED UPON NO
MISAPPREHENSION OF THE LAW, WE TURN TO THEIR DEALING WITH THE FACTS OF
THE PARTICULAR CASE. 

3.  SOME QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL
COURT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  IN THE ORDER DENYING THE
CONTINUANCE IT FOUND AS A FACT THAT "THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CAUSE IS
DELIBERATELY AND WILFULLY ATTEMPTING TO EVADE AN ULTIMATE DETERMINATION
OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION ENTITLED AS ABOVE, AND IS
EXERCISING HIS ASSUMED RIGHT UNDER THE ACT REFERRED TO ABOVE TO AVOID
SUCH DETERMINATION."  IT ALSO FOUND THE DEFENDANT "IS NOT UPON THE
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH."  IN THE FINAL JUDGMENT
THE COURT FOUND AS A FACT "THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS HAD AMPLE TIME AND
OPPORTUNITY TO PROPERLY PREPARE HIS DEFENSE IN THIS CASE AND THAT HIS
MILITARY SERVICE HAS NOT PREVENTED HIM FROM DOING THIS."  IT FOUND THAT
"DEFENDANT HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE AND PUT IN HIS DEFENSE IF HE
HAD ONE," AND THAT "IT IS APPARENT THAT HE HAS ONLY SOUGHT TO USE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT AS A SHIELD
FOR HIS WRONG DOING, AND THIS COURT, WHO ONCE WORE A U.S. UNIFORM WITH
PRIDE, DOES NOT INTEND FOR THIS TO BE DONE." 

OF COURSE THIS IS NOT A FINDING IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE THAT THE
ABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT "TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE IS NOT MATERIALLY
AFFECTED BY REASON OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE," BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT
IT WAS INTENDED TO BE IN SUBSTANCE THE EQUIVALENT.  IT WAS SO TREATED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA AND TO SEND THE CASE BACK FOR
FURTHER FINDINGS SEEMS UNWARRANTED.  THE ACT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY REQUIRE
FINDINGS.  IT IS ONE INTENDED TO APPLY TO COURTS NOT OF RECORD AS WELL
AS THOSE OF RECORD, AND IT REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE COURT BE OF OPINION
THAT ABILITY TO DEFEND IS NOT MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY MILITARY SERVICE. 
WE ACCEPT THE FINDINGS AS SUFFICIENTLY EVIDENCING THE OPINION OF THE
COURT TO THAT EFFECT.    4.  THE FINAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EVIDENCE
SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTS THE OPINION OR WHETHER THE ORDER CONSTITUTES AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

WE THINK THE OPINION OF THE COURT THAT BOONE'S MILITARY SERVICE DID
NOT PREVENT HIM FROM BEING PRESENT AND DOING WHATEVER COULD HAVE BEEN
DONE BY WAY OF DEFENSE FINDS AMPLE SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  BOONE HAD
BEEN ABLE TO GET AWAY FROM WASHINGTON TO GO TO NEW YORK FOR THE TAKING
OF DEPOSITIONS ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS.  HE HAD LONG NOTICE OF THE
TRIAL DATE AND THE COURT HAD PLACED IN THE FILES OF HIS DEPARTMENT ITS
ORDER SHOWING THE DESIRABILITY OF HIS PRESENCE AT THAT TIME.  BOONE,
BEING A LAWYER AND PRESUMABLY KNOWING THE GRAVITY OF THE ACCUSATIONS
AGAINST HIM, MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO MAKE SOME MOVE TO GET LEAVE TO BE
PRESENT.  IF IT WERE DENIED, HE MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO EXPOSE EVERY
CIRCUMSTANCE OF HIS EFFORT TO THE COURT IN HIS PLEA FOR CONTINUANCE. 
BOONE'S AFFIDAVIT, AFTER RECITING THAT HE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE
INTERNATIONAL DIVISION, HEADQUARTERS, SERVICES OF SUPPLY, WASHINGTON,
D.C., SAYS "THE WORK IN SAID DIVISION IS VERY HEAVY, AND FULL TIME AND
SOME EXTRA TIME ARE REQUIRED OF ALL OFFICERS IN SAID DIVISION,
INCLUDING THE DEFENDANT.  PRIOR TO THE DECLARATION OF WAR ON DEC. 8,
1941 THE WORK IN THIS DIVISION WAS VERY HEAVY, BUT SINCE THE
DECLARATION OF WAR THE VOLUME OF WORK HAS BEEN GREATLY INCREASED.  NO
LEAVES WHATEVER HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EXCEPT IN CASES OF SERIOUS
EMERGENCY." 

MOST LAWYERS TRAINED IN THE EQUITY TRADITION OF TRUSTEE FIDELITY
WOULD REGARD A TRIAL OF THIS KIND AS A SERIOUS EMERGENCY.  DID HE APPLY
FOR A LEAVE AT ALL?  THE AFFIDAVIT PRETTY CLEARLY IMPLIED THAT HE HAD
NOT.  WE THINK THE COURT HAD AMPLE GROUNDS FOR THE OPINION THAT BOONE
MADE NO EFFORT TO ATTEND TO DUTIES THAT SHOULD WEIGH HEAVILY UPON THE
HONOR OF A LAWYER-TRUSTEE. 

THERE WAS LIKEWISE SUPPORT FOR THE OPINION THAT THE FAILURE TO BE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL DID NOT RESULT FROM BOONE'S MILITARY SERVICE. 
ON FEBRUARY 2, 1942, THE COURT GRANTED HIS REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE
AND SET THE CASE FOR TRIAL ON MAY 25, 1942.  IT WAS STATED TO THE COURT
THAT COUNSEL THEN ACTING FOR HIM WAS EXPECTING TO BE CALLED IMMEDIATELY
INTO MILITARY SERVICE, AND IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR DEFENDANT TO
PROCURE ADDITIONAL COUNSEL.  NEVERTHELESS, WHEN THE TRIAL DATE ARRIVED,
THE FACT THAT THIS COUNSEL HAD GONE INTO SERVICE ON MAY 13, 1942, WAS
URGED AS A REASON FOR FURTHER POSTPONEMENT.  NO SHOWING WHATEVER WAS
MADE AS TO ANY EFFORT TO OBTAIN OTHER COUNSEL IN THE LONG INTERVAL
ALLOWED BY THE COURT FOR THE PURPOSE.  THIS COUNSEL WAS ALSO STATIONED
AT WASHINGTON AND SAID HE "WOULD NOT ASSUME TO ASK FOR LEAVE AT THE
PRESENT TIME, SO SOON AFTER HAVING REPORTED FOR DUTY." 

ON THE TRIAL DATE DEFENDANT WAS NEVERTHELESS REPRESENTED IN COURT BY
LOCAL COUNSEL.  THAT COUNSEL HOWEVER WAS CONSULTED ONLY THREE OR FOUR
DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL DATE AND WAS EMPLOYED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
MAKING THE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, AND WHEN THE COURT RULED ON IT HE
WITHDREW AND DECLINED TO PROCEED FURTHER.  THE DEFENDANT'S ACCOUNTS
PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOWED DISBURSEMENTS SINCE THE BEGINNING
OF THE ACTION AND BEFORE TRIAL FOR THE FOLLOWING MATTERS, AMONG OTHERS,
IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE:  ON AUGUST 15, 1941, DEFENDANT'S
DEPOSITION WAS TAKEN AT WASHINGTON, D.C.  THIS ENTAILED A REPORTER'S
FEE OF $66.00 AND A FEE OF $248.88 PAID A DETROIT ATTORNEY FOR
APPEARING AT THE PROCEEDING.  ON NOVEMBER 3 AND 5, 1941, DEPOSITIONS
WERE TAKEN IN NEW YORK CITY WITH THE DEFENDANT PRESENT.  THESE INVOLVED
A COURT REPORTER'S FEE OF $32.25, AND FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $375.00 FOR
THE DETROIT ATTORNEY AND NEW YORK COUNSEL OBTAINED TO ASSIST HIM.  THIS
ITEM CARRIED A NOTATION THAT IT DID NOT "INCLUDE SERVICES RENDERED IN
THE TAKING OF DEPOSITIONS IN OTHER CASES ON SAME DATE."  FROM AUGUST 4,
1941, TO JANUARY 26, 1942, DEAL, THE ATTORNEY WHO HAD REPRESENTED
DEFENDANT BEFORE WITHDRAWING TO ACCEPT A COMMISSION IN WASHINGTON,
RECEIVED $218.00 FOR HIS SERVICES IN REPRESENTING DEFENDANT IN THE
CASE.  TWO DAYS AFTER JUDGMENT, ANOTHER LAWYER FROM THE FIRM OF COUNSEL
WHO HAD WITHDRAWN AFTER MAKING THE MOTION OF MAY 25 APPEARED AND MOVED
TO SET THE VERDICT ASIDE AND TOOK AN APPEAL, LATER FILING EXTENSIVE
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.  COUNSEL WHO HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THE TRIAL ARGUED
THE APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

AT ALL TIMES SINCE THE ACTION BEGAN DEFENDANT HAS ALSO BEEN
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL FROM DETROIT, MICHIGAN.  HIS INABILITY TO APPEAR
ON THE TRIAL DATE WAS EXPLAINED ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS "DEFINITELY
ENGAGED AT THE PRESENT TIME IN THE TRIAL OF CASES AT DETROIT WHICH WILL
REQUIRE HIS PRESENCE IN COURT THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY THIRTY DAYS."  NO
AFFIDAVIT FROM THIS COUNSEL WAS PRODUCED, AND NO EXPLANATION IS MADE AS
TO HOW IT CAME THAT OTHER "CASES" WERE GIVEN PRIORITY OVER THIS IN VIEW
OF THE LONG NOTICE OF THE TRIAL DATE AND ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE CLIENT. 

IN THIS COURT, BOONE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS DETROIT COUNSEL AND BY
DEAL, THE LAWYER WHO WITHDREW FROM THE CASE TO ACCEPT A COMMISSION IN
WASHINGTON.  BESIDES THESE, THERE ALSO APPEAR FOUR OTHER LAWYERS, NONE
OF WHOM ARE INCLUDED IN THE FIVE WHO HAVE REPRESENTED HIM AT PREVIOUS
STAGES IN THE CASE. 

IN ADDITION TO THE FACTS PRESENTED TO THE TRIAL COURT WHICH WE HAVE
RECITED, THE TRIAL COURT APPARENTLY CONSIDERED MATTERS NOT OF RECORD IN
THIS CASE, BUT OF WHICH HE TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE.  HE RECITES THAT "THE
MOTION TO CONTINUE IS MADE AFTER THE DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL IN ONE OR MORE
INSTANCES ARISING OUT OF LITIGATION RESPECTING THE SUBJECT MATTER AND
PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN THIS ACTION TO APPEAR IN THE COURTS OF NORTH
CAROLINA, EVEN ON CITATION FOR CONTEMPT."  WE KNOW NOTHING OF THESE
EVENTS AND DISREGARD THIS GROUND OF THE COURT'S ACTION. 

THE COURT WAS DEALING NOT ONLY WITH AN INDIVIDUAL BUT WITH A TRUSTEE,
ONE CHARGED WITH DEFAULT IN HIS DUTY, AND WITH A FUND WHICH WAS SAID TO
BE IN JEOPARDY.  DEFENDANT IN SPITE OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE IN
WASHINGTON WAS CONTINUING TO ADMINISTER THE FUND.  THE DEFENDANT WAS A
MEMBER OF THE BAR, AND THE CHARGES STRUCK AT HIS HONOR AS WELL AS AT
HIS JUDGMENT.  INSTEAD OF SEEKING THE FIRST COMPETENT FORUM AND THE
EARLIEST POSSIBLE DAY TO LAY HIS ACCOUNTS OUT FOR VINDICATION, HE
SOUGHT TO ESCAPE THE FORUM AND POSTPONE THE DAY.  HE WAS BOTH PRESENT
AND REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL WHEN DEPOSITIONS WERE TAKEN WHICH ESTABLISH
HIS SPECULATION WITH THE TRUST FUNDS IN HIS PERSONAL MARGIN ACCOUNT. 
WE THINK THE RECORD AMPLY SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE
THAT THE CLAIM THAT MILITARY SERVICE WOULD PREJUDICE THE CONDUCT OF HIS
DEFENSE, WAS GROUNDLESS, AND THAT THE ABSENCE OF HIMSELF AND ALL OF HIS
NUMEROUS AND NOT UNCOMPENSATED COUNSEL ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT WAS
DICTATED WHOLLY BY LITIGIOUS STRATEGY. 

THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT IS ALWAYS TO BE LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED TO PROTECT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN OBLIGED TO DROP THEIR OWN
AFFAIRS TO TAKE UP THE BURDENS OF THE NATION.  THE DISCRETION THAT IS
VESTED IN TRIAL COURTS TO THAT END IS NOT TO BE WITHHELD ON NICE
CALCULATIONS AS TO WHETHER PREJUDICE MAY RESULT FROM ABSENCE, OR
ABSENCE RESULT FROM THE SERVICE.  ABSENCE WHEN ONE'S RIGHTS OR
LIABILITIES ARE BEING ADJUDGED IS USUALLY PRIMA FACIE PREJUDICIAL.  BUT
IN SOME FEW CASES ABSENCE MAY BE A POLICY, INSTEAD OF THE RESULT OF
MILITARY SERVICE, AND DISCRETION IS VESTED IN THE COURTS TO SEE THAT
THE IMMUNITIES OF THE ACT ARE NOT PUT TO SUCH UNWORTHY USE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  54 STAT. 1178, 1181, 50 U.S.C. APP. SEC. 521. 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THE QUESTION WHETHER BOONE COULD HAVE THE
JUDGMENT OPENED UPON PROPER APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 200(4), 50 U.S.C.
APP. SEC. 520(4). 

FN2  AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF
BILL, S. 2859, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PROVIDED IN SEC. 6 THAT: 

"AT ANY STAGE THEREOF ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING COMMENCED IN ANY COURT
AGAINST A PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT IN WHICH IT IS PENDING, ON ITS OWN MOTION, AND SHALL, ON
APPLICATION TO IT BY SUCH PERSON OR SOME PERSON ON HIS BEHALF, BE
STAYED AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, UNLESS, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
THE DEFENDANT IS NOT EMBARRASSED BY REASON OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE." 

ACCOMPANYING "NOTES AS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL" STATED THAT A
"SWEEPING EXEMPTION" SUCH AS THAT PROVIDED BY MOST STATES IN CIVIL WAR
DAYS, WAS "TOO BROAD, FOR THERE ARE MANY CASES WHERE THE FINANCIAL
ABILITY OF SOLDIERS AND SAILORS TO MEET OBLIGATIONS IN SOME WAY IS NOT
MATERIALLY IMPAIRED BY THEIR ENTRANCE INTO SERVICE."  HEARINGS AND
MEMORANDA BEFORE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON S. 2859 AND H.R. 6361,
65TH CONG., 1ST AND 2D SESS., P. 27. 

MAJOR JOHN H. WIGMORE, ONE OF THE DRAFTERS OF THE BILL, STATED AT THE
SENATE HEARINGS, THAT "A UNIVERSAL STAY AGAINST SOLDIERS IS WASTEFUL,
BECAUSE HUNDREDS OF THEM ARE MEN OF AFFAIRS AND MEN OF ASSETS, AND THEY
HAVE AGENTS BACK HERE LOOKING AFTER THEIR AFFAIRS.  THERE IS NO EARTHLY
REASON WHY THE COURT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD STAY AGAINST THEM.  IT IS THE
SMALL MAN, OR PERHAPS I SHOULD SAY THE HUMBLE MAN, WHO HAS JUST HIMSELF
AND NO AGENT AND NO OUTSIDE ASSETS, THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO FORGET.  HE
IS THE MAN WE ARE THINKING OF.  THESE OTHER PEOPLE CAN TAKE CARE OF
THEMSELVES, AND THE COURT WOULD SAY TO THEM, 'NO; YOUR AFFAIR IS A
GOING CONCERN; GO AHEAD WITH THE LAWSUIT.  YOU HAVE A LAWYER, YOU HAVE
AN AGENT, YOU HAVE A CORPORATION MANAGER, AND OTHER THINGS.'"  ID. AT
P. 97. 

AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, H.R. 6361, 65TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PROVIDED IN SEC. 201: 

"THAT AT ANY STAGE THEREOF ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING COMMENCED IN ANY
COURT AGAINST A PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD OF SUCH
SERVICE OR WITHIN 60 DAYS THEREAFTER MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT IN WHICH IT IS PENDING, ON ITS OWN MOTION, AND SHALL, ON
APPLICATION TO IT BY SUCH PERSON OR SOME PERSON ON HIS BEHALF, BE
STAYED AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, UNLESS, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
THE ABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER
SOUGHT IS NOT MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY REASON OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE." 

THE HOUSE REPORT ON THIS BILL, NO. 181, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
STATED: 

"INSTEAD OF A RIGID SUSPENSION OF ALL ACTIONS AGAINST A SOLDIER, A
RESTRICTION UPON SUITS IS PLACED ONLY WHERE A COURT IS SATISFIED THAT
THE ABSENCE OF THE DEFENDANT IN MILITARY SERVICE HAS MATERIALLY
IMPAIRED HIS ABILITY TO MEET THAT PARTICULAR OBLIGATION.  MOST OF THE
ACTIONS SOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT AGAINST SOLDIERS WILL BE FOR SMALL AMOUNTS
AND WILL THUS BE IN A LOCAL COURT WHERE THE JUDGE, IF HE DOES NOT
ALREADY KNOW, WILL BE IN A FAVORABLE POSITION TO LEARN WHETHER OR NOT
THE DEFENDANT WHO SEEKS THE BENEFIT OF THE STATUTE HAS REALLY BEEN
PREJUDICED BY HIS MILITARY SERVICE.  THOUGH NOT IN MILITARY SERVICE, HE
MAY HAVE PROPERTY FROM WHICH THE INCOME CONTINUES TO COME IN
IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS PRESENCE; PERHAPS HE MAY BE SOME NE'ER-DO-WELL WHO
ONLY SEEKS TO HIDE UNDER THE BROWN OF HIS KHAKI; ...  "  (P. 2.) 

"THE LESSON OF THE STAY LAWS OF THE CIVIL WAR TEACHES THAT AN
ARBITRARY AND RIGID PROTECTION AGAINST SUITS IS AS MUCH A MISTAKEN
KINDNESS TO THE SOLDIER AS IT IS UNNECESSARY.  A TOTAL SUSPENSION FOR
THE PERIOD OF THE WAR OF ALL RIGHTS AGAINST A SOLDIER DEFEATS ITS OWN
PURPOSE.  IN TIME OF WAR CREDIT IS OF EVEN MORE IMPORTANCE THAN IN TIME
OF PEACE, AND IF THERE WERE A TOTAL PROHIBITION UPON ENFORCING
OBLIGATIONS AGAINST ONE IN MILITARY SERVICE, THE CREDIT OF A SOLDIER
AND HIS FAMILY WOULD BE UTTERLY CUT OFF.  NO ONE COULD BE FOUND WHO
WOULD EXTEND THEM CREDIT. 

"BUT IN ANY CASE A RIGID STAY OF ALL ACTIONS AGAINST THE SOLDIER IS
TOO BROAD.  THERE ARE MANY MEN NOW IN THE ARMY WHO CAN AND SHOULD PAY
THEIR OBLIGATIONS IN FULL. 

"ON THE OTHER HAND THERE ARE ALREADY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN IN
MILITARY SERVICE WHO WILL BE UTTERLY RUINED AND THEIR FAMILIES MADE
DESTITUTE IF CREDITORS ARE ALLOWED UNRESTRICTEDLY TO PUSH THEIR CLAIMS;
AND YET THESE SAME SOLDIERS, IF GIVEN TIME AND OPPORTUNITY CAN, IN MOST
CASES, MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR.  THE COUNTRY IS ASKING
2,000,000 OF ITS YOUNG MEN TO RISK THEIR LIVES AND, IF NEED BE, TO GIVE
UP THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY.  BEFORE LONG EVEN MORE WILL BE ASKED
TO MAKE THE SAME SACRIFICE.  IS IT MORE THAN NAKED JUSTICE TO GIVE TO
THE SAVINGS OF THESE SAME MEN SUCH JUST MEASURE OF PROTECTION AS IS
POSSIBLE?"  (PP. 2-3.) 

"SECTION 201 ILLUSTRATES HOW THE COMMITTEE HAS AVOIDED AN ARBITRARY,
A RIGID BILL.  THE CLAUSE 'UNLESS, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THE
ABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER SOUGHT,
IS NOT MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY REASON OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE,' IS THE
KEY TO THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THE BILL.  THIS MERE FACT OF BEING IN
MILITARY SERVICE IS NOT ENOUGH; MILITARY SERVICE MUST BE THE REASON FOR
THE DEFENDANT NOT MEETING HIS OBLIGATIONS."  (P. 5.) 

CONGRESSMAN WEBB, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, STATED
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, WITH REFERENCE TO THIS BILL, THAT: 

"HERETOFORE DURING WARS THE VARIOUS STATES HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO PASS
THE PRIVATE STAY LAWS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SOLDIERS WHO ARE IN THE
SERVICE OF THEIR COUNTRY.  IF YOU WILL READ THE VARIOUS LAWS OF THIS
KIND WHICH THE COMMITTEE HAS SET OUT IN ITS REPORT, YOU WILL SEE WHAT
CONTRARIETY OF SUCH LAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED DURING RECENT YEARS AND
DURING THE VARIOUS WARS.  THE NEXT MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS LAW
AND THE VARIOUS STATE LAWS IS THIS, AND IN THIS I THINK YOU WILL FIND
THE CHIEF EXCELLENCE OF THE BILL WHICH WE PROPOSE:  INSTEAD OF THE BILL
WE ARE NOW CONSIDERING BEING ARBITRARY, INELASTIC, INFLEXIBLE, THE
DISCRETION AS TO DEALING OUT EVEN-HANDED JUSTICE BETWEEN THE CREDITOR
AND THE SOLDIER, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE SOLDIER
HAS BEEN CALLED TO HIS COUNTRY'S CAUSE, RESTS LARGELY, AND IN SOME
CASES ENTIRELY, IN THE BREAST OF THE JUDGE WHO TRIES THE CASE. 
"MANIFESTLY, IF THIS CONGRESS SHOULD UNDERTAKE TO PASS AN ARBITRARY
STAY LAW PROVIDING THAT NO CREDITOR SHOULD EVER SUE OR BRING
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ANY SOLDIER WHILE IN THE MILITARY SERVICE OF HIS
COUNTRY, THAT WOULD UPSET BUSINESS VERY LARGELY IN MANY PARTS OF THE
COUNTRY.  IN THE NEXT PLACE, IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO THE CREDITOR AS WELL
AS TO THE SOLDIER.  IT WOULD DISTURB THE SOLDIER'S CREDIT PROBABLY IN
MANY CASES AND WOULD DENY THE RIGHT OF THE CREDITOR TO HIS JUST DEBTS
FROM A PERSON WHO WAS AMPLY ABLE TO PAY AND WHOSE MILITARY SERVICE DID
NOT IN THE LEAST IMPAIR HIS ABILITY TO MEET THE OBLIGATION."  55 CONG.
REC. 7787. 

ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, SEC. 201 WAS AMENDED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR
"THE ABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER,"
"THE ABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE," AND TO EXTEND
ITS PROTECTION TO PLAINTIFFS AS WELL AS TO DEFENDANTS.  56 CONG. REC.
1696, 1753-1754.  THE AMENDMENTS WERE AGREED TO IN CONFERENCE, WITH THE
MANAGERS STATING WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMER AMENDMENT THAT "AS THE BILL
PASSED THE HOUSE RELIEF WAS TO BE GIVEN THE PARTY IN MILITARY SERVICE
UNLESS HIS ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER SOUGHT WAS NOT
MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY SUCH SERVICE.  THE AMENDMENT AGREED ON MAKES THE
TEST DEPEND UPON HIS ABILITY TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE."  56 CONG. REC.
3023.  AS SO AMENDED, THE BILL BECAME SEC. 201 OF THE 1918 ACT, 40
STAT. 442, WHICH WAS CARRIED INTO SEC. 201 OF THE 1940 ACT WITHOUT
AMENDMENT OF THE PROVISION UNDER CONSIDERATION.  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT
THE DISCUSSION SET FORTH IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS RELATED TO A STAY
ON A DIFFERENT BASIS THAN THE ONE ENACTED, IN SO FAR AS IT DEALS WITH
THE QUESTION WHETHER A MANDATORY OR A DISCRETIONARY STAY WAS INTENDED
IT IS NOT MADE INAPPLICABLE OR UNINSTRUCTIVE BY THE AMENDMENT. 

FN3 DAVIES & DAVIES V. PATTERSON, 137 ARK. 184, 208 S.W. 592; STATE
EX REL. CLARK V. KLENE, 201 MO. APP. 408, 212 S.W. 55; CF. SWIDERSKI V.
MOODENBAUGH, 44 F.SUPP.  687, 45 F.SUPP.  790; DIETZ V. TREUPEL, 184
APP. DIV. 448, 170 N.Y.S. 108; GILLULY V. HAWKINS, 108 WASH. 79, 182 P.
958. 

FN4  SEN. REPT. NO. 2109, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

THE PETITIONER IS A SOLDIER WHO WAS ON DUTY IN WASHINGTON THROUGHOUT
THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION IN NORTH CAROLINA OF THIS ACTION AGAINST
HIM.  HE DULY CLAIMED THE PROTECTION OF THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS'
CIVIL RELIEF ACT OF 1940, AND RESTS UPON IT HERE.  I THINK HE SHOULD
PREVAIL. 

THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION BEFORE US MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS
FOLLOWS:  ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST A PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE SHALL BE
STAYED UPON APPLICATION OF THAT PERSON "UNLESS, IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT, THE ABILITY OF  ...  THE DEFENDANT TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE IS NOT
MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY REASON OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE." 

THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE HAS NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND HAS NOT
PREVIOUSLY BEEN INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT.  THE ELABORATE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY SET FORTH BY THE COURT IS A HISTORY OF A CLAUSE WHICH WAS
STRICKEN FROM THE 1917 ACT, WHICH IS NOT BEFORE US NOW, AND WHICH, ON
ITS FACE, HAS A MEANING WHOLLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CLAUSE UNDER
CONSTRUCTION N1.  HENCE THE PROBLEM IS A NARROW ONE OF ANALYSIS OF THE
WORDS OF THE STATUTE ITSELF. 

I BELIEVE THAT THE CLAUSE UNDER CONSIDERATION REQUIRES THAT AN ACTION
AGAINST A PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE MUST BE STAYED UNLESS THE TRIAL
JUDGE CONCLUDES (A) THAT NO PERSONAL JUDGMENT WILL RESULT AND THAT THE
ACTION WILL IN EFFECT PRESERVE THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE PARTIES FOR THE
DURATION OF THE WAR; OR (B) THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ONLY A FORMAL PARTY;
OR (C) THAT THE DEFENDANT NEED NOT BE PRESENT FOR ANY PURPOSE, EITHER
BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER THE TRIAL, AND THAT HE WILL BE ADEQUATELY
REPRESENTED AND HAS NO NEED TO TESTIFY OR PARTICIPATE IN ANY WAY; OR
(D) THAT THE DEFENDANT'S MILITARY SERVICE DOES NOT PRECLUDE HIM FROM
HAVING AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO GET READY FOR, AND TO TAKE HIS NECESSARY
PART IN, THE LITIGATION. 

IN MY OPINION, NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET HERE.  ALTHOUGH THE
ACTION BEGAN AS A PROCEEDING TO PRESERVE THE TRUST ESTATE, WHICH WAS
QUITE PROPER, IT TERMINATED WITH A PERSONAL JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR $11,000 AFTER A TRIAL BY JURY OF MANY DISPUTED FACTS. 
THE PETITIONER WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT MERELY A FORMAL PARTY.  ONE ISSUE IN
THE CASE WAS WHETHER HE HAD DISSIPATED TRUST FUNDS, AND FOR SUCH AN
INQUIRY HIS PRESENCE TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM WAS ESSENTIAL TO
HIS INTERESTS AND HIS OWN TESTIMONY WAS, IN THE WORDS OF THE TRIAL
COURT, "HIGHLY DESIRABLE." 

THE SOLE POSSIBLE GROUND FOR THE COURT'S ACTION, THEREFORE, IS THAT
THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AND, WILFULLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
THE ACT, CHOSE INSTEAD TO ABSENT HIMSELF.  IN REACHING THIS RESULT THE
COURT ENGAGES IN PRECISELY THE SPECULATION WHICH I THINK THE ACT
PROHIBITS.  THE COURT DOES NOT KNOW, AND THE STATE COURT DID NOT TRY TO
FIND OUT, WHETHER BOONE APPLIED FOR A LEAVE OR DISCLOSED ITS URGENCY TO
HIS SUPERIORS; IT CONCLUDES THAT HE DID NEITHER.  THE COURT DOES NOT
KNOW WHETHER BOONE ATTEMPTED TO FIND NEW COUNSEL; IT ASSUMES THAT HE
DID NOT.  THE COURT DOES NOT KNOW WHY BOONE CHOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN
CERTAIN OTHER LAW SUITS AGAINST HIM CONDUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THIS
ONE; IT ASSUMES THAT THE OTHERS WERE LESS IMPORTANT THAN THIS CASE. 
THE COURT CAN NOT KNOW WHETHER THE PETITIONER TRULY OWES THE AMOUNT OF
THE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM; IT MUST ASSUME THAT HE DOES BECAUSE OF A
PROCEEDING CONDUCTED AGAINST HIM IN HIS ABSENCE.  FN2 

THE COURT EMPHASIZES THAT BOONE IS A MEMBER OF THE BAR.  BUT, FOR THE
DURATION OF THE WAR, HE IS PRIMARILY A SOLDIER, WITH A JOB TO DO WHICH
CONGRESS INTENDED SHOULD OVERSHADOW PERSONAL INTERESTS, WHETHER HIS OR
THOSE OF OTHERS WHO SEEK A PERSONAL JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.  IT IS
DIFFICULT FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT HE COULD ADEQUATELY HAVE PREPARED FOR
THIS TRIAL WITHOUT A LEAVE OF MANY WEEKS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO
PREVENT SOLDIERS AND SAILORS FROM BEING HARASSED BY CIVIL LITIGATION
"IN ORDER TO ENABLE SUCH PERSONS TO DEVOTE THEIR ENTIRE ENERGY TO THE
DEFENSE NEEDS OF THE NATION."  SEC. 100.  HE IS REQUIRED TO DEVOTE
HIMSELF TO SERIOUS BUSINESS, AND SHOULD NOT BE ASKED EITHER TO ATTEMPT
TO CONVINCE HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF HIS PRIVATE
AFFAIRS OR TO SPEND HIS TIME HUNTING FOR LAWYERS. 

THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, HAVE INQUIRED OF THE
APPROPRIATE MILITARY AUTHORITIES WHETHER THE PETITIONER COULD BE
GRANTED AMPLE LEAVE TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE AND BE PRESENT FOR TRIAL. 
IF THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE THIS, IT SERVES LITTLE PURPOSE.  IT MAY BE
ARGUED THAT THIS PETITIONER, A MAN OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE, IS AS
COMPETENT TO ASK HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER FOR LEAVE AS IS THE TRIAL COURT;
BUT THE ARGUMENT FAILS BECAUSE THE POLICY SET HERE, NO MATTER HOW MANY
QUALIFICATIONS THE COURT TRIES TO WORK INTO IT, WILL SHOOT FAR BEYOND
THE CONFINES OF THIS CASE.  IN THE COURSE OF THE WAR, NUMEROUS ACTIONS
WILL BE BROUGHT AGAINST SOLDIERS WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THIS ACT AND
HAVE NO NOTION THAT THIS COURT MIGHT WANT THEM TO APPLY TO THEIR
SUPERIOR OFFICERS FOR LEAVE AND TO MAKE AND FILE A FORMAL RECORD OF
THEIR SUPERIOR OFFICERS' REFUSAL. 

I FEAR THAT TODAY'S DECISION SERIOUSLY LIMITS THE BENEFITS CONGRESS
INTENDED TO PROVIDE IN THE SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' CIVIL RELIEF ACT.  IT
APPARENTLY GIVES THE ACT A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS RATHER THAN FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOLDIERS.  IT PLACES IN TRIAL
JUDGES AN ENORMOUS DISCRETION TO DETERMINE FROM A DISTANCE WHETHER A
PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE HAS EXERCISED PROPER DILIGENCE TO SECURE A
LEAVE, OR WHETHER IT IS BEST FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE THAT HE MAKE NO
APPLICATION AT ALL.  THESE ARE QUESTIONS ON WHICH THE JUDICIARY HAS NO
COMPETENCE, SINCE ONLY THE MILITARY AUTHORITIES CAN KNOW THE ANSWERS. 

FN1  THE CLAUSE FOR WHICH THE COURT GIVES THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS
AS FOLLOWS:  AN ACTION AGAINST A PERSON IN MILITARY SERVICE SHALL BE
STAYED, UPON REQUEST, "UNLESS, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THE ABILITY
OF THE DEFENDANT TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER SOUGHT IS NOT
MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY REASON OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE."  THIS MEANS, IN
ROUGH SUBSTANCE, WHAT ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SAYS, THAT THE ACTION WAS
TO BE STAYED EXCEPT WHERE THE DEFENDANT COULD READILY PAY A JUDGMENT
AGAINST HIMSELF.  BUT THAT LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED AND THE PRESENT
PROVISION INSERTED:  THE ACTION UPON PROPER REQUEST SHALL BE STAYED
UNLESS IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, "THE ABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT
TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE" IS AFFECTED BY MILITARY SERVICE.  THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABILITY TO PAY A JUDGMENT AND ABILITY TO CONDUCT A
DEFENSE IS SO GREAT THAT THE TWO CLAUSES HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY NOTHING IN
COMMON.  THE ABILITY TO PAY CLAUSE HAS BEEN LEFT IN SOME SECTIONS OF
THE ACT, AS, E.G., SECS. 203, 206, BUT IT IS NOT BEFORE US HERE. 

FN2  HAD THIS BEEN A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT, BOONE MIGHT HAVE IT SET
ASIDE UPON PROPER MOTION MADE AT ANY TIME WITHIN "NINETY DAYS AFTER THE
TERMINATION" OF HIS MILITARY SERVICE.  SEC. 200(4).  WHETHER THAT
QUESTION WHICH THE COURT EXPRESSLY RESERVES. 
..END :














MATTON CO. V. MURPHY, 319 U.S. 412 


NO. 783.  ARGUED MAY 5, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1943.  - APPEALS
DISMISSED. 


BRING ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW SHALL
BE ALLOWED OR ENTERTAINED UNLESS APPLICATION THEREFOR BE DULY MADE
WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF SUCH JUDGMENT OR DECREE."  RULE
36 OF THE RULES OF THIS COURT PROVIDES THAT AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT
FROM A STATE COURT OF LAST RESORT MAY BE ALLOWED "BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE
OR PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE STATE COURT, OR BY A JUSTICE OF THIS COURT." 
HELD: 

1. AN APPEAL FOR WHICH A TIMELY APPLICATION WAS MADE TO THE CHIEF
JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK COULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY
HIM EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE THREE MONTHS PERIOD. 
P. 414. 

2.  WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS PERIOD, APPLICATION FOR APPEAL MAY BE
MADE TO THE STATE JUDGE AND A JUSTICE OF THIS COURT AT THE SAME TIME,
WHEN NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL.  P. 414. 

3.  WHERE AN APPLICATION FOR APPEAL HAS BEEN MADE TO THE STATE JUDGE
WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS PERIOD AND HAS BEEN DENIED, A SUBSEQUENT
APPLICATION TO A JUSTICE OF THIS COURT, FILED AFTER THE THREE MONTHS
PERIOD HAS EXPIRED, IS TOO LATE.  P. 414. 

MATTON STEAMBOAT CO., INC. ET AL. V. MURPHY, ACTING INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSIONER, ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 813, LAKE TANKERS CORP. V. MURPHY, ACTING
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER, ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD
DEPARTMENT. 

APPEALS FROM A JUDGMENT, 289 N.Y. 119, 44 N.E.2D 391(ENTERED IN THE
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, ON REMITTITUR) SUSTAINING THE
VALIDITY OF THE NEW YORK UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAW.  SEE ALSO 263 APP.
DIV. 756, 774; 30 N.Y.S.2D 930, 32 N.Y.S.2D 373. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THESE CASES APPELLANTS HAVE SOUGHT TO APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE NEW
YORK COURTS SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW YORK UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE LAW (N.Y. LABOR LAW, SEC. 500 ET SEQ.).  THE APPLICABLE
BRING ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW SHALL
BE ALLOWED OR ENTERTAINED UNLESS APPLICATION THEREFOR BE DULY MADE
WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF SUCH JUDGMENT OR DECREE." 

THE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER THE APPEALS TO THIS COURT IN
THESE CASES WERE TIMELY.  IN EACH, WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (SEE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK,
317 U.S. 264), THE APPELLANT MADE TIMELY APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF
THE APPEAL TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS WHO,
BEING IN DOUBT AS TO THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENTS, DENIED THE
APPLICATIONS SHORTLY BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE THREE MONTHS PERIOD. 
ON APPLICATION TO AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THIS COURT, MADE SHORTLY
AFTER THE THREE MONTHS HAD EXPIRED, THE APPEALS WERE ALLOWED BY HIM
WITH THE COURT'S APPROVAL, IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT RESOLVE AN UNSETTLED
QUESTION OF OUR PRACTICE (SEE ROBERTSON AND KIRKHAM, JURISDICTION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, PP. 717-18).  WHEN WE SET THE
CASES FOR ARGUMENT TOGETHER WITH TWO COMPANION CASES, STANDARD DREDGING
CORP. V. MURPHY, ANTE, P. 306, AND INTERNATIONAL ELEVATING CO. V.
MURPHY, ANTE, P. 306, WE REQUESTED COUNSEL TO DISCUSS THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE APPEALS WERE "APPLIED FOR WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY
LAW." 

BY RULE 36 OF OUR RULES, AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A STATE COURT
OF LAST RESORT MAY BE ALLOWED "BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OR PRESIDING JUDGE
OF THE STATE COURT, OR BY A JUSTICE OF THIS COURT."  BUT SUCH AN APPEAL
MAY NOT BE ALLOWED WHEN NO APPLICATION IS MADE TO THE JUDGE OR JUSTICE
AUTHORIZED TO ALLOW IT WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. 
HERE APPELLANTS' APPLICATIONS TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS WERE TIMELY, AND COULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY HIM EITHER BEFORE
OR AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE THREE MONTHS PERIOD.  CARDONA V.
QUINONES, 240 U.S. 83; LATHAM V. UNITED STATES, 131 U.S. APPENDIX,
XCVII; UNITED STATES V. VIGIL, 10 WALL.  423, 427.  THE APPEALS COULD
ALSO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, ON SUCH TIMELY APPLICATIONS, BY A JUSTICE OF
THIS COURT.  AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE OR RULES TO PRECLUDE
APPLICATION WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS TO BOTH THE STATE JUDGE AND A
JUSTICE OF THIS COURT AT THE SAME TIME, WHERE SHORTNESS OF TIME MAKES
THAT NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL.  CF. SPIES V. ILLINOIS,
123 U.S. 131, 142. 

BUT WHEN THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED APPELLANTS'
APPLICATIONS AND DISALLOWED THE APPEALS, THE APPLICATIONS WERE NO
LONGER PENDING BEFORE HIM AND, AT LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
RECONSIDERATION BY HIM, APPEALS COULD BE ALLOWED ONLY ON A NEW
APPLICATION EITHER TO HIM OR TO A JUSTICE OF THIS COURT.  THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH SUCH APPLICATIONS COULD BE MADE IS THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE
STATUTE.  ITS LANGUAGE IS PEREMPTORY - "NO APPEAL  ...  SHALL BE
ALLOWED OR ENTERTAINED UNLESS APPLICATION THEREFOR BE DULY MADE WITHIN
THREE MONTHS."  THE PURPORT OF THE WORDS IS THAT THE APPEAL ALLOWED
MUST BE ONE THAT IS APPLIED FOR WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS PERIOD.  AN
APPLICATION WHICH HAS BEEN MADE WITHIN THAT PERIOD AND DENIED DOES NOT
SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT, NOR DOES A LATER APPLICATION FILED AFTER THE
TIME LIMIT HAS EXPIRED EVEN THOUGH IT BE ALLOWED. 

THE PURPOSE OF STATUTES LIMITING THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL IS TO SET A
DEFINITE POINT OF TIME WHEN LITIGATION SHALL BE AT AN END, UNLESS
WITHIN THAT TIME THE PRESCRIBED APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE; AND IF IT
HAS NOT, TO ADVISE PROSPECTIVE APPELLEES THAT THEY ARE FREED OF THE
APPELLANT'S DEMANDS.  ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WOULD
DEFEAT ITS PURPOSE.  WOULD-BE APPELLANTS COULD PROLONG INDEFINITELY THE
APPEAL PERIOD, BY MAKING APPLICATION TO ONE JUDGE WITHIN THE THREE
MONTHS AND UPON ITS DENIAL BY APPLYING SUCCESSIVELY TO OTHER JUDGES
EVEN AFTER THE PRESCRIBED TIME FOR APPEAL HAD ENDED.  MOREOVER, IN SUCH
CASES EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL COULD BE LIMITED ONLY BY
RECOURSE TO THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES APPLIED IN THE PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT APPELLANTS' APPLICATIONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE
APPEALS, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE THREE MONTHS PERIOD, WERE TOO
LATE, AND THAT THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE
APPEALS, WHICH ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 
..END :



















KELLEY V. EVERGLADES DISTRICT, 319 U.S. 415 


NO. 935.  DECIDED JUNE 1, 1943.  - 132 F.2D 742, VACATED. 


1.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE LACKS THE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH SEC.
83(E) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND NO. 37 OF THE GENERAL ORDERS IN
BANKRUPTCY REQUIRE AND WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THIS COURT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PLAN UNDER CHAPTER IX OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR
COMPOSITION OF THE DEBTS OF A FLORIDA DRAINAGE DISTRICT DISCRIMINATES
UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF A PARTICULAR CLASS OF CREDITORS.  P. 417. 

2.  THAT ONLY A VERY SMALL MINORITY OF CREDITORS HAVE OBJECTED TO THE
PLAN DOES NOT RELIEVE THE COURTS OF THE DUTY OF APPRAISING ITS
FAIRNESS, AND OF MAKING THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT SUCH AN
APPRAISAL.  P. 418. 

3.  THE NATURE AND DEGREE OF EXACTNESS OF THE FINDINGS REQUIRED IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER CH. IX DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR
CASE.  P. 419. 

4.  WHERE FUTURE TAX REVENUES OF A DRAINAGE DISTRICT ARE THE ONLY
SOURCE TO WHICH CREDITORS CAN LOOK FOR PAYMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS,
CONSIDERED ESTIMATES OF THOSE REVENUES CONSTITUTE THE ONLY AVAILABLE
BASIS FOR APPRAISING THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES OF
CREDITORS.  P. 419. 

5.  IN ORDER THAT A COURT MAY DETERMINE THE FAIRNESS OF THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF CASH OR SECURITIES OFFERED TO CREDITORS BY THE PLAN, THE
COURT MUST HAVE BEFORE IT DATA WHICH WILL PERMIT A REASONABLE, AND
HENCE AN INFORMED, ESTIMATE OF THE PROBABLE FUTURE REVENUES AVAILABLE
FOR THE SATISFACTION OF CREDITORS.  P. 420. 

6.  WHERE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CREDITORS ASSERT PRIOR CLAIMS TO
DIFFERENT SOURCES OF REVENUE, THERE MUST BE A DETERMINATION OF THE
EXTENT TO WHICH EACH CLASS IS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN A PARTICULAR SOURCE,
AND OF THE FAIRNESS OF THE ALLOTMENT TO EACH CLASS IN THE LIGHT OF THE
PROBABLE REVENUES TO BE ANTICIPATED FROM EACH SOURCE.  P. 420. 

TO SUPPORT SUCH DETERMINATIONS, THERE MUST BE FINDINGS, IN SUCH
DETAIL AND EXACTNESS AS THE NATURE OF THE CASE PERMITS, OF SUBSIDIARY
FACTS ON WHICH THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF FAIRNESS CAN RATIONALLY BE
PREDICATED. 

7.  IN A CH. IX PROCEEDING IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO
ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO SUPPLY FINDINGS WHICH THE TRIAL COURT
FAILED TO MAKE; THERE MUST BE FINDINGS, STATED EITHER IN THE TRIAL
COURT'S OPINION OR SEPARATELY, WHICH ARE SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE THE
FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION.  P. 421. 

KELLEY ET AL. V. EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
CONFIRMING A PLAN UNDER CHAPTER IX OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR THE
COMPOSITION OF INDEBTEDNESS OF THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT.  THE WRIT WAS
GRANTED AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW WAS VACATED. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE ASKED TO REVIEW A PLAN FOR COMPOSITION OF THE
DEBTS OF RESPONDENT, A DRAINAGE DISTRICT ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
FLORIDA.  THE COURTS BELOW HAVE CONFIRMED THE PLAN UNDER SEC. 83(E) OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 50 STAT. 653, 658, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 403(E), AS
AMENDED, UPON THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT, PREREQUISITE TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE PLAN, THAT IT IS "FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND FOR THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS AND DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR
OF ANY CREDITOR OR CLASS OF CREDITORS."  132 F.2D 742. 

PETITIONERS ARE HOLDERS OF INTEREST COUPONS, DETACHED FROM BONDS
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT, ON WHICH THEY HAVE RECOVERED JUDGMENTS. 
ACCORDING TO RECITALS IN THE PLAN OF COMPOSITION, THE DEBTOR'S BONDS
AND THE INTEREST COUPONS, DESIGNATED BY THE PLAN AS CLASS I
INDEBTEDNESS, "CONSTITUTE A FIRST CHARGE AGAINST TAXES LEVIED  ...
AGAINST LANDS IN THE DISTRICT, AND HAVE PREFERENCE OVER CLASS II
INDEBTEDNESS"; THE CLASS II INDEBTEDNESS, CONSISTING OF VARIOUS
MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS AGAINST THE DISTRICT, "IS PAYABLE FROM AN AD
VALOREM TAX OF ONE MILL  ...  , DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FIRST CHARGE
AGAINST ANY FIXED REVENUES OF THE DISTRICT, AND IS NOT SECURED BY ANY
LIEN OR PLEDGE."  UNDER THE PLAN THE BONDHOLDERS ARE TO RECEIVE 56.918
CENTS IN CASH FOR EACH DOLLAR OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT; HOLDERS OF DETACHED
INTEREST COUPONS, INCLUDING COUPONS ON WHICH JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN
RECOVERED, ARE TO RECEIVE 36.77 CENTS, AND HOLDERS OF CLASS II
INDEBTEDNESS 26.14 CENTS.  THE PLAN IS TO BE FINANCED BY A LOAN FROM
THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, EVIDENCED AND SECURED BY THE
ISSUANCE TO IT OF NEW 4% BONDS OF THE DISTRICT. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND HERE, AS THEY DID IN BOTH COURTS BELOW, THAT THE
PLAN DISCRIMINATES UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF THE CLASS II CREDITORS.  BUT WE
ARE UNABLE TO REACH THAT QUESTION SINCE WE AGREE WITH PETITIONERS THAT
THE RECORD LACKS THE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH THE STATUTE AND THE GENERAL
ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY REQUIRE, AND WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO THE
DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION. 

HEARING, THE JUDGE SHALL MAKE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND HIS
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THEREON."  AND RULE 52(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, MADE APPLICABLE TO BANKRUPTCY CASES BY GENERAL ORDER IN
BANKRUPTCY NO. 37, REQUIRES THE COURT TO "FIND THE FACTS SPECIALLY." 
IN CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DUBOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 520-525,
THIS COURT HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS AS TO THE VALUE OF THE
ASSETS SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMS OF EACH CLASS OF
BONDHOLDERS, THE COURTS WERE IN NO POSITION TO EXERCISE THE "INFORMED,
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT" NECESSARY TO THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR STATUTORY
DUTY TO DETERMINE THE FAIRNESS OF A PLAN OF CORPORATE REORGANIZATION
UNDER THE OLD SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  IN ECKER V. WESTERN
PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448, AND IN GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 318 U.S. 523, WE HELD THE
REQUIREMENT OF ADEQUATE FINDINGS APPLICABLE TO RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS
UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

IT APPLIES WITH NO LESS FORCE TO CASES OF MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY.  AND,
AS STATED IN THE CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CASE, SUPRA, THE FACT THAT
ONLY A VERY SMALL MINORITY OF CREDITORS HAVE OBJECTED TO THE PLAN DOES
NOT RELIEVE THE COURTS OF THE DUTY OF APPRAISING ITS FAIRNESS, AND OF
MAKING THE FINDINGS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT SUCH AN APPRAISAL.  AS WE SAID
IN THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC CASE, P. 571, MINORITIES
UNDER THE VARIOUS REORGANIZATION SECTIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT "CANNOT
BE DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFITS OF THE STATUTE BY REASON OF A WAIVER,
ACQUIESCENCE OR APPROVAL BY THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CLASS."  THE
APPLICABILITY OF THAT RULE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER CH. IX IS PLAIN.  WE
STATED IN AMERICAN INS. CO. V. AVON PARK, 311 U.S. 138, 148, "THE FACT
THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF SECURITY HOLDERS MAY HAVE APPROVED A PLAN IS
NOT THE TEST OF WHETHER THAT PLAN SATISFIES THE STATUTORY STANDARD. 
THE FORMER IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE LATTER.  THEY ARE INDEPENDENT." 

THE NATURE AND DEGREE OF EXACTNESS OF THE FINDINGS REQUIRED DEPENDS
ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE.  IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC
AND CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC CASES, WE POINTED OUT THAT
IN CASES OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATION, THE DUTY OF MAKING BASIC
EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS DOES NOT REQUIRE A DETERMINATION IN TERMS OF
DOLLARS AND CENTS OF THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS SUBJECT TO THE RESPECTIVE
LIENS.  WE HELD THAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT IF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT SET
FORTH ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE PROSPECTIVE EARNING POWER OF THE
REORGANIZED ROAD, WITH FINDINGS SUPPORTING ITS APPORTIONMENT OF FUTURE
EARNINGS AMONG CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS SO AS TO PRESERVE THEIR
RELATIVE PRIORITIES, TOGETHER WITH REASONS FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS AND
ESSENTIAL SUPPORTING DATA.  ONCE THE PRIORITY OF LIENS HAS BEEN
DETERMINED, CONSIDERED ESTIMATES OF FUTURE EARNING POWER AFFORD A
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR APPRAISING THE INTERESTS OF THE RESPECTIVE
LIENORS.  AS SUCH ESTIMATES INVOLVE AN ELEMENT OF PROPHECY, THE
REORGANIZATION OF PROPERTIES WHICH CANNOT READILY BE LIQUIDATED
REQUIRES RESORT TO "PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENTS, RATHER THAN A RIGID
FORMULA," CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DUBOIS, SUPRA, 529.  HENCE
WE CONCLUDED THAT FINDINGS OF THE FUTURE EARNINGS OF THE REORGANIZED
RAILROAD DISTRIBUTABLE TO EACH CLASS OF SECURITY HOLDERS AND CREDITORS
WERE AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR FINDINGS OF ASSET VALUE IN TERMS OF
DOLLARS AND CENTS, WHICH WE HELD COULD BE DISPENSED WITH AS AFFORDING
NO MORE THAN A DELUSIVE APPEARANCE OF A CERTAINTY WHICH THE SUBJECT
MATTER DID NOT WARRANT. 

DELUSIVE EXACTNESS OF FINDINGS IS LIKEWISE NOT DEMANDED IN CASES OF
MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY.  BUT WHERE FUTURE TAX REVENUES ARE THE ONLY
SOURCE TO WHICH CREDITORS CAN LOOK FOR PAYMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS,
CONSIDERED ESTIMATES OF THOSE REVENUES CONSTITUTE THE ONLY AVAILABLE
BASIS FOR APPRAISING THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES OF
CREDITORS.  IN ORDER THAT A COURT MAY DETERMINE THE FAIRNESS OF THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CASH OR SECURITIES OFFERED TO CREDITORS BY THE PLAN,
THE COURT MUST HAVE BEFORE IT DATA WHICH WILL PERMIT A REASONABLE, AND
HENCE AN INFORMED, ESTIMATE OF THE PROBABLE FUTURE REVENUES AVAILABLE
FOR THE SATISFACTION OF CREDITORS. 

AND WHERE, AS HERE, DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CREDITORS ASSERT PRIOR
CLAIMS TO DIFFERENT SOURCES OF REVENUE, THERE MUST BE A DETERMINATION
OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH EACH CLASS IS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN A PARTICULAR
SOURCE, AND OF THE FAIRNESS OF THE ALLOTMENT TO EACH CLASS IN THE LIGHT
OF THE PROBABLE REVENUES TO BE ANTICIPATED FROM EACH SOURCE.  TO
SUPPORT SUCH DETERMINATIONS, THERE MUST BE FINDINGS, IN SUCH DETAIL AND
EXACTNESS AS THE NATURE OF THE CASE PERMITS, OF SUBSIDIARY FACTS ON
WHICH THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF FAIRNESS CAN RATIONALLY BE
PREDICATED. 

THE FINDINGS IN THE PRESENT CASE FALL SHORT OF THAT REQUIREMENT N1. 
APPROPRIATE FACTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, BUT WHICH ARE
NOWHERE REFERRED TO IN THE OPINIONS OR FINDINGS BELOW, ARE THE REVENUES
WHICH HAVE IN THE PAST BEEN RECEIVED FROM EACH SOURCE OF TAXATION, THE
PRESENT ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EACH TAX, THE TAX RATES
CURRENTLY PRESCRIBED, THE PROBABLE EFFECT ON FUTURE REVENUES OF A
REVISION IN THE TAX STRUCTURE ADOPTED IN 1941, THE EXTENT OF PAST TAX
DELINQUENCIES, AND ANY GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE DISTRICT
WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO AFFECT THE PERCENTAGE OF FUTURE
DELINQUENCIES.  IT MAY BE THAT ADEQUATE EVIDENCE AS TO THESE MATTERS IS
IN THE PRESENT RECORD.  ON THAT WE DO NOT PASS, FOR IT IS NOT THE
FUNCTION OF THIS COURT TO SEARCH THE RECORD AND ANALYZE THE EVIDENCE IN
ORDER TO SUPPLY FINDINGS WHICH THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO MAKE.  NOR DO
WE INTIMATE THAT FINDINGS MUST BE MADE ON ALL OF THE ENUMERATED MATTERS
OR NEED BE MADE ON NO OTHERS; THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS
SUFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S DECISION AS TO
FAIRNESS OR UNFAIRNESS IS FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE.  WE
HOLD ONLY THAT THERE MUST BE FINDINGS, STATED EITHER IN THE COURT'S
OPINION OR SEPARATELY, WHICH ARE SUFFICIENT TO INDICATE THE FACTUAL
BASIS FOR THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION. 

SINCE THE STATE OF THE RECORD IS SUCH THAT A PROPER DETERMINATION OF
THE QUESTIONS OF LAW RAISED BY PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS AS TO THE
TREATMENT OF CLASS II CREDITORS CANNOT BE MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUITABLE FINDINGS, THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, THE
JUDGMENT IS VACATED, AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
APPROPRIATE ACTION IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE MASTER, WHOSE FINDINGS WERE ADOPTED PRO FORMA BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, APPROVED THE CLASSIFICATION OF DEBTS PROPOSED IN THE
PLAN, AND MADE FINDINGS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF INDEBTEDNESS OF EACH
CLASS.  HE SUBSTANTIALLY PARAPHRASED THE RECITALS OF THE PLAN AS TO THE
SOURCES TO WHICH EACH CLASS OF CREDITORS COULD LOOK FOR PAYMENT, AND
FOUND THAT THE ACREAGE TAX, OUT OF WHICH CLASS I DEBTS WERE PAYABLE,
WAS "THE MAIN SOURCE OF REVENUE OF THE DISTRICT."  HE STATED: 

"SOME OF THE OBJECTING CREDITORS HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE
PLAN OF COMPOSITION, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES FOR THE USE OF ACREAGE TAX
FUNDS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE PAYMENT OF BONDS AND INTEREST
COUPONS, AND ONE MIGHT GET THAT IMPRESSION FROM SIMPLY READING ISOLATED
PARTS OF THE PLAN, BUT, TAKING IT AS A WHOLE, IT DOES NOT SO PROVIDE." 
AND, IN ANSWER TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE PLAN VIOLATED THE SO-CALLED
"RULE OF ABSOLUTE PRIORITY" (SEE CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER CO., 308
U.S. 106), HE SAID: 

"A SUPERFICIAL READING OF THE PLAN MIGHT SO INDICATE, BUT A CAREFUL
ANALYSIS OF THE ENTIRE PLAN, THE PROVISIONS OF THE LOAN, THE CONDITIONS
OF PAYMENT OF TWO CLASSES OF DEBTS, AND A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE
PLAN TO THE DISTRICT DEBTS, RESOLVES THAT QUESTION AGAINST SUCH
THEORY."  THESE WERE THE ONLY TWO FINDINGS MADE BY THE MASTER RELATIVE
TO THE RIGHTS OF THE TWO CLASSES OF CREDITORS INTER SE OR TO THE AMOUNT
OF REVENUES LIKELY TO BE AVAILABLE FOR SERVICE OF THE DEBT.  WITHOUT
FURTHER FINDINGS ON THESE VITAL MATTERS THE MASTER CONCLUDED THAT:
"THE PROPOSED PLAN OF COMPOSITION, AS AMENDED, IS FAIR, EQUITABLE AND
FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS AND DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE
UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF ANY CREDITOR OR CLASS OF CREDITORS." 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CLARIFIED THE MASTER'S FINDINGS AS TO
THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF CREDITORS BY EXPRESSLY STATING
THAT THE CLASS II INDEBTEDNESS WAS A FIRST CHARGE ON THE RECEIPTS FROM
THE AD VALOREM TAX.  IT POINTED OUT THAT IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT
MIGHT EXERCISE ITS MAXIMUM BORROWING POWER IT MUST EXTINGUISH ALL
EXISTING CLAIMS AGAINST THE ACREAGE AND AD VALOREM TAXES, AND THAT IN
1941 THE TAX STRUCTURE HAD BEEN REVISED SO AS TO MAKE ALL POSSIBLE
TAXING RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF THE NEW BONDS ISSUED TO THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.  FROM THIS IT CONCLUDED WITHOUT
FURTHER DISCUSSION THAT "PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF 26.14[ ON THE DOLLAR
TO DISCHARGE CLASS II DEBTS WAS FULLY AUTHORIZED BY THE FACTS, AND WAS
NOT INEQUITABLE, UNFAIR, OR DISCRIMINATORY." 

BEYOND THIS NONE OF THE FINDINGS OR OPINIONS BELOW PRESENT ANY
DISCUSSION OF FACTS RELATING TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE RESPECTIVE
TREATMENT ACCORDED THE TWO CLASSES OF CREDITORS BY THE PLAN. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE SUMMARILY REMANDED.  IN JUNE,
1941, THE DISTRICT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR COMPOSITION OF ITS DEBTS. 
THE PETITIONERS HERE FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH WAS OVERRULED. 
THEY APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, MAKING CONTENTIONS WHICH
THAT COURT FOUND TO BE "TECHNICAL IN THE EXTREME."  KELLEY V.
EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 127 F.2D 808, 809.  WHEN THE CASE CAME
BACK BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS,
THAT COURT FOUND FROM THE ENTIRE RECORD THAT THESE PETITIONERS HAD BY
"UNFOUNDED AND EXTREMELY TECHNICAL CONTENTIONS  ...  SOUGHT TO OBSTRUCT
THE PLAN."  132 F.2D 742, 744, 745. 

REVERSAL FOR MORE FINDINGS MEANS STILL FURTHER DELAY IN BRINGING
ABOUT WHAT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A MUCH NEEDED FINANCIAL REORGANIZATION. 
WHILE I AM CERTAIN THAT THE COURTS BELOW COULD COUCH THEIR FINDINGS IN
DIFFERENT AND MORE WORDS, I AM BY NO MEANS SURE THEY COULD SET OUT WITH
GREATER CLARITY THEIR CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS BOTH GROUPS OF
BONDHOLDERS TO HAVE BEEN ACCORDED FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT.  THE
DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS MADE WITH FULL
APPRECIATION AND AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES, THE EVIDENCE,
AND THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I SHOULD
PREFER TO DENY CERTIORARI, BUT SINCE THE COURT HAS DETERMINED TO GRANT
REVIEW, I THINK WE SHOULD NOT DISPOSE OF THE CASE WITHOUT FIRST GIVING
THE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THE ISSUES.  ON THE RECORD AS I NOW
SEE IT, THE FINDINGS WERE ABUNDANTLY ADEQUATE, AND THE CONCLUSION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS CORRECT. 
..END :


















STEPHAN V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 423 


NO. - .  DECIDED JUNE 1, 1943.  - APPLICATION DENIED. 


1.  A CONVICTION IN A CAPITAL CASE IN THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT
APPEALABLE DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT.  JUDICIAL CODE (1911), 36 STAT.
1087.  P. 426. 

2.  WHERE THE U.S.C. AND THE STATUTES AT LARGE ARE INCONSISTENT, THE
LATTER PREVAIL.  P. 426. 

STEPHAN V. UNITED STATES. 

ON APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. 

APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF A DIRECT APPEAL FROM A CONVICTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT IN A CAPITAL CASE.  SEE 49 F.SUPP.  897. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS CASE IS BEFORE US ON AN APPLICATION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF A
DIRECT APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
SENTENCING APPLICANT TO DEATH, IT BEING CONTENDED THAT SUCH AN APPEAL
MAY BE TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE SECTION APPEARING IN THE U.S.C. (1940
EDITION) AS SEC. 681 OF TITLE 18.  THE APPLICATION WAS PRESENTED TO MR.
JUSTICE REED, AND BY HIM REFERRED TO THE FULL COURT.  CF. BUDLONG V.
BUDLONG, 296 U.S. 550; BROWN V. LANE, 232 U.S. 598, 600; SPIES V.
ILLINOIS, 123 U.S. 131, 143; BESS V. WEST VIRGINIA, 308 U.S. 509.  A
SIMILAR APPLICATION HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE ON THE GROUND,
AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE SECTION RELIED ON TO ESTABLISH THE JURISDICTION
OF THIS COURT HAS BEEN REPEALED.  49 F.SUPP.  897. 

STEPHAN WAS CONVICTED OF TREASON UPON A JURY TRIAL AND SENTENCED TO
DEATH.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 2.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT, SITTING EN BANC, AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION, 133 F.2D 87, AND
AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE WE DENIED CERTIORARI.  318 U.S.
781, REHEARING DENIED, 319 U.S. 783.  HE NOW CONTENDS THAT, IN ADDITION
TO THE APPELLATE REVIEW WHICH HE HAS ALREADY OBTAINED, HE IS ENTITLED
TO AN APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 681, WHICH IN TERMS
AUTHORIZES SUCH AN APPEAL "IN ALL CASES OF CONVICTION OF CRIME THE
PUNISHMENT OF WHICH PROVIDED BY LAW IS DEATH, TRIED BEFORE ANY COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES." 

THIS SECTION OF THE CODE HAS ITS ORIGIN IN SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 6, 1889, 25 STAT. 655, 656, WHICH GRANTED A WRIT OF ERROR AS
OF RIGHT FROM THIS COURT TO ANY FEDERAL TRIAL COURT "IN ALL CASES OF
CONVICTION OF CRIME THE PUNISHMENT OF WHICH PROVIDED BY LAW IS DEATH." 
THIS PROVISION PRECEDED THE CREATION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS BY
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, 26 STAT. 826.  SEE UNITED STATES V. RIDER,
163 U.S. 132, 138.  SECTION 5 OF THE LATTER ACT PROVIDED THAT APPEALS
BE TAKEN FROM DISTRICT COURTS (OR THE EXISTING CIRCUIT COURTS) DIRECTLY
TO THIS COURT IN SIX SPECIFIED CLASSES OF CASES, ONE OF WHICH WAS "IN
CASES OF CONVICTION OF A CAPITAL OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME"; AND BY
SEC. 6 IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS SHOULD
EXERCISE APPELLATE JURISDICTION "IN ALL CASES OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED
FOR IN THE PRECEDING SECTION OF THIS ACT, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY
LAW." 

THE ACT OF JANUARY 20, 1897, 29 STAT. 492, WITHDREW FROM THIS COURT
AND TRANSFERRED TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS APPELLATE JURISDICTION
IN CRIMINAL CASES NOT CAPITAL.  THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY DELETING, FROM
THE CLAUSE OF SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, JUST QUOTED, THE
PHRASE "OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS," SO THAT THE DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT
WAS PRESERVED ONLY "IN CASES OF CONVICTION OF A CAPITAL CRIME." 

CODE.  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1911, 36 STAT. 1087.  SECTION 238 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE (36 STAT. 1157), WHICH IN CONNECTION WITH SEC. 236(36
STAT. 1156) DEFINED THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT ON DIRECT APPEALS
FROM DISTRICT COURTS, SET FORTH THE SUBSTANCE OF SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1891, EXCEPT THAT IT OMITTED THE CLAUSE PROVIDING FOR APPEALS
FROM THE TRIAL COURT TO THIS COURT "IN CASES OF CONVICTION OF A CAPITAL
CRIME."  THIS OMISSION WAS NOT ACCIDENTAL, BUT DELIBERATE, AND ITS
PURPOSE WAS TO WITHDRAW THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO ENTERTAIN A
DIRECT APPEAL FROM A DISTRICT COURT IN A CAPITAL CASE.  THIS MAY BE
SEEN FROM THE NOTES OF THE REVISERS, WHICH STATE: 

"THE ONLY CHANGE MADE IN THE SECTION IS IN STRIKING OUT THE WORDS 'IN
CASES OF CONVICTION OF A CAPITAL CRIME.'  THE EFFECT OF THIS IS TO TAKE
FROM THE SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION IN CAPITAL CASES AND TO TRANSFER
THE JURISDICTION IT NOW POSSESSES TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS." 
S. REP. NO. 388, PART 1, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 77; AND ALSO H.R.
DOC. NO. 783, PART 1, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 81.  CONSISTENTLY WITH
THIS PURPOSE, SEC. 128 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE PROVIDED (36 STAT. 1133)
THAT "THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS SHALL EXERCISE APPELLATE
JURISDICTION  ...  IN ALL CASES OTHER THAN THOSE IN WHICH APPEALS AND
WRITS OF ERROR MAY BE TAKEN DIRECT TO THE SUPREME COURT, AS PROVIDED IN
LAW."  AND SEC. 297 DIRECTED (36 STAT. 1169) THAT "ALL OTHER ACTS AND
PARTS OF ACTS, IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE EMBRACED WITHIN AND SUPERSEDED BY
THIS ACT, ARE HEREBY REPEALED." 

SUCH A PLAIN PURPOSE, ESTABLISHED BOTH BY LANGUAGE OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, CANNOT BE IGNORED.  OUR APPELLATE
JURISDICTION IS DEFINED BY STATUTE (EX PARTE MCCARDLE, 7 WALL.  506,
512; THE FRANCIS WRIGHT, 105 U.S. 381, 386; ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S. RY.
CO. V. TAYLOR, 210 U.S. 281, 292) AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT SINCE 1911 THE
STATUTES HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT IN CAPITAL
CASES.  THE FACT THAT THE WORDS OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 681 HAVE LINGERED ON
IN THE SUCCESSIVE EDITIONS OF THE U.S.C. IS IMMATERIAL.  BY 1 U.S.C.
SEC. 54(A), THE CODE ESTABLISHES "PRIMA FACIE" THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  BUT THE VERY MEANING OF "PRIMA FACIE" IS THAT THE CODE CANNOT
PREVAIL OVER THE STATUTES AT LARGE WHEN THE TWO ARE INCONSISTENT.  CF.
WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155, 161; CLOVERLEAF CO. V. PATTERSON, 315
U.S. 148, 164, N. 16. 

ACCORDINGLY THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS DENIED, AND THE
STAY HERETOFORE GRANTED IS VACATED.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :







BUCHALTER V. NEW YORK, 319 U.S. 427 


NO. 606.  ARGUED MAY 7, 10, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1943.  - 289 N.Y.
181, 45 N.E.2D 225, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT
STATE ACTION BE CONSISTENT WITH FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE, BUT DOES NOT DRAW TO ITSELF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE
CONSTITUTIONS OR STATE LAWS.  P. 429. 

2.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL CASE IN
A STATE COURT, CHALLENGED BY THE DEFENDANTS AS DENYING THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, HELD: 

(1)  THE RECORD FAILS TO ESTABLISH ACTUAL BIAS ON THE PART OF THE
JURY.  P. 430. 

(2)  THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE GOVERNING THE SELECTION OF
JURORS AND THE COURT'S RULINGS ON CHALLENGES WORKED INJUSTICE IN THE
IMPANELLING OF THE JURY RAISES NO REVIEWABLE QUESTION OF DUE PROCESS. 
P. 430. 

(3)  THE CHALLENGED RULINGS UPON EVIDENCE AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
JURY DID NOT DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANTS OF A TRIAL ACCORDING TO THE
ACCEPTED COURSE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.  P. 430. 

(4)  THE CONTENTION THAT THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY UNFAIRLY SUPPRESSED
EVIDENCE IS WITHOUT MERIT.  P. 431. 

(5)  THE REMARKS OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO THE JURY, HERE
COMPLAINED OF, DO NOT RAISE A DUE PROCESS QUESTION.  P. 431. 

3.  ESSENTIAL UNFAIRNESS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL MUST BE SHOWN
CONVINCINGLY AND NOT LEFT TO SPECULATION.  P. 431. 

BUCHALTER V. NEW YORK* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 610, WEISS V. NEW YORK, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 318
U.S. 797, TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, AND NO. 619, CAPONE V.
NEW YORK, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 797, TO THE COUNTY COURT OF
KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COUNTY COURT OF KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 797, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS OF
CONVICTION OF MURDER. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER IN THE COUNTY
COURT OF KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK, AFTER A TRIAL LASTING OVER NINE
WEEKS.  THE PRINTED RECORD CONSISTS OF OVER TWELVE THOUSAND PAGES.  THE
JUDGMENTS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE.  FN1
NUMEROUS ERRORS WERE THERE ASSIGNED.  FOUR OPINIONS WERE WRITTEN, TWO
OF WHICH DISSENTED FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF AFFIRMANCE, AS TO WHICH THE
COURT DIVIDED FOUR TO THREE.  IN HIS CONCURRING OPINION THE CHIEF JUDGE
SAID THAT HE AGREED WITH ONE OF THE DISSENTING OPINIONS THAT ERRORS AND
DEFECTS OCCURRED IN THE TRIAL WHICH COULD NOT BE "DISREGARDED WITHOUT
HESITATION LEST IN OUR ANXIETY THAT THE GUILTY SHOULD NOT ESCAPE
PUNISHMENT WE AFFIRM A JUDGMENT TAINTED WITH ERRORS OBTAINED THROUGH
VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS."  HIS CONCLUSION WAS, HOWEVER, THAT
THE ERRORS DID NOT AFFECT THE VERDICT.  TWO DISSENTING JUDGES WERE OF
OPINION THAT SUCH SUBSTANTIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED AS TO REQUIRE A
REVERSAL.  ONE JUDGE WAS OF OPINION THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL WAS
SO GROSSLY UNFAIR AS TO LEAVE THE DEFENDANTS WITHOUT A REMOTE CHANCE OF
FREE CONSIDERATION OF THEIR DEFENSES BY THE JURY; SO UNFAIR AS TO
DEPRIVE THEM OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE REQUIREMENT OF
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 

THE REMITTITURS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS RECITED THAT THE APPELLANTS
IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT RAISED THE POINT THAT THEY HAD BEEN DENIED THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THIS POINT WAS CONSIDERED
AND NECESSARILY DECIDED.  THE SAME CONTENTION WAS THE BASIS OF THE
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI. 

THE PETITIONERS RELY NOT ON ANY ONE CIRCUMSTANCE BUT INSIST THAT THEY
WERE NOT AFFORDED A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY FREE FROM INFLUENCES
EXTRANEOUS TO THE PROOFS ADDUCED AT THE TRIAL; THAT THEY WERE DEPRIVED
OF AN IMPARTIAL AND UNBIASED JUDGE TO PRESIDE AT THE TRIAL AND THAT THE
PROSECUTOR RESORTED TO UNFAIR METHODS TO INFLUENCE THE JURY. 

THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI IN ORDER THAT THE PETITIONERS' CLAIMS
OF DENIAL OF A FEDERAL RIGHT MIGHT BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
RECORD WITH THE AID OF BRIEFS AND ORAL ARGUMENT.  AS THE OPINIONS
RENDERED IN THE COURT BELOW STATE THE FACTS AND DISCUSS THE ALLEGED
TRIAL ERRORS IN DETAIL WE NEED NOT RESTATE THEM. 

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT
ACTION BY A STATE THROUGH ANY OF ITS AGENCIES MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH LIE AT THE BASE
OF OUR CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, WHICH NOT INFREQUENTLY ARE
DESIGNATED AS "THE LAW OF THE LAND."  FN2  WHERE THIS REQUIREMENT HAS
BEEN DISREGARDED IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN A STATE COURT THIS COURT HAS
NOT HESITATED TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE.  FN3  BUT THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT DRAW TO
ITSELF THE PROVISIONS OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS  FN4  OR STATE LAWS.  FN5
IT LEAVES THE STATES FREE TO ENFORCE THEIR CRIMINAL LAWS UNDER SUCH
STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND COMMON LAW DOCTRINES AS THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE;
AND DOES NOT PERMIT A PARTY TO BRING TO THE TEST OF A DECISION IN THIS
COURT EVERY RULING MADE IN THE COURSE OF A TRIAL IN A STATE COURT. 
FN6 

THE PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT, IN VIEW OF UNFAIR AND LURID NEWSPAPER
PUBLICITY, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN AN IMPARTIAL JURY IN THE COUNTY
OF TRIAL, AND THAT THE RULINGS OF THE COURT DENYING A CHANGE OF VENUE,
AND ON CHALLENGES TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS, RESULTED IN THE IMPANELLING OF
A JURY AFFECTED WITH BIAS.  WE HAVE EXAMINED THE RECORD AND ARE UNABLE,
AS THE COURT BELOW WAS, TO CONCLUDE THAT A CONVINCING SHOWING OF ACTUAL
BIAS ON THE PART OF THE JURY WHICH TRIED THE DEFENDANTS IS
ESTABLISHED.  THOUGH THE STATUTE GOVERNING THE SELECTION OF THE JURORS
AND THE COURT'S RULINGS ON CHALLENGES ARE ASSERTED TO HAVE WORKED
INJUSTICE IN THE IMPANELLING OF A JURY, SUCH ASSERTION RAISES NO DUE
PROCESS QUESTION REQUIRING REVIEW BY THIS COURT.  FN7 

THE PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE RULINGS UPON EVIDENCE AND
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, WHEN TAKEN IN THEIR TOTALITY, INDICATE THAT,
WHATEVER THE INTENTION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, HIS RULINGS AND ATTITUDE
PRECLUDED A FAIR CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD
THAT CERTAIN OF THE CHALLENGED RULINGS AND INSTRUCTIONS WERE ERRONEOUS
BUT THAT THE ERRORS WERE NOT SUBSTANTIAL IN THE SENSE THAT THEY
AFFECTED THE ABILITY OF THE JURY TO RENDER AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT, AND
THAT OTHERS OF THE ALLEGED ERRORS WERE NOT SUCH UNDER THE LAW OF NEW
YORK.  AS ALREADY STATED, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT ENABLE US TO REVIEW ERRORS OF STATE LAW HOWEVER
MATERIAL UNDER THAT LAW.  WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT THE RULINGS AND
INSTRUCTIONS UNDER ATTACK CONSTITUTED MORE THAN ERRORS AS TO STATE
LAW.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THEY WERE SUCH AS TO DEPRIVE THE PETITIONERS
OF A TRIAL ACCORDING TO THE ACCEPTED COURSE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 

FINALLY, THE PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THE PROSECUTING OFFICER, BY
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE, AND BY STATEMENTS IN HIS ADDRESSES TO THE
JURY, WAS SO UNFAIR AS TO DEPRIVE THE TRIAL OF THE ESSENTIAL QUALITY OF
AN IMPARTIAL INQUIRY INTO THEIR GUILT.  THE POINT AS TO THE ALLEGED
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE IS WITHOUT MERIT.  CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
WAS IN COURT.  THE JUDGE RULED THAT THE PROSECUTING OFFICER NEED NOT
SUBMIT IT TO DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR EXAMINATION.  IF THERE WAS ERROR IN
THE RULING, IT WAS ERROR OF THE COURT.  UPON MOTION FOR REHEARING THE
COURT OF APPEALS EXAMINED THE PAPERS AND FOUND THAT THEY WERE NOT OF
SIGNIFICANCE IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE.  NO SUCH SHOWING OF
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE OR CONNIVANCE AT PERJURY, AS HAS HERETOFORE
BEEN HELD TO REQUIRE CORRECTIVE PROCESS ON THE PART OF THE STATE,  FN8
WAS SHOWN. 

THE SPEECHES OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS APPARENTLY PROVOKED STATEMENTS
BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF WHICH PETITIONERS NOW COMPLAIN.  THIS DOES
NOT RAISE A DUE PROCESS QUESTION. 

AS WE HAVE RECENTLY SAID, "IT IS NOT ASKING TOO MUCH THAT THE BURDEN
OF SHOWING ESSENTIAL UNFAIRNESS BE SUSTAINED BY HIM WHO CLAIMS SUCH
INJUSTICE AND SEEKS TO HAVE THE RESULT SET ASIDE, AND THAT IT BE
SUSTAINED NOT AS A MATTER OF SPECULATION BUT AS A DEMONSTRABLE
REALITY.  FN9 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  289 N.Y. 181, 45 N.E.2D 225, 248; REHEARING DENIED 289 N.Y. 244,
45 N.E.2D 425. 

FN2  HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316.  SEE ALSO:  IN RE
KEMMLER, 136 U.S. 436, 448; CALDWELL V. TEXAS, 137 U.S. 692, 697;
LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 236. 

FN3  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86; POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45;
BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278; AVERY V. ALABAMA, 308 U.S. 444;
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530; SMITH
V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329; WARD V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 547. 

FN4  RAWLINS V. GEORGIA, 201 U.S. 638; PATTERSON V. COLORADO, 205
U.S. 454, 459; HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA, 316. 

FN5  LEEPER V. TEXAS, 139 U.S. 462; RAWLINS V. GEORGIA, SUPRA. 

FN6  AVERY V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 446-447; LEEPER V. TEXAS, SUPRA; HOWARD
V. NORTH CAROLINA, 191 U.S. 126, 136, 137; BURT V. SMITH, 203 U.S. 129,
135; BARRINGTON V. MISSOURI, 205 U.S. 483, 488; UGHBANKS V. ARMSTRONG,
208 U.S. 481, 487; CALDWELL V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 697; HEBERT V. LOUISIANA,
SUPRA, 316. 

FN7 HAYES V. MISSOURI, 120 U.S. 68, 71; SPIES V. ILLINOIS, 123 U.S.
131, 168; RAWLINS V. GEORGIA, SUPRA; FRANKLIN V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 218
U.S. 161, 168. 

FN8  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103. 

FN9  ADAMS V. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 281. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, SUBSTANTIALLY AGREEING WITH THESE VIEWS, IS OF
OPINION THAT THE PETITIONS SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :













KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 432 


NO. 912.  ARGUED MAY 11, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1943. 


AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT PLACING A CONVICTED DEFENDANT ON
PROBATION WITHOUT IMPOSING SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT OR FINE IS A FINAL
DECISION REVIEWABLE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER JUD.  CODE
SEC. 239.  PP. 433, 436. 

KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONSE TO A QUESTION CERTIFIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN A
CRIMINAL CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

KOREMATSU WAS FOUND GUILTY BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OF REMAINING IN THE CITY OF SAN LEANDRO,
CALIFORNIA, IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 97(A) AND THE ORDERS ISSUED
THEREUNDER.  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER WAS THAT HE "BE PLACED ON
PROBATION FOR THE PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THE PROBATION TO BE STATED TO SAID DEFENDANT BY THE PROBATION OFFICER
OF THIS COURT.  FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE BOND HERETOFORE GIVEN FOR THE
APPEARANCE OF THE DEFENDANT BE EXONERATED.  ORDERED PRONOUNCING OF
JUDGMENT BE SUSPENDED." 

THE DEFENDANT APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT, WHICH UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 225 HAS "JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BY
APPEAL FINAL DECISIONS."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, DOUBTING
WHETHER IT HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER PLACING THE
DEFENDANT ON PROBATION WITHOUT FIRST FORMALLY SENTENCING HIM, HAS
CERTIFIED TO US THE FOLLOWING QUESTION UNDER SEC. 239 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE: 

"AFTER A FINDING OF GUILT IN SUCH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AS THE
INSTANT CASE, IN WHICH NEITHER IMPRISONMENT IN A JAIL OR PENITENTIARY
NOR A FINE IS IMPOSED, IS AN ORDER BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT THE
CONVICTED MAN 'BE PLACED ON PROBATION FOR THE PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS'
A FINAL DECISION REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL BY THIS CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS?" 

THE FEDERAL PROBATION LAW AUTHORIZES A DISTRICT JUDGE "AFTER
CONVICTION OR AFTER A PLEA OF GUILTY OR NOLO CONTENDERE  ...  TO
SUSPEND THE IMPOSITION OR EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND TO PLACE THE
DEFENDANT UPON PROBATION FOR SUCH PERIOD AND UPON SUCH TERMS" AS SEEM
WISE.  18 U.S.C. SEC. 724.  IN BERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 211,
WE HELD THAT WHEN A COURT HAD IMPOSED A SENTENCE AND THEN SUSPENDED ITS
EXECUTION, THE JUDGMENT WAS FINAL AND WOULD SUPPORT AN APPEAL.  THE
QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE JUDGMENT IS EQUALLY FINAL WHEN THE
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE ITSELF IS SUSPENDED AND THE DEFENDANT SUBJECTED
TO PROBATION.  FN2  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THIS QUESTION SHOULD
BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

IT HAS OFTEN BEEN SAID THAT THERE CAN BE NO "FINAL JUDGMENT" IN A
CRIMINAL CASE PRIOR TO ACTUAL SENTENCE, MILLER V. ADERHOLD, 288 U.S.
206, 210; HILL V. WAMPLER, 298 U.S. 460, 464, AND THIS PROPOSITION WAS
RESTATED IN BERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 211, 212.  FN3  IN
APPLYING THIS GENERAL PRINCIPLE TO A SITUATION LIKE THAT OF THE INSTANT
CASE, THE SECOND AND FOURTH CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE CONCLUDED
THAT THEY LACKED JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER PLACING A
DEFENDANT ON PROBATION WITHOUT FIRST IMPOSING SENTENCE.  UNITED STATES
V. LECATO, 29 F.2D 694, 695; BIRNBAUM V. UNITED STATES, 107 F.2D 885. 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT APPEARS TO TAKE THE OPPOSITE VIEW.  NIX V. UNITED
STATES, 131 F.2D 857. 

THE "SENTENCE IS JUDGMENT" PHRASE HAS BEEN USED BY THIS COURT IN
DEALING WITH CASES IN WHICH THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT IN
FACT SUBJECT THE DEFENDANT TO ANY FORM OF JUDICIAL CONTROL.  THUS IN
MILLER V. ADERHOLD, SUPRA, IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE WAS SUSPENDED AND THE
DEFENDANT WAS PUT UNDER NO OBLIGATON AT ALL.  HENCE THE COURT HELD THAT
THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL.  BUT CERTAINLY WHEN
DISCIPLINE HAS BEEN IMPOSED, THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO REVIEW. 

IN THE BERMAN CASE, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT THE APPEAL WAS PROPER WHERE
THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED AND SUSPENDED, AND THE DEFENDANT WAS PLACED ON
PROBATION.  THE PROBATIONARY SURVEILLANCE IS THE SAME WHETHER OR NOT
SENTENCE IS IMPOSED.  IN EITHER CASE, THE PROBATION ORDER FOLLOWS A
FINDING OF GUILT OR A PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE.  THEREAFTER, THE
DEFENDANT MUST ABIDE BY THE ORDER FOLLOWS A FINDING OF GUILT OR A PLEA
OF NOLO CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON HIM, OR SUBJECT HIMSELF TO A POSSIBLE
REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF HIS PROBATION; AND UNDER SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES HE MAY, DURING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD, BE REQUIRED TO
PAY A FINE, OR MAKE REPARATION TO AGGRIEVED PARTIES, OR PROVIDE FOR THE
SUPPORT OF PERSONS FOR WHOM HE IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE.  18 U.S.C. SEC.
724.  HE IS UNDER THE "SUPERVISION" OF THE PROBATION OFFICER WHOSE DUTY
IT IS TO MAKE REPORTS TO THE COURT CONCERNING HIS ACTIVITIES, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 727, AND AT "ANY TIME WITHIN THE PROBATION PERIOD THE PROBATION
OFFICER MAY ARREST THE PROBATIONER WHEREVER FOUND, WITHOUT A WARRANT,
OR THE COURT WHICH HAS GRANTED THE PROBATION MAY ISSUE A WARRANT FOR
HIS ARREST."  18 U.S.C. SEC. 725.  THESE AND OTHER INCIDENTS OF
PROBATION EMPHASIZE THAT A PROBATION ORDER IS "AN AUTHORIZED MODE OF
MILD AND AMBULATORY PUNISHMENT, THE PROBATION BEING INTENDED AS A
REFORMING DISCIPLINE."  COOPER V. UNITED STATES, 91 F.2D 195, 199. 

THE DIFFERENCE TO THE PROBATIONER BETWEEN IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE
FOLLOWED BY PROBATION, AS IN THE BERMAN CASE, AND SUSPENSION OF THE
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS ONE OF TRIFLING
DEGREE.  PROBATION, LIKE PAROLE, "IS INTENDED TO BE A MEANS OF
RESTORING OFFENDERS WHO ARE GOOD SOCIAL RISKS TO SOCIETY; TO AFFORD THE
UNFORTUNATE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY BY CLEMENCY," ZERBST V. KIDWELL, 304
U.S. 359, 363, AND THIS END IS SERVED IN THE SAME FASHION WHETHER OR
NOT PROBATION IS PRECEDED BY IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE.  IN EITHER CASE,
THE LIBERTY OF AN INDIVIDUAL JUDICIALLY DETERMINED TO HAVE COMMITTED AN
OFFENSE IS ABRIDGED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  "IN CRIMINAL CASES, AS
WELL AS CIVIL, THE JUDGMENT IS FINAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPEAL 'WHEN IT
TERMINATES THE LITIGATION  ...  ON THE MERITS' AND 'LEAVES NOTHING TO
BE DONE BUT TO ENFORCE BY EXECUTION WHAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED.'"  BERMAN
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 212, 213.  HERE LITIGATION "ON THE MERITS" OF
THE CHARGE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT ONLY ENDED IN A DETERMINATION
OF GUILT, BUT IT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE INSTITUTION OF THE
DISCIPLINARY MEASURES WHICH THE COURT HAS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDER IS FINAL AND
APPEALABLE.  OUR ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS YES. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT ORDERS ARE EXECUTIVE ORDER 9066, FEB. 19, 1942, 7
FED. REG. 1407, AND GENERAL DEWITT'S PUBLIC PROCLAMATION NO. 1, MARCH
2, 1942, AND CIVILIAN EXCLUSION ORDER NO. 34, MAY 3, 1942, ISSUED UNDER
AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. 

FN2  FOR THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROBATION LEGISLATION, SEE EX PARTE
UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 27; UNITED STATES V. MURRAY, 275 U.S. 347. 
CASES ON THE INSTANT PROBLEM ARE COLLECTED AT 126 A.L.R. 1207. 

FN3  "FINAL JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE MEANS SENTENCE.  THE SENTENCE
IS THE JUDGMENT." 
..END :










MOLINE PROPERTIES V. COMM'R, 319 U.S. 436 


NO. 660.  ARGUED APRIL 16, 19, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1943.  - 131
F.2D 388, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HELD THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX, GAINS FROM SALES (IN 1935 AND 1936) BY A
CORPORATION OF ITS PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH THE CORPORATION WAS OWNED WHOLLY
BY AN INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDER, COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME TAXABLE TO
THE INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN TO THE CORPORATION.  P. 440. 

2.  THE CORPORATION IN THIS CASE WAS NOT A MERE AGENT OF THE
STOCKHOLDER.  P. 440. 

MOLINE PROPERTIES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 751, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 45 B.T.A. 647, THAT THERE WERE NO DEFICIENCIES IN
THE CORPORATE TAXPAYER'S INCOME AND EXCESS-PROFITS TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SEEKS TO HAVE THE GAIN ON SALES OF ITS REAL PROPERTY
TREATED AS THE GAIN OF ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER AND ITS CORPORATE EXISTENCE
IGNORED AS MERELY FICTITIOUS.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
VOLUME OF SIMILAR LITIGATION IN THE LOWER COURTS AND BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH OTHER CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS. 
FN1 

PETITIONER WAS ORGANIZED BY ULY O. THOMPSON IN 1928 TO BE USED AS A
SECURITY DEVICE IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN FLORIDA REALTY OWNED BY
HIM.  THE MORTGAGEE OF THE PROPERTY SUGGESTED THE ARRANGEMENT, UNDER
WHICH MR. THOMPSON CONVEYED THE PROPERTY TO PETITIONER, WHICH ASSUMED
THE OUTSTANDING MORTGAGES ON THE PROPERTY, RECEIVING IN RETURN ALL BUT
THE QUALIFYING SHARES OF STOCK, WHICH HE IN TURN TRANSFERRED TO A
VOTING TRUSTEE APPOINTED BY THE CREDITOR.  THE STOCK WAS TO BE HELD AS
SECURITY FOR AN ADDITIONAL LOAN TO MR. THOMPSON TO BE USED TO PAY BACK
TAXES ON THE PROPERTY.  THOMPSON OWNED OTHER REAL PROPERTY, TITLE TO
WHICH HE HELD INDIVIDUALLY.  IN 1933 THE LOAN WHICH OCCASIONED THE
CREATION OF PETITIONER WAS REPAID AND THE MORTGAGES WERE REFINANCED
WITH A DIFFERENT MORTGAGEE; CONTROL OF PETITIONER REVERTED TO MR.
THOMPSON.  THE NEW MORTGAGE DEBT WAS PAID IN 1936 BY MEANS OF A SALE OF
A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY HELD BY PETITIONER.  THE REMAINING HOLDINGS
OF THE PETITIONER WERE SOLD IN THREE PARCELS, ONE EACH IN 1934, 1935
AND 1936, THE PROCEEDS BEING RECEIVED BY MR. THOMPSON AND DEPOSITED IN
HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 

UNTIL 1933 THE BUSINESS DONE BY THE CORPORATION CONSISTED OF THE
ASSUMPTION OF A CERTAIN OBLIGATION OF THOMPSON TO THE ORIGINAL
CREDITOR, THE DEFENSE OF CERTAIN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS AND THE
INSTITUTION OF A SUIT TO REMOVE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTY BY
A PRIOR DEED.  THE EXPENSES OF THIS SUIT WERE PAID BY THOMPSON.  IN
1934 A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS LEASED FOR USE AS A PARKING LOT FOR
A RENTAL OF $1,000.  PETITIONER HAS TRANSACTED NO BUSINESS SINCE THE
SALE OF ITS LAST HOLDINGS IN 1936 BUT HAS NOT BEEN DISSOLVED.  IT KEPT
NO BOOKS AND MAINTAINED NO BANK ACCOUNT DURING ITS EXISTENCE AND OWNED
NO OTHER ASSETS THAN AS DESCRIBED.  THE SALES MADE IN 1934 AND 1935
WERE REPORTED IN PETITIONER'S INCOME TAX RETURNS, A SMALL LOSS BEING
REPORTED FOR THE EARLIER YEAR AND A GAIN OF OVER $5,000 BEING REPORTED
FOR 1935.  SUBSEQUENTLY, ON ADVICE OF HIS AUDITOR, THOMPSON FILED A
CLAIM FOR REFUND ON PETITIONER'S BEHALF FOR 1935 AND SOUGHT TO REPORT
THE 1935 GAIN AS HIS INDIVIDUAL RETURN.  HE REPORTED THE GAIN ON THE
1936 SALE. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE GAIN REALIZED ON THE 1935 AND 1936 SALES
SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME TAXABLE TO PETITIONER, AS THE GOVERNMENT
URGES, OR AS THOMPSON'S INCOME.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD FOR
PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT BECAUSE OF ITS LIMITED PURPOSE, THE
CORPORATION "WAS A MERE FIGMENTARY AGENT WHICH SHOULD BE DISREGARDED IN
THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES."  MOLINE PROPERTIES V. COMMISSIONER, 45 B.T.A.
647.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
CORPORATE ENTITY, CHOSEN BY THOMPSON FOR REASONS SUFFICIENT TO HIM,
MUST NOW BE RECOGNIZED IN THE TAXATION OF THE INCOME OF THE
CORPORATION.  COMMISSIONER V. MOLINE PROPERTIES, 131 F.2D 388. 

THE DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE ENTITY FILLS A USEFUL PURPOSE IN BUSINESS
LIFE.  WHETHER THE PURPOSE BE TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE UNDER THE LAW OF THE
STATE OF INCORPORATION  FN2  OR TO AVOID  FN3  OR TO COMPLY WITH  FN4
THE DEMANDS OF CREDITORS OR TO SERVE THE CREATOR'S PERSONAL OR
UNDISCLOSED CONVENIENCE,  FN5  SO LONG AS THAT PURPOSE IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR IS FOLLOWED BY THE CARRYING ON OF
BUSINESS BY THE CORPORATION, THE CORPORATION REMAINS A SEPARATE TAXABLE
ENTITY.  NEW COLONIAL CO. V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 435, 442; DEPUTY V. DU
PONT, 308 U.S. 488, 494.  IN BURNET V. COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO.,
287 U.S. 415, THIS COURT APPRAISED THE RELATION BETWEEN A CORPORATION
AND ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER AND HELD TAXABLE TO THE CORPORATION A PROFIT
ON A SALE TO ITS STOCKHOLDER.  THIS WAS BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER HAD
ADOPTED THE CORPORATE FORM FOR PURPOSES OF HIS OWN.  THE CHOICE OF THE
ADVANTAGES OF INCORPORATION TO DO BUSINESS, IT WAS HELD, REQUIRED THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE TAX DISADVANTAGES. 

TO THIS RULE THERE ARE RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
V. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, AND GULF OIL CORP. V. LEWELLYN, 248 U.S. 71,
HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS SUCH EXCEPTIONS BUT HELD TO LAY DOWN NO RULE
FOR TAX PURPOSES.  NEW COLONIAL CO. V. HELVERING, SUPRA, 442, N. 5;
BURNET V. COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., SUPRA, 419, 420.  A PARTICULAR
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, SUCH AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MERCHANT MARINE,
WHATEVER THE CORPORATE DEVICE FOR OWNERSHIP, MAY CALL FOR THE
DISREGARDING OF THE SEPARATE ENTITY, MUNSON S.S. LINE V. COMMISSIONER,
77 F.2D 849, AS MAY THE NECESSITY OF STRIKING DOWN FRAUDS ON THE TAX
STATUTE, CONTINENTAL OIL CO. V. JONES, 113 F.2D 557.  IN GENERAL, IN
MATTERS RELATING TO THE REVENUE, THE CORPORATE FORM MAY BE DISREGARDED
WHERE IT IS A SHAM OR UNREAL.  IN SUCH SITUATIONS THE FORM IS A BALD
AND MISCHIEVOUS FICTION.  HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473, 477-78;
GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465. 

THE PETITIONER CORPORATION WAS CREATED BY THOMPSON FOR HIS ADVANTAGE
AND HAD A SPECIAL FUNCTION FROM ITS INCEPTION.  AT THAT TIME IT WAS
CLEARLY NOT THOMPSON'S ALTER EGO AND HIS EXERCISE OF CONTROL OVER IT
WAS NEGLIGIBLE.  IT WAS THEN AS MUCH A SEPARATE ENTITY AS IF ITS STOCK
HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED OUTRIGHT TO THIRD PERSONS.  THE ARGUMENT IS MADE
BY PETITIONER THAT THE FORCE OF THE RULE REQUIRING ITS SEPARATE
TREATMENT IS AVOIDED BY THE FACT THAT THOMPSON WAS COERCED INTO
CREATING PETITIONER AND WAS COMPLETELY SUBSERVIENT TO THE CREDITORS. 
BUT THIS MERELY SERVES TO EMPHASIZE PETITIONER'S SEPARATE EXISTENCE. 
NEW COLONIAL CO. V. HELVERING, SUPRA, 441.  BUSINESS NECESSITY, I.E.,
PRESSURE FROM CREDITORS, MADE PETITIONER'S CREATION ADVANTAGEOUS TO
THOMPSON. 

WHEN PETITIONER DISCHARGED ITS MORTGAGES HELD BY THE INITIAL CREDITOR
AND THOMPSON CAME IN CONTROL IN 1933, IT WAS NOT DISSOLVED, BUT
CONTINUED ITS EXISTENCE, READY AGAIN TO SERVE HIS BUSINESS INTERESTS. 
IT AGAIN MORTGAGED ITS PROPERTY, DISCHARGED THAT NEW MORTGAGE, SOLD
PORTIONS OF ITS PROPERTY IN 1934 AND 1935 AND FILED INCOME TAX RETURNS
SHOWING THESE TRANSACTIONS.  IN 1934 PETITIONER ENGAGED IN AN
UNAMBIGUOUS BUSINESS VENTURE OF ITS OWN - IT LEASED A PART OF ITS
PROPERTY AS A PARKING LOT, RECEIVING A SUBSTANTIAL RENTAL.  THE FACTS,
IT SEEMS TO US, COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TAXPAYER HAD A TAX
IDENTITY DISTINCT FROM ITS STOCKHOLDER. 

PETITIONER ADVANCES WHAT WE THINK IS BASICALLY THE SAME ARGUMENT OF
IDENTITY IN A DIFFERENT FORM.  IT URGES THAT IT IS A MERE AGENT FOR ITS
SOLE STOCKHOLDER AND "THEREFORE THE SAME TAX CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW AS IN
THE CASE OF ANY CORPORATE AGENT OR FIDUCIARY."  THERE WAS NO ACTUAL
CONTRACT OF AGENCY, NOR THE USUAL INCIDENTS OF AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP. 
SURELY THE MERE FACT OF THE EXISTENCE OF A CORPORATION WITH ONE OR
SEVERAL STOCKHOLDERS, REGARDLESS OF THE CORPORATION'S BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES, DOES NOT MAKE THE CORPORATION THE AGENT OF ITS
STOCKHOLDERS.  THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF AGENCY OR NOT DEPENDS UPON THE
SAME LEGAL ISSUES AS DOES THE QUESTION OF IDENTITY PREVIOUSLY
DISCUSSED.  BURNET V. COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., SUPRA, 418, 419
20.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  112 WEST 59TH STREET CORP. V. HELVERING, 62 APP. D.C. 350, 68
F.2D 397; UNITED STATES V. BRAGER BUILDING & LAND CORP., 124 F.2D 349;
NORTH JERSEY TITLE INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 84 F.2D 898; INLAND
DEVELOPMENT CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 120 F.2D 986; SEE CARLING HOLDING CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 41 B.T.A. 493; MAYER V. COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 117;
ABRAMS SONS' REALTY CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 40 B.T.A. 653; THRIFT REALTY
CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 29 B.T.A. 545; MORO REALTY HOLDING CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, 25 B.T.A. 1135, AFFIRMED 65 F.2D 1013; FORSHAY V.
COMMISSIONER, 20 B.T.A. 537. 

FN2  TEXAS-EMPIRE PIPE LINE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 127 F.2D 220.  CF.
EDWARDS V. CHILE COPPER CO., 270 U.S. 452, 453-4, 456. 

FN3  SHELDON BLDG. CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 118 F.2D 835. 

FN4  PALCAR REAL ESTATE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 131 F.2D 210. 

FN5  WATSON V. COMMISSIONER, 124 F.2D 437; SALMON V. COMMISSIONER,
126 F.2D 203. 
..END :



















MAYO V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 441 


NO. 726.  ARGUED APRIL 16, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1943.  - 47 F.SUPP. 
552, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE UNITED STATES OWNED THE FERTILIZER WHICH IT SHIPPED INTO
FLORIDA FOR DISTRIBUTION PURSUANT TO THE SOIL CONSERVATION AND DOMESTIC
ALLOTMENT ACT, AND IN RESPECT OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION WAS ACTING IN A
GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY.  P. 444. 

2.  A STATE IS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO EXACT AN INSPECTION
FEE - ALTHOUGH THE DESIGN OF THE INSPECTION SERVICE WAS TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS FROM FRAUD - IN RESPECT OF FERTILIZER WHICH THE UNITED STATES
OWNS AND IS DISTRIBUTING WITHIN THE STATE PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE
SOIL CONSERVATION AND DOMESTIC ALLOTMENT ACT.  CONST., ART. VI.  P.
447. 

3.  THE INSTRUMENTALITIES AND PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES USED BY
IT IN GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES ARE IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION OR
REGULATION, UNLESS CONGRESS AFFIRMATIVELY PROVIDES OTHERWISE.  P. 448. 

MAYO ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINING
STATE OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES THE PROVISIONS
OF THE FLORIDA COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS RECORD PRESENTS FOR REVIEW THE ACTION OF A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED
DISTRICT COURT IN ENJOINING, ON FINAL HEARING, THE COMMISSIONER OF
AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND HIS AGENTS FROM ENFORCING
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES THE PROVISIONS OF THE FLORIDA COMMERCIAL
FERTILIZER LAW.  JUDICIAL CODE, SECS. 266 AND 238. 

BY THIS FLORIDA ACT THE SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER
IS COMPREHENSIVELY REGULATED.  THERE IS INCLUDED A REQUIREMENT OF A
LABEL OR STAMP ON EACH BAG EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF AN INSPECTION
FEE.  UNLESS SO IDENTIFIED, THE BAGS MAY BE SEIZED AND SOLD BY THE
SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY.  THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION IS TO ASSURE THE
CONSUMERS THAT THEY WILL OBTAIN THE QUALITY OF FERTILIZER FOR WHICH
THEY PAY AND THAT SUBSTANCES DELETERIOUS TO THE LAND WILL BE EXCLUDED
FROM THE MATERIAL SOLD.  FLORIDA STATUTES, 1941, C. 576. 

THE UNITED STATES, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, ACTING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION AND
DOMESTIC ALLOTMENT ACT,  FN1  PURCHASED COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER OUTSIDE
OF FLORIDA AND UNDERTOOK ITS DISTRIBUTION TO CONSUMERS WITHIN THAT
STATE DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1943, WITHOUT STATE
INSPECTION AND WITHOUT PAYING FOR OR AFFIXING TO THE BAGS THE
INSPECTION STAMPS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA ACT.  THIS DISTRIBUTION WAS A
PART OF THE NATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION PROGRAM.  FN2  THROUGH THE USE
OF FERTILIZERS WITH A HIGH CONTENT OF SUPERPHOSPHATE ON WINTER LEGUMES
THE PLAN SOUGHT, BY PLOWING UNDER THE LEGUMES, TO OBTAIN SCARCE
NITROGEN FOR THE COMMERCIAL CROPS WHICH WERE TO FOLLOW.  TO SECURE A
HEAVY GROWTH OF THE LEGUMES BEFORE PLOWING TIME, THE FERTILIZER SHOULD
BE APPLIED AND THE LEGUMES PLANTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 15TH.  FARMERS WHO
DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOLLOW THE REQUIRED
PRACTICES UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF COUNTY COMMITTEES OR ASSOCIATIONS
WHICH ARE FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES FOR CARRYING OUT THE PLANS.  SEC.
8(B). 

THE SOIL-BUILDING AND SOIL-CONSERVING PRACTICES, WHEN CARRIED OUT BY
A PARTICIPATING FARMER, ENTITLE HIM TO A GRANT OR BENEFIT PAYMENT. 
SEC. 8.  IN ORDER THAT THE FARMER MAY EARN THIS GRANT, PHOSPHATE
FERTILIZERS ARE FURNISHED TO HIM IN ADVANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH
THE COUNTY COMMITTEE.  THE COST IS DEDUCTED FROM THE GRANT.  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE PROGRAM, THE UNITED STATES CAUSED
FERTILIZERS PURCHASED BY ITS AGENTS TO BE SHIPPED INTO FLORIDA TO THE
LOCAL AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS FOR SUCH DISTRIBUTION.  AS THE SACKS
WERE WITHOUT STAMPS, THE FLORIDA COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE ON
SEPTEMBER 10, 1942, GAVE A "STOP SALE" NOTICE TO THE COUNTY
AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION TO CEASE DISTRIBUTION. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES DIRECTED THE FILING OF A
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FLORIDA OFFICIALS WHO ARE CHARGED WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FLORIDA LAW.  THE COMPLAINT SET OUT THE "STOP SALE"
NOTICE, THE REFUSAL OF NUMEROUS PERSONS UTILIZED BY THE UNITED STATES
IN ITS WORK TO PROCEED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FERTILIZER WITHOUT
THE PROTECTION OF AN INJUNCTION, THE FRUSTRATION OF THE CONSERVATION
PROGRAM OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, THE IMMINENCY OF IRREPARABLE
DAMAGE BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF PROMPT DISTRIBUTION OF THE
FERTILIZER AND THE LACK OF ANY EFFICIENT REMEDY OTHER THAN A TEMPORARY
AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  FLORIDA OBJECTED TO THE COMPLAINT FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND SET UP NUMEROUS DEFENSES WHICH
HAVE NOW BEEN REDUCED BY THE SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS AND THE BRIEF TO
THE FUNDAMENTAL ONE THAT THE UNITED STATES AS TO FERTILIZER TO BE USED
UPON FLORIDA SOIL IS NOT EXEMPT BY CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE FROM
COMPLIANCE WITH REASONABLE STATE REGULATION OR THE PAYMENT OF
REASONABLE INSPECTION FEES.  AT ANY RATE, IT IS URGED, INSPECTION FEES
MAY BE COLLECTED UNDER THE FACTS HERETOFORE STATED AS THE GOVERNMENT IS
MERELY A CONDUIT OR SERVICE AGENT FOR THE FERTILIZER MANUFACTURER OR
THE FLORIDA FARMER. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISPOSED, WE THINK, OF THE CONDUIT OR SERVICE
AGENT ARGUMENT BY ITS FINDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT "BECAME THE OWNER" OF
THE FERTILIZER AT THE MANUFACTURING PLANTS WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE STATE
AND WAS ENGAGED IN DISTRIBUTING IT IN FLORIDA AS A PART OF THE NATIONAL
SOIL CONSERVATION PROGRAM.  IN PROMOTING SOIL CONSERVATION BY PRECEPT
AND DEMONSTRATION THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THE UNITED
STATES, AS IN ITS OTHER AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES, ACTS IN A GOVERNMENTAL
CAPACITY.  FN3  PRIOR TO THE SOIL CONSERVATION ACT, CONGRESS HAD, AS A
MATTER OF CUSTOM, PUT MONEY AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THE HANDS OF THE
EXECUTIVE TO PROMOTE AGRICULTURE IN THE MOST GENERAL SENSE.  IT IS
COMMONPLACE FOR APPROPRIATIONS TO BE MADE FOR LOANS TO FARMERS.  FN4
THE DISTRIBUTION OF FERTILIZER OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES AS A CHARGE
AGAINST GRANTS TO AID SOIL CONSERVATION IS OF THE SAME CHARACTER.  SEC.
8(B).  CF. UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 65, 68.  NO INFERENCE
OF FACT OR CONCLUSION OF LAW, WE THINK, CAN BE PROPERLY DRAWN FROM THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS FERTILIZER DISTRIBUTION OTHER THAN THAT THE
UNITED STATES WAS THE OWNER OF THE FERTILIZER IN FLORIDA AWAITING
DISTRIBUTION. 

THE OTHER FINDINGS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORD WITH THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE COMPLAINT AND ARE NOT CONTESTED.  THE DISTRICT COURT, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, ENJOINED THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA LAW TO THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED ACTS OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE GROUND OF FEDERAL IMMUNITY
FROM STATE REGULATION. 

SINCE THE UNITED STATES IS A GOVERNMENT OF DELEGATED POWERS, NONE OF
WHICH MAY BE EXERCISED THROUGHOUT THE NATION BY ANY ONE STATE, IT IS
NECESSARY FOR UNIFORMITY THAT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES BE DOMINANT
OVER THOSE OF ANY STATE.  SUCH DOMINANCY IS REQUIRED ALSO TO AVOID A
BREAKDOWN OF ADMINISTRATION THROUGH POSSIBLE CONFLICTS ARISING FROM
INCONSISTENT REQUIREMENTS.  THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
STATES THIS ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE.  ARTICLE VI.  A COROLLARY TO THIS
PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE FREE
FROM REGULATION BY ANY STATE.  FN5  NO OTHER ADJUSTMENT OF COMPETING
ENACTMENTS OR LEGAL PRINCIPLES IS POSSIBLE. 

APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE INSPECTION FEE IS THAT NEITHER
THE CONSTITUTION NOR ANY FEDERAL STATUTE EXEMPTS THE UNITED STATES FROM
PAYING REASONABLE STATE INSPECTION FEES TO SUPPORT PERMISSIBLE
REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER.  SUCH INSPECTIONS ARE ALLOWABLE
WHERE THE UNITED STATES IS NOT THE OWNER.  PATAPSCO GUANO CO. V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 171 U.S. 345; RED "C" OIL CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA, 222 U.S.
380, 392.  APPELLANTS URGE THAT SINCE THEY ARE ALLOWABLE TO PROTECT THE
FARMERS AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF FERTILIZERS OF QUALITY POSSIBLY
INFERIOR TO THE MANUFACTURERS' REPRESENTATIONS, THE INSPECTION FEE
SHOULD BE PAID ON FERTILIZERS DISTRIBUTED BY THE UNITED STATES, WHERE
THE FEDERAL LAW IS SILENT AS TO ANY EXEMPTION ON THE GROUND OF
SOVEREIGNTY.  RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL.
O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466. 

IT LIES WITHIN CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO AUTHORIZE REGULATION, INCLUDING
TAXATION, BY THE STATE OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES N6.  NO SUCH
PERMISSION IS GRANTED HERE.  COMPARE 56 STAT. 664.  CONGRESS MAY
PROTECT ITS AGENCIES FROM THE BURDENS OF LOCAL TAXATION.  FN7  THERE
ARE MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL POWER WHICH IN
THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS MAY BE REGULATED IN SUCH MANNER AS DOES NOT
IMPAIR NATIONAL UNIFORMITY.  FN8  THERE ARE FEDERAL ACTIVITIES WHICH IN
THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT MAY BE AFFECTED BY STATE
REGULATION.  FN9  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, SUPRA, UPON WHICH
APPELLANTS RELY SO STRONGLY, IS IN THIS LATTER GROUP.  IN THAT CASE, AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, A FEDERAL AGENCY WHICH
WAS ASSUMED TO HAVE THE SAME IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION AS THE UNITED
STATES ITSELF, SOUGHT EXEMPTION FROM NEW YORK'S INCOME TAX ON THE
GROUND THAT A TAX UPON THE EMPLOYEE'S SALARY IMPOSED AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THIS POSITION WAS
NOT WITHOUT PRECEDENT.  FN10  UPON FULL REEXAMINATION OF THE
AUTHORITIES AND THE REASONING UPON WHICH THE EARLIER CASES HAD ALLOWED
THE EMPLOYEES OF ONE SOVEREIGNTY FREEDOM FROM THE EXACTIONS OF THE
OTHER, THIS COURT DECLARED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A FEDERAL DECLARATION
OF IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION, NO SUCH "TANGIBLE OR CERTAIN ECONOMIC
BURDEN IS IMPOSED ON THE (UNITED STATES) AS WOULD JUSTIFY A COURT'S
DECLARING THAT THE IS CLOTHED WITH THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL TAX
IMMUNITY OF THE GOVERNMENT BY WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  PAGE 486. 

THESE INSPECTION FEES ARE LAID DIRECTLY UPON THE UNITED STATES.  THEY
ARE MONEY EXACTIONS THE PAYMENT OF WHICH, IF THEY ARE ENFORCEABLE,
WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE EXECUTING A FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT.  SUCH A
REQUIREMENT IS PROHIBITED BY THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.  WE ARE NOT DEALING
AS IN GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, SUPRA, WITH A TAX UPON THE
SALARY OF AN EMPLOYEE, OR AS IN ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1,
WITH A TAX UPON THE PURCHASES OF A SUPPLIER, OR AS IN PENN DAIRIES V.
MILK CONTROL COMM'N, 318 U.S. 261, WITH PRICE CONTROL EXERCISED OVER A
CONTRACTOR WITH THE UNITED STATES.  IN THESE CASES THE EXACTIONS
DIRECTLY AFFECTED PERSONS WHO WERE ACTING FOR THEMSELVES AND NOT FOR
THE UNITED STATES.  THESE FEES ARE LIKE A TAX UPON THE RIGHT TO CARRY
ON THE BUSINESS OF THE POST OFFICE OR UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF SELLING
UNITED STATES BONDS THROUGH FEDERAL OFFICIALS.  ADMITTEDLY THE STATE
INSPECTION SERVICE IS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM FRAUD BUT IN CARRYING
OUT SUCH PROTECTION, THE FEDERAL FUNCTION MUST BE LEFT FREE.  FN11
THIS FREEDOM IS INHERENT IN SOVEREIGNTY.  THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS AS TO
THE SUBJECTION OF ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES, OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES,
TO LOCAL TAXATION OR REGULATION IS TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE SETTING OF
THE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND THE PARTICULAR EXACTION.  SHAW V. GIBSON
ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575, 578.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION IS CARRIED ON BY THE UNITED STATES ITSELF AND
CONGRESS DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DECLARE ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES OR
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO REGULATION OR TAXATION, THE INHERENT FREEDOM
CONTINUES.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 163, 1148; 50 STAT. 329; 55 STAT. 257, 860; 56 STAT.
664. 

FN2  SECS. 7 AND 8 OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION AND DOMESTIC ALLOTMENT
ACT, AS AMENDED. 

FN3  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, 477; PITTMAN
V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21, 32; FEDERAL LAND BANK V.
BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S. 95, 102. 

FN4  ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 12 STAT. 387; OF
COLLEGES OF AGRICULTURE, 26 STAT. 417; FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, 39 STAT.
360, 40 STAT. 431; FEDERAL INTERMEDIATE CREDIT BANKS, 42 STAT. 1454;
FEDERAL FARM BOARD, 46 STAT. 11; BOLL WEEVIL GRANT, 45 STAT. 539, 565. 

FN5  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 427; OHIO V. THOMAS, 173
U.S. 276, 283; OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173 U.S. 664, 667;
JOHNSON V. MARYLAND, 254 U.S. 51; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423,
451. 

FN6  OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173 U.S. 664, 667;
BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK V. TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 209; PACIFIC COAST
DAIRY V. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, 318 U.S. 285, 296. 

FN7 PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21, AND CASES
CITED. 

FN8  STANDARD DREDGING CORP. V. MURPHY, ANTE, P. 306; CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109. 

FN9  ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1, 9, AND CASES CITED. 

FN10  DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS, 16 PET. 435; COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11
WALL.  113; NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401; BRUSH V.
COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 352. 

FN11  SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN REACHED IN ADJACENT FIELDS.  THE
STATE IS POWERLESS TO PUNISH ITS CITIZENS FOR ACTS DONE IN EXCLUSIVELY
FEDERAL TERRITORY.  PACIFIC COAST DAIRY V. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, 318
U.S. 285.  A STATE CANNOT TAX LAND OF THE UNITED STATES SITUATED WITHIN
THE STATE EVEN THOUGH THE STATE HAS NOT CEDED SOVEREIGNTY TO THE UNITED
STATES.  VAN BROCKLIN V. TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151, 177. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :









FREEMAN V. BEE MACHINE CO., 319 U.S. 448 


NO. 707.  ARGUED MAY 4, 5, 1943.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1943.  - 131 F.2D
190, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A FEDERAL COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF A CAUSE REMOVED FROM A
STATE COURT MAY ALLOW SUCH AN AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT AS COULD HAVE
BEEN MADE HAD THE SUIT ORIGINATED IN THE FEDERAL COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE
AMENDMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE HAD THE SUIT REMAINED IN THE STATE
COURT.  P. 451. 

2.  AFTER REMOVAL TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF AN ACTION FOR
BREACH OF CONTRACT, BEGUN IN A STATE COURT AGAINST A NONRESIDENT
DEFENDANT UPON WHOM PROCESS WAS PERSONALLY SERVED WITHIN THE STATE, THE
DEFENDANT ENTERED A GENERAL APPEARANCE, DEFENDED ON THE MERITS, AND
FILED A COUNTERCLAIM.  HELD THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS "FOUND" WITHIN THE
DISTRICT SO AS TO GIVE THE DISTRICT COURT POWER TO ALLOW THE COMPLAINT
TO BE AMENDED BY ADDING A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT.  P. 453. 

3.  THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH PERMIT JOINDER OF CLAIMS,
RULE 18, AND PROVIDE FOR AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS, RULE 15, ARE
APPLICABLE TO REMOVED CASES AND "GOVERN ALL PROCEDURE AFTER REMOVAL,"
RULE 81(C).  P. 454. 

4.  RULE 5 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PERMITS SERVICE OF AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT TO BE MADE UPON THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT.  P.
455. 

FREEMAN V. BEE MACHINE CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 752, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT VACATING A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH GRANTED A MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR
THE DEFENDANT (PETITIONER HERE), 41 F.SUPP.  461, AND DENIED A MOTION
OF THE PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT HERE) TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, 42 F.SUPP. 
938, IN A SUIT WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IT WAS HELD IN LAMBERT RUN COAL CO. V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 258
U.S. 377, 382, THAT WHERE A STATE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION OF THE
SUBJECT MATTER OR OF THE PARTIES, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ACQUIRES
NONE ON A REMOVAL OF THE CASE.  AND SEE GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE
SHORE & M.S. RY. CO., 260 U.S. 261, 288; VENNER V. MICHIGAN CENTRAL R.
CO., 271 U.S. 127, 131; MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 389. 
THAT IS TRUE EVEN WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION IF
THE SUIT WERE BROUGHT THERE.  LAMBERT RUN COAL CO. V. BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO., SUPRA.  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN THAT CASE, "THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT ON REMOVAL IS, IN A LIMITED SENSE, A
DERIVATIVE JURISDICTION."  258 U.S. P. 382.  THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE
IS WHETHER THE RULE OF THOSE DECISIONS IS APPLICABLE TO A SITUATION
INVOLVING THE FOLLOWING FACTS: 

PETITIONER IS A RESIDENT OF OHIO; RESPONDENT IS A MASSACHUSETTS
CORPORATION.  RESPONDENT BROUGHT AN ACTION AT LAW AGAINST PETITIONER IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR BREACH OF A CONTRACT. 
PETITIONER WAS PERSONALLY SERVED WHEN HE HAPPENED TO BE IN BOSTON. 
PETITIONER APPEARED SPECIALLY AND CAUSED THE ACTION TO BE REMOVED TO
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS, PETITIONER BEING A NON
RESIDENT OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THERE BEING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND
THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 28, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 71.  PETITIONER THEREUPON ENTERED A GENERAL APPEARANCE  FN1  - HE
ANSWERED, INTERPOSING SEVERAL DEFENSES INCLUDING RES JUDICATA; HE ALSO
FILED A COUNTERCLAIM.  HE THEN MOVED FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  SHORTLY
BEFORE THAT MOTION CAME ON TO BE HEARD RESPONDENT MOVED TO AMEND ITS
DECLARATION BY ADDING A COMPLAINT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 4 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT.  FN2  38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 15.  THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  41 F.SUPP. 
461.  BUT IT DENIED RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO AMEND, BEING OF THE VIEW
THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ALLOW THE AMENDMENT.  42 F.SUPP.  938. 
IN REACHING THAT RESULT THE DISTRICT COURT EXPRESSED DOUBTS THAT THE
VENUE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT WERE SATISFIED.  BUT IT
EXPRESSLY DECLINED TO REST ON THAT BASIS AND PLACED ITS DECISION SOLELY
ON THE LAMBERT CO. LINE OF CASES.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SUSTAINED THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BUT DISAGREED WITH ITS VIEW ON THE MOTION TO AMEND.
131 F.2D 190.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM AND THE
CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS WHICH HAD DEVELOPED CONCERNING IT.  FN8 

THE LAMBERT CO. CASE AND THOSE WHICH PRECEDED  FN4  AND FOLLOWED IT
MERELY HELD THAT DEFECTS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT EITHER
AS RESPECTS THE SUBJECT MATTER OR THE PARTIES  FN5 WERE NOT CURED BY
REMOVAL BUT COULD THEREAFTER BE CHALLENGED IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  WE
SEE NO REASON IN PRECEDENT OR POLICY FOR EXTENDING THAT RULE SO AS TO
BAR AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPLAINT, OTHERWISE PROPER, MERELY BECAUSE THEY
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IF THE ACTION HAD REMAINED IN THE STATE
COURT.  FN6  IF THE FEDERAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE REMOVED CAUSE
AND IF THE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE HAD THE SUIT
ORIGINATED IN THE FEDERAL COURT, THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL COURT
ACQUIRED JURISDICTION BY REMOVAL DOES NOT DEPRIVE IT OF POWER TO ALLOW
THE AMENDMENT.  THOUGH THIS SUIT AS INSTITUTED INVOLVED ONLY QUESTIONS
OF LOCAL LAW, IT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT BY REASON
OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  FN7  THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64, IS, OF COURSE, APPLICABLE TO DIVERSITY CAUSES REMOVED TO
THE FEDERAL COURTS AS WELL AS TO SUCH ACTIONS ORIGINATING THERE.  BUT
IF THE FEDERAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE REMOVED CAUSE (MEXICAN
NATIONAL R. CO. V. DAVIDSON, 157 U.S. 201), THE ACTION IS NOT MORE
CLOSELY CONTAINED THAN THE ONE WHICH ORIGINATES IN THE FEDERAL COURT. 
THE JURISDICTION EXERCISED ON REMOVAL IS ORIGINAL NOT APPELLATE. 
VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313, 320.  THE FORMS AND MODES OF
PROCEEDING ARE GOVERNED BY FEDERAL LAW.  THOMPSON V. RAILROAD
COMPANIES, 6 WALL.  134; HURT V. HOLLINGSWORTH, 100 U.S. 100; WEST V.
SMITH, 101 U.S. 263; KING V. WORTHINGTON, 104 U.S. 44; EX PARTE FISK,
113 U.S. 713; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. PAINE, 119 U.S. 561; TWIST V.
PRAIRIE OIL & GAS CO., 274 U.S. 684; RORICK V. DEVON SYNDICATE, 307
U.S. 299.  CONGRESS HAS INDEED PROVIDED THAT IN A SUIT WHICH HAS BEEN
REMOVED THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL "PROCEED THEREIN AS IF THE SUIT HAD
BEEN ORIGINALLY COMMENCED IN SAID DISTRICT COURT, AND THE SAME
PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN TAKEN IN SUCH SUIT IN SAID DISTRICT COURT AS SHALL
HAVE BEEN HAD THEREIN IN SAID STATE COURT PRIOR TO ITS REMOVAL." 
JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 38, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 81.  WHILE THAT SECTION DOES NOT
CURE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS PRESENT IN THE STATE COURT ACTION, IT
PRESERVES TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS THE FULL ARSENAL OF AUTHORITY
WITH WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN ENDOWED.  INCLUDED IN THAT AUTHORITY IS THE
POWER TO PERMIT A RECASTING OF PLEADINGS OR AMENDMENTS TO COMPLAINTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL RULES.  WEST V. SMITH, SUPRA; TWIST V.
PRAIRIE OIL & GAS CO., SUPRA, P. 687. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION MAY NOT BE MADE
SINCE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT MAY
BE BROUGHT ONLY IN A DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT "IN WHICH THE
DEFENDANT RESIDES OR IS FOUND OR HAS AN AGENT."  15 U.S.C. SEC. 15. 
THAT REQUIREMENT RELATES TO VENUE.  BUT VENUE INVOLVES NO MORE AND NO
LESS THAN A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE WHICH "MAY BE LOST BY FAILURE TO ASSERT
IT SEASONABLY, BY FORMAL SUBMISSION IN A CAUSE, OR BY SUBMISSION
THROUGH CONDUCT."  NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S.
165, 168.  ON THE FACE OF THE PRESENT RECORD IT WOULD SEEM THAT ANY
OBJECTION TO VENUE HAS BEEN WAIVED.  THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE
RECORD BEFORE US THAT ANY SUCH OBJECTION WAS "SEASONABLY ASSERTED." 
COMMERCIAL INS. CO. V. CONSOLIDATED STONE CO., 278 U.S. 177, 179;
INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION CO. V. GIBNEY, 160 U.S. 217.  AS WE HAVE NOTED,
THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT PLACE ITS RULING ON THE GROUNDS OF VENUE. 
NOR IS THERE ANY INDICATION IN THE RECORD THAT PETITIONER RAISED THE
VENUE POINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  BUT EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT HE DID,
IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTION HAS BEEN PRESERVED HERE.  FN8 

BUT WE NEED NOT REST ON THAT NARROW GROUND.  PETITIONER WAS
PERSONALLY SERVED IN THE STATE COURT ACTION.  AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THE
CAUSE HE ENTERED A GENERAL APPEARANCE AND DEFENDED ON THE MERITS.  HE
ALSO FILED A COUNTERCLAIM IN THE ACTION.  HE THUS INVOKED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT AND SUBMITTED TO IT.  MERCHANTS HEAT
& L. CO. V. CLOW & SONS, 204 U.S. 286.  HE WAS ACCORDINGLY "FOUND" IN
THE DISTRICT SO AS TO GIVE THE DISTRICT COURT POWER TO ALLOW THE
COMPLAINT IN THAT SUIT TO BE AMENDED BY ADDING A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER
SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  THIS VENUE PROVISION WAS DESIGNED, AS
STATED BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN THORBURN V. GATES, 225 F. 613, 615, "TO
REMOVE THE EXISTING LIMITATIONS UPON THE VENUE OF ACTIONS BETWEEN
DIVERSE CITIZENS  FN9 AND TO PERMIT THE PLAINTIFF TO SUE THE DEFENDANT
WHEREVER HE COULD CATCH HIM."  BUT "FOUND" IN THE VENUE SENSE DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN PHYSICAL PRESENCE.  WE NOTED IN NEIRBO CO. V.
BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., SUPRA, PP. 170-171, THAT A CORPORATION
MAY BE "FOUND" IN A PARTICULAR DISTRICT FOR VENUE PURPOSES MERELY
BECAUSE IT HAD CONSENTED TO BE SUED THERE.  THE FACT THAT IT WAS
PRESENT "ONLY IN A METAPHORICAL SENSE" (308 U.S. P. 170) WAS NOT DEEMED
SIGNIFICANT.  IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOT IMPORTANT THAT AT THE TIME
OF THIS AMENDMENT PETITIONER HAD RETURNED TO OHIO AND WAS NOT
PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN MASSACHUSETTS.  HE WAS CONDUCTING LITIGATION IN
MASSACHUSETTS.  HE WAS THERE FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THAT LITIGATION. 
HAVING INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT AND SUBMITTED TO
IT, HE MAY NOT CLAIM THAT HE WAS PRESENT ONLY FOR THE LIMITED
OBJECTIVES OF HIS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM.  HE WAS PRESENT, SO TO
SPEAK, FOR ALL PHASES OF THE SUIT.  THAT PRESENCE SATISFIES THE VENUE
PROVISION OF SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
AMENDMENT.  THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ARE APPLICABLE TO REMOVED
CASES AND "GOVERN ALL PROCEDURE AFTER REMOVAL."  RULE 81(C).  THEY
PERMIT JOINDER OF CLAIMS (RULE 18) AND CONTAIN THE PROCEDURE FOR
AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS.  RULE 15.  AND, AS WE HAVE NOTED, CONGRESS HAS
DIRECTED THE DISTRICT COURT AFTER A CASE HAS BEEN REMOVED TO "PROCEED
THEREIN AS IF THE SUIT HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY COMMENCED IN SAID DISTRICT
COURT."  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 38, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 81.  THERE CAN BE NO
DOUBT BUT THAT THE COURT HAD THE POWER UNDER THAT STATUTE AND UNDER THE
RULES TO PERMIT THE JOINDER OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE CLAYTON
ACT.  IF PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT FOR
PURPOSES OF THE LAW SUIT, INCLUDING AN AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT, HE
CERTAINLY WAS "FOUND" THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING A CAUSE OF ACTION
UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  PROCESS IS OF COURSE A DIFFERENT
MATTER.  BUT UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SERVICE OF AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT MAY BE MADE UPON THE ATTORNEY  FN10  (RULE 5) - THE PROCEDURE
WHICH APPARENTLY WAS FOLLOWED HERE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE WESTERN LOAN & S. CO. V. BUTTE & B. MINING CO., 210 U.S.
368, 372; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 156, 165. 

FN2  THAT SECTION PROVIDES:  "ANY PERSON WHO SHALL BE INJURED IN HIS
BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY REASON OF ANYTHING FORBIDDEN IN THE ANTITRUST
LAWS MAY SUE THEREFOR IN ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE
DISTRICT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT RESIDES OR IS FOUND OR HAS AN AGENT,
WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, AND SHALL RECOVER
THREEFOLD THE DAMAGES BY HIM SUSTAINED, AND THE COST OF SUIT, INCLUDING
A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE."  THAT SECTION DERIVED FROM SEC. 7 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  SEE EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO MATERIALS CO.,
273 U.S. 359, 371-374. 

FN3  SEE NOMA ELECTRIC CORP. V. POLAROID CORP., 2 F.R.D. 454; CARROLL
V. WARNER BROS. PICTURES, 20 F.SUPP.  405; HOWE V. ATWOOD, 47 F.SUPP. 
979, 984.  CF. NEWBERRY V. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO., 276 F. 337,
338. 

FN4  SEE GOLDEY V. MORNING NEWS, 156 U.S. 518; DE LIMA V. BIDWELL,
182 U.S. 1, 174; COURTNEY V. PRADT, 196 U.S. 89, 92; AMERICAN WELL
WORKS CO. V. LAYNE & BOWLER CO., 241 U.S. 257, 258. 

FN5  WABASH WESTERN RY. V. BROW, 164 U.S. 271; HASSLER, INC. V. SHAW,
271 U.S. 195; EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORP. V. BRYANT, 299 U.S. 374. 

FN6  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE COURT DID NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  SEE
15 U.S.C. SEC. 15, SUPRA, NOTE 2; BLUMENSTOCK BROS. V. CURTIS
PUBLISHING CO., 252 U.S. 436, 440. 

FN7  SUITS BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP MAY BE BROUGHT "ONLY IN
THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF EITHER THE PLAINTIFF OR THE
DEFENDANT."  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 51, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 112.  CONGRESS HAS
NOT MADE THE SAME REQUIREMENT ON REMOVAL.  THUS AN ACTION BETWEEN
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES BEGUN IN A COURT OF A STATE OF WHICH
NEITHER IS A CITIZEN MAY BE REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE
DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SUIT IS PENDING.  LEE V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY.
CO., 260 U.S. 653.  SEE NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308
U.S. 165, 168.  INDEED, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE A NON-RESIDENT OF THE
STATE IN WHICH SUIT IS BROUGHT BEFORE HE CAN REMOVE TO THE FEDERAL
COURT ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  PATCH V. WABASH R.
CO., 207 U.S. 277. 

FN8  THE "ONLY QUESTION" PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WAS "WHETHER A PLAINTIFF MAY AMEND HIS COMPLAINT IN A
REMOVED ACTION SO AS TO STATE A NEW AND INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WHICH WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE STATE COURT'S
JURISDICTION."  THAT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT A PRESENTATION OF A QUESTION OF
VENUE OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT; AND
IT CAN HARDLY BE EXPANDED INTO ONE BY AN INCIDENTAL DISCUSSION OF VENUE
IN THE BRIEF. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 7, SUPRA. 

FN10  SEE ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59, 67-68. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

CONGRESS HAS POWER, OF COURSE, TO AUTHORIZE A SUIT ARISING UNDER
FEDERAL LAW TO BE BROUGHT IN ANY OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS. 
ROBERTSON V. LABOR BOARD, 268 U.S. 619, 622.  BUT FROM THE BEGINNING OF
THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT CIVIL SUITS CAN
BE BROUGHT ONLY IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS AN INHABITANT,
EXCEPT THAT WHERE FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS BASED SOLELY UPON DIVERSITY
OF THE PARTIES' CITIZENSHIP, SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT OF THE
RESIDENCE OF EITHER THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT.  SECTION 51 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 112, DERIVED FROM SEC. 11 OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 73, 79.  ONLY IN A VERY FEW CLASSES OF
CASES HAS CONGRESS GIVEN A STRICTLY LIMITED RIGHT TO SUE ELSEWHERE. 
ROBERTSON V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA.  IN SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT OF
OCTOBER 15, 1914, 38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 15, THE LEGISLATION
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE US, SUITS ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE BROUGHT "IN ANY
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE
DEFENDANT RESIDES OR IS FOUND OR HAS AN AGENT.  ...  "  SIMILAR
PROVISIONS, PERMITTING SUIT WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS "FOUND," APPEAR IN
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1911, SEC. 43, 36 STAT. 1087, 1100, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
104(SUITS FOR PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES), THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1909,
SEC. 35, 35 STAT. 1075, 1084, 17 U.S.C. SEC. 35(SUITS FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT), THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1917, SEC. 25, 39 STAT. 874, 893,
8 U.S.C. SEC. 164(SUITS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION LAWS), THE ACT OF MAY 27,
1933, TIT. I, SEC. 22, 48 STAT. 74, 86, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77V (SUITS UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933), AND THE ACT OF JUNE 6, 1934, SEC. 27, 48
STAT. 881, 902, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 78AA, (SUITS UNDER THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934).  IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS "FOUND" IN
THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MERELY BECAUSE HE HAD EXERCISED HIS
STATUTORY RIGHT TO REMOVE A SUIT TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN
MASSACHUSETTS, THE COURT, I CANNOT BUT CONCLUDE, IS DISREGARDING THE
VENUE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLAYTON ACT. 

THE RESPONDENT, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR
BREACH OF CONTRACT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ESSEX COUNTY,
MASSACHUSETTS, AGAINST THE PETITIONER, A RESIDENT OF OHIO, BY SERVING
HIM PERSONALLY WHILE AT A HOTEL IN BOSTON.  SINCE THERE WAS THE
REQUISITE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, THE
PETITIONER APPEARED SPECIALLY IN THE STATE COURT, REMOVED THE CAUSE TO
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS, FILED AN ANSWER AND A
COUNTERCLAIM FOR DAMAGES, AND MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE
56(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  THEREAFTER, ON THE DAY
BEFORE THE HEARING ON THIS MOTION, THE RESPONDENT MOVED TO AMEND ITS
COMPLAINT BY ADDING A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 4
OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  AT THAT TIME THE PETITIONER WAS NO LONGER PRESENT
IN MASSACHUSETTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DENIED THE RESPONDENT LEAVE TO AMEND ITS
COMPLAINT.  THE REASONS FOR THE COURT'S ACTION APPEAR IN ITS OPINION: 

"THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS OVER A
NONRESIDENT ONLY IF HE IS FOUND IN THE DISTRICT OR HAS AN AGENT
THEREIN.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 15.  THE DEFENDANT WHILE IN THE COMMONWEALTH
WAS SERVED WITH PROCESS IN A COMMON LAW ACTION OF CONTRACT.  THE
PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT) OBVIOUSLY SEEKS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS FACT
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON IN A SUIT INVOLVING A
NEW AND ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT-MATTER, NAMELY, THE ENFORCEMENT OF
RIGHTS ARISING UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES.  ...  IT FOLLOWS FROM THE
FOREGOING THAT IF THE PLAINTIFF IS ALLOWED TO ADD THE CAUSE OF ACTION
ALLEGED IN ITS MOTION, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
SUCCESSFUL ATTACK ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS.  ...  THE MOTION IS,
THEREFORE, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO SEEK
REDRESS BY SUIT BROUGHT ORIGINALLY IN THE FEDERAL COURT."  42 F.SUPP. 
938, 939. 

AS IN CAMP V. GRESS, 250 U.S. 308, 311, THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER
OBJECTED "NOT TO THE JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT, BUT TO THE
JURISDICTION OVER HIM OF THE COURT OF THE PARTICULAR DISTRICT; THAT IS,
THE OBJECTION IS TO THE VENUE."  SUCH A USE OF THE TERM "JURISDICTION"
IN THE SENSE OF VENUE IS BY NO MEANS UNCOMMON.  SEE, E.G., BURNITE COAL
CO. V. RIGGS, 274 U.S. 208, 211-12.  ALTHOUGH THE RECORD CONTAINS NO
SPECIFIC OBJECTION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT
BY ADDING THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, THE OPINION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT RECITES THAT THE PARTIES "HAVE NOW BEEN HEARD UPON
THIS (RESPONDENT'S) MOTION" TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, AND THAT THE
"QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED."  42
F.SUPP.  AT 939.  THE PETITIONER'S RESISTANCE TO THE ENTERTAINMENT BY
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE PROPOSED CLAIM UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT MUST
MEAN THAT HE OBJECTED TO BEING SUED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN
MASSACHUSETTS BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AMENABLE TO THE PROCESS OF THAT COURT;
IN OTHER WORDS, BECAUSE THAT COURT WAS WITHOUT VENUE. 

IN VACATING THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS STATED:  "THE FACT THAT IN ALL PROBABILITY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE
CASE AT BAR COULD NOT BRING A SEPARATE ACTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN MASSACHUSETTS
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT COULD AVOID THE SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON HIM BY
REMAINING OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT CANNOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT TO ALLOW THE AMENDMENT.  THIS IS ONLY A FACT TO BE CONSIDERED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT IN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETIONARY POWER TO ALLOW OR
DISALLOW THE AMENDMENT.  SINCE THE COURT BELOW DID NOT EXERCISE ITS
DISCRETIONARY POWER BUT RULED THAT IT LACKED JURISDICTION TO ALLOW THE
AMENDMENT WE MUST REMAND TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS."  131
F.2D 190, 194-95.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PLAINLY DID NOT REGARD
THE PETITIONER AS HAVING WAIVED HIS OBJECTION TO THE "JURISDICTION" OR
VENUE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS.  IT PLACED ITS REVERSAL
OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON ANOTHER GROUND, THE CORRECTNESS OF WHICH I
SHALL CONSIDER LATER. 

NOR CAN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, READ IN ITS ENTIRETY, BE
CONSTRUED AS AN ABANDONMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO THE VENUE
OF THE MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT.  TRUE ENOUGH, THE "ONLY QUESTION
PRESENTED" IS STATED TO BE "WHETHER A PLAINTIFF MAY AMEND HIS COMPLAINT
IN A REMOVED ACTION SO AS TO STATE A NEW AND INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF
ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WHICH WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE STATE COURT'S
JURISDICTION."  BUT THE TEXT OF THE PETITION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE
PETITIONER'S "JURISDICTIONAL" OBJECTIONS INCLUDED THE CLAIM THAT VENUE
WAS NOT PROPERLY LAID IN THE MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT.  ON PAGES 16
AND 17, FOR EXAMPLE, HE STATES: 

"THE QUESTION OF VENUE OR JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON IS NOT A MATTER
LIGHTLY TO BE DISREGARDED.  IT DEPENDS UPON SUBSTANTIVE LAW.  THE RIGHT
OF A PERSON TO BE SUED ONLY IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH HE IS AN
INHABITANT IS CAREFULLY GUARDED BY THE GENERAL VENUE STATUTE, JUDICIAL
CODE, SECTION 51.  ...  NOW, BEING 'FOUND' IS A SPORADIC, TEMPORARY
THING, VERY DIFFERENT FROM BEING 'AN INHABITANT.'  THE PETITIONER
FREEMAN WAS 'FOUND' AT ONE PARTICULAR TIME AND SUBJECTED TO SUIT ON A
CAUSE OF ACTION IN CONTRACT.  ...  THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION WAS
REMOVED TO THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT THIS DID NOT MAKE FREEMAN 'AN
INHABITANT' SO THAT HE COULD BE SERVED AT ANY TIME.  THE ONLY WAY IN
WHICH JURISDICTION CAN BE OBTAINED OF FREEMAN IN THIS DISTRICT FOR A
CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS IS BY HAVING HIM 'FOUND'
HERE.  THIS RESULT CANNOT BE SECURED BY 'AMENDING' AN EXISTING
COMPLAINT, BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT ONLY VIOLATE THE WHOLE THEORY OF VENUE,
BUT IT WOULD BE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF RULE 82(OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE), WHICH IS SUPERIOR TO RULE 15." 

I QUITE AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT VENUE IS A PRIVILEGE THAT MAY BE
WAIVED, THAT IT "MAY BE LOST BY FAILURE TO ASSERT IT SEASONABLY." 
NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 308 U.S. 165, 168.  BUT THE WAIVER MUST
BE ACTUAL, NOT FICTITIOUS.  THERE MUST BE A SURRENDER, NOT RESISTANCE. 
NO DOUBT A PARTY WHO, HAVING A VALID OBJECTION TO THE VENUE OF A SUIT,
PLEADS TO THE MERITS INSTEAD OF MAKING OBJECTION WAIVES HIS OBJECTION. 
PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375, 385; BURNRITE COAL CO. V.
RIGGS, 274 U.S. 208, 212.  HERE THE PETITIONER ANSWERED THE STATE SUIT
BEFORE AND NOT AFTER THE RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO AMEND ITS COMPLAINT TO
ADD AN EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 
HIS DEFENSE TO THE CONTRACT CLAIM COULD NOT POSSIBLY WAIVE ANY VENUE
OBJECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO A CLAIM SUBSEQUENTLY MADE UNDER THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS.  ONE CANNOT WAIVE AN OBJECTION WHICH HE CANNOT ASSERT. 

THE COURT RELIES UPON RULES 15 AND 18 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, WHICH ESTABLISH LIBERAL RULES FOR THE JOINDER OF CAUSES OF
ACTION.  BUT THESE RULES DO NOT DISPENSE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
VENUE.  RULE 82 EXPLICITLY PROVIDES THAT "THESE RULES SHALL NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO EXTEND OR LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES OR THE VENUE OF ACTIONS THEREIN."  BECAUSE CAUSES OF
ACTION COULD BE JOINED, IF PROPERLY BROUGHT, DOES NOT PROVE THAT THEY
ARE PROPERLY BROUGHT.  A LIBERAL RULE REGARDING JOINDER OF ACTIONS DOES
NOT ELIMINATE THE PROBLEMS OF SUABILITY CREATED BY THE VARIOUS VENUE
PROVISIONS.  THE REMOVAL STATUTE ITSELF DOES NOT IMPLIEDLY REPEAL THE
MULTITUDINOUS VENUE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY CONGRESS.  AND CERTAINLY
RULES 15 AND 18 DID NOT DO SO, ESPECIALLY SINCE RULE 82 CONTAINS A
SPECIFIC DISAVOWAL OF SUCH IMPLICATIONS. 

THE PROVISION OF THE REMOVAL STATUTE THAT ONCE A SUIT IS REMOVED, THE
DISTRICT COURT SHALL "PROCEED THEREIN AS IF THE SUIT HAD BEEN
ORIGINALLY COMMENCED IN SAID DISTRICT COURT," SEC. 38 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 81, IN NO WISE EXTENDS THE JURISDICTION OR VENUE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFTER REMOVAL.  THE PROVISION MEANS ONLY THAT
WHEN A SUIT IS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL COURTS, IT SHALL BE DISPOSED OF
IN THE MANNER IN WHICH BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED THERE.  THE REQUIREMENT OF
FEDERAL LAW THAT THERE BE A UNANIMOUS VERDICT OF THE JURY, FOR EXAMPLE,
APPLIES EVEN TO SUITS REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT WHERE A MAJORITY OF
EIGHT CAN RENDER A VERDICT.  SEE MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V.
BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S. 211.  OF COURSE, THEREFORE, THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO SUITS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  RULE 81(C).  BUT THE VENUE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY FEDERAL
LEGISLATION AND LEFT UNDISTURBED BY THE RULES ARE NOT ELIMINATED MERELY
BECAUSE THE SUIT IS ONE WHICH HAS BEEN REMOVED.  THE VENUE OF THE
FEDERAL COURT IS THE SAME, WHETHER THE SUIT BE ORIGINALLY INSTITUTED IN
OR REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL COURT.  IT CERTAINLY IS NOT ENLARGED BY THE
FACT OF REMOVAL. 

JOINDER IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY IF THE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE PROPERLY IN
COURT, THAT IS, IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF VENUE AS WELL AS JURISDICTION
ARE SATISFIED.  IF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET, AN ORDER OF COURT
DIRECTING JOINDER CANNOT DISPENSE WITH THEM.  THE RESPONDENT HERE
SOUGHT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT - A CAUSE OF ACTION OVER WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT IN
MASSACHUSETTS COULD HAVE VENUE ONLY IF THE PETITIONER RESIDED IN
MASSACHUSETTS, OR WAS FOUND THERE EITHER IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN
ACCREDITED AGENT.  BUT AT THE TIME OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPLAINT SEEKING TO ADD THIS CLAIM, THE PETITIONER WAS NOT A RESIDENT
OF MASSACHUSETTS NOR CAN HE BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN "FOUND" THERE IN ANY
LEGITIMATE SENSE OF THE WORD.  HIS ONLY CONTACT WITH MASSACHUSETTS WAS
THE FACT THAT HE WAS A DEFENDANT IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
BROUGHT IN A MASSACHUSETTS STATE COURT AND PROPERLY REMOVED TO THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT THERE.  IF THE RESPONDENT HAD INSTITUTED A
SEPARATE SUIT IN MASSACHUSETTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS, NEITHER THE STATE COURT, BLUMENSTOCK BROS. V. CURTIS
PUBLISHING CO., 252 U.S. 436, 440, NOR THE FEDERAL COURT IN
MASSACHUSETTS COULD ENTERTAIN THE SUIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS "FOUND" THERE MERELY BECAUSE HE WAS A DEFENDANT TO THE
CONTRACT SUIT. 

I KNOW OF NO CASE WHICH HAS CONSTRUED THE REQUIREMENT OF "FOUND," AS
APPLIED TO A NATURAL PERSON, TO MEAN ANYTHING LESS THAN ACTUAL PHYSICAL
PRESENCE.  THE NEIRBO CASE IS OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT RELEVANCE HERE.  THE
PROBLEM THERE WAS THAT OF FITTING A FICTIVE PERSONALITY INTO LEGAL
CATEGORIES DESIGNED FOR NATURAL PERSONS.  A CORPORATION IS NEVER
"FOUND" ANYWHERE EXCEPT METAPHORICALLY.  IN RECOGNITION OF THIS FACT
THE NEIRBO CASE HELD THAT WHEN A CORPORATION ASSENTS TO THE CONDITIONS
GOVERNING THE DOING OF BUSINESS WITHIN A STATE, IT IS AS MUCH "FOUND"
THERE FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL LAW AS FOR THOSE OF STATE LAW.  BUT IN
THE CASE OF A NATURAL PERSON, HE CAN BE "FOUND" NOT METAPHORICALLY BUT
PHYSICALLY.  AND WHEN A PERSON IS NOT ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN A
PLACE, HE IS NOT, "SO TO SPEAK," "FOUND" THERE EXCEPT IN THE WORLD OF
ALICE IN WONDERLAND. 

THE CASE THEREFORE REDUCES ITSELF TO THIS:  IF THE PETITIONER HAD NOT
REMOVED THE ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TO THE FEDERAL COURT, HE
COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE COMPELLED TO DEFEND A SUIT UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM IN MASSACHUSETTS.  HIS MERE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHT OF REMOVAL GIVEN HIM BY CONGRESS HAS RESULTED IN HIS BEING MADE
SUBJECT TO SUIT IN A PLACE OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED BY CONGRESS IN
SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  THIS IS TO ADD TO THE REMOVAL PRIVILEGE A
CONDITION OF HARDSHIP WHICH CONGRESS ITSELF HAS NOT IMPOSED FOR THE
SIMPLE REASON THAT IT RUNS COUNTER BOTH TO THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION OF
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION AND TO THE HISTORIC RULE THAT THE "JURISDICTION
OF A DISTRICT COURT IN PERSONAM HAS BEEN LIMITED TO THE DISTRICT OF
WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS AN INHABITANT OR IN WHICH HE CAN BE FOUND." 
ROBERTSON V. LABOR BOARD, 268 U.S. 619, 627.  THE COURT INVOKES NO
POLICY OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION WHICH COULD WARRANT DISREGARD OF THIS
LONG ESTABLISHED LEGISLATIVE POLICY. 

THE DERIVATIVE NATURE OF REMOVAL JURISDICTION, SEE MINNESOTA V.
UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 389, IS NOT BASED UPON TECHNICAL RULES OF
LAW.  CONGRESS DEEMED IT FAIR AND JUST THAT A NONRESIDENT WHO IS BEING
SUED OUTSIDE HIS STATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRANSFER THE SUIT TO A NEUTRAL
FEDERAL COURT WITHOUT LOSING OR GAINING ANY PRIVILEGES BY SUCH
TRANSFER.  THE DECISION IN THIS CASE TURNS AN OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY
CONGRESS TO ASSURE FAIRNESS AND IMPARTIALITY INTO A HOBSON'S CHOICE. 
BY REMOVING A SUIT TO THE FEDERAL COURT A DEFENDANT IS SUBJECTED TO A
LIABILITY - NAMELY, TO BE SUED IN A DISTRICT WHERE HE IS NEITHER A
RESIDENT NOR FOUND, UNDER A STATUTE PROVIDING THAT HE CAN BE SUED ONLY
WHERE HE IS EITHER A RESIDENT OR FOUND - FROM WHICH HE WOULD BE FREE IF
HE REMAINED IN THE STATE COURT.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL
IS CURTAILED BY DEPRIVING A DEFENDANT OF TERRITORIAL IMMUNITIES FROM
SUIT GIVEN BY CONGRESS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL STATUTES,
PRESUMABLY BECAUSE IT DEEMED PLACE FOR SUIT IMPORTANT IN A COUNTRY
HAVING THE DIMENSIONS OF A CONTINENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :








GREAT LAKES CO. V. HUFFMAN, 319 U.S. 293 


NO. 849.  ARGUED MAY 5, 6, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1943.  - 134 F.2D
213, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE LIGHT OF ITS OPINION, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THE
DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT RESTS WHOLLY UPON ITS
DECLARATION THAT AS APPLIED TO THE PLAINTIFFS THE STATE STATUTE IS
CONSTITUTIONAL; AND ITS JUDGMENT IS, IN EFFECT, A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT.  P. 295. 

2.  WHERE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR JURISDICTION TO
RENDER DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ARE CALLED ON TO ADJUDICATE WHAT ARE
ESSENTIALLY EQUITABLE CAUSES OF ACTION, THEY ARE FREE UPON EQUITABLE
GROUNDS TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD THE RELIEF PRAYED; AND CONSIDERATIONS
WHICH HAVE LED FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY TO REFUSE TO ENJOIN THE
COLLECTION OF STATE TAXES, SAVE IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, REQUIRE A LIKE
RESTRAINT IN THE USE OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE.  P. 300. 

3.  IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY SHOULD
EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWER TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD RELIEF SO AS TO
AVOID NEEDLESS OBSTRUCTION OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY OF THE STATES, AND
WHEN ASKED TO ENJOIN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE TAX IT IS THEIR DUTY TO
WITHHOLD RELIEF WHEN STATE LAW WITH THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THIS COURT
AFFORDS ADEQUATE PROTECTION.  P. 300. 

4.  IN A SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AGAINST A STATE OFFICER
CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE LOUISIANA
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW, BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS ENGAGED IN
NAVIGATION AND OPERATION OF VESSELS USED IN IMPROVING NAVIGABLE WATERS
OF THE STATE, AND PRAYING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE STATE LAW AS
APPLIED TO THEM AND THEIR EMPLOYEES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT WAS THE
DUTY OF THE COURT TO WITHHOLD SUCH RELIEF, IT APPEARING THAT UNDER THE
STATE LAW A TAXPAYER WHO PAYS A CHALLENGED TAX TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE
OFFICER MAY MAINTAIN A SUIT FOR REIMBURSEMENT.  P. 300. 

5.  THE ACTS OF AUGUST 21, 1937 AND AUGUST 30, 1935 DO NOT REQUIRE A
RESULT DIFFERENT FROM THAT HERE REACHED.  P. 301. 

GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. ET AL. V. HUFFMAN, ADMINISTRATOR,
DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 754, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, 43
F.SUPP.  981, DISMISSING A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST
RESPONDENT, A STATE OFFICER CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LOUISIANA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW (ACT 97 OF
1936, AS AMENDED BY ACT 164 OF 1938, ACT 16 OF THE FIRST EXTRAORDINARY
SESSION OF 1940, AND ACTS 10 AND 11 OF 1940).  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES
THAT PETITIONERS HAVE NUMEROUS CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE
NAVIGATION AND OPERATION OF DREDGES AND PILE DRIVERS AND IN THE
OPERATION OF QUARTER BOATS, TUGS, LAUNCHES, BARGES AND OTHER VESSELS,
ALL USED IN DEEPENING, DREDGING, EXTENDING AND OTHERWISE IMPROVING
CHANNELS UNDERLYING THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE STATE; AND THAT THE TAX
OR CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND WHICH THE
STATE LAW WOULD EXACT FROM EACH OF PETITIONERS EXCEEDED, WHEN THE SUIT
WAS BROUGHT, THE SUM OF $3,000.  THE RELIEF PRAYED IS A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT THAT THE STATE LAW AS APPLIED TO PETITIONERS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID. 

AFTER A TRIAL THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO
PETITIONERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES AND, AS APPLIED TO THEM, A VALID
EXERCISE OF STATE POWER.  43 F.SUPP.  981.  THE FORMAL JUDGMENT ORDERED
DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT, BUT IT IS TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
COURT'S OPINION, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  METROPOLITAN CO. V.
KAW VALLEY DISTRICT, 223 U.S. 519, 523; GULF REFINING CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 269 U.S. 125, 135; CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112, 118;
AMERICAN PROPELLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 475, 479-80.  SO
INTERPRETED IT RESTS WHOLLY ON THE COURT'S DECLARATION THAT THE STATUTE
APPLIED TO PETITIONERS IS CONSTITUTIONAL; IT IS THUS IN EFFECT A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 134 F.2D 213,
HOLDING THAT THE STATUTE, IN EXACTING FROM EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTIONS TO
THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND, IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE
STATE TAXING POWER (SEE STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548;
CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495); THAT THE APPLICATION OF
THE ACT TO PETITIONERS WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH ANY CHARACTERISTIC
FEATURE OF THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW IN ITS INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL
ASPECTS SO AS TO FALL UNDER THE BAN OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN,
244 U.S. 205 AND CASES FOLLOWING IT; AND THAT THE FEDERAL SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1607(C)(4), BY EXEMPTING FROM ITS
OPERATION OFFICERS AND CREWS OF VESSELS, HAS NOT "PREEMPTED THE FIELD"
OR OTHERWISE PRECLUDED THE STATE FROM APPLYING ITS LAW WITH RESPECT TO
THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION. 

BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS DECIDED, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 754, AND SET THE CASE FOR ARGUMENT WITH STANDARD
DREDGING CORP. V. MURPHY AND INTERNATIONAL ELEVATING CO. V. MURPHY,
POST, P. 306.  IN OUR ORDER GRANTING THE WRIT, WE REQUESTED COUNSEL "TO
DISCUSS IN THEIR BRIEFS AND ON ORAL ARGUMENT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE CAN BE APPROPRIATELY USED IN THIS CASE
WHERE THE COMPLAINT SEEKS A JUDGMENT AGAINST A STATE OFFICER TO PREVENT
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE." 

THE STATE ACT, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, EXACTS OF EMPLOYERS PAYMENTS
INTO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND, IN THE NATURE OF AN EXCISE
TAX UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE OF EMPLOYING
INDIVIDUALS AND MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE WAGES PAID.  SEE
CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., SUPRA.  PETITIONERS HAVE
CHALLENGED THE STATE'S RIGHT TO COLLECT THE TAX, AND HAVE INTERPOSED,
AS A BARRIER TO THE COLLECTION, THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT
FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT, AS WE HAVE INDICATED,
HAS IN SUBSTANCE GIVEN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS HAS SUSTAINED.  SAVE FOR THAT PURPOSE THOSE COURTS HAD NO
OCCASION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT, OR PRONOUNCE ANY JUDGMENT IN IT.
NEITHER COURT, NOR ANY OF THE PARTIES, HAS QUESTIONED THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE PLEADINGS TO PRESENT A CASE FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  WITHOUT
RAISING THAT ISSUE HERE WE PASS AT ONCE TO THE QUESTION, SUBMITTED TO
COUNSEL, WHETHER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE MAY BE
APPROPRIATELY RESORTED TO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

IN ANSWERING IT THE NATURE OF THE REMEDY AFFORDED TO TAXPAYERS BY
STATE LAW FOR THE ILLEGAL EXACTION OF THE TAX IS OF IMPORTANCE. 
DIRECTS THAT:  "THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE AGAINST THE ISSUANCE OF
PROCESS TO RESTRAIN THE COLLECTION OF ANY TAX AND FOR A COMPLETE AND
ADEQUATE REMEDY FOR THE PROMPT RECOVERY BY EVERY TAXPAYER OF ANY
ILLEGAL TAX PAID BY HIM."  AND ACT 330 OF 1938 SETS UP A COMPLETE
STATUTORY SCHEME TO CARRY INTO EFFECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  BY
IT THE COURTS OF THE STATE ARE FORBIDDEN TO RESTRAIN THE COLLECTION OF
ANY STATE TAX; AND ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED AND "RESISTING THE PAYMENT OF
ANY AMOUNT FOUND DUE, OR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY PROVISION OF SUCH LAWS
IN RELATION THERETO" SHALL PAY THE TAX TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE OFFICER
AND FILE SUIT FOR ITS RECOVERY IN EITHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS. 
PENDING THE SUIT THE AMOUNT COLLECTED IS REQUIRED TO BE SEGREGATED AND
HELD SUBJECT TO ANY JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE SUIT.  IF THE TAXPAYER
PREVAILS IN THE SUIT, INTEREST AT TWO PER CENT PER ANNUM IS ADDED TO
THE AMOUNT OF TAXES REFUNDED. 

THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS, IN THE EXERCISE OF
THE SOUND DISCRETION WHICH HAS TRADITIONALLY GUIDED COURTS OF EQUITY IN
GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING THE EXTRAODINARY RELIEF WHICH THEY MAY AFFORD,
WILL NOT ORDINARILY RESTRAIN STATE OFFICERS FROM COLLECTING STATE TAXES
WHERE STATE LAW AFFORDS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY TO THE TAXPAYER.  MATTHEWS
V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521.  THIS WITHHOLDING OF EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF BY
COURTS HAVING AUTHORITY TO GIVE IT IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE JURISDICTION
WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL COURTS, OR OF THE SETTLED
RULE THAT THE MEASURE OF INADEQUACY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL REMEDY IS
THE LEGAL REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE FEDERAL NOT THE STATE COURTS. 
STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS S.W. RY. CO., 284 U.S. 530, 533-34; DI GIOVANNI
V. CAMDEN INS. ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 69.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS BUT A
RECOGNITION THAT THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL COURTS
EMBRACES SUITS IN EQUITY AS WELL AS AT LAW, AND THAT A FEDERAL COURT OF
EQUITY, WHICH MAY IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE REFUSE TO GIVE ITS SPECIAL
PROTECTION TO PRIVATE RIGHTS WHEN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION
WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST (UNITED STATES V. DERN, 289
U.S. 352, 359-360; VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 549
53), SHOULD STAY ITS HAND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN IT REASONABLY
APPEARS THAT PRIVATE INTERESTS WILL NOT SUFFER.  SEE PENNSYLVANIA V.
WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185, AND CASES CITED. 

IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY SHOULD
EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWER TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD RELIEF SO AS TO
AVOID NEEDLESS OBSTRUCTION OF THE DOMESTIC POLICY OF THE STATES. 

"THE SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF STATE
GOVERNMENTS WHICH SHOULD AT ALL TIMES ACTUATE THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND A
PROPER RELUCTANCE TO INTERFERE BY INJUNCTION WITH THEIR FISCAL
OPERATIONS, REQUIRE THAT SUCH RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED IN EVERY CASE
WHERE THE ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT MAY BE PRESERVED WITHOUT IT.  WHENEVER
THE QUESTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THIS COURT HAS UNIFORMLY HELD THAT THE
MERE ILLEGALITY OR UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE OR MUNICIPAL TAX IS
NOT IN ITSELF A GROUND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  IF THE REMEDY AT LAW IS PLAIN, ADEQUATE, AND COMPLETE, THE
AGGRIEVED PARTY IS LEFT TO THAT REMEDY IN THE STATE COURTS, FROM WHICH
THE CAUSE MAY BE BROUGHT TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW IF ANY FEDERAL
QUESTION BE INVOLVED."  MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, SUPRA, 525-26. 

INTERFERENCE WITH STATE INTERNAL ECONOMY AND ADMINISTRATION IS
INSEPARABLE FROM ASSAULTS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ON THE VALIDITY OF
STATE TAXATION, AND NECESSARILY ATTENDS INJUNCTIONS, INTERLOCUTORY OR
FINAL, RESTRAINING COLLECTION OF STATE TAXES.  THESE ARE THE
CONSIDERATIONS OF MOMENT WHICH HAVE PERSUADED FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY
TO DENY RELIEF TO THE TAXPAYER - ESPECIALLY WHEN THE STATE, ACTING
WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, HAS SET UP ITS OWN ADEQUATE
PROCEDURE FOR SECURING TO THE TAXPAYER THE RECOVERY OF AN ILLEGALLY
EXACTED TAX. 

CONGRESS RECOGNIZED AND GAVE SANCTION TO THIS PRACTICE OF FEDERAL
EQUITY COURTS BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 21, 1937, 50 STAT. 738, ENACTED AS
AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1). 
THIS PROVIDES THAT "NO DISTRICT COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF ANY
SUIT TO ENJOIN, SUSPEND, OR RESTRAIN THE ASSESSMENT, LEVY, OR
COLLECTION OF ANY TAX IMPOSED BY OR PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF ANY STATE
WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW OR IN
EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE."  THE EARLIER REFUSAL OF FEDERAL
COURTS OF EQUITY TO INTERFERE WITH THE COLLECTION OF STATE TAXES UNLESS
THE THREATENED INJURY TO THE TAXPAYER IS ONE FOR WHICH THE STATE COURTS
AFFORD NO ADEQUATE REMEDY, AND THE CONFIRMATION OF THAT PRACTICE BY
CONGRESS, HAVE AN IMPORTANT BEARING UPON THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE BY THE FEDERAL COURTS AS A MEANS OF
ADJUDICATING THE VALIDITY OF STATE TAXES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS SPEAKS ONLY OF SUITS "TO ENJOIN,
SUSPEND, OR RESTRAIN THE ASSESSMENT, LEVY, OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX"
IMPOSED BY STATE LAW, AND THAT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE MAY
BE, AND IN THIS CASE WAS, USED ONLY TO PROCURE A DETERMINATION OF THE
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, WITHOUT AN INJUNCTION OR OTHER COERCIVE RELIEF. 
IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THAT PROCEDURE MAY IN EVERY PRACTICAL SENSE
OPERATE TO SUSPEND COLLECTION OF THE STATE TAXES UNTIL THE LITIGATION
IS ENDED.  BUT WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE WORDS OF
THE STATUTE MAY BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO PROHIBIT A DECLARATION BY FEDERAL
COURTS CONCERNING THE INVALIDITY OF A STATE TAX.  FOR WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT THOSE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE LED FEDERAL COURTS OF
EQUITY TO REFUSE TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF STATE TAXES, SAVE IN
EXCEPTIONAL CASES, REQUIRE A LIKE RESTRAINT IN THE USE OF THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE. 

THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO RENDER DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS PERMITS
FEDERAL COURTS BY A NEW FORM OF PROCEDURE TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION
TO DECIDE CASES OR CONTROVERSIES, BOTH AT LAW AND IN EQUITY, WHICH THE
JUDICIARY ACTS HAD ALREADY CONFERRED.  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH,
300 U.S. 227.  THUS THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT (ACT OF JUNE
14, 1934, 48 STAT. 955, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400) PROVIDES IN
SEC. 1 THAT A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS MAY BE AWARDED ALTHOUGH NO FURTHER
RELIEF BE ASKED, AND IN SEC. 2 THAT "FURTHER RELIEF BASED ON A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR DECREE MAY BE GRANTED WHENEVER NECESSARY OR
PROPER." 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE PRESENT SUIT, PRAYING
AN ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS IN ANTICIPATION OF THEIR THREATENED
INFRINGEMENT, IS ANALOGOUS TO THE EQUITY JURISDICTION IN SUITS QUIA
TIMET OR FOR A DECREE QUIETING TITLE.  SEE NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY.
CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 263.  CALLED UPON TO ADJUDICATE WHAT IS
ESSENTIALLY AN EQUITABLE CAUSE OF ACTION, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS AS
FREE AS IN ANY OTHER SUIT IN EQUITY TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD THE RELIEF
PRAYED, UPON EQUITABLE GROUNDS.  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT WAS NOT
DEVISED TO DEPRIVE COURTS OF THEIR EQUITY POWERS OR OF THEIR FREEDOM TO
WITHHOLD RELIEF UPON ESTABLISHED EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  IT ONLY
PROVIDED A NEW FORM OF PROCEDURE FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS IN
CONFORMITY TO THOSE PRINCIPLES.  THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE
BILL POINTED OUT THAT THIS COURT COULD, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS EQUITY
POWER, MAKE RULES GOVERNING THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE.  S.
REP. NO. 1005, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 6.  AND THE HOUSE REPORT
DECLARED THAT "LARGE DISCRETION IS CONFERRED UPON THE COURTS AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL ADMINISTER JUSTICE BY THIS PROCEDURE."  H.R.
REP. NO. 1264, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2; AND SEE BRILLHART V. EXCESS
INS. CO., 316 U.S. 491, 494; BORCHARD, DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS (2D ED.) 
P. 312. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH PERSUADED FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY NOT TO
GRANT RELIEF AGAINST AN ALLEGEDLY UNLAWFUL STATE TAX, AND WHICH LED TO
THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 21, 1937, ARE PERSUASIVE THAT RELIEF
BY WAY OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MAY LIKEWISE BE WITHHELD IN THE SOUND
DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  WITH DUE REGARD FOR THESE CONSIDERATIONS, IT
IS THE COURT'S DUTY TO WITHHOLD SUCH RELIEF WHEN, AS IN THE PRESENT
CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED THAT ON
PAYMENT OF ANY CHALLENGED TAX TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE OFFICER, THE
TAXPAYER MAY MAINTAIN A SUIT TO RECOVER IT BACK.  IN SUCH A SUIT HE MAY
ASSERT HIS FEDERAL RIGHTS AND SECURE A REVIEW OF THEM BY THIS COURT. 
THIS AFFORDS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY TO THE TAXPAYER, AND AT THE SAME TIME
LEAVES UNDISTURBED THE STATE'S ADMINISTRATION OF ITS TAXES.    THE ACT
OF AUGUST 21, 1937, WAS PREDICATED UPON THE DESIRABILITY OF FREEING,
FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE FEDERAL COURTS, STATE PROCEDURES WHICH
AUTHORIZE LITIGATION CHALLENGING A TAX ONLY AFTER THE TAX HAS BEEN
PAID.  SEE S. REP. NO. 1035, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.: H.R. REP. NO. 1503,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTORY COMMAND BE DEEMED
RESTRICTED TO PROHIBITION OF INJUNCTIONS RESTRAINING COLLECTION OF
STATE TAXES, ITS ENACTMENT IS HARDLY AN INDICATION OF DISAPPROVAL OF
THE POLICY OF FEDERAL EQUITY COURTS, OR A MANDATORY WITHDRAWAL FROM
THEM OF THEIR TRADITIONAL POWER TO DECLINE JURISDICTION IN THE EXERCISE
OF THEIR DISCRETION. 

FOR LIKE REASONS, WE THINK IT PLAIN ALSO THAT THE ENACTMENT OF THE
ACT OF AUGUST 30, 1935, 49 STAT. 1027, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400(1), WHICH
EXCLUDED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT ALL CASES
INVOLVING FEDERAL TAXES, CANNOT BE TAKEN TO DEPRIVE THE COURTS OF THEIR
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD DECLARATORY RELIEF IN OTHER
APPROPRIATE CASES.  THIS AMENDMENT WAS PASSED MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
"MAKING IT CLEAR" THAT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT WOULD NOT PERMIT
"A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THE LONG-CONTINUED POLICY OF CONGRESS" TO
REQUIRE PROMPT PAYMENT OF FEDERAL TAXES.  SEE S. REP. NO. 1240, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11; H.R. REP. NO. 1885, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
13. 

THE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL BELOW MUST THEREFORE BE AFFIRMED, BUT
SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT, IN THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S
DISCRETION, RELIEF BY WAY OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON, 319 U.S. 302 


NO. 840.  ARGUED MAY 11, 12, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1943.  - 48
F.SUPP.  833, VACATED. 


UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED
THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT AS COLLUSIVE.  P. 305. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. JOHNSON. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT IN A SUIT IN WHICH THE
UNITED STATES HAD INTERVENED AND IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942. 

PER CURIAM. 

ONE ROACH, A TENANT OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BELONGING TO APPELLEE,
BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT ALLEGING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS
WITHIN A "DEFENSE RENTAL AREA" ESTABLISHED BY THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR
PURSUANT TO SECS. 2(B) AND 302(D) OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF
1942, 56 STAT. 23; THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD PROMULGATED MAXIMUM RENT
REGULATION NO. 8 FOR THE AREA; AND THAT THE RENT PAID BY ROACH AND
COLLECTED BY APPELLEE WAS IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM FIXED BY THE
REGULATION.  THE COMPLAINT DEMANDED JUDGMENT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES AND
REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES, AS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 205(E) OF THE ACT. 
THE UNITED STATES, INTERVENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 401, FILED A
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT, WHICH APPELLEE
HAD CHALLENGED BY MOTION TO DISMISS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND - AS APPEARS FROM ITS OPINION (48 F.SUPP.  833)
AND JUDGMENT - THAT THE ACT AND THE PROMULGATION OF THE REGULATION
UNDER IT WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE CONGRESS BY THE ACT HAD
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

BEFORE ENTRY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, THE GOVERNMENT
MOVED TO REOPEN THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS COLLUSIVE AND DID
NOT INVOLVE A REAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED.  THE
GOVERNMENT BRINGS THE CASE HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF
AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 349A, AND ASSIGNS AS
ERROR BOTH THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE ACT, AND ITS REFUSAL TO REOPEN AND DISMISS THE CASE AS COLLUSIVE. 

THE APPEAL OF THE PLAINTIFF ROACH TO THIS COURT WAS ALSO ALLOWED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT AND IS NOW PENDING.  BUT THIS APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN
DOCKETED HERE BECAUSE OF HIS NEGLECT TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF THIS
COURT.  AS THE RECORD IS NOW BEFORE US ON THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL, WE
HAVE DIRECTED THAT THE TWO APPEALS BE CONSOLIDATED AND HEARD AS ONE
CASE.  WE ACCORDINGLY FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION
WHICH WE REQUESTED COUNSEL TO DISCUSS, "WHETHER ANY CASE OR CONTROVERSY
EXISTS REVIEWABLE IN THIS COURT, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPEAL BY THE
PARTY PLAINTIFF IN THE DISTRICT COURT." 

THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PLAINTIFF, SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS
MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT AS COLLUSIVE, SHOWS WITHOUT CONTRADICTION
THAT HE BROUGHT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IN A FICTITIOUS NAME; THAT IT
WAS INSTITUTED AS A "FRIENDLY SUIT" AT APPELLEE'S REQUEST; THAT THE
PLAINTIFF DID NOT EMPLOY, PAY, OR EVEN MEET, THE ATTORNEY WHO APPEARED
OF RECORD IN HIS BEHALF; THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE WHO PAID THE $15
FILING FEE IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT WAS ASSURED BY APPELLEE THAT AS
PLAINTIFF HE WOULD INCUR NO EXPENSE IN BRINGING THE SUIT; THAT HE DID
NOT READ THE COMPLAINT WHICH WAS FILED IN HIS NAME AS PLAINTIFF; THAT
IN HIS CONFERENCES WITH THE APPELLEE AND APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD,
NOTHING WAS SAID CONCERNING TREBLE DAMAGES AND HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF
THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT PRAYED UNTIL HE READ OF IT IN A LOCAL
NEWSPAPER. 

APPELLEE'S COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DENY THESE ALLEGATIONS.  IT
ADMITTED THAT APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY HAD UNDERTAKEN TO PROCURE AN ATTORNEY
TO REPRESENT THE PLAINTIFF AND HAD ASSURED THE PLAINTIFF THAT HIS
PRESENCE IN COURT DURING THE TRIAL OF THE CAUSE WOULD NOT BE
NECESSARY.  IT APPEARS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION THAT NO BRIEF
WAS FILED ON THE PLAINTIFF'S BEHALF IN THAT COURT. 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT, AS A RESULT OF THIS COOPERATION
OF THE TWO ORIGINAL PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION, ANY FALSE OR FICTITIOUS
STATE OF FACTS WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.  BUT IT DOES INSIST THAT THE
AFFIDAVITS DISCLOSE THE ABSENCE OF A GENUINE ADVERSARY ISSUE BETWEEN
THE PARTIES, WITHOUT WHICH A COURT MAY NOT SAFELY PROCEED TO JUDGMENT,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT ASSUMES THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF PASSING UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION.  EVEN IN A LITIGATION
WHERE ONLY PRIVATE RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, THE JUDGMENT WILL NOT BE
ALLOWED TO STAND WHERE ONE OF THE PARTIES HAS DOMINATED THE CONDUCT OF
THE SUIT BY PAYMENT OF THE FEES OF BOTH.  GARDNER V. GOODYEAR DENTAL
VULCANITE CO., 131 U.S. APPENDIX, CIII. 

HERE AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC INTEREST IS AT STAKE - THE VALIDITY OF AN
ACT OF CONGRESS HAVING FAR-REACHING EFFECTS ON THE PUBLIC WELFARE IN
ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL PERIODS IN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY.  THAT
INTEREST HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF
HAS HAD NO ACTIVE PARTICIPATION, OVER WHICH HE HAS EXERCISED NO
CONTROL, AND THE EXPENSE OF WHICH HE HAS NOT BORNE.  HE HAS BEEN ONLY
NOMINALLY REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL WHO WAS SELECTED BY APPELLEE'S COUNSEL
AND WHOM HE HAS NEVER SEEN.  SUCH A SUIT IS COLLUSIVE BECAUSE IT IS NOT
IN ANY REAL SENSE ADVERSARY.  IT DOES NOT ASSUME THE "HONEST AND ACTUAL
ANTAGONISTIC ASSERTION OF RIGHTS" TO BE ADJUDICATED - A SAFEGUARD
ESSENTIAL TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AND ONE WHICH WE
HAVE HELD TO BE INDISPENSABLE TO ADJUDICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS BY THIS COURT.  CHICAGO & GRAND TRUNK RY. CO. V. WELLMAN, 143
U.S. 339, 345; AND SEE LORD V. VEAZIE, 8 HOW.  251; CLEVELAND V.
CHAMBERLAIN, 1 BLACK 419; BARTEMEYER V. IOWA, 18 WALL.  129, 134-35;
ATHERTON MILLS V. JOHNSTON, 259 U.S. 13, 15.  WHENEVER IN THE COURSE OF
LITIGATION SUCH A DEFECT IN THE PROCEEDINGS IS BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S
ATTENTION, IT MAY SET ASIDE ANY ADJUDICATION THUS PROCURED AND DISMISS
THE CAUSE WITHOUT ENTERING JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS.  IT IS THE COURT'S
DUTY TO DO SO WHERE, AS HERE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST HAS BEEN PLACED AT
HAZARD BY THE AMENITIES OF PARTIES TO A SUIT CONDUCTED UNDER THE
DOMINATION OF ONLY ONE OF THEM.  THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED
THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT AS COLLUSIVE.  WE
ACCORDINGLY VACATE THE JUDGMENT BELOW WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DISTRICT
COURT TO DISMISS THE CAUSE ON THAT GROUND ALONE.  UNDER THE STATUTE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 401, THE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE FOR COSTS WHICH MAY BE TAXED
AS IN A SUIT BETWEEN PRIVATE LITIGANTS; COSTS IN THIS COURT WILL BE
TAXED AGAINST APPELLEE.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :
























STANDARD DREDGING CO. V. MURPHY, 319 U.S. 306 


NO. 722.  ARGUED MAY 5, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1943.  - 289 N.Y. 119,
44 N.E.2D 391, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TAX, LAID ON EMPLOYERS IN RESPECT
OF MARITIME EMPLOYEES WHOSE WORK IS ABOARD VESSELS ON NAVIGABLE WATERS
WITHIN THE STATE, IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY ART. 3, SEC. 2, OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH GIVES THE FEDERAL COURTS EXCLUSIVE ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 307, 310. 

2.  SUCH A TAX IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE POWER OF
CONGRESS WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERCISED ITS POWER IN THE SAME FIELD. 
P. 309. 

3.  THE PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY ACT EXEMPTING FROM
THE FEDERAL TAX THEREBY IMPOSED THE EMPLOYERS OF PERSONS EMPLOYED AS
OFFICERS OR MEMBERS OF THE CREWS OF VESSELS ON NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPERATE TO EXEMPT SUCH EMPLOYERS FROM STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TAXES.  P. 310. 

STANDARD DREDGING CORPORATION V. MURPHY, ACTING INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSIONER, ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 723, INTERNATIONAL ELEVATING CO. V. MURPHY, ACTING
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER, ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD DEPARTMENT. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD
DEPARTMENT. 

APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK (ENTERED
IN THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, ON REMITTITUR) REVERSING
JUDGMENTS OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION, 263 APP. DIV. 773, 31 N.Y.S.2D
183; 262 APP. DIV. 654, 30 N.Y.S.2D 721, AND AFFIRMING ORDERS OF THE
STATE UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE IN THESE CASES IS WHETHER THE NEW YORK UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE TAX MAY BE COLLECTED FROM EMPLOYERS OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
ENGAGED IN MARITIME EMPLOYMENT ON THE WAGES OF THOSE EMPLOYEES.  THE
NEW YORK ACT LEVIES A PAYROLL TAX ON ALL EMPLOYERS OF FOUR OR MORE
PERSONS, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL, AND THE SUM THUS COLLECTED
IS PAID INTO A GENERAL FUND FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL UNEMPLOYED PERSONS
COVERED.  FN1  THE EMPLOYEE IN 722 IS AN ASSISTANT COOK ON A DREDGE,
AND THE EMPLOYEE IN 723 IS A GRAIN WORKER ON A FLOATING ELEVATOR.  THE
VESSELS ON WHICH BOTH EMPLOYEES SERVED WERE ENGAGED PRIMARILY ON WORK
IN THE WATERS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK DURING THE TAX PERIOD.  THE
APPELLANTS CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED ON TWO
GROUNDS: (1) IMPOSITION OF THE TAX ON MARITIME EMPLOYEES VIOLATES
ARTICLE 3, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH GIVES FEDERAL COURTS
EXCLUSIVE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION; (2) CONGRESS HAS DECLARED EITHER
EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION THAT NO SUCH TAX SHALL BE IMPOSED ON
MARITIME EMPLOYERS.  NO OTHER QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION TO TAX ARE
BEFORE US.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS OVERRULED BOTH THESE
CONTENTIONS  FN2 AND THE CASES ARE HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

IN APPROACHING THIS PROBLEM, WE MAY PUT ASIDE TWO QUESTIONS AT THE
BEGINNING.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THESE TWO EMPLOYEES ARE NOT "MEMBERS
OF A CREW" AND HENCE ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE BOTH OF ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION AND OF THE RELEVANT STATUTES.  FN3  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE,
IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER OR NOT THE EMPLOYEES ARE CREW MEMBERS.  WE
ALSO NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THESE TAXES AFFECT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, SINCE CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT A STATE SHALL NOT
BE PROHIBITED FROM LEVYING THE TAX BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER IS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, 26 U.S.C. 1600; PERKINS V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 314 U.S. 586.  THE ADDED CONTENTION THAT A VESSEL'S
FEDERAL LICENSE MAY BAR STATE TAXATION IS ONLY ANOTHER FORM OF THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE TAX BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE,  FN4  AND NEED NOT
BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 

THAT THE STATE IS VESTED WITH POWER TO IMPOSE TAXES IN GENERAL UPON
EMPLOYERS TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT, AND THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE IS IN NO WISE IMPAIRED BY REASON OF BLENDING THE IMPOSITION OF A
TAX WITH THE RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THIS
COURT.  CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495; STEWARD MACHINE
CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548.  IN A SERIES OF CASES, HOWEVER, BEGINNING
WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205, THIS COURT CALLED
ATTENTION TO THE NECESSITY OF UNIFORMITY IN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF MARITIME
LAW, AND INVALIDATED SEVERAL STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS AS
APPLIED ON THE GROUND THAT THEIR ENFORCEMENT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THAT
ESSENTIAL UNIFORMITY.  WE ARE NOW ASKED TO APPLY THE JENSEN DOCTRINE TO
THE FIELD OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND TO INVALIDATE THE STATUTE
BEFORE US ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS DESTRUCTIVE OF ADMIRALTY
UNIFORMITY.  THE EFFECT ON ADMIRALTY OF AN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
PROGRAM IS SO MARKEDLY DIFFERENT FROM THE EFFECT WHICH IT WAS FEARED
MIGHT FOLLOW FROM WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LEGISLATION THAT WE FIND NO
REASON TO EXPAND THE JENSEN DOCTRINE INTO THIS NEW AREA.  INDEED, THE
JENSEN CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN SEVERELY LIMITED,  FN5  AND HAS NO
VITALITY BEYOND THAT WHICH MAY CONTINUE AS TO STATE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAWS.  CF. PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314 U.S. 244. 

GRANTING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT CHOOSE TO OPERATE ITS OWN
UNIFORM UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEM FOR MARITIME WORKERS IF IT CHOSE,
FN6  "UNIFORMITY IS REQUIRED ONLY WHEN THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF AN
EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION ARE INVOLVED."  JUST V. CHAMBERS, 312
U.S. 383, 392.  WHEN STATE COMPENSATION LAWS BEGAN TO PROVIDE A REMEDY
FOR MARITIME TORTS, IT WAS AT LEAST ARGUABLE THAT THE STATE REMEDY
INTERFERED WITH THE EXISTING ADMIRALTY SYSTEM OF RELIEF THROUGH ACTIONS
SUCH AS MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  BUT IN DEALING WITH UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE "EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION" IS NOT AFFECTED AT ALL. 
CONGRESS RETAINS THE POWER TO ACT IN THE FIELD, AND IN THE MEANTIME,
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.  NO PRINCIPLE OF ADMIRALTY
REQUIRES UNIFORMITY OF STATE TAXATION.  TAXES ON VESSELS AND OTHER
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF OPERATORS HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN UPHELD.  FN7  WE
HOLD THAT NOTHING IN ARTICLE 3, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION PLACES THIS
TAX BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE. 

THE SECOND CONTENTION IS THAT THE FEDERAL ACT PRECLUDES COVERAGE OF
THESE EMPLOYERS BY THE STATE.  TITLE 9 OF THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT (26 U.S.C. SECS. 1600-11) TAXES EMPLOYERS OF EIGHT OR MORE
EMPLOYEES BUT PROVIDES FOR A 90% CREDIT AGAINST THIS FEDERAL TAX FOR
PAYMENTS MADE INTO A STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  26 U.S.C. SEC. 1607 EXEMPTS FROM THIS FEDERAL TAX CERTAIN
TYPES OF EMPLOYERS OF PERSONS INCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYED "AS AN OFFICER
OR MEMBER OF THE CREW OF A VESSEL ON THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES."  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE EXEMPTION OF THESE EMPLOYERS FROM
THE FEDERAL ACT CAN OPERATE TO EXEMPT THEM FROM STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE TAXES.  THE FEDERAL ACT, FROM THE NATURE OF ITS NINETY PER
CENT CREDIT DEVICE, IS OBVIOUSLY AN INVITATION TO THE STATES TO ENTER
THE FIELD OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BUCKSTAFF BATH HOUSE CO. V.
MCKINLEY, 308 U.S. 358, 363, BUT THE ABSENCE OF AN INVITATION AS TO
EMPLOYERS OF MARITIME WORKERS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A BARRIER TO
STATE ACTION.  THESE EMPLOYERS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN EXEMPTED FROM THE
FEDERAL ACT BECAUSE OF CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN
THEIR COVERAGE, AND BECAUSE OF SOME DOUBT THAT STATES COULD, UNDER THE
JENSEN LINE OF CASES, CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTER THIS FIELD; FN8  BUT WE
ARE POINTED TO NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT WHICH
INDICATES THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO FORBID A STATE FROM RISKING THE
POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO STATE COVERAGE, AND UNDERTAKING THE
DIFFICULT ADMINISTRATIVE TASK THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF OTHER
EXEMPTIONS MAY INDICATE THAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO OUST THE STATES OF
JURISDICTION - ON THIS QUESTION WE NEED EXPRESS NO OPINION NOW; BUT
CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE UNDER THE ACT INDICATES THAT THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A FEDERAL EXEMPTION WHICH NECESSARILY
REQUIRED THAT STATES NOT UNDERTAKE TO EXPAND THE SOCIAL SECURITY
PROGRAM IN THIS FIELD.  THE FEDERAL ACT COVERS ONLY EMPLOYERS OF EIGHT
OR MORE PERSONS; APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF THE STATES COVER EMPLOYERS WITH
FEWER EMPLOYEES.  SEVERAL STATES COVER CASUAL LABORERS AND DOMESTIC
SERVANTS, BOTH GROUPS EXEMPTED BY THE SECTION OF THE FEDERAL ACT WHICH
INCLUDES THE EXEMPTION OF MARITIME WORKERS. 

EMPLOYERS OF MARTIME WORKERS, OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE TAXING ACTS, ARE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF SUCH ACTS
EITHER BY ARTICLE 3 SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, OR BY CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENTS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW YORK ACT, SEE CHAMBERLAIN, INC. V.
ANDREWS, 271 N.Y. 1, 2 N.E.2D 22; 299 U.S. 515. 

FN2  289 N.Y. 119, 44 N.E.2D 391. 

FN3  THE EMPLOYEES HERE, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THEIR WORK, ARE
ARGUABLY NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT PORTION OF ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
WHICH HAS BEEN SAID TO BE NECESSARILY EXCLUSIVE.  CF. DAVIS V.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S. 249.  ON THE OTHER HAND, CERTAIN
DECISIONS OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE MIGHT PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR
CONTENTION THAT THESE EMPLOYEES ARE "MEMBERS OF A CREW" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  AS TO WHETHER A DREDGE IS A VESSEL, SEE
S.S.T. 78, C.B. 1937-1, 408; AS TO WHETHER A FLOATING GRAIN ELEVATOR IS
A VESSEL AND WHETHER A GRAIN PROCESSOR IS A MEMBER OF A CREW, SEE
S.S.T. 204, C.B. 1937-2, 427; S.S.T. 210, C.B. 1937-2, 429. 

FN4  COUNSEL REFERS US TO GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1; HALL V.
DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485; MORAN V. NEW ORLEANS, 112 U.S. 69; HELSON V.
KENTUCKY, 279 U.S. 245; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S.
167. 

FN5  JUST V. CHAMBERS, 312 U.S. 383; DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT  OF LABOR,
SUPRA, AND, FOR AN ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE JENSEN DOCTRINE,
252, 253. 

FN6  CF. 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688(THE JONES ACT, DEALING WITH RECOVERY FOR
INJURIES BY SEAMEN); 33 U.S.C. SECS. 901-950(THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
HARBORWORKERS' ACT DEALING WITH RECOVERY FOR INJURIES BY LONGSHOREMEN
AND HARBORWORKERS). 

FN7  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. KENTUCKY, 222 U.S. 63; OLD DOMINION
STEAMSHIP CO. V. VIRGINIA, 198 U.S. 299. 

FN8  THE PROVISION EXEMPTING OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF CREWS FROM THE
FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TAX ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE IN TITLES II
AND VIII OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, DEALING WITH THE OLD AGE
RETIREMENT PENSIONS.  CF. 53 STAT. 1384, REPEALING THE EXEMPTION AS TO
CERTAIN MARITIME WORKERS FOR OLD AGE RETIREMENT PURPOSES.  THE REPORT
OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE
ORIGINAL ACT INDICATES THAT THE EXCEPTION WAS BASED ON THE ANTICIPATION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES.  HOUSE REPORT 615, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., 33.  THERE WAS ALSO SOME FEAR OF POSSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTION TO STATE COVERAGE OF MARITIME EMPLOYEES.  SEE STATEMENTS OF
REP. VINSON AND REP. MCCORMACK, 79 CONG. REC. 5903. 
..END :











ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 312 


NO. 889.  ARGUED MAY 10, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1943. 


1.  UNDER THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES ACQUIRED NO JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE AND PUNISH FOR RAPE
COMMITTED ON LAND ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES WITHIN A STATE AFTER
THE DATE OF THE ACT, WHERE JURISDICTION "EXCLUSIVE OR PARTIAL" OVER THE
AREA HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE MANNER WHICH THE
ACT PRESCRIBES.  P. 313.  2.  THE TERM "PARTIAL JURISDICTION" AS USED
IN THE ACT INCLUDES CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.  P. 314. 

ADAMS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITH
RESPECT TO AN APPEAL FROM A SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN A
PROSECUTION FOR RAPE AT A MILITARY CAMP. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS CERTIFIED TO
US TWO QUESTIONS OF LAW PURSUANT TO SEC. 239 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THE
CERTIFICATE SHOWS THAT THE THREE DEFENDANTS WERE SOLDIERS AND WERE
CONVICETED UNDER 18 U.S.C. SECS. 451, 457, IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, FOR THE RAPE OF A CIVILIAN
WOMAN.  THE ALLEGED OFFENSE OCCURRED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CAMP
CLAIBORNE, LOUISIANA, A GOVERNMENT MILITARY CAMP, ON LAND TO WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAD ACQUIRED TITLE AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME.  THE ULTIMATE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CAMP WAS, AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, WITHIN THE
FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION. 

THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 255, PASSED PRIOR TO THE
ACQUISITION OF THE LAND ON WHICH CAMP CLAIBORNE IS LOCATED, PROVIDES
THAT UNITED STATES AGENCIES AND AUTHORITIES MAY ACCEPT EXCLUSIVE OR
PARTIAL JURISDICTION OVER LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY FILING
A NOTICE WITH THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE LAND IS LOCATED OR
BY TAKING OTHER SIMILAR APPROPRIATE ACTION.  THE ACT PROVIDES FURTHER:
"UNLESS AND UNTIL THE UNITED STATES HAS ACCEPTED JURISDICTION OVER
LANDS HEREAFTER TO BE ACQUIRED AS AFORESAID, IT SHALL BE CONCLUSIVELY
PRESUMED THAT NO SUCH JURISDICTION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED."  THE GOVERNMENT
HAD NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF JURISDICTION AT THE TIME OF THE
ALLEGED OFFENSE.  FN1 

THE QUESTIONS CERTIFIED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  IS THE EFFECT OF THE ACT OF OCT. 9, 1940, ABOVE QUOTED, TO
PROVIDE THAT, AS TO LANDS WITHIN A STATE THEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY THE
UNITED STATES, NO JURISDICTION EXISTS IN THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE
THE CRIMINAL LAWS EMBRACED IN U.S.C. TITLE 18, CHAPTER 11, AND
ESPECIALLY SECTION 457 RELATING TO RAPE, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 451,
THIRD, AS AMENDED JUNE 11, 1940, UNLESS AND UNTIL A CONSENT TO ACCEPT
JURISDICTION OVER SUCH LANDS IS FILED IN BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES AS
PROVIDED IN SAID ACT? 

"2.  HAD THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JURISDICTION, ON THE FACTS ABOVE SET OUT, TO TRY AND SENTENCE THE
APPELLANTS FOR THE OFFENSE OF RAPE COMMITTED WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF CAMP
CLAIBORNE ON MAY 10, 1942?" 

SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT GIVEN THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE 1940
ACT, IT CLEARLY DID NOT HAVE EITHER "EXCLUSIVE OR PARTIAL" JURISDICTION
OVER THE CAMP AREA.  THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON SUGGESTED AS TO WHY THE
1940 ACT IS INAPPLICABLE IS THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO
GIVE NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF "CONCURRENT JURISDICTION."  THIS
SUGGESTION RESTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE TERM "PARTIAL JURISDICTION"
AS USED IN THE ACT DOES NOT INCLUDE "CONCURRENT JURISDICTION." 

THE LEGISLATION FOLLOWED OUR DECISIONS IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING
CO., 302 U.S. 134; MASON CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 186; AND
COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518.  THESE CASES AROSE FROM
CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING THE RELATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS OVER
GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND HAD POINTED THE WAY TO PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENTS. 
THE BILL RESULTED FROM A COOPERATIVE STUDY BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AND
WAS AIMED AT GIVING BROAD DISCRETION TO THE VARIOUS AGENCIES IN ORDER
THAT THEY MIGHT OBTAIN ONLY THE NECESSARY JURISDICTION.  FN2  THE ACT
CREATED A DEFINITE METHOD OF ACCEPTANCE OF JURISDICTION SO THAT ALL
PERSONS COULD KNOW WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAD OBTAINED "NO JURISDICTION
AT ALL, OR PARTIAL JURISDICTION, OR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION."  FN3 

BOTH THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY  FN4  AND THE SOLICITOR
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE  FN5  HAVE CONSTRUED THE 1940 ACT AS
REQUIRING THAT NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE BE FILED IF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO
OBTAIN CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS
ABANDONED THE VIEW OF JURISDICTION WHICH PROMPTED THE INSTITUTION OF
THIS PROCEEDING, AND NOW ADVISES US OF ITS VIEW THAT CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION CAN BE ACQUIRED ONLY BY THE FORMAL ACCEPTANCE PRESCRIBED
IN THE ACT.  THESE AGENCIES COOPERATED IN DEVELOPING THE ACT, AND THEIR
VIEWS ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT IN ITS INTERPRETATION.  CF. BOWEN V.
JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 29-30.  BESIDES, WE CAN THINK OF NO OTHER
RATIONAL MEANING FOR THE PHRASE "JURISDICTION, EXCLUSIVE OR PARTIAL"
THAN THAT WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION GIVES IT. 

SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ACCEPTED JURISDICTION IN THE MANNER
REQUIRED BY THE ACT, THE FEDERAL COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THIS
PROCEEDING.  IN THIS VIEW IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT LOUISIANA STATUTES
AUTHORIZED THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE JURISDICTION, SINCE AT THE CRITICAL
TIME THE JURISDICTION HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN.  FN6 

OUR ANSWER TO CERTIFIED QUESTION NO. 1 IS YES AND TO QUESTION NO. 2
IS NO. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE LANDS ON WHICH THE CAMP IS
LOCATED WAS ACCEPTED FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR
IN A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 15, 1943. 

FN2  IN THE WORDS OF A SPONSOR OF THE BILL, THE OBJECT OF THE ACT WAS
FLEXIBILITY, SO "THAT THE HEAD OF THE ACQUIRING AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT OF
THE GOVERNMENT COULD AT ANY TIME DESIGNATE WHAT TYPE OF JURISDICTION IS
NECESSARY; THAT IS, EITHER EXCLUSIVE OR PARTIAL.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT
DEFINITELY CONTEMPLATES LEAVING THE QUESTION OF EXTENT OF JURISDICTION
NECESSARY TO THE HEAD OF THE LAND-ACQUIRING AGENCY."  HEARINGS, HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, H.R. 7293, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 5. 

FN3  IBID., 7. 

FN4  OPS.  J.A.G. 680.2. 

FN5  OPINION NO. 4311, SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

FN6  DART'S LOUISIANA STAT. (SUPP.) 2898.  IN VIEW OF THE GENERAL
APPLICABILITY OF THE 1940 ACT, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT
OF THE WEEKS FORESTRY ACT, 16 U.S.C. 480, AND THE LOUISIANA STATUTE
DEALING WITH JURISDICTION IN NATIONAL FORESTS, DART'S LOUISIANA STAT.
3329, EVEN THOUGH THE LAND INVOLVED HERE WAS ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED FOR
FORESTRY PURPOSES. 
..END :











BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., 319 U.S. 315 


NO. 495.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 9, 1943.  REARGUED APRIL 14, 15, 1943.  -
DECIDED MAY 24, 1943.  - 130 F.2D 10, REVERSED - DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED. 


1.  JURISDICTION BY APPEAL FROM A STATE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY CAN NOT BE
CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BY A STATE STATUTE.  P. 317. 

2.  A FEDERAL COURT HAVING JURISDICTION, WHETHER BY DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP OR BY FEDERAL QUESTION, OF A SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OF A STATE COMMISSION, MAY, IN ITS SOUND
DISCRETION, REFUSE SUCH RELIEF IF TO GRANT IT WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  P. 317. 

3.  IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY SHOULD
EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWER WITH PROPER REGARD FOR THE
INDEPENDENCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS IN CARRYING OUT THEIR POLICIES.  P.
318. 

4.  IN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION, THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN THE
EXECUTION OF AN ORDER OF THE STATE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS,
PERMITTING THE DRILLING OF WELLS IN THE EAST TEXAS OIL FIELD SEPARATED
BY DISTANCES LESS THAN THE MINIMUM PRESCRIBED FOR THE FIELD IN GENERAL,
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.  PP. 318-332.  E CONCURS IN THE OPINION OF
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

BURFORD ET AL. V. SUN OIL CO. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 496, SUN OIL CO. ET AL. V. BURFORD ET AL., ALSO ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 623, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A JUDGMENT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT OF THE SUN OIL
COMPANY IN A SUIT AGAINST THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS ET AL., TO
ENJOIN THE EXECUTION OF AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION PERMITTING THE
DRILLING AND OPERATION OF CERTAIN OIL WELLS IN THE EAST TEXAS OIL
FIELD, AND ALSO DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT OF THE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM
COMPANY, INTERVENER.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD AT FIRST
BEEN AFFIRMED, 124 F.2D 467. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, THE SUN OIL
CO. ATTACKED THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION
GRANTING THE PETITIONER BURFORD A PERMIT TO DRILL FOUR WELLS ON A SMALL
PLOT OF LAND IN THE EAST TEXAS OIL FIELD.  FN1  JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURT WAS INVOKED BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OF
THE PARTIES, AND BECAUSE OF THE COMPANIES' CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER
DENIED THEM DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THERE IS SOME ARGUMENT THAT THE ACTION
IS AN "APPEAL" FROM THE STATE COMMISSION TO THE FEDERAL COURT, SINCE AN
APPEAL TO A STATE COURT CAN BE TAKEN UNDER RELEVANT TEXAS STATUTES; FN2
BUT OF COURSE THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE MAY NOT MAKE A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT, A COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, INTO AN APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR
OTHERWISE EXPAND ITS JURISDICTION,  FN3  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN ITS DECISION CORRECTLY VIEWED THIS AS A SIMPLE PROCEEDING IN
EQUITY TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

ALTHOUGH A FEDERAL EQUITY COURT DOES HAVE JURISDICTION OF A
PARTICULAR PROCEEDING, IT MAY, IN ITS SOUND DISCRETION, WHETHER ITS
JURISDICTION IS INVOKED ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OR
OTHERWISE, "REFUSE TO ENFORCE OR PROTECT LEGAL RIGHTS, THE EXERCISE OF
WHICH MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST"; FN4  FOR IT "IS IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY SHOULD EXERCISE THEIR
DISCRETIONARY POWER WITH PROPER REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF
STATE GOVERNMENTS IN CARRYING OUT THEIR DOMESTIC POLICY."  FN5  WHILE
MANY OTHER QUESTIONS ARE ARGUED, WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE ONLY
ONE:  ASSUMING THAT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION, SHOULD
IT, AS A MATTER OF SOUND EQUITABLE DISCRETION, HAVE DECLINED TO
EXERCISE THAT JURISDICTION HERE? 

THE ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION IS PART OF THE GENERAL REGULATORY
SYSTEM DEVISED FOR THE CONSERVATION OF OIL AND GAS IN TEXAS, AN ASPECT
OF "AS THORNY A PROBLEM AS HAS CHALLENGED THE INGENUITY AND WISDOM OF
LEGISLATURES."  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 310
U.S. 573, 579.  THE EAST TEXAS FIELD, IN WHICH THE BURFORD TRACT IS
LOCATED, IS ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS
APPROXIMATELY FORTY MILES LONG AND BETWEEN FIVE AND NINE MILES WIDE,
AND OVER 26,000 WELLS HAVE BEEN DRILLED IN IT.  FN6  OIL EXISTS IN THE
PORES AND CREVICES OF ROCKS AND SAND AND MOVES THROUGH THESE CHANNELS. 
A LARGE AREA OF THIS SORT IS CALLED A POOL OR RESERVOIR AND THE EAST
TEXAS FIELD IS A GIANT POOL.  THE CHIEF FORCES CAUSING OIL TO MOVE ARE
GAS AND WATER, AND IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE PRESSURES BE MAINTAINED AT
A LEVEL WHICH WILL FORCE THE OIL THROUGH WELLS TO THE SURFACE.  AS THE
GAS PRESSURE IS DISSIPATED, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO PUT THE WELL "ON
THE PUMP" AT GREAT EXPENSE; FN7  AND THE SOONER THE GAS FROM A FIELD IS
EXHAUSTED, THE MORE OIL IS IRRETRIEVABLY LOST.  SINCE THE OIL MOVES
THROUGH THE ENTIRE FIELD, ONE OPERATOR CAN NOT ONLY DRAW THE OIL FROM
UNDER HIS OWN SURFACE AREA, BUT CAN ALSO, IF HE IS ADVANTAGEOUSLY
LOCATED, DRAIN OIL FROM THE MOST DISTANT PARTS OF THE RESERVOIR.  THE
PRACTICE OF ATTEMPTING TO DRAIN OIL FROM UNDER THE SURFACE HOLDINGS OF
OTHERS LEADS TO OFFSET WELLS AND OTHER WASTEFUL PRACTICES; AND THIS
PROBLEM IS INCREASED BY THE FACT THAT THE SURFACE RIGHTS ARE SPLIT UP
INTO MANY SMALL TRACTS.  FN8  THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY NINE HUNDRED
OPERATORS IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD ALONE. 

FOR THESE AND MANY OTHER REASONS BASED ON GEOLOGIC REALITIES, EACH
OIL AND GAS FIELD MUST BE REGULATED AS A UNIT FOR CONSERVATION
PURPOSES.  COMPARE RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS CO., 311 U.S.
570, 574.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FOR THE PRESENT AT LEAST, HAS CHOSEN
TO LEAVE THE PRINCIPAL REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITY WITH THE STATES, BUT
DOES SUPPLEMENT STATE CONTROL.  FN9 WHILE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATE TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO PROTECT
THE INDUSTRY AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OHIO OIL CO. V. INDIANA,
177 U.S. 190; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, THE
STATE'S ATTEMPTS TO CONTROL THE FLOW OF OIL AND AT THE SAME TIME
PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE MANY OPERATORS HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN
ENTANGLED IN GEOLOGICAL-LEGAL PROBLEMS OF NOVEL NATURE. 

TEXAS' INTERESTS IN THIS MATTER ARE MORE THAN THAT VERY LARGE ONE OF
CONSERVING GAS AND OIL, TWO OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT NATURAL RESOURCES. 
IT MUST ALSO WEIGH THE IMPACT OF THE INDUSTRY ON THE WHOLE ECONOMY OF
THE STATE AND MUST CONSIDER ITS REVENUE, MUCH OF WHICH IS DRAWN FROM
TAXES ON THE INDUSTRY AND FROM MINERAL LANDS PRESERVED FOR THE BENEFIT
OF ITS EDUCATIONAL AND ELEEMOSYNARY INSTITUTIONS.  FN10  TO PREVENT
"PAST, PRESENT, AND IMMINENT EVILS" IN THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS, A
STATUTE WAS ENACTED "FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS
AGAINST SUCH EVILS BY PROHIBITING WASTE AND COMPELLING RATABLE
PRODUCTION."  THE PRIMARY TASK OF ATTEMPTING ADJUSTMENT OF THESE
DIVERSE INTERESTS IS DELEGATED TO THE RAILROAD COMMISSION, WHICH TEXAS
HAS VESTED WITH "BROAD DISCRETION" IN ADMINISTERING THE LAW.  FN11 

THE COMMISSION, IN COOPERATION WITH OTHER OIL PRODUCING STATES, HAS
ACCEPTED STATE OIL PRODUCTION QUOTAS AND HAS UNDERTAKEN TO TRANSLATE
THE AMOUNT TO BE PRODUCED FOR THE STATE AS A WHOLE INTO A SPECIFIC
AMOUNT FOR EACH FIELD AND FOR EACH WELL.  FN12  THESE JUDGMENTS ARE
MADE WITH DUE REGARD FOR THE FACTORS OF FULL UTILIZATION OF THE OIL
SUPPLY, MARKET DEMAND, AND PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL OPERATORS, AS
WELL AS PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  AS AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF
THE CONTROL PROGRAM, THE STATE ALSO REGULATES THE SPACING OF WELLS. 
THE LEGISLATURE HAS DISAVOWED A PURPOSE OF REQUIRING THAT "THE
SEPARATELY OWNED PROPERTIES IN ANY POOL (SHOULD) BE UNITIZED UNDER ONE
MANAGEMENT, CONTROL OR OWNERSHIP"  FN13  AND THE COMMISSION MUST THUS
WORK OUT THE DIFFICULT SPACING PROBLEM WITH DUE REGARD FOR WHATEVER
RIGHTS TEXAS RECOGNIZES IN THE SEPARATE OWNERS TO A SHARE OF THE COMMON
RESERVOIR.  AT THE SAME TIME IT MUST RESTRAIN WASTE, WHETHER BY
EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION OR BY THE UNWISE DISSIPATION OF THE GAS AND OTHER
GEOLOGIC FACTORS THAT CAUSE THE OIL TO FLOW. 

SINCE 1919 THE COMMISSION HAS ATTEMPTED TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM BY ITS
RULE 37.  THE RULE PROVIDES FOR CERTAIN MINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN WELLS,
BUT ALSO ALLOWS EXCEPTIONS WHERE NECESSARY "TO PREVENT WASTE OR TO
PREVENT THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY."  THE PREVENTION OF CONFISCATION
IS BASED ON THE PREMISES THAT, INSOFAR AS THESE PRIVILEGES ARE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE PREVENTION OF WASTE AND THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
CONSERVATION, EACH SURFACE OWNER SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW THE
OIL UNDER HIS SURFACE AREA, AND THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN FAIRLY BE
PERMITTED TO DRAIN HIS OIL AWAY.  HENCE THE COMMISSION MAY PROTECT HIS
INTEREST EITHER BY ADJUSTING HIS AMOUNT OF PRODUCTION UPWARD, OR BY
PERMITTING HIM TO DRILL ADDITIONAL WELLS.  "BY THIS METHOD EACH PERSON
WILL BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER A QUANTITY OF OIL AND GAS SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT IN AMOUNT TO THE RECOVERABLE OIL AND GAS UNDER HIS LAND." 
FN14 

ADDITIONAL WELLS MAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT WASTE AS HAS BEEN
NOTICED, WHERE GEOLOGIC CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DRILLING:  "THE
TERM 'WASTE,' AS USED IN OIL AND GAS RULE 37, UNDOUBTEDLY MEANS THE
ULTIMATE LOSS OF OIL.  IF A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF OIL WILL BE SAVED BY
THE DRILLING OF A WELL THAT OTHERWISE WOULD ULTIMATELY BE LOST, THE
PERMIT TO DRILL SUCH WELL MAY BE JUSTIFIED UNDER ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS
PROVIDED IN RULE 37 TO PREVENT WASTE."  GULF LAND CO. V. ATLANTIC
REFINING CO., 134 TEX. 59, 70, 131 S.W.2D 73. 

THE DELUSIVE SIMPLICITY WITH WHICH THESE PRINCIPLES OF EXCEPTION TO
RULE 37 CAN BE STATED SHOULD NOT OBSCURE THE ACTUAL NON-LEGAL
COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED IN THEIR APPLICATION.  FN15  WHILE THE SURFACE
HOLDER MAY, SUBJECT TO QUALIFICATIONS NOTED, BE ENTITLED UNDER CURRENT
TEXAS LAW TO THE OIL UNDER HIS LAND, THERE CAN BE NO ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY
AS TO HOW MUCH OIL ACTUALLY IS PRESENT, RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN &
NICHOLS CO., 311 U.S. 570, 576, AND SINCE THE WASTE AND CONFISCATION
PROBLEMS ARE AS A MATTER OF PHYSICAL NECESSITY SO CLOSELY INTERRELATED,
DECISION OF ONE OF THE QUESTIONS NECESSARILY INVOLVES RECOGNITION OF
THE OTHER.  FN16  THE SHEER QUANTITY OF EXCEPTION CASES MAKES THEIR
DISPOSITION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.  IT IS ESTIMATED THAT OVER TWO
THIRDS OF THE WELLS IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD EXIST AS EXCEPTIONS TO THE
RULE, AND SINCE EACH EXCEPTION MAY PROVOKE A CONFLICT AMONG THE
INTERESTED PARTIES, THE VOLUME OF LITIGATION ARISING FROM THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE RULE IS CONSIDERABLE.  FN17  THE INSTANT CASE
ARISES FROM JUST SUCH AN EXCEPTION.  IT IS NOT PECULIAR THAT THE STATE
SHOULD BE REPRESENTED HERE BY ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR CASES LIKE
THIS, INVOLVING "CONFISCATION," ARE NOT MERE ISOLATED DISPUTES BETWEEN
PRIVATE PARTIES.  ASIDE FROM THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH MAY EVOLVE
FROM THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE PHYSICAL FACTS ARE SUCH THAT AN ADDITIONAL
PERMIT MAY AFFECT PRESSURE ON A WELL MILES AWAY.  THE STANDARDS APPLIED
BY THE COMMISSION IN A GIVEN CASE NECESSARILY AFFECT THE ENTIRE STATE
CONSERVATION SYSTEM.  OF FAR MORE IMPORTANCE THAN ANY OTHER PRIVATE
INTEREST IS THE FACT THAT THE OVER-ALL PLAN OF REGULATION, AS WELL AS
EACH OF ITS CASE BY CASE MANIFESTATIONS, IS OF VITAL INTEREST TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC WHICH MUST BE ASSURED THAT THE SPECULATIVE INTERESTS OF
INDIVIDUAL TRACT OWNERS WILL BE PUT ASIDE WHEN NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE
IRRETRIEVABLE LOSS OF OIL IN OTHER PARTS OF THE FIELD.  THE COMMISSION
IN APPLYING THE STATUTORY STANDARDS OF COURSE CONSIDERS THE RULE 37
CASES AS A PART OF THE ENTIRE CONSERVATION PROGRAM WITH IMPLICATIONS TO
THE WHOLE ECONOMY OF THE STATE.  FN18 

WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISIONS OF THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION BOTH TO THE STATE AND TO THE OIL OPERATORS, THE
TEXAS LEGISLATURE HAS ESTABLISHED A SYSTEM OF THOROUGH JUDICIAL REVIEW
BY ITS OWN STATE COURTS.  THE COMMISSION ORDERS MAY BE APPEALED TO A
STATE DISTRICT COURT IN TRAVIS COUNTY, AND ARE REVIEWED BY A BRANCH OF
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS AND BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  FN19  WHILE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO ENFORCE RULE 37 OR TO
MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO IT IS SELDOM SERIOUSLY CHALLENGED, BROWN V. HUMBLE
OIL CO., 126 TEX. 296, 307, 83 S.W.2D 935, 87 S.W.2D 1069, THE VALIDITY
OF PARTICULAR ORDERS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
MAY PRESENT A SERIOUS PROBLEM, AND A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SUCH CASES
HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE TEXAS COURTS WHICH ALONE HAVE THE POWER TO
GIVE DEFINITE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW POSED IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS. 

IN DESCRIBING THE RELATION OF THE TEXAS COURT TO THE COMMISSION, NO
USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED BY ATTEMPTING TO LABEL THE COURT'S
POSITION AS LEGISLATIVE, PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 211 U.S. 210;
KELLER V. POTOMAC ELECTRIC CO., 261 U.S. 428, OR JUDICIAL, BACON V.
RUTLAND R. CO., 232 U.S. 134 - SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE TEXAS COURTS
ARE WORKING PARTNERS WITH THE RAILROAD COMMISSION IN THE BUSINESS OF
CREATING A REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY.  THE COMMISSION IS
CHARGED WITH PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR FACT FINDING AND FOR POLICY
MAKING AND THE COURTS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM THE ADMINISTRATIVE
RESPONSIBILITY, GULF LAND CO. V. ATLANTIC REFINING CO., 134 TEX. 59,
131 S.W.2D 73, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ARE
TESTED FOR "REASONABLENESS" BY TRIAL DE NOVO BEFORE THE COURT, RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. SHELL OIL CO., 139 TEX. 66, 76-80, 161 S.W.2D 1022, AND
THE COURT MAY ON OCCASION MAKE A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF ALL THE FACTS OF
THE CASE IN REVERSING A COMMISSION ORDER.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. GULF
PRODUCTION CO., 134 TEX. 122, 132 S.W.2D 254.  THE COURT HAS FULLY AS
MUCH POWER AS THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE PARTICULAR CASES, SINCE AFTER
TRIAL DE NOVO IT CAN EITHER RESTRAIN THE LEASEHOLDER FROM PROCEEDING TO
DRILL, OR, IF THE CASE IS APPROPRIATE, CAN RESTRAIN THE COMMISSION FROM
INTERFERING WITH THE LEASEHOLDER.  THE COURT MAY EVEN FORMULATE NEW
STANDARDS FOR THE COMMISSION'S ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND SUGGEST THAT
THE COMMISSION ADOPT THEM.  THUS, IN THE SHELL OIL CASE, SUPRA, AT 73,
THE COURT TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY OF "LAYING DOWN SOME STANDARD TO
GUIDE THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION" IN RULE 37
CASES; AND IN BROWN V. HUMBLE OIL CO., SUPRA, 312, THE COURT EXPLICITLY
SUGGESTED A REVISION IN RULE 37.    TO PREVENT THE CONFUSION OF
MULTIPLE REVIEW OF THE SAME GENERAL ISSUES, THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED
FOR CONCENTRATION OF ALL DIRECT REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS IN
THE STATE DISTRICT COURTS OF TRAVIS COUNTY.  THE TEXAS COURTS HAVE
AUTHORITATIVELY DECLARED THE PURPOSE OF THIS RESTRICTION: "IF AN ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION, LAWFUL ON ITS FACE, CAN BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED IN
THE VARIOUS COURTS AND COUNTIES OF THE STATE ON GROUNDS SUCH AS THOSE
URGED IN THE INSTANT CASE, INTERMINABLE CONFUSION WOULD RESULT."  TEXAS
STEEL CO. V. FORT WORTH & D.C. RY. CO., 120 TEX. 597, 604, 40 S.W.2D
78.  TO PERMIT VARIOUS STATE COURTS TO PASS UPON THE COMMISSION'S RULES
AND ORDERS, "WOULD LEAD TO INTOLERABLE CONFUSION.  IF ALL DISTRICT
COURTS OF THIS STATE HAD JURISDICTION OF SUCH MATTERS, DIFFERENT COURTS
OF EQUAL DIGNITY MIGHT REACH DIFFERENT AND CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS AS
TO THE SAME RULE.  MANIFESTLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL PROVISION UNDER
DISCUSSION WAS INCORPORATED IN THE ACT FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF
AVOIDING SUCH CONFUSION."  ALPHA PETROLEUM CO. V. TERRELL, 122 TEX.
257, 273, 59 S.W.2D 364, 372.  TIME AND EXPERIENCE, SAY THE TEXAS
COURTS, HAVE SHOWN THE WISDOM OF THIS RULE.  FN20  CONCENTRATION OF
JUDICIAL SUPERVISION OF RAILROAD COMMISSION ORDERS PERMITS THE STATE
COURTS, LIKE THE RAILROAD COMMISSION ITSELF, TO ACQUIRE A SPECIALIZED
KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS USEFUL IN SHAPING THE POLICY OF REGULATION OF THE
EVER-CHANGING DEMANDS IN THIS FIELD.  AT THE PRESENT TIME, LESS THAN
TEN PER CENT OF THESE CASES COME BEFORE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
FN21 

THE VERY "CONFUSION" WHICH THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AND SUPREME COURT
FEARED MIGHT RESULT FROM REVIEW BY MANY STATE COURTS OF THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION'S ORDERS HAS RESULTED FROM THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL EQUITY
JURISDICTION.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE FEDERAL COURTS CAN MAKE SMALL
CONTRIBUTION TO THE WELL ORGANIZED SYSTEM OF REGULATION AND REVIEW
WHICH THE TEXAS STATUTES PROVIDE.  TEXAS COURTS CAN GIVE FULLY AS GREAT
RELIEF, INCLUDING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS, AS THE FEDERAL COURTS. 
DELAY, MISUNDERSTANDING OF LOCAL LAW, AND NEEDLESS FEDERAL CONFLICT
WITH THE STATE POLICY, ARE THE INEVITABLE PRODUCT OF THIS DOUBLE SYSTEM
OF REVIEW.  THE MOST STRIKING EXAMPLE OF MISUNDERSTANDING HAS COME
WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT HAS FLATLY DISAGREED WITH THE POSITION LATER
TAKEN BY A STATE COURT AS TO STATE LAW.  SEE MACMILLAN V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 51 F.2D 400, 287 U.S. 576, AND DANCIGER OIL & REFINING CO.
V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 49 S.W.2D 837; 122 TEX. 243, 56 S.W.2D 1075. 
IN THOSE CASES, THE FEDERAL COURT ATTRIBUTED A GIVEN MEANING TO THE
STATE STATUTE WHICH WENT TO THE HEART OF THE CONTROL PROGRAM.  THE
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS DISAGREED, BUT BEFORE ULTIMATE REVIEW COULD BE
HAD EITHER IN TEXAS OR HERE, THE LEGISLATURE AMENDED ITS STATUTES SO
THAT THE CASES BECAME MOOT.  HAD THE TEXAS CIVIL APPEALS DECISION COME
FIRST, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARY TO MAKE THE CHANGES WHICH WERE
MADE IN AN EFFORT TO STAY WITHIN THE LIMIT THOUGHT BY THE GOVERNOR OF
TEXAS TO HAVE BEEN SET BY THE TONE OF THE FEDERAL COURT'S OPINION. 
FN22  THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE LATER CHANGED THE LAW BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL
STATE, AS CLEAR AN EXAMPLE OF WASTE MOTION AS CAN BE IMAGINED.  FN23
THE FEDERAL COURT HAS BEEN CALLED UPON CONSTANTLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION HAS ACTED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF STATUTORY
AUTHORITY, WHILE THE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES HAVE, AS THE
FEDERAL COURT HAS REPEATEDLY SAID, BEEN FAIRLY WELL SETTLED FROM THE
BEGINNING.  FN24 

THESE FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS ON STATE LAW HAVE CREATED A CONSTANT
TASK FOR THE TEXAS GOVERNOR, THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE, AND THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION.  THE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, AS HAS BEEN NOTED ABOVE, FELT
CALLED UPON TO FORGE HIS OIL PROGRAM IN THE LIGHT OF THE REMOTEST
INFERENCES OF FEDERAL COURT OPINIONS.  IN ONE INSTANCE HE THOUGHT IT
NECESSARY TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW.  FN25 SPECIAL SESSIONS OF THE
LEGISLATURE HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED WITH CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL COURT
DECISIONS.  FN26  LEGISLATION PASSED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
STRAIN AND DOUBT CREATED BY THESE DECISIONS WAS NECESSARILY
UNSATISFACTORY.  FN27  THE RAILROAD COMMISSION HAS HAD TO ADJUST ITSELF
TO THE PERMUTATIONS OF THE LAW AS SEEN BY THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE MOST
RECENT EXAMPLE WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ROWAN & NICHOLS CASE, IN
WHICH THE COMMISSION FELT COMPELLED TO ADOPT A NEW PRORATION SCHEME TO
COMPLY WITH THE DEMANDS OF A FEDERAL COURT DECISION WHICH WAS REVERSED
WHEN IT CAME TO THIS COURT.  311 U.S. 570, 572. 

AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE FEDERAL COURT CASES HAVE DEALT PRIMARILY WITH
THE INTERPRETATION OF STATE LAW, SOME OF IT STATE LAW FAIRLY REMOTE
FROM OIL AND GAS PROBLEMS.  THE INSTANT CASE RAISED A NUMBER OF
PROBLEMS OF NO GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE ON WHICH A FEDERAL COURT CAN ONLY
TRY TO ASCERTAIN STATE LAW.  FN28  FOR EXAMPLE, WE ARE ASKED TO
DETERMINE WHETHER A PREVIOUS TRAVIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT DECISION
MAKES THIS CASE RES ADJUDICATA AND WHETHER ANOTHER CASE PENDING IN
TRAVIS COUNTY DEPRIVED THE COMMISSION OF JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER
BURFORD'S APPLICATION.  THE EXISTENCE OF THESE PROBLEMS THROUGHOUT THE
OIL REGULATORY FIELD CREATES A FURTHER POSSIBILITY OF SERIOUS DELAY
WHICH CAN INJURE THE CONSERVATION PROGRAM, FOR UNDER OUR DECISION IN
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496, IT MAY BE NECESSARY
TO STAY FEDERAL ACTION PENDING AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE
DIFFICULT STATE QUESTIONS. 

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL COURTS AND TEXAS HAS LESSENED
APPRECIABLY IN RECENT YEARS PRIMARILY AS A RESULT OF THE DECISIONS IN
THE ROWAN & NICHOLS CASE.  310 U.S. 573; 311 U.S. 614; 311 U.S. 570. 
IN THOSE CASES WE ASSUMED THAT THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE IN THE REVIEW OF
RAILROAD COMMISSION ORDERS WAS WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD CONFINED
ITSELF WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND HELD THAT ANY
SPECIAL RELIEF PROVIDED BY STATE STATUTES MUST BE PURSUED IN A STATE
COURT.  IT IS NOW ARGUED THAT UNDER THE DECISION OF THE TEXAS SUPREME
COURT IN RAILROAD COMMISSION V. SHELL OIL CO., 139 TEX. 66, 161 S.W.2D
1022, THE COURTS, WHETHER FEDERAL OR STATE, ARE REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER NOT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY, BUT FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH A STANDARD OF "REASONABLENESS" UNDER THE STATE STATUTE WHICH, IT
IS SAID, IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD OF DUE PROCESS. 

THE WHOLE CYCLE OF FEDERAL-STATE CONFLICT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO
BEGIN AGAIN BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS VIEW.  INSOFAR AS WE HAVE DISCRETION
TO DO SO, WE SHOULD LEAVE THESE PROBLEMS OF TEXAS LAW TO THE STATE
COURT WHERE EACH MAY BE HANDLED AS "ONE MORE ITEM IN A CONTINUOUS
SERIES OF ADJUSTMENTS."  ROWAN & NICHOLS, SUPRA, 310 U.S. AT 584. 

THESE QUESTIONS OF REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY BY THE STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, WHETHER INVOLVING GAS OR OIL PRORATIONING
PROGRAMS OR RULE 37 CASES, SO CLEARLY INVOLVES BASIC PROBLEMS OF TEXAS
POLICY THAT EQUITABLE DISCRETION SHOULD BE EXERCISED TO GIVE THE TEXAS
COURTS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THEM.  "FEW PUBLIC INTERESTS
HAVE A HIGHER CLAIM UPON THE DISCRETION OF A FEDERAL CHANCELLOR THAN
THE AVOIDANCE OF NEEDLESS FRICTION WITH STATE POLICIES,  ...  THESE
CASES REFLECT A DOCTRINE OF ABSTENTION APPROPRIATE TO OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM WHEREBY THE FEDERAL COURTS, 'EXERCISING A WISE DISCRETION,'
RESTRAIN THEIR AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF 'SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL
INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS' AND FOR THE SMOOTH WORKING OF
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY  ...  THIS USE OF EQUITABLE POWERS IS A
CONTRIBUTION OF THE COURTS IN FURTHERING THE HARMONIOUS RELATION
BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY WITHOUT THE NEED OF RIGOROUS
CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTION OF THOSE POWERS."  RAILROAD COMMISSION V.
PULLMAN CO., SUPRA, 500, 501.  FN29 

THE STATE PROVIDES A UNIFIED METHOD FOR THE FORMATION OF POLICY AND
DETERMINATION OF CASES BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THE STATE COURTS.  THE
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISIONS IN THE STATE COURTS IS
EXPEDITIOUS AND ADEQUATE.  CONFLICTS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF STATE
LAW, DANGEROUS TO THE SUCCESS OF STATE POLICIES, ARE ALMOST CERTAIN TO
RESULT FROM THE INTERVENTION OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, IF THE STATE PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
STATE SUPREME COURT, ULTIMATE REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS IS FULLY
PRESERVED HERE.  CF. MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521.  UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, A SOUND RESPECT FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF STATE ACTION
REQUIRES THE FEDERAL EQUITY COURT TO STAY ITS HAND. 

THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IS AFFIRMED FOR
THE REASONS HERE STATED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE WITH A
SIMILAR COMPLAINT AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER.  THE PARTIES
DEFENDANT INCLUDE BURFORD; BURFORD'S ASSIGNEE, THE X Y Z OIL AND GAS
CO.; AND THE COMMISSION.  HEREAFTER THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS WILL BE
REFERRED TO AS THE COMPANIES AND THE DEFENDANTS WILL BE REFERRED TO AS
BURFORD OR AS THE COMMISSION.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI BY THE COMMISSION AND ON A CROSS-PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BY
THE COMPANIES. 

FN2  FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE SO-CALLED "APPEAL," SEE
STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. V. MIDAS OIL CO., 123 S.W.2D 911, 913; GULF
LAND CO. V. ATLANTIC REFINING CO., 134 TEXAS 59, 73, 131 S.W.2D 73. 

FN3  SEE THE DISCUSSION IN THE OPINION BELOW, 130 F.2D 10, 17; CF.
TENNESSEE COAL CO. V. GEORGE, 233 U.S. 354, 359, 360 AND TEXAS PIPE
LINE V. WARE, 15 F.2D 171.  A STATUTE SIMILAR TO THAT INVOLVED IN THE
INSTANT CASE, WHICH PERMITS SUIT IN ANY COMPETENT COURT OF TRAVIS
COUNTY, TEXAS, HAS BEEN CONSTRUED TO BE AN EXPRESSION BY THE STATE OF
WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW THESE PROCEEDINGS TO BE BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL
COURT, REAGAN V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362, 392.  SINCE
FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION DEPENDS ON FEDERAL STATUTES, THE TEXAS
STATUTORY PROVISION HAS LITTLE MEANING AS APPLIED TO SUCH CASES. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. DERN, 289 U.S. 352, 360. 

FN5  PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185.  "RELUCTANCE THERE
HAS BEEN TO USE THE PROCESS OF FEDERAL COURTS IN RESTRAINT OF STATE
OFFICIALS THOUGH THE RIGHTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANTS ARE STRICTLY
FEDERAL IN ORIGIN.  ...  THERE MUST BE RELUCTANCE EVEN GREATER WHEN THE
RIGHTS ARE STRICTLY LOCAL, JURISDICTION HAVING NO OTHER BASIS THAN THE
ACCIDENTS OF RESIDENCE."  HAWKS V. HAMILL, 288 U.S. 52, 61. 

FN6  FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE EAST TEXAS FIELD SEE RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 311 U.S. 570, 574; TUCKER,
TODAY'S EAST TEXAS PROBLEMS ANALYZED IN SURVEY OF FIELD, OIL AND GAS
JOURNAL, APRIL 1, 1937, P. 10; WEBER, EAST TEXAS AS IT IS TODAY, OIL
AND GAS JOURNAL, APRIL 27, 1939, P. 12.  THE LATTER ARTICLE INCLUDES A
MAP OF THE AREA SHOWING VARIOUS DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FIELD.  FOR A
SIMPLE OUTLINE MAP, SEE 1941 ANNUAL REPORT, OIL & GAS DIVISION, TEXAS
RAILROAD COMMISSION, P. 34. 

FN7  GEOLOGICAL FACTORS MAKING FOR THE NECESSITY OF PUMPING ARE
DESCRIBED IN ELY, THE CONSERVATION OF OIL, 51 HARV. L. REV. 1209,
1220.  THE RELATION OF NATURAL GAS TO OIL PRODUCTION IS DESCRIBED IN
MILLER, FUNCTION OF NATURAL GAS IN THE PRODUCTION OF OIL. 

FN8  WELLS IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD CONSIDERED UNNECESSARY FROM THE
ENGINEERING STANDPOINT ARE SAID TO HAVE COST $160,000,000.  FOR A
DISCUSSION OF THIS SUPERFLUOUS WELL PROBLEM, SEE ELY, THE CONSERVATION
OF OIL, SUPRA, 1232.  IN 1941 THERE WERE 910 OPERATORS IN THE EAST
TEXAS FIELD.  1941 RAILROAD COMMISSION REPORT, SUPRA, 208. 

FN9  15 U.S.C. SEC. 715, PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388;
NOTE 12, INFRA. 

FN10  THE PROBLEM OF GAINING AN ADEQUATE REVENUE FROM THE PETROLEUM
INDUSTRY WAS PARTICULARLY SERIOUS IN TEXAS DURING THE PERIOD 1930-35. 
THE QUESTION WAS DISCUSSED BY GOVERNOR STERLING IN MESSAGES TO THE
LEGISLATURE IN 1931, 1932, AND 1933, AND BY GOVERNOR ALLRED IN 1935. 
SEE THE TEXAS SENATE JOURNAL, JAN. 13-MAY 23, 1931, P. 526; IBID., JULY
AUGUST, 1931, P. 594; IBID., SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER, 1931, P. 164; IBID.,
AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, 1932, P. 60; IBID., REG. SESS., 1933, PP. 20, 24;
IBID., REG. SESS., 1935, PP. 587, 589-90. 

FN11  VERNON'S TEXAS STAT. (1936), ART. 6008, SECS. 1, 22. 

FN12  FOR DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS OF REGULATION OF THE OIL
INDUSTRY, SEE MARSHALL AND MEYERS, LEGAL PLANNING OF PETROLEUM
PRODUCTION, 41 YALE L. JOUR.  33; MARSHALL AND MEYERS, LEGAL PLANNING
OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTION:  TWO YEARS OF PRORATION, 42 YALE L. JOUR. 
702; ELY, THE CONSERVATION OF OIL, 51 HARV. L. REV. 1209; HARDWICKE,
LEGAL HISTORY OF CONSERVATION OF OIL IN TEXAS, IN THE AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION'S PUBLICATION, LEGAL HISTORY OF CONSERVATION OF OIL AND
GAS, 214; WALKER, THE PROBLEM OF THE SMALL TRACT UNDER SPACING
REGULATIONS, 17 TEX. L. REV. (APPENDIX) 157; SUMMERS, OIL PRODUCTION
REGULATION - DUE PROCESS, 19 TEXAS L. REV. 1; DAVIS, JUDICIAL
EMASCULATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, 19 TEX. L. REV. 29.  THE
INTERSTATE OIL COMPACT COMMISSION IS DESCRIBED IN ITS OWN PUBLICATION,
THE INTERSTATE COMPACT TO CONSERVE OIL AND GAS (1942), PUBLISHED OVER
THE SIGNATURE OF GOVERNOR PHILLIPS OF OKLAHOMA.  FEDERAL WARTIME
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE DRILLING OF WELLS HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE
PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION FOR WAR.  SEE CONSERVATION ORDER M-68 AS
AMENDED, 8 FED. REG. 3955, DISCUSSED IN 10 GEORGE WASHINGTON L. REV.
926. 

THE COMMISSION HAS DESCRIBED ITS OWN REGULATORY PROGRAM AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS CARRIES OUT ITS FUNCTIONS OF
PRODUCTION CONTROL OR PRORATION BY AN ELABORATE SYSTEM OF ORDERS,
SCHEDULES, AND REPORTS.  IN ORDER TO KEEP THE PRODUCTION OF OIL FOR THE
STATE DURING ANY PERIOD WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A PREDETERMINED FIGURE,
THE COMMISSION SETS BY ORDER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION FOR THE
STATE.  THIS TOTAL ALLOWABLE IS THEN DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE VARIOUS
FIELDS, AND THE ALLOWABLE FOR EACH FIELD IN TURN IS ALLOCATED AMONG THE
COMPONENT PROPERTIES SO THAT THE COMMISSION, UNDER THIS PROCESS, FIXES
THE DAILY ALLOWABLE FOR EACH WELL DURING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF EACH
ALLOWABLE ORDER.  AFTER THESE CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, A SCHEDULE
OF THESE ALLOWABLES IS PREPARED, PRINTED, AND MAILED TO EACH OPERATOR
SO THAT HE MAY KNOW HOW MUCH OIL MAY BE PRODUCED FROM EACH OF HIS
LEASES DURING THE MONTH."  1939 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE OIL AND GAS
DIVISION, TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION, P. 9.    FN13  VERNON'S TEXAS
STAT. (1936), ART. 6014-G. 

FN14  BROWN V. HUMBLE OIL CO., 126 TEX. 296, 312, 83 S.W.2D 935, 87
S.W.2D 1069.  THIS PRINCIPLE IS A LIMITATION UPON THE SO-CALLED "RULE
OF CAPTURE" UNDER WHICH THE SURFACE OWNER IS ENTITLED NOT ONLY TO THE
AMOUNT OF OIL UNDER HIS LAND BUT TO ALL OTHER OIL WHICH HE CAN DRAIN
FROM UNDER HIS NEIGHBOR'S LAND TO HIS OWN.  THE RULE OF CAPTURE IS
DISCUSSED BY ELY, SUPRA, NOTE 12, AT 1218. 

FN15  "WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO LAY
DOWN A DEFINITE STANDARD BY WHICH IT COULD BE DETERMINED CORRECTLY JUST
WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS AN OIL PRODUCING AREA SHOULD BE DIVIDED
INTO DRILLING UNITS AND WHAT SIZE AND SHAPE THE UNITS SHOULD BE.  ...
IN PERFORMING ITS FUNCTIONS AS A FACT-FINDING BODY, THE CORPORATION
COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED  ...  TO TAKE EVIDENCE UPON ALL THESE SUBJECTS
AND OTHERS FOUND BY SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH TO HAVE A
BEARING UPON SECURING THE GREATEST POSSIBLE RECOVERY FROM THE COMMON
SOURCE OF SUPPLY, AND BY APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PHYSICS,
CHEMISTRY, GEOLOGY, AND MATHEMATICS, CAN DETERMINE BY CERTAIN
CALCULATIONS AT WHAT INTERVALS OF SPACE WELLS SHOULD BE LOCATED IN
ORDER TO BRING ABOUT SUCH RECOVERY AND THUS PREVENT WASTE AND ALSO
PROTECT THE CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF ALL THE OWNERS OF INTERESTS
THEREIN."  PATTERSON V. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO., 182 OKLA. 155, 161,
162, 77 P.2D 83. 

FN16  IN DANCIGER OIL & REFINING CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 49
S.W.2D 837, 842, THE COURT DESCRIBES THE GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENA WHICH ARE
THE BASIS OF THE RULES OF LAW DEALING WITH LEASEHOLDERS WHO, THROUGH
FULL UTILIZATION OF THEIR OWN TRACTS, MIGHT CAUSE WASTE FOR OTHERS, AND
CONTINUES:  "NO PARTICULAR LEASE OR WELL CAN THEREFORE BE TAKEN AS A
UNIT, BUT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS RELATION TO ADJACENT LEASES OR
WELLS, WITH A VIEW TO CONSERVING THE WHOLE, AND IS SUBJECT TO
REGULATION ACCORDINGLY." 

THE WELL SPACING PROGRAM AND THE PRORATION PROGRAM CAN NOT BE
CONSIDERED SEPARATELY; "THE TWO ARE A PART OF A SINGLE INTEGRATED
SYSTEM AND MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER."  DAVIS, NOTE 12, SUPRA, AT
55.  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE INTERRELATION OF SPACING AND PRORATION,
SEE ELY, SUPRA, NOTE 12, AT 1229.  BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
OF GRANTING EXCEPTIONS UNDER RULE 37, THE COMMISSION MUST BE GIVEN FAIR
LATITUDE TO EXERCISE "SOUND JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION."  GULF LAND CO. V.
ATLANTIC REFINING CO., 134 TEX. 59, 79, 131 S.W.2D 73.  AND BECAUSE OF
THE DIFFICULTIES OF DECISION, THE COMMISSION MUST BE ALLOWED A
"REASONABLE MARGIN FOR ERROR."  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. SHELL OIL CO.,
139 TEX. 66, 75, 161 S.W.2D 1022. 

FN17  THE COMMISSION DEALT WITH APPROXIMATELY SIXTY RULE 37 CASES,
INCLUDING THIS ONE, IN ONE OR ANOTHER COURT IN 1941.  ANNUAL REPORT OF
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, 1941, PP. 15-26.  ELY, SUPRA, NOTE
12, 1230, ESTIMATES THAT 17,000 WELLS IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD ARE
OPERATED UNDER EXCEPTION PERMITS. 

FN18  "THE COMMISSION IS CHARGED GENERALLY WITH THE CONSERVATION OF
OIL AND GAS IN THEIR PRODUCTION, STORAGE, TRANSPORTATION.  ...  THE
COMMISSION MUST MAKE RULES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDERS TO ACCOMPLISH
CONSERVATION OF OIL AND GAS.  ...  ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE
COMMISSION MUST DO TO CONSERVE OIL AND GAS IS TO SEE THAT OIL AND GAS
FIELDS ARE DRILLED IN AN ORDERLY AND SCIENTIFIC MANNER.  IN ORDER TO
ACCOMPLISH ORDERLY DRILLING, THE COMMISSION HAS SIMPLY PROMULGATED A
RULE FIXING MINIMUM SPACING DISTANCES AT WHICH WELLS MAY BE DRILLED
WITHOUT APPLICATION, NOTICE, OR HEARING.  ANYONE DESIRING TO DRILL A
WELL AT A LESSER DISTANCE MUST SECURE A SPECIAL PERMIT, AFTER NOTICE
AND HEARING."  GULF LAND CO. V. ATLANTIC REFINING CO., 134 TEX. 59, 69,
131 S.W.2D 73. 

FN19  VERNON'S TEXAS STAT. (1936), ART. 6049C, SEC. 8. 

FN20  WEST TEXAS COMPRESS CO. V. PANHANDLE & S.F. RY. CO., 15 S.W.2D
558, 561. 

FN21  SUMMARY OF LITIGATION, ANNUAL REPORT OF THE OIL AND GAS
DIVISION, RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, 1941, 15 ET SEQ. 

FN22  IN HIS MESSAGE OF AUGUST 3, 1931, TO THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE,
CONCERNING THE MACMILLAN DECISION, GOVERNOR STERLING SAID:  "AT THE
TIME THE OPINION WAS WRITTEN, THE COURT, KNOWING THAT THE LEGISLATURE
WAS IN SESSION, IT MAY REASONABLY BE ASSUMED THAT IF THE COURT HAD
THOUGHT THE LAWS WERE INVALID, WOULD HAVE HELD SO AS TO GIVE THIS
LEGISLATURE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELIMINATE AND CORRECT ANY CAUSE FOR
INVALIDITY.  THE COURT HAVING FAILED TO DO THIS, WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN
ASSUMING THAT OUR EXISTING CONSERVATION LAWS ARE VALID.  ...  IT
APPEALS TO ME, IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT,
THAT IT WOULD BE UNWISE TO ATTEMPT RADICAL CHANGES IN OUR EXISTING
LAWS.  ANY ATTEMPT AT THEIR AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION SHOULD RETAIN
THEIR GENERAL STRUCTURE AND IDEAS, AND NOT INJECT CHANGES THAT WOULD
INVITE ANY NEW ATTACKS UPON THEM."  TEXAS SENATE JOURNAL, JULY-AUGUST,
1931, P. 594. 

FN23  HARDWICKE, SUPRA, NOTE 12, 230-239. 

FN24  IN 1936, IN AN ACTION TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT BY THE STATE
COMMISSION OF AN ORDER LIMITING THE PRODUCTION OF GAS, THE FEDERAL
COURT SAID:  "THIS CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN LONG DRAWN OUT.  IN VARYING
FORMS, UNDER DIFFERENT STATUTES, BUT ALWAYS TO THE SAME PURPORT AND
EFFECT AS TO THESE COMPLAINANTS, ORDER AFTER ORDER HAS BEEN DRAWN,
ENJOINED, AND DRAWN AGAIN.  THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME THIS COURT HAS
WRITTEN.  TEXOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 59 F.2D 750;
TEXOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. TERRELL, 2 F.SUPP.  168; CANADIAN RIVER GAS
CO. V. TERRELL, 4 F.SUPP.  222; TEXAS PANHANDLE GAS CO. V. THOMPSON, 12
F.SUPP.  462."  CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES CORP. V. THOMPSON, 14
F.SUPP.  318, 328. 

IN SUMMARIZING LITIGATION PRIOR TO 1934, THE FEDERAL COURT SAID:  "IN
NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE CASES DID WE FIND THE STATUTE UNREASONABLE OR
INVALID.  IN NOT A SINGLE ONE DID WE FIND THE ORDERS INVALID BECAUSE,
THOUGH COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTE, THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION.  IN
EACH OF THE CASES IN WHICH INJUNCTIONS ISSUED WE MADE IT CLEAR IT WAS
BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THE ORDERS HAD BEEN ENTERED IN THE TEETH OF STATUTES
FORBIDDING THE COMMISSION'S DOING WHAT IT ATTEMPTED TO DO."  AMAZON
PETROLEUM CORP. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 5 F.SUPP.  633, 635. 

FOR A SURVEY OF LITIGIOUS HISTORY OF THE EAST TEXAS FIELD, SEE
HARDWICKE AND DAVIS, NOTE 12, SUPRA. 

FN25  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE MARTIAL LAW INTERLUDE, SEE STERLING V.
CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378; HARDWICKE, SUPRA, NOTE 12, 233-236. 

FN26  THE SPECIAL SESSION OF JULY AND AUGUST, 1931, WAS IN SESSION
WHEN MACMILLAN V. RAILROAD COMMISSION WAS DECIDED, AND, AS HAS BEEN
NOTED ABOVE, THE MACMILLAN CASE PROVIDED THE SPECIAL SESSION WITH THE
BULK OF ITS BUSINESS.  PEOPLES' PETROLEUM PRODUCERS V. SMITH, 1
F.SUPP.  361, WAS THE CAUSE OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF NOVEMBER, 1932. 
IN HIS INTRODUCTORY MESSAGE TO THE SPECIAL SESSION, GOVERNOR STERLING
SAID:  "MOST ASSUREDLY, I WOULD NOT, AT THIS TIME, HAVE CALLED YOU INTO
EXTRAORDINARY SESSION EXCEPT I BELIEVE A GRAVE CRISIS AGAIN CONFRONTS
THE STATE AND OUR PEOPLE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE FEDERAL COURT HAVING HELD
THAT THE RAILROAD COMMISSION HAS GONE BEYOND THE AUTHORITY GIVEN IN
THIS STATUTE ENACTED AT THAT TIME IN PROMULGATING THEIR ORDERS AS TO
PRORATION AND CONSERVATION OF OIL AND GAS.  ...  IT IS APPARENT THAT
(AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION) THE STATE'S GREATEST NATURAL RESOURCE -
OIL AND GAS - WILL BE WASTED AND DESTROYED, RESULTING IN A TREMENDOUS
FINANCIAL INJURY TO THE STATE, ESPECIALLY TO THE TAXPAYERS AND THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  IT IS APPARENT TO ME THAT UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS, THE
STATE'S INCOME, AS A RESULT OF THE GROSS PRODUCTION TAX ON OIL, WILL BE
REDUCED FROM APPROXIMATELY $16,000 A DAY TO A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS PER
DAY, THUS DEPRIVING THE STATE OF A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF REVENUE." 
TEXAS SENATE JOURNAL, NOV. 1932, PP. 3, 4. 

FN27  CONSIDER FOR EXAMPLE THE PLIGHT OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES DURING
THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT FOUND IT NECESSARY TO REJECT THE
COMMISSION'S EXPERT TESTIMONY ON A BASIC MATTER OF POLICY AS "LARGELY
THEORY AND SPECULATION" IN THE MACMILLAN CASE, SUPRA, SIMILAR TESTIMONY
WAS ACCEPTED BY THE STATE COURT IN THE DANCIGER CASE, SUPRA, AND LIKE
TESTIMONY WAS IN TURN ACCEPTED BY THE FEDERAL COURT IN AMAZON PETROLEUM
CORP. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 5 F.SUPP.  633. 

GOVERNOR ALLRED IN HIS MESSAGE OF JAN. 16, 1935, RECOMMENDED TO THE
LEGISLATURE THAT IT REVISE THE CONSERVATION LAWS GENERALLY.  HE SAID,
"MUCH OF THE TROUBLE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY AND THE OFFICIAL LIFE CHARGED
WITH ITS REGULATION HAS BEEN DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDINGS, MISINFORMATION,
AND ILL-CONSIDERED CRITICISM BY THOSE EITHER UNFAMILIAR OR UNCONCERNED
WITH THE MAGNITUDE OR PROPER SOLUTION OF ITS PROBLEMS OR THE PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTIES CONFRONTING OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN THIS NEW AND
UNEXPLORED FIELD OF REGULATION.  IN THE PAST, NOT A LITTLE OF OUR
DIFFICULTIES HAS BEEN DUE TO THE FACT THAT LAWS DEALING WITH THE
PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS, AS WELL AS THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION PASSED THEREUNDER, HAVE BEEN ENACTED UNDER HIGH
PRESSURE AT A TIME WHEN, FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING, THE 'HOUSE WAS ON
FIRE.'"  TEXAS SEN. JOURNAL, REG. SESS. 1935, 84, 89. 

FN28  THE COMPANY PRESSES UPON US AS SIGNIFICANT IN THE DETERMINATION
OF ITS RIGHTS THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW: 

(1)  BURFORD'S 2.33 ACRES WERE VOLUNTARILY SUBDIVIDED FROM A LARGER
PORTION AND THEREFORE THE STATE COMMISSION UNDER THE STATE LAW HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO PERMIT AN EXCEPTION TO PREVENT CONFISCATION. 

(2)  "AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW, UNDER THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, THE
JUDGMENT  ...  IS RES ADJUDICATA." 

(3)  THE PENDENCY OF A RELATED CAUSE IN THE STATE COURTS, "UNDER THE
LAW OF THE STATE  ... DEPRIVED THE RAILROAD COMMISSION PENDENTE LITE OF
JURISDICTION." 

(4)  "THE GRANTING OF FOUR LOCATIONS (WAS) WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN THE
STATE LAW" AND WAS ARBITRARY. 

TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THESE ASSERTIONS, PRESENTING OBVIOUSLY
DIFFICULT PROBLEMS OF STATE LAW, WE ARE ASKED BY THE COMPANY TO ANALYZE
AT LEAST FIFTY TEXAS DECISIONS.  IF THE FEDERAL COURT MISINTERPRETS
ONLY ONE OF THESE DECISIONS, WE SHALL HAVE PROVOKED A NEEDLESS CONFLICT
WITH THE TEXAS COURTS. 

FN29  EQUITY'S DISCRETION TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION MAY
BE APPLIED WHEN JUDICIAL RESTRAINT SEEMS REQUIRED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF
GENERAL WELFARE.  "COURTS OF EQUITY MAY, AND FREQUENTLY DO, GO MUCH
FARTHER BOTH TO GIVE AND WITHHOLD RELIEF IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST THAN THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO GO WHEN ONLY PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE
INVOLVED."  VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552. 
IT IS PARTICULARLY DESIRABLE TO DECLINE TO EXERCISE EQUITY JURISDICTION
WHEN THE RESULT IS TO PERMIT A STATE COURT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW WHICH MAY PREVENT THE NECESSITY OF
DECISION ON A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES,
316 U.S. 168, 173.  EQUITY RELIEF MAY BE WITHHELD WHERE THE STATE
REMEDY IS ADEQUATE, ATLAS LIFE INS. CO. V. W.I. SOUTHERN, INC., 306
U.S. 563, OR IF A FEDERAL COURT IS ASKED TO REVIEW THE PROCEEDINGS OF A
FEDERAL AGENCY BY INJUNCTION, WHERE AN ADEQUATE STATUTORY METHOD OF
REVIEW HAS BEEN PROVIDED, MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303
U.S. 41.  IN RECENT YEARS, THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO PERMIT THE
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
STATE CRIMINAL STATUTES, BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CORP., 312 U.S.
45; WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387; DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, ANTE, P. 157. 
WE HAVE REFUSED TO PERMIT INJUNCTIONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE COLLECTION
OF STATE TAXES, CALIFORNIA V. LATIMER, 305 U.S. 255; KOHN V. CENTRAL
DISTRIBUTING CO., 306 U.S. 531; AND SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41.  WE HAVE
HELD THAT AN EQUITY COURT "MAY IN ITS DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
JURISDICTION COMMITTED TO IT GRANT OR DENY RELIEF UPON PERFORMANCE OF A
CONDITION WHICH WILL SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  SECURITIES &
EXCHANGE COMM'N V. UNITED STATES REALTY CO., 310 U.S. 434, 455;
AMERICAN UNITED MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. AVON PARK, 311 U.S. 138, 145. 
EQUITY IN ITS DISCRETION MAY DECLINE TO AID A UTILITY WHICH SEEKS TO
PREVENT A PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FROM MAKING AN INVESTIGATION WHICH
IS AT LEAST ARGUABLY WITHIN ITS POWER, PETROLEUM EXPLORATION V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, 304 U.S. 209; OR A RAILROAD WHICH HAS AN ADEQUATE FORM
OF STATE RELIEF, ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMM'N V. THOMSON, 318 U.S. 675. 
EQUITY MAY IMPOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE
IT PROPOSES TO ACT AND "THE POWER TO IMPOSE SUCH CONDITIONS IS FOUNDED
UPON, AND ARISES FROM, THE DISCRETION WHICH THE COURT HAS IN SUCH
CASES, TO GRANT, OR NOT TO GRANT, THE INJUNCTION APPLIED FOR."  INLAND
STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153, 156. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT AND JOIN IN IT.  BUT THERE ARE
OBSERVATIONS IN THE DISSENTING OPINION WHICH IMPEL ME TO ADD A FEW
WORDS.  IF THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE WERE FRAMED AS THE DISSENTING
OPINION FRAMES THEM, I WOULD AGREE THAT WE SHOULD REACH THE MERITS AND
NOT DIRECT A DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.  BUT THE OPINION OF THE COURT
AS I READ IT DOES NOT HOLD OR EVEN FAIRLY IMPLY THAT "THE ENFORCEMENT
OF STATE RIGHTS CREATED BY STATE LEGISLATION AND AFFECTING STATE
POLICIES IS LIMITED TO THE STATE COURTS."  ANY SUCH HOLDING WOULD
RESULT IN A DRASTIC INROAD ON DIVERSITY JURISDICTION - A LIMITATION
WHICH I AGREE MIGHT BE DESIRABLE BUT WHICH CONGRESS, NOT THIS COURT,
SHOULD MAKE.  THE HOLDING IN THESE CASES, HOWEVER, GOES TO NO SUCH
LENGTH.    THIS DECISION IS BUT AN APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE
EXPRESSED IN PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185, THAT "FEDERAL
COURTS OF EQUITY SHOULD EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWER WITH PROPER
REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS IN CARRYING
OUT THEIR DOMESTIC POLICY."  THAT CASE, LIKE THE PRESENT ONE, WAS IN
THE FEDERAL COURT BY THE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP ROUTE.  IT INVOLVED A
RECEIVERSHIP OF AN INSOLVENT PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION.  THOUGH THE
FEDERAL PROCEEDING WAS FIRST IN TIME, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE FEDERAL
COURT SHOULD STAY ITS HAND AND TURN OVER THE ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION
TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CHARGED BY STATE LAW WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF SUPERVISION AND LIQUIDATION.  IN THAT CASE FEDERAL
ACTION WOULD HAVE PREEMPTED THE FIELD AND EXCLUDED THE ASSERTION OF
STATE AUTHORITY.  IN THESE CASES THE RESULT OF FEDERAL ACTION WOULD BE
POTENTIALLY MUCH MORE SERIOUS IN TERMS OF FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS, AS
THE OPINION OF THE COURT MAKES PLAIN. 

THE TEXAS STATUTE WHICH GOVERNS SUITS TO SET ASIDE THESE ORDERS OF
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION HAS BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE TEXAS COURTS TO GIVE
TO THE SUPERVISING COURTS A LARGE MEASURE OF CONTROL OVER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  THAT CONTROL IS MUCH GREATER, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAN THE CONTROL EXERCISED BY FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS OVER
THE ORDERS OF SUCH AGENCIES AS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  THE
OPINION OF THE COURT CALLS THE RAILROAD COMMISSION AND THE TEXAS COURTS
"WORKING PARTNERS."  BUT AS ITS REVIEW OF TEXAS DECISIONS SHOWS, THE
COURTS MAY AT TIMES BE THE SENIOR AND DOMINANT MEMBER OF THAT
PARTNERSHIP IF THEY PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS WHICH TEXAS LAW PLACES ON
THEM.  THE COURTS DO NOT SIT MERELY TO ENFORCE RIGHTS BASED ON ORDERS
OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  THEY SIT IN JUDGMENT ON THAT
AGENCY.  THAT, TO ME, IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.  IF THE FEDERAL COURTS
UNDERTOOK TO SIT IN REVIEW, SO TO SPEAK, OF THIS STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY, THEY WOULD IN EFFECT ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE FASHIONING OF
THE STATE'S DOMESTIC POLICY.  THAT INTERFERENCE WOULD BE A CONTINUING
ONE, AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT POINTS OUT.  MOREOVER, DIVIDED
AUTHORITY WOULD RESULT.  DIVIDED AUTHORITY BREEDS FRICTION - FRICTION
POTENTIALLY MORE SERIOUS THAN WOULD HAVE OBTAINED IN PENNSYLVANIA V.
WILLIAMS, IF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF THAT INSOLVENT
CORPORATION HAD BEEN LEFT IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

TO DENY A SUITOR ACCESS TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IS TO DISREGARD A DUTY ENJOINED BY CONGRESS
AND MADE MANIFEST BY THE WHOLE HISTORY OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES COURTS BASED UPON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN
PARTIES.  FOR I AM ASSUMING THAT LAW DECLARED BY THIS COURT, IN
CONTRADISTINCTION TO LAW DECLARED BY CONGRESS, IS SOMETHING OTHER THAN
THE MANIPULATION OF WORDS TO FORMULATE A PREDETERMINED RESULT. 
JUDICIAL LAW TO ME IMPLIES AT LEAST SOME CONTINUITY OF INTELLECTUAL
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES IN DEALING WITH RECURRING PROBLEMS. 

I BELIEVE IT TO BE WHOLLY ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY
IT HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED THAT A RIGHT CREATED BY STATE LAW AND
ENFORCEABLE IN THE STATE COURTS CAN ALSO BE ENFORCED IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS WHERE THE PARTIES TO THE CONTROVERSY ARE CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
STATES.  THE REASONS WHICH LED CONGRESS TO GRANT SUCH JURISDICTION TO
THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE FAMILIAR.  IT WAS BELIEVED THAT, CONSCIOUSLY OR
OTHERWISE, THE COURTS OF A STATE MAY FAVOR THEIR OWN CITIZENS.  BIAS
AGAINST OUTSIDERS MAY BECOME EMBEDDED IN A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT
AND YET NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY APPARENT TO BE MADE THE BASIS OF A FEDERAL
CLAIM.  TO AVOID POSSIBLE DISCRIMINATIONS OF THIS SORT, SO THE THEORY
GOES, A CITIZEN OF A STATE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH HE IS SUING OR
BEING SUED OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO A WHOLLY IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL,
NAMELY, THE FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN THAT STATE.  THUS, THE BASIC
PREMISE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION BASED UPON DIVERSITY OF THE PARTIES'
CITIZENSHIP IS THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD AFFORD REMEDIES WHICH ARE
COEXTENSIVE WITH RIGHTS CREATED BY STATE LAW AND ENFORCEABLE IN STATE
COURTS. 

THAT IS THE THEORY OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION.  WHETHER IT IS A SOUND
THEORY, WHETHER DIVERSITY JURISDICTION IS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN
ORDER TO AVOID POSSIBLE UNFAIRNESS BY STATE COURTS, STATE JUDGES AND
JURIES, AGAINST OUTSIDERS, WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURTS OUGHT TO BE
RELIEVED OF THE BURDEN OF DIVERSITY LITIGATION,  - THESE ARE MATTERS
WHICH ARE NOT MY CONCERN AS A JUDGE.  THEY ARE THE CONCERN OF THOSE
WHOSE BUSINESS IT IS TO LEGISLATE, NOT MINE.  I SPEAK AS ONE WHO HAS
LONG FAVORED THE ENTIRE ABOLITION OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION.  SEE 13
CORNELL L.Q. 499, 520 ET SEQ. BUT I MUST DECIDE THIS CASE AS A JUDGE
AND NOT AS A LEGISLATIVE REFORMER. 

ASIDE FROM THE JOHNSON ACT OF MAY 14, 1934, 48 STAT. 775,  FN1  THE
MANY POWERFUL AND PERSISTENT LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO ABOLISH OR RESTRICT
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION HAVE EVER SINCE THE CIVIL WAR BEEN REJECTED BY
CONGRESS.  AGAIN AND AGAIN LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO MAKE INROADS UPON
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO CONGRESS, AND ON EACH
OCCASION CONGRESS HAS DELIBERATELY REFUSED TO ACT.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE,
THE RECENT EFFORTS TO RESTRICT DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WHICH WERE
PROVOKED BY THE BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB DECISION, 276 U.S. 518; SEN. REP.
NO. 626, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; SEN. REP. NO. 691, 71ST CONG., 2D
SESS.; SEN. REP. NO. 530 AND SEN. REP. NO. 701, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.
WE ARE DEALING, THEN, NOT WITH A JURISDICTION EVOLVED AND SHAPED BY THE
COURTS BUT RATHER WITH ONE EXPLICITLY CONFERRED AND UNDEVIATINGLY
MAINTAINED BY CONGRESS. 

THE ONLY LIMITATIONS UPON THE EXERCISE OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION -
APART FROM THAT WHICH CONGRESS MADE IN THE JOHNSON ACT - ARE, BROADLY
SPEAKING, THOSE ILLUSTRATED BY RAILROAD COMM'N V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL
CO., 310 U.S. 573, AS AMENDED IN 311 U.S. 614-15; RAILROAD COMM'N V.
PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496; AND CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES, 316 U.S.
168.  IN ROWAN & NICHOLS THE CLAIM BASED UPON STATE LAW WAS DERIVED
FROM A STATUTE REQUIRING PRORATION ON A "REASONABLE BASIS," AND IT WAS
NOT CLEAR FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURTS WHETHER SUCH COURTS
MIGHT EXERCISE AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT WAS "REASONABLE." 
311 U.S. AT 615.  AND IN PULLMAN IT WAS ALSO "FAR FROM CLEAR" WHETHER
STATE LAW, AS AUTHORITATIVELY DEFINED BY THE LOCAL COURTS, MIGHT NOT
DISPLACE THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE BILL.  312 U.S. AT 499. 
WHERE THE CONTROLLING STATE LAW IS SO UNDEFINED THAT A FEDERAL COURT
ATTEMPTING TO APPLY SUCH LAW WOULD BE GROPING UTTERLY IN THE DARK -
WHERE "NO MATTER HOW SEASONED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT MAY
BE, IT CANNOT ESCAPE BEING A FORECAST RATHER THAN A DETERMINATION,"
RAILROAD COMM'N V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. AT 499 - A COURT OF EQUITY MAY
"AVOID THE WASTE OF A TENTATIVE DECISION," ID., AT 500.  THE PULLMAN
AND FIELDCREST DAIRIES CASES ARE MERELY ILLUSTRATIVE OF ONE PHASE OF
THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE THAT SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED ONLY WHEN NO ALTERNATIVES ARE OPEN.  A
DEFINITIVE RULING BY THE STATE COURTS UPON THE QUESTIONS OF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE STATUTES MIGHT HAVE TERMINATED THE
CONTROVERSIES IN THOSE CASES AND THUS ELIMINATED SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS AN AFFIRMATION AND NOT A
DENIAL OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN EACH OF THOSE CASES FOR THE DISTRICT
COURT TO HOLD THE BILL PENDING A SEASONABLE DETERMINATION OF THE LOCAL
ISSUES IN A PROCEEDING TO BE BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURTS. 

IF, IN A CASE OF THIS SORT, THE STATE RIGHT SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS DEPENDED UPON A "FORECAST RATHER THAN A
DETERMINATION" OF STATE LAW, IF THE FEDERAL COURT WAS PRACTICALLY
IMPOTENT TO ENFORCE STATE LAW BECAUSE OF ITS INABILITY TO FATHOM THE
COMPLEXITIES, LEGAL OR FACTUAL, OF LOCAL LAW, THE RULE OF ROWAN &
NICHOLS WOULD BE APPLICABLE.  IN SUCH A SITUATION THE LINE OF
DEMARCATION BETWEEN WHAT BELONGS TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND
WHAT TO ITS COURTS SHOULD NOT BE DRAWN BY THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IF IT
COULD BE SHOWN THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WARRANTED THE
APPLICATION OF SUCH A DOCTRINE OF ABSTENTION, I WOULD GLADLY JOIN IN
THE DECISION OF THE COURT.  BUT SUCH A SHOWING HAS NOT BEEN ATTEMPTED,
NOR, I BELIEVE, COULD IT BE MADE. 

LET US EXAMINE BRIEFLY THE NATURE OF THE RIGHTS SOUGHT HERE TO BE
ENFORCED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IN 1919 THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION
ISSUED ITS RULE 37 IMPOSING GENERAL SPACING LIMITATIONS UPON THE
DRILLING OF OIL WELLS, "PROVIDED THAT THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO
PREVENT WASTE OR TO PREVENT THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY" WOULD GRANT
EXCEPTIONS FROM THE GENERAL RESTRICTIONS.  THE ORDER OF THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION IN THIS CASE GRANTED A PERMIT TO DRILL A WELL IN EXCEPTION
TO RULE 37.  SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE 6049C OF VERNON'S TEXAS CIVIL
STATUTES, 1925, PROVIDES THAT ANY "INTERESTED PERSON AFFECTED BY  ...
ANY RULE, REGULATION OR ORDER MADE OR PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION
THEREUNDER, AND WHO MAY BE DISSATISFIED THEREWITH, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT
TO FILE A SUIT IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN TRAVIS COUNTY,
TEXAS, AND NOT ELSEWHERE, AGAINST THE COMMISSION, OR THE MEMBERS
THEREOF, AS DEFENDANTS, TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF SAID LAWS, RULES,
REGULATIONS OR ORDERS." 

LOOKING ONLY AT THE STATUTE, ONE COULD FIND AT LEAST TWO POSSIBLE
SOURCES OF AMBIGUITY AND CONFUSION.  BY WHAT STANDARDS SHOULD THE
COURTS BE GOVERNED IN REVIEWING THE "VALIDITY" OF COMMISSION ORDERS? 
DOES THE STATUTORY LIMITATION OF COURTS "OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS," PRECLUDE REVIEW IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
SITTING IN TRAVIS COUNTY?  FORTUNATELY, WE NEED NO LONGER LOOK ONLY TO
THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE.  THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT NEW.  THEY ARE NOT
PRESENTED IN THIS CASE FOR THE FIRST TIME.  WE ARE NOT WRITING ON A
CLEAN SLATE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT TEXAS LAW GOVERNING REVIEW OF COMMISSION ORDERS UNDER
RULE 37 HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR AND CERTAIN, AND THAT THERE MAY BE
PARTS OF THE STATUTE AND SOME OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION'S RULES, WITH
WHICH WE ARE NOT NOW CONCERNED, WHICH, LIKE OTHER LEGAL MATERIALS, ARE
NOT AS CLEAR AS THEY MIGHT BE.  BUT, IN A SERIES OF RECENT DECISIONS,
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS HAS NOT ONLY GIVEN PRECISION TO THE CONCEPTS
OF "WASTE" AND "CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY" EMPLOYED IN RULE 37, IT HAS
ALSO DEFINED WITH CLARITY THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMMISSION
ACTION.  IN GULF LAND CO. V. ATLANTIC REFINING CO., 134 TEX. 59, 70-71,
131 S.W.2D 73, THE COURT HELD THAT "THE TERM 'CONFISCATION' EVIDENTLY
HAS REFERENCE TO DEPRIVING THE OWNER OR LESSEE OF A FAIR CHANCE TO
RECOVER THE OIL AND GAS IN OR UNDER HIS LAND, OR THEIR EQUIVALENTS IN
KIND.  IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE WORD REFERS PRINCIPALLY TO DRAINAGE. 
UNDER ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS IN RULE 37, WELL PERMITS MAY BE GRANTED TO
PREVENT 'CONFISCATION.'  IT IS THE LAW THAT EVERY OWNER OR LESSEE OF
LAND IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR CHANCE TO RECOVER THE OIL AND GAS IN OR
UNDER HIS LAND, OR THEIR EQUIVALENTS IN KIND.  ANY DENIAL OF SUCH FAIR
CHANCE WOULD BE 'CONFISCATION' WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 37."  AND IN
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. SHELL OIL CO., 139 TEX. 66, 80, 161 S.W.2D 1022,
DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ON MARCH 11, 1942, THE SCOPE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW CONTEMPLATED BY TEXAS LAW WAS AUTHORITATIVELY DEFINED:
"IN TEXAS, IN ALL TRIALS CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER, RULE, OR
REGULATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, THE TRIAL IS NOT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE AGENCY ACTUALLY HEARD SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS ORDERS, BUT WHETHER AT THE TIME SUCH ORDER WAS
ENTERED BY THE AGENCY THERE THEN EXISTED SUFFICIENT FACTS TO JUSTIFY
THE SAME.  WHETHER THE AGENCY HEARD SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IS NOT
MATERIAL."  SEE ALSO COOK DRILLING CO. V. GULF OIL CORP., 139 TEX. 80,
161 S.W.2D 1035, DECIDED THE SAME DAY. 

IN OTHER WORDS, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS SAID IN THIS
CASE, "WE NOW KNOW THE LEGAL REQUISITES OF ORDERS AND REGULATIONS OF
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION UNDER THE CONSERVATION LAWS OF TEXAS.  ...
WHETHER THE COMMISSION HEARD EVIDENCE OR NOT IS IMMATERIAL; IT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO TAKE TESTIMONY OR MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT BEFORE PROMULGATING
ITS ORDERS.  SUCH PROCEDURE IS FOREIGN TO THE LAW OF TEXAS, ALTHOUGH
CUSTOMARY UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES.  IF THE FACTS IN EXISTENCE WHEN THE
ORDER WAS MADE, AS LATER SHOWN BY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT, WERE SUCH
THAT REASONABLE MINDS COULD NOT HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT
BY THE COMMISSION, OR IF THE AGENCY EXCEEDED ITS POWER, THEN THE ORDER
SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BY ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION."  130 F.2D
10, 14-15. 

CLEARLY, THEREFORE, THE SCOPE OF JUDICAL REVIEW IN A RULE 37 CASE, AS
DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, IS PRECISELY AS WELL DEFINED,
FOR EXAMPLE, AS THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE FEDERAL COURTS OF
ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OR THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD.  THAT THE SCOPE OF REVIEW MAY BE DIFFERENT DOES NOT
MAKE THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW ANY LESS DEFINITE OR LESS SUSCEPTIBLE OF
APPLICATION BY A COURT.  I THINK THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF TEXAS, AS CONSTRUED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE
STATE COURTS, SUCH COURTS EXERCISE A JUDICIAL POWER IN THESE CASES
PRECISELY SIMILAR TO THAT WIELDED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS UNDER ARTICLE
III.  CAN IT BE SAID, THEREFORE, THAT IN CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF AN
EXCEPTION ALLOWED BY THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION UNDER RULE 37, THE
FEDERAL JUDGES SITTING IN THAT STATE ARE ENGAGED IN DUTIES WHICH ARE
FOREIGN TO THEIR EXPERIENCE AND ABILITIES?  JUDGES WHO SIT IN JUDGMENT
UPON THE LEGALITY OF ORDERS MADE BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ARE CERTAINLY NOT INCOMPETENT TO APPLY THE NARROWLY DEFINED STANDARDS
OF LAW ESTABLISHED BY TEXAS FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDERS OF ITS RAILROAD
COMMISSION.    WE COME, THEN, TO THE QUESTION WHETHER TEXAS HAS
MANIFESTED ANY DESIRE TO CONFINE SUCH REVIEW TO THE STATE COURTS
SITTING IN TRAVIS COUNTY.  A LITTLE HISTORY WILL GO A LONG WAY IN
ANSWERING THIS QUESTION.  ON APRIL 3, 1891, THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE
ENACTED A STATUTE CREATING THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION.  SECTION 6
PROVIDED THAT SUITS TO SET ASIDE COMMISSION ORDERS COULD BE BROUGHT "IN
A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS."  AND,
NATURALLY ENOUGH, THE QUESTION SOON AROSE WHETHER THIS PROVISION
PREVENTED REVIEW IN THE FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN TRAVIS COUNTY.  ALMOST
FIFTY YEARS AGO THERE CAME BEFORE THIS COURT A MEMORABLE LITIGATION IN
WHICH THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION WERE THOROUGHLY
CANVASSED.  IN REAGAN V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362, 391
92, DECIDED MAY 26, 1894, THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY HELD THAT "IT MAY BE
LAID DOWN AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT, WHENEVER A CITIZEN OF A STATE
CAN GO INTO THE COURTS OF A STATE TO DEFEND HIS PROPERTY AGAINST THE
ILLEGAL ACTS OF ITS OFFICERS, A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE MAY INVOKE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO MAINTAIN A LIKE DEFENCE.  A STATE
CANNOT TIE UP A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE, HAVING PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHIN
ITS TERRITORY INVADED BY UNAUTHORIZED ACTS OF ITS OWN OFFICERS, TO
SUITS FOR REDRESS IN ITS OWN COURTS.  ...  WE NEED NOT, HOWEVER, REST
ON THE GENERAL POWERS OF A FEDERAL COURT IN THIS RESPECT, FOR IN THE
ACT BEFORE US EXPRESS AUTHORITY IS GIVEN FOR A SUIT AGAINST THE
COMMISSION  ...  THE LANGUAGE OF THIS PROVISION (SEC. 6 OF THE 1891
STATUTE) IS SIGNIFICANT.  IT DOES NOT NAME THE COURT IN WHICH THE SUIT
MAY BE BROUGHT.  IT IS NOT A COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, BUT IN TRAVIS
COUNTY.  THE LANGUAGE DIFFERING FROM THAT WHICH ORDINARILY WOULD BE
USED TO DESCRIBE A COURT OF THE STATE WAS SELECTED APPARENTLY IN ORDER
TO AVOID THE OBJECTION OF AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS." 

FOR ALMOST FIFTY YEARS THE HOLDING IN THE REAGAN CASE HAS NOT BEEN
QUESTIONED.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TAKEN FOR GRANTED THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS IS "A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN TRAVIS COUNTY" AND A SUITABLE FORUM IN WHICH
TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF ORDERS OF THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION. 
ONE NEED ONLY LOOK AT THE TABLES OF CASES IN BOTH THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS AND IN THIS COURT TO OBTAIN A SENSE OF THE SOLIDITY OF THIS
EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.  SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE 6049C, THE TEXAS
LEGISLATION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE US, WAS ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN 1932.  THE
TEXAS LEGISLATURE MIGHT EXPRESSLY HAVE SOUGHT TO RESTRICT JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO COMMISSION ORDERS TO THE STATE COURTS OF
TRAVIS COUNTY.  THIS IT HAS DONE IN OTHER SITUATIONS.  SEE E.G., ART.
911E, SEC. 10 OF VERNON'S REVISED CIVIL STATUTES, 1925(APPEAL BY
APPLICANT FOR TRANSPORTATION AGENT'S LICENSE FROM DENIAL OF APPLICATION
BY RAILROAD COMMISSION); ART. 3286(SUITS BY HEIRS OR CLAIMANTS TO
ESCHEATED LANDS); ART. 5032(APPEALS FROM REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF
AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO RECIPROCAL INSURANCE); ART. 8307, SEC.
7(SUITS TO RECOVER PENALTIES FROM EMPLOYERS FAILING TO REPORT INJURIES
UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW).  IN THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
JURISDICTION IS SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO THE "DISTRICT COURT IN TRAVIS
COUNTY, TEXAS," THE STATE COURT.  BUT IN ARTICLE 6049C THE TEXAS
LEGISLATURE USED THE PHRASE "IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN
TRAVIS COUNTY," PRECISELY THE SAME AS THAT WHICH HAD BEEN CONSTRUED BY
THIS COURT IN THE REAGAN CASE.  HOW, THEN, CAN IT BE FAIRLY SAID THAT
THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE MEANT TO EXCLUDE THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM
EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN THESE CASES? 

AND SO, THE CASE REALLY REDUCES ITSELF TO THIS:  IN THE ACTUAL
APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS GOVERNING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMMISSION
ORDERS ALLOWING EXCEPTIONS UNDER RULE 37 - STANDARDS WHICH TODAY HAVE
BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY AND PRECISELY DEFINED - A DIFFERENT RESULT MAY BE
OBTAINED IF SUIT IS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL RATHER THAN THE STATE
COURTS.  AND WHY?  BECAUSE FEDERAL JUDGES ARE LESS COMPETENT AND LESS
FAIR THAN STATE JUDGES IN APPLYING THE RULES THAT ARE BINDING UPON
BOTH?  IF THIS WERE TRUE HERE, IT WOULD BE EQUALLY TRUE AS APPLIED TO
ALMOST ALL TYPES OF LITIGATION BROUGHT INTO FEDERAL COURTS TO ENFORCE
STATE-CREATED RIGHTS.  THE EXPLANATION MAY PERHAPS LIE IN THE REALM OF
WHAT HAS SOMETIMES BEEN CALLED "PSYCHOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE."  IN THE
ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND THE OTHER ELEMENTS WHICH ENTER INTO A
JUDICIAL JUDGMENT, A FEDERAL JUDGE MAY MAKE JUDGMENTS DIFFERENT FROM
THOSE WHICH A STATE JUDGE MAY MAKE.  FEDERAL JUDGES ARE PERHAPS TO BE
REGARDED AS MEN APART - JUDGES WHO CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO JUDGE FAIRLY
AND IMPARTIALLY.  BUT IF THIS BE OUR PREMISE, WHY SHOULD IT NOT FOLLOW
THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE, BECAUSE OF THEIR PUTATIVE BIAS, TO BE
DENIED THE RIGHT TO HEAR INSURANCE CASES, OR CASES INVOLVING
CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN DEBTORS AND CREDITORS, LANDLORDS AND TENANTS,
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, AND ALL THE OTHER COMPLICATED CONTROVERSIES
ARISING OUT OF THE LOCAL LAW OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES? 

IT IS THE ESSENCE OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION THAT FEDERAL JUDGES AND
JURIES SHOULD PASS ON ASSERTED CLAIMS BECAUSE THE RESULT MIGHT BE
DIFFERENT IF THEY WERE DECIDED BY A STATE COURT.  THERE MAY BE
EXCELLENT REASONS WHY CONGRESS SHOULD ABOLISH DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. 
BUT, WITH ALL DEFERENCE, IT IS NOT A DEFENSIBLE GROUND FOR HAVING THIS
COURT BY INDIRECTION ABROGATE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WHEN, AS A MATTER
OF FACT, CONGRESS HAS PERSISTENTLY REFUSED TO RESTRICT SUCH
JURISDICTION EXCEPT IN THE LIMITED AREA OCCUPIED BY THE JOHNSON ACT. 
THE CONGRESSIONAL PREMISE OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION IS THAT THE
POSSIBILITY OF UNFAIRNESS AGAINST OUTSIDE LITIGANTS IS TO BE AVOIDED BY
PROVIDING THE NEUTRAL FORUM OF A FEDERAL COURT.  THE COURT TODAY IS IN
EFFECT WITHDRAWING THIS GRANT OF JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO AVOID
POSSIBLE UNFAIRNESS AGAINST STATE INTERESTS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 
THAT WHICH CONGRESS CREATED TO ASSURE IMPARTIALITY OF ADJUDICATION IS
NOW DESTROYED TO PREVENT WHAT IS DEEMED TO BE HOSTILITY AND BIAS IN
ADJUDICATION. 

OF COURSE, THE USUAL CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF EQUITY
JURISDICTION ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO SUITS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
WHERE JURISDICTION DEPENDS UPON THE DIVERSITY OF THE PARTIES'
CITIZENSHIP.  THE CHANCELLOR CERTAINLY MUST BALANCE THE EQUITIES BEFORE
GRANTING RELIEF; HE SHOULD STAY HIS HAND WHERE ANOTHER COURT SEIZED OF
THE CONTROVERSY CAN DO JUSTICE TO THE CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES; HE MAY
REFUSE EQUITABLE RELIEF WHERE THE ASSERTED RIGHT IS DOUBTFUL BECAUSE OF
THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW WHICH HE MUST FIND AS DECLARED BY THE STATE.  BUT
IT IS TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO SUGGEST THAT THE CHANCELLOR MAY ACT ON
WHIMSICAL OR PURELY PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS OR ON PRIVATE NOTIONS OF
POLICY REGARDING THE PARTICULAR SUIT.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO SAY THAT
LITIGATION AFFECTING STATE LAWS AND STATE POLICIES OUGHT TO BE TRIED
ONLY IN THE STATE COURTS.  CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO CONFER DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO REJECT THAT
WHICH CONGRESS HAS MADE THE LAW OF THE LAND SIMPLY BECAUSE OF OUR
INDEPENDENT CONVICTION THAT SUCH LEGISLATION IS UNWISE. 

THIS IS NOT JUST AN ISOLATED CASE.  TO ORDER THE DISMISSAL OF THIS
LITIGATION, ON THIS RECORD AND IN THE PRESENT STATE OF TEXAS LAW, IS
NOT MERELY TO DECIDE THAT THE FEDERAL COURT IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS,
SHOULD NO LONGER ENTERTAIN SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THE TEXAS CONSERVATION
LAWS.  WE ARE HOLDING, IN EFFECT, THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE RIGHTS
CREATED BY STATE LEGISLATION AND AFFECTING STATE POLICIES IS LIMITED TO
THE STATE COURTS.  IT MEANS, CANDIDLY, THAT WE SHOULD REEXAMINE ALL OF
THE CASES - AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY - SINCE THE REAGAN DECISION ALMOST
HALF A CENTURY AGO.  DO WE NOT OWE IT TO THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, FOR
EXAMPLE, TO TELL THEM WHERE A CASE LIKE TEXAS PIPE LINE CO. V. WARE, 15
F.2D 171, NOW STANDS?  IN THAT CASE THE FEDERAL COURT ENTERTAINED A
SUIT TO ENFORCE RIGHTS ARISING UNDER A STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAW.  WOULD IT BE ERROR FOR A FEDERAL JUDGE TO DO SO TODAY?  SEE, ALSO,
LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268. 

PERHAPS NO JUDICIAL ACTION CALLS FOR A MORE CAUTIOUS EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION THAN THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER BY A COURT OF EQUITY,
ESPECIALLY WHERE THE ENTERPRISE TO BE ADMINISTERED RELATES TO IMPORTANT
PUBLIC INTERESTS.  SUCH A SITUATION WAS PRESENTED TO THIS COURT IN
PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, IN WHICH - SOLELY ON THE SCORE
OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP - A FEDERAL COURT WAS ASKED TO ASSUME THE
MANAGEMENT OF A PENNSYLVANIA BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.  THE
PROBLEM BEFORE THIS COURT WAS NOT WHETHER THE CONTROVERSY SHOULD BE
ADJUDICATED BY A FEDERAL RATHER THAN A STATE COURT, BUT WHETHER, AS A
MATTER OF SOUND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, A COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD TAKE
HOLD OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION BY PUTTING A JUDICIAL OFFICER IN
CHARGE WHEN IN FACT THE STATE HAD ESTABLISHED AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM
WHEREBY "THE DUTY OF SUPERVISING ITS OWN BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS
AND OF LIQUIDATING THEM BY AN ADEQUATE PROCEDURE WHEN INSOLVENT," 294
U.S. AT 184, WAS ENTRUSTED TO A PERMANENT, EXPERIENCED STATE AGENCY. 
THE QUESTION WAS NOT AT ALL WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD ABDICATE ITS
AUTHORITY IN FAVOR OF A STATE COURT WHERE THE RULES OF LAW WHICH WOULD
GOVERN A SUIT IN A STATE COURT WOULD BE PRECISELY THE SAME AS THOSE
WHICH A FEDERAL COURT WOULD BE BOUND TO APPLY.  THE WILLIAMS CASE, IN
OTHER WORDS, IS BUT AN APPLICATION OF THE TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE THAT A
COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD STAY ITS HAND FROM THE IMPROVIDENT APPOINTMENT
OF A RECEIVER. 

TO TALK ABOUT COURTS AS "WORKING PARTNERS" WITH ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES WHENEVER THERE IS JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS
MERELY ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ARE ENFORCED
PARTLY THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND PARTLY THROUGH COURTS.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 191.  BUT THE USE OF SUCH
COLLOQUIAL EXPRESSIONS CAN HARDLY OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
JUDICIAL POWER AND LEGISLATIVE POWER, WHETHER THE LATTER BE EXERCISED
DIRECTLY BY THE LEGISLATURE OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES.  THE COURTS OF TEXAS SIT IN JUDGMENT UPON THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION OF TEXAS ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED BY TEXAS
LAW WITH THE DUTY OF ASCERTAINING THE VALIDITY OF COMMISSION ACTION. 
THEY NO MORE "PARTICIPATE IN THE FASHIONING OF THE STATE'S DOMESTIC
POLICY" THAN THE FEDERAL COURTS PARTICIPATE IN THE FASHIONING OF THE
TRANSPORTATION POLICY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN REVIEWING ORDERS OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT,
38 STAT. 219, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47. 

THEREFORE, UNLESS ALL FUNCTIONS OF COURTS HERETOFORE DEEMED TO BE
JUDICIAL IN NATURE EVEN THOUGH THEY INVOLVE APPROPRIATELY DEFINED
REVIEW OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE NOW TO BE DEEMED
ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE, THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT A RIGHT ASSERTED BEFORE
A COURT ARISES FROM A CONTROVERSY THAT ORIGINATED BEFORE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CANNOT ALTER EITHER THE NATURE OF THE POWER BEING
EXERCISED BY THE COURT OR ITS CAPACITY TO ENTERTAIN JURISDICTION.  ONE
MIGHT CHOOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, TO DESCRIBE THIS COURT AS THE "WORKING
PARTNER" OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, THE COMPTROLLER OF
THE CURRENCY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, AND THE SCORE OF
OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES THE VALIDITY OF WHOSE ACTIONS FREQUENTLY
COMES HERE FOR REVIEW.  BUT SUCH A CHARACTERIZATION OF OUR ROLE IN
REVIEWING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS DOES NOT MAKE THIS EXERCISE OF OUR
POWER ANY THE LESS JUDICIAL OR ANY THE MORE ADMINISTRATIVE.  NOR SHOULD
IT BE ADEQUATE TO WIPE OUT A DISTINCTION THAT IS SO EMBEDDED IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AND PRACTICE. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT CUTS DEEP INTO OUR JUDICIAL FABRIC.  THE
DUTY OF THE JUDICIARY IS TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS
HAS CONFERRED.  WHAT THE COURT IS DOING TODAY I MIGHT WHOLEHEARTEDLY
APPROVE IF IT WERE DONE BY CONGRESS.  BUT I CANNOT JUSTIFY TRANSLATION
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF MY MEMBERSHIP ON THIS COURT INTO AN OPPORTUNITY
OF WRITING MY PRIVATE VIEW OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY INTO LAW AND THEREBY
EFFACING A FAR GREATER AREA OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION THAN SENATOR
NORRIS, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WAS EVER ABLE TO
PERSUADE CONGRESS ITSELF TO DO. 

FN1  THE JOHNSON ACT PROVIDES THAT NO DISTRICT COURT CAN ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ORDER ISSUED BY A STATE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY WHERE
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT "IS BASED SOLELY UPON THE GROUND OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, OR THE REPUGNANCE OF SUCH ORDER TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES," AND "WHERE SUCH ORDER (1) AFFECTS
RATES CHARGEABLE BY A PUBLIC UTILITY, (2) DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND (3) HAS BEEN MADE AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE AND
HEARING, AND WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT
LAW OR IN EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE." 

SINCE THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW IN THIS CASE DID NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT
RATES CHARGEABLE BY ANY PUBLIC UTILITY, THE JOHNSON ACT IS
INAPPLICABLE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE EXPRESSES NO VIEWS AS TO THE DESIRABILITY, AS A
MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY, OF RETAINING THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. 
IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS H
..END :























HASTINGS V. SELBY OIL CO., 319 U.S. 348 


NO. 528.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 1943.  REARGUED APRIL 15, 1943.  - DECIDED
MAY 24, 1943.  - REVERSED AND ORDERED DISMISSED. 


DECIDED ON THE AUTHORITY OF BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., ANTE, P. 315. 

HASTINGS ET AL. V. SELBY OIL & GAS CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF
TEXAS PERMITTING TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS TO DRILL FOR AND EXTRACT OIL AND
GAS ON A SMALL TRACT OF LAND IN THE EAST TEXAS OIL FIELD. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION IN THE NATURE OF AN EQUITY PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY
THE RESPONDENTS TO CANCEL AN ORDER OF THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION
GRANTING PETITIONERS HASTINGS AND DODSON A PERMIT UNDER RULE 37 OF THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION TO DRILL AN OIL WELL.  THE RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT
THE ORDER GRANTING A PERMIT TO THE PETITIONERS DEPRIVES THEM OF
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND THAT THE ORDER IS INVALID AS A
MATTER OF TEXAS LAW.  JURISDICTION IS RESTED ON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP. 

THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROBLEMS PRESENTED
HERE AND THOSE IN BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., ANTE, P. 315.  FOR THE
REASONS SET FORTH IN THAT OPINION, THE DECISION BELOW IS REVERSED AND
THE CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  IT
IS SO ORDERED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, AND MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DISSENT FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THEM IN DISSENT
TO BURFORD V. SUN OIL CO., ANTE, P. 315. 
..END :















BAILEY V. CENTRAL VERMONT RY., 319 U.S. 350 


NO. 640.  ARGUED APRIL 13, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1943.  - 113 VT. 8,
28 A.2D 639, REVERSED. 


IN THIS SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT, BROUGHT IN A
STATE COURT AGAINST A CARRIER TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF AN
EMPLOYEE, THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE JURY ON THE QUESTION
WHETHER, AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, THE DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT IN
FAILING TO USE REASONABLE CARE TO FURNISH THE EMPLOYEE A SAFE PLACE TO
WORK.  P. 354. 

BAILEY, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 751, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT UPON A
VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS
LIABILITY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT (45
U.S.C. SEC. 51) IN THE STATE COURTS OF VERMONT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR
THE DEATH OF BERNARD E. BAILEY, ONE OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES.  AT THE
CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE RESPONDENT MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  THE
COURT DENIED THE MOTION AND SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY WHICH
RETURNED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER.  ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF
VERMONT REVERSED, BY A DIVIDED VOTE, HOLDING THAT THE MOTION FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT
SHOWN.  113 VT. 8, 28 A.2D 639.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

BAILEY HAD WORKED FOR RESPONDENT AS A SECTIONMAN FOR ABOUT FIVE
YEARS.  ON THE DAY IN QUESTION - MAY 14, 1940 - HE WENT TO WORK ON A
WORK TRAIN TO A POINT ON THE ROAD IN WILLISTON, VT., WHERE HE AND OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE CREW UNLOADED TRACK MATERIAL TO BE USED ON THE ROADBED. 
INSTRUCTIONS WERE THEN RECEIVED TO UNLOAD A CAR FILLED WITH CINDERS. 
THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCIDENT VIEWED IN A LIGHT FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER
WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

THE CAR WAS PULLED ONTO A BRIDGE OVER A CATTLE PASS SO THAT THE
CINDERS COULD BE DUMPED THROUGH THE TIES IN THE BRIDGE FLOOR ONTO THE
ROADWAY BELOW.  THE FLOOR OF THE BRIDGE WAS ABOUT 18 FEET ABOVE THE
GROUND.  THE ONLY AVAILABLE FOOTING AT THE SIDE OF THE CAR WAS ABOUT 12
INCHES WIDE.  OF THIS SPACE 8 OR 9 INCHES WERE TAKEN UP BY A RAISED
STRINGER, I.E., A TIMBER WHICH LAY ACROSS THE TIES AND WAS SET IN 3 OR
4 INCHES FROM THEIR ENDS.  THERE WAS NO GUARD RAIL.  THE CINDERS TO BE
UNLOADED WERE IN A HOPPER CAR.  THAT TYPE OF CAR HAS DOORS IN THE FLOOR
WHICH ARE CLOSED BY A CHAIN WHICH WINDS UP ON A SHAFT RUNNING CROSSWAYS
OF THE CAR.  THE DOORS ARE OPENED FROM THE SIDE BY ONE MAN TURNING A
NUT ON THE END OF THE SHAFT WHILE ANOTHER DISENGAGES FROM A RATCHET A
DOG WHICH HOLDS THE SHAFT.  A WRENCH IS APPLIED TO THE NUT AT THE END
OF THE SHAFT, THE OPERATOR PULLS ITS HANDLE BACK TO RELIEVE THE TENSION
ON THE DOG, THE OTHER PERSON RELEASES THE DOG, THE OPERATOR OF THE
WRENCH PUSHES BACK ON IT TO OPEN THE HOPPER, AND THE WEIGHT OF THE
MATERIAL IN THE CAR OPENS THE DOORS.  WHEN THE HOPPER STARTS TO OPEN,
THE SHAFT SPINS, AND THE OPERATOR MUST DISENGAGE THE WRENCH OR LET GO
OF IT, LEST HE BE THROWN OFF BALANCE OR KNOCKED DOWN.  THE WRENCH USED
BY BAILEY WAS A HEAVY FROG WRENCH - OPEN JAWS AND A HANDLE ABOUT THREE
FEET LONG.  IT HAD BEEN USED FOR MANY YEARS FOR THAT PURPOSE AND NO ONE
HAD BEEN INJURED BY IT.  BAILEY CERTAINLY WAS UNSKILLED AND PERHAPS
UNFAMILIAR IN THE OPENING OF HOPPER CARS.  NO ONE HAD EVER SEEN HIM
OPEN ONE.  SUCH AN OPERATION WAS USUALLY PERFORMED BY MEN OLDER IN
POINT OF SERVICE.  BAILEY HAD BEEN PRESENT ON A FEW OCCASIONS WHEN
HOPPER CARS WERE UNLOADED BUT USUALLY HE WAS ON TOP OF THE CAR AT THE
TIME.  CINDERS WERE DUMPED AT THIS BRIDGE ABOUT ONCE A YEAR.  AS BAILEY
WALKED OUT ON THE STRINGER ON THE BRIDGE AND PUT THE WRENCH ON THE NUT,
THE SECTION FOREMAN SAID, "BE CAREFUL THE WRENCH DOESN'T CATCH YOU." 
BAILEY AT ONCE PUSHED ON THE WRENCH BUT THE HOPPER DID NOT OPEN; HE
GAVE ANOTHER PUSH ON THE WRENCH, THE HOPPER OPENED, THE NUT SPUN, AND
BAILEY WAS THROWN BY THE WRENCH INTO THE ROADWAY BELOW.  THE HOPPER CAR
COULD HAVE BEEN OPENED BEFORE IT WAS MOVED ONTO THE BRIDGE AND ANY
CINDERS WHICH SPILLED ON THE ROADBED SHOVELED ONTO THE ROADWAY BENEATH
THE BRIDGE.  OR AFTER THE CINDERS HAD BEEN DUMPED UPON THE ROADBED A
RAILROAD TIE COULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED AS A DRAG TO PUSH CINDERS FROM
THE ROADBED TO THE GROUND BELOW THE BRIDGE. 

BAILEY DIED FROM THE INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE FALL. 

THERE WAS IN OUR VIEW SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE JURY ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER, AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, RESPONDENT WAS NEGLIGENT
IN FAILING TO USE REASONABLE CARE IN FURNISHING BAILEY WITH A SAFE
PLACE TO DO THE WORK. 

SEC. 1 OF THE ACT MAKES THE CARRIER LIABLE IN DAMAGES FOR ANY INJURY
OR DEATH "RESULTING IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE" OF ANY OF
ITS "OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES."  THE RIGHTS WHICH THE ACT CREATES
ARE FEDERAL RIGHTS PROTECTED BY FEDERAL RATHER THAN LOCAL RULES OF
LAW.  SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1; SEABOARD AIR LINE
RY. V. HORTON, 233 U.S. 492; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. KUHN, 284
U.S. 44.  AND THOSE FEDERAL RULES HAVE BEEN LARGELY FASHIONED FROM THE
COMMON LAW (SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. HORTON, SUPRA) EXCEPT AS CONGRESS
HAS WRITTEN INTO THE ACT DIFFERENT STANDARDS.  TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST
LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54.  AT COMMON LAW THE DUTY OF THE EMPLOYER TO
USE REASONABLE CARE IN FURNISHING HIS EMPLOYEES WITH A SAFE PLACE TO
WORK WAS PLAIN.  3 LABATT, MASTER & SERVANT (2D ED.)  SEC.  917.  THAT
RULE IS DEEPLY ENGRAINED IN FEDERAL JURISPRUDENCE.  PATTON V. TEXAS &
PACIFIC RY. CO., 179 U.S. 658, 664, AND CASES CITED; KREIGH V.
WESTINGHOUSE & CO., 214 U.S. 249, 256, 257; KENMONT COAL CO. V. PATTON,
268 F. 334, 336.  AS STATED BY THIS COURT IN THE PATTON CASE, IT IS A
DUTY WHICH BECOMES "MORE IMPERATIVE" AS THE RISK INCREASES. 
"REASONABLE CARE BECOMES THEN A DEMAND OF HIGHER SUPREMACY, AND YET IN
ALL CASES IT IS A QUESTION OF THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CARE -
REASONABLENESS DEPENDING UPON THE DANGER ATTENDING THE PLACE OR THE
MACHINERY."  179 U.S. P. 664.  IT IS THAT RULE WHICH OBTAINS UNDER THE
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT.  SEE COAL & COKE RY. CO. V. DEAL, 231 F. 604;
NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. FIEDLER, 52 F.2D 400; THOMSON V. BOLES,
123 F.2D 487; 2 ROBERTS, FEDERAL LIABILITIES OF CARRIERS (2D ED.) 
SEC.  807.  THAT DUTY OF THE CARRIER IS A "CONTINUING ONE" (KREIGH V.
WESTINGHOUSE & CO., SUPRA, P. 256) FROM WHICH THE CARRIER IS NOT
RELIEVED BY THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S WORK AT THE PLACE IN QUESTION
IS FLEETING OR INFREQUENT. 

THE NATURE OF THE TASK WHICH BAILEY UNDERTOOK, THE HAZARDS WHICH IT
ENTAILED, THE EFFORT WHICH IT REQUIRED, THE KIND OF FOOTING HE HAD, THE
SPACE IN WHICH HE COULD STAND, THE ABSENCE OF A GUARD RAIL, THE HEIGHT
OF THE BRIDGE ABOVE THE GROUND, THE FACT THAT THE CAR COULD HAVE BEEN
OPENED OR UNLOADED NEAR THE BRIDGE ON LEVEL GROUND - ALL THESE WERE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE JURY TO WEIGH AND APPRAISE IN
DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT IN FURNISHING BAILEY WITH THAT
PARTICULAR PLACE IN WHICH TO PERFORM THE TASK WAS NEGLIGENT.  THE
DEBATABLE QUALITY OF THAT ISSUE, THE FACT THAT FAIR-MINDED MEN MIGHT
REACH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS, EMPHASIZE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF LEAVING
THE QUESTION TO THE JURY.  THE JURY IS THE TRIBUNAL UNDER OUR LEGAL
SYSTEM TO DECIDE THAT TYPE OF ISSUE (TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R.
CO., SUPRA) AS WELL AS ISSUES INVOLVING CONTROVERTED EVIDENCE.  JONES
V. EAST TENNESSEE, V. & G.R. CO., 128 U.S. 443, 445; WASHINGTON &
GEORGETOWN R. CO. V. MCDADE, 135 U.S. 554, 572.  TO WITHDRAW SUCH A
QUESTION FROM THE JURY IS TO USURP ITS FUNCTIONS. 

THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IS "A BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF OUR
SYSTEM OF FEDERAL JURISPRUDENCE."  JACOB V. NEW YORK CITY, 315 U.S.
752.  IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE REMEDY AFFORDED RAILROAD WORKERS
UNDER THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT.  REASONABLE CARE AND CAUSE AND
EFFECT ARE AS ELUSIVE HERE AS IN OTHER FIELDS.  BUT THE JURY HAS BEEN
CHOSEN AS THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUNAL TO APPLY THOSE STANDARDS TO THE
FACTS OF THESE PERSONAL INJURIES.  THAT METHOD OF DETERMINING THE
LIABILITY OF THE CARRIERS AND OF PLACING ON THEM THE COST OF THESE
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS MAY BE CRUDE, ARCHAIC, AND EXPENSIVE AS COMPARED
WITH THE MORE MODERN SYSTEMS OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.  BUT HOWEVER
INEFFICIENT AND BACKWARD IT MAY BE, IT IS THE SYSTEM WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED.  TO DEPRIVE THESE WORKERS OF THE BENEFIT OF A JURY TRIAL IN
CLOSE OR DOUBTFUL CASES IS TO TAKE AWAY A GOODLY PORTION OF THE RELIEF
WHICH CONGRESS HAS AFFORDED THEM. 

SINCE THE EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO PROVIDE
BAILEY WITH A SAFE PLACE TO WORK IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT
OF THE JURY AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT, WE DO NOT REACH THE
OTHER ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY PETITIONER.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THIS CASE IS ONE OF A TYPE NOT INTENDED BY
CONGRESS TO BE BROUGHT TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW.  ACTIONS UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT CONSTITUTE BUT ONE CATEGORY OF THE
GREAT TOTAL OF ACTIONS TRIABLE IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS AND IN THE
COURTS OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES WHICH MAY COME TO THIS COURT.  WHILE
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES BINDING ALIKE ON COURT AND JURY IN SUCH ACTIONS
ARE, FOR THE MOST PART, SETTLED, THE COMPLEXES OF FACT TO WHICH THESE
PRINCIPLES ARE APPLICABLE RARELY ARE IDENTICAL IN ANY TWO LITIGATIONS. 
IF, IN EVERY CASE WHERE, PERADVENTURE, THIS COURT MIGHT DIFFER FROM A
LOWER COURT IN APPRAISING THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE PROOFS ADDUCED BY
PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT, WE INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW THE FACTS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE FOR A JURY'S CONSIDERATION, WE SHALL REVERSE
A COURSE FOUNDED IN OVER FIFTY YEARS OF HISTORY. 

WHILE A LITIGANT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF APPELLATE REVIEW,
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO GRANT IT.  AND, UNTIL 1891, THIS COURT WAS,
WITH NEGLIGIBLE EXCEPTIONS, THE ONLY INSTRUMENT OF SUCH REVIEW.  THE
INCREASING VOLUME OF OUR APPELLATE WORK BADE FAIR TO RENDER THE COURT
INCOMPETENT TO GIVE NEEDED CONSIDERATION TO IMPORTANT CASES WHICH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRED THAT IT DECIDE.  TO PRESERVE THE PRIVILEGE OF
APPELLATE REVIEW, AND TO PROVIDE AN APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHERE MOST
FEDERAL LITIGATION SHOULD END WITHOUT RESORT OF THIS COURT, CONGRESS
CREATED THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  FN1  THE RELIEF THUS AFFORDED
THIS COURT PREVENTED THE SUBSTANTIAL BREAK-DOWN OF OUR APPELLATE
FUNCTION.  BUT THE RELIEF PROVED INSUFFICIENT, AND CONGRESS CONTINUED
TO ADOPT MEANS TO RENDER IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO DO THE INDISPENSABLE
WORK OF THE COURT.  IN 1915 IT MADE THE JUDGMENTS OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS FINAL IN CERTAIN CLASSES OF CASES ARISING IN PUERTO RICO AND
HAWAII, AND ALSO IN BANKRUPTCY CASES, SUBJECT, AS TO THE LATTER, TO OUR
DISCRETIONARY POWER TO TAKE CASES INVOLVING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS N2. 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE IN ITS REPORT SAID AS TO THE OBJECTS OF THE BILL:
FN3 

"RELIEVING THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE NECESSITY
OF REVIEWING SUCH CASES FROM THE SUPREME COURTS OF PORTO RICO AND
HAWAII AS INVOLVE NO FEDERAL QUESTION, BUT DEPEND ENTIRELY UPON THE
LOCAL OR GENERAL LAW.  UNDER THE LAW AS IT NOW STANDS THE DECISIONS OF
THE SUPREME COURTS OF PORTO RICO AND HAWAII ARE REVIEWABLE BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NOT ONLY WHEN SOME FEDERAL RIGHT IS
IN CONTROVERSY, BUT ALSO IN ALL CASES WHICH INVOLVE MORE THAN $5,000,
WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  THIS
EXISTING RIGHT TO REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT WHEN FEDERAL RIGHTS ARE
IN CONTROVERSY, BUT LEAVES ALL OTHER CASES TO BE DEALT WITH UPON A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AS IS NOW THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO
MOST OF THE CASES IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS." 

THE GREAT MASS OF LITIGATION IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS ARISING
UNDER THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT AND RAILWAY SAFETY APPLIANCE
LEGISLATION STILL COULD BE BROUGHT TO THIS COURT AS OF RIGHT UNDER
EXISTING LAW.  FN4  IN 1916 CONGRESS ABOLISHED THE RIGHT AND MADE THE
JUDGMENTS OF STATE APPELLATE COURTS AND CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS FINAL
IN THIS CLASS OF CASES, SUBJECT TO OUR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.  FN5  THE
SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE BILL WAS ENTITLED "RELIEF OF THE SUPREME
COURT," AND TO IT WAS APPENDED A MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE CLERK OF
THIS COURT EXHIBITING THE CONGESTED STATE OF OUR DOCKET.  FN6  FINALLY,
IN 1925, CONGRESS DEALT IN THE SAME FASHION WITH ALL LITIGATION SOUGHT
TO BE BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW FROM STATE AND FEDERAL TRIBUNALS, SAVE
FOR CERTAIN NARROWLY RESTRICTED CLASSES.  FN7 

WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THIS RESTRICTION OF ITS OBLIGATORY
JURISDICTION THIS COURT COULD NOT HAVE ATTAINED THE END AND AIM OF ITS
CREATION.  BUT THERE REMAINS THE CONSTANT DANGER THAT, BY TAKING CASES
LYING OUTSIDE DEFINED AREAS OF IMPORTANCE, THE COURT WILL LIMIT ITS
ABILITY ADEQUATELY TO DEAL WITH THOSE WHICH ALL WILL AGREE IT MUST
ADJUDICATE. 

AND SO THE POLICY OF THE COURT HAS BEEN TO ABSTAIN FROM TAKING A CASE
EVEN THOUGH IT THOUGHT IT ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED BELOW, WHETHER ON AN
ISSUE OF LAW OR FACT, IF THE DECISION DID NOT INVOLVE AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION OF LAW, DID NOT CREATE A DIVERSITY OF DECISION IN LOWER
COURTS, OR WOULD NOT SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW IN
OTHER CASES.  AND THIS HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY SO WHERE A DECISION BELOW
RECOGNIZED THE CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES BUT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE
APPLIED THEM IMPROPERLY TO THE SPECIFIC FACTS DISCLOSED.  THE INSTANT
CASE PLAINLY BELONGS IN THE CLASS LAST MENTIONED.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT AGREED UPON THE CONTROLLING LEGAL RULE.  THEY
SHARPLY AND ALMOST EVENLY DIVIDED ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE BROUGHT HER CASE WITHIN THAT RULE.  WHAT THEY
DECIDED, AND WHAT WE DECIDE, CAN ADD NOTHING TO THE BODY OF
JURISPRUDENCE.  AND IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF OUR EXERCISE OF
THE POWER OF REVIEW THAT IF WE HAD BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF A TRIAL JUDGE OR A MEMBER OF THE COURT BELOW, WE MIGHT HAVE HELD THE
CASE ONE FOR SUBMISSION TO A JURY.    IN ALMOST EVERY LITIGATION, THE
PARTIES ARE AFFORDED HEARINGS IN AT LEAST TWO COURTS.  THIS WAS TRUE
HERE, THE APPELLATE COURT BEING THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF THE
PARTIES' RESIDENCE.  IF, IN SUCH A CASE, WE ACCORD A THIRD HEARING,
WHENEVER WE SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE LAW DIFFERENTLY, WE SHALL HAVE
LITTLE TIME OR OPPORTUNITY TO DO AUGHT ELSE THAN EXAMINE THE CLAIMS OF
PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS THAT, IN THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED,
PREJUDICIAL ERRORS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE, IN
RULINGS OF LAW, AND IN CHARGES TO JURIES. 

THERE IS NO REASON WHY A PREFERENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN, IN THESE
RESPECTS, TO ACTIONS INSTITUTED UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY
ACT, OVER OTHERS FOUNDED ON OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES, OVER CONTRACT
CASES, OR ADMIRALTY CASES, WHERE A FAILURE PROPERLY TO RULE ON THE
FACTS IS ASSERTED TO HAVE WROUGHT INJURY TO ONE OF THE PARTIES.  FN8 

IT SEEMS TO BE THOUGHT, HOWEVER, THAT ANY RULING WHICH TAKES A CASE
FROM THE JURY, ALBEIT IT WILL NOT SERVE AS A PRECEDENT, IS OF SUCH
PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE AS TO REQUIRE REVIEW HERE.  I MERELY STATE MY
CONVICTION THAT THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT ENVISAGES TRIAL NOT BY JURY, BUT
BY COURT AND JURY, ACCORDING TO THE VIEW OF THE COMMON LAW, AND THAT
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS HAVE NOT USURPED POWER DENIED THEM BY THE
FUNDAMENTAL LAW IN DIRECTING VERDICTS WHERE A PARTY FAILED TO ADDUCE
PROOF TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, OR IN ENTERING JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING A VERDICT FOR LIKE REASON.  BUT THIS I DO SAY, THAT
THIS COURT DOES NOT SIT TO REDRESS EVERY APPARENT ERROR COMMITTED BY
COMPETENT AND RESPONSIBLE COURTS WHOSE JUDGMENTS WE ARE EMPOWERED TO
REVIEW.  AND, IF WE UNDERTAKE ANY SUCH TASK, WE SHALL DISENABLE THE
COURT TO FULFILL ITS HIGH OFFICE IN THE SCHEME OF OUR GOVERNMENT. 

FINALLY, I CANNOT CONCUR IN THE INTIMATION, WHICH I THINK THE OPINION
GIVES, THAT, AS CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT NOT TO ENACT A WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAW, THIS COURT WILL STRAIN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE TO
ACCORD COMPENSATION WHERE THE EMPLOYER IS WITHOUT FAULT.  I YIELD TO
NONE IN MY BELIEF IN THE WISDOM AND EQUITY OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAWS, BUT I DO NOT CONCEIVE IT TO BE WITHIN OUR JUDICIAL FUNCTION TO
WRITE THE POLICY WHICH UNDERLIES COMPENSATION LAWS INTO ACTS OF
CONGRESS WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT CHOSEN THAT POLICY BUT, INSTEAD, HAS
ADOPTED THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF NEGLIGENCE. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, 26 STAT. 826. 

FN2  ACT OF JANUARY 28, 1915, 38 STAT. 803. 

FN3  H. REP. NO. 1182, 63D CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN4 SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. CROCKETT, 234 U.S. 725. 

FN5  ACT OF SEPT. 6, 1916, C. 448, 39 STAT. 726, SEC. 3.  SEE ANDREWS
V. VIRGINIAN RY. CO., 248 U.S. 272. 

FN6  S. REP. NO. 775, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  SEE ALSO THE HOUSE
REPORT NO. 794, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN7  ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936. 

FN8  SEE THE DISSENT IN DEPUTY V. DU PONT, 308 U.S. 488, 499. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

I AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT AN
APPROPRIATE ONE FOR THE EXERCISE OF OUR DISCRETIONARY POWER TO AFFORD A
SECOND APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT BY WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.  BUT AS WE HAVE ADHERED TO OUR LONG STANDING PRACTICE OF
GRANTING CERTIORARI UPON THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF FOUR JUSTICES, THE
CASE IS PROPERLY HERE FOR DECISION AND IS, I THINK, CORRECTLY DECIDED. 

..END :











ALTVATER V. FREEMAN, 319 U.S. 359 


NO. 696.  ARGUED APRIL 19, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1943.  - 130 F.2D
763, REVERSED. 


1.  THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY MAY BE RAISED BY A COUNTERCLAIM IN A SUIT
FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT.  P. 363. 

2.  THE REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY IN
SUITS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE NO LESS STRICT IN SUITS UNDER THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT THAN IN OTHERS.  P. 363. 

3.  THE REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY ARE
MET WHERE PAYMENT OF A CLAIM IS DEMANDED AS OF RIGHT AND PAYMENT IS
MADE, BUT WHERE A RIGHT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT PAID OR TO CHALLENGE THE
LEGALITY OF THE CLAIM IS PRESERVED BY THE COERCIVE NATURE OF THE
EXACTION.  P. 365. 

4.  ALTHOUGH THE DECISION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT DISPOSED
OF THE BILL AND ANSWER IN THIS SUIT, IT DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE
COUNTERCLAIM, WHICH RAISED THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT;
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN TREATING THE ISSUES RAISED BY
THE COUNTERCLAIM AS MOOT.  PP. 363, 365. 

ALTVATER ET AL. V. FREEMAN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 750, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED A DECREE DISMISSING THE BILL AND GRANTING THE PRAYER OF A
COUNTERCLAIM IN A PATENT CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT, LODGED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BY REASON OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, WAS BROUGHT BY RESPONDENTS FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT UNDER REISSUE PATENT NO. 20,202
ISSUED TO FREEMAN IN 1936 FOR A CUTOUT MACHINE FOR SHOE UPPERS, IT
BEING ALLEGED THAT THE REISSUE PATENT WAS SUBSTITUTED UNDER THE
AGREEMENT FOR THE ORIGINAL PATENT - NO. 1,681,033.  FN1  THE BILL
ALLEGED THAT CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT
PETITIONERS WERE MANUFACTURING AND SELLING CERTAIN DEVICES WHICH
INFRINGED THE REISSUE PATENT AND THAT THEY HAD NOT CONFINED THEMSELVES
TO THE TERRITORY IN WHICH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT PERMITTED THEM TO MAKE
SALES OF THE PATENTED ARTICLE.  THE BILL ASKED FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE, FOR AN INJUNCTION, AND FOR AN ACCOUNTING.  PETITIONERS
ANSWERED DENYING GENERALLY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL AND SETTING UP
VARIOUS DEFENSES.  THEY CHARGED AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT THE TWO REISSUE
PATENTS OBTAINED ON THE SURRENDER OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT WERE INVALID;
AND THEY ASSERTED THAT WHILE THEY HAD MADE PAYMENTS OF ROYALTIES UNDER
THE REISSUE PATENTS, THEY DID SO IN PROTEST AND THAT THOSE PAYMENTS DID
NOT SUBSTITUTE THE REISSUE PATENTS FOR THE ORIGINAL PATENT UNDER THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT.  PETITIONERS ALSO FILED A COUNTERCLAIM PRAYING FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  THEY ALLEGED IN THE COUNTERCLAIM THAT THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT DID NOT COVER THE REISSUE PATENTS; THAT THEY WERE
WILLING TO PAY ROYALTIES IF THE AGREEMENT COVERED THE REISSUES AND IF
THEY WERE VALID; THAT THE REISSUES WERE NOT VALID, BUT THAT IF
PETITIONERS CANCELLED THE LICENSE AGREEMENT AND REFUSED TO PAY ANY
ROYALTIES UNDER IT, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO INFRINGEMENT SUITS.  THEY
ACCORDINGLY ALLEGED THAT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE BUSINESS BUILT UP IN
GOOD FAITH UNDER THE LICENSE, AN ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY AND
DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS NECESSARY.  THEY PRAYED THAT THE
REISSUE PATENTS BE DECLARED INVALID, BUT THAT, IF THEY WERE HELD TO BE
VALID, THE LICENSE AGREEMENT BE EXTENDED TO THEM.  IN A REPLY TO THE
COUNTERCLAIM, RESPONDENTS DENIED ITS ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS AND ALLEGED
AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
THE PARTIES AS SET FORTH IN THE COUNTERCLAIM AND THEREFORE THAT
PETITIONERS HAD NO RIGHT TO THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF EARLIER LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WILL HELP
SHARPEN THE OUTLINES OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  THE LICENSE UNDER THE
ORIGINAL PATENT WAS EXECUTED IN 1929.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER PETITIONERS
MARKETED A MACHINE KNOWN AS MODEL T, WHICH RESPONDENTS CLAIMED VIOLATED
THE AGREEMENT.  THEY ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, CHARGING VIOLATION OF ITS COVENANTS AND
INFRINGEMENT.  THE COURT HELD IN FREEMAN V. ALTVATER, 66 F.2D 506, THAT
THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT WAS NOT IN ISSUE, SINCE PETITIONERS, BEING
LICENSEES, WERE ESTOPPED TO ASSERT ITS INVALIDITY.  THE COURT
CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE MACHINE DID INFRINGE.  AN ACCOUNTING WAS
ORDERED.  RESPONDENTS ENDEAVORED LATER ON TO HAVE THE ACCOUNTING COVER
THE ACCUSED DEVICES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT SUIT.  THAT EFFORT WAS NOT
SUCCESSFUL.  MEANWHILE PREMIER MACHINE CO. V. FREEMAN, 84 F.2D 425, WAS
DECIDED.  IT WAS A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT, THE
DEFENSE BEING INVALIDITY.  OF THE 94 CLAIMS OF THE PATENT, 26 WERE
INVOLVED IN THAT SUIT.  THE COURT HELD THAT ONLY THREE OF THAT GROUP
WERE VALID.  THAT WAS IN JUNE 1936.  IN NOVEMBER 1936 FREEMAN FILED A
DISCLAIMER COVERING ALL CLAIMS HELD INVALID IN THE PREMIER MACHINE
CASE.  LATER IN 1936 HE SURRENDERED HIS ORIGINAL PATENT AND OBTAINED
REISSUE PATENTS.  THE INVALIDITY OF THE REISSUE PATENTS WAS ASSERTED IN
THE PRESENT SUIT ON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE DISCLAIMER WAS
IMPROPER AND THAT THE REISSUE PATENTS WERE DEVOID OF PATENTABLE SUBJECT
MATTER. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AFTER A HEARING FOUND THAT THE ACCUSED DEVICES DID
NOT INFRINGE RESPONDENTS' REISSUE PATENTS; THAT THE DECISION IN THE
PREMIER MACHINE CASE, 84 F.2D 425, HOLDING ONLY THREE OF THE TWENTY-SIX
CLAIMS OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT VALID, CONSTITUTED AN EVICTION UNDER THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT; THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT TERMINATED WITH THE
SURRENDER OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT IN 1936; THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT MAKE
THE REISSUE PATENTS THE BASIS FOR A NEW LICENSE CONTRACT; THAT WHILE
PETITIONERS SINCE THE DATE OF THE REISSUE PATENTS PAID CERTAIN
ROYALTIES THEY DID SO UNDER PROTEST AND PURSUANT TO THE INJUNCTION
WHICH WAS ENTERED IN THE FIRST ALTVATER CASE, 66 F.2D 506; AND THAT THE
REISSUE PATENTS WERE INVALID.  THE DISTRICT COURT ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED
THE BILL OF COMPLAINT AND GRANTED THE PRAYER OF THE COUNTERCLAIM.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED (129 F.2D 494), HOLDING THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS WARRANTED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ORIGINAL LICENSE
AGREEMENT WAS AT AN END AND THAT THE CONTINUANCE OF ROYALTY PAYMENTS
DID NOT INDICATE AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE REISSUE PATENTS TO FORM A NEW
CONTRACT; THAT THE ISSUE OF INFRINGEMENT INVOLVED ONLY CLAIM 6 OF
REISSUE PATENT NO. 20,202, THE CHARGES THAT OTHER CLAIMS WERE INFRINGED
HAVING BEEN ABANDONED; AND THAT THE ACCUSED DEVICES DID NOT INFRINGE. 
ON A PETITION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION TO MODIFY THE OPINION AND REVISE
THE DECREE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT WHEN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND NO CONTRACT OF LICENSE AND NO INFRINGEMENT, THE OTHER
ISSUES BECAME MOOT AND THERE WAS NO LONGER A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  130 F.2D 763.  IT ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED THE DECREE
BY STRIKING FROM IT THE PROVISIONS WHICH HELD THAT FREEMAN WAS EVICTED
FROM HIS MONOPOLY BY THE DECISION IN THE PREMIER MACHINE CASE AND THAT
THE REISSUE PATENTS WERE INVALID, AND THE FURTHER PROVISION WHICH
RESOLVED THE ISSUES ON THE COUNTERCLAIM IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS, SAYING
THAT IT EXPRESSED NO OPINION ON THOSE QUESTIONS.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
APPARENT MISINTERPRETATION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF OUR
DECISION IN ELECTRICAL FITTINGS CORP. V. THOMAS & BETTS CO., 307 U.S.
241. 

THAT CASE WAS TRIED ONLY ON BILL AND ANSWER.  THE DISTRICT COURT
ADJUDGED A CLAIM OF A PATENT VALID ALTHOUGH IT DISMISSED THE BILL FOR
FAILURE TO PROVE INFRINGEMENT.  WE HELD THAT THE FINDING OF VALIDITY
WAS IMMATERIAL TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE AND THAT THE WINNING
PARTY MIGHT APPEAL TO OBTAIN A REFORMATION OF THE DECREE.  TO HOLD A
PATENT VALID IF IT IS NOT INFRINGED IS TO DECIDE A HYPOTHETICAL CASE. 
FN2  BUT THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS QUITE DIFFERENT.  WE HAVE
HERE NOT ONLY BILL AND ANSWER BUT A COUNTERCLAIM.  THOUGH THE DECISION
OF NON-INFRINGEMENT DISPOSES OF THE BILL AND ANSWER, IT DOES NOT
DISPOSE OF THE COUNTERCLAIM WHICH RAISES THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY. 
SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 317 U.S. 173, IS AUTHORITY
FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY MAY BE RAISED BY A
COUNTERCLAIM IN AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT.  FN3  THE REQUIREMENTS OF CASE OR
CONTROVERSY ARE OF COURSE NO LESS STRICT UNDER THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS ACT (48 STAT. 955, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400) THAN IN CASE OF OTHER
SUITS.  UNITED STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463, 475; ASHWANDER V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 325; AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V.
HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. PACIFIC COAL CO., 312
U.S. 270.  BUT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PRESENT
COUNTERCLAIM WERE JUSTICIABLE AND THAT THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE
PARTIES DID NOT COME TO AN END (UNITED STATES V. ALASKA S.S. CO., 253
U.S. 113, 116) ON THE DISMISSAL OF THE BILL FOR NON-INFRINGEMENT, SINCE
THEIR DISPUTE WENT BEYOND THE SINGLE CLAIM AND THE PARTICULAR ACCUSED
DEVICES INVOLVED IN THAT SUIT. 

IT IS SAID THAT SO LONG AS PETITIONERS ARE PAYING ROYALTIES THEY ARE
IN NO POSITION TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF INVALIDITY - THE THEORY BEING THAT
AS LICENSEES THEY ARE ESTOPPED TO DENY THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS AND
THAT, SO LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO PAY ROYALTIES, THERE IS ONLY AN
ACADEMIC, NOT A REAL CONTROVERSY, BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  WE CAN PUT TO
ONE SIDE THE QUESTIONS RESERVED IN THE SOLA ELECTRIC CO. CASE -
WHETHER, AS HELD IN UNITED STATES V. HARVEY STEEL CO., 196 U.S. 310, A
LICENSEE IS ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF A PATENT AND, IF SO,
WHETHER THAT RULE OF ESTOPPEL IS ONE OF LOCAL LAW OR OF FEDERAL LAW. 
IN THE PRESENT CASE BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HAVE FOUND THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WAS TERMINATED ON THE
SURRENDER OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT AND WAS NOT RENEWED AND EXTENDED TO
COVER THE REISSUE PATENTS.  THE FACT THAT ROYALTIES WERE BEING PAID DID
NOT MAKE THIS A "DIFFERENCE OR DISPUTE OF A HYPOTHETICAL OR ABSTRACT
CHARACTER."  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, SUPRA, P. 240.  A
CONTROVERSY WAS RAGING, EVEN APART FROM THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE
LICENSE AGREEMENT.  THAT CONTROVERSY WAS "DEFINITE AND CONCRETE,
TOUCHING THE LEGAL RELATIONS OF PARTIES HAVING ADVERSE LEGAL
INTERESTS."  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, SUPRA, PP. 240-241.  THAT
CONTROVERSY CONCERNED THE VALIDITY OF THE REISSUE PATENTS.  FN4  THOSE
PATENTS HAD MANY CLAIMS IN ADDITION TO THE SINGLE ONE INVOLVED IN THE
ISSUE OF INFRINGEMENT.  AND PETITIONERS WERE MANUFACTURING AND SELLING
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES CLAIMED TO FALL UNDER THE PATENTS.  ROYALTIES WERE
BEING DEMANDED AND ROYALTIES WERE BEING PAID.  BUT THEY WERE BEING PAID
UNDER PROTEST AND UNDER THE COMPULSION OF AN INJUNCTION DECREE.  IT WAS
TO LIFT THE HEAVY HAND OF THAT TRIBUTE FROM THE BUSINESS THAT THE
COUNTERCLAIM WAS FILED.  UNLESS THE INJUNCTION DECREE WERE MODIFIED,
FN5  THE ONLY OTHER COURSE WAS TO DEFY IT, AND TO RISK NOT ONLY ACTUAL
BUT TREBLE DAMAGES IN INFRINGEMENT SUITS.  REV. STAT. SEC. 4919, 35
U.S.C. SEC. 67.  IT WAS THE FUNCTION OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT
TO AFFORD RELIEF AGAINST SUCH PERIL AND INSECURITY.  S. REP. NO. 1005,
73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 2-3.  AND SEE BORCHARD, DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS
(2D ED.)  PP. 927 ET SEQ. AND CERTAINLY THE REQUIREMENTS OF CASE OR
CONTROVERSY ARE MET WHERE PAYMENT OF A CLAIM IS DEMANDED AS OF RIGHT
AND WHERE PAYMENT IS MADE, BUT WHERE THE INVOLUNTARY OR COERCIVE NATURE
OF THE EXACTION PRESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE SUMS PAID OR TO
CHALLENGE THE LEGALITY OF THE CLAIM.  SEE MAXWELL V. GRISWOLD, 10 HOW. 
242, 255-256; UNITED STATES V. LAWSON, 101 U.S. 164, 169; SWIFT & CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 111 U.S. 22, 28-30; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V.
O'CONNOR, 223 U.S. 280, 286; GAAR, SCOTT & CO. V. SHANNON, 223 U.S.
468, 471; UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 248 U.S. 67,
70; WOODWARD, THE LAW OF QUASI CONTRACTS (1913) SEC. 218. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT IT WAS ERROR FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
TO HAVE TREATED THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE COUNTERCLAIM AS MOOT.  THEY
WERE NOT MOOT; AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAD PASSED ON THEM.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THAT ADJUDICATION. 
FN6  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THAT PURPOSE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  TWO REISSUE PATENTS - NO. 20,202 AND NO. 20,203 - WERE OBTAINED
FOR PATENT NO. 1,681,033 WHICH WAS SURRENDERED.  THE CONTRACT WAS BASED
UPON THE LATTER PATENT.  IT LICENSED PETITIONERS TO MAKE CERTAIN DIES
COMING WITHIN THE ORIGINAL PATENT, WITHIN A LIMITED TERRITORY AND FOR
USE WITH CERTAIN MACHINES, UPON PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES.  PETITIONERS
LIKEWISE AGREED NOT TO MAKE ANY MACHINES COMING WITHIN THE ORIGINAL
PATENT; AND THEY WAIVED THE RIGHT TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT
DURING ITS LIFE. 

FN2 SEE COVER V. SCHWARTZ, 133 F.2D 541. 

FN3  AND SEE LEACH V. ROSS HEATER & MFG. CO., 104 F.2D 88; BORCHARD,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS (2D ED.)  PP. 812-814. 

FN4  SHORTLY AFTER THE GRANT OF THE REISSUE PATENTS, PETITIONERS
FILED A SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF THEIR INVALIDITY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SUSTAINED A DISMISSAL OF THE BILL ON THE GROUND THAT ALL OF THE
MATTERS PLACED AT ISSUE IN THAT SUIT COULD BE SETTLED IN THE PRESENT
ONE.  WESTERN SUPPLIES CO. V. FREEMAN, 109 F.2D 693. 

FN5  ON APRIL 15, 1943, WHILE THIS CASE WAS PENDING HERE, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED PETITIONERS LEAVE TO APPLY TO THE DISTRICT
COURT TO VACATE THE DECREE IN THE FIRST ALTVATER SUIT, 66 F.2D 506. 
THE BASIS OF THAT MOTION APPEARS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE
COUNTERCLAIM IN THE PRESENT SUIT.  THIS UNDERLINES AND GIVES ADDED
EMPHASIS TO THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES
WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS GROWING OUT OF EVENTS
SUBSEQUENT TO THE FIRST ALTVATER CASE.  IT FURTHER SERVES TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REQUIRED PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES UNDER THAT DECREE
DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE ABSENCE OF A CONTROVERSY. 

FN6  THE PROPOSAL THAT THE CAUSE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT SO THAT IT MIGHT PASS ON THOSE ISSUES ONCE MORE BEFORE THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVIEWS THEM DOES NOT EMANATE FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  ITS REFUSAL TO REVIEW THAT ADJUDICATION RESTS ON A
MISINTERPRETATION OF ELECTRICAL FITTINGS CORP. V. THOMAS & BETTS CO.,
SUPRA, NOT ON ANY INADEQUACY OR INSUFFICIENCY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  IF THE STANDARDS OF GOOD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION BE
CONSIDERED, WE FAIL TO SEE WHY PETITIONERS SHOULD BE PUT TO TWO TRIALS
OF THE SAME ISSUES BEFORE A REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY
BE HAD.  NOR WOULD IT COMPORT WITH SOUND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION TO
UPHOLD A DENIAL OF APPELLATE REVIEW WHERE THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE
PARTIES STILL RAGES AND WHERE THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE OF A
MISTAKEN VIEW OF THE LAW.    MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER:    WE ARE
CONCERNED HERE WITH A PROBLEM IN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, NOT A
QUESTION IN ALGEBRA AS TO WHICH THERE IS A DEMONSTRABLY RIGHT OR WRONG
ANSWER.  THE CASE BEFORE US PRESENTS ONLY ONE PHASE OF AN EXTENSIVE,
COMPLICATED PATENT LITIGATION INVOLVING NUMEROUS TECHNICAL AND
INTERDEPENDENT ISSUES.  THE QUESTION WHICH WE MUST NOW DECIDE IS THIS -
IN VIEW OF THE PRESENT POSTURE OF THE CONTROVERSY, SHALL ONE OF THESE
ISSUES BE ADJUDICATED IN THE MANNER INDICATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, OR SHALL THIS COURT DIRECT THAT IT BE ADJUDICATED UPON THE
DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT?  WE ARE ALL AGREED
THAT WHILE A DISTRICT COURT MAY HAVE JURISDICTION OF A SUIT OR CLAIM
UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400, IT IS
UNDER NO COMPULSION TO EXERCISE SUCH JURISDICTION.  IF ANOTHER
PROCEEDING IS PENDING IN WHICH THE CLAIM IN CONTROVERSY MAY BE
SATISFACTORILY ADJUDICATED, A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT A MANDATORY
REMEDY.  SOUND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION REQUIRES, IN MY VIEW, THAT WE
DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE PROCEDURE WHICH THE COURT BELOW HAS
PROVIDED FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIMS FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANTS
SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

THIS LITIGATION IS WRAPT IN CONFUSION, BUT FROM IT I EXTRACT THE
FOLLOWING HISTORY OF ITS COURSE THROUGH THE COURTS.  IN THE EARLY
1930'S A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A SHOE MACHINE PATENT WAS BROUGHT BY
THE PATENTEE, FREEMAN, AGAINST ALTVATER, A LICENSEE.  THIS RESULTED IN
A RULING IN 1933 BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
IN FREEMAN V. ALTVATER, 66 F.2D 506, THAT THE PATENT HAD BEEN INFRINGED
AND THAT THE LICENSEE WAS ESTOPPED TO ASSERT ITS INVALIDITY.  PURSUANT
TO THIS DECISION A DECREE WAS ENTERED REQUIRING ALTVATER TO PAY
ROYALTIES UNDER THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.  FREEMAN THEREAFTER BROUGHT SUIT
AGAINST ANOTHER ALLEGED INFRINGER.  IN THIS PROCEEDING THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HELD, IN PREMIER MACHINE CO. V.
FREEMAN, 84 F.2D 425, THAT 23 OF THE 94 CLAIMS OF FREEMAN'S PATENT WERE
INVALID.  ACCORDINGLY, FREEMAN SUBSEQUENTLY FILED A DISCLAIMER COVERING
THE 23 CLAIMS THUS HELD INVALID, SURRENDERED HIS PATENT, AND OBTAINED
REISSUE PATENTS ON THE REMAINING CLAIMS AS WELL AS SOME OTHER CLAIMS
NOT INVOLVED IN THE PREMIER SUIT. 

SHORTLY THEREAFTER FREEMAN BROUGHT A SECOND SUIT AGAINST ALTVATER AND
ANOTHER COMPANY.  IN THIS SUIT - WHICH RESULTED IN THE ACTION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS NOW UNDER REVIEW - FREEMAN ALLEGED THAT THE
DEFENDANTS WERE VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT AND PRAYED
FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT.  THE DEFENDANTS DENIED THIS
ALLEGATION, AND, BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM, ASKED FOR A DECLARATION THAT
(1) THE LICENSE CONTRACT AND THE ORIGINAL PATENT "BE INTERPRETED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE DECISION" IN THE PREMIER CASE; (2) THE LICENSE CONTRACT
"BE INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT TO READJUST THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ITS
PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS TRANSPIRING SINCE IT WAS ENTERED
INTO"; (3) THE LICENSE AGREEMENT BE DECLARED TERMINATED AS OF THE DATE
OF THE SURRENDER OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT; (4) THE REISSUE PATENTS BE
DECLARED INVALID, "BUT, IF EITHER IS VALID, THEN TO INTERPRET IT OR
THEM INTO ITS OR THEIR PROPER SCOPE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS
OCCURRED"; (5) IN THE EVENT THAT THE REISSUE PATENTS BE FOUND VALID,
THE PLAINTIFFS BE DIRECTED "TO GRANT TO THE DEFENDANTS A LICENSE UNDER
THEM OF A SCOPE TO PERMIT THEIR BUSINESS TO BE CONTINUED TO THE EXTENT
IT COULD OPERATE UNDER THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT, AND AT A ROYALTY
COMMENSURATE WITH THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE PATENTS"; AND (6) THE
INJUNCTION AGAINST VIOLATION OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT BE DECLARED
TERMINATED BECAUSE OF THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH AGREEMENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ENDED WITH THE
SURRENDER OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT IN 1936, THAT THE REISSUE PATENTS HAD
NOT BEEN MADE THE BASIS OF A NEW CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND
THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE REISSUE PATENTS INCLUDED CLAIMS "NOT DEFINITELY
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM CLAIMS DISCLAIMED" AND HENCE WERE "INHERENTLY
INVALID FOR IMPROPER DISCLAIMER."  ACCORDINGLY, THE BILL WAS
DISMISSED.  THE DECREE RECITED ALSO THAT "THE ISSUES ON THE
COUNTERCLAIM ARE FOUND IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND THE COUNTERCLAIM IS
GRANTED." 

UPON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THIS RULING OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS AFFIRMED, 129 F.2D 494, BUT UPON REHEARING THE COURT
HELD THAT ONCE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT HAD TERMINATED
AND THAT THE REISSUE PATENTS WERE NOT INFRINGED, THE REMAINING ISSUES
IN THE CASE, I.E., THOSE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REISSUE
PATENTS, WERE "MOOT" IN THE SENSE THAT THERE WAS NO LONGER A
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY FOR THE SOLUTION OF WHICH A DECLARATION WAS
NEEDED.  130 F.2D 763.  WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING BEFORE THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANTS PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT
TO VACATE THE DECREE ENTERED UNDER THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN FREEMAN V. ALTVATER, 66 F.2D 506.  THIS MOTION WAS BASED
UPON TWO GROUNDS:  (1) THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ENDED WHEN FREEMAN
SURRENDERED THE ORIGINAL PATENT AFTER THE DECISION IN THE PREMIER CASE,
AND (2) THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO VALID REISSUE OF THE PATENT CLAIMS. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE DEFENDANTS ASKED THAT THE INJUNCTION BE LIFTED AND
THAT THEY BE RELIEVED OF THEIR CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO PAY ROYALTIES
UNDER THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.  THE PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A MOTION WHILE THE
APPEAL WAS PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINED THIS OBJECTION, AND THE DEFENDANTS APPEALED.  ON APRIL 15,
1943, AFTER THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON REHEARING
AND WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING HERE ON CERTIORARI, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS GRANTED THE DEFENDANTS, THE PETITIONERS IN THIS COURT, LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO VACATE THE 1933 DECREE.  IN ITS
OPINION THE COURT BELOW EXPRESSLY STATED THAT "WHETHER THE REISSUE
PATENTS ARE WHOLLY INVALID, AS DEFENDANTS CONTEND, OR, IF NOT, WHETHER
THE CLAIMS AS REISSUED ARE WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE SCOPE OF THE EXISTING
INJUNCTION IS A MATTER WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT WILL HAVE TO
DETERMINE."  135 F.2D 212, 213. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS THUS COMMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME QUESTIONS AS THOSE RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS'
COUNTERCLAIM, I.E., THOSE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REISSUE
PATENTS.  BY THIS ACTION THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD EFFECTIVELY
RECALLED ITS PREVIOUS RULING THAT THESE QUESTIONS WERE "MOOT." 
WHATEVER MIGHT BE SAID, THEREFORE, AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF ITS RULING
THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE REISSUE PATENTS PRESENTED "NON-JUSTICIABLE"
QUESTIONS, THE INESCAPABLE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE IS NOW BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR DETERMINATION A PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE
PETITIONERS INVOLVING THE VERY QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COUNTERCLAIM. 
BY PUTTING THE WHOLE CASE IN THE CHARGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS MADE IT ACADEMIC FOR US TO CONSIDER THE
CORRECTNESS OF ITS EARLIER RULING THAT THERE REMAINED NO JUSTICIABLE
ISSUES IN THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  REVIEW OF THE GRANT OR
DENIAL OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, LIKE AN APPEAL IN EQUITY, CALLS FOR
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND TO
EXIST WHEN THE APPEAL IS DECIDED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY
HAVE BEEN IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE REISSUE PATENTS COULD NOT BE PASSED UPON BECAUSE THERE
WAS NO LONGER A "JUSTICIABLE" CONTROVERSY ONCE NON-INFRINGEMENT WAS
FOUND.  BUT ITS SUBSEQUENT ACTION, DIRECTING THE DISTRICT COURT TO PASS
UPON THESE QUESTIONS, IS A TIMELY CORRECTION, IF SUCH WAS CALLED FOR,
OF ITS EARLIER RULING. 

THEREFORE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT GOOD JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SHOULD
STAY OUR INTERFERENCE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' EXERCISE OF
ITS DISCRETION IN ADJUSTING THE MANNER BY WHICH THE ISSUES AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE REISSUE PATENTS SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED.  IT IS THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH, BY ITS ACTION OF APRIL 15, 1943, HAS IN
EFFECT REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF
THESE ISSUES.  NO VALID REASON APPEARS FOR DISTURBING THE DISPOSITION
IT HAS MADE OF THE LITIGATION.  THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS OUGHT NOT TO
BE NARROWLY CONFINED IN DETERMINING WHETHER A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS
AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  WE NEED NOT
SPECULATE TOO FAR AS TO THE REASONS WHICH MAY HAVE PROMPTED THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE TO REMAND THE ISSUES AS TO THE VALIDITY
OF THE PATENTS TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  IT MAY HAVE BEEN OF THE OPINION,
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED SUFFICIENT
CLARITY, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE CLOUDINESS OF THE PLEADINGS.  IN ANY
EVENT, HOWEVER, THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE KIND OF A CASE IN WHICH THIS
COURT SHOULD BE MOST RELUCTANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PROCEDURE
DETERMINED UPON BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

IF WE ARE TO CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RULING THAT THE ISSUES
RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REISSUE PATENTS ARE NOT "JUSTICIABLE,"
I FIND IT TOO DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE REASONING OF MY BRETHREN.  THE
COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING
"MOOTNESS" AS TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COUNTERCLAIM RESTS
SUBSTANTIALLY UPON THE NOTION THAT A CONTROVERSY STILL EXISTS BECAUSE
THE DEFENDANTS ARE LABORING UNDER THE "HEAVY" OBLIGATION OF PAYING
ROYALTIES UNDER THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.  BUT WE HAVE HELD THAT THE
CONTROVERSY MUST BE "DEFINITE AND CONCRETE," "REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL," IN
ORDER THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN.  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V.
HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 240-41; AND SEE MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. PACIFIC
CO., 312 U.S. 270, 273.  THE DEFENDANTS' OBLIGATION TO PAY ROYALTIES
UNDER THE LICENSE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE VERY SUBSTANTIAL AT THE PRESENT
TIME, SINCE BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HAVE HELD THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT TERMINATED IN 1936 WITH THE
SURRENDER OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT.  IN VIEW OF THESE RULINGS THE
DEFENDANTS' NEED FOR "RELIEF" IS PRACTICALLY INFINITESIMAL, SINCE ALL
THAT REMAINS TO BE DONE IS THE ENTRY OF A FORMAL ORDER VACATING THE
1933 DECREE.  THE "INSECURITY" AND "PERIL" FROM WHICH LITIGANTS CAN BE
SAVED ONLY BY A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ARE CONSPICUOUS BY THEIR ABSENCE
FROM THIS CASE AT THIS TIME.  IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT ONE WHO
INFRINGES A PATENT SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO OBTAIN A DECLARATION AS TO ITS
VALIDITY EVEN THOUGH HE IS UNDER NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY
ROYALTIES AS A LICENSEE.  THE EXISTENCE OF AN INVALID PATENT MAY
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF THOSE WHO MARKET ARTICLES
WHICH INFRINGE SUCH A PATENT, EVEN THOUGH NO INFRINGEMENT SUITS MAY BE
IMMEDIATELY THREATENED.  POTENTIAL PURCHASERS MAY NATURALLY BE
RELUCTANT TO ESTABLISH BUSINESS RELATIONS UPON SO INSECURE A BASIS. 
BUT THE COURT HAS NOT CHOSEN TO SUSTAIN THE PROPRIETY OF A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT HERE UPON THIS GROUND, AND IT IS THEREFORE IDLE TO CONSIDER
ITS MERITS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





GALLOWAY V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 372 


NO. 553.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1943.  - 130 F.2D
467, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER BENEFITS UNDER A
CONTRACT OF WAR RISK INSURANCE, ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED TOTAL AND
PERMANENT DISABILITY RESULTING FROM INSANITY OF THE INSURED WHILE THE
POLICY WAS IN FORCE, HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY GRANTED THE
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  P. 386. 

2.  THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT HAS NO APPLICATION OF ITS OWN FORCE TO THIS
SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  P. 388. 

3.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE DIRECTION OF THE VERDICT FOR
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF OF THE RIGHT TO A JURY
TRIAL.  P. 396. 

GALLOWAY V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 622, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT UPON
A VERDICT DIRECTED FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN A SUIT TO RECOVER BENEFITS
UNDER A CONTRACT OF WAR RISK INSURANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SEEKS BENEFITS FOR TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BY
REASON OF INSANITY HE CLAIMS EXISTED MAY 31, 1919.  ON THAT DAY HIS
POLICY OF YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE LAPSED FOR NONPAYMENT OF
PREMIUM.  FN1 

THE SUIT WAS FILED JUNE 15, 1938.  AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE,
THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT.  JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  130 F.2D 467.  BOTH COURTS HELD THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY
INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER.  HE SAYS THIS WAS
ERRONEOUS AND, IN EFFECT, DEPRIVED HIM OF TRIAL BY JURY, CONTRARY TO
THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT, AS PETITIONER HAS MADE IT, DOES NOT
CHALLENGE GENERALLY THE POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS TO WITHHOLD OR WITHDRAW
FROM THE JURY CASES IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT PUTS FORWARD INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A VERDICT.  FN2  THE CONTENTION IS MERELY THAT HIS
CASE AS MADE WAS SUBSTANTIAL, THE COURTS' DECISIONS TO THE CONTRARY
WERE WRONG, AND THEREFORE THEIR EFFECT HAS BEEN TO DEPRIVE HIM OF A
JURY TRIAL.  PETITIONER RELIES PARTICULARLY UPON HALLIDAY V. UNITED
STATES, 315 U.S. 94, AND BERRY V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 450, CITING
ALSO GUNNING V. COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90.  THESE CASES AND OTHERS RELIED
UPON ARE DISTINGUISHABLE UPON THE FACTS, AS WILL APPEAR.  UPON THE
RECORD AND THE ISSUES AS THE PARTIES HAVE MADE THEM, THE ONLY QUESTION
IS WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT FOR
PETITIONER.  ON THAT BASIS, WE THINK THE JUDGMENTS MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

                                  I. 

CERTAIN FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.  PETITIONER WORKED AS A LONGSHOREMAN IN
PHILADELPHIA AND ELSEWHERE PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT IN THE ARMY NOVEMBER 1,
1917.  FN3  HE BECAME A COOK IN A MACHINE GUN BATTALION.  HIS UNIT
ARRIVED IN FRANCE IN APRIL, 1918.  HE SERVED ACTIVELY UNTIL SEPTEMBER
24.  FROM THEN TO THE FOLLOWING JANUARY HE WAS IN A HOSPITAL WITH
INFLUENZA.  HE THEN RETURNED TO ACTIVE DUTY.  HE CAME BACK TO THE
UNITED STATES, AND RECEIVED HONORABLE DISCHARGE APRIL 29, 1919.  HE
ENLISTED IN THE NAVY JANUARY 15, 1920, AND WAS DISCHARGED FOR BAD
CONDUCT IN JULY.  THE FOLLOWING DECEMBER HE AGAIN ENLISTED IN THE ARMY
AND SERVED UNTIL MAY 1922, WHEN HE DESERTED.  THEREAFTER HE WAS CARRIED
ON THE ARMY RECORDS AS A DESERTER. 

IN 1930 BEGAN A SERIES OF MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS BY VETERANS' BUREAU
PHYSICIANS.  ON MAY 19 THAT YEAR HIS CONDITION WAS DIAGNOSED AS "MORON,
LOW GRADE; OBSERVATION, DEMENTIA PRAECOX, SIMPLE TYPE."  IN NOVEMBER,
1931, FURTHER EXAMINATION GAVE THE DIAGNOSIS, "PSYCHOSIS WITH OTHER
DISEASES OR CONDITIONS (ORGANIC DISEASE OF THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM -
TYPE UNDETERMINED)."  IN JULY, 1934, STILL ANOTHER EXAMINATION WAS
MADE, WITH DIAGNOSIS:  "PSYCHOSIS-MANIC AND DEPRESSIVE INSANITY
INCOMPETENT; HYPERTENSION, MODERATE; OTITIS MEDIA, CHRONIC, LEFT;
VARICOSE VEINS LEFT, MILD; ABSCESSED TEETH ROOTS; MYOCARDITIS, MILD." 

PETITIONER'S WIFE, THE NOMINAL PARTY IN THIS SUIT, WAS APPOINTED
GUARDIAN OF HIS PERSON AND ESTATE IN FEBRUARY, 1932.  CLAIM FOR
INSURANCE BENEFITS WAS MADE IN JUNE, 1934, AND WAS FINALLY DENIED BY
THE BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS IN JANUARY, 1936.  THIS SUIT FOLLOWED
TWO AND A HALF YEARS LATER. 

PETITIONER CONCEDEDLY IS NOW TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED BY
REASON OF INSANITY AND HAS BEEN FOR SOME TIME PRIOR TO INSTITUTION OF
THIS SUIT.  IT IS CONCEDED ALSO THAT HE WAS SOUND IN MIND AND BODY
UNTIL HE ARRIVED IN FRANCE IN APRIL, 1918. 

THE THEORY OF HIS CASE IS THAT THE STRAIN OF ACTIVE SERVICE ABROAD
BROUGHT ON AN IMMEDIATE CHANGE, WHICH WAS THE BEGINNING OF A MENTAL
BREAKDOWN THAT HAS GROWN WORSE CONTINUOUSLY THROUGH ALL THE LATER
YEARS.  ESSENTIAL IN THIS IS THE VIEW IT HAD BECOME A TOTAL AND
PERMANENT DISABILITY NOT LATER THAN MAY 31, 1919. 

THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS THEORY FALLS NATURALLY INTO THREE
PERIODS, NAMELY, THAT PRIOR TO 1923; THE INTERVAL FROM THEN TO 1930;
AND THAT FOLLOWING 1930.  IT CONSISTS IN PROOF OF INCIDENTS OCCURRING
IN FRANCE TO SHOW THE BEGINNINGS OF CHANGE; TESTIMONY OF CHANGED
APPEARANCE AND BEHAVIOR IN THE YEARS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PETITIONER'S
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES AS COMPARED WITH THOSE PRIOR TO HIS
DEPARTURE; THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE OF INSANITY ACCUMULATED IN THE YEARS
FOLLOWING 1930; AND FINALLY THE EVIDENCE OF A PHYSICIAN, GIVEN LARGELY
AS MEDICAL OPINION, WHICH SEEKS TO TIE ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE TOGETHER
AS FOUNDATION FOR THE CONCLUSION, EXPRESSED AS OF 1941, THAT
PETITIONER'S DISABILITY WAS TOTAL AND PERMANENT AS OF A TIME NOT LATER
THAN MAY OF 1919. 

DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS INCLUDED MILITARY, NAVAL AND VETERANS' BUREAU
RECORDS.  TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY DEPOSITION OR AT THE TRIAL CHIEFLY BY
FIVE WITNESSES.  ONE, O'NEILL, WAS A FELLOW WORKER AND FRIEND FROM
BOYHOOD; TWO, WELLS AND TANIKAWA, SERVED WITH PETITIONER OVERSEAS; LT.
COL. ALBERT K. MATHEWS, WHO WAS AN ARMY CHAPLAIN, OBSERVED HIM OR
ANOTHER PERSON OF THE SAME NAME AT AN ARMY HOSPITAL IN CALIFORNIA
DURING EARLY 1920; AND DR. WILDER, A PHYSICIAN, EXAMINED HIM SHORTLY
BEFORE THE TRIAL AND SUPPLIED THE ONLY EXPERT TESTIMONY IN HIS BEHALF. 
THE PETITIONER ALSO PUT INTO EVIDENCE THE DEPOSITIONS OF COMMANDER
PLATT AND LT. COL. JAMES E. MATTHEWS, HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS IN THE NAVY
AND THE ARMY, RESPECTIVELY, DURING 1920-22. 

WHAT HAPPENED IN FRANCE DURING 1918-19 IS SHOWN CHIEFLY BY WELLS AND
TANIKAWA.  WELLS TESTIFIED TO AN INCIDENT AT AISONVILLE, WHERE THE UNIT
WAS BILLETED SHORTLY AFTER REACHING FRANCE AND BEFORE GOING INTO
ACTION.  LATE AT NIGHT PETITIONER CREATED A DISTURBANCE, "HOLLERING,
SCREECHING, SWEARING.  ...  THE MEN POURED OUT FROM THE WHOLE
SWEARING AT HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS AND SAW "THE RESULT, A BLACK EYE FOR
LT. WARNER."  HOWEVER, HE DID NOT SEE "WHO GAVE IT TO HIM.  FN4  "
WELLS PERSONALLY OBSERVED NO INFRACTION OF DISCIPLINE EXCEPT THIS
INCIDENT, AND DID NOT KNOW WHAT BROUGHT IT ON.  PETITIONER'S PHYSICAL
APPEARANCE WAS GOOD, HE "CARRIED ON HIS DUTIES AS A COOK ALL RIGHT,"
AND THE WITNESS DID NOT SEE HIM AFTER JUNE 1, EXCEPT FOR ABOUT THREE
DAYS IN JULY WHEN HE OBSERVED PETITIONER SEVERAL TIMES AT WORK FEEDING
STRAGGLERS. 

TANIKAWA, HAWAIIAN-BORN CITIZEN, SERVED WITH PETITIONER FROM THE
LATTER'S ENLISTMENT UNTIL SEPTEMBER, 1918, WHEN GALLOWAY WAS
HOSPITALIZED, ALTHOUGH THE WITNESS THOUGHT THEY HAD FOUGHT TOGETHER AND
PETITIONER WAS "ACTING QUEER" AT THE BATTLE OF THE ARGONNE IN OCTOBER. 
AT CAMP GREENE, NORTH CAROLINA, PETITIONER WAS "JUST A REGULAR SOLDIER,
VERY NORMAL,  ...  PRETTY NEAT."  AFTER REACHING FRANCE "HE WAS GETTING
NERVOUS  ...  , KIND OF IRRITABLE, ALWAYS PICKING A FIGHT WITH OTHER
SOLDIERS."  THIS BEGAN AT AISONVILLE.  TANIKAWA SAW GALLOWAY IN JAIL,
APPARENTLY BEFORE JUNE.  IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THESE ARE REFERENCES
TO THE INCIDENT WELLS DESCRIBED. 

TANIKAWA DESCRIBED ANOTHER INCIDENT IN JUNE "WHEN WE WERE ON THE
MARNE," THE GERMANS "WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE AND WE WERE ON THIS SIDE." 
IT WAS A NEW FRONT, WITHOUT TRENCHES.  THE WITNESS AND PETITIONER WERE
ON GUARD DUTY WITH OTHERS.  TANIKAWA UNDERSTOOD THE GERMANS WERE
GETTING READY FOR A BIG DRIVE.  "ONE NIGHT HE (PETITIONER) SCREAMED. 
HE SAID, 'THE GERMANS ARE COMING' AND WE ALL GAGGED HIM."  THERE WAS NO
SHOOTING, THE GERMANS WERE NOT COMING, AND THERE WAS NOTHING TO LEAD
THE WITNESS TO BELIEVE THEY WERE.  PETITIONER WAS COURT-MARTIALED FOR
THE MATTER, BUT TANIKAWA DID NOT KNOW "WHAT THEY DID WITH HIM."  HE DID
NOT TALK WITH GALLOWAY THAT NIGHT, BECAUSE "HE WAS OUT OF HIS MIND" AND
APPEARED INSANE.  TANIKAWA DID NOT KNOW WHEN PETITIONER LEFT THE
BATTALION OR WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM AFTER (AS THE WITNESS PUT IT) THE
ARGONNE FIGHT, BUT HEARD HE WENT TO THE HOSPITAL, "JUST DRESSING
STATION I GUESS."  THE WITNESS NEXT SAW GALLOWAY IN 1936, AT A DISABLED
VETERANS' POST MEETING IN SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.  PETITIONER THEN
"LOOKED TO ME LIKE HE WASN'T ALL THERE.  INSANE.  ABOUT THE SAME  ...
AS COMPARED TO THE WAY HE ACTED IN FRANCE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY
GAGGED HIM  ...  " 

O'NEILL WAS "BORN AND RAISED WITH" PETITIONER, WORKED WITH HIM AS A
LONGSHOREMAN, AND KNEW HIM "FROM WHEN HE COME OUT OF THE ARMY FOR SEVEN
YEARS,  ...  I WOULD SAY FIVE OR SIX YEARS."  WHEN PETITIONER RETURNED
IN APRIL OR MAY, 1919, "HE WAS A WRECK COMPARED TO WHAT HE WAS WHEN HE
WENT AWAY.  THE FALLOW'S MIND WAS EVIDENTLY UNBALANCED."  SYMPTOMS
SPECIFIED WERE WITHDRAWING TO HIMSELF; CRYING SPELLS; ALTERNATE PERIODS
OF NORMAL BEHAVIOR AND NONSENSICAL TALK; EXPRESSION OF FEARS THAT GOOD
FRIENDS WANTED "TO BEAT HIM UP"; SPITTING BLOOD AND REMARKING ABOUT IT
IN VULGAR TERMS.  ONCE PETITIONER SAID, "G - D - IT, I MUST BE A DOCTOR
JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE." 

O'NEILL TESTIFIED THESE SYMPTOMS AND THIS CONDITION CONTINUED
PRACTICALLY THE SAME FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS.  IN HIS OPINION PETITIONER
WAS "COMPETENT AT TIMES AND OTHERS WAS INCOMPETENT."  THE INTERVALS
MIGHT BE "A COUPLE OF DAYS, A COUPLE OF MONTHS."  IN HIS NORMAL PERIODS
GALLOWAY "WOULD BE HIS OLD SELF  ...  ABSOLUTELY O.K." 

O'NEILL WAS DEFINITE IN RECALLING PETITIONER'S CONDITION AND HAVING
SEEN HIM FREQUENTLY IN 1919, CHIEFLY HOWEVER, AND BRIEFLY, ON THE
STREET DURING LUNCH HOUR.  HE WAS NOT SURE GALLOWAY WAS WORKING AND WAS
"SURPRISED HE GOT IN THE NAVY, I THINK IN THE NAVY OR IN THE GOVERNMENT
SERVICE." 

O'NEILL MAINTAINED HE SAW PETITIONER "RIGHT ON FROM THAT (1920) AT
TIMES."  BUT HIS RECOLLECTION OF DATES, NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR
OBSERVATION, AND CONCRETE EVENTS WAS WHOLLY INDEFINITE.  HE WOULD FIX
NO ESTIMATE FOR THE NUMBER OF TIMES HE HAD SEEN PETITIONER:  "IN 1920 I
COULDN'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS ONE OR A THOUSAND."  FOR LATER YEARS HE
WOULD NOT SAY WHETHER IT WAS "FIVE TIMES OR MORE OR LESS."  WHEN HE WAS
PINNED DOWN BY CROSSEXAMINATION, THE EFFECT OF HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT
HE RECALLED PETITIONER CLEARLY IN 1919 "BECAUSE THERE WAS SUCH A VAST
CONTRAST IN THE MAN," BUT FOR LATER YEARS HE COULD GIVE LITTLE OR NO
DEFINITE INFORMATION.  THE EXCERPT FROM THE TESTIMONY SET FORTH IN THE
MARGIN  FN5  SHOWS THIS CONTRAST.  WE ALSO SUMMARIZE BELOW  FN6 OTHER
EVIDENCE WHICH EXPLAINS OR ILLUSTRATES THE VAGUENESS OF THE WITNESS'
RECOLLECTION FOR EVENTS AFTER 1919.  O'NEILL RECALLED ONE SPECIFIC
OCCASION AFTER 1919 WHEN PETITIONER RETURNED TO PHILADELPHIA, "AROUND
1920 OR 1921, BUT I COULDN'T BE SURE," TO TESTIFY IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.  HE ALSO SAID, "AFTER HE WAS AWAY FOR FIVE OR SIX YEARS, HE
CAME BACK TO PHILADELPHIA, BUT I WOULDN'T KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DATES ON
THAT.  HE WAS BACK IN PHILADELPHIA FOR FIVE OR SIX MONTHS OR SO, AND HE
WAS STILL JUST EVIDENTLY ALL RIGHT, AND THEN HE WOULD BE OFF." 

LT. COL. (CHAPLAIN) MATHEWS SAID HE OBSERVED A PRIVATE JOSEPH
GALLOWAY, WHO WAS A PRISONER FOR DESERTION AND A PATIENT IN THE MENTAL
WARD AT FORT MACARTHUR STATION HOSPITAL, CALIFORNIA, DURING A SIX WEEKS
PERIOD EARLY IN 1920.  THE CHAPLAIN'S TESTIMONY GIVES STRONG EVIDENCE
THE MAN HE OBSERVED WAS INSANE.  HOWEVER, THERE IS A FATAL WEAKNESS IN
THIS EVIDENCE.  IN HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY, WHICH WAS TAKEN BY DEPOSITION,
THE CHAPLAIN SAID HE WAS CERTAIN THAT THE SOLDIER WAS PETITIONER.  WHEN
CONFRONTED WITH THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT PETITIONER WAS ON ACTIVE DUTY
IN THE NAVY DURING THE FIRST HALF OF 1920, THE WITNESS AT FIRST STATED
THAT HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN AS TO THE TIME OF HIS OBSERVATION. 
SUBSEQUENTLY HE REASSERTED THE ACCURACY OF HIS ORIGINAL STATEMENT AS TO
THE TIME OF OBSERVATION, BUT ADMITTED THAT HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN
IN BELIEVING THAT THE PATIENT-PRISONER WAS PETITIONER.  IN THIS
CONNECTION HE VOLUNTEERED THE STATEMENT, "MIGHT I ADD, SIR, THAT I
COULD NOT NOW IDENTIFY THAT SOLDIER IF I WERE TO MEET HIM FACE TO FACE,
AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE LONG LAPSE OF TIME."  THE PATIENT WHOM THE
WITNESS SAW WAS CONFINED TO HIS BED.  THE RECORD IS BARREN OF OTHER
EVIDENCE, WHETHER BY THE HOSPITAL'S OR THE ARMY'S RECORDS OR OTHERWISE,
TO SHOW THAT PETITIONER WAS EITHER PATIENT OR PRISONER AT FORT
MACARTHUR IN 1920 OR AT ANY OTHER TIME. 

COMMANDER PLATT TESTIFIED THAT PETITIONER CAUSED CONSIDERABLE TROUBLE
BY DISOBEDIENCE AND LEAVING SHIP WITHOUT PERMISSION DURING HIS NAVAL
SERVICE IN THE FIRST HALF OF 1920.  AFTER "REPEATED WARNINGS AND
PUNISHMENTS, LEADING TO COURTS MARTIAL," HE WAS SENTENCED TO A BAD
CONDUCT DISCHARGE. 

LT. COL. JAMES E. MATTHEWS (NOT THE CHAPLAIN) TESTIFIED BY DEPOSITION
WHICH PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY INTERRUPTED DR. WILDER'S TESTIMONY TO READ
INTO EVIDENCE.  THE WITNESS WAS GALLOWAY'S COMMANDING OFFICER FROM
EARLY 1921 TO THE SUMMER OF THAT YEAR, WHEN PETITIONER WAS TRANSFERRED
WITH OTHER SOLDIERS TO ANOTHER UNIT.  AT FIRST, COLONEL MATTHEWS
CONSIDERED MAKING PETITIONER A CORPORAL, BUT FOUND HIM UNRELIABLE AND
HAD TO DISCIPLINE HIM.  PETITIONER "DRANK CONSIDERABLY," WAS "WHAT WE
CALLED A BOLSHEVIK," DID NOT SEEM LOYAL, AND "ACTED AS IF HE WAS NOT
GETTING A SQUARE DEAL."  THE OFFICER CONCLUDED "HE WAS A MORAL PERVERT
AND PROBABLY USED NARCOTICS," BUT COULD NOT SECURE PROOF OF THIS. 
GALLOWAY WAS COURT-MARTIALED FOR PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS AND DISORDERLY
CONDUCT, SERVED A MONTH AT HARD LABOR, AND RETURNED TO ACTIVE DUTY.  AT
TIMES HE "WAS ONE OF THE VERY BEST SOLDIERS I HAD," AT OTHERS
UNDEPENDABLE.  HE WAS PHYSICALLY SOUND, ABLE TO DO HIS WORK, PERFORM
CLOSE ORDER DRILL, ETC., "VERY WELL."  HE HAD ALTERNATE PERIODS OF
GAIETY AND DEPRESSION, TALKED INCOHERENTLY AT TIMES, GAVE THE
IMPRESSION HE WOULD FIGHT READILY, BUT DID NOT RESENT ORDERS AND SEEMED
TO GET ALONG WELL WITH OTHER SOLDIERS.  THE OFFICER ATTRIBUTED
PETITIONER'S BEHAVIOR TO ALCOHOL AND NARCOTICS, AND IT OCCURRED TO HIM
AT NO TIME TO QUESTION HIS SANITY. 

DR. WILDER WAS THE KEY WITNESS.  HE DISCLAIMED SPECIALIZING IN MENTAL
DISEASE, BUT QUALIFIED AS HAVING GIVEN IT "SPECIAL ATTENTION."  HE
FIRST SAW PETITIONER SHORTLY BEFORE THE TRIAL, EXAMINED HIM "SEVERAL
TIMES."  HE CONCLUDED PETITIONER'S AILMENT "IS A SCHIZOPHRENIC BRANCH
OR FORM OF PRAECOX."  DR. WILDER HEARD THE TESTIMONY AND READ THE
DEPOSITIONS OF THE OTHER WITNESSES, AND EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE.  BASING HIS JUDGMENT UPON THIS MATERIAL, WITH INFERENCES
DRAWN FROM IT, HE CONCLUDED PETITIONER WAS BORN WITH "AN INHERENT
INSTABILITY," THOUGH HE REMAINED NORMAL UNTIL HE WENT TO FRANCE; BEGAN
THERE "TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE STRAIN OF MILITARY LIFE, THEN HE BEGAN TO
GO TO PIECES."  IN MAY, 1919, PETITIONER "WAS STILL SUFFERING FROM THE
ACUTENESS OF THE BREAKDOWN  ...  HE IS GOING DOWN HILL STILL, BUT THE
THING BEGAN WITH THE BREAKDOWN  ...  " PETITIONER WAS "DEFINITELY
INSANE, YES, SIR," IN 1920 AND "HAS BEEN INSANE AT ALL TIMES, AT LEAST
SINCE JULY, 1918, THE TIME OF THIS EPISODE ON THE MARNE"; THAT IS, "TO
THE POINT THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO ADAPT HIMSELF.  I DON'T MEAN HE HAS NOT
HAD MOMENTS WHEN HE COULD NOT PERFORM SOME ROUTINE TASKS," BUT "FROM AN
OCCUPATIONAL STANDPOINT  ...  HE HAS BEEN INSANE."  HE COULD FOLLOW "A
MERE MATTER OF ROUTINE," BUT WOULD HAVE NO INCENTIVE, WOULD NOT KEEP A
STEADY JOB, COME TO WORK ON TIME, OR DO ANYTHING HE DIDN'T WANT TO DO.
DR. WILDER POINTED TO PETITIONER'S WORK RECORD BEFORE HE ENTERED THE
SERVICE AND OBSERVED:  "AT NO TIME AFTER HE WENT INTO THE WAR DO WE
FIND HIM ABLE TO HOLD ANY KIND OF A JOB.  HE BROKE RIGHT DOWN."  HE
EXPLAINED PETITIONER'S ENLISTMENT IN THE NAVY AND LATER IN THE ARMY BY
SAYING, "IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NO TRICK AT ALL FOR A MAN WHO WAS
REASONABLY CONFORMING TO GET INTO THE SERVICE." 

HOWEVER, THE WITNESS KNEW "NOTHING WHATEVER EXCEPT HIS GETTING
MARRIED" ABOUT PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES BETWEEN 1925 AND 1930, AND WHAT
HE KNEW OF THEM BETWEEN 1922 AND 1925 WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON O'NEILL'S
TESTIMONY AND A PAPER NOT OF RECORD HERE.  FN7  DR. WILDER AT FIRST
REGARDED KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING WHAT PETITIONER WAS DOING BETWEEN 1925
AND 1930 AS NOT ESSENTIAL.  "WE HAVE A CONTINUING DISEASE, QUITE
OBVIOUSLY BEGINNING DURING HIS MILITARY SERVICE, AND QUITE OBVIOUSLY
CONTINUING IN 1930, AND THE MINOR INCIDENTS DON'T SEEM TO ME----"
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT INTERRUPTED TO INQUIRE, "WELL, IF HE WAS
CONTINUOUSLY EMPLOYED FOR EIGHT HOURS A DAY FROM 1925 TO 1930 WOULD
THAT HAVE ANY BEARING?"  THE WITNESS REPLIED, "IT WOULD HAVE A GREAT
DEAL."  UPON FURTHER QUESTIONING, HOWEVER, HE REVERTED TO HIS FIRST
POSITION, STATING IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY OR HELPFUL FOR HIM TO KNOW
WHAT PETITIONER WAS DOING FROM 1925 TO 1930:  "I TESTIFIED FROM THE
INFORMATION I HAD." 

                                 II. 

THIS, WE THINK, IS THE CRUX OF THE CASE AND DISTINGUISHES IT FROM THE
CASES ON WHICH PETITIONER HAS RELIED.  FN8  HIS BURDEN WAS TO PROVE
TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY AS OF A DATE NOT LATER THAN MAY 31,
1919.  HE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO DO THIS BY SHOWING INCIPIENCE OF MENTAL
DISABILITY SHORTLY BEFORE THAT TIME AND ITS CONTINUANCE AND PROGRESSION
THROUGHOUT THE SUCCEEDING YEARS.  HE HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED INCIDENCE
OF TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY AS OF SOME PERIOD PRIOR TO 1938, WHEN
HE BEGAN THIS SUIT.  FN9  FOR OUR PURPOSES THIS MAY BE TAKEN AS
MEDICALLY ESTABLISHED BY THE VETERANS' BUREAU EXAMINATION AND DIAGNOSIS
OF JULY, 1934.  FN10 

BUT IF THE RECORD IS TAKEN TO SHOW THAT SOME FORM OF MENTAL DISABILITY
EXISTED IN 1930, WHICH LATER BECAME TOTAL AND PERMANENT, PETITIONER'S
PROBLEM REMAINS TO DEMONSTRATE BY MORE THAN SPECULATIVE INFERENCE THAT
THIS CONDITION ITSELF BEGAN ON OR BEFORE MAY 31, 1919, AND CONTINUOUSLY
EXISTED OR PROGRESSED THROUGH THE INTERVENING YEARS TO 1930. 

TO SHOW ORIGIN BEFORE THE CRUCIAL DATE, HE GIVES EVIDENCE OF TWO
ABNORMAL INCIDENTS OCCURRING WHILE HE WAS IN FRANCE, ONE CREATING THE
DISTURBANCE BEFORE HE CAME NEAR THE FIGHTING FRONT, THE OTHER YELLING
THAT THE GERMANS WERE COMING WHEN HE WAS ON GUARD DUTY AT THE MARNE. 
THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR DURING HIS ENTIRE
SERVICE OF MORE THAN A YEAR ABROAD. 

THAT HE WAS COURT-MARTIALED FOR THESE SPORADIC ACTS AND BOUND AND
GAGGED FOR ONE DOES NOT PROVE HE WAS INSANE OR HAD THEN A GENERAL
BREAKDOWN IN "AN ALREADY FRAGILE MENTAL CONSTITUTION," WHICH THE
VICISSITUDES OF A LONGSHOREMAN'S LIFE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO CRACK. 

TO THESE TWO INCIDENTS PETITIONER ADDS THE TESTIMONY OF O'NEILL THAT
HE LOOKED AND ACTED LIKE A WRECK, COMPARED WITH HIS FORMER SELF, WHEN
HE RETURNED FROM FRANCE ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THE CRUCIAL DATE, AND
O'NEILL'S VAGUE RECOLLECTIONS THAT THIS CONDITION CONTINUED THROUGH THE
NEXT TWO, THREE, FOUR, OR FIVE YEARS. 

O'NEILL'S TESTIMONY APPARENTLY TAKES NO ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER'S
HAVING SPENT 101 DAYS IN A HOSPITAL IN FRANCE WITH INFLUENZA JUST
BEFORE HE CAME HOME.  BUT, GIVEN THE UTMOST CREDENCE, AS IS REQUIRED,
IT DOES NO MORE THAN SHOW THAT PETITIONER WAS SUBJECT TO ALTERNATING
PERIODS OF GAIETY AND DEPRESSION FOR SOME INDEFINITE PERIOD AFTER HIS
RETURN, EXTENDING PERHAPS AS LATE AS 1922.  BUT BECAUSE OF ITS
VAGUENESS AS TO TIME, DATES, FREQUENCY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR OBSERVATION,
AND SPECIFIC INCIDENT, O'NEILL'S TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE PERIOD FROM
1922 TO 1925 IS HARDLY MORE THAN SPECULATIVE. 

WE HAVE THEN THE TWO INCIDENTS IN FRANCE, FOLLOWED BY O'NEILL'S
TESTIMONY OF PETITIONER'S CHANGED CONDITION IN 1919 AND ITS CONTINUANCE
TO 1922.  FN11  THERE IS ALSO THE TESTIMONY OF COMMANDER PLATT AND LT.
COL. JAMES E. MATTHEWS AS TO HIS SERVICE IN THE NAVY AND THE ARMY,
RESPECTIVELY, DURING 1920-1922.  NEITHER THOUGHT PETITIONER WAS INSANE
OR THAT HIS CONDUCT INDICATED INSANITY.  THEN FOLLOWS A CHASM OF EIGHT
YEARS.  THE ONLY EVIDENCE  FN12  WE HAVE CONCERNING THIS PERIOD IS THE
FACT THAT PETITIONER MARRIED HIS PRESENT GUARDIAN AT SOME TIME WITHIN
IT, AN ACT FROM WHICH IN THE LEGAL SENSE NO INFERENCE OF INSANITY CAN
BE DRAWN. 

THIS PERIOD WAS EIGHT YEARS OF CONTINUOUS INSANITY, ACCORDING TO THE
INFERENCE PETITIONER WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE DRAWN.  IF SO, HE SHOULD
HAVE NO NEED OF INFERENCE.  INSANITY SO LONG AND CONTINUOUSLY SUSTAINED
DOES NOT HIDE ITSELF FROM THE EYES AND EARS OF WITNESSES.  FN13  THE
ASSIDUITY WHICH PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE OF TWO "CRAZY" INCIDENTS DURING A
YEAR AND A HALF IN FRANCE SHOULD PRODUCE ONE DURING EIGHT YEARS OR, FOR
THAT MATTER, FIVE YEARS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

INFERENCE IS CAPABLE OF BRIDGING MANY GAPS.  BUT NOT, IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, ONE SO WIDE AND DEEP AS THIS.  KNOWLEDGE OF PETITIONER'S
ACTIVITIES AND BEHAVIOR FROM 1922 OR 1925 TO 1930 WAS PECULIARLY WITHIN
HIS KEN AND THAT OF HIS WIFE, WHO HAS LITIGATED THIS CAUSE IN HIS AND
PRESUMABLY, THOUGH INDIRECTLY, IN HER OWN BEHALF.  HIS WAS THE BURDEN
TO SHOW CONTINUOUS DISABILITY.  WHAT HE DID IN THIS TIME, OR DID NOT
DO, WAS VITAL TO HIS CASE.  APART FROM THE MERE FACT OF HIS MARRIAGE,
THE RECORD IS BLANK FOR FIVE YEARS AND ALMOST BLANK FOR EIGHT.  FOR ALL
THAT APPEARS, HE MAY HAVE WORKED FULL TIME AND CONTINUOUSLY FOR FIVE
AND PERHAPS FOR EIGHT, WITH ONLY A POSSIBLE SINGLE INTERRUPTION.  FN14 

NO FAVORABLE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE OMISSION.  IT WAS NOT
ONE OF OVERSIGHT OR INABILITY TO SECURE PROOF.  THAT IS SHOWN BY THE
THOROUGHNESS WITH WHICH THE RECORD WAS PREPARED FOR ALL OTHER PERIODS,
BEFORE AND AFTER THIS ONE, AND BY THE FACT PETITIONER'S WIFE, THOUGH
SHE MARRIED HIM DURING THE PERIOD AND WAS AVAILABLE, DID NOT TESTIFY. 
THE ONLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION IS THAT PETITIONER, OR THOSE WHO ACTED
FOR HIM, DELIBERATELY CHOSE, FOR REASONS NO DOUBT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT
(AND WHICH WE DO NOT CRITICIZE, SINCE SUCH MATTERS, INCLUDING TACTICAL
ONES, ARE FOR THE JUDGMENT OF COUNSEL), TO PRESENT NO EVIDENCE OR
PERHAPS TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE READILY AVAILABLE CONCERNING THIS LONG
INTERVAL, AND TO TRUST TO THE GENIUS OF EXPERT MEDICAL INFERENCE AND
JUDICIAL LAXITY TO BRIDGE THIS CANYON. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXHIBITED, THE FORMER IS NOT EQUAL TO THE FEAT,
AND THE LATTER WILL NOT PERMIT IT.  NO CASE HAS BEEN CITED AND NONE HAS
BEEN FOUND IN WHICH INFERENCE, HOWEVER EXPERT, HAS BEEN PERMITTED TO
MAKE SO BROAD A LEAP AND TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE WHICH, ACCORDING TO
ALL REASON, MUST HAVE BEEN AT HAND.  FN15  TO ALLOW THIS WOULD PERMIT
THE SUBSTITUTION OF INFERENCE, TENUOUS AT BEST, NOT MERELY FOR EVIDENCE
ABSENT BECAUSE IMPOSSIBLE OR DIFFICULT TO SECURE, BUT FOR EVIDENCE
DISCLOSED TO BE AVAILABLE AND NOT PRODUCED.  THIS WOULD SUBSTITUTE
SPECULATION FOR PROOF.  FURTHERMORE, THE INFERENCE WOULD BE MORE
PLAUSIBLE PERHAPS IF THE EVIDENCE OF INSANITY AS OF MAY, 1919, WERE
STRONGER THAN IT IS, SUCH FOR INSTANCE AS CHAPLAIN MATHEWS' TESTIMONY
WOULD HAVE FURNISHED IF IT COULD BE TAKEN AS APPLYING TO PETITIONER. 
BUT, ON THIS RECORD, THE EVIDENCE OF INSANITY AS OF THAT TIME IS THIN
AT BEST, IF IT CAN BE REGARDED AS AT ALL MORE THAN SPECULATIVE.  FN16 

BEYOND THIS, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW TOTALITY OR PERMANENCE.  THESE
COME ONLY BY WHAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RIGHTLY CHARACTERIZED AS
"LONG-RANGE RETROACTIVE DIAGNOSIS."  THAT MIGHT SUFFICE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS CRUCIAL INFERENCE WAS A MATTER OF OPINION, IF
THERE WERE FACTUAL EVIDENCE OVER WHICH THE MEDICAL EYE COULD TRAVEL AND
FIND CONTINUITY THROUGH THE INTERVENING YEARS.  CF. HALLIDAY V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  BUT EIGHT YEARS ARE TOO MANY TO PERMIT IT TO SKIP, WHEN
THE BRIDGEHEADS (IF THE FIGURE MAY BE CHANGED) AT EACH END ARE NO
STRONGER THAN THEY ARE HERE, AND WHEN THE SEER FIRST DENIES, THEN
ADMITS, THEN DENIES AGAIN, THAT WHAT TOOK PLACE IN THIS TIME WOULD MAKE
"A GREAT DEAL" OF DIFFERENCE IN WHAT HE SAW.  EXPERT MEDICAL INFERENCE
RIGHTLY CAN DO MUCH.  BUT WE THINK THE FEAT ATTEMPTED HERE TOO LARGE
FOR ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT PETITIONER'S ENLISTMENTS AND
SERVICE IN THE NAVY AND ARMY IN 1920-1922 WERE IN THEMSELVES "SUCH
PHYSICAL FACTS AS REFUTE ANY REASONABLE INFERENCES WHICH MAY BE DRAWN
FROM THE EVIDENCE HERE PRESENTED BY HIM THAT HE WAS TOTALLY AND
PERMANENTLY DISABLED DURING THE LIFE OF HIS POLICY."  130 F.2D 471; CF.
ATKINS V. UNITED STATES, 63 APP. D.C. 164, 70 F.2D 768, 771; UNITED
STATES V. LE DUC, 48 F.2D 789, 793(C.C.A.).  THE OPINION ALSO
SUMMARIZES AND APPARENTLY TAKES ACCOUNT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON
BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT.  130 F.2D 469, 470.  IN VIEW OF THE GROUND
UPON WHICH WE HAVE PLACED THE DECISION, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THESE
MATTERS. 

                        III. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID DISPOSES OF THE CASE AS THE PARTIES HAVE MADE IT.
FOR THAT REASON PERHAPS NOTHING MORE NEED BE SAID.  BUT OBJECTION HAS
BEEN ADVANCED THAT, IN SOME MANNER NOT WHOLLY CLEAR, THE DIRECTED
VERDICT PRACTICE OFFENDS THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT. 

IT MAY BE NOTED, FIRST, THAT THE AMENDMENT HAS NO APPLICATION OF ITS
OWN FORCE TO THIS CASE.  THE SUIT IS ONE TO ENFORCE A MONETARY CLAIM
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  IT HARDLY CAN BE MAINTAINED THAT UNDER THE
COMMON LAW IN 1791 JURY TRIAL WAS A MATTER OF RIGHT FOR PERSONS
ASSERTING CLAIMS AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN.  FN17  WHATEVER FORCE THE
AMENDMENT HAS THEREFORE IS DERIVED BECAUSE CONGRESS, IN THE LEGISLATION
CITED,  FN18  HAS MADE IT APPLICABLE.  EVEN SO, THE OBJECTION MADE ON
THE SCORE OF ITS REQUIREMENTS IS UNTENABLE. 

IF THE INTENTION IS TO CLAIM GENERALLY THAT THE AMENDMENT DEPRIVES
THE FEDERAL COURTS OF POWER TO DIRECT A VERDICT FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE, THE SHORT ANSWER IS THE CONTENTION HAS BEEN FORECLOSED BY
REPEATED DECISIONS MADE HERE CONSISTENTLY FOR NEARLY A CENTURY.  FN19
MORE RECENTLY THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN APPROVED EXPLICITLY IN THE
PROMULGATION OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  CF. RULE 50;
BERRY V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 450.  THE OBJECTION THEREFORE COMES
TOO LATE. 

FURTHERMORE, THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY IS NOT CONVINCING.  IT IS NOT
THAT "THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW" IN 1791 DEPRIVED TRIAL COURTS OF
POWER TO WITHDRAW CASES FROM THE JURY, BECAUSE NOT MADE OUT, OR
APPELLATE COURTS OF POWER TO REVIEW SUCH DETERMINATIONS.  THE JURY WAS
NOT ABSOLUTE MASTER OF FACT IN 1791.  THEN AS NOW COURTS EXCLUDED
EVIDENCE FOR IRRELEVANCY AND RELEVANT PROOF FOR OTHER REASONS N20.  THE
ARGUMENT CONCEDES THEY WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE, NOT ONLY PIECEMEAL BUT IN
TOTO FOR SUBMISSION TO THE JURY, BY AT LEAST TWO PROCEDURES, THE
DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE AND THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THE OBJECTION
IS NOT THEREFORE TO THE BASIC THING,  FN21  WHICH IS THE POWER OF THE
COURT TO WITHHOLD CASES FROM THE JURY OR SET ASIDE THE VERDICT FOR
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.  IT IS RATHER TO INCIDENTAL OR
COLLATERAL EFFECTS, NAMELY, THAT THE DIRECTED VERDICT AS NOW
ADMINISTERED DIFFERS FROM BOTH THOSE PROCEDURES BECAUSE, ON THE ONE
HAND, ALLEGEDLY HIGHER STANDARDS OF PROOF ARE REQUIRED AND, ON THE
OTHER, DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW AS TO FURTHER MAINTENANCE OF THE
LITIGATION.  APART FROM THE STANDARDS OF PROOF, THE ARGUMENT APPEARS TO
URGE THAT IN 1791, A LITIGANT COULD CHALLENGE HIS OPPONENT'S EVIDENCE,
EITHER BY THE DEMURRER, WHICH WHEN DETERMINED ENDED THE LITIGATION, OR
BY MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WHICH, IF SUCCESSFUL, GAVE THE ADVERSARY
ANOTHER CHANCE TO PROVE HIS CASE; AND THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT EXCLUDED
ANY CHALLENGE TO WHICH ONE OR THE OTHER OF THESE CONSEQUENCES DOES NOT
ATTACH.    THE AMENDMENT DID NOT BIND THE FEDERAL COURTS TO THE EXACT
PROCEDURAL INCIDENTS OR DETAILS OF JURY TRIAL ACCORDING TO THE COMMON
LAW IN 1791, ANY MORE THAN IT TIED THEM TO THE COMMON-LAW SYSTEM OF
PLEADING OR THE SPECIFIC RULES OF EVIDENCE THEN PREVAILING.  FN22  NOR
WERE "THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW" THEN PREVALENT, INCLUDING THOSE
RELATING TO THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE JUDGE REGULATED THE JURY'S ROLE
ON QUESTIONS OF FACT, CRYSTALLIZED IN A FIXED AND IMMUTABLE SYSTEM.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THEY WERE CONSTANTLY CHANGING AND DEVELOPING DURING THE
LATE EIGHTEENTH AND EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURIES.  FN23  IN 1791 THIS
PROCESS ALREADY HAD RESULTED IN WIDELY DIVERGENT COMMON-LAW RULES ON
PROCEDURAL MATTERS AMONG THE STATES, AND BETWEEN THEM AND ENGLAND. 
FN24  AND NONE OF THE CONTEMPORANEOUS RULES REGARDING JUDICIAL CONTROL
OF THE EVIDENCE GOING TO JURIES OR ITS SUFFICIENCY TO SUPPORT A VERDICT
HAD REACHED ANY PRECISE, MUCH LESS FINAL, FORM.  FN25  IN ADDITION, THE
PASSAGE OF TIME HAS OBSCURED MUCH OF THE PROCEDURE WHICH THEN MAY HAVE
HAD MORE OR LESS DEFINITE FORM, EVEN FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES.  FN26 

THIS DIFFICULTY, NO DOUBT, ACCOUNTS FOR THE AMORPHOUS CHARACTER OF
THE OBJECTION NOW ADVANCED, WHICH INSISTS, NOT THAT ANY SINGLE ONE OF
THE FEATURES CRITICIZED, BUT THAT THE CUMULATIVE TOTAL OR THE
ALTERNATIVE EFFECT OF ALL, WAS EMBODIED IN THE AMENDMENT.  THE MORE
LOGICAL CONCLUSION, WE THINK, AND THE ONE WHICH BOTH HISTORY AND THE
PREVIOUS DECISIONS HERE SUPPORT, IS THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO
PRESERVE THE BASIC INSTITUTION OF JURY TRIAL IN ONLY ITS MOST
FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS, NOT THE GREAT MASS OF PROCEDURAL FORMS AND
DETAILS, VARYING EVEN THEN SO WIDELY AMONG COMMON-LAW JURISDICTIONS. 
FN27 

APART FROM THE UNCERTAINTY AND THE VARIETY OF CONCLUSION WHICH
FOLLOWS FROM AN EFFORT AT PURELY HISTORICAL ACCURACY, THE CONSEQUENCES
FLOWING FROM THE VIEW ASSERTED ARE SUFFICIENT TO REFUTE IT. IT MAY BE
DOUBTED THAT THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES CHALLENGE TO AN OPPONENT'S CASE TO
BE MADE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE MERITS OF ONE'S OWN AND AT THE PRICE
OF ALL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT CONSIDERED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS
EQUAL ROOM FOR DISBELIEVING IT COMPELS ENDLESS REPETITION OF LITIGATION
AND UNLIMITED CHANCE, BY EDUCATION GAINED AT THE OPPOSING PARTY'S
EXPENSE, FOR PERFECTING A CASE AT OTHER TRIALS.  THE ESSENTIAL
INCONSISTENCY OF THESE ALTERNATIVES WOULD SEEM SUFFICIENT TO REFUTE
THAT EITHER OR BOTH, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS, RECEIVED
CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTITY BY THE AMENDMENT'S FORCE.  THE FIRST
ALTERNATIVE, DRAWN FROM THE DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE, ATTRIBUTES TO THE
AMENDMENT THE EFFECT OF FORCING ONE ADMISSION BECAUSE ANOTHER AND AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ONE IS MADE,  FN28  AND THEREBY COMPELS CONCLUSION
OF THE LITIGATION ONCE AND FOR ALL.  THE TRUE EFFECT OF IMPOSING SUCH A
RISK WOULD NOT BE TO GUARANTEE THE PLAINTIFF A JURY TRIAL.  IT WOULD BE
RATHER TO DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT (OR THE PLAINTIFF IF HE WERE THE
CHALLENGER) OF THAT RIGHT; OR, IF NOT THAT, THEN OF THE RIGHT TO
CHALLENGE THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE OPPOSING CASE.  THE AMENDMENT
WAS NOT FRAMED OR ADOPTED TO DEPRIVE EITHER PARTY OF EITHER RIGHT.  IT
IS IMPARTIAL IN ITS GUARANTY OF BOTH.  TO POSIT ASSERTION OF ONE UPON
SACRIFICE OF THE OTHER WOULD DILUTE AND DISTORT THE FULL PROTECTION
INTENDED.  THE ADMITTED VALIDITY OF THE PRACTICE ON THE MOTION FOR A
NEW TRIAL GOES FAR TO DEMONSTRATE THIS.  FN29  IT NEGATIVES ANY IDEA
THAT THE CHALLENGE MUST BE MADE AT SUCH A RISK AS THE DEMURRER
IMPOSED.  AS FOR THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE, IT IS NOT URGED THAT THE
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES ANOTHER TRIAL WHENEVER CHALLENGE TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE IS SUSTAINED.  CF. BERRY V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.  THAT ARGUMENT, IN TURN, IS PRECLUDED BY THE PRACTICE ON
DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE. 

EACH OF THE CLASSICAL MODES OF CHALLENGE, THEREFORE, DISPROVES THE
NOTION THAT THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE OF THE OTHER, FOR EFFECT UPON
CONTINUING THE LITIGATION, BECAME A PART OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT'S
GUARANTY TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS.  THAT GUARANTY DID NOT
INCORPORATE CONFLICTING CONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES, THAT CHALLENGE TO AN
OPPOSING CASE MUST BE MADE WITH THE EFFECT OF TERMINATING THE
LITIGATION FINALLY AND, AT THE SAME TIME, WITH THE OPPOSITE EFFECT OF
REQUIRING ANOTHER TRIAL.  ALTERNATIVES SO CONTRADICTORY GIVE ROOM, NOT
FOR THE INFERENCE THAT ONE OR THE OTHER IS REQUIRED, BUT RATHER FOR THE
VIEW THAT NEITHER IS ESSENTIAL.  FN30 

FINALLY, THE OBJECTION APPEARS TO BE DIRECTED GENERALLY AT THE
STANDARDS OF PROOF JUDGES HAVE REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE TO
THE JURY.  BUT STANDARDS, CONTRARY TO THE OBJECTION'S ASSUMPTION,
CANNOT BE FRAMED WHOLESALE FOR THE GREAT VARIETY OF SITUATIONS IN
RESPECT TO WHICH THE QUESTION ARISES.  FN31  NOR IS THE MATTER GREATLY
AIDED BY SUBSTITUTING ONE GENERAL FORMULA FOR ANOTHER.  IT HARDLY
AFFORDS HELP TO INSIST UPON "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" RATHER THAN "SOME
EVIDENCE" OR "ANY EVIDENCE," OR VICE VERSA.  THE MATTER IS ESSENTIALLY
ONE TO BE WORKED OUT IN PARTICULAR SITUATIONS AND FOR PARTICULAR TYPES
OF CASES.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE GENERAL FORMULATION, THE ESSENTIAL
REQUIREMENT IS THAT MERE SPECULATION BE NOT ALLOWED TO DO DUTY FOR
PROBATIVE FACTS, AFTER MAKING DUE ALLOWANCE FOR ALL REASONABLY POSSIBLE
INFERENCES FAVORING THE PARTY WHOSE CASE IS ATTACKED.  THE MERE
DIFFERENCE IN LABELS USED TO DESCRIBE THIS STANDARD, WHETHER IT IS
APPLIED UNDER THE DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE  FN32  OR ON MOTION FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT, CANNOT AMOUNT TO A DEPARTURE FROM "THE RULES OF THE
COMMON LAW" WHICH THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES TO BE FOLLOWED.  FN33 IF THERE
IS ABUSE IN THIS RESPECT, THE OBVIOUS REMEDY IS BY CORRECTION ON
APPELLATE REVIEW. 

JUDGED BY THIS REQUIREMENT, OR BY ANY STANDARD OTHER THAN SHEER
SPECULATION, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT ONE WHOSE BURDEN, BY THE
NATURE OF HIS CLAIM, IS TO SHOW CONTINUING AND TOTAL DISABILITY FOR
NEARLY TWENTY YEARS SUPPLIES THE ESSENTIAL PROOF OF CONTINUITY WHEN HE
WHOLLY OMITS TO SHOW HIS WHEREABOUTS, ACTIVITIES OR CONDITION FOR FIVE
YEARS, ALTHOUGH THE RECORD DISCLOSES EVIDENCE MUST HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE,
AND, FURTHER, THROWS NO LIGHT UPON THREE ADDITIONAL YEARS, EXCEPT FOR
ONE VAGUELY DESCRIBED AND DATED VISIT TO HIS FORMER HOME.  NOTHING IN
THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO JOIN FORCES WITH
THE JURY SYSTEM TO BRING ABOUT SUCH A RESULT.  THAT GUARANTY REQUIRES
THAT THE JURY BE ALLOWED TO MAKE REASONABLE INFERENCES FROM FACTS
PROVEN IN EVIDENCE HAVING A REASONABLE TENDENCY TO SUSTAIN THEM.  IT
PERMITS EXPERT OPINION TO HAVE THE FORCE OF FACT WHEN BASED ON FACTS
WHICH SUSTAIN IT.  BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT EXPERTS OR THE JURY BE
PERMITTED TO MAKE INFERENCES FROM THE WITHHOLDING OF CRUCIAL FACTS,
FAVORABLE IN THEIR EFFECTS TO THE PARTY WHO HAS THE EVIDENCE OF THEM IN
HIS PECULIAR KNOWLEDGE AND POSSESSION, BUT ELECTS TO KEEP IT SO.  THE
WORDS "TOTAL AND PERMANENT" ARE THE STATUTE'S, NOT OUR OWN.  THEY MEAN
SOMETHING MORE THAN INCIPIENT OR OCCASIONAL DISABILITY.  WE HARDLY NEED
ADD THAT WE GIVE FULL CREDENCE TO ALL OF THE TESTIMONY.  BUT THAT
CANNOT CURE ITS INHERENT VAGUENESS OR SUPPLY ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OMITTED
OR WITHHELD. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CONTRACT WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT
AND INSURED AGAINST DEATH OR TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY.  (ACT OF OCT.
6, 1917, C. 105, SEC. 400, 40 STAT. 398, 409.)  PURSUANT TO STATUTORY
AUTHORITY (ACT OF MAY 20, 1918, C. 77, SEC. 13, 40 STAT. 555), T.D. 20
W.R., PROMULGATED MARCH 9, 1918, PROVIDED: 

"ANY IMPAIRMENT OF MIND OR BODY WHICH RENDERS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
DISABLED PERSON TO FOLLOW CONTINUOUSLY ANY SUBSTANTIALLY GAINFUL
OCCUPATION SHALL BE DEEMED  ...  TO BE TOTAL DISABILITY. 

"TOTAL DISABILITY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE PERMANENT WHENEVER IT IS
FOUNDED UPON CONDITIONS WHICH RENDER IT REASONABLY CERTAIN THAT IT WILL
CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PERSON SUFFERING FROM IT.  ...  "
(REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURE, U.S. VETERANS BUREAU, PART I, P. 9.) 

FN2  SEE, HOWEVER, PART III, INFRA. 

FN3  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER THIS EMPLOYMENT WAS STEADY AND
CONTINUOUS OR WAS SPOTTY AND ERRATIC.  BUT THERE IS NO CONTENTION
PETITIONER'S BEHAVIOR WAS ABNORMAL BEFORE HE ARRIVED IN FRANCE IN
APRIL, 1918. 

FN4  WELLS HEARD OF ANOTHER INCIDENT AT MONTHUREL IN JUNE, BUT HIS
TESTIMONY CONCERNING THIS WAS EXCLUDED AS HEARSAY. 

FN5  "X CAN YOU TELL US APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES YOU SAW HIM IN
1919? 

"A.  NO; I SEEN HIM SO OFTEN THAT IT WOULD BE HARD TO GIVE ANY
ESTIMATE. 

"X AND THE SAME GOES FOR 1920? 

"A.  I WOULDN'T BE SURE ABOUT 1920.  I REMEMBER HIM MORE WHEN HE
FIRST CAME HOME BECAUSE THERE WAS SUCH A VAST CONTRAST IN THE MAN. 
OTHERWISE, IF NOTHING UNUSUAL HAPPENED, I WOULDN'T PROBABLY RECALL HIM
AT ALL, YOU KNOW, THAT IS, RECALL THE PARTICULAR TIME AND ALL. 

"X WELL, DO YOU RECALL HIM AT ALL IN 1920? 

"A.  I CAN'T SAY. 

"X AND COULD YOU SWEAR WHETHER OR NOT YOU EVER SAW HIM IN 1921? 

"A.  I THINK I SEEN HIM BOTH IN 1921 AND 1920 AND 1921 AND RIGHT ON.
I MIGHT NOT SEE HIM FOR A FEW WEEKS OR MONTHS AT A TIME, BUT I THINK I
SAW HIM A FEW TIMES IN ALL THE YEARS RIGHT UP TO, AS I SAY, AT LEAST
FIVE YEARS AFTER. 

"X CAN YOU GIVE US AN ESTIMATE AS TO THE NUMBER OF TIMES YOU SAW HIM
IN 1920? 

"A.  NO, I WOULD NOT. 

"X WAS IT MORE THAN FIVE TIMES OR LESS? 

"A.  IN 1920 I COULDN'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS ONE OR A THOUSAND.  THE
TIME I RECALL HIM WELL IS WHEN HE FIRST COME HOME, BUT I KNOW THAT I
SEEN HIM RIGHT ON FROM THAT AT TIMES. 

"X AND THE SAME GOES FOR 1921, 1922, 1923 AND 1924? 

"A.  I WOULD SAY FOR FIVE YEARS AFTERWARDS, BUT I DON'T KNOW JUST
WHEN OR HOW OFTEN I SEEN HIM EXCEPT WHEN HE FIRST COME HOME FOR THE
FIRST COUPLE OF MONTHS. 

"X BUT FOR YEARS AFTER HIS RETURN YOU COULDN'T SAY DEFINITELY WHETHER
YOU SAW HIM FIVE TIMES OR MORE OR LESS, COULD YOU? 

"A.  NO, BECAUSE IT WAS A THING THAT THERE WAS A VAST CONTRAST WHEN
HE FIRST COME HOME AND EVERYBODY NOTICED IT AND REMARKED ABOUT IT AND
IT WAS MORE LIABLE TO BE REMEMBERED.  YOU COULD ASK ME ABOUT SOME MORE
FRIENDS I KNEW DURING THOSE YEARS AND I WOULDN'T KNOW EXCEPT THERE WAS
SOMETHING UNUSUAL." 

FN6  PETITIONER'S OWN EVIDENCE SHOWS WITHOUT DISPUTE HE WAS ON ACTIVE
DUTY IN THE NAVY FROM JANUARY 15, 1920, TO JULY OF THAT YEAR, AND IN
THE ARMY FROM DECEMBER, 1920, TO MAY 6, 1922.  AS IS NOTED IN THE TEXT,
O'NEILL WAS NOT SURE HE WAS WORKING AND "WAS SURPRISED HE GOT IN THE
NAVY, I THINK IN THE NAVY OR IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE."  HE ONLY
"HEARD SOME TALK" OF PETITIONER'S HAVING REENLISTED IN THE ARMY, BUT
"IF IT WAS THE FACT, I WOULD BE SURPRISED THAT HE COULD DO IT OWING TO
HIS MENTAL CONDITION."  O'NEILL WAS NOT CERTAIN THAT HE SAW GALLOWAY IN
UNIFORM AFTER THE FIRST WEEK OF HIS RETURN TO PHILADELPHIA FROM
OVERSEAS, ALTHOUGH HE SAID HE SAW PETITIONER DURING "THE PERIODS OF
THOSE REENLISTMENTS  ...  BUT I CAN'T RECALL ABOUT IT." 

FN7  IT IS TO BE NOTED THE WITNESS DID NOT REFER TO CHAPLAIN MATHEWS'
TESTIMONY. 

FN8  NONE OF THEM EXHIBITS A PERIOD OF COMPARABLE LENGTH AS TO WHICH
EVIDENCE IS WHOLLY LACKING AND UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PRECLUDE
INFERENCE THE OMISSION WAS UNINTENTIONAL. 

FN9  HE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A FIXED DATE AT WHICH CONTEMPORANEOUS
MEDICAL EXAMINATION, BOTH PHYSICAL AND MENTAL, ESTABLISHES TOTALITY AND
PERMANENCE PRIOR TO DR. WILDER'S EXAMINATIONS IN 1941. 

DR. WILDER TESTIFIED THAT ON THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING PETITIONER'S
BEHAVIOR AT THE TIME OF HIS DISCHARGE IN 1919, AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
THE TESTIMONY AS TO LATER CONDUCT, INCLUDING O'NEILL'S, HE WOULD
RESERVE HIS OPINION ON WHETHER PETITIONER WAS THEN "CRAZY" - "I
WOULDN'T HAVE ENOUGH - " 

FN10  THE PREVIOUS EXAMINATIONS OF 1930 AND 1931 SHOW POSSIBILITY OF
MENTAL DISEASE IN THE ONE CASE AND EXISTENCE OF PSYCHOSIS WITH OTHER
DISEASE, ORGANIC IN CHARACTER BUT WITH TYPE UNDETERMINED, IN THE
OTHER.  THESE TWO EXAMINATIONS WITHOUT MORE DO NOT PROVE EXISTENCE OF
TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY; ON THE CONTRARY, THEY GO FAR TOWARD
SHOWING IT COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED THEN MEDICALLY. 

THE 1930 DIAGNOSIS SHOWS ONLY THAT THE EXAMINER REGARDED PETITIONER
AS A MORON OF LOW GRADE, AND RECOMMENDED HE BE OBSERVED FOR SIMPLE
DEMENTIA PRAECOX.  DR. WILDER FOUND NO EVIDENCE IN 1941 THAT PETITIONER
WAS A MORON.  THE 1931 EXAMINATION IS EVEN LESS CONCLUSIVE IN ONE
RESPECT, NAMELY, THAT "PSYCHOSIS" TAKES THE PLACE OF MORONIC STATUS. 
DR. WILDER ALSO DISAGREED WITH THIS DIAGNOSIS.  HOWEVER, THIS
EXAMINATION FIRST INDICATES EXISTENCE OF ORGANIC NERVOUS DISEASE.  NOT
UNTIL THE 1934 DIAGNOSIS IS THERE ONE WHICH MIGHT BE REGARDED AS
SHOWING POSSIBLE TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BY MEDICAL EVIDENCE
CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE FACT. 

FN11  CHAPLAIN MATHEWS' TESTIMONY WOULD BE HIGHLY PROBATIVE OF
INSANITY EXISTING EARLY IN 1920, IF PETITIONER WERE SUFFICIENTLY
IDENTIFIED AS ITS SUBJECT.  HOWEVER, THE BARE INFERENCE OF IDENTITY
WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE DRAWN FROM THE MERE IDENTITY OF NAMES CANNOT
BE MADE REASONABLY, IN VIEW OF ITS OVERWHELMING CONTRADICTION BY OTHER
EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PETITIONER AND THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE RECORDS
FROM FORT MACARTHUR HOSPITAL OR THE ARMY OR FROM PERSONS WHO KNEW THE
FACT THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN THERE AT ANY TIME.  THE OMISSION
ELOQUENTLY TESTIFIES, IN A MANNER WHICH NO INFERENCE COULD OVERCOME,
THAT PETITIONER NEVER WAS THERE.  THE CHAPLAIN'S TESTIMONY THEREFORE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRICKEN, HAD THE CASE GONE TO THE JURY, AND
PETITIONER CAN DERIVE NO AID FROM IT HERE.    TANIKAWA, IT MAY BE
RECALLED, DID NOT PROFESS TO HAVE SEEN PETITIONER BETWEEN OCTOBER,
1918, AND 1936. 

FN12  APART FROM O'NEILL'S VAGUE RECOLLECTION OF PETITIONER'S RETURN
TO PHILADELPHIA ON ONE OCCASION. 

FN13  THE ONLY ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE ABSENCE OF TESTIMONY CONCERNING
THE PERIOD FROM 1922 TO 1930 IS MADE BY COUNSEL IN THE REPLY BRIEF:
"THE INSURED, IT WILL BE OBSERVED, WAS NEVER APPREHENDED AFTER HIS
DESERTION FROM THE ARMY IN 1922.  IT IS ONLY REASONABLE THAT A PERSON
WITH THE STATUS OF A DESERTER AT LARGE  ...  , WHOSE MIND WAS IN THE
CONDITION OF THAT OF THIS INSURED, WOULD ABSENT HIMSELF FROM THOSE WITH
WHOM HE WOULD USUALLY ASSOCIATE BECAUSE OF FEAR OF APPREHENSION AND
PUNISHMENT.  HIS MENTAL CONDITION  ...  AT THE TIME OF TRIAL  ...
CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE TESTIFIED.  ...  A LACK OF
TESTIMONY FROM 1922 TO 1930 IS THUS EXPLAINED, AND THE JURY COULD WELL
INFER THAT ONLY THE THEN (1941?)  ADMITTEDLY INSANE INSURED WAS IN A
POSITION TO KNOW WHERE HE WAS AND WHAT HE WAS DOING DURING THESE YEARS;
AS HE HAD LOST HIS MENTAL FACULTIES, THE REASON FOR LACK OF PROOF
DURING THESE YEARS IS APPARENT." 

THE "EXPLANATION" IS OBVIOUSLY UNTENABLE.  IT IGNORES THE ONE FACT
PROVED WITH RELATION TO THE PERIOD, THAT PETITIONER WAS MARRIED DURING
IT.  HIS WIFE WAS NOMINALLY A PARTY TO THE SUIT, AND OBVIOUSLY
AVAILABLE AS A WITNESS.  IT DISREGARDS THE FACT PETITIONER CONTINUED IN
THE STATUS OF DESERTER AFTER 1930, YET PRODUCED EVIDENCE RELATING TO
THE PERIOD FROM THAT TIME ON.  IT ASSUMES HE WAS INSANE DURING THE
EIGHT YEARS, YET SUCCEEDED DURING THAT LONG TIME IN ABSENTING HIMSELF
FROM PERSONS WHO COULD TESTIFY IN HIS FAVOR. 

FN14  CF. NOTE 12, SUPRA. 

FN15  COMPARE BISHOP V. COPP, 96 CONN. 571, 580, 114 A. 682; MURPHREE
V. SENN, 107 ALA. 424, 18 SO. 264; ALDRICH V. ALDRICH, 215 MASS. 164,
102 N.E. 487. 

FN16  CF. DR. WILDER'S ADMISSION, NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN17  NEITHER THE AMENDMENT'S TERMS NOR ITS HISTORY SUGGEST IT WAS
INTENDED TO EXTEND TO SUCH CLAIMS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS FUNCTIONED
FOR ALMOST A CENTURY WITHOUT AFFORDING JURY TRIAL IN CASES OF THIS SORT
AND WITHOUT OFFENDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMENDMENT.  MCELRATH V.
UNITED STATES, 102 U.S. 426; SEE RICHARDSON, HISTORY, JURISDICTION AND
PRACTICE OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS (2D ED. 1885).  CF. ALSO NOTE 18,
INFRA. 

FN18  43 STAT. 1302, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 445; SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1518, 68TH
CONG., 2D SESS., 2; PENCE V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 332, 334; WHITNEY
V. UNITED STATES, 8 F.2D 476(C.C.A.); HACKER V. UNITED STATES, 16 F.2D
702(C.C.A.). 

ALTHOUGH CONGRESS, IN FIRST PERMITTING SUITS ON WAR RISK INSURANCE
POLICIES, DID NOT EXPLICITLY MAKE THEM TRIABLE BY JURY, 40 STAT. 398,
410, THE STATUTE WAS CONSTRUED TO IMPORT "THE USUAL PROCEDURE ...  IN
ACTIONS AT LAW FOR MONEY COMPENSATION."  LAW V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S.
494, 496.  IN AMENDING THAT ACT, CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT, EXCEPT FOR
DIFFERENCES NOT RELEVANT HERE, THE "PROCEDURE IN SUCH SUITS SHALL  ...
BE THE SAME AS THAT PROVIDED FOR SUITS" UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, 43 STAT.
607, 613.  SUITS UNDER THE TUCKER ACT WERE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY (24
STAT. 505).  HOWEVER, WITHIN A YEAR (IN 1925) CONGRESS AMENDED THAT ACT
(43 STAT. 1302) WITH THE INTENTION TO "GIVE THE CLAIMANT THE RIGHT TO A
JURY TRIAL."  H.R. REP. NO. 1518, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., 2. 

FN19  SEE E.G., PARKS V. ROSS, 11 HOW.  362; IMPROVEMENT CO. V.
MUNSON, 14 WALL.  442; PLEASANTS V. FANT, 22 WALL.  116; COMMISSIONERS
OF MARION COUNTY V. CLARK, 94 U.S. 278; EWING V. GOODE, 78 F.
442(C.C.); CF. SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. WALTERS, 284 U.S. 190; GUNNING V.
COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90. 

FN20  COMPARE, E.G., 3 GILBERT, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE (1792) 1181-5;
REX V. PAINE, 5 MOD. 163; FOLKES V. CHADD, 3 DOUG.  157. 

FN21  CF. THOE V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO., 181 WIS. 456, 195
N.W. 407. 

FN22 EX PARTE PETERSON, 253 U.S. 300; GASOLINE PRODUCTS CO. V.
CHAMPLIN REFINING CO., 283 U.S. 494; WALKER V. NEW MEXICO & SOUTHERN
PACIFIC R. CO., 165 U.S. 593; CAPITAL TRACTION CO. V. HOF, 174 U.S. 1;
CF. STONE, J., DISSENTING IN DIMICK V. SCHIEDT, 293 U.S. 474, 490.  THE
RULES GOVERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE A REAL
IMPACT ON THE JURY'S FUNCTION AS A TRIER OF FACTS AND THE JUDGE'S POWER
TO IMPINGE ON THAT FUNCTION.  YET IT WOULD HARDLY BE MAINTAINED THAT
THE BROADER RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY NOW PREVALENT OFFEND THE SEVENTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF ITS ADOPTION EVIDENCE NOW ADMITTED
WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED.  CF. E.G., FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S.
371. 

FN23  E.G., DURING THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES, THE
NONSUIT WAS BEING TRANSFORMED IN PRACTICE FROM A DEVICE BY WHICH A
PLAINTIFF VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUED HIS ACTION IN ORDER TO TRY AGAIN
ANOTHER DAY INTO A PROCEDURE BY WHICH A DEFENDANT COULD PUT IN ISSUE
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE JURY,
DIFFERING FROM THE DIRECTED VERDICT IN THAT RESPECT ONLY IN FORM. 
COMPARE BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, BOOK III (COOLEY'S ED., 1899) 376;
JOHNSON, J., DISSENTING IN ELMORE V. GRYMES, 1 PET. 469(1828); OSCANYAN
V. WINCHESTER ARMS CO., 103 U.S. 261, 264; COUGHRAN V. BIGELOW, 164
U.S. 301; SEE THE HISTORICAL SURVEY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE OPINION OF
MCALLISTER, J., IN HOPKINS V. RAILROAD, 96 TENN. 409, 34 S.W. 1029. 
SEE GENERALLY 2 TIDD'S PRACTICE (4TH AMER.  ED., 1856) 861, 866-8.  THE
NONSUIT, OF COURSE, DIFFERED IN CONSEQUENCE FROM THE DIRECTED VERDICT,
FOR IT LEFT THE PLAINTIFF FREE TO TRY AGAIN.  OSCANYAN V. WINCHESTER
ARMS CO., SUPRA; TIDD'S PRACTICE, SUPRA. 

SIMILARLY THE DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE PRACTICE WAS NOT STATIC DURING
THIS PERIOD, AS A COMPARISON OF COCKSEDGE V. FANSHAW, 1 DOUG. 
118(1779), WITH GIBSON V. HUNTER, 2 H. BL. 187(1793), AND THE AMERICAN
PRACTICE ON THE DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE REVEALS (SEE, E.G., STEPHENS
V. WHITE, 2 WASH. 203(VA. 1796); PATRICK V. HALLETT, 1 JOHNS.  241(N.Y.
1806); WHITTINGTON V. CHRISTIAN, 2 RANDOLPH 353(VA. 1824).  SEE,
GENERALLY, SCHOFIELD, NEW TRIALS AND THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, 8 ILL. L.
REV. 287, 381, 465; THAYER, PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON EVIDENCE (1898) 234
9).  NOR WAS THE CONCEPTION OF DIRECTING A VERDICT ENTIRELY UNKNOWN TO
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COMMON LAW.  SEE, E.G., WILKINSON V. KITCHIN, 1
LD. RAYMOND 89(K.B.); SYDERBOTTOM V. SMITH, 1 STRANGE 649.  WHILE THERE
IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE NOTION AT THAT TIME EVEN APPROXIMATED
IN CHARACTER THE PRESENT DIRECTED VERDICT, THE CASES SERVE FURTHER TO
SHOW THE PLASTIC AND DEVELOPING CHARACTER OF THESE PROCEDURAL DEVICES
DURING THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES. 

FN24  SEE, E.G., QUINCY'S MASS. REPORTS, 553-72. 

FN25  SEE NOTE 23, SUPRA. 

FN26  SEE, E.G., SCHOFIELD, NEW TRIALS AND THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, 8
ILL. L. REV. 287, 381, 465. 

FN27  CF. NOTES 22 AND 23, SUPRA. 

FN28  BY CONCEDING THE FULL SCOPE OF AN OPPONENT'S EVIDENCE AND
ASSERTING ITS INSUFFICIENCY IN LAW, WHICH IS ONE THING, THE CHALLENGER
MUST BE TAKEN, PERFORCE THE AMENDMENT, ALSO TO ADMIT HE HAS NO CASE, IF
THE OTHER'S EVIDENCE IS FOUND LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, WHICH IS QUITE
ANOTHER THING.  IN EFFECT, ONE MUST STAKE HIS CASE, NOT UPON ITS OWN
MERIT ON THE FACTS, BUT ON THE CHANCE HE MAY BE RIGHT IN REGARDING HIS
OPPONENT AS WANTING IN PROBATIVE CONTENT.  IF HE TAKES THE GAMBLE AND
LOSES, HE PAYS WITH HIS OWN CASE, REGARDLESS OF ITS MERIT AND WITHOUT
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER IT.  TO FORCE THIS CHOICE AND YET
DENY THAT AFFORDED BY THE DIRECTED VERDICT WOULD BE TO IMBED IN THE
CONSTITUTION THE HYPERTECHNICALITY OF COMMON-LAW PLEADING AND PROCEDURE
IN THEIR HEYDAY.  CF. NOTE 22, SUPRA. 

FN29  UNDER THAT PRACTICE THE MOVING PARTY RECEIVES THE BENEFIT OF
JURY EVALUATION OF HIS OWN CASE AND OF CHALLENGE TO HIS OPPONENT'S FOR
INSUFFICIENCY.  IF HE LOSES ON THE CHALLENGE, THE LITIGATION IS ENDED. 
BUT THIS IS NOT BECAUSE, IN MAKING IT, HE IS FORCED TO ADMIT HIS OWN IS
INSUFFICIENT.  IT IS RATHER FOR THE REASONS THAT THE COURT FINDS THE
OPPOSITE PARTY'S EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT AND THE JURY HAS FOUND
IT OUTWEIGHS HIS OWN.  THERE IS THUS NO FORCED SURRENDER OF ONE RIGHT
FROM ASSERTION OF ANOTHER. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE CHALLENGER WINS, THERE IS ANOTHER TRIAL. 
BUT THIS IS BECAUSE HE HAS SOUGHT IT, NOT BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT
GUARANTEES IT. 

FN30  WE HAVE NOT GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO THE LATEST DECISIONS
TOUCHING THE AMENDMENT'S EFFECTS IN THE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS WHERE A
VERDICT HAS BEEN TAKEN, ON THE ONE HAND, WITHOUT RESERVATION OF THE
QUESTION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, SLOCUM V. NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO., 228 U.S. 364, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, WITH SUCH A
RESERVATION, BALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE V. REDMAN, 295 U.S. 654.  CF.
AETNA INS. CO. V. KENNEDY, 301 U.S. 389.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE EXACT
EFFECT OF THE LATTER AND, MORE RECENTLY, OF RULE 50 OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE UPON THE FORMER DECISION, IT SUFFICES TO SAY
THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SHARP DIVISION ENGENDERED IN THE SLOCUM CASE,
THERE WAS NO DISAGREEMENT IN IT OR IN THE REDMAN CASE CONCERNING THE
VALIDITY OF THE PRACTICE OF DIRECTING A VERDICT.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
OPINIONS MAKE IT PLAIN THAT THIS WAS UNQUESTIONED AND IN FACT CONCEDED
BY ALL. 

FN31  CF. 9 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (1940) 296-299. 

FN32  CF. E.G. FOWLE V. ALEXANDRIA, 11 WHEAT.  320, 323(1826), A
DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE ADMITS "WHATEVER THE JURY MAY REASONABLY INFER
FROM THE EVIDENCE."  PAWLING V. UNITED STATES, 4 CRANCH 219, 221
222(1808).  A DEMURRANT TO THE EVIDENCE ADMITS "THE TRUTH OF THE
TESTIMONY TO WHICH HE DEMURS AND ALSO THOSE CONCLUSIONS OF FACT WHICH A
JURY MAY FAIRLY DRAW FROM THAT TESTIMONY.  FORCED AND VIOLENT
INFERENCES HE DOES NOT ADMIT; BUT THE TESTIMONY IS TO BE TAKEN MOST
STRONGLY AGAINST HIM, AND SUCH CONCLUSIONS AS A JURY MIGHT JUSTIFIABLY
DRAW, THE COURT OUGHT TO DRAW."  COCKSEDGE V. FANSHAW, SUPRA; PATRICK
V. HALLETT, SUPRA; STEPHENS V. WHITE, SUPRA. 

FN33  CF. HUGHES, J., DISSENTING IN SLOCUM V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.,
228 U.S. 364, 408, AND CASES CITED SUPRA, NOTE 22. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING: 

THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES: 

"IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED
TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED, AND NO
FACT TRIED BY A JURY SHALL BE OTHERWISE RE-EXAMINED IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW." 

THE COURT HERE RE-EXAMINES TESTIMONY OFFERED IN A COMMON LAW SUIT,
WEIGHS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE, AND HOLDS THAT THE LITIGANT MAY NEVER TAKE
THIS CASE TO A JURY.  THE FOUNDERS OF OUR GOVERNMENT THOUGHT THAT TRIAL
OF FACT BY JURIES RATHER THAN BY JUDGES WAS AN ESSENTIAL BULWARK OF
CIVIL LIBERTY.  FN1  FOR THIS REASON, AMONG OTHERS, THEY ADOPTED
ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH
AMENDMENTS.  TODAY'S DECISION MARKS A CONTINUATION OF THE GRADUAL
PROCESS OF JUDICIAL EROSION WHICH IN ONE-HUNDRED-FIFTY YEARS HAS SLOWLY
WORN AWAY A MAJOR PORTION OF THE ESSENTIAL GUARANTEE OF THE SEVENTH
AMENDMENT. 

                  I. 

ALEXANDER HAMILTON IN THE FEDERALIST EMPHASIZED HIS LOYALTY TO THE
JURY SYSTEM IN CIVIL CASES AND DECLARED THAT JURY VERDICTS SHOULD BE RE
EXAMINED, IF AT ALL, ONLY "BY A SECOND JURY, EITHER BY REMANDING THE
CAUSE TO THE COURT BELOW FOR A SECOND TRIAL OF THE FACT, OR BY
DIRECTING AN ISSUE IMMEDIATELY OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT."  HE DIVIDED
THE CITIZENS OF HIS TIME BETWEEN THOSE WHO THOUGHT THAT JURY TRIAL WAS
A "VALUABLE SAFEGUARD TO LIBERTY" AND THOSE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS "THE
VERY PALLADIUM OF FREE GOVERNMENT."  HOWEVER, HE FELT IT UNNECESSARY TO
INCLUDE IN THE CONSTITUTION A SPECIFIC PROVISION PLACING JURY TRIAL IN
CIVIL CASES IN THE SAME HIGH POSITION AS JURY TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES. 
FN2 

HAMILTON'S VIEW, THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF JURY TRIAL IN
CIVIL CASES WAS UNDESIRABLE, DID NOT PREVAIL.  ON THE CONTRARY, IN
RESPONSE TO WIDESPREAD DEMANDS FROM THE VARIOUS STATE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTIONS, THE FIRST CONGRESS ADOPTED THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINING
THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH AMENDMENTS, INTENDED TO SAVE TRIAL IN BOTH
CRIMINAL AND COMMON LAW CASES FROM LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL ABRIDGMENT. 
FN3  THE FIRST CONGRESS EXPECTED THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO MEET THE
OBJECTIONS OF MEN LIKE PATRICK HENRY TO THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. 
HENRY, SPEAKING IN THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, HAD
EXPRESSED THE GENERAL CONVICTION OF THE PEOPLE OF THE THIRTEEN STATES
WHEN HE SAID, "TRIAL BY JURY IS THE BEST APPENDAGE OF FREEDOM.  ...  WE
ARE TOLD THAT WE ARE TO PART WITH THAT TRIAL BY JURY WITH WHICH OUR
ANCESTORS SECURED THEIR LIVES AND PROPERTY.  ...  I HOPE WE SHALL NEVER
BE INDUCED, BY SUCH ARGUMENTS, TO PART WITH THAT EXCELLENT MODE OF
TRIAL.  NO APPEAL CAN NOW BE MADE AS TO FACT IN COMMON LAW SUITS.  THE
UNANIMOUS VERDICT OF IMPARTIAL MEN CANNOT BE REVERSED."  FN4  THE FIRST
CONGRESS, THEREFORE, PROVIDED FOR TRIAL OF COMMON LAW CASES BY A JURY,
EVEN WHEN SUCH TRIALS WERE IN THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF.  1 STAT. 73,
81. 

IN 1789, JURIES OCCUPIED THE PRINCIPAL PLACE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  THEY WERE FREQUENTLY IN BOTH CRIMINAL  FN5  AND CIVIL CASES
THE ARBITERS NOT ONLY OF FACT BUT OF LAW.  LESS THAN THREE YEARS AFTER
THE RATIFICATION OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, THIS COURT CALLED A JURY IN
A CIVIL CASE BROUGHT UNDER OUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.  THERE WAS NO
DISAGREEMENT AS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE.  CHIEF JUSTICE JAY, CHARGING
THE JURY FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, THREE OF WHOSE MEMBERS HAD SAT IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, SAID:  "FOR AS, ON THE ONE HAND, IT IS
PRESUMED THAT JURIES ARE THE BEST JUDGES OF FACTS; IT IS, ON THE OTHER
HAND, PRESUMABLE THAT THE COURT ARE THE BEST JUDGES OF LAW.  BUT STILL,
BOTH OBJECTS ARE LAWFULLY WITHIN YOUR POWER OF DECISION."  GEORGIA V.
BRAILSFORD, 3 DALL.  1, 4.  SIMILAR VIEWS WERE HELD BY STATE COURTS IN
CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, ILLINOIS, LOUISIANA AND PRESUMABLY
ELSEWHERE.  FN6    THE PRINCIPAL METHOD BY WHICH JUDGES PREVENTED CASES
FROM GOING TO THE JURY IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES WAS
BY THE DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE, UNDER WHICH THE DEFENDANT AT THE END
OF THE TRIAL ADMITTED ALL FACTS SHOWN BY THE PLAINTIFF AS WELL AS ALL
INFERENCES WHICH MIGHT BE DRAWN FROM THE FACTS, AND ASKED FOR A RULING
OF THE COURT ON THE "LAW OF THE CASE."  FN7  SEE FOR EXAMPLE WRIGHT V.
PINDAR, (1647) ALEYN 18 AND PAWLING V. UNITED STATES, 4 CRANCH 219. 
THIS PRACTICE FELL INTO DISUSE IN ENGLAND IN 1793, GIBSON V. HUNTER, 2
H. BL. 187, AND IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURTS IN 1826, FOWLE V.
ALEXANDRIA, 11 WHEAT.  320.  THE POWER OF FEDERAL JUDGES TO COMMENT TO
THE JURY ON THE EVIDENCE GAVE THEM ADDITIONAL INFLUENCE.  M'LANAHAN V.
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CO., 1 PET. 170(1828).  THE RIGHT OF INVOLUNTARY
NON-SUIT OF A PLAINTIFF, WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED TO EXPAND JUDICIAL
POWER AT JURY EXPENSE WAS AT FIRST DENIED FEDERAL COURTS.  ELMORE V.
GRYMES, 1 PET. 469; DEWOLF V. RABAUD, 1 PET. 476; BUT CF. COUGHRAN V.
BIGELOW, 164 U.S. 301(1896). 

AS HAMILTON HAD DECLARED IN THE FEDERALIST, THE BASIC JUDICIAL
CONTROL OF THE JURY FUNCTION WAS IN THE COURT'S POWER TO ORDER A NEW
TRIAL.  FN8  IN 1830, THIS COURT SAID:  "THE ONLY MODES KNOWN TO THE
COMMON LAW TO RE-EXAMINE SUCH FACTS, ARE THE GRANTING OF A NEW TRIAL BY
THE COURT WHERE THE ISSUE WAS TRIED, OR TO WHICH THE RECORD WAS
PROPERLY RETURNABLE; OR THE AWARD OF A VENIRE FACIAS DE NOVO, BY AN
APPELLATE COURT, FOR SOME ERROR OF LAW WHICH INTERVENED IN THE
PROCEEDINGS."  PARSONS V. BEDFORD, SUPRA, AT 448.  FN9  THAT RETRIAL BY
A NEW JURY RATHER THAN FACTUAL REEVALUATION BY A COURT IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF GENUINE VALUE WAS RESTATED AS RECENTLY AS
SLOCUM V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., 228 U.S. 364.  FN10 

A LONG STEP TOWARD THE DETERMINATION OF FACT BY JUDGES INSTEAD OF BY
JURIES WAS THE INVENTION OF THE DIRECTED VERDICT.  FN11  IN 1850, WHAT
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE FIRST DIRECTED VERDICT CASE CONSIDERED BY THIS
COURT, PARKS V. ROSS, 11 HOW.  362, WAS PRESENTED FOR DECISION.  THE
COURT HELD THAT THE DIRECTED VERDICT SERVES THE SAME PURPOSE AS THE
DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE, AND THAT SINCE THERE WAS "NO EVIDENCE
WHATEVER"  FN12  ON THE CRITICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE, THE DIRECTED
VERDICT WAS APPROVED.  FN13  THE DECISION WAS AN INNOVATION, A
DEPARTURE FROM THE TRADITIONAL RULE RESTATED ONLY FIFTEEN YEARS BEFORE
IN GREENLEAF V. BIRTH, 9 PET. 292, 299(1835), IN WHICH THIS COURT HAD
SAID:  "WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE A PARTICULAR FACT,
THE COURT ARE BOUND SO TO INSTRUCT THE JURY, WHEN REQUESTED; BUT THEY
CANNOT LEGALLY GIVE ANY INSTRUCTION WHICH SHALL TAKE FROM THE JURY THE
RIGHT OF WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE AND DETERMINING WHAT EFFECT IT SHALL
HAVE." 

THIS NEW DEVICE CONTAINED POTENTIALITIES FOR JUDICIAL CONTROL OF THE
JURY WHICH HAD NOT EXISTED IN THE DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE.  IN THE
FIRST PLACE, DEMURRING TO THE EVIDENCE WAS RISKY BUSINESS, FOR IN SO
DOING THE PARTY NOT ONLY ADMITTED THE TRUTH OF ALL THE TESTIMONY
AGAINST HIM BUT ALSO ALL REASONABLE INFERENCES WHICH MIGHT BE DRAWN
FROM IT; AND UPON JOINDER IN DEMURRER THE CASE WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE
JURY WHILE THE COURT PROCEEDED TO GIVE FINAL JUDGMENT EITHER FOR OR
AGAINST THE DEMURRANT.  HOPKINS V. RAILROAD, 96 TENN. 409, 34 S.W.
1029; SUYDAM V. WILLIAMSON, 20 HOW.  427, 436; BASS V. RUBLEE, 76 VT.
395, 400, 57 A. 965.  IMPOSITION OF THIS RISK WAS NO MERE TECHNICALITY;
FOR BY MAKING WITHDRAWAL OF A CASE FROM THE JURY DANGEROUS TO THE
MOVING LITIGANT'S CAUSE, THE EARLY LAW WENT FAR TO ASSURE THAT FACTS
WOULD NEVER BE EXAMINED EXCEPT BY A JURY.  UNDER THE DIRECTED VERDICT
PRACTICE, THE MOVING PARTY TAKES NO SUCH CHANCE, FOR IF HIS MOTION IS
DENIED, INSTEAD OF SUFFERING A DIRECTED VERDICT AGAINST HIM, HIS CASE
MERELY CONTINUES INTO THE HANDS OF THE JURY.  THE LITIGANT NOT ONLY
TAKES NO RISK BY A MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT, BUT IN MAKING SUCH A
MOTION GIVES HIMSELF TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID THE JURY'S DECISION;
FOR UNDER THE FEDERAL VARIANT OF JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT,
THE JUDGE MAY RESERVE OPINION ON THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AND
THEN GIVE JUDGMENT FOR THE MOVING PARTY AFTER THE JURY HAS FORMALLY
FOUND AGAINST HIM.  FN14  IN THE SECOND PLACE, UNDER THE DIRECTED
VERDICT PRACTICE THE COURTS SOON ABANDONED THE "ADMISSION OF ALL FACTS
AND REASONABLE INFERENCES" STANDARD REFERRED TO, AND CREATED THE SO
CALLED "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" RULE WHICH PERMITTED DIRECTED VERDICTS
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS FAR MORE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE THAN A PLAINTIFF
WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO WITHSTAND A DEMURRER. 

THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE RULE DID NOT SPRING INTO EXISTENCE
IMMEDIATELY UPON THE ADOPTION OF THE DIRECTED VERDICT DEVICE.  FOR A
FEW MORE YEARS  FN15  FEDERAL JUDGES HELD TO THE TRADITIONAL RULE THAT
JURIES MIGHT PASS FINALLY ON FACTS IF THERE WAS "ANY EVIDENCE" TO
SUPPORT A PARTY'S CONTENTION.  THE RULE THAT A CASE MUST GO TO THE JURY
UNLESS THERE WAS "NO EVIDENCE" WAS COMPLETELY REPUDIATED IN IMPROVEMENT
CO. V. MUNSON, 14 WALL.  442, 447(1871), UPON WHICH THE COURT TODAY
RELIES IN PART.  THERE THE COURT DECLARED THAT "SOME" EVIDENCE WAS NOT
ENOUGH - THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENTLY PERSUASIVE TO THE JUDGE SO
THAT HE THINKS "A JURY CAN PROPERLY PROCEED."  THE TRADITIONAL RULE WAS
GIVEN AN UGLY NAME, "THE SCINTILLA RULE," TO HASTEN ITS DEMISE.  FOR A
TIME, TRACES OF THE OLD FORMULA REMAINED, AS IN RANDALL V. B. & O.R.
CO., 109 U.S. 478, BUT THE NEW SPIRIT PREVAILED.  SEE FOR EXAMPLE
PLEASANTS V. FANT, SUPRA, AND COMMISSIONERS V. CLARK, 94 U.S. 278.  THE
SAME TRANSITION FROM JURY SUPREMACY TO JURY SUBORDINATION THROUGH
JUDICIAL DECISIONS TOOK PLACE IN STATE COURTS.  FN16 

LATER CASES PERMITTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADDED JUDICIAL CONTROL. 
FN17  NEW AND TOTALLY UNWARRANTED FORMULAS, WHICH SHOULD SURELY BE
ERADICATED FROM THE LAW AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY, WERE ADDED AS
RECENTLY AS 1929 IN GUNNING V. COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90, WHICH, BY SHEEREST
DICTUM, MADE NEW ENCROACHMENTS ON THE JURY'S CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS. 
THERE IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT A JUDGE MIGHT WEIGH THE EVIDENCE TO
DETERMINE WHETHER HE, AND NOT THE JURY, THOUGHT IT WAS "OVERWHELMING"
FOR EITHER PARTY, AND THEN DIRECT A VERDICT.  CF. PENCE V. UNITED
STATES, 316 U.S. 332, 340.  GUNNING V. COOLEY, AT 94, ALSO SUGGESTS,
QUITE UNNECESSARILY FOR ITS DECISION, THAT "WHEN A PLAINTIFF PRODUCES
EVIDENCE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH AN HYPOTHESIS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS
NOT NEGLIGENT, AND ALSO WITH ONE THAT HE IS, HIS PROOF TENDS TO
ESTABLISH NEITHER."  THIS DICTUM, WHICH ASSUMES THAT A JUDGE CAN WEIGH
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WITH MATHEMATICAL PRECISION AND WHICH WHOLLY
DEPRIVES THE JURY OF THE RIGHT TO RESOLVE THAT CONFLICT, WAS APPLIED IN
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 288 U.S. 333.  WITH IT, AND OTHER
TOOLS, JURY VERDICTS ON DISPUTED FACTS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE OR DIRECTED
VERDICTS AUTHORIZED SO REGULARLY AS TO MAKE THE PRACTICE COMMONPLACE,
WHILE THE MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT ITSELF HAS BECOME ROUTINE.  SEE
FOR EXAMPLE SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. WALTERS, 284 U.S. 190; ATLANTIC
COAST LINE V. TEMPLE, 285 U.S. 143; LUMBRA V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S.
551; PENCE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; AND DE ZON V. UNITED STATES, 318
U.S. 660. 

EVEN GUNNING V. COOLEY, AT 94, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT "ISSUES THAT DEPEND
ON THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES  ...  ARE TO BE DECIDED BY THE JURY." 
FN18  TODAY THE COURT COMES DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO WEIGHING THE
CREDIBILITY OF A WITNESS AND REJECTING HIS TESTIMONY BECAUSE THE
MAJORITY DO NOT BELIEVE IT. 

THE STORY THUS BRIEFLY TOLD DEPICTS THE CONSTRICTION OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONTINUED.  SPEAKING OF AN
ASPECT OF THIS PROBLEM, A CONTEMPORARY WRITER SAW THE HEART OF THE
ISSUE:  "SUCH A REVERSAL OF OPINION (AS THAT OF A PARTICULAR STATE
COURT CONCERNING THE JURY FUNCTION), IF IT WERE ISOLATED, MIGHT HAVE
LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHEN MANY OTHER COURTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
ARE FOUND TO BE MAKING THE SAME SHIFT AND TO BE DOING SO DESPITE THE
PROVISIONS OF STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONS THERE IS REVEALED ONE ASPECT
OF THAT BASIC CONFLICT IN THE LEGAL HISTORY OF AMERICA - THE CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE PEOPLE'S ASPIRATION FOR DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT,  FN19  AND
THE JUDICIARY'S DESIRE FOR THE ORDERLY SUPERVISION OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS BY
JUDGES."  FN20 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT CANNOT EASILY BE IMPROVED BY
FORMULAS.  FN21  THE STATEMENT OF A DISTRICT JUDGE IN TARTER V. UNITED
STATES, 17 F.SUPP.  691, 692-693, REPRESENTS, IN MY OPINION, THE
MINIMUM MEANING OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT: 

"THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES A JURY TRIAL IN
LAW CASES, WHERE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF
THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION.  IF A SINGLE WITNESS TESTIFIES TO A FACT
SUSTAINING THE ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES, OR IF REASONING MINDS MIGHT
REACH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS, ONE
OF WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY SUPPORT THE ISSUE OF THE CONTENDING PARTY,
THE ISSUE MUST BE LEFT TO THE JURY.  TRIAL BY JURY IS A FUNDAMENTAL
GUARANTY OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, AND JUDGES SHOULD NOT SEARCH THE
EVIDENCE WITH METICULOUS CARE TO DEPRIVE LITIGANTS OF JURY TRIALS." 

THE CALL FOR THE TRUE APPLICATION OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT IS NOT TO
WORDS, BUT TO THE SPIRIT OF HONEST DESIRE TO SEE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT PRESERVED.  EITHER THE JUDGE OR THE JURY MUST DECIDE FACTS AND,
TO THE EXTENT THAT WE TAKE THIS RESPONSIBILITY, WE LESSEN THE JURY
FUNCTION.  OUR DUTY TO PRESERVE THIS ONE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS MAY BE
PECULIARLY DIFFICULT, FOR HERE IT IS OUR OWN POWER WHICH WE MUST
RESTRAIN.  WE SHOULD NOT FAIL TO MEET THE EXPECTATION OF JAMES MADISON,
WHO, IN ADVOCATING THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, SAID:
"INDEPENDENT TRIBUNALS OF JUSTICE WILL CONSIDER THEMSELVES IN A
PECULIAR MANNER THE GUARDIANS OF THOSE RIGHTS; ...  THEY WILL BE
NATURALLY LED TO RESIST EVERY ENCROACHMENT UPON RIGHTS EXPRESSLY
STIPULATED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION BY THE DECLARATION OF RIGHT."  SO
FEW OF THESE CASES COME TO THIS COURT THAT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE
JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURTS AND THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS ARE THE
PRIMARY CUSTODIANS OF THE AMENDMENT.  AS FOR MYSELF, I BELIEVE THAT A
VERDICT SHOULD BE DIRECTED, IF AT ALL, ONLY WHEN, WITHOUT WEIGHING THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES, THERE IS IN THE EVIDENCE NO ROOM WHATEVER
FOR HONEST DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OVER THE FACTUAL ISSUE IN
CONTROVERSY.  I SHALL CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT IN ALL OTHER CASES A
JUDGE SHOULD, IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMAND OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE JURY'S FUNCTION.  SINCE THIS IS A MATTER OF HIGH
CONSTITUTIONAL IMPORTANCE, APPELLATE COURTS SHOULD BE ALERT TO INSURE
THE PRESERVATION OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT EVEN THOUGH EACH CASE
NECESSARILY TURNS ON ITS PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES. 

II. 

THE FACTUAL ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION HERE IS WHETHER THE PETITIONER
INCURRED A TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY NOT LATER THAN MAY 31, 1919. 
IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE PETITIONER'S HEALTH WAS SOUND IN 1918, AND IT
IS EVIDENTLY CONCEDED THAT HE WAS DISABLED AT LEAST SINCE 1930.  WHEN,
IN THE INTERVENING PERIOD, DID THE DISABILITY TAKE PLACE? 

A DOCTOR WHO TESTIFIED DIAGNOSED THE PETITIONER'S CASE AS A
SCHIZOPHRENIC FORM OF DEMENTIA PRAECOX.  HE DECLARED IT TO BE SOUND
MEDICAL THEORY THAT WHILE A NORMAL MAN CAN RETAIN HIS SANITY IN THE
FACE OF SEVERE MENTAL OR PHYSICAL SHOCK, SOME PERSONS ARE BORN WITH AN
INHERENT INSTABILITY SO THAT THEY ARE MENTALLY UNABLE TO STAND SUDDEN
AND SEVERE STRAIN.  THE MEDICAL TESTIMONY WAS THAT THIS PETITIONER
BELONGS TO THE LATTER CLASS AND THAT THE SHOCK OF ACTUAL CONFLICT ON
THE BATTLE FRONT BROUGHT ON THE INCURABLE AFFLICTION FROM WHICH HE NOW
SUFFERS.  THE MEDICAL WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT THE DOMINANT SYMPTOMS OF
THE CONDITION ARE EXTREME INTROVERSION AND PREOCCUPATION WITH PERSONAL
INTERESTS, A PERSECUTION COMPLEX, AND AN EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY WHICH
MAY BE MANIFESTED BY EXTREME EXHILARATION ALTERNATING WITH UNUSUAL
DEPRESSION OR IRRATIONAL OUTBURSTS.  PERSONS SUFFERING FROM THIS
DISEASE ARE THEREFORE UNABLE TO ENGAGE IN CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT. 

THE PETITIONER RELIES ON THE TESTIMONY OF WARTIME AND POSTWAR
COMPANIONS AND SUPERIORS TO SHOW THAT HIS PRESENT MENTAL CONDITION
EXISTED ON THE CRUCIAL DATE.  THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL TESTIMONY FROM WHICH
REASONABLE MEN MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT THE PETITIONER WAS INSANE FROM THE
DATE CLAIMED. 

TWO WITNESSES TESTIFY AS TO THE PETITIONER'S MENTAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
WHILE HE WAS IN FRANCE.  THE MOST STRIKING INCIDENT IN THIS TESTIMONY
IS THE ACCOUNT OF HIS COMPLETE BREAKDOWN WHILE ON GUARD DUTY AS A
RESULT OF WHICH HE FALSELY ALARMED HIS MILITARY UNIT BY SCREAMING THAT
THE GERMANS WERE COMING WHEN THEY WERE NOT AND WAS SILENCED ONLY BY
BEING FORCEABLY BOUND AND GAGGED.  THERE WAS ALSO OTHER EVIDENCE THAT
GALLOWAY BECAME NERVOUS, IRRITABLE, QUARRELSOME AND TURBULENT AFTER HE
GOT TO FRANCE.  THE COURT DISPOSES OF THIS TESTIMONY, WHICH OBVIOUSLY
INDICATES SOME DEGREE OF MENTAL UNBALANCE, BY SAYING NO MORE THAN THAT
IT "DOES NOT PROVE HE WAS INSANE."  NO REASON IS GIVEN, NOR CAN I
IMAGINE ANY, WHY A JURY SHOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO CONSIDER THIS
EVIDENCE AND DRAW ITS OWN CONCLUSIONS. 

THE TESTIMONY OF ANOTHER WITNESS, O'NEILL, WAS OFFERED TO SHOW THAT
THE WITNESS HAD KNOWN THE PETITIONER BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE WAR, AND
THAT AFTER THE WAR THE WITNESS FOUND THE PETITIONER A CHANGED MAN; THAT
THE PETITIONER IMAGINED THAT HE WAS BEING PERSECUTED; AND THAT THE
PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM FITS OF MELANCHOLIA, DEPRESSION AND WEEPING. 
IF O'NEILL'S TESTIMONY IS TO BE BELIEVED, THE PETITIONER SUFFERED THE
TYPICAL SYMPTOMS OF A SCHIZOPHRENIAC FOR SOME YEARS AFTER HIS RETURN TO
THIS COUNTRY; THEREFORE IF O'NEILL'S TESTIMONY IS BELIEVED, THERE CAN
BE NO REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THE RIGHT OF A JURY TO PASS ON THIS CASE. 
THE COURT ANALYZES O'NEILL'S TESTIMONY FOR INTERNAL CONSISTENCY,
CRITICIZES HIS FAILURE TO REMEMBER THE DETAILS OF HIS ASSOCIATION WITH
THE PETITIONER FIFTEEN YEARS BEFORE HIS APPEARANCE IN THIS CASE, AND
CONCLUDES THAT O'NEILL'S EVIDENCE SHOWS NO MORE THAN THAT "PETITIONER
WAS SUBJECT TO ALTERNATING PERIODS OF GAIETY AND DEPRESSION FOR SOME
INDEFINITE PERIOD."  THIS EXTREME EMOTIONAL INSTABILITY IS AN ACCEPTED
SYMPTOM OF THE DISEASE FROM WHICH THE PETITIONER SUFFERS.  IF HE
EXHIBITED THE SAME SYMPTOMS IN 1922, IT IS, AT THE MINIMUM, PROBABLE
THAT THE CONDITION HAS BEEN CONTINUOUS SINCE AN ORIGIN DURING THE WAR. 
O'NEILL'S TESTIMONY COUPLED WITH THE PETITIONER'S PRESENT CONDITION
PRESENTS PRECISELY THE TYPE OF QUESTION WHICH A JURY SHOULD RESOLVE. 

THE PETITIONER WAS IN THE NAVY FOR SIX MONTHS IN 1920, UNTIL HE WAS
DISCHARGED FOR BAD CONDUCT; AND LATER WAS IN THE ARMY DURING 1921 AND A
PART OF 1922, UNTIL HE DESERTED.  THE TESTIMONY OF HIS COMMANDING
OFFICER WHILE HE WAS IN THE ARMY, COL. MATTHEWS, IS THAT THE PETITIONER
HAD "PERIODS OF GAIETY AND EXHILARATION" AND WAS THEN "DEPRESSED AS IF
HE HAD HAD A HANGOVER"; THAT PETITIONER TRIED TO CREATE DISTURBANCES
AND DISSATISFY THE MEN; THAT HE SUFFERED FROM A BELIEF THAT HE WAS
BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY; AND THAT GENERALLY HIS ACTIONS "WERE NOT THOSE
OF A NORMAL MAN."  THE COLONEL WAS NOT A DOCTOR AND MIGHT WELL NOT HAVE
RECOGNIZED INSANITY HAD HE SEEN IT; AS IT WAS, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS AN ALCOHOLIC AND A NARCOTIC ADDICT.  HOWEVER, THE
OFFICER WAS UNABLE, UPON REPEATED INVESTIGATIONS, TO DISCOVER ANY
ACTUAL USE OF NARCOTICS.  A JURY FITTING THIS INFORMATION INTO THE
GENERAL PATTERN OF THE TESTIMONY MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN DRIVEN TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE PETITIONER WAS INSANE AT THE TIME THE COLONEL HAD
HIM UNDER OBSERVATION. 

ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE, IF BELIEVED, SHOWED A MAN, HEALTHY AND NORMAL
BEFORE HE WENT TO THE WAR, SUFFERING FOR SEVERAL YEARS AFTER HE CAME
BACK FROM A DISEASE WHICH HAD THE SYMPTOMS ATTRIBUTED TO SCHIZOPHRENIA
AND WHO WAS INSANE FROM 1930 UNTIL HIS TRIAL.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK THAT THE PHYSICIAN'S TESTIMONY OF TOTAL AND
PERMANENT DISABILITY BY REASON OF CONTINUOUS INSANITY FROM 1918 TO 1938
WAS REASONABLE.  THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT TESTIMONY FOR A
PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, WHILE IT MIGHT BE THE BASIS OF FAIR ARGUMENT TO
THE JURY BY THE GOVERNMENT, DOES NOT, AS THE COURT SEEMS TO BELIEVE,
CREATE A PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER SO STRONG THAT HIS CASE
MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE JURY ENTIRELY.  EVEN IF DURING THESE FIVE
YEARS THE PETITIONER WAS SPASMODICALLY EMPLOYED, WE COULD NOT CONCLUDE
THAT HE WAS NOT TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.  BERRY V. UNITED
STATES, 312 U.S. 450, 455.  IT IS NOT DOUBTED THAT SCHIZOPHRENIA IS
PERMANENT EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE A MOMENTARY APPEARANCE OF RECOVERY. 

THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT THE PETITIONER'S ADMISSION INTO THE
MILITARY SERVICE BETWEEN 1920 AND 1923 SHOWED CONCLUSIVELY THAT HE WAS
NOT TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.  ANY INFERENCE WHICH MAY BE
CREATED BY THE PETITIONER'S ADMISSION INTO THE ARMY AND THE NAVY IS
MORE THAN MET BY HIS RECORD OF COURT-MARTIAL, DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE,
AND DESERTION, AS WELL AS BY THE EXPLICIT TESTIMONY OF HIS COMMANDING
OFFICER, COLONEL MATTHEWS. 

THIS CASE GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATES THE INJUSTICE RESULTING FROM
PERMITTING JUDGES TO DIRECT VERDICTS INSTEAD OF REQUIRING THEM TO AWAIT
A JURY DECISION AND THEN, IF NECESSARY, ALLOW A NEW TRIAL.  THE CHIEF
REASON GIVEN FOR APPROVING A DIRECTED VERDICT AGAINST THIS PETITIONER
IS THAT NO EVIDENCE EXCEPT EXPERT MEDICAL TESTIMONY WAS OFFERED FOR A
FIVE TO EIGHT YEAR PERIOD.  PERHAPS, NOW THAT THE PETITIONER KNOWS HE
HAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SATISFY A JUDGE EVEN THOUGH HE MAY HAVE
ENOUGH TO SATISFY A JURY, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO FILL THIS TIME GAP TO
MEET ANY JUDGE'S DEMAND.  IF A COURT WOULD POINT OUT ON A MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL THAT THE EVIDENCE AS TO THIS PARTICULAR PERIOD WAS TOO WEAK,
THE PETITIONER WOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUTTRESS THE
PHYSICIAN'S EVIDENCE.  IF, AS THE COURT BELIEVES, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
HAS BEEN OFFERED TO SUSTAIN A JURY VERDICT FOR THE PETITIONER, WE
SHOULD AT LEAST AUTHORIZE A NEW TRIAL.  CF. GARRISON V. UNITED STATES,
62 F.2D 41, 42. 

I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO
WHETHER THE PETITIONER WAS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED BY REASON
OF INSANITY ON MAY 31, 1919, AND THAT HIS CASE THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN ALLOWED TO GO TO THE JURY.  THE TESTIMONY OF FELLOW SOLDIERS,
FRIENDS, SUPERVISORS, AND OF A MEDICAL EXPERT WHOSE INTEGRITY AND
ABILITY IS NOT CHALLENGED CANNOT BE REJECTED BY ANY PROCESS AVAILABLE
TO ME AS A JUDGE. 

FN1  "I CONSIDER TRIAL BY JURY AS THE ONLY ANCHOR EVER YET IMAGINED
BY MAN, BY WHICH A GOVERNMENT CAN BE HELD TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ITS
CONSTITUTION."  3 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (WASHINGTON ED.)  71. 

THE OPERATION OF THE JURY TRIAL SYSTEM IN CIVIL CASES HAS BEEN
SUBJECT TO CAREFUL ANALYSIS; CLARK AND SHULMAN, JURY TRIAL IN CIVIL
CASES, 43 YALE L. JOUR.  867; HARRIS, IS THE JURY VANISHING, 7
N.Y.U.L.Q. 657.  ITS UTILITY HAS BEEN SHARPLY CRITICIZED; POUND, JURY -
ENGLAND AND UNITED STATES, 8 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 492;
MR. JUSTICE MILLER, THE SYSTEM OF TRIAL BY JURY, 21 AMERICAN L. REV.
859(1887).  ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS COURT HAS ON OCCASION WARMLY
PRAISED THIS MODE OF TRIAL:  "THE RIGHT OF JURY TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES AT
COMMON LAW IS A BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF OUR SYSTEM OF FEDERAL
JURISPRUDENCE WHICH IS PROTECTED BY THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT.  A RIGHT SO
FUNDAMENTAL AND SACRED TO THE CITIZEN, WHETHER GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR PROVIDED BY STATUTE, SHOULD BE JEALOUSLY GUARDED BY THE
COURTS."  JACOB V. NEW YORK, 315 U.S. 752. 

FN2  FOR HAMILTON'S VIEWS ON THE PLACE OF THE JURY IN THE
CONSTITUTION, SEE THE FEDERALIST, NOS. 81 AND 83. 

FN3  "ONE OF THE STRONGEST OBJECTIONS ORIGINALLY TAKEN AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS THE WANT OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION
SECURING THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES."  PARSONS V.
BEDFORD, 3 PET. 433, 446.  OF THE SEVEN STATES WHICH, IN RATIFYING THE
CONSTITUTION, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, SIX INCLUDED PROPOSALS FOR THE
PRESERVATION OF JURY TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES.  DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF
THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, HOUSE DOC. NO. 398, 69TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 1019(MASSACHUSETTS), 1026(NEW HAMPSHIRE), 1029(VIRGINIA),
1036(NEW YORK), 1046(NORTH CAROLINA), 1054(RHODE ISLAND). 

FN4  3 ELLIOTT'S DEBATES, 324, 544.  EMPHASIS ADDED. 

FN5  THE EARLY PRACTICE UNDER WHICH JURIES WERE EMPOWERED TO
DETERMINE ISSUES OF LAW IN CRIMINAL CASES WAS NOT FORMALLY REJECTED BY
THIS COURT UNTIL 1894 IN SPARF V. UNITED STATES, 156 U.S. 51, WHEN THE
SUBJECT WAS EXHAUSTIVELY DISCUSSED.  SEE ALSO HOWE, JURIES AS JUDGES OF
CRIMINAL LAW, 52 HARV. L. REV. 582.  THIS JURY PRIVILEGE WAS ONCE
CONSIDERED OF HIGH VALUE; IN FACT, A PRINCIPAL COUNT IN THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JUSTICE CHASE IN 1805 WAS THAT HE HAD DENIED TO A
JURY THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE BOTH THE LAW AND THE FACT IN A CRIMINAL
CASE - A CHARGE WHICH JUSTICE CHASE DENIED.  REPORT OF TRIAL OF HON.
SAMUEL CHASE (1805), APPENDIX P. 17.  THIS PRIVILEGE IS STILL AT LEAST
NOMINALLY RETAINED FOR THE JURY IN SOME STATES.  HOWE, 614.  FOR A LATE
19TH CENTURY STATEMENT OF THIS VIEW SEE KANE V. COMMONWEALTH, 89 PA.
ST. 522(1879). 

FN6  SEE HOWE, SUPRA, PP. 597, 601, 605, 610; COFFIN V. COFFIN, 4
MASS. 1, 25; THAYER ON EVIDENCE (1898 ED.)  254.  AND SEE LECTURES
GIVEN BY JUSTICE WILSON AS PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE COLLEGE OF
PHILADELPHIA IN 1790 AND 1792, THAYER, 254, AND SPARF V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, AT 158. 

FN7  I ASSUME FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISCUSSION WITHOUT DECIDING THE
POINT THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT WAS MEANT TO HAVE NO
LIMITING EFFECT ON THE CONTEMPORARY DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE PRACTICE. 

FN8  A METHOD USED IN EARLY ENGLAND OF REVERSAL OF A JURY VERDICT BY
THE PROCESS OF ATTAINT WHICH REQUIRED A REVIEW OF THE FACTS BY A NEW
JURY OF TWENTY-FOUR AND RESULTED IN PUNISHMENT OF THE FIRST JURY FOR
ITS ERROR, HAD DISAPPEARED.  PLUCKNETT, A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE COMMON
LAW (2D ED.), 121. 

FN9  IT IS DIFFICULT TO DESCRIBE BY ANY GENERAL PROPOSITION THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A NEW TRIAL WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER EARLY
PRACTICE, SINCE EACH CASE WAS SO DEPENDENT ON ITS PECULIAR FACTS.  THE
EARLY PENNSYLVANIA RULE WAS PUT AS FOLLOWS:  "NEW TRIALS ARE FREQUENTLY
NECESSARY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTAINING COMPLETE JUSTICE; BUT THE
IMPORTANT RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY REQUIRES THEY SHOULD NEVER BE GRANTED
WITHOUT SOLID AND SUBSTANTIAL REASONS; OTHERWISE THE PROVINCE OF
JURYMEN MIGHT BE OFTEN TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGES, AND THEY INSTEAD OF
THE JURY, WOULD BECOME THE REAL TRIERS OF THE FACTS.  A REASONABLE
DOUBT, BARELY, THAT JUSTICE HAS NOT BEEN DONE, ESPECIALLY IN CASES
WHERE THE VALUE OR IMPORTANCE OF THE CAUSE IS NOT GREAT, APPEARS TO ME
TO BE TOO SLENDER A GROUND FOR THEM.  BUT, WHENEVER IT APPEARS WITH A
REASONABLE CERTAINTY, THAT ACTUAL AND MANIFEST INJUSTICE IS DONE, OR
THAT THE JURY HAVE PROCEEDED ON AN EVIDENT MISTAKE, EITHER IN POINT OF
LAW, OR FACT, OR CONTRARY TO STRONG EVIDENCE, OR HAVE GROSSLY
MISBEHAVED THEMSELVES, OR GIVEN EXTRAVAGANT DAMAGES; THE COURT WILL
ALWAYS GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY, BY A NEW TRIAL, OF RECTIFYING THE MISTAKES
OF THE FORMER JURY, AND OF DOING COMPLETE JUSTICE TO THE PARTIES." 
COWPERTHWAITE V. JONES, 2 DALL.  55(PHILA.  CT. CMN.  PLEAS 1790).  FOR
EXPRESSIONS IN SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD, SEE MARYLAND INSURANCE CO. V.
RUDEN'S ADMINISTRATOR, 6 CRANCH 338, 340; M'LANAHAN V. UNIVERSAL
INSURANCE CO., 1 PET. 170, 183.  FOR SIMILAR STATE PRACTICE, SEE UTICA
INSURANCE CO. V. BADGER, 3 WEND.  102(1829); NEW YORK FIREMEN INSURANCE
CO. V. WALDEN, 12 JOHNS.  513(1815).  THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS
ADDRESSED TO THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE AND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE
IN CRIMINAL OR CIVIL CASES.  UNITED STATES V. DANIEL$N, 6 WHEAT.  542,
548; BROWN V. CLARKE, 4 HOW.  4, 15.  THE NUMBER OF NEW TRIALS
PERMITTED IN A GIVEN CASE WERE USUALLY LIMITED TO TWO OR THREE; SEE
E.G. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. WOODSON, 134 U.S. 614.  THE POWER
OF THE JUDGE WAS THUS LIMITED TO HIS AUTHORITY TO RETURN THE CASE TO A
NEW JURY FOR A NEW DECISION. 

FN10  CF. BALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE V. REDMAN, 295 U.S. 654; AETNA
INSURANCE CO. V. KENNEDY, 301 U.S. 389.  SEE RULE 50(B) OF THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE; MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. DUNCAN, 311 U.S. 243; BERRY
V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 450. 

FN11  I DO NOT MEAN TO MINIMIZE OTHER FORMS OF JUDICIAL CONTROL.  IN
A SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT TECHNIQUES OF JUDICIAL DOMINATION OF THE JURY,
THAYER LISTS THE FOLLOWING:  CONTROL BY THE REQUIREMENT OF A
"REASONABLE JUDGMENT" - I.E., ONE SATISFACTORY TO THE JUDGE; CONTROL OF
THE RULES OF "PRESUMPTION," CF. THE DISSENTING OPINION IN NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE CO. V. GAMER, 303 U.S. 161, 172; THE CONTROL OF THE
"DEFINITION OF LANGUAGE"; THE CONTROL OF RULES OF PRACTICE, AND FORMS
OF PLEADING ("IT IS REMARKABLE HOW JUDGES AND LEGISLATURES IN THIS
COUNTRY ARE UNCONSCIOUSLY TRAVELLING BACK TOWARDS THE OLD RESULT OF
CONTROLLING THE JURY, BY REQUIRING SPECIAL VERDICTS AND ANSWERS TO
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.  LOGIC AND NEATNESS OF LEGAL THEORY HAVE ALWAYS
CALLED LOUD, AT LEAST IN RECENT CENTURIES, FOR SPECIAL VERDICTS.  ...
CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY HAVE CALLED LOUDER FOR LEAVING TO THE JURY A
FREER HAND."  218); THE CONTROL OF "MIXED QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT";
THE CONTROL OF FACTUAL DECISIONS BY APPELLATE COURTS.  THAYER ON
EVIDENCE (1898 ED.)  P. 208 ET SEQ. 

FN12  COUNSEL SEEKING THE DIRECTED VERDICT SAID:  "THIS PREROGATIVE
OF THE COURT IS NEVER EXERCISED, BUT IN CASES WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS SO
INDEFINITE AND UNSATISFACTORY, THAT NOTHING BUT WILD, IRRATIONAL
CONJECTURE, OR LICENTIOUS SPECULATION, COULD INDUCE THE JURY TO
PRONOUNCE THE VERDICT WHICH IS SOUGHT AT THEIR HANDS."  PARKS V. ROSS,
SUPRA, AT 372. 

FN13  SEE ALSO, PLEASANTS V. FANT, 22 WALL.  116(1874); OSCANYAN V.
ARMS CO., 103 U.S. 261(1880); AND BAYLIS V. TRAVELLERS' INSURANCE CO.,
113 U.S. 316(1884).  FOR AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORY OF THE
DIRECTED VERDICT, SEE HACKETT, HAS A TRIAL JUDGE OF A UNITED STATES
COURT THE RIGHT TO DIRECT A VERDICT?, 24 YALE L. JOUR.  127. 

FN14  RULE 50(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN15  IN THE PERIOD OF THE CIVIL WAR, THE FORMULA CHANGED SLIGHTLY
BUT ITS EFFECT WAS THE SAME - IF THE EVIDENCE SO MUCH AS "TENDED TO
PROVE THE POSITION" OF THE PARTY, THE CASE WAS FOR THE JURY.  DRAKELY
V. GREGG, 8 WALL.  242, 268; HICKMAN V. JONES, 9 WALL.  197, 201;
BARNEY V. SCHMEIDER, 9 WALL.  248, 253.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
BREITLING, 20 HOW.  252; GOODMAN V. SIMONDS, 20 HOW.  343, 359. 

FN16  FOR EXAMPLES OF EARLY RESPECT FOR JURIES, SEE MORTON V.
FAIRBANKS, 11 PICK.  368(1831); WAY V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 35 IOWA
585(1873).  FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IN ILLINOIS, SEE 8 ILL. L. REV. 287,
481-486.  FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA DEVELOPMENT, COMPARE FITZWATER V. STOUT,
16 PA. ST. 22, AND THOMAS V. THOMAS, 21 PA. ST. 315, WITH HYATT V.
JOHNSTON, 91 PA. ST. 196, 200. 

FN17  ONE ADDITIONAL DEVICE WAS THE REMITTITUR PRACTICE WHICH GIVES
THE COURT A METHOD OF CONTROLLING JURY FINDINGS AS TO DAMAGES. 
ARKANSAS VALLEY CO. V. MANN, 130 U.S. 69. 

FN18  IN EWING V. BURNET, 11 PET. 41, 51, THIS COURT SAID:  "IT WAS
ALSO THEIR (THE JURY'S) PROVINCE TO JUDGE OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
WITNESSES, AND THE WEIGHT OF THEIR TESTIMONY, AS TENDING, IN A GREATER
OR LESS DEGREE, TO PROVE THE FACTS RELIED ON; AS THESE WERE MATTERS
WITH WHICH THE COURT COULD NOT INTERFERE, THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO THE
INSTRUCTION ASKED, MUST DEPEND UPON THE OPINION OF THE COURT, ON A
FINDING BY THE JURY IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT, ON EVERY MATTER WHICH
THE EVIDENCE CONDUCED TO PROVE; GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE WITNESSES
PRODUCED BY HIM, AND DISCREDITING THE WITNESS FOR THE PLAINTIFF." 
FN19  ANOTHER PHASE OF THIS SAME CONFLICT ARISES IN THE USE OF JUDICIAL
POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF JURY TRIAL. 
NELLES AND KING, CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION, 28 COL. L. REV. 400, 524,
AND, FOR A SHARP INDICTMENT OF THE FREE USE OF CONTEMPT JURISDICTION AS
BASICALLY UNDEMOCRATIC, 553; NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33; BRIDGES
V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252. 

FN20  HOWE, SUPRA, 615, 616.  HOWE CONTINUES:  "WHAT SEEMS
DISCREDITABLE TO THE JUDICIARY IN THE STORY WHICH I HAVE RELATED IS THE
FIERCE RESOLUTION AND DECEPTIVE INGENUITY WITH WHICH THE COURTS HAVE
REFUSED TO CARRY OUT THE UNQUALIFIED MANDATE OF STATUTES AND
CONSTITUTIONS.  IT IS POSSIBLE TO FEEL THAT THE FINAL SOLUTION OF THE
PROBLEM HAS BEEN WISE WITHOUT APPROVING THE FREQUENTLY ARROGANT METHODS
WHICH COURTS HAVE USED IN REACHING THAT RESULT." 

FN21  THIS COURT HAS SAID OF ONE TYPE OF CASE IN RICHMOND & DANVILLE
R. CO. V. POWERS, 149 U.S. 43, 45(1893):  "IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT
WHERE THERE IS UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF EITHER NEGLIGENCE OR
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, THE QUESTION IS NOT ONE OF LAW, BUT OF FACT,
AND TO BE SETTLED BY A JURY; AND THIS, WHETHER THE UNCERTAINTY ARISES
FROM A CONFLICT IN THE TESTIMONY, OR BECAUSE THE FACTS BEING
UNDISPUTED, FAIR MINDED MEN WILL HONESTLY DRAW DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS
FROM THEM." 
..END :
















COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. N.B.C., 319 U.S. 239 


NO. 585.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 9, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1943.  - 132 F.2D
545, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PROPRIETOR OF A BROADCASTING STATION WHOSE LICENSE FROM THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ENTITLES HIM TO EMPLOY A SPECIFIED
FREQUENCY AND A SPECIFIED POWER AND ASSIGNS TO HIM A CLEAR CHANNEL AT
NIGHT FREE FROM ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE IS ENTITLED UNDER SEC. 312(B)
OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ACT TO BE MADE A PARTY TO A
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION LOOKING TO THE GRANTING OF AN
APPLICATION OF ANOTHER STATION OPERATING UPON THE SAME FREQUENCY FOR AN
INCREASE OF POWER AND FOR THE RIGHT TO OPERATE AT NIGHT, THE EFFECT OF
WHICH MAY BE BY ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE TO DEPRIVE THE FIRST LICENSEE
OF HIS CLEAR CHANNEL, THUS MODIFYING HIS LICENSE.  P. 243. 

2.  ERROR OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IN DENYING THE
FIRST LICENSEE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT CURED
BY PERMISSION TO FILE A BRIEF AND PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT.  P. 246. 

3.  IN THE SITUATION ABOVE STATED, THE FIRST LICENSEE WAS ENTITLED BY
SEC. 402(B)(2) OF THE ACT TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN DENYING TO
HIM THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE AND FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
GRANTING THE APPLICATION TO THE OTHER LICENSEE.  P. 246. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., INC.
(KOA) ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 624, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSING AN ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURE ARISING UNDER
TITLE III OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.  FN1 

THE RESPONDENT IS LICENSED TO OPERATE STATION KOA AT DENVER,
COLORADO, ON A FREQUENCY OF 850 KILOCYCLES.  STATION WHDH, OF BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS, HAD A LICENSE TO OPERATE, DAYTIME ONLY, ON THE SAME
FREQUENCY.  OCTOBER 25, 1938, WHDH APPLIED TO THE COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION FOR AN INCREASE IN POWER AND FOR OPERATION UNLIMITED IN
TIME.  THE COMMISSION SET DOWN THE APPLICATION AND DESIGNATED CERTAIN
ISSUES FOR HEARING, OF WHICH THE FOLLOWING ARE PERTINENT:  TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE INTERESTS OF ANY OTHER STATIONS MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED
BY REASON OF INTERFERENCE, PARTICULARLY KOA AND OTHER NAMED STATIONS;
TO DETERMINE WHETHER PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY WOULD BE
SERVED BY MODIFYING THE RULES GOVERNING STANDARD BROADCAST STATIONS TO
AUTHORIZE THE PROPOSED OPERATION OF WHDH. 

THE COMMISSION'S RULES PRECLUDED THE OPERATION OF A SECOND STATION AT
NIGHT ON KOA'S FREQUENCY; FN2  PROVIDED THAT AN APPLICATION NOT FILED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS REGULATIONS WOULD BE DEEMED DEFECTIVE, WOULD NOT
BE CONSIDERED, AND WOULD BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT; FN3  AND ALSO
THAT IF AN APPLICANT DESIRED TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OR WISDOM OF ANY
RULE OR REGULATION HE MUST SUBMIT A PETITION SETTING FORTH THE DESIRED
CHANGE AND THE REASONS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.  FN4 

THE RESPONDENT PETITIONED TO INTERVENE.  ITS PETITION WAS DENIED.  IT
THEN MOVED TO DISMISS WHDH'S APPLICATION FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS.  THE MOTION WAS DENIED.  MEANTIME THE COMMISSION
EVIDENTLY BELIEVING THAT, IN VIEW OF THE POSSIBLE ALTERATION OF THE
RULES CONCERNING STANDARD BROADCAST STATIONS, QUESTIONS OF POLICY MIGHT
BE INVOLVED AND THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, UNDER SEC. 409(A), THE HEARING
WOULD HAVE TO BE CONDUCTED BY A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION,  FN5
DESIGNATED COMMISSIONER CASE TO CONDUCT THE HEARING. 

NO HEARING WAS HELD UNDER THE ORIGINAL NOTICE.  A NEW NOTICE WAS
ISSUED WHICH INDICATED THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT THEN CONTEMPLATE
MODIFICATION OF ITS SUBSTANTIVE RULES BUT INTENDED MERELY TO AFFORD THE
APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO URGE THAT THEY BE CONSTRUED IN THE
APPLICANT'S FAVOR.  ISSUES SPECIFIED IN THE SECOND NOTICE WERE "TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION'S RULES GOVERNING STANDARD
BROADCAST STATIONS, PARTICULARLY SECTIONS 3.22 AND 3.25(PART III)
PROPERLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED PRECLUDE THE GRANTING OF THE
APPLICATION" AND TO DETERMINE THE NATURE, EXTENT, AND EFFECT OF ANY
INTERFERENCE WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM A GRANT OF THE APPLICATION,
PARTICULARLY WITH STATION KOA AND OTHERS NAMED.  THE INQUIRY THUS
LIMITED COULD BE HEARD BEFORE AN EXAMINER UNDER SEC. 409(A) AND,
ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION WITHDREW THE DESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER
CASE AND ASSIGNED AN EXAMINER. 

A HEARING WAS HELD JANUARY 29 AND 30, 1940, BUT THE RESPONDENT WAS
NOT PERMITTED TO APPEAR OR PARTICIPATE.  DECEMBER 9, 1940, THE
COMMISSION PROMULGATED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.  TWO
COMMISSIONERS DISSENTED.  ALL AGREED THAT SECS. 3.22 AND 3.25 OF THE
REGULATIONS PRECLUDED A GRANT OF WHDH'S APPLICATION.  THREE VOTED TO
MODIFY THOSE REGULATIONS AND TO GRANT THE APPLICATION.  RESPONDENT THEN
FILED ITS SECOND PETITION TO INTERVENE, WHICH WAS DENIED.  THE
COMMISSION SUBSEQUENTLY, ON ITS OWN MOTION, PERMITTED RESPONDENT TO
FILE BRIEFS AND PRESENT AN ORAL ARGUMENT AMICUS CURIAE.  APRIL 7, 1941,
THE COMMISSION ADOPTED A FINAL ORDER AMENDING SEC. 3.25 OF THE RULES
AND GRANTING THE WHDH APPLICATION, TWO COMMISSIONERS DISSENTING. 

RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO SEC. 405 OF THE
ACT.  FN6  THIS WAS DENIED.  THEREUPON RESPONDENT GAVE NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,  FN7  WHICH
CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION EFFECTED A MODIFICATION OF
RESPONDENT'S LICENSE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE STATUTE ENTITLED THE
RESPONDENT TO BE MADE A PARTY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING.  THE
COURT BELOW THEREFORE REVERSED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AND REMANDED THE
CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  FN8 

THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT IT WAS ENTITLED, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT,
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON THE QUESTION OF
THE GRANTING OF WHDH'S APPLICATION AND THAT ITS RIGHTS IN THIS RESPECT
WERE NOT SATISFIED BY PERMITTING IT TO FILE A BRIEF AND PRESENT
ARGUMENT.  IT FURTHER INSISTS THAT THE COMMISSION'S PROCEEDING WAS
INVALID DUE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 409(A) OF THE STATUTE, THE
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES THEN IN FORCE, AND THE ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS ACTION TAKEN.  FINALLY, THE RESPONDENT ASSERTS SEC. 405
ENTITLED IT TO A REHEARING AND SEC. 402(B)(2) GRANTED IT AN APPEAL. 

THE PETITIONER URGES THAT THE GRANT OF WHDH'S APPLICATION DID NOT
AMOUNT TO A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF KOA'S LICENSE OR SO AFFECT
KOA'S RIGHTS AS TO REQUIRE THAT KOA BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE, AND
THAT, IN ANY EVENT, KOA WAS NOT DENIED ANY SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF
PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDING. 

FIRST.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO BE MADE A
PARTY. 


"ANY STATION LICENSE HEREAFTER GRANTED  ...  MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE
COMMISSION  ...  , IF IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION SUCH ACTION
WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY  ...
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH ORDER OF MODIFICATION SHALL BECOME
FINAL UNTIL THE HOLDER OF SUCH OUTSTANDING LICENSE  ...  SHALL HAVE
BEEN NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE GROUNDS OR
REASONS THEREFOR AND SHALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SUCH AN ORDER OF MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT ISSUE." 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THERE WOULD BE INTERFERENCE WITH KOA'S
BROADCAST IN THE EASTERN PART OF THE UNITED STATES IF WHDH'S
APPLICATION WERE GRANTED.  THE COMMISSION'S OWN REPORTS TO CONGRESS
SHOW THAT AT NIGHT A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE URBAN POPULATION AND A
MUCH LARGER PROPORTION OF THE RURAL POPULATION OF THE COUNTRY ENJOY
ONLY SUCH BROADCASTING SERVICE AS IS AFFORDED BY CLEAR CHANNEL
STATIONS.  KOA, ONE OF THE STATIONS UPON WHICH THIS SERVICE DEPENDS,
HAS OPERATED CONTINUOUSLY AT DENVER SINCE 1924 AND HAS USED A CLEAR
CHANNEL UPON WHICH ONLY ONE STATION IS PERMITTED TO OPERATE DURING THE
NIGHT.  UNDER THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS (SECS. 3.22 AND 3.25) KOA
HAD, THEREFORE, LITTLE OR NO CHANNEL INTERFERENCE FROM ANY STATION
LOCATED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  IN ADDITION, ITS SIGNALS THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES WERE FREE, AND ENTITLED TO REMAIN FREE, OF CHANNEL
INTERFERENCE FROM ANY STATION IN CANADA, MEXICO OR CUBA, PURSUANT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN REGIONAL BROADCASTING AGREEMENT. 
FN9  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DEPRIVES KOA OF FREEDOM FROM INTERFERENCE
IN ITS NIGHT SERVICE OVER A LARGE AREA LYING EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER.  FURTHERMORE, THE ORDER OPENS THE WAY FOR CANADA, MEXICO, AND
CUBA, SIGNATORIES TO THE BROADCASTING AGREEMENT, TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHT
TO OPERATE STATIONS WHICH MAY CAUSE CHANNEL INTERFERENCE AT NIGHT ON
KOA'S FREQUENCY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. 

THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE SERVICE OF WHDH,
WHILE INTERFERING AT NIGHT WITH THAT OF KOA, WOULD NOT BE A SERVICE
EQUALLY USEFUL, AND THAT THE GRANT TO WHDH ADDS A NEW PRIMARY SERVICE
TO AN AREA ALREADY HEAVILY SUPPLIED WITH SUCH SERVICE.  IN ITS
PETITIONS TO INTERVENE, THE RESPONDENT CALLED ATTENTION TO THE TERMS OF
ITS EXISTING LICENSE, ASSERTING THAT THE GRANT OF WHDH'S APPLICATION
WOULD CAUSE INTERFERENCE IN AREAS WHERE KOA'S SIGNAL WAS INTERFERENCE
FREE; THAT RESPONDENT WOULD BE AGGRIEVED AND ITS INTERESTS ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY A GRANT OF THE APPLICATION AND THAT THE OPERATION PROPOSED
BY WHDH WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY; THAT A GRANT OF THE APPLICATION WOULD RESULT IN A
MODIFICATION OF RESPONDENT'S LICENSE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 312(B) AND
WOULD RESULT IN A MODIFICATION OF THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS WITHOUT
SUCH A HEARING AS IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 303(F) OF THE ACT.  IN ITS
PETITION FOR REHEARING, THE RESPONDENT ELABORATED AND REITERATED THE
REASONS EMBODIED IN ITS MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION AND IN
ITS PETITIONS TO INTERVENE. 

THE COMMISSION SAYS THAT THE SECTION HAS NO APPLICATION TO THIS
CASE.  IT ASSERTS THAT THE PROCEEDING WAS AN APPLICATION BY WHDH FOR
MODIFICATION OF ITS STATION LICENSE AND THAT, UNDER SEC. 309(A) OF THE
ACT, THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE ACTED ON THE APPLICATION WITHOUT ANY
HEARING.  SO MUCH MAY BE CONCEDED, IF NOTHING MORE WERE INVOLVED.  BUT
THE GRANT OF WHDH'S APPLICATION, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NECESSARILY
INVOLVED THE MODIFICATION OF KOA'S OUTSTANDING LICENSE.  THIS
PETITIONER DENIES, SAYING KOA'S LICENSE GRANTED NO MORE THAN THE
PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING ITS STATION IN A PRESCRIBED MANNER AND THAT THE
GRANT OF WHDH'S APPLICATION IN NOWISE ALTERED THE TERMS OF KOA'S
LICENSE.  THIS CONTENTION STEMS FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT KOA'S
LICENSE AUTHORIZES IT TO OPERATE A TRANSMITTER OF 50 KILOWATTS ON THE
FREQUENCY 850 KILOCYCLES AT DENVER.  THE PETITIONER SAYS THAT THE GRANT
OF WHDH'S APPLICATION AFFECTS NONE OF THESE TERMS.  BUT WE THINK THIS
TOO NARROW A VIEW.  WHEN KOA'S LICENSE WAS GRANTED THE COMMISSION'S
RULES SECS. 3.21 AND 3.25 EMBODIED THESE PROVISIONS: 

"A 'CLEAR CHANNEL' IS ONE ON WHICH THE DOMINANT STATION OR STATIONS
RENDER SERVICE OVER WIDE AREAS AND WHICH ARE CLEARED OF OBJECTIONABLE
INTERFERENCE WITHIN THEIR PRIMARY SERVICE AREAS AND OVER ALL OR A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR SECONDARY SERVICE AREAS." 

"THE FREQUENCIES IN THE FOLLOWING TABULATION ARE DESIGNATED AS CLEAR
CHANNELS AND ASSIGNED FOR USE BY THE CLASSES OF STATIONS ARE GIVEN: 

"(A)  TO EACH OF THE CHANNELS BELOW THERE WILL BE ASSIGNED ONE CLASS
I STATION AND THERE MAY BE ASSIGNED ONE OR MORE CLASS II STATIONS
OPERATING LIMITED TIME OR DAYTIME ONLY:  ...  THE POWER OF THE CLASS I
STATIONS ON THESE CHANNELS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 50 KILOWATTS." 

850 KILOCYCLES WAS ONE OF THE FREQUENCIES APPEARING ON THE SCHEDULE
FORMING PART OF THE RULE. 

THESE RULES WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE TERMS OF KOA'S LICENSE WHICH
GRANTED IT A FREQUENCY OF 850 KILOCYCLES AND A POWER OF 50 KILOWATTS. 
TO ALTER THE RULES SO AS TO DEPRIVE KOA OF WHAT HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO
IT, AND TO GRANT AN APPLICATION WHICH WOULD CREATE INTERFERENCE ON THE
CHANNEL GIVEN IT, WAS IN FACT AND IN SUBSTANCE TO MODIFY KOA'S
LICENSE.  THIS BEING SO, SEC. 312(B) REQUIRES THAT IT BE MADE A PARTY
TO THE PROCEEDING.  WE CAN ACCORD NO OTHER MEANING TO THE LANGUAGE OF
THE PROVISO WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE HOLDER OF THE LICENSE WHICH IS TO
BE MODIFIED MUST HAVE NOTICE IN WRITING OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE
GROUNDS THEREFOR AND MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY AN ORDER OF MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT ISSUE.  CERTAINLY ONE WHO
IS TO BE NOTIFIED OF A HEARING AND TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOW CAUSE IS
NOT TO BE CONSIDERED A STRANGER TO THE PROCEEDING BUT IS, BY THE VERY
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, TO BE MADE A PARTY.  THE VERY NOTICES ISSUED
BY THE COMMISSION SHOW THAT THAT BODY KNEW THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE AN
INTERFERENCE WITH KOA'S SIGNALS IF THE PENDING APPLICATION OF WHDH WERE
GRANTED; AND THAT THE COMMISSION ALSO REALIZED THERE WAS A SERIOUS
QUESTION WHETHER THE APPLICATION COULD BE GRANTED UNDER ITS EXISTING
RULES.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS AT ANY LENGTH THE SUFFICIENCY OF
THE PETITIONS TO INTERVENE IF, AS WE HAVE HELD, THE ACT ITSELF PROVIDED
THAT, IN SUCH AN INSTANCE AS THE PRESENT, KOA WAS ENTITLED TO BE
BROUGHT IN AS A PARTY.  A LICENSEE CANNOT SHOW CAUSE UNLESS IT IS
AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING, TO OFFER EVIDENCE,
AND TO EXERCISE THE OTHER RIGHTS OF A PARTY. 

MUCH IS SAID TO THE EFFECT THAT KOA WAS NOT IN FACT INJURED, BECAUSE
THE COMMISSION PERMITTED IT TO FILE A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE AND TO
PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT.  IT IS BESIDE THE POINT TO DISCUSS THE
COMMISSION'S RULES AS TO INTERVENTION AND THE PRIVILEGES ACCORDED BY
THE COMMISSION TO ONE DENIED INTERVENTION, SINCE WE ARE OF OPINION, AS
ALREADY STATED, THAT, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT, THE RESPONDENT WAS
ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 

SECOND.  WHILE THE COMMISSION DID NOT URGE BEFORE THE COURT BELOW,
AND DID NOT ADVANCE AS A REASON FOR THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI, THAT
RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIS
MATTER WAS ARGUED HERE AND, AS IT RAISES A QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, WE
SHALL CONSIDER IT. 

IT WOULD BE ANOMALOUS IF ONE ENTITLED TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE
COMMISSION SHOULD BE DENIED THE RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM AN ORDER MADE
WITHOUT HEARING.  WE THINK THE ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUCH AN APPEAL. 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY "ANY  ...  PERSON AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE INTERESTS
ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY ANY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION GRANTING OR
REFUSING" ANY APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING STATION
LICENSE.  IF, WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE, THE INTERESTS OF KOA
WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED, OR IF KOA WOULD BE AGGRIEVED BY GRANTING
THE APPLICATION OF WHDH, THEN THE STATUTE GRANTS KOA A RIGHT OF
APPEAL.    IN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS BROS. RADIO
STATION, 309 U.S. 470, WE DEALT WITH A SIMILAR SITUATION.  THERE THE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER A RIVAL STATION, WHICH WOULD SUFFER ECONOMIC
INJURY BY THE GRANT OF A LICENSE TO ANOTHER STATION, HAD STANDING TO
APPEAL UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  WE HELD THAT IT HAD.  WE POINTED
OUT THAT WHILE A STATION LICENSE WAS NOT A PROPERTY RIGHT, AND WHILE
THE COMMISSION WAS NOT BOUND TO GIVE CONTROLLING WEIGHT TO ECONOMIC
INJURY TO AN EXISTING STATION CONSEQUENT UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE
TO ANOTHER STATION, YET ECONOMIC INJURY GAVE THE EXISTING STATION
STANDING TO PRESENT QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE BY
APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  HERE KOA, WHILE NOT ALLEGING
ECONOMIC INJURY, DOES ALLEGE THAT ITS LICENSE OUGHT NOT TO BE MODIFIED
BECAUSE SUCH ACTION WOULD CAUSE ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE WHICH WOULD BE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SEC. 312(B) GRANTS KOA THE RIGHT TO BECOME A
PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS, WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT IT IS A PARTY
AGGRIEVED, OR A PARTY WHOSE INTERESTS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
GRANT OF WHDH'S APPLICATION, AS INDEED THE COMMISSION SEEMS TO HAVE
THOUGHT WHEN IT FIRST NOTICED WHDH'S APPLICATION FOR HEARING.  WE,
THEREFORE, HOLD KOA WAS ENTITLED TO APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION'S ACTION
IN EXCLUDING IT FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDING AND FROM THE ORDER
MADE BY THE COMMISSION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, C. 652, 48 STAT. 1064, 1081; 47 U.S.C.
SEC. 301 FF. 

FN2  SECS. 3.22 AND 3.25. 

FN3  SEC. 1.72. 

FN4  SEC. 1.71. 

FN5  SEC. 409(A), 47 U.S.C. SEC. 409(A) PROVIDES THAT, IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF TIT. III, AN EXAMINER MAY NOT HOLD HEARINGS WITH
RESPECT TO A MATTER INVOLVING A CHANGE OF POLICY BY THE COMMISSION OR A
NEW KIND OF USE OF FREQUENCIES. 

FN6  47 U.S.C. SEC. 405. 

FN7  PURSUANT TO SEC. 402(B)(2); 47 U.S.C. SEC. 402(B)(2). 

FN8  132 F.2D 545. 

FN9  55 STAT., PART 2, 1005. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

UNLIKE COURTS, WHICH ARE CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF
PRIVATE RIGHTS ALTHOUGH PUBLIC INTERESTS MAY THEREBY BE IMPLICATED,
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE PREDOMINANTLY CONCERNED WITH ENFORCING
PUBLIC RIGHTS ALTHOUGH PRIVATE INTERESTS MAY THEREBY BE AFFECTED.  TO
NO SMALL DEGREE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC
RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS BECAUSE MORE FLEXIBLE AND LESS
TRADITIONAL PROCEDURES WERE CALLED FOR THAN THOSE EVOLVED BY THE
COURTS.  IT IS THEREFORE ESSENTIAL TO THE VITALITY OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THAT THE PROCEDURAL POWERS GIVEN TO THESE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES NOT BE CONFINED WITHIN THE CONVENTIONAL MODES
BY WHICH BUSINESS IS DONE IN COURTS. 

IN MY JUDGMENT THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE IMPOSES A
HAMPERING RESTRICTION UPON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS.  THIS IS THE ASPECT THAT LENDS THIS CASE IMPORTANCE AND LEADS
ME TO EXPRESS THE REASONS FOR MY DISSENT. 

THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET
SEQ., DIRECTS THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO "CLASSIFY RADIO
STATIONS," "PRESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED BY EACH
CLASS OF LICENSED STATIONS AND EACH STATION WITHIN ANY CLASS," AND
"ASSIGN BANDS OF FREQUENCIES TO THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF STATIONS, AND
ASSIGN FREQUENCIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL STATION AND DETERMINE THE POWER
WHICH EACH STATION SHALL USE AND THE TIME DURING WHICH IT MAY
OPERATE."  SEC. 303(A)(B)(C).  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION HAS
ESTABLISHED A PLAN FOR ALLOCATING THE AVAILABLE RADIO FACILITIES AMONG
THE STATIONS OF THE COUNTRY.  UNDER ITS RULES THERE ARE THREE CLASSES
OF STANDARD BROADCAST CHANNELS:  "CLEAR CHANNELS," ON WHICH DOMINANT
STATIONS RENDER SERVICE OVER EXTENSIVE AREAS AND WHICH ARE CLEARED OF
OBJECTIONABLE INTERFERENCE WITHIN THEIR PRIMARY SERVICE AREAS AND OVER
ALL OR A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR SECONDARY SERVICE AREAS; "REGIONAL
CHANNELS," ON WHICH SEVERAL STATIONS SERVING SMALLER AREAS OPERATE
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH POWERS NOT IN EXCESS OF 5 KILOWATTS; AND "LOCAL
CHANNELS," ON WHICH MANY STATIONS SERVING LOCAL AREAS OPERATE
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH POWERS NOT IN EXCESS OF 250 WATTS.  SEC. 3.21. 
SIMILARLY, STANDARD BROADCAST STATIONS ARE CLASSIFIED INTO FOUR GROUPS:
"CLASS I STATIONS" - DOMINANT STATIONS OPERATING ON CLEAR CHANNELS AND
DESIGNED TO RENDER PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SERVICE OVER LARGE AREAS AND
AT RELATIVELY LONG DISTANCES; "CLASS II STATIONS" - OPERATING ON CLEAR
CHANNELS AND DESIGNED TO RENDER SERVICE OVER A PRIMARY SERVICE AREA
WHICH IS LIMITED BY AND SUBJECT TO SUCH INTERFERENCE AS MAY BE RECEIVED
FROM CLASS I STATIONS; "CLASS III STATIONS" - OPERATING ON REGIONAL
CHANNELS AND DESIGNED TO RENDER SERVICE PRIMARILY TO METROPOLITAN
DISTRICTS AND THE RURAL AREAS CONTIGUOUS THERETO; AND "CLASS IV
STATIONS" - OPERATING ON LOCAL CHANNELS AND DESIGNED TO RENDER SERVICE
PRIMARILY TO CITIES OR TOWNS AND THE SUBURBAN AND RURAL AREAS
CONTIGUOUS THERETO.  SEC. 3.22.  SECTION 3.25 DIVIDES CLEAR CHANNELS
INTO TWO FURTHER GROUPS:  I-A CHANNELS, TO WHICH ONLY ONE CLASS I
STATION IS ASSIGNED, WITH ONE OR MORE CLASS II STATIONS OPERATING
LIMITED TIME OR DAYTIME ONLY, AND I-B CHANNELS, TO WHICH BOTH CLASS I
AND CLASS II STATIONS MAY BE ASSIGNED, WITH MORE THAN ONE STATION
OPERATING AT NIGHT. 

ON OCTOBER 25, 1938, STATION WHDH IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, A CLASS II
STATION LICENSED TO OPERATE DURING THE DAYTIME ONLY ON THE FREQUENCY
830 KILOCYCLES (A CLASS I-A CHANNEL) WITH POWER OF 1 KILOWATT, APPLIED
TO THE COMMISSION FOR MODIFICATION OF ITS LICENSE SO THAT IT COULD
OPERATE BOTH NIGHT AND DAY ON THAT FREQUENCY WITH INCREASED POWER OF 5
KILOWATTS.  AT THAT TIME STATION KOA IN DENVER, COLORADO, WAS THE
DOMINANT CLASS I STATION ON THE FREQUENCY 830 KILOCYCLES, OPERATING
UNLIMITED TIME WITH POWER OF 50 KILOWATTS.  SINCE THE COMMISSION'S
RULES PROVIDED FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF ONLY ONE STATION TO OPERATE AT
NIGHT ON THE FREQUENCY 830 KILOCYCLES, THE WHDH APPLICATION COULD NOT
BE GRANTED WITHOUT AMENDMENT OF SEC. 3.25. 

COMMISSION MUST FOLLOW IN PASSING UPON APPLICATIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF
LICENSES, SUCH AS THAT OF WHDH:  "IF UPON EXAMINATION OF ANY
APPLICATION FOR ...  MODIFICATION OF A STATION LICENSE THE COMMISSION
SHALL DETERMINE THAT PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY WOULD
BE SERVED BY THE GRANTING THEREOF, IT SHALL AUTHORIZE ...  MODIFICATION
THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID FINDING.  IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION
UPON EXAMINATION OF ANY SUCH APPLICATION DOES NOT REACH SUCH DECISION
WITH RESPECT THERETO, IT SHALL NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THEREOF, SHALL FIX
AND GIVE NOTICE OF A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING THEREON, AND SHALL
AFFORD SUCH APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD UNDER SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS IT MAY PRESCRIBE."  THE COMMISSION, UPON ITS EXAMINATION
OF THE WHDH APPLICATION, WAS UNABLE TO FIND THAT A GRANT WOULD SERVE
THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY.  THE APPLICATION WAS
THEREFORE, ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1939, DESIGNATED FOR HEARING.  THREE WEEKS
LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1939, KOA FILED A PETITION TO INTERVENE.  ITS
PETITION, IN SUBSTANCE, ALLEGED ONLY THAT THE PROPOSED OPERATION OF
WHDH WOULD "CAUSE INTERFERENCE TO STATION KOA IN AREAS WHERE KOA'S
SIGNAL IS NOW INTERFERENCE FREE," THAT KOA "WOULD BE AGGRIEVED AND ITS
INTERESTS ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BY THE PROPOSED OPERATION, AND THAT A
GRANT OF THE WHDH APPLICATION WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY. 

THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS REQUIRED AS A MATTER OF LAW
TO GRANT KOA'S PETITION TO INTERVENE IN THE HEARING UPON THE WHDH
APPLICATION.  IN MY JUDGMENT THE ACT PRECLUDES SUCH A CONSTRUCTION. 
IN SUCH MANNER AS WILL BEST CONDUCE TO THE PROPER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS
AND TO THE ENDS OF JUSTICE"; SEC. 303(R) AUTHORIZES IT TO MAKE "SUCH
RULES AND REGULATIONS AND PRESCRIBE SUCH RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS,
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LAW, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  WE HAVE HELD THAT BY FORCE OF THESE
PROVISIONS "THE SUBORDINATE QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURE IN ASCERTAINING THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, WHEN THE COMMISSION'S LICENSING AUTHORITY IS INVOKED -
THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY, WHETHER APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE HEARD
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY OR SUCCESSIVELY, WHETHER PARTIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
INTERVENE IN ONE ANOTHER'S PROCEEDINGS, AND SIMILAR QUESTIONS - WERE
EXPLICITLY AND BY IMPLICATION LEFT TO THE COMMISSION'S OWN DEVISING, SO
LONG, OF COURSE, AS IT OBSERVES THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS DESIGNED FOR THE
PROTECTION OF PRIVATE AS WELL AS PUBLIC INTEREST."  FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134,
138. 

THE BREADTH OF DISCRETION ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION IS LIMITED,
HOWEVER, BY SECS. 303(F) AND 312(B).  THE FORMER PROVIDES THAT "CHANGES
IN THE FREQUENCIES, AUTHORIZED POWER, OR IN THE TIMES OF OPERATION OF
ANY STATION, SHALL NOT BE MADE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE STATION
LICENSEE UNLESS, AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE
THAT SUCH CHANGES WILL PROMOTE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR INTEREST OR WILL
SERVE PUBLIC NECESSITY, OR THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT WILL BE MORE
FULLY COMPLIED WITH."  SECTION 312(B) AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO
MODIFY OUTSTANDING STATION LICENSES "IF IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COMMISSION SUCH ACTION WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE,
AND NECESSITY, OR THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OR OF ANY TREATY RATIFIED
BY THE UNITED STATES WILL BE MORE FULLY COMPLIED WITH:  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH ORDER OF MODIFICATION SHALL BECOME FINAL UNTIL
THE HOLDER OF SUCH OUTSTANDING LICENSE OR PERMIT SHALL HAVE BEEN
NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE GROUNDS OR REASONS
THEREFOR AND SHALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SUCH AN ORDER OF MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT ISSUE." 

THE PROCEDURAL SCHEME ESTABLISHED BY THE STATUTE IS THUS CLEAR:  IF
APPLICATION IS MADE FOR A STATION LICENSE, OR FOR MODIFICATION OR
RENEWAL OF A LICENSE, THE COMMISSION MAY GRANT SUCH APPLICATION WITHOUT
A HEARING IF IT FINDS, UPON EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICATION, THAT A
GRANT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IF IT IS UNABLE TO REACH SUCH A
DETERMINATION FROM ITS STUDY OF THE APPLICATION, IT MUST AFFORD THE
APPLICANT A "HEARING."  SEC. 309(A).  IF A COMMISSION ORDER INVOLVES A
CHANGE IN THE FREQUENCY, AUTHORIZED POWER, OR HOURS OF OPERATION OF AN
EXISTING STATION WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, SUCH LICENSEE IS ENTITLED TO A
"PUBLIC HEARING."  SEC. 303(F).  IF A COMMISSION ORDER INVOLVES
"MODIFICATION" OF AN OUTSTANDING LICENSE, PRESUMABLY SOMETHING OTHER
THAN A CHANGE IN FREQUENCY, POWER, OR HOURS OF OPERATION, THE
MODIFICATION ORDER CANNOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE LICENSEE IS GIVEN
NOTICE IN WRITING AND A "REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SUCH
AN ORDER OF MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT ISSUE."  SEC. 312(B).  IT IS
RELEVANT HERE, ALSO, THAT UNDER SEC. 312(A) A COMMISSION ORDER REVOKING
A STATION LICENSE CANNOT TAKE EFFECT "UNTIL FIFTEEN DAYS' NOTICE IN
WRITING THEREOF, STATING THE CAUSE FOR THE PROPOSED REVOCATION, HAS
BEEN GIVEN TO THE LICENSEE.  SUCH LICENSEE MAY MAKE WRITTEN APPLICATION
TO THE COMMISSION AT ANY TIME WITHIN SAID FIFTEEN DAYS FOR A HEARING
UPON SUCH ORDER, AND UPON THE FILING OF SUCH WRITTEN APPLICATION SAID
ORDER OF REVOCATION SHALL STAND SUSPENDED UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE
HEARING CONDUCTED UNDER SUCH RULES AS THE COMMISSION MAY PRESCRIBE. 
UPON THE CONCLUSION OF SAID HEARING THE COMMISSION MAY AFFIRM, MODIFY,
OR REVOKE SAID ORDER OF REVOCATION."  THE ACT EXPLICITLY PROVIDES FOR A
"HEARING," THEREFORE, WHEN THE COMMISSION PROPOSES TO DENY AN
APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE, OR TO REVOKE A LICENSE, OR TO CHANGE THE
FREQUENCY, POWER, OR HOURS OF OPERATION OF A STATION LICENSEE.  BUT
WHEN A COMMISSION ORDER MERELY INVOLVES "MODIFICATION" OF THE LICENSE
OF AN EXISTING STATION, THE LATTER IS ENTITLED ONLY TO NOTICE IN
WRITING AND A "REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE" WHY THE ORDER
SHOULD NOT ISSUE. 

THE COMMISSION HAS EXERCISED THE AUTHORITY GIVEN IT BY CONGRESS TO
FORMULATE ITS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  SECTION 1.102 OF ITS RULES,
RELATING TO INTERVENTION IN COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS BY INTERESTED
PARTIES, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"PETITIONS FOR INTERVENTION MUST SET FORTH THE GROUNDS OF THE
PROPOSED INTERVENTION, THE POSITION AND INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER IN
THE PROCEEDING, THE FACTS ON WHICH THE PETITIONER BASES HIS CLAIM THAT
HIS INTERVENTION WILL BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND MUST BE SUBSCRIBED
OR VERIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1.122.  THE GRANTING OF A
PETITION TO INTERVENE SHALL HAVE THE EFFECT OF PERMITTING INTERVENTION
BEFORE THE COMMISSION BUT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ANY RECOGNITION OF
ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT OR INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDING.  THE
GRANTING OF SUCH PETITION SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING OR
ENLARGING THE ISSUES WHICH SHALL BE THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE COMMISSION'S
NOTICE OF HEARING UNLESS ON MOTION THE COMMISSION SHALL AMEND THE
SAME." 

UNDER AN EARLIER RULE ANY PERSON COULD INTERVENE IN A COMMISSION
PROCEEDING IF HIS PETITION DISCLOSED "A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE
SUBJECT MATTER."  SEC. 105.19, COMMISSION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
(1935).  THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE IN THE COMMISSION'S INTERVENTION
RULE WERE THUS STATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, SEN. DOC. NO. 186, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PT.
3, PP. 16-17:  "THE EFFECTS OF THIS COMPLETE FREEDOM OF INTERVENTION
(AVAILABLE UNDER THE OLD RULE) UPON THE COMMISSION'S ACTIVITIES WERE
VERY MARKED.  NOT ONLY WAS THE RECORD UNNECESSARILY PROLONGED BY THE
DISCUSSION OF NONCONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, BUT THE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO
EACH ISSUE WAS INCREASED MANYFOLD BY VIRTUE OF THE EXTENDED CROSS
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES BY EACH INTERVENER.  MORE OFTEN THAN NOT THE
INTERVENERS PRESENTED NO AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUES AT HAND. 
THE MAJOR FUNCTIONS SERVED BY THEM WERE APPARENTLY TO IMPEDE THE
PROGRESS OF THE HEARING, TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE RECORD, AND TO
OBFUSCATE THE ISSUES BY PROLONGED AND CONFUSING CROSS-EXAMINATION.  NOR
WERE THESE DILATORY AND DESTRUCTIVE TACTICS RESTRICTED TO THE HEARING
ITSELF.  EACH INTERVENER WOULD CUSTOMARILY AVAIL HIMSELF OF HIS RIGHTS
TO TAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXAMINER'S REPORT, TO ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE
THE COMMISSION, AND, IN MANY CASES, TO APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS.  ... IF THIS (NEW)
PROVISION IS ENFORCED INTELLIGENTLY AND FORCEFULLY, AN IMPORTANT STEP
WILL HAVE BEEN TAKEN BOTH TOWARD THE PROTECTION OF APPLICANTS AND THE
INCREASE OF THE COMMISSION'S PRESTIGE."  COMPARE IN RE HAZELWOOD, INC.,
7 F.C.C. 443. 

KOA'S PETITION FOR INTERVENTION WAS DENIED, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THE
SHOWING REQUIRED BY SEC. 1.102 HAD NOT BEEN MADE.  AND ON JANUARY 29
AND 30, 1940, A HEARING UPON THE WHDH APPLICATION WAS HELD BEFORE AN
EXAMINER OF THE COMMISSION.  ALTHOUGH KOA WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO
INTERVENE, IT COULD, UNDER SEC. 1.195 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES, HAVE
APPEARED AND GIVEN EVIDENCE.  THAT RULE PROVIDES THAT THE SECRETARY OF
THE COMMISSION SHALL MAINTAIN "A RECORD OF ALL COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED
BY THE COMMISSION RELATING TO THE MERITS OF ANY APPLICATION PENDING
BEFORE THE COMMISSION," AND IF THE APPLICATION IS DESIGNATED FOR
HEARING, THE SECRETARY MUST NOTIFY ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE COMMUNICATED
WITH THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE APPLICATION "IN ORDER THAT SUCH
PERSONS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AND GIVE EVIDENCE AT SUCH
HEARING."  UNDER THIS RULE IF KOA HAD APPEARED AT THE HEARING UPON THE
WHDH APPLICATION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
RELATING TO THE MATTERS RAISED IN ITS PETITION FOR INTERVENTION.  BUT,
SO FAR AS THE RECORD BEFORE US SHOWS, IT MADE NO EFFORT TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION AFFORDED IT BY SEC. 1.195. 

ON DECEMBER 9, 1940, THE COMMISSION ISSUED PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS.  UNDER THESE THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED
OPERATION OF WHDH, WITH USE OF A DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA, "WOULD NOT CAUSE
ANY INTERFERENCE TO THE PRIMARY SERVICE OF STATION KOA, DENVER,
COLORADO, AND THAT SUCH INTERFERENCE AS THE PROPOSED OPERATION OF WHDH
MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO CAUSE TO RECEPTION OF KOA WOULD BE
LIMITED TO RECEIVERS IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE UNITED STATES"; THAT
THE OPERATION OF WHDH AS PROPOSED IN ITS APPLICATION WOULD "ENABLE IT
TO DELIVER SERVICE OF PRIMARY SIGNAL QUALITY TO AN AREA HAVING A
POPULATION OF 3,093,000 OR TO 621,000 MORE PEOPLE THAN ARE NOW INCLUDED
WITHIN THE PRIMARY SERVICE AREA OF THE STATION"; THAT BY EXTENDING
WHDH'S HOURS OF OPERATION "A NEW PRIMARY SERVICE TO 94.9% OF THE BOSTON
METROPOLITAN AREA, INCLUDING A POPULATION OF 2,185,000," WOULD BE
PROVIDED; THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE IMPROVED SERVICE TO LISTENERS IN THE
BOSTON AREA, THERE WOULD BE "AN IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION OF SERVICE
WHICH APPLICANT STATION (WHDH) NOW ENDEAVORS TO RENDER OVER THE FISHING
BANKS SITUATED OFF THE NEW ENGLAND COAST"; AND THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST
WOULD BE SERVED BY AMENDING SEC. 3.25 OF THE RULES SO AS TO MAKE THE
FREQUENCY 830 KILOCYCLES A I-B CHANNEL, UPON WHICH MORE THAN ONE
STATION COULD OPERATE AT NIGHT, THEREBY PERMITTING "MORE EFFICIENT USE
OF THE FREQUENCY." 

ON DECEMBER 16, 1940, KOA AGAIN PETITIONED TO INTERVENE.  ITS
PETITION ALLEGED ONLY THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION, IF ADOPTED, WOULD
RESULT IN "INTERFERENCE TO STATION KOA IN AREAS WHERE KOA'S SIGNALS ARE
NOW INTERFERENCE FREE," WOULD CONSTITUTE A MODIFICATION OF KOA'S
LICENSE WITHOUT AFFORDING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND WOULD
RESULT IN "A DEGRADATION OF SERVICE ON 830 KC WHICH WILL BE PREJUDICIAL
TO THE PRIORITY RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES ON THIS CHANNEL, WILL
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SERVICE TO RURAL LISTENERS IN ORDER TO FURNISH
ADDITIONAL SERVICE TO THE CITY OF BOSTON WHICH IS ALREADY WELL
SERVED."  KOA MADE NO OFFER TO CONTRADICT OR ADD TO THE EVIDENCE
ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, NOR DID IT DISPUTE THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS
AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTERFERENCE WHICH KOA WOULD SUFFER FROM THE
PROPOSED OPERATION OF WHDH.  ACCORDINGLY, ON JANUARY 7, 1941, THE
COMMISSION DENIED KOA'S SECOND PETITION TO INTERVENE, BUT IT PERMITTED
KOA, AS WELL AS OTHER "CLEAR CHANNEL" STATIONS INTERESTED IN THE
PROCEEDING, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COMMISSION,
AND TO FILE BRIEFS AMICUS, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED
FINDINGS SHOULD BE MADE FINAL. 

MEANWHILE, ON JANUARY 23, 1941, THE PRESIDENT PROCLAIMED THE NORTH
AMERICAN REGIONAL BROADCASTING AGREEMENT, 55 STAT. 1005.  THE PURPOSE
OF THIS AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS CONCLUDED AT HAVANA ON DECEMBER 13, 1937,
AMONG CANADA, CUBA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, HAITI, MEXICO, AND THE UNITED
STATES, WAS TO "REGULATE AND ESTABLISH PRINCIPLES COVERING THE USE OF
THE STANDARD BROADCAST BAND IN THE NORTH AMERICAN REGION SO THAT EACH
COUNTRY MAY MAKE THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE THEREOF WITH THE MINIMUM
TECHNICAL INTERFERENCE BETWEEN BROADCAST STATIONS."  THE SIGNATORY
GOVERNMENTS RECOGNIZED THAT "UNTIL TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS REACH A STATE
PERMITTING THE ELIMINATION OF RADIO INTERFERENCE OF INTERNATIONAL
CHARACTER, A REGIONAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THEM IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
PROMOTE STANDARDIZATION AND TO MINIMIZE INTERFERENCE."  THE AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES IN THE USE OF SPECIFIED CLEAR CHANNELS, SIXTY
THREE OF WHICH WERE ASSIGNED TO THE UNITED STATES, AND PROVIDED THAT
EACH SUCH CHANNEL "SHALL BE USED IN A MANNER CONFORMING TO THE BEST
ENGINEERING PRACTICE WITH DUE REGARD TO THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED BY
THE DOMINANT STATIONS OPERATING THEREON." 

IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE UNITED
STATES WAS OBLIGED TO MAKE EXTENSIVE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ASSIGNMENTS OF
ITS EXISTING STATIONS.  AS PART OF THE ACCOMMODATIONS REQUIRED,
STATIONS ASSIGNED TO THE FREQUENCY 830 KILOCYCLES WERE TO BE MOVED TO
850 KILOCYCLES.  THIS CHANGE AFFECTED BOTH WHDH AND KOA.  THE LICENSE
OF KOA, LIKE THAT OF ALL OTHER STANDARD BROADCAST STATIONS, WOULD HAVE
EXPIRED ON AUGUST 1, 1940, WHILE THE WHDH APPLICATION WAS PENDING.  THE
LICENSES OF ALL STATIONS, INCLUDING KOA AND WHDH, WERE SUCCESSIVELY
EXTENDED BY THE COMMISSION, FIRST TO OCTOBER 1, 1940, AND THEN TO MARCH
29, 1941, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT.  KOA HAD FILED AN
APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF ITS LICENSE TO OPERATE ON 830 KILOCYCLES, 50
KILOWATTS, UNLIMITED TIME.  ON FEBRUARY 4, 1941, THE COMMISSION ADVISED
ALL APPLICANTS FOR RENEWALS, INCLUDING KOA, THAT UNDER THE AGREEMENT,
THEIR OPERATING ASSIGNMENTS WERE TO BE CHANGED AND THAT THEIR
APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWALS WOULD BE REGARDED AS APPLICATIONS TO OPERATE
UPON THE NEW FREQUENCIES, UNLESS THE APPLICANT WISHED TO OPERATE UPON
SOME OTHER FREQUENCY, IN WHICH EVENT ITS APPLICATION WOULD BE
DESIGNATED FOR HEARING.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, KOA DID NOT NOTIFY THE
COMMISSION THAT IT HAD ANY OBJECTION TO ITS RENEWAL APPLICATION BEING
REGARDED AS AN APPLICATION TO OPERATE ON THE FREQUENCY 850 KILOCYCLES. 
ACCORDINGLY, WHEN ITS LICENSE TO OPERATE ON 830 KILOCYCLES EXPIRED ON
MARCH 29, 1941, ITS LICENSE WAS RENEWED ON THE FREQUENCY 850
KILOCYCLES.  IN NO SENSE, THEREFORE, DID THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION
CHANGING KOA'S FREQUENCY ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO THE NORTH AMERICAN
REGIONAL BROADCASTING AGREEMENT CONSTITUTE A MODIFICATION OF KOA'S
LICENSE.  AND, INDEED, KOA MAKES NO SUCH CONTENTION HERE, FOR REVIEW OF
COMMISSION ORDERS MODIFYING STATION LICENSES, UPON THE COMMISSION'S OWN
MOTION, CAN BE REVIEWED ONLY IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT
UNDER SEC. 402(A).  SEE SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMM'N, 316 U.S. 4, 8-9, NOTE 3. 

ON MARCH 26, 1941, THREE DAYS BEFORE THE AGREEMENT WAS TO BECOME
EFFECTIVE, THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER ADOPTING THE PROPOSED
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS UPON THE WHDH APPLICATION, GRANTING WHDH
AUTHORITY TO OPERATE ON 850 KILOCYCLES, WITH POWER OF 5 KILOWATTS, DAY
AND NIGHT, AND AMENDING SEC. 3.25 OF ITS RULES SO AS TO MAKE THE
FREQUENCY 850 KILOCYCLES A I-B CHANNEL UPON WHICH MORE THAN ONE STATION
COULD OPERATE AT NIGHT.  THIS ORDER WAS MADE EFFECTIVE APRIL 7, 1941. 

ON APRIL 25, 1941, KOA FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, REPEATING IN SUBSTANCE THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN ITS
EARLIER PETITIONS TO INTERVENE.  AND ON MAY 20, 1941, THE COMMISSION,
IN AN OPINION THAT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL EACH OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING, DENIED THE PETITION.  THE COMMISSION STATED
THAT "IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED IN THIS
PROCEEDING, WE SHALL RE-EXAMINE OUR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE
RECORD UPON WHICH THEY ARE BASED."  IN SUMMARY, IT FOUND THAT A GRANT
OF THE WHDH APPLICATION "WOULD NOT RESULT IN INTERFERENCE TO THE
PRIMARY SERVICE OF STATION KOA, DENVER, COLORADO, AND THAT SUCH
INTERFERENCE TO THE RECEPTION OF STATION KOA AS MIGHT REASONABLY BE
EXPECTED TO RESULT FROM A GRANT OF THE MATHESON (WHDH) APPLICATION
WOULD OCCUR IN ITS SECONDARY SERVICE AREA AND WOULD BE LIMITED TO
RECEIVERS IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE UNITED STATES, REMOTE FROM THE KOA
TRANSMITTER; THAT SUCH SECONDARY SERVICE AS KOA COULD RENDER IN THIS
AREA WOULD BE OF UNCERTAIN CHARACTER BECAUSE OF ITS DEPENDENCE UPON THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIVER, THE SIGNAL INTENSITY AND
THE SIGNAL TO INTERFERENCE RATIO INVOLVED IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE"; AND
"THAT ALTHOUGH PETITIONER (KOA) CONTENDS IT IS ENTITLED TO SERVE THE
RURAL AREAS IN WHICH IT IS CLAIMED INTERFERENCE WILL OCCUR, IT FAILS TO
ALLEGE EITHER THAT IT HAS BEEN PROVIDING A USEFUL SERVICE IN SUCH AREAS
OR POINT OUT, IN TERMS OF POPULATION, THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE
CLAIMED INTERFERENCE." 

ON JUNE 7, 1941, KOA FILED AN APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNDER SEC. 402(B)(2)
OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.  SECTION 402(B) PROVIDES FOR APPEALS
TO THE COURT FROM DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION "IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
CASES: (1) BY ANY APPLICANT FOR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A RADIO
STATION, OR FOR A RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING
RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING RADIO STATION
LICENSE, WHOSE APPLICATION IS REFUSED BY THE COMMISSION.  (2) BY ANY
OTHER PERSON AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY ANY
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION GRANTING OR REFUSING ANY SUCH APPLICATION." 

THE COURT BELOW COULD NOT TAKE JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT UNLESS KOA
HAD A RIGHT TO APPEAL UNDER SEC. 402(B)(2); IN OTHER WORDS, UNLESS IT
WAS "AGGRIEVED" OR ITS "INTERESTS WERE ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BY THE
GRANTING OF THE WHDH APPLICATION.  SINCE THE COMMISSION IN EXERCISING
ITS LICENSING FUNCTION MUST BE GOVERNED BY THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT
THE PRIVATE INTEREST OF EXISTING LICENSEES, AN APPELLANT UNDER SEC.
402(B)(2) APPEARS ONLY TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT HIS
OWN.  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S.
470; SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N, 316 U.S.
4.  THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER MAY IMPAIR THE VALUE OF AN EXISTING
STATION'S LICENSE IS IN ITSELF NO GROUND FOR INVALIDATING THE ORDER; IT
MERELY MAY CREATE STANDING TO ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER ON OTHER
GROUNDS.  WHATEVER DOUBTS MAY HAVE EXISTED AS TO WHETHER THE
INGREDIENTS OF "CASE" OR "CONTROVERSY," AS DEFINED, FOR EXAMPLE, IN
MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, 219 U.S. 346, ARE PRESENT IN THIS SITUATION
WERE DISPELLED BY OUR RULING IN THE SANDERS CASE THAT THE LEGALITY OF A
COMMISSION ORDER CAN BE CHALLENGED BY ONE "AGGRIEVED" OR "WHOSE
INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED" THEREBY, EVEN THOUGH THE SOURCE OF
HIS GRIEVANCE IS NOT WHAT IS CLAIMED TO MAKE THE ORDER UNLAWFUL.  BUT
FROM THIS IT MUST NOT BE CONCLUDED THAT ANYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE
"AGGRIEVED" OR WHO IS IN ANY WAY ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY COMMISSION
ACTION HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL.  AS THE PREVAILING OPINION IN THE COURT
OF APPEALS POINTED OUT:  "IN THE PRESENT STAGE OF RADIO, VERY FEW
CHANGES, EITHER IN FREQUENCY OR IN POWER, CAN BE MADE WITHOUT CREATING
SOME DEGREE OF ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE.  THIS MAY RANGE FROM MINUTE AND
PRACTICALLY HARMLESS INTERRUPTION WITH REMOTE AND VERY OCCASIONAL
LISTENERS IN SECONDARY SERVICE AREAS TO TOTAL OBLITERATION IN THE
PRIMARY FIELD.  ...  IT SEEMS NOT UNREASONABLE TO READ THE (SANDERS)
OPINION AS REQUIRING BY IMPLICATION THAT THERE BE PROBABLE INJURY OF A
SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER.  SO MUCH BY WAY OF LIMITATION SEEMS NECESSARY TO
PREVENT VINDICATION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST FROM TURNING INTO MASS
APPEALS BY THE INDUSTRY AT LARGE, WITH RESULTING HOPELESS CLOGGING OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BY JUDICIAL REVIEW.  LIKEWISE, WITH
ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE, IT IS HARDLY NECESSARY TO SECURE APPELLATE
CHAMPIONSHIP BY EVERY BROADCASTER WHO MAY BE AFFECTED IN ONLY A REMOTE
AND INSUBSTANTIAL MANNER."  132 F.2D 545, 548. 

IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ITS RIGHT TO APPEAL, THEREFORE, KOA HAD TO MAKE
A SHOWING THAT ITS INTERESTS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED BY A GRANT OF
THE WHDH APPLICATION.  THIS, THE RECORD MAKES CLEAR, IT FAILED TO DO.
IN ITS NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE COURT BELOW, KOA MADE ONLY A GENERAL
ALLEGATION, WHAT COURTS NORMALLY REGARD AS A CONCLUSION OF LAW, THAT
THE COMMISSION'S ACTION RESULTED IN A "SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION" OF ITS
LICENSE.  NO SUPPORTING ALLEGATIONS OF FACT WERE TENDERED.  THERE WAS
NO CLAIM THAT KOA'S ECONOMIC POSITION WAS IN ANY WAY IMPAIRED, OR THAT
THE PROPOSED OPERATION OF WHDH WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE
WITH KOA, OR THAT SUCH OPERATION WOULD RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF
LISTENERS TO KOA, OR THAT ANY AREAS OF SUBSTANTIAL SIZE WOULD NO LONGER
BE ABLE TO RECEIVE SATISFACTORY SERVICE FROM KOA.  NEITHER IN ITS
PETITIONS FOR INTERVENTION, NOR IN ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE
THE COMMISSION, NOR IN ITS NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE COURT BELOW, DID KOA
SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS. 
THE RECORD AFFORDS NO BASIS, THEREFORE, FOR FINDING THAT KOA HAD
STANDING TO APPEAL FROM THE GRANT OF THE WHDH APPLICATION.  BUT EVEN IF
IT HAD, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT KOA WAS AFFORDED LESS OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAN THE STATUTE
REQUIRES.  ASSUMING THAT THE GRANT OF THE WHDH APPLICATION CONSTITUTED
A "MODIFICATION" OF KOA'S LICENSE IN THE SENSE THAT THE SCOPE OF THE
OPERATIONS AUTHORIZED BY KOA'S LICENSE WAS THEREBY LIMITED, ONLY SEC.
312(B) WOULD COME INTO OPERATION.  SECTION 303(F) IS INAPPLICABLE
BECAUSE THE GRANT OF THE WHDH APPLICATION UNQUESTIONABLY DID NOT CHANGE
KOA'S FREQUENCY, POWER, OR HOURS OF OPERATION.  BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
THE COMMISSION'S ACTION, KOA'S OPERATING ASSIGNMENT WAS PRECISELY THE
SAME: 850 KILOCYCLES, 50 KILOWATTS, UNLIMITED TIME.  AND SO THE ONLY
QUESTION ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE IS - WAS KOA AFFORDED SUCH
OPPORTUNITY OF PARTICIPATION IN THE WHDH PROCEEDING AS SEC. 312(B)
REQUIRES?  THAT SECTION PROVIDES THAT NO ORDER MODIFYING THE LICENSE OF
ANY EXISTING STATION "SHALL BECOME FINAL UNTIL THE HOLDER OF SUCH
OUTSTANDING LICENSE OR PERMIT SHALL HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF
THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THE GROUNDS OR REASONS THEREFOR AND SHALL HAVE
BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SUCH AN ORDER OF
MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT ISSUE." 

KOA DOES NOT CLAIM THAT IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE, FORMAL AND
OTHERWISE, OF THE PROCEEDINGS UPON THE WHDH APPLICATION.  NOR CAN THERE
BE ANY DOUBT THAT IT HAD AMPLE AND "REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW
CAUSE" WHY WHDH'S APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.  UNDER SEC. 1.195
OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES IT COULD HAVE APPEARED AND GIVEN EVIDENCE AT
THE HEARING UPON THE WHDH APPLICATION.  THAT IT DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY IS CERTAINLY NO REASON FOR SAYING THAT IT HAD
NONE.  KOA WAS PERMITTED TO ARGUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT THE
PROPOSED GRANT OF THE WHDH APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE MADE FINAL.  IT
SUBMITTED A PETITION FOR REHEARING WHICH THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED ON
ITS MERITS AND WHICH THE COMMISSION DENIED ONLY AFTER A DETAILED REVIEW
OF ALL THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY KOA. 

THE COURT HOLDS, NEVERTHELESS, THAT THE COMMISSION WAS REQUIRED TO
AFFORD KOA MORE THAN ALL THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO SHOW CAUSE.  SECTION
312(B) IS CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE A HEARING IN WHICH THE LICENSEE WHOSE
INTERESTS MAY BE AFFECTED IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS A FORMAL PARTY. 
SUCH A CONSTRUCTION APPEARS TO ME TO DISREGARD THE STRUCTURE AND
LANGUAGE OF THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME.  CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXPLICIT
AND PROVIDED IN SEC. 312(B) THAT EVERY LICENSEE WHOSE INTERESTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY COMMISSION ACTION SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A HEARING AS AN
INTERVENOR IN THE PROCEEDING.  AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 KNEW HOW TO USE APT WORDS WHEN THEY WISHED
TO AFFORD PARTIES BEFORE THE COMMISSION THE RIGHT OF "HEARING." 
LICENSE A "HEARING," NOT NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE,
BEFORE THE APPLICATION CAN BE DENIED.  SECTION 312(A) GIVES A LICENSEE
A "HEARING," NOT NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE, BEFORE ITS
LICENSE CAN BE REVOKED.  SECTION 303(F) PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION
CANNOT CHANGE THE FREQUENCY, AUTHORIZED POWER, OR TIMES OF OPERATION OF
A LICENSEE UNLESS IT AFFORDS SUCH LICENSEE A "PUBLIC HEARING," NOT
MERELY NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE.  BUT, FOR REASONS WHICH
IT DEEMED SUFFICIENT, CONGRESS DID NOT CHOOSE TO MAKE THIS TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENT OF A "HEARING" IN SPECIFYING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE
PROTECTION OF LICENSEES WHO MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY COMMISSION ACTION. 
CONGRESS MAY WELL HAVE DESIRED TO AVOID THE LITIGIOUS WASTE SO
ABUNDANTLY ESTABLISHED BY THE VOLUMINOUS CASES TO WHICH THE CLAIM OF
INTERVENTION IN COURTS HAS GIVEN RISE.  THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE AND
AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
OF A "HEARING."  BY IMPOSING THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THE ADEQUATE
PROTECTION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS, CONGRESS CHARGED THE COMMISSION
WITH THE DUTY OF DEVISING APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD "BEST
CONDUCE TO THE PROPER DISPATCH OF BUSINESS AND TO THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE."  SEC. 4(J).  THE COMMISSION'S RESPONSE WAS SECS. 1.102 AND
1.195 OF ITS RULES. 

CAN IT SERIOUSLY BE CLAIMED THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED BEYOND ITS
AUTHORITY IN PROVIDING THAT BEFORE A LICENSEE CAN INTERVENE IN ANOTHER
PROCEEDING HE MUST INDICATE SOME SOLID GROUND BY SETTING FORTH "THE
FACTS ON WHICH THE PETITIONER BASES HIS CLAIM THAT HIS INTERVENTION
WILL BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST"?  OTHERWISE ANYONE WHO ASSERTS
GENERALLY THAT THE GRANT OF ANOTHER'S APPLICATION WILL AFFECT HIS
LICENSE MAY BECOME A PARTY TO A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND
MAY, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH A PARTY CAN SHAPE AND DISTORT THE DIRECTION
OF A PROCEEDING, GAIN ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT A PARTY HAS TO AFFECT
A LITIGATION ALTHOUGH HE HAS NOT MADE EVEN A PRELIMINARY SHOWING THAT
HIS INTERVENTION WILL BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  I CANNOT READ THE
REQUIREMENT FOR "REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SUCH AN ORDER
OF MODIFICATION SHOULD NOT ISSUE" AS A DENIAL TO THE COMMISSION OF
POWER TO MAKE SUCH A REASONABLE RULE FOR SIFTING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
POTENTIAL INTERVENORS.  AND IF THE COMMISSION'S RULE FOR INTERVENTION
WAS WITHIN ITS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY IN FORMULATING APPROPRIATE RULES
OF PROCEDURE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS PROCEEDINGS, IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR
THAT THE COMMISSION, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WAS
JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT KOA MADE NO SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM THAT THE GRANT
OF THE WHDH APPLICATION WOULD IMPAIR KOA'S ECONOMIC INTERESTS OR ENTAIL
A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF LISTENERS OR MAKE ANY APPRECIABLE INROADS UPON
ANY AREAS SERVED BY KOA OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT ITS INTEREST
OR THAT OF THE PUBLIC. 

TO DENY TO THE COMMISSION THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY SHOWING,
SUCH AS WAS FOUND WANTING HERE, BEFORE ADMITTING A PETITIONER TO THE
FULL RIGHTS OF A PARTY LITIGANT IS TO FASTEN UPON THE COMMISSION'S
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS EVOLVED BY COURTS FOR
THE ADJUDICATION OF CONTROVERSIES OVER PRIVATE INTERESTS.  SEE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 142
44.  IT IS TO ASSUME THAT THE MODES FAMILIAR TO COURTS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS ARE THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE MODES,
REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE TRIBUNALS
CHARGED WITH ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.  THIS IS TO READ THE DISCRETION
GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO FASHION A PROCEDURE
RELEVANT TO THE INTERESTS FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF WHICH THE COMMISSION
WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE DISTORTING SPECTACLES OF WHAT HAS BEEN
FOUND APPROPRIATE FOR COURTS.  WE MUST ASSUME THAT AN AGENCY WHICH
CONGRESS HAS TRUSTED IS WORTHY OF THE TRUST.  AND ESPECIALLY WHEN
SITTING IN JUDGMENT UPON PROCEDURE DEVISED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE
FAIR PROTECTION OF BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS, WE MUST VIEW WHAT
THE COMMISSION HAS DONE WITH A GENEROUS AND NOT A JEALOUS EYE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

WHILE I AM IN SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, THERE ARE A FEW WORDS I DESIRE TO ADD ON ONE PHASE
OF THE CASE. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT IF, AS WE HELD IN THE SANDERS CASE (309
U.S. 470), A PERSON FINANCIALLY INJURED BY THE GRANT OF A LICENSE HAS A
STANDING TO APPEAL, SO DOES ONE WHOSE STATION WILL SUFFER FROM
ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE IF THE LICENSE IS ISSUED.  I EXPRESSED MY
DOUBTS, HOWEVER, IN SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION$, 316 U.S. 4, 20-21, WHETHER CONGRESS ENDOWED PRIVATE
LITIGANTS WITH THE POWER TO VINDICATE THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN IT GAVE
THE RIGHT TO APPEAL UNDER SEC. 402(B) TO A PERSON "AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE
INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BY A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION.  I
ALSO EXPRESSED MY CONCERN IN THAT CASE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
STATUTORY SCHEME WHICH ALLOWED ONE WHO SHOWED NO INVASION OF A PRIVATE
RIGHT TO CALL ON THE COURTS TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  SEE
MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, 219 U.S. 346.  BUT IF WE ACCEPT AS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID A SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW INVOKED BY A PRIVATE
PERSON WHO HAS NO INDIVIDUAL SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT TO PROTECT BUT WHO HAS
STANDING ONLY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST,  FN1  THEN I
THINK WE MUST BE EXCEEDINGLY SCRUPULOUS TO SEE TO IT THAT HIS INTEREST
IN THE MATTER IS SUBSTANTIAL AND IMMEDIATE.  OTHERWISE WE WILL NOT ONLY
PERMIT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO BE CLOGGED BY JUDICIAL REVIEW; WE
WILL MOST ASSUREDLY RUN AFOUL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF CASE
OR CONTROVERSY.  FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 281
U.S. 464. 

ANY ACTUAL CONTROVERSY WHICH MAY NOW BE PRESENT IN THIS CASE IS
BETWEEN KOA AND THE COMMISSION.  ANY CONTROVERSY WHICH EXISTED BETWEEN
WHDH AND THE COMMISSION HAS COME TO AN END.  UNITED STATES V. ALASKA
S.S. CO., 253 U.S. 113, 116.  THE INTEREST, IF ANY, OF THE APPELLANT
KOA IS THE INTEREST OF A PRIVATE PERSON AND ACCORDINGLY MUST BE
MEASURED IN TERMS OF PRIVATE INJURY.  THAT INTEREST MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL
AND IMMEDIATE IF THE STANDARD OF THE STATUTE AND IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF CASE OR CONTROVERSY, AS INTERPRETED BY THE SANDERS AND
THE SCRIPPS-HOWARD CASES, ARE TO BE SATISFIED.  IT IS NECESSARY TO SHOW
IN EFFECT THAT KOA HAS SUSTAINED OR IS ABOUT TO SUSTAIN SOME DIRECT AND
SUBSTANTIAL INJURY (SEE MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 488) -
AN INJURY WHICH FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CASE MUST RESULT FROM
ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE.  THE SANDERS CASE AND THE SCRIPPS-HOWARD CASE
DO NOT DISPENSE WITH THAT REQUIREMENT.  THEY MERELY HOLD THAT AN
APPELLANT HAS HIS CASE DECIDED IN LIGHT OF THE STANDARDS OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, NOT BY THE CRITERIA WHICH GIVE HIM A STANDING TO APPEAL. 

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE OPINION OF THE COURT TAKES A CONTRARY
VIEW.  IT ONLY HOLDS ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE THAT KOA MADE AN
ADEQUATE SHOWING UNDER SEC. 402(B).  I DISAGREE WITH THAT CONCLUSION. 

FN1  REFERRED TO AS A SORT OF KING'S PROCTOR BY EDGERTON, J., IN
COLORADO RADIO CORP. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 73 APP. D.C.
225, 118 F.2D 24, 28; AND AS "PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERALS" BY FRANK, J.,
IN ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES V. ICKES, 134 F.2D 694. 
..END :





U.S. EX REL. T.V.A. V. POWELSON, 319 U.S. 266 


NO. 3.  ARGUED MARCH 12, 13, 1942.  REARGUED MARCH 1, 2, 1943.  -
DECIDED MAY 17, 1943.  - 118 F.2D 79, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON THIS APPEAL UNDER SEC. 25 OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
ACT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT
DISPOSE OF THE MATTER "UPON THE RECORD, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE AWARDS OR
FINDINGS THERETOFORE MADE," AND FIX THE VALUE.  P. 272. 

2.  IN A PROCEEDING TO CONDEMN LANDS UNDER SEC. 25 OF THE TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT, THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THEIR VALUE RESTS UPON
THE RESPONDENT LANDOWNER.  P. 273. 

3.  IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 25 OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
ACT, THE OWNER SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH A SPECIAL VALUE FOR THE LANDS
CONDEMNED UPON THE GROUND OF THEIR SPECIAL ADAPTABILITY, WHEN UNITED
WITH OTHER TRACTS OWNED BY HIM AND WITH TRACTS OWNED BY STRANGERS, FOR
USE IN FORMING A MULTIPLE-DAM, HYDRO-ELECTRIC PLANT WHICH HE
PROJECTED.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT IN ORDER TO PERMIT CONSIDERATION OF SUCH SPECIAL
ADAPTABILITY THERE MUST BE A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF THE CONDEMNED
TRACT'S BEING THUS COMBINED WITH OTHER TRACTS IN THE NEAR FUTURE,
OTHERWISE THE SPECIAL USE WOULD BE TOO REMOTE AND SPECULATIVE TO HAVE
ANY LEGITIMATE EFFECT UPON THE VALUATION.  P. 275. 

(2) THE LANDOWNER'S PRIVILEGE TO USE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN -
GRANTED BY THE STATE IN WHICH THE LANDS WERE SITUATE, BUT NOT
EXERCISED, AND REVOCABLE BY THE STATE - MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT THE LANDS
CONDEMNED COULD BE SO UNITED WITH OTHER TRACTS INTO THE PROJECTED POWER
PLANT IN THE REASONABLY NEAR FUTURE.  WITHOUT THE POWER TO CONDEMN, THE
CHANCES OF INCORPORATING LANDS AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROJECT ARE TOO
REMOTE AND SLIM TO HAVE ANY LEGITIMATE EFFECT ON THE VALUATION.  P.
276. 

4.  IN CONDEMNING LANDS FOR A FEDERAL PROJECT, THE UNITED STATES IS
NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF A BUSINESS
OPPORTUNITY, DEPENDENT UPON THEIR OWNER'S PRIVILEGE TO USE THE STATE
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN ACQUIRING OTHER LANDS, WHERE SUCH PRIVILEGE
HAS NOT BEEN EXERCISED AND IS REVOCABLE BY THE STATE, AND WHERE THE
STATE NEED NOT MAKE SUCH COMPENSATION WERE IT THE SPONSOR OF THE
PROJECT AND THE TAKER OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION.  P. 284. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY V. POWELSON, ASSIGNEE
AND SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF SOUTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 594, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS WHICH AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, 33 F.SUPP.  519, IN A CONDEMNATION CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ARISES OUT OF CONDEMNATION BY THE UNITED STATES ON BEHALF
OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY OF ABOUT 12,000 ACRES OF LAND IN
NORTH CAROLINA LYING IN AND ALONG THE HIWASSEE RIVER, A MAJOR TRIBUTARY
OF THE TENNESSEE.  THE LAND INVOLVED IN THE CASE WAS OWNED BY THE
RESPONDENT SOUTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION,
AND BY ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY, THE UNION POWER COMPANY, A GEORGIA
CORPORATION.  SINCE CONDEMNATION, THE SOUTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY HAS
ASSIGNED ITS PROPERTY INTEREST AND RIGHTS ARISING OUT OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS TO THE RESPONDENT W.V.N. POWELSON, ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER. 
FOR CONVENIENCE POWELSON AND SOUTHERN STATES WILL BE REFERRED TO
INTERCHANGEABLY AS "RESPONDENT." 

ON JANUARY 28, 1936, WHEN THE ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF TAKING WAS
FILED AND THESE PROCEEDINGS BEGAN, SOUTHERN STATES AND UNION POWER
OWNED A SMALL HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT ON THE NOTTELY RIVER, A
TRIBUTARY OF THE HIWASSEE.  THIS WAS KNOWN AS THE MURPHY PLANT.  IT HAD
A DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WHICH SUPPLIED THE TOWN OF MURPHY, NORTH
CAROLINA, AND SURROUNDING TERRITORY.  THESE COMPANIES ALSO OWNED ABOUT
22,000 ACRES OF LAND ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HIWASSEE AND NOTTELY RIVERS. 
THESE INCLUDED LANDS AT FOUR DAM SITES WHICH ARE KNOWN AS THE POWELSON
(SITE OF THE HIWASSEE DAM), APPALACHIA, MURPHY AND NOTTELY SITES, A
LARGE PART OF THE LAND REQUIRED FOR THE POWELSON AND APPALACHIA
PROJECTS, AND SOME OF THE LAND REQUIRED FOR THE MURPHY AND NOTTELY
PROJECTS.  POWELSON, AN EXPERIENCED HYDROELECTRIC ENGINEER, BEGAN AS
EARLY AS 1913 AND CONTINUED UNTIL 1931 TO EXPLORE, SURVEY, AND ACQUIRE
THESE LANDS AND TO DEVELOP AND PROMOTE A PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTING AN
INTEGRATED FOUR-DAM HYDROELECTRIC PLANT ON THESE RIVERS AND AT THESE
SITES.  THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LANDS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THEM,  FN1 WAS $277,821.56. 

SOUTHERN STATES IS SUCCESSOR TO CAROLINA-TENNESSEE POWER CO., CREATED
BY A SPECIAL ACT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA LEGISLATURE  FN2  IN 1909. 
CAROLINA-TENNESSEE WAS GRANTED BROAD POWERS AND WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE
STATE TO TAKE BY EMINENT DOMAIN RIPARIAN LANDS AND WATER RIGHTS ALONG
ANY NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM OF NORTH CAROLINA.  FN3 

THE LANDS CONDEMNED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
CONSTITUTE A PART OF THE SITE OF ITS HIWASSEE DAM, A MULTIPLE-PURPOSE
PROJECT CONSTRUCTED BY THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ON THE HIWASSEE
RIVER AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER SYSTEM FOR
HYDROELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION, NAVIGATION, AND FLOOD CONTROL.  SEE
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS ON THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT OF THE TENNESSEE
RIVER SYSTEM, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, MARCH 1936, PP. 18-20, 96,
99.  THE DAM ITSELF IS SITUATED ON LAND ACQUIRED FROM THE RESPONDENT
AND KNOWN AS THE POWELSON SITE.  IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THE HIWASSEE
RIVER IS NOT NAVIGABLE AT THE SITE OF THE HIWASSEE DAM OR IN ANY PART
OF ITS COURSE THROUGH RESPONDENT'S LAND.  FN4 

THE PROPERTY CONDEMNED INCLUDES THE MURPHY DAM AND HYDROELECTRIC
PLANT ON THE NOTTELY RIVER AND ABOUT 12,000 ACRES OF LAND ALONG THE
HIWASSEE RIVER IN NORTH CAROLINA.  OF THESE, SOME 2,000 ACRES HAVE BEEN
CLEARED AND CULTIVATED.  THE REMAINING AREA IS ROUGH AND MOUNTAINOUS,
CONSISTING IN LARGE PART OF ROCK SURFACE, MOUNTAIN PEAKS AND GORGES. 
MUCH OF THE LAND WAS INACCESSIBLE AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING, THERE
BEING PRACTICALLY NO HIGHWAYS THEREON, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE SOME
CARTWAYS. 

THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 25 OF THE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT OF 1933, C. 32, 48 STAT. 58, 16 U.S.C.
SEC. 831X.  FN5  UNDER THE PROCEDURE THEREIN SPECIALLY PRESCRIBED FOR
CONDEMNATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, THE DISTRICT
COURT APPOINTED THREE COMMISSIONERS TO TAKE TESTIMONY AND TO DETERMINE
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE PROPERTY
WAS WORTH FROM $95,000 TO $165,000.  RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH A
VALUE OF $7,500,000.  RESPONDENT'S VALUATION WAS BASED ON THE THEORY
THAT THE PROPERTY CONDEMNED, TOGETHER WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNED BY
RESPONDENT, COULD BE UNITED WITH NUMEROUS OTHER TRACTS OWNED BY
STRANGERS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELABORATE FOUR-DAM HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT.  ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR PROJECTED DAMS WAS TO BE LOCATED ON THE
PROPERTY CONDEMNED, VIZ. AT THE SITE OF THE HIWASSEE DAM, WHICH, TAKEN
ALONE, WAS NOT CONSIDERED COMMERCIALLY FEASIBLE FOR POWER DEVELOPMENT. 
THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE LAND CONDEMNED WAS SUITABLE FOR USE AS
THE SITE OF A HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANT; THAT SUCH USE FURNISHED THE
BASIS FOR ITS GREATEST INHERENT VALUE; AND THAT IT HAD A VALUE OF
$1,437,000,  FN6  THOUGH ITS COST WAS ONLY $277,821.56.  THE COMMISSION
AWARDED $253,000 IN ADDITION AS SEVERANCE DAMAGES IN RESPECT OF LANDS
NOT CONDEMNED BUT REMAINING IN THE OWNERSHIP OF SOUTHERN STATES AND
UNION POWER. 

BOTH PARTIES SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE AWARD BEFORE THE THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT FOR WHICH SEC. 25 OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT
MAKES PROVISION.  THE DISTRICT COURT REDUCED THE VALUE OF THE LAND
CONDEMNED TO $976,289.40 AND SEVERANCE DAMAGES TO $211,791.23, $100,000
OF WHICH WAS FOR THE MURPHY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  INTEREST WAS ADDED
FROM THE FILING OF THE INITIAL DECLARATIONS OF TAKING.  33 F.SUPP. 
519.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS EXCLUDED SEVERANCE DAMAGES FOR THE
TAKING OF THE MURPHY PLANT ON THE NOTTELY RIVER; AND ALSO EXCLUDED THE
$18,907.02 AWARDED AS SEVERANCE DAMAGES WITH RESPECT TO LAND HELD BY
UNION POWER UNLESS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE MANDATE WAS FILED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT THAT CORPORATION SHOULD BE MADE A PARTY SO AS TO
BECOME BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT.  WITH THESE MODIFICATIONS IT AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  118 F.2D 79.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES RAISED. 

I. A PRELIMINARY QUESTION RELATES TO THE SCOPE OF REVIEW BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER SEC. 25 OF THE ACT.  THAT SECTION
PROVIDES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS, WHO ARE "TO EXAMINE INTO
THE VALUE OF THE LANDS SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED, TO CONDUCT HEARINGS AND
RECEIVE EVIDENCE, AND GENERALLY TO TAKE SUCH APPROPRIATE STEPS AS MAY
BE PROPER FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE" OF THE LANDS.  THE
COMMISSIONERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT SUCH VALUE AND MAKE AN AWARD. 
REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS IS BY A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT
COURT, WHICH "SHALL PASS DE NOVO UPON THE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONERS, MAY VIEW THE PROPERTY, AND MAY TAKE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.  UPON SUCH HEARINGS THE SAID JUDGES SHALL FILE THEIR OWN
AWARD, FIXING THEREIN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED,
REGARDLESS OF THE AWARD PREVIOUSLY MADE BY THE SAID COMMISSIONERS." 
THERE IS AN APPEAL FROM THAT COURT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
WHICH "SHALL UPON THE HEARING ON SAID APPEAL DISPOSE OF THE SAME UPON
THE RECORD, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE AWARDS OR FINDINGS THERETOFORE MADE
BY THE COMMISSIONERS OR THE DISTRICT JUDGES, AND SUCH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SHALL THEREUPON FIX THE VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE
CONDEMNED." 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT PERFORM THE
FUNCTIONS WHICH SEC. 25 PLACED UPON IT.  THAT COURT STATED THAT SEC. 25
PERMITTED IT TO CONSIDER THE FINDINGS UNDER REVIEW "IN THE LIGHT OF THE
RECORD."  118 F.2D P. 83.  IT GAVE WEIGHT TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE
COMMISSIONERS AND JUDGES WHO TOOK THE TESTIMONY TO SEE AND HEAR THE
WITNESSES.  BUT WHILE IT ADVERTED TO THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FINDINGS,
AND MODIFIED AND "AFFIRMED" THE JUDGMENT OF THE THREE-JUDGE COURT, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT IT DID NOT PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS WHICH CONGRESS GAVE IT
UNDER SEC. 25. 

THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 25 WAS TO FREE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM
THE STRICTURES COMMONLY APPLICABLE TO ITS REVIEW OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS
OF FACT.  UNDER SEC. 25 IT DOES NOT SIT AS A "COURT OF ERRORS."  UNITED
STATES V. REYNOLDS, 115 F.2D 294, 296.  ITS DUTY IS TO DISPOSE OF THE
MATTER "UPON THE RECORD, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE AWARDS OR FINDINGS
THERETOFORE MADE" AND TO FIX THE VALUE.  BUT IT NEED NOT BLIND ITSELF
TO THE SPECIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE TRIBUNALS BELOW IN EVALUATING THE
EVIDENCE.  A TRIAL DE NOVO WITH THE FRESH TAKING OF EVIDENCE IS NOT
REQUIRED.  AN INDEPENDENT REVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY CONDEMNED IS
CONTEMPLATED.  AND THAT REQUIREMENT WAS MET HERE. 

II.  SEC. 25 OF THE ACT AUTHORIZES AWARDS COVERING "THE VALUE OF THE
LANDS SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED."  THE STORM CENTER OF THIS CONTROVERSY IS
WHETHER WATER POWER VALUE MAY BE INCLUDED IN RESPONDENT'S AWARD. 

IT IS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER THAT EVEN THOUGH THE HIWASSEE
RIVER IS NON-NAVIGABLE THROUGHOUT THIS PART OF ITS COURSE, COMPENSATION
FOR THE LOSS OF ANY SUPPOSED POWER VALUE IS NO MORE PERMISSIBLE THAN IN
CASE OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT UNITED STATES V.
CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, HELD THAT THERE IS "NO PRIVATE
PROPERTY IN THE FLOW" OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM.  UNITED STATES V.
APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377, 427.  AND IT IS CONTENDED THAT
ALTHOUGH THE HIWASSEE RIVER IS NON-NAVIGABLE AT THE POINTS IN QUESTION,
THE FLOW AT THOSE PLACES HAS SUCH A DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE EFFECT UPON
THE NAVIGABLE PORTION OF THE RIVER FARTHER DOWNSTREAM AS TO GIVE THE
UNITED STATES THE SAME PLENARY CONTROL OVER BOTH THE NAVIGABLE AND NON
NAVIGABLE PORTIONS OF THE RIVER (UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER
CO., SUPRA; OKLAHOMA V. ATKINSON CO., 313 U.S. 508), THEREBY BRINGING
INTO PLAY THE RULE OF THE CHANDLER-DUNBAR CASE.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
KELLY, 243 U.S. 316.  WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION.  FOR IF
WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT RIGHTS IN THE "FLOW" OF A NON
NAVIGABLE STREAM CREATED BY LOCAL LAW ARE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE UNITED
STATES MUST PAY COMPENSATION WHEN IT CONDEMNS THE LANDS OF THE RIPARIAN
OWNER, THE WATER POWER VALUE WHICH RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH
CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 

THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE VALUE OF THE LANDS SOUGHT TO BE
CONDEMNED WAS ON RESPONDENT.  RALPH V. HAZEN, 93 F.2D 68, 70; WELCH V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 108 F.2D 95, 101.  RESPONDENT ENDEAVORED TO
CARRY THAT BURDEN BY INTRODUCING EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY CONDEMNED
HAD A FAIR MARKET VALUE OF $7,500,000.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE THEORY WAS
THAT THE LANDS CONDEMNED, TOGETHER WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNED BY
RESPONDENT, COULD BE UNITED WITH SEVERAL HUNDRED OTHER TRACTS OWNED BY
STRANGERS AND THAT A FOUR-DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT COULD BE
CONSTRUCTED UPON ALL THOSE LANDS.  FN7  AS WE HAVE NOTED, ONLY ONE OF
THE FOUR HYPOTHETICAL DAMS WAS TO BE LOCATED ON THE LANDS CONDEMNED. 
THAT WAS AT THE HIWASSEE DAM SITE, WHICH, CONSIDERED ALONE, WAS NOT
CONTENDED TO BE PROFITABLE FOR POWER DEVELOPMENT.  ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT
OWNED OR CONTROLLED SOME OF THE OTHER LANDS NECESSARY FOR THE FOUR-DAM
PROJECT, ABOUT HALF OF THEM WERE IN ADVERSE HANDS.  IT WAS PRACTICALLY
CONCEDED THAT THE ACQUISITION OF ALL THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE
FOUR-DAM DEVELOPMENT COULD NOT, IN ALL REASONABLE PROBABILITY, BE
ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT RESORT TO THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  IT WAS
INSISTED, HOWEVER, THAT SINCE THAT POWER HAD BEEN CONFERRED BY NORTH
CAROLINA, THE CASE SHOULD BE VIEWED AS IF RESPONDENT OWNED EVERY FOOT
OF LAND REQUIRED FOR THE HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT.  RESPONDENT PROCEEDED
FROM THAT ASSUMPTION TO OTHER ASSUMPTIONS:  AN ESTIMATED COST OF
$30,000,000 FOR THE FOUR-DAM PROJECT; AN ANNUAL OUTPUT OF 512,500,000
KWH OF SO-CALLED RESERVE, OR SUPERPRIMARY, OR "SALUDA-TYPE" ENERGY; FN8
A PRODUCTION COST OF ELECTRICITY OF 3.75 MILLS PER KWH; AND A SELLING
PRICE OF 6.34 MILLS PER KWH FOR ALL THE ENERGY PRODUCED.  ON THE BASIS
OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS AN ASSUMED NET RETURN WAS COMPUTED.  THAT ASSUMED
NET RETURN WAS CAPITALIZED AT A GIVEN RATE AND A PORTION OF THAT SUM,
I.E. $7,500,000, WAS ALLOCATED TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION.  PETITIONER
CHALLENGED MOST OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.  IT INTRODUCED EVIDENCE THAT THE
COST OF THE FOUR-DAM PROJECT WOULD BE HIGHER THAN RESPONDENT ASSUMED;
THAT THE TOTAL ANNUAL FIXED CHARGES OF THE PROJECT WOULD EXCEED THOSE
ESTIMATED; THAT THE PRODUCTION OF ENERGY WOULD BE LESS, THE COST PER
KWH WOULD BE GREATER, AND THE SALE PRICE PER KWH WOULD BE LOWER THAN
RESPONDENT ESTIMATED.  THE COMMISSIONERS, THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND ON THE BASIS OF RESPONDENT'S ESTIMATES
OF THE FOUR-DAM PROJECT THAT THE LANDS HAD A WATER POWER VALUE, AND
THAT THEIR AVAILABILITY FOR POWER PURPOSES CONSTITUTED THE CHIEF
ELEMENT OF THEIR VALUE AND THE BASIS FOR THE HIGHEST VALUE IN THE
PROPERTY.  ALL AGREED, HOWEVER, THAT RESPONDENT'S ESTIMATE OF
$7,500,000 WAS TOO HIGH.  AND AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE DISTRICT COURT AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
THE LANDS FOR POWER PURPOSES WAS SOME $976,000.    AN OWNER OF LANDS
SOUGHT TO BE CONDEMNED IS ENTITLED TO THEIR "MARKET VALUE FAIRLY
DETERMINED."  UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 369, 374.  THAT VALUE
MAY REFLECT NOT ONLY THE USE TO WHICH THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY DEVOTED
BUT ALSO THAT USE TO WHICH IT MAY BE READILY CONVERTED.  BOOM CO. V.
PATTERSON, 98 U.S. 403; MCCANDLESS V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 342.  IN
THAT CONNECTION THE VALUE MAY BE DETERMINED IN LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL OR
HIGHER USE OF THE LAND WHEN COMBINED WITH OTHER PARCELS; IT NEED NOT BE
MEASURED MERELY BY THE USE TO WHICH THE LAND IS OR CAN BE PUT AS A
SEPARATE TRACT.  MCGOVERN V. NEW YORK, 229 U.S. 363.  BUT IN ORDER FOR
THAT SPECIAL ADAPTABILITY TO BE CONSIDERED, THERE MUST BE A REASONABLE
PROBABILITY OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION BEING COMBINED WITH OTHER TRACTS
FOR THAT PURPOSE IN THE REASONABLY NEAR FUTURE.  OLSON V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 246, 255.  IN ABSENCE OF SUCH A SHOWING, THE CHANCE OF
THEIR BEING UNITED FOR THAT SPECIAL USE IS REGARDED "AS TOO REMOTE AND
SPECULATIVE TO HAVE ANY LEGITIMATE EFFECT UPON THE VALUATION." 
MCGOVERN V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, P. 372. 

RESPONDENT SEEKS TO AVOID THAT DIFFICULTY BY RELIANCE ON THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN GRANTED BY NORTH CAROLINA.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE
MEANS OF EFFECTING A COMBINATION OF LANDS IS NOT IMPORTANT - IT IS
WHETHER THE LANDOWNER HAD A REASONABLE CHANCE OF DOING IT.  THIS COURT,
HOWEVER, HELD IN THE MCGOVERN CASE THAT IN ESTIMATING THAT CHANCE OR
PROBABILITY "THE POWER OF EFFECTING THE CHANGE BY EMINENT DOMAIN MUST
BE LEFT OUT."  229 U.S. P. 372.  AND THAT VIEW WAS FOLLOWED IN NEW YORK
V. SAGE, 239 U.S. 57, 61.  RESPONDENT ATTEMPTS TO DISTINGUISH THOSE
CASES ON THE GROUND THAT, SINCE THE LANDOWNERS IN QUESTION DID NOT HAVE
THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, THEY WERE MERELY DENIED RECOVERY FOR A
VALUE DEPENDENT UPON A COMBINATION WHICH THEY COULD NOT REASONABLY
EXPECT TO EFFECT.  BUT THE THRUST OF THE RULE IS DEEPER.  IF THE
OWNER'S CLAIM AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN WERE INCREASED BY REASON OF THE
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, THEN THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE RIGHT OF
CONDEMNATION WOULD CONFER ON THE OWNER "A VALUE FOR WHICH HE MUST BE
PAID WHEN THE RIGHT IS EXERCISED."  HALE, VALUE TO THE TAKER IN
CONDEMNATION CASES, 31 COL. REV. 1, 13. 

THE FACT THAT THE OWNER ALSO HAS A POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN DOES NOT
ALTER THE SITUATION.  SEE TACOMA V. NISQUALLY POWER CO., 57 WASH. 420,
433, 107 P. 199.  THE GRANT OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS A MERE
REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE FOR WHICH A STATE CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE
COMPENSATION.  ADIRONDACK RY. CO. V. NEW YORK, 176 U.S. 335; RAMAPO
WATER CO. V. NEW YORK, 236 U.S. 579; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 258 U.S. 13.  A REVOCATION OF THAT
PRIVILEGE IS BUT A RECALL OF A PART OF ITS SOVEREIGN POWER FOR WHICH NO
PRICE MAY BE EXACTED.  NORTH CAROLINA FOLLOWS THAT VIEW.  YADKIN RIVER
POWER CO. V. WHITNEY CO., 150 N.C. 31, 63 S.E. 188.  ACCORDINGLY IT
SEEMS CLEAR THAT IF NORTH CAROLINA RATHER THAN THE UNITED STATES WERE
CONSTRUCTING THIS PUBLIC PROJECT AND CONDEMNING THE IDENTICAL LANDS FOR
THE PURPOSE, RESPONDENT NEED NOT BE COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP A POWER PROJECT THROUGH UTILIZATION OF THE RIGHT
TO CONDEMN.  IN CASE THIS WAS NORTH CAROLINA'S PROJECT RESPONDENT'S
CHANCES OF COMBINING THESE NUMEROUS TRACTS INTO ONE OWNERSHIP FOR A
POWER PROJECT WOULD BE MEASURED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN.  THE INCLUSION OF EMINENT DOMAIN WOULD BE BUT AN
INDIRECT METHOD OF MAKING NORTH CAROLINA PAY FOR THE DESTRUCTION OR
IMPAIRMENT OF THE PRIVILEGE.  FN9  THAT THE PRIVATE COMPANY'S PRIVILEGE
TO USE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN NEED NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE
VALUATION IF THE PROPERTY WERE TAKEN BY THE STATE IS INDICATED BY THOSE
FEW CASES WHICH SEEM TO HAVE REACHED THE POINT.  SEE TACOMA V.
NISQUALLY POWER CO., SUPRA.  THAT RESULT IS THE NECESSARY IMPORT OF
THIS COURT'S RULING IN SEARS V. AKRON, 246 U.S. 242.  SUIT WAS BROUGHT
IN THAT CASE BY THE TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF AN OHIO CORPORATION TO
ENJOIN THE CITY OF AKRON FROM CONSTRUCTING A DAM AND RESERVOIR ON THE
CUYAHOGA RIVER.  THE CORPORATION HAD RECEIVED FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A POWER SYSTEM ON THE RIVER.  AND IT
WAS ALSO GIVEN BY THE STATE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN SO THAT IT
MIGHT ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT.  IN THAT CASE THE
LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM OF THE PRIVATE COMPANY APPARENTLY WAS NOT AS
FAR ADVANCED AS WAS RESPONDENT'S IN THE PRESENT CASE.  BUT THE
DIFFERENCE IN DEGREE OF DEVELOPMENT IS UNIMPORTANT SINCE IN EACH CASE
THE PRIVATE PROJECT WAS STILL INCHOATE AND HAD NOT PROGRESSED BEYOND
THE PROMOTIONAL PHASE WHEN THE PUBLIC PROJECT WAS LAUNCHED.  THIS COURT
HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY OF AKRON MIGHT
IMPERIL OR WHOLLY DEFEAT THE COMPANY'S PROJECT, THERE WAS NO IMPAIRMENT
OF CONTRACT, AND NO TAKING OR APPROPRIATION OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY. 
IN THE LATTER CONNECTION MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT,
STATED THAT IT WAS CLEAR "THAT OHIO RETAINED THE POWER AS AGAINST ONE
OF ITS CREATURES, TO REVOKE ANY SUCH RIGHT TO APPROPRIATE PROPERTY
UNTIL IT HAD BEEN ACTED UPON BY ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY AUTHORIZED TO BE
TAKEN."  246 U.S. P. 250.  IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE CITY WAS
FREE AS AGAINST THE COMPANY "TO APPROPRIATE ANY OF THE LAND OR ANY OF
THE WATER RIGHTS WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE COME UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT
DESCRIBED IN ITS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION."  ID. PP. 249-250. 

THIS IS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.  NO PRECEDENT HAS BEEN ADVANCED
WHICH SUGGESTS THAT A DIFFERENT MEASURE OF COMPENSATION SHOULD BE
REQUIRED WHERE THE UNITED STATES RATHER THAN THE STATE IS THE TAKER OF
THE PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC PROJECT.  NOR HAS ANY REASON BEEN SUGGESTED
WHY AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE OR POLICY THERE SHOULD BE A DIFFERENT
MEASURE OF COMPENSATION IN SUCH A CASE.  IT HAS LONG BEEN ASSUMED THAT
IN OTHER RESPECTS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WAS UNDER "NO GREATER
LIMITATION" BY REASON OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAN WERE THE STATES BY
VIRTUE OF THE FOURTEENTH.  HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251
U.S. 146, 156.  THAT VIEW IS IMPLICIT IN CONDEMNATION CASES WHERE THE
AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS IN
ISSUE.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, OMNIA CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 502, 508
509.  WE DO NOT SEE WHY THE PROTECTION GIVEN TO "PRIVATE PROPERTY"
UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IMPOSES UPON THE UNITED STATES A DUTY TO
PROVIDE A HIGHER MEASURE OF COMPENSATION FOR THESE LANDS THAN WOULD BE
IMPOSED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UPON THE STATE IF IT WERE THE
TAKER.  FN10  NOR HAS ANY REASON BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY AND
FAIR DEALING BEEN ADVANCED FOR JUSTIFYING A HIGHER MEASURE OF
COMPENSATION IN THE INSTANT CASE BECAUSE THE LANDS ARE BEING TAKEN FOR
A PUBLIC PROJECT SPONSORED BY THE UNITED STATES RATHER THAN BY NORTH
CAROLINA.  THE WARRANT OR AUTHORITY FOR PUTTING THE UNITED STATES AT
SUCH A DISADVANTAGE IS NOT APPARENT. 

THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN IS "COMPLETE IN ITSELF" AND "CAN NEITHER BE ENLARGED NOR
DIMINISHED BY A STATE."  KOHL V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 367, 374. 
THOUGH THE MEANING OF "PROPERTY" AS USED IN SEC. 25 OF THE ACT AND IN
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS A FEDERAL QUESTION, IT WILL NORMALLY OBTAIN ITS
CONTENT BY REFERENCE TO LOCAL LAW.  YET WHEN WE LOOK TO LOCAL LAW IN
THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT FOR PURPOSES OF
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY NORTH CAROLINA THE VALUE OF THE
LANDS IN QUESTION WOULD BE INCREASED BY REASON OF RESPONDENT'S
PRIVILEGE TO USE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  SO FAR AS CONSTITUTIONAL
COMPULSIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS PLAIN, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THAT THAT
FACTOR NEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN CASE THE STATE WERE THE CONDEMNOR. 
MOREOVER, THE RESULT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT DIFFERENT IF WE ASSUME
WITH THE DISTRICT COURT (33 F.SUPP.  P. 522) THAT RESPONDENT'S "PRIOR
RIGHT" UNDER NORTH CAROLINA LAW "CONSTITUTED A VALUABLE RIGHT, WHICH IS
DESTROYED BY THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING."  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
THAT "PRIOR RIGHT" WAS "PRIVATE PROPERTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT WHICH WAS TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES. 

THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS FASHIONED OUT OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN
THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST IN PUBLIC PROJECTS AND THE PRINCIPLE OF INDEMNITY
TO THE LANDOWNER.  WE RECENTLY STATED IN UNITED STATES V. MILLER,
SUPRA, P. 375, THAT "COURTS HAVE HAD TO ADOPT WORKING RULES IN ORDER TO
DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS."  EQUITY AND FAIR
DEALING DO NOT REQUIRE THE PAYMENT BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE
LANDOWNER OF THE AMOUNT OF A VALUATION OF HIS LANDS BASED ON THE
EXISTENCE OF HIS PRIVILEGE TO USE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  IT IS
"PRIVATE PROPERTY" WHICH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DECLARES SHALL NOT BE
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.  THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN CAN HARDLY BE SAID TO FALL IN THAT CATEGORY.  IT IS NOT A
PERSONAL PRIVILEGE; IT IS A SPECIAL AUTHORITY IMPRESSED WITH A PUBLIC
CHARACTER AND TO BE UTILIZED FOR A PUBLIC END.  FN11  AN AWARD BASED ON
THE VALUE OF THAT PRIVILEGE WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC
AUTHORITY TO A WHOLLY PRIVATE END.  THE DENIAL OF SUCH AN AWARD TO THE
LANDOWNER DOES NO INJUSTICE.  IT IS TRUE THAT RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION
OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WAS IN PART THE BASIS OF AN OPPORTUNITY
TO UNITE THE PRESENT LANDS WITH OTHERS INTO A POWER PROJECT.  BUT HE IS
NOT BEING DEPRIVED OF VALUES WHICH RESULT FROM HIS EXPENDITURES OR
ACTIVITIES.  THE FRUITS OF THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
ARE NOT BEING APPROPRIATED.  AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR RAISING AN
ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AS THERE WAS THOUGHT TO BE IN
MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 312.  SEE OMNIA
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 513-514.  THE LANDOWNER IS, TO BE
SURE, DEPRIVED OF A PREFERENTIAL ADVANTAGE, WHICH WAS AN INCIDENTAL
ATTRIBUTE OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY WITH WHICH THE STATE ENDOWED HIM. 
BUT THAT ADVANTAGE HAD NO HIGHER DIGNITY THAN A PROMISE OF A GRATUITY. 
IT HAD NOT BEEN AVAILED OF TO DEVELOP AN EXISTING AND GOING ENTERPRISE
WHICH THE UNITED STATES APPROPRIATED.  RESPONDENT'S PROJECT WAS ONLY A
SPECULATIVE VENTURE - A PROMOTIONAL SCHEME WHOLLY IN FUTURO.  THUS WE
CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT HAD NO INTEREST UNDER HIS UNEXERCISED POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN WHICH RISES TO THE ESTATE OF "PRIVATE PROPERTY" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  CF. RUNDLE V. DELAWARE & R. CANAL
CO., 14 HOW.  80, 94. 

THIS PUBLIC PROJECT, TO BE SURE, HAS FRUSTRATED RESPONDENT'S PLAN FOR
THE EXPLOITATION OF ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT
THAT PRIVILEGE WAS A THING OF VALUE AND THAT THIS FRUSTRATION OF THE
PLAN MEANS A LOSS TO RESPONDENT.  BUT OUR DENIAL OF COMPENSATION FOR
THAT LOSS DOES NOT MAKE THIS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE IN THE LAW OF EMINENT
DOMAIN.  THERE ARE NUMEROUS BUSINESS LOSSES WHICH RESULT FROM
CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTIES BUT WHICH ARE NOT COMPENSABLE UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE POINT IS WELL ILLUSTRATED BY TWO OTHER LINES OF
CASES IN THIS FIELD.  IT IS A WELL SETTLED RULE THAT WHILE IT IS THE
OWNER'S LOSS, NOT THE TAKER'S GAIN, WHICH IS THE MEASURE OF
COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN (UNITED STATES V. MILLER, SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., SUPRA, P. 81; BOSTON CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE V. BOSTON, 217 U.S. 189, 195), NOT ALL LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE
OWNER ARE COMPENSABLE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IN ABSENCE OF A
STATUTORY MANDATE (UNITED STATES V. MILLER, SUPRA, P. 376) THE
SOVEREIGN MUST PAY ONLY FOR WHAT IT TAKES, NOT FOR OPPORTUNITIES WHICH
THE OWNER MAY LOSE.  SEE ORGEL, VALUATION UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN (1936)
SEC. 71, SEC. 73.  ON THE ONE HAND ARE SUCH CASES AS MONONGAHELA
NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES,  FN12  SUPRA, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT
THE UNITED STATES HAD APPROPRIATED A GOING ENTERPRISE TO ITS OWN ENDS
AND MUST MAKE COMPENSATION ACCORDINGLY.  BUT IT IS WELL SETTLED IN THIS
COURT FN13  THAT, "FRUSTRATION AND APPROPRIATION ARE ESSENTIALLY
DIFFERENT THINGS."  OMNIA CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 513.  THUS IN
MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 341, THE OWNER WAS DENIED
COMPENSATION FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS BUSINESS WHICH RESULTED FROM
THE TAKING OF HIS LAND FOR A PUBLIC PROJECT EVEN THOUGH THE BUSINESS
COULD NOT BE REESTABLISHED ELSEWHERE.  THIS COURT, AFTER NOTING THAT
"SETTLED RULES OF LAW" PRECLUDED A CONSIDERATION OF "CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES" FOR LOSSES OF A BUSINESS OR ITS DESTRUCTION, STATED:  "NO
RECOVERY THEREFOR CAN BE HAD NOW AS FOR A TAKING OF THE BUSINESS. 
THERE IS NO FINDING AS A FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT TOOK THE BUSINESS, OR
THAT WHAT IT DID WAS INTENDED AS A TAKING.  IF THE BUSINESS WAS
DESTROYED, THE DESTRUCTION WAS AN UNINTENDED INCIDENT OF THE TAKING OF
LAND."  267 U.S. P. 345.  THAT WHICH IS NOT "PRIVATE PROPERTY" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT LIKEWISE MAY BE A THING OF VALUE
WHICH IS DESTROYED OR IMPAIRED BY THE TAKING OF LANDS BY THE UNITED
STATES.  BUT LIKE THE BUSINESS DESTROYED BUT NOT "TAKEN" IN THE
MITCHELL CASE IT NEED NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE AWARD DUE THE LANDOWNER
UNLESS CONGRESS SO PROVIDES. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE PROFITS FROM
RESPONDENT'S HYPOTHETICAL FOUR-DAM PROJECT WAS INTRODUCED NOT AS THE
BASIS OF AN AWARD FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR BUSINESS BUT ONLY AS A BASIS
FOR ESTIMATING THE TRUE WATER POWER VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  THE
COMPUTATION OF THOSE PROFITS ASSUMES THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE
PROJECTED ENTERPRISE WHICH THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN ALONE COULD MAKE
POSSIBLE AND WHICH THESE CONDEMNATIONS FRUSTRATED.  WE REPEAT THAT AN
ALLOWANCE OF ANY SUCH VALUE WOULD ENTAIL A PAYMENT FOR THE LOSS OF A
BUSINESS PROSPECT BASED ON AN UNEXERCISED POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  AS
WE HAVE SAID, NO REASON BASED ON PRECEDENT OR PRINCIPLE APPEARS WHY
RESPONDENT'S PRIVILEGE TO USE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN SHOULD BE
TREATED AS "PRIVATE PROPERTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO A PRIVATE CLAIM AGAINST THE PUBLIC TREASURY.  NOR
IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT CONGRESS ADOPTED IN THIS REGARD A MORE
LIBERALIZED STANDARD OF COMPENSATION THAN WOULD BE PROVIDED UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.    IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS RESULT WOULD MEAN THAT IN
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS THE UNITED STATES NEED NOT PAY THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING IF THE STATE WHERE THE PROPERTY
IS LOCATED MIGHT DESTROY OR DIMINISH THAT VALUE THROUGH AN APPROPRIATE
EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER.  IT IS MANIFEST THAT SUCH IS NOT THE
CASE.  A STATE MAY OF COURSE DESTROY OR DIMINISH VALUES BY AN ASSERTION
OF ITS POLICE POWER WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF MAKING COMPENSATION FOR
THE LOSS.  HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., SUPRA; BLOCK V.
HIRSCH, 256 U.S. 135, 156.  WHILE SUCH A CHANGE WILL NOT BE PRESUMED
(UNITED STATES V. RIVER ROUGE CO., 269 U.S. 411), THE POSSIBILITY OR
PROBABILITY OF SUCH ACTION, SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS PRESENT VALUES, IS A
PROPER SUBJECT FOR CONSIDERATION IN VALUING PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF A
CONDEMNATION AWARD.  SEE REICHELDERFER V. QUINN, 287 U.S. 315, 323.  WE
DO NOT DISTURB THOSE GENERAL PRINCIPLES.  THE UNITED STATES NO MORE
THAN A STATE CAN BE EXCUSED FROM PAYING JUST COMPENSATION MEASURED BY
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING MERELY BECAUSE IT
COULD DESTROY THAT VALUE BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION OR REGULATION.  BUT
WE HAVE HERE A UNIQUE SITUATION.  THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WHICH
RESPONDENT SEEKS TO HAVE REFLECTED IN THE VALUATION IS LARGELY
UNEXERCISED AND NEED NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE MEASURE OF COMPENSATION IF
THE STATE WHICH CONFERRED THE PRIVILEGE WERE THE TAKER OF THE LANDS. 
IF THESE NUMEROUS TRACTS HAD ALREADY BEEN UNITED BY RESPONDENT THROUGH
THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN INTO A POWER PROJECT, DISTINCT PROBLEMS
WOULD BE POSED AS SEARS V. AKRON, SUPRA, INDICATES.  THEN THE UNITED
STATES WOULD BE ACQUIRING A BUSINESS, NOT SIMPLY FRUSTRATING A
PROMOTIONAL SCHEME.  WE MERELY HOLD THAT THE UNITED STATES, IN ABSENCE
OF A SPECIFIC STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, NEED NOT MAKE COMPENSATION FOR THE
LOSS OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY BASED ON THE UNEXERCISED PRIVILEGE TO
USE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WHERE THE STATE NEED NOT DO SO WERE IT
THE SPONSOR OF THE PUBLIC PROJECT AND THE TAKER OF THE LANDS.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE COMPENSATION
DOES NOT EXTEND SO FAR. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THIS RESULT WILL REDUCE AN AWARD WHICH THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS NOTED WAS APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO RESPONDENT'S TOTAL
INVESTMENT IN THE LANDS ACQUIRED FOR ITS PROJECT, PLUS 3% INTEREST. 
BUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT ALLOWS THE OWNER ONLY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
HIS PROPERTY; IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE HIM A RETURN OF HIS INVESTMENT. 
MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 454; BROOKS-SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 265 U.S. 106, 123; OLSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 255. 

THE RESULT IS THAT RESPONDENT'S PRIVILEGE TO USE THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A
REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION BEING COMBINED WITH
OTHER TRACTS INTO A POWER PROJECT IN THE REASONABLY NEAR FUTURE.  IF
THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN BE LEFT OUT OF ACCOUNT, THE CHANCES OF
MAKING THE COMBINATION APPEAR TO BE TOO REMOTE AND SLIM "TO HAVE ANY
LEGITIMATE EFFECT UPON THE VALUATION."  MCGOVERN V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, P.
372.  RESPONDENT THEREFORE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE BASIS FOR PROOF OF
THE WATER POWER VALUE WHICH WAS ASSERTED. 

WE HOLD ONLY THAT PROFITS, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ENTERPRISE WHICH
RESPONDENT HOPED TO LAUNCH, ARE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE
OF THE LANDS WHICH WERE TAKEN.  RESPONDENT IS, OF COURSE, ENTITLED TO
THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FAIRLY DETERMINED.  AND THAT VALUE
SHOULD BE FOUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED RULES (UNITED STATES
V. MILLER, SUPRA) - UNINFLUENCED, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HE WHOSE LANDS ARE CONDEMNED HAS THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN.  WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION MUCH DISCUSSED AT THE BAR AND IN
THE BRIEFS WHETHER EVIDENCE OF THE EARNINGS OF RESPONDENT'S
HYPOTHETICAL FOUR-DAM PROJECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FOR THE FURTHER
REASON THAT IT WAS TOO SPECULATIVE.  FN14 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SUM OF $1,061,942.53 HAD BEEN INVESTED BY RESPONDENT THROUGH
1935 IN THE ENTIRE 22,000 ACRES OF LAND OWNED BY IT.  OF THIS SUM
POWELSON PERSONALLY CONTRIBUTED $586,196.21.  THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE
INCLUDED $188,271.86 FOR LANDS NOT CONDEMNED, $73,412.68 FOR TAXES,
$82,480.81 FOR NEW YORK OFFICE EXPENSE, $94,074.71 FOR LEGAL EXPENSES,
$14,321.68 FOR TRAVELLING EXPENSES, $64,358.46 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
TRANSMISSION LINES FOR AND OPERATION OF THE MURPHY PLANT, $194,487.50
FOR INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION AS RESPECTS THE BONDS ON THE MURPHY
PLANT, AND EXPENDITURES FOR SURVEYING, ENGINEERING STUDIES, ADVERTISING
AND FURNITURE. 

FN2  N.C., PRIV.  L. 1909, C. 76, P. 185. 

FN3  A RIVAL, THE HIAWASSEE RIVER POWER COMPANY, ORGANIZED UNDER THE
GENERAL LAWS OF THE STATE, PROCEEDED TO ACQUIRE LANDS AND RIGHTS BY
CONTRACT, DEED AND CONDEMNATION, AND THREATENED TO CONSTRUCT A
HYDROELECTRIC PLANT ON THE HIWASSEE RIVER WHICH WOULD INTERFERE WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTED BY CAROLINA-TENNESSEE.  CAROLINA-TENNESSEE
ENGAGED IN A LONG LITIGATION TO ESTABLISH ITS RIGHTS AS AGAINST ITS
RIVAL.  THAT LITIGATION ESTABLISHED THE PRIOR AND DOMINANT RIGHT OF
RESPONDENT'S PREDECESSOR TO DEVELOP THE WATER POWER IN THIS TERRITORY
AND SUSTAINED ITS CLAIM TO CONDEMN THE LAND AND WATER RIGHTS OF THE
HIAWASSEE RIVER POWER COMPANY.  CAROLINA-TENNESSEE POWER CO. V.
HIAWASSEE RIVER POWER CO., 171 N.C. 248, 88 S.E. 349(1916), 175 N.C.
668, 96 S.E. 99(1918), 186 N.C. 179, 119 S.E. 213(1923), 188 N.C. 128,
123 S.E. 312(1924). 

FN4  AND SEE TENNESSEE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, H. DOC. NO. 328, 71ST
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 216. 

FN5  SEE ALSO, 46 STAT. 1421, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 258A; SEC. 4(H)(I) OF
THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 58-61, 16 U.S.C.
SEC. 831C (H)(I). 

FN6  THE COMMISSION ALSO AWARDED $110,000 FOR THE MURPHY PLANT, WHICH
SUM HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE UNITED STATES WHEN IT FILED ITS
DECLARATION OF TAKING. 

FN7  WHILE RESPONDENT OWNED MOST OF THE LANDS NECESSARY FOR THE
APPALACHIA RESERVOIR, ABOUT HALF OF THOSE NOT YET ACQUIRED LAY IN THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, IN WHICH, SO FAR AS APPEARS, IT HAD NO POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN.  AND, ACCORDING TO RESPONDENT'S ESTIMATES OF THE LANDS
NECESSARY FOR THE OTHER THREE PROJECTS, IT HAD YET TO ACQUIRE 22% OF
THE POWELSON RESERVOIR, 73% OF THE NOTTELY, AND 96% OF THE MURPHY. 

FN8  THE THEORY WAS THAT THE PROJECTED RESERVOIRS WOULD STORE WATER
DURING THE WET SEASON AND THAT THE POWER WOULD BE SOLD NEIGHBORING
UTILITIES DURING THE DRY SEASON.  THE NAME GIVEN THAT TYPE OF POWER IS
SAID TO DERIVE FROM THE FACT THAT LEXINGTON WATER POWER CO. SOLD THE
OUTPUT OF ITS SALUDA PLANT TO DUKE POWER CO. ON A SIMILAR BASIS. 

FN9  WE DO NOT HAVE HERE THE QUESTION OF A MARKET VALUE AFFECTED BY
MARKET PRICES WHICH MAY REFLECT TO SOME EXTENT THE POWER TO CONDEMN. 
AS TO THAT SITUATION THIS COURT STATED IN OLSON V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, P. 256:  "IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT PUBLIC SERVICE
CORPORATIONS AND OTHERS HAVING THAT POWER (EMINENT DOMAIN) FREQUENTLY
ARE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL COMPETITORS, NOT ONLY FOR TRACTS HELD IN SINGLE
OWNERSHIP BUT ALSO FOR RIGHTS OF WAY, LOCATIONS, SITES AND OTHER AREAS
REQUIRING THE UNION OF NUMEROUS PARCELS HELD BY DIFFERENT OWNERS.  AND,
TO THE EXTENT THAT PROBABLE DEMAND BY PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OR
CONDEMNORS AFFECTS MARKET VALUE, IT IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT." 

FN10  CF. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226, 233-241,
ARISING UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FN11  SEE POLLARD'S LESSEE V. HAGAN, 3 HOW.  212, 223; BOOM CO. V.
PATTERSON, 98 U.S. 403, 406; UNITED STATES V. JONES, 109 U.S. 513, 518
519; SPENCER V. RAILROAD, 137 N.C. 107, 121-122, 49 S.E. 96; JEFFRESS
V. GREENVILLE, 154 N.C. 490, 493-494, 70 S.E. 919; WISSLER V. YADKIN
RIVER POWER CO., 158 N.C. 465, 74 S.E. 460.  IN THE LATTER CASE THE
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATED (PP. 466-467):  "THIS POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN IS CONFERRED UPON CORPORATIONS AFFECTED WITH PUBLIC USE,
NOT SO MUCH FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CORPORATIONS THEMSELVES, BUT FOR THE
USE AND BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE AT LARGE." 

FN12  AND SEE LONG ISLAND WATER SUPPLY CO. V. BROOKLYN, 166 U.S. 685;
CINCINNATI V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 223 U.S. 390; PENNSYLVANIA
HOSPITAL V. PHILADELPHIA, 245 U.S. 20; BROOKS-SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 265 U.S. 106; DE LAVAL STEAM TURBINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284
U.S. 61.  IN THE MONONGAHELA CASE THE UNITED STATES CONDEMNED A LOCK
AND DAM CONSTRUCTED AT THE INVITATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OPERATED
BY THE OWNER UNDER A FRANCHISE FROM PENNSYLVANIA.  THIS COURT HELD THAT
THE SPECIAL FACTS OF THE CASE REQUIRED THAT THE FRANCHISE OR GOING
CONCERN VALUE OF THE ENTERPRISE BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE
TO THE OWNER.  IT WAS SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT THE FRANCHISE
GRANTED TO THE COMPANY BY PENNSYLVANIA WAS A VALUABLE PROPERTY RIGHT,
SINCE IT WAS A CONTRACT UNDER THE RULE OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V.
WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT.  518, AND PROTECTED AGAINST IMPAIRMENT BY THE
STATE.  SECONDLY, THE COURT NOTED THAT THE UNITED STATES DID MORE THAN
DESTROY THE BUSINESS; IT APPROPRIATED THE ENTERPRISE FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSES.  MOREOVER, AS WAS STATED IN OMNIA CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, PP. 513-514, THE MONONGAHELA CASE "RESTED PRIMARILY UPON THE
DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, AS THIS COURT HAS IN SEVERAL CASES SINCE POINTED
OUT." 

FN13  SEE BOTHWELL V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 231; JOSLIN CO. V.
PROVIDENCE, 262 U.S. 668, 675; ATWATER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S.
188; UNITED STATES V. CARVER, 278 U.S. 294; MULLEN BENEVOLENT CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 89. 

FN14  SEE SHARP V. UNITED STATES, 191 U.S. 341, 348-350; SAN DIEGO
LAND & TOWN CO. V. NEALE, 88 CAL. 50, 58-63, 25 P. 977; MATTER OF CITY
OF NEW YORK, 118 APP. DIV. 272, 275, 103 N.Y.S. 441; NEW YORK CENTRAL
R. CO. V. MALONEY, 234 N.Y. 208, 218, 137 N.E. 305; SPARKILL REALTY
CORP. V. NEW YORK, 268 N.Y. 192, 197 N.E. 192; BURT V. WIGGLESWORTH,
117 MASS. 302, 306; HAMILTON V. PITTSBURG, B. & L.E.R. CO., 190 PA. ST.
51, 57, 42 A. 369.  CF. UNITED GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 278 U.S.
300, 317-318. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND I
UNDERSTAND THE COURT TO HOLD THAT PROPERTY PHYSICALLY ADAPTABLE TO
POWER PURPOSES, TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR POWER PURPOSES
AMONG OTHERS, IS TO BE VALUED AS WORTHLESS FOR POWER PURPOSES AS MATTER
OF LAW BECAUSE ITS PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE DEFEATED IF THE STATE
SHOULD REVOKE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN ADMITTEDLY POSSESSED BY THE
OWNER AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING.  WE THINK IT DENIES PROPER EFFECT TO
STATE LAW AND POLICY IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF TAKING. 

UNLESS THIS DECISION OVERRULES THE LAW AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, FLOWING STREAMS ARE NATURAL RESOURCES
OWNED AND GOVERNED BY THE STATES, AND THE RIGHTS OF THEIR GRANTEES AND
OF RIPARIAN OWNERS ARE SETTLED BY THE LOCAL LAW WHICH IS CONCLUSIVE ON
US.  PORT OF SEATTLE V. OREGON & WASHINGTON R. CO., 255 U.S. 56; ST.
ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER CO. V. ST. PAUL WATER COMM'RS, 168 U.S. 349;
SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152 U.S. 1; CF. UNITED STATES V. OREGON, 295 U.S. 1,
6-7.  THE STATES HAVE ASSUMED THIS TO BE THEIR RIGHT AND HAVE WRITTEN
INTO THEIR LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS VARIOUS SYSTEMS OF CONTROL AND
DEVELOPMENT DEEMED SUITABLE TO THEIR RESPECTIVE CLIMATES, INDUSTRIES OR
ECONOMIES.  FN1 

THE HIWASSEE RIVER, THEREFORE, IS A RESOURCE OF THE STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA.  TO OBTAIN THE ADVANTAGE OF ITS LATENT ENERGY THAT STATE BY
SPECIAL ACT OF ITS LEGISLATURE CREATED A CORPORATION AND GAVE IT
EXTENSIVE POWERS INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  FN2  THE
CORPORATION ACQUIRED, PARTLY BY PURCHASE AND PARTLY BY CONDEMNATION,
THE DAM SITES, BED OF THE STREAM, RIPARIAN LANDS AND KEY PROPERTIES
NECESSARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT.  THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE BY CONDEMNATION ANY
ADDITIONAL LANDS NEEDED WAS NEVER REPEALED OR WITHDRAWN BUT ON THE
OTHER HAND WAS CONFIRMED BY THE STATE COURTS IN A SERIES OF
LITIGATIONS.  FN3  THERE IS NO FINDING OR EVIDENCE THAT FORFEITURE,
REPEAL OR IMPAIRMENT OF THESE RIGHTS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED OR THREATENED
BY THE STATE OR IS EVEN REMOTELY PROBABLE, EVEN IF LEGALLY POSSIBLE. 

UNDER ITS PARAMOUNT POWERS OVER NAVIGATION THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
ELECTED TO TAKE THIS RESOURCE OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE STATE AND AWAY
FROM THE GRANTEE CORPORATION WHICH IS SUBJECT TO STATE TAXING AND
REGULATORY POWER.  THIS IT MAY DO, BUT ONLY UPON MAKING JUST
COMPENSATION.  BUT THE COURT HOLDS THAT COMPENSATION MUST BE COMPUTED
AS IF THE STATE HAD REFUSED TO GRANT WHAT IT HAS GRANTED OR HAD
WITHDRAWN WHAT IT HAS GIVEN NO INDICATION OF WITHDRAWING.  BY THUS
CANCELLING FOR THE PURPOSE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, IT HOLDS AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT THE PROJECT WAS NOT FEASIBLE TO EXECUTE AND THAT THE
LANDS ASSEMBLED FOR POWER PURPOSES, ADMITTEDLY PHYSICALLY ADAPTABLE TO
THE USE AND TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE, HAVE NO POWER
UTILIZATION VALUE.  THIS SEEMS TO US NOT EASILY RECONCILED WITH THE
RESPECT DUE TO LOCAL LAW IN A MATTER OF THE KIND. 

DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY AS AFFECTED BY A
PROSPECTIVE USE, ALWAYS INVOLVES SOME ELEMENT OF PROPHECY AND SOME
ESTIMATION OF PROBABILITIES.  NO COURT THAT WE KNOW OF HAS EVER
PROPOSED, AND WE DO NOT PROPOSE, TO VALUE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
EITHER SEPARATELY OR AS AN INGREDIENT OF PROPERTY TAKEN.  ITS EXISTENCE
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE MOST
ADVANTAGEOUS PROBABLE USEFULNESS OF THE PROPERTY AS IT AFFECTS ITS
VALUE.  THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE SOLUTION OF THE FACT
QUESTIONS ARE LAID DOWN IN OLSON V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 246.  OF
COURSE ANY UNCERTAINTY OR LIMITATION AS TO THE RIGHT TO CONDEMN
PROPERTY OR EVIDENCE OF PROBABLE IMPAIRMENT, FORFEITURE, OR WITHDRAWAL
OF IT WOULD BE WEIGHED WITH OTHER EVIDENCE IN ARRIVING AT A JUDGMENT AS
TO THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT AND VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  THIS
COURT HAS SAID THAT A POSSIBILITY OF EXERCISE BY A GOVERNING BODY OF
ITS POWER TO MAKE CHANGES AFFECTING VALUES IS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR
CONSIDERATION IN FIXING VALUES.  REICHELDERFER V. QUINN, 287 U.S. 315,
323.  BUT NEVER UNTIL NOW HAS IT HELD THAT THE LAW REQUIRES PRESENT
VALUES TO BE DETERMINED AS IF LEGALLY POSSIBLE, BUT FACTUALLY
IMPROBABLE, CHANGES HAVE ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. 

FEW PROPERTIES ARE SO IMMUNE FROM THE EFFECTS OF GOVERNMENTAL
AUTHORITY THAT SOME ACTION MAY NOT BE ENVISIONED WHICH WOULD DEVALUE
THEM.  ONE OF THE ITEMS TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE
FROM RESPONDENT AND OUT OF CONTROL OF THE STATE WAS A GOING CONCERN, AN
ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT AND DISTRIBUTING SYSTEM.  SINCE BOTH PARTIES
ACCEPTED THE AWARD MADE FOR THIS PLANT IT IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE, BUT IS
ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE LEGAL PROBLEM RAISED BY THE COURT'S OPINION. 
DOUBTLESS THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAD POWER TO MAKE MANY INNOVATIONS
DETRIMENTAL TO ITS SUCCESS AND TO IMPOSE BURDENS THAT WOULD DETRACT
FROM ITS VALUE AND PERHAPS HAD RESERVED POWERS TO ANNUL ITS CORPORATE
OR SPECIAL FRANCHISES.  BUT WE WOULD NOT SUPPOSE THAT SUCH HYPOTHETICAL
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY VALUES COULD BE INVOKED TO MINIMIZE
COMPENSATION PAYABLE ON A TAKING ANY MORE THAN HYPOTHETICAL ACCRETIONS
TO ITS RIGHTS THROUGH STATE ACTION, POSSIBLE BUT NEVER ACCOMPLISHED,
COULD INCREASE SUCH COMPENSATION.  IN MANY CASES THE BENEFICIAL USE AND
HENCE THE VALUE OF ABUTTING PROPERTY MAY BE DECREASED IF PUBLIC
AUTHORITY CLOSES OR OBSTRUCTS A PUBLIC STREET OR CANAL, OR CHANGES THE
GRADE OF A STREET, OR THE LOCATION OF A COUNTY SEAT.  FN4  BUT IN ALL
SUCH CASES THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE SHOULD BE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
AT THE TIME OF TAKING, ALLOWING FOR ANY INFLUENCE THAT THESE
CONTINGENCIES MIGHT EXERT, WHICH WOULD DEPEND UPON THEIR PROBABILITY. 

NO PREVIOUS DECISION OF THIS COURT SUPPORTS OR AUTHORIZES DISREGARD
OF A PRESENTLY EXISTING STATE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN A FEDERAL
TAKING OF PROPERTY.  IN MCGOVERN V. NEW YORK, 229 U.S. 363, AND NEW
YORK V. SAGE, 239 U.S. 57, THE CONDEMNATION WAS BY AN AGENCY OF THE
STATE AND THE CONDEMNEES DID NOT HAVE AND SHOWED NO PROBABILITY OF
OBTAINING SUCH POWER FROM THE STATE. 

EVEN LESS RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US IS SEARS V. AKRON,
246 U.S. 242.  IT WAS NOT A CONDEMNATION CASE AT ALL BUT A SUIT IN
EQUITY TO ENJOIN THE CITY FROM CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM AND RESERVOIR AND
DIVERSION OF RIVER WATER.  THE CITY DID NOT PROPOSE TO TAKE ANY
PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY THROUGH WHICH PLAINTIFF AS A MORTGAGE CREDITOR
DERIVED ANY RIGHTS HE ASSERTED.  IN FACT THE COMPANY DID NOT OWN ANY
PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT, ALTHOUGH SHORTLY BEFORE COMMENCEMENT
OF THE SUIT, BUT AFTER THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT WAS PRACTICALLY
COMPLETED, IT ACQUIRED TWO SMALL PARCELS SOME DISTANCE BELOW THE CITY'S
DAM.  BUT THE COMPANY'S CHARTER GAVE IT A RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND,
ALTHOUGH IT HAD TAKEN NO STEP TO DO SO, IT CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO
EXPROPRIATE THE SAME PROPERTY THE CITY WAS TAKING.  IT SOUGHT TO ENJOIN
THE CITY UPON THE GROUND THAT ITS UNEXERCISED RIGHT TO TAKE THIS
PROPERTY WAS AN INDEFEASIBLE PROPERTY RIGHT WHICH WAS BEING DEFEATED
AND RENDERED VALUELESS BECAUSE THE CITY WAS AHEAD OF IT IN PREEMPTING
PROPERTIES WHICH THE COMPANY MIGHT WANT TO ACQUIRE UNDER ITS POWER. 
THE STATE OF OHIO HAD RETAINED POWER TO "REVOKE ANY SUCH RIGHT TO
APPROPRIATE PROPERTY UNTIL IT HAD BEEN ACTED UPON BY ACQUIRING THE
PROPERTY AUTHORIZED TO BE TAKEN."  ID. AT 250.  THE STATE OF COURSE HAD
REVOKED THE POWER TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HAD AUTHORIZED THE CITY, ITS
OWN INSTRUMENTALITY, TO TAKE THE PROPERTY.  BUT JUSTICE BRANDEIS
POINTED OUT THAT "NOR ARE WE CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE TO WHAT EXTENT
THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACQUISITION OF NEEDED PROPERTY IN PREPARATION
FOR THE POWER DEVELOPMENT, OR EVEN ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION,
WOULD HAVE VESTED IN THE COMPANY THE RIGHT TO COMPLETE THE
DEVELOPMENT."  IBID.  THE DECISION IS NOW RELIED UPON TO ESTABLISH THE
POINT IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED.  MOREOVER, THE OHIO COMPANY HAD TRIED TO
USE ITS POWER OF CONDEMNATION, AND OHIO COURTS HAD HELD ITS CHARTER DID
NOT AUTHORIZE IT TO TAKE LANDS ESSENTIAL TO ITS PROJECT.  CUYAHOGA
RIVER POWER CO. V. NORTHERN REALTY CO., 244 U.S. 300.  IN THE CASE NOW
BEFORE US THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS HAD HELD THE POWER GIVEN BY THAT
STATE TO THIS COMPANY WAS COMPLETE AND PRIOR TO EVERY OTHER AT THE VERY
LOCATION INVOLVED HERE.  FN5 

THESE CASES DO NOT DECIDE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS IF
NORTH CAROLINA, RATHER THAN THE UNITED STATES, HAD INSTITUTED THE
PRESENT CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, THEREBY EXPRESSING HER UNWILLINGNESS
TO HAVE THE RESPONDENT CARRY THE PROJECT THROUGH TO COMPLETION.  THEY
ARE WHOLLY INAPPOSITE TO THE QUESTION WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE,
WHICH IS WHETHER NORTH CAROLINA'S EXPRESSED AND UNDOUBTED WILLINGNESS
THAT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD DO SO, AND TO THAT END SHOULD EXERCISE HER
SOVEREIGN POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, MAY BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH ALL
OTHER FACTS BEARING UPON THE QUESTION OF THE PROSPECTS OF COMPLETION. 

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COURT HAVE TAKEN A CONTRARY POSITION TO THE
ONE NOW ANNOUNCED WHEN THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT.  IN UNITED
STATES V. RIVER ROUGE CO., 269 U.S. 411, THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO
DEDUCT FROM THE VALUE OF PROPERTY CONDEMNED THE BENEFITS CONFERRED BY
THE IMPROVEMENT UPON THE SEVERED PROPERTY.  THE OWNER DENIED THAT THESE
BENEFITS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE HIS ENJOYMENT OF THEM WOULD BE
TERMINABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY TIME.  THE COURT SUSTAINED CREDIT
FOR THE BENEFITS, POINTING OUT THAT "THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE EVIDENCE
INDICATING ANY PROBALITY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD AT ANY TIME ABROGATE
OR CURTAIL THIS RIGHT IN ANY RESPECT."  ID. AT 420. 

WE THINK THE SAME RULE SHOULD APPLY AGAINST AS FOR THE GOVERNMENT,
AND THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS AT THE
TIME BEING EXTENDED BY STATE AUTHORITY IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF
PROBABILITY THAT THEY WOULD BE ABROGATED OR CURTAILED.  WE DO NOT THINK
THAT BECAUSE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN MAY HAVE BEEN REVOCABLE BY THE
STATE IT FOLLOWS AS MATTER OF LAW THAT IT MUST BE TREATED AS
NONEXISTENT, AND WE DISSENT FROM A REVERSAL BASED ON SUCH GROUNDS. 

FN1  TYPICAL PROVISIONS FROM STATE CONSTITUTIONS ARE: 

CALIFORNIA, ARTICLE XIV, SEC. 3:  "  ...  RIPARIAN RIGHTS IN A STREAM
OR WATER COURSE ATTACH TO, BUT TO NO MORE THAN SO MUCH OF THE FLOW
THEREOF AS MAY BE REQUIRED OR USED CONSISTENTLY WITH THIS SECTION, FOR
THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH SUCH LANDS ARE, OR MAY BE MADE ADAPTABLE, IN
VIEW OF SUCH REASONABLE AND BENEFICIAL USES; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS DEPRIVING ANY RIPARIAN
OWNER OF THE REASONABLE USE OF WATER OF THE STREAM TO WHICH HIS LAND IS
RIPARIAN UNDER REASONABLE METHODS OF DIVERSION AND USE, OR OF DEPRIVING
ANY APPROPRIATOR OF WATER TO WHICH HE IS LAWFULLY ENTITLED.  ...  " 

COLORADO, ARTICLE XVI, SEC. 6:  "THE RIGHT TO DIVERT THE
UNAPPROPRIATED WATERS OF ANY NATURAL STREAM TO BENEFICIAL USES SHALL
NEVER BE DENIED.  PRIORITY OF APPROPRIATION SHALL GIVE THE BETTER RIGHT
AS BETWEEN THOSE USING THE WATER FOR THE SAME PURPOSE; BUT WHEN THE OF
ANY NATURAL STREAM ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE SERVICE OF ALL THOSE
DESIRING THE USE OF THE SAME, THOSE USING THE WATER FOR DOMESTIC
PURPOSES SHALL HAVE THE PREFERENCE OVER THOSE CLAIMING FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE, AND THOSE USING THE WATER FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES SHALL HAVE
PREFERENCE OVER THOSE USING THE SAME FOR MANUFACTURING PURPOSES." 

NORTH DAKOTA, ARTICLE XVII, SEC. 210:  "ALL FLOWING STREAMS AND
NATURAL WATER COURSES SHALL FOREVER REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE
FOR MINING, IRRIGATING AND MANUFACTURING PURPOSES." 

RHODE ISLAND, ARTICLE I, SEC. 17:  "THE PEOPLE SHALL CONTINUE TO
ENJOY AND FREELY EXERCISE ALL THE RIGHTS OF FISHERY, AND THE PRIVILEGES
OF THE SHORE, TO WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN HERETOFORE ENTITLED UNDER THE
CHARTER AND USAGES OF THIS STATE.  BUT NO NEW RIGHT IS INTENDED TO BE
GRANTED, NOR ANY EXISTING RIGHT IMPAIRED, BY THIS DECLARATION." 

UTAH, ARTICLE XVII, SEC. 1:  "ALL EXISTING RIGHTS TO THE USE OF ANY
OF THE WATERS IN THIS STATE FOR ANY USEFUL OR BENEFICIAL PURPOSE, ARE
HEREBY RECOGNIZED AND CONFIRMED." 

WASHINGTON, ARTICLE XVII, SEC. 1:  "THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ASSERTS
ITS OWNERSHIP TO THE BEDS AND SHORES OF ALL NAVIGABLE WATERS IN THE
STATE UP TO AND INCLUDING THE LINE OF ORDINARY HIGH TIDE IN WATERS
WHERE THE TIDE EBBS AND FLOWS, AND UP TO AND INCLUDING THE LINE OF
ORDINARY HIGH WATER WITHIN THE BANKS OF ALL NAVIGABLE RIVERS AND LAKES:
PROVIDED, THAT THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO DEBAR ANY
PERSON FROM ASSERTING HIS CLAIM TO VESTED RIGHTS IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE." 

ARTICLE XXI, SEC. 1:  "THE USE OF THE WATERS OF THIS STATE FOR
IRRIGATION, MINING, AND MANUFACTURING PURPOSES SHALL BE DEEMED A PUBLIC
USE." 

WISCONSIN, ARTICLE XXI, SEC. 1:  "THE STATE SHALL HAVE CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION ON ALL RIVERS AND LAKES BORDERING ON THIS STATE SO FAR AS
SUCH RIVERS OR LAKES SHALL FORM A COMMON BOUNDARY TO THE STATE AND ANY
OTHER STATE OR TERRITORY NOW OR HEREAFTER TO BE FORMED, AND BOUNDED BY
THE SAME; AND THE RIVER MISSISSIPPI AND THE NAVIGABLE WATERS LEADING
INTO THE MISSISSIPPI AND ST. LAWRENCE, AND THE CARRYING PLACES BETWEEN
THE SAME, SHALL BE COMMON HIGHWAYS AND FOREVER FREE, AS WELL TO THE
INHABITANTS OF THE STATE AS TO THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
WITHOUT ANY TAX, IMPOST OR DUTY THEREFOR." 

SEE ALSO KAUKAUNA WATER POWER CO. V. GREEN BAY CANAL CO., 142 U.S.
254, 272; CF. INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 399. 

FN2  PRIVATE LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1909, C. 76, P 185. 

FN3  CAROLINA-TENNESSEE POWER CO. V. HIAWASSEE RIVER POWER CO., 171
N.C. 248, 88 S.E. 349(1916), 175 N.C. 668, 96 S.E. 99(1918), 186 N.C.
179, 119 S.E. 213(1923), 188 N.C. 128, 123 S.E. 312(1924); HIAWASSEE
RIVER POWER CO. V. CAROLINA-TENNESSEE POWER CO., 252 U.S. 341(1920),
267 U.S. 586(1925). 

FN4  SEE EXAMPLES AND CITATION OF CASES IN REICHELDERFER V. QUINN,
SUPRA, AT 319. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE PRINCIPLE ADOPTED BY THE MAJORITY OPINION MAY BE
TESTED AGAINST HYPOTHETICAL CASES SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING: 

1.  O OWNS A DOCK PROJECTING INTO A NAVIGABLE STREAM IN STATE S. THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY DESTROY IT OR REQUIRE ITS REMOVAL WITHOUT
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION (UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P. R.
CO., 312 U.S. 592), BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR LIKELY THAT IT WILL DO SO,
AND THE DOCK IS A COMMERCIALLY VALUABLE PROPERTY.  S ACQUIRES THE DOCK
BY CONDEMNATION, AND SEEKS TO AVOID PAYMENT BY RELYING UPON THE POWER
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DESTROY ITS VALUE. 

2.  O OWNS A DISTILLERY IN STATE S. S ACQUIRES IT BY CONDEMNATION,
AND RESISTS PAYMENT BY ASSERTING THE EXISTENCE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO ENACT A PROHIBITION LAW AND THEREBY DESTROY OR
DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE DISTILLERY WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION (HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 251 U.S. 146). 

3.  O OWNS AN OPTION UPON LAND OWNED BY STATE S. THE OPTION IS
REVOCABLE AT THE WILL OF S, BUT REVOCATION SEEMS UNLIKELY, AND THE
OPTION HAS COMMERCIAL VALUE.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACQUIRES IT BY
CONDEMNATION, BUT RESISTS PAYMENT BY RELYING UPON S'S POWER OF
REVOCATION. 

THESE CASES CAN BE FURTHER COMPLICATED BY SUPPOSING THAT THE
CONDEMNATION IS NOT BY THE SOVEREIGN ITSELF, BUT BY A PRIVATE
CORPORATION VESTED BY IT WITH THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN. 

FN5  SEE FOOTNOTE 3, SUPRA.
..END :


















LOCKERTY V. PHILLIPS, 319 U.S. 182 


NO. 934.  ARGUED MAY 3, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 10, 1943.  - 49 F.SUPP. 
513, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942 SETS UP A PROCEDURE
WHEREBY ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO ANY REGULATION OR ORDER PROMULGATED UNDER
THE ACT MAY ON "PROTEST" OF THE REGULATION OR ORDER SECURE ITS REVIEW
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR; AND, IF THE PROTEST IS DENIED, THE ACT CONFERS ON
THE EMERGENCY COURT (AND ON THE SUPREME COURT UPON REVIEW OF DECISIONS
OF THE EMERGENCY COURT) EQUITY JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF REGULATIONS OR PRICE ORDERS UNDER THAT ACT, AND WITHDRAWS THAT
JURISDICTION FROM EVERY OTHER COURT, STATE OR FEDERAL.  P. 186. 

2.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE CONGRESS TO CONFER EQUITY
JURISDICTION ON ANY PARTICULAR INFERIOR FEDERAL COURT.  P. 187. 

3. CONGRESS HAD POWER TO RESTRICT THE EQUITY JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, OR OF REGULATIONS UNDER
IT, TO THE EMERGENCY COURT, AND, UPON REVIEW OF ITS DECISIONS, TO THIS
COURT, AND TO REQUIRE THAT A PLAINTIFF SEEKING SUCH EQUITABLE RELIEF
RESORT TO THE EMERGENCY COURT ONLY AFTER PURSUING THE PRESCRIBED
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  P. 188. 

4.  THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT, SEC. 204(D), IN PROVIDING THAT
"NO COURT, FEDERAL, STATE, OR TERRITORIAL, SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OR
POWER TO  ...  RESTRAIN, ENJOIN, OR SET ASIDE  ...  ANY PROVISION OF
THIS ACT," IS NOT OPEN TO THE OBJECTION THAT IT WITHHOLDS FROM ALL
COURTS AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY PROVISION OF
THE ACT OR OF ANY ORDER OR REGULATION UNDER IT.  THE ACT ITSELF, SEC.
204, SAVES TO THE EMERGENCY COURT, AND, UPON REVIEW OF ITS DECISIONS,
TO THIS COURT, AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY REGULATION, ORDER, OR
PRICE SCHEDULE PROMULGATED UNDER IT IS "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW,"
AND THIS PERMITS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ACT, AND OF
ORDERS AND REGULATIONS UNDER IT, BE SO DETERMINED.  P. 188. 

5.  ASSUMING THAT REVIEW IN THE EMERGENCY COURT IS INADEQUATE TO
PROTECT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BECAUSE SEC. 204(C) PROHIBITS ALL
INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF BY THAT COURT, THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE OF SEC. 303
WOULD REQUIRE THAT EFFECT BE GIVEN TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204,
INCLUDING THAT WHICH WITHHOLDS FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS AUTHORITY TO
ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT.  P. 189. 

LOCKERTY ET AL. V. PHILLIPS, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AN APPEAL SEEKING AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF PRICE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE EMERGENCY
PRICE CONTROL ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT BELOW TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF PRICE REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT
OF 1942, 56 STAT. 23, WAS VALIDLY WITHDRAWN BY SEC. 204(D) OF THE ACT. 
APPELLANTS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
NEW JERSEY FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING APPELLEE, THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THAT DISTRICT, FROM THE PROSECUTION OF PENDING AND
PROSPECTIVE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST APPELLANTS FOR VIOLATION OF
SECS. 4(A) AND 205(B) OF THE ACT, AND OF MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO.
169.  IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204(D) OF THE ACT, THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THREE JUDGES, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A, DISMISSED THE SUIT FOR WANT
OF JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN IT. 

THE AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT APPELLANTS ARE ESTABLISHED
MERCHANTS OWNING VALUABLE WHOLESALE MEAT BUSINESSES, IN THE COURSE OF
WHICH THEY PURCHASE MEAT FROM PACKERS AND SELL IT AT WHOLESALE TO
RETAIL DEALERS; THAT MAXIMUM PRICE REGULATION NO. 169, PROMULGATED BY
THE PRICE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF SEC. 2(A) OF
THE ACT, AS ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND AS REVISED, FIXED MAXIMUM WHOLESALE
PRICES FOR SPECIFIED CUTS OF BEEF; THAT IN FIXING SUCH PRICES THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAD FAILED TO GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE VARIOUS
FACTORS AFFECTING THE COST OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MEAT IN
THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE; THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD FAILED TO FIX OR
REGULATE THE PRICE OF LIVESTOCK; THAT THE CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY -
INCLUDING THE QUANTITY OF MEAT AVAILABLE TO PACKERS FOR DISTRIBUTION TO
WHOLESALERS, THE PACKERS' EXPECTATION OF PROFIT, AND THE EFFECT OF
THESE CONDITIONS UPON THE PRICES OF MEAT SOLD BY PACKERS TO WHOLESALERS
- ARE SUCH THAT APPELLANTS ARE AND WILL BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN A SUPPLY OF
MEAT FROM PACKERS WHICH THEY CAN RESELL TO RETAIL DEALERS WITHIN THE
PRICES FIXED BY REGULATION NO. 169; THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATION
WILL PRECLUDE APPELLANTS' CONTINUANCE IN BUSINESS AS MEAT WHOLESALERS;
THAT THE ACT AS THUS APPLIED TO APPELLANTS IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND INVOLVES
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR; THAT APPELLEE THREATENS TO PROSECUTE APPELLANTS FOR EACH
SALE OF MEAT AT A PRICE GREATER THAN THAT FIXED BY THE REGULATION, AND
TO SUBJECT THEM TO THE FINE AND IMPRISONMENT PRESCRIBED BY SECS. 4 AND
205(B) OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT OR OF PRICE REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE ACT; AND THAT SUCH
ENFORCEMENT BY REPEATED PROSECUTIONS OF APPELLANTS WILL IRREPARABLY
INJURE THEM IN THEIR BUSINESS AND PROPERTY. 

PROVISION OF ANY REGULATION, ORDER OR PRICE SCHEDULE PROMULGATED UNDER
THE ACT MAY WITHIN SIXTY DAYS "FILE A PROTEST SPECIFICALLY SETTING
FORTH OBJECTIONS TO ANY SUCH PROVISION AND AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER WRITTEN
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH OBJECTIONS."  HE MAY ALSO PROTEST LATER ON
GROUNDS ARISING AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE ORIGINAL SIXTY DAYS.  THE
SUBSECTION DIRECTS THAT WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME "THE ADMINISTRATOR
SHALL EITHER GRANT OR DENY SUCH PROTEST IN WHOLE OR IN PART, NOTICE
SUCH PROTEST FOR HEARING, OR PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT FURTHER
EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.  IN THE EVENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR
DENIES ANY SUCH PROTEST IN WHOLE OR IN PART, HE SHALL INFORM THE
PROTESTANT OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH SUCH DECISION IS BASED, AND OF ANY
ECONOMIC DATA AND OTHER FACTS OF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS TAKEN
OFFICIAL NOTICE." 

BY SEC. 204(A), "ANY PERSON WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DENIAL OR PARTIAL
DENIAL OF HIS PROTEST MAY, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER SUCH DENIAL, FILE A
COMPLAINT WITH THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, CREATED PURSUANT TO
SUBSECTION (C), SPECIFYING HIS OBJECTIONS AND PRAYING THAT THE
REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE PROTESTED BE ENJOINED OR SET ASIDE
IN WHOLE OR IN PART."  SUBSECTION (B) PROVIDES THAT NO REGULATION,
ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE, SHALL BE ENJOINED "UNLESS THE COMPLAINANT
ESTABLISHES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT THE REGULATION,
ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, OR IS ARBITRARY
OR CAPRICIOUS."  UNDER SUBSECTIONS (B) AND (D), DECISIONS OF THE
EMERGENCY COURT MAY, BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI, BE BROUGHT FOR REVIEW TO
THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE ON ITS DOCKET
AND TO EXPEDITE THE DISPOSITION OF IT. 

ALTHOUGH BY FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THESE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT APPELLANTS COULD HAVE RAISED AND OBTAINED REVIEW OF THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THEIR BILL OF COMPLAINT, THEY DID NOT PROTEST
THE PRICE REGULATION WHICH THEY CHALLENGE AND THEY TOOK NO PROCEEDINGS
FOR REVIEW OF IT BY THE EMERGENCY COURT.  APPELLANTS ARE THUS SEEKING
THE AID OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WITHOUT PURSUING THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE (CF. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION V. THOMSON,
318 U.S. 675, 686) AND WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE
EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS AND BY THIS COURT WHICH THE STATUTE
AFFORDS. 

MOREOVER THE STATUTE VESTS JURISDICTION TO GRANT EQUITABLE RELIEF
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE EMERGENCY COURT AND IN THIS COURT.  SECTION 204(D)
DECLARES:  "THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, AND THE SUPREME COURT UPON
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS, SHALL
HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF ANY REGULATION
OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2, OF ANY PRICE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206, AND OF ANY PROVISION OF
ANY SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE.  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
THIS SECTION, NO COURT, FEDERAL, STATE, OR TERRITORIAL, SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION OR POWER TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF ANY SUCH REGULATION,
ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE, OR TO STAY, RESTRAIN, ENJOIN, OR SET ASIDE,
IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF SUCH REGULATIONS OR ORDERS, OR MAKING EFFECTIVE ANY SUCH PRICE
SCHEDULE, OR ANY PROVISION OF ANY SUCH REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE
SCHEDULE, OR TO RESTRAIN OR ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY SUCH
PROVISION." 

BY THIS STATUTE CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO CONFER ON THE EMERGENCY
COURT (AND ON THE SUPREME COURT UPON REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE
EMERGENCY COURT) EQUITY JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
PRICE ORDERS UNDER THE EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT.  AT THE SAME TIME
IT HAS WITHDRAWN THAT JURISDICTION FROM EVERY OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE
COURT.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH REQUIRES CONGRESS TO
CONFER EQUITY JURISDICTION ON ANY PARTICULAR INFERIOR FEDERAL COURT. 
ALL FEDERAL COURTS, OTHER THAN THE SUPREME COURT, DERIVE THEIR
JURISDICTION WHOLLY FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY TO "ORDAIN AND
ESTABLISH" INFERIOR COURTS, CONFERRED ON CONGRESS BY ARTICLE III, SEC.
1, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ARTICLE III LEFT CONGRESS FREE TO ESTABLISH
INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS OR NOT AS IT THOUGHT APPROPRIATE.  IT COULD
HAVE DECLINED TO CREATE ANY SUCH COURTS, LEAVING SUITORS TO THE
REMEDIES AFFORDED BY STATE COURTS, WITH SUCH APPELLATE REVIEW BY THIS
COURT AS CONGRESS MIGHT PRESCRIBE.  KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO.,
260 U.S. 226, 234, AND CASES CITED; MCINTIRE V. WOOD, 7 CRANCH 504,
506.  THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH INFERIOR COURTS
INCLUDES THE POWER "OF INVESTING THEM WITH JURISDICTION EITHER LIMITED,
CONCURRENT, OR EXCLUSIVE, AND OF WITHHOLDING JURISDICTION FROM THEM IN
THE EXACT DEGREES AND CHARACTER WHICH TO CONGRESS MAY SEEM PROPER FOR
THE PUBLIC GOOD."  CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236, 245; LAUF V. E.G.
SHINNER & CO., 303 U.S. 323, 330; HALLOWELL V. COMMONS, 239 U.S. 506,
509; SMALLWOOD V. GALLARDO, 275 U.S. 56; TOUCEY V. NEW YORK LIFE INS.
CO., 314 U.S. 118, 129.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. HUDSON AND GOODWIN,
7 CRANCH 32, 33; MAYOR V. COOPER, 6 WALL.  247, 252; STEVENSON V. FAIN,
195 U.S. 165 , 167; KENTUCKY V. POWERS, 201 U.S. 1, 24; CHICOT COUNTY
DIST. V. BAXTER BANK, 308 U.S. 371, 376.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLICIT
LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR DECISIONS, IT IS PLAIN THAT
CONGRESS HAS POWER TO PROVIDE THAT THE EQUITY JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, OR OF REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER IT, BE
RESTRICTED TO THE EMERGENCY COURT, AND, UPON REVIEW OF ITS DECISIONS,
TO THIS COURT.  NOR CAN WE DOUBT THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO REQUIRE
THAT A PLAINTIFF SEEKING SUCH EQUITABLE RELIEF RESORT TO THE EMERGENCY
COURT ONLY AFTER PURSUING THE PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE. 

APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THE COMMAND OF SEC. 204(D) THAT "NO COURT,
FEDERAL, STATE, OR TERRITORIAL, SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OR POWER TO
...  RESTRAIN, ENJOIN, OR SET ASIDE  ...  ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT"
EXTENDS BEYOND THE MERE DENIAL OF EQUITABLE RELIEF BY WAY OF
INJUNCTION, AND WITHHOLDS FROM ALL COURTS AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT OR OF ANY ORDER OR
REGULATION UNDER IT.  THEY INSIST THAT THE PHRASE "SET ASIDE" IS TO BE
READ BROADLY, AS MEANING THAT NO COURT CAN DECLARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ANY
SUCH PROVISION, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE IS TO
DENY TO THOSE AGGRIEVED, BY STATUTE OR REGULATION, THEIR DAY IN COURT
TO CHALLENGE ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.  BUT THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY EXCEPTS
FROM THIS COMMAND THOSE REMEDIES AFFORDED BY SEC. 204, INCLUDING THAT
OF SUBSECTION (B), WHICH GIVES TO COMPLAINANTS A RIGHT TO AN INJUNCTION
WHENEVER THEY ESTABLISH TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE EMERGENCY COURT THAT
THE REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE IS "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW, OR IS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS."  A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
WHICH WOULD DENY ALL OPPORTUNITY FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF AN
ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS NOT TO BE FAVORED.  THE PRESENT ACT
HAS AT LEAST SAVED TO THE EMERGENCY COURT, AND, UPON REVIEW OF ITS
DECISIONS, TO THIS COURT, AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY
REGULATION, ORDER, OR PRICE SCHEDULE PROMULGATED UNDER THE ACT IS "NOT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, OR IS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS."  WE THINK IT
PLAIN THAT ORDERS AND REGULATIONS INVOLVING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE ARE "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THIS CLAUSE, AND THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE
ACT, AND OF ORDERS AND REGULATIONS UNDER IT, MAY BE DETERMINED UPON THE
PRESCRIBED REVIEW IN THE EMERGENCY COURT. 

APPELLANTS ALSO CONTEND THAT THE REVIEW IN THE EMERGENCY COURT IS
INADEQUATE TO PROTECT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND THAT SEC. 204 IS
THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BECAUSE SEC. 204(C) PROHIBITS ALL
INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF BY THAT COURT.  WE NEED NOT PASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS RESTRICTION.  FOR IN ANY EVENT, THE
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE OF SEC. 303 OF THE ACT WOULD REQUIRE US TO GIVE
EFFECT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204, INCLUDING THAT WITHHOLDING
FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS AUTHORITY TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT - A
PROVISION WHICH AS WE HAVE SEEN IS SUBJECT TO NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL
INFIRMITY. 

SINCE APPELLANTS SEEK ONLY AN INJUNCTION WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT IS
WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO GIVE, THEIR BILL OF COMPLAINT WAS RIGHTLY
DISMISSED.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE NOW WHETHER, OR TO WHAT
EXTENT, APPELLANTS MAY CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT OR
THE REGULATION IN COURTS OTHER THAN THE EMERGENCY COURT, EITHER BY WAY
OF DEFENSE TO A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR IN A CIVIL SUIT BROUGHT FOR
SOME OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT OR
REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER IT.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :












NAT. BROADCASTING CO. V. U.S., 319 U.S. 190 


NO. 554.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 11, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 10, 1943.  - 47
F.SUPP.  940, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ARE
NOT LIMITED TO THE ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF RADIO
COMMUNICATION.  P. 215. 

2.  REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AS
"IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST," TOUCHING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN LICENSED
BROADCASTING STATIONS ON THE ONE HAND, AND NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS
FURNISHING PROGRAMS TO SUCH STATIONS ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE SUSTAINED
AS WITHIN THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION BY THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT, VIZ.: 

(1)  A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR
UNDERSTANDING WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION UNDER WHICH THE STATION IS
PREVENTED OR HINDERED FROM, OR PENALIZED FOR, BROADCASTING THE PROGRAMS
OF ANY OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATION.  P. 198. 

(2)  A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT, ETC., WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION WHICH PREVENTS OR HINDERS ANOTHER STATION SERVING
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AREA FROM BROADCASTING THE NETWORK'S PROGRAMS
NOT TAKEN BY THE FORMER STATION, OR WHICH PREVENTS OR HINDERS ANOTHER
STATION SERVING A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT AREA FROM BROADCASTING ANY
PROGRAM OF THE NETWORK ORGANIZATION; BUT NOT PROHIBITING ANY CONTRACT
BETWEEN A STATION AND A NETWORK ORGANIZATION PURSUANT TO WHICH THE
STATION IS GRANTED THE FIRST CALL IN ITS PRIMARY SERVICE AREA UPON THE
PROGRAMS OF THE NETWORK ORGANIZATION.  P. 200. 

(3)  A REGULATION DECLARING THAT NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT, ETC., WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE AFFILIATION OF THE STATION WITH THE
NETWORK ORGANIZATION FOR A PERIOD LONGER THAN TWO YEARS.  P. 201. 

(4)  A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION WHICH OPTIONS FOR NETWORK PROGRAMS ANY TIME
SUBJECT TO CALL ON LESS THAN 56 DAYS' NOTICE, OR MORE TIME THAN A TOTAL
OF THREE HOURS WITHIN EACH OF FOUR SEGMENTS OF THE BROADCAST DAY, AS
DESCRIBED IN THE REGULATION, AND THAT SUCH OPTIONS MAY NOT BE EXCLUSIVE
AS AGAINST OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS AND MAY NOT PREVENT OR HINDER
THE STATION FROM OPTIONING OR SELLING ANY OR ALL OF THE TIME COVERED BY
THE OPTION, OR OTHER TIME, TO OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS.  P. 202. 

(5)  A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT, ETC., WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION WHICH (A), WITH RESPECT TO PROGRAMS OFFERED PURSUANT TO AN
AFFILIATION CONTRACT, PREVENTS OR HINDERS THE STATION FROM REJECTING OR
REFUSING NETWORK PROGRAMS WHICH THE STATION REASONABLY BELIEVES TO BE
UNSATISFACTORY OR UNSUITABLE; OR WHICH (B), WITH RESPECT TO NETWORK
PROGRAMS SO OFFERED OR ALREADY CONTRACTED FOR, PREVENTS THE STATION
FROM REJECTING OR REFUSING ANY PROGRAM WHICH, IN ITS OPINION, IS
CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OR FROM SUBSTITUTING A PROGRAM OF
OUTSTANDING LOCAL OR NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.  P. 204. 

(6)  A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
NETWORK ORGANIZATION, OR TO ANY PERSON DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
CONTROLLED BY OR UNDER COMMON CONTROL WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION, FOR
MORE THAN ONE STANDARD BROADCAST STATION WHERE ONE OF THE STATIONS
COVERS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SERVICE AREA OF THE OTHER STATION, OR FOR ANY
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION IN ANY LOCALITY WHERE THE EXISTING STANDARD
BROADCAST STATIONS ARE SO FEW OR OF SUCH UNEQUAL DESIRABILITY (IN TERMS
OF COVERAGE, POWER, FREQUENCY, OR OTHER RELATED MATTERS) THAT
COMPETITION WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY RESTRAINED BY SUCH LICENSING.  P.
206. 

(7)  A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT, ETC., WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION UNDER WHICH THE STATION IS PREVENTED OR HINDERED FROM, OR
PENALIZED FOR, FIXING OR ALTERING ITS RATES FOR THE SALE OF BROADCAST
TIME FOR OTHER THAN THE NETWORK'S PROGRAMS.  P. 208. 

3.  SECTION 311 OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT, BY AUTHORIZING THE
COMMISSION TO WITHHOLD BROADCASTING STATION LICENSES FROM PERSONS WHO
HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE ANTITRUST LAWS, DOES NOT IMPLY
THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CONVICTION, CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT
AMOUNTING TO SUCH VIOLATION MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE GRANTING OF HIS APPLICATION WOULD BE CONTRARY
TO THE "PUBLIC INTEREST."  P. 222. 

4.  THE STANDARD OF "PUBLIC INTEREST" GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THE
POWERS DELEGATED TO THE COMMISSION BY THE ACT IS NOT SO VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE AS TO CREATE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY.  P. 225. 

5.  THE COMMISSION BY ANNOUNCING THAT IT WILL REFUSE STATION LICENSES
TO PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN SPECIFIED NETWORK PRACTICES CONTRARY TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY DOES NOT THEREBY DENY TO SUCH
PERSONS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  P. 226. 

6.  IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY
DISPOSED OF THE CASE UPON THE PLEADINGS AND THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, WITHOUT TRIAL DE NOVO.  P. 227. 

NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 555, COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. UNITED
STATES ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,  - ARGUED FEBRUARY 11,
1943. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING SUITS TO
ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN VIEW OF OUR DEPENDENCE UPON REGULATED PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IN
DISCHARGING THE FAR-REACHING ROLE WHICH RADIO PLAYS IN OUR SOCIETY, A
SOMEWHAT DETAILED EXPOSITION OF THE HISTORY OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY
AND THE ISSUES WHICH IT RAISES IS APPROPRIATE. 

THESE SUITS WERE BROUGHT ON OCTOBER 30, 1941, TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ON MAY 2, 1941, AND AMENDED ON
OCTOBER 11, 1941.  WE HELD LAST TERM IN COLUMBIA SYSTEM V. UNITED
STATES, 316 U.S. 407, AND NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO. V. UNITED STATES,
316 U.S. 447, THAT THE SUITS COULD BE MAINTAINED UNDER SEC. 402(A) OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1093, 47 U.S.C. SEC.
402(A)(INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF
OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 219, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47), AND THAT THE
DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE SUITS FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION SHOULD THEREFORE BE REVERSED.  ON REMAND THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DISMISSED THE SUITS ON THE MERITS.  47 F.SUPP.  940.  THE CASES ARE NOW
HERE ON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 47.  SINCE THEY RAISE SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME ISSUES AND WERE ARGUED TOGETHER, WE SHALL DEAL WITH BOTH CASES IN
A SINGLE OPINION. 

ON MARCH 18, 1938, THE COMMISSION UNDERTOOK A COMPREHENSIVE
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
RADIO STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN BROADCASTING  FN1 WERE REQUIRED IN THE
"PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY."  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
DIRECTED THAT INQUIRY BE MADE, INTER ALIA, IN THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC
MATTERS:  THE NUMBER OF STATIONS LICENSED TO OR AFFILIATED WITH
NETWORKS, AND THE AMOUNT OF STATION TIME USED OR CONTROLLED BY
NETWORKS; THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF STATIONS UNDER
THEIR AGREEMENTS WITH NETWORKS; THE SCOPE OF NETWORK AGREEMENTS
CONTAINING EXCLUSIVE AFFILIATION PROVISIONS AND RESTRICTING THE NETWORK
FROM AFFILIATING WITH OTHER STATIONS IN THE SAME AREA; THE RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS OF STATIONS WITH RESPECT TO NETWORK ADVERTISERS; THE NATURE
OF THE PROGRAM SERVICE RENDERED BY STATIONS LICENSED TO NETWORKS; THE
POLICIES OF NETWORKS WITH RESPECT TO CHARACTER OF PROGRAMS,
DIVERSIFICATION, AND ACCOMMODATION TO THE PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS OF
THE AREAS SERVED BY THE AFFILIATED STATIONS; THE EXTENT TO WHICH
AFFILIATED STATIONS EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PROGRAMS, ADVERTISING
CONTRACTS, AND RELATED MATTERS; THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF NETWORK
PROGRAM DUPLICATION BY STATIONS SERVING THE SAME AREA; THE EXTENT TO
WHICH PARTICULAR NETWORKS HAVE EXCLUSIVE COVERAGE IN SOME AREAS; THE
COMPETITIVE PRACTICES OF STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN BROADCASTING; THE
EFFECT OF CHAIN BROADCASTING UPON STATIONS NOT LICENSED TO OR
AFFILIATED WITH NETWORKS; PRACTICES OR AGREEMENTS IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE, OR IN FURTHERANCE OF MONOPOLY, IN CONNECTION WITH CHAIN
BROADCASTING; AND THE SCOPE OF CONCENTRATION OF CONTROL OVER STATIONS,
LOCALLY, REGIONALLY, OR NATIONALLY, THROUGH CONTRACTS, COMMON
OWNERSHIP, OR OTHER MEANS. 

ON APRIL 6, 1938, A COMMITTEE OF THREE COMMISSIONERS WAS DESIGNATED
TO HOLD HEARINGS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FULL COMMISSION.  THIS
COMMITTEE HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR 73 DAYS OVER A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS,
FROM NOVEMBER 14, 1938, TO MAY 19, 1939.  ORDER NO. 37, ANNOUNCING THE
INVESTIGATION AND SPECIFYING THE PARTICULAR MATTERS WHICH WOULD BE
EXPLORED AT THE HEARINGS, WAS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, 3 FED.
REG. 637, AND COPIES WERE SENT TO EVERY STATION LICENSEE AND NETWORK
ORGANIZATION.  NOTICES OF THE HEARINGS WERE ALSO SENT TO THESE
PARTIES.  STATION LICENSEES, NATIONAL AND REGIONAL NETWORKS, AND
TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING COMPANIES WERE INVITED TO APPEAR AND GIVE
EVIDENCE.  OTHER PERSONS WHO SOUGHT TO APPEAR WERE AFFORDED AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY.  96 WITNESSES WERE HEARD BY THE COMMITTEE, 45
OF WHOM WERE CALLED BY THE NATIONAL NETWORKS.  THE EVIDENCE COVERS 27
VOLUMES, INCLUDING OVER 8,000 PAGES OF TRANSCRIPT AND MORE THAN 700
EXHIBITS.  THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES CALLED BY THE NATIONAL
NETWORKS FILLS MORE THAN 6,000 PAGES, THE EQUIVALENT OF 46 HEARING
DAYS. 

THE COMMITTEE SUBMITTED A REPORT TO THE COMMISSION ON JUNE 12, 1940,
STATING ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.  THEREAFTER, BRIEFS ON BEHALF
OF THE NETWORKS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES WERE FILED BEFORE THE FULL
COMMISSION, AND ON NOVEMBER 28, 1940, THE COMMISSION ISSUED PROPOSED
REGULATIONS WHICH THE PARTIES WERE REQUESTED TO CONSIDER IN THE ORAL
ARGUMENTS HELD ON DECEMBER 2 AND 3, 1940.  THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS
DEALT WITH THE SAME MATTERS AS THOSE COVERED BY THE REGULATIONS
EVENTUALLY ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION.  ON JANUARY 2, 1941, EACH OF THE
NATIONAL NETWORKS FILED A SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEF DISCUSSING AT LENGTH THE
QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COMMITTEE REPORT AND THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS. 

ON MAY 2, 1941, THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS REPORT ON CHAIN
BROADCASTING, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS UPON THE
MATTERS EXPLORED IN THE INVESTIGATION, TOGETHER WITH AN ORDER ADOPTING
THE REGULATIONS HERE ASSAILED.  TWO OF THE SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION DISSENTED FROM THIS ACTION.  THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
REGULATIONS WAS DEFERRED FOR 90 DAYS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING CONTRACTS
AND ARRANGEMENTS OF NETWORK-OPERATED STATIONS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE
EFFECTIVE DATE WAS THRICE AGAIN POSTPONED.  ON AUGUST 14, 1941, THE
MUTUAL BROADCASTING COMPANY PETITIONED THE COMMISSION TO AMEND TWO OF
THE REGULATIONS.  IN CONSIDERING THIS PETITION THE COMMISSION INVITED
INTERESTED PARTIES TO SUBMIT THEIR VIEWS.  BRIEFS WERE FILED ON BEHALF
OF ALL OF THE NATIONAL NETWORKS, AND ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HAD BEFORE THE
COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1941.  AND ON OCTOBER 11, 1941, THE
COMMISSION (AGAIN WITH TWO MEMBERS DISSENTING) ISSUED A SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT, TOGETHER WITH AN ORDER AMENDING THREE REGULATIONS. 
SIMULTANEOUSLY, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATIONS WAS POSTPONED
UNTIL NOVEMBER 15, 1941, AND PROVISION WAS MADE FOR FURTHER
POSTPONEMENTS FROM TIME TO TIME IF NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE ORDERLY
ADJUSTMENT OF EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS.  SINCE OCTOBER 30, 1941, WHEN THE
PRESENT SUITS WERE FILED, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS HAS BEEN
STAYED EITHER VOLUNTARILY BY THE COMMISSION OR BY ORDER OF COURT. 

SUCH IS THE HISTORY OF THE CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS.  WE TURN
NOW TO THE REGULATIONS THEMSELVES, ILLUMINED BY THE PRACTICES IN THE
RADIO INDUSTRY DISCLOSED BY THE COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION.  THE
REGULATIONS, WHICH THE COMMISSION CHARACTERIZED IN ITS REPORT AS "THE
EXPRESSION OF THE GENERAL POLICY WE WILL FOLLOW IN EXERCISING OUR
LICENSING POWER," ARE ADDRESSED IN TERMS TO STATION LICENSEES AND
APPLICANTS FOR STATION LICENSES.  THEY PROVIDE, IN GENERAL, THAT NO
LICENSES SHALL BE GRANTED TO STATIONS OR APPLICANTS HAVING SPECIFIED
RELATIONSHIPS WITH NETWORKS.  EACH REGULATION IS DIRECTED AT A
PARTICULAR PRACTICE FOUND BY THE COMMISSION TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
"PUBLIC INTEREST," AND WE SHALL CONSIDER THEM SERIATIM.  IN DOING SO,
HOWEVER, WE DO NOT OVERLOOK THE ADMONITION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE
REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THE NETWORK PRACTICES AT WHICH THEY ARE AIMED
ARE INTERRELATED:  "IN CONSIDERING ABOVE THE NETWORK PRACTICES WHICH
NECESSITATE THE REGULATIONS WE ARE ADOPTING, WE HAVE TAKEN EACH
PRACTICE SINGLY, AND HAVE SHOWN THAT EVEN IN ISOLATION EACH WARRANTS
THE REGULATION ADDRESSED TO IT.  BUT THE VARIOUS PRACTICES WE HAVE
CONSIDERED DO NOT OPERATE IN ISOLATION; THEY FORM A COMPACT BUNDLE OR
PATTERN, AND THE EFFECT OF THEIR JOINT IMPACT UPON LICENSEES
NECESSITATES THE REGULATIONS EVEN MORE URGENTLY THAN THE EFFECT OF EACH
TAKEN SINGLY."  (REPORT, P. 75.) 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT AT THE END OF 1938 THERE WERE 660
COMMERCIAL STATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT 341 OF THESE WERE
AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL NETWORKS.  135 STATIONS WERE AFFILIATED
EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., KNOWN IN THE
INDUSTRY AS NBC, WHICH OPERATED TWO NATIONAL NETWORKS, THE "RED" AND
THE "BLUE."  NBC WAS ALSO THE LICENSEE OF 10 STATIONS, INCLUDING 7
WHICH OPERATED ON SO-CALLED CLEAR CHANNELS WITH THE MAXIMUM POWER
AVAILABLE, 50 KILOWATTS; IN ADDITION, NBC OPERATED 5 OTHER STATIONS, 4
OF WHICH HAD POWER OF 50 KILOWATTS, UNDER MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS WITH
THEIR LICENSEES.  102 STATIONS WERE AFFILIATED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., WHICH WAS ALSO THE LICENSEE OF 8
STATIONS, 7 OF WHICH WERE CLEAR-CHANNEL STATIONS OPERATING WITH POWER
OF 50 KILOWATTS.  74 STATIONS WERE UNDER EXCLUSIVE AFFILIATION WITH THE
MUTUAL BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. IN ADDITION, 25 STATIONS WERE
AFFILIATED WITH BOTH NBC AND MUTUAL, AND 5 WITH BOTH CBS AND MUTUAL. 
THESE FIGURES, THE COMMISSION NOTED, DID NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE
RELATIVE PROMINENCE OF THE THREE COMPANIES, SINCE THE STATIONS
AFFILIATED WITH MUTUAL WERE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, LESS DESIRABLE IN
FREQUENCY, POWER, AND COVERAGE.  IT POINTED OUT THAT THE STATIONS
AFFILIATED WITH THE NATIONAL NETWORKS UTILIZED MORE THAN 97% OF THE
TOTAL NIGHT-TIME BROADCASTING POWER OF ALL THE STATIONS IN THE
COUNTRY.  NBC AND CBS TOGETHER CONTROLLED MORE THAN 85% OF THE TOTAL
NIGHT-TIME WATTAGE, AND THE BROADCAST BUSINESS OF THE THREE NATIONAL
NETWORK COMPANIES AMOUNTED TO ALMOST HALF OF THE TOTAL BUSINESS OF ALL
STATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THAT NETWORK BROADCASTING HAD PLAYED AND
WAS CONTINUING TO PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RADIO. 
"THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHAIN BROADCASTING," IT STATED, "FOUND
ITS IMPETUS IN THE DESIRE TO GIVE WIDESPREAD COVERAGE TO PROGRAMS WHICH
OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE HEARD BEYOND THE RECEPTION AREA OF A SINGLE
STATION.  CHAIN BROADCASTING MAKES POSSIBLE A WIDER RECEPTION FOR
EXPENSIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS AND ALSO FOR PROGRAMS OF
NATIONAL OR REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE COVERAGE
ONLY IN THE LOCALITY OF ORIGIN.  FURTHERMORE, THE ACCESS TO GREATLY
ENLARGED AUDIENCES MADE POSSIBLE BY CHAIN BROADCASTING HAS BEEN A
STRONG INCENTIVE TO ADVERTISERS TO FINANCE THE PRODUCTION OF EXPENSIVE
PROGRAMS.  ...  BUT THE FACT THAT THE CHAIN BROADCASTING METHOD BRINGS
BENEFITS AND ADVANTAGES TO BOTH THE LISTENING PUBLIC AND TO BROADCAST
STATION LICENSEES DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PREVAILING PRACTICES AND
POLICIES OF THE NETWORKS AND THEIR OUTLETS ARE SOUND IN ALL RESPECTS,
OR THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED.  THE COMMISSION'S DUTY UNDER THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 IS NOT ONLY TO SEE THAT THE PUBLIC RECEIVES
THE ADVANTAGES AND BENEFITS OF CHAIN BROADCASTING, BUT ALSO, SO FAR AS
ITS POWERS ENABLE IT, TO SEE THAT PRACTICES WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECT THE
ABILITY OF LICENSEES TO OPERATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ARE
ELIMINATED."  (REPORT, P. 4.) 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT EIGHT NETWORK ABUSES WERE AMENABLE TO
CORRECTION WITHIN THE POWERS GRANTED IT BY CONGRESS: 

REGULATION 3.101 - EXCLUSIVE AFFILIATION OF STATION.  THE COMMISSION
FOUND THAT THE NETWORK AFFILIATION AGREEMENTS OF NBC AND CBS
CUSTOMARILY CONTAINED A PROVISION WHICH PREVENTED THE STATION FROM
BROADCASTING THE PROGRAMS OF ANY OTHER NETWORK.  THE EFFECT OF THIS
PROVISION WAS TO HINDER THE GROWTH OF NEW NETWORKS, TO DEPRIVE THE
LISTENING PUBLIC IN MANY AREAS OF SERVICE TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED,
AND TO PREVENT STATION LICENSEES FROM EXERCISING THEIR STATUTORY DUTY
OF DETERMINING WHICH PROGRAMS WOULD BEST SERVE THE NEEDS OF THEIR
COMMUNITY.  THE COMMISSION OBSERVED THAT IN AREAS WHERE ALL THE
STATIONS WERE UNDER EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT TO EITHER NBC OR CBS, THE PUBLIC
WAS DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR PROGRAMS PRESENTED BY MUTUAL. 
TO TAKE A CASE CITED IN THE REPORT:  IN THE FALL OF 1939 MUTUAL
OBTAINED THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO BROADCAST THE WORLD SERIES BASEBALL
GAMES.  IT OFFERED THIS PROGRAM OF OUTSTANDING NATIONAL INTEREST TO
STATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING NBC AND CBS AFFILIATES IN
COMMUNITIES HAVING NO OTHER STATIONS.  CBS AND NBC IMMEDIATELY INVOKED
THE "EXCLUSIVE AFFILIATION" CLAUSES OF THEIR AGREEMENTS WITH THESE
STATIONS, AND AS A RESULT THOUSANDS OF PERSONS IN MANY SECTIONS OF THE
COUNTRY WERE UNABLE TO HEAR THE BROADCASTS OF THE GAMES. 

"RESTRAINTS HAVING THIS EFFECT," THE COMMISSION OBSERVED, "ARE TO BE
CONDEMNED AS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT
BE ASSUMED THAT MUTUAL PROGRAMS ARE OF EQUAL, SUPERIOR, OR INFERIOR
QUALITY.  THE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IS THAT STATION LICENSEES ARE
DENIED FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE PROGRAMS WHICH THEY BELIEVE BEST SUITED TO
THEIR NEEDS; IN THIS MANNER THE DUTY OF A STATION LICENSEE TO OPERATE
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DEFEATED.  ...  OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE
DISADVANTAGES RESULTING FROM THESE EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENTS FAR OUTWEIGH
ANY ADVANTAGES.  A LICENSEE STATION DOES NOT OPERATE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WHEN IT ENTERS INTO EXCLUSIVE ARRANGEMENTS WHICH PREVENT IT
FROM GIVING THE PUBLIC THE BEST SERVICE OF WHICH IT IS CAPABLE, AND
WHICH, BY CLOSING THE DOOR OF OPPORTUNITY IN THE NETWORK FIELD,
ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE OF THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY." 
(REPORT, PP. 52, 57.)  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION ADOPTED REGULATION
3.101, PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS:  "NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR
UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION UNDER
WHICH THE STATION IS PREVENTED OR HINDERED FROM, OR PENALIZED FOR,
BROADCASTING THE PROGRAMS OF ANY OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATION." 

REGULATION 3.102 - TERRITORIAL EXCLUSIVITY.  THE COMMISSION FOUND
ANOTHER TYPE OF "EXCLUSIVITY" PROVISION IN NETWORK AFFILIATION
AGREEMENTS WHEREBY THE NETWORK BOUND ITSELF NOT TO SELL PROGRAMS TO ANY
OTHER STATION IN THE SAME AREA.  THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION, DESIGNED
TO PROTECT THE AFFILIATE FROM THE COMPETITION OF OTHER STATIONS SERVING
THE SAME TERRITORY, WAS TO DEPRIVE THE LISTENING PUBLIC OF MANY
PROGRAMS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE.  IF AN AFFILIATED STATION
REJECTED A NETWORK PROGRAM, THE "TERRITORIAL EXCLUSIVITY" CLAUSE OF ITS
AFFILIATION AGREEMENT PREVENTED THE NETWORK FROM OFFERING THE PROGRAM
TO OTHER STATIONS IN THE AREA.  FOR EXAMPLE, MUTUAL PRESENTED A POPULAR
PROGRAM, KNOWN AS "THE AMERICAN FORUM OF THE AIR," IN WHICH PROMINENT
PERSONS DISCUSSED TOPICS OF GENERAL INTEREST.  NONE OF THE MUTUAL
STATIONS IN THE BUFFALO AREA DECIDED TO CARRY THE PROGRAM, AND A
BUFFALO STATION NOT AFFILIATED WITH MUTUAL ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN THE
PROGRAM FOR ITS LISTENERS.  THESE EFFORTS FAILED, HOWEVER, ON ACCOUNT
OF THE "TERRITORIAL EXCLUSIVITY" PROVISION IN MUTUAL'S AGREEMENTS WITH
ITS OUTLETS.  THE RESULT WAS THAT THIS PROGRAM WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE
PEOPLE OF BUFFALO. 

THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT "IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR
THE LISTENING AUDIENCE IN AN AREA TO BE DEPRIVED OF NETWORK PROGRAMS
NOT CARRIED BY ONE STATION WHERE OTHER STATIONS IN THAT AREA ARE READY
AND WILLING TO BROADCAST THE PROGRAMS.  IT IS AS MUCH AGAINST THE
PUBLIC INTEREST FOR A NETWORK AFFILIATE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACTUAL
ARRANGEMENT WHICH PREVENTS ANOTHER STATION FROM CARRYING A NETWORK
PROGRAM AS IT WOULD BE FOR IT TO DROWN OUT THAT PROGRAM BY ELECTRICAL
INTERFERENCE."  (REPORT, P. 59.) 

RECOGNIZING THAT THE "TERRITORIAL EXCLUSIVITY" CLAUSE WAS
UNOBJECTIONABLE IN SO FAR AS IT SOUGHT TO PREVENT DUPLICATION OF
PROGRAMS IN THE SAME AREA, THE COMMISSION LIMITED ITSELF TO THE
SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE CLAUSE IMPAIRED THE ABILITY OF THE LICENSEE TO
BROADCAST AVAILABLE PROGRAMS.  REGULATION 3.102, PROMULGATED TO REMEDY
THIS PARTICULAR EVIL, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:  "NO LICENSE SHALL BE
GRANTED TO A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT,
ARRANGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION WHICH PREVENTS OR HINDERS ANOTHER STATION SERVING
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AREA FROM BROADCASTING THE NETWORK'S PROGRAMS
NOT TAKEN BY THE FORMER STATION, OR WHICH PREVENTS OR HINDERS ANOTHER
STATION SERVING A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT AREA FROM BROADCASTING ANY
PROGRAM OF THE NETWORK ORGANIZATION.  THIS REGULATION SHALL NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT ANY CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN A STATION AND A NETWORK ORGANIZATION PURSUANT TO WHICH THE
STATION IS GRANTED THE FIRST CALL IN ITS PRIMARY SERVICE AREA UPON THE
PROGRAMS OF THE NETWORK ORGANIZATION." 

REGULATION 3.103 - TERM OF AFFILIATION.  THE STANDARD NBC AND CBS
AFFILIATION CONTRACTS BOUND THE STATION FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS,
WITH THE NETWORK HAVING THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACTS
UPON ONE YEAR'S NOTICE.  THE COMMISSION, RELYING UPON SEC. 307(D) OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, UNDER WHICH NO LICENSE TO OPERATE A
BROADCAST STATION CAN BE GRANTED FOR A LONGER TERM THAN THREE YEARS,
FOUND THE FIVE-YEAR AFFILIATION TERM TO BE CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF
THE ACT:  "REGARDLESS OF ANY CHANGES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE ECONOMIC,
POLITICAL, OR SOCIAL LIFE OF THE NATION OR OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH
THE STATION IS LOCATED, CBS AND NBC AFFILIATES ARE BOUND BY CONTRACT TO
CONTINUE BROADCASTING THE NETWORK PROGRAMS OF ONLY ONE NETWORK FOR 5
YEARS.  THE LICENSEE IS SO BOUND EVEN THOUGH THE POLICY AND CALIBER OF
PROGRAMS OF THE NETWORK MAY DETERIORATE GREATLY.  THE FUTURE
NECESSITIES OF THE STATION AND OF THE COMMUNITY ARE NOT CONSIDERED. 
THE STATION LICENSEE IS UNABLE TO FOLLOW HIS CONCEPTION OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST UNTIL THE END OF THE 5-YEAR CONTRACT."  (REPORT, P. 61.)  THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT UNDER CONTRACTS BINDING THE AFFILIATES FOR
FIVE YEARS, "STATIONS BECOME PARTIES TO ARRANGEMENTS WHICH DEPRIVE THE
PUBLIC OF THE IMPROVED SERVICE IT MIGHT OTHERWISE DERIVE FROM
COMPETITION IN THE NETWORK FIELD; AND THAT A STATION IS NOT OPERATING
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN IT SO LIMITS ITS FREEDOM OF ACTION." 
(REPORT, P. 62.)  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION ADOPTED REGULATION 3.103:
"NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING
ANY CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A
NETWORK ORGANIZATION WHICH PROVIDES, BY ORIGINAL TERM, PROVISIONS FOR
RENEWAL, OR OTHERWISE FOR THE AFFILIATION OF THE STATION WITH THE
NETWORK ORGANIZATION FOR A PERIOD LONGER THAN TWO YEARS:  FN2
PROVIDED, THAT A CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING FOR A PERIOD
UP TO TWO YEARS, MAY BE ENTERED INTO WITHIN 120 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH PERIOD." 

REGULATION 3.104 - OPTION TIME.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT NETWORK
AFFILIATION CONTRACTS USUALLY CONTAINED SO-CALLED NETWORK OPTIONAL TIME
CLAUSES.  UNDER THESE PROVISIONS THE NETWORK COULD UPON 28 DAYS' NOTICE
CALL UPON ITS AFFILIATES TO CARRY A COMMERCIAL PROGRAM DURING ANY OF
THE HOURS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT AS "NETWORK OPTIONAL TIME."  FOR
CBS AFFILIATES "NETWORK OPTIONAL TIME" MEANT THE ENTIRE BROADCAST DAY. 
FOR 29 OUTLETS OF NBC ON THE PACIFIC COAST, IT ALSO COVERED THE ENTIRE
BROADCAST DAY; FOR SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE OTHER NBC AFFILIATES, IT
INCLUDED 8 1/2 HOURS ON WEEKDAYS AND 8 HOURS ON SUNDAYS.  MUTUAL'S
CONTRACTS WITH ABOUT HALF OF ITS AFFILIATES CONTAINED SUCH A PROVISION,
GIVING THE NETWORK OPTIONAL TIME FOR 3 OR 4 HOURS ON WEEKDAYS AND 6
HOURS ON SUNDAYS. 

IN THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT THESE OPTIONAL TIME PROVISIONS, IN
ADDITION TO IMPOSING SERIOUS OBSTACLES IN THE PATH OF NEW NETWORKS,
HINDERED STATIONS IN DEVELOPING A LOCAL PROGRAM SERVICE.  THE EXERCISE
BY THE NETWORKS OF THEIR OPTIONS OVER THE STATION'S TIME TENDED TO
PREVENT REGULAR SCHEDULING OF LOCAL PROGRAMS AT DESIRABLE HOURS.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT "SHIFTING A LOCAL COMMERCIAL PROGRAM MAY
SERIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH THE EFFORTS OF A (LOCAL) SPONSOR TO BUILD UP A
REGULAR LISTENING AUDIENCE AT A DEFINITE HOUR, AND THE LONG-TERM
ADVERTISING CONTRACT BECOMES A HIGHLY DUBIOUS PROJECT.  THIS HAMPERS
THE EFFORTS OF THE STATION TO DEVELOP LOCAL COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS AND
AFFECTS ADVERSELY ITS ABILITY TO GIVE THE PUBLIC GOOD PROGRAM SERVICE. 
...  A STATION LICENSEE MUST RETAIN SUFFICIENT FREEDOM OF ACTION TO
SUPPLY THE PROGRAM AND ADVERTISING NEEDS OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.  LOCAL
PROGRAM SERVICE IS A VITAL PART OF COMMUNITY LIFE.  A STATION SHOULD BE
READY, ABLE, AND WILLING TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY BY
BROADCASTING SUCH OUTSTANDING LOCAL EVENTS AS COMMUNITY CONCERTS, CIVIC
MEETINGS, LOCAL SPORTS EVENTS, AND OTHER PROGRAMS OF LOCAL CONSUMER AND
SOCIAL INTEREST.  WE CONCLUDE THAT NATIONAL NETWORK TIME OPTIONS HAVE
RESTRICTED THE FREEDOM OF STATION LICENSEES AND HAMPERED THEIR EFFORTS
TO BROADCAST LOCAL COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS, THE PROGRAMS OF OTHER NATIONAL
NETWORKS, AND NATIONAL SPOT TRANSCRIPTIONS.  WE BELIEVE THAT THESE
CONSIDERATIONS FAR OUTWEIGH ANY SUPPOSED ADVANTAGES FROM 'STABILITY' OF
NETWORK OPERATIONS UNDER TIME OPTIONS.  WE FIND THAT THE OPTIONING OF
TIME BY LICENSEE STATIONS HAS OPERATED AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST." 
(REPORT, PP. 63, 65.) 

THE COMMISSION UNDERTOOK TO PRESERVE THE ADVANTAGES OF OPTION TIME,
AS A DEVICE FOR "STABILIZING" THE INDUSTRY, WITHOUT UNDULY IMPAIRING
THE ABILITY OF LOCAL STATIONS TO DEVELOP LOCAL PROGRAM SERVICE. 
REGULATION 3.104 CALLED FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE OPTION-TIME
PROVISION IN THREE RESPECTS:  THE MINIMUM NOTICE PERIOD FOR EXERCISE OF
THE OPTION COULD NOT BE LESS THAN 56 DAYS; THE NUMBER OF HOURS WHICH
COULD BE OPTIONED WAS LIMITED; AND SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS WERE PLACED
UPON EXERCISE OF THE OPTION TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF OTHER NETWORKS.  THE
TEXT OF THE REGULATION FOLLOWS:  "NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION WHICH OPTIONS FOR NETWORK PROGRAMS ANY TIME
SUBJECT TO CALL ON LESS THAN 56 DAYS' NOTICE, OR MORE TIME THAN A TOTAL
OF THREE HOURS WITHIN EACH OF FOUR SEGMENTS OF THE BROADCAST DAY, AS
HEREIN DESCRIBED.  THE BROADCAST DAY IS DIVIDED INTO 4 SEGMENTS, AS
FOLLOWS:  8:00 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M.; 1:00 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M.; 6:00 P.M. TO
11:00 P.M.; 11:00 P.M. TO 8:00 A.M.  SUCH OPTIONS MAY NOT BE EXCLUSIVE
AS AGAINST OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS AND MAY NOT PREVENT OR HINDER
THE STATION FROM OPTIONING OR SELLING ANY OR ALL OF THE TIME COVERED BY
THE OPTION, OR OTHER TIME, TO OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS." 

REGULATION 3.105 - RIGHT TO REJECT PROGRAMS.  THE COMMISSION FOUND
THAT MOST NETWORK AFFILIATION CONTRACTS CONTAINED A CLAUSE DEFINING THE
RIGHT OF THE STATION TO REJECT NETWORK COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS.  THE NBC
CONTRACTS PROVIDED SIMPLY THAT THE STATION "MAY REJECT A NETWORK
PROGRAM THE BROADCASTING OF WHICH WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY."  NBC REQUIRED A LICENSEE WHO REJECTED A
PROGRAM TO "BE ABLE TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT WHAT HE HAS DONE HAS
BEEN MORE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAN HAD HE CARRIED ON THE NETWORK
PROGRAM."  SIMILARLY, THE CBS CONTRACTS PROVIDED THAT IF THE STATION
HAD "REASONABLE OBJECTION TO ANY SPONSORED PROGRAM OR THE PRODUCT
ADVERTISED THEREON AS NOT BEING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THE STATION
MAY, ON 3 WEEKS' PRIOR NOTICE THEREOF TO COLUMBIA, REFUSE TO BROADCAST
SUCH PROGRAM, UNLESS DURING SUCH NOTICE PERIOD SUCH REASONABLE
OBJECTION OF THE STATION SHALL BE SATISFIED." 

WHILE SEEMING IN THE ABSTRACT TO BE FAIR, THESE PROVISIONS, ACCORDING
TO THE COMMISSION'S FINDING, DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROTECT THE "PUBLIC
INTEREST."  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE LICENSEE COULD NOT DETERMINE IN
ADVANCE WHETHER THE BROADCASTING OF ANY PARTICULAR NETWORK PROGRAM
WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  "IT IS OBVIOUS THAT FROM
SUCH SKELETAL INFORMATION (AS THE NETWORKS SUBMITTED TO THE STATIONS
PRIOR TO THE BROADCASTS) THE STATION CANNOT DETERMINE IN ADVANCE
WHETHER THE PROGRAM IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOR CAN IT ASCERTAIN
WHETHER OR NOT PARTS OF THE PROGRAM ARE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
OFFENSIVE.  IN PRACTICE, IF NOT IN THEORY, STATIONS AFFILIATED WITH
NETWORKS HAVE DELEGATED TO THE NETWORKS A LARGE PART OF THEIR
PROGRAMMING FUNCTIONS.  IN MANY INSTANCES, MOREOVER, THE NETWORK
FURTHER DELEGATES THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF PROGRAMS TO ADVERTISING
AGENCIES.  THESE AGENCIES ARE FAR MORE THAN MERE BROKERS OR
INTERMEDIARIES BETWEEN THE NETWORK AND THE ADVERTISER.  TO AN EVER
INCREASING EXTENT, THESE AGENCIES ACTUALLY EXERCISE THE FUNCTION OF
PROGRAM PRODUCTION.  THUS IT IS FREQUENTLY NEITHER THE STATION NOR THE
NETWORK, BUT RATHER THE ADVERTISING AGENCY, WHICH DETERMINES WHAT
BROADCAST PROGRAMS SHALL CONTAIN.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT THAT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS, IF THEY ARE TO OPERATE
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SHOULD HAVE THE PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITY AS WELL
AS THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO REJECT NETWORK PROGRAMS.  ... 

"IT IS THE STATION, NOT THE NETWORK, WHICH IS LICENSED TO SERVE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE LICENSEE HAS THE DUTY OF DETERMINING WHAT
PROGRAMS SHALL BE BROADCAST OVER HIS STATION'S FACILITIES, AND CANNOT
LAWFULLY DELEGATE THIS DUTY OR TRANSFER THE CONTROL OF HIS STATION
DIRECTLY TO THE NETWORK OR INDIRECTLY TO AN ADVERTISING AGENCY.  HE
CANNOT LAWFULLY BIND HIMSELF TO ACCEPT PROGRAMS IN EVERY CASE WHERE HE
CANNOT SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT HE HAS A BETTER PROGRAM.  THE
LICENSEE IS OBLIGED TO RESERVE TO HIMSELF THE FINAL DECISION AS TO WHAT
PROGRAMS WILL BEST SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WE CONCLUDE THAT A
LICENSEE IS NOT FULFILLING HIS OBLIGATIONS TO OPERATE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, AND IS NOT OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPRESS
REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, IF HE AGREES TO ACCEPT PROGRAMS
ON ANY BASIS OTHER THAN HIS OWN REASONABLE DECISION THAT THE PROGRAMS
ARE SATISFACTORY."  (REPORT, PP. 39, 66.) 

THE COMMISSION UNDERTOOK IN REGULATION 3.105 TO FORMULATE THE
OBLIGATIONS OF LICENSEES WITH RESPECT TO SUPERVISION OVER PROGRAMS:
"NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY
CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A
NETWORK ORGANIZATION WHICH (A), WITH RESPECT TO PROGRAMS OFFERED
PURSUANT TO AN AFFILIATION CONTRACT, PREVENTS OR HINDERS THE STATION
FROM REJECTING OR REFUSING NETWORK PROGRAMS WHICH THE STATION
REASONABLY BELIEVES TO BE UNSATISFACTORY OR UNSUITABLE; OR WHICH (B),
WITH RESPECT TO NETWORK PROGRAMS SO OFFERED OR ALREADY CONTRACTED FOR,
PREVENTS THE STATION FROM REJECTING OR REFUSING ANY PROGRAM WHICH, IN
ITS OPINION, IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OR FROM SUBSTITUTING A
PROGRAM OF OUTSTANDING LOCAL OR NATIONAL IMPORTANCE." 

REGULATION 3.106 - NETWORK OWNERSHIP OF STATIONS.  THE COMMISSION
FOUND THAT NBC, IN ADDITION TO ITS NETWORK OPERATIONS, WAS THE LICENSEE
OF 10 STATIONS, 2 EACH IN NEW YORK, CHICAGO, WASHINGTON, AND SAN
FRANCISCO, 1 IN DENVER, AND 1 IN CLEVELAND.  CBS WAS THE LICENSEE OF 8
STATIONS, 1 IN EACH OF THESE CITIES:  NEW YORK, CHICAGO, WASHINGTON,
BOSTON, MINNEAPOLIS, ST. LOUIS, CHARLOTTE, AND LOS ANGELES.  THESE 18
STATIONS OWNED BY NBC AND CBS, THE COMMISSION OBSERVED, WERE AMONG THE
MOST POWERFUL AND DESIRABLE IN THE COUNTRY, AND WERE PERMANENTLY
INACCESSIBLE TO COMPETING NETWORKS.  "COMPETITION AMONG NETWORKS FOR
THESE FACILITIES IS NONEXISTENT, AS THEY ARE COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM
THE NETWORK-STATION MARKET.  IT GIVES THE NETWORK COMPLETE CONTROL OVER
ITS POLICIES.  THIS 'BOTTLING-UP' OF THE BEST FACILITIES HAS
UNDOUBTEDLY HAD A DISCOURAGING EFFECT UPON THE CREATION AND GROWTH OF
NEW NETWORKS.  FURTHERMORE, COMMON OWNERSHIP OF NETWORK AND STATION
PLACES THE NETWORK IN A POSITION WHERE ITS INTEREST AS THE OWNER OF
CERTAIN STATIONS MAY CONFLICT WITH ITS INTEREST AS A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION SERVING AFFILIATED STATIONS.  IN DEALINGS WITH
ADVERTISERS, THE NETWORK REPRESENTS ITS OWN STATIONS IN A PROPRIETARY
CAPACITY AND THE AFFILIATED STATIONS IN SOMETHING AKIN TO AN AGENCY
CAPACITY.  THE DANGER IS PRESENT THAT THE NETWORK ORGANIZATION WILL
GIVE PREFERENCE TO ITS OWN STATIONS AT THE EXPENSE OF ITS AFFILIATES." 
(REPORT, P. 67.) 

THE COMMISSION STATED THAT IF THE QUESTION HAD ARISEN AS AN ORIGINAL
MATTER, IT MIGHT WELL HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRED
SEVERANCE OF THE BUSINESS OF STATION OWNERSHIP FROM THAT OF NETWORK
OPERATION.  BUT SINCE SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS INTERESTS HAVE BEEN FORMED
ON THE BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S CONTINUED TOLERANCE OF THE SITUATION,
IT WAS FOUND INADVISABLE TO TAKE SUCH A DRASTIC STEP.  THE COMMISSION
CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT "THE LICENSING OF TWO STATIONS IN THE SAME
AREA TO A SINGLE NETWORK ORGANIZATION IS BASICALLY UNSOUND AND CONTRARY
TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST," AND THAT IT WAS ALSO AGAINST THE "PUBLIC
INTEREST" FOR NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS TO OWN STATIONS IN AREAS WHERE THE
AVAILABLE FACILITIES WERE SO FEW OR OF SUCH UNEQUAL COVERAGE THAT
COMPETITION WOULD THEREBY BE SUBSTANTIALLY RESTRICTED.  RECOGNIZING
THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS CALLED FOR FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR APPLICATION
TO PARTICULAR SITUATIONS, THE COMMISSION PROVIDED THAT "NETWORKS WILL
BE GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY, ON PROPER APPLICATION FOR NEW FACILITIES OR
RENEWAL OF EXISTING LICENSES, TO CALL TO OUR ATTENTION ANY REASONS WHY
THE PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR HELD INAPPLICABLE."  (REPORT, P.
68.)  REGULATION 3.106 READS AS FOLLOWS:  "NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED
TO A NETWORK ORGANIZATION, OR TO ANY PERSON DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
CONTROLLED BY OR UNDER COMMON CONTROL WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION, FOR
MORE THAN ONE STANDARD BROADCAST STATION WHERE ONE OF THE STATIONS
COVERS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SERVICE AREA OF THE OTHER STATION, OR FOR ANY
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION IN ANY LOCALITY WHERE THE EXISTING STANDARD
BROADCAST STATIONS ARE SO FEW OR OF SUCH UNEQUAL DESIRABILITY (IN TERMS
OF COVERAGE, POWER, FREQUENCY, OR OTHER RELATED MATTERS) THAT
COMPETITION WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY RESTRAINED BY SUCH LICENSING." 

REGULATION 3.107 - DUAL NETWORK OPERATION.  THIS REGULATION PROVIDES
THAT:  "NO LICENSE SHALL BE ISSUED TO A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION
AFFILIATED WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION WHICH MAINTAINS MORE THAN ONE
NETWORK:  PROVIDED, THAT THIS REGULATION SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE IF
SUCH NETWORKS ARE NOT OPERATED SIMULTANEOUSLY, OR IF THERE IS NO
SUBSTANTIAL OVERLAP IN THE TERRITORY SERVED BY THE GROUP OF STATIONS
COMPRISING EACH SUCH NETWORK."  IN ITS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF OCTOBER
11, 1941, THE COMMISSION ANNOUNCED THE INDEFINITE SUSPENSION OF THIS
REGULATION.  THERE IS NO OCCASION HERE TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF
REGULATION 3.107, SINCE THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE THREAT OF ITS ENFORCEMENT
BY THE COMMISSION. 

REGULATION 3.108 - CONTROL BY NETWORKS OF STATION RATES.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT NBC'S AFFILIATION CONTRACTS CONTAINED A PROVISION
EMPOWERING THE NETWORK TO REDUCE THE STATION'S NETWORK RATE, AND
THEREBY TO REDUCE THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE STATION, IF THE
STATION SET A LOWER RATE FOR NON-NETWORK NATIONAL ADVERTISING THAN THE
RATE ESTABLISHED BY THE CONTRACT FOR THE NETWORK PROGRAMS.  UNDER THIS
PROVISION THE STATION COULD NOT SELL TIME TO A NATIONAL ADVERTISER FOR
LESS THAN IT WOULD COST THE ADVERTISER IF HE BOUGHT THE TIME FROM NBC. 
IN THE WORDS OF NBC'S VICE-PRESIDENT, "THIS MEANS SIMPLY THAT A
NATIONAL ADVERTISER SHOULD PAY THE SAME PRICE FOR THE STATION WHETHER
HE BUYS IT THROUGH ONE SOURCE OR ANOTHER SOURCE.  IT MEANS THAT WE DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT OUR STATIONS SHOULD GO INTO COMPETITION WITH
OURSELVES."  (REPORT, P. 73.) 

THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT "IT IS AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR
A STATION LICENSEE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH A NETWORK WHICH HAS
THE EFFECT OF DECREASING ITS ABILITY TO COMPETE FOR NATIONAL BUSINESS. 
WE BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL BEST BE SERVED AND LISTENERS
SUPPLIED WITH THE BEST PROGRAMS IF STATIONS BARGAIN FREELY WITH
NATIONAL ADVERTISERS."  (REPORT, P. 75.)  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION
ADOPTED REGULATION 3.108, WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:  "NO LICENSE SHALL
BE GRANTED TO A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT,
ARRANGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION UNDER WHICH THE STATION IS PREVENTED OR HINDERED FROM, OR
PENALIZED FOR, FIXING OR ALTERING ITS RATES FOR THE SALE OF BROADCAST
TIME FOR OTHER THAN THE NETWORK'S PROGRAMS." 

THE APPELLANTS ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THESE REGULATIONS ALONG MANY
FRONTS.  THEY CONTEND THAT THE COMMISSION WENT BEYOND THE REGULATORY
POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934; THAT EVEN
IF THE COMMISSION WERE AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT TO DEAL WITH THE MATTERS
COMPREHENDED BY THE REGULATIONS, ITS ACTION IS NEVERTHELESS INVALID
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION MISCONCEIVED THE SCOPE OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY
SEC. 313 WHICH DEALS WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS TO THE
RADIO INDUSTRY; THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; THAT
IF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 WERE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE THE
PROMULGATION OF THE REGULATIONS, IT WOULD BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER; AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE
REGULATIONS ABRIDGE THE APPELLANTS' RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IN VIOLATION
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  WE ARE THUS CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE WHETHER
CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO EXERCISE THE POWER ASSERTED
BY THE CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS, AND IF IT HAS, WHETHER THE
CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE EXERCISE OF SUCH AUTHORITY. 

FEDERAL REGULATION OF RADIO  FN3  BEGINS WITH THE WIRELESS SHIP ACT
OF JUNE 24, 1910, 36 STAT. 629, WHICH FORBADE ANY STEAMER CARRYING OR
LICENSED TO CARRY FIFTY OR MORE PERSONS TO LEAVE ANY AMERICAN PORT
UNLESS EQUIPPED WITH EFFICIENT APPARATUS FOR RADIO COMMUNICATION, IN
CHARGE OF A SKILLED OPERATOR.  THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION WAS
ENTRUSTED TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARINE NAVIGATION LAWS.  BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL
1912, WHEN THE UNITED STATES RATIFIED THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL RADIO
TREATY, 37 STAT. 1565, THAT THE NEED FOR GENERAL REGULATION OF RADIO
COMMUNICATION BECAME URGENT.  IN ORDER TO FULFILL OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER
THE TREATY, CONGRESS ENACTED THE RADIO ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1912, 37 STAT.
302.  THIS STATUTE FORBADE THE OPERATION OF RADIO APPARATUS WITHOUT A
LICENSE FROM THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR; IT ALSO ALLOCATED
CERTAIN FREQUENCIES FOR THE USE OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND IMPOSED
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE CHARACTER OF WAVE EMISSIONS, THE TRANSMISSION OF
DISTRESS SIGNALS, AND THE LIKE. 

THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RADIO ACT OF 1912 PRESENTED NO SERIOUS
PROBLEMS PRIOR TO THE WORLD WAR.  QUESTIONS OF INTERFERENCE AROSE ONLY
RARELY BECAUSE THERE WERE MORE THAN ENOUGH FREQUENCIES FOR ALL THE
STATIONS THEN IN EXISTENCE.  THE WAR ACCELERATED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
ART, HOWEVER, AND IN 1921 THE FIRST STANDARD BROADCAST STATIONS WERE
ESTABLISHED.  THEY GREW RAPIDLY IN NUMBER, AND BY 1923 THERE WERE
SEVERAL HUNDRED SUCH STATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  THE ACT OF 1912
HAD NOT SET ASIDE ANY PARTICULAR FREQUENCIES FOR THE USE OF PRIVATE
BROADCAST STATIONS; CONSEQUENTLY, THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE SELECTED
TWO FREQUENCIES, 750 AND 833 KILOCYCLES, AND LICENSED ALL STATIONS TO
OPERATE UPON ONE OR THE OTHER OF THESE CHANNELS.  THE NUMBER OF
STATIONS INCREASED SO RAPIDLY, HOWEVER, AND THE SITUATION BECAME SO
CHAOTIC, THAT THE SECRETARY, UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE NATIONAL
RADIO CONFERENCES WHICH MET IN WASHINGTON IN 1923 AND 1924, ESTABLISHED
A POLICY OF ASSIGNING SPECIFIED FREQUENCIES TO PARTICULAR STATIONS. 
THE ENTIRE RADIO SPECTRUM WAS DIVIDED INTO NUMEROUS BANDS, EACH
ALLOCATED TO A PARTICULAR KIND OF SERVICE.  THE FREQUENCIES RANGING
FROM 550 TO 1500 KILOCYCLES (96 CHANNELS IN ALL, SINCE THE CHANNELS
WERE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER BY 10 KILOCYCLES) WERE ASSIGNED TO THE
STANDARD BROADCAST STATIONS.  BUT THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE
ENORMOUSLY RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF RADIO WERE FAR FROM SOLVED.  THE
INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CHANNELS WAS NOT ENOUGH TO TAKE CARE OF THE
CONSTANTLY GROWING NUMBER OF STATIONS.  SINCE THERE WERE MORE STATIONS
THAN AVAILABLE FREQUENCIES, THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE ATTEMPTED TO FIND
ROOM FOR EVERYBODY BY LIMITING THE POWER AND HOURS OF OPERATION OF
STATIONS IN ORDER THAT SEVERAL STATIONS MIGHT USE THE SAME CHANNEL. 
THE NUMBER OF STATIONS MULTIPLIED SO RAPIDLY, HOWEVER, THAT BY
NOVEMBER, 1925, THERE WERE ALMOST 600 STATIONS IN THE COUNTRY, AND
THERE WERE 175 APPLICATIONS FOR NEW STATIONS.  EVERY CHANNEL IN THE
STANDARD BROADCAST BAND WAS, BY THAT TIME, ALREADY OCCUPIED BY AT LEAST
ONE STATION, AND MANY BY SEVERAL.  THE NEW STATIONS COULD BE
ACCOMMODATED ONLY BY EXTENDING THE STANDARD BROADCAST BAND, AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE OTHER TYPES OF SERVICES, OR BY IMPOSING STILL GREATER
LIMITATIONS UPON TIME AND POWER.  THE NATIONAL RADIO CONFERENCE WHICH
MET IN NOVEMBER, 1925, OPPOSED BOTH OF THESE METHODS AND CALLED UPON
CONGRESS TO REMEDY THE SITUATION THROUGH LEGISLATION. 

THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE WAS POWERLESS TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION. 
IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT HE COULD NOT DENY A LICENSE TO AN OTHERWISE
LEGALLY QUALIFIED APPLICANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPOSED STATION
WOULD INTERFERE WITH EXISTING PRIVATE OR GOVERNMENT STATIONS.  HOOVER
V. INTERCITY RADIO CO., 52 APP. D.C. 339, 286 F. 1003.  AND ON APRIL
16, 1926, AN ILLINOIS DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE SECRETARY HAD NO
POWER TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS AS TO FREQUENCY, POWER, AND HOURS OF
OPERATION, AND THAT A STATION'S USE OF A FREQUENCY NOT ASSIGNED TO IT
WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RADIO ACT OF 1912.  UNITED STATES V. ZENITH
RADIO CORP., 12 F.2D 614.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED ON JULY 8, 1926, BY AN
OPINION OF ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL DONOVAN THAT THE SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE HAD NO POWER, UNDER THE RADIO ACT OF 1912, TO REGULATE THE
POWER, FREQUENCY OR HOURS OF OPERATION OF STATIONS.  35 OPS.  ATTY. 
GEN. 126.  THE NEXT DAY THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE ISSUED A STATEMENT
ABANDONING ALL HIS EFFORTS TO REGULATE RADIO AND URGING THAT THE
STATIONS UNDERTAKE SELF-REGULATION. 

BUT THE PLEA OF THE SECRETARY WENT UNHEEDED.  FROM JULY, 1926, TO
FEBRUARY 23, 1927, WHEN CONGRESS ENACTED THE RADIO ACT OF 1927, 44
STAT. 1162, ALMOST 200 NEW STATIONS WENT ON THE AIR.  THESE NEW
STATIONS USED ANY FREQUENCIES THEY DESIRED, REGARDLESS OF THE
INTERFERENCE THEREBY CAUSED TO OTHERS.  EXISTING STATIONS CHANGED TO
OTHER FREQUENCIES AND INCREASED THEIR POWER AND HOURS OF OPERATION AT
WILL.  THE RESULT WAS CONFUSION AND CHAOS.  WITH EVERYBODY ON THE AIR,
NOBODY COULD BE HEARD.  THE SITUATION BECAME SO INTOLERABLE THAT THE
PRESIDENT IN HIS MESSAGE OF DECEMBER 7, 1926, APPEALED TO CONGRESS TO
ENACT A COMPREHENSIVE RADIO LAW: 

"DUE TO THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS, THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT
(OF COMMERCE) UNDER THE LAW OF 1912 HAS BROKEN DOWN; MANY MORE STATIONS
HAVE BEEN OPERATING THAN CAN BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE LIMITED NUMBER
OF WAVE LENGTHS AVAILABLE; FURTHER STATIONS ARE IN COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION; MANY STATIONS HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE SCHEME OF
ALLOCATIONS SET DOWN BY THE DEPARTMENT, AND THE WHOLE SERVICE OF THIS
MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC FUNCTION HAS DRIFTED INTO SUCH CHAOS AS SEEMS
LIKELY, IF NOT REMEDIED, TO DESTROY ITS GREAT VALUE.  I MOST URGENTLY
RECOMMEND THAT THIS LEGISLATION SHOULD BE SPEEDILY ENACTED."  (H. DOC.
483, 69TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 10.) 

THE PLIGHT INTO WHICH RADIO FELL PRIOR TO 1927 WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
CERTAIN BASIC FACTS ABOUT RADIO AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION - ITS
FACILITIES ARE LIMITED; THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO ALL WHO MAY WISH TO
USE THEM; THE RADIO SPECTRUM SIMPLY IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE
EVERYBODY.  THERE IS A FIXED NATURAL LIMITATION UPON THE NUMBER OF
STATIONS THAT CAN OPERATE WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH ONE ANOTHER.  FN4
REGULATION OF RADIO WAS THEREFORE AS VITAL TO ITS DEVELOPMENT AS
TRAFFIC CONTROL WAS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE.  IN ENACTING
THE RADIO ACT OF 1927, THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF CONTROL OVER
RADIO COMMUNICATION, CONGRESS ACTED UPON THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IF THE
POTENTIALITIES OF RADIO WERE NOT TO BE WASTED, REGULATION WAS
ESSENTIAL. 

THE RADIO ACT OF 1927 CREATED THE FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION, COMPOSED
OF FIVE MEMBERS, AND ENDOWED THE COMMISSION WITH WIDE LICENSING AND
REGULATORY POWERS.  WE DO NOT PAUSE HERE TO ENUMERATE THE SCOPE OF THE
RADIO ACT OF 1927 AND OF THE AUTHORITY ENTRUSTED TO THE RADIO
COMMISSION, FOR THE BASIC PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT ARE INCORPORATED IN
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET
SEQ., THE LEGISLATION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE US.  AS WE NOTED IN FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134,
137, "IN ITS ESSENTIALS THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934(SO FAR AS ITS
PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO ARE CONCERNED) DERIVES FROM THE FEDERAL
RADIO ACT OF 1927.  ...  BY THIS ACT CONGRESS, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
NATIONAL INTEREST INVOLVED IN THE NEW AND FAR-REACHING SCIENCE OF
BROADCASTING, FORMULATED A UNIFIED AND COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY SYSTEM
FOR THE INDUSTRY.  THE COMMON FACTORS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
VARIOUS STATUTES BY WHICH CONGRESS HAD SUPERVISED THE DIFFERENT MODES
OF COMMUNICATION LED TO THE CREATION, IN THE ACT OF 1934, OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.  BUT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION HAVE
REMAINED SUBSTANTIALLY UNALTERED SINCE 1927."    SECTION 1 OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT STATES ITS "PURPOSE OF REGULATING INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE IN COMMUNICATION BY WIRE AND RADIO SO AS TO MAKE
AVAILABLE, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES A
RAPID, EFFICIENT, NATION-WIDE, AND WORLD-WIDE WIRE AND RADIO
COMMUNICATION SERVICE WITH ADEQUATE FACILITIES AT REASONABLE CHARGES." 
"IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO MAINTAIN THE
CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES OVER ALL THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN RADIO TRANSMISSION; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF SUCH
CHANNELS, BUT NOT THE OWNERSHIP THEREOF, BY PERSONS FOR LIMITED PERIODS
OF TIME, UNDER LICENSES GRANTED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY, AND NO SUCH
LICENSE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO CREATE ANY RIGHT, BEYOND THE TERMS,
CONDITIONS, AND PERIODS OF THE LICENSE."  TO THAT END A COMMISSION
COMPOSED OF SEVEN MEMBERS WAS CREATED, WITH BROAD LICENSING AND
REGULATORY POWERS. 


"EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, THE COMMISSION FROM TIME
TO TIME, AS PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY REQUIRES, SHALL
 

(A)  CLASSIFY RADIO STATIONS; 

(B)  PRESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED BY EACH CLASS
OF LICENSED STATIONS AND EACH STATION WITHIN ANY CLASS; 

    .         .         .         .         . 

(F)  MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LAW AS IT MAY DEEM
NECESSARY TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE BETWEEN STATIONS AND TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT  ...  ; 

(G)  STUDY NEW USES FOR RADIO, PROVIDE FOR EXPERIMENTAL USES OF
FREQUENCIES, AND GENERALLY ENCOURAGE THE LARGER AND MORE EFFECTIVE USE
OF RADIO IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST; 

     .         .         .         .       . 

(I)  HAVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RADIO
STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN BROADCASTING; 

  .         .         .         .         . 

(R)  MAKE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AND PRESCRIBE SUCH RESTRICTIONS
AND CONDITIONS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LAW, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CARRY
OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  ...  " 

THE CRITERION GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S LICENSING
POWER IS THE "PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY."  SECS.
307(A)(D), 309(A), 310, 312.  IN ADDITION, SEC. 307(B) DIRECTS THE
COMMISSION THAT "IN CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES, AND
MODIFICATIONS AND RENEWALS THEREOF, WHEN AND INSOFAR AS THERE IS DEMAND
FOR THE SAME, THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE SUCH DISTRIBUTION OF LICENSES,
FREQUENCIES, HOURS OF OPERATION, AND OF POWER AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
AND COMMUNITIES AS TO PROVIDE A FAIR, EFFICIENT, AND EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF RADIO SERVICE TO EACH OF THE SAME." 

THE ACT ITSELF ESTABLISHES THAT THE COMMISSION'S POWERS ARE NOT
LIMITED TO THE ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF REGULATION OF RADIO
COMMUNICATION.  YET WE ARE ASKED TO REGARD THE COMMISSION AS A KIND OF
TRAFFIC OFFICER, POLICING THE WAVE LENGTHS TO PREVENT STATIONS FROM
INTERFERING WITH EACH OTHER.  BUT THE ACT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE
COMMISSION MERELY TO SUPERVISION OF THE TRAFFIC.  IT PUTS UPON THE
COMMISSION THE BURDEN OF DETERMINING THE COMPOSITION OF THAT TRAFFIC. 
THE FACILITIES OF RADIO ARE NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE ALL WHO
WISH TO USE THEM.  METHODS MUST BE DEVISED FOR CHOOSING FROM AMONG THE
MANY WHO APPLY.  AND SINCE CONGRESS ITSELF COULD NOT DO THIS, IT
COMMITTED THE TASK TO THE COMMISSION. 

THE COMMISSION WAS, HOWEVER, NOT LEFT AT LARGE IN PERFORMING THIS
DUTY.  THE TOUCHSTONE PROVIDED BY CONGRESS WAS THE "PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY," A CRITERION WHICH "IS AS CONCRETE AS THE
COMPLICATED FACTORS FOR JUDGMENT IN SUCH A FIELD OF DELEGATED AUTHORITY
PERMIT."  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO.,
309 U.S. 134, 138.  "THIS CRITERION IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS SETTING
UP A STANDARD SO INDEFINITE AS TO CONFER AN UNLIMITED POWER.  COMPARE
NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 24.  THE
REQUIREMENT IS TO BE INTERPRETED BY ITS CONTEXT, BY THE NATURE OF RADIO
TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION, BY THE SCOPE, CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF
SERVICES  ...  "  FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON BROS. CO., 289 U.S.
266, 285. 

THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" TO BE SERVED UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT IS
THUS THE INTEREST OF THE LISTENING PUBLIC IN "THE LARGER AND MORE
EFFECTIVE USE OF RADIO."  SEC. 303(G).  THE FACILITIES OF RADIO ARE
LIMITED AND THEREFORE PRECIOUS; THEY CANNOT BE LEFT TO WASTEFUL USE
WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  "AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF
PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE AFFECTING THE ISSUE OF A LICENSE IS THE
ABILITY OF THE LICENSEE TO RENDER THE BEST PRACTICABLE SERVICE TO THE
COMMUNITY REACHED BY HIS BROADCASTS."  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V.
SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470, 475.  THE COMMISSION'S LICENSING
FUNCTION CANNOT BE DISCHARGED, THEREFORE, MERELY BY FINDING THAT THERE
ARE NO TECHNOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS TO THE GRANTING OF A LICENSE.  IF THE
CRITERION OF "PUBLIC INTEREST" WERE LIMITED TO SUCH MATTERS, HOW COULD
THE COMMISSION CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO APPLICANTS FOR THE SAME FACILITIES,
EACH OF WHOM IS FINANCIALLY AND TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED TO OPERATE A
STATION?  SINCE THE VERY INCEPTION OF FEDERAL REGULATION BY RADIO,
COMPARATIVE CONSIDERATIONS AS TO THE SERVICES TO BE RENDERED HAVE
GOVERNED THE APPLICATION OF THE STANDARD OF "PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY."  SEE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V.
POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 138 N. 2. 

THE AVOWED AIM OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 WAS TO SECURE THE
MAXIMUM BENEFITS OF RADIO TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.  TO
THAT END CONGRESS ENDOWED THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WITH
COMPREHENSIVE POWERS TO PROMOTE AND REALIZE THE VAST POTENTIALITIES OF
RADIO.  SECTION 303(G) PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL "GENERALLY
ENCOURAGE THE LARGER AND MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF RADIO IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST"; SUBSECTION (I) GIVES THE COMMISSION SPECIFIC "AUTHORITY TO
MAKE SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RADIO STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN
BROADCASTING"; AND SUBSECTION (R) EMPOWERS IT TO ADOPT "SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AND PRESCRIBE SUCH RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS, NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH LAW, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT." 

THESE PROVISIONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THE AGGREGATE, PRECLUDE THE
NOTION THAT THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO DEAL ONLY WITH TECHNICAL AND
ENGINEERING IMPEDIMENTS TO THE "LARGER AND MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF RADIO
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  WE CANNOT FIND IN THE ACT ANY SUCH
RESTRICTION OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.  SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT
A COMMUNITY CAN, BECAUSE OF PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS, BE ASSIGNED ONLY TWO
STATIONS.  THAT COMMUNITY MIGHT BE DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE SERVICE IN ANY
ONE OF SEVERAL WAYS.  MORE POWERFUL STATIONS IN NEARBY CITIES MIGHT
BLANKET OUT THE SIGNALS OF THE LOCAL STATIONS SO THAT THEY COULD NOT BE
HEARD AT ALL.  THE STATIONS MIGHT INTERFERE WITH EACH OTHER SO THAT
NEITHER COULD BE CLEARLY HEARD.  ONE STATION MIGHT DOMINATE THE OTHER
WITH THE POWER OF ITS SIGNAL.  BUT THE COMMUNITY COULD BE DEPRIVED OF
GOOD RADIO SERVICE IN WAYS LESS CRUDE.  ONE MAN, FINANCIALLY AND
TECHNICALLY QUALIFIED, MIGHT APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN THE LICENSES OF BOTH
STATIONS AND PRESENT A SINGLE SERVICE OVER THE TWO STATIONS, THUS
WASTING A FREQUENCY OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO THE AREA.  THE LANGUAGE OF
THE ACT DOES NOT WITHDRAW SUCH A SITUATION FROM THE LICENSING AND
REGULATORY POWERS OF THE COMMISSION, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN ITS BROAD LANGUAGE TO CARRY THE AUTHORITY IT
EXPRESSES. 

IN ESSENCE, THE CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS REPRESENT A
PARTICULARIZATION OF THE COMMISSION'S CONCEPTION OF THE "PUBLIC
INTEREST" SOUGHT TO BE SAFEGUARDED BY CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.  THE BASIC CONSIDERATION OF POLICY
UNDERLYING THE REGULATIONS IS SUCCINCTLY STATED IN ITS REPORT:  "WITH
THE NUMBER OF RADIO CHANNELS LIMITED BY NATURAL FACTORS, THE PUBLIC
INTEREST DEMANDS THAT THOSE WHO ARE ENTRUSTED WITH THE AVAILABLE
CHANNELS SHALL MAKE THE FULLEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF THEM.  IF A
LICENSEE ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION WHICH
LIMITS HIS ABILITY TO MAKE THE BEST USE OF THE RADIO FACILITY ASSIGNED
HIM, HE IS NOT SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  ...  THE NET EFFECT (OF
THE PRACTICES DISCLOSED BY THE INVESTIGATION) HAS BEEN THAT
BROADCASTING SERVICE HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AT A LEVEL BELOW THAT POSSIBLE
UNDER A SYSTEM OF FREE COMPETITION.  HAVING SO FOUND, WE WOULD BE
REMISS IN OUR STATUTORY DUTY OF ENCOURAGING 'THE LARGER AND MORE
EFFECTIVE USE OF RADIO IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST' IF WE WERE TO GRANT
LICENSES TO PERSONS WHO PERSIST IN THESE PRACTICES."  (REPORT, PP. 81,
82.) 

WE WOULD BE ASSERTING OUR PERSONAL VIEWS REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE
UTILIZATION OF RADIO WERE WE TO DENY THAT THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED
TO FIND THAT THE LARGE PUBLIC AIMS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
COMPREHEND THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MOVED THE COMMISSION IN
PROMULGATING THE CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS.  TRUE ENOUGH, THE ACT
DOES NOT EXPLICITLY SAY THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE POWER TO DEAL
WITH NETWORK PRACTICES FOUND INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  BUT
CONGRESS WAS ACTING IN A FIELD OF REGULATION WHICH WAS BOTH NEW AND
DYNAMIC.  "CONGRESS MOVED UNDER THE SPUR OF A WIDESPREAD FEAR THAT IN
THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL THE PUBLIC INTEREST MIGHT BE
SUBORDINATED TO MONOPOLISTIC DOMINATION IN THE BROADCASTING FIELD." 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S.
134, 137.  IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEVELOPING PROBLEMS TO WHICH IT WAS
DIRECTED, THE ACT GAVE THE COMMISSION NOT NIGGARDLY BUT EXPANSIVE
POWERS.  IT WAS GIVEN A COMPREHENSIVE MANDATE TO "ENCOURAGE THE LARGER
AND MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF RADIO IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST," IF NEED BE, BY
MAKING "SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RADIO STATIONS ENGAGED IN
CHAIN BROADCASTING."  SEC. 303(G)(I). 

GENERALITIES UNRELATED TO THE LIVING PROBLEMS OF RADIO COMMUNICATION
OF COURSE CANNOT JUSTIFY EXERCISES OF POWER BY THE COMMISSION.  EQUALLY
SO, GENERALITIES EMPTY OF ALL CONCRETE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ACTUAL
BEARING OF REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE
SUBJECTMATTER ENTRUSTED TO IT, CANNOT STRIKE DOWN EXERCISES OF POWER BY
THE COMMISSION.  WHILE CONGRESS DID NOT GIVE THE COMMISSION UNFETTERED
DISCRETION TO REGULATE ALL PHASES OF THE RADIO INDUSTRY, IT DID NOT
FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 WAS
BROUGHT INTO BEING BY ATTEMPTING AN ITEMIZED CATALOGUE OF THE SPECIFIC
MANIFESTATIONS OF THE GENERAL PROBLEMS FOR THE SOLUTION OF WHICH IT WAS
ESTABLISHING A REGULATORY AGENCY.  THAT WOULD HAVE STEREOTYPED THE
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION TO SPECIFIC DETAILS IN REGULATING A FIELD OF
ENTERPRISE THE DOMINANT CHARACTERISTIC OF WHICH WAS THE RAPID PACE OF
ITS UNFOLDING.  AND SO CONGRESS DID WHAT EXPERIENCE HAD TAUGHT IT IN
SIMILAR ATTEMPTS AT REGULATION, EVEN IN FIELDS WHERE THE SUBJECT-MATTER
OF REGULATION WAS FAR LESS FLUID AND DYNAMIC THAN RADIO.  THE ESSENCE
OF THAT EXPERIENCE WAS TO DEFINE BROAD AREAS FOR REGULATION AND TO
ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR JUDGMENT ADEQUATELY RELATED IN THEIR
APPLICATION TO THE PROBLEMS TO BE SOLVED. 

FOR THE CRAMPING CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT PRESSED UPON US, SUPPORT
CANNOT BE FOUND IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT IS
THAT SEC. 303(I), EMPOWERING THE COMMISSION "TO MAKE SPECIAL
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RADIO STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN
BROADCASTING," INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S
POWERS TO THE TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CHAIN BROADCASTING. 
THIS PROVISION COMES FROM SEC. 4(H) OF THE RADIO ACT OF 1927.  IT WAS
INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATION AS A SENATE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT TO THE
HOUSE BILL (H.R. 9971, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) THIS AMENDMENT ORIGINALLY
READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"(C)  THE COMMISSION, FROM TIME TO TIME, AS PUBLIC CONVENIENCE,
INTEREST, OR NECESSITY REQUIRES, SHALL - 

.         .         .         .         . 

(J)  WHEN STATIONS ARE CONNECTED BY WIRE FOR CHAIN BROADCASTING,
DETERMINE THE POWER EACH STATION SHALL USE AND THE WAVE LENGTHS TO BE
USED DURING THE TIME STATIONS ARE SO CONNECTED AND SO OPERATED, AND
MAKE ALL OTHER REGULATIONS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITABLE RADIO
SERVICE TO THE LISTENERS IN THE COMMUNITIES OR AREAS AFFECTED BY CHAIN
BROADCASTING." 

THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH
SUBMITTED THIS AMENDMENT, STATED THAT UNDER THE BILL THE COMMISSION WAS
GIVEN "COMPLETE AUTHORITY  ...  TO CONTROL CHAIN BROADCASTING."  SEN.
REP. NO. 772, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3.  THE BILL AS THUS AMENDED
WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE, AND THEN SENT TO CONFERENCE.  THE BILL THAT
EMERGED FROM THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, AND WHICH BECAME THE RADIO ACT
OF 1927, PHRASED THE AMENDMENT IN THE GENERAL TERMS NOW CONTAINED IN
SEC. 303(I) OF THE 1934 ACT:  THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED "TO MAKE
SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RADIO STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN
BROADCASTING."  THE CONFERENCE REPORTS DO NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION OF
THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE IN PHRASING, BUT THEY DO STATE THAT THE
JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION BY THE CONFERENCE BILL WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THAT CONFERRED BY THE BILL PASSED BY THE
SENATE.  SEE SEN. DOC. NO. 200, 69TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 17; H. REP.
1886, 69TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 17.  WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT
THAT IN VIEW OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, SEC. 303(I) CANNOT BE
CONSTRUED AS NO BROADER THAN THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT,
WHICH LIMITED THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO THE TECHNICAL AND
ENGINEERING PHASES OF CHAIN BROADCASTING.  THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
ASSUMING THAT THE CONFERENCE INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE FIRST CLAUSE,
WHICH WAS OF LIMITED SCOPE, AND ABANDON THE SECOND CLAUSE, WHICH WAS OF
GENERAL SCOPE, BY AGREEING UPON A PROVISION WHICH WAS BROADER AND MORE
COMPREHENSIVE THAN THOSE IT SUPPLANTED.  FN5    A TOTALLY DIFFERENT
SOURCE OF ATTACK UPON THE REGULATIONS IS FOUND IN SEC. 311 OF THE ACT,
WHICH AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO WITHHOLD LICENSES FROM PERSONS
CONVICTED OF HAVING VIOLATED THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  TWO CONTENTIONS ARE
MADE - FIRST, THAT THIS PROVISION PUTS CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO
COMPETITION OUTSIDE THE COMMISSION'S CONCERN BEFORE AN APPLICANT HAS
BEEN CONVICTED OF MONOPOLY OR OTHER RESTRAINTS OF TRADE, AND SECOND,
THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE COMMISSION MISCONCEIVED THE SCOPE OF ITS POWERS
UNDER SEC. 311 IN ISSUING THE REGULATIONS.  BOTH OF THESE CONTENTIONS
ARE UNFOUNDED.  SECTION 311 DERIVES FROM SEC. 13 OF THE RADIO ACT OF
1927, WHICH EXPRESSLY COMMANDED, RATHER THAN MERELY AUTHORIZED, THE
COMMISSION TO REFUSE A LICENSE TO ANY PERSON JUDICIALLY FOUND GUILTY OF
HAVING VIOLATED THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  THE CHANGE IN THE 1934 ACT WAS
MADE, IN THE WORDS OF SENATOR DILL, THE MANAGER OF THE LEGISLATION IN
THE SENATE, BECAUSE "IT SEEMED FAIR TO THE COMMITTEE TO DO THAT."  78
CONG. REC. 8825.  THE COMMISSION WAS THUS PERMITTED TO EXERCISE ITS
JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS DISQUALIFIED AN
APPLICANT FROM OPERATING A STATION IN THE "PUBLIC INTEREST."  WE AGREE
WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT "THE NECESSARY IMPLICATION FROM THIS
(AMENDMENT IN 1934) WAS THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT INFER FROM THE FACT
THAT THE APPLICANT HAD IN THE PAST TRIED TO MONOPOLIZE RADIO, OR HAD
ENGAGED IN UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION, THAT THE DISPOSITION SO
MANIFESTED WOULD CONTINUE AND THAT IF IT DID IT WOULD MAKE HIM AN UNFIT
LICENSEE."  47 F.SUPP.  940, 944. 

THAT THE COMMISSION MAY REFUSE TO GRANT A LICENSE TO PERSONS ADJUDGED
GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW OF CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS
CERTAINLY DOES NOT RENDER IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION OF
THE EFFECT OF SUCH CONDUCT UPON THE "PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR
NECESSITY."  A LICENSEE CHARGED WITH PRACTICES IN CONTRAVENTION OF THIS
STANDARD CANNOT CONTINUE TO HOLD HIS LICENSE MERELY BECAUSE HIS CONDUCT
IS ALSO IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND HE HAS NOT YET BEEN
PROCEEDED AGAINST AND CONVICTED.  BY CLARIFYING IN SEC. 311 THE SCOPE
OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY IN DEALING WITH PERSONS CONVICTED OF
VIOLATING THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, CONGRESS CAN HARDLY BE DEEMED TO HAVE
LIMITED THE CONCEPT OF "PUBLIC INTEREST" SO AS TO EXCLUDE ALL
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO MONOPOLY AND UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS UPON
COMMERCE.  NOTHING IN THE PROVISIONS OR HISTORY OF THE ACT LENDS
SUPPORT TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS DENIED THE POWER TO
REFUSE A LICENSE TO A STATION NOT OPERATING IN THE "PUBLIC INTEREST,"
MERELY BECAUSE ITS MISCONDUCT HAPPENED TO BE AN UNCONVICTED VIOLATION
OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 

ALTERNATIVELY, IT IS URGED THAT THE REGULATIONS CONSTITUTE AN ULTRA
VIRES ATTEMPT BY THE COMMISSION TO ENFORCE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, AND
THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IS THE PROVINCE NOT OF THE
COMMISSION BUT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE COURTS.  THIS CONTENTION
MISCONCEIVES THE BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.  THE COMMISSION'S
REPORT INDICATES PLAINLY ENOUGH THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ATTEMPTING
TO ADMINISTER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS: 

"THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT APPLY TO BROADCASTING.  THIS
COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH NOT CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ENFORCING THAT LAW,
SHOULD ADMINISTER ITS REGULATORY POWERS WITH RESPECT TO BROADCASTING IN
THE LIGHT OF THE PURPOSES WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT WAS DESIGNED TO
ACHIEVE.  ... WHILE MANY OF THE NETWORK PRACTICES RAISE SERIOUS
QUESTIONS UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS, OUR JURISDICTION DOES NOT DEPEND ON
A SHOWING THAT THEY DO IN FACT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST
LAWS.  IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO APPLY THE ANTITRUST LAWS AS SUCH.  IT
IS OUR DUTY, HOWEVER, TO REFUSE LICENSES OR RENEWALS TO ANY PERSON WHO
ENGAGES OR PROPOSES TO ENGAGE IN PRACTICES WHICH WILL PREVENT EITHER
HIMSELF OR OTHER LICENSEES OR BOTH FROM MAKING THE FULLEST USE OF RADIO
FACILITIES.  THIS IS THE STANDARD OF PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY WHICH WE MUST APPLY TO ALL APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES AND
RENEWALS.  ...  WE DO NOT PREDICATE OUR JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE
REGULATIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE NETWORK PRACTICES VIOLATE THE
ANTITRUST LAWS.  WE ARE ISSUING THESE REGULATIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUND
THAT THE NETWORK PRACTICES PREVENT THE MAXIMUM UTILIZATION OF RADIO
FACILITIES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  (REPORT, PP. 46, 83, 83 N. 3.) 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO CORRECT
THE ABUSES DISCLOSED BY ITS INVESTIGATION OF CHAIN BROADCASTING.  THERE
REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION THE CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION'S EXERCISE OF
SUCH AUTHORITY WAS UNLAWFUL. 

THE REGULATIONS ARE ASSAILED AS "ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS."  IF THIS
CONTENTION MEANS THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE UNWISE, THAT THEY ARE NOT
LIKELY TO SUCCEED IN ACCOMPLISHING WHAT THE COMMISSION INTENDED, WE CAN
SAY ONLY THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE SELECTED THE WRONG FORUM FOR SUCH A
PLEA.  WHAT WAS SAID IN BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534,
548, IS RELEVANT HERE:  "WE CERTAINLY HAVE NEITHER TECHNICAL COMPETENCE
NOR LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PRONOUNCE UPON THE WISDOM OF THE COURSE TAKEN BY
THE COMMISSION."  OUR DUTY IS AT AN END WHEN WE FIND THAT THE ACTION OF
THE COMMISSION WAS BASED UPON FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, AND WAS
MADE PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CONGRESS.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO
SAY THAT THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" WILL BE FURTHERED OR RETARDED BY THE
CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS.  THE RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS TO THE
CONGRESS FOR THE GRANT OF VALID LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND TO THE
COMMISSION FOR ITS EXERCISE. 

IT WOULD BE SHEER DOGMATISM TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION MADE OUT NO
CASE FOR ITS ALLOWABLE DISCRETION IN FORMULATING THESE REGULATIONS. 
ITS LONG INVESTIGATION DISCLOSED THE EXISTENCES OF PRACTICES WHICH IT
REGARDED AS CONTRARY TO THE "PUBLIC INTEREST."  THE COMMISSION KNEW
THAT THE WISDOM OF ANY ACTION IT TOOK WOULD HAVE TO BE TESTED BY
EXPERIENCE:  "WE ARE UNDER NO ILLUSION THAT THE REGULATIONS WE ARE
ADOPTING WILL SOLVE ALL QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO
THE NETWORK SYSTEM OF PROGRAM DISTRIBUTION.  ...  THE PROBLEMS IN THE
NETWORK FIELD ARE INTERDEPENDENT, AND THE STEPS NOW TAKEN MAY PERHAPS
OPERATE AS A PARTIAL SOLUTION OF PROBLEMS NOT DIRECTLY DEALT WITH AT
THIS TIME.  SUCH PROBLEMS MAY BE EXAMINED AGAIN AT SOME FUTURE TIME
AFTER THE REGULATIONS HERE ADOPTED HAVE BEEN GIVEN A FAIR TRIAL." 
(REPORT, P. 88.)  THE PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION ATTEMPTED TO
DEAL COULD NOT BE SOLVED AT ONCE AND FOR ALL TIME BY RIGID RULES-OF
THUMB.  THE COMMISSION THEREFORE DID NOT BIND ITSELF INFLEXIBLY TO THE
LICENSING POLICIES EXPRESSED IN THE REGULATIONS.  IN EACH CASE THAT
COMES BEFORE IT THE COMMISSION MUST STILL EXERCISE AN ULTIMATE JUDGMENT
WHETHER THE GRANT OF A LICENSE WOULD SERVE THE "PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY."  IF TIME AND CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES REVEAL
THAT THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" IS NOT SERVED BY APPLICATION OF THE
REGULATIONS, IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE COMMISSION WILL ACT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. 

SINCE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ANY CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED TO
OBSERVE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS REQUIRED BY LAW, WE REACH THE CONTENTION
THAT THE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE DENIED ENFORCEMENT ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS.  HERE, AS IN NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 24-25, THE CLAIM IS MADE THAT THE STANDARD OF
"PUBLIC INTEREST" GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO THE
COMMISSION BY CONGRESS IS SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE THAT, IF IT BE
CONSTRUED AS COMPREHENSIVELY AS THE WORDS ALONE PERMIT, THE DELEGATION
OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT, AS WE HELD IN THAT
CASE, "IT IS A MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION THAT THIS IS A MERE GENERAL
REFERENCE TO PUBLIC WELFARE WITHOUT ANY STANDARD TO GUIDE
DETERMINATIONS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, THE REQUIREMENTS IT IMPOSES,
AND THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION SHOW THE CONTRARY."  IBID.
SEE FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON BROS. CO., 289 U.S. 266, 285;
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S.
134, 137-38.  COMPARE PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, 428;
INTERMOUNTAIN RATE CASES, 234 U.S. 476, 486-89; UNITED STATES V.
LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225. 

WE COME, FINALLY, TO AN APPEAL TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THE
REGULATIONS, EVEN IF VALID IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, MUST FALL BECAUSE
THEY ABRIDGE, SAY THE APPELLANTS, THEIR RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  IF THAT
BE SO, IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT EVERY PERSON WHOSE APPLICATION FOR A
LICENSE TO OPERATE A STATION IS DENIED BY THE COMMISSION IS THEREBY
DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  FREEDOM OF UTTERANCE
IS ABRIDGED TO MANY WHO WISH TO USE THE LIMITED FACILITIES OF RADIO. 
UNLIKE OTHER MODES OF EXPRESSION, RADIO INHERENTLY IS NOT AVAILABLE TO
ALL.  THAT IS ITS UNIQUE CHARACTERISTIC, AND THAT IS WHY, UNLIKE OTHER
MODES OF EXPRESSION, IT IS SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION.  BECAUSE
IT CANNOT BE USED BY ALL, SOME WHO WISH TO USE IT MUST BE DENIED.  BUT
CONGRESS DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO CHOOSE AMONG APPLICANTS
UPON THE BASIS OF THEIR POLITICAL, ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL VIEWS, OR UPON
ANY OTHER CAPRICIOUS BASIS.  IF IT DID, OR IF THE COMMISSION BY THESE
REGULATIONS PROPOSED A CHOICE AMONG APPLICANTS UPON SOME SUCH BASIS,
THE ISSUE BEFORE US WOULD BE WHOLLY DIFFERENT.  THE QUESTION HERE IS
SIMPLY WHETHER THE COMMISSION, BY ANNOUNCING THAT IT WILL REFUSE
LICENSES TO PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN SPECIFIED NETWORK PRACTICES (A BASIS
FOR CHOICE WHICH WE HOLD IS COMPREHENDED WITHIN THE STATUTORY CRITERION
OF "PUBLIC INTEREST"), IS THEREBY DENYING SUCH PERSONS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH DOES NOT
INCLUDE, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO USE THE FACILITIES OF RADIO WITHOUT A
LICENSE.  THE LICENSING SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS IN THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OVER
COMMERCE.  THE STANDARD IT PROVIDED FOR THE LICENSING OF STATIONS WAS
THE "PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY."  DENIAL OF A STATION
LICENSE ON THAT GROUND, IF VALID UNDER THE ACT, IS NOT A DENIAL OF FREE
SPEECH. 

A PROCEDURAL POINT CALLS FOR JUST A WORD.  THE DISTRICT COURT, BY
GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DISPOSED OF THE
CASE UPON THE PLEADINGS AND UPON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY HELD THAT ITS INQUIRY WAS
LIMITED TO REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  TRIAL DE NOVO
OF THE MATTERS HEARD BY THE COMMISSION AND DEALT WITH IN ITS REPORT
WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPROPER.  SEE TAGG BROS. V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S.
420; ACKER V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 426.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CHAIN BROADCASTING IS DEFINED IN SEC. 3(P) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
ACT OF 1934 AS THE "SIMULTANEOUS BROADCASTING OF AN IDENTICAL PROGRAM
BY TWO OR MORE CONNECTED STATIONS."  IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, PROGRAMS ARE
TRANSMITTED BY WIRE, USUALLY LEASED TELEPHONE LINES, FROM THEIR POINT
OF ORIGINATION TO EACH STATION IN THE NETWORK FOR SIMULTANEOUS
BROADCAST OVER THE AIR. 

FN2  STATION LICENSES ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION NORMALLY LAST TWO
YEARS.  SECTION 3.34 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS
GOVERNING STANDARD AND HIGH-FREQUENCY BROADCAST STATIONS, AS AMENDED
OCTOBER 14, 1941. 

FN3  THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF RADIO COMMUNICATION IS
SUMMARIZED IN HERRING AND GROSS, TELECOMMUNICATIONS (1936) 239-86;
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, MONOGRAPH OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, SEN. DOC. NO.
186, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PART 3, DEALING WITH THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, PP. 82-84; 1 SOCOLOW, LAW OF RADIO
BROADCASTING (1939) 38-61; DONOVAN, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF RADIO LAW
(1930). 

FN4  SEE MORECROFT, PRINCIPLES OF RADIO COMMUNICATION (3D ED. 1933)
355-402; TERMAN, RADIO ENGINEERING (2D ED. 1937) 593-645. 

FN5  IN THE COURSE OF THE SENATE DEBATES ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT
UPON THE BILL THAT BECAME THE RADIO ACT OF 1927, SENATOR DILL, WHO WAS
IN CHARGE OF THE BILL, SAID:  "WHILE THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE
POWER UNDER THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE BILL, THE BILL SPECIFICALLY SETS
OUT AS ONE OF THE SPECIAL POWERS OF THE COMMISSION THE RIGHT TO MAKE
SPECIFIC REGULATIONS FOR GOVERNING CHAIN BROADCASTING.  AS TO CREATING
A MONOPOLY OF RADIO IN THIS COUNTRY, LET ME SAY THAT THIS BILL
ABSOLUTELY PROTECTS THE PUBLIC, SO FAR AS IT CAN PROTECT THEM, BY
GIVING THE COMMISSION FULL POWER TO REFUSE A LICENSE TO ANYONE WHO IT
BELIEVES WILL NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR
NECESSITY.  IT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT ANY CORPORATION GUILTY OF
MONOPOLY SHALL NOT ONLY NOT RECEIVE A LICENSE BUT THAT ITS LICENSE MAY
BE REVOKED; AND IF AFTER A CORPORATION HAS RECEIVED ITS LICENSE FOR A
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS IT IS THEN DISCOVERED AND FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF
MONOPOLY, ITS LICENSE WILL BE REVOKED.  ...  IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE
BILL CONTAINS A PROVISION THAT NO LICENSE MAY BE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE
OWNER TO ANOTHER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION, AND THE
COMMISSION, OF COURSE, HAVING THE POWER TO PROTECT AGAINST A MONOPOLY,
MUST GIVE SUCH PROTECTION.  I WISH TO STATE FURTHER THAT THE ONLY WAY
BY WHICH MONOPOLIES IN THE RADIO BUSINESS CAN SECURE CONTROL OF RADIO
HERE, EVEN FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME, WILL BE BY THE COMMISSION
BECOMING SERVILE TO THEM.  POWER MUST BE LODGED SOMEWHERE, AND I MYSELF
AM UNWILLING TO ASSUME IN ADVANCE THAT THE COMMISSION PROPOSED TO BE
CREATED WILL BE SERVILE TO THE DESIRES AND DEMANDS OF GREAT
CORPORATIONS OF THIS COUNTRY."  68 CONG. REC. 2881.    MR. JUSTICE
BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

I DO NOT QUESTION THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, AND IT
IS NOT MY DESIRE BY NARROW STATUTORY INTERPRETATION TO WEAKEN THE
AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO DEAL EFFICIENTLY WITH MATTERS
COMMITTED TO THEIR JURISDICTION BY THE CONGRESS.  STATUTES OF THIS KIND
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO THAT THE AGENCY CONCERNED MAY BE ABLE TO COPE
EFFECTIVELY WITH PROBLEMS WHICH THE CONGRESS INTENDED TO CORRECT, OR
MAY OTHERWISE PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS GIVEN TO IT.  BUT WE EXCEED OUR
COMPETENCE WHEN WE GRATUITOUSLY BESTOW UPON AN AGENCY POWER WHICH THE
CONGRESS HAS NOT GRANTED.  SINCE THAT IS WHAT THE COURT IN SUBSTANCE
DOES TODAY, I DISSENT. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE DEALING WITH A SUBJECT OF EXTREME
IMPORTANCE IN THE LIFE OF THE NATION.  ALTHOUGH RADIO BROADCASTING,
LIKE THE PRESS, IS GENERALLY CONDUCTED ON A COMMERCIAL BASIS, IT IS NOT
AN ORDINARY BUSINESS ACTIVITY, LIKE THE SELLING OF SECURITIES OR THE
MARKETING OF ELECTRICAL POWER.  IN THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION AND
OPINION, RADIO HAS ASSUMED A POSITION OF COMMANDING IMPORTANCE,
RIVALLING THE PRESS AND THE PULPIT.  OWING TO ITS PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS RADIO, UNLIKE THE OTHER METHODS OF CONVEYING
INFORMATION, MUST BE REGULATED AND RATIONED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 
OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE CHAOS, AND RADIO'S USEFULNESS WOULD BE LARGELY
DESTROYED.  BUT BECAUSE OF ITS VAST POTENTIALITIES AS A MEDIUM OF
COMMUNICATION, DISCUSSION AND PROPAGANDA, THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF
CONTROL THAT SHOULD BE EXERCISED OVER IT BY THE GOVERNMENT IS A MATTER
OF DEEP AND VITAL CONCERN.  EVENTS IN EUROPE SHOW THAT RADIO MAY
READILY BE A WEAPON OF AUTHORITY AND MISREPRESENTATION, INSTEAD OF A
MEANS OF ENTERTAINMENT AND ENLIGHTENMENT.  IT MAY EVEN BE AN INSTRUMENT
OF OPPRESSION.  IN POINTING OUT THESE POSSIBILITIES I DO NOT MEAN TO
INTIMATE IN THE SLIGHTEST THAT THEY ARE IMMINENT OR PROBABLE IN THIS
COUNTRY, BUT THEY DO SUGGEST THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INSTANT
STATUTE SHOULD BE APPROACHED WITH MORE THAN ORDINARY RESTRAINT AND
CAUTION, TO AVOID AN INTERPRETATION THAT IS NOT CLEARLY JUSTIFIED BY
THE CONDITIONS THAT BROUGHT ABOUT ITS ENACTMENT, OR THAT WOULD GIVE THE
COMMISSION GREATER POWERS THAN THE CONGRESS INTENDED TO CONFER. 

THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 DOES NOT IN TERMS GIVE THE COMMISSION
POWER TO REGULATE THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATIONS AND
THE NETWORKS.  COLUMBIA SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407, 416.  IT
IS ONLY AS AN INCIDENT OF THE POWER TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD LICENSES TO
INDIVIDUAL STATIONS UNDER SECS. 307, 308, 309 AND 310 THAT THIS
AUTHORITY IS CLAIMED,  FN1  EXCEPT AS IT MAY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY
SUBDIVISIONS (G), (I) AND (R) OF SEC. 303, AND BY SECS. 311 AND 313. 
BUT NOWHERE IN THESE SECTIONS, TAKEN SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY, IS THERE
TO BE FOUND BY REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OR NECESSARY INFERENCE,
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE BROADCASTING INDUSTRY AS SUCH, OR TO CONTROL
THE COMPLEX OPERATIONS OF THE NATIONAL NETWORKS. 

IN PROVIDING FOR REGULATION OF THE RADIO, THE CONGRESS WAS UNDER THE
NECESSITY OF VESTING A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY
IN THE COMMISSION.  THE TASK OF CHOOSING BETWEEN VARIOUS CLAIMANTS FOR
THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE AIR WAVES IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE
ONE.  NEVERTHELESS, IN SPECIFYING WITH SOME DEGREE OF PARTICULARITY THE
KIND OF INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE, THE
CONGRESS HAS INDICATED WHAT GENERAL CONDITIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS ARE
TO GOVERN THE GRANTING AND WITHHOLDING OF STATION LICENSES.  THUS AN
APPLICANT IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 308(B) TO SUBMIT INFORMATION BEARING UPON
HIS CITIZENSHIP, CHARACTER, AND TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL AND OTHER
QUALIFICATIONS TO OPERATE THE PROPOSED STATION, AS WELL AS DATA
RELATING TO THE OWNERSHIP AND LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED STATION, THE
POWER AND FREQUENCIES DESIRED, OPERATING PERIODS, INTENDED USE, AND
SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE.  LICENSES,
FREQUENCIES, HOURS OF OPERATION AND POWER ARE TO BE FAIRLY DISTRIBUTED
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES AND COMMUNITIES TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT SERVICE
TO EACH.  SEC. 307(B).  EXPLICIT PROVISION IS MADE FOR DEALING WITH
APPLICANTS AND LICENSEES WHO ARE FOUND GUILTY, OR WHO ARE UNDER THE
CONTROL OF PERSONS FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST
LAWS.  SECS. 311 AND 313.  SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS DEFINED IN THE
ACT, THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO GRANT A STATION LICENSE TO ANY
APPLICANT "IF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED
THEREBY."  SEC. 307(A).  NOTHING IS SAID, IN ANY OF THESE SECTIONS,
ABOUT NETWORK CONTRACTS, AFFILIATIONS, OR BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS. 

THE POWER TO CONTROL NETWORK CONTRACTS AND AFFILIATIONS BY MEANS OF
THE COMMISSION'S LICENSING POWERS CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM IMPLICATION
OUT OF THE STANDARD OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST OR NECESSITY."  WE
HAVE HELD THAT:  "THE ACT DOES NOT ESSAY TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS OF
THE LICENSEE.  THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF THE
PROGRAMS, OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT OR OF POLICY.  IN SHORT, THE
BROADCASTING FIELD IS OPEN TO ANYONE, PROVIDED THERE BE AN AVAILABLE
FREQUENCY OVER WHICH HE CAN BROADCAST WITHOUT INTERFERENCE TO OTHERS,
IF HE SHOWS HIS COMPETENCY, THE ADEQUACY OF HIS EQUIPMENT, AND
FINANCIAL ABILITY TO MAKE GOOD USE OF THE ASSIGNED CHANNEL."  FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470, 475.  THE
CRITERION OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST OR NECESSITY" IS NOT AN
INDEFINITE STANDARD, BUT ONE TO BE "INTERPRETED BY ITS CONTEXT, BY THE
NATURE OF RADIO TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION, BY THE SCOPE, CHARACTER AND
QUALITY OF SERVICES,  ...  "  FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON BROS. CO.,
289 U.S. 266, 285.  NOTHING IN THE CONTEXT OF WHICH THE STANDARD IS A
PART REFERS TO NETWORK CONTRACTS.  IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD THAT
THE COMMISSION IS MAKING ITS DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WOULD BE SERVED BY RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING LICENSE OR LICENSES,
NOT UPON AN EXAMINATION OF WRITTEN APPLICATIONS PRESENTED TO IT, AS
REQUIRED BY SECS. 308 AND 309, BUT UPON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE
BROADCASTING INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE, AND GENERAL FINDINGS MADE IN
PURSUANCE THEREOF WHICH RELATE TO THE BUSINESS METHODS OF THE NETWORK
COMPANIES RATHER THAN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATIONS
AND THE PECULIAR NEEDS OF THE AREAS SERVED BY THEM.  IF IT HAD BEEN THE
INTENTION OF THE CONGRESS TO INVEST THE COMMISSION WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY, THROUGH ITS LICENSING AUTHORITY, OF EXERCISING FAR
REACHING CONTROL - AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS - OVER
THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF CHAIN BROADCASTING AND RADIO NETWORKS AS
THEY WERE THEN OR ARE NOW ORGANIZED AND ESTABLISHED, IT IS NOT LIKELY
THAT THE CONGRESS WOULD HAVE LEFT IT TO MERE INFERENCE OR IMPLICATION
FROM THE TEST OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST OR NECESSITY," OR THAT
CONGRESS WOULD HAVE NEGLECTED TO INCLUDE IT AMONG THE CONSIDERATIONS
EXPRESSLY MADE RELEVANT TO LICENSE APPLICATIONS BY SEC. 308(B).  THE
SUBJECT IS ONE OF SUCH SCOPE AND IMPORTANCE AS TO WARRANT EXPLICIT
MENTION.  TO CONSTRUE THE LICENSING SECTIONS (SECS. 307, 308, 309, 310)
AS GRANTING AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE FUNDAMENTAL AND REVOLUTIONARY CHANGES
IN THE BUSINESS METHODS OF THE BROADCASTING NETWORKS - METHODS WHICH
HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
ADJUDGED UNLAWFUL - WOULD INFLATE AND DISTORT THEIR TRUE MEANING AND
EXTEND THEM BEYOND THE LIMITED PURPOSES WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED TO
SERVE. 

IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE, OF COURSE, THAT MAXIMUM UTILIZATION OF THE
RADIO AS AN INSTRUMENT OF CULTURE, ENTERTAINMENT, AND THE DIFFUSION OF
IDEAS IS INHIBITED BY EXISTING NETWORK ARRANGEMENTS.  SOME OF THE
CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE BROADCASTING CHAINS ARE POSSIBLY NOT
CONDUCIVE TO A FREER USE OF RADIO FACILITIES, HOWEVER ESSENTIAL THEY
MAY BE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF SUSTAINING PROGRAMS AND THE OPERATION OF
THE CHAIN BROADCASTING BUSINESS AS IT IS NOW CONDUCTED.  BUT I AM
UNABLE TO AGREE THAT IT IS WITHIN THE PRESENT AUTHORITY OF THE
COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE THE REMEDY FOR SUCH CONDITIONS.  IT IS EVIDENT
THAT A CORRECTION OF THESE CONDITIONS IN THE MANNER PROPOSED BY THE
REGULATIONS WILL INVOLVE DRASTIC CHANGES IN THE BUSINESS OF RADIO
BROADCASTING WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS NOT CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY
EMPOWERED THE COMMISSION TO UNDERTAKE. 

IF THIS WERE A CASE IN WHICH A STATION LICENSE HAD BEEN WITHHELD FROM
AN INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT OR LICENSEE BECAUSE OF SPECIAL RELATIONS OR
COMMITMENTS THAT WOULD SERIOUSLY COMPROMISE OR LIMIT HIS ABILITY TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICE TO THE LISTENING PUBLIC, I SHOULD BE LESS
INCLINED TO MAKE ANY OBJECTION.  AS AN INCIDENT OF ITS AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL APPLICANT IN AN ISOLATED
CASE, THE COMMISSION MIGHT POSSIBLY CONSIDER SUCH FACTORS.  IN THE
PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION HAS REVERSED THE ORDER OF
THINGS.  ITS REAL OBJECTIVE IS TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF
THE MAJOR NETWORKS, THUS BRINGING WITHIN THE RANGE OF ITS REGULATORY
POWER THE CHAIN BROADCASTING INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE.  BY MEANS OF THESE
REGULATIONS AND THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT ONLY
EXTEND ITS AUTHORITY OVER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH REPRESENT INTERESTS
AND INVESTMENTS OF A VERY SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
PUT UNDER ITS JURISDICTION BY THE ACT, BUT WOULD GREATLY ENLARGE ITS
CONTROL OVER AN INSTITUTION THAT HAS NOW BECOME A RIVAL OF THE PRESS
AND PULPIT AS A PURVEYOR OF NEWS AND ENTERTAINMENT AND A MEDIUM OF
PUBLIC DISCUSSION.  TO ASSUME A FUNCTION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF SUCH
WIDE REACH AND IMPORTANCE IN THE LIFE OF THE NATION, AS A MERE INCIDENT
OF ITS DUTY TO PASS ON INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO
OPERATE A RADIO STATION AND USE A SPECIFIC WAVE LENGTH, IS AN
ASSUMPTION OF AUTHORITY TO WHICH I AM NOT WILLING TO LEND MY ASSENT. 

AGAIN I DO NOT QUESTION THE NEED OF REGULATION IN THIS FIELD, OR THE
AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD VEST IN THE
COMMISSION SUCH POWER AS IT REQUIRES TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM, WHICH IT
HAS DEFINED AND ANALYZED IN ITS REPORT WITH ADMIRABLE LUCIDITY.  IT IS
POSSIBLE THAT THE REMEDY INDICATED BY THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS IS THE
APPROPRIATE ONE, WHATEVER ITS EFFECT MAY BE ON THE SUSTAINING PROGRAMS,
ADVERTISING CONTRACTS, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF CHAIN BROADCASTING
AS IT IS NOW CONDUCTED IN THIS COUNTRY.  I DO NOT BELIEVE, HOWEVER,
THAT THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING THE RESPONSIBILITY AND
AUTHORITY IT HAS ASSUMED TO EXERCISE WITHOUT A CLEAR MANDATE FROM THE
CONGRESS. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE HISTORY OF THIS LEGISLATION CONVINCES ME THAT
THE CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND BY ANYTHING IN SEC. 303, OR ANY OTHER
PROVISION OF THE ACT, TO CONFER ON THE COMMISSION THE AUTHORITY IT HAS
ASSUMED TO EXERCISE BY THE ISSUANCE OF THESE REGULATIONS.  SECTION 303
IS CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH TECHNICAL MATTERS, AND THE SUBJECTS OF
REGULATION AUTHORIZED BY MOST OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS ARE EXCEEDINGLY
SPECIFIC - SO SPECIFIC IN FACT THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT, IF
CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO COVER THE SUBJECT OF NETWORK CONTRACTS AND
AFFILIATIONS, IT WOULD NOT HAVE LEFT IT TO DUBIOUS IMPLICATIONS FROM
GENERAL CLAUSES, LIFTED OUT OF CONTEXT, IN SUBDIVISIONS (G), (I) AND
(R).  I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT IN AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION IN SEC.
303(G) TO STUDY NEW USES FOR RADIO, PROVIDE FOR EXPERIMENTAL USE OF
FREQUENCIES, AND "GENERALLY ENCOURAGE THE LARGER AND MORE EFFECTIVE USE
OF RADIO IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST," IT WAS THE INTENTION OR THE PURPOSE
OF THE CONGRESS TO CONFER ON THE COMMISSION THE REGULATORY POWERS NOW
BEING ASSERTED.  MANIFESTLY THAT SUBDIVISION DEALT WITH EXPERIMENTAL
AND DEVELOPMENT WORK - TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC MATTERS, AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ITS CONCLUDING CLAUSE SHOULD BE ACCORDINGLY LIMITED TO
THOSE CONSIDERATIONS.  NOTHING IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUGGESTS THAT
IT HAD ANY BROADER PURPOSE. 

IT WAS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENTION OF THE CONGRESS BY THE ENACTMENT OF
SEC. 303(I), AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION "TO MAKE SPECIAL REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO RADIO STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN BROADCASTING," TO INVEST
THE COMMISSION WITH THE AUTHORITY NOW CLAIMED OVER NETWORK CONTRACTS. 
THIS SECTION IS A VERBATIM REENACTMENT OF SEC. 4(H) OF THE RADIO ACT OF
1927, AND HAD ITS ORIGIN IN A SENATE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL WHICH BECAME
THAT ACT.  IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM IT PROVIDED THAT THE COMMISSION, FROM
TIME TO TIME, AS PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY REQUIRED,
SHOULD: 

"WHEN STATIONS ARE CONNECTED BY WIRE FOR CHAIN BROADCASTING, (THE
COMMISSION SHOULD) DETERMINE THE POWER EACH STATION SHALL USE AND THE
WAVE LENGTHS TO BE USED DURING THE TIME STATIONS ARE SO CONNECTED AND
SO OPERATED, AND MAKE ALL OTHER REGULATIONS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST
OF EQUITABLE RADIO SERVICE TO THE LISTENERS IN THE COMMUNITIES OR AREAS
AFFECTED BY CHAIN BROADCASTING." 

IT WAS EVIDENTLY THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION TO REMEDY A SITUATION
THAT WAS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BY SENATOR DILL (WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE
BILL IN THE SENATE) IN QUESTIONING A WITNESS AT THE HEARINGS OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE: 

"  ...  DURING THE PAST FEW MONTHS THERE HAS GROWN UP A SYSTEM OF
CHAIN BROADCASTING, EXTENDING OVER THE UNITED STATES A GREAT DEAL OF
THE TIME.  I SAY A GREAT DEAL OF THE TIME - MANY NIGHTS A MONTH - AND
THE STATIONS THAT ARE CONNECTED ARE OF SUCH WIDELY VARYING METER
LENGTHS THAT THE ORDINARY RADIO SET THAT REACHES OUT ANY DISTANCE IS
UNABLE TO GET ANYTHING BUT THAT ONE PROGRAM, AND SO, IN EFFECT, THAT
ONE PROGRAM MONOPOLIZES THE AIR.  I REALIZE IT IS SOMEWHAT OF A
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING PROBLEM, BUT IT HAS SEEMED TO MANY PEOPLE, AT
LEAST MANY WHO HAVE WRITTEN TO ME, THAT WHEN STATIONS ARE CARRYING ON
CHAIN PROGRAMS THAT THEY MIGHT BE LIMITED TO THE USE OF WAVE LENGTHS
ADJOINING OR NEAR ENOUGH TO ONE ANOTHER THAT THEY WOULD NOT COVER THE
ENTIRE DIAL.  I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER LEGISLATION OUGHT TO RESTRICT THAT
OR WHETHER IT HAD BETTER BE DONE BY REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT.  I
WANT TO GET YOUR OPINION AS TO THE ADVISABILITY IN SOME WAY PROTECTING
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HEAR SOME OTHER PROGRAM THAN THE ONE BEING
BROADCASTED BY CHAIN BROADCAST."  (REPORT OF HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 1 AND S. 1754, 69TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. (1926) P. 123.) 

IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE SAME PROGRAM WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY BROADCAST BY
CHAIN STATIONS, THE WEAKER INDEPENDENT STATIONS WERE DROWNED OUT
BECAUSE OF THE HIGH POWER OF THE CHAIN STATIONS.  WITH THE RECEIVING
SETS THEN COMMONLY IN USE, LISTENERS WERE UNABLE TO GET ANY PROGRAM
EXCEPT THE CHAIN PROGRAM.  IT WAS ESSENTIALLY AN INTERFERENCE PROBLEM. 
IN ADDITION TO DETERMINING POWER AND WAVE LENGTH FOR CHAIN STATIONS, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION, UNDER THE AMENDMENT, TO
MAKE OTHER REGULATIONS NECESSARY FOR "EQUITABLE RADIO SERVICE TO THE
LISTENERS IN THE COMMUNITIES OR AREAS AFFECTED BY CHAIN BROADCASTING." 
THE LAST CLAUSE SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED OUT OF CONTEXT AND WITHOUT
RELATION TO THE PROBLEM AT WHICH THE AMENDMENT WAS AIMED.  IT IS
REASONABLY CONSTRUED AS SIMPLY AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO REMEDY
OTHER TECHNICAL PROBLEMS OF INTERFERENCE INVOLVED IN CHAIN BROADCASTING
IN ADDITION TO POWER AND WAVE LENGTH BY REQUIRING SPECIAL TYPES OF
EQUIPMENT, CONTROLLING LOCATIONS, ETC.  THE STATEMENT IN THE SENATE
COMMITTEE REPORT THAT THIS PROVISION GAVE THE COMMISSION "COMPLETE
AUTHORITY  ...  TO CONTROL CHAIN BROADCASTING" (S. REP. NO. 772, 69TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3) MUST BE TAKEN AS MEANING THAT THE PROVISION
GAVE COMPLETE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM WHICH THE
SENATE INTENDED TO MEET, A PROBLEM OF TECHNICAL INTERFERENCE. 

WHILE THE FORM OF THE AMENDMENT WAS SIMPLIFIED IN THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION "TO MAKE SPECIAL
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RADIO STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN
BROADCASTING," BOTH HOUSES WERE ASSURED IN THE REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE THAT "THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED IN THIS PARAGRAPH IS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THE
COMMISSION BY  ...  THE SENATE AMENDMENT."  (SEN. DOC. NO. 200, 69TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 17; H. REP. NO. 1886, 69TH CONG., 2D SESS., P.
17).  THIS IS FURTHER BORNE OUT BY A STATEMENT OF SENATOR DILL IN
DISCUSSING THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE SENATE FLOOR: 

"WHAT IS HAPPENING TO-DAY IS THAT THE NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO.,
WHICH IS A PART OF THE GREAT RADIO TRUST, TO SAY THE LEAST, IF NOT A
MONOPOLY, IS HOOKING UP STATIONS IN EVERY COMMUNITY ON THEIR VARIOUS
WAVE LENGTHS WITH HIGH POWERED STATIONS AND SENDING ONE PROGRAM OUT,
AND THEY ARE FORCING THE LITTLE STATIONS OFF THE BOARD SO THAT THE
PEOPLE CANNOT HEAR ANYTHING EXCEPT THE ONE PROGRAM. 

"THERE IS NO POWER TO-DAY IN THE HANDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
TO STOP THAT PRACTICE.  THE RADIO COMMISSION WILL HAVE THE POWER TO
REGULATE AND PREVENT IT AND GIVE THE INDEPENDENTS A CHANCE."  (68 CONG.
REC. 3031.) 

COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS.  THIS
SUBDIVISION IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT GRANT OF POWER, BUT ONLY AN
AUTHORIZATION TO: "MAKE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AND PRESCRIBE SUCH
RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LAW, AS MAY BE
NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  THERE IS NO
PROVISION IN THE ACT FOR THE CONTROL OF NETWORK CONTRACTUAL
ARRANGEMENTS BY THE COMMISSION, AND CONSEQUENTLY SEC. 303(R) IS OF NO
CONSEQUENCE HERE. 

TO THE EXTENT THAT EXISTING NETWORK PRACTICES MAY HAVE RUN COUNTER TO
THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, THE CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THE MEANS OF
DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM.  THE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE LAWS HAS BEEN
COMMITTED TO THE COURTS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.  IN
ADDITION TO THE USUAL PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE FOR THEIR
VIOLATION, HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 311 TO REFUSE A STATION LICENSE TO ANY PERSON "FINALLY ADJUDGED
GUILTY BY A FEDERAL COURT" OF ATTEMPTING UNLAWFULLY TO MONOPOLIZE RADIO
COMMUNICATION.  ANYONE UNDER THE CONTROL OF SUCH A PERSON MAY ALSO BE
REFUSED A LICENSE.  AND WHENEVER A COURT HAS ORDERED THE REVOCATION OF
AN EXISTING LICENSE, AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN SEC. 313, A NEW LICENSE
MAY NOT BE GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE GUILTY PARTY OR TO ANY
PERSON UNDER HIS CONTROL.  IN MY OPINION THESE PROVISIONS (SECS. 311
AND 313) CLEARLY DO NOT AND WERE NOT INTENDED TO CONFER INDEPENDENT
AUTHORITY ON THE COMMISSION TO SUPERVISE NETWORK CONTRACTS OR TO
ENFORCE COMPETITION BETWEEN RADIO NETWORKS BY WITHHOLDING LICENSES FROM
STATIONS, AND DO NOT JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION IN REFUSING A LICENSE TO AN
APPLICANT OTHERWISE QUALIFIED, BECAUSE OF BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS THAT
MAY CONSTITUTE AN UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF TRADE, WHEN THE APPLICANT HAS
NOT BEEN FINALLY ADJUDGED GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, AND
IS NOT CONTROLLED BY ONE SO ADJUDGED. 

THE CONDITIONS DISCLOSED BY THE COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION, IF THEY
REQUIRE CORRECTION, SHOULD BE MET, NOT BY THE INVENTION OF AUTHORITY
WHERE NONE IS AVAILABLE OR BY DIVERTING EXISTING POWERS OUT OF THEIR
TRUE CHANNELS AND USING THEM FOR PURPOSES TO WHICH THEY WERE NOT
ADDRESSED, BUT BY INVOKING THE AID OF THE CONGRESS OR THE SERVICE OF
AGENCIES THAT HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTI
TRUST LAWS.  IN OTHER FIELDS OF REGULATION THE CONGRESS HAS MADE CLEAR
ITS INTENTIONS.  IT HAS NOT LEFT TO MERE INFERENCE AND GUESS-WORK THE
EXISTENCE OF AUTHORITY TO ORDER BOARD CHANGES AND REFORMS IN THE
NATIONAL ECONOMY OR THE STRUCTURE OF BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS IN THE
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT, 49 STAT. 803, THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933, 48 STAT. 74, THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, 49 STAT. 838, AND OTHER
MEASURES OF SIMILAR CHARACTER.  INDEED THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT ITSELF
CONTAINS COGENT INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO GRANT
POWER OVER NETWORK CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.  IN SEC.
215(C) OF TITLE II, DEALING WITH COMMON CARRIERS BY WIRE AND RADIO,
CONGRESS PROVIDED: 

"THE COMMISSION SHALL EXAMINE ALL CONTRACTS OF COMMON CARRIERS
SUBJECT TO THIS ACT WHICH PREVENT THE OTHER PARTY THERETO FROM DEALING
WITH ANOTHER COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, AND SHALL REPORT ITS
FINDINGS TO CONGRESS, TOGETHER WITH ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WHETHER
ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION ON THIS SUBJECT IS DESIRABLE." 

CONGRESS HAD NO DIFFICULTY HERE IN EXPRESSING THE POSSIBLE
DESIRABILITY OF REGULATING A TYPE OF CONTRACT ROUGHLY SIMILAR TO THE
ONES WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED, AND IN RESERVING TO ITSELF THE
ULTIMATE DECISION UPON THE MATTERS OF POLICY INVOLVED.  INSOFAR AS THE
CONGRESS DEEMED IT NECESSARY IN THIS LEGISLATION TO SAFEGUARD RADIO
BROADCASTING AGAINST ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE OFFENSIVE TO THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS OR MONOPOLISTIC IN NATURE, IT MADE SPECIFIC PROVISION IN SECS. 311
AND 313.  IF THE EXISTING NETWORK CONTRACTS ARE DEEMED OBJECTIONABLE
BECAUSE OF MONOPOLISTIC OR OTHER FEATURES, AND NO REMEDY IS PRESENTLY
AVAILABLE UNDER THESE PROVISIONS, THE PROPER COURSE IS TO SEEK
AMENDATORY LEGISLATION FROM THE CONGRESS, NOT TO FABRICATE AUTHORITY BY
INGENIOUS REASONING BASED UPON PROVISIONS THAT HAVE NO TRUE RELATION TO
THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM. 

FN1  THE REGULATIONS AS FIRST PROPOSED WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH DENIAL
OF APPLICATIONS FOR INITIAL OR RENEWAL STATION LICENSES BUT PROVIDED
INSTEAD THAT:  "NO LICENSEE OF A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION SHALL ENTER
INTO ANY CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION," WHICH CONTAINED ANY OF THE DISAPPROVED PROVISIONS. 
AFTER A SHORT TIME, HOWEVER, THE REGULATIONS WERE CAST IN THEIR PRESENT
FORM, MAKING STATION LICENSING DEPEND UPON CONFORMITY WITH THE
REGULATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AGREES WITH THESE VIEWS. 
..END :

















BARRINGER & CO. V. U.S., 319 U.S. 1 


NO. 520.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 49 F.SUPP. 
637, AFFIRMED. 


DISCRIMINATION" THAT ANY CARRIER, "DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ANY
SPECIAL RATE, REBATE, DRAWBACK, OR OTHER DEVICE," CHARGE ANY PERSON
MORE OR LESS THAN ANOTHER FOR "A LIKE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE IN
THE TRANSPORTATION OF A LIKE KIND OF TRAFFIC UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS."  TARIFFS HERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION, APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
ELIMINATE THE LOADING CHARGE ON COTTON MOVING FROM POINTS IN OKLAHOMA
TO CERTAIN PORTS ON THE GULF OF MEXICO, WHILE RETAINING IT ON COTTON
MOVING TO THE SOUTHEAST.  HELD: 

1.  LOADING IS A TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO WHICH SEC. 2 APPLIES.  P.
6. 

2.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LOADING CHARGE
RESULTED IN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION, THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO
CONSIDER RELEVANT DIFFERENCES IN THE "CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS"
RELATING TO THE THROUGH LINE-HAUL RATES.  P. 7. 

3.  CONSIDERING THE TRUCK COMPETITION TO THE GULF PORTS AND THE
RELATIVE RATE STRUCTURES, THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE
REDUCTION IN THE LINE-HAUL COST TO THE SHIPPER, EFFECTED BY REMISSION
OF THE LOADING CHARGE, DID NOT RESULT IN AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION WAS
NOT LACKING IN RATIONAL BASIS.  P. 10. 

4.  THAT THE TOTAL THROUGH COST OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, OF
WHICH THE LOADING CHARGE IS A COMPONENT, MAY BE OPEN TO ATTACK IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 13(1) BRINGING THE THROUGH RATE INTO QUESTION
DOES NOT REQUIRE A DETERMINATION THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LOADING
CHARGE CONSTITUTES AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.  P. 10. 

5.  SECTION 6(1) DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE COMMISSION FROM CONSIDERING
THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPOSITION OR ELIMINATION OF A SEPARATELY STATED
LOADING CHARGE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE THROUGH RATE. 
P. 12. 

6.  THE FACTS WHICH JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT THE
ELIMINATION OF THE LOADING CHARGE DOES NOT RESULT IN AN UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION, ALSO JUSTIFY ITS FINDING THAT THE ELIMINATION OF THAT
CHARGE DOES NOT CREATE AN UNDUE PREFERENCE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3(1). 
P. 13. 

7.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE OF RECORD.  P. 14. 

L.T. BARRINGER & CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN AND SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BY APPELLANT, A SHIPPER OF COTTON OVER THE LINES OF
APPELLEE RAILROADS, BROUGHT UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(28), TO ENJOIN AND
SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, AND THE CASE COMES HERE
ON DIRECT APPEAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE COMMISSION ERRED IN REFUSING TO SET ASIDE TARIFFS ON
COTTON, FILED BY THE FIVE APPELLEE RAILROADS, AS UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATORY AND UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO SHIPPERS IN VIOLATION OF SECS.
2 AND 3(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 24 STAT. 379, 380; 49 U.S.C.
SECS. 2, 3(1). 

FROM THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION, ON WHICH ITS ORDER WAS BASED, 248
I.C.C. 643, THE FOLLOWING FACTS APPEAR.  APPELLEES CARRY COTTON FROM
POINTS IN OKLAHOMA TO PORTS ON THE GULF OF MEXICO.  THEIR LINES ALSO
FORM RELATIVELY SHORT PARTS OF THE THROUGH ROUTES OVER WHICH COTTON
MOVES FROM OKLAHOMA TO POINTS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. 
DURING RECENT YEARS CARRIERS OF COTTON TO THE GULF PORTS HAVE BEEN
FACED WITH SERIOUS TRUCK COMPETITION.  TO MEET IT, SUCCESSIVE RATE
REDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE.  UNTIL ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO THE ONLY RATES
AVAILABLE ON COTTON WERE LESS-THAN-CARLOAD RATES, SINCE INDIVIDUAL
SHIPMENTS OF COTTON ARE SELDOM, IF EVER, IN CARLOAD QUANTITIES.  AS IS
CUSTOMARY ON LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENTS, THE COTTON WAS LOADED AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE CARRIER.  FN1 

DURING 1932 AND 1933 THE CARRIERS, IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE RATES AND
ACHIEVE OPERATING ECONOMIES, PUT IN EFFECT SO-CALLED CARLOAD RATES FOR
COTTON WHICH THE COMMISSION, AFTER INVESTIGATION, APPROVED IN COTTON
FROM AND TO POINTS IN SOUTHWEST AND MEMPHIS, 208 I.C.C. 677.  UNDER
THESE RATES THE COTTON WAS TYPICALLY COLLECTED IN LESS-THAN-CARLOAD
QUANTITIES AT THE GINNING POINTS, CARRIED BY RAIL FOR SHORT DISTANCES
TO COMPRESSORS, AND AFTER COMPRESSION ASSEMBLED IN CARLOAD QUANTITIES
FOR SHIPMENT TO DESTINATION.  THE SHIPPER PAID THE LOCAL, LESS-THAN
CARLOAD RATE TO THE COMPRESS POINT, AND THE LOCAL RATE FROM COMPRESS
POINT TO DESTINATION, BUT ON THE COTTON'S ARRIVAL AT DESTINATION THE
CARRIER REFUNDED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FREIGHT PAID AND THE
THROUGH, CARLOAD, RATE FROM POINT OF ORIGIN TO DESTINATION.  ON THESE
RATES LOADING WAS AT THE SHIPPER'S EXPENSE; IF THE CARRIER PERFORMED
THE LOADING SERVICE A CHARGE OF 5 1/2 CENTS A SQUARE BALE WAS MADE,
WHICH WAS PAID BY A DEDUCTION FROM THE REFUND ALLOWED BY THE CARRIER ON
THE TRANSIT SETTLEMENT JUST REFERRED TO.  THIS LOADING CHARGE WAS
STATED SEPARATELY IN APPELLEES' TARIFFS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION,
PURSUANT TO SEC. 6(1). 

DESPITE THE REDUCTION IN COST TO SHIPPERS PRODUCED BY THE ADOPTION OF
THESE SCHEDULES, TRUCK COMPETITION CONTINUED TO BE A SERIOUS PROBLEM. 
IN 1939 CARRIERS OF COTTON FROM TEXAS POINTS EFFECTED A FURTHER RATE
REDUCTION BY ELIMINATING THE LOADING CHARGE.  THE TARIFFS HERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION, FILED BY APPELLEES TO BE EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 11, 1941,
SIMILARLY ELIMINATE THE LOADING CHARGE FOR COTTON MOVING FROM COMPRESS
POINTS IN OKLAHOMA TO CERTAIN PORTS ON THE GULF OF MEXICO,  FN2  WHILE
RETAINING IT ON COTTON MOVING TO THE SOUTHEAST. 

APPELLANT BUYS COTTON IN OKLAHOMA FOR RESALE TO MILLS IN THE
SOUTHEAST.  UNDER THE PROPOSED TARIFFS IT MUST CONTINUE TO PAY THE
LOADING CHARGE ON COTTON WHICH IT SHIPS TO THE SOUTHEAST, WHILE
MERCHANTS WHO SHIP TO THE GULF PORTS, AND WHO COMPETE WITH APPELLANT IN
THE PURCHASE OF COTTON, ARE RELIEVED OF THAT CHARGE.  CONTENDING THAT
THIS SITUATION WOULD CREATE AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION UNDER SEC. 2, AND
WOULD BE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL UNDER SEC. 3(1), APPELLANT FILED A PETITION
WITH THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 15(7) TO SUSPEND THE PROPOSED TARIFFS. 

DIVISION 3 OF THE COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH APPELLANT
PARTICIPATED, ISSUED ITS REPORT AND ORDER, REFUSING TO SET ASIDE THE
PROPOSED RATES.  IT FOUND THAT TRUCK COMPETITION HAD CONTINUED TO
INCREASE DURING 1940, SO AS TO JUSTIFY APPROPRIATE EFFORTS BY THE
CARRIERS TO MEET SUCH COMPETITION; FN3  THAT THE LOADING CHARGE CAUSED
ANNOYANCE TO SHIPPERS; THAT THE COST OF PERFORMING THE LOADING SERVICE
WAS IN MOST CASES NOMINAL AND ITS PERFORMANCE BY THE CARRIER WOULD
RESULT IN LOADING TO MAXIMUM CAPACITY, SO THAT ELIMINATION OF THE
CHARGE WAS A SUITABLE METHOD OF ACHIEVING A NEEDED REDUCTION IN RATES
WHICH WERE ALREADY LOW; THAT CARRIERS IN STATES FARTHER EAST OPPOSED
THE EXTENSION INTO THEIR TERRITORY OF THE PRACTICE OF FREE LOADING, AND
THE ELIMINATION BY APPELLEES OF THE LOADING CHARGE ON COTTON MOVING
INTO THAT TERRITORY; THAT THE "RATES TO THE SOUTHEAST ARE ALREADY LOWER
RELATIVELY THAN THEY ARE TO THE TEXAS PORTS"; AND THAT "THERE IS NO
TRUCKING OF COTTON FROM OKLAHOMA  ...  TO THE SOUTHEAST."  ACCORDINGLY
IT FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF THE LOADING CHARGE "IS JUST
AND REASONABLE AND NOT SHOWN TO BE OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL."  APPELLANT'S
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION WAS DENIED BY THE FULL COMMISSION, AND THE
PROPOSED RATES, WHICH HAD BEEN SUSPENDED WHILE UNDER CONSIDERATION BY
THE COMMISSION, BECAME EFFECTIVE. 

APPELLANT'S PRINCIPAL CONTENTION IS THAT, IN CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY
OF THE PROPOSED TARIFFS UNDER SEC. 2, THE COMMISSION COULD LOOK ONLY AT
THE CHARGE FOR THE LOADING SERVICE AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CONSIDER
CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE THROUGH LINE-HAUL RATES.  SECTION 2 OF THE
ACT DECLARES IT TO BE AN "UNJUST" AND PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION FOR ANY
CARRIER "DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ANY SPECIAL RATE, REBATE, DRAWBACK,
OR OTHER DEVICE," TO CHARGE ONE PERSON MORE OR LESS THAN ANOTHER FOR "A
LIKE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF A LIKE KIND
OF TRAFFIC UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS." 
IT IS UNDOUBTED THAT THE LOADING SERVICE HERE INVOLVED IS A
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO WHICH SEC. 2 APPLIES.  SEC. 1(3)(A);
MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501, 511. 

SEE SHARFMAN, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, VOL. III-B, PP. 360-61. 
WHERE THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ARE RENDERED UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR CONDITIONS THE SECTION HAS BEEN THOUGHT TO PROHIBIT ANY
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN SHIPPERS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR IDENTITY,
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 225 U.S.
326, 342; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO.,
220 U.S. 235, 252, OR ON THE BASIS OF COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS WHICH MAY
INDUCE A CARRIER TO OFFER A REDUCTION IN RATE TO ONE SHIPPER WHILE
DENYING IT TO ANOTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED.  WIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 167
U.S. 512, 516-18; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. ALABAMA MIDLAND RY.
CO., 168 U.S. 144, 166.  COMPARE SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 254 U.S. 57, 62.  BUT DIFFERENCES IN RATES AS BETWEEN SHIPPERS
ARE PROHIBITED ONLY WHERE THE "CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS" ATTENDING
THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ARE "SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR."  WHETHER THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY DISSIMILAR TO JUSTIFY A
DIFFERENCE IN RATES, OR WHETHER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DIFFERENCE IN
RATES CONSTITUTES AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE BASED PRIMARILY ON
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE IDENTITY OR COMPETITIVE POSITION OF THE
PARTICULAR SHIPPER RATHER THAN TO CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, IS A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION.  HENCE ITS CONCLUSION THAT IN VIEW OF ALL THE RELEVANT
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES A RATE OR PRACTICE EITHER IS OR IS NOT UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATORY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE
DISTURBED HERE UNLESS WE CAN SAY THAT ITS FINDING IS UNSUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE OR WITHOUT RATIONAL BASIS, OR RESTS ON AN ERRONEOUS
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 62; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. DELAWARE, L. &
W.R. CO., SUPRA, 251-2; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
282 U.S. 740, 758; MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
508; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507, 524. 

IN CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS ATTENDING THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, THE COMMISSION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO IGNORE THE
FACT THAT THE LOADING CHARGES, ALTHOUGH SEPARATELY STATED IN THE
TARIFFS, ARE IN EACH CASE A COMPONENT PART OF THE TOTAL LINE-HAUL COST
TO THE SHIPPER AND INSEPARABLE FROM IT.  ALL THE CARRIER LOADING COSTS
NOT COMPENSATED FOR BY THE LOADING CHARGES, IF ANY, TO SHIPPERS, ARE
NECESSARILY ABSORBED BY THE CARRIER OUT OF THE LINE-HAUL CHARGES WHICH
SHIPPERS PAY.  THE LOADING CHARGE IS NOT PAID UNTIL THE LINE HAUL IS
COMPLETED AND THE ULTIMATE DESTINATION KNOWN, AND THEN ONLY BY A
REDUCTION OF THE REFUND PAYABLE BY THE CARRIER ON THE TRANSIT
SETTLEMENT PRESCRIBED BY THE TARIFFS.  AND WHERE COTTON MOVES ON LESS
THAN-CARLOAD RATES, THE COST OF LOADING IS ABSORBED BY THE CARRIER,
ALTHOUGH THE LOADING SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE CARRIER ARE THE SAME. 
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE NET EFFECT, ON THE SHIPPER'S LINE-HAUL COST,
OF THE REMISSION BY THE TARIFF OF ANY PART OF THE LOADING CHARGE IS
PRECISELY THE SAME AS THOUGH THE LIKE REDUCTION WERE MADE IN THE LINE
HAUL TARIFF. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED BY OUR DECISIONS THAT DIFFERENCES IN
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS MAY JUSTIFY A RELATIVELY LOWER LINE-HAUL CHARGE
OVER ONE LINE THAN ANOTHER, AND THAT IT IS FOR THE COMMISSION, NOT THE
COURTS, TO SAY WHETHER THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT A
DIFFERENCE IN RATES ESTABLISHED TO MEET THOSE CONDITIONS IS NOT AN
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION OR OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 627, 636-7, AND CASES CITED; MANUFACTURERS
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 457, 481; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO
HEIGHTS TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344, 352-53; BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED
STATES, 314 U.S. 534, 546.  IT FOLLOWS THAT COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS
WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY AND RENDER NON-DISCRIMINATORY A REDUCTION IN THE
LINE-HAUL TARIFF ON A PARTICULAR CLASS OF TRAFFIC, WOULD LIKEWISE
JUSTIFY THE REDUCTION AND RENDER IT NON-DISCRIMINATORY IF MADE IN THE
LOADING CHARGE INSTEAD.  WHETHER MADE IN THE ONE CHARGE OR THE OTHER,
IT ENTERS INTO THE TOTAL COST OF THE LINE HAUL TO THE SHIPPER,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LOADING CHARGE BE SEPARATELY STATED OR
INCLUDED IN THE LINE-HAUL TARIFF.  SINCE THE ONLY EFFECT ON THE SHIPPER
IS IN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LINE-HAUL CHARGE AND HE IS HARMED NO MORE
BY ONE METHOD OF EFFECTING THAT DIFFERENCE THAN THE OTHER, ANY
CONDITIONS ATTENDING THE LINE HAUL WHICH JUSTIFY THE ONE AS NON
DISCRIMINATORY EQUALLY JUSTIFY THE OTHER. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER THE THROUGH LINE
HAUL RATE IN DETERMINING WHETHER A RELATED ACCESSORIAL CHARGE IS JUST
AND REASONABLE UNDER SEC. 1(5)(A).  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 199, 219-220.  WE FIND NOTHING IN SEC. 2 OR IN
OUR DECISIONS THAT PRECLUDES THE COMMISSION FROM SIMILARLY LOOKING AT
THE WHOLE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED TO DIFFERENT SHIPPERS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE CONDITIONS ARE SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY A DIFFERENCE IN CHARGES
MADE FOR ONE COMPONENT PART OF THAT WHOLE.  NOR HAS THE COMMISSION
FOUND SUCH A LIMITATION IN THE STATUTE.  ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO. V.
ALTON R. CO., 246 I.C.C. 421, 428, 430; MINNEAPOLIS TRAFFIC ASSN. V.
CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 241 I.C.C. 207, 220, 224; RAILROAD COMM'N OF
WISCONSIN V. ANN ARBOR R. CO., 177 I.C.C. 588, 592; STATE DOCKS
COMMISSION V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 167 I.C.C. 112, 115-116;
TIDE WATER OIL CO. V. DIRECTOR GENERAL, 62 I.C.C. 226, 227; RICHMOND
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY., 44 I.C.C. 455, 466.  FN4
OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 2 WHICH WOULD
PRECLUDE THE COMMISSION FROM SETTING ASIDE A DIFFERENCE IN A SEPARATELY
STATED SERVICE CHARGE WHICH IN FACT OPERATES TO DISCRIMINATE UNJUSTLY
AMONG SHIPPERS.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY SUSTAINED A FINDING OF THE
COMMISSION THAT SUCH A DIFFERENCE, BASED ON A DIFFERENCE IN IDENTITY OF
SHIPPERS OR THE OWNERSHIP OF THE GOODS SHIPPED, OR ON OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES IRRELEVANT TO THE CARRIER SERVICE RENDERED, IS AN UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION TO SHIPPERS.  WIGHT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., SUPRA; INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., SUPRA; SEABOARD AIR
LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA; MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE CASES AND THIS IS THAT HERE THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE SERVICE CHARGE IS MADE BETWEEN THROUGH SHIPPERS OVER
DIFFERENT ROUTES, AND IS BASED ON RELEVANT DIFFERENCES IN THE
"CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS" OF THE TOTAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
RENDERED BY THE CARRIERS.  IT WAS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE
COMMISSION TO FIND THAT THIS INVOLVED NO UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.    THIS
IS NOT TO SAY THAT IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE DIFFERENCES IN TOTAL
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES RENDERED ARE SUCH AS WOULD JUSTIFY A GREATER
CHARGE TO ONE THAN TO ANOTHER SHIPPER, THE DIFFERENCE IN CHARGE CAN AT
THE CARRIER'S OPTION BE MADE IN THE CHARGE FOR AN ACCESSORIAL SERVICE
SUCH AS THE LOADING SERVICE HERE INVOLVED.  BUT THE DECISION WHETHER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS ARE SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY A DIFFERENCE IN
THE ACCESSORIAL CHARGE, OR RATHER TO REQUIRE THAT ANY ADJUSTMENT BE
MADE IN THE LINE-HAUL CHARGE, IS ONE WHICH THE STATUTE HAS LEFT TO THE
DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED WITH THE
POWER AND DUTY OF GUARDING AGAINST THE PROHIBITED FAVORITISM.  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE CANNOT SET ASIDE, AS LACKING IN RATIONAL
BASIS, THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT THE REDUCTION IN THE LINE
HAUL COST TO THE SHIPPER EFFECTED BY REMISSION OF THE LOADING CHARGE
DID NOT RESULT IN AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO THIS DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION TO SAY THAT
THE RATES HERE APPROVED AS NON-DISCRIMINATORY MAY BE OPEN TO ATTACK IN
A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 13(1) TO ADJUST THE LINE-HAUL RATES IN WHICH
ALL CONNECTING CARRIERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE TARIFF ARE REQUIRED TO
BE PARTIES BY RULE II (C) OF THE COMMISSION'S 1936 RULES OF PRACTICE,
OR IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 15(3) TO ESTABLISH DIVISIONS OF THE
THROUGH RATES AMONG THE CONNECTING CARRIERS, "A MATTER WHICH IN NO WAY
CONCERNS THE SHIPPER," LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. SLOSS-SHEFFIELD
CO., 269 U.S. 217, 234.  HERE THE DIFFERENCE IN LOADING CHARGE IS
ASSAILED BY A SHIPPER ONLY, AND ON THE GROUNDS ALONE THAT IT IS
UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY OR UNDULY PREFERENTIAL.  THE DISCRIMINATION OR
PREFERENCE, IF ANY, IS CAUSED BY THE CARRIERS WHO PERFORM IN PART THE
LINE-HAUL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  THE COMMISSION HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO
PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE LINE-HAUL RATES, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR
THAT APPELLANT HAS ASKED IT TO DO SO.  IT HAS PASSED ONLY ON THE
QUESTION OF DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE RESULTING FROM THE REMISSION
OF THE LOADING CHARGE.  IN DOING SO IT HAS, AS SEC. 2 CONTEMPLATES,
LOOKED AT ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE
RESPECTIVE LINE-HAUL CONDITIONS, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE
LOADING SERVICE AND LINE HAULS ARE MADE UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTICULAR
DISCRIMINATION CHARGED.  THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT THEY ARE NOT AND
THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN SERVICE CHARGE IS NOT UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY AS
TO SHIPPERS. 

STATUTORY SCHEME, TO REVERSE THAT FINDING AND TO DECLARE THAT THE
DIFFERENCE IN SERVICE CHARGE CONSTITUTES AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION
MERELY BECAUSE THE TOTAL THROUGH COST, OF WHICH THAT CHARGE IS A
COMPONENT, MAY BE OPEN TO ATTACK IN A PROCEEDING BRINGING THE THROUGH
RATE INTO QUESTION.  SEE MANUFACTURERS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
479, 481.  BUT UNLESS WE ARE TO SAY THAT SEC. 2 PRECLUDES THE
COMMISSION FROM CONSIDERING FACTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF
DISCRIMINATION WHICH IT MUST DECIDE, WE PERCEIVE NO OTHER GROUND UPON
WHICH THEIR CONSIDERATION CAN BE DEEMED FORBIDDEN.  FN5 IN THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING THE ONLY QUESTION IN ISSUE IS WHETHER THE PROPOSED
ELIMINATION OF THE LOADING CHARGE IS UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY OR UNDULY
PREJUDICIAL; NOTHING IN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OR ITS RULES OF
PROCEDURE FORECLOSES ATTACK ON THE LINE-HAUL RATES IN AN APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDING ON ANY GROUND WHICH THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES. 

NOR DO WE FIND ANYTHING IN SEC. 6(1) WHICH PRECLUDES THE COMMISSION
FROM LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE THROUGH RATE.  THAT SECTION MERELY REQUIRES
CARRIERS TO FILE WITH THE COMMISSION ALL RATES AND CHARGES ESTABLISHED
BY THEM, AND TO "STATE SEPARATELY ALL TERMINAL CHARGES, STORAGE
CHARGES, ICING CHARGES, AND ALL OTHER CHARGES WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY
REQUIRE, ALL PRIVILEGES OR FACILITIES GRANTED OR ALLOWED  ... "
APPELLEES HAVE COMPLIED WITH ITS REQUIREMENT THAT THE LOADING CHARGE,
AND THE EXCEPTIONS TO IT CREATED BY THE PRESENT TARIFFS, BE SEPARATELY
POSTED.  WE HAVE NOT CONSTRUED SEC. 6(1), WHICH IS DESIGNED TO INSURE
PUBLICITY OF RATES, KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. ALBERS COMMISSION
CO., 223 U.S. 573, 596-7, AS PRECLUDING A CARRIER FROM PERFORMING AN
ACCESSORIAL SERVICE FREE OF CHARGE PROVIDED NO VIOLATION OF ANY OTHER
STICKNEY, 215 U.S. 98, 105.  NOR DOES IT PRECLUDE THE COMMISSION FROM
CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPOSITION OR ELIMINATION OF SUCH A
SEPARATELY-STATED CHARGE IN THE LIGHT OF ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE
THROUGH RATE.  COMPARE ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID OF SEC. 2 SUFFICES ALSO TO DISPOSE OF THE OBJECTION
BASED ON SEC. 3(1).  THAT SECTION MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO GIVE AN "UNDUE
OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE" TO, OR IMPOSE AN "UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE" ON, ANY "PERSON, COMPANY, FIRM,
CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, LOCALITY, PORT, PORT DISTRICT, GATEWAY,
TRANSIT POINT, REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR
DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC."  IT DIFFERS FROM SEC. 2 IN THAT IT MAY BE
AVAILED OF NOT ONLY BY SHIPPERS BUT BY ANY OTHER PERSON WHO HAS BEEN OR
MAY BE INJURED BY AN INEQUALITY OF RATES. 

BUT THE FACTS WHICH WE HOLD SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING THAT THE ELIMINATION OF THE LOADING CHARGE DOES NOT RESULT IN
AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION, ARE SUFFICIENT ALSO TO JUSTIFY ITS FINDING
THAT THE ELIMINATION OF THAT CHARGE DOES NOT CREATE AN UNDUE
PREFERENCE.  COMPARE CLOVER SPLINT COAL CO. V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
R. CO., 197 I.C.C. 276, 277.  WE HAVE FREQUENTLY SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION, IN CASES ARISING UNDER SEC. 3, THAT
DIFFERENCES IN COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS JUSTIFY LOWER THROUGH RATES OVER
ONE ROUTE THAN OVER ANOTHER.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 162
U.S. 197, 205-217; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN
RY. CO., 209 U.S. 108, 119, 121-2. 

WE CANNOT SAY HERE, ANY MORE THAN UNDER SEC. 2, THAT THE COMMISSION
COULD NOT REGARD THE TRUCK COMPETITION TO THE SOUTHWEST, AND THE
RELATIVE RATE STRUCTURES, DISCLOSED IN ITS REPORT, AS SUFFICIENT TO
WARRANT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF THE THROUGH HAUL WHICH RESULTS
FROM THE ELIMINATION OF THE LOADING CHARGE BY THE PRESENT TARIFFS. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED APPELLANT'S ATTACK ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, AND CONCLUDE, AS DID THE
COURT BELOW, THAT THEY ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
OF RECORD.  COMPARE FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 12; MERCHANTS
WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 508.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1 LOADING IS CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED AT THE CARRIER'S EXPENSE ON LESS
THAN-CARLOAD FREIGHT, LOADING COTTON IN OKLAHOMA, 248 I.C.C. 643, 644,
AND AT THE SHIPPER'S EXPENSE ON CARLOAD FREIGHT, MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501, 506; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V.
KITTANING CO., 253 U.S. 319, 323; LOADING AND UNLOADING CARLOAD
FREIGHT, 101 I.C.C. 394, 396; MCCORMICK WAREHOUSE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA
R. CO., 148 I.C.C. 299, 300. 

FOR DISCUSSIONS OF LOADING PRACTICES ON COTTON IN THE SOUTHWEST, SEE
COTTON LOADING PROVISIONS IN THE SOUTHWEST, 220 I.C.C. 702; COTTON
LOADING AND UNLOADING IN THE SOUTHWEST, 229 I.C.C. 649. 

FN2  BEAUMONT, CORPUS CHRISTI, GALVESTON, HOUSTON, ORANGE, PORT
ARTHUR, AND TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, AND LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA. 

FN3  THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT THAT CARRIERS WERE FREE TO ADOPT FREE
LOADING OR NOT AS THEY CHOSE, AND IN THE SAME PROCEEDING APPROVED AN
APPLICATION OF CERTAIN TEXAS CARRIERS TO REESTABLISH THE LOADING
CHARGE. 

FN4  INSOFAR AS BIRKETT MILLS V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO  123 I.C.C.
63, 65, IS TO THE CONTRARY, IT APPEARS TO REST ON A MISINTERPRETATION
OF THE EFFECT OF OUR DECISION IN CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 257
U.S. 247, 255.  MOREOVER IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE WERE PRESENT IN
THAT CASE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING A DIFFERENCE IN THE CHARGES FOR
THE TOTAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES RENDERED. 

FN5  THE COMMISSION HAS NOT INTERPRETED ITS RULE II (C) AS PRECLUDING
IT FROM LOOKING AT RELEVANT CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO
THE THROUGH RATE ALTHOUGH ONLY PART OF THAT RATE IS BROUGHT IN ISSUE IN
THE PROCEEDING BEFORE IT AND OTHER CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN THE
THROUGH RATE HAVE NOT BEEN JOINED AS PARTIES.  WHERE THE ATTACK IS ON A
COMPONENT PART OF THE THROUGH HAUL COST ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN ITS
EFFECT ON THE THROUGH RATE STRUCTURE, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR JOINING
THE OTHER CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN THE THROUGH RATE. 

THE COMMISSION HAS FREQUENTLY HELD THAT A COMPLAINANT WHO ATTACKS A
COMPONENT PART OF A THROUGH RATE AS UNREASONABLE OR PREJUDICIAL BECAUSE
OF ITS EFFECT ON THE THROUGH RATE STRUCTURE, MUST JOIN ALL CARRIERS
PARTICIPATING IN THE THROUGH RATE.  STEVENS GROCER CO. V. ST. LOUIS,
I.M. & S. RY. CO., 42 I.C.C. 396, 397-8; CF. CAIRO ASSOCIATION OF
COMMERCE V. ANGELINA & N.R.R. CO., 160 I.C.C. 604, 608-9; SWITCHING AT
MINNEAPOLIS, 235 I.C.C. 405, 410.  BUT IT HAS ALSO HELD THAT A SHIPPER
WHO ATTACKS THE VALIDITY OF A COMPONENT PART OF A THROUGH RATE, VIEWED
SEPARATELY, AND DOES NOT PUT IN ISSUE THE VALIDITY OF THE THROUGH RATE
AS A WHOLE, MAY DO SO WITHOUT JOINING ANY CARRIER OTHER THAN THE ONE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PARTICULAR COMPONENT UNDER ATTACK.  CAIRO BOARD OF
TRADE V. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 46 I.C.C. 343, 350-51;
INDIANAPOLIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO.,
46 I.C.C. 546, 556; PHOENIX UTILITY CO. V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 173 I.C.C.
500, 501-2, AND CASES CITED; SEE ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 279 U.S. 768, 776-7.  IN THE LATTER TYPE OF CASE, WHERE THE
COMPLAINT PUTS IN ISSUE ONLY THE VALIDITY OF ONE PART OF A THROUGH
RATE, THE COMMISSION HAS HELD THAT THE CARRIER IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM
INTRODUCING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE RATE ATTACKED SHOULD NOT BE SET
ASIDE AS UNLAWFUL, IN VIEW OF ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE WHOLE THROUGH
RATE.  NEBRASKA-COLORADO GRAIN PRODUCERS ASSN. V. C., B. & Q.R. CO.,
243 I.C.C. 309, 311-13; FRASER-SMITH CO. V. GRAND TRUNK W. RY., 185
I.C.C. 57, 62; ATKINSON MILLING CO. V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P. RY.
CO., 235 I.C.C. 391, 393-4. 

NEBRASKA-COLORADO GRAIN PRODUCERS ASSN. V. C., B. & Q.R. CO., SUPRA,
INVOLVED AN ATTACK ON A COMPONENT PART OF A THROUGH RATE AS
UNREASONABLE AND PREFERENTIAL.  IN DENYING COMPLAINANT'S MOTIONS TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY THE CARRIER RELATING TO THE THROUGH RATE
STRUCTURE OF WHICH THE RATE UNDER ATTACK WAS A PART, THE COMMISSION
SAID:  "THE RIGHT TO ATTACK ONE FACTOR OF A COMBINATION THROUGH RATE
WITHOUT PUTTING THE THROUGH RATE IN ISSUE PRESENTS AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT QUESTION FROM THAT RAISED BY THESE MOTIONS.  WHILE WE HAVE
CONSISTENTLY HELD, IN THE CASES REFERRED TO BY COMPLAINANT AND
SUPPORTING INTERVENERS, THAT WHERE REPARATION IS NOT CLAIMED, ONE
FACTOR OF A COMBINATION THROUGH RATE MAY BE ASSAILED INDEPENDENTLY OF
THE OTHER FACTOR OR FACTORS OR EVEN OF THE THROUGH RATE ITSELF, THIS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE MAY NOT LOOK AT THE THROUGH SITUATION."  THE
COMMISSION FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT, "ALTHOUGH WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO
FIND SEPARATE COMPONENTS OF THROUGH RATES UNLAWFUL, WE MUST, IN DOING
SO, GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE EFFECT OF SUCH A FINDING ON THE
THROUGH RATES."  243 I.C.C. AT 312, 313.  SIMILARLY IN INVESTIGATION
AND SUSPENSION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 15(7), WHERE NECESSARILY THE ONLY
RATE IN ISSUE IS THAT PROPOSED AND UNDER SUSPENSION, THE COMMISSION HAS
DEEMED IT PROPER TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED RATE ON THE
THROUGH RATE STRUCTURE.  LIVESTOCK TO EASTERN DESTINATIONS, 156 I.C.C.
498, 509. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

SEC. 2 OF THE ACT MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER "BY ANY
SPECIAL RATE, REBATE, DRAWBACK, OR OTHER DEVICE" TO RECEIVE FROM ANY
PERSON "A GREATER OR LESS COMPENSATION FOR ANY SERVICE RENDERED" IN THE
"TRANSPORTATION" OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY THAN IT RECEIVES FROM ANY
OTHER PERSON FOR DOING FOR HIM "A LIKE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE IN
THE TRANSPORTATION OF A LIKE KIND OF TRAFFIC UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS."  LOADING IS CLEARLY A "SERVICE
RENDERED" IN THE "TRANSPORTATION" OF PROPERTY  FN1  WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 2.  SEE MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S.
501.  THE PRACTICE WHICH IS NOW HELD TO BE FREE FROM THE CHARGE OF
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION UNDER SEC. 2 IS THE PRACTICE OF LOADING COTTON
FREE FOR CERTAIN SHIPPERS WHO SHIP TO ONE DESTINATION AND EXACTING A
LOADING CHARGE FROM OTHERS WHO SHIP FROM THE SAME POINTS BUT TO A
DIFFERENT DESTINATION.  THAT IS TO SAY, FREE LOADING OF COTTON IS
ALLOWED SHIPPERS WHO SHIP COTTON FROM OKLAHOMA TO THE TEXAS GULF PORTS;
A LOADING CHARGE  FN2  IS REQUIRED FROM THOSE WHO SHIP COTTON FROM THE
IDENTICAL PLACES IN OKLAHOMA TO THE SOUTHEAST. 

THE COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT JUSTIFIED THAT DISCRIMINATION ON THE
FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS:  (1) THERE IS NO TRUCKING OF COTTON BETWEEN
POINTS IN OKLAHOMA AND THE SOUTHEAST, WHILE THERE IS CONSIDERABLE TRUCK
COMPETITION IN THE MOVEMENT OF COTTON FROM OKLAHOMA TO THE TEXAS GULF
PORTS; (2) CARLOAD RATES ON COTTON FROM OKLAHOMA TO THE SOUTHEAST ARE
ON A RELATIVELY LOWER BASIS THAN CARLOAD RATES FROM THE SAME ORIGINS TO
THE TEXAS GULF PORTS; AND (3) RATES FROM POINTS IN OKLAHOMA BOTH TO THE
SOUTHEAST AND TO THE TEXAS GULF PORTS ARE DEPRESSED.  THE COMMISSION IN
ITS REPORT MADE NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SEC. 2.  IT NOW SEEKS TO
SUSTAIN ITS ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDITIONS SURROUNDING THE
RESPECTIVE LINE-HAULS JUSTIFIED THE CARRIERS IN ABSORBING THE LOADING
CHARGE IN THE LINE-HAUL RATES FOR ONE SHIPPER BUT NOT FOR ANOTHER.  IT
ENDEAVORS TO AVOID THE ISSUE OF DISCRIMINATION BY CONTENDING THAT SEC.
2 AS A MATTER OF LAW HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT SITUATION.  ITS
ARGUMENT IS THAT SEC. 2 DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE LINE-HAULS ARE NOT
OVER THE SAME LINE, FOR THE SAME DISTANCE, AND TO THE SAME
DESTINATION.  THAT CONTENTION IS BASED ON WIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 167
U.S. 512, WHICH THE COMMISSION CLAIMS TO HAVE FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY. 
FN3    I DISAGREE WITH THAT CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 2.  THE WIGHT CASE
INVOLVED A REBATE BY ONE ROAD OF A PART OF THE RATE BETWEEN CINCINNATI
AND PITTSBURGH AND WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DRAYAGE AT THE PITTSBURGH
END.  THE COURT HELD THAT SEC. 2 WAS VIOLATED, SAYING THAT THAT SECTION
"PROHIBITS ANY REBATE OR OTHER DEVICE BY WHICH TWO SHIPPERS, SHIPPING
OVER THE SAME LINE, THE SAME DISTANCE, UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES OF
CARRIAGE, ARE COMPELLED TO PAY DIFFERENT PRICES THEREFOR."  167 U.S. P.
518.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT SEC. 2 APPLIES ONLY WHERE THOSE IDENTICAL
CONDITIONS EXIST.  THUS IN BIRKETT MILLS V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO.,
123 I.C.C. 63, THE COMMISSION HAD BEFORE IT A COMPLAINT OF MILLERS,
GRAIN DEALERS, AND ELEVATOR COMPANIES IN NEW YORK RESPECTING DIFFERENT
TRANSIT CHARGES ON EX-LAKE AND ALL-RAIL TRAFFIC, THE TRANSIT CHARGES
BEING SEPARATELY ESTABLISHED.  IT HELD THAT "AS THE DIFFERING TRANSIT
CHARGES ARE FOR THE SAME TRANSIT SERVICES AT THE SAME POINTS BY THE
SAME CARRIERS, UNJUST DISCRIMINATION UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE ACT
EXISTS."  P. 65.  NO REFERENCE WAS MADE TO LINE-HAUL CONDITIONS, THOUGH
THE RELATION BETWEEN TRANSIT PRIVILEGES AND RATE STRUCTURES IS
INTIMATE.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768;
BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534.  AND THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE BIRKETT MILLS CASE HAVE BEEN APPLIED BY THE COMMISSION TO OTHER
SITUATIONS WHERE THE HAUL WAS NOT OVER THE SAME LINE, FOR THE SAME
DISTANCE, AND TO THE SAME DESTINATION.  SUFFERN GRAIN CO. V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 22 I.C.C. 178, 183-184; WASHINGTON, D.C., STORE-DOOR
DELIVERY, 27 I.C.C. 347. 

IT WAS STATED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO., 145 U.S. 263, 284, THAT "ANY FACT WHICH PRODUCES AN INEQUALITY
OF CONDITION AND A CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIES AN INEQUALITY OF
CHARGE."  THOSE INEQUALITIES OF CONDITIONS MAY RELATE TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF CARRIAGE.  BUT THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT RATES FOR
CARRIAGE ARE WARRANTED DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT DIFFERENT RATES
FOR IDENTICAL ACCESSORIAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CARRIAGE ARE
JUSTIFIED.  THE COURT STATED IN MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, P. 511, THAT "SECTION 2 FORBIDS THE CARRIER TO
DISCRIMINATE BY WAY OF ALLOWANCES FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES GIVEN TO
ONE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DELIVERY OF FREIGHT AT HIS PLACE OF
BUSINESS, WHICH IT DENIES TO ANOTHER IN LIKE SITUATION."  AND SEE
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507, 524.  BY THE
SAME TOKEN, THERE IS A FORBIDDEN DISCRIMINATION, IN CASE OF AN
ACCESSORIAL SERVICE SUCH AS LOADING, WHERE DIFFERENT RATES ARE CHARGED
DIFFERENT SHIPPERS THOUGH THE PHYSICAL SERVICES RENDERED DURING THE
LOADING ARE ALIKE. 

BUT IT IS SAID IN REPLY THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN SEC. 2 WHICH LIMITS
THE PHRASE "UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS"
TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE PARTICULAR ACCESSORIAL SERVICE IN
QUESTION; AND THAT IT IS A FACTUAL ISSUE FOR THE INFORMED JUDGMENT OF
THE COMMISSION WHETHER LINE-HAUL CONDITIONS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF SEPARATE CHARGES FOR SERVICES SUCH AS
LOADING.  THE ANSWER, HOWEVER, SEEMS CLEAR.  THE SERVICE OF LOADING,
LIKE THE TRANSIT SERVICE IN THE BIRKETT MILLS CASE, IS IDENTICAL
WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS GOING SOUTH OR SOUTHEAST, WHETHER ITS JOURNEY
IS LONG OR SHORT, WHETHER IT IS TRANSPORTED BY ONE CARRIER OR ANOTHER. 
A CARRIER WHICH IS LOADING IN OKLAHOMA ONE CAR OF COTTON FOR A
SOUTHEASTERN MILL AND ANOTHER CAR OF COTTON FOR A GULF PORT IS
CERTAINLY PERFORMING A "LIKE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF A LIKE KIND OF TRAFFIC UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS."  A CARRIER WHICH IS LOADING TWO CARS AT
THE SAME TIME, ON THE SAME SIDING, WITH THE SAME COMMODITY IS INDEED
PERFORMING THE SAME SERVICE UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CONDITIONS.  TO CHARGE THE FIRST SHIPPER FOR LOADING HIS CAR AND TO
LOAD THE OTHER ONE FREE WOULD BE TO IMPAIR THE RULE OF EQUALITY WHICH
SEC. 2 WAS DESIGNED TO INAUGURATE.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 220 U.S. 235; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 740, 749-750.  THE RESULT IN THE PRESENT CASE
IS A GROSS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SHIPPERS TO THE SOUTHEAST.  FN4 

THERE MAY BE CASES OF SPECIAL CHARGES FOR SPECIAL SERVICES WHERE THE
VALIDITY OF THE RATE UNDER SEC. 2 IS DEPENDENT ON WHETHER THE LINE-HAUL
CONDITIONS ARE THE SAME.  FN5  YET SEC. 2, THOUGH PRIMARILY RELATED TO
THE LINE-HAUL, IS NOT RESTRICTED TO IT.  MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  AT LEAST WHERE THE SERVICE IN QUESTION IS PURELY
ACCESSORIAL, SEC. 2 IS APPLICABLE THOUGH THE LINE-HAULS ARE NOT OVER
THE SAME LINE, FOR THE SAME DISTANCE AND TO THE SAME DESTINATION. 
WHERE SEC. 2 IS APPLICABLE, COMPETITIVE FACTORS (SUCH AS THOSE ON WHICH
THE COMMISSION RELIED) ARE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DISCRIMINATION. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. ALABAMA MIDLAND RY. CO., 168 U.S.
144, 166; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO.,
225 U.S. 326, 342; SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S.
57, 62; ABSORPTION OF LOADING CHARGE, 161 I.C.C. 389, 391; ALLOWANCE
FOR DRIVING HORSES, 227 I.C.C. 387, 389.  THE JUSTIFICATION UNDER SEC.
2 FOR "UNEQUAL RATES MUST REST IN THE FACTS OF CARRIAGE AND NOT IN THE
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE CARRIER."  SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, PT. 3, VOL. B, P. 371. 

THERE ARE, OF COURSE, OCCASIONS WHEN A CONSIDERATION OF THE LINE-HAUL
RATE IN RELATION TO THE CHARGE FOR AN ACCESSORIAL SERVICE IS PROPER. 
THAT IS THE CASE WHERE A RATE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED UNDER SEC. 1(5)(A) AS
NOT BEING "JUST AND REASONABLE."  IN THAT EVENT IT IS WHOLLY PROPER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER ELEMENTS OF COST NOT PROVIDED IN THE SEPARATE RATE
ARE IN FACT INCLUDED IN THE LINE-HAUL RATE.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 199, 219-220; PERISHABLE FREIGHT
INVESTIGATION, 56 I.C.C. 449, 461-465; ALTON & SOUTHERN R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 49 F.2D 414, 417-428.  BUT THE ISSUES FRAMED BY SEC.
1(5)(A) ARE LARGER THAN THE MORE LIMITED ONES UNDER SEC. 2.  AND THOUGH
THE RATE IS JUST AND REASONABLE UNDER SEC. 1, IT MAY NEVERTHELESS
CREATE AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION UNDER SEC. 2.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 145 U.S. 263, 277; AMERICAN
EXPRESS CO. V. CALDWELL, 244 U.S. 617, 624; UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 263 U.S. 515, 524. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THE LOADING CHARGE IS A COMPONENT PART OF THE
TOTAL LINE-HAUL CHARGE; THAT COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS WOULD JUSTIFY A
REDUCTION IN THE LINE-HAUL TARIFF; AND THAT A SHIPPER IS AFFECTED NO
MORE BY AN INCREASE OR DECREASE IN ONE THAN IN THE OTHER.  IT IS
THEREFORE ARGUED THAT CHANGES IN THE CHARGE FOR THIS ACCESSORIAL
SERVICE MAY BE TREATED THE SAME AS IF THE LINE-HAUL TARIFF WERE IN
ISSUE.  THAT ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, RESULTS IN THIS:  AN ADJUSTMENT IN
CHARGES FOR ACCESSORIAL SERVICES SUCH AS LOADING IS UTILIZED AS AN
INDIRECT METHOD OF ADJUSTING LINE-HAUL RATES.  THAT IS NOT PERMITTED
UNDER THIS STATUTORY SYSTEM.  ALTHOUGH CHARGES FOR SERVICES SUCH AS
LOADING ARE A PART OF THE TOTAL LINE-HAUL CHARGE, THEY MUST BE
SEPARATELY STATED IN THE TARIFFS.  SEC. 6(1); RULE 10(A), SUPRA, NOTE
2.  THIS PROCEEDING PUT IN ISSUE NOT THE LINE-HAUL TARIFF BUT THE
SEPARATELY STATED CHARGE FOR LOADING, SINCE THE AMENDED TARIFF MADE NO
CHANGE IN THE FORMER.  TO ALLOW THIS PROCEEDING TO BE USED TO ADJUST
INDIRECTLY THE LINE-HAUL TARIFF IS TO CIRCUMVENT THE ACT.  THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REMOVAL OF A DISCRIMINATION AND THE ADJUSTMENT
OR FIXING OF RATES HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED.  ST. LOUIS S.W. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 245 U.S. 136, 145.  THE PRESENT LINE-HAUL RATE IS A
THROUGH OR JOINT RATE IN WHICH CARRIERS OTHER THAN THE APPELLEE ROADS
PARTICIPATE.  THOSE OTHER CARRIERS ARE NOT PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING;
NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT THEY HAVE CONSENTED TO ANY ADJUSTMENT OF THE
LINE-HAUL RATES.  CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 15(3) HOW THOSE RATES
MAY BE ADJUSTED.  IT MAY BE DONE ONLY AFTER A "FULL HEARING," WHICH
MEANS THAT ALL OTHER CARRIERS WHO ARE PARTIES TO THE TARIFF MUST BE
JOINED.  STEVENS GROCER CO. V. ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S. RY. CO., 42 I.C.C.
396, 398; MCDAVITT BROS. V. ST. LOUIS, B. & M. RY. CO., 43 I.C.C. 695;
UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SO. RY. CO., 265 U.S. 274, 283, NOTE 6;
RULES OF PRACTICE (I.C.C. 1936), RULE II (C) AND (D).  AND THE
COMMISSION MAY THEN ADJUST THE THROUGH RATES OR JOINT RATES EITHER WITH
OR WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CARRIERS.  ST. LOUIS S.W. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LOADING CHARGE, LIKE THE
TRANSIT PRIVILEGE INVOLVED IN CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S.
247, 255, 259, IS A TARIFF FOR WHICH OTHER CARRIERS PARTICIPATING IN
THE THROUGH OR JOINT RATES ARE NOT NECESSARILY RESPONSIBLE.  IN SHORT,
CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING ADJUSTMENTS OF LINE
HAUL RATES.  THAT METHOD IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE PROVIDED FOR
ADJUSTING A SEPARATE TARIFF OF THE KIND WE HAVE HERE.  WE SHOULD NOT
ALLOW THE PROCEDURE FOR READJUSTING LINE-HAUL RATES TO BE CIRCUMVENTED
THROUGH THE REBATE ROUTE.  CF. CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION ON THE QUESTION OF DISCRIMINATION
UNDER SEC. 2 IS ORDINARILY A QUESTION OF FACT.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.
RY. CO. V. TENNESSEE, 262 U.S. 318, 322.  ITS FINDINGS ON THAT ISSUE
ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT (SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA) AND WILL BE GIVEN THE RESPECT WHICH EXPERT JUDGMENT ON
THE INTRICACIES OF RATE STRUCTURES DESERVES.  BUT DISREGARD OF THE
STATUTORY STANDARDS IS ANOTHER MATTER.  CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA. 

SINCE I WOULD REST THE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW ON SEC. 2, IT
IS NOT NECESSARY FOR ME TO REACH THE ISSUES RAISED UNDER SEC. 3. 

FN1  SEC. 1(3)(A) DEFINES "TRANSPORTATION" SO AS TO INCLUDE "ALL
SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECEIPT, DELIVERY  ...  AND HANDLING OF
PROPERTY TRANSPORTED." 

FN2  THE LOADING CHARGE IS 5.5[ PER SQUARE BALE OF COTTON AND 2.75[
PER ROUND BALE.  THIS LOADING RATE IS CARRIED SEPARATELY IN THE TARIFFS
AS IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 6(1) OF THE ACT.  SEE TARIFF CIRCULAR 20(I.C.C.
1933), RULE 10(A). 

FN3  RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY, 44
I.C.C. 455, 464-466; PACIFIC LUMBER CO. V. N.W.P.R. CO., 51 I.C.C. 738,
760; TIDE WATER OIL CO. V. DIRECTOR GENERAL, 62 I.C.C. 226, 227;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. DIRECTOR GENERAL, 87 I.C.C. 214; BUNKER HILL &
SULLIVAN M. & C. CO. V. N.P. RY. CO., 129 I.C.C. 242, 246; CANE SUGAR
FROM WISCONSIN TO MINNESOTA, 203 I.C.C. 373, 376; MILLER WASTE MILLS,
INC. V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 226 I.C.C. 451, 453. 

FN4  NONE OF THE CARRIERS TO THE SOUTHEAST SERVES THE GULF PORTS. 
APPELLEE CARRIERS HAVE ONLY A SHORT PART OF THE LINE-HAUL ON COTTON
FROM OKLAHOMA TO THE SOUTHEAST. 

FN5  THE COMMISSION APPARENTLY HAS SO TREATED THE PROBLEM OF
ABSORPTION OF SWITCHING CHARGES.  SEE TIDE WATER OIL CO. V. DIRECTOR
GENERAL, 62 I.C.C. 226; RESTRICTION OF KANSAS CITY SWITCHING DISTRICT,
146 I.C.C. 438, 440.  AND SEE SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 254 U.S. 57.  CF. UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TIN PLATE CO., 301
U.S. 402. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :












ROCHE V. EVAPORATED MILK ASSN., 319 U.S. 21 


NO. 584.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 130 F.2D 843,
REVERSED. 


1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS EMPOWERED BY SEC. 262 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE TO ISSUE ALL WRITS, NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY
STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION,
AGREEABLY TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW.  P. 24. 

2.  AS THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
EXCLUSIVELY APPELLATE, ITS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRITS OF MANDAMUS IS
RESTRICTED TO THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE WRIT IS IN AID OF THAT
JURISDICTION.  P. 25. 

3.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO ISSUE WRITS OF
MANDAMUS IS NOT CONFINED TO THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN AID OF A
JURISDICTION ALREADY ACQUIRED BY APPEAL BUT EXTENDS TO THOSE CASES
WHICH ARE WITHIN ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL HAS BEEN
PERFECTED.  P. 25. 

4.  THE COMMON LAW WRITS, LIKE EQUITABLE REMEDIES, MAY BE GRANTED OR
WITHHELD IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  P. 25. 

5.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, ISSUANCE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE DISTRICT COURT TO
REINSTATE THE DEFENDANTS' PLEAS IN ABATEMENT TO AN INDICTMENT FOR
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND TO SET FOR TRIAL THE ISSUES RAISED BY
THE PLEAS AND REPLICATIONS, WAS INAPPROPRIATE.  P. 25. 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER STRIKING THE PLEAS IN ABATEMENT WAS AN
EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION AND INVOLVED NO ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER;
THE LEGISLATION AND POLICY OF CONGRESS BY WHICH AN APPELLATE REVIEW OF
SUCH ORDERS MAY BE HAD ONLY ON REVIEW OF A FINAL JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
ARE NOT TO BE CIRCUMVENTED BY RESORT TO MANDAMUS. 

6.  WHERE THE APPEAL STATUTES ESTABLISH THE CONDITIONS OF APPELLATE
REVIEW, AN APPELLATE COURT CAN NOT RIGHTLY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO
ISSUE A WRIT THE ONLY EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD BE TO AVOID THOSE
CONDITIONS AND THWART THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AGAINST PIECEMEAL
APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES.  P. 30. 

ROCHE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, ET AL. V. EVAPORATED MILK ASSOCIATION ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 747, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE DISTRICT
JUDGE AND THE DISTRICT COURT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
BELOW RIGHTLY ISSUED ITS WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO
CORRECT THAT COURT'S ALLEGED ERROR IN STRIKING RESPONDENT'S PLEAS IN
ABATEMENT TO A CRIMINAL INDICTMENT. 

AN INDICTMENT RETURNED IN JUNE, 1941, BY THE GRAND JURY SITTING IN
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CHARGED RESPONDENTS AND
OTHERS WITH CONSPIRACY TO FIX THE PRICE OF EVAPORATED MILK SOLD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 3.  THE INDICTMENT RECITED THAT THE GRAND JURY WHICH
RETURNED IT HAD BEEN IMPANELED AT THE NOVEMBER, 1940, TERM OF COURT;
THAT IT HAD "BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED DURING SAID NOVEMBER 1940 TERM OF
SAID COURT, AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTERS CHARGED IN THIS
INDICTMENT"; AND THAT BY ORDER OF THE COURT THE GRAND JURY HAD
CONTINUED TO SIT DURING THE MARCH, 1941, TERM "FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
FINISHING INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN BUT NOT COMPLETED DURING SAID NOVEMBER
TERM." 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1941, RESPONDENTS FILED PLEAS IN ABATEMENT, ASKING THAT
THE INDICTMENT BE QUASHED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, ON
AVERMENTS THAT THE MINUTES OF THE GRAND JURY FOR ITS MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 28, 1941, DISCLOSED THAT NO INVESTIGATION OF ANY MATTER
MENTIONED IN THE INDICTMENT HAD BEEN "BEGUN" BY THE GRAND JURY WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 284 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 421,  FN1
DURING THE NOVEMBER, 1940, TERM OF COURT, WHICH EXPIRED MARCH 2, 1941. 
FN2 

THE GOVERNMENT FILED REPLICATIONS DENYING GENERALLY ALL THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE PLEAS, AND THE ISSUES THUS RAISED WERE SET FOR TRIAL
BEFORE A JURY.  THEREAFTER LEAVE WAS GRANTED TO THE GOVERNMENT TO
WITHDRAW ITS REPLICATIONS AND TO FILE DEMURRERS TO THE PLEAS, AND
MOTIONS TO STRIKE THEM BECAUSE INSUFFICIENT IN LAW, BECAUSE THEY FAILED
TO STATE SPECIFIC FACTS WITH SUFFICIENT CERTAINTY, AND BECAUSE THEY
ALLEGED FACTS WHICH COULD NOT BE WITHIN THE PLEADERS' KNOWLEDGE.  AFTER
ARGUMENT THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE DEMURRERS AND GRANTED THE
MOTIONS.  RESPONDENTS THEREUPON INSTITUTED THE PRESENT PROCEEDING BY
THEIR PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT,
PRAYING THAT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS ISSUE DIRECTING PETITIONERS - THE
HONORABLE MICHAEL J. ROCHE, DISTRICT JUDGE, AND THE DISTRICT COURT - TO
REINSTATE THE PLEAS IN ABATEMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT'S REPLICATIONS, AND
TO SET THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLEAS AND REPLICATIONS FOR JURY TRIAL. 

ON THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT AND THE GOVERNMENT'S RETURN, THE COURT
OF APPEALS ORDERED THE WRIT TO ISSUE.  UPON REHEARING BEFORE THE FULL
COURT SITTING EN BANC THE COURT HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE
THE WRIT; THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ERRED IN STRIKING THE PLEAS IN
ABATEMENT; THAT THE CASE WAS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR INTERVENTION BY
MANDAMUS; AND THAT THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE DIRECTING PETITIONERS TO
REINSTATE THE PLEAS IN ABATEMENT AND THE REPLICATIONS, AND TO TRY THE
ISSUES OF FACT THUS RAISED.  130 F.2D 843.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SEEMS
TO HAVE REGARDED THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER STRIKING THE PLEAS IN
ABATEMENT AS IN EFFECT A REFUSAL TO ACT UPON THE PLEAS, ID. 845.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 747, ON A PETITION WHICH SET UP THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DIRECTING THAT MANDAMUS ISSUE, AND IN
HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN STRIKING THE PLEAS IN
ABATEMENT. 

PETITIONERS CONCEDE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, LIKE THIS
COURT, MAY, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 377, "ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE,
WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW." 
MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268, 279; ADAMS V. UNITED STATES EX REL.
MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, 272-3.  THEY ARGUE THAT AS THE DISTRICT COURT'S
ORDER STRIKING THE PLEAS IN ABATEMENT WAS AN EXERCISE OF ITS
JURISDICTION, ITS ACTION IS REVIEWABLE ONLY ON APPEAL AND NOT BY
MANDAMUS, AND THAT SINCE BY CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT AND POLICY
APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER MAY BE HAD ONLY ON
REVIEW OF A FINAL JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, THAT LEGISLATION AND POLICY
ARE NOT TO BE CIRCUMVENTED BY RESORT TO MANDAMUS. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THESE ARE
VALID OBJECTIONS TO THE EXERCISE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF ITS
DISCRETIONARY POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT. 

AS THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS EXCLUSIVELY
APPELLATE, ITS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRITS OF MANDAMUS IS RESTRICTED BY
STATUTE TO THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE WRIT IS IN AID OF THAT
JURISDICTION.  ITS AUTHORITY IS NOT CONFINED TO THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS
IN AID OF A JURISDICTION ALREADY ACQUIRED BY APPEAL BUT EXTENDS TO
THOSE CASES WHICH ARE WITHIN ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION ALTHOUGH NO
APPEAL HAS BEEN PERFECTED.  OTHERWISE THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION COULD
BE DEFEATED AND THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE WRIT
THWARTED BY UNAUTHORIZED ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OBSTRUCTING THE
APPEAL.  EX PARTE BRADSTREET, 7 PET. 634; INSURANCE COMPANY V.
COMSTOCK, 16 WALL.  258, 270; MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, SUPRA, 280; EX
PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, 246; CF. EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S.
371, 374-5; EX PARTE PERU, 318 U.S. 578, AND CASES CITED. 

THE COMMON LAW WRITS, LIKE EQUITABLE REMEDIES, MAY BE GRANTED OR
WITHHELD IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  EX PARTE PERU, SUPRA,
P. 584, AND CASES CITED; WHITNEY V. DICK, 202 U.S. 132, 136, 140. 
HENCE THE QUESTION PRESENTED ON THIS RECORD IS NOT WHETHER THE COURT
BELOW HAD POWER TO GRANT THE WRIT BUT WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE CASE WAS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THAT
POWER.  IN DETERMINING WHAT IS APPROPRIATE WE LOOK TO THOSE PRINCIPLES
WHICH SHOULD GUIDE JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN THE USE OF AN EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDY RATHER THAN TO FORMAL RULES RIGOROUSLY CONTROLLING JUDICIAL
ACTION.  CONSIDERATIONS OF IMPORTANCE TO OUR ANSWER HERE ARE THAT THE
TRIAL COURT, IN STRIKING THE PLEAS IN ABATEMENT, ACTED WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION AS A DISTRICT COURT; THAT NO ACTION OR OMISSION ON ITS
PART HAS THWARTED OR TENDS TO THWART APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE RULING;
AND THAT WHILE A FUNCTION OF MANDAMUS IN AID OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION
IS TO REMOVE OBSTACLES TO APPEAL, IT MAY NOT APPROPRIATELY BE USED
MERELY AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE APPEAL PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE
STATUTE. 

THE TRADITIONAL USE OF THE WRIT IN AID OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION BOTH
AT COMMON LAW AND IN THE FEDERAL COURTS HAS BEEN TO CONFINE AN INFERIOR
COURT TO A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF ITS PRESCRIBED JURISDICTION OR TO COMPEL
IT TO EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT IS ITS DUTY TO DO SO.  EX PARTE
PERU, SUPRA, P. 584, AND CASES CITED; EX PARTE NEWMAN, 14 WALL.  152,
165-6, 169; EX PARTE SAWYER, 21 WALL.  235, 238; INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N V. UNITED STATES EX REL. CAMPBELL, 289 U.S. 385, 394.  EVEN IN
SUCH CASES APPELLATE COURTS ARE RELUCTANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE
DECISION OF A LOWER COURT ON JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH IT WAS
COMPETENT TO DECIDE AND WHICH ARE REVIEWABLE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF
APPEAL.  EX PARTE HARDING, 219 U.S. 363, 369; CF. STOLL V. GOTTLIEB,
305 U.S. 165; TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66. 

BUT THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES NO QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  ITS JURISDICTION OF THE PERSONS OF THE DEFENDANTS, AND
OF THE SUBJECT MATTER CHARGED BY THE INDICTMENT, IS NOT QUESTIONED. 
THIS IS NOT A CASE LIKE EX PARTE BAIN, 121 U.S. 1, WHERE THE PETITIONER
HAD BEEN CONVICTED ON AN INDICTMENT WHICH, BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN AMENDED
AFTER IT WAS RETURNED BY THE GRAND JURY, WAS THOUGHT TO BE "NO
INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY."  HERE THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED BY THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF DULY QUALIFIED GRAND JURORS, ACTING UNDER ORDER OF
THE COURT CONTINUING THE GRAND JURY IN SESSION.  THE OBJECTION THAT THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INDICTMENT WAS NOT ONE WHICH THE JURY HAD BEEN OR
COULD BE CONTINUED TO HEAR WAS AT MOST AN IRREGULARITY WHICH, IF THE
PROPER SUBJECT OF A PLEA IN ABATEMENT, DID NOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT.  CF. BREESE V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 1, 10-11; KAIZO V.
HENRY, 211 U.S. 146, 149; MATTER OF MORAN, 203 U.S. 96, 104; HARLAN V.
MCGOURIN, 218 U.S. 442, 451; IN RE WARD, 173 U.S. 452, 454. 

NOR DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE A REFUSAL BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO
ADJUDICATE ISSUES PROPERLY PRESENTED TO IT, SUCH AS JUSTIFIED THE
ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT IN MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, SUPRA. COMPARE EX PARTE
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IN SUSTAINING THE GOVERNMENT'S DEMURRERS TO THE
PLEAS AND ITS MOTIONS TO STRIKE, THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT, AS THE
COURT BELOW SEEMED TO THINK, REFUSE TO ACT ON THE PLEAS.  INSTEAD, IT
HELD THAT THEY WERE INSUFFICIENT IN LAW TO ABATE THE CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION.  IN THUS RULING ON QUESTIONS OF LAW DECISIVE OF THE ISSUE
PRESENTED BY THE PLEAS AND REPLICATIONS THE DISTRICT COURT ACTED WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION AS A FEDERAL COURT TO DECIDE ISSUES PROPERLY BROUGHT
BEFORE IT.  ITS DECISION, EVEN IF ERRONEOUS - A QUESTION ON WHICH WE DO
NOT PASS - INVOLVED NO ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER, AND ANY ERROR WHICH IT
MAY HAVE COMMITTED IS REVIEWABLE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON
APPEAL APPROPRIATELY TAKEN FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT, AND BY THIS COURT BY
WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  FN3 

ORDINARILY MANDAMUS MAY NOT BE RESORTED TO AS A MODE OF REVIEW WHERE
A STATUTORY METHOD OF APPEAL HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED OR TO REVIEW AN
APPEALABLE DECISION OF RECORD.  EX PARTE MORGAN, 114 U.S. 174, 175; IN
RE ATLANTIC CITY R. CO., 164 U.S. 633, 635; EX PARTE ROE, 234 U.S. 70,
73; EX PARTE PARK SQUARE AUTOMOBILE STATION, 244 U.S. 412, 414; EX
PARTE RIDDLE, 255 U.S. 450, 451.  CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ONLY FINAL
DECISIONS OF DISTRICT COURTS, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 225(A).  FN4  RESPONDENTS
STRESS THE INCONVENIENCE OF REQUIRING THEM TO UNDERGO A TRIAL IN
ADVANCE OF AN APPELLATE DETERMINATION OF THE CHALLENGE NOW MADE TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE INDICTMENT.  WE MAY ASSUME, AS THEY ALLEGE, THAT THAT
TRIAL MAY BE OF SEVERAL MONTHS' DURATION AND MAY BE CORRESPONDINGLY
COSTLY AND INCONVENIENT.  BUT THAT INCONVENIENCE IS ONE WHICH WE MUST
TAKE IT CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED IN PROVIDING THAT ONLY FINAL JUDGMENTS
SHOULD BE REVIEWABLE.  WHERE THE APPEAL STATUTES ESTABLISH THE
CONDITIONS OF APPELLATE REVIEW, AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT RIGHTLY
EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO ISSUE A WRIT WHOSE ONLY EFFECT WOULD BE TO
AVOID THOSE CONDITIONS AND THWART THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AGAINST
PIECEMEAL APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES.  COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309
U.S. 323.  AS WAS POINTED OUT BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, TO GRANT THE
WRIT IN SUCH A CASE WOULD BE A "PLAIN EVASION" OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENT THAT ONLY FINAL JUDGMENTS BE BROUGHT UP FOR APPELLATE
REVIEW.  "THE EFFECT THEREFORE OF THIS MODE OF INTERPOSITION WOULD BE
TO RETARD DECISIONS UPON QUESTIONS WHICH WERE NOT FINAL IN THE COURT
BELOW, SO THAT THE SAME CAUSE MIGHT COME BEFORE THIS COURT MANY TIMES
BEFORE THERE COULD BE A FINAL JUDGMENT."  BANK OF COLUMBIA V. SWEENEY,
1 PET. 567, 569.  SEE ALSO LIFE & FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. ADAMS, 9 PET.
573, 602; EX PARTE HOARD, 105 U.S. 578, 579-80; AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION
CO. V. JACKSONVILLE, T. & K.W. RY. CO., 148 U.S. 372, 379. 

FOR THAT REASON THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO SUSTAIN THE
USE OF MANDAMUS AS A MEANS OF REVIEWING THE ACTION OF A DISTRICT COURT
IN DENYING A MOTION TO REMAND A CAUSE TO THE STATE COURT FROM WHICH IT
HAD BEEN REMOVED.  EX PARTE HOARD, SUPRA; EX PARTE HARDING, SUPRA; EX
PARTE ROE, SUPRA; EX PARTE PARK SQUARE AUTOMOBILE STATION, SUPRA.  FN5
AND FOR THE SAME REASON IT HAS HELD IN OTHER CASES THAT THE WRIT WILL
NOT ISSUE TO REVIEW AN ORDER OVERRULING A PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION, IN
RE ATLANTIC CITY R. CO., SUPRA; EX PARTE CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO.,
255 U.S. 273, 280; CF. IN RE NEW YORK & PORTO RICO S.S. CO., 155 U.S.
523, 531, OR DENYING A NONSUIT, EX PARTE LORING, 94 U.S. 418, DESPITE
THE INCONVENIENCE TO PETITIONER OF BEING FORCED TO PROCEED TO TRIAL IN
ADVANCE OF A REVIEW OF THE COURT'S ACTION.  EX PARTE WHITNEY, 13 PET.
404, 408; EX PARTE PERRY, 102 U.S. 183, 186.  HERE THE INCONVENIENCE TO
THE LITIGANTS RESULTS ALONE FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED FOR REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER ONLY ON REVIEW OF THE
FINAL JUDGMENT, AND NOT FROM AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER, OR REFUSAL TO
EXERCISE IT, WHICH IT IS THE FUNCTION OF MANDAMUS TO CORRECT.  HENCE
THERE ARE IN THIS CASE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE
ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT, SUCH AS THE PERSISTENT DISREGARD OF THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THIS COURT, FOUND IN MCCULLOUGH V.
COSGRAVE, 309 U.S. 634(SEE LOS ANGELES BRUSH CO. V. JAMES, 272 U.S.
701, 706-8); OR THE REFUSAL TO PERFORM A PLAIN MINISTERIAL DUTY,
INVOLVED IN EX PARTE UNITED STATES, SUPRA; OR THE CONSIDERATIONS OF
COMITY BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, THOUGHT TO BE CONTROLLING IN
MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 1), 270 U.S. 9, 29.    THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT ON WHICH RESPONDENTS ESPECIALLY RELY ARE NOT APPLICABLE HERE.  IN
EX PARTE SIMONS, 247 U.S. 231, THE WRIT DIRECTED THE DISTRICT COURT TO
SET ASIDE ITS ORDER TRANSFERRING TO THE EQUITY DOCKET A CASE PLAINLY
TRIABLE AT LAW BY JURY.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER WAS REGARDED BY
THIS COURT "AS HAVING REPUDIATED JURISDICTION" OF THE SUIT.  IN EX
PARTE PETERSON, 253 U.S. 300, IN WHICH THE WRIT WAS SOUGHT SIMILARLY TO
COMPEL THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE ITS ORDER REFERRING THE CAUSE TO
AN AUDITOR, THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED BECAUSE THE ORDER WAS HELD NOT
TO PRECLUDE A JURY TRIAL.  AND IN EX PARTE SKINNER & EDDY, 265 U.S. 86,
THE WRIT PROHIBITED THE COURT OF CLAIMS FROM EXERCISING JURISDICTION,
CONTRARY TO STATUTE, OVER A SUIT WHICH IT HAD PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED. 
THERE ITS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WOULD HAVE DEPRIVED THE LITIGANTS
OF TRIAL BY JURY IN A STATE COURT WHERE AN ACTION AGAINST AN AGENCY OF
THE UNITED STATES INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUE WAS PENDING.  THUS IN THE
TWO CASES IN WHICH THE WRIT WAS GRANTED, IT WAS ISSUED IN AID OF THE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO COMPEL AN INFERIOR COURT TO
RELINQUISH A JURISDICTION WHICH IT COULD NOT LAWFULLY EXERCISE OR TO
EXERCISE A JURISDICTION WHICH IT HAD UNLAWFULLY REPUDIATED.  CF. EX
PARTE PERU, SUPRA.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DISTRICT COURT HAS ACTED
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION AND HAS RENDERED A DECISION WHICH, EVEN IF
ERRONEOUS, INVOLVED NO ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER.  IN ISSUING THE WRIT
THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW HAS DONE NO MORE THAN SUBSTITUTE MANDAMUS
FOR AN APPEAL CONTRARY TO THE STATUTES AND THE POLICY OF CONGRESS,
WHICH HAS RESTRICTED THAT COURT'S APPELLATE REVIEW TO FINAL JUDGMENTS
OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THAT SECTION PROVIDES IN PART: 

"A DISTRICT JUDGE MAY, UPON REQUEST OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR OF
THE GRAND JURY OR ON HIS OWN MOTION, BY ORDER AUTHORIZE ANY GRAND JURY
TO CONTINUE TO SIT DURING THE TERM SUCCEEDING THE TERM AT WHICH SUCH
REQUEST IS MADE, SOLELY TO FINISH INVESTIGATIONS BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED
BY SUCH GRAND JURY, BUT NO GRAND JURY SHALL BE PERMITTED TO SIT IN ALL
DURING MORE THAN EIGHTEEN MONTHS ...  " 

FN2  THE GRAND JURY MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 28, 1941, STATED: 

"SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY HELD THIS DAY, FOREMAN
MRS. HATTIE H. SLOSS, PRESIDING.  MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING READ AND
APPROVED AS CORRECTED.  (SEE BELOW.)  SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CHARLES C. PEARCE AND SPECIAL ASSISTANT CHARLES S. BURDELL
CONTINUED THE PRESENTATION OF THE PEACH INDUSTRY FOR VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.  THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS THE MEETING
ADJOURNED." 

THEN BELOW THE FOLLOWING APPEARS: 

"THE FOLLOWING INDUSTRIES WERE ALSO NAMED BY WITNESSES AND
INVESTIGATION BEGUN.  PLYWOOD; WINES AND GRAPE INDUSTRY; WHOLESALE AND
RETAIL GROCERIES; CANNED AND EVAPORATED MILK; CANNED FRUIT AND
VEGETABLES; SARDINE INDUSTRY; ALL FOOD INDUSTRIES WERE SUGGESTED FOR
INVESTIGATION, AND INVESTIGATION OF SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY WAS BEGUN. 
OTHER INDUSTRIES NAMED AS SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION ARE SALMON INDUSTRY,
CANNED PINEAPPLE, WALNUTS AND ALMONDS, TOMATOES, DRIED FRUITS, AND A
CERTAIN LABOR UNION WITH HEADQUARTERS OR LOCATED IN OAKLAND, ASPARAGUS
AND CHERRIES." 

FN3  IN THE COURT BELOW, PETITIONERS URGED THAT THE DECISION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN STRIKING THE PLEAS IN ABATEMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT BY REASON
OF R.S. SEC. 1011, WHICH HAS BEEN CARRIED OVER IN SUBSTANCE INTO 28
U.S.C. SEC. 879.  R.S. SEC. 1011 PROVIDES: 

"THERE SHALL BE NO REVERSAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OR IN A CIRCUIT
COURT UPON A WRIT OF ERROR, FOR ERROR IN RULING ANY PLEA IN ABATEMENT,
OTHER THAN A PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, OR FOR ANY ERROR IN
FACT." 

THIS PROVISION WAS TAKEN FROM SEC. 22 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1
STAT. 73, 84, A SECTION WHICH WAS IN TERMS APPLICABLE ONLY TO CIVIL
CASES.  NEITHER THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 NOR THE REVISED STATUTES MADE
ANY PROVISION FOR REVIEW OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES ON WRIT OF ERROR,
ALTHOUGH R.S. SECS. 651 AND 697 PROVIDED FOR CERTIFICATION TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF QUESTIONS ARISING IN CRIMINAL CASES.  REVIEW ON WRIT
OF ERROR OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED
BY THE ACT OF MAR. 3, 1879, 20 STAT. 354, AUTHORIZING REVIEW OF
DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS BY CIRCUIT COURTS.  BY SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 6, 1889, 25 STAT. 655, 656, THE SUPREME COURT WAS GIVEN
APPELLATE REVIEW OF CAPITAL CASES ON WRIT OF ERROR, AND SECS. 5 AND 6
OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1891, 26 STAT. 826, 827-8, ABOLISHED THE
APPELLATE POWERS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS, ENLARGED THE APPELLATE CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT, AND AUTHORIZED REVIEW OF CRIMINAL
CASES TRIED IN THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS, BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS ON WRIT OF ERROR. 

NONE OF THESE ACTS CONTAINS ANY PROVISION MAKING APPLICABLE TO
CRIMINAL CASES REVIEWED ON WRIT OF ERROR THE LIMITATIONS WHICH SEC. 22
OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 IMPOSED ON SUCH REVIEW OF CIVIL CASES. 
ALTHOUGH R.S. SEC. 1011 IS PHRASED IN TERMS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY,
IT WAS HELD IN BUCK STOVE CO. V. VICKERS, 226 U.S. 205, 213, THAT THE
REARRANGEMENT AND REWORDING IN THE REVISED STATUTES OF SEC. 22 OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 WAS NOT INTENDED TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THAT
COURTS, R.S. SEC. 1011 DID NOT PREVENT CONSIDERATION OF A RULING ON A
PLEA IN ABATEMENT IN A CASE ON WRIT OF ERROR FROM A STATE COURT.  WE
THINK THAT SIMILAR REASONING APPLIES HERE TO PRECLUDE THE SECTION'S
APPLICATION TO CRIMINAL CASES, TO WHICH IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM IT DID NOT
APPLY. 

IN A LARGE NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CASES, THIS COURT AND THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE REVIEWED ON THE MERITS DECISIONS OVERRULING OR
REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN PLEAS IN ABATEMENT, ALTHOUGH WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
R.S SEC. 1011.  AGNEW V. UNITED STATES, 165 U.S. 36, 43-5; BRAM V.
UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 566-8; CROWLEY V. UNITED STATES, 194 U.S.
461, 468-74; HOLT V. UNITED STATES, 218 U.S. 245, 247-8; HYDE V. UNITED
STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 372-4; E.G. DUNN V. UNITED STATES, 238 F. 508;
BREESE V. UNITED STATES, 143 F. 250, 252-3; MULLONEY V. UNITED STATES,
79 F.2D 566, 572-80; HILLMAN V. UNITED STATES, 192 F. 264, 269-70;
LOWDON V. UNITED STATES, 149 F. 673.  A FEW CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
HAVE SAID THAT THE SECTION PREVENTED APPELLATE CONSIDERATION OF A
DECISION OVERRULING A PLEA IN ABATEMENT TO AN INDICTMENT, ALTHOUGH ALSO
HOLDING THAT THE PLEAS WERE PROPERLY OVERRULED.  MOUNDAY V. UNITED
STATES, 225 F. 965, 967(C.C.A. 8); LUXENBERG V. UNITED STATES, 45 F.2D
497, 498(C.C.A. 4); BIEMER V. UNITED STATES, 54 F.2D 1045(C.C.A. 7);
UNITED STATES V. MOLASKY, 118 F.2D 128, 133(C.C.A. 7).  AND THE SECTION
HAS ON OCCASION BEEN CITED AS PRECLUDING APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE WEIGHT
AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES - A PROPOSITION WHICH
HARDLY NEEDS ITS SUPPORT.  MILES V. UNITED STATES, 103 U.S. 304, 313;
E.G. JARAMILLO V. UNITED STATES, 76 F.2D 700; ROSENBERG V. UNITED
STATES, 15 F.2D 179, 181; JEZEWSKI V. UNITED STATES, 13 F.2D 599, 602;
STOECKO V. UNITED STATES, 1 F.2D 612, 613; KINSER V. UNITED STATES, 231
F. 856, 861.  THE FACT THAT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF APPELLATE DECISIONS,
INCLUDING ALL IN THIS COURT, HAVE CONSIDERED PLEAS IN ABATEMENT ON THE
MERITS, ESTABLISHES A PRACTICE, BEGINNING SOON AFTER THE FIRST
AUTHORIZATION OF CRIMINAL APPELLATE REVIEW, WHICH IS PERSUASIVE OF THE
STATUTORY INTENT. 

OUR CONCLUSION THAT R.S. SEC. 1011 IS INAPPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL CASES
IS REINFORCED BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE KINDS OF OBJECTIONS WHICH IN A
CRIMINAL CASE MAY PROPERLY BE THE SUBJECTS OF A PLEA IN ABATEMENT. 
ALTHOUGH FREQUENTLY DESCRIBED AS A DILATORY PLEA WHICH SHOULD BE
STRICTLY CONSTRUED, UNITED STATES V. GREENE, 113 F. 683, 688-9, SUCH A
PLEA IS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF RAISING OBJECTIONS TO AN INDICTMENT
WHICH MAY INVOLVE SERIOUS AND PREJUDICIAL INFRINGEMENTS OF PROCEDURAL
RIGHTS, SUCH AS AN OBJECTION TO THE QUALIFICATIONS OF GRAND JURORS,
CROWLEY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA (COMPARE THE ACT OF APRIL 30, 1934, 48
STAT. 648, 649, 18 U.S.C. 554A); TO THE METHOD OF SELECTION OF THE
GRAND JURY, AGNEW V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA (CF. GLASSER V. UNITED
STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 85); OR TO ITS COMPOSITION, SEE CARTER V. TEXAS,
177 U.S. 442, 447. 

FN4  BY THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1942, PUB. L. NO. 543, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., THE GOVERNMENT IS GIVEN A RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM A DECISION OR
JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A PLEA IN ABATEMENT TO AN INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION
OR ANY COUNT THEREOF. 

FN5  MANDAMUS HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN USED TO COMPEL THE REMAND TO A
STATE COURT OF A CRIMINAL CASE IMPROPERLY REMOVED UNDER SECS. 31-33 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 74-6.  MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 1),
270 U.S. 9, AND CASES CITED; COLORADO V. SYMES, 286 U.S. 510.  BUT
REMOVAL OF SUCH CASES INVOLVES AN EXTRAORDINARY INTERFERENCE WITH A
STATE'S ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY AN
EXCEPTIONAL USE OF THE WRIT.  MOREOVER, IN THOSE CASES THERE WAS NO
PROVISION FOR APPEAL BY THE STATE FROM AN ACQUITTAL, MARYLAND V. SOPER,
SUPRA, 30; CF. UNITED STATES V. SANGES, 144 U.S. 310.  AND SEE KEPNER
V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 100, WITH WHICH COMPARE PALKO V.
CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 322-3. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





BOWLES V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 33 


NO. 589.  ARGUED APRIL 14, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 131 F.2D
818, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF
SELECTIVE SERVICE RENDERED ON AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940.  P. 35. 

2.  UPON REVIEW HERE OF A CONVICTION UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE SELECTIVE
TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940 FOR FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO
RESPOND TO AN ORDER OF HIS DRAFT BOARD TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION INTO THE
ARMY, IT APPEARS THAT THE INDUCTION ORDER RESTS NOT ON THE ALLEGED
ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT WHICH THE DEFENDANT URGED AS A
DEFENSE TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, BUT ON THE SELECTIVE SERVICE
DIRECTOR'S CONTROLLING DETERMINATION OF FACT, ADVERSE TO THE
DEFENDANT'S CLAIM OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE; AND
THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  P. 35. 

3.  THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL TO THE DEFENDANT OF ACCESS TO HIS
SELECTIVE SERVICE FILE, REVIEW OF WHICH RULING WAS NOT HERE SOUGHT,
WAS, AT MOST, HARMLESS ERROR.  P. 36. 

BOWLES V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 749, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR VIOLATION OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF VIOLATING SEC.
11 OF THE SELECTIVE TRAINING AND SERVICE ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 885, IN
THAT HE FAILED TO RESPOND TO AN ORDER OF HIS DRAFT BOARD TO REPORT FOR
INDUCTION INTO THE ARMY.  ON THE TRIAL, HE SET UP AS A DEFENSE THAT HE
WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM THE DRAFT AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5(G) OF THE ACT; THAT HE HAD CLAIMED HIS
EXEMPTION BEFORE THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD WHICH REJECTED IT; THAT, ON HIS
APPEAL TO THE APPROPRIATE APPEAL BOARD, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
ACTING PURSUANT TO SEC. 5(G), HAD SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD ITS ADVISORY
RECOMMENDATION THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE BE
SUSTAINED, BUT THAT THE APPEAL BOARD, BY REASON OF AN ERRONEOUS
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE, HAD REJECTED PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION. 

IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, PETITIONER SOUGHT LEAVE TO INSPECT HIS
ENTIRE SELECTIVE SERVICE FILE, AS HE APPARENTLY IS AUTHORIZED TO DO BY
SEC. 605.32 OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS.  ON OBJECTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT, LEAVE WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  PETITIONER HAS NOT
PRESENTED THIS QUESTION FOR REVIEW BY HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  THE
COURT ALSO EXCLUDED EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY PETITIONER TO SHOW THAT THE
APPEAL BOARD HAD REJECTED HIS APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT, AS HE WAS NOT
A MEMBER OF A RECOGNIZED RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OPPOSED TO
PARTICIPATION IN WAR, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION BY THE STATUTE,
WHICH GRANTS THE EXEMPTION ONLY TO A PERSON "WHO, BY REASON OF
RELIGIOUS TRAINING AND BELIEF, IS CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO
PARTICIPATION IN WAR IN ANY FORM."  IN PARTICULAR THE TRIAL COURT
EXCLUDED A LETTER TO PETITIONER BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE APPEAL BOARD
WHICH EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION APPLIES ONLY
TO MEMBERS OF A "RELIGIOUS SECT OR CULT THAT HAS AS ONE OF ITS CANONS A
RESISTANCE TO PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITY OF ARMED FORCES OR
PARTICIPATION IN WAR." 

ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 131 F.2D 818.  IT
THOUGHT THAT IF THE APPEAL BOARD REJECTED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FOR
THE REASONS ASSERTED BY PETITIONER, THE BOARD ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED
THE STATUTE.  BUT THE COURT HELD THAT SUCH AN ERROR COULD NOT BE SET UP
AS A DEFENSE TO THE INDICTMENT CHARGING PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE ORDER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION.  THE COURT SUGGESTED THAT
PETITIONER'S APPROPRIATE REMEDY WAS BY PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS AFTER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY THE ACT HAD BEEN
CONCLUDED, AND AFTER HE HAD SUBMITTED TO INDUCTION.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 749, BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTIONS OF LAW DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

BUT IT NOW APPEARS FROM THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED WITHOUT DECISION OF THOSE QUESTIONS.  ON
THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH IN THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
DENIED PETITIONER ACCESS TO HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE FILE, PRODUCED FROM
THE FILE, AND TENDERED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION (1) A COPY OF PETITIONER'S
APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT FROM THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPEAL BOARD, (2)
A COPY OF THE DECISION ON THAT APPEAL RENDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
SELECTIVE SERVICE, BY AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT AND PURSUANT TO SEC.
628.1 OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS, AND (3) A COPY OF THE
LETTER OF THE DRAFT BOARD NOTIFYING PETITIONER THAT UPON HIS APPEAL TO
THE PRESIDENT HIS CLASSIFICATION HAD BEEN AFFIRMED AND THAT HE WOULD
THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION. 

THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR, OF WHICH WE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, CAHA
V. UNITED STATES, 152 U.S. 211, 221-22; THORNTON V. UNITED STATES, 271
U.S. 414, 420; THE PAQUETE HABANA, 175 U.S. 677, 696, ANTEDATED THE
ORDER OF THE DRAFT BOARD DIRECTING PETITIONER TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION. 
THE CLAIM TO EXEMPTION WAS REJECTED BY THE DIRECTOR ON THE GROUND THAT
IN FACT PETITIONER WAS NOT CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO MILITARY SERVICE,
AND THAT HE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION
PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT.  BEFORE THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD ISSUED ITS ORDER
TO PETITIONER, THE APPEAL BOARD'S DETERMINATION WHICH HE ASSAILS HERE,
HAD BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DIRECTOR ON THE FINAL
APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT.  HENCE THE ORDER RESTS ON THE DIRECTOR'S
CONTROLLING DETERMINATION OF FACT, ADVERSE TO PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE, AND NOT ON THE ALLEGED
ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT WHICH PETITIONER URGES AS A DEFENSE
IN THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT THAT DEFENSE TO THE CRIMINAL CHARGE COULD NEVER
HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER IN THIS PROCEEDING; THAT AT MOST IT
WAS HARMLESS ERROR, WHICH PETITIONER HAS NOT SOUGHT TO REVIEW HERE, TO
DENY HIM ACCESS TO HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE FILE; AND THAT THE JUDGMENT
MUST BE AFFIRMED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE POINTS OF LAW ON WHICH
THE COURT BELOW RENDERED ITS DECISION AND WHICH WERE URGED AS GROUNDS
FOR CERTIORARI.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

BOWLES WAS INDICTED FOR FAILING TO RESPOND TO AN ORDER FOR INDUCTION
INTO THE ARMY.  HE SOUGHT TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER OF INDUCTION WAS
INVALID BECAUSE HIS CLASSIFICATION HAD BEEN MADE UNDER A WRONG
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.  HE HAD A LETTER FROM THE BOARD OF APPEAL, A
PART OF WHICH SHOWED THAT AT ONE TIME AND IN ONE ASPECT THE BOARD
CLEARLY MISAPPREHENDED THE LAW APPLICABLE TO HIS CASE.  HE SOUGHT TO
INSPECT HIS SELECTIVE SERVICE FILE, AS HE HAD A RIGHT TO DO.  THIS FILE
WOULD SHOW WHEN AND HOW, IF EVER, HIS CASE WAS CONSIDERED UNDER A
PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW.  THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PRODUCE THE
FILE AND KEPT IT OUT OF EVIDENCE.  BOWLES WAS CONVICTED. 

BOWLES ASKS US TO REVIEW THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT EVEN IF HE WAS
WRONGLY CLASSIFIED THROUGH MISTAKE OF LAW IT IS NO DEFENSE TO THE
INDICTMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT SUCCEEDS IN PERSUADING US TO REFUSE TO
ENTERTAIN THIS QUESTION, BY PRINTING IN ITS BRIEF A COPY OF A DECISION
BY GENERAL HERSHEY, ACTING FOR THE PRESIDENT, DENYING PETITIONER'S
APPEAL.  NO QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS
COPY, AND I RAISE NONE.  BUT THE FACTS REMAIN THAT, FOR SOME REASON,
THE PROSECUTION DENIED BOWLES THE RIGHT TO INSPECT HIS SELECTIVE
SERVICE FILE AND KEPT IT OUT OF EVIDENCE.  WHAT THE FILE MAY REVEAL I
DO NOT KNOW.  I STRONGLY SUSPECT HE WILL BE NO BETTER OFF FOR SEEING
IT. YET THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS PRESUMABLY KNEW WHAT WAS IN THE FILE
AND THEY WITHHELD IT FROM HIM.  MY EXPERIENCE INDICATES THAT IT WOULD
BE MORE REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THEY ILLEGALLY SUPPRESSED THE FILE TO
HELP THEIR CASE THAN TO ASSUME SUCH BEHAVIOR WAS PURPOSELESS.  I SEE NO
REASON WHY THE STRONG INFERENCES THAT USUALLY ARISE FROM SUPPRESSION,
DESTRUCTION, OR FAILURE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN CONTROL OF A LITIGATING
PARTY SHOULD NOT APPLY HERE.  I AM CONFIDENT THAT COUNSEL HANDLING THIS
CASE IN THIS COURT NOT ONLY WOULD NOT SUPPRESS, BUT WOULD DISCLOSE TO
US, ANY RELEVANT PART OF THIS FILE, WHETHER IT HELPED OR HURT THEIR
CASE.  BUT CONFIDENCE IN COUNSEL FOUNDED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE IS NOT A
SAFE BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING A PRACTICE. 

BOWLES WAS FORCED TO TRY HIS CASE IN THE DARK, BEING REFUSED
INFORMATION TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED.  IT IS TRUE THAT HE DID NOT
ASSIGN THIS AS GROUNDS FOR CERTIORARI.  BUT IT IS NOT BOWLES WHO IS
HERE TRYING TO USE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FILE.  THE CITIZEN,
OF NECESSITY, HAS FEW RIGHTS WHEN HE FACES THE WAR MACHINE.  ONE OF
THEM IS THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM AND WHY, AS SHOWN BY HIS
SELECTIVE SERVICE FILE, EVEN IF HE IS NOT ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT
IT. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION RAISED BY BOWLES IS WHETHER ONE INDICTED FOR
FAILING TO SUBMIT TO AN INDUCTION ORDER MAY DEFEND BY SHOWING THAT THE
ORDER IS INVALID.  THE COURT CONSIDERS THE PARTS OF THE FILE NOW
TENDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ACCEPTS THE GOVERNMENT'S SUGGESTION THAT
"THE RECORD DOES NOT PROPERLY PRESENT THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER
WAS ENTITLED TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF HIS ORDER TO REPORT FOR
INDUCTION."  THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER WHETHER ONE MAY BE CONVICTED
FOR DISOBEYING AN INVALID ORDER; AND I DO NOT CARE TO EXPRESS A FINAL
OPINION ON THE SUBJECT, SINCE THE DISPOSITION OF THE MATTER BY THE
COURT PRECLUDES ITS DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION.  BUT I WOULD NOT
READILY ASSUME THAT, WHATEVER MAY BE THE OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF REFUSAL
TO REPORT FOR INDUCTION, COURTS MUST CONVICT AND PUNISH ONE FOR
DISOBEDIENCE OF AN UNLAWFUL ORDER BY WHOMSOEVER MADE. 

IF WE ARE TO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE CASE BY GENERAL HERSHEY AND
ASSUME THAT THE FILE CONTAINS NOTHING ELSE HELPFUL TO THE DEFENDANT, I
AGREE WITH THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT BOWLES IS DEFENSELESS.  BUT
WHERE THE PROSECUTION HAS ILLEGALLY CLOSED TO THE DEFENDANT FILES TO
WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED, I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW IT TO SUPPLEMENT
THE RECORD HERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRECLUDING DECISION OF QUESTIONS
WHICH, EVEN IF DOUBTFUL, BOWLES SEEMS ENTITLED TO RAISE IF HE CAN
ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER OF INDUCTION WAS ILLEGAL.  TO LET THE
GOVERNMENT FORECLOSE THE QUESTION BY PRODUCING RECORDS HERE WHICH IF
EVER RELEVANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN THE COURT BELOW SEEMS TO LET
THE PROSECUTION EAT ITS CAKE AND HAVE IT TOO. 

MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





















STEFFLER V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 38 


NO. 14, ORIGINAL.  DECIDED MAY 3, 1943. 


A POOR PERSON ENTITLED TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AUTHORIZED BY THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STATUTE TO APPLY TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE
APPLICATION.  P. 40. 

STEFFLER V. UNITED STATES. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI UNDER

PER CURIAM. 

IN 1938 PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY, IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, TO AN INDICTMENT CHARGING HIM WITH
ENTERING A STATE BANK INSURED WITH THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, WITH INTENT TO COMMIT LARCENY, 50 STAT. 749, AND WAS
SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS IMPRISONMENT.  IN 1942 HE MADE A MOTION IN
THAT COURT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ON THE GROUNDS,
AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE INDICTMENT DID NOT STATE AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES AND THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT
THE TRIAL.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT TAKING
TESTIMONY OR MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, AND DENIED AN APPLICATION FOR
REHEARING.  PETITIONER LODGED WITH THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT A
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN FORMA
PAUPERIS.  THE CLERK RETURNED THIS TO HIM BY LETTER, STATING, "UNDER
THE LAW THE PETITION TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS SHOULD BE
SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND NOT THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THEREFORE YOUR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND ORDER THEREON ARE RETURNED HEREWITH." 

PETITIONER THEN APPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, WHICH COURT
DENIED THE APPLICATION.  HE NOW SEEKS CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT UNDER
SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 377(SEE IN RE 620 CHURCH
STREET CORP., 299 U.S. 24, 26; HOLIDAY V. JOHNSTON, 313 U.S. 342, 348,
N. 2), UPON A PETITION WHICH SETS UP, AMONG OTHER ALLEGED ERRORS, THE
DENIAL BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION, AND ITS REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN HIS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  HE ALSO ASKS TO BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS IN THIS COURT. 

IT IS EVIDENT ON THE FACE OF THE PAPERS THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN
UNABLE TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL OR TO SECURE APPELLATE REVIEW BY REASON
OF THE REFUSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN HIS APPLICATION TO
APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND THE DENIAL OF A LIKE APPLICATION BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER
DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION IS GOVERNED BY
SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 230, WHICH
REQUIRES THAT PROPER APPLICATION BE MADE FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL. 
WELLS V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 257, 260, AND CASES CITED.  BUT
PETITIONER'S FILING OF A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WITH THE CLERK OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS A SUFFICIENT APPLICATION, IN VIEW OF THE FACT
THAT AN APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED BY EITHER THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE
DISTRICT JUDGE.  EX PARTE RAILROAD CO., 95 U.S. 221, 227; ALASKA
PACKERS ASSN. V. PILLSBURY, 301 U.S. 174, 175-76.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DECLINED TO CONSIDER PETITIONER'S APPLICATION, APPARENTLY ON THE GROUND
THAT THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUTE REQUIRED THAT HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL AS
A POOR PERSON BE DETERMINED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INSTEAD OF
BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, 36 STAT. 866, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
832, GRANTING THE RIGHT TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, PROVIDES THAT
"ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES ENTITLED TO COMMENCE ANY SUIT OR
ACTION, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY, UPON
THE ORDER OF THE COURT, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE OR DEFEND TO CONCLUSION
ANY SUIT OR ACTION, OR AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  ...
, INCLUDING ALL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, UNLESS THE TRIAL COURT SHALL
CERTIFY IN WRITING THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT SUCH APPEAL IS NOT
TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO PREPAY FEES OR COSTS
... "  IT IS PLAIN THAT UNDER THESE PROVISIONS PETITIONER, BEING A POOR
PERSON ENTITLED TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WAS AUTHORIZED TO APPLY TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE
DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN HIS APPLICATION.  SEE WELLS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES THE SUIT, INCLUDING THE APPEAL,
TO BE PROSECUTED IN FORMA PAUPERIS UPON ORDER OF THE COURT IN WHICH THE
PROCEEDING IS COMMENCED.  THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS FROM
THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS NOT CONDITIONED
UPON THE CONSENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, EVEN THOUGH IT BE
ASSUMED THAT THAT COURT COULD GRANT SUCH PERMISSION. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THAT OPPORTUNITY
SHOULD NOW BE GIVEN TO THAT COURT TO ACT ON THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE
CONSIDERATION OF OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO RAISE
HERE BY HIS APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI.  WE ACCORDINGLY GRANT THE
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IN THIS COURT.  WE ALSO GRANT THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :























ST. PIERRE V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 41 


NO. 687.  ARGUED APRIL 15, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - DISMISSED. 


1.  THE SENTENCE WHICH THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW HAVING
BEEN FULLY SERVED, AND PETITIONER NOT HAVING SHOWN THAT UNDER EITHER
STATE OR FEDERAL LAW FURTHER PENALTIES OR DISABILITIES CAN BE IMPOSED
ON HIM AS A RESULT OF THE JUDGMENT, THE CAUSE IS MOOT AND THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI IS DISMISSED.  P. 42. 

2.  THE MORAL STIGMA OF A JUDGMENT WHICH NO LONGER AFFECTS LEGAL
RIGHTS DOES NOT PRESENT A CASE OR CONTROVERSY FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.  P.
43. 

ST. PIERRE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 751, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE (132 F.2D 837) OF
A SENTENCE TO IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER, WHO IT IS ALLEGED HAD IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE A FEDERAL
GRAND JURY CONFESSED TO THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OF EMBEZZLEMENT,
REFUSED TO DIVULGE THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHOSE MONEY HE HAD
EMBEZZLED.  FOR THE REFUSAL THE DISTRICT COURT SENTENCED HIM TO FIVE
MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  132 F.2D 837.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
318 U.S. 751, ON A PETITION WHICH RAISED IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WITH
RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM SELF
INCRIMINATION.  IN THE ORDER ALLOWING THE WRIT WE REQUESTED COUNSEL TO
DISCUSS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CASE HAD BECOME MOOT. 

ON THE ARGUMENT IT WAS CONCEDED THAT PETITIONER HAD FULLY SERVED HIS
SENTENCE BEFORE CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
CASE IS MOOT BECAUSE, AFTER PETITIONER'S SERVICE OF HIS SENTENCE AND
ITS EXPIRATION, THERE WAS NO LONGER A SUBJECT MATTER ON WHICH THE
JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT COULD OPERATE.  A FEDERAL COURT IS WITHOUT POWER
TO DECIDE MOOT QUESTIONS OR TO GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS WHICH CANNOT
AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF THE LITIGANTS IN THE CASE BEFORE IT.  UNITED
STATES V. ALASKA S.S. CO., 253 U.S. 113, 115-16, AND CASES CITED;
UNITED STATES V. HAMBURG-AMERICAN CO., 239 U.S. 466, 475-77.  THE
SENTENCE CANNOT BE ENLARGED BY THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT, AND REVERSAL OF
THE JUDGMENT BELOW CANNOT OPERATE TO UNDO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE OR RESTORE
TO PETITIONER THE PENALTY OF THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT WHICH HE HAS
SERVED.  NOR HAS PETITIONER SHOWN THAT UNDER EITHER STATE OR FEDERAL
LAW FURTHER PENALTIES OR DISABILITIES CAN BE IMPOSED ON HIM AS A RESULT
OF THE JUDGMENT WHICH HAS NOW BEEN SATISFIED.  IN THESE RESPECTS THE
CASE DIFFERS FROM THAT OF AN INJUNCTION WHOSE COMMAND CONTINUES TO
OPERATE IN FUTURO EVEN THOUGH OBEYED.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. GOODYEAR
CO., 304 U.S. 257, 260, AND CASES CITED. 

IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT PETITIONER COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT HIS CASE TO
THIS COURT FOR REVIEW BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF HIS SENTENCE, AND
ALTHOUGH IT IS SAID HE APPLIED FOR BAIL TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HE DID NOT APPLY TO THIS COURT FOR A STAY
OR A SUPERSEDEAS.  THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT PETITIONER WILL BE
REQUIRED TO TESTIFY AGAIN BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AND THAT IN THE EVENT
OF HIS REFUSAL IT WILL ASK THAT HE BE COMMITTED UNTIL HE ANSWERS.  IN
THAT CASE, THERE WILL BE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW SUCH A JUDGMENT;
AND EVEN THOUGH HE BE SENTENCED TO A FIXED TERM, THE QUESTIONS WHICH HE
SEEKS TO RAISE HERE MAY BE PRESERVED BY HIS ADMISSION TO BAIL, OR BY
THE GRANT OF A STAY OR A SUPERSEDEAS, FOR WHICH HE MAY APPLY TO THIS
COURT IF NECESSARY.  IN ALL THESE RESPECTS THE CASE DIFFERS FROM
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 219
U.S. 498, WHICH WE DO NOT REGARD AS CONTROLLING HERE. 

PETITIONER ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THE JUDGMENT MAY IMPAIR HIS CREDIBILITY
AS WITNESS IN ANY FUTURE LEGAL PROCEEDING.  BUT THE MORAL STIGMA OF A
JUDGMENT WHICH NO LONGER AFFECTS LEGAL RIGHTS DOES NOT PRESENT A CASE
OR CONTROVERSY FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.  SINCE THE CAUSE IS MOOT, THE WRIT
WILL BE DISMISSED. 
..END :






















SOUTHLAND CO. V. BAYLEY, 319 U.S. 44 


NO. 581.  SUBMITTED APRIL 5, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - NO. 581,
131 F.2D 412, REVERSED.  - NO. 725, 132 F.2D 627, AFFIRMED. 


THE EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM HOUR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, BY SEC. 13(B)(1), OF ANY EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION "HAS POWER" UNDER SEC. 204 OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE, BECAME
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AS TO THOSE EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE CARRIERS OF
PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEC. 204(A)(3) GAVE THE
COMMISSION THE POWER TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE "IF NEED
THEREFOR IS FOUND," AND DID NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE ONLY FROM THE LATER
DATE WHEN THE COMMISSION EXERCISED THE POWER.  P. 47. 

SOUTHLAND GASOLINE CO. V. BAYLEY ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 725, RICHARDSON V. JAMES GIBBONS CO., ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 750, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT,  - ARGUED APRIL 5, 1943. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 623 AND 318 U.S. 750, TO REVIEW, IN NO. 581, THE
REVERSAL, AND, IN NO. 725, THE AFFIRMANCE, OF JUDGMENTS DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINTS IN SUITS BROUGHT BY EMPLOYEES TO RECOVER SUMS ALLEGED TO BE
DUE THEM UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY WRITS OF CERTIORARI THESE TWO CASES WERE BROUGHT HERE TO RESOLVE
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THEM OVER THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF SEC.
13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.  FN1 

NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK AN EMPLOYER MAY EMPLOY AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  FN2
THE SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION FROM THE MAXIMUM HOUR STANDARDS GRANTED BY
SEC. 13(B)(1) IN TURN DEPENDS UPON THE INTERPRETATION TO BE GIVEN SEC.
204(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  THE PORTIONS OF THAT SECTION WHICH
ARE IMPORTANT HERE ARE SET OUT BELOW.  FN3 

THESE CASES TURN UPON THE INTERPRETATION TO BE GIVEN THE EXEMPTION,
BY SEC. 13(B)(1) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, OF EMPLOYEES "WITH
RESPECT TO WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO
ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935."  IN THE
SOUTHLAND CASE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
CONSTRUED THIS TO EXEMPT EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY FROM
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT ONLY AFTER THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS FOUND NEED TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM
HOURS FOR SUCH EMPLOYEES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SEC. 204(A)(3) OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  BAYLEY V. SOUTHLAND GASOLINE CO., 131 F.2D 412. 
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, IN THE GIBBONS COMPANY CASE, WAS OF THE OPINION
THAT "POWER" IN SEC. 13(B) MEANT THE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER AND NOT ITS
ACTUAL EXERCISE.  132 F.2D 627; CF. PLUNKETT V. ABRAHAM BROS. PACKING
CO., 129 F.2D 419, 421, C.C.A. 6. 

THE EMPLOYERS IN BOTH CASES ARE CONCEDEDLY PRIVATE CARRIERS OF
PROPERTY, ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ALL EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO
REGULATION TO PROMOTE SAFETY OF OPERATION UNDER SEC. 204(A)(3).  IN
BOTH CASES THE EMPLOYEES SEEK RECOVERY SOLELY FOR THE FAILURE OF THEIR
EMPLOYERS TO PAY THEM THE TIME AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME AS REQUIRED BY
SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THERE IS NO CLAIM FOR UNPAID
OVERTIME COMPENSATION AFTER MAY 1, 1940, THE DATE THAT THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FIRST FOUND NEED TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS AS TO MAXIMUM HOURS TO PROMOTE SAFETY IN THE OPERATIONS OF
PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER SEC. 204(A)(3). 

THE PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION POSED BY THIS CONFLICT OF
CIRCUITS SHOULD NOT BE SOLVED SIMPLY BY A LITERAL READING OF THE
EXEMPTION SECTION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND THE DELEGATION OF
POWER SECTION OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  BOTH SECTIONS ARE PARTS OF
IMPORTANT GENERAL STATUTES AND THEIR PARTICULAR LANGUAGE SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PURPOSES WHICH LED TO THE ENACTMENT OF
THE ENTIRE LEGISLATION.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310
U.S. 534, 542.  THE WORDS OF THE SECTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE,
HOWEVER, BASIC DATA FROM WHICH TO DRAW THE SECTIONS' MEANING.  SECTION
13(B)(1) EXEMPTS FROM THE MAXIMUM HOUR LIMITATION OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT THOSE EMPLOYEES OVER WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION "HAS POWER TO" PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE.  SECTION
204(A)(3) CERTAINLY GIVES "POWER TO" THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH
MAXIMUM HOURS FOR THE EMPLOYEES HERE INVOLVED.  THERE IS A LIMITATION
ON THE AUTHORITY DELEGATED, URGED HERE BY THE EMPLOYEES AS A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER.  THIS IS THAT THE COMMISSION
MAY ESTABLISH MAXIMUM HOURS ONLY "IF NEED THEREFOR IS FOUND."  SINCE
THE EMPLOYEES SEEK UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION ONLY FOR THE PERIOD
PRIOR TO A FINDING OF NEED BY THE COMMISSION, THE EMPLOYEES ARGUE THAT
NO "POWER" EXISTED IN THE COMMISSION DURING THE TIME FOR WHICH
COMPENSATION IS CLAIMED.  WE CONCLUDE TO THE CONTRARY.  THE POWER TO
FIX MAXIMUM HOURS HAS EXISTED IN THE COMMISSION SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT IN 1935.  BEFORE THAT POWER COULD BE USED, IT WAS
NECESSARY TO MAKE A FINDING OF NEED.  SUCH A NECESSITY, HOWEVER, DID
NOT AFFECT THE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER.  LEGISLATION FREQUENTLY
DELEGATES POWER SUBJECT TO A FINDING OF NEED OR NECESSITY FOR ITS
EXERCISE.  FN4 

THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT DO NOT POINT TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  WITH THE ADOPTION
OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT UNDERTOOK THE
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION TO SECURE THE BENEFITS OF
AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM.  SAFETY THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MAXIMUM HOURS
FOR DRIVERS WAS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.  MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309
U.S. 598, 604, 607.  WHEN CONGRESS LATER CAME TO DEAL WITH WAGES AND
HOURS, ITS PRIMARY CONCERN WAS THAT PERSONS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO
TAKE PART IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHILE OPERATING WITH SUBSTANDARD LABOR
CONDITIONS.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 115.  THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT SOUGHT A REDUCTION IN HOURS TO SPREAD EMPLOYMENT AS WELL
AS TO MAINTAIN HEALTH.  OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572,
576, 577.  BY EXEMPTING THE DRIVERS OF MOTORS FROM THE MAXIMUM HOUR
LIMITATIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, CONGRESS EVIDENTLY RELIED
UPON THE MOTOR CARRIER PROVISIONS TO WORK OUT SATISFACTORY ADJUSTMENTS
FOR EMPLOYEES CHARGED WITH THE SAFETY OF OPERATIONS IN A BUSINESS
REQUIRING FLUCTUATING HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, WITHOUT THE BURDEN OF
ADDITIONAL PAY FOR OVERTIME. 

NOT ONLY DOES THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 13(B)(1) INDICATE THIS
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE BUT WHAT SLIGHT EVIDENCE THERE IS FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY POINTS TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.  THE AMENDMENT WAS
ADOPTED TO FREE OPERATORS OF MOTOR VEHICLES FROM THE REGULATION BY TWO
AGENCIES OF THE HOURS OF DRIVERS.  NO COMMENT APPEARS AS TO THE
DESIRABILITY OF STATUTORY LIMITATION ON THEIR HOURS PRIOR TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF MAXIMUM HOURS BY THE COMMISSION.  81 CONG. REC. 7875;
82 CONG. REC. 1573 ET SEQ.  NO DISTINCTION WAS POINTED OUT BETWEEN
COMMON, CONTRACT, AND PRIVATE CARRIERS, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A
DISTINCTION IN SEC. 204(A).  IT WOULD SEEM THAT IF THE POINT NOW URGED
HAD BEEN IN THE MIND OF CONGRESS IT WOULD HAVE ITSELF EXPRESSED THE
INTENTION TO LEAVE PRIVATE CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT UNTIL THE COMMISSION TOOK ACTION.  FN5  EVEN UNDER THE ARGUMENT OF
THE EMPLOYEES, THOSE DRIVERS WHO WORK FOR COMMON OR CONTRACT CARRIERS
WOULD NOT AT ANY TIME BE SUBJECT TO THE MAXIMUM HOUR PROVISION OF THE
LABOR ACT.  FURTHERMORE, IT WAS SAID ON THE SENATE FLOOR THAT THE
AMENDMENT AS TO MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS WAS TO GIVE THEM THE EXEMPTION
FROM THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT ENJOYED BY THE RAILWAY EMPLOYERS
UNDER THE HOURS OF SERVICE ACTS.  FN6 THESE DO NOT PROVIDE FOR OVERTIME
PAY AND LIKE THE SUBSECTIONS OF SEC. 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT ARE
IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE TO EXEMPT THE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THEIR
PROVISIONS FROM THE MAXIMUM HOUR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  CF. NOTE 1.  SINCE THE EMPLOYEES OF CONTRACT AND COMMON MOTOR
CARRIERS, AS WELL AS RAILWAY EMPLOYEES, ARE EXEMPT FROM THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS PROVISIONS FOR MAXIMUM HOURS BY VIRTUE OF THE SAME WORDS
WHICH GOVERN PRIVATE MOTOR CARRIERS' EMPLOYEES, IT WOULD REQUIRE
DEFINITE EVIDENCE OF A CONTRARY CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TOWARD PRIVATE
CARRIER EMPLOYEES TO LEAD US TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED HERE BY
THE EMPLOYEES.  NO SUCH EVIDENCE APPEARS.  FN7  NO. 581, REVERSED.  NO.
725, AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 1068, SEC. 13(B): 

"THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 SHALL NOT APPLY WITH RESPECT TO (1) ANY
EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS
POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935; OR (2)
ANY EMPLOYEE OF AN EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART I OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT." 

FN2  THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 7 ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION,
EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

"(1)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, 

"(2)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-TWO HOURS DURING THE SECOND
YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, OR 

"(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, 

UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN
EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE
HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  52 STAT. 1063. 

FN3  49 STAT. 543, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 301: 

"SEC. 204.  (A)  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION - 

"(1)  TO REGULATE COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN
THIS PART, AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CONTINUOUS AND ADEQUATE SERVICE,
TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS, UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS,
RECORDS, AND REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND
EQUIPMENT. 

"(2)  TO REGULATE CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN
THIS PART, AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND
REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT. 

"(3)  TO ESTABLISH FOR PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE,
IF NEED THEREFOR IS FOUND, REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE SAFETY OF
OPERATION, AND TO THAT END PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS
OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT.  ...  " 

FN4  CF. FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT, SEC. 401, 52 STAT.
1046, 21 U.S.C. 341; EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, SEC. 2, 56
STAT. 24; FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, SEC. 8D, 52 STAT. 1064, 29 U.S.C.
208; PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, SEC. 11, 49 STAT. 820,
15 U.S.C. 79(K); TARIFF ACT OF 1930, SEC. 350(A), 48 STAT. 943, 19
U.S.C. 1351; ALIEN ENEMY ACT, R.S. 4067, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21. 

FN5  AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD
ALREADY ACTED UPON MAXIMUM HOURS FOR DRIVERS MAY HAVE SHORTENED THE
DISCUSSION OF THE AMENDMENT.  81 CONG. REC. 7875.  SUBSEQUENT TO THIS
DISCUSSION AND PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE LABOR ACT, THE COMMISSION
HAD ACTED FOR COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS.  EX PARTE MC-2, 3 M.C.C.
665, 690.  PRIVATE CARRIERS WERE HELD TO NEED REGULATION BY THE
DECISION OF MAY 1, 1940, EX PARTE MC-3, 23 M.C.C. 1. 

FN6  81 CONG. REC. 7875; 34 STAT. 1415, 39 STAT. 721. 

FN7  DISTRICT COURTS WHICH HAVE INTERPRETED SEC. 13(B)(1) HAVE
REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION AS WE DO.  FAULKNER V. LITTLE ROCK
FURNITURE MFG. CO., 32 F.SUPP.  590; BECHTEL V. STILLWATER MILLING CO.,
33 F.SUPP.  1010; FITZGERALD V. KROGER GROCERY & BAKING CO., 45
F.SUPP.  812; GIBSON V. WILSON & CO., 2 FEDERAL CARRIERS CASES P 9604;
DERER V. SNOW ICE, INC., 3 FEDERAL CARRIERS CASES P 80,029.  THE WAGE
AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAS TAKEN THE POSITION
THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT APPLIES TO DRIVERS OF PRIVATE
CARRIERS UNTIL MAY 1, 1940, THE DATE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
DETERMINED THAT NEED EXISTED FOR THEIR REGULATION.  INTERPRETATIVE
BULL.  NO. 9, 5 WAGE & HOUR REP. 233, 235, MARCH 30, 1942. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















LABOR BOARD V. SOUTHERN BELL CO., 319 U.S. 50 


NO. 460.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 8, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 129 F.2D
410, REVERSED. 


THE CONCLUSION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN THIS CASE,
THAT AN ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES WHICH PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN 1935 WAS A COMPANY-DOMINATED AND
SUPPORTED UNION HAD NOT CEASED TO BE SUCH, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
REORGANIZATION OF THE ASSOCIATION AND EFFORTS TO DISSIPATE THE EFFECT
OF SUCH EARLY DOMINATION, WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AND
THE ORDER DIRECTING THE COMPANY TO DISESTABLISH COMPLETELY THE
ASSOCIATION AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AND TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
GIVING EFFECT TO THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS RESULTING FROM THE
ASSOCIATION'S FORMER REPRESENTATION OF THE EMPLOYEES, WAS WITHIN THE
AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD.  P. 60. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH
CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 461, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SOUTHERN
ASSOCIATION OF BELL TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
317 U.S. 618, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 35 N.L.R.B. 621, AND DENYING THE
BOARD'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON THIS CERTIORARI THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE BOARD
HEREIN IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  UPON CHARGES FILED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A.F. OF L., THE BOARD
ISSUED A COMPLAINT ON FEBRUARY 17, 1941, AGAINST RESPONDENT SOUTHERN
BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, CHARGING INTER ALIA THAT
RESPONDENT COMPANY WAS DOMINATING AND SUPPORTING RESPONDENT SOUTHERN
ASSOCIATION OF BELL TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES, HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
ASSOCIATION, AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 8(2) OF THE ACT, AND THAT IN OTHER WAYS RESPONDENT COMPANY HAD
INTERFERED WITH THE RIGHTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS
GUARANTEED THEM BY SEC. 7 IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT.  FN1
AFTER HEARING, THE BOARD MADE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF
THE STATED CHARGES AND ORDERED THAT RESPONDENT CEASE AND DESIST FROM
DOMINATING OR INTERFERING WITH THE ASSOCIATION, FROM CONTRIBUTING
FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUPPORT, RECOGNIZING IT AS THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGENCY OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND GIVING EFFECT TO OR ENTERING
INTO ANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT WITH THE ASSOCIATION AND
FURTHER THAT IT CEASE AND DESIST FROM INTERFERING WITH ITS EMPLOYEES IN
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, AS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT.  AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION ORDERED WAS THAT RESPONDENT WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION FROM THE
ASSOCIATION AND POST APPROPRIATE NOTICES TO ITS EMPLOYEES. 

SEPARATE PETITIONS WERE FILED IN THE COURT BELOW BY RESPONDENT AND
THE ASSOCIATION TO REVIEW THIS ORDER AND THE BOARD ANSWERED, REQUESTING
ENFORCEMENT.  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS WERE
WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE AND THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRING
THE RESPONDENT TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM AND TO DISESTABLISH THE
ASSOCIATION AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENCY OF ITS EMPLOYEES WAS AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF THE ACT.  IT
ACCORDINGLY VACATED THE ORDER OF THE BOARD AND DENIED THE BOARD'S
PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT.  WE TURN IMMEDIATELY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE
AND THE BOARD'S FINDINGS. 

RESPONDENT DOES A GENERAL TELEPHONE BUSINESS IN NINE SOUTHEASTERN
STATES, FURNISHING LOCAL AND LONG DISTANCE COMMUNICATION FACILITIES,
BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE.  IT HAS 23,000 EMPLOYEES AND 1,375,000
SUBSCRIBERS. 

THE ASSOCIATION WAS ORGANIZED IN 1919 BY RESPONDENT COMPANY TO
REPRESENT ITS EMPLOYEES AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ADMITTEDLY UNTIL
JULY 5, 1935, THE DATE OF THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, RESPONDENT LIBERALLY CONTRIBUTED SUPPORT TO THE ASSOCIATION.  THE
FACTUAL CENTER OF CONTROVERSY HERE, RESOLVED BY THE BOARD AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT, IS WHETHER THIS DOMINATION AND INTERFERENCE CAME TO AN END
WITH THE REORGANIZATION OF THE ASSOCIATION IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF
1935 OR AT ANY LATER DATE BEFORE THE COMPLAINT.  ANOTHER ACT OF
DISASSOCIATION IS ALLEGED BY RESPONDENT TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON FEBRUARY
14, 1941. 

THERE IS TESTIMONY THAT IN APRIL AND MAY, 1935, JUST BEFORE THE
PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE ASSOCIATION'S
PRESIDENT, ASKEW, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT,
SUCCESSFULLY CANVASSED THE MEMBERSHIP FOR FIFTY CENT CONTRIBUTIONS SO
THAT THE ASSOCIATION WOULD HAVE ITS OWN FUNDS AND BE ABLE TO OPERATE
AFTER THE BILL BECAME A LAW.  THE COMPANY AIDED THE SOLICITATION WITH
ADVICE, AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTATION AND EXPENSES FOR THE SOLICITORS. 
OVER FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS RAISED.  THREE ASSOCIATION OFFICIALS
ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE FUND RAISING.  ASKEW, THE PRESIDENT, WEIL, THE
VICE-PRESIDENT AND SOON TO BE PRESIDENT, AND WILKES, THE ACTING
TREASURER, WERE EMPLOYEES HAVING CLOSE TOUCH WITH THE COMPANY
MANAGEMENT.  ASKEW WAS A STATE CASHIER, WILKES WAS SECRETARY TO KEY
OFFICIALS AND WEIL, PLANT PRACTICE SUPERVISOR, A POSITION DESCRIBED BY
HIM AS COVERING THE DISTRIBUTION AND EXPLANATION TO THE PROPER
EMPLOYEES OF PRINTED ROUTINE JOB INSTRUCTIONS. 

ON JULY 16, 1935, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE LABOR ACT,
WARREN, RESPONDENT'S VICE-PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS, CALLED A
MEETING OF HIS CHIEF SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, ATTENDED BY ASKEW AND
WILKES AS ASSOCIATION OFFICERS.  AT THIS MEETING THE WAGNER ACT WAS
DISCUSSED AND A "HANDS-OFF" POLICY ANNOUNCED BY THE COMPANY AS TO THE
ORGANIZATION OF ITS WORKERS.  THE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WERE INSTRUCTED
TO AND DID TRANSMIT THESE VIEWS DOWN TO THE RANKS BY WORD OF MOUTH,
SUPERIOR SUPERVISORS SPEAKING TO THEIR INFERIORS.  NO MENTION WAS MADE
AT THIS MEETING OF THE DISESTABLISHMENT OR DISSOLUTION OF THE
ASSOCIATION.  A FEW DAYS LATER A MEMORANDUM ON THE "WAGNER BILL
INTERPRETATIONS" WAS ISSUED BY THE COMPANY AND CALLED TO ITS EMPLOYEES'
ATTENTION.  IT READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE COMPANY CAN CONTINUE TO PAY SALARIES OF ASSOCIATION OFFICERS WHO
ARE FILLING THEIR REGULAR JOBS AND DOING ASSOCIATION WORK INCIDENTAL TO
THEIR REGULAR DUTIES. 

"THE COMPANY CAN CONTINUE TO PAY THE SALARIES OF ASSOCIATION OFFICERS
WHILE ENGAGED IN CONFERRING WITH MANAGEMENT AND WHILE THEY ARE MEETING
AMONG THEMSELVES BEFORE OR AFTER THESE CONFERENCES TO DISCUSS THEIR
PRESENTATION OR DISPOSITION OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED.  SALARIES CANNOT
BE PAID WHEN ASSOCIATION OFFICERS ARE DEVOTING THEIR TIME SOLELY TO
INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION. 

"THE COMPANY CANNOT PAY TRAVELING EXPENSES.  HOWEVER, ALL MANAGEMENT
REPRESENTATIVES ARE ANXIOUS TO COOPERATE AND WILL ENDEAVOR TO MEET
ASSOCIATION OFFICERS AT SUCH TIMES AND PLACES AS WILL BE MOST
CONVENIENT AND ECONOMICAL. 

"THE ASSOCIATION MAY CONTINUE TO USE COMPANY PREMISES FOR THEIR
MEETINGS WITHOUT CHARGE.  SPACE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE FULL TIME USE OF THE
ASSOCIATION COULD NOT BE PROVIDED WITHOUT PROPER CHARGE. 

"ASSOCIATION LOCAL MEETINGS CANNOT BE HELD ON COMPANY TIME. 

"THE ASSOCIATION MAY USE COMPANY TYPEWRITERS AND OTHER OFFICE
FACILITIES WHEN SUCH IS INCIDENTAL TO THE REGULAR COMPANY USE OF THESE
FACILITIES.  OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES SUCH AS STAMPS, STATIONERY AND
SUPPLIES CANNOT BE BORNE BY THE COMPANY. 

"ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES MAY MAKE LIMITED USE OF TOLL LINES UPON
THE SAME BASIS AS IS EFFECTIVE FOR EMPLOYEES GENERALLY. 

"THE EXPENSE OF PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE MINUTES OF JOINT
CONFERENCES WILL BE BORNE BY THE COMPANY." 

THIS MEMORANDUM WAS REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPANY'S VIEWS OF
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OCCURRED IN THE REVISION OF APRIL
1937 WHEN THE PARAGRAPH AS TO SALARIES WAS CHANGED TO READ: 

"1.  THE COMPANY CAN PAY SALARIES OF ASSOCIATION OFFICERS WHILE
ENGAGED IN CONFERRING WITH MANAGEMENT.  THE COMPANY CANNOT PAY SALARIES
OF ASSOCIATION OFFICERS UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 

"(A)  WHILE THEY ARE MEETING AMONG THEMSELVES BEFORE AND AFTER JOINT
CONFERENCES TO DISCUSS THEIR PRESENTATION OR DISPOSITION OF THE MATTERS
INVOLVED. 

"(B)  WHILE ASSOCIATION OFFICERS ARE DEVOTING THEIR TIME SOLELY TO
INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION." 

IN THAT ISSUE, IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSOCIATION MUST PAY FOR
SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMPANY, SUCH AS SPACE, LONG DISTANCE CALLS
AND COLLECTION OF DUES.  THE MEMORANDUM CONCLUDED: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR AN EMPLOYER TO
DOMINATE OR INTERFERE WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION, AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS COMPANY SHOULD CONSCIENTIOUSLY
OBSERVE THESE PROVISIONS." 

NO DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES IN THEIR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MANAGEMENT APPEARS FROM THIS
EVIDENCE AND THE BOARD FOUND NONE. 

RESPONDENTS URGE THAT THE HISTORICAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN THE COMPANY
ORGANIZED AND FINANCED EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION OF 1919 TO 1936 AND THE
REORGANIZED ASSOCIATION OF 1936 TO DATE IS NOT CONTROLLING IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE ASSOCIATION WAS DOMINATED BY THE COMPANY IN
1941.  THERE WAS CERTAINLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF CONTINUITY TO FORM A
BASIS FOR THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT THE REORGANIZATION DID NOT SO
COMPLETELY DISPLACE THE ORIGINAL ASSOCIATION AS TO AMOUNT AT THAT TIME
TO THE CREATION OF A "FREE AND UNINSPIRED" EMPLOYEE AGENCY.  THE
REORGANIZATION WAS GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF THE EXISTING
ASSOCIATION.  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE OLD BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF THE
NEW.  TWO OF THESE ACTIVE REORGANIZERS CONTINUED IN THE HIGHER OFFICES
OF THE ASSOCIATION THROUGH 1939.  A NEW AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY,
WHICH FOR THE FIRST TIME PROVIDED FOR A CHECK-OFF FOR ASSOCIATION DUES,
WAS NEGOTIATED BEFORE THE RATIFICATION OF THE CHANGES IN THE
ASSOCIATION CONSTITUTION, WHICH WERE MADE IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONFORM TO
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDED BY
REVISION RATHER THAN BY ORIGINAL CREATION.  MEMBERS WERE INELIGIBLE FOR
ELECTION TO OFFICES IN LOCALS UNTIL A YEAR FROM THEIR ADMISSION AND TO
THE PRESIDENCY UNTIL FIVE YEARS.  IN ASKING FOR NEW APPLICATIONS FOR
MEMBERSHIP, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSOCIATION THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE A
COMPLETE RECORD OF MEMBERSHIP "AND IT IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A NEW
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP."  UNTIL THE MARCH 1940 MEETING, THE
PREAMBLE OF THE REVISED CONSTITUTION REFERRED TO THE FORMATION OF THE
ASSOCIATION IN 1919.  AT THAT DATE, THE PREAMBLE WAS CHANGED SO THAT IT
RECITED THE DATE OF THE FORMATION TO BE AUGUST 30, 1935. 

THE REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS IMPORTANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
THE LABOR ACT.  THE COMPANY COULD NO LONGER PROPERLY PAY THE EXPENSES
OF THE ASSOCIATION.  CONSEQUENTLY THE MEMBERSHIP HAD TO PAY DUES TO
MEET THE EXPENSES.  THESE CHANGES WERE MADE. 

EVEN THOUGH THIS CONTINUITY OF THE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION AS A MATTER
OF LAW MAY NOT BE CONTROLLING AS TO THE CONTINUANCE OF DOMINANCE BY THE
COMPANY, IT IS AT LEAST EVIDENCE OF SUCH DOMINANCE, ENTITLED TO
CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD.  THE EFFECTS OF LONG PRACTICE PERSIST. 
NOTWITHSTANDING FREEDOM FROM LABOR DIFFICULTIES, THE DISESTABLISHMENT
OF AN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION MAY BE NECESSARY TO GIVE UNTRAMMELLED
FREEDOM FOR THE CREATION OF A BARGAINING UNIT.  LABOR BOARD V.
GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 271; LABOR BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS CO.,
308 U.S. 241, 250; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 112
F.2D 657, 660, AFFIRMED 312 U.S. 660. 

SO MUCH THE RESPONDENTS CONCEDE, OR AT LEAST ASSUME.  THEY AGREE THAT
A CLEAVAGE IS NECESSARY BUT THEY DENY THAT THE BOARD MAY DECIDE THAT
ALL THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT IN 1935 AND THE
ISSUANCE OF THE COMPLAINT IN 1941 DOES NOT OVERCOME THE LAWFUL
DOMINATION PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT.  FORMAL DISESTABLISHMENT
IS NOT, THE COMPANY SAYS, THE ONLY ACT WHICH WILL COMPLY WITH THE LAW
AND THE EVIDENCE AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE LABOR ACT SHOWS WITHOUT
CONTRADICTION, SO THE RESPONDENTS CONTEND, THAT THE COMPANY WAS NEUTRAL
AND THE ASSOCIATION THE CHOICE OF THE EMPLOYEES. 

THE BOARD CALLED ATTENTION TO MINOR FAVORS SHOWN THE ASSOCIATION
AFTER 1935 BY THE COMPANY.  THE USE OF A COMPANY BULLETIN BOARD TO POST
ASSOCIATION NOTICES, THE LIMITED USE OF EMPLOYER SPACE OR FACILITIES,
THE DEDUCTION OF DUES WITHOUT CHARGE, ALL WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION
BETWEEN EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIOR TO ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL
CLARIFICATION OF THE LABOR ACT, MAY BE OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE BUT THEY
ARE A PART OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH THE BOARD IS TO DRAW
CONCLUSIONS. 

THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT IN 1940 A LONG DISTANCE SUPERVISOR AT
SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, AT A SUPERIOR'S SUGGESTION, UNDERTOOK TO
INFLUENCE TWO SUBORDINATES TO FAVOR THE ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE EFFORTS
OF AN OUTSIDE UNION TO SECURE MEMBERS.  WHILE ONLY A SINGLE INCIDENT,
IT IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD. 

THE RESPONDENTS' EVIDENCE SHOWS FURTHER THAT WHEN AN OUTSIDE UNION
SOUGHT MEMBERS AMONG THE COMPANY EMPLOYEES AND WHILE THE LABOR BOARD
WAS INVESTIGATING CHARGES OF ASSOCIATION DOMINANCE BY THE COMPANY, THE
ASSOCIATION WROTE THE COMPANY IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"BECAUSE SUCH A CHARGE CLOUDS THIS ASSOCIATION'S RIGHT TO REPRESENT
THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY AND THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYEES MAY NOT ADEQUATELY BE SERVED, THE
ASSOCIATION WILL NOT UNDERTAKE TO ACT AS THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGENT PENDING A CANVASS OF ITS MEMBERSHIP BY SIGNED BALLOT." 

IMMEDIATELY THE COMPANY ON FEBRUARY 14, 1941, POSTED NOTICE TO ITS
EMPLOYEES WHICH QUOTED SECS. 7 AND 8 OF THE LABOR ACT AND THEN ADDED: 

"THE COMPANY RECOGNIZES ITS EMPLOYEES' RIGHT TO JOIN, FORM OR
AFFILIATE WITH ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION OF THEIR OWN CHOICE AND FREELY TO
EXERCISE ALL RIGHTS SECURED TO THEM BY THIS ACT.    "THE COMPANY
GUARANTEES ITS STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
AND THAT NO EMPLOYEE WILL BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR SUFFER ANY OTHER
PENALTY BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT SECURED BY THIS
ACT. 

"THE COMPANY IS NOT INTERESTED IN WHETHER ITS EMPLOYEES JOIN OR DO
NOT JOIN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION."  THEREAFTER, BY MEANS OF A SIGNED
BALLOT POLL, A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES INDICATED THEIR DESIRE TO
CONTINUE THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION AND THEIR CHOICE OF THE
ASSOCIATION AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  PENDING
THE POLL, THE COMPANY CONTINUED IN EFFECT ITS 1940 AGREEMENT WITH THE
ASSOCIATION.  AFTER THE POLL AND SUBSEQUENT TO A CERTIFICATION TO IT OF
THE MANNER OF VOTING AND THE RESULT, THE COMPANY ON MARCH 6, 1941,
RECOGNIZED THE ASSOCIATION AS THE "AUTHORIZED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGENT OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS COMPANY."  THE SAME AGREEMENT CONTINUED
TO GOVERN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE ASSOCIATION UNTIL
THE PRESENT HEARING. 

THE RESPONDENTS' EVIDENCE SHOWS ALSO THAT IN THE YEARS 1936 TO 1940,
INCLUSIVE, THE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED THE EMPLOYEES IN BARGAINING
CONFERENCES OVER WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS.  OUT OF THESE
CONFERENCES CAME SUBSTANTIAL CONCESSIONS TO THE EMPLOYEES, ESTIMATED BY
WITNESSES AS WORTH MORE THAN THREE MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY TO THE
EMPLOYEES. 

FROM THE GROUP OF CIRCUMSTANCES HERETOFORE DETAILED IN THIS OPINION,
THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANY HAD CONTINUED TO COUNTENANCE THE
ASSOCIATION.  IT HELD THAT: 

"THE EFFECT OF THE DOMINATION AND SUPPORT OF THE ASSOCIATION BY THE
RESPONDENT PRIOR TO AND DURING THE YEARS SINCE 1935, COULD NOT, UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, BE DISSIPATED EXCEPT BY AN EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT TO
THE EMPLOYEES THAT THE RESPONDENT WOULD NO LONGER RECOGNIZE OR DEAL
WITH THE ASSOCIATION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ACTION BY THE RESPONDENT,
ITS EMPLOYEES WERE NOT AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO START AFRESH IN
ORGANIZING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR RELATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYER
WHICH THEY MUST HAVE IF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT ARE TO BE
EFFECTUATED." 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY
THIS CONCLUSION.  SINCE THE ASSOCIATION PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN 1935 WAS OBVIOUSLY A COMPANY-DOMINATED
AND SUPPORTED UNION, THE QUESTION OF THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THE PASSAGE
OF TIME OR SUBSEQUENT EFFORTS TO DISSIPATE THE EFFECT OF THIS EARLY
DOMINATION IS FOR THE BOARD.  ITS CONCLUSION IS AN INFERENCE OF FACT
WHICH MAY NOT BE SET ASIDE UPON JUDICIAL REVIEW BECAUSE THE COURTS
WOULD HAVE DRAWN A DIFFERENT INFERENCE.  LABOR BOARD V. GREYHOUND
LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 270; LABOR BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453,
461. 

MANAGEMENT CONTROL OVER COMPANY-SPONSORED EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS RUNS
THE ENTIRE SCALE OF INTENSITY.  IT MAY BE SLIGHT OR COMPLETE.  A
GENUINELY FREE UNION COMPOSED OF EMPLOYEES OF ONE CORPORATION ALONE MAY
SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 7 BUT WHERE, AS HERE, EVIDENCE EXISTS
OF ORIGINAL EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, THE BOARD MAY APPRAISE THE SITUATION
AND EVEN FORBID THE APPEARANCE OF SUCH A UNION ON THE BALLOT TO SELECT
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES WHERE IN THE BOARD'S JUDGMENT THE EVIDENCE
DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE UNION'S PRESENT FREEDOM FROM EMPLOYER CONTROL. 
LABOR BOARD V. FALK CORP., SUPRA, 461, 462.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE
BOARD ORDERED THE COMPANY TO COMPLETELY DISESTABLISH THE ASSOCIATION AS
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE AND TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO
THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS RESULTING FROM THE ASSOCIATION'S FORMER
REPRESENTATION OF THE EMPLOYEES.  FOR THE REASONS GIVEN THIS ORDER WAS,
IN OUR OPINION, WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD. 

THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENFORCE THE ORDER OF THE
BOARD.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49
STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION. 

"SEC. 8.  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER - 

"(1)  TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7. 

"(2)  TO DOMINATE OR INTERFERE WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION
OF ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION OR CONTRIBUTE FINANCIAL OR OTHER SUPPORT TO
IT:  PROVIDED, THAT SUBJECT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS MADE AND PUBLISHED
BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(A), AN EMPLOYER SHALL NOT BE
PROHIBITED FROM PERMITTING EMPLOYEES TO CONFER WITH HIM DURING WORKING
HOURS WITHOUT LOSS OF TIME OR PAY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 10.  ... 

"(C)  ...  IF UPON ALL THE TESTIMONY TAKEN THE BOARD SHALL BE OF THE
OPINION THAT ANY PERSON NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT HAS ENGAGED IN OR IS
ENGAGING IN ANY SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THEN THE BOARD SHALL STATE
ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND SHALL ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED ON SUCH
PERSON AN ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT.  ... 

     .         . .         .         . 

"(F)  ...  THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, SHALL  ...  BE CONCLUSIVE." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :














JERSEY CENTRAL CO. V. POWER COMM'N, 319 U.S. 61 


NO. 299.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 5, 1943.  REARGUED MARCH, 4, 5, 1943.  -
DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 129 F.2D 183, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IN THIS CASE THAT
FACILITIES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A POWER COMPANY WITHIN A STATE - WHICH
CONNECTED WITH FACILITIES OF A SECOND COMPANY, ALSO WITHIN THE STATE,
WHOSE FACILITIES CONNECTED WITH THOSE OF A THIRD COMPANY, IN ANOTHER
STATE - WERE UTILIZED FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY ACROSS
STATE LINES, HELD SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 67. 

2.  FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT OF 1935, IS NOT
LIMITED TO ENERGY AT THE INSTANT IT CROSSES THE STATE LINE, NOR TO
COMPANIES WHICH OWN THE FACILITIES WHICH CROSS THE LINE.  P. 71. 

3.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION DOES NOT EXTEND
TO ALL CONNECTING TRANSMISSION FACILITIES BUT ONLY TO THOSE WHICH
TRANSMIT ENERGY ACTUALLY MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 72. 

4.  SINCE THE POWER COMPANY HERE IN QUESTION OWNS AND OPERATES A
TRANSMISSION LINE WHICH IS A FACILITY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 201(B), IT IS A "PUBLIC UTILITY"
UNDER SEC. 201(E).  P. 73. 

5.  THE PURCHASE BY A COMPANY WHICH IS A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT, OF THE STOCK OF ANOTHER COMPANY WHICH ALSO IS A
PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THE ACT, REQUIRES THE APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PURCHASE COULD BE, AND THE
TRANSFER IS, REGULATED BY THE STATE.  P. 74. 

6.  THE LIMITATION OF SEC. 201(A) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT - "SUCH
FEDERAL REGULATION, HOWEVER, TO EXTEND ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE
NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES" - IS INAPPLICABLE TO
REGULATION UNDER SEC. 203(A) OF THE ACQUISITION OF SECURITIES.  P. 76. 

JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 329, NEW JERSEY POWER & LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 610, TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 610, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 30 P.U.R. (N.S.)  33. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE TWO CASES BRING HERE FOR REVIEW THE CONSTRUCTION OF SECS. 201
AND 203(A) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITY
ACT OF 1935.  FN1  THESE SECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN TITLE II, PART II, OF
THE LATTER ACT, WHICH PART RELATES TO FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE
BUSINESS OF THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND THE SALE OF SUCH ENERGY AT WHOLESALE.  BY THESE SECTIONS, THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ARE DEFINED
AND THE ACQUISITION OF SECURITIES OF SUCH UTILITIES BY ANY OTHER
UTILITY SUBJECT TO THE ACT IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION OF THE
COMMISSION. 

I. AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE ABOVE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT, AND WITHOUT SEEKING COMMISSION AUTHORIZATION, THE NEW JERSEY POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY PURCHASED FROM OTHERS THAN THE ISSUER CERTAIN
SECURITIES OF THE JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.  THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION, BEING OF THE OPINION THAT BOTH THE PURCHASER AND THE
ISSUER WERE PUBLIC UTILITIES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT AND THAT THEREFORE THE ACQUISITION OF THE STOCK WAS ILLEGAL, ON
JUNE 7, 1938, ENTERED AN ORDER THAT THE PURCHASER SUBMIT INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF THE STOCK AND SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
COMMISSION SHOULD NOT PROCEED TO ENFORCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT. 
TO THIS ORDER, THE PURCHASER ANSWERED THAT THE JERSEY CENTRAL WAS NOT A
PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE ACT AND THAT THE APPROVAL
BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION TO THE ACQUISITION WAS THEREFORE NOT
REQUIRED BY LAW.  BY PERMISSION OF THE COMMISSION, THE JERSEY CENTRAL
INTERVENED AND MADE THE SAME CONTENTION AS TO ITS STATUS.  THUS THERE
WERE PRESENTED FOR DETERMINATION TWO QUESTIONS:  FIRST, WHETHER JERSEY
CENTRAL WAS A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THE ACT; AND SECOND, WHETHER IF IT
WAS A PUBLIC UTILITY, THIS ACQUISITION OF ITS STOCK WAS PERMISSIBLE IN
VIEW OF THE DECLARATION OF SEC. 201(A) THAT FEDERAL REGULATION SHOULD
"EXTEND ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY
THE STATES."  THIS PURCHASE IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY NEW JERSEY. 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE PURCHASER, JERSEY POWER, IS A PUBLIC UTILITY
UNDER THE ACT.  THE COMMISSION AFTER INVESTIGATION AND HEARING HELD
THAT JERSEY CENTRAL ALSO WAS A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THE ACT.  30 P.U.R.
(N.S.)  33.  THIS HOLDING WAS BASED ON FINDINGS THAT JERSEY CENTRAL
OWNS AND OPERATES TRANSMISSION FACILITIES (AN ELECTRIC LINE) EXTENDING
FROM ITS SUBSTATION ADJACENT TO ITS GENERATING PLANT IN SOUTH AMBOY,
NEW JERSEY, TO THE SOUTH BANK OF THE RARITAN RIVER IN THE SAME STATE
WHERE THE LINE JOINS THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES OF ANOTHER COMPANY,
NOT HERE INVOLVED, THE PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY.  THIS
LATTER COMPANY TRANSMITS THE ENERGY FROM THE POINT OF JUNCTION ON THE
RARITAN TO A COMMON BUS BAR  FN2  IN ONE OF ITS SUBSTATIONS, LOCATED
ALSO IN NEW JERSEY AT MECHANIC STREET, PERTH AMBOY.  FROM THE BUS BAR,
PUBLIC SERVICE HAS TRANSMISSION FACILITIES EXTENDING TO THE MID-CHANNEL
OF KILL VAN KULL, A BODY OF WATER BETWEEN NEW JERSEY AND STATEN ISLAND,
NEW YORK.  AT MID-CHANNEL, STATEN ISLAND EDISON CORPORATION, ANOTHER
UTILITY, CONNECTS WITH ITS TRANSMISSION FACILITIES WHICH EXTEND TO ITS
OWN ATLANTIC SUBSTATION ON STATEN ISLAND.  THE COMMISSION FURTHER
FOUND, IN THE WORDS QUOTED BELOW, THAT ENERGY GENERATED IN NEW JERSEY
BY JERSEY CENTRAL WAS CONSUMED IN NEW YORK AND ENERGY GENERATED IN NEW
YORK WAS CONSUMED IN NEW JERSEY.  FN3 

THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THESE FINDINGS WERE BASED SHOWED THAT THE
ENERGY WAS DELIVERED FROM JERSEY CENTRAL TO AND FROM PUBLIC SERVICE
UNDER CONTRACT AND THAT PUBLIC SERVICE LIKEWISE DELIVERED AND RECEIVED
ENERGY UNDER CONTRACT TO AND FROM STATEN ISLAND EDISON.  JERSEY CENTRAL
HAD NO CONTROL OVER THE DESTINATION OF ITS ENERGY AFTER IT MADE
DELIVERY TO PUBLIC SERVICE AT THE RARITAN BUT IT DID, OF COURSE,
CONTROL THE DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC SERVICE.  THE
DELIVERIES FROM JERSEY CENTRAL TO PUBLIC SERVICE WERE SUBSTANTIAL,
ABOVE FIFTY-FIVE MILLION KILOWATT HOURS IN EACH YEAR OF THE PERIOD 1934
TO 1937, INCLUSIVE.  THOSE FROM PUBLIC SERVICE TO STATEN ISLAND WERE
SMALLER FOR THE SAME PERIOD, AMOUNTING TO THREE TO FOUR MILLION K.W.H.
ANNUALLY AND THE FLOW FROM STATEN ISLAND TO PUBLIC SERVICE AGGREGATED
ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT.  ALTHOUGH, AS WILL APPEAR HEREAFTER, THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS SOME JERSEY CENTRAL ENERGY IS CONSUMED IN NEW YORK, THE
AMOUNT IS UNKNOWN. 

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PUBLIC SERVICE AND STATEN ISLAND IS MAINTAINED
PRIMARILY TO GUARD THE STATEN ISLAND DISTRIBUTION AGAINST BREAKDOWN. 
IT IS USED FOR EMERGENCIES A FEW TIMES PER YEAR ON AN AVERAGE.  SURPLUS
ENERGY IS OCCASIONALLY SOLD.  THE REST OF THE TIME THE LINE IS
MAINTAINED "IN BALANCE."  THIS IS TO AVOID A DELAY OF TRANSMISSION IN
AN EMERGENCY.  IF THE CONNECTION WERE NOT MAINTAINED, AN APPRECIABLE
TIME WOULD BE LOST IN COMMUNICATING AND REESTABLISHING THE CONNECTION. 
ANY OSCILLATION OF THE BALANCE, CREATED BY INCREASED DEMAND IN NEW YORK
OR NEW JERSEY, CARRIES ENERGY IN ONE DIRECTION OR IN ANOTHER TO BE
CONSUMED ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF THE LINE BETWEEN THE STATES.  THIS
IS CALLED "SLOP-OVER" ENERGY.  THESE BULK DELIVERIES WERE THE SUBJECT
OF THE SALE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PUBLIC SERVICE AND STATEN ISLAND. 

SINCE THE BUS BAR INTO WHICH THE JERSEY CENTRAL ENERGY IS FED ALSO
RECEIVES LARGE AMOUNTS OF ENERGY FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE FACTS
HERETOFORE DETAILED DO NOT PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT ENERGY GENERATED BY
JERSEY CENTRAL PASSES TO AND IS CONSUMED IN NEW YORK.  THIS FURTHER
EVIDENCE APPEARS FROM TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY INVESTIGATORS OF THE
COMMISSION.  THEIR EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE RECORDS DISCLOSES THAT
THERE WERE MOMENTS OF TIME BETWEEN JANUARY 26, 1937, AND SEPTEMBER 6,
1938, WHEN ALL THE ENERGY FLOWING INTO THE BUS BAR AT MECHANIC STREET
CAME FROM JERSEY CENTRAL AND AT THE SAME MOMENTS ENERGY FLOWED FROM
MECHANIC STREET IN NEW JERSEY TO THE ATLANTIC SUBSTATION IN NEW YORK. 
AS NO POOLS OF ENERGY EXIST FROM WHICH THE FLOW TO NEW YORK COULD HAVE
BEEN DRAWN, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT JERSEY CENTRAL PRODUCTION WAS
INSTANTANEOUSLY TRANSMITTED TO NEW YORK.  CF. UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
PFOST, 286 U.S. 165.  THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TRANSMITTED WAS SMALL.  THE
EVIDENCE WAS DEVELOPED FROM 184 LOG READINGS SELECTED FROM 25,000.  OF
THE 184 LOG READINGS, 12 SHOWED THIS FLOW OF ENERGY FROM JERSEY CENTRAL
TO NEW YORK BETWEEN AUGUST 26, 1935, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT, AND MARCH 14, 1938, THE DATE OF THE PRESENT PURCHASE OF
STOCK.  FN4  TWELVE SHOWED SUCH FLOW SHORTLY AFTER THE PURCHASE. 

THIS EVIDENCE, WE THINK, FURNISHES SUBSTANTIAL BASIS  FN5  FOR THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION THAT FACILITIES OF JERSEY CENTRAL ARE
UTILIZED FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY ACROSS STATE LINES. 

PETITIONS FOR REHEARING WERE DENIED.  AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 313 OF THE ACT. 
FN6  THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION WAS AFFIRMED, 129 F.2D 183,
AND IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL LAW RAISED BY THE
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, WE GRANTED REVIEW.  317 U.S. 610. 

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF TITLE II, PART II, OF THE 1935 AMENDMENTS TO
THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, SUPRA NOTE 1, WAS TO GIVE A FEDERAL AGENCY POWER
TO REGULATE THE SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY ACROSS STATE LINES.  REGULATION
OF SUCH SALES HAD BEEN DENIED TO THE STATES BY PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM CO., 273 U.S. 83.  ON ACCOUNT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERSTATE SALES OF ELECTRIC ENERGY, IT WAS DEEMED
DESIRABLE BY CONGRESS TO ENTER THIS FIELD OF REGULATION.  FN7 

II.  PETITIONERS CONCEDE THAT SOME ENERGY GENERATED BY JERSEY CENTRAL
AND SOLD AND DELIVERED BY IT TO PUBLIC SERVICE PASSES THEREAFTER TO NEW
YORK.  THEIR CONTENTION IS THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS BY WHICH THIS ENERGY
PASSES TO NEW YORK DOES NOT MAKE JERSEY CENTRAL A PUBLIC UTILITY,
WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE ACT, BECAUSE IT "DOES NOT OWN OR OPERATE
FACILITIES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY, OR SALE OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY AT WHOLESALE, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  "A PERSON OWNING OR
OPERATING FACILITIES  ...  MUST OWN THE FACILITIES WHICH TRANSMIT -
SEND ACROSS - THE ENERGY, AND THIS CONNOTES VOLUNTARY, INTENTIONAL
ACTION."  FROM THE ASSERTED FACT THAT JERSEY CENTRAL HAS NO CONTROL
OVER THE ENERGY PRODUCED BY IT AFTER ITS DELIVERY TO PUBLIC SERVICE,
PETITIONERS CONCLUDE THAT THIS SHORT TRANSMISSION AND SALE, WHOLLY IN
NEW JERSEY, IS AN INTRASTATE TRANSACTION.  WITHOUT THIS SEPARATION FROM
THE MOVEMENT ACROSS THE NEW JERSEY-NEW YORK LINE, THE TRANSMISSION BY
JERSEY CENTRAL WOULD FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCE DECLARED BY
TWO FORMER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

IN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM CO., 273 U.S. 83,
86, THIS COURT HELD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE THE SALE OF LOCALLY PRODUCED
ELECTRIC CURRENT AT THE STATE BOUNDARY WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE BUYER
WOULD UTILIZE THE ENERGY EXTRASTATE.  THE PASSAGE OF CUSTODY AND TITLE
AT THE LINE WAS HELD IMMATERIAL.  WE SEE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A SALE
AT OR BEFORE REACHING THE STATE LINE. 

THE OTHER CASE IS ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S.
498.  IN THIS CASE, A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY BOUGHT GAS IN ILLINOIS
FROM ITS PARENT CORPORATION.  THE PARENT HAD TRANSPORTED THE GAS ACROSS
THE STATE LINE AND DELIVERED IT AT A REDUCED PRESSURE TO THE SUBSIDIARY
IN ILLINOIS.  THE SUBSIDIARY TRANSPORTED THE GAS WHOLLY INTRASTATE AND
SOLD AND, ON AGAIN REDUCING PRESSURE, DELIVERED IT TO AN ILLINOIS
DISTRIBUTING COMPANY.  THE INTRASTATE MOVEMENT BY THE SUBSIDIARY WAS
HELD BY US TO BE A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE SAID THAT THE POINT
AT WHICH TITLE AND CUSTODY PASSED, WITHOUT ARRESTING MOVEMENT, DID NOT
AFFECT THE ESSENTIAL INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF THE BUSINESS. 

BUT WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE INTERVENTION OF PUBLIC SERVICE
BETWEEN JERSEY CENTRAL AND STATEN ISLAND EDISON AND THE CONSEQUENT LOSS
OF ACTUAL CONTROL OF THE ENERGY BY JERSEY CENTRAL IS SIGNIFICANT TO
DISTINGUISH THE TWO CASES JUST CITED.  PETITIONERS, AS WE UNDERSTAND
THEIR BRIEFS, CONCEDE, AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT POWER RESTS IN CONGRESS TO
REGULATE SUCH A FLOW OF ENERGY FROM JERSEY CENTRAL AS HERE OCCURS. 
SUCH A FLOW AFFECTS COMMERCE.  CF. WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111,
AND CASES CITED.  FN8  BUT PETITIONERS SAY THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND
TO EXERCISE ITS FULL POWER OVER INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION AND DIRECTED
ONLY THAT TRANSMISSION "IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" SHOULD BE REGULATED. 
AS CONTRASTED WITH "AFFECTING COMMERCE" IN THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 803, SEC. 1(C), OR THE "CURRENT OF
COMMERCE" IN THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, 42 STAT. 998, OR THE BROAD
LANGUAGE OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT, 50 STAT. 83, OR THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT, 50 STAT. 246, THE WORDS "IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" ARE
SAID, BY PETITIONERS, TO BE THE "STRICTEST TEST OF JURISDICTION
AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS."  BUT THE ARGUMENT, WE THINK, GIVES NO EFFECT TO
THE DEFINITION OF "TRANSMITTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AS USED IN THIS
ACT.  IN THE NOTE BELOW THERE IS SET OUT THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 201 WHICH INDICATE THE MEANING GIVEN THE PHRASE, WHICH PROVISIONS
ARE ITALICIZED FOR QUICK REFERENCE.  FN9 SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) SHOW
THE INTENT TO REGULATE SUCH TRANSACTIONS AS ARE BEYOND STATE POWER
UNDER THE ATTLEBORO CASE, SUPRA.  SUBSECTION (C) DEFINES THE ELECTRIC
ENERGY IN COMMERCE AS THAT "TRANSMITTED FROM A STATE AND CONSUMED AT
ANY POINT OUTSIDE THEREOF."  THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THIS DEFINITION IN
THE VARIOUS DRAFTS OF THE BILL.  THE DEFINITION WAS USED TO "LEND
PRECISION TO THE SCOPE OF THE BILL."  FN10  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO
CONCLUDE THAT THIS DEFINITION MEANS LESS THAN IT SAYS AND APPLIES ONLY
TO THE ENERGY AT THE INSTANT IT CROSSES THE STATE LINE AND SO ONLY TO
THE FACILITIES WHICH CROSS THE LINE AND ONLY TO THE COMPANY WHICH OWNS
THE FACILITIES WHICH CROSS THE LINE.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT WAS
PRIMARILY TO REGULATE THE RATES AND CHARGES OF THE INTERSTATE ENERGY. 
IF INTERVENING COMPANIES MIGHT PURCHASE FROM PRODUCERS IN THE STATE OF
PRODUCTION, FREE OF FEDERAL CONTROL, COST WOULD BE FIXED PRIOR TO THE
INCIDENCE OF FEDERAL REGULATION AND FEDERAL RATE CONTROL WOULD BE
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED, IF NOT RENDERED FUTILE. 

PETITIONERS MAKE THE POINT, HOWEVER, THAT THIS INTERPRETATION
SUBJECTS CONNECTED FACILITIES TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION WHICH
FACILITIES WERE DELIBERATELY ELIMINATED BY CONGRESS.  AS AN
ILLUSTRATION THEY CITE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 201(A) AS THEY APPEARED
IN A PREDECESSOR BILL.  FN11 WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE RESULT WHICH THE
PETITIONERS APPREHEND FOLLOWS FROM OUR INTERPRETATION.  THE LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 201(A) AND (B) INDICATES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FACILITIES FOR
GENERATION OR PRODUCTION AND THOSE FOR TRANSMISSION.  ALSO, IT IS SALES
AT WHOLESALE ONLY WHICH ARE REGULATED AND, FINALLY, COMMISSION POWER
DOES NOT EXTEND OVER ALL CONNECTING TRANSMITTING FACILITIES BUT ONLY
OVER THOSE WHICH TRANSMIT ENERGY ACTUALLY MOVING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  MERE CONNECTION DETERMINES NOTHING.    FURTHER, WE THINK THE
DEFINITION IN SUBSECTION (E) OF "PUBLIC UTILITY" COVERS JERSEY CENTRAL,
SINCE THAT COMPANY OWNS AND OPERATES THE TRANSMISSION LINE TO THE
RARITAN AND THAT LINE, AS A RESULT OF THE INTERPRETATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, IS A FACILITY UNDER COMMISSION
JURISDICTION BY THE TERMS OF SUBSECTION (B).  SUBSECTION (B) DECLARES
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART APPLY "TO THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THIS SUBSECTION GIVES
JURISDICTION OVER FACILITIES USED FOR SUCH TRANSMISSION.  THE BUSINESS
OF TRANSMITTING AND SELLING ELECTRIC ENERGY IS SAID TO BE AFFECTED WITH
A PUBLIC INTEREST AND FEDERAL REGULATION OF A PORTION OF THAT BUSINESS
IS DECLARED NECESSARY.  SEC. 201(A).  THE FACT THAT A COMPANY IS
ENGAGED IN THIS BUSINESS IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF ITS INCLUSION IN THIS
ACT.  THE DETERMINATIVE FACT IS THE OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES USED IN
TRANSMISSION.  SUCH USE MAKES THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF SUCH FACILITIES
A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THE ACT (E).  WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT
JERSEY CENTRAL IS A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THIS ACT.  IT IS QUITE CLEAR,
HOWEVER, FROM SEC. 201 THAT ALTHOUGH A COMPANY MAY BE A PUBLIC UTILITY
UNDER SUBSECTION (E), ALL OF ITS TRANSACTIONS DO NOT THEREBY FALL UNDER
THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE COMMISSION.  IN THE NEXT SECTION OF THIS
OPINION, WE CONSIDER WHETHER THIS PURCHASE OF STOCK IS SUBJECT TO
COMMISSION REGULATION. 

III.  ALTHOUGH ONLY THE FACILITIES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY USED IN THE
TRANSMISSION OR SALE AT WHOLESALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR THE RATES AND CHARGES FOR SUCH ENERGY ARE SUBJECTED BY
PARTS II AND III OF THE ACT TO REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, THAT COMMISSION HAS GENERAL POWER OVER THE ISSUE OF ALL
SECURITIES OR ASSUMPTION OF ALL OBLIGATIONS BY SUCH A PUBLIC UTILITY. 
FN12  THIS GENERALITY OF CONTROL IS IN TURN LIMITED BY AN EXCEPTION IN
THE CASE OF UTILITIES ORGANIZED AND OPERATING IN A STATE WHERE ITS
SECURITY ISSUES ARE REGULATED BY A STATE COMMISSION.  FN13 

IN THE SECTION OF PART II IN QUESTION HERE, HOWEVER, WHICH PROHIBITS
THE PURCHASE OF THE SECURITY OF ANY OTHER PUBLIC UTILITY, WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMISSION, THERE IS NO EXCEPTION OF ANY KIND. 
FN14  CONSEQUENTLY THE ACTION OF JERSEY POWER, ADMITTEDLY A PUBLIC
UTILITY UNDER PART II, IN PURCHASING THE STOCK OF JERSEY CENTRAL,
HEREINBEFORE HELD TO BE A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THE ACT, REQUIRES
COMMISSION APPROVAL, UNLESS SOME OTHER PROVISION OF LAW EXEMPTS THE
TRANSACTION FROM THIS CONTROL.  PETITIONERS FIND THIS EXEMPTION IN THE
CONCLUDING WORDS OF SEC. 201(A), "SUCH FEDERAL REGULATION, HOWEVER, TO
EXTEND ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE
STATES."  FN15  THE COMMISSION DENIES THAT THIS LIMITATION IS TO BE
READ INTO SEC. 203(A).  IF THE LIMITATION IS TO BE READ AS APPLYING TO
SEC. 203(A), THE LIMITATION EXEMPTS THIS TRANSACTION AND THE PURCHASE
HERE INVOLVED IS BEYOND THE REACH OF COMMISSION POWER FOR THE REASON
THAT THE PURCHASE COULD BE AND THE TRANSFER IS REGULATED BY THE STATE
OF NEW JERSEY.  FN16 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT SEC. 201(A) IS A DECLARATION OF THE END
SOUGHT BY THE ENACTMENT OF THIS PART, THAT IS, FEDERAL REGULATION OF
THE GENERATION, TRANSMISSION AND SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN COMMERCE. 
THE SOUNDER CONCLUSION, IT SEEMS TO US, IS THAT THIS LIMITATION IS
DIRECTED AT GENERATION, TRANSMISSION AND SALE RATHER THAN THE CORPORATE
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE UTILITIES ENGAGED IN SUCH PRODUCTION AND
DISTRIBUTION.  THIS CONCLUSION FINDS STRONG SUPPORT IN THE FACT THAT
NOT ONLY SEC. 203(A), HERE UNDER DISCUSSION, BUT SECS. 204(A),  FN17
208  FN18  AND 301(A)  FN19  REGULATE MATTERS OBVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO
STATE REGULATION.  IF THE SCOPE OF THE LIMITATION WAS AS BROAD AS
PETITIONERS CONTEND, NONE OF THESE SECTIONS JUST REFERRED TO WOULD BE
EFFECTIVE.  SECTION 203(A) WOULD BE A NULLITY AS OF COURSE THE
DISPOSITION AND ACQUISITION OF FACILITIES, MERGER, CONSOLIDATION OR
PURCHASE OF SECURITIES BY THEIR UTILITIES MAY BE REGULATED BY THE
STATES.  BUT THIS DOES NOT FOLLOW WHERE A SPECIFIC LIMITATION IS PLACED
ON THE ISSUE OF SECURITIES BY SEC. 204.  SECTION 204 IS NOT RENDERED
USELESS BY SUBSECTION (F) SINCE IT IS APPLICABLE TO STATES WITHOUT
STATE COMMISSIONS AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE SECURITY ISSUES.  SEE NOTES 12
AND 13, SUPRA.  IN VIEW OF THE CONTEMPORANEOUS LEGISLATION AS TO
HOLDING COMPANIES (TITLE I, PUBLIC UTILITY ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 803)
WHICH LEFT INDEPENDENT OPERATING COMPANIES OR SUBSIDIARIES OF
UNREGISTERED HOLDING COMPANIES FREE TO ACQUIRE SECURITIES IN OTHER
OPERATING COMPANIES,  FN20  IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCLUDE THAT BY SEC.
201(A) CONGRESS LIMITED THE REGULATION OF THE ACQUISITION OF SECURITIES
BY SEC. 203(A).  FN21 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY POINTS TO THIS RESULT.  WHEN S. 2796,
CONTAINING THE PROGENITOR OF THE DISPUTED SECTION, WAS REPORTED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE SENATE,  FN22 SEC. 201(A)
CONCLUDED: 

"IT IS FURTHER DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO EXTEND
FEDERAL REGULATION TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH CANNOT BE REGULATED BY THE
STATES, AND ALSO TO EXERT FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO STRENGTHEN AND ASSIST
THE STATES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR REGULATORY POWERS AND NOT TO IMPAIR
OR DIMINISH THE POWERS OF ANY STATE COMMISSION." 

THE SAME BILL HAD SECS. 208(A) AND 301(A), JUST REFERRED TO, WHICH
DID REGULATE MATTERS WHICH COULD BE REGULATED BY THE STATES.  AFTER ITS
PASSAGE THROUGH THE SENATE IN THIS FORM, THE BILL WENT TO THE HOUSE AND
201(A) WAS THERE AMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE (H. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., JUNE 24, 1935) TO
CONCLUDE, AS IT NOW DOES, "SUCH FEDERAL REGULATION, HOWEVER, TO EXTEND
ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE
STATES."  THE REPORT, ALTHOUGH IT COMMENTED ON THE SECTION, DID NOT
MENTION THIS CHANGE AS ONE OF SUBSTANCE FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE
SENATE BILL.  H. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 26.  SECTIONS
208 AND 301, WITH THEIR REGULATION OF MATTERS SUBJECT TO STATE
REGULATION, REMAINED UNCHANGED.  MORE SIGNIFICANT EVEN THAN THESE
INDICIA OF THE SCOPE OF THE CONCLUDING WORDS OF SEC. 201(A) IS THE FACT
THAT THE COMMITTEE WHICH ADOPTED THE NEW CONCLUDING WORDS, ADOPTED ALSO
SEC. 204, SUBSECTION (F), WITHDRAWING FEDERAL REGULATION FROM SECURITY
ISSUES WHERE SUCH ISSUES ARE "REGULATED BY A STATE COMMISSION."  WHILE,
OF COURSE, THIS MAY HAVE BEEN DONE TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT STATE POWER
WOULD NOT BE INFRINGED, SUCH METICULOUS CARE WAS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY,
IF THE WORDING OF SEC. 201(A), SIMULTANEOUSLY ADDED, HAD THE EFFECT NOW
URGED.  FN23  ONE MIGHT DEDUCE FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE REPORT IN THE
HOUSE THAT THE PRECISE QUESTION AT ISSUE HERE WAS IN THE MIND OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE AND WAS RESOLVED IN ACCORD WITH OUR CONCLUSION.  FN24
FROM THIS RECORD OF THE PAINS TAKEN BY THE CONGRESS TO MAKE CLEAR THE
RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES, WE
CONCLUDE THAT POWER WAS GIVEN THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION BY SEC. 203
TO REGULATE THE PRESENT TRANSACTION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 803, 847, 849, 16 U.S.C. SECS. 824, 824(B). 

FN2  A BUS CONDUCTOR, OR GROUP OF CONDUCTORS, IS A SWITCHGEAR
ASSEMBLY WHICH SERVES AS A COMMON CONNECTION FOR THREE OR MORE
CIRCUITS, AMERICAN STANDARD DEFINITIONS OF ELECTRIC TERMS, PUBLISHED BY
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, P. 97. 

FN3  30 P.U.R. (N.S.)  33, 36:  "THAT THE TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
DESCRIBED PROVIDE A DIRECT AND INTERCONNECTED LINE FOR THE FLOW OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY BETWEEN THE SUBSTATION OF JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY LOCATED ADJACENT TO ITS GENERATING PLANT IN SOUTH AMBOY AND
ATLANTIC SUBSTATION OF STATEN ISLAND EDISON CORPORATION ON STATEN
ISLAND IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, VIA MECHANIC STREET SUBSTATION, AND
ELECTRIC ENERGY WAS TRANSMITTED OVER SUCH TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
BETWEEN SUCH POINTS VIA MECHANIC STREET SUBSTATION ON NUMEROUS
OCCASIONS DURING CERTAIN DAYS AND ALMOST DAILY THROUGHOUT 1936, 1937,
AND TO SEPTEMBER, 1938; THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY OF ANY
CHANGE IN SUCH OPERATIONS DURING THIS PERIOD OR SUBSEQUENT THERETO;
THAT ELECTRIC ENERGY TRANSMITTED OVER FACILITIES EXTENDING FROM THE
SUBSTATION ADJACENT TO THE GENERATING PLANT OF JERSEY CENTRAL POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY IN SOUTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY TO ATLANTIC SUBSTATION, ON
STATEN ISLAND, IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, VIA MECHANIC STREET
SUBSTATION, IS GENERATED IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CONSUMED IN THE
STATE OF NEW YORK; THAT ELECTRIC ENERGY TRANSMITTED FROM ATLANTIC
STREET SUBSTATION TO THE SUBSTATION OF JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY IN SOUTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY, VIA MECHANIC STREET SUBSTATION, IS
GENERATED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND CONSUMED IN THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY; ...  " 

FN4  THERE IS DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE 184 INSTANCES SELECTED FOR
EXAMINATION WERE TYPICAL.  IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE JUST DETAILED AS TO
THE SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN JERSEY CENTRAL AND PUBLIC SERVICE, AND
PUBLIC SERVICE AND STATEN ISLAND EDISON, THIS SEEMS OF NO IMPORTANCE. 
THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE ENERGY ACTUALLY TRANSMITTED INTERSTATE
SHALL BE TREATED AS ACCIDENTAL OR THAT IT FALLS UNDER THE DE MINIMIS
RULE.  THE METHOD OF SELECTION IS EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  ...  THEN YOU HAVE TAKEN SOME 150* READINGS OUT OF APPROXIMATELY
25,000 READINGS.  JUST WHY DID YOU TAKE THESE PARTICULAR 150, MR.
GRIMSLEY?  A. AT TIMES WHEN CONSIDERABLE POWER WAS GOING OVER FROM
JERSEY CENTRAL AND FOR THE SAME PERIOD IT WAS GOING TO STATEN ISLAND. 
THAT WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE MY DETERMINATION.  NOW WE MIGHT GET 15,000,
I DON'T KNOW, TO COMPARE WITH THOSE, BUT THE POINT WAS TO ESTABLISH
CERTAIN CONDITIONS AT TIME OF FLOW AND AT TIMES WHEN THERE WAS NO
ENERGY FLOWING TO STATEN ISLAND THERE WAS NO POINT IN TAKING THOSE
READINGS. 

*THE COMMISSION'S WITNESS GRIMSLEY SPOKE OF 150 INSTANCES, BUT ACTUAL
COUNT DISCLOSES 184. 

"Q.  THESE ARE HAND-PICKED READINGS WHERE YOU WORKED TOWARD A
PARTICULAR RESULT AND YOU SELECTED THOSE THAT WOULD BEST SHOW WHAT YOU
DESIRED TO ESTABLISH?  A. I WAS TRYING TO GET A CONDITION WHEN THE
ENERGY WAS COMING OVER FROM JERSEY CENTRAL AND FLOWING TO STATEN ISLAND
AND OVER A PERIOD THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED TYPICAL. 

"Q.  JUST A MOMENT - A. (INTERPOSING) I DON'T KNOW UNLESS WE GO
THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND COMPARE THEM WITH THESE. 

"Q.  I SUPPOSE IT WOULD BE PRETTY EASY TO PICK OUT 150 OTHER EXAMPLES
WHEN POWER IS FLOWING FROM METUCHEN SUBSTATION TO STATEN ISLAND
SUPPLYING THE MECHANIC STREET LOAD, WOULD IT NOT?  A. OH, I THINK SO,
YES.  MAYBE MORE." 

FN5 "THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  SEC. 313(B), 49 STAT. 860,
16 U.S.C. SEC. 825L (B). 

FN6  THE ORDER ENTERED DETERMINED THAT JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY IS A PUBLIC UTILITY AND THAT THE ACQUISITION OF ITS STOCK BY
NEW JERSEY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WAS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 203(A) OF THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT.  30 P.U.R. (N.S.)  33, 36.  THIS ORDER FIXED THE
STATUS OF JERSEY CENTRAL AS A UTILITY AMENABLE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT:  E.G., RATES, SEC. 205(A); ASCERTAINMENT OF COST OF PROPERTY, SEC.
209(A); ACCOUNTS, SEC. 201.  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 307 U.S. 125; FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. PACIFIC CO., 307 U.S.
156; COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 407. 

FN7  S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 17: 

"IN RECENT YEARS THE GROWTH OF GIANT HOLDING COMPANIES HAS BEEN
PARALLELED BY THE RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF THE ELECTRIC INDUSTRY ALONG
LINES THAT TRANSCEND STATE BOUNDARIES.  TO A GREAT EXTENT THROUGH THE
AGENCY OF THE HOLDING COMPANY, LOCAL OPERATING UNITS HAVE BEEN TIED
TOGETHER INTO VAST INTERSTATE SYSTEMS.  AS A RESULT THE PROPORTION OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY THAT CROSSES STATE LINES HAS STEADILY INCREASED.  WHILE
IN 1928, 10.7 PERCENT OF THE POWER GENERATED IN THE UNITED STATES WAS
TRANSMITTED ACROSS STATE LINES, THE PERCENTAGE HAD INCREASED BY 1933 TO
17.8.  THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY WHICH FLOWED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN 1933
EXCEEDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT GENERATED IN THE COUNTRY IN 1913. 

"THE NEW PART 2 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT WOULD CONSTITUTE THE
FIRST ASSERTION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER THIS MAJOR INTERSTATE
PUBLIC UTILITY.  THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM CO. (273 U.S. 83) PLACED THE INTERSTATE
WHOLESALE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITIES ENTIRELY BEYOND THE
REACH OF THE STATES.  OTHER FEATURES OF THIS INTERSTATE UTILITY
BUSINESS ARE EQUALLY IMMUNE FROM STATE CONTROL EITHER LEGALLY OR
PRACTICALLY. 

"THE NECESSITY FOR FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IN SECURING PLANNED
COORDINATION OF THE FACILITIES OF THE INDUSTRY WHICH ALONE CAN PRODUCE
AN ABUNDANCE OF ELECTRICITY AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE COST HAS BEEN
CLEARLY REVEALED IN THE RECENT REPORTS OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMMITTEE, AND THE NATIONAL RESOURCES BOARD. 
ASSERTION OF THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS DIRECTION
BECOMES THE MORE IMPORTANT AT THE TIME WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
COMPELLING THE REORGANIZATION OF HOLDING COMPANIES ALONG REGIONAL
LINES.  THE NEW PART 2 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT SEEKS TO BRING
ABOUT THE REGIONAL COORDINATION OF THE OPERATING FACILITIES OF THE
INTERSTATE UTILITIES ALONG THE SAME LINES WITHIN WHICH THE FINANCIAL
AND MANAGERIAL CONTROL IS LIMITED BY TITLE I OF THE BILL."    FN8  CF.
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 127 F.2D 153, 157;
HARTFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 131 F.2D 953,
958. 

FN9  THE FEDERAL POWER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 847: 

"SECTION 201.  (A)  IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE BUSINESS OF
TRANSMITTING AND SELLING ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION TO
THE PUBLIC IS AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THAT FEDERAL
REGULATION OF MATTERS RELATING TO GENERATION TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN
THIS PART AND THE PART NEXT FOLLOWING AND OF THAT PART OF SUCH BUSINESS
WHICH CONSISTS OF THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THE SALE OF SUCH ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SUCH FEDERAL REGULATION,
HOWEVER, TO EXTEND ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
REGULATION BY THE STATES. 

"(B)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSMISSION OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO THE SALE OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY
OTHER SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY OR DEPRIVE A STATE OR STATE COMMISSION OF
ITS LAWFUL AUTHORITY NOW EXERCISED OVER THE EXPORTATION OF
HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY WHICH IS TRANSMITTED ACROSS A STATE LINE.  THE
COMMISSION SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL FACILITIES FOR SUCH
TRANSMISSION OR SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY, BUT SHALL NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS PART AND THE PART
NEXT FOLLOWING, OVER FACILITIES USED FOR THE GENERATION OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY OR OVER FACILITIES USED IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OR ONLY FOR THE
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, OR OVER
FACILITIES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMED WHOLLY BY
THE TRANSMITTER. 

"(C)  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS PART, ELECTRIC ENERGY SHALL BE HELD TO
BE TRANSMITTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IF TRANSMITTED FROM A STATE AND
CONSUMED AT ANY POINT OUTSIDE THEREOF; BUT ONLY INSOFAR AS SUCH
TRANSMISSION TAKES PLACE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. 

     .  .         .         .         . 

"(E)  THE TERM 'PUBLIC UTILITY' WHEN USED IN THIS PART OR IN THE PART
NEXT FOLLOWING MEANS ANY PERSON WHO OWNS OR OPERATES FACILITIES SUBJECT
TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS PART." 

FN10  S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 49. 

FN11  S. 1725, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., FEBRUARY 6, 1935: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSMISSION AND
SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO THE PRODUCTION OF
ENERGY FOR SUCH TRANSMISSION AND SALE, BUT SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE
RETAIL SALE OF ENERGY IN LOCAL DISTRIBUTION.  THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER ALL FACILITIES FOR SUCH TRANSMISSION, SALE, AND/OR
PRODUCTION OF ENERGY BY ANY MEANS AND OVER ALL FACILITIES CONNECTED
THEREWITH AS PARTS OF A SYSTEM OF POWER TRANSMISSION SITUATED IN MORE
THAN ONE STATE.  ...  " 

FN12  "SEC.  204.  (A)  NO PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL ISSUE ANY SECURITY,
OR ASSUME ANY OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY AS GUARANTOR, INDORSER, SURETY,
OR OTHERWISE IN RESPECT OF ANY SECURITY OF ANOTHER PERSON, UNLESS AND
UNTIL, AND THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT, UPON APPLICATION BY THE PUBLIC
UTILITY, THE COMMISSION BY ORDER AUTHORIZES SUCH ISSUE OR ASSUMPTION OF
LIABILITY.  ...  " 

THERE IS THE SAME EXTENT OF CONTROL OVER RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS.  SEC.
301(A). 

FN13  SEC. 204.  "(F)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT EXTEND
TO A PUBLIC UTILITY ORGANIZED AND OPERATING IN A STATE UNDER THE LAWS
OF WHICH ITS SECURITY ISSUES ARE REGULATED BY A STATE COMMISSION." 

FN14  "SEC.  203.  (A)  NO PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL SELL, LEASE, OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF THE WHOLE OF ITS FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, OR ANY PART THEREOF OF A VALUE IN
EXCESS OF $50,000, OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
MERGE OR CONSOLIDATE SUCH FACILITIES OR ANY PART THEREOF WITH THOSE OF
ANY OTHER PERSON, OR PURCHASE, ACQUIRE, OR TAKE ANY SECURITY OF ANY
OTHER PUBLIC UTILITY, WITHOUT FIRST HAVING SECURED AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION AUTHORIZING IT TO DO SO.  ...  " 

FN15  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN16  SEC. 19 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 21, 1911, AS AMENDED.  NEW JERSEY
STAT.  ANN. 48:  3-10. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 12, SUPRA. 

FN18  "SEC.  208.  (A)  THE COMMISSION MAY INVESTIGATE AND ASCERTAIN
THE ACTUAL LEGITIMATE COST OF THE PROPERTY OF EVERY PUBLIC UTILITY, THE
DEPRECIATION THEREIN, AND, WHEN FOUND NECESSARY FOR RATE-MAKING
PURPOSES, OTHER FACTS WHICH BEAR ON THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH COST OR
DEPRECIATION, AND THE FAIR VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY. 

"(B)  EVERY PUBLIC UTILITY UPON REQUEST SHALL FILE WITH THE
COMMISSION AN INVENTORY OF ALL OR ANY PART OF ITS PROPERTY AND A
STATEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL COST THEREOF, AND SHALL KEEP THE COMMISSION
INFORMED REGARDING THE COST OF ALL ADDITIONS, BETTERMENTS, EXTENSIONS,
AND NEW CONSTRUCTION."  49 STAT. 853, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 824(G). 

FN19  "SECTION 301.  (A)  EVERY LICENSEE AND PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL
MAKE, KEEP, AND PRESERVE FOR SUCH PERIODS, SUCH ACCOUNTS, RECORDS OR
COST-ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDA, PAPERS, BOOKS,
AND OTHER RECORDS AS THE COMMISSION MAY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBE AS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR PURPOSES OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT, INCLUDING ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND MEMORANDA
OF THE GENERATION, TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION, DELIVERY, OR SALE OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY, THE FURNISHING OF SERVICES OR FACILITIES IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH, AND RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE
FOREGOING:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL RELIEVE
ANY PUBLIC UTILITY FROM KEEPING ANY ACCOUNTS, MEMORANDA, OR RECORDS
WHICH SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY MAY BE REQUIRED TO KEEP BY OR UNDER AUTHORITY
OF THE LAWS OF ANY STATE.  ...  " ID. 854, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 825. 

FN20  SEC. 9(A) AND (B), 49 STAT. 817. 

FN21  S. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 50, IN REFERRING TO
WHAT IS NOW SEC. 203(A), SAID:  "IN THIS WAY THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE
AUTHORITY TO KEEP THE SAME KIND OF CHECK UPON THE CREATION OF SPHERES
OF INFLUENCE AMONG OPERATING COMPANIES THAT THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION HAS OVER HOLDING COMPANIES UNDER TITLE I." 

FN22  ID. 

FN23  THE LANGUAGE ADDED TO SEC. 201(A) AND SEC. 204(F) IS
PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITY COMMISSIONERS.  SENATE HEARINGS,
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF
1935, PP. 748-51. 

FN24  PUBLIC UTILITY ACT OF 1935, H. REP. NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., GENERAL PURPOSE OF TITLE.  "PART II GIVES CONTROL OVER SECURITY
ISSUES OF INTERSTATE OPERATING COMPANIES IN CASES WHERE NO STATE
COMMISSION HAS CONTROL AND OVER THE CONSOLIDATION, PURCHASE, AND SALE
OF INTERSTATE OPERATING PROPERTIES."  PAGE 8. 


"SECTION 203.  DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY; CONSOLIDATIONS; PURCHASE OF
SECURITIES 

"UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, APPROVAL MUST BE SECURED FOR
THE SALE, LEASE, OR OTHER DISPOSITION BY A PUBLIC UTILITY OF ALL OF ITS
FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, OR ANY PART
OF THE FACILITIES IN EXCESS OF A VALUE OF $100,000, AND FOR MERGERS OR
CONSOLIDATIONS OF SUCH FACILITIES OR FOR THE PURCHASE BY A PUBLIC
UTILITY OF THE SECURITIES OF ANY OTHER PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANY. 
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF AN ACQUISITION, CONSOLIDATION, OR CONTROL WOULD
REMOVE SUCH TRANSACTION FROM THE PROHIBITORY PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER
LAW."  PAGE 28. 


"THE REQUIREMENT OF SUBSECTION (F) OF THE SENATE BILL THAT APPLICABLE
STATE LAWS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE COMMISSION APPROVAL MAY BE
GIVEN, HAS BEEN CHANGED TO AUTHORIZE SECURITY ISSUES WITHOUT FEDERAL
APPROVAL WHERE SUCH ISSUES ARE REGULATED BY A STATE COMMISSION IN WHICH
THE PUBLIC UTILITY IS ORGANIZED AND OPERATING."  PAGE 28. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY IS
A PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBCHAPTER II OF THE FEDERAL
POWER ACT. 

THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS IS THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY WITHIN NEW
JERSEY, AND DISTRIBUTION OF IT IN THE STATE, PRINCIPALLY BY RETAIL SALE
TO THE PUBLIC.  ITS PHYSICAL PROPERTY IS WITHIN NEW JERSEY.  IT NEITHER
OWNS NOR OPERATES ANY FACILITY WHICH CROSSES A STATE LINE. 

JERSEY CENTRAL EXCHANGES ELECTRIC ENERGY WITH ANOTHER UTILITY, PUBLIC
SERVICE.  THE PHYSICAL HOOK-UP BY WHICH THIS EXCHANGE IS EFFECTED IS
SUCH THAT JERSEY CENTRAL AT TIMES TRANSMITS ELECTRICITY TO PUBLIC
SERVICE AND AT TIMES RECEIVES ELECTRICITY FROM PUBLIC SERVICE.  JERSEY
CENTRAL OWNS AND OPERATES A TRANSMISSION LINE SEVEN-EIGHTHS OF A MILE
LONG EXTENDING FROM ITS POWER PLANT TO ANOTHER POINT IN THE STATE WHERE
THE LINE CONNECTS TO A CABLE OWNED BY PUBLIC SERVICE RUNNING TO A
STATION OWNED BY THE LATTER AT PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY.  OVER THESE
CONNECTING FACILITIES EXCHANGES OF TWO SORTS ARE MADE.  ONE IS OF
EMERGENCY SERVICE WHEREBY, IN CASE OF A BREAKDOWN IN EITHER COMPANY'S
SYSTEM, ENERGY IS DRAWN FROM THAT OF THE OTHER.  THE SECOND IS OF
ECONOMY FLOW ENERGY, DELIVERY OF WHICH TAKES PLACE TO EITHER COMPANY
WHEN THE OTHER IS ABLE TO GENERATE AT LESS COST THAN THE RECEIVING
COMPANY COULD WITH ITS OWN FACILITIES.  THE SAVINGS EFFECTED BY THE
LATTER EXCHANGE ARE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE COMPANIES. 

ANY FLOW OF ELECTRIC ENERGY FROM JERSEY CENTRAL TO PUBLIC SERVICE IS
CARRIED FROM THE POINT OF CONNECTION OVER PUBLIC SERVICE CABLE TO A SO
CALLED BUS BAR, A FACILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICE LOCATED IN NEW JERSEY
HAVING A NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS WITH A TRANSMISSION
LINE CONNECTING THE PUBLIC SERVICE SYSTEM WITH THAT OF STATEN ISLAND
EDISON IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  OVER THIS LINE PUBLIC SERVICE AND
STATEN ISLAND EXCHANGE FROM TIME TO TIME EMERGENCY SERVICE.  TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS THE LINES OF THE TWO COMPANIES ARE ALWAYS CONNECTED SO
THAT, WHENEVER THERE IS DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL ENERGY BY EITHER COMPANY,
THE CURRENT FLOWING FROM THE PLANT OF THE OTHER SUPPLIES THE DEFICIENCY
UNTIL A SPEED UP OF THE GENERATORS OF THE RECEIVING COMPANY TAKES CARE
OF THE LOAD AND STOPS THE DRAUGHT UPON THE ENERGY SUPPLY OF THE OTHER. 

THE LINES OF JERSEY CENTRAL AND PUBLIC SERVICE ARE LIKEWISE ALWAYS
CONNECTED SO THAT, IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, SOME OF THE ENERGY GENERATED
BY JERSEY CENTRAL MAY PASS OVER THE LINES OF PUBLIC SERVICE OR VICE
VERSA.  THUS ENERGY GENERATED BY ANY OF THE THREE SYSTEMS AT TIMES
REACHES THAT OF ONE OF THE OTHERS IN CASE OF A DEFICIENCY OF GENERATION
ON THE LINE OF THAT OTHER.  THIS CURRENT, PASSING FOR SHORT PERIODS
FROM TIME TO TIME, DUE TO AN IMBALANCE OF POTENTIAL BETWEEN THE
INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS, IS CALLED SLOP-OVER CURRENT. 

JERSEY CENTRAL HAS NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS WITH STATEN ISLAND AND
DOES NOT SELL IT ANY ENERGY.  JERSEY CENTRAL'S RELATIONS WITH PUBLIC
SERVICE ARE INDEPENDENT OF ANY CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE LATTER
AND STATEN ISLAND.  AT TIMES WHEN ENERGY IS FLOWING FROM JERSEY CENTRAL
TO PUBLIC SERVICE IT IS ALSO FLOWING FROM PUBLIC SERVICE TO STATEN
ISLAND AND, IN FACT, AT SUCH TIMES, SOME OF THE ENERGY SOLD BY JERSEY
CENTRAL TO PUBLIC SERVICE PASSES FROM PUBLIC SERVICE TO STATEN ISLAND
UNDER PUBLIC SERVICE'S CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH STATEN ISLAND. 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS, THE COMMISSION HELD THAT JERSEY CENTRAL
OWNED AND OPERATED TRANSMISSION FACILITIES UTILIZED FOR THE
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND WAS,
THEREFORE, A PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, ALTHOUGH THE
COMPANY SELLS NO ELECTRICITY DIRECTLY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT REQUIRE THE CONTRARY
CONCLUSION, AND THIS READING OF THE STATUTE IS POWERFULLY REINFORCED
WHEN THE MISCHIEF INTENDED TO BE REMEDIED AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF THE ACT ARE CONSIDERED. 

THERE IS NO DISPUTE CONCERNING THE EXIGENCY WHICH MOVED CONGRESS TO
ADOPT THE STATUTE.  IT HAD BEEN SETTLED THAT THE TRANSMISSION AND SALE
OF A COMMODITY, SUCH AS ELECTRICITY OR GAS, PRODUCED IN ONE STATE,
TRANSPORTED AND FURNISHED DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS IN ANOTHER STATE, IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DID NOT PRECLUDE REGULATION OF THE RATES TO THE
CONSUMER BY THE STATE OF DELIVERY.  FN1 IN 1927, HOWEVER, THIS COURT
HELD THAT WHERE A COMPANY GENERATED ELECTRIC ENERGY AND TRANSMITTED IT,
UNDER CONTRACT, TO ANOTHER PUBLIC UTILITY IN AN ADJOINING STATE, AT THE
STATE LINE, WHENCE THE PURCHASING COMPANY TRANSMITTED AND SOLD THE
ENERGY TO ITS CONSUMERS, THE RATE AT WHICH THE FIRST COMPANY SOLD TO
THE SECOND WAS NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE
STATE OF ORIGINATION.  FN2  THE COURT STATED:  "THE RATE IS THEREFORE
NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY EITHER OF THE TWO STATES IN THE GUISE OF
PROTECTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCAL INTERESTS; BUT, IF SUCH REGULATION
IS REQUIRED IT CAN ONLY BE ATTAINED BY THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER VESTED
IN CONGRESS."  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MISCHIEF TO BE REMEDIED WAS THE
INCOMPETENCE OF THE STATES TO REGULATE RATES FOR THE SALE BY THE
PRODUCER OF ELECTRICITY AT WHOLESALE TO BE TRANSMITTED AND DELIVERED TO
AN EXTRASTATE UTILITY AT OR ACROSS A STATE LINE.  THIS WAS THE PROBLEM
AND THE ONLY PROBLEM WHICH CONFRONTED THE CONGRESS.  THE LEGISLATION
ITSELF DISCLOSES THAT, IN ENACTING PART II OF THE ACT, CONGRESS DID NOT
GO BEYOND THE NEEDS OF THE SITUATION. 

JERSEY CENTRAL'S SECURITY ISSUES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER
SEC. 203 UNLESS IT IS A PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE
ACT.  TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS, WE MUST TURN TO SEC. 201.  SUBSECTION
(E) DEFINES A PUBLIC UTILITY AS "ANY PERSON WHO OWNS OR OPERATES
FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS
PART."  WE MUST LOOK TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION TO ASCERTAIN
WHAT FACILITIES ARE SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. 
SUBSECTION (A) READS:  "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE BUSINESS OF
TRANSMITTING AND SELLING ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION TO
THE PUBLIC IS AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THAT FEDERAL
REGULATION OF MATTERS RELATING TO GENERATION TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN
THIS PART ...  AND OF THAT PART OF SUCH BUSINESS WHICH CONSISTS OF THE
TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE SALE OF
SUCH ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NECESSARY IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, SUCH FEDERAL REGULATION, HOWEVER, TO EXTEND ONLY TO
THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES." 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT JERSEY CENTRAL, AS RESPECTS GENERATION AND SALE
OF THE ENERGY IN QUESTION, AND AS RESPECTS ALSO ITS SECURITY ISSUES,
WAS, AT THE DATE OF ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL ACT, AND STILL IS, SUBJECT
TO REGULATION UNDER THE LAW OF NEW JERSEY, AND THAT LAW DOES REGULATE
THESE MATTERS.  FN3 

THE NATURE OF JERSEY CENTRAL'S DEALING WITH PUBLIC SERVICE CERTAINLY
DOES NOT FAIRLY FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY DESCRIPTION OF
THE "BUSINESS" OF TRANSMITTING AND SELLING ELECTRIC ENERGY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT, OUT OF ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, CONGRESS ADDED
THAT THE FEDERAL REGULATION SHOULD EXTEND ONLY "TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES."  LANGUAGE COULD NOT BE
PLAINER, NOR MORE CLEARLY EXCLUDE THE PRESENT CASE.  CONGRESS DESIRED
TO FILL THE GAP LEFT BY THE INABILITY OF THE STATES TO REGULATE CERTAIN
FORMS OF INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION AND SALE.  CONGRESS MADE CLEAR THAT IT
INTENDED TO GO NO FURTHER.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT IGNORES THIS
FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND POLICY AND READS AS AN
INDEPENDENT MANDATE IN VACUO THE WORDS OF SUBSECTION (E).  THIS I THINK
IS NOT A FAIR CONSTRUCTION. 

SUBSECTION (B) PROVIDES:  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART SHALL APPLY TO
THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO THE
SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT SHALL
NOT APPLY TO ANY OTHER SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY.  ..."  HERE AGAIN
CONGRESS IS AT PAINS TO RESTRICT THE FEDERAL REGULATION TO A COMMERCIAL
TRANSACTION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO WHICH THE COMPANY TO BE REGULATED
IS A PARTY. 

THE ELECTRIC CURRENT WHICH SOMETIMES REACHES STATEN ISLAND IS, NO
DOUBT, "PROPELLED" IN SOME MEASURE BY JERSEY CENTRAL'S DYNAMOS, BUT
WHETHER THE CURRENT SHALL GO TO STATEN ISLAND OR BE USED WITHIN THE
STATE IS A MATTER WHOLLY BEYOND JERSEY CENTRAL'S CONTROL IN POINT
EITHER OF LAW OR OF FACT.  PUBLIC SERVICE MAY OR MAY NOT CHOOSE TO
TRANSMIT AND SELL THE ENERGY INTERSTATE AS A PART OF THE INTERSTATE
BUSINESS WHICH IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  THE CURRENT
FLOWS BEYOND THE STATE LINE ONLY BECAUSE PUBLIC SERVICE MAINTAINS WIRES
FOR THAT PURPOSE AND TURNS THE CURRENT INTO THEM.  WHAT SEC. 201
AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE IS "THAT PART OF SUCH BUSINESS
WHICH CONSISTS OF THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  JERSEY CENTRAL IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
TRANSMITTING ELECTRIC ENERGY BEYOND THE POINT OF CONNECTION WITH PUBLIC
SERVICE'S SYSTEM, CERTAINLY NOT BEYOND THE BUS BAR WHERE PUBLIC SERVICE
ALONE DETERMINES ITS DESTINATION.  NOR IS JERSEY CENTRAL ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE, AFTER THE CURRENT REACHES THE BUS BAR OF
PUBLIC SERVICE, THAT COMPANY DIVERTS IT TO STATEN ISLAND. 

THE CONSTRUCTION NOW GIVEN TO THE ACT MAKES THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO
REGULATE JERSEY CENTRAL DEPEND, NOT ON THE NATURE OF ITS OWN BUSINESS,
AS SEC. 201(A) AND (B) PLAINLY REQUIRE, BUT ON THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER
OF THE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC SERVICE, OVER WHICH JERSEY CENTRAL HAS NO
CONTROL AND WHICH IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION.  SEC.
201(B) AND (E).  I CAN FIND NO SUPPORT IN THE LANGUAGE, HISTORY OR
AVOWED PURPOSES OF THE ACT FOR SUCH A CONSTRUCTION.  MOREOVER, IT IS IN
FLAT CONTRADICTION TO THE WORDS OF SEC. 201(A), (B), AND (E), WHICH,
WHEN READ TOGETHER, EXPLICITLY EXCLUDE FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION A "PERSON" WHO "OWNS OR OPERATES FACILITIES" OTHERWISE
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION BY PROVIDING, IN SEC.
201(A), THAT THE FEDERAL REGULATION IS "TO EXTEND ONLY TO THOSE MATTERS
WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATES."  JERSEY CENTRAL IS
ENGAGED IN GENERATING ELECTRICITY WHICH IT SELLS AND DELIVERS TO PUBLIC
SERVICE, ALL WITHIN THE STATE.  WHEN THE PRESENT ACT WAS ADOPTED IT WAS
NOT DOUBTED, AND IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISIONS IT COULD NOT BE, THAT
THE SELLER'S BUSINESS WAS INTRASTATE AND SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION. 
THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF A PRODUCT WHOLLY WITHIN A STATE IS NOT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE EVEN THOUGH THE PRODUCT IS DESTINED BY THE BUYER TO
BE SHIPPED OUT OF THE STATE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN4  THAT THIS IS
EQUALLY THE CASE WHERE THE PRODUCT PRODUCED AND SOLD WITHIN THE STATE
IS GAS OR ELECTRICITY IS IMPLICIT IN OUR DECISIONS.  FN5  AS WILL
PRESENTLY APPEAR MORE IN DETAIL, WHILE IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS,
IN ENACTING THE FEDERAL POWER ACT TO EXTEND THE NATIONAL CONTROL OVER
THE INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION AND SALE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, WHICH HAD
BEEN HELD TO BE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE STATES, THE PURPOSE WAS
EQUALLY TO PRESERVE UNIMPAIRED THE EXISTING STATE POWER OF REGULATION
OVER INTRASTATE PRODUCTION AND SALE.  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 201 TO
WHICH I HAVE REFERRED WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE LEGISLATION WHICH BECAME
THE FEDERAL POWER ACT IN THE COURSE OF ITS PROGRESS THROUGH CONGRESS
WITH THE REPEATEDLY DECLARED OBJECT OF ACCOMPLISHING THAT PRECISE
PURPOSE. 

I SUBMIT THAT TO ARGUE THAT, AS JERSEY CENTRAL'S SEVEN-EIGHTHS' MILE
INTRASTATE LINE WHICH CONNECTS WITH THE LINES OF ITS INTRASTATE
CUSTOMER, PUBLIC SERVICE, IS A FACILITY OVER WHICH FLOWS ENERGY WHICH
SOMETIMES ULTIMATELY FINDS ITS WAY FROM PUBLIC SERVICE'S SYSTEM INTO
NEW YORK, AND, HENCE, A FACILITY FOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY
INTERSTATE, OWNERSHIP OF WHICH SUBJECTS THE OWNER TO THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION, IS TO TIE TOGETHER TWO PHRASES FOUND IN SEPARATE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND TO IGNORE THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS VIEWED IN
THEIR INTEGRITY AND ENTIRETY.  BY THIS PROCESS ANY DESIRED RESULT MAY
READILY BE REACHED. 

I CONCLUDE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 203  FN6  RELATING TO
REGULATION OF SECURITY ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SINCE SEC. 201
WHOLLY EXCLUDES JERSEY CENTRAL FROM THE SCHEME OF CONTROL ESTABLISHED
BY THE ACT.  BUT IF THIS CONCLUSION WERE LESS OBVIOUS FROM THE FACE OF
THE ACT, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS CONVINCING. 

WHEN A PROPOSED BILL FIRST CAME BEFORE A COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, ITS
SPONSOR, SAID:  FN7 

"THE NEW TITLE II OF THE ACT IS DESIGNED TO SECURE COORDINATION ON A
REGIONAL SCALE OF THE NATION'S POWER RESOURCES AND TO FILL THE GAP IN
THE PRESENT STATE REGULATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES.  IT IS CONCEIVED
ENTIRELY AS A SUPPLEMENT TO, AND NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR, STATE
REGULATION." 

CONTROL OF THE "PRODUCTION" OF ELECTRIC ENERGY, AND "OVER ALL
FACILITIES" FOR ITS TRANSMISSION AND SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, "AND
OVER ALL FACILITIES CONNECTED THEREWITH AS PARTS OF A SYSTEM OF POWER
TRANSMISSION SITUATED IN MORE THAN ONE STATE.  ...  " 

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, WHILE
RECOGNIZING THE NEED OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO FILL THE "GAP" CREATED
BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, URGED THAT THE BILL, AS INTRODUCED, WOULD
OVERLAP AND BREAK DOWN STATE REGULATION AND SUBMITTED AMENDMENTS
DESIGNED TO AVOID THIS RESULT.  FN8 

THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE ASSOCIATION SAID OF THESE PROPOSED CHANGES:
FN9  "WE HAVE, ACCORDINGLY, SOUGHT TO MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS LANGUAGE WILL
THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT IN THIS CASE INTEND TO REGULATE ANYTHING EXCEPT
INTERSTATE POWER, SOLD AT WHOLESALE."  WITH ALTERATIONS OF EXPRESSION
NOT AFFECTING THEIR SENSE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF SEC. 201(A) WERE
EMBODIED IN THE SECTION AS ENACTED. 

I NEED NOT FOLLOW IN DETAIL THE CHANGES WHICH WERE MADE IN THE BILL
IN BOTH BRANCHES OF CONGRESS.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THEY
PROGRESSIVELY EMPHASIZED THE PURPOSE TO REGULATE ONLY THOSE MATTERS
WHICH THE STATES COULD NOT REGULATE. 

IN REPORTING THE REVISED BILL TO THE SENATE, THE COMMITTEE SAID:
FN10 

"SUBSECTION (A)  ...  DECLARES THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO EXTEND THAT
REGULATION TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH CANNOT BE REGULATED BY THE STATES AND
TO ASSIST THE STATES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR REGULATORY POWERS, BUT
NOT TO IMPAIR OR DIMINISH THE POWERS OF ANY STATE COMMISSION." 

"SUBSECTION (B) DEFINES THE SCOPE OF THIS PART OF THE ACT AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  ...  THIS SUBSECTION LEAVES TO THE
STATES THE AUTHORITY TO FIX LOCAL RATES EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE ENERGY
IS BROUGHT IN FROM ANOTHER STATE.  IN PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION (252 U.S. 23), THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SUCH
RATES MAY BE REGULATED BY THE STATES IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL
LEGISLATION.  THE PRESENT BILL CAREFULLY REFRAINS FROM ASSERTING
FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER THESE RATES.  THE RATE-MAKING POWERS OF THE
COMMISSION ARE CONFINED TO THOSE WHOLESALE TRANSACTIONS WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT HELD IN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM &
ELECTRIC CO. (273 U.S. 83), TO BE BEYOND THE REACH OF THE STATES." 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATEMENT IN THE SENATE COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON THE
SENATE BILL THAT "THE REVISION HAS ALSO REMOVED EVERY ENCROACHMENT UPON
THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES," THE HOUSE, NOT SATISFIED THAT STATE POWER
HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY PROTECTED, STRUCK OUT THE ENTIRE SENATE BILL BY
AMENDMENT AND SUBSTITUTED A NEW DRAFT.  IN PRESENTING THE AMENDED BILL
TO THE HOUSE, THE COMMITTEE REPORTED:  FN11 

"THE NEW PARTS (II AND III) ARE DESIGNED TO MEET THE SITUATION WHICH
HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE RECENT RAPID GROWTH OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES ALONG
INTERSTATE LINES.  ...  UNDER THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES IN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & E.
CO. (273 U.S. 83), THE RATES CHARGED IN INTERSTATE WHOLESALE
TRANSACTIONS MAY NOT BE REGULATED BY THE STATES.  PART II GIVES THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION JURISDICTION TO REGULATE THESE RATES.  A
'WHOLESALE' TRANSACTION IS DEFINED TO MEAN THE SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY
FOR RESALE AND THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN NO JURISDICTION OVER LOCAL RATES
EVEN WHERE THE ELECTRIC ENERGY MOVES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

"PART II GIVES CONTROL OVER SECURITY ISSUES OF INTERSTATE OPERATING
COMPANIES IN CASES WHERE NO STATE COMMISSION HAS CONTROL AND OVER THE
CONSOLIDATION, PURCHASE, AND SALE OF INTERSTATE OPERATING PROPERTIES. 
... 

"THE BILL TAKES NO AUTHORITY FROM STATE COMMISSIONS AND CONTAINS
PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE FEDERAL COMMISSION TO AID THE STATE
COMMISSIONS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO ASCERTAIN AND FIX REASONABLE CHARGES. 
...  PROBABLY, NO BILL IN RECENT YEARS HAS SO RECOGNIZED THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE REGULATORY COMMISSIONS AS DOES TITLE II OF
THIS BILL." 

IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE SEC. 201(A)(B) TOOK ITS PRESENT FORM, WHICH
IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE HOUSE BILL IN ALL PARTICULARS HERE MATERIAL.  IN
THE LIGHT OF THIS HISTORY IT IS EVIDENT THE CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY
REFRAINED FROM THE REGULATION OF THE BUSINESS OF ANY UTILITY WHOSE
BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, ESPECIALLY AS RESPECTS TRANSMISSION AND SALE OF
ENERGY, STATE AUTHORITY COULD REGULATE.  SUCH IS THE INSTANT CASE. 

BOTH THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOW THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO REGULATE MATTERS AFFECTING COMMERCE, AS WELL
AS COMMERCE ITSELF.  IT IS INTERESTING TO COMPARE, IN THIS CONNECTION,
OTHER STATUTES ENACTED BY THE SAME CONGRESS.  THREE ADOPTED IN JULY AND
AUGUST 1935 COVERED ACTIVITIES "AFFECTING" COMMERCE N12; THREE,
INCLUDING THE FEDERAL POWER ACT IN QUESTION, ADOPTED IN AUGUST 1935 DID
NOT COVER ACTIVITIES "AFFECTING" COMMERCE.  FN13  THUS THE
LEGISLATURE'S DISCRIMINATING USE OF LANGUAGE ARGUES STRONGLY FOR DENIAL
OF THE JURISDICTION THE COMMISSION ASSERTS. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 252 U.S. 23. 

FN2  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM CO., 273 U.S.
83. 

FN3  N.J. REV. STATS., 1937, TITLE 48, CHAPS.  1 TO 3; N.J. STATS.
ANN. 48:  1-1 TO 48:  3-20. 

FN4  SEE CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584; PARKER V. BROWN, 317
U.S. 341, 360, 361, AND CASES CITED. 

FN5  UNION DRY GOODS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CORP., 248 U.S. 372;
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. LANDON, 249 U.S. 236, 245; PENNSYLVANIA
GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 252 U.S. 23; MISSOURI V. KANSAS
GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, 308; EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 283
U.S. 465, 471; CF. UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST 286 U.S. 165;
COVERDALE V. PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604, 611. 

FN6  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT, EVEN IF JERSEY CENTRAL WERE A UTILITY
WITHIN THE ACT, THE PROVISO IN SEC. 201(A) LIMITS THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 203 RESPECTING THE COMPANY'S ACQUISITION AND
DISPOSITION OF FACILITIES AND ISSUE OF SECURITIES, JUST AS IT LIMITS
THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY OVER OTHER PHASES OF THE BUSINESS, SINCE
THESE MATTERS ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION, AND ARE, IN FACT, REGULATED BY
NEW JERSEY. 

FN7  HEARINGS ON H.R. 5423 BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 384. 

FN8  HEARINGS, SUPRA, PP. 1620, 1622. 

FN9  ID., P. 1638. 

FN10  SENATE REPORT NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 48. 

FN11  HOUSE REPORT NO. 1318, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 7. 

FN12  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SEC. 2(7), 49 STAT. 449, 450,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 152(7); PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT, SEC. 1(C),
49 STAT. 803, 804, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79(C); BITUMINOUS COAL CONSERVATION
ACT, SEC. 1, 49 STAT. 991, 992. 

FN13  SEE FEDERAL POWER ACT, SEC. 201(B), 49 STAT. 838, 847, 16
U.S.C. SEC. 824(B); MOTOR CARRIER ACT, SEC. 202(B), 49 STAT. 543, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 302(B); FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT, SEC. 3, 49
STAT. 977, 978, 27 U.S.C. SEC. 203.    THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



NOBLE V. UNITED STATES, 319 U.S. 88 


NO. 511.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 7, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 45
F.SUPP.  793, AFFIRMED. 


IN A PERMIT TO OPERATE AS A CONTRACT CARRIER UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER"
CLAUSE OF SEC. 209(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, IT IS WITHIN
THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION - UNDER SEC.
209(B), REQUIRING THAT THE COMMISSION SPECIFY IN SUCH PERMIT "THE
BUSINESS OF THE CARRIER COVERED THEREBY AND THE SCOPE THEREOF" - TO
SPECIFY THE SHIPPERS OR TYPES OF SHIPPERS FOR WHOM THE CARRIER MAY HAUL
DESIGNATED COMMODITIES.  P. 91. 

NOBLE, DOING BUSINESS AS NOBLE TRANSIT CO., V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES,
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL  FN1  FROM THE JUDGMENT OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT (45
F.SUPP.  793) WHICH DISMISSED A COMPLAINT FILED BY APPELLANT TO REVIEW
AND ANNUL CERTAIN RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION (28 M.C.C. 653), GRANTING APPELLANT A PERMIT TO
OPERATE AS A CONTRACT CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT OF 1935(49 STAT. 543, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 301), NOW DESIGNATED AS PART
II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  54 STAT. 919. 

APPELLANT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT CARRIER
UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE OF SEC. 209(A) OF THE ACT.  THAT SECTION
PROVIDES THAT IF THE CONTRACT CARRIER OR HIS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST
"WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A CONTRACT CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON
JULY 1, 1935, OVER THE ROUTE OR ROUTES OR WITHIN THE TERRITORY FOR
WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE AND HAS SO OPERATED SINCE THAT TIME," HE
SHALL BE GRANTED A PERMIT WITHOUT MORE.  AND SEC. 209(B) PROVIDES THAT
THE COMMISSION "SHALL SPECIFY IN THE PERMIT THE BUSINESS OF THE
CONTRACT CARRIER COVERED THEREBY AND THE SCOPE THEREOF."  FN2 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT A COMMON CARRIER OF
GENERAL COMMODITIES BUT A CONTRACT CARRIER N3 OF SPECIFIED
COMMODITIES.  IT FOUND IN THAT CONNECTION THAT ON AND AFTER JULY 1,
1935, APPELLANT HAD BEEN "IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A CONTRACT CARRIER"
BY MOTOR VEHICLE "UNDER INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS" WITH PERSONS WHO "OPERATE
FOOD CANNERIES OR MEAT-PACKING BUSINESSES, (A) OF CANNED FOODS FROM
BLUE ISLAND, ILL., TO ST. PAUL, SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS, AND
MINNESOTA TRANSFER, MINN., AND (B) OF FRESH MEATS, CANNED FOODS, DAIRY
PRODUCTS, AND PACKING-HOUSE PRODUCTS AND SUPPLIES, FROM SOUTH ST. PAUL
TO GRAND FORKS, N. DAK., CHICAGO AND ROCKFORD, ILL., AND POINTS IN THAT
PORTION OF WISCONSIN ON AND EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FROM THE
INTERSECTION OF THE WISCONSIN-ILLINOIS-IOWA STATE LINES NEAR DUBUQUE,
IOWA, TO LA CROSSE, WIS., AND U.S. HIGHWAY 53 FROM LA CROSSE TO
CAMERON, WIS., AND ON AND SOUTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY 8, AND (C) OF THE
COMMODITIES DESCRIBED IN (B) FROM CHICAGO TO ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS,
SOUTH ST. PAUL, WINONA, AND ROCHESTER, MINN., AND LA CROSSE, WIS., OVER
IRREGULAR ROUTES;" 28 M.C.C. P. 660.  THE COMMISSION ACCORDINGLY FOUND
THAT APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO A PERMIT AUTHORIZING "THE CONTINUANCE OF
SUCH OPERATIONS." 

APPELLANT'S CHIEF OBJECTION TO THAT LIMITATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER
THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE IS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS RESTRICTED THE
SHIPPERS OR TYPES OF SHIPPERS FOR WHOM HE MAY HAUL THE SPECIFIED
COMMODITIES.  HIS ARGUMENT COMES DOWN TO THIS:  ONCE THE TERRITORY
WHICH HE MAY SERVE AND THE COMMODITIES WHICH HE MAY HAUL HAVE BEEN
DETERMINED, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAUL THESE COMMODITIES FOR ANY ONE
HE CHOOSES WITHIN THOSE TERRITORIAL LIMITS.  IN THE PRESENT CASE
APPELLANT HAULED UNDER CONTRACT MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES FOR SWIFT & CO.
SUCH AS GLUE, PAPER, BARRELS, SOAP, BOLTS, THERMOMETERS, ETC.  HIS
ARGUMENT ACCORDINGLY IS THAT HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAUL THE SAME
ITEMS FOR ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE TERRITORY, WHATEVER MAY BE THE
BUSINESS OF THAT PERSON AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD
NEVER HAD ANY CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE WITH HIM. 

THE COMMISSION AT ONE TIME SEEMS TO HAVE FOLLOWED THAT VIEW. 
LONGSHORE CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION, 2 M.C.C. 480, 481.  BUT IT NO
LONGER DOES.  KEYSTONE TRANSPORTATION CO. CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION,
19 M.C.C. 475.  IN THE LATTER CASE THE POWER AND DUTY OF THE COMMISSION
UNDER SEC. 209(B) TO SPECIFY IN THE PERMIT "THE BUSINESS OF THE
CONTRACT CARRIER COVERED THEREBY AND THE SCOPE THEREOF" WERE
REEXAMINED.  IT WAS HELD THAT THAT PHRASE MEANT "MORE THAN JUST THE
BUSINESS OF BEING A CONTRACT CARRIER WITHIN A DEFINED TERRITORY.  IT IS
ALL-INCLUSIVE AND CONNOTES IN ADDITION TO THE BUSINESS OF BEING A
CONTRACT CARRIER THE EXACT AND PRECISE CHARACTER OF THE SERVICE TO BE
RENDERED BY SUCH CARRIER."  19 M.C.C. 493. 

WE AGREE.  AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE "BUSINESS" OF A PARTICULAR
CONTRACT CARRIER AND THE "SCOPE" OF THE ENTERPRISE MAY REQUIRE MORE
THAN A STATEMENT OF THE TERRITORY SERVED AND THE COMMODITIES HAULED. 
AN ACCURATE DEFINITION FREQUENTLY CAN BE MADE ONLY IN TERMS OF THE TYPE
OR CLASS OF SHIPPERS SERVED.  UNLESS THE WORDS OF THE ACT ARE GIVEN
THAT INTERPRETATION, PERMITS UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE MAY GREATLY
DISTORT THE PRIOR ACTIVITIES OF THE CARRIER.  HE WHO WAS IN SUBSTANCE A
HIGHLY SPECIALIZED CARRIER FOR A SELECT FEW WOULD BE TREATED AS A
CARRIER OF GENERAL COMMODITIES FOR ALL COMERS, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAD
CARRIED A WIDE VARIETY OF ARTICLES.  THAT WOULD MAKE A BASIC ALTERATION
IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENTERPRISE OF THE CONTRACT CARRIER - A
CHANGE AS FUNDAMENTAL AS WE THOUGHT WAS EFFECTED BY A DISREGARD OF THE
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE HOLDING OUT OF THE COMMON CARRIER IN UNITED
STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475.  IF THE
BUSINESS OF THE CONTRACT CARRIER WERE NOT DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE TYPE
OR CLASS OF SHIPPERS SERVED, THAT "SUBSTANTIAL PARITY BETWEEN FUTURE
OPERATIONS AND PRIOR BONA FIDE OPERATIONS" WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED BY THE
ACT (ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 15, 22) WOULD BE
FREQUENTLY DISREGARDED.  THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE WOULD BE UTILIZED NOT
TO PRESERVE THE POSITION WHICH THE CARRIER HAD OBTAINED IN THE NATION'S
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, BUT TO ENLARGE AND EXPAND THE BUSINESS BEYOND
THE PATTERN WHICH IT HAD ACQUIRED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1935.  THE RESULT IN
THE PRESENT CASE WOULD BE A CONVERSION, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, OF
THIS CONTRACT CARRIER INTO A COMMON CARRIER - A STEP WHICH WOULD TEND
TO NULLIFY A DISTINCTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS PRESERVED THROUGHOUT THE
ACT.  IF SUCH A METAMORPHOSIS IS TO BE EFFECTED OR IF THE APPELLANT IS
TO OBTAIN A PERMIT BROADER THAN THE ACTUAL SCOPE OF HIS ESTABLISHED
BUSINESS, THE SHOWING REQUIRED BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT MUST BE
MADE.  SEE SEC. 206(A), SEC. 207, AND SEC. 209(B). 

SINCE THE COMMISSION DID NOT APPLY AN INCORRECT STANDARD IN DEFINING
THE NATURE OF APPELLANT'S BUSINESS AND ITS SCOPE,  FN4  OUR FUNCTION IS
AT AN END.  THE PRECISE DELINEATION OF AN ENTERPRISE WHICH SEEKS THE
PROTECTION OF THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE HAS BEEN RESERVED FOR THE
COMMISSION.  UNITED STATES V. MAHER, 307 U.S. 148; ALTON R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP.,
SUPRA. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AND
FIND THEM WITHOUT MERIT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECS. 210 AND 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47A, SEC.
345. 

FN2  SEC. 209(B) ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL ATTACH
CERTAIN TERMS, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS TO THE PERMIT.  IT GOES ON TO
STATE, HOWEVER, THAT THOSE CONDITIONS SHALL NOT "RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF
THE CARRIER TO SUBSTITUTE OR ADD CONTRACTS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
PERMIT, OR TO ADD TO HIS OR ITS EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE PERMIT, AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND THE DEMANDS
OF THE PUBLIC MAY REQUIRE." 

FN3  THE TERM "CONTRACT CARRIER" IS DEFINED BY SEC. 203(A)(15) AS
"ANY PERSON WHICH, UNDER INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS," ENGAGES
IN THE TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE OF "PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION." 

FN4  WE DO NOT ACCEDE TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE PERMIT SPECIFICATION
CLAUSE IN SEC. 209(B) IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO NEW OPERATORS, NOT TO
"GRANDFATHER" APPLICANTS.  THE COMMISSION HAS CONSISTENTLY TAKEN THE
VIEW THAT IT COVERS BOTH.  MOTOR CONVOY, INC., 2 M.C.C. 197, 200; WRAY
WIBLE, 7 M.C.C. 165, 168; JAMES P. HUNTER, 13 M.C.C. 109, 112-113;
MARINE TRUCKING CO., INC., 17 M.C.C. 615.  THAT INTERPRETATION IS
ENTITLED TO "GREAT WEIGHT."  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS.,
310 U.S. 534, 549.  IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE WORDING OF SEC. 209. 
PARAGRAPH (A) REQUIRES A CONTRACT CARRIER TO HAVE A "PERMIT" IN ORDER
TO OPERATE AS SUCH; AND IT REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO ISSUE THE PERMIT
"WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, IF APPLICATION FOR SUCH PERMIT IS MADE TO
THE COMMISSION AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (B)" WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME
LIMITATION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THE CASE. 
..END :






















CENTRAL HANOVER BANK CO. V. KELLY, 319 U.S. 94 


NO. 659.  ARGUED APRIL 12, 13, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 129
N.J.L. 127, 28 A.2D 174, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A GRANTOR DOMICILED IN NEW JERSEY MADE IN NEW YORK IN 1929 A
TRANSFER OF SECURITIES.  THE TRANSFER WAS IN TRUST, AND IRREVOCABLE, TO
PAY THE INCOME TO THE GRANTOR FOR LIFE, THEN TO HIS WIFE FOR LIFE IF
SHE SURVIVED HIM; IF SHE PREDECEASED HIM, THE PRINCIPAL WAS TO GO TO
TWO SONS, NONRESIDENTS OF NEW JERSEY.  THE WIFE PREDECEASED, AND THE
SONS SURVIVED, THE GRANTOR, WHO IN 1936 DIED DOMICILED IN NEW JERSEY. 
THE SECURITIES WERE AT ALL TIMES KEPT IN NEW YORK AND THERE
ADMINISTERED BY THE TRUSTEE.  HELD, A NEW JERSEY TAX UPON THE TRANSFER,
MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF THE GRANTOR'S
DEATH, DID NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 96. 

2.  THE DETERMINATION BY THE NEW JERSEY COURTS, IN APPLYING THE TAX
STATUTE OF THAT STATE, OF THE KIND OF INTEREST TRANSFERRED AND THE TIME
WHEN IT WAS EFFECTED, IS A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW AND IS BINDING HERE.  P.
97. 

CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO. ET AL. V. KELLY, STATE TAX
COMMISSIONER. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE IMPOSITION OF A STATE TAX UPON
A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN TRUST. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NEW JERSEY IMPOSES A TAX, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE, "UPON
THE TRANSFER OF ANY PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, OF THE VALUE OF FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) OR OVER, OR OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OR INCOME
THEREFROM, IN TRUST OR OTHERWISE, TO PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS,  ...  IN
THE FOLLOWING CASES  ...  THIRD.  WHEN THE TRANSFER IS OF PROPERTY  FN1
MADE BY A RESIDENT  ...  BY DEED, GRANT, BARGAIN, SALE OR GIFT MADE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF THE DEATH OF THE GRANTOR, VENDOR OR DONOR, OR INTENDED
TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER SUCH DEATH." 
LAWS OF 1935, C. 90, PP. 264-265.  AND SEE REV. STAT. 1937, SEC. 54:
34-1. 

PRIOR TO 1929 DECEDENT, WHO AT ALL TIMES RELEVANT HERE WAS A RESIDENT
OF NEW JERSEY, OWNED CERTAIN SECURITIES WHICH HE KEPT IN NEW YORK CITY
IN SAFEKEEPING WITH THE APPELLANT TRUST COMPANY, A NEW YORK
CORPORATION.  IN 1929 HE WENT TO NEW YORK CITY AND EXECUTED A TRUST
AGREEMENT BY WHICH HE TRANSFERRED THOSE SECURITIES TO THE APPELLANT
CORPORATION AS TRUSTEE.  THE TRUST DEED WAS AN IRREVOCABLE AGREEMENT
UNDER WHICH HE RETAINED NO CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY.  IT CONTAINED A
PROVISION THAT IT WAS TO BE CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF NEW YORK
WHERE IT WAS MADE AND WHERE IT WAS TO BE ENFORCED.  IT PROVIDED THAT
THE TRUSTEE SHOULD PAY THE NET INCOME TO THE GRANTOR DURING HIS LIFE
AND THEREAFTER TO HIS WIFE FOR LIFE IN CASE SHE SURVIVED HIM.  IN THE
EVENT THAT THE GRANTOR'S WIFE DID NOT SURVIVE HIM AND HIS TWO SONS DID,
THEN THE TRUSTEE WAS TO TRANSFER TO EACH SON ONE-HALF OF THE
PRINCIPAL.  THE WIFE PREDECEASED THE GRANTOR, WHO DIED IN 1936 A
RESIDENT OF NEW JERSEY.  BOTH SONS SURVIVED HIM.  THEY WERE
NONRESIDENTS OF NEW JERSEY.  THE SECURITIES WERE AT ALL TIMES KEPT IN
NEW YORK AND THERE ADMINISTERED BY THE TRUSTEE.  FN2 

THE NEW JERSEY PREROGATIVE COURT HELD ON AN APPEAL FROM THE TAX
COMMISSIONER THAT THE CREATION OF THE SO-CALLED EQUITABLE CONTINGENT
REMAINDERS IN THE SONS WAS A "TRANSFER" OF AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY
BY DEED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE AT A TIME WHEN THE GRANTOR
WAS DOMICILED IN NEW JERSEY; FN3  THAT THAT TRANSFER WAS MADE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF THE GRANTOR'S DEATH AND INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH; AND THAT IT WAS THAT
TRANSFER RATHER THAN THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE TAX WAS LAID.  IT
ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER AGAINST THE
CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS THAT THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED
VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  129 N.J. EQ. 186, 18 A.2D 45.  BOTH THE SUPREME COURT AND
THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY AFFIRMED.  SEE 127 N.J.L.
468, 23 A.2D 284; 129 N.J.L. 127, 28 A.2D 174.  THE CASE IS HERE ON
APPEAL.  SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

IT IS MUCH TOO LATE TO CONTEND THAT DOMICILE ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT TO
GIVE THE DOMICILIARY STATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO TAX A TRANSFER
OF INTANGIBLES WHERE THE OWNER, THOUGH DOMICILED WITHIN THE STATE,
KEEPS THE PAPER EVIDENCES OF THE INTANGIBLES OUTSIDE ITS BOUNDARIES. 
SEE BLACKSTONE V. MILLER, 188 U.S. 189; BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S.
1; CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, AND CASES CITED.  THE COMMAND OF
THE STATE OVER THE OWNER, THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH DOMICILE CREATES, THE
PRACTICAL NECESSITY OF ASSOCIATING INTANGIBLES WITH THE PERSON OF THE
OWNER AT HIS DOMICILE SINCE THEY REPRESENT ONLY RIGHTS WHICH HE MAY
ENFORCE AGAINST OTHERS - THESE ARE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE JURISDICTION
OF THE DOMICILIARY STATE TO TAX.  CURRY V. MCCANLESS, SUPRA.  WE
RECENTLY APPLIED THAT PRINCIPLE TO SUSTAIN, ON FACTS VERY CLOSE TO THE
PRESENT ONES, OREGON'S POWER TO TAX A TRANSFER OF INTANGIBLES HELD IN
ILLINOIS BY ONE DOMICILED IN OREGON.  PEARSON V. MCGRAW, 308 U.S. 313. 
AND SEE VAN DYKE V. TAX COMMISSION, 235 WIS. 128, 292 N.W. 313, AFF'D
311 U.S. 605.  THE EXECUTION OF THE PRESENT TRUST AGREEMENT IN NEW
YORK, THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE REMAINDERMEN AS WELL AS THE TRUSTEE
WERE NON-RESIDENTS OF THE TAXING STATE ARE QUITE IMMATERIAL.  DOMICILE
IS THE SINGLE CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION IN THIS SITUATION, AS IT IS IN
THE CASE OF THE TAXATION OF INCOME DERIVED FROM ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE THE
STATE.  LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, 279; NEW YORK
EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308. 

APPELLANTS CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE
TRUST AGREEMENT THERE WAS NO TAXABLE TRANSFER TO THE SONS; THAT THEIR
INTERESTS WERE WHOLLY SPECULATIVE AND CONTINGENT AND DID NOT BECOME
TAXABLE UNTIL THEY BECAME VESTED INTERESTS; AND THAT NEW JERSEY HAS NOT
LEVIED A TAX ACCORDING TO THE QUALITY AND VALUE OF THE INTERESTS AS
THEY EXISTED IN 1929 BUT HAS APPRAISED THE PROPERTY AT ITS VALUE AT THE
TIME OF THE GRANTOR'S DEATH.  THEY ALSO ARGUE THAT IF THE TRUST
AGREEMENT BE CONSTRUED TO TRANSFER AN INTEREST TO THE SONS ONLY AT THE
GRANTOR'S DEATH, IT WAS A TRANSFER WHICH NEW JERSEY COULD NOT TAX. 

THE DETERMINATION BY THE NEW JERSEY COURTS OF THE KIND OF INTEREST
TRANSFERRED AND THE TIME WHEN IT WAS EFFECTED IS A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW
BINDING ON US.  ORR V. GILMAN, 183 U.S. 278, 288; CHANLER V. KELSEY,
205 U.S. 466, 476; NICKEL V. COLE, 256 U.S. 222, 225-226; SALTONSTALL
V. SALTONSTALL, 276 U.S. 260, 270.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON
WHY A STATE MAY NOT MAKE THE TRANSFER INTER VIVOS THE TAXABLE EVENT AND
THEN MEASURE THE TAX BY THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT TIME OF DEATH. 
KEENEY V. NEW YORK, 222 U.S. 525.  CF. MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283
U.S. 15, 20, 22, 23; HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 111; PAUL,
FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT TAXATION (1942) SEC. 2.13.  A STATE WHICH MAY
TAX THE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY MADE BY ONE OF ITS DOMICILIARIES
CERTAINLY MAY MAKE THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX CONDITIONAL ON HIS BEING
DOMICILED IN THE STATE AT HIS DEATH, AND MAY DELAY PAYMENT UNTIL THEN. 
THE FACT THAT THE TAXABLE EVENT AND THE TAX LEVY ARE WIDELY SEPARATED
IN TIME IS QUITE IRRELEVANT.  IN SHORT, "THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PLACES
NO RESTRICTION ON A STATE AS TO THE TIME AT WHICH AN INHERITANCE TAX
SHALL BE LEVIED OR THE PROPERTY VALUED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH TAX." 
SALOMON V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 484, 490.  AND IF THE
TRANSFER TO THE SONS IS ASSUMED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE ONLY AT THE TIME OF
THE GRANTOR'S DEATH, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY THE RESULT
NEED BE DIFFERENT.  THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT THEN "OWN" THE PROPERTY IS
INCONSEQUENTIAL.  CF. WHITNEY V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 309 U.S. 530. 
THE SIGNIFICANT FACTS ARE THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE REMAINDERMEN DERIVED
SOLELY FROM THE TRUST AGREEMENT AND THAT THE GRANTOR DIED DOMICILED IN
NEW JERSEY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE STATUTE EMBRACES THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY "WHETHER SUCH
PROPERTY BE SITUATED WITHIN OR WITHOUT THIS STATE."  REV. STAT. 1937,
SEC. 54:  33-1.  THE WORD "TRANSFER" IS DEFINED SO AS TO INCLUDE "THE
PASSING OF PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN, IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT, PRESENT OR FUTURE" BY DEED.  ID. 

FN2  ART. XVI, SEC. 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
PROVIDES:  "MONEYS, CREDITS, SECURITIES AND OTHER INTANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE NOT EMPLOYED IN CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS
THEREIN BY THE OWNER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE LOCATED AT THE DOMICILE OF
THE OWNER FOR PURPOSE OF TAXATION, AND, IF HELD IN TRUST, SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO BE LOCATED IN THIS STATE FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION BECAUSE OF
THE TRUSTEE BEING DOMICILED IN THIS STATE, PROVIDED THAT IF NO OTHER
STATE HAS JURISDICTION TO SUBJECT SUCH PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST TO DEATH
TAXATION, IT MAY BE DEEMED PROPERTY HAVING A TAXABLE SITUS WITHIN THIS
STATE FOR PURPOSES OF DEATH TAXATION." 

FN3  THE COURT HELD, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT THERE WAS A TAXABLE
TRANSFER UNDER THE STATUTE EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE REMAINDER WAS
VESTED IN THE GRANTOR UNTIL THE HAPPENING OF THE CONTINGENCY.  UNDER
THAT VIEW, THERE WAS NO TRANSFER UNTIL THE ACTUAL VESTING AT HIS
DEATH.  YET AT THAT TIME HE WAS DOMICILED IN NEW JERSEY.  SO THE
TRANSFER WAS TAXABLE.  129 N.J. EQ. PP. 212-213. 
..END :
























DETROIT EDISON CO. V. COMM'R, 319 U.S. 98 


NO. 675.  ARGUED APRIL 13, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 131 F.2D
619, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 23(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, AN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY IS NOT ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IN
RESPECT OF THE COST OF EXTENSIONS OF ITS FACILITIES, TO THE EXTENT THAT
SUCH COST WAS BORNE BY CUSTOMERS WHOSE PAYMENTS TO THE COMPANY THEREFOR
WERE NOT REFUNDED NOR REFUNDABLE.  P. 102. 

2.  SECTIONS 113(A)(2) AND (8)(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 ARE
INAPPLICABLE, SINCE THE CUSTOMERS' PAYMENTS IN QUESTION WERE NEITHER
"GIFTS" NOR "CONTRIBUTIONS" TO THE COMPANY.  P. 102. 

DETROIT EDISON CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 749, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 45 B.T.A. 358, WHICH SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, ENGAGES IN THE GENERATION
OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AND ITS DISTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC IN AND NEAR
DETROIT.  IT RECEIVES MANY APPLICATIONS FOR SERVICE WHICH IN ITS
OPINION WOULD REQUIRE AN INVESTMENT IN EXTENSION OF ITS FACILITIES
GREATER THAN PROSPECTIVE REVENUES THEREFROM WOULD WARRANT.  IN SUCH
CASES IT UNDERTAKES TO RENDER THE SERVICE IF THE APPLICANT WILL PAY THE
ESTIMATED COST OF THE NECESSARY CONSTRUCTION.  THIS IS DONE BY CONTRACT
OF WHICH THERE ARE FIVE VARIATIONS, SOME OF WHICH PROVIDE FOR REFUNDS
OF PART OF THE CUSTOMERS' COST IF ADDITIONAL CUSTOMERS COME IN TO SHARE
IT, OR IF REVENUES EXCEED ESTIMATES.  WITH THESE PROVISIONS WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED, SINCE THE CONTROVERSY HERE RELATES ONLY TO PAYMENTS THAT
NEVER WERE, OR WHICH BY THE CONTRACTS HAVE CEASED TO BE, REFUNDABLE. 
THE AMOUNTS OF THE CUSTOMERS' PAYMENTS ARE FIXED BY AN ESTIMATE OF THE
COST; THEY NEVER EXCEED, AND SOMETIMES FALL SHORT OF ACTUAL COST, BUT
ARE NOT ADJUSTED BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTIMATES AND
REALIZATION. 

THE COMPANY CONSTRUCTS THE FACILITIES, WHICH BECOME ITS PROPERTY, AND
ADDS THE FULL COST TO ITS APPROPRIATE PROPERTY ACCOUNTS WITHOUT
DEDUCTION FOR THE CUSTOMER PAYMENT.  IT CLAIMS AS A BASE FOR COMPUTING
ITS DEPRECIATION THE INVESTMENT FOR WHICH THE COMPANY IS THEN
REIMBURSED.  CUSTOMERS' PAYMENTS ARE NOT APPROPRIATED TO THE PARTICULAR
CONSTRUCTION NOR EARMARKED FOR IT, BUT GO INTO THE COMPANY'S GENERAL
WORKING FUNDS.  DURING THE PERIOD THAT A PAYMENT IS SUBJECT TO REFUND
IT IS CARRIED IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT; BUT IF IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO
REFUND, OR WHEN THE REFUND PERIOD IS PAST, THE UNREFUNDED AND
UNREFUNDABLE BALANCES ARE TRANSFERRED TO SURPLUS THROUGH AN ACCOUNT
DESIGNATED AS "CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EXTENSIONS." 

DURING 1936 AND 1937, THE YEARS IN QUESTION, THE COMPANY ADDED TO ITS
SURPLUS FROM SUCH SOURCES $36,065.81 AND $47,500.67 RESPECTIVELY.  THE
COMMISSIONER ELIMINATED FROM THE DEPRECIABLE PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY
THAT PORTION OF THE COST EQUIVALENT TO THE UNREFUNDED AND UNREFUNDABLE
BALANCES OF THE DEPOSITS.  THESE ELIMINATIONS, AMOUNTING TO UPWARDS OF
$1,160,000 IN EACH YEAR, RESULTED IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION
DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME OF $40,273.11 FOR 1936 AND $41,786.26 FOR 1937,
AND IN DEFICIENCIES WHICH THE COMPANY CONTESTED.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  FN1  BECAUSE THE DECISION APPEARED TO CONFLICT WITH
PRINCIPLES FOLLOWED IN ANOTHER CIRCUIT,  FN2  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IS PERMITTED
BY SEC. 23(1) OF THE APPLICABLE REVENUE ACT IN THESE TERMS:  "A
REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR THE EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR OF PROPERTY USED
IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, INCLUDING A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR
OBSOLESCENCE."  FN3  FOR THE BASIS WE ARE REFERRED BY SEC. 23(N) TO
SEC. 114 OF THE ACT WHICH REFERS US AGAIN TO SEC. 113(B) THEREOF WHICH
PROVIDES AN "ADJUSTED BASIS" FOR GAIN OR LOSS BUT WHICH AGAIN REFERS US
TO SEC. 113(A) FOR THE BASIS UPON WHICH ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE MADE.  THE
SUM OF THESE IS THAT THE BASIS OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE "SHALL BE THE
COST OF SUCH PROPERTY" (SEC. 113(A)) MAKING "PROPER ADJUSTMENT" IN
RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY "FOR EXPENDITURES, RECEIPTS, LOSSES, OR OTHER
ITEMS, PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT," (SEC. 113(B)(1)(A))
EXCEPT IN CASE OF CERTAIN GIFTS, TRANSFERS AS PAID-IN SURPLUS, OR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAPITAL (SEC. 113(A)(2), (8)(B)), WHICH EXCEPTIONS WE
WILL LATER CONSIDER. 

IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE RULE APPLICABLE TO MOST BUSINESS PROPERTY OF
A COST BASIS PROPERLY ADJUSTED LEAVES MANY PROBLEMS OF DEPRECIATION
ACCOUNTING TO BE ANSWERED BY SOUND AND FAIR TAX ADMINISTRATION.  THE
END AND PURPOSE OF IT ALL IS TO APPROXIMATE AND REFLECT THE FINANCIAL
CONSEQUENCES TO THE TAXPAYER OF THE SUBTLE EFFECTS OF TIME AND USE ON
THE VALUE OF HIS CAPITAL ASSETS.  FOR THIS PURPOSE IT IS SOUND
ACCOUNTING PRACTICE ANNUALLY TO ACCRUE AS TO EACH CLASSIFICATION OF
DEPRECIABLE PROPERTY AN AMOUNT WHICH AT THE TIME IT IS RETIRED WILL
WITH ITS SALVAGE VALUE REPLACE THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT THEREIN.  OR AS
A LAYMAN MIGHT PUT IT, THE MACHINE IN ITS LIFE TIME MUST PAY FOR ITSELF
BEFORE IT CAN BE SAID TO PAY ANYTHING TO ITS OWNER.  EXPERIENCE AND
JUDGMENT HIT UPON USABLE MORTALITY TABLES FOR CLASSES OF PROPERTY FROM
WHICH ANNUAL RATES OF ACCRUAL ARE ESTIMATED AND SEVERAL DIFFERENT
METHODS ARE EMPLOYED FOR RELATING THIS PHYSICAL DETERIORATION AND
FUNCTIONAL OBSOLESCENCE TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  THE CALCULATION IS
INFLUENCED BY TOO MANY VARIABLES TO BE STANDARDIZED FOR DIFFERING
ENTERPRISES, ASSETS, CONDITIONS, OR METHODS OF BUSINESS.  THE CONGRESS
WISELY REFRAINED FROM FORMALIZING ITS METHODS AND WE PRESCRIBE NO OVER
ALL RULES. 

BUT WE THINK THE STATUTORY PROVISION THAT THE "BASIS OF PROPERTY
SHALL BE THE COST OF SUCH PROPERTY" (SEC. 113(A)) NORMALLY MEANS, AND
THAT IN THIS CASE THE COMMISSIONER WAS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING IT TO
MEAN, COST TO THE TAXPAYER.  A PROPERTY MAY HAVE A COST HISTORY QUITE
DIFFERENT FROM ITS COST TO THE TAXPAYER.  IT MAY HAVE BEEN PURCHASED
FOR LESS OR MORE THAN ORIGINAL COST, OR BUILT BY CONTRACT WHICH CALLED
FOR PAYMENTS ON WHICH THE BUILDER PROFITED GREATLY OR SUFFERED HEAVY
LOSS.  BUT GENERALLY AND IN THIS CASE THE COMMISSIONER WAS IN NO ERROR
IN RULING THAT THE TAXPAYER'S OUTLAY IS THE MEASURE OF HIS RECOUPMENT
THROUGH DEPRECIATION ACCRUALS. 

IF THIS WERE OTHERWISE IN DOUBT IT WOULD BE MADE CLEAR BY THE
PROVISIONS FOR "PROPER ADJUSTMENT" OF COST FOR RECEIPTS PROPERLY
CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOUND IN SEC. 113(B)(1)(A).  THE CUSTOMER
PAYMENTS SO FAR AS IN QUESTION FOUND THEIR WAY INTO THE COMPANY'S
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS BY WAY OF AN ADDITION TO SURPLUS.  THEIR
INTERDEPENDENCY WITH THE INCREASES IN PROPERTY ACCOUNTS CAUSED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION THEY INDUCED JUSTIFIED THE COMMISSIONER IN RELATING THE
ONE TO THE OTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUSTING THE BASIS FOR
DEPRECIATION. 

THE COMPANY, HOWEVER, SEEKS TO AVOID THIS RESULT BY THE CONTENTION
THAT WHAT IT HAS OBTAINED ARE GIFTS TO IT OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO ITS
CAPITAL OF THE PROPERTY PAID FOR BY THE CUSTOMER, AND THAT THEREFORE BY
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 113(A)(2) AND (8)(B) IT TAKES THE BASIS OF THE
DONOR OR TRANSFEROR.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT IT OVERTAXES IMAGINATION
TO REGARD THE FARMERS AND OTHER CUSTOMERS WHO FURNISHED THESE FUNDS AS
MAKERS EITHER OF DONATIONS OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMPANY.  THE
TRANSACTION NEITHER IN FORM NOR IN SUBSTANCE BORE SUCH A SEMBLANCE. 

THE PAYMENTS WERE TO THE CUSTOMER THE PRICE OF THE SERVICE.  THE
RECEIPTS HAVE GONE, SO FAR AS HERE INVOLVED, TO ADD TO THE COMPANY'S
SURPLUS.  THEY HAVE NOT BEEN TAXED AS INCOME, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE IT HAS
BEEN THOUGHT TO BE PRECLUDED BY THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN EDWARDS V.
CUBA R. CO., 268 U.S. 628, HOLDING THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT
CASE A GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY TO INDUCE RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT
INCOME.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE COMPANY MUST BE PERMITTED TO
RECOUP THROUGH UNTAXED DEPRECIATION ACCRUALS ON INVESTMENT IT HAS
REFUSED TO MAKE.  THE COMMISSIONER WAS WARRANTED IN ADJUSTING THE
DEPRECIATION BASE TO REPRESENT THE TAXPAYER'S NET INVESTMENT.  NOTHING
IN THE REGULATIONS IS TO THE CONTRARY AND NOTHING IN HELVERING V.
AMERICAN DENTAL CO., 318 U.S. 322, WHEN READ IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS
FACTS TOUCHES THIS PROBLEM AT ALL.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  45 B.T.A. 358; 131 F.2D 619. 

FN2  ARUNDEL-BROOKS CONCRETE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 129 F.2D
762(C.C.A.4TH). 

FN3  REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1648. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






JONES V. OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 103 


NO. 280, OCTOBER TERM, 1941.  REARGUED MARCH 10, 11, 1943.  - DECIDED
MAY 3, 1943.  - 242 ALA. 549, 7 SO.2D 503, REVERSED.  - 202 ARK. 614,
151 S.W.2D 1000, REVERSED.  - 58 ARIZ. 144, 118 P.2D 97, REVERSED. 


UPON REHEARING, 318 U.S. 796, THE JUDGMENTS HERETOFORE ENTERED IN
THESE CASES, 316 U.S. 584, AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE STATE COURTS,
ARE VACATED, AND THE JUDGMENTS OF THE STATE COURTS ARE REVERSED.  P.
104. 

JONES V. OPELIKA* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 314, OCTOBER TERM, 1941, BOWDEN ET AL. V. FORT
SMITH, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 793, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS, AND NO. 966, OCTOBER TERM, 1941, JOBIN V. ARIZONA, ON APPEAL
FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

PER CURIAM (ANNOUNCED BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS): 

THE JUDGMENTS IN THESE CASES WERE AFFIRMED AT THE OCTOBER TERM,
1941.  316 U.S. 584.  BECAUSE THE ISSUES IN ALL THREE CASES WERE OF THE
SAME CHARACTER AS THOSE BROUGHT BEFORE US IN OTHER CASES BY
APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIORARI AT THE PRESENT TERM, WE ORDERED A
REARGUMENT AND HEARD THESE CASES TOGETHER WITH MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
POST, P. 105.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN
THE MURDOCK CASE, AND IN THE DISSENTING OPINIONS FILED IN THE PRESENT
CASES AFTER THE ARGUMENT LAST TERM, THE COURT IS OF OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT IN EACH CASE SHOULD BE REVERSED.  THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT
HERETOFORE ENTERED IN THESE CASES ARE THEREFORE VACATED, AND THE
JUDGMENTS OF THE STATE COURTS ARE REVERSED.  SO ORDERED. 

FOR DISSENTING OPINIONS, SEE POST, PP. 117-140. 
..END :
















MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 


NO. 480.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 11, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 149 PA.
SUPER.  175, 27 A.2D 666, REVERSED. 


1.  A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE WHICH, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, REQUIRES
RELIGIOUS COLPORTEURS TO PAY A LICENSE TAX AS A CONDITION TO THE
PURSUIT OF THEIR ACTIVITIES, IS INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
AS A DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND RELIGION.  PP. 108-110. 

2.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IS "SOLD" RATHER THAN
"DONATED" DOES NOT TRANSFORM THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COLPORTEUR INTO A
COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE.  P. 111. 

3.  UPON THE RECORD IN THESE CASES, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT
"JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES" WERE ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL RATHER THAN IN A
RELIGIOUS VENTURE.  P. 111. 

4.  A STATE MAY NOT IMPOSE A CHARGE FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF A RIGHT
GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 113. 

5.  THE FLAT LICENSE TAX HERE INVOLVED RESTRAINS IN ADVANCE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES OF PRESS AND RELIGION AND INEVITABLY TENDS TO
SUPPRESS THEIR EXERCISE.  P. 114. 

6.  THAT THE ORDINANCE IS "NONDISCRIMINATORY," IN THAT IT APPLIES
ALSO TO PEDDLERS OF WARES AND MERCHANDISE, IS IMMATERIAL.  THE
LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE IN A PREFERRED
POSITION.  P. 115. 

7.  SINCE THE PRIVILEGE IN QUESTION IS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF STATE AUTHORITY, THE INQUIRY
AS TO WHETHER THE STATE HAS GIVEN SOMETHING FOR WHICH IT CAN ASK A
RETURN IS IRRELEVANT.  P. 115. 

8.  A COMMUNITY MAY NOT SUPPRESS, OR THE STATE TAX, THE DISSEMINATION
OF VIEWS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNPOPULAR, ANNOYING, OR DISTASTEFUL.  P.
116. 

9.  THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN CONSTRUED TO APPLY
ONLY TO SOLICITATION FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE CAN NOT SUSTAIN IT, SINCE IT
IS NOT NARROWLY DRAWN TO PREVENT OR CONTROL ABUSES OR EVILS ARISING
FROM THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF ACTIVITY.  P. 117. 

MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE)*  . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 481, PERISICH V. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE),
NO. 482, MOWDER V. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE), NO. 483, SEDERS V.
PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE), NO. 484, LAMBORN V. PENNSYLVANIA
(CITY OF JEANNETTE), NO. 485, MALTEZOS V. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF
JEANNETTE), NO. 486, ANASTASIA TZANES V. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF
JEANNETTE), AND NO. 487, ELLAINE TZANES V. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF
JEANNETTE), ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 748, TO THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 748, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCES OF ORDERS IN EIGHT
CASES REFUSING TO ALLOW APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES FOR
VIOLATIONS OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CITY OF JEANNETTE, PENNSYLVANIA, HAS AN ORDINANCE, SOME FORTY
YEARS OLD, WHICH PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THAT ALL PERSONS CANVASSING FOR OR SOLICITING WITHIN SAID BOROUGH,
ORDERS FOR GOODS, PAINTINGS, PICTURES, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE OF ANY
KIND, OR PERSONS DELIVERING SUCH ARTICLES UNDER ORDERS SO OBTAINED OR
SOLICITED, SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROCURE FROM THE BURGESS A LICENSE TO
TRANSACT SAID BUSINESS AND SHALL PAY TO THE TREASURER OF SAID BOROUGH
THEREFORE THE FOLLOWING SUMS ACCORDING TO THE TIME FOR WHICH SAID
LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED. 

"FOR ONE DAY $1.50, FOR ONE WEEK SEVEN DOLLARS ($7.00), FOR TWO WEEKS
TWELVE DOLLARS ($12.00), FOR THREE WEEKS TWENTY DOLLARS ($20.00),
PROVIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT APPLY TO
PERSONS SELLING BY SAMPLE TO MANUFACTURERS OR LICENSED MERCHANTS OR
DEALERS DOING BUSINESS IN SAID BOROUGH OF JEANNETTE." 

PETITIONERS ARE "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES."  THEY WENT ABOUT FROM DOOR TO
DOOR IN THE CITY OF JEANNETTE DISTRIBUTING LITERATURE AND SOLICITING
PEOPLE TO "PURCHASE" CERTAIN RELIGIOUS BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS, ALL
PUBLISHED BY THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY.  FN1  THE "PRICE"
OF THE BOOKS WAS TWENTY-FIVE CENTS EACH, THE "PRICE" OF THE PAMPHLETS
FIVE CENTS EACH.  FN2  IN CONNECTION WITH THESE ACTIVITIES, PETITIONERS
USED A PHONOGRAPH  FN3  ON WHICH THEY PLAYED A RECORD EXPOUNDING
CERTAIN OF THEIR VIEWS ON RELIGION.  NONE OF THEM OBTAINED A LICENSE
UNDER THE ORDINANCE.  BEFORE THEY WERE ARRESTED EACH HAD MADE "SALES"
OF BOOKS.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS THEIR PRACTICE IN MAKING
THESE SOLICITATIONS TO REQUEST A "CONTRIBUTION" OF TWENTY-FIVE CENTS
EACH FOR THE BOOKS AND FIVE CENTS EACH FOR THE PAMPHLETS, BUT TO ACCEPT
LESSER SUMS OR EVEN TO DONATE THE VOLUMES IN CASE AN INTERESTED PERSON
WAS WITHOUT FUNDS.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, SOME DONATIONS OF PAMPHLETS
WERE MADE WHEN BOOKS WERE PURCHASED.  PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED AND
FINED FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.  THEIR JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION
WERE SUSTAINED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 149 PA. SUPER. 
CT. 175, 27 A.2D 666, AGAINST THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE ORDINANCE
DEPRIVED THEM OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, AND RELIGION GUARANTEED
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WERE DENIED.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON PETITIONS FOR
WRITS OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED ALONG WITH THE PETITIONS FOR
REHEARING OF JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, AND ITS COMPANION CASES. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH THE FOURTEENTH MAKES APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES, DECLARES THAT "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS  ...  "  IT COULD
HARDLY BE DENIED THAT A TAX LAID SPECIFICALLY ON THE EXERCISE OF THOSE
FREEDOMS WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  YET THE LICENSE TAX IMPOSED BY
THIS ORDINANCE IS, IN SUBSTANCE, JUST THAT. 

PETITIONERS SPREAD THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE AND THEIR
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS LARGELY THROUGH THE HAND DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE
BY FULL OR PART TIME WORKERS.  FN4  THEY CLAIM TO FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF
PAUL, TEACHING "PUBLICKLY, AND FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE."  ACTS 20:20.  THEY
TAKE LITERALLY THE MANDATE OF THE SCRIPTURES, "GO YE INTO ALL THE
WORLD, AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO EVERY CREATURE."  MARK 16:15.  IN DOING
SO THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE OBEYING A COMMANDMENT OF GOD. 

THE HAND DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS TRACTS IS AN AGE-OLD FORM OF
MISSIONARY EVANGELISM - AS OLD AS THE HISTORY OF PRINTING PRESSES.  FN5
IT HAS BEEN A POTENT FORCE IN VARIOUS RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS DOWN THROUGH
THE YEARS.  FN6  THIS FORM OF EVANGELISM IS UTILIZED TODAY ON A LARGE
SCALE BY VARIOUS RELIGIOUS SECTS WHOSE COLPORTEURS CARRY THE GOSPEL TO
THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF HOMES AND SEEK THROUGH PERSONAL VISITATIONS
TO WIN ADHERENTS TO THEIR FAITH.  FN7  IT IS MORE THAN PREACHING; IT IS
MORE THAN DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.  IT IS A COMBINATION OF
BOTH.  ITS PURPOSE IS AS EVANGELICAL AS THE REVIVAL MEETING.  THIS FORM
OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY OCCUPIES THE SAME HIGH ESTATE UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AS DO WORSHIP IN THE CHURCHES AND PREACHING FROM THE
PULPITS.  IT HAS THE SAME CLAIM TO PROTECTION AS THE MORE ORTHODOX AND
CONVENTIONAL EXERCISES OF RELIGION.  IT ALSO HAS THE SAME CLAIM AS THE
OTHERS TO THE GUARANTEES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS. 

THE INTEGRITY OF THIS CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOR AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE HAS
NOT BEEN CHALLENGED.  NOR DO WE HAVE PRESENTED ANY QUESTION AS TO THE
SINCERITY OF PETITIONERS IN THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES,
HOWEVER MISGUIDED THEY MAY BE THOUGHT TO BE.  MOREOVER, WE DO NOT
INTIMATE OR SUGGEST IN RESPECTING THEIR SINCERITY THAT ANY CONDUCT CAN
BE MADE A RELIGIOUS RITE AND BY THE ZEAL OF THE PRACTITIONERS SWEPT
INTO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  REYNOLDS V. STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 161-167,
AND DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333 DENIED ANY SUCH CLAIM TO THE PRACTICE
OF POLYGAMY AND BIGAMY.  OTHER CLAIMS MAY WELL ARISE WHICH DESERVE THE
SAME FATE.  WE ONLY HOLD THAT SPREADING ONE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR
PREACHING THE GOSPEL THROUGH DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE AND
THROUGH PERSONAL VISITATIONS IS AN AGE-OLD TYPE OF EVANGELISM WITH AS
HIGH A CLAIM TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AS THE MORE ORTHODOX TYPES. 
THE MANNER IN WHICH IT IS PRACTICED AT TIMES GIVES RISE TO SPECIAL
PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATES IS COMPETENT TO
DEAL.  SEE FOR EXAMPLE COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, AND
CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568.  BUT THAT MERELY ILLUSTRATES
THAT THE RIGHTS WITH WHICH WE ARE DEALING ARE NOT ABSOLUTES.  SCHNEIDER
V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160-161.  WE ARE CONCERNED, HOWEVER, IN THESE
CASES MERELY WITH ONE NARROW ISSUE.  THERE IS PRESENTED FOR DECISION NO
QUESTION WHATSOEVER CONCERNING PUNISHMENT FOR ANY ALLEGED UNLAWFUL ACTS
DURING THE SOLICITATION.  NOR IS THERE INVOLVED HERE ANY QUESTION AS TO
THE VALIDITY OF A REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOR COLPORTEURS AND OTHER
SOLICITORS.  THE CASES PRESENT A SINGLE ISSUE - THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF AN ORDINANCE WHICH AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED REQUIRES RELIGIOUS
COLPORTEURS TO PAY A LICENSE TAX AS A CONDITION TO THE PURSUIT OF THEIR
ACTIVITIES. 

THE ALLEGED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXACTION OF THIS LICENSE TAX IS THE
FACT THAT THE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IS DISTRIBUTED WITH A SOLICITATION
OF FUNDS.  THUS IT WAS STATED, IN JONES V. OPELIKA, SUPRA, P. 597, THAT
WHEN A RELIGIOUS SECT USES "ORDINARY COMMERCIAL METHODS OF SALES OF
ARTICLES TO RAISE PROPAGANDA FUNDS," IT IS PROPER FOR THE STATE TO
CHARGE "REASONABLE FEES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CANVASSING."  SITUATIONS
WILL ARISE WHERE IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PARTICULAR
ACTIVITY IS RELIGIOUS OR PURELY COMMERCIAL.  THE DISTINCTION AT TIMES
IS VITAL.  AS WE STATED ONLY THE OTHER DAY, IN JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318
U.S. 413, 417, "THE STATES CAN PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE STREETS FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF PURELY COMMERCIAL LEAFLETS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH LEAFLETS
MAY HAVE 'A CIVIC APPEAL, OR A MORAL PLATITUDE' APPENDED.  VALENTINE V.
CHRESTENSEN, 316 U.S. 52, 55.  THEY MAY NOT PROHIBIT THE DISTRIBUTION
OF HANDBILLS IN THE PURSUIT OF A CLEARLY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY MERELY
BECAUSE THE HANDBILLS INVITE THE PURCHASE OF BOOKS FOR THE IMPROVED
UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELIGION OR BECAUSE THE HANDBILLS SEEK IN A LAWFUL
FASHION TO PROMOTE THE RAISING OF FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES."  BUT
THE MERE FACT THAT THE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IS "SOLD" BY ITINERANT
PREACHERS RATHER THAN "DONATED" DOES NOT TRANSFORM EVANGELISM INTO A
COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE.  IF IT DID, THEN THE PASSING OF THE COLLECTION
PLATE IN CHURCH WOULD MAKE THE CHURCH SERVICE A COMMERCIAL PROJECT. 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THOSE SPREADING THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
THROUGH THE SPOKEN AND PRINTED WORD ARE NOT TO BE GAUGED BY STANDARDS
GOVERNING RETAILERS OR WHOLESALERS OF BOOKS.  THE RIGHT TO USE THE
PRESS FOR EXPRESSING ONE'S VIEWS IS NOT TO BE MEASURED BY THE
PROTECTION AFFORDED COMMERCIAL HANDBILLS.  IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT
THE PAMPHLETS OF THOMAS PAINE WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED FREE OF CHARGE.  IT
IS PLAIN THAT A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION NEEDS FUNDS TO REMAIN A GOING
CONCERN.  BUT AN ITINERANT EVANGELIST, HOWEVER MISGUIDED OR INTOLERANT
HE MAY BE, DOES NOT BECOME A MERE BOOK AGENT BY SELLING THE BIBLE OR
RELIGIOUS TRACTS TO HELP DEFRAY HIS EXPENSES OR TO SUSTAIN HIM. 
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, FREEDOM OF RELIGION ARE
AVAILABLE TO ALL, NOT MERELY TO THOSE WHO CAN PAY THEIR OWN WAY.  AS WE
HAVE SAID, THE PROBLEM OF DRAWING THE LINE BETWEEN A PURELY COMMERCIAL
ACTIVITY AND A RELIGIOUS ONE WILL AT TIMES BE DIFFICULT.  ON THIS
RECORD IT PLAINLY CANNOT BE SAID THAT PETITIONERS WERE ENGAGED IN A
COMMERCIAL RATHER THAN A RELIGIOUS VENTURE.  IT IS A DISTORTION OF THE
FACTS OF RECORD TO DESCRIBE THEIR ACTIVITIES AS THE OCCUPATION OF
SELLING BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS.  AND THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT DID NOT REST
THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION ON THAT BASIS, THOUGH IT DID FIND THAT
PETITIONERS "SOLD" THE LITERATURE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA IN STATE
V. MEAD, 230 IOWA 1217, 300 N.W. 523, 524, DESCRIBED THE SELLING
ACTIVITIES OF MEMBERS OF THIS SAME SECT AS "MERELY INCIDENTAL AND
COLLATERAL" TO THEIR "MAIN OBJECT WHICH WAS TO PREACH AND PUBLICIZE THE
DOCTRINES OF THEIR ORDER."  AND SEE STATE V. MEREDITH, 197 S.C. 351, 15
S.E.2D 678; PEOPLE V. BARBER, 289 N.Y. 378, 385-386, 46 N.E.2D 329. 
THAT ACCURATELY SUMMARIZES THE PRESENT RECORD. 

WE DO NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT RELIGIOUS GROUPS AND THE PRESS ARE FREE
FROM ALL FINANCIAL BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT.  SEE GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN
PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 250.  WE HAVE HERE SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT,
FOR EXAMPLE, FROM A TAX ON THE INCOME OF ONE WHO ENGAGES IN RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITIES OR A TAX ON PROPERTY USED OR EMPLOYED IN CONNECTION WITH
THOSE ACTIVITIES.  IT IS ONE THING TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE INCOME OR
PROPERTY OF A PREACHER.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO EXACT A TAX FROM
HIM FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DELIVERING A SERMON.  THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE
CITY OF JEANNETTE IS A FLAT LICENSE TAX, THE PAYMENT OF WHICH IS A
CONDITION OF THE EXERCISE OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES.  THE
POWER TO TAX THE EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE IS THE POWER TO CONTROL OR
SUPPRESS ITS ENJOYMENT.  MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, 44-45,
AND CASES CITED.  THOSE WHO CAN TAX THE EXERCISE OF THIS RELIGIOUS
PRACTICE CAN MAKE ITS EXERCISE SO COSTLY AS TO DEPRIVE IT OF THE
RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR ITS MAINTENANCE.  THOSE WHO CAN TAX THE
PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN THIS FORM OF MISSIONARY EVANGELISM CAN CLOSE
ITS DOORS TO ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE A FULL PURSE.  SPREADING
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN THIS ANCIENT AND HONORABLE MANNER WOULD THUS BE
DENIED THE NEEDY.  THOSE WHO CAN DEPRIVE RELIGIOUS GROUPS OF THEIR
COLPORTEURS CAN TAKE FROM THEM A PART OF THE VITAL POWER OF THE PRESS
WHICH HAS SURVIVED FROM THE REFORMATION. 

IT IS CONTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE FACT THAT THE LICENSE TAX CAN
SUPPRESS OR CONTROL THIS ACTIVITY IS UNIMPORTANT IF IT DOES NOT DO SO.
BUT THAT IS TO DISREGARD THE NATURE OF THIS TAX.  IT IS A LICENSE TAX -
A FLAT TAX IMPOSED ON THE EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE BILL
OF RIGHTS.  A STATE MAY NOT IMPOSE A CHARGE FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF A
RIGHT GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THUS, IT MAY NOT EXACT A
LICENSE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
(MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, 56-58), ALTHOUGH IT MAY
TAX THE PROPERTY USED IN, OR THE INCOME DERIVED FROM, THAT COMMERCE, SO
LONG AS THOSE TAXES ARE NOT DISCRIMINATORY.  ID., P. 47 AND CASES
CITED.  A LICENSE TAX APPLIED TO ACTIVITIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE THE SAME DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, LIKE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, DRAWS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN
LICENSE TAXES, FIXED SUM TAXES, AND OTHER KINDS OF TAXES.  BUT THAT IS
NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD SHUT OUR EYES TO THE NATURE OF THE TAX AND ITS
DESTRUCTIVE INFLUENCE.  THE POWER TO IMPOSE A LICENSE TAX ON THE
EXERCISE OF THESE FREEDOMS IS INDEED AS POTENT AS THE POWER OF
CENSORSHIP WHICH THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY STRUCK DOWN.  LOVELL V.
GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 306; LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418; JAMISON
V. TEXAS, SUPRA.  IT WAS FOR THAT REASON THAT THE DISSENTING OPINIONS
IN JONES V. OPELIKA, SUPRA, STRESSED THE NATURE OF THIS TYPE OF TAX. 
316 U.S. PP. 607-609, 620, 623.  IN THAT CASE, AS IN THE PRESENT ONES,
WE HAVE SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT FROM A REGISTRATION SYSTEM UNDER WHICH
THOSE GOING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE THEIR NAMES,
ADDRESSES AND OTHER MARKS OF IDENTIFICATION TO THE AUTHORITIES.  IN ALL
OF THESE CASES THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT OR LICENSE IS DEPENDENT ON
THE PAYMENT OF A LICENSE TAX.  AND THE LICENSE TAX IS FIXED IN AMOUNT
AND UNRELATED TO THE SCOPE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF PETITIONERS OR TO THEIR
REALIZED REVENUES.  IT IS NOT A NOMINAL FEE IMPOSED AS A REGULATORY
MEASURE TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF POLICING THE ACTIVITIES IN QUESTION. 
FN8  IT IS IN NO WAY APPORTIONED.  IT IS A FLAT LICENSE TAX LEVIED AND
COLLECTED AS A CONDITION TO THE PURSUIT OF ACTIVITIES WHOSE ENJOYMENT
IS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  ACCORDINGLY, IT RESTRAINS IN
ADVANCE THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES OF PRESS AND RELIGION AND
INEVITABLY TENDS TO SUPPRESS THEIR EXERCISE.  THAT IS ALMOST UNIFORMLY
RECOGNIZED AS THE INHERENT VICE AND EVIL OF THIS FLAT LICENSE TAX.  AS
STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS IN A CASE INVOLVING THIS SAME
COMPELLED "TO PURCHASE, THROUGH A LICENSE FEE OR A LICENSE TAX, THE
PRIVILEGE FREELY GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION."  N9  BLUE ISLAND V.
KOZUL, 379 ILL. 511, 519, 41 N.E.2D 515.  SO, IT MAY NOT BE SAID THAT
PROOF IS LACKING THAT THESE LICENSE TAXES EITHER SEPARATELY OR
CUMULATIVELY HAVE RESTRICTED OR ARE LIKELY TO RESTRICT PETITIONERS'
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES.  ON THEIR FACE THEY ARE A RESTRICTION OF THE FREE
EXERCISE OF THOSE FREEDOMS WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

THE TAXES IMPOSED BY THIS ORDINANCE CAN HARDLY HELP BUT BE AS SEVERE
AND TELLING IN THEIR IMPACT ON THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND RELIGION AS
THE "TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE" AT WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS PARTLY
AIMED.  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., SUPRA, PP. 244-249.  THEY MAY
INDEED OPERATE EVEN MORE SUBTLY.  ITINERANT EVANGELISTS MOVING
THROUGHOUT A STATE OR FROM STATE TO STATE WOULD FEEL IMMEDIATELY THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF SUCH ORDINANCES AS THEY BECOME FASHIONABLE.  THE
WAY OF THE RELIGIOUS DISSENTER HAS LONG BEEN HARD.  BUT IF THE FORMULA
OF THIS TYPE OF ORDINANCE IS APPROVED, A NEW DEVICE FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES WILL HAVE BEEN FOUND.  THIS METHOD OF
DISSEMINATING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS CAN BE CRUSHED AND CLOSED OUT BY THE
SHEER WEIGHT OF THE TOLL OR TRIBUTE WHICH IS EXACTED TOWN BY TOWN,
VILLAGE BY VILLAGE.  THE SPREAD OF RELIGIOUS IDEAS THROUGH PERSONAL
VISITATIONS BY THE LITERATURE MINISTRY OF NUMEROUS RELIGIOUS GROUPS
WOULD BE STOPPED. 

THE FACT THAT THE ORDINANCE IS "NONDISCRIMINATORY" IS IMMATERIAL. 
THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT SO RESTRICTED.  A
LICENSE TAX CERTAINLY DOES NOT ACQUIRE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY BECAUSE
IT CLASSIFIES THE PRIVILEGES PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT ALONG
WITH THE WARES AND MERCHANDISE OF HUCKSTERS AND PEDDLERS AND TREATS
THEM ALL ALIKE.  SUCH EQUALITY IN TREATMENT DOES NOT SAVE THE
ORDINANCE.  FREEDOM OF PRESS, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION
ARE IN A PREFERRED POSITION. 

IT IS CLAIMED, HOWEVER, THAT THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IN DETERMINING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS LICENSE TAX IS WHETHER THE STATE HAS GIVEN
SOMETHING FOR WHICH IT CAN ASK A RETURN.  THAT PRINCIPLE HAS WIDE
APPLICABILITY.  STATE TAX COMMISSION V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, AND
CASES CITED.  BUT IT IS QUITE IRRELEVANT HERE.  THIS TAX IS NOT A
CHARGE FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF A PRIVILEGE OR BENEFIT BESTOWED BY THE
STATE.  THE PRIVILEGE IN QUESTION EXISTS APART FROM STATE AUTHORITY. 
IT IS GUARANTEED THE PEOPLE BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

CONSIDERABLE EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON THE KIND OF LITERATURE WHICH
PETITIONERS WERE DISTRIBUTING - ITS PROVOCATIVE, ABUSIVE, AND ILL
MANNERED CHARACTER AND THE ASSAULT WHICH IT MAKES ON OUR ESTABLISHED
CHURCHES AND THE CHERISHED FAITHS OF MANY OF US.  SEE DOUGLAS V.
JEANNETTE, CONCURRING OPINION, POST, P. 166.  BUT THOSE CONSIDERATIONS
ARE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LICENSE TAX WHICH THE ORDINANCE IMPOSES. 
PLAINLY A COMMUNITY MAY NOT SUPPRESS, OR THE STATE TAX, THE
DISSEMINATION OF VIEWS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNPOPULAR, ANNOYING OR
DISTASTEFUL.  IF THAT DEVICE WERE EVER SANCTIONED, THERE WOULD HAVE
BEEN FORGED A READY INSTRUMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FAITH WHICH
ANY MINORITY CHERISHES BUT WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN TO BE IN FAVOR.  THAT
WOULD BE A COMPLETE REPUDIATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS. 

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ARE NOT "ABOVE THE LAW."  BUT THE PRESENT
ORDINANCE IS NOT DIRECTED TO THE PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THE POLICE POWER
OF THE STATE IS FREE TO DEAL.  IT DOES NOT COVER, AND PETITIONERS ARE
NOT CHARGED WITH, BREACHES OF THE PEACE.  THEY ARE PURSUING THEIR
SOLICITATIONS PEACEFULLY AND QUIETLY.  PETITIONERS, MOREOVER, ARE NOT
CHARGED WITH OR PROSECUTED FOR THE USE OF LANGUAGE WHICH IS OBSCENE,
ABUSIVE, OR WHICH INCITES RETALIATION.  CF. CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA.  NOR DO WE HAVE HERE, AS WE DID IN COX V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA, AND CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA, STATE
REGULATION OF THE STREETS TO PROTECT AND INSURE THE SAFETY, COMFORT, OR
CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC.  FURTHERMORE, THE PRESENT ORDINANCE IS NOT
NARROWLY DRAWN TO SAFEGUARD THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY IN THEIR HOMES
AGAINST THE EVILS OF SOLICITATIONS.  SEE CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT,
SUPRA, 306.  AS WE HAVE SAID, IT IS NOT MERELY A REGISTRATION ORDINANCE
CALLING FOR AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE SOLICITORS SO AS TO GIVE THE
AUTHORITIES SOME BASIS FOR INVESTIGATING STRANGERS COMING INTO THE
COMMUNITY.  AND THE FEE IS NOT A NOMINAL ONE, IMPOSED AS A REGULATORY
MEASURE AND CALCULATED TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF PROTECTING THOSE ON THE
STREETS AND AT HOME AGAINST THE ABUSES OF SOLICITORS.  SEE COX V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA, PP. 576-577.  NOR CAN THE PRESENT ORDINANCE SURVIVE
IF WE ASSUME THAT IT HAS BEEN CONSTRUED TO APPLY ONLY TO SOLICITATION
FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE.  FN10  THE ORDINANCE IS NOT NARROWLY DRAWN TO
PREVENT OR CONTROL ABUSES OR EVILS ARISING FROM THAT ACTIVITY.  RATHER,
IT SETS ASIDE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AS A PROHIBITED ZONE, ENTRY OF
WHICH IS DENIED PETITIONERS UNLESS THE TAX IS PAID.  THAT RESTRAINT AND
ONE WHICH IS CITY-WIDE IN SCOPE (JONES V. OPELIKA) ARE DIFFERENT ONLY
IN DEGREE.  EACH IS AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF PRESS AND A RESTRAINT
ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  THEY STAND OR FALL TOGETHER. 

THE JUDGMENT IN JONES V. OPELIKA HAS THIS DAY BEEN VACATED.  FREED
FROM THAT CONTROLLING PRECEDENT, WE CAN RESTORE TO THEIR HIGH,
CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION THE LIBERTIES OF ITINERANT EVANGELISTS WHO
DISSEMINATE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND THE TENETS OF THEIR FAITH
THROUGH DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE.  THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE
CAUSES ARE REMANDED TO THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  TWO RELIGIOUS BOOKS - SALVATION AND CREATION - WERE SOLD. 
OTHERS WERE OFFERED IN ADDITION TO THE BIBLE.  THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE &
TRACT SOCIETY IS ALLEGED TO BE A NON-PROFIT CHARITABLE CORPORATION. 

FN2  PETITIONERS PAID THREE CENTS EACH FOR THE PAMPHLETS AND, IF THEY
DEVOTED ONLY THEIR SPARE TIME TO THE WORK, TWENTY CENTS EACH FOR THE
BOOKS.  THOSE DEVOTING FULL TIME TO THE WORK ACQUIRED THE BOOKS FOR
FIVE CENTS EACH.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT SOME OF THE PETITIONERS PAID
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALES PRICE AND THE COST OF THE BOOKS TO
THEIR LOCAL CONGREGATIONS WHICH DISTRIBUTED THE LITERATURE. 

FN3  PURCHASED ALONG WITH THE RECORD FROM THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE &
TRACT SOCIETY. 

FN4  THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THEIR ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
DURING THE YEARS 1939 AND 1940 ARE TO BE FOUND IN THE 1941 YEARBOOK OF
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, PP. 62-243. 

FN5  PALMER, THE PRINTING PRESS AND THE GOSPEL (1912). 

FN6  WHITE, THE COLPORTEUR EVANGELIST (1930); HOME EVANGELIZATION
(1850); EDWARDS, THE ROMANCE OF THE BOOK (1932) C. V; 12 BIBLICAL
REPOSITORY (1844) ART. VIII; 16 THE SUNDAY MAGAZINE (1887) PP. 43-47; 3
MELIORA (1861) PP. 311-319; FELICE, PROTESTANTS OF FRANCE (1853) PP.
53, 513; 3 D'AUBIGNE, HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION (1849) PP. 103, 152,
436-437; REPORT OF COLPORTAGE IN VIRGINIA, NORTH CAROLINA & SOUTH
CAROLINA, AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY (1855).  AN EARLY TYPE OF COLPORTEUR
WAS DEPICTED BY JOHN GREENLEAF WHITTIER IN HIS LEGENDARY POEM, THE
VAUDOIS TEACHER.  AND SEE, WYLIE, HISTORY OF THE WALDENSES. 

FN7  THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, WHO FILED A
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE ON THE REARGUMENT OF JONES V. OPELIKA, HAS GIVEN US
THE FOLLOWING DATA CONCERNING THEIR LITERATURE MINISTRY:  THIS
DENOMINATION HAS 83 PUBLISHING HOUSES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, ISSUING
PUBLICATIONS IN OVER 200 LANGUAGES.  SOME 9,256 SEPARATE PUBLICATIONS
WERE ISSUED IN 1941.  BY PRINTED AND SPOKEN WORD, THE GOSPEL IS CARRIED
INTO 412 COUNTRIES IN 824 LANGUAGES.  1942 YEARBOOK, P. 287.  DURING
DECEMBER 1941, A TOTAL OF 1,018 COLPORTEURS OPERATED IN NORTH AMERICA. 
THEY DELIVERED DURING THAT MONTH $97,997.19 WORTH OF GOSPEL LITERATURE,
AND FOR THE WHOLE YEAR OF 1941 A TOTAL OF $790,610.36 - AN AVERAGE PER
PERSON OF ABOUT $65 PER MONTH.  SOME OF THESE WERE STUDENTS AND
TEMPORARY WORKERS.  COLPORTEURS OF THIS DENOMINATION RECEIVE HALF OF
THEIR COLLECTIONS, FROM WHICH THEY MUST PAY THEIR TRAVELING AND LIVING
EXPENSES.  COLPORTEURS ARE SPECIALLY TRAINED AND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS
EQUAL THOSE OF PREACHERS.  IN THE FIELD, EACH WORKER IS UNDER THE
SUPERVISION OF A FIELD MISSIONARY SECRETARY TO WHOM A WEEKLY REPORT IS
MADE.  AFTER FIFTEEN YEARS OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE, EACH COLPORTEUR IS
ENTITLED TO THE SAME PENSION AS RETIRED MINISTERS.  AND SEE HOWELL, THE
GREAT ADVENT MOVEMENT (1935), PP. 72-75. 

FN8  THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUCH A REGULATORY MEASURE
AND A TAX ON THE EXERCISE OF A FEDERAL RIGHT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED. 
WHILE A STATE MAY NOT EXACT A LICENSE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE (MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., SUPRA, PP. 56
58), IT MAY, FOR EXAMPLE, EXACT A FEE TO DEFRAY THE COST OF PURELY
LOCAL REGULATIONS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THOSE REGULATIONS
INCIDENTALLY AFFECT COMMERCE.  "SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT IMPEDE THE FREE
FLOW OF COMMERCE AND ARE NOT MADE THE SUBJECT OF REGULATION BY CONGRESS
THEY ARE NOT FORBIDDEN.  CLYDE MALLORY LINES V. ALABAMA, 296 U.S. 261,
267, AND CASES CITED.  AND SEE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL
BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 185-188. 

FN9  THAT IS THE VIEW OF MOST STATE COURTS WHICH HAVE PASSED ON THE
QUESTION.  MCCONKEY V. FREDERICKSBURG, 179 VA. 556, 19 S.E.2D 682;
STATE V. GREAVES, 112 VT. 222, 22 A.2D 497; PEOPLE V. BANKS, 168 MISC.
515, 6 N.Y.S.2D 41.  CONTRA:  COOK V. HARRISON, 180 ARK. 546, 21 S.W.2D
966. 

FN10  THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT STATED THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS
BEEN "ENFORCED" ONLY TO PREVENT PETITIONERS FROM CANVASSING "FROM DOOR
TO DOOR AND HOUSE TO HOUSE" WITHOUT A LICENSE AND NOT TO PREVENT THEM
FROM DISTRIBUTING THEIR LITERATURE ON THE STREETS.  149 PA. SUPER. 
CT., P. 184, 27 A.2D 670. 

THE FOLLOWING DISSENTING OPINIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO NOS. 280, 314,
AND 966(OCTOBER TERM, 1941), JONES V. OPELIKA, ANTE, P. 103; AND TO
NOS. 480-487, MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, ANTE, P. 105.  SEE ALSO OPINION
OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, POST, P. 166. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

THESE CASES PRESENT FOR SOLUTION THE PROBLEM OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
REVENUE ON THE SALE OF BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS IN THE STREETS OR FROM DOOR
TO DOOR.  DECISIONS SUSTAINING THE PARTICULAR ORDINANCES WERE ENTERED
IN THE THREE CASES FIRST LISTED AT THE LAST TERM OF THIS COURT.  IN
THAT OPINION THE ORDINANCES WERE SET OUT AND THE FACTS AND ISSUES
STATED.  JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584.  A REHEARING HAS BEEN
GRANTED.  THE PRESENT JUDGMENTS VACATE THE OLD AND INVALIDATE THE
ORDINANCES.  THE EIGHT CASES OF THIS TERM INVOLVE CANVASSING FROM DOOR
TO DOOR ONLY UNDER SIMILAR ORDINANCES, WHICH ARE IN THE FORM STATED IN
THE COURT'S OPINION.  BY A PER CURIAM OPINION OF THIS DAY, THE COURT
AFFIRMS ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE DISSENT OF
LAST TERM IN JONES V. OPELIKA.  THE COURT STATES ITS POSITION ANEW IN
THE JEANNETTE CASES. 

THIS DISSENT DOES NOT DEAL WITH AN OBJECTION WHICH THEORETICALLY
COULD BE MADE IN EACH CASE, TO WIT, THAT THE LICENSES ARE SO EXCESSIVE
IN AMOUNT AS TO BE PROHIBITORY.  THIS MATTER IS NOT CONSIDERED BECAUSE
THAT DEFENSE IS NOT RELIED UPON IN THE PLEADINGS, THE BRIEFS OR AT THE
BAR.  NO EVIDENCE IS OFFERED TO SHOW THE AMOUNT IS OPPRESSIVE.  AN
UNEQUAL TAX, LEVIED ON THE ACTIVITIES OF DISTRIBUTORS OF INFORMATORY
PUBLICATIONS, WOULD BE A PHASE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, PRESS OR RELIGION.  NOR DO WE DEAL WITH DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS, AS INDIVIDUALS OR AS MEMBERS OF THE GROUP, CALLING
THEMSELVES JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION IN ANY OF THESE
CASES THAT SUCH DISCRIMINATION IS PRACTICED IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
ORDINANCES.  OBVIOUSLY, AN IMPROPER APPLICATION BY A CITY, WHICH
RESULTED IN THE ARREST OF WITNESSES AND FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE
ORDINANCE AGAINST OTHER GROUPS, SUCH AS THE ADVENTISTS, WOULD RAISE
ENTIRELY DISTINCT ISSUES. 

A FURTHER AND IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER MUST BE MADE IN ORDER TO FOCUS
ATTENTION SHARPLY UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  THIS DISSENT DOES NOT
EXPRESS, DIRECTLY OR BY INFERENCE, ANY CONCLUSION AS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TO PLACE A
PRIVILEGE TAX UPON THE SOLICITING OF A FREE-WILL CONTRIBUTION FOR
RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.  PETITIONERS SUGGEST THAT THEIR BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
ARE NOT SOLD BUT ARE GIVEN EITHER WITHOUT PRICE OR IN APPRECIATION OF
THE RECIPIENT'S GIFT FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF THE WORK OF THE WITNESSES. 
THE PITTANCE SOUGHT, AS WELL AS THE PRACTICE OF LEAVING BOOKS WITH POOR
PEOPLE WITHOUT COST, GIVES STRENGTH TO THIS ARGUMENT.  IN OUR JUDGMENT,
HOWEVER, THE PLAN OF NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION BY THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE &
TRACT SOCIETY, WITH ITS WHOLESALE PRICES OF FIVE OR TWENTY CENTS PER
COPY FOR BOOKS, DELIVERED TO THE PUBLIC BY THE WITNESSES AT TWENTY-FIVE
CENTS PER COPY, JUSTIFIES THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TRANSACTION AS A
SALE BY ALL THE STATE COURTS.  THE EVIDENCE IS CONCLUSIVE THAT THE
WITNESSES NORMALLY APPROACH A PROSPECT WITH AN OFFER OF A BOOK FOR
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS.  SOMETIMES, APPARENTLY RARELY, A BOOK IS LEFT WITH A
PROSPECT WITHOUT PAYMENT.  THE QUID PRO QUO IS DEMANDED.  IF THE PROFIT
WAS GREATER, TWENTY CENTS OR EVEN ONE DOLLAR, NO DIFFERENCE IN
PRINCIPLE WOULD EMERGE.  THE WITNESS SELLS BOOKS TO RAISE MONEY FOR
PROPAGANDIZING HIS FAITH, JUST AS OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS MIGHT SPONSOR
BAZAARS, OR PEDDLE TICKETS TO CHURCH SUPPERS, OR SELL BIBLES OR PRAYER
BOOKS FOR THE SAME OBJECT.  HOWEVER HIGH THE PURPOSE OR NOBLE THE AIMS
OF THE WITNESS, THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE STATE COURTS TO
BE A SALE UNDER THEIR ORDINANCES AND, THOUGH OUR DOUBT WAS GREATER THAN
IT IS, THE STATE'S CONCLUSION WOULD INFLUENCE US TO FOLLOW ITS
DETERMINATION.  FN1 

IN THE OPINION IN JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584, ON THE FORMER
HEARING, ATTENTION WAS CALLED TO THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THESE
CASES OF TAXATION AND THOSE OF FORBIDDEN CENSORSHIP, PROHIBITION OR
DISCRIMINATION.  THERE IS NO OCCASION TO REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN
SO RECENTLY AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TAX THE MONEY-RAISING
ACTIVITIES OF RELIGIOUS OR DIDACTIC GROUPS.  THERE ARE, HOWEVER, OTHER
REASONS, NOT FULLY DEVELOPED IN THAT OPINION, THAT ADD TO OUR
CONVICTION THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT THESE GENERAL
OCCUPATIONAL TAXES. 

THE REAL CONTENTION OF THE WITNESSES IS THAT THERE CAN BE NO TAXATION
OF THE OCCUPATION OF SELLING BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD
BE CONTRARY TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
WHICH NOW IS HELD TO HAVE DRAWN THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
INTO THE CATEGORY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS PROTECTED FROM STATE
DEPRIVATION.  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666; NEAR V. MINNESOTA,
283 U.S. 697, 707; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 303.  SINCE
THE PUBLICATIONS TEACH A RELIGION WHICH CONFORMS TO OUR STANDARDS OF
LEGALITY, IT IS URGED THAT THESE ORDINANCES PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION AND ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION,
OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO
ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." 

IT WAS ONE OF TWELVE PROPOSED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1789, TO THE STATES BY
THE FIRST CONGRESS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  TEN WERE
RATIFIED.  THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE AND HAVE BECOME OUR BILL OF
RIGHTS.  BY THEIR TERMS, OUR PEOPLE HAVE A GUARANTEE THAT SO LONG AS
LAW AS WE KNOW IT SHALL PREVAIL, THEY SHALL LIVE PROTECTED FROM THE
TYRANNY OF THE DESPOT OR THE MOB.  NONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION IS MORE VENERATED BY THE PEOPLE OR RESPECTED BY
LEGISLATURES AND THE COURTS THAN THOSE WHICH PROCLAIM FOR OUR COUNTRY
THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND EXPRESSION.  WHILE THE INTERPRETERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION FIND THE PURPOSE WAS TO ALLOW THE WIDEST PRACTICAL SCOPE
FOR THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION, NO
JURIST HAS EVER CONCEIVED THAT THE PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE IS
ABSOLUTE.  FN2  IS SUBJECTION TO NONDISCRIMINATORY, NONEXCESSIVE
TAXATION IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE, A PROHIBITION OF
THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION OR AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? 

NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTEMPORARY ADVOCATES OF THE ADOPTION OF A BILL OF
RIGHTS INTENDED SUCH AN EXEMPTION.  THE WORDS OF THE AMENDMENT DO NOT
SUPPORT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION.  "FREE" CANNOT BE HELD TO BE WITHOUT COST
BUT RATHER ITS MEANING MUST ACCORD WITH THE FREEDOM GUARANTEED.  "FREE"
MEANS A PRIVILEGE TO PRINT OR PRAY WITHOUT PERMISSION AND WITHOUT
ACCOUNTING TO AUTHORITY FOR ONE'S ACTIONS.  IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION THE PROPOSAL FOR A BILL OF RIGHTS OF ANY KIND RECEIVED SCANT
ATTENTION.  FN3  IN THE COURSE OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION,
HOWEVER, THE ABSENCE OF A BILL OF RIGHTS WAS USED VIGOROUSLY BY THE
OPPONENTS OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT.  A NUMBER OF THE STATES SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS.  WHERE THESE SUGGESTIONS HAVE ANY BEARING AT ALL UPON
RELIGION OR FREE SPEECH, THEY INDICATE NOTHING AS TO ANY FEELING
CONCERNING TAXATION EITHER OF RELIGIOUS BODIES OR THEIR EVANGELISM. 
FN4  THIS WAS NOT BECAUSE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR FREE SPEECH WAS NOT
UNDERSTOOD.  IT WAS BECAUSE THE SUBJECTS WERE LOOKED UPON FROM
STANDPOINTS ENTIRELY DISTINCT FROM TAXATION.  FN5 

THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THE
DRAFTSMEN OF THE AMENDMENTS HAD IN MIND THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION AND
THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD, RATHER THAN ANY ABRIDGMENT OR INTERFERENCE WITH
EITHER BY TAXATION IN ANY FORM.  FN6  THE AMENDMENTS WERE PROPOSED BY
MR. MADISON.  HE WAS CAREFUL TO EXPLAIN TO THE CONGRESS THE MEANING OF
THE AMENDMENT ON RELIGION.  THE DRAFT WAS COMMENTED UPON BY MR. MADISON
WHEN IT READ: 

"NO RELIGION SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW, NOR SHALL THE EQUAL RIGHTS
OF CONSCIENCE BE INFRINGED."  1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 729. 

HE SAID THAT HE APPREHENDED THE MEANING OF THE WORDS ON RELIGION TO
BE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD NOT ESTABLISH A RELIGION AND ENFORCE THE LEGAL
OBSERVATION OF IT BY LAW, NOR COMPEL MEN TO WORSHIP GOD IN ANY MANNER
CONTRARY TO THEIR CONSCIENCE.  ID., 730.  NO SUCH SPECIFIC
INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDMENT ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION HAS BEEN FOUND
IN THE DEBATES.  THE CLEAREST IS PROBABLY FROM MR. BENSON,  FN7  WHO
SAID THAT 

"THE COMMITTEE WHO FRAMED THIS REPORT PROCEEDED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT
THESE RIGHTS BELONGED TO THE PEOPLE; THEY CONCEIVED THEM TO BE
INHERENT; AND ALL THAT THEY MEANT TO PROVIDE AGAINST WAS THEIR BEING
INFRINGED BY THE GOVERNMENT."  ID., 731-32. 

THERE HAVE BEEN SUGGESTIONS THAT THE ENGLISH TAXES ON NEWSPAPERS,
SPRINGING FROM THE TAX ACT OF 10 ANNE, C. 19, SEC. CI,  FN8  INFLUENCED
THE ADOPTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  FN9  THESE TAXES WERE OBNOXIOUS
BUT AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOURCES OF THE SUGGESTION IS CONVINCING THAT
THERE IS NOTHING TO SUPPORT IT EXCEPT THE FACT THAT THE TAX ON
NEWSPAPERS WAS IN EXISTENCE IN ENGLAND AND WAS DISLIKED.  FN10  THE
SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT, IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO
PROHIBIT ANY KIND OF TAXES ON THE PRESS, ITS KNOWLEDGE OF THE
ABOMINATED ENGLISH TAXES WOULD HAVE LED IT TO BAN THEM UNEQUIVOCALLY. 

IT IS ONLY IN RECENT YEARS THAT THE FREEDOMS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AMONG THE FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS PROTECTED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM IMPAIRMENT BY THE STATES.  FN11  UNTIL
THEN THESE LIBERTIES WERE NOT DEEMED TO BE GUARDED FROM STATE ACTION BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FN12  THE STATES PLACED RESTRAINTS UPON
THEMSELVES IN THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR PEOPLE
IN THE EXERCISE OF THE FREEDOMS OF SPEECH AND OF RELIGION.  FN13
PENNSYLVANIA MAY BE TAKEN AS A FAIR EXAMPLE.  ITS CONSTITUTION READS: 

"ALL MEN HAVE A NATURAL AND INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO WORSHIP ALMIGHTY
GOD ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF THEIR OWN CONSCIENCES; NO MAN CAN OF
RIGHT BE COMPELLED TO ATTEND, ERECT OR SUPPORT ANY PLACE OF WORSHIP, OR
TO MAINTAIN ANY MINISTRY AGAINST HIS CONSENT; NO HUMAN AUTHORITY CAN,
IN ANY CASE WHATEVER, CONTROL OR INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF
CONSCIENCE AND NO PREFERENCE SHALL EVER BE GIVEN BY LAW TO ANY
RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS OR MODES OF WORSHIP."  PURDON'S PENNA.  STAT.,
CONST., ART. I, SEC. 3. 

"NO PERSON WHO ACKNOWLEDGES THE BEING OF A GOD, AND A FUTURE STATE OF
REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS SHALL, ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS,
BE DISQUALIFIED TO HOLD ANY OFFICE OR PLACE OF TRUST OR PROFIT UNDER
THIS COMMONWEALTH."  ID., ART. I, SEC. 4. 

"THE PRINTING PRESS SHALL BE FREE TO EVERY PERSON WHO MAY UNDERTAKE
TO EXAMINE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE OR ANY BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT, AND NO LAW SHALL EVER BE MADE TO RESTRAIN THE RIGHT
THEREOF.  THE FREE COMMUNICATION OF THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS IS ONE OF THE
INVALUABLE RIGHTS OF MAN, AND EVERY CITIZEN MAY FREELY SPEAK, WRITE AND
PRINT ON ANY SUBJECT, BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ABUSE OF THAT LIBERTY. 
...  "  ID., ART. I, SEC. 7. 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF FREEDOM FROM
TAXATION, AND THIS STATEMENT IS EQUALLY TRUE OF THE OTHER STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  IT MAY BE CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER IN THE
STATE OR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS WAS GENERAL TAXATION OF CHURCH OR
PRESS INTERDICTED. 

IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH INDICATES THAT
CHURCH OR PRESS IS FREE FROM THE FINANCIAL BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT?  WE
FIND NOTHING.  RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES DEPEND FOR THEIR EXEMPTIONS FROM
TAXATION UPON STATE CONSTITUTIONS OR GENERAL STATUTES, NOT UPON THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  GIBBONS V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 116 U.S. 404. 
THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE FREE PRESS GUARANTEE
WAS TO PREVENT PREVIOUS RESTRAINTS UPON PUBLICATION.  NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 713.  FN14  IN GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO.,
297 U.S. 233, 250, IT WAS SAID THAT THE PREDOMINANT PURPOSE WAS TO
PRESERVE "AN UNTRAMMELED PRESS AS A VITAL SOURCE OF PUBLIC
INFORMATION."  IN THAT CASE, A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON ADVERTISEMENTS IN
PAPERS WITH A CIRCULATION OF MORE THAN TWENTY THOUSAND COPIES PER WEEK
WAS HELD INVALID BECAUSE "A DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED DEVICE IN THE
GUISE OF A TAX TO LIMIT THE CIRCULATION.  ...  "  THERE WAS THIS
FURTHER COMMENT: 

"IT 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 A LONG HISTORY OF HOSTILE
MISUSE AGAINST THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS."  ID., 250. 

IT MAY BE SAID, HOWEVER, THAT OURS IS A TOO NARROW, TECHNICAL AND
LEGALISTIC APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF STATE TAXATION OF THE ACTIVITIES
OF CHURCH AND PRESS; THAT WE SHOULD LOOK NOT TO THE EXPRESSED OR
HISTORICAL MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT TO THE BROAD PRINCIPLES
OF FREE SPEECH AND FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION WHICH PERVADE OUR NATIONAL
WAY OF LIFE.  IT MAY BE THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THESE
PRINCIPLES RATHER THAN THE MORE DEFINITE CONCEPT EXPRESSED IN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  THIS WOULD MEAN THAT AS A COURT, WE SHOULD DETERMINE WHAT
SORT OF LIBERTY IT IS THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES AGAINST STATE RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH AND CHURCH. 

BUT WHETHER WE GIVE CONTENT TO THE LITERAL WORDS OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT OR TO PRINCIPLES OF THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS AND THE CHURCH,
WE CONCLUDE THAT CITIES OR STATES MAY LEVY REASONABLE, NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAXES ON SUCH ACTIVITIES AS OCCURRED IN THESE CASES. 
WHATEVER EXEMPTIONS EXIST FROM TAXATION ARISE FROM THE PREVAILING LAW
OF THE VARIOUS STATES.  THE CONSTITUTIONS OF ALABAMA AND PENNSYLVANIA,
WITH SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY TO THE EXEMPTION PROVISIONS OF OTHER
CONSTITUTIONS, FORBID THE TAXATION OF LOTS AND BUILDINGS USED
EXCLUSIVELY FOR RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.  ALABAMA (1901), SEC. 91;
PENNSYLVANIA (1874), ART. IX, SEC. 1.  THESE ARE THE ONLY EXEMPTIONS OF
THE PRESS OR CHURCH FROM TAXATION.  WE FIND NOTHING MORE APPLICABLE TO
OUR PROBLEM IN THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONS.  SURELY THIS UNANIMITY OF
SPECIFIC STATE ACTION ON EXEMPTIONS OF RELIGIOUS BODIES FROM TAXES
WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, IF IT HAD BEEN
CONCEIVED THAT THE GENIUS OF OUR INSTITUTIONS, AS EXPRESSED IN THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE TAXATION OF CHURCH OR
PRESS. 

NOR DO WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURT NOW MAINTAINS THAT THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION FREES PRESS OR RELIGION OF ANY TAX EXCEPT SUCH
OCCUPATIONAL TAXES AS THOSE HERE LEVIED.  INCOME TAXES, AD VALOREM
TAXES, EVEN OCCUPATIONAL TAXES ARE PRESUMABLY VALID, SAVE ONLY A
LICENSE TAX ON SALES OF RELIGIOUS BOOKS.  CAN IT BE THAT THE
CONSTITUTION PERMITS A TAX ON THE PRINTING PRESSES AND THE GROSS INCOME
OF A METROPOLITAN NEWSPAPER  FN15  BUT DENIES THE RIGHT TO LAY AN
OCCUPATIONAL TAX ON THE DISTRIBUTORS OF THE SAME PAPERS?  DOES THE
EXEMPTION APPLY TO BOOKSELLERS OR DISTRIBUTORS OF MAGAZINES OR ONLY TO
RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS?  AND, IF THE LATTER, TO WHAT DISTRIBUTORS?  OR
TO WHAT BOOKS?  OR IS THIS COURT SAYING THAT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF
BOOK DISTRIBUTION IS FREE FROM TAXATION BECAUSE A STATE CANNOT PROHIBIT
THE "FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" AND A NEWSPAPER IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME TAX
EVEN THOUGH THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SAYS THE STATE CANNOT
ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?  IT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT BEFORE
THAT FREEDOM FROM TAXATION WAS A PERQUISITE ATTACHING TO THE PRIVILEGES
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS EXEMPTIONS TO
MINISTERS AND CHURCHES BECAUSE IT WISHES TO DO SO, NOT BECAUSE THE
CONSTITUTION COMPELS.  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SECS. 22(B)(6), 101(6),
812(D), 1004(A)(2)(B).  WHERE CAMP MEETINGS OR REVIVALS CHARGE
ADMISSIONS, A FEDERAL TAX WOULD APPLY, IF CONGRESS HAD NOT GRANTED
FREEDOM FROM THE EXACTION.  ID., SEC. 1701. 

IT IS URGED THAT SUCH A TAX AS THIS MAY BE USED READILY TO RESTRICT
THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS.  THIS MUST BE CONCEDED BUT THE POSSIBILITY
OF MISUSE DOES NOT MAKE A TAX UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  NO ABUSE IS CLAIMED
HERE.  THE ORDINANCES IN SOME OF THESE CASES ARE THE GENERAL OCCUPATION
LICENSE TYPE COVERING MANY BUSINESSES.  IN THE JEANNETTE PROSECUTIONS,
THE ORDINANCE INVOLVED LAYS THE USUAL TAX ON CANVASSING OR SOLICITING
SALES OF GOODS, WARES AND MERCHANDISE.  IT WAS PASSED IN 1898.  EVERY
POWER OF TAXATION OR REGULATION IS CAPABLE OF ABUSE.  EACH ONE, TO SOME
EXTENT, PROHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND ABRIDGES THE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, BUT THAT IS HARDLY A REASON FOR DENYING THE
POWER.  IF THE TAX IS USED OPPRESSIVELY, THE LAW WILL PROTECT THE
VICTIMS OF SUCH ACTION.    THIS DECISION FORCES A TAX SUBSIDY
NOTWITHSTANDING OUR ACCEPTED BELIEF IN THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE.  INSTEAD OF ALL BEARING EQUALLY THE BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT, THIS
COURT NOW FASTENS UPON THE COMMUNITIES THE ENTIRE COST OF POLICING THE
SALES OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.  THAT THE BURDEN MAY BE HEAVY IS SHOWN
BY THE RECORD IN THE JEANNETTE CASES.  THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT
PROSECUTIONS, BUT ONE HUNDRED AND FOUR WITNESSES SOLICITED IN JEANNETTE
THE DAY OF THE ARRESTS.  THEY HAD BEEN REQUESTED BY THE AUTHORITIES TO
AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF A TEST CASE BEFORE CONTINUING THEIR CANVASSING. 
THE DISTRIBUTORS OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE, POSSIBLY OF ALL INFORMATORY
PUBLICATIONS, BECOME TODAY PRIVILEGED TO CARRY ON THEIR OCCUPATIONS
WITHOUT CONTRIBUTING THEIR SHARE TO THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH
PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR LIBERTIES. 

NOR DO WE THINK IT CAN BE SAID, PROPERLY, THAT THESE SALES OF
RELIGIOUS BOOKS ARE RELIGIOUS EXERCISES.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN
THE JEANNETTE CASES EMPHASIZES FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
SALE OF BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS IS IN ITSELF A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE.  THE
COURT SAYS THE WITNESSES "SPREAD THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE AND
THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS LARGELY THROUGH THE HAND DISTRIBUTION OF
LITERATURE BY FULL OR PART TIME WORKERS."  "THE HAND DISTRIBUTION OF
RELIGIOUS TRACTS IS AN AGE-OLD FORM OF MISSIONARY EVANGELISM - AS OLD
AS THE HISTORY OF PRINTING PRESSES."  "IT IS MORE THAN PREACHING; IT IS
MORE THAN DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.  IT IS A COMBINATION OF
BOTH.  ITS PURPOSE IS AS EVANGELICAL AS THE REVIVAL MEETING.  THIS FORM
OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY OCCUPIES THE SAME HIGH ESTATE UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AS DO WORSHIP IN THE CHURCHES AND PREACHING FROM THE
PULPITS."  "THOSE WHO CAN TAX THE EXERCISE OF THIS RELIGIOUS PRACTICE
CAN MAKE ITS EXERCISE SO COSTLY AS TO DEPRIVE IT OF THE RESOURCES
NECESSARY FOR ITS MAINTENANCE."  "THE JUDGMENT IN JONES V. OPELIKA HAS
THIS DAY BEEN VACATED.  FREED FROM THAT CONTROLLING PRECEDENT, WE CAN
RESTORE TO THEIR HIGH, CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION THE LIBERTIES OF
ITINERANT EVANGELISTS WHO DISSEMINATE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND THE
TENETS OF THEIR FAITH THROUGH DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE."  THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT BOOKS ENTITLED "CREATION" AND "SALVATION," AS WELL AS
BIBLES, WERE OFFERED FOR SALE.  WE SHALL ASSUME THE FIRST TWO
PUBLICATIONS, ALSO, ARE RELIGIOUS BOOKS.  CERTAINLY THERE CAN BE NO
DISSENT FROM THE STATEMENT THAT SELLING RELIGIOUS BOOKS IS AN AGE-OLD
PRACTICE, OR THAT IT IS EVANGELISM IN THE SENSE THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS
HOPE THE READERS WILL BE SPIRITUALLY BENEFITED.  THAT DOES NOT CARRY US
TO THE CONVICTION, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS BOOKS
IS MADE AT A PRICE, THE ITINERANT COLPORTEUR IS PERFORMING A RELIGIOUS
RITE, IS WORSHIPPING HIS CREATOR IN HIS WAY.  MANY SECTS PRACTICE
HEALING THE SICK AS AN EVIDENCE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH OR MAINTAIN
ORPHANAGES OR HOMES FOR THE AGED OR TEACH THE YOUNG.  THESE ARE, OF
COURSE, IN A SENSE, RELIGIOUS PRACTICES BUT HARDLY SUCH EXAMPLES OF
RELIGIOUS RITES AS ARE ENCOMPASSED BY THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION. 

AND EVEN IF THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS BOOKS WAS A RELIGIOUS
PRACTICE PROTECTED FROM REGULATION BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, CERTAINLY
THE AFFIXATION OF A PRICE FOR THE ARTICLES WOULD DESTROY THE SACRED
CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION.  THE EVANGELIST BECOMES ALSO A BOOK
AGENT. 

THE RITES WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE IN ESSENCE
SPIRITUAL - PRAYER, MASS, SERMONS, SACRAMENT - NOT SALES OF RELIGIOUS
GOODS.  THE CARD FURNISHED EACH WITNESS TO IDENTIFY HIM AS AN ORDAINED
MINISTER DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THE SALE IS A RITE.  IT STATES
ONLY THAT THE WITNESSES WORSHIP BY EXHIBITING TO PEOPLE "THE MESSAGE OF
SAID GOSPEL IN PRINTED FORM, SUCH AS THE BIBLE, BOOKS, BOOKLETS AND
MAGAZINES, AND THUS AFFORD THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY OF LEARNING OF
GOD'S GRACIOUS PROVISION FOR THEM."  ON THE BACK OF THE CARD APPEARS:
"YOU MAY CONTRIBUTE TWENTY-FIVE CENTS TO THE LORD'S WORK AND RECEIVE A
COPY OF THIS BEAUTIFUL BOOK."  THE SALE OF THESE RELIGIOUS BOOKS HAS,
WE THINK, RELATION TO THEIR RELIGIOUS EXERCISES, SIMILAR TO THE
"INFORMATION MARCH," SAID BY THE WITNESSES TO BE ONE OF THEIR "WAYS OF
WORSHIP" AND BY THIS COURT TO BE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY LICENSE IN
COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 572, 573, 576. 

THE ATTEMPTED ANALOGY IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN JONES V. OPELIKA,
316 U.S. 584, 609, 611, WHICH NOW BECOMES THE DECISION OF THIS COURT,
BETWEEN THE FORBIDDEN BURDEN OF A STATE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND A STATE TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IS WHOLLY
IRRELEVANT.  A STATE TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS HELD INVALID BECAUSE THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE
STATES HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THIS GRANT
INCLUDES THE NECESSARY MEANS TO CARRY THE GRANT INTO EFFECT AND FORBIDS
STATE BURDENS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.  FN16  IT IS NOT THE POWER
TO TAX INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH IS INTERDICTED, BUT THE EXERCISE OF
THAT POWER BY AN UNAUTHORIZED SOVEREIGN, THE INDIVIDUAL STATE. 
ALTHOUGH THE FOSTERING OF COMMERCE WAS ONE OF THE CHIEF PURPOSES FOR
ORGANIZING THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT, THAT COMMERCE MAY BE BURDENED WITH A
TAX BY THE UNITED STATES.  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SEC. 3469.  COMMERCE
MUST PAY ITS WAY.  IT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM ANY TYPE OF TAXATION IF
IMPOSED BY AN AUTHORIZED AUTHORITY.  THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WHOLLY EXEMPTS THE CHURCH AND PRESS FROM A PRIVILEGE TAX,
PRESUMABLY BY THE NATIONAL AS WELL AS THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 

THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT MAXIMS OF SOCIAL WISDOM
BUT DEFINITE CONTROLS ON THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  WE ARE DEALING WITH
POWER, NOT ITS ABUSE.  THIS LATE WITHDRAWAL OF THE POWER OF TAXATION
OVER THE DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITIES OF THOSE COVERED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT FIXES WHAT SEEMS TO US AN UNFORTUNATE PRINCIPLE OF TAX
EXEMPTION, CAPABLE OF INDEFINITE EXTENSION.  WE HAD THOUGHT THAT SUCH
AN EXEMPTION REQUIRED A CLEAR AND CERTAIN GRANT.  THIS WE DO NOT FIND
IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  WE ARE
THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THE JUDGMENTS BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COURT IN THE MURDOCK CASE ANALYZES THE CONTENTION THAT THE
SALES TECHNIQUE PARTAKES OF COMMERCIALISM AND SAYS:  "IT IS A
DISTORTION OF THE FACTS OF RECORD TO DESCRIBE THEIR ACTIVITIES AS THE
OCCUPATION OF SELLING BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS.  AND THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT
DID NOT REST THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION ON THAT BASIS, THOUGH IT DID
FIND THAT PETITIONERS 'SOLD' THE LITERATURE."  THE STATE COURT, IN ITS
OPINION, 149 PA. SUPER.  CT. 175, 27 A.2D 666, 667, STATED THE
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE AS FORBIDDING SALES OF MERCHANDISE BY CANVASSING
WITHOUT A LICENSE, AND SAID THAT THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED ITS VIOLATION
BY SELLING "TWO BOOKS ENTITLED 'SALVATION' AND 'CREATION' RESPECTIVELY,
AND CERTAIN LEAFLETS OR PAMPHLETS, ALL PUBLISHED BY THE WATCH TOWER
BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF BROOKLYN, N.Y., FOR WHICH THE SOCIETY FIXED
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS EACH AS THE PRICE FOR THE BOOKS AND FIVE CENTS EACH
AS THE PRICE OF THE LEAFLETS.  DEFENDANTS PAID TWENTY CENTS EACH FOR
THE BOOKS, UNLESS THEY DEVOTED THEIR WHOLE TIME TO THE WORK, IN WHICH
CASE THEY PAID FIVE CENTS EACH FOR THE BOOKS THEY SOLD AT TWENTY-FIVE
CENTS.  SOME OF THE WITNESSES SPOKE OF 'CONTRIBUTIONS' BUT THE EVIDENCE
JUSTIFIED A FINDING THAT THEY SOLD THE BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS." 

THE STATE COURT THEN REPEATED WITH APPROVAL FROM ONE OF ITS FORMER
DECISIONS THE STATEMENTS: "THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF
WORSHIP DOES NOT GUARANTEE ANYBODY THE RIGHT TO SELL ANYTHING FROM
HOUSE TO HOUSE OR IN BUILDINGS, BELONGING TO, OR IN THE OCCUPANCY OF,
OTHER PERSONS."  "  ...  WE DO NOT ACCEDE TO HIS CONTENTION ON THE ORAL
ARGUMENT THAT THE FEDERAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY HIM GO SO FAR AS TO
RULE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF A FREE PRESS FORBIDS DEALERS
IN BOOKS AND PRINTED MATTER BEING SUBJECTED TO OUR STATE MERCANTILE
LICENSE TAX OR THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX AS TO SUCH SALES, ALONG WITH
DEALERS IN OTHER MERCHANDISE."  PITTSBURGH V. RUFFNER, 134 PA. SUPER. 
CT. 192, 199, 202, 4 A.2D 224.  AND AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION OF
SELLING, THE CONVICTION OF THE WITNESSES WAS AFFIRMED.  IT CAN HARDLY
BE SAID, WE THINK, THAT THE STATE COURT DID NOT TREAT THE JEANNETTE
CANVASSERS AS ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR OCCUPATION AT THE
TIME OF THEIR ARRESTS. 

FN2  WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 371, AND THE CONCURRING
OPINION, 373; REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 166; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 303; COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569,
574, 576. 

FN3  JOURNAL OF THE CONVENTION, 369; II FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE
FEDERAL CONVENTION, 611, 616-8, 620.  CF. MCMASTER & STONE,
PENNSYLVANIA AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, 251-3. 

FN4  I ELLIOT'S DEBATES ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (1876) 319 ET
SEQ. IN RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION THE FOLLOWING DECLARATIONS WERE
MADE:  NEW HAMPSHIRE, P. 326, "XI.  CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS
TOUCHING RELIGION, OR TO INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE."  VIRGINIA,
P. 327, " ...  NO RIGHT, OF ANY DENOMINATION, CAN BE CANCELLED,
ABRIDGED, RESTRAINED, OR MODIFIED, BY THE CONGRESS, BY THE SENATE OR
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ACTING IN ANY CAPACITY, BY THE PRESIDENT, OR
ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT IN THOSE
INSTANCES IN WHICH POWER IS GIVEN BY THE CONSTITUTION FOR THOSE
PURPOSES; AND THAT, AMONG OTHER ESSENTIAL RIGHTS, THE LIBERTY OF
CONSCIENCE, AND OF THE PRESS, CANNOT BE CANCELLED, ABRIDGED,
RESTRAINED, OR MODIFIED, BY ANY AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES."  NEW
YORK, P. 328, "THAT THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS OUGHT NOT TO BE VIOLATED
OR RESTRAINED."  AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF THE AMENDMENTS, RHODE ISLAND
RATIFIED AND DECLARED, PP. 334, 335, "IV.  THAT RELIGION, OR THE DUTY
WHICH WE OWE TO OUR CREATOR, AND THE MANNER OF DISCHARGING IT, CAN BE
DIRECTED ONLY BY REASON AND CONVICTION, AND NOT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE;
AND THEREFORE ALL MEN HAVE A NATURAL, EQUAL, AND UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO
THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE; AND
THAT NO PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS SECT OR SOCIETY OUGHT TO BE FAVORED OR
ESTABLISHED, BY LAW, IN PREFERENCE TO OTHERS.  ...  XVI.  THAT THE
PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND OF WRITING AND PUBLISHING
THEIR SENTIMENTS.  THAT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS ONE OF THE GREATEST
BULWARKS OF LIBERTY, AND OUGHT NOT TO BE VIOLATED." 

FN5  THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION HAD REFERENCES TO RELIGION AND
FREE SPEECH: 

"ARTICLE III.  THE SAID STATES HEREBY SEVERALLY ENTER INTO A FIRM
LEAGUE OF FRIENDSHIP WITH EACH OTHER, FOR THEIR COMMON DEFENCE, THE
SECURITY OF THEIR LIBERTIES, AND THEIR MUTUAL AND GENERAL WELFARE,
BINDING THEMSELVES TO ASSIST EACH OTHER, AGAINST ALL FORCE OFFERED TO,
OR ATTACKS MADE UPON THEM, OR ANY OF THEM, ON ACCOUNT OF RELIGION,
SOVEREIGNTY, TRADE, OR ANY OTHER PRETENCE WHATEVER." 

"ARTICLE V. ...  FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEBATE IN CONGRESS SHALL NOT
BE IMPEACHED OR QUESTIONED IN ANY COURT, OR PLACE OUT OF CONGRESS, AND
THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN THEIR PERSONS FROM
ARRESTS AND IMPRISONMENTS, DURING THE TIME OF THEIR GOING TO AND FROM,
AND ATTENDANCE ON CONGRESS, EXCEPT FOR TREASON, FELONY, OR BREACH OF
THE PEACE." 

THE STATUTE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WAS PASSED IN VIRGINIA IN 1785.  THE
SUBSTANCE WAS IN PARAGRAPH II:  "BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
THAT NO MAN SHALL BE COMPELLED TO FREQUENT OR SUPPORT ANY RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP, PLACE, OR MINISTRY WHATSOEVER, NOR SHALL BE ENFORCED,
RESTRAINED, MOLESTED, OR BURTHENED IN HIS BODY OR GOODS, NOR SHALL
OTHERWISE SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OR BELIEF; BUT
THAT ALL MEN SHALL BE FREE TO PROFESS, AND BY ARGUMENT TO MAINTAIN,
THEIR OPINION IN MATTERS OF RELIGION, AND THAT THE SAME SHALL IN NO
WISE DIMINISH, ENLARGE, OR AFFECT THEIR CIVIL CAPACITIES."  12 HENING
STATUTES OF VA. 86. 

A NUMBER OF THE STATES' CONSTITUTIONS AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF
THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINED PROVISIONS AS TO A FREE PRESS: 

GEORGIA, CONSTITUTION OF 1777, ART. LXI.  "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND
TRIAL BY JURY TO REMAIN INVIOLATE FOREVER."  I POORE, FEDERAL AND STATE
CONSTITUTIONS 383. 

MARYLAND, CONSTITUTION OF 1776, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, ART. XXXVIII. 
"THAT THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS OUGHT TO BE INVIOLABLY PRESERVED."  ID.
820. 

MASSACHUSETTS, CONSTITUTION OF 1780, PART FIRST, ART. XVI.  "THE
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SECURITY OF FREEDOM IN A
STATE; IT OUGHT NOT, THEREFORE, TO BE RESTRAINED IN THIS
COMMONWEALTH."  ID., 959. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE, CONSTITUTION OF 1784, PART 1, ART. XXII.  "THE LIBERTY
OF THE PRESS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SECURITY OF FREEDOM IN A STATE; IT
OUGHT, THEREFORE, TO BE INVIOLABLY PRESERVED."  II POORE, ID., 1282. 

NORTH CAROLINA, CONSTITUTION OF 1776, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, ART. XV.
"THAT THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS ONE OF THE GREAT BULWARKS OF
LIBERTY, AND THEREFORE OUGHT NEVER TO BE RESTRAINED."  ID., 1410. 

PENNSYLVANIA, CONSTITUTION OF 1776, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, ART. XII. 
"THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND OF WRITING, AND
PUBLISHING THEIR SENTIMENTS; THEREFORE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS OUGHT
NOT TO BE RESTRAINED."  ID., 1542. 

VIRGINIA, BILL OF RIGHTS, 1776, SEC. 12.  "THAT THE FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS IS ONE OF THE GREAT BULWARKS OF LIBERTY, AND CAN NEVER BE
RESTRAINED BUT BY DESPOTIC GOVERNMENTS."  ID., 1909.    FN6  FOR
EXAMPLE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS IT PASSED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1789, READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE
FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, NOR SHALL THE RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE BE
INFRINGED. 

"THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND OF THE PRESS, AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND CONSULT FOR THEIR COMMON GOOD, AND TO APPLY
TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, SHALL NOT BE
INFRINGED."  RECORDS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, 1A-C2(U.S. NAT.
ARCHIVES). 

APPARENTLY WHEN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE PASSED BY THE SENATE ON
SEPTEMBER 9, 1789, WHAT IS NOW THE FIRST AMENDMENT READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING ARTICLES OF FAITH, OR A MODE
OF WORSHIP, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, OR ABRIDGING
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS, OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS
OF GRIEVANCES."  ID. 

FN7 EGBERT BENSON WAS THE FIRST ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, A
MEMBER OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AND OF THE NEW YORK CONVENTION FOR
RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  BIOGRAPHICAL DIRECTORY OF THE
AMERICAN CONGRESS, 694. 

FN8  "AND BE IT ENACTED BY THE AUTHORITY AFORESAID, THAT THERE SHALL
BE RAISED, LEVIED, COLLECTED AND PAID, TO AND FOR THE USE OF HER
MAJESTY, HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS, FOR AND UPON ALL BOOKS AND PAPERS
COMMONLY CALLED PAMPHLETS, AND FOR AND UPON ALL NEWS PAPERS, OR PAPERS
CONTAINING PUBLICK NEWS, INTELLIGENCE OR OCCURRENCES, WHICH SHALL, AT
ANY TIME OR TIMES WITHIN OR DURING THE TERM LAST MENTIONED, BE PRINTED
IN GREAT BRITAIN, TO BE DISPERSED AND MADE PUBLICK, AND FOR AND UPON
SUCH ADVERTISEMENTS AS ARE HEREIN AFTER MENTIONED, THE RESPECTIVE
DUTIES FOLLOWING; THAT IS TO SAY, 

"FOR EVERY SUCH PAMPHLET OR PAPER CONTAINED IN HALF A SHEET, OR ANY
LESSER PIECE OF PAPER, SO PRINTED, THE SUM OF ONE HALF-PENNY STERLING. 

"FOR EVERY SUCH PAMPHLET OR PAPER (BEING LARGER THAN HALF A SHEET,
AND NOT EXCEEDING ONE WHOLE SHEET) SO PRINTED, A DUTY AFTER THE RATE OF
ONE PENNY STERLING FOR EVERY PRINTED COPY THEREOF. 

"AND FOR EVERY SUCH PAMPHLET OR PAPER, BEING LARGER THAN ONE WHOLE
SHEET, AND NOT EXCEEDING SIX SHEETS IN OCTAVO, OR IN A LESSER PAGE, OR
NOT EXCEEDING TWELVE SHEETS IN QUARTO, OR TWENTY SHEETS IN FOLIO, SO
PRINTED, A DUTY AFTER THE RATE OF TWO SHILLINGS STERLING FOR EVERY
SHEET OF ANY KIND OF PAPER WHICH SHALL BE CONTAINED IN ONE PRINTED COPY
THEREOF. 

"AND FOR EVERY ADVERTISEMENT TO BE CONTAINED IN THE LONDON GAZETTE,
OR ANY OTHER PRINTED PAPER, SUCH PAPER BEING DISPERSED OR MADE PUBLICK
WEEKLY, OR OFTNER, THE SUM OF TWELVE PENCE STERLING." 

FN9  STEVENS, SOURCES OF THE CONSTITUTION, 221, NOTE 2; STEWART,
LENNOX AND THE TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE, 15 SCOTTISH HIST. REV. 322, 326;
MCMASTER & STONE, PENNSYLVANIA AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, 181;
GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 248. 

FN10  CF. COLLET, TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE; CHAFEE, FREE SPEECH IN THE
UNITED STATES, 17, N. 33. 

FN11  GITLOW V. NEW YORK (1925), 268 U.S. 652, 666; NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 707; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296,
307. 

FN12  PERMOLI V. FIRST MUNICIPALITY, 3 HOW.  589, 609; BARRON V.
BALTIMORE, 7 PET. 243, 247. 

FN13  FOR THE STATE PROVISIONS ON EXPRESSION AND RELIGION, SEE 2
COOLEY.  CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (8TH ED.)  876, 965; III
CONSTITUTIONS OF THE STATES, NEW YORK STATE CONST. CONV.  COMMITTEE
1938. 

FN14  TO THIS PROFESSOR CHAFEE ADDS THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE
GOVERNMENT.  FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES (1941) 18 ET SEQ. CF. 2
COOLEY'S CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (8TH ED.)  886. 

FN15  GIRAGI V. MOORE, 301 U.S. 670; 48 ARIZ. 33; 49 ARIZ. 74. 

FN16  BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419, 445, 448; KENTUCKY WHIP &
COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334, 350; GWIN, WHITE &
PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 438; PUGET SOUND CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
JOIN IN THIS DISSENT.  MR. JUSTICE JACKSON HAS STATED ADDITIONAL
REASONS FOR DISSENT IN HIS CONCURRENCE IN DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, POST,
P. 166. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

WHILE I WHOLLY AGREE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE REED,
THE CONTROVERSY IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO LEAD ME TO ADD A FEW WORDS. 

A TAX CAN BE A MEANS FOR RAISING REVENUE, OR A DEVICE FOR REGULATING
CONDUCT, OR BOTH.  CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A TAX
MEASURE REQUIRES THAT IT BE ANALYZED AND JUDGED IN ALL ITS ASPECTS.  WE
MUST THEREFORE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US IN
THESE CASES AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT.  IT IS ALTOGETHER INCORRECT TO SAY
THAT THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER A STATE CAN LIMIT THE FREE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION BY IMPOSING BURDENSOME TAXES.  AS THE OPINION OF MY BROTHER
REED DEMONSTRATES, WE HAVE NOT HERE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TAXES
IMPOSED IN THESE CASES ARE IN PRACTICAL OPERATION AN UNJUSTIFIABLE
CURTAILMENT UPON THE PETITIONERS' UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE THEIR
VIEWS TO OTHERS.  NO CLAIM IS MADE THAT THE EFFECT OF THESE TAXES,
EITHER SEPARATELY OR CUMULATIVELY, HAS BEEN, OR IS LIKELY TO BE, TO
RESTRICT THE PETITIONERS' RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDA ACTIVITIES IN ANY
DEGREE.  COUNSEL EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY SUCH CONTENTION.  THEY INSIST
ON ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM ANY KIND OF MONETARY EXACTION FOR THEIR
OCCUPATION.  THEIR CLAIM IS THAT NO TAX, NO MATTER HOW TRIFLING, CAN
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE LAID UPON THE ACTIVITY OF DISTRIBUTING RELIGIOUS
LITERATURE, REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL EFFECT OF THE TAX UPON SUCH
ACTIVITY.  THAT IS THE ONLY GROUND UPON WHICH THESE ORDINANCES HAVE
BEEN ATTACKED; THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION RAISED IN OR DECIDED BY THE
STATE COURTS; AND THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION PRESENTED TO US.  NO
COMPLAINT IS MADE AGAINST THE SIZE OF THE TAXES.  IF AN APPROPRIATE
CLAIM, INDICATING THAT THE TAXES WERE OPPRESSIVE IN THEIR EFFECT UPON
THE PETITIONERS' ACTIVITIES, HAD BEEN MADE, THE ISSUES HERE WOULD BE
VERY DIFFERENT.  NO SUCH CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE, AND IT WOULD BE
GRATUITOUS TO CONSIDER ITS MERITS. 

NOR HAVE WE OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER THESE MEASURES ARE INVALID
ON THE GROUND THAT THEY UNJUSTLY OR UNREASONABLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS.  COUNSEL DO NOT CLAIM, AS INDEED THEY COULD NOT, THAT
THESE ORDINANCES WERE INTENDED TO OR HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST RELIGIOUS GROUPS GENERALLY OR JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
PARTICULARLY.  NO CLAIM IS MADE THAT THE EFFECT OF THE TAXES IS TO
HINDER OR RESTRICT THE ACTIVITIES OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WHILE OTHER
RELIGIOUS GROUPS, PERHAPS OLDER OR MORE PROSPEROUS, CAN CARRY ON
THEIRS.  THIS QUESTION, TOO, IS NOT BEFORE US. 

IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY EXEMPT
FROM TAXATION MERELY BECAUSE THEY MAY BE ENGAGED IN RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITIES OR BECAUSE SUCH ACTIVITIES MAY CONSTITUTE AN EXERCISE OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  IT WILL HARDLY BE CONTENDED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A
TAX UPON THE INCOME OF A CLERGYMAN WOULD VIOLATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
EVEN THOUGH THE TAX IS ULTIMATELY BORNE BY THE MEMBERS OF HIS CHURCH. 
A CLERGYMAN, NO LESS THAN A JUDGE, IS A CITIZEN.  AND NOT ONLY IN TIME
OF WAR WOULD NEITHER WILLINGLY ENJOY IMMUNITY FROM THE OBLIGATIONS OF
CITIZENSHIP.  IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT HE ALSO WHO PREACHES THE WORD OF GOD
SHOULD SHARE IN THE COSTS OF THE BENEFITS PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT TO HIM
AS WELL AS TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.  AND SO, NO ONE WOULD
SUGGEST THAT A CLERGYMAN WHO USES AN AUTOMOBILE OR THE TELEPHONE IN
CONNECTION WITH HIS WORK THEREBY GAINS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION FROM
TAXES LEVIED UPON THE USE OF AUTOMOBILES OR UPON TELEPHONE CALLS. 
EQUALLY ALIEN IS IT TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM TO SUGGEST THAT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES EXEMPTS CHURCH-HELD LANDS FROM STATE
TAXATION.  PLAINLY, A TAX MEASURE IS NOT INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION MERELY BECAUSE IT FALLS UPON PERSONS ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES
OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE. 

NOR CAN A TAX BE INVALIDATED MERELY BECAUSE IT FALLS UPON ACTIVITIES
WHICH CONSTITUTE AN EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  THE FIRST
AMENDMENT OF COURSE PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH A NEWSPAPER OR A
MAGAZINE OR A BOOK.  BUT THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IS - HOW MUCH PROTECTION
DOES THE AMENDMENT GIVE, AND AGAINST WHAT IS THE RIGHT PROTECTED?  IT
IS CERTAINLY TRUE THAT THE PROTECTION AFFORDED THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE EXEMPTION FROM ALL TAXATION.  A
TAX UPON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING IS NOT INVALID SIMPLY BECAUSE IT FALLS
UPON THE EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  SUCH A TAX MIGHT BE
INVALID IF IT INVIDIOUSLY SINGLED OUT NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING FOR BEARING
THE BURDENS OF TAXATION OR IMPOSED UPON THEM IN SUCH WAYS AS TO
ENCROACH ON THE ESSENTIAL SCOPE OF A FREE PRESS.  IF THE COURT COULD
JUSTIFIABLY HOLD THAT THE TAX MEASURES IN THESE CASES WERE VULNERABLE
ON THAT GROUND, I WOULD UNRESERVEDLY AGREE.  BUT THE COURT HAS NOT DONE
SO, AND INDEED COULD NOT. 

THE VICE OF THE ORDINANCES BEFORE US, THE COURT HOLDS, IS THAT THEY
IMPOSE A SPECIAL KIND OF TAX, A "FLAT LICENSE TAX, THE PAYMENT OF WHICH
IS A CONDITION OF THE EXERCISE OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGES (TO
ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES)."  BUT THE FACT THAT AN OCCUPATION TAX
IS A "FLAT" TAX CERTAINLY IS NOT ENOUGH TO CONDEMN IT.  A LEGISLATURE
UNDOUBTEDLY CAN TAX ALL THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN AN ACTIVITY UPON AN EQUAL
BASIS.  THE CONSTITUTION CERTAINLY DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT
DIFFERENTIATIONS MUST BE MADE AMONG TAXPAYERS UPON THE BASIS OF THE
SIZE OF THEIR INCOMES OR THE SCOPE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES.  OCCUPATION
TAXES NORMALLY ARE FLAT TAXES, AND THE COURT SURELY DOES NOT MEAN TO
HOLD THAT A TAX IS BAD MERELY BECAUSE ALL TAXPAYERS PURSUING THE VERY
SAME ACTIVITIES AND THEREBY DEMANDING THE SAME GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
ARE TREATED ALIKE.  NOR, AS I HAVE INDICATED, CAN A TAX BE INVALIDATED
BECAUSE THE EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE IS CONDITIONED UPON
ITS PAYMENT.  IT DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF THE CONDITION THAT IS
IMPOSED, ITS JUSTIFICATION, AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT HINDERS OR
RESTRICTS THE EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE. 

AS I READ THE COURT'S OPINION, IT DOES NOT HOLD THAT THE TAXES IN THE
CASES BEFORE US IN FACT DO HINDER OR RESTRICT THE PETITIONERS IN
EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  IT HOLDS THAT "THE POWER TO
TAX THE EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE IS THE POWER TO CONTROL OR SUPPRESS ITS
ENJOYMENT."  THIS ASSUMES THAT BECAUSE THE TAXING POWER EXERTED IN
MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, THE WELL-KNOWN OLEOMARGARINE TAX
CASE, MAY HAVE HAD THE EFFECT OF "CONTROLLING" OR "SUPPRESSING" THE
ENJOYMENT OF A PRIVILEGE AND STILL WAS SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT, AND
BECAUSE ALL EXERTIONS OF THE TAXING POWER MAY HAVE THAT EFFECT, IF
PERCHANCE A PARTICULAR EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER DOES HAVE THAT
EFFECT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUSTAINED UNDER OUR RULING IN THE MAGNANO
CASE. 

THE POWER TO TAX, LIKE ALL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, LEGISLATIVE,
EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL ALIKE, CAN BE ABUSED OR PERVERTED.  THE POWER TO
TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE POWER
CAN MISUSE IT.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES DISPOSED OF THIS SMOOTH PHRASE AS A
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR INVALIDATING TAXES WHEN HE WROTE "THE POWER TO
TAX IS NOT THE POWER TO DESTROY WHILE THIS COURT SITS."  PANHANDLE OIL
CO. V. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218, 223.  THE FACT THAT A POWER CAN BE PERVERTED
DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY EXERCISE OF THE POWER IS A PERVERSION OF THE
POWER.  THUS, IF A TAX INDIRECTLY SUPPRESSES OR CONTROLS THE ENJOYMENT
OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE WHICH A LEGISLATURE CANNOT DIRECTLY
SUPPRESS OR CONTROL, OF COURSE IT IS BAD.  BUT IT IS IRRELEVANT THAT A
TAX CAN SUPPRESS OR CONTROL IF IT DOES NOT.  THE COURT HOLDS THAT
"THOSE WHO CAN TAX THE EXERCISE OF THIS RELIGIOUS PRACTICE CAN MAKE ITS
EXERCISE SO COSTLY AS TO DEPRIVE IT OF RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR ITS
MAINTENANCE."  BUT THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT "THOSE WHO DO
TAX THE EXERCISE OF THIS RELIGIOUS PRACTICE HAVE MADE ITS EXERCISE SO
COSTLY AS TO DEPRIVE IT OF THE RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR ITS
MAINTENANCE." 

THE COURT COULD NOT PLAUSIBLY MAKE SUCH AN ASSERTION BECAUSE THE
PETITIONERS THEMSELVES DISAVOW ANY CLAIM THAT THE TAXES IMPOSED IN
THESE CASES IMPAIR THEIR ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  WE CANNOT INVALIDATE THE TAX MEASURES BEFORE US SIMPLY BECAUSE
THERE MAY BE OTHERS, NOT NOW BEFORE US, WHICH ARE OPPRESSIVE IN THEIR
EFFECT.  THE COURT'S OPINION DOES NOT DENY THAT THE ORDINANCES INVOLVED
IN THESE CASES HAVE IN NO WAY DISABLED THE PETITIONERS TO ENGAGE IN
THEIR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES.  IT HOLDS ONLY THAT "THOSE WHO CAN TAX THE
PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN THIS FORM OF MISSIONARY EVANGELISM CAN CLOSE
ITS DOORS TO ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT HAVE A FULL PURSE."  I QUITE AGREE
WITH THIS STATEMENT AS AN ABSTRACT PROPOSITION.  THOSE WHO POSSESS THE
POWER TO TAX MIGHT WIELD IT IN TYRANNICAL FASHION.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW,
HOWEVER, THAT EVERY EXERCISE OF THE POWER IS AN ACT OF TYRANNY, OR THAT
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE IMPOTENT BECAUSE IT MIGHT BECOME TYRANNICAL.  THE
QUESTION BEFORE US NOW IS WHETHER THESE ORDINANCES HAVE DEPRIVED THE
PETITIONERS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, NOT WHETHER SOME OTHER
ORDINANCES NOT NOW BEFORE US MIGHT BE ENACTED WHICH MIGHT DEPRIVE THEM
OF SUCH RIGHTS.  TO DENY CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO SECULAR AUTHORITY
MERELY BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS ABUSE IS AS VALID AS TO DENY
THE BASIS OF SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY BECAUSE THOSE IN WHOM IT IS
TEMPORARILY VESTED MAY MISUSE IT. 

THE PETITIONERS SAY THEY ARE IMMUNE AS MUCH FROM A FLAT OCCUPATION
TAX AS FROM A LICENSING FEE PURPORTING EXPLICITLY TO COVER ONLY THE
COSTS OF REGULATION.  THEY RIGHTLY REJECT ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS
OCCUPATION TAX AND SUCH A LICENSING FEE.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SO-CALLED REGULATORY FEE AND AN IMPOSITION FOR
PURPOSES OF REVENUE.  THE STATE EXACTS REVENUE TO MAINTAIN THE COSTS OF
GOVERNMENT AS AN ENTIRETY.  FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES AND AT CERTAIN TIMES A
LEGISLATURE MAY EARMARK EXACTIONS TO COVER THE COSTS OF SPECIFIC
GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES.  IN MOST INSTANCES THE REVENUES OF THE STATE ARE
TAPPED FROM MULTITUDINOUS SOURCES FOR A COMMON FUND OUT OF WHICH THE
COSTS OF GOVERNMENT ARE PAID.  AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC FINANCE, IT IS
OFTEN IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WITH NICETY THE GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, WHETHER
GOVERNMENT COLLECTS REVENUE FOR THE COSTS OF ITS SERVICES THROUGH AN
EARMARKED FUND, OR WHETHER AN APPROXIMATION OF THE COST OF REGULATION
GOES INTO THE GENERAL REVENUES OF GOVERNMENT OUT OF WHICH ALL EXPENSES
ARE BORNE, IS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION AND NOT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION.  JUST SO LONG AS AN OCCUPATION TAX IS NOT
USED AS A COVER FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
RIGHT OR AS AN UNJUSTIFIABLE BURDEN UPON IT, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IT CAN MAKE NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER
SUCH A MONEY EXACTION FOR GOVERNMENTAL BENEFITS IS LABELED A REGULATORY
FEE OR A REVENUE MEASURE. 

IT IS STRENUOUSLY URGED THAT THE CONSTITUTION DENIES A CITY THE RIGHT
TO CONTROL THE EXPRESSION OF MEN'S MINDS AND THE RIGHT OF MEN TO WIN
OTHERS TO THEIR VIEWS.  BUT THE COURT IS NOT DIVIDED ON THIS
PROPOSITION.  NO ONE DISPUTES IT.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE EQUALLY
FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY THAT LED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS AND ARE EQUALLY ZEALOUS TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
OF THE FREE PLAY OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT.  ESCAPE FROM THE REAL ISSUE
BEFORE US CANNOT BE FOUND IN SUCH GENERALITIES.  THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS
NOT WHETHER A CITY MAY CHARGE FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS BUT
WHETHER THE STATES HAVE POWER TO REQUIRE THOSE WHO NEED ADDITIONAL
FACILITIES TO HELP BEAR THE COST OF FURNISHING SUCH FACILITIES.  STREET
HAWKERS MAKE DEMANDS UPON MUNICIPALITIES THAT INVOLVE THE EXPENDITURE
OF DOLLARS AND CENTS, WHETHER THEY HAWK PRINTED MATTER OR OTHER
THINGS.  AS THE FACTS IN THESE CASES SHOW, THE COST OF MAINTAINING THE
PEACE, THE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS UPON GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES FOR ASSURING
SECURITY, INVOLVE OUTLAYS WHICH HAVE TO BE MET.  TO SAY THAT THE
CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE STATES TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY REVENUE FROM
THE WHOLE OF A CLASS THAT ENJOYS THESE BENEFITS AND FACILITIES, WHEN IN
FACT NO DISCRIMINATION IS SUGGESTED AS BETWEEN PURVEYORS OF PRINTED
MATTER AND PURVEYORS OF OTHER THINGS, AND THE EXACTION IS NOT CLAIMED
TO BE ACTUALLY BURDENSOME, IS TO SAY THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES NOT
THAT THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS IN THE INTEREST OF RELIGION SHALL BE
FREE BUT THAT IT SHALL BE SUBSIDIZED BY THE STATE.  SUCH A CLAIM
OFFENDS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL ASPECTS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THIS
COUNTRY, NAMELY, THAT OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IN DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TAX
MEASURE IS - HAS THE STATE GIVEN SOMETHING FOR WHICH IT CAN ASK A
RETURN?  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THESE PETITIONERS, LIKE ALL WHO USE
THE STREETS, HAVE RECEIVED THE BENEFITS OF GOVERNMENT.  PEACE IS
MAINTAINED, TRAFFIC IS REGULATED, HEALTH IS SAFEGUARDED - THESE ARE
ONLY SOME OF THE MANY INCIDENTS OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION.  TO SECURE
THEM COSTS MONEY, AND A STATE'S SOURCE OF MONEY IS ITS TAXING POWER. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EXEMPTS PERSONS ENGAGED IN
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES FROM SHARING EQUALLY IN THE COSTS OF BENEFITS TO
ALL, INCLUDING THEMSELVES, PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT. 

I CANNOT SAY, THEREFORE, THAT IN THESE CASES THE COMMUNITY HAS
DEMANDED A RETURN FOR THAT WHICH IT DID NOT GIVE.  NOR AM I CALLED UPON
TO SAY THAT THE STATE HAS DEMANDED UNJUSTIFIABLY MORE THAN THE VALUE OF
WHAT IT GAVE, NOR THAT ITS DEMAND IN FACT CRAMPS ACTIVITIES PURSUED TO
PROMOTE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE AT THE BAR, AND
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORDS TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY SUCH CLAIM IF
IT HAD BEEN MADE.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, I AM OF
OPINION THAT THE ORDINANCES IN THESE CASES MUST STAND. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :


















MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141 


NO. 238.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 139 OHIO ST.
372, 40 N.E.2D 154, REVERSED. 


A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE FORBIDDING ANY PERSON TO KNOCK ON DOORS, RING
DOORBELLS, OR OTHERWISE SUMMON TO THE DOOR THE OCCUPANTS OF ANY
RESIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTING TO THEM HANDBILLS OR
CIRCULARS, HELD - AS APPLIED TO A PERSON DISTRIBUTING ADVERTISEMENTS
FOR A RELIGIOUS MEETING - INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS A
DENIAL OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS.  PP. 142, 149. 

MARTIN V. CITY OF STRUTHERS. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A
CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FOR CENTURIES IT HAS BEEN A COMMON PRACTICE IN THIS AND OTHER
COUNTRIES FOR PERSONS NOT SPECIFICALLY INVITED TO GO FROM HOME TO HOME
AND KNOCK ON DOORS OR RING DOOR-BELLS TO COMMUNICATE IDEAS TO THE
OCCUPANTS OR TO INVITE THEM TO POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, OR OTHER KINDS OF
PUBLIC MEETINGS.  WHETHER SUCH VISITING SHALL BE PERMITTED HAS IN
GENERAL BEEN DEEMED TO DEPEND UPON THE WILL OF THE INDIVIDUAL MASTER OF
EACH HOUSEHOLD, AND NOT UPON THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMUNITY.  IN
THE INSTANT CASE, THE CITY OF STRUTHERS, OHIO, HAS ATTEMPTED TO MAKE
THIS DECISION FOR ALL ITS INHABITANTS.  THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS
WHETHER THE CITY, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION'S
GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH AND PRESS, POSSESSES THIS POWER.  FN1 

THE APPELLANT, ESPOUSING A RELIGIOUS CAUSE IN WHICH SHE WAS
INTERESTED - THAT OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES - WENT TO THE HOMES OF
STRANGERS, KNOCKING ON DOORS AND RINGING DOORBELLS IN ORDER TO
DISTRIBUTE TO THE INMATES OF THE HOMES LEAFLETS ADVERTISING A RELIGIOUS
MEETING.  IN DOING SO, SHE PROCEEDED IN A CONVENTIONAL AND ORDERLY
FASHION.  FOR DELIVERING A LEAFLET TO THE INMATE OF A HOME, SHE WAS
CONVICTED IN THE MAYOR'S COURT AND WAS FINED $10.00 ON A CHARGE OF
VIOLATING THE FOLLOWING CITY ORDINANCE: 

"IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON DISTRIBUTING HANDBILLS, CIRCULARS OR
OTHER ADVERTISEMENTS TO RING THE DOOR BELL, SOUND THE DOOR KNOCKER, OR
OTHERWISE SUMMON THE INMATE OR INMATES OF ANY RESIDENCE TO THE DOOR FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING SUCH HANDBILLS, CIRCULARS OR OTHER
ADVERTISEMENTS THEY OR ANY PERSON WITH THEM MAY BE DISTRIBUTING." 

THE APPELLANT ADMITTED KNOCKING AT THE DOOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DELIVERING THE INVITATION, BUT SEASONABLY URGED IN THE LOWER OHIO STATE
COURT THAT THE ORDINANCE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED WAS BEYOND THE POWER
OF THE STATE BECAUSE IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF PRESS AND
RELIGION AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  FN2 

THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS HAS BROAD SCOPE.  THE
AUTHORS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT KNEW THAT NOVEL AND UNCONVENTIONAL IDEAS
MIGHT DISTURB THE COMPLACENT, BUT THEY CHOSE TO ENCOURAGE A FREEDOM
WHICH THEY BELIEVED ESSENTIAL IF VIGOROUS ENLIGHTENMENT WAS EVER TO
TRIUMPH OVER SLOTHFUL IGNORANCE.  FN3  THIS FREEDOM EMBRACES THE RIGHT
TO DISTRIBUTE LITERATURE, LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 452, AND
NECESSARILY PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT.  THE PRIVILEGE MAY NOT BE
WITHDRAWN EVEN IF IT CREATES THE MINOR NUISANCE FOR A COMMUNITY OF
CLEANING LITTER FROM ITS STREETS.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147,
162.  YET THE PEACE, GOOD ORDER, AND COMFORT OF THE COMMUNITY MAY
IMPERATIVELY REQUIRE REGULATION OF THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF
DISTRIBUTION.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 304.  NO ONE
SUPPOSES, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A CITY NEED PERMIT A MAN WITH A
COMMUNICABLE DISEASE TO DISTRIBUTE LEAFLETS ON THE STREET OR TO HOMES,
OR THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS A STATE FROM PREVENTING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF LEAFLETS IN A CHURCH AGAINST THE WILL OF THE CHURCH
AUTHORITIES. 

WE ARE FACED IN THE INSTANT CASE WITH THE NECESSITY OF WEIGHING THE
CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS SHE CLAIMS,
AS WELL AS THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER
HE IS WILLING TO RECEIVE HER MESSAGE, AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE
COMMUNITY WHICH BY THIS ORDINANCE OFFERS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF
ALL OF ITS CITIZENS, WHETHER PARTICULAR CITIZENS WANT THAT PROTECTION
OR NOT.  THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT CONTROL ANYTHING BUT THE DISTRIBUTION
OF LITERATURE, AND IN THAT RESPECT IT SUBSTITUTES THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COMMUNITY FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDER.  IT SUBMITS
THE DISTRIBUTER TO CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT FOR ANNOYING THE PERSON ON WHOM
HE CALLS, EVEN THOUGH THE RECIPIENT OF THE LITERATURE DISTRIBUTED IS IN
FACT GLAD TO RECEIVE IT.  IN CONSIDERING LEGISLATION WHICH THUS LIMITS
THE DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE, WE MUST "BE ASTUTE TO EXAMINE THE
EFFECT OF THE CHALLENGED LEGISLATION" AND MUST "WEIGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES
AND ...  APPRAISE THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE REASONS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT
OF THE REGULATION."  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA, 161. 

ORDINANCES OF THE SORT NOW BEFORE US MAY BE AIMED AT THE PROTECTION
OF THE HOUSEHOLDERS FROM ANNOYANCE, INCLUDING INTRUSION UPON THE HOURS
OF REST, AND AT THE PREVENTION OF CRIME.  CONSTANT CALLERS, WHETHER
SELLING POTS OR DISTRIBUTING LEAFLETS, MAY LESSEN THE PEACEFUL
ENJOYMENT OF A HOME AS MUCH AS A NEIGHBORHOOD GLUE FACTORY OR RAILROAD
YARD WHICH ZONING ORDINANCES MAY PROHIBIT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, FOR
EXAMPLE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE HOUSEHOLDER TO WHOM THE
APPELLANT GAVE THE LEAFLET WHICH LED TO HER ARREST WAS MORE IRRITATED
THAN PLEASED WITH HER VISITOR.  THE CITY, WHICH IS AN INDUSTRIAL
COMMUNITY MOST OF WHOSE RESIDENTS ARE ENGAGED IN THE IRON AND STEEL
INDUSTRY, FN4  HAS VIGOROUSLY ARGUED THAT ITS INHABITANTS FREQUENTLY
WORK ON SWING SHIFTS, WORKING NIGHTS AND SLEEPING DAYS SO THAT CASUAL
BELL PUSHERS MIGHT SERIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH THE HOURS OF SLEEP ALTHOUGH
THEY CALL AT HIGH NOON.  IN ADDITION, BURGLARS FREQUENTLY POSE AS
CANVASSERS, EITHER IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY HAVE A PRETENSE TO DISCOVER
WHETHER A HOUSE IS EMPTY AND HENCE RIPE FOR BURGLARY, OR FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SPYING OUT THE PREMISES IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY RETURN
LATER.  FN5  CRIME PREVENTION MAY THUS BE THE PURPOSE OF REGULATORY
ORDINANCES. 

WHILE DOOR TO DOOR DISTRIBUTERS OF LITERATURE MAY BE EITHER A
NUISANCE OR A BLIND FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, THEY MAY ALSO BE USEFUL
MEMBERS OF SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE BEST TRADITION OF FREE DISCUSSION.  THE WIDESPREAD USE OF THIS
METHOD OF COMMUNICATION BY MANY GROUPS ESPOUSING VARIOUS CAUSES ATTESTS
ITS MAJOR IMPORTANCE.  "PAMPHLETS HAVE PROVED MOST EFFECTIVE
INSTRUMENTS IN THE DISSEMINATION OF OPINION.  AND PERHAPS THE MOST
EFFECTIVE WAY OF BRINGING THEM TO THE NOTICE OF INDIVIDUALS IS THEIR
DISTRIBUTION AT THE HOMES OF THE PEOPLE."  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA,
164.  MANY OF OUR MOST WIDELY ESTABLISHED RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE
USED THIS METHOD OF DISSEMINATING THEIR DOCTRINES,  FN6  AND LABORING
GROUPS HAVE USED IT IN RECRUITING THEIR MEMBERS.  FN7  THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, IN ITS CURRENT WAR BOND SELLING CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGES GROUPS
OF CITIZENS TO DISTRIBUTE ADVERTISEMENTS AND CIRCULARS FROM HOUSE TO
HOUSE.  FN8  OF COURSE, AS EVERY PERSON ACQUAINTED WITH POLITICAL LIFE
KNOWS, DOOR TO DOOR CAMPAIGNING IS ONE OF THE MOST ACCEPTED TECHNIQUES
OF SEEKING POPULAR SUPPORT, WHILE THE CIRCULATION OF NOMINATING PAPERS
WOULD BE GREATLY HANDICAPPED IF THEY COULD NOT BE TAKEN TO THE CITIZENS
IN THEIR HOMES.  FN9  DOOR TO DOOR DISTRIBUTION OF CIRCULARS IS
ESSENTIAL TO THE POORLY FINANCED CAUSES OF LITTLE PEOPLE. 

FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION TO EVERY CITIZEN WHEREVER HE
DESIRES TO RECEIVE IT IS SO CLEARLY VITAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF A FREE
SOCIETY THAT, PUTTING ASIDE REASONABLE POLICE AND HEALTH REGULATIONS OF
TIME AND MANNER OF DISTRIBUTION, IT MUST BE FULLY PRESERVED.  THE
DANGERS OF DISTRIBUTION CAN SO EASILY BE CONTROLLED BY TRADITIONAL
LEGAL METHODS, LEAVING TO EACH HOUSEHOLDER THE FULL RIGHT TO DECIDE
WHETHER HE WILL RECEIVE STRANGERS AS VISITORS, THAT STRINGENT
PROHIBITION CAN SERVE NO PURPOSE BUT THAT FORBIDDEN BY THE
CONSTITUTION, THE NAKED RESTRICTION OF THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS. 

TRADITIONALLY THE AMERICAN LAW PUNISHES PERSONS WHO ENTER ONTO THE
PROPERTY OF ANOTHER AFTER HAVING BEEN WARNED BY THE OWNER TO KEEP OFF. 
GENERAL TRESPASS AFTER WARNING STATUTES EXIST IN AT LEAST TWENTY
STATES,  FN10  WHILE SIMILAR STATUTES OF NARROWER SCOPE ARE ON THE
BOOKS OF AT LEAST TWELVE STATES MORE.  FN11  WE KNOW OF NO STATE WHICH,
AS DOES THE STRUTHERS ORDINANCE IN EFFECT, MAKES A PERSON A CRIMINAL
TRESPASSER IF HE ENTERS THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER FOR AN INNOCENT PURPOSE
WITHOUT AN EXPLICIT COMMAND FROM THE OWNERS TO STAY AWAY.  FN12  THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS HAS PROPOSED A FORM OF
REGULATION TO ITS MEMBER CITIES  FN13  WHICH WOULD MAKE IT AN OFFENSE
FOR ANY PERSON TO RING THE BELL OF A HOUSEHOLDER WHO HAS APPROPRIATELY
INDICATED THAT HE IS UNWILLING TO BE DISTURBED.  THIS OR ANY SIMILAR
REGULATION LEAVES THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER DISTRIBUTERS OF LITERATURE
MAY LAWFULLY CALL AT A HOME WHERE IT BELONGS - WITH THE HOMEOWNER
HIMSELF.  A CITY CAN PUNISH THOSE WHO CALL AT A HOME IN DEFIANCE OF THE
PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED WILL OF THE OCCUPANT AND, IN ADDITION, CAN BY
IDENTIFICATION DEVICES CONTROL THE ABUSE OF THE PRIVILEGE BY CRIMINALS
POSING AS CANVASSERS.  FN14  IN ANY CASE, THE PROBLEM MUST BE WORKED
OUT BY EACH COMMUNITY FOR ITSELF WITH DUE RESPECT FOR THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THOSE DESIRING TO DISTRIBUTE LITERATURE AND
THOSE DESIRING TO RECEIVE IT, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO EXCLUDE
SUCH DISTRIBUTERS FROM THE HOME. 

THE STRUTHERS ORDINANCE DOES NOT SAFEGUARD THESE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  FOR THIS REASON, AND WHOLLY ASIDE FROM ANY OTHER POSSIBLE
DEFECTS, ON WHICH WE DO NOT PASS BUT WHICH ARE SUGGESTED IN OTHER
OPINIONS FILED IN THIS CASE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDINANCE IS INVALID
BECAUSE IN CONFLICT WITH THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS ORDINANCE WAS NOT DIRECTED SOLELY AT COMMERCIAL
ADVERTISING.  CF. VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN, 316 U.S. 52; GREEN RIVER V.
FULLER BRUSH CO., 65 F.2D 112.  COMPARE FOR POSSIBLE DIFFERENT RESULTS
UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS PRIOR V. WHITE, 132 FLA. 1, 180 SO. 347;
ORANGEBURG V. FARMER, 181 S.C. 143, 186 S.E. 783. 

FN2  THE APPELLANT'S JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS APPEALED TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO WHICH DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE STATED GROUND
THAT:  "NO DEBATABLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS INVOLVED."  139 OHIO
ST. 372, 40 N.E.2D 154.  WE AT FIRST DISMISSED THE APPEAL, THINKING
THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MEANT THAT NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
HAD BEEN PROPERLY RAISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OHIO PROCEDURE.  UPON
RECONSIDERATION WE CONCLUDED THAT, SINCE A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION HAD
BEEN PRESENTED IN THE LOWER STATE COURT, THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDER OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A DECISION UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 

FN3  "THE ONLY SECURITY OF ALL IS IN A FREE PRESS.  THE FORCE OF
PUBLIC OPINION CANNOT BE RESISTED, WHEN PERMITTED FREELY TO BE
EXPRESSED.  THE AGITATION IT PRODUCES MUST BE SUBMITTED TO. IT IS
NECESSARY TO KEEP THE WATERS PURE."  JEFFERSON TO LAFAYETTE, WRITINGS
OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, WASHINGTON ED., V. 7, P. 325. 

FN4  16TH CENSUS, "POPULATION - 2D SERIES - OHIO," 133, 151. 

FN5  FOR A DISCUSSION OF SUCH PRACTICES, SEE SODERMAN AND O'CONNELL,
MODERN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, CHAP. 13 AND CHAP. 20; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION LAW ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN, JULY, 1938; 20 PUBLIC
MANAGEMENT 83(AN ANALYSIS OF THE CRIMINAL RECORDS OF A GROUP OF
CANVASSERS IN WINNETKA, ILLINOIS).  SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, HAS RESTED
A CANVASSING ORDINANCE ON CRIME PREVENTION, IN RE HARTMANN, 25 CAL.
APP.2D 55, 76 P.2D 709, AND COURTS HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS ASPECT OF
THE PROBLEM IN DEALING WITH SUCH ORDINANCES.  ALLEN V. MCGOVERN, 12
N.J. MISC. 12, 13, 169 A. 345; DZIATKIEWICZ V. MAPLEWOOD, 115 N.J.L.
37, 178 A. 205. 

FN6  REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, AN
INTERDENOMINATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENGAGED IN COLPORTAGE SINCE 1841, HAVE
VISITED OVER TWENTY-FIVE MILLION FAMILIES.  ARTICLE ON "AMERICAN TRACT
SOCIETY," 1 ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA (1932 ED.)  566; ANNUAL REPORTS OF
THE AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY (E.G., THE 116TH REPORT, 1941, 37-38; 117TH
REPORT, 1942, PP. 37-38); BAIRD, RELIGION IN AMERICA (1856), 334-340. 

SEE ALSO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY.  JONES,
COLPORTAGE SKETCHES (1883); DWIGHT, THE CENTENNIAL HISTORY OF THE
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY (1916), 177-81, 293-95, 460; ANNUAL REPORTS OF
THE AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY (E.G., 126TH REPORT, 1942, PASSIM). 

FOR THE WORLD-WIDE COLPORTAGE ACTIVITIES OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN
BIBLE SOCIETY, SEE THE SOCIETY'S 137TH REPORT, 1941, PASSIM; FOR
WAYFARING MEN (1939), 31-78; RITSON, THE WORLD IS OUR PARISH (1939),
116-18. 

THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY MANY RELIGIOUS GROUPS.  SEE, E.G.,
BARNES, BARNES AND STEPHENSON, PIONEERS OF LIGHT (1924), 81-104;
STEVENS, THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS OF THE AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION
SOCIETY (1925), 30-32.  DURING THE FISCAL YEAR 1939-1940,
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY VISITED
52,832 FAMILIES.  MORE THAN SIX MILLION FAMILIES HAVE BEEN VISITED OVER
A ONE HUNDRED YEAR PERIOD.  ANNUAL OF NORTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION,
1940, 671, 673; YEAR BOOK OF THE NORTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION, 1942, 332
335.  SEE FOR THE PRACTICE OF OTHER RELIGIONS, STEWART, SHELDON JACKSON
(1908), 32; GOODYKOONTZ, HOME MISSIONS ON THE AMERICAN FRONTIER (1939),
120-122; KELLER, THE SECOND GREAT AWAKENING IN CONNECTICUT (1942), 117
121.    FN7  LORWIN AND FLEXNER, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, 352;
INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, HANDBOOK OF TRADE UNION
METHODS, 10; BROOKS, WHEN LABOR ORGANIZES, CHAP. 1("ORGANIZING A
UNION"). 

FN8  "WOMEN'S HANDBOOK," PP. 22 AND 63, A PUBLICATION OF THE WOMEN'S
HOME FRONT JOURNAL, APRIL, 1943, P. 1, A PUBLICATION OF THE SAME GROUP;
"A PROGRAM OF ACTION FOR CLUBS," P. 3, A PUBLICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY.  PRESUMABLY A CITIZEN OF STRUTHERS DISTRIBUTING TO
HOMES THE PAMPHLETS RECOMMENDED IN "A PROGRAM OF ACTION" WOULD VIOLATE
THE CITY'S ORDINANCE.    FN9  MERRIAM AND GOSNELL, THE AMERICAN PARTY
SYSTEM, 317(THE CANVASS); BRUCE, AMERICAN PARTIES AND POLITICS, 407;
OSTOGOSKII, DEMOCRACY, 153-155, 453; PIERSON, IN THE BRUSH,
142(POLITICS IN THE OLD SOUTHWEST); BARNES, THE ANTISLAVERY IMPULSE,
137-143(CIRCULATION OF ANTISLAVERY PETITIONS).  THE AMERICAN
POLITICIAN, ED. BY J.T. SALTER, 19, 235, 310, 339, AND THE AMERICAN
POLITICAL SCENE, ED. BY EDWARD LOGAN, 64, 150, INDICATE BY PASSING
REFERENCES TO PRACTICES IN MANY STATES THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DOOR TO
DOOR CANVASS IS A STAPLE OF POLITICAL LIFE. 

FOR ENCOURAGEMENT OF THIS PRACTICE, SEE HANDBOOK OF CLUB
ORGANIZATION, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S REPUBLICAN CLUBS (1942),
21; AND PRECINCT ORGANIZATION IN WAR TIME, A RECENT PUBLICATION OF THE
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. 

FN10  ALABAMA CODE (1940), TIT. 14, SEC. 426; CONNECTICUT GEN. STAT.
(1930), SEC. 6119; FLORIDA STAT. (1941), SEC. 821.01; GEORGIA CODE ANN.
(1938), SEC. 26-3002; ILLINOIS ANN. STAT. (SMITH-HURD, 1935), CH. 38,
SEC. 565; INDIANA STAT. (BURNS, 1934), SEC. 10-4506; MARYLAND ANN. CODE
(FLACK, 1939), ART. 27, SECS. 24, 286; MASSACHUSETTS ANN. LAWS (1933),
V. 9, CH. 266, SEC. 120; MISSISSIPPI CODE ANN. (1930), SEC. 1168;
NEBRASKA COMP. STAT. (1929), SECS. 76-807, 8; NEVADA COMP. LAWS (1929),
SEC. 10447; NORTH CAROLINA CODE (1943), SEC. 14-134; OHIO CODE ANN.
(THROCKMORTON, 1940), SEC. 12522; OKLAHOMA STAT. (1937), TIT. 21, SEC.
1835; OREGON COMP. LAWS ANN. (1940), SECS. 23-593, 4; PENNSYLVANIA ANN.
STAT. (PURDON, 1942 SUPP.), V. 18, SEC. 4954; SOUTH CAROLINA CODE
(1942), SEC. 1190; VIRGINIA CODE (1936), SEC. 4480A; WASHINGTON REV.
STAT. (REMINGTON, 1932), SEC. 2665; WYOMING REV. STAT. (1931), SEC. 32
337. 

FN11  ARKANSAS STAT. (POPE, 1937), SEC. 3181; CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
(DEERING, 1941), SECS. 602, 627; COLORADO STAT. ANN. (1935), V. 3, CH.
73, SEC. 118; KENTUCKY REV. STAT. (BALDWIN, 1942), SECS. 433.720,
433.490; LOUISIANA GEN. STAT. (DART, 1939), SEC. 9463; MAINE REV. STAT.
(1930), CH. 139, SEC. 22; MINNESOTA STAT. (1941), SEC. 621.57; MONTANA
REV. CODE ANN. (1935), SEC. 11482; NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC LAWS (1926),
CH. 380, SEC. 11; NEW JERSEY REV. STAT. (1937), TIT. 4, SEC. 17-2; NEW
YORK CONSOL.  LAWS ANN. (MCKINNEY, 1941), CONSERVATION LAW, SECS. 361
364; TEXAS STAT. (VERNON, 1936), P.C. ART. 1377. 

FN12  MUNICIPALITIES HAVE OCCASIONALLY MADE CANVASSERS TRESPASSERS
WITHOUT REQUIRING THAT THE HOUSEHOLDER GIVE AN EXPLICIT NOTICE, AS THE
INSTANT ORDINANCE TESTIFIES.  SEE E.G. PEOPLE V. BOHNKE, 287 N.Y. 154,
38 N.E.2D 478. 

FN13  MUNICIPALITIES AND THE LAW IN ACTION (1943), NATIONAL INSTITUTE
OF MUNICIPAL LAW OFFICERS, 373.  WE DO NOT, BY THIS REFERENCE, MEAN TO
EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE WISDOM OR VALIDITY OF THE PARTICULAR
PROPOSALS OF THE INSTITUTE. 

FN14  "NOTHING WE HAVE SAID IS INTENDED EVEN REMOTELY TO IMPLY THAT,
UNDER THE CLOAK OF RELIGION, PERSONS MAY, WITH IMPUNITY, COMMIT FRAUDS
UPON THE PUBLIC.  CERTAINLY PENAL LAWS ARE AVAILABLE TO PUNISH SUCH
CONDUCT.  EVEN THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION MAY BE AT SOME SLIGHT
INCONVENIENCE IN ORDER THAT THE STATE MAY PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM
INJURY.  WITHOUT DOUBT A STATE MAY PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM FRAUDULENT
SOLICITATION BY REQUIRING A STRANGER IN THE COMMUNITY, BEFORE
PERMITTING HIM PUBLICLY TO SOLICIT FUNDS FOR ANY PURPOSE, TO ESTABLISH
HIS IDENTITY AND HIS AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE CAUSE WHICH HE PURPORTS
TO REPRESENT."  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 306. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING: 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, BUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS AND THE
OTHER CASES INVOLVING JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DECIDED TODAY, MOVES ME TO
ADD THIS BRIEF STATEMENT. 

I BELIEVE THAT NOTHING ENJOYS A HIGHER ESTATE IN OUR SOCIETY THAN THE
RIGHT GIVEN BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS FREELY TO PRACTICE
AND PROCLAIM ONE'S RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.  CF. JONES V. OPELIKA, 316
U.S. 584 AT 621.  THE RIGHT EXTENDS TO THE AGGRESSIVE AND DISPUTATIOUS
AS WELL AS TO THE MEEK AND ACQUIESCENT.  THE LESSON OF EXPERIENCE IS
THAT - WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME AND THE INTERCHANGE OF IDEAS -
ORGANIZATIONS, ONCE TURBULENT, PERFERVID AND INTOLERANT IN THEIR
ORIGIN, MELLOW INTO TOLERANCE AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE COMMUNITY, OR ELSE
SINK INTO OBLIVION.  RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES ARE OFTEN SHARP AND PLEADERS
AT TIMES RESORT "TO EXAGGERATION, TO VILIFICATION OF MEN WHO HAVE BEEN,
OR ARE, PROMINENT IN CHURCH OR STATE, AND EVEN TO FALSE STATEMENT.  BUT
THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION HAVE ORDAINED IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY, THAT,
IN SPITE OF THE PROBABILITY OF EXCESSES AND ABUSES, THESE LIBERTIES
ARE, IN THE LONG VIEW, ESSENTIAL TO ENLIGHTENED OPINION AND RIGHT
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE CITIZENS OF A DEMOCRACY."  CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 310.  IF A RELIGIOUS BELIEF HAS SUBSTANCE,
IT CAN SURVIVE CRITICISM, HEATED AND ABUSIVE THOUGH IT MAY BE, WITH THE
AID OF TRUTH AND REASON ALONE.  BY THE SAME METHOD, THOSE WHO FOLLOW
FALSE PROPHETS ARE EXPOSED.  REPRESSION HAS NO PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY. 
IT IS OUR PROUD ACHIEVEMENT TO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT UNITY AND
STRENGTH ARE BEST ACCOMPLISHED, NOT BY ENFORCED ORTHODOXY OF VIEWS, BUT
BY DIVERSITY OF OPINION THROUGH THE FULLEST POSSIBLE MEASURE OF FREEDOM
OF CONSCIENCE AND THOUGHT. 

ALSO, FEW, IF ANY, BELIEVE MORE STRONGLY IN THE MAXIM, "A MAN'S HOME
IS HIS CASTLE," THAN I. CF. GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 129 AT
136.  IF THIS PRINCIPLE APPROACHES A COLLISION WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,
THERE SHOULD BE AN ACCOMMODATION, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, WHICH GIVES
APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION TO BOTH.  THAT IS, IF REGULATION SHOULD BE
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE SAFETY AND PRIVACY OF THE HOME, AN EFFORT
SHOULD BE MADE AT THE SAME TIME TO PRESERVE THE SUBSTANCE OF RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM. 

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN A
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY WHEN SHE WAS GOING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE IN THE CITY
OF STRUTHERS DISTRIBUTING CIRCULARS ADVERTISING A MEETING OF THOSE OF
HER BELIEF.  DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH CIRCULARS ON THE STREETS CANNOT BE
PROHIBITED.  JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413.  NOR CAN THEIR
DISTRIBUTION ON THE STREETS OR FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE BE CONDITIONED UPON
OBTAINING A LICENSE WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION OF
MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147; LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418, OR UPON PAYMENT OF
A LICENSE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF SO DOING.  MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
ANTE, P. 105; JONES V. OPELIKA, ANTE, P. 103.  PREACHING FROM HOUSE TO
HOUSE IS AN AGE-OLD METHOD OF PROSELYTING, AND IT MUST BE REMEMBERED
THAT "ONE IS NOT TO HAVE THE EXERCISE OF HIS LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION IN
APPROPRIATE PLACES ABRIDGED ON THE PLEA THAT IT MAY BE EXERCISED IN
SOME OTHER PLACE."  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA, P. 163. 

NO DOUBT THERE MAY BE RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS WHICH JUSTIFY
CONSIDERABLE REGULATION OF DOOR TO DOOR CANVASSING, EVEN FOR RELIGIOUS
PURPOSES,  - REGULATION AS TO TIME, NUMBER AND IDENTIFICATION OF
CANVASSERS, ETC., WHICH WILL PROTECT THE PRIVACY AND SAFETY OF THE HOME
AND YET PRESERVE THE SUBSTANCE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  AND, IF A
HOUSEHOLDER DOES NOT DESIRE VISITS FROM RELIGIOUS CANVASSERS, HE CAN
MAKE HIS WISHES KNOWN IN A SUITABLE FASHION.  THE FACT THAT SOME
REGULATION MAY BE PERMISSIBLE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FIRST
AMENDMENT MAY BE ABROGATED.  WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH A STATUTE
"NARROWLY DRAWN TO COVER THE PRECISE SITUATION" THAT CALLS FOR REMEDIAL
ACTION, THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 105; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AT 311.  AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURTS AND
APPLIED TO THE CASE AT BAR, THE STRUTHERS ORDINANCE PROHIBITS DOOR TO
DOOR CANVASSING OF ANY KIND, NO MATTER WHAT ITS CHARACTER AND PURPOSE
MAY BE, IF ATTENDED BY THE DISTRIBUTION OF WRITTEN OR PRINTED MATTER IN
THE FORM OF A CIRCULAR OR PAMPHLET.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS
OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION IS WARRANTED.  AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE
DISTRIBUTION OF CIRCULARS AND PAMPHLETS IS A RELATIVELY MINOR ASPECT OF
THE PROBLEM.  THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS WITH THE ACT OF CANVASSING AS A
SOURCE OF INCONVENIENCE AND ANNOYANCE TO HOUSEHOLDERS.  BUT IF THE CITY
CAN PROHIBIT CANVASSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTING RELIGIOUS
PAMPHLETS, IT CAN ALSO OUTLAW THE DOOR TO DOOR SOLICITATIONS OF
RELIGIOUS CHARITIES, OR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE HOLY MENDICANT WHO BEGS
ALMS FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE TO SERVE THE MATERIAL WANTS OF HIS FELLOWMEN
AND THUS OBTAIN SPIRITUAL COMFORT FOR HIS OWN SOUL. 

PROHIBITION MAY BE MORE CONVENIENT TO THE LAW MAKER, AND EASIER TO
FASHION THAN A REGULATORY MEASURE WHICH ADEQUATELY PROTECTS THE PEACE
AND PRIVACY OF THE HOME WITHOUT SUPPRESSING LEGITIMATE RELIGIOUS
ACTIVITIES.  BUT THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY A REPRESSIVE ENACTMENT LIKE THE
ONE NOW BEFORE US.  CF. SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA, P. 164.  FREEDOM OF
RELIGION HAS A HIGHER DIGNITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THAN MUNICIPAL OR
PERSONAL CONVENIENCE.  IN THESE DAYS, FREE MEN HAVE NO LOFTIER
RESPONSIBILITY THAN THE PRESERVATION OF THAT FREEDOM.  A NATION
DEDICATED TO THAT IDEAL WILL NOT SUFFER BUT WILL PROSPER IN ITS
OBSERVANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION, FRESH VINDICATION IS GIVEN TO THE
PROPHETIC WISDOM OF THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN CASTING IT IN
TERMS SO BROAD THAT IT HAS ADAPTABLE VITALITY FOR THE DRASTIC CHANGES
IN OUR SOCIETY WHICH THEY KNEW TO BE INEVITABLE, EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD
NOT FORESEE THEM.  THUS IT HAS COME TO BE THAT THE TRANSFORMING
CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THE PERVASIVE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF LIFE
FIND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE APPROPRIATE, FOR INSTANCE, FOR NATIONAL
REGULATION OF AN AIRCRAFT FLIGHT WHOLLY WITHIN A SINGLE STATE.  SUCH
EXERTION OF POWER BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OVER WHAT MIGHT SEEM A
PURELY LOCAL TRANSACTION WOULD, AS A MATTER OF ABSTRACT LAW, HAVE BEEN
AS UNIMAGINABLE TO MARSHALL AS TO JEFFERSON, PRECISELY BECAUSE NEITHER
COULD HAVE FORESEEN THE PRESENT CONQUEST OF THE AIR BY MAN.  BUT LAW,
WHETHER DERIVED FROM ACTS OF CONGRESS OR THE CONSTITUTION, IS NOT AN
ABSTRACTION.  THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE APPLIED IN DISREGARD OF THE
EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH MEN LIVE AND MOVE AND HAVE THEIR
BEING.  THEREFORE, NEITHER THE FIRST NOR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS TO
BE TREATED BY JUDGES AS THOUGH IT WERE A MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTION, AN
ABSOLUTE HAVING NO RELATION TO THE LIVES OF MEN. 

THE HABITS AND SECURITY OF LIFE IN SPARSELY SETTLED RURAL
COMMUNITIES, OR EVEN IN THOSE FEW CITIES WHICH A HUNDRED AND FIFTY
YEARS AGO HAD A POPULATION OF A FEW THOUSAND, CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS
OF JUDGMENT FOR DETERMINING THE AREA OF ALLOWABLE SELF-PROTECTION BY
PRESENT-DAY INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITIES.  THE LACK OF PRIVACY AND THE
HAZARDS TO PEACE OF MIND AND BODY CAUSED BY PEOPLE LIVING NOT IN
INDIVIDUAL HOUSES BUT CROWDED TOGETHER IN LARGE HUMAN BEEHIVES, AS THEY
SO WIDELY DO, ARE FACTS OF MODERN LIVING WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED. 

CONCEDEDLY, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID
NOT ABROGATE THE POWER OF THE STATES TO RECOGNIZE THAT HOMES ARE
SANCTUARIES FROM INTRUSIONS UPON PRIVACY AND OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR
LEADING LIVES OF HEALTH AND SAFETY.  DOOR-KNOCKING AND BELL-RINGING BY
PROFESSED PEDDLERS OF THINGS OR IDEAS MAY THEREFORE BE CONFINED WITHIN
SPECIFIED HOURS AND OTHERWISE CIRCUMSCRIBED SO AS NOT TO SANCTIFY THE
RIGHTS OF THESE PEDDLERS IN DISREGARD OF THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WITHIN
DOORS.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS ALSO MADE THAT THE CITY OF STRUTHERS, THE
PARTICULAR ORDINANCE OF WHICH PRESENTS THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE BEFORE US,
IS ONE OF THOSE INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITIES THE RESIDENTS OF WHICH HAVE A
WORKING DAY CONSISTING OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, SO THAT FOR SOME PORTIONS
OF THE CITY'S INHABITANTS OPPORTUNITIES FOR SLEEP AND REFRESHMENT
REQUIRE DURING DAY AS WELL AS NIGHT WHATEVER PEACE AND QUIET IS
OBTAINABLE IN A MODERN INDUSTRIAL TOWN.  IT IS FURTHER RECOGNIZED THAT
THE MODERN MULTIPLE RESIDENCES GIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PSEUDO-CANVASSERS
TO PLY EVIL TRADES - DANGERS TO THE COMMUNITY PURSUED BY THE FEW BUT
FAR-REACHING IN THEIR SUCCESS AND IN THE FEARS THEY AROUSE. 

THE COURT'S OPINION APPARENTLY RECOGNIZES THESE FACTORS AS LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS FOR REGULATION BY THOSE WHOSE BUSINESS IT IS TO LEGISLATE. 
BUT IT FINDS, IF I INTERPRET CORRECTLY WHAT IS WANTING IN EXPLICITNESS,
THAT INSTEAD OF AIMING AT THE PROTECTION OF HOUSEHOLDERS FROM INTRUSION
UPON NEEDED HOURS OF REST OR FROM THOSE PLYING EVIL TRADES, WHETHER
PRETENDING THE SALE OF POTS AND PANS OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF LEAFLETS,
THE ORDINANCE BEFORE US MERELY PENALIZES THE DISTRIBUTION OF
"LITERATURE."  TO BE SURE, THE PROHIBITION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS WITHIN
A SMALL CIRCLE.  BUT IT IS NOT OUR BUSINESS TO REQUIRE LEGISLATURES TO
EXTEND THE AREA OF PROHIBITION OR REGULATION BEYOND THE DEMANDS OF
REVEALED ABUSES.  AND THE GREATEST LEEWAY MUST BE GIVEN TO THE
LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT OF WHAT THOSE DEMANDS ARE.  THE RIGHT TO LEGISLATE
IMPLIES THE RIGHT TO CLASSIFY.  WE SHOULD NOT, HOWEVER UNWITTINGLY,
SLIP INTO THE JUDGMENT SEAT OF LEGISLATURES.  I MYSELF CANNOT SAY THAT
THOSE IN WHOSE KEEPING IS THE PEACE OF THE CITY OF STRUTHERS AND THE
RIGHT OF PRIVACY OF ITS HOME DWELLERS COULD NOT SINGLE OUT, IN
CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHICH THEY MAY HAVE KNOWLEDGE AND I CERTAINLY HAVE
NOT, THIS CLASS OF CANVASSERS AS THE PARTICULAR SOURCE OF MISCHIEF. 
THE COURT'S OPINION LEAVES ONE IN DOUBT WHETHER PROHIBITION OF ALL BELL
RINGING AND DOOR-KNOCKING WOULD BE DEEMED AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF SPEECH.  IT WOULD BE FANTASTIC TO SUGGEST
THAT A CITY HAS POWER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF MODERN URBAN LIFE, TO
FORBID HOUSE-TO-HOUSE CANVASSING GENERALLY, BUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION
PROHIBITS THE INCLUSION IN SUCH PROHIBITION OF DOOR-TO-DOOR VENDING OF
PHYLACTERIES OR ROSARIES OR OF ANY PRINTED MATTER.  IF THE SCOPE OF THE
COURT'S OPINION, APART FROM SOME OF ITS GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, IS THAT
THIS ORDINANCE IS AN INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DISTRIBUTORS OF
WHAT IS POLITELY CALLED LITERATURE, AND THEREFORE IS DEEMED AN
UNJUSTIFIABLE PROHIBITION OF FREEDOM OF UTTERANCE, THE DECISION LEAVES
UNTOUCHED WHAT ARE IN MY VIEW CONTROLLING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, IF
I AM CORRECT IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS HELD, AND I WOULD NOT BE
DISPOSED TO DISAGREE WITH SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORDINANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

WHILE I APPRECIATE THE NECESSITY OF WATCHFULNESS TO AVOID ABRIDGMENTS
OF OUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO DISCOVER IN
THIS TRIVIAL TOWN POLICE REGULATION A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT.  NO IDEAS ARE BEING SUPPRESSED.  NO CENSORSHIP IS INVOLVED. 
THE FREEDOM TO TEACH OR PREACH BY WORD OR BOOK IS UNABRIDGED, SAVE ONLY
THE RIGHT TO CALL A HOUSEHOLDER TO THE DOOR OF HIS HOUSE TO RECEIVE THE
SUMMONER'S MESSAGE.  I CANNOT EXPAND THIS REGULATION TO A VIOLATION OF
THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE PUBLICATIONS IS OBVIOUSLY A PART OF THE GENERAL
FREEDOM GUARANTEED THE EXPRESSION OF IDEAS BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  IT
IS TRITE TO SAY THAT THIS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS NOT UNLIMITED. 
OBSCENITY, DISLOYALTY AND PROVOCATIVES DO NOT COME WITHIN ITS
PROTECTION.  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 712, 716; SCHENCK V.
UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 51; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S.
568, 572, 574.  ALL AGREE THAT THERE MAY BE REASONABLE REGULATION OF
THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296,
304.  ONE CANNOT THROW DODGERS "BROADCAST IN THE STREETS."  SCHNEIDER
V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161. 

THE ORDINANCE FORBIDS "ANY PERSON DISTRIBUTING HANDBILLS, CIRCULARS
OR OTHER ADVERTISEMENTS TO RING THE DOOR BELL, SOUND THE DOOR KNOCKER,
OR OTHERWISE SUMMON THE INMATE OR INMATES  ...  TO THE DOOR" TO RECEIVE
THE ADVERTISEMENT.  THE COURT'S OPINION SPEAKS OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
THE DISTRIBUTION OF "LITERATURE."  THE PRECISE MATTER DISTRIBUTED
APPEARS IN THE FOOTNOTE.  FN1  I DO NOT READ THE ORDINANCE AS
PROHIBITING THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE NOR CAN I APPRAISE THE
DODGER DISTRIBUTED AS FALLING INTO THAT CLASSIFICATION.  IF THE
ORDINANCE, IN MY VIEW, DID PROHIBIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE,
WHILE PERMITTING ALL OTHER CANVASSING, I SHOULD BELIEVE SUCH AN
ORDINANCE DISCRIMINATORY.  THIS ORDINANCE IS DIFFERENT.  THE MOST, IT
SEEMS TO ME, THAT CAN BE OR HAS BEEN READ INTO THE ORDINANCE IS A
PROHIBITION OF FREE DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATTER BY SUMMONING INMATES
TO THEIR DOORS.  THERE ARE EXCELLENT REASONS TO SUPPORT A DETERMINATION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT SUCH DISTRIBUTORS MAY NOT DISTURB HOUSEHOLDERS
WHILE PERMITTING SALESMEN AND OTHERS TO CALL THEM TO THE DOOR. 
PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE MAY WELL CONVINCE THE COUNCIL THAT IRRITATIONS
ARISE FREQUENTLY FROM THIS METHOD OF ADVERTISING.  THE CLASSIFICATION
IS CERTAINLY NOT DISCRIMINATORY.  FN2 

IF THE CITIZENS OF STRUTHERS DESIRE TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE
ANNOYANCE OF BEING CALLED TO THEIR DOORS TO RECEIVE PRINTED MATTER,
THERE IS TO MY MIND NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WHICH FORBIDS THEIR
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL FROM MODIFYING THE RULE THAT ANYONE MAY SOUND A CALL
FOR THE HOUSEHOLDER TO ATTEND HIS DOOR.  IT IS THE COUNCIL WHICH IS
ENTRUSTED BY THE CITIZENS WITH THE POWER TO DECLARE AND ABATE THE
MYRIAD NUISANCES WHICH DEVELOP IN A COMMUNITY.  ITS DETERMINATION
SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE BY THIS COURT UNLESS CLEARLY AND PATENTLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

THE ANTIQUITY AND PREVALENCE OF COLPORTAGE ARE RELIED ON TO SUPPORT
THE COURT'S DECISION.  BUT THE PRACTICE HAS PERSISTED BECAUSE THE
HOUSEHOLDER WAS ACQUIESCENT.  IT CAN HARDLY BE THOUGHT, HOWEVER, THAT
LONG INDULGENCE OF A PRACTICE WHICH MANY OR ALL CITIZENS HAVE WELCOMED
OR TOLERATED CREATES A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ITS CONTINUANCE. 
CHANGING CONDITIONS HAVE BEGOTTEN MODIFICATION BY LAW OF MANY PRACTICES
ONCE DEEMED A PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S LIBERTY. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT COMPEL A PEDESTRIAN TO PAUSE ON THE
STREET TO LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT SUPPORTING ANOTHER'S VIEWS OF RELIGION
OR POLITICS.  ONCE THE DOOR IS OPENED, THE VISITOR MAY NOT INSERT A
FOOT AND INSIST ON A HEARING.  HE CERTAINLY MAY NOT ENTER THE HOME.  TO
KNOCK OR RING, HOWEVER, COMES CLOSE TO SUCH INVASIONS.  TO PROHIBIT
SUCH A CALL LEAVES OPEN DISTRIBUTION OF THE NOTICE ON THE STREET OR AT
THE HOME WITHOUT SIGNAL TO ANNOUNCE ITS DEPOSIT.  SUCH ASSURANCE OF
PRIVACY FALLS FAR SHORT OF AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  THE
ORDINANCE SEEMS A FAIR ADJUSTMENT OF THE PRIVILEGE OF DISTRIBUTORS AND
THE RIGHTS OF HOUSEHOLDERS. 

FN1  "RELIGION AS A WORLD REMEDY, THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF. 
HEAR JUDGE RUTHERFORD, SUNDAY, JULY 28, 4 P.M., E.S.T. FREE.  ALL
PERSONS OF GOODWILL WELCOME, FREE.  COLUMBUS COLISEUM, OHIO STATE FAIR
GROUNDS."  (ON ONE SIDE.) 

"1940'S EVENT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO YOU.  WHAT IS IT?  THE
THEOCRATIC CONVENTION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  FIVE DAYS - JULY 24-28 -
THIRTY CITIES.  ALL LOVERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS - WELCOME.  THE STRANGE
FATE THREATENING ALL 'CHRISTENDOM' MAKES IT IMPERATIVE THAT YOU COME
AND HEAR THE PUBLIC ADDRESS ON RELIGION AS A WORLD REMEDY, THE EVIDENCE
IN SUPPORT THEREOF, BY JUDGE RUTHERFORD AT THE COLISEUM OF THE OHIO
STATE FAIR GROUNDS, COLUMBUS, OHIO, SUNDAY, JULY 28, AT 4 P.M., E.S.T.
'HE THAT HATH AN EAR TO HEAR' WILL COME TO ONE OF THE AUDITORIUMS OF
THE CONVENTION CITIES LISTED BELOW, TIED IN WITH COLUMBUS BY DIRECT
WIRE.  SOME OF THE 30 CITIES ARE (21 ARE LISTED).  FOR DETAILED
INFORMATION CONCERNING THESE CONVENTIONS WRITE WATCHTOWER CONVENTION
COMMITTEE, 117 ADAMS ST., BROOKLYN, N.Y."  (ON THE OTHER SIDE.) 

FN2  KEOKEE COKE CO. V. TAYLOR, 234 U.S. 224; GERMAN ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. V. KANSAS, 233 U.S. 389; HALL V. GEIGER-JONES CO., 242
U.S. 539; MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT, 309 U.S. 270; LABAR BOARD V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 46; CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL
CO., 301 U.S. 495, 509, 512. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 

SEE ALSO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, POST, P. 166. 
..END :




















DOUGLAS V. JEANNETTE, 319 U.S. 157 


NO. 450.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 11, 1943.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1943.  - 130 F.2D
652, AFFIRMED. 


1.  MEMBERS OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, IN THEIR OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF
OF ALL OTHER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE STATE AND IN ADJOINING STATES,
BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO RESTRAIN A CITY AND ITS
MAYOR FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THEM AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE
SOLICITATION OF ORDERS FOR MERCHANDISE WITHOUT FIRST PROCURING A
LICENSE FROM THE CITY AUTHORITIES AND PAYING A LICENSE TAX.  THE
COMPLAINT, PRAYING EQUITABLE RELIEF, ALLEGED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE
DEFENDANTS, BY ARREST, DETENTION AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF THE
COMPLAINANTS AND OTHER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, HAD SUBJECTED THEM TO
DEPRIVATION OF THEIR RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS AND RELIGION;
AND THAT THE DEFENDANTS THREATEN TO CONTINUE TO ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE
BY ARRESTS AND PROSECUTIONS.  THE SUIT WAS NOT BASED NOR MAINTAINABLE
ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, BUT WAS ALLEGED TO ARISE
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871.  HELD: 

(1)  THE SUIT WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER
28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(14) IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.  P.
161. 

(2)  THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION
SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO ENJOIN THE THREATENED CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN
THE STATE COURTS.  P. 165. 

2.  THE GUARANTIES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE PROTECTED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST ENCROACHMENT BY THE STATES.  P. 162. 

3.  ALLEGATIONS OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT
OF FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH
DEPRIVATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH, AND
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, WHENEVER IT
APPEARS THAT THE ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHT IS EFFECTED UNDER COLOR OF A
STATE STATUTE OR ORDINANCE.  P. 162. 

4.  THOUGH A FEDERAL COURT HAVE POWER AS SUCH TO DECIDE THE CAUSE, IT
SHOULD RAISE SUA SPONTE THE QUESTION OF WANT OF EQUITY JURISDICTION
WHERE ITS POWERS ARE INVOKED TO INTERFERE BY INJUNCTION WITH THREATENED
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN A STATE COURT.  P. 162. 

5.  IT IS THE POLICY OF CONGRESS GENERALLY TO LEAVE TO THE STATE
COURTS THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES ARISING UNDER STATE LAWS, SUBJECT TO
REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF ANY FEDERAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED, AND THE FEDERAL
COURTS SHOULD CONFORM TO THIS POLICY BY REFUSING TO INTERFERE WITH OR
EMBARRASS THREATENED PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS SAVE IN THOSE
EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHICH CALL FOR THE INTERPOSITION OF A COURT OF EQUITY
TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY WHICH IS CLEAR AND IMMINENT; AND
EQUITABLE REMEDIES INFRINGING THIS INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATES - THOUGH
THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE BE GIVEN - SHOULD BE WITHHELD IF SOUGHT ON SLIGHT
OR INCONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS.  P. 163. 

6.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN
THREATENED WITH ANY INJURY OTHER THAN THAT INCIDENTAL TO ANY CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION BROUGHT LAWFULLY AND IN GOOD FAITH; OR THAT A FEDERAL COURT
OF EQUITY COULD RIGHTLY AFFORD PETITIONERS ANY PROTECTION WHICH THEY
COULD NOT SECURE BY PROMPT TRIAL IN THE STATE COURTS AND APPEAL PURSUED
TO THIS COURT; OR THAT, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, ANTE, P. 105, THERE IS GROUND FOR SUPPOSING THAT, IN
ORDER TO SECURE FOR THE FUTURE THE COMPLAINANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
THE INTERVENTION OF A FEDERAL COURT WILL BE EITHER NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE.  P. 164. 

DOUGLAS ET AL. V. CITY OF JEANNETTE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 749, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE, 39
F.SUPP.  32, ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PETITIONERS OF A
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA TO RESTRAIN THREATENED CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF
THEM IN THE STATE COURTS BY RESPONDENTS, THE CITY OF JEANNETTE (A
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION) AND ITS MAYOR, FOR VIOLATION OF A
CITY ORDINANCE WHICH PROHIBITS THE SOLICITATION OF ORDERS FOR
MERCHANDISE WITHOUT FIRST PROCURING A LICENSE FROM THE CITY AUTHORITIES
AND PAYING A LICENSE TAX.  THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED IS HELD TO BE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABRIDGMENT OF FREE SPEECH, PRESS AND RELIGION IN
MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, ANTE, P. 105.  THE QUESTIONS DECISIVE OF THE
PRESENT CASE ARE WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAS STATUTORY JURISDICTION
AS A FEDERAL COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT, AND WHETHER PETITIONERS HAVE
BY THEIR PLEADINGS AND PROOF ESTABLISHED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY. 

THE CASE IS NOT ONE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, SINCE SOME OF THE
PETITIONERS, LIKE RESPONDENTS, ARE CITIZENS OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THE BILL
OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS ARE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES,
PERSONS WHO ENTERTAIN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS
PRACTICES WHICH IT DESCRIBES; THAT THE SUIT IS A CLASS SUIT BROUGHT IN
PETITIONERS' OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF ALL OTHER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
IN PENNSYLVANIA AND ADJOINING STATES TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENTS FROM
ENFORCING ORDINANCE NO. 60 OF THE CITY OF JEANNETTE AGAINST PETITIONERS
AND ALL OTHER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BECAUSE, AS APPLIED TO THEM, THE
ORDINANCE ABRIDGES THE GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, AND
RELIGION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES BY THE
FOURTEENTH. 

THE SUIT IS ALLEGED TO ARISE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871.  THE COMPLAINT
SETS UP THAT IN THE PRACTICE OF THEIR RELIGION AND IN CONFORMITY TO THE
TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MAKE, AND FOR MANY YEARS
HAVE MADE, HOUSE TO HOUSE DISTRIBUTION, AMONG THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF
JEANNETTE, OF CERTAIN PRINTED BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS SETTING FORTH THE
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE. 
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE NO. 60 PROVIDES:  "THAT ALL PERSONS CANVASSING FOR
OR SOLICITING WITHIN SAID BOROUGH (NOW CITY OF JEANNETTE), ORDERS FOR
GOODS  ...  WARES OR MERCHANDISE OF ANY KIND, OR PERSONS DELIVERING
SUCH ARTICLES UNDER ORDERS SO OBTAINED OR SOLICITED" WITHOUT FIRST
PROCURING A LICENSE AND PAYING PRESCRIBED LICENSE TAXES, SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING $100 AND COSTS, OR IF THE FINE IS NOT
PAID, BY IMPRISONMENT FROM FIVE TO THIRTY DAYS.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT IN
APRIL, 1939, RESPONDENTS ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED PETITIONERS AND OTHER
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF THEIR
DESCRIBED ACTIVITIES IN DISTRIBUTING RELIGIOUS LITERATURE, WITHOUT THE
PERMITS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE, AND THAT RESPONDENTS THREATEN TO
CONTINUE TO ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE BY ARRESTS AND PROSECUTIONS - ALL IN
VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS' CIVIL RIGHTS. 

NO PRELIMINARY OR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED BUT THE
DISTRICT COURT, AFTER A TRIAL, HELD THE ORDINANCE INVALID, 39 F.SUPP. 
32, ON THE AUTHORITY OF REID V. BOROUGH OF BROOKVILLE, 39 F.SUPP.  30,
IN THAT IT DEPRIVED PETITIONERS OF THE RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF PRESS AND
RELIGION GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  THE COURT
ENJOINED RESPONDENTS FROM ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE AGAINST PETITIONERS
AND OTHER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT SUSTAINED THE JURISDICTION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT REVERSED ON THE MERITS, 130 F.2D 652, ON THE
AUTHORITY OF JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584.  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED ON
THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE A VIOLATION
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SO AS TO ENTITLE
PETITIONERS TO RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 318 U.S. 749, AND SET THE CASE FOR ARGUMENT WITH MURDOCK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA. 

WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION AS A
FEDERAL COURT TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCE, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION OR PROOF
THAT THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDED $3,000.  BY 8 U.S.C. SEC.
43(DERIVED FROM SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF APRIL 20, 1871, 17
STAT. 13, CONTINUED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE AS R.S. SEC. 1979) IT IS
PROVIDED THAT "EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR
CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER
PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN
EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS." 

AS WE HELD IN HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 507-14, 527-32, THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION BY 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(14) OVER SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
WITHOUT THE ALLEGATION OR PROOF OF ANY JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  NOT ONLY
DO PETITIONERS ALLEGE THAT THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, BUT THEIR ALLEGATIONS PLAINLY SET OUT AN INFRINGEMENT OF
ITS PROVISIONS.  IN SUBSTANCE, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT RESPONDENTS,
PROCEEDING UNDER THE CHALLENGED ORDINANCE, BY ARREST, DETENTION AND BY
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS OF PETITIONERS AND OTHER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, HAD
SUBJECTED THEM TO DEPRIVATION OF THEIR RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
PRESS AND RELIGION SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE COMPLAINT SEEKS
EQUITABLE RELIEF FROM SUCH DEPRIVATION IN THE FUTURE. 

THE PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION ON WHICH PETITIONERS
RELY IS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, VIOLATION
OF WHICH THE DISSENTING JUDGE BELOW THOUGHT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY
ALLEGED TO ESTABLISH A BASIS FOR RELIEF UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. 
BUT WE THINK THIS OVERLOOKS THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, AND RELIGION
GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT HAS MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES THE GUARANTIES OF THE
FIRST.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160, N. 8 AND CASES CITED;
JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413.  ALLEGATIONS OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW
DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE
SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH DEPRIVATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH, AND TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, WHENEVER IT APPEARS THAT THE ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHT
IS EFFECTED UNDER COLOR OF A STATE STATUTE OR ORDINANCE.  IT FOLLOWS
THAT THE BILL, WHICH AMPLY ALLEGES THE FACTS RELIED ON TO SHOW THE
ABRIDGMENT BY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ORDINANCE, SETS OUT A CASE
OR CONTROVERSY WHICH IS WITHIN THE ADJUDICATORY POWER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AS A FEDERAL
COURT, TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THE CASE, PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE
RELIEF PRAYED ONLY IF THEY ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY.  WANT
OF EQUITY JURISDICTION, WHILE NOT GOING TO THE POWER OF THE COURT TO
DECIDE THE CAUSE, DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN INS. ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 69;
PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 181-82, MAY NEVERTHELESS, IN
THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, BE OBJECTED TO ON ITS OWN MOTION.  TWIST
V. PRAIRIE OIL CO., 274 U.S. 684, 690; PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, SUPRA,
185.  ESPECIALLY SHOULD IT DO SO WHERE ITS POWERS ARE INVOKED TO
INTERFERE BY INJUNCTION WITH THREATENED CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN A
STATE COURT. 

THE POWER RESERVED TO THE STATES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSIES IN THEIR COURTS MAY BE
RESTRICTED BY FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS ONLY IN OBEDIENCE TO
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION IN CONFORMITY TO THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  CONGRESS, BY ITS LEGISLATION, HAS ADOPTED THE POLICY,
WITH CERTAIN WELL DEFINED STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS, OF LEAVING GENERALLY TO
THE STATE COURTS THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES ARISING UNDER STATE LAWS,
SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF ANY FEDERAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 
HENCE, COURTS OF EQUITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWERS
SHOULD CONFORM TO THIS POLICY BY REFUSING TO INTERFERE WITH OR
EMBARRASS THREATENED PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS SAVE IN THOSE
EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHICH CALL FOR THE INTERPOSITION OF A COURT OF EQUITY
TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY WHICH IS CLEAR AND IMMINENT; AND
EQUITABLE REMEDIES INFRINGING THIS INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATES - THOUGH
THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE BE GIVEN - SHOULD BE WITHHELD IF SOUGHT ON SLIGHT
OR INCONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS.  DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN INS. ASSN., SUPRA,
73; MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525-26; CF. UNITED STATES EX
REL. KENNEDY V. TYLER, 269 U.S. 13; MASSACHUSETTS STATE GRANGE V.
BENTON, 272 U.S. 525. 

IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE THAT COURTS OF EQUITY DO NOT ORDINARILY
RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.  NO PERSON IS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION
IN GOOD FAITH FOR HIS ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTS.  ITS IMMINENCE, EVEN
THOUGH ALLEGED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES, IS NOT
A GROUND FOR EQUITY RELIEF SINCE THE LAWFULNESS OR CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE STATUTE OR ORDINANCE ON WHICH THE PROSECUTION IS BASED MAY BE
DETERMINED AS READILY IN THE CRIMINAL CASE AS IN A SUIT FOR AN
INJUNCTION.  DAVIS & FARNUM MFG. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 189 U.S. 207;
FENNER V. BOYKIN, 271 U.S. 240.  WHERE THE THREATENED PROSECUTION IS BY
STATE OFFICERS FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF A STATE LAW, THE STATE COURTS
ARE THE FINAL ARBITERS OF ITS MEANING AND APPLICATION, SUBJECT ONLY TO
REVIEW BY THIS COURT ON FEDERAL GROUNDS APPROPRIATELY ASSERTED.  HENCE
THE ARREST BY THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE PROCESSES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW
WITHIN THE STATES, AND THE DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW BY A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY, ARE TO BE
SUPPORTED ONLY ON A SHOWING OF DANGER OF IRREPARABLE INJURY "BOTH GREAT
AND IMMEDIATE."  SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89, 95, AND
CASES CITED; BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CORP., 312 U.S. 45, 49, AND
CASES CITED; WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387; WILLIAMS V. MILLER, 317 U.S.
599. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS HAD PROSECUTED CERTAIN OF
PETITIONERS AND OTHER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES FOR DISTRIBUTING THE
LITERATURE DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT HAVING OBTAINED THE
LICENSE REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE, AND HAD DECLARED THEIR INTENTION
FURTHER TO ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE AGAINST PETITIONERS AND OTHER
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  BUT THE COURT MADE NO FINDING OF THREATENED
IRREPARABLE INJURY TO PETITIONERS OR OTHERS, AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
DECLARED INTENTION TO INSTITUTE OTHER PROSECUTIONS IS SUFFICIENT TO
ESTABLISH IRREPARABLE INJURY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

BEFORE THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BEGUN, CONVICTIONS HAD BEEN OBTAINED IN
THE STATE COURTS IN CASES NOS. 480-487, MURDOCK ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
SUPRA, WHICH WERE THEN PENDING ON APPEAL AND WHICH WERE BROUGHT TO THIS
COURT FOR REVIEW BY CERTIORARI CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE PRESENT
CASE.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN
THREATENED WITH ANY INJURY OTHER THAN THAT INCIDENTAL TO EVERY CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING BROUGHT LAWFULLY AND IN GOOD FAITH, OR THAT A FEDERAL COURT
OF EQUITY BY WITHDRAWING THE DETERMINATION OF GUILT FROM THE STATE
COURTS COULD RIGHTLY AFFORD PETITIONERS ANY PROTECTION WHICH THEY COULD
NOT SECURE BY PROMPT TRIAL AND APPEAL PURSUED TO THIS COURT.  IN THESE
RESPECTS THE CASE DIFFERS FROM HAGUE V. C.I.O., SUPRA, 501-02, WHERE
LOCAL OFFICIALS FORCIBLY BROKE UP MEETINGS OF THE COMPLAINANTS AND IN
MANY INSTANCES FORCIBLY DEPORTED THEM FROM THE STATE WITHOUT TRIAL. 

THERE IS NO ALLEGATION HERE AND NO PROOF THAT RESPONDENTS WOULD NOT,
NOR CAN WE ASSUME THAT THEY WILL NOT, ACQUIESCE IN THE DECISION OF THIS
COURT HOLDING THE CHALLENGED ORDINANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO
PETITIONERS.  IF THE ORDINANCE HAD BEEN HELD CONSTITUTIONAL,
PETITIONERS COULD NOT COMPLAIN OF PENALTIES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN BUT
THE CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR VIOLATION OF A VALID STATE LAW. 

NOR IS IT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE EXERCISE OF THE EQUITY JURISDICTION
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS MEMBERS OF A
CLASS THREATENED WITH PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.  IN
GENERAL THE JURISDICTION OF EQUITY TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF CIVIL SUITS
AT LAW IS RESTRICTED TO THOSE CASES WHERE THERE WOULD OTHERWISE BE SOME
NECESSITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF NUMEROUS SUITS BETWEEN THE SAME
PARTIES INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUES OF LAW OR FACT.  IT DOES NOT
ORDINARILY EXTEND TO CASES WHERE THERE ARE NUMEROUS PARTIES AND THE
ISSUES BETWEEN THEM AND THE ADVERSE PARTY - HERE THE STATE - ARE NOT
NECESSARILY IDENTICAL.  MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, SUPRA, 529-30, AND CASES
CITED.  FAR LESS SHOULD A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY ATTEMPT TO ENVISAGE
IN ADVANCE ALL THE DIVERSE ISSUES WHICH COULD ENGAGE THE ATTENTION OF
STATE COURTS IN PROSECUTIONS OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES FOR VIOLATIONS OF
THE PRESENT ORDINANCE, OR ASSUME TO DRAW TO A FEDERAL COURT THE
DETERMINATION OF THOSE ISSUES IN ADVANCE, BY A DECREE SAYING IN WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY ORDINANCE WILL
BE DEEMED TO ABRIDGE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION.    IN ANY EVENT,
AN INJUCTION LOOKS TO THE FUTURE.  TEXAS CO. V. BROWN, 258 U.S. 466,
474; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 182.  AND IN VIEW
OF THE DECISION RENDERED TODAY IN MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, WE
FIND NO GROUND FOR SUPPOSING THAT THE INTERVENTION OF A FEDERAL COURT,
IN ORDER TO SECURE PETITIONERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WILL BE EITHER
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. 

FOR THESE REASONS, ESTABLISHING THE WANT OF EQUITY IN THE CAUSE, WE
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTING THAT THE
BILL BE DISMISSED.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT IN THIS CASE AND
DISSENTING IN NOS. 480-487, MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, ANTE, P. 105, AND
NO. 238, MARTIN V. STRUTHERS, ANTE, P. 141: 

EXCEPT THE CASE OF DOUGLAS ET AL. V. JEANNETTE, ALL OF THESE CASES
ARE DECIDED UPON THE RECORD OF ISOLATED PROSECUTIONS IN WHICH
INFORMATION IS CONFINED TO A PARTICULAR ACT OF OFFENSE AND TO THE
BEHAVIOR OF AN INDIVIDUAL OFFENDER.  ONLY THE DOUGLAS RECORD GIVES A
COMPREHENSIVE STORY OF THE BROAD PLAN OF CAMPAIGN EMPLOYED BY JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES AND ITS FULL IMPACT ON A LIVING COMMUNITY.  BUT THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE ARE PASSED OVER AS IRRELEVANT TO THE THEORY ON WHICH THE
COURT WOULD DECIDE ITS PARTICULAR ISSUE.  UNLESS WE ARE TO REACH
JUDGMENTS AS DID PLATO'S MEN WHO WERE CHAINED IN A CAVE SO THAT THEY
SAW NOTHING BUT SHADOWS, WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE FACTS OF THE DOUGLAS
CASE AT LEAST AS AN HYPOTHESIS TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE CONCLUSIONS
IN THE OTHER CASES.  THIS RECORD SHOWS US SOMETHING OF THE STRINGS AS
WELL AS THE MARIONETTES.  IT REVEALS THE PROBLEM OF THOSE IN LOCAL
AUTHORITY WHEN THE RIGHT TO PROSELYTE COMES IN CONTACT WITH WHAT MANY
PEOPLE HAVE AN IDEA IS THEIR RIGHT TO BE LET ALONE.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SAYS FOR THE COURT IN DOUGLAS THAT "IN VIEW OF THE DECISION RENDERED
TODAY IN MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, WE FIND NO GROUND FOR
SUPPOSING THAT THE INTERVENTION OF A FEDERAL COURT, IN ORDER TO SECURE
PETITIONERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, WILL BE EITHER NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE," WHICH COULD HARDLY BE SAID IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
PRESENTED BY THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT SETTLED BY THE MURDOCK
CASE.  THE FACTS OF RECORD IN THE DOUGLAS CASE AND THEIR RELATION TO
THE FACTS OF THE OTHER CASES SEEM TO ME WORTH RECITAL AND CONSIDERATION
IF WE ARE REALISTICALLY TO WEIGH THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF RIGHTS IN
THE RELATED CASES TODAY DECIDED. 

FROM THE RECORD IN DOUGLAS WE LEARN: 

IN 1939, A "WATCH TOWER CAMPAIGN" WAS INSTITUTED BY JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES IN JEANNETTE, PENNSYLVANIA, AN INDUSTRIAL CITY OF SOME 16,000
INHABITANTS.  FN1  EACH HOME WAS VISITED, A BELL WAS RUNG OR THE DOOR
KNOCKED UPON, AND THE HOUSEHOLDER ADVISED THAT THE WITNESS HAD
IMPORTANT INFORMATION.  IF THE HOUSEHOLDER WOULD LISTEN, A RECORD WAS
PLAYED ON THE PHONOGRAPH.  ITS SUBJECT WAS "SNARE AND RACKET."  THE
FOLLOWING WORDS ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS CONTENTS:  "RELIGION IS WRONG
AND A SNARE BECAUSE IT DECEIVES THE PEOPLE, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT
ALL WHO FOLLOW RELIGION ARE WILLINGLY BAD.  RELIGION IS A RACKET
BECAUSE IT HAS LONG BEEN USED AND IS STILL USED TO EXTRACT MONEY FROM
THE PEOPLE UPON THE THEORY AND PROMISE THAT THE PAYING OVER OF MONEY TO
A PRIEST WILL SERVE TO RELIEVE THE PARTY PAYING FROM PUNISHMENT AFTER
DEATH AND FURTHER INSURE HIS SALVATION."  THIS LINE OF ATTACK IS TAKEN
BY THE WITNESSES GENERALLY UPON ALL DENOMINATIONS, ESPECIALLY THE ROMAN
CATHOLIC.  THE HOUSEHOLDER WAS ASKED TO BUY A VARIETY OF LITERATURE FOR
A PRICE OR CONTRIBUTION.  THE PRICE WOULD BE TWENTY-FIVE CENTS FOR THE
BOOKS AND SMALLER SUMS FOR THE PAMPHLETS.  OFTENTIMES, IF HE WAS
UNWILLING TO PURCHASE, THE BOOK OR PAMPHLET WAS GIVEN TO HIM ANYWAY. 

WHEN THIS CAMPAIGN BEGAN, MANY COMPLAINTS FROM OFFENDED HOUSEHOLDERS
WERE RECEIVED, AND THREE OR FOUR OF THE WITNESSES WERE ARRESTED. 
THEREAFTER, THE "ZONE SERVANT" IN CHARGE OF THE CAMPAIGN CONFERRED WITH
THE MAYOR.  HE TOLD THE MAYOR IT WAS THEIR RIGHT TO CARRY ON THE
CAMPAIGN AND SHOWED HIM A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
SAID TO HAVE THAT EFFECT, AS PROOF OF IT.  THE MAYOR TOLD HIM THAT THEY
WERE AT LIBERTY TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR LITERATURE IN THE STREETS OF THE
CITY AND THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THEY DISTRIBUTED THE
LITERATURE FREE OF CHARGE AT THE HOUSES, BUT THAT THE PEOPLE OBJECTED
TO THEIR ATTEMPT TO FORCE THESE SALES, AND PARTICULARLY ON SUNDAY.  THE
MAYOR ASKED WHETHER IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO COME ON SOME OTHER DAY
AND TO DISTRIBUTE THE LITERATURE WITHOUT SELLING IT. THE ZONE SERVANT
REPLIED THAT THAT WAS CONTRARY TO THEIR METHOD OF "DOING BUSINESS" AND
REFUSED.  HE ALSO TOLD THE MAYOR THAT HE WOULD BRING ENOUGH WITNESSES
INTO THE CITY OF JEANNETTE TO GET THE JOB DONE WHETHER THE MAYOR LIKED
IT OR NOT.  THE MAYOR URGED THEM TO AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF AN APPEAL
WHICH WAS THEN PENDING IN THE OTHER CASES AND LET THE MATTER TAKE ITS
COURSE THROUGH THE COURTS.  THIS, TOO, WAS REFUSED, AND THE THREAT TO
BRING MORE PEOPLE THAN THE MAYOR'S POLICE FORCE COULD COPE WITH WAS
REPEATED. 

ON PALM SUNDAY OF 1939, THE THREAT WAS MADE GOOD.  OVER 100 OF THE
WITNESSES APPEARED.  THEY WERE STRANGERS TO THE CITY AND ARRIVED IN
UPWARDS OF TWENTY-FIVE AUTOMOBILES.  THE AUTOMOBILES WERE PARKED
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, AND HEADQUARTERS WERE SET UP IN A GASOLINE
STATION WITH TELEPHONE FACILITIES THROUGH WHICH THE DIRECTOR OF THE
CAMPAIGN COULD BE NOTIFIED WHEN TROUBLE OCCURRED.  HE FURNISHED BONDS
FOR THE WITNESSES AS THEY WERE ARRESTED.  AS THEY BEGAN THEIR WORK,
AROUND 9:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, TELEPHONE CALLS BEGAN TO COME IN TO
THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, AND COMPLAINTS IN LARGE VOLUME WERE MADE ALL
DURING THE DAY.  THEY EXCEEDED THE NUMBER THAT THE POLICE COULD HANDLE,
AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CALLED OUT TO ASSIST.  THE WITNESSES CALLED
AT HOMES SINGLY AND IN GROUPS, AND SOME OF THE HOMES COMPLAINED THAT
THEY WERE CALLED UPON SEVERAL TIMES.  TWENTY-ONE WITNESSES WERE
ARRESTED.  ONLY THOSE WERE ARRESTED WHERE DEFINITE PROOF WAS OBTAINABLE
THAT THE LITERATURE HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR SALE OR A SALE HAD BEEN MADE
FOR A PRICE.  THREE WERE LATER DISCHARGED FOR INADEQUACIES IN THIS
PROOF, AND EIGHTEEN WERE CONVICTED.  THE ZONE SERVANT FURNISHED APPEAL
BONDS. 

THE NATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS MOVEMENT IS ALSO
SOMEWHAT REVEALED IN THIS TESTIMONY.  AT THE HEAD OF THE MOVEMENT IN
THIS COUNTRY IS THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY, A CORPORATION
ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA, BUT HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL
PLACE OF BUSINESS IN BROOKLYN, N.Y.  IT PRINTS ALL PAMPHLETS,
MANUFACTURES ALL BOOKS, SUPPLIES ALL PHONOGRAPHS AND RECORDS, AND
PROVIDES OTHER MATERIALS FOR THE WITNESSES.  IT "ORDAINS" THESE
WITNESSES BY FURNISHING EACH, ON A BASIS WHICH DOES NOT CLEARLY APPEAR,
A CERTIFICATE THAT HE IS A MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL.  ITS OUTPUT IS LARGE
AND ITS REVENUES MUST BE CONSIDERABLE.  LITTLE IS REVEALED OF ITS
AFFAIRS.  ONE OF ITS "ZONE SERVANTS" TESTIFIED THAT ITS CORRESPONDENCE
IS SIGNED ONLY WITH THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION AND ANONYMITY AS TO ITS
PERSONNEL IS ITS POLICY.  THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS A "NON-PROFIT
CHARITABLE" CORPORATION MAY BE TRUE, BUT IT IS WITHOUT SUPPORT BEYOND
MERE ASSERTION.  IN NONE OF THESE CASES HAS THE ASSERTION BEEN
SUPPORTED BY SUCH USUAL EVIDENCE AS A BALANCE SHEET OR AN INCOME
STATEMENT.  WHAT ITS MANUFACTURING COSTS AND REVENUES ARE, WHAT
SALARIES OR BONUSES IT PAYS, WHAT CONTRACTS IT HAS FOR SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.  THE EFFORT OF COUNSEL FOR JEANNETTE TO
OBTAIN INFORMATION, BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE LOCAL "COMPANIES" OF
WITNESSES ENGAGED IN THE JEANNETTE CAMPAIGN IN THE TRIAL WAS MET BY
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS AS TO THE METHODS AND MEANING OF SUCH MEAGER
ACCOUNTS AS WERE PRODUCED. 

THE PUBLISHING OUTPUT OF THE WATCH TOWER CORPORATION IS DISPOSED OF
THROUGH CONVERTS, SOME OF WHOM ARE FULL-TIME AND SOME PART-TIME
MINISTERS.  THESE ARE ORGANIZED INTO GROUPS OR COMPANIES UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF "ZONE SERVANTS."  IT IS THEIR PURPOSE TO CARRY ON IN A
THOROUGH MANNER SO THAT EVERY HOME IN THE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH THEY
WORK MAY BE REGULARLY VISITED THREE OR FOUR TIMES A YEAR.  THE FULL
TIME WITNESSES ACQUIRE THEIR LITERATURE FROM THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE &
TRACT SOCIETY AT A FIGURE WHICH ENABLES THEM TO DISTRIBUTE IT AT THE
PRICES PRINTED THEREON WITH A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENTIAL.  SOME OF THE
BOOKS THEY ACQUIRE FOR 5[ AND DISPOSE OF FOR A CONTRIBUTION OF 25[.  ON
OTHERS, THE MARGIN IS LESS.  PART-TIME MINISTERS HAVE A DIFFERENTIAL
BETWEEN THE 20[ WHICH THEY REMIT TO THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY AND THE 25[
WHICH IS THE CONTRIBUTION THEY ASK FOR THE BOOKS.  WE ARE TOLD THAT
MANY OF THE WITNESSES GIVE AWAY A SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITY OF THE
LITERATURE TO PEOPLE WHO MAKE NO CONTRIBUTIONS.  APART FROM THE FACT
THAT THIS DIFFERENTIAL EXISTS AND THAT IT ENABLES THE DISTRIBUTORS TO
MEET IN WHOLE OR IN PART THEIR LIVING EXPENSES, IT HAS PROVEN
IMPOSSIBLE IN THESE CASES TO LEARN THE EXACT RESULTS OF THE CAMPAIGNS
FROM A FINANCIAL POINT OF VIEW.  THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE GROUP
ACCUMULATED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT FROM THE DIFFERENTIALS, BUT THE
TRACING OF THE MONEY WAS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN
RECORDS AND THE FAILURE, APPARENTLY, TO KEEP THEM. 

THE LITERATURE THUS DISTRIBUTED IS VOLUMINOUS AND REPETITIOUS. 
CHARACTERIZATION IS RISKY, BUT A FEW QUOTATIONS WILL INDICATE SOMETHING
OF ITS TEMPER. 

TAKING AS REPRESENTATIVE THE BOOK "ENEMIES," OF WHICH J. F.
RUTHERFORD, THE LAWYER WHO LONG HEADED THIS GROUP, IS THE AUTHOR, WE
FIND THE FOLLOWING:  "THE GREATEST RACKET EVER INVENTED AND PRACTICED
IS THAT OF RELIGION.  THE MOST CRUEL AND SEDUCTIVE PUBLIC ENEMY IS THAT
WHICH EMPLOYS RELIGION TO CARRY ON THE RACKET, AND BY WHICH MEANS THE
PEOPLE ARE DECEIVED AND THE NAME OF ALMIGHTY GOD IS REPROACHED.  THERE
ARE NUMEROUS SYSTEMS OF RELIGION, BUT THE MOST SUBTLE, FRAUDULENT AND
INJURIOUS TO HUMANKIND IS THAT WHICH IS GENERALLY LABELED THE
'CHRISTIAN RELIGION,' BECAUSE IT HAS THE APPEARANCE OF A WORSHIPFUL
DEVOTION TO THE SUPREME BEING, AND THEREBY EASILY MISLEADS MANY HONEST
AND SINCERE PERSONS."  ID. AT 144-145.  IT ANALYZES THE INCOME OF THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY AND ANNOUNCES THAT IT IS "THE GREAT RACKET, A
RACKET THAT IS GREATER THAN ALL OTHER RACKETS COMBINED."  ID. AT 178. 
IT ALSO SAYS UNDER THE CHAPTER HEADING "SONG OF THE HARLOT," "REFERRING
NOW TO THE FOREGOING SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION OF HARLOT:  WHAT RELIGIOUS
SYSTEM EXACTLY FITS THE PROPHECIES RECORDED IN GOD'S WORD?  THERE IS
BUT ONE ANSWER, AND THAT IS, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ORGANIZATION." 
ID. AT 204-205.  "THOSE CLOSE OR NEARBY AND DEPENDENT UPON THE MAIN
ORGANIZATION, BEING OF THE SAME STRIPE, PICTURE THE JEWISH AND
PROTESTANT CLERGY AND OTHER ALLIES OF THE HIERARCHY WHO TAG ALONG
BEHIND THE HIERARCHY AT THE PRESENT TIME TO DO THE BIDDING OF THE OLD
'WHORE'."  ID. AT 222.  "SAYS THE PROPHET OF JEHOVAH:  'IT SHALL COME
TO PASS IN THAT DAY, THAT TYRE (MODERN TYRE, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
HIERARCHY ORGANIZATION) SHALL BE FORGOTTEN.'  FORGOTTEN BY WHOM?  BY
HER FORMER ILLICIT PARAMOURS WHO HAVE COMMITTED FORNICATION WITH HER." 
ID. AT 264.  THROUGHOUT THE LITERATURE, STATEMENTS OF THIS KIND APPEAR
AMIDST SCRIPTURAL COMMENT AND PROPHECY, DENUNCIATION OF DEMONOLOGY,
WHICH IS USED TO CHARACTERIZE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, CRITICISM OF
GOVERNMENT AND THOSE IN AUTHORITY, ADVOCACY OF OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW OF
GOD INSTEAD OF THE LAW OF MAN, AND AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW OF GOD
AS THEY SEE IT. 

THE SPIRIT AND TEMPER OF THIS CAMPAIGN IS MOST FAIRLY STATED PERHAPS
IN THE WORDS, AGAIN OF RUTHERFORD, IN HIS BOOK "RELIGION," PP. 196
198: 

"GOD'S FAITHFUL SERVANTS GO FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE TO BRING THE MESSAGE
OF THE KINGDOM TO THOSE WHO RESIDE THERE, OMITTING NONE, NOT EVEN THE
HOUSES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY, AND THERE THEY GIVE WITNESS TO
THE KINGDOM BECAUSE THEY ARE COMMANDED BY THE MOST HIGH TO DO SO.
'THEY SHALL ENTER IN AT THE WINDOWS LIKE A THIEF.'  THEY DO NOT LOOT
NOR BREAK INTO THE HOUSES, BUT THEY SET UP THEIR PHONOGRAPHS BEFORE THE
DOORS AND WINDOWS AND SEND THE MESSAGE OF THE KINGDOM RIGHT INTO THE
HOUSES INTO THE EARS OF THOSE WHO MIGHT WISH TO HEAR; AND WHILE THOSE
DESIRING TO HEAR ARE HEARING, SOME OF THE 'SOURPUSSES' ARE COMPELLED TO
HEAR.  LOCUSTS INVADE THE HOMES OF THE PEOPLE AND EVEN EAT THE VARNISH
OFF THE WOOD AND EAT THE WOOD TO SOME EXTENT.  LIKEWISE GOD'S FAITHFUL
WITNESSES, LIKENED UNTO LOCUSTS, GET THE KINGDOM MESSAGE RIGHT INTO THE
HOUSE AND THEY TAKE THE VENEER OFF THE RELIGIOUS THINGS THAT ARE IN
THAT HOUSE, INCLUDING CANDLES AND 'HOLY WATER', REMOVE THE SUPERSTITION
FROM THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE, AND SHOW THEM THAT THE DOCTRINES THAT
HAVE BEEN TAUGHT TO THEM ARE WOOD, HAY AND STUBBLE, DESTRUCTIBLE BY
FIRE, AND THEY CANNOT WITHSTAND THE HEAT.  THE PEOPLE ARE ENABLED TO
LEARN THAT 'PURGATORY' IS A BOGEYMAN, SET UP BY THE AGENTS OF SATAN TO
FRIGHTEN THE PEOPLE INTO THE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, WHERE THEY MAY BE
FLEECED OF THEIR HARD-EARNED MONEY.  THUS THE KINGDOM MESSAGE PLAGUES
THE RELIGIONISTS, AND THE CLERGY FIND THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO PREVENT
IT. THEREFORE, AS DESCRIBED BY THE PROPHET, THE MESSAGE COMES TO THEM
LIKE A THIEF THAT ENTERS IN AT THE WINDOWS, AND THIS MESSAGE IS A
WARNING TO THOSE WHO ARE ON THE INSIDE THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS COME, AND
THEY REMEMBER HIS WARNING WORDS, TO WIT:  'BEHOLD, I COME AS A THIEF.' 
(REVELATION 16:15.)  THE DAY OF ARMAGEDDON IS VERY CLOSE, AND THAT DAY
COMES UPON THE WORLD IN GENERAL LIKE A THIEF IN THE NIGHT."    THE DAY
OF ARMAGEDDON, TO WHICH ALL OF THIS IS PRELUDE, IS TO BE A VIOLENT AND
BLOODY ONE, FOR THEN SHALL BE SLAIN ALL "DEMONOLOGISTS," INCLUDING MOST
OF THOSE WHO REJECT THE TEACHINGS OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. 

IN THE MURDOCK CASE, ON ANOTHER SUNDAY MORNING OF THE FOLLOWING LENT,
WE AGAIN FIND THE WITNESSES IN JEANNETTE, TRAVELLING BY TWOS AND THREES
AND CARRYING CASES FOR THE BOOKS AND PHONOGRAPHS.  THIS TIME EIGHT WERE
ARRESTED, AS AGAINST THE 21 ARRESTED ON THE PRECEDING PALM SUNDAY
INVOLVED IN THE DOUGLAS CASE.    IN THE STRUTHERS CASE, WE FIND THE
WITNESS KNOCKING ON THE DOOR OF A TOTAL STRANGER AT 4:00 ON SUNDAY
AFTERNOON, JULY 7TH.  THE HOUSEHOLDER'S FOURTEEN YEAR OLD SON ANSWERED,
AND, AT THE WITNESS'S REQUEST, CALLED HIS MOTHER FROM THE KITCHEN.  HIS
MOTHER HAD PREVIOUSLY BECOME "VERY MUCH DISGUSTED ABOUT GOING TO THE
DOOR" TO RECEIVE LEAFLETS, PARTICULARLY SINCE ANOTHER PERSON HAD ON A
PREVIOUS OCCASION CALLED HER TO THE DOOR AND TOLD HER, AS SHE
TESTIFIED, "THAT I WAS DOOMED TO GO TO HELL BECAUSE I WOULD NOT LET
THIS LITERATURE IN MY HOME FOR MY CHILDREN TO READ."  SHE TESTIFIED
THAT THE WITNESS "SHOVED IN THE DOOR" THE CIRCULAR BEING DISTRIBUTED,
FN2  AND THAT SHE "COULDN'T DO MUCH MORE THAN TAKE" IT, AND SHE
PROMPTLY TORE IT UP IN THE PRESENCE OF THE WITNESS, FOR WHILE SHE
BELIEVED "IN THE WORSHIP OF GOD," SHE DID NOT "CARE TO TALK TO
EVERYBODY" AND DID NOT "BELIEVE THAT ANYONE NEEDS TO BE SENT FROM DOOR
TO DOOR TO TELL US HOW TO WORSHIP."  THE RECORD IN THE STRUTHERS CASE
IS EVEN MORE SPARSE THAN THAT IN THE MURDOCK CASE, BUT THE HOUSEHOLDER
DID TESTIFY THAT AT THE TIME SHE WAS GIVEN THE CIRCULAR THE WITNESS
"TOLD ME THAT A NUMBER OF THEM WERE IN JAIL AND WOULD I CALL THE CHIEF
OF POLICE AND ASK THAT THEIR WORKERS MIGHT BE RELEASED." 

SUCH IS THE ACTIVITY WHICH IT IS CLAIMED NO PUBLIC AUTHORITY CAN
EITHER REGULATE OR TAX.  THIS CLAIM IS SUBSTANTIALLY, IF NOT QUITE,
SUSTAINED TODAY.  I DISSENT - A DISAGREEMENT INDUCED IN NO SMALL PART
BY THE FACTS RECITED. 

AS INDIVIDUALS MANY OF US WOULD NOT FIND THIS ACTIVITY SERIOUSLY
OBJECTIONABLE.  THE SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTES INVOLVED MAY BE A MATTER OF
INDIFFERENCE TO OUR PERSONAL CREEDS.  MOREOVER, WE WORK IN OFFICES
AFFORDING AMPLE SHELTER FROM SUCH IMPORTUNITIES AND LIVE IN HOMES WHERE
WE DO NOT PERSONALLY ANSWER SUCH CALLS AND BEAR THE BURDEN OF TURNING
AWAY THE UNWELCOME.  BUT THESE OBSERVATIONS DO NOT HOLD TRUE FOR ALL. 
THE STUBBORN PERSISTENCE OF THE OFFICIALS OF SMALLER COMMUNITIES IN
THEIR EFFORTS TO REGULATE THIS CONDUCT INDICATES A STRONGLY HELD
CONVICTION THAT THE COURT'S MANY DECISIONS IN THIS FIELD ARE AT ODDS
WITH THE REALITIES OF LIFE IN THOSE COMMUNITIES WHERE THE HOUSEHOLDER
HIMSELF DROPS WHATEVER HE MAY BE DOING TO ANSWER THE SUMMONS TO THE
DOOR AND IS APT TO HAVE POSITIVE RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS OF HIS OWN. 
FN3 

THREE SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THE OPINIONS IN MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA
AND MARTIN V. STRUTHERS TEND TO OBSCURE THE EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS. 
THE FIRST OF THESE RELATES TO THE FORM OF THE ORDINANCES IN QUESTION. 
ONE CANNOT DETERMINE WHETHER THIS IS MERE MAKEWEIGHT OR WHETHER IT IS
AN ARGUMENT ADDRESSED TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ORDINANCES; AND
WHATEVER IT IS, I CANNOT RECONCILE THE TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT BY THE
TWO OPINIONS.  IN MURDOCK THE COURT SAYS "THE PRESENT ORDINANCE IS NOT
NARROWLY DRAWN TO SAFEGUARD THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMUNITY IN THEIR HOMES
AGAINST THE EVILS OF SOLICITATIONS," AND AGAIN "THE ORDINANCE IS NOT
NARROWLY DRAWN TO PREVENT OR CONTROL ABUSES OR EVILS ARISING FROM"
SOLICITATION FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE.  IT FOLLOWS THE RECENT TENDENCY TO
INVALIDATE ORDINANCES IN THIS GENERAL FIELD THAT ARE NOT "NARROWLY
DRAWN." 

BUT IN STRUTHERS THE ORDINANCE IS CERTAINLY NARROWLY DRAWN.  YET THE
COURT DENIES THE HOUSEHOLDER THE NARROW PROTECTION IT GIVES.  THE CITY
POINTS OUT THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS NARROWLY DRAWN TO MEET A PARTICULAR
EVIL IN THAT COMMUNITY WHERE MANY MEN MUST WORK NIGHTS AND REST BY
DAY.  I HAD SUPPOSED THAT OUR QUESTION, EXCEPT IN RESPECT TO ORDINANCES
INVALID ON THEIR FACE, IS ALWAYS WHETHER THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED
DENIES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS OR
IMPLIES THAT REAL RIGHTS ARE MORE VULNERABLE TO A NARROW ORDINANCE THAN
TO A BROAD ONE.  I THINK OUR FUNCTION IS TO TAKE MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
AS THEY ARE CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURTS AND APPLIED BY LOCAL
AUTHORITIES AND TO DECIDE THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY ACCORDINGLY, RATHER
THAN TO UNDERTAKE CENSORING THEIR DRAFTSMANSHIP. 

SECONDLY, IN NEITHER OPINION DOES THE COURT GIVE CLEARCUT
CONSIDERATION TO THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES CLAIMED TO BE ENTITLED TO
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, BUT IN ONE CASE BLENDS WITH THEM CONDUCT OF
OTHERS NOT IN QUESTION, AND IN THE OTHER CONFUSES WITH THE RIGHTS IN
QUESTION HERE CERTAIN ALLEGED RIGHTS OF OTHERS WHICH THESE PETITIONERS
ARE IN NO POSITION TO ASSERT AS THEIR OWN. 

IN THE MURDOCK CASE, THE COURT DECIDES TO "RESTORE TO THEIR HIGH,
CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION THE LIBERTIES OF ITINERANT EVANGELISTS."  THAT
IT DOES WITHOUT STATING WHAT THOSE PRIVILEGES ARE, BEYOND DECLARING
THAT "THIS FORM OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY OCCUPIES THE SAME HIGH ESTATE
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS DO WORSHIP IN THE CHURCHES AND PREACHING
FROM THE PULPITS."  HOW CAN WE DISPOSE OF THE QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE
MERELY BY CITING THE UNQUESTIONED RIGHT TO MINISTER TO CONGREGATIONS
VOLUNTARILY ATTENDING SERVICES? 

SIMILARLY, IN THE STRUTHERS CASE THE COURT FAILS TO DEAL WITH THE
BEHAVIOR OF THE WITNESSES ON ITS OWN MERITS.  IT REACHES ITS DECISION
BY WEIGHING AGAINST THE ORDINANCE THERE IN QUESTION NOT ONLY THE RIGHTS
OF THE WITNESS BUT ALSO "THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER HE IS WILLING TO RECEIVE HER MESSAGE"; CONCLUDES THAT
THE ORDINANCE "SUBSTITUTES THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMUNITY FOR THE
JUDGMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLDER"; AND DECIDES THE CASE ON THE
BASIS THAT "IT SUBMITS THE DISTRIBUTER TO CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT FOR
ANNOYING THE PERSON ON WHOM HE CALLS, EVEN THOUGH THE RECIPIENT OF THE
LITERATURE DISTRIBUTED IS IN FACT GLAD TO RECEIVE IT."  BUT THE
HOSPITABLE HOUSEHOLDER THUS THROWN IN THE BALANCE WITH THE WITNESS TO
MAKE WEIGHT AGAINST THE CITY ORDINANCE IS WHOLLY HYPOTHETICAL AND THE
ASSUMPTION IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE RECITED.  DOUBTLESS
THERE EXIST FELLOW SPIRITS WHO WELCOME THESE CALLERS, BUT THE ISSUE
HERE IS WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO DO NOT AND WHAT IS THE RIGHT
OF THE COMMUNITY TO PROTECT THEM IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR OWN FAITH IN
PEACE.  THAT ISSUE - THE REAL ISSUE - SEEMS NOT TO BE DEALT WITH. 

THIRD, BOTH OPINIONS SUGGEST THAT THERE ARE EVILS IN THIS CONDUCT
THAT A MUNICIPALITY MAY DO SOMETHING ABOUT.  BUT NEITHER IDENTIFIES IT,
NOR LAYS DOWN ANY WORKABLE GUIDE IN SO DOING.  IN MURDOCK THE COURT
SAYS THAT "THE ORDINANCE IS NOT NARROWLY DRAWN TO PREVENT OR CONTROL
ABUSES OR EVILS ARISING" FROM HOUSE-TO-HOUSE SOLICITATION.  WHAT EVILS
OR ABUSES?  IT IS ALSO SAID IN MURDOCK THAT WE "HAVE SOMETHING VERY
DIFFERENT FROM A REGISTRATION SYSTEM UNDER WHICH THOSE GOING FROM HOUSE
TO HOUSE ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE THEIR NAMES, ADDRESSES AND OTHER MARKS OF
IDENTIFICATION TO THE AUTHORITIES."  WHAT MORE?  THE FEE OF COURSE. 
BUT WE ARE TOLD THE FEE IS NOT "A NOMINAL FEE IMPOSED AS A REGULATORY
MEASURE TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF POLICING THE ACTIVITIES IN
QUESTION."  IS IT IMPLIED THAT SUCH A REGISTRATION FOR SUCH A FEE WOULD
BE VALID?  WHEREIN DOES THE SUGGESTION DIFFER FROM THE ORDINANCE WE ARE
STRIKING DOWN?  THIS ORDINANCE DID NOTHING MORE, IT DID NOT GIVE
DISCRETION TO REFUSE THE LICENSE NOR TO CENSOR THE LITERATURE.  THE FEE
RANGED FROM $1.50 A DAY FOR ONE DAY TO LESS THAN A DOLLAR A DAY FOR TWO
WEEKS.  THERE IS NOT A SYLLABLE OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS AMOUNT EXCEEDS
THE COST TO THE COMMUNITY OF POLICING THIS ACTIVITY.  IF THIS
SUGGESTION OF NEW DEVICES IS NOT ILLUSORY, WHY IS THE PRESENT ORDINANCE
INVALID?  THE CITY OF STRUTHERS DECIDED MERELY THAT ONE WITH NO MORE
BUSINESS AT A HOME THAN THE DELIVERY OF ADVERTISING MATTER SHOULD NOT
OBTRUDE HIMSELF FARTHER BY ANNOUNCING THE FACT OF DELIVERY.  HE WAS
FREE TO MAKE THE DISTRIBUTION IF HE LEFT THE HOUSEHOLDER UNDISTURBED,
TO TAKE IT IN IN HIS OWN TIME.  THE COURT SAYS THE CITY HAS NOT EVEN
THIS MUCH LEEWAY IN ORDERING ITS AFFAIRS, HOWEVER COMPLICATED THEY MAY
BE AS THE RESULT OF ROUND-THE-CLOCK INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY.  IF THE LOCAL
AUTHORITIES MUST DRAW CLOSER AIM AT EVILS THAN THEY DID IN THESE CASES
I DOUBT THAT THEY EVER CAN HIT THEM.  WHAT NARROW AREA OF REGULATION
EXISTS UNDER THESE DECISIONS?  THE STRUTHERS OPINION SAYS, "THE DANGERS
OF DISTRIBUTION CAN SO EASILY BE CONTROLLED BY TRADITIONAL LEGAL
METHODS."  IT SUGGESTS THAT THE CITY MAY "BY IDENTIFICATION DEVICES
CONTROL THE ABUSE OF THE PRIVILEGE BY CRIMINALS POSING AS CANVASSERS." 
OF COURSE TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION AND LICENSE IS ONE OF THE FEW
PRACTICAL "IDENTIFICATION DEVICES."  MERELY GIVING ONE'S NAME AND HIS
ADDRESS TO THE AUTHORITIES WOULD AFFORD THEM BASIS FOR INVESTIGATING
WHO THE STRANGE CALLERS ARE AND WHAT THEIR RECORD HAS BEEN.  AND THAT
IS WHAT MURDOCK PROHIBITS THE CITY FROM ASKING.  IF THE ENTIRE COURSE
OF CONCERTED CONDUCT REVEALED TO US IS IMMUNE, I SHOULD THINK IT
NEITHER FAIR NOR WISE TO THROW OUT TO THE CITIES ENCOURAGEMENT TO TRY
NEW RESTRAINTS.  IF SOME PART OF IT PASSES THE BOUNDARY OF IMMUNITY, I
THINK WE SHOULD SAY WHAT PART AND WHY IN THESE CASES WE ARE DENYING THE
RIGHT TO REGULATE IT.  THE SUGGESTION IN STRUTHERS THAT "THE PROBLEM
MUST BE WORKED OUT BY EACH COMMUNITY FOR ITSELF" IS SOMEWHAT IRONICAL
IN VIEW OF THE FATE OF THE ORDINANCES HERE INVOLVED. 

OUR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION CANNOT FAIRLY BE GIVEN THE COLOR OF A
DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES SHOULD BE PROTECTED IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE RIGHTS.  THESE
WITNESSES, IN COMMON WITH ALL OTHERS, HAVE EXTENSIVE RIGHTS TO
PROSELYTE AND PROPAGANDIZE.  THESE OF COURSE INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO
OPPOSE AND CRITICIZE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OR ANY OTHER
DENOMINATION.  THESE RIGHTS ARE, AND SHOULD BE HELD TO BE, AS EXTENSIVE
AS ANY ORDERLY SOCIETY CAN TOLERATE IN RELIGIOUS DISPUTATION.  THE REAL
QUESTION IS WHERE THEIR RIGHTS END AND THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS BEGIN.  THE
REAL TASK OF DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF THEIR RIGHTS ON BALANCE WITH THE
RIGHTS OF OTHERS IS NOT MET BY PRONOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL PROPOSITIONS
WITH WHICH THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT. 

IF WE SHOULD STRIP THESE CASES TO THE UNDERLYING QUESTIONS, I FIND
THEM TOO DIFFICULT AS CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS TO BE DISPOSED OF BY A
VAGUE BUT FERVENT TRANSCENDENTALISM. 

IN MY VIEW, THE FIRST AMENDMENT ASSURES THE BROADEST TOLERABLE
EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS, AND FREE ASSEMBLY, NOT MERELY FOR
RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, BUT FOR POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SCIENTIFIC, NEWS, OR
INFORMATIONAL ENDS AS WELL.  WHEN LIMITS ARE REACHED WHICH SUCH
COMMUNICATIONS MUST OBSERVE, CAN ONE GO FARTHER UNDER THE CLOAK OF
RELIGIOUS EVANGELISM?  DOES WHAT IS OBSCENE, OR COMMERCIAL, OR ABUSIVE,
OR INCITING BECOME LESS SO IF EMPLOYED TO PROMOTE A RELIGIOUS
IDEOLOGY?  I HAD NOT SUPPOSED THAT THE RIGHTS OF SECULAR AND NON
RELIGIOUS COMMUNICATIONS WERE MORE NARROW OR IN ANY WAY INFERIOR TO
THOSE OF AVOWED RELIGIOUS GROUPS. 

IT MAY BE ASKED WHY THEN DOES THE FIRST AMENDMENT SEPARATELY MENTION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION?  THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION GIVES
THE ANSWER.  RELIGION NEEDED SPECIFIC PROTECTION BECAUSE IT WAS SUBJECT
TO ATTACK FROM A SEPARATE QUARTER.  IT WAS OFTEN CLAIMED THAT ONE WAS
AN HERETIC AND GUILTY OF BLASPHEMY BECAUSE HE FAILED TO CONFORM IN MERE
BELIEF OR IN SUPPORT OF PREVAILING INSTITUTIONS AND THEOLOGY.  IT WAS
TO ASSURE RELIGIOUS TEACHING AS MUCH FREEDOM AS SECULAR DISCUSSION,
RATHER THAN TO ASSURE IT GREATER LICENSE, THAT LED TO ITS SEPARATE
STATEMENT. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT GREW OUT OF AN EXPERIENCE WHICH TAUGHT THAT
SOCIETY CANNOT TRUST THE CONSCIENCE OF A MAJORITY TO KEEP ITS RELIGIOUS
ZEAL WITHIN THE LIMITS THAT A FREE SOCIETY CAN TOLERATE.  I DO NOT
THINK IT ANY MORE INTENDED TO LEAVE THE CONSCIENCE OF A MINORITY TO FIX
ITS LIMITS.  CIVIL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT LET ANY GROUP RIDE ROUGH-SHOD
OVER OTHERS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR "CONSCIENCES" TELL THEM TO DO SO. 

A COMMON-SENSE TEST AS TO WHETHER THE COURT HAS STRUCK A PROPER
BALANCE OF THESE RIGHTS IS TO ASK WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE IF THE RIGHT
GIVEN TO THESE WITNESSES SHOULD BE EXERCISED BY ALL SECTS AND
DENOMINATIONS.  IF EACH COMPETING SECT IN THE UNITED STATES WENT AFTER
THE HOUSEHOLDER BY THE SAME METHODS, I SHOULD THINK IT INTOLERABLE.  IF
A MINORITY CAN PUT ON THIS KIND OF DRIVE IN A COMMUNITY, WHAT CAN A
MAJORITY RESORTING TO THE SAME TACTICS DO TO INDIVIDUALS AND
MINORITIES?  CAN WE GIVE TO ONE SECT A PRIVILEGE THAT WE COULD NOT GIVE
TO ALL, MERELY IN THE HOPE THAT MOST OF THEM WILL NOT RESORT TO IT?
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE LONG RUN DOES NOT COME FROM THIS KIND OF
LICENSE TO EACH SECT TO FIX ITS OWN LIMITS, BUT COMES OF HARDHEADED
FIXING OF THOSE LIMITS BY NEUTRAL AUTHORITY WITH AN EYE TO THE WIDEST
FREEDOM TO PROSELYTE COMPATIBLE WITH THE FREEDOM OF THOSE SUBJECT TO
PROSELYTING PRESSURES. 

I CANNOT ACCEPT THE HOLDING IN THE MURDOCK CASE THAT THE BEHAVIOR
REVEALED HERE "OCCUPIES THE SAME HIGH ESTATE UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
AS DO WORSHIP IN THE CHURCHES AND PREACHING FROM THE PULPITS."  TO PUT
THEM ON THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL PLANE SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE A DANGEROUS
TENDENCY TOWARDS DISCREDITING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 

NEITHER CAN I THINK IT AN ESSENTIAL PART OF FREEDOM THAT RELIGIOUS
DIFFERENCES BE AIRED IN LANGUAGE THAT IS OBSCENE, ABUSIVE, OR INCITING
TO RETALIATION.  WE HAVE HELD THAT A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS MAY NOT CALL A
PUBLIC OFFICER A "GOD DAMNED RACKETEER" AND A "DAMNED FASCIST," BECAUSE
THAT IS TO USE "FIGHTING WORDS," AND SUCH ARE NOT PRIVILEGED. 
CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568.  HOW THEN CAN THE COURT
TODAY HOLD IT A "HIGH CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE" TO GO TO HOMES,
INCLUDING THOSE OF DEVOUT CATHOLICS ON PALM SUNDAY MORNING, AND THRUST
UPON THEM LITERATURE CALLING THEIR CHURCH A "WHORE" AND THEIR FAITH A
"RACKET"?  FN4    NOR AM I CONVINCED THAT WE CAN HAVE FREEDOM OF
RELIGION ONLY BY DENYING THE AMERICAN'S DEEP-SEATED CONVICTION THAT HIS
HOME IS A REFUGE FROM THE PULLING AND HAULING OF THE MARKET PLACE AND
THE STREET.  FOR A STRANGER TO CORNER A MAN IN HIS HOME, SUMMON HIM TO
THE DOOR AND PUT HIM IN THE POSITION EITHER OF ARGUING HIS RELIGION OR
OF ORDERING ONE OF UNKNOWN DISPOSITION TO LEAVE IS A QUESTIONABLE USE
OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  FN5 

I FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE STRUTHERS CASE CAN BE SOLVED
BY REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT THAT "THE AUTHORS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
KNEW THAT NOVEL AND UNCONVENTIONAL IDEAS MIGHT DISTURB THE COMPLACENT,
BUT THEY CHOSE TO ENCOURAGE A FREEDOM WHICH THEY BELIEVED ESSENTIAL IF
VIGOROUS ENLIGHTENMENT WAS EVER TO TRIUMPH OVER SLOTHFUL IGNORANCE."  I
DOUBT IF ONLY THE SLOTHFULLY IGNORANT WISH REPOSE IN THEIR HOMES, OR
THAT THE FOREFATHERS INTENDED TO OPEN THE DOOR TO SUCH FORCED
"ENLIGHTENMENT" AS WE HAVE HERE. 

IN THESE CASES, LOCAL AUTHORITIES CAUGHT BETWEEN THE OFFENDED
HOUSEHOLDERS AND THE DRIVE OF THE WITNESSES, HAVE BEEN HARD PUT TO KEEP
THE PEACE OF THEIR COMMUNITIES.  THEY HAVE INVOKED OLD ORDINANCES THAT
ARE CRUDE AND CLUMSY FOR THE PURPOSE.  I SHOULD THINK THAT THE SINGULAR
PERSISTENCE OF THE TURMOIL ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, ONE WHICH SEEMS
TO RESULT FROM THE WORK OF NO OTHER SECT, WOULD SUGGEST TO THIS COURT A
THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THEIR METHODS TO SEE IF THEY IMPINGE UNDULY ON
THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.  INSTEAD OF THAT THE COURT HAS, IN ONE WAY AFTER
ANOTHER, TIED THE HANDS OF ALL LOCAL AUTHORITY AND MADE THE AGGRESSIVE
METHODS OF THIS GROUP THE LAW OF THE LAND. 

THIS COURT IS FOREVER ADDING NEW STORIES TO THE TEMPLES OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND THE TEMPLES HAVE A WAY OF COLLAPSING WHEN ONE
STORY TOO MANY IS ADDED.  SO IT WAS WITH LIBERTY OF CONTRACT, WHICH WAS
DISCREDITED BY BEING OVERDONE.  THE COURT IS ADDING A NEW PRIVILEGE TO
OVERRIDE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO WHAT HAS BEFORE BEEN REGARDED AS
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.  IN SO DOING IT NEEDLESSLY CREATES A RISK OF
DISCREDITING A WISE PROVISION OF OUR CONSTITUTION WHICH PROTECTS ALL -
THOSE IN HOMES AS WELL AS THOSE OUT OF THEM - IN THE PEACEFUL, ORDERLY
PRACTICE OF THE RELIGION OF THEIR CHOICE BUT WHICH GIVES NO RIGHT TO
FORCE IT UPON OTHERS. 

CIVIL LIBERTIES HAD THEIR ORIGIN AND MUST FIND THEIR ULTIMATE
GUARANTY IN THE FAITH OF THE PEOPLE.  IF THAT FAITH SHOULD BE LOST,
FIVE OR NINE MEN IN WASHINGTON COULD NOT LONG SUPPLY ITS WANT. 
THEREFORE WE MUST DO OUR UTMOST TO MAKE CLEAR AND EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE
THE REASONS FOR DECIDING THESE CASES AS WE DO.  FORTHRIGHT OBSERVANCE
OF RIGHTS PRESUPPOSES THEIR FORTHRIGHT DEFINITION. 

I THINK THAT THE MAJORITY HAS FAILED IN THIS DUTY.  I THEREFORE
DISSENT IN MURDOCK AND STRUTHERS AND CONCUR IN THE RESULT IN DOUGLAS. 

I JOIN IN THE OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE REED IN MURDOCK AND STRUTHERS,
AND IN THAT OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER IN MURDOCK. 

FN1  SIXTEENTH ANNUAL CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES (1940), POPULATION,
VOLUME I (CENSUS BUREAU OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE) P.
922.  THE CITY OF JEANNETTE IS INCLUDED IN WESTMORELAND COUNTY, SHOWN
BY THE 1940 CENSUS TO HAVE A POPULATION OF 303,411, AN INCREASE OVER
1930 AND 1920.  IBID.  THE 1936 CENSUS OF RELIGIOUS BODIES SHOWS THAT
OF THE PEOPLE IN WESTMORELAND COUNTY 168,608 WERE AFFILIATED WITH SOME
RELIGIOUS BODY, 80,276 OF THEM WITH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.  CENSUS
OF RELIGIOUS BODIES (1936), VOLUME I (CENSUS BUREAU OF THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE) PP. 809-814.  ACCORDING TO UNPUBLISHED
INFORMATION IN THE FILES OF THE CENSUS BUREAU, THE 1936 CENSUS OF
RELIGIOUS BODIES SHOWS THAT THERE WERE IN THE CITY OF JEANNETTE 5,520
ROMAN CATHOLICS.  THUS IT APPEARS THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF CATHOLICS IN
THE CITY IS SOMEWHAT HIGHER THAN IN THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE. 

FN2  THIS READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"RELIGION AS A WORLD REMEDY, THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF.  HEAR
JUDGE RUTHERFORD, SUNDAY, JULY 28, 4 P.M., E.S.T. FREE, ALL PERSONS OF
GOODWILL WELCOME, FREE.  COLUMBUS COLISEUM, OHIO STATE FAIR GROUNDS." 
(ON ONE SIDE.) 

"1940'S EVENT OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO YOU.  WHAT IS IT?  THE
THEOCRATIC CONVENTION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  FIVE DAYS - JULY 24-28 -
THIRTY CITIES.  ALL LOVERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS - WELCOME.  THE STRANGE
FATE THREATENING ALL 'CHRISTENDOM' MAKES IT IMPERATIVE THAT YOU COME
AND HEAR THE PUBLIC ADDRESS ON RELIGION AS A WORLD REMEDY, THE EVIDENCE
IN SUPPORT THEREOF, BY JUDGE RUTHERFORD AT THE COLISEUM OF THE OHIO
STATE FAIR GROUNDS, COLUMBUS, OHIO, SUNDAY, JULY 28, AT 4 P.M., E.S.T.
'HE THAT HATH AN EAR TO HEAR' WILL COME TO ONE OF THE AUDITORIUMS OF
THE CONVENTION CITIES LISTED BELOW, TIED IN WITH COLUMBUS BY DIRECT
WIRE.  SOME OF THE 30 CITIES ARE  ...  (21 ARE LISTED).  FOR DETAILED
INFORMATION CONCERNING THESE CONVENTIONS WRITE WATCHTOWER CONVENTION
COMMITTEE, 117 ADAMS ST., BROOKLYN, N.Y."  (ON THE OTHER SIDE.) 

FN3  COMPARE CHAFEE, FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES (1941) P.
407:  "I CANNOT HELP WONDERING WHETHER THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME
COURT ARE QUITE AWARE OF THE EFFECT OF ORGANIZED FRONT-DOOR INTRUSIONS
UPON PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SHELTERED FROM ZEALOTS AND IMPOSTORS BY A STAFF
OF SERVANTS OR THE LOCKED ENTRANCE OF AN APARTMENT HOUSE." 

FN4  COMPARE VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN, 316 U.S. 52, PERMITTING A BAN
ON DISTRIBUTION OF A HANDBILL CONTAINING A CIVIC APPEAL ON ONE SIDE AND
A COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT ON THE OTHER. 

FN5  SEE CHAFEE, SUPRA FOOTNOTE 3, PP. 406-407. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THESE VIEWS. 
..END :












UNITED STATES V. LEPOWITCH, 318 U.S. 702 


NO. 629.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 19, 1943.  - 48
F.SUPP.  846, REVERSED. 


1.  IT IS A VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 76 TO IMPERSONATE AND ACT AS A
FEDERAL OFFICER, WITH INTENT TO OBTAIN FROM A PERSON INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE WHEREABOUTS OF ANOTHER, ALTHOUGH THE INFORMATION MAY BE
VALUELESS TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM IT IS SOUGHT.  P. 704. 

2.  THE WORDS "INTENT TO DEFRAUD," AS USED IN 18 U.S.C. SEC. 76, ARE
APPLICABLE WHERE THE DEFENDANTS, BY ARTIFICE AND DECEIT, HAVE SOUGHT TO
CAUSE THE DECEIVED PERSON TO FOLLOW SOME COURSE HE WOULD NOT HAVE
PURSUED BUT FOR THE DECEITFUL CONDUCT.  P. 704. 

UNITED STATES V. LEPOWITCH ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, EASTERN DIVISION. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 76. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED WITH IMPERSONATING FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION OFFICERS AND BY THAT MEANS ATTEMPTING TO ELICIT
INFORMATION FROM ONE PERSON CONCERNING THE WHEREABOUTS OF ANOTHER. 
THEY WERE INDICTED UNDER 18 U.S.C. SEC. 76, THE FIRST BRANCH OF WHICH
INCLUDES TWO ELEMENTS:  IMPERSONATION OF AN OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT
AND ACTING AS SUCH WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD EITHER THE UNITED STATES OR
ANY PERSON.  FN1  THE DISTRICT JUDGE SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE
INDICTMENT, HOLDING THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS, "WHILE HIGHLY
REPREHENSIBLE, DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE."  FN2  HE
APPARENTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT UNDER
CONSIDERATION DID NOT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, MAKE
SUFFICIENT ALLEGATIONS EITHER OF IMPERSONATION OR OF ACTING WITH INTENT
TO DEFRAUD.  SINCE THE DECISION BELOW WAS BASED ON A CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STATUTE, THE CASE WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT HERE BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER
THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682, AND 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE IMPERSONATED BY ANY PERSONS WHO "ASSUME TO
ACT IN THE PRETENDED CHARACTER."  UNITED STATES V. BARNOW, 239 U.S. 74,
77.  THE MOST GENERAL ALLEGATION OF IMPERSONATION OF A GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL, THEREFORE, SUFFICIENTLY CHARGES THIS ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE. 
THE VALIDITY OF THIS PORTION OF THE INDICTMENT WAS NOT CONTESTED HERE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE WORDS "INTENT TO DEFRAUD," IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS
STATUTE, DO NOT REQUIRE MORE THAN THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE, BY ARTIFICE
AND DECEIT, SOUGHT TO CAUSE THE DECEIVED PERSON TO FOLLOW SOME COURSE
HE WOULD NOT HAVE PURSUED BUT FOR THE DECEITFUL CONDUCT.  FN3  IF THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE ALONE HAD BEEN USED, THE INDICTMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
PROOF AGAINST DEMURRER UNDER LAMAR V. UNITED STATES, 241 U.S. 103, 116;
PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 306, 307; AND THIS INDICTMENT HAS
MERELY BEEN MADE MORE ELABORATE THAN THAT IN THE LAMAR CASE BY THE
ADDITION OF A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD.  IN ANY
CASE, THIS BRANCH OF THE STATUTE COVERS THE ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION
BY IMPERSONATION ALTHOUGH THE INFORMATION MAY BE WHOLLY VALUELESS TO
ITS GIVER.  THIS RESULT IS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES V. BARNOW, SUPRA,
80, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE WAS "TO MAINTAIN
THE GENERAL GOOD REPUTE AND DIGNITY OF THE (GOVERNMENT) SERVICE
ITSELF," AND CITED WITH APPROVAL CASES WHICH, INTERPRETING AN ANALOGOUS
STATUTE, SAID:  "IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO CHARGE OR PROVE AN ACTUAL
FINANCIAL OR PROPERTY LOSS TO MAKE A CASE UNDER THE STATUTE."  HAAS V.
HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462, 480; UNITED STATES V. PLYLER, 222 U.S. 15. 

THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THIS STATUTE, THE ONLY ONE UNDER CONSIDERATION
HERE, DEFINES ONE OFFENSE; THE SECOND CLAUSE DEFINES ANOTHER.  WHILE
MORE THAN MERE DECEITFUL ATTEMPT TO AFFECT THE COURSE OF ACTION OF
ANOTHER IS REQUIRED UNDER THE SECOND CLAUSE OF THE STATUTE, WHICH
SPEAKS OF AN INTENT TO OBTAIN A "VALUABLE THING," THE VERY ABSENCE OF
THESE WORDS OF LIMITATION IN THE FIRST PORTION OF THE ACT PERSUADES US
THAT, UNDER IT, A PERSON MAY BE DEFRAUDED ALTHOUGH HE PARTS WITH
SOMETHING OF NO MEASURABLE VALUE AT ALL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "FALSELY PRETENDING TO BE UNITED STATES OFFICER.  - WHOEVER WITH
INTENT TO DEFRAUD EITHER THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PERSON, SHALL FALSELY
ASSUME OR PRETEND TO BE AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE ACTING UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT, OR ANY OFFICER OF
THE GOVERNMENT THEREOF, OR UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ANY CORPORATION OWNED
OR CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND SHALL TAKE UPON HIMSELF TO ACT
AS SUCH, OR SHALL IN SUCH PRETENDED CHARACTER DEMAND OR OBTAIN FROM ANY
PERSON OR FROM THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT, OR ANY OFFICER OF
THE GOVERNMENT THEREOF, OR ANY CORPORATION OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE
UNITED STATES, ANY MONEY, PAPER, DOCUMENT, OR OTHER VALUABLE THING,
SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN THREE
YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN2  THE INDICTMENT CONTAINED TWO COUNTS.  THE SECOND, BASED ON THE
SAME ACTS OF THE APPELLEES, WAS RESTED ON THE SECOND BRANCH OF THE
STATUTE AND THE INFORMATION SOUGHT WAS SAID TO BE THE "VALUABLE THING"
REQUIRED BY THE ACT.  WHILE INSISTING HERE THAT THE SECOND COUNT WAS
NOT SUBJECT TO THE DEMURRER, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ASK FOR REVIEW OF
THE RULING WITH REFERENCE TO IT. 

FN3  FOR A MORE LIMITED CONSTRUCTION OF SIMILAR WORDS IN A DIFFERENT
STATUTORY CONTEXT, SEE UNITED STATES V. COHN, 270 U.S. 339. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS BELIEVES THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













BOARD OF COMM'RS V. SEBER, 318 U.S. 705 


NO. 556.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 4, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 19, 1943.  - 130
F.2D 663, AFFIRMED. 


1.  LANDS THERETOFORE PURCHASED WITH RESTRICTED FUNDS DERIVED FROM AN
OIL AND GAS LEASE OF RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LANDS OF A CREEK INDIAN, HELD,
UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1936, IMMUNE FROM TAX BY OKLAHOMA FOR THE
YEAR 1937, WHERE, ON THE ASSESSMENT DATE, THE INDIAN OWNED A LIFE
ESTATE IN SUCH LANDS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ALIENATION EXCEPT
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  P. 709. 

(A)  THE TAX IMMUNITY GRANTED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1936, WAS NOT
LIMITED TO LANDS PURCHASED FOR LANDLESS INDIANS.  P. 710. 

(B)  AN INDIAN HAS "TITLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT IF HIS
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT, BUT FOR THE ACT, HE WOULD BE
SUBJECTED TO THE TAX.  P. 711. 

2.  LANDS THERETOFORE PURCHASED WITH RESTRICTED FUNDS DERIVED FROM AN
OIL AND GAS LEASE OF RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LANDS OF A CREEK INDIAN, AND
WHICH HAVE BEEN CONVEYED TO CREEK INDIAN GRANTEES, SUBJECT TO VALID
RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ALIENATION EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, HELD, UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 19, 1937, IMMUNE
FROM TAX BY OKLAHOMA, WHERE, PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT DATE, THE LANDS
HAVE BEEN PROPERLY DESIGNATED BY SUCH GRANTEES AS HOMESTEAD LANDS.  P.
712. 

(A)  THE TAX IMMUNITY GRANTED BY THE ACT OF MAY 19, 1937, DOES NOT
EXTEND ONLY TO LANDS PURCHASED FOR LANDLESS INDIANS.  P. 712. 

(B)  THE TAX EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE 1937 ACT IS NOT PERSONAL TO THE
INDIAN WHOSE RESTRICTED FUNDS WERE USED TO PURCHASE THE LAND; NOR DOES
IT EXTEND TO THE LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE CREEK INDIAN GRANTEES ONLY
UNTIL 1956.  P. 712. 

(C) IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE CREEK INDIAN GRANTEES IN THIS CASE ARE
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 718. 

3.  THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1936, AND THE ACT OF MAY 19, 1937, AS HERE
APPLIED, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 715. 

4.  THE GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUS OF
INDIANS AS WARDS WHOSE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE PLENARY CONTROL OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  P. 718. 

5.  CREEK INDIANS OF THE HALF BLOOD OR MORE, THOUGH THEY BE
UNENROLLED, ARE TRIBAL INDIANS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL.  P. 718. 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ET AL. V. SEBER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 622, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE IN PART OF A
JUDGMENT, 38 F.SUPP.  731, ALLOWING RECOVERY OF TAXES PAID UPON LANDS
CLAIMED TO BE TAX EXEMPT UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI PRESENTS THE QUESTIONS WHETHER CERTAIN
LANDS HELD BY RESPONDENT INDIANS, SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS AGAINST
ALIENATION AND ENCUMBRANCE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, WERE EXEMPT FROM OKLAHOMA REAL ESTATE TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1937
BY VIRTUE OF THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1936, 49 STAT. 1542; FN1  WHETHER A
PORTION OF THOSE LANDS WERE EXEMPT FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS BY VIRTUE OF
THE ACT OF 1936 AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 19, 1937, 50 STAT. 188;
FN2  AND WHETHER THE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1937, SO APPLIED, ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL. 

THE FACTS ARE AGREED.  PRIOR TO 1931, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
PURCHASED THREE TRACTS OF LAND, TWO RURAL AND ONE URBAN, IN CREEK
COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, FOR WOSEY JOHN DEERE, AN ENROLLED, FULL-BLOOD MEMBER
OF THE CREEK TRIBE OF INDIANS.  THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS PAID OUT OF
RESTRICTED ROYALTIES FROM AN OIL AND GAS LEASE OF HER RESTRICTED
ALLOTTED LAND.  SHE WAS GIVEN TITLE SUBJECT TO A CONDITION AGAINST
ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO
APRIL 26, 1931.  FN3  BEFORE THAT DATE, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
SECRETARY, SHE RESERVED A LIFE ESTATE AND CONVEYED THE FEE TO HER
CHILDREN, FULL-BLOOD BUT UN-ENROLLED CREEKS AND RESPONDENTS HERE,
SUBJECT TO A LIKE CONDITION AGAINST ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE WITHOUT
THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE RESTRICTION
HAD NO DEFINITE TIME LIMITATION.  ON DECEMBER 10, 1937, WOSEY JOHN
DEERE CONVEYED HER LIFE ESTATE TO RESPONDENTS SO THAT THEY BECAME FULL
OWNERS SUBJECT TO A RESTRICTION AGAINST ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE
WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY.  BOTH CONVEYANCES WERE IN
CONSIDERATION OF LOVE AND AFFECTION.  THEREAFTER, ON DECEMBER 16, 1937,
RESPONDENTS DESIGNATED THE TWO RURAL TRACTS, TOTALLING EIGHTY-SEVEN AND
ONE-HALF ACRES, AS A TAX EXEMPT HOMESTEAD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT OF MAY 19, 1937, AND THE SECRETARY APPROVED THIS DESIGNATION ON
MARCH 24, 1938. 

BEFORE THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1936, THE LANDS WERE SUBJECT TO OKLAHOMA
REAL ESTATE TAXES.  FN4 THEREAFTER ALL THREE TRACTS WERE CONTINUED ON
THE TAX ROLLS OF CREEK COUNTY, AND RESPONDENTS, TO AVOID THE
ACCUMULATION OF PENALTIES AND INTEREST AND A SALE OF THE LANDS FOR
TAXES, PAID THE TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1936, 1937, 1938, AND PART OF
1939.  ON JULY 26, 1940, THEY FILED THIS ACTION IN FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE 1936 AND 1937 TAXES PAID ON ALL THREE
TRACTS, FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE 1938 AND 1939 TAXES PAID ON THE TWO
RURAL TRACTS DESIGNATED AS HOMESTEAD LANDS, AND FOR A DECLARATION THAT
THE HOMESTEAD LANDS WERE TAX EXEMPT.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT
AS PRAYED.  38 F.SUPP.  731.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED FOR
THE MOST PART BUT REVERSED WITH RESPECT TO THE 1936 TAXES ON THE GROUND
THAT LIABILITY FOR THEM BECAME FIXED ON THE ASSESSMENT DATE, JANUARY 1,
1936, BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1936.  INTEREST ON
THE TAXES PAID WAS ALSO DISALLOWED.  130 F.2D 663.  THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE CASE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND ITS IMPACT UPON
STATE FINANCES CAUSED US TO GRANT THE COUNTY'S PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT CROSS-PETITIONED FOR REVIEW OF THE
ADVERSE DECISION ON THE 1936 TAXES AND THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, SO IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THOSE QUESTIONS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE 1936 ACT EXTENDED TAX IMMUNITY TO ALL THREE TRACTS
FOR THE YEAR 1937, THAT THEREAFTER THE 1937 ACT EXEMPTED THE DESIGNATED
HOMESTEAD LANDS, AND THAT BOTH ACTS, SO APPLIED, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL. 

REQUIREMENTS:  (1) "TITLE" TO THE LANDS MUST BE "HELD BY AN INDIAN
SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE EXCEPT WITH
THE CONSENT OR APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR"; AND, (2) THE
LANDS MUST HAVE BEEN "HERETOFORE PURCHASED OUT OF TRUST OR RESTRICTED
FUNDS OF SAID INDIAN."  BOTH REQUIREMENTS ARE MET HERE WITH RESPECT TO
ALL THREE TRACTS.  THESE LANDS WERE PURCHASED FROM THE RESTRICTED
ROYALTIES RECEIVED FROM AN OIL AND GAS LEASE OF THE RESTRICTED ALLOTTED
LANDS OF WOSEY JOHN DEERE, AND, ON THE ASSESSMENT DAY, JANUARY 1, 1937,
FN5  SHE HELD TITLE TO A FREEHOLD LIFE ESTATE IN ALL THE PARCELS,
SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ALIENATION AND ENCUMBRANCE WHICH WERE
VALIDLY IMPOSED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  FN6 

PETITIONERS ADVANCE TWO ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
1936 ACT.  FIRST, THEY CONTEND, FROM REMARKS MADE BY THE SPONSOR OF THE
1936 ACT IN THE SENATE,  FN7  THAT THE ACT APPLIED ONLY TO LANDS
PURCHASED FOR LANDLESS INDIANS, AND THUS DID NOT EXTEND TO LANDS
PURCHASED FROM THE RESTRICTED FUNDS OF WOSEY JOHN DEERE, WHO HELD
ALLOTTED LAND.  WE DO NOT READ THOSE REMARKS AS LIMITING THE SCOPE OF
THE 1936 ACT TO LANDLESS INDIANS; THEY DO NOT DEAL IN TERMS OF
EXCLUSIVENESS.  BUT IF THEY ARE TO BE INTERPRETED AS PETITIONERS
CONTEND, WE DO NOT ACCEPT THEM AS DEFINITIVE, BECAUSE THEY ARE OPPOSED
TO THE CLEAR WORDS OF THE ACT, THE REASONS FOR ITS ENACTMENT, FN8  ITS
CONTEMPORARY ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION,  FN9  AND ITS SUBSEQUENT
CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY.  FN10  SECONDLY, PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THE
EXEMPTION OF THE 1936 ACT WAS PERSONAL AND EXTENDED ONLY TO LANDS THE
TITLE TO WHICH WAS HELD BY THE INDIAN WHOSE RESTRICTED FUNDS WERE USED
TO PURCHASE THE LANDS.  THIS POSITION FINDS SOME SUPPORT IN THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, REFERRING TO "LANDS THE TITLE TO WHICH IS HELD BY
AN INDIAN  ...  , PURCHASED OUT OF TRUST OR RESTRICTED FUNDS OF SAID
INDIAN," BUT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS WAS SUCH THAT THE ACT SHOULD BE MORE BROADLY CONSTRUED THAN
ITS TECHNICAL TERMS MIGHT INDICATE.  FOR, EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT
PETITIONERS ARE CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE 1936 ACT AFFORDED ONLY A
PERSONAL EXEMPTION, WOSEY JOHN DEERE, WHOSE RESTRICTED FUNDS PURCHASED
THE THREE TRACTS, HELD A RESTRICTED LIFE ESTATE IN EACH TRACT ON
JANUARY 1, 1937, THE ASSESSMENT DATE.  AS THE LIFE TENANT, SHE WAS
OBLIGATED TO PAY THE TAXES UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW.  60 OKLA STAT. ANN. SEC.
69; HELM V. BELVIN, 107 OKLA. 214, 232 P. 382; RILEY V. COLLIER, 111
OKLA. 130, 238 P. 491; WALDON V. BAKER, 184 OKLA. 492, 495, 88 P.2D
352.  SINCE THE 1936 ACT WAS CONCERNED WITH A TAX EXEMPTION, THE PROPER
TEST OF WHETHER AN INDIAN PURCHASER HAD "TITLE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT, MUST BE WHETHER HE HAD RETAINED SUCH A PROPERTY INTEREST THAT,
BUT FOR THE ACT, HE WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO THE TAX.  HERE WOSEY JOHN
DEERE RETAINED SUCH A TITLE, AND THE THREE TRACTS WERE CLEARLY WITHIN
THE 1936 ACT, EVEN ACCEPTING PETITIONERS' CONSTRUCTION. 

LIKEWISE, THE TWO RURAL PARCELS COMPLY WITH THE DESCRIPTION CONTAINED
IN THE 1937 ACT, WHICH PROVIDES IN PART:  "ALL HOMESTEADS, HERETOFORE
PURCHASED OUT OF THE TRUST OR RESTRICTED FUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL INDIANS,
...  SHALL BE NONTAXABLE UNTIL OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY CONGRESS:
PROVIDED, THAT THE TITLE TO SUCH HOMESTEADS SHALL BE HELD SUBJECT TO
RESTRICTIONS  ...  "  THOSE PARCELS WERE PURCHASED FROM THE RESTRICTED
FUNDS OF AN INDIVIDUAL INDIAN, WOSEY JOHN DEERE; RESPONDENTS HOLD THEM
SUBJECT TO VALID RESTRICTIONS N11; AND THEY WERE PROPERLY DESIGNATED BY
RESPONDENTS AS HOMESTEAD LANDS ON DECEMBER 16, 1937, PRIOR TO THE 1938
ASSESSMENT DATE.  FN12  IN VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1937
ACT, SUMMARIZED IN NOTE 10, SUPRA, PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT THAT THE 1937
ACT APPLIES ONLY TO LANDS PURCHASED FOR LANDLESS INDIANS MUST BE
REJECTED. 

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE TAX EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE 1937 ACT
IS PERSONAL TO THE INDIAN WHOSE RESTRICTED FUNDS WERE USED TO PURCHASE
THE LAND, OR ELSE THAT IT EXTENDS TO THE LAND IN THE HANDS OF
RESTRICTED CREEK INDIAN GRANTEES ONLY UNTIL 1956, CONSONANTLY WITH THE
STATUTES GOVERNING THE TAX STATUS OF RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LANDS OF THE
CREEKS.  FN13  THE ACT DOES NOT SAY, HOWEVER, AND THERE IS NOT A WORD
TO SUGGEST THAT UPON TRANSFER OF THE LANDS TO INDIAN HEIRS OR GRANTEES,
SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS, THE EXEMPTION IS EITHER TO TERMINATE OR ELSE
EXTEND ONLY UNTIL 1956.  IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED EITHER RESULT, IT
COULD EASILY HAVE EXPRESSED THOSE PURPOSES.  IT DID NEITHER, BUT
PROVIDED INSTEAD THAT THE LANDS WHILE RESTRICTED WERE TO REMAIN
NONTAXABLE UNTIL IT DIRECTED OTHERWISE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPLICIT
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION, WE DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD HOLD THE EXEMPTION
PERSONAL OR ATTEMPT TO DERIVE AN APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE FROM THE
COMPLICATED AND ADMITTEDLY AMBIGUOUS STATUTES GOVERNING THE TAX STATUS
OF RESTRICTED ALLOTTED CREEK LANDS.  RESPONDENTS RECEIVED THE LAND,
WHICH THEY HAVE DESIGNATED AS A HOMESTEAD, SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS OF
INDEFINITE DURATION WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HAD AUTHORITY
TO IMPOSE.  FN14  IT SEEMS ONLY FAIR, AS THE CLEAR WORDS OF THE 1937
ACT PROVIDE, THAT THE TAX EXEMPTION SHOULD FOLLOW THE RESTRICTIONS AND
CONTINUE SO LONG AS THEY DO, UNLESS CONGRESS MEANWHILE PROVIDES TO THE
CONTRARY.  EVEN IF THE 1937 ACT WERE AMBIGUOUS, WE THINK THIS
INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE TAKEN.  CF. UNITED STATES V. REILY, 290 U.S.
33, 39. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE 1936 ACT CREATED ONLY A PERSONAL
EXEMPTION, AND THE 1937 ACT GAVE NO MORE BECAUSE IT WAS AN AMENDMENT TO
THE 1936 ACT INTENDED SOLELY TO LIMIT THE UNNECESSARILY BROAD EXEMPTION
OF THAT ACT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THIS WAS THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF THE 1937
ACT,  FN15  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE 1937 ACT GRANTS BUT A
PERSONAL EXEMPTION OR ELSE ALLOWS THE EXEMPTION ONLY UNTIL 1956.  WHILE
THE QUESTION NEED NOT BE DECIDED, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO NOTICE THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE 1936 ACT MAKES IT AT LEAST DOUBTFUL WHETHER THAT ACT
AFFORDED ONLY A PERSONAL EXEMPTION.  ASSUMING, HOWEVER, THAT IT DID,
THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE 1937 ACT, CONTRARY TO ITS TERMS,
INCORPORATED THE SAME LIMITATION.  THE APPLICABLE COMMITTEE REPORT
SHEDS NO LIGHT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.  FN16  THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY
BETWEEN THE OBJECT OF THE 1937 ACT TO LIMIT THE SWEEPING EXEMPTION OF
ALL LANDS, GRANTED BY THE 1936 ACT, TO HOMESTEAD LANDS, AND A PURPOSE
TO ENLARGE THE EXEMPTION ACCORDED TO THE RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF
HOMESTEAD LANDS SO THAT IT WOULD APPLY TO RESTRICTED HOMESTEADS PASSING
TO INDIAN HEIRS OR GRANTEES.  THE FACT THAT EXTENSIVE CHANGES IN
LANGUAGE WERE MADE IN THE 1937 ACT IS PERSUASIVE, MOREOVER, THAT A
CHANGE IN SENSE FROM THE PRESUMED PERSONAL EXEMPTION OF THE 1936 ACT
WAS INTENDED.  IF THE ONLY OBJECT OF THE 1937 ACT WAS TO LIMIT THE
APPLICATION OF THE 1936 ACT (WITH ITS ASSUMED PERSONAL EXEMPTION) TO
HOMESTEADS, THAT PURPOSE COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED SIMPLY BY
SUBSTITUTING THE WORD "HOMESTEADS" FOR THE WORD "LANDS."  WE CANNOT
ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN LANGUAGE WERE ONLY
MATTERS OF STYLE.  FURTHERMORE, IT HAS NOT BEEN SUGGESTED THAT
RESPONDENTS, AS TAKERS FROM THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER, WERE INCOMPETENT TO
DESIGNATE THE LANDS AS A HOMESTEAD UNDER THE 1937 ACT.  IF THEY COULD
DO THAT, AS WE AND APPARENTLY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR THINK THEY
COULD,  FN17  IT WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW THAT, HAVING PROPERLY DESIGNATED
THEIR HOMESTEAD UNDER THE ACT, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE TAX EXEMPTION
AFFORDED RESTRICTED HOMESTEADS BY THE ACT UNTIL CONGRESS OTHERWISE
DIRECTS. 

THE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1937 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  FROM ALMOST THE
BEGINNING, THE EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE AND PROTECT THE
INDIANS AND THEIR PROPERTY AGAINST INTERFERENCE EVEN BY A STATE HAS
BEEN RECOGNIZED.  CF. WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515.  THIS POWER IS
NOT EXPRESSLY GRANTED IN SO MANY WORDS BY THE CONSTITUTION, EXCEPT WITH
RESPECT TO REGULATING COMMERCE WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES, BUT ITS
EXISTENCE CANNOT BE DOUBTED.  IN THE EXERCISE OF THE WAR AND TREATY
POWERS, THE UNITED STATES OVERCAME THE INDIANS AND TOOK POSSESSION OF
THEIR LANDS, SOMETIMES BY FORCE, LEAVING THEM AN UNEDUCATED, HELPLESS
AND DEPENDENT PEOPLE, NEEDING PROTECTION AGAINST THE SELFISHNESS OF
OTHERS AND THEIR OWN IMPROVIDENCE.  OF NECESSITY, THE UNITED STATES
ASSUMED THE DUTY OF FURNISHING THAT PROTECTION, AND WITH IT THE
AUTHORITY TO DO ALL THAT WAS REQUIRED TO PERFORM THAT OBLIGATION AND TO
PREPARE THE INDIANS TO TAKE THEIR PLACE AS INDEPENDENT, QUALIFIED
MEMBERS OF THE MODERN BODY POLITIC.  THIS WAS CLASSICALLY SUMMARIZED IN
UNITED STATES V. KAGAMA, 118 U.S. 375, 384-85: 

"FROM THEIR (THE INDIANS') VERY WEAKNESS AND HELPLESSNESS, SO LARGELY
DUE TO THE COURSE OF DEALING OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH THEM AND
THE TREATIES IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN PROMISED, THERE ARISES THE DUTY OF
PROTECTION, AND WITH IT THE POWER.  THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY
THE EXECUTIVE AND BY CONGRESS, AND BY THIS COURT, WHENEVER THE QUESTION
HAS ARISEN. 

     .         .         .         .         .    "THE POWER OF THE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT OVER THESE REMNANTS OF A RACE ONCE POWERFUL, NOW
WEAK AND DIMINISHED IN NUMBERS, IS NECESSARY TO THEIR PROTECTION,  ...
IT MUST EXIST IN THAT GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE IT NEVER HAS EXISTED ANYWHERE
ELSE, BECAUSE THE THEATER OF ITS EXERCISE IS WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL
LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN DENIED, AND
BECAUSE IT ALONE CAN ENFORCE ITS LAWS ON ALL THE TRIBES." 

AFTER 1871, CONGRESS TURNED FROM REGULATING INDIAN AFFAIRS BY
TREATIES TO REGULATION BY AGREEMENT AND LEGISLATION.  THE PLENARY
CHARACTER OF THIS LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER VARIOUS PHASES OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED ON MANY OCCASIONS.  FN18  ONE ASPECT OF
THIS LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM COMMENCED WITH THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT OF
1887, 24 STAT. 388, FOLLOWED BY VARIOUS OTHER ALLOTMENT ACTS DEALING
WITH SPECIFIC TRIBES,  FN19  WHEREBY CONGRESS EMBARKED UPON A POLICY OF
ASSIMILATING THE INDIANS THROUGH DISSOLUTION OF TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND
THE COMPULSORY INDIVIDUALIZATION OF INDIAN LAND.  FN20  TO LESSEN THE
DIFFICULTY OF THE PERIOD OF TRANSITION AND TO PROTECT THE ALLOTTEES'
INTEREST IN THEIR LANDS, CONGRESS, BY THE DEVICE OF THE TRUST PATENT OR
A RESTRICTED FEE, DENIED THEM THE POWER TO ALIENATE OR ENCUMBER THEIR
LANDS FOR FIXED PERIODS OF TIME, SUBJECT TO EXTENSION - DENIALS WHICH
WERE SUSTAINED AS PROPER EXERCISES OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  TIGER V.
WESTERN INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286, 310-17; BRADER V. JAMES, 246 U.S.
88, 96; SUNDERLAND V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 226, 233-34.  THE
OBLIGATION AND THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE
THOSE RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LANDS FOR THE INDIAN OWNERS HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED, HECKMAN V. UNITED STATES, 224 U.S. 413, AND THEY WERE HELD
IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION AS INSTRUMENTALITIES BY WHICH THE UNITED
STATES PROVIDED FOR THE WELFARE AND EDUCATION OF ITS INDIAN WARDS. 
RICKERT V. UNITED STATES, 188 U.S. 432.  FN21  IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OR LEASE OF
RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LANDS ARE IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. THURSTON COUNTY, 143 F. 287; NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE V.
ANDERSON, 147 F. 87.  WHEN THIS COURT CAME TO CONSIDER THE TAX STATUS
OF LANDS OF THE CHARACTER HERE INVOLVED, THAT IS, LANDS PURCHASED FOR
AN INDIAN FROM THE TRUST OR RESTRICTED PROCEEDS OF HIS RESTRICTED
ALLOTTED LAND, IT SAID THAT, "IN A BROAD SENSE ALL LANDS WHICH THE
INDIANS ARE PERMITTED TO PURCHASE OUT OF THE TAXABLE LANDS OF THE STATE
IN THIS PROCESS OF THEIR EMANCIPATION AND ASSUMPTION OF THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF CITIZENSHIP, WHETHER RESTRICTED OR NOT, MAY BE SAID
TO BE INSTRUMENTALITIES IN THAT PROCESS."  LANDS SO PURCHASED, HOWEVER,
WERE HELD TO FALL WITHIN THAT CLASS OF "INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH, THOUGH
CONGRESS MAY PROTECT THEM FROM STATE TAXATION, WILL NEVERTHELESS BE
SUBJECT TO THAT TAXATION UNLESS CONGRESS SPEAKS."  SHAW V. GIBSON
ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575, 580-81. 

AS A RESULT OF THE SHAW DECISION, CONGRESS SPOKE IN THE ACT OF 1936
AND THE AMENDMENT OF 1937, WHICH WERE INTENDED TO PROTECT THE INDIANS
IN THEIR LAND PURCHASES FROM RESTRICTED FUNDS AND TO KEEP FAITH WITH
THEM BECAUSE OF THE IMPLIED OR EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS THAT THOSE LANDS
WERE TAX EXEMPT.  FN22  THE CLEAR IMPLICATION OF THE SHAW CASE IS THAT
THOSE ACTS ARE VALID EXERCISES OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER, AND WE SO HOLD. 
THEY ARE APPROPRIATE MEANS BY WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROTECTS ITS
GUARDIANSHIP AND PREVENTS THE IMPAIRMENT OF A CONSIDERED PROGRAM
UNDERTAKEN IN DISCHARGE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THAT GUARDIANSHIP.  THE
FACT THAT THE ACTS WITHDRAW LANDS FROM THE TAX ROLLS AND MAY POSSIBLY
EMBARRASS THE FINANCES OF A STATE OR ONE OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS IS FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.  CF. FEDERAL LAND BANK V.
BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S. 95, 104.  ALSO, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT
RESPONDENTS ARE CITIZENS, BECAUSE IT IS SETTLED THAT THE GRANT OF
CITIZENSHIP TO THE INDIANS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR STATUS AS
WARDS WHOSE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE PLENARY CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  SEE TIGER V. WESTERN INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286, 312-17;
BRADER V. JAMES, 246 U.S. 88, 96.  IT RESTS WITH CONGRESS TO DETERMINE
WHEN THE GUARDIANSHIP RELATION SHALL CEASE.  TIGER'S CASE, SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. RAMSEY, 271 U.S. 467, 469; UNITED STATES V. MCGOWAN,
302 U.S. 535, 538.  THUS FAR, CONGRESS HAS NOT TERMINATED THAT RELATION
WITH RESPECT TO THE CREEK NATION AND ITS MEMBERS.  THAT NATION STILL
EXISTS,  FN23 AND HAS RECENTLY BEEN AUTHORIZED TO RESUME SOME OF ITS
FORMER POWERS.  ACT OF JUNE 26, 1936, 49 STAT. 1967.  AND ALTHOUGH THE
CREEK TRIBAL ROLLS WERE CLOSED ON MARCH 4, 1906,  FN24  CONGRESS HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT UN-ENROLLED CREEKS OF THE HALF BLOOD OR MORE ARE TRIBAL
INDIANS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL.  FN25  RESPONDENTS FALL IN THIS
CLASS. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER CONTENTIONS RAISED BY PETITIONERS AND
FIND THEM WITHOUT MERIT.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS CORRECT IN THE MATTERS
APPEALED FROM AND IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 2 OF THIS ACT PROVIDES: 

"ALL LANDS THE TITLE TO WHICH IS NOW HELD BY AN INDIAN SUBJECT TO
RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE EXCEPT WITH THE CONSENT
OR APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, HERETOFORE PURCHASED OUT
OF TRUST OR RESTRICTED FUNDS OF SAID INDIAN, ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SHALL BE NONTAXABLE
UNTIL OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY CONGRESS." 

FN2  THE 1937 ACT AMENDED SEC. 2 OF THE 1936 ACT TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"ALL HOMESTEADS, HERETOFORE PURCHASED OUT OF THE TRUST OR RESTRICTED
FUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL INDIANS, ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SHALL BE NONTAXABLE
UNTIL OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY CONGRESS:  PROVIDED, THAT THE TITLE TO SUCH
HOMESTEADS SHALL BE HELD SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ALIENATION OR
ENCUMBRANCE EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR:
AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE INDIAN OWNER OR OWNERS SHALL SELECT,
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, EITHER THE
AGRICULTURAL AND GRAZING LANDS, NOT EXCEEDING A TOTAL OF ONE HUNDRED
AND SIXTY ACRES, OR THE VILLAGE, TOWN OR CITY PROPERTY, NOT EXCEEDING
IN COST $5,000, TO BE DESIGNATED AS A HOMESTEAD." 

FN3  IN SUNDERLAND V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 226, IT WAS HELD THAT
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HAD POWER TO IMPOSE SUCH A RESTRICTION
AGAINST ALIENATION OR ENCUMBRANCE WITH RESPECT TO LANDS PURCHASED FOR
INDIANS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES (OF WHICH THE CREEKS ARE ONE) WITH
THE PROCEEDS FROM SALES OF THEIR RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LANDS.  WE THINK
IT CLEAR THAT HE ALSO HAS AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE SUCH RESTRICTIONS UPON
LANDS PURCHASED WITH RESTRICTED FUNDS FROM LEASES OF RESTRICTED
ALLOTTED LANDS (SEE SHAW V. GIBSON-ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575,
AND UNITED STATES V. BROWN, 8 F.2D 564 AT 568), AND TO MAKE THOSE
RESTRICTIONS RUN WITH THE LANDS IN THE HANDS OF INDIAN GRANTEES.  CF.
DRUMMOND V. UNITED STATES, 34 F.2D 755, 758-59; UNITED STATES V.
GOLDFEDER, 112 F.2D 615. 

FN4  SEE SHAW V. GIBSON-ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575. 

FN5  UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW, THE TAXABLE STATUS OF PROPERTY IN OKLAHOMA
IS FIXED AS OF THE ASSESSMENT DATE, JANUARY 1, IN EACH YEAR, ALTHOUGH
TAXES ARE LEVIED AS OF JULY 1.  SEE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. CENTRAL
BAPTIST CHURCH, 136 OKLA. 99, 276 P. 726; IN RE SINCLAIR PRAIRIE OIL
CO., 175 OKLA. 289, 53 P.2D 221; IN RE CHAMPLIN REFINING CO., 186 OKLA.
625, 99 P.2D 880.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, WE ASSUME WITHOUT
DECIDING THAT THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY ON THE ASSESSMENT DATE IS
DETERMINATIVE. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 3, ANTE. 

FN7  SENATOR THOMAS SAID IN PART:  "FORMERLY THE CONGRESS AUTHORIZED
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO BUY LAND FOR LANDLESS INDIANS.  THE
SECRETARY PROCEEDED TO BUY THE LANDS AND ASSIGNED THE INDIANS TO RESIDE
UPON SUCH LANDS.  THE RECOMMENDATION OR ASSERTION WAS MADE TO THE
INDIANS THAT THE LAND WOULD BE THEIRS AND THEY WOULD HAVE NO TAXES TO
PAY.  ...  IN SOME CASES TAX WARRANTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE INDIANS
HAVE BEEN THREATENED WITH DISPOSSESSION.  THE DEPARTMENT BELIEVES THAT,
IN ORDER TO KEEP FAITH WITH THE INDIANS, THE TAX WARRANTS AND TAX
ASSESSMENTS SHOULD BE PAID AND THE TITLE TO THE LANDS CLEARED.  THE
BILL AUTHORIZES THE APPROPRIATION OF MONEY FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

"SECTION 2 PROVIDES THAT THE LANDS SO SECURED SHALL HEREAFTER BE NON
TAXABLE."  80 CONG. REC. 9159. 

FN8  THE MERIAM REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON THE
PROBLEM OF INDIAN ADMINISTRATION (BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, 1928), PP. 795
98, POINTED OUT THAT ALLOTMENTS WERE OFTEN UNSUITABLE FOR HOMES, THAT
OTHER LANDS HAD TO BE PURCHASED, AND THAT WHILE RESTRICTED ALLOTTED
LANDS AND THE TRUST PROCEEDS THEREOF HAD BEEN HELD IMMUNE FROM STATE
TAXATION, THE TAX STATUS OF PROPERTY PURCHASED WITH TRUST FUNDS FROM
SALE OR LEASE OF ALLOTTED LANDS WAS IN DOUBT.  LEGISLATION CONFERRING
TAX EXEMPTION WAS RECOMMENDED TO PROTECT THE INDIANS AGAINST INABILITY
TO PAY OR THEIR INSUFFICIENT SENSE OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY, AND TO
KEEP FAITH SINCE OFFICIALS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD EXPRESSLY OR
IMPLIEDLY REPRESENTED THAT LANDS SO PURCHASED WERE TAX EXEMPT.  THE
HOUSE AND SENATE REPORTS SHOW THAT THIS WAS THE PROBLEM AT WHICH THE
1936 ACT WAS AIMED.  H. REP. 2398, S. REP. 2168, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.
SEE ALSO COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW (1942), PP. 260-61. 

FN9  THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR BOTH RULED THAT THE 1936 ACT APPLIED TO LANDS PURCHASED
FROM THE RESTRICTED FUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL OSAGE INDIANS WHO WERE NOT
LANDLESS.  38 OP. A.G. 577; 56 I.D. 48. 

FN10  IN REPORTING A BILL TO REPEAL THE BROAD PROVISION OF SEC. 2 OF
THE 1936 ACT, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS SAID:  "IT WILL BE
OBSERVED FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 2,  ...  THAT IT APPLIES TO ALL
LANDS PURCHASED BY RESTRICTED INDIAN FUNDS, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SO
HELD."  H. REP. 562, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE SENATE SUBSTITUTED FOR
THE REPEALER AN AMENDMENT LIMITING SEC. 2 TO HOMESTEAD LANDS, WHICH
BECAME THE 1937 ACT, BUT THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ALSO MAKES IT
CLEAR THAT THE 1936 ACT COVERED ALL RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS PURCHASED
OUT OF RESTRICTED FUNDS.  S. REP. 332, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 3, ANTE. 

FN12  THE SECRETARY DID NOT APPROVE THE DESIGNATION UNTIL MARCH 24,
1938, BUT WE THINK THIS APPROVAL RELATED BACK TO THE DATE OF
DESIGNATION. 

FN13  SEE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1902, 32 STAT. 500, 503; ACT OF APRIL 26,
1906, SEC. 19, 34 STAT. 137, 144; ACT OF MAY 27, 1908, SECS. 4, 9, 35
STAT. 312, 313, 315; ACT OF APRIL 12, 1926, 44 STAT. 239; ACT OF MAY
10, 1928, 45 STAT. 495; ACT OF MAY 24, 1928, 45 STAT. 733; ACT OF MARCH
2, 1931, 46 STAT. 1471; ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932, 47 STAT. 474; ACT OF
JANUARY 27, 1933, 47 STAT. 777. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 3, ANTE. 

FN15  SEE H. REP. 562, S. REP. 332, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN16  S. REP. 332, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN17  THE SECRETARY APPROVED RESPONDENTS' DESIGNATION.  SEE NOTE 12,
ANTE. 

FN18  SEE UNITED STATES V. KAGAMA, SUPRA; CHOCTAW NATION V. UNITED
STATES, 119 U.S. 1, 27; STEPHENS V. CHEROKEE NATION, 174 U.S. 445, 486;
LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK, 187 U.S. 553, 566-68; TIGER V. WESTERN
INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286, 310-17; UNITED STATES V. SANDOVAL, 231
U.S. 28, 45-47; BRADER V. JAMES, 246 U.S. 88, 96; SUNDERLAND V. UNITED
STATES, 266 U.S. 226, 233-34; UNITED STATES V. RAMSEY, 271 U.S. 467,
469, 471; UNITED STATES V. MCGOWAN, 302 U.S. 535, 538-39; BOARD OF
COMM'RS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343, 349. 

FN19  WOSEY JOHN DEERE RECEIVED HER ALLOTMENT UNDER AN AGREEMENT
NEGOTIATED WITH THE CREEKS BY THE DAWES COMMISSION AND INCORPORATED
INTO THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1901, 31 STAT. 861, AS AMENDED BY THE
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT OF JUNE 30, 1902, 32 STAT. 500.  SEE ALSO SEC.
19 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137, 144; ACT OF MAY 27,
1908, 35 STAT. 312; AND ACT OF MAY 10, 1928, 45 STAT. 495. 

FN20  ALLOTMENTS IN SEVERALTY WERE HALTED BY THE WHEELER-HOWARD ACT
OF JUNE 18, 1934, 48 STAT. 984, AND BY THE OKLAHOMA WELFARE ACT OF JUNE
26, 1936, 49 STAT. 1967.  THESE AND OTHER RECENT STATUTES REFLECT A
CHANGE IN POLICY, THE THEORY OF WHICH IS THAT INDIANS CAN BETTER MEET
THE PROBLEMS OF MODERN LIFE THROUGH CORPORATE, GROUP, OR TRIBAL ACTION,
RATHER THAN AS ASSIMILATED INDIVIDUALS. 

FN21  THE LAND INVOLVED IN THE RICKERT CASE WAS A TRUST ALLOTMENT,
RATHER THAN A RESTRICTED FEE.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER BOTH TYPES OF
ALLOTMENTS, HOWEVER, IS THE SAME.  SEE UNITED STATES V. RAMSEY, 271
U.S. 467, 471. 

FN22  SEE H. REP. 2398, S. REP. 2168, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.  SEE ALSO
THE MERIAM REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON THE PROBLEM OF
INDIAN ADMINISTRATION (BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, 1928), PP. 795-98. 

FN23  THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1901, 31 STAT. 861, AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT OF JUNE 30, 1902, 32 STAT. 500, PROVIDED FOR THE DISSOLUTION
OF THE CREEK TRIBE ON MARCH 4, 1906, BUT THIS PROVISION WAS REVOKED BY
THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 2, 1906, 34 STAT. 822, AND SEC. 28 OF THE
ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137, 148.    FN24  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT
OF APRIL 26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137. 

FN25  SEE ACT OF JANUARY 27, 1933, 47 STAT. 777; ACT OF FEB. 11,
1936, 49 STAT. 1135; ACT OF JUNE 26, 1936, 49 STAT. 1967; ACT OF
DECEMBER 24, 1942, C. 813, 56 STAT. 1080. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE: 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT AND ALSO IN THE OPINION EXCEPT AS IT RELATES
TO THE TAXES FOR 1938 AND THEREAFTER, LEVIED AND COLLECTED UNDER THE
1937 ACT.  I AGREE THAT THE EXEMPTION EXTENDED FOR THESE YEARS TO WOSEY
JOHN DEERE'S GRANTEES, BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS AND WITH THE
LIMITATION, WHICH I THINK SHOULD BE STATED, THAT UNDER PRESENTLY
EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION THE EXEMPTION EXTENDS ONLY TO 1956. 

AS I UNDERSTAND THE RULING, THE OPINION GROUNDS THE EXEMPTION FOR
GRANTEES SQUARELY ON THE 1937 ACT, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHETHER THEY
WERE ALSO EXEMPT UNDER THE 1936 ACT, A QUESTION NOT DECIDED.  WITH THAT
I CANNOT AGREE.  THE LATER STATUTE AMENDED THE EARLIER ONE.  BOTH ITS
TERMS AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY  FN1  SHOW IT HAD ONLY ONE PURPOSE. 
THAT WAS TO CUT DOWN THE AMOUNT OF LAND EXEMPTED.  "ALL HOMESTEADS"
TOOK THE PLACE OF "ALL LANDS."  THERE WERE OTHER CHANGES IN LANGUAGE,
BUT THEY WERE MATTERS OF STYLE, NOT OF SUBSTANCE.  THERE IS NOT A WORD
IN THE ACT OF 1937 ITSELF, OR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS TO CONGRESS, TO
SHOW THAT ANY OTHER CHANGE WAS IN MIND.  I FIND, THEREFORE, NO EVIDENCE
OF PURPOSE TO ENLARGE THE PROTECTED CLASS AT THE SAME TIME THE AMOUNT
OF LAND EXEMPTED WAS BEING REDUCED.  NOR IS MERE ABSENCE OF LANGUAGE
EXPRESSLY LIMITING THE EXEMPTION TO A CLASS DEFINED IN THE ACT A
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR IMPLYING AN INTENT TO ENLARGE THE PROTECTED
CLASS.  NULLIFYING THE POWER OF A STATE TO TAX LAND WITHIN ITS BORDERS
HELD BY OR FOR PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS IS TOO IMPORTANT AND DELICATE A
MATTER TO HANG ON SUCH AN IMPLICATION.  IN MY OPINION, THEREFORE, THE
SOLE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE 1937 ACT WAS TO REDUCE THE QUANTITY OF
LAND FOR WHICH EXEMPTION COULD BE CLAIMED.  CONSEQUENTLY, IF GRANTEES
WERE WITHIN THE BENEFIT, IT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE SO BY VIRTUE OF THE
1936 ACT. 

A LITERAL READING OF THAT ACT POSSIBLY WOULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT GRANTEES WERE EXCLUDED AND THE PROTECTION WAS PERSONAL TO THE
INDIAN WITH WHOSE FUNDS THE LANDS WERE PURCHASED.  BUT THE LANGUAGE IS
NOT ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE TO THIS EFFECT, AND, IN MY OPINION, THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FN2  SHOWS THAT THE PURPOSE AGAIN WAS NOT TO
ENLARGE OR RESTRICT THE CLASSES TO WHICH THE BENEFIT APPLIED, BUT
RATHER WAS TO BRING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PREEXISTING EXEMPTIONS LANDS
NOT COVERED BY THEM.  ANY OTHER VIEW WOULD CREATE AS TO THE LANDS
COVERED BY THE 1936 ACT, WHICH WERE ACQUIRED WITH RESTRICTED FUNDS, A
DIFFERENT AND A PREFERRED EXEMPTION AS COMPARED WITH THAT APPLICABLE TO
ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED LANDS, FROM THE SALE OF WHICH IN LARGE PART THE
FUNDS WERE DERIVED.  NO INTENT CAN BE IMPUTED TO CONGRESS TO GIVE THE
SUBSTITUTED LANDS PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT AS COMPARED WITH ORIGINAL
ALLOTMENTS.  THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT REQUIRE THIS, AND NOTHING IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY GIVES A BASIS FOR BELIEVING IT WAS INTENDED.  THERE
IS NO SUFFICIENT REASON IN EITHER FOR THINKING THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
TO CREATE NEW CLASSES OF BENEFICIARIES OR NEW KINDS OF EXEMPTIONS,
WHETHER IN DURATION OR OTHERWISE.  THERE WAS A PREEXISTING AND DEFINED
GENERAL POLICY IN BOTH RESPECTS, NO PROBLEM OF EITHER SORT WAS
PRESENTED BY THE SITUATION THE ACT WAS INTENDED TO CURE, AND THE SOLE
PURPOSE, IN MY OPINION, WAS TO MAKE SURE THE PREEXISTING EXEMPTIONS
WOULD EXTEND TO THE LANDS SPECIFIED IN THE ACT.  ACCORDINGLY, WHETHER
GRANTEES WERE EXEMPTED AND, IF SO, FOR HOW LONG IS TO BE DETERMINED NOT
BY IMPLICATION OR CONSTRUCTION FROM THE TERMS OF THE 1936 ACT ALONE,
BUT BY REFERENCE TO THE LAW AS IT EXISTED IN RESPECT OF GRANTEES OF
ORIGINAL ALLOTTEES PRIOR TO 1936. 

THERE IS NO NEED TO GO BACK OF 1928, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT, FOR OUR
PURPOSES, THE EFFECT OF PRIOR LEGISLATION WAS THAT GRANTEES OF ORIGINAL
ALLOTTEES WERE NOT WITHIN THE EXISTING TAX EXEMPTIONS, FN3  WHICH WERE,
FOR THE MOST PART, TO EXPIRE AT THE LATEST IN 1931.  FN4  IN SOME
INSTANCES, RESTRICTIONS EXTENDED TO LANDS HELD BY HEIRS OF ALLOTTEES,
BUT FOR THE LIMITED PERIOD.  FN5  IN 1928, CONGRESS EXTENDED EXISTING
RESTRICTIONS ON SOME LANDS - BOTH ALLOTTED AND INHERITED - TO 1956, BUT
AT THE SAME TIME REMOVED EXISTING RESTRICTIONS ON OTHERS.  45 STAT.
495.  THE EXISTING TAX EXEMPTION WAS CUT DOWN IN SCOPE TO ONE HUNDRED
SIXTY ACRES OF EACH INDIAN'S HOLDING, BUT WAS ALSO EXTENDED MORE
CLEARLY TO COVER THE LAND IN THE HANDS OF "ANY FULL BLOOD INDIAN HEIR
OR DEVISEE," THOUGH NOT BEYOND 1956.  45 STAT. 495, AS AMENDED BY 45
STAT. 733-4. 

IN 1933, PROBABLY BY REASON OF THE DISCOVERY OF OIL ON INDIAN LANDS,
CONSEQUENT SALE OR LEASE OF ORIGINAL ALLOTMENTS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND NUMEROUS SUITS BY INDIANS CLAIMING
THE PROCEEDS FREE FROM HIS RESTRICTIVE POWER, CONGRESS ENACTED ANOTHER
STATUTE, 47 STAT. 777, WHICH MADE ALL INDIAN FUNDS THEN IN OR LATER
COMING TO THE SECRETARY'S HANDS RESTRICTED.  IT CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING
PROVISO, WHICH IS THE LAST WORD, FOR OUR PURPOSES, ON EXEMPTION OF FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBE INDIAN LANDS PRIOR TO 1936: 

"PROVIDED, THAT WHERE THE ENTIRE INTEREST IN ANY TRACT OF RESTRICTED
AND TAX-EXEMPT LAND BELONGING TO MEMBERS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES
IS ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE, DEVISE, GIFT, OR PURCHASE, WITH RESTRICTED
FUNDS, BY OR FOR RESTRICTED INDIANS, SUCH LAND SHALL REMAIN RESTRICTED
AND TAXEXEMPT DURING THE LIFE OF AND AS LONG AS HELD BY SUCH RESTRICTED
INDIANS, BUT NOT LONGER THAN APRIL 26, 1956.  ...  PROVIDED FURTHER,
THAT SUCH RESTRICTED AND TAX-EXEMPT LAND HELD BY ANYONE, ACQUIRED AS
HEREIN PROVIDED, SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ACRES." 

IN A NUMBER OF RESPECTS, THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION IS UNCLEAR. 
BUT, WITHOUT ATTEMPT TO CLARIFY THEM, THE GENERAL PURPOSE SEEMS TO HAVE
BEEN TO EXEMPT LANDS BELONGING TO MEMBERS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES
DURING THEIR LIVES, BUT NOT BEYOND 1956 AND NOT EXCEEDING 160 ACRES, IF
"ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE, DEVISE, GIFT, OR PURCHASE, WITH RESTRICTED
FUNDS, BY OR FOR SUCH RESTRICTED INDIANS."  THE PROVISO IS AWKWARDLY
DRAWN, AND SOME OF THE LANGUAGE COULD BE TAKEN TO LIMIT THE EXEMPTION
TO THE INDIAN WITH WHOSE RESTRICTED FUNDS THE LANDS ARE ACQUIRED.  BUT
OTHER LANGUAGE CONTRADICTS THIS AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS IT
WAS CONTEMPLATED THE EXEMPTION WOULD EXTEND TO HEIRS, DEVISEES, DONEES
AND PURCHASERS WITH RESTRICTED FUNDS.  FN6  IN SHORT, AS TO THE LANDS
COVERED, INDIAN HEIRS, DEVISEES, DONEES AND GRANTEES WERE WITHIN THE
PROTECTION.  THAT THE PROVISO COVERS DIRECTLY THE LANDS IN QUESTION IN
THE HANDS OF WOSEY JOHN DEERE'S GRANTEES MAY BE DOUBTED.  FN7  BUT,
WHETHER OR NOT THE STATUTE APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO THIS CASE, IT SHOWS
THE LATEST PHASE OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY, PRIOR TO 1936, AS TO THE KIND
OF EXEMPTION GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF THE CREEK NATION AND THE PERSONS
ENTITLED TO ITS BENEFIT. 

IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE 1936 ACT WAS ADOPTED.  IN MY OPINION, IT
INCORPORATED THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING EXEMPTION, AS IT RELATED TO
DURATION AND GRANTEES, BUT EXTENDED IT TO "ALL LANDS" RATHER THAN
MERELY THE HOMESTEAD.  THE 1937 ACT RETURNED TO THE HOMESTEAD LIMIT,
BUT WITHOUT CHANGE IN OTHER RESPECTS.  IN MY VIEW, THEREFORE, AND FOR
THESE REASONS, THE GRANTEES OF WOSEY JOHN DEERE WERE ENTITLED TO THE
BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION, BUT, UNLESS IT IS EXTENDED FURTHER BY
CONGRESS, ONLY TO 1956. 

FN1  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 562, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 332,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN2  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2398, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 2168,
74TH CONG., 2D SESS.  SEE ALSO 80 CONG. REC. 9159 AND MERIAM REPORT TO
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON THE PROBLEM OF INDIAN ADMINISTRATION
(BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, 1928) 795-8. 

FN3  CF. ACT OF JUNE 30, 1902, C. 1323, SEC. 16, 32 STAT. 500, 503;
ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, C. 1876, SEC. 19, 34 STAT. 137, 144; ACT OF MAY
27, 1908, C. 199, SECS. 4, 9, 35 STAT. 312, 313, 315; ACT OF APRIL 12,
1926, C. 115, 44 STAT. 239. 

FN4  34 STAT. 144; 35 STAT. 315; 44 STAT. 239. 

FN5  SEE 35 STAT. 315; 44 STAT. 239. 

FN6  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1015, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 873,
77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; SEE ALSO 75 CONG. REC. 8163, 8170. 

FN7  THEY ARE HOMESTEAD LANDS.  THEY WERE BOUGHT WITH HER RESTRICTED
FUNDS.  SHE, IF ANYONE, WAS A "RESTRICTED INDIAN," THOUGH THAT TERM IS
NEW IN THIS ACT AND UNCLEAR.  SHE ACQUIRED THE LANDS BY PURCHASE.  HER
CHILDREN TOOK THEM BY DEED, WHETHER BY GIFT OR BY "PURCHASE" IS NOT
MATERIAL.  THEY, TOO, WERE "RESTRICTED INDIANS," IF SHE WAS.  AT ANY
RATE, THEY WERE FULL BLOOD.  ALL THESE THINGS WOULD FIT THE STATUTE TO
THE PRESENT CASE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TAX EXEMPTION IN THE PROVISO
APPARENTLY EXTENDS ONLY TO NEWLY ACQUIRED LANDS WHICH PRIOR TO THEIR
ACQUISITION WERE TAX EXEMPT AND RESTRICTED.  SEE 75 CONG. REC. 8170. 
NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE LANDS HERE INVOLVED WERE
EITHER TAX EXEMPT OR RESTRICTED WHEN WOSEY JOHN DEERE PURCHASED THEM. 
HOWEVER, THE PRECISE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE APPARENT REQUIREMENT THAT THE
LANDS SHALL HAVE BEEN TAX EXEMPT BEFORE THEY WERE ACQUIRED IS OBSCURED
BY THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISO IN A STATUTE ADDRESSED PRIMARILY TO THE
PROBLEM OF RESTRICTING FUNDS (IN THE HANDS OF THE SECRETARY) OBTAINED
LARGELY FROM THE SALE OF INTERESTS IN RESTRICTED LANDS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :












AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO., 318 U.S. 724 


NO. 454.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 3, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 19, 1943.  - NO.
454, 130 F.2D 154, REVERSED.  - NO. 582, 130 F.2D 797, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SHIPOWNER'S LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE EXTENDS TO A
SEAMAN WHO, DEPARTING ON OR RETURNING FROM SHORE LEAVE (THOUGH WITHOUT
ANY DUTY TO PERFORM FOR THE SHIP WHILE ON LEAVE), IS INJURED WHILE
PROCEEDING, WITHOUT MISCONDUCT, ACROSS A DOCK OR OTHER PROPERTY WHICH
WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE ROUTE BETWEEN THE VESSEL AND THE PUBLIC
STREETS.  P. 736. 

2.  LIABILITY IN SUCH CASE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE SHIPOWNER
WAS NEGLIGENT.  P. 736. 

AGUILAR V. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 582, WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP. V. JONES, ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 621, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 621, 622, TO REVIEW, IN NO. 582, THE REVERSAL OF
A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, AND, IN NO. 454, THE AFFIRMANCE OF
A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, IN SUITS BY SEAMEN FOR MAINTENANCE
AND CURE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THESE CASES IS WHETHER A SHIPOWNER IS
LIABLE FOR WAGES AND MAINTENANCE AND CURE TO A SEAMAN WHO, HAVING LEFT
HIS VESSEL ON AUTHORIZED SHORE LEAVE, IS INJURED WHILE TRAVERSING THE
ONLY AVAILABLE ROUTE BETWEEN THE MOORED SHIP AND A PUBLIC STREET.  THE
INJURY IN NO. 582 OCCURRED WHILE THE SEAMAN WAS DEPARTING FOR HIS
LEAVE.  THAT IN NO. 454 OCCURRED WHILE HE WAS RETURNING. 

THE COMPLAINT IN NO. 582 DISCLOSES THAT THE PLAINTIFF, RESPONDENT
HERE, WAS A MESSMAN ON THE STEAMSHIP BEAUREGARD, OWNED BY DEFENDANT. 
ON JANUARY 16, 1941, THE VESSEL, WHICH APPARENTLY WAS ENGAGED IN THE
COASTWISE TRADE BETWEEN NEW ORLEANS AND EAST COAST AND GULF PORTS, WAS
MOORED TO PIER C, PORT RICHMOND, PHILADELPHIA.  AT ABOUT 6 P.M.
PLAINTIFF LEFT THE SHIP ON SHORE LEAVE.  AS HE WAS PROCEEDING THROUGH
THE PIER TOWARD THE STREET, ALL THE LIGHTS WERE EXTINGUISHED.  IN THE
ENSUING DARKNESS, HE FELL INTO AN OPEN DITCH AT A RAILROAD SIDING. 
THIS CAUSED INJURIES WHICH REQUIRED TREATMENT AND PREVENTED HIM FROM
RESUMING HIS USUAL DUTIES.  THIS ACTION FOLLOWED, FOR MAINTENANCE AND
CURE AND WAGES.  ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT.  THE GROUND ASSIGNED WAS THAT, AT THE TIME OF HIS
INJURY, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ASHORE ON THE SHIP'S BUSINESS.  THE THIRD
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED (130 F.2D 797), HOLDING
THAT, ON THE FACTS STATED IN THE COMPLAINT, DEFENDANT WAS LIABLE FOR
MAINTENANCE AND CURE AND WAGES. 

THE STIPULATION OF FACTS IN NO. 454 DISCLOSES THAT ON APRIL 18, 1938,
THE DEFENDANT'S VESSEL, THE STEAMSHIP E.M. CLARK, WAS LYING DOCKED AT
THE PREMISES OF THE MEXICAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, IN CARTERET, NEW JERSEY,
WHICH DEFENDANT NEITHER OWNED, OPERATED, NOR CONTROLLED.  PETITIONER, A
MEMBER OF THE CREW, OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM THE MASTER AND WENT ASHORE
ON HIS OWN PERSONAL BUSINESS.  IN ORDER TO REACH THE VESSEL ON
RETURNING FROM SHORE LEAVE, HE HAD TO PASS THROUGH THE PREMISES OF THE
MEXICAN PETROLEUM COMPANY.  AFTER HE HAD GONE THROUGH THE ENTRANCE GATE
AND WHILE HE WAS WALKING ON THE ROADWAY OF THOSE PREMISES ABOUT A HALF
MILE FROM THE SHIP, HE WAS STRUCK AND INJURED BY A MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH
WAS NEITHER OWNED, OPERATED, NOR CONTROLLED BY THE DEFENDANT. 
PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION TO RECOVER $10,000, THE EXPENSE OF HIS
MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR THE INJURIES SO INCURRED.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, AND ON APPEAL THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  130 F.2D 154.  BOTH COURTS ACTED ON THE GROUND THAT
IN GOING ASHORE ON PERSONAL BUSINESS THE PLAINTIFF LEFT THE SERVICE OF
THE SHIP AND THEREFORE NO LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE ATTACHED. 

THE CASES WERE BROUGHT HERE TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT THUS PRESENTED ON
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF MARITIME LAW. 

ALL ADMIT THE SHIPOWNER IS LIABLE IF THE INJURY OCCURS WHILE THE
SEAMAN IS "IN THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP," AND THE ISSUE IS CAST IN THESE
AMBIGUOUS TERMS, THE PARTIES GIVING DIFFERENT MEANINGS TO THE ANCIENT
PHRASE. 

THE CLAIMANTS SAY IT INCLUDES THE WHOLE PERIOD OF SERVICE COVERED BY
THE SEAMAN'S ARTICLES; AND, IF HE IS INJURED DURING THIS TIME, THE
RIGHT IS MADE OUT, UNLESS IT IS SHOWN BY WAY OF DEFENSE HE HAS
FORFEITED IT BY MISCONDUCT CAUSING THE INJURY.  SINCE THE INJURIES HERE
TOOK PLACE DURING THE PERIOD AND THERE WAS ADMITTEDLY NO MISCONDUCT, IT
IS SAID THE CLAIMS ARE ESTABLISHED.  COROLLARIES OF THIS VIEW ARE THAT
RECOVERY IS NOT CONDITIONED ON SHOWING THE INJURY WAS RECEIVED WHILE
THE SEAMAN WAS AT WORK OR DOING SOME ERRAND FOR THE EMPLOYER, AND THAT
GOING ASHORE WITH LEAVE, OR RETURNING FROM IT, IS PART OF BEING "IN THE
SERVICE OF THE SHIP," WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS TO PERFORM SUCH AN ERRAND. 

THE SHIPOWNERS REGARD THE PHRASE MORE NARROWLY.  IN THEIR VIEW, IT
REQUIRES THE SEAMAN TO BE INJURED, IF ASHORE, WHILE HE IS "ON DUTY" OR
AT WORK, DOING SOME TASK CONNECTED WITH THE VESSEL'S BUSINESS.  GOING
ASHORE SIMPLY FOR DIVERSION AND RELIEF FROM ITS ROUTINE AND DISCIPLINE,
OR FOR ANY MATTER PERSONAL TO THE SEAMAN, TAKES HIM OUT OF THE SERVICE
OF THE SHIP; AND THE DEPARTURE IS MADE THE MOMENT HE STEPS OFF DECK AND
ONTO THE DOCK OR PIER, PERHAPS AS HE DESCENDS THE GANGPLANK OR LADDER. 
CF. THE PRESIDENT COOLIDGE, 23 F.SUPP.  575(D.C.).  LIKEWISE, RETURN IS
NOT MADE UNTIL HE IS ON BOARD AGAIN.  CF. LILLY V. UNITED STATES LINES
CO., 42 F.SUPP.  214(D.C.).  IN THIS VIEW, IT IS OF NO MOMENT WHETHER
THE INJURY RESULTS FROM THE SEAMAN'S FAULT OR MISCONDUCT OR FROM CAUSES
ENTIRELY BEYOND HIS CONTROL. 

IT WILL AID IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE LIABILITY TO CONSIDER ITS
ORIGIN AND NATURE. 

FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES, MARITIME NATIONS HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT UNIQUE
HAZARDS, EMPHASIZED BY UNUSUAL TENURE AND CONTROL, ATTEND THE WORK OF
SEAMEN.  THE PHYSICAL RISKS CREATED BY NATURAL ELEMENTS, AND THE
LIMITATIONS OF HUMAN ADAPTABILITY TO WORK AT SEA, ENLARGE THE NARROWER
AND MORE STRICTLY OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS OF SAILING AND OPERATING
VESSELS.  AND THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH ACCOMPANY LIVING ABOARD SHIP FOR
LONG PERIODS AT A TIME COMBINE WITH THE CONSTANT SHUTTLING BETWEEN
UNFAMILIAR PORTS TO DEPRIVE THE SEAMAN OF THE COMFORTS AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEISURE, ESSENTIAL FOR LIVING AND WORKING,  FN1  THAT
ACCOMPANY MOST LAND OCCUPATIONS.  FURTHERMORE, THE SEAMAN'S UNUSUAL
SUBJECTION TO AUTHORITY ADDS THE WEIGHT OF WHAT WOULD BE INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE FOR OTHERS TO THESE EXTRAORDINARY HAZARDS AND LIMITATIONS OF
SHIP LIFE. 

ACCORDINGLY, WITH THE COMBINED OBJECT OF ENCOURAGING MARINE COMMERCE
AND ASSURING THE WELL-BEING OF SEAMEN, MARITIME NATIONS UNIFORMLY HAVE
IMPOSED BROAD RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THEIR HEALTH AND SAFETY UPON THE
OWNERS OF SHIPS.  FN2  IN THIS COUNTRY THESE NOTIONS WERE REFLECTED
EARLY, AND HAVE SINCE BEEN EXPANDED, IN LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO SECURE
THE COMFORT AND HEALTH OF SEAMEN ABOARD SHIP,  FN3  HOSPITALIZATION AT
HOME  FN4  AND CARE ABROAD.  FN5  THE STATUTES ARE UNIFORM IN EVINCING
SOLICITUDE THAT THE SEAMAN SHALL HAVE AT HAND THE BAREST ESSENTIALS FOR
EXISTENCE.  THEY DO THIS IN TWO WAYS.  ONE IS BY RECOGNIZING THE
SHIPOWNER'S DUTY TO SUPPLY THEM, THE OTHER BY PROVIDING FOR CARE AT
PUBLIC EXPENSE.  THE FORMER DO NOT CREATE THE DUTY.  THAT EXISTED LONG
BEFORE THE STATUTES WERE ADOPTED.  THEY MERELY RECOGNIZE THE
PREEXISTING OBLIGATION AND PUT SPECIFIC LEGAL SANCTIONS, GENERALLY
CRIMINAL, BEHIND IT.  COMPARE HARDEN V. GORDON, 2 MASON 541, 11 FED.
CAS. NO. 6047(C.C.); THE GEORGE, 1 SUMN.  151, 10 FED. CAS. NO.
5329(C.C.); THE FOREST, 1 WARE 429, 9 FED. CAS. NO. 4936(D.C.).  THE
PROVISIONS FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE WERE NOT INTENDED TO RELIEVE THE
SHIPOWNER OF HIS DUTY.  ON THE CONTRARY, THEIR PURPOSE WAS TO MAKE SURE
THE SEAMAN WOULD HAVE CARE, IF THE EMPLOYER SHOULD FAIL TO GIVE IT AND
IN THE RARER CASES TO WHICH HIS OBLIGATION DOES NOT EXTEND.  THE
LEGISLATION THEREFORE GIVES NO GROUND FOR MAKING INFERENCES ADVERSE TO
THE SEAMAN OR RESTRICTIVE OF HIS RIGHTS.  CF. REED V. CANFIELD, 1
SUMN.  195, 20 FED. CAS. NO. 11,641(C.C.).  RATHER IT FURNISHES THE
STRONGEST BASIS FOR REGARDING THEM BROADLY, WHEN AN ISSUE CONCERNING
THEIR SCOPE ARISES, AND PARTICULARLY WHEN IT RELATES TO THE GENERAL
CHARACTER OF RELIEF THE LEGISLATION WAS INTENDED TO SECURE. 

AMONG THE MOST PERVASIVE INCIDENTS OF THE RESPONSIBILITY ANCIENTLY
IMPOSED UPON A SHIPOWNER FOR THE HEALTH AND SECURITY OF SAILORS WAS
LIABILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND CURE OF SEAMEN BECOMING ILL OR
INJURED DURING THE PERIOD OF THEIR SERVICE.  FN6  IN THE UNITED STATES
THIS OBLIGATION HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED CONSISTENTLY AS AN IMPLIED
PROVISION IN CONTRACTS OF MARINE EMPLOYMENT.  FN7 CREATED THUS WITH THE
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, THE LIABILITY, UNLIKE THAT FOR INDEMNITY OR
THAT LATER CREATED BY THE JONES ACT,  FN8  IN NO SENSE IS PREDICATED ON
THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIPOWNER.  WHETHER BY TRADITIONAL
STANDARDS HE IS OR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INJURY OR SICKNESS, HE IS
LIABLE FOR THE EXPENSE OF CURING IT AS AN INCIDENT OF THE MARINE
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  FN9  SO BROAD IS THE SHIPOWNER'S
OBLIGATION, THAT NEGLIGENCE OR ACTS SHORT OF CULPABLE MISCONDUCT ON THE
SEAMAN'S PART WILL NOT RELIEVE HIM OF THE RESPONSIBILITY.  PETERSON V.
THE CHANDOS, 4 F. 645(D.C.); SEE ALSO THE J.F. CARD, 43 F. 92(D.C.);
THE BEN FLINT, 1 ABB.  (U.S.)  126, 3 FED. CAS. NO. 1299(D.C.). 
CONCEPTIONS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, THE FELLOW-SERVANT DOCTRINE,
AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK HAVE NO PLACE IN THE LIABILITY OR DEFENSE
AGAINST IT.  ONLY SOME WILFUL MISBEHAVIOR OR DELIBERATE ACT OF
INDISCRETION SUFFICES TO DEPRIVE THE SEAMAN OF HIS PROTECTION.  THE BEN
FLINT, SUPRA.  THE TRADITIONAL INSTANCES ARE VENEREAL DISEASE  FN10 AND
INJURIES RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF INTOXICATION,  FN11  THOUGH ON
OCCASION THE LATTER HAS BEEN QUALIFIED IN RECOGNITION OF A CLASSIC
PREDISPOSITION OF SAILORS ASHORE.  FN12  OTHER RECENT CASES, HOWEVER,
DISCLOSE A TENDENCY TO EXPAND THESE TRADITIONAL EXCEPTIONS.  FN13 

CONSISTENTLY WITH THE BASIC PREMISES OF THE LIABILITY, IT WAS EARLY
SUGGESTED THAT THE RISKS WHICH IT COVERED WERE NOT ONLY THOSE ARISING
IN THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF THE SEAMAN'S DUTIES.  REED V. CANFIELD, 1
SUMN.  195, 20 FED. CAS. NO. 11,641(C.C.); RINGGOLD V. CROCKER, ABB. 
ADM.  344, 20 FED. CAS. NO. 11,843(D.C.).  UNLIKE MEN EMPLOYED IN
SERVICE ON LAND, THE SEAMAN, WHEN HE FINISHES HIS DAY'S WORK, IS
NEITHER RELIEVED OF OBLIGATIONS TO HIS EMPLOYER NOR WHOLLY FREE TO
DISPOSE OF HIS LEISURE AS HE SEES FIT.  OF NECESSITY, DURING THE VOYAGE
HE MUST EAT, DRINK, LODGE AND DIVERT HIMSELF WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE
SHIP.  IN SHORT, DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS TENURE THE VESSEL IS NOT
MERELY HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT; IT IS THE FRAMEWORK OF HIS EXISTENCE. 
FOR THAT REASON, AMONG OTHERS, HIS EMPLOYER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR
MAINTENANCE AND CURE EXTENDS BEYOND INJURIES SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF, OR
WHILE ENGAGED IN, ACTIVITIES REQUIRED BY HIS EMPLOYMENT.  IN THIS
RESPECT IT IS A BROADER LIABILITY THAN THAT IMPOSED BY MODERN WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION STATUTES.  FN14  APPROPRIATELY IT COVERS ALL INJURIES AND
AILMENTS INCURRED WITHOUT MISCONDUCT ON THE SEAMAN'S PART AMOUNTING TO
GROUND FOR FORFEITURE, AT LEAST WHILE HE IS ON THE SHIP, "SUBJECT TO
THE CALL OF DUTY AS A SEAMAN, AND EARNING WAGES AS SUCH."  THE BOUKER
NO. 2, 241 F. 831, 833(C.C.A.), CERTIORARI DENIED, 245 U.S. 647; CALMAR
S.S. CO. V. TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525, 527-8; HOLM V. CITIES SERVICE
TRANSPORTATION CO., 60 F.2D 721(C.C.A.); HIGHLAND V. THE HARRIET C.
KERLIN, 41 F. 222(C.C.); THE QUAKER CITY, 1 F.SUPP.  840(D.C.); COMPARE
NEILSON V. THE LAURA, 2 SAWY.  242, 17 FED. CAS. NO. 10,092(D.C.);
CALLON V. WILLIAMS, 2 LOWELL 1, 4 FED. CAS. NO. 2324(D.C.).  FN15 

WHEN THE SEAMAN'S DUTIES CARRY HIM ASHORE, THE SHIPOWNER'S OBLIGATION
IS NEITHER TERMINATED NOR NARROWED.  FN16  WHEN HE LEAVES THE SHIP
CONTRARY TO ORDERS, HOWEVER, THE OWNER'S DUTY IS ENDED.  FN17  BETWEEN
THESE EXTREMES ARE THE INSTANT CASES, RAISING FOR THE FIRST TIME HERE
THE QUESTION OF THE EXISTENCE AND SCOPE OF THE SHIPOWNER'S DUTY WHEN
THE SEAMAN IS INJURED WHILE ON SHORE LEAVE BUT WITHOUT SPECIFIC CHORE
FOR THE SHIP.  LIABILITY IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE WAS OBSCURED IN THE FIRST
MARITIME CODES,  FN18  AND ALTHOUGH EARLY SUGGESTED HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED
ONLY IMPLICITLY IN LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  FN19  VERY RECENTLY IT HAS
BEEN EXPLICITLY DENIED IN SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS.  FN20 

WE THINK THAT THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING SHIPBOARD INJURIES APPLY TO
THE FACTS PRESENTED BY THESE CASES.  TO RELIEVE THE SHIPOWNER OF HIS
OBLIGATION IN THE CASE OF INJURIES INCURRED ON SHORE LEAVE WOULD CAST
UPON THE SEAMAN HAZARDS ENCOUNTERED ONLY BY REASON OF THE VOYAGE.  THE
ASSUMPTION IS HARDLY SOUND THAT THE NORMAL USES AND PURPOSES OF SHORE
LEAVE ARE "EXCLUSIVELY PERSONAL" AND HAVE NO RELATION TO THE VESSEL'S
BUSINESS.  MEN CANNOT LIVE FOR LONG COOPED UP ABOARD SHIP, WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR EFFICIENCY, IF NOT ALSO SERIOUS DANGER
TO DISCIPLINE.  RELAXATION BEYOND THE CONFINES OF THE SHIP IS NECESSARY
IF THE WORK IS TO GO ON, MORE SO THAT IT MAY MOVE SMOOTHLY.  NO MASTER
WOULD TAKE A CREW TO SEA IF HE COULD NOT GRANT SHORE LEAVE, AND NO CREW
WOULD BE TAKEN IF IT COULD NEVER OBTAIN IT.  EVEN MORE FOR THE SEAMAN
THAN FOR THE LANDSMAN, THEREFORE, "THE SUPERFLUOUS IS THE NECESSARY
...  TO MAKE LIFE LIVABLE"  FN21  AND TO GET WORK DONE.  IN SHORT,
SHORE LEAVE IS AN ELEMENTAL NECESSITY IN THE SAILING OF SHIPS, A PART
OF THE BUSINESS AS OLD AS THE ART, NOT MERELY A PERSONAL DIVERSION. 

THE VOYAGE CREATES NOT ONLY THE NEED FOR RELAXATION ASHORE, BUT THE
NECESSITY THAT IT BE SATISFIED IN DISTANT AND UNFAMILIAR PORTS.  IF, IN
THOSE SURROUNDINGS, THE SEAMAN, WITHOUT DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT,
CONTRACTS DISEASE OR INCURS INJURY, IT IS BECAUSE OF THE VOYAGE, THE
SHIPOWNER'S BUSINESS.  THAT BUSINESS HAS SEPARATED HIM FROM HIS USUAL
PLACES OF ASSOCIATION.  BY ADDING THIS SEPARATION TO THE RESTRICTIONS
OF LIVING AS WELL AS WORKING ABOARD, IT FORGES DUAL AND UNIQUE
COMPULSIONS FOR SEEKING RELIEF WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND.  IN SUM, IT IS
THE SHIP'S BUSINESS WHICH SUBJECTS THE SEAMAN TO THE RISKS ATTENDING
HOURS OF RELAXATION IN STRANGE SURROUNDINGS.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS BUT
REASONABLE THAT THE BUSINESS EXTEND THE SAME PROTECTIONS AGAINST INJURY
FROM THEM AS IT GIVES FOR OTHER RISKS OF THE EMPLOYMENT.    IT WAS FROM
CONSIDERATIONS OF EXACTLY THIS CHARACTER THAT THE LIABILITY FOR
MAINTENANCE AND CURE AROSE.  FROM THEM, LIKEWISE, ITS LEGAL INCIDENTS
WERE DERIVED.  THE SHIPOWNER OWES THE PROTECTION REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
HE IS AT FAULT; THE SEAMAN'S FAULT, UNLESS GROSS, CANNOT DEFEAT IT;
UNLIKE THE STATUTORY LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS ON LAND, IT IS NOT LIMITED
TO STRICTLY OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS OR TO INJURIES WHICH HAVE AN IMMEDIATE
CAUSAL CONNECTION WITH AN ACT OF LABOR.  AN OBLIGATION WHICH THUS
ORIGINATED AND WAS SHAPED IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS OF SEAMEN FOR
PROTECTION FROM THE HAZARDS AND PECULIARITIES OF MARINE EMPLOYMENT
SHOULD NOT BE NARROWED TO EXCLUDE FROM ITS SCOPE CHARACTERISTIC AND
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THAT WORK.  AND, INDEED, NO DECISION HAS BEEN
FOUND WHICH SO NARROWS THE SHIPOWNER'S PARALLEL OBLIGATION IN THE CASE
OF SICKNESS OR DISEASE.  RATHER, THE IMPLICATIONS OF EXISTING AUTHORITY
POINT THE OTHER WAY.  CF.  THE BOUKER NO. 2, SUPRA.  FN22  THE
CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADVERTED TO BY MR.
JUSTICE STORY, WHICH SUPPORT THE LIABILITY FOR ILLNESS,  FN23  OR FOR
INJURIES RECEIVED ABOARD SHIP, LIKEWISE SUSTAIN IT FOR INJURIES
INCURRED ON SHORE LEAVE, AS WERE THOSE NOW IN ISSUE.  TO EXCLUDE SUCH
INJURIES FROM THE SCOPE OF THE LIABILITY WOULD IGNORE ITS ORIGINS AND
PURPOSES. 

THERE IS STRONG GROUND, THEREFORE, FOR REGARDING THE RIGHT TO
MAINTENANCE AND CURE AS COVERING INJURIES RECEIVED WITHOUT MISCONDUCT
WHILE ON SHORE LEAVE.  CERTAINLY THE NATURE AND FOUNDATIONS OF THE
LIABILITY REQUIRE THAT IT BE NOT NARROWLY CONFINED OR WHITTLED DOWN BY
RESTRICTIVE AND ARTIFICAL DISTINCTIONS DEFEATING ITS BROAD AND
BENEFICIAL PURPOSES.  IF LEEWAY IS TO BE GIVEN IN EITHER DIRECTION, ALL
THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH BROUGHT THE LIABILITY INTO BEING DICTATE IT
SHOULD BE IN THE SAILOR'S BEHALF.  IN THIS VIEW, THE NATURE AND
PURPOSES OF THE LIABILITY DO NOT PERMIT DISTINCTIONS WHICH ALLOW
RECOVERY WHEN THE SEAMAN BECOMES ILL OR IS INJURED WHILE IDLE ABOARD,
CF. CALMAR S.S. CO. V. TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525; THE BOUKER NO. 2, 241 F.
831(C.C.A.); HOLM V. CITIES SERVICE TRANSPORTATION CO., 60 F.2D
721(C.C.A.); THE QUAKER CITY, 1 F.SUPP.  840(D.C.), OR WHEN DOING SOME
MINOR ERRAND FOR THE SHIP ASHORE, GOMES V. PEREIRA, 42 F.SUPP. 
328(D.C.), BUT DENY IT WHEN HE FALLS FROM THE LADDER OR GANGPLANK AS HE
LEAVES THE VESSEL ON SHORE LEAVE, CF. THE PRESIDENT COOLIDGE, 23
F.SUPP.  575(D.C.), OR IS RETURNING FROM IT, LILLY V. UNITED STATES
LINES CO., 42 F.SUPP.  214(D.C.).  SUCH REFINEMENTS CUT THE HEART FROM
A PROTECTION TO WHICH THEY ARE WHOLLY FOREIGN IN AIM AND EFFECT.  THE
SAILOR DEPARTING FOR OR RETURNING FROM SHORE LEAVE IS, SENSIBLY, NO
MORE BEYOND THE BROAD PROTECTION OF HIS RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE
THAN IS THE SEAMAN QUITTING THE SHIP ON BEING DISCHARGED OR BOARDING IT
ON FIRST REPORTING FOR DUTY.  CF. THE MICHAEL TRACY, 295 F.
680(C.C.A.); THE SCOTLAND, 42 F. 925(D.C.). 

PLAINTIFFS HERE WERE INJURED WHILE TRAVERSING AN AREA BETWEEN THEIR
MOORED SHIPS AND THE PUBLIC STREETS BY AN APPROPRIATE ROUTE.  IT IS
TRUE THAT IN NO. 454 THE AREA CONSISTED OF THE EXTENSIVE PREMISES OF
THE MEXICAN PETROLEUM COMPANY, AT WHOSE DOCK THE SHIP WAS MOORED.  AND
IT IS SAID THE SHIPOWNER SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE BECAUSE HE HAD NO CONTROL
OVER THE PREMISES.  BUT IT WAS THE SHIPOWNER'S BUSINESS WHICH REQUIRED
THE USE OF THOSE FACILITIES.  AND HIS OBLIGATION TO CARE FOR THE
SEAMAN'S INJURIES IS, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, IN NO SENSE A FUNCTION OF HIS
NEGLIGENCE OR FAULT.  WHILE HIS ABILITY TO CONTROL CONDITIONS ABOARD
SHIP MAY BE TO SOME EXTENT AN ELEMENT IN CREATING HIS RESPONSIBILITY,
IT IS ONLY ONE OF MANY, IS NOT DEFINITIVE, AND BY NO MEANS DETERMINES
THE OCCASIONS ON WHICH HIS OBLIGATION ARISES.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE FACT
THAT THE SHIPOWNER MIGHT NOT BE LIABLE TO THE SEAMAN IN DAMAGES FOR THE
DOCK-OWNER'S NEGLIGENCE, CF. TODAHL V. SUDDEN & CHRISTENSON, 5 F.2D
462(C.C.A.), DOES NOT RELIEVE HIM OF HIS DUTY OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE. 
WE CAN SEE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, THEREFORE, BETWEEN IMPOSING THE
LIABILITY FOR INJURIES RECEIVED IN BOARDING OR QUITTING THE SHIP AND
ENFORCING IT FOR INJURIES INCURRED ON THE DOCK OR OTHER PREMISES WHICH
MUST BE TRAVERSED IN GOING FROM THE VESSEL TO THE PUBLIC STREETS OR
RETURNING TO IT FROM THEM.  THAT MUCH, AT LEAST, IS WITHIN THE
LIABILITY.  HOW FAR IT EXTENDS BEYOND THAT POINT WE NEED NOT NOW
DETERMINE.  AND, IN VIEW OF THE GROUND ON WHICH WE REST THE DECISION,
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE EFFECTS OF THE SHIPOWNERS'
LIABILITY CONVENTION OF 1936,  FN24  OTHER THAN TO STATE THAT IT IN NO
WAY ALTERS THE CONCLUSION HERE REACHED. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 582 IS AFFIRMED; THAT IN NO. 454 IS REVERSED AND
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION.  NO. 582 AFFIRMED.  NO. 454 REVERSED. 

FN1  CF. HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON, 273
U.S. 418, 447. 

FN2  AS MR. JUSTICE STORY, THEN ON CIRCUIT, OBSERVED IN HARDEN V.
GORDON, 2 MASON 541, 11 FED. CAS. NO. 6047(C.C.), AT 483, "SEAMEN ARE
BY THE PECULIARITY OF THEIR LIVES LIABLE TO SUDDEN SICKNESS FROM CHANGE
OF CLIMATE, EXPOSURE TO PERILS, AND EXHAUSTING LABOUR.  THEY ARE
GENERALLY POOR AND FRIENDLESS, AND ACQUIRE HABITS OF GROSS INDULGENCE,
CARELESSNESS, AND IMPROVIDENCE.  IF SOME PROVISION BE NOT MADE FOR THEM
IN SICKNESS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SHIP, THEY MUST OFTEN IN FOREIGN
PORTS SUFFER THE ACCUMULATED EVILS OF DISEASE, AND POVERTY, AND
SOMETIMES PERISH FROM THE WANT OF SUITABLE NOURISHMENT.  ...  IF THESE
EXPENSES ARE A CHARGE UPON THE SHIP, THE INTEREST OF THE OWNER WILL BE
IMMEDIATELY CONNECTED WITH THAT OF THE SEAMEN.  THE MASTER WILL WATCH
OVER THEIR HEALTH WITH VIGILANCE AND FIDELITY.  HE WILL TAKE THE BEST
METHODS, AS WELL TO PREVENT DISEASES, AS TO ENSURE A SPEEDY RECOVERY
FROM THEM.  HE WILL NEVER BE TEMPTED TO ABANDON THE SICK TO THEIR
FORLORN FATE; BUT HIS DUTY, COMBINING WITH THE INTEREST OF HIS OWNER,
WILL LEAD HIM TO SUCCOR THEIR DISTRESS, AND SHED A CHEERING KINDNESS
OVER THE ANXIOUS HOURS OF SUFFERING AND DESPONDENCY.  BEYOND THIS, IS
THE GREAT PUBLIC POLICY OF PRESERVING THIS IMPORTANT CLASS OF CITIZENS
FOR THE COMMERCIAL SERVICE AND MARITIME DEFENCE OF THE NATION.  EVERY
ACT OF LEGISLATION WHICH SECURES THEIR HEALTHS, INCREASES THEIR
COMFORTS, AND ADMINISTERS TO THEIR INFIRMITIES, BINDS THEM MORE
STRONGLY TO THEIR COUNTRY; AND THE PARENTAL LAW, WHICH RELIEVES THEM IN
SICKNESS BY FASTENING THEIR INTERESTS TO THE SHIP, IS AS WISE IN
POLICY, AS IT IS JUST IN OBLIGATION.  EVEN THE MERCHANT HIMSELF DERIVES
AN ULTIMATE BENEFIT FROM WHAT MAY SEEM AT FIRST AN ONEROUS CHARGE.  IT
ENCOURAGES SEAMEN TO ENGAGE IN PERILOUS VOYAGES WITH MORE PROMPTITUDE,
AND AT LOWER WAGES.  IT DIMINISHES THE TEMPTATION TO PLUNDERAGE UPON
THE APPROACH OF SICKNESS; AND URGES THE SEAMEN TO ENCOUNTER HAZARDS IN
THE SHIP'S SERVICE, FROM WHICH THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE BE DISPOSED TO
WITHDRAW." 

FN3  E.G., ACT OF JULY 20, 1790, C. 29, SEC. 8, 1 STAT. 134; ACT OF
JUNE 7, 1872, C. 322, SEC. 41, 17 STAT. 270; 46 U.S.C. SECS. 666, 667,
REQUIRING THAT SHIPS CARRY A MINIMUM SUPPLY OF MEDICINES AND
ANTISCORBUTICS.  ACT OF JULY 20, 1790, C. 29, SEC. 9, 1 STAT. 135; ACT
OF JUNE 7, 1872, C. 322, SEC. 36, 17 STAT. 269; ACT OF DEC. 21, 1898,
C. 28, SEC. 12, 30 STAT. 758; R.S. 4565; 46 U.S.C. SECS. 661, 662,
REQUIRING THAT SHIPS CARRY SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE STORES AND WATER FOR
THE CREW.  SEE ALSO 17 STAT. 277, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 713.  ACT OF JUNE 7,
1872, C. 322, SEC. 42, 17 STAT. 270, R.S. 4572; ACT OF JUNE 26, 1884,
C. 121, SEC. 11, 23 STAT. 56; ACT OF DEC. 21, 1898, C. 28, SEC. 15, 30
STAT. 759; 46 U.S.C. SECS. 669, 670, PROVIDING THAT CERTAIN BASIC
CLOTHES AND HEATING FACILITIES BE FURNISHED BY THE SHIPOWNER; 46 U.S.C.
SECS. 672-672(C), 673, PRESCRIBING QUALIFICATIONS AND QUOTAS FOR CREWS,
AND WATCH DIVISIONS. 

FN4  ACT OF JULY 16, 1798, C. 77, 1 STAT. 605; ACT OF MARCH 2, 1799,
C. 36, 1 STAT. 729; 2 STAT. 192; R.S. 4808-13; 24 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 6, 8,
11, 193. 

FN5  ACT OF FEB. 28, 1803, C. 9, SEC. 4, 2 STAT. 204; 2 STAT. 651;
R.S. 4577; 46 U.S.C. SEC. 678, REQUIRING CONSULS IN THE CASE OF SICK
AND DESTITUTE SEAMEN ABROAD TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR SUBSISTENCE AND RETURN
PASSAGE TO THE UNITED STATES. 

FN6  SEE, E.G., LAWS OF OLERON, ARTICLES VI, VII; LAWS OF WISBUY,
ARTICLES XVIII, XIX; LAWS OF THE HANSE TOWNS, ARTICLES XXXIX, XLV;
MARINE ORDINANCES OF LOUIS XIV, OF MARINE CONTRACTS, TITLE FOURTH,
ARTICLES XI, XII, COMPILED IN 30 FED. CAS. 1171-1216; CF. HARDEN V.
GORDON, SUPRA. 

THE LAWS OF OLERON ARE TYPICAL OF THE PROVISION FOR INJURIES:  "IF
ANY OF THE MARINERS HIRED BY THE MASTER OF ANY VESSEL, GO OUT OF THE
SHIP WITHOUT HIS LEAVE, AND GET THEMSELVES DRUNK, AND THEREBY THERE
HAPPENS CONTEMPT TO THEIR MASTER, DEBATES, OR FIGHTING AND QUARRELLING
AMONG THEMSELVES, WHEREBY SOME HAPPEN TO BE WOUNDED:  IN THIS CASE THE
MASTER SHALL NOT BE OBLIGED TO GET THEM CURED, OR IN ANY THING TO
PROVIDE FOR THEM, BUT MAY TURN THEM AND THEIR ACCOMPLICES OUT OF THE
SHIP; ...  BUT IF BY THE MASTER'S ORDERS AND COMMANDS ANY OF THE SHIP'S
COMPANY BE IN THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP, AND THEREBY HAPPEN TO BE WOUNDED
OR OTHERWISE HURT, IN THAT CASE THEY SHALL BE CURED AND PROVIDED FOR AT
THE COSTS AND CHARGES OF THE SAID SHIP."  ARTICLE VI. 

FN7  HARDEN V. GORDON, 2 MASON 541, 11 FED. CAS. NO. 6047(C.C.); THE
ATLANTIC, ABB.  ADM.  451, 2 FED. CAS. 620(D.C.); CORTES V. BALTIMORE
INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 371. 

FN8  CF. THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158; PACIFIC S.S. CO. V. PETERSON, 278
U.S. 130; O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES DREDGING CO., ANTE, P. 36; BROWN V.
THE BRADISH JOHNSON, 1 WOODS 301, 4 FED. CAS. NO. 1992(C.C.); THE A.
HEATON, 43 F. 592(C.C.); THE MARS, 149 F. 729(C.C.A.). 

FN9  THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, 17 F. 390(D.C.); THE A. HEATON, 43 F.
592(C.C.); THE WENSLEYDALE, 41 F. 829(D.C.); SORENSON V. ALASKA S.S.
CO., 247 F. 294(C.C.A.); PETERSON V. THE CHANDOS, 4 F. 645(D.C.); CF.
SEELY V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 24 F.2D 412(C.C.A.); CF. REED V. CANFIELD, 1
SUMN.  195, 20 FED. CAS. NO. 11,641(C.C.). 

FN10  PIERCE V. PATTON, GILP.  435, 19 FED. CAS. NO. 11,145(D.C.);
THE ALECTOR, 263 F. 1007(D.C.); CHANDLER V. THE ANNIE BUCKMAN, 21 BETTS
112, 5 FED. CAS. NO. 2591A (D.C.); ZAMBRANO V. MOORE-MCCORMACK LINES,
131 F.2D 537(C.C.A.); WYTHEVILLE, 1936 A.M.C. 1281(D.C.) 

FN11  BARLOW V. PAN ATLANTIC S.S. CORP., 101 F.2D 697(C.C.A.); THE
BERWINDGLEN, 88 F.2D 125(C.C.A.); LORTIE V. AMERICAN-HAWAIIAN S.S. CO.,
78 F.2D 819(C.C.A.); OLIVER V. CALMAR S.S. CO., 33 F.SUPP.  356(D.C.). 

FN12  THE QUAKER CITY, 1 F.SUPP.  840(D.C.). 

FN13  CF. TEXT AND NOTE 15 INFRA. 

FN14  COMPARE YUKES V. GLOBE S.S. CORP., 107 F.2D 888(C.C.A.); BUT
CF. STATES S.S. CO. V. BERGLANN, 41 F.2D 456(C.C.A.), CERTIORARI
DENIED, 282 U.S. 868; HOLM V. CITIES SERVICE TRANSPORTATION CO., 60
F.2D 721(C.C.A.). 

FN15  THE RECENT TENDENCY TO CONFINE THE SCOPE OF THE OBLIGATION TO
THOSE SHIPBOARD INJURIES WHICH ARE CAUSED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SEAMAN'S DUTIES (MEYER V. DOLLAR S.S. LINES, 49 F.2D 1002(C.C.A.); CF.
BROCK V. STANDARD OIL CO., 33 F.SUPP.  353(D.C.))  IS CONSONANT NEITHER
WITH THE LIBERALITY WHICH COURTS OF ADMIRALTY TRADITIONALLY HAVE
DISPLAYED TOWARD SEAMEN, WHO ARE THEIR WARDS, NOR WITH THE DICTATES OF
SOUND MARITIME POLICY.  CALMAR S.S. CO. V. TAYLOR, SUPRA, AT 529. 

FN16  SEE, E.G., LAWS OF OLERON, ART. VI, VII; LAWS OF WISBUY, ART.
XVIII, XIX; LAWS OF HANSE TOWNS, ART. XXXIX, XLV; SEE ALSO THE
MONTEZUMA, 19 F.2D 355(C.C.A.); GOMES V. PEREIRA, 42 F.SUPP. 
328(D.C.). 

FN17  SOUND REASONS OF DISCIPLINE LONG HAVE IMPELLED THIS RULE.  CF.,
E.G., LAWS OF OLERON, ART. VII; MARINE ORDINANCES OF LOUIS XIV, SUPRA;
LAWS OF WISBUY, SUPRA; AND COMPARE PIERCE V. PATTON, SUPRA, NOTE 10. 

FN18  THUS, WHILE THE LAWS OF OLERON AND THE MARINE ORDINANCES OF
LOUIS XIV, SUPRA, RELIEVE FROM LIABILITY FOR INJURIES INCURRED WHILE ON
SHORE WITHOUT LEAVE, THEY SAY NOTHING ON THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED. 
SIMILARLY, THE LAWS OF WISBUY, SUPRA, ARE AMBIGUOUS ON THIS POINT.  THE
LAWS OF THE HANSE TOWNS SUGGEST THAT ANY INJURIES RECEIVED OTHERWISE
THAN IN THE SHIP'S SERVICE ARE NOT WITHIN THE RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND
CURE. 

FN19  E.G., REED V. CANFIELD, SUPRA, NOTE 9; THE BERWINDGLEN, SUPRA,
NOTE 11; CF.  THE J. M. DANZIGER, 1938 A.M.C. 685(D.C.). 

FN20  SMITH V. AMERICAN SOUTH AFRICAN LINE, 37 F.SUPP.  262(D.C.);
WAHLGREN V. STANDARD OIL CO., 42 F.SUPP.  992(D.C.); COLLINS V. DOLLAR
STEAMSHIP LINES, 23 F.SUPP.  395(D.C.). 

FN21  HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON, 273 U.S.
418, 447. 

FN22  SEE ALSO HOLMES V. HUTCHINSON, GILP.  447, 12 FED. CAS. NO.
6639(D.C.); THE FOREST, 1 WARE 429, 9 FED. CAS. NO. 4936(D.C.); THE
NIMROD, 1 WARE 1, 18 FED. CAS. NO. 10,267(D.C.); AND SEE CASES CITED
SUPRA, NOTE 10. 

FN23  AT THE ARGUMENT, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT A REASON WHICH MIGHT
SUSTAIN THE IMPOSITION OF LIABILITY FOR SICKNESS INNOCENTLY CONTRACTED
ON SHORE LEAVE, BUT NOT FOR INJURIES SO INCURRED, WOULD BE THE
DIFFICULTY OF PROVING ORIGIN ASHORE.  THE DIFFICULTY UNDOUBTEDLY WOULD
EXIST IN SOME CASES, BUT HARDLY IN ALL.  NO AUTHORITY HAS BEEN FOUND
WHICH SUGGESTS THIS EXPLANATION.  RATHER, CASES OF ILLNESS, WHICH ARE
WITHIN THE REASON AND POLICY OF THE LIABILITY, ARE INDISTINGUISHABLE
FROM CASES OF INJURY RECEIVED WITHOUT MISCONDUCT.  THE RISK OF
INCIDENCE IS NOT LESS IN THE ONE CASE THAN IN THE OTHER.  THE AFFLICTED
SEAMAN IS MADE AS HELPLESS AND DEPENDENT BY INJURY AS BY ILLNESS.  HIS
RESOURCES FOR MEETING THE CATASTROPHE AND HIS EMPLOYER'S BURDEN ARE NOT
GREATER BECAUSE HE IS HURT RATHER THAN ILL.    FN24  BY PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATION THE CONVENTION BECAME EFFECTIVE FOR THE UNITED STATES AND
ITS CITIZENS ON OCTOBER 29, 1939(54 STAT. 1693).  ARTICLE 2 PROVIDES: 
"1.  THE SHIPOWNER SHALL BE LIABLE IN RESPECT OF - 

(A)  SICKNESS AND INJURY OCCURRING BETWEEN THE DATE SPECIFIED IN THE
ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT FOR REPORTING FOR DUTY AND THE TERMINATION OF THE
ENGAGEMENT; 

(B)  DEATH RESULTING FROM SUCH SICKNESS OR INJURY. 

"2.  PROVIDED THAT NATIONAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS MAY MAKE EXCEPTIONS
IN RESPECT OF: 

(A)  INJURY INCURRED OTHERWISE THAN IN THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP; 

(B)  INJURY OR SICKNESS DUE TO THE WILFUL ACT, DEFAULT OR
MISBEHAVIOUR OF THE SICK, INJURED OR DECEASED PERSON; 

(C)  SICKNESS OR INFIRMITY INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED WHEN THE
ENGAGEMENT IS ENTERED INTO. 

"3.  NATIONAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS MAY PROVIDE THAT THE SHIPOWNER
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE IN RESPECT OF SICKNESS, OR DEATH DIRECTLY
ATTRIBUTABLE TO SICKNESS, IF AT THE TIME OF THE ENGAGEMENT THE PERSON
EMPLOYED REFUSED TO BE MEDICALLY EXAMINED." 

RELEVANT MATERIAL ON THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE CONVENTION MAY BE
FOUND IN H.R. REP. NO. 1328, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., CONTAINING THE
INTERPRETATION BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS,
INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE, 21ST AND 22D SESSIONS, GENEVA, 1936,
249-51; INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONFERENCE, GENEVA, 1929, THE PROTECTION OF
SEAMEN IN CASE OF SICKNESS, 1ST DISCUSSION, 28-46; INTERNATIONAL LABOR
CONFERENCE, GENEVA, 1931, THE PROTECTION OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF SICKNESS,
2D DISCUSSION, 29-43, 161-2.  SEE ALSO H.R. 6881, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; 84 CONG. REC. 10540; HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT
MARINE AND FISHERIES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 6881, 76TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PASSIM; HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
ON H.R. 6881, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PASSIM. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE THINKS THAT THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 454, AGUILAR V.
STANDARD OIL CO., SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE
OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BELOW, 130 F.2D 154.  IN NO.
582, WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP. V. JONES, HE CONCURS IN THE RESULT ON THE
GROUND THAT THE RECOVERY WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY
CONVENTION, 54 STAT. 1695, WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE BEFORE THE DATE OF
RESPONDENT'S INJURY.  HE IS OF OPINION THAT ARTICLE 2, CLAUSE 1 OF THE
TREATY AUTHORIZING THE RECOVERY IS SELF-EXECUTING, AND THAT THE
EXCEPTIONS PERMITTED BY CLAUSE 2 ARE NOT OPERATIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION GIVING THEM EFFECT.  (SEE LETTER OF SECRETARY
OF STATE TO THE PRESIDENT, DATED JUNE 12, 1939, QUOTED IN H.R. REP. NO.
1328, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 5-7.) 
..END :




ILLINOIS COMM'N V. THOMSON, 318 U.S. 675 


NO. 178.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 12, 1943.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  THE ORDER OF JANUARY 21, 1942, IN A PROCEEDING KNOWN AS EX PARTE
NO. 148, BY WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE
RAILROADS, INCLUDING THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN, TO INCREASE PASSENGER
FARES BY 10%, WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO INTRASTATE COMMUTATION FARES
ON THAT RAILWAY IN ILLINOIS.  P. 684. 

2.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DIRECTING AN
INCREASE OF RAILROAD FARES SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO APPLY TO INTRASTATE
FARES IN THE PRESENCE OF A SERIOUS DOUBT THAT IT WAS SO INTENDED.  P.
685. 

3.  IN THE ABSENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF PECULIAR URGENCY, A RAILROAD,
ASSERTING THAT PASSENGER FARES FIXED BY STATE AUTHORITY ARE
CONFISCATORY, SHOULD EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE
STATE LAW BEFORE SEEKING AN INJUNCTION IN A FEDERAL COURT.  P. 686. 

ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. THOMSON, TRUSTEE. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, AWARDING
TO THE TRUSTEE IN REORGANIZATION OF THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY
AN INJUNCTION PERMANENTLY RESTRAINING THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION
AND STATE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS FROM TAKING ANY STEPS TO PREVENT A 10%
INCREASE OF INTRASTATE COMMUTATION PASSENGER FARES ON THAT RAILWAY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, WHICH COMES HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380, INVOLVES THE MEANING OF AN ORDER OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE COMMUTATION PASSENGER FARES OF THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN
RAILWAY.  BY INTERLOCUTORY AND FINALLY BY PERMANENT INJUNCTION, THE
DISTRICT COURT BELOW OF THREE JUDGES HAS ENJOINED APPELLANTS, THE
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION AND NAMED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE
STATE, FROM TAKING ANY STEPS TO PREVENT A 10% INCREASE IN SUCH FARES BY
APPELLEE, TRUSTEE OF THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY IN
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE 10% INCREASE,
IF EFFECTIVE, WOULD BRING THE FARES IN SOME INSTANCES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM
OF TWO CENTS PER MILE IMPOSED BY STATE STATUTE.  ILLINOIS REVISED
STATUTES, 1941, C. 114, SECS. 154-56. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES, AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND,
SUBSTANTIALLY AS FOLLOWS:  UNTIL MARCH 7, 1942, APPELLEE AND HIS
PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST, THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,
HAD COLLECTED COMMUTATION FARES FOR THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS IN ILLINOIS, AS REQUIRED BY A REPORT AND ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ENTERED OCTOBER 6, 1925, IN A PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 13 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (NOW 49 U.S.C. SEC. 13). 
THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THAT ORDER WAS TO REQUIRE THE CHICAGO & NORTH
WESTERN TO INCREASE ITS INTRASTATE COMMUTATION FARES TO SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME LEVEL AS THE FARES THEN IN FORCE FOR INTERSTATE PASSENGER
TRAFFIC, WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN INCREASED BY ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION, AND THUS TO REMOVE UNDUE PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE AND
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS WELL AS UNDUE
PREFERENCE AND ADVANTAGE TO PERSONS TRAVELING IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE ON
THE ILLINOIS LINES OF THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN.  THE ORDER WAS
ENTERED UPON APPROPRIATE FINDINGS.  INTRASTATE RATES WITHIN ILLINOIS,
DOCKET NO. 11703, 102 I.C.C. 479.  IT DIRECTED AN INCREASE OF 20% OVER
THE THEN PREVAILING RATES FOR THE INTRASTATE COMMUTATION FARES INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE, BUT PROVIDED THAT THIS INCREASE SHOULD BE "SUBJECT TO A
MAXIMUM OF 2 CENTS PER MILE," THE COMMISSION'S OPINION STATING THAT
THIS WAS "IN DEFERENCE TO THE STATE STATUTE."  (102 I.C.C. AT 485.) 

ON FEBRUARY 28, 1936, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AFTER A
GENERAL AND NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGER FARES,
ENTERED AN ORDER BY WHICH IT RETAINED ITS CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER
THE ILLINOIS INTRASTATE COMMUTATION PASSENGER FARES HERE IN QUESTION,
BY SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO ITS PREVIOUS ORDER IN DOCKET NO. 11703,
ALTHOUGH THE ORDER DID NOT REQUIRE ANY MODIFICATION OF THOSE FARES. 
PASSENGER FARES AND SURCHARGES, DOCKET NO. 26550, 214 I.C.C. 174. 

IN DECEMBER 1941, THE COMMISSION UNDERTOOK A FURTHER NATIONWIDE
INVESTIGATION OF BOTH FREIGHT RATES AND PASSENGER FARES, TO DETERMINE
WHETHER INCREASES OF 10%, AS ASKED BY THE RAILROADS, SHOULD BE
AUTHORIZED IN VIEW OF INCREASED OPERATING EXPENSES AND COSTS OF
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES.  BY ORDER OF JANUARY 21, 1942, IN THAT
PROCEEDING, KNOWN AS EX PARTE NO. 148, THE COMMISSION - UPON FINDINGS
THAT THE INCREASE WAS NECESSARY FOR ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT SERVICE
DURING THE WAR EMERGENCY - AUTHORIZED THE RAILROADS, INCLUDING THE
CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN, TO INCREASE PASSENGER FARES BY 10%.  THE ORDER
FURTHER DIRECTED THAT "ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS, AS AMENDED, OF THE
COMMISSION, AUTHORIZING OR PRESCRIBING INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE FARES,
OR BASES OF FARES BE, AND THEY ARE HEREBY, MODIFIED, EFFECTIVE
CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INCREASED FARES" APPROVED BY
THE ORDER, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE AUTHORIZED
INCREASE TO BE ADDED TO "THE INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE FARES APPROVED
OR PRESCRIBED IN, OR MAINTAINED OR HELD BY VIRTUE OF, SAID OUTSTANDING
ORDERS"; THAT A COPY OF THE ORDER BE FILED "IN THE DOCKET OF EACH SUCH
PROCEEDING, INCLUDING THOSE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 13 OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT ENUMERATED IN THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 28, 1936, IN DOCKET
NO. 26550"; AND "THAT ALL TARIFFS OR SUPPLEMENTS CHANGING FARES BY
AUTHORITY OF THIS ORDER, WHICH ARE MAINTAINED OR HELD BY AUTHORITY OF
OUTSTANDING ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION, SHALL BEAR ON THEIR TITLE PAGES
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THIS ORDER."  IN A REPORT AND ORDER OF MARCH 2,
1942, IN EX PARTE NO. 148, THE COMMISSION REAFFIRMED THESE FINDINGS,
AUTHORIZED CERTAIN INCREASES IN FREIGHT RATES, AND MADE FURTHER
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF THE INCREASES.  INCREASED RAILWAY RATES,
FARES, AND CHARGES, 1942, 248 I.C.C. 545. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF JANUARY 21,
1942, BY ITS SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO ALL OUTSTANDING ORDERS PREVIOUSLY
ISSUED IN SEC. 13 PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THAT OF 1925 IN
DOCKET NO. 11703, HAD BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO THE ILLINOIS COMMUTATION
PASSENGER FARES HERE IN QUESTION. 

ACTING UNDER THE PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF THESE ORDERS, APPELLEE, ABOUT
FEBRUARY 6, 1942, FILED WITH THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND WITH
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, TARIFF SCHEDULES REFERRING TO THE
LATTER'S ORDER OF JANUARY 21, 1942, AND INCREASING BY 10%, EFFECTIVE
MARCH 8, 1942, ITS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING ILLINOIS INTRASTATE PASSENGER
COMMUTATION FARES.  THE FARES PROPOSED BY THESE TARIFFS IN SOME
INSTANCES EXCEED THE LIMIT IMPOSED BY THE ILLINOIS TWO CENT FARE LAW. 
ON FEBRUARY 18TH THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER PURPORTING TO
SUSPEND THESE TARIFFS AND THE INCREASED FARES NAMED IN THEM UNTIL JULY
6, 1942, AND ORDERED APPELLEE NOT TO FILE ANY NEW TARIFF OR OTHERWISE
TO CHANGE THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING FARES DURING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION
OR ANY EXTENSION OF IT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE STATE COMMISSION. 
THE ORDER DIRECTED THAT A HEARING BE HELD BY THE STATE COMMISSION ON
THE PROPRIETY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE EFFECT OF THE STATE COMMISSION'S
ORDER WAS TO PRESCRIBE FOR APPELLEE THE CONTINUATION OF THE INTRASTATE
PASSENGER FARES IN FORCE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE FEBRUARY 18, 1942, AND TO
PROHIBIT APPELLEE FROM INCREASING OR MODIFYING THOSE FARES SAVE AS
PERMITTED BY THE STATE COMMISSION; THAT APPELLANTS HAVE THREATENED AND
CONTINUE TO THREATEN APPELLEE WITH THE PROSECUTION OF NUMEROUS
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS TO IMPOSE UPON APPELLEE AND HIS AGENTS
FINES AND PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE COMMISSION'S
ORDER; THAT UNLESS APPELLANTS ARE ENJOINED FROM SUCH THREATENED
PROSECUTIONS AND CUMULATIVE PENALTIES, APPELLEE WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE
INJURY. 

FROM ALL THIS THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED, AS MATTERS OF LAW, THAT
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF JANUARY 21, 1942, IS A
VALID ORDER WHICH MODIFIED THE 1925 AND 1936 ORDERS TAKING JURISDICTION
OVER THE INTRASTATE COMMUTATION FARES IN QUESTION, AND THAT THE 1942
ORDER, WITHOUT MORE, AUTHORIZED THE INCREASED FARES PRESCRIBED IN THE
TARIFFS FILED BY APPELLEE.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE ILLINOIS
COMMISSION'S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 18, 1942, WAS INVALID AND WITHOUT FORCE
WITH RESPECT TO THESE COMMUTATION FARES BECAUSE IN CONFLICT WITH THE
1942 ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND FOR THE
ADDITIONAL REASON THAT THE OLD FARES CONTINUED IN EFFECT BY THE STATE
COMMISSION ARE CONFISCATORY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT ACCORDINGLY RESTRAINED
APPELLANTS FROM ENFORCING THE STATE COMMISSION'S ORDER, AND FROM
INTERFERING WITH THE COLLECTION OF THE COMMUTATION FARES PRESCRIBED BY
APPELLEE'S PROPOSED TARIFFS. 

APPELLANTS ASSAIL THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUNDS
THAT THE PURPORT AND TRUE MEANING OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION'S 1942 ORDER WAS NOT TO ORDER INTO EFFECT ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE FARES SUPERSEDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY IN FORCE, BUT ONLY TO
ASSENT TO INCREASED RATES WHEN AND IF PERMITTED BY THE STATE
COMMISSION, WHICH IT HAS NOT DONE; THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, IF INTENDED TO COMPEL INCREASES IN INTRASTATE
RATES, IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE FINDINGS (CF. FLORIDA V. UNITED
STATES, 282 U.S. 194); AND THAT, SO FAR AS THE JUDGMENT BELOW RESTS ON
THE ALLEGED CONFISCATORY CHARACTER OF THE PREEXISTING RATES, THE
FINDING OF CONFISCATION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, AND APPELLEE
HAS NOT PURSUED THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE BEFORE THE STATE
COMMISSION, AS IS PREREQUISITE TO EQUITABLE RELIEF. 

THE MEANING AND APPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION'S ORDER ARE UNDOUBTEDLY OBSCURE.  WE HAVE HEARD EXHAUSTIVE
ARGUMENT AND EXAMINED ELABORATE BRIEFS BY THE PARTIES TO THIS
LITIGATION AND BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK AS AMICUS CURIAE, ENDEAVORING TO
THROW LIGHT ON ITS TRUE MEANING.  LIKE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, IN A
CAUSE PENDING IN THE NEW YORK STATE COURTS,  FN1  TO DETERMINE THE
APPLICATION OF THIS ORDER TO INTRASTATE STANDARD PASSENGER FARES OF THE
LONG ISLAND RAILROAD. 

AS WE WERE IN DOUBT AS TO THE INTENDED SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER, AND THE COMMISSION HAD NOT FILED A BRIEF OR OTHERWISE INTERVENED
IN THIS LITIGATION, WE REQUESTED A BRIEF ON ITS BEHALF DISCUSSING THE
MEANING AND APPLICATION OF ITS ORDER.  IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR REQUEST
IT HAS FILED A BRIEF, IN WHICH IT TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE 1942
ORDER WAS NOT INTENDED, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED, TO DIRECT A 10%
INCREASE IN THE ILLINOIS INTRASTATE COMMUTATION FARES ESTABLISHED IN
1925.  ALTHOUGH THE BRIEF IS NOT WHOLLY FREE FROM THE OBSCURITY
SURROUNDING THE ORDER ITSELF, THE COMMISSION'S ULTIMATE POSITION THAT
THE ORDER IS INAPPLICABLE TO THESE PARTICULAR COMMUTATION FARES IS ONE
WHICH, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ACCEPT. 

THE DOUBT CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE 1942 ORDER ARISES FROM
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH ITS BROAD LANGUAGE IS TO BE
DEEMED RESTRICTED WHEN READ WITH THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION
RELATING TO INTRASTATE RATES, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE NATURE OF THE
FUNCTIONS WHICH THE COMMISSION IS CALLED ON TO PERFORM IN PRESCRIBING
SUCH RATES.  ON ITS FACE, THE ORDER PROVIDES BROADLY THAT:  "ALL
OUTSTANDING ORDERS, AS AMENDED, OF THE COMMISSION, AUTHORIZING OR
PRESCRIBING INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE FARES  ...  ARE HEREBY, MODIFIED,
EFFECTIVE CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INCREASED FARES
HEREIN APPROVED, ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE INCREASE
HEREIN AUTHORIZED TO BE ADDED TO THE INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE FARES
APPROVED OR PRESCRIBED IN  ...  SAID OUTSTANDING ORDERS."  WHETHER
THIS, WITHOUT MORE, WAS INTENDED OR OPERATES TO DIRECT A 10% INCREASE
OF APPELLEE'S INTRASTATE COMMUTATION FARES IN ILLINOIS, SO AS TO
PRESERVE THE ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM AND INTERSTATE
FARES, RATHER THAN INTENDED TO PERMIT APPELLEE TO OBTAIN THE 10%
INCREASE ONLY WITH THE ASSENT OF THE STATE COMMISSION, IS THE
QUESTION. 

THE POSITION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS, IN SUBSTANCE,
THAT THE ORDER IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS PRESCRIBING ILLINOIS
INTRASTATE COMMUTATION FARES FOR THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN, BECAUSE
THE ORDER WAS UNATTENDED BY THE PROCEDURE WHICH THE COMMISSION REGARDS
AS THE APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR SUCH AN ORDER, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT THE
COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE IN MIND OR INTEND THAT THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE
THAT EFFECT. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
UNDER SEC. 13(4) OF THE ACT, HAS POWER TO SUPERSEDE AN INTRASTATE RATE
BY PRESCRIBING IN ITS STEAD A NEW RATE WHICH THE COMMISSION FINDS
NECESSARY TO REMOVE UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE RESULTING FROM THE MAINTENANCE OF THE INTRASTATE RATE.  IT MAY
RIGHTLY ESTABLISH SUCH A MODIFICATION OF THE INTRASTATE RATE ONLY UPON
NOTICE TO THE INTRASTATE CARRIERS CONCERNED, AND HEARINGS, FOLLOWED BY
FINDINGS SHOWING PREJUDICE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UPON SUCH FINDINGS
THE STATUTE MAKES IT THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE THE JUST
AND REASONABLE INTRASTATE RATE FOUND NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE
PREJUDICE.  WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N V. C., B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S.
563; LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N V. TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO., 284
U.S. 125; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70.  AND FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS CASE WE MAY ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT INTRASTATE RATES WHICH
HAVE ONCE BEEN PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 13 ORDERS MAY BE MODIFIED BY A
BLANKET ORDER RAISING OR LOWERING THE LEVEL OF INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE RATES, EVEN THOUGH THE COMMISSION MAKES NO NEW FINDINGS OF
DISCRIMINATION BUT LEAVES THAT QUESTION SUBJECT TO LATER INQUIRY UPON
APPLICATIONS FILED IN PARTICULAR CASES.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
LOUISIANA, SUPRA, 73-79; NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 196
201.    IN 1920 THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED A GENERAL
INCREASE OF 20% IN INTERSTATE PASSENGER FARES, ESTABLISHING A
COUNTRYWIDE STANDARD PASSENGER FARE OF 3.6 CENTS A MILE.  INCREASED
RATES, 1920, 58 I.C.C. 220 AND 302.  THE COMMISSION LATER INSTITUTED
THE SEC. 13 PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN ITS 1925 ORDER INCREASING BY
20%, SUBJECT TO A 2 CENT PER MILE MAXIMUM, THE ILLINOIS INTRASTATE
COMMUTATION FARES OF THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN, IN ORDER TO REMOVE
THE PREJUDICE OF SUCH FARES TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  INTRASTATE RATES
WITHIN ILLINOIS, 102 I.C.C. 479.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY THE 1936 ORDER
DIRECTING A GENERAL REDUCTION OF INTERSTATE PASSENGER FARES.  BY THIS
ORDER THE COMMISSION, AS A MEANS OF INCREASING PASSENGER TRAFFIC,
REDUCED MAXIMUM STANDARD PULLMAN FARES TO THREE CENTS AND COACH FARES
TO TWO CENTS A MILE.  AND TO PREVENT INTRASTATE FARES SUBJECT TO THE
EARLIER SEC. 13 ORDERS FROM BEING HIGHER THAN THE NEW INTERSTATE
MAXIMUM FARES, THE COMMISSION ORDERED ALL OUTSTANDING SEC. 13 ORDERS TO
BE MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE NEW FARES TO BECOME
EFFECTIVE.  PASSENGER FARES AND SURCHARGES, 214 I.C.C. 174.  WHILE THIS
ORDER AFFECTED MANY INTRASTATE FARES WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBJECT
TO SEC. 13 ORDERS, IT WAS WITHOUT EFFECT ON ILLINOIS COMMUTATION FARES
ON THE CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN, WHICH HAD BEEN NO GREATER THAN THE
MAXIMUM OF TWO CENTS A MILE.  THUS THE ILLINOIS COMMUTATION FARES
INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE, ESTABLISHED IN 1925, WERE NOT REDUCED
BETWEEN 1925 AND 1942. 

IT IS THE POSITION OF THE COMMISSION THAT, SINCE THE 10% INCREASE OF
1942 IF MANDATORY WOULD RAISE THESE ILLINOIS INTRASTATE COMMUTATION
FARES (UNLIKE THE STANDARD FARES) ABOVE THE LEVEL SET BY THE SEC. 13
ORDER OF 1925, AND AS THE COMMISSION MADE NO SPECIAL FINDINGS
JUSTIFYING SUCH AN INCREASE OF THE LEVEL OF INTRASTATE FARES, THE 1942
ORDER IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE THE EFFECT ASCRIBED TO IT BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT EVEN IF THE NEED OF
EQUIVALENCE OF INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE FARES HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE
1925, THE COMMISSION IS CONCERNED NOT ONLY WITH THE NECESSITY FOR
MAINTAINING THE EQUIVALENCE, BUT ALSO WITH THE PARTICULAR POINT AT
WHICH THE FARES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TOGETHER.  THE COMMISSION INTIMATES
THAT ITS FINDINGS ESTABLISHING THE 1925 MAXIMUM LEVEL OF INTRASTATE
FARES WOULD NOT BE REGARDED BY IT AS SUFFICIENT SUPPORT FOR A STILL
HIGHER LEVEL IN 1942.  IT URGES THAT THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS SUPPORTING
A HIGHER LEVEL THEREFORE INDICATES THAT ITS 1942 ORDER WAS NOT
INTENDED, WITHOUT MORE, TO INCREASE BY 10% THE ILLINOIS INTRASTATE
COMMUTATION FARES.  FN2 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER
INTRASTATE RATES EXCEPT TO PROTECT AND MAKE EFFECTIVE SOME REGULATION
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN VIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S CONSTRUCTION OF
ITS ORDER, AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH IT RESTS, WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE
THAT THERE IS AT LEAST SERIOUS DOUBT WHETHER THE 1942 PROCEEDING AND
THE ORDER WHICH RESULTED FROM IT WERE EVER INTENDED BY THE COMMISSION
TO INCREASE THE INTRASTATE RATES IN QUESTION.  SINCE THE COMMISSION
ALONE IS AUTHORIZED TO WIELD THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO SET ASIDE
STATE-ESTABLISHED INTRASTATE RATES BY PRESCRIBING INTRASTATE RATES
ITSELF, STATE POWER CANNOT RIGHTLY BE DEEMED TO BE SUPPLANTED SO LONG
AS THE COMMISSION'S EXERCISE OF ITS AUTHORITY IS LEFT IN SERIOUS
DOUBT.  ARKANSAS RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 274 U.S.
597, 603.  AND WHERE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ORDER IS AS DOUBTFUL AS
IT IS IN THIS CASE, WE SHOULD NOT FEEL JUSTIFIED IN DISREGARDING THE
COMMISSION'S DISCLAIMER IN THIS COURT OF ALL INTENTION TO OVERRIDE
ILLINOIS STATE LAW BY ITS 1942 ORDER - ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT
THAT IN THE SEC. 13 PROCEEDING IN 1925 THE COMMISSION HAD FRAMED ITS
ORDER IN DEFERENCE TO THE TWOCENT FARE LAW PREVAILING IN ILLINOIS. 

IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT PROLONGED LITIGATIONS SHOULD HAVE RESULTED
BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE FROM THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF A SENTENCE MORE
PRECISELY DEFINING ITS SCOPE, OR OF A CLARIFYING ORDER WHICH COULD HAVE
BEEN ENTERED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PENDING LITIGATIONS. 

SINCE WE ACCEPT THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT THE 1942 ORDER IS
INAPPLICABLE, IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER WHETHER, AS
APPELLANTS CONTEND, THE ORDER IF APPLICABLE WOULD BE OPEN TO COLLATERAL
ATTACK IN THIS PROCEEDING FOR THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS TO SUPPORT IT, OR WHETHER THAT ISSUE MAY BE LITIGATED ONLY IN
A SUIT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AS
PRESCRIBED BY THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  38 STAT. 219, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 46. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING OF
CONFISCATION.  APPELLANTS FILED NO ANSWER TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT AND
NO EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN IN THE CAUSE.  JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE WAS
ENTERED UPON APPELLANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE THE COMPLAINT AND DISMISS THE
CAUSE, AND UPON THE PRAYER OF THE BILL FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  THE
ONLY SUPPORT FOR THE FINDING OF CONFISCATION IS IN THE GENERAL
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT THAT THE EXISTING INTRASTATE COMMUTATION
FARES COMPLAINED OF ARE CONFISCATORY, AND MORE PARTICULARLY THAT THESE
FARES ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE COST OF THE PARTICULAR
SERVICE. 

APART FROM THE INSUFFICIENCY OF SUCH ALLEGATIONS, WHEN NOT BUTTRESSED
BY CONVINCING PROOF, TO SUSTAIN AN INJUNCTION SETTING ASIDE RATES AS
CONFISCATORY, SEE CALIFORNIA RAILROAD COMM'N V. PACIFIC GAS CO., 302
U.S. 388, 401, IT APPEARS THAT WHEN THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT THE
STATE COMMISSION HAD ORDERED A HEARING BEFORE IT CONCERNING THE
PROPRIETY OF APPELLEE'S PROPOSED INCREASE OF THE EXISTING, ALLEGEDLY
CONFISCATORY, FARES.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION AND NO FINDING THAT
APPELLEE'S ATTACK ON THE EXISTING FARES AS CONFISCATORY WAS NOT OPEN
FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THE EQUITABLE REMEDY SOUGHT
BY APPELLEE IN COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE
FIRST TO PURSUE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY THUS AFFORDED.  GILCHRIST V.
INTERBOROUGH CO., 279 U.S. 159, 208-09; NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY,
302 U.S. 300, 310-11.  THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES OF PECULIAR URGENCY
ALLEGED, AND NO OTHER GROUND IS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD WHICH WOULD
WARRANT A FEDERAL EQUITY COURT IN DISPENSING WITH THIS SALUTARY
REQUIREMENT. 

UPON THIS RECORD THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE DECLINED TO PASS ON
THE MERITS OF THE CONFISCATION ISSUE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER WAS NOT INTENDED TO DIRECT A 10% INCREASE IN THOSE INTRASTATE
RATES.  MATTER OF TRANSIT COMMISSION V. LONG ISLAND R. CO., 178 MISC.
290, 33 N.Y.S.2D 993.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, SUGGESTED THAT AN
APPLICATION MIGHT BE MADE TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR A
CLARIFICATION OF ITS ORDER TO REMOVE ANY DOUBT.  ON SUCH APPLICATION
THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO CLARIFY THE ORDER, AND ON REHEARING THE COURT
ADHERED TO ITS ORIGINAL DECISION.  I.C.C. ORDER, ENTERED IN EX PARTE
148, APRIL 6, 1942; 107 N.Y.L. JOURNAL, P. 1958, MAY 8, 1942.  THE
DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION, 265 APP. DIV. 847, 38
N.Y.S.2D 361, AND THE CASE IS NOW PENDING IN THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS. 

FN2  THE BRIEF FILED BY THE COMMISSION IN THIS COURT TO ASSIST IN
DISCOVERING THE INTENDED MEANING OF THE ORDER IN EX PARTE NO. 148,
STATES THAT "THE 1942 INCREASE MAY WELL BE MANDATORY" AS TO STANDARD
INTRASTATE PASSENGER FARES COVERED BY PRIOR OUTSTANDING SEC. 13 ORDERS,
AS IN THE NEW YORK CASE DISCUSSED IN NOTE 1, SUPRA.  THIS IS SAID TO BE
BECAUSE, IN THE 1936 PROCEEDING, SUCH FARES WERE REDUCED, AND BECAUSE
THE 10% INCREASE OF 1942 WOULD ONLY RAISE THEM TO A LEVEL WELL WITHIN
THE MAXIMUM PRESCRIBED FOR SUCH FARES IN SEC. 13 PROCEEDINGS IN 1920. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

THIS CASE IS IMPORTANT NOT SO MUCH BECAUSE OF THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF
THE PARTIES AS OF THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT, WHICH I THINK
ARE LIKELY TO PRODUCE UNFORTUNATE RESULTS IN LATER CASES. 

FIRST.  THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S
ORDER IS, IN MY VIEW, CLEAR.  IT EXPRESSLY INCLUDED THE EARLIER SEC. 13
ORDER AFFECTING THE INTRASTATE RATES OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN
WHICH ARE IN QUESTION.  I COULD UNDERSTAND THE ASSERTION THAT THE ORDER
IS OBSCURE IF ITS PURPORTED APPLICATION WERE TO INTRASTATE RATES NOT
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE ORDER ITSELF.  BUT HERE THE COMMISSION
SEEMS EX INDUSTRIA TO HAVE REFERRED TO AN EARLIER SEC. 13 ORDER SO AS
TO LEAVE NO DOUBT OF ITS PURPOSE. 

SECOND.  EVEN IF THE ORDER WERE OBSCURE, ANY PARTY IN INTEREST COULD
HAVE OBTAINED A CLARIFICATION BY APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION.  IT IS
SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE COMMISSION, IN RESPONSE TO AN
INFORMAL APPLICATION, REFUSED TO VOUCHSAFE ANY CLARIFICATION OF THE
ORDER IN THE CASE OF NEW YORK INTRASTATE RATES. 

THIRD.  IT SEEMS TO ME INADMISSIBLE TO PERMIT THE COMMISSION, IN A
LITIGATION SUCH AS THE PRESENT, TO SUGGEST THAT ITS ORDER WAS NOT
INTENDED TO COVER THE INTRASTATE RATES IN QUESTION BECAUSE, FORSOOTH,
THE ORDER IS NOT SUPPORTED BY REQUISITE FINDINGS.  I FAIL TO SEE THE
FAIRNESS OR EQUITY OF PERMITTING PARTIES TO STRUGGLE FOR MONTHS OR
YEARS OVER THE MEANING OR SCOPE OF AN ORDER WHICH HAPPENS TO BE
INVOLVED IN A COLLATERAL PROCEEDING AND THEN PERMIT THE COMMISSION TO
APPEAR IN THE LITIGATION AND ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN WHY ITS ORDER DOES OR
DOES NOT COVER THE SITUATION DISCLOSED. 

FOURTH.  I ALSO THINK IT INADMISSIBLE TO LITIGATE, IN A COLLATERAL
PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS, THE QUESTION OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE SUPPORT OF
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 
CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED A METHOD WHEREBY ORDERS NOT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT MAY BE SET ASIDE OR
ENJOINED BY A PETITION TO A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THIS
METHOD OF ATTACK IS AVAILABLE TO ANY PARTY IN INTEREST OR ANY
INTERVENOR BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  IT IS WRONG, IN MY JUDGMENT, TO
PERMIT A STATE COMMISSION, OR ANY OTHER PARTY, TO FOREGO THE METHOD
PRESCRIBED BY THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT FOR ENJOINING OR SETTING
ASIDE A COMMISSION ORDER ON SUCH GROUND AS IS HERE ASSERTED, AND TO ACT
IN THE TEETH OF THE ORDER, RESERVING AN ATTACK ON THE FINDINGS, OR LACK
OF FINDINGS, TO SUPPORT THE ORDER UNTIL ITS REGULATIONS ARE CHALLENGED
IN AN INDEPENDENT PROCEEDING.  IN SUCH A PROCEEDING AS THIS, I THINK
THE ORDER SHOULD BE TREATED AS BINDING UNTIL MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY FEDERAL LAW. 
..END :








N.Y. EX REL. WHITMAN V. WILSON, 318 U.S. 688 


NO. 72.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 12, 1943.  - 263 APP.
DIV. 908, 924, 32 N.Y.S.2D 29, 1023, VACATED. 


SINCE THE PRESENT PROCEEDING MUST BE DISMISSED IF HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT
AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY UNDER THE STATE LAW, AND SINCE THIS COURT IS
UNABLE TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION WITH FINALITY, OR TO RESOLVE THE
CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IT, IN ADVANCE OF A CONTROLLING DECISION BY
THE STATE COURTS, THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THE STATE COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  P. 690. 

NEW YORK EX REL. WHITMAN V. WILSON, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 615, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE
DISMISSAL OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE WAS DENIED, 263 APP. DIV. 924; 287 N.Y. 856; AND AN
APPEAL TAKEN AS OF RIGHT WAS DISMISSED, 290 N.Y. 670. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER BEGAN THIS PROCEEDING BY AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WASHINGTON
COUNTY.  HE ALLEGED THAT HIS CONVICTION HAD BEEN PROCURED THROUGH THE
USE OF PERJURED TESTIMONY KNOWINGLY USED BY THE PROSECUTION, AND THAT
UNDER MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, HIS COMMITMENT WAS IN
DEPRIVATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS DISMISSED
BY THE SUPREME COURT; ITS ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION,
263 APP. DIV. 908, 32 N.Y.S.2D 29; LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS WAS DENIED BY BOTH THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  263 APP. DIV. 924, 32 N.Y.S.2D 1023; 287 N.Y. 856, 40 N.E.2D
649.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 615, AND, BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS
A POOR PERSON WITHOUT COUNSEL OF HIS OWN SELECTION, WE APPOINTED
COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM.  SINCE THE ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT, THE COURT
OF APPEALS HAS ENTERED A FURTHER ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER'S
ATTEMPTED APPEAL TO THAT COURT AS OF RIGHT, STATING THAT "THE CASE IS
ONE WHERE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER

IN HIS BRIEF AND ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK, ON RESPONDENT'S BEHALF, TOOK THE POSITION THAT NEW
YORK LAW MAKES THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AVAILABLE TO TEST THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY, UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, OF PETITIONER'S
DETENTION.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELIED
UPON A NUMBER OF CASES IN THE NEW YORK COURTS, WHICH APPEAR TO SUSTAIN
HIS POSITION.  PEOPLE EX REL. MOORE V. HUNT, 258 APP. DIV. 24, 16
N.Y.S.2D 19; PEOPLE EX REL. HARRISON V. WILSON, 176 MISC. 1042, 29
N.Y.S.2D 809; PEOPLE EX REL. KRUGER V. HUNT, 257 APP. DIV. 917, 12
N.Y.S.2D 167; PEOPLE EX REL. KENNEDY V. HUNT, 257 APP. DIV. 1039, 13
N.Y.S.2D 797. 

AFTER THE ORAL ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS ON MARCH
4, 1943, DECIDED THE CASE OF LYONS V. GOLDSTEIN, 290 N.Y. 19.  IT THERE
HELD THAT, DESPITE THE LAPSE OF TIME, A STATE COURT IN WHICH A JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION HAS BEEN ENTERED RETAINS JURISDICTION, ANALOGOUS TO THE
COMMON LAW JURISDICTION UPON WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, TO SET ASIDE
THE CONVICTION ON A SHOWING THAT A PLEA OF GUILTY HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION ON THE PART OF A PROSECUTING OFFICIAL.  THE
OPINION RESTS IN PART ON THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE THAT
A PRISONER BE GRANTED A HEARING ON THE MERITS OF SUCH A CONTENTION; IT
CITES MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA, AND ALSO WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S.
275, AND WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101, 104-05, IN WHICH THIS COURT
SUSTAINED THE USE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THAT END. 
THE OPINION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY CONSIDER OR OTHERWISE ALLUDE TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER, UNDER NEW YORK PRACTICE, HABEAS CORPUS MAY BE USED AS
EITHER AN ALTERNATIVE OR A CUMULATIVE REMEDY IN SUCH A CASE. 

IN HIS LATEST SUBMISSION TO US, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOW CONTENDS
THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION IN LYONS V. GOLDSTEIN, SUPRA, THE
REMEDY BY A PROCEEDING CORAM NOBIS IN THE COURT WHERE THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION WAS ENTERED (HERE THE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS, NEW YORK
COUNTY) IS EXCLUSIVE; AND THAT HABEAS CORPUS ACCORDINGLY IS NOT
AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER IN THE STATE COURTS, EVEN IF ON THE MERITS
PETITIONER HAS SET FORTH A PRIMA FACIE CASE.  PETITIONER TAKES THE
CONTRARY POSITION. 

IF HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY UNDER THE STATE LAW,
THE PRESENT PROCEEDING MUST BE DISMISSED.  BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO DECIDE
THIS QUESTION WITH FINALITY, OR TO RESOLVE THE CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT
TO IT, IN ADVANCE OF A CONTROLLING DECISION OF THE NEW YORK COURTS.  IN
VIEW OF THE CHANGED SITUATION RESULTING FROM THE DECISION IN LYONS V.
GOLDSTEIN AFTER WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO
VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE STATE COURT FOR ITS
DETERMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF THAT DECISION, AND FOR SUCH FURTHER OR
OTHER PROCEEDINGS AS MAY BE DEEMED ADVISABLE.  PATTERSON V. ALABAMA,
294 U.S. 600, 607; MISSOURI EX REL. WABASH RY. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 273 U.S. 126, 131; STATE TAX COMM'N V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511,
515-16; VILLA V. VAN SCHAICK, 299 U.S. 152.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

PETITIONER'S CLAIM IS THAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAS DENIED HIM THE
RIGHT WHICH, ACCORDING TO OUR DECISION IN MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S.
103, IS HIS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  AS IN THE
MOONEY CASE, "PETITIONER URGES THAT THE 'KNOWING USE' BY THE STATE OF
PERJURED TESTIMONY TO OBTAIN THE CONVICTION AND THE DELIBERATE
SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH THAT TESTIMONY CONSTITUTED A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PETITIONER FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE STATE
DEPRIVES HIM OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY ITS FAILURE,
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH, TO PROVIDE ANY CORRECTIVE JUDICIAL
PROCESS BY WHICH A CONVICTION SO OBTAINED MAY BE SET ASIDE."  294 U.S.
AT 110. 

UNLESS I MISAPPREHEND THE CONTROLLING DECISIONS OF THE NEW YORK COURT
OF APPEALS AND THE AUTHORITATIVE COMMENTARY THEREON BY THE CHIEF JUDGE
OF THAT COURT, IN A SUBMISSION BEFORE US, NEW YORK RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT
WHICH PETITIONER SEEKS TO VINDICATE HERE BY PROVIDING A PROCEDURE FOR
ASSERTING IT DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH PETITIONER HAS PURSUED. 
PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT TO PROVE HIS CLAIM IN THE NEW YORK COURTS THROUGH
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  BUT SEC. 1231 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL
PRACTICE ACT, PROVIDING THAT "A PERSON IS NOT ENTITLED TO" HABEAS
CORPUS "WHERE HE HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR IS DETAINED BY VIRTUE OF THE
FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE OF A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION," DOES NOT ALLOW THE USE OF THE WRIT TO RAISE SUCH A
CLAIM.  THAT WRIT IN NEW YORK MERELY TESTS THE LEGALITY OF A DETENTION
ACCORDING TO THE FACE OF THE RECORD.  AS, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE ONE UNDER
SENTENCE IS TRANSFERRED FROM A REFORMATORY TO A STATE PRISON AND THERE
DETAINED UNDER A VOID ORDER, PEOPLE EX REL. SAIA V. MARTIN, 289 N.Y.
471, 46 N.E.2D 890, OR WHERE A RELATOR IS HELD IN CUSTODY UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE CLAIMED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  SEE PEOPLE EX
REL. BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 241 N.Y. 405, 150 N.E. 497; 278 U.S. 63.  NEW
YORK RECOGNIZES THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR SUCH A
CLAIM AS ARISES UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA.  BUT
NEW YORK'S REMEDY FOR TESTING SUCH A CLAIM IS NOT BY HABEAS CORPUS BUT
BY APPROPRIATE MOTION BEFORE THE COURT IN WHICH THE SENTENCE OF
CONVICTION WAS RENDERED.  LYONS V. GOLDSTEIN, 290 N.Y. 19, 25, 47
N.E.2D 425. 

SINCE THE ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE, THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
FORMALLY DISMISSED PETITIONER'S APPEAL TO THAT COURT FROM THE ORDER OF
THE APPELLATE DIVISION DENYING HIM HABEAS CORPUS, ON THE GROUND THAT
"THE CASE IS ONE WHERE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS UNDER SECTION 1231 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE ACT."  BUT INASMUCH AS
"THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WHICH APPELLANT ASKED THE COURT TO REVIEW
ARE SUBSTANTIAL," TO USE THE LANGUAGE OF CHIEF JUDGE LEHMAN, HE COULD,
UNDER NEW YORK PRACTICE, HAVE GONE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AS OF RIGHT
IF HABEAS CORPUS WERE THE PROPER REMEDY.  THE MERITS OF PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM HAVE THEREFORE NEVER BEEN PASSED ON BY, BECAUSE
NEVER PRESENTED IN AN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING TO, THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE
NEW YORK COURT.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED HERE.  SINCE
PETITIONER HAS MISCONCEIVED THE MODE BY WHICH HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM
MAY PROPERLY BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE NEW YORK COURTS, THIS PETITION
SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :










HELVERING V. STOCK YARDS CO., 318 U.S. 693 


NO. 488.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 10, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 12, 1943.  - 129
F.2D 937, REVERSED. 


THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT THE TAXPAYER
CORPORATION WAS "AVAILED OF" FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE
IMPOSITION OF SURTAX UPON ITS STOCKHOLDERS, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF
ACCUMULATION OF ITS PROFITS - WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 104 OF THE
REVENUE ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932, IMPOSING IN SUCH CASE A 50% ADDITIONAL
TAX - WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DISTURBED ON APPEAL.  P. 702. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. CHICAGO STOCK YARDS
CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 41 B.T.A. 590, SUSTAINING THE DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED THE PETITIONER'S DETERMINATION OF
DEFICIENCIES IN THE RESPONDENT'S INCOME TAX FOR 1930, 1932, AND 1933. 
FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD'S DECISION.  FN2
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVED. 

THE CHALLENGED ASSESSMENT WAS OF THE FIFTY PER CENT ADDITIONAL TAX
IMPOSED BY SEC. 104 OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932.  FN3  THE
SUBSECTION (A), THAT IF ANY CORPORATION IS FORMED OR AVAILED OF FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE IMPOSITION OF SURTAX UPON ITS SHAREHOLDERS
THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF PERMITTING ITS GAINS AND PROFITS TO ACCUMULATE
INSTEAD OF BEING DIVIDED OR DISTRIBUTED, THE ADDITIONAL TAX SHALL BE
IMPOSED.  THAT THE CORPORATION "IS A MERE HOLDING OR INVESTMENT
COMPANY," OR THAT THE GAINS OR PROFITS ARE "PERMITTED TO ACCUMULATE
BEYOND THE REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS," IS DECLARED, BY
SUBSECTION (B), PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A PURPOSE TO AVOID THE SURTAX. 

THE UNION STOCK YARDS & TRANSIT COMPANY OF CHICAGO, HEREINAFTER
CALLED TRANSIT COMPANY, WAS INCORPORATED IN 1865 TO OPERATE STOCK YARDS
IN CHICAGO.  ITS BUSINESS WAS PROFITABLE.  FREDERICK H. PRINCE BECAME A
STOCKHOLDER.  IN 1890, PACKERS, WHO WERE THE COMPANY'S PRINCIPAL SOURCE
OF BUSINESS, THREATENED TO REMOVE THEIR PLANTS FROM CHICAGO UNLESS THEY
WERE GIVEN A SHARE IN ITS PROFITS.  DUE TO LIMITATIONS IN ITS CHARTER,
THE CORPORATION COULD NOT RAISE FUNDS NECESSARY TO BUY OFF THE
PACKERS.  MR. PRINCE AND OTHER STOCKHOLDERS MET THE SITUATION BY
ORGANIZING A HOLDING COMPANY UNDER THE LAW OF NEW JERSEY, THE CHICAGO
JUNCTION RAILWAYS & UNION STOCK YARDS COMPANY, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
NEW JERSEY COMPANY, WHICH ACQUIRED ALL OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE
TRANSIT COMPANY.  THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE AT ORGANIZATION WAS 65,000
SHARES EACH OF PREFERRED AND COMMON, ALL OF $100 PAR. COLLATERAL TRUST
BONDS, SECURED BY TRANSIT COMPANY STOCK, WERE ISSUED, OF WHICH
$14,000,000 WERE ULTIMATELY OUTSTANDING.  THE CHARTER WAS TO EXPIRE IN
1940.  THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY CAME TO OWN ALL OF THE STOCK OF THE
TRANSIT COMPANY, OF A RAILWAY COMPANY, A RAILROAD COMPANY, AND ALL
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN A REAL ESTATE TRUST, WHICH THEMSELVES, OR
THROUGH SUBSIDIARIES, PURSUED ACTIVITIES COLLATERAL TO THE STOCK-YARDS
BUSINESS.  BY PAYMENTS IN CASH AND ITS OWN BONDS, IT PROCURED FROM THE
PACKERS AN AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN THE STOCK YARDS AT THEIR THEN LOCATION
FOR FIFTEEN YEARS. 

WHEN THIS AGREEMENT WAS ABOUT TO EXPIRE, THE PACKERS PRESENTED FRESH
DEMANDS AND MR. PRINCE WAS COMPELLED TO DEVISE SOME METHOD OF
SATISFYING THEM.  HE DECIDED THAT, IF HE COULD OBTAIN THE COOPERATION
OF THE LARGEST, HE NEED NOT TROUBLE ABOUT THE OTHERS.  TO ATTAIN THIS
END, HE ORGANIZED, IN 1911, THE RESPONDENT, A MAINE CORPORATION.  HE
FORMED A COMMITTEE WHICH MADE A PROPOSAL TO THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY'S
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS THAT THE RESPONDENT WOULD PURCHASE THEIR STOCK BY
GIVING THEM $200 PAR OF ITS 5% BONDS FOR EACH SHARE OF COMMON STOCK,
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WOULD STAMP THE STOCK WITH THE COMPANY'S
AGREEMENT TO GUARANTEE A 9% DIVIDEND UPON IT; THIS IN CONSIDERATION
THAT THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ALL OF THE NEW JERSEY
COMPANY'S EARNINGS OVER AND ABOVE ITS EXPENSES, INTEREST CHARGES, AND
THE GUARANTEED DIVIDEND ON THE COMMON.  THUS IT WAS INTENDED TO DRAW
INTO THE TAXPAYER'S TREASURY THE EXCESS OF THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY'S
EARNINGS.  ARMOUR & CO. WAS GIVEN 20% OF THE RESPONDENT'S STOCK, PRINCE
RETAINING 80% OF IT.  IN THIS WAY, ARMOUR WAS TO SHARE IN THE EARNINGS
OF THE STOCK YARDS. 

BY A DECREE IN A SUIT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, ARMOUR WAS ORDERED TO
PART WITH ALL INTEREST IN THE STOCK YARDS.  IN CONSEQUENCE, MR. PRINCE
PURCHASED THE ARMOUR-HELD STOCK FOR $1,000,000, WHICH SUM WAS LOANED TO
HIM BY THE RESPONDENT.  THUS, PRINCE BECAME THE TAXPAYER'S ONLY
STOCKHOLDER; AND IT IS CONCEDED THAT HE RETAINED OWNERSHIP OR VOTING
POWER WHICH GAVE HIM SOLE CONTROL OF THE COMPANY TO THE CLOSE OF 1933. 
FN4 

BY AUGUST 1914 THE RESPONDENT HAD ACQUIRED, IN EXCHANGE FOR ITS
BONDS, 31,075 COMMON SHARES OF THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY, AND 33,922
SHARES HAD BEEN STAMPED WITH ITS GUARANTEE.  IN 1919 IT ACQUIRED THE
THREE REMAINING SHARES.  IN THE PERIOD FROM 1915 TO 1933, IT ORGANIZED
TWO SMALL WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES TO TRANSACT BUSINESS CONNECTED WITH
THE STOCK-YARDS ENTERPRISE; AND ALSO ORGANIZED, AND HELD FOUR-FIFTHS OF
THE CAPITAL STOCK OF, A NATIONAL BANK INTENDED TO SERVE THE STOCK-YARD
DISTRICT. 

THE RESPONDENT IN ADDITION TO THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY COMMON STOCK
ACQUIRED BY EXCHANGE OF ITS OWN BONDS THEREFOR, BOUGHT SUCH STOCK FOR
CASH.  BY DECEMBER 31, 1929, IT HAD ACQUIRED 58,742 OF THE 65,000
SHARES OUTSTANDING. 

AS THE CHARTER OF THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY WAS TO EXPIRE IN 1940, MR.
PRINCE, AT SOME DATE NOT CLEARLY FIXED BY THE TESTIMONY, FORMED THE
PLAN OF ACCUMULATING CASH IN THE RESPONDENT'S TREASURY SUFFICIENT TO
PAY THE DEBTS OF THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY AND LIQUIDATE IT BY THAT TIME. 
TO DO THIS, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO REDEEM THE OUTSTANDING PREFERRED
STOCK AT PAR, PAY OFF THE $14,000,000 MORTGAGE AND OVER $6,000,000 OF
FIXED OBLIGATIONS OF SUBSIDIARIES WHICH HAD BEEN GUARANTEED BY THE NEW
JERSEY COMPANY.  IT WOULD ALSO BE NECESSARY TO PURCHASE 6,258 SHARES OF
NEW JERSEY COMMON NOT THEN OWNED.  THUS, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1929, THE
PLAN INVOLVED THE EXPENDITURE OF ABOUT $28,000,000 BY 1940.  IF IT
COULD BE CONSUMMATED, THE TAXPAYER WOULD THEN OWN THE ENTIRE STOCK
YARDS ENTERPRISE CLEAR OF DEBT, OTHER THAN ITS OWN BONDS THEN
OUTSTANDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,227,000 DUE IN 1961.  THAT ENTERPRISE,
TREATED AS A WHOLE, THEN HAD CASH AND LIQUID ASSETS AMOUNTING TO
$21,705,185,  FN5  AND FIXED AND OTHER ASSETS OF A BOOK VALUE OF
$40,000,000.  THE BULK OF THE LIQUID ASSETS HAD BEEN DRAWN UP INTO THE
RESPONDENT'S TREASURY BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW JERSEY
COMPANY'S STOCKHOLDERS. 

THE RESPONDENT'S ASSETS DECEMBER 31, 1929, EXCEEDED ITS LIABILITIES,
INCLUDING ITS CAPITAL STOCK, BY $19,622,355.  FROM THAT DATE TO THE
CLOSE OF 1933 ITS EARNINGS WERE $10,243,373, OF WHICH $1,600,000 WAS
PAID OUT IN DIVIDENDS, AND $8,643,373 WAS ADDED TO EARNED SURPLUS. 
FN6 

THESE ARE THE SALIENT FACTS.  THEY ARE STATED IN GREATER DETAIL BY
THE BOARD AND BY THE COURT BELOW. 

THE BOARD REACHED THESE CONCLUSIONS:  THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS A MERE
HOLDING OR INVESTMENT COMPANY AS DEFINED BY SEC. 104, AND HAD NOT
OVERCOME THE CONSEQUENT PRESUMPTION THAT ITS SURPLUS HAD BEEN
ACCUMULATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SURTAX UPON THE EARNINGS OF MR.
PRINCE, AS SOLE STOCKHOLDER; THAT, ALTHOUGH IT WAS MORE THAN A MERE
HOLDING OR INVESTMENT COMPANY, ITS PROFITS HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO
ACCUMULATE BEYOND THE REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS, AND THE
EVIDENCE DID NOT OVERCOME THE PRIMA FACIES WHICH SEC. 104(B) ATTRIBUTES
TO THIS FACT; AND THAT, WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE PRESUMPTIONS CREATED
BY SEC. 104(B), THE PROOFS REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT
HAD BEEN AVAILED OF FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATING PROFITS BEYOND ITS
NEEDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SURTAX UPON ITS STOCKHOLDER. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT, VIEWING THE FACTS MOST
FAVORABLY TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT A MERE HOLDING OR
INVESTMENT COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE; THAT, IN
CONCLUDING THE COMPANY HAD ACCUMULATED PROFITS BEYOND ITS REASONABLE
NEEDS, THE BOARD HAD EMPLOYED A WRONG YARDSTICK IN THAT IT HAD FAILED
TO GIVE WEIGHT TO THE CONTROLLING PURPOSE OF THE ACCUMULATION, NAMELY,
THE LONG RANGE PLAN TO LIQUIDATE THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATE
ALL THE ASSETS, FREE OF DEBT, IN THE RESPONDENT; AND, FINALLY, THAT, IN
PURPORTING TO REACH ITS FINAL CONCLUSION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
STATUTORY PRESUMPTIONS, IT HAD ALLOWED THEM TO AFFECT ITS JUDGMENT. 
ACCORDINGLY THE COURT REVERSED AND DIRECTED THE BOARD TO RETRY THE CASE
IN CONFORMITY TO THE COURT'S OPINION. 

THE PETITIONER URGES ACCEPTANCE OF THE BOARD'S FIRST CONCLUSION THAT
THE RESPONDENT WAS A MERE HOLDING OR INVESTMENT COMPANY.  HE SAYS THAT
THE TAXPAYER WAS NOTHING BUT A POCKETBOOK FOR MR. PRINCE, WHO, AS AN
INDIVIDUAL, MANAGED AND CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE ENTERPRISE AND USED THE
TAXPAYER MERELY AS A REPOSITORY OF SURPLUS EARNINGS WHICH WERE INTENDED
ULTIMATELY TO BE USED FOR HIS BENEFIT.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO
CONSIDER THIS CONTENTION, SINCE WE THINK THE BOARD'S DECISION MAY BE
SUPPORTED APART FROM ANY PRESUMPTION ARISING UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
ACT. 

THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SURTAX ON
ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  NO SUCH EXACTION EXISTED IN 1911.  UNTIL SOME EFFORT
WAS MADE BY LEGISLATION TO REACH AND TAX ACCUMULATED AND UNDISTRIBUTED
SURPLUS, THE TAXPAYER'S DIVIDEND POLICY WAS IMMATERIAL.  ACCUMULATION
OF PROFITS IN ITS TREASURY WAS OF NO TAX SIGNIFICANCE AND, SO FAR AS
APPEARS, IT WAS OTHERWISE A MATTER OF INDIFFERENCE, LEGALLY SPEAKING,
WHETHER SURPLUS MONEYS WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE TREASURY OR WERE
PAID IN DIVIDENDS. 

THE SERIES OF ACTS WHICH SOUGHT TO DISCOURAGE SUCH ACCUMULATIONS HAD
ITS ORIGIN IN 1913 WITH THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL TAX ON THE
SHAREHOLDER RATHER THAN ON THE CORPORATION.  FN7  THE ADDITIONAL TAX
WAS LAID ON THE CORPORATION BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921 AND THIS METHOD
WAS RETAINED IN SUBSEQUENT ACTS TO AND INCLUDING THAT OF 1932.  FN8  AS
THE THEORY OF THE REVENUE ACTS HAS BEEN TO TAX CORPORATE PROFITS TO THE
CORPORATION, AND THEIR RECEIPT ONLY WHEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS, THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION IS TO COMPEL THE COMPANY
TO DISTRIBUTE ANY PROFITS NOT NEEDED FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS SO
THAT, WHEN SO DISTRIBUTED, INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDERS WILL BECOME LIABLE
NOT ONLY FOR NORMAL BUT FOR SURTAX ON THE DIVIDENDS RECEIVED. 

A CORPORATE PRACTICE ADOPTED FOR MERE CONVENIENCE OR OTHER REASONS,
AND WITHOUT TAX SIGNIFICANCE WHEN ADOPTED, MAY HAVE BEEN CONTINUED WITH
THE ADDITIONAL MOTIVE OF AVOIDING SURTAX ON THE STOCKHOLDERS.  THE
BOARD'S CONCLUSION MAY JUSTIFIABLY HAVE BEEN REACHED IN THE VIEW THAT,
WHATEVER THE MOTIVE WHEN THE PRACTICE OF ACCUMULATION WAS ADOPTED, THE
PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SURTAX INDUCED, OR AIDED IN INDUCING, THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE PRACTICE. 

THE BOARD, THE COURT BELOW, AND THE PARTIES IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT
HAVE DISCUSSED MANY FACTS THOUGHT TO BE RELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE OF THE
ACCUMULATION OF SURPLUS BY THE RESPONDENT.  THE INTERRELATION OF THE
TAXPAYER AND THE OTHER CORPORATIONS INVOLVED IN THE ENTERPRISE, THE
EXPIRATION OF THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY'S CHARTER, THE POLICY OR
OBLIGATION OF THE TAXPAYER TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS OF
THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, THE RELATION OF MR. PRINCE
AS OFFICER AND ACTIVE MANAGER OF UNDERLYING CORPORATIONS, THE FINANCIAL
TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HIM AND THE RESPONDENT, ARE DISCUSSED AND
ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON ARE BASED THEREON IN AN EFFORT TO PROVE OR TO
DISPROVE THE CHARACTER OF THE RESPONDENT, THE NECESSITIES OF ITS
BUSINESS, AND THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IT AND MR.
PRINCE. 

IF WE ELIMINATE THESE MATTERS FROM CONSIDERATION AND TREAT THE
RESPONDENT AS A CONTROLLER, MANAGER, AND, TO A LARGE EXTENT, THE
PROPRIETOR OF THE ENTIRE ENTERPRISE, WE THINK THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION OF
FACT HAS SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE AND MUST BE ACCEPTED. 

THE RESPONDENT LAUNCHED ITS CORPORATE ACTIVITIES WITH PARTNERS AND CO
INVESTORS IN THE STOCK-YARDS ENTERPRISE.  THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY, WHICH
THEN EMBRACED THE ENTIRE BUSINESS, HAD A CAPITAL INVESTMENT REPRESENTED
BY STOCK AND BONDS OF NOT LESS THAN $27,000,000.  IN 1911, WHEN THE
RESPONDENT WAS ORGANIZED, THE ENTERPRISE HAD A NET WORTH OF AT LEAST
$16,000,000.  FN9  THE RESPONDENT, WITH A PAID-IN CASH CAPITAL OF
$1,000,000, PURCHASED  FN10  THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE NET EARNINGS OF
THE ENTERPRISE AFTER THE PAYMENT OF THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY'S FIXED
CHARGES, OPERATING EXPENSES, AND THE GUARANTEED DIVIDENDS ON ITS
STOCK.  THE RESPONDENT'S GOAL WAS THE ACQUISITION, BY THE YEAR 1940, OF
THE INTEREST OF ALL OTHERS HAVING ANY CAPITAL SHARE IN THE ENTERPRISE,
AND THE METHOD PURSUED WAS TO ACCUMULATE CURRENT EARNINGS  FN11  SO
THAT, BY 1940, THEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR SUCH CAPITAL INVESTMENT. 
THIS INVESTMENT WOULD, OF COURSE, REDOUND TO THE BENEFIT OF THE HOLDER
OR HOLDERS OF THE RESPONDENT'S STOCK.  THE SITUATION DISCLOSED IS, IN
LEGAL EFFECT, SIMILAR TO THAT PRESENTED IN HELVERING V. NATIONAL
GROCERY CO., 304 U.S. 282.  THERE THE SURPLUS EARNINGS WERE INVESTED IN
SECURITIES UNRELATED TO THE BUSINESS IN HAND AND WERE, AND WOULD
REMAIN, AVAILABLE FOR WHATEVER PURPOSES KOHL, THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER,
DETERMINED.  HERE THE ACCUMULATED EARNINGS BECAME AVAILABLE TO THE
INVESTMENT PURPOSE AND PROGRAM OF MR. PRINCE, THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER OF
THE TAXPAYER, OR FOR OTHER PURPOSES AS HE MIGHT DETERMINE.  BY THE USE
OF THE TAXPAYER'S CORPORATE PERSONALITY, MR. PRINCE COULD PLOW THE
EARNINGS OF THE ENTERPRISE INTO A CAPITAL INVESTMENT WHICH WOULD
CONVERT, BY 1940, AN ORIGINAL CAPITAL VENTURE OF $1,000,000 INTO FREE
ASSETS OF A VALUE IN EXCESS OF $60,000,000.  AND THIS WITHOUT THE
PAYMENT OF TAXES  FN12  OR SURTAXES ON THE BULK OF THE EARNINGS. 
ALTHOUGH MR. PRINCE DENIED ANY PURPOSE TO AVOID SURTAXES, THE BOARD, AS
IN THE NATIONAL GROCERY CASE, WAS FREE TO CONCLUDE, UPON ALL THE
EVIDENCE, THAT SUCH WAS THE PURPOSE.    THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS
THAT, AS THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY'S CHARTER WAS TO EXPIRE IN 1940, AND AS
RESPONDENT WAS UNDER WHAT IT DEEMED A MORAL AND, INDEED, A LEGAL
OBLIGATION TO PAY OFF THE MORTGAGE DEBTS OF THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY AND
ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND TO REDEEM ITS OUTSTANDING STOCK, THE ACCUMULATION
OF EARNINGS WAS NECESSARY TO THE PRESERVATION OF ITS BUSINESS.  THERE
ARE TWO SUFFICIENT ANSWERS.  MR. PRINCE, THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER, IF IN
RECEIPT OF THE RESPONDENT'S EARNINGS, COULD EQUALLY WELL HAVE DONE WHAT
THE RESPONDENT PROPOSED TO DO, THAT IS, TURN ACCUMULATED EARNINGS INTO
INVESTED CAPITAL.  AND THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY'S
CHARTER COULD HAVE BEEN RENEWED IN 1940.  CONTINUANCE OR REFINANCING OF
SUCH AN ENTERPRISE ON THE FACE OF THINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN PRACTICABLE. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT WAS AVAILED
OF FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE IMPOSITION OF SURTAX UPON ITS
STOCKHOLDERS, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF ACCUMULATION OF ITS PROFITS, IS
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  41 B.T.A. 590. 

FN2  129 F.2D 937. 

FN3  45 STAT. 814-15, 47 STAT. 195. 

FN4  HE PLACED SOME OF THE STOCK IN TRUST, RETAINING VOTING CONTROL. 

FN5  INCLUDING SOME $2,000,000 OF IMPOUNDED CHARGES NOT RELEASED TO
TRANSIT COMPANY UNTIL 1932 AND A WORKING FUND CLAIMED BY RESPONDENT TO
REQUIRE $5,000,000. 

FN6  THIS ITEM INCLUDED ADDITIONAL CASH ON HAND OF
$2,755,931($1,800,000 OF WHICH WAS A SUBORDINATED DEPOSIT IN A STOCK
YARDS BANK), LOANS TO SUBSIDIARIES AND TO MR. PRINCE, PURCHASES OF
COMMON AND PREFERRED STOCK OF THE NEW JERSEY COMPANY AND OF
RESPONDENT'S OWN BONDS, AND OTHER INVESTMENTS, AND AN INVESTMENT OF
$3,573,218 IN SECURITIES OF STOCK-YARDS BANKS WHICH NEEDED FINANCIAL
SUPPORT.  SIMILAR SUBORDINATIONS OF DEPOSITS AND BANK INVESTMENTS WERE
MADE BY SUBSIDIARIES. 

FN7  ACT OF OCT. 3, 1913, CH. 16, 38 STAT. 114, 166-167; REVENUE ACT
OF 1918, CH. 18, 40 STAT. 1057, 1072. 

FN8  REVENUE ACT OF 1921, CH. 136, 42 STAT. 227, 247-248; REVENUE ACT
OF 1924, CH. 234, 43 STAT. 253, 277; REVENUE ACT OF 1928, CH. 852, 45
STAT. 791, 814-15; REVENUE ACT OF 1932, CH. 209, 47 STAT. 169, 195.  IN
LATER REVENUE ACTS, A DIFFERENT METHOD OF ACCOMPLISHING THE PURPOSE HAS
BEEN ADOPTED. 

FN9  THE NET WORTH WAS PROBABLY SOME $3,000,000 IN EXCESS OF THE
AMOUNT NAMED IF THE ACTUAL NET WORTH OF SUBSIDIARIES IS TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT. 

FN10  WHEN THE PLAN AND AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO NEW JERSEY
COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK WAS IN SHAPE TO BE CONSUMMATED, THE RESPONDENT
PURCHASED THE PLAN AND THE RIGHTS ARISING UNDER IT FOR $1,000,000(ITS
CASH CAPITAL), AND $7,000,000 PAR VALUE OF ITS OWN STOCK ARISING OUT OF
AN INCREASE OF ITS AUTHORIZED STOCK FROM $1,000,000 TO $8,000,000. 

FN11  THE RESPONDENT HAS PAID SUBSTANTIAL ANNUAL DIVIDENDS, THE
HIGHEST BEING AT THE RATE OF $400,000 PER YEAR DURING THE TAXABLE YEARS
IN QUESTION; AND MR. PRINCE HAS ALSO RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL SALARIES FROM
THE RESPONDENT AND OTHER CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE CONDUCTING ACTIVITIES
OF THE ENTERPRISE. 

FN12  MOST OF RESPONDENT'S INCOME CONSISTED OF DIVIDENDS RECEIVED
FROM DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS, WHICH WERE DEDUCTIBLE FROM ITS GROSS INCOME
FOR TAX PURPOSES. 
..END :






















EX PARTE PERU, 318 U.S. 578 


NO. 13, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1943.  -
LEAVE TO FILE GRANTED. 


1.  THIS COURT HAS POWER, UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECS. 342, 377, TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS TO RESTRAIN THE DISTRICT COURT FROM
EXERCISE OF FURTHER JURISDICTION IN REM, IN AN ADMIRALTY SUIT, ALTHOUGH
THE CASE BE ONE IN WHICH DIRECT APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THIS COURT HAVING ULTIMATE DISCRETIONARY
JURISDICTION BY CERTIORARI; BUT SUCH POWER WILL BE EXERCISED ONLY WHERE
THE QUESTION IS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OR IS OF SUCH NATURE THAT THE
EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER IS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE.  EX PARTE UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 241.  PP. 582, 586. 

2.  A CASE OF THAT CHARACTER IS PRESENTED BY THE CLAIM OF A FRIENDLY
FOREIGN STATE THAT ITS VESSEL, SEIZED BY THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER A
LIBEL IN REM IN A PRIVATE LITIGATION, SHOULD BE RELEASED AS IMMUNE FROM
SUIT, WHICH CLAIM OF IMMUNITY HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, WHOSE ACTION HAS BEEN CERTIFIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 586. 

3.  IN A SUIT IN REM IN ADMIRALTY BY A PRIVATE LIBELANT FOR BREACH OF
A CHARTER PARTY, THE DISTRICT COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION IN REM BY
SEIZURE AND CONTROL OF A VESSEL OWNED BY THE REPUBLIC OF PERU.  THE
REPUBLIC MOVED FOR RELEASE OF THE VESSEL UPON THE GROUND OF SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT AND THERE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL A CERTIFICATION SHOWING THAT SUCH IMMUNITY HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED
AND ALLOWED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.  HELD THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE
COURT TO SURRENDER THE VESSEL AND REMIT THE LIBELANT TO THE RELIEF
OBTAINABLE BY DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS P. 587. 

4.  THE REPUBLIC OF PERU DID NOT WAIVE ITS CLAIM OF IMMUNITY BY
URGING IT BOTH BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE COURT OR BY
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO INTERPOSE OTHER DEFENSES.  P. 589. 

EX PARTE REPUBLIC OF PERU. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND/OR
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION
AND/OR MANDAMUS TO PROHIBIT THE DISTRICT COURT FROM FURTHER EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION OVER A PROCEEDING IN REM IN WHICH A VESSEL WAS SEIZED, AND
TO DIRECT THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO ENTER AN ORDER DECLARING THE VESSEL
IMMUNE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE IN THIS COURT THE PETITION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF PERU FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR OF MANDAMUS.  THE
PETITION ASKS THIS COURT TO PROHIBIT RESPONDENT, A JUDGE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, AND THE OTHER
JUDGES AND OFFICERS OF THAT COURT, FROM FURTHER EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION OVER A PROCEEDING IN REM, PENDING IN THAT COURT AGAINST
PETITIONER'S STEAMSHIP UCAYALI, AND TO DIRECT THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO
ENTER AN ORDER IN THE PROCEEDING DECLARING THE VESSEL IMMUNE FROM
SUIT.  THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION HERE ARE WHETHER THIS COURT HAS
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WRIT, WHETHER SUCH JURISDICTION SHOULD IN OUR
DISCRETION BE EXERCISED IN PETITIONER'S BEHALF, AND WHETHER
PETITIONER'S APPEARANCE AND DEFENSE OF THE SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
WAS, AS THAT COURT HAS RULED, A WAIVER OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE VESSEL,
BEING THAT OF A FRIENDLY SOVEREIGN STATE, IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BROUGHT
BY A PRIVATE PARTY IN THE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

ON MARCH 30, 1942, GALBAN LOBO CO., S.A., A CUBAN CORPORATION, FILED
A LIBEL IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE UCAYALI FOR ITS FAILURE TO
CARRY A CARGO OF SUGAR FROM A PERUVIAN PORT TO NEW YORK, AS REQUIRED BY
THE TERMS OF A CHARTER PARTY ENTERED INTO BY LIBELANT WITH A PERUVIAN
CORPORATION ACTING AS AGENT IN BEHALF OF THE PERUVIAN GOVERNMENT.  ON
APRIL 9, 1942, THE REPUBLIC OF PERU, ACTING BY THE MASTER OF THE
VESSEL, INTERVENED IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY FILING A CLAIM TO THE
VESSEL, AVERRING THAT THE REPUBLIC OF PERU WAS SOLE OWNER, AND STATING:
"THE FILING OF THIS CLAIM IS NOT A GENERAL APPEARANCE AND IS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO OR WAIVER OF ALL DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS WHICH MAY BE
AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENT AND CLAIMANT, PARTICULARLY, BUT NOT
EXCLUSIVELY, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY." 

ON THE SAME DAY, PETITIONER PROCURED THE RELEASE OF THE VESSEL BY
FILING A SURETY RELEASE BOND IN THE SUM OF $60,000, ON WHICH PETITIONER
WAS PRINCIPAL.  THE BOND, WHICH CONTAINED A RESERVATION IDENTICAL WITH
THAT APPEARING IN PETITIONER'S CLAIM TO THE VESSEL, WAS CONDITIONED
UPON PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT AWARDED TO LIBELANT BY THE FINAL DECREE IN
THE CAUSE.  ON APRIL 11TH PETITIONER PROCEEDED IN THE CAUSE TO TAKE THE
TESTIMONY OF THE MASTER ON THE MERITS, AND SPREAD ON THE RECORD A
STATEMENT THAT THE TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN WITH LIKE "FULL RESERVATION AND
WITHOUT WAIVER OF ALL DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS WHICH MAY BE AVAILABLE TO
RESPONDENT AND CLAIMANT, PARTICULARLY, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY, SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY."  PETITIONER ALSO STATED THAT "THE APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR
THE GOVERNMENT OF PERU AND THE STEAMSHIP UCAYALI IS FOR THE SPECIAL
PURPOSE ONLY OF TAKING THE TESTIMONY OF THE MASTER UNDER THE
RESERVATION AFORESAID." 

ON APRIL 18TH, AND AGAIN ON MAY 10TH AND ON MAY 29TH, PETITIONER
MOVED FOR AND OBTAINED AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT EXTENDING ITS
TIME WITHIN WHICH TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD TO THE LIBEL.  EACH
MOTION WAS MADE "WITH FULL RESERVATION AND WITHOUT WAIVER OF ANY
DEFENSES AND OBJECTIONS WHICH MAY BE AVAILABLE TO MOVER, PARTICULARLY,
BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY, SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY." 

IN THE MEANTIME, PETITIONER, FOLLOWING THE ACCEPTED COURSE OF
PROCEDURE (SEE EX PARTE MUIR, 254 U.S. 522; COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE
NAVEMAR, 303 U.S. 68), BY APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIONS, SOUGHT
RECOGNITION BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF IMMUNITY,
AND ASKED THAT THE DEPARTMENT ADVISE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE CLAIM
OF IMMUNITY AND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INSTRUCT THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TO FILE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT THE APPROPRIATE SUGGESTION OF IMMUNITY OF THE VESSEL FROM SUIT. 
THESE NEGOTIATIONS RESULTED IN FORMAL RECOGNITION BY THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF THE CLAIM OF IMMUNITY.  THIS WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL BY THE UNDER SECRETARY'S LETTER OF MAY 5, 1942.  THE
LETTER REQUESTED HIM TO INSTRUCT THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TO PRESENT
TO THE DISTRICT COURT A COPY OF THE AMBASSADOR'S FORMAL CLAIM OF
IMMUNITY FILED WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND TO SAY THAT "THIS
DEPARTMENT ACCEPTS AS TRUE THE STATEMENTS OF THE AMBASSADOR CONCERNING
THE STEAMSHIP UCAYALI, AND RECOGNIZES AND ALLOWS THE CLAIM OF
IMMUNITY." 

PURSUANT TO THESE INSTRUCTIONS THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, ON JUNE
29TH, FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A FORMAL STATEMENT ADVISING THE COURT
OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND COMMUNICATIONS MENTIONED, SUGGESTING TO THE
COURT AND PRAYING "THAT THE CLAIM OF IMMUNITY MADE ON BEHALF OF THE
SAID PERUVIAN STEAMSHIP UCAYALI AND RECOGNIZED AND ALLOWED BY THE STATE
DEPARTMENT BE GIVEN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT BY THIS COURT"; AND "THAT THE
SAID VESSEL PROCEEDED AGAINST HEREIN BE DECLARED IMMUNE FROM THE
JURISDICTION AND PROCESS OF THIS COURT."  ON JULY 1ST, PETITIONER MOVED
FOR RELEASE OF THE VESSEL AND THAT THE SUIT BE DISMISSED.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DENIED THE MOTION ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER HAD WAIVED ITS
IMMUNITY BY APPLYING FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO ANSWER, AND
BY TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF THE MASTER - STEPS WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT
THOUGHT CONSTITUTED A GENERAL APPEARANCE DESPITE PETITIONER'S ATTEMPTED
RESERVATION OF ITS RIGHT TO ASSERT ITS IMMUNITY AS A DEFENSE IN THE
SUIT.  47 F.SUPP.  203. 

THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS THAT OF OUR
JURISDICTION.  SECTION 13 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 81,
CONFERRED UPON THIS COURT "POWER TO ISSUE WRITS OF PROHIBITION TO THE
DISTRICT COURTS, WHEN PROCEEDING AS COURTS OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME
JURISDICTION, AND WRITS OF MANDAMUS, IN CASES WARRANTED BY THE
PRINCIPLES AND USAGES OF LAW, TO ANY COURTS APPOINTED, OR PERSONS
HOLDING OFFICE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES."  AND SEC. 14
PROVIDED THAT THIS COURT AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS "SHALL HAVE POWER TO
ISSUE WRITS OF SCIRE FACIAS, HABEAS CORPUS, AND ALL OTHER WRITS NOT
SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO THE
PRINCIPLES AND USAGES OF LAW."  1 STAT. 81.  THESE PROVISIONS HAVE IN
SUBSTANCE BEEN CARRIED OVER INTO SECS. 234 AND 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
(28 U.S.C. SECS. 342, 377), AND SEC. 751 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (28
U.S.C. SEC. 451). 

THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, OF
THE CONSTITUTION IS EITHER "ORIGINAL" OR "APPELLATE."  SUITS BROUGHT IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT OF SUCH CHARACTER AS TO
BE WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, ARE COGNIZABLE BY IT ONLY IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  HENCE, ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WRITS
OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS TO DISTRICT COURTS CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
EXERCISED ONLY INSOFAR AS SUCH WRITS ARE IN AID OF ITS APPELLATE
JURISDICTION.  MARBURY V. MADISON, 1 CRANCH 137, 173-80; EX PARTE
SIEBOLD, 100 U.S. 371, 374-75. 

UNDER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO
ISSUE COMMON-LAW WRITS IN AID OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN
CONSISTENTLY SUSTAINED.  THE HISTORIC USE OF WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND
MANDAMUS DIRECTED BY AN APPELLATE TO AN INFERIOR COURT HAS BEEN TO
EXERT THE REVISORY APPELLATE POWER OVER THE INFERIOR COURT.  THE WRITS
THUS AFFORD AN EXPEDITIOUS AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF CONFINING THE
INFERIOR COURT TO A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF ITS PRESCRIBED JURISDICTION, OR
OF COMPELLING IT TO EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT IS ITS DUTY TO DO
SO.  SUCH HAS BEEN THE OFFICE OF THE WRITS WHEN DIRECTED BY THIS COURT
TO DISTRICT COURTS, BOTH BEFORE THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, 43 STAT.
936,  FN1  AND SINCE.  FN2  IN ALL THESE CASES (CITED IN NOTES 1 AND
2), THE APPELLATE, NOT THE ORIGINAL, JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT WAS
INVOKED AND EXERCISED.  FN3 

THE COMMON LAW WRITS, LIKE EQUITABLE REMEDIES, MAY BE GRANTED OR
WITHHELD IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT, EX PARTE SKINNER & EDDY
CORP., 265 U.S. 86, 95-96; EX PARTE CITY OF MONTEREY, 269 U.S. 527;
MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 1), 270 U.S. 9, 29; UNITED STATES V. DERN, 289
U.S. 352, 359, AND ARE USUALLY DENIED WHERE OTHER ADEQUATE REMEDY IS
AVAILABLE.  EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610.  AND EVER SINCE THE STATUTE
VESTED IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS APPELLATE JURISDICTION ON
DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS, THIS COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF
ITS DISCRETION, HAS IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES DECLINED TO ISSUE THE
WRIT TO A DISTRICT COURT, BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AN APPLICATION TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (EX PARTE APEX MFG. CO., 274 U.S. 725; EX
PARTE DAUGHERTY, 282 U.S. 809; EX PARTE KRENTLER-ARNOLD HINGE LAST CO.,
286 U.S. 533), WHICH LIKEWISE HAS POWER UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE TO ISSUE THE WRIT.  MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268; ADAMS V.
U.S. EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269. 

AFTER A FULL REVIEW OF THE TRADITIONAL USE OF THE COMMONLAW WRITS BY
THIS COURT, AND IN ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IN AID OF ITS APPELLATE
JURISDICTION, TO COMPEL A DISTRICT JUDGE TO ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT IN
CONFORMITY TO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THIS COURT DECLARED IN EX PARTE
UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, 248-49:  "THE RULE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE
LATER DECISIONS, AND WHICH WE NOW AFFIRM, IS, THAT THIS COURT HAS FULL
POWER IN ITS DISCRETION TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT, ALTHOUGH THE CASE BE ONE IN RESPECT OF WHICH DIRECT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS - THIS
COURT HAVING ULTIMATE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION BY CERTIORARI - BUT
THAT SUCH POWER WILL BE EXERCISED ONLY WHERE A QUESTION OF PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE IS INVOLVED, OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS OF SUCH A NATURE THAT
IT IS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE THAT SUCH ACTION BY THIS COURT SHOULD BE
TAKEN.  IN OTHER WORDS, APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT ORDINARILY MUST BE
MADE TO THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, AND MADE TO THIS COURT AS THE
COURT OF ULTIMATE REVIEW ONLY IN SUCH EXCEPTIONAL CASES."  FN4 

WE CONCLUDE THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WRIT AS PRAYED. 
AND WE THINK THAT - UNLESS THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY HAS BEEN WAIVED - THE
CASE IS ONE OF SUCH PUBLIC IMPORTANCE AND EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER AS TO
CALL FOR THE EXERCISE OF OUR DISCRETION TO ISSUE THE WRIT RATHER THAN
TO RELEGATE THE REPUBLIC OF PERU TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FROM
WHICH IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO BRING THE CASE TO THIS COURT AGAIN BY
CERTIORARI.  THE CASE INVOLVES THE DIGNITY AND RIGHTS OF A FRIENDLY
SOVEREIGN STATE, CLAIMS AGAINST WHICH ARE NORMALLY PRESENTED AND
SETTLED IN THE COURSE OF THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS BY THE
PRESIDENT AND BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.  WHEN THE SECRETARY ELECTS,
AS HE MAY AND AS HE APPEARS TO HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE, TO SETTLE CLAIMS
AGAINST THE VESSEL BY DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES
RATHER THAN BY CONTINUED LITIGATION IN THE COURTS, IT IS OF PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE THAT THE ACTION OF THE POLITICAL ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT TAKEN
WITHIN ITS APPROPRIATE SPHERE BE PROMPTLY RECOGNIZED, AND THAT THE
DELAY AND INCONVENIENCE OF A PROLONGED LITIGATION BE AVOIDED BY PROMPT
TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  IF THE REPUBLIC
OF PERU HAS NOT WAIVED ITS IMMUNITY, WE THINK THAT THERE ARE PERSUASIVE
GROUNDS FOR EXERCISING OUR JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN THIS CASE
AND AT THIS TIME WITHOUT REQUIRING PETITIONER TO APPLY TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, AND THAT THOSE GROUNDS ARE AT LEAST AS STRONG AND
URGENT AS THOSE FOUND SUFFICIENT IN EX PARTE UNITED STATES, IN MARYLAND
V. SOPER, IN COLORADO V. SYMES, AND IN MCCULLOUGH V. COSGRAVE, ALL
SUPRA, NOTE 2.  WE ACCORDINGLY PASS TO THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONER
HAS WAIVED HIS IMMUNITY. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS NO QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT OVER THE PERSON OF A DEFENDANT.  SUCH JURISDICTION MUST BE
ACQUIRED EITHER BY THE SERVICE OF PROCESS OR BY THE DEFENDANT'S
APPEARANCE OR PARTICIPATION IN THE LITIGATION.  HERE THE DISTRICT COURT
ACQUIRED JURISDICTION IN REM BY THE SEIZURE AND CONTROL OF THE VESSEL,
AND THE LIBELANT'S CLAIM AGAINST THE VESSEL CONSTITUTED A CASE OR
CONTROVERSY WHICH THE COURT HAD AUTHORITY TO DECIDE.  INDEED, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIMED
IMMUNITY, THE DISTRICT COURT, IN THE ABSENCE OF RECOGNITION OF THE
IMMUNITY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, HAD AUTHORITY TO DECIDE FOR ITSELF
WHETHER ALL THE REQUISITES FOR SUCH IMMUNITY EXISTED - WHETHER THE
VESSEL WHEN SEIZED WAS PETITIONER'S, AND WAS OF A CHARACTER ENTITLING
IT TO THE IMMUNITY.  SEE EX PARTE MUIR, SUPRA; THE PESARO, 255 U.S.
216; BERIZZI BROS. CO. V. THE PESARO, 271 U.S. 562; COMPANIA ESPANOLA
V. THE NAVEMAR, SUPRA.  THEREFORE THE QUESTION WHICH WE MUST DECIDE IS
NOT WHETHER THERE WAS JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT, ACQUIRED BY
THE APPEARANCE OF PETITIONER, BUT WHETHER THE JURISDICTION WHICH THE
COURT HAD ALREADY ACQUIRED BY SEIZURE OF THE VESSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN
RELINQUISHED IN CONFORMITY TO AN OVERRIDING PRINCIPLE OF SUBSTANTIVE
LAW.    THAT PRINCIPLE IS THAT COURTS MAY NOT SO EXERCISE THEIR
JURISDICTION, BY THE SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF THE PROPERTY OF A
FRIENDLY SOVEREIGN, AS TO EMBARRASS THE EXECUTIVE ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT
IN CONDUCTING FOREIGN RELATIONS.  "IN SUCH CASES THE JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT OF THIS GOVERNMENT FOLLOWS THE ACTION OF THE POLITICAL
BRANCH, AND WILL NOT EMBARRASS THE LATTER BY ASSUMING AN ANTAGONISTIC
JURISDICTION."  UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196, 209.  MORE
SPECIFICALLY, THE JUDICIAL SEIZURE OF THE VESSEL OF A FRIENDLY FOREIGN
STATE IS SO SERIOUS A CHALLENGE TO ITS DIGNITY, AND MAY SO AFFECT OUR
FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH IT, THAT COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT AND
FOLLOW THE EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE VESSEL IS IMMUNE.  WHEN
SUCH A SEIZURE OCCURS THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN SOVEREIGN MAY PRESENT ITS
CLAIM OF IMMUNITY BY APPEARANCE IN THE SUIT AND BY WAY OF DEFENSE TO
THE LIBEL.  COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR, SUPRA, 74 AND CASES
CITED; EX PARTE MUIR, SUPRA.  BUT IT MAY ALSO PRESENT ITS CLAIM TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE POLITICAL ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH
THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  UPON RECOGNITION AND ALLOWANCE OF
THE CLAIM BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF ITS ACTION
PRESENTED TO THE COURT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IT IS THE COURT'S DUTY
TO SURRENDER THE VESSEL AND REMIT THE LIBELANT TO THE RELIEF OBTAINABLE
THROUGH DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS.  COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR,
SUPRA, 74; THE EXCHANGE, 7 CRANCH 116.  THIS PRACTICE IS FOUNDED UPON
THE POLICY, RECOGNIZED BOTH BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE COURTS,
THAT OUR NATIONAL INTEREST WILL BE BETTER SERVED IN SUCH CASES IF THE
WRONGS TO SUITORS, INVOLVING OUR RELATIONS WITH A FRIENDLY FOREIGN
POWER, ARE RIGHTED THROUGH DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS RATHER THAN BY THE
COMPULSIONS OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE REPUBLIC OF PERU HAS WAIVED ITS IMMUNITY.  IT
HAS CONSISTENTLY DECLARED ITS RELIANCE ON THE IMMUNITY, BOTH BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  NEITHER METHOD OF ASSERTING THE
IMMUNITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER.  NOR, IN VIEW OF THE PURPOSE
TO BE ACHIEVED BY PERMITTING THE IMMUNITY TO BE ASSERTED, ARE WE ABLE
TO PERCEIVE ANY GROUND FOR SAYING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD
DISREGARD THE CLAIM OF IMMUNITY, WHICH A FRIENDLY SOVEREIGN IS
AUTHORIZED TO ADVANCE BY WAY OF DEFENSE IN THE PENDING SUIT, MERELY
BECAUSE THE SOVEREIGN HAS SEEN FIT TO PRESERVE ITS RIGHT TO INTERPOSE
OTHER DEFENSES.  THE EVIL CONSEQUENCES WHICH MIGHT FOLLOW THE SEIZURE
OF THE VESSEL ARE NOT ANY THE LESS BECAUSE THE FRIENDLY STATE ASSERTS
OTHER GROUNDS FOR THE VESSEL'S RELEASE. 

HERE THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT LEFT THE REPUBLIC OF PERU TO
INTERVENE IN THE LITIGATION THROUGH ITS AMBASSADOR AS IN THE CASE OF
COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR.  THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM
OF IMMUNITY AND CAUSED ITS ACTION TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE CHANNELS.  THE CERTIFICATION AND THE REQUEST
THAT THE VESSEL BE DECLARED IMMUNE MUST BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS AS A
CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION BY THE POLITICAL ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT
THE CONTINUED RETENTION OF THE VESSEL INTERFERES WITH THE PROPER
CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.  UPON THE SUBMISSION OF THIS
CERTIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT COURT, IT BECAME THE COURT'S DUTY, IN
CONFORMITY TO ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES, TO RELEASE THE VESSEL AND TO
PROCEED NO FURTHER IN THE CAUSE.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE WHETHER
THE COURT SHOULD SURRENDER THE VESSEL AND DISMISS THE SUIT ON
CERTIFICATION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BY THE SECRETARY, MADE AFTER THE
FRIENDLY SOVEREIGN HAS ONCE UNQUALIFIEDLY ASSENTED TO A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF THE CONTROVERSY. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE IS GRANTED.  WE ASSUME THAT, IN VIEW OF
THIS OPINION, FORMAL ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT WILL BE UNNECESSARY, AND WE
DIRECT THAT THE WRIT ISSUE ONLY ON FURTHER APPLICATION BY THE
PETITIONER. 

FN1  E.G., EX PARTE STATE OF NEW YORK, NO. 1, 256 U.S. 490; THE
WESTERN MAID, 257 U.S. 419; EX PARTE SIMONS, 247 U.S. 231; EX PARTE
PETERSON, 253 U.S. 300, 305; EX PARTE HUDGINGS, 249 U.S. 378; EX PARTE
UPPERCU, 239 U.S. 435; MATTER OF HEFF, 197 U.S. 488; EX PARTE SIEBOLD,
100 U.S. 371; EX PARTE WATKINS, 3 PET. 193; UNITED STATES V. PETERS, 3
DALL.  121. 

FN2  EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241; MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 1),
270 U.S. 9, 27-28; MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 2), 270 U.S. 36; MARYLAND V.
SOPER (NO. 3), 270 U.S. 44; COLORADO V. SYMES, 286 U.S. 510; MCCULLOUGH
V. COSGRAVE, 309 U.S. 634; EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69; SEE LOS
ANGELES BRUSH CORP. V. JAMES, 272 U.S. 701. 

FN3  SEE PARTICULARLY THE DISCUSSION IN MARYLAND V. SOPER (NO. 1),
270 U.S. 9, 28-30, AND IN EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241. 
COMPARE EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S. 371. 

EX PARTE UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WAS NOT AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CASE
OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.  THE CONSTITUTION CONFERS ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION ONLY IN CASES AFFECTING AMBASSADORS, OTHER PUBLIC
MINISTERS AND CONSULS, AND "THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY"
(ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 2).  NO STATE WAS MADE A PARTY TO EX PARTE
UNITED STATES.  THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER BEEN HELD TO BE A "STATE"
WITHIN THIS PROVISION - AND IT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT - NOR HAS IT ANY
STANDING TO BRING AN ORIGINAL ACTION IN THIS COURT WHICH DOES NOT
OTHERWISE COME WITHIN ONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, CL.
2.  UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 143 U.S. 621, RELIED UPON TO SUSTAIN A
DIFFERENT VIEW, WAS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE STATE
OF TEXAS WAS THE PARTY DEFENDANT.  AND UNTIL NOW IT HAS NEVER BEEN
SUGGESTED THAT NECESSITY, HOWEVER GREAT, WARRANTS THE EXERCISE BY THIS
COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT CONFERRED
UPON IT. MOREOVER, EVEN IF CONGRESS HAD WITHDRAWN THIS COURT'S
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BY THE 1925 ACT, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO
NECESSITY IN EX PARTE UNITED STATES FOR INVENTING AN ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAD WITHHELD, SINCE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS COULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

FN4  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925 WAS INTENDED TO
CURTAIL THE JURISDICTION PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED BY THIS COURT IN GRANTING
SUCH WRITS TO THE DISTRICT COURTS FINDS NO SUPPORT IN THE HISTORY OR
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT.  THE ACT WAS ORIGINALLY PREPARED BY A COMMITTEE OF
JUSTICES OF THIS COURT, BY WHOM IT WAS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS FOR
CONSIDERATION.  FOUR MEMBERS OF THIS COURT GAVE TESTIMONY BEFORE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES IN EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSES AND MEANING OF
THE ACT, AND CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT SUBMITTED A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE
CHANGES WHICH THE ACT WOULD EFFECT.  THESE DISCLOSE THAT THE GREAT
PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO CURTAIL THE COURT'S OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION
BY SUBSTITUTING, FOR THE APPEAL AS OF RIGHT, DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BY
CERTIORARI IN MANY CLASSES OF CASES.  IN ALL THE ORAL AND WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS BY MEMBERS OF THIS COURT, AND IN THE REPORTS OF THE
COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS WHICH RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF THE BILL, THERE IS
NOT A SINGLE SUGGESTION THAT THE ACT WOULD WITHDRAW OR LIMIT THE
COURT'S EXISTING JURISDICTION TO DIRECT THE COMMON-LAW WRITS TO THE
DISTRICT COURTS WHEN, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, IT DEEMED SUCH
A REMEDY APPROPRIATE.  SEE RESUME, TOGETHER WITH CITATIONS AFFECTING
FOR USE OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 67TH CONG., 2D SESS.;
HEARING ON S. 2060 AND S. 2061, BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, FEB. 2, 1924, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS.;
HEARING ON H.R. 8206 BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, DEC. 18,
1924, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 362, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.
REP. NO. 1075, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS.  THE CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
PROPOSED TO BE MADE BY THE ACT WERE SET FORTH WITH PAINSTAKING DETAIL. 
IT IS HARDLY CONCEIVABLE THAT THE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT, FULLY
FAMILIAR WITH ITS PRACTICE, WOULD HAVE LEFT UNEXPRESSED AN INTENTION -
HAD SUCH INTENTION REALLY EXISTED - TO CURTAIL DRASTICALLY A
JURISDICTION WHICH THE COURT HAD EXERCISED UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY
FROM THE BEGINNING OF ITS HISTORY.  EX PARTE UNITED STATES, AND MOST OF
THE OTHER CASES CITED IN NOTE 2, SUPRA, WERE DECIDED AT A TIME WHEN
MEMBERS OF THE COURT'S COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 1925 ACT WERE
STILL MEMBERS OF THE COURT.  THE COURT'S UNANIMOUS CONCURRENCE IN THE
EXISTENCE OF ITS JURISDICTION IN THE CASES SUBSEQUENT TO THE 1925 ACT
ESTABLISHES A PRACTICE (CF. STUART V. LAIRD, 1 CRANCH 299, 309) WHICH
WOULD BE BEYOND EXPLANATION IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY THOUGHT THAT ANY
PROVISION OF THE ACT HAD PLACED SUCH A RESTRICTION ON THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WRITS. 

NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY GIVES ANY SUPPORT TO
THE SUGGESTION THAT THE FAILURE OF THE 1925 ACT TO CUT OFF THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE THE COMMON-LAW WRITS TO DISTRICT
COURTS WAS INADVERENT, AND THAT THE ACT SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED
AS THOUGH IT HAD DONE WHAT IT FAILED TO DO.  THE JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT TO ISSUE SUCH WRITS, LIKE ITS JURISDICTION TO GRANT CERTIORARI,
IS DISCRETIONARY.  THE DEFINITE AIM OF THE 1925 ACT WAS TO ENLARGE, NOT
TO DESTROY, THE COURT'S DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION.  THAT AIM CAN
HARDLY GIVE RISE TO AN INFERENCE OF AN UNEXPRESSED PURPOSE TO AMEND OR
REPEAL THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THE
COURT TO ISSUE THE WRITS, OR AN INFERENCE THAT SUCH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE
PURPOSE HAD REPEAL BEEN PROPOSED.  THE EXERCISE OF THAT JURISDICTION
HAS PLACED NO UNDUE BURDEN ON THIS COURT.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT,
SINCE 1925, LESS THAN TEN OF THE NUMEROUS APPLICATIONS TO THIS COURT
FOR SUCH WRITS HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  ONLY IN RARE INSTANCES HAS THEIR
DENIAL BEEN THE OCCASION FOR AN OPINION DEALING WITH QUESTIONS OF
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.  SEE, E.G., LOS ANGELES BRUSH CORP. V. JAMES, 272
U.S. 701; EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610; EX PARTE COLONNA, 314 U.S.
510; CF. MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103.  AND WHATEVER THE SCOPE OF
THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, IN NO CASE DOES IT DECLINE TO EXAMINE
AN APPLICATION IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT HAS JURISDICTION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

IF DUE REGARD BE HAD FOR ITS AIMS, THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925, 43
STAT. 936, DENIES US, IN MY OPINION, THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ACTION IN
THIS CASE OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA,
EVEN THOUGH SUCH REVIEW IS CAST IN FORM OF A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR OF
MANDAMUS.  BUT, EVEN ASSUMING WE HAVE DISCRETIONARY POWER TO ISSUE SUCH
WRITS TO A DISTRICT COURT, WE SHOULD IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE
ABSTAIN FROM EXERCISING THAT POWER, IN VIEW OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY
SHOWING THAT RELIEF EQUALLY PROMPT AND EFFECTIVE AND CONSONANT WITH THE
NATIONAL INTEREST WAS NOT, AND IS NOT, AVAILABLE IN THE APPROPRIATE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE RANGE OF CASES THAT MAY BE BROUGHT HERE DIRECTLY FROM THE
DISTRICT COURTS AND THE RIGOR WITH WHICH WE LIMIT OUR DISCRETIONARY
JURISDICTION DETERMINE THE CAPACITY OF THIS COURT ADEQUATELY TO
DISCHARGE ITS ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS.  I SHALL THEREFORE BRIEFLY STATE THE
GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THAT THIS CASE IS IMPROPERLY HERE, THAT THE RULE
SHOULD BE DISCHARGED, AND THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE PETITION BE
DENIED.  I PUT TO ONE SIDE THE RELATION OF THE PERUVIAN AMBASSADOR TO
THIS LITIGATION.  THIS IS NOT A PROCEEDING FALLING UNDER THE RUBRIC
"CASES AFFECTING AMBASSADORS" AND THEREBY GIVING US ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION.  MY BRETHREN DO NOT SO TREAT IT, AND OUR COMMON STARTING
POINT IS THAT IN TAKING HOLD OF THIS CASE THE COURT IS EXERCISING ITS
APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 

WE ARE ALSO AGREED THAT THIS COURT "CAN EXERCISE NO APPELLATE
JURISDICTION, EXCEPT IN THE CASES, AND IN THE MANNER AND FORM, DEFINED
AND PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."  AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION CO. V.
JACKSONVILLE, T. & K.W. RY. CO., 148 U.S. 372, 378.  HAD THIS CASE
ARISEN UNDER THE EVARTS ACT (ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, 26 STAT. 826),
APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, SINCE ITS
JURISDICTION WAS IN ISSUE, DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT WITHOUT GOING TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  SEE, E.G., WILSON V. REPUBLIC IRON CO., 257
U.S. 92.  AND SINCE THE CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, SECS. 13 AND 14 OF THE FIRST
JUDICIARY ACT, 1 STAT. 73, 80-82(NOW 28 U.S.C. SECS. 342, 377, 451),
WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED THIS COURT TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT TO
PREVENT FRUSTRATION OF ITS APPELLATE POWER, SEE EX PARTE CRANE, 5 PET.
190, OR HAVE ENABLED IT TO ACCELERATE ITS OWN UNDOUBTED REVIEWING
AUTHORITY WHERE, UNDER VERY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, ACTUAL AND NOT
UNDEFINED INTERESTS OF JUSTICE SO REQUIRED.  COMPARE IN RE CHETWOOD,
165 U.S. 443; WHITNEY V. DICK, 202 U.S. 132; ADAMS V. U.S. EX REL.
MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269. 

THE POWER TO ISSUE THESE AUXILIARY WRITS IS NOT A QUALIFICATION OR
EVEN A LOOSE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRICT LIMITS, DEFINED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE CONGRESS, WITHIN WHICH THIS COURT MUST MOVE IN
REVIEWING DECISIONS OF LOWER COURTS.  THERE HAVE BEEN OCCASIONAL, BUT
NOT MANY, DEVIATIONS FROM THE TRUE DOCTRINE IN EMPLOYING THESE
AUXILIARY WRITS AS INCIDENTAL TO THE RIGHT GRANTED BY CONGRESS TO THIS
COURT TO REVIEW LITIGATION, IN AID OF WHICH IT MAY BECOME NECESSARY TO
ISSUE A FACILITATING WRIT.  THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH A WRIT IS, IN EFFECT,
AN ANTICIPATORY REVIEW OF A CASE THAT CAN IN DUE COURSE COME HERE
DIRECTLY.  WHEN THE ACT OF 1891 ESTABLISHED THE INTERMEDIATE COURTS OF
APPEALS AND GAVE TO THEM A CONSIDERABLE PART OF THE APPELLATE
JURISDICTION FORMERLY EXERCISED BY THE SUPREME COURT, THE PHILOSOPHY
AND PRACTICE OF FEDERAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CAME UNDER CAREFUL
SCRUTINY.  THIS COURT UNIFORMLY AND WITHOUT DISSENT HELD THAT IT WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN A CASE IN WHICH IT DID NOT
OTHERWISE HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  IN RE MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S.
482, AND IN RE GLASER, 198 U.S. 171.  IN THESE CASES, RULES WERE
DISCHARGED BECAUSE, UNDER THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS ACT, APPEALS
COULD NOT BE BROUGHT DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT WOULD HAVE TO GO
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND ONLY THEREAFTER COULD THEY COME
HERE, IF AT ALL, THROUGH CERTIORARI.  BUT REVIEW COULD BE BROUGHT
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT OF CASES IN WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS IN ISSUE, AND THEREFORE WRITS OF "PROHIBITION OR
MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI AS ANCILLARY THERETO," IN RE MASSACHUSETTS,
SUPRA, AT 488, WERE AVAILABLE.  CASES WHICH CAME HERE DIRECTLY, PRIOR
TO THE JUDICIARY ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, TO REVIEW THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS, WHETHER ON APPEAL OR THROUGH THE
INFORMAL PROCEDURE OF AUXILIARY WRITS, ARE THEREFORE NOT RELEVANT
PRECEDENTS FOR THE PRESENT CASE. 

THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925 WAS AIMED TO EXTEND THE COURT'S CONTROL
OVER ITS BUSINESS BY CURTAILING ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DRASTICALLY.  RELIEF WAS GIVEN BY CONGRESS TO ENABLE THIS COURT TO
DISCHARGE ITS INDISPENSABLE FUNCTIONS OF INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION
AND PRESERVING UNIFORMITY OF DECISION AMONG THE ELEVEN INTERMEDIATE
COURTS OF APPEALS.  PERIODICALLY SINCE THE CIVIL WAR - TO SPEAK ONLY OF
RECENT TIMES - THE PRODIGAL SCOPE OF THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT BROUGHT MORE CASES HERE THAN EVEN THE MOST COMPETENT TRIBUNAL
COULD WISELY AND PROMPTLY ADJUDICATE.  ARREARS BECAME INEVITABLE UNTIL,
AFTER A LONG LEGISLATIVE TRAVAIL, THE ESTABLISHMENT IN 1891 OF
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS FREED THIS COURT OF A LARGE VOLUME OF
BUSINESS.  BY 1916, CONGRESS HAD TO ERECT A FURTHER DAM AGAINST ACCESS
TO THIS COURT OF LITIGATION THAT ALREADY HAD BEEN THROUGH TWO LOWER
COURTS AND WAS NOT OF A NATURE CALLING FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT.  ACT OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1916, 39 STAT. 726.  BUT THE INCREASE OF
BUSINESS - THE INEVITABLE AFTERMATH OF THE GREAT WAR AND OF RENEWED
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY - SOON CAUGHT UP WITH THE MEAGER RELIEF AFFORDED
BY THE ACT OF 1916.  THE OLD EVILS OF AN OVERBURDENED DOCKET
REAPPEARED.  ABSORPTION OF THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT BY CASES THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO, OR BEEN LEFT WITH, THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS RESULTED IN UNJUSTIFIABLE SUBORDINATION OF THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS IN THE SPECIAL KEEPING OF THIS COURT.  TO BE SURE,
THE SITUATION WAS NOT AS BAD AS THAT WHICH CALLED THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS INTO BEING.  IN THE EIGHTIES, THREE TO FOUR YEARS ELAPSED
BETWEEN THE DOCKETING AND THE HEARING OF A CASE.  BUT IT WAS BAD
ENOUGH.  IN 1922, CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT REPORTED TO CONGRESS THAT IT TOOK
FROM FIFTEEN TO EIGHTEEN MONTHS FOR A CASE TO REACH ARGUMENT. 

THE NEEDLESS CLOG ON THE COURT'S PROPER BUSINESS CAME FROM TWO
SOURCES.  MORE THAN A DOZEN CLASSES OF CASES COULD HAVE A SECOND REVIEW
IN THE SUPREME COURT, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, AFTER AN UNSUCCESSFUL
APPEAL IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  WITH A SINGLE EXCEPTION, ALL
ADJUDICATIONS BY THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS WERE BY THE ACT OF 1925
MADE REVIEWABLE ONLY BY THE DISCRETIONARY WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  BUT NO
LESS PROLIFIC A SOURCE OF MISCHIEF IN THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT PRIOR TO THE ACT OF 1925,
WAS THE RIGHT TO BRING CASES DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT FROM THE DISTRICT
COURTS.  ACCORDING TO THE FIGURES SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF
THE NEED FOR THE 1925 LEGISLATION, ONE-SIXTH OF THE TOTAL BUSINESS OF
THE SUPREME COURT CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS.  (HEARING
BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES
SENATE, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON S. 2060 AND S. 2061, PP. 32-33, 44
45.)  MOST OF THESE CASES PRESENTED PHASES OF THE GENERAL QUESTION NOW
BEFORE US, NAMELY, THE RIGHT OF A DISTRICT COURT TO ADJUDICATE.  THE
OBVIOUS REMEDY FOR THIS UNWARRANTED DIRECT REVIEW OF COURTS OF FIRST
INSTANCE WAS TO SHUT OFF DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS TO THIS
COURT.  THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS PROPOSED.  IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
CHIEF SPOKESMAN BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES, "SECTION 238 AS
AMENDED AND REENACTED IN THE BILL WOULD PERMIT CASES FALLING WITHIN
FOUR PARTICULAR CLASSES, AND THOSE ONLY, TO COME FROM THE DISTRICT
COURTS DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT.  ...  APART FROM CASES WITHIN
THESE FOUR CLASSES, THE BILL PROVIDES THAT THE IMMEDIATE REVIEW OF ALL
DECISIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL BE IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS.  WE REGARD THIS AS THE BETTER COURSE AND CALCULATED TO PROMOTE
THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  IBID., 33-34.  THIS CONCEPTION OF "THE PUBLIC
INTEREST" WAS TRANSLATED INTO LAW, EXCEPT THAT IN ONE ADDITIONAL CLASS
OF CASES DIRECT REVIEW WAS ALLOWED FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS TO THIS
COURT.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE FIVE EXCEPTED CATEGORIES ARE NOT IN
SERIOUS DEROGATION OF THE WISE REQUIREMENT THAT REVIEW OF ACTION BY THE
DISTRICT COURTS BELONGS TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  ALL FIVE
EITHER INVOLVE LITIGATION BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE
JUDGES, OR ORDINARILY TOUCH MATTERS OF NATIONAL CONCERN. 

THE PRESENT POWER OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW DIRECTLY DECISIONS OF
DISTRICT COURTS MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE RESTRICTIONS CONGRESS IMPOSED
IN THE ACT OF 1925.  THE LANGUAGE OF THAT SECTION IS SIGNIFICANT: 

"A DIRECT REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF AN INTERLOCUTORY OR FINAL
JUDGMENT OR DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT MAY BE HAD WHERE IT IS SO
PROVIDED IN THE FOLLOWING ACTS OR PARTS OF ACTS, AND NOT OTHERWISE. 
..."  (43 STAT. 936, 938.) 

THIS CASE DOES NOT FALL EVEN REMOTELY WITHIN ANY OF THESE FIVE ACTS. 
FN1  WE HAVE THUS BEEN GIVEN NO APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER THIS
CONTROVERSY, BUT BY RESORT TO SO-CALLED ANCILLARY WRITS WE ARE
EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION HERE.  ON PRINCIPLE, IT IS STILL AS
TRUE AS IT WAS HELD TO BE IN IN RE MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA, AND IN RE
GLASER, SUPRA, THAT "IN CASES OVER WHICH WE POSSESS NEITHER ORIGINAL
NOR APPELLATE JURISDICTION WE CANNOT GRANT PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS  ...
AS ANCILLARY THERETO."  197 U.S. 482, 488.  THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT
BY INDIRECTION THE ACT OF 1925 REPEALED WHAT WERE ORIGINALLY SECS. 13
AND 14 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, ON WHICH, IN THEIR PRESENT FORM IN
THE U.S.C. (28 U.S.C. SECS. 342, 377, 451), THE COURT RELIES.  THE NEW
DISTRIBUTION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE SUPREME COURT AND
THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS DID NOT REPEAL THESE OLD PROVISIONS.  IT
DOES, HOWEVER, CALL FOR RESTRICTION OF THEIR APPLICATION IN HARMONY
WITH THIS NEW DISTRIBUTION.  ANCILLARY WRITS ARE STILL AVAILABLE BOTH
FOR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THIS COURT WHEN THEY MAY IN FACT
BE ANCILLARY TO A MAIN SUIT.  SEE EX PARTE KAWATO, 316 U.S. 650, 317
U.S. 69, 71(LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS GRANTED AFTER
SUCH LEAVE WAS DENIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS); AND ADAMS V.
U.S. EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269.  BUT WHEN WE CANNOT HAVE
JURISDICTION IN A CASE ON APPEAL, NO PROCEEDING CAN BE ANCILLARY TO
IT. 

I AM NOT UNMINDFUL THAT THE HEARINGS ON THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925
BEFORE THE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS ARE COMPLETELY SILENT REGARDING THE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT THROUGH USE OF ANCILLARY WRITS. 
BUT IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF JUDICIARY
LEGISLATION THAT EMINENT JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES AND EXPERT
DRAFTSMEN, PREOCCUPIED WITH MAJOR PROBLEMS IN A LARGE SCHEME FOR
RELIEVING THIS COURT OF UNDUE BUSINESS, HAVE BEEN FORGETFUL OF MINOR
ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION.  FOR INSTANCE, IT TOOK SIX YEARS TO DEAL WITH
THE IMPLICATIONS OVERLOOKED BY SENATOR EVARTS IN USING THE PHRASE
"INFAMOUS CRIMES" IN THE ACT OF 1891.  (SEE IN RE CLAASEN, 140 U.S.
200, AND H. REP. NO. 666, 54TH CONG., 1ST SESS., THE LETTER OF CHIEF
JUSTICE FULLER TO SENATOR HOAR IN 23 CONG. REC. 3285-86, REPORT OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLNEY FOR 1893, XXV, AND THE ACT OF JANUARY 20, 1897,
29 STAT. 492.)  LEGISLATION BY EVEN THE MOST COMPETENT HANDS, LIKE
OTHER FORMS OF COMPOSITION, IS SUBJECT TO THE FRAILTIES OF THE
IMAGINATION.  CONCENTRATION ON THE BASIC AIMS OF A REFORM LIKE THE ACT
OF 1925 INEVITABLY OVERLOOKS LACUNAE AND AMBIGUITIES WHICH THE FUTURE
REVEALS AND WHICH THE FUTURE MUST CORRECT.  THE ACT OF 1925, DESPITE
ITS DEFT AUTHORSHIP, SOON REVEALED SUCH AMBIGUITIES.  SEE THE SERIES OF
CASES COLLECTED IN PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246, 250-51. 
THEY WERE RESOLVED BY FAITHFUL ENFORCEMENT OF THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, WHICH WAS "TO KEEP WITHIN NARROW CONFINES
OUR APPELLATE DOCKET," 312 U.S. AT 250.  FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY
THE DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO CUT DOWN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT HAS BEEN GIVEN EFFECT IN A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS EVEN THOUGH
CONGRESS DID NOT ADEQUATELY EXPRESS SUCH PURPOSE.  SEE, FOR INSTANCE,
MCLISH V. ROFF, 141 U.S. 661; ROBINSON V. CALDWELL, 165 U.S. 359;
AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 181 U.S. 277; AMERICAN
SECURITY CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 224 U.S. 491; INTER-ISLAND STEAM
NAVIGATION CO. V. WARD, 242 U.S. 1. 

FINALLY, IT IS URGED THAT PRACTICE SINCE THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1925
SANCTIONS THE PRESENT ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION.  CASES LIKE EX PARTE
NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 280 U.S. 142, ORDERING A DISTRICT JUDGE TO
SUMMON THREE JUDGES TO HEAR A SUIT UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
(28 U.S.C. SEC. 380), MUST BE PUT TO ONE SIDE.  THIS IS ONE OF THE
EXCEPTED CLASSES UNDER THE ACT OF 1925 IN WHICH DIRECT REVIEW LIES FROM
A DISTRICT COURT TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND IT IS THEREFORE AN ORTHODOX
UTILIZATION OF AN ANCILLARY WRIT, WITHIN THE RULE OF IN RE
MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA.  OF ALL THE OTHER CASES IN WHICH, SINCE THE ACT
OF 1925, A WRIT WAS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED, NONE IS COMPARABLE TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE.  IN ONE, EX PARTE KAWATO, SUPRA, THE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT WAS INVOKED ONLY AFTER APPELLATE
JURISDICTION WAS DENIED BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  ANOTHER, EX
PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, WHILE IN FORM A REVIEW OF ACTION BY
A DISTRICT COURT, WAS IN FACT AN INDEPENDENT SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES,
BECAUSE NO APPEAL AS SUCH LAY FROM THE REFUSAL OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN
THAT CASE TO ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT IN DENIAL OF HIS DUTY.  IF THE SUIT
WAS A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY THROUGH USE OF THE ANCILLARY WRIT, IT WAS
EQUALLY JUSTICIABLE IF REGARDED AS AN ORIGINAL SUIT BY THE UNITED
STATES.  WHILE, TO BE SURE, IT WAS NOT FORMALLY SUCH, AND WHILE AN
ORDINARY SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE AN OBLIGATION AGAINST ONE
OF ITS CITIZENS PROPERLY CANNOT BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, EX PARTE UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WAS QUITE
DIFFERENT.  THERE THE UNITED STATES SOUGHT ENFORCEMENT OF A PUBLIC DUTY
FOR WHICH NO REDRESS COULD BE HAD IN ANY OTHER COURT.  THEREFORE, THE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 143 U.S.
621, TO ALLOW THE UNITED STATES TO INITIATE AN ORIGINAL SUIT IN THIS
COURT, ALTHOUGH THE MERELY LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION
PRECLUDED IT (AS THE DISSENT IN THAT CASE INSISTED), MIGHT HAVE BEEN
EQUALLY POTENT TO ALLOW ASSUMPTION OF SUCH JURISDICTION IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EX PARTE UNITED STATES.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, MERELY
BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER AVAILABLE JUDICIAL RELIEF IS NO REASON FOR
TAKING APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  FOR SOME SITUATIONS THE ONLY
APPROPRIATE REMEDY IS CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION.  OF THE SAME NATURE WERE
FOUR OTHER CASES, THREE SUITS BY MARYLAND AND ONE BY COLORADO. 
MARYLAND V. SOPER (1), 270 U.S. 9; MARYLAND V. SOPER (2), 270 U.S. 36;
MARYLAND V. SOPER (3), 270 U.S. 44; COLORADO V. SYMES, 286 U.S. 510. 
THESE CASES WERE NOT ORDINARY CLAIMS BY A STATE AGAINST ONE OF ITS
CITIZENS FOR WHICH THE STATE COURTS ARE THE APPROPRIATE TRIBUNALS, SEE
CALIFORNIA V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 157 U.S. 229.  THEY WERE IN EFFECT
SUITS BY STATES AGAINST FEDERAL FUNCTIONARIES IN SITUATIONS IN WHICH
THE CITIZENSHIP OF THESE FUNCTIONARIES WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE
CONTROVERSY.  AND SO THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MADE THE CONTROVERSIES BY
MARYLAND AND COLORADO JUSTICIABLE THROUGH ANCILLARY WRITS MIGHT HAVE
BEEN EQUALLY RELEVANT IN ESTABLISHING JUSTICIABILITY FOR ORIGINAL SUITS
IN THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE III, SEC. 2.  IT IS NOT WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE MARYLAND V. SOPER CASES AND COLORADO V. SYMES,
WHICH THE COURT NOW REGARDS AS PRECEDENTS FOR THE RULING IN EX PARTE
UNITED STATES, WERE NOT EVEN REFERRED TO IN THE OPINION IN THE LATTER
CASE. 

IF EX PARTE UNITED STATES, THE MARYLAND V. SOPER CASES, AND COLORADO
V. SYMES, SUPRA, ARE NOT TO BE SUPPORTED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PECULIAR
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MIGHT HAVE JUSTIFIED THE COURT IN ASSUMING
JURISDICTION, THEY SHOULD BE CANDIDLY REGARDED AS DEVIATIONS FROM THE
NARROW LIMITS WITHIN WHICH OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION SHOULD MOVE. 
THEY WOULD THEN BELONG WITH THE OCCASIONAL LAPSES WHICH OCCUR WHEN
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION ARE NOT PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE
COURT AND CONSCIOUSLY MET.  THAT LEAVES TWO OTHER CASES, LOS ANGELES
BRUSH CORP. V. JAMES, 272 U.S. 701, AND MCCULLOUGH V. COSGRAVE, 309
U.S. 634.  IN THE LOS ANGELES BRUSH CASE, THE COURT EXPLICITLY REFUSED
TO INVOKE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN ANCILLIARY WRIT INASMUCH AS THE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE CONTROVERSY BELONGED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AND NOT TO THIS COURT.  THE CASE CONCERNED "THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE EQUITY RULES," 272 U.S. AT 706, AND THE POWER WHICH THIS COURT
RECOGNIZED IN THAT CASE WAS PART OF THE DUTY IMPOSED UPON THE COURT BY
CONGRESS TO FORMULATE AND PUT IN FORCE THE EQUITY RULES.  THE
MCCULLOUGH CASE WAS EQUALLY RESTRICTED.  IT MERELY FOLLOWED THE LOS
ANGELES BRUSH CASE IN ENFORCING THE EQUITY RULES. 

TO BE SURE, EX PARTE UNITED STATES, SUPRA, STATED THAT LATER CASES
HAD QUALIFIED IN RE MASSACHUSETTS AND IN RE GLASER, SUPRA.  BUT THE
CASES THAT WERE AVOUCHED (MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268; EX PARTE
ABDU, 247 U.S. 27) IN NO WISE CALLED INTO QUESTION IN RE MASSACHUSETTS
AND IN RE GLASER, AND THE ACTUAL DECISIONS LEFT THEM INTACT.  THE
AUTHORITY OF IN RE MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA, AND IN RE GLASER, SUPRA, WAS
UNQUESTIONED AS LATE AS 1923, IN MAGNUM CO. V. COTY, 262 U.S. 159,
AFTER, THAT IS, THE CASES REFERRED TO IN EX PARTE UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
AS HAVING LIMITED IN RE MASSACHUSETTS AND IN RE GLASER.  THE ESSENCE OF
THE ACT OF 1925 WAS CURTAILMENT OF OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION AS A
MEASURE NECESSARY FOR THE EFFECTIVE DISCHARGE OF THE COURT'S
FUNCTIONS.  IT IS HARDLY CONSONANT WITH THIS RESTRICTIVE PURPOSE OF THE
ACT OF 1925 TO ENLARGE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO COME TO THIS COURT BEYOND
THE LIMIT RECOGNIZED AND ENFORCED UNDER THE ACT OF 1891 - THAT THERE
CAN BE NO ANCILLARY JURISDICTION WHERE THE LITIGATION ON THE MERITS
COULD NOT DIRECTLY COME HERE FOR REVIEW.  IN ONLY ONE OF THE CASES
SINCE THE ACT OF 1925 IN WHICH THE ANCILLARY WRITS WERE INVOKED IN
SITUATIONS IN WHICH THIS COURT DID NOT HAVE DIRECT APPELLATE
JURISDICTION, DID COUNSEL CALL TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT THE
BEARING OF THE ACT OF 1925 UPON THE POWER TO ISSUE ANCILLARY WRITS AND
THE RELEVANCE OF CASES PRIOR TO THAT ACT, AND IN NO CASE DID THIS COURT
APPARENTLY ADDRESS ITSELF TO THE PROBLEM NOW CANVASSED.  AUTHORITY
EXERCISED SUB SILENTIO DOES NOT ESTABLISH JURISDICTION.  THROUGHOUT ITS
HISTORY IT HAS BEEN THE FIRM POLICY OF THIS COURT NOT TO RECOGNIZE THE
EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS PRECEDENTS WHEN
THE QUESTION IS FIRST SHARPLY BROUGHT FOR DECISION.  UNITED STATES V.
MORE, 3 CRANCH 159, 172; SNOW V. UNITED STATES, 118 U.S. 346, 354-55;
CROSS V. BURKE, 146 U.S. 82, 87; LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V. KNOTT, 191
U.S. 225, 236; ARANT V. LANE, 245 U.S. 166, 170. 

IN DECIDING WHETHER TO GIVE A LATITUDINARIAN OR A RESTRICTED SCOPE TO
THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, THE IMPORTANT FACTOR IS THE
NUMBER OF INSTANCES IN WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION HAS BEEN OR MAY BE MADE, NOT THE NUMBER OF
INSTANCES IN WHICH THE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN EXERCISED.  AND SO IT
TELLS LITTLE THAT LESS THAN TEN APPLICATIONS FOR MANDAMUS HAVE BEEN
GRANTED SINCE THE ACT OF 1925.  WHAT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT IS THAT
MERELY FOR THE FIRST SEVEN TERMS AFTER THAT ACT NOT LESS THAN SEVENTY
TWO APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH WRITS WERE MADE.  EVERY APPLICATION CONSUMES
TIME IN CONSIDERATION, WHETHER EVENTUALLY GRANTED OR DENIED. 

HAD THE COURT JURISDICTION, THIS CASE WOULD FURNISH NO OCCASION FOR
ITS EXERCISE.  ON WHATEVER TECHNICAL BASIS OF JURISDICTION THE
AVAILABILITY OF THESE WRITS MAY HAVE BEEN FOUNDED, THEIR USE HAS BEEN
RESERVED FOR VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  HOWEVER VARYING THE LANGUAGE
OF JUSTIFICATION, THESE ANCILLARY WRITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ONLY TO
FURTHER SOME IMPERATIVE CLAIM OF JUSTICE.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE
UPSHOT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS IS TO CIRCUMVENT THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT AS THE NATURAL AND NORMAL RESORT FOR RELIEF FROM A CLAIM OF WANT
OF JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 

NO PALPABLE EXIGENCY EITHER OF NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL IMPORT IS
MADE MANIFEST FOR SEEKING THIS EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF HERE.  FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE LITIGATION HAS CEASED TO CONCERN A VESSEL
BELONGING TO A SISTER REPUBLIC.  WHILE, TO BE SURE, THE LEGAL ISSUES
TURN ON THE CLAIM OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BY PERU IN A VESSEL LIBELED IN
AN AMERICAN HARBOR, THE SHIP HAS LONG SINCE BEEN RELEASED AND THE
ACTUAL STAKE OF THE CONTROVERSY IS A BOND.  THUS THE CASE FOR OUR
INTERVENTION, TO THE DISREGARD OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, CANNOT
BE PUT HIGHER THAN THE PROPRIETY OF VINDICATING THE DIGNITY OF A
FRIENDLY FOREIGN STATE. 

BUT SURELY THIS IS TO INTRODUCE THE FORMAL ELEGANCIES OF DIPLOMACY
INTO THE SEVERE BUSINESS OF SECURING LEGAL RIGHTS THROUGH THE JUDICIAL
MACHINERY NORMALLY ADAPTED FOR THE PURPOSE.  AFTER ALL, IF THE FRAMERS
OF THE CONSTITUTION HAD DEEMED LITIGATION IN THIS COURT ALONE TO
COMPORT WITH APPROPRIATE REGARD FOR THE DIGNITY OF A FRIENDLY FOREIGN
STATE, THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN THIS COURT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN SUCH
CASES.  IF OUR NEAREST NEIGHBORS WISHED TO LITIGATE IN THIS COUNTRY,
THEY COULD NOT BRING SUIT IN THIS COURT.  SEE MONACO V. MISSISSIPPI,
292 U.S. 313.  IT IS NOT DEEMED INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DIGNITY OF THE
UNITED STATES ITSELF TO BEGIN SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT, HAVE THE
LITIGATION PROCEED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND ONLY BY OUR
LEAVE REACH THIS COURT.  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297
U.S. 175.  LITIGATION INVOLVING THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN
SHIPS OWNED BY IT HAS TWICE RECENTLY GONE THROUGH THIS NORMAL PROCESS,
AND IT WILL NOT BE THOUGHT THAT THE DIGNITY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS
THEREBY COMPROMISED.  INDEED, UNDER THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY CONGRESS
IN 1925, MEASURES DEEMED INDISPENSABLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR COULD
BE NULLIFIED BY DISTRICT COURTS AND COULD NOT COME HERE FOR REVIEW
UNTIL APPEAL WAS DULY TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  TO BE
SURE, CONGRESS HAS WISELY PROVIDED THAT ONCE SUCH AN APPEAL IS FILED
THIS COURT IN ITS DISCRETION MAY BRING THE APPEAL HERE.  SEE, E.G.,
WHITE V. MECHANICS SECURITIES CORP., 269 U.S. 283; NORMAN V. B. & O.R.
CO., 294 U.S. 240, 294-95; EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1, 19-20.  TO
REQUIRE A FOREIGN STATE TO SEEK RELIEF IN AN ORDERLY FASHION THROUGH
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CAN IMPLY AN INDIFFERENCE TO THE DIGNITY
OF A SISTER NATION ONLY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS ARE NOT COURTS OF GREAT AUTHORITY.  OUR FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM
PRESUPPOSES THE CONTRARY.  CERTAINLY THIS COURT SHOULD IN EVERY
POSSIBLE WAY ATTRIBUTE TO THESE COURTS A PRESTIGE WHICH INVITES
RELIANCE FOR THE BURDENS OF APPELLATE REVIEW EXCEPT IN THOSE CASES,
RELATIVELY FEW, IN WHICH THIS COURT IS CALLED UPON TO ADJUDICATE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES OR OTHER QUESTIONS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 

TO REMIT A CONTROVERSY LIKE THIS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHERE
IT PROPERLY BELONGS IS NOT TO BE INDIFFERENT TO CLAIMS OF IMPORTANCE
BUT TO BE UNCOMPROMISING IN SAFEGUARDING THE CONDITIONS WHICH ALONE
WILL ENABLE THIS COURT TO DISCHARGE WELL THE DUTIES ENTRUSTED
EXCLUSIVELY TO US.  THE TREMENDOUS AND DELICATE PROBLEMS WHICH CALL FOR
THE JUDGMENT OF THE NATION'S ULTIMATE TRIBUNAL REQUIRE THE UTMOST
CONSERVATION OF TIME AND ENERGY EVEN FOR THE ABLEST JUDGES.  LISTENING
TO ARGUMENTS AND STUDYING RECORDS AND BRIEFS CONSTITUTE ONLY A FRACTION
OF WHAT GOES INTO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  FOR ONE THING, AS THE PRESENT
LAW REPORTS COMPARED WITH THOSE OF EVEN A GENERATION AGO BEAR AMPLE
TESTIMONY, THE TYPES OF CASES THAT NOW COME BEFORE THE COURT TO A
CONSIDERABLE EXTENT REQUIRE STUDY OF MATERIALS OUTSIDE THE TECHNICAL
LAW BOOKS.  BUT MORE IMPORTANT, THE JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT ARE
COLLECTIVE JUDGMENTS.  SUCH JUDGMENTS PRESUPPOSE AMPLE TIME AND
FRESHNESS OF MIND FOR PRIVATE STUDY AND REFLECTION IN PREPARATION FOR
DISCUSSIONS IN CONFERENCE.  WITHOUT ADEQUATE STUDY THERE CANNOT BE
ADEQUATE REFLECTION; WITHOUT ADEQUATE REFLECTION THERE CANNOT BE
ADEQUATE DISCUSSION; WITHOUT ADEQUATE DISCUSSION THERE CANNOT BE THAT
MATURE AND FRUITFUL INTERCHANGE OF MINDS WHICH IS INDISPENSABLE TO WISE
DECISIONS AND LUMINOUS OPINIONS. 

IT IS THEREFORE IMPERATIVE THAT THE DOCKET OF THE COURT BE KEPT DOWN,
THAT NO CASE BE TAKEN WHICH DOES NOT RISE TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
INESCAPABILITY FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY ENTRUSTED TO THIS COURT.  EVERY
CASE THAT IS ALLOWED TO COME HERE WHICH, JUDGED BY THESE STANDARDS, MAY
WELL BE LEFT EITHER TO THE STATE COURTS OR TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS, MAKES INROADS UPON THOUGHT AND ENERGY WHICH PROPERLY BELONG TO
THE LIMITED NUMBER OF CASES WHICH ONLY THIS COURT CAN ADJUDICATE.  EVEN
A JUDGE OF SUCH UNIQUE GIFTS AND EXPERIENCE AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES FELT
AT THE VERY HEIGHT OF HIS POWERS, AS WE NOW KNOW, THE WHIP OF UNDUE
PRESSURE IN HIS WORK.  ONE CASE IS NOT JUST ONE CASE MORE, AND DOES NOT
STOP WITH BEING JUST ONE MORE CASE.  CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT WAS NOT THE
LAST JUDGE WHO, AS HE SAID OF HIMSELF, "HAVING A KIND HEART, I AM
INCLINED TO GRANT PROBABLY MORE (DISCRETIONARY REVIEWS) THAN IS WISE." 
(HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 8206, P. 27.) 

IN A CASE LIKE THIS, WE SHOULD DENY OUR POWER TO EXERCISE
JURISDICTION.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, WE SHOULD REFUSE TO EXERCISE IT.  BY
SUCH REFUSAL WE WOULD DISCOURAGE FUTURE APPLICATIONS OF A SIMILAR KIND,
AND THEREBY ENFORCE THOSE RIGOROUS STANDARDS IN THIS COURT'S JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION WHICH ALONE WILL GIVE US THE FRESHNESS AND VIGOR OF
THOUGHT AND SPIRIT THAT ARE INDISPENSABLE FOR WISE DECISIONS IN THE
CAUSES COMMITTED TO US. 

MR. JUSTICE REED IS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION
TO GRANT THE WRIT REQUESTED, EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 241, BUT
CONCURS IN THIS DISSENT ON THE GROUND THAT APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT
SOUGHT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE FIRST TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

FN1  "SEC.  238.  A DIRECT REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF AN
INTERLOCUTORY OR FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT MAY BE
HAD WHERE IT IS SO PROVIDED IN THE FOLLOWING ACTS OR PARTS OF ACTS, AND
NOT OTHERWISE: 

(1)  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1903, 'TO EXPEDITE THE
HEARING AND DETERMINATION' OF CERTAIN SUITS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THE ANTITRUST OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAWS, AND SO FORTH. 

(2)  THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, 'PROVIDING FOR WRITS OF ERROR IN
CERTAIN INSTANCES IN CRIMINAL CASES' WHERE THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IS ADVERSE TO THE UNITED STATES. 

(3)  AN ACT RESTRICTING THE ISSUANCE OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS TO
SUSPEND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE OF A STATE OR OF AN ORDER MADE
BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR COMMISSION CREATED BY AND ACTING UNDER
THE STATUTE OF A STATE, APPROVED MARCH 4, 1913, WHICH ACT IS HEREBY
AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THEREOF, 'THE REQUIREMENT RESPECTING THE
PRESENCE OF THREE JUDGES SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THE FINAL HEARING IN SUCH
SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT; AND A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
MAY BE TAKEN FROM A FINAL DECREE GRANTING OR DENYING A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION IN SUCH SUIT.' 

(4)  SO MUCH OF 'AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO SUPPLY URGENT
DEFICIENCIES IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1913, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES,' APPROVED OCTOBER 22, 1913, AS RELATES TO THE REVIEW OF
INTERLOCUTORY AND FINAL JUDGMENTS AND DECREES IN SUITS TO ENFORCE,
SUSPEND, OR SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
OTHER THAN FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. 

(5)  SECTION 316 OF 'AN ACT TO REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE IN LIVESTOCK, LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS, DAIRY PRODUCTS, POULTRY,
POULTRY PRODUCTS, AND EGGS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES' APPROVED AUGUST 15,
1921."  43 STAT. 936, 938. 
..END :





















HELVERING V. SPROUSE, 318 U.S. 604 


NO. 22.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 12, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1943.  - NO.
22, 122 F.2D 973, AFFIRMED.  - NO. 66, 124 F.2D 315, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A CORPORATION HAVING BUT TWO CLASSES OF STOCK, VOTING COMMON
AND NON-VOTING COMMON, DISTRIBUTES TO ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS OF BOTH
CLASSES, IN PROPORTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE HOLDINGS, A DIVIDEND OF NON
VOTING COMMON, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF WHICH IS ITS PAR VALUE, AND
WHICH IS BACKED BY EARNINGS AND PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION IN
EXCESS OF ITS TOTAL VALUE, NEITHER THE VOTING RIGHTS OF THE VOTING
COMMON NOR ITS RIGHT TO SHARE IN DIVIDENDS OR IN LIQUIDATION BEING
ALTERED BY THE DISTRIBUTION, SO THAT THE RELATIONS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING
BETWEEN ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS, OR BETWEEN THE PARTICULAR SHAREHOLDER AND
THE CORPORATION, ARE IN NO WISE DISTURBED BY THE DISTRIBUTION, THE
DIVIDEND IS NOT SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX.  CONST., AMENDMENT XVI; REVENUE
ACT OF 1936, SEC. 115(F)(1).  P. 606. 

2.  WHERE THE SOLE OWNER OF THE COMMON STOCK OF A CORPORATION WHICH
HAD COMMON STOCK ONLY, RECEIVED A DIVIDEND OF NON-VOTING PREFERRED
STOCK AUTHORIZED BY A CHARTER AMENDMENT AND THE VALUE OF WHICH WAS
EXCEEDED BY EARNINGS OF THE CORPORATION AVAILABLE FOR DIVIDENDS WITHOUT
CHANGING THE SHAREHOLDER'S INTEREST IN THE CORPORATION OR IN ITS NET
VALUE, THE DIVIDEND IS NOT TAXABLE INCOME.  CONST., AMENDMENT XVI;
REVENUE ACT OF 1936, SEC. 115(F)(1).  P. 606. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. SPROUSE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 66, STRASSBURGER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 656, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

REVIEW BY CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 656, OF TWO JUDGMENTS, THE ONE
REVERSING A RULING WHICH SUSTAINED A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF INCOME,
42 B.T.A. 484, AND THE OTHER AFFIRMING THE LIKE RULING IN ANOTHER
CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE THE DECISIONS BELOW IN THE TWO CASES
CONFLICT.  THEY ARISE UNDER SEC. 115(F)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936:
FN1 

"A DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN ITS
STOCK OR IN RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE ITS STOCK SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A
DIVIDEND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME TO THE
SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION." 

                       NO. 22 

THE RESPONDENT OWNED VOTING COMMON STOCK IN AN OREGON CORPORATION
WHICH PAID A TEN PER CENT STOCK DIVIDEND IN SHARES OF NON-VOTING COMMON
STOCK.  THE COMPANY HAD OUTSTANDING BUT TWO CLASSES OF STOCK:  VOTING
COMMON, OF A PAR VALUE OF $397,471.25; AND NON-VOTING COMMON, OF A PAR
VALUE OF $819,333.06.  THE DIVIDEND WAS OF NON-VOTING COMMON OF A PAR
OF $121,680.43 AND WAS DISTRIBUTED TO HOLDERS OF THE VOTING AND NON
VOTING COMMON.  THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE STOCK DISTRIBUTED AS A
DIVIDEND WAS ITS PAR VALUE, AND THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR
DISTRIBUTION WERE IN EXCESS OF ITS TOTAL VALUE.  NEITHER THE VOTING
RIGHTS OF THE VOTING COMMON, NOR ITS RIGHT TO SHARE IN DIVIDENDS AND IN
LIQUIDATION, WAS ALTERED BY THE DISTRIBUTION. 

THE RESPONDENT, WHO OWNED NO NON-VOTING COMMON, RECEIVED 200 SHARES
OF THAT CLASS OF STOCK.  IN HIS RETURN FOR 1936, HE DID NOT REPORT THE
DIVIDEND AS INCOME.  THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE OF THE DIVIDEND AS INCOME, AND THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS SUSTAINED HIM.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,
HOLDING THAT THE DIVIDEND WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY THE SUBJECT OF
INCOME TAX IF IT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO HOLDERS OF BOTH CLASSES OF
OUTSTANDING STOCK IN PROPORTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE HOLDINGS.  IT
ACCORDINGLY REMANDED THE CASE TO THE BOARD TO FIND THE FACTS AND TO
APPLY THE RULE ANNOUNCED.  FN3

 NO. 66 

PETITIONER OWNED 200 SHARES OF COMMON, - THE ENTIRE STOCK OF A
CORPORATION.  BY CHARTER AMENDMENT THE CREATION OF AN ISSUE OF 500
SHARES OF 7% CUMULATIVE NON-VOTING PREFERRED STOCK, OF $100 PAR VALUE,
WAS AUTHORIZED.  THE DIRECTORS VOTED A DISTRIBUTION TO STOCKHOLDERS OF
$5,000 PAR OF THE PREFERRED STOCK; AND THE PETITIONER, AS SOLE
STOCKHOLDER, RECEIVED FIFTY SHARES AS A STOCK DIVIDEND.  THE EARNINGS
AVAILABLE FOR DIVIDENDS WERE IN EXCESS OF THE VALUE OF THIS STOCK. 
PETITIONER STILL HOLDS THE PREFERRED STOCK AND NO DIVIDENDS HAVE BEEN
PAID UPON IT.  THE PETITIONER FAILED TO RETURN THE STOCK DIVIDEND AS
INCOME, THE RESPONDENT DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY, AND THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS AFFIRMED HIS ACTION.  THE CIRCUIT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
BOARD'S DECISION.  FN4 

WE THINK THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 22 WAS RIGHT AND THAT IN NO. 66
ERRONEOUS.  THE CASES ARE RULED BY HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, ANTE, P.
371.  WHILE THE PETITIONER IN NO. 66 RECEIVED A DIVIDEND IN PREFERRED
STOCK, THE DISTRIBUTION BROUGHT ABOUT NO CHANGE WHATEVER IN HIS
INTEREST IN THE CORPORATION.  BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE EVENT HE OWNED
EXACTLY THE SAME INTEREST IN THE NET VALUE OF THE CORPORATION AS
BEFORE.  AT BOTH TIMES HE OWNED IT ALL AND RETAINED ALL THE INCIDENTS
OF OWNERSHIP HE HAD ENJOYED BEFORE. 

IN NO. 22, THE RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
DIVIDEND IN NOWISE DISTURBED THE RELATIONSHIP PREVIOUSLY EXISTING
AMONGST ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS, OR THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTING BETWEEN THE
RESPONDENT AND THE CORPORATION.  THE COURT BELOW HAS HELD THAT, IF THIS
IS TRUE, THE DIVIDEND DID NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME. 

WE THINK KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441, DISTINGUISHABLE.  THAT
WAS A CASE WHERE THERE WERE BOTH PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKHOLDERS, AND
WHERE A DIVIDEND IN COMMON WAS PAID ON THE PREFERRED.  WE HELD, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THERE DISCLOSED, THAT THE DIVIDEND WAS INCOME, BUT WE DID
NOT HOLD THAT ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER IN THE CHARACTER OF THE SHARES
ISSUED AS DIVIDENDS RESULTED IN THE RECEIPT OF INCOME.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THE DECISION WAS THAT, TO RENDER THE DIVIDEND TAXABLE AS
INCOME, THERE MUST BE A CHANGE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE ISSUE OF SHARES AS
A DIVIDEND WHEREBY THE PROPORTIONAL INTEREST OF THE STOCKHOLDER AFTER
THE DISTRIBUTION WAS ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM HIS FORMER INTEREST. 
NO. 22 AFFIRMED.  NO. 66 REVERSED. 

FN1  C. 690, 49 STAT. 1648, 1688. 

FN2  42 B.T.A. 484. 

FN3  122 F.2D 973. 

FN4  124 F.2D 315. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
DISSENT FROM EACH JUDGMENT.  THEY ARE OF OPINION THAT KOSHLAND V.
HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441, REQUIRES CONTRARY CONCLUSIONS. 
..END :







FIDELITY ASSURANCE ASSN. V. SIMS, 318 U.S. 608 


NO. 319.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 10, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1943.  - 129
F.2D 442, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE CHARACTER AND HISTORY OF THE BUSINESS OF THE
INSOLVENT CORPORATION IN THIS CASE, HELD THAT ITS PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED AS NOT FILED IN "GOOD FAITH" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
146(3), (4), SINCE IT WAS UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT THE COMPANY COULD
BE REORGANIZED AS A GOING CONCERN, AND SINCE THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS
WOULD BE BEST SUBSERVED IN PRIOR PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN STATE COURTS. 
PP. 618, 619. 

2.  CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT MAY NOT BE AVAILED OF MERELY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATION.  P. 621. 

FIDELITY ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION ET AL. V. SIMS, AUDITOR OF THE STATE OF
WEST VIRGINIA, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 614, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 42 F.SUPP.  973, APPROVING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN1  MANY STATES OF THE UNION ARE
INTERESTED BECAUSE OF THE ASSERTED INCIDENCE OF ITS PROVISIONS UPON
STATE LAWS AND RIGHTS THEREBY CREATED.  A NUMBER OF STATE OFFICERS ARE
PARTIES. 

FIDELITY ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION, A WEST VIRGINIA CORPORATION, FILED
ITS PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN WEST
VIRGINIA.  THE JUDGE MADE AN ORDER APPROVING THE PETITION AS PROPERLY
FILED.  HE ALSO ENTERED ORDERS ENJOINING STATE OFFICIALS FROM DEALING
WITH PROPERTY HELD BY THEM.  FN2 

STATE BANKING AND INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS AND STATE COURT RECEIVERS
ANSWERED, ASSERTING THAT THE DEBTOR COULD NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF THE ACT
BECAUSE IT WAS AN INSURANCE COMPANY N3, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE
PETITION WAS NOT FILED IN GOOD FAITH, AS THE PHRASE IS DEFINED IN SEC.
146(3)(4) OF CHAPTER X. FN4  THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
INTERVENED AT THE REQUEST OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  AFTER TRIAL OF THE
ISSUES, THE COURT FORMALLY APPROVED THE PETITION AND OVERRULED THE
MOTIONS TO RESCIND THE DECREES GRANTING INJUNCTIONS.  FN5  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  FN6 

THE DEBTOR WAS ORGANIZED APRIL 11, 1911, UNDER THE NAME OF FIDELITY
INVESTMENT AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.  ITS CORPORATE PURPOSES WERE ENLARGED
IN 1912 TO INCLUDE THE SOLICITING AND RECEIVING OF PAYMENTS ON ANNUITY
CONTRACTS.  THEREBY IT BECAME SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 9 OF
CH. 33 OF THE CODE OF WEST VIRGINIA,  FN7  RELATING TO THE SELLING OF
ANNUITY CONTRACTS AND, AS THEREIN PROVIDED, TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE
AUDITOR, AS EX-OFFICIO INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE. 

FROM DECEMBER 1912 TO THE CLOSE OF 1940, THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS WAS
THE SELLING OF INVESTMENT CONTRACTS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE IT WAS
LICENSED IN MANY STATES.  IT ALTERED ITS CONTRACTS FROM TIME TO TIME,
BUT IN GENERAL THEY CONSISTED OF CERTIFICATES EVIDENCING THE AGREEMENT
OF THE PURCHASER TO MAKE SPECIFIED PERIODIC PAYMENTS AND THE COMPANY'S
AGREEMENT THAT UPON THE EXPIRATION OF A STIPULATED TERM IT WOULD RETURN
TO HIM IN INSTALMENTS A SUM DESIGNATED AS THE FACE AMOUNT, OR PAY A
LUMP SUM LESS THAN THE FACE AMOUNT. 

DURING THE SIX YEARS PRECEDING DECEMBER 30, 1940, THE DEBTOR SOLD A
CONTRACT HAVING A COLLATERAL INSURANCE FEATURE PROVIDED BY A BLANKET
POLICY PROCURED BY FIDELITY FROM LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY.  APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE CONTRACTS ISSUED
AFTER 1934 CONTAINED THIS FEATURE. 

IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE BUSINESS WAS ESSENTIALLY THE CONDUCT OF A
COMPULSORY SAVINGS PLAN.  THE INTEREST PAID A CERTIFICATE HOLDER WAS AT
A LOW RATE AND THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO KEEP A CERTIFICATE ALIVE WAS
HEAVY.  THE EXPENSE OF SELLING THE CONTRACTS WAS INORDINATELY HIGH AND,
IN SPITE OF A LARGE VOLUME OF SALES, THE COMPANY WAS CONSTANTLY FALLING
BEHIND AND SUFFERING SERIOUS LOSSES. 

THE PRESENT INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF WEST VIRGINIA TOOK OFFICE IN
1933.  IT WAS HIS DUTY TO REQUIRE AND APPROVE THE DEPOSIT WITH THE
STATE TREASURER OF BONDS AND SECURITIES TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY'S WEST VIRGINIA CONTRACT HOLDERS TO AN AMOUNT
EQUAL TO THE CASH LIABILITY TO THEM; TO REQUIRE A SIMILAR DEPOSIT IN
TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF HOLDERS LOCATED IN OTHER STATES TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE LAWS OF SUCH STATES DID NOT PROVIDE FOR A DEPOSIT EQUAL TO, OR
GREATER THAN, THAT CALLED FOR BY THE LAWS OF WEST VIRGINIA.  SHORTLY
AFTER TAKING OFFICE, THE COMMISSIONER DISCOVERED THAT THE COMPANY WAS
INSOLVENT.  THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS,
EXTENDING ALMOST TO THE TIME OF FILING THE PETITION, IN AN EFFORT TO
RESTORE IT TO A SOLVENT CONDITION. 

THE COMPANY WAS AT ONE TIME LICENSED IN TWENTY-NINE STATES, EACH OF
WHICH HAD LAWS REGULATING ITS BUSINESS.  FIFTEEN REQUIRED A DEPOSIT OF
APPROVED INVESTMENT OBLIGATIONS WITH SOME STATE OFFICIAL TO SECURE
PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS HELD BY RESIDENTS; THE REMAINDER HAD
NO SUCH REQUIREMENT, BUT THE CONTRACTS SOLD IN THESE STATES WERE
SECURED BY THE DEPOSIT MADE WITH WEST VIRGINIA.  FN8  AS OF THE DATE OF
THE FILING OF THE DEBTOR'S PETITION, THE DEPOSITS MADE WITH VARIOUS
STATES, INCLUDING WEST VIRGINIA, AMOUNTED, ACCORDING TO THE DEBTOR'S
FIGURES, TO $20,056,680.27, AGAINST A NET RESERVE LIABILITY OF
$24,221,651.36.  IN ADDITION, THE COMPANY HAD SECURITIES, NOT DEPOSITED
ANYWHERE, VALUED AT $556,467.51, MOST OF WHICH WERE INELIGIBLE FOR
DEPOSIT UNDER THE LAWS OF ANY STATE; AND $500,000 IN CASH. 

EACH OF THE SERIES OF CONTRACTS SOLD BY FIDELITY EMBODIED PROVISIONS
FOR THE CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A RESERVE FUND.  ALL OF THE
CONTRACTS PROVIDED THAT THE RESERVE FUND MAINTAINED BY THE COMPANY
SHOULD BE INVESTED IN APPROVED SECURITIES AND DEPOSITED IN TRUST AS
REQUIRED BY THE LAWS OF WEST VIRGINIA.  SECURITIES PURCHASED WITH THE
MONEYS PAID BY THE CONTRACT HOLDERS WERE DEPOSITED WITH THE TREASURER
OF WEST VIRGINIA AND OFFICIALS OF OTHER STATES IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR
RESPECTIVE LAWS, BUT NO EFFECTIVE EFFORT WAS MADE TO DESIGNATE THE
SOURCE OF THE FUNDS WITH WHICH SECURITIES WERE PURCHASED SO AS TO
IDENTIFY THE LATTER AS BELONGING TO THE RESERVE OF ANY SERIES, NOR DID
THE STATE AUTHORITIES MAKE ANY SUCH ALLOCATION.  THE SECURITIES ON
DEPOSIT WITH THE STATES WERE AT ALL TIMES TREATED BY THE DEBTOR, AND
STATE AUTHORITIES, AS SECURING ALL OBLIGATIONS TO CONTRACT HOLDERS IN
THE STATE WHERE EACH DEPOSIT WAS MADE, AND REPORTS BY THE COMPANY TO
THE STATES RESPECTING TOTAL LIABILITIES FAILED TO SHOW SUCH LIABILITIES
BY FUNDS OR SERIES.  THERE WERE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS IN ALL FORTY-EIGHT
STATES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 

DECEMBER 14, 1938, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SOUGHT AN
INJUNCTION IN A FEDERAL COURT, ALLEGING THE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN ACTS
AND PRACTICES VIOLATIVE OF THE FRAUD PROVISIONS OF SEC. 17(A) OF THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.  FN9  THIS SUIT RESULTED IN AN INJUNCTION; AND
WAS FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER FOR APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER IN A FEDERAL
COURT IN WEST VIRGINIA, WHICH WAS DISMISSED.  FN10 

PRIOR TO 1938 THE DEBTOR HAD MADE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN FRESH CAPITAL TO
BE USED IN REORGANIZING ITS BUSINESS.  AFTER 1938 THE EFFORT WAS
CONTINUOUS, BUT NO CAPITAL WAS FORTHCOMING. 

DESPITE ENORMOUS SALES,  FN11  THE COMPANY COULD NOT ATTAIN A SOLVENT
POSITION.  MOREOVER, THE PUBLICITY ENSUING THE TWO SUITS RESULTED IN
THE SURRENDER OF MANY CONTRACTS, THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF THE SALE
OF NEW CERTIFICATES, AND A SERIOUS DIMINUTION OF SALES WHEN ACTIVITY
WAS RESUMED.  FN12 

PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935,  FN13
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION AND
REPORTED ITS FINDINGS RESPECTING FIDELITY'S BUSINESS AND OTHER MATTERS
TO CONGRESS ON MARCH 13, 1940.  AS A RESULT, THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT
OF AUGUST 22, 1940,  FN14  WAS ADOPTED.  FIDELITY'S OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS REALIZED THAT THE COMPANY COULD NOT MEET THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS AND SURVIVE.  THEY THEREFORE CAST ABOUT FOR SOME OTHER
BUSINESS TO WHICH THE CORPORATE RESOURCES MIGHT BE DEVOTED.  THEY HIT
UPON LIFE INSURANCE. 

ACCORDINGLY, ON DECEMBER 31, 1940, THE DEBTOR AMENDED ITS CHARTER. 
THE AMENDMENT CHANGED ITS NAME TO FIDELITY ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION,
ELIMINATED THE EXISTING CORPORATE POWERS AND PURPOSES, AND ADOPTED AS
THE CORPORATE PURPOSE "TO ISSUE INSURANCE UPON THE LIVES OF PERSONS AND
EVERY INSURANCE APPERTAINING THERETO AND CONNECTED THEREWITH, AND TO
GRANT, PURCHASE, AND DISPOSE OF ANNUITIES."  IN JANUARY 1941, BY
CHARTER AMENDMENT, THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK WAS ALTERED IN ORDER TO
QUALIFY THE COMPANY TO TRANSACT A LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN WEST
VIRGINIA AND ELSEWHERE.  THE COMPANY ALSO REGISTERED UNDER SEC. 8A OF
THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT, SUPRA, SO THAT IT MIGHT CONTINUE TO SERVICE
OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS.  THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF WEST VIRGINIA
ISSUED A LICENSE FOR THE CONDUCT OF AN INSURANCE BUSINESS, BUT WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT NO SUCH BUSINESS SHOULD BE WRITTEN UNTIL THE
COMPANY'S AFFAIRS HAD BEEN PUT INTO SATISFACTORY ORDER. 
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS ARRANGEMENT, THE COMPANY, BY WRITTEN NEGOTIATIONS,
PROCURED SOME 9,800 OF ITS CERTIFICATE HOLDERS TO ACCEPT AN AMENDMENT
OF THEIR OUTSTANDING CERTIFICATES PROVIDING AN INSURANCE OBLIGATION ON
THE PART OF THE COMPANY. 

AT THE INSTANCE OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF WEST VIRGINIA, ON APRIL 11, 1941, INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY.  THE
COMPANY ENTERED AN APPEARANCE BUT INTERPOSED NO ANSWER OR OBJECTION. 
THE COURT APPOINTED RECEIVERS WHO TOOK OVER THE CASH AND UNDEPOSITED
SECURITIES BUT DID NOT ESSAY TO OBTAIN POSSESSION OF THE ASSETS ON
DEPOSIT WITH THE TREASURER OF WEST VIRGINIA OR WITH OFFICIALS OF OTHER
STATES.  THE AUTHORITIES OF THE VARIOUS STATES WERE NOTIFIED OF THE
PENDENCY OF THIS SUIT.  THEREAFTER, PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED OR
STEPS TAKEN BY STATE OFFICERS, PURSUANT TO STATE LAW, FOR THE
LIQUIDATION OF THE COMPANY'S OBLIGATIONS TO LOCAL CERTIFICATE HOLDERS
IN WISCONSIN, IOWA, OHIO, ILLINOIS, TENNESSEE, MISSOURI, INDIANA,
KENTUCKY, MARYLAND, AND PENNSYLVANIA. 

THE RESPONDENTS, OTHER THAN SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
CONTENDED BELOW, AND URGE HERE, THAT THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED,
SINCE (1) THE DEBTOR IS AN INSURANCE COMPANY EXEMPTED FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, (2) THE PETITION WAS NOT FILED IN
GOOD FAITH.  THE DEBTOR, THE TRUSTEE APPOINTED UNDER CHAPTER X, AND THE
COMMISSION, SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSED THESE CONTENTIONS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD WITH THE RESPONDENTS ON BOTH
GROUNDS.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER OR DECIDE WHETHER, AT THE
DATE OF FILING, THE DEBTOR WAS AN INSURANCE COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE ACT, FOR WE THINK THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT IN
HOLDING THE PETITION NOT FILED IN GOOD FAITH AS THE PHRASE IS DEFINED
IN SEC. 146(3) AND (4). 

THE PETITION "HAS BEEN FILED IN GOOD FAITH" HE SHALL DISMISS IT.  THE
RELEVANT PORTIONS OF SEC. 146  FN16  ARE THAT "A PETITION SHALL BE
DEEMED NOT TO BE FILED IN GOOD FAITH IF  ...  (3) IT IS UNREASONABLE TO
EXPECT THAT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION CAN BE EFFECTED; OR (4) A PRIOR
PROCEEDING IS PENDING IN ANY COURT AND IT APPEARS THAT THE INTERESTS OF
CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WOULD BE BEST SUBSERVED IN SUCH PRIOR
PROCEEDING." 

AS THE COURT BELOW HAS SAID, IN APPLYING THE STATUTORY TEST THE
SITUATION SHOULD BE VIEWED REALISTICALLY.  IF THIS BE DONE, WE THINK
THE REJECTION BY THE COURT BELOW OF THE CLAIM OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS
TRUSTEE THAT IT CAN BE REORGANIZED AS A GOING CONCERN MUST BE
AFFIRMED.  IN APPRAISING THE SOUNDNESS OF THIS CLAIM, CERTAIN FACTS
ADDITIONAL TO THOSE ALREADY NOTICED MUST BE KEPT IN MIND.  ON APRIL 10,
1941, THERE WERE 87,999 CONTRACTS OUTSTANDING FOR A FACE AMOUNT OF
$181,948,026.70.  AT THAT TIME, LIABILITIES EXCEEDED ASSETS, ON THE
COMPANY'S SHOWING, BY $2,500,000.  THE BUSINESS WRITTEN IN 1940 HAD
SHRUNK TO 23% OF THAT WRITTEN IN 1938.  THE COMPANY HAD BEEN LOSING
MONEY AT THE RATE OF $250,000 PER ANNUM.  ITS SALE OF INVESTMENT
CERTIFICATES HAD CEASED DECEMBER 30, 1940, AND, EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN
POSSIBLE TO RESUME THIS ACTIVITY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT, THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THE SALES FORCE
WOULD HAVE COST $500,000. 

IN THE LIGHT OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT FIDELITY
CANNOT BE REORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING ITS OLD BUSINESS OF
SELLING INVESTMENT CERTIFICATES.  CONVICTION THAT THIS WAS SO LED ITS
MANAGERS TO ATTEMPT TO ALTER ITS CORPORATE PURPOSES TO THOSE OF A LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE SAID:  "IT IS TRUE THAT THE
BROAD PICTURE DEVELOPED BY THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING DOES NOT
PRESENT A VERY FAVORABLE VIEW WITH RESPECT TO THE REHABILITATION AND
CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEBTOR AS A FACE AMOUNT CERTIFICATE
COMPANY."  AND HE ADDED:  "IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL WHETHER, IN VIEW OF
UNSETTLED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND THE CRITICAL INTERNATIONAL SITUATION,
THE FIDELITY PLAN WOULD ANY LONGER APPEAL TO A LARGE PUBLIC; BUT IT IS
NOT IMPOSSIBLE; AND IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO DECIDE FOR THE
PUBLIC THAT INVESTORS WILL NOT OR SHOULD NOT BUY THESE CONTRACTS IN THE
FUTURE." 

THERE IS NO PROSPECT THAT THE DEBTOR CAN BE REORGANIZED AS AN
INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE DID NOT FIND THAT IT COULD. 

THE PETITIONERS SAY:  "UPON THIS RECORD, CAN IT BE SAID THAT IT IS
UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT THAT SOME INSURANCE OR INVESTMENT COMPANY CAN BE
FOUND TO TAKE OVER OR BUY THE ASSETS OF FIDELITY UNDER A CONTRACT FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE FIDELITY CONTRACT HOLDERS, TO ISSUE THEM INVESTMENT
CERTIFICATES OR INSURANCE POLICIES, OF ONE OR MORE KINDS OF GREATER
VALUE THAN THE DIVIDENDS TO SUCH CONTRACT HOLDERS THROUGH THE
LIQUIDATION OF FIDELITY WOULD BUY?"    THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY
CONCLUDED THAT "THE POSSIBILITY THAT THOUSANDS OF CONTRACT HOLDERS
COULD BE PERSUADED TO MODIFY THEIR CONTRACTS AND SCALE DOWN THEIR
CLAIMS  FN17  TO ENABLE THE COMPANY TO GO ON IS SO REMOTE AS TO EXIST
ONLY IN THE IMAGINATION." 

PETITIONERS AND SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION URGE, HOWEVER,
THAT CHAPTER X MAY BE EMPLOYED TO ACCOMPLISH A SLOW AND ORDERLY
LIQUIDATION WHICH THEY SAY IS IMPERATIVE IN THE INTEREST OF ALL
CREDITORS.  THE DISTRICT COURT SO HELD. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT FIDELITY IS ADMITTEDLY INSOLVENT AND NO
ONE SUGGESTS THERE IS ANY EQUITY IN ITS STOCK; THAT THERE IS ONE
GREATLY PREPONDERANT CLASS OF CREDITORS,  - CERTIFICATE HOLDERS - ALL
HAVING SECURITY FOR THEIR CLAIMS ON ONE OR MORE DEPOSITS WITH STATE
AUTHORITIES, AND ALL HAVING UNSECURED CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNPLEDGED
ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR.  THE NECESSITY FOR DECISION AS TO THE RELATIVE
RIGHTS OF THESE CLASSES IN PLEDGED ASSETS MAY PRESENT DIFFICULT
QUESTIONS OF DISTRIBUTION, BUT HAS LITTLE, IF ANY, BEARING UPON THE
METHOD OF TURNING THE DEBTOR'S ASSETS INTO MONEY. 

THE DEPOSITED SECURITIES ARE GENERALLY READILY MARKETABLE AT
FAVORABLE PRICES.  THEY ARE SCATTERED THROUGH FIFTEEN STATES, IN HANDS
OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO LIQUIDATE THEM ON TERMS MOST
FAVORABLE TO THOSE FOR WHOSE PROTECTION THEY STAND PLEDGED.  THE
SUGGESTION THAT THESE QUASI-TRUSTEES WILL FORCE THE SECURITIES ON THE
MARKET WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS ABILITY TO ABSORB THEM, TO THE DESTRUCTION
OF THEIR BENEFICIARIES' SECURITY, IS INADMISSIBLE, AND, IN ADDITION, IS
CONTRARY TO WHAT OCCURRED AFTER THE INSTITUTION OF THE WEST VIRGINIA
RECEIVERSHIP.  THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THE POSITION THAT THE SO
CALLED REORGANIZATION SHOULD TAKE THE FORM OF THE CREATION OF A NEW
CORPORATION TO WHICH ALL THESE SECURITIES WOULD BE TRANSFERRED FOR
CONVERSION INTO CASH, PARTICULARLY AS THE ADVOCATES OF SUCH A PROJECT
ADMIT THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE SECURITY AFFORDED CLASSES OF
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS ACCORDING TO STATE LAW CANNOT BE AVOIDED IN ANY
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS. 

IT IS URGED THAT A PLAN OF LIQUIDATION MAY CONSTITUTE A
REORGANIZATION UNDER CHAPTER X, AND DECISIONS ARE CITED TO THAT POINT,
FN18  BUT AN EXAMINATION OF THEM WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT IN NONE SAVE
WHERE THE CORPORATE PURPOSE OF THE DEBTOR WAS, IN EFFECT, HOLDING AND
LIQUIDATING SECURITIES WAS THE PLAN SUCH AS IS PROPOSED HERE.  UNDER
THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE SUGGESTED PLAN IS BUT AN ALTERNATIVE FOR
ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY, WITHOUT ANY READJUSTMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF
CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS INTER SE, AND THIS FACT SERVES TO
DISTINGUISH THE REMAINING CASES ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT, IN THIS ASPECT, GOOD FAITH, IN THE STATUTORY SENSE,
IS LACKING, SINCE NO SUCH REORGANIZATION AS THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO
ACCOMPLISH IS REASONABLY TO BE EXPECTED. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, WE HOLD THAT THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS WOULD BE
BEST SUBSERVED IN THE PENDING PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN WEST VIRGINIA AND
OTHER STATES.  THE COURT BELOW WAS OF THIS OPINION FOR THESE REASONS:
IT APPEARS UNLIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE ANY SURPLUS AFTER PAYMENT OF
LOCAL CLAIMANTS IN ANY STATE OTHER THAN WEST VIRGINIA; STATE LAW MUST
GOVERN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESPECTIVE DEPOSITS; CREDITORS CAN AS
READILY PRESENT CLAIMS AGAINST THE SURPLUS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA DEPOSIT
IN THE WEST VIRGINIA COURT AS IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION INSISTS THAT THE CHAPTER X
PROCEEDING IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS AS AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPARTIAL
INVESTIGATION OF WRONGDOING BY COMPANY OFFICERS, AND THE SOLUTION OF
PROBLEMS OF MARSHALLING AND DISTRIBUTION.  IF, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD,
NOTHING IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BUT THE LIQUIDATION OF FIDELITY, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE WHY THAT PROCESS AND CONSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION OF THE
PROCEEDS SHOULD BE HELD UP BY THE SEARCH FOR CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS.  NOR IS ANY CONVINCING SHOWING MADE THAT SUCH
INVESTIGATION CANNOT, OR WILL NOT, BE MADE AND AVAILED OF BY THE STATE
COURT RECEIVERS.  MOREOVER, IF FIDELITY IS NOT AN INSURANCE COMPANY, IT
COULD HAVE BEEN PUT INTO ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY, ORDERLY LIQUIDATION
ACCOMPLISHED, AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION MADE BY A TRUSTEE ELECTED BY
THE CREDITORS. 

THERE ARE NO TRUE PROBLEMS OF MARSHALLING PRESENTED.  CREDITORS IN
THE VARIOUS STATES WILL UNQUESTIONABLY GO FIRST AGAINST THE LOCAL
DEPOSITS.  THEY MAY, OR MAY NOT, BE PAID IN FULL FROM THOSE FUNDS. 
THEY WILL HAVE CLAIMS AGAINST THE SURPLUS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA FUND FOR
ANY DEFICIENCY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, A SURPLUS IN A STATE FUND AFTER
SATISFACTION OF LOCAL CREDITORS, WILL BE ADDED TO THE SURPLUS FUND IN
WEST VIRGINIA FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL HAVING CLAIMS AGAINST IT.  RIGHTS
AGAINST LOCAL DEPOSITS WILL BE ADJUDICATED BY THE COURTS OF THE STATES,
NEAR THE HOMES OF THE BENEFICIARIES AND AT A MINIMUM OF INCONVENIENCE,
DELAY, AND EXPENSE.  THE ADVANTAGES OF BRINGING ALL THESE FUNDS TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR ADMINISTRATION IN CONFORMITY TO DIVERSE STATE LAW,
AND COMPELLING CLAIMANTS TO COME THERE TO ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS, ARE NOT
APPARENT. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT FIDELITY AGREED TO SEGREGATE THE RESERVE
FUND OF EACH SERIES, AND THAT THE HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES IN ANY SERIES
ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE SECURITIES PURCHASED FOR THE RESERVE OF THAT
SERIES TRACED AND SET APART FOR THEIR BENEFIT, AND THAT THIS CAN BE
DONE ONLY IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING BY BRINGING ALL THE FUNDS UNDER A
SINGLE ADMINISTRATION. 

WITHOUT RECITING THE FACTS IN DETAIL, IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT, WHILE
THE DIFFERENT RESERVE FUNDS WERE SEPARATELY SET UP ON THE BOOKS OF THE
COMPANY, THEY WERE, FOR THE GREATER PART OF THE PERIOD IN QUESTION,
KEPT IN A SINGLE BANK ACCOUNT, AND THE SECURITIES PURCHASED FOR THE
VARIOUS RESERVE FUNDS WERE NOT EARMARKED AS SUCH.  MOREOVER, FOR THE
MOST PART, SECURITIES DEPOSITED WITH STATE AUTHORITIES WERE NOT, AT THE
TIME OF THE DEPOSIT, DESIGNATED AS BELONGING TO THE RESERVE FUND FOR
ANY SERIES OF CONTRACTS.  IN SOME INSTANCES, DESIGNATIONS OF THEM WERE
MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THEIR DEPOSIT.  IN ADDITION, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT
UNDER THE LAW OF WEST VIRGINIA, AND THAT OF OTHER STATES HAVING
DEPOSITS, THE SECURITIES DEPOSITED ARE MADE A COMMON FUND FOR THE
PROTECTION OF ALL OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS
WERE ADVISED BY THE COMPANY IN ITS LITERATURE THAT IT PROPOSED TO
DEPOSIT RESERVE FUND SECURITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE
STATES.  THE SITUATION DISCLOSES SO MANY DIFFICULTIES OF LAW AND FACT
AS TO RENDER SEGREGATION FOR PURPOSES OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE AVAILS OF
THE SECURITIES IMPROBABLE.  AND THE SMALLNESS OF THE AVERAGE AMOUNT DUE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS INDICATES THAT THE EXPENSE OF THE EFFORT, IF
SUCCESSFUL, WOULD, IN THE END, PROVE MORE DETRIMENTAL TO A CLAIMANT
THAN FOREGOING THE TRIFLING ADVANTAGE OF A REALLOCATION OF SECURITIES
TO THE RESPECTIVE RESERVE FUNDS. 

IT WAS SUGGESTED AT THE BAR THAT, EVEN IF LIQUIDATION IS ALL THAT CAN
BE HOPED, THIS WOULD BE BETTER MANAGED BY A SINGLE BANKRUPTCY COURT
THAN IN SEVERAL SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS.  THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE
SUGGESTION IS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND RESORT TO CHAPTER X TO BE
HAD FOR THE MERE PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATION.  THE SCHEME OF THE CHAPTER
PRECLUDES ANY SUCH CONCLUSION.  THE MANDATE OF SEC. 144 IS CLEAR THAT
UNLESS THE JUDGE IS SATISFIED THE PETITION WAS FILED IN GOOD FAITH HE
MUST DISMISS IT.  UNDER THE PREDECESSOR OF CHAPTER X - SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT - THE DISTRICT JUDGE WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY, BY SUBSECTION
(C)(8),  FN19  UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO "DIRECT THE ESTATE TO BE
LIQUIDATED, OR DIRECT THE TRUSTEES TO LIQUIDATE THE ESTATE  ...  "  IN
CHAPTER X, ON THE OTHER HAND, SEC. 236(2)  FN20  PROVIDES THAT IF NO
PLAN IS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED, OR IF IT IS NOT CONSUMMATED, THE JUDGE
MAY, AFTER HEARING ALL PERSONS IN INTEREST, ADJUDGE THE DEBTOR A
BANKRUPT OR DISMISS THE PROCEEDING, AS HE MAY DECIDE IS IN THE INTEREST
OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS.  THUS THE STATUTE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE A
LIQUIDATION IN A CHAPTER X PROCEEDING BUT A LIQUIDATION IN ORDINARY
BANKRUPTCY OR A DISMISSAL OUTRIGHT. 

IF THE LIQUIDATION OF FIDELITY'S AFFAIRS IN BANKRUPTCY HAD BEEN
PROPOSED AT THE START, THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA,
IN WHICH THIS PROCEEDING IS PENDING.  A CHAPTER X PROCEEDING MAY, UNDER
SEC. 128,  FN21  BE INITIATED EITHER AT THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
OF THE CORPORATION OR WHERE IT HAS ITS PRINCIPAL ASSETS.  THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT ON THE GROUND THAT
THE PRINCIPAL ASSETS OF THE COMPANY ARE LOCATED AT CHARLESTON IN THAT
DISTRICT, IN THE POSSESSION OF THE STATE TREASURER.  UNDER SEC. 2 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,  FN22  AN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY MAY BE INITIATED ONLY
AT THE CORPORATION'S PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, WHICH IS WHEELING, IN
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. 

CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND A CHAPTER X CASE TO BE TURNED INTO A
LIQUIDATION PROCEEDING AT THE OUTSET, BUT INTENDED THE LITIGATION TO
BECOME A STRAIGHT BANKRUPTCY ONLY AFTER THE FAILURE TO CONSUMMATE A
PLAN, AND MEANT TO LIMIT THE PARTIES TO THEIR REMEDY IN ORDINARY
BANKRUPTCY IN ALL OTHER CASES.  IT WOULD, THEREFORE, BE A PERVERSION OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO TREAT THE PRESENT AS A LIQUIDATION
PROCEEDING, SINCE THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS HAVING LIENS OR SECURITY
PLEDGED FOR THEIR CLAIMS DIFFER WIDELY IN THE TWO SORTS OF BANKRUPTCY. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, 52 STAT. 840, 883; 11 U.S.C. SECS. 501
676, INCLUSIVE. 

FN2  AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL TO RESCIND
THE ORDERS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO DISTURB THEM AT
THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING.  SIMS V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 123 F.2D 89. 

FN3  ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, C. 541, SEC. 4, 30 STAT. 547, AS AMENDED,
11 U.S.C. SEC. 22. 

FN4  11 U.S.C. SEC. 546. 

FN5  42 F.SUPP.  973. 

FN6  129 F.2D 442. 

FN7  MICHIE'S W. VA. CODE 1937, P. 1204 FF.  THIS ARTICLE WAS
REPEALED BY CHAPTER 46, SEC. 12, ACTS OF WEST VIRGINIA, 1941, EFFECTIVE
NINETY DAYS FROM MARCH 8, 1941, BUT THIS FACT IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY
ISSUE IN THIS CASE. 

FN8  THE SECURITY AFFORDED BY THESE LAWS WAS STRESSED BY SALES AGENTS
AND WAS EFFECTIVE IN THE PROCUREMENT OF CONTRACTS. 

FN9  ACT OF MAY 27, 1933, C. 38, TIT. I, SEC. 17, 48 STAT. 84, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 77Q. 

FN10  MCCAMMON V. FIDELITY INVESTMENT ASSN., 26 F.SUPP.  117,
AFFIRMED HUTCHINSON V. FIDELITY INVESTMENT ASSN., 106 F.2D 431. 

FN11  THE GROSS BUSINESS WRITTEN IN 1938 WAS $52,000,000. 

FN12  SALES IN 1940 WERE $12,000,000. 

FN13  ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1935, C. 687, TIT. I, SEC. 30, 49 STAT. 837,
15 U.S.C. SEC. 79Z-4. 

FN14  C. 686, 54 STAT. 789, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 80A-1 ET SEQ. 

FN15  11 U.S.C. SEC. 544. 

FN16  11 U.S.C. SEC. 546. 

FN17  THE CLAIMS AVERAGE LESS THAN $273 EACH. 

FN18  IN RE CENTRAL FUNDING CORP., 75 F.2D 256; IN RE MORTGAGE
SECURITIES CORP., 75 F.2D 261; CONTINENTAL INS. CO. V. LOUISIANA OIL
RFG.  CORP., 89 F.2D 333; R.L. WITTERS ASSOCIATES V. EBSARY GYPSUM CO.,
93 F.2D 746; IN RE PORTO RICAN AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 112 F.2D 655. 

FN19  11 U.S.C. SEC. 207(C)(8). 

FN20  11 U.S.C. SEC. 636(2). 

FN21  11 U.S.C. SEC. 528. 

FN22  11 U.S.C. SEC. 11. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :



MYERS V. MATLEY, 318 U.S. 622 


NO. 540.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1943.  - 130 F.2D
775, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 70(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, ORIGINALLY AND AS AMENDED
IN 1938, A HOMESTEAD IS EXEMPT IN BANKRUPTCY IF, UNDER THE STATE LAW,
IT WAS EXEMPT FROM LEVY AND SALE WHEN THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS
FILED.  P. 625. 

2.  WHITE V. STUMP, 266 U.S. 310, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 625. 

3.  HISTORICALLY, AND UNDER THE THEORY OF THE PRESENT ACT, BANKRUPTCY
HAS THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE LEVY OF AN EXECUTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS TO INSURE AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AMONGST THEM OF THE
BANKRUPT'S ASSETS.  THE TRUSTEE IS VESTED NOT ONLY WITH THE TITLE OF
THE BANKRUPT BUT CLOTHED WITH THE RIGHT OF AN EXECUTION CREDITOR WITH A
LEVY ON THE PROPERTY WHICH PASSES INTO THE TRUSTEE'S CUSTODY.  P. 627. 

4.  THE LAW OF NEVADA ENTITLES A DEBTOR TO HIS HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION,
IF THE SELECTION OF THE PROPERTY AND FILING FOR RECORD OF THE
DECLARATION OF INTENTION OCCUR AT ANY TIME BEFORE ACTUAL JUDICIAL
SALE.  P. 627. 

MYERS, TRUSTEE, V. MATLEY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 47 F.SUPP.  558, SUSTAINING A CLAIM OF HOMESTEAD
EXEMPTION AND OVERRULING THE REFEREE'S DENIAL OF THE CLAIM. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER'S ASSERTION THAT THE COURT BELOW MISAPPLIED SEC. 70(A)
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED,  FN1  IN CONTRAVENTION OF A DECISION
OF THIS COURT,  FN2  AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, AS
WELL AS A DIVISION OF OPINION OF THE JUDGES IN THE COURT BELOW, MOVED
US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

OCTOBER 24, 1940, A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED AGAINST MARSHALL
R. MATLEY, THE RESPONDENT'S HUSBAND.  HE APPEARED AND CONSENTED TO AN
ADJUDICATION, WHICH WAS ENTERED THE SAME DAY.  NOVEMBER 20, 1940, THE
RESPONDENT FILED WITH THE RECORDER OF WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, HER
DECLARATION CLAIMING AS A HOMESTEAD A TRACT OF LAND IN RENO, NEVADA,
LISTED IN HER HUSBAND'S BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULES.  NOVEMBER 27, 1940, SHE
FILED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT A PETITION CLAIMING THE LAND AS EXEMPT. 
THE REFEREE DENIED HER CLAIM, THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED THE REFEREE,
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ITS DECISION.  FN3  THE REAL
ESTATE IN QUESTION, ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENT AND HER HUSBAND WHILE
MARRIED, WAS COMMUNITY PROPERTY, ON WHICH A RESIDENCE WAS BUILT AND
OCCUPIED BY THE COUPLE AS A HOME.  WHILE THEY WERE ABSENT FROM IT AT
TIMES, THEY ALWAYS CONSIDERED IT THEIR HOME AND INTENDED TO RETURN TO
IT.  ALTHOUGH THEY WERE SEPARATED IN 1940, THE RESPONDENT WAS RESIDING
ON THE LAND WHEN THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED.  A DIVORCE
ACTION WAS PENDING BUT WAS NOT CONCLUDED UNTIL MAY 1941, WHEN THE
RESPONDENT WAS GRANTED A DIVORCE AND THE RENO RESIDENCE WAS AWARDED HER
AS HER SOLE PROPERTY. 

THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE SET APART TO THE
RESPONDENT AS EXEMPT, SINCE HER HOMESTEAD DECLARATION WAS NOT FILED, AS
REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, UNTIL AFTER ENTRY OF THE PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY. 

BY OPERATION OF LAW, WITH THE TITLE OF THE BANKRUPT AS OF THE DATE HE
WAS ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT, "EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS IT IS TO PROPERTY WHICH
IS EXEMPT,  ...  "  THE PHRASEOLOGY WAS ALTERED BY THE AMENDMENT OF
1938 TO EXCEPT "PROPERTY WHICH IS HELD TO BE EXEMPT,  ...  "  SECTION 6
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN4  DECLARES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
SHALL NOT AFFECT THE ALLOWANCE TO BANKRUPTS OF THE EXEMPTIONS "WHICH
ARE PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE LAWS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF
THE PETITION" IN THE STATE WHERE THE BANKRUPT HAS HAD HIS DOMICILE. 
THE TRUSTEE, AS TO ALL PROPERTY IN POSSESSION AND UNDER THE CONTROL OF
THE BANKRUPT AT THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY, IS DEEMED VESTED, AS OF THAT
DATE, WITH ALL THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF A CREDITOR THEN HOLDING A
LIEN ON THE PROPERTY BY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER OR NOT
SUCH A CREDITOR ACTUALLY EXISTS.  FN5  AN ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY IS
NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A JUDICIAL SALE, NOR IS THE TRUSTEE GIVEN THE
RIGHTS OF A PURCHASER AT SUCH A SALE. 

THE QUESTION THUS ARISES WHETHER THE RESPONDENT'S RIGHT OF HOMESTEAD
UNDER NEVADA LAW, SECURED BY HER FILED DECLARATION, PREVAILS AGAINST
THE RIGHT AND TITLE OF THE TRUSTEE.  THE COURT BELOW SO HELD AND WE
THINK ITS JUDGMENT WAS RIGHT. 

1.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE NEW PHRASEOLOGY IN THE AMENDMENT OF SEC.
70(A) DOES NOT ALTER THE PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO THE EXEMPTION OF
HOMESTEAD PROPERTY IN BANKRUPTCY.  ON THE FACE OF THE LEGISLATION, THE
INTENT OF CONGRESS WAS MERELY TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF THE SECTION. 
WE ARE REFERRED TO NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATING THAT THE
ALTERATION WAS INTENDED TO WORK A CHANGE OF SUBSTANCE.  UNDER THE
AMENDMENT, AS UNDER THE ORIGINAL PROVISION, A HOMESTEAD IS EXEMPT IF,
UNDER THE STATE LAW, IT WOULD BE HELD TO BE EXEMPT. 

2.  WHITE V. STUMP, SUPRA, INVOLVED A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION CLAIMED
PURSUANT TO THE LAW OF IDAHO, UNDER WHICH THE DECLARATION OF HOMESTEAD
WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED, LIKE A CONVEYANCE OF REAL
PROPERTY, AND FILED FOR RECORD.  THE EXEMPTION AROSE WHEN THE
DECLARATION WAS FILED AND NOT BEFORE.  UP TO THAT TIME, THE LAND
REMAINED SUBJECT TO EXECUTION AND ATTACHMENT LIKE ANY OTHER LAND; AND
WHERE A LEVY WAS EFFECTED WHILE THE LAND WAS IN THAT CONDITION, THE
SUBSEQUENT MAKING AND FILING OF A DECLARATION NEITHER AVOIDED THE LEVY
NOR PREVENTED A SALE UNDER IT.  FN6 IT APPEARED THAT NO DECLARATION WAS
MADE AND FILED OF RECORD UNTIL A MONTH AFTER STUMP'S PETITION AND
ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE DECLARATION WAS THEN MADE AND FILED BY
HIS WIFE FOR HIS AND HER JOINT BENEFIT.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT FIXED THE POINT OF TIME WHICH IS TO SEPARATE THE OLD
SITUATION FROM THE NEW IN THE BANKRUPT'S AFFAIRS AS THE DATE WHEN THE
PETITION IS FILED; THAT WHEN THE ACT SPEAKS OF PROPERTY WHICH IS
EXEMPT, AND RIGHTS TO EXEMPTION, IT REFERS TO THAT POINT OF TIME -
NAMELY, THE POINT AS OF WHICH THE GENERAL ESTATE PASSES OUT OF THE
BANKRUPT'S CONTROL AND WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE STATUS AND RIGHTS OF
THE BANKRUPT, THE CREDITORS, AND THE TRUSTEE IN OTHER PARTICULARS ARE
FIXED.  THE COURT SAID:  "THE EXCEPTION, AS ITS WORDS AND THE CONTEXT
SHOW, IS NOT OF PROPERTY WHICH WOULD OR MIGHT BE EXEMPT IF SOME
CONDITION NOT PERFORMED WERE PERFORMED, BUT OF PROPERTY TO WHICH THERE
IS UNDER THE STATE LAW A PRESENT RIGHT OF EXEMPTION - ONE WHICH
WITHDRAWS THE PROPERTY FROM LEVY AND SALE UNDER JUDICIAL PROCESS."  FN7
ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT, AS THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION WAS NOT
PERFECTED UNTIL AFTER THE PETITION WAS FILED, IT WAS INEFFECTIVE AS
AGAINST THE TRUSTEE, AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AGAINST A CREDITOR THEN
HAVING A LEVY ON THE PROPERTY.  IF THE LAW OF NEVADA RESPECTING
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS WERE LIKE THAT OF IDAHO, OR OPERATED IN THE SAME
WAY, WHITE V. STUMP WOULD BE IN POINT. 

3.  THE NEVADA CONSTITUTION, ART. 4, SEC. 30, READS IN PART: 

"A HOMESTEAD, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM FORCED SALE
UNDER ANY PROCESS OF LAW, AND SHALL NOT BE ALIENATED WITHOUT THE JOINT
CONSENT OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, WHEN THAT RELATION EXISTS; ...  AND LAWS
SHALL BE ENACTED PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDING OF SUCH HOMESTEAD WITHIN
THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE SITUATED." 

MAY BE CLAIMED AS EXEMPT AS A HOMESTEAD AND PERMITS SELECTION BY EITHER
THE HUSBAND, THE WIFE, OR BOTH, BY A DECLARATION OF INTENTION IN
WRITING TO CLAIM THE SAME.  AFTER PROVIDING WHAT THE DECLARATION SHALL
CONTAIN AND THAT IT SHALL BE SIGNED, ACKNOWLEDGED, AND RECORDED AS
CONVEYANCES OF REAL ESTATE ARE REQUIRED TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND
RECORDED, THE STATUTE CONTINUES:  " ...  FROM AND AFTER THE FILING FOR
RECORD OF SAID DECLARATION, THE HUSBAND AND WIFE SHALL BE DEEMED TO
HOLD SAID HOMESTEAD AS JOINT TENANTS." 

EXECUTION,  ...  THE HOMESTEAD AS PROVIDED FOR BY LAW." 

HISTORICALLY, AND UNDER THE THEORY OF THE PRESENT ACT, BANKRUPTCY HAS
THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE LEVY OF AN EXECUTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS TO INSURE AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AMONGST THEM OF THE
BANKRUPT'S ASSETS.  FN8  THE TRUSTEE IS VESTED NOT ONLY WITH THE TITLE
OF THE BANKRUPT BUT CLOTHED WITH THE RIGHT OF AN EXECUTION CREDITOR
WITH A LEVY ON THE PROPERTY WHICH PASSES INTO THE TRUSTEE'S CUSTODY. 

OUR QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES OF
NEVADA, A DECLARATION OF HOMESTEAD WOULD BE EFFECTIVE AS AGAINST A
CREDITOR TO PREVENT A JUDICIAL SALE OF THE PROPERTY IF MADE AND
RECORDED AFTER LEVY BUT BEFORE SALE THEREUNDER.  IF IT WOULD, IT MUST
BE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE AS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE, WHOSE RIGHTS RISE NO
HIGHER THAN THOSE OF THE SUPPOSED CREDITOR AND ATTACH AT THE DATE OF
THE INCEPTION OF BANKRUPTCY. 

EXAMINATION OF THE NEVADA CASES RELIED ON BY THE COURT BELOW
SATISFIES US THAT THE SETTLED LAW OF THE STATE ENTITLES THE DEBTOR TO
HIS HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IF THE SELECTION AND RECORDING OCCURS AT ANY
TIME BEFORE ACTUAL SALE UNDER EXECUTION.  FN9  AND INDEED THE
PETITIONER SO CONCEDES IN HIS BRIEF, STATING THAT HE "ADMITS THAT UNDER
THE LAWS OF NEVADA AS INTERPRETED BY THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT, A
DECLARATION OF HOMESTEAD FILED AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ACTUAL EXECUTION
SALE IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE HOMESTEAD RIGHT." 

IN CONFORMITY TO THE PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED IN WHITE V. STUMP, THAT THE
BANKRUPT'S RIGHT TO A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION BECOMES FIXED AT THE DATE OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY AND CANNOT THEREAFTER BE
ENLARGED OR ALTERED BY ANYTHING THE BANKRUPT MAY DO, IT REMAINS TRUE
THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF NEVADA, THE RIGHT TO MAKE AND RECORD THE
NECESSARY DECLARATION OF HOMESTEAD EXISTED IN THE BANKRUPT AT THE DATE
OF FILING THE PETITION, AS IT WOULD HAVE EXISTED IN CASE A LEVY HAD
BEEN MADE UPON THE PROPERTY.  THE ASSERTION OF THAT RIGHT BEFORE ACTUAL
SALE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW DID NOT CHANGE THE RELATIVE STATUS OF
THE CLAIMANT AND THE TRUSTEE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION. 
THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE GENERALLY SO HELD AND HAVE DISTINGUISHED WHITE
V. STUMP WHERE THE STATE LAW WAS SIMILAR, IN TERMS OR IN EFFECT, TO
THAT OF NEVADA.  FN10 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, C. 541, SEC. 70, 30 STAT. 565; ACT OF JUNE
22, 1938, C. 575, SEC. 1, 52 STAT. 879; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 110. 

FN2  WHITE V. STUMP, 266 U.S. 310. 

FN3  130 F.2D 775. 

FN4  30 STAT. 548, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 24. 

FN5  SEC. 70(C); 52 STAT. 881; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 110C. 

FN6  WHITE V. STUMP, SUPRA, P. 311. 

FN7  WHITE V. STUMP, SUPRA, P. 313. 

FN8  REMINGTON, BANKRUPTCY, 4TH ED., PP. 4-6; IN RE YOUNGSTROM, 153
F. 98, 103-4, AND CASES CITED. 

FN9  HAWTHORNE V. SMITH, 3 NEV. 182; MCGILL V. LEWIS, 116 P.2D 581. 

FN10  IN RE TRAMMELL, 5 F.2D 326; CLARK V. NIRENBAUM, 8 F.2D 451;
MCCRAE V. FELDER, 12 F.2D 554.  CONTRA:  GEORGOUSES V. GILLEN, 24 F.2D
292. 
..END :

















CREEK NATION V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 629 


NO. 321.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 7, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1943.  - 97
CT.CLS.  591, 723, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PROVISIONS OF TREATIES OF 1866 WITH THE CREEK AND SEMINOLE
NATIONS, WHEREBY THE UNITED STATES GUARANTEED TO THEM QUIET POSSESSION
OF THEIR COUNTRY, CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED AS OBLIGING THE UNITED STATES TO
INDEMNIFY THEM FOR DAMAGES SUSTAINED THROUGH WRONGFUL APPROPRIATIONS OF
TRIBAL LAND IN THE GUISE OF "STATION RESERVATIONS," BUT FOR NON
RAILROAD PURPOSES, BY RAILROAD COMPANIES WHOSE LINES WERE BUILT AND
OPERATED IN THE INDIANS' COUNTRY BY PERMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES AND
UNDER SANCTION OF THE TREATIES.  P. 633. 

2.  SECTION 15 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1902, PROVIDED THAT THE
INDIAN TRIBES THROUGH WHOSE LAND RAILROADS WERE TO BE BUILT UNDER THE
ACT, SHOULD BE COMPENSATED BY THE RAILROAD COMPANIES FOR THE LAND
TAKEN, AND ESTABLISHED A SYSTEM OF VALUATION UNDER JUDICIAL SUPERVISION
WITH A RIGHT OF APPELLATE REVIEW.  THESE PROVISIONS PRESCRIBE AN
ADEQUATE METHOD BY WHICH THE TRIBES COULD PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS,
BUT CONTAIN NO INDICATION THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD PAY FOR THE
LANDS TAKEN.  P. 636. 

3.  READ IN VIEW OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ITS RELATION TO OTHER
SIMILAR LEGISLATION, THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1902(SEC.  16), IN
PROVIDING THAT WHERE A RAILROAD IS CONSTRUCTED UNDER IT IN THE INDIAN
TERRITORY THE RAILROAD COMPANY SHALL PAY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTICULAR TRIBE OR NATION THROUGH
WHOSE LANDS IT IS CONSTRUCTED, "AN ANNUAL CHARGE OF FIFTEEN DOLLARS PER
MILE" DID NOT MAKE THE GOVERNMENT AN INSURER OF COLLECTION NOR PUT UPON
THE SECRETARY A MANDATORY DUTY TO COLLECT, NOR DOES IT IMPORT AN
OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE TRIBE FOR CHARGES WHICH RAILROAD
COMPANIES HAVE FAILED TO PAY.  P. 637. 

4.  THE ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, SEC. 11, PROVIDING THAT ALL REVENUES
ACCRUING TO THE CREEK AND SEMINOLE TRIBES SHALL "BE COLLECTED BY AN
OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UNDER RULES AND
REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY HIM" DID NOT MAKE THE UNITED STATES
LIABLE FOR RENTS AND PROFITS OF TRIBAL LAND ALLEGEDLY TAKEN AND USED
FOR NON-RAILROAD PURPOSES BY RAILROAD COMPANIES UNDER COLOR OF
AUTHORITY TO BUILD AND OPERATE RAILROADS IN THE INDIANS' COUNTRY.  P.
638. 

5.  AS TO TRESPASSES WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE RAILROADS
WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE FORMS OF THE AUTHORIZING ACTS, OR AS TO
HOLDINGS, ONCE PROPER, WHICH THE RAILROADS MAY HAVE RETAINED AFTER THE
RIGHTS TO THEM HAD EXPIRED, THE ACT OF 1906 IMPOSED NO ABSOLUTE DUTY ON
THE SECRETARY TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION.  P. 639. 

6.  THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UNDER THE ACT OF 1906
TO COLLECT REVENUES OF THE CREEKS AND SEMINOLES, AND TO BRING SUITS FOR
THEIR USE IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE COLLECTION OF ANY
MONEYS, OR THE RECOVERY OF ANY LAND CLAIMED BY THEM, WAS
DISCRETIONARY.  P. 639. 

7.  THE CREEK AND SEMINOLE TRIBES, NOT HAVING BEEN DISSOLVED, HAD A
LEGAL RIGHT TO BRING ACTIONS FOR TRESPASSES ON THEIR LANDS BY RAILROAD
COMPANIES - A RIGHT WHICH WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE FACT THAT THE UNITED
STATES ALSO, AS GUARDIAN, WAS EMPOWERED TO SUE.  P. 640. 

CREEK NATION V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 322, SEMINOLE NATION V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 614, TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 614, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS SUSTAINING DEMURRERS TO
PETITIONS SETTING UP CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES; AND DISMISSING
THE PETITIONS.  SEE ALSO 75 CT. CLS. 873. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ACTIONS WERE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT IN 1926 UNDER SPECIAL
JURISDICTIONAL ACTS OF 1924, WHICH GAVE THE COURT OF CLAIMS
JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS UNDER "ANY TREATY OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES" AND THESE TRIBES.  FN1  THE ACTIONS WERE BASED ON A
CONTENTION THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION AS A
GUARDIAN OF ITS INDIAN WARDS IN FAILING TO COLLECT THE SUMS DESCRIBED
BELOW.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE FIRST
COMPLAINT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL ACTS PERMITTED
ACTIONS BROUGHT ON SPECIFIC STATUTORY OR TREATY PLEDGES ONLY, AND NOT
ACTIONS BROUGHT ON A WARDSHIP THEORY.  75 CT. CLS. 873.  THE
PETITIONERS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED THEIR COMPLAINTS TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ACTS, ALLEGING THAT THE UNITED
STATES IN SPECIFIC STATUTES AND TREATIES GUARANTEED TO REPAY THE
INDIANS FOR THE LOSSES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED.  THE COURT OF
CLAIMS SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ON THE
GROUND THAT IT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, 97 CT. CLS. 591, AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.  THE CASES PRESENT THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES HAS ASSUMED TREATY OR STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS
WHICH REQUIRE IT TO INDEMNIFY THE CREEK AND SEMINOLE NATIONS FOR
INJURIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED BY THEM AS A RESULT OF THE
SEIZURE AND USE OF THEIR LAND BY PRIVATE RAILROAD COMPANIES. 

BY THE TREATIES OF 1866,  FN2  THE CREEKS AND SEMINOLES GRANTED A
RIGHT OF WAY TO RAILROADS WHICH THE UNITED STATES MIGHT LATER AUTHORIZE
TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE ROUTES ACROSS THEIR LANDS.  THEY AGREED TO
PERMIT THE RAILROADS TO BUY STRIPS UP TO THREE MILES IN WIDTH ON EACH
SIDE OF THE TRACK.  IN THE SUCCEEDING THIRTY-SIX YEARS, CONGRESS, BY A
SERIES OF SPECIAL ACTS, AUTHORIZED THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF
RAILROADS,  FN3  AND IN 1902 IT PASSED A GENERAL STATUTE CONCERNING
FUTURE RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION IN THE INDIAN TERRITORY.  FN4  THE 1902
ACT INCLUDED A PROVISION, SEC. 16, THAT RAILROADS SHOULD PAY A FIXED
ANNUAL SUM PER MILE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE TRIBES. 

THE INDIANS ALLEGE THAT THE RAILROADS HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE
TERMS OF THE TREATIES AND STATUTES, IN THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN AND HELD
CERTAIN STATION RESERVATIONS UNNECESSARY FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES FOR
THEIR OWN BENEFIT, THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED RENTS AND PROFITS FROM THE
USE OF THESE LANDS, AND THAT THEY HAVE FAILED TO PAY THE ANNUAL MILEAGE
CHARGE.  FN5  THEY ASK THAT THE GOVERNMENT INDEMNIFY THEM FOR THE VALUE
OF THE LANDS ALLEGEDLY WRONGFULLY TAKEN, FOR RENTS AND PROFITS ACCRUING
TO THE RAILROADS FROM THEIR USE OF THOSE LANDS, AND FOR THE MILEAGE
CHARGE. 

IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT THIS ACTION IS BROUGHT, NOT AGAINST THE
RAILROADS WHICH HAVE COMMITTED THE ASSERTED MISDEEDS, BUT AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT FOR ITS FAILURE TO COLLECT THE SUMS CLAIMED FOR THE
PETITIONERS FROM THE RAILROADS.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION HERE,
THEREFORE, IS WHETHER, ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE RAILROADS ARE AT
FAULT, THE GOVERNMENT WAS OBLIGATED TO COMPEL RESTITUTION OR TO RECOVER
DAMAGES; AND IF THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO DO THESE THINGS, WHETHER IT
HAD A DUTY TO MAKE THE INDIANS WHOLE.  WE ARE ASKED TO FIND AN
AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY THE TRIBES FOR THESE LOSSES IN THE TREATY OF
1866, THE ACT OF 1902, AND AN ACT OF 1906. 

FIRST.  THE TREATY OF 1866.  ARTICLE I OF THE TREATY PROVIDED: 

"(THE CREEKS) ALSO AGREE TO REMAIN AT PEACE WITH ALL OTHER INDIAN
TRIBES; AND, IN RETURN, THE UNITED STATES GUARANTEES THEM QUIET
POSSESSION OF THEIR COUNTRY, AND PROTECTION AGAINST HOSTILITIES ON THE
PART OF OTHER TRIBES.  IN THE EVENT OF HOSTILITIES, THE UNITED STATES
AGREE THAT THE TRIBE COMMENCING AND PROSECUTING THE SAME, SHALL, AS FAR
AS MAY BE PRACTICABLE, MAKE JUST REPARATION THEREFOR." 

THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PREVENT THE
RAILROADS FROM TAKING AND HOLDING STATION RESERVATIONS LATER FOUND TO
BE UNNECESSARY FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES, AND THAT IT THUS BECAME LIABLE TO
THE PETITIONERS FOR BREACH OF THE GUARANTEE OF "QUIET POSSESSION." 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS CONCLUDED THAT THE GUARANTEE OF QUIET POSSESSION
APPLIED ONLY TO PROTECTION FROM HOSTILITIES BY OTHER TRIBES.  SUCH A
CONCLUSION RECEIVES SUPPORT FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE TIME, FOR INTER-TRIBAL WARFARE WAS A DOMINANT DANGER.  SOME OF
THE TRIBES HAD FOUGHT ON EACH SIDE IN THE CIVIL WAR, AND STRANGE NEW
TRIBES WERE ABOUT TO BE SETTLED ON ADJACENT LAND.  THE TURMOIL OF
RECONSTRUCTION CALLED FOR MILITARY PROTECTION. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT, WHETHER OR NOT THE GUARANTEE IS LIMITED TO MILITARY
PROTECTION, THIS LANGUAGE DID NOT OBLIGATE THE UNITED STATES TO
COMPENSATE THE TRIBES FOR ENCROACHMENTS BY RAILROADS ACTING UNDER COLOR
OF RIGHT.  KEEPING THE PEACE AND PROTECTING THE INDIANS WAS A
DIFFICULT, AND AT TIMES ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE, TASK,  FN6  AND WE CANNOT
ASSUME THAT THE GOVERNMENT MEANT TO GUARANTEE REPARATIONS FOR BREACH OF
QUIET POSSESSION WITHOUT A SINGLE EXPLICIT WORD IN THE TREATY TO THAT
EFFECT.  WHERE REPARATIONS WERE PLANNED, CLEAR LANGUAGE WAS USED. 
THUS, IN THE SECTION QUOTED ABOVE, HOSTILE TRIBES, AND NOT THE
GOVERNMENT, WERE EXPLICITLY MADE LIABLE FOR THE TRIBE'S DEPREDATIONS. 
THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION PUTTING A SIMILAR LIABILITY FOR LOSSES OF
ANY SORT ON THE UNITED STATES.  FN7  A PROMISE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO TRY
TO KEEP THE PEACE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A PROMISE TO MAKE PAYMENTS IF
THE PEACE IS NOT KEPT; "AND BEFORE ANY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE RENDERED
BINDING THE UNITED STATES IT IS FAMILIAR AND SETTLED LAW THAT THE
STATUTE CLAIMED TO JUSTIFY SUCH JUDGMENT SHOULD BE CLEAR AND NOT OPEN
TO DEBATE."  LEIGHTON V. UNITED STATES, 161 U.S. 291, 296, 297. 

THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE UNITED STATES IN SIGNING THE
TREATY MADE AN EMPTY PROMISE.  THE GOVERNMENT UNDERTOOK TO USE ITS
MILITARY POWER TO PROTECT THE INDIANS AGAINST MILITARY AGGRESSION, AND
IN ADDITION IT UNDERTOOK THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE
POLICY TO AID THE TRIBES TO HOLD POSSESSION OF THEIR LANDS.  IN VIEW OF
THE PRESSURES OF THE TIME, IT APPEARS TO HAVE TREATED ITS OBLIGATION
WITH REAL CARE.  THE ACTS PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
RAILROADS, FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT TO THE INDIANS FOR THE
LAND TAKEN,  FN8 ATTEMPTED TO RESTRICT THE AMOUNT GRANTED TO THAT
NECESSARY,  FN9  AND USUALLY PROVIDED FOR REVERSION OF TITLE TO THE
INDIANS UPON DISCONTINUANCE OF THE ROAD.  FN10  IN 1871, UPON APPEAL OF
THE TRIBES, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR REFUSED TO PERMIT A ROAD TO
ENTER THE TERRITORY BECAUSE OF A CLAIMED VIOLATION OF THE TREATY.  FN11
THE GUARANTEE OF QUIET POSSESSION CALLED FOR A SERIES OF LEGISLATIVE,
ADMINISTRATIVE, AND MILITARY JUDGMENTS, BUT WAS NOT A PLEDGE OF
MONETARY REPARATION. 

SECOND.  THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1902.  THE PETITIONERS REST ON SECS.
15 AND 16 OF THE ACT OF 1902.  SECTION 15 PROVIDES THAT THE TRIBES
THROUGH WHOSE LAND THE ROADS WERE TO BE BUILT SHOULD BE COMPENSATED BY
THE RAILROADS FOR THE LAND TAKEN.  THE SECTION ESTABLISHED A SYSTEM OF
VALUATION UNDER JUDICIAL SUPERVISION AND WITH A RIGHT OF APPELLATE
REVIEW.  THESE ELABORATE PROVISIONS PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE METHOD BY WHICH
THE TRIBES MIGHT PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS, BUT CONTAIN NO INDICATION
OF ANY KIND THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY FOR THE LANDS TAKEN.  FN12 

PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT THERE SHALL BE PAID BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY TO
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTICULAR TRIBE
OR NATION THROUGH WHOSE LANDS ANY SUCH RAILROAD MAY BE CONSTRUCTED, AN
ANNUAL CHARGE OF FIFTEEN DOLLARS PER MILE.  ..."  PETITIONER CONTENDS
THAT THIS DIRECTION TO THE SECRETARY TO ACCEPT THESE PAYMENTS MADE THE
GOVERNMENT AN INSURER OF THEIR COLLECTION. 

VARIANTS OF THIS STATUTORY PHRASE WERE USED GENERALLY IN ACTS
AUTHORIZING RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION AFTER 1884.  THE ACT OF 1902, AS HAS
BEEN NOTED, WAS THE SUCCESSOR TO THE GENERAL RAILROAD AUTHORIZATION ACT
OF 1899, WHICH IN 30 STAT. 990, SEC. 5, REQUIRED "SUCH AN ANNUAL CHARGE
AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, NOT LESS THAN
FIFTEEN DOLLARS FOR EACH MILE."  OTHER ACTS OF THE PERIOD VARIED IN
THAT THE SECRETARY WAS DIRECTED TO APPORTION THE SUM COLLECTED AMONG
SEVERAL TRIBES ACCORDING TO THEIR INTERESTS.  FN13  SOME OF THE EARLIER
ACTS MENTIONED NO SPECIFIC SUM, GIVING THE SECRETARY COMPLETE
DISCRETION AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE COLLECTED AND THE METHOD OF
ALLOCATING IT.  FN14  THIS DEVICE OF ASSESSMENT OF AN ANNUAL CHARGE
PAYABLE TO THE SECRETARY WAS ALSO USED IN AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF
TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES ACROSS INDIAN LANDS, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 319. 

BY THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 1902 ACT, THE VERBAL FORMULA USED
IN SEC. 16 WAS SO FAMILIAR THAT IT REQUIRED NO DISCUSSION IN CONGRESS. 
THE CLAUSE SEEMS FIRST TO HAVE BEEN USED IN AN ACT OF 1884, 23 STAT.
69, SEC. 5, AUTHORIZING THE GULF, COLORADO & SANTA FE RAILWAY TO CROSS
THE INDIAN TERRITORY.  THE $15.00 CHARGE WAS CONSIDERED A TAX,
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO THE TAXES CHARGED BY NEIGHBORING STATES.  FN15
NO WORD WAS SAID INDICATING THAT THE UNITED STATES, ACTING AS A
VOLUNTARY TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE TRIBES, MEANT TO GUARANTEE TO THE
TRIBES THAT THE TAXPAYERS WOULD MAKE THEIR PAYMENTS WHEN DUE. 

CONSIDERING SEC. 16 IN ITS RELATION TO THE OTHER STATUTES OF THE
PERIOD, MANY OF WHICH THROUGH MINOR VARIATIONS GAVE WIDE DISCRETION TO
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE WORDS OF THIS
OFFICE AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF A FORM OF TAX.  IT PROVIDES THAT
THE RAILROADS SHALL PAY THE TAX TO THE SECRETARY, BUT PUTS NO MANDATORY
DUTY ON THE SECRETARY TO DO THE WORK OF COLLECTING.  WE CANNOT SUPPOSE
FROM ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US EITHER OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE THAT THE UNITED STATES REPEATEDLY ASSUMED
OBLIGATIONS TO INDEMNIFY THE INDIAN TRIBES FOR CHARGES WHICH RAILROAD
COMPANIES, TELEPHONE COMPANIES, AND TELEGRAPH COMPANIES CONSTRUCTING
LINES ACROSS INDIAN LANDS MAY HAVE FAILED TO PAY.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
ALGOMA LUMBER CO., 305 U.S. 415, 421. 

THIRD.  THE ACT OF 1906.  CONGRESS AT ONE TIME PLANNED TO TERMINATE
THE EXISTENCE OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN 1906, AND THE ACT OF 1906
WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH THE OBJECT OF
PRESERVING INDIAN INTERESTS AFTER TRIBAL DISSOLUTION.  IN THE COURSE OF
DISCUSSION, CONGRESS DETERMINED TO CONTINUE THE TRIBAL EXISTENCE, AND
THE ACT WAS AMENDED TO THAT EFFECT BEFORE PASSAGE.  THE PETITIONERS'
FINAL RELIANCE IS ON SECS. 11 AND 18 OF THIS ACT. 

THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SEC. 11 OF THE ACT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"ALL REVENUES OF WHATEVER CHARACTER ACCRUING TO THE  ...  CREEK AND
SEMINOLE TRIBES, WHETHER BEFORE OR AFTER DISSOLUTION OF THE TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS, SHALL  ...  BE COLLECTED BY AN OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED
BY HIM." 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT UNDER THIS SECTION THE GOVERNMENT IS
LIABLE FOR RENTS AND PROFITS ON THE STATION RESERVATIONS ALLEGEDLY
WRONGFULLY TAKEN AND WRONGFULLY USED BY THE RAILROADS. 

THIS LANGUAGE, LIKE THAT OF SEC. 16 OF THE 1902 ACT WHICH IT SO
CLOSELY RESEMBLES, DOES NOT MAKE THE GOVERNMENT A GUARANTOR THAT SUMS
OWING WILL BE PAID.  THE CLAIM ASSERTED IS IN ESSENCE ONE OF DAMAGES
FOR TRESPASS, AND ASSUMING THAT THE PROCEEDS OF A TRESPASS ACTION ARE
TO BE CONSIDERED "REVENUE," THE SECRETARY WAS SURELY ENTITLED TO
DISCRETION AS TO WHICH TRESPASS ACTIONS HE MIGHT CONSIDER WORTH
BRINGING.  IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE RAILROADS
WRONGFULLY TOOK LANDS UNDER PRETENSE OF RIGHT IN THEIR ORIGINAL GRANTS
UNDER THE STATUTES, THE ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY PROVIDED BY THE ACTS
GAVE THE TRIBES ADEQUATE REDRESS THROUGH THE COURTS AT THE TIME THE
LAND WAS TAKEN.  FN16  AS TO TRESPASSES WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED
BY THE RAILROADS WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE FORMS OF THE AUTHORIZING
ACTS, OR AS TO HOLDINGS, ONCE PROPER, WHICH THE RAILROADS MAY HAVE
RETAINED AFTER THE RIGHTS TO THEM HAD EXPIRED, WE FIND NO ABSOLUTE DUTY
ON THE SECRETARY TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION. 

THAT THE SECRETARY'S DUTY TO COLLECT REVENUES AND INSTITUTE ACTIONS
UNDER THE ACT WAS DISCRETIONARY IS MADE CLEAR BY SEC. 18: 

"THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO BRING SUIT IN
THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR THE USE OF THE  ...  CREEK, OR
SEMINOLE TRIBES, RESPECTIVELY  ...  FOR THE COLLECTION OF ANY MONEYS OR
RECOVERY OF ANY LAND CLAIMED BY ANY OF SAID TRIBES.  ...  "    THE
PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT UNDER THIS SECTION THE SECRETARY WAS OBLIGATED
TO BRING SUIT FOR ALL DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE TRIBES FOR FAILURE TO PAY
SUMS OWING UNDER SECS. 15 AND 16 OF THE 1902 ACT, FOR TRESPASS AND
MILEAGE TAXES, FOR ANY BREACH OF THE TREATY, AND FOR RENTS AND PROFITS
COLLECTED BY THE RAILROADS.  BUT THE USE OF THE WORD "AUTHORIZED" IN
THIS CONTEXT NECESSARILY RESERVED TO THE SECRETARY THE RIGHT TO
DETERMINE HIS OWN COURSE OF ACTION.  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE
SECRETARY WAS TRADITIONALLY GIVEN WIDE DISCRETION IN THE HANDLING OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS  FN17 AND THAT DISCRETION WOULD SELDOM BE MORE NECESSARY
THAN IN DETERMINING WHEN TO INSTITUTE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.  FOR EXAMPLE,
A RAILROAD MIGHT HAVE BECOME BANKRUPT OR REORGANIZED BEFORE A FAILURE
TO MAKE PROPER PAYMENTS WAS DISCOVERED,  FN18  MAKING RECOVERY
IMPOSSIBLE; AND WE CAN NOT SUPPOSE THAT THE SECRETARY MIGHT NOT
COMPROMISE DIFFICULT CASES WITHOUT BRINGING SUIT. 

THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT MEAN TO ASSUME AN INSURER'S
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUMS CLAIMED BY THE INDIANS AGAINST
THE RAILROADS IS FURTHER SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT THE INDIANS RETAINED
THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT REMEDY FOR WRONGS DONE THEM.  THE TRIBES HAVE NOT
YET BEEN DISSOLVED, AND THEY HAVE HAD, BOTH AS A GENERAL LEGAL RIGHT
FN19  AND BY VIRTUE OF THE VERY SECTION OF THE 1906 ACT UNDER
DISCUSSION HERE, THE POWER TO BRING ACTIONS ON THEIR OWN BEHALF.  THAT
THE UNITED STATES ALSO HAD A RIGHT TO SUE DID NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE
THE TRIBES FROM BRINGING THEIR OWN ACTIONS.  FN20 

WE ARE ASKED HERE TO IMPOSE A LIABILITY ON THE GOVERNMENT TO THESE
INDIANS FOR WRONGS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED AGAINST THE INDIANS BY OTHERS. 
APPRECIATING THE DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO RECOGNIZE THE "FULL OBLIGATION
OF THIS NATION TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF A DEPENDENT PEOPLE," TULEE
V. WASHINGTON, 315 U.S. 681, 685, WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND IN THE WORDS OF
THE TREATIES OR STATUTES UPON WHICH THIS ACTION RESTS ANY SUCH PRODIGAL
ASSUMPTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIABILITIES AS THAT FOR
WHICH THE PETITIONERS CONTEND HERE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  43 STAT. 133, 43 STAT. 139.  SEE ALSO THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF
1937, 50 STAT. 650. 

FN2  14 STAT. 755(SEMINOLE), 785(CREEKS).  THE TREATIES ARE
SUFFICIENTLY SIMILAR SO THAT HEREAFTER REFERENCE WILL BE MADE TO THE
CREEK TREATY ONLY. 

FN3  THE TREATY WAS ORIGINALLY INTERPRETED AS PERMITTING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ONLY TWO RAILROADS THROUGH THE TERRITORY.  LETTER OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO THE PRESIDENT, MAY 21, 1870, APPROVED
BY HIM MAY 23, 1870, REFERRED TO AT 13 O.A.G. 285(1870).  IN THE
1880'S, CONGRESS BEGAN, IN A SERIES OF SPECIAL ACTS, TO AUTHORIZE
CONSTRUCTION OF RAILROADS THROUGH THE INDIAN TERRITORY ON A THEORY OF
EMINENT DOMAIN.  CHEROKEE NATION V. SOUTHERN KANSAS RY. CO., 135 U.S.
641.  SEE E.G. THE COMMITTEE REPORT AND DISCUSSION OF THE BILL GRANTING
A RIGHT OF WAY TO THE GULF, COLORADO & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 15 CONG. REC.
4711 ET SEQ. (1884).  APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF OF THE RAILROADS INVOLVED
IN THE INSTANT CASE APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND
TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE GENERAL ACT OF 1902.  FOR A
GENERAL HISTORY OF RAILROADS IN OKLAHOMA, SEE BULLETIN NO. 60, THE
RAILWAY AND LOCOMOTIVE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, "THE RAILROADS OF OKLAHOMA,"
PUBLISHED THROUGH THE BAKER LIBRARY OF THE HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL
(1943). 

FN4  AN ACT REGULATING GENERAL CONSTRUCTION OF RAILROADS THROUGH
INDIAN LANDS WAS FIRST ADOPTED IN 1899, 30 STAT. 990.  THE 1902 ACT WAS
MORE PARTICULARLY DIRECTED AT CONSTRUCTION THROUGH THE TERRITORY OF THE
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, OF WHICH PETITIONERS ARE TWO. 

FN5  UNDER AN OPINION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, THE
OBLIGATION TO MAKE THIS PAYMENT TERMINATED UPON THE ADMISSION OF
OKLAHOMA AS A STATE IN 1907.  38 DECISIONS OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
(PUBLIC LANDS) 414. 

FN6  "THE TREATIES OF 1866, AND OTHER TREATIES ALSO, GUARANTEE TO THE
FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES THE POSSESSION OF THEIR LANDS; BUT, WITHOUT THE
MORAL AND PHYSICAL POWER WHICH IS REPRESENTED BY THE ARMY OF THE UNITED
STATES, WHAT ARE THESE TREATIES WORTH AS A PROTECTION AGAINST THE
RAPACIOUS GREED OF THE HOMELESS PEOPLE OF THE STATES WHO SEEK
HOMESTEADS WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE INDIAN TERRITORY?  IF THE
PROTECTING POWER OF THIS GOVERNMENT WERE WITHDRAWN FOR THIRTY DAYS,
WHERE WOULD THE TREATIES BE, AND THE LAWS OF THE INDIANS AND THE
INDIANS THEMSELVES?"  REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IN 1
REPORT, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (1886), 81. 

FN7  THE ONLY INSTANCE WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION IN
WHICH THE UNITED STATES SPECIFICALLY GUARANTEED TO BRING CIVIL ACTIONS
FOR THE BENEFIT OF A TRIBE AND INSURED PAYMENT FOR TRESPASSES IS THE
TREATY OF MAY 24, 1834, WITH THE CHICKASAWS, 7 STAT. 450. 

FN8  THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1866, 14 STAT. 292, SEC. 7, AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RAILROAD THROUGH THE INDIAN COUNTRY PROVIDED FOR A
JURY TRIAL TO DETERMINE THE FAIR PRICE.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE OF THE
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION GIVEN A SIMILAR PROVISION IN 23 STAT. 73, CHEROKEE
NATION V. SOUTHERN KANSAS RY. CO., 135 U.S. 641, 651-653.  ANOTHER ACT
PASSED IN 1866, 14 STAT. 289, SEC. 8, PROVIDED THAT THE RAILROAD SHOULD
BE CONSTRUCTED "WITH THE CONSENT OF THE INDIANS, AND NOT OTHERWISE." 

FN9  NOTE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DISCUSSION OF THE BILL
AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF THE GULF, COLORADO & SANTA FE RAILWAY, AN
OKLAHOMA RAILROAD NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED HERE, THE DEBATE OVER THE
AMOUNT OF LAND NECESSARY FOR SIDINGS.  15 CONG. REC. 4715-4718(1884). 

FN10  THE EXPERIENCE OF ONE OF THE FIRST OF THE TWO ROADS AUTHORIZED
UNDER THE TREATY IS REVEALING OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE USE OF THE
INDIAN LANDS WAS SUPERVISED:  THE ATLANTIC & PACIFIC RAILROAD WAS
AUTHORIZED TO BUILD A LINE BY AN 1866 ACT, 14 STAT. 292.  IN 1871,
AFTER SMALL PARTS OF THE LINE HAD BEEN COMPLETED, IT WAS ORDERED TO
CEASE WORK BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND WAS NOT ALLOWED TO
CONTINUE UNTIL IT HAD POSTED A BOND FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIAN
INTERESTS.  SEE DISCUSSION IN ATLANTIC & PACIFIC R. CO. V. MINGUS, 165
U.S. 413, 417.  FAILURE TO COMPLETE THE ROAD RESULTED IN AN 1886 ACT
TAKING THE LANDS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BACK INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, 24
STAT. 123, AND THE ROAD WAS ULTIMATELY COMPLETED BY THE ST. LOUIS &
OKLAHOMA CITY RY. CO. UNDER AN 1896 SPECIAL ACT, 29 STAT. 69.  SECTION
2 OF THAT ACT PROVIDES FOR REVERSION TO THE TRIBES OF LANDS NOT USED
FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES. 

FN11  LETTER, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, MAY 21, 1870, SUPRA, NOTE
3. 

FN12  WHETHER ADDED OBLIGATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SECTION WERE
ASSUMED BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE 1906 ACT IS CONSIDERED BELOW. 

FN13  SEE, E.G., THE ACT AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF THE KANSAS &
ARKANSAS VALLEY RAILROAD, 24 STAT. 73, SEC. 5(1886), OR THE ACT
AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A BRANCH OF THE ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO
RAILROAD, 29 STAT. 80, SEC. 5(1896). 

FN14  THE ACT AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A RAILROAD THROUGH THE
PAPAGO (ARIZONA) RESERVATION PROVIDED:  "SUCH COMPENSATION AS MAY BE
FIXED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BE PAID TO HIM BY THE SAID
RAILROAD COMPANY, TO BE EXPENDED BY HIM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID
INDIANS."  22 STAT. 299(1882). 

FN15  SEE DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 15 CONG. REC.
4723-4727.  FOR AN ANALYSIS OF THE NATURE OF THIS TAX SEE THE OPINION
OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, SUPRA, NOTE 5. 

FN16  SEE FOR EXAMPLE SEC. 15 OF THE 1902 ACT. 

FN17  COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW, "THE RANGE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS," 100 ET SEQ. 

FN18  THE OKLAHOMA PROPERTIES OF THE ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO
RAILWAY CO. WERE HELD BY 25 DIFFERENT CORPORATIONS BETWEEN 1866 AND
1916.  THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE, NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THIS
ACTION, IS THE DESCENDANT OF 64 RAILROADS WITH OKLAHOMA HOLDINGS. 
APPROXIMATELY 150 RAILROADS HAVE EXISTED IN OKLAHOMA.  SEE "THE
RAILROADS OF OKLAHOMA," SUPRA, NOTE 3, PP. 28-77. 

FN19  CHEROKEE NATION V. SOUTHERN KANSAS RY. CO., 135 U.S. 641;
CHEROKEE NATION V. HITCHCOCK, 187 U.S. 294; LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK, 187
U.S. 553.  CF. LANE V. PUEBLO OF SANTA ROSA, 249 U.S. 110, AND UNITED
STATES V. CANDELARIA, 271 U.S. 432. 

FN20  CF. HECKMAN V. UNITED STATES, 224 U.S. 413, 446; UNITED STATES
V. OSAGE COUNTY, 251 U.S. 128; SUNDERLAND V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S.
226. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

AS A PEOPLE OUR DEALINGS WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES HAVE BEEN TOO OFTEN
MARKED BY INJUSTICE, NEGLECT, AND EVEN RUTHLESS DISREGARD OF THEIR
INTERESTS AND NECESSITIES.  AS A NATION WE HAVE INCURRED MORAL AND
POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TOWARD THEM AND THEIR DESCENDANTS, WHICH
HAVE BEEN REQUITED IN SOME MEASURE BY TREATIES AND STATUTES FRAMED FOR
THE PROTECTION AND ADVANCEMENT OF THEIR INTERESTS.  THOSE ENACTMENTS
SHOULD ALWAYS BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THIS HIGH AND NOBLE PURPOSE, IN A
MANNER THAT WILL GIVE FULL SCOPE AND EFFECT TO THE HUMANE AND LIBERAL
POLICY THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CONGRESS TO RECTIFY PAST WRONGS. 
FN1 

EACH RAILWAY COMPANY WHOSE ROAD WAS CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE ACT OF 1902
FN2  WAS REQUIRED BY SEC. 16 OF THAT ACT TO PAY TO THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTICULAR TRIBE THROUGH WHOSE
LANDS THE ROAD PASSED, AN ANNUAL CHARGE OF FIFTEEN DOLLARS FOR EACH
MILE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTED.  BY THE ACT OF 1906 IT WAS PROVIDED THAT ALL
REVENUES ACCRUING TO THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES "SHALL  ...  BE
COLLECTED BY AN OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,"
AND THE SECRETARY WAS AUTHORIZED TO BRING SUIT IN THE NAME OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE USE OF ANY ONE OF THE FIVE TRIBES TO COLLECT ANY
MONEYS CLAIMED BY IT.  FN3  FOR FAILURE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO COLLECT THESE MILEAGE CHARGES FOR THE CREEK AND SEMINOLE
TRIBES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THIS ACTION IS BROUGHT UNDER JURISDICTIONAL
ACTS  FN4  WHICH AUTHORIZE THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO HEAR AND DETERMINE
ALL LEGAL AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF ANY
TREATY OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THOSE TRIBES, OR OUT
OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS RELATING TO INDIAN AFFAIRS. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS RELATIONS WITH THE INDIAN
TRIBES OCCUPIES THE POSITION OF A FIDUCIARY, THAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS
SIMILAR TO THAT OF GUARDIAN AND WARD, AND THAT THE DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE UNITED STATES TOWARD ITS WARDS REQUIRE A
GENEROUS INTERPRETATION N5.  IF IT IS THE DUTY OF A GUARDIAN OR
TRUSTEE, AS I CONCEIVE IT TO BE, TO EXERCISE DILIGENCE TO CONSERVE AND
PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF HIS TRUST, AND COLLECT MONEYS DUE TO THE
ESTATE OF HIS WARD, THEN SUCH A DUTY MAY WELL HAVE ARISEN UNDER SEC. 16
OF THE ACT OF 1902, A DUTY WHICH, IT IS ALLEGED, THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR FAILED TO DISCHARGE.  IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE RAILROADS FAILED
TO PAY TO THE SECRETARY THE REQUIRED ANNUAL CHARGES FOR EACH MILE OF
ROAD CONSTRUCTED, IT WAS THE SECRETARY'S DUTY TO ACT TO PROTECT THE
INDIAN BENEFICIARIES WHO SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO ASSUME THE BURDEN OF
ACTING ON THEIR OWN BEHALF, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PAYMENTS WERE TO BE
MADE TO THE SECRETARY AND NOT TO THEM.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CREEK
NATION, 295 U.S. 103, 110.  TO READ THE ACT OF 1902 OTHERWISE IS TO
TAKE TOO RESTRICTED A VIEW OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
TOWARD A DEPENDENT PEOPLE.  BUT IF THERE WERE ANY DOUBT, THE DUTY OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO COLLECT THE MILEAGE CHARGES WAS MADE
PLAIN AND UNMISTAKABLE BY THE ACT OF 1906, WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO
COLLECT ALL REVENUES ACCRUING TO THE TRIBES AND SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED
HIM TO BRING SUIT ON THEIR BEHALF.  THE PRESENT CLAIM TO MILEAGE
CHARGES UNDOUBTEDLY IS AN EQUITABLE ONE ARISING OUT OF THOSE STATUTES
AND IS THEREFORE WITHIN THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL
ACTS. 

IN MY OPINION THE PETITIONERS STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
THESE MILEAGE CLAIMS, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD
ACCORDINGLY BE REVERSED. 

FN1  CHOCTAW NATION V. UNITED STATES, 119 U.S. 1, 27-28; SEMINOLE
NATION V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97. 

FN2  ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1902, 32 STAT. 43. 

FN3  SECS. 11 AND 18 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, 34 STAT. 137, 141,
144. 

FN4  ACT OF MAY 20, 1924, 43 STAT. 133(SEMINOLE), AND ACT OF MAY 24,
1924, 43 STAT. 139(CREEK). 

FN5  SEE NOTE 1, ANTE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AGREES WITH THESE VIEWS. 
..END :




















FISHER CO. V. WITMARK & SONS, 318 U.S. 643 


NO. 327.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 15, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1943.  - 125
F.2D 949, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909, AS AMENDED, AN AUTHOR'S RIGHT TO
OBTAIN A RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF HIS COPYRIGHT IS ASSIGNABLE BY HIM BY
AN AGREEMENT MADE BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT
TERM.  P. 656. 

FRED FISHER MUSIC CO. ET AL. V. M. WITMARK & SONS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 611, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 38 F.SUPP.  72, GRANTING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IN
A CASE OF ALLEGED COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS A QUESTION NEVER SETTLED BEFORE, EVEN THOUGH IT
CONCERNS LEGISLATION HAVING A HISTORY OF MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED YEARS. 
THE QUESTION ITSELF CAN BE STATED VERY SIMPLY.  UNDER SEC. 23 OF THE
COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909, 35 STAT. 1075, AS AMENDED,  FN1  A COPYRIGHT IN
A MUSICAL COMPOSITION LASTS FOR TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS
FIRST PUBLICATION, AND THE AUTHOR CAN RENEW THE COPYRIGHT, IF HE IS
STILL LIVING, FOR A FURTHER TERM OF TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS BY FILING AN
APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL WITHIN A YEAR BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE
FIRST TWENTY-EIGHT YEAR PERIOD.  SECTION 42 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT A
COPYRIGHT "MAY BE ASSIGNED  ...  BY AN INSTRUMENT IN WRITING SIGNED BY
THE PROPRIETOR OF THE COPYRIGHT  ...  "  CONCEDEDLY, THE AUTHOR CAN
ASSIGN THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT AND, AFTER HE HAS SECURED IT, THE RENEWAL
COPYRIGHT AS WELL.  THE QUESTION IS - DOES THE ACT PREVENT THE AUTHOR
FROM ASSIGNING HIS INTEREST IN THE RENEWAL COPYRIGHT BEFORE HE HAS
SECURED IT? 

THIS LITIGATION ARISES FROM A CONTROVERSY OVER THE RENEWAL RIGHTS IN
THE POPULAR SONG "WHEN IRISH EYES ARE SMILING."  IT WAS WRITTEN IN 1912
BY ERNEST R. BALL, CHAUNCEY OLCOTT, AND GEORGE GRAFF, JR., EACH OF WHOM
WAS UNDER CONTRACT TO A FIRM OF MUSIC PUBLISHERS, M. WITMARK & SONS. 
PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACTS, WITMARK ON AUGUST 12, 1912, APPLIED FOR AND
OBTAINED THE COPYRIGHT IN THE SONG.  ON MAY 19, 1917, GRAFF AND WITMARK
MADE A FURTHER AGREEMENT, UNDER WHICH, FOR THE SUM OF $1,600, GRAFF
ASSIGNED TO WITMARK "ALL RIGHTS, TITLE AND INTEREST" IN A NUMBER OF
SONGS, INCLUDING "WHEN IRISH EYES ARE SMILING."  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED
FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF "ALL COPYRIGHTS AND RENEWALS OF COPYRIGHTS AND
THE RIGHT TO SECURE ALL COPYRIGHTS AND RENEWALS OF COPYRIGHTS IN THE
(SONGS), AND ANY AND ALL RIGHTS THEREIN THAT I (GRAFF) OR MY HEIRS,
EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS OR NEXT OF KIN MAY AT ANY TIME BE ENTITLED
TO."  TO THAT END, WITMARK WAS GIVEN AN IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO EXECUTE IN GRAFF'S NAME ALL DOCUMENTS "NECESSARY TO SECURE TO
(WITMARK) THE RENEWALS AND EXTENSIONS OF THE COPYRIGHTS IN SAID
COMPOSITIONS AND ALL RIGHTS THEREIN FOR THE TERMS OF SUCH RENEWALS AND
EXTENSIONS."  IN ADDITION, GRAFF AGREED THAT, "UPON THE EXPIRATION OF
THE FIRST TERM OF ANY COPYRIGHT," HE WOULD EXECUTE AND DELIVER TO
WITMARK "ALL PAPERS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SECURE TO IT THE RENEWALS AND
EXTENSIONS OF ALL COPYRIGHTS IN SAID COMPOSITIONS AND ALL RIGHTS
THEREIN FOR THE TERMS OF SUCH RENEWALS AND EXTENSIONS."  THIS AGREEMENT
WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE. 

ON AUGUST 12, 1939, THE FIRST DAY OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH YEAR OF THE
COPYRIGHT IN "WHEN IRISH EYES ARE SMILING," WITMARK APPLIED FOR AND
REGISTERED THE RENEWAL COPYRIGHT IN GRAFF'S NAME.  FN2  ON THE SAME
DAY, EXERCISING ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF MAY 19,
1917, WITMARK ALSO ASSIGNED TO ITSELF GRAFF'S INTEREST IN THE RENEWAL. 
ELEVEN DAYS LATER, GRAFF HIMSELF APPLIED FOR AND REGISTERED THE RENEWAL
COPYRIGHT IN HIS OWN NAME; AND ON OCTOBER 24, 1939, HE ASSIGNED HIS
RENEWAL INTEREST TO ANOTHER OTHER MUSIC PUBLISHING FIRM, FRED FISHER
MUSIC CO., INC. BOTH GRAFF AND FISHER KNEW OF THE PRIOR REGISTRATION OF
THE RENEWAL BY WITMARK AND OF THE LATTER'S ASSIGNMENT TO ITSELF. 
RELYING UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSIGNMENT MADE TO IT ON OCTOBER 24,
1939, AND WITHOUT OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM WITMARK, FISHER PUBLISHED
AND SOLD COPIES OF "WHEN IRISH EYES ARE SMILING," REPRESENTING TO THE
TRADE THAT IT OWNED THE RENEWAL RIGHTS IN THE SONG.  WITMARK THEREUPON
BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN THESE ACTIVITIES.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDENTE LITE SOLELY UPON THE GROUND
THAT THERE WAS NO STATUTORY BAR AGAINST AN AUTHOR'S ASSIGNMENT OF HIS
INTEREST IN THE RENEWAL BEFORE IT WAS SECURED.  38 F.SUPP.  72.  THE
COURT CONSIDERED NO EVIDENCE AND MADE NO FINDINGS UPON THE QUESTION
WHETHER EQUITABLE RELIEF SHOULD BE DENIED ON OTHER GROUNDS, SUCH AS
INADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION AND THE LIKE.  FN3  UPON APPEAL TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT UNDER SEC. 129 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 227, PERMITTING APPEALS FROM
INTERLOCUTORY DECREES, THE ORDER WAS AFFIRMED.  125 F.2D 949.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS LIMITED ITSELF, AS DID THE PARTIES BEFORE IT,
TO THE QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, WHOLLY APART FROM THE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  THE COURT EXPRESSLY LEFT OPEN
"OTHER CONTENTIONS WHICH THE PARTIES MAY WISH AND BE ENTITLED TO RAISE
ON THE MERITS, INCLUDING POSSIBLY CLAIMS OF INADEQUACY OF
CONSIDERATION."  125 F.2D AT 954.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THIS
COURT STATED THAT THE "SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER  ...  AN AGREEMENT TO
ASSIGN HIS RENEWAL, MADE BY AN AUTHOR IN ADVANCE OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH
YEAR OF THE ORIGINAL TERM OF COPYRIGHT, IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE." 
BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE OF THIS QUESTION OF THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  317 U.S.
611. 

PLAINLY, THERE IS ONLY ONE QUESTION BEFORE US - DOES THE COPYRIGHT
ACT NULLIFY AN AGREEMENT BY AN AUTHOR, MADE DURING THE ORIGINAL
COPYRIGHT TERM, TO ASSIGN HIS RENEWAL?  THE EXPLICIT WORDS OF THE
STATUTE GIVE THE AUTHOR AN UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO RENEW THE COPYRIGHT. 
NO LIMITATIONS ARE PLACED UPON THE ASSIGNABILITY OF HIS INTEREST IN THE
RENEWAL.  IF WE LOOK ONLY TO WHAT THE ACT SAYS, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT
AS TO THE ANSWER.  BUT EACH OF THE PARTIES FINDS SUPPORT FOR ITS
CONCLUSION IN THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION, AND
TO THAT WE MUST TURN TO DISCOVER WHETHER CONGRESS MEANT MORE THAN IT
SAID. 

ANGLO-AMERICAN COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION BEGINS IN 1709 WITH THE STATUTE
OF 8 ANNE, C. 19.  THAT ACT GAVE THE AUTHOR AND HIS ASSIGNS THE
EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHT FOR FOURTEEN YEARS FROM PUBLICATION, AND AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF SUCH TERM, IF THE AUTHOR WAS STILL LIVING, THE COPYRIGHT
COULD BE RENEWED FOR ANOTHER FOURTEEN YEARS.  THE STATUTE DID NOT
EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT THE AUTHOR COULD ASSIGN HIS RENEWAL INTEREST
DURING THE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT TERM.  BUT THE ENGLISH COURTS HELD THAT
THE AUTHOR'S RIGHT OF RENEWAL, ALTHOUGH CONTINGENT UPON HIS SURVIVING
THE ORIGINAL FOURTEEN-YEAR PERIOD, COULD BE ASSIGNED, AND THAT IF HE
DID SURVIVE THE ORIGINAL TERM HE WAS BOUND BY THE ASSIGNMENT.  CARNAN
V. BOWLES, 2 BRO. C.C. 80; RUNDELL V. MURRAY, JAC.  311; SEE MAUGHAM,
LAW OF LITERARY PROPERTY (1828) 73; CURTIS ON COPYRIGHT (1847) 235. 
SUBSEQUENT ENGLISH LEGISLATION ELIMINATED THE PROBLEM BY PROVIDING FOR
ONE CONTINUOUS TERM OF COPYRIGHT.  IN 1814 THE STATUTE WAS AMENDED TO
PROVIDE THAT THE AUTHOR AND HIS ASSIGNS SHOULD HAVE THE COPYRIGHT FOR
TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS, "AND ALSO, IF THE AUTHOR SHALL BE LIVING AT THE END
OF THAT PERIOD, FOR THE RESIDUE OF HIS NATURAL LIFE."  54 GEO. III, C.
156.  IN 1842 THE COPYRIGHT TERM WAS EXTENDED TO FORTY-TWO YEARS OR THE
LIFE OF THE AUTHOR AND SEVEN YEARS, WHICHEVER SHOULD PROVE LONGER.  5 &
6 VICT., C. 45; SEE MACGILLIVRAY, LAW OF COPYRIGHT (1902) 56-57.  THE
ENGLISH LAW TODAY, WITH MINOR QUALIFICATIONS NOT RELEVANT HERE, GIVES
THE AUTHOR AND HIS ASSIGNS THE EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHT FOR THE LIFE OF THE
AUTHOR AND FIFTY YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH.  COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1911, 1 & 2
GEO. V, C. 34; SEE OLDFIELD, LAW OF COPYRIGHT (1912) 60-66; ROBERTSON,
LAW OF COPYRIGHT (1912) 44-50; COPINGER, LAW OF COPYRIGHT (7TH ED.
1936) 78-86. 

IN THIS COUNTRY, THE COPYRIGHT LAWS ENACTED BY THE ORIGINAL THIRTEEN
STATES PRIOR TO 1789 WERE BASED LARGELY UPON THE STATUTE OF ANNE.  IN
1783 THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS PASSED A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE
STATES TO ADOPT COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF AUTHORS AND
PUBLISHERS.  THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDED THAT COPYRIGHT BE GIVEN TO
AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS "FOR A CERTAIN TIME, NOT LESS THAN FOURTEEN
YEARS FROM THE FIRST PUBLICATION; AND TO SECURE TO THE SAID AUTHORS, IF
THEY SHALL SURVIVE THE TERM FIRST MENTIONED, AND TO THEIR EXECUTORS,
ADMINISTRATORS AND ASSIGNS, THE COPYRIGHT OF SUCH BOOKS FOR ANOTHER
TERM OF TIME NOT LESS THAN FOURTEEN YEARS."  JOURNALS OF THE
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1774-1789(1922), VOL. XXIV, PP. 326-27.  WHEN THE
RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED, LAWS GOVERNING COPYRIGHTS WERE ON THE STATUTE
BOOKS OF AT LEAST THREE STATES, CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND
MARYLAND.  THE CONNECTICUT AND MARYLAND STATUTES SUBSTANTIALLY FOLLOWED
THE STATUTE OF ANNE:  IN BOTH STATES COPYRIGHT WAS GRANTED FOR A TERM
OF FOURTEEN YEARS, RENEWABLE FOR ANOTHER TERM OF THE SAME LENGTH IF THE
AUTHOR SURVIVED THE ORIGINAL TERM.  CONNECTICUT, ACTS & LAWS (GREEN,
1783) 617-19; MARYLAND, LAWS (GREEN, 1783) C. 34.  THE MARYLAND STATUTE
EMPLOYED THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE STATUTE OF ANNE, PROVIDING SIMPLY THAT
THE PRIVILEGE OF RENEWAL BELONGED TO THE AUTHOR.  THE CONNECTICUT
STATUTE, HOWEVER, EXPLICITLY INCORPORATED THE CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE
ENGLISH COURTS, AND CONFERRED THE RIGHT OF RENEWAL UPON THE AUTHOR AND
"HIS HEIRS AND ASSIGNS."  THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE CREATED A SINGLE
COPYRIGHT TERM OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS.  MASSACHUSETTS, ACTS & LAWS (EDES,
1783) 236. 

IN RESPONSE TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONGRESS, NINE OF THE TEN OTHER
STATES ENACTED COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION.  ONLY DELAWARE DID NOT ADOPT A
COPYRIGHT STATUTE.  FIVE STATES ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CONGRESS AND FOLLOWED THE STATUTE OF ANNE:  TWO COPYRIGHT TERMS OF
FOURTEEN YEARS, THE SECOND TERM CONTINGENT UPON THE AUTHOR'S SURVIVING
THE FIRST.  NEW JERSEY, ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (COLLINS, 1783) C.
21; PENNSYLVANIA, LAWS (BRADFORD, 1784) C. 125; SOUTH CAROLINA, ACTS,
ORDINANCES AND RESOLVES (MILLER, 1784) 49-51; CANDLER, COLONIAL RECORDS
OF GEORGIA (1911), VOL. XIX, PART 2, PP. 485-89; LAWS OF NEW YORK,
1786, C. 54.  FOUR OF THESE, LIKE THE EARLIER CONNECTICUT STATUTE,
EXPLICITLY PROVIDED THAT THE RIGHT OF RENEWAL COULD BE EXERCISED BY THE
AUTHOR'S HEIRS AND ASSIGNS, NAMELY, NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA, GEORGIA,
AND NEW YORK.  THE FOUR REMAINING STATES ENACTED STATUTES PROVIDING FOR
SINGLE TERMS OF VARYING LENGTHS, RANGING FROM FOURTEEN TO TWENTY-ONE
YEARS.  NEW HAMPSHIRE, LAWS (MELCHER, 1789) 161-62; RHODE ISLAND, ACTS
AND RESOLVES (CARTER, 1783) 6-7; VIRGINIA, ACTS (DUNLAP & HAYES, 1785)
8-9; NORTH CAROLINA, LAWS 1785, C. 24. 

EXERCISING THE POWER GRANTED BY ARTICLE 1, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION
- "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS, BY SECURING FOR
LIMITED TIMES TO AUTHORS AND INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THEIR
RESPECTIVE WRITINGS AND DISCOVERIES" - THE FIRST CONGRESS ENACTED A
COPYRIGHT STATUTE, THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1790, 1 STAT. 124.  AS MIGHT HAVE
BEEN EXPECTED, THIS ACT REFLECTED ITS HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS.  THE
AUTHOR WAS GIVEN THE COPYRIGHT FOR FOURTEEN YEARS AND "IF, AT THE
EXPIRATION OF THE SAID TERM, THE AUTHOR OR AUTHORS, OR ANY OF THEM, BE
LIVING, AND A CITIZEN OR CITIZENS OF THESE UNITED STATES, OR RESIDENT
THEREIN, THE SAME EXCLUSIVE RIGHT SHALL BE CONTINUED TO HIM OR THEM,
HIS OR THEIR EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS OR ASSIGNS, FOR THE FURTHER TERM
OF FOURTEEN YEARS."  1 STAT. 124.  IN VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE AND HISTORY
OF THIS PROVISION, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT IF THE PRESENT CASE HAD
ARISEN UNDER THE ACT OF 1790, THERE WOULD BE NO STATUTORY RESTRICTION
UPON THE ASSIGNABILITY OF THE AUTHOR'S RENEWAL INTEREST.  THE
PETITIONERS CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH A LIMITATION WAS INTRODUCED BY
SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION, PARTICULARLY THE COPYRIGHT ACTS OF 1831 AND
1909. 

THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 3, 1831, 4 STAT. 436, AMENDED THE 1790 ACT IN TWO
IMPORTANT RESPECTS:  THE ORIGINAL TERM WAS INCREASED FROM FOURTEEN TO
TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS, AND THE RENEWAL TERM, ALTHOUGH STILL ONLY FOURTEEN
YEARS LONG, COULD PASS TO THE AUTHOR'S WIDOW OR CHILDREN IF HE DID NOT
SURVIVE THE ORIGINAL TERM.  THE RENEWAL PROVISION, LIKE THE STATUTE OF
ANNE, DID NOT REFER TO THE AUTHOR'S "ASSIGNS."  THE PURPOSE OF THESE
CHANGES, AS STATED IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS "CHIEFLY TO ENLARGE THE PERIOD FOR THE
ENJOYMENT OF COPY-RIGHT, AND THEREBY TO PLACE AUTHORS IN THIS COUNTRY
MORE NEARLY UPON AN EQUALITY WITH AUTHORS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.  ...  IN
THE UNITED STATES, BY THE EXISTING LAWS, A COPY-RIGHT IS SECURED TO THE
AUTHOR, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, FOR FOURTEEN YEARS; AND IF, AT THE END
OF THAT PERIOD, HE BE LIVING, THEN FOR FOURTEEN YEARS MORE; BUT, IF HE
BE NOT THEN LIVING, THE COPY-RIGHT IS DETERMINED, ALTHOUGH, BY THE VERY
EVENT OF THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR, HIS FAMILY STAND IN MORE NEED OF THE
ONLY MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE ORDINARILY LEFT TO THEM."  REGISTER OF
DEBATES, VOL. 7, APPENDIX CXIX. 

PLAINLY, THEREFORE, THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1831 MERELY ENLARGED THE
BENEFITS OF THE COPYRIGHT; IT EXTENDED THE LENGTH OF THE ORIGINAL TERM
AND GAVE THE AUTHOR'S WIDOW AND CHILDREN THAT WHICH THERETOFORE THEY
DID NOT POSSESS, NAMELY, THE RIGHT OF RENEWAL TO WHICH THE AUTHOR WOULD
HAVE BEEN ENTITLED IF HE HAD SURVIVED THE ORIGINAL TERM.  THE
PETITIONERS ATTACH MUCH SIGNIFICANCE TO A SENTENCE APPEARING IN THE
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE:  "THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER THE AUTHOR OR THE
BOOKSELLER SHOULD RECEIVE THE REWARD."  IBID. THE MEANING OF THIS
SENTENCE, READ IN ITS CONTEXT, IS QUITE CLEAR.  BY PROVIDING THAT, IF
THE AUTHOR SHOULD NOT SURVIVE THE ORIGINAL TERM, HIS RENEWAL INTEREST
SHOULD, INSTEAD OF FALLING INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, PASS TO HIS WIDOW
AND CHILDREN, CONGRESS WAS OF COURSE PREFERRING THE AUTHOR TO THE
BOOKSELLER.  BUT NEITHER EXPRESSLY NOR IMPLIEDLY DID THE ACT OF 1831
IMPOSE ANY RESTRAINTS UPON THE RIGHT OF THE AUTHOR HIMSELF TO ASSIGN
HIS CONTINGENT INTEREST IN THE RENEWAL.  THAT THE ACT CONTAINED NO SUCH
LIMITATION WAS ACCEPTED WITHOUT QUESTION BOTH BY THE COURTS, SEE
PIERPONT V. FOWLE, 19 FED. CAS. 652(C.C. MASS. 1846), AND PAIGE V.
BANKS, 13 WALL.  608, WITH WHICH COMPARE WHITE-SMITH MUSIC PUB. CO. V.
GOFF, 187 F. 247, 250-53, AND BY COMMENTATORS, SEE CURTIS ON COPYRIGHT
(1847) 235; 2 MORGAN, LAW OF LITERATURE (1875) 229-30; SPALDING, LAW OF
COPYRIGHT (1878) 111; DRONE ON COPYRIGHT (1879) 326-32; BOWKER ON
COPYRIGHT (1886) 20, 34; 2 KENT'S COMMENTARIES (12TH ED. 1873) 510;
SOLBERG, COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND STATUTORY FORMALITIES (1904) 24. 
REPRESENTATIVE ELLSWORTH, FN4  WHO SUBMITTED THE COMMITTEE REPORT ON
THE BILL THAT BECAME THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1831, HIMSELF STATED
UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT AN AGREEMENT TO ASSIGN THE RENEWAL WAS BINDING UPON
THE AUTHOR.  SEE ELLSWORTH, COPY-RIGHT MANUAL (1862) 29. 

WE COME, FINALLY, TO THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF MARCH 4, 1909, 35 STAT.
1075, WHICH, EXCEPT FOR SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS NOT RELEVANT HERE, IS THE
STATUTE IN EFFECT AT THE PRESENT TIME.  IN DECEMBER, 1905, PRESIDENT
THEODORE ROOSEVELT URGED THE CONGRESS TO UNDERTAKE A REVISION OF THE
COPYRIGHT LAWS.  H. DOC. 1, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. LII.  IN RESPONSE
TO THIS MESSAGE THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICE FUNCTIONS, INVITED PERSONS INTERESTED IN COPYRIGHT
LEGISLATION TO ATTEND A CONFERENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVISING A
SATISFACTORY MEASURE.  SEVERAL CONFERENCES WERE HELD IN 1905 AND 1906,
RESULTING IN A BILL WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE BY THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS IN EACH BODY.  THIS BILL (H.R.
19853 AND S. 6330, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) PROVIDED, IN THE CASE OF
BOOKS AND MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS, FOR A SINGLE COPYRIGHT TERM LASTING FOR
THE LIFE OF THE AUTHOR AND FOR FIFTY YEARS THEREAFTER.  JOINT HEARINGS
BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES WERE HELD ON THIS BILL, BUT NO
ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE FIFTY-NINTH CONGRESS.  AT THE NEXT SESSION OF
CONGRESS, THIS AND OTHER BILLS TO REVISE THE COPYRIGHT LAWS WERE AGAIN
INTRODUCED.  EXTENSIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD.  THE RESULT OF THIS
ELABORATE LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM OF COPYRIGHT WAS A
BILL (H.R. 28192; S. 9440) WHICH BECAME THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909.  AS
STATED IN THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, THIS BILL "DIFFERS IN MANY
RESPECTS FROM ANY OF THE BILLS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED.  YOUR COMMITTEE
BELIEVES THAT IN ALL ITS ESSENTIAL FEATURES IT FAIRLY MEETS AND SOLVES
THE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THE COMMITTEE HAD TO DEAL  ...  "  H.
REP. 2222, 60TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4.  UNDER THE BILL, COPYRIGHT WAS
GIVEN FOR TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS, WITH A RENEWAL PERIOD OF THE SAME
DURATION.  THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE INDICATES THE REASONS FOR
THIS PROVISION.  THIS SECTION OF THE REPORT, TO WHICH MUCH IMPORTANCE
HAS BEEN ATTACHED BY THE JUDGES OF THE COURT BELOW AND BY THE PARTIES,
MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM WITH WHICH THE
CONGRESS WAS PRESENTED: SHOULD THERE BE ONE LONG TERM, AS WAS PROVIDED
FOR IN THE BILL RESULTING FROM THE CONFERENCES HELD BY THE LIBRARIAN OF
CONGRESS, OR SHOULD THERE BE TWO SHORTER TERMS?  THE HOUSE AND SENATE
COMMITTEES CHOSE THE LATTER ALTERNATIVE.  THEY WERE AWARE THAT AN
ASSIGNMENT BY THE AUTHOR OF HIS "COPYRIGHT" IN GENERAL TERMS DID NOT
INCLUDE CONVEYANCE OF HIS RENEWAL INTEREST.  SEE PIERPONT V. FOWLE, 19
FED. CAS. 652(C.C. MASS. 1846); 2 MORGAN, LAW OF LITERATURE (1875) 229
30; MACGILLIVRAY, LAW OF COPYRIGHT (1902) 267.  DURING THE HEARINGS OF
THE JOINT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTATIVE CURRIER THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE, REFERRED TO THE DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED BY MARK TWAIN: 

"MR. CLEMENS TOLD ME THAT HE SOLD THE COPYRIGHT FOR INNOCENTS ABROAD
FOR A VERY SMALL SUM, AND HE GOT VERY LITTLE OUT OF THE INNOCENTS
ABROAD UNTIL THE TWENTY-EIGHT-YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED, AND THEN HIS
CONTRACT DID NOT COVER THE RENEWAL PERIOD, AND IN THE FOURTEEN YEARS OF
THE RENEWAL PERIOD HE WAS ABLE TO GET OUT OF IT ALL OF THE PROFITS." 
(HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEES ON PATENTS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ON PENDING BILLS TO AMEND AND CONSOLIDATE THE ACTS
RESPECTING COPYRIGHT, 60TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 20.) 

BY PROVIDING FOR TWO COPYRIGHT TERMS, EACH OF RELATIVELY SHORT
DURATION, CONGRESS ENABLED THE AUTHOR TO SELL HIS "COPYRIGHT" WITHOUT
LOSING HIS RENEWAL INTEREST.  IF THE AUTHOR'S COPYRIGHT EXTENDED OVER A
SINGLE, LONGER TERM, HIS SALE OF THE "COPYRIGHT" WOULD TERMINATE HIS
ENTIRE INTEREST.  THAT THIS IS THE BASIC CONSIDERATION OF POLICY
UNDERLYING THE RENEWAL PROVISION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909 CLEARLY
APPEARS FROM THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WHICH SUBMITTED THE
LEGISLATION (THE SENATE COMMITTEE ADOPTED THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE, SEE SEN. REP. 1108, 60TH CONG., 2D SESS.): 

"SECTION 23 DEALS WITH THE TERM OF THE COPYRIGHT.  UNDER EXISTING LAW
THE COPYRIGHT TERM IS TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS, WITH THE RIGHT OF RENEWAL BY
THE AUTHOR, OR BY THE AUTHOR'S WIDOW OR CHILDREN IF HE BE DEAD, FOR A
FURTHER TERM OF FOURTEEN YEARS.  THE ACT OF 1790 PROVIDED FOR AN
ORIGINAL TERM OF FOURTEEN YEARS, WITH THE RIGHT OF RENEWAL FOR FOURTEEN
YEARS.  THE ACT OF 1831 EXTENDED THE TERM TO ITS PRESENT LENGTH.  IT
WAS URGED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE A SINGLE
TERM WITHOUT ANY RIGHT OF RENEWAL, AND A TERM OF LIFE AND FIFTY YEARS
WAS SUGGESTED.  YOUR COMMITTEE, AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION, DECIDED THAT
IT WAS DISTINCTLY TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE AUTHOR TO PRESERVE THE
RENEWAL PERIOD.  IT NOT INFREQUENTLY HAPPENS THAT THE AUTHOR SELLS HIS
COPYRIGHT OUTRIGHT TO A PUBLISHER FOR A COMPARATIVELY SMALL SUM.  IF
THE WORK PROVES TO BE A GREAT SUCCESS AND LIVES BEYOND THE TERM OF
TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS, YOUR COMMITTEE FELT THAT IT SHOULD BE THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT OF THE AUTHOR TO TAKE THE RENEWAL TERM, AND THE LAW SHOULD BE
FRAMED AS IS THE EXISTING LAW, SO THAT HE COULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THAT
RIGHT. 

"THE PRESENT TERM OF TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS, WITH THE RIGHT OF RENEWAL
FOR FOURTEEN YEARS, IN MANY CASES IS INSUFFICIENT.  THE TERMS, TAKEN
TOGETHER, OUGHT TO BE LONG ENOUGH TO GIVE THE AUTHOR THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO HIS WORK FOR SUCH A PERIOD THAT THERE WOULD BE NO PROBABILITY
OF ITS BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM HIM IN HIS OLD AGE, WHEN, PERHAPS, HE
NEEDS IT THE MOST.  A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COPYRIGHTS ARE EVER
RENEWED.  ALL USE OF THEM CEASES IN MOST CASES LONG BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS.  IN THE COMPARATIVELY FEW CASES WHERE
THE WORK SURVIVES THE ORIGINAL TERM THE AUTHOR OUGHT TO BE GIVEN AN
ADEQUATE RENEWAL TERM.  IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE OF A BRILLIANT WORK OF
LITERATURE, ART, OR MUSICAL COMPOSITION IT CONTINUES TO HAVE A VALUE
FOR A LONG PERIOD, BUT THIS VALUE IS DEPENDENT UPON THE MERIT OF THE
COMPOSITION.  JUST IN PROPORTION AS THE COMPOSITION IS MERITORIOUS AND
DESERVING WILL IT CONTINUE TO BE PROFITABLE, PROVIDED THE COPYRIGHT IS
EXTENDED SO LONG; AND IT IS BELIEVED THAT IN ALL SUCH CASES WHERE THE
MERIT IS VERY HIGH THIS TERM IS CERTAINLY NOT TOO LONG. 

"YOUR COMMITTEE DO NOT FAVOR AND THE BILL DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY
EXTENSION OF THE ORIGINAL TERM OF TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS, BUT IT DOES
PROVIDE FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE RENEWAL TERM FROM FOURTEEN YEARS TO
TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS; AND IT MAKES SOME CHANGE IN EXISTING LAW AS TO
THOSE WHO MAY APPLY FOR THE RENEWAL.  INSTEAD OF CONFINING THE RIGHT OF
RENEWAL TO THE AUTHOR, IF STILL LIVING, OR TO THE WIDOW OR CHILDREN OF
THE AUTHOR, IF HE BE DEAD, WE PROVIDE THAT THE AUTHOR OF SUCH WORK, IF
STILL LIVING, MAY APPLY FOR THE RENEWAL, OR THE WIDOW, WIDOWER, OR
CHILDREN OF THE AUTHOR, IF THE AUTHOR BE NOT LIVING, OR IF SUCH AUTHOR,
WIDOW, WIDOWER, OR CHILDREN BE NOT LIVING, THEN THE AUTHOR'S EXECUTORS,
OR, IN THE ABSENCE OF A WILL, HIS NEXT OF KIN.  IT WAS NOT THE
INTENTION TO PERMIT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO APPLY FOR THE RENEWAL, BUT TO
PERMIT THE AUTHOR WHO HAD NO WIFE OR CHILDREN TO BEQUEATH BY WILL THE
RIGHT TO APPLY FOR THE RENEWAL."  (H. REP. 2222, 60TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
PP. 14-15.) 

THE REPORT CANNOT BE TORTURED, BY READING IT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN, INTO AN EXPRESSION OF A
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO NULLIFY AGREEMENTS BY AUTHORS TO ASSIGN THEIR
RENEWAL INTERESTS.  IF CONGRESS, SPEAKING THROUGH ITS RESPONSIBLE
MEMBERS, HAD ANY INTENTION OF ALTERING WHAT THERETOFORE HAD NOT BEEN
QUESTIONED, NAMELY, THAT THERE WERE NO STATUTORY RESTRAINTS UPON THE
ASSIGNMENT BY AUTHORS OF THEIR RENEWAL RIGHTS, IT IS ALMOST CERTAIN
THAT SUCH PURPOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN MANIFESTED.  THE LEGISLATIVE
MATERIALS REVEAL NO SUCH INTENTION. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW, THEREFORE, THAT NEITHER THE LANGUAGE
NOR THE HISTORY OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909 LEND SUPPORT TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE "EXISTING LAW" PRIOR TO 1909, UNDER WHICH AUTHORS
WERE FREE TO ASSIGN THEIR RENEWAL INTERESTS IF THEY WERE SO DISPOSED,
WAS INTENDED TO BE ALTERED.  WE AGREE, ALSO, THAT THERE ARE NO
COMPELLING CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WHICH COULD JUSTIFY READING INTO
THE ACT A CONSTRUCTION SO AT VARIANCE WITH ITS HISTORY.  THE POLICY OF
THE COPYRIGHT LAW, WE ARE TOLD, IS TO PROTECT THE AUTHOR - IF NEED BE,
FROM HIMSELF - AND A CONSTRUCTION UNDER WHICH THE AUTHOR IS POWERLESS
TO ASSIGN HIS RENEWAL INTEREST FURTHERS THIS POLICY.  WE ARE ASKED TO
RECOGNIZE THAT AUTHORS ARE CONGENITALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, THAT FREQUENTLY
THEY ARE SO SORELY PRESSED FOR FUNDS THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO SELL
THEIR WORK FOR A MERE PITTANCE, AND THEREFORE ASSIGNMENTS MADE BY THEM
SHOULD NOT BE UPHELD.  IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN TWO
PROBLEMS IMPLIED IN THESE SITUATIONS:  WHETHER, DESPITE THE CONTRARY
DIRECTION GIVEN TO THIS LEGISLATION BY THE MOMENTUM OF HISTORY, WE ARE
TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS THE ENACTMENT OF AN ABSOLUTE STATUTORY BAR
AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS OF AUTHORS' RENEWAL INTERESTS, AND SECONDLY,
WHETHER, ALTHOUGH THERE BE NO SUCH STATUTORY BAR, A PARTICULAR
ASSIGNMENT SHOULD BE DENIED ENFORCEMENT BY THE COURTS BECAUSE IT WAS
MADE UNDER OPPRESSIVE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE FIRST QUESTION ALONE IS
PRESENTED HERE, AND WE MAKE NO INTIMATIONS UPON THE OTHER.  IT IS ONE
THING TO HOLD THAT THE COURTS SHOULD NOT MAKE THEMSELVES INSTRUMENTS OF
INJUSTICE BY LENDING THEIR AID TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN AGREEMENT WHERE
THE AUTHOR WAS UNDER SUCH COERCION OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ENFORCEMENT
WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE.  CF. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 248 U.S. 67, 70; LONERGAN V. BUFORD, 148 U.S. 581, 589-91;
SNYDER V. ROSENBAUM, 215 U.S. 261, 265-66; POST V. JONES, 19 HOW.  150,
160; THE ELFRIDA, 172 U.S. 186, 193-94.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER TO
HOLD, AS WE ARE ASKED IN THIS CASE, THAT REGARDLESS OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING A PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT, NO AGREEMENTS BY
AUTHORS TO ASSIGN THEIR RENEWAL INTERESTS ARE BINDING. 

IT IS NOT FOR COURTS TO JUDGE WHETHER THE INTERESTS OF AUTHORS
CLEARLY LIE UPON ONE SIDE OF THIS QUESTION RATHER THAN THE OTHER.  IF
AN AUTHOR CANNOT MAKE AN EFFECTIVE ASSIGNMENT OF HIS RENEWAL, IT MAY BE
WORTHLESS TO HIM WHEN HE IS MOST IN NEED.  NOBODY WOULD PAY AN AUTHOR
FOR SOMETHING HE CANNOT SELL.  WE CANNOT DRAW A PRINCIPLE OF LAW FROM
THE FAMILIAR STORIES OF GARRET-POVERTY OF SOME MEN OF LITERARY GENIUS. 
EVEN IF WE COULD DO SO, WE CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH MEN WOULD REGARD WITH
FAVOR A RULE OF LAW PREVENTING THEM FROM REALIZING ON THEIR ASSETS WHEN
THEY ARE MOST IN NEED OF FUNDS.  NOR CAN WE BE UNMINDFUL OF THE FACT
THAT AUTHORS HAVE THEMSELVES DEVISED MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING THEIR
INTERESTS.  WE DO NOT HAVE SUCH ASSURED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT AUTHORSHIP, AND
PARTICULARLY ABOUT SONG WRITING, OR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GIFTED WRITERS
AND COMPOSERS, AS TO JUSTIFY US AS JUDGES IN IMPORTING INTO
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION A DENIAL TO AUTHORS OF THE FREEDOM TO DISPOSE
OF THEIR PROPERTY POSSESSED BY OTHERS.  WHILE AUTHORS MAY HAVE HABITS
MAKING FOR INTERMITTENT WANT, THEY MAY HAVE NO LESS A SPIRIT OF
INDEPENDENCE WHICH WOULD RESENT TREATMENT OF THEM AS WARDS UNDER
GUARDIANSHIP OF THE LAW. 

WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909 DOES NOT
NULLIFY AGREEMENTS BY AUTHORS TO ASSIGN THEIR RENEWAL INTERESTS.  WE
ARE FORTIFIED IN THIS CONCLUSION BY REFERENCE TO THE ACTUAL PRACTICES
OF AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS WITH RESPECT TO ASSIGNMENTS OF RENEWALS, AS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS OF THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE.  SINCE THE ENACTMENT
OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1870, 16 STAT. 198, 213, ASSIGNMENTS OF
COPYRIGHTS MUST BE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF
COPYRIGHTS.  THE RECORDS OF THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE, WE ARE ADVISED, SHOW
THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY, 1870, TO JULY, 1871, THE FIRST PERIOD
IN WHICH ASSIGNMENTS WERE RECORDED IN THE OFFICE, 223 ASSIGNMENTS WERE
REGISTERED.  OF THESE 14 WERE ASSIGNMENTS OF RENEWAL INTERESTS. 
SIMILARLY, DURING THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1909, IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
THE ENACTMENT OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF THAT YEAR, 304 ASSIGNMENTS WERE
RECORDED, AND OF THESE 62 WERE ASSIGNMENTS OF RENEWAL INTERESTS.  IN
THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOLLOWING THE ENACTMENT OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF
1909, THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE:  404 ASSIGNMENTS, OF WHICH 68
WERE TRANSFERS OF RENEWALS.  AND, TO ROUND OUT THE PICTURE, IN THE MOST
RECENT COMPLETE VOLUME OF RECORDS (COVERING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 27,
1943, TO FEBRUARY 12, 1943), 135 ASSIGNMENTS WERE RECORDED, AND OF
THESE 29 WERE ASSIGNMENTS OF RENEWALS.  MANY ASSIGNMENTS HAVE THUS BEEN
ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WERE VALID AND
ENFORCEABLE.    IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS RELEVANT
TO OUR PROBLEM, WE HAVE CONSULTED ALL OF THE TWENTY TREATISES ON THE
AMERICAN LAW OF COPYRIGHT AVAILABLE AT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.  EIGHT
OF THESE STATE, WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, THAT AN AUTHOR CAN EFFECTIVELY
AGREE TO ASSIGN HIS RENEWAL INTEREST BEFORE IT HAS BEEN SECURED; FN5
TWO STATE THE RULE WITH SOME RESERVATIONS; FN6  TEN ARE EITHER SILENT
OR AMBIGUOUS.  FN7  AND THE FORMS OF ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN
TREATISES AND STANDARD FORM-BOOKS GENERALLY CONTAIN A PROVISION
DESIGNED TO TRANSFER THE RENEWAL INTEREST.  FN8 

THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE INDICATES, THEREFORE, THAT RENEWAL INTERESTS
OF AUTHORS HAVE BEEN REGARDED AS ASSIGNABLE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909.  TO HOLD AT THIS LATE DATE THAT, AS A MATTER OF
LAW, SUCH INTERESTS ARE NOT ASSIGNABLE WOULD BE TO REJECT ALL RELEVANT
AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT READ AS FOLLOWS: 

SEC. 23.  THAT THE COPYRIGHT SECURED BY THIS ACT SHALL ENDURE FOR
TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION, WHETHER THE
COPYRIGHTED WORK BEARS THE AUTHOR'S TRUE NAME OR IS PUBLISHED
ANONYMOUSLY OR UNDER AN ASSUMED NAME:  PROVIDED, THAT IN THE CASE OF
ANY POSTHUMOUS WORK OR OF ANY PERIODICAL, CYCLOPEDIC, OR OTHER
COMPOSITE WORK UPON WHICH THE COPYRIGHT WAS ORIGINALLY SECURED BY THE
PROPRIETOR THEREOF, OR OF ANY WORK COPYRIGHTED BY A CORPORATE BODY
(OTHERWISE THAN AS ASSIGNEE OR LICENSEE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AUTHOR) OR BY
AN EMPLOYER FOR WHOM SUCH WORK IS MADE FOR HIRE, THE PROPRIETOR OF SUCH
COPYRIGHT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF THE COPYRIGHT
IN SUCH WORK FOR THE FURTHER TERM OF TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS WHEN
APPLICATION FOR SUCH RENEWAL AND EXTENSION SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND DULY REGISTERED THEREIN WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO
THE EXPIRATION OF THE ORIGINAL TERM OF COPYRIGHT:  AND PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER COPYRIGHTED WORK, INCLUDING A
CONTRIBUTION BY AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHOR TO A PERIODICAL OR TO A CYCLOPEDIC
OR OTHER COMPOSITE WORK, THE AUTHOR OF SUCH WORK, IF STILL LIVING, OR
THE WIDOW, WIDOWER, OR CHILDREN OF THE AUTHOR, IF THE AUTHOR BE NOT
LIVING, OR IF SUCH AUTHOR, WIDOW, WIDOWER, OR CHILDREN BE NOT LIVING,
THEN THE AUTHOR'S EXECUTORS, OR IN THE ABSENCE OF A WILL, HIS NEXT OF
KIN SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF THE COPYRIGHT IN
SUCH WORK FOR A FURTHER TERM OF TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS WHEN APPLICATION FOR
SUCH RENEWAL AND EXTENSION SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE
AND DULY REGISTERED THEREIN WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF
THE ORIGINAL TERM OF COPYRIGHT:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT IN DEFAULT
OF THE REGISTRATION OF SUCH APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL AND EXTENSION, THE
COPYRIGHT IN ANY WORK SHALL DETERMINE AT THE EXPIRATION OF TWENTY-EIGHT
YEARS FROM FIRST PUBLICATION. 

SEC. 42.  THAT COPYRIGHT SECURED UNDER THIS OR PREVIOUS ACTS OF THE
UNITED STATES MAY BE ASSIGNED, GRANTED, OR MORTGAGED BY AN INSTRUMENT
IN WRITING SIGNED BY THE PROPRIETOR OF THE COPYRIGHT, OR MAY BE
BEQUEATHED BY WILL. 

FN2  BALL AND OLCOTT WERE NO LONGER LIVING AT THE TIME, AND UNDER
SEC. 23 OF THE ACT THEIR INTERESTS IN THE RENEWAL PASSED TO THEIR
WIDOWS.  WITMARK IS ALSO THE ASSIGNEE OF MRS. OLCOTT'S INTEREST IN THE
RENEWAL COPYRIGHT, AND MRS. BALL HAS ASSIGNED HER INTEREST TO ANOTHER
MUSIC PUBLISHER.  THE VALIDITY OF NEITHER ASSIGNMENT IS INVOLVED IN
THIS SUIT. 

FN3  IN OPPOSING THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, GRAFF
SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING HE "WAS IN DESPERATE FINANCIAL STRAITS"
WHEN HE ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT OF MAY 19, 1917.  THE DISTRICT COURT
MADE NO FINDINGS UPON AND DID NOT OTHERWISE DEAL WITH THE ISSUE THAT
THIS ALLEGATION MAY RAISE. 

FN4  WILLIAM WOLCOTT ELLSWORTH, THE SON OF OLIVER ELLSWORTH, THIRD
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEE BIOGRAPHICAL DIRECTORY OF THE
AMERICAN CONGRESS, 1774-1927(1928) 943. 

FN5  CURTIS ON COPYRIGHT (1847) 235; DRONE ON COPYRIGHT (1879) 326
32; HOWELL, COPYRIGHT LAW (1942) 108; 2 MORGAN, LAW OF LITERATURE
(1875) 229-30; SPALDING, LAW OF COPYRIGHT (1878) 111; MACGILLIVRAY, LAW
OF COPYRIGHT (1902) 266-67; WITTENBERG, PROTECTION AND MARKETING OF
LITERARY PROPERTY (1937) 45; LADAS, INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC PROPERTY (1938) 772-73. 

FN6  DEWOLF, OUTLINE OF COPYRIGHT LAW (1925) 65-66; WEIL, AMERICAN
COPYRIGHT LAW (1917) 365-66. 

FN7  AMDUR, COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE (1936) 540-41; FROHLICH AND
SCHWARTZ, LAW OF MOTION PICTURES (1918) 548-49; MARCHETTI, LAW OF
STAGE, SCREEN, AND RADIO (1936) 67; BOWKER, COPYRIGHT - ITS HISTORY AND
ITS LAW (1912) 117, 438; BUMP, LAW OF PATENTS, TRADE-MARKS, LABELS, AND
COPYRIGHTS (2D ED. 1884); ELFRETH, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, AND TRADE-MARKS
(1913); GRAHAM, PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (2D ED. 1921); LAW,
COPYRIGHT AND PATENT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1790-1870(2D ED. 1870);
COPINGER, LAW OF COPYRIGHT (7TH ED. 1936); SHAFTER, MUSICAL COPYRIGHT
(2D ED. 1939) 174. 

FN8  WITTENBERG, PROTECTION AND MARKETING OF LITERARY PROPERTY (1937)
195, 261; SHAFTER, MUSICAL COPYRIGHT (2D ED. 1939) 577; GORDON,
ANNOTATED FORMS OF AGREEMENT (1932) 32; 6 WINSLOW, FORMS OF PLEADING
AND PRACTICE (3D ED. 1934) SEC. 8267, PP. 501-02; BIRDSEYE,
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GENERAL BUSINESS AND LEGAL FORMS (1924) 280-81; AMDUR,
COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE (1936) 836; CHURCH, LEGAL AND BUSINESS FORMS
(2D ED. 1925) 344. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
CONCLUDE THAT THE ANALYSIS OF THE LANGUAGE AND HISTORY OF THE COPYRIGHT
LAW IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FRANK IN THE COURT BELOW, 125
F.2D 949, 954, DEMONSTRATES A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO RESERVE THE
RENEWAL PRIVILEGE FOR THE PERSONAL BENEFIT OF AUTHORS AND THEIR
FAMILIES.  THEY BELIEVE THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :













DE ZON V. AMER. PRESIDENT LINES, 318 U.S. 660 


NO. 436.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1943.  - DECIDED APRIL 5, 1943.  - 129 F.2D
404, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SEAMAN WHO, IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, SUFFERS PHYSICAL
INJURY DUE TO THE NEGLECT OR INCOMPETENCE OF THE SHIP'S DOCTOR IN
TREATING HIS ILLNESS HAS A RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE SHIPOWNER UNDER
THE JONES ACT.  P. 668. 

2.  TO SUCH AN ACTION IT IS NO DEFENSE THAT THE SHIPOWNER USED DUE
CARE IN SELECTING THE SHIP'S DOCTOR.  P. 664. 

3.  IN THIS CASE, INVOLVING THE RIGHT OF A SEAMAN TO RECOVER FOR
INJURY TO AND FOR THE LOSS OF AN EYE, ALLEGED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM
NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP'S DOCTOR IN HIS DIAGNOSIS, OR IN HIS FAILURE TO
SEND THE SEAMAN TO A HOSPITAL AT A PORT OF CALL, THERE WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION TO THE JURY. 
P. 671. 

DE ZON V. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
ON A DIRECTED VERDICT IN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
BROUGHT BY A SEAMAN AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER, THE ABOVE-NAMED STEAMSHIP
COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A SEAMAN, BROUGHT AN ACTION AT LAW UNDER THE JONES ACT
FN1  AGAINST THE RESPONDENT SHIPOWNER.  HE ALLEGED THAT WHILE IN THE
SERVICE OF ITS SHIP HE SUFFERED INJURIES WHICH RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF
HIS RIGHT EYE, BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP'S DOCTOR IN
TREATING HIM AND IN FAILING TO HAVE HIM HOSPITALIZED ASHORE.  THE TRIAL
COURT DIRECTED A VERDICT AGAINST HIM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASON, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE SHIPOWNER'S DUTY TO THE
SEAMAN WAS ONLY TO USE DUE CARE IN SELECTING A COMPETENT PHYSICIAN AND,
THAT BEING DONE, WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS INCOMPETENCE OR
NEGLIGENCE.  129 F.2D 404.  THIS HOLDING RAISED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
OF FEDERAL LAW UNDER THE JONES ACT NOT PASSED ON HERETOFORE BY THIS
COURT.  ACCORDINGLY WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  317 U.S. 617. 

THE PETITIONER SIGNED ARTICLES AS A MARINE FIREMAN FOR A VOYAGE, FROM
SAN FRANCISCO TO THE ORIENT AND RETURN, ON THE RESPONDENT'S PASSENGER
SHIP PRESIDENT TAFT.  THE VOYAGE WAS OF ABOUT SIXTY DAYS' DURATION,
ENDING AT THE HOME PORT ON JUNE 10, 1940.  ON JUNE 3, WHILE PETITIONER
WAS PAINTING THE OUTSIDE OF A BOILER, A CHIP OF DRY ALUMINUM PAINT
LODGED IN HIS RIGHT EYE, FOLLOWED PROBABLY BY GETTING SOME OF THE
LIQUID PAINT IN AS WELL.  HE WENT TO HIS QUARTERS AND WASHED THE EYE
WITH A WASH IN AN EYE CUP.  AT THIS TIME HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT
ANYTHING WAS SERIOUSLY AMISS WITH HIS EYE, AND HE RETURNED TO WORK. 
WHEN HE AROSE THE NEXT MORNING HE WAS SUFFERING CONSIDERABLY FROM HIS
EYE.  HE TOLD THE SHIP'S DOCTOR OF THIS HISTORY, AND THE DOCTOR
EXAMINED HIS EYE WITHOUT THE AID OF ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, WASHED IT
OUT WITH A BORIC SOLUTION, IRRIGATED IT WITH ARGYROL, AND BANDAGED IT.
HE TOLD PETITIONER NOT TO WORK, AND THE PETITIONER REPAIRED TO HIS
QUARTERS AND STAYED THERE UNTIL THE SHIP CAME INTO HONOLULU, ABOUT 4:00
IN THE AFTERNOON.  THEN THE SHIP'S DOCTOR GAVE HIM AUTHORITY FROM THE
MASTER TO GO ASHORE FOR EXAMINATION AT THE OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT OF THE
MARINE HOSPITAL IN HONOLULU.  PETITIONER FOUND THIS CLOSED, AND WENT TO
QUEENS HOSPITAL.  THERE HE WAS EXAMINED BY DOCTOR YAP, A PHYSICIAN OF
UNSPECIFIED QUALIFICATIONS, WHO DIAGNOSED THE INJURY AS "ACUTE
TRAUMATIC CONJUNCTIVITIS" (INJURY TO OUTER COATING OF EYE RESULTING
FROM A BLOW), WASHED OUT THE EYE WITH A BORIC ACID WASH, AND APPLIED
YELLOW OXIDE AND AN EYE PAD.  DOCTOR YAP TOLD THE PETITIONER THAT HE
COULD NOT DO MUCH FOR HIM, BUT ADVISED PETITIONER TO GET OFF THE SHIP
AND BE HOSPITALIZED ASHORE.  THE PETITIONER RETURNED TO THE SHIP,
ARRIVING AT ABOUT 6:00 IN THE EVENING.  THE SHIP'S DOCTOR WAS ASHORE,
AND, SINCE THE PETITIONER DID NOT FEEL WELL, THE SHIP'S MEDICAL ORDERLY
PUT HIM TO BED.  FORTY MINUTES BEFORE SAILING TIME, THE SHIP'S DOCTOR
RETURNED.  HE SAW PETITIONER AT 11:30 AND WAS INFORMED OF DOCTOR YAP'S
RECOMMENDATION, THEN TOLD THE PETITIONER THAT:  "WELL, IF YOU WANT TO
TAKE A CHANCE OR A GAMBLE ON IT YOU CAN GO ON TO THE STATES.  IT DON'T
LOOK SO BAD.  IT CAN BE ALL RIGHT."  THE PETITIONER ANSWERED:  "YOU ARE
THE BOSS; IF YOU WANT TO GO, LET'S GO." 

THE SHIP SAILED AT 12:00 MIDNIGHT ON JUNE 4, WITH PETITIONER
HOSPITALIZED ABOARD.  THE PETITIONER'S INJURED RIGHT EYE GOT STEADILY
WORSE, AND, IN THE SHIP'S DOCTOR'S TERM, WAS IN AN "ALARMING" CONDITION
TWO OR THREE DAYS LATER.  THE SHIP'S DOCTOR SOUGHT THE ADVICE OF
ANOTHER DOCTOR, A PASSENGER, WHO HAD RESIDED IN THE ORIENT AND WAS
FAMILIAR WITH EYE INFECTIONS COMMON THERE.  HE THOUGHT THAT NONE OF
THESE WAS PRESENT, BUT SUGGESTED THAT PETITIONER BE GIVEN
SULFAPYRIDINE, A DRUG USED TO COMBAT EYE INFECTIONS; AND THIS ADVICE
WAS FOLLOWED.  ON ARRIVAL AT SAN FRANCISCO ON JUNE 10, THE PETITIONER
WAS TAKEN TO THE MARINE HOSPITAL BY AMBULANCE. 

ON THE EVENING OF JUNE 11, A CONSULTING EYE SPECIALIST WAS CALLED IN.
IN THE BELIEF THAT THERE WAS A FOREIGN BODY IN THE EYE HE RECOMMENDED
AN X-RAY, WHICH WAS MADE ON THE NEXT DAY.  THEREAFTER HE REPORTED THAT
THE ANTERIOR CHAMBER OF THE EYE WAS FILLED WITH DARK HEMORRHAGE
MATERIAL, AND THAT IN THAT CHAMBER THERE WAS "FIBRIN  ...  OR SCAR OF
PREVIOUS OPERATION, MOST LIKELY THE FORMER," WITH THE COMMENT THAT
"THIS IS A PECULIAR LOOKING EYE WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO FIT IN WITH THE
HISTORY OF IMPACT WITH PAINT SCALE OR POSSIBLE STEEL FRAGMENT.  THE
HEMORRHAGE SUGGESTS PERFORATION WITH INJURY TO IRIS OR CILIARY BODY. 
THERE IS SMALL LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTUSION CAUSING IT."  PETITIONER'S
INJURY WAS FINALLY DIAGNOSED ON JUNE 15 AS "HEMORRHAGE, ANTERIOR
CHAMBER, RIGHT EYE, TRAUMATIC."  THE EYE WAS REMOVED ON JULY 5.  IN THE
COURSE OF AFTERTREATMENT THERE WAS ENTERED IN THE HOSPITAL RECORDS, ON
SEPTEMBER 10, THE STATEMENT THAT:  "AT THIS TIME PATIENT CHANGES
HISTORY OF INJURY AND ALSO STATES HE HAD A MUSCLE OPERATION ON RIGHT
EYE IN 1937.  INJURY NOW ALLEGED TO CAUSE THE DISABILITY WAS A SCALE OF
PAINT IN THE EYE AND IT IS THE OPINION OF THE SURGEON IN CHARGE THAT
THIS WOULD GIVE AN INTRAOCULAR HEMORRHAGE SUCH AS WAS PRESENT IN THE
RIGHT EYE.  DIAGNOSIS CHANGED SEPTEMBER 10, 1940." 

DOCTOR FAED, CONNECTED WITH THE MARINE HOSPITAL IN SAN FRANCISCO, WHO
HAD REMOVED THE EYE, WAS CALLED AS PETITIONER'S WITNESS.  HE TESTIFIED
THAT WHETHER AN EYE INJURY CAN BE DIAGNOSED AS CONJUNCTIVITIS, AS THE
SHIP'S DOCTOR HAD DIAGNOSED IT, OR AS A HEMORRHAGE, AS WAS FINALLY THE
DIAGNOSIS AT THE MARINE HOSPITAL, DEPENDS UPON THE DOCTOR AND THE
FACILITIES AT HIS COMMAND.  HE WAS ASKED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION WHETHER
"IF SUCH TREATMENT AS WAS GIVEN IN THE MARINE HOSPITAL ON JUNE 10TH AND
FOLLOWING HAD BEEN AFFORDED MR. DE ZON ON JUNE 3RD, 4TH AND FOLLOWING,
...  THAT MIGHT HAVE SAVED HIS EYE," AND ANSWERED THAT "I AM UNABLE TO
GIVE AN OPINION ABOUT THAT."  THEN, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION WHETHER,
ON THE BASIS OF THE WHOLE HISTORY OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THAT DEVELOPED
AT THE MARINE HOSPITAL AT SAN FRANCISCO, IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT
PETITIONER "SHOULD HAVE BEEN HOSPITALIZED ON JUNE 3RD AND 4TH, WHEN
THIS TROUBLE TO THE EYE FIRST OCCURRED," HE ANSWERED THAT:  "I BELIEVE
HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HOSPITALIZED; IT MIGHT HAVE HELPED SOME."  HE DID
NOT WISH, HOWEVER, TO "GO ON RECORD" AS SAYING THAT IT WOULD HAVE
AIDED, AND TESTIFIED FURTHER ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT, NOT BEING SURE
WHETHER TO HOSPITALIZE PETITIONER AT THE EARLIER DATE, HE "WOULD HAVE
GIVEN THE ADVANTAGE TO THE PATIENT."  ANOTHER AND APPARENTLY EQUALLY
WELL QUALIFIED EYE SPECIALIST, OFFERED AS RESPONDENT'S WITNESS,
TESTIFIED, AS DID THE SHIP'S DOCTOR, THAT THE SHIP'S DOCTOR HAD GIVEN
THE STANDARD TREATMENT FOR CONJUNCTIVITIS, AND THAT ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT SUCH AS WAS GIVEN THE PETITIONER AT SAN FRANCISCO WOULD HAVE
HAD NO BENEFICIAL EFFECT, AND MIGHT HAVE HAD HARMFUL EFFECTS, IF GIVEN
BEFORE THE PERIOD OF TIME WHICH ELAPSED ON THE VOYAGE TO SAN
FRANCISCO.  THIS SPECIALIST ALSO TESTIFIED, AND WITHOUT CONTRADICTION,
THAT IT WAS TOO MUCH TO EXPECT OF THE ORDINARY GENERAL PRACTITIONER,
SUCH AS THE SHIP'S DOCTOR WAS, TO BE ABLE TO DIAGNOSE PETITIONER'S CASE
AS A DANGEROUS ONE. 

THE TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT IS UNCONTRADICTED THAT THE SHIP'S DOCTOR
WAS A DULY LICENSED PHYSICIAN IN CALIFORNIA, A GENERAL PRACTITIONER
WITH SOME SURGICAL EXPERIENCE, AND WAS SELECTED ONLY AFTER CAREFUL
INQUIRY HAD SATISFIED THE CHIEF SURGEON OF THE RESPONDENT THAT HE WAS A
COMPETENT MAN FOR THE POST.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT PROPER INVESTIGATION
WAS MADE, AND IT WAS LEARNED THAT HE WAS A MAN OF GOOD REPUTATION AND
CHARACTER. 

RESPONDENT'S CHIEF SURGEON ALSO TESTIFIED THAT AUTHORITY TO DECIDE
WHETHER A SEAMAN SHOULD BE TREATED, AND THE MANNER OF TREATMENT, WAS
VESTED IN THE MASTER, WHO HAD AUTHORITY TO DISREGARD ANY RECOMMENDATION
IN THIS REGARD THAT THE SHIP'S DOCTOR MIGHT MAKE.  SEE ALSO, R.S. SEC.
4596, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 701; R.S. SEC. 4612, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 713. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN CONSIDERING THIS CASE HELD THAT THE
SHIPOWNER'S DUTY ENDED WITH THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE CARE TO SECURE A
COMPETENT GENERAL PRACTITIONER, AND SINCE THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION
THAT SUCH CARE HAD BEEN EXERCISED, THE SHIPOWNER COULD NOT BE HELD
LIABLE IN DAMAGES FOR HARM THAT COULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE NEGLIGENCE OF
THE SHIP'S DOCTOR.  IN OUR OPINION THIS WAS ERROR. 

THE JONES ACT READS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:  "ANY SEAMAN WHO
SHALL SUFFER PERSONAL INJURY IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT MAY, AT
HIS ELECTION, MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AT LAW, WITH THE RIGHT OF
TRIAL BY JURY, AND IN SUCH ACTION ALL STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES
MODIFYING OR EXTENDING THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OR REMEDY IN CASES OF
PERSONAL INJURY TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES SHALL APPLY; ...  " THUS IT MAKES
APPLICABLE TO SEAMEN INJURED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 51
60, WHICH GIVES TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES A RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR INJURIES
RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR EMPLOYER, ITS AGENTS OR
EMPLOYEES.  PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375; THE ARIZONA V.
ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110; O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO.,
ANTE, P. 36. 

CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 377-378, EXPLAINED
THE EFFECT OF THE JONES ACT AS FOLLOWS:  "CONGRESS DID NOT MEAN THAT
THE STANDARDS OF LEGAL DUTY MUST BE THE SAME BY LAND AND SEA.  CONGRESS
MEANT NO MORE THAN THIS, THAT THE DUTY MUST BE LEGAL, I.E., IMPOSED BY
LAW; THAT IT SHALL HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SEAMAN, AND
FOR THE PROMOTION OF HIS HEALTH OR SAFETY; AND THAT THE NEGLIGENT
OMISSION TO FULFILL IT SHALL HAVE RESULTED IN DAMAGE TO HIS PERSON. 
WHEN THIS CONCURRENCE OF DUTY, OF NEGLIGENCE AND OF PERSONAL INJURY IS
MADE OUT, THE SEAMAN'S REMEDY IS TO BE THE SAME AS IF A LIKE DUTY HAD
BEEN IMPOSED BY LAW UPON CARRIERS BY RAIL."  RECOVERY WAS ACCORDINGLY
ALLOWED UNDER THE JONES ACT FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE MASTER IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THE ANCIENT DUTY TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR A
SEAMAN WOUNDED IN THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE REASONING OF THE CORTES CASE IS
CONTROLLING, AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS CASE TO SHIELD THE
SHIPOWNER FROM LIABILITY FOR ANY NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP'S DOCTOR. 

IMMUNITY CANNOT BE RESTED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE MEDICAL SERVICE
WAS THE SEAMAN'S AND THE DOCTOR'S BUSINESS, AND THE TREATMENT NOT IN
PURSUANCE OF THE DOCTOR'S DUTY TO THE SHIP OR THE SHIP'S DUTY TO THE
SEAMAN.  FN2 

"THE DUTY TO PROVIDE PROPER MEDICAL TREATMENT AND ATTENDANCE FOR
SEAMEN FALLING ILL OR SUFFERING INJURY IN THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP HAS
BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE SHIPOWNERS BY ALL MARITIME NATIONS."  THE
IROQUOIS, 194 U.S. 240, 241-242.  WHEN THE SEAMAN BECOMES COMMITTED TO
THE SERVICE OF THE SHIP, THE MARITIME LAW ANNEXES A DUTY THAT NO
PRIVATE AGREEMENT IS COMPETENT TO ABROGATE, AND THE SHIP IS COMMITTED
TO THE MAINTENANCE AND CURE OF THE SEAMAN FOR ILLNESS OR INJURY DURING
THE PERIOD OF THE VOYAGE, AND IN SOME CASES FOR A PERIOD THEREAFTER. 
FN3  THIS DUTY DOES NOT DEPEND UPON FAULT.  IT IS NO MERELY FORMAL
OBLIGATION AND IT ADMITS OF NO MERELY PERFUNCTORY DISCHARGE.  ITS
MEASURE DEPENDS UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE - THE SERIOUSNESS
OF THE INJURY OR ILLNESS AND THE AVAILABILITY OF AID.  ALTHOUGH THERE
MAY BE NO DUTY TO THE SEAMAN TO CARRY A PHYSICIAN, THE CIRCUMSTANCES
MAY BE SUCH AS TO REQUIRE REASONABLE MEASURES TO GET HIM TO ONE, AS BY
TURNING BACK, PUTTING IN TO THE NEAREST PORT ALTHOUGH NOT ONE OF CALL,
HAILING A PASSING SHIP, OR TAKING OTHER MEASURES OF CONSIDERABLE COST
IN TIME AND MONEY.  FAILURE TO FURNISH SUCH CARE, EVEN AT THE COST OF A
WEEK'S DELAY, HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT TO BE A BASIS FOR DAMAGES. 
THE IROQUOIS, SUPRA. 

TO PROVIDE A SHIP'S PHYSICIAN WAS THEREFORE NO MERE ACT OF CHARITY. 
FN4  THE DOCTOR IN TREATING THE SEAMAN WAS ENGAGED IN THE SHIPOWNER'S
BUSINESS; IT WAS THE SHIP'S DUTY THAT HE WAS DISCHARGING IN TREATING
THE INJURED EYE.  WHILE, NO DOUBT, THE PHYSICIAN RECOGNIZED AT LEAST AN
ETHICAL OBLIGATION BETWEEN HIMSELF AND THE PATIENT, HE WAS PERFORMING
THE SERVICE BECAUSE THE SHIP EMPLOYED HIM TO DO SO, NOT BECAUSE THE
PETITIONER DID.  HE WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONER, CALLED TO
TREAT ONE WHOSE EXPENSES THE SHIP AGREED TO MAKE GOOD.  WE EXPRESS NO
VIEW AS TO THE LIABILITY FOR MALPRACTICE BY ONE NOT IN THE EMPLOY OF
THE SHIP.  FN5  BUT IN THIS CASE THE PHYSICIAN WAS NOT IN HIS OWN OR
THE SEAMAN'S CONTROL; HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND, AS SUCH, SUBJECT TO THE
SHIP DISCIPLINE AND THE MASTER'S ORDERS. 

WHATEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE JONES ACT, MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE EFFECT
UPON RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY OF THE FACT THAT PETITIONER AND THE SHIP
DOCTOR WERE BOTH IN ITS EMPLOY, THAT ACT PREVENTS THIS FACT FROM
CONFERRING AN IMMUNITY UPON THE RESPONDENT.  JAMISON V. ENCARNACION,
281 U.S. 635; CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, SUPRA.    WE HOLD,
THEREFORE, THAT THE SHIPOWNER WAS LIABLE IN DAMAGES FOR HARM SUFFERED
AS THE RESULT OF ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE SHIP'S DOCTOR.  FN6 

WE COME, THEN, TO THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT
PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE TO REQUIRE SENDING THIS CASE TO THE JURY. 

THE SHORT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE
PAST HISTORY OF THE EYE TO THE SHIP'S DOCTOR, AND THE SHIP'S DOCTOR
DIAGNOSED THE CASE AS ONE OF CONJUNCTIVITIS AND GAVE THE PETITIONER
WHAT UNDISPUTED MEDICAL TESTIMONY SAYS TO BE THE STANDARD TREATMENT FOR
THAT CONDITION.  GOING ASHORE, THE CASE WAS DIAGNOSED SIMILARLY BY A
PHYSICIAN OF UNSTATED QUALIFICATIONS, WHO TREATED THE EYE IN THE SAME
MANNER AS THE SHIP'S DOCTOR.  RETURNING TO THE SHIP, THE PETITIONER
TOLD THE SHIP'S DOCTOR OF THE SHORE DOCTOR'S RECOMMENDATION THAT HE
LEAVE THE SHIP AND BE HOSPITALIZED ASHORE.  THE SHIP'S DOCTOR
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE WOULD HAVE HEEDED SUCH A RECOMMENDATION HAD IT
BEEN MADE, BUT ASSERTS THAT IT WAS NOT MADE.  FOR PURPOSES OF TESTING
THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DIRECTION OF THE VERDICT, WE MUST ASSUME THAT
THE SHIP'S DOCTOR WAS TOLD OF IT.  THE CONCESSION OF THE SHIP'S DOCTOR
THAT HE WOULD HAVE HEEDED SUCH A RECOMMENDATION IS NOT OF ITSELF
EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE.  THERE IS NOT A WORD OF EVIDENCE THAT THE SHORE
DOCTOR WAS ANY BETTER QUALIFIED TO DIAGNOSE THE EYE THAN WAS THE SHIP'S
DOCTOR, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT HIS DIAGNOSIS OF THE CASE WAS THE SAME
AS THE SHIP'S DOCTOR'S.  THAT THEIR PROGNOSES WERE DIFFERENT DOES NOT
ESTABLISH EITHER THAT THE ONE WAS OVERLY CAUTIOUS OR THAT THE OTHER WAS
NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO TAKE THE SAME ATTITUDE AS TO THE NECESSITY OF
HOSPITALIZATION ASHORE.  OUR OWN EXPERIENCE VIVIDLY DEMONSTRATES THAT
CAREFUL AND COMPETENT MEN FREQUENTLY REACH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS
DESPITE THE FULLEST AND MOST CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF ALL AVAILABLE DATA,
INCLUDING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THEIR ASSOCIATES. 
IN THE PRESENT CASE, NEITHER DOCTOR HAD THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE FACTS OF
THE EYE'S HISTORY.  THE CHARACTER OF THE PETITIONER'S AFFLICTION WAS
NOT ASCERTAINED UNTIL DAYS AFTER THE PETITIONER REACHED SAN FRANCISCO,
AND THEN ONLY AFTER AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT WAS CALLED IN TO ADVISE THE
EYE SPECIALISTS IN THE MARINE HOSPITAL.  TRUE IT IS THAT ONE DOCTOR
SAID, PARTLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED LONG AFTER
PETITIONER'S EYE HAD BEEN REMOVED, THAT HE WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED
HOSPITALIZATION AT HONOLULU, AND THAT ADDITIONAL TREATMENT AT THE TIME
PETITIONER WAS EN ROUTE TO SAN FRANCISCO MIGHT HAVE HAD A BENEFICIAL
EFFECT; BUT EVEN ON THE BASIS OF THE KNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE AT THE TRIAL
HE WOULD NOT VENTURE AN OPINION THAT TREATMENT SUCH AS WAS GIVEN AT SAN
FRANCISCO WOULD HAVE SAVED PETITIONER'S EYE IF GIVEN BEFORE OR AT THE
TIME HE REACHED HONOLULU.  ANOTHER, AND APPARENTLY EQUALLY WELL
QUALIFIED, EYE SPECIALIST TESTIFIED THAT NOTHING IN ADDITION TO THE
STANDARD COURSE OF TREATMENT FOR CONJUNCTIVITIS, WHICH THE SHIP'S
DOCTOR GAVE, COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH SAFETY UNTIL AFTER THE
PETITIONER'S ARRIVAL IN SAN FRANCISCO, AND THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO DO MORE
PROBABLY WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY IMPAIRED PETITIONER'S CHANCES OF SAVING
HIS EYE.  HE TESTIFIED, AND WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT IT WAS TOO MUCH
TO EXPECT OF THE ORDINARY GENERAL PRACTITIONER, SUCH AS THE SHIP'S
DOCTOR WAS, TO BE ABLE TO DIAGNOSE PETITIONER'S CASE AS A DANGEROUS
ONE. 

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS SAID THAT THE SHIP'S DOCTOR SHOULD HAVE
SENT THE PETITIONER ASHORE, DESPITE THE PETITIONER'S DESIRE TO RETURN
TO SAN FRANCISCO WITH THE BOAT; AND ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHAT
THE FACILITIES WERE AT HONOLULU.  HAD HE PUT PETITIONER ASHORE ONLY TO
HAVE HIM LOSE HIS EYE, IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
CHARGED WITH NEGLECT IN DOING THAT. 

IF THERE WAS MALPRACTICE IN THIS CASE, NO EVIDENCE OF IT HAS BEEN PUT
INTO THIS RECORD.  THE SURGEON WHO REMOVED THE EYE WAS CALLED AS A
WITNESS.  HE TESTIFIED THAT THE CAUSE OF THE TROUBLE WAS A HEMORRHAGE. 
BUT NO PROFESSIONAL OPINION WAS OFFERED AS TO WHEN THE HEMORRHAGE TOOK
PLACE.  WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE SHIP'S SURGEON IS ACCUSED OF
MALPRACTICE FOR FAILURE TO CURE A HEMORRHAGE WHICH HAD ALREADY OCCURRED
WHEN HE WAS FIRST CONSULTED OR BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO ANTICIPATE IT AND
PREVENT IT.  MOREOVER, THERE IS NO PROOF WHATEVER THAT, IF A HEMORRHAGE
WITHIN THE EYE ONCE OCCURRED TO AN EXTENT NOT ABSORBED BY THE ORDINARY
NATURAL PROCESSES, IT IS CURABLE AT ALL.  IF THIS PETITIONER WAS
DESTINED TO LOSE HIS EYE AT ALL ODDS, HE HARDLY ESTABLISHES A CAUSE OF
ACTION BY SAYING IT SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED AT HONOLULU INSTEAD OF SAN
FRANCISCO.  HOSPITALIZATION EITHER ON SHIP OR ON LAND IS NOT IN ITSELF
A CURE.  AT SAN FRANCISCO, SPECIALISTS HAD NO CURE FOR THE EYE BUT TO
REMOVE IT, AND WE ARE NOT TOLD THAT ANYTHING DIFFERENT COULD HAVE BEEN
DONE AT ANY EARLIER STAGE WITH ANY PROBABILITY THAT IT WOULD BRING
ABOUT A DIFFERENT RESULT. 

THE DOCTOR APPARENTLY MADE A WRONG DIAGNOSIS, BUT THAT DOES NOT PROVE
THAT IT WAS A NEGLIGENT ONE.  IT SEEMED TO BE THE OBVIOUS DIAGNOSIS
FROM THE HISTORY WHICH THE PATIENT GAVE HIM, AND THAT APPEARS TO HAVE
BEEN INCOMPLETE AND NOT UNLIKELY TO MISLEAD. 

THE LOSS OF THE PETITIONER'S EYE IS A SERIOUS HANDICAP.  BUT DAMAGES
MAY BE RECOVERED UNDER THE JONES ACT ONLY FOR NEGLIGENCE.  JAMISON V.
ENCARNACION, SUPRA, AT 639.  WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF
COMPENSATING ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PROVEN FAULT IS WISE IS NOT FOR US TO
SAY, NOR IS IT OUR FUNCTION TO CIRCUMVENT IT BY READING INTO THE LAW A
THEORY, HOWEVER DISGUISED, THAT A PHYSICIAN WHO UNDERTAKES CARE
GUARANTEES CURE, AND THAT EACH UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORT OF THE PHYSICIAN MAY
BE VISITED WITH A SUCCESSFUL MALPRACTICE SUIT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688. 

FN2  LIABILITY TO A PASSENGER INJURED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SHIP'S
DOCTOR HAS BEEN DENIED ON THIS GROUND.  ONE OF THE LEADING CASES ON
LIABILITY TO PASSENGERS IS LAUBHEIM V. DEK.  N.S. CO., 107 N.Y. 228, 13
N.E. 781.  IT AROSE BEFORE, BUT WAS DECIDED AFTER, THE ENACTMENT OF THE
ACT OF CONGRESS OF AUGUST 2, 1882, 22 STAT. 186, 188, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
155, IMPOSING UPON SHIPS CARRYING CERTAIN TYPES OF PASSENGERS THE
OBLIGATION OF PROVIDING A "COMPETENT" DOCTOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
PASSENGERS.  THE PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER, SUED THE SHIPOWNER FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES RESULTING FROM ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP'S
SURGEON.  JUDGE FRANCIS M. FINCH DISPOSED OF THE CASE IN A SHORT
OPINION, IN THE APPARENT BELIEF THAT THE RULE APPLIED WAS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY IN QUESTION TO WARRANT DISCUSSION.  HE SAID:  "IF, BY LAW
OR BY CHOICE, THE DEFENDANT WAS BOUND TO PROVIDE A SURGEON FOR ITS
SHIPS, ITS DUTY TO THE PASSENGERS WAS TO SELECT A REASONABLY COMPETENT
MAN FOR THAT OFFICE, AND IT IS LIABLE ONLY FOR A NEGLECT OF THAT DUTY. 
(CHAPMAN V. ERIE R. CO., 55 N.Y. 579; MCDONALD V. HOSPITAL, 120 MASS.
432; SECORD V. ST. PAUL R.R. CO., 18 FED. REP. 221.)  IT IS RESPONSIBLE
SOLELY FOR ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE AND NOT FOR THAT OF THE SURGEON
EMPLOYED."  THE CHAPMAN CASE TESTED LIABILITY OF A RAILROAD BY THE
"FELLOW SERVANT" DOCTRINE, WHICH HAS BEEN ABOLISHED BY THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND CAN THEREFORE HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THIS
CASE.  JAMISON V. ENCARNACION, 281 U.S. 635.  THE SECORD CASE GIVES
ONLY A CHARGE TO A JURY IN A CASE WHERE THE ISSUE WAS LIABILITY OF A
RAILROAD TO A PASSENGER FOR NEGLIGENT TREATMENT BY A PHYSICIAN IN ITS
EMPLOY.  THE MCDONALD CASE HELD A HOSPITAL IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY FOR
NEGLIGENCE OF ITS HOUSE SURGEON, ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A CHARITABLE
INSTITUTION. 

O'BRIEN V. CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO., 154 MASS. 272, 28 N.E. 266, AROSE
UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 2, 1882, AND WAS DECIDED AFTER THE LAUBHEIM
CASE, UPON WHICH IT RELIED.  JUDGE KNOWLTON OF THE MASSACHUSETTS
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT SAID:  "UNDER THIS STATUTE IT IS THE DUTY OF
SHIP-OWNERS TO PROVIDE A COMPETENT SURGEON, WHOM THE PASSENGERS MAY
EMPLOY IF THEY CHOOSE, IN THE BUSINESS OF HEALING THEIR WOUNDS AND
CURING THEIR DISEASES.  THE LAW DOES NOT PUT THE BUSINESS OF TREATING
SICK PASSENGERS INTO THE CHARGE OF COMMON CARRIERS, AND MAKE THEM
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF IT.  THE WORK WHICH THE
PHYSICIAN OR SURGEON DOES IN SUCH CASES IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
PASSENGERS THEMSELVES.  IT IS THEIR BUSINESS, NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE
CARRIER.  ...  THE MASTER OR OWNERS OF THE SHIP CANNOT INTERFERE IN THE
TREATMENT OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER WHEN HE ATTENDS A PASSENGER.  HE IS
NOT THEIR SERVANT, ENGAGED IN THEIR BUSINESS AND SUBJECT TO THEIR
CONTROL AS TO HIS MODE OF TREATMENT.  THEY DO THEIR WHOLE DUTY IF THEY
EMPLOY A DULY QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT SURGEON AND MEDICAL PRACTITIONER,
AND SUPPLY HIM WITH ALL NECESSARY AND PROPER INSTRUMENTS, MEDICINES,
AND MEDICAL COMFORTS, AND HAVE HIM IN READINESS FOR SUCH PASSENGERS AS
CHOOSE TO EMPLOY HIM.  THIS IS THE WHOLE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE OF
THE UNITED STATES APPLICABLE TO SUCH CASES.  ...  "  ID. AT 275-276. 

THESE STATEMENTS OF JUDGES OF GREAT LEARNING, FOR COURTS OF LAST
RESORT OF STATES HAVING MUCH TO DO WITH MARITIME PURSUITS, HAD THEIR
INFLUENCE UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS DEALING WITH THE SAME PROBLEM.  THE
GREAT NORTHERN, 251 F. 826; THE KOREA MARU, 254 F. 397, 399; BRANCH V.
COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 11 F.SUPP.  832; CF. THE NAPOLITAN
PRINCE, 134 F. 159. 

FN3  THE DUTY IS NOT TO "CURE" IN A LITERAL SENSE, BUT TO PROVIDE
CARE, INCLUDING NURSING AND MEDICAL ATTENTION.  CALMAR S.S. CORP. V.
TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525, 528.  IT HAS NOT BEEN RESTRICTED BY THE
SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY CONVENTION OF 1936, 54 STAT. 1693, WHICH PROVIDES
IN ARTICLE 12 THAT "NOTHING IN THIS CONVENTION SHALL AFFECT ANY LAW,
AWARD, CUSTOM OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN SHIPOWNERS AND SEAMEN WHICH ENSURES
MORE FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS THAN THOSE PROVIDED BY THIS CONVENTION." 

FN4  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON WHETHER CHARITABLE OR GRATUITOUS
NATURE OF MEDICAL ATTENTION SHOULD HAVE EXCULPATORY EFFECT.  CF.
PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN COLLEGE V. HUGHES, 130 F.2D 810. 

FN5  CF. THE SARNIA, 147 F. 106; THE C.S. HOLMES, 209 F. 970; BONAM
V. SOUTHERN MENHADEN CORP., 284 F. 360(INVOLVING PHYSICIANS OTHER THAN
SHIP'S DOCTORS). 

FN6  JOHNSON V. AMERICAN MAIL LINE, 1937 A.M.C. 1267(SUPERIOR COURT
FOR KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON), REACHED THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION, RELYING
UPON CASES CITED IN FOOTNOTES 2 AND 5, SUPRA, WHICH WE THINK ARE
INAPPOSITE, FOR THE REASONS ALREADY STATED.  GEISTLINGER V.
INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE CO., 295 F. 176, ALSO DENIED LIABILITY
FOR THE SHIP'S DOCTOR'S NEGLIGENT TREATMENT OF A SEAMAN, BUT IT DID NOT
FIND THE JONES ACT APPLICABLE, AND DID NOT CONSIDER WHAT ITS EFFECT
MIGHT BE IF IT SHOULD BE FOUND APPLICABLE.  LEONE V. BOOTH S.S. CO.,
232 N.Y. 183, 133 N.E. 439, ALSO DENIED LIABILITY, BUT IT WAS DECIDED
ON FACTS ANTEDATING THE JONES ACT, AND IT TOO DID NOT CONSIDER THE
EFFECT OF THE ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS:  SHALL A JURY OR A COURT DECIDE WHETHER
PETITIONER LOST HIS EYE THROUGH THE RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE?  I AGREE
WITH THE COURT THAT THE SHIPOWNER WAS LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS
DOCTOR, AND I AGREE FURTHER THAT THE JONES ACT IS NOT A WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT AND DOES NOT IMPOSE LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT; BUT I DO
NOT AGREE THAT A COURT MAY SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT ON THE FACTS FOR THE
DECISION OF A JURY WHEN, AS HERE, THERE IS ROOM FOR REASONABLE
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE CRITICAL ISSUE OF THE CASE.  I THINK THERE
WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PERMIT A JURY TO FIND NEGLIGENCE IN THE
DOCTOR'S FAILURE TO LEAVE THE PETITIONER AT HONOLULU FOR HOSPITAL
TREATMENT. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THIS SEAMAN SUSTAINED AN INJURY SO SERIOUS
THAT IT RESULTED IN THE EVENTUAL REMOVAL OF HIS EYE.  WHEN A SEAMAN IS
INJURED, THE SHIPOWNER HAS AN IMPERATIVE OBLIGATION TO COME TO HIS AID;
FN1  AND THE SHIPOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY IS SO HEAVY THAT HE MAY BE
FOUND NEGLIGENT FOR FAILURE TO TAKE HIS SHIP TO THE NEAREST PORT IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE TREATMENT.  FN2  THERE IS A SIMILAR
OBLIGATION TO LEAVE A SERIOUSLY INJURED SEAMAN IN A PORT AT WHICH A
VESSEL HAS ARRIVED.  FN3  THIS DUTY OF COURSE EXISTS WHERE NO ADEQUATE
TREATMENT CAN BE GIVEN ON THE SHIP.  HERE THE SHIP'S DOCTOR WAS NOT AN
EYE SPECIALIST; THE SHIP DID NOT HAVE ABOARD THE MEDICINES WHICH
COMPETENT PHYSICIANS IN SAN FRANCISCO APPLIED; AND THERE WAS NO X-RAY
ALTHOUGH ONE WAS LATER FOUND ESSENTIAL FOR DIAGNOSING THE AILMENT.  IT
IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THE SHIP SHOULD LACK THESE FACILITIES, FOR EVERY
MERCHANT VESSEL CANNOT BE A FLOATING HOSPITAL; BUT IT IS FOR THIS VERY
REASON THAT A SHIP IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH SHORE TREATMENT FOR SERIOUSLY
INJURED SEAMEN. 

THE UNITED STATES MARINE HOSPITAL IN HONOLULU HAD ALL THE FACILITIES
WHICH THE SHIP LACKED.  THESE HOSPITALS ARE RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS AND A SEAMAN HAS NO BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE EQUIPMENT AND
TREATMENT IN THE HOSPITAL WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER THAN THE EQUIPMENT AND
TREATMENT ON THE SHIP.  HERE, AS IN LEONE V. BOOTH STEAMSHIP CO., 232
N.Y. 183, 185, 133 N.E. 439, "IT IS TO PREFER SHADOW TO SUBSTANCE TO
MAKE THE RESULT OF THIS ACTION DEPEND ON AFFIRMATIVE PROOF OF THIS
MATTER." 

WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE
SEAMAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT FOR TREATMENT IN THIS HOSPITAL?  THE
PETITIONER'S EYE BEGAN TO PAIN HIM AS A RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT ON JUNE
3, 1940.  BY 7 O'CLOCK THE NEXT MORNING, THE EYE WAS IN SUCH CONDITION
THAT HE REQUIRED MEDICAL TREATMENT FROM THE SHIP'S DOCTOR AND WAS
RELEASED FROM DUTY.  AT 5 O'CLOCK THAT AFTERNOON THE VESSEL DOCKED AT
HONOLULU.  THE SHIP'S DOCTOR SENT HIM TO THE MARINE HOSPITAL, WHICH WAS
CLOSED AT THAT HOUR, AND HE WENT TO QUEENS HOSPITAL WHICH, ACCORDING TO
THE EVIDENCE, IS AN EMERGENCY INSTITUTION CONNECTED WITH THE MARINE
HOSPITAL AND WHICH TAKES CARE OF PATIENTS TEMPORARILY.  THE DOCTOR AT
QUEENS HOSPITAL ADVISED THE PETITIONER THAT HE SHOULD BE RELEASED FROM
HIS VESSEL AND ENTER THE HOSPITAL AT ONCE.  THIS PHYSICIAN ADVISED THE
SEAMAN THAT HE MIGHT LOSE HIS EYE IF HE RETURNED TO THE SHIP.    THE
PETITIONER RETURNED TO HIS VESSEL AT 6 P.M. BUT WAS UNABLE TO SEE THE
SHIP'S DOCTOR UNTIL 11:30, APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE VESSEL
SAILED.  HE REPEATED TO THE SHIP'S DOCTOR THE ADVICE GIVEN HIM ASHORE. 
THE SEAMAN TESTIFIED THAT THE DOCTOR TOLD HIM THAT NO DANGER WOULD
RESULT FROM RETURNING TO SAN FRANCISCO, AND, SINCE THE DOCTOR WAS HIS
SUPERIOR OFFICER AND AN "ACCREDITED PHYSICIAN," HE RELIED UPON THE
DOCTOR'S ADVICE ALTHOUGH HE WAS SUFFERING INTENSELY. 

THE PETITIONER'S EYE GREW WORSE, TREATMENT IN THE SAN FRANCISCO
HOSPITAL FAILED TO CURE IT, AND IT WAS REMOVED.  TWO SAN FRANCISCO
SPECIALISTS FAMILIAR WITH HIS CASE TESTIFIED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE
ADVISED THAT HE BE LEFT IN HONOLULU FOR HOSPITAL TREATMENT.  TRUE, WE
HAVE NO TESTIMONY THAT THE EYE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED BY HOSPITALIZATION
AT HONOLULU, AND WHETHER IT COULD HAVE BEEN WILL NEVER BE KNOWN; BUT IT
IS CLEAR THAT THE PETITIONER WOULD HAVE RECEIVED EXCELLENT TREATMENT AT
AN EARLIER DATE THAN HE DID.  ADEQUATE TREATMENT, OF COURSE, IS USUALLY
AIMED AT CURING OR ALLEVIATING THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF INJURIES AND
DISEASES, AND TIMELY TREATMENT CAN PREVENT PROGRESSIVE PHYSICAL
DETERIORATION.  SOMEONE MUST DECIDE WHETHER SUCH HAPPY RESULTS WOULD
HAVE FOLLOWED EARLIER HOSPITALIZATION IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

DIRECTING A VERDICT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE IS
SUBSTITUTING JUDICIAL FOR JURY JUDGMENT ON FACTUAL QUESTIONS WHICH CAN
AS READILY BE DECIDED BY THE LAYMAN AS BY THE LAWYER.  WHEN WE CONSIDER
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND RESOLVE DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS SUCH AS
THESE, WE INVADE THE HISTORIC JURY FUNCTION.  "THE RIGHT OF JURY TRIAL
IN CIVIL CASES AT COMMON LAW IS A BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF OUR
SYSTEM OF FEDERAL JURISPRUDENCE WHICH IS PROTECTED BY THE SEVENTH
AMENDMENT."  JACOB V. NEW YORK CITY, 315 U.S. 752.  THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMAND SHOULD NOT BE CIRCUMVENTED. 

FN1  HARDEN V. GORDON, 2 MASON 541; REED V. CANFIELD, 1 SUMNER 195. 

FN2  THE IROQUOIS, 194 U.S. 240, 242. 

FN3  THE UNITED STATES GUARANTEES THE COST OF MAINTENANCE AND RETURN
TO THE UNITED STATES OF INJURED SEAMEN DISCHARGED IN FOREIGN PORTS.  46
U.S.C. SEC. 683. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 318 U.S. 442 


NO. 529.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 12, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1943.  -
REMANDED TO THE C.C.A. 


1.  THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE, SETTING ASIDE AN
INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, RESTS NOT ALONE UPON A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BUT ALSO UPON THE INDEPENDENT GROUND OF THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT AS A PLEADING, AND IT IS THEREFORE NOT
APPEALABLE DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  P.
444. 

2.  PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1942, THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH THEREUPON WILL HAVE AUTHORITY TO PASS
UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH THE INDICTMENT AND THE STATUTE.  P. 445. 

UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLORADO. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT, 46 F.SUPP.  848, DISMISSING AN INDICTMENT FOR
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 682, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1942, 56 STAT. 271, FROM A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SETTING ASIDE AN INDICTMENT UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT.  BY THE STATUTE OUR JURISDICTION IS RESTRICTED TO REVIEW
OF A DECISION OR JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STATUTE ON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED.  INCLUDED AMONG THE
DEFENDANTS ARE THE COMMISSION FIRMS WHICH RECEIVE AND SELL FAT LAMBS ON
THE DENVER LIVESTOCK EXCHANGE, AND THREE PACKING COMPANIES WHICH
PURCHASE FAT LAMBS ON THE DENVER MARKET FOR SHIPMENT INTERSTATE TO
THEIR MANUFACTURING PLANTS. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS AGREED AMONG THEMSELVES TO
PURCHASE LAMBS ONLY ON THE EXCHANGE, AND TO ABANDON THE PREVIOUSLY
PREVAILING PRACTICE OF MAKING DIRECT PURCHASES FROM PRODUCERS IN THE
COUNTRY, FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT, "THEREBY RESTRAINING THE CHANNELS OF
DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE DENVER MARKETING AREA THROUGH WHICH SAID FAT
LAMBS FOR EASTBOUND SHIPMENT MOVE, AND  ...  RESTRAINING THE INTERSTATE
TRADE AND COMMERCE DESCRIBED IN THIS INDICTMENT, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1
OF THE SHERMAN ACT."  IT ALSO ALLEGES THAT THE AGREEMENT OR CONSPIRACY
AMONG THE DEFENDANTS IS "IN RESTRAINT OF THE HEREINBEFORE DESCRIBED
TRADE AND COMMERCE IN FAT LAMBS AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNITED
STATES AND IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1" OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
ALLEGED AGREEMENT AND PRACTICES UNDER IT ARE NOT IN ANY WAY SHOWN TO
HAVE AFFECTED THE PRICE OF LAMBS OR THE AMOUNT OF LAMBS RAISED OR
PRODUCED, OR TO HAVE LESSENED THEIR FLOW IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WHILE
ITS DECISION WAS RESTED IN PART UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, THE COURT ALSO RELIED ON THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADING, IN
THAT IT FAILED TO ALLEGE ANY INJURY TO OR EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE RESULTING FROM THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT OR CONSPIRACY.  IT SAID:
"THE INDICTMENT IS DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH IN ITS
CHARGES TO BRING THE AGREEMENT WITHIN ANY OF THE RECOGNIZED CANONS OF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, BECAUSE, AS STATED BEFORE,
THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE DEFENDANTS INTENDED TO OR IN ANY WAY
HARMED ANYONE OR AFFECTED THE PRICE OF FAT LAMBS, THE AMOUNT OF THEM
THAT COULD BE SOLD, OR THE PLACES WHERE THEY COULD BE SOLD"; AND AGAIN,
"THE GOVERNMENT HAS GONE BEYOND THE EXTENT AND MEANING OF THAT LAW AS
INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT, FOR, AS STATED, THERE IS NO
ALLEGATION THAT ANYONE HAS BEEN INJURED OR THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN ANY WAY AFFECTED."  46 F.SUPP.  848, 852. 

FROM THIS WE MUST TAKE IT THAT THE COURT FOUND THAT THE GENERAL
ALLEGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT OF THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT ON
COMMERCE WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC.  IT THUS PLACED ITS DECISION,
IN PART AT LEAST, ON THE INADEQUACY OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
INDICTMENT, WHICH WE HAVE QUOTED, TO CHARGE THAT THE CONSPIRACY OR
AGREEMENT AFFECTED COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
THESE WE THINK WERE RULINGS UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT AS A
MATTER OF PLEADING, THE CORRECTNESS OF WHICH CANNOT UNDER THE STATUTE
BE REVIEWED HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.  AND SUCH AN
APPEAL TO THIS COURT DOES NOT LIE WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
CONSIDERED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BUT HAS ALSO RESTED ITS
DECISION UPON THE INDEPENDENT GROUND OF A DEFECT IN THE PLEADING. 
UNITED STATES V. HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188; UNITED STATES V. HALSEY,
STUART & CO., 296 U.S. 451; UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188,
193; UNITED STATES V. WAYNE PUMP CO., 317 U.S. 200, AND CASES CITED. 

THIS PRACTICE WAS RECOGNIZED AND CONFIRMED BY THE ADOPTION OF THE
AMENDMENT OF MAY 9, 1942 TO THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  THE AMENDMENT
AUTHORIZED THE GOVERNMENT TO APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FROM A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO THE
INDICTMENT IN ANY CASE "EXCEPT WHERE A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IS PROVIDED BY THIS ACT," AND PROVIDED THAT
WHERE AN APPEAL IS TAKEN TO THE SUPREME COURT "WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF
THAT COURT, SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,  ...
THE SUPREME COURT  ... SHALL REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS  ...  , WHICH SHALL THEN HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE THE SAME AS IF THE APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THAT COURT IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE ...  "  IN URGING THE PASSAGE OF THIS LEGISLATION THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN HIS LETTER TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF JANUARY
10, 1941, POINTED OUT THAT "IT NOT INFREQUENTLY HAPPENS THAT A DEMURRER
TO AN INDICTMENT IS SUSTAINED OR A MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT IS
ALLOWED ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN THE INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE UPON WHICH THE PROSECUTION IS BASED.  (UNITED STATES V.
HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188; UNITED STATES V. HALSEY, STUART & CO., 296 U.S.
451.)"  HE ACCORDINGLY RECOMMENDED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS THE
APPROPRIATE MEANS OF SECURING APPELLATE REVIEW IN CASES LIKE THOSE
CITED - CASES WHICH HAD LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT A DIRECT APPEAL TO
THIS COURT IS NOT AUTHORIZED WHEN THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
RESTS IN PART ON GROUNDS INDEPENDENT OF THE INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE STATUTE ON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED.  H.R. REP. NO. 45,
77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2; S. REP. NO. 868, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
2. 

AS WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL, WE REMAND THE
CAUSE, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1942, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, WHICH WILL HAVE AUTHORITY TO PASS
UPON THE CONSTRUCTION BOTH OF THE INDICTMENT AND THE STATUTE.  SO
ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY THINK
THAT THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS BASED ON A "CONSTRUCTION" OF
THE SHERMAN ACT AND THAT THIS COURT THEREFORE HAS JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING: 

I AGREE WITH THE DISSENTING JUSTICES THAT THE DECISION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS "BASED" UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
THE DISTRICT COURT HAS ALSO DRAWN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE
INDICTMENT WHICH CAN NO DOUBT BE SAID TO AMOUNT TO A CONSTRUCTION OF
THE INDICTMENT.  BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF
THE INDICTMENT CONSTITUTES AN INDEPENDENT GROUND OF DECISION SUCH AS
THIS COURT HAS HELD PRECLUDES ITS REVIEW ON DIRECT APPEAL. 

HOWEVER, ONE-HALF OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COURT AS CONSTITUTED AT
THE TIME THIS CASE WAS SUBMITTED DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS VIEW, WHICH IS
CERTAINLY NOT FREE FROM DOUBT AND IS BASED ON INFERENCES FROM AN ORAL
AND INFORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  IN CONNECTION WITH
THE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS THAT COME UP AS A RESULT OF A DUAL APPEAL, WE
WOULD BE GREATLY AIDED IF THE DISTRICT COURTS IN DISMISSING AN
INDICTMENT WOULD INDICATE IN THE ORDER THE GROUND, AND, IF MORE THAN
ONE, WOULD SEPARATELY STATE AND NUMBER THEM.  I AM CONFIDENT THAT A
REQUEST FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO WOULD GENERALLY BE GRANTED AND
THAT TO DO SO WOULD BE OF ASSISTANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT IN TAKING, AND
TO US IN PASSING ON, APPEALS. 

IF THE COURT IS TO DISPATCH ITS BUSINESS AS AN INSTITUTION, SOME
ACCOMMODATION OF VIEWS IS NECESSARY AND, WHERE NO PRINCIPLE OF
IMPORTANCE IS AT STAKE, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN AN INSISTENCE UPON A
DIVISION IS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE BEST ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE. 

SUCH A CASE I CONSIDER THIS TO BE.  TO PERSIST IN MY DISSENT WOULD
RESULT EITHER IN AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT
OR IN A REARGUMENT.  THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER, IF
WE HAVE JURISDICTION, WE MAY PROCEED BEYOND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT
AND REVIEW OPINIONS ABOUT THE INDICTMENT WHICH THE LOWER COURT
EXPRESSED BUT DID NOT RELY UPON AS AN INDEPENDENT GROUND OF DECISION. 
ON THAT QUESTION I RESERVE OPINION. 

IF, UPON REARGUMENT IN THIS COURT, IT SHOULD BE DECIDED THAT OUR
REVIEW IS LIMITED TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT, AND THAT IT ERRED IN THIS RESPECT, THE VIEWS
WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HAS EXPRESSED AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT WOULD BE LIKELY TO EMBARRASS THE TRIAL
COURT IN PASSING ON OFFERS OF PROOF, ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, MOTIONS
GOING TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, AND OTHER QUESTIONS.  IT IS
NOT UNLIKELY THAT THE TRIAL COURT WOULD REGARD THE STATEMENTS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT ABOUT THIS INDICTMENT AS "THE LAW OF THE CASE." 

HOWEVER THE CASE MAY BE DISPOSED OF, REARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE IN ORDER,
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PRACTICAL ADVANTAGES FAVOR REARGUING IT BEFORE
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHERE THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ALL OF THE
QUESTIONS CAN BE DECIDED. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PERSIST IN MY DISSENT WOULD SEEM A
CAPTIOUS INSISTENCE UPON MY READING OF A DISTRICT COURT'S INFORMAL
OPINION AS TO WHICH THERE IS REASONABLE GROUND FOR DIFFERENCE.  I
SHOULD NOT DESIRE TO APPEAR COMMITTED TO THIS CASE AS A PRECEDENT.  I
CONCUR IN THE RESULT ONLY BECAUSE IT SEEMS THE MOST SENSIBLE WAY OUT OF
OUR IMPASSE IN THE IMMEDIATE CASE. 
..END :























ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., 318 U.S. 448 


NO. 7.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 14, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1943.  - 124
F.2D 136, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, PROVIDING FOR THE REORGANIZATION
OF RAILROADS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CONSTRUED WITH RESPECT TO
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  P. 466. 

2.  IN RESPECT OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR THE WESTERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, CERTIFIED TO IT BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT COURT FUNCTIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 475. 

3.  IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF
VALUE, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LEGAL STANDARDS, IS
NOT SUBJECT TO REEXAMINATION BY THE COURT.  P. 472. 

4.  THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
77 IS "COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST" IS FOR THE COMMISSION.  P.
473. 

5.  THE PHRASE "COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST" INCLUDES
QUESTIONS AS TO THE CHARACTER AND AMOUNT OF THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE
REORGANIZED CORPORATION; AND, SO LONG AS LEGAL STANDARDS ARE FOLLOWED,
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION ON SUCH QUESTIONS IS FINAL.  P. 473. 

6.  IN PASSING UPON A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77, THE
DISTRICT COURT ACTS ONLY UPON THE ISSUES SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED BY
SUBSECTION (E).  P. 474. 

7.  SECTION 77(E) AUTHORIZES THE ELIMINATION FROM PARTICIPATION IN
THE REORGANIZATION OF STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS WHOSE CLAIMS ARE
VALUELESS.  SUCH AUTHORIZATION IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS IN RESPECT OF BANKRUPTCIES AND DOES NOT DEPRIVE SUCH CLAIMANTS
OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 475. 

8.  NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE BANKRUPTCY ACT REQUIRES THE
ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS TO STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS WHOSE CLAIMS, FOUND
TO BE WITHOUT VALUE, HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE
REORGANIZATION.  P. 476. 

9.  THE MERE POSSIBILITY THAT EARNINGS OF THE REORGANIZED RAILROAD
MAY EXCEED EXPECTATIONS DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ISSUE OF SECURITIES.  P.
476. 

10.  THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS IN THE COMMISSION'S
REQUIREMENT OF A CAPITAL FUND FOR FUTURE ROUTINE ADDITIONS AND
BETTERMENTS; NOR IN THE ISSUE OF STOCK TO FORMER HOLDERS OF
INTERESTBEARING SECURITIES.  P. 476. 

11.  ALTHOUGH SEC. 77 DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT INTO THE DETERMINATION OF VALUE, IT DOES REQUIRE THAT THE
COURT BE SATISFIED, UPON THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION WITH SUCH
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS MAY BE PERTINENT TO THE OBJECTIONS TO THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING OF VALUE, THAT THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE
BEEN FOLLOWED.  P. 477. 

12.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT CERTAIN SECURITIES OWNED BY THE
DEBTOR, REPRESENTING INTERESTS IN TWO COMPANIES OPERATING CONNECTING
LINES (WHICH SECURITIES THE DEBTOR HAD ACQUIRED IN ORDER THAT IT MIGHT
OBTAIN A FAIR SHARE OF THE BUSINESS FROM AND TO THOSE LINES), WERE
WITHOUT VALUE AND NOT ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REORGANIZATION -
IT APPEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAT THE DEBTOR HAD FOR TEN YEARS
CONTRIBUTED SUBSTANTIAL SUMS ANNUALLY TO MEET DEFICITS OF EACH OF THE
COMPANIES; ALTHOUGH IN THE DISTRICT COURT IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE
COMPANIES WERE USEFUL AUXILIARIES TO THE BUSINESS OF THE DEBTOR - WAS
SUPPORTED BY MATERIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS PROPERLY ACCEPTED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  P. 478. 

13.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 77(E) THAT THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION NEED
NOT BE SUBMITTED TO STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS WHEN THE COMMISSION
SHALL HAVE FOUND THEIR CLAIMS TO BE WITHOUT VALUE "AND THE JUDGE SHALL
HAVE AFFIRMED THE FINDING," DOES NOT REQUIRE THE COURT TO MAKE AN
INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL OF THE VALUATION FOUND BY THE COMMISSION.  P.
478. 

14.  THE COURT PROPERLY AFFIRMS THE COMMISSION WHEN IT FINDS NO LEGAL
OBJECTION TO THE COMMISSION'S VALUATION IN DETERMINING WHETHER
PARTICULAR CLAIMANTS ARE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
REORGANIZATION.  P. 479. 

15.  SOUND RAILROAD REORGANIZATION REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THE
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC IN AN ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, PROPERLY
FINANCED, AND THIS MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THE SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS,
WITHOUT EQUITY, BY THE ISSUE OF SECURITIES WITHOUT REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITIES TO EARN A RETURN.  P. 481. 

16.  CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 482. 

17.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, THE DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION
OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SECURITIES WHICH MAY BE ISSUED BY THE
REORGANIZED COMPANY WAS IN SUBSTANCE A FINDING OF TOTAL VALUE FOR
REORGANIZATION PURPOSES; AND THE LACK OF A VALUATION IN DOLLARS IS
IMMATERIAL.  P. 483. 

18.  IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSION TO PRODUCE DATA AS TO
THE REPRODUCTION COST OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY.  P. 483. 

19.  THE ALLOCATION TO HOLDERS OF TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES AND THE
FIRST MORTGAGE, ALTHOUGH SENIOR CREDITORS, OF PREFERRED AND COMMON
STOCK AS WELL AS INCOME BONDS OF THE NEW COMPANY, WHILE SOME OF THE NEW
BONDS ARE ALLOCATED TO BONDHOLDERS SECURED BY THE GENERAL AND REFUNDING
MORTGAGE, WHO HAD A FIRST LIEN ON SOME ASSETS, DID NOT VIOLATE THE FULL
PRIORITY RULE.  P. 484. 

20.  UNDER THE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY RULE, THE STRATIFICATION OF
SECURITIES ISSUED TO CREDITORS NEED NOT FOLLOW INVARIABLY THE RELATIVE
PRIORITY OF THE CLAIMANTS, SO LONG AS THEY RECEIVE FULL COMPENSATORY
TREATMENT AND SO LONG AS EACH GROUP SHARES IN THE SECURITIES OF THE
WHOLE ENTERPRISE ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS.  P. 484. 

21.  THE TREATMENT ACCORDED THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION IN
THE ALLOCATION OF NEW SECURITIES, IN VIEW OF THE MONEY ADVANCED BY IT
TO THE DEBTOR DURING THE REORGANIZATION, HELD NOT INEQUITABLE TO OTHER
CREDITORS.  P. 485. 

22.  THE COMMISSION'S ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES IN THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION HERE, WAS BASED UPON THE RELATIVE PRIORITY, VALUE, AND
EQUITY OF THE VARIOUS CLAIMS OF CREDITORS, AND ITS CONCLUSIONS ARE IN
ACCORD WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS OF SUBSECTIONS (B), (D) AND
(E)(1) OF THE ACT.  P. 488. 

23.  IN THE INTEREST OF EXPEDITION, THE COURT CONSIDERS HERE A
QUESTION WHICH, THOUGH NOT PASSED UPON BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
WAS FULLY PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, AND THE DECISION OF
WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  P.
489. 

24.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSIONS ADOPTING THE COMMISSION'S
TENTATIVE DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE PRIORITY OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE WITH
RESPECT TO THE DEBTOR'S EQUITY IN CERTAIN AFTER-ACQUIRED ROLLING STOCK
AND EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED UNDER EQUIPMENT TRUSTS AND A LEASE; THE DEBTOR'S
INTEREST IN AN AFTER-ACQUIRED BRANCH LINE; AND THE DEBTOR'S TITLE TO
CERTAIN "NON-CARRIER" REALTY, ARE HERE AFFIRMED.  PP. 489, 503. 

25.  THE PROVISION OF THE PLAN DIRECTING THAT "ALL COLLATERAL PLEDGED
BY THE DEBTOR AS SECURITY FOR NOTES TO THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION, THE RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION, AND THE A.C. JAMES
COMPANY SHALL BE REDUCED TO POSSESSION BY THE RESPECTIVE PLEDGEES
THEREOF, AND SHALL BE BY THEM SURRENDERED TO THE REORGANIZED COMPANY
AND CANCELED," IS SUSTAINED.  P. 503. 

26.  THE SHOWING MADE BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AS TO CHANGED
CONDITIONS SINCE THE CERTIFICATION OF THE PLAN BY THE COMMISSION,
AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR REJECTION OF THE COMMISSION'S PLAN.  P. 508. 

27.  THE COMMISSION'S SELECTION OF JANUARY 1, 1939, AS THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE PLAN WAS WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SUBSECTION (B) OF SEC.
77.  P. 509. 

28.  ON THIS REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, COSTS ARE
HERE PROPERLY ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTIES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
AN ALLOWANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS UNDER SUBSECTION (C)(12).  P. 510. 

ECKER ET AL., CONSTITUTING INSTITUTIONAL BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE, V.
WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CORP. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 8, CROCKER FIRST NATIONAL BANK ET AL., TRUSTEES,
V. WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CORP. ET AL.; NO. 20, WESTERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD CO. V. ECKER ET AL.; NO. 33, RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V.
WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CORP. ET AL.; AND NO. 61, IRVING TRUST CO.,
SUBSTITUTED TRUSTEE, V. CROCKER FIRST NATIONAL BANK ET AL., ALSO ON
WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 654, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 654, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT APPROVING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR THE WESTERN
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, 34 F.SUPP.  493.  SEE ALSO 230 I.C.C. 61; 233
I.C.C. 409, AND 236 I.C.C. 1. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS SEEK REVIEW OF A DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE REORGANIZATION OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY UNDER
SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THAT DECREE REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WHICH HAD APPROVED THE PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION CERTIFIED
TO IT BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN1 

THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI ASK ADJUDICATION OF QUESTIONS WHICH ARE
IMPORTANT IN THE FIELD OF RAILROAD REORGANIZATION.  THEY INVOLVE THE
RESPECTIVE FUNCTION OF COMMISSION AND COURT, THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF
RAILROAD PROPERTY BY THE COMMISSION, THE LEGALITY OF THE EXCLUSION OF
STOCKHOLDERS AND CERTAIN CREDITORS FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE ESTATE, A
MORE FAVORABLE PARTICIPATION OF A RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION
CLAIM BECAUSE OF NEW MONEY FURNISHED FOR THE PLAN, ALLOCATION OF
SECURITIES AMONG CLAIMANTS, PRIORITIES OF LIENS CREATED BY DIFFERENT
MORTGAGES AND SUBSIDIARY ISSUES.  HERETOFORE THIS COURT HAS NOT PASSED
UPON THEM.  FOR THEIR DETERMINATION WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  316 U.S.
654. 

THE DEBTOR RAILROAD COMPANY FILED ITS PETITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ON AUGUST 2, 1935, ALLEGING ITS
INABILITY TO PAY AND DISCHARGE ITS INDEBTEDNESS AS IT MATURED AND
PRAYING FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77.  THE PETITION WAS APPROVED AS
PROPERLY FILED, TRUSTEES WERE APPOINTED, THEIR APPOINTMENT RATIFIED,
207 I.C.C. 793, AND THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TAKEN TO BRING THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.  PUBLIC
HEARINGS WERE HELD BY THE COMMISSION AT WHICH OTHER PLANS FOR
REORGANIZATION WERE FILED, ONE BY A GROUP OF BONDHOLDERS KNOWN AS THE
INSTITUTIONAL BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE AND ONE BY THE A.C. JAMES COMPANY,
A SECURED CREDITOR OF THE DEBTOR WHICH ALSO WAS FINANCIALLY INTERESTED
IN THE TREATMENT ACCORDED THE PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK OF THE
DEBTOR.  AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE DEBTOR'S
REORGANIZATION AND AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN DEEMED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SEC. 77, THE COMMISSION CERTIFIED ITS PLAN TO THE DISTRICT COURT
ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1939. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS WERE REACHED UPON EXCEPTIONS
TO THE REPORT OF ITS BUREAU OF FINANCE.  ITS PLAN WAS THE OUTGROWTH OF
A STUDY OF THE FINANCIAL CONDITION AND ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE
DEBTOR, VIEWED IN THE SETTING OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  THE COMPETING CLAIMS OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF
CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WERE APPRAISED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT THAT THEY BE ACCORDED FAIR AND EQUITABLE
TREATMENT.  THERE IS LITTLE IF ANY DISPUTE CONCERNING THE PRIMARY FACTS
FROM WHICH FACTUAL OR LEGAL INFERENCES ARE TO BE DRAWN. 

THE DEBTOR IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL OPERATING
OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO.  IT CARRIES ON AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD BUSINESS
BETWEEN THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA, NEVADA AND UTAH.  FN2 FOR AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THIS OPINION THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEBTOR AS OF
JANUARY 1, 1939, THE DATE PROPOSED FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE OPERATION
OF THE PLAN, MAY BE STATED AS FOLLOWS:  (CHART OMITTED) 

PAYMENT OF THIS INDEBTEDNESS WAS SECURED BY LIENS, COLLATERAL OR
PRIORITY, AS FOLLOWS: 

THE TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES OF $10,000,000 ARE SECURED BY A LIEN ON THE
ENTIRE ESTATE AND PRIORITY OVER ALL CLAIMS BEYOND REORGANIZATION
EXPENSES. 

THE EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS OF $2,750,050 ARE SECURED BY ROLLING STOCK,
ACQUIRED FREE OF THE LIENS OF MORTGAGES, THROUGH DIRECT LIENS OR TRUST
ARRANGEMENTS.  NO ONE DISPUTES THE SOUND CHARACTER OF ANY OF THESE
SECURITIES.  THEY ARE GIVEN PRIORITY OVER THE FIXED OBLIGATIONS OF THE
REORGANIZED COMPANY. 

SUBJECT TO THE TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES AND EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS, THE
FIRST MORTGAGE 5% BONDS OF $62,433,876.66, FACE AND INTEREST TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN, ARE SECURED BY PRIOR LIENS ON ALL VALUABLE
PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR, EXCEPT (1) MONEY, ACCOUNTS, OPERATING BALANCES
AND CASH ITEMS, AND (2) CERTAIN ASSETS, REFERRED TO IN THE NEXT
PARAGRAPH, UPON WHICH THE GENERAL AND REFUNDING BONDS HAVE A FIRST
LIEN, DEEMED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE OF VALUE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
$732,010 OF NEW INCOME MORTGAGE BONDS AND NEW PREFERRED STOCK OF
$1,147,955 PAR. THE TOTAL FACE AND ASSUMED VALUE OF THE SECURITIES
AUTHORIZED BY THE PLAN, AS EVIDENCE OF THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE SYSTEM,
IS $84,000,000 PLUS.  SEE P. 481, INFRA.  THIS PARAGRAPH REFLECTS OUR
CONCLUSIONS AS TO PRIORITIES OF THE LIENS OF THE RESPECTIVE MORTGAGES
LATER DISCUSSED.  SEE PRIORITIES OF CONFLICTING LIENS, P. 489, INFRA. 

THE LATER GENERAL AND REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS, $18,999,500 IN FACE
AMOUNT, ARE SECURED BY A FIRST LIEN ON PROPERTIES DETERMINED BY THE
COMMISSION TO BE OF A VALUE AND EARNING POWER SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
ISSUES OF NEW INCOME BONDS AND PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK OF
$732,010 AND $1,147,955, RESPECTIVELY.  SEE 233 I.C.C. 414 ET SEQ. THEY
ARE FURTHER SECURED, SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR RIGHTS AND OTHER EXCEPTIONS
OF THE OBLIGATIONS LISTED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, BY A LIEN ON ALL
VALUABLE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR.  ALL OF THIS SERIES WHICH WERE ISSUED
ARE PLEDGED TO SECURE THE COLLATERAL NOTES IN THE AMOUNTS INDICATED IN
THE PRECEDING TABLE. 

BY REASON OF AN ARRANGEMENT WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION, DETAILED LATER IN THE SECTION OF THIS OPINION HEADED
ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES, B, P. 485, INFRA, THE DISTRIBUTION OF
SECURITIES TO CREDITORS DID NOT REFLECT ABSOLUTELY THEIR PRIORITY
POSITION.  THE COLLATERAL NOTES OWNED BY THE R.F.C. WERE TREATED IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF SECURITIES ON THE SAME BASIS AS WERE THE CLAIMS OF OLD
FIRST BONDHOLDERS.  THE RESULT IS SUMMARIZED BY THE TABLE ON PAGE 461
AND FOOTNOTES 5 AND 6. 

BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, "AS FOUND BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 19(A) OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, WITH ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS, NEW LINES AND EXTENSIONS,
SUBSEQUENT TO DATE OF VALUATION, PLUS NON-OPERATING PROPERTIES," WAS
$150,907,623.49 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1938.  IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED THAT
THERE IS NO DEFERRED MAINTENANCE IN THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTIES.  "ITS
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ARE SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE EXPEDITIOUSLY AND
EFFICIENTLY ALL TRAFFIC REASONABLY TO BE ANTICIPATED IN THE IMMEDIATE
FUTURE."  THE VALUE OF THE DEBTOR'S SYSTEM, WITH EQUIPMENT DEPRECIATED,
WAS $144,978,559 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1938. 

THERE IS AGREEMENT AS TO THE AMOUNT OF SYSTEM EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR
INTEREST FOR 1922 TO 1939, INCLUSIVE.  THE AMOUNTS FOLLOW:  FN3

         ADJUSTED CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST 

1922 - $2,404,890        1928 - $4,376,972        1934 - $1,396,353 

1923 -  3,412,234      1929 -  3,718,436        1935 -  1,377,026 

1924 -  3,241,823        1930 -  2,381,529        1936 -  1,901,423 

1925 -  4,557,798        1931 -    220,494(DEFICIT1937 -  1,077,407 

1926 -  4,868,390        1932 -    283,912        1938 -    225,431 

1927 -  3,470,861        1933 -    474,365    1939 -  1,519,916 

IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT WHILE THESE FIGURES REPRESENT NET
INCOME OF THE SYSTEM, AS SHOWN BY ITS COMBINED INCOME ACCOUNT, ADJUSTED
AS INDICATED, FACTORS OTHER THAN THE NET INCOME RESULT WERE PLACED
BEFORE AND WEIGHED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT.  OF COURSE
THE FLUCTUATING OPERATING REVENUES FOR THE PERIODS FROM FREIGHT,
PASSENGER, MAIL, EXPRESS, VICTUALING AND MISCELLANEOUS WERE CONSIDERED,
AS WELL AS THE CORRESPONDING LABOR, POWER, TAX, RENTAL AND
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.  OPERATING RATIO PERCENTAGES FOR THE VARIOUS
YEARS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE EVIDENCE. 

THE STIPULATED OPERATING REVENUES OF THE DEBTOR'S SYSTEM FOR THE
YEARS 1922-1938 AND THE FIRST NINE MONTHS OF 1939 ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

1922---$12,736,564 1928---$19,421,851 1934----------------
$13,779,238 

1923--- 14,414,812 1929--- 20,096,557 1935-----------------
14,407,458 

1924--- 14,669,313 1930--- 18,819,062 1936-----------------
16,547,344 

1925--- 15,898,548 1931--- 14,852,938 1937-----------------
17,918,485 

1926--- 17,951,468 1932--- 12,251,071 1938-----------------
16,057,451 

1927--- 18,306,675 1933--- 12,202,489 1939(1ST 9 MTHS.)----
12,836,985 

FURTHERMORE, THE RECORD SHOWS THE FAVORABLE EFFECT UPON THE SYSTEM'S
GROSS OPERATING REVENUE OF THE EXTENSION OF ITS LINES INTO NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA.  THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION, KNOWN AS THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
EXTENSION, WAS PUT INTO OPERATION IN 1932 AND CONTRIBUTED THE FOLLOWING
GROSS REVENUES FROM FREIGHT ORIGINATING, TERMINATING AND PASSING OVER
THE EXTENSION: 

1932--------------------$1,098,016  1936-------------------
$3,151,734 

1933-------------------- 1,491,466  1937--------------------
3,425,601 

1934-------------------- 2,119,427  1938--------------------
3,093,676 

1935-------------------- 2,289,858  1939(FIRST 9 MONTHS)----
2,463,484 

THE EXTENSION IS A LINK IN A PACIFIC COAST ROUTE CREATED BY THIS
NORTHERLY EXTENSION AND A CORRESPONDING SOUTHERLY EXTENSION BY THE
GREAT NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY WHICH JOIN AT BIEBER, CALIFORNIA.  THE
EXTENSION COST OVER TEN MILLION DOLLARS AND WAS BUILT WITH THE
EXPECTATION, SINCE REALIZED, OF MATERIALLY INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE
DEBTOR'S PROPERTY AS AN OPERATING ROAD.  THE COMMISSION GAVE
CONSIDERATION TO THIS FACTOR IN ESTIMATING THE PROBABILITIES OF FUTURE
INCOME. 

PROSPECTS FOR MAINTAINING AND INCREASING THE DEBTOR'S TRAFFIC AND SO
ITS NET FOR INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS ARE INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT IT
DEPENDS TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT UPON TRAFFIC ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER
LINES.  THE DEBTOR'S MAIN LINE FROM OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO SALT LAKE
CITY IS AN IMPORTANT SECTION OF A THROUGH ROUTE FROM THE PACIFIC COAST
TO THE MIDWEST.  IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN
AND THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY IT OFFERS FAST THROUGH
SCHEDULES.  THE DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN COMPLETED, IN 1934, THE
DOTSERO CUTOFF.  THIS CUTOFF AND THE MOFFATT TUNNEL, A NEARBY
IMPROVEMENT OF THE DENVER AND SALT LAKE, USED TOGETHER MATERIALLY
SHORTEN THE RAILROAD DISTANCE BETWEEN PACIFIC COAST AND MIDWEST POINTS
AND OPEN TO PASSENGER TRAFFIC A SCENIC ROUTE OF GREAT BEAUTY.  THE
HEARINGS ON REORGANIZATION MAKE THESE FACTS AS TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF
INCREASED TRAFFIC AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION AND COURT. 

THESE BASIC FACTORS OF PHYSICAL CONDITION, TRAFFIC, GROSS AND NET
INCOME ET CETERA WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS.  FROM THEM
THERE WAS TO BE PROJECTED AN ESTIMATE AS TO THE FUTURE FROM WHICH WAS
TO BE DRAWN A PRESENT VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS ABILITY TO
CARRY BY ITS EARNINGS A CERTAIN VOLUME IN DOLLARS OF SECURITIES.  THERE
ARE NO ASSETS OF SIGNIFICANT WORTH WHICH ARE NOT IN ACTIVE USE AS
PRODUCERS OF INCOME.  RELYING LARGELY UPON PAST EARNINGS, THE
COMMISSION FOUND "THAT THE FIXED INTEREST CHARGES OF THE REORGANIZED
COMPANY SHOULD NOT INITIALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEED $500,000, IF THE
REORGANIZED COMPANY IS TO MAINTAIN ITS PROPERTY PROPERLY AND SECURE
NECESSARY NEW CAPITAL IN THE FUTURE."  IT FURTHER DETERMINED THAT THE
PLAN SHOULD PROVIDE A CAPITAL FUND FOR FUTURE ROUTINE ADDITIONS AND
BETTERMENTS.  THIS WAS ESTIMATED TO REQUIRE $500,000 ANNUALLY.  FN4
CARRYING CHARGES OF $94,202 ON EXISTING EQUIPMENT TRUSTS WERE TO BE
ASSUMED BY THE REORGANIZED CORPORATION.  A NEW $10,000,000 FIRST
MORTGAGE 4% BOND ISSUE WAS ALLOTTED $400,000 ANNUALLY.  THESE FIXED
CHARGES AGGREGATE $994,202.  IN ADDITION TO THE FIXED CHARGES, THE
COMMISSION DETERMINED THE SYSTEM REASONABLY COULD CARRY ANOTHER
$1,000,000 OF CONTINGENT CHARGES.  THUS THE OVER-ALL CHARGE FOR ANNUAL
FIXED AND CONTINGENT INTEREST, CAPITAL AND SINKING FUNDS WAS LIMITED TO
APPROXIMATELY $2,000,000 PER ANNUM.  INCOME MORTGAGE 4 1/2% BONDS WERE
AUTHORIZED IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,219,075.  THEIR ANNUAL INTEREST COMES
TO $954,858 AND THEIR ONE-HALF PER CENT SINKING FUND CALLS FOR
$106,095. 

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING LIMITATION, CAPITALIZATION OF THE
REORGANIZED COMPANY WAS FIXED AT $2,750,050 OF UNDISTURBED EQUIPMENT
OBLIGATIONS, $10,000,000 OF FIRST MORTGAGE 4% BONDS, $21,219,075 OF
INCOME MORTGAGE 4 1/2% BONDS, $31,850,297 OF 5% PREFERRED STOCK, AND
319,441 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK WITHOUT PAR VALUE.  FN5  THESE ISSUES OF
PREFERRED AND COMMON WERE BASED UPON POSSIBLE EARNINGS IN ADDITION TO
THE $2,000,000 PLUS.  THESE SECURITIES WERE ALLOTTED BY THE COMMISSION
UPON CONSIDERATION OF "THE RELATIVE PRIORITY, VALUE, AND EQUITY OF THE
VARIOUS CLAIMS AND THE VALUE OF THE NEW SECURITIES AVAILABLE IN
EXCHANGE THEREFOR," AS FOLLOWS:  FN6  (CHART OMITTED)    THE COMMISSION
FOUND, CORRELATIVE TO AND AS A BASIS FOR ITS ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES,
THAT "THE EQUITY OF THE EXISTING STOCK HAS NO VALUE, AND HENCE HOLDERS
OF SUCH STOCK ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLAN.  FURTHER,
CONSIDERING THAT THE REORGANIZED COMPANY'S INCOME AVAILABLE FOR
INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS MUST TOTAL $4,318,035, (*) PLUS ANY
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX THAT WILL BE PAYABLE, BEFORE DIVIDENDS OF $3
PER SHARE MAY BE PAID ON THE NEW COMMON STOCK, IT IS CLEAR THAT, EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE SECURITIES REMAINING AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION AFTER
SATISFYING THE CLAIMS OF THE FIRST-MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS ARE ALLOTTED TO
THE OTHER SECURED CREDITORS, SUCH SECURITIES WILL BE INADEQUATE IN
VALUE TO SATISFY THEIR CLAIMS.  FOR THIS REASON, AND FOR THE REASONS
STATED WITH RESPECT TO THE FINDING THAT THE EQUITY OF THE EXISTING
STOCK HAS NO VALUE, WE FIND THAT THE CLAIMS OF THE UNSECURED CREDITORS,
OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CORPORATION, AND OF THE WESTERN REALTY
COMPANY, HAVE NO VALUE, AND HENCE NO SECURITIES OR CASH SHOULD BE
DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE PLAN IN RESPECT OF THOSE CLAIMS."  230 I.C.C.
101. 

*THIS AMOUNT NOW IS SOMEWHAT LARGER ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASED FACE OF
SECURITIES.  233 I.C.C. AT 412. 

THE PLAN AND A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
WERE DULY CERTIFIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  IN RE WESTERN PACIFIC R.
CO., 34 F.SUPP.  493, 495.  THE PLAN IN COMPLETE FORM AND A DETAILED
DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORY, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS PROSPECTS OF THE
DEBTOR APPEAR IN THE VARIOUS REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE OPINION
BELOW.  SEE NOTE 1 SUPRA.  THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD THE PROTESTS
AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
OFFERED, AND FOUND THAT THE PLAN CONFORMED IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 77.  FN7  ALL OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN WERE
THEREFORE OVERRULED AND THE COURT DIRECTED THAT A COPY OF THE ORDER AND
OPINION BE TRANSMITTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR USE IN SUBMITTING THE PLAN
FOR ACTION TO THE FIRST MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS, THE R.F.C., THE A.C.
JAMES CO. AND THE RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION, THE ONLY CREDITORS FOUND
TO BE ENTITLED TO VOTE ON THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN. 

ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 128, 43
STAT. 936, THIS ORDER WAS REVERSED.  THE COURT RESTED UPON THE
NECESSITY OF SPECIFIC VALUATION OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, OF THE
RESPECTIVE PORTIONS OF IT COVERED BY THE FIRST MORTGAGE AND THE
REFUNDING MORTGAGE, OF EACH OF THE CLAIMS AND OF THE NEW SECURITIES
ALLOCATED TO THE CREDITORS.  SUCH ACTION WAS DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO ENABLE
THE DISTRICT COURT TO EXERCISE ITS INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT UPON MATTERS OF
VALUATION AND ALLOCATION.  THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH SEPARATE VALUATIONS
WAS HELD TO REQUIRE THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S APPROVAL
OF THE PLAN.  SEE NOTE 26, INFRA. 

FUNCTION OF THE COURT.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AS TO
THE NECESSITY FOR A DETAILED VALUATION SPRINGS FROM ITS INTERPRETATION
OF THE STATUTE AS TO THE FUNCTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
REORGANIZATIONS.  THAT COURT HAD SAID IN ITS OPINION: 

"IT CANNOT BE GAINSAID THAT THE COMMISSION KNOWS ALL ABOUT THE
DEBTOR, ITS PROPERTY, ITS HISTORY, FINANCIAL AND OTHERWISE, ITS TRAFFIC
AND REVENUE, AND ITS FINANCIAL STRUCTURE.  NO OFFICIAL BODY IN THE
COUNTRY IS BETTER QUALIFIED, BY REASON OF EXPERIENCE, ABILITY AND
SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE THAN IS THE COMMISSION TO FIND THE ULTIMATE FACTS
AS TO THE DEBTOR IN RELATION TO ANY OF THE MATTERS MENTIONED."  IN RE
WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO., 34 F.SUPP.  493, 501. 

COMMENTING UPON THIS, THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID: 

"THE STATEMENT INDICATES A POSSIBLE MISCONCEPTION.  ... 

"IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION SATISFIES THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION E, THE COURT IS NOT CONCLUDED BY ANY
DETERMINATION MADE BY THE COMMISSION, BUT MAY, AND MUST, EXERCISE ITS
OWN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT; AND THIS IS TRUE WHETHER SUCH DETERMINATION
RELATES TO VALUE OR TO SOME OTHER SUBJECT.  INITIALLY, HOWEVER, THE
DUTY OF DETERMINING THE VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY FOR ANY PURPOSE UNDER
SEC. 77 RESTS ON THE COMMISSION, NOT ON THE COURT."  IN RE WESTERN
PACIFIC R. CO., 124 F.2D 136, 140. 

PETITIONERS IN NOS. 7, 8 AND 33 SEEK REVIEW OF THIS LAST RULING. 
THEIR PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI QUERY WHETHER SEC. 77 DOES NOT VEST 

"IN THE COMMISSION EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION (SUBJECT ONLY TO REVIEW FOR
ARBITRARY EXERCISE) TO DETERMINE WHETHER A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PLAN
IS 'COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST,' INCLUDING JURISDICTION TO
DETERMINE TOTAL CAPITALIZATION, THE CLASSIFICATION THEREOF, AND THE
FINANCIAL DETAILS OF EACH CLASS OF PROPOSED CAPITALIZATION?" 

THIS SUMMARY SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIES THE ISSUE WITHOUT THE NECESSITY
OF ELABORATING DIFFERENTIATIONS IN THE PETITIONERS' PRESENT VIEWS OR OF
DETERMINING THE DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VIEWS OF THE DISTRICT
AND APPELLATE COURTS AS TO THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT UNDER SEC. 77. 

THE OPINION SHOWS THE ATTITUDE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 34 F.SUPP. 
493, 503, 504:  "THE CAPITALIZATION PERMITTED BY THESE EARNINGS IS A
MERE MATTER OF COMPUTATION, WHICH WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COMMISSION
DID NOT ACT ARBITRARILY IN LIMITING CAPITALIZATION NOR THE RESPECTIVE
CLASSES THEREOF.  ... 

"THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT AND CHARACTER OF THE CAPITALIZATION
(A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST) IS EXCLUSIVELY
WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE COMMISSION.  THE ONLY QUALIFICATION, IF ANY,
IS THAT THE COURT SHALL INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINE WHETHER, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION, THE COMMISSION HAS ACTED FAIRLY, WITHIN
THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND NOT ARBITRARILY."  UPON THE OTHER
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT COURT EXERCISED AN INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RECORD AND THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION
TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT BY THE
PARTIES.  34 F.SUPP.  493, 505. 

THESE REORGANIZATIONS REQUIRE SOMETHING MORE THAN CONTESTS BETWEEN
ADVERSARY INTERESTS TO PRODUCE PLANS WHICH ARE FAIR AND IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  WHEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE,
BULKS LARGE IN THE PROBLEM, THE SOLUTION IS LARGELY A FUNCTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT WITH THEIR
FACILITIES AND EXPERIENCE IN INVESTIGATING ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM
AND APPRAISING THE GENERAL INTEREST.  FN8  CONGRESS OUTLINED THE COURSE
REORGANIZATION IS TO FOLLOW.  IT ESTABLISHED STANDARDS FOR
ADMINISTRATION AND PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION THE PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUITABLE PLAN.  WHEN EXAMINED
TO LEARN THE PURPOSE OF ITS ENACTMENT, SEC. 77 MANIFESTS THE INTENTION
OF CONGRESS TO PLACE REORGANIZATION UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE
COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO A DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION BY THE COURT. 

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE STATUTE ITSELF THAT THERE
WAS RECOGNITION BY EVERYONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF UTILIZING THE
FACILITIES OF THE COMMISSION FOR INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANY-SIDED
PROBLEMS OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, FINANCE AND PUBLIC INTEREST
INVOLVED IN EVEN MINOR RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS AND UTILIZING THE
COMMISSION'S EXPERIENCE IN THESE FIELDS FOR THE APPRAISALS OF VALUES
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, FAIR TO THE PUBLIC,
CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS.  FN9  THE RESULTING LEGISLATION WAS AN
ATTEMPTED BALANCE BETWEEN THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT OF THE
COURT. 

AS TO THE COURT'S PLACE IN REORGANIZATION, THE PRESENT STATUTE DOES
NOT VARY GREATLY FROM THE FIRST LEGISLATIVE EFFORT, ENACTED MARCH 3,
1933, TO REORGANIZE RAILROADS UNABLE TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS.  FN10
THE AMENDMENTS OF 1935 WERE PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO CURE DEFECTS
DISCLOSED BY PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE.  FN11  BOTH ACTS ARE BOTTOMED UPON
THE THEORY OF DEBTOR REHABILITATION BY ADJUSTMENT OF CREDITORS'
CLAIMS.  SUCH TREATMENT WAS ESSENTIAL FOR EMBARRASSED RAILROADS, AS
ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY LIQUIDATION OR JUDICIAL SALES WERE IMPOSSIBLE
BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THEIR INDEBTEDNESS AND THE PAUCITY OF BUYERS. 
THE ACTS WERE A PART OF THE RELIEF GRANTED FINANCIALLY INVOLVED
CORPORATIONS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, IN THE DEPRESSION YEARS OF THE EARLY
THIRTIES.  FN12 SINCE RAILROADS COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 4, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 22, THEIR FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS
FOR YEARS HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS UNDER JUDICIAL
CONTROL.  THESE WERE CUMBERSOME, COSTLY AND PRIVATELY MANAGED WITH
INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A SOUNDLY FINANCED
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. INVESTIGATION, 131 I.C.C.
615, 671; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 282 U.S.
311, 331 DISSENT. 

THE FIRST BILL WAS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE JANUARY 21, 1933, AS H.R.
14359.  FN13  IT WAS DRAFTED SO AS TO PLACE "THE ENTIRE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION UNDER THE JURISDICTION, SUPERVISION AND CONTROL" OF THE
COMMISSION.  AFTER COMMISSION APPROVAL, WHICH FOLLOWED STOCKHOLDER AND
CREDITOR APPROVAL, IT WAS TO TRANSMIT THE "APPROVED PLAN, ITS FINDINGS
AND THE RECORD TO THE COURT.  THE COURT'S REVIEW MUST BE BASED UPON THE
RECORD MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION."  FN14  THIS SUBSTITUTION OF THE
COMMISSION FOR AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP UNDER COURT DIRECTION WAS
CRITICIZED AND AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED TO "ELIMINATE ALL CONFUSION IN
REGARD TO THE FUNCTIONS TO BE EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THE
COURT,  ...  AND (TO) REMOVE THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO THE
BILL IN ITS PRESENT FORM."  FN15  NOTWITHSTANDING THE CRITICISM THE
BILL PASSED THE HOUSE WITH THE POWER LODGED IN THE COMMISSION, AS
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.  WHEN THE HOUSE BILL FOR THE RELIEF OF DEBTORS
FN16  WAS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE, THE RAILROAD SECTION WAS
OMITTED.  BY A MOTION FROM THE FLOOR IT WAS REINSTATED BUT IN A CHANGED
FORM.  THE SENATE ADOPTED CHANGES DESIGNED TO GIVE MORE POWER TO THE
COURT.  76 CONG. REC. 4907, 5104-34.  HEARINGS BEFORE THE COURT WERE
PROVIDED.  THE JUDGE, IT WAS ADDED, WAS TO BE "SATISFIED THAT (1) THE
APPROVED PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS
ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS."  N17  THESE AMENDMENTS GIVING
CONCURRENT POWERS TO THE COURT WERE ADOPTED BY THE SENATE AND ACCEPTED
BY THE HOUSE AND THE BILL BECAME THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, 47 STAT.
1474. 

FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PRESIDENT IN HIS MESSAGE OF JUNE
7, 1935, THE CONGRESS ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1933 ACT WHICH WERE IN
LINE WITH THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE COMMISSION.  FN18  WHILE THE MOST IMPORTANT AMENDMENT WAS TO
FURNISH MEANS TO AVOID THE OBSTRUCTION OF DISSATISFIED CLASSES OF
CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS BY MAKING A FAIR AND EQUITABLE PLAN EFFECTIVE
OVER DISSENTERS, THE REQUIREMENT OF COORDINATED ACTION BY COMMISSION
AND COURT WAS RETAINED. 

THE SENATE REPORT, NO. 1336, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., CONCLUDED: 

"THE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 77 LEAVE UNIMPAIRED THE POWER AND THE DUTY
OF THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS TO DEAL WITH THE MOST IMPORTANT
FEATURE OF ALL REORGANIZATION PLANS, THAT OF THE CONTROL OF THE
REORGANIZED COMPANY; AND SIMILARLY THE COMMISSION AND COURTS WILL
CONTINUE TO HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF MAKING THAT THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION WHICH IS NECESSARY TO ASSURE SOUND AND RELIABLE CONTROL
FOR BANKRUPT COMPANIES WHEN THEY EMERGE FROM THE COURTS, IN PLACE OF
THE TYPE OF CONTROL UNDER WHICH SOME RAILROADS HAVE BEEN WRECKED." 

UNDER THE PRESENT STATUTE THE DISTRICT COURT HAS DEFINITE
RESPONSIBILITY IN REORGANIZATION.  SUBSECTION (E).  AFTER THE
CERTIFICATION FROM THE COMMISSION IS FILED, A HEARING IS AUTHORIZED AT
WHICH ALL INTERESTED PARTIES MAY APPEAR.  ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF
OPPONENTS AND PROPONENTS OF THE PLAN MAY BE RECEIVED UPON "DETAILED AND
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS IN WRITING TO THE PLAN AND THEIR CLAIMS FOR
EQUITABLE TREATMENT."  THE JUDGE SHALL THEN "APPROVE THE PLAN IF
SATISFIED THAT:  (1) IT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B)
OF THIS SECTION, IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE, AFFORDS DUE RECOGNITION TO THE
RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS, DOES NOT
DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS OR
STOCKHOLDERS, AND WILL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW OF THE
LAND REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS
AND STOCKHOLDERS;" AND IF SATISFIED AS TO FEES, COSTS AND ALLOWANCES. 
IF THE PLAN IS DISAPPROVED, THE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE DISMISSED OR
REFERRED BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  ON APPROVAL
BY THE JUDGE THE PLAN IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR SUBMISSION TO
STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS FOR THEIR APPROVAL.  SUBMISSION TO CLASSES
OF STOCKHOLDERS OR CREDITORS MAY BE OMITTED ON A FINDING BY THE
COMMISSION, AFFIRMED BY THE JUDGE, OF A LACK OF VALUE IN THE EQUITY OF
THE STOCKHOLDERS OR THE CLAIMS OF THE CREDITORS.  ON CERTIFICATION OF
THE RESULTS OF THE SUBMISSION THE JUDGE SHALL CONFIRM THE PLAN FINALLY,
IF SATISFIED THE REQUISITE APPROVAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED OR IS EXCUSED FOR
REASONS STATED IN SUBSECTION (E).  THE JUDGE IS NOT EMPOWERED TO
APPROVE OR CONFIRM ANY PLAN UNTIL IT HAS FIRST BEEN APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION AND CERTIFIED TO THE COURT.  SUBSECTION (D). 

THE POWER OF THE COURT DOES NOT EXTEND TO PARTICIPATION IN ALL
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION.  VALUATION IS A FUNCTION LIMITED TO
THE COMMISSION, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF APPROVAL BY THE COURT.  THE
FIRST SENTENCE OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF SUBSECTION (E) PROVIDES: 

"IF IT SHALL BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY FOR
ANY PURPOSE UNDER THIS SECTION, THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE SUCH
VALUE AND CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE COURT IN ITS REPORT ON THE PLAN." 
THE FUNCTION OF VALUATION THUS LEFT TO THE COMMISSION IS THE
DETERMINATION OF THE WORTH OF THE PROPERTY VALUED, WHETHER STATED IN
DOLLARS, IN SECURITIES OR OTHERWISE.  ONE OF THE PRIMARY OBJECTS OF THE
BILL WAS THE ELIMINATION OF OBSTRUCTIVE LITIGATION ON THE ISSUE OF
VALUATION  FN19 AND THE FORM FINALLY CHOSEN APPROACHED AS NEAR TO THAT
POSITION AS SEEMED TO THE DRAFTSMEN LEGALLY POSSIBLE.  JUDICIAL
REEXAMINATION WAS NOT CONSIDERED DESIRABLE.  FN20  NONE OF THE FINDINGS
REQUIRED OF THE JUDGE UNDER SUBSECTION (E) RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO
VALUATION.  CONGRESS APPARENTLY INTENDED TO LEAVE THE DETERMINATION OF
VALUATION "OF ANY PROPERTY FOR ANY PURPOSE UNDER THIS SECTION" TO THE
COMMISSION.  FN21  THE LANGUAGE CHOSEN LEAVES TO THE COMMISSION, WE
THINK, THE DETERMINATION OF VALUE WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF A
REEXAMINATION BY THE COURT, WHEN THAT DETERMINATION IS REACHED WITH
MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LEGAL STANDARDS.  IT LEAVES OPEN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IN REACHING
THE RESULT THE COMMISSION HAD APPLIED IMPROPER STATUTORY STANDARDS. 
THIS LATTER POINT IS DISCUSSED UNDER THE HEADING OF METHOD OF VALUATION
IN THIS OPINION, P. 477, INFRA, WHERE THIS PLAN IS REVIEWED AND UPHELD
IN THIS RESPECT. 

ANOTHER RESTRICTION ON COURT ACTION IS THAT THE DETERMINATION AS TO
WHETHER THE PLAN IS "COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST" RESTS, AS
VALUATION DOES, WITH THE COMMISSION.  SUBSECTION (D).  WITHOUT
ATTEMPTING TO FORECAST THE LIMITS OF THE PHRASE AS USED IN THE SETTING
OF THIS STATUTE, IT IS SUFFICIENT IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE, AS WE DO,
THAT IT INCLUDES THE AMOUNT AND CHARACTER OF THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE
REORGANIZED CORPORATION.  CF. NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 12, 24.  LEAVING THE PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST TO
THE COMMISSION WAS NOT A DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT.  THE PHRASE HAD BEEN
EMPLOYED LONG BEFORE IN THE GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE THE ISSUE
OF SECURITIES.  SEC. 20A, INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN22 

THE PROBLEMS OF CAPITALIZATION ARE OF PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE CORPORATE
FORM IS UNIVERSALLY USED FOR THE BUSINESS OF RAILROADING.  RAILROAD
SECURITIES ARE WIDELY DISTRIBUTED IN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS AND AMONG
INDIVIDUAL SAVERS.  THE REASONABLE EARNING POWER OF SECURITIES, THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE ISSUES, AND THE SOUNDNESS OF THE
AGGREGATE CAPITALIZATION AFFECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IMMEDIATELY AND
DIRECTLY.  CAPITALIZATION IS AN ESSENTIAL FACTOR BEARING ON AN
EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR SHIPPER, INVESTOR AND CONSUMER. 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY WHICH
IS ENTRUSTED SOLELY TO THE COMMISSION UNDER THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
PLAN BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS THAT RELATING TO THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ISSUABLE SECURITIES AND THE QUALITY OF THE SECURITIES
TO BE ISSUED.  SO LONG AS LEGAL STANDARDS ARE FOLLOWED, THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COMMISSION ON SUCH CAPITALIZATION IS FINAL. 

THUS LIMITED, THE DISTRICT COURT ACTS CONCERNING THE PLANS ONLY UPON
THE ISSUES SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED BY SUBSECTION (E).  AS TO THESE, ITS
POWERS ARE NEGATIVE.  IT MAY VETO THE PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY BUT MAY
IMPROVE IT ONLY BY SUGGESTION.  IT BECOMES A NECESSARY AND IMPORTANT
FACTOR IN RAILROAD REORGANIZATION.  THESE REORGANIZATIONS MAY BE
ATTAINED ONLY THROUGH PROPERLY COORDINATED ACTION BETWEEN THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURT.  FN23  IN THIS CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT PERFORMED ITS REQUIRED FUNCTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE.  SEE PAGE 466, SUPRA. 

AMOUNT AND CHARACTER OF CAPITALIZATION.  WHILE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
PHASE OF CAPITALIZATION IS NOT TO BE INDEPENDENTLY PASSED UPON BY THE
COURT, THE COURT DOES HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REVIEW FOR OBEDIENCE
TO LEGAL STANDARDS N24.  PETITIONERS IN SEEKING CERTIORARI AND NOW ON
THE MERITS CONCEDE THAT THE EXCLUSIVE POWER IN THE COMMISSION TO PASS
UPON THE AMOUNT AND CHARACTER OF CAPITALIZATION IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW
FOR "ARBITRARY EXERCISE."  THE RESPONDENT A.C. JAMES COMPANY MAKES THE
POINT THAT THE RESTRICTION OF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITALIZATION TO AN
AGGREGATE LIMITED BY THE REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF A FAIR RETURN
DEPRIVES THOSE CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WHO ARE BARRED AS HOLDING
CLAIMS WITHOUT VALUE, OF THEIR PROPERTY INTEREST IN THE DEBTOR WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS AND CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF SEC. 77.  THE COMMISSION
THOUGHT THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRED A CAPITAL STRUCTURE WHICH
WOULD GIVE THE REORGANIZED COMPANY "A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO
FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY AND CONTINUOUSLY" AND THAT "PROPOSED CHARGES,
WHETHER FIXED OR CONTINGENT, SHALL BE WITHIN ITS PROBABLE EARNING
POWER."  230 I.C.C. AT 87. 

ASSUMING AT THIS POINT THAT THE COMMISSION'S VALUATION IS SOUND AND
REACHED BY ALLOWABLE METHODS, A MATTER DISCUSSED LATER IN THIS OPINION
AT PAGE 477, WE HOLD THAT THE ELIMINATION OF THE CLAIMS OF STOCKHOLDERS
AND CREDITORS WHICH ARE VALUELESS FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE
REORGANIZATION IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH VALID PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77(E). 
FN25  ACTUAL BANKRUPTCY MEANS A LOSS TO SOME INVESTORS.  SUBSECTION (E)
RECOGNIZES THIS INEVITABLE RESULT AND PROVIDES A METHOD FOR THEIR
ELIMINATION FROM THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS.  AFTER ALL OF THE
REASONABLE VALUE HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED BY SENIOR SECURITIES, WARRANTS
MIGHT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED FOR OTHERWISE UNSATISFIED CLAIMS.  SUCH
WARRANTS WOULD REPRESENT MERELY THE POSSIBILITY OF RECOUPMENT, JUST AS
THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION IN JUDICIAL SALES.  BUT THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH IMMEDIATELY VALUELESS
PAPER SHOULD BE ISSUED.  A MERE POSSIBILITY THAT TRAFFIC MIGHT BE FOUND
TO THE LIMIT OF THE PHYSICAL CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM IS NOT THE KIND OF
EARNING POWER WHICH JUSTIFIES THE ISSUE OF SECURITIES BASED UPON SUCH A
POSSIBILITY.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE LIMITS OF THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION
TO FIND CLAIMS WORTHLESS, THE PRESENT PLAN MAY NOT BE SUCCESSFULLY
ATTACKED ON THE GROUND THAT CONGRESS IS POWERLESS TO AUTHORIZE IN
BANKRUPTCY THE ELIMINATION OF CLAIMS WITHOUT VALUE.  IN RE 620 CHURCH
ST. CORP., 299 U.S. 24. 

NOR DO WE FIND VIOLATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS IN THE REQUIREMENT BY THE
COMMISSION FOR A CAPITAL FUND OR THE ISSUE OF STOCK TO FORMER HOLDERS
OF INTEREST-BEARING SECURITIES.  THE COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN WHICH MUST BALANCE AND CHOOSE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE INTERESTS.  THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION GAVE GROUNDS FOR
THE FINDING OF A NORMAL REQUIREMENT OF AN ANNUAL $500,000 FUND FOR
IMPROVEMENTS.  IT IS REASONABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION THAT A
SUBSTANTIAL SHARE OF THE SECURITIES SHOULD BE FIXED STOCK INVESTMENTS
RATHER THAN THAT THE ENTIRE AGGREGATE AMOUNT, JUSTIFIED BY ESTIMATES OF
PROBABLE EARNINGS, SHOULD BE IN INTERESTBEARING LOANS, WHICH ULTIMATELY
MUST BE REDEEMED.  STOCK WHICH HAS NO RETIREMENT PROVISIONS IS THE
BACKBONE OF A CORPORATE STRUCTURE. 

METHOD OF VALUATION.  WHILE BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE THE VALUATION
OF THE PROPERTY IS LEFT TO THE COMMISSION, WITHOUT PARTICIPATION BY THE
COURT, THIS VALUATION MUST BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF
THE STATUTE AND AS TO THAT VALUATION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. 
THIS REVIEW IS LIMITED IN CHARACTER BY THE DIRECTION OF SUBSECTION (E)
THAT VALUATION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT MAY REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS FOLLOWED THE
STATUTORY MANDATES OF SUBSECTION (E).  SUBSECTION (E) REQUIRES
VALUATIONS BY THE COMMISSION TO BE "DETERMINED ON A BASIS WHICH WILL
GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE EARNING POWER OF THE PROPERTY, PAST,
PRESENT, AND PROSPECTIVE, AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTS.  IN DETERMINING
SUCH VALUE ONLY SUCH EFFECT SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PRESENT COST OF
REPRODUCTION NEW AND LESS DEPRECIATION AND ORIGINAL COST OF THE
PROPERTY, AND THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT THEREIN, AS MAY BE REQUIRED UNDER
THE LAW OF THE LAND, IN LIGHT OF ITS EARNING POWER AND ALL OTHER
RELEVANT FACTS."  THUS, WHILE JUDICIAL REVIEW DOES NOT INVOLVE AN
INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION INTO VALUATION, IT DOES REQUIRE THAT THE COURT
SHALL BE SATISFIED, UPON THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WITH SUCH
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS MAY BE PERTINENT TO THE OBJECTIONS TO THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING OF VALUE, THAT THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS HAVE
BEEN FOLLOWED. 

AN EXAMPLE OF THIS TYPE OF REVIEW OCCURS IN THIS RECORD.  THE IRVING
TRUST COMPANY, AS REFUNDING MORTGAGE TRUSTEE IN NOS. 7 AND 8, AND THE
A.C. JAMES COMPANY OBJECT TO THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE
BONDS, $270,000, AND STOCK, $360,834, PAR VALUE, OF THE CENTRAL
CALIFORNIA TRACTION COMPANY AND $465,300, PAR VALUE, OF THE CAPITAL
STOCK OF THE ALAMEDA BELT LINE, PLEDGED ONLY UNDER THE REFUNDING
MORTGAGE, HAD NO MATERIAL VALUE.  233 I.C.C. 414-416.  THESE SECURITIES
WERE OWNED SOLELY BY THE DEBTOR BUT IN THE CASE OF THE FIRST COMPANY
REPRESENTED A ONE-THIRD INTEREST IN THE TRACTION COMPANY AND IN THE
CASE OF THE SECOND A ONE-HALF INTEREST IN THE BELT LINE.  COMPETING
TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILROADS OWNED THE OTHER INTERESTS.  THE RESPECTIVE
OWNERSHIPS WERE ACQUIRED TO PUT THE DEBTOR IN A POSITION TO OBTAIN ITS
FAIR SHARE OF THE BUSINESS FROM AND TO THESE FEEDER LINES.  THE FACTS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION SHOWED THAT, OVER THE PRECEDING DECADE, THE
DEBTOR HAD CONTRIBUTED ANNUALLY SUBSTANTIAL SUMS TO MEET THE DEFICITS
OF EACH OF THE COMPANIES.  IT WAS SHOWN IN THE DISTRICT COURT THAT EACH
OF THE COMPANIES WERE USEFUL AUXILIARIES TO THE BUSINESS OF THE
DEBTOR.  HOWEVER, VALUATION IS ESSENTIALLY A PROBLEM FOR THE
COMMISSION.  THERE IS MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION OF
LACK OF VALUE AND ITS CONCLUSION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THIS IS SUFFICIENT. 

IN THE PRECEDING SECTION OF THIS OPINION, WE DISCUSSED THE VALIDITY
OF THE PROVISION OF SUBSECTION (E) WHICH PERMITS THE ELIMINATION FROM
THE REORGANIZATION OF CLAIMANTS WITHOUT EQUITY IN THE DEBTOR'S
PROPERTIES.  THIS PROVISION NEEDS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF STATUTORY REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.  AS TO BOTH
STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS THE SECTION REQUIRES THAT A PLAN WHICH
ALLOWS NOTHING TO THEIR CLAIMS, NEED NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THEM, IF THE
WORTHLESSNESS OF THEIR CLAIMS IS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION, "AND THE
JUDGE SHALL HAVE AFFIRMED THE FINDING."  AS TO CERTAIN CREDITORS AND
ALL STOCKHOLDERS IN THIS CASE, BOTH EVENTS TOOK PLACE.  THE SPECIFICITY
OF THE DIRECTION FOR REEXAMINATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION POINTS TO
A WIDER SCOPE OF REVIEW THAN AN INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER STATUTORY
STANDARDS FOR VALUATION HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE
VALUATION OF THE WHOLE OF A DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, IN A SIMPLE CASE WITHOUT
CONFLICTING OR DIVISIONAL LIENS, WILL MARK, BY A MERE MATHEMATICAL
COMPUTATION AS TO PRIORITIES, THE CLAIMANTS WHO MUST BE FOUND TO BE
WITHOUT EQUITY IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  BUT WE THINK THE REQUIREMENT OF
AFFIRMATION OF THE EXCLUSION OF CLAIMANTS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN
INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL OF THE VALUATION WHICH ORDAINED THEIR
ELIMINATION.  THE COURT PROPERLY AFFIRMS THE COMMISSION, WHEN IT FINDS
NO LEGAL OBJECTION TO THE COMMISSION'S USE OF ITS OWN VALUATION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER PARTICULAR CLAIMANTS ARE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE REORGANIZATION.  FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MAY ARISE CONTROVERSIES OVER
THE PRIORITY OR THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS.  A COMMISSION FINDING INVOLVING
SUCH PROBLEMS WOULD REQUIRE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION AND AN
AFFIRMATION BY THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND ERROR IN THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE
TO MAKE DEFINITE VALUATIONS.  IT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NECESSARY
TO DETERMINE THE VALUES OF THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMS IN ORDER TO HAVE A
BASIS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF NEW ASSETS.  FN26  THIS POSITION
RESPONDENTS DEFEND, AT LEAST TO THE POINT OF SAYING THAT CLAIMS MAY NOT
BE FORECLOSED OR NEW SECURITIES ALLOCATED WITHOUT A DETERMINATION OF
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ASSETS SUBJECT TO SECURED CLAIMS, AS
WELL AS EARNING POWER.  THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE DEBTOR'S
INVESTMENT IN ITS PROPERTY, 230 I.C.C. 61, 65, ITS VALUE FOR RATE
MAKING PURPOSES, ID., 76, AND THE RECORD OF ITS EARNINGS, ID., 73 ET
SEQ., TOGETHER WITH ITS VOLUME OF TRAFFIC AND OTHER PERTINENT DATA.  IT
CONCLUDED THAT THESE FACTORS WOULD JUSTIFY FIXED AND CONTINGENT CHARGES
OF NO MORE THAN TWO MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY.  IN ADDITION, THE
COMMISSION'S PLAN PROVIDED FOR FIVE PER CENT PREFERRED STOCK AND COMMON
STOCK IN SUCH AMOUNTS THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE AGGREGATE AVAILABLE ANNUAL
EARNINGS OF A LITTLE MORE THAN FOUR AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS TO
PERMIT PAYMENT OF A THREE PER CENT DIVIDEND.  WITHOUT APPRAISING THE
EFFECT OF INCOME TAXATION ON THE REMAINDER OF EARNINGS AVAILABLE AND
PARTLY USED FOR INTEREST, IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT ONLY THREE YEARS IN
THE PERIOD FROM 1922 TO 1940 SHOWED EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST OF
OVER FOUR MILLION.  SEE PAGE 457, SUPRA.  WITH THIS DATA, THE
COMMISSION DETERMINED THE NEW CAPITAL STRUCTURE.  SEE PAGE 461, SUPRA.
TAKING THE LOWEST VALUE FOR THE NO PAR SUGGESTED BY THE COMMISSION, $57
PER SHARE, NOTE 6, SUPRA, THERE IS A TOTAL VALUE OF SECURITIES OF
EIGHTY-FOUR MILLION DOLLARS PLUS.  THE COMMISSION WAS THUS OF THE VIEW
THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF REORGANIZATION WAS
AROUND THIS FIGURE. 

THE COMMISSION WAS FAMILIAR WITH RAILROAD SECURITIES.  CONTROL OVER
THEIR ISSUE BY INTERSTATE CARRIERS HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS IN THE
COMMISSION.  SEC. 20(A), INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THE STANDARDS FOR
ISSUANCE UNDER SEC. 20(A) INCLUDE "COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  CF. NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287
U.S. 12, 24.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SEC. 20(A) WERE CARRIED INTO AND
MADE A PART OF THE REORGANIZATION SECTION BY SUBSECTIONS (C)(3) AND
(F).  TO CREATE SECURITIES WITH VOTING POWER, IN ADDITION TO THOSE
AUTHORIZED, MIGHT WELL DIVORCE CONTROL FROM REAL OWNERSHIP.  SOUND
RAILROAD REORGANIZATION INVOLVES MORE THAN THE PARTITIONING OF ASSETS
AMONG CREDITORS WITH VALUABLE CLAIMS AND THE DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS
AND STOCKHOLDERS WITHOUT EQUITY OF SO-CALLED SECURITIES REPRESENTING
CHANCES FOR THEN UNFORESEEABLE PROFITS.  THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC IN
AN ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE MUST RECEIVE CONSIDERATION.  NEW
ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 189.  IMPORTANT PROPERTY RIGHTS
MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THE NEED OF SOUND FINANCING.  CONSEQUENTLY,
THE COMMISSION LIMITED THE FIXED AND CONTINGENT CHARGES INVOLVING THE
DEBT WHICH MUST ULTIMATELY BE PAID, TO TWO MILLION ANNUALLY, WITH STOCK
REPRESENTING THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EARNINGS.  SEE NOTE 5,
SUPRA, 230 I.C.C. 61, 92.    IT IS SAID THAT CONSOLIDATED ROCK CO. V.
DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510, FORBIDS THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN APPROVED CAPITAL
STRUCTURE FOR DETERMINATIONS OF VALUE.  IN THAT CASE THERE WAS NO
FINDING OF THE VALUES OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED AND THIS COURT SAID:
"ABSENT THE REQUISITE VALUATION DATA, THE COURT WAS IN NO POSITION TO
EXERCISE THE 'INFORMED, INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT' (NATIONAL SURETY CO. V.
CORIELL, 289 U.S. 426, 436) WHICH APPRAISAL OF THE FAIRNESS OF A PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION ENTAILS," PAGE 520.  THE DISTRICT COURT, IT BEING A
SEC. 77B REORGANIZATION, WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE REQUISITE
VALUATIONS.  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VALUATION ARE THE SAME IN A SEC. 77B
PROCEEDING AS IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION.  THERE IS NOTHING, HOWEVER,
IN THE DU BOIS CASE TO INDICATE THAT DOLLAR VALUATIONS OF THE PROPERTY
OR CLAIMS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR RECAPITALIZATION OR THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF
SECURITIES IN REORGANIZATIONS.  THE DEFECT IN DU BOIS WAS NOT THE
FAILURE TO FIND DOLLAR VALUES BUT THE FAILURE TO FIND THE WORTH OF THE
SECURITY BEHIND INDEPENDENT MORTGAGES ON DISTINCT PROPERTIES AND OF
ASSETS SUBJECT TO THE CLAIMS OF PARTICULAR GROUPS OF CREDITORS.  SUCH
FINDINGS WERE REQUIRED IN THAT CASE BECAUSE THE COURT WAS DEALING WITH
A PARENT AND TWO SUBSIDIARIES WITH INTER-COMPANY ACCOUNTS.  EACH
SUBSIDIARY ENTITY HAD ITS OWN CREDITORS.  THE SYSTEM WAS A UNIFIED
OPERATION AND WE HELD THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE SUBSIDIARIES HAD PRIORITY
OVER STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY IN THE PARENT, P. 523.  WITHOUT A SEPARATE
VALUATION OF ASSETS, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL WHAT ASSETS OF THE
PARENT WERE LEFT TO FORM THE BASIS FOR THE SECURITIES DISTRIBUTED TO
THE PARENT'S STOCKHOLDERS.  IN DU BOIS, AS HERE, THE MANNER OF REACHING
THAT VALUATION, SO LONG AS IT COMPLIES WITH THE STATUTORY STANDARDS, IS
NOT IMPORTANT.  THERE ARE SUBSIDIARIES HERE BUT THERE ARE NO CLAIMANTS
OF THE SUBSIDIARIES LOOKING TO THE PARENT.  THE AGGREGATE OF THE
AUTHORIZED SECURITIES IN THE PRESENT CASE IS TO BE EQUITABLY
DISTRIBUTED AMONG CLAIMANTS AGAINST A SINGLE CORPORATION.  FINDINGS
WERE MADE AS TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE DIFFERENT MORTGAGES OF THE
DEBTOR AND SECURITIES ALLOCATED ON THE BASIS OF THAT FINDING.  230
I.C.C. 61, 98, 99, 100, 101; 233 I.C.C. 409, 414.  UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES THE LACK OF A VALUATION IN DOLLARS IS IMMATERIAL.  THE
IMPORTANT ELEMENT IS THE ALLOCATION OF THE SECURITIES SO AS TO PRESERVE
TO CREDITORS THE ADVANTAGES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PRIORITIES.  THAT IS TO
SAY, SENIOR CLAIMS FIRST RECEIVE SECURITIES OF A WORTH SUFFICIENT TO
COVER THEIR FACE AND INTEREST BEFORE JUNIOR CLAIMS RECEIVE ANYTHING. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DETERMINATION BY THE
COMMISSION OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SECURITIES WHICH MAY BE ISSUED
AGAINST THE SYSTEM IS IN SUBSTANCE A FINDING OF TOTAL VALUE FOR
REORGANIZATION PURPOSES.  IN VIEW OF THE FACTORS OF VALUE CONSIDERED
AND THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN ALL PARTIES BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE
COURT TO PRESENT ALL DESIRED EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
STANDS UPON A FIRM BASIS.  THERE IS NO MORE IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THE
VALUATION OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAN EARNINGS.  FN27  NO OFFER WAS
MADE TO PRODUCE FIGURES UPON REPRODUCTION COST.  IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT
UPON THE COMMISSION TO DO SO.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS IMPRESS US
AS IN ACCORD WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. 

ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES.  THERE ARE TWO ISSUES COLLATERAL TO THE
COMMISSION'S VALUATION.  ONE RELATES TO ADVERSE CLAIMS OF PRIOR LIENS
BETWEEN THE HOLDERS OF BONDS SECURED ON THE ONE HAND BY THE GENERAL AND
REFUNDING MORTGAGE AND ON THE OTHER BY THE FIRST MORTGAGE.  SEE P. 489,
INFRA.  THE OTHER IS AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALLOCATION OF
SECURITIES AMONG THE CREDITORS.  THIS LATTER ISSUE IS, OF COURSE,
AFFECTED BY THE FORMER.  IN CONSIDERING ALLOCATION, WE SHALL ASSUME AT
THIS POINT WHAT WE LATER FIND, THAT THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION AS
TO PRIORITIES IS CORRECT. 

A. THE ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES IS SHOWN ABOVE AT PAGE 461.  THE
TABLE SETS OUT THAT THE HOLDERS OF THE TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES AND THE
5% FIRST MORTGAGES, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE SENIOR CREDITORS, RECEIVE LARGE
QUANTITIES OF PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK, AS WELL AS NEW INCOME BONDS. 
THESE STOCKS ARE SECURITIES OF LOWER DIGNITY THAN THE INCOME BONDS. 
SOME OF THESE BONDS ON THE OTHER HAND GO TO CREDITORS SECURED BY THE
REFUNDING BONDS.  THIS IS BECAUSE THE REFUNDING BONDS HAVE A FIRST LIEN
ON SOME ASSETS.  233 I.C.C. 414.  BUT AT ANY RATE, UNDER THE ABSOLUTE
PRIORITY RULE OF THE BOYD CASE,  FN28  THE STRATIFICATION OF SECURITIES
ISSUED TO CREDITORS NEED NOT FOLLOW INVARIABLY THE RELATIVE PRIORITY OF
THE CLAIMANTS.  FN29  APROPOS OF A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR SITUATION, WE SAID
IN CONSOLIDATED ROCK CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. AT P. 530: 

"IF THE CREDITORS ARE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF THEIR
PRIOR CLAIMS, IT IS NOT MATERIAL OUT OF WHAT ASSETS THEY ARE PAID.  SO
LONG AS THEY RECEIVE FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT AND SO LONG AS EACH
GROUP SHARES IN THE SECURITIES OF THE WHOLE ENTERPRISE ON AN EQUITABLE
BASIS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF 'FAIR AND EQUITABLE' ARE SATISFIED." 

B. A POINT IS MADE AS TO THE TREATMENT OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION'S CLAIMS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SECURITIES.  IT IS TO BE
NOTED, P. 455, SUPRA, THAT R.F.C. HAS TWO KINDS OF CLAIMS; ONE FOR
$10,000,000 UPON TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES FOR MONEY ADVANCED TO THE
DEBTOR WHILE IN REORGANIZATION, THE OTHER FOR $2,963,000 COLLATERAL
NOTES, SECURED BY REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS.  THE RAILROAD CREDIT
CORPORATION AND THE A.C. JAMES COMPANY ARE HOLDERS OF SIMILAR
COLLATERAL NOTES.  THE AMOUNT OF BONDS, AS COMPARED WITH THE FACE
PRINCIPAL OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, VARIES.  THE R.F.C. HAS THE MOST
VALUABLE COLLATERAL PER DOLLAR OF INDEBTEDNESS.  TO RETIRE THE
TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES AND TO RAISE NECESSARY NEW MONEY FOR THE
REORGANIZATION, THE COMMISSION DEEMED IT ESSENTIAL TO SELL $10,000,000
OF NEW FIRST MORTGAGE, 4% BONDS OF 1974.  TO ASSURE THIS, THE
COMMISSION PROVIDED: 

"THAT THE (R.F.C.)  PURCHASE THE BONDS AT PAR AND ACCRUED INTEREST
AND THAT, IN CONSIDERATION OF SUCH PURCHASE AND THE VALUE OF THE
COLLATERAL SECURING ITS CLAIM, THE FINANCE CORPORATION RECEIVE, FOR THE
SECURED NOTES OF THE DEBTOR HELD BY IT, TREATMENT EQUAL TO THAT
ACCORDED THE HOLDERS OF THE DEBTOR'S EXISTING FIRST-MORTGAGE BONDS." 

RESPONDENTS' OBJECTIONS TO THIS RULING ARE THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED
WITHOUT A FINDING OF THE VALUE OF THE NEW BONDS OR THEIR MARKETABILITY
AT PAR, THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE R.F.C. SECURED CLAIM TO PRIORITY
OVER THE LIKE CLAIMS OF OTHER HOLDERS VIOLATES ABSOLUTE PRIORITY AND
THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF REASONABLE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE
PREFERENCE AND THE VALUE OF R.F.C.'S TAKING THE BONDS.  IT IS FURTHER
URGED THAT SECURITIES DISTRIBUTED TO THE R.F.C. TO REFINANCE THE
TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES "SHOULD BE IN RECOGNITION OF THE PRIORITY
INHERENT IN THAT TRANSACTION" AND NOT IN CONNECTION WITH THE LOAN OF
R.F.C. TO THE DEBTOR, WHICH WAS MADE PRIOR TO REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS. 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE $10,000,000 TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES OR SUCH OF
THEM AS ARE PRESENTLY HELD BY THE R.F.C. ARE WORTH PAR. NO FINDING WAS
MADE BY THE COMMISSION OF THE VALUE OF THE NEW FIRSTS.  EVIDENCE BEFORE
THE COURT SHOWED THEM OF A VALUE BETWEEN 80 AND 90 AND OF POOR
MARKETABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF THE SYSTEM'S INTEREST RECORD.  THE COURT
MADE NO FINDING AS TO EITHER. 

IF THE R.F.C. WERE TREATED ON ITS NOTES, ON THE BASIS OF THE
PROPORTION OF BONDS HELD AS COLLATERAL, PRECISELY AS THE OTHER
NOTEHOLDERS, IT WOULD RECEIVE $414,175 OF INCOME MORTGAGE BONDS AND
$649,516 OF NEW PREFERRED STOCK, IN ADDITION TO ITS PROPORTION OF
COMMON STOCK.  233 I.C.C. 409, 416.  THIS PROPORTION OF COMMON STOCK
WOULD ALLOT A MUCH GREATER AGGREGATE OF COMMON STOCK TO THE R.F.C. THAN
IT OBTAINED BY THE ADJUSTMENT.  BY REASON OF ACCEPTING THE LESS
VALUABLE NEW FIRSTS IN LIEU OF CASH FOR ITS $10,000,000 TRUSTEES'
CERTIFICATES, IT WILL RECEIVE FOR THE PRINCIPAL OF ITS CLAIMS
$1,185,200 OF NEW INCOME BONDS AND $1,777,800 OF NEW PREFERRED STOCK. 
THE R.F.C. RECEIVED ITS UNPAID INTEREST IN NO PAR COMMON STOCK AT $57
PER SHARE.  THIS IS THE SAME ALLOCATION GIVEN CLAIMANTS WHO HOLD THE
OLD FIRSTS.  233 I.C.C. 409, 452.  THE OTHER NOTEHOLDERS RECEIVED A
LARGE PROPORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THEIR CLAIMS IN NO PAR COMMON
STOCK AT $62 PER SHARE. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO APPRAISE IN DOLLARS, AS OF THE DATE OF THE
COMMISSION APPROVAL, THE ADVANTAGE SECURED FOR THE PLAN BY THE
ARRANGEMENT WITH R.F.C.  IT IS EQUALLY DIFFICULT TO APPRAISE SIMILARLY
AS OF THAT DATE THE VALUE OF THE TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES RELINQUISHED BY
THE R.F.C. OVER THE VALUE OF THE NEW FIRSTS OR TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH OF
ADDITIONAL WORTH THE R.F.C. OBTAINED.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COMMISSION
DOES NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO PAY A CREDITOR, EVEN R.F.C., A
GOVERNMENT BANKING CORPORATION, FOR FURNISHING NEW MONEY HAS LITTLE
WEIGHT.  NOR DO WE SEE ANY REASON WHY ALL CLAIMS OF R.F.C. MAY NOT BE
CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION AS A SINGLE CLAIM.  CONSOLIDATED ROCK CO.
V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 520.  THERE IS NOTHING TO LEAD US TO A
CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION GAVE ANY ADVANTAGE TO R.F.C. FOR WHICH
FULL CONSIDERATION WAS NOT GIVEN.  NEW MONEY, THE COMMISSION SAID, "IS
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO EFFECT A REORGANIZATION."  233 I.C.C. 409,
414.  WE HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THE COMMISSION ALLOWED MORE
COMPENSATION FOR THIS NEW MONEY TO R.F.C. THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPELLED TO ALLOW IN SOME WAY, BY INTEREST OR ADDITIONAL COLLATERAL OR
OTHERWISE TO ANOTHER SUPPLIER.  WE CONCLUDE THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE
DISCRETIONARY ACTION OF THE COMMISSION TO JUSTIFY ITS INVALIDATION. 

C. WE HAVE HELD HEREINBEFORE THAT VALUATION MIGHT BE MADE BY A METHOD
BASED PRIMARILY UPON EARNINGS AND THAT SO LONG AS CREDITORS RECEIVE
"FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT" THEIR PRIORITIES MAY BE REPRESENTED BY
SECURITIES OF DIFFERENT RANKS.  THE COMMISSION HAS MADE ALLOCATIONS OF
SECURITIES TO THE VARIOUS CREDITORS ACCORDING TO ITS JUDGMENT OF THE
WORTH OF THEIR CREDITOR POSITION OR PRIORITY IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL
WORTH OF THE PROPERTY.  IT HAS FOUND SPECIFICALLY THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS,
UNDER ITS VALUATIONS, HAVE NO VALUE.  WE HAVE POINTED OUT THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON THE QUESTION OF VALUE.  WE CANNOT SEE THAT
PUTTING DEFINITIVE DOLLAR VALUES ON THE WHOLE AND ON PARTS OF THIS
PROPERTY WOULD AID THE COMMISSION IN ITS WORK OF VALUATION OR THE
COURTS IN THEIR LIMITED REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION. 

BY ITS ORDER OF JUNE 21, 1939, SECTION P, 233 I.C.C. 441, 451,
CONFIRMED SEPTEMBER 19, 1939, 236 I.C.C. 1, THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED
THE ISSUE OF AROUND EIGHTY-FOUR MILLION DOLLARS OF SECURITIES AGAINST
THE SYSTEM PROPERTY.  THIS TREATS THE EQUIPMENT TRUSTS AND THE
SECURITIES WITH A FACE VALUE AS WORTH PAR AND THE NO PAR COMMON STOCK
AT $57 PER SHARE FOR ALL RECOGNIZED CREDITORS EXCEPT THE RAILROAD
CREDIT CORPORATION AND THE A.C. JAMES COMPANY.  FOR DISTRIBUTION TO
THESE LATTER TWO CREDITORS, THE COMMON WAS VALUED AT $62. 

THE COMMISSION HAD BEFORE IT THE DATA PERTAINING TO PAST TRAFFIC,
RECEIPTS, EARNINGS AND OPERATING RATIOS, THE SYSTEM'S PHYSICAL
CONDITION AND PROSPECTS FOR BUSINESS.  THIS GAVE AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR
AN INTELLIGENT ESTIMATE OF FUTURE INCOME LIKELY TO BE AVAILABLE TO MEET
ANNUAL CHARGES BEFORE DIVIDENDS AND THOSE DIVIDENDS THEMSELVES. 

FROM THIS INFORMATION, A CONCLUSION WAS REACHED AS TO THE DEBTS WHICH
COULD BE PAID IN THE ORDER OF THEIR FULL OR ABSOLUTE PRIORITY.  CASE V.
LOS ANGELES LUMBER CO., 308 U.S. 106, 117.  THE SECURED CLAIM OF A.C.
JAMES COMPANY COULD NOT BE SATISFIED IN FULL EVEN WITH THE MORE LIBERAL
VALUATION OF THE COMMON STOCK.  CLAIMS OF LESSER DIGNITY WERE
ELIMINATED.  THOSE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER THE MORTGAGES, THAT IS,
CURRENT LIABILITIES, TRUSTEES OBLIGATIONS AND REORGANIZATION EXPENSES,
WERE TO BE SATISFIED BY CASH OR ASSUMED BY THE REORGANIZED COMPANY AS A
CHARGE ON ITS ASSETS SUPERIOR TO THE NEW SECURITIES.  233 I.C.C. 409,
452; 230 I.C.C. 61, 100, 101, 102.  THIS LEFT AS CREDITORS ONLY THE
HOLDERS OF THE OLD 5% FIRSTS, WITH AN UNDERLYING MORTGAGE ON THE
GREATER PART OF THE PROPERTY, THE R.F.C., THE RAILROAD CREDIT
CORPORATION AND THE A.C. JAMES COMPANY, THE LATTER THREE WITH REFUNDING
MORTGAGE BONDS AS COLLATERAL.  WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THE
ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY R.F.C. ACQUIRED THE STATUS OF A FIRST MORTGAGE
BONDHOLDER.  HERE IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT AS DETERMINED BY THE
COMMISSION THE REFUNDINGS HAD A LIEN SUPERIOR TO THE FIRSTS ON SOME
ASSETS (233 I.C.C. 414), AND THE FIRST SUPERIORITY OVER THE REFUNDING
ON THE MAJOR PORTION.  230 I.C.C. 61, 97.  SEE INFRA, PRIORITIES OF
CONFLICTING LIENS.  WITH THE FOREGOING FACTS AND PRIMARY FINDINGS
BEFORE IT, THE COMMISSION DREW THE FINAL CONCLUSION AS TO ALLOCATION OF
SECURITIES AS SET OUT ON PAGE 461, SUPRA.  THIS ALLOCATION WAS BASED
UPON "THE RELATIVE PRIORITY, VALUE AND EQUITY OF THE VARIOUS CLAIMS." 
CF. 233 I.C.C. 414, 416, 417, 451 P. THE DISTRIBUTION AND REPORT SEEMS
IN ACCORD WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS OF SUBSECTIONS (B), (D)
AND (E)(1), NOTE 7, SUPRA.    PRIORITIES OF CONFLICTING LIENS.  NO. 61
IS A PETITION BY THE IRVING TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE OF THE GENERAL AND
REFUNDING MORTGAGE, WHICH RAISES QUESTIONS OF THE PRIORITY BETWEEN THE
REFUNDING MORTGAGE AND THE FIRST MORTGAGE AS A LIEN ON THREE CLASSES OF
PROPERTY.  THESE ARE THE DEBTOR'S EQUITY IN CERTAIN ROLLING STOCK AND
EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED UNDER EQUIPMENT TRUSTS AND A LEASE, THE DEBTOR'S
INTEREST IN THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXTENSION AND THE DEBTOR'S TITLE TO
CERTAIN "NON-CARRIER" PROPERTY.  THE COMMISSION'S PLAN IS PREDICATED ON
THE PRIORITY OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE AS A LIEN ON THESE PROPERTIES AND
THE COMMISSION ACCORDINGLY UNDERTOOK TENTATIVELY TO DETERMINE THE LEGAL
QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE FIRST MORTGAGE,
SENIOR TO THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A FIRST
LIEN ON THESE THREE CLASSES OF PROPERTY.  PETITIONER, THE IRVING TRUST
COMPANY, AS SUBSTITUTED TRUSTEE UNDER THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE, MADE
APPROPRIATE OBJECTIONS BUT THE RULING OF THE COMMISSION WAS ADOPTED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT.  IN REVERSING ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DID NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS PRESENTED. 
THE POINT IS MADE HERE BY A PARTY PREVAILING BELOW, THE PETITIONER
IRVING TRUST COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF HOLDERS OF REFUNDING MORTGAGE
BONDS.  AS THE MATTER IS FULLY PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
AND ITS DECISION IS ESSENTIAL TO A COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT
COURT WE HAVE CONCLUDED TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION.  SEC. 240(A) JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 347.  UNITED STATES V. BANKERS TRUST CO., 294 U.S.
240, 294, 295.  SUCH ACTION IS IN THE INTEREST OF EXPEDITION. 
CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648, 685.  CF.
STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO., 282 U.S. 555, 567; COLE V. RALPH,
252 U.S. 286, 290. 

THE ISSUES ARE THOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERMS OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE.  IN THE CASE OF THE FIRST TWO CLASSES OF PROPERTY, WHICH WERE
ACQUIRED AFTER 1916, THE YEAR OF THE MORTGAGE, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
SUCH PROPERTY IS COVERED BY THE AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY CLAUSES OF THAT
INDENTURE AND IN THE CASE OF THE THIRD CLASS, THE "NON-CARRIER" REAL
PROPERTY, THE QUESTION IS THE APPLICATION OF THE GRANTING CLAUSES TO
PROPERTY NOT INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH THE OPERATION OF THE ROAD AT THE
TIME OF THE 1916 REORGANIZATION OF THE DEBTOR.  NONE OF THE PARTIES
RELIES, AT LEAST AS TO PERSONALTY, ON THE CONTROLLING NATURE OF RULES
OF LAW OF A PARTICULAR JURISDICTION.  THE COMMISSION TREATED THE
QUESTION AS ONE OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE MORTGAGE
AND WE SHALL DO LIKEWISE. 

A. AS TO THE FIRST CLASS OF PROPERTY, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE
TRUSTEE OF THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE THAT THE DEBTOR'S EQUITY IN THE
ROLLING STOCK SUBJECT TO THE THREE EQUIPMENT TRUSTS AND THE LEASE IS
NOT SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE AND THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO
THE LIEN OF THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE.  SINCE NOTHING TURNS ON THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EQUIPMENT TRUSTS AND THE LEASE, THEY WILL NOT
FURTHER BE DISTINGUISHED.  THIS EQUITY IS STIPULATED TO HAVE BEEN WORTH
OVER $6,000,000 ON DECEMBER 31, 1935, THE NEAREST DATE AVAILABLE TO
AUGUST 21, 1935, THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION.  SINCE THE
OBLIGATIONS SECURED BY ALL THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS OUTSTANDING
AMOUNT TO ELEVEN MILLIONS IT IS APPARENT THAT DETERMINATION OF THIS
QUESTION IN FAVOR OF THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS WOULD GO FAR
TOWARDS ASSURING THEM EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WITH FIRST MORTGAGE
BONDHOLDERS. 

THE EQUIPMENT TRUSTS, THE USUAL METHOD OF FINANCING THE ACQUISITION
OF ROLLING STOCK, WERE CREATED IN 1923, 1924, 1929 AND 1931.  ALL ARE
DATED BETWEEN THE EXECUTION OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE AND THE REFUNDING
MORTGAGE.  UNDER ALL, AS IS USUAL, THE TRUSTEE RETAINED TITLE TO THE
EQUIPMENT, THE DEBTOR'S EQUITY IN THE PROPERTY INCREASING AS IT
SATISFIED THE SERIALLY MATURING OBLIGATIONS.  THE OBLIGATIONS OF TWO OF
THE TRUSTS HAVE BECOME FULLY SATISFIED SINCE THE INSTITUTION OF THIS
PROCEEDING. 

THE FIRST OF THE GRANTING CLAUSES OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE CONVEYS
PRESENTLY OWNED RAILROAD LINES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER PROPERTY FORMERLY
THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR'S PREDECESSOR AND SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATING,
UNDER THE SUBHEADING "EQUIPMENT," SEVERAL VARIETIES OF CARS AND "OTHER
ROLLING STOCK."  GRANTING CLAUSE THIRD, ENTITLED "AFTER-ACQUIRED
PROPERTY," COVERS 

"ANY AND ALL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES OF ANY AND EVERY KIND AND
DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING  ... EQUIPMENT  ...  AND ANY AND ALL RIGHT,
TITLE AND INTEREST IN ANY OF SUCH PROPERTIES OR FACILITIES WHICH MAY
FROM TIME TO TIME HEREAFTER BE ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED BY OR BELONG TO"
THE DEBTOR, IF SUCH PROPERTY FALLS INTO ANY ONE OF FOUR CATEGORIES: 

(1)  PROPERTY ACQUIRED "BY THE USE OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OR
PROCEEDS THEREOF OR CASH DEPOSITED" UNDER THE FIRST MORTGAGE "OR ON
ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASE, ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF OR WORK
THEREON" SUCH BONDS OR SUMS ARE PAID OUT; OR 

(2)  PROPERTY CONSTITUTING "AN INTEGRAL PART OR PARTS OF LINES OF
RAILROAD, EXTENSIONS, BRANCHES, OR OTHER PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN"
OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE; OR 

(3)  PROPERTY "USED OR ACQUIRED FOR USE IN OR FOR THE MAINTENANCE OR
OPERATION OF OR APPERTAINING TO" ANY OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE
LIEN OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE; OR 

(4)  PROPERTY CONSISTING OF SECURITIES OF OR OTHER INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY OF THE SALT LAKE CITY UNION DEPOT & RAILROAD COMPANY OR
STANDARD REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, OR ANY SUBSIDIARY AS DEFINED. 

THE FIFTH GRANTING CLAUSE COVERS A GREAT VARIETY OF PROPERTIES AND
FACILITIES USED IN THE OPERATION OF A RAILROAD, INCLUDING TRACKS,
BRIDGES, TUNNELS, TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE LINES, FLOATING EQUIPMENT AND
SPECIFICALLY SEVERAL KINDS OF CARS "AND OTHER ROLLING STOCK AND
EQUIPMENT" AND "ALL OTHER PROPERTY OF EVERY DESCRIPTION AND ALL RIGHTS
AND INTERESTS IN OR WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF PROPERTY; 

"PROVIDED THAT THE FOREGOING OR ANY THEREOF, WHETHER NOW OWNED BY THE
COMPANY OR AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY IT  ...  SHALL BE
APPURTENANT TO OR USED OR HELD FOR USE AS, OR AS A PART OR AS PARTS OF,
OR TO FACILITATE OR SAFEGUARD THE MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF, ANY
LINES OF RAILROAD, EXTENSIONS, BRANCHES  ...  OR OTHER PROPERTIES NOW
OR AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF THIS INDENTURE.  ..." 
FN30 

FOLLOWING THE HABENDUM CLAUSE IS A PROVISO, HEREAFTER REFERRED TO BY
ITS TWO OPENING WORDS, READING: 

"SUBJECT, HOWEVER, AS TO ALL EQUIPMENT NOW OWNED TO THE EQUIPMENT
TRUST OR CONDITIONAL SALE AGREEMENTS SECURED THEREON, AND AS TO
EQUIPMENT HEREAFTER ACQUIRED, TO THE EQUIPMENT TRUST OR CONDITIONAL
SALE AGREEMENTS TO WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE SUBJECT AS PERMITTED HEREBY,
...  " 

IT IS STIPULATED THAT ALL THE EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO THE EQUIPMENT
TRUSTS IN QUESTION WAS ACQUIRED FOR USE AND WAS USED ON ALL OF THE
DEBTOR'S LINES, INCLUDING THOSE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE GRANTING
CLAUSES.  THIS WOULD SEEM TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE DEBTOR'S EQUITY IN
EQUIPMENT TRUST ROLLING STOCK IS COVERED BY THE LIEN OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE.  SUBDIVISION (3) OF THE THIRD, AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY
CLAUSE, AS WELL AS THE FIFTH GRANTING CLAUSE, APPLIES. 

THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE TRUSTEE RELIES, HOWEVER, ON A CLAUSE FOUND
BETWEEN THE SIXTH GRANTING CLAUSE AND THE HABENDUM, HEREAFTER REFERRED
TO AS THE RESERVATION CLAUSE, AND READING:  FN31  "AND THE COMPANY MAY,
UNLESS FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS SHALL HAVE BEEN AUTHENTICATED AND DELIVERED
OR THEIR PROCEEDS OR OTHER CASH DEPOSITED HEREUNDER PAID OUT AGAINST
THE SAME, PURCHASE AND ACQUIRE EQUIPMENT, FREE FROM THE LIEN HEREOF, BY
LEASE, CONDITIONAL SALE AGREEMENT OR UNDER ANY FORM OF EQUIPMENT TRUST,
OR PURCHASE SUCH EQUIPMENT AND ISSUE OBLIGATIONS THEREFOR SECURED BY
MORTGAGE OR PLEDGE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT SUPERIOR TO THE LIEN OF THIS
INDENTURE." 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THIS RESERVATION PERMITS THE ACQUISITION OF ROLLING
STOCK ENTIRELY FREE FROM THE LIEN OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE, UNLESS
ACQUIRED, AS WAS NOT THE CASE HERE, BY THE USE OF PROCEEDS OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS.  FN32 

WE DO NOT SO VIEW THE RESERVATION.  IT RATHER PERFORMS THE FUNCTION
OF AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT BY EQUIPMENT TRUST OR OTHER
METHOD AND ONLY TO THAT EXTENT DISPLACING THE LIEN OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE ARISING FROM THE AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY CLAUSES.  THE
GRANTING CLAUSES SHOW A PURPOSE TO SUBJECT TO THE FIRST MORTGAGE ALL
THE PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ROAD.  THERE IS
REPEATED GENERAL MENTION OF THE GRANT OF ROLLING STOCK, OF LEGAL AND
EQUITABLE INTERESTS.  THE THIRD AND FIFTH GRANTING CLAUSES FULLY COVER
THIS AFTER-ACQUIRED EQUITY IN ROLLING STOCK PURCHASED THROUGH EQUIPMENT
TRUSTS AND THE "SUBJECT, HOWEVER" CLAUSE CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES THAT THE
FIRST MORTGAGE SHALL BE A LIEN ON EQUIPMENT SECOND ONLY TO EQUIPMENT
TRUST AGREEMENTS.  THAT CLAUSE PROVIDES FOR THE SUBORDINATION OF THE
FIRST MORTGAGE TO EQUIPMENT TRUST AGREEMENTS TO WHICH AFTER-ACQUIRED
EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SUBJECT "AS PERMITTED HEREBY."  THESE LAST WORDS, A
REFERENCE TO THE RESERVATION CLAUSE, CONFIRM OUR VIEW THAT THE FUNCTION
OF THE RESERVATION CLAUSE IS MERELY TO PERMIT THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT
BY THAT METHOD AND NOT TO AUTHORIZE THE COMPLETELY UNTRAMMELED
ACQUISITION OF SUCH EQUIPMENT. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE WORDS "FREE FROM THE LIEN HEREOF" IN THE
RESERVATION CLAUSE MUST BE GIVEN THEIR LITERAL SIGNIFICANCE.  THE
ARGUMENT MUST FAIL ASIDE FROM THE DIFFICULTIES INHERENT IN A SUGGESTION
THAT THESE WORDS SHALL BE LIFTED FROM CONTEXT AND FORCIBLY APPLIED
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO AN INTENTION FAIRLY TO BE DRAWN FROM THREE
SPECIFIC CLAUSES OF THE MORTGAGE AND REINFORCED BY THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF
THE DOCUMENT.  THE RESERVATION CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT THE COMPANY MAY
ACQUIRE EQUIPMENT "FREE FROM THE LIEN HEREOF" IF THE METHOD BE BY
LEASE, CONDITIONAL SALE OR EQUIPMENT TRUST BUT MAY "PURCHASE SUCH
EQUIPMENT AND ISSUE OBLIGATIONS THEREFOR SECURED BY MORTGAGE OR PLEDGE
OF SUCH EQUIPMENT SUPERIOR TO THE LIEN OF THIS INDENTURE."  WHY THE
DIFFERENCE?  EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED FOR CASH WOULD UNQUESTIONABLY BECOME
SUBJECT TO THE FIRST MORTGAGE.  EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED UNDER A PURCHASE
MONEY CHATTEL MORTGAGE WOULD UNDER THIS CLAUSE BE SUBJECT TO THE
MORTGAGE.  THE FIRST MORTGAGE WOULD MERELY BE JUNIOR TO THE CHATTEL
MORTGAGE.  YET EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED UNDER AN EQUIPMENT TRUST AGREEMENT IS
SAID TO BE ENTIRELY FREE OF THE MORTGAGE.  THE INCONSISTENCY FN33 OF
SUCH A RESULT SUGGESTS THAT THE PHRASES "FREE FROM THE LIEN HEREOF" AND
"SUPERIOR TO THE LIEN OF THIS INDENTURE" ARE IN A SENSE CORRELATIVE AND
WERE MERELY SUITED TO THE DIFFERENT TITLE SITUATIONS IN THE TWO METHODS
OF FINANCING. 

B. THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXTENSION IS A 112 MILE BRANCH OF THE
DEBTOR'S MAIN LINE AND RUNS FROM KEDDIE, CALIFORNIA, TO THE GREAT
NORTHERN RAILROAD AT BIEBER, CALIFORNIA.  IT HAS BEEN PROFITABLE SINCE
ITS CONSTRUCTION IN 1932 AND THE COMMISSION EXPECTS THAT ITS TRAFFIC
WILL INCREASE.  AS HAS BEEN STATED THE QUESTION AS TO THE EXTENSION IS
WHETHER IT IS COVERED BY THE AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY CLAUSES OF THE
FIRST MORTGAGE.  SLIGHTLY LESS THAN ONE-HALF THE COST OF THE EXTENSION,
OR ABOUT $5,000,000, WAS FINANCED BY THE SALE OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS;
ANOTHER $5,000,000 WAS REALIZED FROM THE SALE OF UNSECURED DEBENTURES
TO THE A.C. JAMES CO., LATER REPLACED BY COLLATERAL NOTES SECURED BY
REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS, AND THE REMAINDER, APPROXIMATELY $500,000,
WAS BORROWED FROM THE R.F.C. ON THE SECURITY OF REFUNDING MORTGAGE
BONDS.  FN34 

IN VIEW OF THIS, THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE TRUSTEE CONTENDS THAT THE
FIRST MORTGAGE SHOULD AS A MATTER OF EQUITY BE HELD A LIEN ON THE
EXTENSION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF FIRST MORTGAGE MONEYS USED OR THAT IT
BE HELD A FIRST LIEN ON A PORTION OF THE MILEAGE EQUAL TO THE
PROPORTION THAT FIRST MORTGAGE MONEYS BORE TO THE TOTAL COST, OR ON AN
UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE EXTENSION IN THE SAME PROPORTION.  BUT HERE
AGAIN THE TERMS OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE PRECLUDE SUCH A CONTENTION.  THE
THIRD GRANTING CLAUSE COVERS "ANY AND ALL PROPERTY  ...  INCLUDING  ...
EXTENSIONS  ...  IF 

"(A)  ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED BY THE USE OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OR
PROCEEDS THEREOF OR CASH DEPOSITED HEREUNDER (EXCEPT BONDS DELIVERED OR
CASH PAID OUT UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS INDENTURE IN
REIMBURSEMENT OF PREVIOUS EXPENDITURES CERTIFIED AS HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED) OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASE, ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF OR WORK THEREON FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS SHALL HEREAFTER BE
AUTHENTICATED AND DELIVERED OR THE PROCEEDS OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OR
OTHER CASH DEPOSITED HEREUNDER SHALL HEREAFTER BE PAID OUT UNDER ANY OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS INDENTURE; ...  " 

THE RESERVATION CLAUSE SUPPLEMENTS THIS BY ITS PROVISION THAT THE
RIGHT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FREE OF THE LIEN SHALL NOT EXTEND TO "LINES
OF RAILROAD, EXTENSIONS OR BRANCHES  ...  (A) ON ACCOUNT OF THE
PURCHASE, ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION WHEREOF OR WORK WHEREON FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS SHALL BE AUTHENTICATED AND DELIVERED OR THEIR PROCEEDS
OR OTHER CASH DEPOSITED HEREUNDER SHALL BE PAID OUT AS HEREIN PROVIDED;
...  "  SEE N. 31, SUPRA. 

THE SUBSTANTIAL NATURE OF THE FINANCING OF THE EXTENSION BY THE SALE
OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS IS A MATTER OF RECORD AND WE HOLD THAT THE
QUOTED PORTION OF THE THIRD GRANTING CLAUSE AND ESPECIALLY THE CLAUSE
BEGINNING "OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASE, ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF OR WORK THEREON" BRING THIS EXTENSION WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF
THE FIRST MORTGAGE.  IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CONCLUSION IT IS SAID THAT
IT WOULD PERMIT THE FIRST MORTGAGE TO BECOME A LIEN ON THE EXTENSION IF
ONLY ONE PENNY OF FIRST MORTGAGE MONEY HAD BEEN USED.  THAT IS, OF
COURSE, NOT OUR CASE.  HERE WE HAVE A CONSIDERED PLAN FOR FINANCING AN
EXTENSION WHICH CONTEMPLATED THAT 50% OF THE NECESSARY MONEYS BE
PROCURED THROUGH THE SALE OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS.  THE TERMS OF THE
AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY CLAUSE DISCLOSE AN INTENTION THAT WHERE AT
LEAST SUCH PART OF THE FUNDS USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH AN
EXTENSION ARE FIRST MORTGAGE FUNDS THAT THE ENTIRE EXTENSION SHOULD BE
SUBJECTED TO THE LIEN OF THE MORTGAGE.  THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE TRUSTEE
CONTENDS THAT IT IS INEQUITABLE TO GIVE THE FIRST MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS
A LIEN TO THE EXTENT OF ALL FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OUTSTANDING WHEN IN
FACT THOSE BONDHOLDERS CONTRIBUTED ONLY $5,000,000 TO THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTION AND THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS CONTRIBUTED THE
REMAINDER.  THE ASSERTED INEQUITY DISAPPEARS ON A REFERENCE TO THE
RECORD WHERE IT PLAINLY APPEARS THAT THE PARTIES CONCERNED HAD NO
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LIEN SITUATION WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE
HAVE HELD IT TO BE.  FN35 

C. LASTLY, THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE TRUSTEE MAKES A LIMITED CLAIM
AGAINST CERTAIN "NON-CARRIER" REALTY WHICH IS ALLEGED TO BE COMPLETELY
FREE OF THE LIEN OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE.  THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE TRUSTEE
BELIEVES THAT THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION AS
UNMORTGAGED PROPERTY IN THE ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES TO THE REFUNDING
MORTGAGE CREDITORS. 

THE GREATER PART OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH WAS NOT USED FOR RAILWAY
PURPOSES, WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE DEBTOR'S PREDECESSOR, THE WESTERN
PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, PURSUANT TO ITS REORGANIZATION IN 1916, AND
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE.  FN36 WE ANSWER THIS QUESTION AFFIRMATIVELY.  DESPITE THE
FACT THAT IT IS OR WAS NOT USED FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES, THE
MORTGAGE NEVERTHELESS COVERS IT BY THE CONVEYANCE OF: 

"FIRST. - ALL AND SINGULAR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINES OF RAILROAD,
TERMINALS, LANDS, EQUIPMENT, SHARES OF STOCK AND OTHER REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY AND INTERESTS AND RIGHTS IN PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
COMPANY OR TO WHICH IT MAY BE ENTITLED, FORMERLY THE PROPERTY OF OR
BELONGING TO WESTERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR ITS RECEIVERS:  ...  " 

.         .         .         .         . 

"III.  ALL TERMINALS AND ALL LANDS AND INTERESTS IN LANDS, EASEMENTS
THEREIN AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, INCLUDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, YARDS,
STATION AND DEPOT GROUNDS, SHEDS, STATION HOUSES, FREIGHT HOUSES,
WAREHOUSES, ELEVATORS, STOCK-YARDS, CAR-HOUSES, ENGINE HOUSES, OIL
TANKS, WATER TANKS, WATER SUPPLY, SHOPS, HOTELS, BOARDING HOUSES,
HOSPITALS, DOCKS, WHARVES, PIERS, SLIPS, TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES
AND OTHER STRUCTURES AND ERECTIONS AND THE APPURTENANCES OF ALL AND
EVERY OF THE FOREGOING, WHETHER OR NOT FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH SAID
OR ANY LINES OF RAILROAD." 

THE LAST SUBDIVISION OF THE FIRST GRANTING CLAUSE, WHICH FOLLOWS SIX
SUBDIVISIONS SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBING CERTAIN PROPERTIES, CONVEYS: 

"OTHER PROPERTY. 

"VII. - ALL AND SINGULAR THE PROPERTY, INTERESTS AND RIGHTS, (EXCEPT
CASH, ACCOUNTS AND BILLS RECEIVABLE, TRAFFIC AND OTHER OPERATING
BALANCES AND OTHER CASH ITEMS) NOT COMPRISED IN THE DESCRIPTIONS
CONTAINED IN THE FOREGOING SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE FIRST OF THESE
GRANTING CLAUSES, WHICH BELONG TO THE COMPANY OR TO WHICH IT MAY BE
ENTITLED IN ANY MANNER AND WHICH HERETOFORE WERE OWNED BY WESTERN
PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY OR TO WHICH SAID COMPANY WAS OR ITS RECEIVERS
WERE ENTITLED." 

REINFORCING THESE PROVISIONS IS THE SECOND GRANTING CLAUSE: 

"SECOND. - ALL OTHER LINES OF RAILROAD, EXTENSIONS, BRANCHES,
TERMINALS, LANDS, STRUCTURES, EQUIPMENT, SHARES OF STOCK, BONDS, NOTES
AND OTHER SECURITIES, CLAIMS, FRANCHISES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AND
OTHER PROPERTY AND ESTATES, INTERESTS AND RIGHTS (WHETHER LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE) NOW OWNED BY OR BELONGING TO THE COMPANY, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE SAME OR ANY THEREOF MAY NOT BE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN THESE
GRANTING CLAUSES." 

IN THESE CLAUSES IT IS REPEATEDLY SPECIFIED THAT ALL PROPERTY,
RAILROAD OR OTHERWISE, FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEBTOR'S PREDECESSOR AND
TO WHICH THE DEBTOR SUCCEEDED, IS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE FIRST MORTGAGE. 

WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE DISTRICT COURT'S CONCLUSION ADOPTING THE
COMMISSION'S TENTATIVE DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE PRIORITY OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE. 

ACCOMMODATION COLLATERAL.  THE DEBTOR, THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, OBJECTS TO THE PROVISION OF SUBDIVISION R OF THE COMMISSION'S
FINAL ORDER, APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, DIRECTING THAT 

"ALL COLLATERAL PLEDGED BY THE DEBTOR AS SECURITY FOR NOTES TO THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, THE RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION,
AND THE A.C. JAMES COMPANY SHALL BE REDUCED TO POSSESSION BY THE
RESPECTIVE PLEDGEES THEREOF, AND SHALL BE BY THEM SURRENDERED TO THE
REORGANIZED COMPANY AND CANCELED,  ...  "  233 I.C.C. 453; 34 F.SUPP. 
493, 505. 

THIS ORDER ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES.  AS IS SHOWN ON
PAGE 455, INFRA, THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, THE RAILROAD
CREDIT CORPORATION AND A.C. JAMES COMPANY HAVE NOTES OF THE DEBTOR
SECURED BY PLEDGES BY THE DEBTOR OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF THE DEBTOR'S
GENERAL AND REFUNDING BONDS AND OTHER COLLATERAL.  FN37 

TO ASSIST THE DEBTOR IN OBTAINING THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION AND RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS, THE A.C. JAMES
COMPANY FURNISHED TO THE DEBTOR A BLOCK OF REFUNDING BONDS, PREVIOUSLY
ISSUED TO A.C. JAMES COMPANY BY THE DEBTOR, AND WESTERN PACIFIC
CORPORATION FURNISHED TO THE DEBTOR OTHER COLLATERAL DESCRIBED IN THE
COMMISSION FINDING.  THESE SECURITIES WERE A PART OF THOSE THEN PLEDGED
BY THE DEBTOR TO SECURE THE NOTES HELD BY RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION
AND RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, WHICH KNEW THE SOURCE OF THE
COLLATERAL AT THE TIME. 

THE DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS STATED BY IT AS
FOLLOWS: 

"IN SUBSTANCE, THE COMMISSION PROVIDED THAT THE COLLATERAL OWNED AND
PLEDGED BY THE DEBTOR SHOULD BE SURRENDERED TO THE REORGANIZED COMPANY
BUT THAT THE ACCOMMODATION COLLATERAL BORROWED FROM OTHERS AND PLEDGED
BY THE DEBTOR SHOULD BE CONFISCATED; OR, TO STATE THE PROPOSAL SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENTLY, THE ACCOMMODATION COLLATERAL IS TO BE RESORTED TO FIRST
INSTEAD OF LAST AS IS REQUIRED BY THE MOST ELEMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
EQUITY AND BY THE AUTHORITIES CITED BELOW." 

WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE OBJECTION IS NOT SOUND AND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IS CORRECT.  THESE ARE OUR REASONS:  THE REFUNDING
BONDS PLEDGED BY THE DEBTOR TO SECURE THE A.C. JAMES COMPANY NOTE AND
LEFT IN THAT POSITION THROUGHOUT WERE PLEDGED DIRECTLY BY THE DEBTOR
AND ARE NOT ACCOMMODATION COLLATERAL IN ANY SENSE.  NOR DO WE NEED GIVE
CONSIDERATION TO THE ACCOMMODATION COLLATERAL BEHIND THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION AND RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION NOTES OTHER THAN
THE REFUNDING BONDS.  IN THE EARLIER ORDER APPROVING THE PLAN, THE
COMMISSION PROVIDED THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION AND RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION "IN COLLATERAL PLEDGED WITH
THEM BY PARTIES OTHER THAN THE DEBTOR" SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED OR
ALTERED.  230 I.C.C. 102; SUBDIVISION O OF THE ORDER OF OCTOBER 10,
1938, ID. 114.  ON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITIONS FOR MODIFICATION OF
THIS ORDER, THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO DIRECT THAT THIS COLLATERAL BE
"SURRENDERED TO THE PLEDGORS THEREOF."  233 I.C.C. 431, 432.  IN ITS
ORDER, HOWEVER, PROMULGATING THE PRESENT PLAN THERE IS NO CLAUSE
COMPARABLE TO SUBDIVISION O OF THE PREVIOUS ORDER PRESERVING THE RIGHTS
OF RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AND RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION
IN THE COLLATERAL PLEDGED WITH THEM BY "PARTIES OTHER THAN THE
DEBTOR."  THE SOLE PROVISION IN THE FINAL ORDER AS TO THE COLLATERAL
BEHIND THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AND RAILROAD CREDIT
CORPORATION IS THAT FOUND IN SUBDIVISION R AND QUOTED AT THE OPENING OF
THIS SECTION OF THIS OPINION, DIRECTING THE COLLATERAL PLEDGED BY THE
DEBTOR WITH RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, RAILROAD CREDIT
CORPORATION AND A.C. JAMES COMPANY, BE REDUCED TO POSSESSION,
SURRENDERED TO THE REORGANIZED COMPANY AND CANCELED.  THIS WAS ENTIRELY
PROPER.  NONE OF THE COLLATERAL, OTHER THAN THE REFUNDING BONDS, WAS A
CLAIM AGAINST THE DEBTOR.  A.C. JAMES COMPANY AND THE WESTERN PACIFIC
CORPORATION PERHAPS HAD UNSECURED CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEBTOR FOR THEIR
SECURITIES AND OTHER COLLATERAL WHICH THE DEBTOR HAD BORROWED BUT THESE
WERE HELD WORTHLESS AS CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEBTOR.  233 I.C.C. 452. 
THIS COLLATERAL, OTHER THAN THE REFUNDING BONDS, WAS THEREFORE LEFT
WITH THE PLEDGEES WITH ITS POSITION UNAFFECTED BY ANY DIRECT ACTION OF
THE COMMISSION. 

THE "COLLATERAL PLEDGED BY THE DEBTOR" REFERRED TO IN THE EXCERPT
FROM SUBDIVISION R OF THE COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER, 233 I.C.C. 453,
QUOTED ABOVE, CAN BE ONLY THE GENERAL AND REFUNDING BONDS OF THE
DEBTOR, INCLUDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED BY A.C. JAMES COMPANY. 
THE WORDS USED IN SUBDIVISION R TO DESCRIBE THEM ARE THE SAME USED BY
THE COMMISSION IN DISTINGUISHING THE REFUNDING BONDS FROM THE REMAINDER
OF THE ACCOMMODATION COLLATERAL.  233 I.C.C. 431, 432.  OF COURSE THE
COLLATERAL LOANED TO THE DEBTOR WHICH WAS NOT AN OBLIGATION OF THE
DEBTOR COULD NOT BE ORDERED BY THE PLAN TO BE CANCELED.  IT REMAINED
WITH THE PLEDGEES.  THIS "COLLATERAL PLEDGED BY THE DEBTOR" WAS
PROPERLY TO BE REDUCED TO POSSESSION BY THE PLEDGEES, SURRENDERED AND
CANCELED.  FOR THESE BONDS, FURNISHED BY A.C. JAMES COMPANY, HELD AS
COLLATERAL WITH OTHER BONDS OF THE DEBTOR, THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION AND RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION RECEIVED THEIR ALLOTMENT OF
NEW SECURITIES, 230 I.C.C. 101, AS MODIFIED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION ARRANGEMENT, DESCRIBED IN THIS OPINION AT PAGE
485.  SEE 233 I.C.C. 414, 452.  THE A.C. JAMES COMPANY UNSECURED CLAIM
AGAINST THE DEBTOR FOR THE LOAN OF THE BONDS IS VALUELESS, 233 I.C.C.
452, AND THE PLAN DOES NOT DEAL WITH ANY POSSIBLE CLAIM OF
ACCOMMODATION PLEDGORS AGAINST PLEDGEES OF BONDS WHICH WERE NOT THE
PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR. 

CHANGE OF CONDITIONS.  THE PLAN NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS CERTIFIED
TO THE COURT ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1939.  TO PROVIDE FOR A $3 DIVIDEND ON
THE NO PAR STOCK, THE PLAN CALLS FOR FUTURE EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR
BETTERMENTS, INTEREST, SINKING FUND AND DIVIDENDS OF OVER $4,500,000. 
THE TABLE ON PAGE 457 SHOWS HOW DIFFICULT IT HAD BEEN FOR THE SYSTEM TO
EARN THAT AMOUNT.  ANTICIPATED EARNINGS WAS THE PRINCIPAL FACTOR
GOVERNING THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE DOLLAR VOLUME OF NEW
SECURITIES, AND PAST EARNINGS WAS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN ESTIMATING
FUTURE EARNINGS.  A HIGHER ESTIMATE OF FUTURE EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR
DIVIDENDS MIGHT HAVE CREATED AN EQUITY FOR UNSECURED CREDITORS OR EVEN
STOCKHOLDERS.  FURTHERMORE, RESPONDENTS URGE THAT THE "EARNING POWER"
OF THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN SUBSECTION (E) MEANS NOT ONLY REALIZED
EARNINGS BUT THE SYSTEM'S ABILITY, UTILIZING ITS PRESENT FACILITIES TO
THE FULL, TO EARN INCREASED RETURNS.  THIS WE DEEM OF LITTLE WEIGHT
AGAINST THE HISTORY OF PAST OPERATIONS.  RESPONDENTS ASK US TO TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION THE CHANGED CONDITIONS SINCE THE COMMISSION ACTED. 
THERE ARE A FEW YEARS OF ACTUAL EXPERIENCE SUBSEQUENT TO THE
CERTIFICATION.  BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES REPORTS OF OPERATING
RESULTS, COMBINED, HAVE BEEN FILED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION FOR THE PERIOD
BEGINNING DECEMBER 1938 DOWN TO AND INCLUDING JULY 1942.  SINCE WE HAVE
AGREEMENT AMONG THE PARTIES AS TO THE EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST,
AS ADJUSTED, THROUGH 1939, SEE PAGE 457, SUPRA, WE NEED REFER ONLY TO
SUBSEQUENT PERIODS.  THESE REPORTS SHOW THE FOLLOWING SUMS AVAILABLE
FOR INTEREST:  1940 - $2,513,090; 1941 - $4,548,128; 1942(7 MONTHS)
$4,830,986* , LESS RELATIVELY MINOR DEDUCTIONS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
CONSISTENTLY TREATED IN THE REPORTS.  THIS LAST GROUP OF FIGURES IS
UTILIZED BY US AS A ROUGH EXTENSION OF THE TABLE OF EARNINGS ON PAGE
457.  THEY ARE USEFUL TO SHOW THE STRIKING INCREASES OVER THE OLD
AVERAGES BUT HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUSTED TO CONFORM MATHEMATICALLY WITH THE
TABLE OF EARLIER YEARS. 

*WE HAVE BEEN FURNISHED STATEMENTS OF OPERATING RESULTS OF THE DEBTOR
THROUGH NOVEMBER, 1942, WHICH SHOW FOR THAT PART OF THE YEAR INCOME
AVAILABLE FOR FIXED CHARGES OF $10,309,517.18. 

IN THE INTEREST OF ADVANCING THE SOLUTION OF AS MANY PROBLEMS IN
REORGANIZATION AS POSSIBLE, WE HAVE DELIBERATED UPON THE EFFECT TO BE
GIVEN THESE UNEXPECTEDLY LARGE EARNINGS.  THERE ARE FACTORS IN THESE
INCREASED INCOMES WHICH OBVIOUSLY AFFECT THEIR WEIGHT AS EVIDENCE OF
CONTINUED CAPACITY TO PRODUCE EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR DIVIDENDS.  THE
EFFECT OF TAXATION IS NOT WHOLLY ANSWERED BY DEDUCTIONS OF TAX
ESTIMATES ON THE BASIS OF PRESENT RATES.  THE REDUCTION BY THE PLAN OF
OUTSTANDING INTEREST-BEARING SECURITIES MAKES INCOME TAXES MORE LIKELY
TO AFFECT NET EARNINGS.  INCREASED WAGES AND COSTS MUST BE RECKONED
WITH AND INCREASED MAINTENANCE MAY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED FROM
INCREASED USE.  ALREADY SERIOUS PROPOSALS FOR DECREASE OF TARIFFS HAVE
BEEN ADVANCED.  ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN EX PARTE
NO. 148, JANUARY 4, 1943. 

RESPONDENTS, OF COURSE, ADMIT THAT THE NEEDS OF WAR HAVE INCREASED
TRAFFIC.  TRANSCONTINENTAL TRANSPORTATION HAS AT THE MOMENT DISPLACED A
LARGE PROPORTION OF THAT FROM COAST TO COAST, VIA THE PANAMA CANAL. 
BUSES AND TRUCKS HAVE YIELDED MUCH OF THEIR GAINS IN VOLUME TO
RAILROADS.  BUT RESPONDENTS POINT TO THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXTENSION
AND THE DOTSERO CUTOFF AS PERMANENT FEEDERS TO THE DEBTOR'S GROWING
BUSINESS.  THEY SEE A POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION PERIOD
WHICH PROMISES A CONTINUANCE OF HEAVY RAILWAY USE INTO THE INDEFINITE
FUTURE.  THIS, SAY RESPONDENTS, IS TO BE APPRAISED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
NECESSITY FOR A NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ADEQUATE FOR THE
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF THE WAR FACILITIES, WHEN THEY ARE TURNED TO
PEACEFUL PURSUITS. 

THE COMMISSION, AT THE TIME OF ITS CERTIFICATION TO THE COURT,
SEPTEMBER 28, 1939, ACTED AS THE RESULTS OF INCREASED BUSINESS WERE
JUST EMERGING INTO INCREASED PROFITS.  FN38  IN OBJECTIONS TO THE
COMMISSION PLAN FILED IN THE COURT ON DECEMBER 8, 1939, IT WAS
SUGGESTED THAT "ANY ESTIMATE OF RAILROAD EARNINGS MADE PRIOR TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF WAR CONDITIONS MUST BE REVISED."  THE COURT AFTER
CONSIDERING ALL OF THE OBJECTIONS OFFERED, BUT WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY
DISCUSSING THE CHANGED CONDITIONS, APPROVED THE PLAN ON AUGUST 15,
1940.  34 F.SUPP.  493, 504.  THE COMMISSION'S FORECAST WAS MADE WITH
KNOWLEDGE AND NOT IN DISREGARD OF PAST FLUCTUATIONS OF INCOME, IN WAR
AND IN PEACE.  ON THE SHOWING AS TO CHANGED CONDITIONS MADE BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COURT, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR A DISAPPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION
PLAN AS UNFAIR TO THE JUNIOR EQUITIES.  THE FURTHER EVIDENCE OF
INCREASED EARNINGS, PLACED IN THE RECORD BY THE STIPULATIONS, DOES NOT
LEAD US TO REJECT THE COMMISSION'S PLAN. 

EFFECTIVE DATE OF PLAN.  JANUARY 1, 1939, WAS CHOSEN AS THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE PLAN.  THE DEBTOR OBJECTS TO THIS ON THE GROUND THAT
SUBSECTION (1) FIXES THE DATE OF FILING THE PETITION AS THE DATE FOR
THE PLAN.  FN39  THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE DEBTOR'S ARGUMENT IS TO
MAKE THE INTEREST RATE OF THE NEW SECURITIES APPLICABLE FROM AUGUST 2,
1935, INSTEAD OF FROM JANUARY 1, 1939.  AS THE NEW SECURITIES BEAR
LOWER INTEREST RATES THAN THE CONTRACT SECURITIES, A SAVINGS TO THE
ESTATE WOULD ACCRUE.  FN40  BUT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) ARE SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO EMPOWER THE
COMMISSION TO SELECT THE DATE FOR THE INSTITUTION OF THE
REORGANIZATION.  CF. GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M.,
ST. P. & P.R. CO., POST, P. 546. 

COSTS.  THE INSTITUTIONAL BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE IN NO. 7 AND THE
TRUSTEES OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE IN NO. 8 CALL OUR ATTENTION TO THE
PROVISION IN THE DECREE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR COSTS
AGAINST APPELLEES THERE AND SUGGEST THAT COSTS SHOULD BE ASSESSED
DIRECTLY AGAINST THE ESTATE OF THE DEBTOR IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.
77.  OUR REVERSAL OF THE DECREE LEAVES THE APPELLEES BELOW FREE OF THIS
PROVISION OF THE DECREE AND REQUIRES US TO ASSESS COSTS ON THE REVIEW. 
WE SEE ALSO NO REASON WHY COSTS SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE
LOSING PARTIES ON THIS REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND
IT WILL BE SO ORDERED.  THIS ASSESSMENT IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO A
MOTION FOR ALLOWANCE FOR DISBURSEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SUBSECTION (C)(12).  FN41 

OTHER MINOR OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
ARE ADVANCED BUT WE DO NOT CONSIDER THEM AS OF SUFFICIENT WEIGHT TO
REQUIRE COMMENT. 

FROM THE FOREGOING IT FOLLOWS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 77, BANKRUPTCY ACT, REORGANIZATION OF RAILROADS, 47 STAT.
1474, AS AMENDED, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205; IN RE WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO., 124
F.2D 136; IN RE WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO., 34 F.SUPP.  493; WESTERN
PACIFIC R. CO. REORGANIZATION, 230 I.C.C. 61; 233 I.C.C. 409; 236
I.C.C. 1. 

FN2  THE SUMMARY OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AS OF OCTOBER 10, 1938, 230 I.C.C. 62, FOLLOWS: 

"LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY.  - THE DEBTOR OWNS
OR OPERATES A TOTAL OF 1,207.51 MILES OF STANDARD-GAGE STEAM RAILROAD. 
THE MAIN LINES EXTEND EASTWARD 924.17 MILES FROM OAKLAND, CALIF., TO
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, AND NORTHWARD 111.81 MILES FROM KEDDIE TO BIEBER,
CALIF., WITH OPERATING RIGHTS OVER THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY, 46.38
MILES, FROM BIEBER TO HAMBONE, CALIF.  THE DEBTOR ALSO OPERATES 4.2
MILES OF FERRY SERVICE FROM OAKLAND TO SAN FRANCISCO, AND 185.3 MILES
OF SECOND MAIN TRACK, OF WHICH 182.91 MILES BETWEEN WESO AND ALAZON,
NEV., ARE OWNED BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC.  THIS TERRITORY IS KNOWN AS
THE 'PAIRED-TRACK DISTRICT,' SINCE THE TWO LINES ARE USED AS A DOUBLE
TRACK RAILROAD BY BOTH COMPANIES.  VARIOUS BRANCH LINES SPRINGING FROM
THE OAKLAND-SALT LAKE CITY LINE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

       MILES 

NILES JUNCTION TO SAN JOSE, CALIF.........   23.07 

CALPINE JUNCTION TO CALPINE, CALIF........   12.62 

HAWLEY TO LOYALTON, CALIF.................   12.79 

RENO JUNCTION, CALIF., TO RENO, NEV.......   33.11 

BURMESTER TO WARNER, UTAH.................   15.52 

MISCELLANEOUS.............................   21.79 

TOTAL.....................................  118.90 

"OWNED OR CONTROLLED AND JOINTLY AFFILIATED RAILROAD COMPANIES.  -
THE DEBTOR OWNS ALL THE OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK OF THE SACRAMENTO
NORTHERN RAILWAY, AN ELECTRICALLY OPERATED STANDARD-GAGE FREIGHT AND
PASSENGER RAILROAD, CONSISTING OF 276.2 MILES OF ROAD SERVING AND
CONNECTING SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND WITH VARIOUS SACRAMENTO VALLEY
CITIES, PRINCIPALLY PITTSBURG, VACAVILLE, SACRAMENTO, WOODLAND,
MARYSVILLE, COLUSA, AND OROVILLE, ALL IN CALIFORNIA. 

"BY OWNERSHIP OF MORE THAN 99 PERCENT OF THE OUTSTANDING CAPITAL
STOCK, THE DEBTOR CONTROLS THE TIDEWATER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, WHICH
OPERATES A STANDARD-GAGE STEAM FREIGHT LINE 61.38 MILES IN LENGTH,
CONNECTING STOCKTON WITH MANTECA, ESCALON, MODESTO, AND TURLOCK IN THE
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA. 

"THE DEBTOR OWNS ALL THE OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK OF THE DEEP CREEK
RAILROAD COMPANY, WHICH OWNS AND OPERATES A STANDARD-GAGE STEAM
RAILROAD EXTENDING FROM WENDOVER TO GOLD HILL, NEW., A DISTANCE OF 44.6
MILES.  IN ADDITION IT OWNS 50 PERCENT OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE SALT
LAKE CITY UNION DEPOT & RAILROAD COMPANY; 33 1/3 PERCENT OF THE CAPITAL
STOCK OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA TRACTION COMPANY, OPERATING AN
ELECTRICALLY OPERATED FREIGHT RAILROAD EXTENDING FROM STOCKTON TO
SACRAMENTO, CALIF., WITH A ROAD MILEAGE OF 53.78 MILES; AND 50 PERCENT
OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE ALAMEDA BELT LINE, OPERATING 15.86 MILES OF
TERMINAL SWITCHING LINE IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ON SAN FRANCISCO BAY. 

"NONE OF THE ABOVE SUBSIDIARY OR AFFILIATED COMPANIES HAS FILED A
PETITION UNDER SECTION 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED." 

FN3  THESE FIGURES REPRESENT REPORTED CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS "ADJUSTED
TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT (A) REHABILITATION EXPENDITURES IN THE YEARS 1927
1931 AND 1934-1938, (B) AMORTIZATION OF DISCOUNT ON FIRST MORTGAGE
BONDS OF THE DEBTOR IN THE YEARS 1922-1938, AND (C) DEDUCTIONS AND
CREDITS IN THE YEARS 1931-1934 MADE BY THE COMMISSION TO ACCORD WITH
ITS ACCOUNTING RULES AND REGULATIONS,  ... " 

FN4 230 I.C.C. 91:  "ANNUAL PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND SHOULD BE $500,000
OR SUCH LESSER SUM AS MAY BE REQUIRED, TOGETHER WITH UNAPPROPRIATED
ACCUMULATIONS IN THE FUND AS OF THE CLOSE OF THE CALENDAR YEAR PRIOR TO
THAT FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS TO BE COMPUTED, LESS CHARGES FOR
ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS DURING THE LATTER YEAR, TO BRING THE TOTAL IN
THE FUND TO $1,000,000." 

FN5  233 I.C.C. 409, 413; 236 I.C.C. 1, 4.  THIS IS SUMMARIZED BY A
PETITIONER AS FOLLOWS: (CHART OMITTED) 

FN6  THE APPLICABLE PORTION OF THE FINDING IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1)  FIRST-MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS, $19,716,040 OF INCOME-MORTGAGE
BONDS, $29,574,060 OF PREFERRED STOCK, AND 230,593 SHARES OF COMMON
STOCK, THE COMMON STOCK TO BE TAKEN AT THE PRICE OF $57 A SHARE; (2)
FINANCE CORPORATION, $1,185,200 OF INCOME-MORTGAGE BONDS, $1,777,800 OF
PREFERRED STOCK, AND 15,788 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, THE COMMON STOCK TO
BE TAKEN AT A PRICE OF $57 A SHARE; (3) CREDIT CORPORATION, $154,111 OF
INCOME-MORTGAGE BONDS, $241,681 OF PREFERRED STOCK, AND 35,425 SHARES
OF COMMON STOCK, THE COMMON STOCK TO BE TAKEN AT A PRICE OF $62 A
SHARE; AND (4) JAMES COMPANY, $163,724 OF INCOME-MORTGAGE BONDS,
$256,756 OF PREFERRED STOCK, AND 37,635 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, BEING
THE AMOUNT OF COMMON STOCK WHICH BEARS TO THE AMOUNT OF COMMON STOCK
ALLOTTED TO THE CLAIM OF THE CREDIT CORPORATION THE SAME PROPORTION
THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL AND REFUNDING BONDS OF THE DEBTOR
HELD BY THE JAMES COMPANY AS COLLATERAL FOR ITS CLAIM BEARS TO THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SUCH BONDS HELD BY THE CREDIT CORPORATION FOR ITS
CLAIM."  THE RESULT OF THE DISTRIBUTION PER DOLLAR OF INDEBTEDNESS IS
SET OUT IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORTS.  230 I.C.C. 101 AND 233 I.C.C. 417
AND 451. 

FN7  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONTROVERSY, THE APPOSITE REQUIREMENTS
OF SEC. 77, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205, MAY BE EXCERPTED AS FOLLOWS: 

"(B)  A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS SECTION (1)
SHALL INCLUDE PROVISIONS MODIFYING OR ALTERING THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS
GENERALLY, OR OF ANY CLASS OF THEM, SECURED OR UNSECURED, EITHER
THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF NEW SECURITIES OF ANY CHARACTER OR OTHERWISE;
(2) MAY INCLUDE PROVISIONS MODIFYING OR ALTERING THE RIGHTS OF
STOCKHOLDERS GENERALLY, OR OF ANY CLASS OF THEM, EITHER THROUGH THE
ISSUANCE OF NEW SECURITIES OF ANY CHARACTER, OR OTHERWISE; (3) MAY
INCLUDE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING SUCH INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND
STOCKHOLDERS AS ARE NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR, PROVISIONS FOR THE
ISSUANCE TO ANY SUCH CREDITOR OR STOCKHOLDER OF OPTIONS OR WARRANTS TO
RECEIVE, OR TO SUBSCRIBE FOR, SECURITIES OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY IN
SUCH AMOUNTS AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MAY BE SET FORTH IN
THE PLAN; (4) SHALL PROVIDE FOR FIXED CHARGES (INCLUDING FIXED INTEREST
ON FUNDED DEBT, INTEREST ON UNFUNDED DEBT, AMORTIZATION OF DISCOUNT ON
FUNDED DEBT, AND RENT FOR LEASED RAILROADS) IN SUCH AN AMOUNT THAT,
AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBABLE PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF THE
PROPERTY IN LIGHT OF ITS EARNINGS EXPERIENCE AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT
FACTS, THERE SHALL BE ADEQUATE COVERAGE OF SUCH FIXED CHARGES BY THE
PROBABLE EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF; (5) SHALL PROVIDE
ADEQUATE MEANS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE PLAN,  ... 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"(D)  THE DEBTOR, AFTER A PETITION IS FILED AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION
(A) OF THIS SECTION, SHALL FILE A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WITHIN SIX
MONTHS OF THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER BY THE JUDGE APPROVING THE PETITION AS
PROPERLY FILED,  ...  AFTER THE FILING OF SUCH A PLAN, THE COMMISSION,
UNLESS SUCH PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY IT TO BE PRIMA FACIE
IMPRACTICABLE, SHALL, AFTER DUE NOTICE TO ALL STOCKHOLDERS AND
CREDITORS GIVEN IN SUCH MANNER AS IT SHALL DETERMINE, HOLD PUBLIC
HEARINGS, AT WHICH OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO ANY INTERESTED PARTY
TO BE HEARD, AND FOLLOWING WHICH THE COMMISSION SHALL RENDER A REPORT
AND ORDER IN WHICH IT SHALL APPROVE A PLAN, WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM
ANY WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED, THAT WILL IN ITS OPINION MEET WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTIONS (B) AND (E) OF THIS SECTION, AND WILL BE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST; OR IT SHALL RENDER A REPORT AND
ORDER IN WHICH IT SHALL REFUSE TO APPROVE ANY PLAN.  IN SUCH REPORT THE
COMMISSION SHALL STATE FULLY THE REASONS FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS. 

"  ...  NO PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED OR CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGE IN ANY
PROCEEDING UNDER THIS SECTION UNLESS THE PLAN SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND CERTIFIED TO THE COURT.  ... 

"(E)  UPON THE CERTIFICATION OF A PLAN BY THE COMMISSION TO THE
COURT, THE COURT SHALL GIVE DUE NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF
THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SUCH PARTIES MAY FILE WITH THE COURT THEIR
OBJECTIONS TO SUCH PLAN, AND SUCH PARTIES SHALL FILE, WITHIN SUCH TIME
AS MAY BE FIXED IN SAID NOTICE, DETAILED AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS IN
WRITING TO THE PLAN AND THEIR CLAIMS FOR EQUITABLE TREATMENT.  THE
JUDGE SHALL, AFTER NOTICE IN SUCH MANNER AS HE MAY DETERMINE TO THE
DEBTOR, ITS TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES, STOCKHOLDERS, CREDITORS, AND THE
COMMISSION, HEAR ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST IN SUPPORT OF, AND IN
OPPOSITION TO, SUCH OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN AND SUCH CLAIMS FOR
EQUITABLE TREATMENT.  AFTER SUCH HEARING, AND WITHOUT ANY HEARING IF NO
OBJECTIONS ARE FILED, THE JUDGE SHALL APPROVE THE PLAN IF SATISFIED
THAT:  (1) IT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS
OF EACH CLASS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS, DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE
UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS, AND WILL
CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW OF THE LAND REGARDING THE
PARTICIPATION OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS;
... 

"IF THE JUDGE SHALL NOT APPROVE THE PLAN, HE SHALL FILE AN OPINION,
STATING HIS CONCLUSIONS AND THE REASON THEREFOR, AND HE SHALL ENTER AN
ORDER IN WHICH HE MAY EITHER DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS, OR IN HIS
DISCRETION AND ON MOTION OF ANY PARTY IN INTEREST REFER THE PROCEEDINGS
BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER ACTION, IN WHICH EVENT HE SHALL
TRANSMIT TO THE COMMISSION A COPY OF ANY EVIDENCE RECEIVED.  ...  IF
THE JUDGE SHALL APPROVE THE PLAN, HE SHALL FILE AN OPINION, STATING HIS
CONCLUSIONS AND THE REASONS THEREFOR, AND ENTER AN ORDER TO THAT
EFFECT, AND SHALL SEND A CERTIFIED COPY OF SUCH OPINION AND ORDER TO
THE COMMISSION.  THE PLAN SHALL THEN BE SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION TO
THE CREDITORS OF EACH CLASS WHOSE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN FILED AND ALLOWED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION, AND
TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF EACH CLASS, AND/OR TO THE COMMITTEES OR OTHER
REPRESENTATIVES THEREOF, FOR ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION, WITHIN SUCH TIME
AS THE COMMISSION SHALL SPECIFY, TOGETHER WITH THE REPORT OR REPORTS OF
THE COMMISSION THEREON OR SUCH A SUMMARIZATION THEREOF AS THE
COMMISSION MAY APPROVE, AND THE OPINION AND ORDER OF THE JUDGE:
PROVIDED, THAT SUBMISSION TO ANY CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS SHALL NOT BE
NECESSARY IF THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE FOUND, AND THE JUDGE SHALL HAVE
AFFIRMED THE FINDING, (A) THAT AT THE TIME OF THE FINDING THE
CORPORATION IS INSOLVENT, OR THAT AT THE TIME OF THE FINDING THE EQUITY
OF SUCH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS HAS NO VALUE, OR THAT THE PLAN PROVIDES
FOR THE PAYMENT IN CASH TO SUCH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS OF AN AMOUNT NOT
LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THEIR EQUITY, IF ANY,  ...  PROVIDED FURTHER,
THAT SUBMISSION TO ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY IF THE
COMMISSION SHALL HAVE FOUND, AND THE JUDGE SHALL HAVE AFFIRMED THE
FINDING, THAT THE INTERESTS OF SUCH CLASS OF CREDITORS WILL NOT BE
ADVERSELY AND MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PLAN, OR THAT AT THE TIME OF
THE FINDING THE INTERESTS OF SUCH CLASS OF CREDITORS HAVE NO VALUE, OR
THAT THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR THE PAYMENT IN CASH TO SUCH CLASS OF
CREDITORS OF AN AMOUNT NOT LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THEIR INTERESTS. 
...           .         .         .         .         . 

"IF IT SHALL BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY FOR
ANY PURPOSE UNDER THIS SECTION, THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE SUCH
VALUE AND CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE COURT IN ITS REPORT ON THE PLAN.  THE
VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY USED IN RAILROAD OPERATION SHALL BE DETERMINED ON
A BASIS WHICH WILL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE EARNING POWER OF THE
PROPERTY, PAST, PRESENT, AND PROSPECTIVE, AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT
FACTS.  IN DETERMINING SUCH VALUE ONLY SUCH EFFECT SHALL BE GIVEN TO
THE PRESENT COST OF REPRODUCTION NEW AND LESS DEPRECIATION AND ORIGINAL
COST OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT THEREIN, AS MAY BE
REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW OF THE LAND, IN LIGHT OF ITS EARNING POWER AND
ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTS. 

"(F)  ...  THE PROPERTY DEALT WITH BY THE PLAN, WHEN TRANSFERRED AND
CONVEYED TO THE DEBTOR OR TO THE OTHER CORPORATION OR CORPORATIONS
PROVIDED FOR BY THE PLAN, OR WHEN RETAINED BY THE DEBTOR PURSUANT TO
THE PLAN, SHALL BE FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEBTOR, ITS
STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS, AND THE DEBTOR SHALL BE DISCHARGED FROM ITS
DEBTS AND LIABILITIES, EXCEPT SUCH AS MAY CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN BE RESERVED IN THE ORDER CONFIRMING THE PLAN OR
DIRECTING SUCH TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OR RETENTION, AND THE JUDGE MAY
REQUIRE THE TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES APPOINTED HEREUNDER, THE DEBTOR, ANY
MORTGAGEE, THE TRUSTEE OF ANY OBLIGATION OF THE DEBTOR, AND ALL OTHER
PROPER AND NECESSARY PARTIES, TO MAKE ANY SUCH TRANSFER OR CONVEYANCE,
AND MAY REQUIRE THE DEBTOR TO JOIN IN ANY SUCH TRANSFER OR CONVEYANCE
MADE BY THE TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES.  ...  " 

FN8  CF. HEARINGS ON H.R. 7432, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE, 72D CONG., 2D SESS. (1933), PP. 11-12; CUSHMAN, THE
INDEPENDENT REGULATORY COMMISSIONS (1941) 45-58. 

FN9  THE NEED FOR RAILROAD REHABILITATION LEGISLATION UNDER THE
BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED. 
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, JANUARY 11, 1933, 76 CONG. REC. 1615; 46TH ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE I.C.C., DEC. 1, 1932, P. 15; FOR A STATEMENT THAT THE
PRESIDENT-ELECT FAVORED THE LEGISLATION, SEE 76 CONG. REC. 2917. 

FN10  THE SECTION WAS EXTENSIVELY REVISED IN 1935.  COMPARE 47 STAT.
1474 WITH 49 STAT. 911. 

FN11  H. REP. NO. 1283, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1; S. REP. NO.
1336, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1. 

FN12  FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING SEPT. 30, 1932, OPERATING REVENUES
OF CLASS I RAILROADS WERE $3,321,052,031, A DECLINE OF $915,535,318
BELOW THOSE OF THE CALENDAR YEAR 1931 AND ABOUT EQUAL TO THOSE OF THE
YEAR 1915.  46TH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
DEC. 1, 1932, P. 6.  CF. 48 STAT. 912, 798. 

FN13  76 CONG. REC. 2905. 

FN14  H. REP. NO. 1897, 72D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 6-7.  SUBSECTIONS
(D) AND (G), H.R. 14359, 76 CONG. REC. 2905, 2906. 

FN15  SOLICITOR GENERAL'S MEMORANDUM, 76 CONG. REC. 2771, 2773. 

FN16  THE BILL DEALT WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHAT ARE NOW CHAPTERS
8-11 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

FN17  SUBSECTION (G), 47 STAT. 1479.  THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION
(B) WERE THEN SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE THEY ARE NOW. 

FN18  79 CONG. REC. 8851.  H. REP. NO. 1283, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 1; COMPARE DRAFT OF COORDINATOR'S PROPOSALS, REPORT OF THE FEDERAL
COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION (1935), H. DOC. NO. 89, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 229. 

FN19  REPORT OF THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR, SUPRA, N. 18, PP. 100-103;
H. REP. NO. 1283, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3; S. REP. NO. 1336, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3; HEARINGS ON H.R. 6249, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SER.  3, APRIL 15-25, 1935, PP. 26
31. 

FN20  CF. HEARINGS ON H.R. 6249, SUPRA, N. 19, PP. 249-50, 291-92,
317. 

FN21  THE BILL AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF
TRANSPORTATION, H. DOC. 89, SUPRA, N. 18, P. 238, AND IN A DIFFERENT
FORM AS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE,
HEARINGS ON H.R. 6249, SUPRA, N. 19, P. 8, DID NOT CONTAIN THE QUOTED
SENTENCE.  DURING THE HEARINGS, THE CHAIRMAN SOUGHT ADVICE AS TO
WHETHER IT WOULD BE LEGALLY VALID TO MAKE THE VALUATION OF THE
COMMISSION FINAL IN PRACTICE.  THIS WAS NOT DENIED ALTHOUGH DOUBT WAS
EXPRESSED WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S FINDING COULD PRECLUDE A CERTAIN
LIMITED AMOUNT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  SEE HEARINGS ON H.R. 6249, SUPRA,
N. 20.  AFTER THIS DISCUSSION, THE BILL WHICH WAS TO PASS THE HOUSE WAS
INTRODUCED ON JUNE 20, 1935, 79 CONG. REC. 9814.  IT CONTAINED THE
QUOTED SENTENCE, ABOVE REFERRED TO, IN THE FORM AS IT NOW APPEARS IN
SUBSECTION (E). 

FN22  "THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE SUCH ORDER ONLY IF IT FINDS THAT
SUCH ISSUE OR ASSUMPTION:  (A) IS FOR SOME LAWFUL OBJECT WITHIN ITS
CORPORATE PURPOSES, AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH IS
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR OR CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPER PERFORMANCE
BY THE CARRIER OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AS A COMMON CARRIER, AND WHICH
WILL NOT IMPAIR ITS ABILITY TO PERFORM THAT SERVICE, AND (B) IS
REASONABLY NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSE."  49 U.S.C. SEC.
20A (2). 

FN23  CF. PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79, 87; WARREN V. PALMER,
310 U.S. 132, 138; UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 191; REPORT
OF PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE TO SUBMIT RECOMMENDATIONS UPON THE GENERAL
TRANSPORTATION SITUATION, DEC. 23, 1938, P. 25. 

FN24  SEE OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 144. 

FN25  SUCH A RESULT WAS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE.  HEARINGS ON H.R. 6249, SUPRA, N. 19, PP. 26, 80, 107, 118,
227, 255, 278. 

FN26  IN RE WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO., 124 F.2D 136, 139:  "TO DETERMINE
THIS QUESTION, IT WAS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE, AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE PLAN, THE VALUE OF (1) EACH OF THE CLAIMS OF RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION, (2) THE CLAIM OF RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION, (3)
THE CLAIM OF A.C. JAMES COMPANY, (4) THE CLAIMS OF THE HOLDERS OF FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS NOW OUTSTANDING, (5) THE $10,000,000 OF NEW FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS, (6) THE $21,219,075 OF INCOME BONDS, (7) THE 318,502.97
SHARES OF NEW PREFERRED STOCK AND (8) THE 319,441 SHARES OF NEW COMMON
STOCK WHICH THE PLAN PROVIDES SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO SAID CLAIMANTS. 

"TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CLAIMS, IT WAS
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF (1) THE DEBTOR'S ENTIRE PROPERTY,
(2) THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE FIRST MORTGAGE NOW OUTSTANDING, (3) THE
$18,999,500 OF REFUNDING BONDS PLEDGED TO SECURE THE CLAIMS OF A.C.
JAMES COMPANY, RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION AND RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION AND (4) THE OTHER COLLATERAL PLEDGED TO SECURE EACH OF SAID
CLAIMS.  TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE REFUNDING BONDS, IT WAS
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF (1) THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE
REFUNDING MORTGAGE ONLY AND (2) THE PROPERTY SUBJECT BOTH TO THE
REFUNDING MORTGAGE AND TO THE FIRST MORTGAGE NOW OUTSTANDING.  THIS, OF
COURSE, NECESSITATED A DETERMINATION AS TO WHICH OF THE DEBTOR'S
PROPERTY IS, AND WHICH IS NOT, SUBJECT TO EACH MORTGAGE.  CONSOLIDATED
ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, SUPRA. 

"TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE NEW FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS, INCOME
BONDS, NEW PREFERRED STOCK AND NEW COMMON STOCK MENTIONED ABOVE, IT WAS
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF (1) THE DEBTOR'S ENTIRE PROPERTY,
(2) THE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE NEW FIRST MORTGAGE AND
(3) THE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME MORTGAGE. 

"SUBSECTION E OF SEC. 77 PROVIDES:  'IF IT SHALL BE NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE THE VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY FOR ANY PURPOSE UNDER THIS SECTION,
THE (INTERSTATE COMMERCE) COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE SUCH VALUE AND
CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE COURT IN ITS REPORT ON THE PLAN.'  IN THIS
CASE, AS HAS BEEN SEEN, IT WAS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF (1)
THE DEBTOR'S ENTIRE PROPERTY, (2) EACH OF THE CLAIMS OF RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION, (3) THE CLAIM OF RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION, (4)
THE CLAIM OF A.C. JAMES COMPANY, (5) THE CLAIMS OF THE HOLDERS OF FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS NOW OUTSTANDING, (6) THE $10,000,000 OF NEW FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS, (7) THE $21,219,075 OF INCOME BONDS, (8) THE 318,502.97
SHARES OF NEW PREFERRED STOCK, (9) THE 319,441 SHARES OF NEW COMMON
STOCK, (10) THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE FIRST MORTGAGE NOW OUTSTANDING,
(11) THE $18,999,500 OF REFUNDING BONDS PLEDGED TO SECURE THE CLAIMS OF
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION AND
A.C. JAMES COMPANY, (12) THE OTHER COLLATERAL PLEDGED TO SECURE EACH OF
SAID CLAIMS, (13) THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE ONLY,
(14) THE PROPERTY SUBJECT BOTH TO THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE AND TO THE
FIRST MORTGAGE NOW OUTSTANDING, (15) THE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE NEW FIRST MORTGAGE AND (16) THE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE INCOME MORTGAGE.  IT THUS BECAME THE DUTY OF THE
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THESE VALUES AND CERTIFY THEM TO THE COURT. 
THAT DUTY WAS NOT PERFORMED." 

FN27  CF. CONSOLIDATED ROCK CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 525. 

FN28  NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482. 

FN29  GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R.
CO., POST, PP. 562-565. 

FN30  THIS CLAUSE ALSO GRANTS "ANY AND ALL REPLACEMENTS, RENEWALS,
IMPROVEMENTS AND BETTERMENTS OF AND ADDITIONS TO" ANY OF THE LINES OR
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF THE MORTGAGE.  IN VIEW OF THE HOLDING
AS TO THE EFFECT OF THOSE CLAUSES QUOTED IN THE TEXT IT WILL BE
UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE CONTENTION OF THE TRUSTEE OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE THAT THIS CLAUSE, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY CERTAIN COVENANTS,
INDEPENDENTLY SUBJECTS THE DEBTOR'S EQUITY IN EQUIPMENT TRUST ROLLING
STOCK TO THE LIEN OF THE MORTGAGE. 

THERE ARE SIX GRANTING CLAUSES.  THE SECOND COVERS ALL LINES, LANDS,
STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT AND OTHER PROPERTY, INTERESTS OR RIGHTS, LEGAL
OR EQUITABLE, THEN OWNED BY THE COMPANY, AND NOT SET FORTH
PARTICULARLY.  THE FOURTH PROVIDES FOR THE GRANT OF ADDITIONAL
SECURITY, AND THE SIXTH COVERS LEGAL AND EQUITABLE RIGHTS, CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS, AND RENTS AND INCOME IN THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF
THE INDENTURE. 

FN31  THE PORTION OF THIS CLAUSE PRECEDING THAT QUOTED IN THE TEXT
PROVIDES: 

"BUT NOTHING EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IN THIS INDENTURE SHALL BE CONSTRUED
TO LIMIT THE RIGHT OR POWER OF THE COMPANY OR ANY SUCCESSOR OR
PURCHASING CORPORATION, WHICH RIGHT AND POWER IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY
RESERVED, BY THE USE OF ITS CREDIT OR FREE FUNDS OR BY THE USE OF FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS DELIVERED TO THE COMPANY OR ANY SUCCESSOR OR PURCHASING
CORPORATION AS IN THIS INDENTURE PROVIDED TO REIMBURSE THE COMPANY OR
ANY SUCH SUCCESSOR OR PURCHASING CORPORATION FOR EXPENDITURES
THERETOFORE ACTUALLY MADE OUT OF ITS FREE FUNDS, TO CONSTRUCT OR
ACQUIRE FREE FROM THE LIEN HEREOF LINES OF RAILROAD, EXTENSIONS OR
BRANCHES OR INTERESTS THEREIN, EQUIPMENT, STOCKS, BONDS OR OTHER
SECURITIES OR OTHER PROPERTY, RIGHTS, FRANCHISES, IMMUNITIES OR
PRIVILEGES PROVIDED THE SAME SHALL NOT BE LINES OF RAILROAD,
EXTENSIONS, OR BRANCHES OR INTERESTS THEREIN, EQUIPMENT, STOCKS, BONDS
OR OTHER SECURITIES, OR OTHER PROPERTY, RIGHTS, FRANCHISES, IMMUNITIES
OR PRIVILEGES (A) ON ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASE, ACQUISITION OR
CONSTRUCTION WHEREOF OR WORK WHEREON FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS SHALL BE
AUTHENTICATED AND DELIVERED OR THEIR PROCEEDS OR OTHER CASH DEPOSITED
HEREUNDER SHALL BE PAID OUT AS HEREIN PROVIDED; OR (B) CONSISTING OF,
OR IF SECURITIES REPRESENTING, PROPERTY OR FACILITIES CONSTITUTING AN
INTEGRAL PART OR PARTS OF LINES OF RAILROAD, EXTENSIONS, BRANCHES OR
OTHER PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF THIS INDENTURE OR SOME OTHER
INTEGRAL PORTION WHEREOF IS OR INTEGRAL PORTIONS WHEREOF ARE SUBJECT TO
THE LIEN HEREOF OR REPRESENTED BY SECURITIES SUBJECT TO THE LIEN
HEREOF; OR (C) CONSISTING OF OR, IF SECURITIES, REPRESENTING PROPERTY
OR FACILITIES USED OR ACQUIRED FOR USE IN OR FOR THE MAINTENANCE OR
OPERATION OF OR APPERTAINING TO ANY OF THE LINES OF RAILROAD,
EXTENSIONS, BRANCHES OR OTHER PROPERTY SUBJECT, OR REPRESENTED BY
SECURITIES SUBJECT, TO THE LIEN OF THIS INDENTURE; OR (D) CONSISTING OF
SHARES OF STOCK IN OR OTHER SECURITIES OF SAID THE SALT LAKE CITY UNION
DEPOT AND RAILROAD COMPANY OR SAID STANDARD REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OR OF ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST
WHICH THE COMPANY OR ANY SUCCESSOR OR PURCHASING CORPORATION MAY
ACQUIRE IN OR TO ANY OF THE PROPERTY OF EITHER OF THE COMPANIES ABOVE
NAMED OR IN OR TO ANY LINE OF RAILROAD OR OTHER PROPERTY OF ANY
CORPORATION WHICH SHALL THEN BE OR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR THERETO SHALL HAVE
BEEN A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AS THE TERM SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS DEFINED IN

FN32  THE TRUSTEE FINDS FURTHER SUPPORT FOR THIS ARGUMENT IN A
COMPARISON OF THE FOUR LIMITATIONS ON THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FROM
FREE FUNDS FOUND IN THE OPENING PORTION OF THE RESERVATION CLAUSE,
QUOTED IN THE PRECEDING FOOTNOTE, WITH THE LATTER PORTION OF THE
CLAUSE, QUOTED IN THE TEXT.  THE OPENING PORTION CONTAINS FOUR
LIMITATIONS, OF WHICH ONLY TWO ARE RELEVANT TO THIS ARGUMENT.  THE
FIRST OF THESE FOUR LIMITATIONS IS THAT THE PROPERTY MAY NOT BE
ACQUIRED BY THE USE OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OR THEIR PROCEEDS AND THE
THIRD RELATES TO PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF THE ROAD
WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE.  IT IS ONLY THIS FIRST LIMITATION
WHICH IS REPEATED IN THE LATTER PORTION OF THE RESERVATION CLAUSE.  IT
IS ARGUED THAT THE OMISSION TO REPEAT THE LIMITATION AS TO PROPERTY
ACQUIRED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF THE ROAD SHOWS AN INTENTION THAT
SUCH A LIMITATION SHOULD NOT APPLY IN THAT LATTER PORTION.  FROM THIS
IT IS SAID TO FOLLOW THAT PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF
THE ROAD BUT NOT BOUGHT WITH FIRST MORTGAGE MONEYS IS NOT SUBJECT TO
THE MORTGAGE, I. E., THAT THE WORDS "THE COMPANY MAY  ... PURCHASE  ...
EQUIPMENT, FREE FROM THE LIEN HEREOF, BY LEASE, CONDITIONAL SALE
AGREEMENT OR UNDER ANY FORM OF EQUIPMENT TRUST" SHOULD BE READ
LITERALLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CLAUSE TAKEN TOGETHER
WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE MORTGAGE.  THUS ALL BUT THE CONCLUSION OF
THIS ARGUMENT IS MERELY A VARIATION OF THE ARGUMENT DISCUSSED AND
REJECTED IN THE TEXT, THAT THE WORDS "FREE FROM THE LIEN HEREOF" ARE TO
BE TAKEN LITERALLY AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LATTER PORTION OF THE
RESERVATION CLAUSE WAS TO ACCOMPLISH THE RESULT CONTENDED FOR BY THE
REFUNDING MORTGAGE TRUSTEE. 

IF IT BE SAID THAT THE WORDS "FREE FROM THE LIEN HEREOF" IN THE
OPENING PORTION OF THE RESERVATION CLAUSE HAVE A DIFFERENT MEANING FROM
THAT WHICH WE GIVE THOSE SAME WORDS IN THE LATTER PORTION OF THE
CLAUSE, THE ANSWER MUST BE THAT, IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OF
THE TWO PORTIONS OF THE RESERVATION CLAUSE, THE DIFFERENCE IS
REQUIRED.  THE OPENING PORTION IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH GRANTING
CLAUSE THIRD AND THE REMAINDER OF THE RESERVATION CLAUSE. 

THE FOUR LIMITATIONS IN THE OPENING PORTION OF THE RESERVATION CLAUSE
SUBSTANTIALLY CORRESPOND TO THE FOUR CATEGORIES OF AFTER-ACQUIRED
PROPERTY WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE UNDER GRANTING CLAUSE
THIRD.  BY THE THIRD GRANTING CLAUSE, AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY IN THESE
FOUR CATEGORIES IS SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE.  BY THE OPENING PORTION OF
THE RESERVATION CLAUSE, PROPERTY NOT IN THESE CATEGORIES MAY BE
PURCHASED WITH FREE FUNDS AND WILL BE FREE FROM THE MORTGAGE.  THIS IS
SO BECAUSE THE CATEGORIES, AS DEFINED IN BOTH PLACES, DO NOT COMPREHEND
PROPERTY UNCONNECTED WITH THE ROAD OF THE DEBTOR.  THUS THE PURCHASE
WITH FREE FUNDS OF A FOREIGN RAILROAD OR OF DOMESTIC REAL ESTATE
UNCONNECTED WITH THE ROAD WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE OPENING
PORTION OF THE RESERVATION CLAUSE, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COVERED BY THE
THIRD OR FIFTH GRANTING CLAUSES AND MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE THE SUBJECT OF
A SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE UNDER GRANTING CLAUSE SIXTH.  SEE N. 30,
SUPRA. 

FN33  NO REASON SUGGESTS ITSELF AS TO WHY EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED FOR CASH
SHOULD HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO BE COVERED BY THE FIRST MORTGAGE AND
EQUIPMENT ACQUIRED BY THE EQUIPMENT TRUST METHOD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE
MORTGAGE AFTER THE EQUIPMENT TRUST OBLIGATION IS COMPLETELY SATISFIED. 
YET THIS IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ARGUMENT PRESSED UPON US. 

FN34  CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXTENSION WAS BEGUN IN AUGUST, 1930, AND BY
THE END OF DECEMBER A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE WORK HAD BEEN
COMPLETED.  CONNECTION WITH THE GREAT NORTHERN WAS MADE ON NOVEMBER 10,
1931, AND FREIGHT SERVICE WAS THEN INAUGURATED UNDER THE JURISDICTION
OF THE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT.  ON JUNE 1, 1932, THE LINE WAS PLACED
IN FULL OPERATION.  THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO MAY 31, 1932, WAS
$10,183,641.90 AND ADDITIONAL SUMS WERE LATER EXPENDED.  IT WAS
FINANCED AS FOLLOWS:  FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000,000
WERE SOLD AT 97 1/2 BETWEEN FEBRUARY 11, 1931, AND JANUARY 29, 1932,
PRODUCING $4,875,000.  BETWEEN FEBRUARY 27, 1931, AND MAY 31, 1932,
$5,000,000 OF DEBENTURES, ISSUED UNDER AN INDENTURE DATED JULY 1, 1930,
WERE SOLD FOR CASH AT PAR TO A.C. JAMES CO. THESE DEBENTURES WERE
RETIRED IN MARCH AND MAY, 1932, THROUGH THE ISSUE OF NOTES TO THE A.C.
JAMES CO. FOR $4,999,800($200 BEING PAID IN CASH) SECURED BY A PLEDGE
OF $6,249,500 FACE AMOUNT OF REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS.  THE REFUNDING
MORTGAGE WAS EXECUTED AND DELIVERED FEBRUARY 29, 1932, AS OF JANUARY 1
OF THAT YEAR.  THE REMAINDER OF THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS
FINANCED BY LOANS OF $559,408 PROCURED FROM THE R.F.C. IN MARCH, JUNE
AND AUGUST, 1932.  THESE WERE PARTS OF LARGER LOANS AND WERE SECURED BY
REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS. 

FN35  THE PRIMARY PARTIES CONCERNED WERE THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
CORPORATION, PURCHASER OF THE $5,000,000 OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS IN
QUESTION, AND THE A.C. JAMES CO., PURCHASER OF A LIKE AMOUNT OF
DEBENTURES.  THE A.C. JAMES CO. IN 1929 OFFERED TO FINANCE THE COST OF
THE EXTENSION IN RETURN FOR A FIRST LIEN THEREON.  IT WAS THEN BELIEVED
THAT THE COST OF THE EXTENSION WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $5,000,000.  WHEN
IT DEVELOPED THAT IT WOULD GREATLY EXCEED THAT AMOUNT, THE A.C. JAMES
CO. WITHDREW THIS OFFER AND SUBSTITUTED ANOTHER OFFER TO ADVANCE 50% OF
THE MONEYS NEEDED, THE ADVANCES NOT TO EXCEED $5,000,000.  NO MENTION
WAS MADE IN THIS SECOND OFFER OF A FIRST LIEN OR, INDEED, OF ANY LIEN
AND THE INDENTURE UNDER WHICH THE DEBENTURES WERE ISSUED WAS EQUALLY
SILENT.  THE PARTIES WERE FULLY AWARE THAT THE REMAINING 50% OF THE
COST WOULD BE PAID BY THE SALE OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OR OTHER FUNDS. 
THE SECOND OFFER, IN THE FORM OF A COMMITMENT TO BID AT PUBLIC SALE,
WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEBTOR. 

THE SPECIFICATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE NOTICE CALLING FOR BIDS ON THE
DEBENTURES CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING: 

"THE MAIN LINE OF RAILROAD OF THE COMPANY EXTENDS FROM SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA, TO SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, WITH BRANCHES, AND AGGREGATES
1050.5 MILES MORE OR LESS OF FIRST TRACK.  UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE
COMPANY'S 'NORTHERN CALIFORNIA EXTENSION' ITS MAIN LINE OF RAILROAD
WILL AGGREGATE 1198.5 MILES, MORE OR LESS.  A MAP OF THE COMPANY'S
RAILROAD SYSTEM IS HERETO ANNEXED. 

"THE FIRST MORTGAGE OF THIS COMPANY DATED JUNE 26, 1916, SECURING
THIS COMPANY'S FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS, WHEREUNDER NOT MORE THAN
$50,000,000 THEREOF MAY BE OUTSTANDING AT ANY ONE TIME, IS A FIRST LIEN
ON SAID MAIN LINE OF RAILROAD." 

THE BID OF THE A.C. JAMES CO. STATED THAT IT WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH HAD BEEN EXAMINED BY THE BIDDER. 

THE SPECIFICATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE OFFERS OF THE $5,000,000 OF
FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS CONTAIN SIMILAR STATEMENTS: 

"SAID FIRST MORTGAGE CONSTITUTES A FIRST LIEN ON THE MAIN LINE OF
RAILROAD OF THE COMPANY EXTENDING FROM SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, TO
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, AND BRANCHES, AGGREGATING 1050.5 MILES, MORE OR
LESS, OF FIRST TRACK, THE COMPANY'S TERMINAL AND OTHER RAILROAD
PROPERTIES IN THE CITIES OF SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND AND ELSEWHERE, AND
CERTAIN OF ITS ROLLING STOCK AND EQUIPMENT.  UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION AND/OR ACQUISITION OF THE COMPANY'S 'NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
EXTENSION' ITS MAIN LINE OF RAILROAD WILL AGGREGATE 1198.5 MILES, MORE
OR LESS.  A MAP OF THE COMPANY'S RAILROAD SYSTEM IS HERETO ANNEXED." 

THE BIDS OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD CORPORATION CONTAIN A
REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFICATIONS SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE BID OF THE A.C.
JAMES CO. 

MR. A. C. JAMES WAS DURING THIS TIME THE PRESIDENT AND A DIRECTOR OF
THE A.C. JAMES CO., A DIRECTOR OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
CORPORATION AND A DIRECTOR OF THE DEBTOR. 

IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION AS TO THE LIEN OF THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS
PLEDGED WITH IT TO SECURE THE LOANS MADE TO COMPLETE PAYMENT FOR THE
EXTENSION WAS DIFFERENT.  SEE WESTERN PAC. R. CO. RECONSTRUCTION LOAN,
180 I.C.C. 645, 646, 648-9, AN EXHIBIT HEREIN. 

FN36  A PORTION OF THIS "NON-CARRIER" PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED AFTER
1916, SOME OF IT BY THE USE OF FIRST MORTGAGE MONEYS AND SOME OF IT IN
SUBSTITUTION FOR PROPERTY RELEASED FROM THE LIEN OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE.  THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE TRUSTEE MAKES NO CLAIM TO THE
PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE USE OF FIRST MORTGAGE MONEYS.  ANOTHER SMALL
PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED AFTER 1916 BUT WITHOUT THE USE OF
FIRST MORTGAGE MONEYS, FOR USE AS FUTURE INDUSTRIAL SITES AND FOR
GRAVEL PIT PURPOSES.  THE CLAIM TO THIS LAST PROPERTY IS NOT SPECIFIED
IN THE BRIEFS OF THE REFUNDING MORTGAGE TRUSTEE AND IT SEEMS TO BE OF
SUCH NEGLIGIBLE VALUE AS WOULD NOT WARRANT A REALLOCATION OF SECURITIES
IF IT WERE TO BE HELD THAT THIS PROPERTY IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE FIRST
MORTGAGE LIEN. 

FN37  THE CLAIMS AND SECURITY THEREFOR WERE FOUND BY THE COMMISSION
TO BE, AS OF JUNE 30, 1938, AS FOLLOWS:  "CLASS 3 ITEMS CONSISTED OF
$4,999,800, FACE AMOUNT, OF NOTES TO THE A.C. JAMES COMPANY, ON WHICH
ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST AMOUNTED TO $1,124,955, AND WHICH ARE
SECURED BY $4,249,500, PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, OF THE DEBTOR'S GENERAL AND
REFUNDING BONDS, AND A SECOND LIEN UPON $2,000,000, PRINCIPAL AMOUNT,
OF THE SAME ISSUE OF BONDS HELD BY THE RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION;
CLASS 4 ITEMS CONSISTED OF $2,963,000, FACE AMOUNT, OF NOTES TO THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, ON WHICH ACCRUED AND UNPAID
INTEREST AMOUNTED TO $649,181, THE NOTES BEING SECURED BY $10,750,000,
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, OF THE DEBTOR'S GENERAL AND REFUNDING BONDS, AND
VOTING-TRUST CERTIFICATES FOR HALF OF THE VOTING STOCK OF THE DENVER &
RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, AND A SECOND LIEN UPON $2,000,000,
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, OF THE SAME ISSUE OF BONDS HELD BY THE RAILROAD
CREDIT CORPORATION; CLASS 5 ITEMS CONSISTED OF $2,445,610, FACE AMOUNT,
OF NOTES TO THE RAILROAD CREDIT CORPORATION, ON WHICH ACCRUED AND
UNPAID INTEREST AMOUNTED TO $135,296, WHICH NOTES ARE SECURED BY
$4,000,000, PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, OF THE DEBTOR'S GENERAL AND REFUNDING
BONDS, AND A SECOND LIEN UPON THE SECURITY HELD BY THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION, AN ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN ADVANCES BY THE WESTERN
PACIFIC RAILROAD CORPORATION, AND AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE
SHARE OF THE DEBTOR UNDER THE MARSHALING AND DISTRIBUTING PLAN, 1931;
...  "  230 I.C.C. 77. 

FN38  CF. FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. REORGANIZATION, SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT, AUGUST 10, 1942, 252 I.C.C. 731, 733: 

"IN THE REPORT OF APRIL 6, 1942, DIVISION 4 RECOGNIZED THE FACT THAT
1941 EARNINGS WERE INFLUENCED BY THE EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS EXISTING
AS THE RESULT OF THE WAR AND, IN THE REPORT, STATED FULLY ALL
CONSIDERATIONS LEADING TO ITS CONCLUSIONS AS TO JUSTIFIABLE AMOUNTS OF
CAPITALIZATION AND OF NEW GENERAL-MORTGAGE BONDS.  UNDER PRESENT
CONDITIONS, THE FACT THAT THE YEAR 1942 GIVES PROMISE OF PRODUCING EVEN
LARGER EARNINGS THAN 1941 AFFORDS TOO UNCERTAIN AND PRECARIOUS A BASIS
TO JUSTIFY THE INCREASES SOUGHT." 

CF., ALSO, IN RE ALABAMA.  T. & N.R. CORP., 47 F.SUPP.  694, 708;
AKRON, C. & Y. RY, CO. V. HAGENBUCH, 128 F.2D 932, 939; GUARANTY TRUST
CO. V. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. (D.C. MINN.), SEPTEMBER 10, 1942,
ORDER NO. 968. 

FN39  SECTION 77(1): 

"IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF, THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE COURT, THE DUTIES OF THE
DEBTOR AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY, SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A
VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF
ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE DEBTOR'S PETITION WAS
FILED." 

FN40  NO CONTENTION IS MADE THAT FULLY SECURED CLAIMS DO NOT BEAR
CONTRACT INTEREST TO THE DATE OF REORGANIZATION, WHENEVER IT MAY BE.
TICONIC BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S. 406. 

FN41  CF. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V. BANKERS TRUST CO., ANTE, P.
163. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AGREES WITH THIS OPINION, BARRING ONLY THE
VIEWS EXPRESSED REGARDING THE RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH MUCH THAT IS SAID IN THE OPINION, BUT I DESIRE
SEPARATELY TO STATE MY VIEWS AS TO THE RESPECTIVE ROLES ASSIGNED TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE
REORGANIZATION PROCESS. 

CONSTITUTION UPON CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF
BANKRUPTCIES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  THE PROCEEDING IS, FROM ITS
INITIATION, ONE IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE LEGISLATION CONSTITUTES THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AN ARM OF THE COURT AND CLOTHES THE
COMMISSION WITH CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AS SUCH.  NO QUESTION IS MADE AS TO
THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS THUS TO DIVIDE RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN THE
COURT AND THE COMMISSION IN THE FORMULATION OF A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION.  SECTION 77 IS THE GUIDE TO DECISION CONCERNING THE
RESPECTIVE DUTIES OF THE COURT AND THE COMMISSION.  THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS QUOTED IN NOTE 7 OF THE MAJORITY OPINION SEEM TO ME CLEARLY
TO DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE POWERS CONFERRED. 

CERTAIN REQUISITES AND CERTAIN PERMISSIBLE FEATURES OF THE PLAN, FOR
THE FORMULATION OF WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY, ARE
PRESCRIBED OR PERMITTED.  WITHIN VERY BROAD LIMITS THE COMMISSION IS
GIVEN DISCRETION IN THE APPLICATION OF THESE IN FORMULATING A PLAN. 
(SUBSECTION (B).)  WHEN THE PLAN IS CERTIFIED TO THE JUDGE HIS FUNCTION
IS, AS THE COURT HOLDS, MERELY TO SEE THAT THE LIMITS SET IN SUBSECTION
(B) ARE NOT TRANSGRESSED; THAT THE COMMISSION HAS OBSERVED THE
STANDARDS AND LIMITS THEREBY SET.  SEE SUBSECTION (E) WHICH DIRECTS
THAT THE JUDGE SHALL APPROVE THE PLAN IF SATISFIED THAT IT COMPLIES
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B). 

OTHER FUNCTIONS ARE REPOSED SOLELY IN THE COMMISSION.  IT IS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PLAN "WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  (SUBSECTION (D).)  I NEED NOT DISCUSS THE PURPORT OF THIS
DIRECTION, WHICH OBVIOUSLY RELATES, IN THE MAIN, TO THE PROPOSED
CORPORATE AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY.  THAT
STRUCTURE MUST BE SUCH THAT THE REHABILITATED ENTERPRISE MAY HAVE A
REASONABLE PROSPECT OF SATISFACTORY PUBLIC SERVICE.  THE STATUTE WILL
BE SEARCHED IN VAIN FOR ANY MANDATE TO THE COURT TO REVIEW OR OVERTURN
THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT IN THIS RESPECT; AND I AGREE THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY HELD THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST
WAS SO FAR COMMITTED TO THE COMMISSION THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE MOST
EGREGIOUS DISREGARD OF RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS, THE JUDGE SHOULD HOLD
HIMSELF BOUND BY THE COMMISSION'S APPRAISAL OF THE DEMANDS OF THAT
INTEREST.    ANOTHER VITAL STEP IN FORMULATING ANY PLAN IS COMMITTED TO
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION.  THIS IS VALUATION OF PROPERTY. 
SUBSECTION (E) STATES THAT, IF IT SHALL BE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE
VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY FOR ANY PURPOSE UNDER THE ACT, THE COMMISSION
SHALL DETERMINE SUCH VALUE AND CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE COURT IN ITS
REPORT.  IT SEEMS CLEAR, AS THE OPINION STATES, THAT THE COURT CANNOT
REJECT THE PLAN FOR ANY MERE ASSERTED ERROR IN VALUATION.  ITS POWER IS
LIMITED TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSION ACTED
WHOLLY WITHOUT EVIDENCE, ARBITRARILY, OR IN DISREGARD OF RECOGNIZED
CRITERIA.  FN1 

IN EQUITY REORGANIZATIONS PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF SEC. 77 THE PHRASE
"FAIR AND EQUITABLE" HAD COME TO HAVE A RECOGNIZED CONTENT.  IT MEANT
THAT, IN ALLOTTING INTERESTS IN THE REORGANIZED COMPANY, THE PRIORITIES
EXISTING BETWEEN LIENORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF THE DEBTOR MUST BE
SUBSTANTIALLY PRESERVED.  NO REORGANIZATION COULD BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE
IF, IN THE NEW CAPITAL STRUCTURE, JUNIOR INTERESTS WERE ALLOWED TO
PARTICIPATE AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO HAD HAD A SENIOR POSITION IN
THE OLD.  FN2 

SUBSECTION (D) THE COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH SEEING THAT A PROPOSED
PLAN MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (E) AND, BY SUBSECTION (E) IT
IS PROVIDED THAT, ON CERTIFICATION OF A PLAN TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES
MAY FILE DETAILED AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN AND THEIR CLAIMS
FOR EQUITABLE TREATMENT.  THE JUDGE IS TO HOLD A HEARING ON SUCH
OBJECTIONS "AND SUCH CLAIMS FOR EQUITABLE TREATMENT."  THUS THE STATUTE
PROVIDES FOR THE FRAMING IN COURT OF SHARP AND SPECIFIC ISSUES DIRECTED
TO THE PLAN'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE GOVERNING ALLOCATION, AND THIS
FACT IS EMPHASIZED BY THE LEAVE GRANTED THE PARTIES TO PRODUCE IN COURT
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.  AFTER THE DIRECTION THAT THE JUDGE SHALL APPROVE
THE PLAN "IF SATISFIED" IT COMPLIES WITH SUBSECTION (B), (WHICH
INVOLVES ONLY A DETERMINATION, AS ABOVE INDICATED, WHETHER THE
COMMISSION, IN SETTING UP THE PLAN, HAS RESPECTED THE LIMITS SET BY
CONGRESS IN SUBSECTION (B)), SUBSECTION (E) GOES ON TO DEAL WITH THE
JUDGE'S ACTION ON THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR CLAIMS FOR
EQUITABLE TREATMENT.  IT PROVIDES THAT HE MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE
PLAN "IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE, AFFORDS DUE RECOGNITION TO THE RIGHTS OF
EACH CLASS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS, DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE
UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS, AND WILL
CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW OF THE LAND REGARDING THE
PARTICIPATION OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS." 

I READ THIS LANGUAGE AS PLACING UPON THE COURT A DUTY QUITE DISTINCT
FROM ANY IMPOSED UPON IT IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENERAL FEATURES OF THE
PLAN OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT
TO THE VALUE OF PROPERTY.  THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES THAT THE JUDGE
SHALL NOT ONLY EXAMINE THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO
THE FAIR EQUIVALENT OF WHAT IS GRANTED TO MORTGAGEES OR STOCKHOLDERS
COMPARED TO THE INTEREST IN THE OLD COMPANY THAT THEY ARE TO SURRENDER,
AND THE COMMISSION'S REASONS FOR ITS ACTION, BUT ALSO HEAR EVIDENCE BY
WHICH HE MAY BE MORE FULLY INFORMED AS TO THE EQUITY AND FAIRNESS, AS
THOSE TERMS HAVE SPECIFIC LEGAL CONNOTATION, OF RIGHTS ACCORDED UNDER
THE PLAN IN RELATION TO THOSE THERETOFORE ENJOYED.  IN MY VIEW,
CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD SATISFY HIMSELF, AS IN THE OLD
EQUITY PROCEEDINGS HE WAS BOUND TO DO, THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE
VARIOUS CLASSES OF INVESTORS IS SUBSTANTIALLY MAINTAINED IN THE
REORGANIZATION. 

IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THIS JUDICIAL DUTY THE COURT OBVIOUSLY MAY HAVE
TO PASS UPON QUESTIONS OF LAW.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, A DECISION AS TO
THE PRIORITY AND EXTENT OF THE RESPECTIVE MORTGAGE LIENS IS A LEGAL
PREREQUISITE TO AN ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE WHETHER DIFFERENT CLASSES
OF MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS RECEIVED FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT IN THE
APPORTIONMENT OF NEW SECURITIES.  I AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE
COURT ON THE QUESTION OF LAW THUS PRESENTED.  IT HAPPENS THAT THE
PARTIES IN INTEREST DO NOT CHALLENGE THE FAIRNESS OF THE ALLOCATION AS
BETWEEN THEM, IF THE COMMISSION WAS RIGHT IN ITS TENTATIVE CONCLUSION
CONCERNING THE COVERAGE OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE AND THAT OF THE GENERAL
AND REFUNDING MORTGAGE.  IN THIS CASE, THEN, THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT
WAS FULLY PERFORMED ONCE IT HAD DECIDED THAT QUESTION OF LAW.  IN OTHER
CASES, WHERE THE ISSUE OF FAIRNESS AND EQUITY DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS
DISCLOSED, I THINK IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO GO FARTHER AND
EXAMINE THE PLAN SUFFICIENTLY TO SATISFY ITSELF THAT THE RULE OF
ABSOLUTE PRIORITY ANNOUNCED IN THE BOYD CASE AND IN THE LOS ANGELES AND
ROCK PRODUCTS CASES HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED.  IN PERFORMING THIS DUTY THE
COURT SHOULD ACCORD GREAT WEIGHT TO THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.  IT SHOULD
REQUIRE THE OBJECTOR TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION HAS FAILED TO RESPECT
THE DOCTRINE.  BUT IT SHOULD NOT ACCORD FINALITY TO THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION IF THERE BE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.  I BELIEVE THE COURT IS
CHARGED BY SUBSECTION (E) WITH THE DUTY OF DETERMINING THAT, IN THE
ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES IN THE REORGANIZED COMPANY, THE COMMISSION HAS
A SUBSTANTIAL FOUNDATION IN THE FACTS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES
REQUIRED BY THE PLAN IT APPROVES. 

I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

FN1  I BELIEVE THIS IS SO AS TO THE VALUATION OF ALL THE ASSETS AND
AS TO VALUATIONS OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO LIENS OR AVAILABLE FOR THE
CLAIMS OF CLASSES OF CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS.  SEE SUBSECTION (E),
PAR. 2. 

FN2  NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482; CASE V. LOS
ANGELES LUMBER CO., 308 U.S. 106; CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU
BOIS, 312 U.S. 510. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :












EMIL V. HANLEY, 318 U.S. 515 


NO. 551.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1943.  - 130
F.2D 369, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 2(A)(21) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH GIVES TO THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT THE POWER TO REQUIRE "RECEIVERS OR TRUSTEES APPOINTED
IN PROCEEDINGS NOT UNDER THIS ACT" WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF BANKRUPTCY (1)
"TO DELIVER THE PROPERTY IN THEIR POSSESSION OR UNDER THEIR CONTROL TO
THE RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE APPOINTED UNDER THIS ACT," AND (2) "TO ACCOUNT
TO THE COURT FOR THE DISPOSITION BY THEM OF THE PROPERTY" OF THE
BANKRUPT, HELD INAPPLICABLE IN STRAIGHT BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS TO A
RECEIVER APPOINTED BY A STATE COURT (WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF BANKRUPTCY)
AS AN INCIDENT TO ENFORCEMENT OF A VALID MORTGAGE LIEN.  P. 519. 

2.  SECTION 69(D) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, MAKING A "RECEIVER OR
TRUSTEE, NOT APPOINTED UNDER THIS ACT, OF ANY OF THE PROPERTY" OF THE
BANKRUPT "ACCOUNTABLE" TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR "ANY ACTION TAKEN BY
HIM SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF SUCH BANKRUPTCY PETITION," APPLIES ONLY
WHERE BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDES THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS.  P. 522. 

EMIL, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. HANLEY, RECEIVER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, 43 F.SUPP.  128, DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
REQUIRING A STATE COURT RECEIVER TO FILE HIS ACCOUNT IN THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

JOHN M. RUSSELL, INC., WAS THE OWNER OF AN APARTMENT HOUSE IN NEW
YORK.  ON AUGUST 13, 1940, A FORECLOSURE SUIT BY A THIRD MORTGAGEE WAS
FILED.  ON AUGUST 17, 1940, THE STATE COURT APPOINTED RESPONDENT
RECEIVER OF THE RENTS AND PROFITS OF THE APARTMENT HOUSE.  ON AUGUST
31, 1940, AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED AGAINST JOHN
M. RUSSELL, INC., OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPOINTED AS
TRUSTEE.  RESPONDENT COLLECTED THE RENTS FROM THE PREMISES FROM THE
TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT IN AUGUST, 1940 TO AND INCLUDING AUGUST, 1941. 
WHILE THAT FORECLOSURE SUIT WAS PENDING, MECHANICS LIENS, SUBORDINATE
TO THE THIRD MORTGAGE, WERE FORECLOSED, A SALE WAS HAD, AND THE
PROPERTY PURCHASED BY APARTMENT INVESTING CORPORATION.  THAT WAS IN
FEBRUARY, 1941.  JUDGMENT IN THE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE SUIT WAS ENTERED
IN JUNE, 1941, AND ON AUGUST 13, 1941, BEFORE THE SALE WAS HELD, THE
JUDGMENT WAS PAID AND SATISFIED BY APARTMENT INVESTING CORPORATION. 
THEREAFTER, RESPONDENT PRESENTED HIS ACCOUNTS TO THE STATE COURT FOR
SETTLEMENT.  PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR AN ORDER
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE HIS ACCOUNT IN THAT COURT.  WHILE THAT
MOTION WAS PENDING, THE MOTION IN THE STATE COURT CAME ON FOR A
HEARING.  PETITIONER APPEARED AND FILED HIS OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENT'S
ACCOUNTS.  HIS OBJECTIONS WERE OVERRULED,  FN1  THE ACCOUNTS APPROVED,
AND RESPONDENT DISCHARGED BY THE STATE COURT.  THEREAFTER THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION.  43 F.SUPP.  128.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED VOTE.  130 F.2D 369.  WE
GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT SEC. 2(A)(21) AND SEC. 69D MAKE IT
OBLIGATORY ON THE RESPONDENT AS A NON-BANKRUPTCY RECEIVER TO ACCOUNT TO
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  THESE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT ARE NEW. 
THEY WERE ADDED IN 1938 BY THE CHANDLER ACT.  52 STAT. 840, 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 11(A)(21), SEC. 109D.  SEC. 2(A)(21) GIVES TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
THE POWER IN STRAIGHT BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS TO REQUIRE "RECEIVERS OR
TRUSTEES APPOINTED IN PROCEEDINGS NOT UNDER THIS ACT" WITHIN FOUR
MONTHS OF BANKRUPTCY (1) "TO DELIVER THE PROPERTY IN THEIR POSSESSION
OR UNDER THEIR CONTROL TO THE RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE APPOINTED UNDER THIS
ACT," AND (2) "TO ACCOUNT TO THE COURT FOR THE DISPOSITION BY THEM OF
THE PROPERTY" OF THE BANKRUPT N2.  SEC. 69D MAKES A "RECEIVER OR
TRUSTEE, NOT APPOINTED UNDER THIS ACT, OF ANY OF THE PROPERTY" OF THE
BANKRUPT "ACCOUNTABLE" TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR "ANY ACTION TAKEN BY
HIM SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF SUCH BANKRUPTCY PETITION."  FN3  THESE
CHANDLER ACT.  THUS, SEC. 2(A)(21) PLAINLY INCLUDES THE CASE WHERE A
LIEN AGAINST THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY SOME LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE PROCEEDING WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF BANKRUPTCY.  PRIOR TO 1938
SUCH LIENS DID NOT SURVIVE BANKRUPTCY (STRATON V. NEW, 283 U.S. 318,
322); AND BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED THE PROCEEDINGS OUT OF WHICH THEY
AROSE.  REMINGTON, BANKRUPTCY (4TH ED.)  SEC.  2067-SEC. 2071.  BUT THE
ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE NON-BANKRUPTCY RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE PRESENTED SOME
DIFFICULTIES PRIOR TO THE CHANDLER ACT.  WHEN BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED THE
PRIOR PROCEEDINGS, ALL DISBURSEMENTS SUBSEQUENT THERETO WERE, OF
COURSE, SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  IN
RE DIAMOND'S ESTATE, 259 F. 70; MOORE V. SCOTT, 55 F.2D 863; LION
BONDING & SURETY CO. V. KARATZ, 262 U.S. 640, 642; GROSS V. IRVING
TRUST CO., 289 U.S. 342.  WHILE SUCH DISBURSEMENTS WERE GENERALLY
SUBJECT TO THE SUMMARY POWER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT (TAYLOR V.
STERNBERG, 293 U.S. 470), AN ACCOUNTING FOR DISBURSEMENTS MADE PRIOR TO
BANKRUPTCY REQUIRED A PLENARY SUIT.  LOVELESS V. SOUTHERN GROCER CO.,
159 F. 415; 1 COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  PP. 320-321.  AND SEE
GALBRAITH V. VALLELY, 256 U.S. 46; IN RE JACK STOLKIN, INC., 42 F.2D
829.  SEC. 2(A)(21) BY SUBSTITUTING A SUMMARY PROCEEDING WAS DESIGNED
TO ELIMINATE THE DELAY AND COST OF A PLENARY SUIT AND TO PROVIDE A MORE
EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER PRIOR DISBURSEMENTS.  SEE H. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 20; WEINSTEIN, THE BANKRUPTCY LAW OF 1938, PP. 16
17. 

DOES SEC. 2(A)(21) GO FURTHER AND APPLY TO A CASE WHERE A RECEIVER IS
APPOINTED WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF BANKRUPTCY AS AN INCIDENT TO
ENFORCEMENT OF A MORTGAGE LIEN WHOSE VALIDITY IS NOT CHALLENGED?  PRIOR
TO THE CHANDLER ACT SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT SUPERSEDED BY
BANKRUPTCY.  THEY SURVIVED BANKRUPTCY, THE INTEREST OF THE ESTATE IN
THEM BEING PROTECTED BY THE INTERVENTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE. 
STRATON V. NEW, SUPRA, PP. 326-327, AND CASES CITED.  UNDER THE EARLIER
ACT IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER SUCH A PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED
PRIOR TO OR WITHIN THE FOUR MONTHS PERIOD.  WHERE THE LIEN SURVIVED
BANKRUPTCY, PRIOR PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE IT WOULD NOT BE ENJOINED BY
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  1 COLLIER, OP. CIT., PP. 306-309; STRATON V.
NEW, SUPRA, P. 326, N. 6.  SEC. 2(A)(21) READ LITERALLY WOULD CALL FOR
A DIFFERENT RESULT, IN THAT FORECLOSURE RECEIVERS WOULD HAVE TO TURN
OVER TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ALL THE PROPERTY IN THEIR POSSESSION OR
UNDER THEIR CONTROL, AND ACCOUNT TO IT.  IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE
RECEIVER WAS ONLY A RECEIVER FOR RENTS AND PROFITS, IT WOULD MEAN THAT
THE FORECLOSURE WOULD GO ON APACE IN THE STATE COURT WHILE THE FUNDS
COLLECTED BY THE RECEIVER WOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR ADMINISTRATION.  THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THAT VIEW IS
THAT WITH SUCH POWER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT COULD BETTER PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF THE ESTATE IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING. 

BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE PURPOSE OF SEC.
2(A)(21).  AS WE HAVE STATED, THE MAIN PURPOSE OF SEC. 2(A)(21) WAS TO
GIVE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT CONTROL OVER DISBURSEMENTS MADE IN NON
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION.  THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN ITS REPORT STATED: "THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON
WHY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT COULD NOT SUPERVISE THESE EXPENDITURES, SINCE
ALL OF THE PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS ARE NULLIFIED BY THE PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY FOLLOWED BY AN ADJUDICATION.  THE PRINCIPLE IS THE SAME AS
THAT INVOLVED IN SECTION 60D OF THE ACT WHERE IT IS PROVIDED THAT FEES
PAID TO THE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEBTOR PRIOR TO BANKRUPTCY AND IN
CONTEMPLATION THEREOF ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT." 
H. REP. NO. 1409, SUPRA, P. 20.  THAT IS AS PLAIN AN INDICATION AS
COULD BE MADE THAT SEC. 2(A)(21) WAS DESIGNED TO DEFINE THE POWERS OF
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ONLY WHERE BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED THE PRIOR
PROCEEDINGS.  FN4 THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2(A)(21) SQUARES WITH THAT
EXPRESS DECLARATION.  WHEN CONGRESS WROTE THE FOUR MONTHS PROVISO INTO
SEC. 2(A)(21) IT WAS NOT WRITING ON A CLEAN SLATE.  THE PRESENCE OF
THAT PROVISO SUGGESTS THE TYPE OF PROBLEM WITH WHICH CONGRESS WAS
DEALING.  STRATON V. NEW, SUPRA, INDICATES THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT
PERIOD IN A DETERMINATION OF WHAT LIENS DID NOT SURVIVE BANKRUPTCY AND
WHEN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS SUPERSEDED PRIOR PROCEEDINGS.  THE 1938
ACT, LIKE ITS PREDECESSOR, MAKES THE FOUR MONTHS PERIOD PART OF THE
CRITICAL TEST FOR DETERMINING WHAT LIENS DO NOT SURVIVE BANKRUPTCY. 
ONE EXAMPLE IS TO BE FOUND IN SEC. 67A (1) WHICH PROVIDES THAT LIENS
"OBTAINED BY ATTACHMENT, JUDGMENT, LEVY, OR OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE
PROCESS OR PROCEEDINGS WITHIN FOUR MONTHS" OF BANKRUPTCY ARE NULL AND
VOID ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  THAT SECTION ILLUSTRATES THE RELEVANCY OF
THE FOUR MONTHS PERIOD TO THIS TYPE OF PROBLEM.  IF SEC. 2(A)(21) IS
READ TO EXTEND THE POWER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO THE PRESENT
SITUATION,  FN5  THE FOUR MONTHS PERIOD WILL HAVE ACQUIRED A NEW
SIGNIFICANCE IN BANKRUPTCY LAW.  WE CANNOT HELP BUT THINK THAT IF
CONGRESS HAD SET OUT TO MAKE SUCH A MAJOR CHANGE, SOME CLEAR AND
UNAMBIGUOUS INDICATION OF THAT PURPOSE WOULD APPEAR.  BUT WE CAN FIND
NONE.  MOREOVER, SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD LEAD IN MANY CASES TO A
DIVISION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  THUS IN THIS
CASE THE STATE COURT WOULD REMAIN IN CHARGE OF THE FORECLOSURE; THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT WOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE RECEIVER'S
RECEIPTS.  AN INTERPRETATION WHICH LEADS TO A DIVISION OF AUTHORITY SO
FRAUGHT WITH CONFLICT WILL NOT BE READILY IMPLIED. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROVISION IN SEC. 2(A)(21) CONCERNING
PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTERS X AND XII INDICATES A PURPOSE TO INCLUDE THE
TYPE OF RECEIVER WE HAVE HERE.  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT SUCH A FORECLOSURE
RECEIVER IS INCLUDED WITHIN SEC. 2(A)(21) WHERE PROCEEDINGS UNDER CH. X
HAVE SUPERVENED.  BUT THE FACT THAT A FORECLOSURE RECEIVER IS INCLUDED
FOR ONE PURPOSE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT HE IS INCLUDED FOR
ANOTHER.  PLANS OF REORGANIZATION UNDER CH. X MAY (SEC. 216) AND
COMMONLY DO AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF MORTGAGEES.  HENCE SEC. 148 PROVIDES
THAT AN ORDER APPROVING A PETITION UNDER CH. X OPERATES TO STAY A
PENDING MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE OR OTHER PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE A LIEN
AGAINST THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY.  FN6  AND SEC. 256 AND SEC. 257 PROVIDE
THAT THE TRUSTEE (OR DEBTOR) ACQUIRES ALL RIGHTS IN, AND THE RIGHT TO
IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF, THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR UNDER THE CONTROL
OF A RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE APPOINTED IN A PRIOR PROCEEDING IN ANY FEDERAL
OR STATE COURT.  THAT IS TO SAY, A CH. X PROCEEDING SUPERSEDES A
PENDING MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE.  WE THUS FIND SEC. 2(A)(21) PERFORMING
THE SAME FUNCTION WHEN APPLIED TO CH. X PROCEEDINGS  FN7  AS IT DOES
WHEN APPLIED TO ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WAS CORRECT IN READING THE WORD "RECEIVERS"
DISTRIBUTIVELY.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION FITS THE STATUTORY SCHEME AS A
WHOLE.  THE OTHER INTERPRETATION RESULTS IN A DISTORTION WHICH THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2(A)(21) MAKES UNNECESSARY AND WHICH ITS HISTORY DOES
NOT WARRANT. 

LITTLE NEED BE SAID ABOUT SEC. 69D.  IT MUST BE READ IN CONNECTION
WITH SEC. 2(A)(21).  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUGGESTS THAT IT, TOO, WAS
DESIGNED TO APPLY ONLY WHERE BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED THE PRIOR
PROCEEDINGS.  H. REP. NO. 1409, SUPRA, P. 12.  AS STATED BY THE
DRAFTSMAN, "IT MAKES CLEAR AND CERTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE AND PARAMOUNT
JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OVER PROPERTY DEALT WITH IN A
PRIOR EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP OR LIKE PROCEEDING WHICH IS SUPERSEDED BY A
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING."  WEINSTEIN, OP. CIT., P. 154.  AND SEE 4
COLLIER, OP. CIT., PP. 879-882.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COURT HOLDING THAT ALL RIGHTS OF THE BANKRUPT IN THE REAL
PROPERTY WERE CUT OFF FEBRUARY 24, 1941; THAT ON THAT DAY THERE WAS A
DEFICIT IN THE RECEIVER'S ACCOUNT; AND THAT THE BALANCE OF RENTS HAD
ACCRUED SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY 24, 1941. 

FN2  SEC. 2(A)(21) SETS FORTH AS ONE OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS OF
COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY, THE POWER TO:  "REQUIRE RECEIVERS OR TRUSTEES
APPOINTED IN PROCEEDINGS NOT UNDER THIS ACT, ASSIGNEES FOR THE BENEFIT
OF CREDITORS, AND AGENTS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE POSSESSION OF OR TO
LIQUIDATE A PERSON'S PROPERTY TO DELIVER THE PROPERTY IN THEIR
POSSESSION OR UNDER THEIR CONTROL TO THE RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE APPOINTED
UNDER THIS ACT OR, WHERE AN ARRANGEMENT OR A PLAN UNDER THIS ACT HAS
BEEN CONFIRMED AND SUCH PROPERTY HAS NOT PRIOR THERETO BEEN DELIVERED
TO A RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE APPOINTED UNDER THIS ACT, TO DELIVER SUCH
PROPERTY TO THE DEBTOR OR OTHER PERSON ENTITLED TO SUCH PROPERTY
ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARRANGEMENT OR PLAN, AND IN ALL SUCH
CASES TO ACCOUNT TO THE COURT FOR THE DISPOSITION BY THEM OF THE
PROPERTY OF SUCH BANKRUPT OR DEBTOR:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
DELIVERY AND ACCOUNTING SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, EXCEPT IN PROCEEDINGS
UNDER CHAPTERS X AND XII OF THIS ACT, IF THE RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE WAS
APPOINTED, THE ASSIGNMENT WAS MADE, OR THE AGENT WAS AUTHORIZED MORE
THAN FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF BANKRUPTCY.  UPON SUCH
ACCOUNTING, THE COURT SHALL REEXAMINE AND DETERMINE THE PROPRIETY AND
REASONABLENESS OF ALL DISBURSEMENTS MADE OUT OF SUCH PROPERTY BY SUCH
RECEIVER, TRUSTEE, ASSIGNEE, OR AGENT, EITHER TO HIMSELF OR TO OTHERS,
FOR SERVICES AND EXPENSES UNDER SUCH RECEIVERSHIP, TRUSTEESHIP,
ASSIGNMENT, OR AGENCY, AND SHALL, UNLESS SUCH DISBURSEMENTS HAVE BEEN
APPROVED, UPON NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND OTHER PARTIES IN INTEREST, BY A
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION PRIOR TO THE PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT,
SURCHARGE SUCH RECEIVER, TRUSTEE, ASSIGNEE, OR AGENT THE AMOUNT OF ANY
DISBURSEMENT DETERMINED BY THE COURT TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPER OR
EXCESSIVE." 

FN3  SEC. 69D PROVIDES:  "UPON THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER THIS
ACT, A RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE, NOT APPOINTED UNDER THIS ACT, OF ANY OF THE
PROPERTY OF A BANKRUPT SHALL BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN
WHICH THE PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT IS PENDING, FOR ANY ACTION TAKEN BY
HIM SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF SUCH BANKRUPTCY PETITION, AND SHALL
FILE IN SUCH BANKRUPTCY COURT A SWORN SCHEDULE SETTING FORTH A SUMMARY
OF THE PROPERTY IN HIS CHARGE AND OF THE LIABILITIES OF THE ESTATE,
BOTH AS OF THE TIME OF AND SINCE HIS APPOINTMENT, AND A SWORN STATEMENT
OF HIS ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE.  SUCH RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE, WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE FILING OF SUCH BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, SHALL NOT MAKE
ANY DISBURSEMENTS OR TAKE ANY ACTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH
PROPERTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORIZATION THEREFOR FROM THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT."    FN4  WE DO NOT, OF COURSE, INCLUDE THAT
SUPERSESSION WHICH FLOWS FROM THE FACT THAT STATE INSOLVENCY LAWS ARE
INVOLVED WHICH ARE "TANTAMOUNT TO BANKRUPTCY."  STRATON V. NEW, SUPRA,
P. 327. 

FN5  WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION, RESERVED IN DUPARQUET HUOT &
MONEUSE CO. V. EVANS, 297 U.S. 216, 224, WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF A
FORECLOSURE RECEIVER MIGHT BE AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY UNDER SEC. 3(A)(5). 
SEE IN RE 211 EAST DELAWARE PLACE BLDG. CORP., 14 F.SUPP.  96.  IT WAS
SUGGESTED IN RANDOLPH V. SCRUGGS, 190 U.S. 533, 536, THAT BANKRUPTCY
SUPERSEDED A GENERAL ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS MADE
WITHIN THE FOUR MONTHS PERIOD SINCE THE MAKING OF THE ASSIGNMENT WAS AN
ACT OF BANKRUPTCY.  AND SEE REMINGTON, OP. CIT., SEC. 2071. 

FN6  AND UNLIKE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B (DUPARQUET HUOT & MONEUSE
CO. V. EVANS, 297 U.S. 216), A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE IS ADEQUATE UNDER
CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR A CREDITOR'S PETITION UNDER CH. X. SEC. 131(4). 

FN7  SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO REAL PROPERTY
ARRANGEMENTS UNDER CH. XII.  SECS. 406(1), 411, 416, 428. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :










GROUP OF INVESTORS V. MILWAUKEE R. CO., 318 U.S. 523 


NO. 11.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 15, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1943.  - 124
F.2D 754, REVERSED IN PART. 


UPON REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH
REVERSED AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVING A PLAN, CERTIFIED TO
IT BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, FOR REORGANIZATION OF THE
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY UNDER SEC. 77
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, HELD: 

1.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT THE EQUITY OF HOLDERS OF THE
DEBTOR'S PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK WAS WITHOUT VALUE, AND THAT THEY
WERE THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REORGANIZATION, WAS
SUSTAINED BY THE REASONS AND SUPPORTING DATA SET FORTH IN THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT ON THE PLAN.  P. 536. 

(A)  THE COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE ACT TO FORMALIZE IN
FINDINGS THE EXTENSIVE DATA ON WHICH IT RELIED IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
EXPERT, INFORMED JUDGMENT.  P. 539. 

(B)  NOR WAS THE COMMISSION REQUIRED TO MAKE A PRECISE FINDING AS TO
THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTIES IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE OLD
STOCK FROM THE PLAN.  P. 539. 

(C)  A FINDING AS TO THE PRECISE EXTENT OF THE DEFICIENCY IS NOT
MATERIAL OR GERMANE TO THE FINDING OF "NO VALUE" PRESCRIBED BY SEC.
77(E).  P. 539. 

(D)  IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY
THAT THE EARNING POWER OF THE ROAD WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRIOR
CLAIMS OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL AND LEAVE SOME SURPLUS FOR THE SERVICE
OF THE STOCK, THEN THE INCLUSION OF THE STOCK WOULD VIOLATE THE FULL
PRIORITY RULE, INCORPORATED IN SEC. 77 BY THE PHRASE "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE."  P. 541. 

2.  THE CRITERIA EMPLOYED BY THE COMMISSION FOR DETERMINING THE
PERMISSIBLE CAPITALIZATION OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY WERE IN ACCORD
WITH THE ACT.  P. 539. 

(A)  EARNING POWER IS THE PRIMARY CRITERION OF VALUE IN
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77.  P. 540. 

(B)  THE LIMITED EXTENT TO WHICH SEC. 77(E) PROVIDES THAT
REPRODUCTION COST, ORIGINAL COST, AND ACTUAL INVESTMENT MAY BE
CONSIDERED INDICATES THAT THESE FACTORS ARE RELEVANT, AS IN SEC. 77B,
ONLY SO FAR AS THEY BEAR ON EARNING POWER.  P. 541. 

3.  THE EVIDENCE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL OF THE PLAN, WAS INSUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE THE DISTRICT COURT TO
RETURN THE PLAN TO THE COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION.  P. 543. 

EARNING POWER IN WAR YEARS IS NOT A RELIABLE CRITERION FOR THE
INDEFINITE FUTURE.  P. 543. 

4.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE RATIO OF DEBT TO STOCK IN THE REORGANIZED
COMPANY RESULTS IN UNFAIRNESS TO JUNIOR INTERESTS, IS UNSUPPORTED.  P.
544. 

(A)  THE NATURE OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE, AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF
THE CAPITALIZATION, IS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION IN ITS
FORMULATION OF A PLAN WHICH WILL BE "COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST."  P. 544. 

(B)  QUESTIONS OF THE RATIO OF DEBT TO STOCK, THE AMOUNT OF FIXED AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM CONTINGENT INTEREST, AND THE KIND OF CAPITAL
STRUCTURE WHICH A PARTICULAR COMPANY NEEDS TO SURVIVE THE VICISSITUDES
OF THE BUSINESS CYCLE,  - ARE BY THE ACT RESERVED FOR THE EXPERT
JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH THE COURTS MUST RESPECT.  P. 545. 

5.  THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THIS CASE FOR FURTHER DELAY IN
EFFECTUATING THE REORGANIZATION.  P. 545. 

6.  THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 NEED
NOT BE THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION.  P. 546. 

CLAIMS AFTER THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION. 

7.  THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE LEASE OF THE TERRE HAUTE
PROPERTIES, WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF REJECTION OF THE LEASE IN THE EVENT
OF FAILURE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFICATIONS, WERE VALID.  P. 549. 

(A)  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77 AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION (AND THE
DISTRICT COURT), IN APPROVING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, TO CONDITION
ACCEPTANCE OF A LEASE ON TERMS WHICH ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO
KEEP THE FIXED CHARGES WITHIN PROPER LIMITS OR TO DO EQUITY BETWEEN
CLAIMS WHICH ARISE UNDER THE LEASE AND OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST THE
DEBTOR.  P. 550. 

(B)  THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT AS TO
WHETHER A LEASE SHOULD BE REJECTED, OR, IF NOT, ON WHAT TERMS IT SHOULD
BE ACCEPTED, OUGHT NOT TO BE SET ASIDE UPON REVIEW, EXCEPT ON A CLEAR
SHOWING THAT THE LIMITS OF DISCRETION HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED.  P. 551. 

(C)  THE PROVISION OF THE PLAN THAT THE TERRE HAUTE LEASE SHALL BE
REJECTED AS OF THE DATE THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINES THAT THE TERRE
HAUTE BONDHOLDERS HAVE NOT CONSENTED TO THE MAKING OF A NEW LEASE AT A
REDUCED RENTAL, IS VALID.  P. 551. 

(D)  IN THE EVENT OF REJECTION OF THE LEASE, PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION, OPERATION SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND PRIOR TO THE REJECTION NEED NOT BE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF
THE LESSOR.  P. 552. 

(E)  WHEN A LEASE IS REJECTED PURSUANT TO A PLAN, SEC. 77(C)(6) MAY
NOT BE SO APPLIED AS TO GIVE THE LESSOR OR ITS CREDITORS A
DISPROPORTIONATE CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE.  P. 555. 

8.  THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLOCATION OF NEW SECURITIES TO THE HOLDERS
OF GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, WERE ADEQUATE AND PROPER.  P. 555. 

(A)  THAT SYSTEM MORTGAGES SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR DIVISIONAL ONES
WAS A DETERMINATION WHICH WAS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE
COMMISSION TO MAKE.  P. 558. 

(B)  THE TREATMENT OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS WAS NOT INEQUITABLE
AS COMPARED WITH THAT ACCORDED THE 50-YEAR BONDS.  P. 562. 

(C)  THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAD BEFORE THEM SUFFICIENT
DATA FROM WHICH TO DETERMINE THE ALLOCATION OF NEW SECURITIES AS
BETWEEN HOLDERS OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS AND HOLDERS OF THE 50
YEAR BONDS; AND IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT AN INCORRECT RULE OF LAW WAS
APPLIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PLAN WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AS BETWEEN
THESE TWO CLASSES OF BONDHOLDERS.  P. 562. 

(D)  THE DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT THAT,
SO FAR AS THE HOLDERS OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE AND 50-YEAR BONDS WERE
CONCERNED, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FULL PRIORITY RULE WERE COMPLIED
WITH, IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 563. 

(E)  THE TREATMENT OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, AS COMPARED WITH
THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS AND CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE
BONDS, WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE.  P. 563. 

9.  IN ORDER TO GIVE "FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT" TO SENIOR
CLAIMANTS AND TO APPROPRIATE TO THE PAYMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS THE "FULL
VALUE" OF THE PROPERTY, IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT A DOLLAR VALUATION BE
MADE OF EACH OLD SECURITY AND OF EACH NEW SECURITY.  P. 564. 

(A)  A REQUIREMENT THAT DOLLAR VALUES BE PLACED ON WHAT EACH SECURITY
HOLDER SURRENDERS AND ON WHAT HE RECEIVES WOULD CREATE AN ILLUSION OF
CERTAINTY WHERE NONE EXISTS AND WOULD PLACE AN IMPRACTICABLE BURDEN ON
THE WHOLE REORGANIZATION PROCESS.  P. 565. 

(B)  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT EACH SECURITY HOLDER IN THE ORDER OF HIS
PRIORITY RECEIVES FROM THAT WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR THE SATISFACTION OF
HIS CLAIM THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE RIGHTS SURRENDERED.  P. 565. 

(C)  WHETHER IN A GIVEN CASE SENIOR CREDITORS HAVE BEEN MADE WHOLE OR
RECEIVED "FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT" RESTS IN THE INFORMED JUDGMENT
OF THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT ON CONSIDERATION OF ALL
RELEVANT FACTS.  P. 566. 

10.  THE PROVISION IN THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR AN ADDITIONS AND
BETTERMENTS FUND WAS PROPER.  P. 566. 

11.  THE CONTENTION OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS THAT, BY
REASON OF THE AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY CLAUSE IN THEIR MORTGAGE, THEY
HAVE A FIRST LIEN ON SO-CALLED "PIECES OF LINES EAST," THE EARNINGS
FROM WHICH WERE CREDITED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE 50-YEAR BONDS - A
CLAIM AMDE IN BOTH COURTS BELOW BUT NOT DETERMINED - SHOULD BE RESOLVED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 568. 

(A)  THE OBJECTION CAN NOT BE TREATED AS DE MINIMIS.  NOR CAN IT BE
CONCLUDED THAT THE OBJECTION HAS BEEN WAIVED OR THAT THE CLAIM IS
FRIVOLOUS.  P. 568. 

(B)  THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT ASSETS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF
THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMS HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE FAIRNESS OF THE PLAN
AS BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF BONDHOLDERS.  P. 569. 

12.  SINCE JUNIOR INTERESTS ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE PLAN, THE
COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD DETERMINE WHAT THE GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS SHOULD RECEIVE IN ADDITION TO A FACE AMOUNT OF INFERIOR
SECURITIES EQUAL TO THE FACE AMOUNT OF THEIR OLD ONES, AS EQUITABLE
COMPENSATION, QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE, FOR THE LOSS OF THEIR SENIOR
RIGHTS.  P. 569. 

13.  THE CLAIMS OF THE 50-YEAR BONDS AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS REQUIRE THAT FINDINGS BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE MATTERS
REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPHS 11 AND 12, SUPRA; AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
PLAN AS IT AFFECTS BOTH GROUPS IS DEPENDENT THEREON.  P. 571. 

14.  WHETHER EARNINGS SEGREGATION, SEVERANCE, OR CONTRIBUTED TRAFFIC
STUDIES SHOULD BE MADE IS FOR THE COMMISSION INITIALLY TO DETERMINE. 
THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO SAY THAT SUCH STUDIES ARE INDISPENSABLE IN THIS
CASE.  P. 572. 

15.  THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT NO ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE IN
THE PLAN FOR INTEREST ON THE ADJUSTMENT BONDS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION, WAS JUSTIFIED.  P. 573. 

GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL. V. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST.
PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 12, GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL. V.
UNION TRUST CO. ET AL.; NO. 13, GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL.
V. ABRAMS ET AL.; NO. 14, GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL. V.
ORTON ET AL.; NO. 15, GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL. V.
GUARANTY TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.; NO. 16, GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTORS ET AL. V. CHICAGO, TERRE HAUTE & SOUTHEASTERN RY. CO. ET AL.;
NO. 17, GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES TRUST
CO. OF NEW YORK, TRUSTEE; NO. 18, GROUP OF INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET
AL. V. TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY ET AL.; NO. 19, GROUP OF
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS ET AL. V. GLINES ET AL.; AND NO. 32,
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION V. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL &
PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ET AL., ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 659,
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 659, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 36 F.SUPP.  193, APPROVING A PLAN FORMULATED IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR REORGANIZATION OF
THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES ARE COMPANION CASES TO ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP.,
ANTE, P. 448, AND ARE HERE ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.  THEY INVOLVE NUMEROUS QUESTIONS
RELATING TO A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST.
PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., FORMULATED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  49 STAT. 911, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205.  THE PLAN WAS
APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (239 I.C.C. 485, 240
I.C.C. 257) AND CERTIFIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  AFTER A HEARING AND
THE TAKING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THE PLAN
WITH CERTAIN MINOR MODIFICATIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE.  36 F.SUPP.  193. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
(124 F.2D 754) ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE THE
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312
U.S. 510. 

THE DEBTOR FILED ITS PETITION UNDER SEC. 77 IN 1935.  HEARINGS ON
PROPOSED PLANS WERE CLOSED IN 1938.  THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION HERE IN
ISSUE WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION IN 1940.  IT REDUCED THE
CAPITALIZATION AND THE FIXED CHARGES, ELIMINATED THE OLD STOCK, AND
SUBSTITUTED SYSTEM MORTGAGES FOR SO-CALLED DIVISIONAL MORTGAGES.  ITS
EFFECTIVE DATE WAS JANUARY 1, 1939.  THE TOTAL DEBT (INCLUDING INTEREST
ACCRUED TO DECEMBER 31, 1938) WAS APPROXIMATELY $627,000,000.  IN
ADDITION THE DEBTOR HAD $119,307,300 OF PREFERRED STOCK AND 1,174,060
SHARES OF NO-PAR VALUE COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING.  THE CLAIMS AGAINST
THE DEBTOR WHICH WERE DEALT WITH BY THE PLAN  FN1 ARE AS FOLLOWS:  THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION HAS A CLAIM FOR LOANS TOTALLING
ABOUT $12,000,000, SECURED AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED.  THERE ARE GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC IN THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $138,788,000 WITH ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST OF OVER
$17,500,000.  THESE BONDS, BEARING INTEREST AT VARIOUS RATES FROM 3 1/2
TO 4 3/4 PER CENT, HAVE A FIRST LIEN GENERALLY ON THE DEBTOR'S LINES
EAST OF THE MISSOURI RIVER.  IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT OF THESE BONDS
PUBLICLY HELD, $11,212,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ARE HELD BY THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AS SECURITY FOR ITS LOANS.  THERE
ARE $8,923,000 FIRST AND REFUNDING BONDS OUTSTANDING, ALL OF WHICH ARE
HELD BY THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AS SECURITY FOR ITS
LOANS AND CLAIMS.  THESE BONDS HAVE A FIRST LIEN GENERALLY ON THE LINES
WEST OF THE MISSOURI AND A SECOND LIEN ON THE LINES EAST.  THERE ARE
$106,395,096 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF 50-YEAR BONDS OUTSTANDING, WITH
ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST OF $20,835,706.  THESE BONDS, SUBJECT ONLY
TO THE FIRST AND REFUNDING BONDS, HAVE A PRIOR LIEN ON THE LINES WEST
OF THE MISSOURI; AND THEY HAVE A LIEN SUBORDINATE TO THE GENERAL
MORTGAGE AND THE FIRST AND REFUNDING BONDS ON THE LINES EAST.  THEY
CARRY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 5%.  THERE ARE ALSO 5% CONVERTIBLE
ADJUSTMENT BONDS OUTSTANDING IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $182,873,693,
WITH ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST OF $79,550,055.  THESE BONDS HAVE THE
MOST JUNIOR LIEN ON BOTH THE LINES WEST AND EAST OF THE MISSOURI
RIVER.  IN ADDITION TO THOSE FOUR MAIN MORTGAGES, THE DEBTOR HAD
ASSUMED LIABILITY ON THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS OF OTHER COMPANIES WHICH
IT OR ITS PREDECESSOR HAD EITHER PURCHASED OR LEASED.  AMONG THESE WAS
THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN RAILROAD CO., WHICH HAD TWO BOND ISSUES:  THE
FIRST MORTGAGE 4 1/2S IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING OF $2,117,000
AND ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST OF $103,204, WHICH WERE SECURED BY A
FIRST LIEN ON 110 MILES OF LINE SOUTH OF GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN; AND
CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE 4 1/2S IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING OF
$5,072,000 AND ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST OF $247,260, WHICH WERE
SECURED BY A FIRST LIEN ON 286 MILES OF LINE NORTH OF GREEN BAY AND BY
A SECOND LIEN ON THE LINE SOUTH OF THAT PLACE.  THERE IS ALSO IN THIS
GROUP A $3,000,000 AMOUNT OUTSTANDING OF FIRST MORTGAGE 5S OF CHICAGO,
MILWAUKEE & GARY RY. CO., WITH ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST OF
$562,500.  THEY WERE SECURED BY A FIRST LIEN ON SOME 80 MILES OF
PORTIONS OF TRACK AROUND THE CHICAGO DISTRICT. 

IN ADDITION THERE IS $301,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF BELLINGHAM BAY &
BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILROAD CO. FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS, OWNED BY THE DEBTOR
AND PLEDGED WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AS SECURITY FOR
ITS LOANS.  FURTHERMORE, THERE ARE FOUR BOND ISSUES OF THE CHICAGO,
TERRE HAUTE & SOUTHEASTERN RY. CO. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES.  THESE ARE IN
THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING OF $21,929,000, ARE SECURED BY LIENS
ON LINES AND TRACKAGE RIGHTS IN INDIANA AND ILLINOIS, AND CARRY EITHER
4% OR 5% INTEREST.  THE DEBTOR OPERATES THE LINES OF THE TERRE HAUTE
UNDER A 999 YEAR LEASE EXECUTED IN 1921, UNDER WHICH THE LESSEE AGREED
TO MAINTAIN AND REPLACE EQUIPMENT, PAY INTEREST ON AND THE PRINCIPAL OF
THE LESSOR'S BONDS AND TO PAY SPECIFIED ANNUAL EXPENSES.  FN2  THE
ANNUAL RENTAL CONSISTS OF INTEREST ON THE TERRE HAUTE BONDS, TAXES, AND
THE EXPENSE OF MAINTAINING THE CORPORATE EXISTENCE OF THE LESSOR. 

THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION PROVIDES FOR TWO SYSTEM
MORTGAGES.  ONE IS A NEW FIRST MORTGAGE  FN3  WHICH WILL BE A FIRST
LIEN ON ALL PROPERTIES OF THE DEBTOR, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE LIEN OF
EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS, AND UNDER WHICH $58,923,171 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
NEW FIRST MORTGAGE 4% BONDS WILL BE ISSUED IN THE REORGANIZATION.  THE
SECOND IS A NEW GENERAL MORTGAGE WHICH WILL BE A LIEN ON THE PROPERTIES
OF THE DEBTOR SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE, AND UNDER
WHICH TWO SERIES OF BONDS BEARING 4 1/2% INTEREST CONTINGENT ON
EARNINGS WILL BE ISSUED.  SERIES A BONDS WILL BE ISSUED IN THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $57,256,669, AND SERIES B BONDS IN THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $51,422,111.  THE INTEREST ON BOTH SERIES A AND SERIES B
BONDS IS CUMULATIVE TO THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT AT ANY ONE TIME OF 13 1/2%,
BUT THE INTEREST ON SERIES A BONDS HAS PRIORITY TO THE INTEREST ON THE
SERIES B. FN4 THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $111,347,846 OF 5%
PREFERRED STOCK AND 2,131,475 1/4 SHARES OF NO-PAR VALUE COMMON STOCK. 
FN5  AS RESPECTS THE TERRE HAUTE PROPERTIES, THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR THE
EXECUTION OF A NEW LEASE BETWEEN THE TERRE HAUTE AND THE NEW COMPANY ON
CONDITION THAT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE TERRE HAUTE BONDHOLDERS AGREE
TO A MODIFICATION OF THEIR BONDS AND MORTGAGES.  THE MODIFICATIONS
INCLUDE AN EXTENSION OF THE MATURITY OF THE BONDS, A WAIVER OF
EQUIPMENT VACANCIES UNDER THE EXISTING MORTGAGES, A PROVISION FOR THE
ABANDONMENT OF LINES, AND REDUCTION OF THE INTEREST ON THE BONDS SO
THAT THERE IS FIXED INTEREST OF 2.75% AND CONTINGENT INTEREST OF 1.5%,
THE PAYMENT OF THE LATTER BEING SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATIONS AS THE
INTEREST ON THE SERIES A, GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS.  IN CASE
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE TERRE HAUTE BONDHOLDERS AGREE TO THE
MODIFICATIONS, A NEW LEASE WILL BE MADE UNDER WHICH THE NEW COMPANY
WILL ASSUME THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF, AND THE INTEREST ON, THE
MODIFIED BONDS AND THE CORPORATE EXPENSES OF THE TERRE HAUTE.  IF
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE TERRE HAUTE BONDHOLDERS DO NOT AGREE TO THE
MODIFICATIONS, THE TERRE HAUTE LEASE WILL BE REJECTED AS OF THE DATE
WHEN THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE MODIFICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN
APPROVED.  IN CASE OF SUCH DISAFFIRMANCE OF THE LEASE, THE PLAN
RESERVES, AS WE DISCUSS HEREAFTER, 15,837 SHARES OF NEW COMMON STOCK
FOR CERTAIN UNSECURED CLAIMS AND THE CLAIMS WHICH WOULD THEN ARISE
UNDER THE LEASE.  THE PLAN ALSO CALLS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN
ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS FUND TO WHICH $2,500,000 ANNUALLY WOULD BE
PAID.  THIS ANNUAL CHARGE IS PLACED AHEAD OF CONTINGENT INTEREST.  IT
IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY SET ASIDE CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS FOR THAT FUND AFTER THE PAYMENT OF FULL INTEREST ON
THE SERIES A, GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS AND THE MODIFIED TERRE HAUTE
BONDS.  THE PLAN THUS AUTHORIZES A CAPITALIZATION OF $548,533,321 FOR
THE NEW COMPANY N6, THE PERCENTAGE OF DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
BEING 40.8.  THE ANNUAL CHARGES AHEAD OF DIVIDENDS, INCLUDING FIXED AND
CONTINGENT INTEREST, THE MANDATORY PAYMENT TO THE ADDITIONS AND
BETTERMENTS FUND, AND THE SINKING FUND, ARE APPROXIMATELY $12,532,528. 
WHEN DIVIDENDS ON THE NEW PREFERRED STOCK ARE INCLUDED, THE ANNUAL
CHARGES AHEAD OF DIVIDENDS ON THE COMMON STOCK ARE ABOUT $18,099,920. 

THE COMMISSION ALLOCATED NEW FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS TO THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION FOR 100% OF ITS CLAIM, AFTER
REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM BY CERTAIN CASH CREDITS.  WE HAVE
ALREADY NOTED THE OFFER WHICH IT MADE TO THE TERRE HAUTE BONDHOLDERS. 
THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS WERE TO RECEIVE 70% OF
THEIR CLAIMS IN FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS AND 30% IN SERIES A, GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS.  THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE BONDS
WERE TO BE OFFERED 25% OF THEIR CLAIMS IN FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS, 35% IN
SERIES A AND 20% IN SERIES B, GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, AND 20% IN
PREFERRED STOCK.  THE SAME PARTICIPATION WAS AFFORDED HOLDERS OF THE
OLD GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS.  THE OLD 50-YEAR BONDS WERE TO RECEIVE 15%
OF THEIR CLAIMS IN SERIES B, GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, 60% IN PREFERRED
STOCK AND 25% IN COMMON STOCK.  THE GARY FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS WERE TO
RECEIVE 75% OF THE AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIMS IN NEW PREFERRED STOCK AND
25% IN NEW COMMON.  THE CONVERTIBLE ADJUSTMENT BONDS WERE ALLOTTED
1,749,492 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK FOR THEIR CLAIM UPON THE MORTGAGED
ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR.  THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF
STOCK, TAKEN AT $100 A SHARE, WOULD FAIL TO SATISFY THE CLAIM  FN7  OF
THOSE BONDHOLDERS BY $55,471,653.  FOR THAT PORTION OF THEIR CLAIM, THE
BONDHOLDERS WERE PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE WITH OTHER UNSECURED
CREDITORS IN THE DEBTOR'S FREE ASSETS.  55,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK
WERE SET ASIDE AS REPRESENTING "A FAIR PROPORTION OF THE EQUITY OF THE
NEW COMPANY FOR THE UNMORTGAGED ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR."  OF THESE 55,000
SHARES, THE CONVERTIBLE ADJUSTMENT BONDHOLDERS WERE ALLOTTED 39,163
SHARES.  UNSECURED CREDITORS WITH CLAIMS AMOUNTING TO $445,162 AND THE
TERRE HAUTE IN CASE OF REJECTION OF THE LEASE WERE ALLOTTED THE BALANCE
- OR 15,837 SHARES.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT "THE EQUITY OF THE
HOLDERS OF THE DEBTOR'S PREFERRED STOCK AND ITS COMMON STOCK HAS NO
VALUE" AND THAT THEREFORE THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATION IN
THE PLAN UNDER THE RULE OF CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308
U.S. 106.  SEE SEC. 77(E). 

WE NEED NOT STOP TO DISCUSS THE RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE
COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT IN RESPECT TO PLANS OF REORGANIZATION
UNDER SEC. 77.  THAT MATTER HAS BEEN FULLY EXPLORED IN THE WESTERN
PACIFIC CASE, ANTE, P. 448.  AGAINST THE BANKGROUND OF THE CONCLUSIONS
THERE REACHED, WE COME TO THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN, PRESSED
ON THE COURTS BELOW AND RENEWED HERE. 

EXCLUSION OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.  THE OBJECTIONS OF THE DEBTOR AND THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS ARE, IN THE MAIN, THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION ARE INADEQUATE; THAT IT DID NOT EMPLOY PROPER CRITERIA IN
DETERMINING THE CAPITALIZATION OF THE NEW COMPANY AND IN CONCLUDING
THAT THERE WAS NO EQUITY FOR THE STOCKHOLDERS; AND THAT, HOWEVER PROPER
THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE MAY HAVE BEEN
WHEN MADE, THE EARNINGS IN 1940, 1941, AND 1942 DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
EARNING POWER OF THE ROAD EXCEEDS THAT WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND. 

IN DETERMINING THE PERMISSIBLE CAPITALIZATION OF THE NEW COMPANY AND
THE NATURE OF ITS CAPITAL STRUCTURE, THE COMMISSION MADE AN EXTENSIVE
REVIEW OF THE PROPERTIES, BUSINESS, AND EARNINGS OF THE DEBTOR.  IT
REVIEWED FREIGHT AND TOTAL REVENUES, PASSENGER REVENUES AND THEIR
TREND, OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES, AND MAINTENANCE AND EFFICIENCY
OF OPERATION FOR VARIOUS PERIODS ENDING IN 1938.  IT GAVE CONSIDERATION
TO ESTIMATED FUTURE TAXES, EMERGENCY FREIGHT CHARGES, AND CERTAIN WAGE
FACTORS.  IT REVIEWED THE AMOUNTS OF INCOME AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF
INTEREST IN EACH OF THE YEARS FROM 1921 TO 1938.  IT CONSIDERED THE
ORIGINAL COST OF THE PROPERTIES, THE COST OF REPRODUCTION NEW, THE COST
OF REPRODUCTION LESS DEPRECIATION, AND THE VALUE FOR RATE MAKING
PURPOSES - EACH OF WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY IN EXCESS OF THE
CAPITALIZATION WHICH IT AUTHORIZED.  IT STATED THAT ITS OBLIGATION WAS
"TO DEVISE A PLAN THAT WILL SERVE AS A BASIS FOR THE COMPANY'S
FINANCIAL STRUCTURE FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE."  IT CONCLUDED THAT A
CAPITALIZATION NOT EXCEEDING $548,533,321 WAS "AS HIGH AS CAN
REASONABLY BE ADOPTED" AFTER CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO "THE PAST AND
PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF THE DEBTOR AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTS."  IT
STATED THAT THE FIXED INTEREST PLUS THE MANDATORY PAYMENT TO THE
ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS FUND SHOULD BE KEPT "WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF
PAST AVERAGE EARNINGS"; THAT THOSE TOTALS PROVIDED IN THE PLAN WOULD BE
COVERED 1.16 TIMES BY THE AVERAGE EARNINGS FROM 1931 TO 1935, AND 1.18
TIMES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1932 TO 1936, THOUGH THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
COVERED IN 1932, 1935 AND 1938.  IT NOTED THAT WHILE THE YEAR 1939
SHOWED AN IMPROVEMENT IN EARNING POWER, IT WOULD REGARD ANY INCREASE IN
FIXED CHARGES "AS HAZARDOUS."  IT SAID THAT A "REASONABLE MARGIN ABOVE
FIXED CHARGES OPERATES NOT ONLY TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE COMPANY IN
TIMES OF DEPRESSED EARNINGS BUT ALSO TO THE BENEFIT OF THE HOLDERS OF
CONTINGENT INTEREST BONDS AND TO THE MARKETABILITY OF ALL CLASSES OF
THE SECURITIES."  ACCORDINGLY, IT FOUND THAT THE LIMITATION OF FIXED
INTEREST TO $4,269,654 A YEAR WAS "REASONABLE AND PROPER" HAVING REGARD
TO "THE CLEAR DEMANDS OF A CONSERVATIVE POLICY IN THE PRESENT
REORGANIZATION AND THE CLAIMS AND RIGHTS OF THE FIRST-LIEN BONDHOLDERS"
AND THAT THERE WOULD BE "ADEQUATE COVERAGE" OF THE AMOUNT OF FIXED
CHARGES PROVIDED IN THE PLAN "BY THE PROBABLE EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR
THE PAYMENT THEREOF."  FURTHERMORE, IT STATED THAT THE TOTAL DEBT
SHOULD "BEAR A PROPER RELATION TO THE TOTAL CAPITALIZATION, AND SUCH AS
TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF CONTINGENT INTEREST A PROBABILITY AND OF
DIVIDENDS A REASONABLE PROSPECT, AT LEAST ON THE PREFERRED STOCK."  IT
CONCLUDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE CHARGES AHEAD OF THE PREFERRED STOCK AND
THE EARNINGS RECORD, IT WOULD BE "ENTIRELY UNSOUND" TO INCREASE THE
AMOUNT OF THE CONTINGENT INTEREST DEBT.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PRESENT PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK HAVE "NO
VALUE."  AND THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED THAT FINDING, AS WAS NECESSARY
IF THE STOCK WERE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN.  FN8
AS A BASIS FOR THAT FINDING THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT, ALTHOUGH THE
ORIGINAL COST AND REPRODUCTION COST WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE
PERMISSIBLE CAPITALIZATION WHICH IT AUTHORIZED, THE EARNING POWER OF
THE SYSTEM DID NOT JUSTIFY INCLUSION OF THE OLD STOCK.  IT SAID THAT NO
DIVIDENDS HAD BEEN PAID ON THE STOCK SINCE 1917, THAT ESTIMATED FUTURE
"NORMAL EARNINGS" WERE $15,894,000 A YEAR, AND THAT WHEN "THESE AMOUNTS
ARE COMPARED WITH THE ANNUAL INTEREST CHARGES ON THE PRINCIPAL OF THE
PRESENT DEBT, $23,739,000 A YEAR, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE EARNING POWER
OF THE SYSTEM SINCE THE PERIOD OF PEAK EARNINGS (1928-1929) IS ENTIRELY
INADEQUATE TO COVER THE PRINCIPAL OF THE DEBT, DISREGARDING MORE THAN
$118,000,000 OF UNPAID INTEREST."  IT ADDED THAT THERE WAS "NO EVIDENCE
WHATEVER" TO INDICATE THAT A RECOVERY OF EARNING POWER OF THE PEAK
PERIODS WAS "REASONABLY PROBABLE," BUT THAT IT WAS "A REMOTE
POSSIBILITY ONLY, WHICH MAY NOT BE UTILIZED TO SUPPORT A FINDING" THAT
THE STOCK HAS "AN EQUITY."  IT ALSO FOUND THAT, "UNDER ALL PERTINENT
FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS, THE PROBABILITIES OF THE PROPERTY EARNING
SUFFICIENT TO PAY DIVIDENDS ON ANY SECURITIES THAT COULD PROPERLY BE
REPRESENTED BY WARRANTS ISSUED UNDER THE PLAN ARE TOO REMOTE TO JUSTIFY
PROVISION IN THE PLAN FOR SUCH WARRANTS," EVEN THOUGH THE WARRANTS
PROVIDED FOR THEIR EXERCISE ON PAYMENT OF CASH. 

SEC. 77(D) REQUIRES THE COMMISSION WHEN IT RENDERS A REPORT ON A PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION TO "STATE FULLY THE REASONS FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS." 
THE SUMMARY WHICH WE HAVE MADE ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE PLAINLY SHOWS
THAT THE COMMISSION DID EXACTLY THAT.  ITS FINDING THAT THE STOCK HAD
NO VALUE WAS DEFINITE AND EXPLICIT.  TO REQUIRE IT TO GO FURTHER AND
FORMALIZE IN FINDINGS THE NUMEROUS DATA ON WHICH IT RELIED IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS EXPERT, INFORMED JUDGMENT WOULD BE TO ALTER THE
STATUTORY SCHEME.  APART FROM THE NECESSITY OF MAKING A FINDING FOR THE
EXCLUSION OF STOCK OR ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 77(E),
THE MANDATE WHICH CONGRESS GAVE THE COMMISSION BY SEC. 77(D) IS MERELY
TO APPROVE A PLAN "THAT WILL IN ITS OPINION MEET WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF SUBSECTIONS (B) AND (E) OF THIS SECTION, AND WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH
THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  REASONS WHICH UNDERLIE THE EXPERT OPINION WHICH
THE COMMISSION EXPRESSES ON A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 NEED
NOT BE MARSHALLED AND LABELLED AS FINDINGS IN ORDER TO MAKE
INTELLIGIBLE THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION OR ULTIMATE FINDING OR TO MAKE
POSSIBLE THE PERFORMANCE ON THE PART OF THE COURTS OF THE FUNCTIONS
DELEGATED TO THEM.  HERE, AS IN OTHER SITUATIONS (COLORADO V. UNITED
STATES, 271 U.S. 153, 166-169; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70,
76-77; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 8-9), IT IS THE CONCLUSION
OR ULTIMATE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION TOGETHER WITH ITS REASONS AND
SUPPORTING DATA WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL.  CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED NO MORE. 
NOR WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A PRECISE FINDING AS TO
THE VALUE OF THE ROAD IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE OLD STOCK FROM THE
PLAN.  A FINDING AS TO THE PRECISE EXTENT OF THE DEFICIENCY IS NOT
MATERIAL OR GERMANE TO THE FINDING OF "NO VALUE" PRESCRIBED BY SEC.
77(E). 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT THE COMMISSION EMPLOYED THE INCORRECT CRITERIA
FOR DETERMINING THE PERMISSIBLE CAPITALIZATION OF THE NEW COMPANY.  IN
THIS CONNECTION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON SEC. 77(E), WHICH PROVIDES IN
PART THAT THE "VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY USED IN RAILROAD OPERATION SHALL
BE DETERMINED ON A BASIS WHICH WILL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE
EARNING POWER OF THE PROPERTY, PAST, PRESENT, AND PROSPECTIVE, AND ALL
OTHER RELEVANT FACTS.  IN DETERMINING SUCH VALUE ONLY SUCH EFFECT SHALL
BE GIVEN TO THE PRESENT COST OF REPRODUCTION NEW AND LESS DEPRECIATION
AND ORIGINAL COST OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT THEREIN,
AS MAY BE REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW OF THE LAND, IN LIGHT OF ITS EARNING
POWER AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTS."  IT IS ARGUED THAT, UNDER THIS
PROVISION, EARNING POWER IS NOT THE PRIMARY CRITERION OF VALUE AND THAT
THE COMMISSION DID NOT GIVE PROPER WEIGHT TO ORIGINAL COST,
REPRODUCTION COST NEW, OR THE VALUATION FOR RATE MAKING PURPOSES.  WE
DISAGREE.  WE RECENTLY STATED IN CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU
BOIS, SUPRA, IN CONNECTION WITH A REORGANIZATION OF AN INDUSTRIAL
COMPANY, THAT THE "CRITERION OF EARNING CAPACITY IS THE ESSENTIAL ONE
IF THE ENTERPRISE IS TO BE FREED FROM THE HEAVY HAND OF PAST ERRORS,
MISCALCULATIONS OR DISASTER, AND IF THE ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES AMONG
THE VARIOUS CLAIMANTS IS TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  P. 526.  THAT IS
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS
ONCE STATED THAT "VALUE IS A WORD OF MANY MEANINGS."  SEE SOUTHWESTERN
BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S. 276, 310,
CONCURRING OPINION.  IT GATHERS ITS MEANING IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION
FROM THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH A VALUATION IS BEING MADE.  THUS THE
QUESTION IN A VALUATION FOR RATE MAKING IS HOW MUCH A UTILITY WILL BE
ALLOWED TO EARN.  THE BASIC QUESTION IN A VALUATION FOR REORGANIZATION
PURPOSES IS HOW MUCH THE ENTERPRISE IN ALL PROBABILITY CAN EARN. 
EARNING POWER WAS THE PRIMARY TEST IN FORMER RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS
UNDER EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS.  TEMMER V. DENVER TRAMWAY CO.,
18 F.2D 226, 229; NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. CONTINENTAL & COMMERCIAL BANK,
26 F.2D 872, 874.  THE REASONS WHY IT IS THE APPROPRIATE TEST ARE
APPARENT.  A BASIC REQUIREMENT OF ANY REORGANIZATION IS THE
DETERMINATION OF A CAPITALIZATION WHICH MAKES IT POSSIBLE NOT ONLY TO
RESPECT THE PRIORITIES OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CLAIMANTS BUT ALSO TO
GIVE THE NEW COMPANY A REASONABLE PROSPECT FOR SURVIVAL.  SEE
COMMISSIONER EASTMAN DISSENTING, CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. REORGANIZATION,
131 I.C.C. 673, 705.  ONLY "METICULOUS REGARD FOR EARNING CAPACITY"
(CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, SUPRA, P. 525) CAN AFFORD
THE OLD SECURITY HOLDERS PROTECTION AGAINST A DILUTION OF THEIR
PRIORITIES AND CAN GIVE THE NEW COMPANY SOME SAFEGUARDS AGAINST THE
SCOURGE OF OVERCAPITALIZATION.  DISREGARD OF THAT METHOD OF VALUATION
CAN ONLY BRING, AS STATED BY JUDGE EVANS FOR THE COURT BELOW, "A
HARVEST OF BARREN REGRETS."  124 F.2D P. 765.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY EARNING POWER MAY NOT BE UTILIZED AS THE
CRITERION FOR DETERMINING VALUE FOR REORGANIZATION PURPOSES.  AND IT IS
OUR VIEW THAT CONGRESS WHEN IT PASSED SEC. 77 MADE EARNING POWER THE
PRIMARY CRITERION.  THE LIMITED EXTENT TO WHICH SEC. 77(E) PROVIDES
THAT REPRODUCTION COST, ORIGINAL COST, AND ACTUAL INVESTMENT MAY BE
CONSIDERED INDICATES THAT (APART FROM DOUBTS CONCERNING CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO DISREGARD THEM) SUCH OTHER VALUATIONS WERE NOT DEEMED RELEVANT
UNDER SEC. 77 ANY MORE THAN UNDER SEC. 77B "EXCEPT AS THEY MAY
INDIRECTLY BEAR ON EARNING CAPACITY."  CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO.
V. DU BOIS, SUPRA, P. 526.  IN THIS CASE THE COMMISSION FOLLOWED THE
STATUTE.  WHILE IT MADE EARNING POWER THE PRIMARY CRITERION, IT DID NOT
DISREGARD THE OTHER VALUATIONS.  IT CONSIDERED THEM AND CONCLUDED IN
SUBSTANCE THAT THEY AFFORDED NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE
PROBABLE EARNING POWER OF THE ROAD WAS GREATER THAN WHAT THE COMMISSION
HAD FOUND IT TO BE BY THE USE OF OTHER STANDARDS.  THE COMMISSION NEED
NOT DO MORE. 

THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION, AFFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER
SEC. 77(E), THAT THE STOCK HAD "NO VALUE" IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. 
THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN SUCH A DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THERE IS A
REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT THE EARNING POWER OF THE ROAD WILL BE
SUFFICIENT TO PAY PRIOR CLAIMS OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL AND LEAVE SOME
SURPLUS FOR THE SERVICE OF THE STOCK.  IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE
IS NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF SUCH EARNING POWER, THEN THE INCLUSION
OF THE STOCK WOULD VIOLATE THE FULL PRIORITY RULE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC
RY. CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482 - A RULE OF PRIORITY INCORPORATED IN SEC.
77(E)(1), AS IN SEC. 77B AND CH. X (CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS
CO., SUPRA; MARINE HARBOR PROPERTIES V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO., 317
U.S. 78) THROUGH THE PHRASE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  A VALUATION FOR
REORGANIZATION PURPOSES BASED ON EARNING POWER REQUIRES OF COURSE AN
APPRAISAL OF MANY FACTORS WHICH CANNOT BE REDUCED TO A FIXED FORMULA. 
IT ENTAILS A PREDICTION OF FUTURE EVENTS.  HENCE "AN ESTIMATE, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM MATHEMATICAL CERTITUDE, IS ALL THAT CAN BE MADE." 
CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, SUPRA, P. 526.  BUT
RECOGNIZING THE POSSIBLE MARGIN OF ERROR IN ANY SUCH PREDICTION, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE EXPERT JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION WAS ERRONEOUS
WHEN MADE OR THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN AFFIRMING THE
FINDING OF "NO VALUE." 

THE QUESTION OF THE INCREASE IN EARNINGS SINCE THE COMMISSION
APPROVED THE PLAN RAISES OF COURSE DIFFERENT ISSUES.  AS WE HAVE
INDICATED IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC CASE, THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY AID IT IN DETERMINING WHETHER
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE THAT THE PLAN BE REFERRED BACK TO THE
COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION.  THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
WERE CLOSED IN 1938 AND ITS REPORT RENDERED IN 1940.  THE HEARINGS
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT WERE HELD IN SEPTEMBER 1940.  IT HAD BEFORE
IT THE TRUSTEES' ANNUAL REPORTS FOR 1937, 1938 AND 1939 AND A STATEMENT
OF OPERATING REVENUES AND INCOME AVAILABLE FOR FIXED CHARGES THROUGH
THE FIRST HALF OF 1940.  SIMILAR FIGURES WERE BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR MOST OF 1941.  THE DEBTOR AND THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS
CONTEND ON THE BASIS OF THOSE FIGURES THAT THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION
THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A "RECOVERY OF THE EARNING POWER OF 1928
29 IS REASONABLY PROBABLE" HAS BEEN DISPROVED BY SUBSEQUENT EVENTS. 
THEY ARGUE THAT WHILE THE NET EARNINGS FOR 1928, 1929 AND 1930 WERE
$30,671,000, $29,105,000 AND $17,938,000 RESPECTIVELY, THOSE FOR 1940
WERE $14,867,000 AND FOR 1941 $28,939,000.  AND THEY POINT OUT THAT THE
NET FOR 1940 WAS ALMOST AS GREAT AS, AND THE NET FOR 1941 WAS MUCH IN
EXCESS OF, THE ESTIMATED $15,894,000 OF NET EARNINGS FOR THE FUTURE
NORMAL YEAR TO WHICH THE COMMISSION REFERRED.  THEY ALSO POINT TO THE
FACT THAT WHILE THAT ESTIMATE INDICATED THAT 12 1/2% OF GROSS WOULD BE
LEFT FOR FIXED CHARGES, THAT PERCENTAGE FOR 1940 WAS 13% AND FOR 1941
20.6%. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT NO SUFFICIENT SHOWING
OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN MADE WHICH REQUIRES THE DISTRICT
COURT TO RETURN THE PLAN TO THE COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION.  LATE
IN 1939 THE COMMISSION HAD OCCASION TO SAY, "WE KNOW FROM PAST
EXPERIENCE THAT THE UPSWING IN BUSINESS WHICH WAR BRINGS IS TEMPORARY
AND LIKELY TO BE FOLLOWED BY AN AFTERMATH IN WHICH CONDITIONS MAY BE
WORSE THAN BEFORE."  53D ANNUAL REPORT, P. 5.  THE RECORD DURING THE
LAST WORLD WAR IS ILLUMINATING.  IT SHOWS THAT THE MILWAUKEE'S NET
OPERATING INCOME ROSE TO ALMOST $31,000,000 IN 1916, EXCEEDED
$21,500,000 IN 1917, DROPPED TO ABOUT $4,000,000 IN 1918 AND TO ABOUT
$2,000,000 IN 1919 AND SHOWED A DEFICIT OF OVER $14,000,000 IN 1920. 
SEE CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. REORGANIZATION, 131 I.C.C. 673, 715.  AS WE
HAVE NOTED, THE COMMISSION CONCEIVED AS ITS RESPONSIBILITY THE DEVISING
OF A PLAN WHICH WOULD SERVE "AS A BASIS FOR THE COMPANY'S FINANCIAL
STRUCTURE FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE."  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE
FIGURES OF WAR EARNINGS COULD SERVE AS A RELIABLE CRITERION FOR THAT
"INDEFINITE FUTURE."  AS SOME OF THE BONDHOLDERS POINT OUT, THE BULGE
OF WAR EARNINGS PER SE IS UNRELIABLE FOR USE AS A NORM UNLESS HISTORY
IS TO BE IGNORED; AND NUMEROUS OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, PRESENT HERE AS IN
FORMER PERIODS, MAKE THEM SUSPECT AS A STANDARD FOR ANY REASONABLY
LIKELY FUTURE NORMAL YEAR.  AMONG THESE ARE THE GREAT INCREASE IN TAXES
AND IN CERTAIN COSTS OF OPERATION AND THE DECREASE IN WATER AND TRUCK
COMPETITION.  IN ADDITION TO THE INCREASE IN TAX RATES, OF WHICH WE
CANNOT BE UNMINDFUL, THERE IS THE LIKELY INCREASE OF THE TOTAL TAX
BURDEN OCCASIONED BY THE CONVERSION OF DEBT INTO STOCK.  IT IS
ESTIMATED BY CERTAIN BONDHOLDERS THAT BY REASON OF THIS FACT A FULL
DIVIDEND COULD NOT BE PAID ON THE NEW PREFERRED STOCK AND NO DIVIDEND
COULD BE PAID ON THE NEW COMMON STOCK EVEN ON THE BASIS OF EARNINGS AS
GREAT AS THOSE FOR 1941.  IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WE CANNOT
SAY THAT THE JUNIOR INTERESTS HAVE CARRIED THE BURDEN WHICH THEY
PROPERLY HAVE OF SHOWING THAT SUBSEQUENT EVENTS MAKE NECESSARY A
REJECTION OF THE COMMISSION'S PLAN. 

BUT IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE VICE OF THE COMMISSION'S PLAN IS THE
FORMULATION OF A CAPITAL STRUCTURE WHICH AS A RESULT OF CONVERSION OF
DEBT INTO STOCK SO INCREASES THE IMPACT OF MOUNTING TAXES ON THE
COMPANY AS TO DEPRIVE JUNIOR INTERESTS OF NET EARNINGS WHICH WOULD BE
AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THEM IF THE RATIO OF DEBT TO STOCK WERE
INCREASED.  SUCH A CONVERSION OF DEBT INTO STOCK IS SAID TO BE ENTIRELY
UNNECESSARY TO THE FORMULATION OF A SOUND PLAN AND RESULTS IN
UNFAIRNESS TO JUNIOR INTERESTS.  THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT ARGUMENT IS
THAT CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED THE COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS, WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF FORMULATING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WHICH "WILL BE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  SEC. 77(D).  THE NATURE OF THE
CAPITAL STRUCTURE, AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITALIZATION, IS A
COMPONENT OF "THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  FOR THE "PRESERVATION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND THE STABILITY OF ITS CREDIT ESSENTIAL TO ITS
PRESERVATION DEPEND NOT ALONE UPON THE ABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL CARRIERS
TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS, BUT UPON THE ABILITY OF ALL TO ATTRACT THE
INVESTMENT OF FUNDS IN THEIR SECURITIES."  SEE UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 282 U.S. 311, 337(DISSENTING OPINION). 
FURTHERMORE, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN SEC. 77(B)(4) THAT THE FIXED
CHARGES (INCLUDING FIXED INTEREST ON FUNDED DEBT) PROVIDED IN THE PLAN
SHALL BE "IN SUCH AN AMOUNT THAT, AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE
PROBABLE PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS OF THE PROPERTY IN LIGHT OF ITS EARNINGS
EXPERIENCE AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTS, THERE SHALL BE ADEQUATE
COVERAGE OF SUCH FIXED CHARGES BY THE PROBABLE EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR
THE PAYMENT THEREOF."  THE RATIO OF DEBT TO STOCK, THE AMOUNT OF FIXED
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM CONTINGENT INTEREST, THE KIND OF CAPITAL
STRUCTURE WHICH A PARTICULAR COMPANY NEEDS TO SURVIVE THE VICISSITUDES
OF THE BUSINESS CYCLE - ALL THESE HAVE BEEN RESERVED BY CONGRESS FOR
THE EXPERT JUDGMENT AND OPINION OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH THE COURTS
MUST RESPECT.  NOR CAN WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS ANYTHING IN SEC. 77
WHICH INDICATES THAT IT MAY BE USED MERELY AS A MORATORIUM. 
ELIMINATION OF DELAY IN RAILROAD RECEIVERSHIP AND FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS WAS ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 77. 
CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648, 685. 
SEC. 77(G), GIVING THE DISTRICT COURT POWER TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS
FOR "UNDUE DELAY IN A REASONABLY EXPEDITIOUS REORGANIZATION," WAS
INSERTED IN RECOGNITION OF "THE NECESSITY OF PROMPT ACTION."  (H. REP.
NO. 1283, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3.)  WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT IN
THIS PROCEEDING, WHICH ALREADY HAS BEEN PENDING SEVEN YEARS AND WHICH
WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, THE INTERESTS OF JUNIOR
CLAIMANTS HAVE BEEN SACRIFICED FOR SPEED.  THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ONLY RECENTLY STATED  FN9  THAT "WHERE A RAILROAD COMPANY IS
SO BURDENED WITH A HEAVY CAPITAL STRUCTURE THAT IT IS IN NEED OF
THOROUGHGOING REORGANIZATION, IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOR
EVEN, EXCEPT TEMPORARILY, IN THE INTEREST OF THE COMPANY ITSELF, THAT
SUCH A REORGANIZATION BE POSTPONED."  H. REP. NO. 2177, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 6.  NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT FOR FURTHER DELAY HERE. 

FINALLY, IT IS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF SOME OF THE STOCKHOLDERS THAT THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF A PLAN PROMULGATED UNDER SEC. 77 MUST BE THE DATE OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION, THE THEORY BEING THAT SEC. 77 DOES NOT
PERMIT THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST AFTER THAT DATE.  IN CONSOLIDATED ROCK
PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, WE HELD THAT, UNDER SEC. 77B, INTEREST ON
SECURED CLAIMS ACCRUED TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN WAS ENTITLED
TO THE SAME PRIORITY AS THE PRINCIPAL.  SEE 312 U.S. P. 514, NOTE 4, P.
527, AND CASES CITED.  THE DEFINITION OF THE TERMS "CREDITORS" AND
"CLAIMS" WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME UNDER SEC. 77B (B) AS IT IS UNDER
SEC. 77.  WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE SAME RESULT SHOULD NOT OBTAIN HERE. 

TREATMENT OF THE TERRE HAUTE BONDS.  THE TREATMENT ACCORDED THESE
BONDS IS ATTACKED BY THE TERRE HAUTE AND REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS
BONDHOLDERS AS WELL AS BY CERTAIN GROUPS OF MILWAUKEE BONDHOLDERS.  THE
TERRE HAUTE INTERESTS CONTEND, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT THE PLAN
CONTAINS NO FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR DETERMINING HOW THE SACRIFICES
REQUIRED OF THESE BONDHOLDERS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED INTER SE.  IT IS
POINTED OUT THAT THE MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION FOR THESE
FOUR CLASSES OF BONDHOLDERS ARE TO BE MADE REGARDLESS OF THE LIEN,
SECURITY, INTEREST OR MATURITY OF EACH AND THE EARNING POWER OF THE
RESPECTIVE UNDERLYING PROPERTIES.  HENCE IT IS ARGUED THAT THIS PHASE
OF THE PLAN IS NOT FAIR AND EQUITABLE, SINCE IT DOES NOT EVEN ATTEMPT
TO PRESERVE THE RESPECTIVE PRIORITIES OF THESE BOND ISSUES.  THE SHORT
ANSWER TO THAT OBJECTION IS THAT THE TERRE HAUTE PROPERTIES HAVE NOT
BEEN TREATED BY THE COMMISSION OR THE DISTRICT COURT AS A PART OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE DEBTOR FOR REORGANIZATION PURPOSES.  NOR HAS ANY
QUESTION BEEN RAISED OR ARGUED HERE AS TO THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION
OR THE DISTRICT COURT SO TO TREAT THEM.  THE COMMISSION AND THE
DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THE PROBLEM SOLELY AS ONE OF REJECTION OR
AFFIRMANCE OF A LEASE.  THE TERRE HAUTE BONDHOLDERS WERE IN EFFECT
GIVEN THE OPTION TO TAKE THE TERRE HAUTE LINES BACK OR TO AGREE TO A
REDUCED RENTAL.  IF THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE
QUESTION OF REJECTION IN THE MANNER INDICATED AND IF IT COMPLIED WITH
THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXERCISE OF THAT AUTHORITY, THE
MODIFICATIONS WHICH IT PROPOSED AND WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED
ARE VALID.  WE THINK THEY ARE. 

IN 1928 THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF THE ACQUISITION OF
THIS PROPERTY.  131 I.C.C. 653-660.  IT THEN SAID THAT THE TERRE HAUTE
WAS "A DISTRESS PROPERTY CONTROLLED BY A COMMITTEE OF CHICAGO BANKERS
WHO WANTED TO LIQUIDATE AND WHO HAD WRITTEN THE SECURITIES OFF THE
BOOKS OF THEIR BANKS AS LOSSES" (PP. 657-658); THAT "THE TERMS UPON
WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED WERE IMPROVIDENT AND TO THAT EXTENT
ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ST. PAUL" (P. 657);
AND THAT "THE TOTAL FINANCIAL BURDEN AS OF JUNE 30, 1925, WHICH HAD
FALLEN UPON THE INCOME OF THE ST. PAUL AS A RESULT OF THIS LEASE WAS
NEARLY $11,000,000."  P. 656.  IN ITS PRESENT REPORT THE COMMISSION,
AFTER REVIEWING CERTAIN EARNINGS DATA, CONCLUDED THAT "THE EARNING
POWER OF THE TERRE HAUTE IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL INTEREST
REQUIREMENTS, BUT THIS EARNING POWER IS LARGELY DEPENDENT ON A
CONTINUATION OF THE MILWAUKEE'S COAL TRAFFIC, TOGETHER WITH THE
COMMERCIAL COAL TRAFFIC THAT ACCOMPANIES IT, AND WOULD BE GREATLY
DIMINISHED IF SUCH TRAFFIC CEASED."  AND IT ADDED, "THE PRESENT
ARRANGEMENT IS DISTINCTLY TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE TERRE HAUTE."  THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT A REJECTION OF THE LEASE WOULD BE
TO THE "DISADVANTAGE" OF BOTH COMPANIES AND THAT SOME MEANS SHOULD BE
PROVIDED "FOR RETAINING THE TERRE HAUTE LINES AS A PART OF THE SYSTEM
WITHOUT UNDULY JEOPARDIZING A SUCCESSFUL REORGANIZATION OF THE
MILWAUKEE."  THE COMMISSION, ON THE OTHER HAND, FELT THAT AN AFFIRMANCE
WOULD BE INEQUITABLE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE MILWAUKEE
BONDHOLDERS.  THE PRESENT INTEREST CHARGES ON THE TERRE HAUTE ARE ABOUT
$1,023,000 A YEAR.  IF THOSE WERE ASSUMED BY THE NEW COMPANY AND FIXED
INTEREST CHARGES WERE KEPT AT ABOUT $4,270,000 A YEAR AS PROVIDED IN
THE PLAN, THE AMOUNT OF NEW FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS WHICH COULD BE ISSUED
WOULD HAVE TO BE REDUCED BY $10,500,000.  SUCH A REDUCTION, SAID THE
COMMISSION, WOULD MEAN A "SUBSTANTIAL SACRIFICE" BY MILWAUKEE
BONDHOLDERS WHICH WOULD BE "ENTIRELY INEQUITABLE."  IN THAT CONNECTION,
IT ALSO NOTED THAT IF THE $21,929,000 OF TERRE HAUTE BONDS WERE ASSUMED
BY THE NEW COMPANY, THEY WOULD CONSTITUTE ABOUT 27% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF NEW FIXED INTEREST DEBT.  THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE ALLOTMENT OF
FIXED INTEREST BONDS TO THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS "COULD NOT BE
MORE THAN DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF THE EXISTING TERRE HAUTE BONDS, WHEREAS
THE MILEAGE REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MORTGAGE IS ABOUT 18 TIMES THAT
OF THE TERRE HAUTE, AND ON THE BASIS OF THE ELEMENTS OF VALUE  ...  FOR
THE LINES COVERED BY THE GENERAL MORTGAGE, ABOUT 17 TIMES THAT OF THE
TERRE HAUTE PROPERTIES."  THOSE CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS CONSTITUTED
THE PRIMARY REASON WHICH LED THE COMMISSION TO REJECT SUCH AN
"INEQUITABLE" PROPOSAL.  BUT THERE WERE OTHER REASONS TOO.  THE EARLY
MATURITIES ON THE TERRE HAUTE BONDS, THE SUBSTANTIAL DEFAULT OF THE
DEBTOR UNDER ITS COVENANT IN THE LEASE TO REPLACE EQUIPMENT,
RESTRICTIONS ON THE ABANDONMENT OF PROPERTY (ALL OF WHICH WERE COVERED
BY THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS) ALSO PLAYED A PART IN THE COMMISSION'S
CONCLUSION THAT THE LEASE SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED BY THE NEW COMPANY. 
THE COMMISSION SAID THAT ITS PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS WERE "THE BEST THAT
WE COULD DEVISE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND AS AFFORDING FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TREATMENT TO BOTH THE BONDHOLDERS OF THE TERRE HAUTE AND
THOSE OF THE DEBTOR."  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCURRED WITH THE COMMISSION
FOR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME REASONS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID
IT COULD NOT APPROVE THAT ACTION WITHOUT MORE SPECIFIC FINDINGS.  JUST
WHAT FINDINGS IT THOUGHT NECESSARY WE DO NOT KNOW.  THE TERRE HAUTE
INTERESTS SUGGEST THAT THE DEFICIENCY WAS IN THE LACK OF ANY FINDING
THAT THE LEASE WAS BURDENSOME.  AND THEY ADD THAT ONLY LEASES FOUND TO
BE BURDENSOME MAY BE REJECTED AND THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT SUPPORT
ANY SUCH FINDING IF MADE. 

THE ARGUMENT OF THE TERRE HAUTE INTERESTS THAT ONLY BURDENSOME LEASES
MAY BE REJECTED IS BASED ON CERTAIN STATEMENTS OF OURS THAT BURDENSOME
LEASES MAY BE REJECTED (PALMER V. WEBSTER & ATLAS NATIONAL BANK, 312
U.S. 156, 163; PHILADELPHIA CO. V. DIPPLE, 312 U.S. 168, 174) AND ON
CASES LIKE AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY CO. V. NEW YORK RYS.  CO., 278
F. 842, 844, WHICH HOLD THAT AN EQUITY RECEIVER MAY NOT REJECT A LEASE
WHEN IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT "IN CARRYING OUT ITS AFFIRMATIVE
OBLIGATIONS THE ESTATE SUFFERS AN ACTUAL LOSS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE
OBTAINING OF A MORE PROFITABLE RENTAL."  AND AN EXTENDED ANALYSIS OF
THE OPERATIONS UNDER THE LEASE IS MADE TO SHOW THAT THE LEASE IS A
VALUABLE ASSET OF THE ESTATE AND THAT THE DEBTOR RECEIVED A NET
FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM IT IN RECENT YEARS.  WE DO NOT NEED TO
DETERMINE, HOWEVER, WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY TO REJECT LEASES
UNDER SEC. 77, EITHER BY THE TRUSTEES OR PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION.  FOR HERE WE THINK THAT THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF
THE LEASE CONTAINED IN THE PLAN WERE WHOLLY JUSTIFIED.  THE TERRE HAUTE
BONDHOLDERS ARE "CREDITORS" OF THE DEBTOR AS DEFINED IN SEC. 77(B), FOR
THEY ARE HOLDERS OF "A CLAIM UNDER  ...  AN UNEXPIRED LEASE."  SEC.
77(B)(5) PROVIDES NOT ONLY THAT THE PLAN "MAY" CONTAIN PROVISIONS
REJECTING UNEXPIRED LEASES BUT ALSO THAT IT "MAY INCLUDE ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SECTION."  IT IS ALSO
STATED IN SUBSECTION (B)(1) THAT A PLAN "SHALL INCLUDE PROVISIONS
MODIFYING OR ALTERING THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS GENERALLY, OR OF ANY
CLASS OF THEM, SECURED OR UNSECURED, EITHER THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF NEW
SECURITIES OF ANY CHARACTER OR OTHERWISE."  IN ADDITION, SEC. 77(B)(4)
PROVIDES THAT THE PLAN "SHALL PROVIDE FOR FIXED CHARGES" INCLUDING
"RENT FOR LEASED RAILROADS" IN SUCH AN AMOUNT "THAT  ...  THERE SHALL
BE ADEQUATE COVERAGE OF SUCH FIXED CHARGES BY THE PROBABLE EARNINGS
AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF."  AND SEC. 77(E) REQUIRES THE
DISTRICT COURT TO BE SATISFIED, BEFORE APPROVING THE PLAN, THAT IT IS
"FAIR AND EQUITABLE" AND "DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF
ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS."  THESE PROVISIONS TAKEN TOGETHER MEAN TO US
THAT THE COMMISSION (AND THE DISTRICT COURT) HAVE THE AUTHORITY IN
APPROVING A PLAN TO CONDITION ACCEPTANCE OF A LEASE ON TERMS WHICH ARE
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO KEEP THE FIXED CHARGES WITHIN PROPER LIMITS
OR TO DO EQUITY BETWEEN CLAIMS WHICH ARISE UNDER THE LEASE AND THE
OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEBTOR.  LIKE THE QUESTION WHETHER A LEASE IS
BURDENSOME (SEE MECK & MASTEN, RAILROAD LEASES AND REORGANIZATION, 49
YALE L. JOURN.  626, 649), ONE PHASE OF THAT PROBLEM IS WHETHER THE
LEASE IS WORTH ITS ANNUAL CHARGE.  A DISREGARD IN THAT DETERMINATION OF
THE SACRIFICES WHICH OTHER CREDITORS ARE MAKING WOULD BE WHOLLY
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE STANDARDS WHICH SEC. 77 HAS PRESCRIBED FOR
REORGANIZATION PLANS.  AT THE SAME TIME, IF THE COMMISSION DEEMS IT
DESIRABLE TO KEEP THE LEASED LINE IN THE SYSTEM, IT MUST NECESSARILY
HAVE RATHER BROAD DISCRETION IN PROVIDING MODIFICATIONS OF THE LEASE
WHERE, AS HERE, THE LESSOR IS NOT BEING REORGANIZED ALONG WITH THE
DEBTOR.  FOR UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION THE MODIFICATION MUST BE
SUFFICIENTLY ATTRACTIVE TO INSURE ACCEPTANCE BY THE LESSOR OR ITS
CREDITORS.  THUS, THE QUESTION WHETHER A LEASE SHOULD BE REJECTED AND,
IF NOT, ON WHAT TERMS IT SHOULD BE ASSUMED IS ONE OF BUSINESS
JUDGMENT.  SEE MERCANTILE TRUST CO. V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 81 F.
254, 259; PARK V. NEW YORK, L.E. & W.R. CO., 57 F. 799, 802.  CERTAINLY
THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE WARRANTING THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION
AND THE DISTRICT COURT THAT AFFIRMANCE OF THE LEASE WOULD BE UNJUST
FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF OTHER CREDITORS.  AND WE COULD NOT SAY THAT THE
COMMISSION, EXERCISING ITS EXPERT JUDGMENT, AND THE DISTRICT COURT,
AFFIRMING THAT JUDGMENT, WERE TOO GENEROUS IN THE OFFER WHICH IS MADE
TO THE TERRE HAUTE BONDHOLDERS OR THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE REJECTED THE
LEASE.  WE ARE NOT WARRANTED IN UPSETTING THOSE DETERMINATIONS ON
REVIEW EXCEPT ON A CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE LIMITS OF DISCRETION HAVE
BEEN EXCEEDED.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT HERE. 

FINALLY, THE TERRE HAUTE INTERESTS OBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
PLAN WHICH STATE THAT THE TERRE HAUTE LEASE SHALL BE REJECTED AS OF THE
DATE THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINES THAT THE TERRE HAUTE BONDHOLDERS
HAVE NOT CONSENTED TO THE MAKING OF A NEW LEASE AT A REDUCED RENTAL. 
THEY CONTEND THAT THE LESSOR'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THE
LEASE MUST BE MEASURED AS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROCEEDING WAS
INSTITUTED.  THEY FURTHER CONTEND THAT, IN THE EVENT OF REJECTION OF A
LEASE, OPERATION OF THE LEASED PROPERTY SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT
OF THE PROCEEDING MUST BE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR - THE LATTER
BEING LIABLE FOR ALL LOSSES AND BEING ENTITLED TO ANY NET EARNINGS.  ON
THE FIRST POINT THEY RELY ON SEC. 77(B), WHICH PROVIDES THAT, IN CASE
AN UNEXPIRED LEASE IS REJECTED, "ANY PERSON INJURED BY SUCH NONADOPTION
OR REJECTION SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION BE DEEMED TO BE A
CREDITOR OF THE DEBTOR TO THE EXTENT OF THE ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY
DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OBTAINING IN EQUITY
PROCEEDINGS."  IT IS ARGUED THAT, SINCE THIS COURT HELD THAT THAT
PROVISION PLACES LEASES "UPON THE SAME BASIS AS EXECUTORY CONTRACTS"
(CONNECTICUT RY. CO. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493, 502), THE RULE GOVERNING
BREACHES OF AN EXECUTORY CONTRACT (PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK
CITY RY. CO., 198 F. 721, 744; SAMUELS V. E.F. DREW & CO., 292 F. 734,
739) MUST BE APPLIED HERE.  THIS COURT STATED IN THE PALMER CASE,
HOWEVER, THAT THE PROVISION IN SEC. 77(B) WHICH ALLOWS THE LESSOR TO
PROVE HIS "ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PRINCIPLES OBTAINING IN EQUITY PROCEEDINGS" DOES NOT "REFER TO ANY RULE
FOR THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS."  305 U.S. P. 503. 
FURTHERMORE, AS WE HAVE NOTED, SEC. 77(B) PROVIDES NOT ONLY THAT A PLAN
MAY REJECT UNEXPIRED LEASES BUT ALSO THAT IT "MAY INCLUDE ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SECTION."  AND SEC.
77(B)(1) SAYS THAT A PLAN "SHALL INCLUDE PROVISIONS MODIFYING OR
ALTERING THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS GENERALLY."  FOR THE REASONS WHICH WE
HAVE ALREADY STATED, THESE PROVISIONS GIVE THE COMMISSION AND THE
DISTRICT COURT POWER TO ADJUST THE CLAIMS UNDER THE LEASE SO AS TO DO
EQUITY BETWEEN THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS.  DEFERMENT OF THE DATE
AS OF WHICH THE LEASE SHALL BE REJECTED IS AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF
THAT POWER.  DURING THE SEC. 77 PROCEEDINGS THE STIPULATED ANNUAL
RENTAL UNDER THE LEASE HAS BEEN PAID.  IN VIEW OF ALL THE FACTS, NO
ELEMENT OF INJUSTICE TO THE LESSOR IS APPARENT BY REASON OF THE
DEFERMENT OF THE DATE AS OF WHICH ITS DAMAGES, IF ANY, WILL BE
MEASURED. 

FOR SIMILAR REASONS WE CONCLUDE THAT, IN EVENT OF REJECTION OF THE
LEASE, OPERATION SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROCEEDING AND
PRIOR TO THE REJECTION NEED NOT BE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR SO AS
TO ENTITLE IT TO ANY NET EARNINGS.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE STIPULATED
ANNUAL RENTAL HAS BEEN PAID DURING THE SEC. 77 PROCEEDINGS.  THE COURT
ORDER AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST (WHICH IS PART OF THE RENTAL)
STATED THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED "TO PRECLUDE OR CONCLUDE THE
DEBTOR IN RESPECT OF ITS RIGHT OF ELECTION TO DISAFFIRM OR DISCONTINUE"
THE LEASE.  AND SEC. 77(B) PROVIDES THAT THE ADOPTION OF AN UNEXPIRED
LEASE BY THE TRUSTEES "SHALL NOT PRECLUDE A REJECTION" OF IT IN A PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION.  FURTHERMORE, SEC. 77(C)(6) PROVIDES: 

"IF A LEASE OF A LINE OF RAILROAD IS REJECTED, AND IF THE LESSEE,
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE, SHALL ELECT NO LONGER TO OPERATE THE
LEASED LINE, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE LESSOR AT THE END OF A PERIOD
TO BE FIXED BY THE JUDGE TO BEGIN THE OPERATION OF SUCH LINE, UNLESS
THE JUDGE, UPON THE PETITION OF THE LESSOR, SHALL DECREE AFTER HEARING
THAT IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE AND CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR
THE LESSOR TO OPERATE THE SAID LINE, IN WHICH EVENT IT SHALL BE THE
DUTY OF THE LESSEE TO CONTINUE OPERATION ON OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE
LESSOR UNTIL THE ABANDONMENT OF SUCH LINE IS AUTHORIZED BY THE
COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED." 

SEC. 77(C)(6) CONTAINS NO EXPRESS PROVISION THAT ON REJECTION OF A
LEASE THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE LESSEE SHALL BE FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE REJECTION.  BUT THE
TERRE HAUTE INTERESTS SEEK TO READ INTO SEC. 77 THE DOCTRINE OF
RELATION BACK SO THAT IN CASE OF A REJECTION OF THE LEASE THE LESSEE'S
OPERATION DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF BANKRUPTCY IS FOR THE ACCOUNT OF
THE LESSOR, THE LATTER BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LOSSES AND ENTITLED TO
ALL THE NET EARNINGS.  THAT WAS THE GENERAL RULE GOVERNING RAILROAD
LEASES IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS (SEE MECK, RAILROAD LEASES
AND REORGANIZATION, 49 YALE L. JOURN.  1401, 1405-1407), AT LEAST WHERE
THE RECEIVERS OF THE LESSEE MADE NO PAYMENTS OF RENT DURING THE TERM OF
THEIR POSSESSION.  PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO.,
SUPRA, 730-732; AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY CO. V. NEW YORK RYS. 
CO., 282 F. 523.  AND SEE UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V. WABASH WESTERN RY.
CO., 150 U.S. 287.  AND THERE IS SOME AUTHORITY FOR THE VIEW THAT THE
SAME RESULT FOLLOWS EVEN THOUGH UNCONDITIONAL PAYMENTS OF RENT HAVE
BEEN MADE IN THE INTERIM, THE THEORY BEING THAT THE RECEIVER MUST "BE
HELD TO HAVE OCCUPIED FROM THE BEGINNING THE SAME POSITION THAT HE
ULTIMATELY ASSUMES."  WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. V. BROOKLYN
RAPID TRANSIT CO., 6 F.2D 547, 549.  BUT SEE SECOND AVENUE R. CO. V.
ROBINSON, 225 F. 734.  CF. SUNFLOWER OIL CO. V. WILSON, 142 U.S. 313. 
BUT THE RULE WAS NOT A HARD AND FAST ONE.  IT PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS
BASED ON EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS.  WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. V.
BROOKLYN RAPID TRANSIT CO., SUPRA, P. 551.  SO, ALTHOUGH WE ASSUME
ARGUENDO THAT CONGRESS INCORPORATED THE PRIOR EQUITY RULE INTO SEC.
77(C)(6), WHICH RECOGNIZES THE NECESSITY OF KEEPING A RAILROAD IN
OPERATION UNTIL THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY PERMITS DISCONTINUANCE (WARREN V.
PALMER, 310 U.S. 132), IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT THE LESSOR
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE NET EARNINGS ACCRUING PRIOR TO THE REJECTION,
AT LEAST WHERE THE TRUSTEES HAVE UNCONDITIONALLY PAID THE STIPULATED
ANNUAL RENTAL FOR THAT PERIOD.  CF. PALMER V. PALMER, 104 F.2D 161.  TO
BE SURE, WE RECOGNIZED IN PALMER V. WEBSTER & ATLAS NATIONAL BANK,
SUPRA, THAT THE TRUSTEES OF A LESSEE ON THEIR REJECTION OF THE LEASE
OPERATED THE LEASED LINES FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR, THE LATTER
BEING LIABLE FOR LOSSES FOR THE WHOLE PERIOD.  BUT WE ARE HERE DEALING
WITH A REJECTION OF A LEASE PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  AND
THE QUESTION RAISED RELATES TO THE FAIRNESS OF THAT PLAN AS BETWEEN
CLASSES OF CREDITORS - ONE GROUP BEING THE TERRE HAUTE BONDHOLDERS, AND
THE OTHER THE MILWAUKEE BONDHOLDERS.  IN THE EVENT OF A REJECTION OF
THE LEASE, THE TERRE HAUTE INTERESTS ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE
ENTITLED NOT ONLY TO A RETURN OF THE LEASED LINES, TO A CLAIM AGAINST
THE ESTATE FOR DAMAGES, AND TO THE STIPULATED ANNUAL RENTAL UP TO THE
DATE OF THE REJECTION, BUT ALSO TO ANY AND ALL NET INCOME FROM THE
LEASED PROPERTY IN EXCESS OF THAT RENT.  SUCH A CLAIM FOR NET INCOME,
LIKE A CLAIM FOR RENT, WOULD BE A CHARGE AGAINST THE ESTATE FOR WHOSE
PAYMENT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION MUST PROVIDE.  SEC. 77(E)(3).  THE
AMOUNT OF THOSE CHARGES, LIKE OTHER DEMANDS ON THE CASH RESOURCES OF
THE ESTATE OR THE NEW COMPANY, HAVE A DECIDED BEARING ON THE FAIRNESS
AND INTEGRITY OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  THE COMMISSION AND THE
DISTRICT COURT CERTAINLY HAVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TOTAL
AMOUNT WHICH THE LESSOR RECEIVES ON REJECTION OF THE LEASE IS FAIR IN
COMPARISON WITH THE SACRIFICES WHICH THE OTHER CREDITORS MAKE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT AGREED WITH THE COMMISSION THAT IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE
TO GIVE THE TERRE HAUTE INTERESTS, IN THE EVENT OF A REJECTION, MORE
THAN A RETURN OF THE LEASED LINES, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR'S CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES, AND THE STIPULATED ANNUAL RENTAL.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THAT WAS
NOT A FAIR EQUIVALENT OF THEIR CLAIM.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THEIR
SACRIFICES, AS COMPARED WITH THE SACRIFICES BEING MADE BY THE OTHER
MILWAUKEE CREDITORS, ARE SO GREAT THAT THEY SHOULD RECEIVE AN
ADDITIONAL CASH PAYMENT FROM THE ESTATE.  SEC. 77(C)(6) AND THE
DOCTRINE OF RELATION BACK ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATE AND APART
FROM THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  THE END PRODUCT OF THIS
REORGANIZATION SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO BE A FAIR PLAN.  WHEN A LEASE IS
REJECTED PURSUANT TO A PLAN, SEC. 77(C)(6) MAY NOT BE APPLIED SO AS TO
GIVE THE LESSOR OR ITS CREDITORS A DISPROPORTIONATE CLAIM AGAINST THE
ESTATE. 

GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS.  THE OBJECTIONS OF THE CORPORATE TRUSTEE AND
OF A GROUP OF THESE BONDHOLDERS ARE THAT THE ALLOCATION OF NEW
SECURITIES UNDER THE PLAN VIOLATES THEIR PRIORITY RIGHTS, THAT THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION ARE INADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THAT ALLOCATION OF
NEW SECURITIES, AND THAT THE ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS FUND IMPAIRS
THEIR PRIORITIES. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PLAN COULD NOT
BE APPROVED BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF CERTAIN FINDINGS WHICH IT THOUGHT
WERE NECESSITATED BY CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, SUPRA.
IT CONCLUDED THAT THE FINDINGS MUST INCLUDE SPECIFIC VALUES OF LIENS TO
BE SURRENDERED AND SPECIFIC VALUES OF SECURITIES GIVEN IN EXCHANGE.  IN
ITS VIEW, THIS DEFECT IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORTS PERMEATED THE WHOLE
PLAN EXCEPT THE FINDING OF "NO VALUE" FOR THE STOCK.  AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC CASE, SUCH A VIEW MISINTERPRETS
CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS.  IN THAT CASE THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD FOUND THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE WORTH MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF
THE DEBT, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAD BEEN OPERATED AT A LOSS
FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS.  AND IT ADMITTED STOCKHOLDERS TO
PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN IN THE FACE OF THAT FACT AND ALSO WITHOUT
COMPENSATING THE BONDHOLDERS FOR THEIR ACCRUED INTEREST.  FURTHERMORE,
THE DISTRICT COURT IN THAT CASE APPROVED A DISTRIBUTION OF NEW
SECURITIES TO BONDHOLDERS UNDER TWO DIFFERENT MORTGAGES WITHOUT
ATTEMPTING TO ASCERTAIN WHAT PROPERTIES WERE COVERED BY EACH.  IN
ADDITION, THE PLAN AS APPROVED CANCELLED A CLAIM AGAINST THE HOLDING
CORPORATION WITHOUT MAKING ANY FINDING AS TO ITS AMOUNT OR VALIDITY. 
WE HELD (1) THAT THE "CRITERION OF EARNING CAPACITY IS THE ESSENTIAL
ONE" IN MAKING A VALUATION FOR REORGANIZATION PURPOSES (312 U.S. P.
526); (2) THAT SOME VALUATION OF THE ASSETS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY AND
OF THE CLAIM AGAINST IT MUST BE MADE, SO THAT THERE COULD BE A
DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IT, AS STOCKHOLDER, WAS MAKING A
CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEW COMPANY FOR WHICH IT WOULD RECEIVE NEW STOCK;
(3) THAT AT LEAST AN "APPROXIMATE ASCERTAINMENT" OF THE ASSETS SUBJECT
TO THE TWO MORTGAGES MUST BE MADE (312 U.S. P. 525), AS A QUESTION OF
THE FAIRNESS OF THE PLAN BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES OF BONDHOLDERS HAD
BEEN RAISED; AND (4) THAT IN APPLYING THE FULL PRIORITY RULE OF THE
BOYD CASE (228 U.S. 482) AND THE LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CASE (308
U.S. 106) FULL "COMPENSATORY PROVISION MUST BE MADE FOR THE ENTIRE
BUNDLE OF RIGHTS WHICH THE CREDITORS SURRENDER."  312 U.S. P. 528.  AND
WE ADDED (P. 529), "PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENTS, RATHER THAN A RIGID FORMULA,
ARE NECESSARY.  THE METHOD OF EFFECTING FULL COMPENSATION FOR SENIOR
CLAIMANTS WILL VARY FROM CASE TO CASE."  APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES
HERE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER NOTED, THE
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT WERE
ADEQUATE AND PROPER. 

THE OBJECTIONS OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS ARE THAT FULL
COMPENSATION WAS NOT AFFORDED THEM FOR THE LOSS OF THEIR FIRST LIEN
POSITION, AND THAT TO SUSTAIN THE ALLOCATION OF NEW SECURITIES TO THEM
IT MUST BE DETERMINED THAT THE NEW SECURITIES HAD IN FACT A VALUE
REPRESENTING COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIORITY OF THE OLD.  WE CAN PUT TO
ONE SIDE AT THIS POINT THE TREATMENT OF THE TERRE HAUTE BONDS AT WHICH
THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS DIRECT SOME OF THEIR CRITICISM.  FOR THE
REASONS WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY STATED, WE CANNOT SUBSTITUTE OUR OPINION
FOR THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND SAY THAT THE TERRE
HAUTE LEASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED OUTRIGHT OR THAT THE TERRE HAUTE
INTERESTS WOULD CONSENT TO A NEW LEASE ON LESS FAVORABLE TERMS THAN ARE
OFFERED.  NOR DO WE STOP TO ANALYZE THE FACTS WARRANTING THE PREFERRED
TREATMENT ACCORDED THE AMPLY SECURED CLAIM OF THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION.  FOR NO ARGUMENT IS PRESSED HERE THAT THE
ALLOCATION OF NEW FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THAT
CLAIM WAS NOT WARRANTED.  FURTHERMORE, WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED A
LARGER PARTICIPATION IN NEW FIXED INTEREST SECURITIES.  AS WE HAVE
NOTED, 25% OF THEIR CLAIMS IS TO BE SATISFIED WITH THE NEW FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS.  WE HAVE ALREADY REVIEWED THE REASONS WHY THE
COMMISSION FELT THAT THE FIXED INTEREST CHARGES SHOULD NOT EXCEED ABOUT
$4,270,000 A YEAR.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED AT THIS POINT THAT THE
COMMISSION STATED THAT IT SAW "NO MEANS BY WHICH THE EXACT PRESENT LIEN
POSITION OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS OR THE 50-YEAR BONDS CAN BE
PRESERVED EXCEPT UNDER A PROHIBITIVE MORTGAGE STRUCTURE."  AS WE HAVE
STATED, THE DETERMINATION OF THE KIND OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE WHICH A
RAILROAD EMERGING FROM REORGANIZATION SHOULD HAVE IS PECULIARLY A
QUESTION FOR THE EXPERT JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION.  TO GIVE THE
GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF NEW FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS
WOULD NECESSITATE AN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL FIXED INTEREST CHARGES OF
THE NEW COMPANY.  WE WOULD INTRUDE ON THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTION IF WE
UNDERTOOK TO DIRECT THAT ANY SUCH INCREASE BE MADE.  THE SAME REPLY MAY
BE GIVEN THE CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT HAVE CREATED NEW
SYSTEM MORTGAGES BUT SHOULD HAVE LEFT THE 50-YEAR BONDS SECURED BY A
SEPARATE MORTGAGE OR SHOULD HAVE CREATED A SEPARATE CORPORATION TO
OPERATE THE WESTERN LINES WHICH COMPRISE THE MAIN SECURITY FOR THE 50
YEAR BONDS.  THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED AND REJECTED THESE PROPOSALS,
SAYING THAT IT WAS "OF GREAT IMPORTANCE THAT A COMPLETELY UNIFIED
SYSTEM BE CREATED THROUGH THE REORGANIZATION AND THAT THE CAPITAL
STRUCTURE BE NOT COMPLICATED BY NUMEROUS MORTGAGES."  SUCH A
DETERMINATION IS PECULIARLY ONE FOR THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 77.  SO
FAR AS THE LAW IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO OBSTACLE TO THE SUBSTITUTION
OF SYSTEM MORTGAGES FOR DIVISIONAL ONES.  WE SO HELD IN CONSOLIDATED
ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, SUPRA, PP. 530-531, INDICATING THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FEASIBILITY AND PRACTICABILITY MAY OFTEN NECESSITATE
SUCH A COURSE.  THE SAME PRINCIPLES ARE APPLICABLE HERE. 

SO THE PROBLEM FOR US ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE IS WHETHER, WITHIN
THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE WHICH HAS BEEN DESIGNED, THE
ALLOCATION OF NEW SECURITIES TO THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS WAS
PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE RULE OF THE BOYD AND THE CONSOLIDATED ROCK
PRODUCTS CASES.  ON THIS RECORD, THAT ENTAILS PRIMARILY A CONSIDERATION
OF THE TREATMENT ACCORDED THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, ON THE ONE HAND,
AND THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN BONDS AND THE 50-YEAR BONDS ON THE OTHER. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS ARE TO RECEIVE 25% OF
THEIR CLAIMS IN NEW FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS, 35% IN SERIES A AND 20% IN
SERIES B, NEW GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, AND 20% IN PREFERRED STOCK.  THE
SAME TREATMENT IS ACCORDED THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN CONSOLIDATED
MORTGAGE BONDS.  THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS,
HOWEVER, ARE TO RECEIVE 70% OF THEIR CLAIMS IN NEW FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS
AND 30% IN SERIES A NEW GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS.  AND THE 50-YEAR BONDS
ARE TO RECEIVE 15% OF THEIR CLAIMS IN SERIES B, NEW GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDS, 60% IN NEW PREFERRED STOCK, AND 25% IN COMMON STOCK.  IF THE
CRITERION OF EARNING POWER BE GIVEN THE WEIGHT WHICH WE THINK IS
NECESSARY UNDER THIS STATUTORY SYSTEM, THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS ARE ENTITLED TO PREFERRED TREATMENT OVER THE GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS AND THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN CONSOLIDATED BONDS.  ON THE
BASIS OF SYSTEM EARNINGS FOR 1936, THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT INCOME
AVAILABLE FOR THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS WAS ABOUT
THREE TIMES INTEREST CHARGES, AND FOR THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS ABOUT
1.16.  IN THE CASE OF THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE
BONDS, THE INTEREST FOR THE SAME PERIOD WAS EARNED ABOUT 1.2 TIMES. 
REGARD FOR THE EARNING POWER OF THOSE RESPECTIVE UNITS OF PROPERTY LED
TO THE PREFERRED TREATMENT OF THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN FIRST MORTGAGE
BONDS AND TO THE SAME OFFER BEING MADE TO THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS AS
WAS MADE TO THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE BONDS.  BUT
THE ATTACK OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS IS DIRECTED, IN THE MAIN, TO
THE PARTICIPATION ACCORDED THE 50-YEAR BONDS AND TO THE INADEQUACY AS
COMPARED WITH THEM OF THE TREATMENT GIVEN THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS. 

THEY POINT OUT THAT THE COMMISSION REFERRED TO THE GENERAL MORTGAGE
LINES AS "THE HEART OF THE SYSTEM"; THAT THE INTEREST ON THESE BONDS
HAS BEEN EARNED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW YEARS, SINCE 1889; THAT
THE WESTERN LINES SECURING THE 50-YEAR BONDS ARE DEFICIT LINES.  IN
THAT CONNECTION THEY REFER TO THE COMMISSION'S STATEMENT THAT THE
LOSSES BY THE WESTERN LINES WERE $142,591 IN 1930 AND $1,540,808 IN
1931, BEFORE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND THAT "ON ANY REASONABLE BASIS OF
ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE LINES WEST AND THE OTHER PARTS OF THE SYSTEM,
THE LINES WEST CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO EARN ANY SUM FOR THE PAYMENT OF
INTEREST.  IN YEARS WHEN THE SYSTEM EARNINGS APPROACH $10,000,000, SOME
INTEREST IS APPARENTLY EARNED FOR THE 50-YEAR MORTGAGE BONDS UNDER THE
PRESENT CAPITAL STRUCTURE, BUT THIS REFLECTS SYSTEM OPERATION AND DOES
NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY EARNING POWER FOR THE WESTERN LINES."  BUT THE
PROBLEM FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT AS SIMPLE AS
THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS MAKE IT APPEAR.  THE LIEN OF THE 50
YEAR BONDS EMBRACES NOT ONLY THE WESTERN LINES BUT ALSO, SUBJECT TO THE
FIRST AND REFUNDING MORTGAGE, THE LEASEHOLD INTEREST OF THE DEBTOR IN
THE TERRE HAUTE AND STOCKS AND BONDS OF OTHER COMPANIES, THE MOST
IMPORTANT OF WHICH ARE SHARES OF INDIANA HARBOR BELT R. CO. AND MOST OF
THE TERRE HAUTE STOCK.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT INCOME FROM CERTAIN
SECURITIES PLEDGED UNDER THE FIRST & REFUNDING MORTGAGE (LARGELY THE
INDIANA HARBOR BELT STOCK) WAS $402,031 IN 1936 AND NET INCOME FROM THE
TERRE HAUTE DURING THAT YEAR WAS $875,327, AFTER PAYMENT OF ALL
INTEREST CHARGES.  THOUGH THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THAT THE PROPRIETY
OF CREDITING THE 50-YEAR MORTGAGE WITH INCOME FROM THE TERRE HAUTE WAS
DOUBTFUL BECAUSE OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE FIRST & REFUNDING MORTGAGE
WOULD BE SATISFIED BY OTHER EARNINGS, IT GAVE SOME WEIGHT TO THOSE
EARNINGS IN DETERMINING THE PARTICIPATION TO BE ACCORDED THE 50-YEAR
BONDS.  THUS, IT NOTED THAT ONE ANALYSIS IN 1935 SHOWED ABOUT
$1,000,000 AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST ON THE 50-YEAR BONDS, "ON THE BASIS
OF $10,263,185 OF SYSTEM EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR FIXED CHARGES,
APPROXIMATELY $2,000,000 OF NET INCOME FROM THE TERRE HAUTE, AND A
DEFICIT OF $500,000 ON THE LINES WEST."  THE COMMISSION ALSO REVIEWED
ANOTHER ANALYSIS SHOWING THAT THE FIRST & REFUNDING MORTGAGE LINES
CONTRIBUTED $6,249,099 OF GROSS REVENUES AND $3,300,400 OF NET REVENUES
TO THE GENERAL MORTGAGE LINES IN 1936; AND THAT THE INCOME FOR THE 50
YEAR MORTGAGE LINES (AFTER PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE BONDS OF THE
TERRE HAUTE, THE NORTHERN, THE GARY, AND THE FIRST & REFUNDING) WAS
ABOUT $2,000,000, WHILE THE INCOME OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE LINES
AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST WAS APPROXIMATELY $6,400,000, AFTER INTEREST ON
EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES.  WHILE THE COMMISSION WAS CRITICAL OF THAT
ANALYSIS, IT FELT THAT THAT COMPUTATION DESERVED "CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION," AS THE ESTIMATE OF $2,000,000 WAS "ROUGHLY COMPARABLE"
TO THE "OTHER ESTIMATE OF $1,000,000 IN 1935, REPRESENTING THE EARNINGS
FOR THE 50-YEAR BONDS, AFTER PAYMENT OF ALL INTEREST ON THE GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS."  IT NOTED THAT THE ANALYSIS SHOWING $2,000,000
AVAILABLE FOR THE 50-YEAR BONDS ALSO INDICATED THAT, ON THE BASIS OF
SYSTEM EARNINGS OF ABOUT $12,300,000, ALL INTEREST CHARGES ON THE
GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, AND ONLY 38% OF THE INTEREST ON THE 50-YEAR
BONDS, WERE EARNED.  THE EXAMINER HAD RECOMMENDED THAT THE 50-YEAR
BONDS RECEIVE 10% OF THEIR CLAIMS IN SERIES A, NEW GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDS AND 10% IN SERIES B. THE COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER THAT
TREATMENT "TO BE JUSTIFIED ON ANY BASIS OF EARNINGS SHOWN."  IT
CONCLUDED THAT IF THE 50-YEAR BONDS WERE ASSIGNED A PART OF THE NEW
SERIES B BONDS ONLY, THEY WOULD BEGIN "TO SHARE EARNINGS WITH THE
GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS AND NORTHERN CONSOLIDATED BONDS AFTER $9,675,000
OF PRIOR CHARGES."  THAT TREATMENT, SAID THE COMMISSION, "GOES FAR
TOWARD RESOLVING THE DOUBTS AS TO THE ACCURACY OR FAIRNESS OF THE
ALLOCATION OF EARNINGS IN FAVOR OF THE 50-YEAR BONDS, WITHOUT INJUSTICE
TO THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS." 

THE PROBLEM IN SUCH A CASE IS NOT A SIMPLE ONE.  THE CONTRIBUTION
WHICH EACH DIVISION MAKES TO A SYSTEM IS NOT A MERE MATTER OF
ARITHMETICAL COMPUTATION.  IT INVOLVES AN APPRAISAL OF MANY FACTORS AND
THE EXERCISE OF AN INFORMED JUDGMENT.  FURTHERMORE, AN ATTEMPT TO PUT
PRECISE DOLLAR VALUES ON SEPARATE DIVISIONS OF ONE OPERATING UNIT WOULD
BE QUITE ILLUSORY.  AS THE COMMISSION RECENTLY STATED, "THE PROPERTIES
COMPRISE ONE OPERATING UNIT; A COMPLETE SEPARATION OF VALUES WOULD
NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE BASED ON EXTENSIVE ASSUMPTIONS OF UNPROVABLE
VALIDITY; AND ANY ATTEMPT AT SUCH A SEPARATION WOULD IN THE END SERVE
NO PURPOSE EXCEPT TO PRESENT AN APPARENT CERTAINTY IN THE FORMULATION
OF THE PLAN WHICH DOES NOT EXIST IN FACT."  ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY.
CO. REORGANIZATION, 252 I.C.C. 325, 361.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE
COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT WERE SATISFIED THAT THEY HAD ADEQUATE
DATA BASED ON EARNING POWER TO MAKE A FAIR ALLOCATION OF NEW SECURITIES
BETWEEN THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS AND THE 50-YEAR BONDS.  WE CANNOT
SAY THAT IT WAS INADEQUATE.  SEC. 77 CONTAINS NO FORMULA FOR THE MAKING
OF SUCH AN ALLOCATION NOR FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE EARNING POWER OF
THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OR PARTS THEREOF.  THE EARNINGS PERIODS TO BE CHOSEN,
THE METHODS TO BE EMPLOYED IN ALLOCATING SYSTEM EARNINGS TO THE VARIOUS
DIVISIONS, ARE MATTERS FOR THE INFORMED JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND
THE COURT.  NOR WAS THERE A FAILURE HERE, AS IN THE CONSOLIDATED ROCK
PRODUCTS CASE, TO ASCERTAIN WHAT PROPERTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE
RESPECTIVE DIVISIONAL MORTGAGES.  WITH ONE MINOR EXCEPTION, TO BE
DISCUSSED LATER, THAT WAS DONE.  SO THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT HAD
BEFORE THEM DATA WHICH WE CANNOT SAY WAS INADEQUATE TO DETERMINE THE
ALLOCATION OF NEW SECURITIES BETWEEN THESE TWO CLASSES OF BONDHOLDERS. 
NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT APPLIED AN INCORRECT
RULE OF LAW IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PLAN WAS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" AS
BETWEEN THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS AND THE 50-YEAR BONDS.  WE ARE NOT
DEALING HERE MERELY WITH A FIRST MORTGAGE AND A SECOND MORTGAGE ON A
SINGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.  FOR EACH OF THE TWO GROUPS OF BONDHOLDERS
HAS A FIRST LIEN ON A PART OF THE MILWAUKEE PROPERTIES N10.  IN CASE OF
FIRST AND SECOND LIENS ON THE SAME PROPERTY, SENIOR LIENORS, OF COURSE,
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE, IN CASE THE JUNIOR LIENORS PARTICIPATED
IN THE PLAN, NOT ONLY "A FACE AMOUNT OF INFERIOR SECURITIES EQUAL TO
THE FACE AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIMS" BUT, IN ADDITION, "COMPENSATION FOR
THE SENIOR RIGHTS" WHICH THEY SURRENDERED.  CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS
CO. V. DU BOIS, SUPRA, P. 529.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, EACH GROUP OF
BONDHOLDERS IS CONTRIBUTING TO A NEW SYSTEM MORTGAGE SEPARATE
PROPERTIES FROM OLD DIVISIONAL MORTGAGES, IT IS NECESSARY TO FIT EACH
INTO THE HIERARCHY OF THE NEW CAPITAL STRUCTURE IN SUCH A WAY THAT EACH
WILL RETAIN IN RELATION TO THE OTHER THE SAME POSITION IT FORMERLY HAD
IN RESPECT OF ASSETS AND OF EARNINGS AT VARIOUS LEVELS.  IF THAT IS
DONE, EACH HAS OBTAINED NEW SECURITIES WHICH ARE THE EQUITABLE
EQUIVALENT OF ITS PREVIOUS RIGHTS, AND THE FULL PRIORITY RULE OF THE
BOYD CASE, AS APPLIED TO THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS INTER SE, IS
SATISFIED.  THAT RULE WAS APPLIED HERE.  AND THE DETERMINATION BY THE
COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT THAT ITS REQUIREMENTS WERE SATISFIED
IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  SIXTY PER CENT OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS
RECEIVES PRIORITY, AS RESPECTS ASSETS AND EARNINGS, OVER THE 50-YEAR
BONDS, SINCE THE FORMER RECEIVE 25% IN NEW FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS AND 35%
IN SERIES A, NEW GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, WHILE THE 50-YEAR BONDS WERE
ALLOTTED NONE OF THOSE NEW SECURITIES.  FURTHERMORE, THE GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS RECEIVED A LARGER SHARE OF SERIES B BONDS (20% AS
AGAINST 15%), A SMALLER SHARE OF NEW PREFERRED STOCK (20% AS AGAINST
60%) AND NO COMMON STOCK AS COMPARED WITH 25% BY THE 50-YEAR BONDS. 
FOR SIMILAR REASONS, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE TREATMENT OF THE GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS AS AGAINST THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS
AND CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE BONDS WAS NOT FAIR AND EQUITABLE.  NO FIXED
RULE SUPPLIES THE METHOD FOR BRINGING TWO DIVISIONAL MORTGAGES INTO A
NEW CAPITAL STRUCTURE SO THAT EACH WILL RETAIN IN RELATION TO THE OTHER
THE SAME POSITION IT FORMERLY HAD IN RESPECT OF ASSETS AND OF EARNINGS
AT VARIOUS LEVELS.  THE QUESTION IN EACH CASE IS ONE FOR THE INFORMED
DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THAT DISCRETION HAS BEEN ABUSED HERE. 

WE WOULD HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM IF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
FAILED TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS WHICH SEC. 77(E) PLACES UPON IT.  BUT
IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY SUCH FAILURE HERE.  THE DISTRICT
COURT SATISFIED ITSELF THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF PRIORITY AS APPLIED TO
THESE FACTS WERE RESPECTED.  SEE 36 F.SUPP.  PP. 202-203, 211-212. 
SINCE SUCH A DETERMINATION RESTS IN THE REALM OF JUDGMENT RATHER THAN
MATHEMATICS, THERE IS AN AREA FOR DISAGREEMENT.  BUT WE ARE NOT
PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER SEC. 77(E).  OUR
ROLE ON REVIEW IS A LIMITED ONE.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO REVERSE THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT WE MIGHT HAVE APPRAISED THE FACTS SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENTLY.  IF THERE IS WARRANT FOR THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
OUR TASK ON REVIEW IS AT AN END. 

THAT LEADS TO A QUESTION MUCH DISCUSSED IN THIS CASE, AS IN THE
WESTERN PACIFIC CASE, AS TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE FINDINGS
NECESSARY UNDER SEC. 77 IN ORDER TO APPROVE A PLAN AS "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE."  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION, AFFIRMED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT THE STOCK HAD "NO VALUE" WAS WARRANTED. 
FURTHERMORE, THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF THE PERMISSIBLE
CAPITALIZATION OF THE NEW COMPANY WAS SUFFICIENT AS A FINDING OF THE
MAXIMUM REORGANIZATION VALUES WHICH MIGHT BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE
VARIOUS CLASSES OF SECURITY HOLDERS.  BUT IT HAS BEEN ARGUED HERE, AS
IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC CASE, THAT A DOLLAR VALUATION MUST BE MADE OF
EACH OLD SECURITY AND OF EACH NEW SECURITY IN ORDER TO GIVE "FULL
COMPENSATORY TREATMENT" TO SENIOR CLAIMANTS AND TO APPROPRIATE TO THE
PAYMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS THE "FULL VALUE" OF THE PROPERTY, IN ACCORD
WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS,
SUPRA, P. 529.  THE RULE IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP CASES THAT THE
CREDITORS WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE "VALUE" (NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO.
V. BOYD, SUPRA, P. 508) OR THE "FULL VALUE" (KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY.
CO. V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., 271 U.S. 445, 454) OF THE PROPERTY
FIRST APPROPRIATED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THEIR CLAIMS NEVER WAS
THOUGHT TO REQUIRE SUCH VALUATIONS.  NOR DOES THE CONSOLIDATED ROCK
PRODUCTS CASE OR SEC. 77 REQUIRE THEM.  WE INDICATED IN THE LOS ANGELES
LUMBER PRODUCTS CASE (308 U.S. P. 130) THAT COMPROMISES, SETTLEMENTS,
AND CONCESSIONS ARE A NORMAL PART OF THE REORGANIZATION PROCESS.  AND
SEE MARINE HARBOR PROPERTIES V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO., SUPRA.  WE
STATED IN THE CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CASE (312 U.S. P. 526) THAT A
DETERMINATION OF EARNING POWER OF AN ENTERPRISE "REQUIRES A PREDICTION
AS TO WHAT WILL OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, AN ESTIMATE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
MATHEMATICAL CERTITUDE."  AND IN DISCUSSING THE METHOD BY WHICH
CREDITORS SHOULD RECEIVE "FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT" FOR THEIR
RIGHTS, WE EMPHASIZED, AS ALREADY NOTED, THAT "PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENTS,
RATHER THAN A RIGID FORMULA, ARE NECESSARY."  ID. P. 529.  CERTAINLY
THOSE STANDARDS DO NOT SUGGEST ANY MATHEMATICAL FORMULA.  WE RECENTLY
STATED IN ANOTHER CONNECTION THAT, WHATEVER MAY BE "THE PRETENSES OF
EXACTITUDE" IN DETERMINING A DOLLAR VALUATION FOR A RAILROAD PROPERTY,
"TO CLAIM FOR IT 'SCIENTIFIC' VALIDITY, IS TO EMPLOY THE TERM IN ITS
LOOSEST SENSE."  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362,
370.  THAT IS EQUALLY TRUE HERE.  A REQUIREMENT THAT DOLLAR VALUES BE
PLACED ON WHAT EACH SECURITY HOLDER SURRENDERS AND ON WHAT HE RECEIVES
WOULD CREATE AN ILLUSION OF CERTAINTY WHERE NONE EXISTS AND WOULD PLACE
AN IMPRACTICABLE BURDEN ON THE WHOLE REORGANIZATION PROCESS.  SEE
BOURNE, FINDINGS OF "VALUE" IN RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS, 51 YALE L.
JOURN.  1057.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT EACH SECURITY HOLDER IN THE ORDER
OF HIS PRIORITY RECEIVES FROM THAT WHICH IS AVAILABLE FOR THE
SATISFACTION OF HIS CLAIM THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE RIGHTS
SURRENDERED.  THAT REQUIRES A COMPARISON OF THE NEW SECURITIES ALLOTTED
TO HIM WITH THE OLD SECURITIES WHICH HE EXCHANGES TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE NEW ARE THE EQUITABLE EQUIVALENT OF THE OLD.  BUT THAT
DETERMINATION CANNOT BE MADE BY THE USE OF ANY MATHEMATICAL FORMULA. 
WHETHER IN A GIVEN CASE SENIOR CREDITORS HAVE BEEN MADE WHOLE OR
RECEIVED "FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT" RESTS IN THE INFORMED JUDGMENT
OF THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT ON CONSIDERATION OF ALL
RELEVANT FACTS. 

THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS ATTACK THE ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS
FUND ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL AND RESULTS IN A DILUTION OF
THEIR PRIORITY RIGHTS.  THEY CONTEND THAT SEC. 77(B)(4) FN11
CONTEMPLATES THAT THE PROBABLE FUTURE EARNINGS FOUND TO BE AVAILABLE
FOR FIXED CHARGES SHALL BE USED TO PAY THOSE CHARGES; THAT THIS
PROVISION OF THE PLAN REDUCES BY $62,500,000(THE CAPITALIZED VALUE OF
$2,500,000) THE AMOUNT OF NEW BONDS AVAILABLE FOR THE PRESENT
UNDERLYING BONDS; THAT ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS ARE A CAPITAL CHARGE
AND THAT THE INCOME OF THE ROAD PLEDGED TO THE UNDERLYING BONDS CANNOT
BE DIVERTED FOR THAT PURPOSE AT LEAST WITHOUT SOME COMPENSATING
ADVANTAGE GIVEN THE UNDERLYING BONDS; THAT THE FUND WILL ENRICH THE
JUNIOR INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE BONDHOLDERS; THAT THE
EXPENDITURES CONTEMPLATED SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM SURPLUS EARNINGS OR
FROM NEW CAPITAL RAISED UNDER THE OPEN END FIRST MORTGAGE. 

THE COMMISSION, IN DETERMINING THAT AN ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS FUND
SHOULD BE SET UP, REVIEWED AT SOME LENGTH THE CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SYSTEM.  IT OBSERVED THAT, GENERALLY, "THE EXPENDITURES FOR
ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS HAVE VARIED IN PROPORTION TO EARNINGS
AVAILABLE FOR INTEREST.  ORDINARILY WITH A RISING TREND IN TRAFFIC AND
REVENUES THE CARRIER WOULD NEED MORE OR BETTER FACILITIES."  ITS
CONCLUSION WAS THAT "THE INCREASED INCOME SHOULD PROPERLY PROVIDE, IN
PART, FOR THEIR COST."  THESE AMOUNTS WOULD SUPPLEMENT THE "CASH
REPRESENTED BY CHARGES TO DEPRECIATION, RETIREMENTS, AND SALVAGE."  AND
THE PLAN PROVIDES THAT IF THE NEW COMPANY ESTABLISHES AN "OPERATING
EXPENSE ACCOUNT FOR ITS ROADWAY AND STRUCTURES," THE ADDITIONS AND
BETTERMENTS FUND SHALL BE PAID FROM THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO SUCH FUND
FOR THE APPLICABLE INCOME PERIOD TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH AMOUNT IS
ADEQUATE THEREFOR.  LIKEWISE, THE ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS FUND IS TO
BE CREDITED WITH THE AMOUNT WHICH THE NEW COMPANY "SHALL CHARGE TO
OPERATING EXPENSES IN ANY YEAR" FOR THE "COST OF ANY ADDITIONS AND
BETTERMENTS, PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT UNDER THE RULES NOW
IN EFFECT."  SINCE THE COMMISSION RECENTLY HAS REQUIRED RAILROAD
COMPANIES GENERALLY TO ESTABLISH A DEPRECIATION RESERVE WITH RESPECT TO
THEIR ROADWAY AND STRUCTURES,  FN12  THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS CONCEDE
THAT THE ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF SUCH A FUND WILL BE RENDERED LARGELY
ACADEMIC.  BUT IN ANY EVENT, WE SEE NO BARRIER TO A DETERMINATION BY
THE COMMISSION THAT EXPENDITURES WHICH ARE INCIDENT TO A NORMAL AND
PROPER OPERATION OF THE ROAD ARE COSTS OR CHARGES WHICH SHOULD BE PAID
BEFORE NET INCOME IS COMPUTED.  NOR CAN WE SEE ANY LEGAL REASON WHY, AS
THE COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED HERE, THOSE CHARGES SHOULD NOT BE IN PART
DEPENDENT ON THE LEVEL OF EARNINGS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
THOUGHT THAT THERE MUST BE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD SUPPORT BOTH THE
ALLOWANCE AND ITS AMOUNT.  BUT AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT EARLIER, CONGRESS
HAS MERELY PROVIDED IN SEC. 77(D) THAT THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION MUST BE ONE WHICH "WILL IN ITS OPINION MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
OF SUBSECTIONS (B) AND (E) OF THIS SECTION, AND WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH
THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  AND IN ITS REPORT THE COMMISSION IS DIRECTED TO
"STATE FULLY THE REASONS FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS."  WE DO NOT SEE WHERE THE
COMMISSION FAILED TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS.  THE NEED FOR SUCH A FUND
AND ITS AMOUNT INVOLVE MATTERS OF POLICY.  THE DETERMINATION THAT A
PARTICULAR FUND SHOULD BE CONSTITUTED CALLS FOR THE EXERCISE OF AN
EXPERT, INFORMED JUDGMENT.  THE COMMISSION CLEARLY HAS POWER TO REQUIRE
THAT SUCH A FUND BE PROVIDED FOR IN A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
77, WHETHER OR NOT THE PAYMENTS TO IT ARE PROPERLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE
TERM "FIXED CHARGES" AS USED IN SEC. 77(B)(4).  FOR SUCH A FUND, LIKE
THE AMOUNT OF CAPITALIZATION AND THE NATURE OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE,
MAY BE HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY OF THE COMPANY WHICH
EMERGES FROM REORGANIZATION AND TO STABILITY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 

THERE ARE, HOWEVER, TWO OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS
WHICH WE THINK HAVE MERIT.  THE FIRST OF THESE RELATES TO THE DISPUTE
AS TO THE SO-CALLED "PIECES OF LINES EAST."  THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS
CONTEND HERE, AS THEY DID BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THAT THEY HAVE A FIRST
LIEN ON THOSE PROPERTIES BY REASON OF THE AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY
CLAUSE IN THEIR MORTGAGE.  THE COMMISSION CREDITED THE 50-YEAR BONDS
WITH THE EARNINGS FROM THOSE PROPERTIES, INDICATING, HOWEVER, THAT THE
PROPRIETY OF DOING SO WAS DOUBTFUL IN ABSENCE OF A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION.  SOME OF THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS
OBJECTED TO THAT ALLOCATION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT, HOWEVER, DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE.  THESE
GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS LIKEWISE RAISED THE POINT BEFORE THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  BUT IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED THERE.  THE
OBJECTION HAS BEEN RENEWED HERE BUT HAS NOT BEEN ARGUED ON THE MERITS. 
WE CAN HARDLY TREAT THE MATTER AS DE MINIMIS, AS THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT
THESE PROPERTIES HAD A NET INCOME OF $170,100 IN 1936.  NOR CAN WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE OBJECTION HAS BEEN WAIVED OR THAT THE CLAIM IS
FRIVOLOUS.  HERE, AS IN THE CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CASE, THE
"DETERMINATION OF WHAT ASSETS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF THE
RESPECTIVE CLAIMS" (312 U.S. P. 520) HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE
FAIRNESS OF THE PLAN AS BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF BONDHOLDERS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. 

THE SECOND OF THESE OBJECTIONS IS THAT THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS ARE
TO RECEIVE UNDER THE PLAN ONLY A FACE AMOUNT OF INFERIOR SECURITIES
EQUAL TO THE FACE AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIMS.  THE OBJECTION WOULD, OF
COURSE, NOT BE VALID IF CLAIMANTS WHOLLY JUNIOR TO THE GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDS WERE NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE PLAN.  BUT HERE THE ADJUSTMENT
BONDS, JUNIOR TO THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, RECEIVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF
COMMON STOCK UNDER THE PLAN FOR THEIR CLAIM UPON THE MORTGAGED ASSETS. 
FN13  THE RULE OF THE BOYD CASE "PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF SENIOR
CREDITORS AGAINST DILUTION EITHER BY JUNIOR CREDITORS OR BY EQUITY
INTERESTS."  MARINE HARBOR PROPERTIES V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO.,
SUPRA.  THAT VIEW HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED HERE.  HENCE, AS WE INDICATED
IN THE CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CASE, WHERE JUNIOR INTERESTS
PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN AND WHERE THE SENIOR CREDITORS ARE ALLOTTED ONLY
A FACE AMOUNT OF INFERIOR SECURITIES EQUAL TO THE FACE AMOUNT OF THEIR
CLAIMS, THEY "MUST RECEIVE, IN ADDITION, COMPENSATION FOR THE SENIOR
RIGHTS WHICH THEY ARE TO SURRENDER."  312 U.S. 529.  AND WE STATED THAT
WHETHER THEY SHOULD "BE MADE WHOLE FOR THE CHANGE IN OR LOSS OF THEIR
SENIORITY BY AN INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN ASSETS, IN EARNING OR IN
CONTROL, OR IN ANY COMBINATION THEREOF, WILL BE DEPENDENT ON THE FACTS
AND REQUIREMENTS OF EACH CASE."  ID. P. 529.  WE FELT THAT THAT RESULT
WAS MADE NECESSARY BY THE RULING IN THE BOYD CASE THAT, "IF THE VALUE
OF THE ROAD JUSTIFIED THE ISSUANCE OF STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR OLD SHARES,
THE CREDITORS WERE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THAT VALUE, WHETHER IT
WAS PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE, FOR DIVIDENDS OR ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF
CONTROL."  228 U.S. P. 508.  WE ADHERE TO THAT VIEW.  UNLESS THAT
PRINCIPLE IS RESPECTED, THERE WILL BE SERIOUS INVASIONS OF THE RIGHTS
OF SENIOR CLAIMANTS TO THE BENEFIT OF JUNIOR INTERESTS.  THE PROPERTY
OF ONE GROUP WILL BE SUBTLY APPROPRIATED TO PAY THE CLAIMS OF ANOTHER
WHILE LIP SERVICE IS RENDERED THE PRINCIPLES OF PRIORITY. 

SOME ARGUMENT IS ADVANCED THAT UNDER THIS PLAN THE GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDHOLDERS DO RECEIVE AS AGAINST THE JUNIOR INTERESTS COMPENSATORY
TREATMENT WHICH IS ADEQUATE TO MAKE UP FOR THE SENIORITY RIGHTS WHICH
THEY ARE TO SURRENDER.  PART OF THAT IS SAID TO BE IN THE CONTROL WHICH
THEY OBTAIN.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR A FIVE YEAR
VOTING TRUST IN WHICH THE SEVERAL GROUPS OF BONDHOLDERS WILL BE
REPRESENTED; THAT THEREAFTER THE PLAN PROTECTS THEIR CONTROL BY
PROVIDING THAT THE NEW PREFERRED STOCK (ALL OF WHICH IS TO BE ISSUED TO
THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN CONSOLIDATED BONDS, THE GARY BONDS, THE
GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, AND THE 50-YEAR BONDS) WILL BE ENTITLED TO
CUMULATIVE VOTING TO ELECT A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DURING
CERTAIN PERIODS WHEN FULL DIVIDENDS ON THE PREFERRED HAVE NOT BEEN
PAID; AND THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE CONVERSION RIGHTS OF THE SERIES B
NEW GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, ALLOTTED TO THESE SENIOR BONDHOLDERS, WOULD
RESULT IN THEIR ACQUISITION OF OVER 50% OF BOTH THE PREFERRED AND
COMMON.  IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT COMPENSATORY TREATMENT IS TO BE FOUND
IN THE FACT THAT THE NEW GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS HAVE SINKING FUNDS AND
ARE CUMULATIVE UP TO THREE YEARS OF INTEREST, AND THAT THE NEW
PREFERRED STOCK IS PARTICIPATING. 

BUT NEITHER THE COMMISSION NOR THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THE
PROBLEM.  AS WE HAVE INDICATED, THE QUESTION WHETHER SENIOR CREDITORS
HAVE RECEIVED "FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT" RESTS IN THE INFORMED
JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT.  A DECISION ON THAT ISSUE
INVOLVES A CONSIDERATION OF THE NUMEROUS INVESTMENT FEATURES OF THE OLD
AND NEW SECURITIES AND A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF MANY FACTORS.  OUR TASK
IS ENDED IF THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT INFORMED JUDGMENT.  WE
ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO EXERCISE IT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  NOR IS IT OUR
FUNCTION.  NOR CAN WE CONCLUDE THAT ITS OMISSION IN THIS INSTANCE WAS
HARMLESS.  AND MINORITIES UNDER SEC. 77, LIKE MINORITIES UNDER OTHER
REORGANIZATION SECTIONS OF THE ACT (CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS
CO., SUPRA, PP. 114-115, 128-129), CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFITS
OF THE STATUTE BY REASON OF A WAIVER, ACQUIESCENCE OR APPROVAL BY THE
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CLASS.  CERTAINLY WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE INCLUSION
IN THE NEW SECURITIES TO BE RECEIVED BY THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS OF
FEATURES NORMALLY COMMON TO THEM ARE ADEQUATE COMPENSATION FOR THE LOST
SENIORITY.  OUR CONCLUSION ON THE POINT IS THAT, SINCE JUNIOR INTERESTS
ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE PLAN, THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT
SHOULD DETERMINE WHAT THE GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS SHOULD RECEIVE IN
ADDITION TO A FACE AMOUNT OF INFERIOR SECURITIES EQUAL TO THE FACE
AMOUNT OF THEIR OLD ONES, AS EQUITABLE COMPENSATION, QUALITATIVE OR
QUANTITATIVE, FOR THE LOSS OF THEIR SENIOR RIGHTS. 

50-YEAR BONDS.  THE TWO POINTS JUST DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO THE
GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE 50-YEAR BONDS. 
FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAN AS IT AFFECTS THOSE TWO ISSUES CANNOT BE
MADE UNTIL FINDINGS ARE MADE ON THOSE TWO MATTERS. 

THE 50-YEAR BONDS RAISE OTHER OBJECTIONS.  WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED
THEIR MAJOR OBJECTIONS IN OTHER CONNECTIONS, AND THEY NEED NOT BE
REPEATED.  BUT A WORD SHOULD BE ADDED IN ANSWER TO THEIR ARGUMENT THAT
THE DATA BEFORE THE COMMISSION AS TO SEGREGATED EARNINGS WAS TOO MEAGER
TO WARRANT A PERMANENT DISRUPTION OF LIENS.  THEY URGE THAT THE PLAN BE
REMITTED TO THE COMMISSION SO THAT THE EARNING POWER OF THE VARIOUS
COMPONENT PARTS OR MORTGAGE DIVISIONS OF THE ROAD MAY BE DETERMINED IN
LIGHT OF EARNINGS SEGREGATION STUDIES, SEVERANCE STUDIES, AND
CONTRIBUTED TRAFFIC STUDIES.  FN14  THESE ARE HIGHLY TECHNICAL
MATTERS.  SEE MECK & MASTEN, RAILROAD LEASES AND REORGANIZATION, 49
YALE L. JOURN.  PP. 640-647.  AS STATED ABOVE, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
DATA AS TO EARNING POWER OF THE VARIOUS DIVISIONS WHICH WAS UTILIZED BY
THE COMMISSION WAS INADEQUATE.  THE EARNINGS PERIODS TO BE SELECTED AND
THE METHODS TO BE EMPLOYED IN ALLOCATING EARNINGS AMONG THE VARIOUS
DIVISIONS ARE MATTERS FOR THE INFORMED JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND
THE DISTRICT COURT.  WHETHER EARNINGS SEGREGATION, SEVERANCE, OR
CONTRIBUTED TRAFFIC STUDIES SHOULD BE MADE IS FOR THE COMMISSION
INITIALLY TO DECIDE IN LIGHT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE. 
WE CANNOT SAY THAT THOSE STUDIES ARE SO INDISPENSABLE THAT THEY SHOULD
BE REQUIRED HERE.  SEC. 77(C)(10) PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGE "MAY DIRECT"
THE DEBTOR OR TRUSTEES "TO KEEP SUCH RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS, IN ADDITION
TO THE ACCOUNTS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION," AS WILL PERMIT SUCH A
SEGREGATION AND ALLOCATION OF EARNINGS AND EXPENSES.  THAT DOES NOT
INDICATE THAT CONGRESS FELT THAT THE SUGGESTED STUDIES WERE ALWAYS
NECESSARY. 

GARY FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS; ADJUSTMENT BONDS.  WE HAVE CAREFULLY
CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THESE TWO GROUPS.  THEIR
OBJECTIONS, FOR THE MOST PART, ARE OF A KIND WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY
TREATED IN OTHER PARTS OF THIS OPINION AND NEED NOT BE ELABORATED.  BUT
ONE POINT RAISED BY THE ADJUSTMENT BONDS NEED BE MENTIONED.  AS WE HAVE
NOTED, THE INTEREST ON THESE BONDS ACCRUED TO DECEMBER 31, 1938 IS OVER
$79,000,000.  THE COMMISSION RULED THAT, IN VIEW OF THE INSUFFICIENCY
OF THE MORTGAGED ASSETS TO MEET THE CLAIMS OF THE ADJUSTMENT BONDS AND
THE INADEQUACY OF THE FREE ASSETS TO SATISFY THE DEFICIENCY, WITH
INTEREST, AND THE UNSECURED CLAIMS, WITH INTEREST, NO ALLOWANCE SHOULD
BE MADE IN THE PLAN FOR INTEREST ON THESE BONDS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE
OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION.  FOR REASONS WE HAVE ALREADY STATED, THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE MORTGAGED ASSETS WERE
INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS WAS SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE.  SINCE THE DISTRIBUTION PROVIDED FOR THESE BONDS ON THE BASIS
OF THEIR MORTGAGE SECURITIES IS LESS THAN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THEIR
CLAIM, THE LIMITATION OF THEIR RIGHT TO SHARE THE UNMORTGAGED ASSETS
RATABLY WITH THE UNSECURED CREDITORS ON THE BASIS OF PRINCIPAL AND
INTEREST PRIOR TO BANKRUPTCY ONLY IS JUSTIFIED UNDER THE RULE OF
TICONIC NATIONAL BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S. 406. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN AND FIND THEM
WITHOUT MERIT.  BUT FOR THE EXCEPTIONS WE HAVE NOTED, WE CONCLUDE THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN APPROVING THE PLAN AND THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR IN REVERSING THAT JUDGMENT. 
ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE IN PART AND AFFIRM IN PART THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND DIRECT THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS
SO ORDERED. 

FN1  EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS TOTALLING $33,322,999 AND A NOTE OF THE
TRUSTEES FOR $1,184,000 WERE UNDISTURBED OR EXTENDED. 

FN2  THE DEBTOR ALSO OWNS 97% OF THE STOCK OF THE TERRE HAUTE WHICH
IT ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE.  THE STOCK IS ENTITLED TO 41,730 VOTES AND THE
HOLDERS OF CERTAIN TERRE HAUTE BONDS ARE ENTITLED UNDER THE TERMS OF
THE MORTGAGE TO 63,360 VOTES. 

FN3  THE BONDS SECURED BY THIS MORTGAGE ARE UNLIMITED IN AUTHORIZED
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, AND, SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
SPECIFIED IN THE MORTGAGE, MAY BE ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME IN DIFFERENT
SERIES AT VARIOUS INTEREST RATES, ETC. AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND
THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE.  IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT OF THESE BONDS
ISSUED IN THE REORGANIZATION TO SECURITY HOLDERS, IT IS CONTEMPLATED
THAT NOT EXCEEDING $10,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THEM WILL BE ISSUED
IN THE REORGANIZATION TO PROVIDE FOR REORGANIZATION EXPENSES, WORKING
CAPITAL, AND ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS. 

FN4  THE BONDS SECURED BY THIS MORTGAGE ARE UNLIMITED IN AUTHORIZED
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, AND, SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
CONTAINED IN THE MORTGAGE, MAY BE ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME IN DIFFERENT
SERIES AT VARIOUS INTEREST RATES, ETC., AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND
THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE.  INTEREST ON ANY NEW SERIES DOES NOT HAVE
PRIORITY OVER SERIES A OR SERIES B. BONDS OF SERIES B ARE CONVERTIBLE
INTO COMMON STOCK AT THE OPTION OF THE HOLDER AT ANY TIME AT THE RATE
FOR EACH $1000 BOND, OF 10 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK.  BOTH SERIES A AND B
ARE ENTITLED TO A SINKING FUND CREATED BY AN ANNUAL PAYMENT OUT OF
AVAILABLE NET INCOME OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 1/2 OF 1% OF THE AGGREGATE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF SERIES A AND SERIES B BONDS AUTHENTICATED AND
DELIVERED. 

FN5  THE NEW PREFERRED AND NEW COMMON STOCK ARE AUTHORIZED IN AN
UNLIMITED AMOUNT.  ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS ARE ISSUABLE WITH APPROVAL OF THE
COMMISSION.  THE SHARES OF PREFERRED ISSUABLE IN THE REORGANIZATION ARE
SERIES A. SO LONG AS ANY SHARES OF SERIES A ARE OUTSTANDING, THE
CONSENT OF AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS IN NUMBER OF THOSE SHARES IS NECESSARY
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ADDITIONAL SHARES OF PREFERRED RANKING EITHER
AS TO DIVIDENDS OR AS TO LIQUIDATION, IN PRIORITY TO OR ON A PARITY
WITH THE SHARES OF SERIES A. THE DIVIDENDS ON SERIES A OF THE PREFERRED
ARE NON-CUMULATIVE.  BUT NO DIVIDENDS ARE PAYABLE ON THE COMMON UNLESS
THERE SHALL HAVE BEEN PAID OR SET APART FOR PAYMENT ON THE SERIES A
PREFERRED DIVIDENDS AT THE RATE OF 5% PER ANNUM FOR THE THREE
CONSECUTIVE INCOME PERIODS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING.  SERIES A OF THE
PREFERRED PARTICIPATES WITH THE COMMON TO THE EXTENT OF $1 A SHARE
AFTER DIVIDENDS SHALL HAVE BEEN PAID OR SET APART FOR THE COMMON AT THE
RATE OF $3.50 A SHARE.  SERIES A PREFERRED HAS VOTING RIGHTS AND,
VOTING CUMULATIVELY AS A CLASS, IS ENTITLED TO ELECT A MAJORITY OF THE
BOARD UNTIL FULL 5% DIVIDENDS SHALL HAVE BEEN PAID ON THE SERIES A FOR
THREE CONSECUTIVE, CALENDAR YEARS.  THEREAFTER, EACH SHARE OF SERIES A
VOTES EQUALLY WITH EACH SHARE OF COMMON, UNTIL FULL DIVIDENDS HAVE NOT
BEEN PAID DURING THREE CONSECUTIVE CALENDAR YEARS IN WHICH EVENT THE
SERIES A AGAIN BECOMES ENTITLED TO ELECT A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD. 

EACH SHARE OF COMMON STOCK CARRIES ONE VOTE.  APPROXIMATELY 514,221
SHARES ARE RESERVED FOR THE CONVERSION OF SERIES B, GENERAL MORTGAGE
BONDS. 

FN6  THIS TOTAL INCLUDES THE MODIFIED BONDS OF THE TERRE HAUTE, WHICH
THOUGH STRICTLY NOT A PART OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF THE NEW COMPANY
WILL BE ASSUMED BY IT, IF THE TERMS OF MODIFICATION ARE ACCEPTED.  THE
TOTAL CAPITALIZATION IS MADE UP OF THE FOLLOWING: 

DEBT - FIXED INTEREST....................  $108,780,470 

DEBT - CONTINGENT INTEREST...............   115,257,480 

PREFERRED STOCK..........................   111,347,846 

NO-PAR COMMON STOCK ($100 PER SHARE).....   213,147,525 

FN7  THE COMMISSION COMPUTED THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM BY TAKING THE
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST TO JUNE 29, 1935, THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE
PETITION.  THAT AMOUNT WAS $230,420,853.  AS WE DISCUSS HEREAFTER, IT
CONCLUDED THAT NO ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE IN THE PLAN FOR INTEREST ON
THESE BONDS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN
VIEW OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE MORTGAGED ASSETS TO MEET THE CLAIMS
AND THE APPARENT INADEQUACY OF THE FREE ASSETS TO SATISFY THE
DEFICIENCY WITH INTEREST. 

FN8  SEC. 77(E) PROVIDES THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SUBMIT THE PLAN
TO "ANY CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS" IF THE COMMISSION "SHALL HAVE FOUND, AND
THE JUDGE SHALL HAVE AFFIRMED THE FINDING, ...  THAT AT THE TIME OF THE
FINDING THE EQUITY OF SUCH CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS HAS NO VALUE." 

FN9  RESPECTING THE NEW CH. XV OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, C. 610, 56
STAT. 787, WHICH PROVIDES FOR CERTAIN VOLUNTARY ADJUSTMENTS OF
OBLIGATIONS OF RAILROADS. 

FN10 THE LIEN OF THE 50-YEAR BONDS IS OF COURSE SUBJECT TO THE FIRST
& REFUNDING MORTGAGE BONDS, ALL HELD BY THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION AS SECURITY FOR ITS LOAN.  BUT IN VIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF
THAT SECURITY, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RECOGNIZED THAT, AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, THE 50-YEAR BONDS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING A
FIRST LIEN ON THE WESTERN LINES. 

FN11  WHICH PROVIDES THAT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION "SHALL PROVIDE FOR
FIXED CHARGES (INCLUDING FIXED INTEREST ON FUNDED DEBT, INTEREST ON
UNFUNDED DEBT, AMORTIZATION OF DISCOUNT ON FUNDED DEBT, AND RENT FOR
LEASED RAILROADS) IN SUCH AN AMOUNT THAT  ...  THERE SHALL BE ADEQUATE
COVERAGE OF SUCH FIXED CHARGES BY THE PROBABLE EARNINGS AVAILABLE FOR
THE PAYMENT THEREOF." 

FN12  ORDER OF JUNE 8, 1942, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1943. 

FN13  THIS OBJECTION OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT RUN TO A PARTICIPATION BY
JUNIOR CREDITORS IN UNMORTGAGED ASSETS - AGAINST WHICH IN THIS CASE
55,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK WERE RESERVED.  OF THOSE THE ADJUSTMENT
BONDS WERE ALLOTTED 39,163 SHARES.  BUT AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE
ADJUSTMENT BONDS WERE ALSO ALLOTTED 1,749,492 SHARES OF NEW COMMON FOR
THEIR CLAIM UPON THE MORTGAGED ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR. 

FN14  ALTHOUGH THE 50-YEAR BONDS AND THE DEBTOR RAISED THIS POINT
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AS EARLY AS FEBRUARY, 1938, AND THE 50-YEAR BONDS
RAISED IT AGAIN WHEN THEY FILED THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, NEITHER OF THEM ATTEMPTED TO SUBMIT ANY SUCH STUDIES
EITHER IN THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR IN THE HEARINGS BEFORE
THE DISTRICT COURT MORE THAN TWO YEARS LATER. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN
THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

THIS CASE PRESENTS TWO QUESTIONS ON WHICH I FEEL COMPELLED TO EXPRESS
MY VIEWS.  I HAVE SET FORTH IN ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CORP., ANTE,
P. 448, WHAT I CONSIDER THE RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN RESPECT OF A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION FORMULATED UNDER SEC. 77.  IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT I THERE
SAID THAT I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT EXCEPT AS HEREIN
NOTED. 

THE TWO MATTERS AS TO WHICH I DISAGREE ARE THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN
RESPECTING THE LEASE OF CHICAGO, TERRE HAUTE & SOUTHEASTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY AND THE ALLOCATION OF SECURITIES TO THE HOLDERS OF GENERAL
MORTGAGE BONDS. 

1. THE STATUTE DEALS WITH UNEXPIRED LEASES UNDER WHICH THE DEBTOR IS
LESSEE.  IT DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE LESSOR MAY BE BROUGHT INTO A
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING WITH THE DEBTOR SO THAT THE PROPERTIES OF
BOTH DEBTOR AND LESSOR MAY BE REORGANIZED AS A UNIT.  ON THE CONTRARY,
ALL THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS CONTEMPLATE THE RECOGNITION OF THE LESSOR
LESSEE RELATION, AND THE DEALING WITH THE LEASED PROPERTY IN THAT
LIGHT, AND NOT AS IF IT WERE PART OF THE PROPERTY OF THE LESSEE.  THE
PRACTICE IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 77
PERMITTED THE AFFIRMANCE OR DISAFFIRMANCE OF UNEXPIRED LEASES.  THAT
PRACTICE IS PERPETUATED IN THE REORGANIZATION STATUTE.  PRIOR TO THE
FORMULATION OF A PLAN, THE TRUSTEE APPOINTED BY THE COURT MAY DISAFFIRM
THE LEASE.  FN1  HE MAY, ON THE OTHER HAND, ADOPT THE LEASE.  FN2  BUT
IF HE DOES SO HIS ADOPTION IS SUBJECT TO REVERSAL BY A PROVISION IN THE
PLAN PROVIDING FOR REJECTION.  FN3  THE PLAN ITSELF MUST, AMONGST OTHER
THINGS, PROVIDE FOR THE RENTAL PAYMENT UNDER EXISTING LEASES NOT
REJECTED.  FN4  BUT THE PLAN MAY PROVIDE FOR REJECTION AND, IN THAT
CASE, THE LESSOR IS TO BE TREATED AS A CREDITOR WITH A CLAIM FOR THE
AMOUNT OF DAMAGE OR INJURY DONE BY REJECTION N5.  WHAT IS TO BE DONE
WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF A LEASED LINE UPON THE
REJECTION OF THE LEASE IS COVERED.  FN6 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT CONGRESS CONCLUDED THAT THE OLD AND WELL
RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP SHOULD BE
SUBSTANTIALLY INCORPORATED INTO SEC. 77 SO FAR AS CONCERNS UNEXPIRED
LEASES.  THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE LEGISLATION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR A CASE IN
WHICH IT WOULD BE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REORGANIZED CORPORATION TO
RETAIN THE LEASED PROPERTY UNDER A NEW OR AMENDED LEASE STIPULATING FOR
A REDUCED RENTAL.  BUT WHETHER THE OMISSION TO CONFER UPON THE
COMMISSION AND THE COURT THE POWER TO WORK OUT SUCH A RESULT AROSE FROM
INADVERTENCE OR REASONS OF POLICY, OR BECAUSE OF A BELIEF THAT POWER
WAS LACKING, I NEED NOT SPECULATE.  WHATEVER THE REASON, IT SEEMS CLEAR
THAT SUCH A CASE IS NOT COVERED AND THAT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVES PROVIDED
BY THE STATUTE ARE DISAFFIRMANCE OR AFFIRMANCE.  IN VIEW OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) AS TO WHAT A PLAN SHALL OR MAY INCLUDE, I
THINK IT IS INADMISSIBLE TO FIND AUTHORITY FOR WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS
DONE IN THIS CASE IN THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH TO
THE EFFECT THAT THE PLAN "MAY INCLUDE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SECTION."  IN VIEW OF THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS TO WHICH I HAVE REFERRED, THE FEATURES OF THE PLAN
RESPECTING THE TERRE HAUTE LEASE ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SECTION. 
CONGRESS DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THE TREATMENT OF A LESSOR AS IF THE
PROPERTY IT OWNS AND LEASES TO THE DEBTOR IS PART OF THE PROPERTY TO BE
REORGANIZED, NOR DID IT INTEND TO PUT THE COMMISSION IN A POSITION OF
BARGAINING WITH SUCH A LESSOR FOR A NEW BASE. 

THE PLAN FORMULATED BY THE COMMISSION SEEMS TO ME TO BE A STRADDLE
BETWEEN THESE TWO ALTERNATIVES.  THE HOLDERS OF BONDS SECURED BY
MORTGAGES ON THE TERRE HAUTE PROPERTY ARE, IN SOME ASPECTS, TREATED AS
IF THEY WERE MORTGAGE CREDITORS OF THE DEBTOR.  IN OTHER ASPECTS, TERRE
HAUTE IS TREATED AS AN ARM'S LENGTH CREDITOR WITH WHOM A BARGAIN MUST
BE STRUCK.  THE VICE OF THIS SEEMS APPARENT ON THIS RECORD.  WHEREAS
EACH CLASS OF MORTGAGE CREDITORS OF THE DEBTOR IS AFFORDED A
PARTICIPATION IN THE SECURITIES AND PROBABLE EARNINGS OF THE NEW
COMPANY IN PURPORTED COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE OF THE CASE AND ROCK
PRODUCTS DECISIONS, AND WHEREAS THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE NATURE OF THE LIEN AND SECURITY OF THE THREE ISSUES
OF MORTGAGE BONDS OF TERRE HAUTE, IN THE PLAN THEY ARE ALL TREATED
ALIKE AND NOT ACCORDED POSITIONS CORRESPONDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
LIENS AND PRIORITIES.  THE EXCUSE FOR THIS IS THAT THE COMMISSION IS
DEALING WITH A LEASE AND FIXING A RENTAL TO BE PAID TO AN OUTSIDE
LESSOR.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CONCEPT OF DEALING WITH A LESSOR, AS I
READ THE RECORD, MOVED THE COMMISSION TO PROPOSE TO THE LESSOR WHAT IT
THOUGHT WOULD BE AN ATTRACTIVE OFFER IN ORDER TO PERSUADE THE LESSOR TO
ACCEPT A NEW LEASE.  IN THIS ASPECT, THE COMMISSION, AS I THINK, MADE
THE BONDHOLDERS OF TERRE HAUTE, TREATED AS A CLASS, A PROPOSITION WHICH
GIVES THEM AN INORDINATELY SUPERIOR POSITION TO THAT ACCORDED THE
HOLDERS OF GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS, AND PRODUCES A SERIOUS
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE LATTER.    I REFER TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
MERELY TO REINFORCE WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOVE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT IS
EVIDENT CONGRESS DID NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SUCH TREATMENT OF THE RIGHTS
ACCRUING UNDER AN UNEXPIRED LEASE.  I AM OF OPINION, THEREFORE, THAT,
AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE PLAN ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT CONFORM
TO THE STANDARDS SET UP BY SEC. 77, AND PARTICULARLY BY SUBSECTION
(B). 

2.  UPON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT, I THINK IT
CLEAR THAT THE AWARD OF SECURITIES IN THE NEW CORPORATION TO THE
HOLDERS OF GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULE OF
ABSOLUTE PRIORITY ANNOUNCED IN THE BOYD AND ROCK PRODUCTS CASES.  IF
THIS IS TRUE, THE PLAN VIOLATES SUBSECTION (E). 

IN CONFORMITY WITH WHAT I HAVE SAID IN ECKER V. WESTERN PACIFIC R.
CORP., I THINK THE DUTY RESTED UPON THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO SUSTAIN THE
OBJECTIONS OF GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS, BECAUSE I CANNOT FIND IN
THE FACTS STATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THOSE PROVED
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT ANY REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
ALLOCATION MADE TO THEM AS AGAINST THAT MADE TO THE HOLDERS OF BONDS
SECURED BY THE MILWAUKEE & NORTHERN CONSOLIDATED MORTGAGE AND THE FIFTY
YEAR MORTGAGE, OR FOR THE TREATMENT ACCORDED THEM IN COMPARISON TO THAT
ACCORDED TERRE HAUTE'S BONDHOLDERS.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT TREATS
THIS QUESTION AS, IN EFFECT, LYING WITHIN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE
DISTRICT JUDGE AND REFUSES TO REVIEW HIS ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT
IS NOT EVIDENT HE ABUSED THAT DISCRETION.  I AM OF THE VIEW THAT,
UNLESS WE ARE TO RECANT WHAT WE HAVE HERETOFORE SAID, THE RULE OF LAW
AS TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RESPECTIVE POSITIONS OF LIENORS MUST BE
ENFORCED.  OF COURSE, THAT RULE MUST BE APPLIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FACTS OF EACH CASE, BUT I DO NOT THINK THE DISTRICT JUDGE MAY ABDICATE
THE DUTY OF EXAMINING THOSE FACTS AND CORRECTING WHAT IS SHOWN TO BE A
CLEAR INFRACTION OF THE RULE.  NEITHER THE JUDGE NOR THE COMMISSION
NEED ESSAY TO VALUE THE PROPERTY UNDER EACH MORTGAGE, OR THE SECURITIES
TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE MORTGAGEES UNDER IT, IN DOLLARS AND CENTS. 
SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF "FAIRNESS AND
EQUITY" IN ITS LEGAL SENSE AS USED IN THIS SETTING.  THE COURT SHOULD,
OF COURSE, GIVE WEIGHT TO WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND, AND ITS
REASONS FOR ITS ALLOCATION, BUT I THINK THAT, IF THE DISTRICT JUDGE
HAD, IN THIS CASE, EXERCISED THE DUTY WHICH LAY UPON HIM HE WOULD HAVE
HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL FOUNDATION FOR THE COMMISSION'S
TREATMENT OF GENERAL MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS AND WOULD HAVE BEEN BOUND,
THEREFORE, TO DISAPPROVE THE PLAN.  AS HE DID NOT PERFORM THAT DUTY, I
THINK THAT, UNLESS THE RIGHT TO COME TO THIS COURT IS VAIN, WE HAVE THE
DUTY TO CORRECT HIS ACTION.  I SHOULD, THEREFORE, REVERSE THE DECREE
BELOW. 

FN1  SEC. 77(C)(2); PALMER V. WEBSTER & ATLAS NATIONAL BANK, 312 U.S.
156, 163. 

FN2  SEC. 77(B). 

FN3  ID. 

FN4  ID. 

FN5  ID. 

FN6  SEC. 77(C)(6). 
..END :
























EX PARTE ELMER DAVIS, 318 U.S. 412 


NO. - , ORIGINAL.  DECIDED MARCH 8, 1943.  - LEAVE DENIED. 


THE APPLICANT NOT HAVING FULLY EXHAUSTED THE REMEDIES AFFORDED BY
STATE APPELLATE PROCEDURE, THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

EX PARTE ELMER DAVIS. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFTER WE DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PETITIONER'S PREVIOUS APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE IN THIS COURT A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, 317 U.S.
592, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF VIGO COUNTY, INDIANA, ON DECEMBER 29, 1942,
SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO HIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS. 
PETITIONER NOW ALLEGES THAT HE HAS FILED AN APPEAL FROM THAT COURT TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.  HE ALSO ALLEGES THAT HIS REQUEST THAT A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE CORAM NOBIS PROCEEDING BE FURNISHED FREE OF CHARGE,
BECAUSE HE IS A POOR PERSON, HAS BEEN DENIED.  HE CONTENDS THAT IN THE
ABSENCE OF A TRANSCRIPT OF THE CORAM NOBIS PROCEEDING, HE IS LEFT
WITHOUT A REMEDY BY APPEAL IN THE COURTS OF INDIANA.  BUT WE CANNOT
ASSUME THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA WILL REFUSE TO USE ITS PROCESS
TO BRING BEFORE IT SUCH PARTS OF THE RECORD AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR A
DECISION OF THE CASE, OR THAT, IN THAT EVENT, IT WILL REFUSE TO ENTER
AN ORDER FINALLY DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL.  UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIANA HAS ACTED UPON AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FINALLY DISPOSING OF
THE APPEAL - WHICH, IF ADVERSE TO PETITIONER, HE COULD MAKE THE SUBJECT
OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT - THE REMEDIES AFFORDED BY
STATE APPELLATE PROCEDURE HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY EXHAUSTED.  ACCORDINGLY,
WE DENY PETITIONER'S PRESENT APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  LEAVE
DENIED. 
..END :

















JAMISON V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 413 


NO. 558.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1943.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE STATE LAW, THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE COULD APPEAL TO NO
HIGHER STATE COURT THAN THAT FROM WHICH THE APPEAL HERE WAS TAKEN; AND,
SINCE THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINED A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE THE VALIDITY OF
WHICH UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WAS CHALLENGED, THIS COURT HAS
JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(A).  P. 414. 

2.  A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE IS A "STATUTE" OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(A).  KING MFG. CO. V. AUGUSTA, 277 U.S.
100, FOLLOWED.  P. 414. 

3.  A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE WHICH, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, PROHIBITS
THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION BY HANDBILLS, HELD A DENIAL OF THE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P.
415. 

4.  A STATE MAY NOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
PROHIBIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBILLS IN THE PURSUIT OF A CLEARLY
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY MERELY BECAUSE THE HANDBILLS INVITE THE PURCHASE OF
BOOKS FOR THE IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELIGION OR BECAUSE THEY
SEEK TO PROMOTE THE RAISING OF FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.  P. 416. 

JAMISON V. TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE CRIMINAL COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF A MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT, A MEMBER OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WAS CHARGED WITH
DISTRIBUTING HANDBILLS ON THE STREETS OF DALLAS, TEXAS, IN VIOLATION OF
AN ORDINANCE OF THAT CITY WHICH PROHIBITS THEIR DISTRIBUTION.  SHE WAS
CONVICTED IN THE CORPORATION COURT OF DALLAS, AND APPEALED TO THE
COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT WHERE, AFTER A TRIAL DE NOVO, SHE WAS AGAIN
CONVICTED AND A FINE OF $5.00 AND COSTS WAS IMPOSED.  UNDER TEXAS LAW
SHE COULD APPEAL TO NO HIGHER STATE COURT,  FN1  AND SINCE SHE PROPERLY
RAISED FEDERAL QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANCE IN BOTH COURTS, THE CASE IS
RIGHTFULLY HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  KING
MANUFACTURING CO. V. AUGUSTA, 277 U.S. 100.  THE APPELLEE HAS ASKED US
TO RECONSIDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE KING MANUFACTURING CO. CASE UNDER
WHICH THIS COURT TAKES JURISDICTION ON APPEAL FROM JUDGMENTS SUSTAINING
THE VALIDITY OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES.  WE SEE NO REASON FOR
RECONSIDERING THE KING MANUFACTURING CO. CASE AND FOLLOW IT HERE. 

WE THINK THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE DALLAS
ORDINANCE DENIES TO THE APPELLANT THE FREEDOM OF PRESS AND OF RELIGION
GUARANTEED TO HER BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

THE STIPULATED FACTS SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT, AFTER THREE YEARS OF
SPECIAL TRAINING, HAD DEVOTED MANY YEARS TO THE WORK OF THE JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES.  AT THE TIME OF HER ARREST, THE APPELLANT WAS DISTRIBUTING
HANDBILLS IN AN ORDERLY AND QUIET MANNER TO PEDESTRIANS WHOM SHE MET ON
THE STREET.  ON ONE SIDE OF THE HANDBILL WAS AN INVITATION TO ATTEND A
GATHERING IN A DALLAS PARK, WHICH WAS TO BE ONE OF FIFTY SIMULTANEOUS
GATHERINGS OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN AS MANY CITIES, TO HEAR AN ADDRESS
BY A LEADER OF THE GROUP ON "PEACE, CAN IT LAST."  THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE HANDBILL REPEATED THE INVITATION AND DESCRIBED AT THE BOTTOM TWO
BOOKS WHICH EXPLAINED THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' INTERPRETATION OF THE
BIBLE AND SET OUT THEIR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A
STATEMENT THAT THE BOOKS WOULD BE MAILED "POSTAGE PREPAID ON YOUR
CONTRIBUTION OF 25[."  WHILE THE BOOKS WERE NOT ACTUALLY SOLD ON THE
STREETS, THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE DELIVERED THEM TO THE HOME OF ANYONE
WHO MADE THE TWENTY-FIVE CENTS CONTRIBUTION.  THE BOOKS WOULD HAVE COST
HER MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE CENTS. 

THE DALLAS ORDINANCE, WHICH IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN2  HAS
BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT TO FORBID THE DISTRIBUTION OF
LEAFLETS BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FASHION OUTLINED ABOVE.  FN3 THE CITY
SEEKS TO UPHOLD THE ORDINANCE HERE ON THE CONTENTION (A) THAT IT IS
JUSTIFIED AS AN EXERCISE OF THE CITY'S PLENARY CONTROL OF ITS STREETS,
AND (B) THAT APPELLANT'S ACTIVITY MAY BE FORBIDDEN BECAUSE THE LEAFLETS
INCLUDE "COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING OF BOOKS WHICH THE DISTRIBUTOR IS
OFFERING FOR SALE." 

FIRST.  THE CITY CONTENDS THAT ITS POWER OVER ITS STREETS IS NOT
LIMITED TO THE MAKING OF REASONABLE REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF
TRAFFIC AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER, BUT THAT IT HAS THE POWER
ABSOLUTELY TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE STREETS FOR THE COMMUNICATION OF
IDEAS.  IT RELIES PRIMARILY ON DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43. 
THIS SAME ARGUMENT, MADE IN RELIANCE UPON THE SAME DECISION, HAS BEEN
DIRECTLY REJECTED BY THIS COURT.  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 514
516.  OF COURSE, STATES MAY PROVIDE FOR CONTROL OF TRAVEL ON THEIR
STREETS IN ORDER TO INSURE THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF THE TRAVELING
PUBLIC.  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 574.  THEY MAY PUNISH
CONDUCT ON THE STREETS WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF A VALID LAW. 
CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568.  BUT ONE WHO IS RIGHTFULLY
ON A STREET WHICH THE STATE HAS LEFT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC CARRIES WITH
HIM THERE AS ELSEWHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXPRESS HIS VIEWS IN
AN ORDERLY FASHION.  THIS RIGHT EXTENDS TO THE COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS
BY HANDBILLS AND LITERATURE AS WELL AS BY THE SPOKEN WORD.  HAGUE V.
C.I.O., SUPRA; SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON, 308 U.S. 147, 162.  HERE, THE
ORDINANCE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED PROHIBITS THE DISSEMINATION OF
INFORMATION BY HANDBILLS.  AS SUCH, IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

SECOND.  THE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE HANDBILLS CONCERNING RELIGIOUS
SUBJECTS ON THE STREETS MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES, AT ALL
PLACES, AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.  THIS HAS BEEN BEYOND CONTROVERSY
SINCE THE DECISION IN LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444.  THE CITY
CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PROHIBITION IS
PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE HANDBILLS, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE DISTRIBUTED FOR
THE UNQUESTIONED PURPOSE OF FURTHERING RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY, CONTAINED AN
INVITATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUPPORT OF THAT ACTIVITY BY PURCHASING
BOOKS RELATED TO THE WORK OF THE GROUP.  THE MERE PRESENCE OF AN
ADVERTISEMENT OF A RELIGIOUS WORK ON A HANDBILL OF THE SORT DISTRIBUTED
HERE MAY NOT SUBJECT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE HANDBILL TO PROHIBITION. 
IN SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT THE CITY OF IRVINGTON
MIGHT NOT FORBID CONDUCT ALMOST PRECISELY THE SAME AS THAT WITH WHICH
THE APPELLANT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS CHARGED.  EVEN WHERE HANDBILLS
CARRYING NOTICE OF A PUBLIC GATHERING CONTAINED A STATEMENT OF AN
ADMISSION FEE, WE HELD THAT THEY COULD NOT BE BARRED FROM DISTRIBUTION
ON THE STREETS.  SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON, SUPRA, 154, 162, 163.  NO
ADMISSION WAS TO BE CHARGED AT THE MEETING FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS
CIRCULATING LEAFLETS IN THE INSTANT CASE.  IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT,
310 U.S. 296, 305, WE SAID THAT A STATE MIGHT NOT PREVENT THE
COLLECTION OF FUNDS FOR A RELIGIOUS PURPOSE BY UNREASONABLY OBSTRUCTING
OR DELAYING THEIR COLLECTION. 

THE STATES CAN PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE STREETS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION
OF PURELY COMMERCIAL LEAFLETS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH LEAFLETS MAY HAVE "A
CIVIC APPEAL, OR A MORAL PLATITUDE" APPENDED.  VALENTINE V.
CHRESTENSEN, 316 U.S. 52, 55.  THEY MAY NOT PROHIBIT THE DISTRIBUTION
OF HANDBILLS IN THE PURSUIT OF A CLEARLY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY MERELY
BECAUSE THE HANDBILLS INVITE THE PURCHASE OF BOOKS FOR THE IMPROVED
UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELIGION OR BECAUSE THE HANDBILLS SEEK IN A LAWFUL
FASHION TO PROMOTE THE RAISING OF FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE TEXAS PRACTICE UNDER WHICH THIS IS THE HIGHEST STATE COURT
TO WHICH APPELLANT COULD APPEAL IS CONSIDERED IN LARGENT V. TEXAS,
POST, P. 418. 

FN2  "SCATTERING HANDBILLS, ETC. - IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
PERSON TO CARRY OR HOLD BY HAND OR OTHERWISE, ANY BILLBOARD, SHOW CARD,
PLACARD OR ADVERTISEMENT, OR TO WEAR ANY COSTUME FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ATTRACTING ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC, OR TO SCATTER OR THROW ANY
HANDBILLS, CIRCULARS, CARDS, NEWSPAPERS OR ANY ADVERTISING DEVICE OF
ANY DESCRIPTION, ALONG OR UPON ANY STREET OR SIDEWALK IN THE CITY OF
DALLAS.  ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE
SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION, MAY BE
FINED IN ANY SUM NOT EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS." 

FN3  THE COMPLAINT UNDER WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED ALLEGED
THAT SHE DID "CARRY, HOLD BY HAND, DISTRIBUTE, SCATTER AND THROW
HANDBILLS AS AN ADVERTISING MEDIUM" IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.  IT
WILL BE NOTED THAT THE WORD "DISTRIBUTE," WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE
ORDINANCE, IS A PART OF THE COMPLAINT; AND THAT THE WORDS "CARRY OR
HOLD BY HAND," WHICH APPEAR IN THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE AS
RELATING TO BILLBOARDS, ET CETERA, HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE COMPLAINT
AS THOUGH RELATING TO "HANDBILLS," WHICH APPEARS IN THE SECOND CLAUSE
OF THE ORDINANCE IN CONNECTION WITH PAPERS SCATTERED OR THROWN ON THE
STREET. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ACQUIESCES IN THE REFUSAL TO RECONSIDER KING
MFG. CO. V. AUGUSTA, 277 U.S. 100, ALTHOUGH, FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH
BY HOLMES AND BRANDEIS, JJ., DISSENTING, HE DEEMS THAT CASE TO HAVE
BEEN ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED.  OTHERWISE HE AGREES WITH THE OPINION IN THIS
CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















LARGENT V. TEXAS, 318 U.S. 418 


NO. 559.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1943.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  SINCE THE DECISION OF THE COUNTY COURT IN THIS CASE WAS NOT
REVIEWABLE, ON THE RECORD MADE IN THAT COURT, BY ANY HIGHER COURT OF
THE STATE, AND SINCE THE DECISION SUSTAINED A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
AGAINST A CLAIM OF ITS INVALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THIS
COURT HAS JURISDICTION ON APPEAL UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(A).  P.
421. 

THAT THE APPELLANT MIGHT OBTAIN RELEASE BY A SUBSEQUENT AND DISTINCT
PROCEEDING IN THE SAME OR ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE DOES NOT AFFECT
THE REVIEWABILITY OF THE PRESENT JUDGMENT. 

2.  A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE WHICH, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, FORBIDS
THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS EXCEPT UPON A PERMIT, THE
ISSUANCE OF WHICH IS IN THE DISCRETION OF A MUNICIPAL OFFICER, HELD AN
ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, AND PRESS GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 422. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
PUBLICATIONS IN QUESTION CONSTITUTED SALES OR THE ACCEPTANCE OF
CONTRIBUTIONS. 

LARGENT V. TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY, TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF A MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANT FOR
VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 612 OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS, WHICH MAKES
IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO SOLICIT ORDERS OR TO SELL BOOKS, WARES OR
MERCHANDISE WITHIN THE RESIDENCE PORTION OF PARIS WITHOUT FIRST FILING
AN APPLICATION AND OBTAINING A PERMIT.  THE ORDINANCE GOES ON TO
PROVIDE THAT "IF AFTER INVESTIGATION THE MAYOR DEEMS IT PROPER OR
ADVISABLE HE MAY ISSUE A WRITTEN PERMIT TO SAID PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE
OF SOLICITING, SELLING, CANVASSING OR CENSUS TAKING WITHIN THE
RESIDENCE PORTION OF THE CITY WHICH PERMIT SHALL STATE ON ITS FACE THAT
IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION."  FN1 

A COMPLAINT IN THE CORPORATION COURT OF PARIS CHARGED MRS. LARGENT,
THE APPELLANT, WITH VIOLATING THIS ORDINANCE BY UNLAWFULLY OFFERING
BOOKS FOR SALE WITHOUT MAKING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT.  SHE WAS
CONVICTED AND APPEALED TO THE COUNTY COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY, TEXAS,
WHERE A TRIAL DE NOVO WAS HAD.  FN2  THERE A MOTION WAS FILED TO QUASH
THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; AND, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
EVIDENCE, THERE WAS FILED A MOTION ON THE SAME GROUNDS FOR A FINDING OF
NOT GUILTY AND THE DISCHARGE OF THE APPELLANT FROM CUSTODY.  BOTH WERE
OVERRULED. 

APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT SHE CARRIES A CARD OF ORDINATION FROM
THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, AN ORGANIZATION INCORPORATED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF GOD'S KINGDOM.  THE SOCIETY
IS AN ORGANIZATION FOR JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, AN EVANGELICAL GROUP,
FOUNDED UPON AND DRAWING INSPIRATION FROM THE TENETS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
THE WITNESSES SPREAD THEIR TEACHINGS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SOCIETY
BY DISTRIBUTING THE BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS OBTAINED FROM THE SOCIETY BY
HOUSE TO HOUSE VISITS.  THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE A COVENANT WITH
JEHOVAH TO ENLIGHTEN THE PEOPLE AS TO THE TRUTHS ACCEPTED BY THE
WITNESSES BY PUTTING INTO THEIR HANDS, FOR STUDY, VARIOUS RELIGIOUS
PUBLICATIONS WITH TITLES SUCH AS CHILDREN, HOPE, CONSOLATION, KINGDOM
NEWS, DELIVERANCE, GOVERNMENT AND ENEMIES. 

MRS. LARGENT OFFERED SOME OF THESE BOOKS TO THOSE UPON WHOM SHE
CALLED FOR A CONTRIBUTION OF NOT TO EXCEED 25 CENTS FOR A BOUND BOOK
AND SEVERAL MAGAZINES OR TRACTS.  IF THE CONTRIBUTION WAS NOT MADE, THE
APPELLANT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOM OF THE WITNESSES, WOULD
FREQUENTLY LEAVE A BOOK AND TRACTS WITHOUT RECEIVING ANY MONEY. 
APPELLANT WAS MAKING SUCH DISTRIBUTIONS WHEN ARRESTED.  SHE HAD NOT
FILED AN APPLICATION FOR OR RECEIVED A PERMIT UNDER THE ORDINANCE. 

THE WITNESSES LOOK UPON THEIR WORK AS CHRISTIAN AND CHARITABLE.  TO
THEM IT IS NOT SELLING BOOKS OR PAPERS BUT ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS TO
FURTHER THE WORK IN WHICH THEY ARE ENGAGED.  THE PROSECUTING OFFICER
CONTENDED THAT THE OFFER OF THE PUBLICATIONS AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
MONEY WAS A SOLICITATION OR SALE OF BOOKS, WARES OR MERCHANDISE.  AT
THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, WHICH WAS WITHOUT A JURY, THE JUDGE
FOUND APPELLANT GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PARIS
AND FINED HER ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS. 

THE APPEAL WAS BROUGHT HERE UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
WHICH PROVIDES FOR REVIEW OF A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A
STATE IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD.  BY OUR ORDER OF DECEMBER 21,
1942, WE REQUESTED COUNSEL TO DISCUSS WHETHER THIS JUDGMENT COULD BE
FULLY REVIEWED ON THIS RECORD BY A HIGHER STATE COURT BY HABEAS CORPUS
OR OTHER PROCEEDING.  UNDER THE STATUTES OF TEXAS, NO APPEAL LIES FROM
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COUNTY COURT IMPOSING A FINE OF THIS AMOUNT. 
VERNON'S TEXAS STAT. 1936, ARTICLE 53(CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE); FN3
EX PARTE LARGENT, 162 S.W.2D 419, 421, AND CASES CITED.  THE APPELLANT,
UNDER TEXAS PRACTICE, APPARENTLY COULD TEST BY HABEAS CORPUS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY ON ITS FACE OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER WHICH SHE WAS
CONVICTED BUT MAY NOT USE THAT WRIT TO TEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE ORDINANCE AS APPLIED TO THE ACT OF DISTRIBUTING RELIGIOUS
LITERATURE.  CF. EX PARTE LARGENT, SUPRA.  SINCE THERE IS, BY TEXAS LAW
OR PRACTICE, NO METHOD WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION FOR
REVIEWING THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANT, ON THE RECORD MADE IN THE COUNTY
COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE APPEAL IS PROPERLY HERE UNDER SEC.
237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THE PROCEEDING IN THE COUNTY COURT WAS A
DISTINCT SUIT.  IT DISPOSED OF THE CHARGE.  THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE
APPELLANT MIGHT OBTAIN RELEASE BY A SUBSEQUENT AND DISTINCT PROCEEDING,
AND ONE NOT IN THE NATURE OF A REVIEW OF THE PENDING CHARGE, IN THE
SAME OR A DIFFERENT COURT OF THE STATE DOES NOT AFFECT THE FINALITY OF
THE EXISTING JUDGMENT OR THE FACT THAT THIS JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED IN
THE HIGHEST STATE COURT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT.  CF. BANDINI CO. V.
SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8, 14; BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63, 70. 

UPON THE MERITS, THIS APPEAL IS GOVERNED BY RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT INVOLVING ORDINANCES WHICH LEAVE THE GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING OF
PERMITS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS PUBLICATIONS IN THE
DISCRETION OF MUNICIPAL OFFICERS.  FN4  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE PUBLICATIONS IN QUESTION ARE SALES OR
CONTRIBUTIONS.  THE MAYOR ISSUES A PERMIT ONLY IF AFTER THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION HE "DEEMS IT PROPER OR ADVISABLE."  DISSEMINATION OF
IDEAS DEPENDS UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE DISTRIBUTOR BY THE OFFICIAL. 
THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE CENSORSHIP IN AN EXTREME FORM.  IT ABRIDGES THE
FREEDOM OF RELIGION, OF THE PRESS AND OF SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN5  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 1:  FROM AND AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE IT SHALL BE
UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION TO SOLICIT ORDERS FOR
BOOKS, WARES, MERCHANDISE, OR ANY HOUSEHOLD ARTICLE OF ANY DESCRIPTION
WHATSOEVER WITHIN THE RESIDENCE PORTION OF THE CITY OF PARIS, OR TO
SELL BOOKS, WARES, MERCHANDISE OR ANY HOUSEHOLD ARTICLE OF ANY
DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER WITHIN THE RESIDENCE DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
PARIS, OR TO CANVASS, TAKE CENSUS WITHOUT FIRST FILING AN APPLICATION
IN WRITING WITH THE MAYOR AND OBTAINING A PERMIT, WHICH SAID
APPLICATION SHALL STATE THE CHARACTER OF THE GOODS, WARES, OR
MERCHANDISE INTENDED TO BE SOLD OR THE NATURE OF THE CANVASS TO BE
MADE, OR THE CENSUS TO BE TAKEN, AND BY WHAT AUTHORITY.  THE
APPLICATION SHALL ALSO STATE THE NAME OF THE PARTY DESIRING THE PERMIT,
HIS PERMANENT STREET ADDRESS AND NUMBER WHILE IN THE CITY AND IF AFTER
INVESTIGATION THE MAYOR DEEMS IT PROPER OR ADVISABLE HE MAY ISSUE A
WRITTEN PERMIT TO SAID PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOLICITING, SELLING,
CANVASSING OR CENSUS TAKING WITHIN THE RESIDENCE PORTION OF THE CITY
WHICH PERMIT SHALL STATE ON ITS FACE THAT IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER A
THOROUGH INVESTIGATION." 

FN2  VERNON'S TEXAS STAT. 1936, ART. 876(CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE),
PROVIDES: 

"APPEALS FROM A CORPORATION COURT SHALL BE HEARD BY THE COUNTY COURT
EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE THE COUNTY COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION, IN WHICH
COUNTIES SUCH APPEALS SHALL BE HEARD BY THE PROPER COURT.  IN SUCH
APPEALS THE TRIAL SHALL BE DE NOVO.  SAID APPEALS SHALL BE GOVERNED BY
THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR APPEALS FROM JUSTICE COURTS TO
THE COUNTY COURT, SO FAR AS APPLICABLE." 

FN3  "COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.  - THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE LIMITS OF THE
STATE IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES.  THIS ARTICLE SHALL NOT BE SO CONSTRUED AS
TO EMBRACE ANY CASE WHICH HAS BEEN APPEALED FROM ANY INFERIOR COURT TO
THE COUNTY COURT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW, IN WHICH THE FINE IMPOSED BY
THE COUNTY COURT OR COUNTY COURT AT LAW SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED
DOLLARS." 

FN4  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 447, 451; SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
308 U.S. 147, 157, 163; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 302. 

FN5  CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 570, 571; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 303; GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











CHOCTAW NATION V. U.S., 318 U.S. 423 


NO. 80.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 8, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1943.  - 95
CT.CLS.  192, REVERSED. 


1.  IN CONSTRUING INDIAN TREATIES, THEIR PLAIN TERMS MAY NOT BE
DISREGARDED IN ORDER TO REMEDY A CLAIMED INJUSTICE OR TO ARRIVE AT WHAT
IS ASSERTED TO BE THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES.  P. 432. 

2.  UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF 1902 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE
CHICKASAW AND CHOCTAW NATIONS, WHICH SUPERSEDED THE TREATY OF 1866 AND
SUPPLEMENTED THE ATOKA AGREEMENT OF 1897, ALLOTMENTS OF COMMON TRIBAL
LANDS TO CHOCTAW FREEDMEN WERE TO BE MADE WITHOUT DEDUCTION FROM THE
CHOCTAW NATION'S PROPORTIONATE INTEREST IN THE COMMON LANDS REMAINING
AND THE CHICKASAW NATION IS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF
SUCH ALLOTMENTS.  P. 433. 

CHOCTAW NATION OF INDIANS V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 607, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CHOCTAW
NATION IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE CHICKASAW NATION AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES UNDER A SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL ACT, IN WHICH SUIT THE CHOCTAW
NATION WAS IMPLEADED AS A DEFENDANT ON MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON AUGUST 5, 1929, THIS SUIT WAS BEGUN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BY
THE CHICKASAW NATION UNDER THE JURISDITIONAL ACT OF JUNE 7, 1924, 43
STAT. 537.  FN1  BY ORDER OF JANUARY 2, 1940, THE CHOCTAW NATION WAS
IMPLEADED AS A DEFENDANT ON MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE QUESTION
IS WHETHER THE CHICKASAW NATION IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR ITS ONE
FOURTH INTEREST IN THE COMMON LANDS OF THE TWO NATIONS ALLOTTED TO THE
CHOCTAW FREEDMEN, AND, IF SO, WHO SHOULD COMPENSATE THE CHICKASAW
NATION.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT THE CHICKASAWS WERE ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION AND THAT THE PRIMARY LIABILITY, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH WAS
RESERVED FOR FUTURE DETERMINATION, RESTED UPON THE CHOCTAW NATION. 
SINCE THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT IT WOULD BE UNABLE TO SATISFY
WHATEVER JUDGMENT MIGHT BE MADE, THE COURT OF CLAIMS DECLINED TO
CONSIDER OR DECIDE THE LIABILITY, IF ANY, OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN2
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE CASE WAS THOUGHT TO RAISE IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO TRIBES AND THE
UNITED STATES. 

AT THE TIME OF THE CIVIL WAR, THE CHICKASAWS AND THE CHOCTAWS WERE
SLAVE-OWNING TRIBES HOLDING THEIR LANDS IN COMMON, THEIR RESPECTIVE
INTERESTS BEING ONE-FOURTH AND THREE-FOURTHS.  BOTH FOUGHT ON THE SIDE
OF THE CONFEDERACY, AND, AFTER THE CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES, THEY
ENTERED INTO THE TREATY OF APRIL 28, 1866, 14 STAT. 769, WITH THE
UNITED STATES.  THAT TREATY ABOLISHED SLAVERY AMONG THEM AND PROVIDED
IN ARTICLE III FOR A FUND OF $300,000 WHICH WAS TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR
THE TWO NATIONS AND PAID TO THEM (ONE-FOURTH TO THE CHICKASAWS AND
THREE-FOURTHS TO THE CHOCTAWS) WHEN THEY CONFERRED TRIBAL RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES UPON THEIR FORMER AFRICAN SLAVES AND GAVE THEM EACH FORTY
ACRES OF THE COMMON LANDS.  IF SUCH LAWS WERE NOT ADOPTED WITHIN TWO
YEARS, THE FUND WAS TO BE HELD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE FORMER SLAVES
WHOM THE UNITED STATES SHOULD REMOVE FROM THE TERRITORY, INSTEAD OF FOR
THE TWO NATIONS.  HOWEVER, THE TREATY ALSO PROVIDED IN ARTICLE XLVI
THAT $200,000 OF THE FUND WAS TO BE PAID OVER IMMEDIATELY TO THE TWO
NATIONS AND THIS WAS DONE.  SEE ACT OF JULY 26, 1866, 14 STAT. 255,
259. 

IN 1882, NEITHER NATION HAVING ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREATY
AND THE UNITED STATES HAVING TAKEN NO STEPS TO REMOVE THE FREEDMEN, AN
ACT WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS WHICH PROVIDED THAT EITHER TRIBE MIGHT ADOPT
AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR FREEDMEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE III OF THE
TREATY.  ACT OF MAY 17, 1882, 22 STAT. 68, 72-73.  IN 1883 THE CHOCTAWS
ADOPTED THEIR FREEDMEN AND DECLARED THEM EACH ENTITLED TO FORTY ACRES
OF THE NATION'S LANDS, BUT NO ALLOTMENTS WERE ACTUALLY MADE.  FN3
CONGRESS THEREUPON APPROPRIATED FOR THE CHOCTAWS THEIR SHARE OF THE
BALANCE OF THE $300,000 FUND.  SEE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1885, 23 STAT. 362,
366.  THE CHICKASAWS NEVER ADOPTED THEIR FREEDMEN ALTHOUGH THEY TOOK AN
ABORTIVE STEP IN THAT DIRECTION IN 1873.  SEE THE CHICKASAW FREEDMEN,
193 U.S. 115, AND H. EX. DOC. NO. 207, 42D CONG., 3D SESS.  DESPITE
THIS FAILURE THE CHICKASAWS RECEIVED SOME OF THE BALANCE OF THEIR SHARE
OF THE ORIGINAL FUND.  FN4 

IN 1897, THE COMMISSION OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES  FN5  NEGOTIATED
THE ATOKA AGREEMENT WITH THE TWO INDIAN NATIONS.  THAT PROVIDED FOR THE
ALLOTMENT IN SEVERALTY OF THE COMMON TRIBAL LANDS, INCLUDING FORTY-ACRE
ALLOTMENTS TO THE CHOCTAW FREEDMEN, AND CONTAINED A PROVISION FOR THE
REDUCTION OF ALLOTMENTS TO CHOCTAW INDIAN CITIZENS ON ACCOUNT OF THE
ALLOTMENTS TO THE CHOCTAW FREEDMEN, AS FOLLOWS: 

"PROVIDED THAT THE LANDS ALLOTTED TO THE CHOCTAW FREEDMEN, ARE TO BE
DEDUCTED FROM THE PORTION TO BE ALLOTTED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE CHOCTAW TRIBE, SO AS TO REDUCE THE ALLOTMENTS TO THE
CHOCTAWS BY THE VALUE OF THE SAME AND NOT AFFECT THE VALUE OF THE
ALLOTMENTS TO THE CHICKASAWS." 

NO PROVISION WAS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ATOKA AGREEMENT FOR ALLOTMENTS
TO THE CHICKASAW FREEDMEN, BUT IN CONFIRMING THE ATOKA AGREEMENT AS
PART OF THE CURTIS ACT OF 1898(30 STAT. 495) CONGRESS STIPULATED IN
SEC. 21 THAT FORTY-ACRE ALLOTMENTS WERE TO BE MADE TO THE CHICKASAW
FREEDMEN AS WELL, TO BE USED UNTIL THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE TREATY OF
1866 WERE DETERMINED IN SUCH MANNER AS CONGRESS MIGHT DIRECT.  IT ALSO
PROVIDED IN SEC. 29 THAT ALL THE LANDS OF THE TWO TRIBES WERE TO BE
ALLOTTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBES SO AS TO GIVE EACH ONE A FAIR AND
EQUAL SHARE, AND THAT THE LANDS ALLOTTED TO THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW
FREEDMEN WERE "TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PORTION TO BE ALLOTTED UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW TRIBE SO AS
TO REDUCE THE ALLOTMENT TO THE CHOCTAWS AND CHICKASAWS BY THE VALUE OF
THE SAME."  (30 STAT. 505-06.)  THIS CONFIRMED AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED
BY BOTH TRIBES. 

BEFORE ANY ALLOTMENTS WERE MADE, HOWEVER, A SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT
WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE TWO NATIONS IN 1902(32
STAT. 641), WHICH RADICALLY CHANGED MATTERS BY PROVIDING FOR THE
ALLOTMENT TO EACH MEMBER OF THE TWO TRIBES OF BUT THREE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY ACRES INSTEAD OF THE ALIQUOT ALLOTMENT OF ALL THE LAND, AS
PROVIDED IN THE ATOKA AGREEMENT.  PERMANENT ALLOTMENTS OF FORTY ACRES
WERE TO BE MADE TO EACH CHICKASAW AND CHOCTAW FREEDMAN, THE REMAINING
UNALLOTTED LAND WAS TO BE SOLD AND THE PROCEEDS WERE TO BE USED TO
EQUALIZE ALLOTMENTS AS FAR AS NECESSARY, THE BALANCE BEING PAID INTO
THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE CREDIT OF THE TWO TRIBES AND
DISTRIBUTED PER CAPITA AS THEIR OTHER FUNDS.  FN6  THAT AGREEMENT ALSO
CONTAINED ELABORATE PROVISIONS IN SECS. 36-40, INCLUSIVE, UNDER A
SUBHEADING ENTITLED "CHICKASAW FREEDMEN," FOR A SUIT IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHICKASAW FREEDMEN HAD ANY RIGHT TO
ALLOTMENTS UNDER THE TREATY OF 1866 AND SUBSEQUENT CONGRESSIONAL AND
TRIBAL LEGISLATION, THE UNITED STATES TO PAY THE VALUE OF THOSE
ALLOTMENTS TO THE TWO NATIONS ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE INTERESTS
IF THE CHICKASAW FREEDMEN WERE HELD TO BE WITHOUT SUCH RIGHTS. 

THE 1902 AGREEMENT CONTAINED NO EXPRESS PROVISION CONCERNING THE
DEDUCTION OF ALLOTMENTS TO THE CHOCTAW FREEDMEN FROM ALLOTMENTS TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE CHOCTAW NATION OR FROM THAT NATION'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE
IN THE COMMON LANDS.  SECTION 40 CONCLUDED WITH A PROVISO THAT:
"NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT OR
CHANGE THE EXISTING STATUS OR RIGHTS OF THE TWO TRIBES AS BETWEEN
THEMSELVES RESPECTING THE LANDS TAKEN FOR ALLOTMENT TO FREEDMEN, OR THE
MONEY, IF ANY, RECOVERED AS COMPENSATION THEREFOR, AS AFORESAID."  A
FURTHER PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT, SEC. 68, DECLARED THAT:  "NO ACT OF
CONGRESS OR TREATY PROVISION, NOR ANY PROVISION OF THE ATOKA AGREEMENT,
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS AGREEMENT, SHALL BE IN FORCE IN SAID CHOCTAW AND
CHICKASAW NATIONS." 

FOLLOWING THE 1902 AGREEMENT, ALLOTMENTS WERE MADE FROM THE COMMON
LANDS TO THE CITIZENS AND THE FREEDMEN OF THE TWO TRIBES.  THE
CHICKASAWS RECEIVED NO COMPENSATION FOR THEIR ONE-FOURTH INTEREST IN
THE COMMON LANDS ALLOTTED TO THE CHOCTAW FREEDMEN EITHER BY REDUCTION
OF THE ALLOTMENTS TO THE CHOCTAW CITIZENS OR OF THAT TRIBE'S
PROPORTIONATE SHARE, OR BY ANY OTHER SETTLEMENT OR ADJUSTMENT.  IN THE
LITIGATION AUTHORIZED BY SECS. 36-40 OF THE 1902 AGREEMENT, THE
CHICKASAW FREEDMEN WERE HELD WITHOUT RIGHTS TO THE ALLOTMENTS WHICH HAD
BEEN GIVEN THEM, AND ACCORDINGLY JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE VALUE OF THEIR ALLOTMENTS IN THE SUM OF
$606,936.08, WHICH WAS PAID TO THE TWO NATIONS IN THE PROPORTION OF ONE
FOURTH TO THE CHICKASAWS AND THREE-FOURTHS TO THE CHOCTAWS.  UNITED
STATES V. CHOCTAW NATION, 38 CT. CLS. 558, AFFIRMED SUB NOM., THE
CHICKASAW FREEDMEN, 193 U.S. 115; AND SEE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, 36
STAT. 774, 807-08. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT THE TREATY OF 1866 WAS NOT
DETERMINATIVE, THAT THE CONFIRMED ATOKA AGREEMENT REQUIRED THAT
ALLOTMENTS TO CHOCTAW FREEDMEN BE DEDUCTED FROM THE ALLOTMENTS TO THE
CHOCTAW CITIZENS AND THAT THE PROVISO TO SEC. 40 OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT OF 1902, WHILE "NOT WELL CHOSEN" FOR THE PURPOSE, PRESERVED
THIS REQUIREMENT.  WE TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. 

THE TREATY OF 1866, IN ARTICLE III OF WHICH THE CHICKASAWS
UNCONDITIONALLY CONSENTED TO ALLOTMENTS FROM THE COMMON LANDS TO
CHOCTAW FREEDMEN WHO MIGHT BE ADOPTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TREATY
REQUIREMENTS, IS NOT DETERMINATIVE BECAUSE IT WAS SUPERSEDED, BEFORE
ANY ALLOTMENTS WERE MADE, BY THE CONFIRMED ATOKA AGREEMENT WHICH
REQUIRED THE DEDUCTION OF ALL FREEDMEN'S ALLOTMENTS, BOTH CHOCTAW AND
CHICKASAW, FROM THOSE OF THE MEMBERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE TRIBES.  THE
ATOKA AGREEMENT WAS IN TURN SUPPLEMENTED BY THE 1902 AGREEMENT, WHICH
OMITTED THE DEDUCTION REQUIREMENT OF THE ATOKA AGREEMENT AND CONTAINED
NOT A WORD ABOUT DEDUCTING FREEDMEN'S ALLOTMENTS FROM THE RESPECTIVE
TRIBAL SHARES IN THE COMMON LANDS.  IN VIEW OF SEC. 68 OF THE 1902
AGREEMENT, WHICH REPEALED ALL INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS OF THE ATOKA
AGREEMENT, THESE OMISSIONS WERE FATAL.  WHEN THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
THE ATOKA AGREEMENT AND THAT OF 1902 ARE CONSIDERED, IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE DEDUCTION PROVISION OF THE FORMER WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
LATTER.  THE ATOKA AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF ALL THE LAND
WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBES SHARING EQUALLY, AND THE ALLOTMENTS TO
THEIR FREEDMEN WERE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THEIR PORTION SO AS TO REDUCE
THEIR ALLOTMENTS PRO TANTO.  BUT UNDER THE 1902 AGREEMENT THE MEMBERS
OF BOTH TRIBES WERE TO RECEIVE DEFINITE ALLOTMENTS OF THREE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY ACRES INSTEAD OF EQUAL SHARES OF THE WHOLE.  IF THE FORTY-ACRE
ALLOTMENTS TO FREEDMEN WERE DEDUCTED FROM THE SPECIFIC ALLOTMENTS TO
MEMBERS OF THEIR TRIBES SO AS TO REDUCE THOSE ALLOTMENTS "BY THE VALUE
OF THE SAME," AS REQUIRED BY THE ATOKA AGREEMENT, THE MEMBERS WOULD NOT
HAVE RECEIVED THEIR DESIGNATED ACREAGE.  ALSO, AN ATTEMPT TO SHIFT THE
DEDUCTION BURDEN FROM MEMBERS' ALLOTMENTS TO THE PROPORTIONATE SHARES
OF THE TRIBES IN THE UNALLOTTED LANDS WHICH WERE TO BE SOLD IS BARRED
BY THE FACT THAT THE ATOKA AGREEMENT REQUIRED DEDUCTION TO REDUCE THE
VALUE OF MEMBERS' ALLOTMENTS, NOT TO REDUCE THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS OF
THE TRIBES IN THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF UNALLOTTED LANDS, A
PROVISION WHOLLY FOREIGN TO THE ATOKA AGREEMENT. 

FURTHER PROOF OF THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE 1902 AGREEMENT AND THE
DEDUCTION REQUIREMENT OF THE ATOKA AGREEMENT IS THE FACT THAT
ALLOTMENTS TO CHICKASAW FREEDMEN WERE MADE FROM THE COMMON LANDS AND
BOTH TRIBES WERE TO AND DID SHARE, "ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
INTERESTS," IN THE ULTIMATE RECOVERY OF THE VALUE OF THOSE LANDS FROM
THE UNITED STATES, AS PROMISED IN SEC. 40.  ONLY THE CHICKASAWS SHOULD
HAVE BEEN COMPENSATED FOR THE ALLOTMENTS TO THEIR FREEDMEN IF THE
DEDUCTION REQUIREMENT OF THE ATOKA AGREEMENT WAS CARRIED OVER INTO THE
1902 AGREEMENT, WHETHER THAT PROVISION BE TAKEN AS REQUIRING THE
REDUCTION OF MEMBERS' ALLOTMENTS (WHICH IT DID), OR AS REQUIRING THE
REDUCTION OF THE TRIBES' PROPORTIONATE SHARES IN THE COMMON LANDS
(WHICH IT DID NOT).  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT BOTH TRIBES WERE TO AND DID
SHARE IN THE AWARD SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT ALLOTMENTS TO ALL
FREEDMEN WERE TO BE CHARGED TO THE COMMON HOLDINGS WITHOUT DEDUCTION
FROM THE RESPECTIVE TRIBAL INTERESTS. 

DESPITE THESE INCONSISTENCIES, THE CHICKASAWS URGE THAT THE PROVISO
TO SEC. 40 OF THE 1902 AGREEMENT PRESERVED THE DEDUCTION REQUIREMENT OF
THE ATOKA AGREEMENT.  THE TERMS OF THE PROVISO, HOWEVER, DO NOT SUPPORT
THIS CONCLUSION.  IT DOES NOT READ, AS THE CHICKASAWS WOULD HAVE IT,
THAT "NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO AFFECT
OR CHANGE THE EXISTING STATUS OR RIGHTS OF THE TWO TRIBES AS BETWEEN
THEMSELVES RESPECTING THE LANDS TAKEN FOR ALLOTMENT TO FREEDMEN, OR THE
MONEY, IF ANY, RECOVERED AS COMPENSATION THEREFOR, AS AFORESAID." 
ACTUALLY THE PROVISO CONCERNS ITSELF ONLY WITH THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF
"THIS PARAGRAPH" WHICH MUST MEAN SECS. 36-40, GROUPED UNDER THE HEADING
"CHICKASAW FREEDMEN."  THAT "PARAGRAPH" MERELY REQUIRED THAT ALLOTMENTS
TO THE CHICKASAW FREEDMEN WERE TO BE PERMANENT, THAT THEIR RIGHT TO
ALLOTMENTS BE LITIGATED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, AND THAT ANY RESULTING
AWARD BE PAID TO BOTH TRIBES BY THE UNITED STATES.  NOT ONCE IN THE
ENTIRE "PARAGRAPH" IS THERE A REFERENCE TO CHOCTAW FREEDMEN.  AND,
SINCE THE PROVISO CONCLUDES WITH A REFERENCE TO "THE MONEY, IF ANY,
RECOVERED AS COMPENSATION THEREFOR, AS AFORESAID," IT EVEN MORE CLEARLY
WAS NOT CONCERNED WITH ALLOTMENTS TO CHOCTAW FREEDMEN BECAUSE NO
PROVISION WAS MADE IN THE 1902 AGREEMENT FOR MONEY RECOVERY IN THE CASE
OF ALLOTMENTS TO CHOCTAW FREEDMEN.  IF THE PROVISO IS CONSTRUED AS
PRESERVING THE DEDUCTION REQUIREMENT, IT IS REWRITTEN IN EFFECT, AND
THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE.    IN SO CONSTRUING THE PROVISO, THE COURT OF
CLAIMS RELIED HEAVILY UPON CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT, SET FORTH BELOW,
FN7  TO SHOW THAT WAS THE INTENTION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES. 
OF COURSE, TREATIES ARE CONSTRUED MORE LIBERALLY THAN PRIVATE
AGREEMENTS, AND TO ASCERTAIN THEIR MEANING WE MAY LOOK BEYOND THE
WRITTEN WORDS TO THE HISTORY OF THE TREATY, THE NEGOTIATIONS, AND THE
PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE PARTIES.  FACTOR V. LAUBENHEIMER,
290 U.S. 276, 294-95; COOK V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 102, 112. 
ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE IN INTERPRETING TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS WITH
THE INDIANS; THEY ARE TO BE CONSTRUED, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, IN THE SENSE
IN WHICH THE INDIANS UNDERSTOOD THEM, AND "IN A SPIRIT WHICH GENEROUSLY
RECOGNIZES THE FULL OBLIGATION OF THIS NATION TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS
OF A DEPENDENT PEOPLE."  TULEE V. WASHINGTON, 315 U.S. 681, 684-85. 
SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304 U.S. 111, 116; CHOCTAW
NATION V. UNITED STATES, 119 U.S. 1, 28.  BUT EVEN INDIAN TREATIES
CANNOT BE REWRITTEN OR EXPANDED BEYOND THEIR CLEAR TERMS TO REMEDY A
CLAIMED INJUSTICE OR TO ACHIEVE THE ASSERTED UNDERSTANDING OF THE
PARTIES.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW NATIONS, 179 U.S.
494, 531-33; UNITED STATES V. MILLE LAC CHIPPEWAS, 229 U.S. 498, 500. 
HERE THE WORDS OF THE PROVISO ARE INAPPOSITE TO THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION AND WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE FINDINGS ARE ENOUGH TO WARRANT
DEPARTING FROM THE LANGUAGE USED.  THE FINDINGS ARE MERELY FINDINGS AS
TO EVIDENCE.  THERE IS NO FINDING AS TO THE ULTIMATE FACT WHETHER OR
NOT THE TWO TRIBES INTENDED TO AGREE ON SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THAT
APPEARING ON THE FACE OF THE 1902 AGREEMENT.  WITHOUT SUCH A FINDING
THE AGREEMENT MUST BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO ITS UNAMBIGUOUS
LANGUAGE.  FURTHERMORE, IF WE WERE TO FIND THE ULTIMATE FACT, WE
SERIOUSLY DOUBT WHETHER WE COULD DISCOVER FROM THESE EVIDENTIARY
FINDINGS WHAT THE AGREEMENT AMONG THE TWO TRIBES AND THE UNITED STATES
WAS, IF OTHER THAN THAT EXPRESSED IN THE 1902 AGREEMENT.  FOR THE MOST
PART, THE FINDINGS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ASSERTIONS AND CLAIMS OF THE
CHICKASAWS.  THE ONLY INDICATION THAT THE CHOCTAWS EVER SHARED THOSE
VIEWS AT ANY TIME IS THEIR REQUEST FOR AN "ADDITIONAL DECREE," UPON
WHICH NO ACTION WAS EVER TAKEN. 

EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT DICTATE A DIFFERENT RESULT.  BY THE
TREATY OF 1866 BOTH TRIBES SHARED IN THE $200,000 ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR
THE ADOPTION OF THEIR FREEDMEN AND THE ALLOTMENT OF FORTY ACRES OF LAND
TO THEM.  EVEN THOUGH THE CHICKASAWS NEVER ADOPTED THEIR FREEDMEN, THEY
DID RECEIVE A PORTION OF THEIR SHARE OF THE BALANCE OF THE ORIGINAL
$300,000 TREATY FUND.  FN8  WHEN THEY CONTESTED THE RIGHT OF THEIR
FREEDMEN TO ALLOTMENTS, THE UNITED STATES EXPLICITLY PROMISED IN THE
1902 AGREEMENT TO REIMBURSE THEM IF THERE WERE AN ADVERSE JUDICIAL
DECISION.  THE AGREEMENT CONTAINED NO PROMISE TO REIMBURSE THEM FOR
ALLOTMENTS TO CHOCTAW FREEDMEN, AND, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROMISE
WITH REGARD TO THEIR OWN FREEDMEN, NONE SHOULD BE IMPLIED. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT ALLOTMENTS FROM THE COMMON TRIBAL LANDS WERE TO BE
MADE UNDER THE 1902 AGREEMENT TO CHOCTAW FREEDMEN WITHOUT DEDUCTING
THOSE ALLOTMENTS FROM THE CHOCTAW NATION'S SHARE OF THE LANDS OR
OTHERWISE COMPENSATING THE CHICKASAWS FOR THEIR INTEREST IN THE LANDS
SO ALLOTTED.  SINCE NO LIABILITY EXISTS, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
WHETHER THE CHOCTAW NATION OR THE UNITED STATES IS PRIMARILY LIABLE, OR
WHETHER THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD POWER UNDER THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT (43
STAT. 537) TO PLACE LIABILITY UPON THE CHOCTAW NATION. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AS AMENDED BY 44 STAT. 568, AND 45 STAT. 1229. 

FN2  95 CT. CLS. 192.  THE UNITED STATES, WHILE INSISTING THAT THE
COURT OF CLAIMS CORRECTLY DECIDED THAT THE PRIMARY LIABILITY RESTS UPON
THE CHOCTAW NATION, HAS JOINED THAT NATION IN URGING BEFORE THIS COURT
THAT NO LIABILITY IN FACT EXISTS. 

FN3  THE ACT OF ADOPTION IS SET FORTH IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FOR 1884.  SEE H. EX. DOC. NO. 1, PT. 5,
48TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 36-37. 

FN4  SEE ACT OF JULY 26, 1866, 14 STAT. 255, 259; ACT OF APRIL 10,
1869, 16 STAT. 13, 39; ACT OF MAY 17, 1882, 22 STAT. 68, 72. 

FN5  THIS COMMISSION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DAWES COMMISSION, WAS
CREATED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1893, 27 STAT. 612, 645, TO NEGOTIATE
WITH THE CREEKS, CHEROKEES, CHOCTAWS, CHICKASAWS AND SEMINOLES FOR THE
EXTINGUISHMENT OF TRIBAL TITLES TO LAND AND THE ALLOTMENT OF THEIR
LANDS IN SEVERALTY. 

FN6 THE BALANCE WAS DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO THE HISTORIC
PROPORTIONATE INTERESTS OF THE TRIBES, ONE-FOURTH TO THE CHICKASAWS AND
THREEFOURTHS TO THE CHOCTAWS.  CHOCTAW NATION V. UNITED STATES, 83 CT.
CLS. 140, 144. 

FN7  THE COURT FOUND: 

(A)  THAT THE CHICKASAWS OBJECTED TO ALLOTMENTS TO THE CHOCTAW
FREEDMEN OUT OF THE COMMONLY OWNED LANDS; 

(B)  THAT THE CHICKASAWS INSISTED THAT THE 1902 AGREEMENT CONTAIN
SOME PROVISION SAVING THEIR RIGHTS NOT TO HAVE ALLOTMENTS TO THE
CHOCTAW FREEDMEN MADE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CHICKASAWS' INTEREST IN THE
COMMON LANDS, AND AFTER A CONFERENCE WITH THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL WHO WAS LEGAL ADVISER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, IT WAS
AGREED THAT THE PROVISO TO SEC. 40 BE INCLUDED TO PROTECT THEIR
INTERESTS; 

(C)  THAT THE CHOCTAW NATION, PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT ON
JANUARY 24, 1910, IN THE PROCEEDING AUTHORIZED BY SECS. 36-40(SEE 38
CT. CLS. 558; 193 U.S. 115), FILED AN "APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL
DECREE" IN WHICH IT SET OUT THAT THE CHICKASAWS WERE ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION FOR THEIR PROPORTIONATE INTEREST IN THE COMMONLY OWNED
LANDS ALLOTTED TO THE CHOCTAW FREEDMEN AND REQUESTED THE COURT TO ENTER
A SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE DEDUCTING FROM THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE
JUDGMENT ONE-FOURTH OF THE VALUE OF THE JOINTLY HELD LANDS ALLOTTED TO
THE CHOCTAW FREEDMEN AND ADD THAT AMOUNT TO THE AMOUNT TO BE
APPORTIONED TO THE CHICKASAW NATION UNDER THE JUDGMENT.  (NO ACTION WAS
TAKEN ON THIS REQUEST.) 

(D)  THAT ON MARCH 11, 1910, THE GOVERNOR OF THE CHICKASAW NATION
WROTE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS REQUESTING PERMISSION TO
EMPLOY SEPARATE COUNSEL FOR THE CHICKASAW NATION AND SETTING OUT IN
SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST THE CHICKASAWS' CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR
LANDS ALLOTTED TO THE CHOCTAW FREEDMEN OUT OF THE COMMON DOMAIN OF THE
TWO NATIONS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CHICKASAWS AND POINTED OUT THAT
THE CHICKASAWS HAD HAD NO ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THEM AT THE TIME THAT
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN THE SUIT BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL
AGREEMENT.  THE COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE REQUEST ON THE
GROUND THAT IN VIEW OF THE ADMISSION OF THE CHOCTAWS IN THEIR REQUEST
FOR AN ADDITIONAL DECREE, JUDICIAL ACTION DID NOT SEEM TO BE NECESSARY
TO SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 4, ANTE. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



CORN EXCHANGE BANK V. KLAUDER, 318 U.S. 434 


NO. 452.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 3, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 8, 1943.  - 129
F.2D 24, 894, AFFIRMED. 


WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF BANKRUPTCY THE DEBTOR HAD ASSIGNED ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE AS SECURITY FOR CONCURRENT LOANS.  NOTICE TO THOSE WHO OWED
THE ACCOUNTS WAS NOT GIVEN, ALTHOUGH UNDER APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW NOTICE
WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PRECLUDE POSSIBLE SUPERIOR RIGHTS IN
SUBSEQUENT BONA FIDE PURCHASERS OF THE ACCOUNTS.  HELD, THAT THE
ASSIGNMENTS WERE PREFERENTIAL UNDER SEC. 60(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
AND THUS AVOIDABLE BY THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY UNDER SEC. 60(B)
THEREOF.  P. 439. 

CORN EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. ET AL. V. KLAUDER, TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT WHICH AFFIRMED ORDERS OF THE REFEREE ALLOWING CERTAIN
CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONERS AS SECURED CLAIMS AGAINST THE BANKRUPT
ESTATE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE REQUIRES US TO DETERMINE THE APPLICATION OF THE PREFERENCE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 60(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED BY THE
CHANDLER ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938,  FN1  TO LOANS MADE ON ASSIGNMENTS OF
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE. 

THE QUAKER CITY SHEET METAL COMPANY BECAME EMBARRASSED FOR WANT OF
WORKING CAPITAL IN 1938.  CREDITORS REPRESENTING A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF
CLAIMS LATER PROVED IN BANKRUPTCY AGREED TO SUBORDINATE THEIR CLAIMS TO
THOSE WHICH MIGHT BE INCURRED FOR NEW WORKING CAPITAL.  A CREDITOR'S
COMMITTEE TOOK SUPERVISION OF THE BUSINESS AND IN 1938 ARRANGED WITH
THE PETITIONER BANK TO ADVANCE FROM TIME TO TIME MONEY FOR PAYROLL AND
OTHER NEEDS ON CONCURRENTLY MADE ASSIGNMENTS OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE. 
AT THE TIME OF BANKRUPTCY THE COMPANY WAS INDEBTED TO THE BANK FOR
LOANS SO MADE ON CONTEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS BETWEEN JANUARY 19, 1940, AND
APRIL 5, 1940.  ON APRIL 12, 1940, PETITIONER DEARDEN MADE A LOAN ON
SIMILAR SECURITY.  AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED
AGAINST THE COMPANY ON APRIL 18, 1940, FOLLOWED BY ADJUDICATION ON MAY
7, 1940.  WHEN THE ASSIGNMENTS WERE MADE THEY WERE RECORDED ON THE
COMPANY'S BOOKS, BUT NEITHER PETITIONER HAD EVER GIVEN NOTICE OF
ASSIGNMENT TO THE DEBTORS WHOSE OBLIGATIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN AS
SECURITY.  BECAUSE OF THIS OMISSION THE TRUSTEE CHALLENGED THEIR RIGHT
TO THE BENEFITS OF THEIR SECURITY.  HE WAS OVERRULED BY THE REFEREE AND
THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT HIS POSITION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT,  FN2  ON AN INTERPRETATION OF SEC.
60(A) WHICH CONFLICTS WITH AN INTERPRETATION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.  FN3  HENCE WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN4 


"A PREFERENCE IS A TRANSFER, AS DEFINED IN THIS ACT, OF ANY OF THE
PROPERTY OF A DEBTOR TO OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF A CREDITOR FOR OR ON
ACCOUNT OF AN ANTECEDENT DEBT, MADE OR SUFFERED BY SUCH DEBTOR WHILE
INSOLVENT AND WITHIN FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE FILING BY OR AGAINST HIM OF
THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY,  ...  THE EFFECT OF WHICH TRANSFER WILL BE
TO ENABLE SUCH CREDITOR TO OBTAIN A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF HIS DEBT THAN
SOME OTHER CREDITOR OF THE SAME CLASS.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF
SUBDIVISIONS A AND B OF THIS SECTION, A TRANSFER SHALL BE DEEMED TO
HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME WHEN IT BECAME SO FAR PERFECTED THAT NO BONA
FIDE PURCHASER FROM THE DEBTOR AND NO CREDITOR COULD THEREAFTER HAVE
ACQUIRED ANY RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY SO TRANSFERRED SUPERIOR TO THE
RIGHTS OF THE TRANSFEREE THEREIN, AND, IF SUCH TRANSFER IS NOT SO
PERFECTED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY  ...  , IT
SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE BANKRUPTCY." 

ASSIGNMENT.  FN5 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS DETERMINED, AND WE ACCEPT ITS
CONCLUSION, THAT AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES IT WAS THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA,
WHERE THESE TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE, THAT BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF
THESE ASSIGNEES TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE DEBTORS WHOSE OBLIGATIONS WERE
TAKEN, A SUBSEQUENT GOOD-FAITH ASSIGNEE, GIVING SUCH NOTICE, WOULD
ACQUIRE A RIGHT SUPERIOR TO THEIRS.  FN6 IT HELD THAT THE ASSIGNMENTS
WERE PREFERENCES UNDER SEC. 60(A) AND THEREFORE, UNDER THE TERMS OF
SEC. 60(B),  FN7  INOPERATIVE AGAINST THE TRUSTEE. 

THIS IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE EFFECT OF A LITERAL READING OF THE ACT.  ITS
APPARENT COMMAND IS TO TEST THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A TRANSFER, AS AGAINST
THE TRUSTEE, BY THE STANDARDS WHICH APPLICABLE STATE LAW  FN8  WOULD
ENFORCE AGAINST A GOOD-FAITH PURCHASER.  ONLY WHEN SUCH A PURCHASER IS
PRECLUDED FROM OBTAINING SUPERIOR RIGHTS IS THE TRUSTEE SO PRECLUDED. 
SO LONG AS THE TRANSACTION IS LEFT OPEN TO POSSIBLE INTERVENING RIGHTS
TO SUCH A PURCHASER, IT IS VULNERABLE TO THE INTERVENING BANKRUPTCY. 
BY THUS POSTPONING THE EFFECTIVE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, THE DEBT, WHICH
IS EFFECTIVE WHEN ACTUALLY MADE, WILL BE MADE ANTECEDENT TO THE DELAYED
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TRANSFER AND THEREFORE WILL BE MADE A
PREFERENTIAL TRANSFER IN LAW, ALTHOUGH IN FACT MADE CONCURRENTLY WITH
THE ADVANCE OF MONEY.  IN THIS CASE THE TRANSFERS, GOOD BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, HAD NEVER BEEN PERFECTED AS AGAINST GOOD-FAITH PURCHASERS BY
NOTICE TO THE DEBTORS AS THE LAW REQUIRED, AND SO THE CONCLUSION
FOLLOWS FROM THIS READING OF THE ACT THAT THE PETITIONERS LOSE THEIR
SECURITY UNDER THE PREFERENCE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 60(B). 

SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS CAPABLE OF HARSH RESULTS,  FN9  AND IT IS SAID
THAT IT WILL SERIOUSLY HAMPER THE BUSINESS OF "NONNOTIFICATION
FINANCING," OF WHICH THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INSTANCE.  THIS BUSINESS IS
OF LARGE MAGNITUDE AND IT IS SAID TO BE OF PARTICULAR BENEFIT TO SMALL
AND STRUGGLING BORROWERS N10.  SUCH CONSEQUENCES MAY, AS PETITIONERS
ARGUE, BE SERIOUS, BUT WE FIND NOTHING IN CONGRESSIONAL POLICY WHICH
WARRANTS TAKING THIS CASE OUT OF THE LETTER OF THE ACT. 

THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHICH REPORTED SEC.
60(A) AS QUOTED ABOVE WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE VICISSITUDES OF ITS
PREDECESSORS.  FN11  THESE ARE RECITED IN DETAIL ELSEWHERE, AND NEED
NOT BE REPEATED HERE BEYOND A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT FOR THIRTY-FIVE
YEARS CONGRESS HAS CONSISTENTLY REACHED OUT TO STRIKE DOWN SECRET
TRANSFERS, AND THE COURTS HAVE WITH EQUAL CONSISTENCY FOUND ITS EFFORTS
FAULTY OR INSUFFICIENT TO THAT END.  FN12  AGAINST SUCH A BACKGROUND,
SEC. 60(A) WAS DRAWN AND REPORTED TO CONGRESS WITH THIS EXPLANATION OF
ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT:  "THE NEW TEST IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND
ACCORDS WITH THE CONTEMPLATED PURPOSE OF STRIKING DOWN SECRET LIENS. 
IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE TRANSFER SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN
IT HAS BECOME SO FAR PERFECTED THAT NEITHER A BONAFIDE PURCHASER NOR
CREDITOR COULD THEREAFTER HAVE ACQUIRED RIGHTS SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF THE
TRANSFEREE.  AS THUS DRAFTED, IT INCLUDES A FAILURE TO RECORD AND ANY
OTHER GROUND WHICH COULD BE ASSERTED BY A BONA-FIDE PURCHASER OR A
CREDITOR OF THE TRANSFEROR, AS AGAINST THE TRANSFEREE.  A PROVISION
ALSO HAS BEEN ADDED WHICH MAKES THE TEST EFFECTIVE EVEN THOUGH THE
TRANSFER MAY NEVER HAVE ACTUALLY BECOME PERFECTED."  FN13 

WHATEVER ADVANTAGES MAY INHERE IN NON-NOTIFICATION FINANCING WHICH
MIGHT HAVE MADE CONGRESS RELUCTANT TO JEOPARDIZE IT, THE SYSTEM ALSO
HAS CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO CONCLUDE THAT IT
IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SECRET LIENS CONGRESS WAS ADMITTEDLY
TRYING TO REACH. 

RECEIVABLES OFTEN ARE ASSIGNED ONLY WHEN CREDIT IN A SIMILAR AMOUNT
IS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH OTHER CHANNELS.  FN14  INTEREST AND OTHER
CHARGES ARE HIGH,  FN15  AND AN ASSIGNMENT OFTEN IS CORRECTLY
UNDERSTOOD AS A SYMPTOM OF FINANCIAL DISTRESS.  FN16  THE BORROWER DOES
NOT WISH HIS CUSTOMERS TO LEARN OF HIS BORROWING ARRANGEMENT FOR THE
REASON, AMONG OTHERS, THAT CUSTOMERS, PARTICULARLY IN PLACING ORDERS
FOR FUTURE DELIVERY, PREFER TO RELY ON SOLVENT SUPPLIERS.  AND OFTEN
THE BORROWER DESIRES TO CONCEAL THE FACT THAT HE IS BEING FINANCED BY
THIS METHOD, LEST KNOWLEDGE LEAD TO A WITHDRAWAL OF FURTHER CREDIT OR
REFUSAL OF NEW CREDIT.  FN17  THE BORROWER AND THE LENDER ON ASSIGNED
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE THUS HAVE A MUTUAL INTEREST IN NOT MAKING THE
TRANSACTION KNOWN.  SO LONG AS THE TRANSACTION MAY REMAIN A SECRET, IT
IS NOT APT TO BECOME KNOWN TO THE TRADE.  WHEN THE TRANSACTION IS
COMMUNICATED TO THE TRADE DEBTORS IT IS KNOWN WHERE THERE IS LESS
MOTIVE TO KEEP IT UNDER COVER.  COMMERCIAL AND TRADE REPORTING AGENCIES
ARE DILIGENT TO OBTAIN CREDIT INFORMATION OF THIS CHARACTER.  ITS
DISSEMINATION MAY OFTEN HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS UPON BOTH THE BORROWER AND
THE LENDER, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY INTERESTED PARTIES.  SECRECY HAS
THE EFFECT OF INDUCING OTHERS TO GO ALONG WITH THE BORROWER IN
IGNORANCE, WHERE THEY WOULD NOT DO SO IF INFORMED. 

IT IS SAID THAT ASSIGNMENTS SUCH AS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE ACT, SINCE ITS
APPLICATION WILL HAVE BUT LITTLE EFFECT IN REMEDYING WHATEVER SECRECY
ATTENDS THEM.  IT IS TRUE THAT NOTICE TO THE DEBTORS SUFFICIENT TO
SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICABLE STATE LAW MIGHT NEVER HAVE BEEN
COMMUNICATED TO THE CREDITORS, AND THAT MANY STATES DO NOT REQUIRE
NOTICE TO THE DEBTOR TO FORECLOSE POSSIBLE SUPERIOR RIGHTS OF
SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNEES.  FN18  SO ALSO IS IT TRUE THAT CONFLICTS AND
CONFUSION MAY RESULT WHERE THE TRANSACTION OR LOCATION OF THE PARTIES
IS OF SUCH A NATURE THAT DOUBT ARISES AS TO WHICH OF DIFFERENT STATE
LAWS IS APPLICABLE.  BUT THE FACT THAT THE REMEDY MAY FALL SHORT IN
THESE RESPECTS DOES NOT JUSTIFY DENYING IT ALL EFFECT. 

THAT THE ASSIGNMENTS IN THIS CASE WERE MADE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND
ACQUIESCENCE OF MANY CREDITORS DOES NOT CURE THE FAILURE TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE LAID DOWN BY THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW.  NEITHER
THE WORDS NOR THE POLICY OF SEC. 60(A) AFFORD ANY WARRANT FOR CREATING
EXCEPTIONS TO FIT ISOLATED HARD CASES. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 840, 869-870; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 96(A). 

FN2  129 F.2D 894. 

FN3  ADAMS V. CITY BANK & TRUST CO., 115 F.2D 453. 

FN4  317 U.S. 617. 

FN5  52 STAT. 840, 842, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 1(30). 

FN6  PHILLIPS'S ESTATE (NO. 3), 205 PA. 515, 55 A. 213; CF.
PHILLIPS'S ESTATE (NO. 4), 205 PA. 525, 55 A. 216.  PENNSYLVANIA HAS
SINCE PROVIDED BY STATUTE THAT NOTICE OF THE ASSIGNMENT ON THE
ASSIGNOR'S BOOKS WILL PROTECT THE ASSIGNEE.  PA. LAWS, 1941, NO. 255,
P. 606(JULY 31, 1941), 69 PURD.  STAT.  ANN. SEC. 561. 

FN7  52 STAT. 840, 870, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 96(B). 

FN8  QUESTIONS OF THIS SORT ARISING IN BANKRUPTCY CASES WERE SOLVED
BY REFERENCE TO STATE LAW EVEN BEFORE THE DECISION OF ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  HOLT V. CRUCIBLE STEEL CO., 224 U.S. 262;
BENEDICT V. RATNER, 268 U.S. 353.  THE DECISION IN SALEM TRUST CO. V.
MANUFACTURERS' FINANCE CO., 264 U.S. 182, THAT, AS A MATTER OF "GENERAL
LAW," ABSENCE OF NOTICE TO THE DEBTOR OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF HIS ACCOUNT
DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO A SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNEE TO OBTAIN SUPERIOR
RIGHTS, WAS NOT RENDERED IN A BANKRUPTCY CASE, AND IS IN ANY EVENT
INAPPLICABLE SINCE THE DECISION OF THE TOMPKINS CASE. 

FN9  WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE ANY RIGHTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF
SOME OF THE CREDITORS TO SUBORDINATE THEIR CLAIMS TO THOSE WHICH MIGHT
BE INCURRED FOR NEW WORKING CAPITAL IS A QUESTION WHICH HAS NEITHER
BEEN RAISED BY THE PARTIES NOR CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. 

FN10  PETITIONERS CITE AND RELY UPON SAULNIER AND JACOBY, ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE FINANCING (NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, 1943), FOR
AN ESTIMATE THAT IN 1941 COMMERCIAL FINANCE COMPANIES ADVANCED
$536,000,000 ON THIS BASIS; AND COMMERCIAL BANKS, $952,000,000.  OF THE
BORROWERS, IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT 63% HAD TOTAL (NOT NET) ASSETS OF LESS
THAN $200,000; AND 31%, LESS THAN $50,000.  THEIR BORROWING WAS
ESTIMATED, HOWEVER, TO AMOUNT TO LESS THAN 19% OF THE TOTAL.  ID. AT
17, 32, 64. 

"FACTORING," A SYSTEM INVOLVING NOTICE TO THE TRADE DEBTORS, AND
CONFINED PRINCIPALLY TO THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY, AMOUNTED IN 1941 TO
$1,150,000,000.  ID. AT 3, 17, 58 ET SEQ. 

FN11  SEE STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR MCLAUGHLIN, HEARINGS, REVISION OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
PP. 122-125.  HE STATED THOMPSON V. FAIRBANKS, 196 U.S. 516, AS
APPLYING A RULE OF STATE LAW THAT A MORTGAGEE BY TAKING POSSESSION OF
THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AT A TIME SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXECUTION OF THE
MORTGAGE THEREBY VALIDATED IT AS OF THE TIME OF EXECUTION.  HE SAID
THAT SEC. 60(A) WOULD PREVENT SUCH VALIDATION BY RELATION BACK. 
SIMILAR DISAPPROVING REFERENCE WAS MADE TO BAILEY V. BAKER ICE MACHINE
CO., 239 U.S. 268; CAREY V. DONOHUE, 240 U.S. 430; AND MARTIN V.
COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK, 245 U.S. 513; WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT "YOU
ARE GOING TO HAVE TAKEN AWAY SOME ADVANTAGES THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE
ENJOYED, AND CERTAIN PRACTICES ARE GOING TO BE ALTERED TO SOME EXTENT. 
BUT YOU HAVE THAT EVERY TIME YOU PASS ANY KIND OF A COMMERCIAL LAW." 

FN12  SEE CASES CITED IN THE NOTE ABOVE; HIRSCHFELD V. NOGLE, 5
F.SUPP.  234; 3 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  SECS.  60.05, 60.37. 
THE HISTORY AND MEANING OF THE PRESENT SEC. 60(A) ARE DISCUSSED IN 3
COLLIER, OP. CIT. SUPRA, SEC. 60.48; 2 GLENN, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES
AND PREFERENCES (1940) SEC. 534; HANNA, SOME UNSOLVED PROBLEMS UNDER
MCLAUGHLIN, ASPECTS OF THE CHANDLER BILL TO AMEND THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 4
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 369; NEUHOFF, ASSIGNMENT OF ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE AS AFFECTED BY THE CHANDLER ACT, 34 ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 538;
MULDER, AMBIGUITIES IN THE CHANDLER ACT, 89 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAW REVIEW 10; HAMILTON, THE EFFECT OF SECTION SIXTY OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT UPON ASSIGNMENTS OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, 26 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW
168.    FN13  H.R. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 30. 

FN14  SAULNIER AND JACOBY, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 10, PP. 6, 21 ET
SEQ., 61 ET SEQ. 

FN15  EFFECTIVE RATES ARE ESTIMATED TO RANGE FROM APPROXIMATELY 9%
PER ANNUM ON MONEY IN USE FOR THE BEST BORROWERS TO 20% PER ANNUM FOR
THOSE WHOSE ACCOUNTS PRESENT THE FINANCING COMPANY WITH THE HEAVIEST
OPERATING COSTS AND WHOSE RECEIVABLES ARE OF A QUALITY TO COMMAND ONLY
A RELATIVELY LOW PERCENTAGE ADVANCE.  ID. AT 86, 131 ET SEQ. 

FN16  ID. AT 22, 99.    FN17  "ANOTHER REASON FOR THE USE OF THE NON
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE, ALTHOUGH LESS IMPORTANT THAN OTHER MOTIVES AND
LESS RELEVANT AT PRESENT THAN FORMERLY, SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE DESIRE
ON THE PART OF THE CONCERN BEING FINANCED TO KEEP THE FACT OF ITS USE
OF THIS SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM BECOMING KNOWN TO ITS CREDITORS. 
PRESUMABLY THESE CREDITORS WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO GRANT THE CONCERN
FURTHER CREDIT ON THE GROUND THAT RESORT TO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
FINANCING REFLECTED AN UNSATISFACTORY FINANCIAL POSITION AND IMPAIRED
THEIR OWN SECURITY.  IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT THIS ATTITUDE TOWARD NON
NOTIFICATION FINANCING MAY BE TRACED TO A MIXTURE OF SIMPLE PREJUDICE
AND GENUINE EXPERIENCE WITH CASES WHERE CREDITORS' MEETINGS DISCLOSED
FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THE BANKRUPT HAD SECRETLY ASSIGNED HIS MOST
LIQUID ASSETS AND MADE UNPRODUCTIVE USE OF THE FUNDS SO ACQUIRED. 
GENUINE EXPERIENCE MUST HAVE BEEN THE MORE IMPORTANT BASIS OF THE TWO
FOR IT IS UNLIKELY THAT AN ATTITUDE AND PREJUDICE SO DEEPLY EMBEDDED
COULD BE FOUNDED ENTIRELY ON MISINFORMATION AND IRRATIONAL JUDGMENT." 
ID. AT 22. 

FN18  SEE 2 WILLISTON, CONTRACTS (REV. ED.)  SEC.  435, AND HAMILTON,
LOC.  CIT.  SUPRA, NOTE 12. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
REVERSED FOR REASONS STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION BELOW, 129 F.2D
897, AND IN ADAMS V. CITY BANK & TRUST CO., 115 F.2D 453; GIRAND V.
KIMBELL MILLING CO., 116 F.2D 999, IN RE TALBOT CANNING CORP., 35
F.SUPP.  680; ASSOCIATED SEED GROWERS V. GEIB, 125 F.2D 683, AND IN RE
E.H. WEBB GROCERY CO., 32 F.SUPP.  3. 
..END :






SECURITY ADM'R V. QUAKER OATS CO., 318 U.S. 218 


NO. 424.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 5, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 129
F.2D 76, REVERSED. 


THE FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR, ACTING UNDER SECS. 401 AND 701(E)
OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT, PROMULGATED REGULATIONS
ESTABLISHING "STANDARDS OF IDENTITY" FOR VARIOUS MILLED WHEAT PRODUCTS,
EXCLUDING VITAMIN D FROM THE DEFINED STANDARD OF "FARINA" AND
PERMITTING IT ONLY IN "ENRICHED FARINA," WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO CONTAIN
VITAMIN B1, RIBOFLAVIN, NICOTINIC ACID AND IRON.  THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATIONS WAS CHALLENGED AS APPLIED TO THE RESPONDENT, WHO FOR TEN
YEARS HAD MANUFACTURED AND MARKETED, UNDER AN ACCURATE AND INFORMATIVE
LABEL, A FOOD PRODUCT CONSISTING OF FARINA, AS DEFINED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATIONS, BUT WITH VITAMIN D ADDED.  UNDER THE ACT
AS SUPPLEMENTED BY THE REGULATIONS, RESPONDENT'S PRODUCT COULD NOT BE
MARKETED AS "FARINA," SINCE, BY REASON OF THE PRESENCE OF VITAMIN D AS
AN INGREDIENT, IT WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARD OF IDENTITY
PRESCRIBED FOR "FARINA"; NOR COULD IT BE MARKETED AS "ENRICHED FARINA"
UNLESS THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM QUANTITIES OF VITAMIN B1, RIBOFLAVIN,
NICOTINIC ACID AND IRON WERE ADDED.  HELD, THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR DID
NOT DEPART FROM STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IN CHOOSING THE STANDARDS OF
IDENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING "FAIR DEALING IN THE INTEREST OF
CONSUMERS"; THAT THE STANDARDS WHICH HE SELECTED ARE ADAPTED TO THAT
END; AND THAT THEY ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE. 
PP. 220, 235. 

1.  UPON REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR
ISSUING REGULATIONS UNDER SEC. 401 OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND
COSMETIC ACT, THE FINDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AS TO THE FACTS ARE
CONCLUSIVE IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 227. 

(A)  IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT A REVIEWING COURT ACCORD PROPER SCOPE TO
THE DISCRETION AND INFORMED JUDGMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WHERE
THE REVIEW IS OF REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION ADOPTED BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY UNDER ITS RULE-MAKING POWER IN CARRYING OUT THE
POLICY OF A STATUTE WITH WHOSE ENFORCEMENT IT IS CHARGED.  P. 227. 

(B)  THE JUDGMENT EXERCISED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 401, IF
BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF RECORD, AND IF WITHIN STATUTORY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, IS CONTROLLING EVEN THOUGH THE REVIEWING
COURT MIGHT ON THE SAME RECORD HAVE ARRIVED AT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. 
P. 228. 

2.  TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC DEMAND FOR
VITAMINENRICHED FOODS, THEIR INCREASING SALE, THEIR VARIABLE VITAMIN
COMPOSITION AND DIETARY VALUE, AND THE GENERAL LACK OF CONSUMER
KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH VALUES, THERE WAS IN THIS CASE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE,
OF RATIONAL PROBATIVE FORCE, TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT
THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF APPROPRIATE STANDARDS OF IDENTITY, CONSUMER
CONFUSION WOULD ENSUE; AND TO SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S CONCLUSION
THAT THE STANDARDS OF IDENTITY ADOPTED WILL PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR
DEALING IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS.  P. 228. 

3.  THE TEXT AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT SHOW THAT ITS
PURPOSE WAS NOT CONFINED TO REQUIRING INFORMATIVE LABELING, BUT WAS TO
AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PROMULGATE DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS OF
IDENTITY "UNDER WHICH THE INTEGRITY OF FOOD PRODUCTS CAN BE EFFECTIVELY
MAINTAINED" AND TO REQUIRE INFORMATIVE LABELING ONLY WHERE NO SUCH
STANDARD HAD BEEN PROMULGATED, WHERE THE FOOD DID NOT PURPORT TO COMPLY
WITH A STANDARD, OR WHERE THE REGULATIONS PERMITTED OPTIONAL
INGREDIENTS AND REQUIRED THEIR MENTION ON THE LABEL.  P. 230. 

4.  THE COURT CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH A STANDARD OF IDENTITY, DESIGNED
TO ELIMINATE A SOURCE OF CONFUSION TO PURCHASERS - WHICH OTHERWISE
WOULD BE LIKELY TO FACILITATE UNFAIR DEALING AND MAKE PROTECTION OF THE
CONSUMER DIFFICULT - WILL NOT "PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR DEALING" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  P. 231. 

5.  THE ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE A REGULATION WHICH WOULD EXCLUDE A
WHOLESOME AND BENEFICIAL INGREDIENT FROM THE DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF
IDENTITY OF A FOOD.  P. 232. 

6.  IT WAS NOT UNREASONABLE TO PROHIBIT THE ADDITION TO "FARINA" OF
VITAMIN D AS AN OPTIONAL INGREDIENT, WHILE PERMITTING ITS ADDITION AS
AN OPTIONAL INGREDIENT TO "ENRICHED FARINA."  P. 234. 

7.  ON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE INCREASED
COST OF ADDING THE MINUTE QUANTITIES OF THE FOUR INGREDIENTS REQUIRED
FOR "ENRICHED FARINA" IS SUFFICIENT TO HAVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL BEARING ON
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE REGULATIONS.  P. 235. 

FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR V. QUAKER OATS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 616, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND
COSMETIC ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR, ACTING UNDER SECS. 401 AND
701(E), OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT, 52 STAT. 1040,
1046, 1055(21 U.S.C. SECS. 341, 371), PROMULGATED REGULATIONS
ESTABLISHING "STANDARDS OF IDENTITY" FOR VARIOUS MILLED WHEAT PRODUCTS,
EXCLUDING VITAMIN D FROM THE DEFINED STANDARD OF "FARINA" AND
PERMITTING IT ONLY IN "ENRICHED FARINA," WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO CONTAIN
VITAMIN B1, RIBOFLAVIN, NICOTINIC ACID AND IRON.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE REGULATIONS ARE VALID AS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT.  THE ANSWER
TURNS UPON (A) WHETHER THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDING THAT INDISCRIMINATE ENRICHMENT OF FARINA WITH
VITAMIN AND MINERAL CONTENTS WOULD TEND TO CONFUSE AND MISLEAD
CONSUMERS; (B) IF SO, WHETHER, UPON SUCH A FINDING, THE ADMINISTRATOR
HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A STANDARD OF IDENTITY, WHICH EXCLUDES
A DISCLOSED NON-DELETERIOUS INGREDIENT, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE HONESTY AND
FAIR DEALING IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS; AND (C) WHETHER THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S TREATMENT, BY THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS, OF THE USE OF
VITAMIN D AS AN INGREDIENT OF A PRODUCT SOLD AS "FARINA" IS WITHIN HIS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE "A REASONABLE DEFINITION AND STANDARD
OF IDENTITY." 

ADMINISTRATOR SUCH ACTION WILL PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR DEALING IN THE
INTEREST OF CONSUMERS, HE SHALL PROMULGATE REGULATIONS FIXING AND
ESTABLISHING FOR ANY FOOD, UNDER ITS COMMON OR USUAL NAME SO FAR AS
PRACTICABLE, A REASONABLE DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF IDENTITY  ...  IN
PRESCRIBING A DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF IDENTITY FOR ANY FOOD OR CLASS
OF FOOD IN WHICH OPTIONAL INGREDIENTS ARE PERMITTED, THE ADMINISTRATOR
SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING HONESTY AND FAIR DEALING IN THE
INTEREST OF CONSUMERS, DESIGNATE THE OPTIONAL INGREDIENTS WHICH SHALL
BE NAMED ON THE LABEL."  BY SEC. 701(E) THE ADMINISTRATOR, ON HIS OWN
INITIATIVE OR UPON APPLICATION OF ANY INTERESTED INDUSTRY OR A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF IT, IS REQUIRED TO "HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING UPON A
PROPOSAL TO ISSUE, AMEND, OR REPEAL ANY REGULATION CONTEMPLATED BY"
SEC. 401.  AT THE HEARING "ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY BE HEARD."  THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED TO PROMULGATE BY ORDER ANY REGULATION HE MAY
ISSUE TO "BASE HIS ORDER ONLY ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF RECORD AT THE
HEARING," AND TO "SET FORTH AS PART OF HIS ORDER DETAILED FINDINGS OF
FACT ON WHICH THE ORDER IS BASED."  FN1 

ANY FOOD WHICH "PURPORTS TO BE OR IS REPRESENTED AS A FOOD FOR WHICH
A DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF IDENTITY HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED" PURSUANT TO
SEC. 401 IS DECLARED BY SEC. 403(G) TO BE MISBRANDED "UNLESS (1) IT
CONFORMS TO SUCH DEFINITION AND STANDARD, AND (2) ITS LABEL BEARS THE
NAME OF THE FOOD SPECIFIED IN THE DEFINITION AND STANDARD, AND, INSOFAR
AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY SUCH REGULATIONS, THE COMMON NAMES OF OPTIONAL
INGREDIENTS  ...  PRESENT IN SUCH FOOD."  THE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF "MISBRANDED" FOOD IS MADE A PENAL OFFENSE BY SECS. 301 AND
303.  "IN A CASE OF ACTUAL CONTROVERSY AS TO THE VALIDITY" OF AN ORDER
ISSUING REGULATIONS UNDER SEC. 401 ANY PERSON "ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BY
IT MAY SECURE ITS REVIEW ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE CIRCUIT OF HIS RESIDENCE OR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.  ON SUCH
REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR "AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  SEC. 701(F)(1),
(F)(3). 

AFTER DUE NOTICE  FN2  AND A HEARING IN WHICH RESPONDENT
PARTICIPATED, THE ADMINISTRATOR BY ORDER PROMULGATED REGULATIONS
ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS OF IDENTITY FOR SIXTEEN MILLED
WHEAT PRODUCTS, INCLUDING "FARINA" AND "ENRICHED FARINA."  REGULATION
15.130 DEFINED "FARINA" AS A FOOD PREPARED BY GRINDING AND BOLTING
CLEANED WHEAT, OTHER THAN CERTAIN SPECIFIED KINDS, TO A PRESCRIBED
FINENESS WITH THE BRAN COAT AND GERM OF THE WHEAT BERRY REMOVED TO A
PRESCRIBED EXTENT.  THE REGULATION MADE NO PROVISION FOR THE ADDITION
OF ANY INGREDIENTS TO "FARINA."  REGULATION 15.140 DEFINED "ENRICHED
FARINA" AS CONFORMING TO THE REGULATION DEFINING "FARINA," BUT WITH
ADDED PRESCRIBED MINIMUM QUANTITIES OF VITAMIN B1, RIBOFLAVIN,  FN3
NICOTINIC ACID (OR NICOTINIC ACID AMIDE) AND IRON.  THE REGULATION ALSO
PROVIDED THAT MINIMUM QUANTITIES OF VITAMIN D, CALCIUM, WHEAT GERM OR
DISODIUM PHOSPHATE MIGHT BE ADDED AS OPTIONAL INGREDIENTS OF "ENRICHED
FARINA," AND REQUIRED THAT INGREDIENTS SO ADDED BE SPECIFIED ON THE
LABEL.  IN SUPPORT OF THE REGULATIONS THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND THAT
"UNLESS A STANDARD" FOR MILLED WHEAT PRODUCTS "IS PROMULGATED WHICH
LIMITS THE KINDS AND AMOUNTS OF ENRICHMENT, THE MANUFACTURERS'
SELECTION OF THE VARIOUS NUTRITIVE ELEMENTS AND COMBINATIONS OF
ELEMENTS ON THE BASIS OF ECONOMIC AND MERCHANDISING CONSIDERATIONS IS
LIKELY TO LEAD TO A GREAT INCREASE IN THE DIVERSITY, BOTH QUALITATIVE
AND QUANTITATIVE, IN ENRICHED FLOURS OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC.  SUCH
DIVERSITY WOULD TEND TO CONFUSE AND MISLEAD CONSUMERS AS TO THE
RELATIVE VALUE OF AND NEED FOR THE SEVERAL NUTRITIONAL ELEMENTS, AND
WOULD IMPEDE RATHER THAN PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR DEALING IN THE
INTEREST OF CONSUMERS." 

ON RESPONDENT'S APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT SET IT ASIDE, 129 F.2D 76, HOLDING THAT THE REGULATIONS
DID NOT CONFORM TO THE STATUTORY STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS, THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS AS TO PROBABLE CONSUMER CONFUSION IN THE
ABSENCE OF THE PRESCRIBED STANDARDS OF IDENTITY WERE WITHOUT SUPPORT IN
THE EVIDENCE AND WERE "ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE AND CONJECTURAL," AND THAT
IN ANY CASE SUCH A FINDING WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
REGULATIONS WOULD "PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR DEALING IN THE INTEREST OF
CONSUMERS."  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 616, BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FOOD,
DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT. 

RESPONDENT, THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, HAS FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS
MANUFACTURED AND MARKETED A WHEAT PRODUCT COMMONLY USED AS A CEREAL
FOOD, CONSISTING OF FARINA AS DEFINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
REGULATION, BUT WITH VITAMIN D ADDED.  RESPONDENT DISTRIBUTES THIS
PRODUCT IN PACKAGES LABELED "QUAKER FARINA WHEAT CEREAL ENRICHED WITH
VITAMIN D," OR "QUAKER FARINA ENRICHED BY THE SUNSHINE VITAMIN."  THE
PACKAGES ALSO BEAR THE LABEL "CONTENTS 400 U.S.P. UNITS OF VITAMIN D
PER OUNCE, SUPPLIED BY APPROXIMATELY THE ADDITION OF 1/5 OF 1 PERCENT
IRRADIATED DRY YEAST." 

RESPONDENT ASSERTS, AND THE GOVERNMENT AGREES, THAT THE ACT AS
SUPPLEMENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S STANDARDS WILL PREVENT THE
MARKETING OF ITS PRODUCT AS "FARINA" SINCE, BY REASON OF THE PRESENCE
OF VITAMIN D AS AN INGREDIENT, IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARD OF
IDENTITY PRESCRIBED FOR "FARINA," AND THAT RESPONDENT CANNOT MARKET ITS
PRODUCT AS "ENRICHED FARINA" UNLESS IT ADDS THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM
QUANTITIES OF VITAMIN B1, RIBOFLAVIN, NICOTINIC ACID AND IRON. 
RESPONDENT CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS ON THE GROUNDS
SUSTAINED BELOW AND OTHERS SO CLOSELY RELATED TO THEM AS NOT TO REQUIRE
SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. 

AS APPEARS FROM THE EVIDENCE AND THE FINDINGS, THE PRODUCTS OF MILLED
WHEAT ARE AMONG THE PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF THE AMERICAN DIET, PARTICULARLY
AMONG LOW INCOME GROUPS.  FN4  FARINA, WHICH IS A HIGHLY REFINED WHEAT
PRODUCT RESEMBLING FLOUR BUT WITH LARGER PARTICLES, IS USED IN
MACARONI, AS A BREAKFAST FOOD, AND EXTENSIVELY AS A CEREAL FOOD FOR
CHILDREN.  IT IS IN MANY CASES THE ONLY CEREAL CONSUMED BY THEM DURING
A PERIOD OF THEIR GROWTH.  BOTH FARINA AND FLOUR ARE MANUFACTURED BY
GRINDING THE WHOLE WHEAT AND DISCARDING ITS BRAN COAT AND GERM.  THIS
PROCESS REMOVES FROM THE MILLED PRODUCT THAT PART OF THE WHEAT WHICH IS
RICHEST IN VITAMINS AND MINERALS, PARTICULARLY VITAMIN B1, RIBOFLAVIN,
NICOTINIC ACID AND IRON, VALUABLE FOOD ELEMENTS WHICH ARE OFTEN LACKING
IN THE DIET OF LOW INCOME GROUPS.  IN THEIR DIET, ESPECIALLY IN THE
CASE OF CHILDREN, THERE IS ALSO FREQUENTLY A DEFICIENCY OF CALCIUM AND
VITAMIN D, WHICH ARE ELEMENTS NOT PRESENT IN WHEAT IN SIGNIFICANT
QUANTITIES.  VITAMIN D, WHOSE CHIEF DIETARY VALUE IS AS AN AID TO THE
METABOLISM OF CALCIUM, IS DEVELOPED IN THE BODY BY EXPOSURE TO
SUNLIGHT.  IT IS DERIVED PRINCIPALLY FROM COD LIVER AND OTHER FISH
OILS.  MILK IS THE MOST SATISFACTORY SOURCE OF CALCIUM IN DIGESTIBLE
FORM, AND MILK ENRICHED BY VITAMIN D IS NOW ON THE MARKET. 

IN RECENT YEARS MILLERS OF WHEAT HAVE PLACED ON THE MARKET FLOURS AND
FARINAS WHICH HAVE BEEN ENRICHED BY THE ADDITION OF VARIOUS VITAMINS
AND MINERALS.  THE COMPOSITION OF THESE ENRICHED PRODUCTS VARIES
WIDELY.  FN5  THERE WAS TESTIMONY OF WEIGHT BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR,
PRINCIPALLY BY EXPERT NUTRITIONISTS, THAT SUCH PRODUCTS, BECAUSE OF THE
VARIETY AND COMBINATION OF ADDED INGREDIENTS, ARE WIDELY VARIABLE IN
NUTRITIONAL VALUE; AND THAT CONSUMERS GENERALLY LACK KNOWLEDGE OF THE
RELATIVE VALUE OF SUCH INGREDIENTS AND COMBINATIONS OF THEM. 

THESE WITNESSES ALSO TESTIFIED, AS DID REPRESENTATIVES OF CONSUMER
ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAD MADE SPECIAL STUDIES OF THE PROBLEMS OF FOOD
STANDARDIZATION, THAT THE NUMBER, VARIETY AND VARYING COMBINATIONS OF
THE ADDED INGREDIENTS TEND TO CONFUSE THE LARGE NUMBER OF CONSUMERS WHO
DESIRE TO PURCHASE VITAMIN-ENRICHED WHEAT FOOD PRODUCTS BUT WHO LACK
THE KNOWLEDGE ESSENTIAL TO DISCRIMINATING PURCHASE OF THEM; THAT
BECAUSE OF THIS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND DISCRIMINATION THEY ARE SUBJECT
TO EXPLOITATION BY THE SALE OF FOODS DESCRIBED AS "ENRICHED," BUT OF
WHOSE INFERIOR OR UNSUITABLE QUALITY THEY ARE NOT INFORMED. 
ACCORDINGLY A LARGE NUMBER OF WITNESSES RECOMMENDED THE ADOPTION OF
DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS FOR "ENRICHED" WHEAT PRODUCTS WHICH WOULD
ENSURE FAIRLY COMPLETE SATISFACTION OF DIETARY NEEDS, AND A SOMEWHAT
LESSER NUMBER RECOMMENDED THE DISALLOWANCE, AS OPTIONAL INGREDIENTS IN
THE STANDARDS FOR UNENRICHED WHEAT PRODUCTS, OF INDIVIDUAL VITAMINS AND
MINERALS WHOSE ADDITION WOULD SUGGEST TO CONSUMERS AN ADEQUACY FOR
DIETARY NEEDS NOT IN FACT SUPPLIED. 

THE COURT BELOW CHARACTERIZED THIS EVIDENCE AS SPECULATIVE AND
CONJECTURAL, AND HELD THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT
RESPONDENT'S PRODUCT HAD IN FACT CONFUSED OR MISLED ANYONE, THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDING AS TO CONSUMER CONFUSION WAS WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  IT THOUGHT THAT, IF ANYTHING,
CONSUMER CONFUSION WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE CREATED, AND THE INTEREST OF
CONSUMERS HARMED, BY THE SALE OF FARINAS CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD FOR
"ENRICHED FARINA," WHOSE LABELS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THEIR
INGREDIENTS, THAN BY THE SALE OF RESPONDENT'S PRODUCT UNDER AN ACCURATE
AND INFORMATIVE LABEL SUCH AS THAT RESPONDENT WAS USING. 

THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT COURTS SHOULD THUS SUBSTITUTE THEIR
OWN JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE IT
APPEARS TO HAVE PROVIDED FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW IN WHICH THE COURT COULD
TAKE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, AND DIRECT THE
ADMINISTRATOR "TO TAKE SUCH FURTHER ACTION AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE." 
H.R. REP. NO. 2139, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 11-12.  BUT BEFORE
ENACTMENT, THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTED FOR THESE PROVISIONS
THOSE WHICH BECAME SEC. 701(F) OF THE ACT.  WHILE UNDER THAT SECTION
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REGULATIONS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS BASED
UPON "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS IF BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE
CONCLUSIVE.  IN EXPLAINING THESE CHANGES THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
CONFEREES STATED ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE THAT "THERE IS NO PURPOSE
THAT THE COURT SHALL EXERCISE THE FUNCTIONS THAT BELONG TO THE
EXECUTIVE OR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES."  83 CONG. REC., P. 9096.  SEE
ALSO H.R. REP. NO. 2716, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 25.  COMPARE FEDERAL
RADIO COMM'N V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 281 U.S. 464. 

THE REVIEW PROVISIONS WERE PATTERNED AFTER THOSE BY WHICH CONGRESS
HAS PROVIDED FOR THE REVIEW OF "QUASIJUDICIAL" ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION AND OTHER AGENCIES, WHICH WE HAVE MANY TIMES HAD
OCCASION TO CONSTRUE.  FN6 UNDER SUCH PROVISIONS WE HAVE REPEATEDLY
EMPHASIZED THE SCOPE THAT MUST BE ALLOWED TO THE DISCRETION AND
INFORMED JUDGMENT OF AN EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.  FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. EDUCATION SOCIETY, 302 U.S. 112, 117; GRAY V. POWELL, 314
U.S. 402, 412; LABOR BOARD V. LINK BELT CO., 311 U.S. 584, 597; SEE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S.
134, 141, 144.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE WHERE
THE REVIEW IS OF REGULATIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION ADOPTED BY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY UNDER ITS RULE-MAKING POWER IN CARRYING OUT THE
POLICY OF A STATUTE WITH WHOSE ENFORCEMENT IT IS CHARGED.  COMPARE
HOUSTON V. ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING CO., 249 U.S. 479, 487; OPP
COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 156.  SECTION 401 CALLS
FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE "JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR."  THAT
JUDGMENT, IF BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF RECORD, AND IF WITHIN
STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, IS CONTROLLING EVEN THOUGH
THE REVIEWING COURT MIGHT ON THE SAME RECORD HAVE ARRIVED AT A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.    NONE OF THE TESTIMONY WHICH WE HAVE DETAILED
CAN BE SAID TO BE SPECULATIVE OR CONJECTURAL UNLESS IT BE THE
CONCLUSION OF NUMEROUS WITNESSES, ADOPTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, THAT
THE LABELING AND MARKETING OF VITAMIN-ENRICHED FOODS, NOT CONFORMING TO
ANY STANDARDS OF IDENTITY, TEND TO CONFUSE AND MISLEAD CONSUMERS.  THE
EXERCISE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULE-MAKING POWER NECESSARILY LOOKS TO
THE FUTURE.  THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ADOPT STANDARDS
OF IDENTITY WHICH IN HIS JUDGMENT "WILL" PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR
DEALING IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS.  ACTING WITHIN HIS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY HE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS WHICH WILL GUARD
AGAINST THE PROBABLE FUTURE EFFECTS OF PRESENT TRENDS.  TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT THE EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC DEMAND FOR VITAMIN-ENRICHED FOODS, THEIR
INCREASING SALE, THEIR VARIABLE VITAMIN COMPOSITION AND DIETARY VALUE,
AND THE GENERAL LACK OF CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH VALUES, THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF "RATIONAL PROBATIVE FORCE" (SEE CONSOLIDATED
EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 230), TO SUPPORT THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S JUDGMENT THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF APPROPRIATE STANDARDS
OF IDENTITY, CONSUMER CONFUSION WOULD ENSUE.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643, 651; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. RALADAM CO.,
316 U.S. 149, 151, 152; PACIFIC STATES BOX CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176,
181.  COMPARE MCLEAN V. FLEMING, 96 U.S. 245, 251, 253-4, 255. 

RESPONDENT INSISTS, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, THAT THE CONSUMER
CONFUSION FOUND BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR HIS
CONCLUSION THAT THE STANDARDS OF IDENTITY ADOPTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
WILL PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR DEALING.  BUT THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO
SAYING, DESPITE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS TO THE CONTRARY, EITHER
THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THERE COULD BE NO SUCH CONSUMER
CONFUSION OR THAT THE CONFUSION COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO FACILITATE
UNFAIR DEALING CONTRARY TO THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS.  FOR REASONS
ALREADY INDICATED WE THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE DESIRE OF CONSUMERS
TO PURCHASE VITAMIN-ENRICHED FOODS, THEIR GENERAL IGNORANCE OF THE
COMPOSITION AND VALUE OF THE VITAMIN CONTENT OF THOSE FOODS, AND THEIR
CONSEQUENT INABILITY TO GUARD AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS OF
INFERIOR OR UNSUITABLE VITAMIN CONTENT, SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTS THE
ADMINISTRATOR'S CONCLUSIONS. 

WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT PURCHASERS UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS ARE
PECULIARLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO DISHONEST AND UNFAIR MARKETING PRACTICES.  IN
UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 149, 150, WE
UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE PROHIBITING THE SALE OF
"FILLED MILK" - A CONDENSED MILK PRODUCT FROM WHICH THE VITAMIN CONTENT
HAD BEEN EXTRACTED - ALTHOUGH HONESTLY LABELED AND NOT IN ITSELF
DELETERIOUS.  DECISION WAS RESTED ON THE GROUND THAT CONGRESS COULD
REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THE USE OF THE PRODUCT AS A MILK SUBSTITUTE
DEPRIVES CONSUMERS OF VITAMINS REQUISITE FOR HEALTH AND "FACILITATES
FRAUD ON THE PUBLIC" BY "MAKING FRAUDULENT DISTRIBUTION EASY AND
PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER DIFFICULT." 

BOTH THE TEXT AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PRESENT STATUTE PLAINLY
SHOW THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS NOT CONFINED TO A REQUIREMENT OF TRUTHFUL AND
INFORMATIVE LABELING.  FALSE AND MISLEADING LABELING HAD BEEN
PROHIBITED BY THE PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT OF 1906.  BUT IT WAS FOUND
THAT SUCH A PROHIBITION WAS INADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER FROM
"ECONOMIC ADULTERATION," BY WHICH LESS EXPENSIVE INGREDIENTS WERE
SUBSTITUTED, OR THE PROPORTION OF MORE EXPENSIVE INGREDIENTS
DIMINISHED, SO AS TO MAKE THE PRODUCT, ALTHOUGH NOT IN ITSELF
DELETERIOUS, INFERIOR TO THAT WHICH THE CONSUMER EXPECTED TO RECEIVE
WHEN PURCHASING A PRODUCT WITH THE NAME UNDER WHICH IT WAS SOLD.  SEN.
REP. NO. 493, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 10; SEN. REP. NO. 361, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 10.  THE REMEDY CHOSEN WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF
INFORMATIVE LABELING.  RATHER IT WAS THE PURPOSE TO AUTHORIZE THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO PROMULGATE DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS OF IDENTITY
"UNDER WHICH THE INTEGRITY OF FOOD PRODUCTS CAN BE EFFECTIVELY
MAINTAINED" (H.R. REP. 2139, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2; H.R. REP.
2755, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4), AND TO REQUIRE INFORMATIVE LABELING
ONLY WHERE NO SUCH STANDARD HAD BEEN PROMULGATED, WHERE THE FOOD DID
NOT PURPORT TO COMPLY WITH A STANDARD, OR WHERE THE REGULATIONS
PERMITTED OPTIONAL INGREDIENTS AND REQUIRED THEIR MENTION ON THE
LABEL.  SECS. 403(G), 403(I); SEE SEN. REP. NO. 361, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 12; SEN. REP. NO. 493, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 11-12. 

THE PROVISIONS FOR STANDARDS OF IDENTITY THUS REFLECT A RECOGNITION
BY CONGRESS OF THE INABILITY OF CONSUMERS IN SOME CASES TO DETERMINE,
SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIVE LABELING, THE RELATIVE MERITS OF A
VARIETY OF PRODUCTS SUPERFICIALLY RESEMBLING EACH OTHER.  FN7  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH A STANDARD OF IDENTITY, DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE A
SOURCE OF CONFUSION TO PURCHASERS - WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD BE LIKELY TO
FACILITATE UNFAIR DEALING AND MAKE PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER DIFFICULT
- WILL NOT "PROMOTE HONESTY AND FAIR DEALING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE. 

RESPONDENT'S FINAL AND MOST VIGOROUS ATTACK ON THE REGULATIONS IS
THAT THEY FAIL TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS OF
IDENTITY, AS SEC. 401 REQUIRES, IN THAT THEY PROHIBIT THE MARKETING,
UNDER THE NAME "FARINA," OF A WHOLESOME AND HONESTLY LABELED PRODUCT
CONSISTING OF FARINA WITH VITAMIN D ADDED, AND THAT THEY PREVENT THE
ADDITION OF VITAMIN D TO PRODUCTS MARKETED AS "ENRICHED FARINA" UNLESS
ACCOMPANIED BY THE OTHER PRESCRIBED VITAMIN INGREDIENTS WHICH DO NOT CO
ACT WITH OR HAVE ANY DIETARY RELATIONSHIP TO VITAMIN D. STATED IN
ANOTHER FORM, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE TO PROHIBIT THE
ADDITION TO FARINA OF VITAMIN D AS AN OPTIONAL INGREDIENT WHILE
PERMITTING ITS ADDITION AS AN OPTIONAL INGREDIENT TO ENRICHED FARINA,
TO THE DETRIMENT OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS. 

THE STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS TO WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION
MUST CONFORM ARE TO BE FOUND IN THE TERMS OF THE ACT CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSE.  ITS DECLARED PURPOSE IS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROMULGATION OF STANDARDS OF BOTH IDENTITY AND QUALITY
IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS.  THOSE STANDARDS ARE TO BE PRESCRIBED AND
APPLIED, SO FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE, TO FOOD UNDER ITS COMMON OR USUAL
NAME, AND THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED AFTER A HEARING MUST HAVE THE SUPPORT
OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  WE MUST REJECT AT THE OUTSET THE ARGUMENT
EARNESTLY PRESSED UPON US THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE A
REGULATION EXCLUDING A WHOLESOME AND BENEFICIAL INGREDIENT FROM THE
DEFINITION AND STANDARD OF IDENTITY OF A FOOD.  THE STATUTORY PURPOSE
TO FIX A DEFINITION OF IDENTITY OF AN ARTICLE OF FOOD SOLD UNDER ITS
COMMON OR USUAL NAME WOULD BE DEFEATED IF PRODUCERS WERE FREE TO ADD
INGREDIENTS, HOWEVER WHOLESOME, WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN THE DEFINITION. 
AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE MANIFESTS THE
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO SUBSTITUTE, FOR INFORMATIVE LABELING, STANDARDS
OF IDENTITY OF A FOOD, SOLD UNDER A COMMON OR USUAL NAME, SO AS TO GIVE
TO CONSUMERS WHO PURCHASE IT UNDER THAT NAME ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL
GET WHAT THEY MAY REASONABLY EXPECT TO RECEIVE.  IN MANY INSTANCES,
LIKE THE PRESENT, THAT PURPOSE COULD BE ACHIEVED ONLY IF THE DEFINITION
OF IDENTITY SPECIFIED THE NUMBER, NAMES AND PROPORTIONS OF INGREDIENTS,
HOWEVER WHOLESOME OTHER COMBINATIONS MIGHT BE.  THE STATUTE
ACCOMPLISHED THAT PURPOSE BY AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ADOPT A
DEFINITION OF IDENTITY BY PRESCRIBING SOME INGREDIENTS, INCLUDING SOME
WHICH ARE OPTIONAL, AND EXCLUDING OTHERS, AND BY REQUIRING THE
DESIGNATION ON THE LABEL OF THE OPTIONAL INGREDIENTS PERMITTED.  FN8 

SINCE THE DEFINITION OF IDENTITY OF A VITAMIN-TREATED FOOD, MARKETED
UNDER ITS COMMON OR USUAL NAME, INVOLVES THE INCLUSION OF SOME VITAMIN
INGREDIENTS AND THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS, THE ADMINISTRATOR NECESSARILY
HAS A LARGE RANGE OF CHOICE IN DETERMINING WHAT MAY BE INCLUDED AND
WHAT EXCLUDED.  IT IS NOT NECESSARILY A VALID OBJECTION TO HIS CHOICE
THAT ANOTHER COULD REASONABLY HAVE BEEN MADE.  THE JUDICIAL IS NOT TO
BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAS ACTED WITHIN THE STATUTORY BOUNDS OF HIS AUTHORITY,
AND THAT HIS CHOICE AMONG POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE STANDARDS ADAPTED TO THE
STATUTORY END IS ONE WHICH A RATIONAL PERSON COULD HAVE MADE.  HOUSTON
V. ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING CO., SUPRA, 487. 

THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSES THAT IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT THE MILLING PROCESS
FOR PRODUCING FLOURS AND FARINAS REMOVES FROM THE WHEAT A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF ITS HEALTH-GIVING VITAMIN CONTENTS, WHICH ARE CONCEDEDLY
ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF HEALTH, AND THAT MANY CONSUMERS DESIRE
TO PURCHASE WHEAT PRODUCTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ENRICHED BY THE RESTORATION
OF SOME OF THE ORIGINAL VITAMIN CONTENT OF THE WHEAT.  IN FIXING
DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS OF IDENTITY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATUTORY
PURPOSE THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS THUS CONFRONTED WITH TWO RELATED
PROBLEMS.  ONE WAS THE CHOICE OF A STANDARD WHICH WOULD APPROPRIATELY
IDENTIFY UNENRICHED WHEAT PRODUCTS WHICH HAD LONG BEEN ON THE MARKET. 
THE OTHER WAS THE SELECTION OF A STANDARD FOR ENRICHED WHEAT PRODUCTS
WHICH WOULD BOTH ASSURE TO CONSUMERS OF VITAMIN-ENRICHED PRODUCTS SOME
OF THE BENEFITS TO HEALTH WHICH THEY SOUGHT, AND PROTECT THEM FROM
EXPLOITATION THROUGH THE MARKETING OF VITAMIN-ENRICHED FOODS OF WHOSE
DIETARY VALUE THEY WERE IGNORANT.  IN FINDING THE SOLUTION THE
ADMINISTRATOR COULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS THAT WHOLE WHEAT IS A
NATURAL AND COMMON SOURCE OF THE VALUABLE DIETARY INGREDIENTS WHICH HE
PRESCRIBED FOR ENRICHED FARINA; THAT WHEAT IS NOT A SOURCE OF VITAMIN
D; THAT MILK, A COMMON ARTICLE OF DIET, IS A SATISFACTORY SOURCE OF AN
ASSIMILABLE FORM OF CALCIUM; THAT THE PRINCIPAL FUNCTION OF VITAMIN D
IS TO AID IN THE METABOLISM OF CALCIUM; AND THAT MILK ENRICHED WITH
VITAMIN D WAS ALREADY ON THE MARKET. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MADE AN UNREASONABLE CHOICE OF
STANDARDS WHEN HE ADOPTED ONE WHICH DEFINED THE FAMILIAR FARINA OF
COMMERCE WITHOUT PERMITTING ADDITION OF VITAMIN ENRICHMENT, AND AT THE
SAME TIME PRESCRIBED FOR "ENRICHED FARINA" THE RESTORATION OF THOSE
VITAMINS WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE WHOLE WHEAT BY MILLING, AND
ALLOWED THE OPTIONAL ADDITION OF VITAMIN D, COMMONLY FOUND IN MILK BUT
NOT PRESENT IN WHEAT.  CONSUMERS WHO BUY FARINA WILL HAVE NO REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT IT IS ENRICHED.  THOSE WHO BUY ENRICHED FARINA ARE ASSURED
OF RECEIVING A WHEAT PRODUCT CONTAINING THOSE VITAMINS NATURALLY
PRESENT IN WHEAT, AND, IF SO STATED ON THE LABEL, AN ADDITIONAL VITAMIN
D, NOT FOUND IN WHEAT. 

RESPONDENT SPEAKS OF THE HIGH COST OF VITAMIN B1($700 PER POUND), BUT
THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE COST OF ADDING TO FLOUR THE MINUTE
QUANTITIES OF THE FOUR INGREDIENTS REQUIRED FOR ENRICHED FARINA WOULD
BE ABOUT 75 CENTS PER BARREL, AND RESPONDENT CONCEDES THAT THE COST TO
IT MAY BE BUT A FRACTION OF A CENT PER POUND.  THE RECORD IS OTHERWISE
SILENT AS TO THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF THE INCREASED COST ON THE MARKETING
OF RESPONDENT'S PRODUCT.  ON THIS RECORD IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
INCREASED COST HAS ANY SUBSTANTIAL BEARING ON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE
REGULATION. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT DEPART FROM STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS IN CHOOSING THESE STANDARDS OF IDENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROMOTING FAIR DEALING IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS, THAT THE STANDARDS
WHICH HE SELECTED ARE ADAPTED TO THAT END, AND THAT THEY ARE ADEQUATELY
SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AS ENACTED, THE ACT VESTED THE FOREGOING POWERS IN THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE.  BY SECS. 12 AND 13 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. IV, 54
STAT. 1234, 1237, APPROVED APRIL 11, 1940, THE FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION AND ALL FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
RELATING THERETO WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY AND
THE FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR. 

FN2  RESPONDENT CONTENDED IN THE COURT BELOW THAT THE NOTICE WAS
INADEQUATE.  IT APPEARS TO HAVE ABANDONED THAT CONTENTION HERE, BUT IN
ANY EVENT WE THINK THAT IT IS WITHOUT MERIT IN VIEW OF RESPONDENT'S
PARTICIPATION IN THE ORIGINAL HEARING, AND IN VIEW OF THE PUBLICATION
OF NOTICE OF A RECONVENED HEARING DEVOTED SOLELY TO THE "PROPRIETY OF
THE ADDITION OF VITAMINS AND MINERALS TO ...  (I) FARINA  ...  " 

FN3  THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RIBOFLAVIN REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN
POSTPONED UNTIL APRIL 20, 1943, BECAUSE IT APPEARED THAT THE AVAILABLE
SUPPLY WAS INADEQUATE.  7 FED. REG. 3055. 

FN4  ONE WITNESS AT THE HEARING REFERRED TO ESTIMATES THAT OVER 95%
OF HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF WHEAT PRODUCTS IS IN THE FORM OF WHITE FLOUR. 

FN5  THE REPORT OF THE OFFICER PRESIDING AT THE HEARING ENUMERATES
THE FOLLOWING VARIETIES DISCLOSED BY THE TESTIMONY: 

"FLOURS, PHOSPHATED FLOURS, AND SELF-RISING FLOURS - 

1.  ONE WITH ADDED VITAMIN D; 

2.  ONE WITH ADDED CALCIUM; 

3.  ONE WITH ADDED VITAMIN B1, NICOTINIC ACID, AND CALCIUM (PRODUCED
BY SOME 23 MILLS); 

4.  ONE WITH ADDED VITAMIN B1, CALCIUM, AND IRON; 

5.  ONE CONTAINING WHEAT GERM AND WHEAT GERM OIL, SAID TO FURNISH
VITAMIN B1, VITAMIN E AND RIBOFLAVIN; 

6.  ONE 'LONG EXTRACTION' FLOUR CONTAINING B1, RIBOFLAVIN, CALCIUM
AND IRON." 

"FARINAS - 

7.  ONE WITH ADDED VITAMIN D; 

8.  ONE WITH ADDED VITAMIN B1, CALCIUM AND IRON." 

THE LABELS USED, AND ADVERTISING CLAIMS MADE, FOR THOSE PRODUCTS WERE
NOT IN THE RECORD.  HOWEVER, THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT CERTAIN OF THEM
WERE SOLD UNDER SUCH NAMES AS "SUNFED," "VITAWHITE," "HOLWHITE."    FN6
THE PROVISION ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE IS ONE WHICH WAS
PROPOSED AS AN AMENDMENT FROM THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE BY MR. MAPES, A
MINORITY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE AND ONE OF THE HOUSE CONFEREES. 
IN PROPOSING IT HE SAID THAT IT WAS "THE SAME AS THE COURT REVIEW
ARE NECESSARY TO ADAPT IT TO THE PENDING BILL," AND HE REFERRED TO
"SIMILAR" PROVISIONS IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION ACT, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, AND FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  83 CONG. REC., 7892, 7777-8.    FN7  A MESSAGE OF
THE PRESIDENT, DATED MARCH 22, 1935, URGING PASSAGE OF THE BILL AND
PARTICULARLY OF THE STANDARD OF IDENTITY PROVISION, POINTED OUT THAT
"THE VARIOUS QUALITIES OF GOODS REQUIRE A KIND OF DISCRIMINATION WHICH
IS NOT AT THE COMMAND OF CONSUMERS.  THEY ARE LIKELY TO CONFUSE OUTWARD
APPEARANCES WITH INWARD INTEGRITY.  IN SUCH A SITUATION AS HAS GROWN UP
THROUGH OUR RISING LEVEL OF LIVING AND OUR MULTIPLICATION OF GOODS,
CONSUMERS ARE PREVENTED FROM CHOOSING INTELLIGENTLY AND PRODUCERS ARE
HANDICAPPED IN ANY ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN HIGHER STANDARDS."  H.R. REP.
NO. 2755, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1-2. 

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION TESTIFIED BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE THAT THE PROVISION FOR STANDARDS OF IDENTITY WHICH
WOULD REFLECT "THE EXPECTATION OF THE BUYER" WAS "ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT."  HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE ON S. 1944, DEC. 7 AND 8, 1933, PP.
35, 36. 

FN8  THE STANDARD OF IDENTITY PROVISION WAS REPEATEDLY STATED IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS TO HAVE BEEN PATTERNED ON THE BUTTER STANDARDS ACT OF
1923, 42 STAT. 1500.  SEN. REP. NO. 361, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 10;
SEN. REP. NO. 646, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4; SEN. REP. NO. 493, 73D
CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 10; H.R. REP. NO. 2139, 75TH CONG., 3RD SESS., P.
5.  THAT ACT WAS ENTITLED "AN ACT TO DEFINE BUTTER AND PROVIDE A
STANDARD THEREFOR," AND ESTABLISH A LEGISLATIVE DEFINITION AND STANDARD
FOR BUTTER.  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED IT SAID
"THE ONLY THINGS YOU CAN PUT INTO (BUTTER) ARE SALT, CASEIN, THE BUTTER
FAT, AND WATER.  THAT IS WHAT THE DEFINITION PROVIDES."  HEARINGS,
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE ON H.R. 12053, 67TH CONG., 2ND SESS., P.
25; SEE ALSO H.R. REP. NO. 1141, 67TH CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 4. 

ALSO REFERRED TO AS MODELS FOR THE STANDARDS TO BE PROMULGATED UNDER
THE PRESENT ACT WERE THE ADVISORY STANDARDS THEN BEING PROMULGATED BY
THE PURE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE AUTHORITY GIVEN BY THE
APPROPRIATION ACT OF JUNE 3, 1902, 32 STAT. 286, 296, AND SUBSEQUENT
ACTS.  HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE ON S. 1944, DEC. 7 AND 8, 1933, P. 36.  (STATEMENT OF WALTER
B. CAMPBELL, CHIEF OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPT. OF
AGRICULTURE.)  THE ANNOUNCEMENTS PROMULGATING THESE STANDARDS STATED
THAT THEY WERE "SO FRAMED AS TO EXCLUDE SUBSTANCES NOT MENTIONED IN THE
DEFINITION."  E.G., DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,
SERVICE AND REGULATORY ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 2, REVISION 4(1933) P. 1; ID.,
REV. 5(1936) P. 1. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 129
F.2D 76. 
..END :







VIERECK V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 236 


NO. 458.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 2, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 130
F.2D 945, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE THE CHARGE OF THE TRIAL COURT IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR
VIOLATION OF THE ACT OF JUNE 8, 1938, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST
7, 1939, AUTHORIZED THE JURY TO RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY IF IT FOUND
THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD WILLFULLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH
WERE WHOLLY ON HIS OWN BEHALF, THE CONVICTION CAN BE SUSTAINED ONLY IF
THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE SUCH ACTIVITIES WAS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, EVEN
THOUGH THE EVIDENCE MIGHT WARRANT A FINDING THAT ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S
ACTIVITIES WERE IN FACT IN BEHALF OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS.  P. 240. 

2.  THE ACT OF JUNE 8, 1938, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1939,
HELD NOT TO REQUIRE, OR AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO REQUIRE,
REGISTRANTS TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT OF THEIR ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN THOSE
IN WHICH THEY HAVE ENGAGED "AS AGENT" OF A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL.  P. 243. 

3.  THE UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED
BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO PUNISH ONE NOT OTHERWISE WITHIN ITS
REACH, HOWEVER DESERVING OF PUNISHMENT HIS CONDUCT MAY SEEM.  P. 243. 

4.  THE APPLICATION OF THE AMENDATORY ACT OF APRIL 29, 1942, TO
IMPOSE UPON THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE A DUTY WHICH THE WORDS OF THE
PRIOR ACT PLAINLY EXCLUDE, CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY DENOMINATING THE
AMENDATORY LEGISLATION AS CLARIFYING OR DECLARATORY.  P. 247. 

5.  THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN THIS CASE WAS PREJUDICED
BY THE CONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTOR, WHO, IN HIS CLOSING REMARKS TO THE
JURY, INDULGED IN AN APPEAL WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO ANY FACTS OR ISSUES IN
THE CASE, AND THE ONLY PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN TO
AROUSE PASSION AND PREJUDICE.  SUCH REMARKS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY
THE TRIAL JUDGE SUA SPONTE.  P. 247. 

6.  IT IS AS MUCH THE DUTY OF THE PROSECUTOR TO REFRAIN FROM IMPROPER
METHODS CALCULATED TO PRODUCE A WRONGFUL CONVICTION AS IT IS TO USE
EVERY LEGITIMATE MEANS TO BRING ABOUT A JUST ONE.  P. 248. 

VIERECK V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL ACT REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN
AGENTS OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED ON THREE COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT, EACH
CHARGING HIM WITH THE WILLFUL OMISSION TO STATE A MATERIAL FACT
REQUIRED TO BE STATED IN A SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED BY
HIM WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, IN VIOLATION OF THE PENAL PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT OF JUNE 8, 1938, 52 STAT. 631, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
AUGUST 7, 1939, 53 STAT. 1244, REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN
AGENTS OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS.  THE QUESTION DECISIVE OF PETITIONER'S
CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF HIS CONVICTION IS WHETHER THE STATUTE OR
ANY AUTHORIZED REGULATION OF THE SECRETARY REQUIRED THE STATEMENT WHICH
PETITIONER OMITTED TO MAKE. 

ACTING AS "AGENT OF A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL," EITHER AS PUBLIC-RELATIONS
COUNSEL, PUBLICITY AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW
RELEVANT, MUST FILE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE A REGISTRATION
STATEMENT, ON A FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY, CONTAINING CERTAIN
SPECIFIED ITEMS OF INFORMATION.  THESE INCLUDE A COPY OF THE
REGISTRANT'S CONTRACT WITH HIS PRINCIPAL, OR A STATEMENT OF ITS TERMS
AND CONDITIONS IF ORAL, THE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID UNDER THE CONTRACT,
AND THE NAMES OF ALL WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED OR PROMISED TO CONTRIBUTE TO
THE COMPENSATION.  BEYOND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE REGISTRANT'S
CONTRACTS WITH FOREIGN PRINCIPALS, THE STATUTE MADE NO REQUIREMENT THAT
THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION STATEMENT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION AS TO THE
REGISTRANT'S SERVICES OR ACTIVITIES EITHER IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT OR OTHERWISE. 

BY SEC. 3 EVERY REGISTRANT IS REQUIRED TO FILE AT THE END OF EACH SIX
MONTHS' PERIOD, FOLLOWING HIS ORIGINAL REGISTRATION, A SUPPLEMENTAL
STATEMENT "ON A FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY, WHICH SHALL SET FORTH
WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PRECEDING SIX MONTHS' PERIOD - (A) SUCH FACTS AS
MAY BE NECESSARY TO MAKE THE INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 2
HEREOF ACCURATE AND CURRENT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PERIOD," AND "(C) A
STATEMENT CONTAINING SUCH DETAILS REQUIRED UNDER THIS ACT AS THE
SECRETARY SHALL FIX, OF THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH PERSON AS AGENT OF A
FOREIGN PRINCIPAL DURING SUCH SIX MONTHS' PERIOD."  AND BY SEC. 6, "THE
SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO PRESCRIBE SUCH RULES,
REGULATIONS, AND FORMS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THIS ACT." 
TO FILE ANY STATEMENT REQUIRED TO BE FILED UNDER THIS ACT, OR IN
COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, MAKES A FALSE STATEMENT OF A
MATERIAL FACT, OR WILLFULLY OMITS TO STATE ANY MATERIAL FACT REQUIRED
TO BE STATED THEREIN." 

IN PURPORTED CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTE, THE SECRETARY, ON SEPTEMBER
15, 1939, PROMULGATED REGULATIONS AND PRESCRIBED A FORM OF
"SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENT."  CHAPTER IV, REGULATION 12, OF
THE REGULATIONS PROVIDED:  "AGENTS OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS WHO ENGAGE,
WHETHER OR NOT ON BEHALF OF THEIR FOREIGN PRINCIPAL, IN ACTIVITIES NOT
INCLUDED AMONG THE EXCEPTIONS SET FORTH IN THE ACT AND REGULATIONS
SHALL BE CONSIDERED SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION."  THE
PRESCRIBED FORM OF SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENT DIRECTED THE
REGISTRANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT GIVING CERTAIN ITEMS OF INFORMATION, NO.
11 OF WHICH WAS "COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS OF
REGISTRANT." 

THE THREE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT ON WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED
CHARGED THAT IN THREE SUCCESSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS
FILED BY HIM ON APRIL 23, 1940, OCTOBER 25, 1940, AND APRIL 25, 1941,
AS THE AGENT OF GERMAN PRINCIPALS, HE HAD KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY
FAILED TO DISCLOSE, IN RESPONSE TO ITEM 11 WHICH CALLED FOR A
"COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS OF REGISTRANT," NUMEROUS
ACTIVITIES IN WHICH HE HAD ENGAGED DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENT.  ON THE TRIAL IT APPEARED THAT
PETITIONER, ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1939, HAD REGISTERED AS AGENT AND UNITED
STATES CORRESPONDENT FOR THE MUNCHNER NEUESTE NACHRICHTEN, A MUNICH
NEWSPAPER, AND HAD LATER LODGED WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT A COPY OF HIS
CONTRACT, DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1939, AS AGENT AND EDITORIAL WRITER FOR
THE GERMAN LIBRARY OF INFORMATION, AN AGENCY OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT,
TO DO EDITORIAL WORK IN CONNECTION WITH "FACTS IN REVIEW," A
PUBLICATION OF THE LIBRARY.  ON MARCH 17, 1941, PETITIONER REGISTERED
HIS CONTRACT, WITH A PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH THE MUNICH NEWSPAPER, TO
ACT AS AGENT FOR THE PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF A BOOK "THE
ONE HUNDRED FAMILIES WHO RULE GREAT BRITAIN." 

THERE WAS ALSO EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT
DURING THE EIGHTEEN MONTHS' PERIOD COVERED BY PETITIONER'S THREE
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS, AND FROM AUGUST 3, 1940, HE HAD
CONTROLLED AND FINANCED FLANDERS HALL, A CORPORATION WHICH PUBLISHED
NUMEROUS BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS FROM MANUSCRIPTS FURNISHED BY PETITIONER;
THAT IT HAD ALSO PUBLISHED OTHER BOOKS FURNISHED BY PETITIONER WHICH
PURPORTED TO BE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF FRENCH OR DUTCH PUBLICATIONS,
OR TO HAVE BEEN COMPILED FROM ENGLISH SOURCES, BUT WHICH WERE IN FACT
TRANSLATIONS OF GERMAN BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE DEUTSCHE
INFORMATIONSSTELLE OF BERLIN.  ALL WERE HIGHLY CRITICAL OF BRITISH
FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POLICY.  DURING THIS PERIOD PETITIONER ACTIVELY
PARTICIPATED IN THE FORMATION OF THE "MAKE EUROPE PAY WAR DEBTS
COMMITTEE," AND THE "ISLANDS FOR WAR DEBTS COMMITTEE," AND MADE USE OF
THESE ORGANIZATIONS AS A MEANS OF DISTRIBUTING PROPAGANDA THROUGH THE
PRESS AND RADIO AND UNDER CONGRESSIONAL FRANK.  HE ALSO CONSULTED WITH
AND WAS ACTIVE IN WRITING SPEECHES FOR VARIOUS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND
IN SECURING DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPEECHES UNDER CONGRESSIONAL FRANK. 

IN MAKING THE STATEMENT REQUIRED BY ITEM 11 IN EACH OF HIS THREE
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS, PETITIONER RESPONDED TO THE
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF HIS BUSINESS BY
THE SINGLE PHRASE "AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST."  HE MADE NO FURTHER
DISCLOSURE OF HIS VARIOUS ACTIVITIES DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS. 

WHEN SUBMITTING THE CASE TO THE JURY, THE TRIAL COURT, AT THE
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST, CHARGED THAT "IF YOU FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT
ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT, IT IS NOT
NECESSARY THAT YOU FIND THAT HE ENGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF
HIS FOREIGN PRINCIPAL OR PRINCIPALS.  IT IS SUFFICIENT IF YOU FIND THAT
HE ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES, WHETHER ON BEHALF OF HIS FOREIGN
PRINCIPAL OR PRINCIPALS OR ON HIS OWN BEHALF."  ON APPROPRIATE
OBJECTION AND EXCEPTION TO THIS INSTRUCTION, PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT
UNDER THE STATUTE HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE HIS ACTIVITIES ON HIS
OWN BEHALF BUT ONLY THOSE FOR FOREIGN PRINCIPALS.  THE JURY RETURNED A
VERDICT OF GUILTY, THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 130 F.2D 945, AND WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  317 U.S. 618. 

AS THE CHARGE LEFT THE JURY FREE TO RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY IF IT
FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD WILLFULLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH
WERE WHOLLY ON HIS OWN BEHALF, THE CONVICTION CAN BE SUSTAINED ONLY IF
THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE SUCH ACTIVITIES WAS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.  IN ITS
BRIEF AND ON THE ARGUMENT HERE THE GOVERNMENT ACCORDINGLY CONCEDED THAT
- EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE MIGHT WARRANT A JURY'S FINDING THAT ALL
PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES WERE IN FACT IN BEHALF OF HIS FOREIGN
PRINCIPALS - THE CONVICTION CANNOT STAND IF THE CHARGE WAS ERRONEOUS. 
SEE WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287, 292; PIERCE V. UNITED
STATES, 314 U.S. 306, 310.  WE ARE THUS BROUGHT TO THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE STATUTE, SUPPLEMENTED BY THE REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY, REQUIRED
SUCH INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN AND IMPOSED PENAL SANCTIONS FOR
PETITIONER'S WILLFUL FAILURE TO GIVE IT. 

THE ACT OF 1938 REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF AGENTS FOR FOREIGN
PRINCIPALS WAS A NEW TYPE OF LEGISLATION ADOPTED IN THE CRITICAL PERIOD
BEFORE THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR.  THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
WAS TO IDENTIFY AGENTS OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS WHO MIGHT ENGAGE IN
SUBVERSIVE ACTS OR IN SPREADING FOREIGN PROPAGANDA, AND TO REQUIRE THEM
TO MAKE PUBLIC RECORD OF THE NATURE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  BUT THE MEANS
ADOPTED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT END ARE DEFINED BY THE STATUTE ITSELF,
WHICH, AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR MORE IN DETAIL, FOLLOWED THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF A HOUSE COMMITTEE WHICH HAD INVESTIGATED FOREIGN
PROPAGANDA.  THESE MEANS INCLUDED THE REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION OF
AGENTS FOR FOREIGN PRINCIPALS - WITH WHICH IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER
COMPLIED - AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE REGISTRANT GIVE CERTAIN
INFORMATION CONCERNING HIS ACTIVITIES AS SUCH AGENT. 

ONE MAY BE SUBJECTED TO PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
ONLY FOR THE COMMISSION OR OMISSION OF AN ACT DEFINED BY STATUTE, OR BY
REGULATION HAVING LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, AND THEN ONLY IF PUNISHMENT IS
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES V. GEORGE, 228 U.S. 14, 20-22;
WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES, 207 U.S. 425, 453-62; UNITED STATES V.
STANDARD BREWERY, 251 U.S. 210, 219-20; UNITED STATES V. EATON, 144
U.S. 677; UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506; UNITED STATES V.
SMULL, 236 U.S. 405; IN RE KOLLOCK, 165 U.S. 526.  PENAL SANCTIONS
ATTACH HERE FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE A STATEMENT WHEN REQUIRED, OR
IF THE REGISTRANT "WILLFULLY OMITS TO STATE ANY MATERIAL FACT REQUIRED
TO BE STATED."  UNLESS THE STATUTE, FAIRLY READ, DEMANDS THE DISCLOSURE
OF THE INFORMATION WHICH PETITIONER FAILED TO GIVE, HE CANNOT BE
SUBJECTED TO THE STATUTORY PENALTIES. 

IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE REQUIRED REGISTRATION OF
CONTRACTS ALREADY ENTERED INTO AT THE TIME OF ITS ADOPTION, IT DID NOT
INCLUDE, IN ITS ENUMERATION OF INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN IN THE ORIGINAL
REGISTRATION STATEMENT, ANY DISCLOSURE OF A REGISTRANT'S ACTIVITIES
EITHER UNDER HIS AGENCY CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE.  AND THE ONLY MENTION IN
THE STATUTE OF A STATEMENT OF SUCH ACTIVITIES IS IN SEC. 3(C), WHICH
DIRECTED THAT SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS CONTAIN "SUCH
DETAILS REQUIRED UNDER THIS ACT AS THE SECRETARY SHALL FIX, OF THE
ACTIVITIES OF SUCH PERSON AS AGENT OF A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL."  THE
REQUIREMENT OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO TWO LIMITATIONS.  ONE IS THAT
THE STATEMENT IS TO BE OF SUCH DETAILS OF THE REGISTRANT'S ACTIVITIES
"AS THE SECRETARY SHALL FIX"; THE OTHER IS THAT THE DETAILS ARE TO BE
OF ACTIVITIES OF THE REGISTRANT "AS AGENT OF A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL." 

NEITHER LIMITATION CAN BE DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING WHAT STATEMENT
THE STATUTE, AND ANY REGULATION WHICH IT AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY TO
PROMULGATE, CALLED ON PETITIONER TO MAKE.  THE SECRETARY'S REGULATION
12 OF CHAPTER IV, ALREADY QUOTED, ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RELIES,
PLAINLY DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY STATEMENT OF A REGISTRANT'S ACTIVITIES. 
IT ONLY DECLARES THAT AGENTS WHO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES "WHETHER OR NOT
ON BEHALF OF THEIR FOREIGN PRINCIPAL" ARE SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION.  IT
REQUIRES NO STATEMENT OF THEIR ACTIVITIES AND ADDS NOTHING TO THE
COMMAND OF SECS. 2 AND 3 THAT ALL AGENTS OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS SHALL
REGISTER, A REQUIREMENT WITH WHICH PETITIONER COMPLIED.  WHATEVER THE
UNDISCLOSED PURPOSE OF THIS REGULATION, A FAIR READING OF IT WOULD NOT
INDICATE TO A REGISTRANT THAT IT REQUIRED ANY STATEMENT OF HIS
ACTIVITIES IN ANY CAPACITY. 

BUT TREATING ITEM 11 OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENT
("COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS OF REGISTRANT"),
PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY, AS A REGULATION FIXING THE DETAILS OF THE
REGISTRANT'S ACTIVITIES WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO STATE, IT MUST EITHER
BE TAKEN AS LIMITED TO A STATEMENT OF HIS ACTIVITIES AS AGENT, TO WHICH
SEC. 3(C) ALONE REFERS, OR TO EXCEED THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE
SECRETARY BY THAT SECTION.  IN NEITHER CASE DOES THE STATUTE COMMAND,
OR AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY TO COMMAND, REGISTRANTS TO MAKE ANY
STATEMENT OF THEIR ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN THOSE IN WHICH THEY HAVE
ENGAGED "AS AGENT." 

WE CANNOT READ THAT PHRASE AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN WRITTEN "WHILE AN
AGENT" OR "WHO IS AN AGENT."  THE UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS OF A STATUTE WHICH
IMPOSES CRIMINAL PENALTIES ARE NOT TO BE ALTERED BY JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO PUNISH ONE NOT OTHERWISE WITHIN ITS REACH,
HOWEVER DESERVING OF PUNISHMENT HIS CONDUCT MAY SEEM.  NOR IS SUCH AN
ALTERATION BY CONSTRUCTION AIDED BY REFERENCE TO SEC. 6, WHICH DIRECTS
THE SECRETARY TO PRESCRIBE RULES AND REGULATIONS "TO CARRY OUT THIS
ACT."  FOR, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE ONLY PROVISION OF THE ACT RELATING TO
STATEMENTS OF THE REGISTRANT'S ACTIVITIES IS SEC. 3(C), WHICH DEFINES
ITS OWN AND THE SECRETARY'S LIMITATIONS.  SECTION 6 DOES NOT GIVE TO
THE SECRETARY ANY AUTHORITY NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE ACT, AND ESPECIALLY
NOT AN AUTHORITY WHICH OVERRIDES THE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS OF SEC.
3(C).    WHILE CONGRESS UNDOUBTEDLY HAD A GENERAL PURPOSE TO REGULATE
AGENTS OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY DIRECTING THEM
TO REGISTER AND FURNISH SUCH INFORMATION AS THE ACT PRESCRIBED, WE
CANNOT ADD TO ITS PROVISIONS OTHER REQUIREMENTS MERELY BECAUSE WE THINK
THEY MIGHT MORE SUCCESSFULLY HAVE EFFECTUATED THAT PURPOSE.  AND WE
FIND NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT TO INDICATE THAT
ANYONE CONCERNED IN ITS ADOPTION HAD ANY THOUGHT OF REQUIRING, OR
AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY TO REQUIRE, MORE THAN A STATEMENT OF
REGISTRANTS' ACTIVITIES IN BEHALF OF THEIR FOREIGN PRINCIPALS. 

IN 1935 THE MCCORMACK COMMITTEE, REPORTING ON ITS INVESTIGATION OF
NAZI AND OTHER PROPAGANDA, RECOMMENDED:  "THAT THE CONGRESS SHOULD
ENACT A STATUTE REQUIRING ALL PUBLICITY, PROPAGANDA, OR PUBLIC
RELATIONS AGENTS OR OTHER AGENTS OR AGENCIES, WHO REPRESENT IN THIS
COUNTRY ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR A FOREIGN POLITICAL PARTY OR FOREIGN
INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATION, TO REGISTER WITH THE SECRETARY
OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO STATE NAME AND LOCATION OF SUCH
FOREIGN EMPLOYER, THE CHARACTER OF THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED, AND THE
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAID OR TO BE PAID THEREFOR."  H.R. REP. NO.
153, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 23.  THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE
REPORTS, URGING ENACTMENT OF THE MCCORMACK BILL WHICH BECAME THE 1938
ACT, BOTH DECLARE THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO CARRY OUT THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MCCORMACK COMMITTEE.  H.R. REP. NO. 1381, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1; S. REP. NO. 1783, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2. 

AS MAY BE SEEN FROM THE TEXT WHICH WE HAVE QUOTED, THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE LIMITED TO THE PROPOSAL OF SPECIFIC MEASURES FOR
ACHIEVING THE COMMITTEE'S GENERAL PURPOSE, BY REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF
THE IDENTITY OF THE AGENT AND OF HIS FOREIGN PRINCIPAL AND THE AGENT'S
RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRINCIPAL.  THEY GIVE NO HINT OF AN INTENTION TO
REQUIRE AGENTS TO DISCLOSE ACTIVITIES NOT IN BEHALF OF THEIR FOREIGN
PRINCIPALS.  AND IN SUPPORTING THE AMENDATORY LEGISLATION ENACTED IN
1942, WHICH, AMONG OTHER ADDITIONS, REQUIRED REGISTRANTS TO MAKE "A
COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF REGISTRANT'S BUSINESS" (ACT OF
APRIL 29, 1942, SEC. 2(A)(3)), REPRESENTATIVE MCCORMACK STATED:  "THE
PRESENT BILL STRENGTHENS THE MCCORMACK ACT.  I WAS EXPERIMENTING AT
THAT TIME, AND, NATURALLY, WHEN YOU ARE EXPERIMENTING YOU CANNOT GO AS
FAR AS YOU CAN AFTER YOU HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE
EXPERIENCE GAINED FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MCCORMACK ACT, THESE
AMENDMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO STRENGTHEN THE ACT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS
OF OUR COUNTRY."  88 CONG. REC., JAN. 28, 1942, P. 802. 

EVEN THOUGH THE SPECIFIC RESTRICTION OF SEC. 3(C) WERE DUE TO
DEFECTIVE DRAFTSMANSHIP OR TO INADVERTENCE, WHICH HARDLY SEEMS TO BE
THE CASE, MEN ARE NOT SUBJECTED TO CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THEIR
CONDUCT OFFENDS OUR PATRIOTIC EMOTIONS OR THWARTS A GENERAL PURPOSE
SOUGHT TO BE EFFECTED BY SPECIFIC COMMANDS WHICH THEY HAVE NOT
DISOBEYED.  NOR ARE THEY TO BE HELD GUILTY OF OFFENSES WHICH THE
STATUTES HAVE OMITTED, THOUGH BY INADVERTENCE, TO DEFINE AND CONDEMN. 
FOR THE COURTS ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REPRESS EVIL SAVE AS THE LAW
HAS PROSCRIBED IT AND THEN ONLY ACCORDING TO LAW. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE STATUTE WOULD HAVE BEEN A "HALFWAY
MEASURE" HAD IT NOT REQUIRED, OR AT LEAST AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY TO
REQUIRE, THE REGISTRANT TO REVEAL THE PROPAGANDA WHICH HE PUT OUT OTHER
THAN ON BEHALF OF HIS FOREIGN PRINCIPAL.  CONGRESS ITSELF HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT THE LEGISLATION WAS IN THIS SENSE A HALFWAY MEASURE
WHEN IN 1942 THE ACT WAS AMENDED SO AS TO REQUIRE BOTH ORIGINAL AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS TO CONTAIN A "COMPREHENSIVE
STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF REGISTRANT'S BUSINESS," TOGETHER WITH OTHER
SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED INFORMATION AS TO THE CHARACTER OF REGISTRANTS'
ACTIVITIES.  ACT OF APRIL 29, 1942, C. 263, 56 STAT. 248, SECS.
2(A)(3), 2(A)(4), 2(A)(8), 2(A)(10), 2(B). 

THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN RECOMMENDING THE 1942 LEGISLATION
SAID THAT "THE PRESENT ACT IS ALSO IMPROVED BY EXPLICIT ENLARGEMENT OF
THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS SO AS TO RENDER THEM MORE EFFICACIOUS FOR
DISCLOSURE AND INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES."  S. REP. NO. 913, 77TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 9.  THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DECLARED "THE EXISTING
LAW IS ALSO BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN BOLSTERED BY EXPLICIT ENLARGEMENT OF
THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS SO AS TO RENDER THEM MORE EFFICACIOUS FOR
DISCLOSURE AND INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES.   ...  ALL OF THESE ADDITIONS
HAVE BEEN PROMPTED BY EXPERIENCE IN CASES UNDER THE PRESENT ACT."  H.
REP. NO. 1547, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 3-4.  FN1 

WHILE WE FIND IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS NO MENTION OF THE EXPLICIT
RESTRICTION OF THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 3(C) OF THE OLD ACT TO THE
REGISTRANT'S ACTIVITIES "AS AGENT," THE REPORTS REVEAL A CLEAR PURPOSE
TO MAKE THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW ACT EXTEND TO ALL HIS
ACTIVITIES.  FN2 WE THINK THAT IN THIS RESPECT THE NEW ACT EXTENDS
BEYOND THE OLD, AND THAT THE APPLICATION, EX POST FACTO, OF THE NEW, TO
IMPOSE ON PETITIONER A DUTY WHICH THE WORDS OF THE OLD PLAINLY EXCLUDE,
IS NOT TO BE JUSTIFIED BY DENOMINATING THE AMENDMENT AS CLARIFYING OR
DECLARATORY LEGISLATION. 

AS THE CASE MUST BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, WE DIRECT ATTENTION TO CONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
WHICH WE THINK PREJUDICED PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, AND WHICH
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ERROR FOR WHICH WE REVERSE MIGHT WELL HAVE PLACED
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN JEOPARDY.  IN HIS CLOSING REMARKS TO THE
JURY HE INDULGED IN AN APPEAL WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO ANY FACTS OR ISSUES
IN THE CASE, THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF WHICH COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN TO
AROUSE PASSION AND PREJUDICE.  FN3  THE TRIAL JUDGE OVERRULED, AS
COMING TOO LATE, PETITIONER'S OBJECTION FIRST MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE
COURT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY. 

AT A TIME WHEN PASSION AND PREJUDICE ARE HEIGHTENED BY EMOTIONS
STIRRED BY OUR PARTICIPATION IN A GREAT WAR, WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT THESE
REMARKS ADDRESSED TO THE JURY WERE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL, AND THAT THEY
WERE OFFENSIVE TO THE DIGNITY AND GOOD ORDER WITH WHICH ALL PROCEEDINGS
IN COURT SHOULD BE CONDUCTED.  WE THINK THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD
HAVE STOPPED COUNSEL'S DISCOURSE WITHOUT WAITING FOR AN OBJECTION. 
"THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IS THE REPRESENTATIVE NOT OF AN ORDINARY
PARTY TO A CONTROVERSY, BUT OF A SOVEREIGNTY WHOSE OBLIGATION TO GOVERN
IMPARTIALLY IS AS COMPELLING AS ITS OBLIGATION TO GOVERN AT ALL; AND
WHOSE INTEREST, THEREFORE, IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS NOT THAT IT
SHALL WIN A CASE, BUT THAT JUSTICE SHALL BE DONE.  AS SUCH, HE IS IN A
PECULIAR AND VERY DEFINITE SENSE THE SERVANT OF THE LAW, THE TWOFOLD
AIM OF WHICH IS THAT GUILT SHALL NOT ESCAPE OR INNOCENCE SUFFER.  HE
MAY PROSECUTE WITH EARNESTNESS AND VIGOR - INDEED, HE SHOULD DO SO.
BUT, WHILE HE MAY STRIKE HARD BLOWS, HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO STRIKE
FOUL ONES.  IT IS AS MUCH HIS DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM IMPROPER METHODS
CALCULATED TO PRODUCE A WRONGFUL CONVICTION AS IT IS TO USE EVERY
LEGITIMATE MEANS TO BRING ABOUT A JUST ONE."  BERGER V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 78, 88.  COMPARE NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 279 U.S.
310, 316-18.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS STATEMENT, WHICH OMITTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE ACTIVITIES
REFERRED TO IN SEC. 3(C) WERE THE REGISTRANT'S ACTIVITIES "AS AGENT,"
WAS COPIED VERBATIM FROM A STATEMENT WHICH HAD BEEN SUBMITTED AT A
HEARING ON NOVEMBER 28, 1941, BY THE CHIEF OF THE SPECIAL DEFENSE UNIT
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHO HAD A LARGE SHARE IN DRAFTING THE
1942 LEGISLATION.  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 4 OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 6045, PP.
26, 12.  THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN HIS STATEMENT, ALSO COPIED IN THE
HOUSE REPORT AT P. 4, WHICH MAY INDICATE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
THOUGHT THAT THE EXISTING LAW REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF "INFORMATION ABOUT
THE NATURE OF THE REGISTRANT'S BUSINESS," AND THAT THE PROVISION IN THE
1942 LAW WOULD BE "DECLARATORY."  IF SUCH WAS ITS MEANING, THE
STATEMENT IGNORED AND DID NOT POINT OUT TO THE COMMITTEE THE EXPLICIT
LIMITATION OF SEC. 3(C) OF THE OLD ACT TO THE REGISTRANT'S ACTIVITIES
"AS AGENT."  MOREOVER, THE STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT
AFTER THE INSTITUTION OF THE PROSECUTION OF THIS CASE (THE INDICTMENT
WAS FILED OCTOBER 8, 1941).  HENCE IN SOME MEASURE IT MAY HAVE
REPRESENTED THE DEPARTMENT'S VIEW OF THE LAW, WHICH WE THINK
INADMISSIBLE, REFLECTED IN ITS REQUESTED CHARGE TO THE JURY IN THIS
CASE. 

A LIKE INDEFINITENESS AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE NEW LEGISLATION
MIGHT BE REGARDED AS DECLARATORY IS SUGGESTED BY THE LETTER OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NOVEMBER 24, 1941, RECOMMENDING THE NEW LEGISLATION
TO THE CHAIRMEN OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES.  THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, HOWEVER, SEEMS TO HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE NEW BILL WOULD BE DECLARATORY, NOT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE OLD
ACT, BUT OF THE "REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT OF FOREIGN
AGENTS AS NOW PRESCRIBED OR MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY." 
INDICATION THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT REGARD THE ACT, BEFORE THE
1942 AMENDMENT, AS EMBODYING THIS REQUIREMENT OF THE SECRETARY IS TO BE
FOUND IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF HIS LETTER:  "UNDER EXISTING LAW, EVERY
PERSON WHO IS AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL IS REQUIRED TO FILE A
REGISTRATION STATEMENT WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, SETTING FORTH
CERTAIN INFORMATION DISCLOSING THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP TO SUCH
FOREIGN PRINCIPAL."  HEARINGS, SUPRA, PP. 55-56; S. REP. NO. 913, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 10-11. 

FN2  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS REFERRED TO ARE REPORTS ON H.R. 6269,
WHICH WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS, BUT VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OUR
ENTRANCE INTO THE WAR HAD MADE IT NECESSARY TO ALTER THE BILL IN
CERTAIN RESPECTS, NOT MATERIAL HERE.  A NEW BILL, S. 2399, CONTAINING
SUCH CHANGES, BECAME THE ACT OF APRIL 29, 1942.  SEE S. REP. NO. 1227,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 2038, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN3  "IN CLOSING, LET ME REMIND YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT THIS
IS WAR.  THIS IS WAR, HARSH, CRUEL, MURDEROUS WAR.  THERE ARE THOSE
WHO, RIGHT AT THIS VERY MOMENT, ARE PLOTTING YOUR DEATH AND MY DEATH;
PLOTTING OUR DEATH AND THE DEATH OF OUR FAMILIES BECAUSE WE HAVE
COMMITTED NO OTHER CRIME THAN THAT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THEIR IDEAS OF
PERSECUTION AND CONCENTRATION CAMPS. 

"THIS IS WAR.  IT IS A FIGHT TO THE DEATH.  THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
RELYING UPON YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN FOR THEIR PROTECTION AGAINST THIS
SORT OF A CRIME, JUST AS MUCH AS THEY ARE RELYING UPON THE PROTECTION
OF THE MEN WHO MAN THE GUNS IN BATAAN PENINSULA, AND EVERYWHERE ELSE. 
THEY ARE RELYING UPON YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN FOR THEIR PROTECTION. 
WE ARE AT WAR.  YOU HAVE A DUTY TO PERFORM HERE. 

"AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR GOVERNMENT I AM CALLING UPON EVERY ONE
OF YOU TO DO YOUR DUTY." 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS, DISSENTING. 

THE PETITIONER, HAVING REGISTERED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE AS A
FOREIGN AGENT, WAS CONVICTED OF WILLFUL REFUSAL TO INFORM THE SECRETARY
OF CERTAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN WHICH HE SYSTEMATICALLY ATTEMPTED TO
INFLUENCE THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF THIS COUNTRY ON BEHALF OF GERMANY. 
THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED THE JURY NOT TO CONVICT THE PETITIONER UNLESS
HE HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ACT AND THE REGULATIONS REQUIRED HIM
TO SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION TO THE SECRETARY, AND THAT HAVING SUCH
KNOWLEDGE HE HAD REFUSED TO ANSWER THE SECRETARY'S QUESTION WITH THE
"DELIBERATE INTENTION OF AVOIDING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE."  THE
JURY FOUND, AND IT IS NOT QUESTIONED HERE, THAT THE PETITIONER WAS A
PAID GERMAN PROPAGANDIST ENGAGED IN VARIOUS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, IN ALL
OF WHICH HE MADE USE OF THE SAME KIND OF PROPAGANDA CALCULATED TO
FURTHER THE INTERESTS OF GERMANY IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE COURT HOLDS
THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT REQUIRED PETITIONER TO REVEAL TO THE
SECRETARY ONLY THE PARTICULAR PROPAGANDA ACTIVITIES IN WHICH HE ENGAGED
PURSUANT TO HIS AGENCY.  IT HOLDS THAT THE PETITIONER COULD KEEP
SECRET, WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAW, THOSE PROPAGANDA ACTIVITIES
UNDERTAKEN ON HIS OWN BEHALF, WHICH WERE OF EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE AND
WERE INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH EXACTLY THE SAME PURPOSE AS THOSE FOR WHICH
HE HAD BEEN HIRED BY HIS GERMAN PRINCIPALS. 

TO THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT I CANNOT AGREE.  I THINK THAT SEC.
3(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY TO REQUIRE STATEMENTS
"OF THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH PERSON AS AGENT OF A FOREIGN PRINCIPAL" MUST
BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND IN CLOSE
CONNECTION WITH SEC. 6, WHICH PERMITS THE SECRETARY TO PRESCRIBE THE
"RULES, REGULATIONS, AND FORMS" NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE ACT.  BY
SUCH A READING, THE SECRETARY WAS AUTHORIZED TO ASK THE QUESTION THE
PETITIONER FAILED TO ANSWER. 

THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE ACT WAS TO PREVENT SECRECY AS TO ANY KIND
OF POLITICAL PROPAGANDA ACTIVITY BY FOREIGN AGENTS.  BOTH THE HOUSE AND
SENATE COMMITTEES REPORTING THE BILL UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARED IT TO
BE THEIR PURPOSE TO TURN "THE SPOTLIGHT OF PITILESS PUBLICITY" UPON THE
PROPAGANDA ACTIVITIES OF THOSE WHO WERE HIRED BY FOREIGN PRINCIPALS. 
APPRECIATING THAT "PROPAGANDA EFFORTS OF SUCH A NATURE ARE USUALLY
CONDUCTED IN SECRECY," THEY WANTED TO MAKE FULL INFORMATION CONCERNING
IT "AVAILABLE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC" AND SOUGHT BY "THE PASSAGE OF
THIS BILL" TO "FORCE PROPAGANDA AGENTS REPRESENTING FOREIGN AGENCIES TO
COME OUT 'IN THE OPEN' IN THEIR ACTIVITIES, OR TO SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO
THE PENALTIES PROVIDED IN SAID BILL."  FN1  THEY DECLARED THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS TO REQUIRE ALL SUCH HIRED AGENTS "TO REGISTER
WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND TO SUPPLY INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, THEIR EMPLOYERS, AND THE TERMS OF THEIR
CONTRACTS."  FN2    WHAT EMERGED FROM EXTENDED CONGRESSIONAL
INVESTIGATIONS, HEARINGS AND DELIBERATIONS WAS THIS ACT, INTENDED TO
PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE METHOD TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ESSENTIAL FOR THE
PROPER EVALUATION OF POLITICAL PROPAGANDA EMANATING FROM HIRED AGENTS
OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  AS THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES CONSIDERING
THE BILL SAID, IT "DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPAIR THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OR OF A FREE PRESS, OR OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS."  RESTING
ON THE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE THAT OUR PEOPLE, ADEQUATELY
INFORMED, MAY BE TRUSTED TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TRUE AND THE FALSE,
THE BILL IS INTENDED TO LABEL INFORMATION OF FOREIGN ORIGIN SO THAT
HEARERS AND READERS MAY NOT BE DECEIVED BY THE BELIEF THAT THE
INFORMATION COMES FROM A DISINTERESTED SOURCE.  SUCH LEGISLATION
IMPLEMENTS RATHER THAN DETRACTS FROM THE PRIZED FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  NO STRAINED INTERPRETATION SHOULD FRUSTRATE ITS
ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. 

DIRECTED TO PRESCRIBE SUCH RULES, REGULATIONS, AND FORMS AS MAY BE
NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THIS ACT."  CONGRESS DID NOT SET OUT IN THE ACT
THE QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED, AND IT SURELY DID NOT INTEND TO ENTRUST
THE SECRETARY WITH NO MORE THAN THE POWER TO COPY THE ACT IN SEEKING
INFORMATION.  SUCH LATITUDE AS HE HAS, THE SECRETARY IMMEDIATELY USED
TO REQUIRE THAT "AGENTS OF FOREIGN PRINCIPALS WHO ENGAGE, WHETHER OR
NOT ON BEHALF OF THEIR FOREIGN PRINCIPAL," IN POLITICAL PROPAGANDA
ACTIVITY SHOULD REGISTER; AND HE ASKED THE REGISTRANTS TO MAKE A
"COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF NATURE OF BUSINESS."  IN VIEW OF THE
GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT, SUCH A QUESTION SEEMS EMINENTLY
REASONABLE.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE VERY FACT THAT IN THE INSTANT
CASE IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WITH CONVICTION WHICH
ACTIVITIES THE PETITIONER CARRIED ON IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND WHICH HE
CARRIED ON IN BEHALF OF GERMANY IS REASON ENOUGH FOR REQUIRING HIM TO
REPORT ON BOTH.  THE ACT DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT A FOREIGN AGENT COULD
EVADE ITS TERMS BY CLAIMING THAT ALL UNREPORTED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES,
UPON THEIR DISCOVERY BY THIS GOVERNMENT, WERE UNDERTAKEN ON HIS OWN
BEHALF.  UNDER THE GENERAL POWER GIVEN THE SECRETARY BY SEC. 6 TO
DETERMINE THE FORM OF QUESTIONS, HE WAS ENTITLED TO ASK SUCH QUESTIONS
AS WOULD MAKE THE ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 3(C) POSSIBLE.  I THINK THE
SECRETARY WAS AUTHORIZED TO ASK THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION IN
THIS CASE AND THAT THE ACT REQUIRED THE PETITIONER TO ANSWER IT. 

AS IS POINTED OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THE 1942 AMENDMENT TO
THE ACT EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY TO ASK THE QUESTION WHICH
IS INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE.  THE ADDITION OF THIS PROVISION TO THE
ACT, HOWEVER, I CONSIDER PURELY DECLARATORY.  THE 1942 BILL WAS PASSED,
AS SHOWN BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE REPORTS, TO SERVE FOUR MAJOR PURPOSES:
IT REQUIRED THE LABELING OF FOREIGN PROPAGANDA MAILED IN THE UNITED
STATES; TRANSFERRED THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF STATE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; EXTENDED THE APPLICATION OF THE
ACT TO CERTAIN PROPAGANDA AFFECTING LATIN AMERICA; AND IMPROVED THE
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN EXPRESSING HIS VIEWS
ON THE BILL, DECLARED THAT THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS OF THE
AMENDMENT, WHICH INCLUDES SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION TO ASK THE VERY
QUESTION NOW BEFORE US, WERE "MERELY DECLARATORY."  FN3  IF SO, THE
SECRETARY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION UNDER THE 1938
ACT. 

THE REVERSAL HERE APPARENTLY DOES NOT REST ON THE CONCLUDING REMARKS
OF COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT SET FORTH IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  I AM
IN ACCORD WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED IN BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 78, 88, WHICH THE COURT TODAY REPEATS.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT
DECLARED THAT COUNSEL HAD MISSTATED THE FACTS; PUT WORDS INTO THE
MOUTHS OF WITNESSES WHICH THEY HAD NOT SAID; INTIMATED THAT STATEMENTS
HAD BEEN MADE TO HIM PERSONALLY OUT OF COURT IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO
PROOF WAS OFFERED; PRETENDED TO UNDERSTAND THAT A WITNESS HAD SAID
SOMETHING WHICH HE HAD NOT; BULLIED AND ARGUED WITH THE WITNESSES; AND
COMMITTED OTHER OFFENSES.  THIS COURT PROPERLY DECLARED THAT HIS
CONDUCT CALLED FOR STERN REBUKE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, FOR REPRESSIVE
MEASURES, AND "PERHAPS, IF THESE WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL, FOR THE GRANTING
OF A MISTRIAL." 

A PROSECUTOR MUST DRAW A CAREFUL LINE.  ON THE ONE HAND, HE SHOULD BE
FAIR; HE SHOULD NOT SEEK TO AROUSE PASSION OR ENGENDER PREJUDICE.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, EARNESTNESS OR EVEN A STIRRING ELOQUENCE CANNOT CONVICT
HIM OF HITTING FOUL BLOWS.  FN4 

FN1  SENATE REPORT NO. 1783, HOUSE REPORT NO. 1381, 75TH CONG., 3D
SESS. 

FN2  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN MANUSCRIPT
FORM ONLY, SHOW THE SAME BROAD PURPOSE.  IN EXPLAINING THE BILL TO THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE, ITS AUTHOR POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS PARTICULARLY AIMED
AT FIRMS, GROUPS, OR BUSINESSES, USED "AS A MEANS FOR THAT PARTICULAR
COUNTRY OR POLITICAL PARTY TO HIDE ITS IDENTITY" AND THAT THE BILL
COVERED "ALL ACTIVITIES OF ALL KINDS, THAT IS, ALL PROPAGANDA
ACTIVITIES, NO MATTER FROM WHAT SOURCE IT EMANATES."  THE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE, WHOSE CHAIRMAN WAS THE AUTHOR OF THIS BILL, HAD DISCOVERED
THROUGH HEARINGS, THAT BUSINESS ENTERPRISES HAD BEEN UTILIZED AS A
MEANS FOR PROPAGANDIZING, AND THAT MANY PERSONS INCLUDING THE
PETITIONER HERE HAD PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN VARIOUS MAGAZINES, CONCEALING
THEIR IDENTITY BEHIND PSEUDONYMS.  THE PURPOSE OF THESE ACTIVITIES, THE
COMMITTEE FOUND, HAD BEEN TO INFLUENCE "THE POLICIES, EXTERNAL AND
INTERNAL, OF THIS COUNTRY, THROUGH GROUP ACTION.  THEY WERE EMPLOYING
THE SAME METHOD THAT THEY HAD EMPLOYED IN GERMANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OBTAINING CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT OVER THERE." 

FN3  SEN. REPORT NO. 913, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN4  "TO SHEAR HIM (THE PROSECUTOR) OF ALL ORATORICAL EMPHASIS, WHILE
LEAVING WIDE LATITUDE TO THE DEFENSE, IS TO LOAD THE SCALES OF JUSTICE;
IT IS TO DENY WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ACCEPTED INCIDENT OF JURY TRIALS,
EXCEPT IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS WHERE ANY SERIOUS EXECUTION OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW HAS YIELDED TO A GHOSTLY PHANTOM OF THE INNOCENT MAN
FALSELY CONVICTED."  DI CARLO V. UNITED STATES, 6 F.2D 364, 368. 
..END :














MARSHALL FIELD & CO. V. BOARD, 318 U.S. 253 


NO. 453.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 129 F.2D
169, AFFIRMED. 


1.  BENEFITS RECEIVED UNDER THE ILLINOIS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT
WERE NOT "EARNINGS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO PAY TO CERTAIN
DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES SUMS EQUAL TO WHAT THEY NORMALLY WOULD HAVE
EARNED, LESS THEIR "NET EARNINGS," DURING THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD.  P.
255. 

2.  SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE QUESTION OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO AWARD BACK PAY WITHOUT
DEDUCTION OF BENEFITS RECEIVED UNDER THE ILLINOIS UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT WAS, AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD,
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OR TO ANY MEMBER OR AGENT THEREOF, OR THAT THERE
WERE ANY "EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES" WHICH WOULD EXCUSE SUCH FAILURE,
ITS CONSIDERATION ON REVIEW WAS PRECLUDED BY SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  P. 255. 

3.  ASSUMING THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 10(E) MAY WITH THE CONSENT
OF THE COURT BE WAIVED, THE RESERVATION IN THE CONSENT DECREE OF
"JURISDICTION" TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE WAS NOT A WAIVER,
BUT LEFT THE MATTER TO BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO LAW.  P. 256. 

MARSHALL FIELD & CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW A DECREE ORDERING ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS CASE THE LABOR BOARD ORDERED PETITIONER TO COMPENSATE CERTAIN
OF ITS EMPLOYEES FOR LOSS OF PAY SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF THEIR
DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  PARAGRAPH 2(B) OF THE ORDER DIRECTED THAT PETITIONER "MAKE WHOLE"
THE EMPLOYEES BY PAYMENT TO THEM OF A SUM "EQUAL TO THAT WHICH THEY
WOULD NORMALLY HAVE EARNED AS WAGES" DURING THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, LESS
THEIR "NET EARNINGS" DURING THE PERIOD (34 N.L.R.B. 1, 21).  ON CONSENT
OF THE PARTIES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
ENFORCED THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, AND RESERVED
"JURISDICTION" TO DETERMINE WHETHER PARAGRAPH 2(B) PERMITTED PETITIONER
TO DEDUCT BENEFITS RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE ILLINOIS
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, AND, IF NOT, WHETHER TO THAT EXTENT THE
ORDER WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE BOARD.  ON CONSIDERATION OF THE
QUESTIONS RESERVED, THE COURT CONSTRUED THE ORDER AS NOT PERMITTING
SUCH A DEDUCTION, AND HELD THAT SO CONSTRUED IT WAS WITHIN THE BOARD'S
AUTHORITY.  129 F.2D 169.  AN APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT DECREE WAS
ENTERED, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  317 U.S. 617. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE BENEFITS RECEIVED UNDER THE
STATE COMPENSATION ACT WERE PLAINLY NOT "EARNINGS" WHICH, UNDER THE
TERMS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, COULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE BACK PAY
AWARDED.  AND UPON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD WE THINK THE BOARD'S ORDER
SHOULD BE ENFORCED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE QUESTION WHETHER SUCH A
PROVISION IS WITHIN THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY. 

OBJECTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN URGED BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER, AGENT
OR AGENCY, SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT, UNLESS THE FAILURE OR
NEGLECT TO URGE SUCH OBJECTION SHALL BE EXCUSED BECAUSE OF
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES."  WE DO NOT FIND THAT, AT ANY STAGE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD, THE OBJECTION NOW URGED AS TO THE BOARD'S
LACK OF POWER WAS PRESENTED TO IT OR TO ANY MEMBER OR AGENT OF THE
BOARD, OR THAT THERE ARE ANY "EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES" WHICH WOULD
EXCUSE SUCH FAILURE. 

PARAGRAPH 2(B) OF THE BOARD'S ORDER IS IN SUBSTANCE THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE INTERMEDIATE REPORT OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER.  YET
PETITIONER'S ONLY OBJECTION TO THIS PART OF THE EXAMINER'S REPORT WAS
THAT THE EXAMINER HAD ERRED "IN MAKING EACH AND EVERY RECOMMENDATION." 
SUCH A GENERAL OBJECTION DID NOT APPRISE THE BOARD THAT PETITIONER
INTENDED TO PRESS THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED, AND MAY WELL ACCOUNT FOR
THE BOARD'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER THIS QUESTION IN ITS DECISION AND TO
MAKE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO IT. 

THE PRESENT CASE GIVES EMPHASIS TO THE SALUTARY POLICY ADOPTED BY
SEC. 10(E) OF AFFORDING THE BOARD OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER ON THE MERITS
QUESTIONS TO BE URGED UPON REVIEW OF ITS ORDER.  IN OBJECTING TO
PARAGRAPH 2(B) FOR ITS WANT OF SUPPORT IN THE BOARD'S FINDINGS,
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE ILLINOIS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND IS
IN SUBSTANCE AN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND BUILT UP WHOLLY FROM TAX
CONTRIBUTIONS BY EMPLOYERS; THAT THE BENEFITS RECEIVED FROM THE FUND BY
THE EMPLOYEES CANNOT UNDER STATE LAW BE RECLAIMED OR REFUNDED; AND THAT
THE ELIGIBILITY OF THESE EMPLOYEES FOR FUTURE BENEFITS FROM THE FUND
HAS NOT BEEN IMPAIRED BECAUSE OF THE BENEFITS ALREADY PAID TO THEM. 
FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THESE CONTENTIONS ARE AN APPROPRIATE IF NOT
INDISPENSABLE BASIS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE
RAISED.  WE THINK SEC. 10(E) MAKES ITS PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD A
PREREQUISITE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

THE RESERVATION IN THE CONSENT DECREE OF "JURISDICTION" TO CONSIDER
THIS OBJECTION WAS NOT A WAIVER BY THE BOARD OR THE COURT OF CONFORMITY
TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 10(E).  ASSUMING THAT SUCH A WAIVER MIGHT
BE MADE WITH THE ASSENT OF THE COURT, WE CANNOT READ IN THE CONSENT
DECREE ANYTHING MORE THAN A RESERVATION OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO
DECIDE THE QUESTION ACCORDING TO LAW. 

FOR THE REASON THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SEC.
10(E) WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION RAISED AS TO THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY,
THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










WELLS V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 257 


NO. 11, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943. 
AFFIRMED. 


1.  EVEN THOUGH, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE COULD HAVE ALLOWED AN APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS TO REVIEW THE ADEQUACY OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S CERTIFICATE
(PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, AS AMENDED) THAT THE APPEAL WAS
NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT AN APPEAL WAS SOUGHT
ON THAT GROUND OR THAT THERE IS ANYTHING OF RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH AN
APPEAL, AND THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENYING LEAVE TO
APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED.  P. 260. 

2.  WHAT EFFECT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO A CERTIFICATE OF BAD FAITH IN A
CASE WHERE THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ATTACHES
UPON THE MERE FILING OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL, INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, IS NOT HERE
DECIDED.  P. 260. 

WELLS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 616, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN 1938 PETITIONER, IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, PLEADED GUILTY
TO AN INDICTMENT IN FOUR COUNTS CHARGING HIM WITH VIOLATION OF THE BANK
ROBBERY ACT, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 588B, AND WAS SENTENCED TO CONSECUTIVE
TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT AGGREGATING 90 YEARS.  ON MAY 6, 1942, THE TRIAL
COURT, AFTER PETITIONER'S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, 124 F.2D 334, GRANTED HIS MOTION FOR RESENTENCE AND SENTENCED
HIM ON TWO OF THE COUNTS ON WHICH HE HAD BEEN CONVICTED, FOR
CONSECUTIVE TERMS AGGREGATING 45 YEARS.  ON THE SAME DAY HE BEGAN THE
PRESENT PROCEEDING BY A PETITION IN THE TRIAL COURT TO SET ASIDE HIS
CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THAT HIS PLEA OF GUILTY HAD BEEN INDUCED BY
THREATS AND FALSE STATEMENTS ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS HAVING
HIM IN CUSTODY, AND THAT ON ENTERING HIS PLEA OF GUILTY HE HAD BEEN
DENIED THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE PETITION ON MAY 7, WITHOUT CALLING FOR
A RESPONSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT MAKING FINDINGS OR WRITING AN
OPINION, AND APPARENTLY WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING.  ITS ORDER RECITED
THAT THE COURT "IS OF THE OPINION THAT SAID PETITION IS WHOLLY
INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; THAT THE MATTERS AND THINGS THEREIN
CONTAINED HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN ADJUDICATED AND THAT SAID PETITION
SHOULD IN ALL THINGS BE DENIED." 

ON MAY 28 PETITIONER MOVED IN THE DISTRICT COURT THAT HE BE ALLOWED
TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  THE COURT DENIED THE MOTION, AND
CERTIFIED THAT "IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT SUCH AN APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN
IN GOOD FAITH." 

PETITIONER LATER PRESENTED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT AN APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, WHICH WAS LIKEWISE DENIED.  THAT ORDER DOES NOT SET FORTH THE
GROUND ON WHICH THE DENIAL WAS RESTED, BUT AN EARLIER OPINION, IN RE
WRAGG, 95 F.2D 252, 253, STATES THE COURT'S VIEW THAT IT IS WITHOUT
POWER TO ALLOW AN APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HAS
CERTIFIED THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON A TIMELY PETITION WHICH
ASKED THAT THE WRIT BE ISSUED TO THAT COURT AND TO THE DISTRICT COURT. 
317 U.S. 616. 

THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION TO SET
ASIDE THE CONVICTION RAISE AN ISSUE AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH COULD BE TRIED ON HABEAS CORPUS
(SEE WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101).  BUT IT DENIES THAT THE COURT OF
APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE POINT IN THIS PROCEEDING FOR
THE REASON, AMONG OTHERS, THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OF THE
APPEAL BY ANY APPELLATE COURT WAS FORECLOSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CERTIFICATION THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT IN GOOD FAITH. 

THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, 36 STAT. 866, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
832, PROVIDES THAT ANY CITIZEN, UPON FILING AN AFFIDAVIT OF POVERTY,
"MAY, UPON THE ORDER OF THE COURT, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE OR DEFEND TO
CONCLUSION ANY SUIT OR ACTION, OR AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, OR TO THE SUPREME COURT IN SUCH SUIT OR ACTION, INCLUDING ALL
APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, UNLESS THE TRIAL COURT SHALL CERTIFY IN WRITING
THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT SUCH APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD
FAITH, WITHOUT BEING REQUIRED TO PREPAY FEES OR COSTS  ...  "  THE
GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT, UNDER THE ACT OF 1910, WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
CERTIFIES THAT THE APPEAL IS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, THE ACTION OF THE
JUDGE IN ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE IS FINAL, AND NOT REVIEWABLE ON
APPEAL. 

FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, WE SHALL ASSUME, AS PETITIONER CONTENDS,
THAT THE ACT OF 1910 DOES NOT FORECLOSE ALL APPELLATE REVIEW IN FORMA
PAUPERIS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HAS CERTIFIED ITS OPINION THAT THE APPEAL
IS NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH.  BUT WE THINK THAT WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE,
LEAVE IS NECESSARY TO PERFECT THE APPEAL, THE CERTIFICATION MUST BE
GIVEN EFFECT AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF BEING ACCEPTED BY APPELLATE
COURTS AS CONTROLLING IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME SHOWING THAT THE
CERTIFICATE IS MADE WITHOUT WARRANT OR NOT IN GOOD FAITH. 

NEITHER FROM THE RECORD NOR FROM PETITIONER'S APPLICATION TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH HE HAS FILED IN THIS COURT, DOES IT
APPEAR THAT HE ATTACKED THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CERTIFICATE UPON THESE OR ANY OTHER GROUNDS.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THERE
IS WANT OF SUPPORT FOR THE DISTRICT COURT'S RECITAL IN ITS ORDER THAT
"THE MATTERS AND THINGS" CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE THE
CONVICTION "HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN ADJUDICATED."  FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S
BRIEF POINTS OUT THAT PETITIONER, BEFORE HIS APPLICATION TO THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THIS PROCEEDING, HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT RELEASE
FROM CUSTODY IN TWO HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS, OF WHICH THE FEDERAL
COURTS MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, BOTH BROUGHT IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA.  IN THE SECOND, THERE WAS A HEARING IN WHICH HE
TESTIFIED IN HIS OWN BEHALF; OTHER EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN BOTH ORAL AND
DOCUMENTARY, AND THE COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT CONTRARY TO THE
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT ON WHICH PETITIONER NOW RELIES.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THOSE PROCEEDINGS,
MERELY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD BEFORE US. 

EVEN THOUGH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS COULD ALLOW AN APPEAL IN
FORMA PAUPERIS TO REVIEW, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
ADEQUACY OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S CERTIFICATE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT
APPEAL WAS SOUGHT ON THAT GROUND OR THAT THERE IS ANYTHING OF RECORD TO
SUPPORT SUCH AN APPEAL.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS' ORDER DENYING
LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS MUST THEREFORE BE AFFIRMED. 

APART FROM THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUTE, PETITIONER'S APPEAL TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE ORDER DENYING HIS APPLICATION TO
VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS GOVERNED NOT BY RULE III OF THE RULES IN
CRIMINAL CASES, BUT BY SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 230, WHICH REQUIRES THAT PROPER APPLICATION BE MADE FOR THE
ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL.  UNITED STATES EX REL. COY V. UNITED STATES,
316 U.S. 342, 344; NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, 44.  WE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO DECIDE NOW WHAT EFFECT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO A CERTIFICATE OF
BAD FAITH IN A CASE WHERE THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ATTACHES UPON THE MERE FILING OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL,
INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS.  CF. WALLECK V. HUDSPETH, 128 F.2D 343.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























PENN DAIRIES V. MILK CONTROL COMM'N, 318 U.S. 261 


NO. 399.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 344 PA.
635, 26 A.2D 431, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA MILK CONTROL LAW, A RENEWAL OF THE
LICENSE OF A MILK DEALER WAS REFUSED BY THE MILK CONTROL COMMISSION
BECAUSE THE DEALER, IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE LAW, HAD SOLD MILK TO THE
UNITED STATES AT PRICES BELOW THE MINIMA FIXED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE
SALES AND DELIVERIES WERE MADE WITHIN THE STATE, UNDER A CONTRACT
AWARDED THE DEALER, AS THE LOWEST BIDDER, FOR SUPPLYING MILK FOR
CONSUMPTION BY TROOPS AT AN ARMY CAMP ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES,
ON LAND BELONGING TO THE STATE, UNDER A PERMIT WHICH INVOLVED NO
SURRENDER OF THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY OVER THE AREA.  HELD
THAT SUCH APPLICATION OF THE STATE LAW TO THE DEALER IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  PP. 271, 278. 

CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, EITHER AS READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY
OR AS CONSTRUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE EXERCISE OF
THE CONTRACTING POWER, DOES NOT DISCLOSE A PURPOSE TO IMMUNIZE
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS FROM LOCAL PRICE-FIXING REGULATIONS; NOR, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, DOES THE CONSTITUTION, UNAIDED BY
CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, CONFER SUCH IMMUNITY. 

2.  THOSE WHO CONTRACT TO FURNISH SUPPLIES OR RENDER SERVICES TO THE
GOVERNMENT ARE NOT FEDERAL AGENCIES AND DO NOT PERFORM GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS; AND THE MERE FACT THAT NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION OR
REGULATION OF THE CONTRACTOR IMPOSES AN INCREASED ECONOMIC BURDEN ON
THE GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER REGARDED AS BRINGING THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN
ANY IMPLIED IMMUNITY OF THE GOVERNMENT FROM STATE TAXATION OR
REGULATION.  P. 269. 

3.  SINCE THE CONSTITUTION HAS LEFT CONGRESS FREE TO SET ASIDE LOCAL
TAXATION AND REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, THERE IS NO BASIS
FOR IMPLYING FROM THE CONSTITUTION ALONE A RESTRICTION UPON SUCH
REGULATIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO IMPOSE, UNLESS THE
REGULATIONS ARE SHOWN TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  P.
271. 

4.  THE LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACTS OF CONGRESS
REQUIRING COMPETITIVE BIDDING IN THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES FOR THE ARMY,
AND OF RELATED STATUTES REGULATING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, DO NOT
EVIDENCE A PURPOSE TO SET ASIDE LOCAL PRICE REGULATIONS OR TO PROHIBIT
THE STATES FROM TAKING PUNITIVE MEASURES AGAINST VIOLATORS OF SUCH
REGULATIONS.  P. 272. 

5.  AN UNEXPRESSED PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO SET ASIDE STATUTES OF THE
STATES REGULATING THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED
AND OUGHT NOT TO BE IMPLIED WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE COMMAND, READ IN THE
LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY, REMAINS AMBIGUOUS.  P. 275. 

6.  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS WHICH SUSTAIN THE RULE AGAINST STATUTORY
REPEALS BY IMPLICATION APPLY AS WELL WHEN THE QUESTION IS ONE OF
NULLIFICATION OF STATE POWER BY CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.  P. 275. 

7.  ASSUMING THAT THE SECRETARY OF WAR COULD BY REGULATION SET ASIDE
THE STATE'S PRICE LEGISLATION WHICH IT HAS MADE APPLICABLE TO
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, IT APPEARS PLAINLY FROM A CONSIDERATION OF
PERTINENT REGULATIONS THAT HE HAS NOT DONE SO.  P. 278. 

PENN DAIRIES, INC., ET AL. V. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF
PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, 148 PA. SUPER.  261, 24
A.2D 717, SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF THE MILK CONTROL COMMISSION DENYING AN
APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF A LICENSE. 

THE UNITED STATES IS IMMUNE FROM STATE REGULATION OF THE PRICE TERM
OF ITS PURCHASE CONTRACTS.  WHEN THE DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT RESULTS
IN CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE REGULATION AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES, THE FORMER
MUST YIELD UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF ARTICLE VI. MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 427. 

THE STATUTE AND ORDER ARE EQUIVALENT TO A DIRECTION TO THE UNITED
STATES NOT TO PURCHASE MILK IN PENNSYLVANIA AT PRICES BELOW THOSE
SPECIFIED BY STATE AUTHORITIES. 

THOUGH THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE AIMED
EXCLUSIVELY AT THE SELLER, THE IMPACT OF THE REGULATION IS UPON THE
PURCHASER.  CF. FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S. 95; ALABAMA
V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1. 

SO VITAL A FEDERAL FUNCTION AS THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES FOR THE ARMED
FORCES IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.  JOHNSON V. MARYLAND, 254
U.S. 51, 56. 

WHATEVER MAY BE THE PROPRIETY OF THE TEST OF DISCRIMINATION IN
DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF STATE TAX LAWS APPLIED TO PERSONS DEALING
WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE TEST HAS NO APPLICATION TO SUSTAIN THE
VALIDITY OF A DIRECT REGULATION OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES
ITSELF. 

THE CONSTITUTION REFLECTS THE DETERMINATION OF THE FOUNDERS THAT THE
PROCUREMENT OF SUPPLIES FOR THE ARMY IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL CONCERN,
TO BE REGULATED BY THE ELECTED OR APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE
PEOPLE AND NOT CONTROLLED BY SINGLE STATES IN THEIR LOCAL INTERESTS. 
IT VESTS THE POWER "TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES" IN CONGRESS AND NOT IN
THE STATES.  CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 11. 

WHERE THE LEGAL INCIDENCE OF THE STATE REGULATION IS ON THE UNITED
STATES BECAUSE THE STATE LAW ITSELF FIXES FOR LOCAL ECONOMIC REASONS
THE TERMS ON WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY COME INTO THE STATE AND
PURCHASE ARMY SUPPLIES FROM ITS CITIZENS, THEN THE STATE LAW PASSES
BEYOND THE LINE OF LOCAL AFFAIRS AND BECOMES A DIRECT REGULATION OF THE
UNITED STATES AND OF THE SUPPORT OF THE ARMY. 

THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CONCERNING INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX IMMUNITY
ALSO SHOW THAT THE PRICE REGULATION IS INVALID BECAUSE ITS INCIDENCE IS
ON THE UNITED STATES. 

THE PRICE REGULATION HERE INVOLVED DOES NOT REST EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE
CONTRACTOR, AS DID THE SALES TAX WHICH WAS UPHELD IN ALABAMA V. KING &
BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1.  THE REGULATION IMPINGES UPON THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AS FULLY AND DIRECTLY AS DID THE SALES TAX INVALIDATED IN
FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S. 95, WHICH WAS REQUIRED BY
LAW TO BE PASSED ON TO THE PURCHASING LAND BANK. 

CONGRESS HAS REGULATED FEDERAL PURCHASES IN A WAY ESSENTIALLY
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA PRICE REGULATION.  THE POLICY OF THE
FEDERAL COMPETITIVE BIDDING STATUTES, AND THE PURCHASING PROCEDURE
ADOPTED UNDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF TITLE II OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS
ACT, 1941, 55 STAT. 838, CANNOT BE HARMONIZED WITH THE APPLICATION OF
THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW TO FEDERAL PURCHASES.  SINCE CONGRESS UNDOUBTEDLY
HAS POWER TO REGULATE THE SUBJECT, THE INCONSISTENT STATE REGULATION
MUST YIELD.  CONST., ART. VI; NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES,
193 U.S. 197; FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12.  CF. CLOVERLEAF BUTTER
CO. V. PATTERSON, 315 U.S. 148. 

IF MINIMUM PRICES ESTABLISHED UNDER STATE AUTHORITY BIND BIDDERS FOR
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, THERE WILL BE NO "LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER," FOR
WHERE THE MINIMUM FIXED BY STATE LAW IS ABOVE THE ECONOMIC MINIMUM,
SEVERAL BIDDERS WILL QUOTE THE FIXED PRICE.  THUS, THE UNITED STATES
WILL BE DENIED THE FULL BENEFIT OF PRICE COMPETITION. 

WHILE THE NECESSITIES OF WAR HAVE COMPELLED SOME RELAXATION OF THE
COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC PROCUREMENT, THE
PENNSYLVANIA PRICE REGULATION ALSO CONFLICTS WITH THE EMERGENCY METHODS
OF PURCHASE.  TITLE II OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 1941, 55 STAT. 838,
EMPOWERS THE PRESIDENT TO AUTHORIZE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES EXERCISING
FUNCTIONS RELATED TO THE WAR EFFORT "TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS  ...
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE MAKING  ... OF
CONTRACTS."  BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9001 OF DECEMBER 27, 1941(6 F.R.
6787), THE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZED THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS AND THE
UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION TO EXERCISE SUCH POWERS, AND PROVIDED
THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER LIMITATION FIXED BY LAW, "THE FIXED
FEE TO BE PAID THE CONTRACTOR AS A RESULT OF ANY COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE
CONTRACT ENTERED INTO UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS ORDER SHALL NOT
EXCEED SEVEN PER CENTUM OF THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE CONTRACT ...  "
TIT. II, SEC. 7.  A MINIMUM PRICE TO BE CHARGED UNIFORMLY BY ALL
DISTRIBUTORS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL COSTS, MAY OF COURSE BE
MORE THAN THE "COST PLUS A FIXED FEE" ENVISAGED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER. 

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT, IT GENERALLY HAS THE SAME
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AS INDIVIDUALS.  COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S.
389; CHRISTIE V. UNITED STATES, 237 U.S. 234; UNITED STATES V. SPEARIN,
248 U.S. 132; UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC DREDGING CO., 253 U.S. 1;
UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S. 289; E.E. NAYLOR,
LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN CONTRACT, 14 TULANE LAW
REVIEW 580, 584(1940).  KEMP V. UNITED STATES, 38 F.SUPP.  568, 570. 

THE IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS AGENTS DOES NOT EXTEND TO
THOSE WITH WHOM IT CONTRACTS TO FURNISH MATERIAL OR TO RENDER
SERVICES.  JAMES STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S. 94, 105; JAMES V.
DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 152. 

IF THE RESULT OF SUCH CONTRACTS IS TO INDUCE CUT-THROAT COMPETITION
AMONG MILK DEALERS COMPETING FOR THE FEDERAL BUSINESS, THE FINAL RESULT
MAY WELL BE THAT ALL BUT A FEW DEALERS WILL BE DRIVEN OUT OF BUSINESS. 

THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE TO PAY MORE THAN IT WOULD UNDER THE
CONTRACT IS NOT SUCH A BURDEN UPON THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR
IS EXCUSED FROM OBEYING THE ORDER.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302
U.S. 134. 

INDIANTOWN GAP MILITARY RESERVATION, ALTHOUGH NOW BEING USED BY THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
PENNSYLVANIA.  NO LAW, SALE OR LEASE FROM PENNSYLVANIA HAS CONVEYED
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE UNITED STATES.  NO ACT OF CONGRESS HAS
TAKEN AWAY FROM PENNSYLVANIA THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE MILK CONTROL
LAW.  SEE JAMES STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S. 94. 

ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S MINIMUM PRICE ORDER DOES NOT CONFLICT
WITH FEDERAL STATUTES REQUIRING COMPETITIVE BIDDING. 

THE UNITED STATES IS REQUIRED TO LET CONTRACTS TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS.  A CONTRACTOR WHO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH STATE LAWS
TO WHICH HE IS SUBJECT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A "RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER." 

THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT EXERCISED ANY WAR OR EMERGENCY POWER THAT
WOULD OUST THE STATE COMMISSION OF AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE
APPELLANT.  CONGRESS HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE REGULATIONS CONCERNING
THE PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, BOTTLING AND DISTRIBUTION OF MILK IN AND
ABOUT ITS RESERVATIONS, AND THE POWER TO MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS REMAINS
WITH THE STATES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S.
289. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DECISION OF THIS CASE TURNS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MINIMUM PRICE
REGULATIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA MILK CONTROL LAW OF APRIL 28, 1937,
P.L. 417, PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., TIT. 31, SEC. 700J, MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED TO THE SALE OF MILK BY A DEALER TO THE
UNITED STATES, THE SALE BEING CONSUMMATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS
OF THE STATE IN A PLACE SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA MILK CONTROL LAW ESTABLISHES A MILK CONTROL
COMMISSION, SEC. 201, WITH AUTHORITY TO FIX PRICES FOR MILK SOLD WITHIN
THE STATE WHEREVER PRODUCED, SECS. 801-803, INCLUDING MINIMUM WHOLESALE
AND RETAIL PRICES FOR MILK SOLD BY MILK DEALERS TO CONSUMERS, SEC. 802,
AND TO ISSUE RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDERS TO EFFECTUATE THIS
AUTHORITY, SEC. 307. 

IN THE FALL OF 1940 THE UNITED STATES ESTABLISHED, UNDER A PERMIT
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, A MILITARY ENCAMPMENT ON LANDS
BELONGING TO THE COMMONWEALTH.  AS IS CONCEDED, THE PERMIT INVOLVED NO
SURRENDER OF STATE JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY OVER THE AREA OCCUPIED BY
THE CAMP.  ON FEBRUARY 1, 1941, THE PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING OFFICER
AT THE ENCAMPMENT, AN OFFICER OF THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS OF THE UNITED
STATES ARMY, INVITED BIDS FOR A SUPPLY OF MILK FOR THE PERIOD FROM
MARCH 1 TO JUNE 30, 1941, FOR CONSUMPTION BY TROOPS STATIONED AT THE
CAMP.  ON FEBRUARY 4, THE MILK CONTROL COMMISSION SENT A NOTICE TO
INTERESTED PARTIES, INCLUDING APPELLANT, PENN DAIRIES, INC., A
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, ADDRESSED TO "ALL MILK DEALERS INTERESTED IN
SUBMITTING BIDS TO FURNISH MILK TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT" AT THE
ENCAMPMENT.  THE NOTICE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE COMMISSION'S OFFICIAL
GENERAL ORDER NO. A-14, SEC. 4-B OF WHICH PRESCRIBED THE "MINIMUM
WHOLESALE PRICES TO BE CHARGED BY OR PAID TO MILK DEALERS."  THE NOTICE
ANNOUNCED THAT THE UNIT PRICES SPECIFIED FOR SALES TO INSTITUTIONS BY
THAT SECTION OF THE ORDER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE PREPARATION OF
BIDS AND THAT SALES OF MILK AT PRICES BELOW THE PRESCRIBED MINIMA WOULD
BE CONSTRUED AS VIOLATIONS OF THE MILK CONTROL LAW.  THE DAIRY
SUBMITTED A BID OFFERING TO SELL MILK IN WHOLESALE QUANTITIES AT PRICES
SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION.  ITS BID WAS
ACCEPTED BY A WAR DEPARTMENT PURCHASE ORDER OF MARCH 1, 1941, THE
CONTRACT WAS AWARDED TO IT AS THE LOWEST BIDDER, AND IT PERFORMED THE
CONTRACT BY DELIVERIES OF THE MILK AT THE CONTRACT PRICE - ALL WITHIN
THE STATE. 

ON MARCH 5, 1941, THE COMMISSION, PURSUANT TO SECS. 404 AND 405 OF
THE MILK CONTROL ACT, ISSUED A CITATION TO THE DAIRY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ITS APPLICATION FOR A MILK DEALER'S LICENSE FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING MAY
1, 1941, SHOULD NOT BE DENIED BECAUSE OF ITS SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE
MILK AT PRICES BELOW THE MINIMA FIXED BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 
CIRCUMSTANCES NOT NOW MATERIAL, BUT PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION MAY
DENY OR CANCEL A LICENSE WHERE THE APPLICANT OR LICENSEE "HAS VIOLATED
ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OR ANY OF THE RULES, REGULATIONS OR
ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION  ...  " 

THE DAIRY'S ANSWER TO THE CITATION CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO REGULATE PRICES CHARGED TO THE UNITED
STATES.  AFTER A HEARING THE COMMISSION DENIED THE DAIRY'S LICENSE
APPLICATION BECAUSE OF ITS SALE OF MILK TO THE UNITED STATES AT PRICES
BELOW THOSE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS
SUSTAINED ON REVIEW BY THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY. 
THE SUPERIOR COURT AFFIRMED THIS JUDGMENT, 148 PA. SUPER.  261, 24 A.2D
717, IN AN OPINION WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, 344 PA. 635, 26 A.2D 431, BOTH COURTS HOLDING THAT THE
COMMISSION'S PRICE-FIXING ORDER WAS APPLICABLE TO SALES OF MILK MADE TO
THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT AS THUS APPLIED THE STATUTE DID NOT IMPOSE
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE UNITED STATES OR OTHERWISE INFRINGE
THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON
APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS GRANTED
LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND HAS PARTICIPATED
IN ALL SUBSEQUENT STAGES OF THE LITIGATION. 

APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA MILK CONTROL ACT, AS APPLIED TO
A DEALER SELLING TO THE UNITED STATES, VIOLATES A CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ALSO CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL
LEGISLATION REGULATING PURCHASES BY THE UNITED STATES AND THEREFORE
CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLY TO SUCH PURCHASES. 

APPELLANTS' FIRST PROPOSITION PROCEEDS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT LOCAL
PRICE REGULATIONS NORMALLY CONTROLLING MILK DEALERS WHO CARRY ON THEIR
BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, WHEN APPLIED TO SALES MADE TO THE
GOVERNMENT, SO BURDEN IT OR SO CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AS TO
RENDER THE REGULATIONS UNLAWFUL.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT CONGRESS, IN AID
OF ITS GRANTED POWER TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES, ARTICLE I, SEC. 8,
CL. 12, AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, ARTICLE VI, SEC.
2, COULD DECLARE STATE REGULATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT INAPPLICABLE TO
SALES TO THE GOVERNMENT.  CF. PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308
U.S. 21, 33; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S. 95, 101-04;
PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 350-351, AND CASES CITED.  BUT THERE IS
NO CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH PURPORTS, UNAIDED BY CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENT, TO PROHIBIT SUCH REGULATIONS, AND THE QUESTION WITH WHICH WE
ARE NOW CONCERNED IS WHETHER SUCH A PROHIBITION IS TO BE IMPLIED FROM
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

WE MAY ASSUME ALSO THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT,
THERE IS AN IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
FROM STATE TAXATION AND FROM STATE REGULATION OF THE PERFORMANCE, BY
FEDERAL OFFICERS AND AGENCIES, OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  OHIO V.
THOMAS, 173 U.S. 276; JOHNSON V. MARYLAND, 254 U.S. 51; HUNT V. UNITED
STATES, 278 U.S. 96; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423.  BUT THOSE
WHO CONTRACT TO FURNISH SUPPLIES OR RENDER SERVICES TO THE GOVERNMENT
ARE NOT SUCH AGENCIES AND DO NOT PERFORM GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS,
METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 524-5; JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 149; BUCKSTAFF CO. V. MCKINLEY, 308 U.S.
358, 362-63 AND CASES CITED; CF. SUSQUEHANNA CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 283
U.S. 291, 294; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376, 385
86, AND THE MERE FACT THAT NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION OR REGULATION OF
THE CONTRACTOR IMPOSES AN INCREASED ECONOMIC BURDEN ON THE GOVERNMENT
IS NO LONGER REGARDED AS BRINGING THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN ANY IMPLIED
IMMUNITY OF THE GOVERNMENT FROM STATE TAXATION OR REGULATION.  ALABAMA
V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1, 9, AND CASES CITED; BALTIMORE & ANNAPOLIS
R. CO. V. LICHTENBERG, 176 MD. 383, 4 A.2D 734, S.C., UNITED STATES V.
BALTIMORE & ANNAPOLIS R. CO., 308 U.S. 525. 

HERE THE STATE REGULATION IMPOSES NO PROHIBITION ON THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT OR ITS OFFICERS.  THEY MAY PURCHASE MILK FROM WHOM AND AT
WHAT PRICE THEY WILL, WITHOUT INCURRING ANY PENALTY.  SEE THE OPINION
BELOW, 148 PA. SUPER.  270-71.  AS IN THE CASE OF STATE TAXATION OF THE
SELLER, THE GOVERNMENT IS AFFECTED ONLY AS THE STATE'S REGULATION MAY
INCREASE THE PRICE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MUST PAY FOR MILK.  BY THE
EXERCISE OF CONTROL OVER THE SELLER, THE REGULATION IMPOSES OR MAY
IMPOSE AN INCREASED ECONOMIC BURDEN ON THE GOVERNMENT, FOR IT MAY BE
ASSUMED THAT THE REGULATION IF ENFORCIBLE AND ENFORCED WILL INCREASE
THE PRICE OF THE MILK PURCHASED FOR CONSUMPTION IN PENNSYLVANIA, UNLESS
THE GOVERNMENT IS ABLE TO PROCURE A SUPPLY FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, SEE
BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511.  BUT IN THIS BURDEN, IF CONGRESS HAS
NOT ACTED TO FORBID IT, WE CAN FIND NO DIFFERENT OR GREATER IMPAIRMENT
OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY THAN IN THE TAX ON SALES TO A GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTOR SUSTAINED IN ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, SUPRA; OR THE STATE
REGULATION OF THE OPERATIONS OF A TRUCKING COMPANY IN PERFORMING ITS
CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO TRANSPORT WORKERS EMPLOYED ON A PUBLIC
WORKS ADMINISTRATION PROJECT, UPHELD IN BALTIMORE & ANNAPOLIS R. CO. V.
LICHTENBERG, SUPRA; OR THE LOCAL BUILDING REGULATIONS APPLIED TO A
CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTING A POSTOFFICE BUILDING FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, SUSTAINED IN STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S. 94. 

THE TREND OF OUR DECISIONS IS NOT TO EXTEND GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
FROM STATE TAXATION AND REGULATION BEYOND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
ITSELF AND GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY ITS OFFICERS AND
AGENTS.  WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE CONSTITUTION PRESUPPOSES THE
CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE STATES FUNCTIONING IN COORDINATION WITH THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, WITH AUTHORITY IN THE STATES TO LAY TAXES AND TO
REGULATE THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND POLICY, AND THAT STATE REGULATION
LIKE STATE TAXATION INEVITABLY IMPOSES SOME BURDENS ON THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT OF THE SAME KIND AS THOSE IMPOSED ON CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES WITHIN THE STATE'S BORDERS, SEE METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL,
SUPRA, 523-24.  AND WE HAVE HELD THAT THOSE BURDENS, SAVE AS CONGRESS
MAY ACT TO REMOVE THEM, ARE TO BE REGARDED AS THE NORMAL INCIDENTS OF
THE OPERATION WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY OF A DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT,
AND THAT NO IMMUNITY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FROM SUCH BURDENS IS TO
BE IMPLIED FROM THE CONSTITUTION WHICH ESTABLISHED THE SYSTEM, SEE
GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, 483, 487. 

SINCE THE CONSTITUTION HAS LEFT CONGRESS FREE TO SET ASIDE LOCAL
TAXATION AND REGULATION OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS WHICH BURDEN THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, WE SEE NO BASIS FOR IMPLYING FROM THE CONSTITUTION
ALONE A RESTRICTION UPON SUCH REGULATIONS WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN
FIT TO IMPOSE, UNLESS THE REGULATIONS ARE SHOWN TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  EVEN IN THE CASE OF AGENCIES CREATED OR
APPOINTED TO DO THE GOVERNMENT'S WORK WE HAVE BEEN SLOW TO INFER AN
IMMUNITY WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT GRANTED AND WHICH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY
DOES NOT REQUIRE.  RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V. MENIHAN CORP., 312
U.S. 81, AND CASES CITED; COLORADO BANK V. BEDFORD, 310 U.S. 41, 53,
AND CASES CITED; CF. BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK V. TAX COMMISSION, 297
U.S. 209.  OUR INQUIRY HERE, THEREFORE, MUST BE WHETHER THE STATE'S
REGULATION OF THIS CONTRACTOR IN A MATTER OF LOCAL CONCERN CONFLICTS
WITH CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION OR WITH ANY DISCERNIBLE CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY. 

TO ESTABLISH SUCH A CONFLICT THE GOVERNMENT PLACES ITS RELIANCE ON
ACTS OF CONGRESS REQUIRING COMPETITIVE BIDDING IN THE PURCHASE OF
SUPPLIES FOR THE ARMY.  SECTION 3709 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 41 U.S.C.
SEC. 5, REQUIRES PUBLIC ADVERTISING FOR ALL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES SAVE
"WHEN IMMEDIATE DELIVERY OR PERFORMANCE IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC
EXIGENCY."  N1  A SIMILAR PROVISION HAD APPEARED IN SEC. 5 OF THE ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1809, 2 STAT. 536, WHICH REQUIRED ALL PURCHASES BY THE
TREASURY, WAR OR NAVY DEPARTMENTS TO BE MADE "BY OPEN PURCHASE, OR BY
PREVIOUSLY ADVERTISING FOR PROPOSALS RESPECTING THE SAME."  THE
APPROPRIATION ACT OF MARCH 2, 1901, 31 STAT. 905, AND SUBSEQUENT
APPROPRIATION ACTS, INCLUDED A PROVISION REQUIRING PUBLIC ADVERTISING
FOR THE PURCHASE OF ALL SUPPLIES FOR THE USE OF THE ARMY, WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, "EXCEPT IN CASE OF EMERGENCY OR WHERE IT
IS IMPRACTICABLE TO SECURE COMPETITION" AND REQUIRING THE PURCHASE OF
SUCH SUPPLIES "WHERE THE SAME CAN BE PURCHASED THE CHEAPEST, THE
QUALITY AND COST OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT
CONSIDERED."  10 U.S.C. SEC. 1201.  AND A PROVISION ENACTED AS PART OF
THE APPROPRIATION ACT OF JULY 5, 1884, 23 STAT. 109, 10 U.S.C. SEC.
1200, REQUIRES THAT ALL PURCHASES OF QUARTER-MASTER'S SUPPLIES BE MADE
BY CONTRACT AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE AND THAT THE AWARD BE MADE TO "THE
LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE BEST AND MOST SUITABLE ARTICLE, THE
RIGHT BEING RESERVED TO REJECT ANY AND ALL BIDS." 

IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT WHILE THESE STATUTES DIRECT GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS TO INVITE COMPETITIVE BIDDING BY CONTRACTORS UNDERTAKING TO
FURNISH ARMY SUPPLIES, AND ALSO REQUIRE THEM TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BID IF ANY IS ACCEPTED, THEY DO NOT PURPORT TO SET ASIDE
LOCAL PRICE REGULATIONS OR TO PROHIBIT THE STATES FROM TAKING PUNITIVE
MEASURES FOR VIOLATIONS OF SUCH REGULATIONS.  THEY ARE WHOLLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF SUCH PRICE REGULATIONS, AND
WITH THE ACCEPTANCE BY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS OF THE REGULATED PRICE WHERE
THAT IS THE LOWEST BID, OR THE OMISSION OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE LOCAL PRICE REGULATIONS RENDER IT "IMPRACTICABLE TO
SECURE COMPETITION."  NOR ARE WE ABLE TO DISCERN, IN THE LANGUAGE OR
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THESE OR RELATED STATUTES REGULATING GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS, ANY INDICATION THAT LOW COST WAS SUCH A CONTROLLING
CONSIDERATION WITH CONGRESS AS TO JUSTIFY AN INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO DISPLACE STATE REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE PRICE OF ARTICLES
PURCHASED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE REASON FOR THE PASSAGE OF SEC. 5 OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1809, HAS BEEN SAID TO BE "TO THROW ADDITIONAL
SAFEGUARDS AROUND THIS SUBJECT; TO PREVENT FAVORITISM, AND TO GIVE TO
THE UNITED STATES THE BENEFIT OF COMPETITION  ...  " 2 OP. ATTY. GEN.
257, 259. 

WE ARE NOT ADVISED OF ANY STATUTE IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS UNDERTAKEN TO
SET ASIDE STATE LAWS AFFECTING THE PRICE OF GOODS SUPPLIED TO THE
GOVERNMENT IN ORDER TO SECURE A LOWER PRICE THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE
OBTAINABLE.  AND CONGRESS HAS OFTEN REQUIRED THE INCLUSION IN
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS OF TERMS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE INTERESTS OF
THE GOVERNMENT AS PURCHASER, WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF INCREASING COST. 
TITLE III, SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, 47 STAT. 1520, 41 U.S.C.
SECS. 10(A)-10(C), REQUIRES THE USE OF AMERICAN-PRODUCED GOODS ON ALL
PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS UNLESS THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THAT THE
USE OF SUCH MATERIALS IS "IMPRACTICABLE" OR WOULD "UNREASONABLY
INCREASE THE COST."  THE EIGHT HOUR LAW OF AUGUST 1, 1892, 27 STAT.
340, AS AMENDED, 40 U.S.C. SECS. 321-326, LIMITS TO EIGHT HOURS PER DAY
THE WORK OF PERSONS EMPLOYED BY CONTRACTORS WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND
REQUIRES ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS TO THAT
EFFECT.  THE DAVIS-BACON ACT OF MARCH 3, 1931, 46 STAT. 1494, AS
AMENDED, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 276(A), REQUIRES ALL CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC
BUILDINGS TO CONTAIN PREVAILING MINIMUM WAGE PROVISIONS, AND THE WALSH
HEALEY ACT, 49 STAT. 2036, 41 U.S.C. SEC. 35, REQUIRES THE INCLUSION IN
ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN EXCESS OF $10,000 OF PROVISIONS REQUIRING
THE CONTRACTOR'S ADHERENCE TO PRESCRIBED MINIMUM WAGES, MAXIMUM HOURS,
RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT OF CHILD LABOR AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFETY
OF WORKING CONDITIONS.  FN2 

EVIDENCE IS WANTING THAT CONGRESS, IN AUTHORIZING COMPETITIVE
BIDDING, HAS BEEN SO CONCERNED WITH SECURING THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICE
FOR ARTICLES FURNISHED TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT IT WISHED TO SET ASIDE
ALL LOCAL REGULATIONS AFFECTING PRICE.  ON THE CONTRARY CONGRESS HAS
REGARDED THE FIELD OF PUBLIC CONTRACTS AS ONE OVER WHICH TO EXERCISE
ITS SUPERVISORY LEGISLATIVE POWERS IN SAFEGUARDING INTERESTS WHICH MAY
CONFLICT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT VIEWED SOLELY AS PURCHASER. 
AN UNEXPRESSED PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO SET ASIDE STATUTES OF THE STATES
REGULATING THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED AND
OUGHT NOT TO BE IMPLIED WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE COMMAND, READ IN THE
LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY, REMAINS AMBIGUOUS.  CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LEAD US
NOT TO FAVOR REPEAL OF STATUTES BY IMPLICATION, UNITED STATES V. BORDEN
CO., 308 U.S. 188, 198-9; UNITED STATES V. JACKSON, 302 U.S. 628, 631;
POSADAS V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 296 U.S. 497, 503-5, SHOULD BE AT LEAST
AS PERSUASIVE WHEN THE QUESTION IS ONE OF THE NULLIFICATION OF STATE
POWER BY CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION. 

HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME EVIDENCE OF AN INFLEXIBLE CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY REQUIRING GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED ON THE LOWEST BID
DESPITE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH STATE REGULATIONS OTHERWISE APPLICABLE, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA MILK REGULATION CONFLICTS WITH
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION OR POLICY AND MUST BE SET ASIDE MERELY
BECAUSE IT INCREASES THE PRICE OF MILK TO THE GOVERNMENT.  IT WOULD BE
NO MORE THAN SPECULATION FOR US TO SAY THAT CONGRESS WOULD CONSIDER THE
GOVERNMENT'S PECUNIARY INTEREST AS A PURCHASER OF MILK MORE IMPORTANT
THAN THE INTEREST ASSERTED BY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE STABILIZATION OF HER
MILK SUPPLY THROUGH CONTROL OF PRICE.  COURTS SHOULD GUARD AGAINST
RESOLVING THESE COMPETING CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY BY IMPUTING TO
CONGRESS A DECISION WHICH QUITE CLEARLY IT HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO MAKE. 
FURTHERMORE WE SHOULD BE SLOW TO STRIKE DOWN LEGISLATION WHICH THE
STATE CONCEDEDLY HAD POWER TO ENACT, BECAUSE OF ITS ASSERTED BURDEN ON
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FOR THE STATE IS POWERLESS TO REMOVE THE ILL
EFFECTS OF OUR DECISION, WHILE THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH HAS THE
ULTIMATE POWER, REMAINS FREE TO REMOVE THE BURDEN. 

THE GOVERNMENT, IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION, POINTS TO ARMY REGULATION
5-100, PARAGRAPH 11D, WHICH WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THIS CONTRACT WAS
ENTERED INTO AND PERFORMED,  FN3  AND WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"STATE PRICE-FIXING LAWS.  - APPROPRIATED FUNDS MAY NOT BE USED FOR
PAYMENTS UNDER AWARDS UPON INVITATIONS FOR BIDS CONTAINING RESTRICTIVE
REQUIREMENTS OF SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PRICE-FIXING LAWS
RELATING TO SERVICES, COMMODITIES, OR ARTICLES NECESSARY TO BE
PURCHASED BY THE UNITED STATES UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN AN AUTHORITATIVE
AND FINAL JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT SUCH STATE STATUTES ARE
APPLICABLE TO SUCH CONTRACTS.  IT IS NOT THE DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY OF
CONTRACTING OFFICERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BY MEANS OF RESTRICTIVE
SPECIFICATIONS, TO ENFORCE CONTRACTORS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF PRICEFIXING ACTS OF A STATE.  SEE 16 COMP. GEN. 97, 348; 17 ID. 287;
19 ID. 614." 

TWO OBSERVATIONS ARE TO BE MADE WITH RESPECT TO THIS REGULATION.  THE
STATUTES AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF WAR "TO PRESCRIBE RULES AND
REGULATIONS TO BE OBSERVED IN THE PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION AND
OPENING OF BIDS FOR CONTRACTS UNDER THE WAR DEPARTMENT," 20 STAT. 36,
22 STAT. 487, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 218, GIVE NO HINT OF ANY DELEGATION TO THE
SECRETARY OR HIS SUBORDINATES OF POWER TO DO WHAT CONGRESS HAS FAILED
TO DO - RESTRICT THE APPLICATION OF LOCAL REGULATIONS, OTHERWISE
APPLICABLE TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, WHICH INCREASE PRICE.  AND THE
REGULATION ITSELF IS AT MOST A DIRECTION TO CONTRACTING OFFICERS NOT TO
ASSUME BY THEIR SPECIFICATIONS FOR BIDS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL PRICE REGULATIONS BEFORE IT IS
JUDICIALLY DETERMINED WHETHER SUCH REGULATIONS ARE APPLICABLE TO
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. 

THAT SUCH IS THE MEANING OF THE REGULATION IS MADE PLAIN BY REFERENCE
TO THE OPINIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, CITED IN THE REGULATION. 
ALL REST ON THE REASONING OF PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218,
AND LIKE CASES, WHICH WERE OVERRULED IN ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER,
SUPRA.  THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL HELD THAT SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
APPLICABILITY OF LOCAL PRICE REGULATIONS TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS WAS
DOUBTFUL, THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO CHALLENGE THEIR VALIDITY
SHOULD NOT BE FORECLOSED BY CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS, AND THAT IN THE
ABSENCE OF A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THEIR APPLICABILITY A BID WHICH
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SUCH PRICE REGULATIONS COULD NOT FOR THAT REASON
BE REJECTED. 

WHEN PARAGRAPH 11D WAS ADOPTED, PARAGRAPH 4G OF ARMY REGULATION 5-240
DEFINED THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH, BECAUSE IT WAS DEEMED "IMPRACTICABLE
TO SECURE COMPETITION," SUPPLIES MIGHT, UNDER 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1201, BE
PURCHASED IN THE OPEN MARKET WITHOUT ADVERTISING.  PARAGRAPH 4G (3)
DECLARED THAT SUCH A SITUATION AROSE "WHEN THE PRICE IS FIXED BY
FEDERAL, STATE, MUNICIPAL OR OTHER COMPETENT LEGAL AUTHORITY," A CLEAR
INDICATION THAT STATE PRICE REGULATIONS WERE NOT THOUGHT TO BE
INAPPLICABLE TO SALES UNDER ARMY CONTRACTS.  FN4  AFTER THE PRESENT
SUIT WAS BEGUN SUBPARAGRAPH 3 WAS ELIMINATED.  THE ONLY EFFECT OF THIS
ELIMINATION WAS TO REMOVE THE CONFLICT OF THAT PARAGRAPH WITH THE
"HANDS OFF POLICY" OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT ADOPTED BY ARMY REGULATION 5
100, PARAGRAPH 11D.    EVEN THOUGH IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE SECRETARY
COULD BY REGULATION SET ASIDE THE STATE'S PRICE LEGISLATION WHICH IT
HAS MADE APPLICABLE TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, HE PLAINLY HAS NOT DONE
SO. HE HAS LEFT THE QUESTION OF ITS APPLICABILITY TO BE SETTLED BY THIS
COURT'S DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY UNDER
THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN THE MEANTIME HE HAS
ADOPTED A SPECIFIC POLICY OF NOT INCLUDING, IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS,
TERMS REQUIRING THE CONTRACTOR'S COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PRICE-FIXING
LEGISLATION, THUS AVOIDING ANY ACTION WHICH COULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN
ASSENT TO THE APPLICATION OF SUCH LEGISLATION TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS
IN CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, WHERE IT WOULD WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE ASSENT BE
INAPPLICABLE. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND IN CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, EITHER AS READ IN
THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY OR AS CONSTRUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
CHARGED WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE CONTRACTING POWER, ANY DISCLOSURE OF A
PURPOSE TO IMMUNIZE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS FROM LOCAL PRICE-FIXING
REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE APPLICABLE.  NOR, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, CAN WE FIND THAT THE CONSTITUTION, UNAIDED
BY CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT, CONFERS SUCH AN IMMUNITY.  IT FOLLOWS THAT
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
MILK CONTROL LAW TO APPELLANT PENN DAIRIES, INC., BY DENIAL OF ITS
LICENSE APPLICATION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS PROVISION WAS DERIVED FROM SEC. 10 OF THE APPROPRIATION ACT
OF MAR. 2, 1861, 12 STAT. 220, WHICH IN TURN WAS A REENACTMENT OF SEC.
3 OF THE APPROPRIATION ACT OF JUNE 23, 1860, 12 STAT. 103.  LIKE THE
ACT OF MARCH 2, 1901, R.S. SEC. 3709 HAS BEEN CONSTRUED AS INAPPLICABLE
WHERE COMPETITION IS IMPRACTICABLE.  38 OP. ATTY. GEN. 164, 174; 39 OP.
ATTY. GEN. 111; 17 OP. ATTY. GEN. 84, 87. 

FN2  THE MILITARY APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1941, 55 STAT. 372, REQUIRES
THE PURCHASE OF FOOD AND CLOTHING PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES UNLESS
NONE OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY IS AVAILABLE IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY AND AT
"REASONABLE PRICES."  AND SUCCESSIVE APPROPRIATION ACTS MATERIALLY
RESTRICT THE USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS BY THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS TO
PURCHASE OLEOMARGARINE OR BUTTER SUBSTITUTES.  E.G. 49 STAT. 1285, 50
STAT. 449, 52 STAT. 649, 53 STAT. 600, 54 STAT. 358, 55 STAT. 372.  SEE
ALSO R.S. SEC. 3716, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1202(PREFERENCE TO ARTICLES OF
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION "CONDITIONS OF PRICE AND QUALITY BEING EQUAL"). 

THE WAR DEPARTMENT, BY PROCUREMENT CIRCULAR NO. 4, FEBRUARY 9, 1938,
AND PROCUREMENT CIRCULAR NO. 10, JANUARY 26, 1942, ISSUED PURSUANT TO
PAR. 5(H) OF AR 5-140, PROVIDED FOR THE INCLUSION IN ARMY CONTRACTS OF
PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE BIDDER TO CERTIFY TO HIS COMPLIANCE WITH ANY
APPLICABLE MARKETING AGREEMENT, LICENSE, OR ORDER, EXECUTED OR ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE PURSUANT TO THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, 7 U.S.C. SECS. 601 ET SEQ. ALL PROCUREMENT
CIRCULARS HAVE SINCE BEEN RESCINDED, SEE INFRA N. 3. 

SEE ALSO EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 325-A, MAY 18, 1905(CONVICT LABOR),
TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9196, JULY 9, 1942;
EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 6246, AUG. 10, 1933, AND 6646, MARCH 14,
1934(COMPLIANCE WITH CODES OF FAIR COMPETITION). 

DESPITE THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 201 OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, DEC.
18, 1941, 55 STAT. 839, EMPOWERING THE PRESIDENT TO AUTHORIZE CONTRACTS
TO BE ENTERED INTO WITHOUT REGARD TO PROVISIONS OF EXISTING LAW, THE
WALSH-HEALEY ACT, THE DAVIS-BACON ACT, AND THE EIGHT HOUR LAW REMAIN
APPLICABLE TO ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9001, DEC.
27, 1941. 

FN3  ALL OF THE ARMY REGULATIONS AND PROCUREMENT CIRCULARS REFERRED
TO IN THIS OPINION WERE RESCINDED ON THE ADOPTION OF WAR DEPARTMENT
PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1942, CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS, TITLE 10, SEC. 81, 7 FED. REG. 8082.  SEE PROCUREMENT
REGULATION 1, PARS. 102, 103.  PARAGRAPH 209 OF PROCUREMENT REGULATION
2 - ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SEC. 201 OF THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT,
DECEMBER 18, 1941, 55 STAT. 839, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9001, DECEMBER
27, 1941 - PROVIDES THAT ALL CONTRACTS SHALL BE PLACED BY NEGOTIATION
SAVE WHERE FORMAL ADVERTISING IS AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
PURCHASES OF THE WAR PRODUCTION BOARD. 

FN4  IN A MEMORANDUM TO THE UNDERSECRETARY OF WAR DATED APRIL 16,
1941, AFTER THE PRESENT LITIGATION HAD BEEN INSTITUTED, THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE APPARENT
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TERMS OF AR 5-240, PAR. 4G (3) AND AR 5-100, PAR.
11D (AT THAT TIME RENUMBERED AS PAR. 11E), THE FORMER REGULATION
APPLIED ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL SITUATIONS AND WAS NOT EFFECTIVE TO MAKE
APPLICABLE TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS PRICE-FIXING REGULATIONS SUCH AS
THAT HERE INVOLVED.  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL REFERRED TO THE
"CONSISTENT POSITION" TAKEN BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT "THAT PRICE-FIXING
MEASURES OF THE STATES HAVE NO APPLICATION TO PROCUREMENTS BY THE WAR
DEPARTMENT."  BUT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND FROM THIS OR OTHER MEMORANDA OF
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL THAT THE POSITION REFERRED TO IS ANY BROADER
THAN THAT EXPRESSED IN PAR. 11D OF AR 5-100 AND IN THE OPINIONS OF THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO WHICH THAT PARAGRAPH REFERS. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING: 

I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT THAT NEITHER CONGRESSIONAL
LEGISLATION NOR THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION PREVENT THE
APPLICATION OF THE MINIMUM PRICE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA MILK
CONTROL LAW TO THE SALE OF MILK BY A DEALER TO THE UNITED STATES, BUT
WISH TO EMPHASIZE A PHASE OF THE QUESTION WHICH I BELIEVE IS MOST
IMPORTANT. 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH JUST AN ORDINARY STATE REGULATORY
STATUTE OF NON-DISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER WHICH AFFECTS THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN SOME DEGREE, BUT WITH A GENERAL MEASURE DESIGNED TO
SAFEGUARD THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF THE PUBLIC BY INSURING AN
ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF WHOLESOME MILK AT STABLE PRICES.  FN1  THE
PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH IS A MATTER OF GRAVE AND PRIMARY CONCERN
TO THE STATES AND THE NATION AT ALL TIMES, BUT EVEN MORE SO IN TIME OF
WAR.  THEN INDEED A HEALTHY CITIZENRY IS ESSENTIAL TO NATIONAL
SURVIVAL, FOR THE WAGING OF MODERN "TOTAL WAR," IF IT IS TO BE DONE
WITH MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS, REQUIRES A SOUND AND HEALTHY PEOPLE, AS
WELL AS A STURDY FIGHTING FORCE. 

IN THIS COUNTRY WITH ITS HETEROGENEOUS POPULATION LIVING UNDER
DIVERSE CONDITIONS IN WIDELY SEPARATED AREAS, STATE AND LOCAL
AUTHORITIES ARE BEST QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE WHAT MEASURES ARE MOST
APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF THE
PEOPLE WITHIN THEIR BORDERS, AND THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN THE WIDEST
POSSIBLE LATITUDE TO SOLVE THEIR SPECIAL PROBLEMS AS THEY THINK BEST. 
THE WHOLE FRAMEWORK OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM IS BASED UPON THIS
PRINCIPLE.  IT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO OUR STRENGTH AND SOLIDARITY AS ONE
PEOPLE.  IT SHOULD BE THE AIM OF ALL FEDERAL PROCUREMENT OFFICERS,
MILITARY OR CIVILIAN, TO HARMONIZE THEIR WORK SO FAR AS POSSIBLE WITH
THIS BROAD POLICY OF GOVERNMENT.  SUCH AN AIM IS IN ACCORD WITH THE
SPIRIT OF OUR LAWS AND THE CHARACTER OF OUR INSTITUTIONS AND WILL BEST
INSURE WHOLE-HEARTED SUPPORT OF THE MILITARY PROGRAM. 

IN MY OPINION IT IS OF GREATER IMPORTANCE TO THE NATION AT WAR AND TO
ITS MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT THAT HIGH STANDARDS OF PUBLIC HEALTH BE
MAINTAINED THAN THAT THE MILITARY PROCUREMENT AUTHORITIES HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF UNRESTRAINED COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND LOWER PRICES IN THE
PURCHASE OF NEEDED MILK SUPPLIES.  THAT THE UNITED STATES MUST PAY 1.6[
MORE PER QUART FOR MILK IN PENNSYLVANIA HARDLY MEANS THE COLLAPSE OF
THE WAR EFFORT.  BUT IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ARMIES FREQUENTLY
SUFFER MORE FROM THE RAVAGES OF DISEASE AND SICKNESS THAN FROM THE
PERILS OF COMBAT, AND, IF MILK VENDORS DEALING WITH THE UNITED STATES
NEED NOT COMPLY WITH PENNSYLVANIA'S MINIMUM PRICE REQUIREMENTS, THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF PENNSYLVANIA'S LAW IS CONSIDERABLY REDUCED FOR IT IS
CONCEDED THAT THE INSTANT ORDER IS THE LARGEST SINGLE ONE EVER GIVEN
FOR MILK WITHIN THE STATE.  THIS REDUCED EFFECTIVENESS MAY HAVE SERIOUS
AND UNWANTED REPERCUSSIONS NOT ONLY UPON CIVILIAN HEALTH BUT THAT OF
THE MILITARY PERSONNEL STATIONED THERE AS WELL. 

IN THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR AS WELL AS IN OTHER RELATIONS, THE LARGER
INTERESTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE NATION AS A WHOLE WILL NOT
SUFFER, NOR WILL CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS BE PREJUDICED, IF
PROCUREMENT OFFICERS ARE OBLIGED TO CONDUCT THEIR ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE
GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF STATE LAWS ENACTED WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS TO
SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.  IF ALABAMA FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REVENUE CAN, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION, REQUIRE GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTORS TO PAY SALES AND USE TAXES UPON MATERIALS USED IN A COST
PLUS A FIXED FEE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO
INCREASE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (ALABAMA V.
KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1; CURRY V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 14), THERE
IS ALL THE MORE REASON WHY PENNSYLVANIA, ACTING TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, CAN REQUIRE, UNTIL CONGRESS MAKES CLEAR ITS WISHES OTHERWISE, A
DEALER SELLING MILK TO THE UNITED STATES TO ADHERE TO ITS MINIMUM PRICE
REQUIREMENTS.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE STATES MAY EXERCISE DIRECT
CONTROL OVER THE ACTIONS OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS, MILITARY OR OTHERWISE,
OR THAT CONGRESS MAY NOT INVALIDATE OR SUSPEND LOCAL REGULATIONS
INSOFAR AS THEY AFFECT TRANSACTIONS WITH THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES.  IF
CONGRESS DETERMINES THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW
AGAINST DEALERS SELLING TO THE UNITED STATES INTERFERES WITH ITS POWER
TO WAGE WAR, AND FORBIDS ITS APPLICATION TO THEM, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT
QUESTION.  SEE FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S. 95.  AS YET
IT HAS NOT DONE SO, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A MEASURE, I CAN
PERCEIVE NO NECESSITY OR ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION EITHER IN LAW OR
CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY FOR HOLDING PENNSYLVANIA'S REGULATION VOID AS
APPLIED HERE. 

FN1 SECTION 101 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW DECLARES THAT THE MILK
INDUSTRY "IS A BUSINESS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND AFFECTED WITH A
PUBLIC INTEREST," AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO REGULATE AND
CONTROL THE INDUSTRY "FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
WELFARE AND FOR THE PREVENTION OF FRAUD."  SECTION 801 REQUIRES THE
MILK CONTROL COMMISSION TO ASCERTAIN AND MAINTAIN SUCH PRICES FOR MILK
"AS WILL BE MOST BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, BEST PROTECT THE
MILK INDUSTRY OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND INSURE A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF
PURE AND WHOLESOME MILK TO INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH, HAVING
SPECIAL REGARD TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF CHILDREN RESIDING
THEREIN." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

THE CONTRACT WITH PENN DAIRIES WAS MADE BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT ACTING
THROUGH THE QUARTERMASTER OF THE ARMY.  THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS, ONE OF
THE STATUTORY BRANCHES OF THE REGULAR ARMY (41 STAT. 759, 10 U.S.C.
SEC. 4) IS CHARGED "UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR" WITH
THE "PURCHASE AND PROCUREMENT FOR THE ARMY OF ALL SUPPLIES OF STANDARD
MANUFACTURE AND OF ALL SUPPLIES COMMON TO TWO OR MORE BRANCHES" OF THE
ARMY, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE.  39 STAT. 170, 41 STAT. 766,
10 U.S.C. SEC. 72.  THE PROCEDURE WHICH CONTROLS PURCHASES OF SUPPLIES
BY THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS IS GOVERNED BY THE STATUTES AND BY THE ARMY
REGULATIONS.  THERE ARE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING
AS RESPECTS THE PURCHASE OF "ALL SUPPLIES"  FN1  AND WITH PARTICULAR
REFERENCE TO SUPPLIES PURCHASED "FOR IMMEDIATE USE."  FN2  THE ONLY
EXCEPTION RELEVANT HERE IS THE CASE "WHERE IT IS IMPRACTICABLE TO
SECURE COMPETITION."  10 U.S.C. SEC. 1201.  THE POLICY IS PLAIN - IT IS
INTENDED THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD GET THE FULL BENEFIT OF PRICE
COMPETITION IN ITS PURCHASES OF ARMY SUPPLIES.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
PURCELL ENVELOPE CO., 249 U.S. 313, 318. 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY IS VESTED IN THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO PRESCRIBE
RULES AND REGULATIONS COVERING THE PREPARATION, SUBMISSION, AND OPENING
OF BIDS "FOR CONTRACTS UNDER THE WAR DEPARTMENT."  20 STAT. 36, 22
STAT. 487, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 218.  THE SECRETARY PURSUANT TO THIS AUTHORITY
HAS ISSUED NUMEROUS REGULATIONS GOVERNING COMPETITIVE BIDDING. 
REGULATION NO. 5-100, PAR. 11D, AUGUST 7, 1940, SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS
USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR PAYMENTS UNDER CONTRACTS CONTAINING
PRICES FIXED BY STATE LAW "UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN AN AUTHORITATIVE AND
FINAL JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT SUCH STATE STATUTES ARE APPLICABLE TO
SUCH CONTRACTS."  FN3  THE POLICY OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WELL
ESTABLISHED.  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL STATED IN APRIL 1941 THAT "THE
WAR DEPARTMENT HAS CONSISTENTLY TAKEN AND MAINTAINED THE POSITION THAT
PRICE-FIXING MEASURES OF THE STATES HAVE NO APPLICATION TO PROCUREMENTS
BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT."  WHATEVER AMBIGUITY MAY HAVE EXISTED IN OTHER
REGULATIONS HAS BEEN REMOVED.  FN4 

WE HAVE THEN REGULATIONS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT MADE PURSUANT TO
POWERS DELEGATED BY CONGRESS AND WHICH PROHIBIT THE ARMY'S CONTRACTING
OFFICERS FROM WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING MERELY BECAUSE PRICES ARE
FIXED BY THE STATES.  I AM UNABLE TO SEE WHY THEY ARE NOT VALID
REGULATIONS.  CONGRESS HAS SAID THAT COMPETITIVE BIDDING "SHALL" BE
REQUIRED EXCEPT WHERE IT IS "IMPRACTICABLE TO SECURE COMPETITION."  10
U.S.C. SEC. 1201.  THE WORD "IMPRACTICABLE" DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT
WHEREVER THERE IS STATE PRICE-FIXING COMPETITIVE BIDDING IS NOT
REQUIRED.  A THING IS "IMPRACTICABLE" TO DO WHEN IT IS INFEASIBLE OR
INCAPABLE OF BEING DONE.  THE CONTRACT WHICH THE QUARTERMASTER MADE
WITH PENN DAIRIES IS CONCLUSIVE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT
"IMPRACTICABLE" TO OBTAIN THE MILK THROUGH COMPETITIVE BIDDING.  A
REGULATION WHICH INTERPRETS "IMPRACTICABLE" SO AS NOT TO PRECLUDE
COMPETITIVE BIDDING BECAUSE OF STATE PRICE-FIXING STAYS WELL WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE RULE MAKING POWER.  THESE WAR DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS
ACCORDINGLY "HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW."  STANDARD OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 316
U.S. 481, 484, AND CASES CITED.  THEIR APPLICATION IN THIS CASE
THEREFORE HAS NO LESS FORCE AND EFFECT THAN IF IT WAS SPECIFICALLY
DIRECTED BY CONGRESS.  WE HAVE THEN AN ASSERTION OF FEDERAL POWER IN
THE FIELD OF PRICE CONTROL WHICH BY REASON OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
EXCLUDES ANY EXERCISE OF A CONFLICTING STATE POWER.  SEE SINNOT V.
DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227; MCDERMOTT V. WISCONSIN, 228 U.S. 115;
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. ILLINOIS BRICK CO., 297 U.S. 447; HINES V.
DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52; CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V. PATTERSON, 315 U.S.
148. 

FN1  "EXCEPT IN CASES OF EMERGENCY OR WHERE IT IS IMPRACTICABLE TO
SECURE COMPETITION, OR IN CASES OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR, THE PURCHASE OF
ALL SUPPLIES FOR THE USE OF THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, AND POSTS OF THE
ARMY AND OF THE BRANCHES OF THE ARMY SERVICE SHALL ONLY BE MADE AFTER
ADVERTISEMENT; AND SAID SUPPLIES SHALL BE PURCHASED WHERE THE SAME CAN
BE PURCHASED THE CHEAPEST, QUALITY AND COST OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE
INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT CONSIDERED."  31 STAT. 905, 32 STAT. 514,
10 U.S.C. SEC. 1201.  AND SEE R.S. SEC. 3709, 41 U.S.C. SEC. 5. 

FN2  "ALL PURCHASES OF REGULAR AND MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES FOR THE
ARMY FURNISHED BY THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS FOR IMMEDIATE USE SHALL BE
MADE BY THE OFFICERS OF SUCH CORPS, UNDER DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF
WAR, AT THE PLACES NEAREST THE POINTS WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED, THE
CONDITIONS OF COST AND QUALITY BEING EQUAL:  PROVIDED, THAT ALL
PURCHASES OF SAID SUPPLIES, EXCEPT IN CASES OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR, AND
EXCEPT IN CASES OF EMERGENCY, WHICH MUST BE AT ONCE REPORTED TO THE
SECRETARY OF WAR FOR HIS APPROVAL, SHALL BE MADE BY CONTRACT AFTER
PUBLIC NOTICE OF NOT LESS THAN TEN DAYS FOR SMALL AMOUNTS FOR IMMEDIATE
USE, AND OF NOT LESS THAN FROM THIRTY TO SIXTY DAYS WHENEVER, IN THE
OPINION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND
CONDITIONS OF THE SERVICE SHALL WARRANT SUCH EXTENSION OF TIME.  THE
AWARD IN EVERY CASE SHALL BE MADE TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR
THE BEST AND MOST SUITABLE ARTICLE, THE RIGHT BEING RESERVED TO REJECT
ANY AND ALL BIDS."  23 STAT. 109, 37 STAT. 591, 10 U.S.C. SEC. 1200. 

FN3  THIS REGULATION READS AS FOLLOWS:  "APPROPRIATED FUNDS MAY NOT
BE USED FOR PAYMENTS UNDER AWARDS UPON INVITATIONS FOR BIDS CONTAINING
RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PRICE-FIXING
LAWS RELATING TO SERVICES, COMMODITIES, OR ARTICLES NECESSARY TO BE
PURCHASED BY THE UNITED STATES UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN AN AUTHORITATIVE
AND FINAL JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT SUCH STATE STATUTES ARE
APPLICABLE TO SUCH CONTRACTS.  IT IS NOT THE DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY OF
CONTRACTING OFFICERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BY MEANS OF RESTRICTIVE
SPECIFICATIONS, TO ENFORCE CONTRACTORS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF PRICE-FIXING ACTS OF A STATE." 

FN4  ARMY REG. NO. 5-240, FEBRUARY 11, 1936, AS AMENDED JULY 6, 1938,
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (4)(G)(3) THAT "PURCHASE MAY BE MADE IN THE OPEN
MARKET WITHOUT COMPETITION" WHEN THE "PRICE IS FIXED BY FEDERAL, STATE,
MUNICIPAL, OR OTHER COMPETENT LEGAL AUTHORITY."  IT SHOULD BE NOTED
THAT THIS WAS A PERMISSIVE AND NOT A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT.  ON MAY 10,
1941, PARAGRAPH (4)(G) WAS AMENDED SO AS TO OMIT ANY REFERENCE TO
GOVERNMENTAL PRICE FIXING. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :








PACIFIC COAST DAIRY V. DEP'T, 318 U.S. 285 


NO. 275.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 13, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 19
CAL.2D 818, 123 P.2D 442, REVERSED. 


1.  THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS PRECLUDED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
(ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17, AND THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE) FROM REVOKING THE
LICENSE OF A MILK DEALER FOR SELLING MILK TO THE WAR DEPARTMENT AT LESS
THAN THE MINIMUM PRICE FIXED BY STATE LAW, WHERE THE SALES AND
DELIVERIES WERE MADE ON MOFFETT FIELD, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  PENN DAIRIES V. MILK
CONTROL COMM'N, ANTE, P. 261, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 294. 

2.  ALTHOUGH, BY THE TERMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ACQUISITION,
LOCAL LAW NOT INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL POLICY WAS TO REMAIN IN EFFECT
UNTIL ALTERED BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION, THE STATE LAW HERE INVOLVED WAS
ENACTED LONG AFTER THE TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY AND WAS WITHOUT FORCE IN
THE ENCLAVE.  P. 294. 

3.  AS SOUGHT HERE TO BE APPLIED, THE STATE LAW WAS NOT A REGULATION
OF CONDUCT WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE'S JURISDICTION.  P. 295. 

PACIFIC COAST DAIRY, INC. V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF CALIFORNIA
ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DENYING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE
DISMISSAL OF A PROCEEDING PENDING BEFORE THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE FOR THE REVOCATION OF PETITIONER'S LICENSE AS A DISTRIBUTOR
OF MILK. 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAY NOT REGULATE THE PRICE AT WHICH MILK IS
SOLD TO THE UNITED STATES.  SEE BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS IN PENN DAIRIES V.
MILK CONTROL COMM'N, ANTE, P. 261. 

CALIFORNIA MAY NOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH DUE PROCESS, REVOKE APPELLANT'S
LICENSE BECAUSE IT HANDLED MILK IN CALIFORNIA WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
SOLD ON MOFFETT FIELD AT PRICES BELOW THOSE FIXED BY THE STATE LAW. 
FIRST, IN HANDLING THE MILK APPELLANT WAS GUILTY OF NO ACT OR OMISSION
IN CALIFORNIA WHICH WAS ITSELF CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA HAS SEIZED UPON SUCH ACTS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF REGULATING CONTRACTS MADE BEYOND ITS BORDERS, WHICH IT LACKS
JURISDICTION TO CONTROL DIRECTLY.  SECOND, WHILE A STATE MAY FORBID
CONDUCT WITHIN ITS BORDERS THAT IS ITSELF CONTRARY TO ITS PUBLIC POLICY
REGARDLESS OF THE REPERCUSSIONS BEYOND ITS BORDERS, IT MAY NOT REGULATE
CONDUCT, OTHERWISE WITHIN ITS COMPETENCE TO CONTROL, FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF REGULATING MATTERS BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION, EVEN THOUGH THE
REPERCUSSIONS OF THE CONDUCT BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION IN TURN AFFECT
LOCAL POLICIES. 

IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT CALIFORNIA WAS SEEKING TO REGULATE THE SELLING
PRICE OF MILK IN THE FEDERAL ENCLAVE IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE A
REASONABLE STATE POLICY.  IT IS NO MORE PERMISSIBLE FOR A STATE TO
CARRY OUT LOCAL POLICIES BY INDIRECTLY REGULATING MATTERS BEYOND ITS
COMPETENCE THAN IT IS FOR THE STATE TO DO SO BY DIRECT CONTROL. 

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER CALIFORNIA MAY INTERFERE IN THE DOMESTIC
AFFAIRS OF ANOTHER STATE IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT HER POLICIES, BUT
WHETHER IT CAN EXERCISE BY INDIRECTION THE POWER OF EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION VESTS IN CONGRESS.  NO FORM OF WORDS
ENABLES A STATE TO REACH "BEYOND HER BORDERS TO REGULATE A SUBJECT
WHICH WAS NONE OF HER CONCERN BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION HAS PLACED
CONTROL ELSEWHERE."  OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 62.  THE DIRECTION
NOT TO HANDLE IN CALIFORNIA MILK SOLD IN THE FEDERAL ENCLAVE AT PRICES
BELOW THOSE FIXED BY STATE LAW WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY.  IT WOULD BE
ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR THE APPELLEES'
OFFICIALS TO REVOKE THE LICENSE WITHOUT LAWFUL GROUNDS. 

CALIFORNIA MAY NOT ERECT BARRIERS TO COMMERCE BETWEEN CALIFORNIA AND
TERRITORY SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING THE PRICE AT WHICH HER PRODUCTS ARE SOLD IN
SUCH TERRITORY. 

THE CONDUCT WHICH THE STATUTE ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE IS THE PREPARATION
AND TRANSPORTATION OF MILK WHICH IS TO MOVE OUTSIDE THE STATE; THE
STATUTE EXPRESSLY FORBIDS THE MOVEMENT OF MILK FROM CALIFORNIA INTO THE
FEDERAL ENCLAVE UNLESS THE PRICE AT WHICH IT IS SOLD IN THE ENCLAVE IS
CONSIDERED ADEQUATE BY CALIFORNIA AUTHORITIES TO BUILD UP THE ECONOMY
OF THE STATE.  CALIFORNIA HAS NO MORE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE SUCH
COMMERCE THAN IT WOULD HAVE IF MOFFETT FIELD WERE IN ANOTHER STATE. 

ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17 GRANTS TO CONGRESS THE POWER OF "EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATION" OVER TERRITORY CEDED BY A STATE, AND THIS AUTHORITY IS
ENLARGED BY THE "NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE" TO INCLUDE POWER TO ENACT
ALL APPROPRIATE INCIDENTAL LEGISLATION.  IN RESPECT OF SUCH TERRITORY,
THEREFORE, CONGRESS HAS "THE COMBINED POWERS OF A GENERAL AND OF A
STATE GOVERNMENT."  STOUTENBURGH V. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141, 147.  IT MAY
REGULATE THE LOCAL AFFAIRS OF A FEDERAL ENCLAVE IN A LOCAL WAY OR IT
MAY EXTEND THE LEGISLATION INTO THE STATES TO ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSES
WHEREVER "NECESSARY AND PROPER."  COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264,
424-428, 447; O'DONOGHUE V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 516, 538-539. 
CONSEQUENTLY CONGRESS CERTAINLY HAS AN AFFIRMATIVE POWER OVER COMMERCE
BETWEEN A STATE AND A FEDERAL ENCLAVE, WHICH IS AT LEAST AS GREAT AS
ITS POWER OVER COMMERCE BETWEEN TWO STATES.  IT MAY DETERMINE THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS UPON WHICH GOODS MAY ENTER AND LEAVE AN ENCLAVE AND MAY
REMOVE ANY OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FLOW OF GOODS INTO AN ENCLAVE EVEN
THOUGH THE OBSTRUCTION EXISTS ON STATE TERRITORY.  MOREOVER, AS
STOUTENBURGH V. HENNICK, SUPRA, SHOWS, THIS POWER IS POSSESSED BY THE
CONGRESS AS PART OF THE POWERS OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT AS ONE
OF THE POWERS OF A STATE. 

THE GRANT OF AFFIRMATIVE POWER TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE
BETWEEN A STATE AND A FEDERAL ENCLAVE BY IMPLICATION FORBIDS A STATE TO
REGULATE SUCH COMMERCE.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS IS EXCLUSIVE AT LEAST TO
THE SAME EXTENT THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER COMMERCE BETWEEN TWO
STATES IS EXCLUSIVE. 

THAT THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE REGARDED THE STATUTE AS A MEASURE FOR
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH DOES NOT SUSTAIN IT.  AN ARGUMENT BASED
UPON SUCH CONSIDERATIONS WAS MADE BY NEW YORK AND REJECTED IN BALDWIN
V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511. 

THE EFFECT ON THE INCOME OF CALIFORNIA PRODUCERS OF SALES IN THE
FEDERAL ENCLAVE AT A COMPETITIVE PRICE IS CERTAINLY MORE REMOTE THAN
THE EFFECT UPON THE NEW YORK FARMER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF CHEAPER MILK
IN VERMONT.  IN CALIFORNIA THE DANGER IS SAID TO BE THAT CALIFORNIA
DEALERS WILL SO IMPOVERISH THEMSELVES BY SELLING MILK AT TOO LOW A
PRICE ON FEDERAL ENCLAVES AS TO DISABLE THEMSELVES FROM COMPLYING WITH
THE STATE LAW FIXING THE PRICE WHICH THEY MUST PAY TO PRODUCERS FOR THE
MILK.  IT HAS BEEN THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS AND OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE THAT MILK PRICES CAN BE FIXED AND ENFORCED AT THE PRODUCER
LEVEL ALONE.  BUT WHATEVER THE DANGER, IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY CALIFORNIA
IN DEALING WITH A LOCAL PROBLEM WHICH IS AT FIRST ECONOMIC, AND ONLY
INDIRECTLY A MATTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, BY SEEKING TO "NEUTRALIZE THE
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF FREE TRADE AMONG THE STATES."  BALDWIN V.
SEELIG, SUPRA, P. 525. 

THE CALIFORNIA LAW IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE.  IN RE
WILLING, 12 CAL.2D 591, 594; RAY V. PARKER, 15 CAL.2D 275. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS TO ELIMINATE ECONOMIC DISTURBANCES AND
UNFAIR PRACTICES, AND TO INSURE TO PRODUCERS THE NECESSARY COSTS OF
PRODUCTION SO THAT AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PURE AND HEALTHFUL MILK MAY BE
ASSURED.  SUCH ECONOMIC SECURITY IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
ESSENTIAL SANITARY STANDARDS.  IN RE WILLING, SUPRA, P. 594. 

THE STATUTE IS NOT PRIMARILY AIMED AT WHAT THE CONSUMER SHALL PAY,
BUT AT WHAT MUST BE RECEIVED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF
PURE AND WHOLESOME MILK.  UNITED MILK PRODUCERS V. CECIL, 47 CAL.
APP.2D 758. 

THE INCIDENCE OF THE STATUTE IS UPON THE DISTRIBUTOR AND NOT UPON THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE LEGISLATION IS NOT AIMED AT THE GOVERNMENT BUT IS
DESIGNED TO MEET A LOCAL SITUATION WHICH, IF LEFT UNREGULATED, PRESENTS
A MENACE TO THE MILK SUPPLY OF THE STATE AND TO THE HEALTH OF ITS
INHABITANTS.  THE STATUTE IN QUESTION IS NOT UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY,
OR CAPRICIOUS, AND THE MEANS ADOPTED BEAR A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL
RELATION TO THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED.  THE MERE FACT THAT STATE
ACTION MAY HAVE REPERCUSSIONS BEYOND STATE LINES IS OF NO JUDICIAL
SIGNIFICANCE.  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310
U.S. 53; ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 294 U.S.
532. 

THE STATUTE IS NOT RENDERED INVALID MERELY BECAUSE ITS PRACTICAL
EFFECT MIGHT BE TO INTERFERE TO SOME EXTENT WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, SO LONG AS SUCH INTERFERENCE OR
BURDEN IS REASONABLE.  THE ALLEGED INTERFERENCE HERE IS REASONABLE. 
THE STATUTE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, BUT IS
APPLICABLE TO THE STATE ITSELF AND TO ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.  IF
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE STATUTE ARE REALIZED, THE GOVERNMENT WILL BENEFIT
IN COMMON WITH THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL.  MILK CONTROL BOARD V.
GOSSELIN'S DAIRY, 301 MASS. 174; PATERSON MILK & CREAM CO. V. MILK
CONTROL BOARD, 118 N.J.L. 383; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S.
134. 

THE ONLY SPECIFIC BURDEN CLAIMED TO BE CAST UPON THE GOVERNMENT IS
THAT OF INCREASED COST.  SUCH INCREASED COST "AT MOST GIVES RISE TO A
BURDEN WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND REMOTE AND NOT TO ONE THAT IS
NECESSARY, IMMEDIATE OR DIRECT."  IT IS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE PROPER
EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA;
ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1; JAMES STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA,
309 U.S. 94. 

THE STATE STATUTE DOES NOT RUN COUNTER TO THE FEDERAL STATUTES
REQUIRING COMPETITIVE BIDDING, SINCE IT FIXES MINIMUM PRICES ONLY. 

THE STATE STATUTE DOES NOT RUN COUNTER TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

TO HOLD AT THIS LATE DATE THAT COMMERCE BETWEEN A STATE AND SUCH
FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THAT STATE IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AFTER NEARLY A
CENTURY AND A HALF DURING WHICH THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAVE TREATED THAT COMMERCE AS INTRASTATE COMMERCE, WOULD ONLY RESULT IN
UTTER, HOPELESS CONFUSION.  GRAYBURG OIL CO. V. STATE, 286 S.W. (TEX.)
489; GRAYBURG OIL CO. V. STATE, 3 S.W.2D (TEX.) 427; PEOPLE V. STANDARD
OIL CO., 218 CAL. 123. 

EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT SUCH COMMERCE IS INTERSTATE, AND THAT
UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE DISTRIBUTION OF MILK MOVING
INTO SUCH FEDERAL AREAS, THE FACT REMAINS THAT HE HAS NOT EXERCISED
SUCH POWER.  UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS THE STATE IS NOT DEPRIVED OF ITS
POWER UNLESS AND UNTIL CONGRESS HAS ACTUALLY ACTED IN A MANNER HOSTILE
TO OR DIRECTLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATE REGULATION.  KELLY V.
WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10; ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. WISCONSIN BOARD, 315
U.S. 740. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT CHALLENGES A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA  FN1  DISMISSING A WRIT OF ALTERNATIVE MANDAMUS AND DENYING
A PERMANENT WRIT TO PREVENT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE
FROM CONDUCTING A PROCEEDING TO REVOKE ITS LICENSE AS A DISTRIBUTOR OF
MILK.  THE COURT, IN DENYING RELIEF, OVERRULED SEVERAL CONTENTIONS,
BASED UPON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHICH ARE HERE RENEWED. 

CHAPTER 10 OF THE AGRICULTURAL CODE OF CALIFORNIA  FN2  PROVIDES A
PLAN FOR THE "STABILIZATION AND MARKETING OF FLUID MILK AND FLUID
CREAM."  IT DECLARES THEIR PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION A BUSINESS
AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THE REGULATION OF THE BUSINESS AN
EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER; STATES THAT EXISTING UNJUST, UNFAIR,
DESTRUCTIVE AND DEMORALIZING PRACTICES MENACE THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF
THE PEOPLE, DESPITE SANITARY REGULATIONS; AND THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO
PROMOTE INTELLIGENT PRODUCTION AND ORDERLY MARKETING BY ELIMINATING THE
EVIL PRACTICES EXISTING IN THE INDUSTRY. 

THE LAW EMPOWERS THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE TO LICENSE DISTRIBUTORS
AND TO ESTABLISH MARKETING AREAS WITHIN WHICH UNIFORM PRICES AND
REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE OF MILK SHALL PREVAIL. 

THE APPELLANT WAS A LICENSED DISTRIBUTOR DOING BUSINESS IN THE SANTA
CLARA COUNTY MARKETING AREA, IN WHICH THERE WERE IN EFFECT A
STABILIZATION AND MARKETING PLAN AND SCHEDULES OF MINIMUM WHOLESALE AND
RETAIL PRICES.  IT ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE WAR DEPARTMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, SIGNED BY THE QUARTERMASTER'S DEPARTMENT OF MOFFETT
FIELD, TO SELL MILK TO THE DEPARTMENT AT MOFFETT FIELD, WHICH LIES
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY MARKETING AREA, AT LESS
THAN THE MINIMUM PRICE FIXED FOR THE AREA.  SALES AND DELIVERIES UNDER
THE CONTRACT TOOK PLACE ON MOFFETT FIELD. 

A COMPLAINT WAS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CHARGING THE
APPELLANT VIOLATED SEC. 736.3(A)(6) OF THE CODE WHICH PROVIDES THAT AN
UNFAIR PRACTICE, WARRANTING REVOCATION OF LICENSE OR PROSECUTION IS: 

"THE PURCHASING, PROCESSING, BOTTLING, TRANSPORTING, DELIVERING OR
OTHERWISE HANDLING IN ANY MARKETING AREA OF ANY FLUID MILK OR FLUID
CREAM WHICH IS TO BE OR IS SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY SUCH
DISTRIBUTOR AT ANY PLACE IN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA WITHIN THE OUTER,
OUTSIDE AND EXTERNAL BOUNDARIES OR LIMITS OF SUCH MARKETING AREA,
WHETHER SUCH PLACE IS A PART OF THE MARKETING AREA OR NOT, AT LESS THAN
THE MINIMUM WHOLESALE AND MINIMUM RETAIL PRICES EFFECTIVE IN SUCH
MARKETING AREA." 

THIS SECTION DID NOT APPEAR IN THE CODE UNTIL 1941,  FN3  WHEN IT WAS
ADDED AS AN AMENDMENT.  CALIFORNIA RECOGNIZED ITS LACK OF POWER TO FIX
RETAIL PRICES FOR MILK SOLD WITHIN FEDERAL ENCLAVES LOCATED IN THE
STATE.  FN4  BUT THE LEGISLATURE DESIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.  IN 1941
IT MEMORIALIZED CONGRESS, REQUESTING PASSAGE OF A FEDERAL LAW REQUIRING
PURCHASING OFFICERS OF THE ARMED SERVICES PURCHASING FOOD SUPPLIES FOR
TROOPS OR AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES LOCATED IN THE STATE TO REFUSE
BIDS FOR MILK AT PRICES BELOW THOSE FIXED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA MILK
STABILIZATION LAW OR AMENDMENTS THEREOF.  FN5  THE MEMORIAL WAS
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE OF THE HOUSE AND TO THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY OF THE SENATE,  FN6  BUT WAS
NEVER ACTED UPON BY EITHER COMMITTEE.  CONGRESS HAVING FAILED TO ACT,
SEC. 736.3(A)(6) AND OTHERS WERE ADDED TO THE CODE, JULY 16, 1941, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REACHING SALES ON FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS.    MOFFETT
FIELD WAS ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER AN ACT OF CONGRESS,  FN7
AND IT IS CONCEDED THAT IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN8 

THE APPELLANT SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS FROM THE COURT BELOW TO
RESTRAIN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FROM PROCEEDING TO HEAR AND ACT
UPON THE PENDING COMPLAINT.  AN ALTERNATIVE WRIT ISSUED.  AFTER RETURN
BY THE APPELLEES, SETTING UP ONLY THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE
FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE COURT DISCHARGED
THE ALTERNATIVE WRIT AND DENIED A PREEMPTORY WRIT.  THE FACTS WE HAVE
RECITED APPEAR IN THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OR ARE MATTERS OF WHICH THE
COURT BELOW AND THIS COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA OVERRULED THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS
THAT THE STATE'S CONCEDED CONTROL OF ACTIVITIES WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION
GAVE IT NO AUTHORITY TO PENALIZE TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING ON MOFFETT
FIELD; THAT THE STATE LAW VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I,
SEC. 8 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; THAT IT RUNS AFOUL OF CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION EMBODIED IN THE FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT,
FN9  AND THAT IT UNLAWFULLY BURDENS A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY.  WE FIND
IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ONLY THE CONTENTION FIRST STATED. 

THE EXCLUSIVE CHARACTER OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES ON
MOFFETT FIELD IS CONCEDED.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 17 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DECLARES THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE
POWER "TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER, OVER"
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, "AND TO EXERCISE LIKE AUTHORITY OVER ALL
PLACES PURCHASED BY THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN
WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE ERECTION OF FORTS, MAGAZINES,
ARSENALS, DOCK-YARDS, AND OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS; ...  " 

WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACQUIRED THE TRACT, LOCAL LAW NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL POLICY REMAINED IN FORCE UNTIL ALTERED BY
NATIONAL LEGISLATION.  FN10  THE STATE STATUTE INVOLVED WAS ADOPTED
LONG AFTER THE TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY AND WAS WITHOUT FORCE IN THE
ENCLAVE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT CONTRACTS TO SELL AND SALES CONSUMMATED
WITHIN THE ENCLAVE CANNOT BE REGULATED BY THE CALIFORNIA LAW.  TO HOLD
OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO AFFIRM THAT CALIFORNIA MAY IGNORE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT "THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; ...  SHALL BE
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; ... "  FN11  IT WOULD BE A DENIAL OF THE
FEDERAL POWER "TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION."  FN12  AS RESPECTS
SUCH FEDERAL TERRITORY CONGRESS HAS THE COMBINED POWERS OF A GENERAL
AND A STATE GOVERNMENT.  FN13 

THE ANSWER OF THE STATE AND OF THE COURT BELOW IS ONE OF CONFESSION
AND AVOIDANCE,  - CONFESSION THAT THE LAW IN FACT OPERATES TO AFFECT
ACTION BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN FEDERAL TERRITORY, BUT AVOIDANCE OF THE
CONCLUSION OF INVALIDITY BY THE ASSERTION THAT THE LAW IN ESSENCE IS
THE REGULATION OF CONDUCT WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE'S JURISDICTION. 

THE COURT BELOW POINTS OUT THAT THE STATUTE REGULATES ONLY THE
CONDUCT OF CALIFORNIA'S CITIZENS WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORY; THAT IT IS
THE PURCHASING, HANDLING, AND PROCESSING BY THE APPELLANT IN CALIFORNIA
OF MILK TO BE SOLD BELOW THE FIXED PRICE - NOT THE SALE ON MOFFETT
FIELD - WHICH IS PROHIBITED, AND ENTAILS THE PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY
THE STATUTE.  AND RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON THE SETTLED DOCTRINE THAT A
STATE IS NOT DISENABLED FROM POLICING ITS OWN CONCERNS, BY THE MERE
FACT THAT ITS REGULATIONS MAY BEGET EFFECTS ON THOSE LIVING BEYOND ITS
BORDERS.  FN14  WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS WITHOUT APPLICATION HERE,
BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER MOFFETT
FIELD. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO
FIND THAT THE TRUE PURPOSE WAS TO PUNISH CALIFORNIA'S OWN CITIZENS FOR
DOING IN EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL TERRITORY WHAT BY THE LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES WAS THERE LAWFUL, UNDER THE GUISE OF PENALIZING PREPARATORY
CONDUCT OCCURRING IN THE STATE,  - TO PUNISH THE APPELLANT FOR A
TRANSACTION CARRIED ON UNDER SOVEREIGNTY CONFERRED BY ART. I, SEC. 8,
CLAUSE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND UNDER AUTHORITY SUPERIOR TO THAT OF
CALIFORNIA BY VIRTUE OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE. 

WE HAVE THIS DAY HELD IN PENN DAIRIES V. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION,
ANTE, P. 261, THAT A DIFFERENT DECISION IS REQUIRED WHERE THE CONTRACT
AND THE SALES OCCUR WITHIN A STATE'S JURISDICTION, ABSENT SPECIFIC
NATIONAL LEGISLATION EXCLUDING THE OPERATION OF THE STATE'S REGULATORY
LAWS.  THE CONCLUSIONS MAY SEEM CONTRADICTORY; BUT IN PRESERVING THE
BALANCE BETWEEN NATIONAL AND STATE POWER, SEEMINGLY INCONSEQUENTIAL
DIFFERENCES OFTEN REQUIRE DIVERSE RESULTS.  THIS MUST BE SO, IF WE ARE
TO ACCORD TO VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL LAW THEIR NATURAL EFFECT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED.  SO TO DO IS NOT TO MAKE SUBTLE OR
TECHNICAL DISTINCTIONS OR TO DEAL IN LEGAL REFINEMENTS.  HERE WE ARE
BOUND TO RESPECT THE RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO
THE EXCLUSIVE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER FEDERAL LANDS.  AS CONGRESS MAY,
IF IT FIND THE NATIONAL INTEREST SO REQUIRES, OVERRIDE THE STATE MILK
LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA AS RESPECTS PURCHASES FOR THE ARMY, SO IT MAY, IF
NOT INIMICAL TO THE SAME INTEREST SUBJECT ITS PURCHASING OFFICERS ON
MOFFETT FIELD TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE MILK LAW OF CALIFORNIA.  UNTIL
IT SPEAKS WE SHOULD ENFORCE THE LIMITS OF POWER IMPOSED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  19 CAL.2D 818, 123 P.2D 442. 

FN2  DEERING, 1937, DIV. 4, C. 10, SECS. 735-738, AS AMENDED,
DEERING, 1941 SUPP., PP. 462-467. 

FN3  CAL. STATS. 1941, CHAP. 1214, P. 3008. 

FN4  OPINIONS OF CALIFORNIA ATTY.-GEN.  N.S. 1905, N.S. 1950(1939);
CONSOLIDATED MILK PRODUCERS V. PARKER, 19 CAL.2D 815, 123 P.2D 440; CF.
STANDARD OIL CO. V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 242. 

FN5  CAL. STATS. 1941, CHAP. 65, P. 3402. 

FN6  87 CONG. REC., PART 5, 5644, 5698. 

FN7  ACT OF FEBRUARY 12, 1931, C. 122, 46 STAT. 1092.  THIS ACT
PROVIDES THAT THE TRACT WHICH IS NOW CALLED MOFFETT FIELD SHALL BE
ACCEPTED BY THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT COST TO THE GOVERNMENT.  THE
PETITION FOR MANDAMUS ALLEGES THAT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS AGO,
MOFFETT FIELD "WAS PURCHASED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
ERECTING FORTS, MAGAZINES, ARSENALS, DOCKYARDS AND OTHER NEEDFUL
BUILDINGS.  ...  "  THE APPELLANT AND THE GOVERNMENT TREAT THIS
ALLEGATION AS CONCLUSIVE, SINCE IT WAS NOT DENIED BY THE APPELLEES. 
NOTHING TURNS, IN OUR VIEW, ON THE METHOD OF ACQUISITION. 

FN8  SEE CAL. STATS. 1897, P. 51; POLITICAL CODE OF CALIFORNIA, SEC.
34; U.S. CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 17. 

FN9  50 STAT. 246, 7 U.S.C. 608C. 

FN10  STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S. 94, 99. 

FN11  ART. VI, CLAUSE 2. 

FN12  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 141. 

FN13  STOUTENBURGH V. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141, 147. 

FN14  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 532, 541; OSBORN
V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 62-63. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 

WHILE WE HAVE JOINED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, WE ARE ALSO OF THE
VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR THE ADDITIONAL
REASON SET FORTH IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN PENN DAIRIES V. MILK
CONTROL COMMISSION, ANTE, P. 261. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

BOTH PENNSYLVANIA AND CALIFORNIA, AS PART OF THEIR CONTROL OVER THE
SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION OF MILK FOR THE NEEDS OF THEIR PEOPLE, REGULATE
THE PRICES AT WHICH MILK MAY BE SOLD WITHIN THE STATE.  IN BOTH STATES,
MORE PARTICULARLY AT INDIANTOWN GAP MILITARY RESERVATION, PENNSYLVANIA,
AND AT MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA, UNITS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY ARE
STATIONED.  AT EACH OF THESE SITES THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, A JUNIOR
OFFICER IN THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS, INVITES BIDS FOR THE SALE OF MILK
TO THE ARMY.  ARE THESE TWO CONTRACTING OFFICERS AUTHORIZED UNDER
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW TO ACCEPT BIDS THAT UNDERCUT THE PRICES FIXED BY
PENNSYLVANIA AND CALIFORNIA FOR THE SUPPLY OF MILK WITHIN THEIR BORDERS
AND THEREBY DISLOCATE, IN PART AT LEAST, THE REGULATORY SYSTEMS
ESTABLISHED BY THE TWO STATES? 

IN PENN DAIRIES V. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION, ANTE, P. 261, PENN
DAIRIES, A MILK DEALER OF LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, SUPPLIED MILK FOR
THE USE OF THE ARMY AT INDIANTOWN GAP MILITARY RESERVATION.  THEIR
SALES WERE THE RESULT OF SUCCESSFUL BIDDING AT PRICES BELOW THE MINIMA
FIXED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA MILK CONTROL LAW.  SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN PENN
DAIRIES APPLIED FOR RENEWAL OF ITS LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS UNDER STATE
LAW, THE PENNSYLVANIA MILK CONTROL COMMISSION DENIED THE APPLICATION ON
THE GROUND THAT THE SALES TO THE ARMY WERE NOT IMMUNE FROM THE MINIMUM
PRICE PROVISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW.  THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME
COURT SUSTAINED THIS DETERMINATION. 

IN THIS CASE, PACIFIC COAST DAIRY, A MILK DEALER OF SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA, SUPPLIED MILK FOR THE USE OF THE ARMY AT MOFFETT FIELD,
ABOUT THIRTY-FIVE MILES FROM SAN FRANCISCO.  THEIR SALES, TOO, WERE THE
RESULT OF SUCCESSFUL BIDDING AT PRICES BELOW THOSE FIXED BY CALIFORNIA
LAW.  FOR THUS DEPARTING FROM THE PRICE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE LAW
UNDER WHICH IT WAS LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS, THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS TO REVOKE PACIFIC COAST DAIRY'S
LICENSE.  TO STAY THESE PROCEEDINGS THE DAIRY SOUGHT A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

IN MY VIEW, THE COURT IN UPHOLDING THE REFUSAL BY PENNSYLVANIA TO
RENEW A LICENSE BECAUSE OF AN ARRANGEMENT MADE ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT MUST IMPLY THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OF THE INDIANTOWN
MILITARY GAP RESERVATION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT BIDS BELOW THE
MINIMUM PRICE REQUIREMENTS SET BY PENNSYLVANIA FOR THE SALE OF MILK
WITHIN THE STATE.  IN THE CALIFORNIA CASE, HOWEVER, THE COURT HOLDS
THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR MOFFETT FIELD MAY, IN THE CASE OF
SALES AND DELIVERIES MADE ON MOFFETT FIELD, CONTRACT AT PRICES BELOW
THOSE FIXED BY CALIFORNIA FOR THE SALE OF MILK WITHIN ITS BORDERS. 
OPPOSITE LEGAL RESULTS ARE THUS REACHED FOR PRECISELY THE SAME
PRACTICAL SITUATIONS.  THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS INCONGRUITY IN
DEFINING THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE TWO CONTRACTING OFFICERS IS
ATTRIBUTED TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NATURE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN EACH OF THE TWO ARMY SITES.  INDIANTOWN GAP
MILITARY RESERVATION IS HELD BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER LEASE FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.  MOFFETT FIELD BELONGS TO THE UNITED
STATES OUTRIGHT.  ON THE BASIS OF THIS DIFFERENCE IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT'S PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE TWO ARMY FACILITIES,
INDIANTOWN GAP MILITARY RESERVATION IS DEEMED NOT TO BE WITHIN THE
"EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" OF THE GOVERNMENT WHILE MOFFETT FIELD IS
DEEMED WITHIN SUCH "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION."  AND FROM THIS
CLASSIFICATION IT IS DEDUCED THAT MILK SOLD TO THE ARMY FOR THE USE OF
OUR SOLDIERS AT INDIANTOWN GAP MILITARY RESERVATION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE PRICE PROVISIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW, BUT THAT MILK MAY BE SOLD TO
THE ARMY FOR THE USE OF OUR SOLDIERS AT MOFFETT FIELD IN DISREGARD OF
THE MINIMUM PRICES SET BY CALIFORNIA. 

LEGAL REFINEMENTS ARE NOT ALWAYS THE WORSE FOR ELUDING THE QUICK
UNDERSTANDING OF A LAYMAN.  BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IN DETERMINING
THE DUTY OF CONTRACTING OFFICERS SERVING THE SAME ARMY FUNCTION - A
MATTER THAT TURNS ON CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY IN THE RELATION OF THE
VARIOUS ARMY POSTS TO THE STATES IN WHICH THEY ARE SITUATED - LEGAL
CATEGORIES COMPEL A DIFFERENCE IN RESULT WHERE PRACTICAL JUDGMENT AND
EXPERIENCE LEAD TO AN IDENTITY IN RESULT.  THE POWER GIVEN TO CONGRESS
BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO "EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATION" OVER FEDERAL ENCLAVES IS NOT SO TYRANNICAL AS TO PRECLUDE
IN LAW WHAT GOOD SENSE REQUIRES. 

THE SO-CALLED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION DRAWN FROM THE GRANT TO CONGRESS
OF POWER TO LEGISLATE EXCLUSIVELY HAS, AS A MATTER OF HISTORICAL FACT,
BECOME INCREASINGLY LESS AND LESS EXCLUSIVE.  IN EARLY DAYS WHEN THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE ONLY NEGLIGIBLE INROADS UPON
TERRITORIAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT FEDERAL
EXCLUSIVENESS WAS A FACT RATHER THAN A POTENTIALITY, AND THAT THE
STATES WERE PRECLUDED FROM RESERVING AUTHORITY IN LANDS WITHIN THE
STATE WHICH WERE CEDED TO THE GOVERNMENT.  BUT THIS NOTION NEVER BECAME
LAW, AND HAS NOW BEEN FORMALLY REPUDIATED.  "THE POSSIBLE IMPORTANCE OF
RESERVING TO THE STATE JURISDICTION FOR LOCAL PURPOSES WHICH INVOLVE NO
INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IS BECOMING
MORE AND MORE CLEAR AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT EXPAND AND
LARGE AREAS WITHIN THE STATES ARE ACQUIRED."  JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 148; AND SEE SILAS MASON CO. V. TAX
COMM'N, 302 U.S. 186.  INDEED, IN THE CASE OF MOFFETT FIELD ITSELF THE
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT IN ANY TRUE SENSE EXCLUSIVE, EVEN
AS TO MATTERS OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY, FOR CALIFORNIA'S ACT OF CESSION
PROVIDED THAT BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCESS ISSUED BY CALIFORNIA
SHOULD HAVE THE SAME SANCTION ON MOFFETT FIELD AS ELSEWHERE IN THE
STATE. 

SINCE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY NEED NOT BE EXERCISED BY CONGRESS, THERE IS
AT TIMES "UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION" WHETHER JURISDICTION BELONGS TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR HAS BEEN LEFT WITH THE STATE.  BOWEN V.
JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 27.  AND ALTHOUGH THE ACTS OF CESSION MAY LEAVE
"NO ROOM FOR DOUBT" THAT "JURISDICTION" "REMAINED WITH THE STATE,"
"ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION" MAY NEVERTHELESS GENERATE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION. ID., AT 29.  EVEN WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUPPOSEDLY
HAS "EXCLUSIVE" JURISDICTION, A CLOSE EXAMINATION OF COMPLICATED
LEGISLATION MAY UPHOLD EXCISE TAX PROVISIONS OF A STATE ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL LAW BUT NOT PROVISIONS THAT "GO BEYOND AIDS TO THE
COLLECTION OF TAXES AND ARE TRULY REGULATORY IN CHARACTER."  COLLINS V.
YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518, 533.  AND WHILE LIP SERVICE IS PAID TO
THE DOCTRINE OF "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" BY PROFESSING TO ABSORB FOR
FEDERAL ENCLAVES THOSE LAWS OF THE STATE WHICH WERE ENFORCED THERE
PRIOR TO ITS CESSION, THE LIBERALITY WITH WHICH STATE SOCIAL MEASURES
ARE DEEMED NOT TO IMPINGE UPON THE NATIONAL PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE
ENCLAVE WAS ESTABLISHED, IS A RECOGNITION IN FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTION
PERMITS SENSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY
ALTHOUGH ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO LEGAL CONTROL TAKE PLACE ON FEDERAL
TERRITORY WITHIN A STATE.  SEE, E.G., STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309
U.S. 94. 

ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID TO SHOW THAT THE DOCTRINE OF "EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION" OVER FEDERAL ENCLAVES IS NOT AN IMPERATIVE.  THE PHRASE
IS INDEED A MISNOMER FOR THE MANIFOLD LEGAL PHASES OF THE DIVERSE
SITUATIONS ARISING OUT OF THE EXISTENCE OF FEDERALLY-OWNED LANDS WITHIN
A STATE - PROBLEMS CALLING NOT FOR A SINGLE, SIMPLE ANSWER BUT FOR
DISPOSITION IN THE LIGHT OF THE NATIONAL PURPOSES WHICH AN ENCLAVE
SERVES.  IF CONGRESS SPEAKS, STATE POWER IS OF COURSE DETERMINED BY
WHAT CONGRESS SAYS.  IF CONGRESS MAKES THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH
THERE IS A FEDERAL SITE AS FOREIGN THERE AS IS THE LAW OF CHINA, THEN
FEDERAL JURISDICTION WOULD REALLY BE EXCLUSIVE.  BUT SHORT OF SUCH
CONGRESSIONAL ASSERTION OF OVERRIDING AUTHORITY, THE PHRASE "EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION" MORE OFTEN CONFOUNDS THAN SOLVES PROBLEMS DUE TO OUR
FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

IT IS CERTAINLY AN IRRELEVANT FACTOR IN THE LEGAL EQUATION BEFORE US.
FOR IN NEITHER THE PENNSYLVANIA NOR THE CALIFORNIA CASE IS THE POWER
OF CONGRESS OR OF APPROPRIATELY EXERCISED MILITARY AUTHORITY CALLED
INTO QUESTION.  AS TO PENNSYLVANIA, THE COURT HAS FOUND THAT NEITHER
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION NOR DISCERNIBLE LEGISLATIVE POLICY IMMUNIZED
A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR FROM STATE REGULATION.  OF COURSE, IF
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY, HOWSOEVER EXPRESSED, AUTHORIZED THE QUARTERMASTER
TO ENTER INTO SUCH A CONTRACT IN DISREGARD OF LOCAL MILK PRICE CONTROL
LEGISLATION, THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE IMMUNE FROM OBEDIENCE TO LOCAL
REQUIREMENTS.  NOR HAS CONTROLLING ASSERTION OF MILITARY AUTHORITY TO
DISREGARD LOCAL PRICE CONTROL BEEN FOUND.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT
CONGRESS OR THE ARMY HAS A POLICY REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF MILK FOR
SOLDIERS STATIONED IN CALIFORNIA WHICH DIFFERS FROM THAT IN
PENNSYLVANIA.  STATE REGULATION, WE HAVE HELD IN THE CASE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, "IMPOSES NO PROHIBITION ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS
OFFICERS."  NEITHER DOES THE CALIFORNIA REGULATION.  IT CLEARLY DOES
NOT AS TO FEDERAL SITES IN CALIFORNIA WHICH HAVE BEEN LEASED TO THE
GOVERNMENT, LIKE THE INDIANTOWN GAP MILITARY RESERVATION, OR TO SITES
WHERE THE STATE HAS RESERVED CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, LIKE THOSE IN THE
DRAVO AND MASON CASES, SUPRA, OR TO FEDERAL TERRITORY WHERE
JURISDICTION IS DOUBTFUL OR AMBIGUOUS, LIKE THE RESERVATION IN BOWEN V.
JOHNSTON, SUPRA.  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ADVISES US THAT WITHIN
THE CONFINES OF CALIFORNIA THE UNITED STATES IS ENGAGED IN A GREAT
VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES:  "THE FEDERAL TERRITORY WITHIN THE STATE IS SO
FRAGMENTED THAT THERE MAY BE SEVERAL FEDERAL ISLANDS WITHIN A SINGLE
MARKETING AREA.  IF THEY ARE CITADELS OF IMMUNITY FROM STATE
JURISDICTION, THEY ARE ALSO EXCEPTIONAL SEGMENTS IN AREAS THAT ARE
OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THAT JURISDICTION.  THEY STAND OUT LIKE COLORED
PINS ON THE MAP OF CALIFORNIA, AND RANGE FROM MILITARY RESERVATIONS TO
SOLDIERS' HOMES, FROM COURT HOUSES TO PENITENTIARIES, FROM POST OFFICES
TO INDIAN RESERVATIONS, FROM NATIONAL PARKS TO REGIONAL DAMS."  19
CAL.2D 818, 828. 

CAN IT BE THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WHICH RESULTED IN A
FINDING THAT NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION NOR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY NOR
APPROPRIATE MILITARY REGULATION ENABLED THE ARMY CONTRACTING OFFICER IN
PENNSYLVANIA, IN SUPPLYING MILK TO THE SOLDIERS STATIONED IN
PENNSYLVANIA, TO FREE LOCAL DEALERS FROM THE NECESSITY OF COMPLYING
WITH A SOCIAL MEASURE NOT UNRELATED TO HEALTH AND DEEMED IMPORTANT TO
THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ARE PRESENT IN SOME PARTS OF
CALIFORNIA AND NOT IN OTHERS?  AND MUST A JUNIOR CONTRACTING OFFICER OF
THE QUARTERMASTER CORPS NOW ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THESE
CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY DO OR DO NOT APPLY, DEPENDING UPON WHETHER THE
PARTICULAR ENCLAVE IS WITHIN THE "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - A QUESTION SO RECONDITE, AS THE CASES SHOW, THAT
IT MAY BE SETTLED ONLY BY THIS COURT AFTER LONG TRAVAIL?  IS THE RESULT
TO TURN UPON THE NICETIES OF THE LAW OF SALES AND CONTRACTS?  SUPPOSE,
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS OCCUR AND THE CONTRACTS ARE SIGNED
OFF MOFFETT FIELD, BUT DELIVERY TAKES PLACE THERE.  MUST INQUIRY BE
MADE AS TO WHERE TITLE HAS "PASSED" AND THE SALE CONSUMMATED? 

THESE ARE NOT FAR-FETCHED SUPPOSITIONS.  THEY ARE THE INEVITABLE
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING DECISION HERE DEPEND UPON
TECHNICALITIES OF "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" - LEGAL SUBTLETIES WHICH MAY
BECOME RELEVANT IN DEALING WITH PROSECUTION FOR CRIME, DEVOLUTION OF
PROPERTY, LIABILITY FOR TORTS, AND THE LIKE, BUT WHICH AS A MATTER OF
GOOD SENSE SURELY ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT IN DEFINING THE DUTY OF
CONTRACTING OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES IN MAKING CONTRACTS IN THE
VARIOUS STATES OF THE UNION, WHERE NEITHER CONGRESS NOR THE
AUTHORITATIVE VOICE OF THE ARMY HAS SPOKEN.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
ASSERTION OF SUPERIOR AUTHORITY, STATE LAWS SUCH AS THOSE HERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION APPEAR, AS A MATTER OF SOUND PUBLIC POLICY, EQUALLY
APPROPRIATE WHETHER THE FEDERAL TERRITORY ENCYSTED WITHIN A STATE BE
HELD ON LONG OR SHORT TERM LEASE OR BE OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON
WHATEVER TERMS OF CESSION MAY HAVE BEEN IMPOSED. 

WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS, ABOUT WHICH
THERE CAN BE NO CONTROVERSY, BUT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTING OFFICERS.  IT IS SURELY THE POLICY OF NEITHER CONGRESS NOR
THE ARMY THAT SUCH AUTHORITY SHOULD VARY FROM STATE TO STATE OR FROM
POST TO POST WITHIN THE SAME STATE.  ON THE CONTRARY, THERE IS EVERY
REASON FOR ASSUMING THAT, IN THE MATTER HERE INVOLVED, UNIFORMITY
THROUGHOUT THE LAND IS DEEMED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE NATIONAL
POLICY.  SINCE, AS THE COURT HOLDS IN THE PENNSYLVANIA CASE, THE
NATIONAL INTEREST IS FURTHERED RATHER THAN IMPAIRED BY REQUIRING THE
QUARTERMASTER AT THE INDIANTOWN MILITARY RESERVATION TO OBSERVE THE
PENNSYLVANIA MILK CONTROL LAW, THERE IS EVERY REASON WHY THE
QUARTERMASTER AT MOFFETT FIELD SHOULD LIKEWISE OBSERVE THE SIMILAR
CALIFORNIA LAW.  AND SINCE HE SHOULD OBSERVE THE STATE LAW, CALIFORNIA
HAS A RIGHT TO INSIST THAT THE MILK DEALER LICENSED BY IT SHOULD NOT
PARTICIPATE IN A VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF HIS STATE, BY LICENSE FROM
WHICH HE DOES BUSINESS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

I DISSENT FOR REASONS STATED IN CONCURRENCE IN PENN DAIRIES V. MILK
CONTROL COMMISSION, ANTE, P. 261.  THE FACT THAT MOFFETT FIELD IS A
FEDERAL ENCLAVE INSTEAD OF A LEASEHOLD DOES NOT JUSTIFY DENYING
CALIFORNIA THE POWER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH BY REQUIRING MILK
DEALERS SELLING TO THE UNITED STATES TO RECEIVE A MINIMUM PRICE, A
POWER WHICH WE HAVE TODAY HELD THAT PENNSYLVANIA POSSESSES.  TRUE,
CONGRESS IS GIVEN THE POWER "TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" OVER
FEDERAL AREAS SUCH AS MOFFETT FIELD (CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 8, CL.
17), BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE STATES, NO MATTER WHAT
THEIR INTEREST OR NEED, ARE ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT POWER TO ENACT
LEGISLATION, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OR
CONSTITUTIONAL DICTATES, WHICH WILL APPLY IN SOME MEASURE TO THOSE
AREAS WHICH ARE WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES.  BEFORE HOLDING THAT THIS
CLAUSE INVALIDATES IMPORTANT STATE LEGISLATION LIKE THAT NOW BEFORE US,
ESPECIALLY AT A TIME WHEN FEDERAL ACTIVITIES ARE GREATLY EXPANDING AND
VAST AREAS ARE BEING ACQUIRED WITHIN THE STATES BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, THE REASONABLENESS AND NECESSITY OF SUCH A DECISION SHOULD
BE THOUGHTFULLY EXAMINED. 

WE DERIVE MUCH OF OUR STRENGTH AS A NATION FROM OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  TO PROMOTE THE HARMONIOUS WORKING OF THAT SYSTEM
THE GENERAL CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH BROADLY DELINEATE THE
BOUNDARIES OF STATE AND NATIONAL POWER SHOULD BE CONSTRUED BY
APPRAISING THE RESPECTIVE STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED AND
STRIKING A BALANCE WHICH GIVES APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION TO THE
LEGITIMATE CONCERNS OF EACH GOVERNMENT.  SINCE THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE NOT
ABSOLUTES, THE QUESTION NECESSARILY IS ONE OF REASONABLENESS AND
DEGREE.  CF. HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. KNOX, 277
U.S. 218, 222, AND AGAIN IN SPRINGER V. PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 277 U.S.
189, 209-210.  THIS IS THE METHOD WHICH WE HAVE APPLIED IN TESTING
STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,  FN1  AND IT SHOULD GOVERN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE "EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" CLAUSE.  IF A STATE IS
ACTING IN MATTERS NORMALLY WITHIN ITS COMPETENCE, WITH WHICH IT IS
ESPECIALLY EQUIPPED TO DEAL, TO ACHIEVE IMPORTANT GOVERNMENTAL ENDS
SUCH AS THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE OR THE
MAINTENANCE OF ORDERLY MARKETING CONDITIONS, THE EFFECTS OF ITS ACTION
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EXTEND INTO FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES
UNLESS INCONSISTENT WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS OR THE PROVISIONS OR
NECESSARY IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THIS FORMULA ALLOWS THE
STATES TO CARRY OUT IMPORTANT PROGRAMS WHICH MUST BE OF STATE-WIDE
APPLICATION TO BE EFFECTIVE AND ADEQUATELY RECOGNIZES THE PARAMOUNT
CHARACTER OF FEDERAL POWER.  SINCE WE HAVE HELD THE COMPARABLE
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE DOES NOT CONTRAVENE ANY ACT OF CONGRESS OR THE
CONSTITUTION (PENN DAIRIES V. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION, SUPRA), THE
INSTANT CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION SATISFIES THIS TEST. 

THE "EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN REGARDED AS
ABSOLUTELY EXCLUSORY,  FN2  AND NO CONVINCING REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED
WHY THE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL POWER IS SUCH THAT IT DEMANDS THAT ALL
STATE LEGISLATION ADOPTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUISITION OF AN ENCLAVE
MUST HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE AREA.  IN WAGING WAR UNDER MODERN
CONDITIONS IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT STATE AND NATIONAL, MILITARY AND
CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES, WORK TOGETHER AS A UNIT, EACH COMPLEMENTING THE
OTHERS.  THE STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE FUNCTIONS TO PERFORM THAT ARE VITAL
TO THE WAR PROGRAM, INCLUDING THOSE FUNCTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PUBLIC
HEALTH.  SO LONG AS THERE IS NO OVERRIDING NATIONAL PURPOSE TO BE
SERVED, NOTHING IS GAINED BY MAKING FEDERAL ENCLAVES THORNS IN THE SIDE
OF THE STATES AND BARRIERS TO THE EFFECTIVE STATE-WIDE PERFORMANCE OF
THOSE FUNCTIONS.  INDEED BOTH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE NATION AS
A WHOLE SUFFER IF THE SOLUTION OF LEGITIMATE MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN
IS THUS THWARTED AND LOCAL ANIMOSITY CREATED FOR NO PURPOSE.  A
DISPOSITION ON THE PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS MILITARY ARM
TO IGNORE LOCAL REGULATIONS SUCH AS THE PRESENT ONE IS NOT ONLY FRAUGHT
WITH DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT ALSO MAY CREATE A PUBLIC FEELING
OF DISTRUST WHICH ITSELF WILL HAMPER THE MILITARY EFFORT. 

IF CONGRESS EXERCISES ITS PARAMOUNT LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER MOFFETT
FIELD TO DENY CALIFORNIA THE RIGHT TO DO AS IT HAS SOUGHT TO DO HERE,
THE MATTER IS OF COURSE AT AN END.  BUT UNTIL CONGRESS DOES SO, IT
SHOULD BE THE AIM OF THE FEDERAL MILITARY PROCUREMENT OFFICERS TO
OBSERVE STATUTES SUCH AS THIS ESTABLISHED BY STATE ACTION IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, AND OTHERWISE SO CONDUCT
THEIR AFFAIRS AS TO PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND GOOD WILL. 

FN1  WHILE IT IS CONGRESS THAT IS GIVEN THE POWER TO REGULATE
COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES, SOME STATE REGULATION OF THAT COMMERCE IS
PERMISSIBLE.  "WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERTED ITS POWER UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND STATE REGULATION OF MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN IS SO
RELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT IT ALSO OPERATES AS A REGULATION OF
THAT COMMERCE, THE RECONCILIATION OF THE POWER THUS GRANTED WITH THAT
RESERVED TO THE STATE IS TO BE ATTAINED BY THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE
COMPETING DEMANDS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED." 
PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 361-363.  STATE REGULATION IS TO BE
UPHELD IF "UPON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES IT APPEARS THAT THE MATTER IS ONE WHICH MAY APPROPRIATELY
BE REGULATED IN THE INTEREST OF THE SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF
LOCAL COMMUNITIES, AND WHICH, BECAUSE OF ITS LOCAL CHARACTER AND THE
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED, MAY NEVER BE ADEQUATELY DEALT WITH BY
CONGRESS."  IBID., P. 362. 

FN2  THE COMMON SENSE VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS
HAS NOT LEGISLATED TO THAT EFFECT, LOCAL LAW EXISTING AT THE TIME AN
ENCLAVE IS ACQUIRED, WHICH DOES NOT DEFEAT THE NATIONAL PURPOSE,
REMAINS IN EFFECT WITHIN THE ENCLAVE UNTIL ALTERED BY CONGRESS. 
STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S. 94.  AND THE STATES MAY QUALIFY
THEIR CONSENT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASE BY RETAINING SOME
MEASURE OF JURISDICTION.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S.
134. 
..END :















HELVERING V. SABINE TRANS. CO., 318 U.S. 306 


NO. 518.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 128 F.2D
945, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN 1937, A CORPORATION PAID DIVIDENDS PARTLY IN ITS OWN PROMISSORY
NOTES.  PURSUANT TO SEC. 27(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, IT CLAIMED
AND WAS ALLOWED, IN RESPECT OF ITS LIABILITY FOR UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS
TAX, THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE NOTES AS PART OF ITS "DIVIDENDS PAID
CREDIT."  IN 1938, IT RETIRED THE NOTES BY PAYMENT OF THEIR FACE
AMOUNT.  HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS THUS PAID IN RETIRING THE NOTES WERE
INCLUDIBLE IN THE "DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT" UNDER SEC. 24(A)(4) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1938, AS "AMOUNTS USED  ...  TO PAY OR TO RETIRE
INDEBTEDNESS OF ANY KIND."  P. 310. 

SEC. 27(A)(4). 

2.  TO THE EXTENT THAT ART. 27(A)-3 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 101
FORBIDS (AS A "DOUBLE CREDIT") THE CREDIT CLAIMED IN THIS CASE, IT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN TERMS OF THE ACT AND INVALID.  P. 311. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. SABINE TRANSPORTATION
CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 620, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER
DISALLOWING A CREDIT IN THE COMPUTATION OF RESPONDENT'S TAX UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1938. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE RESPONDENT
ENTITLED TO INCLUDE IN ITS DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT, PURSUANT TO SEC. 27
FN1  OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, THE AMOUNT PAID TO REDEEM NOTES GIVEN
FOR DIVIDENDS IN A PRIOR YEAR.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAD HELD TO THE CONTRARY.  FN3  TO RESOLVE THE
CONFLICT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

IN 1937 THE RESPONDENT PAID DIVIDENDS, $30,000 IN CASH AND $530,000
IN ITS TEN YEAR EIGHT PER CENT NOTES.  AS RESPECTS ITS LIABILITY FOR
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX, IT CLAIMED AND WAS ALLOWED, PURSUANT TO SEC.
27(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936,  FN4  AS PART OF ITS "DIVIDENDS PAID
CREDIT," THE FACE VALUE OF THE NOTES.  IN 1938 THE RESPONDENT PAID OFF
THE NOTES, AND IN ITS RETURN FOR THAT YEAR CLAIMED THE SUM PAID AS A
PART OF ITS "DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT" UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, SEC.
27(A)(4).  FN5  THE COMMISSIONER'S DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM WAS
SUSTAINED BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THE BOARD'S DECISION. 

THE POSITION OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT THE SECOND CREDIT CLAIMED
WOULD DUPLICATE THE EARLIER ONE ALLOWED AND THAT SEC. 27 OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1938 DOES NOT PERMIT THE DUPLICATION. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, BY SEC. 13, IMPOSED ON CORPORATIONS A TAX
RANGING FROM EIGHT TO FIFTEEN PER CENT OF THE SO-CALLED "NORMAL-TAX NET
INCOME," CONSISTING OF NET INCOME LESS CERTAIN PERMITTED DEDUCTIONS. 
IT THEN LAID A GRADUATED SURTAX ON "UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME" WHICH IT
DEFINED AS THE ADJUSTED NET INCOME (THE NORMAL-TAX NET INCOME AFTER
CREDITS) LESS THE SO-CALLED "DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT."  BY SEC. 27 THE
ACT DEFINED THE LATTER AS COMPRISING DIVIDENDS PAID DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR INCLUDING (27(D)) DIVIDENDS IN OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY TO BE
RECKONED AT FACE VALUE OR MARKET VALUE, WHICHEVER WAS LOWER.  THE
SUBSECTION ALSO PROVIDED THAT, IF SUCH OBLIGATIONS WERE REDEEMED IN ANY
SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE EXCESS OF THE REDEMPTION PAYMENT OVER THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE OF THE OBLIGATIONS AS OF THE DATE OF THEIR ISSUE SHOULD BE
TREATED AS A DIVIDEND PAID IN THE YEAR OF REDEMPTION. 

THE PURPOSE OF THESE PROVISIONS IS CLEAR AND IS A MATTER OF COMMON
KNOWLEDGE.  CONGRESS DESIRED TO ENCOURAGE THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS SO
THAT THE EARNINGS OF CORPORATIONS MIGHT BE SUBJECTED NOT ONLY TO NORMAL
TAX AS AGAINST THE CORPORATION, BUT ALSO TO TAXATION AS INCOME TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS.  FN6  THE MEANS ADOPTED WAS TO RELIEVE THE CORPORATION
FROM SURTAX TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDENDS PAID IN CASH OR IN OBLIGATIONS. 
THE LATTER WOULD BE TAXED TO STOCKHOLDERS AT THEIR MARKET VALUE.  IF
THEY WERE REDEEMED IN A LATER YEAR, AT A FIGURE ABOVE SUCH VALUE AS OF
THE DATE OF THEIR ISSUE, THE EXCESS WOULD BE TAXED TO THE HOLDER AS
INCOME TO HIM IN THE YEAR OF REDEMPTION.  FAIRNESS DICTATED THAT IN
SUCH CASE THE CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE A FURTHER DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT
FOR THIS EXCESS OF VALUE PAID BY IT. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 ADOPTED A DIFFERENT PLAN OF CORPORATE
TAXATION.  WITH RESPECT TO A CORPORATION HAVING THE AMOUNT OF INCOME
EARNED BY THE RESPONDENT, SEC. 13 IMPOSED A TENTATIVE TAX OF 19% OF
"ADJUSTED NET INCOME," WHICH WAS THE ENTIRE NET INCOME LESS CERTAIN
DEDUCTIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL.  THIS TENTATIVE TAX WAS TO BE REDUCED BY
THE SUM OF TWO DEDUCTIONS.  ONE OF THESE IS NOT IN ISSUE HERE.  THE
OTHER IS 2 1/2% OF THE "DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT," NOT HOWEVER TO EXCEED 2
1/2% OF THE ADJUSTED NET INCOME.  THE DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT IS DEFINED
BY SEC. 27.  IT CONSISTS OF FOUR ITEMS, TWO OF WHICH ARE CARRY-OVERS
FROM PREVIOUS YEARS, WHICH NEED NOT CONCERN US; AND TWO OTHERS WHICH
ARE IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE, - FIRST, THE "BASIC SURTAX CREDIT," SEC.
(A)(1), AND, SECONDLY, "AMOUNTS USED  ...  TO PAY OR TO RETIRE
INDEBTEDNESS OF ANY KIND, IF SUCH AMOUNTS ARE REASONABLE WITH RESPECT
TO THE SIZE AND TERMS OF SUCH INDEBTEDNESS," SEC. (A)(4).  FN7
INDEBTEDNESS IS DEFINED AS INDEBTEDNESS EXISTING AT THE CLOSE OF
BUSINESS DECEMBER 31, 1937, AND EVIDENCED BY BOND, NOTE, DEBENTURE,
CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS, MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST ISSUED BY THE
CORPORATION AND IN EXISTENCE AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS DECEMBER 31,
1937, OR A BILL OF EXCHANGE ACCEPTED PRIOR TO AND IN EXISTENCE AT THAT
TIME.  THE TERM IS FURTHER DEFINED AS COVERING PRINCIPAL ONLY AND NOT
INTEREST THEREON. 

THE BASIC SURTAX CREDIT IS THE SUM OF SEVERAL ITEMS, INCLUDING CASH
DIVIDENDS PAID AND CERTAIN OTHER SPECIFIED CREDITS.  DIVIDENDS IN KIND
ARE TO BE VALUED AND TREATED AS CASH DIVIDENDS.  SUBSECTION (E)
PROVIDES THAT, IN COMPUTING THE BASIC SURTAX CREDIT, A DIVIDEND PAID IN
OBLIGATIONS OF THE CORPORATION SHALL BE TREATED AS A CASH DIVIDEND IN
THE AMOUNT OF THE FACE VALUE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OR THEIR MARKET VALUE,
WHICHEVER IS LOWER, AND THAT, IF THE OBLIGATIONS ARE REDEEMED IN A
SUBSEQUENT YEAR, ANY EXCESS PAID THE HOLDERS OVER THE MARKET VALUE AT
DATE OF ISSUE SHALL BE TREATED AS A DIVIDEND PAID IN THAT YEAR.  THIS
PROVISION, IT WILL BE NOTED, IS SIMILAR TO SEC. 27(D) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1936.  BUT THE CREDIT OF WHICH IT FORMS A PART DIFFERS FROM THAT
OF THE EARLIER ACT AS IT IS AGAINST THE TAX AND NOT AGAINST INCOME AND
IS LIMITED TO 2 1/2% OF ADJUSTED INCOME.  THE USE OF THE CREDIT, MAY,
THEREFORE, PRODUCE RESULTS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE USE OF THE
CREDIT GRANTED BY THE 1936 ACT. 

THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE TAXPAYER TO
HAVE TWO CREDITS AS A RESULT OF PAYMENT OF A DIVIDEND IN ITS OWN
OBLIGATIONS, THAT EXEMPTIONS OR CREDITS SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AS
AGAINST THE TAXPAYER, AND THAT THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1938 CLEARLY DENY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN THIS CASE. 

ON THE FACE OF THE 1938 ACT THE ITEMS WHICH GO TOWARD MAKING UP THE
BASIC SURTAX CREDIT UNDER SEC. 27(B) ARE DISTINCT FROM THE CREDIT FOR
INDEBTEDNESS PAID UNDER SEC. 27(A)(4).  ALTHOUGH THE NOTE OBLIGATIONS
PAID BY THE RESPONDENT WERE ISSUED IN PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS FOR A PRIOR
YEAR THEY, NEVERTHELESS, FALL WITHIN THE PRECISE TERMS OF SEC.
27(A)(4).  IN THIS CONNECTION SEC. 27(E) MIGHT HAVE APPLICATION IF THE
REDEMPTION OF THE NOTES HAD BEEN AT A FIGURE GREATER THAN THEIR FACE OR
MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME THEY WERE ISSUED TO THE STOCKHOLDERS, FOR IN
THAT CASE SEC. 27(E) WOULD HAVE PERMITTED THE RESPONDENT TO TAKE A
CREDIT FOR THE EXCESS OF THE REDEMPTION PRICE OVER THE VALUE AT DATE OF
ISSUE AS A DIVIDEND PAID IN THE CURRENT YEAR.  BUT WE THINK THAT SEC.
27(E) DOES NOT OTHERWISE BEAR ON A PAYMENT SUCH AS THAT IN QUESTION AND
DOES NOT QUALIFY THE PLAIN INTENT OF SEC. 27(A)(4). 

THE CONGRESS HAD IN THE 1936 ACT ENCOURAGED THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS
IN OBLIGATIONS.  IT KNEW THAT MANY CORPORATIONS HAD DONE SO.  WITH THIS
KNOWLEDGE IT ADOPTED THE SWEEPING LANGUAGE OF SEC. 27(A)(4) OF THE ACT
OF 1938.  AS INTRODUCED THE SECTION SPOKE ONLY OF INDEBTEDNESS.  IT WAS
AMENDED BY THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE BY ADDING THE WORDS "OF ANY
KIND" AFTER THE WORD "INDEBTEDNESS," FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION. 
FN8  THESE FACTS, WITHOUT MORE, MAKE PLAIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION,
AND ANSWER THE CONTENTIONS THAT NO CREDIT WAS INTENDED TO BE GRANTED
FOR THE PAYMENT IN THE TAXABLE YEAR OF OBLIGATIONS ISSUED FOR DIVIDENDS
IN A PRIOR YEAR.  IF MORE WERE NEEDED, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT HAD THE
CORPORATION BORROWED MONEY IN A PRIOR YEAR TO PAY A DIVIDEND, THE
PAYMENT OF THE DEBT IN A LATER YEAR WOULD CLEARLY HAVE ENTITLED IT TO
CREDIT FOR THE PAYMENT UNDER SEC. 27(A)(4).  THERE IS NO REASON FOR
ASSUMING THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO TREAT THE TWO CASES DIFFERENTLY, AND
IT HAS, IN PLAIN TERMS, GRANTED A CREDIT IN BOTH. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID RESPECTING SEC. 27(E) INDICATES THAT IT DOES NOT
LIMIT OR QUALIFY SEC. 27(A)(4).  IT MAY SUPPLEMENT IT IN A CASE WHERE
THE PAYMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS ISSUED FOR DIVIDENDS IS IN EXCESS OF THE
MARKET VALUE OF THOSE OBLIGATIONS WHEN THEY WERE ISSUED.  THE ARGUMENT
THAT IT IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION, QUALIFYING AN EARLIER GENERAL
PROVISION OF SEC. 27, MUST BE REJECTED. 

IT REMAINS TO CONSIDER THE TREASURY REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER THE
1938 ACT.  FN9  THESE FORBID A CREDIT SUCH AS THAT CLAIMED IN THIS
CASE, CALLING IT A "DOUBLE CREDIT."  WE THINK THE REGULATIONS ARE IN
THE TEETH OF THE UNAMBIGUOUS MANDATE OF THE STATUTE, ARE CONTRADICTORY
OF ITS PLAIN TERMS, AND AMOUNT TO AN ATTEMPT TO LEGISLATE.  THEY CANNOT
PREVAIL TO PRECLUDE THE CREDIT CLAIMED.  FN10 THE JUDGMENT IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF MAY 28, 1938, C. 289, 52 STAT. 447, 468. 

FN2  128 F.2D 945. 

FN3  SPOKANE DRY GOODS CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 125 F.2D 865. 

FN4  49 STAT. 1648, 1665. 

FN5  52 STAT. 468. 

FN6  IT APPEARS THAT RESPONDENT'S SOLE STOCKHOLDERS ARE TWO
CORPORATIONS, BUT WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND PETITIONER TO CONTEND THAT THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE AFFECTS THE OPERATION OR APPLICATION OF SEC. 27.  IT IS
ASSUMED THAT THESE TWO CORPORATIONS ARE BONA FIDE STOCKHOLDERS OF
RESPONDENT AND PAID TAXES ON THE DIVIDENDS THEY RECEIVED.  THE SECTION
IN TERMS APPLIES TO EVERY CORPORATE TAXPAYER WHETHER IT HAS BUT TWO
STOCKHOLDERS WHICH ARE CORPORATIONS OR TWO THOUSAND WHO ARE NATURAL
PERSONS. 

FN7  NO QUESTION IS MADE IN THIS CASE AS TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE
AMOUNT PAID. 

FN8  SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT, S.R. 1242, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN9  REGULATIONS 101, ART. 27(A)-3. 

FN10  HELVERING V. CREDIT ALLIANCE CORP., 316 U.S. 107. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

THE TAXPAYER, SABINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., IS A DELAWARE
CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN TEXAS.  ITS STOCK IS HELD IN EQUAL
AMOUNTS BY TWO OTHER CORPORATIONS, SABINE TOWING CO., INC., AND THE
PURE OIL CORPORATION.  IN 1937, A DIVIDEND OF $530,000.00 WAS DECLARED,
AMOUNTING TO $35.33 1/3 PER SHARE ON THE COMMON STOCK.  THE DIVIDEND
WAS PAID TO THE TWO CORPORATE OWNERS BY EXECUTION OF TEN YEAR, EIGHT
PER CENT NOTES.  THE TAXPAYER THEN CLAIMED AND WAS ALLOWED A "DIVIDEND
PAID CREDIT" UNDER THE 1936 ACT ON ITS 1937 TAX.  IN 1938 THE TAXPAYER
PAID TO ITS TWO CORPORATE STOCKHOLDERS THE FULL FACE VALUE OF THE TEN
YEAR NOTES.  IT IS NOW GIVEN A SECOND "DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT" UNDER THE
1938 ACT ON ITS 1938 TAX. 

THIS $530,000.00 HAS LEFT THE CORPORATE TREASURY ONLY ONCE. 
BOOKKEEPING DEVICES AND PAPER CONTRIVANCES SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO
MAKE TWO PAYMENTS OUT OF ONE; AND IF TWO DEDUCTIONS ARE PERMITTED, WHY
NOT THREE OR MORE?  THE POSSIBILITIES OF MANIPULATION OF NOTES, BONDS,
STOCKS, AND EVERY OTHER CASH SUBSTITUTE IMAGINABLE, ARE PARTICULARLY
APPARENT WHEN, AS HERE, THE TAXPAYER AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS ARE SO
CLOSELY INTERRELATED.  CONGRESS HAS PASSED NO TAX STATUTES WHICH COMPEL
ME TO CONCLUDE THAT IT INTENDED TO REWARD INGENUITY IN PAPER WORK BY
GRANTING MULTIPLE TAX REDUCTIONS FOR A SINGLE MONEY PAYMENT TO
DISCHARGE A SINGLE CORPORATE OBLIGATION. 
..END :




















HOOPESTON CO. V. CULLEN, 318 U.S. 313 


NO. 358.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 4, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 288
N.Y. 291, 43 N.E.2D 49, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS BEING DONE WITHIN A STATE A
BUSINESS IN INSURANCE WHICH IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE STATE,
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE LOCATION OF ACTIVITY PRIOR TO AND SUBSEQUENT TO
THE MAKING OF THE CONTRACT, OF THE DEGREE OF INTEREST OF THE REGULATING
STATE IN THE OBJECT INSURED, AND OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY
INSURED ARE SEPARATELY AND COLLECTIVELY OF GREAT WEIGHT.  P. 319. 

2.  RECIPROCAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS WHICH INSURED PROPERTY LOCATED
IN NEW YORK, ALTHOUGH THEIR ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT WERE LOCATED IN ILLINOIS
AND THE CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE WERE SIGNED AND CHECKS IN PAYMENT OF
LOSSES WERE MAILED IN ILLINOIS, HELD SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY NEW
YORK.  PP. 315, 319. 

THE RECIPROCAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS IN THIS CASE HAD MANY ACTUAL
CONTACTS (DETAILED IN THE OPINION) WITH SUBSCRIBERS AND THE INSURED
PROPERTY IN NEW YORK; MUCH OF THE INSURANCE COVERED IMMOVABLES LOCATED
IN NEW YORK; AND THE ASSOCIATIONS HAD FOR YEARS BEEN LICENSED TO DO
BUSINESS IN NEW YORK. 

3.  ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 318. 

4.  THE NEW YORK REGULATIONS OF FOREIGN RECIPROCAL INSURANCE
ASSOCIATIONS HERE CHALLENGED - REGULATIONS AIMED AT THE PROTECTION OF
THE SOLVENCY OF SUCH ASSOCIATIONS OR AT PROMOTING THE CONVENIENCE OF
RESIDENTS OF THE STATE IN DOING THEIR INSURANCE BUSINESS - HELD NOT
VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 321. 

(1)  THAT THE REGULATIONS AFFECT BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE
CARRIED ON OUTSIDE OF THE STATE DOES NOT IN ITSELF RENDER THEM
INVALID.  P. 320. 

(2)  SINCE EACH SUBSCRIBER IS AN INSURER AND OTHER SUBSCRIBERS ARE
DEPENDENT ON HIS FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, THE REQUIREMENT THAT EACH
NEW SUBSCRIBER MUST HAVE ASSETS IN EXCESS OF $10,000 DOES NOT VIOLATE
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  P. 321. 

(3)  RECIPROCAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOT DENIED EQUAL
PROTECTION BY THE IMPOSITION UPON THEM OF REQUIREMENTS DIFFERENT FROM
THOSE IMPOSED UPON MUTUAL COMPANIES.  P. 321. 

(4)  THE REQUIREMENTS THAT AN OFFICE BE MAINTAINED IN THE STATE AND
THAT POLICIES BE COUNTERSIGNED BY A RESIDENT AGENT ARE VALID.  P. 321. 

(5)  THE ARGUMENT THAT RECIPROCALS GIVE COMPLETE SECURITY WITH
SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMY TO THEIR MEMBERS, AND THAT NEW YORK SUBSCRIBERS MAY
LOSE THE BENEFITS OF THIS FORM OF INSURANCE BY REASON OF THE INABILITY
OF THE RECIPROCALS TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW YORK LAW, CAN NOT AFFECT THE
VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS.  P. 321. 

HOOPESTON CANNING CO. ET AL. V. CULLEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF
NEW YORK, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, ALBANY COUNTY. 

%APPEAL/FROM A JUDGMENT ENTERED ON REMITTITUR OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF NEW YORK, WHICH SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS OF THE STATE
INSURANCE LAW AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANTS.  SEE ALSO 262 APP. DIV.
446, 29 N.Y.S.2D 300, AND 24 N.Y.S.2D 312. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW (CONS.  LAWS, CH. 28), AS AMENDED IN 1939,
PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE AND DETAILED PLAN FOR REGULATION OF ALL TYPES
OF INSURANCE AND INSURANCE COMPANIES "DOING AN INSURANCE BUSINESS"
(SEC. 41) IN THAT STATE.  ARTICLE 12, APPLICABLE TO RECIPROCAL
INSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS, DEFINES THEM AS AGGREGATIONS OF PERSONS, FIRMS,
OR CORPORATIONS, WHO UNDER A COMMON NAME ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF
EXCHANGING CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE ON THE RECIPROCAL PLAN THROUGH AN
ATTORNEY IN FACT.  FN1 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE APPELLANTS, RECIPROCAL
INSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS WHICH INSURE AGAINST FIRE AND RELATED RISKS AND
WHOSE ATTORNEYS IN FACT ARE LOCATED IN ILLINOIS, MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY
BE MADE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF NEW YORK AS A CONDITION OF INSURING
PROPERTY IN THAT STATE.  THE NEW YORK LAW, SEC. 422, REQUIRES THAT
THESE COOPERATIVE INSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS MUST OBTAIN A LICENSE OR BE
PROHIBITED FROM DOING "ANY ACT WHICH EFFECTS, AIDS OR PROMOTES THE
DOING OF AN INSURANCE BUSINESS" IN NEW YORK, SEC. 410(2).  AS A
CONDITION OF THE LICENSE, SUBMISSION TO THE NEW YORK REGULATIONS IS
REQUIRED.  THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THE LAW AS APPLIED TO THEM
VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THEY RAISED THESE QUESTIONS APPROPRIATELY IN A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACTION IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS, THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD
THE LAW, AND THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE. 

THESE RECIPROCALS HAVE BEEN ANNUALLY LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW
YORK SINCE 1930 AND ALLEGE THAT THEY ARE "DESIROUS OF QUALIFYING UNDER
THE VALID PROVISIONS OF THE INSURANCE LAW OF 1939, AND OF SECURING A
LICENSE THEREUNDER."  MORE THAN 50,000 CONTRACTS AFFECTING NEW YORK
STATE RISKS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED SINCE THE RECIPROCALS BEGAN BUSINESS,
AND THE GROSS PAYMENTS MADE BY NEW YORK CONCERNS AS PREMIUMS OR
DEPOSITS AMOUNTED TO MORE THAN $2,000,000 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1931 TO
1938.  THE TOTAL OF PREMIUMS OR DEPOSITS FROM INSURANCE AFFECTING NEW
YORK PROPERTY IS MORE THAN THAT FROM ILLINOIS, THE STATE IN WHICH THE
ASSOCIATIONS HAVE THEIR HEADQUARTERS AND WHOSE LAWS THEY INSIST MUST
GOVERN THEIR CONTRACTS. 

TWO PRINCIPAL CONTENTIONS ARE URGED AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE NEW YORK LAW AS APPLIED TO THESE RECIPROCALS:  (A) SINCE THE
CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE ARE SIGNED IN ILLINOIS AND LOSSES ARE PAID BY
CHECKS MAILED FROM THAT STATE, THE ASSOCIATIONS DO NO BUSINESS IN NEW
YORK WHICH THEREFORE HAS NO POWER TO REGULATE THEM.  (B) ASSUMING THAT
NEW YORK DOES HAVE GENERAL POWER TO REGULATE, NEVERTHELESS CERTAIN OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE DO NOT ACCORD WITH DUE PROCESS AND DENY
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. 

FIRST.  BUSINESS IN NEW YORK.  ASSUMING THAT THE FORMALITIES OF
CONTRACT ARE CARRIED ON IN ILLINOIS, THE ISSUE REMAINS WHETHER THE
INSURANCE ENTERPRISE AS A WHOLE SO AFFECTS NEW YORK INTERESTS AS TO
GIVE NEW YORK THE POWER IT CLAIMS. 

IN DETERMINING THE POWER OF A STATE TO APPLY ITS OWN REGULATORY LAWS
TO INSURANCE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, THE QUESTION IN EARLIER CASES BECAME
INVOLVED BY CONCEPTUALISTIC DISCUSSION OF THEORIES OF THE PLACE OF
CONTRACTING OR OF PERFORMANCE N2.  MORE RECENTLY IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED
THAT A STATE MAY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS IN THE BUSINESS OF
INSURANCE OF ITS PEOPLE OR PROPERTY REGARDLESS OF THESE ISOLATED
FACTORS.  THIS INTEREST MAY BE MEASURED BY HIGHLY REALISTIC
CONSIDERATIONS SUCH AS THE PROTECTION OF THE CITIZEN INSURED OR THE
PROTECTION OF THE STATE FROM THE INCIDENTS OF LOSS.  ALASKA PACKERS
ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 294 U.S. 532, 542.  TO INSURE THE
PROTECTION OF STATE INTERESTS IT IS NOW RECOGNIZED THAT A STATE MAY NOT
BE REQUIRED TO ENFORCE IN ITS OWN COURTS THE TERMS OF AN INSURANCE
POLICY NORMALLY SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF ANOTHER STATE WHERE SUCH
ENFORCEMENT WILL CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF THE
FORUM.  GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313 U.S. 498.  FN3 

THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL SIGNING OF CONTRACTS MAY BE ONLY ONE ELEMENT IN A
BROAD RANGE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.  BUSINESS MAY BE DONE IN A STATE
ALTHOUGH THOSE DOING THE BUSINESS ARE SCRUPULOUSLY CAREFUL TO SEE THAT
NOT A SINGLE CONTRACT IS EVER SIGNED WITHIN THAT STATE'S BOUNDARIES. 
FN4 IMPORTANT AS THE EXECUTION OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS MAY BE, IT IS
ORDINARILY BUT AN INTERMEDIATE STEP SERVING TO TIE UP PRIOR BUSINESS
NEGOTIATIONS WITH FUTURE CONSEQUENCES WHICH THEMSELVES ARE THE REAL
OBJECT OF THE BUSINESS TRANSACTION. 

THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE GIVE CLEAR PROOF OF THESE STATEMENTS. 
THE CONTRACTS ARE MADE IN THIS WAY:  A CANNER OR WHOLESALE GROCER IN
NEW YORK SIGNS AN APPLICATION TO BECOME A "SUBSCRIBER."  THIS IS SENT
TO THE ATTORNEY IN FACT AT THE HEAD OFFICE IN CHICAGO.  ONE OF A GROUP
OF INSURANCE ENGINEERS MAY BE SENT TO NEW YORK TO INVESTIGATE THE RISK,
AND IF ACCEPTED, THE APPLICANT SIGNS A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND SENDS IT
AND THE APPLICATION BACK TO THE ATTORNEY IN FACT.  THE ATTORNEY IN FACT
THEN ISSUES A POLICY OF INTER-INSURANCE WHICH IS MAILED TO THE
SUBSCRIBER IN NEW YORK, AND THE SUBSCRIBER THUS BECOMES THE INSURER AND
THE INSURED.  THE INSURANCE ENGINEERS MAY VISIT THE SUBSCRIBER FROM
TIME TO TIME TO ENCOURAGE THE REDUCTION OF FIRE HAZARDS OR TO
INVESTIGATE THE CAUSE AND EXTENT OF LOSSES, AND ON SUCH TRIPS THE
ENGINEER MAY GIVE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ENTERPRISE TO PROSPECTIVE
PARTICIPANTS, ALTHOUGH HE DOES NOT ACTIVELY SOLICIT BUSINESS.  THE
CONTRACTS RESERVED THE RIGHT OF THE RECIPROCALS TO GO INTO NEW YORK TO
REPAIR, REBUILD, OR REPLACE LOST OR DAMAGED PROPERTY.  CF. LUMBERMEN'S
INSURANCE CO. V. MEYER, 197 U.S. 407, 417.  SURELY THE OBJECT OF ALL
THIS ACTIVITY IS NOT THE SIGNING OF A CONTRACT OR A CHECK, BUT THE
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY AND PAYMENT OF INDEMNITY IN CASE OF LOSS BY
FIRE.  THESE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS NEITHER BEGIN NOR END WITH THE
CONTRACT. 

THE INTIMACY OF THE RELATION OF THESE INSURANCE CONTRACTS TO THE
STATE OF NEW YORK BECOMES EVEN MORE APPARENT WHEN IT IS REMEMBERED THAT
THE PROPERTY INSURED IS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  THE STATES HAVE LONG
HELD GREAT AUTHORITY OVER PROPERTY WITHIN THEIR BORDERS.  A STATE MAY
MAKE FLOOD CONTROL, QUARANTINE, CONSERVATION AND ZONING REGULATIONS
AFFECTING PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BOUNDS.  IT IS THE SOURCE OF LAW FOR THE
FORMS OF CONVEYANCES, FOR THE NATURE OF COVENANTS, FUTURE INTERESTS AND
EASEMENTS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WILLS, TRUSTS, AND MORTGAGES, AND
FOR MANY OTHER LEGAL PRINCIPLES AFFECTING PROPERTY INTERESTS. 
CONTRACTS FORMALLY MADE IN OTHER STATES MAY REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE LAW
OF THE STATE OF THE SITUS OF THE PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY IN RESPECT TO
IMMOVABLES.  FN5  THERE IS NO MORE REASON TO BAR THE STATE FROM
AUTHORITY OVER THE INSURANCE OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN IT THAN TO EXCLUDE
IT FROM CONTROL OF ALL THE OTHER PROPERTY INTERESTS MENTIONED. 

THE APPELLANTS DRAW COUNTER CONCLUSIONS FROM ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA,
165 U.S. 578, AND THE CASES WHICH FOLLOW IT.  WHILE THE WISDOM OF THE
ALLGEYER CASE HAS OCCASIONALLY BEEN DOUBTED, IT IS IN ANY CASE CLEARLY
DISTINGUISHABLE HERE.  IN THAT CASE, NO ACT WAS DONE IN THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA EXCEPT THAT OF MAILING A LETTER ADVISING THE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF A SHIPMENT OF GOODS, THE GOODS THEMSELVES WERE IN THE STATE
ONLY TEMPORARILY, AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY NEVER PURPORTED TO DO
BUSINESS IN THE STATE.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RECIPROCALS HAVE THE
MANY ACTUAL CONTACTS WITH THE NEW YORK SUBSCRIBERS AND THE NEW YORK
PROPERTY OUTLINED ABOVE, MUCH OF THE INSURANCE COVERS PERMANENT
IMMOVABLES, AND THE RECIPROCALS HAVE BEEN LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS THERE
FOR YEARS.  THE ALLGEYER AND SUBSEQUENT INSURANCE CASES HAVE BEEN
RECENTLY CONSIDERED IN GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, SUPRA, AT 506, 507, AND IN
OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53, 66; AS THE ANALYSIS IN THOSE OPINIONS
CLEARLY INDICATES, THE ALLGEYER LINE OF DECISIONS CANNOT BE PERMITTED
TO CONTROL CASES SUCH AS THIS, WHERE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE IS
CLEAR, THE INSURED INTEREST IS LOCATED IN THE STATE, AND THERE ARE MANY
POINTS OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE INSURER AND THE PROPERTY IN THE STATE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER INSURANCE BUSINESS IS DONE
WITHIN A STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING WHETHER A STATE HAS POWER TO
REGULATE THE BUSINESS, CONSIDERATIONS OF THE LOCATION OF ACTIVITY PRIOR
AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAKING OF THE CONTRACT, OSBORN V. OZLIN, SUPRA,
OF THE DEGREE OF INTEREST OF THE REGULATING STATE IN THE OBJECT
INSURED, AND OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY INSURED ARE SEPARATELY AND
COLLECTIVELY OF GREAT WEIGHT.  APPLYING ANY OF THESE TESTS, IT IS
APPARENT THAT THE RECIPROCALS ARE DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK AND ARE
THEREBY SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THAT STATE. 

SECOND. VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS.  THE ASSAILED REQUIREMENTS ARE
IN SUBSTANCE THESE.  FN6 RECIPROCALS' SUBSCRIBERS IN EVERY STATE MUST
EXECUTE THEIR POWERS OF ATTORNEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFIED FORMS AND
A STANDARD FORM OF CONTRACT MUST BE USED BY ALL SUBSCRIBERS WHEREEVER
THEY ARE LOCATED.  CERTAIN FORMS OF ACCOUNTING ARE ALSO REQUIRED. 
ADVISORY COMMITTEES OF THE SUBSCRIBERS THEMSELVES, RATHER THAN
APPOINTED ATTORNEYS IN FACT, MUST HAVE ULTIMATE POWERS OF MANAGEMENT OF
THE RECIPROCALS' AFFAIRS AND MUST PROVIDE REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL
AND CUSTODY OF THEIR FUNDS.  THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MUST BE ELECTED AT
AN ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SUBSCRIBERS, HELD AFTER NOTICE TO THEM, WHERE
THEY CAN BE PRESENT EITHER IN PERSON OR BY PROXY.  PROVISION MUST BE
MADE FOR STIPULATED OPERATING RESERVES FOR PAYMENT OF LOSSES, FOR A
CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF SUBSCRIBERS OF NOT LESS THAN ONE NOR MORE THAN
TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL PREMIUM EXPRESSED IN THE CONTRACT,
AND FOR A SURPLUS TO BE MAINTAINED UNIMPAIRED.  NO SUBSCRIBER IS TO BE
GRANTED A SECURED OR PREFERRED CLAIM AGAINST THE OPERATING RESERVE.  NO
NEW AGREEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE WITH SUBSCRIBERS WHO DO NOT HAVE NET
ASSETS IN EXCESS OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS.  AT LEAST ONE OFFICE MUST BE
MAINTAINED IN NEW YORK AND POLICIES MUST BE COUNTERSIGNED BY A RESIDENT
NEW YORK AGENT. 

THESE REGULATIONS CAN NOT BE ATTACKED MERELY BECAUSE THEY AFFECT
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE CARRIED ON OUTSIDE THE STATE.  OF
NECESSITY, ANY REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE SOLVENCY OF THOSE DOING AN
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN A STATE MUST HAVE SOME EFFECT ON BUSINESS
PRACTICES OF THE SAME COMPANY OUTSIDE THE STATE.  NOTHING IN THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A STATE TO NULLIFY ITS OWN PROTECTIVE STANDARDS
BECAUSE AN ENTERPRISE REGULATED HAS ITS HEADQUARTERS ELSEWHERE.  THE
POWER NEW YORK MAY EXERCISE TO REGULATE DOMESTIC INSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS
MAY BE APPLIED TO FOREIGN ASSOCIATIONS WHICH NEW YORK PERMITS TO
CONDUCT THE SAME KIND OF BUSINESS.  THE APPELLANTS CAN NOT, "BY
SPREADING THEIR BUSINESS AND ACTIVITIES OVER OTHER STATES    ...  SET
AT NAUGHT THE PUBLIC POLICY" OF NEW YORK, ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V.
GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412, 427.  WHERE AS HERE THE STATE HAS FULL POWER TO
PRESCRIBE THE FORMS OF CONTRACT, THE TERMS OF PROTECTION OF THE
INSURED, AND THE TYPE OF RESERVE FUNDS NEEDED, "THE MERE FACT THAT
STATE ACTION MAY HAVE REPERCUSSIONS BEYOND STATE LINES IS OF NO
JUDICIAL SIGNIFICANCE."  OSBORN V. OZLIN, SUPRA, AT 62.  NEITHER NEW
YORK NOR ILLINOIS LOSES THE POWER TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ITS
CITIZENS BECAUSE THESE ASSOCIATIONS CARRY ON ACTIVITIES IN BOTH
PLACES.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N SUPRA.  WE
THINK THE REGULATIONS THEMSELVES, SINCE THEY ARE AIMED AT THE
PROTECTION OF THE SOLVENCY OF THE RECIPROCALS OR AT PROMOTING THE
CONVENIENCE WITH WHICH NEW YORK RESIDENTS MAY DO THEIR INSURANCE
BUSINESS, ARE ALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF STATE POWER.  OSBORN V. OZLIN,
SUPRA, AT 65, 66: 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE PROVISION REQUIRING EACH NEW SUBSCRIBER TO HAVE
NET ASSETS OF $10,000 VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, BUT SINCE
EACH SUBSCRIBER IS ALSO AN INSURER AND OTHER SUBSCRIBERS ARE DEPENDENT
ON HIS FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE LEGISLATURE
MIGHT NOT THINK THIS PROVISION NECESSARY.  IT IS ALSO COMPLAINED THAT
DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN PUT UPON RECIPROCALS THAN MUTUAL
COMPANIES; BUT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT A COOPERATIVE INSURANCE
COMPANY MAY BE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING HOW IT SHALL BE REGULATED.  GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V.
KANSAS, 233 U.S. 389, 418.  CF. TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141.  THE
PROVISIONS REQUIRING AN OFFICE IN THE STATE AND COUNTER SIGNATURE OF
THE CONTRACTS BY AN AGENT IN THE STATE ARE NO MORE STRINGENT THAN THOSE
APPROVED IN LA TOURETTE V. MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465. 

THE APPELLANTS EARNESTLY INSIST THAT THEIRS IS A SUCCESSFUL SYSTEM OF
COOPERATIVE INSURANCE WHICH GIVES COMPLETE SECURITY WITH SUBSTANTIAL
ECONOMY TO THEIR MEMBERS, AND THAT THEIR NEW YORK SUBSCRIBERS MAY LOSE
THE BENEFITS OF THIS FORM OF INSURANCE BY REASON OF THE RECIPROCALS'
INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK LAW.  THAT
THE RECIPROCALS SAVE FOR THEIR MEMBERS FROM 25 TO 50 PER CENT OF THE
COST OF ORDINARY COMMERCIAL INSURANCE AND THAT THE MEMBERS ARE WELL
SATISFIED WITH THE SYSTEM THEY HAVE CREATED IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  HOWEVER PERSUASIVE SUCH ARGUMENTS
MIGHT BE IF ADDRESSED TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE, THEY PRESENT NO
CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER WHICH PREVENTS NEW YORK FROM ENFORCING THESE
REGULATIONS IF IT CHOOSES.  AFFIRMED.    FN1  INTER-INSURANCE, OR
RECIPROCAL INSURANCE, HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS "THAT SYSTEM OF INSURANCE
WHEREBY SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND CORPORATIONS UNDERWRITE
EACH OTHER'S RISKS AGAINST LOSS BY FIRE OR OTHER HAZARD, THROUGH AN
ATTORNEY IN FACT, COMMON TO ALL, UNDER AN AGREEMENT THAT EACH
UNDERWRITER ACTS SEPARATELY AND SEVERALLY, AND NOT JOINTLY WITH ANY
OTHER."  58 CENTRAL L.J. 323.  THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THESE
PARTICULAR RECIPROCALS IS FULLY DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT
BELOW AND IS DESCRIBED TO SOME EXTENT IN THIS OPINION.  THE OPINION OF
THE TRIAL COURT IS REPORTED AT 24 N.Y.S.2D 312; THE OPINION OF THE
APPELLATE DIVISION IS REPORTED AT 262 APP. DIV. 446, 29 N.Y.S.2D 300;
AND THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REPORTED AT 288 N.Y. 291, 43
N.E.2D 49.  FOR A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE NATURE OF INTER-INSURERS
AND SOME OF THEIR LEGAL PROBLEMS, SEE 94 A.L.R. 836. 

FN2  ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578, 587.  SEE, A FACTUAL
APPROACH TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ASPECT OF THE CONFLICT OF LAWS, 35
COL. L.R. 751.  CF. FRENE V. LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO., 134 F.2D 511. 

FN3  THIS RULE WAS NOT APPLIED WHERE THE STATE HAD NO ACTUAL CONTACT
WITH THE INSURANCE CONTRACT; I.E., WHERE NEITHER THE ORIGINAL INSURED
NOR THE COMPANY WERE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE, THE PROPERTY INSURED WAS
ELSEWHERE, AND THE CONTRACT WAS MADE ELSEWHERE.  HOME INSURANCE CO. V.
DICK, 281 U.S. 397.  CF. KRYGER V. WILSON, 242 U.S. 171, WHERE, UNDER
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, A STATE WAS ENTITLED TO APPLY ITS OWN LAW IN A
NON-INSURANCE SITUATION WHERE THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE
LITIGATION WAS WITHIN ITS BOUNDS. 

FN4  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 579.  FOR AN
EXAMPLE OF THE REFUSAL OF A COURT TO PERMIT EVASION OF THE LAW OF A
STATE BY A CONTRACT MADE JUST OVER ITS BORDERS, SEE OCEAN ACCIDENT & G.
CORP. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 32 ARIZ. 275, 285, 257 P. 644. 

FN5  CARPENTER V. STRANGE, 141 U.S. 87, 106; WATKINS V. HOLMAN, 16
PET. 25, 57; FALL V. EASTIN, 215 U.S. 1, 9, 12; CF. UNION TRANSIT CO.
V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194; CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, 363;
GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383.  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THIS SUBJECT, SEE
COOK, 'IMMOVABLES' AND THE 'SITUS,' 52 HARVARD L. REV. 1246. 

FN6  THE SECTIONS OF THE INSURANCE LAW WHICH APPELLANTS CONTEND ARE
INVALID ARE SECS. 130, 168(2), 410(1), 412(1), 413(2), 415(1), 417(1),
418(1)(3), 420, 421, AND 422(1). 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :









HELVERING V. AMER. DENTAL CO., 318 U.S. 322 


NO. 303.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 6, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 128
F.2D 254, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FINDING OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT THE CANCELLATION OF
INDEBTEDNESS IN QUESTION OCCURRED IN 1937 IS ACCEPTED HERE.  P. 324. 

2.  THE TERM "GIFT" IN SEC. 22(B)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936
DENOTES THE RECEIPT OF FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES GRATUITOUSLY.  P. 330. 

3.  A CANCELLATION OF ITEMS OF INDEBTEDNESS OWED BY A CORPORATION
(RENT AND INTEREST ON NOTES), THOUGH THE ITEMS HAD BEEN ACCRUED AND
SERVED TO OFFSET INCOME IN PRIOR YEARS, AND THOUGH THE CORPORATION WAS
SOLVENT, HELD, UNDER SEC. 22(B)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, A "GIFT"
EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  P. 330. 

4.  A FINDING OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT THE DEBT CANCELLATION
IN QUESTION WAS NOT A "GIFT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 22(B)(3) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936 IS NOT CONCLUSIVE HERE, BECAUSE THE BOARD REACHED
ITS CONCLUSION BY APPLICATION OF ERRONEOUS LEGAL STANDARDS.  P. 330. 

5.  THAT THE MOTIVES FOR CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS WERE THOSE OF
BUSINESS, OR EVEN SELFISH, IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IN DETERMINING WHETHER
THERE WAS A "GIFT" UNDER SEC. 22(B)(3).  P. 331. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. AMERICAN DENTAL CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 612, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 44 B.T.A. 425, SUSTAINING A DETERMINATION OF
DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW THE QUESTION OF THE
TAXABILITY, AS INCOME, OF RENT AND INTEREST ON ACCOUNTS OWED BY THE
TAXPAYER WHICH WERE CANCELLED BY ITS CREDITORS. 

THE TAXPAYER, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT HERE, OWED CERTAIN PAST DUE
BILLS FOR MERCHANDISE.  THIS INDEBTEDNESS WAS REPRESENTED BY INTEREST
BEARING NOTES.  INTEREST UPON THESE NOTES HAD BEEN ACCRUED FOR THE
YEARS PRIOR TO 1937 AND DEDUCTED IN THE TAXPAYER'S INCOME TAX RETURNS,
TO THE AMOUNT OF $11,435.22.  IN NOVEMBER, 1936, THE CREDITORS AGREED
TO CANCEL ALL INTEREST ACCRUING AFTER JANUARY 1, 1932.  THE FIRST ENTRY
ON THE TAXPAYER'S BOOKS WHICH RECORDS THE CANCELLATION APPEARS IN
DECEMBER, 1937, THE TAX YEAR HERE INVOLVED, WHEN OVER $16,000 WAS
CREDITED. 

THE TAXPAYER IN DECEMBER, 1933, ALSO OWED BACK RENT AMOUNTING TO
$15,298.99.  THIS BACK RENT HAD BEEN ACCRUED AS AN EXPENSE.  A NEW
LEASE WAS NEGOTIATED AT THAT TIME AND THE LESSOR PROMISED TO MAKE AN
ADJUSTMENT OF THE ACCUMULATED OBLIGATION.  THE FOLLOWING APRIL THE
LESSOR ADVISED THE TAXPAYER THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT $7,500 IN PAYMENT OF
THE BACK RENT AND WOULD CANCEL THE REST.  THE REDUCED SUM WAS PAID IN
FEBRUARY, 1937, BY CASH AND NOTES WHICH WERE MET THE SAME YEAR.  IN
1937 THE FIRST ENTRIES WERE MADE ON BOTH THE LESSOR'S AND THE
TAXPAYER'S BOOKS, SHOWING THE PARTIAL FORGIVENESS OF THE BACK RENT. 

THE DATE OF THE BOOK ENTRIES OF THE CANCELLATIONS AND THE DEDUCTION
OF THE INTEREST FOR THE WHOLE OF 1936 BY THE TAXPAYER LED THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS TO UPHOLD THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION THAT THE
CANCELLATION OF ALL ITEMS OF INDEBTEDNESS INVOLVED HERE TOOK PLACE IN
1937.  THIS DETERMINATION IS ACCEPTED BY US.  WILMINGTON TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 316 U.S. 164, 168. 

THE TAXPAYER CREDITED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CANCELLED DEBTS,
$25,219.65, TO EARNED SURPLUS.  FN1  IT DID NOT RETURN ANY OF THE SUM
AS TAXABLE INCOME.  NO PROOF APPEARS OF THE INSOLVENCY OF THE TAXPAYER
BEFORE OR AFTER THE CANCELLATION.  ITS BALANCE SHEETS SHOW ASSETS
EXCEEDING LIABILITIES AT THE OPENING AND CLOSE OF 1937 WITH NET ASSETS
GREATER THAN THE ASSERTED ADJUSTMENT OF INCOME.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSIONER INCREASED THE TAXPAYER'S REPORTED INCOME
BY $19,234.21, THE SUM OF THE ITEMS OF THE CANCELLED INDEBTEDNESS WHICH
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND HAD SERVED TO OFFSET INCOME IN LIKE
AMOUNTS IN PRIOR YEARS.  THE TAXPAYER HAD ACCRUED THE RENT AND INTEREST
IN FORMER YEARS.  NO CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL TAXES IS MADE BY THE
COMMISSIONER. 

THE TAXPAYER SOUGHT A REDETERMINATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE
CANCELLATIONS WERE EXEMPT GIFTS AND THAT IT WAS NOT ENRICHED BEYOND THE
TAX ADVANTAGES GAINED BY THE DEDUCTIONS IN FORMER TAX RETURNS.  THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND THAT THE CANCELLATIONS WERE NOT GIFTS,
CONCLUDED THAT THE TAX BENEFITS IN DOLLARS OBTAINED BY THE DEDUCTIONS
OF FORMER YEARS DID NOT LIMIT THE 1937 TAX SPRINGING FROM THE
CANCELLATION AND AFFIRMED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
CANCELLATIONS CONSTITUTED EXEMPT GIFTS.  128 F.2D 254.  ON ACCOUNT OF A
VARIETY OF VIEWS IN THE CIRCUITS AS TO THE TAXABILITY OF SIMILAR
ADJUSTMENTS OF INDEBTEDNESS, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN2 

THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE SEC. 22(A) AND (B)(3) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  FN3 THE GENERAL DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME HAS
VARIED LITTLE IN THE SUCCESSIVE REVENUE ACTS, AND, FROM THE EARLIEST,
GIFTS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BY SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL STATUTORY
LANGUAGE.  ACT OF OCTOBER 3, 1913, 38 STAT. 166.  THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS 94, RELATING TO THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, ART.
22(A)-14, COVERED CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS.  FN4  THIS REGULATION
FIRST APPEARED IN REGULATIONS 86 UNDER THE 1934 ACT.  IT MARKED A
CHANGE IN THE TREASURY'S CONCEPT OF THE TAX EFFECT OF DEBT
FORGIVENESS.  THE OLD ARTICLE AS IT APPEARED IN REGULATIONS 77,
RELATING TO THE 1932 ACT, READ IN PART: 

"IF, HOWEVER, A CREDITOR MERELY DESIRES TO BENEFIT A DEBTOR AND
WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION THEREFOR CANCELS THE DEBT, THE AMOUNT OF THE
DEBT IS A GIFT FROM THE CREDITOR TO THE DEBTOR AND NEED NOT BE INCLUDED
IN THE LATTER'S GROSS INCOME."  FN5 

THE SAME LANGUAGE APPEARED IN THE FORMER REGULATIONS.  FN6 

IN FIELDS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS WHICH
WE ARE CONSIDERING HERE, THIS COURT HAS TREATED GAINS IN NET ASSETS AS
INCOME.  IN UNITED STATES V. KIRBY LUMBER CO., 284 U.S. 1, THE TAXPAYER
PURCHASED ITS OWN BONDS AT A DISCOUNT.  IT WAS HELD TAXABLE ON THE
INCREASE IN NET ASSETS WHICH RESULTED.  FN7  THIS HOLDING WAS CONFIRMED
BY HELVERING V. AMERICAN CHICLE CO., 291 U.S. 426.  SEE ALSO
COMMISSIONER V. COASTWISE TRANSP.  CORP., 71 F.2D 104.  FORFEITURE OR
SURRENDER OF A LEASE BY WHICH THE LESSOR GAINS PROPERTY OR MONEY MAKES
SUCH GAIN TAXABLE.  HELVERING V. BRUUN, 309 U.S. 461; HORT V.
COMMISSIONER, 313 U.S. 28.  THE NARROW LINE BETWEEN TAXABLE BONUSES AND
TAX FREE GIFTS IS ILLUMINATED BY BOGARDUS V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 34,
ON THE ONE SIDE AND UPON THE OTHER BY NOEL V. PARROTT, 15 F.2D 669, AS
APPROVED IN OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716,730. 

NORMALLY CANCELLATIONS OF INDEBTEDNESS OCCUR ONLY WHEN THE
BENEFICIARY IS INSOLVENT OR AT LEAST IN FINANCIAL STRAITS.  POSSIBLY
BECAUSE IT SEEMS BEYOND THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO EXACT INCOME TAXES
FOR SAVINGS ON DEBTS, THE COURTS HAVE BEEN ASTUTE TO AVOID TAXING EVERY
BALANCE SHEET IMPROVEMENT BROUGHT ABOUT THROUGH A DEBT REDUCTION. 
WHERE THE INDEBTEDNESS HAS REPRESENTED THE PURCHASE PRICE OF PROPERTY,
A PARTIAL FORGIVENESS HAS BEEN TREATED AS A READJUSTMENT OF THE
CONTRACT RATHER THAN A GAIN.  HIRSCH V. COMMISSIONER, 115 F.2D 656;
HELVERING V. A.L. KILLIAN CO., 128 F.2D 433; GEHRING PUBLISHING CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 1 T.C. 345.  WHERE A STOCKHOLDER GRATUITOUSLY FORGIVES
THE CORPORATION'S DEBT TO HIMSELF, THE TRANSACTION HAS LONG BEEN
RECOGNIZED BY THE TREASURY AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAPITAL OF THE
CORPORATION.  REGULATIONS 45, ART. 51, THROUGH TO REGULATIONS 94, ART.
22(A)-14.  COMMISSIONER V. AUTO STROP SAFETY RAZOR CO., 74 F.2D 226. 
FN8 

THE UNCERTAINTIES OF THE EFFECT OF THE REMISSION OF INDEBTEDNESS ON
INCOME TAX BROUGHT ABOUT LEGISLATION TO CLARIFY THE PROBLEMS.  THE
CHANDLER BANKRUPTCY ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, INSTITUTED ADJUSTMENTS DEEMED
DESIRABLE.  FN9  THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
RELATING TO CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS ARE TYPICAL.  THEY DECLARE THAT
NO INCOME SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED "IN RESPECT TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE
INDEBTEDNESS OF A DEBTOR" UNDER REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS, SEC. 268,52
STAT. 904, PROVIDED THAT THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE REDUCED
CORRESPONDINGLY AS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 270 AS AMENDED JULY 1, 1940, 54
STAT. 709.  THE BASIS REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPEAR THROUGHOUT THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SECS. 22(B) AND 113(B), SO AS TO EXTEND SIMILAR
RELIEF TO ALL CORPORATE TAXPAYERS "IN AN UNSOUND FINANCIAL CONDITION." 
FN11 

IT WAS PROVIDED THAT SEC. 215 SHOULD NOT APPLY TO ANY DISCHARGE OF
INDEBTEDNESS OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1939.  NO FURTHER EXPLANATION FOR THIS LIMITATION APPEARS BEYOND THE
LANGUAGE OF THE HOUSE REPORT: 

"THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY SECTION 215 OF THE BILL ARE APPLICABLE ONLY
TO TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31.  1938.  THEY ARE NOT
APPLICABLE TO DISCHARGES OF CORPORATE INDEBTEDNESS OCCURRING PRIOR TO
THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE BILL.  THEY ARE ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO
A DISCHARGE OCCURRING IN ANY TAXABLE YEAR BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31,
1942.  THEY LIKEWISE DO NOT APPLY TO ANY DISCHARGE OF CORPORATE
INDEBTEDNESS OCCURRING IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 77B, OR UNDER
CHAPTER X OR XI, OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, AS AMENDED, SINCE SUCH
DISCHARGES ARE GOVERNED BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW."  P. 25. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 798, 811, SEC. 114, AMENDED SEC.
22(B)(9) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SO AS TO MAKE THE EXCLUSION FROM
GROSS INCOME OF INCOME ARISING FROM DISCHARGE OF INDEBTEDNESS
APPLICABLE GENERALLY TO ALL CORPORATIONS, WHETHER OR NOT FINANCIALLY
SOUND.  FN12 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE VIEWS UPON GAIN, PROFIT AND INCOME, WE MUST
CONSTRUE THE MEANING OF THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION OF GIFTS FROM GROSS
INCOME BY SEC. 22(B)(3).  THE BROAD IMPORT OF GROSS INCOME IN SEC.
22(A)  FN13  ADMONISHES US TO BE CHARY OF EXTENDING ANY WORDS OF
EXEMPTION BEYOND THEIR PLAIN MEANING.  CF. HEINER V. COLONIAL TRUST
CO., 275 U.S. 232, 235; UNITED STATES V. STEWART, 311 U.S. 60, 63. 
"GIFTS," HOWEVER, IS A GENERIC WORD OF BROAD CONNOTATION, TAKING
COLORATION FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE PARTICULAR STATUTE IN WHICH IT MAY
APPEAR.  ITS PLAIN MEANING IN ITS PRESENT SETTING DENOTES, IT SEEMS TO
US, THE RECEIPT OF FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES GRATUITOUSLY. 

THE RELEASE OF INTEREST OR THE COMPLETE SATISFACTION OF AN
INDEBTEDNESS BY PARTIAL PAYMENT BY THE VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE CREDITOR IS
MORE AKIN TO A REDUCTION OF SALE PRICE THAN TO FINANCIAL BETTERMENT
THROUGH THE PURCHASE BY A DEBTOR OF ITS BONDS IN AN ARM'S-LENGTH
TRANSACTION.  IN THIS VIEW, THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE COMMISSIONER'S
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN A SOLVENT OR INSOLVENT CORPORATION OR THE
TAXATION OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ASSETS FREED FROM THE CLAIMS OF
CREDITORS BY A GRATUITOUS CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS.  LAKELAND
GROCERY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 289.  CF. MADISON RAILWAYS CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 1106; SPOKANE OFFICE SUPPLY CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, B.T.A. DOCKET NO. 86762, MEMO.  OP. OF APRIL 29, 1939;
MODEL LAUNDRY V. COMMISSIONER, B.T.A. DOCKET NO. 93493, MEMO.  OP. OF
JANUARY 15, 1940.  SEE ALSO HADEN CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 118 F.2D 285,
WHICH SUPPORTS THE COMMISSIONER. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DECIDED THAT THESE CANCELLATIONS WERE NOT
GIFTS UNDER SEC. 22(B)(3).  IT WAS SAID: 

"NO EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED TO SHOW A DONATIVE INTENT UPON THE PART
OF ANY CREDITOR.  THE EVIDENCE INDICATES, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT THE
CREDITORS ACTED FOR PURELY BUSINESS REASONS AND DID NOT FORGIVE THE
DEBTS FOR ALTRUISTIC REASONS OR OUT OF PURE GENEROSITY."  44 B.T.A.
425, 428. 

WITH THIS CONCLUSION WE CANNOT AGREE.  WE DO NOT FEEL BOUND BY THE
FINDING OF THE BOARD BECAUSE IT REACHED ITS CONCLUSIONS, IN OUR
OPINION, UPON AN APPLICATION OF ERRONEOUS LEGAL STANDARDS.  SECTION
22(B)(3) EXEMPTS GIFTS.  THIS DOES NOT LEAVE THE TAX COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FREE TO DETERMINE AT WILL OR UPON EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT
JUDICIAL REVIEW THE TESTS TO BE APPLIED TO FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE RESULT IS OR IS NOT A GIFT.  THE FACT THAT THE MOTIVES LEADING TO
THE CANCELLATIONS WERE THOSE OF BUSINESS OR EVEN SELFISH, IF IT BE
TRUE, IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  THE FORGIVENESS WAS GRATUITOUS, A RELEASE OF
SOMETHING TO THE DEBTOR FOR NOTHING, AND SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE
CANCELLATION HERE GIFTS WITHIN THE STATUTE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THERE IS AN UNEXPLAINED AND IMMATERIAL VARIANCE BETWEEN THE SUM
OF THE ITEMS CANCELLED AND THE TOTAL CREDITED TO SURPLUS. 

FN2  DALLAS TRANSFER & WAREHOUSE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 70 F.2D 95;
COMMISSIONER V. COASTWISE TRANSP.  CORP., 71 F.2D 104; HIRSCH V.
COMMISSIONER, 115 F.2D 656; HELVERING V. A.L. KILLIAN CO., 128 F.2D
433; HADEN CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 118 F.2D 285. 

FN3  49 STAT. 1648, 1657, SEC. 22, GROSS INCOME: 

"(A)  GENERAL DEFINITION.  - 'GROSS INCOME' INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY
SOURCE WHATEVER.  ... 

"(B)  EXCLUSIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.  - THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL NOT
BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER
THIS TITLE: 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(3)  GIFTS, BEQUESTS, AND DEVICES.  - THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED
BY GIFT, BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE (BUT THE INCOME FROM SUCH
PROPERTY SHALL BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME); ..." 

FN4  "ART.  22(A)-14.  CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS.  - THE
CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, MAY RESULT IN THE
REALIZATION OF INCOME.  IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AN INDIVIDUAL PERFORMS
SERVICES FOR A CREDITOR, WHO IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF CANCELS THE DEBT,
INCOME IN THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT IS REALIZED BY THE DEBTOR AS
COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES.  A TAXPAYER REALIZES INCOME BY THE
PAYMENT OR PURCHASE OF HIS OBLIGATIONS AT LESS THAN THEIR FACE VALUE;
(SEE ARTICLE 22(A)-18.)  IF A SHAREHOLDER IN A CORPORATION WHICH IS
INDEBTED TO HIM GRATUITOUSLY FORGIVES THE DEBT, THE TRANSACTION AMOUNTS
TO A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CAPITAL OF THE CORPORATION.  INCOME IS NOT
REALIZED BY A TAXPAYER BY VIRTUE OF THE DISCHARGE OF HIS INDEBTEDNESS
AS THE RESULT OF AN ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY, OR BY VIRTUE OF A
COMPOSITION AGREEMENT AMONG HIS CREDITORS, IF IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER
THE TAXPAYER'S LIABILITIES EXCEED THE VALUE OF HIS ASSETS."    THE
ARTICLE RELATING TO THE EXCLUSION OF GIFTS FROM GROSS INCOME IS NOT
HELPFUL.  IT MERELY SAYS GIFTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE INCOME TAX.  ART.
22(B)(3)-1. 

FN5  THE WHOLE ARTICLE WAS AS FOLLOWS:    "ART. 64.  FORGIVENESS OF
INDEBTEDNESS.  - THE CANCELLATION AND FORGIVENESS OF INDEBTEDNESS MAY
AMOUNT TO A PAYMENT OF INCOME, TO A GIFT, OR TO A CAPITAL TRANSACTION,
DEPENDENT UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  IF, FOR EXAMPLE, AN INDIVIDUAL
PERFORMS SERVICES FOR A CREDITOR, WHO IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF CANCELS
THE DEBT, INCOME TO THAT AMOUNT IS REALIZED BY THE DEBTOR AS
COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES.  IF, HOWEVER, A CREDITOR MERELY DESIRES
TO BENEFIT A DEBTOR AND WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION THEREFOR CANCELS THE
DEBT, THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT IS A GIFT FROM THE CREDITOR TO THE DEBTOR
AND NEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE LATTER'S GROSS INCOME.  IF A
SHAREHOLDER IN A CORPORATION WHICH IS INDEBTED TO HIM GRATUITOUSLY
FORGIVES THE DEBT, THE TRANSACTION AMOUNTS TO A CONTRIBUTION TO THE
CAPITAL OF THE CORPORATION." 

FN6  REGULATIONS 74, ART. 64(1931); REGULATIONS 69, ART. 49(1926);
REGULATIONS 65, ART. 49(1924), FOR INDIVIDUALS; REGULATIONS 62, ART.
50(1922), FOR INDIVIDUALS; REGULATIONS 45(1920 ED.), ART. 51, FOR
INDIVIDUALS. 

WHEN THE GIFT TAX WAS REVIVED IN 1932, THE HOUSE REPORT GAVE AS AN
EXAMPLE OF A GIFT "THE FORGIVENESS OR PAYMENT BY A OF B'S
INDEBTEDNESS."  H. REP. NO. 708, 72ND CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 28(5). 

FN7  THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE WAS MADE IN THE TAXABLE YEAR OF ISSUE
IS IMMATERIAL.  BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS CO., 282 U.S. 359, 364, 365;
COMMISSIONER V. NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO., 63 F.2D 304. 

FN8  FOR DISCUSSIONS OF THE GENERAL PROBLEM SEE "THE REVENUE ACT OF
1939 AND THE INCOME TAX TREATMENT OF CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS," 49
YALE L.J. 1153; "CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS AND ITS TAX
CONSEQUENCES," 40 COL. L. REV. 1326; "DISCHARGE OF INDEBTEDNESS AND THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX," 53 HARV. L. REV. 977. 

FN9  CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS UNDER CHAP. X OR 77B, SECS. 268, 270,
276(C)(3), 52 STAT. 904, 905; ARRANGEMENTS UNDER CHAP. XI, SECS. 395,
396, 52 STAT. 915; REAL PROPERTY ARRANGEMENTS UNDER CHAP. XII, SECS.
520 521, 522, 52 STAT. 929; WAGE EARNERS PLANS UNDER CHAP. XIII, SEC.
679, 52 STAT. 938; RAILROAD ADJUSTMENTS UNDER CHAP. XV, SEC. 735, 53
STAT. 1140. 

FN10  53 STAT. 875, SEC. 215. 

FN11  SEE S. REP. NO. 648, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5; H. REP. NO.
855, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 23. 

FN12  SEE S. REP. NO. 1631, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 77; 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 22: 

"(B)  EXCLUSIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.  THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL NOT BE
INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER THIS
CHAPTER: 

     .         .         .    .         . 

"(9)  INCOME FROM DISCHARGE OF INDEBTEDNESS.  - IN THE CASE OF A
CORPORATION, THE AMOUNT OF ANY INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE DISCHARGE, WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR, OF ANY INDEBTEDNESS OF THE
TAXPAYER  ...  EVIDENCED BY A SECURITY.  ...  THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT
APPLY TO ANY DISCHARGE OCCURRING BEFORE THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1939, OR IN A TAXABLE YEAR BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31,
1945." 

FN13  HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 334. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

WHEN CONGRESS WISHED TO EXEMPT INCOME "ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DISCHARGE
...  OF ANY INDEBTEDNESS" IT DID SO EXPLICITLY.  IT DEFINED SUCH
EXEMPTION WITH PARTICULARITY AND ONLY TO A LIMITED EXTENT, AS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE VARIOUS ENACTMENTS, INCLUDING SEC. 114 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1942, ALL OF WHICH APPEAR TO THROW LIGHT LEADING AWAY
FROM AND NOT TOWARDS THE CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM THEM BY THE COURT.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH SPECIFIC EXEMPTION OF WHAT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
MAY BE INCOME, DETERMINATION OF WHETHER IT IS OR IS NOT INCOME SHOULD
BE LEFT TO THE TRIBUNAL WHOSE SPECIAL BUSINESS IT IS TO ASCERTAIN THE
CONTROVERTED FACTS AND THE REASONABLE INFERENCES FROM THEM.  IN
DECIDING THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE DEBT
CANCELLATIONS WERE NOT GIFTS AND THEREFORE TAXABLE, THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS (NOW THE TAX COURT OF THE UNITED STATES) DID NOT INVOKE WRONG
LEGAL STANDARDS.  IT KNEW WELL ENOUGH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TAXABLE
INCOME AND GIFTS.  IT APPLIED THESE LEGAL CONCEPTS TO ITS
INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS.  THAT ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE UPSET IS
COUNSELLED BY WISE FISCAL AS WELL AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :





















MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 332 


NO. 25.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 123 F.2D
848, REVERSED. 


1.  THE POWER OF THIS COURT UPON REVIEW OF CONVICTIONS IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS IS NOT LIMITED TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF SUCH CONVICTIONS.  P. 340. 

2.  JUDICIAL SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS IMPLIES THE DUTY OF ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING
CIVILIZED STANDARDS OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE.  P. 340. 

3.  THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL
CASES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO THOSE DERIVED SOLELY
FROM THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 341. 

4.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS AUTHORITY OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, THIS COURT, FROM ITS BEGINNING,
HAS FORMULATED APPLICABLE RULES OF EVIDENCE; AND HAS BEEN GUIDED
THEREIN BY CONSIDERATIONS OF JUSTICE NOT LIMITED TO STRICT CANONS OF
EVIDENTIARY RELEVANCE.  P. 341. 

5.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES (DETAILED IN THE OPINION) UNDER WHICH FEDERAL
OFFICERS OBTAINED INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS FROM THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS
CASE, TOGETHER WITH THE FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF ACTS OF CONGRESS
REQUIRING THAT ACCUSED PERSONS ARRESTED BY FEDERAL OFFICERS BE TAKEN
BEFORE A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR OTHER JUDICIAL OFFICER, RENDERED
THE EVIDENCE THUS OBTAINED INADMISSIBLE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A
FEDERAL COURT, AND CONVICTIONS RESTING UPON SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE SET
ASIDE.  P. 341. 

6.  ALTHOUGH CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN THE USE OF
EVIDENCE SO PROCURED, YET TO PERMIT SUCH EVIDENCE TO BE MADE THE BASIS
OF A CONVICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WOULD STULTIFY THE POLICY WHICH
CONGRESS HAS ENACTED INTO LAW.  P. 345. 

MCNABB ET AL. V. UNITED, STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 658, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS OF
SECOND-DEGREE MURDER FOR THE KILLING OF A FEDERAL OFFICER WHILE HE WAS
ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 253. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS ARE UNDER SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR FORTY-FIVE
YEARS FOR THE MURDER OF AN OFFICER OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT OF THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL
DUTIES.  (18 U.S. C. SEC. 253.)  THEY WERE CONVICTED OF SECOND-DEGREE
MURDER IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AND
ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT THE
CONVICTIONS WERE SUSTAINED.  123 F.2D 848.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE
BECAUSE THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI PRESENTED SERIOUS QUESTIONS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  316 U.S. 658. 
DETERMINATION OF THESE QUESTIONS TURNS UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING
TO THE ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE BY THE
PETITIONERS. 

ON THE AFTERNOON OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1940, INFORMATION WAS
RECEIVED AT THE CHATTANOOGA OFFICE OF THE ALCOHOLIC TAX UNIT THAT
SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE MCNABB FAMILY WERE PLANNING TO SELL THAT NIGHT
WHISKEY ON WHICH FEDERAL TAXES HAD NOT BEEN PAID.  THE MCNABBS WERE A
CLAN OF TENNESSEE MOUNTAINEERS LIVING ABOUT TWELVE MILES FROM
CHATTANOOGA IN A SECTION KNOWN AS THE MCNABB SETTLEMENT.  PLANS WERE
MADE TO APPREHEND THE MCNABBS WHILE ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN THEIR ILLICIT
ENTERPRISE.  THAT EVENING FOUR REVENUE AGENTS, ACCOMPANIED BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S INFORMERS, DROVE TO THE MCNABB SETTLEMENT.  WHEN THEY
APPROACHED THE RENDEZVOUS ARRANGED BETWEEN THE MCNABBS AND THE
INFORMERS, THE OFFICERS GOT OUT OF THE CAR.  THE INFORMERS DROVE ON AND
MET FIVE OF THE MCNABBS, OF WHOM THREE - THE TWIN BROTHERS FREEMAN AND
RAYMOND, AND THEIR COUSIN BENJAMIN - ARE THE PETITIONERS HERE.  (THE
TWO OTHERS, EMUIL AND BARNEY MCNABB, WERE ACQUITTED AT THE DIRECTION OF
THE TRIAL COURT.)  THE GROUP PROCEEDED TO A SPOT NEAR THE FAMILY
CEMETERY WHERE THE LIQUOR WAS HIDDEN.  WHILE CANS CONTAINING WHISKEY
WERE BEING LOADED INTO THE CAR, ONE OF THE INFORMERS FLASHED A
PREARRANGED SIGNAL TO THE OFFICERS WHO THEREUPON CAME RUNNING.  ONE OF
THESE CALLED OUT, "ALL RIGHT, BOYS, FEDERAL OFFICERS.", AND THE MCNABBS
TOOK FLIGHT. 

INSTEAD OF PURSUING THE MCNABBS, THE OFFICERS BEGAN TO EMPTY THE
CANS.  THEY HEARD NOISES COMING FROM THE DIRECTION OF THE CEMETERY, AND
AFTER A SHORT WHILE A LARGE ROCK LANDED AT THEIR FEET.  AN OFFICER
NAMED LEEPER RAN INTO THE CEMETERY.  HE LOOKED ABOUT WITH HIS
FLASHLIGHT BUT DISCOVERED NO ONE.  NOTICING A COUPLE OF WHISKEY CANS
THERE, HE BEGAN TO POUR OUT THEIR CONTENTS.  SHORTLY AFTERWARDS THE
OTHER OFFICERS HEARD A SHOT; RUNNING INTO THE CEMETERY THEY FOUND
LEEPER ON THE GROUND, FATALLY WOUNDED.  A FEW MINUTES LATER - AT ABOUT
TEN O'CLOCK - HE DIED WITHOUT HAVING IDENTIFIED HIS ASSAILANT.  A
SECOND SHOT SLIGHTLY WOUNDED ANOTHER OFFICER.  A SEARCH OF THE CEMETERY
PROVED FUTILE, AND THE OFFICERS LEFT. 

ABOUT THREE OR FOUR HOURS LATER - BETWEEN ONE AND TWO O'CLOCK
THURSDAY MORNING - FEDERAL OFFICERS WENT TO THE HOME OF FREEMAN,
RAYMOND, AND EMUIL MCNABB AND THERE PLACED THEM UNDER ARREST.  FREEMAN
AND RAYMOND WERE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OLD.  BOTH HAD LIVED IN THE
SETTLEMENT ALL THEIR LIVES; NEITHER HAD GONE BEYOND THE FOURTH GRADE IN
SCHOOL; NEITHER HAD EVER BEEN FARTHER FROM HIS HOME THAN JASPER, TWENTY
ONE MILES AWAY.  EMUIL WAS TWENTY-TWO YEARS OLD.  HE, TOO, HAD LIVED IN
THE SETTLEMENT ALL HIS LIFE, AND HAD NOT GONE BEYOND THE SECOND GRADE. 

IMMEDIATELY UPON ARREST, FREEMAN, RAYMOND, AND EMUIL WERE TAKEN
DIRECTLY TO THE FEDERAL BUILDING AT CHATTANOOGA.  THEY WERE NOT BROUGHT
BEFORE A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR A JUDGE.  INSTEAD, THEY WERE
PLACED IN A DETENTION ROOM (WHERE THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD SIT OR
LIE DOWN ON, EXCEPT THE FLOOR), AND KEPT THERE FOR ABOUT FOURTEEN
HOURS, FROM THREE O'CLOCK THURSDAY MORNING UNTIL FIVE O'CLOCK THAT
AFTERNOON.  THEY WERE GIVEN SOME SANDWICHES.  THEY WERE NOT PERMITTED
TO SEE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS WHO ATTEMPTED TO VISIT THEM.  THEY HAD NO
LAWYER.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY REQUESTED THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL, OR THAT THEY WERE TOLD THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO SUCH
ASSISTANCE. 

BARNEY MCNABB, WHO HAD BEEN ARRESTED EARLY THURSDAY MORNING BY THE
LOCAL POLICE, WAS HANDED OVER TO THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ABOUT NINE OR
TEN O'CLOCK THAT MORNING.  HE WAS TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OLD; LIKE THE
OTHER MCNABBS HE HAD SPENT HIS ENTIRE LIFE IN THE SETTLEMENT, HAD NEVER
GONE BEYOND JASPER, AND HIS SCHOOLING STOPPED AT THE THIRD GRADE. 
BARNEY WAS PLACED IN A SEPARATE ROOM IN THE FEDERAL BUILDING WHERE HE
WAS QUESTIONED FOR A SHORT PERIOD.  THE OFFICERS THEN TOOK HIM TO THE
SCENE OF THE KILLING, BROUGHT HIM BACK TO THE FEDERAL BUILDING,
QUESTIONED HIM FURTHER FOR ABOUT AN HOUR, AND FINALLY REMOVED HIM TO
THE COUNTY JAIL THREE BLOCKS AWAY. 

IN THE MEANTIME, DIRECTION OF THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN ASSUMED BY
H. B. TAYLOR, DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT, WITH
HEADQUARTERS AT LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.  TAYLOR WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S
CHIEF WITNESS ON THE CENTRAL ISSUE OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE MCNABBS.  ARRIVING IN CHATTANOOGA EARLY THURSDAY
MORNING, HE SPENT THE DAY IN STUDY OF THE CASE BEFORE BEGINNING HIS
INTERROGATION OF THE PRISONERS.  FREEMAN, RAYMOND, AND EMUIL, WHO HAD
BEEN TAKEN TO THE COUNTY JAIL ABOUT FIVE O'CLOCK THURSDAY AFTERNOON,
WERE BROUGHT BACK TO THE FEDERAL BUILDING EARLY THAT EVENING. 
ACCORDING TO TAYLOR, HIS QUESTIONING OF THEM BEGAN AT NINE O'CLOCK. 
OTHER OFFICERS SET THE HOUR EARLIER.  FN1 

THROUGHOUT THE QUESTIONING, MOST OF WHICH WAS DONE BY TAYLOR, AT
LEAST SIX OFFICERS WERE PRESENT.  AT NO TIME DURING ITS COURSE WAS A
LAWYER OR ANY RELATIVE OR FRIEND OF THE DEFENDANTS PRESENT.  TAYLOR
BEGAN BY TELLING "EACH OF THEM BEFORE THEY WERE QUESTIONED THAT WE WERE
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS, WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING, AND ADVISED THEM THAT
THEY DID NOT HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT, THAT THEY NEED NOT FEAR FORCE,
AND THAT ANY STATEMENT MADE BY THEM WOULD BE USED AGAINST THEM, AND
THAT THEY NEED NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ASKED UNLESS THEY DESIRED TO DO
SO." 

THE MEN WERE QUESTIONED SINGLY AND TOGETHER.  AS DESCRIBED BY ONE OF
THE OFFICERS, "THEY WOULD BE BROUGHT IN, BE QUESTIONED POSSIBLY AT
VARIOUS TIMES, SOME OF THEM HALF AN HOUR, OR MAYBE AN HOUR, OR MAYBE
TWO HOURS."  TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT THE QUESTIONING CONTINUED UNTIL ONE
O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, WHEN THE DEFENDANTS WERE TAKEN BACK TO THE
COUNTY JAIL.  FN2 

THE QUESTIONING WAS RESUMED FRIDAY MORNING, PROBABLY SOMETIME BETWEEN
NINE AND TEN O'CLOCK.  FN3 "THEY WERE BROUGHT DOWN FROM THE JAIL
SEVERAL TIMES, HOW MANY I DON'T KNOW.  THEY WERE QUESTIONED ONE AT A
TIME, AS WE WOULD FINISH ONE HE WOULD BE SENT BACK AND WE WOULD TRY TO
RECONCILE THE FACTS THEY TOLD, CONNECT UP THE STATEMENTS THEY MADE, AND
THEN WE WOULD GET TWO OF THEM TOGETHER.  I THINK AT ONE TIME WE
PROBABLY HAD ALL FIVE TOGETHER TRYING TO RECONCILE THEIR STATEMENTS
... WHEN I KNEW THE TRUTH I TOLD THE DEFENDANTS WHAT I KNEW.  I NEVER
CALLED THEM DAMNED LIARS, BUT I DID SAY THEY WERE LYING TO ME.  ...  IT
WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL ALL THE MOTIONS I MADE WITH MY HANDS DURING
THE TWO DAYS OF QUESTIONING, HOWEVER, I DIDN'T THREATEN ANYONE.  NONE
OF THE OFFICERS WERE PREJUDICED TOWARDS THESE DEFENDANTS NOR BITTER
TOWARD THEM.  WE WERE ONLY TRYING TO FIND OUT WHO KILLED OUR FELLOW
OFFICER." 

BENJAMIN MCNABB, THE THIRD OF THE PETITIONERS, CAME TO THE OFFICE OF
THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE O'CLOCK FRIDAY MORNING AND
VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED.  BENJAMIN WAS TWENTY YEARS OLD, HAD NEVER BEEN
ARRESTED BEFORE, HAD LIVED IN THE MCNABB SETTLEMENT ALL HIS LIFE, AND
HAD NOT GOT BEYOND THE FOURTH GRADE IN SCHOOL.  HE TOLD THE OFFICERS
THAT HE HAD HEARD THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR HIM BUT THAT HE WAS
ENTIRELY INNOCENT OF ANY CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME.  THE OFFICERS MADE
HIM TAKE HIS CLOTHES OFF FOR A FEW MINUTES BECAUSE, SO HE TESTIFIED,
"THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT ME.  THIS SCARED ME PRETTY MUCH."  FN4  HE WAS
NOT TAKEN BEFORE A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR A JUDGE.  INSTEAD, THE
OFFICERS QUESTIONED HIM FOR ABOUT FIVE OR SIX HOURS.  WHEN FINALLY IN
THE AFTERNOON HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE OTHERS
ACCUSED HIM OF HAVING FIRED BOTH SHOTS, BENJAMIN SAID, "IF THEY ARE
GOING TO ACCUSE ME OF THAT, I WILL TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH; YOU MAY GET
YOUR PENCIL AND PAPER AND WRITE IT DOWN."  HE THEN CONFESSED THAT HE
HAD FIRED THE FIRST SHOT, BUT DENIED THAT HE HAD ALSO FIRED THE
SECOND. 

BECAUSE THERE WERE "CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN THEIR STORIES, AND WE
WERE ANXIOUS TO STRAIGHTEN THEM OUT," THE DEFENDANTS WERE BROUGHT TO
THE FEDERAL BUILDING FROM THE JAIL BETWEEN NINE AND TEN O'CLOCK FRIDAY
NIGHT.  THEY WERE AGAIN QUESTIONED, SOMETIMES SEPARATELY, SOMETIMES
TOGETHER.  TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT "WE HAD FREEMAN MCNABB ON THE NIGHT OF
THE SECOND (FRIDAY) FOR ABOUT THREE AND ONE-HALF HOURS.  I DON'T
REMEMBER THE TIME BUT I REMEMBER HIM PARTICULARLY BECAUSE HE CERTAINLY
WAS HARD TO GET ANYTHING OUT OF.  HE WOULD ADMIT HE LIED BEFORE, AND
THEN TELL IT ALL OVER AGAIN.  I KNEW SOME OF THE THINGS ABOUT THE WHOLE
TRUTH AND IT TOOK ABOUT THREE AND ONE-HALF HOURS BEFORE HE WOULD SAY IT
WAS THE TRUTH, AND I FINALLY GOT HIM TO TELL A STORY WHICH HE SAID WAS
TRUE AND WHICH CERTAINLY FIT BETTER WITH THE PHYSICAL FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES THAN ANY OTHER STORY HE HAD TOLD.  IT TOOK ME THREE AND
ONE-HALF HOURS TO GET A STORY THAT WAS SATISFACTORY OR THAT I BELIEVED
WAS NEARER THE TRUTH THAN WHEN WE STARTED." 

THE QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANTS CONTINUED UNTIL ABOUT TWO O'CLOCK
SATURDAY MORNING, WHEN THE OFFICERS FINALLY "GOT ALL THE DISCREPANCIES
STRAIGHTENED OUT."  BENJAMIN DID NOT CHANGE HIS STORY THAT HE HAD FIRED
ONLY THE FIRST SHOT.  FREEMAN AND RAYMOND ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE
PRESENT WHEN THE SHOOTING OCCURRED, BUT DENIED BENJAMIN'S CHARGE THAT
THEY HAD URGED HIM TO SHOOT.  BARNEY AND EMUIL, WHO WERE ACQUITTED AT
THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIAL COURT, MADE NO INCRIMINATING ADMISSIONS. 

CONCEDEDLY, THE ADMISSIONS MADE BY FREEMAN, RAYMOND AND BENJAMIN
CONSTITUTED THE CRUX OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE AGAINST THEM, AND THE
CONVICTIONS CANNOT STAND IF SUCH EVIDENCE BE EXCLUDED.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER THESE INCRIMINATING
STATEMENTS, MADE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE SUMMARIZED N5, WERE
PROPERLY ADMITTED.  RELYING UPON THE GUARANTEES OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
THAT NO PERSON "SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS
AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW," THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE CONSTITUTION
ITSELF FORBADE THE USE OF THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM.  THE GOVERNMENT
COUNTERS BY URGING THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROSCRIBES ONLY "INVOLUNTARY"
CONFESSIONS, AND THAT JUDGED BY APPROPRIATE CRITERIA OF "VOLUNTARINESS"
THE PETITIONERS' ADMISSIONS WERE VOLUNTARY AND HENCE ADMISSIBLE. 

IT IS TRUE, AS THE PETITIONERS ASSERT, THAT A CONVICTION IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS, THE FOUNDATION OF WHICH IS EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN
DISREGARD OF LIBERTIES DEEMED FUNDAMENTAL BY THE CONSTITUTION, CANNOT
STAND.  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616; WEEKS V. UNITED STATES,
232 U.S. 383; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298; AMOS V. UNITED
STATES, 255 U.S. 313; AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20; BYARS V.
UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 28; GRAU V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 124.  AND
THIS COURT HAS, ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, SET ASIDE CONVICTIONS, BOTH
IN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, WHICH WERE BASED UPON CONFESSIONS
"SECURED BY PROTRACTED AND REPEATED QUESTIONING OF IGNORANT AND
UNTUTORED PERSONS, IN WHOSE MINDS THE POWER OF OFFICERS WAS GREATLY
MAGNIFIED," LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 239-40, OR "WHO HAVE
BEEN UNLAWFULLY HELD INCOMMUNICADO WITHOUT ADVICE OF FRIENDS OR
COUNSEL," WARD V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 547, 555, AND SEE BROWN V.
MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; CANTY V.
ALABAMA, 309 U.S. 629; WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530; LOMAX V. TEXAS,
313 U.S. 544; VERNON V. ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 547. 

IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE, HOWEVER, IT BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO
REACH THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE PRESSED UPON US.  FOR, WHILE THE POWER
OF THIS COURT TO UNDO CONVICTIONS IN STATE COURTS IS LIMITED TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE "FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE,"
HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316, WHICH ARE SECURED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE SCOPE OF OUR REVIEWING POWER OVER CONVICTIONS
BROUGHT HERE FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS IS NOT CONFINED TO ASCERTAINMENT
OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY.  JUDICIAL SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IMPLIES THE DUTY OF
ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING CIVILIZED STANDARDS OF PROCEDURE AND
EVIDENCE.  SUCH STANDARDS ARE NOT SATISFIED MERELY BY OBSERVANCE OF
THOSE MINIMAL HISTORIC SAFEGUARDS FOR SECURING TRIAL BY REASON WHICH
ARE SUMMARIZED AS "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" AND BELOW WHICH WE REACH WHAT IS
REALLY TRIAL BY FORCE.  MOREOVER, REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF STATE ACTION
EXPRESSING ITS NOTION OF WHAT WILL BEST FURTHER ITS OWN SECURITY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEMANDS APPROPRIATE RESPECT FOR THE
DELIBERATIVE JUDGMENT OF A STATE IN SO BASIC AN EXERCISE OF ITS
JURISDICTION.  CONSIDERATIONS OF LARGE POLICY IN MAKING THE NECESSARY
ACCOMMODATIONS IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM ARE WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE
FORMULATION AND APPLICATION OF PROPER STANDARDS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.    THE PRINCIPLES
GOVERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIALS HAVE
NOT BEEN RESTRICTED, THEREFORE, TO THOSE DERIVED SOLELY FROM THE
CONSTITUTION.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, SEE NARDONE
V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338, 341-42, THIS COURT HAS, FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING OF ITS HISTORY, FORMULATED RULES OF EVIDENCE TO BE APPLIED IN
FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.  E.G., EX PARTE BOLLMAN & SWARTWOUT, 4
CRANCH 75, 130-31; UNITED STATES V. PALMER, 3 WHEAT.  610, 643-44;
UNITED STATES V. FURLONG, 5 WHEAT.  184, 199; UNITED STATES V. GOODING,
12 WHEAT.  460, 468-70; UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 14 PET. 430; UNITED
STATES V. MURPHY, 16 PET. 203; FUNK V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371;
WOLFLE V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 7; SEE 1 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED.
1940) PP. 170-97; NOTE, 47 HARV. L. REV. 853.  FN6  AND IN FORMULATING
SUCH RULES OF EVIDENCE FOR FEDERAL CRIMINAL TRIALS THE COURT HAS BEEN
GUIDED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF JUSTICE NOT LIMITED TO THE STRICT CANONS OF
EVIDENTIARY RELEVANCE. 

QUITE APART FROM THE CONSTITUTION, THEREFORE, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO
HOLD THAT THE EVIDENCE ELICITED FROM THE PETITIONERS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED HERE MUST BE EXCLUDED.  FOR IN THEIR TREATMENT
OF THE PETITIONERS THE ARRESTING OFFICERS ASSUMED FUNCTIONS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY DENIED THEM.  THEY SUBJECTED THE ACCUSED TO THE
PRESSURES OF A PROCEDURE WHICH IS WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE VITAL
BUT VERY RESTRICTED DUTIES OF THE INVESTIGATING AND ARRESTING OFFICERS
OF THE GOVERNMENT AND WHICH TENDS TO UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY COMMANDED THAT "IT SHALL
BE THE DUTY OF THE MARSHAL, HIS DEPUTY, OR OTHER OFFICER, WHO MAY
ARREST A PERSON CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME OR OFFENSE, TO TAKE THE
DEFENDANT BEFORE THE NEAREST UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR THE NEAREST
JUDICIAL OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS FOR A HEARING,
COMMITMENT, OR TAKING BAIL FOR TRIAL ...  "  18 U.S.C. SEC. 595. 
SIMILARLY, THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, C. 595, 48 STAT. 1008, 5 U.S.C.
SEC. 300A, AUTHORIZING OFFICERS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
TO MAKE ARRESTS, REQUIRES THAT "THE PERSON ARRESTED SHALL BE
IMMEDIATELY TAKEN BEFORE A COMMITTING OFFICER."  COMPARE ALSO THE ACT
OF MARCH 1, 1879, C. 125, 20 STAT. 327, 341, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 593, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT WHEN ARRESTS ARE MADE OF PERSONS IN THE ACT OF OPERATING
AN ILLICIT DISTILLERY, THE ARRESTED PERSONS SHALL BE TAKEN FORTHWITH
BEFORE SOME JUDICIAL OFFICER RESIDING IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE ARRESTS
WERE MADE, OR IF NONE, IN THE COUNTY NEAREST TO THE PLACE OF ARREST. 
SIMILAR LEGISLATION, REQUIRING THAT ARRESTED PERSONS BE PROMPTLY TAKEN
BEFORE A COMMITTING AUTHORITY, APPEARS ON THE STATUTE BOOKS OF NEARLY
ALL THE STATES.  FN7 

THE PURPOSE OF THIS IMPRESSIVELY PERVASIVE REQUIREMENT OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE IS PLAIN.  A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, IN WHICH RESPECT FOR THE
DIGNITY OF ALL MEN IS CENTRAL, NATURALLY GUARDS AGAINST THE MISUSE OF
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCESS.  ZEAL IN TRACKING DOWN CRIME IS NOT IN
ITSELF AN ASSURANCE OF SOBERNESS OF JUDGMENT.  DISINTERESTEDNESS IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT ALONE PREVENT DISREGARD OF CHERISHED LIBERTIES. 
EXPERIENCE HAS THEREFORE COUNSELED THAT SAFEGUARDS MUST BE PROVIDED
AGAINST THE DANGERS OF THE OVERZEALOUS AS WELL AS THE DESPOTIC.  THE
AWFUL INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW CANNOT BE ENTRUSTED TO A SINGLE
FUNCTIONARY.  THE COMPLICATED PROCESS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS THEREFORE
DIVIDED INTO DIFFERENT PARTS, RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHICH IS SEPARATELY
VESTED IN THE VARIOUS PARTICIPANTS UPON WHOM THE CRIMINAL LAW RELIES
FOR ITS VINDICATION.  LEGISLATION SUCH AS THIS, REQUIRING THAT THE
POLICE MUST WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS SHOW LEGAL CAUSE FOR DETAINING
ARRESTED PERSONS, CONSTITUTES AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD - NOT ONLY IN
ASSURING PROTECTION FOR THE INNOCENT BUT ALSO IN SECURING CONVICTION OF
THE GUILTY BY METHODS THAT COMMEND THEMSELVES TO A PROGRESSIVE AND SELF
CONFIDENT SOCIETY.  FOR THIS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT CHECKS RESORT TO
THOSE REPREHENSIBLE PRACTICES KNOWN AS THE "THIRD DEGREE" WHICH, THOUGH
UNIVERSALLY REJECTED AS INDEFENSIBLE, STILL FIND THEIR WAY INTO USE. 
IT AIMS TO AVOID ALL THE EVIL IMPLICATIONS OF SECRET INTERROGATION OF
PERSONS ACCUSED OF CRIME.  IT REFLECTS NOT A SENTIMENTAL BUT A STURDY
VIEW OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.  IT OUTLAWS EASY BUT SELF-DEFEATING WAYS IN
WHICH BRUTALITY IS SUBSTITUTED FOR BRAINS AS AN INSTRUMENT OF CRIME
DETECTION.  FN8  A STATUTE CARRYING SUCH PURPOSES IS EXPRESSIVE OF A
GENERAL LEGISLATIVE POLICY TO WHICH COURTS SHOULD NOT BE HEEDLESS WHEN
APPROPRIATE SITUATIONS CALL FOR ITS APPLICATION. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE STATEMENTS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS WERE SECURED REVEAL A PLAIN DISREGARD OF THE
DUTY ENJOINED BY CONGRESS UPON FEDERAL LAW OFFICERS.  FREEMAN AND
RAYMOND MCNABB WERE ARRESTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AT THEIR HOME. 
INSTEAD OF BEING BROUGHT BEFORE A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR A
JUDICIAL OFFICER, AS THE LAW REQUIRES, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR DETENTION, THEY WERE PUT IN
A BARREN CELL AND KEPT THERE FOR FOURTEEN HOURS.  FOR TWO DAYS THEY
WERE SUBJECTED TO UNREMITTING QUESTIONING BY NUMEROUS OFFICERS. 
BENJAMIN'S CONFESSION WAS SECURED BY DETAINING HIM UNLAWFULLY AND
QUESTIONING HIM CONTINUOUSLY FOR FIVE OR SIX HOURS.  THE MCNABBS HAD TO
SUBMIT TO ALL THIS WITHOUT THE AID OF FRIENDS OR THE BENEFIT OF
COUNSEL.  THE RECORD LEAVES NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THE QUESTIONING OF
THE PETITIONERS TOOK PLACE WHILE THEY WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
ARRESTING OFFICERS AND BEFORE ANY ORDER OF COMMITMENT WAS MADE. 
PLAINLY, A CONVICTION RESTING ON EVIDENCE SECURED THROUGH SUCH A
FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THE PROCEDURE WHICH CONGRESS HAS COMMANDED CANNOT
BE ALLOWED TO STAND WITHOUT MAKING THE COURTS THEMSELVES ACCOMPLICES IN
WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF LAW.  CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN THE
USE OF EVIDENCE SO PROCURED.  BUT TO PERMIT SUCH EVIDENCE TO BE MADE
THE BASIS OF A CONVICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WOULD STULTIFY THE
POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENACTED INTO LAW. 

UNLIKE ENGLAND, WHERE THE JUDGES OF THE KING'S BENCH HAVE PRESCRIBED
RULES FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PRISONERS WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF POLICE
OFFICERS,  FN9  WE HAVE NO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF LAW GOVERNING FEDERAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN PROCURING EVIDENCE FROM PERSONS HELD IN
CUSTODY.  BUT THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC RESTRAINTS GOING BEYOND THE
LEGISLATION TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH EVIDENCE WAS SECURED ARE IRRELEVANT IN
ASCERTAINING ITS ADMISSIBILITY.  THE MERE FACT THAT A CONFESSION WAS
MADE WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE POLICE DOES NOT RENDER IT
INADMISSIBLE.  COMPARE HOPT V. UTAH, 110 U.S. 574; SPARF V. UNITED
STATES, 156 U.S. 51, 55; UNITED STATES EX REL. BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263
U.S. 149, 157; WAN V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1, 14.  BUT WHERE IN THE
COURSE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IT APPEARS THAT
EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OBTAINED IN SUCH VIOLATION OF LEGAL RIGHTS AS THIS
CASE DISCLOSES, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION
FOR THE EXCLUSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE AND TO HOLD A HEARING, AS WAS DONE
HERE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED OR DENIED. 
CF. GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, 312-13; AMOS V. UNITED
STATES, 255 U.S. 313; NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338, 341-42. 
THE INTERRUPTION OF THE TRIAL FOR THIS PURPOSE SHOULD BE NO LONGER THAN
IS REQUIRED FOR A COMPETENT DETERMINATION OF THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE
MOTION.  AS WAS OBSERVED IN THE NARDONE CASE, SUPRA, "THE CIVILIZED
CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL TRIALS CANNOT BE CONFINED WITHIN MECHANICAL RULES. 
IT NECESSARILY DEMANDS THE AUTHORITY OF LIMITED DIRECTION ENTRUSTED TO
THE JUDGE PRESIDING IN FEDERAL TRIALS, INCLUDING A WELLESTABLISHED
RANGE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE REVIEW ON APPEAL,
IN RULING UPON PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS OF FACT.  SUCH A SYSTEM AS OURS
MUST, WITHIN THE LIMITS HERE INDICATED, RELY ON THE LEARNING, GOOD
SENSE, FAIRNESS AND COURAGE OF FEDERAL TRIAL JUDGES."  308 U.S. AT
342. 

IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS' ADMISSIONS WERE IMPROPERLY RECEIVED
IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM, AND THAT HAVING BEEN BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE
THEIR CONVICTIONS CANNOT STAND, WE CONFINE OURSELVES TO OUR LIMITED
FUNCTION AS THE COURT OF ULTIMATE REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS FORMULATED
AND APPLIED BY FEDERAL COURTS IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CASES.  WE ARE
NOT CONCERNED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS COURTS
THEMSELVES BECOME INSTRUMENTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.  WE HOLD ONLY THAT A
DECENT REGARD FOR THE DUTY OF COURTS AS AGENCIES OF JUSTICE AND
CUSTODIANS OF LIBERTY FORBIDS THAT MEN SHOULD BE CONVICTED UPON
EVIDENCE SECURED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES REVEALED HERE.  IN SO DOING,
WE RESPECT THE POLICY WHICH UNDERLIES CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.  THE
HISTORY OF LIBERTY HAS LARGELY BEEN THE HISTORY OF OBSERVANCE OF
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.  AND THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE HARDLY REQUIRES DISREGARD OF FAIR PROCEDURES IMPOSED BY LAW. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  OFFICER BURKE TESTIFIED THAT THE QUESTIONING THURSDAY NIGHT
BEGAN AT 6 P.M., OFFICER KITTS, AT 7 P.M., AND OFFICER JAKES, AT
"POSSIBLY 6 OR 7 O'CLOCK." 

FN2  HERE AGAIN TAYLOR'S TESTIMONY IS AT VARIANCE WITH THAT OF OTHER
OFFICERS.  OFFICER KITTS ESTIMATED THAT THE QUESTIONING THURSDAY NIGHT
ENDED AT 10 P.M., OFFICER BURKE, AT 11 P.M., AND OFFICER JAKES, AT
MIDNIGHT.  NO OFFICER TESTIFIED THAT THE QUESTIONING THAT NIGHT LASTED
LESS THAN THREE HOURS. 

FN3  TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT THE MCNABBS WERE BROUGHT BACK FRIDAY
MORNING "PROBABLY ABOUT NINE OR NINE-THIRTY."  NONE OF THE OTHER
OFFICERS COULD RECALL THE EXACT TIME.  OFFICER BURKE THOUGHT "IT MUST
HAVE BEEN AFTER NINE O'CLOCK," WHILE OFFICER JAKES GUESSED THAT IT WAS
"SOMEWHERE AROUND TEN OR ELEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING." 

FN4  TAYLOR TESTIFIED THAT THE REASON FOR HAVING BENJAMIN REMOVE HIS
CLOTHES WAS THAT "I WAS INFORMED THAT HE HAD GOTTEN AN INJURY RUNNING
THROUGH THE WOODS OR THAT HE HAD BEEN HIT BY A STRAY SHOT.  WE DIDN'T
KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS TRUE, AND ASKED HIM TO TAKE HIS CLOTHES
OFF IN ORDER TO EXAMINE HIM AND FIND OUT." 

FN5  TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE STATEMENTS SECURED FROM
THE DEFENDANTS WHILE THEY WERE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE FEDERAL OFFICERS,
THE TRIAL COURT CONDUCTED A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE JURY.  AFTER HEARING THE EVIDENCE (CONSISTING PRINCIPALLY OF THE
TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANTS AND THE OFFICERS), THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT
THE STATEMENTS WERE ADMISSIBLE.  AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULING WAS
TAKEN.  WHEN THE JURY WAS RECALLED, THE WITNESSES FOR THE GOVERNMENT
REPEATED THEIR TESTIMONY.  THE DEFENDANTS RESTED UPON THEIR CLAIM THAT
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THESE STATEMENTS, AND STOOD ON THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND BEFORE THE JURY.  AT
THE CONCLUSION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE THE DEFENDANTS MOVED TO EXCLUDE
FROM THE CONSIDERATION OF THE JURY THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE
ADMISSIONS MADE BY THEM.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED.  THE MOTION WAS
RENEWED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEFENDANTS' CASE, AND AGAIN WAS
DENIED.  THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT THE DEFENDANTS' ADMISSIONS
SHOULD BE DISREGARDED IF FOUND TO HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY MADE.  THE
ISSUE OF LAW WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN ADMITTING THE
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS DID NOT BECOME, THEREFORE, A
QUESTION OF FACT FORECLOSED BY THE JURY'S GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY. 
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE TREATED AS FACTS ONLY THE TESTIMONY
OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AND SO MUCH OF THE PETITIONERS'
EVIDENCE AS IS NEITHER CONTRADICTED BY NOR INCONSISTENT WITH THAT OF
THE GOVERNMENT. 

FN6  THE FUNCTION OF FORMULATING RULES OF EVIDENCE IN AREAS NOT
GOVERNED BY STATUTE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ONE OF THE CHIEF CONCERNS OF
COURTS:  "THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH WE PRACTISE TODAY HAVE MOSTLY
GROWN UP AT THE HANDS OF THE JUDGES; AND, EXCEPT AS THEY MAY BE REALLY
SOMETHING MORE THAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, THEY MAY, IN THE MAIN, PROPERLY
ENOUGH BE LEFT TO THEM TO BE MODIFIED AND RESHAPED."  J. B. THAYER, A
PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON EVIDENCE AT THE COMMON LAW (1898) PP. 530-31. 

FN7  ALABAMA - CODE, 1940, TIT. 15, SEC. 160; ARIZONA - CODE, 1939,
SECS. 44-107, 44-140, 44-141; ARKANSAS - DIGEST OF STATUTES, 1937,
SECS. 3729, 3731; CALIFORNIA - PENAL CODE, 1941, SECS. 821-29, 847-49;
COLORADO - STATUTES, 1935, C. 48, SEC. 428; CONNECTICUT - GEN. STATS.,
1930, SEC. 239; DELAWARE - REV. CODE, 1935, SECS. 4456, 5173; DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA - CODE, 1940, SECS. 4-140, 23-301; FLORIDA - STATUTES,
1941, SECS. 901.06, 901.23; GEORGIA - CODE, 1933, SECS. 27-210, 27-212;
IDAHO - CODE, 1932, SECS. 19-515, 19-518, 19-614, 19-615; ILLINOIS -
REV. STATS., 1941, C. 38, SECS. 655, 660; INDIANA - BALDWIN'S STATS.
ANN., 1934, SEC. 11484; IOWA - CODE, 1939, SECS. 13478, 13481, 13486,
13488; KANSAS - GEN. STATS., 1935, SEC. 62-610; KENTUCKY - CODE, 1938,
SECS. 45-46; LOUISIANA - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1932, SECS. 66,
79, 80; MAINE - REV. STATS., 1930, C. 145, SEC. 9; MASSACHUSETTS - GEN.
LAWS, 1932, C. 276, SECS. 22, 29, 34; MICHIGAN - STATS. ANN., 1938,
SECS. 28.863, 28.872, 28.873, 28.885; MINNESOTA - MASON'S STATS., 1927,
C. 104, SECS. 10575, 10581; MISSISSIPPI - CODE, 1930, C. 21, SEC. 1230;
MISSOURI - REV. STATS., 1939, SECS. 3862, 3883; MONTANA - REV. CODE,
1935, SECS. 11731, 11739-40; NEBRASKA - COMP. STATS., 1929, SEC. 29
412; NEVADA - COMP. LAWS, 1929, SECS. 10744-48, 10762-64; NEW HAMPSHIRE
- PUB. LAWS, 1926, C. 364, SEC. 13; NEW JERSEY - REV. STATS., 1937,
SEC. 2:216-9; NEW YORK - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1939, SECS. 158
59, 165, 185; NORTH CAROLINA - CODE, 1939, SECS. 4528, 4548; NORTH
DAKOTA - COMP. LAWS, 1913, SECS. 10543, 10548, 10576, 10578; OHIO -
THROCKMORTON'S CODE, 1940, SECS. 13432-3, 13432-4; OKLAHOMA - STATUTES,
1941, TIT. 22, SECS. 176-77, 181, 205; OREGON - CODE, 1930, SECS. 13
2117, 13-2201; PENNSYLVANIA - PURDON'S STATS. ANN., PERM.  ED., TIT.
19, SECS. 3, 4; RHODE ISLAND - GEN. LAWS 1938, C. 625, SEC. 68; SOUTH
CAROLINA - CODE, 1942, SECS. 907, 920; SOUTH DAKOTA - CODE, 1939, SECS.
34.1608, 34.1619-24; TENNESSEE - MICHIE'S CODE, 1938, SECS. 11515,
11544; TEXAS - CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1936, ARTS. 233-35; UTAH -
REV. STATS., 1933, SECS. 105-4-4, 105-4-5, 103-26-51; VIRGINIA - CODE,
1942, SECS. 4826, 4827A; WASHINGTON - REV. STATS., 1932, SEC. 1949;
WEST VIRGINIA - CODE, 1937, SEC. 6150; WISCONSIN - STATUTES, 1941, SEC.
361.08; WYOMING - REV. STATS., 1931, SECS. 33-108, 33-110, 33-115. 

FN8  "DURING THE DISCUSSIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE ON THE INDIAN CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN 1872 SOME OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE ON THE REASONS
WHICH OCCASIONALLY LEAD NATIVE POLICE OFFICERS TO APPLY TORTURE TO
PRISONERS.  AN EXPERIENCED CIVIL OFFICER OBSERVED, "THERE IS A GREAT
DEAL OF LAZINESS IN IT.  IT IS FAR PLEASANTER TO SIT COMFORTABLY IN THE
SHADE RUBBING RED PEPPER INTO A POOR DEVIL'S EYES THAN TO GO ABOUT IN
THE SUN HUNTING UP EVIDENCE.'  THIS WAS A NEW VIEW TO ME, BUT I HAVE NO
DOUBT OF ITS TRUTH."  SIR JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN, A HISTORY OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND (1883), VOL. 1, P. 442 NOTE.  COMPARE SECS. 25
AND 26 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT (1872). 

FN9  IN 1912 THE JUDGES OF THE KING'S BENCH, AT THE REQUEST OF THE
HOME SECRETARY, ISSUED RULES FOR THE GUIDANCE OF POLICE OFFICERS.  SEE
REX V. VOISIN, L.R. (1918) 1 K.B. 531, 539.  THESE RULES WERE AMENDED
IN 1918, AND IN 1930 A CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED BY THE HOME OFFICE, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE JUDGES, IN ORDER TO CLEAR UP DIFFICULTIES IN THEIR
CONSTRUCTION.  6 POLICE JOURNAL (1933) 352-56, CONTAINING THE TEXTS OF
THE JUDGE'S RULES AND THE CIRCULAR.  SEE REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION
ON POLICE POWERS AND PROCEDURE (1929) CMD.  3297.  ALTHOUGH THE RULES
DO NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW, REX V. VOISIN, SUPRA, THE ENGLISH COURTS
INSIST THAT THEY BE STRICTLY OBSERVED BEFORE ADMITTING STATEMENTS MADE
BY ACCUSED PERSONS WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE POLICE.  SEE 1 TAYLOR ON
EVIDENCE (12TH ED. 1931), PP. 556-62; "QUESTIONING AN ACCUSED PERSON,"
92 JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEW 743, 758(1928);
KEEDY, PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS IN ENGLAND, 73
PROCEEDINGS OF AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY 103(1934).  FOR A
DRAMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE ENGLISH ATTITUDE TOWARDS INTERROGATION OF
ARRESTED PERSONS BY THE POLICE, SEE INQUIRY IN REGARD TO THE
INTERROGATION BY THE POLICE OF MISS SAVIDGE (1928), CMD.  3147. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

I FIND MYSELF UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THIS
CASE.  AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES WAS KILLED WHILE IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.  FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED IN THE
COURT'S OPINION, THERE WAS OBVIOUS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THE
PETITIONERS HERE WERE IMPLICATED IN FIRING THE FATAL SHOT FROM THE
DARK.  THE ARRESTS FOLLOWED.  AS THE GUILTY PARTIES WERE KNOWN ONLY TO
THE MCNABBS WHO TOOK PART IN THE ASSAULT AT THE BURYING GROUND, IT WAS
NATURAL AND PROPER THAT THE OFFICERS WOULD QUESTION THEM AS TO THEIR
ACTIONS.  FN1 

THE CASES JUST CITED SHOW THAT STATEMENTS MADE WHILE UNDER
INTERROGATION MAY BE USED AT A TRIAL IF IT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE
INFORMATION WAS GIVEN VOLUNTARILY.  A FRANK AND FREE CONFESSION OF
CRIME BY THE CULPRIT AFFORDS TESTIMONY OF THE HIGHEST CREDIBILITY AND
OF A CHARACTER WHICH MAY BE VERIFIED EASILY.  EQUALLY FRANK RESPONSES
TO OFFICERS BY INNOCENT PEOPLE ARRESTED UNDER MISAPPREHENSION GIVE THE
BEST BASIS FOR PROMPT DISCHARGE FROM CUSTODY.  THE REALIZATION OF THE
CONVINCING QUALITY OF A CONFESSION TEMPTS OFFICIALS TO PRESS SUSPECTS
UNDULY FOR SUCH STATEMENTS.  TO GUARD ACCUSED PERSONS AGAINST THE
DANGER OF BEING FORCED TO CONFESS, THE LAW ADMITS CONFESSIONS OF GUILT
ONLY WHEN THEY ARE VOLUNTARILY MADE.  WHILE THE CONNOTATION OF
VOLUNTARY IS INDEFINITE, IT AFFORDS AN UNDERSTANDABLE LABEL UNDER WHICH
CAN BE READILY CLASSIFIED THE VARIOUS ACTS OF TERRORISM, PROMISES,
TRICKERY AND THREATS WHICH HAVE LED THIS AND OTHER COURTS TO REFUSE
ADMISSION AS EVIDENCE TO CONFESSIONS.  FN2  THE CASES CITED IN THE
COURT'S OPINION SHOW THE BROAD COVERAGE OF THIS RULE OF LAW.  THROUGH
IT THOSE COERCED INTO CONFESSION HAVE FOUND A READY DEFENSE FROM
INJUSTICE. 

WERE THE COURT TODAY SAYING MERELY THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT THE
CONFESSIONS OF THE MCNABBS WERE NOT VOLUNTARY, THERE WOULD BE NO
OCCASION FOR THIS SINGLE PROTEST.  A NOTATION OF DISSENT WOULD
SUFFICE.  THE OPINION, HOWEVER, DOES MORE.  INVOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS ARE
NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISION OF
SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  NOW THE COURT LEAVES
UNDECIDED WHETHER THE PRESENT CONFESSIONS ARE VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY
AND DECLARES THAT THE CONFESSIONS MUST BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE IN ADDITION
TO QUESTIONING THE PETITIONERS, THE ARRESTING OFFICERS FAILED PROMPTLY
TO TAKE THEM BEFORE A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE.  THE COURT FINDS A BASIS
FOR THE DECLARATION OF THIS NEW RULE OF EVIDENCE IN ITS SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  I QUESTION
WHETHER THIS OFFERS TO THE TRIAL COURTS AND THE PEACE OFFICERS A RULE
OF ADMISSIBILITY AS CLEAR AS THE TEST OF THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE
CONFESSION.  I AM OPPOSED TO BROADENING THE POSSIBILITIES OF DEFENDANTS
ESCAPING PUNISHMENT BY THESE MORE RIGOROUS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  IF THESE CONFESSIONS ARE OTHERWISE
VOLUNTARY, CIVILIZED STANDARDS, IN MY OPINION, ARE NOT ADVANCED BY
SETTING ASIDE THESE JUDGMENTS BECAUSE OF ACTS OF OMISSION WHICH ARE NOT
SHOWN TO HAVE TENDED TOWARD COERCING THE ADMISSIONS. 

OUR POLICE OFFICERS OCCASIONALLY OVERSTEP LEGAL BOUNDS.  THIS RECORD
DOES NOT SHOW WHEN THE PETITIONERS WERE TAKEN BEFORE A COMMITTING
MAGISTRATE.  NO POINT WAS MADE OF THE FAILURE TO COMMIT BY DEFENDANT OR
COUNSEL.  NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE OFFICERS TO EXPLAIN. 
OBJECTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CONFESSIONS WAS MADE ONLY ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY WERE OBTAINED THROUGH COERCION.  THIS WAS DETERMINED
AGAINST THE ACCUSED BOTH BY THE COURT, WHEN IT APPRAISED THE FACT AS TO
THE VOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE CONFESSIONS PRELIMINARILY TO DETERMINING
THE LEGAL QUESTION OF THEIR ADMISSIBILITY, AND BY THE JURY.  THE COURT
SAW AND HEARD WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE.  THE
DEFENDANTS DID NOT TAKE THE STAND BEFORE THE JURY.  THE UNCONTRADICTED
EVIDENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  THE OFFICERS OF THE
ALCOHOL TAX UNIT SHOULD NOT BE DISCIPLINED BY OVERTURNING THIS
CONVICTION. 

FN1  HOPT V. UTAH, 110 U.S. 574, 584; SPARF AND HANSEN V. UNITED
STATES, 156 U.S. 51, 55; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 160 U.S. 355; WILSON
V. UNITED STATES, 162 U.S. 613, 623; CF. BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S.
149, 157. 

FN2  "IN SHORT, THE TRUE TEST OF ADMISSIBILITY IS THAT THE CONFESSION
IS MADE FREELY, VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT COMPULSION OR INDUCEMENT OF ANY
SORT."  WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 162 U.S. 613, 623; LISENBA V.
CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 239. 
..END :



















ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 350 


NO. 10.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 22, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 124
F.2D 58, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES (DETAILED IN THE OPINION) UNDER WHICH
CONFESSIONS WERE OBTAINED FROM DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE RENDERED THE
CONFESSIONS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN THE
FEDERAL COURT, AND CONVICTIONS RESTING UPON SUCH EVIDENCE MUST BE SET
ASIDE.  MCNABB V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 332.  P. 355. 

2.  THE DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANTS BY STATE OFFICERS IN THIS CASE
WAS IN VIOLATION OF A STATUTE OF TENNESSEE WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO
PERSON CAN BE COMMITTED TO PRISON FOR ANY CRIMINAL MATTER, UNTIL
EXAMINATION THEREOF BE FIRST HAD BEFORE SOME MAGISTRATE."  P. 355. 

3.  THAT FEDERAL OFFICERS THEMSELVES WERE NOT FORMALLY GUILTY OF
ILLEGAL CONDUCT IN THIS CASE DOES NOT MAKE ADMISSIBLE THE EVIDENCE
WHICH THEY SECURED IMPROPERLY THROUGH COLLABORATION WITH STATE
OFFICERS.  P. 356. 

4.  THE ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE OF THE CONFESSIONS OF CERTAIN OF THE
DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE HELD TO HAVE VITIATED THE CONVICTIONS OF ALL,
SINCE THE JURY, IN ASCERTAINING THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF EACH, WAS
WARRANTED, BY THE TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE, IN CONSIDERING THE WHOLE PROOF
MADE AT THE TRIAL.  P. 356. 

ANDERSON ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 651, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS OF
CONSPIRACY TO DAMAGE PROPERTY OF A CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED
STATES WAS A STOCKHOLDER. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED, IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, OF CONSPIRING TO DAMAGE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, A CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS
A STOCKHOLDER, IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 35(C) AND 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
AS AMENDED (18 U.S.C. SECS. 82, 88).  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS, 124 F.2D 58, AND WE BROUGHT
THE CASE HERE BECAUSE IT PRESENTED SERIOUS QUESTIONS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 316 U.S. 651.  THE
QUESTIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE DECIDED IN MCNABB V. UNITED STATES,
ANTE, P. 332.  THE TWO CASES WERE ARGUED AT THE SAME TIME AND, AS WILL
APPEAR FROM A SHORT SUMMARY OF A LONG RECORD, ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME
CONSIDERATIONS.  FN1 

IN JULY 1939, THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER
WORKERS STRUCK AGAINST THE TENNESSEE COPPER COMPANY'S MINES AT
COPPERHILL, POLK COUNTY, TENNESSEE.  THE STRIKE WAS FOLLOWED BY A SHUT
DOWN, BUT THE MINES WERE REOPENED IN AUGUST AFTER THE SHERIFF BROUGHT
IN A NUMBER OF SPECIAL DEPUTIES WHO WERE IN THE COMPANY'S PAY.  IT WAS
ONE OF THOSE OBDURATE MINING STRIKES, AND IT CONTINUED INTO APRIL OF
1940, WHEN THE VIOLENCE WHICH GAVE RISE TO THIS PROSECUTION OCCURRED. 
ON APRIL 1ST THE COMPANY'S OPERATIONS WERE INTERRUPTED BY THE
DYNAMITING OF TWO POWER LINES, OWNED BY THE TVA, FROM WHICH THE COMPANY
OBTAINED THE POWER NECESSARY FOR ITS ACTIVITIES.  ON APRIL 14TH TWO
STEEL TOWERS WERE DYNAMITED.  TWO DAYS LATER TWO SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ARRIVED IN COPPERHILL TO INVESTIGATE
THE EXPLOSIONS.  ON APRIL 24TH TWO MORE POWER LINES WERE BLOWN DOWN. 

THEREUPON, ON THE SAME DAY, THE SHERIFF ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE BEGAN TO
TAKE INTO CUSTODY STRIKERS, INCLUDING THE EIGHT PETITIONERS, WHOM HE
SUSPECTED OF PARTICIPATION IN THE DYNAMITING.  THESE ARRESTS WERE MADE
WITHOUT WARRANT.  WITH COMMENDABLE CANDOR IN REGARD TO THIS AND OTHER
MISCONDUCT OF OFFICERS OF THE LAW, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DEFEND THE
LEGALITY OF THE ARRESTS.  FN2  THE MEN WERE NOT TAKEN BEFORE ANY
MAGISTRATE OR OTHER COMMITTING OFFICER, AS REQUIRED BY TENNESSEE LAW. 
MICHIE'S CODE (1938) SEC. 11515.  INSTEAD THEY WERE TAKEN TO THE
COMPANY-OWNED Y.M.C.A. BUILDING IN COPPERHILL, WHICH WAS BEING USED BY
THE SHERIFF AND HIS SPECIAL DEPUTIES AS THEIR HEADQUARTERS.  ON APRIL
24TH AND 25TH SIX MORE SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION ARRIVED IN COPPERHILL TO ASSIST IN THE INVESTIGATION. 

WHILE THE PETITIONERS, WITH AT LEAST THIRTEEN OTHERS, WERE THUS HELD
IN CUSTODY AT THE Y.M.C.A. BY THE STATE OFFICERS, THEY WERE QUESTIONED
BY THE FEDERAL AGENTS INTERMITTENTLY OVER A PERIOD OF SIX DAYS DURING
WHICH THEY SAW NEITHER FRIENDS, RELATIVES, NOR COUNSEL.  INCRIMINATING
STATEMENTS FROM SIX OF THE PETITIONERS WERE THE FRUIT OF THIS
INTERROGATION.  TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE STATEMENTS WERE PROPERLY
ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, IT IS NECESSARY TO PARTICULARIZE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH EACH CONFESSION WAS MADE. 

SIMONDS.  SIMONDS WAS ARRESTED BY TWO DEPUTIES ON THE AFTERNOON OF
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24TH, AND TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THE Y.M.C.A.  AFTER
SPENDING THE NIGHT AT THE COUNTY JAIL, HE WAS QUESTIONED BY ONE OF THE
FEDERAL AGENTS FOR ABOUT AN HOUR THURSDAY MORNING AT THE Y.M.C.A.  THE
QUESTIONING WAS RESUMED AT TWO O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON BY THREE AGENTS
WHO TALKED WITH HIM FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS; AT SEVEN O'CLOCK THAT EVENING
HE WAS AGAIN QUESTIONED BY TWO AGENTS FOR ANOTHER TWO HOURS.  ON FRIDAY
MORNING HE WAS QUESTIONED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR.  AND ON SATURDAY HE WAS
QUESTIONED AT THREE DIFFERENT PERIODS THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON AND
EVENING, EACH PERIOD LASTING ABOUT HALF AN HOUR.  HE WAS AGAIN
QUESTIONED ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON FOR ABOUT AN HOUR BY TWO AGENTS, ONE OF
WHOM DESCRIBED WHAT OCCURRED THEN AS FOLLOWS:  "WE WENT OVER THE ENTIRE
CASE WITH HIM, AND POINTED OUT THE DISCREPANCIES IN HIS STORY AND THE
INFORMATION WE HAD DEVELOPED ON INVESTIGATION, WHICH KNOCKED DOWN HIS
ALIBI, AND OUT OF A CLEAR SKY HE SAID 'WELL, I WANT TO TELL YOU I AM
GUILTY.'"  ONE OF THE AGENTS THEREUPON TOOK SIMONDS' WRITTEN
STATEMENT. 

HUBBARD.  HUBBARD WAS ARRESTED BY TWO DEPUTIES ON WEDNESDAY EVENING,
APRIL 24TH, AND TAKEN TO THE Y.M.C.A.  HE, TOO, SPENT THE NIGHT IN THE
COUNTY JAIL.  HE WAS QUESTIONED BY FOUR AGENTS AT THE Y.M.C.A. ON
THURSDAY AFTERNOON FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS.  TWO OF THE AGENTS QUESTIONED
HIM AGAIN THAT EVENING FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS.  AT TWO O'CLOCK FRIDAY
AFTERNOON HE WAS QUESTIONED FOR ABOUT FORTY-FIVE MINUTES; AT FIVE
O'CLOCK HE WAS QUESTIONED FOR ANOTHER HOUR AND A HALF.  AT SEVEN-THIRTY
FRIDAY EVENING TWO AGENTS QUESTIONED HIM FOR TWO MORE HOURS.  HE WAS
QUESTIONED INTERMITTENTLY ALL DAY SATURDAY.  ONE AGENT QUESTIONED HIM
FOR PERIODS OF FIFTEEN MINUTES TWO OR THREE TIMES DURING THE MORNING
AND AFTERNOON.  ANOTHER QUESTIONED HIM FOR HALF AN HOUR IN THE
MORNING.  A THIRD AGENT TALKED WITH HIM FOR ANOTHER TWO HOURS SOMETIME
DURING THE DAY.  AND HE WAS QUESTIONED AGAIN FOR ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES
AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING.  HE WAS NOT QUESTIONED ON SUNDAY, BUT HE
WAS PRESENT DURING THE QUESTIONING OF SIMONDS BY THE FEDERAL OFFICERS
THAT MORNING.  AFTER HEARING SIMONDS ADMIT HIS GUILT, HUBBARD ALSO
CONFESSED. 

WOODWARD.  WOODWARD WAS ALSO ARRESTED ON WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL
24TH, BY TWO DEPUTIES WHO TOOK HIM FIRST TO THE Y.M.C.A. AND THEN TO
THE COUNTY JAIL.  HE WAS QUESTIONED BY FOUR FEDERAL OFFICERS FOR ABOUT
TWO HOURS THURSDAY AFTERNOON, AND QUESTIONED AGAIN FOR ANOTHER TWO
HOURS THAT NIGHT.  THE OFFICERS QUESTIONED HIM FOR ABOUT FIFTEEN
MINUTES ON SATURDAY.  ON SUNDAY HE WAS BROUGHT INTO THE ROOM WHERE
SIMONDS AND HUBBARD WERE, AND UPON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THEIR
CONFESSIONS, ALSO CONFESSED.  ON MONDAY THE OFFICERS SPENT ABOUT FIVE
HOURS, FROM 11 A.M. UNTIL 2 P.M. AND FROM ABOUT 3:30 UNTIL 7 OR 7:30
P.M., QUESTIONING HIM IN ORDER TO REDUCE HIS CONFESSION TO WRITING. 
THE MANNER OF WOODWARD IN GIVING HIS STATEMENT WAS THUS DESCRIBED BY
THE AGENT WHO QUESTIONED HIM:  "HE HAD CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY IN
RECALLING THE DETAILS, HE SAID HIS MIND WAS NOT EXACTLY CLEAR ON ALL OF
IT, IT TOOK A GOOD WHILE IN ORDER TO GET THE DETAILS OF IT, OF HOW IT
HAPPENED, EVERYTHING IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS, AND HE ALSO
COMPLAINED ON OCCASIONS THAT HIS MIND WAS BEFUDDLED IN MAKING THE
STATEMENT, UPON RELATING ABOUT WHAT HE HAD DONE, AND THAT IS THE REASON
IT TOOK SO LONG TO DO IT.  IT TOOK THE MORNING AND THE GREATER PART OF
THE AFTERNOON." 

RHODES. RHODES WAS ARRESTED SUNDAY NIGHT, APRIL 28TH, AND SPENT THAT
NIGHT IN THE JAIL, SHARING A CELL WITH WOODWARD, HUBBARD, SIMONDS, AND
QUEEN.  HE WAS QUESTIONED FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS BY TWO AGENTS ON MONDAY
MORNING, AND THEN CONFESSED. 

QUEEN.  QUEEN WAS ARRESTED BY TWO DEPUTIES ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL
28TH, AND WAS TAKEN TO THE Y.M.C.A.  AFTER SPENDING THE NIGHT IN JAIL,
HE WAS QUESTIONED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR THE FOLLOWING NIGHT BY THREE
AGENTS.  UPON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE CONFESSIONS OF THE OTHERS, HE
ADMITTED HIS GUILT. 

BALLEW.  BALLEW WAS ARRESTED BY THREE DEPUTIES ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON,
APRIL 30TH, AND TAKEN TO THE Y.M.C.A.  HE WAS QUESTIONED THERE FOR
ABOUT AN HOUR BY TWO FEDERAL OFFICERS.  AFTER SPENDING THE NIGHT IN
JAIL, HE CONFESSED THE FOLLOWING MORNING. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THESE CONFESSIONS - REPUDIATED
WHEN THOSE WHO MADE THEM TOOK THE WITNESS STAND AT THE TRIAL - WERE
PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST ALL THE PETITIONERS, INCLUDING
ANDERSON AND ELLIS WHO DID NOT CONFESS.  IN THE MCNABB CASE WE HAVE
HELD, ANTE, P. 332, THAT INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS OBTAINED UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH IN THAT OPINION CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF
CONVICTIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED TO
THAT DECISION ALSO GOVERN THIS CASE.  THE DETENTION OF THE PETITIONERS
BY STATE OFFICERS WAS, AS THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES, IN VIOLATION OF THE
TENNESSEE STATUTE WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO PERSON CAN BE COMMITTED TO
PRISON FOR ANY CRIMINAL MATTER, UNTIL EXAMINATION THEREOF BE FIRST HAD
BEFORE SOME MAGISTRATE."  MICHIE'S CODE (1938) SEC. 11515.  THE COURTS
OF TENNESSEE EXACT SCRUPULOUS OBSERVANCE OF THIS PROHIBITION BY ITS LAW
OFFICERS.  SEE POLK V. STATE, 170 TENN. 270, 94 S.W.2D 394; STATE EX
REL. MORRIS V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 162 TENN. 547, 39 S.W.2D 581. 

UNAIDED BY RELATIVES, FRIENDS, OR COUNSEL, THE MEN WERE UNLAWFULLY
HELD, SOME FOR DAYS, AND SUBJECTED TO LONG QUESTIONING IN THE HOSTILE
ATMOSPHERE OF A SMALL COMPANY-DOMINATED MINING TOWN.  THE MEN WERE NOT
ARRESTED BY THE FEDERAL OFFICERS UNTIL APRIL 30TH, AND ONLY THEN WERE
THEY ARRAIGNED BEFORE A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER, EXCEPT FOR BALLEW
WHO WAS NOT ARRAIGNED UNTIL MAY 2ND OR 3RD.  THERE WAS A WORKING
ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL OFFICERS AND THE SHERIFF OF POLK COUNTY
WHICH MADE POSSIBLE THE ABUSES REVEALED BY THIS RECORD.  THEREFORE, THE
FACT THAT THE FEDERAL OFFICERS THEMSELVES WERE NOT FORMALLY GUILTY OF
ILLEGAL CONDUCT DOES NOT AFFECT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH
THEY SECURED IMPROPERLY THROUGH COLLABORATION WITH STATE OFFICERS. 
GAMBINO V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 310, 314; BYARS V. UNITED STATES,
273 U.S. 28, 33-34. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT, EVEN IF THE CONFESSIONS ARE HELD TO BE
INADMISSIBLE, ONLY THE CONVICTIONS OF THE SIX PETITIONERS WHO CONFESSED
SHOULD BE REVERSED.  THE PROSECUTION RESTED PRINCIPALLY ON THESE
CONFESSIONS AND THE TESTIMONY OF AN INFORMANT, FREED LONG, WHOSE
CREDIBILITY WAS UNDER SEVERE ATTACK.  THE INCRIMINATING STATEMENT OF
EACH PETITIONER IMPLICATED ALL THE OTHERS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO DID NOT
CONFESS.  TO BE SURE, THE TRIAL COURT DEVISED A PROCEDURE UNDER WHICH
THE CONFESSIONS WERE INTRODUCED WITHOUT MENTION OF THE NAMES OF THE
OTHER PERSONS IMPLICATED.  BUT THEIR NAMES WERE IN FACT REVEALED IN THE
COURSE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CONFESSING PETITIONERS.  SO
ALSO, WHILE THE TRIAL JUDGE APPEARED TO ADMIT THE CONFESSIONS "ONLY TO
BE USED AGAINST THE PERSONS WHO MADE THEM," HIS CHARGE BOUND THE JURY
TO NO SUCH RESTRICTED USE OF THE CONFESSIONS.  ON THE CONTRARY, FROM
WHAT THE TRIAL JUDGE TOLD THEM THE JURY HAD EVERY RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT
IN ASCERTAINING THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF EACH DEFENDANT THEY COULD
CONSIDER THE WHOLE PROOF MADE AT THE TRIAL.  THERE IS NO REASON TO
BELIEVE, THEREFORE, THAT CONFESSIONS WHICH CAME BEFORE THE JURY AS AN
ORGANIC TISSUE OF PROOF CAN BE SEVERED AND GIVEN DISTRIBUTIVE
SIGNIFICANCE BY HOLDING THAT THEY HAD A MAJOR SHARE IN THE CONVICTION
OF SOME OF THE PETITIONERS AND NONE AT ALL AS TO THE OTHERS.  SINCE IT
WAS ERROR TO ADMIT THESE CONFESSIONS, WE SEE NO ESCAPE FROM THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE CONVICTIONS OF ALL THE PETITIONERS MUST BE SET
ASIDE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AS IN THE MCNABB CASE, THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC FINDINGS HERE AS TO
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS IN CONTROVERSY
WERE ADMITTED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.  WHEN THESE STATEMENTS
(EXCEPTING THE CONFESSIONS OF THREE PETITIONERS) WERE OFFERED IN
EVIDENCE, THE PETITIONERS OBJECTED, AND THE TRIAL COURT HELD A HEARING
IN THE ABSENCE OF THE JURY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATEMENTS WERE
"VOLUNTARY."  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION, THE
COURT OVERRULED OBJECTIONS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THESE STATEMENTS. 
THE JURY WAS RECALLED AND THE SAME TESTIMONY WAS REPEATED.  THE
EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE CONFESSIONS OF THREE OF THE PETITIONERS WAS,
BY STIPULATION, HEARD ONLY ONCE AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. 
REFERRING TO ALL THIS EVIDENCE AS "CERTAIN PARTS OF THE PROOF," THE
JUDGE THUS CHARGED THE JURY REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF THESE
INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS:  "THERE HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION CERTAIN STATEMENTS, CONFESSIONS, OR ADMISSIONS ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN MADE BY SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS.  IT IS PRIMARILY FOR THE
COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SUCH STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION BUT IT IS WHOLLY FOR YOU TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH
WEIGHT OR CREDIT YOU WILL GIVE TO THESE STATEMENTS."  WE SHALL ASSUME
AS FACTS, THEREFORE, ONLY THE TESTIMONY OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES AND SO
MUCH OF THE PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE AS IS UNCONTRADICTED. 

FN2  UNDER TENNESSEE LAW AN OFFICER MAY ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT WHEN
A FELONY HAS IN FACT BEEN COMMITTED, AND HE HAS REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR
BELIEVING THAT THE PERSON ARRESTED HAS COMMITTED IT. MICHIE'S CODE
(1938) SEC. 11536.  BUT WILLFUL DESTRUCTION OF POWER LINES IS ONLY A
MISDEMEANOR UNDER STATE LAW.  ID., SEC. 10863(8). 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENTS. 
..END :





MARICOPA COUNTY V. VALLEY BANK, 318 U.S. 357 


NO. 449.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 130 F.2D
356, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS HAS EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES, SUCH AS THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, SHALL BE IMMUNE FROM STATE
TAXATION.  P. 361. 

2.  THE ACT OF MARCH 20, 1936, PROVIDED THAT SHARES OF PREFERRED
STOCK OF NATIONAL BANKS "HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY" THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION "SHALL NOT, SO LONG AS
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION SHALL CONTINUE TO OWN THE SAME, BE
SUBJECT TO ANY TAXATION ...  BY ANY STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY, OR
LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY, WHETHER NOW, HERETOFORE, OR HEREAFTER IMPOSED,
LEVIED, OR ASSESSED, AND WHETHER FOR A PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE TAXING
PERIOD."  HELD: 

(1)  IN WITHDRAWING PRO TANTO THE CONSENT WHICH BY R.S. SEC. 5219 IT
HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN TO STATE TAXATION OF SHARES OF STOCK OF NATIONAL
BANKS, CONGRESS DID NOT INVADE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES BY THE
TENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 361. 

(2)  AS APPLIED TO TAXES IN RESPECT OF WHICH LIENS HAD ATTACHED PRIOR
TO ITS PASSAGE, THE ACT OPERATES AS A WITHDRAWAL OF THE CONSENT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO BE SUED.  P. 362. 

A PROCEEDING AGAINST PROPERTY IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS AN
INTEREST IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 

(3)  THE PRIOR GRANT OF THE PRIVILEGE TO TAX THE SHARES WAS ANALOGOUS
TO A GRATUITY OR BOUNTY, AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRIVILEGE INVADED NO
RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 362. 

MARICOPA COUNTY ET AL. V. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK OF PHOENIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS
GRANTING INJUNCTIONS IN TWO SUITS TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF STATE AND
LOCAL TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND CERTAIN COUNTY
OFFICERS.  RESPONDENT IS A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL BANKING
HOUSE AT PHOENIX, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.  IT SUED PETITIONERS  FN1
TO RESTRAIN THE COLLECTION OF CERTAIN STATE, COUNTY, SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND MUNICIPAL TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1935 AND 1936 AND INVOKED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
ARIZONA UNDER SEC. 24(1)(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
41(1)(A). 

RESPONDENT HAS TWO CLASSES OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK OUTSTANDING -
COMMON AND PREFERRED.  PRIOR TO MARCH 9, 1933, NATIONAL BANKS WERE NOT
AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE PREFERRED SHARES.  ON THAT DAY THEY WERE GIVEN SUCH
AUTHORITY AND THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WAS AUTHORIZED TO
SUBSCRIBE FOR SUCH SHARES.  ACT OF MARCH 9, 1933, 48 STAT. 1, TITLE
III, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 24, 1933, 48 STAT. 20, 12
U.S.C. SEC. 51A, SEC. 51D.  ON FEBRUARY 11, 1935, RESPONDENT ISSUED TO
THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION SOME 198,400 SHARES OF ITS
PREFERRED STOCK WITH A PAR VALUE OF $1,240,000.  BY SEC. 5219 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 548, CONGRESS CONSENTED ON CERTAIN
CONDITIONS TO STATE TAXATION OF SHARES OF STOCK OF NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATIONS.  ARIZONA TAXES SHARES OF STOCK OF BANKING CORPORATIONS. 
THE TAX IS PAID IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE BANK WHICH IS ENTITLED TO
REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE SHAREHOLDER ON WHOM THE TAX LIABILITY ULTIMATELY
RESTS.  ARIZ. CODE (1939) SEC. 73-204, SEC. 73-205.  THE ARIZONA
STATUTES ALSO PROVIDE THAT A LIEN FOR ALL TAXES LEVIED SHALL ATTACH AS
OF THE FIRST MONDAY IN JANUARY OF EACH YEAR ON THE PROPERTY ASSESSED. 
SEC. 73-506.  ASSESSMENTS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY ARE MADE BY THE COUNTY
ASSESSOR BETWEEN THE FIRST MONDAY IN JANUARY AND THE FIRST DAY IN MAY
OF EACH YEAR.  SEC. 73-402.  STATE AND LOCAL TAXES LEVIED ON THE BASIS
OF THIS ASSESSMENT ARE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY TREASURER AS EX OFFICIO
TAX COLLECTOR.  SEC. 73-605, SEC. 73-702.  PETITIONERS' ASSESSMENTS FOR
1935 INCLUDED RESPONDENT'S PREFERRED SHARES OWNED AND HELD BY THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.  ON THE BASIS OF THOSE ASSESSMENTS,
TAXES WERE LEVIED IN 1935 AGAINST RESPONDENT WHICH THEREUPON FILED ITS
BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  WHILE THE CAUSE WAS
PENDING THIS COURT DECIDED BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK V. STATE TAX COMM'N,
297 U.S. 209, WHICH HELD THAT PREFERRED SHARES OF A NATIONAL BANK HELD
BY THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WERE SUBJECT TO STATE
TAXATION BY REASON OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY CONGRESS IN SEC. 5219 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES.  THAT DECISION WAS RENDERED ON FEBRUARY 3, 1936.  ON
MARCH 20, 1936, CONGRESS ENACTED A STATUTE PROVIDING THAT SHARES OF
PREFERRED STOCK OF NATIONAL BANKS "HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY"
THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION "SHALL NOT, SO LONG AS
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION SHALL CONTINUE TO OWN THE SAME, BE
SUBJECT TO ANY TAXATION BY THE UNITED STATES, BY ANY TERRITORY,
DEPENDENCY, OR POSSESSION THEREOF, OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR BY
ANY STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY, OR LOCAL TAXING AUTHORITY, WHETHER
NOW, HERETOFORE, OR HEREAFTER IMPOSED, LEVIED, OR ASSESSED, AND WHETHER
FOR A PAST, PRESENT, OR FUTURE TAXING PERIOD."  49 STAT. 1185, 12
U.S.C. SEC. 51D.  ON THE AUTHORITY OF THAT ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT,
AFTER FINDING THAT RESPONDENT'S REMEDY AT LAW WAS INADEQUATE, ISSUED A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE COLLECTION BY PETITIONERS OF THAT
PORTION OF THE 1935 TAXES LEVIED ON RESPONDENT'S PREFERRED STOCK OWNED
BY THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.  A PERMANENT INJUNCTION WAS
ALSO ISSUED IN A LIKE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1936
WHICH WERE LEVIED AFTER MARCH 20, 1936.  THE JUDGMENTS IN THE TWO SUITS
WERE AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  130 F.2D 356.  THE CASE
IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE
OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED.  PURSUANT TO THE ACT
OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 751, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 401, THE CASE WAS
CERTIFIED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS INVOLVING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 20, 1936.  IN RESPONSE TO THAT CERTIFICATION THE
UNITED STATES SUBMITTED A BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 20, 1936, VIOLATES THE
FIFTH AND THE TENTH AMENDMENTS.  THEY FURTHER ARGUE THAT THE WORD
"PERSON" AS USED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT INCLUDES COUNTIES AND STATES;
AND THAT THEY MAY RAISE THE TENTH AMENDMENT ISSUE SINCE THEY ARE
ASSERTING THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN ASSESSING AND IN
ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT THE TAXES IN QUESTION.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE THE
LAST TWO QUESTIONS.  FOR EVEN IF WE ASSUME, ARGUENDO, THAT PETITIONERS
ARE RIGHT IN THOSE CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE JUDGMENT
BELOW MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

LITTLE NEED BE SAID IN ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ACT VIOLATES
THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  THE AUTHORITY BY WHICH THE TAXES IN QUESTION WERE
LEVIED DID NOT STEM FROM THE POWERS "RESERVED TO THE STATES" UNDER THE
TENTH AMENDMENT.  IT WAS CONFERRED BY CONGRESS WHICH HAS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AND TO WHAT
EXTENT ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES, SUCH AS THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION, SHALL BE IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION.  SMITH V. KANSAS CITY
TITLE & TRUST CO., 255 U.S. 180, 211-213; FEDERAL LAND BANK V.
CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374; PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S.
21, 33; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK LUMBER CO., 314 U.S. 95.  HENCE
WHEN CONGRESS WITHDREW THE PRIVILEGE WHICH IT HAD PREVIOUSLY GRANTED,
IT WAS NOT CURTAILING ANY POLITICAL POWER WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAD
RESERVED TO ARIZONA.  SEE OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173
U.S. 664; DES MOINES NATIONAL BANK V. FAIRWEATHER, 263 U.S. 103, 106,
AND CASES CITED. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 20, 1936, VIOLATES THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT IS BASED ON ITS RETROSPECTIVE FEATURE.  PETITIONERS CONTEND
THAT SINCE THE LIENS OF THE TAXES WERE IMPRESSED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ACT, THEY WERE PROPERTY RIGHTS WHICH CONGRESS COULD NOT
DESTROY.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE CASE WHERE PRIOR TO THE WITHDRAWAL
OF THE PRIVILEGE THE TAX HAD BEEN COLLECTED OR THE TAX LIEN FORECLOSED
AND THE PROPERTY REDUCED TO THE POSSESSION OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY.  IN
THE INSTANT CASE THE STATE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE ASSERTING RIGHTS
WHICH IF RECOGNIZED CAN BE ENFORCED BY THE MAINTENANCE OF A SUIT TO
ESTABLISH AND FORECLOSE A LIEN ON PROPERTY OF A FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITY, THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION.  CF. NEW YORK
V. MACLAY, 288 U.S. 290.  BUT EVEN A "PROCEEDING AGAINST PROPERTY IN
WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS AN INTEREST IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES."  UNITED STATES V. ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 274, 282.  NO SUCH SUIT
MAY BE MAINTAINED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  SUCH
CONSENT, THOUGH PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, HAS NOW BEEN WITHDRAWN.  AND THE
POWER TO WITHDRAW THE PRIVILEGE OF SUING THE UNITED STATES OR ITS
INSTRUMENTALITIES KNOWS NO LIMITATIONS.  LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292
U.S. 571, 581-582, AND CASES CITED.  NOR DID THE PRIOR GRANT OF THE
PRIVILEGE TO TAX THE SHARES RISE TO A HIGHER LEVEL THAN A GRATUITY OR
BOUNTY.  NOTHING WAS GIVEN IN EXCHANGE.  CF. CHRIST CHURCH V.
PHILADELPHIA CO., 24 HOW.  300, 302.  WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE
STATES TO IMPOSE SUCH TAXATION, IT DID NO MORE THAN GRATUITOUSLY GRANT
THEM POLITICAL POWER WHICH THEY THERETOFORE LACKED.  ITS SOVEREIGN
POWER TO REVOKE THE GRANT REMAINED UNIMPAIRED, THE GRANT OF THE
PRIVILEGE BEING ONLY A DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY CHANGEABLE AT
WILL.  CF. DODGE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 302 U.S. 74.  HENCE, AS IN THE
CASE OF THE RECALL OF OTHER GRATUITIES (FRISBIE V. UNITED STATES, 157
U.S. 160, 166; CUMMINGS V. DEUTSCHE BANK, 300 U.S. 115, 122-124), THE
WITHDRAWAL OF THIS PRIVILEGE INVADED NO RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  FOR AN EARLIER PHASE OF THIS LITIGATION SEE EX PARTE BRANSFORD,
310 U.S. 354. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :










CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. V. U.S., 318 U.S. 363 


NO. 490.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1943.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 130 F.2D
93, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES DISBURSES ITS FUNDS OR PAYS ITS DEBTS, IT
IS EXERCISING A CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION OR POWER; AND ITS RIGHTS AND
DUTIES ON COMMERCIAL PAPER SO ISSUED ARE GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RATHER
THAN LOCAL LAW.  UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 293 U.S. 340,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 366. 

2.  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPLICABLE ACT OF CONGRESS, IT IS FOR THE
FEDERAL COURTS TO FASHION THE GOVERNING RULE OF FEDERAL LAW ACCORDING
TO THEIR OWN STANDARDS.  P. 367. 

3.  REASONS WHICH AT TIMES MAY MAKE STATE LAW AN APPROPRIATE FEDERAL
RULE ARE SINGULARLY INAPPROPRIATE IN DETERMINING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES
OF THE UNITED STATES ON COMMERCIAL PAPER WHICH IT ISSUES, SINCE THE
DESIRABILITY OF A UNIFORM RULE IN SUCH CASES IS PLAIN.  P. 367. 

4.  ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL LAW MERCHANT, DEVELOPED UNDER SWIFT V.
TYSON, REPRESENTED GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW RATHER THAN A CHOICE OF A
FEDERAL RULE DESIGNED TO PROTECT A FEDERAL RIGHT, IT NEVERTHELESS
STANDS AS A CONVENIENT SOURCE OF REFERENCE FOR FASHIONING FEDERAL RULES
APPLICABLE TO SUCH FEDERAL QUESTIONS AS ARE HERE INVOLVED.  P. 367. 

5.  THE RIGHT OF A DRAWEE TO RECOVER FROM ONE WHO PRESENTS FOR
PAYMENT A CHECK UPON WHICH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE PAYEE WAS FORGED
ACCRUES WHEN THE PAYMENT IS MADE.  P. 368. 

6.  THE DRAWEE, WHETHER IT BE THE UNITED STATES OR ANOTHER, IS NOT
CHARGEABLE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIGNATURE OF THE PAYEE.  P. 369. 

7.  IF IT IS SHOWN THAT THE DRAWEE ON LEARNING OF THE FORGERY DID NOT
GIVE PROMPT NOTICE OF IT AND THAT DAMAGE RESULTED, RECOVERY BY THE
DRAWEE IS BARRED.  P. 369. 

THAT THE DRAWEE IS THE UNITED STATES AND THE LACHES THAT OF ITS
EMPLOYEES IS IMMATERIAL. 

8.  THE UNITED STATES IS NOT EXCEPTED FROM THE GENERAL RULES
GOVERNING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF DRAWEES BY THE VASTNESS OF ITS
DEALINGS OR BY THE FACT THAT IT MUST ACT THROUGH AGENTS.  P. 369. 

9.  TO BAR RECOVERY BY A DRAWEE, THE DAMAGE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
OCCASIONED BY DELAY IN GIVING NOTICE OF A FORGERY MUST BE ESTABLISHED
AND NOT LEFT TO CONJECTURE.  P. 369. 

10.  IN THIS CASE, THE SHOWING AS TO DAMAGE RESULTING FROM DELAY OF
THE UNITED STATES IN GIVING NOTICE OF A FORGERY, HELD NOT SUFFICIENT TO
BAR RECOVERY.  P. 370. 

IT APPEARED THAT THE PRESENTING BANK COULD STILL RECOVER FROM ITS
ENDORSER; AND THE ONLY SHOWING ON THE PART OF THE LATTER WAS THAT IF A
CHECK CASHED FOR A CUSTOMER IS RETURNED UNPAID OR FOR RECLAMATION A
SHORT TIME AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH IT IS CASHED, THE EMPLOYEES CAN
OFTEN LOCATE THE PERSON WHO CASHED IT. 

CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY IT TO RECOVER AN
AMOUNT PAID ON A FORGED GOVERNMENT CHECK. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON APRIL 28, 1936, A CHECK WAS DRAWN ON THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED
STATES THROUGH THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILADELPHIA TO THE ORDER OF
CLAIR A. BARNER IN THE AMOUNT OF $24.20.  IT WAS DATED AT HARRISBURG,
PENNSYLVANIA, AND WAS DRAWN FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY BARNER TO THE
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION.  THE CHECK WAS PLACED IN THE MAIL
ADDRESSED TO BARNER AT HIS ADDRESS IN MACKEYVILLE, PA. BARNER NEVER
RECEIVED THE CHECK.  SOME UNKNOWN PERSON OBTAINED IT IN A MYSTERIOUS
MANNER AND PRESENTED IT TO THE J.C. PENNEY CO. STORE IN CLEARFIELD,
PA., REPRESENTING THAT HE WAS THE PAYEE AND IDENTIFYING HIMSELF TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE EMPLOYEES OF J.C. PENNEY CO.  HE ENDORSED THE CHECK
IN THE NAME OF BARNER AND TRANSFERRED IT TO J.C. PENNEY CO. IN EXCHANGE
FOR CASH AND MERCHANDISE.  BARNER NEVER AUTHORIZED THE ENDORSEMENT NOR
PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE CHECK.  J.C. PENNEY CO. ENDORSED
THE CHECK OVER TO THE CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. WHICH ACCEPTED IT AS AGENT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTION AND ENDORSED IT AS FOLLOWS:  "PAY TO THE
ORDER OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILADELPHIA, PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS
GUARANTEED."  FN1  CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. COLLECTED THE CHECK FROM THE
UNITED STATES THROUGH THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILADELPHIA AND PAID
THE FULL AMOUNT THEREOF TO J.C. PENNEY CO. NEITHER THE CLEARFIELD TRUST
CO. NOR J.C. PENNEY CO. HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OR SUSPICION OF THE FORGERY. 
EACH ACTED IN GOOD FAITH.  ON OR BEFORE MAY 10, 1936, BARNER ADVISED
THE TIMEKEEPER AND THE FOREMAN OF THE W.P.A. PROJECT ON WHICH HE WAS
EMPLOYED THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE CHECK IN QUESTION.  THIS
INFORMATION WAS DULY COMMUNICATED TO OTHER AGENTS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND ON NOVEMBER 30, 1936, BARNER EXECUTED AN AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THAT
THE ENDORSEMENT OF HIS NAME ON THE CHECK WAS A FORGERY.  NO NOTICE WAS
GIVEN THE CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. OR J.C. PENNEY CO. OF THE FORGERY UNTIL
JANUARY 12, 1937, AT WHICH TIME THE CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. WAS NOTIFIED. 
THE FIRST NOTICE RECEIVED BY CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. THAT THE UNITED
STATES WAS ASKING REIMBURSEMENT WAS ON AUGUST 31, 1937. 

THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED IN 1939 BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE
CLEARFIELD TRUST CO., THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
BEING INVOKED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1).  THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS BASED ON THE
EXPRESS GUARANTY OF PRIOR ENDORSEMENTS MADE BY THE CLEARFIELD TRUST CO.
J.C. PENNEY CO. INTERVENED AS A DEFENDANT.  THE CASE WAS HEARD ON
COMPLAINT, ANSWER AND STIPULATION OF FACTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES WERE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF
PENNSYLVANIA AND THAT SINCE THE UNITED STATES UNREASONABLY DELAYED IN
GIVING NOTICE OF THE FORGERY TO THE CLEARFIELD TRUST CO., IT WAS BARRED
FROM RECOVERY UNDER THE RULE OF MARKET STREET TITLE & TRUST CO. V.
CHELTEN TRUST CO., 296 PA. 230, 145 A. 848.  IT ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED
THE COMPLAINT.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  130
F.2D 93.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH
WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED AND THE
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND SECURITY-FIRST NAT. BANK V.
UNITED STATES, 103 F.2D 188, FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE RULE OF ERIE R.
CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS ACTION.  THE
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE UNITED STATES ON COMMERCIAL PAPER WHICH IT
ISSUES ARE GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RATHER THAN LOCAL LAW.  WHEN THE UNITED
STATES DISBURSES ITS FUNDS OR PAYS ITS DEBTS, IT IS EXERCISING A
CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION OR POWER.  THIS CHECK WAS ISSUED FOR SERVICES
PERFORMED UNDER THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT.
115.  THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE CHECK HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WAS IN NO WAY
DEPENDENT ON THE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA OR OF ANY OTHER STATE.  CF. BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343; ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 289.  THE DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THE UNITED STATES
AND THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY IT AS A RESULT OF THE ISSUANCE FIND THEIR
ROOTS IN THE SAME FEDERAL SOURCES.  FN2  CF. DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309
U.S. 190; D'OENCH, DUHME & CO. V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORP., 315 U.S.
447.  IN ABSENCE OF AN APPLICABLE ACT OF CONGRESS IT IS FOR THE FEDERAL
COURTS TO FASHION THE GOVERNING RULE OF LAW ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN
STANDARDS.  UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 293 U.S. 340, IS NOT
OPPOSED TO THIS RESULT.  THAT CASE WAS CONCERNED WITH A CONFLICT OF
LAWS RULE AS TO THE TITLE ACQUIRED BY A TRANSFEREE IN YUGOSLAVIA UNDER
A FORGED ENDORSEMENT.  SINCE THE PAYEE'S ADDRESS WAS YUGOSLAVIA, THE
CHECK HAD "SOMETHING OF THE QUALITY OF A FOREIGN BILL" AND THE LAW OF
YUGOSLAVIA WAS APPLIED TO DETERMINE WHAT TITLE THE TRANSFEREE
ACQUIRED. 

IN OUR CHOICE OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL RULE WE HAVE OCCASIONALLY
SELECTED STATE LAW.  SEE ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
BUT REASONS WHICH MAY MAKE STATE LAW AT TIMES THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL
RULE ARE SINGULARLY INAPPROPRIATE HERE.  THE ISSUANCE OF COMMERCIAL
PAPER BY THE UNITED STATES IS ON A VAST SCALE AND TRANSACTIONS IN THAT
PAPER FROM ISSUANCE TO PAYMENT WILL COMMONLY OCCUR IN SEVERAL STATES. 
THE APPLICATION OF STATE LAW, EVEN WITHOUT THE CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES
OF THE FORUM, WOULD SUBJECT THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE UNITED STATES
TO EXCEPTIONAL UNCERTAINTY.  IT WOULD LEAD TO GREAT DIVERSITY IN
RESULTS BY MAKING IDENTICAL TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO THE VAGARIES OF THE
LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  THE DESIRABILITY OF A UNIFORM RULE IS
PLAIN.  AND WHILE THE FEDERAL LAW MERCHANT, DEVELOPED FOR ABOUT A
CENTURY UNDER THE REGIME OF SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1, REPRESENTED
GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW RATHER THAN A CHOICE OF A FEDERAL RULE DESIGNED
TO PROTECT A FEDERAL RIGHT, IT NEVERTHELESS STANDS AS A CONVENIENT
SOURCE OF REFERENCE FOR FASHIONING FEDERAL RULES APPLICABLE TO THESE
FEDERAL QUESTIONS. 

UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK, 214 U.S. 302, FALLS IN THAT
CATEGORY.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES COULD RECOVER AS
DRAWEE FROM ONE WHO PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT A PENSION CHECK ON WHICH THE
NAME OF THE PAYEE HAD BEEN FORGED, IN SPITE OF A PROTRACTED DELAY ON
THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES IN GIVING NOTICE OF THE FORGERY.  THE
COURT FOLLOWED LEATHER MANUFACTURERS BANK V. MERCHANTS BANK, 128 U.S.
26, WHICH HELD THAT THE RIGHT OF THE DRAWEE AGAINST ONE WHO PRESENTED A
CHECK WITH A FORGED ENDORSEMENT OF THE PAYEE'S NAME ACCRUED AT THE DATE
OF PAYMENT AND WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON NOTICE OR DEMAND.  THE THEORY OF
THE NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK CASE IS THAT HE WHO PRESENTS A CHECK FOR
PAYMENT WARRANTS THAT HE HAS TITLE TO IT AND THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE
PAYMENT.  FN3  IF HE HAS ACQUIRED THE CHECK THROUGH A FORGED
ENDORSEMENT, THE WARRANTY IS BREACHED AT THE TIME THE CHECK IS CASHED. 
SEE MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO. V. HARRIMAN NATIONAL BANK TRUST CO., 146
MISC. 551, 262 N.Y.S. 482; BERGMAN V. AVENUE STATE BANK, 284 ILL. APP.
516, 1 N.E.2D 432.  THE THEORY OF THE WARRANTY HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. 
AMES, THE DOCTRINE OF PRICE V. NEAL, 4 HARV. L. REV., 297, 301-302.  IT
HAS BEEN URGED THAT "THE RIGHT TO RECOVER IS A QUASI CONTRACTUAL RIGHT,
RESTING UPON THE DOCTRINE THAT ONE WHO CONFERS A BENEFIT IN MISRELIANCE
UPON A RIGHT OR DUTY IS ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION."  WOODWARD, QUASI
CONTRACTS (1913) SEC. 80; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. CITY NATIONAL BANK,
182 MASS. 130, 134, 65 N.E. 24.  BUT WHATEVER THEORY IS TAKEN, WE
ADHERE TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK CASE THAT THE
DRAWEE'S RIGHT TO RECOVER ACCRUES WHEN THE PAYMENT IS MADE.  THERE IS
NO OTHER BARRIER TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE THEORY
OF THE DRAWEE'S RESPONSIBILITY WHERE THE DRAWER'S SIGNATURE IS FORGED
(PRICE V. NEAL, 3 BURR.  1354; UNITED STATES V. CHASE NATIONAL BANK,
252 U.S. 485) IS INAPPLICABLE HERE.  THE DRAWEE, WHETHER IT BE THE
UNITED STATES OR ANOTHER, IS NOT CHARGEABLE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
SIGNATURE OF THE PAYEE.  UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK,
SUPRA, P. 317; STATE V. BROADWAY NATIONAL BANK, 153 TENN. 113. 

THE NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK CASE WENT NO FURTHER THAN TO HOLD THAT
PROMPT NOTICE OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE FORGERY WAS NOT A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO SUIT.  IT DID NOT REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER LACK OF
PROMPT NOTICE MIGHT BE A DEFENSE.  WE THINK IT MAY.  IF IT IS SHOWN
THAT THE DRAWEE ON LEARNING OF THE FORGERY DID NOT GIVE PROMPT NOTICE
OF IT AND THAT DAMAGE RESULTED, RECOVERY BY THE DRAWEE IS BARRED.  SEE
LADD & TILTON BANK V. UNITED STATES, 30 F.2D 334; UNITED STATES V.
NATIONAL ROCKLAND BANK, 35 F.SUPP.  912; UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY
BANK, 28 F.SUPP.  144.  THE FACT THAT THE DRAWEE IS THE UNITED STATES
AND THE LACHES THOSE OF ITS EMPLOYEES ARE NOT MATERIAL.  COOKE V.
UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 389, 398.  THE UNITED STATES AS DRAWEE OF
COMMERCIAL PAPER STANDS IN NO DIFFERENT LIGHT THAN ANY OTHER DRAWEE. 
AS STATED IN UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK, 270 U.S. 527,
534, "THE UNITED STATES DOES BUSINESS ON BUSINESS TERMS."  IT IS NOT
EXCEPTED FROM THE GENERAL RULES GOVERNING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF
DRAWEES "BY THE LARGENESS OF ITS DEALINGS AND ITS HAVING TO EMPLOY
AGENTS TO DO WHAT IF DONE BY A PRINCIPAL IN PERSON WOULD LEAVE NO ROOM
FOR DOUBT."  ID., P. 535.  BUT THE DAMAGE OCCASIONED BY THE DELAY MUST
BE ESTABLISHED AND NOT LEFT TO CONJECTURE.  CASES SUCH AS MARKET ST.
TITLE & TRUST CO. V. CHELTEN TRUST CO., SUPRA, PLACE THE BURDEN ON THE
DRAWEE OF GIVING PROMPT NOTICE OF THE FORGERY - INJURY TO THE DEFENDANT
BEING PRESUMED BY THE MERE FACT OF DELAY.  SEE LONDON & RIVER PLATE
BANK V. BANK OF LIVERPOOL, (1896) 1 Q.B. 7.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT
HE WHO ACCEPTS A FORGED SIGNATURE OF A PAYEE DESERVES THAT PREFERRED
TREATMENT.  IT IS HIS NEGLECT OR ERROR IN ACCEPTING THE FORGER'S
SIGNATURE WHICH OCCASIONS THE LOSS.  SEE BANK OF COMMERCE V. UNION
BANK, 3 N.Y. 230, 236.  HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SHIFT THAT LOSS TO THE
DRAWEE ONLY ON A CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE DRAWEE'S DELAY IN NOTIFYING HIM
OF THE FORGERY CAUSED HIM DAMAGE.  SEE WOODWARD, QUASI CONTRACTS (1913)
SEC. 25.  NO SUCH DAMAGE HAS BEEN SHOWN BY CLEARFIELD TRUST CO. WHO SO
FAR AS APPEARS CAN STILL RECOVER FROM J.C. PENNEY CO. THE ONLY SHOWING
ON THE PART OF THE LATTER IS CONTAINED IN THE STIPULATION TO THE EFFECT
THAT IF A CHECK CASHED FOR A CUSTOMER IS RETURNED UNPAID OR FOR
RECLAMATION A SHORT TIME AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH IT IS CASHED, THE
EMPLOYEES CAN OFTEN LOCATE THE PERSON WHO CASHED IT.  IT IS FURTHER
STIPULATED THAT WHEN J.C. PENNEY CO. WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FORGERY IN THE
PRESENT CASE NONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES WAS ABLE TO REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT
THE TRANSACTION OR CHECK IN QUESTION.  THE INFERENCE IS THAT THE MORE
PROMPT THE NOTICE THE MORE LIKELY THE DETECTION OF THE FORGER.  BUT
THAT FALLS SHORT OF A SHOWING THAT THE DELAY CAUSED A MANIFEST LOSS. 
THIRD NATIONAL BANK V. MERCHANTS' NATIONAL BANK, 76 HUN 475, 27 N.Y.S.
1070.  IT IS BUT ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT MERE DELAY IS ENOUGH. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  GUARANTEE OF ALL PRIOR INDORSEMENTS ON PRESENTMENT FOR PAYMENT
OF SUCH A CHECK TO FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS OR MEMBER BANK DEPOSITORIES IS
REQUIRED BY TREASURY REGULATIONS.  31 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SEC.
102.32, SEC. 202.33. 

FN2  VARIOUS TREASURY REGULATIONS GOVERN THE PAYMENT AND ENDORSEMENT
OF GOVERNMENT CHECKS AND WARRANTS AND THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES BY FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS AND MEMBER BANK
DEPOSITORIES ON PAYMENT OF CHECKS OR WARRANTS BEARING A FORGED
ENDORSEMENT.  SEE 31 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECS. 202.0, 202.32
202.34.  FORGERY OF THE CHECK WAS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 148, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 262. 

FN3  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE GUARANTEE OF PRIOR
ENDORSEMENTS ADDS TO THE DRAWEE'S RIGHTS.  SEE BRANNAN'S NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS LAW (6TH ED.)  PP. 330-331, 816-817; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V.
CITY NATIONAL BANK, 182 MASS. 130, 134, 65 N.E. 24.  CF. HOME INS. CO.
V. MERCANTILE TRUST CO., 219 MO. APP. 645, 284 S.W. 834.  UNDER THE
THEORY OF THE NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK CASE, THE WARRANTY OF THE TITLE OF
HIM WHO PRESENTS THE CHECK FOR PAYMENT WOULD BE IMPLIED IN ANY EVENT. 
SEE PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL BANK V. FULTON NATIONAL BANK, 25 F.2D 995,
997. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN
THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :










HELVERING V. GRIFFITHS, 318 U.S. 371 


NO. 467.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1943.  - 129 F.2D
321, AFFIRMED. 


A HOLDER OF COMMON STOCK IN A CORPORATION WHICH HAD BUT THE ONE CLASS
OF STOCK OUTSTANDING RECEIVED, IN 1939, STOCK DIVIDENDS (BASED ON
EARNINGS AND PROFITS SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY 28, 1913) IN COMMON STOCK
IDENTICAL WITH THE STOCK ON WHICH THEY WERE DECLARED.  THE DIVIDEND
STOCK WAS IN NO WAY REALIZED UPON IN 1939.  HELD, UPON CONSIDERATION OF
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION, THAT CONGRESS,
BY SECS. 22(A) AND 115(F)(1) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, DID NOT
INTEND TO TAX SUCH STOCK DIVIDENDS; AND THAT THERE IS NO OCCASION TO
RECONSIDER EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189.  PP. 372, 404. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. GRIFFITHS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHICH REVERSED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN RESPONDENT'S INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE ACTS OF CONGRESS AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER AFFORD A BASIS ON WHICH WE MAY
RECONSIDER THE DECISION IN EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, AND PASS
ON THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST THAT IT BE OVERRULED. 

DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1939 RESPONDENT OWNED 101 SHARES OF COMMON
STOCK OF THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY.  TWICE DURING THE YEAR
THAT CORPORATION MADE APPROPRIATE TRANSFERS FROM EARNED SURPLUS TO ITS
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS, IN AMOUNTS LESS THAN THE NET ACCUMULATION OF EARNINGS
AND PROFITS SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY 28, 1913, AND AGAINST THEM ISSUED
STOCK DIVIDENDS.  ON JUNE 15, 1939, RESPONDENT RECEIVED A DIVIDEND OF
1.01 SUCH SHARES HAVING A FAIR MARKET VALUE OF $42.93.  ON DECEMBER 15,
1939, SHE RECEIVED A FURTHER DIVIDEND OF 1.53 SHARES, WHICH HAD A FAIR
MARKET VALUE OF $66.08.  THESE DIVIDENDS WERE IN COMMON STOCK IDENTICAL
WITH THE STOCK ON WHICH THEY WERE DECLARED, WHICH WAS THE ONLY STOCK
OUTSTANDING AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE.  THE DIVIDEND STOCK WAS NOT
SOLD, REDEEMED, OR IN ANY WAY REALIZED UPON, AND THE TAXPAYER DID NOT
INCLUDE IT AS INCOME IN HER RETURN FOR 1939.  THE COMMISSIONER DID SO
INCLUDE IT, AND ON DECEMBER 8, 1941, SENT HER A NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY IN
THE AMOUNT OF $9.60.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REVERSED HIS
DETERMINATION, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED ON THE AUTHORITY OF EISNER V. MACOMBER, SUPRA.  129 F.2D 321. 
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE TAX IS ASSERTED UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISION OF SEC. 22(A) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE THAT INCOME INCLUDES "DIVIDENDS," TOGETHER WITH
THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SEC. 115(F)(1)(1) THAT:  "A DISTRIBUTION MADE
BY A CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN ITS STOCK OR IN RIGHTS TO
ACQUIRE ITS STOCK SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A DIVIDEND TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION."  FN1 

WAS CONGRESS THEREBY SAYING THAT SUCH A DIVIDEND AS WE HAVE HERE IS
NOT BEING TAXED, IN VIEW OF THE EISNER V. MACOMBER DECISION, OR WAS IT
SAYING THAT REGARDLESS OF THAT DECISION IT IS BEING TAXED?  EVENTS
WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED TO DETERMINE WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED BEGIN
WITH THE ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1913, WHICH TAXED CORPORATE
"DIVIDENDS" IN GENERAL BUT SAID NOTHING OF STOCK DIVIDENDS IN
PARTICULAR.  FN2  THE TREASURY ATTEMPTED TO TAX THEM, AND THIS COURT
HELD THAT A DIVIDEND OF COMMON STOCK PAID ON STOCK OF THE SAME KIND WAS
NOT INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, INTIMATING, HOWEVER, THAT AS
USED IN THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT "INCOME" MIGHT HAVE A WIDER SCOPE. 
TOWNE V. EISNER, 245 U.S. 418(1918).  CONGRESS HAD MEANWHILE PROVIDED
THAT A "STOCK DIVIDEND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCOME, TO THE AMOUNT OF ITS
CASH VALUE."  FN3  UNDER THAT ACT THE COMMISSIONER ASSERTED THAT A
DIVIDEND IN COMMON STOCK PAID ON COMMON STOCK CONSTITUTED INCOME WHEN
RECEIVED.  THIS COURT HELD IT WAS NOT INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, CHIEFLY FOR THE REASON THAT INCOME HAD NOT BEEN
SEVERED FROM CAPITAL OR REALIZED BY SUCH A DISTRIBUTION.  EISNER V.
MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189(1920).  THIS DECISION WAS BY A DIVIDED COURT,
JUSTICES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS EACH WRITING A DISSENTING OPINION, IN
WHICH RESPECTIVELY JUSTICES DAY AND CLARKE JOINED.  IT WAS PROMPTLY AND
SHARPLY CRITICISED.  FN4 

ALTHOUGH EISNER V. MACOMBER DEALT ONLY WITH A DIVIDEND OF COMMON
STOCK TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS, IT WAS AT ONCE ACCEPTED AS THE BASIS FOR
A BROADER EXEMPTION.  THE TREASURY RULED THAT RECEIPT OF DIVIDEND STOCK
GENERALLY WAS NOT INCOME, AND CONGRESS PROVIDED IN SEC. 201(D) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1921 THAT "A STOCK DIVIDEND SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX
..."  FN5  TREASURY REGULATIONS UNDER THIS STATUTE AND SUBSEQUENT
REENACTMENTS CONSTRUED IT AS COVERING ALL DIVIDENDS PAID IN STOCK OF
THE DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION.  FN6 

THERE THE MATTER STOOD FOR NEARLY FIFTEEN YEARS, ALTHOUGH IN THE
MEANTIME THIS COURT POINTED OUT IN REORGANIZATION CASES THAT A
DISTINCTION EXISTED BETWEEN THE TYPE OF STOCK DIVIDEND BEFORE IT IN
EISNER V. MACOMBER AND ONE WHICH GAVE THE STOCKHOLDER A DIFFERENT
STOCK, OR DIFFERENT PROPORTIONATE INTERESTS, THAN BEFORE.  UNITED
STATES V. PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156(1921); ROCKEFELLER V. UNITED STATES,
257 U.S. 176(1921); CULLINAN V. WALKER, 262 U.S. 134(1923); WEISS V.
STEARN, 265 U.S. 242(1924); MARR V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 536(1925). 

INACTION DID NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT PERSONS WHO RECEIVED STOCK
DIVIDENDS WERE ESCAPING ALL SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES.  TAXATION WAS ONLY
POSTPONED, AS IS TAXATION OF MANY SECURITIES TAKEN IN CORPORATE
REORGANIZATIONS, UNTIL SALE OR OTHER REALIZATION HAS OCCURRED.  THEIR
PROCEEDS WHEN REALIZED HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TAXABLE AS INCOME.  THE
TREASURY HAD COME TO COMPUTE THE POSTPONED TAX UNDER REGULATIONS WHICH
AS TO SOME CLASSES OF STOCK APPORTIONED THE COST BASIS BETWEEN THE OLD
STOCK AND THE DIVIDEND STOCK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE FAIR
MARKET VALUES AT THE TIME THE STOCK DIVIDEND WAS ISSUED.  FN7  ON MARCH
30, 1936, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI IN KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298
U.S. 441, IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE
APPORTIONMENT REGULATIONS.  297 U.S. 702.  SHE HAD OWNED CERTAIN
PREFERRED STOCK AND HAD RECEIVED A DIVIDEND OF COMMON SHARES THEREON. 
THE PREFERRED WAS THEREAFTER REDEEMED, AND THE COMMISSIONER APPLIED THE
ALLOCATION RULE, WHICH REDUCED THE COST BASIS OF THIS OLD STOCK.  THIS,
OF COURSE, INCREASED HER GAIN ON THE REDEMPTION OF THE OLD STOCK AND
ADDED TO HER TAX.  SHE ARGUED THAT HER DIVIDEND, NOTWITHSTANDING EISNER
V. MACOMBER, TO WHICH SHE GAVE A NARROW READING, WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY
TAXABLE AS INCOME AT THE TIME RECEIVED.  THE COURT HELD UNANIMOUSLY AND
SQUARELY THAT THE DIVIDEND IN QUESTION DID CONSTITUTE INCOME WITHIN THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND IN EFFECT LIMITED EISNER V. MACOMBER TO THE
KIND OF DIVIDEND THERE DEALT WITH.  BUT IT DID NOT OVERRULE THAT
DECISION OR QUESTION ITS AUTHORITY AS TO DIVIDENDS SUCH AS WE HAVE IN
THIS CASE.  WITH TWO JUSTICES DISSENTING IT STRUCK DOWN THE
APPORTIONMENT REGULATIONS AS BEING BEYOND STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. 

WHILE THE COURT WAS CONSIDERING STOCK DIVIDENDS IN THE KOSHLAND CASE,
CONGRESS WAS CONSIDERING THEM IN CONNECTION WITH THE PENDING REVENUE
ACT FOR 1936. 

ON MARCH 3, 1936, THE PRESIDENT HAD SUGGESTED THE ENACTMENT OF A TAX
UPON THE UNDISTRIBUTED INCOME OF CORPORATIONS.  FN8  ON MARCH 26, 1936,
AND WHILE THE TAXPAYER'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THE KOSHLAND CASE
WAS PENDING, A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED THAT SUCH A TAX BE ENACTED IN LIEU OF THE EXISTING CAPITAL
STOCK, EXCESS-PROFITS, AND INCOME TAXES ON CORPORATIONS.  FN9  IT WAS
THOUGHT BY SOME AUTHORITIES THAT IMPOSITION DIRECTLY UPON SHAREHOLDERS
OF A TAX BASED ON THEIR PRO RATA SHARES OF CORPORATE EARNINGS WOULD BE
MORE SATISFACTORY THAN THE UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX.  FN10  SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION OF THIS METHOD, WHICH HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN EARLIER TIMES,
FN11  WAS FORECLOSED BY THE BELIEF THAT EISNER V. MACOMBER MADE IT
"IMPOSSIBLE" TO PUT INTO EFFECT.  FN12 

THE STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OF RESPONSIBLE TREASURY
OFFICIALS AT THE HEARINGS AND DEBATES ON THE ACT ARE AT VARIANCE WITH
THE PRESENT ASSERTION OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SEC.
115(F)(1) TO CHALLENGE OR OVERRIDE THE DECISION TO WHICH IT HAD IN
OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT ACCOMMODATED ITSELF. 

AT THE HEARINGS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES THE PROPOSED TAX WAS
ATTACKED AS BEING A MEASURE WHICH WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF FORCING THE
DISTRIBUTION BY CORPORATIONS OF ASSETS NEEDED IN THEIR BUSINESS.  ITS
SUPPORTERS ANTICIPATED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE KOSHLAND CASE
AND COUNTERED WITH STATEMENTS THAT DIVIDENDS TAXABLE AS INCOME TO THE
SHAREHOLDERS - WHICH WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF AVOIDING THE
UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX ON THE CORPORATION  FN13  - COULD BE DECLARED
AND THE UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX AVOIDED WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF
DISTRIBUTING ASSETS.  FN14  NO TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN, HOWEVER, THAT
DIVIDENDS SUCH AS WE HAVE IN THIS CASE WERE LEGALLY TAXABLE OR INTENDED
TO BE TAXED.  FN15 

AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND PASSED IN THE
HOUSE, SEC. 115(F)(1) OF THE BILL PROVIDED:  "A DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A
CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN STOCK OF THE CORPORATION OR IN
RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE STOCK OF THE CORPORATION SHALL BE TREATED AS A
TAXABLE DIVIDEND TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DISTRIBUTION CONSTITUTES
INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSTITUTION AND REPRESENTS A DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS OR
PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913."  FN16  THE COMMITTEE
REPORT STATED THAT:  "IT IS PROVIDED IN SEC. 115(F) THAT STOCK
DIVIDENDS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TAX TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DIVIDENDS
CONSTITUTE INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION."  FN17 

THE MANAGER OF THE BILL, CONGRESSMAN VINSON OF KENTUCKY, STATED ON
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, WITH REFERENCE TO SEC. 115(F)(1):  "IN NO SENSE
IS THIS AN ATTACK UPON THE EISNER AGAINST MACOMBER DECISION.  THERE ARE
MANY DIVIDENDS RECEIVED IN STOCK AND STOCK RIGHTS THAT ARE
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CHARACTER OF STOCK DIVIDEND IN THE MACOMBER
CASE, SUPRA, AND ARE ACTUAL REALIZED TAXABLE INCOME.  AS WE SEE IT, A
STOCK DIVIDEND THAT IS NOT TAXABLE IS ONE IN WHICH THE RELATIVE
INTEREST OF EACH SHAREHOLDER OF A CORPORATION IS UNCHANGED IN HIS STOCK
OWNERSHIP."  FN18  HE SUBMITTED A LEGAL MEMORANDUM FURNISHED BY ARTHUR
KENT, ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, SETTING
FORTH CASES DEALING WITH THE TAXABILITY OF STOCK DIVIDENDS, SIXTEEN OF
WHICH, INCLUDING EISNER V. MACOMBER, HAD HELD STOCK DIVIDENDS
NONTAXABLE, AND TWELVE OF WHICH HAD HELD THAT THE DIVIDENDS WERE NOT
TRUE STOCK DIVIDENDS AND THUS WERE TAXABLE.  THIS MEMORANDUM WAS IN
SUPPORT OF KENT'S STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN VINSON'S
QUESTIONING AT THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,
TO THE EFFECT THAT "THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE TRUE STOCK
DIVIDEND RECOGNIZED OR DECLARED IN EISNER V. MACOMBER DOES NOT APPLY TO
ALL TYPES AND VARIETIES OF SO-CALLED STOCK DIVIDENDS."  FN19
CONGRESSMAN VINSON CALLED PARTICULAR AND FAVORABLE ATTENTION TO AN
ARTICLE APPROVING THE DECISION IN EISNER V. MACOMBER, PUBLISHED IN THE
SAME MONTH BY PROFESSOR MAGILL, WHO HAD SERVED AS SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IN TAX MATTERS AND HAS ALSO SERVED AS
UNDERSECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  FN20  CONGRESSMAN VINSON REITERATED
HIS VIEWS ON THE FOLLOWING DAY IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS BY CONGRESSMAN
TREADWAY, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.  FN21 

THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN THE KOSHLAND CASE WAS ANNOUNCED ON MAY
18, 1936, SIX DAYS AFTER THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE CONCLUDED ITS
HEARINGS.  THIS COMMITTEE REPORTED OUT SEC. 115(F)(1) IN THE FORM IN
WHICH IT IS FOUND IN THE ACT:  "A DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A CORPORATION TO
ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN ITS STOCK OR IN RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE ITS STOCK SHALL
NOT BE TREATED AS A DIVIDEND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSTITUTION."  IT STATED IN EXPLANATION OF THE CHANGE:  "THIS
SUBSECTION OF THE HOUSE BILL, UNDER WHICH STOCK DIVIDENDS ARE MADE
TAXABLE TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IS RETAINED
BY YOUR COMMITTEE, EXCEPT FOR CHANGES MADE NECESSARY BY VIRTUE OF THE
REPORTED AMENDMENT OF SECTION 115(A) AND IN THE INTEREST OF GREATER
CLARITY."  FN22 

SENATORS BLACK AND LA FOLLETTE OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
SUBMITTED A MINORITY REPORT RECOMMENDING AN INCREASE IN THE
UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX RATES, AND ALSO THAT SEC. 115(F)(1)
SPECIFICALLY ADOPT THE FORMULA OF THE RECENTLY DECIDED KOSHLAND CASE,
FOR NO APPARENT REASON OTHER THAN A BELIEF THAT IN ITS PRESENT FORM IT
DID NOT CLEARLY HAVE THE EFFECT OF TAXING EVEN THE TYPE OF STOCK
DIVIDENDS WHICH THE COURT HELD IN THAT CASE COULD BE TAXED. 

TO THIS END THEY RECOMMENDED THAT SEC. 115(F)(1) "SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDE THAT THERE SHALL BE NO UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX ON STOCK
DIVIDENDS WHICH ARE TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE INDIVIDUAL RECIPIENT BECAUSE
THE STOCK 'GIVES THE STOCKHOLDER AN INTEREST DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH
HIS FORMER STOCKHOLDINGS REPRESENTED.'"  FN23  IN DEBATE ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE, SENATOR BLACK SAID THAT: "AS ALL SENATORS KNOW, UNTIL
ABOUT 2 WEEKS AGO IT WAS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO
TAX STOCK DIVIDENDS AS INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT OF THOSE STOCK
DIVIDENDS.  ABOUT 2 WEEKS AGO, HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES RENDERED AN OPINION WHICH APPEARED IN THE RECORD, IN WHICH IT
DECIDED IF THOSE STOCK DIVIDENDS WERE DECLARED IN A DIFFERENT TYPE OF
STOCK THAN THE STOCK WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY HELD BY THE OWNER, THAT THOSE
DIVIDENDS DID CONSTITUTE ACTUAL INCOME - TAXABLE INCOME, IF YOU PLEASE
IN THE HANDS OF THE STOCKHOLDER RECIPIENT.    "THAT BEING TRUE, WE
HAVE PROVIDED IN SUCH MANNER AS TO AVOID ANY POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING,
THAT STOCK DIVIDENDS DECLARED IN SUCH MANNER THAT THEY ARE TAXABLE IN
THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS DISTRIBUTED PROFITS
AGAINST WHICH NO UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX IS IMPOSED."  FN24 

SENATOR BONE ASKED:  "WOULD IT NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR CORPORATIONS TO
EVADE THE EFFECT OF THAT KIND OF DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT BY
DISTRIBUTING STOCK OF A CHARACTER THAT WOULD ESCAPE TAXATION?"  SENATOR
BLACK ANSWERED THAT THEY COULD, BUT THAT THEY WOULD THEN BE SUBJECT TO
THE UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX.  FN25 

IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION BY SENATOR ADAMS WHETHER IT WOULD NOT BE
POSSIBLE TO TAX STOCKHOLDERS IN CORPORATIONS UPON UNDISTRIBUTED
CORPORATE EARNINGS, AS PARTNERSHIPS WERE TAXED UPON UNDISTRIBUTED
PARTNERSHIP EARNINGS, SENATOR BLACK STATED THAT THIS WAS "IMPOSSIBLE,"
FN26  BUT THAT "IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE SAME RESULT WE HAVE SUGGESTED A
PROPOSAL WHICH IMPOSES NO CORPORATE TAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS IF THE
CORPORATION DECLARES A STOCK DIVIDEND OF SUCH NATURE AS TO BE TAXABLE
UNDER THE RECENT SUPREME COURT OPINION.  IN THAT CASE, THE CASE OF
KOSHLAND AGAINST HELVERING, THE COURT DISTINGUISHED CLEARLY AND
UNEQUIVOCALLY BETWEEN A NORMAL STOCK DIVIDEND OF THE SAME KIND AND
NATURE AS THE STOCK ON WHICH THE DIVIDEND WAS DECLARED AND A STOCK
DIVIDEND OF A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT NATURE FROM THE STOCK ON WHICH THE
DIVIDEND WAS DECLARED.  IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT AND OBTAIN THE FULL
BENEFIT OF THAT, SO THAT WE CAN PERMIT EVERY CORPORATION, IF IT
DESIRES, TO RETAIN 100 CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR IN ITS TREASURY, IF ITS
STOCKHOLDERS WISH, WE HAVE PROVIDED THAT THERE SHALL NOT BE ONE DOLLAR
OF CORPORATE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFIT TAX IMPOSED UPON THAT CORPORATION IF
IT DISTRIBUTES ITS DIVIDENDS IN A STOCK DIVIDEND WHICH IS TAXABLE IN
THE HANDS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS."  FN27 

SENATOR LA FOLLETTE SAID ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT "UNDER ALL
THESE MEASURES - UNDER THE HOUSE BILL, UNDER THE SENATE COMMITTEE BILL,
AND UNDER THIS AMENDMENT - ANY CORPORATION DESIRING TO RETAIN 100
PERCENT OF ITS STATUTORY NET INCOME FREE FROM INCREASED TAX MAY DO SO
BY PAYING OUT TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS A DIVIDEND WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT."  FN28 

SENATOR ROBINSON STATED HIS APPROVAL OF THE PROFFERED AMENDMENT, BUT
SUGGESTED THAT IT BE WITHDRAWN AND THE MATTER TAKEN UP IN CONFERENCE. 
THE AMENDMENT WAS ACCORDINGLY WITHDRAWN, BUT WAS NOT ACTED UPON BY THE
CONFERENCE.  FN29 

THE MEANING OF SEC. 115(F)(1) WAS CRITICAL IN THE ADMINISTRATION BOTH
OF THE UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX UPON CORPORATIONS AND OF THE INCOME
TAX UPON SHAREHOLDERS.  THIS WAS NOT ITS ONLY IMPORTANCE, HOWEVER. 
LIKE THE EARLIER REVENUE ACTS, THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 CONTAINED
PROVISIONS INTENDED TO COPE WITH THE PROBLEM OF EVASION OF INCOME TAXES
BY SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH FAILURE TO DISTRIBUTE CORPORATE INCOME.  FN30
THESE PROVISIONS HAD BEEN DRAFTED TO AVOID THE LIMITATIONS SET UPON
CONGRESSIONAL POWER BY EISNER V. MACOMBER.  IT WAS GENERALLY BELIEVED
THAT THEY HAD FAILED, AND WOULD FAIL, FULLY TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR
PURPOSE, AND THAT FULLY EFFECTIVE PROVISIONS WOULD ENTAIL A CHALLENGE
OF THE AUTHORITY OF EISNER V. MACOMBER.  FN31 

IN THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS, THE TREASURY ISSUED REGULATIONS WHICH
PLAINLY CONSTRUED SEC. 115(F)(1) NOT AS REPUDIATING EISNER V. MACOMBER
BY TAXING STOCK DIVIDENDS BUT AS EXEMPTING THEM AND ADOPTING THE
EXISTING DECISIONS, INCLUDING EISNER V. MACOMBER.  ARTICLE 115-7 OF
REGULATIONS 94, ISSUED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, SET FORTH
REFERENCES TO THE COURT'S DECISIONS IN MANY CASES, AND SAID:  "A STOCK
DIVIDEND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME IF THE NEW SHARES CONFER NO
DIFFERENT RIGHTS OR INTERESTS THAN DID THE OLD - THE NEW CERTIFICATES
PLUS THE OLD REPRESENTING THE SAME PROPORTIONATE INTEREST IN THE NET
ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION AS DID THE OLD."  THREE EXAMPLES FOLLOWED,
THE SECOND RELATING TO A DIVIDEND IDENTICAL WITH THE ONE BEFORE US.
THE EXAMPLE CONCLUDED:  "THE STOCK SO DISTRIBUTED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A
TAXABLE STOCK DIVIDEND TO THE SHAREHOLDERS."  THE TREASURY ALSO ISSUED
A STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY AS TO STOCK DIVIDENDS, TO THE EFFECT THAT
IT WOULD ALLOW A DIVIDENDS-PAID CREDIT AGAINST THE UNDISTRIBUTED
PROFITS TAX WITH RESPECT TO STOCK DIVIDENDS WHICH WERE CLEARLY TAXABLE
TO STOCKHOLDERS AND REFUSE SUCH CREDIT WITH RESPECT TO STOCK DIVIDENDS
WHICH WERE "CLEARLY NONTAXABLE TO THE SHAREHOLDER"; AND WHERE
TAXABILITY WAS A DEBATABLE QUESTION, IT WOULD TENTATIVELY ALLOW A
DIVIDENDS-PAID CREDIT IF THE CORPORATION CLAIMING THE CREDIT SHOULD
FILE PROPER WAIVERS OR AGREEMENTS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE TAXABILITY TO
SHAREHOLDERS OF THE DISTRIBUTION, EITHER BY CLOSING AGREEMENT EXECUTED
BY ALL SHAREHOLDERS OR BY A FINAL ADJUDICATION IN COURT.  FN32 

ADMINISTRATION OF SEC. 115(F)(1) WAS UNDERTAKEN AND CONTINUED UPON
THE BASIS OF THIS CONSTRUCTION, AND NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO OBTAIN A
DIFFERENT ONE.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS COURT TOOK THE
POSITION THAT THE MEANING OF SEC. 115(F)(1) WAS CORRECTLY STATED BY
CONGRESSMAN VINSON ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AS QUOTED INFRA, P. 380. 
FN33 

OTHER AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCEPTED THIS SAME VIEW OF THE
MEANING OF THE STATUTE, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY CORPORATIONS
SUBJECT TO THEIR SUPERVISION OF SECURITIES OTHER THAN COMMON STOCK, AT
VARIANCE WITH THEIR USUAL POLICY AND IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE
CORPORATIONS TO DO WHAT THE TREASURY ASSURED THEM WAS NECESSARY TO
AVOID THE PAYMENT OF UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAXES.  FN34 

THE UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX EVOKED A VOLUMINOUS LITERATURE, WHICH
SHOWED ALMOST UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
TREASURY'S CONTEMPORANEOUS STATEMENT OF THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE. 
FN35 

WE THINK IF CONGRESS HAD PASSED OR INTENDED TO PASS AN ACT
CHALLENGING A WELL KNOWN CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION OF THIS COURT THERE
WOULD APPEAR AT LEAST ONE CLEAR STATEMENT OF THAT PURPOSE EITHER FROM
ITS PROPONENTS OR ITS ADVERSARIES.  NOT ONE CONTEMPORANEOUS WORD IN OR
OUT OF CONGRESS DISCLOSES THE PURPOSE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SAYS WE
SHOULD FIND THAT THIS LEGISLATION ACCOMPLISHED. 

AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND, IT WAS PROPOSED TO INCORPORATE AN
UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX IN THE PENDING REVENUE ACT FOR 1938.  AS
PROPOSED AND ENACTED, SEC. 115(F)(1) WAS THE SAME AS IN THE 1936 ACT. 
FN36  LIKE EARLIER ACTS, THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, AS PROPOSED AND
ENACTED, CONTAINED PROVISIONS INTENDED TO CONFORM WITH THE AUTHORITY OF
EISNER V. MACOMBER,  FN37  AND IT WAS ATTACKED AS EMBODYING THE
PRINCIPLE OF FORCING THE DISTRIBUTION OF NEEDED CORPORATE ASSETS.  THE
RATE OF THE UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX WAS, HOWEVER, VERY MATERIALLY
LOWER THAN IN THE 1936 ACT.  FN38  THIS WOULD HAVE HAD THE EFFECT OF
DIMINISHING THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD BE COLLECTED FROM THE CORPORATION AS
UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX DESPITE THE DECLARATION OF A NONTAXABLE STOCK
DIVIDEND.  DESPITE THESE FACTORS, AGAIN THERE WAS NOT THE SLIGHTEST
SUGGESTION OF THE VIEW THAT SEC. 115(F)(1) HAD MADE OR HAD INTENDED TO
MAKE ALL STOCK DIVIDENDS TAXABLE; ON THE CONTRARY, THERE WAS CONTINUED
RECOGNITION OF THE AUTHORITY OF EISNER V. MACOMBER.  FN39  SECTION
115(F)(1) WAS REENACTED WHILE THE TREASURY REGULATION AND RULINGS ON
ITS MEANING STOOD UNAMENDED AND IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM.  FN40 

THE TREASURY ADHERED TO ITS EARLIER VIEWS OF THE MEANING OF SEC.
115(F)(1) BY REPROMULGATING ITS FORMER REGULATION UNDER THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1938 AND UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,  FN41  AND IT STOOD
UNAMENDED AT THE TIME OF THE RECEIPT OF THE STOCK DIVIDENDS HERE IN
QUESTION.  CONGRESS IN 1939 ENACTED BASIS PROVISIONS INCORPORATING THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 115(F)(1).  FN42  IT WAS NOT UNTIL NOVEMBER 15, 1940,
AND AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE DIVIDENDS HERE INVOLVED, THAT THE TREASURY
AMENDED THE REGULATION, AND THEN ONLY BY STRIKING OUT ALL AFTER THE
FIRST SENTENCE.  FN43  THIS ACTION FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT
IN HELVERING V. BRUUN, 309 U.S. 461, ON MARCH 25, 1940, WHICH REJECTED
THE CONCEPT THAT TAXABLE GAIN COULD ARISE ONLY WHEN THE TAXPAYER WAS
ABLE TO SEVER INCREMENT FROM HIS ORIGINAL CAPITAL.  IT PRECEDED BY TEN
DAYS THE DECISION IN HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112, WHICH HELD THAT
THERE WAS NO EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION WHERE ECONOMIC GAIN IS ENJOYED "BY
SOME EVENT OTHER THAN THE TAXPAYER'S PERSONAL RECEIPT OF MONEY OR
PROPERTY."  ID. AT 116.  EACH OF THESE DECISIONS UNDERMINED FURTHER THE
ORIGINAL THEORETICAL BASES OF THE DECISION IN EISNER V. MACOMBER. 

THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT THE TIME HAS COME WHEN EISNER V. MACOMBER
MUST BE OVERRULED, AND THAT WE SHOULD CONSTRUE SEC. 115(F)(1) AS
INTENDED TO TAX THE DIVIDENDS HERE IN QUESTION AND THUS TO REQUIRE
RECONSIDERATION OF THAT DECISION.  IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE
QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF EISNER V. MACOMBER IS
PLAINLY ONE OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, BUT THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT IT IS
PRESENTED IN THIS CASE.  UNDER OUR JUDICIAL TRADITION WE DO NOT DECIDE
WHETHER A TAX MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE LAID UNTIL WE FIND THAT CONGRESS
HAS LAID IT.  UNLESS THE TAX ASSERTED BY THE COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, IT FAILS OF VALIDITY BEFORE WE EVEN REACH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  TO REACH THAT QUESTION WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER
CONGRESS INTENDED BY SEC. 115(F)(1) TO DO WHAT EISNER V. MACOMBER
SQUARELY HELD THAT IT COULD NOT.  WE CANNOT FIND THAT IT DID. 

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT SUSTAIN ITS POSITION ON A LITERAL READING OF
SEC. 115(F)(1).  UNLIKE THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916,  FN44  IT DOES NOT
STATE THAT ALL STOCK DIVIDENDS ARE TAXABLE.  INSTEAD, SEC. 115(F)(1)
QUALIFIES THE GENERALITY OF SEC. 22(A) BY PROVIDING THAT A DISTRIBUTION
MADE IN SHARES OF THE CORPORATION'S STOCK "SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A
DIVIDEND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME TO THE
SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ..."  IF
THE STATUTE IS TO BE LITERALLY READ, USE OF "DOES" INSTEAD OF SOME WORD
OF FUTURITY INDICATES THAT THE TIME OF ENACTMENT OR AT THE LATEST THE
TIME OF RECEIPT OF THE DIVIDEND IS THE CRITICAL ONE FOR DETERMINING
TAXABILITY.  UNDER EITHER VIEW THESE DIVIDENDS WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE. 
THE PARTIES ARE AGREED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION THE
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE FOUND IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT, AND WHEN THESE DIVIDENDS WERE RECEIVED EISNER V. MACOMBER FIXED
THE MEANING CONTRARY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE SQUARELY
CONFLICT WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION IN THIS CASE. 

THE TREASURY REGULATION ISSUED UNDER SEC. 115(F)(1) IMMEDIATELY AFTER
IT WAS FIRST ENACTED STATES IN TERMS THAT THE STATUTE WAS NOT INTENDED
TO LAY A TAX ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND OF EISNER V. MACOMBER, AND
THE TREASURY ADVISED TAXPAYERS BY ANOTHER RULING THAT SOME STOCK
DIVIDENDS WERE "CLEARLY" NONTAXABLE.  IN WHITE V. WINCHESTER CLUB, 315
U.S. 32, 41, WE SAID THAT SUCH "SUBSTANTIALLY CONTEMPORANEOUS
EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF THE
PROBABLE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE TIMES AND OF THE OPINIONS OF MEN
WHO PROBABLY WERE ACTIVE IN THE DRAFTING OF THE STATUTE."  FN45  THE
STATUTE WAS REENACTED IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM AFTER HAVING BEEN IN FORCE
FOR TWO YEARS, AND AFTER A LONG CONTROVERSY CENTERING AROUND THE
MEANING OF THE STATUTE WHICH ASSUMED THROUGHOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  THIS COURT HAS DENIED RETROACTIVE EFFECTS
TO AMENDMENTS TO VALID TREASURY REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE SURVIVED
REENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AFFIRMATIVE
INDICATION THAT THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE STATUTE AND REGULATION WAS
CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS.  FN46  THE EFFECT OF REENACTMENT
IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AFFIRMATIVE INDICATIONS OF AGREEMENT HAS BEEN
STATED IN VARIOUS AND NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT TERMS.  FN47  THIS IS A
QUESTION WE DO NOT NOW NEED TO EXAMINE, FOR THERE ARE IN THIS CASE MANY
INDICATIONS THAT CONGRESS WAS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE TREASURY
ON THE QUESTION OF THE TAXABILITY OF THE STOCK DIVIDENDS HERE
INVOLVED.  WE WOULD THINK IT UNQUESTIONABLE THAT IN THIS CASE THE
TREASURY COULD NOT RETROACTIVELY AMEND THE REGULATION TO THE PREJUDICE
OF THE RESPONDENT, EXCEPT FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSERTION THAT IT SHOULD
BE DISREGARDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S.
106, 121, NOTE 8, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, UNDER SEC. 3791(B) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE THE SECRETARY OR COMMISSIONER MUST BE HELD TO
HAVE AUTHORITY IN ANY CASE TO MAKE A RETROACTIVE AMENDMENT OF A
REGULATION. 

THE HALLOCK CASE IS CLEARLY INAPPOSITE.  THERE IT WAS HELD THAT
TREASURY REGULATIONS ISSUED MORE THAN 11 YEARS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF
THE GOVERNING REVENUE ACT OF 1926,  FN48  IN SUBMISSION TO THE DECISION
OF THIS COURT IN 1935 OF THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CO. CASES, 296 U.S. 39,
48, COULD NOT PREVENT THE COURT FROM OVERRULING THOSE CASES ON FACTS
ENTIRELY ANTEDATING THEM.  THAT REGULATION DID NOT PURPORT TO CONSTRUE
THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, AS DID THIS ONE, BUT SIMPLY TO ACKNOWLEDGE
A CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT IMPOSED BY THIS COURT UPON THE OPERATION OF A
PREVIOUSLY ENACTED STATUTE; IT WAS NOT IN EFFECT WHEN THE TRANSACTIONS
INVOLVED WERE ENTERED UPON; AND THERE HAD BEEN NO REENACTMENT OF THE
STATUTE WHILE THE REGULATION WAS IN FORCE. 

NOR DO WE CONCUR IN THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF SEC. 3791(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE REQUIRES
RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION AS TO THE EFFECT OF A CORRESPONDING
PROVISION OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 IN HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS
TOBACCO CO., 306 U.S. 110,116.  FN49  WE THINK THAT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN EFFECT AT
THE TIME OF THE RECEIPT OF THE STOCK DIVIDENDS HERE IN ISSUE MUST BE
GIVEN CONTROLLING EFFECT.    WE WOULD BE RELUCTANT, IN ANY EVENT, TO
FIND THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO HOLD THE EFFECT OF SEC. 115(F)(1) IN
ABEYANCE UNTIL THE TREASURY SHOULD DECIDE THAT THE TIME WAS RIPE TO
CHALLENGE EISNER V. MACOMBER AND CARRY ITS CHALLENGE TO THIS COURT. 
SUCH AN INTENTION WOULD BE A SERIOUS DEPARTURE FROM THE USUAL POLICY OF
CONGRESS TO PROVIDE THE TAXPAYERS AND TAX-GATHERERS WITH A PRACTICAL
BASIS FOR THE TIMELY SETTLEMENT OF QUESTIONS OF TAXATION ARISING EACH
YEAR.  AT THE TIMES OF ENACTMENT, THE PROBLEM OF DELAY IN OBTAINING
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WAS A MATTER OF GRAVE CONCERN TO THOSE
CONCERNED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND FURNISHING OF THE REVENUES. 
FN50 

THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSERTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO HOLD THE MEANING
OF SEC. 115(F)(1) IN SUSPENSE UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF YEARS OF
LITIGATION IS IN CONFLICT WITH OUR RECENT DECISION IN PARKER V. MOTOR
BOAT SALES CO., 314 U.S. 244.  THERE WE WERE CALLED UPON TO CONSTRUE
SEC. 3(A) OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT, 44 STAT. 1424,
WHICH MADE COMPENSATION PAYABLE ONLY IF "RECOVERY FOR THE DISABILITY OR
DEATH THROUGH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT VALIDLY BE
PROVIDED BY STATE LAW."  ITS STATEMENT IN SUCH TERMS WAS DUE TO THIS
COURT'S DECISION IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205, A
MUCH CRITICIZED AND SOMEWHAT IMPAIRED, BUT NOT OVERRULED, DECISION
WHICH HELD FEDERAL POWER EXCLUSIVE AND STATE COMPENSATION LAWS
FORBIDDEN IN AN AREA OF "SHADOWY LIMITS."  THE COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, SAID, "AN INTERPRETATION WHICH WOULD ENLARGE OR
CONTRACT THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISO IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHETHER THIS
COURT REJECTED OR REAFFIRMED THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE JENSEN AND
ITS COMPANION CASES CANNOT BE ACCEPTABLE.  THE RESULT OF SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION WOULD BE TO SUBJECT THE SCOPE OF PROTECTION THAT
CONGRESS WISHED TO PROVIDE, TO UNCERTAINTIES THAT CONGRESS WISHED TO
AVOID."  ID. AT 248,250. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT WE READ INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT AN
INTENT TO TAX THESE DIVIDENDS BECAUSE OF CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE DO NOT
THINK ARE ENTITLED TO ANY WEIGHT.  IT ARGUES THAT THE FORM OF SEC.
115(F)(1) IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO "EMBARRASSMENT" WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
INCIDENT TO A "FRONTAL ATTACK" ON EISNER V. MACOMBER.  THERE IS AMPLE
GROUND TO KNOW THAT THE PROSPECT OF CONFLICT IN OPINION WITH THIS COURT
ON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT SO TO MUTE THE 74TH AND
75TH CONGRESSES.  FN51  THIS WAS AS IT SHOULD BE.  THERE IS NO REASON
TO DOUBT THAT THIS COURT MAY FALL INTO ERROR AS MAY OTHER BRANCHES OF
THE GOVERNMENT.  NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OR ATTITUDE OF THIS COURT
SHOULD GIVE RISE TO LEGISLATIVE EMBARRASSMENT IF IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
ITS DUTY A LEGISLATIVE BODY FEELS IMPELLED TO ENACT LAWS WHICH MAY
REQUIRE THE COURT TO REEXAMINE ITS PREVIOUS JUDGMENTS OR DOCTRINE. 
FN52  THE COURT DIFFERS, HOWEVER, FROM OTHER BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT
IN ITS ABILITY TO EXTRICATE ITSELF FROM ERROR.  IT CAN RECONSIDER A
MATTER ONLY WHEN IT IS AGAIN PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE IT IN A CASE OR
CONTROVERSY; AND IF THE CASE REQUIRES, AS A TAX CASE DOES,  FN53  A
STATUTORY BASIS FOR A CASE, THE NEW CASE MUST HAVE SUFFICIENT STATUTORY
SUPPORT. 

AND, IF WE WERE TO ASSUME CONGRESSIONAL "EMBARRASSMENT" AND TAKE IT
INTO CONSIDERATION, WE WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO WEIGH THE MANY OTHER
POLITICAL FACTORS WHICH MAY HAVE MOTIVATED THE CHOICE EMPLOYED IN THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 115(F)(1).  THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE BILL MAY HAVE
BELIEVED THAT THE ADOPTION OF EXISTING DECISIONS WAS THE MOST THAT WAS
POLITICALLY POSSIBLE; THOSE WHO OPPOSED IT MAY HAVE THOUGHT IT
DESIRABLE AS MATTER OF TAX POLICY TO DEFER TAXATION OF THE STOCK
DIVIDEND UNTIL REALIZATION.  FN54  NEEDLESS TO SAY, SPECULATION UPON
SUCH FACTORS HAS NO PLACE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ACTS OF CONGRESS. 

WE ARE ASKED TO MAKE A RETROACTIVE HOLDING THAT FOR SOME SEVEN YEARS
PAST A MULTITUDE OF TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAXABLE ALTHOUGH THERE WAS
NO SOURCE OF LAW FROM WHICH THE MOST CAUTIOUS TAXPAYER COULD HAVE
LEARNED OF THE LIABILITY.  IF HE CONSULTED THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,
HE LEARNED THAT NO SUCH TAX COULD BE IMPOSED; IF HE READ THE DELPHIC
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT IN CONNECTION WITH EXISTING DECISIONS, IT, TOO,
ASSURED HIM THERE WAS NO INTENT TO TAX; IF HE FOLLOWED THE
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES, HIS UNDERSTANDING OF
NONTAXABILITY WOULD BE CONFIRMED; IF HE ASKED THE TAX COLLECTOR
HIMSELF, HE WAS BOUND BY THE REGULATIONS OF THE TREASURY TO ADVISE THAT
NO SUCH LIABILITY EXISTED.  IT WOULD BE A PITY IF TAXPAYERS COULD NOT
RELY ON THIS CONCURRENT ASSURANCE FROM ALL THREE BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  BUT WE ARE ASKED TO BRUSH ALL THIS ASIDE AND SIMPLY TO
DECREE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE TAXABLE ANYWAY. 

NOR IS THE EFFECT ON TAXPAYERS THE ONLY CONSEQUENCE OF ACCEPTING SUCH
A PROPOSAL.  IT WOULD UNSETTLE TAX ADMINISTRATION AND SUBJECT THE
TREASURY ITSELF TO MANY DEMANDS IN WAYS THAT WE CANNOT ANTICIPATE AND
PROVIDE FOR.  MANY HAVE SOLD DIVIDEND STOCKS AND PAID THE POSTPONED TAX
AT HIGHER RATES THAN IF THEY HAD BEEN TAXED AS IS NOW PROPOSED.  MANY
HAVE PAID ON THE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL STOCK BECAUSE OF ALLOCATION OF
PART OF THE DIVIDEND TO REDUCE THE COST BASE THEREOF.  MANY
CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN REFUSED DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF THIS TYPE OF
STOCK DIVIDEND IN COMPUTING THEIR UNDISTRIBUTED CORPORATE EARNINGS TAX,
WHICH WOULD BECOME ENTITLED TO THEM.  OVERHANGING THE WHOLE EFFORT TO
ACCOMMODATE THESE PAST TRANSACTIONS TO A NEW RETROACTIVE LAW WOULD BE
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BARRING SOMETIMES THE GOVERNMENT AND
SOMETIMES THE TAXPAYER WITH CAPRICIOUS EFFECTS.  TO RIP OUT OF THE PAST
SEVEN YEARS OF TAX ADMINISTRATION A PRINCIPLE OF LAW ON WHICH BOTH
GOVERNMENT AND TAXPAYERS HAVE ACTED WOULD PRODUCE READJUSTMENTS AND
LITIGATION SO EXTENSIVE WE WOULD CONTEMPLATE THEM WITH ANXIETY.  WE
HAVE RECENTLY HELD AS TO ANOTHER QUESTIONED DECISION OF THIS COURT THAT
A LONG PERIOD OF ACCOMMODATIONS TO AN OLDER DECISION SOMETIMES REQUIRES
US TO ADHERE TO AN UNSATISFACTORY RULE TO AVOID UNFORTUNATE PRACTICAL
RESULTS FROM A CHANGE.  DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S. 249.  WE
THINK THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE SAME PRINCIPLE. 

THE GOVERNMENT ACKNOWLEDGES THE HARDSHIP WHICH WOULD BE INCIDENT TO
THE RULE WE ARE NOW ASKED TO DECLARE, AND PROMISES ITS ASSISTANCE IN
OBTAINING LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION.  IT SAYS THAT:  "WE ARE INFORMED BY
THE TREASURY THAT IT HAS NO INTENTION OF HARASSING TAXPAYERS WITH
RESPECT TO LIABILITY FOR PAST YEARS, AND THAT IF EISNER V. MACOMBER IS
OVERRULED IT INTENDS IMMEDIATELY TO RECOMMEND TO CONGRESS LEGISLATION
WHICH WOULD RELIEVE TAXPAYERS OF ANY UNFAIR RETROACTIVE BURDEN THAT
MIGHT RESULT FROM SUCH OVERRULING.  ..." 

OF COURSE, IF THERE WERE AN ADEQUATE BASIS IN STATUTE AND REGULATION
FOR THE TAX IN QUESTION, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY ITS
COLLECTION SHOULD BE REGARDED AS "HARASSING."  THIS ASSURANCE THAT IF
WE WILL BUT FIND THAT CONGRESS HAS INTENDED TO LAY THE TAX IT WILL BE
ASKED TO DECLARE THAT IT DOES NOT INTEND IT TO BE COLLECTED IS HARDLY
REASSURING THAT THE DECISION CONTENDED FOR WOULD BE WHAT CONGRESS
INTENDED.  SINCE IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT LEGISLATION WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO ADJUST EQUITIES THAT ARE BEYOND JUDICIAL POWER AND TO PREVENT OUR
DECISION'S BEING USED TO HARASS TAXPAYERS, WE MAY WELL INQUIRE WHY THE
LEGISLATION SHOULD NOT PRECEDE THE JUDICIAL DECISION.  WHY SHOULD WE BE
ASKED TO IMPOSE BY INTERPRETATION A TAX WHICH THE TREASURY INTENDS TO
ASK CONGRESS TO LIFT? 

WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO TAX THE DIVIDENDS IN
QUESTION, AND WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY WE ARE POWERLESS TO DO
SO.  THAT BEING THE CASE, WE CANNOT REACH THE RECONSIDERATION OF EISNER
V. MACOMBER ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS. 

THE DECISION BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  53 STAT. 1, 9, 47.  SEC. 22(A) PROVIDES THAT "'GROSS INCOME'
INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM  ...  DIVIDENDS  ..." 

SEC. 115(A) PROVIDES THAT "THE TERM 'DIVIDEND'  ...  MEANS ANY
DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS, WHETHER IN
MONEY OR IN OTHER PROPERTY.  ..."  53 STAT. 1, 46. 

FN2  SEC. II B OF THIS ACT, 38 STAT. 114, 167, PROVIDED THAT "NET
INCOME  ...  SHALL INCLUDE GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM  ...
DIVIDENDS  ..." 

FN3  SEC. 2(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916, 39 STAT. 756, 757. 

FN4  SELIGMAN, IMPLICATIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE STOCK DIVIDEND
DECISION, (1921) 21 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 313; WARREN, TAXABILITY OF
STOCK DIVIDENDS AS INCOME, (1920) 33 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 885; CF.
POWELL, CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, IN THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX (COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LECTURES, 1921) 51; BALLANTINE,
CORPORATE PERSONALTY IN INCOME TAXATION, (1921) 34 HARVARD LAW REVIEW
573; POWELL, INCOME FROM CORPORATE DIVIDENDS, (1922) 35 HARVARD LAW
REVIEW 363; CLARK, EISNER V. MACOMBER AND SOME INCOME TAX PROBLEMS,
(1920) 29 YALE LAW JOURNAL 735.  BUT CF. FAIRCHILD, THE STOCK DIVIDEND
DECISION, (1920) 5 NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION BULLETIN 208. 

FN5  T.D. 3052, 3059, 3 CUM. BULL.  38; O.D. 732, 3 CUM. BULL.  39;
O.D. 801, 4 CUM. BULL.  24; 42 STAT. 227, 228.  THE HOUSE REPORT STATED
THAT THIS ACT MODIFIED "THE DEFINITION OF DIVIDENDS IN EXISTING LAW BY
EXEMPTING STOCK DIVIDENDS FROM THE INCOME TAX, AS REQUIRED BY THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN EISNER V. MACOMBER."  H.R. REP. NO.
350, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 8-9.  THE SENATE REPORT WAS TO THE SAME
EFFECT.  S. REP. NO. 275, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 9. 

FN6  SEE ARTICLE 1548, TREASURY REGULATIONS 62(PROMULGATED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1921), 65(PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924) AND
69(PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926); ARTICLE 628, TREASURY
REGULATIONS 74(PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928) AND
77(PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932); ARTICLE 115-8 OF
TREASURY REGULATIONS 86(PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934). 

FN7  ARTICLE 1548, TREASURY REGULATIONS 62; ARTICLES 1548, 1599,
TREASURY REGULATIONS 65 AND 69; ARTICLES 600, 628, TREASURY REGULATIONS
74. 

FN8  H. DOC. NO. 418, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 2-3. 

FN9  H.R. COMMITTEE PRINT, MARCH 26, 1936, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
HEARINGS ON THE REVENUE ACT, 1936, HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 74TH
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 5-8. 

FN10  SEE STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN VINSON, 83 CONG. REC. 2780:
"AFTER THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN 1920, IT WAS NO LONGER
POSSIBLE FOR US TO IMPOSE A TAX UPON THE SHAREHOLDER WITH RESPECT TO
THE UNDIVIDED PROFITS OF A DOMESTIC CORPORATION.  WE WERE FORCED TO
ADOPT THE SYSTEM OF LEVYING A SPECIAL PENALTY TAX ON THE CORPORATION
ITSELF, WHICH HAS BEEN EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE IN THE COURTS
AND IS NOTHING LIKE AS EFFECTIVE AS IF WE COULD IGNORE THE CORPORATION
AND TAX THE SHAREHOLDER DIRECT UPON HIS UNDISTRIBUTED EARNINGS IN THE
PROFITS OF THE CORPORATION." 

SEE ALSO, HEARINGS ON THE REVENUE ACT, 1936, HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 193, 745; CF. HEARINGS ON THE
REVENUE ACT, 1936, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP.
210-211, 256-257; H.R. REP. NO. 1860, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 2-3;
REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
PROPOSED REVISION OF THE REVENUE LAWS, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., JANUARY
14, 1938, PP. 2-3.  FOR EARLIER PROPOSALS, SEE STATEMENT OF OLIPHANT,
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, HEARINGS ON THE REVENUE ACT, 1936,
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 658; ID. AT
820; MARTIN, TAXATION OF UNDISTRIBUTED CORPORATE PROFITS, (1936) 35
MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 44, 45 ET SEQ. 

FN11  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1864, 13 STAT. 218, 282, PROVIDED THAT
"GAINS AND PROFITS OF ALL COMPANIES, WHETHER INCORPORATED OR
PARTNERSHIP,  ...  SHALL BE INCLUDED IN ESTIMATING THE ANNUAL GAINS,
PROFITS, OR INCOME OF ANY PERSON ENTITLED TO THE SAME, WHETHER DIVIDED
OR OTHERWISE."  COMPARE THE COLLECTOR V. HUBBARD, 12 WALL.  1, 17, WITH
POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601, AND EISNER V.
MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 218, 230-232.  SEE ALSO, 13 STAT. 480; 14 STAT.
5, 478; 16 STAT. 258. 

FN12  CONGRESSMAN HILL OBJECTED TO A PROPOSAL THAT STOCKHOLDERS BE
TAXED LIKE PARTNERS, ON THE GROUND THAT EISNER V. MACOMBER STOOD IN THE
WAY.  HEARINGS ON THE REVENUE ACT, 1936, HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS
COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 96, 97, 98.  CONGRESSMAN LEWIS
STATED:  "I DO NOT KNOW THAT IT IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY THE PUBLIC THAT
THIS ROUNDABOUT DEVICE OF COMPELLING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE REAL
INCOME OF THE CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS, SO THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS
MAY BE CALLED UPON TO PAY TAXES UPON THEIR INCOME, IS DUE TO A DECISION
OF A DIVIDED COURT.  SOME YEARS AGO THE SUPREME COURT IN A SHARP
DECISION DETERMINED THAT WE COULD NOT DO IN THE UNITED STATES WITH
REGARD TO EARNED DIVIDENDS THAT WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED WHAT THEY DO IN
OTHER COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY IN ENGLAND, REQUIRE THE SHAREHOLDER TO PAY
HIS TAX ON HIS INCOME JUST THE SAME WHETHER HIS COMPANY HAD REFUSED TO
DISTRIBUTE IT OR NOT. 

"NOW, IF THAT DECISION OF THE COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED, WHAT WE ARE
DOING HERE, OR ATTEMPTING TO DO IN ORDER TO REACH THE TAXPAYER HERE,
THE METHOD OF OUR ATTEMPT, WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY.  NOT OURS THE FAULT
OF ALL THIS CLUMSINESS AND INDIRECTION OF APPROACH TO A NECESSARY
PUBLIC OBJECT."  ID. AT 193. 

LATER HE SAID:  "OF COURSE, WE CANNOT REACH THE NET EARNINGS OF THE
CORPORATIONS AS EARNINGS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STOCKHOLDERS UNTIL THE
EARNINGS ARE DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS."  ID. AT 321.  SEE ALSO, ID. AT
745, 83 CONG. REC. 3125.    IN THE SENATE DEBATES, SENATOR BLACK STATED
IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION WHETHER IT WAS "LEGALLY POSSIBLE TO SAY TO
EACH CORPORATION, 'MAKE A REPORT OF THE PROPORTIONATE EARNINGS OF EACH
STOCKHOLDER,' AS WE WOULD TO A PARTNERSHIP, AND THEN LET THE
STOCKHOLDER MAKE HIS RETURN?"  THAT "UNFORTUNATELY THAT WAS DONE ABOUT
60 YEARS AGO, AND WHILE IT IS MY RECOLLECTION THAT THE SUPREME COURT
ITSELF SUSTAINED THE ACT, IT LATER, BY ANOTHER DIVIDED OPINION, CHANGED
ITS MIND AND STRUCK DOWN THE ACT AS BEING IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  SO THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TAX THE UNDISTRIBUTED
PROFITS WHICH REMAIN IN THE CORPORATE TREASURY AS A PART OF THE
INDIVIDUAL INCOMES OF THE STOCKHOLDERS."  80 CONG. REC. 8813. 

COMPARE COLLOQUY BETWEEN CONGRESSMAN LEWIS AND ALVORD, INFRA, NOTE
37; HELVERING V. NATIONAL GROCERY CO., 304 U.S. 282; HEINER V. MELLON,
304 U.S. 271; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 425.  BUT SEE
POWELL, THE STOCK-DIVIDEND DECISION AND THE CORPORATE NONENTITY, (1920)
5 NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION BULLETIN 201; CLARK, SUPRA, NOTE 4, AT 742;
TRAYNOR, TAX DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1937 TERM, (1938) 33
ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 371, 388. 

FN13  SEC. 27(F) OF H.R. 12395, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., WHICH BECAME
SEC. 27(E) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1648, 1665. 

FN14  IN QUESTIONING KENT, ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE BUREAU OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, AT THE HOUSE HEARINGS, CONGRESSMAN VINSON OF KENTUCKY
SAID:  "IN REFERENCE TO THE RETENTION OF THE CASH IN THE BUSINESS BY
THE USE OF TAXABLE STOCK DIVIDENDS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DEVELOP THAT,
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS VERY INTERESTING.  I THINK THAT IT WILL ALLAY A
MAJOR PORTION OF THE FEAR THAT SOME FOLKS HAVE THAT IN THIS FAVORED
TREAMENT OF CORPORATIONS DECLARING LARGE PERCENTAGES OF DIVIDENDS THE
CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF A CORPORATION WOULD BE IN DANGER, OR THAT THEREBY
IT WOULD NOT HAVE THE MONEY FOR THE RAINY DAY."  KENT REPLIED:  "THERE
HAVE BEEN SEVERAL DECISIONS RECENTLY - I MAY SAY THAT ONE OF THEM HAS
NOW REACHED THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - THAT HAVE TAKEN
THE POSITION THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE TRUE STOCK
DIVIDEND RECOGNIZED OR DECLARED IN EISNER V. MACOMBER DOES NOT APPLY TO
ALL TYPES AND VARIETIES OF SO-CALLED STOCK DIVIDENDS; FOR INSTANCE,
THAT IF THE DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION INSTEAD OF PAYING A LARGE CASH
DIVIDEND TO THE PREFERRED SHAREHOLDERS OF THE CORPORATION SEE FIT TO
GIVE THEM COMMON STOCK INSTEAD, THAT DIVIDEND OF COMMON STOCK IS
TAXABLE SO FAR AS THE CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED. 

"I MAY SAY THAT IN A CASE WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
THERE IS A QUESTION ALSO OF THE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, BUT ASSUMING,
AS I BELIEVE IS A PROPER LEGAL VIEW OF THE CASE, THAT SO FAR AS THE
CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED, THERE ARE TYPES OF STOCK DIVIDENDS THAT MAY
BE TAXED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THAT WOULD PROVIDE A LOOPHOLE.  THEN,
ALSO, OF COURSE, THERE IS THE SO-CALLED OPTIONAL STOCK DIVIDEND IN
WHICH THE STOCKHOLDER IS GIVEN THE OPTION OF TAKING CASH OR TAKING
STOCK.  FOR ANY SHAREHOLDER WHO WISHES TO MAINTAIN HIS PROPORTIONATE
EQUITY IN THE ENTERPRISE THERE IS A VERY POWERFUL INCENTIVE TO TAKE
STOCK."  CONGRESSMAN VINSON SAID:  "SUCH OPTION IS PROPERTY THAT HAS A
VALUE AND, IN YOUR OPINION, TAKES THAT ENTIRELY OUT OF THE STOCK
DIVIDEND WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF EISNER V. MACOMBER; IS THAT
RIGHT?"  MR. KENT:  "THAT IS CORRECT."  HEARINGS ON THE REVENUE ACT,
1936, HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 592
593. 

SEE ALSO, SIMILAR STATEMENTS AT THE SENATE HEARINGS BY HAAS, DIRECTOR
OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS FOR THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT; AND OLIPHANT,
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY.  HEARINGS ON THE REVENUE ACT, 1936,
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 38, 909, 917-918. 

FN15  THE GOVERNMENT CALLS ATTENTION TO A MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED TO THE
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE BY GRAHAM, LECTURER IN FINANCE AT COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY, WHICH STATED THAT:  "THE MOST SUITABLE METHOD OF
CAPITALIZING REINVESTED EARNINGS AND MAKING THEM TAXABLE TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS, WOULD BE THROUGH THE DECLARATION OF TAXABLE DIVIDENDS IN
COMMON STOCK.  WHILE THE DECISION IN EISNER V. MACOMBER STANDS IN THE
WAY OF THIS IDEAL ARRANGEMENT, I BELIEVE THAT IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERNET
PHILOSOPHY OF TAXATION EMBODIED IN THE PENDING BILL, THIS DECISION
MIGHT BE OVERCOME BY TREATING SUCH STOCK DIVIDENDS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLE FOR ALLOCATING EARNINGS TO THE VARIOUS TAXPAYERS."  HEARINGS ON
THE REVENUE ACT, 1936, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
P. 696.  GRAHAM DID NOT TESTIFY AT THE HEARINGS, AND IT IS NOT CLEAR
FROM THIS STATEMENT THAT HE HAD REFERENCE TO A DIVIDEND OF COMMON STOCK
ON COMMON STOCK.  COMPARE HIS LATER STATEMENT IN THE UNDISTRIBUTED
PROFITS TAX AND THE INVESTOR, (1936) 46 YALE LAW JOURNAL 1, 6, NOTE 17:
"PAYMENTS ON COMMON IN ADDITIONAL COMMON ARE, OF COURSE, NON
TAXABLE."  COMPARE HEARINGS ON THE REVENUE ACT, 1936, HOUSE WAYS AND
MEANS COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 93 ET SEQ. 

FN16  H.R. 12395, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN17  H. REP. NO. 2475, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 10. 

FN18  80 CONG. REC. 6214-6215. 

FN19  SEE NOTE 14, SUPRA. 

FN20  MAGILL, REALIZATION OF INCOME THROUGH CORPORATE DISTRIBUTIONS,
(1936) 36 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 519. 

FN21  MR. VINSON.  THE CASE OF EISNER AGAINST MACOMBER, AS I RECALL,
INVOLVED A CORPORATION WITH $1,000,000 COMMON STOCK.  THERE WAS A
DECLARATION OF A $500,000 STOCK DIVIDEND TO THE COMMON-SHARE HOLDERS. 
THE COURT HELD, AND I THINK CORRECTLY, THAT WHERE EACH SHAREHOLDER GOT
HIS PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE NEW STOCK THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN HIS
OWNERSHIP IN THE CORPORATION.  THAT, IN A CORPORATION WITH A
MILLIONDOLLAR CAPITAL, THE DISTRIBUTION OF ANOTHER HALF MILLION TO THE
HOLDERS OF THE COMMON STOCK MADE NO CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP.  THE
SHAREHOLDER WHO OWNED A SHARE OF STOCK WOULD OWN ONE AND A HALF SHARES
IN THE INCREASED STRUCTURE, AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE
OWNERSHIP SO FAR AS HE AND THE CORPORATION WERE CONCERNED. 

IT HAS BEEN EVIDENCED THROUGHOUT THE YEARS THAT THERE ARE INNUMERABLE
STOCK DIVIDENDS THAT ARE TAXABLE.  THE ISSUANCE OF STOCK, EITHER COMMON
OR PREFERRED, OR BONDS, IN PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS MAY CHANGE THE
PROPORTION OF OWNERSHIP AMONG THE SHAREHOLDERS.  FOR INSTANCE, LET US
TAKE THIS ILLUSTRATION:  YOU ISSUE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS COMMON STOCK
TO SATISFY DIVIDENDS DECLARED TO PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  YOU HAVE
INTRODUCED ADDITIONAL COMMON STOCK.  IT IS IN THE HANDS OF PERSONS
OTHER THAN THE PRESENT COMMON-STOCK HOLDERS; CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS A
CHANGE IN THE PROPORTION OF OWNERSHIP IN THE COMMON-STOCK HOLDERS. 

THE SUPREME COURT IN ONE CASE LAID DOWN THE RULE THAT THE YARDSTICK
IN RESPECT OF THE TAXABILITY OF STOCK DIVIDENDS WAS THE CHARACTER OR
KIND OF STOCK AND THE CHANGE IN PROPORTION OF OWNERSHIP.  I SUBMITTED
IN THE RECORD YESTERDAY A STATEMENT PREPARED FOR ME BY MR. KENT, ACTING
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, SETTING FORTH
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHERE STOCK DIVIDENDS WERE HELD TO BE
NONTAXABLE; AND OTHER CASES WHERE THE SUPREME COURT AND THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS HELD THAT STOCK DIVIDENDS WERE TAXABLE.  IN THIS CONNECTION
I POINTED OUT THAT IN THE APRIL VOLUME OF THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LAW
REVIEW A GENTLEMAN, IN WHOM WE HAVE GREAT FAITH AND CONFIDENCE, THE
HONORABLE ROSWELL MAGILL, WROTE A VERY COMPREHENSIVE AND ILLUMINATING
ARTICLE ON THE TAXABILITY OF STOCK DIVIDENDS. 

MR. TREADWAY.  ... 

AS I RECALL IT, IN THE PRESENT LAW THERE WAS JUST ONE LINE, 115,
WHICH READ "STOCK DIVIDENDS SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX."  THAT IS
CORRECT? 

MR. VINSON.  THAT IS RIGHT. 

MR. TREADWAY.  IT HAS BEEN STRICKEN OUT IN THIS BILL, AND YOU ARE
SUBSTITUTING THEREFOR SECTION (F), ON PAGE 107, OF WHICH THE GENTLEMAN
HAS GIVEN A HISTORY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

MR. VINSON.  THE SECTION TO WHICH I REFER STATES THAT THE ONLY STOCK
DIVIDENDS WE SEEK TO TAX ARE THOSE WHICH ARE TAXABLE INCOME WITHIN THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

MR. TREADWAY.  THE LANGUAGE STRICKEN OUT, I MAY SAY, READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"(B)  STOCK DIVIDENDS:  A STOCK DIVIDEND SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO
TAX." 

THAT IS THE EXISTING LAW AND HAS BEEN THE LAW MOST OF THE TIME SINCE
THE EISNER AGAINST MACOMBER DECISION.  IN THE NEXT TAX BILL AFTER THAT
DECISION THAT LANGUAGE WAS INCLUDED. 

I UNDERSTAND THE GENTLEMAN'S EXPLANATION TO BE THAT THE LANGUAGE OF
THE ACT WAS TOO BROAD.  I DO NOT MEAN TOO BROAD IN THE SENSE IT IS NOT
LEGAL, BUT IT GOES FURTHER THAN THE EISNER AGAINST MACOMBER DECISION. 

MR. VINSON.  THAT IS CORRECT. 

MR. TREADWAY.  THE LANGUAGE NOW SUBSTITUTED FOR THE STRICKEN LANGUAGE
DESCRIBES NEW STOCK DIVIDENDS THAT CAN BE TAXED OR WHAT PORTION OF
STOCK DIVIDENDS UNDER THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT CAN IN THE FUTURE BE
TAXED.  IS THAT THE RIGHT CONCEPTION OF THE INTENTION? 

MR. VINSON.  WELL, WE TAKE THE BROAD POSITION THAT STOCK DIVIDENDS
THAT ARE TAXABLE INCOME WITHIN THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE SUBJECT TO
TAXATION, AND IF THEY ARE NOT SUCH STOCK DIVIDENDS AND NOT ANY TAXABLE
INCOME UNDER THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO TAXES. 
80 CONG. REC. 6309-6310. 

FN22  S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 18-19. 

FN23  S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PT. 2, P. 5, REPRINTED
TOGETHER WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN THE KOSHLAND CASE, 80 CONG.
REC. 8526-8529.  THEIR REPORT STATED THAT:  "UNDER THE OPINION OF THE
SUPREME COURT IN KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, DECIDED MAY 18, 1936, THE
SUPREME COURT DECIDED THAT STOCK DIVIDENDS REPRESENTED TAXABLE INCOME
WHERE THEY GIVE 'THE STOCKHOLDER AN INTEREST DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH
HIS FORMER STOCKHOLDINGS REPRESENTED.'  IT IS, THEREFORE, BEYOND ANY
QUESTION OF DOUBT, THAT UNDER OUR PROPOSAL, CORPORATIONS WOULD BE ABLE
TO RETAIN ALL MONEY PROFITS NEEDED FOR CARRYING ON THEIR BUSINESS
WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL CORPORATE TAX." 

FN24  80 CONG. REC. 8811. 

FN25  80 CONG. REC. 8811. 

FN26  SEE FOOTNOTE 12, SUPRA. 

FN27  80 CONG. REC. 8813. 

FN28  80 CONG. REC. 9048.  SEE ALSO, ID. AT 9045, 9047. 

FN29  80 CONG. REC. 9052. 

FN30  SEC. 102, 49 STAT. 1648, 1676, LAID A GRADUATED ADDITIONAL TAX
UPON THE INCOME OF CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANIES
AS DEFINED IN SEC. 351, FORMED OR AVAILED OF FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PREVENTING THE IMPOSITION OF THE SURTAX UPON THEIR SHAREHOLDERS OR THE
SHAREHOLDERS OF ANY OTHER CORPORATION, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF PERMITTING
EARNINGS OR PROFITS TO ACCUMULATE INSTEAD OF BEING DIVIDED OR
DISTRIBUTED. 

SEC. 351, 49 STAT. 1648, 1732, LAID A GRADUATED SURTAX UPON INCOME OF
PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANIES. 

UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1913, 1916 AND 1918, IF A CORPORATION WAS
AVAILED OF FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING TAXATION BY ACCUMULATION OF GAINS
AND PROFITS THE SHAREHOLDERS WERE TAXED ON THEIR PRO RATA SHARES OF
INCOME, WHETHER OR NOT DISTRIBUTED.  38 STAT. 166; 39 STAT. 758; 40
STAT. 1072. 

SEC. 220 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921 EMPLOYED INSTEAD A TAX AGAINST
THE CORPORATION.  42 STAT. 227, 247.  H.R. REP. NO. 350, 67TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 12-13, STATED IN EXPLANATION OF THE CHANGE THAT:
"SECTION 220 OF THE EXISTING LAW PROVIDES THAT IF ANY CORPORATION IS
FORMED OR AVAILED OF FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING THE SURTAX UPON ITS
STOCKHOLDERS THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF PERMITTING ITS GAINS AND PROFITS TO
ACCUMULATE INSTEAD OF BEING DIVIDED, THE STOCKHOLDERS SHALL BE TAXED IN
THE SAME MANNER AS PARTNERS.  BY REASON OF THE RECENT DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT IN THE STOCK DIVIDEND CASE (EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S.
189), CONSIDERABLE DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
EXISTING LAW."  SEE ALSO, S. REP. NO. 275, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
16. 

SEE ALSO, SEC. 220 OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1924 AND 1926, 43 STAT.
253, 277; 44 STAT. 9, 34; SEC. 104 OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928 AND
1932, 45 STAT. 791, 814; 47 STAT. 169, 195; AND SECS. 102 AND 351 OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, 702, 751. 

THE 1926 AND SUBSEQUENT ACTS PERMITTED THE AVOIDANCE OF TAX ON THE
CORPORATION BY INCLUSION OF UNDISTRIBUTED CORPORATE INCOME IN THE GROSS
INCOME OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS. 

FN31  THUS, SENATOR BLACK SAID ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THAT "IT IS
A VAIN AND AN ILLUSORY HOPE TO ANTICIPATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES WILL EVER BE ABLE TO PREVENT TAX AVOIDANCE ON THE PART OF
CORPORATE OFFICIALS BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF CHARGING AND PROVING
AGAINST THEM THAT THEY HAVE WITHHELD A DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS TO AVOID
TAXES."  80 CONG. REC. 8811.  SEE ALSO STATEMENT BY OLIPHANT, GENERAL
COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, HEARINGS ON THE REVENUE ACT, 1936, HOUSE WAYS
AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 658-659; FOOTNOTES 10
AND 12, SUPRA; CF. REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, TAX REVISION, 1938, JANUARY 14, 1938, 75TH CONG., 3D
SESS., PP. 20 ET SEQ.; H.R. REP. NO. 1860, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 53;
65 CONG. REC. 8014 ET SEQ.; MARTIN, TAXATION OF UNDISTRIBUTED CORPORATE
PROFITS, (1936) 35 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 44, 50, 62. 

FN32  I.T. 3037, CUM. BULL.  1937-1, P. 90. 

FN33  SEE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF IN HELVERING V. GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238, P.
20(OCTOBER, 1937). 

FN34  THE GREYHOUND CORPORATION - ISSUANCE OF PREFERENCE STOCK, 1
M.C.C. 357; MISSION OIL CO., 1 S.E.C. 940; CF. INTERNATIONAL PAPER &
POWER CO., 2 S.E.C. 274; SOUTHWESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO., 2 S.E.C. 930. 

FN35  MCLAREN, MANAGEMENT OF CAPITAL DISTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1936, (1936) 62 JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTANCY, 334, 354-355; SCHULMAN,
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX AFTER THE KOSHLAND CASE, (1936) 14 TAX
MAGAZINE 703, 705; ANDERSON, THE TAXABILITY OF STOCK DIVIDENDS, (1937)
15 TAX MAGAZINE 74, 77; GRAHAM, THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX AND THE
INVESTOR, (1936) 46 YALE LAW JOURNAL 1, 6-7; NOTE (1936) 50 HARVARD LAW
REVIEW 332, 334; CF. HENDRICKS, THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX, (1936)
46 YALE LAW JOURNAL 19, 38-41.    IN AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN APRIL OF
1940, SURREY, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
LATER ADVANCED THE CONTRARY VIEW.  THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FEDERAL
INCOME TAX, 35 ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW 779, 794. 

FN36  SEC. 115(F)(1), H.R. 9682, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.; 52 STAT. 447,
497. 

FN37  SEC. 102, 52 STAT. 447, 483; SEC. 401, 52 STAT. 447,
557(SIMILAR TO SEC. 351 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936).  THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1938, AS PROPOSED AND ENACTED, CONTAINED A "CONSENT DIVIDENDS"
PROVISION ALLOWING SHAREHOLDERS TO PERMIT THE CORPORATION TO AVOID THE
UNDISTRIBUTED-PROFITS TAX BY CONSENTING TO INCLUDE IN THEIR RETURNS
AMOUNTS AS THOUGH ACTUAL DISTRIBUTIONS HAD BEEN MADE IN CASH.  SEC. 28,
52 STAT. 447, 470-472.  SEE REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON WAYS AND MEANS, PROPOSED REVISION OF THE REVENUE LAWS, 75TH CONG.,
3D SESS., JAN. 14, 1938, PP. 18-20; H.R. REP. NO. 1860, 75TH CONG., 3D
SESS., PP. 24 ET SEQ. 

THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY BETWEEN ALVORD, REPRESENTING THE COMMITTEE OF
FEDERAL FINANCE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
CONGRESSMAN LEWIS, TOOK PLACE AT THE HOUSE HEARINGS.  HEARINGS ON THE
REVENUE ACT, 1938, HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, PP. 505-506: 

MR. LEWIS.  DO YOU REALIZE THAT THESE EXTRA TAXES ON THE CORPORATIONS
AS SUCH, INCLUDING THE PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY AND THE OTHERS, ARE DUE
TO THE DECISION IN EISNER V. MACOMBER? 

MR. ALVORD.  YES. 

MR. LEWIS.  I AM JUST ASKING THAT BY WAY OF PREFACE. 

MR. ALVORD.  YES, SIR.  I DISCUSSED THAT QUITE AT LENGTH, I THINK,
BACK IN 1936. 

MR. LEWIS.  UNHAPPILY, IT IS NOT BEING DISCUSSED AT THE PRESENT TIME
IN THE PRESS AS FULLY AS IT SHOULD BE IN ORDER THAT THE PROCEDURE OF
THE COMMITTEE BE FAIRLY UNDERSTOOD.  YOU WILL RECALL, OF COURSE, THAT
UNDER THAT DECISION, A 5-TO-4 DECISION, IT WAS HELD THAT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE INCOME-TAX AMENDMENT, THAT TAX
ON PAID-UP STOCK DIVIDENDS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

NOW, BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, I WANT TO SAY THAT CERTAINLY SO FAR AS
I AM CONCERNED THERE WOULD BE NO SUPPORT FOR ANY OF THESE EXTRA TAXES
IF THAT DECISION WERE REVERSED AND THE EARNED INCOME OF SHAREHOLDERS IN
CORPORATIONS WERE LEFT SUBJECT TO TAXATION, JUST AS THE EARNED INCOME
OF PARTNERS IS SUBJECT TO TAX, ALTHOUGH THAT INCOME MAY BE PLOWED INTO
THE PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS. 

MR. ALVORD.  I THINK IF YOU WILL READ MY TESTIMONY BACK IN 1936 YOU
WILL FIND THAT I AGREE WITH YOU ABSOLUTELY IN PRINCIPLE.  BUT BEAR IN
MIND THAT WE HAVE SOME VERY PRACTICAL PROBLEMS IN ADDITION TO
CONSIDER. 

MR. LEWIS.  VERY WELL. 

MR. ALVORD.  BECAUSE I DO NOT THINK YOU CAN AFFORD TO EXEMPT THE
CORPORATION ENTIRELY FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH THE FOLLOWING OF THAT DECISION
WOULD REQUIRE. 

MR. LEWIS.  NOW, OF COURSE, THE GENERAL PUBLIC WANTS TO BE FAIR IN
THIS MATTER, AND EVEN YOUR CLIENTS REALIZE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES MUST IN SOME WAY SECURE REVENUES.  I AM A LITTLE CURIOUS
TO KNOW WHY VOICES AS INFLUENTIAL AS YOURS, OR ESPECIALLY AS THE VOICE
OF YOUR CLIENTS - I READ ALL THEIR REPORTS, PROFIT BY THEM, I AM GLAD
TO SAY - HAVE NEVER BEEN RAISED ASKING A REVERSAL OF THAT DECISION SO
THAT WE CAN GO BACK AND TAX SHAREHOLDERS NORMALLY AS WE DO OTHER
INDIVIDUALS AND PARTNERS. 

ALL THIS TROUBLE WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY WILL DISAPPEAR IN A MOMENT
IF THAT RESULT IS OBTAINED. 

MR. ALVORD.  I THINK, MR. LEWIS, I CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU FULLY WHY THAT
HAS NOT BEEN DONE UP TO THE PRESENT TIME.  IF I RECALL CORRECTLY,
EISNER V. MACOMBER WAS DECIDED IN THE LATE SPRING OF 1921, JUST WHILE
THE 1921 ACT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION, JUST BEFORE IT PASSED; WHEREUPON
A SPECIFIC PROVISION WAS WRITTEN INTO THE STATUTE, SAYING THAT STOCK
DIVIDENDS ESCAPE TAXES; AND THAT PROVISION HAS STAYED IN THE STATUTE. 

MR. LEWIS.  YES. 

MR. ALVORD.  IT HAS BEEN WHITTLED DOWN, IT IS TRUE. 

MR. LEWIS.  YES.  BUT THE DECISION ALSO CARRIES A PROVISION AGAINST
TAXING EVEN UNDISTRIBUTED INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER. 

MR. ALVORD.  NO; I DO NOT THINK THAT IS TRUE, MR. LEWIS. 

MR. LEWIS.  WELL, THAT IS THE VIEW OF OTHERS, AND THAT IS THE VIEW OF
THE COMMITTEE.  IF YOU WILL PROVIDE ME A WAY BY WHICH THE SHAREHOLDER
IN THE CORPORATION CAN BE REQUIRED TO PAY HIS TAXES LIKE INDIVIDUALS
AND PARTNERS ON EARNED INCOME, I WILL PROMISE YOU MY SUPPORT IN AN
EFFORT TO REPEAL ALL THESE EXTRA TAX PROVISIONS. 

MR. ALVORD.  WELL, I THINK YOUR POSITION IS ALMOST UNASSAILABLE IN
THAT RESPECT, MR. LEWIS. 

MR. LEWIS.  VERY WELL. 

MR. ALVORD.  IT IS A POSITION THAT MANY OF US HAVE TAKEN FOR A LONG
TIME. 

MR. LEWIS.  BUT WILL YOU HEAR THIS QUESTION IN THE SPIRIT IT IS PUT:
DO YOU NOT THINK THE GOVERNMENT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS UNDER A
DUTY TO TRY IN SOME WAY TO RECOUP ITSELF FOR THESE LOST TAXES IN THE
SHAREHOLDER GROUP WHO WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THEM?  IF WE ARE, ISN'T IT
NATURAL THAT WE SHOULD GO TO THE CORPORATION THAT IS SHIELDING THEM, IN
MOST CASES, OF COURSE, UNINTENTIONALLY, BUT STILL GO TO THE CORPORATION
AND SAY:  "NOW PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THOSE DIVIDENDS SO THAT WE CAN GET AT
THIS SHAREHOLDER WHO IS DODGING HIS BURDEN UNDER EISNER V. MACOMBER"? 
ISN'T THAT ALL VERY NATURAL, SIR? 

TITLE II OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1937 AMENDED THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936
BY ADDING SEC. 334, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE GROSS
INCOME OF SHAREHOLDERS IN FOREIGN PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANIES THE
UNDISTRIBUTED CORPORATE INCOME.  THE ABUSES INCIDENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT
OF THIS DEVICE HAD BEEN BROUGHT OUT AT HEARINGS BEFORE A JOINT
COMMITTEE ON TAX EVASION AND AVOIDANCE, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE BILL CITE THE PRACTICAL NECESSITY FOR THIS
FORM OF TAX IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.  H.R. REP. NO. 1546,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 13-14; S. REP. NO. 1242, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 15-16; REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAX EVASION AND
AVOIDANCE, HOUSE DOC. NO. 337, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 16-19.  SEE
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN VINSON ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, 81 CONG.
REC. 9035:  "THE PHILOSOPHY IN REGARD TO FOREIGN PERSONAL HOLDING
COMPANIES IS BASED UPON THE INHERENT POWER IN THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT
ITSELF FROM DEVICES TO AVOID AND EVADE ITS LAW.  THE SUPREME COURT HAS
SAID THAT THE CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE RATES, AND
THAT IT CAN REGULATE INTRASTATE RATES WHEN SUCH EXERCISE OF POWER IS TO
PROTECT THE PLENARY POWER OVER INTERSTATE RATES.  WE FEEL CERTAIN THAT
THE JURISDICTION OVER AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND INCOME TO OUR CITIZENS,
TOGETHER WITH THE POWER TO PROTECT OUR REVENUES ARE AMPLE LEGAL SUPPORT
FOR OUR POSITION."  SEE ALSO, STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN TREADWAY, 81
CONG. REC. 9024. 

THE FOREIGN PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY TAX WAS RETAINED IN THE REVENUE
ACT FOR 1938.  52 STAT. 447, 545 ET SEQ. 

FN38  SEE REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 2 ET SEQ.; H.R. REP. NO. 1860, 75TH
CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 4-6; S. REP. NO. 1567, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 2
5; H.R. REP. NO. 2330, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 1 ET SEQ., 23. 

FN39  SEE STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN VINSON OF KENTUCKY ON THE FLOOR OF
THE HOUSE, 83 CONG. REC. 2780, AND COLLOQUY SET FORTH IN FOOTNOTE 37,
SUPRA. 

FN40  52 STAT. 447, 497. 

FN41  ARTICLE 115-7 OF REGULATIONS 101; SEC. 19.115-7 OF REGULATIONS
103. 

FN42  SEC. 214 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1939, 53 STAT. 862, 872. 

FN43  T.D. 5020, CUM. BULL.  1940-2, P. 118, AMENDING SEC. 19.115-7
OF REGULATIONS 103, PROMULGATED UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS 101 AND 94 DID NOT COME UNTIL JANUARY 19,
1942, BY T.D. 5110, CUM. BULL.  1942-1, P. 160. 

AS AMENDED, THE REGULATION READ:  "A DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A
CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN ITS STOCK OR IN RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE
ITS STOCK SHALL BE TREATED AS A DIVIDEND TO THE FULL EXTENT THAT IT
CONSTITUTES INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION." 

FN44  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN45  SEE ALSO, EDWARDS V. DARBY, 12 WHEAT.  206, 210; UNITED STATES
V. MOORE, 95 U.S. 760, 763; FAWCUS MACHINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282
U.S. 375, 378; NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294,
315. 

FN46  HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 306 U.S. 110; CF.
HELVERING V. WILSHIRE OIL CO., 308 U.S. 90; HELVERING V. REYNOLDS, 313
U.S. 428; WHITE V. WINCHESTER CLUB, SUPRA. 

THE PROBLEMS IN THIS FIELD HAVE EVOKED EXTENSIVE COMMENTARY.  PAUL,
USE AND ABUSE OF TAX REGULATIONS IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, 49 YALE LAW
JOURNAL 660, REPRINTED WITH SOME CHANGES IN PAUL, STUDIES IN FEDERAL
TAXATION, THIRD SERIES (1940), 420; ALVORD, TREASURY REGULATIONS AND
THE WILSHIRE OIL CASE, 40 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 252; SURREY, THE SCOPE
AND EFFECT OF TREASURY REGULATIONS UNDER THE INCOME, ESTATE AND GIFT
TAXES, 88 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 556; BROWN,
REGULATIONS, REENACTMENT, AND THE REVENUE ACTS, 54 HARVARD LAW REVIEW
377; GRISWOLD, A SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS PROBLEM, 54 HARVARD LAW
REVIEW 398; FELLER, ADDENDUM TO THE REGULATIONS PROBLEM, 54 HARVARD LAW
REVIEW 1311. 

FN47  HELVERING V. WINMILL, 305 U.S. 79, 83:  "TREASURY REGULATIONS
AND INTERPRETATIONS LONG CONTINUED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, APPLYING
TO UNAMENDED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED STATUTES, ARE DEEMED TO HAVE
RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL AND HAVE THE EFFECT OF LAW."  IN
HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 306 U.S. 110, 116, IT WAS SAID
THAT:  "SINCE THE LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF EXISTING REGULATIONS BY
REENACTMENT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION TO WHICH THEY APPERTAIN GIVES
SUCH REGULATIONS THE FORCE OF LAW, WE THINK THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND TO AUTHORIZE THE TREASURY TO REPEAL THE RULE OF LAW THAT EXISTED
DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE TAX IS IMPOSED," AND THE QUESTION OF
THE VALIDITY OF PROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT WAS LEFT OPEN.  IN HELVERING V.
WILSHIRE OIL CO., 308 U.S. 90, THE COURT CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE
TAXPAYER'S POSITION FOR EQUITIES AND FOUND IT WANTING; AND AFTER CITING
THE REYNOLDS TOBACCO CASE WITH APPROVAL, STATED WITH REFERENCE TO THE
VIEW THAT REENACTMENT OF A STATUTE CARRIED LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF ITS
EXISTING VALID ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION, THAT:  "IT DOES NOT MEAN
THAT A REGULATION INTERPRETING A PROVISION OF ONE ACT BECOMES FROZEN
INTO ANOTHER ACT MERELY BY REENACTMENT OF THAT PROVISION, SO THAT THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE CHANGED PROSPECTIVELY THROUGH
EXERCISE OF APPROPRIATE RULE-MAKING POWERS."  ID. AT 100.  HELVERING V.
REYNOLDS, 313 U.S. 428, QUALIFIED THE REYNOLDS TOBACCO CASE AND
DISTINGUISHED IT ON THE GROUNDS THAT "THE TRANSACTIONS THERE IN
QUESTION TOOK PLACE AT A TIME WHEN A REGULATION WAS IN FORCE WHICH
EXPRESSLY NEGATIVED ANY TAX LIABILITY.  THE REGULATION REMAINED
OUTSTANDING FOR A LONG TIME AND WAS FOLLOWED BY SEVERAL REENACTMENTS OF
THE STATUTE.  ABOUT FIVE YEARS AFTER THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION TOOK
PLACE, THE PRIOR REGULATION WAS AMENDED SO AS TO IMPOSE A TAX
LIABILITY.  THERE ARE NO SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HERE."  ID. AT 432-433. 

FN48  T.D. 4729, CUM. BULL.  1937-1, P. 284. 

FN49  SECTION 3791(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE PROVIDES THAT:
"THE SECRETARY, OR THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY,
MAY PRESCRIBE THE EXTENT, IF ANY, TO WHICH ANY RULING, REGULATION, OR
TREASURY DECISION, RELATING TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS, SHALL BE
APPLIED WITHOUT RETROACTIVE EFFECT." 

THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN IN ITS PRESENT FORM SINCE SEC. 506 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, 757, AMENDED SEC. 1108(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  IT IS THE FINAL STATUTE OF A SERIES INTENDED TO
RELIEVE THE TREASURY FROM THE EFFECT OF THE VIEW THAT ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS, LIKE COURT DECISIONS, MUST HAVE RETROACTIVE AS
WELL AS PROSPECTIVE OPERATION. 

DURING AND AFTER THE FIRST WORLD WAR THE TREASURY HAD BEEN BURDENED
WITH A GREAT VOLUME OF TAX BUSINESS.  PERFECT CONSISTENCY IN RULINGS
WAS IMPOSSIBLE, AND THE VIEW THAT EACH CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION MUST BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT DEPRIVED BOTH THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE TAXPAYERS OF ANY ASSURANCE THAT CASES ONCE SETTLED
WOULD STAY SETTLED.  SEE STATEMENT BY DR. ADAMS, TAX ADVISER TO THE
TREASURY, HEARINGS, REVENUE REVISION, HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,
67TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 38-40; H.R. REP. NO. 1035, 66TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 3. 

TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION CONGRESS PROVIDED IN SEC. 1314 OF THE R ACT
OF 1921, 42 STAT. 227, 314, THAT:  "IN CASE A REGULATION OR TREASURY
DECISION" SHOULD BE REVERSED BY A SUBSEQUENT "REGULATION OR TREASURY
DECISION, AND SUCH REVERSAL IS NOT IMMEDIATELY OCCASIONED OR REQUIRED
BY A DECISION OF A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION," THE SUBSEQUENT
REGULATION OR DECISION MIGHT BE APPLIED WITHOUT RETROACTIVE EFFECT. 
THIS PROVISION WAS CARRIED INTO THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1924 AND 1926.  43
STAT. 253, 340; 44 STAT. 9, 114.  THE 1928 ACT EXPANDED IT TO INCLUDE
CASES WHERE THE NEW REGULATION OR TREASURY DECISION WAS OCCASIONED OR
REQUIRED BY A COURT DECISION.  45 STAT. 791, 874; S. REP. NO. 960, 70TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 40.  THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE STATED THAT:  "IT IS
HOPED THAT THIS PROVISION WILL PREVENT THE CONSTANT REOPENING OF CASES
ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGES IN REGULATIONS OR TREASURY DECISIONS, AND IT IS
BELIEVED THAT SOUND ADMINISTRATION PROPERLY PLACES UPON THE GOVERNMENT
THE RESPONSIBILITY AND BURDEN OF INTERPRETING THE LAW AND OF
PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS UPON WHICH THE TAXPAYERS MAY RELY."  H.R. REP.
NO. 1882, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 22. 

THE COMMITTEE REPORTS STATE THAT SEC. 506 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934,
NOW SEC. 3791(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WAS INTENDED TO PERMIT
THE TREASURY TO AVOID INEQUITIES TO PERSONS WHO HAD CLOSED TRANSACTIONS
IN RELIANCE UPON "EXISTING PRACTICE," AND THAT THE "AMENDMENT EXTENDS
THE RIGHT GRANTED BY EXISTING LAW TO THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT TO GIVE
REGULATIONS AND TREASURY DECISIONS AMENDING PRIOR REGULATIONS OR
TREASURY DECISIONS PROSPECTIVE EFFECT ONLY, BY ALLOWING THE SECRETARY,
OR THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, TO PRESCRIBE
THE EXACT EXTENT TO WHICH ANY REGULATION OR TREASURY DECISION, WHETHER
OR NOT IT AMENDS A PRIOR REGULATION OR TREASURY DECISION, WILL BE
APPLIED WITHOUT RETROACTIVE EFFECT.  THE AMENDMENT FURTHERMORE PERMITS
INTERNAL REVENUE RULINGS AS WELL AS REGULATIONS OR TREASURY DECISIONS
TO BE APPLIED WITHOUT RETROACTIVE EFFECT."  H.R. REP. NO. 704, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 38; S. REP. NO. 558, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 48. 
THUS IT APPEARS THAT THIS LEGISLATION WAS INTENDED TO PERMIT ESCAPE
FROM THE RETROACTIVE EFFECTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BY THE TREASURY,
RATHER THAN TO INCREASE ITS POWER TO MAKE RETROACTIVE RULINGS.  CF. 69
CONG. REC. 7881. 

FN50  TRAYNOR, ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE FOR FEDERAL
INCOME, ESTATE, AND GIFT TAXES, 38 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 1393. 

FN51  THUS, THE CONGRESS WHICH FIRST ENACTED SEC. 115(F)(1) ALSO
SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY ACT HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY DISTRICT, 298 U.S. 513. 
IT DID SO AFTER CHAIRMAN SUMNERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, IN CHARGE
OF THE BILL, FRANKLY STATED ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE THAT IT IMPLIED
CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS WHICH WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THAT
DECISION.  HE WENT ON TO SAY, HOWEVER, THAT IT WAS NOT ONLY THE RIGHT
BUT THE DUTY OF CONGRESS TO PRESENT THIS QUESTION ONCE MORE TO THE
COURT, SINCE THE DECISION, IF ALLOWED TO STAND, HAD CERTAIN
CONSEQUENCES WHICH HE DESCRIBED AND DEPLORED.  THIS HISTORY WAS CALLED
TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT, AND THE ACT WAS SUSTAINED.  UNITED
STATES V. BEKINS, 304 U.S. 27, 33. 

FN52  THUS, O'MALLEY V. WOODROUGH, 307 U.S. 277, OVERRULED MILES V.
GRAHAM, 268 U.S. 501, AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TAXATION OF
SALARIES OF FEDERAL JUDGES; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100,
OVERRULED HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, AS TO CONGRESSIONAL POWER
OVER LABOR IN MANUFACTURE; WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S.
379, OVERRULED ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525, AND
MOREHEAD V. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587, AS TO POWER TO ENACT MINIMUM WAGE
LAWS.  COMPARE ALSO WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440, WITH
LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, AS TO FARMER
BANKRUPTCY STATUTES; LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1,
WITH SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, AS TO COMMERCE
POWER; AND UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA, AND SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL
CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, WITH CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S.
238, AS TO COMMERCE POWER.  SEE ALSO, CASES CITED BY MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS IN BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, 406-408,
NOTES 1 AND 2. 

FN53  ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT
"THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES,
IMPOSTS AND EXCISES, TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON
DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES  ..."  ARTICLE I, SEC.
7, CL. 1, PROVIDES THAT "ALL BILLS FOR RAISING REVENUE SHALL ORIGINATE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; BUT THE SENATE MAY PROPOSE OR CONCUR
WITH AMENDMENTS AS ON OTHER BILLS." 

FN54  THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH UNDERLAY THE DECISIONS IN TOWNE V.
EISNER AND EISNER V. MACOMBER MAY HAVE HAD THEIR INFLUENCE IN THE
JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS ITSELF.  COMPARE THE QUESTION PUT BY SENATOR BONE
TO SENATOR BLACK, SET FORTH SUPRA, P. 384.  BEFORE THE DECISION IN
EISNER V. MACOMBER, THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS HAD
HELD THAT STOCK DIVIDENDS COULD BE TAXED, TAX COMMISSIONER V. PUTNAM,
227 MASS. 522, 116 N.E. 904(1917); BUT THE MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE
HAD ALSO SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED THEM FROM INCOME TAXATION.  MASS. STAT.
1920, C. 352, NOW G.L.C. 62 SEC. 1(B).  AFTER THE DECISION OF EISNER V.
MACOMBER, THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN REJECTED ITS REASONING IN
STATE EX REL. DULANEY V. NYGAARD, 174 WIS. 597, 183 N.W. 884(1921), BUT
SINCE 1927 STOCK DIVIDENDS HAVE BEEN EXEMPTED FROM INCOME TAXATION. 
WIS. STAT. SEC. 71.02.  IN 1926, THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE ADOPTED A
PROVISION RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1, 1919, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
FIRST STATE INCOME-TAX LAW, EXEMPTING ALL STOCK DIVIDENDS.  SEE PEOPLE
EX REL. CLARK V. GILCHRIST, 243 N.Y. 173, 153 N.E. 39. 

MR. JUSTICE RUTLEDGE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

EISNER V. MACOMBER DIES A SLOW DEATH.  IT NOW HAS A NEW REPRIEVE
GRANTED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH COMPEL MY DISSENT. 

                                  I. 

IN 1936, CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT STOCK DIVIDENDS WERE TAXABLE AS
INCOME WHEN THEY CONSTITUTED "INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION."  FN1  SEC.
115(F)(1).  THAT STATUTORY PROVISION IS NOW REWRITTEN SO AS TO PERMIT
STOCK DIVIDENDS TO BE TAXABLE WHEN THEY CONSTITUTE "INCOME TO THE
SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION AS CONSTRUED BY EISNER V. MACOMBER."  THAT EXTRAORDINARY
RESULT IS REACHED IN THE FACE OF THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE ACT AND IN
FACE OF CLEAR STATEMENTS OF ITS PURPOSE MADE IN COMMITTEE REPORTS.  THE
REPORT OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE (H. REP. NO. 2475, 74TH
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 10) STATED THAT STOCK DIVIDENDS WERE TO BE TAXABLE
WHEN THEY CONSTITUTED "INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION."  THE REPORT OF THE SENATE
FINANCE COMMITTEE (S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 18)
CONTAINED THE UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT THAT "STOCK DIVIDENDS ARE MADE
TAXABLE TO THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION."  THAT
PURPOSE IS NOW THWARTED.  RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE
BY MR. VINSON WHO MANAGED THE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.  YET THE
MOST THAT CAN BE SAID IS THAT HIS STATEMENTS IN EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
WERE AMBIGUOUS.  HE STATED, TO BE SURE, THAT THE NEW PROVISION WAS NOT
TO BE REGARDED AS "AN ATTACK UPON THE EISNER AGAINST MACOMBER
DECISION."  80 CONG. REC., PT. 6, P. 6215.  BUT IN ANSWER TO AN INQUIRY
FROM MR. TREADWAY WHETHER THE NEW PROVISION "DESCRIBES NEW STOCK
DIVIDENDS THAT CAN BE TAXED OR WHAT PORTION OF STOCK DIVIDENDS UNDER
THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT CAN IN THE FUTURE BE TAXED," HE MADE THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT:  "WELL, WE TAKE THE BROAD POSITION THAT STOCK
DIVIDENDS THAT ARE TAXABLE INCOME WITHIN THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE
SUBJECT TO TAXATION, AND IF THEY ARE NOT SUCH STOCK DIVIDENDS AND NOT
ANY TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT
TO TAXES."  ID., P. 6310.  I FAIL TO SEE IN THAT DECLARATION EVEN ANY
INTIMATION THAT EISNER V. MACOMBER RATHER THAN THE CONSTITUTION MARKED
THE REACH OF THE NEW LEGISLATION.  FURTHERMORE, A READING OF THE WHOLE
DISCUSSION ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE INDICATES TO ME THAT HIS DENIAL
THAT THE LEGISLATION MADE AN "ATTACK" ON EISNER V. MACOMBER FELL FAR
SHORT OF SUGGESTING THAT THE HOUSE INTENDED TO FORECLOSE THIS COURT
FROM REEXAMINING EISNER V. MACOMBER.  IF CONGRESS HAD THAT PURPOSE, THE
ACT HARDLY WOULD HAVE BEEN PHRASED IN TERMS WHICH EMBRACE THE FULL
SCOPE OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.  TO ME, THE DISAVOWAL OF AN INTENT TO
"ATTACK" EISNER V. MACOMBER MEANT NO MORE THAN A DISCLAIMER OF ANY
PURPOSE TO PROPOSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION.  EISNER V. MACOMBER IS
A DECISION OF THIS COURT.  UNDER THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPTIONS OF THE
PLACE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, THIS COURT AND
ONLY THIS COURT CAN CHANGE THE RULE OF THAT CASE IN ABSENCE OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  CONGRESS HERE WAS MERELY RESPECTING
THAT TRADITIONAL VIEW.  IT WANTED TO GO AS FAR AS IT COULD.  BUT IT
COULD HAVE NO IDEA HOW FAR THAT WOULD BE UNTIL THIS COURT SPOKE.  NO
ONE COULD PREDICT WHETHER THIS COURT WOULD OVERRULE, MODIFY, OR SUSTAIN
EISNER V. MACOMBER WHEN THE 1936 LEGISLATION CAME BEFORE IT.  INDEED,
WHEN THE 1936 BILL PASSED THE HOUSE,  FN2  KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298
U.S. 441, WHICH NARROWED THE APPLICATION OF EISNER V. MACOMBER, HAD NOT
BEEN DECIDED BY THIS COURT.  AND HELVERING V. GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238,
WHICH SOMEWHAT EXTENDED THE RULE OF THE KOSHLAND CASE WAS NOT DECIDED
UNTIL AFTER THE 1936 ACT WAS PASSED.  BUT NUMEROUS DECISIONS BY LOWER
COURTS HAD MADE INROADS ON THE EISNER V. MACOMBER DOCTRINE.  THE RULE
OF THAT CASE WAS IN FLUX; A PROCESS OF EROSION HAD SET IN; AND NONE
KNEW WHERE THAT EROSION WOULD CEASE.  ACCORDINGLY, CONGRESS DRAFTED
SEC. 115(F) OF THE 1936 ACT IN THE MOST FLEXIBLE OF TERMS.  IT USED
SWEEPING LANGUAGE INCORPORATING THE FULL COVERAGE OF THE SIXTEENTH
AMENDMENT SO THAT THOSE STOCK DIVIDENDS WOULD BE TAXED WHICH THIS COURT
WOULD PERMIT TO BE TAXED.  THERE ARE PROBABLY OTHER WAYS IN WHICH THE
SAME IDEA COULD HAVE BEEN PHRASED.  BUT THE ONE CHOSEN IS CLEAR
ENOUGH. 

THE ONLY TREASURY REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE TAXABLE YEAR IN
QUESTION - 1939 - ARE REGULATIONS 103.  THESE WERE ORIGINALLY
PROMULGATED ON JANUARY 29, 1940.  SEC. 19.115-7 PROVIDED: "A
DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN ITS STOCK OR
IN RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE ITS STOCK SHALL BE TREATED AS A DIVIDEND TO THE
FULL EXTENT THAT IT CONSTITUTES INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDERS WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION."  THAT SENTENCE
WAS FOLLOWED BY THE STATEMENT, "THE SUPREME COURT HAS POINTED OUT SOME
OF THE CHARACTERISTICS DISTINGUISHING A STOCK DIVIDEND WHICH
CONSTITUTES INCOME FROM ONE WHICH DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION."  THEN FOLLOWED A SUMMARY OF OUR
DECISIONS, ENDING WITH THREE EXAMPLES BASED ON THE KOSHLAND CASE,
EISNER V. MACOMBER, AND THE GOWRAN CASE.  ON NOVEMBER 15, 1940, THIS
REGULATION WAS AMENDED BY STRIKING OUT EVERYTHING FOLLOWING THE FIRST
SENTENCE.  THIS REGULATION, HOWEVER, EVEN IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM DID NOT
AND COULD NOT FORECLOSE INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF THE DECISION IN
EISNER V. MACOMBER.  IT DID NO MORE THAN STATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE DECIDED CASES RESTED.  IT CERTAINLY DID NOT
INDICATE THAT THE TREASURY CONSTRUED THE STATUTE MORE NARROWLY THAN THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF.  HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, THIS COURT ON MORE THAN ONE
OCCASION HAS REFUSED TO FOLLOW A TREASURY REGULATION WHICH IT FELT TO
BE "IN THE TEETH" OF THE STATUTE.  HELVERING V. SABINE TRANSPORTATION
CO., ANTE, P. 306; HELVERING V. CREDIT ALLIANCE CORP., 316 U.S. 107. 
IF THIS REGULATION BE CONSTRUED TO NARROW THE ACT SO AS TO TAX ONLY
STOCK DIVIDENDS PERMITTED BY EISNER V. MACOMBER, I WOULD HAVE LESS
RELUCTANCE IN STRIKING IT DOWN THAN I HAVE HAD IN OTHER INSTANCES. 

BUT THERE IS SAID TO BE LACK OF WISDOM IN THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE
ACT.  IT IS ARGUED THAT IT WOULD BE DISRUPTIVE OF TAX ADMINISTRATION. 
IT IS URGED THAT A DECISION WHICH NOW OVERRULED EISNER V. MACOMBER
WOULD BE UNFAIR BECAUSE IT WOULD BE RETROACTIVE.  THOSE MATTERS ARE
NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.  EVERY REVENUE ACT WHICH CONGRESS HAS PASSED HAS
A RETROACTIVE EFFECT.  IT IS SOMETHING ON WHICH TAXPAYERS OF NECESSITY
TAKE THEIR CHANCES.  MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15, 23.  AND
MANY OF THE UNCERTAINTIES IN REVENUE ACTS NECESSARILY ARE NOT RESOLVED
UNTIL THIS COURT PASSES ON THEM YEARS LATER.  HERE THERE IS NO POSSIBLE
BASIS FOR COMPLAINT.  THESE STOCK DIVIDENDS WERE DECLARED IN 1939,
THREE YEARS AFTER THE ACT MAKING THEM TAXABLE WAS PASSED.  OF COURSE,
THE TAXPAYER NO MORE THAN CONGRESS COULD PREDICT WHAT INTERPRETATION
THIS COURT WOULD GIVE THE NEW STATUTE.  SEC. 115(F)(1), HOWEVER, MADE
THE RISKS APPARENT.  THE FACT THAT SOME GUESSED WRONG IS WHOLLY
IRRELEVANT TO THIS LITIGATION.  INEQUITIES MAY RESULT FROM A HOLDING IN
1943 THAT EISNER V. MACOMBER HAS NOT BEEN THE LAW SINCE 1936.  BUT THE
RELIEF AGAINST THEM LIES WITH CONGRESS.  OUR TASK ENDS IF WE ERASE
EISNER V. MACOMBER AND GIVE CONGRESS A CLEAN SLATE ON WHICH TO WRITE. 
THEN AND ONLY THEN CAN CONGRESS DESIGN A TAX SYSTEM TREATING STOCK
DIVIDENDS CONSISTENTLY.  SO LONG AS CONGRESS HAS TO GUESS WHETHER OR
NOT THIS COURT WILL OVERRULE EISNER V. MACOMBER, ANY INTERIM TREATMENT
WHICH IT GIVES STOCK DIVIDENDS MAY HAVE TO BE READJUSTED AFTER THIS
COURT SPEAKS, SO AS TO REMOVE INEQUITIES WHICH MAY HAVE RESULTED. 

                                 II. 

I THINK EISNER V. MACOMBER SHOULD BE OVERRULED.  THE SIXTEENTH
AMENDMENT GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER "TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES ON
INCOMES, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED."  AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS STATED
IN HIS DISSENT IN EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S., P. 237, THAT AMENDMENT
WAS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE "EVERYTHING WHICH BY REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING
CAN FAIRLY BE REGARDED AS INCOME."  STOCK DIVIDENDS REPRESENTING
PROFITS CERTAINLY ARE INCOME IN THE POPULAR SENSE.  "FROM A PRACTICAL
COMMON-SENSE POINT OF VIEW THERE IS SOMETHING STRANGE IN THE IDEA THAT
A MAN MAY INDEFINITELY GROW RICHER WITHOUT EVER BEING SUBJECT TO AN
INCOME TAX."  POWELL, INCOME FROM CORPORATE DIVIDENDS, 35 HARV. L. REV.
363, 376.  THE WEALTH OF STOCKHOLDERS NORMALLY INCREASES AS A RESULT OF
THE EARNINGS OF THE CORPORATION IN WHICH THEY HOLD SHARES.  I SEE NO
REASON WHY CONGRESS COULD NOT TREAT THAT INCREASE IN WEALTH AS "INCOME"
TO THEM.  FN3  SEE COLLECTOR V. HUBBARD, 12 WALL.  1, 18; HELVERING V.
NATIONAL GROCERY CO., 304 U.S. 282, 288; POWELL, THE STOCK-DIVIDEND
DECISION AND THE CORPORATE NONENTITY, 5 NAT. TAX ASSOC. BULL.  201. 
THE NOTION THAT THERE CAN BE NO "INCOME" TO THE SHAREHOLDERS IN SUCH A
CASE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT UNLESS THE GAIN IS
"SEVERED FROM" CAPITAL AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE RECIPIENT FOR HIS
"SEPARATE USE, BENEFIT AND DISPOSAL" (EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S., PP.
207, 211) WILL NOT STAND ANALYSIS.  IN CASES LIKE KOSHLAND V. HELVERING
AND HELVERING V. GOWRAN WHERE STOCK DIVIDENDS WERE HELD TO BE TAXABLE
AS INCOME, BOTH THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT AND THE ACCUMULATIONS WERE
RETAINED BY THE COMPANY.  YET THOSE CASES HOLD THAT STOCKHOLDERS MAY
RECEIVE "INCOME" FROM THE OPERATIONS OF THEIR CORPORATION THOUGH THE
CORPORATION MAKES NO DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS TO THEM.  AND SEE UNITED
STATES V. PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156; ROCKEFELLER V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S.
176; CULLINAN V. WALKER, 262 U.S. 134; MARR V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S.
536.  OTHER CASES MAKE PLAIN THAT THERE MAY BE "INCOME" THOUGH NEITHER
MONEY NOR PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYER.  BENEFITS
ACCRUING AS THE RESULT OF THE DISCHARGE OF THE TAXPAYER'S INDEBTEDNESS
OR OBLIGATIONS CONSTITUTE FAMILIAR EXAMPLES.  OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716; DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1; UNITED
STATES V. HENDLER, 303 U.S. 564.  AND INCREASES IN THE VALUE OF
PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY THE LESSEE ARE TAXABLE
INCOME TO THE LESSOR EVEN THOUGH THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT "SEVER THE
IMPROVEMENT BEGETTING THE GAIN FROM HIS ORIGINAL CAPITAL."  HELVERING
V. BRUUN, 309 U.S. 461, 469.  THE DECLARATION OF A STOCK DIVIDEND
NORMALLY WILL NOT INCREASE THE WEALTH OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.  ITS ACCRUAL
WILL USUALLY ANTEDATE THAT EVENT.  SEE HAIG ET AL., THE FEDERAL INCOME
TAX (1921) P. 8.  FOR IT IS THE ACCUMULATION OF CORPORATE EARNINGS OVER
A PERIOD OF TIME WHICH MARKS ANY REAL ACCRUAL OF WEALTH TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS.  THE NARROW QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER CONGRESS HAS THE
POWER TO MAKE THE RECEIPT OF A STOCK DIVIDEND BASED ON EARNINGS AN
OCCASION FOR RECOGNIZING THAT ACCRUAL OF WEALTH FOR INCOME TAX
PURPOSES.  CONGRESS HAS DONE SO THROUGH THE FORMULA OF COMPUTING THE
"INCOME" TO THE STOCKHOLDERS AT THE "FAIR MARKET VALUE" OF THE STOCK
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED.  SEC. 115(J).  WHETHER THAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURE WHICH COULD BE SELECTED FOR THE PURPOSE MAY BE ARGUABLE.  BUT
I CAN SEE NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON FOR SAYING THAT CONGRESS CANNOT MAKE
THAT CHOICE IF IT SO DESIRES.  THAT IS ONE WAY - THOUGH PERHAPS AT
TIMES A CRUDE ONE - OF MEASURING FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES THE WEALTH
WHICH NORMALLY ACCRUES TO STOCKHOLDERS AS A RESULT OF THE EARNING OF
THEIR CORPORATION. 

FN1  SEC. 115(A) DEFINES "DIVIDEND" AS FOLLOWS:  "THE TERM 'DIVIDEND'
WHEN USED IN THIS TITLE ...  MEANS ANY DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A
CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS, WHETHER IN MONEY OR IN OTHER PROPERTY,
(1) OUT OF ITS EARNINGS OR PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913,
OR (2) OUT OF THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR (COMPUTED AS
OF THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR WITHOUT DIMINUTION BY REASON OF ANY
DISTRIBUTIONS MADE DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR), WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
AMOUNT OF THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS AT THE TIME THE DISTRIBUTION WAS
MADE." 

SEC. 115(F)(1) IS ENTITLED "GENERAL RULE" AND READS AS FOLLOWS:  "A
DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN ITS STOCK OR
IN RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE ITS STOCK SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A DIVIDEND TO
THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION." 

SEC. 115(J) SETS FORTH THE FORMULA FOR VALUATION OF DIVIDENDS OTHER
THAN CASH DIVIDENDS:  "IF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF A DIVIDEND IS PAID
TO A SHAREHOLDER IN ANY MEDIUM OTHER THAN MONEY THE PROPERTY RECEIVED
OTHER THAN MONEY SHALL BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME AT ITS FAIR MARKET
VALUE AT THE TIME AS OF WHICH IT BECOMES INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER." 

FN2  APRIL 29, 1936.  SEE 80 CONG. REC., P. 6367.  THE KOSHLAND CASE
WAS DECIDED BY THIS COURT ON MAY 18, 1936. 

FN3  CF. THE INCOME TAX OF PARTNERS.  SEC. 182 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE PROVIDES:  "IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME OF EACH PARTNER,
HE SHALL INCLUDE, WHETHER OR NOT DISTRIBUTION IS MADE TO HIM  ...  (C)
HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE ORDINARY NET INCOME OR THE ORDINARY NET
LOSS OF THE PARTNERSHIP, COMPUTED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 183(B)."  A
PARTNER IS CHARGEABLE WITH HIS ALLOCABLE SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP
EARNINGS EVEN WHERE THEY COULD NOT BE DISTRIBUTED TO HIM BY REASON OF
LOCAL LAW.  HEINER V. MELLON, 304 U.S. 271, 281:  "THE TAX IS THUS
IMPOSED UPON THE PARTNER'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE NET INCOME OF THE
PARTNERSHIP, AND THE FACT THAT IT MAY NOT BE CURRENTLY DISTRIBUTABLE,
WHETHER BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES OR BY OPERATION OF LAW, IS NOT
MATERIAL."  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN HIS DISSENT IN EISNER
V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S., P. 231:  "THE STOCKHOLDER'S INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION DIFFERS, NOT FUNDAMENTALLY BUT IN FORM
ONLY, FROM THE INTEREST OF A PARTNER IN THE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM. 
THERE IS MUCH AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT, UNDER OUR LAW, A
PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT STOCK COMPANY IS JUST AS DISTINCT AND PALPABLE AN
ENTITY IN THE IDEA OF THE LAW, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE INDIVIDUALS
COMPOSING IT, AS IS A CORPORATION.  NO REASON APPEARS WHY CONGRESS, IN
LEGISLATING UNDER A GRANT OF POWER SO COMPREHENSIVE AS THAT AUTHORIZING
THE LEVY OF AN INCOME TAX, SHOULD BE LIMITED BY THE PARTICULAR VIEW OF
THE RELATION OF THE STOCKHOLDER TO THE CORPORATION AND ITS PROPERTY
WHICH MAY, IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION, HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THIS
COURT." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



















SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY, 318 U.S. 176 


NO. 429.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1943.  - 128
F.2D 742, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER AN IRREVOCABLE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN TRUST, THE INCOME WAS
TO BE PAID TO THE GRANTOR'S WIFE FOR LIFE; UPON HER DEATH, THE CORPUS
WAS TO GO TO THE GRANTOR IF LIVING OR, IF NOT, TO THE WIFE'S HEIRS. 
CONCEDEDLY, THE WIFE'S LIFE INTEREST WAS SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL GIFT
TAX.  HELD THAT THE REMAINDER INTEREST, LESS THE VALUE OF THE GRANTOR'S
REVERSIONARY INTEREST, WAS SUBJECT TO THE GIFT TAX IMPOSED BY SECS 501,
506 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  P. 180. 

2.  THE GIFT TAX UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AMOUNTS IN SOME
INSTANCES TO A SECURITY FOR THE PAYMENT EVENTUALLY OF THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX; IT IS IN NO SENSE DOUBLE TAXATION.  P. 179. 

3.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 IMPOSING
A TAX UPON EVERY TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY GIFT, WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS
"REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE," IS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE
A CONTINGENT REMAINDER; AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREASURY REGULATIONS
FOR APPLICATION OF THE TAX TO, AND DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF, "A
REMAINDER  ...  SUBJECT TO AN OUTSTANDING LIFE ESTATE" ARE CONSISTENT
WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT.  P. 180. 

4.  IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, WHERE THE GRANTOR HAS NEITHER THE FORM
NOR SUBSTANCE OF CONTROL OVER THE TRUST PROPERTY, AND NEVER WILL HAVE
UNLESS HE OUTLIVES HIS WIFE, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE GRANTOR HAS
RELINQUISHED ECONOMIC CONTROL OVER THE TRUST PROPERTY AND THAT THE GIFT
WAS COMPLETE EXCEPT FOR THE VALUE OF HIS REVERSIONARY INTEREST.  P.
181. 

SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 40
F.SUPP.  19, ORDERING A REFUND OF A FEDERAL GIFT TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS THE EXTENT OF THE PETITIONER'S LIABILITY FOR A
TAX UNDER SECS. 501, 506 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169,
WHICH IMPOSES A TAX UPON EVERY TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BY GIFT, "WHETHER
THE TRANSFER IS IN TRUST OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER THE GIFT IS DIRECT OR
INDIRECT, AND WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR
INTANGIBLE; ..." 

THE PETITIONER, AGE 72, MADE AN IRREVOCABLE TRANSFER IN TRUST OF
3,000 SHARES OF STOCK WORTH $571,000.  THE TRUST INCOME WAS PAYABLE TO
HIS WIFE, AGE 44, FOR LIFE; UPON HER DEATH, THE STOCK WAS TO BE
RETURNED TO THE PETITIONER, IF HE WAS LIVING; IF HE WAS NOT LIVING, IT
WAS TO GO TO SUCH PERSONS AS HIS WIFE MIGHT DESIGNATE BY WILL, OR IN
DEFAULT OF A WILL BY HER, TO HER INTESTATE SUCCESSORS UNDER APPLICABLE
NEW YORK LAW.  THE PETITIONER, UNDER PROTEST, PAID A GIFT TAX OF
$71,674.22, ASSESSED ON THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE TRUST PRINCIPAL, AND
BROUGHT SUIT FOR REFUND IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  HOLDING THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, EXECUTED A COMPLETED
GIFT OF A LIFE ESTATE TO HIS WIFE, THE COURT SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER'S ASSESSMENT ON $322,423, THE DETERMINED VALUE OF HER LIFE
INTEREST; BUT THE REMAINDER WAS HELD NOT TO BE COMPLETELY TRANSFERRED
AND HENCE NOT SUBJECT TO THE GIFT TAX.  40 F.SUPP.  19.  THE GOVERNMENT
APPEALED AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ORDERING DISMISSAL
OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS PREVIOUS DECISION
IN HERZOG V. COMMISSIONER, 116 F.2D 591.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH OUR DECISIONS IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309
U.S. 106, AND SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 39.  IN THESE
DECISIONS, AND IN BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, WE HAVE
CONSIDERED THE PROBLEMS RAISED HERE IN SOME DETAIL, AND IT WILL
THEREFORE BE UNNECESSARY TO MAKE ANY ELABORATE RE-SURVEY OF THE LAW. 

THREE INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED HERE:  THE LIFE ESTATE, THE REMAINDER,
AND THE REVERSION.  THE TAXPAYER CONCEDES THAT THE LIFE ESTATE IS
SUBJECT TO THE GIFT TAX.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE RIGHT OF
REVERSION TO THE DONOR IN CASE HE OUTLIVES HIS WIFE IS AN INTEREST
HAVING VALUE WHICH CAN BE CALCULATED BY AN ACTUARIAL DEVICE, AND THAT
IT IS IMMUNE FROM THE GIFT TAX.  THE CONTROVERSY, THEN, REDUCES ITSELF
TO THE QUESTION OF THE TAXABILITY OF THE REMAINDER. 

THE TAXPAYER'S PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT UNDER OUR DECISION IN
THE HALLOCK CASE, THE VALUE OF THE REMAINDER WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE
GRANTOR'S GROSS ESTATE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES; AND THAT IN THE SANFORD
CASE WE INTIMATED A GENERAL POLICY AGAINST ALLOWING THE SAME PROPERTY
TO BE TAXED BOTH AS AN ESTATE AND AS A GIFT. 

THIS VIEW, WE THINK, MISUNDERSTANDS OUR POSITION IN THE SANFORD
CASE.  AS WE SAID THERE, THE GIFT AND ESTATE TAX LAWS ARE CLOSELY
RELATED AND THE GIFT TAX SERVES TO SUPPLEMENT THE ESTATE TAX.  FN1  WE
SAID THAT THE TAXES ARE NOT "ALWAYS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE," AND CALLED
ATTENTION TO SEC. 322 OF THE 1924 ACT THERE INVOLVED (REENACTED WITH
AMENDMENTS IN SEC. 801 OF THE 1932 ACT) WHICH CHARTS THE COURSE FOR
GRANTING CREDITS ON ESTATE TAXES BY REASON OF PREVIOUS PAYMENT OF GIFT
TAXES ON THE SAME PROPERTY.  THE SCOPE OF THAT PROVISION WE NEED NOT
NOW DETERMINE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE HERE THAT CONGRESS PLAINLY
POINTED OUT THAT "SOME" OF THE "TOTAL GIFTS SUBJECT TO GIFT TAXES  ...
MAY BE INCLUDED FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES AND SOME NOT."  HOUSE REPORT
NO. 708, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 45.  UNDER THE STATUTE THE GIFT TAX
AMOUNTS IN SOME INSTANCES TO A SECURITY, A FORM OF DOWN-PAYMENT ON THE
ESTATE TAX WHICH SECURES THE EVENTUAL PAYMENT OF THE LATTER; IT IS IN
NO SENSE DOUBLE TAXATION AS THE TAXPAYER SUGGESTS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT UNDER THE PRESENT STATUTE, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED AS
ITS PLAN FOR INTEGRATING THE ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES THIS SYSTEM OF
SECURED PAYMENT ON GIFTS WHICH WILL LATER BE SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE
TAX.  FN2 

UNENCUMBERED BY ANY NOTION OF POLICY AGAINST SUBJECTING THIS
TRANSACTION TO BOTH ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES, WE TURN TO THE BASIC
QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE WAS A GIFT OF THE REMAINDER.  THE GOVERNMENT
ARGUES THAT FOR GIFT TAX PURPOSES THE TAXPAYER HAS ABANDONED CONTROL OF
THE REMAINDER AND THAT IT IS THEREFORE TAXABLE, WHILE THE TAXPAYER
CONTENDS THAT NO REALISTIC VALUE CAN BE PLACED ON THE CONTINGENT
REMAINDER AND THAT IT THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE CLASSED AS A GIFT. 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE COMPLEXITY OF A PROPERTY
INTEREST CREATED BY A TRUST CAN SERVE TO DEFEAT A TAX.  FOR MANY YEARS
CONGRESS HAS SOUGHT VIGOROUSLY TO CLOSE TAX LOOPHOLES AGAINST INGENIOUS
TRUST INSTRUMENTS.  FN3  EVEN THOUGH THESE CONCEPTS OF PROPERTY AND
VALUE MAY BE SLIPPERY AND ELUSIVE THEY CAN NOT ESCAPE TAXATION SO LONG
AS THEY ARE USED IN THE WORLD OF BUSINESS.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE GIFT
TAX STATUTE, "PROPERTY  ...  REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE,"
IS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE PROPERTY, HOWEVER CONCEPTUAL OR CONTINGENT. 
AND LEST THERE BE ANY DOUBT AS TO THE AMPLITUDE OF THEIR PURPOSE, THE
SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES, REPORTING THE BILL, SPELLED OUT THEIR
MEANING AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE TERMS 'PROPERTY,' 'TRANSFER,' 'GIFT,' AND 'INDIRECTLY' (IN SEC.
501) ARE USED IN THE BROADEST AND MOST COMPREHENSIVE SENSE; THE TERM
'PROPERTY' REACHING EVERY SPECIES OF RIGHT OR INTEREST PROTECTED BY LAW
AND HAVING AN EXCHANGEABLE VALUE."  FN4 

THE TREASURY REGULATIONS, WHICH WE THINK CARRY OUT THE ACT'S PURPOSE,
MADE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR APPLICATION OF THE TAX TO, AND
DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF, "A REMAINDER  ...  SUBJECT TO AN
OUTSTANDING LIFE ESTATE."  FN5 

THE ESSENCE OF A GIFT BY TRUST IS THE ABANDONMENT OF CONTROL OVER THE
PROPERTY PUT IN TRUST.  THE SEPARABLE INTERESTS TRANSFERRED ARE NOT
GIFTS TO THE EXTENT THAT POWER REMAINS TO REVOKE THE TRUST OR RECAPTURE
THE PROPERTY REPRESENTED BY ANY OF THEM, BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, SUPRA,
OR TO MODIFY THE TERMS OF THE ARRANGEMENT SO AS TO MAKE OTHER
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY, SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  IN THE
SANFORD CASE THE GRANTOR COULD, BY MODIFICATION OF THE TRUST,
EXTINGUISH THE DONEE'S INTEREST AT ANY INSTANT HE CHOSE.  IN CASES SUCH
AS THIS, WHERE THE GRANTOR HAS NEITHER THE FORM NOR SUBSTANCE OF
CONTROL AND NEVER WILL HAVE UNLESS HE OUTLIVES HIS WIFE, WE MUST
CONCLUDE THAT HE HAS LOST ALL "ECONOMIC CONTROL" AND THAT THE GIFT IS
COMPLETE EXCEPT FOR THE VALUE OF HIS REVERSIONARY INTEREST.  FN6 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED WITH LEAVE
TO THE PETITIONER TO APPLY FOR MODIFICATION OF ITS MANDATE IN ORDER
THAT THE VALUE OF THE PETITIONER'S REVERSIONARY INTEREST MAY BE
DETERMINED AND EXCLUDED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE GIFT TAX WAS PASSED NOT ONLY TO PREVENT ESTATE TAX
AVOIDANCE, BUT ALSO TO PREVENT INCOME TAX AVOIDANCE THROUGH REDUCING
YEARLY INCOME AND THEREBY ESCAPING THE EFFECT OF PROGRESSIVE SURTAX
RATES.  HOUSE REPORT NO. 708, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 28; BRANDEIS,
J., DISSENTING IN UNTERMYER V. ANDERSON, 276 U.S. 440, 450; STONE, J.,
DISSENTING IN HEINER V. DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312, 333. 

FN2  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN RELATING THE
ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES MAY STILL BE INCOMPLETE.  SEE E.G., GRISWOLD, A
PLAN FOR THE COORDINATION OF THE INCOME, ESTATE, AND GIFT TAX
PROVISIONS ETC., 56 HARV. L. REV. 337; MAGILL, THE FEDERAL GIFT TAX, 40
COL. L. REV. 773, 792; KAUPER, THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942:  ESTATE AND
GIFT TAX AMENDMENTS, 41 MICH. L. REV. 369, 388; AND SEE COMMISSIONER V.
PROUTY, 115 F.2D 331, 337; HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER, 129 F.2D 237, 239. 

FN3  2 PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE & GIFT TAXATION, CHAP. 17; SCHUYLER,
POWERS OF APPOINTMENT AND ESPECIALLY SPECIAL POWERS:  THE ESTATE
TAXPAYER'S LAST STAND, 33 ILL. L. REV. 771; LEAPHART, THE USE OF THE
TRUST TO ESCAPE THE IMPOSITION OF FEDERAL INCOME & ESTATE TAXES, 15
CORN.  L.Q. 587. 

FN4  SENATE REPORT NO. 665, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 39; HOUSE REPORT
NO. 708, SUPRA, P. 27. 

FN5  TREAS. REGULATIONS 79(1936 ED.), ARTS. 2, 3, 17, 19.  CF.
COMMISSIONER V. MARSHALL, 125 F.2D 943, 945. 

FN6  THE CONCLUSION REACHED HERE IS IN ACCORD WITH THAT OF THE
SEVERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THE PROBLEM:
COMMISSIONER V. MARSHALL, 125 F.2D 943(C.C.A.2D); COMMISSIONER V.
BECK'S ESTATE, 129 F.2D 243(C.C.A.2D); COMMISSIONER V. MCLEAN, 127 F.2D
942(C.C.A.5TH); HELVERING V. ROBINETTE, 129 F.2D 832(C.C.A. 3D),
AFFIRMED, POST, P. 184; HUGHES V. COMMISSIONER, 104 F.2D
144(C.C.A.9TH); AND SEE THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I DISSENT.  I AM OF OPINION THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE LIFE ESTATE IN THE
WIFE, THE GIFT QUA THE DONOR WAS INCOMPLETE AND NOT WITHIN THE SWEEP OF
SECS. 501 AND 506.  A CONTRARY CONCLUSION MIGHT WELL BE REACHED WERE IT
NOT FOR HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106.  BUT THE DECISIONS IN
BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, AND SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 308
U.S. 39, TO WHICH THE COURT ADHERES, REQUIRE A REVERSAL IN VIEW OF THE
RULING IN THE HALLOCK CASE. 

THE FIRST OF THE TWO CASES RULED THAT A TRANSFER IN TRUST, WHEREBY
THE GRANTOR RESERVED A POWER OF REVOCATION, WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A GIFT
TAX, BUT BECAME SO UPON THE RENUNCIATION OF THE POWER.  THE SECOND HELD
THAT WHERE THE GRANTOR RESERVED A POWER TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES,
BUT NONE TO REVOKE OR TO MAKE HIMSELF A BENEFICIARY, THE TRANSFER WAS
INCOMPLETE AND NOT SUBJECT TO GIFT TAX.  AT THE SAME TERM, IN PORTER V.
COMMISSIONER, 288 U.S. 436, THE COURT HELD THAT WHERE A DECEDENT HAD
GIVEN PROPERTY INTER VIVOS IN TRUST, RESERVING A POWER TO CHANGE THE
BENEFICIARIES BUT NO POWER TO REVOKE OR REVEST THE PROPERTY IN HIMSELF,
THE TRANSFER WAS INCOMPLETE UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF THE RESERVED POWER
BY THE DONOR'S DEATH AND HENCE THE CORPUS WAS SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE
TAX. 

WHEN THESE CASES WERE DECIDED, THE LAW, AS ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT,
WAS THAT WHERE, IN A COMPLETE AND FINAL TRANSFER INTER VIVOS, A GRANTOR
PROVIDED THAT, IN A SPECIFIED CONTINGENCY, THE CORPUS SHOULD PASS TO
HIM, IF LIVING, BUT, IF HE SHOULD BE DEAD, THEN TO OTHERS, THE GIFT WAS
COMPLETE WHEN MADE, HE RETAINED NOTHING WHICH PASSED FROM HIM AT HIS
DEATH, PRIOR TO THE HAPPENING OF THE CONTINGENCY, AND THAT NO PART OF
THE PROPERTY GIVEN WAS INCLUDIBLE IN HIS GROSS ESTATE FOR ESTATE TAX. 
MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 784; HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST
CO., 296 U.S. 39; BECKER V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 48.  SO
LONG AS THIS WAS THE LAW THE TRANSFER MIGHT PROPERLY BE THE SUBJECT OF
A GIFT TAX FOR THE GIFT WAS, AS RESPECTS THE DONOR, COMPLETE WHEN
MADE. 

IN 1940 THESE DECISIONS WERE OVERRULED AND IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH A
TRANSFER WAS SO INCOMPLETE WHEN MADE, AND THE GRANTOR RETAINED SUCH AN
INTEREST, THAT THE CESSATION OF THAT INTEREST AT DEATH FURNISHED THE
OCCASION FOR IMPOSING AN ESTATE TAX.  THUS THE SITUATION HERE PRESENTED
WAS PLACED IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS THOSE WHERE THE GRANTOR HAD RESERVED
A POWER TO REVOKE OR A POWER TO CHANGE BENEFICIARIES.  BY ANALOGY TO
THE GUGGENHEIM AND SANFORD CASES, I SUPPOSE THE GIFT WOULD HAVE BECOME
COMPLETE IF THE DONOR HAD, IN HIS LIFE, RELINQUISHED OR CONVEYED THE
CONTINGENT ESTATE RESERVED TO HIM. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS HISTORY, THE SANFORD CASE REQUIRES A HOLDING
THAT THE GIFTS IN REMAINDER, AFTER THE LIFE ESTATE, CREATE NO GIFT TAX
LIABILITY.  THE REASONING OF THAT DECISION, THE AUTHORITIES, AND THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RELIED UPON, ARE ALL AT WAR WITH THE RESULT IN THIS
CASE.  THERE IS NO NEED TO QUOTE WHAT WAS THERE SAID.  A READING OF THE
DECISION WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT, IF THE PRINCIPLES THERE ANNOUNCED ARE
HERE OBSERVED, THE GIFTS IN QUESTION ARE INCOMPLETE AND CANNOT BE THE
SUBJECT OF THE GIFT TAX. 

IT WILL NOT SQUARE WITH LOGIC TO SAY THAT WHERE THE DONOR RESERVES
THE RIGHT TO CHANGE BENEFICIARIES, AND SO DELAYS COMPLETION OF THE GIFT
UNTIL HIS DEATH OR PRIOR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE RIGHT, THE GIFT IS
INCOMPLETE, BUT WHERE HE RESERVES A CONTINGENT INTEREST TO HIMSELF THE
REVERSE IS TRUE, - PARTICULARLY SO, IF THE CRITERION OF ESTATE TAX
LIABILITY IS IMPORTANT TO THE DECISION OF THE QUESTION, AS THE SANFORD
CASE AFFIRMS. 

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER A GIFT WHICH INCLUDES VESTED AND
CONTINGENT FUTURE INTERESTS IN OTHERS THAN THE DONOR IS TAXABLE AS AN
ENTIRETY WHEN MADE, BUT WHETHER A RESERVATION OF SUCH AN INTEREST IN
THE DONOR NEGATIVES A COMPLETION OF THE GIFT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THAT
INTEREST IS RELINQUISHED. 

ALL THAT IS SAID IN THE SANFORD CASE ABOUT THE DIFFICULTIES OF
ADMINISTRATION AND PROBABLE INEQUITIES OF A CONTRARY DECISION THERE,
APPLIES HERE WITH GREATER FORCE.  INDEED A SYSTEM OF TAXATION WHICH
REQUIRES VALUATION OF THE DONOR'S RETAINED INTEREST, IN THE LIGHT OF
THE CONTINGENCIES INVOLVED, AND CALCULATION OF THE VALUE OF THE
SUBSEQUENT REMAINDERS BY RESORT TO HIGHER MATHEMATICS BEYOND THE KEN OF
THE TAXPAYER, EXHIBITS THE ARTIFICIALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
APPLICATION OF THE ACT.  THIS IS WELL ILLUSTRATED IN THE COMPANION
CASES OF ROBINETTE AND PAUMGARTEN, INFRA, P. 184.  SUCH RESULTS ARGUE
STRONGLY AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE COURT ADOPTS. 
..END :



ROBINETTE V. HELVERING, 318 U.S. 184 


NO. 499.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1943.  - 129
F.2D 832, AFFIRMED. 


A WOMAN, CONTEMPLATING MARRIAGE, CREATED AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF
PROPERTY, UNDER WHICH SHE WAS TO RECEIVE THE INCOME DURING HER LIFE;
UPON HER DEATH, HER MOTHER AND STEPFATHER WERE TO HAVE A LIFE INTEREST
IN THE INCOME; THE REMAINDER WAS TO GO TO HER ISSUE UPON THEIR REACHING
THE AGE OF 21, AND, IN DEFAULT OF ISSUE, THEN TO WHOMEVER THE LAST
SURVIVING LIFE TENANT SHOULD APPOINT BY WILL.  HER MOTHER CREATED A
SIMILAR TRUST, RESERVING A LIFE INTEREST TO HERSELF AND HER HUSBAND,
WITH A SECOND LIFE INTEREST TO THE DAUGHTER, AND REMAINDER TO THE
DAUGHTER'S ISSUE.  CONCEDEDLY, THE SECONDARY LIFE INTERESTS WERE
SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL GIFT TAX.  HELD: 

1.  THE REMAINDERS (AFTER THE LIFE INTERESTS) WERE TAXABLE GIFTS
UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY, ANTE, P. 176 P.
186. 

2.  THE FACT THAT ON THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF THE TRUST THERE WERE
IN EXISTENCE NO ELIGIBLE REMAINDERMEN DOES NOT DEFEAT THE GIFT TAX.  P.
186. 

3.  THE TRANSFERS IN THIS CASE CAN NOT BE REGARDED AS SUPPORTED BY
"FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 503 OF THE ACT; NOR AS "IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF ART. 8 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 79.  P. 187. 

4.  THE VALUE OF THE REVERSIONARY INTERESTS OF THE GRANTORS IN THIS
CASE, BEING INCAPABLE OF ASCERTAINMENT BY RECOGNIZED ACTUARIAL METHODS,
IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING THE GIFT TAX.  SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY,
ANTE, P. 176, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 188. 

ROBINETTE V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 500, PAUMGARTEN V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 620, TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 620, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 44 B.T.A. 701, WHICH REVERSED IN TWO CASES,
CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD AND IN THE COURT BELOW,
DETERMINATIONS OF DEFICIENCIES IN FEDERAL GIFT TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS ANOTHER CASE  FN1  UNDER THE GIFT TAX PROVISIONS OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SECS. 501, 506, WHICH, WHILE PRESENTING CERTAIN
VARIANTS ON THE QUESTIONS DECIDED IN SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY, ANTE, P.
176, IS IN OTHER RESPECTS ANALOGOUS TO AND CONTROLLED BY THAT CASE. 

IN 1936, THE PETITIONER, ELISE PAUMGARTEN (NEE ROBINSON), WAS THIRTY
YEARS OF AGE AND WAS CONTEMPLATING MARRIAGE; HER MOTHER, META BIDDLE
ROBINETTE, WAS 55 YEARS OF AGE AND WAS MARRIED TO THE STEPFATHER OF
MISS ROBINSON.  THE THREE, DAUGHTER, MOTHER AND STEPFATHER, HAD A
CONFERENCE WITH THE FAMILY ATTORNEY, WITH A VIEW TO KEEPING THE
DAUGHTER'S FORTUNE WITHIN THE FAMILY.  AN AGREEMENT WAS MADE THAT THE
DAUGHTER SHOULD PLACE HER PROPERTY IN TRUST, RECEIVING A LIFE ESTATE IN
THE INCOME FOR HERSELF, AND CREATING A SECOND LIFE ESTATE IN THE INCOME
FOR HER MOTHER AND STEPFATHER IF SHE SHOULD PREDECEASE THEM.  THE
REMAINDER WAS TO GO TO HER ISSUE UPON THEIR REACHING THE AGE OF 21,
WITH THE FURTHER ARRANGEMENT FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPERTY BY
THE WILL OF THE LAST SURVIVING LIFE TENANT IF NO ISSUE EXISTED.  HER
MOTHER CREATED A SIMILAR TRUST, RESERVING A LIFE ESTATE TO HERSELF AND
HER HUSBAND AND A SECOND OR CONTINGENT LIFE ESTATE TO HER DAUGHTER. 
SHE ALSO ASSIGNED THE REMAINDER TO THE DAUGHTER'S ISSUE.  THE
STEPFATHER MADE A SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT BY WILL.  THE MOTHER PLACED
$193,000 WORTH OF PROPERTY IN THE TRUST SHE CREATED, AND THE DAUGHTER
DID LIKEWISE WITH $680,000 WORTH OF PROPERTY. 

THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE SECONDARY LIFE ESTATES IN THE INCOME ARE
TAXABLE GIFTS, AND THIS TAX HAS BEEN PAID.  THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THERE
HAS ALSO BEEN A TAXABLE GIFT OF THE REMAINDERS OF THE TWO TRUSTS.  THE
COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THE REMAINDERS WERE TAXABLE, THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS REVERSED THE COMMISSIONER, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  129 F.2D 832. 

THE PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE GRANTORS HAVE NOT RELINQUISHED
ECONOMIC CONTROL AND THAT THIS TRANSACTION SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT BOTH
TO THE ESTATE AND TO THE GIFT TAX.  WHAT WE HAVE SAID IN THE SMITH CASE
DETERMINES THESE QUESTIONS ADVERSELY TO THE PETITIONERS.  HOWEVER, THE
PETITIONERS EMPHASIZE CERTAIN OTHER SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

FIRST.  PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT SINCE THERE WERE NO DONEES IN
EXISTENCE ON THE DATE OF THE CREATION OF THE TRUST WHO COULD ACCEPT THE
REMAINDERS, THE TRANSFERS CANNOT BE COMPLETED GIFTS.  THE GIFT TAX LAW
ITSELF HAS NO SUCH QUALIFICATIONS.  IT IMPOSES A TAX "UPON THE TRANSFER
...  OF PROPERTY BY GIFT."  AND TREASURY REGULATIONS 79, ART. 3,
PROVIDE THAT "THE TAX IS A PRIMARY AND PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE DONOR,
IS AN EXCISE UPON HIS ACT OF MAKING THE TRANSFER, IS MEASURED BY THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY PASSING FROM THE DONOR, AND ATTACHES REGARDLESS
OF THE FACT THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE DONEE MAY NOT THEN BE KNOWN OR
ASCERTAINABLE."  WE ARE ASKED TO STRIKE DOWN THIS REGULATION AS BEING
INVALID BECAUSE INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE.  WE DO NOT THINK IT IS.
AS POINTED OUT IN THE SMITH CASE, THE EFFORT OF CONGRESS WAS TO REACH
EVERY KIND AND TYPE OF TRANSFER BY GIFT.  THE STATUTE "IS AIMED AT
TRANSFERS OF THE TITLE THAT HAVE THE QUALITY OF A GIFT."  BURNET V.
GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, 286.  THE INSTRUMENTS CREATED BY THESE
GRANTORS PURPORTED ON THEIR FACE WHOLLY TO DIVEST THE GRANTORS OF ALL
DOMINION OVER THE PROPERTY; IT COULD NOT BE RETURNED TO THEM EXCEPT
BECAUSE OF CONTINGENCIES BEYOND THEIR CONTROL.  GIFTS OF FUTURE
INTERESTS ARE TAXABLE UNDER THE ACT, SEC. 504(B), AND THEY DO NOT LOSE
THIS QUALITY MERELY BECAUSE OF THE INDEFINITENESS OF THE EVENTUAL
RECIPIENT.  THE PETITIONERS PURPORTED TO GIVE THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE
WHOSE IDENTITY COULD BE LATER ASCERTAINED AND THIS WAS ENOUGH. 

SECOND.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE TRANSFERS WERE NOT GIFTS BUT WERE
SUPPORTED BY "FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  FN2  THIS
CONTENTION RESTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES TO EXECUTE THESE TRUSTS WAS SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION TO SUPPORT
THE TRANSFERS.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER OR ATTEMPT TO DECIDE WHAT WERE THE
RIGHTS OF THESE PARTIES AS AMONG THEMSELVES.  PETITIONERS THINK THAT
THEIR TRANSACTION COMES WITHIN THE PERMISSIVE SCOPE OF ART. 8 OF
REGULATIONS 79(1936 EDITION) WHICH PROVIDES THAT "A SALE, EXCHANGE, OR
OTHER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS (A
TRANSACTION WHICH IS BONA FIDE AT ARM'S LENGTH, AND FREE FROM ANY
DONATIVE INTENT) WILL BE CONSIDERED AS MADE FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  THE BASIC PREMISE OF
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS THAT THE MOVING IMPULSE FOR THE TRUST
TRANSACTION WAS A DESIRE TO PASS THE FAMILY FORTUNE ON TO OTHERS.  IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE OF THIS AS EVEN APPROACHING A TRANSACTION "IN
THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS." 

THIRD.  THE LAST ARGUMENT IS THAT "IN ANY EVENT, IN COMPUTING THE
VALUE OF THE REMAINDERS HEREIN, ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE VALUE
OF THE GRANTOR'S REVERSIONARY INTEREST."  HERE, UNLIKE THE SMITH CASE,
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONCEDE THAT THE REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF THE
PETITIONER SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TOTAL VALUE.  IN THE SMITH CASE,
THE GRANTOR HAD A REVERSIONARY INTEREST WHICH DEPENDED ONLY UPON HIS
SURVIVING HIS WIFE, AND THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDED THAT THE VALUE WAS
THEREFORE CAPABLE OF ASCERTAINMENT BY RECOGNIZED ACTUARIAL METHODS.  IN
THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF THE GRANTOR DEPENDS
NOT ALONE UPON THE POSSIBILITY OF SURVIVORSHIP BUT ALSO UPON THE DEATH
OF THE DAUGHTER WITHOUT ISSUE WHO SHOULD REACH THE AGE OF 21 YEARS. 
THE PETITIONER DOES NOT REFER US TO ANY RECOGNIZED METHOD BY WHICH IT
WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF SUCH A CONTINGENT
REVERSIONARY REMAINDER.  IT MAY BE TRUE, AS THE PETITIONERS ARGUE, THAT
TRUST INSTRUMENTS SUCH AS THESE BEFORE US FREQUENTLY CREATE "A COMPLEX
AGGREGATE OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, POWERS AND IMMUNITIES AND THAT IN
CERTAIN INSTANCES ALL THESE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, POWERS AND IMMUNITIES
ARE NOT TRANSFERRED OR RELEASED SIMULTANEOUSLY."  BUT BEFORE ONE WHO
GIVES HIS PROPERTY AWAY BY THIS METHOD IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FROM
HIS GIFT TAX ON THE BASIS THAT HE HAD RETAINED SOME OF THESE COMPLEX
STRANDS IT IS NECESSARY THAT HE AT LEAST ESTABLISH THE POSSIBILITY OF
APPROXIMATING WHAT VALUE HE HOLDS.  FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN FIXING
THE VALUE OF THIS CONTINGENT RESERVATION AS OF THE DATE OF THE GIFT
WOULD HAVE INCLUDED CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DAUGHTER WOULD
MARRY; WHETHER SHE WOULD HAVE CHILDREN; WHETHER THEY WOULD REACH THE
AGE OF 21; ETC.  ACTUARIAL SCIENCE MAY HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES IN
APPRAISING THE VALUE OF THAT WHICH SEEMS TO BE UNAPPRAISABLE, BUT WE
HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE FROM THIS RECORD THAT EVEN THE ACTUARIAL ART
COULD DO MORE THAN GUESS AT THE VALUE HERE IN QUESTION.  HUMES V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 487, 494. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THESE TWO MATTERS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS ONE CASE BELOW AND
WILL BE SO TREATED HERE. 

FN2  SECTION 503 OF THE 1932 ACT, 47 STAT. 169, PROVIDES THAT "WHERE
PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED FOR LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH, THEN THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION SHALL,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE, BE DEEMED A GIFT,
..."  THIS LANGUAGE IS INTERPRETED IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE
REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE TAX IS DESIGNED TO REACH ALL TRANSFERS TO THE
EXTENT THAT THEY ARE DONATIVE, AND TO EXCLUDE ANY CONSIDERATION NOT
REDUCIBLE TO MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  HOUSE REPORT NO. 708, 72D CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 29; SENATE REPORT NO. 665, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 41. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN HIS OPINION
IN SMITH V. SHAUGHNESSY, ANTE, P. 176. 
..END :








JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 189 


NO. 273.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1943.  - 129
F.2D 954, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A FEDERAL COURT
VOLUNTARILY TESTIFIES, AND UPON CROSS-EXAMINATION ASSERTS A CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WHICH THE COURT UNQUALIFIEDLY
GRANTS, ALBEIT MISTAKENLY, IT IS ERROR FOR THE COURT THEREAFTER TO
PERMIT THE PROSECUTOR TO COMMENT UPON THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AND TO
PERMIT THE JURY TO DRAW ANY INFERENCE THEREFROM, IF, AS HERE, IT CAN BE
SAID THAT THE DEFENDANT'S CHOICE OF CLAIMING OR WAIVING THE PRIVILEGE
WOULD HAVE BEEN MATERIALLY AFFECTED HAD HE KNOWN THAT THE CLAIM THOUGH
GRANTED WOULD BE USED TO HIS PREJUDICE.  P. 196. 

2.  OBJECTION TO THE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENT ON AN ALLOWED CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE IN THIS CASE WAS EXPRESSLY WAIVED BY THE DEFENDANT'S
WITHDRAWING HIS EXCEPTION TO IT AND ACQUIESCING IN THE COURT'S
TREATMENT OF THE MATTER, AND A NEW TRIAL IS NOT GRANTED.  P. 199. 

3.  RULINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT EXCLUDING THE DEFENDANT FROM THE COURT
ROOM WHILE COUNSEL WERE ARGUING THE QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY OF A LINE
OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND REQUIRING THAT HE RESUME THE STAND WITHOUT
CONFERRING WITH HIS COUNSEL CONCERNING A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE, TO WHICH
RULINGS NO EXCEPTIONS WERE TAKEN, AND WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF
THE PRIVILEGE, HELD, EVEN IF ASSUMED TO BE ERRONEOUS, NOT PREJUDICIAL. 
P. 201. 

JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 610, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION OF
WILFULLY ATTEMPTING TO DEFEAT AND EVADE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF WILFULLY ATTEMPTING TO DEFEAT AND EVADE
HIS FEDERAL INCOME TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1936 AND 1937.  HE WAS ACQUITTED
FOR 1935.  PETITIONER WAS A POLITICAL LEADER IN ATLANTIC CITY AND
ATLANTIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.  THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY WAS THAT HE HAD
RECEIVED LARGE SUMS OF MONEY FROM THOSE CONDUCTING THE NUMBERS GAME FOR
PROTECTION AGAINST POLICE INTERFERENCE AND HAD NOT REPORTED THOSE SUMS
IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1935, 1936, AND 1937.  THE DEFENSE WAS
THAT HIS FAILURE TO RETURN ALL THE INCOME HE HAD RECEIVED RESULTED FROM
THE MISTAKEN BUT SINCERE BELIEF THAT HE WAS BOUND TO RETURN ONLY THE
NET BALANCE REMAINING AFTER DEDUCTING AMOUNTS EXPENDED FOR POLITICAL
PURPOSES.  THE EVIDENCE WAS THAT ONE WELOFF AND ONE TOWHEY, ACTING
ALTERNATELY, DELIVERED TO PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF THE NUMBERS SYNDICATE
$1,200 A WEEK FROM JULY 1935 TO NOVEMBER 1937.  ABOUT NOVEMBER 1, 1937,
WELOFF AND TOWHEY WERE DISPLACED BY ONE JACK SOUTHERN TO WHOM THE
SYNDICATE DELIVERED $1,200 A WEEK.  NEITHER THE PROSECUTION NOR THE
DEFENSE WOULD SPONSOR SOUTHERN'S TESTIMONY.  AT THE REQUEST OF THE
PROSECUTION THE COURT CALLED SOUTHERN AS A WITNESS.  HE TESTIFIED THAT
DURING NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1937, HE DELIVERED THE $1,200 A WEEK TO
AN INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAMED FERRETTI, WHO WAS DEAD AT THE TIME OF THE
TRIAL.  HE DENIED THAT HE EVER MADE ANY WEEKLY PAYMENTS TO PETITIONER. 
NO EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED THAT PETITIONER RECEIVED ANY SUMS FROM THE
SYNDICATE DURING NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER, 1937.  PETITIONER TOOK THE STAND
AND ON DIRECT EXAMINATION ADMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE WEEKLY
PAYMENTS FROM WELOFF AND TOWHEY UP TO NOVEMBER, 1937.  FOR 1937 THESE
ADMITTED PAYMENTS TOTALLED $50,400.  PETITIONER ACCOUNTED FOR THIS SUM
BY STATING THAT HE HAD REPORTED $30,189.99 IN HIS 1937 RETURN AS "OTHER
COMMISSIONS" AND THAT HE HAD PAID OUT THE BALANCE, ROUGHLY $21,000, AS
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THAT YEAR.  ON CROSS-EXAMINATION HE DENIED
THAT HE HAD RECEIVED PAYMENTS FROM SOUTHERN DURING NOVEMBER AND
DECEMBER, 1937.  FN1  HE WAS THEN ASKED "DID YOU RECEIVE ANY MONEY FROM
NUMBERS IN 1938?"  COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE OBJECTED TO THE QUESTION ON
THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AND WOULD TEND TO
PROVE A DIFFERENT OFFENSE THAN THE ONE CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  THE
COURT OVERRULED THE OBJECTION.  PETITIONER THEN ANSWERED THE QUESTION
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  HE WAS THEN ASKED, "WHO GAVE IT TO YOU?"  COUNSEL
FOR THE DEFENSE OBJECTED.  THE COURT HAD THE JURY WITHDRAW.  THE
PROSECUTOR ASKED THAT PETITIONER "ALSO BE EXCUSED FROM THE COURT ROOM
DURING THE ARGUMENT, AND THAT WHEN HE RESUMES THE STAND HE SHOULD DO SO
WITHOUT HAVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT." 
THE COURT SAID "THAT IS A FAIR REQUEST" AND ORDERED PETITIONER TO
RETIRE, WHICH HE DID.  NO OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THAT ACTION.  COUNSEL
FOR THE PROSECUTION ARGUED THAT THE QUESTIONS ASKED IN CROSS
EXAMINATION WERE PROPER TO ESTABLISH A CONTINUOUS PRACTICE OF RECEIVING
THE NUMBERS INCOME THROUGHOUT 1937.  COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE INSISTED
THAT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SUBJECTS OPENED UP
BY THE EXAMINATION IN CHIEF.  THE COURT EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS PERMISSIBLE SINCE IT BORE DIRECTLY UPON
CREDIBILITY.  COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE THEN PRESSED THE POINT THAT EVEN
IF IT OTHERWISE MIGHT BE PROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION, NEVERTHELESS IT WAS
"IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS DIRECTED TO A
FUTURE PROSECUTION."  HE ASSERTED THAT HE MADE THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE
ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED "IN VIEW OF THE AVOWED THREAT OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO PROSECUTE HIM FOR THE VERY YEARS CONCERNING WHICH HE IS
NOW ASKED TO TESTIFY."  THE COURT REPLIED THAT IT WAS FOR THE ACCUSED,
NOT HIS COUNSEL, TO MAKE THE CLAIM AND ADDED, "YOU MAY ADVISE HIM OF
HIS RIGHTS, OF COURSE, BUT IT IS FOR HIM TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE
WISHES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM."  AFTER FURTHER ARGUMENT, THE COURT
STATED: 

"IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE TESTIMONY IS PERFECTLY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL
AS CROSS EXAMINATION DIRECTED TO CREDIBILITY. 

"IN VIEW OF THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY, UNLESS IT RUNS AFOUL OF HIS RIGHT
NOT TO BE REQUIRED TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT IS
A RIGHT WHICH HE MAY WAIVE OR CLAIM, AND THAT THAT IS A PERSONAL RIGHT
THAT HE MAY BE ADVISED BY COUNSEL WHEN A QUESTION IS ASKED, AND THAT HE
WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE HIMSELF WHETHER HE IS GOING TO CLAIM IT OR
NOT." 

PETITIONER RESUMED THE STAND.  THE QUESTION "WHO GAVE IT TO YOU?" 
WAS REPEATED.  COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER THEN ADVISED HIM OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE, WHICH HE THEREUPON CLAIMED.  THE COURT RULED,
"YOU MAY DECLINE TO ANSWER." 

THE PROSECUTOR IN HIS ADDRESS TO THE JURY COMMENTED AT SOME LENGTH ON
PETITIONER'S ASSERTION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE: 

I ASKED HIM, "DID YOU GET THE MONEY IN 1938?"  AND HE SAID, "YES." 
WELL, OF COURSE, THEN A LOT OF LITTLE THINGS HAPPENED.  THEY DIDN'T
LIKE THAT BECAUSE NATURALLY YOU SAY, "WELL, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT,
MR. JOHNSON."  I WISH YOU COULD HAVE ASKED HIM QUESTIONS THEN.  YOU
SAY, "MR. JOHNSON, YOU SAY THAT SUDDENLY NOVEMBER 1ST, 1937 YOU STOPPED
GETTING THE $1200 FROM NUMBERS; THEN IN 1938 YOU STARTED TO GET IT
AGAIN?  HOW COME?"  YOU DON'T GET IT, YOU DON'T GET IT BECAUSE IT ISN'T
THE TRUTH.  THAT IS WHAT CROSS EXAMINATION IS FOR. 

SO THEN WE WENT BEYOND THAT.  WE SAID, "WHO DID YOU GET IT FROM?"  HE
SAID, "I CLAIM MY PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  I VIOLATED THE
INCOME TAX LAW OF 1938; I DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT THAT.  I AM
HAVING ENOUGH TROUBLE WITH 1935, SIX AND SEVEN."  IF HE COULD HAVE
CLAIMED HIS PRIVILEGE ON THE STAND HERE WITH RESPECT TO 1935, SIX AND
SEVEN HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT.  HE WOULD CLAIM ANYTHING THAT IS NECESSARY
TO GET HIM OUT OF ANY PREDICAMENT HE IS IN.  WELL, NOW, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, IF HE GOT THAT NUMBERS MONEY IN 1938 WHO DID HE GET IT
FROM?  HE MUST HAVE GOT IT FROM JACK SOUTHERN.  MAYBE HE GOT IT FROM
INSPECTOR FERRETTI, BUT HE ADMITS HE GOT IT. WELL, THEN, IF HE GOT IT
HE GOT IT DURING THE LAST TWO MONTHS OF 1937.  THEY DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING
ABOUT THAT TO YOU BECAUSE THEY WERE TRAPPED.  NO NEED OF THEM TALKING
ABOUT IT.  IT IS FOR ME TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU. 

NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT MAN TOLD YOU THE
TRUTH ABOUT ANYTHING ON THE WITNESS STAND WHEN HE ADMITS THAT HE GOT
NUMBERS MONEY IN 1938 BUT WON'T TELL YOU WHO HE GOT IT FROM ON THE
GROUND IT WOULD INCRIMINATE HIM?  IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT THAT MAN IS
INNOCENT OF THIS CHARGE WHEN HE STANDS RIGHT UP IN FRONT OF YOU AND
SAYS HE CANNOT ANSWER A QUESTION ABOUT 1938, THAT HE JUST GOT THROUGH
ANSWERING FOR 1937 ON THE GROUND IT WOULD INCRIMINATE HIM, WELL, THEN,
I JUST DON'T GET IT. 

AN OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THESE STATEMENTS AND OVERRULED AND AN
EXCEPTION WAS NOTED.  THE NEXT MORNING BEFORE THE COURT CHARGED THE
JURY VARIOUS OTHER OBJECTIONS WERE SUBMITTED.  DURING THE COLLOQUY THE
COURT STATED THAT THERE "WERE A NUMBER OF MATTERS REFERRED TO LAST
EVENING  ...  I RULED ON SOME OF THEM, ALL OF WHICH RULINGS I INDICATED
I WOULD RECONSIDER.  NOW, HAVE YOU MENTIONED TO ME NOW ALL THE POINTS
YOU DESIRE TO REFER TO?"  COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER REPLIED, "WE WITHDRAW
WHATEVER WAS SAID LAST NIGHT  ...  I THINK THE ONLY FAIR THING TO DO IS
TO FORGET EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT AND START THIS MORNING." 
THE OBJECTION PREVIOUSLY MADE TO THE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENT ON THE
ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO TESTIFY WAS NOT RENEWED.  NOR WAS ANY REQUEST MADE
TO THE COURT TO CHARGE THE JURY TO DISREGARD PETITIONER'S REFUSAL TO
TESTIFY.  THOUGH THE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENT ON THE ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO
TESTIFY WAS AGAIN ADVERTED TO, IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT CONNECTION. 
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT THE PROSECUTOR'S STATEMENT THAT
THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AMOUNTED TO AN ADMISSION OF INCOME TAX VIOLATION
IN 1938 WAS "AN ENTIRE MISCONCEPTION OF  ...  THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE"
INASMUCH AS THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM "IS THAT THE TESTIMONY  ...  WOULD
HAVE A TENDENCY TO INCRIMINATE HIM," AND "NOT THAT IT WOULD PROVE HIM
GUILTY."  THE COURT INDICATED THAT THIS OBJECTION WAS WELL TAKEN AND
SHOULD BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE JURY.  THE COURT ADDED, "HE IS
NOT BEING CHARGED WITH ANY 1938 TAX."  THE PROSECUTOR THEN SAID, "IT IS
A QUESTION OF HIS GOOD FAITH AND HIS CREDIBILITY, AND THE ANSWERS HE
HAS ALREADY GIVEN ON SIMILAR QUESTIONS.  THAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH
THE QUESTIONS WERE PERMITTED."  THE COURT THEREUPON STATED, "I THINK I
PROBABLY SHOULD INDICATE TO THE JURY THAT THAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF
IT."  COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER REMAINED SILENT, MAKING NO OBJECTION.  NO
ERROR WAS ASSERTED IN THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL OR IN THE ASSIGNMENTS
OF ERROR ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENT OR THE COURT'S
CHARGE ON THE INFERENCE FROM THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WAS IMPROPER. 

THE COURT IN ITS CHARGE STATED THAT PETITIONER'S REFUSAL TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM "MAY
ONLY BE CONSIDERED BY YOU IN TESTING HIS CREDIBILITY AS TO THE ANSWERS
WHICH HE DID GIVE AND HIS GOOD FAITH IN THE MATTER" AND THAT PETITIONER
WAS NOT BEING TRIED FOR ANYTHING HE DID IN 1938.  TO THIS CHARGE NO
OBJECTION WAS MADE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING.  129 F.2D 954.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE EXCLUSION OF
PETITIONER FROM THE COURT ROOM DURING THE COLLOQUY DID NOT RESULT IN
PREJUDICE; THAT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION COVERING 1938 INCOME WAS PROPER;
AND THAT THE ALLOWANCE OF COMMENT ON THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WAS
JUSTIFIED.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

THE CASE OF AN ACCUSED WHO VOLUNTARILY TAKES THE STAND AND THE CASE
OF AN ACCUSED WHO REFRAINS FROM TESTIFYING (BRUNO V. UNITED STATES, 308
U.S. 287) ARE OF COURSE VASTLY DIFFERENT.  RAFFEL V. UNITED STATES, 271
U.S. 494.  HIS "VOLUNTARY OFFER OF TESTIMONY UPON ANY FACT IS A WAIVER
AS TO ALL OTHER RELEVANT FACTS, BECAUSE OF THE NECESSARY CONNECTION
BETWEEN ALL."  8 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED., 1940) SEC. 2276(2).  AND
SEE FITZPATRICK V. UNITED STATES, 178 U.S. 304, 315-316; POWERS V.
UNITED STATES, 223 U.S. 303, 314.  THE CROSS-EXAMINATION DID NOT RUN
AFOUL OF THE RULE WHICH PROHIBITS INQUIRY INTO A COLLATERAL CRIME
UNCONNECTED WITH THE OFFENSE CHARGED.  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S.
450.  INQUIRY INTO PETITIONER'S INCOME FOR 1938 WAS RELEVANT TO THE
ISSUE IN THE CASE.  AS CONTENDED BY THE PROSECUTION, THE RECEIPT OF
MONEY FROM THE NUMBERS SYNDICATE PRIOR TO NOVEMBER, 1937 AND AFTER
DECEMBER, 1937 MIGHT WELL SUPPORT A FINDING OF THE JURY THAT IN VIEW OF
ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT IN FACT INTERRUPTED DURING
THE LAST TWO MONTHS OF 1937.  THE AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF THE 1938 INCOME
ACCORDINGLY WERE RELEVANT TO SHOW THE CONTINUOUS NATURE OF THE
TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION.  THAT LINE OF INQUIRY THEREFORE SATISFIED THE
TEST OF RELEVANCY AND WAS A PROPER PART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION.  SEE
CRAVENS V. UNITED STATES, 62 F.2D 261, 273; MEHAN V. UNITED STATES, 112
F.2D 561, 563; WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 122 F.2D 675, 682; BULLOCK V.
STATE, 65 N.J.L. 557, 575.  THOUGH THE ISSUE MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE APTLY
PHRASED BY THE COURT IN TERMS OTHER THAN CREDIBILITY, THE MEANING OF
THE RULING IN ITS CONTEXT IS PLAIN.  THUS WE MAY ASSUME THAT IT WOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN ERROR FOR THE COURT TO DENY PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE.  IN SUCH A CASE HIS FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF HIS
NUMBERS INCOME IN 1938 COULD PROPERLY BE THE SUBJECT OF COMMENT AND
INFERENCE.  AS STATED BY THIS COURT IN CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242
U.S. 470, 494, AN ACCUSED WHO TAKES THE STAND "MAY NOT STOP SHORT IN
HIS TESTIMONY BY OMITTING AND FAILING TO EXPLAIN INCRIMINATING
CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVENTS ALREADY IN EVIDENCE, IN WHICH HE PARTICIPATED
AND CONCERNING WHICH HE IS FULLY INFORMED, WITHOUT SUBJECTING HIS
SILENCE TO THE INFERENCES TO BE NATURALLY DRAWN FROM IT."  BUT WHERE
THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE IS ASSERTED AND UNQUALIFIEDLY GRANTED, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR TRIAL MAY PRECLUDE ANY COMMENT.  THAT CERTAINLY IS
TRUE WHERE THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE COULD NOT PROPERLY BE DENIED.  THE
RULE WHICH OBTAINS WHEN THE ACCUSED FAILS TO TAKE THE STAND (WILSON V.
UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 60) IS THEN APPLICABLE.  AS STATED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, "IF THE PRIVILEGE CLAIMED BY THE WITNESS
BE ALLOWED, THE MATTER IS AT AN END.  THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AND ITS
ALLOWANCE IS PROPERLY NO PART OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY,
AND NO INFERENCES WHATEVER CAN BE LEGITIMATELY DRAWN BY THEM FROM THE
LEGAL ASSERTION BY THE WITNESS OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  THE
ALLOWANCE OF THE PRIVILEGE WOULD BE A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE, IF EITHER
PARTY IS TO BE AFFECTED INJURIOUSLY BY IT."  PHELIN V. KENDERDINE, 20
PA. 354, 363; WIREMAN V. COMMONWEALTH, 203 KY. 57, 62-63, 261 S.W.
862.  AND SEE STATE V. VROMAN, 45 S.D. 465, 473, 188 N.W. 746; CARNE V.
LITCHFIELD, 2 MICH. 340; PEOPLE V. MCGUNGILL, 41 CAL. 429.  WE ALSO
THINK THAT THE SAME RESULT SHOULD OBTAIN IN ANY CASE WHERE THE COURT
GRANTS THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AND THEN SUBMITS THE MATTER TO THE JURY,
IF THAT ACTION MAY BE SAID TO AFFECT MATERIALLY THE ACCUSED'S CHOICE OF
CLAIMING OR WAIVING THE PRIVILEGE AND RESULTS IN PREJUDICE.  THE FACT
THAT THE PRIVILEGE IS MISTAKENLY GRANTED IS IMMATERIAL.    THE RULING
OF THE COURT GAVE THE PETITIONER THE CHOICE BETWEEN TESTIFYING AND
REFUSING TO TESTIFY AS TO HIS 1938 INCOME.  AN ACCUSED HAVING THE
ASSURANCE OF THE COURT THAT HIS CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WOULD BE GRANTED
MIGHT WELL BE ENTRAPPED IF HIS ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE COULD THEN BE
USED AGAINST HIM.  HIS REAL CHOICE MIGHT THEN BE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM
HIS APPARENT ONE.  IN THIS CASE IT WOULD LIE BETWEEN PROTECTION AGAINST
AN INDICTMENT FOR 1938 AND THE USE OF HIS CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AS
EVIDENCE THAT HE DID IN FACT RECEIVE THE INCOME DURING THE LAST TWO
MONTHS OF 1937.  ELEMENTARY FAIRNESS REQUIRES THAT AN ACCUSED SHOULD
NOT BE MISLED ON THAT SCORE.  IF ADVISED BY THE COURT THAT HIS CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE THOUGH GRANTED WOULD BE EMPLOYED AGAINST HIM, HE WELL MIGHT
NEVER CLAIM IT.  IF HE RECEIVES ASSURANCE THAT IT WILL BE GRANTED IF
CLAIMED, OR IF IT IS CLAIMED AND GRANTED OUTRIGHT, HE HAS EVERY RIGHT
TO EXPECT THAT THE RULING IS MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND THAT THE RULE
AGAINST COMMENT WILL BE OBSERVED.  CERTAINLY THE QUESTION WHETHER
PETITIONER HAD RECEIVED INCOME FROM THE SYNDICATE DURING NOVEMBER AND
DECEMBER, 1937, WAS AN EXTREMELY MATERIAL ISSUE IN THE CASE.  AS WE
HAVE NOTED, PETITIONER ADMITTED RECEIVING $50,400 FROM THE NUMBERS
SYNDICATE DURING 1937.  AND ALL OF THIS AMOUNT ACCORDING TO THE
TESTIMONY WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1, 1937.  OF THIS AMOUNT HE
REPORTED ONLY $30,189.99 IN HIS 1937 INCOME TAX RETURN.  HE TESTIFIED,
HOWEVER, THAT HE HAD PAID OUT $21,000 IN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR
THAT YEAR.  THUS HE ATTEMPTED TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE NUMBERS INCOME
WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED THAT YEAR AND DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT HIS
FAILURE TO RETURN THE $21,000 WAS DUE TO HIS MISTAKEN BUT SINCERE
BELIEF THAT HE WAS BOUND TO RETURN ONLY THE NET BALANCE REMAINING AFTER
DEDUCTING AMOUNTS EXPENDED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.  THE INDICTMENT,
HOWEVER, CHARGED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED $62,400 FROM THE NUMBERS
SYNDICATE DURING 1937.  AND THE PROSECUTION CLAIMED THAT THE WEEKLY
PAYMENTS OF $1,200 CONTINUED DURING NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1937.  IF
THAT WERE ESTABLISHED, IT WOULD PLAINLY DESTROY HIS DEFENSE AND WOULD
BE COGENT EVIDENCE OF HIS WILFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE TAX.  ALL OF THE
DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT HE HAD NOT
RECEIVED INCOME FROM THE NUMBERS SYNDICATE DURING NOVEMBER AND
DECEMBER, 1937.  THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT HE HAD UNLESS
THAT FACT WAS TO BE INFERRED FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE
INCOME UNTIL NOVEMBER, 1937 AND THAT HE RECEIVED IT AGAIN IN 1938. 
HENCE IT WOULD BE HIGHLY VALUABLE TO THE PROSECUTION AND EQUALLY
DAMAGING TO THE ACCUSED TO HAVE HIS FAILURE TO TESTIFY EMPLOYED TO
BOLSTER SUCH AN INFERENCE. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT COMMENT ON A DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO
TESTIFY DOES NOT IN ANY WAY PLACE HIM IN JEOPARDY OF BEING CHARGED WITH
OR CONVICTED OF THE CRIME PROTECTED BY HIS PRIVILEGE.  THAT MAY BE
ADMITTED.  THE PROBLEM HERE IS A DIFFERENT ONE.  IT IS WHETHER A
PROCEDURE WILL BE APPROVED WHICH DEPRIVES AN ACCUSED ON FACTS SUCH AS
THESE OF AN INTELLIGENT CHOICE BETWEEN CLAIMING OR WAIVING HIS
PRIVILEGE.  KNOWLEDGE THAT A FAILURE TO TESTIFY THOUGH PERMITTED BY THE
COURT WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY MIGHT SERIOUSLY AFFECT THAT
CHOICE.  IF THE ACCUSED MAKES THE CHOICE WITHOUT THAT KNOWLEDGE, HE MAY
WELL BE MISLED ON ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS IN HIS DEFENSE. 
WE WOULD OF COURSE NOT BE CONCERNED WITH THE MATTER IF IT TURNED ONLY
ON THE QUALITY OF LEGAL ADVICE WHICH HE RECEIVED.  BUT THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISUSE OF THE GRANT OF THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE IS THE
COURT'S.  IT IS THE COURT TO WHOM AN ACCUSED PROPERLY AND NECESSARILY
LOOKS FOR PROTECTION IN SUCH A MATTER.  WHEN IT GRANTS THE CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE BUT ALLOWS IT TO BE USED AGAINST THE ACCUSED TO HIS
PREJUDICE, WE CANNOT DISREGARD THE MATTER.  THAT PROCEDURE HAS SUCH
POTENTIALITIES OF OPPRESSIVE USE THAT WE WILL NOT SANCTION ITS USE IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS OVER WHICH WE HAVE SUPERVISORY POWERS. 

WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS EMINENT AUTHORITY WHICH MAY
BE SAID TO REPRESENT THE CONTRARY VIEW.  STATE V. OBER, 52 N.H. 459. 
THAT CASE STANDS FOR THE GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT WHEN THE ACCUSED TOOK
THE STAND "WITHOUT CLAIMING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE, IT WAS TOO
LATE FOR HIM TO HALT AT THAT POINT WHICH SUITED HIS OWN CONVENIENCE." 
ID., P. 465.  WITH THAT RULE WE AGREE.  WHETHER THE FACTS OF THAT CASE
AND THE STAGE OF THE PROOF WHEN THE PRIVILEGE WAS CLAIMED MADE THE
COMMENT ON THE ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO TESTIFY PREJUDICIAL, CANNOT BE
DETERMINED FROM THE REPORT OF THE CASE.  THE POINT WITH WHICH WE ARE
HERE CONCERNED WAS NOT ADVERTED TO IN THE OPINION.  INDEED THE COURT
STATED (52 N.H. P. 465) THAT THE "WHOLE ARGUMENT OF HIS COUNSEL NOW
PROCEEDS UPON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE RULING OF THE COURT
(GRANTING THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE) WAS RIGHT.  THAT ASSUMPTION BEING
GROUNDLESS, HIS ARGUMENT FAILS."  BUT AS WE HAVE INDICATED, THE PROBLEM
IN THIS CASE IS QUITE DIFFERENT. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THIS MATTER AT LENGTH BECAUSE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS RULED UPON IT AND APPROVED THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  BUT WE DO NOT GRANT A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE OF ONE
CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH SEEMS TO US CONTROLLING.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THOUGH
AN EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN TO THE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENT ON PETITIONER'S
REFUSAL TO TESTIFY, IT WAS LATER WITHDRAWN.  AND WHEN THE COURT INVITED
COUNSEL TO BRING TO ITS ATTENTION ANY OBJECTIONS OR REQUESTS TO CHARGE,
COUNSEL DID NOT RENEW THE OBJECTION.  NOR WAS ANY REQUEST MADE TO
CHARGE THE JURY ON THE MATTER.  MOREOVER, THOUGH THE QUESTION OF THE
PROSECUTOR'S COMMENT WAS AGAIN ADVERTED TO BY THE DEFENSE, THE
OBJECTION WAS OF A WHOLLY DIFFERENT CHARACTER AND ONE WHICH THE COURT
INDICATED ITS WILLINGNESS TO CORRECT.  AND WHEN THE COURT STATED WHAT
CHARGE IT WOULD GIVE THE JURY ON THE POINT, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE
STOOD BY AND VOICED NO PROTEST OR OBJECTION.  WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT
PETITIONER EXPRESSLY WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO THE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENT
BY WITHDRAWING HIS EXCEPTION TO IT AND BY ACQUIESCING IN THE TREATMENT
OF THE MATTER BY THE COURT.  IT IS TRUE THAT WE MAY OF OUR OWN MOTION
NOTICE ERRORS TO WHICH NO EXCEPTION HAS BEEN TAKEN IF THEY WOULD
"SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY OR PUBLIC REPUTATION OF
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS."  SEE UNITED STATES V. ATKINSON, 297 U.S. 157,
160; CLYATT V. UNITED STATES, 197 U.S. 207, 221-222.  BUT WE ARE NOT
DEALING HERE WITH INADVERTENCE OR OVERSIGHT.  THIS IS A CASE WHERE
SILENT APPROVAL OF THE COURSE FOLLOWED BY THE COURT (BOYD V. UNITED
STATES, 271 U.S. 104, 108) IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN EXPRESS WAIVER OF A
PRIOR OBJECTION TO THE METHOD BY WHICH THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WAS
TREATED.  IN SUCH A SITUATION THE RULE STATED BY MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND
IN UNITED STATES V. MANTON, 107 F.2D 834, 848, IS APPLICABLE: 

"IF THE FAILURE TO ENTER AN EXCEPTION OR ASSIGN ERROR HAD BEEN A MERE
INADVERTENCE THE MATTER MIGHT STAND IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT.  BUT THAT
VIEW CANNOT BE INDULGED.  PLAINLY ENOUGH, COUNSEL CONSCIOUSLY AND
INTENTIONALLY FAILED TO SAVE THE POINT AND LED THE TRIAL JUDGE TO
UNDERSTAND THAT COUNSEL WAS SATISFIED.  WE SEE NO WARRANT FOR THE
EXERCISE OF OUR DISCRETION TO SET ASIDE STANDING RULES, SO NECESSARY TO
THE DUE AND ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND REVIEW THE CHALLENGE
TO THE LEGAL ACCURACY OF THE CHARGE WHERE, AS HERE, THE FAILURE OF THE
JUDGE TO FOLLOW THE TEXT OF THE REQUESTED INSTRUCTION WAS, AT THE LAST,
INDUCED BY THE ACTION OF COUNSEL  ..." 

ANY OTHER COURSE WOULD NOT COMPORT WITH THE STANDARDS FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  WE CANNOT PERMIT AN ACCUSED TO
ELECT TO PURSUE ONE COURSE AT THE TRIAL AND THEN, WHEN THAT HAS PROVED
TO BE UNPROFITABLE, TO INSIST ON APPEAL THAT THE COURSE WHICH HE
REJECTED AT THE TRIAL BE REOPENED TO HIM.  HOWEVER UNWISE THE FIRST
CHOICE MAY HAVE BEEN, THE RANGE OF WAIVER IS WIDE.  SINCE THE
PROTECTION WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED WAS PLAINLY WAIVED, THE
ACCUSED CANNOT NOW BE HEARD TO CHARGE THE COURT WITH DEPRIVING HIM OF A
FAIR TRIAL.  THE COURT ONLY FOLLOWED THE COURSE WHICH HE HIMSELF HELPED
TO CHART AND IN WHICH HE ACQUIESCED UNTIL THE CASE WAS ARGUED ON
APPEAL.  THE FACT THAT THE OBJECTION DID NOT APPEAR IN THE MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL OR IN THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR MAKES CLEAR THAT THE POINT NOW
IS A "MERE AFTERTHOUGHT."  UNITED STATES V. MANTON, SUPRA, P. 847. 

THE REMAINING OBJECTIONS MAY BE BRIEFLY DISPOSED OF.  IT IS CLAIMED
THAT THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER FROM THE COURT ROOM WHILE COUNSEL WERE
ARGUING THE QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION ON HIS
1938 INCOME DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE TRIAL. 
CF. SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97.  IT IS ALSO URGED THAT
PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL IN THAT THE COURT DIRECTED
THAT WHEN HE RESUMED THE STAND HE DO SO WITHOUT HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY
TO CONFER WITH HIS COUNSEL ABOUT CLAIMING THE PRIVILEGE.  BUT THERE IS
A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THESE OBJECTIONS.  NOT ONLY WERE NO EXCEPTIONS TAKEN
TO THESE RULINGS; IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THEY DID NOT RESULT IN A LOSS OF
THE PRIVILEGE WHICH THE COURT HAD INDICATED IT WOULD RECOGNIZE.  FOR
WHEN PETITIONER RESUMED THE STAND, HE WAS ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO CLAIM
THE PRIVILEGE, HE CLAIMED IT, AND IT WAS GRANTED.  ACCORDINGLY WE
CANNOT SEE WHERE ANY PREJUDICE RESULTED EVEN IF WE ASSUME, ARGUENDO,
THAT THE RULINGS OF THE COURT WERE NOT CORRECT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD RECEIVED $62,400
FROM THE NUMBERS GAME IN 1937.  IT WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT
AMOUNT AND $50,400 ADMITTEDLY RECEIVED WHICH WAS IN DISPUTE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

IN REVIEWING CRIMINAL CASES, IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR
APPELLATE COURTS TO RE-LIVE THE WHOLE TRIAL IMAGINATIVELY AND NOT TO
EXTRACT FROM EPISODES IN ISOLATION ABSTRACT QUESTIONS OF EVIDENCE AND
PROCEDURE.  TO TURN A CRIMINAL APPEAL INTO A QUEST FOR ERROR NO MORE
PROMOTES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THAN TO ACQUIESCE IN LOW STANDARDS OF
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS LEAVES ME
WITHOUT DOUBT THAT JUDGE MARIS CONDUCTED THE TRIAL WITH CONSPICUOUS
FAIRNESS, AND THAT HE COMMITTED NO ERROR IN THE RULINGS COMPLAINED OF
UNLESS IT BE ONE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT.  IN ALLOWING THE DEFENDANT
TO WITHHOLD TESTIMONY REGARDING GAMBLING RECEIPTS FOR 1938, THE TRIAL
COURT, IN RECOGNIZING THE THREAT OF FUTURE PROSECUTION OF THE DEFENDANT
FOR EVADING TAXES IN THAT YEAR, WAS EXERCISING A MERCIFUL DISCRETION. 
FOR THIS AVENUE OF INQUIRY PLAINLY WAS RELEVANT TO THE TRUTH OF THE
CHARGES AGAINST JOHNSON IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING.  IN VIEW OF ALL THAT
TOOK PLACE AT THE TRIAL, TO HAVE DENIED THE JURY AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CONSIDER THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S DESIRE NOT TO TESTIFY
REGARDING GAMBLING RECEIPTS IN 1938 WOULD HAVE BEEN TO WITHHOLD FROM
THEM A FACTOR RELEVANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER JOHNSON'S EXPLANATION OF
WHAT HE DID WITH THE "PROTECTION" MONEY RECEIVED BY HIM IN 1936 AND
1937 WAS THE TRUTH OR JUST A COCK-AND-BULL STORY. 

THAT THE DEFENDANT'S SENIOR COUNSEL, A LAWYER OF LONG EXPERIENCE IN
FEDERAL CRIMINAL PRACTICE, DID NOT TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE MANNER IN
WHICH JUDGE MARIS TEMPERED CONCERN FOR THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE WITH SOLICITUDE FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT, INDICATES NOT
"WAIVER" OF A RIGHT WHICH HAD BEEN DENIED BUT RECOGNITION THAT THE
ACTION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS UNEXCEPTIONABLE.  THE CLAIM THAT THE
TRIAL WAS CONDUCTED IMPROPERLY IS OBVIOUSLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT.  ONLY
AFTER CONVICTION AND IN AN EFFORT TO UPSET THE JURY'S VERDICT ON APPEAL
WAS THE FAIR CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL COURT SOUGHT TO BE DISTORTED INTO AN
IMPROPRIETY. 
..END :















LEISHMAN V. ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC CO., 318 U.S. 203 


NO. 332.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1943.  - 128
F.2D 204, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A MOTION UNDER RULE 52(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
(MADE WITHIN AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME UNDER RULE 6(B)) TO AMEND AND
SUPPLEMENT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATES TO MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE
AND WOULD, IF GRANTED, REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT OF THE JUDGMENT TO CONFORM
THERETO, EVEN THOUGH AMENDMENT OF THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY
REQUESTED, THE TIME FOR TAKING AN APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT (28 U.S.C.
SEC. 230) RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER DISPOSING OF THE MOTION.  P.
205. 

2.  RULE 59 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RELATING TO NEW TRIALS,
HELD INAPPLICABLE.  P. 206. 

LEISHMAN V. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 612, TO REVIEW A DECREE DISMISSING AN APPEAL FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER PETITIONER APPEALED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY LAW (28 U.S.C.
SEC. 230). 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT BY PETITIONER FOR INFRINGEMENT OF CERTAIN
CLAIMS OF A REISSUE PATENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT
THAT THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE DID NOT EMBODY ANY INVENTION OVER THE PRIOR
ART AND ENTERED JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT ON MAY 1, 1941.  ON
MAY 28, 1941, AFTER SECURING AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME UNDER RULE 6(B) OF
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (28 U.S.C.A. FOLLOWING SEC. 723C),
PETITIONER FILED A MOTION UNDER RULE 52(B)  FN1 ASKING THAT THE
FINDINGS "BE AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED."  PETITIONER REQUESTED THAT SOME
OF THE FINDINGS RELATING TO NON-INVENTION BE AMENDED IN CERTAIN
RESPECTS SET OUT IN THE MOTION SO AS TO SHOW INVENTION AND TO INCLUDE A
SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE DID DEFINE INVENTION OVER THE
PRIOR ART. SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS, INTENDED TO DISPOSE OF VARIOUS OTHER
DEFENSES ASSERTED BY RESPONDENT BUT NOT PASSED UPON BY THE COURT, WERE
ALSO REQUESTED.  THE MOTION CONCLUDED WITH THE STATEMENT THAT:
"CONSISTENTLY WITH THESE FINDINGS, THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SHOULD BE
AMENDED TO STATE THAT THE CLAIMS  ...  IN SUIT, ARE VALID; THAT AN
INJUNCTION SHALL ISSUE IN THE USUAL FORM, AND THAT THERE BE AN
ACCOUNTING FOR PAST INFRINGEMENT."  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED ON JUNE 9,
1941. 

ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1941, PETITIONER FILED HIS NOTICE OF APPEAL IN THE
DISTRICT COURT.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUA SPONTE HELD IT
HAD NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN MORE THAN THREE MONTHS
AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, CONTRARY TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 230.  IN SO
HOLDING THAT COURT RECOGNIZED THE GENERAL RULE THAT WHERE A PETITION
FOR REHEARING, A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, OR A MOTION TO VACATE, AMEND,
OR MODIFY A JUDGMENT IS SEASONABLY MADE AND ENTERTAINED, THE TIME FOR
APPEAL DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL THE DISPOSITION OF THE MOTION.  FN3
BUT THIS CASE WAS DIFFERENTIATED ON THE GROUND THAT THE INSTANT MOTION
WAS NOT ONE TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT BUT MERELY ONE TO AMEND AND
SUPPLEMENT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.  128 F.2D 204.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO SETTLE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF PRACTICE PRESENTED UNDER
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 

WE THINK THAT PETITIONER'S TIME TO APPEAL DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL
THE DISPOSITION OF HIS MOTION UNDER RULE 52(B) ON JUNE 9, 1941, AND
ACCORDINGLY THAT HIS APPEAL WAS TIMELY.  THE MOTION WAS NOT ADDRESSED
TO MERE MATTERS OF FORM BUT RAISED QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANCE SINCE IT
SOUGHT RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN BASIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE
ALTERATION OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT.  IN SHORT THE NECESSARY
EFFECT WAS TO ASK THAT RIGHTS ALREADY ADJUDICATED BE ALTERED. 
CONSEQUENTLY IT DEPRIVED THE JUDGMENT OF THAT FINALITY WHICH IS
ESSENTIAL TO APPEALABILITY.  CF. ZIMMERN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S.
167; DEPARTMENT OF BANKING V. PINK, 317 U.S. 264.  IT IS IMMATERIAL
THAT PETITIONER DID NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THE AMENDMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT, AND THE DISTINCTION BASED ON THIS FAILURE TO REQUEST BY THE
COURT BELOW IS ARTIFICIAL AND UNTENABLE.  IF THE MOTION HAD BEEN
GRANTED AND THE REQUESTED AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS MADE, THE
JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED OR ALTERED TO CONFORM TO THOSE
FINDINGS AND THE CONCLUSIONS RESULTING FROM THEM.  WE CONCLUDE THAT A
MOTION UNDER RULE 52(B) SUCH AS THE INSTANT ONE WHICH SEEKS TO AMEND OR
SUPPLEMENT THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN MORE THAN PURELY FORMAL OR
MECHANICAL ASPECTS TOLLS THE APPEALS STATUTE, AND THAT THE TIME FOR
TAKING AN APPEAL RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER DISPOSING OF THE
MOTION.  CF. CONTINENTAL OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 510. 

THE MOTION WAS NOT ONE FOR A NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 59 AND RESPONDENT'S
ARGUMENT, BASED ON THAT PREMISE, THAT IT WAS NOT FILED IN TIME,  FN4
IS NOT PERTINENT. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SO FAR AS IS HERE MATERIAL RULE 52(B) PROVIDES:  "UPON MOTION OF
A PARTY MADE NOT LATER THAN 10 DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF JUDGMENT THE COURT
MAY AMEND ITS FINDINGS OR MAKE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND MAY AMEND THE
JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY." 

FN2  THIS IS THE PROPER METHOD OF TAKING AN APPEAL.  RULE 73(A). 

FN3  MORSE V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 151, 153-54, AND CASES CITED. 
COMPARE JOPLIN ICE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 87 F.2D 174; SUGGS V. MUTUAL
BENEFIT ASSN., 115 F.2D 80; NEELY V. MERCHANTS TRUST CO., 110 F.2D 525;
UNITED STATES V. STEINBERG, 100 F.2D 124.  SEE ALSO CITIZENS BANK V.
OPPERMAN, 249 U.S. 448; GYPSY OIL CO. V. ESCOE, 275 U.S. 498; PFISTER
V. NORTHERN ILLINOIS FINANCE CORP., 317 U.S. 144. 

FN4  THE 10 DAY LIMIT FOR FILING FIXED IN RULE 59 CANNOT BE ENLARGED
UNDER RULE 6(B) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (C) OF RULE 59. 
..END :









U.S. V. OKLAHOMA GAS CO., 318 U.S. 206 


NO. 171.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1943.  - 127
F.2D 349, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A PERMIT GRANTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UNDER SEC. 4 OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, TO THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA TO OPEN AND
ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HIGHWAY OVER INDIAN ALLOTTED LANDS, IS TO BE
CONSTRUED, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY GOVERNING ADMINISTRATIVE RULING,
STATUTE, OR CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO THE CONTRARY, AS AUTHORIZING THE
STATE TO LICENSE THE ERECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF A RURAL ELECTRIC
SERVICE LINE, A PROPER USE OF THE HIGHWAY UNDER STATE LAW.  P. 209. 

2.  THE INDIAN ALLOTTED LANDS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WERE NOT WITHIN A
"RESERVATION" AS USED IN THE ACTS OF FEBRUARY 15, 1901, AND MARCH 4,
1911.  P. 215. 

UNITED STATES V. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 608, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, 37
F.SUPP.  347, DISMISSING A COMPLAINT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES SUED THE OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ASKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE
COMPANY ILLEGALLY OCCUPIES WITH ITS POLE LINE CERTAIN INDIAN LAND, AND
A MANDATORY INJUNCTION TO TERMINATE SUCH OCCUPATION.  THE CASE TURNS ON
WHETHER PERMISSION TO THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA TO ESTABLISH A HIGHWAY OVER
ALLOTTED INDIAN LAND GIVEN UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901,
FN1  INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO PERMIT MAINTENANCE OF RURAL ELECTRIC SERVICE
LINES WITHIN THE HIGHWAY BOUNDS. 

THE UNITED STATES AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES HELD TITLE TO HALF OF A
QUARTER SECTION OF LAND IN OKLAHOMA IN TRUST FOR SHE-PAH-THO-QUAH, A
MEXICAN KICKAPOO INDIAN ALLOTTEE THEREOF; AND SINCE HER DEATH, FOR HER
HEIRS.  THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA APPLIED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
"TO GRANT PERMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3,
1901(31 STAT. L. 1058, 1084), TO OPEN AND ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HIGHWAY"
ACROSS THE LAND IN QUESTION.  THE HIGHWAY WIDTH WAS 80 FEET, AND IT
EXTENDED 2,577 FEET ON THESE LANDS, OCCUPYING 4.55 ACRES THEREOF.  THE
STATE PAID THEREFOR $1,275 AS COMPENSATION TO THE HEIRS OF SHE-PAH-THO
QUAH, AND ON JANUARY 20, 1928, THE MAP OF DEFINITE LOCATION WAS ON
BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY ENDORSED "APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901(31 STAT. L. 1058, 1084), DEPARTMENT
REGULATIONS THEREUNDER; AND SUBJECT ALSO TO ANY PRIOR VALID EXISTING
RIGHT OR ADVERSE CLAIM." 

WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE AND GRANTED, PROVIDES: 

"THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO GRANT
PERMISSION, UPON COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH REQUIREMENTS AS HE MAY DEEM
NECESSARY, TO THE PROPER STATE OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE OPENING AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OR TERRITORY IN WHICH THE LANDS ARE SITUATED, THROUGH ANY INDIAN
RESERVATION OR THROUGH ANY LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED IN SEVERALTY
TO ANY INDIVIDUAL INDIANS UNDER ANY LAWS OR TREATIES BUT WHICH HAVE NOT
YET BEEN CONVEYED TO THE ALLOTTEES WITH FULL POWER OF ALIENATION." 

APPARENTLY THE SECRETARY HAS NEVER ISSUED A REGULATION APPLICABLE TO
THIS CASE.  CF. 25 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SEC. 261.1 ET SEQ. 

THE HIGHWAY WAS OPENED, AND IN 1936 THE OKLAHOMA STATE HIGHWAY
COMMISSION, WITH STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ACT IN THE MATTER,  FN2
GRANTED RESPONDENT THE LICENSE UNDER WHICH IT OCCUPIES A PORTION OF THE
HIGHWAY WITH ITS RURAL ELECTRIC SERVICE LINE.  THE LICENSE IS IN TERMS
REVOCABLE AT WILL, PROVIDES FOR LOCATION OF THE POLES 38 FEET FROM THE
CENTER OF THE HIGHWAY, AND REQUIRES ALL LINES TO BE KEPT IN GOOD
REPAIR.  THE LICENSEE ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE, AND THE LICENSE
RECITES THAT IT IS "GRANTED SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL CLAIMS MADE BY
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON SUCH
ADJACENT AND ABUTTING PROPERTY." 

THE SECRETARY CONSIDERED THIS USE OF THE PROPERTY NOT WARRANTED BY
HIS PERMISSION TO THE STATE TO ESTABLISH A HIGHWAY UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901.  HE DEMANDED THAT THE COMPANY APPLY TO HIM UNDER
THE ACTS OF FEBRUARY 15, 1901 AND MARCH 4, 1911  FN3  FOR PERMISSION TO
MAINTAIN ITS LINES AND, WHEN THE COMPANY REFUSED, INSTITUTED THIS
ACTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  37 F.SUPP.  347, 127
F.2D 349.  THE QUESTION APPEARED IMPORTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT UNDER THE LAWS OF OKLAHOMA THE USE MADE OF THE
HIGHWAY BY RESPONDENT, THE STATE'S LICENSEE, IS A LAWFUL AND PROPER
HIGHWAY USE, IMPOSING NO ADDITIONAL BURDEN FOR WHICH A GRANTOR OF THE
HIGHWAY EASEMENT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT
DENIES THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, PROVIDING "FOR THE OPENING AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OR TERRITORY IN WHICH THE LANDS ARE SITUATED," SUBMITS THE SCOPE
OF THE HIGHWAY USE TO STATE LAW.  ITS INTERPRETATION GIVES THE ACT A
VERY LIMITED MEANING AND SUBSTANTIALLY CONFINES STATE LAW TO GOVERNING
PROCEDURES FOR "OPENING AND ESTABLISHMENT" OF THE HIGHWAY.  IT OFFERS
AS EXAMPLES OF WHAT IS PERMITTED TO STATE DETERMINATION, WHETHER A
STATE OR COUNTY AGENCY BUILDS THE ROAD, WHETHER FUNDS SHALL BE RAISED
BY BOND ISSUE OR OTHERWISE, AND THE TERMS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.  THE ISSUE IS BETWEEN THIS NARROW VIEW OF THE
STATE'S AUTHORITY AND THE BROADER ONE WHICH RECOGNIZES ITS LAWS AS
DETERMINING THE VARIOUS USES WHICH GO TO MAKE UP THE "PUBLIC HIGHWAY,"
OPENING AND ESTABLISHMENT OF WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED. 

WE SEE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO GRANT TO LOCAL
AUTHORITIES A POWER SO LIMITED IN A MATTER SO COMMONLY SUBJECT TO
COMPLETE LOCAL CONTROL. 

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A CONVEYANCE BY THE UNITED STATES OF LAND
WHICH IT OWNS BENEFICIALLY OR, AS IN THIS CASE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXERCISING ITS GUARDIANSHIP OVER INDIANS, IS TO BE CONSTRUED, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY INDICATION OF INTENTION, ACCORDING TO THE LAW
OF THE STATE WHERE THE LAND LIES.  FN4  PRESUMABLY CONGRESS INTENDED
THAT THIS CASE BE DECIDED BY REFERENCE TO SOME LAW, BUT THE GOVERNMENT
HAS CITED AND WE KNOW OF NO FEDERAL STATUTORY OR COMMON-LAW RULE FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER THE RUNNING OF THE ELECTRIC SERVICE LINES HERE
INVOLVED WAS A HIGHWAY USE.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS, AS WELL AS THE
EXPLICIT REFERENCE IN THE ACT TO STATE LAW IN THE MATTER OF
"ESTABLISHMENT" AS WELL AS OF "OPENING" THE HIGHWAY, INDICATE THAT THE
QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS TO BE ANSWERED BY REFERENCE TO THAT LAW, IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY GOVERNING ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, STATUTE, OR
DOMINATING CONSIDERATION OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO THE CONTRARY.  WE
FIND NONE OF THESE. 

APPARENTLY THE SECRETARY HAS NEVER SOUGHT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF
THIS CASE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING, AND WHETHER HE MIGHT DO SO IS A
QUESTION WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE NEITHER RAISED NOR DISCUSSED, AND UPON
WHICH WE INTIMATE NO OPINION. 

IN CONSTRUING THIS STATUTE AS TO THE INCIDENTS OF A HIGHWAY GRANT WE
MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ACT CONTEMPLATED A CONVEYANCE TO A PUBLIC
BODY, NOT TO A PRIVATE INTEREST.  THERE WAS NOT THE REASON TO WITHHOLD
CONTINUING CONTROL OVER THE USES OF THE STRIP THAT MIGHT BE WITHHELD
WISELY IN A GRANT OF INDEFINITE DURATION TO A PRIVATE GRANTEE.  IT IS
SAID THAT THE USE HERE PERMITTED BY THE STATE IS PRIVATE AND
COMMERCIAL, AND SO IT IS.  BUT A LICENSE TO USE THE HIGHWAY BY A
CARRIER OF PASSENGERS FOR HIRE, OR BY A MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, WOULD ALSO
BE A PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL USE IN THE SAME SENSE.  AND IT HAS LONG
BEEN BOTH CUSTOMARY AND LAWFUL TO STIMULATE PRIVATE SELF-INTEREST AND
UTILIZE THE PROFIT MOTIVE TO GET NEEDFUL SERVICES PERFORMED FOR THE
PUBLIC.  THE STATE APPEARS TO BE DOING NO MORE THAN THAT. 

THIS IS NOT SUCH A TRANSMISSION LINE AS MIGHT ENDANGER HIGHWAY TRAVEL
OR ABUTTING OWNERS WITH NO COMPENSATING ADVANTAGE.  IT IS A RURAL
SERVICE LINE, AND TO BRING ELECTRIC ENERGY IN TO THE COUNTRYSIDE IS
QUITE AS ESSENTIAL TO MODERN LIFE AS MANY OTHER USES OF THE HIGHWAY. 
THE STATE HAS GRANTED NOTHING NOT REVOCABLE AT WILL, HAS ALIENATED
NOTHING OBTAINED UNDER THE ACT, HAS PERMITTED NO USE THAT WOULD
OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE WITH THE USE FOR WHICH THE HIGHWAY WAS
ESTABLISHED, AND HAS NOT PURPORTED TO CONFER ANY RIGHT NOT SUBSIDIARY
TO ITS OWN OR WHICH WOULD SURVIVE ABANDONMENT OF THE HIGHWAY. 

THE INTERPRETATION SUGGESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT SHOWN TO BE
NECESSARY TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT A
LESS-FAVORED PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR OWN IMPROVIDENCE OR THE OVERREACHING
OF OTHERS; NOR IS IT CONCEIVABLE THAT IT IS NECESSARY, FOR THE INDIANS
ARE SUBJECTED ONLY TO THE SAME RULE OF LAW AS ARE OTHERS IN THE STATE,
AND THEN ONLY BY PERMISSION OF THE SECRETARY, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE
WITH "SUCH REQUIREMENTS AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY." 

OKLAHOMA IS SPOTTED WITH RESTRICTED LANDS HELD IN TRUST FOR INDIAN
ALLOTTEES.  COMPLICATIONS AND CONFUSION WOULD FOLLOW FROM APPLYING TO
HIGHWAYS CROSSING OR ABUTTING SUCH LANDS RULES DIFFERING FROM THOSE
WHICH OBTAIN AS TO LANDS OF NON-INDIANS.  WE BELIEVE THAT IF CONGRESS
HAD INTENDED THIS IT WOULD HAVE MADE ITS MEANING CLEAR. 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIES, HOWEVER, ON THE ACTS OF FEBRUARY 15, 1901, AND
OF MARCH 4, 1911, WHICH IT SAYS REQUIRE THE SECRETARY'S CONSENT TO
CROSS INDIAN LAND WITH ELECTRIC LINES, REGARDLESS OF THE PRIOR GRANT OF
PERMISSION FOR THE HIGHWAY.  WE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE INAPPLICABLE TO
THE LAND IN SUIT, AND THEREFORE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE THEIR
EFFECT IF THEY DID APPLY. 

THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 15, 1901, "AN ACT RELATING TO RIGHTS OF WAY
THROUGH CERTAIN PARKS, RESERVATIONS, AND OTHER PUBLIC LANDS,"  FN5
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR "TO PERMIT THE USE OF RIGHTS
OF WAY THROUGH THE PUBLIC LANDS, FOREST AND OTHER RESERVATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND THE YOSEMITE, SEQUOIA, AND GENERAL GRANT NATIONAL
PARKS, CALIFORNIA, FOR ELECTRICAL PLANTS, POLES, AND LINES FOR THE
GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL POWER, AND FOR TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH PURPOSES  ...  TO THE EXTENT OF  ...  NOT TO EXCEED FIFTY
FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF SUCH  ...  ELECTRICAL,
TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE LINES AND POLES  ...  : PROVIDED, THAT SUCH
PERMITS SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN OR THROUGH ANY OF SAID PARKS OR ANY
FOREST, MILITARY, INDIAN, OR OTHER RESERVATION ONLY UPON THE APPROVAL
OF THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT UNDER WHOSE SUPERVISION SUCH
PARK OR RESERVATION FALLS AND UPON A FINDING BY HIM THAT THE SAME IS
NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT ALL
PERMITS GIVEN HEREUNDER FOR TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE PURPOSES SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF TITLE SIXTY-FIVE OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, REGULATING RIGHTS OF WAY FOR
TELEGRAPH COMPANIES OVER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT
ANY PERMISSION GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT MAY BE REVOKED BY HIM OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN HIS
DISCRETION, AND SHALL NOT BE HELD TO CONFER ANY RIGHT, OR EASEMENT, OR
INTEREST IN, TO, OR OVER ANY PUBLIC LAND, RESERVATION, OR PARK."  FN6 

FOR ALL PRESENT PURPOSES THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1911 IS THE SAME AS THE
ABOVE ACT.  FN7 

NEITHER STATUTE MAKES ANY REFERENCE WHATEVER TO LANDS ALLOTTED TO
INDIANS IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HOLDS TITLE IN TRUST ONLY TO PREVENT
IMPROVIDENT ALIENATION.  THEIR GENERAL TENOR AND PARTICULARLY THE
SECOND PROVISO OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 15, 1901, REPEL ANY INFERENCE
THAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO GOVERN THE GRANT OF RIGHTS OF WAY OVER SUCH
LANDS.  THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISO WAS TO MAKE ANY TELEPHONE OR
TELEGRAPH COMPANY WHICH AVAILED ITSELF OF THE ACT SUBJECT, AS TO
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS, TO THE RATES SET BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, AND TO
MAKE "ALL THE  ...  LINES, PROPERTY, AND EFFECTS" OF SUCH A COMPANY
SUBJECT TO PURCHASE BY THE GOVERNMENT AT A VALUE TO BE ASCERTAINED BY
AN APPRAISAL OF FIVE PERSONS, TWO SELECTED BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
TWO BY THE COMPANY, AND ONE BY THE FOUR SO CHOSEN.  FN8  IT IS RATHER
DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS EVER INTENDED TO EXACT SUCH
CONDITIONS AS PART OF THE PRICE OF RUNNING A LINE ACROSS LAND IN WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT IS INTERESTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF HOLDING TITLE FOR
THE PROTECTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL INDIAN ALLOTTEE.  IT IS PARTICULARLY
DIFFICULT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ACTS, FOR IF SUCH WERE THE INTENT IT
WAS DEFEATED BY GIVING AN OPTION TO OBTAIN THE SAME RIGHTS BY
CONDEMNATION UNDER STATE LAW AND FREE OF SUCH RESTRICTIONS.  SEC. 3 OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901.  FN9 

THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO REPEL THE FORCE OF THESE IMPLICATIONS BY
ASSERTING THAT THE WORD "RESERVATION" AS EMPLOYED IN THESE ACTS
INCLUDES SUCH LAND. 

HIGHWAY "THROUGH ANY INDIAN RESERVATION OR THROUGH ANY LANDS WHICH HAVE
BEEN ALLOTTED IN SEVERALTY TO ANY INDIVIDUAL INDIANS UNDER ANY LAWS OR
TREATIES BUT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONVEYED TO THE ALLOTTEES WITH FULL
POWER OF ALIENATION."  THE ACT IN SEC. 3 ALSO REFERS TO "LANDS ALLOTTED
IN SEVERALTY," AFTER ALREADY EMPLOYING THE WORD "RESERVATION."  IF IT
INCLUDED ALLOTTED LANDS WITHOUT THESE WORDS, CONGRESS WAS EMPLOYING
LANGUAGE TO NO DISCERNIBLE PURPOSE.  WE THINK CONGRESS EMPLOYED THIS
LANGUAGE IN THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, TO A PURPOSE AND WITH A CLEAR
DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESERVATIONS AND ALLOTTED LANDS.  SECTION 3 MADE
ALLOTTED LANDS, BUT NOT RESERVATIONS, SUBJECT TO CONDEMNATION FOR ANY
PUBLIC PURPOSE; SEC. 4 MADE BOTH RESERVATIONS AND ALLOTTED LANDS
SUBJECT TO HIGHWAY PERMITS BY THE SECRETARY.  WE THINK THAT THE ALMOST
CONTEMPORANEOUS ACT OF FEBRUARY 15, 1901, IN AUTHORIZING PERMITS FOR
ELECTRIC COMPANIES THROUGH RESERVATIONS, BUT NOT ALLOTTED LANDS, MEANT
JUST WHAT IT SAID.    WE HAVE NO PURPOSE TO DECIDE ANYTHING MORE THAN
THE CASE BEFORE US.  WE DO NOT SAY THAT "RESERVATION" MAY NEVER INCLUDE
ALLOTTED LANDS; ALL WE HOLD IS THAT IF THERE IS A DISTINCTION IN FACT,
THAT DISTINCTION IS CARRIED INTO THE ACT.  SO WE TURN TO THE QUESTION
WHETHER THESE PARTICULAR ALLOTTED LANDS WERE IN FACT WITHIN OR WITHOUT
A "RESERVATION." 

SHE-PAH-THO-QUAH, THE ALLOTTEE, WAS OF THE KICKAPOO TRIBE.  IN
EARLIER TIMES THE KICKAPOO TRIBE OCCUPIED A TREATY RESERVATION IN
KANSAS.  FN10  THEY BECAME TORN BY INTERNAL DISSENSIONS.  ONE FACTION
REMAINED ON THE OLD RESERVATION IN KANSAS AND RECEIVED ALLOTMENTS
THERE.  FN11  OTHERS MIGRATED, CHIEFLY IN 1852 AND 1863, TO MEXICO AND
LOCATED ON A RESERVATION SET APART FOR THEM BY THAT GOVERNMENT.  THE
OKLAHOMA KICKAPOOS COMPRISE THOSE WHO LEFT MEXICO, MOSTLY IN 1873, AND
RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES.  TEN YEARS LATER A RESERVATION WAS
ESTABLISHED FOR THEM BY EXECUTIVE ORDER IN WHAT WAS THEN INDIAN
TERRITORY, NOW OKLAHOMA.  UNITED STATES V. REILY, 290 U.S. 33, 35-36. 

IN 1891, HOWEVER, THESE RESTLESS PEOPLE NEGOTIATED A SALE OF THEIR
RESERVATION TO THE GOVERNMENT "EXCEPT THE COMMISSIONERS INSIST ON THE
INDIANS TAKING LANDS IN ALLOTMENT, WHILE THE INDIANS INSIST ON TAKING
AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF LAND AS A DIMINISHED RESERVATION, THE TITLE TO BE
HELD IN COMMON."  N12  THIS DISAGREEMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR AND HE DECIDED THAT THE "INDIANS TAKE THEIR LANDS IN
ALLOTMENT AND NOT TO BE HELD IN COMMON."  FN13  THE KICKAPOO TRIBE
THEREUPON, ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1891 DID "CEDE, CONVEY, TRANSFER, AND
RELINQUISH, FOREVER, AND ABSOLUTELY, WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION WHATEVER,
ALL THEIR CLAIM, TITLE, AND INTEREST" TO THE RESERVATION LANDS.  FN14
IN CONSIDERATION EACH OF THE KICKAPOOS, ESTIMATED AT ABOUT 300 IN
NUMBER, WAS ALLOTTED 80 ACRES OF SUCH LAND WITH A PER CAPITA CASH
PAYMENT.  FN15  THE TRANSACTION WAS RATIFIED, AND CARRIED OUT ON THE
PART OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE LAND ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES
WAS OPENED TO SETTLEMENT.  FN16  THUS, THE KICKAPOO RESERVATION WAS
OBLITERATED, THE TRIBAL LANDS WERE NO MORE, AND ONLY INDIVIDUAL
ALLOTMENTS SURVIVED.  WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE TERM "RESERVATION" AS
USED IN THE STATUTES IN QUESTION HAD NO APPLICATION TO SUCH LANDS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. REILY, SUPRA, AT 35,
USED THE TERM "KICKAPOO RESERVATION" TO DESCRIBE A REGION OF OKLAHOMA
AS OF A TIME SUBSEQUENT TO THE DISSOLUTION.  IT IS CLEAR FROM THE
CONTEXT OF THE OPINION, HOWEVER, THAT THIS TERM WAS USED IN A
GEOGRAPHICAL AND NOT A LEGAL SENSE, MUCH AS ONE STILL SPEAKS OF THE
NORTHWEST TERRITORY.  CONGRESS HAS FREQUENTLY REFERRED TO THE "KICKAPOO
RESERVATION" IN KANSAS.  FN17  AND IT HAS OFTEN, USUALLY IN THE SAME
STATUTE, REFERRED TO THE KICKAPOO INDIANS OF OKLAHOMA; BUT NEVER SINCE
THE DISSOLUTION HAS IT REFERRED TO A KICKAPOO RESERVATION AS EXISTING
IN OKLAHOMA.  FN18  IF DESCRIPTIVE NOMENCLATURE HAS ANY WEIGHT IN THIS
CASE, WE THINK THAT THE USAGE OF CONGRESS PREPONDERATES. 

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE RESERVATION DISTINGUISHES THE SITUATION BEFORE
US FROM THAT BEFORE THE COURT RELATING TO ALLOTTED LANDS WITHIN THE
TULALIP RESERVATION, UNITED STATES V. CELESTINE, 215 U.S. 278; ALLOTTED
LANDS WITHIN THE YAKIMA RESERVATION, UNITED STATES V. SUTTON, 215 U.S.
291; THOSE WITHIN THE COLVILLE RESERVATION, UNITED STATES V. PELICAN,
232 U.S. 442; AND THE MANY SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENTAL RULINGS
HAVE HELD THAT THE PHRASE "INDIAN, OR OTHER RESERVATION" INCLUDES
INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENTS.  FN19 

ON THE ARGUMENT INQUIRY WAS MADE OF COUNSEL WHETHER A CONSISTENT
DEPARTMENTAL PRACTICE EXISTED IN REFERENCE TO GRANTS OF PERMISSION TO
ELECTRIC COMPANIES TO MAINTAIN LINES ALONG ESTABLISHED HIGHWAYS.  BOTH
HAVE CALLED ATTENTION TO A FEW INSTANCES OF APPLICATIONS AND GRANTS, OR
OF ASSURANCES NONE WERE NECESSARY, SAID TO FAVOR THEIR RESPECTIVE
POSITIONS.  FN20  WE FIND NO CONSISTENT DEPARTMENTAL PRACTICE WHICH CAN
BE SAID TO AMOUNT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACTS IN
QUESTION. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  31 STAT. 1058, 1084, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 311. 

FN2  69 OKLAHOMA STAT. (1941) SEC. 57. 

FN3  31 STAT. 790, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 959; 36 STAT. 1235, 1253, 43 U.S.C.
SEC. 961.  THESE ARE SET OUT AND DISCUSSED INFRA, PP. 213 ET SEQ. 

FN4  GRAND RAPIDS & INDIANA R. CO. V. BUTLER, 159 U.S. 87; WHITAKER
V. MCBRIDE, 197 U.S. 510; OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 258 U.S. 574, 595-596; SEE
BREWER OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 77, 88-89; UNITED STATES V.
OREGON, 295 U.S. 1, 28; CF. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES,
308 U.S. 343. 

FN5  H.R. REP. NO. 1850, 56TH CONG., 1ST SESS., INDICATES THAT THE
TITLE OF THE ACT, REFERRING TO PUBLIC LANDS, WAS ADVISEDLY CHOSEN. 

FN6  31 STAT. 790, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 959. 

FN7  36 STAT. 1235, 1253, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 961, PROVIDING: 

"THAT THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE LANDS
BE, AND HE HEREBY IS, AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED, UNDER GENERAL
REGULATIONS TO BE FIXED BY HIM, TO GRANT AN EASEMENT FOR RIGHTS OF WAY,
FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING FIFTY YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF
SUCH GRANT, OVER, ACROSS, AND UPON THE PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL FORESTS,
AND RESERVATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ELECTRICAL POLES AND LINES
FOR THE TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICAL POWER, AND FOR
POLES AND LINES FOR TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH PURPOSES, TO THE EXTENT OF
TWENTY FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF SUCH ELECTRICAL,
TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES AND POLES, TO ANY CITIZEN, ASSOCIATION,
OR CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES, WHERE IT IS INTENDED BY SUCH TO
EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF WAY HEREIN GRANTED FOR ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE
PURPOSES HEREIN NAMED:  PROVIDED, THAT SUCH RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE
ALLOWED WITHIN OR THROUGH ANY NATIONAL PARK, NATIONAL FOREST, MILITARY,
INDIAN, OR ANY OTHER RESERVATION ONLY UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE CHIEF
OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT UNDER WHOSE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL SUCH
RESERVATION FALLS, AND UPON A FINDING BY HIM THAT THE SAME IS NOT
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST: PROVIDED, THAT ALL OR ANY PART
OF SUCH RIGHT OF WAY MAY BE FORFEITED AND ANNULLED BY DECLARATION OF
THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE LANDS FOR
NONUSE FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS OR FOR ABANDONMENT." 

SEE 40 L.D. 30, 31:  "IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THIS ACT, WHICH
AUTHORIZES THE GRANTING OF EASEMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER TRANSMISSION,
AND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES FOR STATED PERIODS NOT TO EXCEED 50
YEARS, FOLLOWS, AS CLOSELY AS IS POSSIBLE IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS
PURPOSES, THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 15, 1901(31 STAT., 790),
WHICH AUTHORIZES MERE REVOCABLE PERMITS OR LICENSES FOR SUCH LINES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  THIS ACT, THEREFORE, MERELY AUTHORIZES ADDITIONAL
OR LARGER GRANTS AND DOES NOT MODIFY OR REPEAL THE ACT OF 1901, AND
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN HARMONY WITH IT."  SEE ALSO, 46
CONG. REC. 4014-4015. 

FN8  COMP. STAT. (1901) SECS. 5266, 5267. 

FN9  31 STAT. 1083-1084, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 357. 

FN10  TREATIES OF OCTOBER 24, 1832, 7 STAT. 391; MAY 18, 1854, 10
STAT. 1078. 

FN11  TREATY OF JUNE 28, 1862, 13 STAT. 623. 

FN12  27 STAT. 560. 

FN13  27 STAT. 561. 

FN14  27 STAT. 557. 

FN15  27 STAT. 558-559. 

FN16  27 STAT. 562-563, 29 STAT. 868. 

FN17  28 STAT. 909; 30 STAT. 590, 909, 943; 33 STAT. 213, 1074, 1254;
35 STAT. 80, 791; 36 STAT. 275, 1064; 37 STAT. 524; 38 STAT. 87, 590;
39 STAT. 133, 977; 40 STAT. 571; 41 STAT. 13, 66, 419, 523; 42 STAT.
57. 

FN18  30 STAT. 77, 937; 33 STAT. 203, 1057; 34 STAT. 363, 1043; 35
STAT. 88, 802; 36 STAT. 280, 1069; 37 STAT. 529; 38 STAT. 93, 596; 39
STAT. 145, 982; 40 STAT. 578; 41 STAT. 20, 425, 1039, 1240; 42 STAT.
573, 1195; 43 STAT. 409, 708, 1160. 

FN19  27 L.D. 421; 35 L.D. 550; 40 L.D. 30; 42 L.D. 419; 45 L.D. 563;
49 L.D. 396; 51 L.D. 41. 

FN20  THE GOVERNMENT CALLS ATTENTION TO PERMITS GIVEN AS TO
ALLOTMENTS WITHIN THE YAKIMA AND COLVILLE RESERVATIONS, WHICH ARE
INAPPLICABLE UNDER OUR VIEW OF THE CASE.  ALSO TO ONE PERMIT TO THIS
RESPONDENT FOR A TRANSMISSION LINE ACROSS A KICKAPOO ALLOTMENT WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF A PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED HIGHWAY AND ONE TO IT NOT
WITHIN A HIGHWAY.  RESPONDENT SETS UP CORRESPONDENCE IN 1922, 1927,
1929 AND 1930 CLAIMED TO INDICATE A CONTRARY PRACTICE.  NONE OF THIS
MATERIAL IS PART OF THE RECORD; AND IT IS INCOMPLETE, AND IN NO SENSE
SATISFACTORY ESTABLISHMENT OF A BASIS FOR ANY CONCLUSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENT. 
..END :




















C.J. HENDRY CO. V. MOORE, 318 U.S. 133 


NO. 60.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 1943.  - 18
CAL.2D 835, AFFIRMED. 


1.  FORFEITURE BY PROCEDURE IN REM OF A NET WHICH, WHILE BEING USED BY
A FISHING VESSEL IN NAVIGABLE COASTAL WATERS OF A STATE, HAD BEEN
SEIZED FOR VIOLATION OF A LAW OF THE STATE FORBIDDING FISHING BY NET IN
THOSE WATERS, IS "A COMMON LAW REMEDY" WHICH "THE COMMON LAW IS
COMPETENT TO GIVE," WITHIN THE STATUTORY EXCEPTION TO THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IN ADMIRALTY CONFERRED ON DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES BY SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, AND THE STATE MAY
PROVIDE FOR SUCH FORFEITURE IN A PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT.  PP. 134,
153. 

2.  THE COMMON LAW, AS RECEIVED IN THIS COUNTRY AT THE TIME OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, GAVE A REMEDY IN REM IN CASES OF
FORFEITURE.  P. 153. 

C.J. HENDRY CO. ET AL. V. MOORE ET AL., AS THE FISH AND GAME
COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
FORFEITURE OF A NET USED IN VIOLATION OF A STATE LAW. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA, HAVING SEIZED A PURSE NET
WHILE IT WAS BEING USED FOR FISHING IN THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
STATE IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE FISH AND GAME CODE, BROUGHT THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 845 OF THE CODE FOR FORFEITURE OF THE NET.  THE
QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT, DIRECTING
THAT THE NET BE FORFEITED AND ORDERING THE COMMISSION TO SELL OR
DESTROY IT, IS A "COMMON LAW REMEDY" WHICH THE "COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT
TO GIVE" WITHIN THE STATUTORY EXCEPTION TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
IN ADMIRALTY CONFERRED ON DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES BY SEC.
9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 76-77, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(3)
AND 371(THIRD). 

USED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE
AND MAKES IT THE DUTY OF ANY ARRESTING OFFICER TO SEIZE THE NET AND
REPORT ITS SEIZURE TO THE COMMISSION.  THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE
COMMISSION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE
FORFEITURE OF THE SEIZED NET AND AUTHORIZES THE COURT, AFTER A HEARING
AND DETERMINATION THAT THE NET WAS USED UNLAWFULLY, TO MAKE AN ORDER
FORFEITING IT AND DIRECTING THAT IT BE SOLD OR DESTROYED BY THE
COMMISSION. 

IN THIS CASE THE COMMISSION SEIZED THE NET WHILE IT WAS BEING USED BY
THE FISHING VESSEL RELIANCE IN NAVIGABLE COASTAL WATERS OF THE STATE IN
VIOLATION OF SECS. 89 AND 842, WHICH PROHIBIT FISHING BY NET IN THE
AREA IN QUESTION, AND RESPONDENTS, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION,
BROUGHT THIS PROCEEDING IN THE STATE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE FORFEITURE
OF THE NET.  PETITIONERS APPEARED AS CLAIMANTS AND AFTER A TRIAL THE
COURT GAVE JUDGMENT THAT THE NET BE FORFEITED, ORDERING RESPONDENTS TO
SELL OR DESTROY IT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AT FIRST SET THE
JUDGMENT ASIDE, BUT AFTER REHEARING AFFIRMED, 18 CAL.2D 835, 118 P.2D
1, HOLDING THAT THE REMEDY GIVEN BY THE JUDGMENT IS A "COMMON LAW
REMEDY" WHICH "THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE," AND THAT THE CASE
IS NOT WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN ADMIRALTY CONFERRED ON THE
FEDERAL COURTS BY THE JUDICIARY ACT AND HENCE WAS PROPERLY TRIED IN THE
STATE COURT.  CF. KNAPP, STOUT & CO. V. MCCAFFREY, 177 U.S. 638; THE
HAMILTON, 207 U.S. 398, 404; RED CROSS LINE V. ATLANTIC FRUIT CO., 264
U.S. 109, 123.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 643, THE QUESTION BEING
OF IMPORTANCE IN DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS IN RELATION
TO THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. 

ONLY A SINGLE ISSUE IS PRESENTED BY THE RECORD AND BRIEFS - WHETHER
THE STATE IS PRECLUDED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES FROM ENTERTAINING THE PRESENT SUIT.  IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT
THE STATE HAS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FISHING IN ITS NAVIGABLE WATERS,
MANCHESTER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 139 U.S. 240; LAWTON V. STEELE, 152 U.S.
133, 139; LEE V. NEW JERSEY, 207 U.S. 67; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313
U.S. 69, 75; AND IT IS NOT DENIED THAT SEIZURE THERE OF A NET
APPURTENANT TO A FISHING VESSEL IS CONGNIZABLE IN ADMIRALTY.  BUT
PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS NOT ONE WHICH CAN BE
ENTERTAINED BY A STATE COURT SINCE THE JUDGMENT IN REM FOR FORFEITURE
OF THE NET IS NOT A COMMON LAW REMEDY WHICH THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT
TO GIVE, AND THAT THE CASE IS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE STATUTORY
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCLUSIVE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  IN THIS POSTURE OF THE CASE, AND IN THE VIEW WE TAKE, WE FIND
IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ONLY THIS CONTENTION. 

ACT OF 1789, CONFERS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION ON THE FEDERAL COURTS "OF
ALL CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION, SAVING TO
SUITORS IN ALL CASES THE RIGHT OF A COMMON-LAW REMEDY WHERE THE COMMON
LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE IT  ...  "  A CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE OF THE
MARITIME LAW IS ITS USE OF THE PROCEDURE IN REM DERIVED FROM THE CIVIL
LAW, BY WHICH A LIBELLANT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THE VESSEL, NAMING HER AS
A DEFENDANT AND SEEKING A JUDGMENT SUBJECTING THE VESSEL, AND HENCE THE
INTERESTS OF ALL PERSONS IN HER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSERTED
CLAIM.  SUITS IN REM AGAINST A VESSEL IN CASES OF MARITIME TORT AND FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF MARITIME LIENS ARE FAMILIAR EXAMPLES OF A PROCEDURE
BY WHICH A JUDGMENT IN REM IS SOUGHT, "GOOD AGAINST ALL THE WORLD." 

THE QUESTION WHETHER A MARITIME CAUSE OF ACTION CAN BE PROSECUTED IN
THE STATE COURTS BY SUCH A PROCEDURE WAS FIRST DISCUSSED BY THIS COURT
SEVENTY-SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
JUDICIARY ACT, IN THE MOSES TAYLOR, 4 WALL.  411, WHICH HELD THAT A
LIEN UPON A VESSEL, CREATED BY STATE STATUTE, COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY
A PROCEEDING IN REM IN THE STATE COURTS.  DECISION WAS RESTED ON THE
GROUND THAT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT WAS VESTED IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS BY THE JUDICIARY ACT, SINCE A JUDGMENT IN REM TO ENFORCE
A LIEN IS NOT A REMEDY WHICH THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE, A
RULING WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED.  THE HINE V. TREVOR,
4 WALL.  555; THE BELFAST, 7 WALL.  624; THE GLIDE, 167 U.S. 606; THE
ROBERT W. PARSONS, 191 U.S. 17, 36-38; ROUNDS V. CLOVERPORT FOUNDRY
CO., 237 U.S. 303, 307-08.  ELEVEN YEARS EARLIER THIS COURT IN SMITH V.
MARYLAND, 18 HOW.  71, WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE POINT NOW AT ISSUE,
HAD SUSTAINED THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF A VESSEL IN A STATE COURT
PROCEEDING IN REM, ALL PURSUANT TO STATE STATUTES, FOR VIOLATION OF A
MARYLAND FISHING LAW WITHIN THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE STATE.  THE
COURT DECLARED THAT THE STATUTE, WHICH PRESCRIBED THE PROCEDURE IN REM
IN THE STATE COURT, CONFLICTED "NEITHER WITH THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
OF ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERRED BY CONGRESS, NOR WITH ANY
LAW OF CONGRESS WHATEVER" (P. 76).  THE AUTHORITY OF THAT DECISION HAS
NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED BY THIS COURT. 

THE COMMON LAW AS IT WAS RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF
THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT AFFORD A REMEDY IN REM IN
SUITS BETWEEN PRIVATE PERSONS.  HENCE THE ADOPTION OF THE SAVING CLAUSE
IN THE JUDICIARY ACT, AS THIS COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASES ALREADY
CITED, DID NOT WITHDRAW FROM THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ADMIRALTY
THAT CLASS OF CASES IN WHICH PRIVATE SUITORS SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THEIR
CLAIMS BY THE SEIZURE OF A VESSEL IN PROCEEDINGS IN REM.  BUT TO THE
GENERALIZATION THAT A JUDGMENT IN REM WAS NOT A COMMON LAW REMEDY THERE
IS AN IMPORTANT EXCEPTION.  FORFEITURE TO THE CROWN OF THE OFFENDING
OBJECT, BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN USED IN VIOLATION OF LAW, BY A PROCEDURE IN
REM WAS A PRACTICE FAMILIAR NOT ONLY TO THE ENGLISH ADMIRALTY COURTS
BUT TO THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.  THE EXCHEQUER GAVE SUCH A REMEDY FOR
THE FORFEITURE OF ARTICLES SEIZED ON LAND FOR THE VIOLATION OF LAW. 
AND, CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ADMIRALTY, IT ENTERTAINED TRUE PROCEEDINGS
IN REM FOR THE FORFEITURE OF VESSELS FOR VIOLATIONS ON NAVIGABLE
WATERS.  FN1  SUCH SUITS IN THE EXCHEQUER WERE BEGUN ON INFORMATION AND
WERE AGAINST THE VESSEL OR ARTICLE TO BE CONDEMNED.  UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF MANY STATUTES THE SUIT MIGHT BE BROUGHT BY AN INFORMER
QUI TAM, WHO WAS PERMITTED TO SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE FORFEITED
ARTICLE; THE JUDGMENT WAS OF FORFEITURE AND THE FORFEITED ARTICLE WAS
ORDERED TO BE SOLD.  THIS WAS THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE CERTAINLY AS
EARLY AS THE LATTER PART OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.  FN2  PROCEEDINGS
IN REM, CLOSELY PARALLELING THOSE IN THE EXCHEQUER, WERE ALSO
ENTERTAINED BY JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IN MANY FORFEITURE CASES ARISING
UNDER THE CUSTOMS LAWS (SEE HOON, THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ENGLISH
CUSTOMS SYSTEM, 1696-1786, PP. 277, 280-83), AND THE ACT OF 8 GEO. I,
C. 18, SEC. 16, PLACED WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION THE CONDEMNATION OF
VESSELS UP TO FIFTEEN TONS CHARGED WITH SMUGGLING. 

WHILE THE ENGLISH ACTS OF NAVIGATION AND TRADE AND NUMEROUS OTHER
FORFEITURE STATUTES CONFERRED JURISDICTION ON ALL THE ENGLISH COMMON
LAW COURTS OF RECORD  FN3  TO ENTERTAIN SUITS FOR FORFEITURE,
NEVERTHELESS SUITORS HAVING READY ACCESS TO THE CONVENIENT PROCEDURE OF
EXCHEQUER OR ADMIRALTY IN QUI TAM ACTIONS SEEM TO HAVE HAD LITTLE
OCCASION TO RESORT TO THE KING'S BENCH OR COMMON PLEAS.  IN THE
OCCASIONAL REPORTED FORFEITURE CASES BROUGHT IN KING'S BENCH, THE
ENGLISH REPORTS GIVE US LITTLE LIGHT ON THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED OR THE
PRECISE FORM OF JUDGMENT ENTERED.  IN ONE CASE, ROBERTS V. WITHERED, 5
MOD. 193, 12 MOD. 92, THE COURT SEEMS TO HAVE ADAPTED THE COMMON LAW
ACTION OF DETINUE TO FORFEITURE CASES BY RESORT TO THE FICTION THAT
BRINGING THE ACTION WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SEIZURE WHICH VESTED THE
PROPERTY IN THE CROWN SO THAT A SUIT IN DETINUE OR REPLEVIN IN PERSONAM
TO GAIN POSSESSION WOULD LIE.  SEE STEPHEN, PLEADING (3RD AM. ED.)  PP.
47, 52, 69, 74; AMES, LECTURES ON LEGAL HISTORY, PP. 64, 71.  CF.
WILKINS V. DESPARD, 5 TERM REP. 112. 

SEPARATE COURTS EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER
WERE NEVER ESTABLISHED IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES.  INSTEAD, THAT
JURISDICTION WAS ABSORBED BY THE COMMON LAW COURTS WHICH ENTERTAINED
SUITS FOR THE FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY UNDER ENGLISH OR LOCAL STATUTES
AUTHORIZING ITS CONDEMNATION.  LONG BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION THE COMMON LAW COURTS IN THE COLONIES - AND LATER IN THE
STATES DURING THE PERIOD OF CONFEDERATION - WERE EXERCISING
JURISDICTION IN REM IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FORFEITURE STATUTES.  LIKE
THE EXCHEQUER, IN CASES OF SEIZURE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS THEY EXERCISED A
JURISDICTION CONCURRENTLY WITH THE COURTS OF ADMIRALTY.  BUT THE VICE
ADMIRALTY COURTS IN THE COLONIES DID NOT BEGIN TO FUNCTION WITH ANY
REAL CONTINUITY UNTIL ABOUT 1700 OR SHORTLY AFTERWARD.  SEE ANDREWS,
VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS IN THE COLONIES, IN RECORDS OF THE VICE-ADMIRALTY
COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 1617-1752(ED. TOWLE, 1936), P. 1; ANDREWS, THE
COLONIAL PERIOD OF AMERICAN HISTORY, VOL. 4, CH. 8; HARPER, THE ENGLISH
NAVIGATION LAWS, CH. 15; OSGOOD, THE AMERICAN COLONIES IN THE 18TH
CENTURY, VOL. 1, PP. 185-222, 299-303.  BY THAT TIME, THE JURISDICTION
OF COMMON LAW COURTS TO CONDEMN SHIPS AND CARGOES FOR VIOLATION OF THE
NAVIGATION ACTS HAD BEEN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, APPARENTLY WITHOUT
QUESTION, AND WAS REGULARLY EXERCISED THROUGHOUT THE COLONIES.  IN
GENERAL THE SUITS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THE VESSEL OR ARTICLE TO BE
CONDEMNED, WERE TRIED BY JURY, CLOSELY FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE IN
EXCHEQUER, AND IF SUCCESSFUL RESULTED IN JUDGMENTS OF FORFEITURE OR
CONDEMNATION WITH A PROVISION FOR SALE.  FN4 

THE RISE OF THE VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS - PROMPTED IN PART BY THE
CROWN'S DESIRE TO HAVE ACCESS TO A FORUM NOT CONTROLLED BY THE
OBSTINATE RESISTANCE OF AMERICAN JURIES - DID NOT DIVEST THE COLONIAL
COMMON LAW COURTS OF THEIR JURISDICTION TO PROCEED IN REM IN CASES OF
FORFEITURE AND CONDEMNATION.  THE TRIAL RECORDS HAVE NOT YET BEEN MADE
AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE COLONIES, AND IN SOME INSTANCES PERHAPS CAN NEVER
BE.  BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT IN THIS RESPECT THE
JUDICIAL HISTORY OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK, MANUSCRIPT
RECORDS OF WHICH WE HAVE EXAMINED, IS NOT TYPICAL OF THE OTHERS, AND
THERE IS AMPLE SUPPORT FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT IN THE SEABOARD STATES
FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS IN REM, EXTENDING TO SEIZURES ON NAVIGABLE
WATERS OF THE STATE, WERE AN ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE OF THE COMMON LAW
COURTS BEFORE THE REVOLUTION.  IT WAS THE ADMIRALTY COURTS, NOT THE
COMMON LAW COURTS, WHICH HAD DIFFICULTY IN ESTABLISHING THEIR
JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH IN 1759 THE BOARD OF TRADE WAS ABLE TO WRITE
THAT "WITH REGARD TO BREACHES OF THE LAW OF TRADE THEY ARE COGNIZABLE
EITHER IN THE COURTS OF COMMON LAW IN THE PLANTATIONS, OR IN THE COURTS
OF ADMIRALTY, WHICH HAVE IN SUCH CASES, IF NOT IN ALL, A CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION WITH THE COURTS OF COMMON LAW" (QUOTED IN ANDREWS, VICE
ADMIRALTY COURTS IN THE COLONIES, SUPRA, AT P. 7); AND STOKES REPORTED
THAT THE SAME SITUATION PREVAILED AT THE OUTBREAK OF THE REVOLUTION. 
SEE STOKES, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE BRITISH COLONIES (1783),
PP. 270, 357 ET SEQ. 

IN NEW YORK, ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION WAS VESTED IN THE MAYOR'S COURT
IN 1678, AND THAT COURT CONTINUED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN ALL
MARITIME CASES, INCLUDING THOSE ARISING UNDER THE NAVIGATION ACTS,
THROUGHOUT THE COLONIAL PERIOD EVEN AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COURT
OF VICE-ADMIRALTY.  SEE SELECT CASES OF THE MAYOR'S COURT OF NEW YORK
CITY, 1674-1784(ED. MORRIS, 1935), PP. 39-40, 566 ET SEQ. BUT CASES OF
FORFEITURE WERE ALSO REGULARLY PROSECUTED BEFORE THE COMMON LAW COURTS
OF THE COLONY - IN THE GENERAL QUARTER SESSIONS OF THE PEACE IN NEW
YORK CITY DURING THE 1680S,  FN5  AND, AFTER THE REORGANIZATION OF THE
JUDICIARY IN 1691, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE,  FN6  WHICH WAS
GIVEN JURISDICTION "OF ALL PLEAS, CIVILL CRIMINALL, AND MIXT, AS FULLY
& AMPLY TO ALL INTENTS & PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, AS THE COURTS OF KINGS
BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, & EXCHEQUER WITHIN THEIR MAJESTYES KINGDOME OF
ENGLAND, HAVE OR OUGHT TO HAVE," 1 COLONIAL LAWS OF NEW YORK (1894) P.
229.    THE NAVIGATION ACTS DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE ONLY AUTHORITY FOR
FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COMMON LAW COURTS.  NEW YORK'S OWN
COLONIAL LEGISLATION SHOWS FREQUENT USE OF THE FORFEITURE SANCTION,
APPLIED SOMETIMES TO VESSELS AS WELL AS TO COMMODITIES, AS A MEANS OF
ENFORCEMENT OF PROVINCIAL LAWS FIXING CUSTOMS DUTIES, REGULATING OR
PROHIBITING THE EXPORTATION OR IMPORTATION OF COMMODITIES, OR REQUIRING
A SPECIFIED MANNER OF MARKING, STORING OR SELLING.  FN7  A COMMON
PROVISION IN THESE STATUTES WAS THAT THE FORFEITURES IMPOSED MIGHT BE
PROSECUTED IN ANY COURT OF RECORD IN THE COLONY. 

THE RECORDS OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE CONTAIN
NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS DURING THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY.  ONE IS HAMMOND QUI TAM V. SLOOP CAROLINA,  FN8  A PROSECUTION
IN 1735 FOR A FALSE CUSTOMS CERTIFICATE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THE SHIP AND HER CARGO FOR FAILURE OF PROOF.  LATER CASES
SHOW MORE IN DETAIL HOW CLOSELY THAT COURT'S PROCEDURE IN FORFEITURE
CASES FOLLOWED THE ESSENTIALS OF THE PROCEDURE IN REM WHICH HAD BEEN
DEVELOPED IN THE ENGLISH EXCHEQUER N9.  NOR DID THE CREATION OF A STATE
COURT OF ADMIRALTY AFTER THE REVOLUTION EFFECT A WITHDRAWAL OF SUCH
JURISDICTION FROM THE COMMON LAW COURTS.  STATUTES ENACTED IN NEW YORK
DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CONFEDERATION, LIKE THE ENGLISH AND LOCAL
LEGISLATION WHICH PRECEDED THEM, CONTINUED TO EMPLOY FORFEITURE AS A
SANCTION,  FN10  AND FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED TO BE BROUGHT IN
THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER COMMON LAW TRIBUNALS.  FN11 THE ACT OF
APRIL 11, 1787, 2 LAWS OF NEW YORK 509, 517, IMPOSING IMPORT DUTIES,
PROVIDED THAT "ALL SHIPS AND VESSELS, GOODS AND MERCHANDIZE WHICH SHALL
BECOME FORFEITED BY VIRTUE OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE PROSECUTED BY THE
COLLECTOR, OR OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON WHO SHALL SEIZE THE SAME, BY
INFORMATION IN THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY,  FN12  OR IN THE COURT OF
EXCHEQUER,  FN13  OR IN ANY MAYORS COURT OR COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN
THIS STATE, IN ORDER TO CONDEMNATION THEREOF."  THERE WAS PROVISION FOR
PROCLAMATIONS TO BE MADE "IN THE ACCUSTOMED MANNER," WITH DETAILED
SPECIFICATION OF THE METHODS OF MAKING AN APPRAISAL AND PROCEEDING TO
JUDGMENT, AND A FURTHER PROVISION (P. 518) LEAVING IT TO THE DISCRETION
OF THE COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL "TO
DIRECT IN WHICH OF THE COURTS AFORESAID ANY INFORMATION SHALL BE
BROUGHT TOUCHING SUCH FORFEITURE." 

IN PENNSYLVANIA WE HAVE A RECORD OF A SIMILAR EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION IN 1787 BY THE PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN PHILE
QUI TAM V. THE SHIP ANNA, 1 DALL.  197, WHERE THE JURY CONDEMNED THE
SHIP.  FN14 

EXAMINATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789
DOES NOT DISCLOSE PRECISELY WHAT ITS FRAMERS HAD IN MIND WHEN IN SEC. 9
THEY USED THE PHRASE "COMMON LAW REMEDY."  BUT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT, IN
SELECTING THIS PHRASE AS THE MEANS OF MARKING THE BOUNDARY OF THE
JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS OVER MATTERS WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE
WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ADMIRALTY, THE DRAFTSMEN OF SEC. 9
INTENDED TO WITHDRAW FROM THE STATE COURTS A JURISDICTION AND REMEDY IN
FORFEITURE CASES WHICH HAD BEEN SO GENERALLY APPLIED BY NON-ADMIRALTY
COURTS BOTH IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA, AND WHICH HAD BECOME A RECOGNIZED
PART OF THE COMMON LAW SYSTEM AS DEVELOPED IN ENGLAND AND RECEIVED IN
THIS COUNTRY LONG BEFORE THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.  NOR CAN WE ACCEPT
THE SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESS, IN THIS USE OF THE PHRASE "COMMON LAW
REMEDY," WAS HARKING BACK SOME HUNDREDS OF YEARS TO A PERIOD BEFORE THE
EXCHEQUER HAD TAKEN ITS PLACE AS ONE OF THE THREE GREAT COURTS
ADMINISTERING THE COMMON LAW, AND WAS LIKEWISE DISREGARDING THE
EXPERIENCE OF THE COMMON LAW COURTS IN AMERICA WITH WHICH IT WAS
FAMILIAR - ALL WITHOUT ANY INDICATION OF SUCH A PURPOSE. 
CONSIDERATIONS OF PRACTICAL CONVENIENCE IN THE CONDUCT OF FORFEITURE
PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATIONS OF LOCAL STATUTES OCCURRING ON STATE WATERS,
AS WELL AS THE CONTEMPORARY AND LATER HISTORY OF THE EXERCISE OF THE
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, INDICATE THAT THERE WAS NO PURPOSE TO LIMIT
SUCH PROCEEDINGS TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE ADMIRALTY. 

SHORTLY AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, STATE LEGISLATION WAS
ENACTED REGULATING STATE TIDAL WATERS AND AUTHORIZING FORFEITURE IN THE
STATE COURTS OF FISH NETS AND VESSELS ILLEGALLY USED IN FISHING THERE. 
SUCH A STATUTE WAS CONSIDERED IN 1823 IN CORFIELD V. CORYELL, 4 WASH.
C.C. 371, FED. CAS. NO. 3230, (CITED IN SMITH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, 18
HOW.  AT 75), WHERE A NEW JERSEY STATE COURT FORFEITURE OF A VESSEL
UNDER A STATUTE REGULATING THE DELAWARE BAY WAS UPHELD AS
CONSTITUTIONAL BY JUSTICE WASHINGTON, WITHOUT QUESTION OF THE STATE
COURT'S JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE IN REM NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING. 
NO SUGGESTION IS TO BE FOUND IN THAT CASE OR ELSEWHERE THAT THE
JUDICIARY ACT STRUCK DOWN THE LARGE BODY OF STATE LEGISLATION, ENACTED
SHORTLY AFTER 1789, WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE FORFEITURE IN STATE COURTS
OF VESSELS OR NETS SEIZED IN NAVIGABLE WATERS OF A STATE FOR VIOLATING
STATE FISHING LAWS.  FN15  AND SUCH LEGISLATION HAS BECOME ROOTED IN
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS OF ABOUT HALF THE STATES,  FN16  WITHOUT
INTIMATION FROM THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT THAT THE JUDICIARY ACT
PROHIBITED IT.  SEE BOGGS V. COMMONWEALTH, 76 VA. 989, 993-96; DIZE V.
LLOYD, 36 F. 651, 652-53; JOHNSON V. LOPER, 46 N.J.L. 321; BRADFORD V.
DELUCA, 90 N.J.L. 434, 103 A. 692; DOOLAN V. THE GREYHOUND, 79 CONN.
697, 66 A. 511; ELY V. BUGBEE, 90 CONN. 584, 98 A. 121; STATE V. UMAKI,
103 WASH. 232, 174 P. 447; STATE V. MAVRIKAS, 148 WASH. 651, 269 P.
805; OSBORN V. CHARLEVOIX, 114 MICH. 655, 663-66, 72 N.W. 982. 

IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, MORE READ IN AMERICA
BEFORE THE REVOLUTION THAN ANY OTHER LAW BOOK, REFERRED TO THE
INFORMATION IN REM IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AS THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH
FORFEITURES WERE INFLICTED FOR VIOLATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.  BK.
III, P. 262.  AND KENT, IN HIS COMMENTARIES, POINTED OUT THAT
"SEIZURES, IN ENGLAND, FOR VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF REVENUE, TRADE OR
NAVIGATION, WERE TRIED BY A JURY IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER, ACCORDING
TO THE COURSE OF THE COMMON LAW; AND THOUGH A PROCEEDING BE IN REM, IT
IS NOT NECESSARILY A PROCEEDING OR CAUSE IN THE ADMIRALTY" (12TH ED.,
VOL. 1, P. 374).  HE DECLARED THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 9 OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT, THE COMMON LAW WAS COMPETENT TO GIVE SUCH A REMEDY
"BECAUSE, UNDER THE VIGOROUS SYSTEM OF THE ENGLISH LAW, SUCH
PROSECUTIONS IN REM ARE IN THE EXCHEQUER, ACCORDING TO THE COURSE OF
THE COMMON LAW" (P. 376). 

UPON THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TOOK
OVER THE REGULATION OF TRADE, NAVIGATION AND CUSTOMS DUTIES WHICH HAD
BEEN PROLIFIC SOURCES OF FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS. 
THIS COURT IN SUITS BROUGHT IN ADMIRALTY SUSTAINED THE ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION OVER FORFEITURES PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS FOR THE VIOLATION
OF FEDERAL REVENUE AND OTHER LAWS WHERE THE SEIZURE HAD OCCURRED ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS.  UNITED STATES V. LA VENGEANCE, 3 DALL.  297; UNITED
STATES V. SCHOONER SALLY, 2 CRANCH 406; UNITED STATES V. SCHOONER
BETSEY AND CHARLOTTE, 4 CRANCH 443; WHELAN V. UNITED STATES, 7 CRANCH
112; THE SAMUEL, 1 WHEAT.  9.  THOSE DECISIONS HELD THAT WHEN THE
SEIZURE OCCURRED ON NAVIGABLE WATERS THE CAUSE WAS MARITIME AND HENCE
TRIABLE WITHOUT A JURY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  FN17  BUT THEY OBVIOUSLY
DID NOT DETERMINE, AND THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE, WHETHER
FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS BELONGED IN THE CATEGORY OF MARITIME CAUSES THAT
MIGHT ALSO BE TRIED IN STATE COURTS BECAUSE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SAVING CLAUSE, THE COMMON LAW WAS COMPETENT TO GIVE THE REMEDY. 

THE COURT HAS NEVER HELD OR SAID THAT THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION IN A
FORFEITURE CASE IS EXCLUSIVE, AND IT HAS REPEATEDLY DECLARED THAT, IN
CASES OF FORFEITURE OF ARTICLES SEIZED ON LAND FOR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
STATUTES, THE DISTRICT COURTS PROCEED AS COURTS OF COMMON LAW ACCORDING
TO THE COURSE OF THE EXCHEQUER ON INFORMATIONS IN REM WITH TRIAL BY
JURY.  THE SARAH, 8 WHEAT.  391, 396, N. A; 443 CANS OF EGG PRODUCT V.
UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 172, AND CASES CITED.  IN UNITED STATES V. 422
CASKS OF WINE, 1 PET. 547, JUSTICE STORY DEFINED SUCH AN ACTION AS A
LIBEL OR INFORMATION IN REM ON THE EXCHEQUER SIDE OF THE COURT.  AND
SEE CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL'S REFERENCE, IN SCHOONER HOPPET V. UNITED
STATES, 7 CRANCH 389, 393, TO "PROCEEDINGS IN COURTS OF COMMON LAW,
EITHER AGAINST THE PERSON OR THE THING, FOR PENALTIES OR FORFEITURES." 
IN ALL THIS WE PERCEIVE A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF JUDGES, LAWYERS AND
TEXT WRITERS, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION,
OF THE COMMON LAW NATURE OF THE PROCEDURE AND JUDGMENT IN REM IN
FORFEITURE CASES AND OF ITS USE IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE EXCHEQUER
AND IN THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW COURTS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMON LAW AS RECEIVED IN THIS COUNTRY AT THE
TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION GAVE A REMEDY IN REM IN CASES
OF FORFEITURE, AND THAT IT IS A "COMMON LAW REMEDY" AND ONE WHICH "THE
COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 9 OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789.  BY THAT ACT THE STATES WERE LEFT FREE TO
PROVIDE SUCH A REMEDY IN FORFEITURE CASES WHERE THE ARTICLES ARE SEIZED
UPON NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE STATE FOR VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT SMITH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, WAS RIGHTLY DECIDED AND IS NOT
IN CONFLICT WITH THE MOSES TAYLOR, SUPRA, AND CASES FOLLOWING IT, AND
THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION WAS FULLY CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF THE EXCHEQUER
EVEN IN THE CASE OF SEIZURES ON NAVIGABLE WATERS.  DURING THE HISTORIC
STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE ADMIRALTY AND THE COMMON LAW COURTS, THE LATTER
SOUGHT, WITH VARYING SUCCESS, TO RESTRICT THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION TO
THE HIGH SEAS AND TO EXCLUDE IT FROM HARBORS, ESTUARIES, AND OTHER ARMS
OF THE SEA.  SEE JUSTICE STORY'S ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN DELOVIO V.
BOIT, 2 GALL.  398, ESPECIALLY AT 425 ET SEQ.; WARING V. CLARKE, 5
HOW.  441; MEARS, THE HISTORY OF THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, IN 2
SELECT ESSAYS IN ANGLO-AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY, P. 312, ESPECIALLY PP.
353, ET SEQ.; ROSCOE'S ADMIRALTY PRACTICE (5TH ED.), PP. 4-15; MARSDEN,
INTRODUCTION, 2 SELECT PLEAS IN THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY (11 SELDEN SOC.
PUBL.); MARSDEN, LAW AND CUSTOM OF THE SEA, VOL. 2, PP. VII-XXII. 
COMPARE HOON, THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ENGLISH CUSTOMS SYSTEM 1696-1786,
P. 276. 

FN2  BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, BK. III, P. 262; SIR GEOFFREY GILBERT,
A TREATISE ON THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER (1758) PP. 180-91; "B.Y.", MODERN
PRACTICE OF THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER (1730) PP. 139-50; HALE, TREATISE,
PRINTED IN HARGRAVE'S LAW TRACTS (1787), VOL. 1, PP. 226-27.  SEE ALSO
HARPER, THE ENGLISH NAVIGATION LAWS, CH. 10; HOON, THE ORGANIZATION OF
THE ENGLISH CUSTOMS SYSTEM 1696-1786, CH. 8. 

FOR SOME 18TH CENTURY CASES IN THE EXCHEQUER INVOLVING THE
CONDEMNATION OF SHIPS, SEE IDLE QUI TAM V. VANHECK, BUNB.  230;
ATTORNEY GENERAL V. JACKSON, ID. 236; SCOTT QUI TAM V. A'CHEZ, PARK. 
21; MITCHELL QUI TAM V. TORUP, ID. 227; ATTORNEY GENERAL V. LE
MERCHANT, 1 ANSTR.  52; ATTORNEY GENERAL V. APPLEBY, 3 ANSTR.  863. 
SEE ALSO CASES REFERRED TO IN MASTERSON, JURISDICTION IN MARGINAL SEAS,
PP. 42, 68-71; REEVES, LAW OF SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION (2D ED. 1807) PP.
197-208. 

FN3  STATUTORY PROVISION FOR THE FORFEITURE OF NETS OR BOATS USED IN
UNLAWFUL FISHING MAY BE FOUND AS EARLY AS 1285, ACT OF 13 EDW.  I, C.
47.  SEE ALSO 1 ELIZ.  C. 17; 3 JAC.  I, C. 12; 13 & 14 CAR.  II, C.
28; 15 CAR.  II, C. 16, SEC. 1(5), (8); 1 GEO. I, C. 18.  THE ACT OF 15
CAR.  II, C. 16, SEC. 1(8), PROVIDED FOR THE FORFEITURE OF SEINES OR
NETS USED IN NEWFOUNDLAND HARBORS, TO BE RECOVERED "IN ANY OF HIS
MAJESTY'S COURTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND, OR IN ANY COURT OF RECORD IN ENGLAND
OR WALES." 

THE NAVIGATION ACTS COMMONLY PROVIDED THAT A FORFEITURE PROCEEDING
MIGHT BE BROUGHT, IN ADDITION TO OTHERS, "IN ANY COURT OF RECORD,"
E.G., 12 CAR.  II, C. 18, SECS. 1, 3, 6, 18, OR "IN ANY OF HIS
MAJESTY'S COURTS OF RECORD AT WESTMINSTER," 8 GEO. I, C. 18, SEC. 23; 6
GEO. II, C. 13, SEC. 4.  SOME ACTS INCLUDED AS THE PLACE FOR SUCH SUITS
"ANY COURT OF ADMIRALTY  ...  OR  ...  ANY COURT OF RECORD" IN THE
AMERICAN COLONIES OR PLANTATIONS.  E.G., 6 GEO. II, C. 13, SEC. 3; 4
GEO. III, C. 15, SEC. 41.  THE IMPORTANT ACT OF 1696(7 & 8 WM. III, C.
22, SEC. 2) PROVIDED THAT FORFEITURES OF SHIPS AND GOODS MIGHT BE
ENFORCED "IN ANY OF HIS MAJESTY'S COURTS OF RECORD AT WESTMINSTER, OR
IN ANY COURT IN HIS MAJESTY'S PLANTATIONS, WHERE SUCH OFFENCE SHALL BE
COMMITTED." 

FN4  VIRGINIA:  IN THE 1670S FORFEITURES UNDER THE NAVIGATION ACTS
WERE DECLARED BY THE COUNCIL.  SEE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL AND GENERAL
COURT OF COLONIAL VIRGINIA, 1622-1632 AND 1670-1676(ED. MCILWAINE,
1924), PP. 212, 214, 216, 242-44, 445-46.  BUT BY THE 1690S SUCH CASES
WERE TRIED AT COMMON LAW IN THE GENERAL COURT BEFORE A JURY.  ALTHOUGH
THE RECORDS OF THE GENERAL COURT WERE DESTROYED BY FIRE DURING THE
EVACUATION OF RICHMOND IN 1865, COPIES OF SOME OF ITS MORE IMPORTANT
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE 1690S, CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TRANSMITTED TO ENGLAND,
HAVE BEEN PRESERVED, AND ARE REPRINTED IN EXECUTIVE JOURNALS OF THE
COUNCIL OF COLONIAL VIRGINIA (ED. MCILWAINE, 1925), VOL. I. SEE THE
CASES OF THE ANNE & CATHERINE, PP. 173-75; THE WILLIAM & MARY, PP. 241
43; THE CONTENT, PP. 379-80; COLE V. THREE PIPES OF BRANDY, PP. 204-05;
CF. THE CRANE, PP. 233-34, 300; THE CATHERINE, PP. 263-64; THE SOCIETY,
PP. 196-97, 219, 235-36, 252-53.  SEE ALSO THE CASES OF THE ELEZABETH
AND THE MARY & ELLERY, IN EDWARD RANDOLPH, INCLUDING HIS LETTERS AND
OFFICIAL PAPERS (ED. TOPPAN, 1899), VOL. 5, P. 139; THE CROWN,
CONDEMNED BY A JURY AT A SPECIAL COURT IN 1687, 12 VA. MAG.  OF HIST. &
BIOG.  189.  THE GOVERNOR EXERCISED A POWER TO COMMISSION A SPECIAL
ADMIRALTY COURT IN THE CASE OF A PRIZE (THE ST. IGNACE, EXEC. J., VOL.
I, PP. 366-67, 368-69), BUT APPARENTLY NOT FOR CONDEMNATION CASES UNDER
THE ACTS OF NAVIGATION.  AN ADMIRALTY COURT, FOR VIRGINIA AND NORTH
CAROLINA, WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1698.  ID., P. 379; CHITWOOD, JUSTICE IN
COLONIAL VIRGINIA, PP. 71-73.    MARYLAND:  A COMMISSION FOR A SPECIAL
COURT OF ADMIRALTY TO TRY FORFEITURE CASES UNDER THE NAVIGATION ACTS
FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME IS TO BE FOUND AS EARLY AS 1684, 17
ARCHIVES OF MARYLAND 360-62, (CF. 20 ID. 72, 75, 165), SOME ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION HAVING PREVIOUSLY BEEN EXERCISED BY THE PROVINCIAL COURT,
49 ARCHIVES XV, XXI-XXIII.  BUT FORFEITURE CASES WERE TRIED GENERALLY
AT COURTS OF OYER AND TERMINER, ACTING WITH A JURY.  SEE ANDREWS, VICE
ADMIRALTY COURTS IN THE COLONIES, SUPRA, P. 8, N. 2; 57 ARCHIVES LVII;
MORRISS, COLONIAL TRADE OF MARYLAND 1689-1715, PP. 121-22; CASE OF THE
JOHN, 1687, 8 ARCHIVES 9; THE PROVIDENCE, 1692, 13 ID. 320, 327(SEE
ALSO EDWARD RANDOLPH, VOL. 5, P. 139); THE ANN OF NEW CASTLE, 1692, 8
ARCHIVES 445-47; THE MARGARET, 1692, 8 ID. 489-91, AND AGAIN IN 1694,
20 ID. 42-43, 65, 142, 184.  THE ANN OF MARYLAND WAS ACQUITTED AT A
SPECIAL COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER IN 1694; SHE WAS TRIED BEFORE THE
PROVINCIAL COURT LATER THE SAME YEAR AND ACQUITTED BY THE JURY; THE
JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL IN MAY 1695; UPON A SECOND TRIAL IN THE
PROVINCIAL COURT ON A NEW INFORMATION THE JURY AGAIN ACQUITTED HER IN
AUGUST 1695, BUT THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE SECOND APPEAL ARE INCOMPLETE. 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS 1695-1729(ED. BOND, 1933),
PP. XLVII-XLVIII, 7-12, 22-24, 647-53; 20 ARCHIVES 64, 128-30, 155,
181, 188, 243-44, 438-45, 461; EDWARD RANDOLPH, VOL. 5, P. 139.  THE
ANNA HELENA WAS ACQUITTED BY A JURY IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT, 1694, 20
ARCHIVES 134, 180-81, 383-85.  SEE ALSO THE FULL REPORT OF BLACKISTON
QUI TAM V. CARROLL, 1692, IN PROC. MD. CT. OF APP., PP. 29-41, WHERE
THE JUDGMENT UPON A JURY'S VERDICT CONDEMNING SOME CASKS OF BEER IN THE
COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER (P. 34) WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL (P. 40). 
COMPARE THE CHARLES, 1696, 23 ARCHIVES 3. 

MASSACHUSETTS:  LIKE THE NEW YORK MAYOR'S COURT, THE MASSACHUSETTS
COURT OF ASSISTANTS WAS INVESTED WITH ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION AND IT WAS
AUTHORIZED TO DISPENSE WITH JURY TRIAL IN SUCH CASES.  SEE CRUMP,
COLONIAL ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, CH. 3;
NOBLE, ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION IN MASSACHUSETTS, 8 PUBL.  COLONIAL
SOCIETY OF MASS., 150, 154-57; DAVIS, HISTORY OF THE JUDICIARY OF
MASSACHUSETTS, P. 75; ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL IN INSURANCE CO. V. DUNHAM,
11 WALL.  1, 8-9.  FORFEITURE CASES UNDER THE NAVIGATION ACTS WERE,
HOWEVER, REGULARLY TRIED BY THAT COURT BEFORE JURIES, APPARENTLY IN THE
SAME MANNER AS OTHER COMMON LAW CASES.  RECORDS OF THE COURT OF
ASSISTANTS OF THE COLONY OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY, 1630-1692(ED. NOBLE,
1901), VOL. 1, PP. 149, 150, 160, 168, 169, 170-71, 175-77, 209-10,
219, 230-31, 342-44, 355-56; AND ESPECIALLY PP. 219-20, 349, 366, FOUR
CASES - THE SWALLOW, THE NEWBERY, THE TWO BROTHERS, AND THE MARY - OF
TRIALS DE NOVO BEFORE A JURY ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT, WHICH IS
NOT KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED WITH ANY ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.  THE
PRIVY COUNCIL UPHELD AN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE TWO BROTHERS,
ORDERING THE SHIP FORFEITED, BUT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
ASSISTANTS RELEASING THE MARY, 2 ACTS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, COLONIAL,
NO. 480.  SEE EDWARD RANDOLPH, VOLS.  1-7; PASSIM; CRUMP, SUPRA, 140
44. 

NEW JERSEY:  FULL RECORDS OF SEVERAL CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WILL BE
FOUND IN JOURNAL OF THE COURTS OF COMMON RIGHT AND CHANCERY OF EAST NEW
JERSEY, 1683-1702(ED. EDSALL, 1937).  SEE INTRODUCTION, PP. 133-37; THE
THOMAS AND BENJAMIN, CONDEMNED ON CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, 1685, PP. 192
94; THE DOLPHIN, ACQUITTED BY A JURY, 1685, PP. 198-200 AND 138;
GOODMAN QUI TAM V. DOUNHAM, AND GOODMAN QUI TAM V. POWEL, CALICOES
CONDEMNED IN DEFAULT OF A CLAIMANT, 1699, P. 319.  SEE ALSO THE
REFERENCE AT PP. 136-37 TO THE CONDEMNATION OF THE UNITY IN 1688 IN THE
MIDDLESEX COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 

PENNSYLVANIA:  IN THE CLOSING YEARS OF THE 17TH CENTURY, ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION IN PENNSYLVANIA WAS VESTED IN THE PROVINCIAL COUNCIL. 
LOYD, EARLY COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA, P. 68; EASTMAN, COURTS AND LAWYERS
OF PENNSYLVANIA, VOL. 1, P. 165; LEWIS, THE COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, 1 REP. PA. BAR ASSN. 353, 383, 389. 
FORFEITURE CASES UNDER THE NAVIGATION ACTS WERE NEVERTHELESS TRIED IN
THE COMMON LAW COURTS.  SEE THE CASE OF THE DOLPHIN, CLEARED BY A JURY
AT A SPECIAL COURT IN THE COUNTY OF CHESTER, 1695, EDWARD RANDOLPH,
VOL. 5, PP. 108-14, 139; THE PENNSYLVANIA MERCHANT, CONDEMNED BY A JURY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AT CHESTER, 1695, RECORD OF THE COURTS OF
CHESTER COUNTY, 1681-1697(1910) PP. 366-69.  CF. ROOT, THE RELATIONS OF
PENNSYLVANIA WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, 1696-1765, PP. 108-11. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE:  THE GEORGE, CONDEMNED BY A JURY AT A SPECIAL COURT IN
1682.  CALENDAR OF STATE PAPERS, COLONIAL, AMERICA AND WEST INDIES,
1681-1685, NOS. 868-70; EDWARD RANDOLPH, VOL. 3, PP. 256-58.  THE
HOPEWELL WAS ACQUITTED BY A JURY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN 1699;
THE CARGO OF THE SPEEDWELL WAS CONDEMNED BY A JURY IN THE SAME COURT IN
1701, BUT THE SUPERIOR COURT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  SEE ANDREWS, VICE
ADMIRALTY COURTS IN THE COLONIES, SUPRA, PP. 10, N. 1, 49-50, AND CF.
P. 11, N. 1; ANDREWS, THE COLONIAL PERIOD OF AMERICAN HISTORY, VOL. 4,
P. 123; ALDRICH, ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 3 PROC. N.H.
BAR ASSN. (N.S.)  31, 50-51.  SEE ALSO THE INDUSTRY, CLEARED BY A JURY
IN 1679.  EDWARD RANDOLPH, VOL. 3, PP. 84, 343. 

CONNECTICUT:  THE CARGO OF THE ADVENTURE WAS CONDEMNED BY A JURY IN
THE COUNTY COURT AT HARTFORD, 1692.  SEE 3 COLL.  OF THE CONN.  HIST.
SOC., PP. 264-66 N. 

MAINE: SEE CASE OF THE GIFT OF GOD, CLEARED BY JURY, 1680(COURT NOT
SPECIFIED).  EDWARD RANDOLPH, VOL. 3, PP. 85, 348.  THIS SHIP WAS TRIED
AGAIN IN 1683.  ID., PP. 350, 351. 

FN5  SEE LARKIN QUI TAM V. SLOOP LEWIS, CONDEMNED UPON A CONFESSION
OF JUDGMENT, AUGUST 4, 1685(MSS.  IN HALL OF RECORDS, N.Y.C., PLEADINGS
K 456 AND K 452), AND COMPARE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF NEW YORK (ED.
O'CALLAGHAN, 1850), VOL. 1, P. 116; LUDGAR QUI TAM V. SLOOP FORTUNE,
MAY 5, 1685, CONDEMNED ON CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT (MS. MINUTES N.Y.C.
QUARTER SESSIONS 1683/4-1693/4, FOL.  40); MEINE QUI TAM V. SLOOP
UNITY, AUGUST 3, 1686, CONDEMNED ON CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT (ID. FOL. 
93); SANTEN QUI TAM V. THE TWO SISTERS, AUGUST 2, 1686, ACQUITTED BY
THE JURY (ID., FOL.  95).  SEE ALSO LUDGAR QUI TAM V. PINKE CHARLES,
AUGUST 4, 1685, ACQUITTED BY THE JURY OF VIOLATING AN ACT OF THE
PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY (ID., FOL.  48-50). 

THERE IS SOME RECORD OF COURTS OF ADMIRALTY IN NEW YORK BEFORE 1700,
APPARENTLY ACTING UNDER SPECIAL COMMISSIONS.  DOC. HIST. N.Y., VOL. 1,
P. 60, VOL. 2, PP. 164-68, 172, 176-77; CRUMP, COLONIAL ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, PP. 122-24. 

FN6  THE PUBLISHED MINUTES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE 1693
1701, 45 N.Y. HIST. SOC. COLL., DISCLOSE AT LEAST NINE SUCH CASES
DURING THAT PERIOD:  BROOKE V. BARQUENTEEN ROBERTS, P. 55; BROOKE QUI
TAM V. BARQUENTEEN ORANGE AND JACOBS, PP. 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, 68,
73(AND SEE THE MORE COMPLETE ACCOUNTS OF THIS CASE IN HARPER, THE
ENGLISH NAVIGATION LAWS, P. 193, AND IN CAL. ST. PAP., COL., AM. & W.I.
1693-1696, NOS. 1133, 1546, 1891 AND 2033); BROOKE QUI TAM V. IRON
BARS, PP. 59, 63; HUNGERFORD V. BRIGANTEEN SWIFT, PP. 154, 156, 158; R.
V. THE CONCORD AND BLAKE, PP. 156, 160, 162; R. V. PIPE STAVES, PP.
157, 158; HUNGERFORD V. EAST INDIAN GOODS, PP. 166, 176; HUNGERFORD QUI
TAM V. SUNDRY GOODS, P. 168(SEE THE INFORMATION IN N.Y. MISC. MSS.  BOX
3, N.Y. HIST. SOC.); LOTT QUI TAM V. SUNDRY GOODS AND ALLISON, PP. 168,
173, 176, 183, 184.  SEE ALSO A CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, OCTOBER 8,
1698, ON AN INFORMATION FILED IN THE COURT IN CORTLANDT QUI TAM V. THE
FORTUNE, HALL OF RECORDS, N.Y.C., PARCHMENT 210 G-1. 

FN7  SEE COLONIAL LAWS OF NEW YORK 1664-1775(1894):  VOL. 1, PP. 252,
291, 292, 422-23, 451, 787, 850-51, 1017, 1022.  VOL. 2, PP. 20, 21,
26, 27, 28, 33, 258, 260, 284, 287, 357, 358, 424, 435, 436, 477-79,
655, 778, 800, 853, 878-79, 909-10, 963, 1055.  VOL. 3, PP. 33, 79, 95,
99, 108, 113, 115, 119, 245, 250-51, 356, 361-62, 442, 569, 790-91, 949
50, 972, 975.  VOL. 4, PP. 107, 366, 1092.  VOL. 5, PP. 316, 364-65,
547, 836, 857-58. 

FN8 HALL OF RECORDS, N.Y.C., PARCHMENTS 159 D 2(JUDGMENT ROLL); MS.
MINUTES SUP. CT. OF JUD.  1732-1737, FOL.  172-75. 

IN 1739 THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ISSUED A WRIT OF PROHIBITION
RESTRAINING PROSECUTION OF A FORFEITURE PROCEEDING UNDER 15 CAR.  II,
C. 7, AGAINST THE MARY AND MARGARET IN THE COURT OF VICE-ADMIRALTY. 
FOUR YEARS LATER THE PRIVY COUNCIL UPHELD THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT,
APPARENTLY ACCEPTING THE VIEW THAT A SEIZURE IN ANY PART OF NEW YORK
HARBOR WHICH WAS "WITHIN THE BODY OF THE COUNTY" RATHER THAN ON THE
HIGH SEAS CAME WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMON LAW
COURTS - A RULING WHICH PROBABLY LEFT TO THE VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT BUT A
SMALL ROLE IN CASES UNDER THE NAVIGATION ACTS, EXCEPT WHEN THE
PARTICULAR ACT CONTAINED AN EXPRESS GRANT OF SUCH JURISDICTION (CF.
NOTE 3, SUPRA).  SEE REPORTS OF CASES IN THE VICE-ADMIRALTY AND
ADMIRALTY OF NEW YORK 1715-1788(ED. HOUGH, 1925) P. 16; DOCUMENTS
RELATIVE TO THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF NEW YORK (1855), VOL. 6, PP. 154
55; 3 ACTS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, COLONIAL, NO. 538.  SEE ALSO ROOT, THE
RELATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT 1696-1765, P.
117, N. 100; WASHBURNE, IMPERIAL CONTROL OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE IN THE THIRTEEN AMERICAN COLONIES, 1684-1776, P. 168.  COMPARE
LATER CASES IN HOUGH'S REPORTS, IN WHICH THE VICE-ADMIRALTY COURT TOOK
A SIMILAR NARROW VIEW OF ITS JURISDICTION,  - KENNEDY QUI TAM V. 32
BARRELS OF GUNPOWDER (1754) P. 82; SPENCER QUI TAM V. RICHARDSON (1760)
P. 181.  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN9  THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL CASES OF JUDGMENTS TAKEN BY DEFAULT:
HARISON QUI TAM V. SEVERAL PARCELS OF TOBACCO, MS. MINUTES SUP. CT. OF
JUD., ENGROSSED, 1750-54, PP. 124, 127, 130(APRIL 23-25, 1752); KENNEDY
QUI TAM V. 77 CASES OF BOTTLES, ETC., ID. 1754-57, PP. 254, 260, (APRIL
29, 1756); ALLEN QUI TAM V. TWO TONS ETC. OF SUGAR, ID. 1766-69, PP.
607-08(JANUARY 21, 1769); ELLIOTT & MOORE QUI TAM V. SEVEN CASKS OF
TEA, HALL OF RECORDS, N.Y.C., PLEADINGS K 474(INFORMATION), PARCHMENTS
120 G 1(JUDGMENT ROLL)(AUGUST 1772); ELLIOTT & MOORE QUI TAM V.
NINETEEN CASKS OF TEA, ETC., ID., PARCHMENTS 29 F 9(AUGUST 1772);
ELLIOTT & MOORE QUI TAM V. TWENTY PIPES OF WINE, ID., PARCHMENTS 93 H
2(AUGUST 1772). 

FN10  SEE LAWS OF NEW YORK, 1777-1801(1886), VOL. 1, PP. 19, 112, 601
AND 604, 627-28, 666-67.  VOL. 2, PP. 516-17, 786, 789, 806-07. 
SIMILAR LEGISLATION SHORTLY AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL
BE FOUND IN VOL. 4, P. 592; VOL. 5, P. 468. 

MUCH OF THE COLONIAL AND STATE CUSTOMS LEGISLATION BEFORE 1789 IS
COLLECTED IN HILL, THE FIRST STAGES OF THE TARIFF POLICY OF THE UNITED
STATES, 8 PUBL.  AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSN., 453; KELLEY, TARIFF ACTS
UNDER THE CONFEDERATION, 2 QUARTERLY J. OF ECONOMICS, 473; RIPLEY, THE
FINANCIAL HISTORY OF VIRGINIA 1609-1776, CH. 3. 

FN11  FOR EXAMPLE, SEE LAMB QUI TAM V. SYLSBEE, INFORMATION TO
CONDEMN THREE THOUSAND GALLONS OF RUM FOR VIOLATION OF THE ACT OF MARCH
22, 1784(FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 1785).  HALL OF RECORDS, N.Y.C.,
PARCHMENTS P 9 B 1(ISSUE ROLL).  THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INCOMPLETE, BUT A
SUBSEQUENT ENTRY, OCTOBER 27, 1785, INDICATES THAT THE JURY BROUGHT IN
A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  MS. MINUTES SUP. CT. OF JUD., JAN. 1785
NOV.  1785, FOL.  52. 

FN12  DURING THE CONFEDERATION, COURTS OF ADMIRALTY EXISTED IN EACH
STATE AND APPEALS IN PRIZE CASES WERE TAKEN TO THE COMMITTEE OF APPEALS
IN THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, AND AFTER 1780 TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
SEE 131 U.S., APPENDIX, PP. XIX-XLIX; JAMESON, THE PREDECESSOR OF THE
SUPREME COURT, IN ESSAYS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE FORMATIVE PERIOD, P. 1; WIENER, NOTES ON THE RHODE ISLAND
ADMIRALTY, 1727-1790, 46 HARV. L. REV. 44, 59.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF
ADMIRALTY WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1776(SEE HOUGH'S REPORTS P. XXIV), AND ITS
JURISDICTION WAS RESTRICTED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1787(2 LAWS OF
NEW YORK, P. 394). 

FN13  THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER WAS CREATED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 9,
1786(2 LAWS OF NEW YORK, P. 185), TO ENTERTAIN ONLY PROSECUTIONS
INSTITUTED BY ITS CLERK OR BY THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  IT WAS
PRESIDED OVER BY THE JUNIOR JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE,
WHO WAS AUTHORIZED TO TRANSFER "ALL CASES OF DIFFICULTY" TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF JUDICATURE. 

FN14  THE FAME WAS CONDEMNED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN
1726.  OSGOOD, THE AMERICAN COLONIES IN THE 18TH CENTURY, VOL. 2, P.
541; ROOT, THE RELATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
1696-1765, P. 169; PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES AT LARGE, 1682-1801(1897 ED.),
VOL. 4, PP. 422-26, 429-31; 6 ACTS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, COLONIAL, NOS.
328, 333.  FOR THE CASE OF THE SARAH, ACQUITTED AT THE NEW CASTLE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS IN 1727, SEE ROOT, P. 120; BOARD OF TRADE PAPERS,
PROPRIETIES 1697-1776, VOL. XII, R:  119, 122 AND 131(COPY IN
POSSESSION OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF PENNSYLVANIA).  SEE ALSO THE
RICHARD & WILLIAM, ACQUITTED IN THE PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
1728, ID., R:  93; THE HOPE, APPARENTLY ACQUITTED BY THE JURY IN THE
PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, THE COLLECTOR'S APPEAL TO THE PRIVY
COUNCIL BEING DISMISSED IN 1737, 3 ACTS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, COLONIAL,
NO. 381.    A NUMBER OF CASES TRIED IN THE COMMON LAW COURT IN JAMAICA
DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD ARE REPORTED IN GRANT, NOTES OF CASES
ADJUDGED IN JAMAICA, 1774 TO 1787(ONE OF THE FEW KNOWN COPIES OF THIS
WORK IS IN THE GERRY COLLECTION OF THE LIBRARY OF THIS COURT).  SEE REX
QUI TAM V. SCHOONER REVENGE, P. 116; REX V. SLOOP TRYAL, P. 155;
WOOLFRYS QUI TAM V. SHIP TARTAR, PP. 156, 163; MACFARQUHAR QUI TAM V.
SLOOP FLYING FISH, PP. 156, 188; FLOWERDEW QUI TAM V. SLOOP LA DEPECHE,
P. 258; MACALLISTER QUI TAM V. THE GREYHOUND, P. 310; SEE ALSO EX PARTE
OLIVERES DANIEL, P. 293.  COMPARE ANDREWS, THE COLONIAL PERIOD OF
AMERICAN HISTORY, VOL. 4, P. 249, N. 3.  SEE ALSO CASES OF THE DOLPHIN
AND THE MERCURY, CONDEMNED IN THE JAMAICA SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE,
1742, JUDGMENTS REVERSED AND NEW TRIALS ORDERED BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL,
1743, 3 ACTS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, COLONIAL, NOS. 566-67; THE LAWRENCE,
CONDEMNED BY THE JAMAICA SUPERIOR COURT, 1769, REVERSED BY THE PRIVY
COUNCIL, 1777, 5 ID. NO. 217. 

FN15  THE HIRAM, SUBJECT OF THE LITIGATION IN CORFIELD V. CORYELL
(AND IN KEAN V. RICE, 12 SEARG.  & RAWL.  203), HAD BEEN CONDEMNED
UNDER SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE NEW JERSEY ACT OF JUNE 9, 1820, WHOSE
FORFEITURE PROVISIONS WERE DERIVED FROM SECS. 5 AND 6 OF THE ACT OF
JANUARY 26, 1798(PATERSON, NEW JERSEY LAWS 1703-1799, P. 263), IN TURN
DERIVED FROM SECS. 2-6 OF A PROVINCIAL ACT OF 1719, 5 GEO. I, C.
30(NEVILL, NEW JERSEY ACTS 1703-1752, PP. 86-88).  COMPARE THE
FORFEITURE PROVISIONS OF THE DELAWARE RIVER FISHING LEGISLATION, IN NEW
JERSEY ACTS OF NOVEMBER 26, 1808, SEC. 4, AND NOVEMBER 28, 1822, SEC.
13, AND IN PENNSYLVANIA ACTS OF FEBRUARY 8, 1804, SEC. 5, OF FEBRUARY
23, 1809, AND JANUARY 29, 1823; SEE SHOEMAKER V. STATE, 20 N.J.L.
153(1843). 

MASSACHUSETTS ENACTED EARLY LEGISLATION RESTRICTING FISHING IN
NAVIGABLE WATERS, INCLUDING TAUNTON GREAT RIVER AND THE MERRIMACK, AND
PROVIDING THAT ANY NETS USED UNLAWFULLY SHOULD BE FORFEITED.  ACT OF
FEBRUARY 22, 1790(FORFEITURE TO BE IN A "TRIAL IN LAW"); ACT OF MARCH
4, 1790(FORFEITURE PROCEEDING TO BE CONDUCTED IN SPECIFIED MANNER BY
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE); ACT OF MARCH 27, 1793. 

DELAWARE REGULATED THE TAKING OF OYSTERS AND OTHER SHELLFISH BY THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 12, 1812(SEE REVISED LAWS, 1829, P. 274), IMPOSED AS A
PENALTY THE FORFEITURE OF VESSELS AND THEIR EQUIPMENT, AND BY SEC. 2
PROVIDED THAT THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING SHOULD BE BEFORE TWO JUSTICES
OF THE PEACE IN AN ACTION QUI TAM. 

RHODE ISLAND PROVIDED THAT, IN THE CASE OF UNLAWFUL TAKING OF OYSTERS
IN ANY WATERS IN THE STATE, THE VESSEL TOGETHER WITH ALL ITS IMPLEMENTS
SHOULD BE FORFEITED IN AN ACTION QUI TAM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OR GENERAL SESSIONS OF THE PEACE.  SEE THE 1798 REVISION OF PUBLIC
LAWS, PP. 488-89, DERIVED FROM AN ACT OF AUGUST 1773(R.I. ACTS AND
RESOLVES, AUGUST 1773, PP. 63-64).  COMPARE AN ACT OF 1803, APPEARING
IN THE 1822 REVISION OF PUBLIC LAWS, P. 516; AN ACT OF 1802, SEC. 1, IN
R.I. PUBLIC LAWS 1798-1813(NEWPORT, PRINTED BY H. & O. FARNSWORTH) P.
83; ACT OF JUNE 23, 1810, SEC. 1, ID., P. 194. 

THE 1808 COMPILATION OF THE STATUTE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT, BOOK I,
TITLE LXX, FISHERIES, CONTAINS SEVERAL STATUTES PASSED BETWEEN 1783 AND
1798, REGULATING FISHING ON CERTAIN RIVERS, INCLUDING THE CONNECTICUT,
AND PUNISHING VIOLATIONS BY BOTH FINE AND A FORFEITURE OF THE SEINES OR
OTHER IMPLEMENTS USED.  SEE C. I, SECS. 7, 10, 13; C. IV, SEC. 1; BOLES
V. LYNDE, 1 ROOT 195(1790). 

SEE ALSO TRUEMAN V. 403 QUARTER CASKS ETC. OF GUNPOWDER, THACHER'S
CR. CAS., P. 14(BOSTON, 1823). 

FN16  IN ADDITION TO CALIFORNIA, THERE ARE AT LEAST TWENTY-TWO STATES
WHOSE LAWS NOW MAKE PROVISION FOR THE CONDEMNATION, IN STATE COURT
PROCEEDINGS, OF NETS OR VESSELS USED IN STATE WATERS, INCLUDING
NAVIGABLE WATERS, IN VIOLATION OF STATE FISHING LAWS.  ARKANSAS, POPE'S
DIGEST, 1942 SUPPL., SEC. 5958; CONNECTICUT GEN. STAT. 1930, SEC. 3175;
DELAWARE REV. CODE 1935, SECS. 2904-2905, 2955, 2957-2958, 2990, 2991,
2993-2995, 2997, 3000-3002, 3004, 3007, 3015, 3024, 3030, 3035, 3037;
FLORIDA STAT. 1941, SECS. 372.31, 374.41; ILLINOIS REV. STAT. 1941, CH.
56, SEC. 109; IOWA CODE 1939, SECS. 1794.099-1794.102; KENTUCKY REV.
STAT. 1942, SEC. 150.120; LOUISIANA GEN. STAT., DART 1939, SECS. 3074,
3108, 3118; MAINE REV. STAT. 1930, CH. 50, SECS. 50, 81; MARYLAND ANN.
CODE, FLACK 1939, ART. 39, SECS. 10-12, 25, 65, 66, 67, 69, 72, 73;
MASSACHUSETTS GEN. LAWS 1932, CH. 130, SEC. 74; MICHIGAN STAT. ANN.,
HENDERSON 1937, SECS. 13.1221-13.1225; MINNESOTA STAT. 1941, SEC.
102.06(21); MISSISSIPPI CODE ANN. 1930, SEC. 6908; NEW JERSEY REV.
STAT. 1937, TITLE 23, CH. 9, SECS. 9-11, 14, 15, 20, 27-29, 32, 33, 44
46, 48, 49, 55, 63, 67, 110, 112, CH. 10, SEC. 21; NORTH CAROLINA CODE
1939, SEC. 1965(A); OHIO GEN. CODE ANN., PAGE 1937, SECS. 1416,
1450(SEE 1942 SUPPL.), 1451; OREGON COMP. LAWS ANN. 1940, SECS. 82-347,
83-318, 83-415, 83-520, 83-523; SOUTH DAKOTA CODE 1939, SEC. 25.0422;
VIRGINIA CODE 1942, SECS. 3159, 3169(AND SEE CH. 131), 3171, 3176,
3180, 3182, 3188, 3206, 3214, 3248, 3305A, 3305B, 3305C; WASHINGTON
REV. STAT. ANN., REMINGTON 1932, SECS. 5692, 5671-10(1940 SUPPL.);
WISCONSIN STAT. 1941, SEC. 29.05(7). 

FN17  SECTION 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 77, PROVIDED
THAT "THE TRIAL OF ISSUES IN FACT, IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, IN ALL
CAUSES EXCEPT CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION,
SHALL BE BY JURY." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

IF THIS CASE INVOLVED ONLY A FISHNET, I SHOULD BE INCLINED TO
ACQUIESCE IN THE HOLDING OF THE COURT.  INDEED, WE HAVE HELD THAT A
STATE MAY SEIZE AND CONDEMN A FISHNET OF TRIFLING VALUE WITHOUT
FOLLOWING THE FORMAL PROCEDURE OF COURT ACTION AT ALL.  LAWTON V.
STEELE, 152 U.S. 133.  BUT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN HERE INVOLVES FAR
MORE THAN A FISHNET, FOR UNDER IT STATE COURTS ARE AUTHORIZED THROUGH
IN REM PROCEEDINGS TO SEIZE AND CONDEMN, FOR VIOLATION OF LOCAL LAW,
ANY EQUIPMENT OR VESSEL EMPLOYED IN MARITIME ACTIVITY.  TODAY'S IN REM
ACTION IS AGAINST A FISHNET USED IN PATENTLY ILLEGAL FASHION;
TOMORROW'S MAY BE AN ACTION AGAINST A TRAMP-STEAMER OR OCEAN LINER
WHICH VIOLATES A HARBOR REGULATION OR OTHERWISE OFFENDS AGAINST THE
POLICE REGULATIONS OF A STATE OR MUNICIPALITY.  PERSONS GUILTY OF
VIOLATING STATE LAWS AFFECTING MARITIME ACTIVITY MAY BE PROSECUTED BY
IN PERSONAM ACTIONS IN STATE COURTS,  FN1  AND THE ADMIRALTY COURTS
THEMSELVES CAN HELPFULLY ENFORCE STATE LAWS THROUGH IN REM
PROCEEDINGS.  FN2  I DO NOT BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THE JUDICIARY ACT
PERMITS STATES, THROUGH STATE COMMON LAW COURTS WHICH CANNOT REASONABLY
BE EXPECTED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ADMIRALTY LAW AND PRACTICE, TO GIVE
PERMANENT HALT TO ANY PORTION OF THE MARITIME TRADE AND COMMERCE OF THE
NATION BY BRINGING IN REM PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHIPS.  FN3 

THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 PLACES IN THE FEDERAL ADMIRALTY COURTS
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ADMIRALTY CASES EXCEPT WHERE THE COMMON LAW
PROVIDES AN EQUIVALENT REMEDY.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT AS A GENERAL
PROPOSITION THE COMMON LAW COURTS HAVE NO IN REM REMEDY IN MARITIME
CASES.  HOWEVER, THE COURT HOLDS SQUARELY, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS
HISTORY, THAT THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE WHICH PERMITS STATES
TO BRING IN REM FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS IN COMMON LAW COURTS.  THE COURT
BRUSHES ASIDE AS MERE GENERALIZATIONS THE MANY CASES HEREAFTER
CONSIDERED WHICH DECLARE THAT NO EQUIVALENT OF AN ADMIRALTY IN REM
PROCEEDING MAY BE BROUGHT AT COMMON LAW.  TODAY'S HOLDING IS RESTED
PRINCIPALLY ON THE ENGLISH AND COLONIAL PRACTICE PRIOR TO 1789 AND ON
ONE CASE IN THIS COURT.  I DISAGREE, BELIEVING THAT THE ENGLISH
PRACTICE IS IRRELEVANT, THAT THE COLONIAL LAW WAS NOT IN ACCORD WITH
THE ENGLISH PRACTICE, AND THAT A LONG SERIES OF CASES SINCE 1789 HAVE
CLEARLY CONSIDERED THE PROPOSITION PUT BY THE COURT, AND HAVE GIVEN THE
JUDICIARY ACT A MEANING SQUARELY OPPOSITE TO THAT NOW ANNOUNCED. 

THE ENGLISH EXCHEQUER PRACTICE ON WHICH THE COURT APPEARS TO RELY SO
HEAVILY SEEMS TO ME TO BE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN CONFORMITY
WITH OUR OWN EARLY AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT.  THE COLONISTS, OF COURSE, DID
NOT ESTABLISH ADMIRALTY COURTS THE MOMENT THEY STEPPED FROM THE VESSELS
WHICH BROUGHT THEM TO THE NEW WORLD, AND FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY MARITIME FORFEITURES WERE COLLECTED IN THE
FASHION OF THE ENGLISH COURTS.  HOWEVER, TOWARD THE END OF THAT
CENTURY, IT BECAME ACUTELY APPARENT IN ENGLAND THAT COLONIAL JURIES
WOULD NOT ENFORCE THE NAVIGATION LAWS AS ENGLAND DESIRED TO SEE THEM
ENFORCED.  THIS WAS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY  FN4  AND IN
OTHER COLONIES WHERE COMMERCIAL INTERESTS DOMINATED.  HENCE IN 1697,
VICE COMMISSIONERS OF ADMIRALTY WERE ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE
COLONIES TO ENFORCE THE NAVIGATION LAWS OF ENGLAND WITHOUT JURY
PROCEDURE.  IT WAS CONCEDED BY THE EARLIEST WRITERS THAT THE VICE
ADMIRALTY COURTS IN THE COLONIES "OBTAINED IN A SINGULAR MANNER A
JURISDICTION IN REVENUE CAUSES, TOTALLY FOREIGN TO THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THE ADMIRALTY, AND UNKNOWN TO IT."  FN5 YET, WITH THE
GREAT ADAPTABILITY OF THE EARLY COURTS, THIS JURISDICTION IN THE
COLONIES WAS FITTED INTO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM SO AS TO ALLOW APPEAL, AS
IN PURELY ADMIRALTY CASES, TO THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY IN ENGLAND. 

THE VROUW DOROTHEA (1754) REPORTED IN THE FABIUS, 2 C. ROBINSON 246. 
FN6 

THE SAME CONFLICT WHICH TOOK PLACE IN ENGLAND BETWEEN COKE AS
CHAMPION OF THE COMMON LAW JURISDICTION, AND THE ADMIRALTY COURTS ALSO
WAS CARRIED ON IN THE COLONIES.  CF. TALBOT V. THE THREE BRIGS, 1
DALL.  95.  AS A RESULT THERE WAS, THROUGHOUT THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY,
MARKED CONFUSION AS TO THE PROPER JURISDICTION OF EACH IN FORFEITURE
CASES.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN 1702, THE BOARD OF TRADE ASKED THE ADVICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS TO WHETHER ALL FORFEITURES IN CONNECTION WITH
COLONIAL TRADING MATTERS UNDER THE NAVIGATION ACT OF 1696 WERE TO BE
PROSECUTED EXCLUSIVELY IN COURTS OF ADMIRALTY, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  FN7  ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS CLEAR, AS THE
CASES CITED BY THE COURT SHOW, THAT THIS VIEW WAS NOT ALWAYS
MAINTAINED.  ONE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS IN 1789 NO COMPLETELY
CLEAR RESOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ADMIRALTY AND COMMON LAW
COURTS IN FORFEITURE CASES, THOUGH THE CASES HEREAFTER CONSIDERED
INDICATE THAT THE ADMIRALTY COURTS WERE WINNING THE DOMINANT ROLE.  AT
THE SAME TIME IT MUST BE CONCEDED BY THE PROPONENTS OF THE COURT'S VIEW
THAT AMERICAN PRACTICE HAD COME TO BE MARKEDLY DIFFERENT FROM THE
ENGLISH. 

IT IS SETTLED BEYOND QUESTION THAT THE GENERAL ADMIRALTY LAW OF THE
UNITED STATES IN 1789 WAS THE LAW AS DEVELOPED IN THE COLONIES AND NOT
THE LAW AS IT CAME FROM ENGLAND.  PRIOR TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH
CENTURY A CONTRARY VIEW WAS OFTEN PRESSED UPON THE COURT AND WAS AS
OFTEN REJECTED WITH ADEQUATE REFERENCE TO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
TWO.  FN8  THE EARLY AMERICAN COURTS THEREFORE WERE FACED WITH THE TASK
OF DETERMINING WHETHER FORFEITURE ACTIONS SHOULD BE BROUGHT EXCLUSIVELY
IN THE COMMON LAW COURTS, EXCLUSIVELY IN THE ADMIRALTY COURTS, OR
CONCURRENTLY IN EITHER.  IN REPEATED DECISIONS RELATING TO FORFEITURES
UNDER FEDERAL LAWS, THIS COURT, WITHIN A FEW YEARS OF THE ADOPTION OF
THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, HELD THAT FORFEITURE JURISDICTION WAS
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE ADMIRALTY COURTS. 

THE LEADING CASE FOR THIS PROPOSITION IS LA VENGEANCE, 3 DALL. 
297(1796).  IN THAT CASE THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT AN ACTION OF
FORFEITURE FOR EXPORTING ARMS AND AMMUNITION.  THE UNITED STATES
CONTENDED IN THIS COURT THAT THE ACTION WAS CRIMINAL IN ITS NATURE AND
THAT, IN ANY CASE, IT WAS NOT A CIVIL SUIT WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY AND
MARITIME JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRIED BEFORE A
JURY AS AT COMMON LAW.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE ACTION WAS CLEARLY
CIVIL SINCE IT WAS AN IN REM PROCEEDING AND THAT IT WAS SUBJECT TO THE
MARITIME JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE BASIC TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITY
INVOLVED WAS "ENTIRELY A WATER TRANSACTION."  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION
WHATEVER, IN THE BRIEF OPINION OF THE COURT, OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A
CONCURRENT COMMON LAW JURISDICTION.  THIS RULE WAS FOLLOWED IN THE
SALLY, 2 CRANCH 406, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN CONTENDED THAT IT WAS
ENTITLED TO TRY FORFEITURE ACTIONS BEFORE A JURY SINCE THE "CAUSE WAS
OF COMMON LAW, AND NOT OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION," AND THE
SAME RESULT WAS REACHED IN THE SAMUEL, 1 WHEAT.  9.  FN9 

ONE OF THE MOST ELABORATE ARGUMENTS EVER MADE IN THIS COURT ON THE
ISSUE NOW BEFORE US WAS PRESENTED IN 1808 IN UNITED STATES V. SCHOONER
BETSEY AND CHARLOTTE, 4 CRANCH 443.  THAT CASE AROSE ON AN ACTION FOR
FORFEITURE.  COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT, WHO HAD ALSO BEEN THE LOSING
COUNSEL IN LA VENGEANCE, CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN
TRIED AS AT COMMON LAW.  HE STRONGLY EMPHASIZED THE EXCHEQUER PRACTICE
IN ENGLAND AND SAID, "THERE IS NOTHING IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS IN
REM WHICH REQUIRES THAT THEY SHOULD BE IN A COURT OF ADMIRALTY."  ID.
447.  THE ARGUMENT HE MADE WAS ALMOST IDENTICAL WITH THAT WHICH THE
COURT ADOPTS IN THE INSTANT CASE.  HE EMPHASIZED PARTICULARLY THAT "WE
HAVE SEEN THAT IN ALL CASES OF SEIZURE FOR BREACHES OF THE LAW OF
REVENUE, TRADE OR NAVIGATION, THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE A
REMEDY; AND CONSEQUENTLY THIS SUITOR IS ENTITLED TO IT."  ID. 449. 

THE COURT REJECTED ENTIRELY THE ARGUMENT OF THE COUNSEL, HELD THE
BETSEY AND CHARLOTTE INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM LA VENGEANCE, AND
INTERPRETED THE JUDICIARY ACT TO MEAN THAT CONGRESS HAD PLACED
FORFEITURES "AMONG THE CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME
JURISDICTION."  LA VENGEANCE WAS HELD CONCLUSIVE OF THE PROPOSITION
THAT IN SUCH CASES THERE COULD BE NO RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY - IN OTHER
WORDS THAT UNDER THE AMERICAN LAW AS REPEATEDLY DECLARED BETWEEN 1796
AND 1808, THE COMMON LAW WAS NOT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE JUDICIARY
ACT, COMPETENT TO GIVE A REMEDY IN FORFEITURE CASES.  FN10  WHEN THE
QUESTION OF A RIGHT TO A COMMON LAW TRIAL IN A FORFEITURE CASE WAS
CERTIFIED TO THE SUPREME COURT IN 1812, THE COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY
TO HEAR ANY ARGUMENT AND COUNSEL BECAME SO CONVINCED THAT THE
AUTHORITIES WERE CONCLUSIVE THAT HE DID NOT PRESS THE CASE.  FN11 
THESE CASES WERE REVIEWED MANY TIMES IN THIS COURT AND ELSEWHERE, AND
CITED FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IN THE UNITED STATES, IN NOTEWORTHY
DISTINCTION FROM ENGLAND, THE ADMIRALTY FORFEITURE JURISDICTION WAS
EXCLUSIVE.  FN12  THIS CULMINATED IN A HOLDING IN 1868, THE EAGLE, 8
WALL.  15, 25, 26, THAT THE WORDS IN THE 1789 ACT GIVING ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION IN FORFEITURE CASES WERE SUPERFLUOUS AND OF NO EFFECT
SINCE "THE GENERAL JURISDICTION IN ADMIRALTY EXISTS WITHOUT REGARD TO
IT." 

AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF THESE CASES WE MAY CONSIDER SMITH V.
MARYLAND, 18 HOW.  71, WHICH THE COURT CITES FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE
FORFEITURE EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE AS TO EXCLUSIVE ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION OF IN REM PROCEEDINGS.  IN THAT CASE THE POWER OF THE
STATE TO PROTECT A FISHERY BY MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO CATCH OYSTERS IN A
CERTAIN MANNER AND TO INFLICT A PENALTY OF FORFEITURE UPON A VESSEL
EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW WAS UPHELD.  THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT WAS
DIRECTED AT CONSIDERATIONS FOREIGN TO THE ISSUE OF THIS CASE AND THE
JUDICIARY ACT WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED; THE OPINION OF THE COURT DEALS
ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE STATE STATUTE WAS
IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE COURT
HELD IN PASSING THAT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF FEDERAL ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION DOES NOT PER SE BAR THE STATE FROM LEGISLATING FOR THE
PROTECTION OF ITS FISHERIES, A PROPOSITION WHICH NO ONE CAN DOUBT.  IT
IS APPARENT THAT THE ISSUE NOW BEFORE US, INTERPRETATION OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT, WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE COURT NOR DECIDED BY IT IN THE
SMITH CASE.  THE COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE TREATS SMITH V. MARYLAND AS
A HOLDING FOR A PROPOSITION WHICH CAN FLOW FROM IT ONLY BY ACCIDENT. 

IF SMITH V. MARYLAND ACCIDENTALLY INTERPRETED THE JUDICIARY ACT, IT
DID SO IN A MANNER IN CONFLICT NOT ONLY WITH ALL THE CASES DECIDED
BEFORE IT IN WHICH THE ISSUE WAS SQUARELY CONSIDERED BUT WITH THE GREAT
NUMBER OF CASES DECIDED SINCE.  IN THE MOSES TAYLOR, 4 WALL.  411,
431(1866), OUR LEADING CASE, THE COURT DECLARED THAT "A PROCEEDING IN
REM, AS USED IN THE ADMIRALTY COURTS, IS NOT A REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE
COMMON LAW."  THE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WHICH UNDERLAY THIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDICIARY ACT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO JUSTICE STORY:
"'THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION,' SAYS MR. JUSTICE STORY, 'NATURALLY
CONNECTS ITSELF, ON THE ONE HAND, WITH OUR DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AND THE
DUTIES TO FOREIGN NATIONS AND THEIR SUBJECTS; AND, ON THE OTHER HAND,
WITH THE GREAT INTERESTS OF NAVIGATION AND COMMERCE, FOREIGN AND
DOMESTIC.  THERE IS, THEN, A PECULIAR WISDOM IN GIVING TO THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT A JURISDICTION OF THIS SORT WHICH CANNOT BE YIELDED, EXCEPT
FOR THE GENERAL GOOD, AND WHICH MULTIPLIES THE SECURITIES FOR THE
PUBLIC PEACE ABROAD, AND GIVES TO COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION THE MOST
ENCOURAGING SUPPORT AT HOME.'"  THE MOSES TAYLOR, SUPRA, 430-431. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE MOSES TAYLOR HAS BEEN REPEATED SO OFTEN THAT I
SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT TO BE A TRUISM OF THE LAW.  IN THE BELFAST, 7
WALL.  624, 644:  "THERE IS NO FORM OF ACTION AT COMMON LAW WHICH, WHEN
COMPARED WITH THE PROCEEDING IN REM IN THE ADMIRALTY, CAN BE REGARDED
AS A CONCURRENT REMEDY."  IN ROUNDS V. CLOVERPORT FOUNDRY CO., 237 U.S.
303, 306:  "THE PROCEEDING IN REM  ...  IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF ADMIRALTY."  IN KNAPP, STOUT & CO. V. MCCAFFREY, 177
U.S. 638, 648:  "THE TRUE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUCH PROCEEDINGS AS ARE
AND SUCH AS ARE NOT INVASIONS OF THE EXCLUSIVE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
IS THIS:  IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION BE ONE COGNIZABLE IN ADMIRALTY, AND
THE SUIT BE IN REM AGAINST THE THING ITSELF  ...  THE PROCEEDING IS
ESSENTIALLY ONE IN ADMIRALTY."  IN RED CROSS LINE V. ATLANTIC FRUIT
CO., 264 U.S. 109, 124:  "A STATE MAY NOT PROVIDE A REMEDY IN REM FOR
ANY CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION."  FN13 

CASES PRIOR TO SMITH V. MARYLAND EXPLICITLY HELD THAT FORFEITURES
WERE NOT TO BE ENFORCED BY AN IN REM ACTION AT COMMON LAW.  CASES SINCE
SMITH V. MARYLAND HAVE REPEATEDLY DECLARED THAT ADMIRALTY'S IN REM
JURISDICTION IS EXCLUSIVE OF STATE COURT ACTION.  I THEREFORE SEE NO
REASON FOR PLACING ANY RELIANCE ON THE SMITH CASE WHICH ONLY
CONSEQUENTIALLY AFFECTED AN ISSUE TO WHICH IT GAVE NO CONSIDERATION AT
ALL; AND FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLING A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE SUCH AS THIS,
THE ENGLISH PRACTICE, WHICH NEED GIVE NO CONSIDERATION TO THE
COMPLEXITIES OF DUAL SOVEREIGNTY AND DIVERSE STATE LAWS, SEEMS
PECULIARLY INAPPLICABLE.  BY PERMITTING MARITIME SUITS AGAINST PERSONS
IN STATE COURTS AND BY DENYING THE STATE COURTS JURISDICTION OF SUITS
AGAINST VESSELS, THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IS ADEQUATELY PRESERVED AT
THE SAME TIME THAT THE POLICY OF ULTIMATE EXCLUSIVE NATIONAL REGULATION
OF SHIPS IN COMMERCE IS SAVED. 

FN1  FOR A FACT SITUATION ANALOGOUS TO THE INSTANT CASE IN WHICH THE
STATE PROTECTED ITS FISHING GROUNDS THROUGH AN IN PERSONAM ACTION, SEE
MANCHESTER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 139 U.S. 240.  SEE ALSO, AS CASES
CONCERNING THE STATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN THE MARITIME FIELD,
UNITED STATES V. BEVANS, 3 WHEAT.  336, AND WILDENHUS'S CASE, 120 U.S.
1. 

FN2  SEE, E.G., AS CASES ON LIENS IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS, THE J.E.
RUMBELL, 148 U.S. 1, AND THE HAMILTON, 207 U.S. 398. 

FN3  IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN TIME OF WAR, WHEN EVERY VESSEL
IS IN CONSTANT USE, THAT IN REM PROCEEDINGS BE STRICTLY CONTROLLED. 
THIS IS PARTIALLY DONE BY THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, 41 STAT. 525, FOR
A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF WHICH SEE CLYDE-MALLORY LINES V. THE EGLANTINE,
317 U.S. 395. 

FN4  "BUT THE LAWS OF NAVIGATION WERE NOWHERE DISOBEYED AND CONTEMNED
SO OPENLY AS IN NEW ENGLAND.  THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY WERE FROM
THE FIRST DISPOSED TO ACT, AS IF INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTHER-COUNTRY; AND
HAVING A GOVERNOR AND MAGISTRATES OF THEIR OWN CHOICE, IT WAS VERY
DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE ANY REGULATIONS WHICH CAME FROM THE ENGLISH
PARLIAMENT, AND WERE ADVERSE TO THEIR COLONIAL INTERESTS."  REEVES, THE
LAW OF SHIPPING, 56(1807). 

FN5  2 BROWN, CIVIL AND ADMIRALTY LAW, 2D ED., 491(1802). 

FN6  FOR AN ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION IN
THE COLONIES, SEE 4 ANDREWS, THE COLONIAL PERIOD OF AMERICAN HISTORY,
CHAP. 8; ROOT, RELATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT,
1696-1765, CHAP. 4; THE ARGUMENT MADE BY DANIEL WEBSTER AS COUNSEL IN
UNITED STATES V. BEVANS, 3 WHEAT.  336, 379, ET SEQ.; THE REPORTER'S
NOTE TO UNITED STATES V. WILTBERGER, 5 WHEAT.  76, 113. 

FN7  2 CHALMERS, OPINIONS OF EMINENT LAWYERS, 187(1814); ANDREWS,
SUPRA, 169; WEBSTER, SUPRA, 3 WHEAT.  AT 383. 

FN8  SEE E.G. MANRO V. ALMEIDA, 10 WHEAT.  473, 489; WARING V.
CLARKE, 5 HOW.  441, 454; NEW JERSEY STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V. MERCHANTS'
BANK, 6 HOW.  344, 389; AND SEE THE GENESEE CHIEF, 12 HOW.  443. 

FN9  IN THE SAMUEL, THE CLAIMANT CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ACTION WAS
BEGUN BY AN INFORMATION RATHER THAN A LIBEL, THE CASE WAS NOT SUBJECT
TO THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.  THE COURT HELD THAT "WHERE THE CAUSE IS
OF ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, AND THE PROCEEDING IS BY INFORMATION, THE
SUIT IS NOT WITHDRAWN, BY THE NATURE OF THE REMEDY, FROM THE
JURISDICTION TO WHICH IT OTHERWISE BELONGS."  P. 14. 

FN10  JUSTICE CHASE IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT COMMENTED FROM THE
BENCH THAT HE THOUGHT LA VENGEANCE A WELL CONSIDERED CASE.  HIS COMMENT
LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT HE CONSIDERED THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION FOR
FORFEITURE EXCLUSIVE:  "THE REASON OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR PUTTING
SEIZURES OF THIS KIND ON THE ADMIRALTY SIDE OF THE COURT WAS THE GREAT
DANGER TO THE REVENUE, IF SUCH CASES SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE CAPRICE OF
JURIES."  P. 446. 

FN11  WHELAN V. UNITED STATES, 7 CRANCH 112. 

FN12  "THIS COURT DECIDED, AS EARLY AS 1805(2 CRANCH 405), IN THE
CASE OF THE SALLY, THAT THE FORFEITURE OF A VESSEL, UNDER THE ACT OF
CONGRESS AGAINST THE SLAVE-TRADE, WAS A CASE OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME
JURISDICTION, AND NOT OF COMMON LAW.  AND SO IT HAD DONE BEFORE, IN THE
CASE OF LA VENGEANCE."  WARING V. CLARKE, 5 HOW.  441, 458.  "ALL THE
CASES THUS ARISING UNDER THE REVENUE AND NAVIGATION LAWS WERE HELD TO
BE CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION WITHIN THE WORDS
OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND, AS SUCH, WERE PROPERLY ASSIGNED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN THE ACT OF 1789, AS PART OF ITS ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION."  NEW JERSEY STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V. MERCHANTS' BANK, 6
HOW.  344, 389.  AND SEE TO THE SAME EFFECT THE MARGARET, 9 WHEAT. 
421, 427; THE SARAH, 8 WHEAT.  391, 394; THE BELFAST, 7 WALL.  624,
638.  FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS VIEW AND A CRITICISM OF THE RESULT SEE THE
DISSENTING OPINION IN JACKSON V. THE MAGNOLIA, 20 HOW.  296, 309.  IT
IS WORTHY OF NOTE THAT THIS OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE DANIEL MAKES AN
ARGUMENT VERY SIMILAR TO THAT NOW MADE BY THE COURT AND RELIES AS DOES
THE COURT ON A PASSAGE FROM KENT.  THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT DID NOT
ACCEPT DANIEL'S POSITION.  KENT HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE VIEW HE
HELD WAS NOT THE LAW AS DECLARED IN THIS COURT BUT HE FELT THAT LA
VENGEANCE WAS NOT "SUFFICIENTLY CONSIDERED."  1 KENT'S COMMENTARIES,
12TH ED., 376.  IN DE LOVIO V. BOIT, FED. CAS. NO. 3,776, 2 GALLIS. 
398, 474, JUSTICE STORY SITTING AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE SAID:  "IT HAS  ...
BEEN REPEATEDLY AND SOLEMNLY HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT, THAT ALL
SEIZURES UNDER LAWS OF IMPOST, NAVIGATION AND TRADE,  ...  ARE CAUSES
OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION." 

FN13  ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS TO THE SAME EFFECT ARE:  HINE V. TREVOR,
4 WALL.  555, 571; LEON V. GALCERAN, 11 WALL.  185, 188; STEAMBOAT CO.
V. CHASE, 16 WALL.  522, 530; THE LOTTAWANNA, 20 WALL.  201, 218;
EDWARDS V. ELLIOTT, 21 WALL.  532, 556; NORTON V. SWITZER, 93 U.S. 355,
365; JOHNSON V. CHICAGO & PACIFIC ELEVATOR CO., 119 U.S. 388, 397; THE
J. E. RUMBELL, 148 U.S. 1, 12; MORAN V. STURGES, 154 U.S. 256, 276; THE
GLIDE, 167 U.S. 606, 615; THE ROBERT W. PARSONS, 191 U.S. 17, 37;
CHELENTIS V. LUCKENBACH S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372, 383; PANAMA R. CO. V.
VASQUEZ, 271 U.S. 557, 561. 
..END :






R.F.C. V. BANKERS TRUST CO., 318 U.S. 163 


NOS. 387-388.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 8, 1943.  -
129 F.2D 122, REVERSED. 


1.  THE TERM "DEBTOR'S ESTATE" AS USED IN SEC. 77(C)(12) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT EMBRACES CASH DEPOSITED WITH AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE.  P.
167. 

2.  THE SERVICES AND EXPENSES OF THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE IN THIS CASE
WERE RENDERED AND INCURRED "IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AND
PLAN" OF REORGANIZATION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 77(C)(12) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 167. 

3.  SECTION 77(C)(12) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH AUTHORIZES, WITHIN
SUCH MAXIMUM AS MAY BE FIXED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AN
ALLOWANCE OUT OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE FOR REASONABLE EXPENSES INCURRED
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AND PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, AND FOR
REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH BY
TRUSTEES UNDER INDENTURES, HELD APPLICABLE TO THE CLAIM HERE OF AN
INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR SERVICES AND EXPENSES.  P. 167. 

THAT THE CLAIM IS BASED UPON A PROVISION OF THE INDENTURE; IS SECURED
BY A LIEN ON THE TRUST ESTATE UNDER THE INDENTURE; AND IS FOR SERVICES
REQUIRED BY THE INDENTURE TO BE RENDERED THE TRUST ESTATE IN
FULFILLMENT OF THE TRUSTEE'S OBLIGATIONS, DOES NOT RENDER SEC.
77(C)(12) INAPPLICABLE. 

4.  THE FUNCTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER SEC.
77(C)(12) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS THAT OF A FACT-FINDING BODY.  THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY NOT SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT
WHEN THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, BUT MAY DETERMINE ALL
QUESTIONS OF LAW.  THE ONLY QUESTION OF LAW WHICH CAN ARISE WITH
RESPECT TO A MAXIMUM AMOUNT FIXED BY THE COMMISSION IS WHETHER THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING.  IF THERE IS
NOT, THE COURT MAY SET ASIDE THE FINDING AND REFER THE MATTER BACK TO
THE COMMISSION.  THE COURT'S ACTION UPON THE CLAIM IS APPEALABLE,
INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER ISSUES, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P.
170. 

5.  AS HERE CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, SEC. 77(C)(12) DOES NOT CONTRAVENE
ART. III, SEC. 1 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, OR THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
P. 168. 

RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION V. BANKERS TRUST CO., TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 615, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT MAKING AN ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO A TRUSTEE UNDER A
MORTGAGE OF PROPERTY OF A RAILROAD COMPANY IN REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC.
77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CONTROVERSY ARISES IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN1  FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE ST. LOUIS-SAN
FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY SYSTEM, PART OF WHICH IS THE KANSAS CITY,
FORT SCOTT & MEMPHIS RAILWAY, UNDER A MORTGAGE OF WHOSE PROPERTY THE
RESPONDENT BANKERS TRUST COMPANY IS TRUSTEE.  THE RESPONDENT OBTAINED
LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND BEFORE THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION,  FN2  AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 

THE COMMISSION APPROVED A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, AND THE DISTRICT
COURT, WITH THE PLAN BEFORE IT, DIRECTED THE FILING OF ALL PETITIONS
FOR ALLOWANCE OF "COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED OR FOR EXPENSES
(INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES) INCURRED EITHER UNDER CLAUSE
(12) OF SUBSECTION (C) OF SECTION 77.  FN3  ..  OR OTHERWISE  ...  " 

THE RESPONDENT FILED TWO SUCH PETITIONS, NUMBERED RESPECTIVELY 266
AND 267, EACH PRAYING STATED AMOUNTS AS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES AS
INDENTURE TRUSTEE, FOR COUNSEL FEES, AND FOR EXPENSES.  THE SUMS NAMED
AND THE SERVICES RECITED IN THE TWO PETITIONS WERE IDENTICAL, BUT IN
267 THE COMPENSATION WAS CLAIMED UNDER SEC. 77(C)(12), AND THE RIGHT
WAS RESERVED TO OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  THAT
PETITION WAS SENT BY THE COURT TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE FIXING OF A
MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE.  PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION'S ACTION THEREON, 266 CAME
ON FOR HEARING BY THE COURT. 

IN 266 THE RESPONDENT ALLEGED THAT THE SERVICES HAD "NOT BEEN
RENDERED OR INCURRED 'IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AND PLAN'" FOR
REORGANIZATION, BUT BY RESPONDENT AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE MORTGAGE IN
PERFORMANCE OF ITS FIDUCIARY DUTIES, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TRUST
ESTATE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE. 

OVER OPPOSITION BY PETITIONER, A CREDITOR AND AN INTERVENOR, THE
COURT RULED THAT SEC. 77(C)(12) DID NOT APPLY, THAT THE MORTGAGE
RENDERED THE CLAIM A PROPER CHARGE ON THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY, AND
DIRECTED THE RESPONDENT TO PAY ITSELF THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED OUT OF CASH
DEPOSITED WITH IT AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE. 

THE COMMISSION HELD HEARINGS ON 267 AND ON OTHER CLAIMS FOR
ALLOWANCES UNDER SEC. 77(C)(12).  IN A REPORT IT HELD THAT IT HAD
JURISDICTION TO FIX A MAXIMUM AMOUNT TO COVER THE ITEMS EMBRACED IN
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM IN 267, WHICH IT FOUND WERE RENDERED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE PLAN DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SEC. 77
PROCEEDING.  FN4  IT FIXED MAXIMA BELOW THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED FOR THE
SEVERAL ITEMS OF SERVICE AND EXPENSE. 

THE COURT REFRAINED FROM PASSING ON THIS PORTION OF THE COMMISSION'S
REPORT.  THE PETITIONER APPEALED FROM THE ORDER IN 266, AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  FN5  DUE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATUTE AND A
CONFLICT OF DECISION,  FN6  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

COMMISSION TO FIX A MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE "OUT OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE" FOR
THE EXPENSES (INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES) AND SERVICES OF "TRUSTEES
UNDER INDENTURES," FOR EXPENSES INCURRED AND SERVICES RENDERED "IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AND PLAN."  IT EMPHASIZES THAT THE
EXPENSES, THE FEES, AND THE SERVICES MUST BE "REASONABLE" AND THE
ALLOWANCE THEREFOR "REASONABLE."  THE COURT IS TO MAKE THE ALLOWANCE
"WITHIN SUCH MAXIMUM LIMITS AS ARE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION." 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE:  (1) DOES THE SUBSECTION APPLY TO THE
RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS, AND (2) IF IT DOES, IS IT VALID?  WE ANSWER BOTH
IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

FIRST.  THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE EXPENSES AND SERVICES FOR
WHICH COMPENSATION WAS ALLOWED WERE NOT THOSE REFERRED TO IN SEC.
77(C)(12).  THIS, NOTWITHSTANDING ACQUIESCENCE IN THE HOLDINGS OF THE
COURT BELOW, WHICH WE THINK CORRECT, THAT THE TERM "DEBTOR'S ESTATE" AS
USED IN THE ACT EMBRACES CASH DEPOSITED WITH THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE AND
THAT THE SERVICES AND EXPENSES IN QUESTION WERE RENDERED AND INCURRED
"IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AND PLAN."  FN8 

THE BASIS OF THE CONTENTION AND OF THE DECISION BELOW IS THAT THE
SERVICES AND EXPENSES IN QUESTION ARE "NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF" THE
SUBSECTION AS THE CLAIM FOR THEIR ALLOWANCE IS BASED UPON THE CONTRACT
EXPRESSED IN THE MORTGAGE  FN9 AND IS FOR SERVICES REQUIRED BY THE
MORTGAGE TO BE RENDERED THE TRUST ESTATE IN FULFILMENT OF THE
RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATIONS. 

THE SUBSECTION APPLIES IN TERMS TO ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS SUCH AS THOSE
HERE IN ISSUE.  NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS CITED TO THE CONTRARY.  THE
STATUTE DEALS WITH OTHER CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF CONTRACT AND SECURED BY
LIENS FIXED OR INCHOATE, AND NO BASIS IS SUGGESTED FOR EXCLUDING THE
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM FROM ITS SWEEP. 

SECOND.  THE MAIN ARGUMENT ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT IS
THAT TO APPLY SEC. 77(C)(12) TO THE RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS WOULD VIOLATE
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, BY DEPRIVING THE COURTS OF
POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO
LAW OR WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT; AND BY DESTROYING RESPONDENT'S
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS.  IN ADDITION, IT IS URGED THAT BY ART. III,
SEC. 1, THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES IS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY
IN THE COURTS AND MATTERS OF PRIVATE RIGHT MAY NOT BE RELEGATED TO
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES FOR TRIAL.  THE STATUTE, FAIRLY APPLIED, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTRAVENE ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 

THREE DIVERSE CONCLUSIONS RESPECTING THE EFFECT OF SEC. 77(C)(12)
HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE COURTS.  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE MAXIMUM
FIXED BY THE COMMISSION IS IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES BINDING AND
UNALTERABLE.  FN10  THE COURT BELOW HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE SUBSECTION
HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE CLAIMS OF AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE, SECURED BY A
LIEN ON THE TRUST ESTATE PURSUANT TO THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT OF CONNECTICUT HAS DECIDED THAT THE COURT MAY SET ASIDE
THE MAXIMUM NAMED BY THE COMMISSION, IF FOUND UNREASONABLY LOW, AND
RETURN THE MATTER TO THE COMMISSION FOR A FRESH DETERMINATION.  FN11
THE PETITIONER STATES ITS VIEW THAT "WHILE THE STATUTE IS NOT ENTIRELY
CLEAR, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE MAXIMUM IS PERMITTED."  AFTER MENTIONING
MATTERS OF LAW WHICH ARE FOR THE COURT'S DETERMINATION ON REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT, SUCH AS WHETHER THE SERVICES IN QUESTION ARE TO BE
COMPENSATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND OTHERS WE NEED NOT
MENTION, THE PETITIONER REFERS TO SEC. 77(E)  FN12  WHICH PROVIDES THAT
THE JUDGE SHALL APPROVE THE PLAN IF SATISFIED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE
"AMOUNTS TO BE PAID  ...  FOR EXPENSES AND FEES INCIDENT TO THE
REORGANIZATION  ...  ARE REASONABLE, (AND) ARE WITHIN SUCH MAXIMUM
LIMITS AS FIXED BY THE COMMISSION  ...  "  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IF THE
JUDGE FINDS THAT ANY ALLOWANCE WITHIN THE MAXIMUM WOULD BE UNREASONABLY
LOW HE MAY THEREUPON, UNDER SEC. 77(E), DISAPPROVE THE PLAN AND EITHER
DISMISS THE PROCEEDING OR REFER THE CAUSE BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR
FURTHER ACTION. 

NONE OF THESE VIEWS SEEMS TO US RIGHTLY TO CONSTRUE THE STATUTE.  WE
THINK THE CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO DENY THE COURTS ALL POWER OF
REVIEW OF COMMISSION ACTION IN SUCH CASES.  THE STATUTE PLAINLY
REQUIRES REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION OF CLAIMS OF THE CLASS UNDER
CONSIDERATION, A HEARING BY THAT BODY, THE SETTING OF A MAXIMUM AND
ACTION BY THE COURT ON THE FOOTING OF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT.  IT DOES
NOT CONTEMPLATE A HEARING DE NOVO ON THE ISSUE OF THE REASONABLE WORTH
OF THE SERVICES RENDERED OR THE PROPRIETY OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED, OR
A REAPPRAISAL BY THE COURT OF THE FACTS.  MOREOVER THE PROCEDURE
SUGGESTED BY PETITIONER DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF
SEC. 77(C)(12) WHICH APPEARS TO TREAT THE COURT'S ACTION WITH RESPECT
TO SUCH CLAIMS AS A MATTER DISTINCT FROM HIS FINAL ACTION ON THE PLAN
AS A WHOLE UNDER SEC. 77(E). 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE FUNCTION COMMITTED BY THE LAW TO THE
COMMISSION IS THE ORDINARY ONE REPOSED IN A FACT FINDING BODY AND THAT
ITS FINDINGS, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, MAY NOT BE DISTURBED BY A COURT. 
THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT LEAVES THE COURT FREE TO DECIDE UPON THE
BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT ALL QUESTIONS OF LAW.  WITH RESPECT TO
THE AMOUNT SET AS A MAXIMUM THE ONLY QUESTION OF LAW WHICH CAN ARISE IS
WHETHER THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING.  IF THERE IS NOT THE COURT MAY SO HOLD, SET ASIDE THE FINDING
AND RETURN THE MATTER TO THE COMMISSION.  UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
SUBSECTION THE JUDGE'S ACTION UPON THE CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL
INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER ISSUES, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

THUS UNDERSTOOD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE STATUTE.  THE COMMITTAL
TO THE COMMISSION OF THE FACT FINDING OFFICE RAISES NO SUBSTANTIAL
QUESTION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IN ACTIONS AT LAW A JURY IS THE
TRADITIONAL TRIER OF FACTS, WHOSE FUNCTION AS SUCH IS PRESERVED AND
GUARANTEED BY THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW.  BUT COURTS OF EQUITY, OF ADMIRALTY
AND OF BANKRUPTCY, BY THEMSELVES AND THEIR MANDATORIES EXAMINE AND
DECIDE DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT; AND NO REASON IS PERCEIVED WHY
CLAIMS OF THE SORT HERE INVOLVED SHOULD NOT BE LITIGATED, AS ARE OTHER
CLAIMS AGAINST BANKRUPT ESTATES, BY SUCH MACHINERY AND IN SUCH MANNER
AS CONGRESS SHALL PRESCRIBE, SAVING TO THE CLAIMANT THE RIGHT OF NOTICE
AND HEARING, AND SUCH REVIEW AS IS PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE AS WE
CONSTRUE IT. 

AT LAW THE JURY'S VERDICT SETTLES ISSUES OF FACT AND DEFINES RIGHTS,
SUBJECT ONLY TO QUESTIONS OF LAW.  IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, THE
FINDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY MAY LIKEWISE BE MADE CONCLUSIVE OF
FACT ISSUES, AND EQUALLY DEFINE RIGHTS AND DUTIES SUBJECT ONLY TO
QUESTIONS OF LAW.  NO QUESTION IS MADE AS TO THE COMPETENCY OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO APPRAISE EVIDENCE AND TO DRAW AN
INFORMED AND INTELLIGENT CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT IS A MAXIMUM REASONABLE
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED.  INDEED, SINCE MOST OF THE SERVICES
ARE PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH ITS ACTIVITIES IT IS PROBABLY IN A
BETTER POSITION TO JUDGE OF THEIR VALUE TO THE REORGANIZATION THAN ANY
COURT OR OTHER FACT FINDING INSTRUMENTALITY. 

TO PRESCRIBE A METHOD OF TRIAL OF FACTS, SUBJECT TO A COURT'S
SUPERVISION IN MATTERS OF LAW, IS NOT, AS RESPONDENT SUGGESTS, TO
DESTROY VESTED RIGHTS, BUT TO PROVIDE A METHOD OF APPRAISING AND
LIQUIDATING THEM.  THE STATUTE AWARDS THE CLAIM PRIORITY OF PAYMENT, SO
THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT CALLED UPON, AS ARE SOME OTHER CLASSES OF
CREDITORS, TO SUFFER AN ABATEMENT OF ITS CLAIM. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  MARCH 3, 1933, C. 204, 47 STAT. 1474, AS AMENDED; 11 U.S.C. SEC.
205. 

FN2  PURSUANT TO SEC. 77(C)(13); 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(C)(13). 

FN3  11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(C)(12). 

FN4  ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. REORGANIZATION, 249 I.C.C. 195,
218. 

FN5  129 F.2D 122. 

FN6  IN RE NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 46 F.SUPP.  236. 

FN7  "WITHIN SUCH MAXIMUM LIMITS AS ARE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION, THE
JUDGE MAY MAKE AN ALLOWANCE, TO BE PAID OUT OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE, FOR
THE ACTUAL AND REASONABLE EXPENSES (INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S
FEES) INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROCEEDINGS AND PLAN BY PARTIES
IN INTEREST AND BY REORGANIZATION MANAGERS AND COMMITTEES OR OTHER
REPRESENTATIVES OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS, AND WITHIN SUCH LIMITS
MAY MAKE AN ALLOWANCE TO BE PAID OUT OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE FOR THE
ACTUAL AND REASONABLE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PROCEEDINGS AND PLAN AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH BY TRUSTEES UNDER INDENTURES, DEPOSITARIES AND
SUCH ASSISTANTS AS THE COMMISSION WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE MAY
ESPECIALLY EMPLOY.  APPEALS FROM ORDERS OF THE COURT FIXING SUCH
ALLOWANCES MAY BE TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INDEPENDENTLY
OF OTHER APPEALS IN THE PROCEEDING AND SHALL BE HEARD SUMMARILY.  THE
COMMISSION SHALL, AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES AS IT MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE,
AFTER HEARING, FIX THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCES WHICH MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE
COURT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (12) OF THIS SUBSECTION
(C) AND, AFTER HEARING IF THE COMMISSION SHALL DEEM IT NECESSARY, THE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION WHICH MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (2) OF THIS SUBSECTION (C)." 

FN8  NONE OF THE SERVICES WERE ROUTINE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CURRENTLY RENDERED BY THE TRUSTEE; NONE WERE OF NON-ROUTINE CHARACTER
RENDERED PRIOR TO THE INCEPTION OF THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING.  IF
THEY HAD BEEN OF THESE DESCRIPTIONS THE PETITIONER CONCEDES ALLOWANCE
FOR THEM WOULD BE A MATTER FOR THE COURT UNDER SEC. 77(E), 11 U.S.C.
205(E). 

FN9  ARTICLE TWENTY-THIRD OF THE INDENTURE:  "THE TRUSTEES SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR ALL SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM
IN THE EXECUTION OF THE TRUSTS HEREBY CREATED, WHICH COMPENSATION AS
WELL AS ALL REASONABLE EXPENSES NECESSARILY INCURRED AND ACTUALLY
DISBURSED HEREUNDER, THE RAILWAY COMPANY AGREES TO PAY AND HEREBY
CHARGES ON THE TRUST ESTATE."    FN10  IN RE CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R.
CO., 121 F.2D 371; IN RE CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 35 F.SUPP.  230; IN RE
CHICAGO G.W.R. CO., 29 F.SUPP.  149.  IT IS SUGGESTED THIS VIEW IS
SUSTAINED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION.  BUT THE CHANGES
MADE BY AMENDMENT IN ANOTHER SECTION (77(E)) ARE NOT HELPFUL; AND THE
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE IS NEITHER THE
SORT OF LEGISLATIVE MATERIAL THIS COURT HOLDS RELEVANT TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE, NOR IS IT CLEAR OR DEFINITE UPON THE POINT
AT ISSUE. 

FN11  IN RE NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., SUPRA, NOTE 6. 

FN12  11 U.S.C. 205(E). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

WHILE I CONCUR IN THE RESULT AND IN MOST OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
I AM IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MAJORITY ON ONE PHASE OF THE CASE. 

I DO NOT THINK THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE COMMISSION FOR
FEES AND EXPENSES IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  SEC.
77(E)(2) NOW PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGE SHALL APPROVE THE PLAN IF
SATISFIED THAT THE AMOUNTS TO BE PAID FOR FEES AND EXPENSES HAVE BEEN
DISCLOSED, "ARE REASONABLE, ARE WITHIN SUCH MAXIMUM LIMITS AS ARE FIXED
BY THE COMMISSION, AND ARE WITHIN SUCH MAXIMUM LIMITS TO BE SUBJECT TO
THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE."  PRIOR TO THE 1935 AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 77,
THAT PROVISION, THEN CONTAINED IN SUBSECTION (G)(2), READ DIFFERENTLY. 
THOUGH SUBSECTION (F) THEN STATED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD TO "FIX THE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT" WHICH MIGHT BE ALLOWED BY THE
COURT, SUBSECTION (G)(2) PROVIDED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PLAN BY THE JUDGE
IF HE WAS SATISFIED THAT ALL SUCH AMOUNTS "HAVE BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED
AND ARE REASONABLE, OR ARE TO BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
JUDGE."  THE CHANGES MADE BY THE 1935 AMENDMENTS ARE SIGNIFICANT.  THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEES AND EXPENSES FIXED BY THE COMMISSION BECAME A
CEILING BENEATH WHICH THE JUDGE COULD MAKE READJUSTMENTS BUT ABOVE
WHICH HE COULD NOT GO.  PRIOR TO THOSE AMENDMENTS JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
THE MAXIMUM FIXED BY THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE BEEN PERMISSIBLE.  BUT
THE CHANGES MADE IN 1935 CLEARLY INDICATE, AS JUDGE EVANS SAID IN IN RE
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 121 F.2D 371, 374, THAT THE "COURT WAS
ULTIMATELY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE FEES," ITS ACTION HOWEVER
BEING "LIMITED BY THE MAXIMUM FIXED BY THE COMMISSION."  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1935 AMENDMENTS SUPPORTS THAT VIEW.  FN1
INDEED THE COMMITTEE REPORTS STATED  FN2 THAT THE "ALLOWANCES TO BE
MADE BY THE COURT" WERE TO BE "WITHIN THE MAXIMUM PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSION."  H. REP. NO. 1283, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3; S. REP.
NO. 1336, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4. 

THAT CONSTRUCTION ALSO SQUARES WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77. 
THUS SUBSECTION (C)(12) PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGE MAY MAKE AN ALLOWANCE
"WITHIN SUCH MAXIMUM LIMITS AS ARE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION."  IT ALSO
REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO "FIX THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCES WHICH MAY BE
ALLOWED BY THE COURT."  THEY INDICATE TO ME THAT IN LINE WITH THE
MINORITY VIEWS IN UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 282
U.S. 311, WHICH SEC. 77 ADOPTED (SEE CONGRESSMAN LAGUARDIA, 76TH CONG.
REC., 72ND CONG., 2D SESS., P. 5358), THE DRAIN ON THE CASH RESOURCES
OF RAILROADS WAS TO BE CONTROLLED BY ENTRUSTING TO THE COMMISSION THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CASH WHICH SHOULD BE
EXPENDED FOR FEES AND EXPENSES.  WITHIN THOSE LIMITS THE COURTS COULD
MAKE A FAIR ALLOCATION AMONG THE VARIOUS CLAIMANTS.  BUT BEYOND THOSE
LIMITS THE COURTS COULD NOT GO.  THERE MIGHT OF COURSE BE QUESTIONS OF
LAW AFFECTING THE AGGREGATE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCES MADE BY THE COMMISSION
WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT COULD REVIEW.  THUS IF IN THIS CASE THE
COMMISSION HAD HELD THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY RESPONDENT WERE NOT
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 77(C)(12), THAT RULING COULD BE REVIEWED AND
THE MATTER WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION FOR A NEW
DETERMINATION.  SEC. 77(E).  BUT APART FROM SUCH INSTANCES, THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING AS TO THE AGGREGATE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCES IS
CONCLUSIVE. 

IT IS OF COURSE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION NOT ONLY TO FIX THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THE AGGREGATE ALLOWANCES FOR FEES AND EXPENSES BUT
ALSO TO DETERMINE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE HOW MUCH EACH CLAIMANT SHOULD
RECEIVE.  THAT IS MADE EVIDENT NOT ONLY BY SUBSECTION (C)(12) BUT ALSO
BY SUBSECTION (D) WHICH REQUIRES THE COMMISSION IN ITS APPROVAL OF A
PLAN TO FIND THAT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTIONS (B) AND
(E).  THE LATTER, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, REQUIRES THAT THE AMOUNTS TO BE
PAID BY THE DEBTOR OR THE REORGANIZED COMPANY FOR EXPENSES AND FEES BE
"REASONABLE" AS WELL AS "WITHIN SUCH MAXIMUM LIMITS AS ARE FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION."  SINCE THE MAIN SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH A
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OCCUR BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IT IS
IN A MUCH BETTER POSITION THAN THE DISTRICT COURT TO DETERMINE THE
VALUE, IF ANY, OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY EACH CLAIMANT.  THAT FACT
GIVES GREAT WEIGHT TO THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE COMMISSION ON EACH
CLAIM.  BUT THE REQUIREMENT IN SUBSECTION (E)(2) THAT THE JUDGE FIND
THAT THE AWARDS ARE "REASONABLE" NEGATIVES THE IDEA THAT THE FINDINGS
OF THE COMMISSION ARE CONCLUSIVE.  HENCE WITHIN THE MAXIMUM LIMITS OF
THE TOTAL ALLOWANCES FOR FEES AND EXPENSES THE JUDGE CAN MAKE
READJUSTMENTS - INCREASING OR DECREASING AMOUNTS AWARDED TO THE VARIOUS
CLAIMANTS OR GRANTING ALLOWANCES WHERE NONE WERE MADE BY THE
COMMISSION.  THE CONTRARY VIEW WAS ADOPTED IN IN RE CHICAGO, M., ST. P.
& P.R. CO., SUPRA, PP. 374-375.  THE COURT FELT THAT SINCE SUBSECTION
(C)(12) SPOKE OF THE "MAXIMUM LIMITS" AND "MAXIMUM ALLOWANCES" FIXED BY
THE COMMISSION, THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT
WHICH EACH CLAIMANT COULD RECEIVE WERE CONCLUSIVE.  BUT THAT
INTERPRETATION IS DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF
SUBSECTION (E)(2) THAT THE JUDGE MUST FIND THE ALLOWANCES
"REASONABLE."  THE USE OF THE PLURAL IN SUBSECTION (E)(12) ONLY
INDICATES THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE FOR FEES AND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE
FOR EXPENSES ARE BOTH TO BE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION. 

MY CONCLUSION THAT THE AGGREGATE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCES FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION ARE NOT REVIEWABLE DOES NOT MAKE SEC. 77(C)(12) AND (E)(2)
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IT IS CONGRESS WHICH HAS THE POWER UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH "UNIFORM LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES."  ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 4.  THE SCOPE OF
THE BANKRUPTCY POWER IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THAT WHICH HAS BEEN
EXERCISED.  CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S.
648, 670-671.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS CUSTOMARILY ENTRUSTED
ADMINISTRATION OF THE VARIOUS BANKRUPTCY ACTS TO THE COURTS DOES NOT
MEAN THAT IT MUST DO SO.  AS STATED BY JUDGE EVANS IN IN RE CHICAGO,
M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., SUPRA, P. 375, "THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEAL
WITH BANKRUPTCY CARRIES WITH IT THE RIGHT TO SELECT THE TRIBUNAL, EVEN
GOING OUTSIDE OF COURTS, TO ADMINISTER DEBTORS' ESTATES."  WHEN IT
COMES TO FEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED OR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION
WITH BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, CONGRESS HAS PLENARY POWER.  IN SEC. 48 OF
THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED THE SCHEDULE OF FEES
FOR RECEIVERS, MARSHALS, AND TRUSTEES.  IT COULD PROVIDE THAT NO FEES
FOR SERVICES RENDERED DURING THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS MIGHT BE PAID
FROM THE ESTATE.  THE 1935 AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 77 ORIGINALLY WERE
RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEES ON THAT BASIS.  H. REP. NO. 1283, SUPRA,
P. 3; S. REP. NO. 1336, SUPRA, P. 4.  HAVING THAT POWER CONGRESS COULD
FIX FEES FOR ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS ON A PER DIEM OR OTHER BASIS.  CF.
HINES V. LOWREY, 305 U.S. 85.  IN LIEU OF ANY SUCH RIGID SYSTEM OF
CONTROL IT COULD BRING TO ITS AID THE SERVICES OF THE COMMISSION AND
VEST IN IT COMPLETE AUTHORITY OVER ALL ALLOWANCES.  THAT CLEARLY WOULD
NOT INVOLVE ANY QUESTION OF DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER.  SEE SUNSHINE
COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 400.  HENCE, WHEN CONGRESS GRANTED
THE COMMISSION EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
ALLOWANCES, IT DID NOT GIVE SEC. 77 A CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY. 

FN1  THE TESTIMONY OF MR. CRAVEN, THE DRAFTSMAN OF THE BILL, IS
ILLUMINATING: 

"MR. BURGESS.  THAT IS THE PROVISION OF THIS ACT THAT THE MAXIMUM IS
TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE OBJECTION THAT I WAS MAKING WAS
DIRECTED TO COMMISSIONER MAHAFFIE'S ADDITION TO THAT.  IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THE PROVISION FOR THE APPROVAL IS ADEQUATE.  I AM NOT SURE WHETHER
THAT MAXIMUM IS APPEALABLE.  ARE YOU, MR. CRAVEN?  THAT IS, CAN THE
FIXATION OF A MAXIMUM BY THE COMMISSION BE APPEALED UNDER THIS ACT? 

MR. CRAVEN.  I THINK NOT. 

MR. BURGESS.  YOU THINK NOT? 

MR. CRAVEN.  THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION OF IT. 

MR. CELLER.  EVEN IF THE COURT WOULD ACCEPT THE MAXIMUM THERE WOULD
BE NO APPEAL FROM THE COURT'S RULING? 

MR. BURGESS.  I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY APPEAL THAT YOU CAN TAKE FROM THE
COMMISSION'S FIXATION OF A MAXIMUM UNDER THIS ACT. 

MR. CELLER.  THAT DOES NOT SEEM RIGHT. 

MR. BURGESS.  THAT IS AN APPEAL FROM THE COURT'S FIXATION, OF COURSE,
BUT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE MAXIMUM, SO I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY
APPEAL. 

MR. MICHENER.  THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POWERS FROM WHICH YOU CANNOT
APPEAL SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION IS CONCERNED.  THEY ARE
REALLY GIVEN MORE POWER IN SOME PARTICULARS THAN THE JUDGE. 

MR. CELLER.  THAT LEAVES THE ENTIRE MATTER IN THE HANDS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING. 

MR. MICHENER.  YES. 

MR. BURGESS.  YES. 

MR. CELLER.  WITH NO RIGHT OF APPEAL AT ALL IF THE MAXIMUM IS
ACCEPTED BY THE COURT? 

MR. BURGESS.  THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.  IF MR. CRAVEN HAS A
DIFFERENT VIEW, I SHOULD BE GLAD TO ACCEPT HIS VIEW. 

MR. CRAVEN.  THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT." 

HEARINGS ON H.R. 6249, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., SER.  3, P. 86.  AND SEE THE TESTIMONY OF COMMISSIONER
MAHAFFIE AT P. 70, WHICH IS ALSO QUOTED IN IN RE CHICAGO, M., ST. P. &
P.R. CO., SUPRA, P. 374. 

FN2  THE COMMITTEE PRINT OF THE BILL PROVIDED FOR ALLOWANCES OF
EXPENSES AND OF COMPENSATION.  SEE SUBSECTIONS (C)(12) AND (E)(2) OF
H.R. 6249, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., HEARINGS ON H.R. 6249, SUPRA, PP. 6,
7.  AS RECOMMENDED BY BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES, ALLOWANCES
FOR EXPENSES BUT NOT FOR COMPENSATION WERE PROVIDED.  THE PROVISION FOR
ALLOWANCES OF FEES WAS LATER RESTORED.  79 CONG. REC., 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 13765. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
















O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES CO., 318 U.S. 36 


NO. 320.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  - 127
F.2D 901, REVERSED. 


1.  A DECKHAND IN THE SERVICE OF A VESSEL PLYING NAVIGABLE WATERS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHO WAS ORDERED BY THE MASTER TO GO ASHORE AND
ASSIST IN REPAIRING, AT ITS CONNECTION WITH A LAND PIPE, A CONDUIT
THROUGH WHICH THE VESSEL WAS UNLOADING CARGO, AND WHO WHILE THUS
ENGAGED WAS INJURED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF A FELLOW SERVANT, HAS A RIGHT
OF RECOVERY UNDER THE JONES ACT, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688, WHICH GIVES A
RIGHT OF ACTION TO A SEAMAN INJURED "IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT." 
P. 38. 

2.  THE JONES ACT AS SO APPLIED IS CONSTITUTIONAL, EVEN THOUGH THE
INJURY WAS INFLICTED WHILE THE SEAMAN WAS ON SHORE.  P. 43. 

3.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE SUCH A REMEDY
FOR SEAMEN DERIVES FROM ITS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE COMMERCE, AND ITS
POWER TO MAKE LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY INTO
EXECUTION POWERS VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY
DEPARTMENT OF IT, INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL POWER WHICH EXTENDS "TO ALL
CASES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION."  P. 39. 

4.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION TO PRECLUDE CONGRESS FROM MODIFYING OR SUPPLEMENTING THE
RULES OF THE MARITIME LAW AS EXPERIENCE OR CHANGING CONDITIONS MAY
REQUIRE, AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH TRADITIONALLY
HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE COGNIZANCE OF ADMIRALTY COURTS EITHER BECAUSE THEY
ARE EVENTS OCCURRING ON NAVIGABLE WATERS, OR BECAUSE THEY ARE THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF MARITIME CONTRACTS OR RELATE TO MARITIME SERVICES. 
P. 40. 

5.  THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY IN THE JONES ACT IS GIVEN TO THE SEAMAN AS
SUCH, AND, AS IN THE CASE OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE, THE ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUIT DEPENDS NOT ON THE PLACE WHERE THE INJURY IS
INFLICTED BUT ON THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE
OPERATION OF THE VESSEL PLYING IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.  P. 42. 

6.  SINCE THE SUBJECT MATTER - THE SEAMAN'S RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR
INJURIES RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT - IS ONE
TRADITIONALLY COGNIZABLE IN ADMIRALTY, THE JONES ACT, BY ENLARGING THE
REMEDY, DID NOT GO BEYOND MODIFICATION OF SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF THE
MARITIME LAW WELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION,
WHETHER THE VESSEL, PLYING NAVIGABLE WATERS, BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR NOT.  P. 43. 

7.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT SUITS UNDER THE JONES
ACT MAY BE TRIED BY JURY, ON THE LAW RATHER THAN ON THE ADMIRALTY SIDE
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONCLUSION DIFFERENT FROM
THAT HERE REACHED.  P. 43. 

O'DONNELL V. GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 611, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING RECOVERY IN AN
ACTION UNDER THE JONES ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER A SEAMAN INJURED ON SHORE WHILE
IN THE SERVICE OF HIS VESSEL IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER FOR HIS INJURIES IN
A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER UNDER THE JONES ACT.  SEC. 33,
MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688. 

PETITIONER WAS A DECKHAND ON RESPONDENT'S VESSEL "MICHIGAN," ENGAGED
IN TRANSPORTING SAND FROM INDIANA TO ILLINOIS OVER THE NAVIGABLE WATERS
OF LAKE MICHIGAN.  AS HER CARGO WAS BEING DISCHARGED THROUGH A CONDUIT
PASSING FROM THE HATCH AND CONNECTED AT ITS OUTER END TO A LAND PIPE BY
MEANS OF A GASKET, PETITIONER WAS ORDERED BY THE MASTER TO GO ASHORE TO
ASSIST IN REPAIR OF THE GASKET CONNECTION.  WHILE HE WAS SO ENGAGED THE
ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF A FELLOW EMPLOYEE CAUSED A HEAVY COUNTERWEIGHT,
USED TO SUPPORT THE GASKET, TO FALL ON PETITIONER AND CAUSE THE
INJURIES OF WHICH HE COMPLAINS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CAUSE
OF ACTION UNDER THE JONES ACT AND GRANTED AN AWARD FOR WAGES.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT, 127
F.2D 901, BY ALLOWING AN ADDITIONAL AWARD FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE, BUT
HELD THAT NO RECOVERY COULD BE HAD UNDER THE JONES ACT FOR INJURY TO A
SEAMAN NOT OCCURRING ON NAVIGABLE WATERS.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 317
U.S. 611, THE QUESTION BEING ONE OF IMPORTANCE IN THE APPLICATION OF
THE JONES ACT. 

THE JONES ACT, SO FAR AS PRESENTLY RELEVANT, PROVIDES: 

"ANY SEAMAN WHO SHALL SUFFER PERSONAL INJURY IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT MAY, AT HIS ELECTION, MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AT LAW,
WITH THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, AND IN SUCH ACTION ALL STATUTES OF THE
UNITED STATES MODIFYING OR EXTENDING THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OR REMEDY IN
CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES SHALL APPLY  ...  " 

THE ACT THUS MADE APPLICABLE TO SEAMEN INJURED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT, 45
U.S.C. SECS. 51-60, WHICH GIVES TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES A RIGHT OF
RECOVERY FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THEIR EMPLOYER,
ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES.  PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375; THE
ARIZONA V. ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110.  THE TERM "SEAMEN" HAS BEEN
INTERPRETED TO EMBRACE THOSE EMPLOYED ON A VESSEL IN RENDERING THE
SERVICES CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED BY SEAMEN, INCLUDING STEVEDORES WHILE
TEMPORARILY ENGAGED IN STOWING CARGO ON THE VESSEL.  INTERNATIONAL
STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY, 272 U.S. 50; BUZYNSKI V. LUCKENBACH S.S.
CO., 277 U.S. 226.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
JONES ACT TO INDICATE THAT ITS WORDS "IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT"
DO NOT MEAN WHAT THEY SAY OR THAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE RESTRICTED
TO INJURIES OCCURRING ON NAVIGABLE WATERS.  ON THE CONTRARY IT SEEMS
PLAIN THAT IN TAKING OVER THE PRINCIPLES OF RECOVERY ALREADY
ESTABLISHED FOR RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AND EXTENDING THEM IN THE NEW
ADMIRALTY SETTING (SEE THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, SUPRA) TO ANY SEAMAN
INJURED "IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT," CONGRESS, IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY INDICATION OF A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE INTENDED
TO MAKE THEM APPLICABLE SO FAR AS THE WORDS AND THE CONSTITUTION
PERMIT, AND TO HAVE GIVEN TO THEM THE FULL SUPPORT OF ALL THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IT POSSESSED.  HENCE THE ACT ALLOWS THE RECOVERY
SOUGHT UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE SUCH A REMEDY FOR
SEAMEN DERIVES FROM ITS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE COMMERCE, SECOND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, AND ITS POWER TO MAKE LAWS
WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY INTO EXECUTION POWERS
VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY DEPARTMENT OF IT,
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 18, INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL POWER WHICH, BY
ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, EXTENDS "TO ALL CASES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME
JURISDICTION."  BY SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 76, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 371(THIRD), CONGRESS CONFERRED ON THE DISTRICT COURTS
"EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL COGNIZANCE OF ALL CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND
MARITIME JURISDICTION  ...  SAVING TO SUITORS, IN ALL CASES, THE RIGHT
OF A COMMON LAW REMEDY WHERE THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE IT
...  "  BY THE GRANT OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION IN THE
JUDICIARY ARTICLE, AND SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT, THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT TOOK OVER THE TRADITIONAL BODY OF RULES, PRECEPTS AND
PRACTICES KNOWN TO LAWYERS AND LEGISLATORS AS THE MARITIME LAW, SO FAR
AS THE COURTS INVESTED WITH ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION SHOULD ACCEPT AND
APPLY THEM.  WARING V. CLARKE, 5 HOW.  441, 459; THE LOTTAWANNA, 21
WALL.  558, 576; IN RE GARNETT, 141 U.S. 1, 14; DETROIT TRUST CO. V.
THE BARLUM, 293 U.S. 21, 43, AND CASES CITED. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE JURISDICTION IN ADMIRALTY IN CASES OF TORT OR
COLLISION IS IN GENERAL LIMITED TO EVENTS OCCURRING ON NAVIGABLE
WATERS, WARING V. CLARKE, SUPRA; CF. THE BLACKHEATH, 195 U.S. 361, AND
THAT THE MARITIME LAW GAVE TO SEAMEN NO RIGHT TO RECOVER COMPENSATORY
DAMAGES FOR INJURIES SUFFERED FROM NEGLIGENCE.  THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S.
158, 172, 175; PACIFIC S.S. CO. V. PETERSON, 278 U.S. 130, 134.  IT
ALLOWED SUCH RECOVERY IF THE INJURY RESULTED FROM UNSEAWORTHINESS OF
THE VESSEL OR HER TACKLE, THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, 173, 175, AND PERMITTED
RECOVERY OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE, ORDINARILY MEASURED BY WAGES AND THE
COST OF REASONABLE MEDICAL CARE, IF THE SEAMAN WAS INJURED OR DISABLED
IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, 172-75; THE
IROQUOIS, 194 U.S. 240; CALMAR S.S. CORP. V. TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525, 527
28. 

BUT IT CANNOT BE SUPPOSED THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
CONTEMPLATED THAT THE MARITIME LAW SHOULD FOREVER REMAIN UNALTERED BY
LEGISLATION, THE LOTTAWANNA, SUPRA, 577, OR THAT CONGRESS COULD NEVER
CHANGE THE STATUS UNDER THE MARITIME LAW OF SEAMEN, WHO ARE PECULIARLY
THE WARDS OF ADMIRALTY, OR WAS POWERLESS TO ENLARGE OR MODIFY ANY
REMEDY AFFORDED TO THEM WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT GRANT OF JURISDICTION - WHICH
SANCTIONED OUR ADOPTION OF THE SYSTEM OF MARITIME LAW - TO PRECLUDE
CONGRESS FROM MODIFYING OR SUPPLEMENTING THE RULES OF THAT LAW AS
EXPERIENCE OR CHANGING CONDITIONS MAY REQUIRE.  THIS IS SO AT LEAST
WITH RESPECT TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH TRADITIONALLY HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE
COGNIZANCE OF ADMIRALTY COURTS EITHER BECAUSE THEY ARE EVENTS OCCURRING
ON NAVIGABLE WATERS, SEE WARING V. CLARKE, SUPRA, OR BECAUSE THEY ARE
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF MARITIME CONTRACTS OR RELATE TO MARITIME
SERVICES.  INSURANCE COMPANY V. DUNHAM, 11 WALL.  1, 25. 

FROM THE BEGINNING THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED LEGISLATIVE CHANGES OF
THE MARITIME LAW WITHIN THOSE LIMITS.  SEE WARING V. CLARKE, SUPRA; THE
LOTTAWANNA, SUPRA; BUTLER V. BOSTON & SAVANNAH S.S. CO., 130 U.S. 527,
555.  CONGRESS HAS BOTH LIMITED THE LIABILITY OF VESSELS FOR THEIR
TORTS EVEN THOUGH NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN RE GARNETT,
SUPRA; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 273
U.S. 207, 214, AND EXTENDED THE LIMITATION TO CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES BY
VESSEL TO A LAND STRUCTURE.  COMPARE THE PLYMOUTH, 3 WALL.  20, AND
CLEVELAND TERMINAL & V.R. CO. V. CLEVELAND S.S. CO., 208 U.S. 316, WITH
RICHARDSON V. HARMON, 222 U.S. 96, 101, 106.  IT HAS ALTERED AND
EXTENDED THE MARITIME LAW OF LIENS ON VESSELS PLYING NAVIGABLE WATERS. 
DETROIT TRUST CO. V. THE BARLUM, SUPRA, AND CASES CITED.  AND THE JONES
ACT ITSELF HAS GIVEN SEAMEN A RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR INJURY OR DEATH,
NOT PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED BY THE MARITIME LAW, WHICH HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY
SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT IN CASES WHERE THE INJURY OCCURRED ON NAVIGABLE
WATERS.  PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, 385-87; THE ARIZONA V.
ANELICH, SUPRA; LINDGREN V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 38. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE MARITIME LAW, AS RECOGNIZED IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS, HAS NOT IN GENERAL ALLOWED RECOVERY FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
OCCURRING ON LAND.  BUT THERE IS AN IMPORTANT EXCEPTION TO THIS
GENERALIZATION IN THE CASE OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  FROM ITS DAWN, THE
MARITIME LAW HAS RECOGNIZED THE SEAMAN'S RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE
FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE COURSE OF HIS SERVICE TO HIS VESSEL,
WHETHER OCCURRING ON SEA OR ON LAND.  IT IS SO STATED IN ARTICLE VI OF
THE LAWS OF OLERON, TWELFTH CENTURY, 30 FED. CAS. 1174, AND IN ARTICLE
XVIII OF THE LAWS OF WISBUY, THIRTEENTH CENTURY, ID. P. 1191.  AND SEE
ARTICLE XXXIX OF THE LAWS OF THE HANSE TOWNS, ID. P. 1200; ARTICLES XI
AND XII OF TITLE FOURTH, MARINE ORDINANCES OF LOUIS XIV, ID. P. 1209. 
SUCH IS THE ACCEPTED RULE IN THIS COURT, SEE THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, 169,
175; CALMAR S.S. CORP. V. TAYLOR, SUPRA, 527-28, AND IT IS CONFIRMED BY
ARTICLE 2 OF THE SHIPOWNERS' LIABILITY CONVENTION OF 1936, 54 STAT.
1695, PROCLAIMED BY THE PRESIDENT TO BE EFFECTIVE AS TO THE UNITED
STATES AND ITS CITIZENS AS OF OCTOBER 29, 1939.  ARTICLE 12 OF THE
CONVENTION PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL NOT AFFECT ANY NATIONAL LAW ENSURING
"MORE FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS THAN THOSE PROVIDED BY THIS CONVENTION." 
54 STAT. 1700. 

SOME OF THE GROUNDS FOR RECOVERY OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE WOULD, IN
MODERN TERMINOLOGY, BE CLASSIFIED AS TORTS.  BUT THE SEAMAN'S RIGHT WAS
FIRMLY ESTABLISHED IN THE MARITIME LAW LONG BEFORE RECOGNITION OF THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN TORT AND CONTRACT.  IN ITS ORIGIN, MAINTENANCE AND
CURE MUST BE TAKEN AS AN INCIDENT TO THE STATUS OF THE SEAMAN IN THE
EMPLOYMENT OF HIS SHIP.  SEE CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S.
367, 372.  THAT STATUS HAS FROM THE BEGINNING BEEN PECULIARLY WITHIN
THE PROVINCE OF THE MARITIME LAW, SEE CALMAR S.S. CORP. V. TAYLOR,
SUPRA, AND UPON PRINCIPLES CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT IT IS
SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS AND EXTENT OF
THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE MARITIME LAW TO SEAMEN INJURED WHILE ENGAGED
IN A MARITIME SERVICE. 

THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY IN THE JONES ACT IS GIVEN TO THE SEAMAN AS
SUCH, AND, AS IN THE CASE OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE, THE ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUIT DEPENDS NOT ON THE PLACE WHERE THE INJURY IS
INFLICTED BUT ON THE NATURE OF THE SERVICE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE
OPERATION OF THE VESSEL PLYING IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.  SEE WARING V.
CLARKE, SUPRA; INSURANCE CO. V. DUNHAM, SUPRA. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE JONES ACT, IN EXTENDING A RIGHT OF RECOVERY TO
THE SEAMAN INJURED WHILE IN THE SERVICE OF HIS VESSEL BY NEGLIGENCE,
HAS DONE NO MORE THAN SUPPLEMENT THE REMEDY OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR
INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE SEAMAN, WHETHER ON LAND OR SEA, BY GIVING TO
HIM THE INDEMNITY WHICH THE MARITIME LAW AFFORDED TO A SEAMAN INJURED
IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL OR ITS TACKLE. 
PACIFIC S.S. CO. V. PETERSON, SUPRA.  SINCE THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE
SEAMAN'S RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF
HIS EMPLOYMENT, IS ONE TRADITIONALLY COGNIZABLE IN ADMIRALTY, THE JONES
ACT, BY ENLARGING THE REMEDY, DID NOT GO BEYOND MODIFICATION OF
SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF THE MARITIME LAW WELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION WHETHER THE VESSEL, PLYING NAVIGABLE WATERS, BE
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR NOT.  CF. JACKSON V. THE MAGNOLIA, 20
HOW.  296; THE BELFAST, 7 WALL.  624, 640, ET SEQ; IN RE GARNETT,
SUPRA. 

THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT SUITS UNDER THE JONES ACT
MAY BE TRIED BY JURY, ON THE LAW RATHER THAN ON THE ADMIRALTY SIDE OF
THE FEDERAL COURTS, DOES NOT MILITATE AGAINST THE CONCLUSION WE HAVE
REACHED.  THIS IS BUT A PART OF THE GENERAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO
PRESCRIBE THE FORUM IN WHICH FEDERALLY-CREATED CAUSES OF ACTION ARE TO
BE TRIED, CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 136-42,  - A CONCOMITANT OF
THE POWER MANY TIMES SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT TO DIRECT THAT CAUSES OF
ACTION ARISING UNDER THE JONES ACT MAY BE TRIED IN THE STATE COURTS. 
E.G., ENGEL V. DAVENPORT, 271 U.S. 33, 37-38; PANAMA R. CO. V. VASQUEZ,
271 U.S. 557; CF. GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER OR DECIDE HERE THE QUESTION WHETHER A
LONGSHOREMAN, TEMPORARILY EMPLOYED IN STORING CARGO ON A VESSEL, IF
ENTITLED TO RECOVER UNDER THE JONES ACT FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED WHILE
WORKING ON THE VESSEL (COMPARE INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. V.
HAVERTY, SUPRA, WITH NOGUEIRA V. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. CO., 281 U.S. 128,
137), COULD RECOVER FOR AN INJURY RECEIVED ON SHORE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  COMPARE STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION V.
NORDENHOLT CORP., 259 U.S. 263, WITH SOUTH CHICAGO CO. V. BASSETT, 309
U.S. 251, 256.  REVERSED. 
..END :











TILESTON V. ULLMAN, 318 U.S. 44 


NO. 420.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 14, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  -
APPEAL DISMISSED. 


A PHYSICIAN IS WITHOUT STANDING TO CHALLENGE, AS A DEPRIVATION OF LIFE
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, A STATE
STATUTE PROHIBITING THE USE OF DRUGS OR INSTRUMENTS TO PREVENT
CONCEPTION, AND THE GIVING OF ASSISTANCE OR COUNSEL IN THEIR USE, WHERE
THE LIVES ALLEGED TO BE ENDANGERED ARE THOSE OF PATIENTS WHO ARE NOT
PARTIES TO THE SUIT.  P. 46. 

TILESTON V. ULLMAN, STATE'S ATTORNEY, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT, 129 CONN. 84, 26 A.2D 582, HOLDING A STATE
STATUTE APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT AND SUSTAINING ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL TO REVIEW A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT THAT SECS. 6246 AND 6562 OF
THE GENERAL STATUTES OF CONNECTICUT OF 1930 - PROHIBITING THE USE OF
DRUGS OR INSTRUMENTS TO PREVENT CONCEPTION, AND THE GIVING OF
ASSISTANCE OR COUNSEL IN THEIR USE - ARE APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT, A
REGISTERED PHYSICIAN, AND AS APPLIED TO HIM ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  129
CONN. 84, 26 A.2D 582, 588. 

THE SUIT WAS TRIED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT WHICH ARE STIPULATED TO BE TRUE.  APPELLANT ALLEGED THAT THE
STATUTE, IF APPLICABLE TO HIM, WOULD PREVENT HIS GIVING PROFESSIONAL
ADVICE CONCERNING THE USE OF CONTRACEPTIVES TO THREE PATIENTS WHOSE
CONDITION OF HEALTH WAS SUCH THAT THEIR LIVES WOULD BE ENDANGERED BY
CHILD-BEARING, AND THAT APPELLEES, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE
STATE, INTEND TO PROSECUTE ANY OFFENSE AGAINST THE STATUTE AND "CLAIM
OR MAY CLAIM" THAT THE PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL ADVICE WOULD CONSTITUTE
SUCH AN OFFENSE.  THE COMPLAINT SET OUT IN DETAIL THE DANGER TO THE
LIVES OF APPELLANT'S PATIENTS IN THE EVENT THAT THEY SHOULD BEAR
CHILDREN, BUT CONTAINED NO ALLEGATIONS ASSERTING ANY CLAIM UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF INFRINGEMENT OF APPELLANT'S LIBERTY OR HIS
PROPERTY RIGHTS.  THE RELIEF PRAYED WAS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS TO
WHETHER THE STATUTES ARE APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT AND IF SO WHETHER THEY
CONSTITUTE A VALID EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER "WITHIN THE MEANING
AND INTENT OF AMENDMENT XIV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
PROHIBITING A STATE FROM DEPRIVING ANY PERSON OF LIFE WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW."  ON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES THE STATE SUPERIOR
COURT ORDERED THESE QUESTIONS OF LAW RESERVED FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND
ADVICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS.  THAT COURT, WHICH ASSUMED
WITHOUT DECIDING THAT THE CASE WAS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT, RULED THAT THE STATUTES "PROHIBIT THE ACTION PROPOSED TO BE
DONE" BY APPELLANT AND "ARE CONSTITUTIONAL." 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS
PRESENT NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHICH APPELLANT HAS STANDING TO
ASSERT.  THE SOLE CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK UPON THE STATUTES UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS CONFINED TO THEIR DEPRIVATION OF LIFE -
OBVIOUSLY NOT APPELLANT'S BUT HIS PATIENTS'.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OR
PROOF THAT APPELLANT'S LIFE IS IN DANGER.  HIS PATIENTS ARE NOT PARTIES
TO THIS PROCEEDING AND THERE IS NO BASIS ON WHICH WE CAN SAY THAT HE
HAS STANDING TO SECURE AN ADJUDICATION OF HIS PATIENTS' CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO LIFE, WHICH THEY DO NOT ASSERT IN THEIR OWN BEHALF.  CRONIN V.
ADAMS, 192 U.S. 108, 114; STANDARD STOCK FOOD CO. V. WRIGHT, 225 U.S.
540, 550; BOSLEY V. MCLAUGHLIN, 236 U.S. 385, 395; BLAIR V. UNITED
STATES, 250 U.S. 273; THE WINNEBAGO, 205 U.S. 354, 360; DAVIS & FARNUM
MFG. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 189 U.S. 207, 220.  NO QUESTION IS RAISED IN
THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPRIVATION OF APPELLANT'S LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, NOR IS THERE
ANYTHING IN THE OPINION OR JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS
WHICH INDICATES OR WOULD SUPPORT A DECISION OF ANY QUESTION OTHER THAN
THOSE RAISED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT AND RESERVED BY IT FOR DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS.  THAT COURT'S PRACTICE IS TO DECLINE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS NOT RESERVED.  GENERAL STATUTES SEC. 5652; LOOMIS
INSTITUTE V. HEALY, 98 CONN. 102, 129, 119 A. 31; JOHN J. MCCARTHY CO.
V. ALSOP, 122 CONN. 288, 298-99, 189 A. 464. 

SINCE THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HAS
NO STANDING TO LITIGATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHICH THE RECORD
PRESENTS, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE RECORD SHOWS THE
EXISTENCE OF A GENUINE CASE OR CONTROVERSY ESSENTIAL TO THE EXERCISE OF
THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  CF. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V.
WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 259.  DISMISSED. 
..END :













MANDEVILLE V. CANTERBURY, 318 U.S. 47 


NO. 422.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  - 130
F.2D 208, REVERSED. 


A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION, BY DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP, OF A SUIT WHEREIN THE COMPLAINANT, CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN
A TRUST ESTATE CREATED UNDER A WILL, SEEKS TO HAVE THE WILL CONSTRUED
AND PRAYS A DECREE DETERMINING THE COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS IN THE TRUST
PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE TRUSTEES TO ACCOUNT AND TO TURN OVER TO THE
COMPLAINANT HER SHARE IN THE TRUST PROPERTY, IS PRECLUDED BY SEC. 265
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE FROM ENJOINING SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN STATE
COURTS OF OTHER STATES, WHEREIN ARE SOUGHT ADJUDICATIONS OF THE RIGHTS
OF THE PARTIES IN LAND BELONGING TO THE TRUST AND LOCATED IN SUCH OTHER
STATES.  P. 49. 

MANDEVILLE, TRUSTEE, ET AL. V. CANTERBURY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 616, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A FEDERAL COURT
INJUNCTION STAYING PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS. 

PER CURIAM. 

RESPONDENT, SAID TO BE A CITIZEN OF CALIFORNIA WHO CLAIMS AN INTEREST
IN A TRUST ESTATE CREATED UNDER A WILL PROBATED IN ILLINOIS, BROUGHT
THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN ILLINOIS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE WILL, JOINING AS DEFENDANTS THE TRUSTEES AND OTHER INTERESTED
PARTIES, ALL ALLEGED TO BE CITIZENS OF ILLINOIS.  THE RELIEF PRAYED IS
THAT THE COURT, AFTER CONSTRUING THE WILL, RENDER A DECREE DETERMINING
RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS IN THE TRUST PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE TRUSTEE TO
ACCOUNT AND TO TURN OVER TO RESPONDENT HER SHARE IN THE TRUST
PROPERTY.  INCLUDED IN THE TRUST PROPERTY ARE TRACTS OF LAND LOCATED IN
MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN AND ILLINOIS. 

AFTER RESPONDENT BEGAN THE PRESENT SUIT, PETITIONERS BROUGHT SUIT IN
A MINNESOTA STATE COURT AGAINST RESPONDENT AND UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES
AND LEGATEES OF DECEDENT AND UNKNOWN BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE WILL,
SEEKING A CONSTRUCTION OF SO MUCH OF THE WILL AS RELATES TO THE
MINNESOTA LAND, AND AN ADJUDICATION OF THEIR RIGHTS IN THE LAND. 
SHORTLY AFTERWARDS PETITIONERS ALSO BROUGHT SUIT IN A WISCONSIN STATE
COURT AGAINST THE SAME DEFENDANTS, SEEKING LIKE RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO
THE WISCONSIN LAND.  ON MOTION OF RESPONDENT THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED
A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE PROSECUTION OF THE PENDING SUITS
IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN.  IT ALSO ENJOINED FURTHER PROSECUTION OF A
PROBATE PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY PETITIONER RICHARD CANTERBURY MANDEVILLE
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF ROCK COUNTY, WISCONSIN, WHICH SOUGHT A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILL AND A DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES UNDER IT, BUT WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT
RESTRAIN THE PROBATE OF THE WILL OR A DETERMINATION OF INHERITANCE
TAXES DUE TO THE STATE.  ON APPEAL FROM THE INJUNCTION ORDER THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 130 F.2D 208, AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  317 U.S. 616. 

EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY ANY LAW RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY
"THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION SHALL NOT BE GRANTED BY ANY COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF A STATE."  TO THIS SWEEPING
COMMAND THERE IS A LONG RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION THAT IF TWO SUITS PENDING,
ONE IN A STATE AND THE OTHER IN A FEDERAL COURT, ARE IN REM OR QUASI IN
REM, SO THAT THE COURT OR ITS OFFICER MUST HAVE POSSESSION OR CONTROL
OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUITS IN ORDER TO
PROCEED WITH THE CAUSE AND TO GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT, THE COURT FIRST
ACQUIRING JURISDICTION OR ASSUMING CONTROL OF SUCH PROPERTY IS ENTITLED
TO MAINTAIN AND EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE
OTHER. 

IN SUCH CASES THIS COURT HAS UNIFORMLY HELD THAT A FEDERAL COURT MAY
PROTECT ITS JURISDICTION THUS ACQUIRED BY RESTRAINING THE PARTIES FROM
PROSECUTING A LIKE SUIT IN A STATE COURT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROHIBITION OF SEC. 265.  THIS EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION HAS BEEN
REGARDED AS ONE OF NECESSITY TO PREVENT UNSEEMLY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS AND TO PREVENT THE IMPASSE WHICH WOULD ARISE
IF THE FEDERAL COURT WERE UNABLE TO MAINTAIN ITS POSSESSION AND CONTROL
OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH ARE INDISPENSABLE TO THE EXERCISE OF THE
JURISDICTION IT HAS ASSUMED.  BUT WHERE THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT IS STRICTLY
IN PERSONAM FOR THE RECOVERY OF MONEY OR FOR AN INJUNCTION COMPELLING
OR RESTRAINING ACTION BY THE DEFENDANT, BOTH A STATE COURT AND A
FEDERAL COURT HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION MAY PROCEED WITH THE
LITIGATION AT LEAST UNTIL JUDGMENT IS OBTAINED IN ONE COURT, WHICH MAY
BE SET UP AS RES JUDICATA IN THE OTHER.  THESE PRINCIPLES WERE
RECOGNIZED AND THE AUTHORITIES SUSTAINING THEM COLLECTED IN PENN
GENERAL CASUALTY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 189, AND TOUCEY V. NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO., 314 U.S. 118, 134-36. 

THE PRESENT SUIT, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
SUITS PENDING IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN, IS A SUIT IN PERSONAM BROUGHT
AGAINST THE TRUSTEES AND OTHER CLAIMANTS, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL, TO THE
LAND LOCATED IN THOSE STATES.  MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT DOES NOT REQUIRE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY BY THAT COURT OR
REQUIRE IT TO ASSUME SUPERVISORY OR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF IT EVEN
THROUGH EXERCISE OF ITS CONTROL OVER THE TRUSTEES, AT LEAST UNTIL IT
HAS DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT HAS SOME INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, NOR
HAS THE COURT UNDERTAKEN TO EXERCISE SUCH CONTROL.  WHILE JURISDICTION
ASSUMED BY A STATE COURT OVER A PENDING PROCEEDING FOR AN ACCOUNTING BY
TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES, INVOLVING PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATION AND
RESTORATION OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST, HAS BEEN DEEMED EXCLUSIVE OF
THE JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT OVER A LATER SUIT THERE FOR THE
SAME RELIEF, PRINCESS LIDA V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 456, 466-67, HERE THE
FEDERAL COURT HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO ASSUME SUCH JURISDICTION WITH
RESPECT TO AN ASSERTED BUT CONTESTED INTEREST IN LAND LOCATED IN
ANOTHER STATE.  SO FAR AS THE SUITS IN EITHER THE FEDERAL OR THE STATE
COURTS SEEK AN ADJUDICATION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES IN THE
LAND, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE FEDERAL COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION.  COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. BRADFORD, 297 U.S. 613.  IN
ANY CASE, EXERCISE BY THE STATE COURTS OF THEIR JURISDICTION TO
ADJUDICATE THE PARTIES' RIGHTS TO LAND LOCATED IN THOSE STATES INVOLVES
NO INTERFERENCE WITH OR IMPAIRMENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
COURT IN ILLINOIS, AND AFFORDS NO GROUND FOR THE INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
PROSECUTIONS OF THE SUITS IN THE STATE COURTS.  COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO.
V. BRADFORD, SUPRA.  THE CASE DOES NOT COME WITHIN ANY EXCEPTION TO THE
PROHIBITION OF SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE REVERSED WITH
DIRECTIONS TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO VACATE THE INJUNCTION ORDER. 
REVERSED. 
..END :






















IN RE BRADLEY, 318 U.S. 50 


NO. 473.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  -
REVERSED. 


A FEDERAL COURT HAVING ERRONEOUSLY IMPOSED UPON THE PETITIONER A
SENTENCE OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT (JUD.  CODE SEC. 268, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 385), AND THE FINE HAVING BEEN PAID TO THE CLERK OF THE
COURT, WHO GAVE A RECEIPT THEREFOR, THE COURT IS WITHOUT POWER
THEREAFTER - ALTHOUGH THE MONEY HAD NOT BEEN COVERED INTO THE TREASURY
TO MODIFY THE SENTENCE TO ONE OF IMPRISONMENT ONLY, AND THE PETITIONER
MUST BE DISCHARGED.  P. 52. 

IN RE WILLIAM V. BRADLEY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 616, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SENTENCING THE
PETITIONER FOR CONTEMPT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A PROCEEDING, INSTITUTED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AGAINST DELAWARE-NEW JERSEY FERRY COMPANY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD, WAS PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  A HEARING
WAS SET AT WHICH WITNESSES WERE TO BE HEARD.  THE PETITIONER WAS TO BE
A WITNESS FOR THE BOARD.  DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL THE PETITIONER
WAS SUMMONED AND, AFTER HEARING, WAS ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT
BECAUSE OF HIS INTIMIDATION OF A WITNESS FOR THE FERRY COMPANY IN THE
CORRIDOR ADJOINING THE COURT ROOM. 

THE COURT SENTENCED THE PETITIONER TO SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT, TO
PAY A FINE OF $500, AND TO STAND COMMITTED UNTIL HE COMPLIED WITH THE
SENTENCE.  THE SENTENCE WAS ERRONEOUS.  EX PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163,
176.  UNDER SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. 385, THE SENTENCE
COULD ONLY BE A FINE OR IMPRISONMENT.  EX PARTE ROBINSON, 19 WALL. 
505, 512; CLARK V. UNITED STATES, 61 F.2D 695, 709; AFFIRMED 289 U.S.
1. 

THE MARSHAL WAS DIRECTED FORTHWITH TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT.  ON
SEPTEMBER 28, 1942, THE PETITIONER WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND COMMITTED
TO PRISON.  ON OCTOBER 1 HIS ATTORNEY PAID THE FINE IN CASH TO THE
CLERK OF THE COURT.  LATER ON THAT DAY THE COURT, REALIZING THAT THE
SENTENCE WAS ERRONEOUS, DELIVERED TO THE CLERK AN ORDER AMENDING IT BY
OMITTING ANY FINE AND RETAINING ONLY THE SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT.  THE
COURT INSTRUCTED THE CLERK, WHO STILL HELD THE MONEY, TO RETURN IT TO
THE PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY.  THE LATTER REFUSED TO RECEIVE IT, AND THE
CLERK HAS IT. 

THE PETITIONER, BEING IN JAIL, PETITIONED THIS COURT TO GRANT
CERTIORARI, ALLEGING AS ERRORS THE ADJUDICATION THAT HE WAS GUILTY OF
CONTEMPT AND THE MANNER OF SENTENCING HIM.  WE GRANTED THE WRIT AND
ADMITTED HIM TO BAIL PENDING DECISION. 

WE DO NOT REVIEW THE FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER'S CONDUCT WAS A
CONTEMPT SUMMARILY PUNISHABLE BY THE COURT, FOR WE ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE ERRORS INVOLVED IN THE SENTENCE REQUIRE THAT HE SHALL BE FREED FROM
FURTHER IMPRISONMENT. 

WHEN, ON OCTOBER 1, THE FINE WAS PAID TO THE CLERK AND RECEIPTED FOR
BY HIM, THE PETITIONER HAD COMPLIED WITH A PORTION OF THE SENTENCE
WHICH COULD LAWFULLY HAVE BEEN IMPOSED.  AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
WAS THUS EXECUTED SO AS TO BE A FULL SATISFACTION OF ONE OF THE
ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES OF THE LAW, THE POWER OF THE COURT WAS AT AN
END.  FN1  IT IS UNIMPORTANT THAT THE FINE HAD NOT BEEN COVERED INTO
THE TREASURY; IT HAD BEEN PAID TO THE CLERK, THE OFFICER OF THE UNITED
STATES AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE IT,  FN2  AND PETITIONER'S RIGHTS DID NOT
DEPEND UPON WHAT THAT OFFICER SUBSEQUENTLY DID WITH THE MONEY.  FN3 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT OF THE SENTENCE COULD NOT
AVOID THE SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT, AND THE ATTEMPT TO ACCOMPLISH
THAT END WAS A NULLITY.  SINCE ONE VALID ALTERNATIVE PROVISION OF THE
ORIGINAL SENTENCE HAS BEEN SATISFIED, THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO BE
FREED OF FURTHER RESTRAINT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS THAT
THE PETITIONER BE DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  EX PARTE LANGE, SUPRA, 176. 

FN2  IN RE FLETCHER, 71 APP. D.C. 108, 107 F.2D 666, 668. 

FN3  EX PARTE LANGE, SUPRA, P. 176; AND COMPARE THE DISSENTING
OPINION, PP. 180, 190, 199-200; YAVORSKY V. UNITED STATES, 1 F.2D 169,
171; MOSS V. UNITED STATES, 23 APP. D.C. 475, 485. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

IN EX PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163, THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT REMIT OR
OFFER TO REMIT THE FINE WHICH THE OFFENDER HAD PAID.  THE OPINION WAS
CAREFUL TO POINT OUT (P. 175) THAT THE FINE PAID HAD BEEN COVERED INTO
THE TREASURY AND THAT THE COURTS WERE POWERLESS TO DIRECT ITS RETURN. 
THAT DECISION THUS LENDS NO SUPPORT TO THAT NOW RENDERED THAT THE
CHOICE RESTS WITH THE OFFENDER RATHER THAN WITH THE COURT WHETHER HE
SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE OR BY IMPRISONMENT, EITHER OF WHICH ALONE THE
COURT COULD HAVE LAWFULLY IMPOSED; AND THAT BY PAYMENT OF THE FINE,
IMPOSED AND ACCEPTED UNDER MISTAKE OF LAW AND IMMEDIATELY REMITTED, HE
MAY IRREVOCABLY ESCAPE PUNISHMENT BY IMPRISONMENT. 

SO FAR AS EX PARTE LANGE IS REGARDED HERE AS RESTING ON THE GROUND
THAT IT WOULD BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY TO COMPEL THE OFFENDER TO SERVE THE
PRISON SENTENCE AFTER REMISSION OF THE FINE ON THE SAME DAY ON WHICH IT
WAS PAID, I THINK ITS AUTHORITY SHOULD BE REEXAMINED AND REJECTED.  THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE PUNISHMENT IMPOSED ON THE OFFENDER BY A FINE IS IN
DEPRIVING HIM OF THE MONEY HE HAS PAID.  HERE HE HAS NOT BEEN DEPRIVED
OF THE MONEY PAID TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, FOR THE FINE WAS REMITTED
ON THE SAME DAY ON WHICH IT WAS PAID, AND HE WAS THEN FREE TO RECLAIM
IT.  SINCE HE IS SHOWN TO HAVE SUFFERED NO MORE FROM THE IMPOSITION OF
THE FINE THAN IF THE CLERK HAD REFUSED TO RECEIVE IT WHEN TENDERED,
THERE IS I THINK NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION THAT HE WILL SUFFER
DOUBLE PUNISHMENT IF COMPELLED TO SERVE OUT HIS PRISON SENTENCE. 

THE CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED WITH MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE NOT OF FORM. 
NOTHING IN ITS WORDS OR HISTORY FORBIDS A COMMON SENSE APPLICATION OF
ITS PROVISIONS, OR EXCLUDES THEM FROM THE OPERATION OF THE PRINCIPLE DE
MINIMIS.  I CAN HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT WE WOULD HOLD UNCONSTITUTIONAL AN
ACT OF CONGRESS COMMANDING PROMPT RETURN OF A FINE MISTAKENLY IMPOSED
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND REQUIRING THE PRISON SENTENCE ORIGINALLY
IMPOSED TO BE SERVED.  YET EX PARTE LANGE AS INTERPRETED AND APPLIED
HERE RESTS ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO AN
ACT OF CONGRESS. 

I AGREE WITH THE SUGGESTION OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE COURT'S SECOND
ORDER RESENTENCING PETITIONER COULD NOT RIGHTLY BE ENTERED WITHOUT
AFFORDING PETITIONER OR HIS COUNSEL AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT, AND
THAT THE CAUSE SHOULD, ON THAT ACCOUNT, BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS. 
..END :












TILLER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 318 U.S. 54 


NO. 296.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  - 128
F.2D 420, REVERSED. 


1.  THE 1939 AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT IN AN ACTION AGAINST A COMMON CARRIER UNDER THE ACT TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INJURY OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE, "SUCH EMPLOYEE
SHALL NOT BE HELD TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISKS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT IN ANY
CASE WHERE SUCH INJURY OR DEATH RESULTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE
NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES OF SUCH
CARRIER," OBLITERATED FROM THAT LAW EVERY VESTIGE OF THE DOCTRINE OF
ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  P. 58. 

2.  THE RULE OF DECISION IN CASES UNDER THE ACT AS AMENDED IS THE
DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, WHICH PERMITS THE JURY TO WEIGH THE
FAULT OF THE INJURED EMPLOYEE AND TO COMPARE IT WITH THE NEGLIGENCE OF
THE EMPLOYER, AND THEREUPON TO DO JUSTICE TO BOTH.  P. 65. 

3.  THE QUESTION OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE EMPLOYER IS TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE GENERAL RULE WHICH DEFINES NEGLIGENCE AS THE LACK OF
DUE CARE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES; OR THE FAILURE TO DO WHAT A
REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MAN WOULD ORDINARILY HAVE DONE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES; OR DOING WHAT SUCH A PERSON UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WOULD NOT HAVE DONE.  THE STANDARD OF CARE MUST BE COMMENSURATE TO THE
DANGERS OF THE EMPLOYMENT.  P. 67. 

4.  UNDER THE ACT AS AMENDED, NO CASE IS TO BE WITHHELD FROM A JURY
ON ANY THEORY OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK, AND QUESTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE SHOULD
BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY WITH APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS.  P. 67. 

5.  UPON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, THE QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE RAILROAD
AND ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY.  P. 68. 

TILLER, EXECUTOR, V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 610, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT ON A
DIRECTED VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT IN A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND AND INTESTATE, JOHN LEWIS TILLER, WAS A
POLICEMAN FOR THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD.  AMONG HIS DUTIES WAS THAT OF
INSPECTING THE SEALS ON CARS IN RAILROAD YARDS TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE
HAD TAMPERED WITH THEM.  HE HAD HELD THIS POSITION FOR SOME YEARS, WAS
FAMILIAR WITH THE YARD, AND WAS AWARE, IN THE WORDS OF THE COURT BELOW,
THAT RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES "ARE INSTRUCTED THAT THEY MUST WATCH OUT
FOR THE MOVEMENT OF THE TRAINS AS NO EMPLOYEE WATCHES OUT FOR THEM AND
NO LIGHTS ARE USED AT NIGHT ON THE HEAD END OF BACK-UP MOVEMENTS EXCEPT
WHEN AN EMPLOYEE IS PLACED AT THE BACK END WITH A LANTERN TO PROTECT A
ROAD CROSSING."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THERE WAS
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNT OF THE TRAGEDY: 

ON THE NIGHT OF MARCH 20, 1940, TILLER WAS STANDING BETWEEN TWO
TRACKS IN THE RESPONDENT'S SWITCH YARDS, TRACKS WHICH ALLOWED HIM THREE
FEET, SEVEN AND ONE-HALF INCHES OF STANDING SPACE WHEN TRAINS WERE
MOVING ON BOTH SIDES.  THE NIGHT WAS DARK  FN1  AND THE YARD WAS
UNLIGHTED.  TILLER, USING A FLASHLIGHT FOR THE PURPOSE, WAS INSPECTING
THE SEALS OF THE TRAIN MOVING SLOWLY ON ONE TRACK WHEN SUDDENLY HE WAS
HIT AND KILLED BY THE REAR CAR OF A TRAIN BACKING IN THE OPPOSITE
DIRECTION ON THE OTHER TRACK.  THE REAR OF THE TRAIN WHICH KILLED
TILLER WAS UNLIGHTED ALTHOUGH A BRAKEMAN WITH A LANTERN WAS RIDING ON
THE BACK STEP ON THE SIDE AWAY FROM TILLER.  THE BELL WAS RINGING ON
THE ENGINE BUT BOTH TRAINS WERE MOVING, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT FOUND
THAT IT WAS "PROBABLE THAT TILLER DID NOT HEAR CARS APPROACHING" FROM
BEHIND HIM.  NO SPECIAL SIGNAL OF WARNING WAS GIVEN. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RECOVER DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ. THE COMPLAINT
ALLEGED NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF THE CAR WHICH STRUCK DEFENDANT AND
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE TO WORK.  RESPONDENT DENIED
NEGLIGENCE, PLEADED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE
DEFENDANT, AND SET UP AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE THAT THE DECEASED HAD
ASSUMED ALL THE RISKS "NORMALLY AND NECESSARILY INCIDENT TO HIS
EMPLOYMENT."  AFTER THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE HAD BEEN HEARD THE
DEFENDANT MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE GROUNDS (A) THAT THE
EVIDENCE DISCLOSED NO ACTIONABLE NEGLIGENCE AND (B) THAT THE CAUSE OF
THE DEATH WAS SPECULATIVE AND CONJECTURAL.  THE MOTION WAS GRANTED,
JUDGMENT WAS ACCORDINGLY ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANT AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, INTERPRETING THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS
RESTING ON A CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED NO NEGLIGENCE,
AFFIRMED.  128 F.2D 420.  THIS RESULT WAS BASED ON A HOLDING THAT THE
DECEASED HAD ASSUMED THE RISK OF HIS POSITION AND THAT THEREFORE THERE
WAS NO DUTY OWING TO HIM BY RESPONDENT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS'
INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE 1939 AMENDMENT TO THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 53 STAT. 1404, 45 U.S.C. 54.  THE
AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT AN "EMPLOYEE SHALL NOT BE HELD TO HAVE ASSUMED
THE RISKS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT IN ANY CASE WHERE SUCH INJURY OR DEATH
RESULTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE
OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES OF SUCH CARRIER." 

THE CIRCUIT COURT DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN ASSUMPTION OF RISK AS A
DEFENSE BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR OWN NEGLIGENCE,
AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK AS NEGATING ANY CONCLUSION THAT NEGLIGENCE
EXISTED AT ALL.  THE COURT REASONED THAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
RESPONDENT HAD NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE A WORKMAN WITH A SOUND
TOOL, AND HE WAS THEREBY INJURED, IT COULD NOT UNDER THE AMENDMENT
CLAIM THAT HE HAD ASSUMED THE RISK OF USING THE DEFECTIVE IMPLEMENT;
BUT THAT IF A WORKMAN WERE INJURED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS WORK,
AS IN SUCH A SWITCHING OPERATION AS THIS, THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK MIGHT
STILL BE RELIED UPON TO PROVE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NO DUTY TO
PROTECT HIM FROM ACCUSTOMED DANGER.  THE COURT REJECTED PETITIONER'S
ARGUMENT THAT SINCE THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK HAD BEEN
ABOLISHED "THE CARRIER CAN NO LONGER INTERPOSE IT AS A SHIELD AGAINST
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS NEGLECT AND HENCE IS LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO ITS
EMPLOYEES IN ITS RAILROAD YARDS OR ELSEWHERE, UNLESS IT TAKES
PRECAUTIONS FOR THEIR SAFETY COMMENSURATE WITH THE DANGER THAT THEY ARE
LIKELY TO ENCOUNTER."  IN REJECTING THIS ARGUMENT THE COURT BELOW PUT
THE CORE OF ITS DECISION IN THESE WORDS:  "THE CONCLUSION IS
INESCAPABLE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO ENLARGE THE OBLIGATION OF
CARRIERS TO LOOK OUT FOR THE SAFETY OF THEIR MEN WHEN EXPOSED TO THE
ORDINARY RISKS OF THE BUSINESS, AND THAT IN CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN
THOSE PROVIDED FOR IN THE AMENDED SECTION OF THE STATUTE, THE DOCTRINE
OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK MUST BE GIVEN ITS ACCUSTOMED WEIGHT." 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE IS ANY MERIT IN SUCH
A CONCEPTUAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASPECTS OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK WHICH
SEEM FUNCTIONALLY SO IDENTICAL, AND HENCE WE NEED NOT PAUSE OVER THE
CASES CITED BY THE COURT BELOW, ALL DECIDED BEFORE THE 1939 AMENDMENT,
WHICH TREAT ASSUMPTION OF RISK SOMETIMES AS A DEFENSE TO NEGLIGENCE,
SOMETIMES AS THE EQUIVALENT OF NON-NEGLIGENCE.  FN2  WE HOLD THAT EVERY
VESTIGE OF THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS OBLITERATED FROM THE
LAW BY THE 1939 AMENDMENT, AND THAT CONGRESS, BY ABOLISHING THE DEFENSE
OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK IN THAT STATUTE, DID NOT MEAN TO LEAVE OPEN THE
IDENTICAL DEFENSE FOR THE MASTER BY CHANGING ITS NAME TO "NON
NEGLIGENCE."  AS THIS COURT SAID IN FACING THE HAZY MARGIN BETWEEN
NEGLIGENCE AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK AS INVOLVED IN THE SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACT OF 1893, "UNLESS GREAT CARE BE TAKEN, THE SERVANT'S RIGHTS WILL BE
SACRIFICED BY SIMPLY CHARGING HIM WITH ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK UNDER
ANOTHER NAME;"  FN3  AND NO SUCH RESULT CAN BE PERMITTED HERE. 

PERHAPS THE NATURE OF THE PRESENT PROBLEM CAN BEST BE SEEN AGAINST
THE BACKGROUND OF ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF MASTER-SERVANT TORT DOCTRINE. 
ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS A JUDICIALLY CREATED RULE WHICH WAS DEVELOPED IN
RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL IMPULSE OF COMMON LAW COURTS AT THE BEGINNING
OF THIS PERIOD TO INSULATE THE EMPLOYER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM
BEARING THE "HUMAN OVERHEAD" WHICH IS AN INEVITABLE PART OF THE COST -
TO SOMEONE - OF THE DOING OF INDUSTRIALIZED BUSINESS.  FN4  THE GENERAL
PURPOSE BEHIND THIS DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMON LAW SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN TO
GIVE MAXIMUM FREEDOM TO EXPANDING INDUSTRY.  FN5  THE ASSUMPTION OF
RISK DOCTRINE FOR EXAMPLE WAS ATTRIBUTED BY THIS COURT TO "A RULE OF
PUBLIC POLICY, INASMUCH AS AN OPPOSITE DOCTRINE WOULD NOT ONLY SUBJECT
EMPLOYERS TO UNREASONABLE AND OFTEN RUINOUS RESPONSIBILITIES, THEREBY
EMBARRASSING ALL BRANCHES OF BUSINESS," BUT WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE
CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE.  FN6  IN THE PURSUIT OF ITS
GENERAL OBJECTIVE THE COMMON LAW TOOK MANY FORMS AND DEVELOPED MANY
DOCTRINES.  ONE OF THE FIRST WAS THE FELLOW SERVANT-ASSUMPTION OF RISK
RULE WHICH ORIGINATED IN PRIESTLEY V. FOWLER.  FN7 IN PRIESTLEY V.
FOWLER, THE COURT SAID, "THE SERVANT IS NOT BOUND TO RISK HIS SAFETY IN
THE SERVICE OF HIS MASTER, AND MAY, IF HE THINKS FIT, DECLINE ANY
SERVICE IN WHICH HE REASONABLY APPREHENDS INJURY TO HIMSELF:  AND IN
MOST OF THE CASES IN WHICH DANGER MAY BE INCURRED, IF NOT IN ALL, HE IS
JUST AS LIKELY TO BE ACQUAINTED WITH THE PROBABILITY AND EXTENT OF IT
AS THE MASTER." 

AS ENGLISH COURTS LIVED WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE THEY
DISCOVERED THAT THE THEORY THEY HAD CREATED HAD BECOME MORALLY
UNACCEPTABLE BUT OF SUCH LEGAL FORCE THAT IT COULD NOT BE REPUDIATED. 
FN8  THE ENGLISH SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE THE FELLOW SERVANT RULE, WHICH
PLACED THE BURDEN OF AN EMPLOYEE'S NEGLIGENCE AS IT AFFECTED ANOTHER
EMPLOYEE ON THE INJURED PERSON RATHER THAN ON THE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE,
BY THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OF 1880  FN9  AND FOUND THAT THE
ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE STILL LEFT THE EMPLOYEE IN A HOPELESSLY
UNPROTECTED POSITION.  IN THE LEADING CASE OF THOMAS V. QUARTERMAINE,
18 Q.B.D. 685(1887), THE COURT HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE STANDING ON A
THREE FOOT RUNWAY BETWEEN TWO UNFENCED VATS WHO WAS ATTEMPTING TO
DISLODGE A PIECE OF WOOD FROM ONE OF THE VATS AND WHO BY ACCIDENT FELL
INTO THE OTHER AND WAS SCALDED WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY.  SINCE HE HAD
LONG KNOWN OF THE POSSIBLE DANGERS OF THE NARROW PASSAGE HE WAS HELD TO
HAVE ASSUMED THE RISK OF HIS POSITION.  IN 1897 THE ENGLISH FINALLY
ABANDONED THE COMMON LAW REMEDY ALTOGETHER AS A PROTECTION FOR INJURED
EMPLOYEES AND ADOPTED A WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW.  60 & 61 VICT.  C.
37. 

THIS COURT ACCEPTED THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE AS APPLIED TO
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES, AT LEAST IN PART, IN 1879.  FN10  THAT DECISION
PLACED THE EMPLOYEE'S ASSUMPTION OF RISK UPON THE THEORY THAT AN
AGREEMENT TO ASSUME THE RISK WAS IMPLIED FROM THE TERMS OF THE
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. 

PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OF 1906
THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, EXCEPT FOR A CONSIDERABLE VAGUENESS AS
TO ITS RELATION WITH CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, WAS FAIRLY WELL KNOWN. 
FN11  IT HAD ALREADY BEEN APPLIED GENERALLY AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION
OF THE ACT BECAUSE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE THEORY THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S
COMPENSATION WAS BASED UPON THE ADDED RISK TO HIS POSITION AND THAT HE
COULD QUIT WHEN HE PLEASED.  TUTTLE V. DETROIT, G.H. & M. RY., SUPRA;
AND COMPARE FOR A RESTATEMENT OF THIS VIEW AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, SEABOARD AIR LINE V. HORTON, 233 U.S. 492,
504.  FN12  FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, WITH SOME NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS,
ACCEPTED AND APPLIED THE RULE WITH ALL OF ITS IMPLICATIONS AND
CONSEQUENCES EXCEPT WHEN EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO BY
STATUTE.  FN13 

CONGRESS TOOK A MAJOR STEP TOWARD MODIFICATION OF THE COMMON LAW
BARRIER AGAINST EMPLOYEE RECOVERY IN ACCIDENT SUITS IN THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 232, REPASSED WITH
ALTERATIONS NOT MATERIAL IN 1908, 35 STAT. 65.  THIS ACT, IN ITS
PRINCIPAL FEATURES, ABOLISHED THE FELLOW SERVANT RULE, SUBSTITUTED
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE FOR THE STRICT RULE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE,
AND ALLOWED SURVIVORS' ACTIONS FOR TORT LIABILITY.  SECTION 4 OF THAT
ACT, AS INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT IN SEABOARD AIR LINE V. HORTON,
SUPRA, PERPETUATED THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  FN14
UNFORTUNATELY, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF LEGAL CLARITY, THE ACT AS
INTERPRETED REQUIRED CAREFUL DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, SINCE ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR
TO RECOVERY WHILE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE MERELY REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF
RECOVERY.  THE GREAT UNCERTAINTY EXISTING PRIOR TO THE ACT AS TO WHAT
THE MARGIN BETWEEN THESE DOCTRINES WAS  FN15  THUS BECAME OF REAL
SIGNIFICANCE.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE ITSELF SEEMED TO IMPEL THE
COURTS TO PRACTICE "THE NICETIES, IF NOT CASUISTRIES, OF DISTINGUISHING
BETWEEN ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, CONCEPTIONS
WHICH NEVER ORIGINATED IN CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE CATEGORIES, BUT WERE
LOOSELY INTERCHANGEABLE UNTIL THE STATUTE ATTACHED SUCH VITAL
DIFFERENCES TO THEM."  PACHECO V. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. CO., 15 F.2D 467. 
FOR AN ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE DOCTRINES, SEE SCHLEMMER V.
BUFFALO, R. & P. RY. CO., SUPRA, 12, AND THE SAME CASE AT 220 U.S. 590,
596. 

THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK CLAUSE IN THE STATUTE BECAME THE SUBJECT OF
ENDLESS LITIGATION.  THE FEDERAL CODE ANNOTATED AND THE U.S.C.
ANNOTATED DEVOTE OVER THIRTY PAGES EACH OF FINE TYPE MERELY TO THE
CITATION AND BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE REPORTED DECISIONS; AND THE NUMBER OF
UNREPORTED AND SETTLED CASES IN WHICH THE DEFENSE WAS INVOLVED MUST RUN
INTO THE THOUSANDS.  FN16 ASIDE FROM THE DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING
BETWEEN CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK MANY OTHER
PROBLEMS AROSE.  ONE OF THESE WAS THE APPLICATION OF THE "PRIMARY DUTY
RULE" IN WHICH CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH VIOLATION OF A COMPANY
RULE BECAME ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  UNADILLA VALLEY RY. CO. V. CALDINE,
278 U.S. 139; DAVIS V. KENNEDY, 266 U.S. 147.  OTHER COMPLICATIONS
AROSE FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF "PROMISE TO REPAIR," "SIMPLE TOOL," AND
"PEREMPTORY ORDER" CONCEPTS INTO THE ASSUMPTION DOCTRINE.  FN17  IN THE
DISPOSITION OF CASES THE QUESTION OF A PLAINTIFF'S ASSUMPTION OF RISK
HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN TREATED SIMPLY AS ANOTHER WAY OF APPRAISING
DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE,  FN18  AS WAS DONE BY THE COURT BELOW IN THE
INSTANT CASE. 

IT WAS THIS MAZE OF LAW WHICH CONGRESS SWEPT INTO DISCARD WITH THE
ADOPTION OF THE 1939 AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT,
RELEASING THE EMPLOYEE FROM THE BURDEN OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY
WHATEVER NAME IT WAS CALLED.  THE RESULT IS AN ACT WHICH REQUIRES CASES
TRIED UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT TO BE HANDLED AS THOUGH NO DOCTRINE OF
ASSUMPTION OF RISK HAD EVER EXISTED.    IF THIS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT, ANY DOUBT WOULD BE DISSIPATED
BY ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  THE 1939 BILL  FN19  WAS INTRODUCED BY
SENATOR NEELY AND WAS SUPPORTED AT THE HEARINGS BY THE RAILWAY LABOR
UNIONS.  IT WAS ACCEPTED BOTH BY THE UNIONS AND THE RAILROADS THAT THE
BILL WOULD UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY ABOLISH THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF
RISK.  FN20  THE REPORT OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STRUCK AT THE
BASIC REASONS ADVANCED BY COMMON LAW COURTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE
DOCTRINE, DECLARED IT UNSUITED TO PRESENT DAY ACTIVITIES, AND DESCRIBED
THEM AS OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD
GOVERN DETERMINATIONS OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES.  FN21  THE
BILL, AS DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT, WAS CLEARLY AIMED AT MAKING THE
PRINCIPLES OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE THE GUIDING RULES OF DECISION IN
ACCIDENT CASES:  "THE ADOPTION OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL, IN
CASES IN WHICH NO RECOVERY IS NOW ALLOWED, ESTABLISH THE PRINCIPLE OF
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, WHICH PERMITS THE JURY TO WEIGH THE FAULT OF
THE INJURED EMPLOYEE AND COMPARE IT WITH THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE
EMPLOYER, AND, IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPARISON, DO JUSTICE TO ALL
CONCERNED."  FN22 

THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS MADE CLEARER UPON ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSE
BILL WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE IN FAVOR OF THE
SENATE BILL WHICH IS NOW THE LAW.  THE HOUSE BILL  FN23  WAS INTENDED
TO PRESERVE SOME PART OF THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK, PRESERVING
THAT DEFENSE EXCEPT "WHERE SAID EMPLOYEE HAS NOT HAD ACTUAL NOTICE OF
ANY NEGLIGENTLY MAINTAINED CONDITION OR PRACTICE."  THE BILL, UNLIKE
THE SENATE BILL AS THE REPRESENTATIVE REPORTING IT EXPLAINED, LEFT
UNTOUCHED THE RULE OF TOLEDO, ST. L. & W.R. CO. V. ALLEN, 276 U.S. 165,
"NAMELY, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIAL CUSTOM OR UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, A MAN WHO IS RUN OVER BY A SWITCHING MOVEMENT CANNOT
RECOVER."  FN24  IT WAS THE ALLEN OPINION ON WHICH THE COURT BELOW IN
THE INSTANT CASE PARTICULARLY RELIED.  BUT THE HOUSE BILL, WHICH THE
CHIEF RAILROAD COUNSEL APPEARING BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE CONCEDED
WOULD MAKE NO CHANGE IN THE EXISTING LAW,  FN25  WAS REJECTED IN
CONFERENCE.  THE ALLEN CASE WAS SPECIFICALLY AND CAUSTICALLY DISCUSSED
AT THE SENATE HEARINGS, AND THE SENATE BILL WAS CLEARLY AIMED AT ENDING
ITS RULE.  FN26 

THE DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION RISK CAN NOT BE "ABOLISHED IN TOTO"  FN27
AND STILL REMAIN IN PARTIAL EXISTENCE AS THE COURT BELOW SUGGESTS.  THE
THEORY THAT A SERVANT IS COMPLETELY BARRED FROM RECOVERY FOR INJURY
RESULTING FROM HIS MASTER'S NEGLIGENCE, WHICH LEGISLATURES HAVE SOUGHT
TO ELIMINATE IN ALL ITS VARIOUS FORMS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, THE
FELLOW SERVANT RULE, AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK, MUST NOT, CONTRARY TO THE
WILL OF CONGRESS, BE ALLOWED RECRUDESCENCE UNDER ANY OTHER LABEL IN THE
COMMON LAW LEXICON.  THE ACT OF 1908 AND THE AMENDMENT OF 1939 ABOLISH
THE POST-PRIESTLEY V. FOWLER DEFENSES AND AUTHORIZE COMPARISON OF
NEGLIGENCE INSTEAD OF BARRING THE EMPLOYEE FROM ALL RECOVERY BECAUSE OF
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.  THEY LEAVE FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES ONLY THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CARRIER WAS NEGLIGENT AND WHETHER THAT
NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY. 

IN THIS SITUATION THE EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY IS TO BE DETERMINED UNDER
THE GENERAL RULE WHICH DEFINES NEGLIGENCE AS THE LACK OF DUE CARE UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES; OR THE FAILURE TO DO WHAT A REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
MAN WOULD ORDINARILY HAVE DONE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
SITUATION; OR DOING WHAT SUCH A PERSON UNDER THE EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES
WOULD NOT HAVE DONE.  FN28  A FAIR GENERALIZATION OF THE RULE IS GIVEN
IN THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE 1939 AMENDMENT:  "IN JUSTICE, THE
MASTER OUGHT TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR INJURIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONDITIONS
UNDER HIS CONTROL WHEN THEY ARE NOT SUCH AS A REASONABLE MAN OUGHT TO
MAINTAIN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  FN29 OF COURSE IN ANY CASE THE
STANDARD OF CARE MUST BE COMMENSURATE TO THE DANGERS OF THE BUSINESS. 
HOUGH V. RAILWAY CO., 100 U.S. 213, 218; CF. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V.
HERBERT, 116 U.S. 642, 652. 

NO CASE IS TO BE WITHHELD FROM A JURY ON ANY THEORY OF ASSUMPTION OF
RISK; AND QUESTIONS OF NEGLIGENCE SHOULD UNDER PROPER CHARGE FROM THE
COURT BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY FOR THEIR DETERMINATION.  MANY YEARS AGO
THIS COURT SAID OF THE PROBLEMS OF NEGLIGENCE, "WE SEE NO REASON, SO
LONG AS THE JURY SYSTEM IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, AND THE JURY IS MADE
THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT, WHY IT SHOULD NOT
DECIDE SUCH QUESTIONS AS THESE AS WELL AS OTHERS."  JONES V. EAST
TENNESSEE, V. & G.R. CO., 128 U.S. 443, 445.  OR AS WE HAVE PUT IT ON
ANOTHER OCCASION, "WHERE THE FACTS ARE IN DISPUTE, AND THE EVIDENCE IN
RELATION TO THEM IS THAT FROM WHICH FAIR-MINDED MEN MAY DRAW DIFFERENT
INFERENCES," THE CASE SHOULD GO TO THE JURY.  FN30 

WE THINK THAT THE QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE RAILROAD
AND ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY.  THE DECISION BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IT WAS SO DARK THAT WHEN THE ENGINEER AFTER THE ACCIDENT ASKED
THE FIREMAN TO PICK UP AN OBJECT NEAR THE TRACKS, THE FIREMAN REPLIED,
"NO, I AM AFRAID TO GO DOWN IN THE DARK BY MYSELF; YOU COME WITH ME." 

FN2  SEE, E.G., TOLEDO, ST. L. & W.R. CO. V. ALLEN, 276 U.S. 165,
171, 172; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. AEBY, 275 U.S. 426, 430.  IT IS
SOMETIMES SAID THAT COURTS HAVE HELD THE MASTER BLAMELESS IN ACTIONS BY
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE ENTERED AND REMAINED IN HAZARDOUS OCCUPATIONS ON THE
PREMISE THAT THE EMPLOYEE ASSUMED THE RISK; BUT THE THEORY HAS NOT
ALWAYS APPEARED UNDER THE NAME "ASSUMPTION OF RISK" SINCE THE SAME
RESULT IS REACHED BY ASSIGNING A GIVEN CASE TO ONE OF THREE PRACTICALLY
INTERCHANGEABLE CATEGORIES:  (A) THE EMPLOYEE ASSUMED THE RISK; (B) HE
WAS GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; (C) THE MASTER WAS NOT
NEGLIGENT.  SEE 35 AM. JUR.  719 AND 3 LABATT, MASTER AND SERVANT, 2D
ED. PAR. 1164-1172, 1205, 1210.  THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THE AMENDMENT
ELIMINATED DEFENSE (A) BUT IN EFFECT RETAINED DEFENSE (C). 

FN3  SCHLEMMER V. BUFFALO, R. & P. RY. CO., 205 U.S. 1, 12, 13. 

FN4  THE FOLLOWING TABLE DRAWN FROM THE 51ST THROUGH THE 55TH REPORTS
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, INDICATES THAT A SUBSTANTIAL
NUMBER OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES ARE KILLED AND INJURED EACH YEAR: 

EMPLOYEES KILLED AND INJURED ON STEAM RAILWAYS

                 KILLED  INJURED 

1936......................       593    9,021 

1937......................       557    9,294 

1938......................       386    6,481 

1939......................       400    6,988 

1940......................       475    7,956 

FN5  SEE 35 AM. JUR.  717; AND FOR DISCUSSION OF THIS VIEW, SEE
POUND, ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF TORTS, 53 HARV. L. REV. 365, 373. 

FN6  TUTTLE V. DETROIT, G.H. & M. RY., 122 U.S. 189, 196. 
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIBORNE, ADVOCATING A BILL TO ABOLISH ASSUMPTION OF
RISK AS A DEFENSE UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AT A
COMMITTEE HEARING IN THE 75TH CONGRESS EXPRESSED A CONTRARY VIEW AS TO
THE USEFULNESS OF THE DOCTRINE AS AN ACCIDENT PREVENTIVE:  "THE COURTS
WENT ALONG AND COMMENCED TO WEAVE INTO THE DECISIONS THIS ASSUMPTION OF
RISK DOCTRINE  ...  THEY SAID FOR ONE THING THAT IT IS GOOD PUBLIC
POLICY TO HOLD THE EMPLOYEE LIABLE WHEN HE KNEW OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS
AND DID NOT PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THEM; THAT BY DOING THAT, YOU MADE
THE MAN BETTER REGARD HIS TWO LEGS, OR BETTER REGARD HIS TWO HANDS, OR
BETTER REGARD HIS STOMACH.  WHY, NO EMPLOYEE OF A RAILROAD COMPANY IS
GOING OUT THERE AND LOSE AN ARM OR AN EYE OR A LEG AND RELY ON A JURY
TO MAKE HIM WHOLE."  HEARINGS BEFORE SUB-COMMITTEE NUMBER 4 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., ON H.R. 5755, H.R. 7336 AND H.R. 7621, P. 62. 

FN7  3 M. & W. 1, 6(EX. 1837); ON THE QUESTION OF WHICH WAS THE FIRST
CASE CREATING THIS DOCTRINE, CF. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. ROSS,
112 U.S. 377, 386. 

FN8  "MORALLY SPEAKING, THOSE WHO EMPLOY MEN ON DANGEROUS WORK
WITHOUT DOING ALL IN THEIR POWER TO OBVIATE THE DANGER ARE HIGHLY
REPREHENSIBLE, AS I CERTAINLY THINK THE COMPANY WERE IN THE PRESENT
INSTANCE.  THE WORKMAN WHO DEPENDS ON HIS EMPLOYMENT FOR THE BREAD OF
HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY IS THUS TEMPTED TO INCUR RISKS TO WHICH, AS A
MATTER OF HUMANITY, HE OUGHT NOT TO BE EXPOSED.  BUT LOOKING AT THE
MATTER IN A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, IF A MAN, FOR THE SAKE OF THE
EMPLOYMENT, TAKES IT OR CONTINUES IN IT WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF ITS RISKS,
HE MUST TRUST HIMSELF TO KEEP CLEAR OF INJURY."  WOODLEY V.
METROPOLITAN DIST. RY. CO., L.R. 2 EX. DIV. 384(1887). 

FN9  FOR BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE ENGLISH EXPERIENCE, SEE PACKER,
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SEN. DOC. 618, 62ND CONG., P. 5; COHEN,
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION IN GREAT BRITAIN, CHAP. 5.  FOR AN ACCOUNT
COVERING THE HISTORY OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAWS, SEE DODD, ADMINISTRATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, CHAPS.  1 &
2. 

FN10  HOUGH V. RAILWAY CO., 100 U.S. 213, 217.  SEE ALSO NARRAMORE V.
CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 96 F. 298. 

FN11  SEE WARREN, VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA, ETC., 8 HARV. L. REV.
457(1895); BOHLEN, VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION OF RISK, 20 HARV. L. REV. 14,
91, (1906). 

FN12  SENATOR NEELY, SPONSOR OF THE 1939 AMENDMENT, EXPLICITLY
REJECTED THE ECONOMIC THEORY WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE EARLY OPINIONS:
"THE CONTENTION THAT YOU HAVE ADVANCED APPARENTLY EMBRACES THE THEORY
THAT THE EMPLOYEE  ...  VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED THE RISK IN SPITE OF THE
FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER SAID, IN EFFECT, 'YOU TAKE THE RISK OR YOU GET
NO JOB.'  IN THESE DAYS WHEN MILLIONS ARE UNEMPLOYED AND MUST FIND WORK
IN ORDER TO SAVE THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES FROM DISTRESS, THE
SITUATION IS SO DESPERATE THAT MEN WILL SIGN ANY SORT OF WAIVER OR
AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT."  HEARINGS, SUBCOMMITTEE OF
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON S. 1708, P.
33. 

FN13  FOR COLLECTIONS OF EARLY STATE CASES, SEE 49 L.R.A. 33 AND 97
AMER.  STATE REPORTS 877.  EARLY STATE AND FOREIGN STATUTES ARE
SUMMARIZED IN THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE 1906
ACT, REPT. NO. 2335, P. 2, AND DECISIONS ON STATE STATUTES ARE
COLLECTED IN THE AM. STATE REP. NOTE 891.  THE SEABOARD AIR LINE CASE,
SUPRA, HELD THESE STATUTES INAPPLICABLE TO ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL
ACT. 

FN14  FOR A VIGOROUS ATTACK ON THIS DECISION, SEE BUFORD, ASSUMPTION
OF RISK UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 28 HARV. L. REV.
163; AND SEE PETERSON, THE JOKER IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, 80 CENT. L.J. 5.  THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN REPORTING A
BILL AIMED AT MAKING SOME MINOR MODIFICATION IN THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK
RULE STATED THAT THE 1908 CONGRESS NEVER "DREAMED, WHEN IT PASSED THIS
FORMER LAW, THAT THIS DEFENSE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK) WOULD EVER BE RAISED
BY THE USE OF" SEC. 4 OF THE ACT.  REPORT OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., REPT.
NO. 1222, ON H.R. 4988, P. 4. 

FN15  SEE 49 L.R.A. 33, 49(RELATION BETWEEN DEFENSES OF ASSUMPTION OF
RISK AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE), AND 35 AM. JUR.  719(PRAGMATIC
DISTINCTIONS SHOWN TO BE LACKING). 

FN16  FOR SOME ANALYSIS OF THE CASES, SEE NOTE 32 COL. L. REV. 1384,
53 HARV. L. REV. 341, 71 A.L.R. 451, 89 A.L.R. 693.  FOR AN ESTIMATE OF
THEIR QUANTITY, SEE SCHOENE AND WATSON, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ON
INTERSTATE RAILWAYS, 47 HARV. L. REV. 389, 394. 

FN17  "IN THOUSANDS OF CASES THE DOCTRINE IS COMPLICATED BY 'PROMISE
TO REPAIR,' 'PEREMPTORY ORDER,' AND OTHER SPECIAL INCIDENTS.  THE
'SIMPLE TOOL' DOCTRINE ALSO AROSE AS AN EXCEPTION.  THE 'PROMISE TO
REPAIR' ASPECT OF THE QUESTION IS FURTHER CONFUSED BY TWO SUPERIMPOSED
THEORIES; THAT THE EMPLOYEE MAY RELY UPON SUCH PROMISE FOR A REASONABLE
TIME AND, NEXT, THAT IF THE DANGER WAS SO MANIFEST THAT NO REASONABLE
PERSON WOULD ACT UPON SUCH PROMISE, THEN ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS
REESTABLISHED."  HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 14, P. 4.  FOR A
COLLECTION OF CITATIONS ON ALL OF THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK PROBLEMS, SEE
2 ROBERTS FEDERAL LIABILITY OF CARRIERS, 2ND ED., CHAPTER 39.  FOR A
DISCUSSION OF THE "SIMPLE TOOL" DOCTRINE, SEE JACOB V. NEW YORK CITY,
315 U.S. 752, 756. 

FN18  HARPER, THE LAW OF TORT, 292. 

FN19  S. 1708, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN20  SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME PROPOSAL AS THAT FINALLY ADOPTED IN 1939
WAS BEFORE THE 75TH CONGRESS IN H.R. 7336.  THE CHIEF LABOR EXPONENT OF
THAT BILL SAID:  THE "BILL IN ITS NATURE IS INTENDED TO RELIEVE THE
SERVANT FROM THE ASSUMPTION-OF-RISK DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED AND APPLIED
BY OUR UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT."  HEARINGS, SUPRA, NOTE 6, P. 69. 
OR, AS IT WAS PUT BY THE PRINCIPAL RAILROAD REPRESENTATIVE AT THE 1939
SENATE HEARINGS, "HERE  ...  THE PROPOSAL IS TO ABOLISH THE DEFENSE OF
ASSUMED RISK, TO ABOLISH IT IN TOTO."  HEARINGS, NOTE 12, SUPRA, P. 37,
38. 

FN21  "BUT SUCH SIMPLE DOCTRINES DO NOT APPLY EQUITABLY UNDER THE
INFINITE COMPLEXITIES OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES WHEN ONE'S FELLOW
SERVANTS MAY BE NUMBERED BY HUNDREDS OR EVEN THOUSANDS, AND UNLIMITED
OUTPUT AND MAXIMUM SPEED ARE WATCHWORDS ON EVERY HAND.  THE COMMONLAW
DOCTRINE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK, AS APPLIED TO THE WORKER IN A SMALL
FACTORY, CANNOT BE FAIRLY APPLIED TO THE RAILROAD MAN, WHOSE SERVICES
ARE PERFORMED OVER 150 MILES OF RAILROAD TRACK, OR IN A LARGE AND
CONGESTED RAILROAD YARD. 

"THE PRESENT RULE APPARENTLY IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE MASTER, AND
NOT THE SERVANT, HAS CONTROL OVER THE CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT THE
SAFETY OF EMPLOYEES.  ...  THE EXISTING RULE NOT ONLY PERMITS THE
EMPLOYER TO BE CARELESS ABOUT THE CONDITION OF HIS PREMISES BUT, IN
EFFECT, PLACES A PREMIUM UPON HIS CARELESSNESS.  ...    "UNDER PRESENT
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, EMPLOYEES MUST, OF NECESSITY, CONTINUE TO WORK
UNDER UNSAFE CONDITIONS OR FREQUENTLY SACRIFICE THE FRUITS OF MANY
YEARS OF ACCUMULATED SENIORITY, GO ON RELIEF, OR BEG THEIR BREAD." 

REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
REPT. NO. 661, P. 4. 

FN22  ONE STATEMENT BY THE BILL'S CHIEF SUPPORTER AT THE SENATE
HEARINGS COMES VERY CLOSE TO COVERING THE INSTANT CASE:  "IT GETS BACK
TO OUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT THAT THE COURTS HAVE SO ENLARGED UPON THIS
DOCTRINE THAT WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH SUCH A SITUATION AS THIS:  A POOR
FELLOW WORKING IN A YARD, INTENT UPON HIS WORK, AND SOMEBODY KICKS A
CAR ON TOP OF HIM, AND THE COURTS, NOTWITHSTANDING HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE
OF IT, IF HE IS STRUCK, HOLD THAT HE HAS NO RIGHT TO RECOVER.  IT MAY
BE THAT HE WAS NEGLIGENT, BUT AGAIN I SAY THE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
DOCTRINE SHOULD BE APPLIED."  HEARINGS, NOTE 12, SUPRA, P. 78. 

FN23  H.R. 4988, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN24  HOUSE REPORT, NOTE 14, SUPRA, P. 6. 

FN25  SENATE HEARINGS, NOTE 12, SUPRA, P. 61. 

FN26  SENATE HEARINGS, NOTE 12, SUPRA, 14, 17, 76, 81. 

FN27  SUPRA, NOTE 20. 

FN28  RAILROAD CO. V. JONES, 95 U.S. 439, 442; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY.
CO. V. BARRETT, 166 U.S. 617, 619; GRAND TRUNK RY. CO. V. IVES, 144
U.S. 408. 

FN29  SEN. REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 21, P. 4. 

FN30  WASHINGTON & GEORGETOWN R. CO. V. MCDADE, 135 U.S. 554, 572. 
SEE ALSO KANE V. NORTHERN CENTRAL RY. CO., 128 U.S. 91, 95, 96; HOUGH
V. RAILWAY CO., SUPRA, 225; JACOB V. NEW YORK CITY, 315 U.S. 752, 757. 
IT APPEARS TO BE THE CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT, TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PROPER, QUESTIONS IN ACTIONS ARISING UNDER THE ACT SHOULD BE
LEFT TO THE JURY:  "AT THE BEGINNING THIS DEFENSE (ASSUMPTION OF RISK)
WAS DEEMED TO BE AT MOST A JURY QUESTION.  BUT REPEATED HOLDINGS HAVE
ENCROACHED MORE AND MORE UPON THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEE AND VARIOUS NEW
DOCTRINES OR AMPLIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUS PRINCIPLES HAVE TENDED
CONSTANTLY TO TREAT THIS DEFENSE AS ONE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURTS
AS 'MATTER OF LAW' - TAKING IT AWAY FROM THE JURY; AND THE COURTS HAVE
DECIDED NOW IT IS A QUESTION OF LAW."  HOUSE REPORT, SUPRA, NOTE 14, P.
1.  CF. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V. KOSKE, 279 U.S. 7, 11; TOLEDO, ST.
L. & W.R. CO. V. ALLEN, 276 U.S. 165, 170. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

THE PHRASE "ASSUMPTION OF RISK" IS AN EXCELLENT ILLUSTRATION OF THE
EXTENT TO WHICH UNCRITICAL USE OF WORDS BEDEVILS THE LAW.  A PHRASE
BEGINS LIFE AS A LITERARY EXPRESSION; ITS FELICITY LEADS TO ITS LAZY
REPETITION; AND REPETITION SOON ESTABLISHES IT AS A LEGAL FORMULA,
UNDISCRIMINATINGLY USED TO EXPRESS DIFFERENT AND SOMETIMES
CONTRADICTORY IDEAS.  THUS, IN THE SETTING OF ONE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES,
"ASSUMPTION OF RISK" HAS BEEN USED AS A SHORTHAND WAY OF SAYING THAT
ALTHOUGH AN EMPLOYER MAY HAVE VIOLATED THE DUTY OF CARE WHICH HE OWED
HIS EMPLOYEE, HE COULD NEVERTHELESS ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
RESULTING FROM HIS NEGLIGENCE IF THE EMPLOYEE, BY ACCEPTING OR
CONTINUING IN THE EMPLOYMENT WITH "NOTICE" OF SUCH NEGLIGENCE, "ASSUMED
THE RISK."  IN SUCH SITUATIONS "ASSUMPTION OF RISK" IS A DEFENSE WHICH
ENABLES A NEGLIGENT EMPLOYER TO DEFEAT RECOVERY AGAINST HIM.  IN THE
SETTING OF A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, "ASSUMPTION OF
RISK" HAS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANING.  INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE ENTAILS,
FOR ALL THOSE ENGAGED IN IT, CERTAIN HAZARDS TO LIFE AND LIMB WHICH NO
AMOUNT OF CARE ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER CAN AVOID.  IN DENYING
RECOVERY TO AN EMPLOYEE INJURED AS A RESULT OF EXPOSURE TO SUCH A
HAZARD, WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS IN NO SENSE BEEN NEGLIGENT OR DERELICT
IN THE DUTY OWED TO HIS EMPLOYEES, COURTS HAVE OFTEN SAID THAT THE
EMPLOYEE "ASSUMED THE RISK."  HERE THE PHRASE "ASSUMPTION OF RISK" IS
USED SIMPLY TO CONVEY THE IDEA THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT AT FAULT AND
THEREFORE NOT LIABLE. 

PLAINLY ENOUGH ONLY MISCHIEF COULD RESULT FROM USING A SINGLE PHRASE
TO EXPRESS TWO SUCH DIFFERENT IDEAS.  SUCH AMBIGUITY NECESSARILY DOES
HARM TO THE DESIRABILITY OF CLARITY AND COHERENCE IN ANY CIVILIZED
SYSTEM OF LAW.  BUT THE GREATER MISCHIEF WAS THAT IN ONE OF ITS ASPECTS
THE PHRASE "ASSUMPTION OF RISK" GAVE JUDICIAL EXPRESSION TO A SOCIAL
POLICY THAT ENTAILED MUCH HUMAN MISERY.  THE NOTION OF "ASSUMPTION OF
RISK" AS A DEFENSE - THAT IS, WHERE THE EMPLOYER CONCEDEDLY FAILED IN
HIS DUTY OF CARE AND NEVERTHELESS ESCAPED LIABILITY BECAUSE THE
EMPLOYEE HAD "AGREED" TO "ASSUME THE RISK" OF THE EMPLOYER'S FAULT -
RESTED, IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY, UPON A PURE FICTION. 
AND IN ALL ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES LEGISLATION WAS NECESSARY TO
CORRECT THIS INJUSTICE.  IN ENFORCING SUCH LEGISLATION THE COURTS
SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE AMBIGUOUS NATURE OF THE DOCTRINE WITH
WHICH THE LEGISLATION DEALT.  IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE
POLICY, CARE MUST BE TAKEN LEST SUCH AMBIGUITY PERPETUATE THE OLD
MISCHIEF AGAINST WHICH THE NEW LEGISLATION WAS DIRECTED. 

OUR PRESENT CONCERN IS WITH THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 
PRIOR TO 1939, THE ONLY INROAD MADE BY THE ACT UPON THE DOCTRINE OF
"ASSUMPTION OF RISK" AS A DEFENSE TO LIABILITY ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE
WAS THAT IN ANY ACTION BROUGHT BY AN EMPLOYEE, HE "SHALL NOT BE HELD TO
HAVE ASSUMED THE RISKS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT IN ANY CASE WHERE THE
VIOLATION BY SAID COMMON CARRIER OF ANY STATUTE ENACTED FOR THE SAFETY
OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURY OR DEATH OF SUCH EMPLOYEE." 
THE PROVISION WAS CONSTRUED, NATURALLY ENOUGH, TO MEAN THAT "THE
ASSUMPTION OF RISK AS A DEFENSE IS ABOLISHED ONLY WHERE THE NEGLIGENCE
OF THE CARRIER IS IN VIOLATION OF SOME STATUTE ENACTED FOR THE SAFETY
OF EMPLOYEES.  IN OTHER CASES, THEREFORE, IT IS RETAINED."  JACOBS V.
SOUTHERN RY. CO., 241 U.S. 229, 235.  BY ONLY PARTIALLY WITHDRAWING THE
DEFENSE OF "ASSUMPTION OF RISK," CONGRESS ENABLED THE RAILROADS TO
AVOID LIABILITY IN MANY SITUATIONS WHERE THE EMPLOYEE'S INJURY RESULTED
FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CARRIER IN THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH AN EMPLOYER
CAN BE NEGLIGENT, NAMELY, THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS SERVANTS.  IN
OTHER WORDS, CONGRESS CONTINUED TO SANCTION THE FICTION OF ATTRIBUTING
TO EMPLOYEES A WILLINGNESS TO BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CARRIER'S
NEGLIGENCE, OTHER THAN THAT ARISING FROM ITS VIOLATION OF A STATUTE
ENACTED FOR THE SAFETY OF EMPLOYEES. 

THIS WAS THE UNFORTUNATE SITUATION WHICH THE 1939 AMENDMENT, THE ACT
OF AUGUST 11, 1939, C. 685, 53 STAT. 1404, SOUGHT TO REMEDY.  TO SEC. 4
WAS ADDED THE PROVISION THAT IN ANY ACTION BROUGHT BY AN EMPLOYEE HE
"SHALL NOT BE HELD TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISKS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT IN ANY
CASE WHERE SUCH INJURY OR DEATH RESULTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE
NEGLIGENCE OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES OF SUCH
CARRIER.  ...  "  THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT, WHATEVER OTHER RISKS AN EMPLOYEE MAY ASSUME, HE DOES NOT "ASSUME
THE RISK" OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CARRIER OR ITS OTHER EMPLOYEES. 
ONCE THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CARRIER IS ESTABLISHED, IT CANNOT BE
RELIEVED OF LIABILITY BY PLEADING THAT THE EMPLOYEE "ASSUMED THE
RISK." 

BUT THE 1939 AMENDMENT LEFT INTACT THE FOUNDATION OF THE CARRIER'S
LIABILITY - NEGLIGENCE.  UNLIKE THE ENGLISH ENACTMENT WHICH, NEARLY
FIFTY YEARS AGO, RECOGNIZED THAT THE COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF LIABILITY
FOR NEGLIGENCE IS ARCHAIC AND UNJUST AS A MEANS OF COMPENSATION FOR
INJURIES SUSTAINED BY EMPLOYEES UNDER MODERN INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS, THE
FEDERAL LEGISLATION HAS RETAINED NEGLIGENCE AS THE BASIS OF A CARRIER'S
LIABILITY.  FOR REASONS THAT ARE ITS CONCERN AND NOT OURS, CONGRESS
CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF MOST STATES IN ESTABLISHING SYSTEMS
OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION NOT BASED UPON NEGLIGENCE.  CONGRESS HAS TO
SOME EXTENT ALLEVIATED THE DOCTRINES OF THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE AS
APPLIED TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES.  BY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, IT HAS SWEPT AWAY "ASSUMPTION OF RISK" AS A
DEFENSE ONCE NEGLIGENCE IS ESTABLISHED.  BUT IT HAS LEFT UNDISTURBED
THE OTHER MEANING OF "ASSUMPTION OF RISK," NAMELY, THAT AN EMPLOYEE
INJURED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF BEING EXPOSED TO A RISK WHICH THE EMPLOYER
IN THE EXERCISE OF DUE CARE COULD NOT AVOID IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER,
SINCE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT NEGLIGENT. 

THE POINT IS ILLUSTRATED BY TWO OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES.  IN
SCHLEMMER V. BUFFALO, R. & P. RY. CO., 205 U.S. 1, 12-13, HE CALLED
ATTENTION TO THE DANGER OF RELIEVING FROM LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE BY
TALKING ABOUT "ASSUMPTION OF RISK" - A DANGER RESULTING FROM THE
AMBIGUITY OF THE PHRASE.  "ASSUMPTION OF RISK" BY AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE A
WAY OF EXPRESSING THE CONCLUSION THAT HE HAS BEEN GUILTY OF
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.  BUT AN EMPLOYEE CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE SIMPLY BECAUSE HE "ASSUMED THE RISK"; THE
INQUIRY IS, DID HIS CONDUCT DEPART FROM THAT OF A REASONABLY PRUDENT
EMPLOYEE IN HIS SITUATION?  AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES ADMONISHED US IN THE
SCHLEMMER CASE, "UNLESS GREAT CARE BE TAKEN, THE SERVANT'S RIGHTS WILL
BE SACRIFICED BY SIMPLY CHARGING HIM WITH ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK UNDER
ANOTHER NAME."  IBID.  THAT CASE WAS DECIDED BEFORE THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WAS IN FORCE.  IN A LATER CASE ARISING UNDER
THE ACT, CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. NIXON, 271 U.S. 218, MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT REVERSED A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF ON
THE GROUND THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S DEATH WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO KEEP A
LOOKOUT WHICH WAS ONE OF THE "USUAL RISKS" OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  TO BE
SURE, THIS DECISION WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE 1939 AMENDMENT, BUT IN THIS
RESPECT THAT ENACTMENT MAKES NO CHANGE IN THE LAW.  THE BASIS OF AN
ACTION UNDER THE ACT REMAINS THE CARRIER'S NEGLIGENCE.  THE CARRIER IS
NOT TO BE RELIEVED FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS NEGLIGENCE BY ANY CLAIM
THAT THE EMPLOYEE "ASSUMED THE RISK" OF ITS NEGLIGENCE.  BUT NEITHER IS
THE CARRIER TO BE CHARGED WITH THOSE INJURIES WHICH RESULT FROM THE
"USUAL RISKS" INCIDENT TO EMPLOYMENT ON RAILROADS - RISKS WHICH CANNOT
BE ELIMINATED THROUGH THE CARRIER'S EXERCISE OF REASONABLE CARE. 

"ASSUMPTION OF RISK" AS A DEFENSE WHERE THERE IS NEGLIGENCE HAS BEEN
WRITTEN OUT OF THE ACT.  BUT "ASSUMPTION OF RISK," IN THE SENSE THAT
THE EMPLOYER IS NOT LIABLE FOR THOSE RISKS WHICH IT COULD NOT AVOID IN
THE OBSERVANCE OF ITS DUTY OF CARE, HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN OUT OF THE
LAW.  BECAUSE OF ITS AMBIGUITY THE PHRASE "ASSUMPTION OF RISK" IS A
HAZARDOUS LEGAL TOOL.  AS A MEANS OF INSTRUCTING A JURY, IT IS BOUND TO
CREATE CONFUSION.  IT SHOULD THEREFORE BE DISCARDED.  BUT UNTIL
CONGRESS CHOOSES TO ABANDON THE CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE, UPON WHICH THE
ACT NOW RESTS, IN FAVOR OF A SYSTEM OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION NOT
DEPENDENT UPON NEGLIGENCE, THE COURTS CANNOT DISCARD THE PRINCIPLE
EXPRESSED, IN ONE OF ITS SENSES, BY THE PHRASE "ASSUMPTION OF RISK,"
NAMELY, THAT A CARRIER IS NOT LIABLE UNLESS IT WAS NEGLIGENT. 

PERHAPS NO FIELD OF THE LAW COMES CLOSER TO THE LIVES OF SO MANY
FAMILIES IN THIS COUNTRY THAN DOES THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE, IMBEDDED AS
IT IS IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  IT IS MOST DESIRABLE,
THEREFORE, THAT THE LAW SHOULD NOT BE CLOUDY AND CONFUSED.  I AM NOT AT
ALL CERTAIN THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MISCONCEIVED THE NATURE
AND EXTENT OF THE CARRIER'S LIABILITY AFTER THE 1939 AMENDMENT, RATHER
THAN MERELY OBSCURED ITS UNDERSTANDING BY BECLOUDING TALK ABOUT
"ASSUMPTION OF RISK."  BUT SINCE I AGREE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD
HAVE ALLOWED THE CASE TO GO TO THE JURY ON THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE, I
CONCUR IN THE DECISION. 
..END :




















ZIFFRIN, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 73 


NO. 245.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  -
AFFIRMED. 


AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION FOR A PERMIT UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF SEC. 209(A)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO CONTINUE DESIGNATED CONTRACT CARRIER
OPERATIONS, AND AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING BY THE COMMISSION ON THE
APPLICATION, SEC. 210 OF THE ACT PROVIDED THAT A CERTIFICATE AS A
COMMON CARRIER AND A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT CARRIER COULD NOT BE HELD BY
THE SAME CARRIER EXCEPT UPON A FINDING BY THE COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY
WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION'S DECISION ON THE
APPLICATION, SEC. 210 WAS AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT, WITHOUT A SIMILAR
FINDING, A CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER AND A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT
CARRIER COULD NOT BE HELD BY CARRIERS WHICH ARE UNDER COMMON CONTROL. 
HELD: 

1.  THE COMMISSION WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE ITS DECISION ON THE
APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT AS AMENDED.  P. 78. 

2.  THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER NOTICE OF
THE HEARING, AND WAS DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ACT AS AMENDED, ARE UNSUPPORTED.  P. 79. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DENYING THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT
THE APPLICANT WAS UNDER COMMON CONTROL WITH A CERTIFICATED COMMON
CARRIER, AND THAT THE APPLICATION COULD NOT BE GRANTED CONSISTENTLY
WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, IS
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 80. 

ZIFFRIN, INCORPORATED, V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES REFUSING
TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF A STATUTORY THREE
JUDGE COURT DENYING A PETITION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY AND A FINAL
INJUNCTION SETTING ASIDE AND ANNULLING AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN1  THE ORDER ATTACKED DENIED AN APPLICATION OF
APPELLANT, AN INDIANA CORPORATION, FILED FEBRUARY 4, 1936, FOR A PERMIT
TO CONTINUE DESIGNATED CONTRACT CARRIER OPERATIONS UNDER THE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE OF SEC. 209(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION BY THE COMMISSION ON MAY 29, 1941, 28
M.C.C. 683, WAS ON THE GROUND THAT APPLICANT AND ZIFFRIN TRUCK LINES,
INC., A CERTIFICATED COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE, WERE OWNED,
CONTROLLED AND MANAGED IN A COMMON INTEREST AND THAT UNDER SEC. 210 OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PART II, IT WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO GRANT THE
APPLICATION. 

OF THE APPLICATION AND THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER DENYING IT.  THE TWO
FORMS OF SEC. 210 APPEAR IN THE NOTE BELOW.  FN2 

IT IS APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE EFFECT
OF THE EARLIER FORM, WITH THE PASSAGE OF THE AMENDMENT AFTER THE
HEARING THE APPLICANT SHOULD NOW HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE
ABSENCE OF COMMON CONTROL OF IT AND ZIFFRIN TRUCK LINES, INCORPORATED. 
AS SEC. 210 STOOD WHEN APPELLANT REQUESTED ITS PERMIT AND AT THE
HEARING, A CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER AND A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT
CARRIER WERE NOT TO BE HELD BY THE SAME PERSON WITHOUT SPECIAL FINDING
OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY THE COMMISSION.  THE
AMENDMENT PROVIDED THAT WITHOUT A SIMILAR SPECIAL FINDING NO PERSON
SHOULD HOLD A CONTRACT CARRIER PERMIT WHO WAS UNDER COMMON CONTROL WITH
A PERSON HOLDING A COMMON CARRIER CERTIFICATE.  PERSON, OF COURSE,
INCLUDED A CORPORATION.  49 U.S.C. 303(A)(1). 

OBVIOUSLY THE FEAR OF POSSIBLE EVASION LED TO THE CHANGE IN
LANGUAGE.  INDEED, THE COMMISSION HAD DISREGARDED THE CORPORATE FICTION
AND INTERPRETED THE EARLIER FORM AS COVERING PERSONS UNDER COMMON
CONTROL.  FN3  THIS WAS CALLED TO APPLICANT'S ATTENTION BY AN ORDER OF
JUNE 23, 1938, SETTING THE DATE FOR HEARING THE APPLICATION.  FN4  THE
INTERPRETATION WAS DISCUSSED IN THE EXAMINER'S REPORT, IN THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT, AND APPLIED, ADVERSELY TO APPELLANT, BY THE
FINDINGS.  28 M.C.C. 683, 692-99. 

WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 WAS BEFORE THE SENATE, THE
DRAFTSMEN ADDED A SENTENCE TO THE EARLIER FORM OF SEC. 210, READING AS
FOLLOWS:  "THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO DUAL OPERATIONS BY AFFILIATED
CARRIERS."  WHEN THE BILL, S. 2009, IN THE TWO FORMS IN WHICH IT WAS
ENACTED IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WAS EXAMINED BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE CHAIRMAN OF ITS LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE TRANSMITTED A REPORT ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE N5.  IN THE
REPORT (AT PAGE 62) THIS COMMENT WAS MADE AS TO THE PRESENT SEC. 210: 

"DESIRABLE.   - (A) AFTER THE NEW SECTION 22 WHICH WE HAVE PROPOSED
ABOVE, ADD A NEW SECTION 23(WITH APPROPRIATE RENUMBERING OF SUBSEQUENT

'SEC. 23.  SECTION 210 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED, IS
AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THEREOF THE FOLLOWING NEW SENTENCE:  "THIS

THIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED AT THE END OF SECTION 45 OF THE
SENATE BILL, AND IT HAS OUR APPROVAL.  THE COMMISSION HAS CONSTRUED
TO REMOVE ALL DOUBT ON THE POINT." 

AT THE CONFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS,
THE FORM OF SEC. 210 WAS CHANGED TO THE PRESENT READING.  THE REPORT
CONTAINS THIS EXPLANATION:  FN6 

"SECTION 21(A).  DUAL OPERATIONS UNDER CERTIFICATES AND PERMITS,
MOTOR CARRIERS. 

"THE CONFERENCE SUBSTITUTE IN SECTION 21(A) AMENDS SECTION 210 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WHICH PROHIBITS A PERSON FROM HOLDING AT THE
SAME TIME BOTH A CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR
VEHICLE AND A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT CARRIER OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE
OVER THE SAME ROUTE OR WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY, UNLESS FOR GOOD CAUSE
SHOWN THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND THAT BOTH FORMS OF OPERATING AUTHORITY
MAY BE HELD CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WITH THE POLICY
DECLARED IN PART II, SO THAT THE SECTION WILL APPLY NOT ONLY TO A
PARTICULAR MOTOR CARRIER BUT ALSO TO ANY PERSON CONTROLLING, CONTROLLED
BY, OR UNDER COMMON CONTROL WITH, SUCH PERSON." 

IT IS UNNECESSARY, HOWEVER, TO DECIDE WHETHER THE COMMISSION
CORRECTLY APPLIED SEC. 210 AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED TO SUCH COMMON CONTROL
AS THE COMMISSION FOUND IN APPELLANT AND ZIFFRIN TRUCK LINES, INC. WE
ARE CONVINCED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS REQUIRED TO ACT UNDER THE LAW AS
IT EXISTED WHEN ITS ORDER OF MAY 29, 1941, WAS ENTERED.  THE PERMIT WAS
EFFECTIVE FOR THE FUTURE AND THE AMENDMENT FORBADE PERSONS UNDER COMMON
CONTROL HOLDING BOTH A PERMIT AND A CERTIFICATE.  PREVIOUSLY APPELLANT
HAD BEEN OPERATING UNDER AN EX PARTE PERMIT.  PROTESTS TO THE GRANT HAD
BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DUAL OPERATION, THE FORMAL HEARING WAS HELD
AND THE QUESTION RAISED BY THESE PROTESTS WAS HEARD AT LENGTH.  A
CHANGE IN THE LAW BETWEEN A NISI PRIUS AND AN APPELLATE DECISION
REQUIRES THE APPELLATE COURT TO APPLY THE CHANGED LAW.  VANDENBARK V.
OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., 311 U.S. 538, AND CASES CITED.  CF. DUPLEX
PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 464.  A FORTIORI, A CHANGE
OF LAW PENDING AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MUST BE FOLLOWED IN RELATION
TO PERMITS FOR FUTURE ACTS.  OTHERWISE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY WOULD
ISSUE ORDERS CONTRARY TO THE EXISTING LEGISLATION. 

WE FIND NO BASIS FOR APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT IT WAS GIVEN
IMPROPER NOTICE OF THE HEARING AND DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMENDED SECTION.  THE STEPS OF NOTICE AND HEARING
DETAILED ABOVE DEMONSTRATE THE ERROR OF THE FORMER CONTENTION.  AS TO
THE LATTER, IT IS MET COMPLETELY BY THE REPORT AND ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION, MADE WHILE THIS SUIT WAS PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AND
DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER OF MAY 29,
1941.  ZIFFRIN, INCORPORATED, CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION, 33 M.C.C.
155.  THIS OPINION WAS CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION BY THE GOVERNMENT IN
BRIEF AND ARGUMENT.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WILL NOT DISREGARD IT.
THE COMMISSION THERE SAID, P. 156: 

"AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL ON APPLICANT'S SUIT BEFORE THE THREE
JUDGE COURT, A CONFERENCE WAS HELD BETWEEN THE COUNSEL FOR ALL THE
PARTIES TO THE SUIT IN THE COURT'S CHAMBERS.  IT WAS THERE SUGGESTED BY
THE COURT THAT APPLICANT SUBMIT TO THIS COMMISSION SOME METHOD FOR
DIVORCING APPLICANT HEREIN FROM ZIFFRIN TRUCK LINES, INC., WHICH MIGHT
ELIMINATE THE CONFLICT WITH SECTION 210 OF THE ACT ON WHICH THE DENIAL
OF THE APPLICATION WAS GROUNDED.  PURSUANT TO THIS SUGGESTION,
APPLICANT HAS FILED A PETITION SEEKING REOPENING AND RECONSIDERATION OF
THE PROCEEDING, AND, AS A BASIS THEREFOR, PROPOSES A PLAN FOR
ELIMINATION OF THE COMMON CONTROL OF APPLICANT AND ZIFFRIN TRUCK LINES,
INC. THE PETITION IS OPPOSED BY AN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR COMMON
CARRIERS.  IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE FILING OF THIS PETITION AND ACTION
BY US THEREON DOES NOT TERMINATE THE COURT PROCEEDING.  PENDING OUR
ACTION ON THE PETITION, HOWEVER, THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY THE COURT IS
BEING HELD IN ABEYANCE.  IN VIEW OF THE PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION, WE
BELIEVE THAT A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR OUR ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
THIS PETITION WILL BE HELPFUL."  THE COMMISSION THEN RESTATED THE
EVIDENCE SHOWING COMMON CONTROL OF THE TWO CORPORATIONS AND CONCLUDED
THAT THE PLAN PROPOSED WOULD NOT CHANGE THE SITUATION.  SEE 33 M.C.C.
155; 28 M.C.C. 683, 692 ET SEQ. THE EVIDENCE IS AMPLE TO SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION ENTERED AT THE EARLIER HEARING.  THIS IS
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ORDER UPON JUDICIAL REVIEW.  SHIELDS V. UTAH
IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177, 185; UNITED STATES V. MAHER, 307
U.S. 148, 155.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, 38 STAT. 208, 220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47,
47(A); JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 238, 43 STAT. 936, 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345;
SEC. 205(H) INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PART II; 49 STAT. 543, 550, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 305(H). 

FN2  SECTION 210(49 STAT. 554), AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, 1935, PROVIDED: 

"NO PERSON, AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936, SHALL AT THE SAME TIME HOLD UNDER
THIS PART A CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER AND A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT
CARRIER AUTHORIZING OPERATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY
MOTOR VEHICLE OVER THE SAME ROUTE OR WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY, UNLESS
FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND THAT SUCH CERTIFICATE
AND PERMIT MAY BE HELD CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WITH
THE POLICY DECLARED IN SECTION 202(A) OF THIS PART." 

TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940 PROVIDES: 

"UNLESS, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND, OR SHALL
HAVE FOUND, THAT BOTH A CERTIFICATE AND A PERMIT MAY BE SO HELD
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WITH THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION POLICY DECLARED IN THIS ACT - 

"(1)  NO PERSON, OR ANY PERSON CONTROLLING, CONTROLLED BY, OR UNDER
COMMON CONTROL WITH SUCH PERSON, SHALL HOLD A CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON
CARRIER AUTHORIZING OPERATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY
MOTOR VEHICLE OVER A ROUTE OR WITHIN A TERRITORY, IF SUCH PERSON, OR
ANY SUCH CONTROLLING PERSON, CONTROLLED PERSON, OR PERSON UNDER COMMON
CONTROL, HOLDS A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT CARRIER AUTHORIZING OPERATION FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE OVER THE SAME ROUTE OR
WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY; AND 

"(2)  NO PERSON, OR ANY PERSON CONTROLLING, CONTROLLED BY, OR UNDER
COMMON CONTROL WITH SUCH PERSON, SHALL HOLD A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT
CARRIER AUTHORIZING OPERATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY
MOTOR VEHICLE OVER A ROUTE OR WITHIN A TERRITORY, IF SUCH PERSON, OR
ANY SUCH CONTROLLING PERSON, CONTROLLED PERSON, OR PERSON UNDER COMMON
CONTROL, HOLDS A CERTIFICATE AS A COMMON CARRIER AUTHORIZING OPERATION
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE OVER THE SAME ROUTE
OR WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY." 

FN3  IN RE NEW YORK & NEW BRUNSWICK AUTO EXP.  CO., INC., COMMON
CARRIER APPLICATION, 23 M.C.C. 663, 671.  CF. IN RE BIGLEY BROTHERS,
INC., CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION, 4 M.C.C. 711; UNIVERSAL SERVICE,
INC.,  - PURCHASE - W.R. ARTHUR & CO., INC., 15 M.C.C. 247. 

FN4  THE ORDER READ IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ALTHOUGH APPLICATION HEREIN IS FOR A
CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT ON FORM BMC 1, THE APPLICANT MUST ESTABLISH ALSO
THE CORPORATE RELATIONSHIP EXISTING BETWEEN THE APPLICANT HEREIN
MENTIONED AND THE ZIFFRIN TRUCK LINES, INC., (NO. MC 2510) AND IF SAID
APPLICANT AND THE ZIFFRIN TRUCK LINES, INC., ARE FOUND TO BE AFFILIATED
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 5(6) OF PART I, APPLICANT MUST ALSO
ESTABLISH THAT A PERMIT MAY BE HELD BY APPLICANT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND WITH THE POLICY DECLARED IN SECTION 202(A) OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, WITHIN THE MEANING AND CONTEMPLATION OF

FN5  OMNIBUS TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION, HOUSE COMMITTEE PRINT, 76TH
CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN6  H. REP. NO. 2832, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 78. 
..END :





SECURITIES COMM'N V. CHENERY CORP., 318 U.S. 80 


NO. 254.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 18, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  -
75 U.S. APP. D.C. 374, 128 F.2D 303, REMANDED. 


BY AN ORDER OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION UNDER THE PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, APPROVAL WAS GIVEN, OVER
OBJECTIONS, TO A PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF A REGISTERED HOLDING
COMPANY, WHEREBY PREFERRED STOCK WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY OFFICERS
AND DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WHILE PLANS FOR ITS REORGANIZATION WERE
BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WOULD NOT BE CONVERTED INTO STOCK OF THE
REORGANIZED COMPANY, AS WOULD ALL OTHER PREFERRED STOCK, BUT WOULD BE
SURRENDERED AT COST PLUS INTEREST.  THE COMMISSION EXPLICITLY BASED ITS
ORDER ON ITS VIEW OF PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED. 
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION DID NOT FIND, BUT ON THE CONTRARY DISAVOWED,
THAT THE SPECIFIC TRANSACTIONS SHOWED MISUSE BY THE OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS OF THEIR POSITION AS REORGANIZATION MANAGERS, OR THAT AS SUCH
MANAGERS THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE CORPORATION, OTHER STOCKHOLDERS, OR
THE INVESTING PUBLIC.  HELD: 

1.  ON REVIEW UNDER SEC. 24(A) OF THE ACT, THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION MUST BE JUDGED ON THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE RECORD
DISCLOSES THAT ITS ACTION WAS BASED.  P. 87. 

2.  TESTED BY PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED, THE ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED.  P. 88. 

3.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE MADE FINDINGS
WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY ITS ORDER AS AN APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARD OF INTERESTS
WHICH THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT.  SUCH FINDINGS ARE ESSENTIAL TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER, AND HERE THERE IS NONE.  P. 94. 

4.  SUCH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER CAN NOT BE UPHELD IF NOT SUSTAINABLE
BY THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED BY THE COMMISSION.  P. 95. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. CHENERY CORPORATION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 609, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENTS, WHO WERE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND CONTROLLING
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE FEDERAL WATER SERVICE CORPORATION (HEREAFTER CALLED
FEDERAL), A HOLDING COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 1935, C. 687, 49 STAT. 803, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79, BROUGHT
THIS PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 24(A) OF THE ACT TO REVIEW AN ORDER MADE BY
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1941, APPROVING
A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR THE COMPANY.  UNDER THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER, PREFERRED STOCK ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENTS DURING THE PERIOD IN
WHICH SUCCESSIVE REORGANIZATION PLANS PROPOSED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
COMPANY WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WAS NOT PERMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE REORGANIZATION ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH ALL OTHER PREFERRED STOCK. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WITH ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, SET THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ASIDE, 128 F.2D 303, AND BECAUSE
THE QUESTION PRESENTED LOOMS LARGE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE. 

THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS.  IN 1937, FEDERAL WAS A TYPICAL
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY.  INCORPORATED IN DELAWARE, ITS ASSETS
CONSISTED OF SECURITIES OF SUBSIDIARY WATER, GAS, ELECTRIC, AND OTHER
COMPANIES IN THIRTEEN STATES AND ONE FOREIGN COUNTRY.  THE RESPONDENTS
CONTROLLED FEDERAL THROUGH THEIR CONTROL OF ITS PARENT, UTILITY
OPERATORS COMPANY, WHICH OWNED ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING SHARES OF
FEDERAL'S CLASS B COMMON STOCK, REPRESENTING THE CONTROLLING VOTING
POWER IN THE COMPANY.  ON NOVEMBER 8, 1937, WHEN FEDERAL REGISTERED AS
A HOLDING COMPANY UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935,
ITS MANAGEMENT FILED A PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SECS. 7 AND 11 OF
THE ACT, THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF WHICH ARE COPIED IN THE MARGIN.  FN1
THIS PLAN, AS WELL AS TWO OTHER PLANS LATER SUBMITTED BY FEDERAL,
PROVIDED FOR PARTICIPATION BY CLASS B STOCKHOLDERS IN THE EQUITY OF THE
PROPOSED REORGANIZED COMPANY.  THIS FEATURE OF THE PLANS WAS
UNACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMISSION, AND ALL WERE ULTIMATELY WITHDRAWN.  ON
MARCH 30, 1940, A FOURTH PLAN WAS FILED BY FEDERAL.  THIS PLAN,
PROPOSING A MERGER OF FEDERAL, UTILITY OPERATORS COMPANY, AND FEDERAL
WATER AND GAS CORPORATION, A WHOLLY-OWNED INACTIVE SUBSIDIARY OF
FEDERAL, CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR PARTICIPATION BY THE CLASS B
STOCK.  INSTEAD, THAT CLASS OF STOCK WAS TO BE SURRENDERED FOR
CANCELLATION, AND THE PREFERRED AND CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF FEDERAL
WERE TO BE CONVERTED INTO COMMON STOCK OF THE NEW CORPORATION.  AS THE
COMMISSION POINTED OUT IN ITS ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED PLAN, "EXCEPT
FOR THE 5.3% OF NEW COMMON ALLOCATED TO THE PRESENT HOLDERS OF CLASS A
STOCK, SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE EQUITY OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY WILL
BE GIVEN TO THE PRESENT PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS." 

DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 8, 1937, TO JUNE 30, 1940, WHILE THE
SUCCESSIVE REORGANIZATION PLANS WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE
RESPONDENTS PURCHASES A TOTAL OF 12,407 SHARES OF FEDERAL'S PREFERRED
STOCK.  (THE TOTAL NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING SHARES OF FEDERAL'S PREFERRED
STOCK WAS 159,269.)  THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE ON THE OVER-THE-COUNTER
MARKET THROUGH BROKERS AT PRICES LOWER THAN THE BOOK VALUE OF THE
COMMON STOCK OF THE NEW CORPORATION INTO WHICH THE PREFERRED STOCK
WOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED UNDER THE PROPOSED PLAN.  IF THIS FEATURE OF
THE PLAN HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, THE RESPONDENTS THROUGH
THEIR HOLDINGS OF FEDERAL'S PREFERRED STOCK WOULD HAVE ACQUIRED MORE
THAN 10 PER CENT OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE NEW CORPORATION.  THE
RESPONDENTS FRANKLY ADMITTED THAT THEIR PURPOSE IN BUYING THE PREFERRED
STOCK WAS TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS IN THE COMPANY. 

IN ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE TERMS OF ISSUANCE OF THE NEW COMMON STOCK
WERE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" OR "DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTERESTS OF
INVESTORS" WITHIN SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT IT COULD
NOT APPROVE THE PROPOSED PLAN SO LONG AS THE PREFERRED STOCK ACQUIRED
BY THE RESPONDENTS WOULD BE PERMITTED TO SHARE ON A PARITY WITH OTHER
PREFERRED STOCK.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT FIND FRAUD OR LACK OF
DISCLOSURE, BUT IT CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENTS, AS FEDERAL'S
MANAGERS, WERE FIDUCIARIES AND HENCE UNDER A "DUTY OF FAIR DEALING" NOT
TO TRADE IN THE SECURITIES OF THE CORPORATION WHILE PLANS FOR ITS
REORGANIZATION WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  IT RECOMMENDED THAT A
FORMULA BE DEVISED UNDER WHICH THE RESPONDENTS' PREFERRED STOCK WOULD
PARTICIPATE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICES PAID PLUS
ACCUMULATED DIVIDENDS SINCE THE DATES OF SUCH PURCHASES.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE PLAN WAS THEREAFTER AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT THE PREFERRED STOCK
ACQUIRED BY THE RESPONDENTS, UNLIKE THE PREFERRED STOCK HELD BY OTHERS,
WOULD NOT BE CONVERTED INTO STOCK OF THE REORGANIZED COMPANY, BUT COULD
ONLY BE SURRENDERED AT COST PLUS 4 PER CENT INTEREST.  THE COMMISSION,
OVER THE RESPONDENTS' OBJECTIONS, APPROVED THE PLAN AS THUS AMENDED,
AND IT IS THIS ORDER WHICH IS NOW UNDER REVIEW. 

WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION THAT OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
WHO MANAGE A HOLDING COMPANY IN PROCESS OF REORGANIZATION UNDER THE
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935 OCCUPY POSITIONS OF TRUST. 
WE REJECT A LAX VIEW OF FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS AND INSIST UPON THEIR
SCRUPULOUS OBSERVANCE.  SEE WORMLEY V. WORMLEY, 8 WHEAT.  421, 441;
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. BOGERT, 250 U.S. 483, 487-88; AND SEE STONE,
THE PUBLIC INFLUENCE OF THE BAR, 48 HARV. L. REV. 1, 8-9.  BUT TO SAY
THAT A MAN IS A FIDUCIARY ONLY BEGINS ANALYSIS; IT GIVES DIRECTION TO
FURTHER INQUIRY.  TO WHOM IS HE A FIDUCIARY?  WHAT OBLIGATIONS DOES HE
OWE AS A FIDUCIARY?  IN WHAT RESPECT HAS HE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THESE
OBLIGATIONS?  AND WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS DEVIATION FROM
DUTY? 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT FIND THAT THE RESPONDENTS AS MANAGERS OF
FEDERAL ACTED COVERTLY OR TRADED ON INSIDE KNOWLEDGE, OR THAT THEIR
POSITION AS REORGANIZATION MANAGERS ENABLED THEM TO PURCHASE THE
PREFERRED STOCK AT PRICES LOWER THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE HAD TO
PAY, OR THAT THEIR ACQUISITION OF THE STOCK IN ANY WAY PREJUDICED THE
INTERESTS OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  TO BE SURE, THE NEW
STOCK INTO WHICH THE RESPONDENTS' PREFERRED STOCK WOULD BE CONVERTED
UNDER THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WOULD HAVE A BOOK VALUE - WHICH MAY OR
MAY NOT REPRESENT MARKET VALUE - CONSIDERABLY GREATER THAN THE PRICES
PAID FOR THE PREFERRED STOCK.  BUT THAT WOULD EQUALLY BE TRUE OF
PURCHASES OF PREFERRED STOCK MADE BY OTHER INVESTORS.  THE RESPONDENTS,
THE COMMISSION TELLS US, ACQUIRED THEIR STOCK AS THE OUTSIDE WORLD DID,
AND UPON NO BETTER TERMS.  THE COMMISSION DEALT WITH THIS AS A SPECIFIC
CASE, AND NOT AS THE APPLICATION OF A GENERAL RULE FORMULATING RULES OF
CONDUCT FOR REORGANIZATION MANAGERS.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS A VITAL
CONSIDERATION THAT THE COMMISSION CONCEDED THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT
ACQUIRE THEIR STOCK THROUGH ANY FAVORING CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN ITS OWN
WORDS, "HONESTY, FULL DISCLOSURE, AND PURCHASE AT A FAIR PRICE"
CHARACTERIZED THE TRANSACTIONS.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT SUGGEST THAT,
AS A RESULT OF THEIR PURCHASES OF PREFERRED STOCK, THE RESPONDENTS
WOULD BE UNJUSTLY ENRICHED.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE
COMMISSION WAS WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WERE
REORGANIZATION MANAGERS, SHOULD BE DENIED THE BENEFITS TO BE RECEIVED
BY THE 6,000 OTHER PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  SOME TECHNICAL RULE OF LAW
MUST HAVE MOVED THE COMMISSION TO SINGLE OUT THE RESPONDENTS AND DENY
THEIR PREFERRED STOCK THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE EQUALLY IN THE
REORGANIZATION.  TO ASCERTAIN THE PRECISE BASIS OF ITS DETERMINATION,
WE MUST LOOK TO THE COMMISSION'S OPINION. 

THE COMMISSION STATED THAT "IN THE PROCESS OF FORMULATION OF A
'VOLUNTARY' REORGANIZATION PLAN, THE MANAGEMENT OF A CORPORATION
OCCUPIES A FIDUCIARY POSITION TOWARD ALL OF THE SECURITY HOLDERS TO BE
AFFECTED, AND THAT IT IS SUBJECTED TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS OTHER
FIDUCIARIES WITH RESPECT TO DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY WHICH IS THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TRUST."  APPLYING BY ANALOGY THE RESTRICTIONS
IMPOSED ON TRUSTEES IN TRAFFICKING IN PROPERTY HELD BY THEM IN TRUST
FOR OTHERS, MICHOUD V. GIROD, 4 HOW.  503, 557, THE COMMISSION RULED
THAT EVEN THOUGH THE MANAGEMENT DOES NOT HOLD THE STOCK OF THE
CORPORATION IN TRUST FOR THE STOCKHOLDERS, NEVERTHELESS THE "DUTY OF
FAIR DEALING" WHICH THE MANAGEMENT OWES TO THE STOCKHOLDERS IS VIOLATED
IF THOSE IN CONTROL OF THE CORPORATION PURCHASE ITS STOCK, EVEN AT A
FAIR PRICE, OPENLY AND WITHOUT FRAUD.  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT
"HONESTY, FULL DISCLOSURE, AND PURCHASE AT A FAIR PRICE DO NOT TAKE THE
CASE OUTSIDE THE RULE." 

IN REACHING THIS RESULT THE COMMISSION STATED THAT IT WAS MERELY
APPLYING "THE BROAD EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THE CASES
HERETOFORE CITED," NAMELY, PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295; MICHOUD V.
GIROD, 4 HOW.  503, 557; MAGRUDER V. DRURY, 235 U.S. 106, 119-20, AND
MEINHARD V. SALMON, 249 N.Y. 458, 164 N.E. 545.  ITS OPINION PLAINLY
SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSION PURPORTED TO BE ACTING ONLY AS IT ASSUMED A
COURT OF EQUITY WOULD HAVE ACTED IN A SIMILAR CASE.  SINCE THE DECISION
OF THE COMMISSION WAS EXPLICITLY BASED UPON THE APPLICABILITY OF
PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY ANNOUNCED BY COURTS, ITS VALIDITY MUST LIKEWISE BE
JUDGED ON THAT BASIS.  THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
MUST BE JUDGED ARE THOSE UPON WHICH THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT ITS
ACTION WAS BASED. 

IN CONFINING OUR REVIEW TO A JUDGMENT UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE
GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION ITSELF BASED ITS ACTION, WE DO NOT
DISTURB THE SETTLED RULE THAT, IN REVIEWING THE DECISION OF A LOWER
COURT, IT MUST BE AFFIRMED IF THE RESULT IS CORRECT "ALTHOUGH THE LOWER
COURT RELIED UPON A WRONG GROUND OR GAVE A WRONG REASON."  HELVERING V.
GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238, 245.  THE REASON FOR THIS RULE IS OBVIOUS.  IT
WOULD BE WASTEFUL TO SEND A CASE BACK TO A LOWER COURT TO REINSTATE A
DECISION WHICH IT HAD ALREADY MADE BUT WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT
CONCLUDED SHOULD PROPERLY BE BASED ON ANOTHER GROUND WITHIN THE POWER
OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO FORMULATE.  BUT IT IS ALSO FAMILIAR APPELLATE
PROCEDURE THAT WHERE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION
DEPENDS UPON A DETERMINATION OF FACT WHICH ONLY A JURY COULD MAKE BUT
WHICH HAS NOT BEEN MADE, THE APPELLATE COURT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF
THE JURY.  LIKE CONSIDERATIONS GOVERN REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS. 
IF AN ORDER IS VALID ONLY AS A DETERMINATION OF POLICY OR JUDGMENT
WHICH THE AGENCY ALONE IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE AND WHICH IT HAS NOT MADE,
A JUDICIAL JUDGMENT CANNOT BE MADE TO DO SERVICE FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE
JUDGMENT.  FOR PURPOSES OF AFFIRMING NO LESS THAN REVERSING ITS ORDERS,
AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT INTRUDE UPON THE DOMAIN WHICH CONGRESS HAS
EXCLUSIVELY ENTRUSTED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. 

IF, THEREFORE, THE RULE APPLIED BY THE COMMISSION IS TO BE JUDGED
SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF ITS ADHERENCE TO PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY DERIVED
FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, ITS ORDER PLAINLY CANNOT STAND.  AS THE
COMMISSION CONCEDES HERE, THE COURTS DO NOT IMPOSE UPON OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS OF A CORPORATION ANY FIDUCIARY DUTY TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS WHICH
PRECLUDES THEM, MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, FROM
BUYING AND SELLING THE CORPORATION'S STOCK.  FN2  THE CASES UPON WHICH
THE COMMISSION RELIED DO NOT ESTABLISH PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND EQUITY
WHICH IN THEMSELVES ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN ITS ORDER.  THE ONLY
QUESTION IN PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, WAS WHETHER CLAIMS OBTAINED
BY THE CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDERS OF A BANKRUPT CORPORATION WERE TO BE
TREATED EQUALLY WITH THE CLAIMS OF OTHER CREDITORS WHERE THE EVIDENCE
REVEALED "A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD CREDITORS REMINISCENT OF SOME OF THE
EVILS WITH WHICH 13 ELIZ.  C. 5 WAS DESIGNED TO COPE," 308 U.S. AT
296.  ANOTHER CASE RELIED UPON, WOODS V. CITY BANK CO., 312 U.S. 262,
HELD ONLY THAT A BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY POWER
TO REVIEW FEES AND EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH A REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE CHANDLER ACT, 52 STAT. 840, COULD
DENY COMPENSATION TO PROTECTIVE COMMITTEES REPRESENTING CONFLICTING
INTERESTS.  MICHOUD V. GIROD, 4 HOW.  503, AND MAGRUDER V. DRURY, 235
U.S. 106, DEALT WITH THE SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF EXPRESS TRUSTEES AND
NOT WITH THOSE OF PERSONS IN CONTROL OF A CORPORATE ENTERPRISE TOWARD
ITS STOCKHOLDERS. 

DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" CALLS FOR THE
APPLICATION OF ETHICAL STANDARDS TO PARTICULAR SETS OF FACTS.  BUT
THESE STANDARDS ARE NOT STATIC.  IN EVOLVING STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS AND
EQUITY, THE COMMISSION IS NOT BOUND BY SETTLED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. 
CONGRESS CERTAINLY DID NOT MEAN TO PRECLUDE THE FORMULATION BY THE
COMMISSION OF STANDARDS EXPRESSING A MORE SENSITIVE REGARD FOR WHAT IS
RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG THAN THOSE PREVALENT AT THE TIME THE PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935 BECAME LAW.  BUT THE COMMISSION DID
NOT IN THIS CASE PROFFER NEW STANDARDS REFLECTING THE EXPERIENCE GAINED
BY IT IN EFFECTUATING THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT
EXPLICITLY DISAVOWED ANY PURPOSE OF GOING BEYOND THOSE WHICH THE COURTS
HAD THERETOFORE RECOGNIZED.  SINCE THE COMMISSION PROFESSED TO DECIDE
THE CASE BEFORE IT ACCORDING TO SETTLED JUDICIAL DOCTRINES, ITS ACTION
MUST BE JUDGED BY THE STANDARDS WHICH THE COMMISSION ITSELF INVOKED. 
AND JUDGED BY THOSE STANDARDS, I.E., THOSE WHICH WOULD BE ENFORCED BY A
COURT OF EQUITY, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS IN ERROR IN
DEEMING ITS ACTION CONTROLLED BY ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES. 
BUT THE COMMISSION URGES HERE THAT THE ORDER SHOULD NEVERTHELESS BE
SUSTAINED BECAUSE "THE EFFECT OF TRADING BY MANAGEMENT IS NOT MEASURED
BY THE FAIRNESS OF INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER,
BUT BY ITS RELATION TO THE TIMING AND DYNAMICS OF THE REORGANIZATION
WHICH THE MANAGEMENT ITSELF INITIATES AND SO LARGELY CONTROLS."  ITS
ARGUMENT LAYS STRESS UPON THE "STRATEGIC POSITION ENJOYED BY THE
MANAGEMENT IN THIS TYPE OF REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING AND THE VESTING IN
IT OF STATUTORY POWERS AVAILABLE TO NO OTHER REPRESENTATIVE OF SECURITY
HOLDERS."  IT CONTENDS THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS WARRANT THE STERN RULE
APPLIED IN THIS CASE SINCE THE COMMISSION "HAS DEALT EXTENSIVELY WITH
CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS, BOTH UNDER THE ACT, AND OTHER STATUTES
ENTRUSTED TO IT," AND "HAS, IN ADDITION, EXHAUSTIVELY STUDIED
PROTECTIVE AND REORGANIZATION COMMITTEES," AND THAT THE SITUATION WAS
THEREFORE "PECULIARLY WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPETENCE." 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO APPROVE THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION PROPOSED
BY FEDERAL'S MANAGEMENT, THE COMMISSION COULD INQUIRE, UNDER SEC.
7(D)(6) AND (E) OF THE ACT, WHETHER THE PROPOSAL WAS "DETRIMENTAL TO
THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS," AND,
UNDER SEC. 11(E), WHETHER IT WAS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE."  THAT THESE
PROVISIONS WERE MEANT TO CONFER UPON THE COMMISSION BROAD POWERS FOR
THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC PLAINLY APPEARS FROM THE REPORTS OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES IN CHARGE OF THE LEGISLATION.  THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 7 WERE "DESIGNED TO GIVE ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO INVESTORS AND
CONSUMERS ...  AND ARE IN ACCORD WITH THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION TO GIVE TO INVESTORS AND CONSUMERS FULL PROTECTION AGAINST
THE DELETERIOUS PRACTICES WHICH HAVE CHARACTERIZED CERTAIN HOLDING
COMPANY FINANCE IN THE PAST."  SEN. REP. NO. 621, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 28.  SIMILARLY, THE AUTHORITY GIVEN THE COMMISSION BY SEC. 11
WAS INTENDED TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE DEMANDS OF THE PARTICULAR
SITUATIONS WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION WOULD BE FACED:  "UNDER THESE
SUBSECTIONS (11(D), (E), AND (F)), COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
REORGANIZATION PLANS AND SUPERVISION OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH
PLANS ARE PREPARED WILL MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A GROUP OF FAVORED
INSIDERS TO CONTINUE THEIR DOMINATION OVER INARTICULATE AND HELPLESS
MINORITIES, OR EVEN AS IS OFTEN THE CASE, MAJORITIES  ...  "  ID., P.
33. 

IN VIEW OF THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, REFLECTING THE RANGE OF PUBLIC
INTERESTS COMMITTED TO THE CARE OF THE COMMISSION, SEC. 17(A) AND (B),
WHICH REQUIRES OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF ANY HOLDING COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER THE ACT TO FILE STATEMENTS OF THEIR SECURITY HOLDINGS IN THE
COMPANY AND PROVIDES THAT PROFITS MADE FROM DEALING IN SUCH SECURITIES
WITHIN ANY PERIOD OF LESS THAN SIX MONTHS SHALL INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF
THE COMPANY, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A LIMITATION UPON THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH OTHER SITUATIONS IN WHICH OFFICERS AND
DIRECTORS HAVE FAILED TO MEASURE UP TO THE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IMPOSED
UPON THEM BY THE ACT.  THE ACT VESTS IN THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF A
HOLDING COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE ACT BROAD POWERS AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS.  BESIDES THE COMMISSION, ONLY
THE MANAGEMENT CAN INITIATE A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO
SIMPLIFY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND TO EFFECT A FAIR AND EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING POWER AMONG SECURITY HOLDERS.  ONLY THE
MANAGEMENT CAN AMEND A PLAN UNDER SECS. 7 AND 11(E), AND THIS IT MAY DO
AT ANY TIME; ONLY THE MANAGEMENT CAN WITHDRAW THE PLAN, AND THIS TOO IT
MAY DO AT WILL; AND EVEN AFTER THE COMMISSION HAS APPROVED A PLAN, IT
CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE MANAGEMENT. 

NOTWITHSTANDING SEC. 17(A) AND (B), THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION COULD
TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR THE CORRECTION OF REORGANIZATION ABUSES
FOUND TO BE "DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF
INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS."  IT WAS ENTITLED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THOSE
MORE SUBTLE FACTORS IN THE MARKETING OF UTILITY COMPANY SECURITIES THAT
GAVE RISE TO THE VERY GRAVE EVILS WHICH THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING ACT
OF 1935 WAS DESIGNED TO CORRECT.  SEE THE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE
LEARNED HAND IN MORGAN STANLEY & CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, 126 F.2D 325, 332. 

BUT THE DIFFICULTY REMAINS THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS URGED HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WERE NOT THOSE UPON WHICH ITS ACTION
WAS BASED.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT RELY UPON "ITS SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCE"; IT FORMULATED NO JUDGMENT UPON THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE "PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS OR
CONSUMERS" IN THE SITUATION BEFORE IT.  THROUGH ITS PREOCCUPATION WITH
THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF UTILITY REORGANIZATIONS THE COMMISSION
ACCUMULATES AN EXPERIENCE AND INSIGHT DENIED TO OTHERS.  HAD THE
COMMISSION, ACTING UPON ITS EXPERIENCE AND PECULIAR COMPETENCE,
PROMULGATED A GENERAL RULE OF WHICH ITS ORDER HERE WAS A PARTICULAR
APPLICATION, THE PROBLEM FOR OUR CONSIDERATION WOULD BE VERY
DIFFERENT.  WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS SHOULD BE
PROHIBITED FROM BUYING OR SELLING STOCK OF THE CORPORATION DURING ITS
REORGANIZATION, PRESENTS PROBLEMS OF POLICY FOR THE JUDGMENT OF
CONGRESS OR OF THE BODY TO WHICH IT HAS DELEGATED POWER TO DEAL WITH
THE MATTER.  ABUSE OF CORPORATE POSITION, INFLUENCE, AND ACCESS TO
INFORMATION MAY RAISE QUESTIONS SO SUBTLE THAT THE LAW CAN DEAL WITH
THEM EFFECTIVELY ONLY BY PROHIBITIONS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE FAIRNESS
OF A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION.  BUT BEFORE TRANSACTIONS OTHERWISE LEGAL
CAN BE OUTLAWED OR DENIED THEIR USUAL BUSINESS CONSEQUENCES, THEY MUST
FALL UNDER THE BAN OF SOME STANDARDS OF CONDUCT PRESCRIBED BY AN AGENCY
OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE SUCH STANDARDS - EITHER THE
COURTS OR CONGRESS OR AN AGENCY TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS DELEGATED ITS
AUTHORITY.  CONGRESS ITSELF DID NOT PROSCRIBE THE RESPONDENTS'
PURCHASES OF PREFERRED STOCK IN FEDERAL.  ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL
DOCTRINES DO NOT CONDEMN THESE TRANSACTIONS.  NOR HAS THE COMMISSION,
ACTING UNDER THE RULE-MAKING POWERS DELEGATED TO IT BY SEC. 11(E),
PROMULGATED NEW GENERAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.  IT PURPORTED MERELY TO
BE APPLYING AN EXISTING JUDGE-MADE RULE OF EQUITY.  THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION CAN STAND, THEREFORE, ONLY IF IT FOUND THAT THE SPECIFIC
TRANSACTIONS UNDER SCRUTINY SHOWED MISUSE BY THE RESPONDENTS OF THEIR
POSITION AS REORGANIZATION MANAGERS, IN THAT AS SUCH MANAGERS THEY TOOK
ADVANTAGE OF THE CORPORATION OR THE OTHER STOCKHOLDERS OR THE INVESTING
PUBLIC.  THE RECORD IS UTTERLY BARREN OF ANY SUCH SHOWING.  INDEED,
SUCH A CLAIM AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS WAS EXPLICITLY DISAVOWED BY THE
COMMISSION. 

IN VIEW OF THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION IN APPROVING THE
PLAN, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF A
POSITIVE COMMAND OF LAW RATHER THAN WITH ANY MORAL WRONG.  IF THERE HAS
BEEN A WRONG, IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDERS FROM WHOM THEY
PURCHASED THE PREFERRED STOCK AT LESS THAN THE BOOK VALUE OF THE NEW
STOCK - WHICH, AS WE HAVE ALREADY SAID, MAY OR MAY NOT BE ITS REAL
VALUE.  BUT THE COMMISSION DID NOT REGARD SUCH STOCKHOLDERS AS
BENEFICIARIES OF THE RESPONDENTS'"TRUST" AND HENCE ENTITLED TO
RESTITUTION.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT UNDO THE PURCHASES DEEMED BY IT TO
HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATIONS.  INSTEAD, THE COMMISSION CONFIRMED THE PURCHASES AND
ORDERED THAT THE STOCK BE SURRENDERED TO THE CORPORATION. 

JUDGED, THEREFORE, AS A DETERMINATION BASED UPON JUDGEMADE RULES OF
EQUITY, THE COMMISSION'S ORDER CANNOT BE UPHELD.  ITS ACTION MUST BE
MEASURED BY WHAT THE COMMISSION DID, NOT BY WHAT IT MIGHT HAVE DONE. 
IT IS NOT FOR US TO DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY WHAT IS "DETRIMENTAL TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS" OR "FAIR OR
EQUITABLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 7 AND 11 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935.  THE COMMISSION'S ACTION CANNOT BE UPHELD
MERELY BECAUSE FINDINGS MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE AND CONSIDERATIONS
DISCLOSED WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY ITS ORDER AS AN APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARD FOR
THE INTERESTS PROTECTED BY THE ACT.  THERE MUST BE SUCH A RESPONSIBLE
FINDING.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294
U.S. 499, 510-11.  THERE IS NO SUCH FINDING HERE. 

CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW SUCH ORDERS OF
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AS THE ONE BEFORE US.  THAT THE
SCOPE OF SUCH REVIEW IS NARROWLY CIRCUMSCRIBED IS BESIDE THE POINT. 
FOR THE COURTS CANNOT EXERCISE THEIR DUTY OF REVIEW UNLESS THEY ARE
ADVISED OF THE CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THE ACTION UNDER REVIEW.  IF
THE ACTION RESTS UPON AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION - AN EXERCISE OF
JUDGMENT IN AN AREA WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED TO THE AGENCY - OF
COURSE IT MUST NOT BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE REVIEWING COURT MIGHT HAVE
MADE A DIFFERENT DETERMINATION WERE IT EMPOWERED TO DO SO.  BUT IF THE
ACTION IS BASED UPON A DETERMINATION OF LAW AS TO WHICH THE REVIEWING
AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS DOES COME INTO PLAY, AN ORDER MAY NOT STAND IF
THE AGENCY HAS MISCONCEIVED THE LAW.  IN EITHER EVENT THE ORDERLY
FUNCTIONING OF THE PROCESS OF REVIEW REQUIRES THAT THE GROUNDS UPON
WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ACTED BE CLEARLY DISCLOSED AND
ADEQUATELY SUSTAINED.  "THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WILL BEST BE
VINDICATED BY CLARITY IN ITS EXERCISE."  PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 197.  WHAT WAS SAID IN THAT CASE IS EQUALLY
APPLICABLE HERE:  "WE DO NOT INTEND TO ENTER THE PROVINCE THAT BELONGS
TO THE BOARD, NOR DO WE DO SO.  ALL WE ASK OF THE BOARD IS TO GIVE
CLEAR INDICATION THAT IT HAS EXERCISED THE DISCRETION WITH WHICH
CONGRESS HAS EMPOWERED IT.  THIS IS TO AFFIRM MOST EMPHATICALLY THE
AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD."  IBID.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA
CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475, 488-90.  IN FINDING THAT THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, WE ARE NOT IMPOSING ANY TRAMMELS ON ITS
POWERS.  WE ARE NOT ENFORCING FORMAL REQUIREMENTS.  WE ARE NOT
SUGGESTING THAT THE COMMISSION MUST JUSTIFY ITS EXERCISE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN ANY PARTICULAR MANNER OR WITH ARTISTIC
REFINEMENT.  WE ARE NOT STICKING IN THE BARK OF WORDS.  WE MERELY HOLD
THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER CANNOT BE UPHELD UNLESS THE GROUNDS UPON
WHICH THE AGENCY ACTED IN EXERCISING ITS POWERS WERE THOSE UPON WHICH
ITS ACTION CAN BE SUSTAINED. 

THE CAUSE SHOULD THEREFORE BE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH
DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE COMMISSION FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS,
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION, AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE.  SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  "SEC.  7.  (A)  A REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY OR SUBSIDIARY
COMPANY THEREOF MAY FILE A DECLARATION WITH THE COMMISSION, REGARDING
ANY OF THE ACTS ENUMERATED IN SUBSECTION (A) OF SECTION 6, IN SUCH FORM
AS THE COMMISSION MAY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBE AS NECESSARY
OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR FOR THE PROTECTION OF
INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS.  SUCH DECLARATION SHALL INCLUDE - 

"(1)  SUCH OF THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE
FILED IN ORDER TO REGISTER A SECURITY UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE SECURITIES
ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, AS THE COMMISSION MAY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS
OR ORDER PRESCRIBE AS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
OR FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS; AND 

"(2)  SUCH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IN SUCH FORM AND DETAIL, AND SUCH
DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE DECLARANT OR ANY ASSOCIATE COMPANY THEREOF, THE
PARTICULAR SECURITY AND COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH STATE LAWS AS MAY APPLY TO
THE ACT IN QUESTION AS THE COMMISSION MAY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS OR
ORDER PRESCRIBE AS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR
FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS.  ... 

"(D)  IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTIONS (C) AND (G) ARE SATISFIED,
THE COMMISSION SHALL PERMIT A DECLARATION REGARDING THE ISSUE OR SALE
OF A SECURITY TO BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT - 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"(6)  THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ISSUE OR SALE OF THE SECURITY
ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS OR
CONSUMERS. 

"(E)  IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (G) ARE SATISFIED, THE
COMMISSION SHALL PERMIT A DECLARATION TO BECOME EFFECTIVE REGARDING THE
EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT TO ALTER THE PRIORITIES, PREFERENCES,
VOTING POWER, OR OTHER RIGHTS OF THE HOLDERS OF AN OUTSTANDING SECURITY
UNLESS THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT SUCH EXERCISE OF SUCH PRIVILEGE OR
RIGHT WILL RESULT IN AN UNFAIR OR INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF VOTING
POWER AMONG HOLDERS OF THE SECURITIES OF THE DECLARANT OR IS OTHERWISE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS OR
CONSUMERS. 

"(F)  ANY ORDER PERMITTING A DECLARATION TO BECOME EFFECTIVE MAY
CONTAIN SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE COMMISSION FINDS NECESSARY TO
ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION.  ... 

"SEC. 11.  (A)  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO EXAMINE THE
CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF EVERY REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
COMPANY THEREOF, THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE COMPANIES IN THE HOLDING
COMPANY SYSTEM OF EVERY SUCH COMPANY AND THE CHARACTER OF THE INTERESTS
THEREOF AND THE PROPERTIES OWNED OR CONTROLLED THEREBY TO DETERMINE THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE OF SUCH HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM
AND THE COMPANIES THEREIN MAY BE SIMPLIFIED, UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITIES
THEREIN ELIMINATED, VOTING POWER FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG
THE HOLDERS OF SECURITIES THEREOF, AND THE PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS
THEREOF CONFINED TO THOSE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO THE OPERATIONS OF
AN INTEGRATED PUBLIC-UTILITY SYSTEM.  ...    "(E)  IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS OR ORDER AS THE COMMISSION MAY DEEM
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR FOR THE PROTECTION
OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS, ANY REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY OR ANY
SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF A REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY MAY, AT ANY TIME
AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936, SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE
DIVESTMENT OF CONTROL, SECURITIES, OR OTHER ASSETS, OR FOR OTHER ACTION
BY SUCH COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ENABLING SUCH COMPANY OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF TO COMPLY WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B).  IF, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING, THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND SUCH PLAN, AS SUBMITTED OR AS
MODIFIED, NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B) AND
FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED BY SUCH PLAN, THE COMMISSION
SHALL MAKE AN ORDER APPROVING SUCH PLAN; AND THE COMMISSION, AT THE
REQUEST OF THE COMPANY, MAY APPLY TO A COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (F) OF SECTION 18, TO ENFORCE AND CARRY OUT
THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF SUCH PLAN.  IF, UPON ANY SUCH APPLICATION,
THE COURT, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, SHALL APPROVE SUCH
PLAN AS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND AS APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11, THE COURT AS A COURT OF EQUITY MAY, TO SUCH
EXTENT AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE TERMS
AND PROVISIONS OF SUCH PLAN, TAKE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND POSSESSION
OF THE COMPANY OR COMPANIES AND THE ASSETS THEREOF, WHEREVER LOCATED;
AND THE COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO APPOINT A TRUSTEE, AND THE
COURT MAY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT THE COMMISSION AS SOLE TRUSTEE, TO
HOLD OR ADMINISTER, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PLAN THERETOFORE APPROVED BY THE COURT AND THE COMMISSION, THE
ASSETS SO POSSESSED.  ...  " 

FN2  SEE 1 DODD AND BAKER, CASES ON BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS (1940) 498
500, 583-86, 621-22; 1 MORAWETZ ON PRIVATE CORPORATIONS (2D ED. 1886)
SECS. 516-21, PP. 482-89. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

FOR REASONS SET OUT IN THE COURT'S OPINION AND THE DISSENTING OPINION
BELOW, I AGREE THAT THESE RESPONDENTS, OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE
CORPORATIONS SEEKING REORGANIZATION, ACTED IN A FIDUCIARY CAPACITY IN
FORMULATING AND MANAGING PLANS THEY SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION, AND
THAT, AS FIDUCIARIES, THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO A SCRUPULOUS OBSERVANCE OF
THEIR TRUST.  I FURTHER AGREE THAT CONGRESS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION
"BROAD POWERS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC," INVESTORS AND
CONSUMERS; AND THAT THE COMMISSION, NOT THE COURT, WAS INVESTED BY
CONGRESS WITH AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PROPOSED REORGANIZATION
OR MERGER WOULD BE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE," OR WHETHER IT WOULD BE
"DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS OR
CONSUMERS." 

THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT WITH WHICH I DISAGREE ARE THOSE IN WHICH
IT HOLDS THAT WHILE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION HAS ABUNDANT
POWER TO MEET THE SITUATION PRESENTED BY THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE
RESPONDENTS, IT HAS NOT DONE SO.  THIS CONCLUSION IS APPARENTLY BASED
ON THE PREMISE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS RELIED UPON THE COMMON LAW
RATHER THAN ON "NEW STANDARDS REFLECTING THE EXPERIENCE GAINED BY IT IN
EFFECTUATING LEGISLATIVE POLICY," AND THAT THE COMMON LAW DOES NOT
SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION; THAT THE COMMISSION COULD HAVE PROMULGATED "A
GENERAL RULE OF WHICH ITS ORDER HERE WAS A PARTICULAR APPLICATION," BUT
INSTEAD MADE MERELY AN AD HOC JUDGMENT; AND THAT THE COMMISSION MADE NO
FINDING THAT THESE PRACTICES WOULD PREJUDICE ANYONE. 

THE COMMISSION'S ACTUAL FINDING WAS THAT "THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
HEREIN CONSIDERED, LIKE THE PREVIOUS PLANS FILED WITH US OVER THE PAST
SEVERAL YEARS, WAS FORMULATED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL, AND
DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THE REORGANIZATION OF THIS CORPORATION HAVE
TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE STAFF OF THE COMMISSION OVER
THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS;" THAT C.T. CHENERY PURCHASED 8,618 SHARES OF
PREFERRED STOCK DURING THIS PERIOD; THAT OTHER OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
OF THE CONCERNS INVOLVED ACQUIRED 3,789 SHARES DURING THE SAME PERIOD;
THAT FOR THIS STOCK THESE RESPONDENT FIDUCIARIES PAID $328,346.89 AND
THEN SUBMITTED THEIR LATEST REORGANIZATION PLAN, UNDER WHICH THIS
PURCHASED STOCK WOULD HAVE A BOOK VALUE IN THE REORGANIZATION COMPANY
OF $1,162,431.90.  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE AND OTHER FACTS THE COMMISSION
CONCLUDED THAT THE NEW PLAN WOULD BE "UNFAIR, INEQUITABLE, AND
DETRIMENTAL, SO LONG AS THE PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASED BY THE MANAGEMENT
AT LOW PRICES IS TO BE PERMITTED TO SHARE ON A PARITY WITH OTHER
PREFERRED STOCK."  THE COMMISSION DECLINED TO GIVE "EFFECTIVENESS" TO
THE PROPOSED PLAN AND ENTERED "ADVERSE FINDINGS" AGAINST IT UNDER SECS.
7(D)(1) AND 7(D)(2) OF THE CONTROLLING ACT, RESTING ITS REFUSAL TO
APPROVE ON THIS STATEMENT:  "WE FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR
PARTICIPATION BY THE PREFERRED STOCK HELD BY THE MANAGEMENT RESULT IN
THE TERMS OF ISSUANCE OF THE NEW SECURITIES BEING DETRIMENTAL TO THE
INTERESTS OF INVESTORS AND THE PLAN BEING UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE." 

THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION MADE ITS FINDINGS SEEM CLEAR
ENOUGH TO ME.  ACCEPTING, AS THE COURT DOES, THE FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP
OF THESE RESPONDENTS IN MANAGING THE COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS, IT FOLLOWS
THAT THEIR PECULIAR INFORMATION AS TO THE STOCK VALUES UNDER THEIR
PROPOSED PLAN AFFORDED THEM OPPORTUNITIES FOR STOCK PURCHASE PROFITS
WHICH OTHER STOCKHOLDERS DID NOT HAVE.  WHILE SUCH FIDUCIARIES, THEY
BOUGHT PREFERRED STOCK AND THEN OFFERED A REORGANIZATION PLAN WHICH
WOULD GIVE THIS STOCK A BOOK VALUE OF FOUR TIMES THE PRICE THEY HAD
PAID FOR IT.  WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE IS TO SAY THAT NO SUCH
REWARD SHALL BE REAPED BY THESE FIDUCIARIES.  AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE
PERMITTED TO RECOVER THE FULL PURCHASE PRICE WITH INTEREST.  TO PERMIT
THEIR REORGANIZATION PLAN TO PUT THEM IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE OLD
STOCKHOLDERS GIVES TO THESE FIDUCIARIES AN UNCONSCIONABLE PROFIT FOR
TRADING WITH INSIDE INFORMATION. 

I CAN SEE NOTHING IMPROPER IN THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE RULE THEY EVOLVED APPEARS TO ME
TO BE A SALUTARY ONE, ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY COGENT REASONS AND
THOROUGHLY CONSISTENT WITH THE HIGH STANDARDS OF CONDUCT WHICH SHOULD
BE REQUIRED OF FIDUCIARIES.  THAT THE COMMISSION SAW FIT TO DRAW
SUPPORT FOR ITS OWN ADMINISTRATIVE CONCLUSION FROM DECISIONS OF COURTS
SHOULD NOT DETRACT FROM THE VALIDITY OF ITS FINDINGS.  ENTRUSTED AS THE
COMMISSION IS WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LIFTING THE STANDARD OF
TRANSACTIONS IN THE MARKET PLACE IN ORDER THAT THE MANAGERS OF
FINANCIAL VENTURES MAY NOT IMPOSE UPON THE GENERAL INVESTING PUBLIC, IT
SEEMS WHOLLY APPROPRIATE THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THE
INFLUENCE OF ADMONITORY LANGUAGE LIKE THE FOLLOWING IT APPROVINGLY
QUOTED FROM MEINHARD V. SALMON, 249 N.Y. 458, 164 N.E. 545: 

"A TRUSTEE IS HELD TO SOMETHING STRICTER THAN THE MORALS OF THE
MARKET PLACE.  NOT HONESTY ALONE, BUT THE PUNCTILIO OF AN HONOR THE
MOST SENSITIVE, IS THEN THE STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR.  AS TO THIS THERE HAS
DEVELOPED A TRADITION THAT IS UNBENDING AND INVETERATE.  ...  ONLY THUS
HAS THE LEVEL OF CONDUCT FOR FIDUCIARIES BEEN KEPT AT A LEVEL HIGHER
THAN THAT TRODDEN BY THE CROWD." 

THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE COMMISSION SEEM TO ME TO SHOW THE
SOUNDNESS OF THE CONCLUSION IT REACHED.  AS JUDGES WE ARE ENTITLED TO A
SENSE OF GRATIFICATION THAT THE COMMON LAW HAS BEEN ABLE TO MAKE SO
SUBSTANTIAL A CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
OF THIS FIELD.  SEE E.G. PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295; MICHOUD V.
GIROD, 4 HOW.  503; MAGRUDER V. DRURY, 235 U.S. 106.  OF COURSE THE
COMMISSION IS NOT LIMITED TO COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES IN PROTECTING
INVESTORS AND THE PUBLIC, BUT EVEN IF IT WERE SO LIMITED THE MAGRUDER
CASE WOULD IN MY OPINION PROVIDE COMPLETE SUPPORT FOR THE POSITION
TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION:  "THE INTENTION IS TO PROVIDE AGAINST ANY
POSSIBLE SELFISH INTEREST EXERCISING AN INFLUENCE WHICH CAN INTERFERE
WITH THE FAITHFUL DISCHARGE OF THE DUTY WHICH IS OWING IN A FIDUCIARY
CAPACITY.  ...  IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT THE ESTATE WAS NOT A LOSER
IN THE TRANSACTION OR THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NO MORE THAN THE SERVICES
WERE REASONABLY WORTH."  PP. 119, 120.  THE DISTINCTION NOW SEEN BY THE
COURT BETWEEN THESE CASES AND THE INSTANT PROBLEM COMES TO LITTLE MORE
THAN THAT THE FACT SITUATIONS ARE SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTICAL. 

WHILE I CONSIDER THAT THE CASES ON WHICH THE COMMISSION RELIED GIVE
FULL SUPPORT TO THE CONCLUSION IT REACHED, I DO NOT SUPPOSE, AS THE
COURT DOES, THAT THE COMMISSION'S RULE IS NOT FULLY BASED ON COMMISSION
EXPERIENCE.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT "EXPLICITLY DISAVOW" ANY RELIANCE
ON WHAT ITS MEMBERS HAD LEARNED IN THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, AND OF
COURSE THEY, AS TRADE EXPERTS, MADE THEIR FINDINGS THAT RESPONDENT'S
PRACTICE WAS "DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTERESTS OF INVESTORS" IN THE LIGHT
OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE.  THAT THEY DID NOT UNDULY PARADE FACT DATA ACROSS
THE PAGES OF THEIR REPORTS IS A COMMENDABLE SAVING OF EFFORT SINCE THEY
MEANT MERELY TO ANNOUNCE FOR THEIR OWN JURISDICTION AN OBVIOUS RULE OF
HONEST DEALING CLOSELY RELATED TO COMMON LAW STANDARDS.  OF COURSE, THE
COMMISSION CAN NOW CHANGE THE FORM OF ITS DECISION TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT ORDER.  THE COURT CAN REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO USE MORE WORDS;
BUT IT SEEMS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE HOW MORE WORDS OR DIFFERENT WORDS
COULD FURTHER ILLUMINATE ITS PURPOSE OR ITS DETERMINATION.  A JUDICIAL
REQUIREMENT OF CIRCUMSTANTIALLY DETAILED FINDINGS AS THE PRICE OF COURT
APPROVAL CAN BOG THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER IN A QUAGMIRE OF MINUTIAE. 
HYPERCRITICAL EXACTIONS AS TO FINDINGS CAN PROVIDE A HANDY BUT AN
ALMOST INVISIBLE GLIDEWAY ENABLING COURTS TO PASS "FROM THE NARROW
CONFINES OF LAW INTO THE MORE SPACIOUS DOMAIN OF POLICY."  PHELPS DODGE
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194.  HERE FOR INSTANCE, THE COURT
APPARENTLY HOLDS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS FULL POWER TO DO EXACTLY WHAT
IT DID; BUT THE COURT SENDS THE MATTER BACK TO THE COMMISSION TO REVISE
THE LANGUAGE OF ITS OPINION, IN ORDER, I SUPPOSE, THAT THE COURT MAY
REAPPRAISE THE REASONS WHICH MOVED THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THAT THE
CONDUCT OF THESE FIDUCIARIES WAS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC AND
INVESTORS.  THE ACT UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSION PROCEEDED DOES NOT
PURPORT TO VEST US WITH AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH A REAPPRAISAL. 

THAT THE COMMISSION HAS CHOSEN TO PROCEED CASE BY CASE RATHER THAN BY
A GENERAL PRONOUNCEMENT DOES NOT APPEAR TO ME TO MERIT CRITICISM.  THE
INTIMATION IS THAT THE COMMISSION CAN ACT ONLY THROUGH GENERAL FORMULAE
RIGIDLY ADHERED TO.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE RULE OF THE SINGLE CASE IS
OBVIOUSLY A GENERAL ADVERTISEMENT TO THE TRADE, AND IN THE SECOND PLACE
THE BRIEFS BEFORE US INDICATE THAT THIS IS BUT ONE OF A NUMBER OF CASES
IN WHICH THE COMMISSION IS MOVING TO AN IDENTICAL RESULT ON A BROAD
FRONT.  BUT ASIDE FROM THESE CONSIDERATIONS THE ACT GIVES THE
COMMISSION WIDE POWERS TO EVOLVE POLICY STANDARDS, AND THIS MAY WELL BE
DONE CASE BY CASE, AS UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304, 310-312. 

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COMMISSION FINDING HAS BEEN LOST IF IT IS
CRITICIZED FOR A FAILURE TO SHOW INJURY TO PARTICULAR SHAREHOLDERS. 
THE COMMISSION HOLDING IS THAT IT SHOULD NOT "UNDERTAKE TO DECIDE CASE
BY CASE WHETHER THE MANAGEMENT'S TRADING HAS IN FACT OPERATED TO THE
DETRIMENT OF THE PERSONS WHOM IT REPRESENTS," BECAUSE THE "TENDENCY TO
EVIL" FROM THIS PRACTICE IS SO GREAT THAT THE COMMISSION DESIRES TO
ATTACH TO IT A CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION OF IMPROPRIETY. 

THE RULE THE COMMISSION ADOPTED HERE IS APPROPRIATE.  PROTECTION OF
INVESTORS FROM INSIDERS WAS ONE OF THE CHIEF REASONS WHICH LED TO
ADOPTION OF THE LAW WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS SELECTED TO ADMINISTER. 
FN1  THAT PURPOSE CAN BE GREATLY RETARDED BY OVERMETICULOUS EXACTIONS,
EXACTIONS WHICH REQUIRE A DETAILED NARRATION OF UNDERLYING REASONS
WHICH PROMPT THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE HIGH STANDARDS OF HONESTY AND
FAIRNESS.  I FAVOR APPROVING THE RULE THEY APPLIED. 

FN1  "AMONG THE MOST VICIOUS PRACTICES UNEARTHED AT THE HEARINGS
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS THE FLAGRANT BETRAYAL OF THEIR FIDUCIARY
DUTIES BY DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF CORPORATIONS WHO USED THEIR
POSITIONS OF TRUST AND THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH CAME TO THEM
IN SUCH POSITIONS, TO AID THEM IN THEIR MARKET ACTIVITIES.  CLOSELY
ALLIED TO THIS TYPE OF ABUSE WAS THE UNSCRUPULOUS EMPLOYMENT OF INSIDE
INFORMATION BY LARGE STOCKHOLDERS WHO, WHILE NOT DIRECTORS AND
OFFICERS, EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE DESTINIES OF THEIR
COMPANIES TO ENABLE THEM TO ACQUIRE AND PROFIT BY INFORMATION NOT
AVAILABLE TO OTHERS."  REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND
CURRENCY ON STOCK EXCHANGE PRACTICES, REPORT NO. 1455, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 55. 
..END :






















JEROME V. UNITED STATES, 318 U.S. 101 


NO. 325.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  - 130
F.2D 514, REVERSED. 


IN SEC. 2(A) OF THE FEDERAL BANK ROBBERY ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT
"WHOEVER SHALL ENTER OR ATTEMPT TO ENTER ANY BANK, OR ANY BUILDING USED
IN WHOLE OR IN PART AS A BANK, WITH INTENT TO COMMIT IN SUCH BANK OR
BUILDING, OR PART THEREOF, SO USED, ANY FELONY OR LARCENY" SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY THEREIN PRESCRIBED, THE WORD "FELONY" EMBRACES
ONLY OFFENSES WHICH ARE FELONIES UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND AFFECT BANKS
PROTECTED BY THE ACT.  P. 108. 

JEROME V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 606, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL BANK ROBBERY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEC. 2(A) OF THE BANK ROBBERY ACT (48 STAT. 783, 50 STAT. 749, 12
U.S.C. SEC. 588B) PROVIDES IN PART THAT "WHOEVER SHALL ENTER OR ATTEMPT
TO ENTER ANY BANK,  FN1  OR ANY BUILDING USED IN WHOLE OR IN PART AS A
BANK, WITH INTENT TO COMMIT IN SUCH BANK OR BUILDING, OR PART THEREOF,
SO USED, ANY FELONY OR LARCENY, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, OR BOTH."  PETITIONER WAS
INDICTED UNDER THAT SECTION FOR ENTERING A NATIONAL BANK IN VERMONT
WITH INTENT TO UTTER A FORGED PROMISSORY NOTE AND THEREBY TO DEFRAUD
THE BANK.  HE WAS CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL BEFORE A JURY AND WAS SENTENCED
TO IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE YEAR AND A DAY.  THE UTTERANCE OF A FORGED
PROMISSORY NOTE IS A FELONY UNDER THE LAWS OF VERMONT (P.L. 1933, SEC.
8485, SEC. 8750) BUT NOT UNDER ANY FEDERAL STATUTE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION BY A DIVIDED VOTE, HOLDING THAT
"FELONY" AS USED IN SEC. 2(A) INCLUDES OFFENSES WHICH ARE FELONIES
UNDER STATE LAW.  130 F.2D 514.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSITY OF VIEWS WHICH
HAVE DEVELOPED AS RESPECTS THE MEANING OF "FELONY" IN SEC. 2(A). 
COMPARE WITH THE DECISION BELOW HUDSPETH V. MELVILLE, 127 F.2D 373;
HUDSPETH V. TORNELLO, 128 F.2D 172. 

PRIOR TO 1934, BANKS ORGANIZED OR OPERATING UNDER FEDERAL LAW WERE
PROTECTED AGAINST EMBEZZLEMENT AND LIKE OFFENSES BY R.S. 5209, 40 STAT.
972, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 592.  BUT SUCH CRIMES AS ROBBERY, BURGLARY, AND
LARCENY  FN2  DIRECTED AGAINST SUCH BANKS WERE PUNISHABLE ONLY UNDER
STATE LAW.  BY 1934 GREAT CONCERN HAD BEEN EXPRESSED OVER INTERSTATE
OPERATIONS BY GANGSTERS AGAINST BANKS - ACTIVITIES WITH WHICH LOCAL
AUTHORITIES WERE FREQUENTLY UNABLE TO COPE.  H. REP. NO. 1461, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN RESPONSE TO THAT
CONCERN, RECOMMENDED LEGISLATION EMBRACING CERTAIN NEW FEDERAL
OFFENSES.  S. 2841, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.  AND SEE 78 CONG. REC. 5738. 
SEC. 3 OF THAT BILL MADE IT A FEDERAL CRIME TO BREAK INTO OR ATTEMPT TO
BREAK INTO SUCH BANKS WITH INTENT TO COMMIT "ANY OFFENSE DEFINED BY
THIS ACT, OR ANY FELONY UNDER ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ANY
LAW OF THE STATE, DISTRICT, TERRITORY, OR POSSESSION" IN WHICH THE BANK
WAS LOCATED.  SEC. 2 MADE IT AN OFFENSE TO TAKE OR ATTEMPT TO TAKE
MONEY OR PROPERTY BELONGING TO OR IN THE POSSESSION OF SUCH A BANK
WITHOUT ITS CONSENT OR WITH ITS CONSENT OBTAINED "BY ANY TRICK,
ARTIFICE, FRAUD, OR FALSE OR FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION."  THIS BILL WAS
REPORTED FAVORABLY BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE (S. REP. NO. 537,
73D CONG., 2D SESS.) AND PASSED THE SENATE.  78 CONG. REC. 5738.  THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, STRUCK OUT SEC. 2, DEALING WITH
LARCENY, AND SEC. 3, DEALING WITH BURGLARY.  H. REP. NO. 1461, SUPRA,
P. 1.  AND THE BILL WAS FINALLY ENACTED WITHOUT THEM.  BUT IT RETAINED
THE ROBBERY PROVISION  FN3  NOW CONTAINED IN THE FIRST CLAUSE OF SEC.
2(A) OF THE BANK ROBBERY ACT. 

IN 1937 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RECOMMENDED THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE BANK
ROBBERY ACT "TO INCLUDE LARCENY AND BURGLARY OF THE BANKS" PROTECTED BY
IT.  H. REP. NO. 732, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1.  THE FACT THAT THE
1934 STATUTE WAS LIMITED TO ROBBERY WAS SAID TO HAVE PRODUCED "SOME
INCONGRUOUS RESULTS - A "STRIKING INSTANCE" OF WHICH WAS THE CASE OF A
MAN WHO STOLE A LARGE SUM FROM A BANK BUT WHO WAS NOT GUILTY OF ROBBERY
BECAUSE HE DID NOT DISPLAY FORCE OR VIOLENCE AND DID NOT PUT ANY ONE IN
FEAR.  ID., PP. 1-2.  THE BILL AS INTRODUCED (H.R. 5900, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., 81 CONG. REC. 2731) ADDED TO SEC. 2(A) TWO NEW CLAUSES - ONE
DEFINING LARCENY AND THE OTHER MAKING IT A FEDERAL OFFENSE TO ENTER OR
ATTEMPT TO ENTER ANY BANK WITH INTENT TO COMMIT THEREIN "ANY LARCENY OR
OTHER DEPREDATION."  FOR REASONS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTED "ANY FELONY OR
LARCENY" FOR "ANY LARCENY OR OTHER DEPREDATION."  H. REP. NO. 732,
SUPRA, P. 2.  WITH THAT CHANGE AND WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE LARCENY
CLAUSE  FN4 DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN GRAND AND PETIT LARCENY (81 CONG.
REC. 5376-5377), SEC. 2(A) WAS ENACTED IN ITS PRESENT FORM. 

WE DISAGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT
"FELONY" AS USED IN SEC. 2(A) INCORPORATES STATE LAW. 

AT TIMES IT HAS BEEN INFERRED FROM THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM WITH
WHICH CONGRESS WAS DEALING THAT THE APPLICATION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE
SHOULD BE DEPENDENT ON STATE LAW.  EXAMPLES UNDER FEDERAL REVENUE ACTS
ARE COMMON.  DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1; HELVERING V. STUART, 317
U.S. 154, AND CASES CITED.  BUT WE MUST GENERALLY ASSUME, IN THE
ABSENCE OF A PLAIN INDICATION TO THE CONTRARY, THAT CONGRESS WHEN IT
ENACTS A STATUTE IS NOT MAKING THE APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT
DEPENDENT ON STATE LAW.  THAT ASSUMPTION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE
APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS NATIONWIDE (UNITED STATES V.
PELZER, 312 U.S. 399, 402) AND AT TIMES ON THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL
PROGRAM WOULD BE IMPAIRED IF STATE LAW WERE TO CONTROL.  SEABOARD AIR
LINE RY. V. HORTON, 233 U.S. 492, 503.  WHEN IT COMES TO FEDERAL
CRIMINAL LAWS SUCH AS THE PRESENT ONE, THERE IS A CONSIDERATION IN
ADDITION TO THE DESIRABILITY OF UNIFORMITY IN APPLICATION WHICH
SUPPORTS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE.  SINCE THERE IS NO COMMON LAW OFFENSE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES (UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 7 CRANCH 32; UNITED
STATES V. GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476, 485), THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE UNDER OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM HAS RESTED WITH THE STATES, EXCEPT AS
CRIMINAL OFFENSES HAVE BEEN EXPLICITLY PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.  WE
SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF THAT TRADITION IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL
STATUTES DEFINING OFFENSES WHICH DUPLICATE OR BUILD UPON STATE LAW.  IN
THAT CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROVISION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT STAND AS A BAR TO FEDERAL PROSECUTION
THOUGH A STATE CONVICTION BASED ON THE SAME ACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN
OBTAINED.  SEE UNITED STATES V. LANZA, 260 U.S. 377; HEBERT V.
LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312.  THAT CONSIDERATION GIVES ADDITIONAL WEIGHT TO
THE VIEW THAT WHERE CONGRESS IS CREATING OFFENSES WHICH DUPLICATE OR
BUILD UPON STATE LAW, COURTS SHOULD BE RELUCTANT TO EXPAND THE DEFINED
OFFENSES BEYOND THE CLEAR REQUIREMENTS OF THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE. 

THERE IS NO PLAIN INDICATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 2(A)
THAT CONGRESS USED "FELONY" IN A SENSE SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO INCLUDE
STATE OFFENSES.  THOUGH THE LEGISLATIVE DATA ARE MEAGER, THE
INDICATIONS ARE TO THE CONTRARY.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE 1934 BILL
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THAT STATE FELONIES WERE INCLUDED
IN THE DEFINITION OF THE NEW FEDERAL OFFENSE OF BURGLARY.  THAT
PROVISION WAS STRICKEN IN THE HOUSE.  THE 1934 BILL ALSO DEFINED
LARCENY TO INCLUDE LARCENY BY TRICK OR FRAUD.  THAT PROVISION WAS
LIKEWISE ELIMINATED IN THE HOUSE.  THE 1934 ACT WAS PASSED WITHOUT
EITHER OF THEM.  THE 1937 BILL DID NOT RENEW THE EARLIER PROPOSALS TO
INCLUDE THEM BUT SUBSTITUTED "ANY LARCENY OR OTHER DEPREDATION." 
LARCENY, LIKE ROBBERY, IS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(A).  AND "DEPREDATION" IS
NOT DEVOID OF MEANING IN SUCH A SETTING (CF. DEAL V. UNITED STATES, 274
U.S. 277, 283) APART FROM ANY SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE WHICH IT MAY HAVE IN
LOCAL LAW.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCLUDE IN THE FACE OF THIS HISTORY
THAT CONGRESS, HAVING REJECTED IN 1934 AN EXPRESS PROVISION MAKING
STATE FELONIES FEDERAL OFFENSES, REVERSED ITSELF IN 1937, AND, THROUGH
THE PHRASE "ANY FELONY OR LARCENY," ADOPTED THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF
FORTY-EIGHT STATES WITH RESPECT TO ACTS COMMITTED IN NATIONAL OR
INSURED BANKS.  IT IS LIKEWISE DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS,
THROUGH THE SAME CLAUSE, ADOPTED BY INDIRECTION IN 1937 MUCH OF THE
FRAUD PROVISION WHICH IT REJECTED IN 1934.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
PATTON, 120 F.2D 73. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, CONGRESS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(A) ROBBERY, BURGLARY,
AND LARCENY BUT NOT FELONY.  WE CAN HARDLY BELIEVE THAT, HAVING DEFINED
THREE FEDERAL OFFENSES, IT WENT ON IN THE SAME SECTION TO IMPORT BY
IMPLICATION A MISCELLANEOUS GROUP OF STATE CRIMES AS THE DEFINITION OF
THE FOURTH FEDERAL OFFENSE.  IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
WHEN CONGRESS HAS DESIRED TO INCORPORATE STATE LAWS IN OTHER FEDERAL
PENAL STATUTES, IT HAS DONE SO BY SPECIFIC REFERENCE OR ADOPTION.  FN5
THE OMISSION OF ANY SUCH PROVISION IN THIS ACT IS A STRONG INDICATION
THAT IT HAD NO SUCH PURPOSE HERE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. COPPERSMITH, 4
F. 198, 207.  THE ACT EXTENDS PROTECTION TO HUNDREDS OF BANKS LOCATED
IN EVERY STATE.  IF STATE LAWS ARE INCORPORATED IN SEC. 2(A), CONGRESS
HAS GONE FAR TOWARD PUTTING THESE BANKS ON A BASIS SOMEWHAT EQUIVALENT
TO "LANDS RESERVED OR ACQUIRED FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES" AS
DESCRIBED IN SEC. 272 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 451.  IN
SUCH A CASE ALL VIOLATIONS OF PENAL LAWS OF THE STATE WITHIN WHICH THE
LANDS ARE LOCATED BECOME FEDERAL OFFENSES.  CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 289, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 468.  SUCH AN EXPANSION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
SHOULD HARDLY BE LEFT TO IMPLICATION AND CONJECTURE. 

MOREOVER, THE DIFFICULTY OF GIVING "FELONY" IN SEC. 2(A) A STATE LAW
MEANING IS EMPHASIZED WHEN WE TURN TO THE LAW OF SUCH A STATE AS NEW
JERSEY.  THERE WE FIND CRIMES CLASSIFIED AS "MISDEMEANORS" AND "HIGH
MISDEMEANORS."  REV. STAT. (1937) SEC. 2:103-5, SEC. 2:103-6.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. SLUTZKY, 79 F.2D 504, 505.  UTTERING A PROMISSORY NOTE
WITH A FORGED ENDORSEMENT IS A "HIGH MISDEMEANOR."  REV. STAT. (1937)
SEC. 2:132-1B.  THE INFERENCE IS STRONG THAT IF CONGRESS HAD DESIGNED
SEC. 2(A) TO INCLUDE THE MORE SERIOUS STATE OFFENSES COMMITTED IN OR
AGAINST NATIONAL OR INSURED BANKS OR ONLY SUCH STATE OFFENSES AS
AFFECTED THOSE BANKS (HUDSPETH V. MELVILLE, SUPRA, P. 376), IT WOULD
HAVE USED LANGUAGE WHICH WOULD HAVE AFFORDED THAT PROTECTION IN ALL THE
STATES. 

FINALLY, THE INCLUSION OF STATE CRIMES IN THE WORD "FELONY" NEITHER
COMPORTS WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT NOR IS NECESSARY TO GIVE THE ACT
MEANING AND VITALITY.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE PURPOSE OF THE 1934 ACT
WAS TO SUPPLEMENT LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IN CERTAIN RESPECTS.  AND THE
1937 AMENDMENTS WERE DESIGNED "TO INCLUDE LARCENY AND BURGLARY OF THE
BANKS PROTECTED BY THIS STATUTE."  H. REP. NO. 732, SUPRA, P. 1.  BUT
THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST INDICATION THAT THE INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES OF
GANGSTERS AGAINST NATIONAL AND INSURED BANKS HAD BROKEN DOWN OR
RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS COVERING ALL SORTS OF
FELONIES.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE BILL INTRODUCED IN 1937 WAS MUCH MORE
SELECTIVE AND REVEALED NO PURPOSE TO MAKE A COMPREHENSIVE
CLASSIFICATION OF ALL CRIMES AGAINST THE BANKS.  MOREOVER, THE RUN OF
STATE FELONIES - FORGERY, RAPE, ADULTERY, AND THE LIKE - WOULD SEEM TO
HAVE LITTLE OR NO RELEVANCY TO THE NEED FOR PROTECTION OF BANKS AGAINST
THE WHOLESALE ACTIVITIES OF THE GANGSTERS OF THAT DAY.  A RELATED
OBJECTION COULD OF COURSE BE MADE IF "FELONY" AS USED IN SEC. 2(A) WERE
TAKEN TO MEAN ANY FEDERAL FELONY SO AS TO BRING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
BANK ROBBERY ACT MISCELLANEOUS FEDERAL FELONIES RANGING FROM THE SALE
OF NARCOTICS TO WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC.  FN6  BUT AS INDICATED BY JUDGE
FRANK IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION BELOW, SEC. 2(A) IS NOT DEPRIVED OF
VITALITY IF IT IS INTERPRETED TO EXCLUDE STATE FELONIES AND TO INCLUDE
ONLY THOSE FEDERAL FELONIES WHICH AFFECT THE BANKS  FN7  PROTECTED BY
THE ACT.  THAT IS IN OUR OPINION THE CORRECT CONSTRUCTION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE TERM "BANK" IS DEFINED IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT (12 U.S.C. SEC.
588A) TO INCLUDE "ANY MEMBER BANK OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, AND
ANY BANK, BANKING ASSOCIATION, TRUST COMPANY, SAVINGS BANK, OR OTHER
BANKING INSTITUTION ORGANIZED OR OPERATING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND ANY INSURED BANK AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION (C) OF SECTION
12B, OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, AS AMENDED." 

FN2  TO THE EXTENT THAT ACTS CONSTITUTING LARCENY WOULD NOT ALSO
CONSTITUTE A FEDERAL CRIME UNDER R.S. 5209.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
NORTHWAY, 120 U.S. 327, 335. 

FN3  "WHOEVER, BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, OR BY PUTTING IN FEAR,
FELONIOUSLY TAKES, OR FELONIOUSLY ATTEMPTS TO TAKE, FROM THE PERSON OR
PRESENCE OF ANOTHER ANY PROPERTY OR MONEY OR ANY OTHER THING OF VALUE
BELONGING TO, OR IN THE CARE, CUSTODY, CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR
POSSESSION OF, ANY BANK SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN4  "  ...  WHOEVER SHALL TAKE AND CARRY AWAY, WITH INTENT TO STEAL
OR PURLOIN, ANY PROPERTY OR MONEY OR ANY OTHER THING OF VALUE EXCEEDING
$50 BELONGING TO, OR IN THE CARE, CUSTODY, CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR
POSSESSION OF ANY BANK, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS, OR BOTH; OR WHOEVER SHALL TAKE AND
CARRY AWAY, WITH INTENT TO STEAL OR PURLOIN, ANY PROPERTY OR MONEY OR
ANY OTHER THING OF VALUE NOT EXCEEDING $50 BELONGING TO, OR IN THE
CARE, CUSTODY, CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR POSSESSION OF ANY BANK, SHALL BE
FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR
BOTH."    FN5  SEE E. G., ACT OF MARCH 4, 1909, 35 STAT. 1137, 49 STAT.
380, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 392; ACT OF MAY 18, 1934, 48 STAT. 782, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 408E; ACT OF JUNE 11, 1932, 47 STAT. 301, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 662A; ACT
OF FEBRUARY 22, 1935, 49 STAT. 31, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 715B; ACT OF JUNE 25,
1936, 49 STAT. 1928, 27 U.S.C. SEC. 223. 

FN6  IT HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN HELD THAT WHEN A FEDERAL STATUTE USES A
TERM WHICH IT DOES NOT DEFINE BUT WHICH WAS A COMMON LAW OFFENSE, IT
WILL BE GIVEN ITS COMMON LAW MEANING.  UNITED STATES V. PALMER, 3
WHEAT.  610, 630; UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 5 WHEAT.  153, 160; HARRISON
V. UNITED STATES, 163 U.S. 140, 142.  IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, CONGRESS
HAS NOT PUNISHED AN OFFENSE BY ITS COMMON LAW NAME.  MOREOVER, AT
COMMON LAW MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, ARSON, BURGLARY, ROBBERY, RAPE,
SODOMY, MAYHEM, AND LARCENY WERE FELONIES.  WHARTON, CRIMINAL LAW (12TH
ED.)  SEC.  26.  AND SEE BANNON V. UNITED STATES, 156 U.S. 464, 467. 
SINCE THOSE MISCELLANEOUS CRIMES AS A GROUP DO NOT SUGGEST ON THEIR
FACE THAT THEY CONSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE BASE ON WHICH TO BUILD A
FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE FOR PROTECTION OF NATIONAL AND INSURED BANKS, WE
WILL NOT READILY INFER THAT CONGRESS USED THE WORD "FELONY" IN ITS
COMMON LAW MEANING.  THAT CONCLUSION IS FORTIFIED BY THE FURTHER
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CONGRESS HAS DEFINED NUMEROUS OFFENSES IN OTHER
FEDERAL PENAL STATUTES AND HAS CLASSIFIED SUCH OFFENSES AS FELONIES OR
MISDEMEANORS ACCORDING TO THE SEVERITY OF THE PUNISHMEINT.  CRIMINAL
CODE SEC. 335, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 541.  HENCE WE NEED NOT LOOK ELSEWHERE
FOR THE MEANING OF THE TERM.  CF. REAGAN V. UNITED STATES, 157 U.S.
301, 303.  AS STATED IN ADAMS V. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269, NT. 2, THE TERM
"FELONY" IS A "VERBAL SURVIVAL WHICH HAS BEEN EMPTIED OF ITS HISTORIC
CONTENT."  THUS WE CONCLUDE THAT THE WORD "FELONY" AS USED IN SEC. 2(A)
TAKES ITS MEANING FROM FEDERAL STATUTES RATHER THAN FROM THE COMMON
LAW. 

FORGERY AT COMMON LAW WAS A MISDEMEANOR.  WHARTON, SUPRA, SEC. 861. 

FN7  ONE SUCH INSTANCE WOULD BE VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL STOLEN
PROPERTY ACT, 48 STAT. 794, 53 STAT. 1178, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 413,
ESPECIALLY 18 U.S.C. SEC. 416. 
..END :








PALMER V. HOFFMAN, 318 U.S. 109 


NO. 300.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 8, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  - 129
F.2D 976, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SIGNED STATEMENT OF A RAILROAD ENGINEER, SINCE DECEASED, GIVING
HIS VERSION OF A GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENT IN WHICH THE LOCOMOTIVE HE WAS
OPERATING WAS INVOLVED, AND MADE, TWO DAYS AFTER THE ACCIDENT, WHEN HE
WAS INTERVIEWED BY AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMPANY AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF A
STATE COMMISSION, HELD NOT MADE "IN THE REGULAR COURSE" OF BUSINESS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1936, AND NOT ADMISSIBLE AS
EVIDENCE THEREUNDER.  P. 111. 

2.  A RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT IF THE DEFENDANT CALLED FOR AND
INSPECTED A SIGNED STATEMENT WHICH ON CROSS-EXAMINATION A WITNESS FOR
THE PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD GIVEN TO THE PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER, THE
PLAINTIFF WOULD THEN BE ENTITLED TO PUT THE STATEMENT IN EVIDENCE, HELD
NOT A GROUND FOR REVERSAL IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT
MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND IS NOT A PART OF THE RECORD, AND THIS
COURT IS THEREFORE UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONTENTS WOULD HAVE
SERVED TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS.  P. 116. 

3.  RULE 8(C) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DOES NOT MAKE
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, BUT RELATES ONLY TO THE
MANNER OF PLEADING.  P. 117. 

4.  THE QUESTION OF THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE IS A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW WHICH FEDERAL COURTS IN DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP CASES MUST APPLY.  P. 117. 

5.  THE RULING OF A LOWER FEDERAL COURT UPON A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW
WILL NOT HERE BE SET ASIDE EXCEPT ON A PLAIN SHOWING OF ERROR.  P.
118. 

6.  IN A SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK, IN WHICH TWO OF THE
CAUSES OF ACTION WERE BASED ON A MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE AND TWO WERE
BASED ON THE COMMON LAW, THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT THE BURDEN OF
PROVING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE WAS ON THE DEFENDANTS.  THE DEFENDANTS'
EXCEPTION TO THE CHARGE DID NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE CAUSES OF
ACTION BASED ON THE STATUTE AND THOSE BASED ON THE COMMON LAW.  AGAIN
WITHOUT DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE STATUTORY AND THE COMMON LAW CAUSES
OF ACTION, THE DEFENDANTS REQUESTED A CHARGE THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON THE
PLAINTIFF TO ESTABLISH FREEDOM FROM CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.  IN THIS
SITUATION, THIS COURT, ASSUMING THAT THE CHARGE SO FAR AS THE COMMON
LAW COUNTS ARE CONCERNED WAS ERRONEOUS, BUT BEING UNABLE TO SAY THAT
THE CHARGE WAS INCORRECT SO FAR AS THE STATUTORY CAUSES OF ACTION ARE
CONCERNED, DOES NOT REVERSE AND REMAND THE CAUSE.  P. 119. 

7.  WHERE A PARTY MIGHT HAVE OBTAINED A CORRECT CHARGE TO THE JURY BY
SPECIFICALLY CALLING THE ATTENTION OF THE TRIAL COURT TO THE ERROR AND
WHERE A PART OF THE CHARGE WAS CORRECT, HE MAY NOT THROUGH A GENERAL
EXCEPTION OBTAIN A NEW TRIAL.  P. 119. 

PALMER ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. HOFFMAN, ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 611, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF INJURY
AND DEATH ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DUE TO NEGLIGENCE.  THE JURISDICTION OF
THE FEDERAL COURT WAS INVOKED ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE AROSE OUT OF A GRADE CROSSING ACCIDENT WHICH OCCURRED IN
MASSACHUSETTS.  DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BROUGHT IT TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IN NEW YORK.  THERE WERE SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION.  THE
FIRST TWO WERE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT INDIVIDUALLY, ONE BEING BROUGHT
UNDER A MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE (MASS. GEN. L. (1932) C. 160, SECS. 138,
232), THE OTHER AT COMMON LAW.  THE THIRD AND FOURTH WERE BROUGHT BY
RESPONDENT AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HIS WIFE AND ALLEGED THE
SAME COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY NEGLIGENCE AS THE FIRST TWO COUNTS.  ON
THE QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE THE TRIAL COURT SUBMITTED THREE ISSUES TO
THE JURY - FAILURE TO RING A BELL, TO BLOW A WHISTLE, TO HAVE A LIGHT
BURNING IN THE FRONT OF THE TRAIN.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT IN
FAVOR OF RESPONDENT INDIVIDUALLY FOR SOME $25,000 AND IN FAVOR OF
RESPONDENT AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR $9,000.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED
JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING.  129 F.2D 976.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH PRESENTS THREE POINTS. 

I. THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON THE NIGHT OF DECEMBER 25, 1940.  ON
DECEMBER 27, 1940, THE ENGINEER OF THE TRAIN, WHO DIED BEFORE THE
TRIAL, MADE A STATEMENT AT A FREIGHT OFFICE OF PETITIONERS WHERE HE WAS
INTERVIEWED BY AN ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ROAD AND BY A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.  SEE
MASS. GEN. L. (1932) C. 159, SEC. 29.  THIS STATEMENT WAS OFFERED IN
EVIDENCE BY PETITIONERS UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1936, 49 STAT. 1561,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 695.  FN1  THEY OFFERED TO PROVE (IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ACT) THAT THE STATEMENT WAS SIGNED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS,
IT BEING THE REGULAR COURSE OF SUCH BUSINESS TO MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT. 
RESPONDENT'S OBJECTION TO ITS INTRODUCTION WAS SUSTAINED. 

WE AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY VIEW BELOW THAT IT WAS PROPERLY EXCLUDED. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT IF THE STATEMENT WAS MADE "IN THE REGULAR COURSE"
OF BUSINESS, IT WOULD SATISFY THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  BUT WE
DO NOT THINK THAT IT WAS MADE "IN THE REGULAR COURSE" OF BUSINESS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  THE BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONERS IS THE
RAILROAD BUSINESS.  THAT BUSINESS LIKE OTHER ENTERPRISES ENTAILS THE
KEEPING OF NUMEROUS BOOKS AND RECORDS ESSENTIAL TO ITS CONDUCT OR
USEFUL IN ITS EFFICIENT OPERATION.  THOUGH SUCH BOOKS AND RECORDS WERE
CONSIDERED RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY FOR MAJOR DECISIONS IN THE
INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS WORLD, THEIR USE IN LITIGATION WAS GREATLY
CIRCUMSCRIBED OR HEDGED ABOUT BY THE HEARSAY RULE - RESTRICTIONS WHICH
GREATLY INCREASED THE TIME AND COST OF MAKING THE PROOF WHERE THOSE WHO
MADE THE RECORDS WERE NUMEROUS.  FN2  5 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.,
1940) SEC. 1530.  IT WAS THAT PROBLEM WHICH STARTED THE MOVEMENT
TOWARDS ADOPTION OF LEGISLATION EMBODYING THE PRINCIPLES OF THE PRESENT
ACT.  SEE MORGAN ET AL., THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, SOME PROPOSALS FOR ITS
REFORM (1927) C. V. AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT INDICATES
THE SAME PURPOSE.  FN3 

THE ENGINEER'S STATEMENT WHICH WAS HELD INADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE
FALLS INTO QUITE A DIFFERENT CATEGORY.  FN4  IT IS NOT A RECORD MADE
FOR THE SYSTEMATIC CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS AS A BUSINESS.  AN ACCIDENT
REPORT MAY AFFECT THAT BUSINESS IN THE SENSE THAT IT AFFORDS
INFORMATION ON WHICH THE MANAGEMENT MAY ACT.  IT IS NOT, HOWEVER,
TYPICAL OF ENTRIES MADE SYSTEMATICALLY OR AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE TO
RECORD EVENTS OR OCCURRENCES, TO REFLECT TRANSACTIONS WITH OTHERS, OR
TO PROVIDE INTERNAL CONTROLS.  THE CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS COMMONLY
ENTAILS THE PAYMENT OF TORT CLAIMS INCURRED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS
EMPLOYEES.  BUT THE FACT THAT A COMPANY MAKES A BUSINESS OUT OF
RECORDING ITS EMPLOYEES' VERSIONS OF THEIR ACCIDENTS DOES NOT PUT THOSE
STATEMENTS IN THE CLASS OF RECORDS MADE "IN THE REGULAR COURSE" OF THE
BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  IF IT DID, THEN ANY LAW OFFICE
IN THE LAND COULD FOLLOW THE SAME COURSE, SINCE BUSINESS AS DEFINED IN
THE ACT INCLUDES THE PROFESSIONS.  WE WOULD THEN HAVE A REAL PERVERSION
OF A RULE DESIGNED TO FACILITATE ADMISSION OF RECORDS WHICH EXPERIENCE
HAS SHOWN TO BE QUITE TRUSTWORTHY.  ANY BUSINESS BY INSTALLING A
REGULAR SYSTEM FOR RECORDING AND PRESERVING ITS VERSION OF ACCIDENTS
FOR WHICH IT WAS POTENTIALLY LIABLE COULD QUALIFY THOSE REPORTS UNDER
THE ACT.  THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE ACT WOULD COVER ANY SYSTEM OF
RECORDING EVENTS OR OCCURRENCES PROVIDED IT WAS "REGULAR" AND THOUGH IT
HAD LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MANAGEMENT OR OPERATION OF THE
BUSINESS AS SUCH.  PREPARATION OF CASES FOR TRIAL BY VIRTUE OF BEING A
"BUSINESS" OR INCIDENTAL THERETO WOULD OBTAIN THE BENEFITS OF THIS
LIBERALIZED VERSION OF THE EARLY SHOP BOOK RULE.  THE PROBABILITY OF
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF RECORDS BECAUSE THEY WERE ROUTINE REFLECTIONS OF THE
DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF A BUSINESS WOULD BE FORGOTTEN AS THE BASIS OF
THE RULE.  SEE CONNER V. SEATTLE, R. & S. RY. CO., 56 WASH. 310, 312
313, 105 P. 634.  REGULARITY OF PREPARATION WOULD BECOME THE TEST
RATHER THAN THE CHARACTER OF THE RECORDS AND THEIR EARMARKS OF
RELIABILITY (CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE CANAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S.
123, 128-129) ACQUIRED FROM THEIR SOURCE AND ORIGIN AND THE NATURE OF
THEIR COMPILATION.  WE CANNOT SO COMPLETELY EMPTY THE WORDS OF THE ACT
OF THEIR HISTORIC MEANING.  IF THE ACT IS TO BE EXTENDED TO APPLY NOT
ONLY TO A "REGULAR COURSE" OF A BUSINESS BUT ALSO TO ANY "REGULAR
COURSE" OF CONDUCT WHICH MAY HAVE SOME RELATIONSHIP TO BUSINESS,
CONGRESS NOT THIS COURT MUST EXTEND IT. SUCH A MAJOR CHANGE WHICH OPENS
WIDE THE DOOR TO AVOIDANCE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT BE LEFT TO
IMPLICATION.  NOR IS IT ANY ANSWER TO SAY THAT CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN
THE ACT THAT THE VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MAKING OF THE RECORD
SHOULD AFFECT ITS WEIGHT, NOT ITS ADMISSIBILITY.  THAT PROVISION COMES
INTO PLAY ONLY IN CASE THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT ARE MET. 

IN SHORT, IT IS MANIFEST THAT IN THIS CASE THOSE REPORTS ARE NOT FOR
THE SYSTEMATIC CONDUCT OF THE ENTERPRISE AS A RAILROAD BUSINESS. 
UNLIKE PAYROLLS, ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, BILLS OF LADING
AND THE LIKE, THESE REPORTS ARE CALCULATED FOR USE ESSENTIALLY IN THE
COURT, NOT IN THE BUSINESS.  THEIR PRIMARY UTILITY IS IN LITIGATING,
NOT IN RAILROADING. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, NOT FOR US TO TAKE THESE REPORTS OUT OF THE ACT IF
CONGRESS HAS PUT THEM IN. BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE
LAW ON WHICH THIS ACT WAS BUILT OR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH
SUGGESTS FOR A MOMENT THAT THE BUSINESS OF PREPARING CASES FOR TRIAL
SHOULD BE INCLUDED.  IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ACT
OF MAY 6, 1910, 36 STAT. 350, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 38, REQUIRES OFFICERS OF
COMMON CARRIERS BY RAIL TO MAKE UNDER OATH MONTHLY REPORTS OF RAILROAD
ACCIDENTS TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, SETTING FORTH THE
NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE ACCIDENTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED
THEREWITH.  AND THE SAME ACT (45 U.S.C. SEC. 40) GIVES THE COMMISSION
AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE AND TO MAKE REPORTS UPON SUCH ACCIDENTS.  IT
IS PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT "NEITHER THE REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 38
OF THIS TITLE NOR ANY REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION PROVIDED FOR IN
EVIDENCE OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY SUIT OR ACTION FOR DAMAGES
GROWING OUT OF ANY MATTER MENTIONED IN SAID REPORT OR INVESTIGATION." 
45 U.S.C. SEC. 41.  A SIMILAR PROVISION (36 STAT. 916, 54 STAT. 148, 45
U.S.C. SEC. 33) BARS THE USE IN LITIGATION OF REPORTS CONCERNING
ACCIDENTS RESULTING FROM THE FAILURE OF A LOCOMOTIVE BOILER OR ITS
APPURTENANCES.  45 U.S.C. SECS. 32, 33.  THAT LEGISLATION REVEALS AN
EXPLICIT CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO RULE OUT REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS WHICH
CERTAINLY HAVE AS GREAT A CLAIM TO OBJECTIVITY AS THE STATEMENT SOUGHT
TO BE ADMITTED IN THE PRESENT CASE.  WE CAN HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT
CONGRESS MODIFIED OR QUALIFIED BY IMPLICATION THESE LONG STANDING
STATUTES WHEN IT PERMITTED RECORDS MADE "IN THE REGULAR COURSE" OF
BUSINESS TO BE INTRODUCED.  NOR CAN WE ASSUME THAT CONGRESS HAVING
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED THE USE OF THE COMPANY'S REPORTS ON ITS ACCIDENTS
IMPLIEDLY ALTERED THAT POLICY WHEN IT CAME TO REPORTS BY ITS EMPLOYEES
TO THEIR SUPERIORS.  THE INFERENCE IS WHOLLY THE OTHER WAY. 

THE SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS OF HISTORY BEHIND THE ACT (WIGMORE, SUPRA,
SECS. 1517-1520) INDICATE THE NATURE OF THE REFORMS WHICH IT WAS
DESIGNED TO EFFECT.  IT SHOULD OF COURSE BE LIBERALLY INTERPRETED SO AS
TO DO AWAY WITH THE ANACHRONISTIC RULES WHICH GAVE RISE TO ITS NEED AND
AT WHICH IT WAS AIMED.  BUT "REGULAR COURSE" OF BUSINESS MUST FIND ITS
MEANING IN THE INHERENT NATURE OF THE BUSINESS IN QUESTION AND IN THE
METHODS SYSTEMATICALLY EMPLOYED FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS AS A
BUSINESS. 

II.  ONE OF RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
THAT HE HAD GIVEN A SIGNED STATEMENT TO ONE OF RESPONDENT'S LAWYERS. 
COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS ASKED TO SEE IT.  THE COURT RULED THAT IF HE
CALLED FOR AND INSPECTED THE DOCUMENT, THE DOOR WOULD BE OPENED FOR
RESPONDENT TO OFFER THE STATEMENT IN EVIDENCE, IN WHICH CASE THE COURT
WOULD ADMIT IT.  SEE EDISON ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V. U.S. ELECTRIC
LIGHTING CO., 45 F. 55, 59.  COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS DECLINED TO
INSPECT THE STATEMENT AND TOOK AN EXCEPTION.  PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT
THAT RULING WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR IN LIGHT OF RULE 26(B) AND RULE 34 OF
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  WE DO NOT REACH THAT QUESTION.  SINCE
THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND IS NOT A PART OF THE
RECORD, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT ITS CONTENTS ARE.  IT IS THEREFORE
IMPOSSIBLE, AS STATED BY THE COURT BELOW, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
STATEMENT CONTAINED REMARKS WHICH MIGHT SERVE TO IMPEACH THE WITNESS. 
ACCORDINGLY, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE RULING WAS PREJUDICIAL EVEN IF WE
ASSUME IT WAS ERRONEOUS.  MERE "TECHNICAL ERRORS" WHICH DO NOT "AFFECT
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES" ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SET ASIDE
A JURY VERDICT IN AN APPELLATE COURT.  40 STAT. 1181, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
391.  HE WHO SEEKS TO HAVE A JUDGMENT SET ASIDE BECAUSE OF AN ERRONEOUS
RULING CARRIES THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT PREJUDICE RESULTED.  THAT
BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED BY PETITIONERS. 

III.  THE FINAL QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE RELATES TO THE BURDEN
OF PROVING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, TWO OF THE
CAUSES OF ACTION WERE BASED ON THE COMMON LAW AND TWO ON A
MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE.  THE COURT, WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THEM,
CHARGED THAT PETITIONERS HAD THE BURDEN OF PROVING CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE.  TO THIS PETITIONERS EXCEPTED, LIKEWISE WITHOUT
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT CAUSES OF ACTION.  AND AGAIN
WITHOUT MAKING ANY SUCH DISTINCTION, PETITIONERS REQUESTED THE COURT TO
CHARGE THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON RESPONDENT.  THIS WAS REFUSED AND AN
EXCEPTION NOTED. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT THE CHARGE WAS CORRECT
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT RULE 8(C) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
MAKES CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.  WE DO NOT
AGREE.  RULE 8(C) COVERS ONLY THE MANNER OF PLEADING.  THE QUESTION OF
THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS A QUESTION OF
LOCAL LAW WHICH FEDERAL COURTS IN DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP CASES (ERIE
R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64) MUST APPLY.  CITIES SERVICE OIL CO. V.
DUNLAP, 308 U.S. 208; SAMPSON V. CHANNELL, 110 F.2D 754.  AND SEE
CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. V. WHITE, 238 U.S. 507, 512. 

SECONDLY, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE COURTS BELOW APPLIED THE RULE
OF CONFLICT OF LAWS WHICH OBTAINS IN NEW YORK.  SO FAR AS THE CAUSES OF
ACTION BASED ON THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE ARE CONCERNED, WE WILL NOT
DISTURB THE HOLDING BELOW THAT AS A MATTER OF NEW YORK CONFLICT OF LAWS
WHICH THE TRIAL COURT WAS BOUND TO APPLY (KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO.,
313 U.S. 487) PETITIONERS HAD THE BURDEN OF PROVING CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE.  THAT RULING WAS BASED ON FITZPATRICK V. INTERNATIONAL RY.
CO., 252 N.Y. 127, 169 N.E. 112, WHICH INVOLVED AN ACTION BROUGHT IN
NEW YORK UNDER A STATUTE OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO.  THAT STATUTE GAVE
A PLAINTIFF IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION, THOUGH GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE, A RECOVERY IF THE DEFENDANT WAS MORE NEGLIGENT, THE DAMAGES
BEING PROPORTIONED TO THE DEGREE OF FAULT IMPUTABLE TO THE DEFENDANT. 
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE NEW YORK COURTS WERE
JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE ONTARIO RULE, GROWING OUT OF THE STATUTE,
THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON THE DEFENDANT TO SHOW CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 
THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE ON WHICH TWO OF THE PRESENT CAUSES OF ACTION
WERE FOUNDED MAKES A RAILROAD CORPORATION LIABLE FOR ITS NEGLECT IN
GIVING CERTAIN SIGNALS.  IT PROVIDES THAT TORT DAMAGES FOR INJURIES OR
DEATH FROM COLLISIONS AT CROSSINGS MAY BE RECOVERED WHERE SUCH NEGLECT
"CONTRIBUTED" TO THE INJURY, "UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT, IN ADDITION TO A
MERE WANT OF ORDINARY CARE, THE PERSON INJURED  ...  WAS, AT THE TIME
OF THE COLLISION, GUILTY OF GROSS OR WILFUL NEGLIGENCE, OR WAS ACTING
IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, AND THAT SUCH GROSS OR WILFUL NEGLIGENCE OR
UNLAWFUL ACT CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURY."  MASS. GEN. L. (1932) C. 160,
SEC. 2342.  THAT STATUTE, LIKE THE ONTARIO STATUTE, CREATES RIGHTS NOT
RECOGNIZED AT COMMON LAW.  BROOKS V. FITCHBURG & L. ST. RY. CO., 200
MASS. 8, 86 N.E. 289; DUGGAN V. BAY STATE STREET RY. CO., 230 MASS.
370, 381-382, 119 N.E. 757; SULLIVAN V. HUSTIS, 237 MASS. 441, 446, 130
N.E. 247; LEWIS V. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD, 263 MASS. 87, 91, 160 N.E.
663.  AND IN ACTIONS UNDER IT THE BURDEN OF PROVING CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLICENCE IS ON THE DEFENDANT.  MANLEY V. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD, 159
MASS. 493, 34 N.E. 951; PHELPS V. NEW ENGLAND R. CO., 172 MASS. 98, 51
N.E. 522; MCDONALD V. NEW YORK C. & H.R.R. CO., 186 MASS. 474, 72 N.E.
55; KENNY V. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD, 188 MASS. 127, 74 N.E. 309.  AND
SEE MASS. GEN. L. (1932) C. 231, SEC. 85.  MOREOVER, THE MEASURE OF
DAMAGES FOR DEATH IS "THE SUM OF NOT LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED NOR MORE
THAN TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, TO BE ASSESSED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DEGREE
OF CULPABILITY OF THE" RAILROAD.  MASS. GEN. L. (1932) C. 229, SEC. 3. 
WE ARE REFERRED TO NO NEW YORK DECISION INVOLVING THE POINT.  THE
PROPRIETY OF APPLYING THE RULE OF THE FITZPATRICK CASE TO THE CAUSES OF
ACTION BASED ON THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE MAY BE ARGUABLE.  BUT IT IS
NOT THE TYPE OF RULING UNDER ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, WHICH WE
WILL READILY DISTURB.  WHERE THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS ARE APPLYING
LOCAL LAW, WE WILL NOT SET ASIDE THEIR RULING EXCEPT ON A PLAIN SHOWING
OF ERROR. 

THE QUESTION WHICH IS RAISED ON THE COMMON LAW COUNTS IS MORE
SERIOUS.  THE COURT BELOW DID NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE CONFLICT OF
LAWS RULE IN A CASE LIKE THE FITZPATRICK CASE AND THE RULE WHICH
APPARENTLY OBTAINS IN CASES WHERE THE FOREIGN CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT
FOUNDED ON SUCH A STATUTE.  IT WAS INTIMATED IN THE FITZPATRICK CASE
(252 N.Y. P. 135) AND STATED IN OTHER CASES IN NEW YORK'S INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURTS (WRIGHT V. PALMISON, 237 APP. DIV. 22, 260 N.Y.S. 812;
CLARK V. HARNISCHFEGER SALES CORP., 238 APP. DIV. 493, 495, 264 N.Y.S.
873) THAT IN THE LATTER SITUATION THE BURDEN OF PROVING FREEDOM FROM
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS ON THE PLAINTIFF.  FITZPATRICK V.
INTERNATIONAL RY. CO., SUPRA, P. 134.  BUT WE DO NOT REVERSE AND REMAND
THE CASE TO THE COURT BELOW SO THAT IT MAY EXAMINE AND MAKE AN
APPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK LAW ON THE COMMON LAW COUNTS,
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:  AS WE HAVE NOTED, PETITIONERS IN THEIR
EXCEPTIONS TO THE CHARGE GIVEN AND IN THE REQUESTED CHARGE DID NOT
DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE CAUSES OF ACTION BASED ON THE MASSACHUSETTS
STATUTE AND THOSE ON THE COMMON LAW.  EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THE CHARGE
ON THE LATTER WAS ERRONEOUS, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE CHARGE WAS
INCORRECT SO FAR AS THE STATUTORY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE CONCERNED. 
LIKEWISE WE MUST ASSUME THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ERROR TO GIVE THE
REQUESTED CHARGE ON THE STATUTORY CAUSES OF ACTION EVEN THOUGH WE
ACCEPT IT AS THE CORRECT CHARGE ON THE OTHERS.  UNDER THESE FACTS A
GENERAL EXCEPTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT.  IN FAIRNESS TO THE TRIAL COURT
AND TO THE PARTIES, OBJECTIONS TO A CHARGE MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY
SPECIFIC TO BRING INTO FOCUS THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE ALLEGED ERROR. 
WHERE A PARTY MIGHT HAVE OBTAINED THE CORRECT CHARGE BY SPECIFICALLY
CALLING THE ATTENTION OF THE TRIAL COURT TO THE ERROR AND WHERE PART OF
THE CHARGE WAS CORRECT, HE MAY NOT THROUGH A GENERAL EXCEPTION OBTAIN A
NEW TRIAL.  SEE LINCOLN V. CLAFLIN, 7 WALL.  132, 139; BEAVER V.
TAYLOR, 93 U.S. 46, 54-55; MOBILE & MONTGOMERY RY. CO. V. JUREY, 111
U.S. 584, 596; MCDERMOTT V. SEVERE, 202 U.S. 600, 611; NORFOLK & W. RY.
CO. V. EARNEST, 229 U.S. 114, 122; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. MINDS, 250
U.S. 368, 375.  THAT LONG STANDING RULE OF FEDERAL PRACTICE IS AS
APPLICABLE IN THIS TYPE OF CASE AS IN OTHERS.  THAT RULE CANNOT BE
AVOIDED HERE BY REASON OF THE REQUESTED CHARGE.  FOR, AS WE HAVE SAID,
IT WAS AT MOST ONLY PARTIALLY CORRECT AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY
DISCRIMINATING.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN ANY COURT ESTABLISHED
BY ACT OF CONGRESS, ANY WRITING OR RECORD, WHETHER IN THE FORM OF AN
ENTRY IN A BOOK OR OTHERWISE, MADE AS A MEMORANDUM OR RECORD OF ANY
ACT, TRANSACTION, OCCURRENCE, OR EVENT, SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE
OF SAID ACT, TRANSACTION, OCCURRENCE, OR EVENT, IF IT SHALL APPEAR THAT
IT WAS MADE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ANY BUSINESS, AND THAT IT WAS THE
REGULAR COURSE OF SUCH BUSINESS TO MAKE SUCH MEMORANDUM OR RECORD AT
THE TIME OF SUCH ACT, TRANSACTION, OCCURRENCE, OR EVENT OR WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER.  ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE MAKING OF
SUCH WRITING OR RECORD, INCLUDING LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE BY THE
ENTRANT OR MAKER, MAY BE SHOWN TO AFFECT ITS WEIGHT, BUT THEY SHALL NOT
AFFECT ITS ADMISSIBILITY.  THE TERM 'BUSINESS' SHALL INCLUDE BUSINESS,
PROFESSION, OCCUPATION, AND CALLING OF EVERY KIND." 

FN2  THE PROBLEM WAS WELL STATED BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN
MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INS. CO. V. NORWICH PHARMACAL CO., 18 F.2D 934,
937:  "THE ROUTINE OF MODERN AFFAIRS, MERCANTILE, FINANCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL, IS CONDUCTED WITH SO EXTREME A DIVISION OF LABOR THAT THE
TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE PROVED AT FIRST HAND WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF
PERSONS, EACH OF WHOM CAN CONTRIBUTE NO MORE THAN A SLIGHT PART, AND
THAT PART NOT DEPENDENT ON HIS MEMORY OF THE EVENT.  RECORDS, AND
RECORDS ALONE, ARE THEIR ADEQUATE REPOSITORY, AND ARE IN PRACTICE
ACCEPTED AS ACCURATE UPON THE FAITH OF THE ROUTINE ITSELF, AND OF THE
SELF-CONSISTENCY OF THEIR CONTENTS.  UNLESS THEY CAN BE USED IN COURT
WITHOUT THE TASK OF CALLING THOSE WHO AT ALL STAGES HAD A PART IN THE
TRANSACTIONS RECORDED, NOBODY NEED EVER PAY A DEBT, IF ONLY HIS
CREDITOR DOES A LARGE ENOUGH BUSINESS." 

FN3  THUS THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
INCORPORATES THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO STATED IN
SUPPORT OF THE LEGISLATION, "THE OLD COMMON-LAW RULE REQUIRES THAT
EVERY BOOK ENTRY BE IDENTIFIED BY THE PERSON MAKING IT.  THIS IS
EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, IN THE CASE OF AN INSTITUTION
EMPLOYING A LARGE BOOKKEEPING STAFF, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ENTRIES ARE
MADE BY MACHINE.  IN A RECENT CRIMINAL CASE THE GOVERNMENT WAS
PREVENTED FROM MAKING OUT A PRIMA-FACIE CASE BY A RULING THAT ENTRIES
IN THE BOOKS OF A BANK, MADE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, WERE
NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE UNLESS THE SPECIFIC BOOKKEEPER WHO MADE THE
ENTRY COULD IDENTIFY IT.  SINCE THE BANK EMPLOYED 18 BOOKKEEPERS, AND
THE ENTRIES WERE MADE BY BOOKKEEPING MACHINES, THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE." 
S. REP. NO. 1965, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1-2. 

FN4  IT IS CLEAR THAT IT DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS AS TO
DECLARATIONS BY A DECEASED WITNESS.  SEE SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES, 290
U.S. 96; WIGMORE, SUPRA, CHS.  XLIX-LIV. 
..END :






U.S. V. BROOKS-CALLAWAY CO., 318 U.S. 120 


NO. 366.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  - 97
CT.CLS.  689, REVERSED. 


UNDER THE PROVISO TO ARTICLE 9 OF THE STANDARD FORM OF GOVERNMENT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BE
CHARGED WITH LIQUIDATED DAMAGES BECAUSE OF DELAYS DUE TO UNFORESEEABLE
CAUSES, INCLUDING FLOODS, THE REMISSION OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IS NOT
WARRANTED WHERE THE "FLOOD" WAS NOT UNFORESEEABLE BUT WAS DUE TO
CONDITIONS NORMALLY TO BE EXPECTED.  P. 122. 

UNITED STATES V. BROOKS-CALLAWAY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 615, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES IN A SUIT UPON A CONTRACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PROVISO TO ARTICLE 9 OF THE
STANDARD FORM OF GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT N1, WHICH PROVIDES
THAT A CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BE CHARGED WITH LIQUIDATED DAMAGES BECAUSE
OF DELAYS DUE TO UNFORESEEABLE CAUSES BEYOND THE CONTROL AND WITHOUT
THE FAULT OF THE CONTRACTOR, INCLUDING FLOODS, REQUIRES THE REMISSION
OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY CAUSED BY HIGH WATER FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
CUSTOMARY AND FORESEEABLE BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER THE
SUM OF $3,900 WHICH WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE CONTRACT PRICE AS LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN THE COMPLETION OF A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF LEVEES ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.  THE CONTRACT WAS NOT COMPLETED
UNTIL 290 DAYS AFTER THE DATE SET, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT
OF $5,800(FIGURED AT THE CONTRACT RATE OF $20 FOR EACH DAY OF DELAY)
WERE ORIGINALLY ASSESSED.  RESPONDENT PROTESTED, AND UPON CONSIDERATION
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD BEEN DELAYED A TOTAL
OF 278 DAYS BY HIGH WATER, 183 DAYS OF WHICH WERE DUE TO CONDITIONS
NORMALLY TO BE EXPECTED AND 95 OF WHICH WERE UNFORESEEABLE.  HE
RECOMMENDED THAT LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,900(REPRESENTING 95 DAYS OF UNFORESEEABLE DELAY AT $20 PER DAY) BE
REMITTED AND THAT THE BALANCE OF $3,900 BE RETAINED.  PAYMENT WAS MADE
ON THIS BASIS.  FN2 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT LIQUIDATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ASSESSED FOR ANY OF THE 278 DAYS OF DELAY CAUSED BY HIGH WATER BECAUSE
THE HIGH WATER WAS A "FLOOD" AND UNDER THE PROVISO ALL FLOODS WERE
UNFORESEEABLE PER SE.  ACCORDINGLY, IT GAVE JUDGMENT IN RESPONDENT'S
FAVOR IN THE SUM OF $3,660.  FN3  NO FINDINGS WERE MADE AS TO WHETHER
ANY OF THE HIGH WATER WAS IN FACT FORESEEABLE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE THE CASE PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION IN THE INTERPRETATION
OF THE STANDARD FORM OF GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. 

WE BELIEVE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BELOW IS CONTRARY TO THE
PURPOSE AND SENSE OF THE PROVISO AND MAY EASILY PRODUCE UNREASONABLE
RESULTS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISO IS TO REMOVE UNCERTAINTY AND
NEEDLESS LITIGATION BY DEFINING WITH SOME PARTICULARITY THE OTHERWISE
HAZY AREA OF UNFORESEEABLE EVENTS WHICH MIGHT EXCUSE NONPERFORMANCE
WITHIN THE CONTRACT PERIOD.  THUS CONTRACTORS KNOW THEY ARE NOT TO BE
PENALIZED FOR UNEXPECTED IMPEDIMENTS TO PROMPT PERFORMANCE, AND, SINCE
THEIR BIDS CAN BE BASED ON FORESEEABLE AND PROBABLE, RATHER THAN
POSSIBLE HINDRANCES, THE GOVERNMENT SECURES THE BENEFIT OF LOWER BIDS
AND AN ENLARGED SELECTION OF BIDDERS. 

TO AVOID A NARROW CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM, "UNFORESEEABLE CAUSES,"
LIMITING IT PERHAPS TO ACTS OF GOD, THE PROVISO SETS FORTH SOME
ILLUSTRATIONS OF UNFORESEEABLE INTERFERENCES.  THESE IT DESCRIBES AS
"INCLUDING, BUT NOT RESTRICTED TO, ACTS OF GOD, OR OF THE PUBLIC ENEMY,
ACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, FIRES, FLOODS, EPIDEMICS, QUARANTINE
RESTRICTIONS, STRIKES, FREIGHT EMBARGOES, AND UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER,
OR DELAYS OF SUBCONTRACTORS DUE TO SUCH CAUSES."  THE PURPOSE OF THE
PROVISO TO PROTECT THE CONTRACTOR AGAINST THE UNEXPECTED, AND ITS
GRAMMATICAL SENSE, BOTH MILITATE AGAINST HOLDING THAT THE LISTED EVENTS
ARE ALWAYS TO BE REGARDED AS UNFORESEEABLE, NO MATTER WHAT THE
ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE.  RATHER, THE ADJECTIVE "UNFORESEEABLE"
MUST MODIFY EACH EVENT SET OUT IN THE "INCLUDING" PHRASE.  OTHERWISE,
ABSURD RESULTS ARE PRODUCED, AS WAS WELL POINTED OUT BY JUDGE MADDEN,
DISSENTING BELOW: 

"  ...  NOT EVERY FIRE OR QUARANTINE OR STRIKE OR FREIGHT EMBARGO
SHOULD BE AN EXCUSE FOR DELAY UNDER THE PROVISO.  THE CONTRACT MIGHT BE
ONE TO EXCAVATE FOR A BUILDING IN AN AREA WHERE A COAL MINE HAD BEEN ON
FIRE FOR YEARS, WELL KNOWN TO EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE CONTRACTOR, AND
WHERE A LARGE ELEMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS
KNOWN DIFFICULTY.  A QUARANTINE, OR FREIGHT EMBARGO, MAY HAVE BEEN IN
EFFECT FOR MANY YEARS AS A PERMANENT POLICY OF THE CONTROLLING
GOVERNMENT.  A STRIKE MAY BE AN OLD AND CHRONIC ONE WHOSE SETTLEMENT
WITHIN AN EARLY PERIOD IS NOT EXPECTED.  IN ANY OF THESE SITUATIONS
THERE WOULD BE NO POSSIBLE REASON WHY THE CONTRACTOR, WHO OF COURSE
ANTICIPATED THESE OBSTACLES IN HIS ESTIMATE OF TIME AND COST, SHOULD
HAVE HIS TIME EXTENDED BECAUSE OF THEM. 

"THE SAME IS TRUE OF HIGH WATER OR 'FLOODS.'  THE NORMALLY EXPECTED
HIGH WATER IN A STREAM OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, BEING FORESEEABLE, IS
NOT AN 'UNFORESEEABLE' CAUSE OF DELAY.  HERE PLAINTIFF'S VICE-PRESIDENT
TESTIFIED THAT IN MAKING ITS BID PLAINTIFF TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE
FACT THAT THERE WOULD BE HIGH WATER AND THAT WHEN THERE WAS, WORK ON
THE LEVEE WOULD STOP.  ...  " FN4 

A LOGICAL APPLICATION OF THE DECISION BELOW WOULD EVEN EXCUSE DELAYS
FROM THE CAUSES LISTED ALTHOUGH THEY WERE WITHIN THE CONTROL, OR CAUSED
BY THE FAULT OF THE CONTRACTOR, AND THIS DESPITE THE PROVISO'S
REQUIREMENT THAT THE EVENTS BE "BEYOND THE CONTROL AND WITHOUT THE
FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR."  IF FIRE IS ALWAYS AN EXCUSE, A
CONTRACTOR IS FREE TO USE INFLAMMABLE MATERIALS IN A TINDERBOX FACTORY
AND ESCAPE ANY DAMAGES FOR DELAY DUE TO A RESULTING FIRE.  ANY
CONTRACTOR COULD SHUT HIS EYES TO THE EXTREMEST PROBABILITY THAT ANY OF
THE LISTED EVENTS MIGHT OCCUR, SUBMIT A LOW BID, AND THEN TAKE HIS OWN
GOOD TIME TO FINISH THE WORK FREE OF THE COMPULSION OF MOUNTING
DAMAGES, THUS MAKING THE TIME FIXED FOR COMPLETION PRACTICALLY
MEANINGLESS AND DEPRIVING THE GOVERNMENT OF ALL RECOMPENSE FOR THE
DELAY. 

WE INTIMATE NO OPINION ON WHETHER THE HIGH WATER AMOUNTED TO A
"FLOOD" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISO.  WHETHER HIGH WATER OR
FLOOD, THE SENSE OF THE PROVISO REQUIRES IT TO BE UNFORESEEABLE BEFORE
REMISSION OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DELAY IS WARRANTED.  THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER FOUND THAT 183 DAYS OF DELAY CAUSED BY HIGH WATER
WERE DUE TO CONDITIONS NORMALLY TO BE EXPECTED.  NO APPEAL APPEARS TO
HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM HIS DECISION TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND IT
IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER HIS FINDINGS WERE COMMUNICATED TO RESPONDENT SO
THAT IT MIGHT HAVE APPEALED.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS DID NOT DETERMINE
WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO ARTICLE 9,  FN5  AND NOT HAVING
MADE THIS THRESHOLD DETERMINATION, OF COURSE MADE NO FINDINGS ITSELF AS
TO FORESEEABILITY.  WE THINK THESE MATTERS SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DETERMINE WHETHER
RESPONDENT IS CONCLUDED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER,
AND, IF NOT, FOR A FINDING BY THE COURT WHETHER THE 183 DAYS OF HIGH
WATER OR ANY PART OF THAT TIME WERE IN FACT FORESEEABLE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN GENERAL, ARTICLE 9 GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE OPTION OF
TERMINATING THE CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO PROCEED, OR OF ALLOWING HIM TO
PROCEED SUBJECT TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IF HE FAILS TO PROCEED WITH
DILIGENCE OR TO COMPLETE THE WORK IN TIME.  THE FULL TEXT OF THE
PROVISO IS: 

"  ...  PROVIDED, THAT THE RIGHT OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PROCEED SHALL
NOT BE TERMINATED OR THE CONTRACTOR CHARGED WITH LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
BECAUSE OF ANY DELAYS IN THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK DUE TO
UNFORESEEABLE CAUSES BEYOND THE CONTROL AND WITHOUT THE FAULT OR
NEGLIGENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR, INCLUDING, BUT NOT RESTRICTED TO, ACTS OF
GOD, OR OF THE PUBLIC ENEMY, ACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, FIRES, FLOODS,
EPIDEMICS, QUARANTINE RESTRICTIONS, STRIKES, FREIGHT EMBARGOES, AND
UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER OR DELAYS OF SUBCONTRACTORS DUE TO SUCH
CAUSES:  ...  " 

FN2  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE REMAINING DELAY OF 12
DAYS (THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL DELAY OF 290 DAYS AND THE 278
DAYS DUE TO HIGH WATER) WAS NOT EXCUSABLE, AS CLAIMED BY RESPONDENT, ON
ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO SECURE A NECESSARY RIGHT OF WAY,
OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE REQUIREMENT BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT
RESPONDENT BUILD A TIE-IN LEVEE.  ON THESE POINTS THE COURT BELOW
SUSTAINED THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.  RESPONDENT HAS
NOT APPEALED AND THIS PHASE OF THE CASE IS NOT BEFORE US. 

FN3  97 CT. CLS. 689. 

FN4  97 CT. CLS. 701, 702. 

FN5  THE SECOND PROVISO TO ARTICLE 9 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS THE
UNFORESEEABILITY PROVISO AND STATES: 

"PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE
BEGINNING OF ANY SUCH DELAY NOTIFY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN WRITING
OF THE CAUSES OF DELAY, WHO SHALL ASCERTAIN THE FACTS AND THE EXTENT OF
THE DELAY, AND HIS FINDINGS OF FACTS THEREON SHALL BE FINAL AND
CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTIES THERETO, SUBJECT ONLY TO APPEAL, WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS, BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED,
WHOSE DECISION ON SUCH APPEAL AS TO THE FACTS OF DELAY SHALL BE FINAL
AND CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTIES HERETO." 
..END :











OVERSTREET V. NORTH SHORE CORP., 318 U.S. 125 


NO. 284.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1943.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1943.  - 128
F.2D 450, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT NOT TO THOSE WHOSE ACTIVITIES
MERELY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 128. 

2.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES (OF A
PRIVATE CORPORATION) WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF A DRAWBRIDGE WHICH IS PART OF A TOLL ROAD USED EXTENSIVELY BY
PERSONS AND VEHICLES TRAVELING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND WHICH SPANS
AN INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 130. 

SO HELD AS TO ONE EMPLOYEE WHO ATTENDED TO THE RAISING AND LOWERING
OF THE BRIDGE; ANOTHER WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF
THE BRIDGE; AND A THIRD WHO COLLECTED TOLLS FROM USERS OF THE ROAD AND
BRIDGE. 

3.  THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DOES NOT DEPEND
UPON THE NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS, BUT UPON THE CHARACTER OF
THE EMPLOYEES' ACTIVITIES.  P. 132. 

4.  THAT A CORPORATION WHICH OWNS AND OPERATES A TOLL ROAD AND
DRAWBRIDGE IS SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION DOES NOT IMPLY THAT IT IS FREE
FROM FEDERAL REGULATION OR THAT ITS ROAD AND DRAWBRIDGE ARE NOT
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 132. 

OVERSTREET ET AL. V. NORTH SHORE CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 317 U.S. 606, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT (43
F.SUPP.  445) DISMISSING, AS TO THE PETITIONERS HERE, A COMPLAINT IN AN
ACTION FOR WAGES, OVERTIME, AND DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS ANOTHER CASE IN WHICH WE MUST DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 201 ET SEQ.
THE PRECISE QUESTION IS WHETHER PETITIONERS, WHO ARE ENGAGED IN
MAINTAINING OR OPERATING A TOLL ROAD AND A DRAWBRIDGE OVER A NAVIGABLE
WATERWAY WHICH TOGETHER CONSTITUTE A MEDIUM FOR THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT
OF GOODS AND PERSONS, ARE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE ACT.  FN2 

PETITIONERS, TOGETHER WITH OTHERS NOT PARTIES TO THIS PETITION,
BROUGHT THIS ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT AND A SUBSIDIARY UNDER SEC.
16(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE RECOVERY OF UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OVERTIME
COMPENSATION, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS AS
TO ALL THE PLAINTIFFS, AND THE MOTION AS TO PETITIONERS WAS GRANTED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, LEAVE TO AMEND BEING GIVEN TO THE OTHER
COMPLAINANTS WHO ARE NOT BEFORE US.  43 F.SUPP.  445.  PETITIONERS
APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL.  128 F.2D 450.  THE IMPORTANT QUESTION RAISED AS TO THE
COVERAGE OF THE ACT CAUSED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE RELEVANT FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AS AMENDED, WHICH ARE TO
BE TAKEN AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS, MAY BE
SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

RESPONDENT OWNS AND OPERATES A TOLL ROAD AND A DRAWBRIDGE WHICH IS
PART OF THE ROAD.  THE TOLL ROAD CONNECTS UNITED STATES HIGHWAY NO. 17,
AN INTERSTATE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY, WITH FORT GEORGE ISLAND, WHICH LIES OFF
THE NORTHERN COAST OF FLORIDA, BEING SEPARATED FROM THE MAINLAND BY THE
INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY.  THE TOLL ROAD CROSSES THE WATERWAY AT SISTERS'
CREEK BY MEANS OF THE DRAWBRIDGE, WHICH MUST BE RAISED FREQUENTLY TO
PERMIT THE PASSAGE OF BOATS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE TOLL
ROAD CONSTITUTES AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM OF THE UNITED
STATES AND PROVIDES THE ONLY MEANS OF LAND COMMUNICATION BETWEEN FORT
GEORGE ISLAND AND THE FLORIDA MAINLAND.  IT IS USED EXTENSIVELY BY
PERSONS AND VEHICLES TRAVELING BETWEEN THE ISLAND AND POINTS OUTSIDE
FLORIDA IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MAIL TO AND FROM OTHER STATES, AS WELL
AS GOODS PRODUCED OUTSIDE FLORIDA AND CONSIGNED TO MERCHANTS ON THE
ISLAND, ARE TRANSPORTED OVER THE TOLL ROAD.  EACH OF THE PETITIONERS
WAS EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF THE TOLL
ROAD AND DRAWBRIDGE.  OVERSTREET OPERATED THE DRAWBRIDGE, RAISING IT
FOR THE PASSAGE OF BOATS THROUGH SISTERS' CREEK AND LOWERING IT FOR THE
RESUMPTION OF TRAFFIC OVER THE ROAD; BRAZLE WAS ENGAGED IN MAINTENANCE
AND REPAIR WORK ON THE ROAD AND THE BRIDGE; AND GARVIN SOLD AND
COLLECTED TOLL TICKETS FROM "VEHICLES USING SAID TOLL ROAD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  PETITIONERS RECEIVED NEITHER THE MINIMUM WAGES
NOR THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION PRESCRIBED BY SECS. 6 AND 7 OF THE ACT. 

WE THINK THESE ALLEGATIONS BRING PETITIONERS WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF
THE ACT AND ENTITLE THEM TO RECOVER IF PROVED. 

OUR STARTING POINT IS RESPONDENT'S CONCESSION THAT NO QUESTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS INVOLVED, BUT ONLY THE ASCERTAINMENT OF
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, THAT IS, DID CONGRESS MEAN TO INCLUDE EMPLOYEES
SUCH AS PETITIONERS WITHIN THE ACT.  IN ARRIVING AT THAT INTENT IT MUST
BE REMEMBERED THAT CONGRESS DID NOT CHOOSE TO EXERT ITS POWER TO THE
FULL BY REGULATING INDUSTRIES AND OCCUPATIONS WHICH AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 522-23; WALLING
V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT
PETITIONERS ARE IN THIS CATEGORY, THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE LOCAL AND
AT MOST ONLY AFFECT COMMERCE.  BUT THE POLICY OF CONGRESSIONAL
ABNEGATION WITH RESPECT TO OCCUPATIONS AFFECTING COMMERCE IS NO REASON
FOR NARROWLY CIRCUMSCRIBING THE PHRASE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE."  WE SAID
IN THE JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO. CASE, SUPRA, "IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO EXTEND FEDERAL CONTROL IN THIS FIELD
THROUGHOUT THE FARTHEST REACHES OF THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  AND IN DETERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES "COMMERCE" OR "ENGAGED
IN COMMERCE" WE ARE GUIDED BY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.  JACKSONVILLE
PAPER CO. CASE, SUPRA, AND SEE ALSO SHANKS V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO.,
239 U.S. 556, 558, DEALING WITH WHAT WILL SHORTLY BE POINTED OUT AS A
SIMILAR QUESTION IN THE COVERAGE OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT. 

A PRACTICAL TEST OF WHAT "ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" MEANS HAS
BEEN EVOLVED IN CASES ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT (45 U.S.C. SECS. 51 ET SEQ.) WHICH, BEFORE THE 1939 AMENDMENT (SEE
53 STAT. 1404), APPLIED ONLY WHERE INJURY WAS SUFFERED WHILE THE
CARRIER WAS ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE AND THE INJURED
EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE CARRIER "IN SUCH COMMERCE."  35 STAT. 65. 
IN DETERMINING THE REACH OF THAT PHRASE, THE CASE OF PEDERSEN V.
DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 229 U.S. 146, HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS
INJURED WHILE CARRYING BOLTS TO BE USED IN REPAIRING A RAILROAD BRIDGE
OVER WHICH INTERSTATE TRAINS PASSED WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LIABILITY ACT.  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT
TRACKS AND BRIDGES WERE INDISPENSABLE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND "THAT
THE WORK OF KEEPING SUCH INSTRUMENTALITIES IN A PROPER STATE OF REPAIR
WHILE THUS USED IS SO CLOSELY RELATED TO SUCH COMMERCE AS TO BE IN
PRACTICE AND IN LEGAL CONTEMPLATION A PART OF IT."  ID. AT P. 151.  SEE
ALSO PHILADELPHIA, B. & W.R. CO. V. SMITH, 250 U.S. 101; SOUTHERN RY.
CO. V. PUCKETT, 244 U.S. 571; NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. V. PORTER, 249 U.S.
168; KINZELL V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO., 250 U.S. 130; SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 251 U.S. 259; PHILADELPHIA &
READING RY. CO. V. DI DONATO, 256 U.S. 327; RADER V. BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO., 108 F.2D 980.  COMPARE SHANKS V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 239
U.S. 556; CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN RY. CO. V. BOLLE, 284 U.S. 74;
CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS R. CO. V. COMMISSION, 284 U.S. 296. 

WE THINK THAT PRACTICAL TEST SHOULD GOVERN HERE.  FN3  VEHICULAR
ROADS AND BRIDGES ARE AS INDISPENSABLE TO THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF
PERSONS AND GOODS AS RAILROAD TRACKS AND BRIDGES ARE TO INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL.  IF THEY ARE USED BY PERSONS AND GOODS PASSING
BETWEEN THE VARIOUS STATES, THEY ARE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  CF. COVINGTON & CINCINNATI BRIDGE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 154 U.S.
204, 218.  THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN MAINTAINING AND REPAIRING
SUCH FACILITIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" EVEN AS
WAS THE BOLT-CARRYING EMPLOYEE IN THE PEDERSEN CASE, SUPRA, BECAUSE
WITHOUT THEIR SERVICES THESE INSTRUMENTALITIES WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE
PASSAGE OF GOODS AND PERSONS ACROSS STATE LINES.  AND THE SAME IS TRUE
OF OPERATIONAL EMPLOYEES WHOSE WORK IS JUST AS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT.  OF COURSE, ALL THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE
QUALIFICATION THAT THE ACT DOES NOT CONSIDER AS AN EMPLOYER THE UNITED
STATES OR ANY STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF A STATE, AND HENCE DOES
NOT APPLY TO THEIR EMPLOYEES.  SEC. 3(D). 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT SATISFY THIS PRACTICAL
TEST.  THE ROAD AND BRIDGE ALLEGEDLY AFFORD PASSAGE TO AN EXTENSIVE
MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND PERSONS BETWEEN FLORIDA AND OTHER STATES, AND
MOREOVER THE DRAWBRIDGE PRESENTS AN OBSTACLE TO INTERSTATE TRAFFIC BY
WATER OVER THE INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY IF NOT PROPERLY OPERATED.  THE
OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES OF PETITIONERS ARE VITAL TO THE
PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THESE STRUCTURES AS INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE SERVICES OF OVERSTREET ARE NECESSARY TO
PREVENT THE DRAWBRIDGE FROM BEING EITHER A BARRIER TO INTERSTATE
NAVIGATION OR ELSE A GAP IN THE VEHICULAR WAY.  WITHOUT THE SERVICES OF
BRAZLE THE FACILITIES WOULD FALL INTO DISREPAIR, AND BOTH OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE WOULD SEEM TO DEPEND UPON GARVIN'S COLLECTING THE TOLL FROM
USERS OF THE STRUCTURES.  THE WORK OF EACH PETITIONER IN PROVIDING A
MEANS OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION IS SO INTIMATELY
RELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE "AS TO BE IN PRACTICE AND IN LEGAL
CONTEMPLATION A PART OF IT" (PEDERSEN'S CASE, SUPRA) AND JUSTIFIES
REGARDING PETITIONERS AS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

RESPONDENT RESISTS THE APPLICATION OF THE TEST OF THE PEDERSEN AND
RELATED CASES, CITED ABOVE, POINTING OUT THAT THERE MAY BE PITFALLS IN
TRANSLATING IMPLICATIONS FROM THE SPECIAL ASPECTS OF ONE STATUTE TO
ANOTHER (SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349, 353),
AND CLAIMING THAT SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE
OUTSTANDING DIFFERENCE ASSERTED IS THAT A RAILROAD COMPANY IS ACTUALLY
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE AS A CARRIER OF GOODS AND PERSONS, AND SINCE IT IS
DIFFICULT TO CONSIDER THE BUSINESS OTHER THAN AS A WHOLE AND TO
SEPARATE MAINTENANCE FROM TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES, THERE IS GOOD
REASON FOR TREATING MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES AS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE. 
(COMPARE THE PEDERSEN CASE, SUPRA, AT PP. 151-152.)  AS REGARDS ITSELF
RESPONDENT SAYS THAT IT IS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, BUT ONLY IN
PROVIDING FACILITIES WHICH THOSE CARRYING ON COMMERCE MAY USE, AND
THEREFORE THERE IS NO SOUND BASIS FOR TREATING ITS MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATIONAL EMPLOYEES AS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE - RATHER THEY ONLY AFFECT
COMMERCE.  RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON HENDERSON BRIDGE CO. V. KENTUCKY,
166 U.S. 150, AND DETROIT BRIDGE CO. V. TAX BOARD, 294 U.S. 83, WHERE
IN SUSTAINING THE POWER OF THE STATES OF KENTUCKY AND MICHIGAN,
RESPECTIVELY, TO TAX THE FRANCHISE OF DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS OPERATING
BRIDGES BETWEEN KENTUCKY AND INDIANA AND BETWEEN MICHIGAN AND CANADA,
IT WAS SAID THAT THE RESPECTIVE BRIDGE COMPANIES WERE NOT ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  WE DO NOT REGARD THESE OBJECTIONS AS
WELL TAKEN. 

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
ARE NOT STRICTLY ANALOGOUS, BUT THEY ARE SIMILAR.  BOTH ARE AIMED AT
PROTECTING COMMERCE FROM INJURY THROUGH ADJUSTMENT OF THE MASTER
SERVANT RELATIONSHIP, THE ONE BY LIBERALIZING THE COMMON LAW RULES
PERTAINING TO NEGLIGENCE AND THE OTHER BY ELIMINATING SUBSTANDARD
WORKING CONDITIONS.  WE SEE NO PERSUASIVE REASON WHY THE SCOPE OF
EMPLOYED OR ENGAGED "IN COMMERCE" LAID DOWN IN THE PEDERSEN AND RELATED
CASES, CITED ABOVE, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, ESPECIALLY WHEN CONGRESS IN ADOPTING THE
PHRASE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" HAD THOSE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
CASES BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION.  FN4 

THE HENDERSON AND DETROIT BRIDGE CASES, SUPRA, DO NOT AFFECT OUR
CONCLUSION.  WE HAVE POINTED OUT THAT DECISIONS SUCH AS THOSE, DEALING
WITH VARIOUS ASSERTIONS OF STATE OR FEDERAL POWER IN THE COMMERCE
FIELD, ARE NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE
ACT.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, PP. 520-21; WALLING V.
JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., SUPRA.  BUT EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THE PREMISE OF
THE BRIDGE CASES AND REGARD RESPONDENT AS NOT ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, THE
RESULT IS NOT CHANGED.  THE NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS IS NOT
DETERMINATIVE, BECAUSE AS WE HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID, THE APPLICATION OF
THE ACT DEPENDS UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE EMPLOYEES' ACTIVITIES. 
KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, P. 524; WARREN-BRADSHAW DRILLING CO.
V. HALL, 317 U.S. 88; WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., SUPRA.  THE
FACT THAT RESPONDENT MAY BE SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION DOES NOT IMPLY
THAT IT IS FREE FROM FEDERAL REGULATION OR THAT ITS ROAD AND DRAWBRIDGE
ARE NOT INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PETITIONERS, WHO ARE
ENGAGED IN OPERATING AND MAINTAINING RESPONDENT'S FACILITIES SO THAT
THERE MAY BE INTERSTATE PASSAGE OF PERSONS AND GOODS OVER THEM, ARE SO
CLOSELY RELATED TO THAT INTERSTATE MOVEMENT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THAT
WE THINK THEY MUST BE REGARDED, UNDER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THEIR
COMPLAINT, AS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 6 AND 7
OF THE ACT. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517; WARREN-BRADSHAW
DRILLING CO. V. HALL, 317 U.S. 88; WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO.,
317 U.S. 564; HIGGINS V. CARR BROTHERS CO., 317 U.S. 572. 

FN2  SECTION 3(B) DEFINES "COMMERCE" AS "TRADE, COMMERCE,
TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
OR FROM ANY STATE TO ANY PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF." 

FN3  THIS HAS BEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION.  SEE
INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 5 OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ISSUED IN NOVEMBER, 1939, AT P. 7.  THIS IS SET
FORTH IN THE 1941 EDITION OF THE WAGE AND HOUR MANUAL AT P. 34.  SEE
ALSO P. 54.    COMPARE THE DISSENTING OPINION IN PEDERSEN V. FITZGERALD
CONSTRUCTION CO., 262 APP. DIV. 665, 668, 30 N.Y.S.2D 989, AFFIRMED
WITHOUT OPINION, 288 N.Y. 211, 687, 43 N.E.2D 83. 

FN4  SEE 83 CONG. REC., 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PT. 7, P. 7434, AND PT.
8, PP. 9168-71.  SEE ALSO JOINT HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR ON S. 2475 AND
H.R. 7200, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1937), PT. 1, PP. 42-43. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENT. 
..END :














HOLLEY V. LAWRENCE, WARDEN, 317 U.S. 518 


NO. 600.  DECIDED JANUARY 18, 1943.  - APPEAL DISMISSED. 


THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT THAT FAILURE TO OFFER THE TESTIMONY OF
A WIFE AT THE TRIAL OF HER HUSBAND BARRED A LATER CLAIM OF THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE MAKING SUCH TESTIMONY
INCOMPETENT, HELD A NON-FEDERAL GROUND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE
JUDGMENT. 

HOLLEY V. LAWRENCE, WARDEN. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED.  THE
COURT HAS EXAMINED ALL THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY APPELLANT.  IN
SO FAR AS THE APPEAL CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF GEORGIA CODE SEC. 38
1604, WHICH MAKES INCOMPETENT THE TESTIMONY OF A WIFE AT THE TRIAL OF
HER HUSBAND, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW RESTS UPON A NON-FEDERAL
GROUND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT IT, NAMELY, THAT THE FAILURE TO TENDER SUCH
TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL BARRED ANY LATER CLAIM OF THE ALLEGED
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. MIMS, 242 U.S. 532,
535).  THE COURT FINDS THAT NO OTHER FEDERAL QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE
APPEAL WARRANTS REVIEW BY THIS COURT.  THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY
DISMISSED.  DISMISSED. 
..END :
























AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN. V. U.S., 317 U.S. 519 


NO. 201.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 14, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 18, 1943.  -
130 F.2D 233, AFFIRMED. 


PETITIONERS, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND THE MEDICAL SOCIETY
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (CORPORATIONS), WERE INDICTED AND CONVICTED
OF CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY RESTRAINING TRADE
OR COMMERCE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  TWO UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATIONS AND TWENTY-ONE INDIVIDUALS (SOME OF WHOM WERE OFFICERS OR
EMPLOYEES OF ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE PETITIONERS; OTHERS WERE
PHYSICIANS PRACTICING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND MEMBERS OF THE
PETITIONERS) WERE CODEFENDANTS BUT WERE ACQUITTED BY DIRECTED VERDICT
OR FOUND NOT GUILTY.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT, TO PREVENT GROUP
HEALTH - A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ORGANIZED BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO
PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE AND HOSPITALIZATION ON A RISK-SHARING PREPAYMENT
BASIS, AND EMPLOYING FULL-TIME PHYSICIANS ON A SALARY BASIS - FROM
CARRYING OUT ITS OBJECTS, THE DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO COERCE PRACTICING
PHYSICIANS, MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONERS, FROM ACCEPTING EMPLOYMENT UNDER
GROUP HEALTH; TO RESTRAIN PRACTICING PHYSICIANS, MEMBERS OF THE
PETITIONERS, FROM CONSULTING WITH GROUP HEALTH'S DOCTORS WHO MIGHT
DESIRE TO CONSULT WITH THEM; AND TO RESTRAIN HOSPITALS IN AND ABOUT
WASHINGTON FROM AFFORDING FACILITIES FOR THE CARE OF PATIENTS OF GROUP
HEALTH'S PHYSICIANS.  HELD: 

1.  IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO DECIDE, AND THE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE,
WHETHER A PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE OF HIS PROFESSION CONSTITUTES TRADE
UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 528. 

2.  GROUP HEALTH IS ENGAGED IN "TRADE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT IS COOPERATIVE AND PROCURES
SERVICE AND FACILITIES ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS ONLY.  P. 528. 

3.  THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE CHARGES A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN AND
OBSTRUCT THE BUSINESS OF GROUP HEALTH, AND THEREFORE A CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  P. 528. 

4.  THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE PHYSICIANS AND MEDICAL
ORGANIZATIONS IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE, IF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THEIR
CONSPIRACY WAS OBSTRUCTION AND RESTRAINT OF THE BUSINESS OF GROUP
HEALTH, SINCE SEC. 3 PROHIBITS "ANY PERSON" FROM IMPOSING THE
PROSCRIBED RESTRAINTS.  P. 528. 

5.  THE COURTS BELOW CORRECTLY CONSTRUED THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE
AS CHARGING A SINGLE CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT AND RESTRAIN THE BUSINESS
OF GROUP HEALTH - THE RECITED "PURPOSES" CONSTITUTING MERELY DIFFERENT
STEPS TOWARD THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THAT END - AND THE CAUSE WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THIS THEORY.  PETITIONERS' CHALLENGE OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY - BASED IN EFFECT ON THE
CONTENTION THAT THE INDICTMENT CHARGED FIVE SEPARATE CONSPIRACIES, AND
THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE TRIAL COURT RULE UPON THE
SUFFICIENCY IN LAW OF EACH OF THE CHARGES - THEREFORE FAILS.  P. 532. 

6.  THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE WAS SUFFICIENT FOR SUBMISSION TO THE
JURY.  P. 533. 

7.  THE DISPUTE BETWEEN PETITIONERS (AND THEIR MEMBERS) AND GROUP
HEALTH (AND ITS MEMBERS) WAS NOT ONE "CONCERNING TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT," AND THEREFORE PETITIONERS' ACTIVITIES WERE NOT
EXEMPTED, BY SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AS EXPANDED BY SEC. 13 OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, FROM THE OPERATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 533. 

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 202, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, POST, P. 613, TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 613, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS FOR
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT. 

THE WORD "TRADE" IN SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
PRACTICE OF MEDICINE AND THE RENDERING OF MEDICAL SERVICES AS DESCRIBED
IN THE INDICTMENT, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT "COMMERCIAL" IN NATURE.  THE
NATURAL MEANING AND JUDICIAL DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD "TRADE" EXCLUDE
THE PROFESSIONS.  FEDERAL CLUB V. NATIONAL LEAGUE, 259 U.S. 200;
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643. 

APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, HELD IN SUBSTANCE AND
EFFECT THAT NO ACTIVITY COULD BE IN "TRADE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
EITHER SEC. 1 OR SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT UNLESS IT WAS A "COMMERCIAL"
ACTIVITY. 

NONE OF THE FIVE ACTIVITIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RESTRAINED WERE
"TRADE" UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  GROUP HEALTH WAS ORGANIZED UNDER
INCORPORATION OF CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL, AND RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS. 
ITS SOLE ACTIVITIES ARE TO COLLECT DUES FROM ITS MEMBERS, PAY RENT FOR
AND MAINTAIN A SUITE OF DOCTORS' OFFICES, WITH THE USUAL APPURTENANCES
THERETO, EMPLOY DOCTORS TO RENDER MEDICAL SERVICES, WITHIN LIMITS, TO
ITS MEMBERS AND TO PAY, WITHIN LIMITS, THE HOSPITAL BILLS OF ITS
MEMBERS.  SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE NOT "COMMERCIAL" OR "BUSINESS"
ACTIVITIES. 

THE MEMBERS OF GROUP HEALTH ARE NOT ENGAGED IN A "COMMERCIAL" OR
"BUSINESS" ACTIVITY; THE ACTIVITY OF THE DOCTORS EMPLOYED BY GROUP
HEALTH IS NOT "COMMERCIAL" OR "BUSINESS" ACTIVITY; THE PRACTICE OF
MEDICINE BY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION GENERALLY IS NOT A "COMMERCIAL" OR
"BUSINESS" ACTIVITY; AND THE WASHINGTON HOSPITALS, OR THAT PART OF
THEIR ACTIVITIES HERE INVOLVED, ARE NOT "COMMERCIAL" OR "BUSINESS"
ACTIVITIES. 

IF ANY ONE OF THE FIVE ACTIVITIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RESTRAINED WAS
NOT "TRADE" UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THEN NO ONE IS ABLE TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE JURY RETURNED ITS VERDICT BASED ON A
RESTRAINT OF AN ACTIVITY THAT WAS NOT "TRADE" UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 367-370; THORNHILL
V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 96; GARLAND V. DAVIS, 4 HOW.  131; BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO. V. REEVES, 10 F.2D 329, 330, 331; PATTON V. WELLS, 121 F.
337, 340; ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S. RY. CO. V. NEEDHAM, 63 F. 107, 113, 114;
MANDERVILLE V. COOKENDERFER, 3 CRANCH, C.C. (3 D.C.)  257, FED. CAS.
NO. 9,009.  FURTHERMORE, IF ANY ONE OF THE FIVE ACTIVITIES ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN RESTRAINED WAS NOT "TRADE" UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY CHARGED THE JURY THAT RESTRAINT ON ANY ONE OF THE
FIVE CLASSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RESTRAINED WAS SUFFICIENT TO
CONVICT.  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; MARYLAND V. BALDWIN, 112 U.S.
490, 493. 

THE WORD "RESTRAINT" IN SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT DOES NOT INCLUDE
ANY RESTRAINT THAT DOES NOT FIX PRICES OR SUPPRESS COMPETITION TO THE
EXTENT THAT MARKET PRICES ARE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED TO THE INJURY OF
THE PUBLIC.  APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469; INTERNATIONAL
UNION V. DONNELLY GARMENT CO., 119 F.2D 892, 898; GUNDERSHEIMER'S V.
BAKERY WORKERS' UNION, 73 APP. D.C. 352, 353, 119 F.2D 205, 206; UNITED
STATES V. LOCAL 807, 118 F.2D 684-689, AFFIRMED 315 U.S. 521;
INTERNATIONAL ASSN. V. PAULY JAIL BLDG. CO., 118 F.2D 615, 621; UNITED
STATES V. GOLD, 115 F.2D 236-238; KONECKY V. JEWISH PRESS, 288 F. 179;
AND SWARTZ V. FORWARD ASSN., 41 F.SUPP.  294. 

THE INDICTMENT HEREIN DID NOT ATTEMPT TO CHARGE PRICE FIXING OR
SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION THAT AFFECTED MARKET PRICES TO THE INJURY OF
THE PUBLIC.  NO SUCH CONTENTION EVER APPEARED UNTIL AFTER THE OPINION
IN THE APEX CASE. 

A DISPUTE CONCERNING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF DOCTORS,
WHICH WAS WITHIN THE CLAYTON AND NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACTS, WAS INVOLVED,
IN WHICH PETITIONERS WERE INTERESTED.  THE CASE IS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN
THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE DISPUTE CONCERNING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF DOCTORS
AROSE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:  WHEN A COMMITTEE OF THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT SOCIETY AND REPRESENTATIVES OF GROUP HEALTH
CONFERRED FOR THE FIRST TIME, A CONTROVERSY AROSE, THE MATRIX OF WHICH
WAS THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BY GROUP HEALTH OF MEMBERS
OF THE DISTRICT SOCIETY TO PERFORM GROUP HEALTH'S CORPORATE MEDICAL
WORK.  GROUP HEALTH REJECTED AN OFFERED BASIS OF EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS
OF THE DISTRICT SOCIETY, INSISTED UPON DICTATING THE TERMS, CONDITIONS,
AND METHOD OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND OF EMPLOYING MEMBERS OF THE
DISTRICT SOCIETY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER GROUP HEALTH'S PLANS WERE
ILLEGAL OR IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND EMPLOYMENT RULES OF
THE DISTRICT SOCIETY.  THIS CONTROVERSY OVER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT CONTINUED THROUGHOUT THE INDICTMENT PERIOD AND WAS INVOLVED
IN ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES CHARGED OR PROVEN.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219; UNITED STATES V. CARROZZO, 37 F.SUPP.  191,
AFFIRMED, 313 U.S. 508; NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. SANITARY GROCERY CO., 303
U.S. 552; DRIVERS UNION V. LAKE VALLEY CO., 311 U.S. 91;
GUNDERSHEIMER'S V. BAKERY WORKERS' UNION, 73 APP. D.C. 352, 353, 119
F.2D 205, 206; INTERNATIONAL UNION V. DONNELLY GARMENT CO., 119 F.2D
892, 898; INTERNATIONAL ASSN. V. PAULY JAIL BLDG. CO., 118 F.2D 615,
621. 

PETITIONERS CONSPIRED TO BOYCOTT GROUP HEALTH IN ORDER TO PREVENT IT
FROM MARKETING MEDICAL SERVICES IN COMPETITION WITH PETITIONERS' DOCTOR
MEMBERS.  SUCH A BOYCOTTING COMBINATION TO EXCLUDE A COMPETITOR FROM
THE MARKET IS A RESTRAINT OF TRADE PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE
DECISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN RESTED UPON THE GROUND THAT THERE HAD BEEN
PRICE-FIXING OR THAT COMPETITION HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED TO THE EXTENT THAT
MARKET PRICES WERE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED.  MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY,
193 U.S. 38; STRAUS V. AMERICAN PUBLISHERS' ASSN., 231 U.S. 222;
EASTERN STATES RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS' ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S.
600; BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291; PARAMOUNT FAMOUS LASKY
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30; UNITED STATES V. FIRST NATIONAL
PICTURES, 282 U.S. 44; SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553,
587-589, 601; FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 312
U.S. 457. 

APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, DID NOT HOLD THAT THE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE CONDEMNED BY THE SHERMAN ACT ARE LIMITED TO THOSE
INVOLVING PRICE-FIXING OR A SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION WHICH
SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTS MARKET PRICES.  THE CASE HELD ONLY THAT THE
RESTRAINTS PROHIBITED BY THE ACT ARE THOSE WHICH SUPPRESS OR
SUBSTANTIALLY RESTRICT COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF GOODS OR
SERVICES AND PRICE-FIXING WAS REFERRED TO MERELY AS ONE CONSPICUOUS
EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF RESTRAINT DECLARED ILLEGAL.  THIS INTERPRETATION
OF THE APEX CASE IS CONFIRMED BY FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD V. FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457, WHICH HELD THAT AN INTENT TO INCREASE
PRICES IS NOT "AN EVER-PRESENT ESSENTIAL" OF CONDUCT CONSTITUTING A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE CONSPIRACY TO PREVENT GROUP HEALTH FROM SUCCESSFULLY CARRYING ON
ITS BUSINESS OF FURNISHING MEDICAL SERVICE TO MEMBERS OF THE CONSUMING
PUBLIC WAS A RESTRAINT OF TRADE PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE ACT
APPLIES TO RESTRAINTS UPON COMPETITION IN PROVIDING SERVICES AS WELL AS
GOODS AND CONGRESS CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO HAVE INTENDED TO EXCLUDE
CONSUMERS OF MEDICAL SERVICE FROM THE PROTECTION EXTENDED GENERALLY TO
PURCHASERS AND CONSUMERS OF GOODS OR SERVICES. 

GROUP HEALTH WAS ENGAGED IN A LARGE-SCALE UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE
MEDICAL SERVICE IN EXCHANGE FOR PAYMENT OF DUES.  THIS EXCHANGE OF
SERVICE FOR MONEY IS TRADE IN THE PRIMARY AND MOST USUAL MEANING OF THE
WORD.  THE FACT THAT GROUP HEALTH IS A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION IS
IMMATERIAL.  ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS WERE TRADE, ALTHOUGH CARRIED ON
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS CONSUMER-MEMBERS RATHER THAN FOR THE BENEFIT OF
STOCKHOLDERS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ADVISED THE JURY THAT THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT
PETITIONERS CONSPIRED TO RESTRAIN GROUP HEALTH, THE DOCTORS ON ITS
STAFF, OTHER DOCTORS, AND THE WASHINGTON HOSPITALS.  BUT IT FURTHER
ADVISED THE JURY THAT THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT THE "PLAN AND
PURPOSE" OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS TO "HINDER AND OBSTRUCT" GROUP HEALTH
AND THE DOCTORS ON ITS STAFF, IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED WAYS. 

THE JURY, IN ORDER TO CONVICT, WAS REQUIRED TO FIND NOT ONLY THAT
THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE IN ONE OF THE SEVERAL WAYS
MENTIONED BY THE COURT (I.E., TO RESTRAIN GROUP HEALTH, ITS DOCTORS,
OTHER DOCTORS, OR THE HOSPITALS) BUT ALSO THAT THE PLAN AND PURPOSE OF
THE CONSPIRACY WAS TO OBSTRUCT AND INTERFERE WITH GROUP HEALTH IN ITS
BUSINESS OF PROVIDING MEDICAL CARE FOR ITS MEMBERS.  THE JURY WAS
INSTRUCTED, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT RESTRAINT UPON THE BUSINESS OF GROUP
HEALTH WAS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED AGAINST
PETITIONERS. 

UNDER THE DISTRICT COURT'S CHARGE TO THE JURY, PETITIONERS'
CONVICTIONS MUST BE SUSTAINED IF THE RESTRAINTS UPON THE TRADE OF GROUP
HEALTH ARE WITHIN THE BAN OF THE STATUTE.  BUT IF THE APPLICATION OF
THE ACT TO RESTRAINTS UPON INDIVIDUAL DOCTORS IN THE PURSUIT OF THEIR
CALLING IS AN ESSENTIAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE, SUCH RESTRAINTS ARE WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE COMMON-LAW CONCEPT, EMBODIED IN THE SHERMAN ACT, OF
RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

DISPUTE CONCERNING SOME QUESTION OF EMPLOYMENT INVOLVING THE EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  PETITIONERS CANNOT SUBSUME THEMSELVES UNDER THE
CLASS OF EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES UNDER THE ACT SINCE PETITIONERS'
MEMBERS WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND DID NOT WANT TO BE EMPLOYEES.  RATHER,
PETITIONERS ARE ANALOGOUS TO A TRADE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS UNITS.  NOR WAS THE CONTROVERSY ITSELF OF A KIND
CONTEMPLATED BY THE CLAYTON ACT.  THE DISPUTE BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND
GROUP HEALTH WAS AS TO WHETHER THE LATTER'S METHOD OF PROVIDING MEDICAL
SERVICES SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE.  A CONTROVERSY OF THIS KIND,
BETWEEN COMPETITORS AND CONCERNING COMPETITION, IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF SEC. 20.  COLUMBIA RIVER PACKERS ASSN. V. HINTON, 315 U.S. 143.  A
FURTHER FACTOR ESTABLISHING THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE CLAYTON ACT IS
THAT, EVEN ASSUMING THAT PETITIONERS WERE "EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES,"
THERE WAS NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP IN RESPECT OF GROUP HEALTH
AND ITS DOCTORS.  GROUP HEALTH'S DOCTORS ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS,
NOT EMPLOYEES.  THEREFORE THE RELATIONSHIP WHICH WAS OF CONCERN TO
CONGRESS IN ITS ENACTMENT OF THE CLAYTON AND NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACTS IS
ENTIRELY LACKING HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN INDICTED AND CONVICTED OF CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE
SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, FN1  BY RESTRAINING TRADE OR COMMERCE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THEY ARE RESPECTIVELY CORPORATIONS OF ILLINOIS
AND OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  JOINED WITH THEM AS DEFENDANTS WERE
TWO UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS AND TWENTY-ONE INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF
WHOM ARE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYES OF ONE OR OTHER OF THE PETITIONERS, THE
REMAINDER BEING PHYSICIANS PRACTICING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONERS SERVING, AS TO SOME OF THEM, ON VARIOUS
COMMITTEES OF THE PETITIONERS HAVING TO DO WITH PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND
WITH THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE BY PETITIONERS' MEMBERS. 

FOR THE MOMENT IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE INDICTMENT CHARGED A
CONSPIRACY TO HINDER AND OBSTRUCT THE OPERATIONS OF GROUP HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, INC., A NONPROFIT CORPORATION ORGANIZED BY GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYES TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE AND HOSPITALIZATION ON A RISK-SHARING
PREPAYMENT BASIS.  GROUP HEALTH EMPLOYED PHYSICIANS ON A FULL TIME
SALARY BASIS AND SOUGHT HOSPITAL FACILITIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF
MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.  THIS PLAN WAS CONTRARY TO THE CODE OF
ETHICS OF THE PETITIONERS.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGES THAT, TO PREVENT
GROUP HEALTH FROM CARRYING OUT ITS OBJECTS, THE DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO
COERCE PRACTICING PHYSICIANS, MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONERS, FROM
ACCEPTING EMPLOYMENT UNDER GROUP HEALTH, TO RESTRAIN PRACTICING
PHYSICIANS, MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONERS, FROM CONSULTING WITH GROUP
HEALTH'S DOCTORS WHO MIGHT DESIRE TO CONSULT WITH THEM, AND TO RESTRAIN
HOSPITALS IN AND ABOUT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON FROM AFFORDING FACILITIES
FOR THE CARE OF PATIENTS OF GROUP HEALTH'S PHYSICIANS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT ON THE
GROUNDS, AMONGST OTHERS, THAT NEITHER THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE NOR THE
BUSINESS OF GROUP HEALTH IS TRADE AS THE TERM IS USED IN THE SHERMAN
ACT.  FN2  ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE
RESTRAINT OF TRADE PROHIBITED BY THE STATUTE MAY EXTEND BOTH TO MEDICAL
PRACTICE AND TO THE OPERATIONS OF GROUP HEALTH.  FN3    THE CASE THEN
WENT TO TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  CERTAIN DEFENDANTS WERE ACQUITTED
BY DIRECTION OF THE JUDGE.  AS TO THE OTHERS, THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO
THE JURY, WHICH FOUND THE PETITIONERS GUILTY AND ALL THE OTHER
DEFENDANTS NOT GUILTY.  FROM JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION THE PETITIONERS
APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH REITERATED ITS RULING AS TO THE
APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, CONSIDERED ALLEGED TRIAL
ERRORS, AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENTS.  FN4 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THREE QUESTIONS WHICH WE THOUGHT
IMPORTANT:  1.  WHETHER THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE AND THE RENDERING OF
MEDICAL SERVICES AS DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT ARE "TRADE" UNDER SEC.
3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  2.  WHETHER THE INDICTMENT CHARGED OR THE
EVIDENCE PROVED "RESTRAINTS OF TRADE" UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
3.  WHETHER A DISPUTE CONCERNING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
UNDER THE CLAYTON AND NORRIS-LA-GUARDIA ACTS WAS INVOLVED, AND, IF SO,
WHETHER PETITIONERS WERE INTERESTED THEREIN, AND THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM
PROSECUTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 

FIRST.  MUCH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER A
PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE OF HIS PROFESSION CONSTITUTES TRADE UNDER SEC. 3
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT WE SHALL SAY WITH RESPECT TO
THE CHARGE LAID IN THE INDICTMENT, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER OR DECIDE THIS
QUESTION. 

GROUP HEALTH IS A MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OR
TRADE.  ITS CORPORATE ACTIVITY IS THE CONSUMMATION OF THE COOPERATIVE
EFFORT OF ITS MEMBERS TO OBTAIN FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES
MEDICAL SERVICE AND HOSPITALIZATION ON A RISK-SHARING PREPAYMENT
BASIS.  THE CORPORATION COLLECTS ITS FUNDS FROM MEMBERS.  WITH THESE
FUNDS PHYSICIANS ARE EMPLOYED AND HOSPITALIZATION PROCURED ON BEHALF OF
MEMBERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.  THE FACT THAT IT IS COOPERATIVE, AND
PROCURES SERVICE AND FACILITIES ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS ONLY, DOES NOT
REMOVE ITS ACTIVITIES FROM THE SPHERE OF BUSINESS.  FN5 

IF, AS WE HOLD, THE INDICTMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY TO
RESTRAIN AND OBSTRUCT THIS BUSINESS IT CHARGES A CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE WITHIN THE STATUTE.  AS THE COURT OF
APPEALS PROPERLY REMARKED, THE CALLING OR OCCUPATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
PHYSICIANS CHARGED AS DEFENDANTS IS IMMATERIAL IF THE PURPOSE AND
EFFECT OF THEIR CONSPIRACY WAS SUCH OBSTRUCTION AND RESTRAINT OF THE
BUSINESS OF GROUP HEALTH.  THE COURT SAID:  FN6  "AND, OF COURSE, THE
FACT THAT DEFENDANTS ARE PHYSICIANS AND MEDICAL ORGANIZATIONS IS OF NO
SIGNIFICANCE, FOR SEC. 3 PROHIBITS 'ANY PERSON' FROM IMPOSING THE
PROSCRIBED RESTRAINTS  ...  "  IT IS URGED THAT THIS WAS SAID BEFORE
THIS COURT DECIDED APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469.  BUT
NOTHING IN THAT DECISION CONTRADICTS THE PROPOSITION STATED.  WHETHER
THE CONSPIRACY WAS AIMED AT RESTRAINING OR DESTROYING COMPETITION, OR
HAD AS ITS PURPOSE A RESTRAINT OF THE FREE AVAILABILITY OF MEDICAL OR
HOSPITAL SERVICES IN THE MARKET, THE APEX CASE PLACES IT WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE STATUTE.  FN7 

SECOND.  THIS BRINGS US TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE INDICTMENT CHARGED,
OR THE EVIDENCE PROVED, SUCH A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT ARE LENGTHY AND DETAILED.  AFTER NAMING
AND DESCRIBING THE DEFENDANTS AND THE WASHINGTON HOSPITALS, IT DEVOTES
MANY PARAGRAPHS TO A RECITAL OF THE PLAN ADOPTED BY GROUP HEALTH AND
ALLEGES THAT, PRINCIPALLY FOR ECONOMIC REASONS, AND BECAUSE OF FEAR OF
BUSINESS COMPETITION, THE DEFENDANTS HAVE OPPOSED SUCH PROJECTS. 

THE INDICTMENT THEN RECITES THE SIZE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE
PETITIONERS, ENUMERATES MEANS BY WHICH THEY CAN PREVENT THEIR MEMBERS
FROM SERVING GROUP HEALTH PLANS, OR CONSULTING WITH PHYSICIANS WHO WORK
FOR GROUP HEALTH, AND CAN PREVENT HOSPITALS FROM AFFORDING FACILITIES
TO GROUP HEALTH'S DOCTORS. 

IN CHARGING THE CONSPIRACY, THE INDICTMENT DESCRIBES THE ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATION OF GROUP HEALTH AND STATES THAT, FROM JANUARY 1937 TO THE
DATE OF THE INDICTMENT, THE DEFENDANTS, THE WASHINGTON HOSPITALS, AND
OTHERS COGNIZANT OF THE PREMISED FACTS, "HAVE COMBINED AND CONSPIRED
TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING TRADE IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA,  ...  "  IN FIVE PARAGRAPHS THE PLEADING STATES THE PURPOSES
OF THE CONSPIRACY.  THE FIRST IS THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING GROUP
HEALTH FROM DOING BUSINESS; THE SECOND, THAT OF RESTRAINING MEMBERS OF
GROUP HEALTH FROM OBTAINING ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE ACCORDING TO GROUP
HEALTH'S PLAN; THE THIRD, THAT OF RESTRAINING DOCTORS SERVING GROUP
HEALTH IN THE PURSUIT OF THEIR CALLING; THE FOURTH, THAT OF RESTRAINING
DOCTORS NOT ON GROUP HEALTH'S STAFF FROM PRACTICING IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IN PURSUANCE OF THEIR CALLING; AND THE FIFTH, THAT OF
RESTRAINING THE WASHINGTON HOSPITALS IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING THEIR
HOSPITALS. 

AFTER RECITING CERTAIN OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND PLANS ADOPTED TO
FORWARD THE CONSPIRACY, THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT THE CONSPIRACY, AND
THE INTENDED RESTRAINTS WHICH HAVE RESULTED FROM IT, HAVE BEEN
EFFECTUATED "IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER AND BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS"; AND
ALLEGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE COMBINED AND CONSPIRED "WITH THE PLAN
AND PURPOSE TO HINDER AND OBSTRUCT GROUP HEALTH ASSOCIATION, INC. IN
PROCURING AND RETAINING ON ITS MEDICAL STAFF QUALIFIED DOCTORS AND TO
HINDER AND OBSTRUCT THE DOCTORS SERVING ON THAT STAFF FROM OBTAINING
CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER DOCTORS AND SPECIALISTS PRACTICING IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  IT STATES THAT, PURSUANT TO THIS PLAN AND
PURPOSE, THE DEFENDANTS HAVE RESORTED TO CERTAIN MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH
THE END, AND RECOUNTS THEM. 

IN ANOTHER PARAGRAPH, THE DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED TO HAVE CONSPIRED
WITH "THE PLAN AND PURPOSE TO HINDER AND OBSTRUCT GROUP HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, INC. IN OBTAINING ACCESS TO HOSPITAL FACILITIES FOR ITS
MEMBERS AND TO HINDER AND OBSTRUCT THE DOCTORS ON THE MEDICAL STAFF OF
GROUP HEALTH FROM TREATING AND OPERATING UPON THEIR PATIENTS IN
WASHINGTON HOSPITALS."  IT IS ALLEGED THAT, PURSUANT TO THIS PLAN AND
PURPOSE, DEFENDANTS HAVE DONE CERTAIN ACTS TO DETER HOSPITALS WITH
WHICH THEY WERE CONNECTED AND OVER WHICH THEY EXERCISED INFLUENCE, FROM
AFFORDING HOSPITAL FACILITIES TO GROUP HEALTH'S DOCTORS. 

THE PETITIONERS' CONTENTION IS, IN EFFECT, THAT THE INDICTMENT
CHARGES FIVE SEPARATE CONSPIRACIES DEFINED BY THEIR SEPARATE AND
RECITED PURPOSES, NAMELY, CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT THE BUSINESS OF GROUP
HEALTH, TO OBSTRUCT ITS MEMBERS FROM OBTAINING THE BENEFIT OF ITS
ACTIVITIES, TO OBSTRUCT ITS DOCTORS FROM SERVING IT, TO OBSTRUCT OTHER
DOCTORS IN THE PRACTICE OF THEIR CALLING, AND TO RESTRAIN THE BUSINESS
OF WASHINGTON HOSPITALS.  THE PETITIONERS SAY THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED
TO HAVE THE TRIAL COURT RULE UPON THE SUFFICIENCY IN LAW OF EACH OF
THESE CHARGES AND, AS THIS WAS NOT DONE, THE GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY
CANNOT STAND.  THEY URGE THAT EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THE NAMED PURPOSES
RELATE TO THE BUSINESS OF GROUP HEALTH, AND THAT BUSINESS BE HELD TRADE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, YET, AS THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE BY
DOCTORS NOT EMPLOYED BY GROUP HEALTH IS NOT TRADE, AND THE OPERATIONS
OF WASHINGTON HOSPITALS ARE NOT TRADE, THE LAST TWO PURPOSES SPECIFIED
CANNOT CONSTITUTE VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 3 AND THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO
INSTRUCTED.  IN THIS VIEW THEY INSIST THAT THE JURY MAY HAVE CONVICTED
THEM OF RESTRAINING PHYSICIANS UNCONNECTED WITH GROUP HEALTH, OR OF
RESTRAINING HOSPITALS, AND, IF SO, THE VERDICT AND JUDGMENT CANNOT
STAND. 

IF IN FACT THE INDICTMENT CHARGES A SINGLE CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT AND
RESTRAIN THE BUSINESS OF GROUP HEALTH, AND IF THE RECITED PURPOSES ARE
REALLY ONLY SUBSIDIARY TO THAT MAIN PURPOSE OR AIM, OR MERELY DIFFERENT
STEPS TOWARD THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THAT SINGLE END, AND IF THE CAUSE
WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THIS THEORY, THESE CONTENTIONS FAIL. 

WHEN THE CASE FIRST WENT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT TRIBUNAL
CONSTRUED THE INDICTMENT AS CHARGING BUT A SINGLE CONSPIRACY.  IT SAID:
FN8  "THE CHARGE, STATED IN CONDENSED FORM, IS THAT THE MEDICAL
SOCIETIES COMBINED AND CONSPIRED TO PREVENT THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF
GROUP HEALTH'S PLAN, AND THE STEPS BY WHICH THIS WAS TO BE EFFECTUATED
WERE AS FOLLOWS:  (1) TO IMPOSE RESTRAINTS ON PHYSICIANS AFFILIATED
WITH GROUP HEALTH BY THREAT OF EXPULSION OR ACTUAL EXPULSION FROM THE
SOCIETIES; (2) TO DENY THEM THE ESSENTIAL PROFESSIONAL CONTACTS WITH
OTHER PHYSICIANS; AND (3) TO USE THE COERCIVE POWER OF THE SOCIETIES TO
DEPRIVE THEM OF HOSPITAL FACILITIES FOR THEIR PATIENTS." 

IN THE TRIAL, THE DISTRICT COURT CONFORMED ITS RULINGS TO THIS
DECISION AND SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY ON THE THEORY THAT THE
INDICTMENT CHARGED BUT ONE CONSPIRACY. 

WE THINK THE COURTS BELOW CORRECTLY CONSTRUED THE INDICTMENT.  IT IS
TRUE THAT, IN DESCRIBING THE CONSPIRACY, FIVE PURPOSES ARE STATED WHICH
THE CONSPIRACY WAS INTENDED TO FURTHER, BUT, IN A LATER PARAGRAPH,
STILL IN THE CHARGING PART OF THE INSTRUMENT, IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE
PURPOSE WAS TO HINDER AND OBSTRUCT GROUP HEALTH IN VARIOUS WAYS AND BY
VARIOUS COERCIVE MEASURES, WHICH ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE "PURPOSES"
BEFORE STATED.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, AFTER CALLING THE JURY'S ATTENTION TO
THE JUXTAPOSITION OF THESE TWO FORMULATIONS OF THE CHARGE, ADDED: 

"THESE PURPOSES, IT IS ALLEGED, WERE TO BE ATTAINED BY CERTAIN
COERCIVE MEASURES AGAINST THE HOSPITALS AND DOCTORS DESIGNED TO
INTERFERE WITH EMPLOYMENT OF DOCTORS BY GROUP HEALTH AND USE OF THE
HOSPITALS BY MEMBERS OF ITS MEDICAL STAFF AND THEIR PATIENTS.  ...  " 

IN IMMEDIATE CONTEXT THE JUDGE ADDED: 

"TO SUSTAIN THAT CHARGE THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT A CONSPIRACY DID IN FACT EXIST TO RESTRAIN TRADE IN THE
DISTRICT IN AT LEAST ONE OF THE SEVERAL WAYS ALLEGED, AND ACCORDING TO
THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND PLAN SET FORTH." 

AT ANOTHER POINT, THE TRIAL JUDGE SUMMARIZED THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM
THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE SHOWED OPPOSITION BY THE PETITIONERS TO
GROUP HEALTH AND ITS PLAN; THAT THEY FEARED COMPETITION BETWEEN THE
PLAN AND THE ORGANIZED PHYSICIANS AND THAT, TO OBSTRUCT AND DESTROY
SUCH COMPETITION, THE PETITIONERS CONSPIRED WITH CERTAIN OFFICERS AND
MEMBERS AND HOSPITALS TO PREVENT SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF GROUP HEALTH'S
PLAN BY IMPOSING RESTRAINTS UPON PHYSICIANS AFFILIATED WITH GROUP
HEALTH, BY DENYING SUCH PHYSICIANS PROFESSIONAL CONTACT AND
CONSULTATION WITH OTHER PHYSICIANS, AND BY COERCING THE HOSPITALS TO
DENY FACILITIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF THEIR PATIENTS.  AGAIN THE JUDGE
CHARGED:  "WAS THERE A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE IN ONE OR MORE OF
THE WAYS ALLEGED?"  AND AGAIN:  "IF IT BE TRUE  ...  THAT THE DISTRICT
SOCIETY, ACTING ONLY TO PROTECT ITS ORGANIZATION, REGULATE FAIR DEALING
AMONG ITS MEMBERS, AND MAINTAIN AND ADVANCE THE STANDARDS OF MEDICAL
PRACTICE, ADOPTED REASONABLE RULES AND MEASURES TO THOSE ENDS, NOT
CALCULATED TO RESTRAIN GROUP HEALTH, THERE WOULD BE NO GUILT, THOUGH
THE INDIRECT EFFECT MAY HAVE BEEN TO CAUSE SOME RESTRAINT AGAINST GROUP
HEALTH." 

WE NEED ADD BUT A WORD AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PROOF TO SUSTAIN
THE CHARGE.  THE PETITIONERS IN EFFECT CHALLENGE THE SUFFICIENCY, IN
LAW, OF THE INDICTMENT.  THEY HARDLY SUGGEST THAT IF THE PLEADING
CHARGES AN OFFENSE THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE COMMISSION
OF THE OFFENSE.  BUT, HOWEVER THE ARGUMENT IS VIEWED, WE AGREE WITH THE
COURTS BELOW THAT THE CASE WAS ONE FOR SUBMISSION TO A JURY.  NO
PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE PROOFS. 

THIRD.  WE HOLD THAT THE DISPUTE BETWEEN PETITIONERS AND THEIR
MEMBERS, AND GROUP HEALTH AND ITS MEMBERS, WAS NOT ONE CONCERNING TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE CLAYTON  FN9  AND THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA  FN10  ACTS. 

LAGUARDIA ACT, IS THE ONLY LEGISLATION WHICH CAN HAVE ANY BEARING ON
THE CASE.  SECTION 20 APPLIES TO CASES BETWEEN "AN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEES, OR BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, OR BETWEEN EMPLOYEES, OR
BETWEEN PERSONS EMPLOYED AND PERSONS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT, INVOLVING, OR
GROWING OUT OF, A DISPUTE CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
...  "; AND PROVIDES THAT NONE OF THE ACTS SPECIFIED IN THE SECTION
SHALL "BE CONSIDERED OR HELD TO BE VIOLATIONS OF ANY LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

INCLUDING "ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS
IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING, CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE
TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE." 
IT ALSO PROVIDES THAT "A CASE SHALL BE HELD TO INVOLVE OR TO GROW OUT
OF A LABOR DISPUTE WHEN THE CASE INVOLVES PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN
THE SAME INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION; OR HAVE DIRECT OR
INDIRECT INTERESTS THEREIN; OR WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME EMPLOYER;
OR WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE SAME OR AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION OF
EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYEES; WHETHER SUCH DISPUTE IS (1) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE
EMPLOYERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR
ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYEES; (2) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR
ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
EMPLOYERS; OR (3) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
EMPLOYEES AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYEES; OR
WHEN THE CASE INVOLVES ANY CONFLICTING OR COMPETING INTERESTS IN A
'LABOR DISPUTE' (AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION) OF 'PERSONS PARTICIPATING
OR INTERESTED' THEREIN (AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION)."    CITING THESE
PROVISIONS, THE PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THEIR DISPUTE WITH GROUP HEALTH
WAS AS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THE DOCTORS EMPLOYED BY
GROUP HEALTH SINCE THE DISTRICT MEDICAL SOCIETY OBJECTED TO ITS
MEMBERS, OR OTHER DOCTORS, TAKING EMPLOYMENT UNDER GROUP HEALTH ON THE
TERMS OFFERED BY THAT CORPORATION.  THEY ASSERT THAT SEC. 20 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT, AS EXPANDED BY SEC. 13 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT,
INCLUDES ALL PERSONS AND ASSOCIATIONS INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE OVER TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY,
TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION, OR HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTERESTS
THEREIN.  AND THEY RELY UPON OUR DECISIONS IN NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V.
SANITARY GROCERY CO., 303 U.S. 552, AND DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY
CO., 311 U.S. 91, AS BRINGING WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE ACTS A THIRD
PARTY, EVEN THOUGH THAT PARTY BE A CORPORATION NOT IN TRADE, AND
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS EVEN THOUGH THEY BE ONLY
INDIRECTLY INTERESTED IN THE CONTROVERSY.  THEY INSIST THAT AS THE
PETITIONERS AND GROUP HEALTH, ITS MEMBERS AND DOCTORS, OTHER DOCTORS
AND THE HOSPITALS, WERE EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INTERESTED IN A
CONTROVERSY WHICH CONCERNED THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT OF DOCTORS BY GROUP
HEALTH, THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE EXEMPTION OF THE STATUTES AND THEY
CANNOT BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

IT SEEMS PLAIN ENOUGH THAT THE CLAYTON AND NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACTS WERE
NOT INTENDED TO IMMUNIZE SUCH A DISPUTE AS IS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE. 
NEVERTHELESS, IT IS NOT OUR PROVINCE TO DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS
APART FROM WHAT IT HAS SAID IN ITS ENACTMENTS, AND, IF THE PETITIONERS'
ACTIVITIES FALL WITHIN THE CLASSES DEFINED BY THE ACTS, WE ARE BOUND TO
ACCORD PETITIONERS, ESPECIALLY IN A CRIMINAL CASE, THE BENEFIT OF THE
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS. 

WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT, UPON ANALYSIS, IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONERS'
ACTIVITIES ARE NOT WITHIN THE EXEMPTIONS GRANTED BY THE STATUTES. 
ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THE CONTRARY, WE SHALL ASSUME THAT THE
DOCTORS HAVING CONTRACTS WITH GROUP HEALTH WERE EMPLOYES OF THAT
CORPORATION.  THE PETITIONERS DID NOT REPRESENT PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE
EMPLOYES.  THEIR PURPOSE WAS TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM TAKING EMPLOYMENT
UNDER GROUP HEALTH.  THEY WERE INTERESTED IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF THE EMPLOYMENT ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY DESIRED WHOLLY TO PREVENT
GROUP HEALTH FROM FUNCTIONING BY HAVING ANY EMPLOYES.  THEIR OBJECTION
WAS TO ITS METHOD OF DOING BUSINESS.  OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS NO DISPUTE
BETWEEN GROUP HEALTH AND THE DOCTORS IT EMPLOYED OR MIGHT EMPLOY IN
WHICH PETITIONERS WERE EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INTERESTED. 

IN TRUTH, THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTED PHYSICIANS WHO DESIRED THAT
THEY AND ALL OTHERS SHOULD PRACTICE INDEPENDENTLY ON A FEE FOR SERVICE
BASIS, WHERE WHATEVER ARRANGEMENT FOR PAYMENT EACH HAD WAS A MATTER
THAT LAY BETWEEN HIM AND HIS PATIENT IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE OF SERVICE
OR TREATMENT.  THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT AN ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYES IN
ANY PROPER SENSE OF THE TERM.  THEY WERE AN ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUAL
PRACTITIONERS EACH EXERCISING HIS CALLING AS AN INDEPENDENT UNIT. 
THESE INDEPENDENT PHYSICIANS, AND THE TWO PETITIONING ASSOCIATIONS
WHICH REPRESENT THEM, WERE INTERESTED SOLELY IN PREVENTING THE
OPERATION OF A BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN CORPORATE FORM BY GROUP HEALTH. 
IN THIS ASPECT THE CASE IS VERY LIKE COLUMBIA RIVER PACKERS ASSN. V.
HINTON, 315 U.S. 143.  WHAT WAS THERE DECIDED REQUIRES A HOLDING THAT
THE PETITIONERS' ACTIVITIES WERE NOT EXEMPTED BY THE CLAYTON AND THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACTS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JULY 2, 1890, SEC. 3, C. 647, 26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 3. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 28 F.SUPP.  752. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 72 APP. D.C. 12,
110 F.2D 703, 710, 711. 

FN4  AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES, 76 U.S. APP. D.C.
70, 130 F.2D 233. 

FN5  COMPARE ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103, 128-9; IN
RE DUTY ON ESTATE OF INCORPORATED COUNCIL, 22 Q.B. 279, 293; MARYLAND &
VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS' ASSN. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 119 F.2D 787,
790; LA BELLE V. HENNEPIN COUNTY BAR ASSN., 206 MINN. 73 APP. D.C. 399,
119 F.2D 787, 790; LA BELLE V. HENNEPIN COUNTY BAR ASSN., 206 MINN.
290, 294; 288 N.W. 788, 790. 

FN6  110 F.2D 711. 

FN7  COMPARE FASHION ORIGINATOR'S GUILD V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
312 U.S. 457, 465, 466, 467. 

FN8  110 F.2D 711. 

FN9  38 STAT. 730, SECS. 6 AND 20, 15 U.S.C. 17, 29 U.S.C. 52. 

FN10  47 STAT. 70, SECS. 4, 5, 6, 8 AND 13, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 104, 105,
106, 108 AND 113. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















U.S. EX REL. MARCUS V. HESS, 317 U.S. 537 


NO. 173.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 18, 1943.  - 127
F.2D 233, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 5438 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, WHICH SUBJECTS TO THE
PENALTIES THEREIN PRESCRIBED "EVERY PERSON WHO  ...  CAUSES TO BE
PRESENTED, FOR PAYMENT  ...  ANY CLAIM UPON OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES,  ...  KNOWING SUCH CLAIM TO BE  ...  FRAUDULENT
...  ," HELD APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTORS WHO, BY COLLUSIVE BIDDING,
OBTAINED CONTRACTS WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF A STATE
FOR WORK ON FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS, AND WHO WERE
PAID FOR THEIR WORK UNDER THE CONTRACTS LARGELY WITH FUNDS GRANTED BY
THE FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR.  P. 542. 

COMPETITIVE BIDDING WAS A FEDERAL REQUIREMENT; ALL BIDDERS WERE FULLY
ADVISED THAT THESE WERE P.W.A. PROJECTS; AND MANY IF NOT MOST OF THE
CONTRACTORS CERTIFIED THAT THEIR BIDS WERE "GENUINE AND NOT SHAM OR
COLLUSIVE."  WHILE PAYMENT ITSELF, IN THE SENSE OF THE DIRECT
TRANSFERRING OF CHECKS, WAS DONE IN THE NAME OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES,
MONTHLY ESTIMATES FOR PAYMENT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTORS TO THE
LOCAL SPONSORS ON P.W.A. FORMS WHICH SHOWED THE GOVERNMENT'S
PARTICIPATION IN THE WORK AND CALLED ATTENTION TO OTHER FEDERAL
STATUTES PROHIBITING FRAUDULENT CLAIMS.  IT WAS A PREREQUISITE TO THE
CONTRACTORS' PAYMENT BY THE LOCAL SPONSORS THAT THESE ESTIMATES BE
FILED, TRANSMITTED TO, AND APPROVED BY, THE P.W.A. AUTHORITIES. 
PAYMENT WAS THEN MADE FROM A JOINT CONSTRUCTION BANK ACCOUNT CONTAINING
BOTH FEDERAL AND LOCAL FUNDS.  THE WORK WAS DONE UNDER CONSTANT FEDERAL
SUPERVISION. 

2.  R.S. SEC. 5438 IS TO BE CONSTRUED, NOT WITH THE "UTMOST
STRICTNESS," BUT ACCORDING TO ITS FAIR INTENDMENT.  P. 541. 

3.  THE SUBSTANTIVE LANGUAGE OF R.S. SEC. 5438 CAN NOT BE SAID TO
HAVE ONE MEANING IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND ANOTHER IN QUI TAM
SUITS.  P. 542. 

4.  THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CLAUSES OF R.S. SEC. 5438, TAKEN
TOGETHER, INDICATE A PURPOSE TO REACH ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY ASSISTED
IN CAUSING THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY CLAIMS WHICH WERE GROUNDED IN FRAUD,
WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE PERSON HAD DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 544. 

5.  THE QUI TAM ACTION WHICH R.S. SECS. 3491-3493 AUTHORIZES "ANY
PERSON" TO BRING FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE SUMS WHICH R.S. SEC. 3490
PROVIDES SHALL BE FORFEITED AND PAID TO THE UNITED STATES BY VIOLATORS
OF R.S. SEC. 5438, IS NOT BARRED BY THE FACT THAT THE OFFENDERS HAVE
BEEN INDICTED AND, ON PLEAS OF NOLO CONTENDERE, FINED FOR DEFRAUDING
THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME TRANSACTIONS; NOR BY THE
FACT THAT THE COMPLAINANT MAY HAVE OBTAINED HIS INFORMATION FROM THE
INDICTMENT AND MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE
CRIME.  P. 545. 

6.  CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY IN PERMITTING QUI TAM ACTIONS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE ARE FOR CONGRESS AND NOT THE COURTS.  P.
546. 

7.  A RESPONDENT ON CERTIORARI MAY URGE IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT A
GROUND WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND NOT CONSIDERED IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 548. 

8.  PERSONS WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN INDICTED AND CONVICTED UNDER 18
U.S.C. SEC. 88 FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT, ARE NOT
SUBJECTED TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BY A
SUBSEQUENT QUI TAM ACTION UNDER R.S. SECS. 3490-3493, THOUGH ARISING
OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTIONS.  P. 548. 

9.  THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER R.S. SECS. 3490-3493 HERE INVOLVED ARE
REMEDIAL AND IMPOSE A CIVIL SANCTION.  P. 549. 

10.  THE PROCEEDING AUTHORIZED BY R.S. SECS. 3490-3493 DOES NOT LOSE
ITS QUALITY AS A CIVIL ACTION THOUGH MORE THAN THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF SO
CALLED ACTUAL DAMAGE BE RECOVERED.  P. 550. 

11.  THE WORDS "FORFEIT AND PAY" IN R.S. SEC. 3490 ARE NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACTION AUTHORIZED BY SECS.
3490-3493 IS CIVIL.  P. 551. 

12.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE LUMP SUM IN DAMAGES
AUTHORIZED BY R.S. SEC. 3490($2,000 FORFEIT FOR DOING "ANY" OF THE ACTS
PROHIBITED BY R.S. SEC. 5438) WAS PROPERLY ASSESSED FOR EACH PUBLIC
WORKS ADMINISTRATION PROJECT INVOLVED.  P. 552. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. MARCUS ET AL. V. HESS ET AL.* 

*SEE ALSO OSTRAGER'S CASE, POST, P. 562. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 613, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 41
F.SUPP.  197, AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS IN A QUI TAM ACTION UNDER R.S.
SECS. 3490-3493. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, WERE EMPLOYED TO WORK ON P.W.A.
PROJECTS IN THE PITTSBURGH AREA.  THEIR CONTRACTS WERE MADE WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS RATHER THAN WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, BUT A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR PAY CAME FROM THE UNITED STATES.  CHARGING
THE RESPONDENTS WITH DEFRAUDING THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE DEVICE OF
COLLUSIVE BIDDING ON THESE PROJECTS,  FN1  THE PETITIONER, IN THE NAME
OF THE UNITED STATES AND ON HIS OWN BEHALF BROUGHT THIS ACTION UNDER
SEC. 5438 AND SECS. 3490-3493(31 U.S.C. SECS. 231-234) OF THE REVISED
STATUTES. 

THE SECTIONS, NOW DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE STATUTES, ARE PARTS OF WHAT
WAS ORIGINALLY THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1863, 12 STAT. 696.  SECTION 5438
CONTAINS THAT PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL ACT WHICH MAKES CERTAIN EFFORTS
TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. 
FN2 SECTION 3490 SEPARATELY PROVIDES THAT WHOEVER COMMITS "ANY" OF THE
PROHIBITED ACTS SHALL "FORFEIT AND PAY TO THE UNITED STATES THE SUM OF
TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND IN ADDITION, DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
...  SUSTAINED  ...  TOGETHER WITH THE COSTS OF SUIT; AND SUCH
FORFEITURE AND DAMAGES SHALL BE SUED FOR IN THE SAME SUIT."  UNDER
SECS. 3491, 3493, THIS LATTER ACTION MAY BE INSTITUTED BY "ANY" PERSON
IN BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND WHERE SUCH A QUI TAM ACTION IS
BROUGHT, HALF THE AMOUNT OF THE RECOVERY IS PAID TO THE PERSON
INSTITUTING THE SUIT WHILE THE OTHER HALF GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR $315,000 WERE RENDERED
AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, OF WHICH $203,000 WAS FOR DOUBLE DAMAGES AND
$112,000 WAS AN AGGREGATE OF $2,000 SUMS FOR 56 VIOLATIONS OF SEC.
5438.  41 F.SUPP.  197.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE
OPINION THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN DEFRAUDED - A CONCLUSION NOT
CHALLENGED HERE  FN3  - BUT HELD THAT THE PARTICULAR FRAUD WAS NOT
REACHED BY SEC. 5438.  IT ACCORDINGLY REVERSED.  127 F.2D 233. 

FIRST.  THE COURT BELOW, CONSTRUING SEC. 5438 WITH "UTMOST
STRICTNESS" ON THE PREMISE THAT QUI TAM OR INFORMER ACTIONS "HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN REGARDED WITH DISFAVOR" BY THE COURTS, EMPHASIZED THE
ABSENCE OF A DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS
AND THE UNITED STATES, AND HELD THAT "THE CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANTS THEN
WERE SIMPLY AGAINST THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES.  SINCE THE DEFENDANTS HAD
NO CLAIM UPON OR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THIS ACTION WAS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE INFORMER STATUTES." 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT EITHER THE INTERPRETIVE APPROACH OR THE ACTUAL
DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW.  QUI TAM SUITS HAVE BEEN FREQUENTLY
PERMITTED BY LEGISLATIVE ACTION,  FN4  AND HAVE NOT BEEN WITHOUT
DEFENSE BY THE COURTS.  FN5  MOREOVER, THIS INTERPRETATION OF "UTMOST
STRICTNESS" NARROWS NOT ONLY THE QUI TAM ASPECT OF THE ACT, BUT ALSO
THE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS.  THE DECISION BELOW TREATS THE LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 5438 IN SUCH FASHION THAT NO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS COULD BE BROUGHT
AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS, A RESULT TO WHICH THE POLICY ON QUI TAM
ACTIONS IS IMMATERIAL EVEN IF IT EXISTS OR COULD PROPERLY BE APPLIED. 
THIS "QUI TAM POLICY" CANNOT BE USED TO DETRACT FROM THE MEANING OF THE
LANGUAGE IN THE CRIMINAL SECTION; AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE SAME
SUBSTANTIVE LANGUAGE HAS ONE MEANING IF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS ARE
BROUGHT BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND QUITE A DIFFERENT MEANING WHERE THE
SAME LANGUAGE IS INVOKED BY AN INFORMER. 

CONGRESS HAS POWER TO CHOOSE THIS METHOD TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT
FROM BURDENS FRAUDULENTLY IMPOSED UPON IT; TO NULLIFY THE CRIMINAL
STATUTE BECAUSE OF DISLIKE OF THE INDEPENDENT INFORMER SECTIONS WOULD
BE TO EXERCISE A VETO POWER WHICH IS NOT OURS.  SOUND RULES OF
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION EXIST TO DISCOVER AND NOT TO DIRECT THE
CONGRESSIONAL WILL.  TRUE, SEC. 5438 IS CRIMINAL AND FOR THAT REASON IN
INTERPRETING SO MUCH OF ITS LANGUAGE AS IT SHARES IN COMMON WITH SEC.
3490 WE MUST GIVE IT CAREFUL SCRUTINY LEST THOSE BE BROUGHT WITHIN ITS
REACH WHO ARE NOT CLEARLY INCLUDED; BUT AFTER SUCH SCRUTINY WE MUST
GIVE IT THE FAIR MEANING OF ITS INTENDMENT.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
RAYNOR, 302 U.S. 540, 552. 

WE THINK THE CONDUCT OF THESE RESPONDENTS COMES WELL WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE, WHICH INCLUDES "EVERY PERSON WHO ...
CAUSES TO BE PRESENTED, FOR PAYMENT  ...  ANY CLAIM UPON OR AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  KNOWING SUCH CLAIM TO BE  ...
FRAUDULENT."  THIS CAN BEST BE SEEN UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE EXACT
NATURE OF RESPONDENTS' RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENT.  THE CONTRACTS FOUND
TO HAVE BEEN INDUCED BY THE RESPONDENTS' FRAUDS WERE MADE BETWEEN THEM
AND LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA.  A LARGE PORTION OF THE MONEY PAID THE RESPONDENTS UNDER
THESE CONTRACTS WAS FEDERAL IN ORIGIN, GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
WORKS ADMINISTRATOR, AN OFFICIAL OF THE UNITED STATES.  40 U.S.C.
401(A).  THE JURY AND BOTH COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE
OBTAINED BY A SUCCESSFULLY EXECUTED CONSPIRACY TO REMOVE ALL POSSIBLE
COMPETITION FROM "COMPETITIVE BIDDING."  THE BIDDING ITSELF WAS A
FEDERAL REQUIREMENT; ALL BIDDERS WERE FULLY ADVISED THAT THESE WERE
P.W.A. PROJECTS; AND MANY IF NOT MOST OF THE RESPONDENTS CERTIFIED THAT
THEIR BIDS WERE "GENUINE AND NOT SHAM OR COLLUSIVE."  WHILE PAYMENT
ITSELF, IN THE SENSE OF THE DIRECT TRANSFERRING OF CHECKS, WAS DONE IN
THE NAME OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES, MONTHLY ESTIMATES FOR PAYMENT WERE
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE LOCAL SPONSORS ON P.W.A. FORMS
WHICH SHOWED THE GOVERNMENT'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WORK AND CALLED
ATTENTION TO OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES PROHIBITING FRAUDULENT CLAIMS.  IT
WAS A PREREQUISITE TO RESPONDENTS' PAYMENT BY THE LOCAL SPONSORS THAT
THESE ESTIMATES BE FILED, TRANSMITTED TO, AND APPROVED BY, THE P.W.A.
AUTHORITIES.  PAYMENT WAS THEN MADE FROM A JOINT CONSTRUCTION BANK
ACCOUNT CONTAINING BOTH FEDERAL AND LOCAL FUNDS.  THE WORK WAS DONE
UNDER CONSTANT FEDERAL SUPERVISION. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE JOINT FUND
FOR PAYMENT TO RESPONDENTS HAD ITS AGENTS KNOWN THE BIDS WERE
COLLUSIVE.  BY THEIR CONDUCT, THE RESPONDENTS THUS CAUSED THE
GOVERNMENT TO PAY CLAIMS OF THE LOCAL SPONSORS IN ORDER THAT THEY MIGHT
IN TURN PAY RESPONDENTS UNDER CONTRACTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED AS
THE RESULT OF THE FRAUDULENT BIDDING.  THIS FRAUD DID NOT SPEND ITSELF
WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT.  ITS TAINT ENTERED INTO EVERY
SWOLLEN ESTIMATE WHICH WAS THE BASIC CAUSE FOR PAYMENT OF EVERY DOLLAR
PAID BY THE P.W.A. INTO THE JOINT FUND FOR THE BENEFIT OF RESPONDENTS. 
THE INITIAL FRAUDULENT ACTION AND EVERY STEP THEREAFTER TAKEN PRESSED
EVER TO THE ULTIMATE GOAL - PAYMENT OF GOVERNMENT MONEY TO PERSONS WHO
HAD CAUSED IT TO BE DEFRAUDED. 

GOVERNMENT MONEY IS AS TRULY EXPENDED WHETHER BY CHECKS DRAWN
DIRECTLY AGAINST THE TREASURY TO THE ULTIMATE RECIPIENT OR BY GRANTS IN
AID TO STATES.  WHILE AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ORIGINAL 1863
ACT, FEDERAL AID TO STATES CONSISTED PRIMARILY OF LAND GRANTS, IN
SUBSEQUENT YEARS THE STATE AID PROGRAM HAS GROWN SO THAT IN 1941
APPROXIMATELY 10% OF ALL FEDERAL MONEY WAS DISTRIBUTED IN THIS FORM. 
FN6  THESE FUNDS ARE AS MUCH IN NEED OF PROTECTION FROM FRAUDULENT
CLAIMS AS ANY OTHER FEDERAL MONEY,  FN7  AND THE STATUTE DOES NOT MAKE
THE EXTENT OF THEIR SAFEGUARD DEPENDENT UPON THE BOOKKEEPING DEVICES
USED FOR THEIR DISTRIBUTION.  THE SENATORIAL SPONSOR OF THIS BILL
BROADLY ASSERTED THAT ITS OBJECT WAS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST
THOSE WHO WOULD "CHEAT THE UNITED STATES."  FN8  THE FRAUD HERE COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN ANY MORE OF AN EFFORT TO CHEAT THE UNITED STATES IF THERE
HAD BEEN NO STATE INTERMEDIARY. 

THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FIRST CLAUSE OF SEC. 5438 INCLUDES THIS FORM
OF "CAUSING TO BE PRESENTED" A "CLAIM UPON OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT"
IS STRENGTHENED BY CONSIDERATION OF THE OTHER CLAUSES OF THE STATUTE. 
CLAUSE 2 INCLUDES THOSE WHO DO THE FORBIDDEN ACTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
"AIDING TO OBTAIN" PAYMENT OF FRAUDULENT CLAIMS; CLAUSE 3 COVERS "ANY
AGREEMENT, COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY" TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT BY
"OBTAINING OR AIDING TO OBTAIN THE PAYMENT OR ALLOWANCE OF ANY FALSE OR
FRAUDULENT CLAIM."  THESE PROVISIONS, CONSIDERED TOGETHER, INDICATE A
PURPOSE TO REACH ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY ASSISTED IN CAUSING THE
GOVERNMENT TO PAY CLAIMS WHICH WERE GROUNDED IN FRAUD, WITHOUT REGARD
TO WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT. 

THE SITUATION HERE IS IN NO SENSE LIKE THAT DISCUSSED IN UNITED
STATES V. COHN, 270 U.S. 339, 345-347, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT ACTED
SOLELY AS BAILEE AND NO PERSON HAD ANY CLAIM AGAINST IT FOR A PAYMENT. 
THE COURT IN THE COHN CASE HELD THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO "WRONGFUL
OBTAINING OF MONEY ...  OF THE GOVERNMENT'S," WHILE THERE HAS BEEN SUCH
A "WRONGFUL OBTAINING" HERE ON CLAIMS WHICH WERE PRESENTED EITHER
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE GOVERNMENT WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE BY THE
CLAIMANTS OF THEIR FRAUDULENT BASIS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THESE ACTS ARE COVERED BY THE STATUTE UNDER
CONSIDERATION. 

SECOND.  PREVIOUS TO THE FILING OF THIS ACTION THESE RESPONDENTS WERE
INDICTED FOR DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT AND ON A PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE
WERE FINED $54,000.  THEY AND THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH HAS FILED A BRIEF
AMICUS CURIAE AT OUR REQUEST, ASSERT THAT THE PETITIONER RECEIVED HIS
INFORMATION NOT BY HIS OWN INVESTIGATION, BUT FROM THE PREVIOUS
INDICTMENT; AND BOTH ARGUE THAT SECS. 3490-93 SHOULD NOT UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES BE CONSTRUED AS PERMITTING SUIT BY THE PETITIONER.  THE
PETITIONER DENIES THAT HE RELIED UPON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE
INDICTMENT, ASSERTS THAT HE SPENT MONEY IN CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION
OF HIS OWN, AND CLAIMS THAT HE PRESENTED MORE EVIDENCE THAN THE
GOVERNMENT HAD DISCOVERED. 

EVEN IF, AS THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS, THE PETITIONER HAS CONTRIBUTED
NOTHING TO THE DISCOVERY OF THIS CRIME, HE HAS CONTRIBUTED MUCH TO
ACCOMPLISHING ONE OF THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE ACT WAS PASSED.  THE
SUIT RESULTS IN A NET RECOVERY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF $150,000, THREE
TIMES AS MUCH AS THE FINES IMPOSED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS; AND
THIS RECOVERY WAS OBTAINED AT THE RISK OF A CONSIDERABLE LOSS TO THE
PETITIONER SINCE SEC. 3491 EXPLICITLY PROVIDES THAT THE INFORMER MUST
BEAR THE RISK OF HAVING TO PAY THE FULL COST OF THE LITIGATION. 

NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE NOR ITS HISTORY LENDS SUPPORT TO
THE CONTENTION MADE BY RESPONDENTS AND THE GOVERNMENT.  "SUITS MAY BE
BROUGHT AND CARRIED ON BY ANY PERSON," SAYS THE ACT, AND THERE ARE NO
WORDS OF EXCEPTION OR QUALIFICATION SUCH AS WE ARE ASKED TO FIND.  FN9
THE SENATE SPONSOR OF THE BILL EXPLICITLY POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS NOT
OFFERING A PLAN AIMED SOLELY AT REWARDING THE CONSPIRATOR WHO BETRAYS
HIS FELLOWS, BUT THAT EVEN A DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHO WOULD PRESUMABLY
GAIN ALL KNOWLEDGE OF A FRAUD FROM HIS OFFICIAL POSITION, MIGHT SUE AS
THE INFORMER: 

"THE BILL OFFERS, IN SHORT, A REWARD TO THE INFORMER WHO COMES INTO
COURT AND BETRAYS HIS CO-CONSPIRATOR, IF HE BE SUCH; BUT IT IS NOT
CONFINED TO THAT CLASS.  EVEN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHO IS REQUIRED TO
BE VIGILANT IN THE PROSECUTION OF SUCH CASES, MAY BE ALSO THE INFORMER,
AND ENTITLE HIMSELF TO ONE HALF THE FORFEITURE UNDER THE QUI TAM
CLAUSE, AND TO ONE HALF OF THE DOUBLE DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE RECOVERED
AGAINST THE PERSONS COMMITTING THE ACT."  FN10 

THE GOVERNMENT PRESSES UPON US STRONG ARGUMENTS OF POLICY AGAINST THE
STATUTORY PLAN, BUT THE ENTIRE FORCE OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS IS
DIRECTED SOLELY AT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT THINKS CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE DONE
RATHER THAN AT WHAT IT DID.  IT IS SAID THAT EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT
REQUIRES THAT CONTROL OF LITIGATION BE LEFT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL;
FN11  THAT DIVIDED CONTROL IS AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST; THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL MIGHT BELIEVE THAT WAR INTERESTS WOULD BE INJURED BY
FILING SUITS SUCH AS THIS; THAT PERMISSION TO OUTSIDERS TO SUE MIGHT
BRING UNSEEMLY RACES FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF PROFITING FROM THE
GOVERNMENT'S INVESTIGATIONS; AND FINALLY THAT CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED
SINCE THE ACT WAS PASSED IN 1863.  BUT THE TROUBLE WITH THESE ARGUMENTS
IS THAT THEY ARE ADDRESSED TO THE WRONG FORUM.  CONDITIONS MAY HAVE
CHANGED, BUT THE STATUTE HAS NOT. 

FURTHERMORE, ONE OF THE CHIEF PURPOSES OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ITSELF
FIRST PASSED IN WAR TIME, WAS TO STIMULATE ACTION TO PROTECT THE
GOVERNMENT AGAINST WAR FRAUDS.  FN12  TO THAT END, PROSECUTING
ATTORNEYS WERE ENJOINED TO BE DILIGENT IN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT'S
PROVISIONS, AND LARGE REWARDS WERE OFFERED TO STIMULATE ACTIONS BY
PRIVATE PARTIES SHOULD THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS BE TARDY IN BRINGING
THE SUITS. 

THE VERY FACT THAT CONGRESS PASSED THIS STATUTE SHOWS THAT IT
CONCLUDED THAT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY OUTWEIGHED THOSE NOW
EMPHASIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT; FOR MOST OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE HERE
MILITATE AGAINST ANY INFORMER ACTION AT ALL.  HAD THE GOVERNMENT FILED
A SUIT PRIOR TO THAT INSTITUTED BY THIS PETITIONER, A DIFFERENT
QUESTION WOULD BE PRESENTED.  CF. FRANCIS V. UNITED STATES, 5 WALL. 
338.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, WE COULD NOT, WITHOUT MATERIALLY
DETRACTING FROM ITS CLEAR SCOPE, DECLINE TO RECOGNIZE THE PETITIONER'S
RIGHT TO SUE UNDER THE ACT.    THIRD.  AS NOTED ABOVE, RESPONDENTS HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN INDICTED AND FINED FOR DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SAME TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOW BEING
SUED.  THEY CONTEND THAT THE PRESENT ACTION SHOULD BE BARRED BECAUSE OF
THE "DOUBLE JEOPARDY" PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WHICH PROVIDES
THAT NO PERSON SHALL "BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE TO BE TWICE PUT
IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB."  THE PREVIOUS INDICTMENT WAS BROUGHT
UNDER A GENERAL STATUTE DEALING WITH CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE
GOVERNMENT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88, AND IS CLEARLY CRIMINAL IN NATURE.  FOR
VIOLATION OF IT RESPONDENTS WERE LIABLE FOR A FINE UP TO $10,000 OR
IMPRISONMENT FOR TWO YEARS, OR BOTH.  FOR FAILURE TO PAY THEIR FINES,
THEY COULD HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO PRISON.  EX PARTE WATKINS, 7 PET.
568.  THE PUNISHMENT GIVEN IN THAT ACTION WAS NOT INTENDED TO
COMPENSATE THE GOVERNMENT, IN ANY MANNER, FOR DAMAGES IT SUFFERED AS A
RESULT OF SUCCESSFUL EXECUTION OF THE CONSPIRACY.  RESPONDENTS'
CONTENTION WAS OVERRULED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND WAS NOT CONSIDERED
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  IT IS NOW URGED UPON US AS AN INDEPENDENT
GROUND OF SUPPORT FOR THE JUDGMENT REACHED BELOW.  CF. HELVERING V.
GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238, 245. 

THE APPLICATION OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE TO PARTICULAR CASES HAS
NOT BEEN AN EASY TASK FOR THE COURTS.  THE SUBJECT HAS RECENTLY BEEN
THOROUGHLY EXPLORED IN HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391, IN WHICH
THE COURT ANALYZED THE CASES NOW PRESSED UPON US AND EMPHASIZED THE
LINE BETWEEN CIVIL, REMEDIAL ACTIONS BROUGHT PRIMARILY TO PROTECT THE
GOVERNMENT FROM FINANCIAL LOSS AND ACTIONS INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT TO VINDICATE PUBLIC JUSTICE.  ONLY THE LATTER
SUBJECT THE DEFENDANT TO "JEOPARDY" WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING. 
IBID., 397, 398.  WE MAY START THEREFORE WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE
MITCHELL CASE:  "CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE BOTH A CRIMINAL AND A CIVIL
SANCTION IN RESPECT TO THE SAME ACT OR OMISSION; FOR THE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY CLAUSE PROHIBITS MERELY PUNISHING TWICE, OR ATTEMPTING A
SECOND TIME TO PUNISH CRIMINALLY, FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.  THE QUESTION
FOR DECISION IS THUS WHETHER  ...  (THE STATUTE IN QUESTION)  ...
IMPOSES A CRIMINAL SANCTION.  THAT QUESTION IS ONE OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION."  IBID., 399.  IS THE ACTION NOW BEFORE US, CONSISTING OF
DOUBLE DAMAGES AND THE $2,000 FORFEITURE, CRIMINAL OR REMEDIAL? 

IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IF WE CONCLUDE THAT THE INSTANT
PROCEEDINGS ARE REMEDIAL AND IMPOSE A CIVIL SANCTION.  THE STATUTES ON
WHICH THIS SUIT RESTS MAKE ELABORATE PROVISION BOTH FOR A CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT AND A CIVIL REMEDY.  VIOLATORS OF SEC. 5438 MAY "BE
IMPRISONED AT HARD LABOR FOR NOT LESS THAN ONE NOR MORE THAN FIVE
YEARS, OR FINED NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND NOR MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS."  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE REMEDY NOW BEFORE US REQUIRING
PAYMENT OF A LUMP SUM AND DOUBLE DAMAGES WILL DO MORE THAN AFFORD THE
GOVERNMENT COMPLETE INDEMNITY FOR THE INJURIES DONE IT.  HELVERING V.
MITCHELL, SUPRA, 401. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, WELL ACCEPTED THAT FOR ONE ACT A PERSON MAY BE
LIABLE BOTH TO PAY DAMAGES AND TO SUFFER A CRIMINAL PENALTY.  LONG AGO,
THIS COURT SAID, "A MAN MAY BE COMPELLED TO MAKE REPARATIONS IN DAMAGES
TO THE INJURED PARTY, AND BE LIABLE ALSO TO PUNISHMENT FOR A BREACH OF
THE PUBLIC PEACE, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE SAME ACT; AND MAY BE SAID, IN
COMMON PARLANCE TO BE TWICE PUNISHED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE."  MOORE V.
ILLINOIS, 14 HOW.  13, 19, 20.  CONGRESS HAS "POWER TO GIVE AN ACTION
FOR DAMAGES TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO SUFFERS BY BREACH OF THE LAW." 
CHATTANOOGA FOUNDRY V. ATLANTA, 203 U.S. 390, 396, 397.  AND IT HAS
THIS SAME POWER WHEN IT, RATHER THAN SOME PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, IS
INJURED BY A FRAUD.  QUITE ASIDE FROM ITS INTEREST AS PRESERVER OF THE
PEACE, THE GOVERNMENT WHEN SPENDING ITS MONEY HAS THE SAME INTEREST IN
PROTECTING ITSELF FROM FRAUDULENT PRACTICES AS IT HAS IN PROTECTING ANY
CITIZEN FROM FRAUDS WHICH MAY BE PRACTICED UPON HIM.  "THE POWERS OF
THE UNITED STATES AS A SOVEREIGN, DEALING WITH OFFENDERS AGAINST THEIR
LAWS, MUST NOT BE CONFOUNDED WITH THEIR RIGHTS AS A BODY POLITIC.  IT
WOULD PRESENT A STRANGE ANOMALY, INDEED, IF, HAVING THE POWER TO MAKE
CONTRACTS AND HOLD PROPERTY AS OTHER PERSONS, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL,
THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME REMEDIES FOR THEIR PROTECTION." 
COTTON V. UNITED STATES, 11 HOW.  229, 231. 

THIS REMEDY DOES NOT LOSE THE QUALITY OF A CIVIL ACTION BECAUSE MORE
THAN THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF SO-CALLED ACTUAL DAMAGE IS RECOVERED.  AS TO
THE DOUBLE DAMAGE PROVISION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS ANY
RECOVERY IN EXCESS OF ACTUAL LOSS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, SINCE IN THE
NATURE OF THE QUI TAM ACTION THE GOVERNMENT'S HALF OF THE DOUBLE
DAMAGES IS THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL DAMAGES PROVED.  BUT IN ANY CASE,
CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED HERE AS IT DID IN THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS FOR
RECOVERY OF "THREEFOLD DAMAGES  ...  SUSTAINED AND THE COST OF SUIT,
INCLUDING A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE."  15 U.S.C. SEC. 15.  FN13
CONGRESS COULD REMAIN FULLY IN THE COMMON LAW TRADITION AND STILL
PROVIDE PUNITIVE DAMAGES.  "BY THE COMMON AS WELL AS BY STATUTE LAW,
MEN ARE OFTEN PUNISHED FOR AGGRAVATED MISCONDUCT OR LAWLESS ACTS BY
MEANS OF CIVIL ACTION AND THE DAMAGES INFLICTED BY WAY OF PENALTY OR
PUNISHMENT GIVEN TO THE PARTY INJURED."  DAY V. WOODWORTH, 13 HOW. 
363, 371.  THIS COURT HAS NOTED THE GENERAL PRACTICE IN STATE STATUTES
OF ALLOWING DOUBLE OR TREBLE OR EVEN QUADRUPLE DAMAGES.  MISSOURI
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. HUMES, 115 U.S. 512, 523.  PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES HAVE BEEN HELD RECOVERABLE UNDER A STATUTE LIKE THIS WHICH
COMBINES PROVISION FOR CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT WITH OTHERS WHICH AFFORD A
CIVIL REMEDY TO THE INDIVIDUAL INJURED.  O'SULLIVAN V. FELIX, 233 U.S.
318, 324, 325.  THE LAW CAN PROVIDE THE SAME MEASURE OF DAMAGE FOR THE
GOVERNMENT AS IT CAN FOR AN INDIVIDUAL. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE $2,000 "FORFEIT AND PAY" PROVISION IS
"CRIMINAL" RATHER THAN "CIVIL," EVEN IF THE DOUBLE DAMAGE FEATURE IS
NOT.  THE WORDS "FORFEIT AND PAY" RELATE ALIKE TO THE $2,000 SUM AND
THE DOUBLE DAMAGES.  THE USE OF THE WORD "FORFEIT" IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE WORD "PAY" DOES NOT FORCE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROVISION IS
CRIMINAL.  NO ONE DOUBTS THAT CONGRESS COULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE SAME
RESULT BY AUTHORIZING "DOUBLE" OR "QUADRUPLE" OR "PUNITIVE" DAMAGES OR
A LUMP SUM PAYMENT FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, OR BY DEFINITION OF THE
ELEMENTS OF "ACTUAL DAMAGES."  SPECIAL CONSEQUENCE CANNOT BE DRAWN FROM
THE USE OF THE WORD "FORFEIT."  WHILE THIS MIGHT UNDER OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES BE AN APPROPRIATE WORD TO SUGGEST A FINE UPON THE FAILURE
TO PAY WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL MIGHT BE IMPRISONED, NO SUCH PUNISHMENT IS
PROVIDED HERE UPON DEFAULT IN PAYMENT.  THE WORDS "FORFEIT AND PAY" ARE
WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F.
RY. CO. V. NICHOLS, 264 U.S. 348, 350-352; CF. HEPNER V. UNITED STATES,
213 U.S. 103, 104-111. 

IT IS TRUE THAT "PUNISHMENT, IN A CERTAIN AND VERY LIMITED SENSE, MAY
BE THE RESULT OF THE STATUTE BEFORE US SO FAR AS THE WRONG-DOER IS
CONCERNED," BUT THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO LABEL IT AS A CRIMINAL STATUTE. 
BRADY V. DALY, 175 U.S. 148, 157.  WE THINK THE CHIEF PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTES HERE WAS TO PROVIDE FOR RESTITUTION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MONEY
TAKEN FROM IT BY FRAUD, AND THAT THE DEVICE OF DOUBLE DAMAGES PLUS A
SPECIFIC SUM WAS CHOSEN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE MADE
COMPLETELY WHOLE.  THIS CONCLUSION IS CONSISTENT WITH A STATEMENT MADE
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE FINAL PASSAGE OF THE BILL.  A SENATOR DISCUSSING
THESE SECTIONS SAID:  "THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF
COMING UPON HIM (A FRAUDULENT CONTRACTOR) OR HIS ESTATE AND HIS HEIRS
AND RECOVERING THE MONEY OF WHICH IT IS DEFRAUDED."  FN14  THE INHERENT
DIFFICULTY OF CHOOSING A PROPER SPECIFIC SUM WHICH WOULD GIVE FULL
RESTITUTION WAS A PROBLEM FOR CONGRESS. 

FOURTH.  SECTION 3490 REQUIRES THAT THE $2,000 FORFEIT BE PAID FOR
DOING "ANY" OF THE ACTS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 5438.  BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT, PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT THIS SUM SHOULD BE EXACTED FOR EVERY
FORM SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR ENTERPRISE, WHILE
RESPONDENTS ARGUED THAT THERE SHOULD BE MERELY ONE $2,000 SUM COLLECTED
FOR ALL THE ACTS DONE.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE LUMP SUM
IN DAMAGES SHOULD BE ASSESSED FOR EACH SEPARATE P.W.A. PROJECT. 
PETITIONER DOES NOT OBJECT TO THIS DECISION AND WE CONCLUDE THAT UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE EACH PROJECT CAN PROPERLY BE COUNTED
SEPARATELY.  THE INCIDENCE OF THE FRAUD ON EACH ADDITIONAL PROJECT IS
AS CLEARLY INDIVIDUALIZED AS IS THE THEFT OF MAIL FROM SEPARATE BAGS IN
A POST OFFICE, EBELING V. MORGAN, 237 U.S. 625; AND SEE BLOCKBURGER V.
UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 299.  CF. GAVIERES V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S.
338, 342.  UNDER RESPONDENTS' VIEW THE LUMP SUM TO BE PAID WOULD BE
ABOUT $30.00 A PROJECT; AND WE CANNOT SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS MEANT THUS
TO REDUCE THE DAMAGES RECOVERABLE FOR RESPONDENTS' FRAUD AND THEREBY
ALLOW THEM TO SPREAD THE BURDEN PROGRESSIVELY THINNER OVER PROJECTS
EACH OF WHICH INDIVIDUALLY INCREASED THEIR PROFIT. 

WE HAVE EXAMINED THE OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS AND APPROVE
OF THE DISPOSITION OF THEM BY THE COURTS BELOW.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE NATURE OF THE COLLUSIVE BIDDING SCHEME WAS DESCRIBED BY THE
COURT BELOW AS FOLLOWS: "THE APPELLANTS, THE OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF
THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH, CONSPIRED TO RIG
THE BIDDING ON THESE PROJECTS.  THE PATTERN OF THE COLLUSION WAS THE
INFORMAL AND PRIVATE AVERAGING OF THE PROSPECTIVE BID WHICH MIGHT HAVE
BEEN SUBMITTED BY EACH APPELLANT.  AN APPELLANT CHOSEN BY THE OTHERS
WOULD THEN SUBMIT A BID FOR THE AVERAGED AMOUNT AND THE OTHERS ALL
SUBMITTED HIGHER ESTIMATES.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS THEREBY DEFRAUDED IN
THAT IT WAS COMPELLED TO CONTRIBUTE MORE FOR THE ELECTRIC WORK ON THE
PROJECTS THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY HAD THERE BEEN FREE
COMPETITION IN THE OPEN MARKET."  127 F.2D 233, 234. 

FN2  SECTION 5438 INCLUDES THREE CATEGORIES OF ACTS SUBJECT TO THE
PENALTY WHICH IT PRESCRIBES.  THE FIRST OF THESE CLAUSES, WHICH IN OUR
OPINION GOVERNS THE INSTANT CASE, COVERS "EVERY PERSON WHO MAKES OR
CAUSES TO BE MADE, OR PRESENTS OR CAUSES TO BE PRESENTED, FOR PAYMENT
OR APPROVAL, TO OR BY ANY PERSON OR OFFICER IN THE CIVIL, MILITARY OR
NAVAL SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY CLAIM UPON OR AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF,
KNOWING SUCH CLAIM TO BE FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR FRAUDULENT  ...  "  THE
SECOND CLAUSE GOVERNS THE USE OF FALSE CERTIFICATES, ETC., FOR THE
PURPOSE OF OBTAINING OR AIDING TO OBTAIN PAYMENT OF SUCH A CLAIM, AND
THE THIRD COVERS CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT BY OBTAINING OR
AIDING TO OBTAIN THE PAYMENT OF A CLAIM.  THIS SECTION, WITH AMENDMENTS
NOT RELEVANT TO ACTIONS UNDER SEC. 3490, NOW APPEARS AS 18 U.S.C. SECS.
80, 83. 

FN3  CF. MCMULLEN V. HOFFMAN, 174 U.S. 639, 649.  FOR THE GENERAL
FEDERAL COMPETITIVE BIDDING STATUTE SEE 41 U.S.C. SEC. 5. 

FN4  "STATUTES PROVIDING FOR ACTIONS BY A COMMON INFORMER, WHO
HIMSELF HAS NO INTEREST WHATEVER IN THE CONTROVERSY OTHER THAN THAT
GIVEN BY STATUTE, HAVE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN
ENGLAND, AND IN THIS COUNTRY EVER SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF OUR
GOVERNMENT," MARVIN V. TROUT, 199 U.S. 212, 225.  SOME SUCH STATUTES
ARE 18 U.S.C. SEC. 23(ARMING VESSELS AGAINST FRIENDLY POWERS); 31
U.S.C. SECS. 155, 163(BREACHES OF DUTY BY THE TREASURER OR THE REGISTER
OF THE UNITED STATES); 25 U.S.C. SECS. 193, 201(PROTECTION OF INDIANS);
AND SEE FOOTNOTE 9, INFRA.  FOR A STATUTE DEALING WITH THE ALLOCATION
OF COSTS IN PENAL ACTIONS BROUGHT BY AN INFORMER, SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC.
823.  STATUTES PROVIDING FOR A REWARD TO INFORMERS WHICH DO NOT
SPECIFICALLY EITHER AUTHORIZE OR FORBID THE INFORMER TO INSTITUTE THE
ACTION ARE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE HIM TO SUE, ADAMS V. WOODS, 2 CRANCH
336. 

FN5  IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW OF THE COURT BELOW, SEE TAFT V. STEVENS
LITH.  AND ENG. CO., 38 F. 28; BUT CF. UNITED STATES V. GRISWOLD, 24 F.
361, 366, IN WHICH THE COURT SPEAKING OF THIS SECTION SAYS:  "THE
STATUTE IS A REMEDIAL ONE.  IT IS INTENDED TO PROTECT THE TREASURY
AGAINST THE HUNGRY AND UNSCRUPULOUS HOST THAT ENCOMPASSES IT ON EVERY
SIDE, AND SHOULD BE CONSTRUED ACCORDINGLY.  IT WAS PASSED UPON THE
THEORY, BASED ON EXPERIENCE AS OLD AS MODERN CIVILIZATION, THAT ONE OF
THE LEAST EXPENSIVE AND MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS OF PREVENTING FRAUDS ON
THE TREASURY IS TO MAKE THE PERPETRATORS OF THEM LIABLE TO ACTIONS BY
PRIVATE PERSONS ACTING, IF YOU PLEASE, UNDER THE STRONG STIMULUS OF
PERSONAL ILL WILL OR THE HOPE OF GAIN.  PROSECUTIONS CONDUCTED BY SUCH
MEANS COMPARE WITH THE ORDINARY METHODS AS THE ENTERPRISING PRIVATEER
DOES TO THE SLOW-GOING PUBLIC VESSEL." 

FN6  KEY, THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL GRANTS TO STATES,
INTRODUCTION; BUREAU OF THE CENSUS STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPECIAL
STUDY NO. 19, FEDERAL AND STATE AID 1941, 4. 

FN7  SEE KEY, SUPRA, CHAPTER 4, "THE AUDIT." 

FN8  CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, 37TH CONG., 3RD SESS., 952. 

FN9  THERE IS OF COURSE NO REASON WHY CONGRESS COULD NOT, IF IT HAD
CHOSEN TO DO SO, HAVE PROVIDED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE AMOUNT OF NEW
INFORMATION WHICH THE INFORMER MUST PRODUCE TO BE ENTITLED TO REWARD. 
SIMPLE INFORMERS WHO MERELY GIVE INFORMATION WITHOUT FORMALLY
INSTITUTING ACTIONS MAY COLLECT AN AWARD FOR AIDING IN THE CONVICTION
OF NARCOTIC LAW VIOLATORS "IF SO DIRECTED BY THE COURT."  21 U.S.C.
SEC. 183.  CF. THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR WHO IS
AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE AWARDS TO INFORMERS IN CONTRACT LABOR CASES.  8
U.S.C. SECS. 139-140.  THE RIGHT OF ACTION ITSELF MAY BE SUBJECT TO
CONTROL BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL, AS ARE ACTIONS UNDER 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 642 CONCERNING VIOLATIONS OF SHIPPING LAWS.    FN10  CONG. GLOBE,
SUPRA, 955, 956. 

FN11  THIS CONSIDERATION IS APPARENTLY DIRECTED SOLELY AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S DESIRE TO CONTROL THE INSTITUTION OF THESE
ACTIONS RATHER THAN THEIR SETTLEMENT.  SEC. 3491 PROVIDES THAT THE
INFORMER SUITS "SHALL NOT BE WITHDRAWN OR DISCONTINUED WITHOUT THE
CONSENT, IN WRITING, OF THE JUDGE OF THE COURT AND THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, FIRST FILED IN THE CASE, SETTING FORTH THEIR REASONS FOR SUCH
CONSENT."  THE AUTHORITY THUS GIVEN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS PRESUMABLY
AIMED AT PREVENTION OF FRAUDULENT SETTLEMENTS. 

FN12  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE SITUATION WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE ACT,
SEE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, MARCH 3,
1863; THE DISCUSSION IN THE SENATE ON THIS BILL, CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA,
952, ET SEQ.; THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW, 127 F.2D AT 235; AND
RANDALL, CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION, 419, 427, 633. 

FN13  THIS COURT IN MEEKER V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 236 U.S. 412, 432
33, SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF SECS. 8 AND 16 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT WHICH AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES TO SHIPPERS INJURED AS A
RESULT OF VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY RAILROADS. 

FN14  CONG. GLOBE, SUPRA, 958. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

I AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT.  BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE
PLEA OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY SHOULD BE REJECTED ON A GROUND OTHER THAN THAT
TAKEN BY THE COURT.  IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS I JOIN IN ITS OPINION. 

THIS IS A QUI TAM ACTION UNDER R.S. SEC. 3490 TO RECOVER A
"FORFEITURE" AND "DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES WHICH THE UNITED STATES
MAY HAVE SUSTAINED" BY REASON OF THE SAME ACTS OF FRAUD FOR WHICH THE
RESPONDENTS WERE PREVIOUSLY INDICTED UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88, AND FOR WHICH SUBSTANTIAL FINES WERE IMPOSED
UPON THEM.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THAT NO PERSON SHALL "BE
SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR
LIMB."  THE RESPONDENTS INVOKE THIS PROVISION AS A BAR TO THIS SUIT;
AND AS I UNDERSTAND ITS HOLDING, THE COURT REJECTS THIS PLEA OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY BY TREATING THE PRESENT ACTION AS ONE MERELY TO MAKE THE
UNITED STATES WHOLE FOR ACTUAL LOSS, AND THEREFORE WITHOUT ANY PUNITIVE
ELEMENTS.  THE COURT REACHES THIS CONCLUSION BY APPLYING THE
DISTINCTION TAKEN IN HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391, 400, BETWEEN
"SANCTIONS THAT ARE REMEDIAL AND THOSE THAT ARE PUNITIVE."  THE
ARGUMENT SEEMS TO RUN THUS:  DOUBLE JEOPARDY MEANS ATTEMPTING TO PUNISH
CRIMINALLY TWICE; THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO PUNISH CRIMINALLY BECAUSE
IT IS A CIVIL PROCEEDING; IT IS A CIVIL PROCEEDING BECAUSE, AS A MATTER
OF "STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION," IT IS A "CIVIL SANCTION" WHICH IS BEING
ENFORCED HERE; AND THE SANCTION IS "CIVIL" BECAUSE IT IS "REMEDIAL" AND
NOT "PUNITIVE" IN NATURE. 

SUCH DIALECTICAL SUBTLETIES MAY SERVE WELL ENOUGH FOR PURPOSES OF
EXPLAINING AWAY UNCRITICAL LANGUAGE IN EARLIER CASES.  SEE, FOR
INSTANCE, UNITED STATES V. CHOUTEAU, 102 U.S. 603, COFFEY V. UNITED
STATES, 116 U.S. 436, AND UNITED STATES V. LA FRANCA, 282 U.S. 568. 
BUT THEY ARE TOO SUBTLE WHEN THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF SAFEGUARDING THE
HUMANE INTERESTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF WHICH THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE
WAS WRITTEN INTO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

PUNITIVE ENDS MAY BE PURSUED IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, AND, CONVERSELY,
THE CRIMINAL PROCESS IS FREQUENTLY EMPLOYED TO ATTAIN REMEDIAL RATHER
THAN PUNITIVE ENDS.  IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT SCIENTER HAS NOT BEEN
DEEMED TO BE A REQUIREMENT IN SOME CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.  "MANY
INSTANCES OF THIS ARE TO BE FOUND IN REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE
EXERCISE OF WHAT IS CALLED THE POLICE POWER WHERE THE EMPHASIS OF THE
STATUTE IS EVIDENTLY UPON ACHIEVEMENT OF SOME SOCIAL BETTERMENT RATHER
THAN THE PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIMES  ...  "  UNITED STATES V. BALINT, 258
U.S. 250, 252. 

THE PROTECTION AGAINST TWICE BEING PUNISHED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE
SHOULD HARDLY BE MADE TO DEPEND UPON THE NECESSARILY SPECULATIVE
JUDGMENT OF A COURT WHETHER A "FORFEITURE" AND "DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF
DAMAGES WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY HAVE SUSTAINED" CONSTITUTES AN
EXTRA PENALTY, OR MERELY AN INDEMNITY FOR LOSS SUFFERED.  IF THAT IS
THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY TURNS, THOSE
WHO INVOKE THE CONSTITUTION, AS DO THE RESPONDENTS HERE, OUGHT TO BE
ALLOWED TO PROVE THAT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE FORFEITURE AND THE
DOUBLE DAMAGES ARE PUNITIVE BECAUSE THEY EXCEED ANY AMOUNT THAT COULD
REASONABLY BE REGARDED AS THE EQUIVALENT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE
GOVERNMENT'S LOSS.  THAT IN CIVIL ACTIONS PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE, AS A
MATTER OF DUE PROCESS, SOMETIMES ALLOWED, SEE SHEVLIN-CARPENTER CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 218 U.S. 57, 69-70, OR THAT THERE MAY BE DISTINCT PENAL AND
REMEDIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE SAME WRONG, SEE O'SULLIVAN V. FELIX, 233
U.S. 318, 325, DOES NOT HELP SOLVE OUR PRESENT PROBLEM, WHICH ARISES
WHEN A SECOND SEPARATE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE SAME PERSONS FOR THE SAME
MISCONDUCT RESULTS IN A PLEA BASED UPON THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE.  WE
MUST ALSO PUT TO ONE SIDE THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.  THIS IS
LARGELY A JUDICIAL DOCTRINE, THOUGH PARTLY REFLECTED IN THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE, ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1, AND IS AIMED AT AVOIDING THE
WASTE AND VEXATION OF RELITIGATING ISSUES ALREADY DECIDED BETWEEN THE
SAME PARTIES.  THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY HAS A DIFFERENT
HISTORY.  IT IS PART OF THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST
PRESSURES AND PENALTIES THAT OFFEND CIVILIZED NOTIONS OF JUSTICE. 

IN MY VIEW THE PROPER APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN A
SITUATION LIKE THIS, WHERE CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED TWO SANCTIONS FOR
MISCONDUCT, HOWEVER ONE MAY LABEL THEM, AND HAS PROVIDED FOR THEIR
ENFORCEMENT IN TWO SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS, IS THAT WHICH WAS TAKEN BY
JUDGE (LATER MR. JUSTICE) BLATCHFORD IN IN RE LESZYNSKY, 16 BLATCHF. 
9.  THE SHORT OF IT IS THAT WHERE TWO SUCH PROCEEDINGS MERELY CARRY OUT
THE REMEDIES WHICH CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED IN ADVANCE FOR A WRONG, THEY
DO NOT TWICE PUT A MAN IN JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.  CONGRESS
THEREBY MERELY ALLOWS THE COMPREHENSIVE PENALTIES WHICH IT HAS IMPOSED
TO BE ENFORCED IN SEPARATE SUITS INSTEAD OF IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING.  BY
DOING THIS CONGRESS DOES NOT IMPOSE MORE THAN A SINGLE PUNISHMENT.  AND
THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE DOES NOT PREVENT CONGRESS FROM PRESCRIBING
SUCH A PROCEDURE FOR THE VINDICATION OF PUNITIVE REMEDIES. 

THIS VIEW COMMENDS ITSELF TO REASON.  IT IS CONFIRMED BY HISTORY. 
FOR LEGISLATION OF THIS CHARACTER, PROVIDING TWO SANCTIONS FOR THE SAME
MISCONDUCT, ENFORCEABLE IN SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS, ONE A CONVENTIONAL
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, AND THE OTHER A FORFEITURE PROCEEDING OR A CIVIL
ACTION AS UPON A DEBT, WAS QUITE COMMON WHEN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WAS
FRAMED BY CONGRESS.  SEE, E.G., THE MATERIALS REFERRED TO IN IN RE
LESZYNSKY, SUPRA, AT 16-19.  LIKE OTHER SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE MUST BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF
ITS TIMES.  IT WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO PROPER REGARD FOR THE FRAMERS OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO ASSUME THAT THEY CONTEMPORANEOUSLY ENACTED AND
CONTINUED TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WAS OFFENSIVE TO THE GUARANTEES OF
THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE WHICH THEY HAD PROPOSED FOR RATIFICATION. 

IF IT BE SUGGESTED THAT A SUCCESSION OF SEPARATE TRIALS FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A GREAT NUMBER OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS, EVEN THOUGH SET
FORTH IN ADVANCE IN A SINGLE STATUTE, MIGHT BE A FORM OF CRUELTY OR
OPPRESSION, THE ANSWER IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF HAS GUARDED
AGAINST SUCH AN ATTEMPT "TO WEAR THE ACCUSED OUT BY A MULTITUDE OF
CASES WITH ACCUMULATED TRIALS," SEE PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319,
328, BY PROHIBITING "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS."  AMENDMENT VIII. 
BUT SHORT OF THAT WHICH WOULD OFFEND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, STATUTES
PRESCRIBING CUMULATIVE REMEDIES HAVE BEEN COMMONPLACES IN THE HISTORY
OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  THE SHERMAN LAW, FOR EXAMPLE, ALLOWS FOUR
MEANS OF REDRESSING A SINGLE OFFENSE - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION,
INJUNCTION, SEIZURE OF GOODS, AND TREBLE DAMAGES.  IF A QUI TAM ACTION
LIKE THE ONE NOW BEFORE US WERE TO BE PROVIDED BY CONGRESS AS A FURTHER
DETERRENT AGAINST VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE
COMMONLY REGARDED AS AN ADDITIONAL PUNISHMENT.  BUT THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY
CLAUSE WOULD NEVERTHELESS NOT COME INTO PLAY. 

IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT I THINK THE PLEA OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN
THIS CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

I AM CONSTRAINED TO DISSENT FROM THE SECOND DIVISION OF THE OPINION
AND FROM THE CONCLUSION IT SUPPORTS. 

I CANNOT DENY THAT ON A LITERAL READING THE STATUTE SAYS WHAT THE
COURT'S OPINION RENDERS IT TO SAY.  THAT BEING THE CASE, ONE CANNOT BE
CRITICAL OF THOSE WHO STAY CLOSE TO THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AS TO WHERE TO DEPART AND IN WHAT DIRECTION TO
DEPART AND HOW FAR TO DEPART FROM THE LITERAL WORDS OF A STATUTE ARE SO
CONFLICTING. 

BUT THAT WE HAVE IN THESE MATTERS CONSIDERABLE, ALTHOUGH ILL-DEFINED,
FREEDOM IS CERTAIN.  I COULD NOT BETTER STATE MY ATTITUDE TOWARD THE
PRESENT STATUTE AS APPLIED TO THIS CASE THAN IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
PRESENT CHIEF JUSTICE IN UNITED STATES V. KATZ, 271 U.S. 354, 357: 

"ALL LAWS ARE TO BE GIVEN A SENSIBLE CONSTRUCTION; AND A LITERAL
APPLICATION OF A STATUTE, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO ABSURD CONSEQUENCES,
SHOULD BE AVOIDED WHENEVER A REASONABLE APPLICATION CAN BE GIVEN TO IT,
CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE." 

NOR WAS HE ANNOUNCING UNORTHODOX OR UNCONVENTIONAL DOCTRINE.  IN
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. WERCKMEISTER, 207 U.S. 284, 293, MR. JUSTICE
DAY SAID: 

"BUT IN CONSTRUING A STATUTE WE ARE NOT ALWAYS CONFINED TO A LITERAL
READING, AND MAY CONSIDER ITS OBJECT AND PURPOSE, THE THINGS WITH WHICH
IT IS DEALING, AND THE CONDITION OF AFFAIRS WHICH LED TO ITS ENACTMENT
SO AS TO EFFECTUATE RATHER THAN DESTROY THE SPIRIT AND FORCE OF THE LAW
WHICH THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO ENACT. 

"IT IS TRUE, AND THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR CITES AUTHORITIES TO THE
PROPOSITION, THAT WHERE THE WORDS OF AN ACT ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
THEY WILL CONTROL.  BUT WHILE SEEKING TO GAIN THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT
PRIMARILY FROM THE LANGUAGE USED WE MUST REMEMBER THE OBJECTS AND
PURPOSES SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED."  FN1 

IF EVER WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN READING A STATUTE, NOT NARROWLY AS
THROUGH A KEYHOLE, BUT IN THE BROAD LIGHT OF THE EVILS IT AIMED AT AND
THE GOOD IT HOPED FOR, IT IS HERE.  THE ONLY DISADVANTAGE THEREFROM
FALLS ON ONE WHO SUES, NOT TO BE MADE WHOLE FOR INJURIES HE HAS
SUSTAINED, OR TO RECOVER FOR GOODS HE HAS DELIVERED, OR SERVICES HE HAS
PERFORMED, BUT SOLELY TO MAKE PROFITABLE TO HIMSELF THE WRONG DONE BY
OTHERS.  WE SHOULD, OF COURSE, FULLY SUSTAIN INFORMERS IN PROCEEDINGS
WHERE CONGRESS HAS UTILIZED THEIR SELF-INTEREST AS AN AID TO LAW
ENFORCEMENT.  INFORMERS WHO DISCLOSE LAW VIOLATIONS EVEN FOR THE WORST
OF MOTIVES PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART IN MAKING MANY LAWS EFFECTIVE.  BUT
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE TEXT OR HISTORY OF THIS STATUTE WHICH INDICATES
TO ME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO ENRICH A MERE BUSYBODY WHO COPIES A
GOVERNMENT'S INDICTMENT AS HIS OWN COMPLAINT AND WHO BRINGS TO LIGHT NO
FRAUDS NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED AND NO INJURY TO THE TREASURY NOT ALREADY
IN PROCESS OF VINDICATION. 

IN THIS CASE THE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATED RESPONDENTS AND ON NOVEMBER
3, 1939, INDICTED THEM FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD.  ON JANUARY 5 AND
FEBRUARY 6, 1940, THE DEFENDANTS NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT ENTERED PLEAS
OF NOLO CONTENDERE, AND FINES WERE IMPOSED.  WHILE THE CRIMINAL CASE
WAS STILL PENDING, AND ON JANUARY 25, 1940, PETITIONER COMMENCED HIS
INFORMER PROCEEDING, THE AVERMENTS IN HIS COMPLAINT BEING SUBSTANTIALLY
A COPY OF THE INDICTMENT.  IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT HE HAD ANY ORIGINAL
INFORMATION, THAT HE HAD ADDED ANYTHING BY INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS OWN,
OR THAT HIS RECOVERY IS BASED ON ANY FACT NOT DISCLOSED BY THE
GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  IN THE COMPANION CASE (POST, P. 562) THE GOVERNMENT
INDICTED AND PLEAS OF NOLO CONTENDERE WERE ENTERED ON JANUARY 15, 1940,
AND TWO WEEKS THEREAFTER OSTRAGER FILED HIS COMPLAINT ALLEGING FACTS
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THOSE IN THE INDICTMENT, SOME OF THE
PARAGRAPHS BEING ALMOST VERBATIM COPIES.  WE ARE INFORMED THAT THESE
CASES HAVE ALREADY STIMULATED A NUMBER OF OTHER PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO
INTERVENE WITH SIMILAR ACTION AFTER GOVERNMENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS HAD
DISCLOSED FRAUDS. 

I AM SURE IT WAS NEVER IN THE MIND OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE THIS
MISUSE OF THE STATUTE.  IF EVER THERE WAS A CASE WHERE THE LETTER
KILLETH BUT THE SPIRIT GIVETH LIFE, IT IS THIS.  CONSTRUED TO THE
LETTER AS THE COURT DOES, IT BECOMES AN INSTRUMENT OF ABUSE AND
CORRUPTION WHICH CAN ONLY BE STOPPED BY THE TIMELY INTERVENTION OF
CONGRESS.  IF IT WERE CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO ITS SPIRIT TO REWARD THOSE
WHO DISCLOSE FRAUDS OTHERWISE CONCEALED OR WHO PROSECUTE FRAUDS
OTHERWISE UNPUNISHED, IT WOULD SERVE A USEFUL PURPOSE IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW AND PROTECTION OF THE TREASURY. 

SINCE 1863 THIS LAW HAS BEEN UPON THE STATUTE BOOKS.  NEVER UNTIL NOW
HAS THE BAR DREAMED THAT IT PERMITTED SUCH USE.  WHEN ONCE IT WAS
ATTEMPTED TO COMMENCE AN INFORMER ACTION UNDER A SIMILAR STATUTE AFTER
THE GOVERNMENT HAD BROUGHT A CIVIL ACTION, THIS COURT PROMPTLY LIMITED
THE STATUTE TO PRECLUDE THAT SORT OF ABUSE.  FRANCIS V. UNITED STATES,
5 WALL.  338.  THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE TO SUPPORT
THAT COURT-MADE LIMITATION, AND ALTHOUGH I FIND NO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN
THIS STATUTE TO SUPPORT ANOTHER, I SHOULD NOW SAY THAT THE SAME
LIMITATION EXISTS WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALREADY POSSESSED ITSELF OF
THE FACTS AND DISCLOSED THEM IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.  THIS IS WHAT I
THINK THE PROFESSION HAS GENERALLY ASSUMED THIS STATUTE TO MEAN.  IF
THE STATUTE HAS ALL THESE EIGHTY YEARS AUTHORIZED THIS SORT OF
PROCEEDING, THE LEGAL PROFESSION OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN
STRANGELY UNRESPONSIVE TO A CONGRESSIONAL PROFFER OF WINDFALL INCOME. 
WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING WHETHER WE WILL ACCEPT A NEW
INTERPRETATION NOT BEFORE SUSTAINED IN THE HISTORY OF THIS STATUTE BY
REFERENCE TO THE CONDITION OF OUR OWN TIMES RATHER THAN TO THOSE OF
FORMER ONES.  NOTHING BETTER ILLUSTRATES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
CONDITIONS OF 1863 AND THE PRESENT THAN THE STATEMENT QUOTED BY THE
COURT, MADE BY THE SENATE SPONSOR OF THE INFORMER ACT, "EVEN THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHO IS REQUIRED TO BE VIGILANT IN THE PROSECUTION OF
SUCH CASES, MAY BE ALSO THE INFORMER, AND ENTITLE HIMSELF TO ONE HALF
THE FORFEITURE UNDER THE QUITAM CLAUSE, AND TO ONE HALF OF THE DOUBLE
DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE RECOVERED AGAINST THE PERSONS COMMITTING THE
ACT."  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE COURT TO HOLD THAT A PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY MAY NOW SUE, BUT IN CONSTRUING THE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO THE
PLAINTIFF NOW BEFORE US WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT THE SENATOR WAS THEN
SPEAKING OF LAWENFORCEMENT IN A NATION WHICH HAD NOT YET ESTABLISHED A
FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHICH DID NOT THEN HAVE A FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION, OR A TREASURY INVESTIGATING FORCE, AND IN WHICH THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WERE SO CIRCUMSCRIBED THAT THEY
HAD NOT BEEN FOUND NECESSARY.  TO ACCEPT THE VIEW OF 1863 TO MEAN THAT
TODAY LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS COULD USE INFORMATION GLEANED IN THEIR
INVESTIGATIONS TO SUE AS INFORMERS FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT, WOULD MAKE THE
LAW A DOWNRIGHT VICIOUS AND CORRUPTING ONE.  FORTUNATELY NO ONE IN THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT HAS EVER SUSPECTED THAT SUCH AN INTERPRETATION AS
THE COURT NOW INDULGES COULD BE PLACED UPON THIS STATUTE.  IF WE WERE
TO ADD MOTIVES OF PERSONAL AVARICE TO OTHER PROMPTERS OF OFFICIAL ZEAL
THE TIME MIGHT COME WHEN THE SCANDALS OF LAW-ENFORCEMENT WOULD EXCEED
THE SCANDALS OF ITS VIOLATION. 

BUT EVEN AS TO NON-OFFICIALS, TO PERMIT THE INFORMER TO RECOVER WHEN
HE HAS NOT ACTUALLY INFORMED SEEMS TO ME AN EVIL RESULT UNINTENDED BY
THE ACT.  THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION MEANS THAT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT
INSTITUTE A CRIMINAL ACTION THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO SEIZURE OF SOME
INTERLOPER WHO THEREBY WRESTS CONTROL OF ITS COURSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT
ITSELF.  AS LAWYERS NOT WITHOUT EXPERIENCE IN THE PRACTICALITIES OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT, WE KNOW THAT THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE CAN BE WRECKED
BY PRE-TRIAL OF THE ISSUES ON THE CIVIL SIDE OF THE COURT, PARTICULARLY
IF THE CIVIL TRIAL IS CONDUCTED BY THOSE NOT INTERESTED IN THE CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION.  BY TRIAL, BY TAKING OF DEPOSITIONS, BY OTHER DEVICES, THE
INFORMER MAY FORCE THE PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE,
AND IT IS CERTAIN THAT BY COLLUSION BETWEEN ONE WHO ACTS AS AN INFORMER
AND THE PARTY GUILTY OF FRAUD THE LATTER COULD OBTAIN A DISCLOSURE OF
THE CASE AGAINST HIM.  WE KNOW, TOO, THAT THE CHANCE OF CONVICTION MAY
WELL BE PREJUDICED IF THE DEFENDANT MAY GO BEFORE THE JURY AND POINT TO
PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH ADEQUATE REPARATIONS WILL BE MADE.  EVERY
PERSON PROSECUTED FOR CRIME, AS A PART OF THE STRATEGY OF DEFEATING
CONVICTION, WANTS CIVIL ACTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM, AND OFTENTIMES
WANTS TO CONFESS THEM OR SETTLE THEM IN ORDER TO PLEAD THAT HE HAS
SQUARED HIS ACCOUNTS WITH THE LAW. 

MOREOVER, WE KNOW THAT THE ASSETS OF MEN ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL
ACTIVITIES ARE RARELY EQUAL TO THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND
IN THAT EVENT BY SHARING THE AVAILABLE ASSETS WITH AN INFORMER, THE
GOVERNMENT'S FINANCIAL RECOVERY IS DIMINISHED. 

ALSO IT HAS BEEN FOUND NECESSARY TO VEST IN SOMEONE THE POWER TO
COMPROMISE CLAIMS OF THE GOVERNMENT, EITHER WHERE THEY ARE OF DOUBTFUL
COLLECTIBILITY OR WHERE THE CLAIM ITSELF IS OF QUESTIONABLE VALIDITY. 
WHAT BECOMES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONTROL OVER LITIGATION IN THIS
RESPECT IF AN INFORMER MAY BE ADMITTED TO SHARE IN THE CONTROL OF THE
CASE AND MAY ACT IN COLLUSION WITH THE GUILTY PARTY?  MAY HE NO LONGER
MAKE A COMPROMISE OF A CASE THAT WILL WITHSTAND SUBSEQUENT ATTACK BY AN
INFORMER? 

IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE WE ARE
ADHERING TO A CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE WHICH HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY
APPLIED OVER ITS LONG LIFE.  IN SUCH EVENT I SHOULD NOT UNLIKELY JOIN
WITH MY COLLEAGUES.  THIS, HOWEVER, IS THE CASE OF A NEW CONSTRUCTION
UPON AN EIGHTY-YEAR-OLD STATUTE, ONE SO FARFETCHED THAT NO MEMBER OF
THE BAR HAS EVER BEFORE VENTURED TO OFFER IT IN ANY REPORTED CASE.  FN2
I WOULD HOLD THAT THE RICH REWARDS OF THIS KIND OF PROCEEDING ARE
RESERVED FOR THOSE WHO ACTUALLY AND IN GOOD FAITH HAVE CONTRIBUTED
SOMETHING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW AND THE PROTECTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

FN1  SEE, ALSO, OZAWA V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 178, 194; HELVERING
V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 292 U.S. 455, 464-5; UNITED STATES V. COOPER
CORP., 312 U.S. 600. 

FN2  CF. UNITED STATES V. COOPER CORP., 312 U.S. 600, 613-614. 
..END :







U.S. EX REL. OSTRAGER V. CONTRACTORS, 317 U.S. 562 


NO. 236.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 11, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 18, 1943.  -
127 F.2D 649, REVERSED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES EX REL. MARCUS V. HESS. 
ANTE, P. 537. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. OSTRAGER ET AL. V. NEW ORLEANS CHAPTER,
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 613, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A QUI TAM ACTION UNDER R.S. SECS. 5438 AND
3490-3493. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT IN UNITED STATES EX REL.
MARCUS V. HESS, ANTE, P. 537.  RELYING ON SECS. 5438 AND 3490-93,
REVISED STATUTES, THE PETITIONER CHARGES THAT THE RESPONDENTS CAUSED
THE GOVERNMENT $7,620 DAMAGES BY SUBMITTING FRAUDULENT COLLUSIVE BIDS
ON A HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTED WITH FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.  THE PETITIONER IN A QUITAM ACTION ASKS DOUBLE
DAMAGES PLUS $2,000 FROM EACH OF SEVENTEEN RESPONDENTS.  THE
RESPONDENTS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN INDICTED BY THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT IN A CRIMINAL ACTION AND HAD PAID FINES TOTALLING $5,000. 

THE RESPONDENTS ANSWERED ON THE MERITS, MADE OTHER PLEADINGS NOT
RELEVANT AT THIS STAGE OF THE CASE, AND OFFERED TWO SPECIAL DEFENSES:
THAT THE ACTION PLACED THEM IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN VIOLATION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THAT THE STATUTES INVOLVED DID NOT PROVIDE A BASIS
FOR SUCH A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHOUT REACHING THE
MERITS, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT ON THE THEORY OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT BUT
RESTED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE BELIEF THAT NO CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES WAS INVOLVED SINCE THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE
CONTRACT.  IT RELIED HEAVILY ON THE HESS CASE AS DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT. 

FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN OUR OPINION IN THE HESS CASE, WE BELIEVE
THAT THE DECISION BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION BUT CONCURS ON THE
QUESTION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN HIS OPINION IN
UNITED STATES EX REL. MARCUS V. HESS, ANTE, P. 537.  MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN HIS OPINION IN THE SAME
CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





















WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., 317 U.S. 564 


NO. 336.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 20, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 18, 1943.  -
128 F.2D 395, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES OF A
WHOLESALE PAPER COMPANY WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE DELIVERY, FROM COMPANY
WAREHOUSES WITHIN A STATE TO CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE SAME STATE, AFTER A
TEMPORARY PAUSE AT SUCH WAREHOUSES, OF GOODS PROCURED OUTSIDE OF THE
STATE UPON PRIOR ORDERS FROM, OR PURSUANT TO CONTRACTS OR
UNDERSTANDINGS WITH, SUCH CUSTOMERS.  P. 567. 

2.  SUCH GOODS RETAIN THEIR CHARACTER AS GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
UNTIL FINALLY DELIVERED TO THE CUSTOMER; AND THEY ARE NOT DIVESTED OF
THAT CHARACTER BY THE TEMPORARY PAUSE AT THE WAREHOUSE, OR BY THE FACT
THAT THE COMPANY REGARDS THEM AS STOCK IN TRADE, OR BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT TITLE TO THEM PASSES TO THE COMPANY UPON THEIR DELIVERY AT ITS
WAREHOUSE.  P. 569. 

3.  AS TO THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS IN OTHER GOODS PROCURED FROM OUTSIDE
OF THE STATE AND DELIVERED FROM THE WAREHOUSES TO CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE
STATE - IT BEING CLAIMED THAT SUCH BUSINESS IS "IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE CUSTOMERS FORM A FAIRLY STABLE GROUP
WHOSE NEEDS CAN BE ANTICIPATED WITH CONSIDERABLE PRECISION - THE
EVIDENCE LACKS THAT PARTICULARITY NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THE STATUS OF
THE GOODS IN QUESTION WAS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF GOODS ACQUIRED AND
HELD BY A LOCAL MERCHANT FOR LOCAL DISPOSITION.  P. 569. 

4.  THAT A WHOLESALER WHOSE BUSINESS IS INTRASTATE IS IN COMPETITION
WITH WHOLESALERS DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IN
DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, SINCE
THAT ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO ACTIVITIES "AFFECTING" COMMERCE, BUT ONLY
TO SUCH AS ARE "IN" COMMERCE.  P. 570. 

5.  THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO A WHOLESALER
WHO MAKES PURCHASES OF GOODS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE, THOUGH SELLING
INTRASTATE EXCLUSIVELY, IS NOT TO BE IMPLIED FROM THE EXCEPTION FROM
THE ACT, BY SECS. 13(A)(1) AND 13(A)(2), OF EMPLOYEES OF RETAILERS.  P.
571. 

6.  THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DOES NOT DEPEND
ON WHETHER A WHOLESALER'S BUSINESS IS WHOLLY INTERSTATE, BUT RATHER ON
THE CHARACTER OF THE EMPLOYEE'S ACTIVITIES.  P. 571. 

WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPT. OF
LABOR, V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 615, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT IN A
SUIT BROUGHT BY THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ENJOIN RESPONDENT FROM
VIOLATING PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  52 STAT. 1060,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 201.  RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED IN THE WHOLESALE BUSINESS,
DISTRIBUTING PAPER PRODUCTS AND RELATED ARTICLES.  ITS BUSINESS COVERS
A LARGE AREA EMBRACED WITHIN A NUMBER OF STATES IN THE SOUTHEASTERN
PART OF THE COUNTRY.  THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE PRODUCTS WHICH IT
DISTRIBUTES COMES FROM A LARGE NUMBER OF MANUFACTURERS AND OTHER
SUPPLIERS LOCATED IN OTHER STATES AND IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  FIVE OF
RESPONDENT'S TWELVE BRANCH HOUSES DELIVER GOODS TO CUSTOMERS IN OTHER
STATES AND IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO DELIVERY
EMPLOYEES AT THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS.  THE SOLE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE
ACT APPLIES TO EMPLOYEES AT THE SEVEN OTHER BRANCH HOUSES WHICH, THOUGH
CONSTANTLY RECEIVING MERCHANDISE ON INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS AND
DISTRIBUTING IT TO THEIR CUSTOMERS, DO NOT SHIP OR DELIVER ANY OF IT
ACROSS STATE LINES. 

SOME OF THIS MERCHANDISE IS SHIPPED DIRECT FROM THE MILLS TO
RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS.  SOME OF IT IS PURCHASED ON SPECIAL ORDERS FROM
CUSTOMERS, CONSIGNED TO THE BRANCHES, TAKEN FROM THE STEAMSHIP OR
RAILROAD TERMINAL TO THE BRANCHES FOR CHECKING, AND THEN TAKEN TO THE
CUSTOMER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS.  THE BULK OF THE MERCHANDISE, HOWEVER,
PASSES THROUGH THE BRANCH WAREHOUSES BEFORE DELIVERY TO CUSTOMERS. 
THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE CUSTOMERS CONSTITUTE A FAIRLY STABLE GROUP
AND THAT THEIR ORDERS ARE RECURRENT AS TO THE KIND AND AMOUNT OF
MERCHANDISE.  SOME OF THE ITEMS CARRIED IN STOCK ARE ORDERED ONLY IN
ANTICIPATION OF THE NEEDS OF A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER AS DETERMINED BY A
CONTRACT OR UNDERSTANDING WITH RESPONDENT.  FREQUENTLY ORDERS FOR STOCK
ITEMS WHOSE SUPPLY IS EXHAUSTED ARE RECEIVED.  RESPONDENT ORDERS THE
MERCHANDISE AND DELIVERS IT TO THE CUSTOMER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
APPARENTLY MANY OF THESE ORDERS ARE TREATED AS DELIVERIES FROM STOCK IN
TRADE.  NOT ALL ITEMS LISTED IN RESPONDENT'S CATALOGUE ARE CARRIED IN
STOCK BUT ARE STOCKED AT THE MILL.  ORDERS FOR THESE ARE FILLED BY
RESPONDENT FROM THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER.  THERE IS ALSO SOME
EVIDENCE TO THE GENERAL EFFECT THAT THE BRANCH MANAGER BEFORE PLACING
HIS ORDERS FOR STOCK ITEMS HAS A FAIR IDEA WHEN AND TO WHOM THE
MERCHANDISE WILL BE SOLD AND IS ABLE TO ESTIMATE WITH CONSIDERABLE
PRECISION THE IMMEDIATE NEEDS OF HIS CUSTOMERS EVEN WHERE THEY DO NOT
HAVE CONTRACTS CALLING FOR FUTURE DELIVERIES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT NONE OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES IN THE
SEVEN BRANCH HOUSES IN QUESTION WERE SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  128 F.2D 395.  (1) IT HELD THAT EMPLOYEES
WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE PROCUREMENT OR RECEIPT OF GOODS FROM OTHER
STATES ARE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 6(A) AND
SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT.  (2) IT ALSO HELD THAT WHERE RESPONDENT "TAKES AN
ORDER" FROM A CUSTOMER AND FILLS IT OUTSIDE THE STATE AND THE GOODS ARE
SHIPPED INTERSTATE "WITH THE DEFINITE INTENTION THAT THOSE GOODS BE
CARRIED AT ONCE TO THAT CUSTOMER AND THEY ARE SO CARRIED, THE WHOLE
MOVEMENT IS INTERSTATE" AND THE ENTIRE WORK OF DELIVERY TO THEIR FINAL
DESTINATION IS AN EMPLOYMENT "IN COMMERCE."  THOSE WERE THE ONLY TYPES
OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH THE COURT HELD TO BE COVERED BY THE ACT. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTENDS, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT UNDER THE
DECISION BELOW ANY PAUSE AT THE WAREHOUSE IS SUFFICIENT TO DEPRIVE THE
REMAINDER OF THE JOURNEY OF ITS INTERSTATE STATUS.  IN THAT CONNECTION
IT IS POINTED OUT THAT PRIOR TO THIS LITIGATION RESPONDENT'S TRUCKS
WOULD PICK UP AT THE TERMINALS OF THE INTERSTATE CARRIERS GOODS
DESTINED TO SPECIFIC CUSTOMERS, RETURN TO THE WAREHOUSE FOR CHECKING
AND PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTOMER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS WITHOUT
UNLOADING.  THAT PRACTICE WAS CHANGED.  THE GOODS WERE UNLOADED FROM
THE TRUCKS, BROUGHT INTO THE WAREHOUSE, CHECKED, RELOADED, AND SENT ON
TO THE CUSTOMER DURING THE SAME DAY OR AS EARLY AS CONVENIENT.  THE
OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE
INTERPRETATION THAT SUCH A PAUSE AT THE WAREHOUSES IS SUFFICIENT TO
MAKE THE ACT INAPPLICABLE TO THE SUBSEQUENT MOVEMENT OF THE GOODS TO
THEIR INTENDED DESTINATION.  WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THE ADOPTION OF
THAT VIEW WOULD RESULT IN TOO NARROW A CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT.  IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO EXTEND FEDERAL CONTROL IN THIS
FIELD THROUGHOUT THE FARTHEST REACHES OF THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN1  THERE IS NO INDICATION (APART FROM THE EXEMPTIONS
CONTAINED IN SEC. 13) THAT, ONCE THE GOODS ENTERED THE CHANNELS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CONGRESS STOPPED SHORT OF CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE
MOVEMENT OF THEM UNTIL THEIR INTERSTATE JOURNEY WAS ENDED.  NO RITUAL
OF PLACING GOODS IN A WAREHOUSE CAN BE ALLOWED TO DEFEAT THAT PURPOSE. 
THE ENTRY OF THE GOODS INTO THE WAREHOUSE INTERRUPTS BUT DOES NOT
NECESSARILY TERMINATE THEIR INTERSTATE JOURNEY.  A TEMPORARY PAUSE IN
THEIR TRANSIT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER "IN COMMERCE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  AS IN THE CASE OF AN AGENCY (CF. DE
LOACH V. CROWLEY'S INC., 128 F.2D 378) IF THE HALT IN THE MOVEMENT OF
THE GOODS IS A CONVENIENT INTERMEDIATE STEP IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING
THEM TO THEIR FINAL DESTINATIONS, THEY REMAIN "IN COMMERCE" UNTIL THEY
REACH THOSE POINTS.  THEN THERE IS A PRACTICAL CONTINUITY OF MOVEMENT
OF THE GOODS UNTIL THEY REACH THE CUSTOMERS FOR WHOM THEY ARE
INTENDED.  THAT IS SUFFICIENT.  ANY OTHER TEST WOULD ALLOW FORMALITIES
TO CONCEAL THE CONTINUOUS NATURE OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSIT WHICH
CONSTITUTES COMMERCE. 

SECONDLY, THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTENDS THAT THE DECISION BELOW EXCLUDES
FROM THE CATEGORY OF GOODS "IN COMMERCE" CERTAIN TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS
WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY OF THE SAME CHARACTER AS THE PRIOR ORDERS WHICH
WERE INCLUDED.  THUS IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE IS A VARIETY OF ITEMS
PRINTED AT THE MILL WITH THE NAME OF THE CUSTOMER.  IT IS ALSO
ESTABLISHED THAT THERE ARE DELIVERIES OF CERTAIN GOODS WHICH ARE
OBTAINED FROM THE MANUFACTURER OR SUPPLIER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
SPECIFIED CUSTOMERS.  AMONG THE LATTER ARE CERTAIN TYPES OF NEWSPRINT,
PAPER, ICE CREAM CUPS, AND COTTAGE CHEESE CONTAINERS.  THE RECORD
REVEALS, HOWEVER, THAT THE GOODS IN BOTH OF THESE TWO CATEGORIES ARE
ORDERED PURSUANT TO A PREEXISTING CONTRACT OR UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
CUSTOMER.  IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS INCLUDES THESE TWO TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE GROUP OF PRIOR
ORDERS WHICH IT HELD WERE COVERED BY THE ACT.  WE THINK THEY MUST BE
INCLUDED.  CERTAINLY THEY CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SPECIAL
ORDERS WHICH RESPONDENT RECEIVES FROM ITS CUSTOMERS.  HERE ALSO, A
BREAK IN THEIR PHYSICAL CONTINUITY OF TRANSIT IS NOT CONTROLLING.  IF
THERE IS A PRACTICAL CONTINUITY OF MOVEMENT FROM THE MANUFACTURERS OR
SUPPLIERS WITHOUT THE STATE, THROUGH RESPONDENT'S WAREHOUSE AND ON TO
CUSTOMERS WHOSE PRIOR ORDERS OR CONTRACTS ARE BEING FILLED, THE
INTERSTATE JOURNEY IS NOT ENDED BY REASON OF A TEMPORARY HOLDING OF THE
GOODS AT THE WAREHOUSE.  THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT MAY TREAT THE GOODS
AS STOCK IN TRADE OR THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT TITLE TO THE GOODS PASSES TO
RESPONDENT ON THE INTERMEDIATE DELIVERY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
INTERSTATE JOURNEY ENDS AT THE WAREHOUSE.  THE CONTRACT OR
UNDERSTANDING PURSUANT TO WHICH GOODS ARE ORDERED, LIKE A SPECIAL
ORDER, INDICATES WHERE IT WAS INTENDED THAT THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT
SHOULD TERMINATE.  NUMEROUS AUTHORITIES ARE PRESSED ON US FOR THE
CONTRARY VIEW AND FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT WHEN THE GOODS ENTER THE
WAREHOUSE, THEY ARE NO LONGER "IN COMMERCE."  BUT AS WE STATED IN
KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, 520-521, DECISIONS DEALING
WITH VARIOUS ASSERTIONS OF STATE OR FEDERAL POWER IN THE COMMERCE FIELD
ARE NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL IN DETERMINING THE REACH OF THIS ACT. 

FINALLY, THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTENDS THAT MOST OF THE CUSTOMERS FORM A
FAIRLY STABLE GROUP, THAT THEIR ORDERS ARE RECURRENT AS TO THE KIND AND
AMOUNT OF MERCHANDISE, AND THAT THE MANAGER CAN ESTIMATE WITH
CONSIDERABLE PRECISION THE NEEDS OF HIS TRADE.  IT IS THEREFORE URGED
THAT THE BUSINESS WITH THESE CUSTOMERS IS "IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  SOME OF THE INSTANCES TO WHICH WE ARE REFERRED ARE
SITUATIONS WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH GOODS DELIVERED
PURSUANT TO A PRIOR ORDER, CONTRACT, OR UNDERSTANDING.  FOR THE REASONS
STATED THEY MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE GROUP OF TRANSACTIONS HELD TO BE
"IN COMMERCE."  AS TO THE BALANCE, WE DO NOT THINK THE ADMINISTRATOR
HAS SUSTAINED THE BURDEN WHICH IS ON A PETITIONER OF ESTABLISHING ERROR
IN A JUDGMENT WHICH WE ARE ASKED TO SET ASIDE.  WE DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY
THAT A WHOLESALER'S COURSE OF BUSINESS BASED ON ANTICIPATION OF NEEDS
OF SPECIFIC CUSTOMERS, RATHER THAN ON PRIOR ORDERS OR CONTRACTS, MIGHT
NOT AT TIMES BE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT PRACTICAL CONTINUITY IN
TRANSIT NECESSARY TO KEEP A MOVEMENT OF GOODS "IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  IT WAS SAID IN SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196
U.S. 375, 398, THAT "COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES IS NOT A TECHNICAL LEGAL
CONCEPTION, BUT A PRACTICAL ONE, DRAWN FROM THE COURSE OF BUSINESS." 
WHILE THAT OBSERVATION WAS MADE APROPOS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCOPE OF
THE COMMERCE POWER, IT IS EQUALLY APT AS A STARTING POINT FOR INQUIRY
WHETHER A PARTICULAR BUSINESS IS "IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THIS ACT.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE
SUCH A COURSE OF BUSINESS IS REVEALED BY THIS RECORD.  THE EVIDENCE
SAID TO SUPPORT IT IS OF A WHOLLY GENERAL CHARACTER AND LACKS THAT
PARTICULARITY NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT THE GOODS IN QUESTION WERE
DIFFERENT FROM GOODS ACQUIRED AND HELD BY A LOCAL MERCHANT FOR LOCAL
DISPOSITION. 

IN THIS CONNECTION WE CANNOT BE UNMINDFUL THAT CONGRESS IN ENACTING
THIS STATUTE PLAINLY INDICATED ITS PURPOSE TO LEAVE LOCAL BUSINESS TO
THE PROTECTION OF THE STATES.  S. REP. NO. 884, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 5; 83 CONG. REC., 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PT. 8, P. 9169.  MOREOVER AS
WE STATED IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, P. 522-523, CONGRESS DID
NOT EXERCISE IN THIS ACT THE FULL SCOPE OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  WE MAY
ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF THE ARGUMENT THAT SINCE WHOLESALERS DOING A
LOCAL BUSINESS ARE IN COMPETITION WITH WHOLESALERS DOING AN INTERSTATE
BUSINESS, THE LATTER WOULD BE PREJUDICED IF THEIR COMPETITORS WERE NOT
REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME LABOR STANDARDS.  THAT CONSIDERATION,
HOWEVER, WOULD BE PERTINENT ONLY IF THE ACT EXTENDED TO BUSINESSES OR
TRANSACTIONS "AFFECTING COMMERCE."  BUT AS WE NOTED IN THE KIRSCHBAUM
CASE THE ACT DID NOT GO SO FAR.  IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT A DIFFERENT
RESULT OBTAINS IN CASE OF WHOLESALERS.  THE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE
FACT THAT THE ACT EXCEPTS FROM SEC. 6 AND SEC. 7 "ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED
IN A  ...  LOCAL RETAILING CAPACITY" (SEC. 13(A)(1)) AND "ANY EMPLOYEE
ENGAGED IN ANY RETAIL OR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT THE GREATER PART OF
WHOSE SELLING OR SERVICING IS IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE."  SEC. 13(A) 

(2).  SINCE RETAILERS ARE EXCLUDED BY REASON OF THESE EXPRESS
PROVISIONS, IT IS THOUGHT THAT THE INCLUSION OF WHOLESALERS SHOULD BE
IMPLIED.  THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO INDICATION IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
THAT BUT FOR THE EXEMPTION OF RETAILERS IT WAS THOUGHT THAT ALL
MOVEMENT OF GOODS FROM MANUFACTURERS TO WHOLESALERS AND ON TO RETAILERS
WOULD BE "IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, WHERE THE
WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS WERE IN THE SAME STATE.  IT IS QUITE CLEAR
THAT THE EXEMPTION IN SEC. 13(A)(2) WAS ADDED TO ELIMINATE THOSE
RETAILERS LOCATED NEAR THE STATE LINES AND MAKING SOME INTERSTATE
SALES.  83 CONG. REC., 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PT. 7, PP. 7281-7282, 7436
7438.  FN2  AND THE EXEMPTION FOR RETAILERS CONTAINED IN SEC. 13(A)(1)
WAS TO ALLAY THE FEARS OF THOSE WHO FELT THAT A RETAILER PURCHASING
GOODS FROM WITHOUT THE STATE MIGHT OTHERWISE BE INCLUDED.  ID.  HENCE
WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT ALL PHASES OF A WHOLESALE BUSINESS SELLING
INTRASTATE ARE COVERED BY THE ACT SOLELY BECAUSE IT MAKES ITS PURCHASES
INTERSTATE.  THE USE OF THE WORDS "IN COMMERCE" ENTAILS AN ANALYSIS OF
THE VARIOUS TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS AND THE PARTICULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS
ALONG THE LINES WE HAVE INDICATED. 

THE FACT THAT ALL OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE AN
INTERSTATE CHARACTER IS NOT IMPORTANT.  THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT IS
DEPENDENT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE EMPLOYEES' WORK.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V.
WALLING, SUPRA, P. 524.  IF A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF AN EMPLOYEE'S
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GOODS WHOSE MOVEMENT IN THE CHANNELS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE TEST WE HAVE DESCRIBED, HE
IS COVERED BY THE ACT.  HERE AS IN OTHER SITUATIONS (KIRSCHBAUM CO. V.
WALLING, SUPRA, P. 523) THE QUESTION OF THE ACT'S COVERAGE DEPENDS ON
THE SPECIAL FACTS PERTAINING TO THE PARTICULAR BUSINESS.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT SO THAT NEW
FINDINGS COULD BE MADE AND AN APPROPRIATE DECREE BE FRAMED.  WHETHER
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MUST BE TAKEN ON ANY PHASE OF THE CASE SO THAT A
DECREE MAY BE DRAWN IS A QUESTION FOR THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE MERELY
HOLD THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS CONSTRUED AND
MODIFIED BY THIS OPINION STATES THE CORRECT VIEW OF THE LAW.  AS SO
MODIFIED, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED.    FN1  SEE FOR EXAMPLE THE
STATEMENT BY SENATOR BORAH SPEAKING FOR THE SENATE CONFEREES ON THE
CONFERENCE REPORT, "  ...  IF THE BUSINESS IS SUCH AS TO OCCUPY THE
CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ANY OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE A
NECESSARY PART OF CARRYING ON THAT BUSINESS ARE WITHIN THE TERMS OF
THIS BILL, AND, IN MY OPINION, ARE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES."  83 CONG. REC., 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PT. 8, P. 9170. 

FN2  AND SEE JOINT HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON S. 2475 AND H.R.
7200, PT. 1, P. 35. 
..END :
























HIGGINS V. CARR BROS. CO., 317 U.S. 572 


NO. 97.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 18, 1943.  - 25
A.2D 214, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW THAT, WHEN MERCHANDISE COMING FROM OTHER
STATES WAS UNLOADED AT THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE WHOLESALER HERE
(SELLING INTRASTATE EXCLUSIVELY), ITS INTERSTATE MOVEMENT HAD ENDED,
AND THAT AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE GOODS THEREAFTER
WAS NOT COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  WALLING V.
JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., ANTE, P. 564, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 574. 

2.  THAT A WHOLESALER WHOSE BUSINESS IS EXCLUSIVELY INTRASTATE IS IN
COMPETITION WITH WHOLESALERS DOING INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS OF NO
SIGNIFICANCE IN DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, SINCE THAT ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO ACTIVITIES "AFFECTING"
COMMERCE, BUT ONLY TO SUCH AS ARE "IN" COMMERCE.  P. 574. 

HIGGINS V. CARR BROTHERS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 658, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DENYING RECOVERY OF ALLEGED UNPAID WAGES AND FOR DAMAGES, IN A SUIT
BROUGHT BY AN EMPLOYEE AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER, UNDER THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., ANTE,
P. 564, AND IS HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF
MAINE.  HIGGINS CLAIMS MINIMUM WAGES AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION ALLEGED
TO BE DUE HIM UNDER SECS. 6(A) AND 7(A) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
BETWEEN JANUARY 1939 AND JULY 1940.  PRIOR TO THAT TIME, RESPONDENT,
WHICH CONDUCTS A WHOLESALE FRUIT, GROCERY AND PRODUCE BUSINESS IN
PORTLAND, MAINE, HAD BEEN SELLING AND DELIVERING ITS MERCHANDISE NOT
ONLY TO THE LOCAL TRADE IN MAINE BUT ALSO TO RETAILERS IN NEW
HAMPSHIRE.  FOR THE PERIOD HERE IN QUESTION THE NEW HAMPSHIRE TRADE HAD
BEEN DISCONTINUED AND ALL SALES AND DELIVERIES WERE SOLELY TO RETAILERS
IN MAINE.  THE ONLY ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH WE KNOW ABOUT RESPONDENT'S
COURSE OF BUSINESS ARE ACCURATELY SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT
FROM THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT:  "IT BUYS ITS
MERCHANDISE FROM LOCAL PRODUCERS AND FROM DEALERS IN OTHER STATES, HAS
IT DELIVERED BY TRUCK AND RAIL, UNLOADED INTO ITS STORE AND WAREHOUSE
AND FROM THERE SELLS AND DISTRIBUTES IT TO THE RETAIL TRADE.  WHILE
SOME OF THE PRODUCE AND FRUIT IS PROCESSED, MUCH OF IT IS SOLD IN THE
CONDITION IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED.  THE CORPORATION OWNS ALL OF ITS
MERCHANDISE AND MAKES ITS OWN DELIVERIES.  IT MAKES NO SALES ON
COMMISSION NOR ON ORDER WITH SHIPMENTS DIRECT FROM THE DEALER OR
PRODUCER TO THE RETAIL PURCHASER."  HIGGINS' EMPLOYMENT INVOLVED WORK
AS NIGHT SHIPPER PUTTING UP ORDERS AND LOADING TRUCKS FOR DELIVERY TO
RETAIL DEALERS IN MAINE OR DRIVING A TRUCK DISTRIBUTING MERCHANDISE TO
THE LOCAL TRADE. 

PETITIONER IN HIS BRIEF DESCRIBES THE BUSINESS IN SOMEWHAT GREATER
DETAIL AND SEEKS TO SHOW AN ACTUAL OR PRACTICAL CONTINUITY OF MOVEMENT
OF MERCHANDISE FROM WITHOUT THE STATE TO RESPONDENT'S REGULAR CUSTOMERS
WITHIN THE STATE.  BUT HERE, UNLIKE WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO.,
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD BEFORE US TO SUPPORT THOSE STATEMENTS
NOR TO IMPEACH THE ACCURACY OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL
COURT OF MAINE THAT WHEN THE MERCHANDISE COMING FROM WITHOUT THE STATE
WAS UNLOADED AT RESPONDENT'S PLACE OF BUSINESS ITS "INTERSTATE MOVEMENT
HAD ENDED."  SOME EFFORT IS MADE TO SHOW THAT THE COURT BELOW APPLIED
AN INCORRECT RULE OF LAW IN THE SENSE THAT IT GAVE THE ACT TOO NARROW A
CONSTRUCTION.  IN THAT CONNECTION IT IS ARGUED THAT RESPONDENT IS IN
COMPETITION WITH WHOLESALERS DOING AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS AND THAT IT
CAN BY UNDERSELLING AFFECT THOSE BUSINESSES AND THEIR INTERSTATE
ACTIVITIES.  AS WE INDICATED IN WALLING V. JACKSONVILLE PAPER CO., THAT
ARGUMENT WOULD BE RELEVANT IF THIS ACT HAD FOLLOWED THE PATTERN OF
OTHER FEDERAL LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (SEE
29 U.S.C. SEC. 152(7), SEC. 160(A)) AND EXTENDED FEDERAL CONTROL TO
BUSINESS "AFFECTING COMMERCE."  BUT AS WE POINTED OUT IN KIRSCHBAUM CO.
V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, THIS ACT DID NOT GO SO FAR BUT WAS MORE
NARROWLY CONFINED. 

THUS PETITIONER HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE BURDEN OF SHOWING ERROR IN THE
JUDGMENT WHICH HE ASKS US TO SET ASIDE.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :

















BRADY V. ROOSEVELT S.S. CO., 317 U.S. 575 


NO. 269.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 18, 1943.  - 128
F.2D 169, REVERSED. 


1.  AN ACTION TO RECOVER FOR A DEATH RESULTING FROM INJURIES SUSTAINED
WHEN A RUNG OF A LADDER BROKE AS THE DECEDENT, A UNITED STATES CUSTOMS
INSPECTOR IN THE COURSE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES, WAS CLIMBING TO BOARD A
VESSEL DOCKED AT A PIER, IS WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.  PP. 576
577. 

2.  THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE A SUIT AGAINST A
PRIVATE CORPORATION (NONE OF WHOSE STOCK IS OWNED DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY BY THE UNITED STATES) TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR A MARITIME TORT
ARISING OUT OF THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, AND WHICH THE CORPORATION OPERATES UNDER A
CONTRACT MADE PURSUANT TO SEC. 707(C) OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF
1936, EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACT MAY GIVE TO THE CORPORATION IN SUCH CASE
A RIGHT OF EXONERATION OR INDEMNITY AGAINST THE COMMISSION.  FLEET
CORPORATION V. LUSTGARTEN, 280 U.S. 320, OVERRULED PRO TANTO.  PP. 578,
582. 

THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT DOES NOT RESTRICT THE REMEDY IN SUCH CASE
TO A LIBEL IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR THE MARITIME
COMMISSION. 

BRADY, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. ROOSEVELT STEAMSHIP CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 609, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT AGAINST THE STEAMSHIP COMPANY TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF PLAINTIFF'S INTESTATE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

S.S. UNICOI WAS A VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES MARITIME
COMMISSION AND OPERATED FOR IT BY RESPONDENT UNDER A CONTRACT COVERING
THIS AND OTHER VESSELS.  THE CONTRACT  FN1  RECITES THAT IT WAS MADE
PURSUANT TO SEC. 707(C) OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936(49 STAT.
2009, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1197(C); SEE SEC. 704, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 1194), THE
COMMISSION HAVING ADVERTISED THE LINE FOR CHARTER AND HAVING FAILED TO
RECEIVE SATISFACTORY BIDS.  RESPONDENT IS A PRIVATE CORPORATION, NONE
OF WHOSE STOCK IS OWNED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY THE UNITED STATES. 

THE DECEASED WAS A UNITED STATES CUSTOMS INSPECTOR.  WHILE BOARDING
THE VESSEL ON HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES IN JULY 1938, A RUNG OF THE LADDER
WHICH HE WAS CLIMBING BROKE.  THE INJURIES WHICH RESULTED CAUSED HIS
DEATH.  AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY THE VESSEL WAS DOCKED AT A PIER IN
NEW YORK CITY. 

PETITIONER, THE WIDOW, SUED AS ADMINISTRATRIX TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR
THE BENEFIT OF HERSELF AND THE CHILDREN.  THAT SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT BUT REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 
RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE AUTHORITY OF JOHNSON V. EMERGENCY
FLEET CORP., 280 U.S. 320.  THAT MOTION WAS DENIED AND A TRIAL TO A
JURY ON THE LAW SIDE OF THE COURT WAS HAD.  A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER
WAS RETURNED.  ON APPEAL THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS STATED IN REACHING THAT RESULT THAT THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT
(41 STAT. 525, 46 U.S.C. SECS. 741, 742) AS CONSTRUED BY THE DECISION
IN THE JOHNSON CASE MADE THE REMEDIES AFFORDED BY THAT ACT THE
EXCLUSIVE ONES, VIZ. A LIBEL IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR
THE MARITIME COMMISSION.  128 F.2D 169.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THIS WAS A MARITIME TORT OVER
WHICH THE ADMIRALTY COURT HAS JURISDICTION.  VANCOUVER S.S. CO. V.
RICE, 288 U.S. 445; THE ADMIRAL PEOPLES, 295 U.S. 649.  AND WE MAY
ASSUME THAT PETITIONER COULD HAVE SUED EITHER THE UNITED STATES OR THE
COMMISSION UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  IN ANY EVENT, SUCH A SUIT
WOULD BE THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST EITHER OF THEM. 
EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 675; EMERGENCY
FLEET CORP. V. ROSENBERG BROS. & CO., 276 U.S. 202.  AND IT IS LIKEWISE
CLEAR THAT THE ACTION IN ADMIRALTY AFFORDED BY SEC. 2 OF THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT IS THE ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR
A CORPORATION WHOSE ENTIRE OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK IS OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES.  JOHNSON V. EMERGENCY FLEET
CORP., SUPRA.  THE SOLE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY
ACT MAKES PRIVATE OPERATORS SUCH AS RESPONDENT NON-SUABLE FOR THEIR
TORTS. 

EMERGENCY FLEET CORP. V. LUSTGARTEN, 280 U.S. 320, ONE OF THE THREE
COMPANION CASES TO THE JOHNSON CASE, SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT IT DOES. 
IN THAT CASE A MERCHANT VESSEL, COELLEDA, WAS OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES AND OPERATED FOR IT BY THE CONSOLIDATED NAVIGATION CO. PURSUANT
TO A CONTRACT MADE THROUGH THE FLEET CORPORATION.  A SEAMAN EMPLOYED
THEREON SUED THE FLEET CORPORATION AND THE CONSOLIDATED NAVIGATION CO.
TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THAT SERVICE. 
THERE WAS A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF WHICH WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL. 
THIS COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CAUSE WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS. 
THE JOHNSON CASE AND THE OTHER TWO COMPANION CASES WERE SUITS AGAINST
THE FLEET CORPORATION OR THE UNITED STATES.  IN ONE OPINION DEALING
WITH ALL FOUR CASES, THIS COURT SAID:  "DIRECTLY OR MEDIATELY, THE
MONEY REQUIRED TO PAY A JUDGMENT AGAINST ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THESE
CASES WOULD COME OUT OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS THE REAL PARTY
AFFECTED IN ALL OF THESE ACTIONS."  280 U.S. PP. 326-327.  IT ADDED
THAT THE AIM OF UNIFORMITY WOULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED "IF SUITS UNDER THE
TUCKER ACT AND IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES AND ACTIONS AT LAW IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS BE PERMITTED
AGAINST THE FLEET CORPORATION OR OTHER AGENTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE
MARITIME CAUSES OF ACTION COVERED BY THE ACT."  P. 327.  ACCORDINGLY IT
CONCLUDED THAT "THE REMEDIES GIVEN BY THE ACT ARE EXCLUSIVE IN ALL
CASES WHERE A LIBEL MIGHT BE FILED UNDER IT."  P. 327.  THESE
STATEMENTS, COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT IN THE LUSTGARTEN
CASE WAS REVERSED NOT ONLY AS RESPECTS THE FLEET CORPORATION BUT THE
CONSOLIDATED NAVIGATION CO. AS WELL, SUPPORT THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE
COURT BELOW. 

OUR CONCLUSION, HOWEVER, IS THAT THAT POSITION IS UNTENABLE AND THAT
THE LUSTGARTEN CASE SO FAR AS IT WOULD PREVENT A PRIVATE OPERATOR FROM
BEING SUED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED AS
NO LONGER CONTROLLING. 

THERE IS AMPLE SUPPORT FOR THE HOLDING IN THE JOHNSON CASE THAT SEC.
2 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE THE ONLY
AVAILABLE REMEDY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ITS WHOLLY OWNED
CORPORATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF MARITIME CAUSES OF ACTION COVERED BY
THE ACT.  BUT THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTIMATION OR SUGGESTION IN
THE HISTORY OF THAT ACT THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO ABOLISH ALL REMEDIES
WHICH MIGHT EXIST AGAINST A PRIVATE COMPANY FOR TORTS COMMITTED DURING
ITS OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS UNDER AGENCY AGREEMENTS. 

SEC. 1 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT PROVIDES THAT NO VESSEL OWNED BY
THE UNITED STATES OR A GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION OR "OPERATED BY OR FOR
THE UNITED STATES, OR SUCH CORPORATION" SHALL BE "SUBJECT TO ARREST OR
SEIZURE BY JUDICIAL PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS POSSESSIONS." 
THAT SECTION WAS DESIGNED TO AVOID THE INCONVENIENCE, EXPENSE AND DELAY
RESULTING FROM THE HOLDINGS IN THE FLORENCE H., 248 F. 1012, AND THE
LAKE MONROE, 250 U.S. 246, THAT LIBEL IN REM WOULD LIE AGAINST VESSELS
OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES.  SEE S. REP. NO. 223, 66TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; H. REP. NO. 497, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS.  THE WORDING OF THAT
TAKEN AWAY WHETHER THE VESSEL WAS OPERATED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ITS
WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATION OR FOR EITHER OF THEM BY A PRIVATE COMPANY. 
TO THAT EXTENT THE ACT AFFECTS REMEDIES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE EXIST ON
MARITIME CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING OUT OF OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT
VESSELS BY PRIVATE COMPANIES FOR THE UNITED STATES OR ITS WHOLLY OWNED
CORPORATIONS.  YET THERE IS NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER THAT IT WENT
FURTHER AND TOOK AWAY ANY PERSONAL REMEDY WHICH A TORT CLAIMANT MIGHT
HAVE AGAINST SUCH A PRIVATE OPERATOR.  WHILE SEC. 1 ABOLISHES THE RIGHT
TO ARREST OR SEIZE THE VESSEL, SEC. 2 PROVIDES THAT "A LIBEL IN
PERSONAM MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR AGAINST SUCH
CORPORATIONS" IN CASES WHERE "IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR
OPERATED  ...  A PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY COULD BE MAINTAINED."  SEC. 2,
HOWEVER, DOES NOT MENTION PRIVATE OPERATORS.  NOR DO THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS ADVERT TO PRIVATE OPERATORS, EXCEPT AS THEY MAY BE AFFECTED BY
SEC. 1.  THE LIABILITY OF AN AGENT FOR HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE HAS LONG BEEN
EMBEDDED IN THE LAW.  QUINN V. SOUTHGATE NELSON CORP., 121 F.2D 190, IS
A RECENT APPLICATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE TO A SITUATION VERY CLOSE TO THE
PRESENT ONE.  BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS AN ANCIENT ONE AND APPLIES EVEN TO
CERTAIN ACTS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITIES.  AS STATED
IN SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. EMERGENCY FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549, 567,
"AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF GOVERNMENT HE MIGHT BE AND FOR THE GREATEST
ENDS, BUT THE AGENT, BECAUSE HE IS AGENT, DOES NOT CEASE TO BE
ANSWERABLE FOR HIS ACTS."  IN THAT CASE THE FLEET CORPORATION WAS HELD
TO BE AMENABLE TO SUIT.  AND THAT POLICY HAS BEEN FOLLOWED.  FOR WHEN
IT COMES TO THE UTILIZATION OF CORPORATE FACILITIES  FN2  IN THE
BROADENING PHASES OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES IN THE COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS
FIELD, IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IS NOT FAVORED.  KEIFER & KEIFER V.
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306 U.S. 381; FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION V. BURR, 309 U.S. 242.  CONGRESS ADOPTED THAT POLICY
WHEN IT MADE CORPORATIONS WHOLLY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES SUABLE ON
MARITIME CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT. 
THAT IT HAD THE POWER TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD IMMUNITY FROM SUIT ON BEHALF
OF GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATIONS IS PLAIN.  FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY,
295 U.S. 229; RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V. MENIHAN CORP., 312 U.S.
81.  WE MAY ALSO ASSUME THAT IT WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT IMMUNITY
TO PRIVATE OPERATORS OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS FOR THEIR TORTS.  BUT SUCH A
BASIC CHANGE IN ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE LAW OF AGENCY SHOULD
HARDLY BE LEFT TO CONJECTURE.  THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE RIGHT TO SUE THE
AGENT FOR HIS TORTS WOULD RESULT AT TIMES IN A SUBSTANTIAL DILUTION OF
THE RIGHTS OF CLAIMANTS.  ASSUMING THAT THE ORDINARY RULES OF AGENCY
APPLY IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE UNITED STATES OR THE MARITIME
COMMISSION IS RESPONSIBLE UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT FOR TORTS OF PRIVATE
OPERATORS SUCH AS RESPONDENT, THERE WOULD BE INSTANCES WHERE UNLESS THE
PRIVATE OPERATOR WAS LIABLE NO ONE WOULD BE.  THE PRINCIPAL IS NOT
LIABLE FOR EVERY NEGLIGENT ACT OF HIS AGENT.  FURTHERMORE, IF ALL SUITS
TO ENFORCE MARITIME CAUSES OF ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT IN SUCH CASES
UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT THE SHORT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF TWO YEARS
CONTAINED IN SEC. 5 IS APPLICABLE.  EMERGENCY FLEET CORP. V. ROSENBERG
BROS. & CO., SUPRA.  MOREOVER, IF, AS APPARENTLY WAS THE CASE HERE, THE
CLAIMANT WAS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE AND DID RECEIVE COMPENSATION UNDER THE
UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT (39 STAT. 742, 5 U.S.C. SEC.
751), HE IS BARRED FROM SUING THE UNITED STATES FOR THE TORT.  DAHN V.
DAVIS, 258 U.S. 421.  HE MAY HOWEVER SUE "SOME PERSON OTHER THAN THE
UNITED STATES"; AND IN CASE OF RECOVERY THE AMOUNT IS CREDITED ON THE
COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO HIM.  SEC. 777.  WE MENTION THESE MATTERS AS
ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PRACTICAL IMPACT ON CLAIMANTS IF IT WERE HELD THAT
THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT RESTRICTED ALL SUITS IN CASES LIKE THE
PRESENT TO LIBELS IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ITS WHOLLY
OWNED CORPORATIONS.  WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED
TO MAKE SUCH AN INROAD ON THE RIGHTS OF CLAIMANTS IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO
IN UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS.  THERE IS ONE BIT OF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH IT
IS CLAIMED REVEALS SUCH A PURPOSE.  IT IS A SINGLE STATEMENT MADE BY
REPRESENTATIVE VOLSTEAD, SPONSOR OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE (59 CONG.
REC. 1680):  "MR. WHITE OF MAINE.  WOULD THIS BILL APPLY TO SHIPPING
BOARD VESSELS THAT ARE ALLOCATED TO PRIVATE CONCERNS AND ARE BEING
OPERATED BY PRIVATE CONCERNS?  MR. VOLSTEAD:  YES; IT COVERS ALL SHIPS
OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT."  THE REPLY WAS ACCURATE.  THE ACT DOES COVER
GOVERNMENT SHIPS OPERATED BY PRIVATE CONCERNS.  FOR AS WE HAVE SEEN
SEC. 1 IS APPLICABLE TO THAT SITUATION AS WELL AS TO OTHERS AND TAKES
AWAY THE REMEDY OF A LIBEL IN REM.  BUT IT IS A NON SEQUITUR TO SAY
THAT BECAUSE THE ACT TAKES AWAY THE REMEDY OF LIBEL IN REM IN ALL CASES
INVOLVING GOVERNMENT VESSELS AND RESTRICTS THE REMEDIES AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATIONS, IT MUST BE PRESUMED TO
HAVE ABOLISHED ALL RIGHT TO PROCEED AGAINST ALL OTHER PARTIES. 
CONGRESS IN FASHIONING SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, LIKE THIS COURT IN
INTERPRETING IT IN THE JOHNSON CASE, WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH SUITS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATIONS.  SINCE IT DEALT
UNDER SEC. 2 ONLY WITH LIBELS IN PERSONAM AGAINST THEM, THE ONLY FAIR
ASSUMPTION IS THAT IT LEFT ALL PERSONAL ACTIONS AGAINST OTHERS WHOLLY
UNAFFECTED. 

IT IS CONTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT
STANDS, THE UNITED STATES ULTIMATELY WILL HAVE TO PAY IT BY REASON OF
PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE COMMISSION.  IT
IS THEREFORE URGED THAT THE UNITED STATES IS THE REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST.  WE DO NOT STOP TO INTERPRET THE CONTRACT.  EVEN IF WE
ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE COMMISSION HAS CONTRACTED TO
REIMBURSE THE RESPONDENT FOR SUCH EXPENDITURES, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE
RESULT IN THIS CASE.  THE RIGHT OF THE PRIVATE OPERATOR TO RECOVER OVER
FROM THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE A MATTER OF FAVOR, NOT OF RIGHT, IN
MANY CASES.  FOR APART FROM ANY EXPRESS CONTRACT THE AGENT'S RIGHT OF
EXONERATION OR INDEMNITY HAS NOT BEEN THOUGHT TO EXTEND TO SITUATIONS
WHERE HIS LIABILITY WAS BASED ON HIS OWN FAULT.  4 WILLISTON, CONTRACTS
(1936 ED.), SEC. 1026.  HENCE WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT, IN ALL CASES
WHERE A PRIVATE OPERATOR OF A GOVERNMENT VESSEL UNDER AN AGENCY
AGREEMENT IS SUED, THE UNITED STATES WOULD AS A MATTER OF LAW
ULTIMATELY BE LIABLE TO PAY IN ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION FOR
EXONERATION.  IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS HAD ANY SUCH NOTION
WHEN IT PASSED THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  TO ATTRIBUTE THAT IDEA TO
IT WOULD BE TO GIVE THE ACT A CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD IN PRACTICAL
EFFECT ENCOURAGE THE ASSUMPTION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE OBLIGATIONS
OF PRIVATE PERSONS.  FN3    MOREOVER, IF PETITIONER HAD A CAUSE OF
ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW SHE COULD BE
DEPRIVED OF IT BY REASON OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE
COMMISSION.  IMMUNITY FROM SUIT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH THE LAW
CREATES CANNOT BE SO READILY OBTAINED.  CF. GUARANTY TRUST & S.D. CO.
V. GREEN COVE R. CO., 139 U.S. 137, 143.  THE RIGHTS OF PRINCIPAL AND
AGENT INTER SE ARE NOT THE MEASURE OF THE RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS
AGAINST EITHER OF THEM FOR THEIR TORTS.  IT IS, OF COURSE, TRUE THAT
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS OBTAIN CERTAIN IMMUNITY IN CONNECTION WITH WORK
WHICH THEY DO PURSUANT TO THEIR CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKING WITH THE UNITED
STATES.  YEARSLEY V. ROSS CONSTRUCTION CO., 309 U.S. 18, WAS A RECENT
EXAMPLE.  IN THAT CASE THE CONTRACTOR IN BUILDING DIKES IN THE MISSOURI
RIVER FOR THE UNITED STATES HAD WASHED AWAY A PART OF THE PLAINTIFF'S
LAND.  WE HELD THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE, SAYING (PP. 20-21)
"THAT IF THIS AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT THE PROJECT WAS VALIDLY CONFERRED,
THAT IS, IF WHAT WAS DONE WAS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF
CONGRESS, THERE IS NO LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR
EXECUTING ITS WILL."  BUT HERE THE SITUATION IS QUITE DIFFERENT.  THE
QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE TO
RESPONDENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MANAGING AND OPERATING THE VESSEL AS
ITS AGENT.  IT IS WHETHER RESPONDENT CAN ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR A
NEGLIGENT EXERCISE OF THAT DELEGATED POWER IF WE ASSUME THAT BY
CONTRACT IT WILL BE EXONERATED OR INDEMNIFIED FOR ANY DAMAGES IT MUST
PAY.  AS STATED IN SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. EMERGENCY FLEET CORP.,
SUPRA, PP. 566-567, "THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT ANY PERSON WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION ALWAYS IS AMENABLE TO THE LAW.  IF HE IS SUED FOR CONDUCT
HARMFUL TO THE PLAINTIFF HIS ONLY SHIELD IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF
LAW THAT EXONERATES HIM."  FURTHERMORE, IF THE UNITED STATES WERE TO
BECOME THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST BY REASON OF A CONTRACT FOR
EXONERATION OR INDEMNITY, A BASIC ALTERATION IN THAT CONCEPT (MINNESOTA
V. HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373, 387) WOULD BE MADE, NOT PURSUANT TO A
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY  FN4  BUT BY REASON OF CONCESSIONS MADE BY
CONTRACTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  SUCH A CHANGE WOULD BE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTERESTS OF PRIVATE CLAIMANTS, AS WE HAVE SAID,
SINCE IT WOULD SUBTRACT FROM THE LEGAL REMEDIES WHICH THE LAW HAS
AFFORDED THEM.  BEYOND THAT IT WOULD MAKE THE EXISTENCE OF A RIGHT TO
EXONERATION OR INDEMNITY A JURISDICTIONAL FACT.  THAT COULD HARDLY HELP
BUT COMPLICATE AND DELAY THE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS BASED ON THESE
MARITIME TORTS.  AT LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY TO THAT END, WE CANNOT GO SO FAR. 

WE HOLD THAT THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT DID NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF
THE RIGHT TO SUE RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES FOR HIS MARITIME TORT.  WHETHER
A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IS, OF
COURSE, A DIFFERENT QUESTION, AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN QUINN V.
SOUTHGATE NELSON CORP., SUPRA, INDICATE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
DID NOT REACH THAT QUESTION.  ACCORDINGLY WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND
REMAND THE CAUSE TO IT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  RESPONDENT WAS DESIGNATED AS A MANAGING AGENT FOR THE COMMISSION
AS OWNER "TO MANAGE, OPERATE, AND CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF THE LINE  ...
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AND UNDER ITS SUPERVISION AND
DIRECTION."  RESPONDENT AGREED "TO MAN, EQUIP, VICTUAL, SUPPLY AND
OPERATE THE VESSELS, SUBJECT TO SUCH RESTRICTIONS AND IN SUCH MANNER AS
THE OWNER MAY PRESCRIBE" AND "TO CONDUCT ITS OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
THE VESSELS  ...  IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF
LAW."  RESPONDENT AGREED "SUBJECT TO SUCH REGULATIONS OR METHODS OF
SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION AS MAY BE REQUIRED OR PRESCRIBED" BY THE
COMMISSION TO "EXERCISE REASONABLE CARE AND DILIGENCE TO MAINTAIN THE
VESSELS IN A THOROUGHLY EFFICIENT STATE OF REPAIR, COVERING HULL,
MACHINERY, BOILERS, TACKLE, APPAREL, FURNITURE, EQUIPMENT, AND SPARE
PARTS."  RESPONDENT DID NOT SHARE IN PROFITS BUT WAS ENTITLED TO
REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES UNDER A PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT WHICH
STATED:  "THE OWNER AGREES TO PAY TO THE MANAGING AGENT THE ACTUAL
OVERHEAD EXPENSES OF THE MANAGING AGENT DETERMINED BY THE OWNER TO HAVE
BEEN FAIRLY AND REASONABLY INCURRED AND TO BE PROPERLY APPLICABLE TO
THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S VESSELS UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT." 

FN2  AS TO THE LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS SEE GENERALLY DUNLOP V.
MUNROE, 7 CRANCH 242, 269; OSBORN V. BANK OF UNITED STATES, 9 WHEAT. 
738, 842, 843; WILKES V. DINSMAN, 7 HOW.  89, 123; ROBERTSON V. SICHEL,
127 U.S. 507; SPALDING V. VILAS, 161 U.S. 483; BRISSAC V. LAWRENCE, 2
BLATCHFORD 121; UNITED STATES V. ROGDE, 214 F. 283, 290. 

FN3  THE PROVISION IN SEC. 8 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT THAT ANY
FINAL JUDGMENT "RENDERED IN ANY SUIT HEREIN AUTHORIZED" SHALL BE PAID
"BY THE PROPER ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES" MUST BE TAKEN
TO REFER ONLY TO JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ITS WHOLLY
OWNED CORPORATIONS SINCE UNDER OUR CONSTRUCTION THE ACT DOES NOT
CONTROL OR AFFECT ACTIONS IN PERSONAM AGAINST PRIVATE OPERATORS. 

FN4  CF. CLYDE-MALLORY LINES V. THE EGLANTINE, ANTE, P. 395, IN WHICH
WE HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES BY APPEARING IN AN ACTION FOR LIBEL IN
REM AGAINST A GOVERNMENT VESSEL FOR DAMAGES SUFFERED DURING ITS
OPERATION BY THE UNITED STATES COULD INVOKE THE TWO-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 5 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, EVEN
THOUGH THE UNITED STATES HAD SOLD THE VESSEL TO A PRIVATE OPERATOR.  IN
THAT CASE WE WERE DEALING WITH SEC. 4 OF THE ACT WHICH EXPRESSLY
PROVIDES FOR SUCH AN APPEARANCE IN THAT TYPE OF CASE AND WHICH STATES
THAT "THEREAFTER SUCH CAUSE SHALL PROCEED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  ACCORDINGLY WE STATED,
"THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AS OWNER OF THE VESSEL AND AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT AS THE PARTY IN INTEREST WHEN IT VOLUNTARILY APPEARS TO
DEFEND ITS LATELY SOLD PROPERTY AGAINST TORT LIABILITY." 

REHEARING DENIED. 

NO. 463.  RANIERI V. UNITED STATES. 

REHEARING DENIED. 

NO. 509.  VAN WORMER V. CHAMPION PAPER & FIBRE CO. 

REHEARING DENIED. 

NO. 537.  RODDENBERRY V. FLORIDA. 

REHEARING DENIED. 

NO. 516.  EASTMAN V. GUARANTY TRUST CO. ET AL. 

PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED.  MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS
APPLICATION. 

NO. 349.  LARGENT V. REEVES, CITY MARSHAL. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR REHEARING IS GRANTED, AND
THE PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED.  THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL IS ALSO
DENIED. 

NOS. 26 AND 27.  PFISTER V. NORTHERN ILLINOIS FINANCE CORP. ET AL. 

REHEARING DENIED. 

NO. 507.  HOLIDAY V. UNITED STATES. 

REHEARING DENIED. 

NO. 534.  ORLANDO V. ILLINOIS. 

REHEARING DENIED. 
..END :













TERMINAL ASSN. V. TRAINMEN, 318 U.S. 1 


NO. 218.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 16, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 18, 1943.  -
379 ILL. 403, 41 N.E.2D 481, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION WHICH CONFLICTS OR OCCUPIES
THE FIELD, AS HERE, IT IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF A STATE, IN THE
INTEREST OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF EMPLOYEES, TO REQUIRE A TERMINAL
RAILROAD, THOUGH ENGAGED LARGELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO PROVIDE
CABOOSES ON TRAINS WITHIN THE STATE ON DESIGNATED RUNS.  P. 7. 

NEITHER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, NOR THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PRECLUDES THE STATE REGULATION HERE INVOLVED;
AND, SINCE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS MADE NO RULE OR
REGULATION IN RESPECT OF THE MATTER, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE
EXTENT OF THE COMMISSION'S POWER UNDER THOSE ACTS.  NOR IS THE
REGULATION PRECLUDED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 

2.  THE STATE REGULATION HERE INVOLVED IS NOT RENDERED INVALID BY THE
FACT THAT SOME OF THE RUNS ARE ACROSS STATE LINES AND, BECAUSE OF LACK
OF FACILITIES, THE CABOOSES MUST BE PROVIDED FOR SOME DISTANCE INTO A
NEIGHBORING STATE; NOR BY THE FACT THAT THE REQUIREMENT MAY TO SOME
EXTENT RETARD, OR INCREASE THE COST OF, INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  P.
8. 

TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
TRAINMEN ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH, REVERSING A LOWER STATE COURT,
SUSTAINED AN ORDER OF THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT IS A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN PERFORMING TERMINAL SERVICES
AND FURNISHING TERMINAL FACILITIES IN AND ABOUT EAST ST. LOUIS,
ILLINOIS, TO A NUMBER OF RAILROAD COMPANIES WHICH SHARE ITS OWNERSHIP
AND CONTROL.  IT OPERATES SEVERAL YARDS FOR THE SORTING AND
CLASSIFICATION AND INTERCHANGE OF CARS, WITH SOME SERVICE TO INDUSTRIES
WITHIN THE SWITCHING DISTRICT. 

THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, ONE OF THE APPELLEES,
REPRESENTING TRAINMEN AND SWITCHMEN EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT, COMPLAINED
TO THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION OF APPELLANT'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE
CABOOSE CARS FOR ITS EMPLOYEES.  IN ANSWER THE APPELLANT DENIED THAT
THE COMMISSION HAD POWER TO ENTER ANY ORDER THAT WOULD RELATE TO
MOVEMENTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH IT SAID INCLUDED SUBSTANTIALLY
ALL OF ITS OPERATIONS; AND IT CONTENDED FURTHER THAT IT HAD ALREADY
PROVIDED ALL REASONABLY NECESSARY FACILITIES.  THE ISSUES WERE SHARPLY
CONTESTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND THE EVIDENCE, WHILE IT MAY NOT
HAVE REQUIRED, CERTAINLY PERMITTED THESE CONCLUSIONS: 

APPELLANT'S SWITCHING CREWS MAKE AND BREAK UP TRAINS OF CARS AND
DELIVER AND TRANSFER THEM.  ONE MAN OF EACH CREW IS REQUIRED TO RIDE
THE REAR CAR OF THE TRAIN WHEN IT IS IN MOTION.  DEPENDING UPON THE
DISTANCES BY WHICH FIXED STRUCTURES ALONG THE TRACK CLEAR THIS CAR, HE
RIDES ITS TOP OR SIDE, AND IN SOME PLACES BOTH TOP AND SIDE CLEARANCES
ARE SO SMALL THAT HE MUST RIDE ON THE DRAWBAR PROJECTING FROM THE END
OF THE CAR.  SUDDEN JERKS AND STOPS ARE COMMON AND THEY HAVE ON
OCCASION THROWN OFF SWITCHMEN.  THE DUTIES OF THE REAR SWITCHMAN
INCLUDE LINING SWITCHES INTO POSITION AFTER THE TRAIN HAS PASSED AND
WATCHING STREET AND HIGHWAY CROSSINGS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WHEN THE
TRAIN IS BACKING UP.  IN CASES OF EMERGENCY HE MUST STOP THE TRAIN BY
TURNING AN AIR VALVE LOCATED NEXT TO THE DRAWBAR, WHICH HE CANNOT
READILY OR SAFELY DO IF HE IS RIDING ON THE TOP OR SIDE OF THE CAR. 

DURING SOME SEASONS OF THE YEAR HE IS EXPOSED TO RAIN, SLEET, SNOW
AND ICE, WHICH ALSO COVER THE PARTS OF THE CAR TO WHICH HE MUST CLING
TO STAY ON IT, THUS ADDING TO HIS DIFFICULTIES. 

APPELLANT'S TRAINS, WHEN NOT EQUIPPED WITH CABOOSES, HAVE NO STORAGE
SPACE FOR SAFETY DEVICES, FLAGGING EQUIPMENT, OR FOR EXTRA CLOTHING,
LUNCHES AND DRINKING WATER OF THE MEN; AND THEY PROVIDE NO SPACE IN
WHICH THE MEN CAN PERFORM THEIR CLERICAL DUTIES. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT BY PROVIDING CABOOSES THE APPELLANT COULD
ELIMINATE THE NECESSITY FOR THE REAR SWITCHMEN TO RIDE THE TOPS, SIDES,
OR DRAW-BARS OF THE REAR CARS; AFFORD SAFE AND READY ACCESS TO THE AIR
VALVE; AND PROVIDE SPACE FOR STORAGE AND FOR CLERICAL WORK.  IT FOUND
THAT IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND COMFORT OF THE REAR
SWITCHMEN THAT THE APPELLANT PROVIDE CABOOSES ON ALL OF DESIGNATED RUNS
IN SO FAR AS THEY WERE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE STATE, AND MADE ITS
ORDER ACCORDINGLY.  THE ORDER WAS SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS AS "OBVIOUSLY PROMULGATED TO PROTECT THE LIVES AND HEALTH OF
CITIZENS OF THIS STATE ENGAGED IN APPELLEE'S BUSINESS WITHIN THE
STATE," AND AS NOT IMPOSING AN UNLAWFUL BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN1  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  FN2 

ALL BUT AN INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE CARS IN THE TRAINS ON THE
SPECIFIED RUNS MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SO THAT THE ORDER PERTAINED
TO A MATTER CLEARLY WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THERE HAD BEEN CONGRESSIONAL OCCUPATION OF THE
FIELD BY VIRTUE OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT,  FN3  THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT,  FN4  AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN5 IT IS NOT
CONTENDED, NOR DO WE UNDERSTAND, THAT THESE STATUTES, BY THEMSELVES AND
UNIMPLEMENTED BY ANY ACTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, LAY
DOWN ANY REQUIREMENT THAT CABOOSES SHALL OR SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OF
THE RUNS IN QUESTION.  NOR IS IT CONTENDED THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION ITSELF HAS SOUGHT TO MAKE ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT.  AT LEAST IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ACTION THESE ACTS DO NOT THEMSELVES PRECLUDE THE
STATE ORDER, ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. GEORGIA, 234 U.S. 280; CF. WELCH
CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79, AND IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER ON
THIS OCCASION AND WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION WHAT MAY BE THE EXTENT OF ITS POWER UNDER THESE ACTS.  IF IT
SHOULD IN THE EXERCISE OF GRANTED POWER DETERMINE WHETHER APPELLANT
MUST PROVIDE CABOOSES, THE STATE WOULD BE POWERLESS TO GAINSAY IT.
THIS AND NO MORE IS THE EFFECT OF PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, 250 U.S. 566. 

THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT,  FN6  ALSO RELIED UPON BY APPELLANT, REMAINS
FOR CONSIDERATION AND PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF A DIFFERENT ORDER, NOT
HERETOFORE EXAMINED IN ANY OPINION OF THIS COURT.  FN7  THE PURPOSE OF
THIS ACT IS DECLARED TO BE TO PROVIDE "FOR THE PROMPT AND ORDERLY
SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING
CONDITIONS"; AND "FOR THE PROMPT AND ORDERLY SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES
GROWING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION
OF AGREEMENTS COVERING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS." 
FN8  IT PLACES UPON CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES THE DUTY OF EXERTING EVERY
REASONABLE EFFORT TO SETTLE THESE DISPUTES BY AGREEMENT, AND PROHIBITS
THE CARRIER FROM ALTERING AGREED RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING
CONDITIONS EXCEPT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY THE AGREEMENT OR BY THE ACT
ITSELF.  FN9  MACHINERY IS SET UP FOR THE ADJUSTMENT, MEDIATION, AND
ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES WHICH THE PARTIES DO NOT SUCCEED IN SETTLING
AMONG THEMSELVES.  FN10  THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD
ADJUSTMENT BOARD HAS JURISDICTION OVER DISPUTES INVOLVING TRAIN AND
YARD-SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF CARRIERS, WHICH MAY BE REFERRED TO IT BY
AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES OR BY EITHER PARTY.  FN11  ITS AWARDS ARE
MADE "FINAL AND BINDING" UPON BOTH PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE  FN12  AND
THE CARRIER MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE COURTS TO COMPLY, THE BOARD'S
FINDINGS BEING, IN A PROCEEDING FOR SUCH PURPOSE, PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
OF THE FACTS THEREIN STATED.  FN13 

THE ORDER BEFORE US IS THE OUTGROWTH OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CARRIER
AND ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE
BROTHERHOOD CONTAINS PROVISION FOR CABOOSES FOR CERTAIN TRAINS AND
SERVICES, BUT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THOSE ORDERED BY THE ILLINOIS
COMMISSION.  WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE DEMAND FOR
ADDITIONAL CABOOSE SERVICE AND ITS REFUSAL CONSTITUTE A DISPUTE ABOUT
WORKING CONDITIONS, AND THAT THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION OF IT ON PETITION OF THE EMPLOYEES OR THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE AND MIGHT HAVE MADE AN AWARD SUCH AS THE ORDER IN
QUESTION OR SOME MODIFICATION OF IT.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, SO INTERPRETED, OCCUPIED THE FIELD TO THE EXCLUSION
OF THE STATE ACTION UNDER REVIEW.  WE CONCLUDE THAT IT DOES NOT, AND
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 

THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, LIKE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,  FN14
DOES NOT UNDERTAKE GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION OF WAGES, HOURS, OR WORKING
CONDITIONS.  INSTEAD IT SEEKS TO PROVIDE A MEANS BY WHICH AGREEMENT MAY
BE REACHED WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  THE NATIONAL INTEREST EXPRESSED BY
THOSE ACTS IS NOT PRIMARILY IN THE WORKING CONDITIONS AS SUCH.  SO FAR
AS THE ACT ITSELF IS CONCERNED THESE CONDITIONS MAY BE AS BAD AS THE
EMPLOYEES WILL TOLERATE OR BE MADE AS GOOD AS THEY CAN BARGAIN FOR. 
THE ACT DOES NOT FIX AND DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO FIX GENERALLY
APPLICABLE STANDARDS FOR WORKING CONDITIONS.  THE FEDERAL INTEREST THAT
IS FOSTERED IS TO SEE THAT DISAGREEMENT ABOUT CONDITIONS DOES NOT REACH
THE POINT OF INTERFERING WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE MEDIATION BOARD
AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD ACT TO COMPOSE DIFFERENCES THAT THREATEN
CONTINUITY OF WORK, NOT TO REMOVE CONDITIONS THAT THREATEN THE HEALTH
OR SAFETY OF WORKERS.  CF. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S.
72, 84. 

STATE LAWS HAVE LONG REGULATED A GREAT VARIETY OF CONDITIONS IN
TRANSPORTATION AND INDUSTRY, SUCH AS SANITARY FACILITIES AND
CONDITIONS, SAFETY DEVICES AND PROTECTIONS, PURITY OF WATER SUPPLY,
FIRE PROTECTION, AND INNUMERABLE OTHERS.  ANY OF THESE MATTERS MIGHT,
WE SUPPOSE, BE THE SUBJECT OF A DEMAND BY WORKMEN FOR BETTER PROTECTION
AND UPON REFUSAL MIGHT BE THE SUBJECT OF A LABOR DISPUTE WHICH WOULD
HAVE SUCH EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT FEDERAL AGENCIES MIGHT BE
INVOKED TO DEAL WITH SOME PHASE OF IT.  BUT WE WOULD HARDLY BE EXPECTED
TO HOLD THAT THE PRICE OF THE FEDERAL EFFORT TO PROTECT THE PEACE AND
CONTINUITY OF COMMERCE HAS BEEN TO STRIKE DOWN STATE SANITARY CODES,
HEALTH REGULATIONS, FACTORY INSPECTIONS, AND SAFETY PROVISIONS FOR
INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORTATION.  WE SUPPOSE EMPLOYEES MIGHT CONSIDER THAT
STATE OR MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS OF FIRE ESCAPES, FIRE DOORS, AND FIRE
PROTECTION WERE INADEQUATE AND MAKE THEM THE SUBJECT OF A DISPUTE, AT
LEAST SOME PHASES OF WHICH WOULD BE OF FEDERAL CONCERN.  BUT IT CANNOT
BE THAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY STATE AUTHORITY ARE ALL
SET ASIDE.  WE HOLD THAT THE ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT WAS NOT A PREEMPTION OF THE FIELD OF REGULATING WORKING CONDITIONS
THEMSELVES AND DID NOT PRECLUDE THE STATE OF ILLINOIS FROM MAKING THE
ORDER IN QUESTION. 

WE MUST DECIDE THE QUESTION OF STATE POWER IN THIS CASE IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE ORDER OR MAY BE
SAID TO OCCUPY ITS FIELD. 

THE ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION REQUIRES THAT CABOOSES BE USED ON
APPELLANT'S TRAINS MAKING RUNS OF TWO DIFFERENT SORTS.  RUNS OF THE
FIRST SORT ARE MADE BY TRAINS WHICH, ALTHOUGH THEY BEGIN AND END AND
MAKE THEIR ENTIRE MOVEMENTS WITHIN THE STATE, ARE MADE UP ALMOST
ENTIRELY OF CARS MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  RUNS OF THE SECOND
SORT ARE MADE BY TRAINS WHICH MOVE BETWEEN POINTS IN EAST ST. LOUIS,
ILLINOIS, AND ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, AND CROSS ONE OR THE OTHER OF TWO
BRIDGES SPANNING THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND THE STATE LINE.  ON ITS FACE
THE ORDER REQUIRES ONLY THAT CABOOSES BE USED WITHIN ILLINOIS, AND DOES
NOT REQUIRE THAT THEY BE USED IN MISSOURI.  APPELLANT CONTENDS, AND WE
ASSUME, HOWEVER, THAT THERE DO NOT EXIST, AND THAT IT IS NOT REASONABLY
PRACTICABLE TO INSTALL, FACILITIES FOR TAKING ON AND DROPPING OFF
CABOOSES AT THE POINTS WHERE THE TRAINS CROSS THE STATE LINE; AND THAT
THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORDER IS THAT IF CABOOSES ARE TO BE
USED IN ILLINOIS ON RUNS OF THE SECOND SORT THEY MUST ALSO BE USED AT
LEAST AS FAR AS THE NEAREST SWITCHING POINT IN MISSOURI. 

AS TO BOTH CLASSES OF RUNS, THE EFFECT OF THE ORDER IS IN SOME
MEASURE TO RETARD AND INCREASE THE COST OF MOVEMENTS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY, HOWEVER, THAT THE ORDER IS NECESSARILY
INVALID.  IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTROLLING FEDERAL LEGISLATION THIS COURT
HAS SUSTAINED A WIDE VARIETY OF STATE REGULATIONS OF RAILROAD TRAINS
MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAVING SUCH EFFECT.  FN15  THE GOVERNING
PRINCIPLES WERE RECENTLY STATED IN PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341, 361
363. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT UNDER THESE PRINCIPLES THE ORDER IS VALID AS
TO RUNS OF BOTH SORTS.  IT FINDS ITS ORIGIN IN THE LOCAL CLIMATIC
CONDITIONS AND IN THE HAZARDS CREATED BY PARTICULAR LOCAL PHYSICAL
STRUCTURES, AND IT HAS RATHER OBVIOUS RELATION TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
OF LOCAL WORKMEN.  THE RECORD IN THE CASE DOES NOT AFFORD A SURE BASIS
FOR CALCULATING THE COSTS TO COMMERCE RESULTING FROM THE ORDER AGAINST
THE COSTS TO THE SAFETY AND HEALTH OF THE WORKMEN WHICH IT WAS INTENDED
TO MINIMIZE, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE CASE THAT NEARBY RAILROADS
HAVE SEEN FIT IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGAL COMPULSION TO PROVIDE CABOOSES IN
CIRCUMSTANCES SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE UPON WHICH APPELLANT
RELIES TO ESTABLISH ABSENCE OF STATE POWER. 

IF LACK OF FACILITIES AT THE STATE LINE REQUIRES AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER THAT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CABOOSES IN ILLINOIS APPELLANT MUST
ALSO PROVIDE THEM FOR SOME DISTANCE IN MISSOURI, THAT FACT DOES NOT
PRECLUDE ILLINOIS FROM REGULATING THE OPERATION TO THE LIMITS OF ITS
TERRITORY.  MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 262; CF. SOUTH
COVINGTON & C.S. RY. CO. V. COVINGTON, 235 U.S. 537.  FN16 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  379 ILL. 403, 41 N.E.2D 481. 

FN2  SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

FN3  45 U.S.C. SECS. 22-34. 

FN4  45 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. 

FN5  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ. PARTICULAR RELIANCE IS PUT UPON
PARAGRAPHS (10), (11), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), AND (21) OF SEC.
1, RELATING TO THE COMMISSION'S POWERS IN RESPECT TO CAR SERVICE; AND
UPON PARAGRAPH 2 OF SEC. 20(A), RELATING TO ITS POWERS OVER THE
ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES AND THE ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES THEREON.  WE
HAVE NOT BEEN INFORMED WHETHER SUCH ISSUANCE OR ASSUMPTION IS NEEDED TO
OBTAIN THE CABOOSES WHICH THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION HAS ORDERED TO BE
USED.    FN6  45 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN7  CF. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORWOOD, 283 U.S. 249, 258. 

FN8  45 U.S.C. SEC. 151A. 

FN9  45 U.S.C. SEC. 152, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 7. 

FN10  45 U.S.C. SEC. 153 ET SEQ. 

FN11  45 U.S.C. SEC. 153(H)(I); SEE ALSO SEC. 155. 

FN12  45 U.S.C. SEC. 153(M).    FN13 45 U.S.C. SEC. 153(P). 

FN14  29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN15  SEE CASES CITED IN CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113
114. 

FN16  THIS CASE INVOLVED A STREET-CAR LINE RUNNING BETWEEN COVINGTON,
KENTUCKY, AND CINCINNATI, OHIO, OVER A BRIDGE CONNECTING THE TWO
CITIES.  THE CITY OF COVINGTON REQUIRED THAT:  (1) PASSENGERS MUST NOT
RIDE ON CAR PLATFORMS UNLESS THE PLATFORMS WERE EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE
RAILS AND BARRIERS; (2) THE CARS MUST BE KEPT CLEAN, VENTILATED AND
FUMIGATED; (3) THE TEMPERATURE OF THE AIR IN THE CARS MUST NEVER FALL
BELOW A STATED MINIMUM; (4) IN PRACTICAL EFFECT, THAT ADDITIONAL CARS
MUST BE RUN IN CINCINNATI AS WELL AS IN COVINGTON IN EXCESS OF THE
CINCINNATI FRANCHISE RIGHTS AND IN SUCH MANNER AS TO MAKE PROBABLE THE
CREATION OF SERIOUS IMPEDIMENTS TO OTHER TRAFFIC IN CINCINNATI AND
CONFLICT WITH CINCINNATI REGULATIONS.  THE FIRST TWO REQUIREMENTS WERE
SUSTAINED.  THE THIRD WAS STRUCK DOWN BECAUSE THE OPENING AND CLOSING
OF THE CAR DOORS MADE COMPLIANCE IMPOSSIBLE; THE FOURTH, BECAUSE OF THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT SERIOUS BURDENS WOULD BE IMPOSED UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF COMPLIANCE WITH PROBABLE
CONFLICTING REGULATIONS.  THESE FACTORS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST IN
THE PRESENT CASE. 
..END :





LABOR BOARD V. I. & M. ELECTRIC CO., 318 U.S. 9 


NO. 73.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 16, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 18, 1943.  -
124 F.2D 50, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN APPLICATION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, UNDER SEC. 10(E)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD, IS ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  P. 16. 

2.  ALTHOUGH MISCONDUCT OF THE PARTY MAKING CHARGES OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OF
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A COMPLAINT AND CONDUCT A PROCEEDING, SUCH
MISCONDUCT MAY PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD IN DETERMINING
WHETHER IT SHOULD INSTITUTE OR CONTINUE A PROCEEDING UPON THE CHARGES. 
P. 18. 

3.  AN EMPLOYER WHICH HAD BEEN FOUND GUILTY BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND ORDERED TO DISESTABLISH A
UNION FOUND BY THE BOARD TO BE COMPANY DOMINATED, PETITIONED THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT FOR AN ORDER THAT THE BOARD HEAR AND CONSIDER NEW
EVIDENCE OF A COURSE OF DEPREDATIONS, INCLUDING DYNAMITINGS, COMMITTED
UPON THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE BEFORE THE
BOARD.  IT APPEARED THAT AN OFFICER AND A MEMBER OF THE UNION WHICH
FILED THE CHARGES UPON WHICH THE BOARD INSTITUTED ITS PROCEEDINGS HAD
BEEN CONVICTED OF PARTICIPATION IN THE DEPREDATIONS, AND THAT THEY AND
OTHERS AFFILIATED WITH THIS UNION AND IN CLOSE RELATION TO THEM HAD
TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD; AND IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE
DEPREDATIONS WERE PART OF A CONSPIRACY OF THIS UNION TO INFLUENCE THE
CASE.  THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN GRANTING THE
PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE NEW EVIDENCE WAS MATERIAL TO THE
CREDIBILITY OF BOARD WITNESSES AND ON THE ISSUE OF COMPANY DOMINATION,
HELD, UPON A REVIEW OF THE WHOLE RECORD, NOT TO CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF
ITS DISCRETION.  P. 29. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. INDIANA & MICHIGAN ELECTRIC CO. ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 657, TO REVIEW A DECREE REMANDING A CAUSE TO THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WITH DIRECTIONS TO HEAR ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.  SEE 20 N.L.R.B. 989. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT BELOW GRANTED RESPONDENT INDIANA AND MICHIGAN ELECTRIC
COMPANY'S PETITION TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE LABOR BOARD TO HEAR
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS TO A COURSE OF DEPREDATIONS, INCLUDING
DYNAMITINGS, COMMITTED, IT IS ALLEGED, BY LOCAL B-9 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ON THE COMPANY'S
PROPERTIES DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE.  IT DIRECTED THAT THE BOARD
MAKE FINDINGS ON SUCH EVIDENCE, INCLUDE IT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, AND MAKE
SUCH MODIFICATIONS, IF ANY, IN ITS ORDER, AS THE EVIDENCE MIGHT
REQUIRE.  THE COURT EXPRESSLY REFRAINED FROM PASSING ON QUESTIONS AS TO
THE BIAS AND PARTISANSHIP OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF
THE FINDINGS AND OF THE EVIDENCE, RAISED BY THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT AND THE ANSWER THERETO.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
RAISED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT PROMPTED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  FN1 

FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE TAKE TO BE TRUE THE FACTS STATED IN THE
PETITION OR OFFER OF PROOF ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE COURT BELOW
DIRECTED A REMAND.  THESE FACTS WERE STATED ON OATH, AND HAVE NOT BEEN
DENIED.  PETITIONER SAYS THAT WE MUST HOLD THAT EVEN IF TRUE THEY ARE
IMMATERIAL.  ON THIS ASSUMPTION OF TRUTH THE CASE IS AS FOLLOWS: 

ON NOVEMBER 12, 1938, SAMUEL GUY, THE BUSINESS MANAGER OF LOCAL B-9
OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, FILED IN
AMENDED FORM WITH THE BOARD CHARGES THAT THE COMPANY HAD BEEN GUILTY OF
SEVERAL UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  ON THE SAME DAY THE BOARD THROUGH ITS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR ISSUED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE COMPANY, SETTING
NOVEMBER 28, 1938, AS A HEARING DATE, AND EVENTS OF VIOLENCE ENSUED IN
THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE AS RELATED TO THE COMPANY'S STEPS IN DEFENSE OF
THE CASE: 

THE COMPANY FILED ITS ANSWER ON NOVEMBER 23, 1938.  ON THE FOLLOWING
DAY, FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, CABLES AT ONE OF THE COMPANY'S SOUTH
BEND SUBSTATIONS WERE DYNAMITED.  THE HEARINGS PROCEEDED, AND THE TRIAL
EXAMINER'S INTERMEDIATE REPORT RECOMMENDED GENERALLY AGAINST THE
COMPANY. 

ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1939, THE COMPANY FILED ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE
INTERMEDIATE REPORT.  ON SEPTEMBER 5, THREE OF ITS TRANSMISSION LINE
POLES WERE SAWED OFF, AND ON SEPTEMBER 8, A TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER WAS
DYNAMITED.  ON OCTOBER 17, 1939, THE ORAL HEARING ON THE EXCEPTIONS WAS
SET BEFORE THE BOARD AT WASHINGTON FOR NOVEMBER 9, 1939.  TWO DAYS
LATER ANOTHER TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER WAS DYNAMITED.  ON OCTOBER 28,
TWO TRANSMISSION POLES AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS WERE DYNAMITED.  ANOTHER
TRANSMISSION TOWER WAS SO DESTROYED ON OCTOBER 30, TEN DAYS BEFORE THE
ORAL HEARING, AND TWO MORE AT DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SYSTEM ON NOVEMBER
23, 1939.  ALL CARRIED HIGH VOLTAGE LINES, AND SOME WERE LOCATED ALONG
PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OR RAILROAD TRACKS. 

ON FEBRUARY 19, 1940, THE COMPANY FILED WITH THE BOARD A PETITION TO
REOPEN THE CASE AND RECEIVE FURTHER EVIDENCE.  THIS PETITION ALLEGED
THE COMMISSION OF THE DEPREDATIONS UPON ITS PROPERTY AS SET FORTH ABOVE
AND FURTHER THAT:  JOHN R. MARKS, ASSISTANT BUSINESS MANAGER OF LOCAL B
9, AND EARL FREEMAN, ONE OF ITS MEMBERS, BOTH OF WHOM HAD BEEN
WITNESSES AGAINST THE COMPANY, AND THREE OTHERS, WERE ARRESTED AFTER
FEBRUARY 1, 1940, AND CHARGED WITH THE COMMISSION OF SOME OR ALL OF THE
DEPREDATIONS, AND WITH HAVING CONSPIRED TO COMMIT THEM ALL.  EXCEPT
MARKS, EACH HAD MADE CONFESSIONS STATING THAT MARKS PAID THEM SUMS OF
MONEY AGGREGATING $2,325 FOR COMMITTING SUCH ACTS.  ONE OF THEM STATED
THAT MARKS HAD CAUSED THE FIRST DYNAMITING TO INTIMIDATE THE COMPANY IN
CONNECTION WITH THE HEARING AND THREE STATED THAT HE HAD CAUSED THE
LATER ONES TO INTIMIDATE IT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ORAL ARGUMENT.  THE
COMPANY PROPOSED BY THE EVIDENCE OF DYNAMITING TO DISCREDIT MARKS AND
FREEMAN, ON WHOSE TESTIMONY THE TRIAL EXAMINER APPEARED TO RELY.  IT
ALSO SOUGHT TO DISCREDIT GUY, WHO ALSO HAD BEEN A WITNESS, ON THE CLAIM
THAT HE KNEW, OR MUST HAVE KNOWN, OF THE USE OF THE $2,325 OF THE
UNION'S MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY.  BUT
IT CLAIMED MORE.  IT ASSERTED EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY
PROPERTY TO INFLUENCE THE PENDING CASE, WHICH IT CONTENDED WAS NOT A
GOOD-FAITH LABOR CONTROVERSY, BUT AN UNLAWFUL EFFORT OF LOCAL B-9 TO
COERCE THE COMPANY TO REQUIRE ITS EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE UNION. 

ON FEBRUARY 28, 1940, THE BOARD DENIED THE COMPANY'S PETITION.  IT
HELD THAT "THE MATTERS RECITED THEREIN HAVE NO RELATION TO THE ISSUES
IN THIS PROCEEDING."  THE BOARD WENT ON TO MAKE FINDINGS ON THE ISSUES,
EXPRESSLY RECITING THAT IT DID SO "UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE
CASE."  WHILE THE BOARD DID NOT DESIGNATE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY FOR
PRINTING, IT HAS CERTIFIED IT ALL TO US, IT HAS STRICKEN NO TESTIMONY
OF ANY WITNESS IN QUESTION FROM THE RECORD AND HAS MADE NO FINDING THAT
ANY SPECIFIC PARTS OF IT WERE NOT RELIED UPON.  FN2 

THE REPORT OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER, DUDLEY, HAD HELD THE COMPANY'S
ATTITUDE TO BE HOSTILE AND OBSTRUCTIVE TOWARD THE EFFORT TO UNIONIZE
ITS MEN, RELYING SUBSTANTIALLY ON EVENTS AS TO WHICH GUY, MARKS, AND
FREEMAN HAD TESTIFIED.  THE BOARD FINDINGS MADE BUT LITTLE REFERENCE TO
THE ACTIVITIES OF GUY AND NO REFERENCE AT ALL TO MARKS, BUT REACHED THE
SAME CONCLUSION AS TO THE ATTITUDE OF THE COMPANY.  THE EXAMINER HAD
RECOMMENDED ORDERING IMMEDIATE AND FULL REINSTATEMENT OF FREEMAN AND
THAT HE BE MADE WHOLE FOR ALL LOST WAGES.  THE BOARD DID NOT FOLLOW
THAT RECOMMENDATION.  THE EXAMINER HAD RECOMMENDED AN ORDER THAT THE
COMPANY WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION FROM RESPONDENT MICHIANA ASSOCIATION
AS REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES UPON THE GROUND OF COMPANY PROMOTION AND
DOMINATION, AND THE BOARD SO FOUND AND SO ORDERED.  THE EXAMINER HAD
ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMPANY BE ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST
COERCING EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RIGHT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO "JOIN OR
ASSIST THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B
9."  THE BOARD ORDER DROPPED THE NAME OF THE UNION, BUT ORDERED
RESPONDENT GENERALLY TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM INTERFERING WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT "TO JOIN OR ASSIST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS." 

ON DECEMBER 13, 1940, THE BOARD PETITIONED FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS
ORDER AND ON JULY 29, 1941, THE COMPANY PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR A REMAND TO THE BOARD PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(E) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THIS PETITION REFERRED TO THE EARLIER
PETITION TO THE BOARD AND SET FORTH UNDER OATH IN ADDITION THAT:
MARKS, FREEMAN AND ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE BROTHERHOOD HAD BEEN CONVICTED
OF ONE OF THE DYNAMITINGS DESCRIBED IN THE PETITION AND SENTENCED TO
TERMS OF FROM TWO TO FOURTEEN YEARS IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY; AND TWO
OTHERS HAD PLEADED GUILTY OF OTHER OF THE DEPREDATIONS.  MARKS HAD SAID
HE OBTAINED ALL OF THE MONEY TO PURCHASE DYNAMITE AND PAY THE
DYNAMITERS FROM THE TREASURY OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL B-9.  THE PETITION ALSO RECITED THAT DURING THE HEARINGS
THE TRIAL EXAMINER ASKED A CONFERENCE WITH THE COMPANY ATTORNEY AND
URGED SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE.  HE WAS TOLD OF THE DYNAMITING OF
NOVEMBER 24, 1938, AND GIVEN REFERENCES TO ARTICLES ABOUT THE PRACTICES
AND METHODS OF THE OFFICERS OF THIS UNION, AND TO THE RECORD IN BOYLE
V. UNITED STATES, 259 F. 803, IN WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT HAD AFFIRMED A CONVICTION OF MICHAEL J. BOYLE, ITS
INTERNATIONAL VICE-PRESIDENT, AND SEVERELY CONDEMNED HIS METHODS IN
LABOR MATTERS.  THE EXAMINER REPLIED, "WELL, YOUR COMPANY WILL BE
REQUIRED SOME TIME TO RECOGNIZE B-9 AND YOU MIGHT AS WELL DO IT NOW." 
ON THREE SEPARATE LATER OCCASIONS DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS OR OFFICERS OF
THE BOARD WERE INFORMED OF THE DEPREDATIONS, BUT CONTINUED TO URGE THE
COMPANY TO CEASE RESISTANCE IN THE CASE.  THE TRUTH OF THESE STATEMENTS
HAS NOT BEEN DENIED.  FINALLY, THE COMPANY ASSERTED IN ITS PETITION TO
THE COURT THAT ON REOPENING IT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE BOARD'S
WITNESSES (NOT LIMITED TO GUY AND MARKS AND FREEMAN) WERE OF SUCH
CHARACTER THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT AND BELIEF, AND THAT THE
CASE HAD NO RELATION TO THE PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT. 

THE COURT BELOW STATED AS ONE GROUND OF THE COMPANY'S CASE FOR REMAND
THAT THE TENDERED EVIDENCE WAS MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF "IMPEACHING
THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES BEFORE THE BOARD ON WHOSE TESTIMONY THE
BOARD RELIED FOR ITS FINDING OF ULTIMATE FACTS."  AFTER REFERRING TO
THE TESTIMONY OF GUY AND MARKS, IT SAID THAT "AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL,
THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON THE TRIAL OF THE CRIMINAL CASES IN THE INDIANA
STATE COURT INVOLVING THESE WITNESSES, WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENT
OR TO THE BOARD.  THE NEW EVIDENCE IS OF SUCH CHARACTER THAT ITS
CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD WOULD PROBABLY PRODUCE A DIFFERENT RESULT." 
IN SUPPORT OF ITS REMAND IT WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES HAD BEEN FOUND BY THE BOARD
TO CONSTITUTE COERCION ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY "WERE ACTING ON THEIR
OWN BEHALF AND THAT OF THEIR CO-EMPLOYEES, OR AT THE BEHEST OF THE
RESPONDENT, IS THE CRUX OF THE CASE.  ...  THE NEW EVIDENCE MAY THROW
SOME LIGHT ON THE ISSUE OF EMPLOYER DOMINATION." 

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO ORDER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN WHEN
IT IS SHOWN "TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL," AND THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE
FAILURE TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING.  FN3  IN SOUTHPORT
PETROLEUM CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 315 U.S. 100, 104, WE SUSTAINED THE
BOARD'S CONTENTION AND HELD THAT AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THEREUNDER "WAS ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION OF THE COURT."  THE BOARD DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT A DIFFERENT
CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PUT UPON THE ACT WHEN THE COURT BELOW DECIDES
AGAINST, RATHER THAN FOR, IT.  THE QUESTION IT HAS SUBMITTED FOR OUR
DECISION IS WHETHER THE COURT BELOW "ACTED ARBITRARILY" AND "ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION."  THUS, IN ORDER TO DECIDE THIS CASE IN FAVOR OF THE BOARD
WE WOULD HAVE TO HOLD NOT MERELY THAT THE EVIDENCE OF DYNAMITING WOULD
BE A MATTER OF INDIFFERENCE IN OUR OWN VIEW OF THE CASE, BUT THAT THE
COURT DESIGNATED BY STATUTE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION IN THE MATTER AND
WHICH DESIRED TO KNOW THE FACTS ABOUT IT BEFORE PASSING ON THE
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE EXAMINER AND
WHICH THOUGHT THE FINDER OF THE FACTS SHOULD HEAR AND CONSIDER SUCH
EVIDENCE, MUST NOT ONLY HAVE BEEN IN ERROR BUT MUST ALSO HAVE ABUSED
ITS JUDICIAL DISCRETION. 

THE BOARD ARGUES THAT THE DECISION BELOW MUST BE REVERSED ON THE
GROUNDS THAT THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT MISCONDUCT OF THE
COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE BOARD WOULD GO TO THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION;
THAT, AS IT CONTENDS, THE COURT HELD THAT A REMAND MIGHT RESULT IN THE
IMPEACHMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF GUY, MARKS AND FREEMAN, WHOSE
TESTIMONY WAS EITHER CUMULATIVE (BEING CORROBORATED BY OTHER WITNESSES)
OR ENTIRELY IMMATERIAL AND NOT RELIED UPON BY THE BOARD; AND THAT THERE
IS OTHER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S
DECISION.  THE SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
DID NOT, HOWEVER, TAKE THIS NARROW COMPASS, BUT EXTENDED TO THE
PROPRIETY OF THE RULING OF THE COURT BELOW UPON THE WHOLE CASE.  FN4
WE HAVE NOT CONFINED OURSELVES TO THE SCOPE OF THE BOARD'S VIEW OF THE
CASE, AND HAVE EXAMINED ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT,
AND NOT MERELY THE EVIDENCE SET FORTH IN THE PRINTED RECORD.  FN5 

WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT
THE EVIDENCE MIGHT DISQUALIFY LOCAL B-9 FROM MAKING THE CHARGE OF
VIOLATION AGAINST THE COMPANY OR DEPRIVE THE CHARGE OF FORCE AND
EFFECT, AND THEREBY DEFEAT THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASE. 

THE ACT REQUIRES A CHARGE BEFORE THE BOARD MAY ISSUE A COMPLAINT, BUT
OMITS ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE CHARGE BE FILED BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION
OR AN EMPLOYEE.  FN6  IN THE LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS SENATOR WAGNER,
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, STRONGLY OBJECTED TO A LIMITATION ON THE CLASSES
OF PERSONS WHO COULD LODGE COMPLAINTS WITH THE BOARD.  HE SAID IT WAS
OFTEN NOT PRUDENT FOR THE WORKMAN HIMSELF TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST
HIS EMPLOYER, AND THAT STRANGERS TO THE LABOR CONTRACT WERE THEREFORE
PERMITTED TO MAKE THE CHARGE.  FN7  THE CHARGE IS NOT PROOF.  IT MERELY
SETS IN MOTION THE MACHINERY OF AN INQUIRY.  WHEN A BOARD COMPLAINT
ISSUES, THE QUESTION IS ONLY THE TRUTH OF ITS ACCUSATIONS.  THE CHARGE
DOES NOT EVEN SERVE THE PURPOSE OF A PLEADING.  DUBIOUS CHARACTER, EVIL
OR UNLAWFUL MOTIVES, OR BAD FAITH OF THE INFORMER CANNOT DEPRIVE THE
BOARD OF ITS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT THE INQUIRY.    WHILE WE HOLD THAT
MISCONDUCT OF THE UNION WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE BOARD OF JURISDICTION,
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE BOARD MAY NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER SUCH
MISCONDUCT AS MATERIAL TO ITS OWN DECISION TO ENTERTAIN AND PROCEED
UPON THE CHARGE.  THE BOARD HAS WIDE DISCRETION IN THE ISSUE OF
COMPLAINTS.  INDEED IT DID NOT ACT ON A CHARGE EARLIER MADE BY THE
C.I.O. AGAINST THE SAME EMPLOYER.  IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE TO
MOVE ON EVERY CHARGE; IT IS MERELY ENABLED TO DO SO.  FN8  IT MAY
DECLINE TO BE IMPOSED UPON OR TO SUBMIT ITS PROCESS TO ABUSE.  THE
BOARD MIGHT PROPERLY WITHHOLD OR DISMISS ITS OWN COMPLAINT IF IT SHOULD
APPEAR THAT THE CHARGE IS SO RELATED TO A COURSE OF VIOLENCE AND
DESTRUCTION, CARRIED ON FOR THE PURPOSE OF COERCING AN EMPLOYER TO HELP
HERD ITS EMPLOYEES INTO THE COMPLAINING UNION, AS TO CONSTITUTE AN
ABUSE OF THE BOARD'S PROCESS. 

THE COMPANY CLAIMS SUPPORT FOR THIS INFERENCE AS TO THE PURPOSE OF
THE ORGANIZERS IN THE TESTIMONY OF GUY, BUSINESS MANAGER OF LOCAL B-9. 
IT APPEARS THAT HE AND MARKS, HIS ASSISTANT, CALLED ON THOMAS F.
ENGLISH, OPERATING HEAD OF THE COMPANY, IN THE SPRING OF 1937.  GUY
TESTIFIED THAT THE PURPOSE WAS "ALONG THE LINES" OF GETTING THE
ASSISTANCE OF ENGLISH IN CAUSING THE EMPLOYEES TO COME INTO LOCAL B-9
INSTEAD OF INTO A C.I.O. UNION OR AN INDEPENDENT UNION.  GUY SAID, "WE
DECIDED" TO "TAKE OVER THE ORGANIZATION" OF THE MEN, THAT "WE HAD
JURISDICTION IN THIS PARTICULAR COMMUNITY OR PART OF THE STATE, AND IF
THEY WERE GOING TO BE ORGANIZED THAT THEY RIGHTFULLY BELONGED IN OUR
ORGANIZATION."  THEIR PROPOSITION TO THE COMPANY THAT IT CAUSE THE MEN
TO JOIN LOCAL B-9 WAS A PROPOSAL TO VIOLATE THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT THE WORKMEN FROM EMPLOYER
PRESSURE AND LEAVE THEM FREE TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER, AND WITH
WHOM, THEY WILL ASSOCIATE.  THE COMPANY REFUSED, AND ENGLISH LATER
WARNED THAT THE ORGANIZERS MUST CEASE REPRESENTING TO THE MEN THAT THE
COMPANY FAVORED LOCAL B-9. 

LATER ANOTHER MEETING WAS CALLED BY A FIELD EXAMINER FOR THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ATTENDED BY THE FIELD EXAMINER, GUY, MARKS AND
COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES.  ON QUESTIONING, GUY RECALLED THAT BOYLE, VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE BROTHERHOOD, HAD ALSO BEEN THERE.  THE COMPANY
ATTORNEY MADE AN OFFER OF PROOF AT THE HEARING THAT THIS MEETING WAS
HELD ON MAY 5, 1938, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE FIELD EXAMINER, WHO STATED
THAT A SERIES OF INCIDENTS RECITED CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION BY THE
COMPANY OF THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND "ASKED MR. BOYLE WHAT
RECOMMENDATION HE WOULD MAKE."  THE TRIAL EXAMINER REJECTED THE PROOF. 
FN9 

APART FROM THE MATERIALITY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE QUESTION
OF THE BOARD'S DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER IT WOULD INSTITUTE OR CONTINUE
A CASE ON THE RECOMMENDATION AND CHARGES OF THIS INFORMER UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES NOW APPEARING, ITS MATERIALITY ON OTHER BRANCHES OF THE
CASE IS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION IN ORDERING TAKING OF NEW TESTIMONY.  WE THINK THIS COURSE
OF VIOLENCE AND LAWLESSNESS CONCURRENT WITH THE BOARD PROCEEDINGS,
APPARENTLY INSTIGATED BY THOSE WHO STAND TO GAIN FROM THE BOARD'S
DECISIONS, PARTICIPATED IN BY PARTIES AND WITNESSES, MAY NOT BE SAID TO
LACK POSSIBLE MATERIALITY ON OTHER ISSUES OF THE CASE.  THE QUESTION
GOES TO THE FAIRNESS OF GIVING ABSOLUTE FINALITY TO THE BOARD'S
FINDINGS OF FACT WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A REFUSAL TO HEAR AND INCORPORATE
IN THE RECORD SUCH EVIDENCE AS MAY BE PRODUCED OF SUCH A CONSPIRACY. 

THE TESTIMONY ORDERED TO BE HEARD GOES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF MARKS
AND FREEMAN, AND PERHAPS TO THAT OF GUY, THREE WITNESSES WHOM THE
BOARD'S STAFF THOUGHT USEFUL TO CALL, AND ON WHOM THE EXAMINER PLAINLY
RELIED.  THE BOARD EXPRESSLY ACCEPTED AND RELIED UPON THE VERSION OF
EVENTS AS TO WHICH GUY TESTIFIED.  FN10  LOCAL B-9 WAS A PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDING AND APPEARED THROUGHOUT THE HEARINGS BY GUY, WHO MANAGED ITS
INTERESTS.  HE, THE BUSINESS MANAGER, WAS THE FIRST WITNESS; AND MARKS,
HIS ASSISTANT, THE SECOND.  ASIDE FROM ENGLISH, OPERATING HEAD OF THE
COMPANY, AND EMPLOYEES WHO WERE MEMBERS OF WHAT THE BOARD FOUND TO BE A
COMPANY-DOMINATED UNION,  FN11  THE BOARD CALLED TWENTY WITNESSES.  OF
THESE, FOURTEEN BESIDES GUY, MARKS AND FREEMAN, WERE AFFILIATED WITH
LOCAL B-9.  FN12  OF THESE FOURTEEN, EIGHT HAD COME TO WORK SHORTLY
BEFORE OR DURING LOCAL B-9'S ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN WHICH, AS GUY AND
MARKS TESTIFIED AND THE BOARD FOUND, BEGAN IN THE FALL OF 1935.  FN13
ONE OF THESE, BUCKLEY, ADMITTED KNOWING BOYLE, AND MARKS TESTIFIED THAT
HE KNEW BUCKLEY BEFORE HE CAME TO WORK FOR THE COMPANY.  MARKS ALSO
TESTIFIED THAT HE BEGAN ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORTS BY GETTING IN TOUCH WITH
BUCKLEY AND SHIELDS, WHO, LIKE BUCKLEY, CAME TO WORK IN 1935.  BUCKLEY
CALLED THE FIRST MEETING FOR LOCAL B-9 AMONG THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES. 
EDWARDS, AN OFFICER OF LOCAL B-9, WAS ANOTHER OF THE NEW EMPLOYEES WHO
FIGURED IN THE CASE.  HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD KNOWN MARKS FOR
APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS AND HAD SEEN HIM "QUITE A NUMBER OF TIMES" AND
IN "A NUMBER OF PLACES."  OTIS, ANOTHER 1935 ARRIVAL, WENT FROM
CHICAGO, WHERE HE WAS EMPLOYED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, TO SOUTH
BEND TO SEE A SICK FRIEND WHOM HE HAD NOT SEEN OR CORRESPONDED WITH FOR
A YEAR.  ON THE WAY HE HAPPENED TO SEE EDWARDS OUT IN A FIELD HUNTING,
AND TALKED TO HIM THERE.  THIS WAS AROUND THANKSGIVING TIME OF 1938. 
THE SOUTH BEND SUBSTATION WAS DYNAMITED NOVEMBER 24, 1938.  THE COMPANY
ATTORNEY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ASKED "WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT?"  OTIS
ANSWERED:  "THAT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS EITHER."  THE BOARD ATTORNEY
THEN OBJECTED TO THE QUESTION, WHICH WAS NEVER ANSWERED BEYOND A DENIAL
THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT THE COMPANY.  OTIS WAS TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS OLD AT
THE TIME OF THE HEARING AND HAD WORKED FOR AT LEAST TEN PUBLIC UTILITY
CONCERNS AND ONE MANUFACTURING PLANT IN A SHORT PERIOD.  ASKED ON CROSS
EXAMINATION THE REASON FOR HIS PECULIARLY ACUTE MEMORY IN RESPECT TO
THE PERIOD OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BY ANOTHER ELECTRIC COMPANY, HE ANSWERED
THAT IT WAS BECAUSE "AN INCIDENT HAPPENED THAT ISN'T ANY AFFAIR OF THE
COURT."  FREEMAN, ONE OF THOSE CONVICTED OF THE DYNAMITING, WAS A
WITNESS, TESTIFIED AT LENGTH AS TO ALLEGED UNFAIR PRACTICES OF THE
COMPANY, AS DID OTHERS AFFILIATED WITH LOCAL B-9, INCLUDING THOSE
MENTIONED ABOVE. 

IT IS IDLE IN THIS CONTEXT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THE BOARD NOW DENIES
IT RELIED ON THE EVIDENCE OF THE TWO WHO WERE CONVICTED, BECAUSE IT WAS
WILLING TO OMIT THEIR TESTIMONY FROM THE RECORD, AND BECAUSE IT
REJECTED THE EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED RELIEF TO FREEMAN, THE DOOR SHOULD
BE CLOSED TO ANY INQUIRY ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR RESPONSIBILITY OF
MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP FOR THESE ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  THE ITEMS RECITED
AND MANY OTHERS REVEALED BY THE TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY, AS WELL AS THE
PRINTED RECORD, GIVE SUPPORT FOR THE LOWER COURT'S BELIEF THAT THE
EVIDENCE, IF TAKEN, MIGHT CHANGE THE RESULTS.  THE CONVICTED WITNESSES
AND MANY OF THE OTHERS ON WHOM THE BOARD MUST HAVE RELIED WERE NOT ONLY
CO-MEMBERS OF LOCAL B-9, BUT THEY WERE COOPERATING IN PROMOTING ITS
FIGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY.  IT IS UNREALISTIC TO SAY THAT THIS UNION
WAS GRANTED NOTHING BY THE BOARD'S ORDER OR THAT NO RELIEF HAS BEEN
GIVEN TO THIS PARTICULAR UNION.  THE C.I.O. HAD PRACTICALLY WITHDRAWN
N14 AND THE BOARD'S ORDER DISESTABLISHES RESPONDENT MICHIANA.  THIS NOT
ONLY LEAVES THE FIELD FREE TO LOCAL B-9 AND BREAKS UP THE ONLY CENTER
OF RESISTANCE TO IT, BUT THE BOARD PROHIBITS ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THE
EMPLOYEES' RIGHT "TO JOIN OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS."  THAT
INCLUDES THIS ONE, AND FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES AT THIS TIME, NONE
OTHER.  LOCAL B-9 WAS THE COMPLAINANT, ITS EFFORT TO ORGANIZE WAS AT
STAKE, AND THE RELATIONS SHOWN ARE SUCH THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE WITNESSES HAD ANY PART IN SUCH VIOLENCE WOULD
APPEAR PROPER.  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT NOT ONLY IS THE CREDIBILITY
OF THESE MEN INVOLVED, BUT THE DECISION ITSELF TURNS ON AN
INTERPRETATION OF THEIR ACTS AND OF THE ACTS AND ATTITUDES OF
SUPERVISORS TOWARD THEM AND WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES WERE IN GOOD FAITH IN
TESTIFYING TO THE REASONS FOR PREFERRING AN ASSOCIATION OF THEIR OWN TO
LOCAL B-9.  WE SEE NO REASON WHY WITNESSES SO IDENTIFIED WITH THE
ORGANIZING EFFORT OF THE DYNAMITERS SHOULD NOT BE QUESTIONED ON A
SUBJECT THAT MIGHT REVEAL BIAS IN THEIR TESTIMONY AND MIGHT ALSO
EXPLAIN ACTS OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM. 

WE ESPECIALLY SEE NO REASON FOR HOLDING THAT OFFICERS OR MEMBERS OF
LOCAL B-9 SHOULD BE SPARED SUCH INQUIRY WHEN THE SUBJECT WAS THOUGHT BY
THE TRIAL EXAMINER A FIT ONE ON WHICH TO EXAMINE THE HEAD OF THE
EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION.  ONE GEORGE S. HOLMES WAS PRESIDENT OF
RESPONDENT MICHIANA, WHICH THE BOARD HOLDS TO BE THE PRODUCT OF
UNLAWFUL COMPANY ACTIVITY AND ORDERS TO BE DISESTABLISHED.  HE WAS A
DISTRIBUTION ENGINEER WHO HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY FOR MANY
YEARS.  AFTER TESTIFYING TO HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASONS FOR THE
FORMATION OF MICHIANA AS BEING THE FACT OF OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS
"CREATING A DISTURBANCE AND JEOPARDIZING THE PRESENT WORKING
CONDITIONS," THE RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF DUES  FN15  AND DIRECTNESS OF
APPROACH TO THE COMPANY OFFICIALS THROUGH MICHIANA,  FN16  HE WAS
QUESTIONED BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER.  ONE OF THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE
TRIAL EXAMINER WAS "SUPPOSING THAT THERE WAS AN ORGANIZATION FORMED TO
THROW BOMBS AT THE COMPANY'S PLANT EVERY SATURDAY NIGHT, WOULD YOU
BECOME PRESIDENT OF SUCH AN ORGANIZATION?"  HOLMES SAID THAT HE DOUBTED
THAT EXTREMELY.  THE EXAMINER ALSO ASKED HIM, IN CONNECTION WITH HIS
ATTITUDE AS TO THE PROPER TECHNIQUE OF BARGAINING WITH THE COMPANY,
"WOULD YOU SUGGEST CUTTING DOWN ELECTRICITY AND TURNING OFF ELECTRIC
LIGHTS?"  HE WAS TOLD BY HOLMES THAT "  ...  IF YOU GET THE ENTIRE
COMMUNITY ADVERSELY PREJUDICED AGAINST YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE TOUGH GOING,
REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU ACTED TOWARD THE COMPANY."  IF QUESTIONING AS TO
HYPOTHETICAL BOMBINGS WAS DEEMED MATERIAL AND RELEVANT TO DISCREDIT
HOLMES' CLAIM OF INDEPENDENCE OF COMPANY DOMINATION, WHICH IS THE ONLY
PURPOSE APPARENT, WE WOULD THINK IT A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO CONTEND THAT
IT IS IMPROPER TO INQUIRE AS TO THE ATTITUDES OF THOSE CLOSELY
ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE CONVICTED OF ACTUAL BOMBINGS AS TO THEIR
KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE IN RELATION TO THEM. 

IT IS AT LEAST REASONABLY CONCEIVABLE THAT FURTHER INQUIRY INTO THE
DEPREDATIONS WILL BEAR NOT ONLY UPON THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN THE
TESTIMONY OF ANY FURTHER PARTICIPANTS OR CONSPIRATORS THEREBY
DISCLOSED, BUT ALSO UPON THAT OF WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONY MIGHT
WITHOUT SUCH INQUIRY BE TAKEN TO INDICATE COMPANY DOMINATION OF
MICHIANA.  MANY SUPERVISORY AND OTHER EMPLOYEES VOICED OPPOSITION TO
THE INTRUSION OF "OUTSIDERS" INTO THEIR AFFAIRS.  FN17  PRESENT
KNOWLEDGE AND FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE DEPREDATIONS SEEM NOT
ALTOGETHER UNLIKELY TO LEND CREDIBILITY TO THEIR TESTIMONY THAT THEY
HAD ACTED TO PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS AND NOT AS PARTICIPANTS IN
COMPANY INTERFERENCE.  TESTIMONY OF EMPLOYEES THAT THEY ORGANIZED
MICHIANA BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WISH TO ACCEPT THE LEADERSHIP OF LOCAL B
9, AND THAT MICHIANA WAS THE PRODUCT OF THEIR OWN PREFERENCE RATHER
THAN OF COMPANY PRESSURE OR INTERFERENCE, HAS BEEN WHOLLY DISBELIEVED
BY THE BOARD.  IT MIGHT WELL BE REJECTED WHEN LOCAL B-9 APPEARS ONLY IN
THE LIGHT OF AN ARDENT BUT LAWFUL CHAMPION OF WORKMEN'S WELFARE.  THE
TESTIMONY OF MANY EMPLOYEES WAS CRITICAL OF LOCAL B-9, BUT THE GROUNDS
WERE NOT CLEARLY ARTICULATED.  BUT THEIR AVERSION TO THE B-9
LEADERSHIP, DISBELIEVED BY THE BOARD WHEN NO VERY TANGIBLE REASON WAS
BROUGHT OUT TO EXPLAIN IT, MAY BE ENTIRELY CREDIBLE WHEN IT APPEARS
THAT EVEN POORLY EXPLAINED APPREHENSIONS WERE JUSTIFIED AND THAT THERE
WAS AMPLE REASON FOR AVOIDING ENTANGLEMENT WITH THE MEN WHO OFFICERED
LOCAL B-9 AND WHO ARE NOW CONVICTED - INJURING NO DOUBT THE CAUSE OF
THOSE WHOM THEY WERE TRYING TO "TAKE OVER." 

UNDOUBTEDLY, AN ELEMENT OF FAIR JUDICIAL DISCRETION VESTED IN THE
COURT BELOW CONSISTS OF RESPECT FOR A WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETION IN THE
BOARD ITSELF AS TO WHEN IT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT INQUIRE INTO
ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLENCE OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE BY WITNESSES OR PARTIES
BEFORE IT.  IT MUST NOT BE OVERLOOKED, HOWEVER, THAT THE EVIDENCE ON
WHICH THE COURT REOPENED THIS CASE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM
THAT ON WHICH THE BOARD REFUSED TO DO SO.  FN18  CHARGES THAT VIOLENCE
HAS BEEN THREATENED OR ENCOURAGED ARE FREQUENT AND EASY IN NEGOTIATIONS
THAT PROCEED IN AN AIR OF BELLIGERENCY.  BOTH SIDES REGARD LABOR
RELATIONS AS TOUGH BUSINESS, AND NOT ONLY VITAL INTERESTS BUT PASSIONS
AND SENSITIVITIES AS TO PRESTIGE ARE INVOLVED.  NEITHER SIDE IS LIGHTLY
TO BE HELD ANSWERABLE FOR ACTS WHERE RESPONSIBILITY CANNOT BE FIXED. 
FEW TASKS OF LEADERSHIP ARE MORE DIFFICULT THAN THOSE WHICH CONFRONT
THOSE WHO REPRESENT LABOR.  IF THEY ARE GENTLE, THEY ARE OFTEN
UNHEEDED; AND IF THEY ARE BLUNT, THEY ARE OFTEN HELD UP AS MENACING. 
THE BOARD IS NOT REQUIRED TO SIDETRACK PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING AN
EMPLOYER'S VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW WHILE IT EXPLORES IRRELEVANT
DERELICTIONS OF PARTIES OR WITNESSES OR ACTS OF UNKNOWN OR
IRRESPONSIBLE PERSONS.    THE ACT ACCORDS A GREAT DEGREE OF FINALITY TO
THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF FACT, AND THIS COURT HAS BEEN INSISTENT THAT
THE ADMONITION OF THE ACT BE STRICTLY OBSERVED.  BUT COURTS WHICH ARE
REQUIRED UPON A LIMITED REVIEW TO LEND THEIR ENFORCEMENT POWERS TO THE
BOARD'S ORDERS ARE GRANTED SOME DISCRETION TO SEE THAT THE HEARINGS OUT
OF WHICH THE CONCLUSIVE FINDINGS EMANATE DO NOT SHUT OFF A PARTY'S
RIGHT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR CONDUCT CROSS-EXAMINATION MATERIAL TO THE
ISSUE.  THE STATUTE DEMANDS RESPECT FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD AS TO
WHAT THE EVIDENCE PROVES.  BUT THE COURT IS GIVEN DISCRETION TO SEE
THAT BEFORE A PARTY'S RIGHTS ARE FINALLY FORECLOSED HIS CASE HAS BEEN
FAIRLY HEARD.  FINDINGS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN FAIRLY REACHED
UNLESS MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT IMPEACH, AS WELL AS THAT WHICH
WILL SUPPORT, ITS FINDINGS, IS HEARD AND WEIGHED. 

WE WILL NOT ASSUME IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THAT THE BOARD
WILL IN ANY EVENT REFUSE TO MODIFY ITS CONCLUSIONS.  SINCE THE COURT
BELOW HAS NOT YET PASSED ON THE ISSUE OF SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN THE FINDING THAT MICHIANA IS A COMPANY-DOMINATED UNION, ANY
ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS SUCH CAN BE ONLY TENTATIVE UNLESS WE ARE TO DENY
THE COMPANY THE RIGHT TO REVIEW GRANTED BY THE ACT.  ONE OF THE VERY
ISSUES YET TO BE DECIDED, AND ON WHICH THE COURT BELOW DESIRES THE
LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IS WHETHER MICHIANA WAS, AS ITS OFFICERS
AND MEMBERS TESTIFIED, A TRUE EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION, FORMED TO GET AWAY
FROM LOCAL B-9, OR WHETHER IT WAS A COMPANY TOOL, AS THE BOARD HAS
INFERRED FROM TESTIMONY, MUCH OF IT FROM LOCAL B-9 SOURCES.  WE HAVE NO
WARRANT TO ASSUME THAT THE BOARD WILL FIND THAT IT IS COMPANY
DOMINATED, NO MATTER WHAT THE ADDITIONAL PROOF MAY SHOW AS TO THE
MOTIVES OF THE MEN WHO ORGANIZED IT.  WE DO NOT PREJUDGE THE ISSUE - WE
HOLD ONLY THAT IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE OR AN ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER TO
RESERVE JUDGMENT ON IT UNTIL THE FULL STORY HAS BEEN HEARD AND JUDGED
BY THE BOARD ITSELF. 

THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT CONTEMPLATES SUBMISSION OF DISPUTES AS TO
LABOR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS TO REASONED AND IMPARTIAL DETERMINATION
AFTER FULL AND FAIR HEARING.  IF BY THAT PROCEDURE THERE IS FOUND WRONG
DOING ON BOTH SIDES, THE BOARD CAN ACT TO PREVENT THE EMPLOYER WRONG
DOING PROHIBITED BY THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH IT CAN NOT REACH OTHER WRONG
DOING.  BUT THE PROCESS OF PRESENTING CASES TO IT MUST BE KEPT FREE
FROM FORCES GENERATING BIAS OR INTIMIDATION.  DYNAMITING OR DISPLAY OF
FORCE BY EITHER PARTY HAS NO PLACE IN THE PROCEDURES WHICH LEAD TO
REASONED JUDGMENTS.  THE INFLUENCE OF LAWLESS FORCE DIRECTED TOWARD
PARTIES OR WITNESSES TO PROCEEDINGS DURING THEIR PENDENCY IS SO
SINISTER AND UNDERMINING OF THE PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION ITSELF THAT NO
COURT SHOULD REGARD IT WITH INDIFFERENCE OR SHELTER IT FROM EXPOSURE
AND INQUIRY.  THE REMEDIES OF THE LAW ARE SUBSTITUTES FOR VIOLENCE, NOT
SUPPLEMENTS TO VIOLENCE, AND IT IS PROPER THAT COURTS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES SO EMPLOY THEIR DISCRETION AS TO DISPEL ANY
BELIEF THAT USE OF DYNAMITE WILL ADVANCE LEGAL REMEDIES. 

FURTHER DELAY IN THIS CASE IS TO BE REGRETTED, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW
OF THE LONG DELAY THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.  WE SET OUT IN THE
FOOTNOTE THE FACTS IN THIS REGARD, WHICH WE DO NOT RECITE AS ANY
CRITICISM OF THE BOARD, WHICH IN TURN HAS SUGGESTED NO CRITICISM OF THE
COMPANY.  FN19 

IN VIEW OF THE WHOLE RECORD THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW IS NOT
ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  IT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  316 U.S. 657.  THE DECISIONS BELOW ARE REPORTED AT 20 N.L.R.B.
989 AND 124 F.2D 50. 

FN2  SECTION 10 OF THE ACT PROVIDES:  "(C) THE TESTIMONY TAKEN  ...
SHALL BE REDUCED TO WRITING AND FILED WITH THE BOARD.  THEREAFTER, IN
ITS DISCRETION, THE BOARD MAY UPON NOTICE TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY OR
HEAR ARGUMENT.  ...  (D) UNTIL A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD IN A CASE
SHALL HAVE BEEN FILED IN A COURT, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, THE BOARD
MAY AT ANY TIME, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE AND IN SUCH MANNER AS IT SHALL
DEEM PROPER, MODIFY OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY FINDING OR
ORDER MADE OR ISSUED BY IT.  (E) THE BOARD  ...  SHALL CERTIFY AND FILE
IN THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE PROCEEDING,
INCLUDING THE PLEADINGS AND TESTIMONY UPON WHICH SUCH ORDER WAS ENTERED
AND THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD.  UPON SUCH FILING, THE COURT
SHALL CAUSE NOTICE THEREOF TO BE SERVED UPON SUCH PERSON, AND THEREUPON
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE PROCEEDING AND OF THE QUESTION
DETERMINED THEREIN, AND SHALL HAVE POWER TO  ...  ENTER UPON THE
PLEADINGS, TESTIMONY, AND PROCEEDINGS SET FORTH IN SUCH TRANSCRIPT A
DECREE  ...  " 49 STAT. 454, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160. 

FN3  49 STAT. 454-455, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(E): 

"  ...  IF EITHER PARTY SHALL APPLY TO THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SHALL SHOW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE IN THE
HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY, THE COURT MAY
ORDER SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS
MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY, AND TO BE MADE A PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT.  ...
" 

FN4  "1.  THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN REMANDING THE CASE TO THE BOARD
FOR THE TAKING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS TO THE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OF THE
UNION WHICH FILED THE CHARGE AGAINST RESPONDENT. 

"2.  THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN REMANDING THE CASE TO THE BOARD IN
ORDER THAT THE TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN WITNESSES MIGHT BE IMPEACHED. 

"3.  THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN FAILING TO ENFORCE THE ORDER OF THE
BOARD." 

FN5  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368; MCCANDLESS V.
FURLAUD, 293 U.S. 67, 71. 

FN6  SEC. 10(B), 49 STAT. 453, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(B) PROVIDES THAT
"WHENEVER IT IS CHARGED THAT ANY PERSON HAS ENGAGED OR IS ENGAGING IN
ANY SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THE BOARD  ...  SHALL HAVE POWER TO
ISSUE  ...  A COMPLAINT.  ...  " 

FN7  HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, UNITED
STATES SENATE, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON S. 1958, WASHINGTON,
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, PART 3(1935), PP. 439-442. 

FN8  COMPARE THE FOLLOWING STATISTICS ON THE DISPOSITION OF CHARGES
FILED WITH THE BOARD: 

CASES CLOSED BEFORE ISSUANCE OF  PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CASES ON DOCKET 

COMPLAINT:                         FOR FISCAL YEARS ENDING:

                                $* 1937 $* 1938  * 1939 ** 1941 

BY SETTLEMENT....................    32.1    34.5    27.9    30.3 

BY DISMISSAL.....................    13.5    13.4     7.6     9.7 

BY WITHDRAWAL....................     7.4    17.7    17.8    20.6 

BY OTHER MEANS...................      .2     1.2      .5      .2 

CASES DISPOSED OF AFTER ISSUANCE 

OF COMPLAINT.....................     3.0 2.5     5.5     6.6 

CASES PENDING....................    43.6    30.7    40.7    32.7 

$*  REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1937) 20. 

$*  REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1938) 31. 

*REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1939) 34. 

**REPORT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1941) 26. 

STATISTICS FOR 1940 ARE SET UP ON A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BASIS, BUT
INDICATE A TREND LIKE THAT OF THE YEARS SET FORTH ABOVE.  REPORT OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (1940) 20. 

FN9  THIS WAS ON NOVEMBER 28, 1938, THE FIRST DAY OF THE HEARING.  ON
DECEMBER 9, 1938, THE LAST DAY OF THE HEARING, CHARLES B. CALVERT,
ENGLISH'S ASSISTANT, TESTIFIED WITHOUT OBJECTION THAT BOYLE'S RESPONSE
WAS "I GUESS THAT IS ABOUT IT." 

FN10  THE BOARD FOUND THAT:  EARL LIVELSBERGER, ONE OF THE COMPANY'S
GENERAL LINE FOREMEN, AND GLENN CARLTON, HIS ASSISTANT, WERE AMONG
THOSE INVITED TO ATTEND A MEETING OF LOCAL B-9 IN APRIL, 1937.  DURING
THE COURSE OF THE MEETING, GUY, LEARNING FROM SEVERAL COMPANY EMPLOYEES
THAT THEY WERE SITTING IN A CAR OUTSIDE THE MEETING HALL, LEFT IT AND
INVITED THEM TO COME TO THE MEETING.  CARLTON DECLINED, STATING THAT HE
COULD GET THE INFORMATION ANYWAY.  CARLTON AND LIVELSBERGER WERE IN A
POSITION TO OBSERVE, AND DID OBSERVE, WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING.  "THE
FACT THAT GUY'S ATTENTION WAS CALLED TO THE PRESENCE OF LIVELSBERGER
AND CARLTON INDICATES THAT THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES WERE AWARE OF THE
SUPERVISORY SURVEILLANCE OF THEIR MEETING PLACE.   ...  ALTHOUGH
LIVELSBERGER AND CARLTON WERE INVITED TO THE MEETING AND THEREFORE
THEIR ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING ITSELF WOULD NOT HAVE DISCOURAGED
MEMBERSHIP IN THE BROTHERHOOD, IT IS CLEAR, AND WE FIND THAT THEIR
STATIONING THEMSELVES OUTSIDE THE MEETING PLACE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SCRUTINIZING THOSE WHO ENTERED AND THEREBY DISCOURAGING EMPLOYEES FROM
ATTENDING SUCH MEETINGS."  IT ALSO FOUND THAT SINCE LIVELSBERGER AND
CARLTON WERE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES WERE ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE COMPANY, THEIR CONDUCT CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION BY THE COMPANY OF
THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED THE EMPLOYEES IN SEC. 7 OF THE ACT. 

CARLTON AND LIVELSBERGER, CALLED AS WITNESSES FOR THE COMPANY,
ADMITTED BEING ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HALL AT THE TIME OF THE
MEETING.  LIVELSBERGER TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD BELONGED TO THE
BROTHERHOOD FOR THREE YEARS AFTER 1919, BUT GOT "DISGUSTED" AND DROPPED
OUT; AND THAT HE DID NOT GO INTO THE MEETING BECAUSE "I DIDN'T SEE
ANYONE THERE THAT I CARED MUCH ABOUT ASSOCIATION IN MEMBERSHIP WITH." 
CARLTON TESTIFIED TO THE SAME EFFECT AS TO HIS REASON FOR STAYING OUT. 
THERE WERE ABOUT FOURTEEN MEN AT THIS MEETING, INCLUDING CLAUDE F.
BUCKLEY, DEWEY EDWARDS, GUY, ALBERT OTIS AND LESTER SHIELDS. 

FRANK CLAEYS TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW CARLTON OUTSIDE, AND "WANTED TO
GET OUT OF THERE," BUT THAT HE HAD NEVERTHELESS ATTENDED THE MEETING. 
GUY TESTIFIED THAT BUCKLEY, AND PROBABLY OTHERS, HAD TOLD HIM OF
CARLTON'S PRESENCE OUTSIDE THE HALL, AND THAT WHEN HE WENT OUT AND
INVITED CARLTON TO ATTEND AND LEARN FIRSTHAND WHAT WAS GOING ON, HE WAS
TOLD BY CARLTON THAT HE WOULD GET THE INFORMATION ANYWAY.  RALPH L.
HOBLITZEL WAS THE ONLY ONE TO CORROBORATE THIS STATEMENT, AND CARLTON
DENIED HAVING MADE IT. 

AS TO BUCKLEY, CLAEYS, EDWARDS, HOBLITZEL, OTIS AND SHIELDS, ALL
BOARD WITNESSES AND AFFILIATED WITH LOCAL B-9, SEE THE FOLLOWING
DISCUSSION. 

FN11  WITNESSES PRESENTED BY THE BOARD AND AFFILIATED WITH RESPONDENT
MICHIANA WERE:  GERALDINE CARLSON, RAY M. COLLINS, TAYLOR EDGELL,
GEORGE S. HOLMES, AND NELSON D. LAMBERT. 

FN12  CLAUDE F. BUCKLEY, FRANK CLAEYS, ERNEST DURFEY, DEWEY EDWARDS,
FORREST ELKINS, E. J. ERNST, CHARLES A. HAVLIN, RALPH L. HOBLITZEL,
WALTER HULWICK, RUSSELL H. KIDDER, EUGENE S. LEE, ALBERT OTIS, EARL
SEELEY, AND LESTER SHIELDS.  THREE OTHERS OF THE BOARD'S WITNESSES WERE
AFFILIATED WITH THE C.I.O. 

FN13  OTIS, APRIL, 1935; EDWARDS, MAY, 1935; BUCKLEY AND HULWICK,
JULY, 1935; SHIELDS, AUGUST, 1935; DURFEY, OCTOBER, 1935; SEELEY,
OCTOBER, 1936; ELKINS, MAY, 1937.  KIDDER CAME TO WORK IN SEPTEMBER,
1934. 

FN14  A C.I.O. CHARTER HAD ISSUED TO A GROUP OF COMPANY EMPLOYEES IN
APRIL, 1937.  THIS GROUP MET WITH LITTLE SUCCESS, AND, FAILING TO GET
THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ORGANIZER FROM THE MAIN BODY, THE MEN TRANSFERRED
TO LOCAL B-9 IN OCTOBER, 1937. 

FN15  MARKS TESTIFIED THAT DUES IN THE BROTHERHOOD WERE 1 1/2% OF
AVERAGE EARNINGS, AND INITIATION FEES $10 FOR JOURNEYMEN AND $7 FOR
HELPERS.  DUES FOR MICHIANA WERE 25[ PER MONTH, WITH AN INITIATION FEE
OF $1. 

FN16  ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF GUY AND MARKS, GRIEVANCES AS TO
WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS WERE CONSIDERED BY LOCAL BODIES SET UP
WITHIN B-9, AND THEN REFERRED TO MARKS, WHO WOULD ENDEAVOR TO ADJUST
THEM.  IF HE FAILED, THE MATTER WOULD BE TAKEN UP WITH GUY IN CHICAGO,
WHO, WITH THE EXECUTIVE BOARD AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE MAIN BODY -
VARIOUSLY STATED BY GUY TO NUMBER FROM 2,500 TO 3,500 - WOULD DECIDE
THE MATTER.  LOCAL BODIES APPARENTLY HAD NO POWER TO SETTLE THEIR OWN
GRIEVANCES BY APPROACHING THE MANAGEMENT. 

FN17  TWO EXAMPLES SUFFICE: 

THE BOARD MADE A NUMBER OF FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITY OF
JACK BETLY, A LINEMAN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY SINCE 1929, WHO HAD BEEN
PARTICULARLY ACTIVE IN THE ORGANIZATION OF MICHIANA.  IT QUOTED FROM A
PETITION WHICH HE HAD CIRCULATED.  THE PETITION WAS ENTITLED
"S.A.F.E.", AND READ IN THE PART QUOTED BY THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS:  "WE,
THE OLDER MEN IN THE EMPLOY OF THIS COMPANY, BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE MEN
AMONG US THAT CAN INTELLIGENTLY ARBITRATE WITH THE MANAGEMENT WITHOUT
RESORTING TO RADICALISM AND DICTATION OF OUTSIDERS.  OUR MEETING WILL
BE POSTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE."  SOME TIME BEFORE BETLY GOT OUT HIS
PETITION HE HAD BEEN SOLICITED BY OTIS, SHIELDS, AND MARKS TO REJOIN
THE BROTHERHOOD, TO WHICH HE HAD BELONGED IN 1915.  ACCORDING TO HIS
TESTIMONY, THEY HAD CALLED HIM OUT IN THE EVENING TO THEIR CAR, AND HAD
REFUSED TO COME INTO HIS HOME, THUS CAUSING HIM SOME UNEASINESS.  HE
WAS INVITED TO ATTEND, AND DID ATTEND, THE FIRST LOCAL B-9 MEETING.  HE
TESTIFIED FURTHER THAT AT A LATER MEETING HE HAD DIFFICULTIES WITH OTIS
WHO "TOOK A SLOUGH" AT HIM AND BUMPED HIS HEAD AGAINST A WALL, AND THAT
SHORTLY AFTER THIS HE WENT HOME AND GOT OUT HIS PETITION. 

THE BOARD ALSO QUOTED AT SOME LENGTH FROM THE TESTIMONY OF HARTER, A
FOREMAN, AS TO HIS QUESTIONING OF EMPLOYEES WITH RESPECT TO LOCAL B-9
MATTERS, AND FOUND THAT SUCH QUESTIONING CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION BY THE
COMPANY OF THE ACT.  HIS STORY WAS THAT THE MEN HE QUESTIONED WERE
MEMBERS OF HIS LINE CREW WHO HAD BEEN ACTING "TIGHT" AND AS THOUGH THEY
HAD MORE ON THEIR MINDS THAN LINEMEN WORKING ON CHARGED INTER-CITY
POWER LINES SHOULD HAVE; THAT HIS QUESTIONING DIVULGED SIMILAR VISITS
BY SHIELDS AND OTIS UPON TWO OF THE THREE MEN IN HIS CREW; AND THAT
OUTSIDE UNIONS WERE "BOTHERING  ...  I KNOW I WAS WONDERING IF THEY WAS
GOING TO MOVE THEIR TRUNKS IN AND PUT UP AT MY PLACE, OR WHETHER I
WOULD HAVE TO MOVE OUT AND LET THEM IN."    FN18  FACTS APPEARING IN
THE PETITION TO THE COURT NOT CONTAINED IN THE PETITION TO THE BOARD
WERE:  THE CONVICTION OF MEN WHO HAD EARLIER CONFESSED, AND OF MARKS,
WHO HAD NOT CONFESSED; AND THE EFFORTS BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER DURING THE
HEARING, AND BY OTHER ATTORNEYS OR OFFICIALS OF THE BOARD AFTER THE
HEARING, TO GET THE COMPANY TO CONSENT TO DISESTABLISHMENT OF MICHIANA
DESPITE CHARGES THAT THE LOCAL HAD CAUSED THE DYNAMITINGS. 

IT ALSO APPEARED FROM THE BOARD'S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION TO THE
COURT THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE NON-EMPLOYEE DYNAMITERS HIRED BY MARKS
WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE BROTHERHOOD.    FN19  THE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED
NOVEMBER 15, 1938 AND THE HEARING SET FOR NOVEMBER 28.  A CONTINUANCE
WAS REQUESTED BY THE COMPANY ON THE GROUND OF ILLNESS OF ITS ATTORNEY,
BUT WAS REFUSED.  THE BOARD PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE IN SIX DAYS, THE
COMPANY IN THREE.  THE HEARINGS CLOSED ON DECEMBER 9, 1938, AND THE
TRIAL EXAMINER'S INTERMEDIATE REPORT WAS FILED ON JULY 27, 1939 - A
LITTLE MORE THAN SEVEN MONTHS LATER.  THE COMPANY'S EXCEPTIONS WERE
FILED SEPTEMBER 1, 1939, AND THE BOARD SET THEM FOR HEARING ON NOVEMBER
9, 1939.  THE BOARD HAD NOT DECIDED THE CASE WHEN, ON FEBRUARY 19,
1940, THE COMPANY PETITIONED IT FOR A REHEARING WITH REGARD TO THE
EVIDENCE OF THE DEPREDATIONS OBTAINED BY THE ARREST OF ALL, AND THE
CONFESSIONS OF SOME, OF THE PARTICIPANTS, ALL OCCURRING SINCE FEBRUARY
1, 1940.  NINE DAYS LATER THE BOARD DECIDED THE CASE.  ON DECEMBER 13,
1940, THE BOARD PETITIONED THE COURT BELOW FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS
ORDER, AND THE COURT RENDERED ITS DECISION ON DECEMBER 12, 1941.  ON
FEBRUARY 19, 1942, AFTER THE TIME FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REHEARING
HAD EXPIRED, THE BOARD MOVED FOR LEAVE TO FILE IT OUT OF TIME.  THE
COURT DENIED THE MOTION, AND ON MARCH 9, 1942, THREE DAYS BEFORE THE
TIME TO PETITION THIS COURT FOR A WRIT FOR CERTIORARI HAD EXPIRED, THE
BOARD ASKED AND OBTAINED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO APRIL 11, 1942, IN
WHICH TO FILE ITS PETITION.  THE PETITION WAS FILED ON THAT DATE,
GRANTED ON MAY 25, AND ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT WAS COMPLETED NOVEMBER
16, 1942. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE
MURPHY CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

A DESIRE TO PUNISH DYNAMITERS DOES NOT JUSTIFY A FAILURE TO PROTECT
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, INNOCENT OF WRONG-DOING, IN THEIR FREEDOM
EITHER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING OR TO BE REPRESENTED BY NO ONE AT ALL.  WITHOUT RELYING IN THE
SLIGHTEST DEGREE ON THE EVIDENCE OF PERSONS CONVICTED OF OR CHARGED
WITH DYNAMITING, THE BOARD FOUND THE ASSOCIATION TO BE COMPANY
DOMINATED.  ITS ORDER GAVE NO BENEFIT TO ANYONE EVEN REMOTELY SUSPECTED
OF COMPLICITY IN THE CRIMES CHARGED.  INSTEAD IT CAREFULLY ELIMINATED
SUCH INDIVIDUALS, AND THE UNION, FROM THE SCOPE OF ITS AWARD AND GAVE
NO CREDENCE TO THE SUSPECT WITNESSES.  THE SOLE ISSUE FOR THE COURTS TO
DETERMINE IS WHETHER THERE IS, IN THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES UNTAINTED
BY ANY SUSPICION, SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BOARD FINDINGS
THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS (1) SET UP A COMPANY-DOMINATED UNION CONTRARY TO
SEC. 8(2) OF THE ACT, AND (2) INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED AND COERCED
ITS EMPLOYEES IN EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO BELONG TO THE UNION OF THEIR
CHOICE CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(1).  THE BOARD ORDER, REQUIRING
DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOMINATED UNION AND CESSATION OF INTERFERENCE,
CONTEMPLATES ONLY THAT THIS COMPANY SHALL NOT INTIMIDATE OR COERCE ITS
EMPLOYEES - THAT IT SHALL LEAVE THEM FREE.  THIS FREEDOM IS THEIR LEGAL
RIGHT; AND CRIME BY SOME OF THEM CANNOT JUSTIFY THE COMPANY IN
DESTROYING THE FREEDOM OF ALL, OR EVEN A FEW OF THEM.  UNDER OUR
GOVERNMENT GUILT IS PERSONAL; IT CANNOT, OR AT LEAST SHOULD NOT,
ATTAINT THE INNOCENT; IT CANNOT, OR SHOULD NOT PROVIDE AN EXCUSE FOR
ONE INJURED BY IT TO INVADE THE LIBERTY OF OTHERS.  IN SHORT, THE
CRIMES OF SOME OF THESE EMPLOYEES, OR OF THE NON-EMPLOYEE MEMBERS OF A
UNION, CANNOT HAVE RELEVANCE TO THE TWO ISSUES THE BOARD DECIDED. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT THAT ALLEGED ERRORS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE HEARING BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER OR BY THE BOARD OFFICIALS ARE NOT
PROPERLY BEFORE US.  SUCH QUESTIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED WHEN THE CASE IS
PROPERLY REVIEWED BY THE COURT BELOW.  HAVING AGREED WITH THE COURT
THAT THIS QUESTION IS NOW IRRELEVANT, I CANNOT JOIN IN DISCUSSING, AS
THE COURT DOES, THE PROPRIETY OF ALLEGED STATEMENTS TO ONE BOYLE, AND
RESERVE ALL OPINION ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE. 

IF THE EVIDENCE RESPONDENT ASKS TO OFFER HAS ANY RELEVANCE WHATEVER,
IT MUST BE FOR ONE OF TWO REASONS:  THAT (A) THE UNION'S PURPOSES IN
FILING THE COMPLAINT WERE NOT SALUTARY AND THAT THE CHARACTER OF ITS
ACTIVITIES WAS SUCH THAT THE BOARD MIGHT UPON HEARING THE PROFFERED
EVIDENCE DECLINE TO EXERCISE ANY JURISDICTION TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYEES, EVEN THE INNOCENT; OR (B) THAT THE BOARD'S WITNESSES WERE OF
SUCH CHARACTER AS TO BE UNWORTHY OF BELIEF. 

THE FIRST OF THESE GROUNDS SURELY HAS NO REAL MERIT.  THERE IS OF
COURSE NO REASON WHY A MERITORIOUS COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED MERELY
BECAUSE OF THE BAD CHARACTER OF ONE WHO MAKES THE CHARGE.  THE ILL
CHARACTER OF A COMPLAINANT, OR OF WITNESSES, PROVIDES NO EXCUSE FOR
LEAVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST UNPROTECTED.  A WITNESS CAN BE IMPEACHED IN
A PROPER MANNER; BUT THE OPINION HERE SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES SHOULD HEREAFTER SPEND A LARGE PART OF THEIR
TIME IN TRYING COMPLAINANTS INSTEAD OF THOSE CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE
LAW.  NOW, FOUR YEARS AFTER THIS PROCEEDING BEGAN, IT IS BROADLY HINTED
THAT THE BOARD SHOULD PERMIT THE EMPLOYER TO TRY THE INFORMER AND IT IS
CLEARLY IMPLIED THAT IF THE COMPLAINING UNION IS PROVED EVIL, THE
EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE FREE OF COMPANY-DOMINATION NO MATTER HOW
EXTREME IT MAY BE.  IF THE PRACTICE HERE SUGGESTED IS NOT SOON
REPUDIATED, A NEW METHOD WILL HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN WHICH TO PARALYZE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES BY DISCURSIVE DELAY. 

AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE BOARD HAS CAREFULLY ELIMINATED FROM ITS ORDER
ALL PROVISIONS WHICH WOULD SPECIFICALLY BENEFIT THE UNION, AND I SEE NO
REASON FOR ORDERING IT TO TAKE NEW EVIDENCE OF THE CHARACTER OF A UNION
TO WHICH IT HAS GRANTED NOTHING AT ALL.  DESPITE THIS THERE IS A
PREMISE, VAGUELY STATED BUT NONETHELESS PERMEATING THE OPINION OF THE
COURT, THAT EVIDENCE OF THE BAD CHARACTER OF THE UNION WOULD REQUIRE
THE BOARD TO TAKE SOME OTHER ACTION; THAT SOMEHOW, AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, THE BOARD, DESPITE ITS CAREFUL EFFORT TO AVOID SUCH A RESULT,
HAS AIDED THE UNION WHICH BROUGHT THE CHARGES.  BUT IF THE DESIRE BE TO
PUNISH THE UNION, I CANNOT AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE BY COMPELLING
INNOCENT EMPLOYEES TO REMAIN IN A DOMINATED ASSOCIATION.  IF THE
BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRING THE DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION IS
FOUND TO BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE EMPLOYEES MAY FORM A GENUINE
INDEPENDENT UNION, THEY MAY JOIN SOME OTHER ORGANIZATION, OR THEY MAY
CHOOSE TO REMAIN UNORGANIZED.  A REQUIREMENT THAT, FOR THEIR OWN GOOD,
THEY MUST REMAIN IN A COMPANY-DOMINATED UNION TO AVOID ANY POSSIBILITY
OF THEIR AIDING THE WRONGDOERS DENIES THEM THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHICH
THE ACT PRESERVES.  WHATEVER CHARACTER THE UNION MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE,
THE BOARD'S PROTECTION TO RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE
DISTURBED BECAUSE OF IT. 

THE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO OFFER NEW EVIDENCE ATTACKING THE
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES RAISES A DIFFERENT QUESTION - ONE GOING TO THE
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE ON WHICH A CONCLUSION IS TO BE REACHED.  THE BOARD,
AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION, DENIED THE MOTION BECAUSE IT FOUND THAT THE
PROFFERED EVIDENCE EVEN IF TRUE HAD NO RELATION TO THE ISSUE OF COMPANY
COERCION OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  WHETHER A CASE SHALL BE REOPENED AFTER THE
EVIDENCE IS CLOSED, IS, IN COURTS, ORDINARILY A MATTER OF DISCRETION. 
I THINK THE BOARD'S ACTION IN THIS PROCEEDING CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE AN
UNFAIR EXERCISE OF DISCRETION AND THAT IN ANY EVENT IT WAS CORRECT IN
HOLDING THE EVIDENCE IRRELEVANT TO THE LIMITED ISSUES IT DECIDED. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE WHICH THE BOARD
DECIDED HERE IS WHETHER THE ASSOCIATION IS COMPANY-DOMINATED.  WE ARE
TOLD THAT TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE MISDEEDS OF THE ELECTRICAL WORKERS
ARE MATERIAL TO THIS CONCLUSION BECAUSE THE BOARD RELIED ON WITNESSES
MARKS, FREEMAN, AND GUY; BECAUSE THE BOARD "MUST HAVE RELIED" ON OTHER
UNION WITNESSES; BECAUSE THE BOARD'S DECISION MAY DRIVE THE EMPLOYEES
INTO THE OFFENDING UNION; BECAUSE AN ASSOCIATION OFFICIAL WAS ASKED
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT BOMBING; AND BECAUSE COMPANY WITNESSES
MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE CREDIBLE IF THE FULL FACTS OF VIOLENCE HAD BEEN
KNOWN. 

TO SUPPORT ITS VIEW THAT THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE DISBELIEVED CERTAIN OF
ITS WITNESSES HAD THE FULL FACTS BEEN KNOWN, THE COURT HAS GONE NOT
ONLY TO THE TESTIMONY WHICH HAS BEEN PRINTED BY THE BOARD AND THE
COMPANY AND OFFERED BY THE BOARD AS THE BASIS OF ITS CASE, BUT HAS
SEARCHED EVIDENCE TO WHICH THE BOARD HAS MADE NO REFERENCE IN ITS
FINDINGS AND WHICH IT HAS NOT OFFERED AS OF ANY CREDIBILITY AT ALL. 
EVIDENTLY THE BOARD IS TO BE REQUIRED TO RE-EXAMINE THAT EVIDENCE IN
WHICH IT HAS ALREADY, BY REJECTION OF IT, EXPRESSED DISBELIEF.  I THINK
NO POSSIBLE GOOD CAN COME FROM RECONSIDERING EVIDENCE ONCE REJECTED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RE-REJECTING IT. 

THE BOARD CALLED SIXTEEN UNION WITNESSES.  THE THREE MOST UNDER
SUSPICION FOR DYNAMITING WERE GUY, MARKS, AND FREEMAN.  GUY'S
TESTIMONY, AS SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD IN SUPPORT OF ITS FINDING, IS THAT
TWO COMPANY SUPERVISORS KEPT A UNION MEETING UNDER SURVEILLANCE, A FACT
CONCEDED BY THE SUPERVISORS.  MARKS TESTIFIED THAT THE COMPANY DID NOT
INTERFERE WITH UNION ORGANIZATION, AND FREEMAN TESTIFIED THAT HOLMES,
PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION, WAS RESPECTED BY HIS FELLOW EMPLOYEES.  A
MORE INNOCUOUS OR COLORLESS COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE CAN SCARCELY BE
IMAGINED.  THE TESTIMONY OF SIX OTHER UNION WITNESSES, AS REFLECTED BY
THE PRINTED RECORD, IS EQUALLY TRIFLING, WHILE THAT OF THE OTHER SEVEN,
WHICH FILLS ABOUT FOUR PER CENT OF THE PRINTED RECORD, WAS NOT RELIED
ON BY THE BOARD IN ITS FINDINGS. 

THE ULTIMATE BOARD HOLDING BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
REVIEW IS THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS COMPANY-DOMINATED.  THIS HOLDING
RESTS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF COMPANY WITNESSES OR
WITNESSES AFFILIATED WITH THE ASSOCIATION.  THERE IS NOT EVEN A HINT
THAT THESE WITNESSES WERE INTIMIDATED OR INTERFERED WITH IN ANY WAY, OR
THAT THEY TOLD ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH.  IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT GUY,
FREEMAN, AND MARKS ARE WHOLLY UNWORTHY OF BELIEF, THIS BASIC TESTIMONY
GIVEN BY COMPANY WITNESSES WOULD STILL BE UNAFFECTED.  THE SUGGESTION
MADE BY THE COURT, NOT RAISED BY THE COMPANY EITHER IN ITS PETITION FOR
REHEARING TO THE BOARD OR IN ITS MOTION FOR REMAND IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, THAT EXAMINATION INTO THE DYNAMITING WILL REFLECT ON THE
ATTITUDE OF THE EMPLOYEES TOWARD THE UNION DURING THE EARLIER
ORGANIZATIONAL PERIOD, THEREFORE MISSES THE HEART OF THE CASE.  IF THE
COMPANY'S SUPERVISORY REPRESENTATIVES DID ORGANIZE AND DOMINATE THE
ASSOCIATION, THE ASSOCIATION IS COMPANY-DOMINATED AND THE BOARD'S ORDER
SHOULD BE UPHELD, I.A. OF M. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 79, 80; IF
THEY DID NOT, THE BOARD'S ORDER SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED.  THE CHARACTER
OF ORGANIZERS OF A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT UNION CONTRIBUTES NOTHING TO
THE ISSUE OF COMPANY CONDUCT. 

THE LAST SUGGESTION AS TO THE MATERIALITY OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION
INTO THE DYNAMITING IS THAT FOR SOME REASON THE TRIAL EXAMINER ASKED
HOLMES QUESTIONS CONCERNING HIS VIEW ON VIOLENCE IN LABOR DISPUTES. 
HOLMES EXPRESSED A PROPER RESPECT FOR LAW AND ORDER, AND IT IS
INCREDIBLE THAT A NEW HEARING WOULD EITHER CAUSE HIM TO ALTER HIS VIEW
IN THIS REGARD OR CHANGE THE BOARD'S RESPECT FOR HIS CONCLUSION. 

IT WILL NOT SEEM ODD THAT SO MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE ORIGINALLY
INTRODUCED BY THE BOARD WAS EVENTUALLY DEEMED IRRELEVANT TO THE FINAL
DECISION WHEN IT IS REALIZED THAT THE ORIGINAL CHARGE AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT WAS MUCH BROADER THAN THE FINAL HOLDING.  THIS EVIDENCE,
DIRECTED TO THE SUPPORT OF THESE PERIPHERAL CHARGES, LOST ALL
CONSEQUENCE FOR THIS CASE WHEN THE BOARD DECLINED TO BELIEVE THE
CHARGES THEMSELVES.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT
ONE ELKINS WAS WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED.  SINCE BOTH THE TRIAL EXAMINER
AND THE BOARD FOUND THE CHARGE UNSUPPORTED, ELKINS' TESTIMONY IN THIS
RESPECT AND ALL THAT SUPPORTS IT DROPS COMPLETELY FROM THE CASE.  THE
OPINION OF THE COURT APPEARS TO REQUIRE RE-ASSESSMENT OF SUCH SURPLUS
TESTIMONY OFFERED IN BEHALF OF CHARGES CONCLUDED TO BE UNFOUNDED. 

OF COURSE NO COURT SHOULD SHELTER DYNAMITERS FROM EXPOSURE AND
INQUIRY.  BUT COMPELLING THE BOARD TO DIGRESS FROM THE ADJUDICATION OF
A LABOR DISPUTE IN WHICH SUCH DYNAMITING HAS NO PART INTO A PURSUIT OF
THE GUILTY, PUNISHES THE INNOCENT EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT RATHER THAN
THE EVILDOERS THEMSELVES.  THE LABOR BOARD IS NO FAIR SUBSTITUTE FOR A
GRAND JURY OR A CRIMINAL COURT. 

IF THE BOARD HAD DENIED RESPONDENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER NEWLY
DISCOVERED EVIDENCE WHICH TENDED TO SHOW THAT WITNESSES TO MATERIAL
FACTS RELIED ON BY THE BOARD HAD SINCE THE HEARING BEEN CONVICTED OF
SERIOUS CRIMES AFFECTING THEIR CREDIBILITY, I WOULD NOT OBJECT TO
SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE BOARD.  BUT ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD
DEMONSTRATES THAT NO SUCH THING OCCURRED.  I THINK WE SHOULD SEND THE
CASE BACK TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NORMAL REVIEW
PROCEDURE. 
..END :



NATURAL MILK ASSN. V. SAN FRANCISCO, 317 U.S. 423 


NO. 385.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 17, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 11, 1943.  -
20 CAL.2D 101, 124 P.2D 25, VACATED AND REMANDED. 


WHERE A FEDERAL QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED ON CERTIORARI BECOMES
MOOT BY REASON OF A CHANGE IN THE FACTUAL SITUATION, WHICH OCCURRED
AFTER THE TRIAL AND WHICH WAS NOT NOTICED BY THE COURT BELOW, THE
PROPER PRACTICE IS TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT, WITHOUT COSTS TO EITHER
PARTY IN THIS COURT, AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE COURT BELOW FOR SUCH
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS IT MAY DEEM PROPER.  P. 424. 

NATURAL MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION ET AL. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS CASE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THE SAN FRANCISCO MILK ORDINANCE
VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES NON-PASTEURIZED
RAW MILK SOLD IN SAN FRANCISCO TO BE CERTIFIED BY, AND TO CONFORM TO
STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY, THE MILK COMMISSION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
MEDICAL SOCIETY, INSTEAD OF BY A PUBLIC BOARD OR OFFICER, WHILE AT THE
SAME TIME PROHIBITING THE SALE OF ALL OTHER NON-PASTEURIZED MILK,
INCLUDING "GUARANTEED RAW MILK" WHICH APPELLANTS ALLEGE IS THE SAME AS
CERTIFIED RAW MILK.  SUBSEQUENT TO THE TRIAL OF THE CASE, THE MILK
COMMISSION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO MEDICAL SOCIETY DETERMINED THAT NON
PASTEURIZED MILK COULD NOT BE CERTIFIED BY IT AS FREE FROM HARMFUL
BACTERIA, AND PROMULGATED AN ORDER ACCORDINGLY, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 15,
1939.  THIS FACT, WHICH APPARENTLY WAS NOT CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RENDERS MOOT THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS
RAISED BY APPELLANTS, SINCE ALL MILK SOLD IN SAN FRANCISCO, NOT
CERTIFIED BY THE MILK COMMISSION OF THE MEDICAL SOCIETY, IS REQUIRED BY
THE ORDINANCE TO BE PASTEURIZED, AND SINCE APPELLANTS DO NOT BY THIS
SUIT CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
PASTEURIZATION REQUIREMENT.  IN ORDER THAT THE STATE COURT MAY MAKE
PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE
FEDERAL QUESTIONS CANNOT BE DECIDED HERE, WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT,
WITHOUT COSTS TO EITHER PARTY IN THIS COURT, AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS IT MAY
DEEM APPROPRIATE.  FLORIDA V. KNOTT, 308 U.S. 507; WASHINGTON EX REL.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 310 U.S. 613; MISSOURI EX
REL. WABASH RY. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 273 U.S. 126.  SO
ORDERED. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. MONIA, 317 U.S. 424 


NO. 248.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 11, 1943.  -
AFFIRMED. 


ONE WHO, IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA, APPEARS BEFORE A GRAND JURY
INQUIRING INTO AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AND GIVES
TESTIMONY UNDER OATH SUBSTANTIALLY TOUCHING THE ALLEGED OFFENSE,
OBTAINS IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR THAT OFFENSE, PURSUANT TO THE
TERMS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AS AMENDED, ALTHOUGH HE DOES NOT CLAIM HIS
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  P. 430. 

UNITED STATES V. MONIA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT OVERRULING
DEMURRERS TO SPECIAL PLEAS IN BAR FILED BY THE APPELLEES TO AN
INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN ILLINOIS
PROSECUTED PURSUANT TO THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  FN1  IT PRESENTS A
QUESTION UPON WHICH THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE SHARPLY DIVIDED.  FN2
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER ONE WHO, IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA, APPEARS
BEFORE A GRAND JURY INQUIRING INTO AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, AND GIVES TESTIMONY UNDER OATH SUBSTANTIALLY TOUCHING THE ALLEGED
OFFENSE, OBTAINS IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR THAT OFFENSE, PURSUANT
TO THE TERMS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, ALTHOUGH HE DOES NOT CLAIM HIS
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. 

THE SHERMAN ACT  FN3  PROVIDES IN PART: 

"  ...  NO PERSON SHALL BE PROSECUTED OR BE SUBJECTED TO ANY PENALTY
OR FORFEITURE FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY TRANSACTION, MATTER, OR THING
CONCERNING WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY OR PRODUCE EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY OR
OTHERWISE, IN ANY PROCEEDING, SUIT, OR PROSECUTION UNDER SAID ACTS (THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, AND OTHER ACTS);
PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NO PERSON SO TESTIFYING SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
PROSECUTION OR PUNISHMENT FOR PERJURY COMMITTED IN SO TESTIFYING." 

THAT STATUTE WAS SUPPLEMENTED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906,  FN4
WHICH, SO FAR AS MATERIAL, IS 

"  ...  UNDER THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS (OF THE ABOVE ACT AND OTHERS)
IMMUNITY SHALL EXTEND ONLY TO A NATURAL PERSON WHO, IN OBEDIENCE TO A
SUBPOENA, GIVES TESTIMONY UNDER OATH OR PRODUCES EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY
OR OTHERWISE, UNDER OATH." 

AN INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED CHARGING CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS,
INCLUDING THE TWO APPELLEES, WITH CONSPIRACY TO FIX PRICES IN VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE APPELLEES FILED SPECIAL PLEAS IN BAR, EACH
ALLEGING THAT, IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA DULY SERVED, HE APPEARED AS A
WITNESS FOR THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE GRAND JURY INQUIRING
RESPECTING THE MATTERS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, AND GAVE TESTIMONY
SUBSTANTIALLY CONNECTED WITH THE TRANSACTIONS COVERED BY THE
INDICTMENT.  NO QUESTION IS MADE BUT THAT THE TESTIMONY SO GIVEN DID
SUBSTANTIALLY RELATE TO THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE
INDICTMENT. 

THE UNITED STATES DEMURRED TO THE PLEAS AS INSUFFICIENT, SINCE
NEITHER ALLEGED THAT THE WITNESS ASSERTED ANY CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND THEREFORE NEITHER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF
THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE IMMUNITY STATUTE COULD AVAIL HIM. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE DEMURRERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PLAIN MANDATE OF THE STATUTE PRECLUDED PROSECUTION OF THE APPELLEES
WHETHER THEY HAD CLAIMED THE PRIVILEGE OR NOT.  WE HOLD THAT THE
DECISION WAS RIGHT. 

BEYOND DISPUTE THE APPELLEES WERE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION IF THE STATUTE IS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT AS IT IS WRITTEN.  WE
ARE ASKED, HOWEVER, TO READ INTO IT A QUALIFICATION TO THE EFFECT THAT
IMMUNITY IS NOT OBTAINED UNLESS THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION IS CLAIMED.  INASMUCH AS THE STATUTE IS ADDRESSED TO THIS
PRIVILEGE, AND THE PRIVILEGE IS ACCORDED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IT IS
SAID THAT IF IMMUNITY IS OFFERED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PRIVILEGE, THE
IMMUNITY, LIKE THE PRIVILEGE, OUGHT TO BE CLAIMED; THAT THUS THE
STATUTE AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, WHICH ARE PARI MATERIA, WILL BE GIVEN
A CONSISTENT CONSTRUCTION. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT IS URGED THAT QUALIFICATION OF THE FORTHRIGHT
TERMS OF THE STATUTE IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO AVOID AN UNREASONABLE,
UNFAIR, AND UNINTENDED RESULT.  THE ARGUMENT RUNS THAT IF THE STATUTE
IS CONSTRUED AUTOMATICALLY TO GRANT IMMUNITY WITHOUT A CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE, THE PROSECUTOR IS AT A DISADVANTAGE, SINCE HE DOES NOT KNOW
WHETHER, OR TO WHAT EXTENT, A WITNESS MAY HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A CRIME;
AND SO RUNS THE RISK OF UNINTENTIONALLY AFFORDING IMMUNITY.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, SO IT IS SAID, THE WITNESS HAS FULL KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE
NATURE OF HIS OWN CONDUCT, AND AS TO HIS POSSIBLE INCRIMINATION BY
TESTIMONY, AND IT IS NOT UNFAIR TO REQUIRE HIM TO CLAIM HIS PRIVILEGE
AND SO PUT THE PROSECUTOR ON NOTICE THAT, IF HE INSISTS UPON THE
TESTIMONY, THE WITNESS WILL OBTAIN IMMUNITY. 

THE WELL-UNDERSTOOD COURSE OF LEGISLATION BEFORE AND AFTER THE
ADOPTION OF THE STATUTE INVOLVED, AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, COMPEL
REJECTION OF THE CONTENTIONS. 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DECLARES THAT "NO PERSON  ...  SHALL BE COMPELLED
IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF."  AN
INVESTIGATION BY A GRAND JURY IS A CRIMINAL CASE.  FN5  THE AMENDMENT
SPEAKS OF COMPULSION.  IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE A WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING
VOLUNTARILY IN MATTERS WHICH MAY INCRIMINATE HIM.  IF, THEREFORE, HE
DESIRES THE PROTECTION OF THE PRIVILEGE, HE MUST CLAIM IT OR HE WILL
NOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN "COMPELLED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
AMENDMENT.  FN6 

MORE THAN SEVENTY YEARS AGO CONGRESS WAS ADVISED THAT, IN SUITS
PROSECUTED BY THE UNITED STATES, WHERE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN SOUGHT FROM
CERTAIN PERSONS, TO BE USED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THEY HAD INTERPOSED A
CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE WHICH HAD BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS.  FN7  IN
ORDER TO FORESTALL THE OBSTRUCTION AND DELAY INCIDENT TO JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE WITNESS' CLAIM, AND IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN NECESSARY EVIDENCE, EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM WERE WELL FOUNDED,
CONGRESS ADOPTED THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1868,  FN8  WHICH BECAME R.S.
860.  THIS ACT APPLIED TO ALL JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND PROVIDED, IN
EFFECT, THAT NO EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM A WITNESS COULD BE USED AGAINST
HIM IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. 

THIS COURT, IN COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, HELD THE ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE, WHILE IT PREVENTED THE USE OF THE EVIDENCE
AGAINST THE WITNESS, IT DID NOT PRECLUDE HIS PROSECUTION AS A RESULT OF
INFORMATION GAINED FROM HIS TESTIMONY.  THE COURT INDICATED CLEARLY
THAT NOTHING SHORT OF ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY WOULD JUSTIFY COMPELLING THE
WITNESS TO TESTIFY IF HE CLAIMED HIS PRIVILEGE. 

THE ORIGINAL INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT  FN9  CONTAINED AN IMMUNITY
PROVISION IN THE FORM HELD INVALID IN THE COUNSELMAN CASE.  TO MEET THE
DECISION IN THAT CASE, CONGRESS PASSED THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1893,
FN10  WHICH APPLIED ONLY TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT.  THIS STATUTE, HOWEVER, BECAME THE MODEL FOR IMMUNITY PROVISIONS
WHICH WERE ENACTED AT VARIOUS TIMES UP TO 1933, INCLUDING THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 25, 1903, SUPRA, WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED.  THIS COURT
SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THESE ACTS.  FN11 

IN 1906 THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HELD, IN UNITED STATES V. ARMOUR & CO., 142 F. 808, THAT A VOLUNTARY
APPEARANCE, AND THE FURNISHING OF TESTIMONY AND INFORMATION WITHOUT
SUBPOENA, OPERATED TO CONFER IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE IMMUNITY CONFERRED WAS BROADER
THAN THE PRIVILEGE GIVEN BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE DECISION
ATTRACTED PUBLIC INTEREST SINCE, IF IT STOOD, ONE COULD IMMUNIZE
HIMSELF FROM PROSECUTION BY VOLUNTEERING INFORMATION TO INVESTIGATORY
BODIES.  CONGRESS PROMPTLY ADOPTED THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906, SUPRA,
PROVIDING THAT THE IMMUNITY SHOULD ONLY EXTEND TO A NATURAL PERSON WHO,
IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA, TESTIFIED OR PRODUCED EVIDENCE UNDER OATH. 
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SHOWS THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS
EXACTLY WHAT ITS LANGUAGE STATES.  FN12  SENATOR KNOX, WHO SPONSORED
THE BILL, STATED:  "MR. PRESIDENT, THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS CLEAR,
AND ITS RANGE IS NOT VERY BROAD.  IT IS NOT INTENDED TO COVER ALL
DISPUTED PROVISIONS AS TO THE RIGHTS OF WITNESSES UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, EXCEPT THOSE ENUMERATED IN THE BILL ITSELF." 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT CONGRESS, BY THE EARLIER LEGISLATION, HAD OPENED
THE DOOR TO A PRACTICE WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE TRAPPED INTO
CONFERRING UNINTENDED IMMUNITY BY WITNESSES VOLUNTEERING TO TESTIFY. 
THE AMENDMENT WAS THOUGHT, AS THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD DEMONSTRATES, TO
BE SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERESTS BY PREVENTING
IMMUNITY UNLESS THE PROSECUTING OFFICER, OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
CONCERNED, SHOULD COMPEL THE WITNESS' ATTENDANCE BY SUBPOENA AND HAVE
HIM SWORN. 

NOT UNTIL 1933 DID CONGRESS EVIDENCE AN INTENT THAT IF THE WITNESS
DESIRED IMMUNITY HE MUST, IN ADDITION, ASSERT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE.  IN A SERIES OF ACTS ADOPTED BETWEEN 1934 AND 1940 AN
ADDITIONAL PROVISION WAS INSERTED ADDING THIS REQUIREMENT.  FN13  THESE
ACTS INDICATE HOW SIMPLE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO ADD A SIMILAR PROVISION
APPLICABLE TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE SHERMAN ACT, AND OTHERS
WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO STAND AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED SAVE FOR THE
AMENDING ACT OF 1906.  FN14 

THE LEGISLATION INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS PLAIN IN ITS TERMS
AND, ON ITS FACE, MEANS TO THE LAYMAN THAT IF HE IS SUBPOENAED, AND
SWORN, AND TESTIFIES, HE IS TO HAVE IMMUNITY.  INSTEAD OF BEING A TRAP
FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AS WAS THE ORIGINAL ACT, THE STATUTES IN QUESTION,
IF INTERPRETED AS THE GOVERNMENT NOW DESIRES, MAY WELL BE A TRAP FOR
THE WITNESS.  CONGRESS EVIDENTLY INTENDED TO AFFORD GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS THE CHOICE OF SUBPOENAING A WITNESS AND PUTTING HIM UNDER
OATH, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WOULD HAVE COMPLETE IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION RESPECTING ANY MATTER SUBSTANTIALLY CONNECTED WITH THE
TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE TESTIFIED, OR RETAINING THE RIGHT
TO PROSECUTE BY FOREGOING THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE HIM.  THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND, OR BY THE STATUTES IN ISSUE PROVIDE, THAT, IN
ADDITION, THE WITNESS MUST CLAIM HIS PRIVILEGE, SEEMS CLEAR.  IT IS NOT
FOR US TO ADD TO THE LEGISLATION WHAT CONGRESS PRETERMITTED. 

WE HAVE REFERRED TO THE DIVERSITY OF VIEWS AMONGST THE LOWER COURTS. 
THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT THIS COURT HAS SETTLED THE QUESTION IN
FAVOR OF ITS VIEW.  ITS RELIANCE IS UPON HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227
U.S. 131.  THAT CASE, HOWEVER, DECIDED ONLY THAT THE IMMUNITY CONFERRED
BY THE LEGISLATION IN QUESTION WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT THE WITNESS TO
THE SAME EXTENT THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS HIM.  THE QUESTION
WAS WHETHER THE IMMUNITY EXTENDED TO PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES WITH WHICH
THE MATTERS TESTIFIED TO WERE BUT REMOTELY CONNECTED.  THIS COURT HELD
THAT, AS THE AMENDMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY A CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE AGAINST
SUCH REMOTE CONTINGENCIES, THE IMMUNITY SHOULD BE LIKEWISE CONSTRUED
NOT TO REACH THEM.  THE QUESTION OF THE NECESSITY OF A WITNESS BEFORE
AN INVESTIGATORY BODY CLAIMING HIS PRIVILEGE IN ORDER TO EARN HIS
IMMUNITY WAS NOT DECIDED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, 34 STAT. 1246, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
MAY 9, 1942, 56 STAT. 271, 18 U.S.C. 682. 

FN2  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. ARMOUR & CO., 142 F. 808; UNITED STATES
V. SKINNER, 218 F. 870; UNITED STATES V. ELTON, 222 F. 428; UNITED
STATES V. LEE, 290 F. 517; JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 5 F.2D 471; UNITED
STATES V. LAY FISH CO., 13 F.2D 136; UNITED STATES V. GREATER NEW YORK
LIVE POULTRY C. OF C., 33 F.2D 1005, WITH UNITED STATES V. PARDUE, 294
F. 543; UNITED STATES V. WARD, 295 F. 576; UNITED STATES V. MOORE, 15
F.2D 593; UNITED STATES V. GOLDMAN, 28 F.2D 424. 

FN3  ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1903, C. 755, 32 STAT. 854, 904, 15 U.S.C.
32. 

FN4  34 STAT. 798, 15 U.S.C. 33. 

FN5  COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, 562. 

FN6  UNITED STATES EX REL. VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103,
113. 

FN7  CONG. GLOBE, 40TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 950-51, 1334. 

FN8  15 STAT. 37. 

FN9  24 STAT. 383. 

FN10  27 STAT. 443, 49 U.S.C. 46. 

FN11  BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591. 

FN12  40 CONG. REC. 5500, 7657-58, 8734-39-40. 

FN13  SEE E.G. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, 48 STAT. 900, 15 U.S.C. 78U
(D); INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT, 54 STAT. 853, 15 U.S.C. 80B-9(D). 

FN14  IT MAY BE, THAT, DUE TO THE THOROUGHNESS OF PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION IN THE CLASSES OF CASES IN QUESTION, CONGRESS HAS
BELIEVED THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S REPRESENTATIVES NEEDED NO FURTHER
WARNING OF THE RESULT OF SUBPOENAING A WITNESS AND EXAMINING HIM UNDER
OATH. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

IT IS BEYOND DISPUTE THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT COMPEL CONGRESS
TO AFFORD IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION TO THOSE WHO TESTIFY WITHOUT
INVOKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  THE
QUESTION FOR DECISION HERE IS WHETHER, BY THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906, 34
STAT. 798, AMENDING THE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25,
1903, 32 STAT. 904, CONGRESS GRANTED MORE THAN THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES AND OFFERED A "GRATUITY TO CRIME," HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227
U.S. 131, 142, BY CONFERRING IMMUNITY TO PERSONS WHO TESTIFY WITHOUT
CLAIMING THE PROTECTION OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND
WHO IN NO WAY INDICATE THAT THEIR TESTIMONY IS BEING GIVEN IN RETURN
FOR THE STATUTORY IMMUNITY.  IN OTHER WORDS, DID CONGRESS, BY THAT
AMENDMENT, SEEK TO FACILITATE THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAW BY MAKING
"EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND COMPULSORY THAT OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE GOT,"
IBID., OR WAS IT PASSING AN ACT OF AMNESTY?    THIS QUESTION CANNOT BE
ANSWERED BY CLOSING OUR EYES TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE NAKED WORDS OF
THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906.  THE NOTION THAT BECAUSE THE WORDS OF A
STATUTE ARE PLAIN, ITS MEANING IS ALSO PLAIN, IS MERELY PERNICIOUS
OVERSIMPLIFICATION.  IT IS A WOODEN ENGLISH DOCTRINE OF RATHER RECENT
VINTAGE (SEE PLUCKNETT, A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE COMMON LAW, 2D ED.,
294-300; AMOS, THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, 5 CAMB.  L.J. 163;
DAVIES, THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, 35 COL. L. REV. 519), TO WHICH
LIP SERVICE HAS ON OCCASION BEEN GIVEN HERE, BUT WHICH SINCE THE DAYS
OF MARSHALL THIS COURT HAS REJECTED, ESPECIALLY IN PRACTICE.  E.G.,
UNITED STATES V. FISHER, 2 CRANCH 358, 385-86; BOSTON SAND CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 41, 48; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING
ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, 542-44.  A STATUTE, LIKE OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS,
DERIVES SIGNIFICANCE AND SUSTENANCE FROM ITS ENVIRONMENT, FROM WHICH IT
CANNOT BE SEVERED WITHOUT BEING MUTILATED.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE
WHERE THE STATUTE, LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US, IS PART OF A LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS HAVING A HISTORY AND A PURPOSE.  THE MEANING OF SUCH A STATUTE
CANNOT BE GAINED BY CONFINING INQUIRY WITHIN ITS FOUR CORNERS.  ONLY
THE HISTORIC PROCESS OF WHICH SUCH LEGISLATION IS AN INCOMPLETE
FRAGMENT - THAT TO WHICH IT GAVE RISE AS WELL AS THAT WHICH GAVE RISE
TO IT - CAN YIELD ITS TRUE MEANING.  AND SO WE MUST TURN TO THE HISTORY
OF FEDERAL IMMUNITY PROVISIONS. 

THE EARLIEST FEDERAL STATUTE DEALING WITH IMMUNITY IS THE ACT OF
JANUARY 24, 1857, 11 STAT. 155, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JANUARY 24,
1862, 12 STAT. 333.  THIS LEGISLATION, RELATING TO TESTIMONY BEFORE
EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS, FURNISHED A MODEL FOR LATER IMMUNITY
PROVISIONS.  CONGRESS WAS CAREFUL TO STATE PRECISELY WHAT IT WAS FOR
WHICH IMMUNITY WAS GIVEN:  "NO WITNESS SHALL HEREAFTER BE ALLOWED TO
REFUSE TO TESTIFY TO ANY FACT OR TO PRODUCE ANY PAPER.  ..."  11 STAT.
156.  IT WAS THE REFUSAL TO TESTIFY, NOT THE REFUSAL TO APPEAR AS A
WITNESS, WHICH CONGRESS TOOK AWAY AND FOR WHICH IT GAVE IMMUNITY. 

DUTY, NOT PRIVILEGE, LIES AT THE CORE OF THIS PROBLEM - THE DUTY TO
TESTIFY, AND NOT THE PRIVILEGE THAT RELIEVES OF SUCH DUTY.  IN THE
CLASSIC PHRASE OF LORD CHANCELLOR HARDWICKE, "THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO
EVERY MAN'S EVIDENCE."  N1  THE DUTY TO GIVE TESTIMONY WAS QUALIFIED AT
COMMON LAW BY THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.  AND THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT HAS EMBODIED THIS PRIVILEGE IN OUR FUNDAMENTAL LAW.  BUT THE
PRIVILEGE IS A PRIVILEGE TO WITHHOLD ANSWERS AND NOT A PRIVILEGE TO
LIMIT THE RANGE OF PUBLIC INQUIRY.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FORBID
THE ASKING OF CRIMINATIVE QUESTIONS.  IT PROVIDES ONLY THAT A WITNESS
CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER SUCH QUESTIONS UNLESS "A FULL SUBSTITUTE"
FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE IS GIVEN.  COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK,
142 U.S. 547, 586.  THE COMPULSION WHICH THE PRIVILEGE ENTITLES A
WITNESS TO RESIST IS THE COMPULSION TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHICH HE
JUSTIFIABLY CLAIMS WOULD TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM.  BUT THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT PROTECT A REFUSAL TO OBEY A PROCESS.  A SUBPOENA IS, OF
COURSE, SUCH A PROCESS, MERELY A SUMMONS TO APPEAR.  8 WIGMORE ON
EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  P. 106, SEC. 2199.  THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE
TO DISREGARD THE DUTY TO WHICH A SUBPOENA CALLS.  AND WHEN CONGRESS
TURNED TO THE DEVICE OF IMMUNITY LEGISLATION, THEREFORE, IT DID NOT
PROVIDE A "SUBSTITUTE" FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE UNIVERSAL DUTY TO
APPEAR AS A WITNESS - IT DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO GIVE SOMETHING FOR
NOTHING.  IT WAS THE REFUSAL TO GIVE INCRIMINATING TESTIMONY FOR WHICH
CONGRESS BARGAINED, AND NOT THE REFUSAL TO GIVE ANY TESTIMONY.  AND IT
WAS ONLY IN EXCHANGE FOR SELF-INCRIMINATING TESTIMONY WHICH "OTHERWISE
COULD NOT BE GOT" (HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 131, 142) BECAUSE
OF THE WITNESS'S INVOCATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT CONGRESS
CONFERRED IMMUNITY AGAINST THE USE OF SUCH TESTIMONY. 

INSTEAD OF GIVING MORE THAN THE CONSTITUTIONAL EQUIVALENT FOR THE
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, CONGRESS FOR A LONG TIME DID NOT
GIVE ENOUGH.  SEE COUNSELMAN V. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547, INVALIDATING
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1868, 15 STAT. 37, R.S. SEC. 860, THE FIRST
IMMUNITY STATUTE RELATING TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  IN ORDER TO REMOVE
THE GAP BETWEEN WHAT THIS ACT GAVE AND WHAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS
CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE, CONGRESS PROMPTLY PASSED THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11,
1893, 27 STAT. 443, IN ORDER NOT TO INTERRUPT THE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  AS THE DEBATES REVEAL, CONGRESS ACTED
ON ITS UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS COURT IN THE COUNSELMAN DECISION
INDICATED WAS AN ADEQUATE LEGISLATIVE ALTERNATIVE.  SEE REMARKS OF
SENATOR CULLOM, JULY 18, 1892, 23 CONG. REC. 6333.  THE 1893 ACT
FOLLOWED THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT OF JANUARY 24, 1857, BY PROVIDING THAT
"NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM ATTENDING AND TESTIFYING OR FROM
PRODUCING BOOKS  ..."  27 STAT. 443.  AND IN 1896 THIS COURT, IN BROWN
V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591, 595, FOUND THAT THE 1893 ACT "SUFFICIENTLY
SATISFIES THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF PROTECTION."  THERE WAS NO
INDICATION OF ANY BELIEF THAT CONGRESS HAD GIVEN ANYTHING MORE THAN IT
HAD TO GIVE - AND, INDEED, ONLY A BARE MAJORITY OF THE COURT THOUGHT
THAT THE STATUTE HAD GIVEN AS MUCH AS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED. 

CERTAINLY UNTIL THE BEGINNING OF THIS CENTURY, THEREFORE, CONGRESS
DISPLAYED NO MAGNANIMITY TO CRIMINALS BY AFFORDING AMNESTY FOR THEIR
CRIMES.  INDEED, SO SENSITIVE HAS CONGRESS BEEN AGAINST IMMUNIZING
CRIME THAT IT HAS NOT ENTRUSTED PROSECUTORS GENERALLY WITH THE POWER TO
RELIEVE WITNESSES FROM PROSECUTION IN EXCHANGE FOR INCRIMINATING
EVIDENCE AGAINST OTHERS.  BUT AS PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR
THE CORRECTION OF CORPORATE ABUSES, CONGRESS IN FEBRUARY 1903 INCLUDED
PROVISIONS FOR IMMUNITY IN THREE ADDITIONAL MEASURES, THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 14, 1903, 32 STAT. 828, ESTABLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND LABOR AND CONFERRING UPON THE COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS
THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS POSSESSED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, THE ELKINS AMENDMENT OF FEBRUARY 19, 1903, 32 STAT. 848, TO
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1903, 32 STAT.
903-04, MAKING LARGE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE SHERMAN LAW, AND OTHER ENACTMENTS.  IT IS
THIS LATTER PROVISION, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF 1906, WHICH IS
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE US. 

IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE STARTLING DECISION OF DISTRICT JUDGE HUMPHREY IN
UNITED STATES V. ARMOUR & CO., 142 F. 808, THAT THE SUGGESTION WAS
SERIOUSLY MADE THAT CONGRESS, IN STUDIOUSLY FASHIONING A CONSTITUTIONAL
EQUIVALENT FOR THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, WAS PLAYING
LADY BOUNTIFUL TO CRIMINALS.  THE PARTICULAR CONCERNS WHICH THE ARMOUR
OPINION STIRRED MUST BE HEEDED BECAUSE THEY PROVOKED THE ACT OF 1906. 
THE MEANING OF THAT LEGISLATION IS LOST UNLESS DERIVED FROM THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH GAVE RISE TO IT.  THE CASE AROSE OUT OF A
PROCEEDING BEGUN UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1903, 32 STAT. 825,
CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.  SECTION 8 OF THAT ACT
PROVIDED THAT THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR SHALL "FROM TIME TO
TIME MAKE SUCH SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS AS HE MAY BE REQUIRED
TO DO BY  ...  EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS."  IN OBEDIENCE TO A RESOLUTION
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE SECRETARY DIRECTED THE
COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS TO INVESTIGATE THE CAUSES OF THE LOW
PRICES OF BEEF CATTLE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSIONER INSTITUTED SUCH
AN INQUIRY.  AT A CONFERENCE WITH OFFICERS OF THE PACKING CORPORATIONS
AND THEIR COUNSEL, THE COMMISSIONER EXPLAINED THE PURPOSES AND SCOPE OF
HIS INVESTIGATION.  HE INFORMED THEM THAT HE WAS ACTING INDEPENDENTLY
AND NOT IN COOPERATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN ITS
CONTEMPORANEOUS PROCEEDING AGAINST THE "BEEF TRUST" FOR ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN LAW, AND THAT ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE
PACKERS WOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT BUT WOULD BE REPORTED ONLY
TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS APPROPRIATE USE.  (H. DOC. NO. 706, 59TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 6.)  THEREUPON THE COMMISSIONER'S AGENTS WERE
AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE PACKERS' BOOKS AND PAPERS. 

SUBSEQUENTLY, AN INDICTMENT UNDER THE SHERMAN LAW WAS FOUND AGAINST
THE PACKING CORPORATIONS AND THEIR OFFICERS.  PLEAS IN BAR WERE FILED,
ALLEGING IN SUBSTANCE THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION MADE BY
THE COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS, THE DEFENDANTS HAD OBTAINED IMMUNITY
FROM PROSECUTION FOR THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  JUDGE
HUMPHREY SUSTAINED THESE PLEAS AS TO THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE DEFENDANTS BROUGHT INTO
OPERATION THE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1903, WHICH
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1893, 27 STAT. 443,
RELATING TO TESTIMONY BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  JUDGE
HUMPHREY REACHED HIS CONCLUSION BY ATTRIBUTING TO CONGRESS IN PASSING
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1893, A PURPOSE WHICH THIS COURT LATER
UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED IN HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 131.  FOR
WHILE JUDGE HUMPHREY CORRECTLY HELD THAT "THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
AMENDMENT PERMITS A REFUSAL TO ANSWER," HE ALSO STATED, QUITE
INCORRECTLY AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANT IN THE LANGUAGE, LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OR POLICY OF THE ACT, THAT THE STATUTE "WIPES OUT THE OFFENSE
ABOUT WHICH THE WITNESS MIGHT HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER."  142 F. AT 822. 
IN OTHER WORDS, THE DISTRICT JUDGE TREATED THE IMMUNITY ACT AS THOUGH
IT WERE AN ACT OF AMNESTY, AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THIS COURT IN THE
HEIKE CASE SAID IT WAS NOT:  "OF COURSE THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION
BETWEEN AN AMNESTY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF A PARTY FROM
BEING COMPELLED IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF. 
AMENDMENT V. BUT THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE (THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 25, 1903) IS TO MAKE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND COMPULSORY THAT
OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE GOT.  WE SEE NO REASON FOR SUPPOSING THAT THE
ACT OFFERED A GRATUITY TO CRIME.  IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED, SO FAR AS ITS
WORDS FAIRLY ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION, AS COTERMINOUS WITH WHAT OTHERWISE
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE PERSON CONCERNED.  WE BELIEVE ITS
POLICY TO BE THE SAME AS THAT OF THE EARLIER ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1893,
C. 83, 27 STAT. 443, WHICH READ 'NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM
ATTENDING AND TESTIFYING,' &C.  'BUT NO PERSON SHALL BE PROSECUTED,'
&C., AS NOW, THUS SHOWING THE CORRELATION BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
AND IMMUNITY BY THE FORM."  227 U.S. AT 142. 

JUDGE HUMPHREY DOUBTLESS FELL INTO ERROR BECAUSE HE TREATED THE
IMMUNITY PROVISION AS SUBSIDIARY TO THE MAIN PURPOSE, AS HE CONCEIVED
IT, OF THE ACT ESTABLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.  HE
BELIEVED "THE PRIMARY PURPOSE" OF THAT ACT WAS TO "SECURE INFORMATION
FOR THE USE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY."  142 F. AT 826.  IT IS PLAIN THAT
HE DID NOT VIEW THE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS IN THEIR TRUE LIGHT, THAT IS,
AS MEANS TO FACILITATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW. 
WHATEVER JUSTIFICATION JUDGE HUMPHREY MAY HAVE HAD FOR ENTERTAINING
SUCH A NOTION WITH REGARD TO THE ACT CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE AND LABOR, IT CERTAINLY HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE IMMUNITY
PROVISIONS TOUCHING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE SHERMAN LAW. 
THOSE PROVISIONS WERE ENACTED AS AIDS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE; THEY WERE NOT ACTS OF AMNESTY DESIGNED TO WIPE OUT CRIMINAL
OFFENSES. 

ACTING SWIFTLY TO CORRECT THE ERROR OF THE ARMOUR DECISION, THE
PRESIDENT RECOMMENDED THAT "THE CONGRESS PASS A DECLARATORY ACT" TO SET
ASIDE JUDGE HUMPHREY'S MISCONCEPTION OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  MESSAGE
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 18, 1906, H. DOC. NO.
706, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3.  IN SO DOING, PRESIDENT THEODORE
ROOSEVELT WAS ACTING UPON THE ADVICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL (SOON TO
BECOME MR. JUSTICE) MOODY.  NATURALLY ENOUGH, THE DECLARATORY
LEGISLATION DIRECTED ITSELF TO THE CORRECTION OF THE TWO EVILS THAT
JUDGE HUMPHREY'S OPINION PROJECTED, NAMELY, TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT BE AFFORDED FOR PRODUCING CORPORATE DOCUMENTS WHICH
COULD IN ANY EVENT BE HAD BECAUSE THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF
CRIMINATION IS NOT AVAILABLE TO CORPORATIONS, WILSON V. UNITED STATES,
221 U.S. 361, 372-74, AND THAT A PERSON WHO DOES NOT GIVE EVIDENCE
UNDER THE ORDINARY FORMALITIES INCIDENT TO BEING A WITNESS WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY.  THE LEGISLATION WAS RESPONSIVE TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S POSITION, AS STATED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL MOODY:  "UPON
THESE FACTS (IN THE ARMOUR CASE) THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT THE
STATUTORY IMMUNITY COULD BE CONFERRED ONLY UPON PERSONS SUBPOENAED BY
THE COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS WHO MIGHT SUBSEQUENTLY GIVE TESTIMONY
OR EVIDENCE (IN THE LEGAL SENSE OF THOSE TERMS) RELATING TO THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE INDICTMENT."  H. DOC. NO. 706, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
7. 

SUCH WAS THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF THE 1906 AMENDMENT.  COULD IT BE THAT
THE PRESIDENT HAVING PROPOSED, AND THE CONGRESS HAVING ENACTED, A
RESTRICTIVE DECLARATION REGARDING THE SCOPE OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISION
IN ORDER TO PREVENT OTHER COURTS FROM FOLLOWING THE LATITUDINARIAN
MISCONCEPTION OF JUDGE HUMPHREY, THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS, BOTH
ACTING UPON THE ADVICE OF ONE OF THE ABLEST OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL, WERE
UNWITTINGLY BETRAYED INTO INTRODUCING A NEW GRATUITY FOR WITNESSES
UNDER DUTY TO RESPOND TO A SUBPOENA, BY GIVING AN AMNESTY IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE MERE RESPONSE? 

FOR MORE THAN SEVENTEEN YEARS THEREAFTER IT WAS UNQUESTIONED THAT
CONGRESS HAD GIVEN NO MORE THAN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED - FREEDOM
FROM PROSECUTION FOR EVIDENCE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE OBTAINED,
EVIDENCE THAT WAS WITHHELD UPON CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE,
EVIDENCE THAT WAS GIVEN ONLY BECAUSE CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED IMMUNITY. 
THIS WAS THE RULING OF ALL THE FEDERAL COURTS WHICH CONSIDERED THE
QUESTION, COURTS ON WHICH SAT SOME OF THE ABLEST JUDGES OF THEIR DAY -
JUDGE MARTIN IN UNITED STATES V. HEIKE, 175 F. 852; JUDGE GRUBB IN
UNITED STATES V. SKINNER, 218 F. 870; JUDGE HUNT IN UNITED STATES V.
ELTON, 222 F. 428; AND JUDGE ROSE IN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 5 F.2D
471.  THE NARROW PURPOSE OF THE 1906 AMENDMENT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE
EVENTS WHICH GAVE RISE TO IT, WAS SUCCINCTLY SET FORTH BY JUDGE ROSE:
"QUITE CLEARLY THIS ACT DID ONLY TWO THINGS AND IT WAS INTENDED TO DO
NO MORE.  IT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE IMMUNITY GRANTED DID NOT INURE TO
THE BENEFIT OF CORPORATIONS AND THAT A NATURAL PERSON COULD NOT CLAIM
IT UNLESS HE HAD TESTIFIED IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA.  IT WAS PASSED
TO MEET THE SERIOUS SITUATION WHICH THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS THOUGHT
HAD BEEN CREATED BY THE RULINGS OF JUDGE HUMPHREY.  ...  IT WAS CLEARLY
NOT INTENDED TO CHANGE THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING LAW IN ANY OTHER
RESPECT.  ...  A CONSTRUCTION SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO IT WHICH WOULD
RESULT IN A GRAND JURY OR PROSECUTING OFFICER UNWITTINGLY CONFERRING
IMMUNITY UPON A SERIOUS OFFENDER BECAUSE IN THE BEST OF GOOD FAITH, AND
WITH NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT HE WAS CRIMINALLY INVOLVED IN THE
TRANSACTION, HE WAS SUBPOENAED TO PRODUCE SOME DOCUMENTS OR TO GIVE
SOME TESTIMONY WHICH PERHAPS COULD JUST AS WELL HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM
OTHER SOURCES.  UNQUESTIONABLY THE WITNESS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO OBJECT TO TESTIFYING.  THEN IT IS OPEN TO THE GOVERNMENT TO ELECT
WHETHER IT WILL OR WILL NOT PROCEED WITH HIS EXAMINATION UNDER THE
STATUTE, BUT IF IT DOES NOT, HIS RIGHTS REMAIN AS THEY WERE BEFORE HE
WAS CALLED TO THE STAND."  JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 5 F.2D 471, 477. 

THE OBSERVATIONS OF JUDGE GRUBB IN UNITED STATES V. SKINNER, 218 F.
870, 879, ARE EQUALLY PERTINENT HERE:  "THE WITNESS, IN MANY CASES, IS
ALONE INFORMED AS TO WHETHER HIS EVIDENCE WILL TEND TO INCRIMINATE
HIM.  THE SUPPOSED INCRIMINATION MAY RELATE TO OFFENSES NOT UNDER
INVESTIGATION BY THE EXAMINING TRIBUNAL, AND OF THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH
OR OF THE RELATION OF THE DESIRED EVIDENCE TO WHICH THE EXAMINING
TRIBUNAL OR THE GOVERNMENT LAW OFFICER MAY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE.  THE
HEIKE CASE IS AN APT ILLUSTRATION OF THIS POSSIBILITY.  THE WITNESS IS
LIKELY TO HAVE EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHAT FACTS AND WHAT ANSWERS
MAY TEND TO HIS INCRIMINATION, AND WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT OFFENSES. 
AGAIN, THE WITNESS ALONE KNOWS WHETHER HE WILLINGLY GIVES HIS EVIDENCE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXONERATING HIMSELF, OR ONLY WITH THE EXPECTATION OF
RECEIVING IMMUNITY THEREFOR.  HE IS THEREFORE IN A BETTER POSITION TO
BE CALLED UPON TO ASSERT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE THAN IS THE
EXAMINING TRIBUNAL OR THE LAW OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO CALL UPON
HIM TO ELECT TO DO SO.  IF ANY HARDSHIP ATTENDS THE IMPOSITION OF THIS
BURDEN ON THE WITNESS, IT HAS NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED WEIGHTY ENOUGH TO
RELIEVE HIM THEREFROM IN EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE, PRIOR
TO THE IMMUNITY STATUTES.  THE IMMUNITY GRANTED BY THE STATUTE IS A
MERE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD, AND HAS BEEN HELD BY
THE SUPREME COURT TO BE COTERMINOUS WITH IT.  THERE WOULD SEEM,
THEREFORE, TO BE NO REASON FOR A DIFFERENT PRACTICE AS TO THE ASSERTION
OF THE PRIVILEGE WHERE IMMUNITY IS DESIRED AND WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE IS INSISTED UPON." 

THESE DECISIONS THUS REFLECTED WEIGHTY CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY IN
FINDING THAT CONGRESS AFFORDED IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED IN EXCHANGE FOR A PRIVILEGE AND
THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT GIVING AWAY INDULGENCES. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WERE CERTAINLY NOT ANSWERED IN THE
OPINION OF THE TEXAS DISTRICT COURT WHICH, IN 1923, MADE THE FIRST
DEPARTURE FROM THIS UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  THE COURT
HELD THAT IMMUNITY CAME MERELY BECAUSE ONE TESTIFIED IN OBEDIENCE TO A
SUBPOENA, WITHOUT ANY CLAIM, EITHER EXPLICIT OR IMPLIED BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT HE HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ANSWER
ON THE GROUND THAT HE MIGHT THEREBY BE INCRIMINATED AND THAT THE
TESTIMONY WAS BEING GIVEN ONLY UNDER COMPULSION OF THE IMMUNITY
STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V. PARDUE, 294 F. 543.  THE COURT STATED THAT
ITS POSITION WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY, CITING (1) THE
DECISION OF JUDGE HUMPHREY IN THE ARMOUR CASE; (2) UNITED STATES V.
SWIFT, 186 F. 1002, THE OPINION IN WHICH, SO FAR AS IT IS RELEVANT TO
THE QUESTION HERE, SEEMS TO POINT CLEARLY THE OTHER WAY (SEE,
ESPECIALLY, 186 F. AT 1016-18); (3) STATE V. MURPHY, 128 WIS. 201, 107
N.W. 470, WHICH, MUCH QUESTIONED ORIGINALLY, HAS BEEN REPUDIATED BY THE
COURT WHICH RENDERED IT, CARCHIDI V. STATE, 187 WIS. 438, 204 N.W. 473,
AND STATE V. GROSNICKLE, 189 WIS. 17, 206 N.W. 895; AND (4) A DECISION
OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE V. SHARP, 107 N.Y. 427, 14
N.E. 319.  IN CONSIDERING "THE REASONS WHICH SHOULD CONTROL," THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS "SHOCKED BY THE UNCONSCIONABLENESS OF THE CLAIM  ...
THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN UNDER A STATUTE WHICH  ...  GRANTS GENERAL
AMNESTY TO PERSONS WHO APPEAR AND TESTIFY IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA,
COMPEL THEM TO TESTIFY, AND THEREAFTER BREAK FAITH WITH THEM BY DENYING
THE PROTECTION OF THE STATUTE TO THOSE WHO TESTIFY IN EXACT ACCORDANCE
WITH ITS TERMS."  294 F. AT 547.  STARTING WITH THE MISCONCEPTION THAT
THE IMMUNITY PROVISION WAS AN ACT OF AMNESTY AND NOT A QUID PRO QUO FOR
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE, THE DISTRICT COURT READILY GLIDED INTO
QUESTION-BEGGING BY FINDING THAT THERE WAS A BREACH OF FAITH IN
CONTESTING THE CLAIM OF AMNESTY.  FN2 

ONCE THE CONFUSION IS AVOIDED BETWEEN AN ACT OF AMNESTY AND AN ACT
WHICH GIVES IMMUNITY IN ORDER "TO MAKE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE AND
COMPULSORY THAT OTHERWISE COULD NOT BE GOT" BECAUSE IT COULD BE
WITHHELD UPON A CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE, IT BECOMES CLEAR
THAT A WITNESS IS NOT "ENTRAPPED" BY REQUIRING HIM TO CLAIM HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE BEFORE AFFORDING HIM A SUBSTITUTE.  A WITNESS
IS NO MORE ENTRAPPED BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE MUST STAND UPON HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, IF HE DESIRES THEIR PROTECTION, WHEN THERE IS AN
IMMUNITY STATUTE THAN HE IS WHERE THERE IS NONE AT ALL.  IT IS ONE
THING TO FIND THAT INCRIMINATING ANSWERS GIVEN BY A WITNESS WERE GIVEN
BECAUSE IN THE SETTING OF THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES HE WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO WITHHOLD THEM.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO SUGGEST
THAT ONE WHO APPEARS AS A WITNESS SHOULD, MERELY BECAUSE HIS APPEARANCE
IS IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA, THEREBY OBTAIN IMMUNITY "ON ACCOUNT OF
ANY TRANSACTION, MATTER OR THING CONCERNING WHICH HE MAY TESTIFY," EVEN
THOUGH THE INCRIMINATION MAY RELATE TO A TRANSACTION WHOLLY FOREIGN TO
THE INQUIRY IN WHICH THE TESTIMONY IS GIVEN AND EVEN THOUGH THE MOST
ALERT AND CONSCIENTIOUS PROSECUTOR WOULD NOT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST INKLING
THAT THE TESTIMONY LED TO A TRAIL OF SELF-CRIMINATION.  SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION MAKES OF THE IMMUNITY STATUTE NOT WHAT ITS HISTORY CLEARLY
REVEALS IT TO BE, NAMELY, A CAREFULLY DEVISED INSTRUMENT FOR THE
ACHIEVEMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, BUT A MEASURE FOR THE GRATUITOUS
RELIEF OF CRIMINALS.  THE STATUTE REFLECTS THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS
THAT "THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO EVERY MAN'S EVIDENCE."  IT IS NOT FOR
US TO RELAX THE DEMANDS OF SOCIETY UPON ITS CITIZENS TO APPEAR IN
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE LAWS ENACTED FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. 

BEGINNING WITH THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 87, CONGRESS HAS
ENACTED NO LESS THAN SEVENTEEN REGULATORY MEASURES WHICH CONTAIN
PROVISIONS FOR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION IN EXCHANGE FOR SELF
INCRIMINATING TESTIMONY.  OF THESE, FOURTEEN, INCLUDING INTER ALIA THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 900, THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 456, THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT.
1097, THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 832, THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT, 49 STAT. 858, AND THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938,
52 STAT. 1022, CONFER IMMUNITY WHEN A PERSON TESTIFIES UNDER COMPULSION
"AFTER HAVING CLAIMED HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION."  THREE
OF THESE STATUTES, HOWEVER, THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT.
550, THE INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL ACT, 49 STAT. 875, AND THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1065, DO NOT CONTAIN THIS ADDITIONAL
CLAUSE - THEY MERELY FOLLOW THE OLD FORM CUSTOMARILY USED BY CONGRESS
PRIOR TO THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.  OF COURSE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
IN THE LANGUAGE OF THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  BUT THE PROCESS OF
CONSTRUING A STATUTE CANNOT END WITH NOTING LITERARY DIFFERENCES.  THE
TASK IS ONE OF FINDING MEANING; AND A DIFFERENCE IN WORDS IS NOT
NECESSARILY A DIFFERENCE IN THE MEANING THEY CARRY.  THE QUESTION IS
NOT WHETHER THESE PROVISIONS ARE DIFFERENT, BUT WHETHER THERE IS
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE DIFFERENCE.  IF THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE
REFLECTED A DIFFERENCE IN THE SCOPE OF THE IMMUNITY GIVEN, OR IN THE
NATURE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MOVED CONGRESS TO MAKE A
DIFFERENTIATION, THERE WOULD SURELY BE SOME INDICATION, HOWEVER FAINT,
SOMEWHERE IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THESE ENACTMENTS THAT SOME
LEGISLATOR WAS AWARE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE HAD SIGNIFICANCE. 
BUT THERE IS NONE. 

IF CONGRESS SAW FIT GRATUITOUSLY TO CONFER IMMUNITY TO CITIZENS WHO
APPEAR AS WITNESSES IN PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF
AUGUST 9, 1935, IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT SHOULD GIVE SUCH
IMMUNITY ONLY TO THOSE WHO, AFTER ASSERTING THEIR PRIVILEGE, WERE
PRESSED TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1935, AND IN PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT WHICH BECAME LAW THE SAME DAY, AND AGAIN
SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE GRATUITOUSLY IN THE INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL
ACT, WHICH BECAME LAW THE FOLLOWING DAY.  THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE ACT, 52 STAT. 1107, AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938,
52 STAT. 1065, BOTH BECAME LAW THE SAME DAY, JUNE 25, 1938.  YET THE
IMMUNITY PROVISION OF THE FORMER CONTAINS THE "AFTER HAVING CLAIMED,
ETC." CLAUSE, AND THAT OF THE LATTER DOES NOT.  IT IS ONLY FAIR TO
CONGRESS TO ASSUME THAT IF THERE WAS A PURPOSE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN
THE DEMANDS UPON CITIZENS WHEN THEY APPEAR AS WITNESSES UNDER ONE
STATUTE RATHER THAN THE OTHER, THAT PURPOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN STATED
SOMEWHERE IN THE COURSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  BUT THERE IS A
TOTAL ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION ANYWHERE THAT ANY CONGRESSMAN HAD ANY
NOTION THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, THE
INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL ACT, OR THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, CALLED
FOR A DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF WITNESSES IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THESE ACTS
THAN IN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE OTHER FOURTEEN ACTS.  THE
EXPLANATION SEEMS OBVIOUS.  THERE ARE NO EXPRESSIONS IN THE LEGISLATIVE
MATERIALS TO INDICATE THAT THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE VARIED IN THIS
RESPECT BETWEEN THESE ACTS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN PURPOSE. 

BUT THE VARIATIONS IN THE PHRASEOLOGY EMPLOYED IN THE ACTS ARE NOT TO
BE EXPLAINED AWAY AS JUST CAPRICES OF A SINGLE DRAFTSMAN.  THE
EXPLANATION IS LIKELY TO BE FOUND IN THE MANNER IN WHICH CONGRESS
USUALLY ACTS IN ADOPTING REGULATORY LEGISLATION.  IF A SINGLE DRAFTSMAN
HAD DRAFTED EACH OF THESE PROVISIONS IN ALL SEVENTEEN STATUTES, THERE
MIGHT BE SOME REASON FOR BELIEVING THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE
REFLECTED A DIFFERENCE IN MEANING.  BUT IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT
THESE MEASURES ARE FREQUENTLY DRAWN, AT LEAST IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, BY
SPECIALISTS (PERHAPS CONNECTED WITH INTERESTED GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
IN THE VARIOUS FIELDS.  PROVISIONS IN DIFFERENT MEASURES DEALING WITH
THE SAME PROCEDURAL PROBLEM NOT UNNATURALLY, THEREFORE, LACK UNIFORMITY
OF PHRASING. 

WE DO NOT HAVE TO LOOK VERY FAR IN ORDER TO SEE HOW CONGRESS HAPPENED
TO USE ONE FORM OF IMMUNITY PROVISION IN SOME OF THESE STATUTES AND
ANOTHER FORM IN OTHERS.  CONSIDER THE EVOLUTION OF THE THREE STATUTES
WHICH FOLLOWED THE OLD, PRE-1933 FORM.  THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935
WAS ENACTED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  WHAT WAS
MORE NATURAL THAN THAT THE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE OLD ACT SHOULD
BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN PROVIDING FOR THE NEW POWERS OF THE
COMMISSION.  SECS. 201, 205E, 49 STAT. 543, 550.  AND THE INDUSTRIAL
ALCOHOL ACT OF 1935, SO FAR AS ITS ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS WERE
CONCERNED, WAS PATTERNED UPON ITS PREDECESSOR, THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION
ACT OF 1919, 41 STAT. 317, AND THE DRAFTSMAN NATURALLY TOOK THE
IMMUNITY PROVISION FROM THAT STATUTE. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 HAS A MORE COMPLICATED BUT EVEN
MORE REVEALING HISTORY.  INTRODUCED FIRST IN THE SENATE ON MAY 24,
1937, IT CARRIED THE EXPLICIT PROVISION THAT A PERSON GAINS IMMUNITY
"AFTER HAVING CLAIMED HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION."  IT
REMAINED IN THIS FORM THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE LEGISLATION IN BOTH
THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE FOR NEARLY A YEAR, WHEN THE WHOLE CONCEPTION
OF THE BILL WAS CHANGED.  EVERYTHING WAS STRUCK OUT AFTER THE ENACTING
CLAUSE, AND THE NEW MEASURE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE ON APRIL 21,
1938.  AS PART OF THAT NEW BILL, THE PROVISION FOR THE ATTENDANCE OF
WITNESSES IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT SIMPLY INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE THE PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT - AND
OBVIOUSLY THIS WAS BECAUSE THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE NEW BILL DREW HEAVILY
UPON THE SCHEME OF THAT ACT.  BUT THERE IS AN UTTER WANT OF EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE SUGGESTION THAT AFTER A YEAR THE PROPONENTS OF THIS
LEGISLATION, AND THE COMMITTEES THAT GRAPPLED WITH ITS PROBLEMS,
CHANGED THEIR MINDS AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE IMMUNITY TO BE AFFORDED TO
WITNESSES SUMMONED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT.  NOR IS THERE ANY
EVIDENCE IN THE DEBATES THAT WHEN CONGRESS FINALLY PASSED THE MEASURE
IN ITS PRESENT FORM, IT MEANT TO GIVE A GREATER IMMUNITY THAN THAT
WHICH WAS PROVIDED IN THE VARIOUS BILLS THAT WERE BEFORE THE SENATE AND
THE HOUSE FOR A YEAR. 

THE COURSE TAKEN BY THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 BEFORE IT WAS FINALLY
ENACTED IS REVEALING AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ITS IMMUNITY PROVISION,
THE FIRST TO DEPART FROM THE OLD FORM.  UP TO THE TIME THAT THE BILLS
WHICH EVENTUALLY BECAME THE ACT EMERGED FROM CONFERENCE, THE IMMUNITY
PROVISION FOLLOWED THE OLD FORM.  THE NEW FORMULA APPEARS FOR THE FIRST
TIME IN THE BILL REPORTED BY THE CONFERENCE.  BUT NEITHER IN THE
CONFERENCE REPORT NOR ELSEWHERE IS THERE ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE
INTRODUCTION OF THIS PHRASE IMPORTED ANY NEW LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OR
THAT IT WAS ANYTHING MORE THAN A CAREFUL REPHRASING OF A CONVENTIONAL
STATUTORY PROVISION.  IN THE CASE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AS
WE HAVE SEEN, THE MORE METICULOUS PHRASE, "AFTER HAVING CLAIMED HIS
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION," WAS IN ALL SUCCESSIVE BILLS IN
BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE BUT IT DISAPPEARED AT THE FINAL STAGE OF
THE ENACTMENT OF THE MEASURE.  NO ONE EVER SUGGESTED, SO FAR AS THE
AVAILABLE MATERIALS SHOW, THAT THE CHANGE IN THE FORMULA IMPLIED ANY
CHANGE AS TO THE INTENDED SCOPE OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISION.  STYLE, NOT
SUBSTANCE, IS OBVIOUSLY THE EXPLANATION.  IN THE CASE OF ONE STATUTE,
CONGRESS BEGAN WITH THE NEW FORM AND ENDED WITH THE OLD ONE; IN THE
CASE OF THE OTHER, IT BEGAN WITH THE OLD ONE AND ENDED WITH THE NEW. 
UPON WHAT RATIONAL BASIS CAN WE ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS AN INTENTION TO
MAKE THE SCOPE OF THE IMMUNITY PROVISION OF THE ONE STATUTE VITALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE OTHER? 

TO ATTRIBUTE CAPRICE TO CONGRESS IS NOT TO RESPECT ITS RATIONAL
PURPOSE WHEN, AS HERE, WE FIND A UNIFORM POLICY DEEPLY ROOTED IN
HISTORY EVEN THOUGH VARIOUSLY PHRASED BUT ALWAYS DIRECTED TO THE SAME
END OF MEETING THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT. 

I AM THEREFORE OF OPINION THAT AN APPEARANCE IN RESPONSE TO A
SUBPOENA DOES NOT OF ITSELF CONFER IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR
ANYTHING THAT A WITNESS SO RESPONDING MAY TESTIFY.  THERE MUST BE
CONSCIOUS SURRENDER OF THE PRIVILEGE OF SILENCE IN THE COURSE OF A
TESTIMONIAL INQUIRY.  OF COURSE NO FORM OF WORDS IS NECESSARY TO CLAIM
ONE'S PRIVILEGE.  CIRCUMSTANCES MAY ESTABLISH SUCH A CLAIM.  BUT THERE
MUST BE SOME MANIFESTATION OF SURRENDER OF THE PRIVILEGE.  THE
PROSECUTOR'S INSISTENCE UPON DISCLOSURE WHICH, BUT FOR IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION, COULD BE WITHHELD IS THAT FOR WHICH ALONE THE IMMUNITY IS
GIVEN.  HISTORY AND REASON ALIKE REJECT THE NOTION THAT IMMUNITY FROM
PROSECUTION IS TO BE SQUANDERED BY GIVING IT GRATUITOUSLY FOR
RESPONDING TO THE DUTY, OWED BY EVERYONE, TO APPEAR WHEN SUMMONED AS A
WITNESS. 

SINCE THE DEMURRERS TO THE PLEAS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED, THE CASE
SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR APPROPRIATE DISPOSITION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS HEREIN EXPRESSED. 

FN1  DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON THE BILL TO INDEMNIFY EVIDENCE,
12 HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND, 675, 693, MAY 25, 1742,
QUOTED IN 8 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  P. 64, SEC. 2192. 

FN2  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE HEIKE CASE, IN WHICH THIS COURT HELD
THERE WAS "NO REASON FOR SUPPOSING THAT THE (IMMUNITY) ACT OFFERED A
GRATUITY TO CRIME," 227 U.S. AT 142, WAS CITED NEITHER BY THE COURT
BELOW IN THIS CASE, NOR BY JUDGE HUTCHESON IN THE PARDUE CASE, 294 F.
543, NOR IN ANY OF THE CASES FOLLOWING THE PARDUE RULING, UNITED STATES
V. WARD, 295 F. 576, UNITED STATES V. MOORE, 15 F.2D 593, AND UNITED
STATES V. GOLDMAN, 28 F.2D 424. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :





HARRIS V. ZION'S BANK CO., 317 U.S. 447 


NO. 268.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 11, 1943.  - 127
F.2D 1012, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE STATE COURT WHICH APPOINTED HIM AND WHICH HAS
JURISDICTION OVER HIM, AN ADMINISTRATOR MAY NOT REVIVE A PROCEEDING
INSTITUTED BY HIS DECEDENT UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, NOR
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO HAVE THE ESTATE ADJUDGED BANKRUPT AND FOR OTHER
RELIEF UNDER SEC. 75(S) OF THAT ACT.  P. 449. 

2.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(C) OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT PROVIDING THAT "A PETITION MAY BE FILED BY ANY FARMER" FOR THE
EXTENSION AND COMPOSITION OF HIS DEBTS, AND OF SEC. 75(R) DECLARING
THAT "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION,  ...  THE TERM 'FARMER'  ...
INCLUDES THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A DECEASED FARMER," WHERE THE
LAW OF A STATE PROHIBITS AN ADMINISTRATOR FROM DEALING WITH THE REAL
ESTATE, OR CONDITIONS HIS POWER SO TO DO, CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO
OVERRIDE THAT LAW AND CONFER UPON AN ADMINISTRATOR - A MANDATORY OF
STATE POWER - A PRIVILEGE AT WAR WITH THE LAW OF HIS OFFICIAL BEING. 
P. 450. 

3.  SECTION 8 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS INAPPLICABLE.  ORDER 50(9) OF
THE GENERAL ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY HELD APPLICABLE.  P. 452. 

HARRIS, ADMINISTRATOR, V. ZION'S SAVINGS BANK & TRUST CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 609, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE PETITION OF AN ADMINISTRATOR TO REVIVE A PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND REJECTING AN AMENDED PETITION
FOR RELIEF UNDER SEC. 75(S). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DECEMBER 20, 1937, ANNA L. HARRIS FILED HER PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER
SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN1  IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR UTAH. 
SHE MADE AN OFFER OF COMPOSITION AND, WHILE THIS OFFER WAS PENDING, SHE
DIED.  JANUARY 16, 1939, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ORDERED THE PROCEEDING
ABATED BECAUSE OF HER DEATH.  MARCH 30, 1939, THE PETITIONER WAS
APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF HER ESTATE. 

THEREAFTER THE RESPONDENT INSTITUTED A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING UPON A
MORTGAGE ON REAL ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, OBTAINED A JUDGMENT, AND,
AUGUST 1, 1939, PURCHASED THE MORTGAGED PREMISES AT FORECLOSURE SALE
AND RECEIVED A SHERIFF'S CERTIFICATE. 

FEBRUARY 13, 1940, TWO DAYS BEFORE THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION EXPIRED,
THE PETITIONER, AS ADMINISTRATOR, SECURED LEAVE FROM THE PROBATE COURT
TO APPLY, AS THE DECEDENT'S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, FOR AN ORDER
REVIVING THE DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS.  THE PROBATE COURT'S DECREE WAS STAYED
PENDING AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE
STAY, THE PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR A REVIVOR. 

THE UTAH SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE DECREE OF THE PROBATE COURT,
HOLDING THAT, UNDER THE PROBATE CODE, THE COURT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO
AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PETITION THE FEDERAL COURT UNDER SEC.
75.  FN2  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT  FN3
BUT, AFTER HEARING, DISMISSED THE WRIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION
RESTED ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  FN4 

PENDING HEARING IN THIS COURT, THE PETITIONER, ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1940,
LODGED WITH THE CLERK OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AN AMENDED PETITION TO BE
ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT UNDER SUBSECTION (S) OF SEC. 75.  THE COURT ORDERED
THAT THE PAPER BE NOT FILED AND ALSO ORDERED THAT THE PETITIONER SHOW
CAUSE WHY HIS REVIVOR PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED.  AUGUST 29,
1941, THE RESPONDENT MOVED TO STRIKE BOTH THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDED
PETITION.  SEPTEMBER 30, 1941, THE DISTRICT JUDGE ENTERED AN ORDER
DISMISSING THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PETITION TO REVIVE AND REJECTING THE
AMENDED PETITION. 

OCTOBER 10, 1941, THE PETITIONER SOUGHT LEAVE OF THE PROBATE COURT TO
APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND REJECTION. 
THE PRAYER WAS DENIED, AND THE COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER SHOULD
NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO APPEAL.  THE PETITIONER, NEVERTHELESS, APPEALED TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S
ACTION.  FN5 

SUBSECTION (C) OF SEC. 75 PROVIDES:  "  ...  A PETITION MAY BE FILED
BY ANY FARMER" FOR THE EXTENSION AND COMPOSITION OF HIS DEBTS. 
SUBSECTION (R) DECLARES:  "FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION  ...  THE
TERM 'FARMER'  ...  INCLUDES THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A DECEASED
FARMER; ...  " 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER AN ADMINISTRATOR MAY, IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE
CAPACITY, INITIATE SUCH PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT WHICH
APPOINTED HIM AND HAS JURISDICTION OVER HIM, OR MAY DO SO WHERE, AS
HERE, HE HAS APPLIED FOR LEAVE AND BEEN DENIED IT.  THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS QUESTION, AND A DIVERSITY OF VIEWS AMONGST THE FEDERAL COURTS,
FN6  LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

PUT ANOTHER WAY, THE QUESTION IS:  IF THE LAW OF A STATE PROHIBITS AN
ADMINISTRATOR FROM DEALING WITH THE REAL ESTATE, OR CONDITIONS HIS
POWER SO TO DO, DID CONGRESS INTEND TO OVERRIDE THAT LAW AND CONFER
UPON THIS MANDATORY OF STATE POWER A PRIVILEGE AT WAR WITH THE LAW OF
HIS OFFICIAL BEING?  WE MUST MEET THAT QUESTION IN THIS CASE, FOR THE
SUPREME COURT OF UTAH HAS TOLD US THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE,
THE PETITIONER HAS NO SUCH POWER.  IF SUCH HE POSSESSES, IT DERIVES
FROM A LAW WHICH OVERRIDES THE LAW OF THE PETITIONER'S OFFICIAL
CREATION. 

LAYING ASIDE ANY ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, THE QUESTION REMAINS
WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED SO TO OVERRIDE THE LAW OF A STATE AND CONFER
ON THE STATE'S APPOINTEE, AS PERSONA DESIGNATA, A FUNCTION TO BE
EXERCISED NOT FOR THE DECEASED FARMER, NOT FOR THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE,
THE ENTITY HE REPRESENTS UNDER STATE LAW, NOT FOR THE HEIRS WHO INHERIT
THE REALTY, BUT IN A VACUUM? 

WHEN WE REFLECT THAT THE SETTLEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF DECEDENTS'
ESTATES, AND THE RIGHT TO SUCCEED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF REALTY AND
PERSONALTY ARE PECULIARLY MATTERS OF STATE LAW; THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS
HAVE NO PROBATE JURISDICTION AND HAVE SEDULOUSLY REFRAINED, EVEN IN
DIVERSITY CASES, FROM INTERFERING WITH THE OPERATIONS OF STATE
TRIBUNALS INVESTED WITH THAT JURISDICTION, WE NATURALLY INCLINE TO A
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 75 CONSISTENT WITH THESE PRINCIPLES.  WE THINK THE
BENEFICENT PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION WILL NOT BE DEFEATED BY SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION. 

THE SECTION IS A MANIFESTATION OF THE ENLARGED CONCEPTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY POWER AS EXTENDING NOT ALONE TO A SEIZURE OF AN INSOLVENT
DEBTOR'S ASSETS IN THE INTEREST OF AN IMPARTIAL APPLICATION OF THEM TO
HIS CREDITOR'S DEMANDS, BUT ALSO AS A MEANS OF RELIEVING HIS DISTRESS
AND REHABILITATING HIM FINANCIALLY WHILE RENDERING HIS CREDITORS ALL
FOR WHICH THEY MAY REASONABLY HOPE.  FN7 

SO THE OPPORTUNITY OF RESORT TO SEC. 75 ENURES NOT TO CREDITORS BUT
TO THE DEBTOR.  HIS VOLUNTARY ACTION, NOT THEIRS, DETERMINES WHETHER
THE LAW SHALL BE INVOKED.  CONGRESS EXTENDED HIM A PRIVILEGE WHICH HE
COULD EXERCISE OR RENOUNCE.  BY THE PROVISION THAT THE TERM "FARMER"
SHOULD INCLUDE A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, CONGRESS EXTENDED THAT
PRIVILEGE TO AN ADMINISTRATOR.  BUT, CLEARLY, IF THAT FUNCTIONARY
ELECTS NOT TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PRIVILEGE, THE SECTION IS, AS TO
HIM, INOPERATIVE.  MOREOVER, IF HIS ELECTION DEPENDS, UNDER THE LAW OF
HIS BEING, NOT ALONE ON HIS CHOICE BUT UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE CHOICE
OF HIS MASTER, THE STATE WHICH GAVE HIM OFFICIAL LIFE, AND UNDER WHOSE
TUTELAGE HE IS, THEN THE DOOR OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS OPEN TO HIM
ONLY WHEN THAT CHOICE HAS BEEN EXERCISED IN THE ONLY WAY HE CAN
EXERCISE IT. 

IN THIS VIEW, CONGRESS HAS EXTENDED THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT ONLY TO
ADMINISTRATORS WHO CAN LAWFULLY ELECT TO AVAIL OF THEM.  THUS CONFLICT
BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE POWER IS AVOIDED AND THE TWO ARE
ACCOMMODATED. 

THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH POINTS OUT SOME OF THE MANY
INCONSISTENCIES AND DIFFICULTIES AN OPPOSITE CONCLUSION WOULD ENTAIL. 
UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE, REALTY DESCENDS DIRECTLY TO THE HEIRS.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR DOES NOT REPRESENT THEM.  IN RESORTING TO SEC. 75 HE MAY,
OR MAY NOT, BE ACTING IN THEIR TRUE INTERESTS.  THE LAW OF THE STATE
DEMANDS THE SPEEDY SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE.  IF, INDEPENDENTLY OF THAT
LAW, THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPLY UNDER SEC. 75, IT MAY WELL HAPPEN THAT
THIS STATE POLICY WILL BE NULLIFIED.  IN OTHER STATES, AN ADMINISTRATOR
MAY SUCCEED TO THE REALTY ABSOLUTELY OR IN SUCH MEASURE AND FOR SUCH
PURPOSE THAT NO STATE POLICY WOULD BE CONTRAVENED BY RESORT TO SEC.
75.  BUT, IN ANY CASE, THE INTERESTS OF THOSE ENTITLED TO INHERIT OUGHT
TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE CHOICE OF ACTION IS DETERMINED.  THE PROBATE
COURT, NOT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IS THE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR WEIGHING
THE RESPECTIVE BENEFITS OR DETRIMENTS TO THOSE WHO SHARE IN THE EQUITY
OF THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE. 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT SEC. 8 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN8
GOVERNS.  THAT PROVISION WAS PART OF THE ACT OF 1898 AND LOOKED ONLY TO
PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN TITLE TO THE ASSETS WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE
BANKRUPT AS OF THE DATE OF PETITION AND VESTED IN A TRUSTEE, AND
WHEREIN THE ASSETS WERE TO BE LIQUIDATED PROMPTLY AND THE PROCEEDS
DISTRIBUTED AMONGST CREDITORS.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT
OF THE PROCEEDING IN BANKRUPTCY AND THAT IN THE PROBATE COURT WERE THE
SAME.  UNDER SEC. 75 THEY ARE OR MAY BE AT WAR, THE ONE PREVENTING THE
LIQUIDATION WHICH IS THE CHIEF AIM OF THE OTHER.  IN OTHER RESPECTS
SEC. 8 IS INAPPLICABLE.  WHY, IN A CASE LIKE THIS, SHOULD THE HEIRS,
THE OWNERS OF THE EQUITY IN REAL ESTATE, BE MADE PARTIES AGAINST THEIR
WILL?  FN9 

CONGRESS, WHEN THE MATTER HAS COME TO ITS ATTENTION, HAS EXPRESSLY
RECOGNIZED THAT IF A MORATORIUM PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS IS TO BE
BROUGHT OR REVIVED BY AN ADMINISTRATOR, HE OUGHT TO OBTAIN LEAVE FROM
THE PROBATE COURT.  SO SEC. 74, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES.  FN10  WE THINK
THE SAME INTENT SHOULD BE IMPLIED AS TO SEC. 75. 

WE BELIEVE THAT IT WAS WITH THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND THAT THIS
COURT ADOPTED ORDER 50(9) OF THE GENERAL ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY.  FN11
THAT ORDER PROVIDES THAT THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A FARMER SHALL
ANNEX TO HIS PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 75, AMONGST OTHER THINGS, A COPY
OF THE ORDER OF THE PROBATE COURT AUTHORIZING HIM TO FILE THE
PETITION.  THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THE GENERAL ORDER APPLICABLE AND
FELT BOUND TO APPLY IT.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS PORTION OF THE ORDER
IS VOID AS RUNNING COUNTER TO THE CLEAR MANDATE OF THE STATUTE.  AND SO
IT WOULD BE IF THE ACT CONFERRED UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR THE RIGHT,
NOTWITHSTANDING STATE LAW, TO INVOKE THE BANKRUPTCY POWERS.  BUT THE
RULE COMPORTS WITH WHAT WE HAVE ENDEAVORED TO SHOW IS THE NATURAL AND
REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 75.  IF THE STATE LAW PERMITS RESORT TO
THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE SECTION, NO DIFFICULTY WILL BE CREATED BY
REQUIRING THE OBTAINING OF SUCH AN ORDER.  IF IT FORBIDS, THEN NO
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE POLICIES OF STATE AND NATION WILL ARISE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  11 U.S.C. SEC. 203. 

FN2  IN RE HARRIS' ESTATE, 99 UTAH 464, 105 P.2D 461. 

FN3  312 U.S. 670. 

FN4  HARRIS V. ZION'S SAVINGS BANK & TRUST CO., 313 U.S. 541. 

FN5  127 F.2D 1012. 

FN6  COMPARE IN RE BUXTON'S ESTATE, 14 F.SUPP.  616; IN RE REYNOLDS,
21 F.SUPP.  369; LEMM V. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA NATIONAL BANK, 93 F.2D
709; HINES V. FARKAS, 109 F.2D 289. 

FN7  LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S. 234, 244; CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS
NATIONAL BANK & T. CO. V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648, 667
675; UNITED STATES V. BEKINS, 304 U.S. 27, 47; WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL
LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 502, 514; WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS.
CO., 311 U.S. 273, 279. 

FN8  11 U.S.C. SEC. 26. 

FN9 SEE SHUTE V. PATTERSON, 147 F. 509. 

FN10  11 U.S.C. SEC. 202. 

FN11  GENERAL ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY OF JANUARY 16, 1939, 305 U.S. 681,
11 U.S.C.A. FOLLOWING SEC. 53. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

SEC. 75(R) INCLUDES "THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A DECEASED
FARMER" WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "FARMER" AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE
ACT.  SEC. 75(N) PROVIDES THAT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS "THE JURISDICTION
AND POWERS OF THE COURTS, THE TITLE, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF ITS
OFFICERS, THE DUTIES OF THE FARMER, AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE
FARMER  ...  SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR
ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN
ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE FARMER'S PETITION, ASKING TO BE ADJUDGED A
BANKRUPT" WAS FILED.  SINCE THAT PROVISION RELATES TO THE "JURISDICTION
AND POWERS" OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AS WELL AS TO THE "RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES" OF CREDITORS AND "OF ALL PERSONS" WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPERTY, I DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT IT
INCORPORATES SEC. 8 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL
PROVISIONS IN OLD SEC. 74(M), DEALING WITH COMPOSITIONS AND EXTENSIONS,
WERE HELD TO HAVE THAT EFFECT.  IN RE MORGAN, 15 F.SUPP.  52.  CF.
BENITEZ V. ANCIANI, 127 F.2D 121.  THE FUNCTION AND PURPOSE OF SEC. 74
AND SEC. 75 ARE COMPARABLE.  NO REASON IS APPARENT WHY A DIFFERENT
RESULT SHOULD OBTAIN UNDER SEC. 75.  SEC. 8 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
STATES THAT DEATH OF A BANKRUPT "SHALL NOT ABATE THE PROCEEDINGS, BUT
THE SAME SHALL BE CONDUCTED AND CONCLUDED IN THE SAME MANNER, SO FAR AS
POSSIBLE, AS THOUGH HE HAD NOT DIED."  THAT SECTION "MAKES NO EXCEPTION
OR QUALIFICATION - AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED THEY ARE
NOT TO BE ABATED BY DEATH."  HULL V. DICKS, 235 U.S. 584, 588.  IT HAS
LONG BEEN CONSIDERED MANDATORY.  SHUTE V. PATTERSON, 147 F. 509; 1
COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  SEC.  8.02.  ON DEATH OF A BANKRUPT
WHERE HIS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE SUCCEEDS TO THE PERSONALTY AND HIS
HEIRS TO THE REALTY, THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO MAKE THEM PARTIES. 
SHUTE V. PATTERSON, SUPRA, P. 512; BENITEZ V. ANCIANI, SUPRA, P. 125. 
AND SEE IN RE SCHWAB, 83 F.2D 526.  AND THE DEATH OF A BANKRUPT DOES
NOT PREVENT HIS DISCHARGE (COLLIER, LOC.  CIT.)  AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  IN RE AGNEW, 225 F. 650. 

IF THIS HAD BEEN AN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY CASE, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT
THAT THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THIS DECEDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN
ENTITLED TO COME IN, THAT THE HEIRS COULD HAVE BEEN JOINED, AND THAT A
DISCHARGE COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, PROVIDED THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
14 WERE MET.  THE FACT THAT THE PROCEEDING IS UNDER SEC. 75 SHOULD NOT
MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT A "PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE" OF A FARMER MAY EMPLOY THE MACHINERY OF SEC. 75.  THE
OFFER OF COMPOSITION MADE BY THE DECEDENT BEFORE HER DEATH MIGHT OR
MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.  BUT EVEN THOUGH IT WERE REJECTED,
SUBSECTION (S) AFFORDS AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF RELIEF, ONE BENEFIT OF
WHICH IS A DISCHARGE.  SEC. 75(S)(3); WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS.
CO., 311 U.S. 273.  I THINK IT CLEAR THAT SEC. 75 WAS DESIGNED TO
AFFORD TO THE ESTATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN THESE BENEFITS.  THOSE
BENEFITS MAY BE JUST AS CONSIDERABLE AS THEY WOULD BE IN ORDINARY
BANKRUPTCY.  THE FACT THAT THE HEIRS WOULD BE HELD AT BAY IS NO MORE
SIGNIFICANT IN THIS INSTANCE THAN IT IS IN OTHER APPLICATIONS OF SEC. 8
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  TO BE SURE, TITLE TO THE PROPERTY VESTS IN THE
TRUSTEE IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY.  BUT THAT CIRCUMSTANCE HAS NO RELEVANCY
TO THE SCOPE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT UNDER SEC. 75
WHICH IS IN ISSUE HERE AND WHICH WE RECENTLY STATED WAS "EXCLUSIVE,"
CARRYING WITH IT "COMPLETE AND SELF-EXECUTING STATUTORY EXCLUSION OF
ALL OTHER COURTS."  KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433, 443. 
FURTHERMORE, CONGRESS HAS NOT MADE PARTICIPATION OF THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE DEPENDENT ON AUTHORIZATION FROM THE STATE PROBATE
COURT.  UNDER OLD SEC. 74 IT DID.  THUS SEC. 74 AS AMENDED BY THE ACT
OF JUNE 7, 1934(48 STAT. 922, 11 U.S.C. 202A), AN ACT WHICH ALSO
CONTAINED CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 75(48 STAT. 924, 925), INCLUDED
"THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A DECEASED INDIVIDUAL FOR THE PURPOSE
OF EFFECTING SETTLEMENT OR COMPOSITION WITH THE CREDITORS OF THE
ESTATE:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE SHALL
FIRST OBTAIN THE CONSENT AND AUTHORITY OF THE COURT WHICH HAS ASSUMED
JURISDICTION OF SAID ESTATE, TO INVOKE THE RELIEF PROVIDED" BY THAT
ACT.  NO SUCH QUALIFICATION APPEARS IN SEC. 75.  ITS ABSENCE THERE AND
ITS PRESENCE IN SEC. 74 CLEARLY INDICATE THAT, WHERE CONGRESS WISHED TO
CURTAIL THE POWER OF BANKRUPTCY COURTS OVER ESTATES OF DECEDENTS AND TO
MAKE THE PARTICIPATION OF A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE DEPENDENT ON
AUTHORIZATION FROM THE STATE PROBATE COURT, IT SAID SO.  THE VIEW I
URGE WOULD OF COURSE RESULT IN A COLLISION BETWEEN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
AND STATE PROBATE LAW.  BUT THAT IS NO MORE IMPORTANT HERE THAN WAS THE
COLLISION IN KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, SUPRA.  IN THIS CASE, AS IN OTHER
SITUATIONS (IN RE DEVLIN, 180 F. 170, 172) IT IS THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
NOT LOCAL PROBATE LAW, WHICH MUST CONTROL THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ESTATE.  THE BANKRUPTCY POWER IS SUPREME.  SEC. 8 IS A VALID EXERCISE
OF THAT POWER.  THE RESULT IS THAT GENERAL ORDER 50(9) MUST GIVE WAY
INSOFAR AS IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS RESULT.  FOR THOSE RULES ARE
INTENDED MERELY "TO EXECUTE THE ACT" (WEST CO. V. LEA, 174 U.S. 590,
599), NOT TO "AUTHORIZE ADDITIONS TO ITS SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS."  MEEK
V. CENTRE COUNTY BANKING CO., 268 U.S. 426, 434. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. GAS CO., 317 U.S. 456 


NO. 87.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 11, 1943.  - 46
F.SUPP.  309, AFFIRMED. 


UPON AN APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO FROM A
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING, IN 1932, RATES FOR NATURAL GAS SOLD
IN THE CITY BY A LOCAL UTILITY, THE COMMISSION ASSERTED JURISDICTION TO
FIX THE RATES PAID BY THE LOCAL UTILITY TO AN UNAFFILIATED COMPANY FOR
NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTED AND SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND, IN 1935,
ISSUED ORDERS PRELIMINARY TO FIXING SUCH RATES.  IN A SUIT IN EQUITY
BEGUN BY THE INTERSTATE COMPANY PRIOR TO, AND DECIDED SUBSEQUENTLY TO,
THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDERS.  THE STATE COMMISSION HAD HELD NO HEARING,
AND HAD MADE NO FINDINGS, WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWFULNESS OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE INTERSTATE RATES.  HELD: 

1.  CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY REQUIRE THE DETERMINATION HERE OF THE
QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW AS TO THE POWER OF THE STATE COMMISSION TO FIX
RETROACTIVELY THE RATES TO BE CHARGED BY THE INTERSTATE COMPANY FOR
NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTED AND SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE LOCAL
UTILITY.  P. 462. 

WHERE, AS HERE, NO STATE COURT RULING ON LOCAL LAW COULD SETTLE THE
FEDERAL QUESTIONS THAT NECESSARILY REMAIN, AND WHERE, AS HERE, THE
LITIGATION HAS ALREADY BEEN IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR AN INORDINATELY
LONG TIME, CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY REQUIRE THAT THE LITIGATION BE
BROUGHT TO AN END AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 

2.  UNDER THE LAW OF OHIO, THE STATE COMMISSION, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE, IS WITHOUT POWER TO FIX RETROACTIVELY THE RATES TO BE
CHARGED BY THE INTERSTATE COMPANY FOR NATURAL GAS SOLD IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO THE LOCAL UTILITY.  P. 465. 

3.  THE POWER TO FIX RATES FOR NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTED AND SOLD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS BEEN VESTED BY THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938 IN
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION EXCLUSIVELY.  P. 468. 

4.  THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938 DOES NOT BAR A STATE COMMISSION, IN
THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION, FROM COMPELLING THE
PRODUCTION OF DATA IN THE POSSESSION OF THE INTERSTATE COMPANY AND
RELEVANT TO THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  P. 468. 

5.  THE INJUNCTION DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT CAN NOT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, BE SET ASIDE AS AN IMPROPER EXERCISE OF ITS
EQUITABLE JURISDICTION.  P. 468. 

6.  THE JOHNSON ACT OF MAY 14, 1934, IS INAPPLICABLE HERE.  P. 469. 

7.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE IS TO BE READ AS AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE COMMISSION'S ORDERS ONLY IN SO FAR AS
THEY ASSUME JURISDICTION TO FIX THE RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR NATURAL GAS
TRANSPORTED AND SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 470. 

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL. V. UNITED FUEL GAS CO. ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINING
ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN ORDERS OF THE STATE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST APPELLEE,
UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY (HEREAFTER CALLED UNITED), OF ORDERS MADE BY
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO, 46 F.SUPP.  309. 

THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY, A PUBLIC
UTILITY, SELLS NATURAL GAS AT RETAIL TO THE PEOPLE OF PORTSMOUTH,
OHIO.  IT PURCHASES ITS ENTIRE SUPPLY OF GAS FROM UNITED, A WEST
VIRGINIA CORPORATION.  THE GAS IS CONVEYED THROUGH PIPELINES IN A
CONTINUOUS FLOW FROM POINTS OF PRODUCTION IN WEST VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY
INTO OHIO, AND THERE DELIVERED TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY.  ON
FEBRUARY 24, 1932, THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GIVEN IT
BY SEC. 614-44 OF THE OHIO GENERAL CODE, ESTABLISHED THE RATES TO BE
CHARGED TO PORTSMOUTH CONSUMERS FOR NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTED BY THE
PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY.  THIS ORDINANCE DID NOT PURPORT TO FIX THE
CHARGES MADE BY UNITED FOR THE GAS SOLD TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY. 
CLAIMING THAT THE RATES FIXED BY THE CITY WERE UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST,
THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY CHALLENGED THE ORDINANCE BEFORE THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE COMPLAINT
WAS JUSTIFIED, AND THAT REASONABLE AND JUST RATES SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED
FOR THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE ORDINANCE.  BUT IT ALSO FOUND THAT IT COULD
NOT DETERMINE SUCH RATES IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF THAT THE CHARGES WHICH
UNITED EXACTED FROM THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY WERE JUST AND
REASONABLE.  THE COMMISSION RULED THAT THE SALE OF GAS BY UNITED TO THE
PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY FOR RESALE TO CONSUMERS IN PORTSMOUTH WAS A
PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 614-2 OF THE OHIO
GENERAL CODE, AND THAT THE RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR SUCH SERVICE WERE
SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION.  ACCORDINGLY, ON APRIL 18, 1935, THE
COMMISSION ORDERED THAT UNITED PREPARE AND PRESENT "ALL PERTINENT AND
RELEVANT TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS TENDING TO PROVE A REASONABLE AND JUST
RATE TO BE CHARGED BY IT TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY FOR THE
FURNISHING OF NATURAL GAS FOR DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE CITY OF
PORTSMOUTH, OHIO." 

UNITED THEREUPON FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING WITH THE COMMISSION. 
THE PETITION ASSERTED THAT THE GAS SOLD BY UNITED TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS
COMPANY WAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THAT THE TWO COMPANIES WERE WHOLLY
INDEPENDENT OF ONE ANOTHER, AND THAT THE COMMISSION THEREFORE WENT
BEYOND THE POWER OF THE STATE IN ASSERTING JURISDICTION TO FIX THE
RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR GAS SOLD BY UNITED TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS
COMPANY.  UNITED RECOGNIZED, HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION
TO COMPEL IT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSION RELEVANT TO A
DETERMINATION OF JUST AND REASONABLE RATES TO BE CHARGED BY THE
PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY FOR GAS SOLD TO ITS CUSTOMERS.  THIS PROFFER OF
TESTIMONY BY UNITED, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSION, IS
RELEVANT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CONTROVERSY:  "IT (UNITED) DOES NOT
QUESTION THE RIGHT OF SAID COMMISSION TO CALL UPON THIS PETITIONER FOR
SUCH EVIDENCE AND FACTS AS MAY BE IN ITS POSSESSION WHICH MAY SHOW OR
TEND TO SHOW WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE RATE TO BE CHARGED FOR GAS TO
THE CONSUMERS IN THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, AND IT OFFERS TO FURNISH TO
THE COMMISSION SUCH FACTS AND EVIDENCE AS MAY BE DESIRED, OR TO PERMIT
ANY OFFICERS OR AGENTS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO TO
ASCERTAIN SUCH FACTS AND EVIDENCE AS MAY BE DESIRED FROM ITS RECORDS
AND BOOKS FOR THE PURPOSE AFORESAID, BUT DENIES AND PROTESTS THE RIGHT
OR POWER OF SAID COMMISSION TO FIX THE RATES AT WHICH PETITIONER SHALL
SELL THE GAS WHICH IT TRANSPORTS INTO THE STATE OF OHIO AND DELIVERS TO
THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY." 

ON MAY 29, 1935, THE COMMISSION DENIED THIS PETITION.  ITS ORDER
EXPRESSLY REAFFIRMED ITS PREVIOUS ASSERTION OF JURISDICTION TO FIX THE
RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR THE SALE OF GAS BY UNITED TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS
COMPANY.  FN1 

THIS SUIT TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE TWO ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION
FOLLOWED.  IN ITS ORIGINAL BILL, FILED JULY 3, 1935, UNITED ALLEGED
THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS WERE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO
REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDERS WOULD
ENTAIL AN EXPENDITURE OF MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN
ORDER TO MAKE THE USUAL APPRAISALS REQUIRED IN DETERMINING A RATE BASE;
THAT DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDERS WOULD SUBJECT UNITED AND ITS AGENTS TO
FINES OF A THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY.  THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE DENIED BY
THE COMMISSION.  BUT ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1935, THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT
"IT WILL COST THE PLAINTIFF A SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF MONEY, IN EXCESS OF
THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS, TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMISSION'S ORDER." 

THE BILL WAS STILL PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT OF JUNE 21, 1938, 52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717, AND
THE RELEVANCE OF THAT STATUTE TO THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY WAS DULY SET
FORTH IN AN AMENDED BILL FILED MARCH 8, 1939.  THE SUIT DID NOT COME TO
ISSUE FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS THEREAFTER.  THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, NECESSITATING REARGUMENT AND
RECONSIDERATION OF THE CASE, MAY EXPLAIN, AT LEAST IN PART, WHY A CASE
OF SUCH PUBLIC IMPORTANCE SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED AT SUCH A LEADEN-FOOTED
PACE.  FN2  IT WAS NOT UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1942, THAT THE DECREE NOW
UNDER REVIEW WAS ENTERED.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT, REGARDLESS OF
WHAT THE SITUATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE NATURAL GAS
ACT, THAT STATUTE DEPRIVED THE OHIO COMMISSION OF POWER TO REGULATE THE
RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR GAS TRANSPORTED AND SOLD IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  AND SO THE COURT ENJOINED THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS AGAINST UNITED. 

THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT THE ISSUES OF THIS CASE LIE OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT BECAUSE THE COMMISSION WAS CONCERNED WITH
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES FOR THE SALE OF GAS BY UNITED TO PORTSMOUTH
GAS COMPANY PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FEDERAL ACT, AND, MORE
PARTICULARLY, TO FIX RATES RETROACTIVE TO FEBRUARY 24, 1932, WHEN THE
CITY OF PORTSMOUTH PRESCRIBED THE RATES FOR GAS SOLD TO CONSUMERS BY
THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY IN THE ORDINANCE WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THIS CONTENTION, IF CORRECT, WOULD
REQUIRE US TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, OF ITS OWN FORCE,
INVALIDATED THE COMMISSION'S ASSERTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE RATES
UPON GAS SHIPPED BY UNITED INTO OHIO. 

BUT WE MUST REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE COMMISSION.  IT RESTS UPON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT UNDER THE OHIO LAW THE STATE COMMISSION CAN
RETROACTIVELY FIX THE RATES OF UNITED.  FOR IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND
THAT THE ULTIMATE ISSUE IN THIS SUIT IS THE ASSERTION BY THE OHIO
COMMISSION IN 1935 OF POWER TO FIX APPELLEE'S RATES; THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS NOT YET EXERCISED THE POWER WHICH IT THUS ASSERTED; THAT
IT HAS NOT MADE THE INQUIRY AND THE FINDINGS WHICH MUST PRECEDE THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW RATES; THAT UNITED HAS NOT POSTED ANY BOND TO
SECURE REFUNDS IT MIGHT BE ORDERED TO MAKE; THAT THE COMMISSION'S
JURISDICTION TO FIX UNITED'S RATES WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN
ITS DECREE OF JANUARY 16, 1942; AND THAT, SO FAR AS RATES IN THE PAST
ARE CONCERNED, THE POWER OF THE OHIO COMMISSION (APART FROM ANY
LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY FEDERAL LAW, WHETHER CONSTITUTIONAL OR
STATUTORY) IS DEPENDENT UPON THE AUTHORITY POSSESSED BY IT UNDER OHIO
LAW.  TO SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE WE WOULD HAVE
TO FIND THAT IT WAS THE LAW OF OHIO THAT THE COMMISSION HAD POWER TO
FIX RATES UPON GAS SOLD BY UNITED TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY WHICH
WOULD BE RETROACTIVE TO FEBRUARY 24, 1932, WHEN THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH
PRESCRIBED THE RATES UPON GAS SOLD BY THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY TO ITS
CUSTOMERS. 

UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE NOT AIDED BY A FINDING OF THE LOWER COURT ON
THIS QUESTION OF STATE LAW.  SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT WAS COMPOSED OF
THREE OHIO JUDGES, THEY MAY PERHAPS HAVE TAKEN OHIO LAW ON THIS POINT
SO MUCH FOR GRANTED AS NOT TO REQUIRE STATEMENT.  UNDER ORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES WE WOULD PREFER TO LEAVE TO OTHERS THE TASK OF
FORMULATING LOCAL LAW.  BUT THIS CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN TOO LONG IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS, AND WE DO NOT THINK IT COMPORTS WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST TO REMIT THE CONTROVERSY FOR EXPLICIT FINDINGS BY THE DISTRICT
COURT AS TO THE POWER OF THE OHIO COMMISSION TO FIX RATES
RETROACTIVELY.  THE SITUATION HERE IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM RAILROAD
COMM'N V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496.  WHERE THE DISPOSITION OF A
DOUBTFUL QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW MIGHT TERMINATE THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY
AND THUS MAKE IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION, CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY JUSTIFY A RULE OF ABSTENTION.  BUT
WHERE, AS HERE, NO STATE COURT RULING ON LOCAL LAW COULD SETTLE THE
FEDERAL QUESTIONS THAT NECESSARILY REMAIN, AND WHERE, AS HERE, THE
LITIGATION HAS ALREADY BEEN IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AN INORDINATELY LONG
TIME, CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY REQUIRE THAT THE LITIGATION BE BROUGHT
TO AN END AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 

THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE STATE COMMISSION AROSE UNDER SEC. 614-44 ET
SEQ. OF THE OHIO GENERAL CODE (PAGE, 1926), DEALING WITH APPEALS TO THE
COMMISSION FROM MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING RATES TO BE CHARGED
BY LOCAL UTILITIES.  WHENEVER SUCH AN APPEAL IS TAKEN, AS IT WAS TAKEN
HERE BY THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY, THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO HOLD
A HEARING.  SEC. 614-44.  IF, AFTER SUCH HEARING, THE COMMISSION FINDS
THAT THE RATE FIXED BY THE ORDINANCE IS UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE, IT MUST
DETERMINE THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATE TO BE CHARGED "DURING THE PERIOD
SO FIXED BY ORDINANCE  ...  AND ORDER THE SAME SUBSTITUTED FOR THE
(ORDINANCE) RATE  ...  " SEC. 614-46.  IT IS CLEAR THAT UNDER THIS
RATES IN LIEU OF THOSE FIXED BY THE ORDINANCE, AND CAN MAKE ITS ORDER
EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY BY ORDERING REFUNDS OF CHARGES IN EXCESS OF THE
SUBSTITUTED RATES.  IN RE COLUMBIA GAS & FUEL CO., 1941 REP. OHIO
P.U.C. 22; IN RE WHEELING ELECTRIC CO., 1941 ID. 69; IN RE EAST OHIO
GAS CO., 1939 ID. 15.  THE COMMISSION UNDOUBTEDLY HAS POWER, THEREFORE,
TO ESTABLISH A JUST AND REASONABLE RATE, RETROACTIVE TO FEBRUARY 24,
1932, FOR GAS SOLD BY THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY TO THE PEOPLE OF THAT
COMMUNITY. 

BUT WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS SIMILAR POWER WITH RESPECT TO RATES
FOR GAS SOLD BY UNITED TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY - AND THAT IS THE
CONTROLLING INQUIRY HERE - IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE QUESTION.  SECTION
614-46 IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE RATES TO BE ESTABLISHED WOULD NOT BE
IN LIEU OF RATES FIXED BY ORDINANCE.  THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO
INQUIRE INTO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES CHARGED BY UNITED FOR GAS
SOLD TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY IS TO BE FOUND IN SECS. 614-21 AND
614-23, WHICH PROVIDE AS FOLLOWS:  "UPON COMPLAINT IN WRITING, AGAINST
ANY PUBLIC UTILITY, BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION, OR UPON THE
INITIATIVE OR COMPLAINT OF THE COMMISSION THAT ANY RATE  ...  IS IN ANY
RESPECT UNJUST UNREASONABLE, UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY, OR UNJUSTLY
PREFERENTIAL OR IN VIOLATION OF LAW,  ...  THE COMMISSION SHALL NOTIFY
THE PUBLIC UTILITY" AND HOLD A HEARING.  IF, AFTER SUCH HEARING, THE
COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE RATE OR CHARGE IS UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, OR
OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL, IT MUST "FIX AND DETERMINE THE JUST AND REASONABLE
RATE, FARE, CHARGE, TOLL, RENTAL OR SERVICE TO BE THEREAFTER RENDERED,
CHARGED, DEMANDED, EXACTED OR COLLECTED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OR
RENDITION OF THE SERVICE, AND ORDER THE SAME SUBSTITUTED THEREFOR." 
SEC. 614-23.  THE STATUTE IN TERMS THUS GIVES THE COMMISSION POWER TO
PRESCRIBE SUCH RATES PROSPECTIVELY ONLY.  IF, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING,
THE COMMISSION FINDS RATES TO BE UNLAWFUL, IT CAN THEN FIX THE JUST AND
REASONABLE RATES "TO BE THEREAFTER" CHARGED.  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW
RATES MUST BE PRECEDED BY A FINDING THAT THE OLD RATES ARE UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE, AND THE NEW RATES ARE PROSPECTIVE AS OF THE DATE THEY ARE
FIXED.  THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE STATUTE FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS CAN BE RETROACTIVE TO THE DATE WHEN THE
COMMISSION'S INQUIRY INTO THE RATES WAS BEGUN; ON THE CONTRARY, THE
EXPLICIT LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE PRECLUDES SUCH A CONSTRUCTION. 

ITS ANNUAL REPORTS SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION HAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED
WHAT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE PLAIN MANDATE OF THE STATUTE.  SEE, E.G., IN
RE AMHERST WATER WORKS CO., 1941 REP. OHIO P.U.C. 88; IN RE CINCINNATI
GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 1940 ID. 14; IN RE UNION GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 1936
ID. 67.  WHATEVER DOUBTS THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ABOUT THE MATTER APPEAR TO
HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN GREAT
MIAMI VALLEY TAXPAYERS ASSN. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 131 OHIO
ST. 285, 2 N.E.2D 777, WHICH AFFIRMED A RULING OF THE COMMISSION THAT
"IT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO MAKE A REFUND IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED UNDER
AND BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 614-23, GENERAL CODE."  131
OHIO ST. 285, 286.  IT IS NOT SURPRISING, THEREFORE, THAT COUNSEL FOR
THE COMMISSION DID NOT CONTEND BEFORE US THAT THE COMMISSION HAS POWER
UNDER OHIO LAW TO ESTABLISH RETROACTIVELY JUST AND REASONABLE RATES TO
BE CHARGED BY UNITED FOR GAS SOLD TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY.  OUR
EXAMINATION OF THE RELEVANT OHIO MATERIALS CONVINCES US THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN SUCH AUTHORITY.    THE COMMISSION IN THIS
CASE HAS NOT YET DONE MORE THAN ASSERT ITS JURISDICTION OVER UNITED'S
RATES.  IT HAS NOT YET HELD A HEARING UPON THE REASONABLENESS OF
UNITED'S PRESENT RATES; IT HAS MADE NO FINDING WHETHER THESE RATES ARE
UNLAWFUL AND WHETHER NEW RATES SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED; IT HAS NOT
ENTERED UPON AN INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHAT RATES WOULD BE JUST AND
REASONABLE.  AS OF THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT,
THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, SO FAR AS UNITED WAS
CONCERNED, WAS STILL IN AN EMBRYONIC STAGE.  AND WE CAN FIND NO
PROVISION OF OHIO LAW WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO ENTER
ORDERS FIXING UNITED'S RATES RETROACTIVE TO ANY DATE PRIOR TO JUNE 21,
1938, WHEN THE FEDERAL ACT BECAME LAW.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS MUST BE
TREATED HERE, THEREFORE, FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHETHER THEY ARE
IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY, AS IF THEY
HAD BEEN MADE AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT.  THE CASE
CANNOT NOW BE DISPOSED OF ON THE BASIS THAT WOULD HAVE GOVERNED HAD IT
COME HERE IN 1935.  TO INQUIRE INTO THE POWERS THE COMMISSION HAD THAT
YEAR, OR ANY OTHER YEAR PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT
IN 1938, WOULD BE TO ASCERTAIN AN ABSTRACT QUESTION OF LAW.  THE
QUESTION WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE, AND IT IS THE ONLY QUESTION, IS
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ENTERED THE DECREE UNDER REVIEW. 
THAT DECREE WAS ENTERED ON JANUARY 16, 1942, AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT, AND AFTER UNITED, IN FILING AN AMENDED BILL OF
COMPLAINT, BASED ITS CLAIM FOR RELIEF UPON THAT ACT.  IT IS FAMILIAR
DOCTRINE THAT AN APPEAL IN AN EQUITY SUIT OPENS UP INQUIRY AS OF THE
TIME OF THE ULTIMATE DECISION.  TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF A
LEGAL SITUATION THAT CEASED TO EXIST NOT ONLY PRIOR TO THE TAKING OF
THIS APPEAL BUT ALSO BEFORE ISSUE WAS FINALLY JOINED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, WOULD BE TO MAKE A GRATUITOUS ADVISORY JUDGMENT.  IT IS THE CASE
THAT IS HERE NOW THAT MUST BE DECIDED, AND IT MUST BE DECIDED ON THE
BASIS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXIST NOW.  CF. VANDENBARK V. OWENS
ILLINOIS CO., 311 U.S. 538, 542-43, AND CASES THERE CITED. 

AND AS TO RATES EFFECTIVE IN THE FUTURE WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT
COURT THAT THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938 GOVERNS.  CONGRESS BY THAT ACT,
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND SCOPE OF WHICH WE CANVASSED LAST TERM IN
FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575, AND ILLINOIS GAS
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, PREEMPTED THE REGULATORY
POWERS OVER THE TRANSPORTATION AND SALE OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SECTION 1, AFTER DECLARING THAT "FEDERAL REGULATION IN
MATTERS RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS AND THE SALE
THEREOF IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IS NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST," MAKES THE ACT APPLICABLE TO "THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL
GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF
NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE."  RATES AND CHARGES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OR TRANSPORTATION OF GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ARE REQUIRED TO BE "JUST AND REASONABLE."  SEC. 4(A). 
COMPANIES SUBJECT TO THE ACT MUST, UNDER SEC. 4(C), FILE WITH THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION SCHEDULES OF RATES AND CHARGES, AND NO CHANGES
IN SUCH SCHEDULES CAN BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE COMMISSION AND THE
PUBLIC.  SEC. 4(D).  ACTING UPON EITHER ITS OWN MOTION OR COMPLAINT OF
A STATE OR MUNICIPALITY, OR A STATE REGULATORY BODY OR GAS DISTRIBUTING
COMPANY, THE COMMISSION CAN INQUIRE INTO THE LEGALITY OF RATES AND
CHARGES OF COMPANIES SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION, AND CAN DETERMINE THE
JUST AND REASONABLE RATES AND CHARGES THEREAFTER TO BE OBSERVED.  SEC.
5(A). 

IT IS CLEAR, AS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT AMPLY
DEMONSTRATES, THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO CREATE A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF
REGULATION WHICH WOULD BE COMPLEMENTARY IN ITS OPERATION TO THAT OF THE
STATES, WITHOUT ANY CONFUSION OF FUNCTIONS.  THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION WOULD EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE, TO THE EXTENT DEFINED IN THE ACT, AND LOCAL MATTERS
WOULD BE LEFT TO THE STATE REGULATORY BODIES.  CONGRESS CONTEMPLATED A
HARMONIOUS, DUAL SYSTEM OF REGULATION OF THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY -
FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORY BODIES OPERATING SIDE BY SIDE, EACH ACTIVE
IN ITS OWN SPHERE.  SEE H. REP. NO. 2651, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1
3; H. REP. NO. 709, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1-4; SEN. REP. NO. 1162,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

UPON THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THIS RECORD, UNITED IS PLAINLY SUBJECT
TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WITH
RESPECT TO THE RATES AND CHARGES FOR NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTED BY IT FROM
WEST VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY TO OHIO.  AND, INDEED, IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE ACT, UNITED HAS SUBMITTED ITSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
AGENCY AND FILED SCHEDULES OF ITS RATES AND CHARGES.  NO CHANGES IN
SUCH SCHEDULES CAN BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE POWER COMMISSION. 
THAT COMMISSION, ON ITS OWN MOTION, CAN INQUIRE INTO THE LAWFULNESS OF
SUCH RATES; IF THE PUBLIC INTEREST SO REQUIRES, RATES FOUND TO BE JUST
AND REASONABLE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED.  IT IS INDISPUTABLE, THEREFORE, THAT
IF THE OHIO COMMISSION TODAY MADE THE ORDERS COMPLAINED OF IN THIS
SUIT, IT WOULD BE INTRUDING IN A DOMAIN RESERVED TO THE FEDERAL
REGULATORY BODY.  THE POWER TO FIX RATES FOR NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTED
AND SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED SOLELY TO THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, OF COURSE, THAT THE ACT
BARS A STATE COMMISSION, IN THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF ITS
JURISDICTION, FROM COMPELLING THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO
THE PROCEEDING BEFORE IT.  BUT THE ORDERS BEFORE US WENT BEYOND THIS
LIMITED PURPOSE.  THEY UNDERTOOK TO ASSERT A JURISDICTION WHICH THE
STATE BODY DOES NOT POSSESS.  IN OUR CONCLUSION REGARDING OHIO LAW, WE
HOLD ONLY THAT THE ASSERTION OF POWER BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION OF OHIO MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS AUTHORITY
UNDER THE OHIO STATUTES.  AND, AS THUS CONSTRUED, THE ORDER CANNOT BE
RECONCILED WITH THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE NATURAL GAS ACT
OF 1938.  BECAUSE THE ORDERS ARE NOT AN ASSERTION OF JURISDICTION TO
FIX THE RATES OF UNITED PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE FEDERAL ACT, IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER, IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL STATUTE,
THE STATE COULD SUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPT TO FIX THE RATES CHARGED BY AN
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS COMPANY FOR GAS TRANSPORTED AND SOLD FROM ONE
STATE TO ANOTHER. 

SINCE THESE ORDERS ARE INVALID INSOFAR AS THEY IMPINGE UPON AN
AUTHORITY WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOW VESTED SOLELY IN THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, THE DECREE BELOW MUST STAND UNLESS WE CAN FAIRLY CONCLUDE
THAT IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT
RELIEF BY WAY OF INJUNCTION.  IT IS PERHAPS UNNECESSARY AT THIS LATE
DATE TO REPEAT THE ADMONITION THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF
INTERRUPTING THE PROCEEDINGS OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS BY USE
OF THE EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF INJUNCTION.  BUT THIS, TOO, IS A RULE OF
EQUITY AND NOT TO BE APPLIED IN BLIND DISREGARD OF FACT.  AND WHAT ARE
THE COMMANDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE?  FIRST, AND MOST
IMPORTANT, THE ORDERS OF THE STATE COMMISSION ARE ON THEIR FACE PLAINLY
INVALID.  NO INQUIRY BEYOND THE ORDERS THEMSELVES AND THE UNDISPUTED
FACTS WHICH UNDERLIE THEM IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DISCOVER THAT THEY
ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ACT.  IF, THEREFORE, UNITED COMPLIES
WITH THESE ORDERS, IT WILL BE PUT TO THE EXPENDITURES INCIDENT TO
ASCERTAINING THE BASE FOR RATE-FIXING PURPOSES - EXPENSES WHICH MAY
ULTIMATELY BE BORNE BY THE CONSUMING PUBLIC AND WHICH CONGRESS, BY
CONFERRING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION UPON THE FEDERAL REGULATORY AGENCY,
NECESSARILY INTENDED TO AVOID.  IF UNITED DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE
ORDERS, IT RUNS THE RISK OF INCURRING HEAVY FINES AND PENALTIES OR, AT
THE LEAST, IN PROVOKING NEEDLESS, WASTEFUL LITIGATION.  IN EITHER
EVENT, ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS WOULD WORK INJURY NOT
ASSESSABLE IN MONEY DAMAGES, NOT ONLY TO THE APPELLEE BUT TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WHICH CONGRESS DEEMED IT WISE TO SAFEGUARD BY ENACTING THE
NATURAL GAS ACT.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CANNOT SET ASIDE THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS AN IMPROPER EXERCISE OF ITS EQUITABLE
JURISDICTION.  PETROLEUM CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 304 U.S.
209, WAS A VERY DIFFERENT CASE.  THERE THE REGULATION OF INTRASTATE
RATES ALONE WAS INVOLVED, NO CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE
AUTHORITIES WAS IN ISSUE, AND THE APPEAL TO EQUITY SOUGHT TO ANTICIPATE
THE APPROPRIATE EXHAUSTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. 

TWO MINOR OBJECTIONS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT BELOW NEED NOT
DETAIN US LONG.  THE JOHNSON ACT OF MAY 14, 1934, 48 STAT. 775, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), IS INAPPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE THE ORDERS OF THE STATE
COMMISSION "INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE" TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY
CONSTITUTE AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE MATTERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH
CONGRESS HAS LODGED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 
AND, UNLIKE THE APPELLANT IN NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300,
310-11, UNITED EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO IT
BEFORE BRINGING THIS SUIT.  IN ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING, UNITED
REQUESTED THE STATE COMMISSION TO MODIFY ITS ORIGINAL ORDER OF APRIL
19, 1935, SO AS TO STRIKE OUT THOSE PORTIONS WHICH WE NOW HOLD TO BE IN
CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ACT.  ONLY AFTER THE DENIAL OF THIS PETITION
DID UNITED SEEK RELIEF IN THE COURTS. 

AS WE CONSTRUE THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, IT DOES NOT PREVENT
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO FROM REQUIRING UNITED TO
PRODUCE DATA IN ITS POSSESSION WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION
OF THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES TO BE CHARGED BY THE PORTSMOUTH GAS
COMPANY FOR GAS SOLD TO THE CONSUMERS OF THAT CITY.  AS HAS ALREADY
BEEN NOTED, UNITED, IN ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, OFFERED TO PRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE.  AND APPARENTLY
THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE LITIGATION IT HAS HELD ITSELF READY TO DO SO.
THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE ASSAILED ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY
SUBJECTED UNITED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COMMISSION WITH
RESPECT TO RATES FOR GAS IMPORTED BY IT INTO OHIO.  WE THEREFORE READ
THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT
OF THE OHIO COMMISSION'S ORDERS ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS ASSUMPTION
BY THE COMMISSION OF RATEMAKING POWER OVER UNITED HAS BEEN RESISTED. 
SO READ, THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THE COMMISSION FURTHER FINDS THAT THE FURNISHING OF NATURAL GAS
BY THE UNITED FUEL GAS COMPANY TO THE PORTSMOUTH GAS COMPANY FOR RESALE
TO CONSUMERS WITHIN THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, OHIO, IS A PUBLIC UTILITY
SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 614-2, GENERAL CODE OF OHIO; THAT
THE RATES TO BE CHARGED THEREFOR ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COMMISSION; THAT SUCH JURISDICTION INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO REGULATE
THE RATE OR PRICE TO BE CHARGED FOR SUCH SERVICE, AND THAT THE EXERCISE
OF SUCH JURISDICTION IS NECESSARY FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE MATTERS
AND THINGS HEREIN AT ISSUE BEFORE THIS COMMISSION." 

FN2  THE BILL WAS FILED ON JULY 3, 1935, AND ON THE SAME DAY A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED BY DISTRICT JUDGE HOUGH.  THE
CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES ON SEPTEMBER 23,
1935, BUT ON NOVEMBER 19, 1935, BEFORE IT WAS DECIDED, JUDGE HOUGH
DIED.  AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 20, 1936, AND A
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ON MARCH 8, 1939, TO WHICH ANSWER WAS MADE ON
APRIL 25, 1939.  A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED ON APRIL 8, 1941, WAS
FOLLOWED ON APRIL 24, 1941, BY A MOTION TO DISMISS WHICH WAS DENIED ON
JULY 8, 1941.  ON JULY 28, 1941, AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
ANSWER WAS MADE; THIS APPLICATION WAS GRANTED ON AUGUST 4, 1941, AND AN
ANSWER WAS FILED THE SAME DAY.  THE CAUSE HAVING FINALLY BEEN
SUBMITTED, THE DISTRICT COURT FILED AN OPINION ON OCTOBER 2, 1941,
FINDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  AND ON
JANUARY 16, 1942, THE DECREE NOW UNDER REVIEW WAS ENTERED. 

THE 1942 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS (P. 7) DISCLOSES THAT "THE MEDIAN TIME
WHICH ELAPSED FROM FILING TO DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES TERMINATED IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS DURING THE YEAR 1942, WHICH HAD BEEN TRIED TO COURT
OR JURY, EXCLUDING LAND CONDEMNATION, HABEAS CORPUS, AND FORFEITURE
PROCEEDINGS, WAS 10.7 MONTHS; AND FROM ISSUE TO TRIAL IT WAS 6.1
MONTHS.  ...  THIS COMPARES WITH PERIODS OF 10.2 MONTHS AND 5.3 MONTHS,
RESPECTIVELY, IN 1941." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR. 

AS A RESULT OF THIS DECISION, DELAYS INCIDENT TO OBTAINING A FEDERAL
INJUNCTION HAVE MADE WHOLLY FUTILE THE DILIGENT EFFORTS OF THE STATE OF
OHIO TO FIX REASONABLE GAS RATES FOR THE PEOPLE OF PORTSMOUTH, OHIO. 
FN1 I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE SUGGESTION IMPLIED HERE THAT THIS RESULTS
FROM ANY CAUSE OTHER THAN THE UNWARRANTED INTERPOSITION BY COURTS INTO
THE BUSINESS OF RATE MAKING.  CF. MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 302
U.S. 419, 435.  HERE EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE OHIO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION MADE UNITED A PARTY DEFENDANT IN ORDER TO FIX RATES "TO BE
CHARGED" BY IT, OHIO IS TOLD THAT UNITED MAY KEEP ANY SUM COLLECTED, NO
MATTER HOW UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE THE RATES CHARGED MAY HAVE BEEN; AND
OHIO'S CITIZENS ARE DENIED THE RIGHT TO RECOUP POSSIBLE LOSSES BECAUSE
THE COMMISSION "HAS NOT MADE THE INQUIRY AND THE FINDINGS WHICH MUST
PRECEDE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW RATES."  THERE IS ONE REASON, AND ONLY
ONE REASON, WHY THE COMMISSION HAS NOT MADE SUCH INQUIRY AND FINDINGS -
BEFORE ANY STEP COULD BE TAKEN TOWARD ESTABLISHING A FINAL RATE ORDER,
AND EVEN BEFORE A SINGLE WITNESS COULD BE HEARD, THIS FEDERAL
INJUNCTION STOPPED THE STATE COMMISSION IN ITS TRACKS.  HAD THE
COMMISSION PROCEEDED TO MAKE INQUIRY AND FINDINGS IN THE FACE OF THE
INJUNCTION IT WOULD HAVE RISKED THE POSSIBILITY THAT ITS MEMBERS,
AGENTS, AND ATTORNEYS COULD HAVE BEEN SEIZED AND FINED OR IMPRISONED
FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.  EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123.  IF IT BE TRUE,
WHICH I THINK DUBIOUS, THAT UNDER OHIO LAW RATES CAN NEVER BE FIXED AS
OF THE DATE A PROCEEDING BEGINS EVEN THOUGH DELAYS ARE THE CONSEQUENCE
OF IMPROVIDENT FEDERAL INJUNCTIONS, SUCH A LEGAL SITUATION MAKES IT ALL
THE MORE ESSENTIAL THAT THE COURT BELOW SHOULD HAVE ABSTAINED AS A
MATTER OF "EQUITABLE FITNESS OR PROPRIETY," PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST
LINE, 211 U.S. 210, 229, FROM TYING THE COMMISSION'S HANDS AND BARRING
IT FROM MAKING THE FINAL ORDER HERE HELD TO BE VITAL.  TO STOP THESE
PROCEEDINGS AT THE THRESHOLD AND THUS BAR ALL POSSIBLE RELIEF FOR THE
YEARS DURING WHICH THE LITIGATION CRAWLED ALONG ITS INTERMINABLE COURSE
SEEMS TO ME FAR LESS JUSTIFIABLE THAN THE ACTION CONDEMNED BY THIS
COURT IN PETROLEUM CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 304 U.S. 209. 

THE FEDERAL ACTION HALTING THE OHIO RATE-MAKING PROCESS SINCE 1935 IS
JUSTIFIED WHOLLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE NATURAL GAS ACT, PASSED IN
1938, BARS REGULATION BY OHIO OF UNITED'S RATES SINCE 1938, WHILE OHIO
LAW IS SAID TO BAR ANY REGULATION PRIOR TO 1938 BECAUSE NO FINAL ORDER
HAS YET BEEN MADE BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.  THE COURT
REFUSES TO HOLD CATEGORICALLY THAT OHIO LAW NULLIFIES THIS ORDER,
ASSERTING INSTEAD THAT OHIO LAW REQUIRES US TO INTERPRET THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER AS NOT ATTEMPTING TO LEAD TO RATE MAKING FOR THE
PERIOD 1935-1938.  THIS WILL DOUBTLESS PROVE SOME SURPRISE TO THE
COMMISSION, WHICH MADE THE ORDER IN QUESTION IN 1935, AND WHICH HAS
ARGUED BOTH HERE AND BELOW THAT THE NATURAL GAS ACT IS IRRELEVANT
BECAUSE IT TOOK EFFECT SUBSEQUENT TO THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE COMMISSION
IS NOW INTERESTED.  WHETHER THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT OHIO LAW BARS THE
COMMISSION FROM MAKING A VALID ORDER, OR WHETHER IT USES ITS KNOWLEDGE
OF OHIO LAW TO TELL THE COMMISSION WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS ATTEMPTED,
IS IMMATERIAL - IN EITHER CASE WE PRESS OUR CONCEPTION OF OHIO LAW ON
THE OHIOANS.  BUT THE LOCAL LAW QUESTION HAS NEVER BEEN SQUARELY
DECIDED IN OHIO.  THAT QUESTION IS WHETHER UNITED CAN SUCCESSFULLY, BY
TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE DELAYS OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM,
JOCKEY THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH AND THE STATE OF OHIO INTO SUCH A
POSITION THAT NO ONE CAN NOW DETERMINE WHAT WERE REASONABLE RATES FOR
THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1938. 

REFERENCE TO STATE CASES AND PARTICULARLY TO GREAT MIAMI TAXPAYERS
ASSN. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 131 OHIO ST. 285, 2 N.E.2D 777,
DOES NOT SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, FOR, IN THE FIRST PLACE, UNDER THE STATE
LAW ALL APPEALS TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT ARE EXPLICITLY CONDITIONED
UPON THE POSTING OF BOND BY THE UTILITY TO SECURE PAYMENT OF ANY DAMAGE
RESULTING FROM DELAY.  SEC. 548 OHIO GEN. CODE.  SUCH SECURITY FOR
WHICH THE STATE LAW PROVIDED SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXACTED BY THE LOWER
COURT HERE, INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153, 156; CF.
UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 197.  "IT IS ESPECIALLY FITTING
THAT EQUITY EXERT ITS FULL STRENGTH IN ORDER TO PROTECT FROM LOSS A
STATE WHICH HAS BEEN INJURED BY REASON OF A SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT
OF STATE LAWS IMPOSED BY EQUITY ITSELF."  PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V.
BRASHEAR FREIGHT LINES, 312 U.S. 621, 630.  THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
MIGHT WELL CONCLUDE THAT THIS FAILURE OF THE COURT BELOW TO REQUIRE
APPROPRIATE SECURITY JUSTIFIES THE COMMISSION IN ESTABLISHING A RATE
FOR A PERIOD PRIOR TO 1938.  IN ADDITION, THE VERY FACT THAT THE STATE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE
OF OHIO HAVE VIGOROUSLY FOUGHT THIS CASE FOR FOUR YEARS SINCE THE
PASSAGE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT IS INDICATION THAT THEY AT LEAST DO NOT
SUPPOSE THAT THE STATE IS POWERLESS TO FIX RATES AS OF THE DATE UNITED
WAS MADE A PARTY DEFENDANT.  WE HAVE BEEN CITED TO NO CASE IN WHICH THE
STATE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST RATE
PROCEEDINGS MUST RESULT IN SUCH INORDINATE RETURNS AS THE RESPONDENT
HERE MAY RECEIVE. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES OUR OPINION AS TO THE LOCAL LAW "CANNOT
ESCAPE BEING A FORECAST RATHER THAN A DETERMINATION."  RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496, 499.  WHAT WAS SAID BY THE
COURT THERE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE:  "THE LAST WORD ON THE MEANING
OF ARTICLE 6445 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES, AND THEREFORE THE LAST
WORD ON THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION IN THIS
CASE, BELONGS NEITHER TO US NOR TO THE DISTRICT COURT BUT TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.  ... THE REIGN OF LAW IS HARDLY PROMOTED IF AN
UNNECESSARY RULING OF A FEDERAL COURT IS THUS SUPPLANTED BY A
CONTROLLING DECISION OF A STATE COURT."  FN2  HERE AS THERE "IF THERE
WAS NO WARRANT IN STATE LAW FOR THE COMMISSION'S ASSUMPTION OF
AUTHORITY THERE IS AN END OF THE LITIGATION; THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
DOES NOT ARISE."  IBID., 500, 501. 

EVEN ASSUMING, WITH THE COURT, THAT THIS DELAY IN THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS BARS THE PETITIONERS FROM THE PARTICULAR RELIEF SOUGHT UNDER
LOCAL LAW, I STILL THINK WE SHOULD HOLD THAT THIS INJUNCTION WAS
IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  WE ARE GIVEN AS THE BASES OF FEDERAL EQUITY
JURISDICTION THESE PROPOSITIONS:  THE STATE ORDER IS ON ITS FACE
"PLAINLY INVALID"; UNITED WILL BE PUT TO CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE IN
COMPLYING WITH IT; NON-COMPLIANCE WILL RESULT IN HEAVY PENALTIES OR IN
COSTLY LITIGATION.  IN MY OPINION NONE OF THESE SEPARATELY NOR ALL
TAKEN TOGETHER PROVIDE ANY GROUND FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE CONCERNING THE NECESSITY OF ALLOWING STATE
COURTS TO DECIDE STATE LAW IS IN MY VIEW ADEQUATE ANSWER TO THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE ORDER IS "PLAINLY INVALID."  OHIO LAW IN THIS RESPECT
COULD BE ADEQUATELY INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED IN OHIO COURTS.  IN
ADDITION, I DO NOT CONSIDER THE ORDER BEFORE US RIPE FOR REVIEW.  IT IS
SIMPLY A DECLARATION OF STATUS REQUIRING NOTHING OF UNITED OTHER THAN
COOPERATION IN EXPLORATION OF THE RATE PROBLEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EVENTUALLY SETTING UNITED'S RATES, AND IS THUS AS PROPERLY OUTSIDE THE
REALM OF REVIEW NOW AS IF THIS WERE "AN ATTEMPT TO REVIEW A VALUATION
MADE BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH HAS NO IMMEDIATE LEGAL
EFFECT ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE THE BASIS OF A SUBSEQUENT RATE ORDER." 
ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 129.  IN THIS
RESPECT, THE INSTANT CASE IS IDENTICAL WITH EAST OHIO GAS CO. V.
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 115 F.2D 385, 388.  UNLESS THE OTHER GROUNDS
OF ALLEGED EQUITABLE JURISDICTION TAKE IT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
ROCHESTER CASE, THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR REVIEW. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT UNITED WILL BE PUT TO GREAT EXPENSE BY COMPLIANCE
WITH THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, IN THAT IT MUST PROVIDE CERTAIN
STATISTICAL DATA NECESSARY SO THAT THE COMMISSION MAY COMPLETE ITS
STUDY OF THE RATE PROBLEM.  IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT THIS COST IN
ITSELF IS ANY REASON FOR ENJOINING THE PROCEEDING, NOR COULD IT BE
UNLESS PETROLEUM CO. V. COMMISSION, SUPRA, 220, IS TO BE OVERRULED; BUT
THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE OFFERED HERE IS THAT CONGRESS BY PASSAGE OF
THE NATURAL GAS ACT SOUGHT TO PREVENT SUCH AN EXPENDITURE.  WE ARE
GIVEN NO ARGUMENT AND CITED TO NO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATING THAT
CONGRESS HAD ANY DESIRE TO PRECLUDE THE STATES FROM PROTECTING STATE
CONSUMERS AGAINST UNFAIR RATES FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF
THE FEDERAL ACT. 

I AM NOT AS SURE AS THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT THAT REFUSAL OF UNITED
TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WILL IN FACT SUBJECT IT TO HEAVY
PENALTIES.  FN3  BUT ASSUMING THAT THIS ORDER IS BACKED BY THE PENALTY
CLAUSE, THE CASE SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY WHAT WE SAID RECENTLY IN
PETROLEUM CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SUPRA, 220:  "NO ORDER HAS
BEEN ENTERED FIXING RATES OR REGULATING CONDUCT.  THE NECESSITY TO
EXPEND FOR THE INVESTIGATION OR TO TAKE THE RISK OF NON-COMPLIANCE DOES
NOT JUSTIFY THE INJUNCTION.  IT IS NOT THE SORT OF IRREPARABLE INJURY
AGAINST WHICH EQUITY PROTECTS."  CF. DALTON MACHINE CO. V. VIRGINIA,
236 U.S. 699. 

THAT UNITED MAY BE SUBJECTED TO A COURSE OF LITIGATION BEFORE ITS
RIGHTS UNDER THE OHIO LAW ARE FULLY DETERMINED IS THE LEAST OF ALL
REASONS FOR THIS USE OF EQUITY JURISDICTION.  THE COMPELLING
CONSIDERATION HERE IS THAT "LAWSUITS ALSO OFTEN PROVE TO HAVE BEEN
GROUNDLESS; BUT NO WAY HAS BEEN DISCOVERED OF RELIEVING A DEFENDANT
FROM THE NECESSITY OF A TRIAL TO ESTABLISH THE FACT."  MYERS V.
BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 51. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE STATE OF OHIO PERMITTED
TO CONTINUE AS BEST IT CAN IN VIEW OF THE LONG DELAY CAUSED BY THE
UNFORTUNATE INTERVENTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

FN1  THE SUGGESTION IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT THAT THE STATE IS
FREE TO CONTINUE ITS EFFORTS TO CONTROL THE RATE OF THE LOCAL COMPANY,
PORTSMOUTH GAS, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH UNITED, THE
COMPANY WHICH SUPPLIES PORTSMOUTH GAS, ACCORDS A PRIVILEGE OF LITTLE
MEANING.  THE PRICE CHARGED PORTSMOUTH GAS BY UNITED IS ABOUT 70% OF
THE AMOUNT WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED A REASONABLE RATE FOR
PORTSMOUTH GAS TO CHARGE.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PORTSMOUTH GAS RATE
CANNOT BE MATERIALLY AFFECTED WITHOUT IN TURN ALTERING THE UNITED
CHARGE. 

FN2  FOR OTHER CASES EXEMPLIFYING THIS VIEWPOINT, SEE WATSON V. BUCK,
313 U.S. 387, 402. 

FN3  THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO STATUTE, SECS. 614-64 AND 65
ARE APPLICABLE WHERE A RATE OR REFUND ORDER IS DISOBEYED, STATE EX REL.
OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 128 OHIO ST. 553,
555, 192 N.E. 787, BUT IT MAY BE THAT ORDERS OF THE SORT HERE INVOLVED
ARE COVERED BY SECS. 614-6 AND 7, PROVIDING FOR THE EXAMINATION OF
RECORDS AND THE PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES.  IF THIS IS SO, REVIEW MAY BE
OBTAINED UNDER OHIO PRACTICE WITHOUT FEAR OF PENALTY PRIOR TO A FINAL
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  SEE E.G. MOUSER V. PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, 124 OHIO ST. 425, 179 N.E. 133.  WE ARE CITED TO NO CASES
WHICH INDICATE WHICH OF THESE PROCEDURES GOVERNS THIS ORDER. 
..END :











HARRISON V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 317 U.S. 476 


NO. 103.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 11, 1943.  - 125
F.2D 893, REVERSED. 


1.  IN SEC. 303(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 WHICH, AS AMENDED BY
SEC. 807 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX IS "PAYABLE  ...  OUT OF THE BEQUESTS, LEGACIES, OR DEVISES
OTHERWISE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH, THEN THE AMOUNT DEDUCTIBLE
UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH BEQUESTS, LEGACIES, OR
DEVISES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAXES," THE WORDS "PAYABLE OUT
OF" ARE USED IN THE SENSE OF "DIMINISHED OR REDUCED BY" THE PAYMENT OF
THE TAX.  P. 479. 

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF A STATUTE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN
ASCERTAINING ITS MEANING, NO MATTER HOW CLEAR ITS WORDS MAY APPEAR ON
SUPERFICIAL EXAMINATION.  P. 479. 

3.  WHERE A RESIDUARY ESTATE IS BEQUEATHED TO CHARITIES FOR WHICH
DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED BY SEC. 303(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS
AMENDED BY SEC. 807 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AND BY THE STATE LAW
THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX IS A CHARGE NOT AGAINST THE RESIDUE BUT AGAINST
THE ENTIRE ESTATE, THE AMOUNT WHICH, IN COMPUTING THE FEDERAL ESTATE
TAX, MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS ESTATE ON ACCOUNT OF THE CHARITIES,
IS THE AMOUNT OF THE RESIDUARY ESTATE ACTUALLY PASSING TO THE
CHARITABLE BENEFICIARIES AFTER PROVISION IS MADE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE
TAX.  P. 480. 

4.  THE DEDUCTION HERE INVOLVED IS ONE WHICH CONGRESS COULD HAVE
DENIED ALTOGETHER, AND THE LIMITATION PLACED UPON IT BY SEC. 807 IS
CONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 480. 

HARRISON, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. NORTHERN TRUST CO. ET AL.,
EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 612, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PRESENT RESPONDENTS IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT
OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, THE EXECUTORS UNDER THE WILL OF HENRY M. WOLF, BROUGHT
THIS ACTION TO RECOVER AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES. 
THE CASE TURNS UPON WHETHER, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 303(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 807 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,
FN1 THE AMOUNT TO BE DEDUCTED FROM DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE ON ACCOUNT
OF THE BEQUEST OF HIS RESIDUARY ESTATE TO CHARITY IS THE ACTUAL AMOUNT
OF SUCH BEQUEST, AFTER PAYMENT OF FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES, OR WHAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN THE AMOUNT IF THERE HAD BEEN NO SUCH TAXES. 

TESTATOR, A RESIDENT OF ILLINOIS, BEQUEATHED THE RESIDUE OF HIS
ESTATE TO FOUR NAMED CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS.  THE WILL CONTAINED NO
PROVISION AS TO THE PAYMENT OF FEDERAL OR STATE DEATH TAXES EXCEPT FOR
A DIRECTION THAT ALL INHERITANCE, LEGACY, SUCCESSION AND ESTATE TAXES
UPON CERTAIN SPECIFIC BEQUESTS TO INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE PAID OUT OF THE
GENERAL ESTATE.  THE RESIDUARY ESTATE, AFTER DEDUCTING FUNERAL AND
ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES AND SPECIFIC BEQUESTS BUT NOT THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX, AMOUNTED TO $463,103.08, ALL OF WHICH SUM RESPONDENTS CLAIM
THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DEDUCT FROM THE STATUTORY GROSS ESTATE IN
COMPUTING THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
RULED, HOWEVER, THAT ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE RESIDUE WHICH WAS
ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTABLE TO THE CHARITABLE DONEES, I.E., THE AMOUNT
REMAINING AFTER PAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, WAS DEDUCTIBLE AS A
CHARITABLE BEQUEST.  HE DETERMINED THAT THE TOTAL ESTATE TAX AMOUNTED
TO $459,879.57, WHICH WOULD BE PAID OUT OF THE RESIDUARY ESTATE, AND
THAT RESPONDENTS WERE THEREFORE ENTITLED TO DEDUCT ONLY $3,223.51, THE
AMOUNT ACTUALLY PASSING UNDER THE RESIDUARY BEQUESTS. 

RESPONDENTS PAID THE ASSESSED TAX UNDER PROTEST AND FILED A CLAIM FOR
REFUND WHICH THE COMMISSIONER REJECTED.  THIS SUIT FOLLOWED, AND THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  125 F.2D 893.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE
TAX SYSTEM. 

TAX IS TO BE DETERMINED BY STATE LAW, CF. RIGGS V. DEL DRAGO, ANTE, P.
95, AND PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE TAX IS, EITHER UNDER THE WILL OR THE
APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW, "PAYABLE  ...  OUT OF THE BEQUESTS, LEGACIES, OR
DEVISES OTHERWISE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH, THEN THE AMOUNT
DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH BEQUESTS,
LEGACIES, OR DEVISES REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAXES."  THE COURT
BELOW FIXED UPON THE WORDS "PAYABLE OUT OF" AND HELD SEC. 807
INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX WAS A CHARGE AGAINST THE
ENTIRE ESTATE AND NOT AGAINST THE RESIDUE UNDER ILLINOIS LAW,  FN3  AND
THEREFORE WAS NOT "PAYABLE OUT OF" THE RESIDUARY BEQUEST.  THE COURT
THEN FOLLOWED EDWARDS V. SLOCUM, 264 U.S. 61, WHERE, UNDER
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL FACTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE SUCH AS
SEC. 807, THE INSTANT ISSUE WAS RESOLVED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  IN SO
DOING, THE COURT BELOW REFUSED TO EXAMINE THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
SEC. 807, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SECTION WAS UNAMBIGUOUS. 

BUT WORDS ARE INEXACT TOOLS AT BEST, AND FOR THAT REASON THERE IS
WISELY NO RULE OF LAW FORBIDDING RESORT TO EXPLANATORY LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY NO MATTER HOW "CLEAR THE WORDS MAY APPEAR ON 'SUPERFICIAL
EXAMINATION.'"  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S.
534, 543-44.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. DICKERSON, 310 U.S. 554, 562. 
SO, ACCEPTING THE CIRCUIT COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF ILLINOIS LAW AS TO
THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX, WE THINK IT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 807 TO DETERMINE IN JUST WHAT SENSE
CONGRESS USED THE WORDS "PAYABLE OUT OF."  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON
SEC. 807 DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS INTENDED AS "A LEGISLATIVE REVERSAL OF
THE DECISION" IN EDWARDS V. SLOCUM, SUPRA (H. REP. NO. 708, 72D CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 50),  FN4  AND THAT CONGRESS USED THE WORDS "PAYABLE OUT
OF" IN THE SENSE OF "DIMINISHED OR REDUCED BY" THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX. 
THUS THE HOUSE REPORT STATES: 

"THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO LIMIT THE DEDUCTION FOR
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS, ETC., TO THE AMOUNT WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS IN FACT
AND IN LAW DEVISED OR BEQUEATHED TO CHARITY.  UNDER EXISTING LAW NO
CONSIDERATION CAN BE GIVEN TO ANY ESTATE, SUCCESSION, LEGACY, OR
INHERITANCE TAXES IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO A DECEDENT'S ESTATE EVEN
THOUGH BY THE TERMS OF HIS WILL OR THE LOCAL LAW THEY ACTUALLY REDUCE
THE AMOUNT OF SUCH BEQUEST OR DEVISE."  P. 49. 

AND, IN REFERRING TO THE SITUATION IN EDWARDS V. SLOCUM, IT WAS
SAID: 

"UNDER THE STATE LAW THE ESTATE TAX WAS PAYABLE GENERALLY OUT OF THE
ESTATE AND SO FELL UPON AND REDUCED THE RESIDUARY ESTATE GIVEN TO
CHARITY."  P. 50. 

THAT IS THE CASE HERE, FOR WHILE THE ESTATE TAX MAY BE A CHARGE
AGAINST THE ENTIRE ESTATE UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, ADMITTEDLY ITS PAYMENT
WILL OPERATE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE RESIDUARY ESTATE.  THIS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS CONCLUSIVE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION THAT RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO DEDUCT ONLY THE AMOUNT OF
THE RESIDUARY ESTATE ACTUALLY PASSING TO THE CHARITABLE BENEFICIARIES
AFTER PROVISION IS MADE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX. 

IT IS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS THAT THIS INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. 807 RESULTS IN A "TAX UPON A TAX" AND IS THEREFORE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  WE NEED NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THE ACCURACY OF THIS
NOMENCLATURE, BECAUSE THIS CASE INVOLVES ONLY A CHARITABLE DEDUCTION
WHICH CONGRESS COULD HAVE DENIED ALTOGETHER, AND THE LIMITATIONS PLACED
UPON THAT DEDUCTION BY SEC. 807 CLEARLY DO NOT GO BEYOND THE LIMITS OF
PERMISSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  RESPONDENTS ALSO OBJECT TO THE FACT
THAT THE TAX MAY HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY AN ALGEBRAIC FORMULA OR BY
COMPLICATED ARITHMETICAL METHODS BECAUSE OF THE TWO MUTUALLY DEPENDENT
VARIABLES, THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX AND THE AMOUNT OF THE RESIDUE AS
REDUCED BY THE TAX, AND REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE STATEMENTS IN EDWARDS
V. SLOCUM THAT "ALGEBRAIC FORMULAE ARE NOT LIGHTLY TO BE IMPUTED TO
LEGISLATORS," 264 U.S. AT 63.  THIS CONTENTION LOSES ALL SIGNIFICANCE
WHEN IT IS REMEMBERED THAT SEC. 807 WAS INTENDED AS A "LEGISLATIVE
REVERSAL" OF EDWARDS V. SLOCUM.  AND COMPARE UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK,
315 U.S. 510. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 807 PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

AMENDED BY INSERTING AFTER THE FIRST SENTENCE OF EACH A NEW SENTENCE TO
READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTION 301, OR ANY ESTATE, SUCCESSION,
LEGACY, OR INHERITANCE TAXES, ARE, EITHER BY THE TERMS OF THE WILL, BY
THE LAW OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER WHICH THE ESTATE IS ADMINISTERED, OR
BY THE LAW OF THE JURISDICTION IMPOSING THE PARTICULAR TAX, PAYABLE IN
WHOLE OR IN PART OUT OF THE BEQUESTS, LEGACIES, OR DEVISES OTHERWISE
DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH, THEN THE AMOUNT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS
PARAGRAPH SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH BEQUESTS, LEGACIES, OR DEVISES
REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAXES." 

IT IS NOW PART OF SEC. 812(D) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

FN3  THE CASES OF PEOPLE V. PASFIELD, 284 ILL. 450, 120 N.E. 286;
PEOPLE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 289 ILL. 475, 124 N.E. 662; AND PEOPLE V.
MCCORMICK, 327 ILL. 547, 158 N.E. 861, WERE CITED FOR THIS
PROPOSITION. 

FN4  SEE ALSO S. REP. NO. 398, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 35, AND H.
CONFERENCE REP. NO. 844, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 25-26, WITH
REFERENCE TO SEC. 303(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924 WHICH CONTAINED THE
SAME SENTENCE AS SEC. 807. 
..END :





LILLY V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 317 U.S. 481 


NO. 124.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 9, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 11, 1943.  -
312 ILL. APP. 73, 37 N.E.2D 888, REVERSED. 


1.  THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT IMPOSES UPON THE CARRIER AN ABSOLUTE AND
CONTINUING DUTY TO MAINTAIN ITS LOCOMOTIVES, AND ALL PARTS AND
APPURTENANCES THEREOF, IN PROPER CONDITION, AND SAFE TO OPERATE WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB.  NEGLIGENCE IS NOT THE BASIS OF
LIABILITY.  P. 485. 

2.  THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN THE
LIGHT OF ITS PRIME PURPOSE, THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS BY
REQUIRING THE USE OF SAFE EQUIPMENT.  P. 486. 

3.  THE USE OF A LOCOMOTIVE TENDER UPON WHICH AN EMPLOYEE MUST GO IN
THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES, THE TOP OF WHICH TENDER IS COVERED WITH ICE,
INVOLVES "UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
BOILER INSPECTION ACT, AS CONSTRUED BY RULE 153 OF THE RULES ADOPTED
PURSUANT THERETO BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; WHICH RULE
PROVIDES THAT THE "TOP OF TENDER BEHIND FUEL SPACE SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN,
AND MEANS PROVIDED TO CARRY OFF WASTE WATER."  P. 486. 

4.  A RULE PROMULGATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT HAS THE FORCE
OF LAW AND BECOMES AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ACT TO BE JUDICIALLY
NOTICED.  P. 488. 

5.  IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, A RAILWAY EMPLOYEE RELIED
UPON INFRACTIONS OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT IN THE USE OF A
LOCOMOTIVE WHICH WAS IN IMPROPER CONDITION AND UNSAFE TO OPERATE,
CONSTITUTING UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE AND LIMB (1) IN THAT THE TENDER
ON THE TOP WHERE HE WAS REQUIRED TO WORK WAS SLIPPERY WITH ICE (THIS
COUNT BEING SUPPLEMENTED BY A CHARGE THAT THE TENDER LEAKED THERE); AND
(2) IN THAT THE TENDER AT THE PLACE IN QUESTION WAS CRACKED, SO AS TO
PERMIT LEAKAGE OF WATER, LIABLE TO FREEZE AND CAUSE A DANGEROUS
CONDITION ON TOP OF THE TENDER.  HELD THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A LEAK WAS
NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE FIRST CHARGE, AND THAT A GENERAL VERDICT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF COULD BE SUSTAINED, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT BY ANSWER TO A
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY THE JURY ALSO FOUND THAT THE ALLEGED LEAK IN THE
TENDER DID NOT EXIST.  P. 489. 

6.  IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES RESULTING FROM VIOLATIONS OF
THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, THE PARTIAL DEFENSE OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE AND THE BAR OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK ARE NOT AVAILABLE UNDER
SECS. 3 AND 4 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AS THOSE

LILLY V. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE COURT, FIRST DISTRICT, OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 612, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FOR THE PRESENT
RESPONDENT, ENTERED BY THE COURT BELOW NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO IN AN
ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY AND THE BOILER INSPECTION
ACTS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN AN ILLINOIS STATE COURT, UNDER THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT  FN1  AND THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT,
FN2  FOR PERSONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED ON FEBRUARY 6, 1937, IN THE COURSE
OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AS A BRAKEMAN IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  A GENERAL
VERDICT OF $32,500 WAS RETURNED IN HIS FAVOR BY THE JURY, BUT ON APPEAL
THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT ENTERED JUDGMENT
FOR RESPONDENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT.  FN3 THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
ABOVEMENTIONED FEDERAL STATUTES. 

PETITIONER FELL FROM THE TOP OF THE LOCOMOTIVE TENDER WHILE HE WAS
PULLING A WATER SPOUT, WHICH WAS AT THE SIDE OF THE TRACK, OVER THE
TENDER'S MANHOLE BY MEANS OF A ROD AND HOOK, PREPARATORY TO FILLING THE
TENDER'S TANK WITH WATER.  AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCIDENT,
PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT THE TOP OF THE TENDER BETWEEN THE WATER
MANHOLE AND THE FUEL SPACE, AN AREA OF SOME SIX SQUARE FEET, WAS
COVERED WITH ICE; THAT THERE WAS A SMALL LEAK AT THE COLLAR OF THE
MANHOLE FROM WHICH WATER FLOWED ONTO THE TENDER'S SURFACE; THAT THE
ROD, USED FOR PULLING THE WATER SPOUT OVER THE TENDER, WAS FROZEN IN
THE ICE, AND HE HAD TO KICK IT FREE; THAT HE STOOD ON THE ICE AND
BRACED HIMSELF AS HE REACHED OUT WITH THE ROD TO PULL THE SPOUT; AND
THAT AS HE PULLED, THE ROD'S HOOK SLIPPED ON THE SPOUT, AND HIS FEET
SIMULTANEOUSLY SLIPPED ON THE ICE, CAUSING HIM TO FALL TO THE GROUND. 

PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT CHARGED NEGLIGENCE GENERALLY WITH RESPECT TO
THE PRESENCE OF ICE ON THE TENDER AND ALSO ALLEGED AS SEPARATE
VIOLATIONS OF THE "FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT" (MORE PROPERLY THE
BOILER INSPECTION ACT), FIRST THAT RESPONDENT USED "A LOCOMOTIVE AND
TENDER WHICH WAS IN IMPROPER CONDITION AND UNSAFE TO OPERATE IN THE
SERVICE, AND ITS CONDITION CONSTITUTED UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE AND
LIMB IN THAT  ...  THE TOP WHERE THE PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO WORK WAS
SLIPPERY AND COVERED WITH ICE AND OTHER SLIPPERY MATERIALS TO ENDANGER
HIS LIFE OR LIMB, AND THE TENDER LEAKED THERE,  ...  ," AND SECONDLY
THAT RESPONDENT USED "A LOCOMOTIVE AND TENDER WHICH WAS IN IMPROPER
CONDITION AND UNSAFE TO OPERATE IN THE SERVICE, AND ITS CONDITION
CONSTITUTED UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE AND LIMB, IN THAT THE  ...
TENDER  ...  AT THE PART WHERE THE WATER IS SUPPLIED  ...  TO BE
CRACKED, WORN AND SPLIT, SO AS TO OCCASION AND PERMIT THE LEAKING OF
WATER FROM AND THROUGH THIS CRACK,  ...  RENDERING IT LIKELY AND LIABLE
FOR THE WATER TO FREEZE AND CAUSE A DANGEROUS CONDITION,  ...  "  FN4 

WHEN THE JURY RENDERED ITS GENERAL VERDICT FOR PETITIONER, IT ALSO
ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL INTERROGATORY SUBMITTED
BY RESPONDENT: 

"WAS THERE, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT IN QUESTION, A LEAK IN OR
NEAR THE MANHOLE COLLAR ON THE TENDER IN QUESTION?" 

RESPONDENT THEN MOVED FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, ON
THE GROUND THAT THE ANSWER TO THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY REMOVED ALL
QUESTION OF VIOLATION OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT FROM THE CASE, THAT
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE, AND THAT IN ANY EVENT PETITIONER
ASSUMED THE RISK.  THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THIS MOTION, BUT ON APPEAL IT
WAS HELD WELL TAKEN IN ALL RESPECTS. 

FOR OUR PURPOSES THE CASE RESOLVES INTO TWO QUESTIONS:  (1) GRANTING,
AS THE JURY FOUND, THAT THE TENDER DID NOT LEAK, COULD THE JURY
NEVERTHELESS FIND THAT THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT WAS VIOLATED BY THE
PRESENCE OF ICE ON THE TENDER'S TOP; AND (2) WAS THE JURY PROPERLY
INSTRUCTED THAT IT MIGHT SO FIND?  WE BELIEVE THAT BOTH QUESTIONS
SHOULD BE AFFIRMATIVELY ANSWERED AND THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT (SEC. 2) PROVIDES: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CARRIER TO USE OR PERMIT TO BE USED ON
ITS LINE ANY LOCOMOTIVE UNLESS SAID LOCOMOTIVE, ITS BOILER, TENDER, AND
ALL PARTS AND APPURTENANCES THEREOF ARE IN PROPER CONDITION AND SAFE TO
OPERATE IN THE SERVICE TO WHICH THE SAME ARE PUT, THAT THE SAME MAY BE
EMPLOYED IN THE ACTIVE SERVICE OF SUCH CARRIER WITHOUT UNNECESSARY
PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB, AND UNLESS SAID LOCOMOTIVE, ITS BOILER, TENDER,
AND ALL PARTS AND APPURTENANCES THEREOF HAVE BEEN INSPECTED FROM TIME
TO TIME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 28, 29, 30, AND
32 AND ARE ABLE TO WITHSTAND SUCH TEST OR TESTS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED FOR."  45 U.S.C. SEC.
23. 

NEGLIGENCE IS NOT THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY UNDER THE ACT.  INSTEAD, IT
"IMPOSES UPON THE CARRIER AN ABSOLUTE AND CONTINUING DUTY TO MAINTAIN
THE LOCOMOTIVE, AND ALL PARTS AND APPURTENANCES THEREOF, IN PROPER
CONDITION, AND SAFE TO OPERATE  ...  WITHOUT UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE
OR LIMB."  SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. LUNSFORD, 297 U.S. 398, 401; BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO. V. GROEGER, 266 U.S. 521; CF. BRADY V. TERMINAL RAILROAD
ASSN., 303 U.S. 10.  ANY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHO IS
INJURED BY REASON OF A VIOLATION OF THE ACT MAY BRING HIS ACTION UNDER
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, CHARGING THE VIOLATION OF THE
BOILER INSPECTION ACT.  MOORE V. C. & O. RY. CO., 291 U.S. 205, 210
211; GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. DONALDSON, 246 U.S. 121; BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO. V. GROEGER, SUPRA.  THE ACT, LIKE THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT,
IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PRIME PURPOSE, THE
PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS BY REQUIRING THE USE OF SAFE
EQUIPMENT.  CF. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. DONALDSON, SUPRA; ST. LOUIS,
I.M. & S. RY. CO. V. TAYLOR, 210 U.S. 281, 295-96; LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE R. CO. V. LAYTON, 243 U.S. 617, 621; SWINSON V. CHICAGO, ST.
P., M. & O. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 529, 531.  AND, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION IS BROADLY AUTHORIZED TO SET THE STANDARDS OF COMPLIANCE BY
PRESCRIBING "RULES AND REGULATIONS BY WHICH FITNESS FOR SERVICE (OF
LOCOMOTIVES, TENDERS AND THEIR APPURTENANCES) SHALL BE DETERMINED,"
NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 272 U.S. 605, 612, PROVIDED THAT, IT HAS
BEEN SAID, THE COMMISSION FINDS SUCH ARE REQUIRED TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY
PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB.  UNITED STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., 293 U.S. 454;
CF. SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. LUNSFORD, SUPRA.  WITH THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN
MIND, WE TURN TO THE FIRST QUESTION. 

THE USE OF A TENDER, UPON WHOSE TOP AN EMPLOYEE MUST GO IN THE COURSE
OF HIS DUTIES, WHICH IS COVERED WITH ICE SEEMS TO US TO INVOLVE
"UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB" - ENOUGH SO AS TO PERMIT A JURY TO
FIND THAT THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT HAS BEEN VIOLATED.  FORTUNATELY, WE
ARE NOT LEFT WHOLLY TO OUR OWN RESOURCES IN CONSTRUING THE ACT IN THE
LIGHT OF ITS HUMANITARIAN PURPOSE.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
HAS SET THE STANDARD HERE BY PROMULGATING A RULE (NO. 153) THAT THE
"TOP OF TENDER BEHIND FUEL SPACE SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN, AND MEANS
PROVIDED TO CARRY OFF WASTE WATER."  FN5  FROM THE PHRASING OF RULE 153
WE THINK IT AIMED AT REQUIRING THE TOP OF THE TENDER TO BE KEPT FREE OF
FOREIGN MATTER WHICH WOULD RENDER FOOTING INSECURE, FOR EXAMPLE, COAL,
DUST, DEBRIS, GREASE, WASTE WATER, AND ICE.  WHILE THE LOCOMOTIVE
INSPECTION RULES ARE GENERALLY DEVOTED TO DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION AND
SPECIFICATION OF MATERIALS, AT LEAST ONE OTHER RULE DEALS WITH THE
CONDITION OF SURFACES UPON WHICH EMPLOYEES MUST STAND.  FN6  IN USING
THE WORD "CLEAN," THE COMMISSION MUST HAVE MEANT SOMETHING MORE THAN
MERE MANNER OF CONSTRUCTION OR MECHANICAL OPERATION, BECAUSE "CLEAN"
DOES NOT NATURALLY LEND ITSELF TO SUCH A LIMITED CONNOTATION.  THAT
SOMETHING MORE IS THE CONTINUING DUTY OF PROMOTING THE SAFETY OF
EMPLOYEES BY REMOVING FROM THE TOP OF THE TENDER ALL EXTRANEOUS
SUBSTANCES WHICH MIGHT MAKE STANDING THERE HAZARDOUS. 

FROM VARIOUS CASES DENYING RECOVERY UNDER THE ACT, RESPONDENT
ATTEMPTS TO EXTRACT A GENERAL RULE THAT THE ACT COVERS ONLY DEFECTS IN
CONSTRUCTION OR MECHANICAL OPERATION AND AFFORDS NO PROTECTION AGAINST
THE PRESENCE OF DANGEROUS OBJECTS OR FOREIGN MATTER.  FN7  BUT THERE IS
NO WARRANT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT FOR CONSTRUING IT SO NARROWLY, OR
FOR DENYING THE COMMISSION POWER TO REMEDY SHORTCOMINGS, OTHER THAN
PURELY MECHANICAL DEFECTS, WHICH MAY MAKE OPERATION UNSAFE.  THE ACT
WITHOUT LIMITATION SPEAKS OF EQUIPMENT "IN PROPER CONDITION AND SAFE TO
OPERATE  ...  WITHOUT UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB."  CONDITIONS
OTHER THAN MECHANICAL IMPERFECTIONS CAN PLAINLY RENDER EQUIPMENT UNSAFE
TO OPERATE WITHOUT UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE OR LIMB.  WHATEVER ELSE
MAY BE SAID ABOUT THE CASES RELIED UPON BY RESPONDENT, THEY ARE
SUFFICIENTLY DISTINGUISHABLE IN THAT THEY EITHER DID NOT INVOLVE OR DID
NOT CONSIDER RULE 153 OR ANY COMPARABLE REGULATION. 

RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT RELIANCE CANNOT BE PLACED ON RULE 153 BECAUSE
IT WAS NOT CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE TRIAL COURT OR THE JURY AND
ITS INJECTION NOW WOULD INVOLVE DECIDING THE CASE ON ISSUES NOT
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  WE DO NOT REGARD THIS POINT AS WELL TAKEN.  NO
CLAIM IS ADVANCED THAT THE RULE IS INVALID, AND WE SEE NO REASON FOR
QUESTIONING IT.  ADOPTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY,
RULE 153 ACQUIRES THE FORCE OF LAW AND BECOMES AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
ACT (CF. NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. B. &
O.R. CO., SUPRA), TO BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED.  CAHA V. UNITED STATES, 152
U.S. 211, 221-22.  THE FAILURE OF PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO CALL RULE 153
TO THE ATTENTION OF THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD NO MORE DEPRIVE PETITIONER
OF ITS BENEFITS THAN THE FAILURE TO PLEAD SPECIFICALLY THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT FORECLOSED THE APPLICATION OF THAT ACT ON
APPEAL TO TEST THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S REFUSAL TO CHARGE
IN GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RY. CO. V. LINDSAY, 233 U.S. 42, ESPECIALLY
WHEN, AS HERE, THE RULE ONLY FORTIFIES A RESULT WHICH WE THINK THE JURY
COULD PROBABLY HAVE REACHED EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A RULE. 

CONCLUDING THAT THE JURY HAD A RIGHT TO FIND A VIOLATION OF THE
BOILER INSPECTION ACT BY REASON OF THE PRESENCE OF ICE ON THE TOP OF
THE TENDER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO LEAK, WE TURN NOW TO THE SECOND
QUESTION:  WAS THE JURY PROPERLY INSTRUCTED THAT IT MIGHT SO FIND?  THE
COURT BELOW HELD AND RESPONDENT HERE EARNESTLY INSISTS THAT WITH REGARD
TO THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT THE CASE WAS TRIED SOLELY ON THE THEORY
THAT THE ONLY VIOLATION OF THAT ACT CHARGED WAS THAT THE TENDER LEAKED,
AND THE ANSWER TO THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY THEREFORE REMOVED ALL
QUESTION OF VIOLATION OF THE ACT FROM THE CASE.  THIS WAS NOT THE VIEW
OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, AND, WHILE THE RECORD IS NOT AS SATISFACTORY AS WE
MIGHT WISH, WE AGREE WITH HIM. 

IT IS TRUE THAT BOTH CHARGES OF VIOLATION OF THE ACT DO ALLEGE THE
PRESENCE OF A LEAK, AND PETITIONER'S COUNSEL DID SAY IN HIS CLOSING
ARGUMENT TO THE JURY "SO, AS I SAY, GENTLEMEN, DON'T FIND THAT THERE
WAS NO LEAK, OR YOU PUT HIM (PETITIONER) OUT OF COURT."  BUT THERE IS
NO REASON TO PENALIZE PETITIONER FOR REMARKS OF COUNSEL UTTERED IN AN
EXCESS OF ZEAL, AND THE FULL TEXT OF THE COMPLAINT IS SUCH THAT IT IS
FAIR TO SAY THAT THE PRESENCE OF A LEAK WAS VITAL TO ONLY ONE CHARGE OF
VIOLATION OF THE ACT, BEING MERELY AN INCIDENTAL, NONESSENTIAL
ALLEGATION OF THE OTHER.  FN8 THIS WAS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE, UPON WHOM RESTS PRIMARILY THE FUNCTION OF INTERPRETING THE
PLEADINGS.  FOR, IN OVERRULING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, THE TRIAL JUDGE SAID:  "NOW, WHETHER THERE
WAS A CRACK OR NOT, YET STILL THE QUESTION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE
(BOILER INSPECTION ACT) COULD REMAIN IN THERE IF THE COURT DID FEEL
THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE DEFENDANT TO KEEP THE TENDER CLEAR SO THAT
THE MAN MIGHT OPERATE." 

IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, THE JUDGE READ THE BOILER INSPECTION
ACT AND STATED: 

"YOU ARE INSTRUCTED THAT UNDER THE LAW THE DEFENDANT WAS BOUND TO
FURNISH TO THE PLAINTIFF A LOCOMOTIVE, AT THE TIME IN QUESTION, WHICH
WAS SAFE TO BE USED, AND TO KEEP AND MAINTAIN THE SAME IN SUCH
CONDITION AT ALL TIMES SO AS NOT TO EXPOSE THE PLAINTIFF TO ANY HAZARD
OR RISK."  RESPONDENT TOOK NO EXCEPTION.  WE THINK THIS CHARGE
SUFFICIENTLY INFORMED THE JURY THAT IT COULD FIND A VIOLATION OF THE
ACT FROM THE PRESENCE OF ICE, EVEN IF THERE WERE NO LEAK.  EVIDENTLY
THIS WAS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE JURY, BECAUSE IT FOUND NOTHING
INCONGRUOUS IN SIMULTANEOUSLY ANSWERING THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORY
NEGATIVELY AND RETURNING A GENERAL VERDICT FOR PETITIONER DESPITE
COUNSEL'S STATEMENT THAT A FINDING OF NO LEAK WOULD PUT HIS CLIENT OUT
OF COURT. 

SINCE PETITIONER'S INJURIES WERE THE RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S VIOLATION
OF THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, THE PARTIAL DEFENSE OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE AND THE BAR OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO
RESPONDENT UNDER SECS. 3 AND 4 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT,
45 U.S.C. SECS. 53, 54, AS THOSE SECTIONS EXISTED AT THE DATE OF THE
ACCIDENT.  THIS DISPOSITION OF THE CASE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO
CONSIDER EITHER WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS GENERALLY NEGLIGENT, OR THE
MERITS OF PETITIONER'S CONTENTION, BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT RESPONDENT
WAS SO NEGLIGENT, THAT THE 1939 AMENDMENT TO SEC. 4 OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 53 STAT. 1404, COMPLETELY ABOLISHING THE
DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK IN ACTIONS UNDER THAT ACT, SHOULD BE
GIVEN RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.    UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THE
APPLICABLE LAW, THE JURY COULD RIGHTFULLY FIND FOR PETITIONER.  THE
BENEFITS OF THAT RIGHTFUL DETERMINATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM
HIM. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  45 U.S.C. SECS. 51 ET SEQ. 

FN2  45 U.S.C. SECS. 22 ET SEQ. 

FN3  312 ILL. APP. 73, 37 N.E.2D 888. 

FN4  AT THE CLOSE OF HIS CASE, PETITIONER VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED TWO
ADDITIONAL COUNTS CHARGING GENERAL NEGLIGENCE IN SUPPLYING A DEFECTIVE
ROD AND HOOK, AND GENERAL NEGLIGENCE IN SUPPLYING A DEFECTIVE WATER
SPOUT. 

FN5  THE FULL TEXT OF RULE 153 FOLLOWS: 

"153.  FEED WATER TANKS.  - (A)  TANKS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE FROM
LEAKS, AND IN SAFE AND SUITABLE CONDITION FOR SERVICE.  SUITABLE
SCREENS MUST BE PROVIDED FOR TANK WELLS OR TANK HOSE. 

(B)  NOT LESS FREQUENTLY THAN ONCE EACH MONTH THE INTERIOR OF THE
TANK SHALL BE INSPECTED, AND CLEANED IF NECESSARY. 

(C)  TOP OF TENDER BEHIND FUEL SPACE SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN, AND MEANS
PROVIDED TO CARRY OFF WASTE WATER.  SUITABLE COVERS SHALL BE PROVIDED
FOR FILLING HOLES." 

SEE OFFICIAL PAMPHLET OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, BUREAU OF
LOCOMOTIVE INSPECTION, ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 11, 1915, TO FEBRUARY 21,
1929; ROBERTS, FEDERAL LIABILITIES OF CARRIERS (2D ED.)  VOL. 2, P.
2069. 

FN6  RULE 117 PROVIDES: 

"117.  CAB APRONS.  - CAB APRONS SHALL BE OF PROPER LENGTH AND WIDTH
TO INSURE SAFETY.  APRONS MUST BE SECURELY HINGED, MAINTAINED IN A SAFE
AND SUITABLE CONDITION FOR SERVICE, AND ROUGHENED, OR OTHER PROVISION
MADE, TO AFFORD SECURE FOOTING." 

SEE OFFICIAL PAMPHLET, SUPRA, AND ROBERTS, OP. CIT., P. 2062. 

FN7  FORD V. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. CO., 54 F.2D 342(GREASE ON A
LOCOMOTIVE GRAB-IRON HELD NO VIOLATION OF SAFETY APPLIANCE AND BOILER
INSPECTION ACTS); REEVES V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO., 147 MINN.
114, 179 N.W. 689(PRESENCE OF COAL UPON A STEP LEADING TO THE
LOCOMOTIVE CAB HELD NO VIOLATION OF SAFETY APPLIANCE AND BOILER
INSPECTION ACTS); SLATER V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO., 146 MINN.
390, 178 N.W. 813(HOLDING NO CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT
FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY AN ICE BUNKER DISPLACED BY A TRESPASSER SO IT
PROJECTED UPON THE RUNNING BOARD); CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V.
BENSON, 352 ILL. 195, 185 N.E. 244(SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT HELD NOT
VIOLATED BY WRAPPING WIRE AROUND GRAB-IRONS); HARLAN V. WABASH RY. CO.,
335 MO. 414, 73 S.W.2D 749(FAILURE OF FELLOW EMPLOYEES TO CLOSE A TRAP
DOOR IN THE CAB OVER THE STOKER HELD NO VIOLATION OF THE BOILER
INSPECTION AND SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS); RILEY V. WABASH RY. CO., 328 MO.
910, 44 S.W.2D 136(HOLDING NO CAUSE OF ACTION EXISTED UNDER BOILER
INSPECTION ACT FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED BECAUSE A CLINKER HOOK WAS
MISPLACED ON A TENDER TOP BY A FELLOW SERVANT). 

FN8  THUS, WHILE A LEAK IS ALLEGED IN PARAGRAPH 4(D) OF THE
COMPLAINT, THE FULL TEXT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE GIST OF THE CHARGE IS
SIMPLY THE PRESENCE OF ICE: 

"D.  DEFENDANT DID THEN AND THERE UNLAWFULLY AND CONTRARY TO THE
FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT USE AND PERMIT TO BE USED ON ITS LINE OF
RAILWAY AT FERNDALE YARD A LOCOMOTIVE AND TENDER WHICH WAS IN IMPROPER
CONDITION AND UNSAFE TO OPERATE IN THE SERVICE, AND ITS CONDITION
CONSTITUTED UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE AND LIMB IN THAT THE DEFENDANT
REQUIRED, CAUSED AND PERMITTED PLAINTIFF TO WORK ON THE TENDER OF THE
LOCOMOTIVE OF HIS TRAIN ON THE OCCASION ABOVE CHARGED, IN THE ACT OF
PUTTING WATER IN THE TENDER OF THE LOCOMOTIVE, THIS TENDER WAS UNSAFE
BECAUSE THE TOP WHERE THE PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO WORK WAS SLIPPERY
AND COVERED WITH ICE AND OTHER SLIPPERY MATERIALS TO ENDANGER HIS LIFE
OR LIMB, AND THE TENDER LEAKED THERE, AND WHILE HE WAS SO AT WORK, AS
ABOVE CHARGED, HE SLIPPED ON THIS SLIPPERY AND UNSAFE CONDITION ON TOP
OF THE TENDER AND WAS THROWN AND CAUSED TO FALL AND BE SERIOUSLY
INJURED." 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ESSENCE OF PARAGRAPH 4(E) IS THE PRESENCE OF A
LEAK, AS THE FOLLOWING FULL QUOTATION SHOWS: 

"E.  DEFENDANT DID THEN AND THERE UNLAWFULLY AND CONTRARY TO THE
FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT USE AND PERMIT TO BE USED ON ITS LINE OF
RAILWAY AT FERNDALE YARD, MICHIGAN, A LOCOMOTIVE AND TENDER WHICH WAS
IN IMPROPER CONDITION AND UNSAFE TO OPERATE IN THE SERVICE, AND ITS
CONDITION CONSTITUTED UNNECESSARY PERIL TO LIFE AND LIMB, IN THAT THE
DEFENDANT DID OPERATE THIS LOCOMOTIVE AND TENDER WITH THE TENDER OF
THIS LOCOMOTIVE AT THE PART WHERE THE WATER IS SUPPLIED TO AND POURED
INTO THE LOCOMOTIVE TO BE CRACKED, WORN AND SPLIT, SO AS TO OCCASION
AND PERMIT THE LEAKING OF WATER FROM AND THROUGH THIS CRACK, HOLE AND
APERTURE AND TO FLOOD, SEEP AND COVER THE TOP OF THE TENDER WHERE
PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO BE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS
EMPLOYEE, RENDERING IT LIKELY AND LIABLE FOR THE WATER TO FREEZE AND
CAUSE A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND THEREBY, BY REASON OF THIS VIOLATION
ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT OF THIS FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, THE
WATER IN THIS TENDER DID LEAK THROUGH THIS DEFECTIVE PLACE ONTO THE TOP
OF THE TENDER, AND DID FREEZE, AND IT THEREBY CAUSED PLAINTIFF, WHILE
HE WAS SO AT WORK, AS ABOVE CHARGED, ON THE TOP OF THIS TENDER, TO SLIP
AND BE THROWN AND SERIOUSLY INJURED." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :






















SPIES V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 492 


NO. 278.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 11, 1943.  - 128
F.2D 743, REVERSED. 


WILLFULLY TO ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT A TAX, IS NOT VIOLATED BY
WILLFUL OMISSIONS TO MAKE A RETURN AND PAY A TAX, DEFINED IN SEC.
145(A) AS MISDEMEANORS.  P. 497. 

SPIES V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 610, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
UPON AN INDICTMENT UNDER 26 U.S.C. SEC. 145(B) FOR ATTEMPTING TO EVADE
AND DEFEAT A FEDERAL INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTING TO DEFEAT AND EVADE
INCOME TAX, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 145(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49
STAT. 1648, 1703, NOW SEC. 145(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR DIRECTED TO THE
CHARGE TO THE JURY THE ONLY ONE OF IMPORTANCE ENOUGH TO NOTICE.  THE
CHARGE FOLLOWED THE INTERPRETATION PUT UPON THIS SECTION OF THE STATUTE
IN O'BRIEN V. UNITED STATES, 51 F.2D 193(C.C.A. 7), AND UNITED STATES
V. MIRO, 60 F.2D 58(C.C.A. 2), WHICH FOLLOWED IT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED, STATING THAT "WE MUST CONTINUE SO TO CONSTRUE THE
JUDGE SAID THAT AS A NEW MATTER HE WOULD DECIDE OTHERWISE AND EXPRESSED
APPROVAL OF THE DISSENT IN THE O'BRIEN CASE.  AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SECTION RAISES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW NOT PASSED ON
BY THIS COURT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

PETITIONER ADMITTED AT THE OPENING OF THE TRIAL THAT HE HAD
SUFFICIENT INCOME DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION TO PLACE HIM UNDER A
STATUTORY DUTY TO FILE A RETURN AND TO PAY A TAX, AND THAT HE FAILED TO
DO EITHER.  THE EVIDENCE DURING NEARLY TWO WEEKS OF TRIAL WAS DIRECTED
PRINCIPALLY TOWARD ESTABLISHING THE EXACT AMOUNT OF THE TAX AND THE
MANNER OF RECEIVING AND HANDLING INCOME AND ACCOUNTING, WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDS SHOWS AN INTENT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT THE TAX. 
PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY RELATED TO HIS GOOD CHARACTER, HIS PHYSICAL
ILLNESS AT THE TIME THE RETURN BECAME DUE, AND LACK OF WILLFULNESS IN
HIS DEFAULTS, CHIEFLY BECAUSE OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTURBANCE, AMOUNTING
TO SOMETHING MORE THAN WORRY BUT SOMETHING LESS THAN INSANITY. 

TAX OR MAKE A RETURN BY ONE HAVING PETITIONER'S INCOME AT THE TIME OR
TIMES REQUIRED BY LAW A MISDEMEANOR.  FN1  SECTION 145(B) MAKES A
WILLFUL ATTEMPT IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR DEFEAT ANY TAX SUCH AS HIS A
FELONY.  FN2 PETITIONER WAS NOT INDICTED FOR EITHER MISDEMEANOR.  THE
INDICTMENT CONTAINED A SINGLE COUNT SETTING FORTH THE FELONY CHARGE OF
WILLFULLY ATTEMPTING TO DEFEAT AND EVADE THE TAX, AND RECITED WILLFUL
FAILURE TO FILE A RETURN AND WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY THE TAX AS THE
MEANS TO THE FELONIOUS END. 

THE PETITIONER REQUESTED AN INSTRUCTION THAT "YOU MAY NOT FIND THE
DEFENDANT GUILTY OF A WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT AND EVADE THE INCOME
TAX, IF YOU FIND ONLY THAT HE HAD WILLFULLY FAILED TO MAKE A RETURN OF
TAXABLE INCOME AND HAS WILLFULLY FAILED TO PAY THE TAX ON THAT
INCOME."  THIS WAS REFUSED, AND THE COURT CHARGED THAT "IF YOU FIND
THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD A NET INCOME FOR 1936 UPON WHICH SOME INCOME TAX
WAS DUE, AND I BELIEVE THAT IS CONCEDED, IF YOU FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT
WILLFULLY FAILED TO FILE AN INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THAT YEAR, IF YOU
FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT WILLFULLY FAILED TO PAY THE TAX DUE ON HIS
INCOME FOR THAT YEAR, YOU MAY, IF YOU FIND THAT THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT IT FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT WILLFULLY ATTEMPTED TO
EVADE OR DEFEAT THE TAX."  THE COURT REFUSED A REQUEST TO INSTRUCT THAT
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACT WAS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE A WILLFUL ATTEMPT, AND
CHARGED THAT "ATTEMPT MEANS TO TRY TO DO OR ACCOMPLISH.  IN ORDER TO
FIND AN ATTEMPT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO FIND AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO
ACCOMPLISH THE PROHIBITED PURPOSE.  AN ATTEMPT MAY BE FOUND ON THE
BASIS OF INACTIVITY OR ON REFRAINING TO ACT, AS WELL." 

IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT A WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE A
RETURN, TOGETHER WITH A WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY THE TAX, MAY, WITHOUT
MORE, CONSTITUTE AN ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT OR EVADE A TAX WITHIN SEC.
145(B).  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT SUCH PROOF ESTABLISHES ONLY TWO
MISDEMEANORS UNDER SEC. 145(A), AND THAT IT TAKES MORE THAN THE SUM OF
TWO SUCH MISDEMEANORS TO MAKE THE FELONY UNDER SEC. 145(B).  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION CONTAINS NOTHING HELPFUL ON THE
QUESTION HERE AT ISSUE, AND WE MUST FIND THE ANSWER FROM THE SECTION
ITSELF AND ITS CONTEXT IN THE REVENUE LAWS. 

THE UNITED STATES HAS RELIED FOR THE COLLECTION OF ITS INCOME TAX
LARGELY UPON THE TAXPAYER'S OWN DISCLOSURES RATHER THAN UPON A SYSTEM
OF WITHHOLDING THE TAX FROM HIM BY THOSE FROM WHOM INCOME MAY BE
RECEIVED.  THIS SYSTEM CAN FUNCTION SUCCESSFULLY ONLY IF THOSE WITHIN
AND NEAR TAXABLE INCOME KEEP AND RENDER TRUE ACCOUNTS.  IN MANY WAYS,
TAXPAYERS' NEGLECT OR DECEIT MAY PREJUDICE THE ORDERLY AND PUNCTUAL
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM AS WELL AS THE REVENUES THEMSELVES. 
CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED A VARIETY OF SANCTIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
SYSTEM AND THE REVENUES.  THE RELATION OF THE OFFENSE OF WHICH THIS
PETITIONER HAS BEEN CONVICTED TO OTHER AND LESSER REVENUE OFFENSES
APPEARS MORE CLEARLY FROM ITS POSITION IN THIS STRUCTURE OF SANCTIONS. 

THE PENALTIES IMPOSED BY CONGRESS TO ENFORCE THE TAX LAWS EMBRACE
BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.  THE FORMER CONSIST OF ADDITIONS TO
THE TAX UPON DETERMINATIONS OF FACT MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
AND WITH NO BURDEN ON THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ITS CASE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.  THE LATTER CONSIST OF PENAL OFFENSES ENFORCED BY THE
CRIMINAL PROCESS IN THE FAMILIAR MANNER.  INVOCATION OF ONE DOES NOT
EXCLUDE RESORT TO THE OTHER.  HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391. 

THE FAILURE IN A DUTY TO MAKE A TIMELY RETURN, UNLESS IT IS SHOWN
THAT SUCH FAILURE IS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE AND NOT DUE TO WILLFUL
NEGLECT, IS PUNISHABLE BY AN ADDITION TO THE TAX OF 5 TO 25 PER CENT
THEREOF, DEPENDING ON THE DURATION OF THE DEFAULT.  SEC. 291 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936 AND OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  BUT A DUTY MAY
EXIST EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO TAX LIABILITY TO SERVE AS A BASE FOR
APPLICATION OF A PERCENTAGE DELINQUENCY PENALTY; THE DEFAULT MAY RELATE
TO MATTERS NOT IDENTIFIABLE WITH TAX FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD; AND THE
OFFENSE MAY BE MORE GRIEVOUS THAN A CASE FOR CIVIL PENALTY.  HENCE THE
WILLFUL FAILURE TO MAKE A RETURN, KEEP RECORDS, OR SUPPLY INFORMATION
WHEN REQUIRED, IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR, WITHOUT REGARD TO EXISTENCE OF A
TAX LIABILITY.  SEC. 145(A).  PUNCTUALITY IS IMPORTANT TO THE FISCAL
SYSTEM, AND THESE ARE SANCTIONS TO ASSURE PUNCTUAL AS WELL AS FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE OF THESE DUTIES. 

SANCTIONS TO INSURE PAYMENT OF THE TAX ARE EVEN MORE VARIED TO MEET
THE VARIETY OF CAUSES OF DEFAULT.  IT IS THE RIGHT AS WELL AS THE
INTEREST OF THE TAXPAYER TO LIMIT HIS ADMISSION OF LIABILITY TO THE
AMOUNT HE ACTUALLY OWES.  BUT THE LAW IS COMPLICATED, ACCOUNTING
TREATMENT OF VARIOUS ITEMS RAISES PROBLEMS OF GREAT COMPLEXITY, AND
INNOCENT ERRORS ARE NUMEROUS, AS APPEARS FROM THE NUMBER WHO MAKE
OVERPAYMENTS.  FN3  IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW TO PENALIZE FRANK
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OR INNOCENT ERRORS MADE DESPITE THE EXERCISE OF
REASONABLE CARE.  SUCH ERRORS ARE CORRECTED BY THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
DEFICIENCY OF TAX AND ITS COLLECTION WITH INTEREST FOR THE DELAY. 
SECS. 292 AND 294 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 AND OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  IF ANY PART OF THE DEFICIENCY IS DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OR
INTENTIONAL DISREGARD OF RULES AND REGULATIONS, BUT WITHOUT INTENT TO
DEFRAUD, FIVE PER CENT OF SUCH DEFICIENCY IS ADDED THERETO; AND IF ANY
PART OF ANY DEFICIENCY IS DUE TO FRAUD WITH INTENT TO EVADE TAX, THE
ADDITION IS 50 PER CENT THEREOF.  SEC. 293 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936
AND OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY THE TAX WHEN
DUE IS PUNISHABLE AS A MISDEMEANOR.  SEC. 145(A).  THE CLIMAX OF THIS
VARIETY OF SANCTIONS IS THE SERIOUS AND INCLUSIVE FELONY DEFINED TO
CONSIST OF WILLFUL ATTEMPT IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR DEFEAT THE TAX. 
SEC. 145(B).  THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THERE IS A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE ACTS NECESSARY TO MAKE OUT THE FELONY AND THOSE WHICH MAY
MAKE OUT THE MISDEMEANOR. 

A FELONY MAY, AND FREQUENTLY DOES, INCLUDE LESSER OFFENSES IN
COMBINATION EITHER WITH EACH OTHER OR WITH OTHER ELEMENTS.  WE THINK IT
CLEAR THAT THIS FELONY MAY INCLUDE ONE OR SEVERAL OF THE OTHER OFFENSES
AGAINST THE REVENUE LAWS.  BUT IT WOULD BE UNUSUAL AND WE WOULD NOT
READILY ASSUME THAT CONGRESS BY THE FELONY DEFINED IN SEC. 145(B) MEANT
NO MORE THAN THE SAME DERELICTIONS IT HAD JUST DEFINED IN SEC. 145(A)
AS A MISDEMEANOR.  SUCH AN INTERPRETATION BECOMES EVEN MORE DIFFICULT
TO ACCEPT WHEN WE CONSIDER THIS FELONY AS THE CAPSTONE OF A SYSTEM OF
SANCTIONS WHICH SINGLY OR IN COMBINATION WERE CALCULATED TO INDUCE
PROMPT AND FORTHRIGHT FULFILLMENT OF EVERY DUTY UNDER THE INCOME TAX
LAW AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY SUITABLE TO EVERY DEGREE OF DELINQUENCY. 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY A TAX WHEN DUE, WHICH
IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR, AND WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT AND EVADE ONE,
WHICH IS MADE A FELONY, IS NOT EASY TO DETECT OR DEFINE.  BOTH MUST BE
WILLFUL, AND WILLFUL, AS WE HAVE SAID, IS A WORD OF MANY MEANINGS, ITS
CONSTRUCTION OFTEN BEING INFLUENCED BY ITS CONTEXT.  UNITED STATES V.
MURDOCK, 290 U.S. 389.  IT MAY WELL MEAN SOMETHING MORE AS APPLIED TO
NONPAYMENT OF A TAX THAN WHEN APPLIED TO FAILURE TO MAKE A RETURN. 
MERE VOLUNTARY AND PURPOSEFUL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ACCIDENTAL,
OMISSION TO MAKE A TIMELY RETURN MIGHT MEET THE TEST OF WILLFULNESS. 
BUT IN VIEW OF OUR TRADITIONAL AVERSION TO IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, WE
WOULD NOT WITHOUT THE CLEAREST MANIFESTATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT
ASSUME THAT MERE KNOWING AND INTENTIONAL DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF A TAX,
WHERE THERE HAD BEEN NO WILLFUL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE LIABILITY, IS
INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ANY DEGREE.  WE WOULD
EXPECT WILLFULNESS IN SUCH A CASE TO INCLUDE SOME ELEMENT OF EVIL
MOTIVE AND WANT OF JUSTIFICATION IN VIEW OF ALL THE FINANCIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TAXPAYER. 

HAD SEC. 145(A) NOT INCLUDED WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY A TAX, IT WOULD
HAVE DEFINED AS MISDEMEANORS GENERALLY A FAILURE TO OBSERVE STATUTORY
DUTIES TO MAKE TIMELY RETURNS, KEEP RECORDS, OR SUPPLY INFORMATION -
DUTIES IMPOSED TO FACILITATE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT EVEN IF, BECAUSE
OF INSUFFICIENT NET INCOME, THERE WERE NO DUTY TO PAY A TAX.  IT WOULD
THEN BE A PERMISSIBLE AND PERHAPS AN APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC.
145(B) THAT IT MADE FELONIES OF THE SAME WILLFUL OMISSIONS WHEN THERE
WAS THE ADDED ELEMENT OF DUTY TO PAY A TAX.  THE DEFINITION OF SUCH
NONPAYMENT AS A MISDEMEANOR, WE THINK, ARGUES STRONGLY AGAINST SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION. 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO OFFENSES, IT SEEMS TO US, IS FOUND IN
THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IMPLIED FROM THE TERM "ATTEMPT," AS USED IN THE
FELONY SUBSECTION.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO INVOLVE THIS SUBJECT WITH
THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE COMMON-LAW "ATTEMPT."  FN4  THE ATTEMPT MADE
CRIMINAL BY THIS STATUTE DOES NOT CONSIST OF CONDUCT THAT WOULD
CULMINATE IN A MORE SERIOUS CRIME BUT FOR SOME INPOSSIBILITY OF
COMPLETION OR INTERRUPTION OR FRUSTRATION.  THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT
CRIME, COMPLETE IN ITS MOST SERIOUS FORM WHEN THE ATTEMPT IS COMPLETE,
AND NOTHING IS ADDED TO ITS CRIMINALITY BY SUCCESS OR CONSUMMATION, AS
WOULD BE THE CASE, SAY, OF ATTEMPTED MURDER.  ALTHOUGH THE ATTEMPT
SUCCEED IN EVADING TAX, THERE IS NO CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THAT KIND, AND
THE PROSECUTION CAN BE ONLY FOR THE ATTEMPT.  WE THINK THAT IN
EMPLOYING THE TERMINOLOGY OF ATTEMPT TO EMBRACE THE GRAVEST OF OFFENSES
AGAINST THE REVENUES, CONGRESS INTENDED SOME WILLFUL COMMISSION IN
ADDITION TO THE WILLFUL OMISSIONS THAT MAKE UP THE LIST OF
MISDEMEANORS.  WILLFUL BUT PASSIVE NEGLECT OF THE STATUTORY DUTY MAY
CONSTITUTE THE LESSER OFFENSE, BUT TO COMBINE WITH IT A WILLFUL AND
POSITIVE ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX IN ANY MANNER OR TO DEFEAT IT BY ANY
MEANS LIFTS THE OFFENSE TO THE DEGREE OF FELONY. 

CONGRESS DID NOT DEFINE OR LIMIT THE METHODS BY WHICH A WILLFUL
ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT AND EVADE MIGHT BE ACCOMPLISHED AND PERHAPS DID NOT
DEFINE LEST ITS EFFORT TO DO SO RESULT IN SOME UNEXPECTED LIMITATION. 
NOR WOULD WE BY DEFINITION CONSTRICT THE SCOPE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
PROVISION THAT IT MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED "IN ANY MANNER."  BY WAY OF
ILLUSTRATION, AND NOT BY WAY OF LIMITATION, WE WOULD THINK AFFIRMATIVE
WILLFUL ATTEMPT MAY BE INFERRED FROM CONDUCT SUCH AS KEEPING A DOUBLE
SET OF BOOKS, MAKING FALSE ENTRIES OR ALTERATIONS, OR FALSE INVOICES OR
DOCUMENTS, DESTRUCTION OF BOOKS OR RECORDS, CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS OR
COVERING UP SOURCES OF INCOME, HANDLING OF ONE'S AFFAIRS TO AVOID
MAKING THE RECORDS USUAL IN TRANSACTIONS OF THE KIND, AND ANY CONDUCT,
THE LIKELY EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD BE TO MISLEAD OR TO CONCEAL.  IF THE
TAX-EVASION MOTIVE PLAYS ANY PART IN SUCH CONDUCT THE OFFENSE MAY BE
MADE OUT EVEN THOUGH THE CONDUCT MAY ALSO SERVE OTHER PURPOSES SUCH AS
CONCEALMENT OF OTHER CRIME. 

IN THIS CASE THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS OF EVIDENCE APART FROM THE
DEFAULT IN FILING THE RETURN AND PAYING THE TAX WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
CLAIMS WILL SUPPORT AN INFERENCE OF WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT
THE TAX.  THESE GO TO ESTABLISH THAT PETITIONER INSISTED THAT CERTAIN
INCOME BE PAID TO HIM IN CASH, TRANSFERRED IT TO HIS OWN BANK BY
ARMORED CAR, DEPOSITED IT, NOT IN HIS OWN NAME BUT IN THE NAMES OF
OTHERS OF HIS FAMILY, AND KEPT INADEQUATE AND MISLEADING RECORDS. 
PETITIONER CLAIMS OTHER MOTIVES ANIMATED HIM IN THESE MATTERS.  WE
INTIMATE NO OPINION.  SUCH INFERENCES ARE FOR THE JURY.  IF ON PROPER
SUBMISSION THE JURY FOUND THESE ACTS, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH WILLFUL
FAILURE TO FILE A RETURN AND WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY THE TAX, TO
CONSTITUTE A WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT THE TAX, WE WOULD
CONSIDER CONVICTION OF A FELONY SUSTAINABLE.  BUT WE THINK A DEFENDANT
IS ENTITLED TO A CHARGE WHICH WILL POINT OUT THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH AN
INFERENCE OF WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT OR EVADE THE TAX FROM SOME PROOF
IN THE CASE OTHER THAN THAT NECESSARY TO MAKE OUT THE MISDEMEANORS; AND
IF THE EVIDENCE FAILS TO AFFORD SUCH AN INFERENCE, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD
BE ACQUITTED. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES AGAINST THIS CONSTRUCTION, CONTENDING THAT THE
MILDER PUNISHMENT OF A MISDEMEANOR AND THE BENEFITS OF A SHORT STATUTE
OF LIMITATION SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO VIOLATORS OF THE INCOME TAX
LAWS SUCH AS POLITICAL GRAFTERS, GAMBLERS, RACKETEERS, AND GANGSTERS. 
WE DOUBT THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION WILL HANDICAP PROSECUTION FOR FELONY OF
SUCH FLAGRANT VIOLATORS.  FEW OF THEM, WE THINK, IN THEIR EFFORTS TO
ESCAPE TAX, STOP WITH MERE OMISSION OF THE DUTIES PUT UPON THEM BY THE
STATUTE, BUT IF SUCH THERE BE, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BE CONVICTED ONLY
OF THE OFFENSE WHICH THEY HAVE COMMITTED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "ANY PERSON REQUIRED UNDER THIS TITLE TO PAY ANY TAX, OR
REQUIRED BY LAW OR REGULATIONS MADE UNDER AUTHORITY THEREOF TO MAKE A
RETURN, KEEP ANY RECORDS, OR SUPPLY ANY INFORMATION, FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE COMPUTATION, ASSESSMENT, OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX IMPOSED BY
THIS TITLE, WHO WILLFULLY FAILS TO PAY SUCH TAX, MAKE SUCH RETURN, KEEP
SUCH RECORDS, OR SUPPLY SUCH INFORMATION, AT THE TIME OR TIMES REQUIRED
BY LAW OR REGULATIONS, SHALL, IN ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES PROVIDED
BY LAW, BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE
FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR,
OR BOTH, TOGETHER WITH THE COSTS OF PROSECUTION." 

FN2 "ANY PERSON REQUIRED UNDER THIS TITLE TO COLLECT, ACCOUNT FOR,
AND PAY OVER ANY TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE, WHO WILLFULLY FAILS TO
COLLECT OR TRUTHFULLY ACCOUNT FOR AND PAY OVER SUCH TAX, AND ANY PERSON
WHO WILLFULLY ATTEMPTS IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR DEFEAT ANY TAX IMPOSED
BY THIS TITLE OR THE PAYMENT THEREOF, SHALL, IN ADDITION TO OTHER
PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW, BE GUILTY OF A FELONY AND, UPON CONVICTION
THEREOF, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE
THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH, TOGETHER WITH THE COSTS OF PROSECUTION." 

FN3  THE FOLLOWING STATISTICS ARE GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1941:  73,627 CERTIFICATES OF
OVERASSESSMENT OF INCOME TAX ISSUED, FOR 39,730 OF WHICH NO CLAIMS HAD
BEEN FILED; 236,610 ASSESSMENTS OF ADDITIONAL INCOME TAXES MADE; 871
INVESTIGATIONS MADE OF ALLEGED EVASION OF INCOME AND MISCELLANEOUS
TAXES, WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR PROSECUTION IN 239 CASES INVOLVING 446
INDIVIDUALS, OF WHOM 192 WERE TRIED AND 156 CONVICTED.  THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED WAS 16,052,007, OF WHICH NUMBER
7,867,319 REPORTED A TAX.  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE (1941), PP. 17, 20, 21, 22, 52, 108. 

FN4  HOLMES, THE COMMON LAW, PP. 65-70; HALL, CRIMINAL ATTEMPT - A
STUDY OF FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY, 49 YALE LAW JOURNAL 789;
ARNOLD, CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS - THE RISE AND FALL OF AN ABSTRACTION, 40
YALE LAW JOURNAL 53. 
..END :








ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. V. PERKINS, 317 U.S. 501 


NO. 142.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 20, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 11, 1943.  - 128
F.2D 208, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON AN APPLICATION BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TO A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY IN PURSUANCE OF AN INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
WALSH-HEALEY PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT AND REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF
PAYROLL AND SIMILAR RECORDS RELATING TO PLANTS OF THE CONTRACTOR OTHER
THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT, THE DISTRICT COURT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO PROCEED TO HEAR
AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACT AND CONTRACT COVERED SUCH PLANTS, AND IT
WAS ITS DUTY TO ORDER ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENA.  P. 506. 

2.  THE DELEGATION TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR OF THE SUBPOENA POWER,
AS HERE EXERCISED, WAS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS.  P. 510. 

ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORP. ET AL. V. PERKINS, SECRETARY OF LABOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 607, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF ORDERS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 37 F.SUPP.  604 AND 40 F.SUPP.  254, REFUSING
ENFORCEMENT OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
PURSUANT TO THE WALSH-HEALEY PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CONCERNS THE VALIDITY OF A SUBPOENA ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY
OF LABOR IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
WALSH-HEALEY PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT.  FN1  THE PETITIONER SUCCESSFULLY
RESISTED THE SECRETARY'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, FN2  WHOSE JUDGMENT WAS IN TURN REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  FN3  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, AND
BECAUSE OF PROBABLE CONFLICT WITH A HOLDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.  FN4 

THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT REQUIRES THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR
THE "MANUFACTURE OR FURNISHING OF MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, ARTICLES, AND
EQUIPMENT IN ANY AMOUNT EXCEEDING $10,000" SHALL REPRESENT AND
STIPULATE, INTER ALIA, FOR THE PAYMENT OF "NOT LESS THAN THE MINIMUM
WAGES AS DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR" (SEC. 1(B)), AND THAT
"NO PERSON EMPLOYED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN THE MANUFACTURE OR FURNISHING
OF THE MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, ARTICLES, OR EQUIPMENT USED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE PERMITTED TO WORK IN EXCESS OF
EIGHT HOURS IN ANY ONE DAY OR IN EXCESS OF FORTY HOURS IN ANY ONE WEEK"
(SEC. 1(C)); BUT PROVIDES THAT THE SECRETARY MAY ALLOW EXEMPTIONS FROM
THE MINIMUM WAGE PROVISIONS, AND PERMIT INCREASES IN THE STIPULATED
MAXIMUM HOURS ON PAYMENT OF WAGES AT "NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF
TIMES THE BASIC HOURLY RATE RECEIVED BY ANY EMPLOYEE AFFECTED."  (SEC.
6.) 

THE ACT PROVIDES FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF REQUIRED
STIPULATIONS IN THE CONTRACT (SEC. 2); AND, FURTHER, THAT "UNLESS THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR OTHERWISE RECOMMENDS" NO GOVERNMENT CONTRACT SHALL
BE AWARDED TO THE FIRM OR SUBSIDIARIES OF THE FIRM WHICH HE FINDS TO
HAVE DEFAULTED IN ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE ACT "UNTIL THREE YEARS HAVE
ELAPSED FROM THE DATE THE SECRETARY OF LABOR DETERMINES SUCH BREACH TO
HAVE OCCURRED."  (SEC. 3.) 

THE SECRETARY IS DIRECTED "TO ADMINISTER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT"
AND EMPOWERED TO "MAKE INVESTIGATIONS AND FINDINGS AS HEREIN PROVIDED,
AND PROSECUTE ANY INQUIRY NECESSARY TO HIS FUNCTIONS."  (SEC. 4.)  AND
THAT HE MAY THE BETTER AND THE MORE FAIRLY DISCHARGE HIS FUNCTIONS, HE
IS AUTHORIZED TO HOLD HEARINGS "ON COMPLAINT OF A BREACH OR VIOLATION
OF ANY REPRESENTATION OR STIPULATION" AND "TO ISSUE ORDERS REQUIRING
THE ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF
EVIDENCE UNDER OATH.  ...  IN CASE OF CONTUMACY, FAILURE, OR REFUSAL OF
ANY PERSON TO OBEY SUCH AN ORDER," THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES "SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE TO SUCH PERSON AN ORDER
REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM OR REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED
BY HIM, TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IF, AS, AND WHEN SO ORDERED, AND TO GIVE
TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE MATTER UNDER INVESTIGATION OR IN QUESTION;
AND ANY FAILURE TO OBEY SUCH ORDER OF THE COURT MAY BE PUNISHED BY SAID
COURT AS A CONTEMPT THEREOF."  THE SECRETARY IS DIRECTED TO MAKE
"FINDINGS OF FACT AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, WHICH FINDINGS SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IF SUPPORTED BY
THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE IN ANY COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES; AND THE SECRETARY OF LABOR  ...  SHALL HAVE THE
POWER, AND IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED, TO MAKE SUCH DECISIONS, BASED UPON
FINDINGS OF FACT, AS ARE DEEMED TO BE NECESSARY TO ENFORCE THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  (SEC. 5.) 

PURSUANT TO HER AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT, THE SECRETARY IN 1937
DEFINED BY RULINGS THE COVERAGE OF THE ACT.  SHE PROVIDED, INTER ALIA,
THAT "EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN OR CONNECTED WITH THE MANUFACTURE,
FABRICATION, ASSEMBLING, HANDLING, SUPERVISION, OR SHIPMENT OF
MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, ARTICLES, OR EQUIPMENT USED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
THE CONTRACT" MIGHT BE EMPLOYED OVERTIME, AT "ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES
THE BASIC HOURLY RATE OR PIECE RATE RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEE."  FN5
STIPULATIONS AS TO MINIMUM WAGES WERE MADE TO "APPLY ONLY TO PURCHASES
OR CONTRACTS RELATING TO SUCH INDUSTRIES AS HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A
DETERMINATION BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR."  FN6 THEREAFTER, AND ON
DECEMBER 21, 1937, SHE MADE A DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM WAGES TO BE PAID
EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS  ...  FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OR SUPPLY OF MEN'S WELT SHOES."  ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1939, AND
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACTS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, THE
SECRETARY ISSUED RULINGS SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH "INTEGRATED
ESTABLISHMENTS."  FN7 

FROM THE PLEADINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND ADMITTED STATEMENTS IN
AFFIDAVITS FILED, THERE APPEAR THE FOLLOWING FACTS: 

BETWEEN OCTOBER 26, 1936, AND JUNE 8, 1938, PETITIONER WAS AWARDED
SEVERAL CONTRACTS FOR BOOTS, SHOES, GYMNASIUM SHOES AND ARCTIC
OVERSHOES.  EACH WAS FOR AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $10,000, AND EACH
CONTRACT INCLUDED REPRESENTATIONS AND STIPULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE ACT AND THE SECRETARY'S RULINGS THEREUNDER SET OUT ABOVE.  BIDS FOR
AND AWARDS OF THE CONTRACTS DESIGNATED THE PLACES OF MANUFACTURE, AND
MANUFACTURE ELSEWHERE WAS FORBIDDEN.  FN8  IN THE PLANTS SO SPECIFIED,
NOTICES REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT WERE POSTED,  FN9  AND THERE THE
PETITIONER ADMITTED AN OBLIGATION AND APPARENTLY INTENDED TO COMPLY
WITH THE ACT AND CONTRACT.  THE VIOLATIONS CLAIMED IN THOSE PLANTS ARE
MINOR, IF ANY; PETITIONER OFFERED TO ADJUST ANY VIOLATION FOUND THERE
AND IT HAS WILLINGLY FURNISHED COMPLETE RECORDS AND INFORMATION AS TO
THOSE PLANTS AND THOSE EMPLOYED IN THEM.  BUT THERE ENDED, THE
PETITIONER CLAIMS, BOTH THE INVESTIGATORY POWER OF THE SECRETARY AND
ITS OBLIGATION TO MAKE ITS RECORDS AVAILABLE. 

THE SECRETARY DID NOT AGREE, AND INSTITUTED AN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING AGAINST PETITIONER, CHARGING VIOLATION OF THE STIPULATIONS
IN THE CONTRACT BY VIRTUE OF PAYMENTS BY PETITIONER OF LESS THAN THE
MINIMUM WAGES DETERMINED BY HER ON DECEMBER 21, 1937, FOR THE
"MANUFACTURE OR SUPPLY OF MEN'S WELT SHOES," AND OF FAILURE TO MAKE
REQUIRED ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS FOR OVERTIME WORK, IN OTHER AND PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PLANTS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE PETITIONER.  IN THOSE PLANTS,
IT MANUFACTURED PARTS SUCH AS COUNTERS AND RUBBER HEELS, TANNED LEATHER
FOR UPPERS AND SOLES, AND MADE CARTONS FOR PACKAGING SHOES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS FOR ITS CIVILIAN CUSTOMERS.  THE SUBPOENA IN
QUESTION ISSUED IN THIS PROCEEDING CALLED FOR RECORDS CHIEFLY RELATING
TO PAYROLLS IN SUCH PLANTS, AND AS TO THEM THE PETITIONER REFUSED TO
COMPLY. 

TO OBTAIN THE COMPLIANCE TO THE SUBPOENA WHICH PETITIONER REFUSED,
THE SECRETARY HAD RESORT TO THE DISTRICT COURT AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 5,
ALLEGING THE FOREGOING FACTS AND THAT "FOLLOWING AN INVESTIGATION BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND IT HAVING APPEARED TO
THE PLAINTIFF UPON THE BASIS OF SUCH INVESTIGATION THAT DEFENDANT" HAD
VIOLATED THESE STIPULATIONS OF THE CONTRACTS, SHE COMMENCED SUCH
PROCEEDING; AND THAT "PLAINTIFF HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, AND SAID AMENDED
(ADMINISTRATIVE) COMPLAINT ALLEGES, THAT THE PERSONS EMPLOYED" AND
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN UNDERPAID "IN ITS CALFSKIN TANNERY, UPPER LEATHER
TANNERY, SOLE LEATHER TANNERY, PARACORD FACTORY, SOLE CUTING DEPARTMENT
(JOHNSON CITY), SOLE CUTTING DEPARTMENT (ENDICOTT), COUNTER DEPARTMENT
(JOHNSON CITY), AND CARTON DEPARTMENT (JOHNSON CITY) WERE EMPLOYED BY
IT IN PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACTS SPECIFIED," AND THAT SUCH
ALLEGATIONS WERE DENIED BY THE ANSWER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS. 

THE CORPORATION PLEADED TO THE DISTRICT COURT ITS OWNERSHIP AND
MANAGEMENT OF THE PLANTS IN QUESTION AND THAT THE RUBBER HEELS AND
SOLES, THE COUNTERS, CARTONS, AND ALL EXCEPT A PORTION OF THE LEATHER
SOLES "USED IN THE MANUFACTURE" OF THE GOVERNMENT FOOTWEAR, "WERE
MANUFACTURED" IN ITS SEVERAL SEPARATE PLANTS OR DEPARTMENTS.  IT ALSO
SET FORTH IN FULL ITS ANSWER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING AND
REASONS WHY IT CONSIDERED "ARBITRARY, ARTIFICIAL, UNREASONABLE,
DISCRIMINATORY, AND CAPRICIOUS" THE RULING OF THE SECRETARY THAT THE
ACT AND CONTRACT APPLIED TO THE PLANTS OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFICALLY
NAMED IN THE CONTRACTS.  IT DENIED THAT THE PAYROLL AND SIMILAR RECORDS
SOUGHT AS TO SUCH PLANTS WERE RELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION OF ANY
MATTER CONFIDED TO THE SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE SECRETARY'S MOTION ON THE PLEADINGS AND
ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVITS FOR AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER, OVERRULED HER
CONTENTION THAT IT WAS FOR HER TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, AND SET THE CASE DOWN FOR TRIAL ON THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THE ACT AND CONTRACTS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
COVERED THE SEPARATE PLANTS. 

WE THINK THAT THE ADMITTED FACTS LEFT NO DOUBT THAT UNDER THE STATUTE
DETERMINATION OF THAT ISSUE WAS PRIMARILY THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY. 

THE ACT DIRECTS THE SECRETARY TO ADMINISTER ITS PROVISIONS.  IT IS
NOT AN ACT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO INDUSTRY.  IT APPLIES ONLY TO
CONTRACTORS WHO VOLUNTARILY ENTER INTO COMPETITION TO OBTAIN GOVERNMENT
BUSINESS ON TERMS OF WHICH THEY ARE FAIRLY FOREWARNED BY INCLUSION IN
THE CONTRACT.  ITS PURPOSE IS TO USE THE LEVERAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
IMMENSE PURCHASING POWER TO RAISE LABOR STANDARDS. 

CONGRESS SUBMITTED THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT TO THE JUDGMENT OF
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, NOT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS.  FN10  ONE
OF HER PRINCIPAL FUNCTIONS IS THE CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS
OF FACT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF PROCUREMENT OFFICERS IN WITHHOLDING AWARDS
OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS TO THOSE SHE FINDS TO BE VIOLATORS FOR THREE
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE BREACH. 

THE MATTER WHICH THE SECRETARY WAS INVESTIGATING AND WAS AUTHORIZED
TO INVESTIGATE WAS AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AND THESE
CONTRACTS.  HER SCOPE WOULD INCLUDE DETERMINING WHAT EMPLOYEES THESE
CONTRACTS AND THE ACT COVERED.  IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE WHETHER THE
PAYMENTS TO THEM WERE LOWER THAN THE SCALE FIXED PURSUANT TO THE ACT. 
SHE COULD NOT PERFORM HER FULL STATUTORY DUTY UNTIL SHE EXAMINED
UNDERPAYMENTS WHEREVER THE COVERAGE EXTENDED, BECAUSE UNDERPAYMENT IS
AN INDISPENSABLE, ALBEIT NOT THE ONLY, ELEMENT OF PROOF OF VIOLATION. 
IT IS THE ONLY BASIS ON WHICH SHE CAN COMPUTE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE AS SHE
IS REQUIRED TO DO, AND IT IS NECESSARY TO FIND THE DATE OF THE LAST
UNDERPAYMENT TO FIX THE BEGINNING OF THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD OF
DISQUALIFICATION FOR FURTHER CONTRACTS.  THUS THE PAYROLLS ARE CLEARLY
RELATED TO THE VIOLATION.  INDEED, THE UNDERPAYMENT IS ITSELF THE
VIOLATION UNDER INVESTIGATION. 

OF COURSE ANOTHER INDISPENSABLE ELEMENT OF VIOLATION IS THAT THE
UNDERPAID EMPLOYEE BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT AND
CONTRACTS.  THIS, TOO, WAS A MATTER UNDER INVESTIGATION IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.  BUT BECAUSE SHE SOUGHT EVIDENCE OF
UNDERPAYMENT BEFORE SHE MADE A DECISION ON THE QUESTION OF COVERAGE AND
ALLEGED THAT SHE "HAD REASON TO BELIEVE" THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION WERE
COVERED, THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO ORDER ITS PRODUCTION, TRIED THE
ISSUE OF COVERAGE ITSELF, AND DECIDED IT AGAINST THE SECRETARY.  THIS
RULING WOULD REQUIRE THE SECRETARY, IN ORDER TO GET EVIDENCE OF
VIOLATION, EITHER TO ALLEGE SHE HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE OF COVERAGE
BEFORE THE HEARING OR TO SEVER THE ISSUES FOR SEPARATE HEARING AND
DECISION.  THE FORMER WOULD BE OF DUBIOUS PROPRIETY, AND THE LATTER OF
DOUBTFUL PRACTICALITY.  THE SECRETARY IS GIVEN NO POWER TO INVESTIGATE
MERE COVERAGE, AS SUCH, OR TO MAKE FINDINGS THEREON EXCEPT AS INCIDENT
TO TRIAL OF THE ISSUE OF VIOLATION.  NO DOUBT SHE WOULD HAVE DISCRETION
TO TAKE UP THE ISSUES OF COVERAGE FOR SEPARATE AND EARLIER TRIAL IF SHE
SAW FIT.  OR, IN A CASE SUCH AS THE ONE REVEALED BY THE PLEADINGS IN
THIS ONE, SHE MIGHT FIND IT ADVISABLE TO BEGIN BY EXAMINING THE
PAYROLL, FOR IF THERE WERE NO UNDERPAYMENTS FOUND, THE ISSUE OF
COVERAGE WOULD BE ACADEMIC.  ON THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE, THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CONTROL HER PROCEDURE OR TO
CONDITION ENFORCEMENT OF HER SUBPOENAS UPON HER FIRST REACHING AND
ANNOUNCING A DECISION ON SOME OF THE ISSUES IN HER ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING. 

NOR WAS THE DISTRICT COURT AUTHORIZED TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF
COVERAGE ITSELF.  THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT BY THE SUBPOENA WAS NOT PLAINLY
INCOMPETENT OR IRRELEVANT TO ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE OF THE SECRETARY IN THE
DISCHARGE OF HER DUTIES UNDER THE ACT, AND IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE
DISTRICT COURT TO ORDER ITS PRODUCTION FOR THE SECRETARY'S
CONSIDERATION.  THE SECRETARY MAY TAKE THE SAME VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID, OR SHE MAY NOT.  THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE
ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS TO DISABLE THE SECRETARY FROM
RENDERING A COMPLETE DECISION ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION AS CONGRESS HAD
DIRECTED HER TO DO, AND THAT DECISION WAS STATED BY THE ACT TO BE
CONCLUSIVE AS TO MATTERS OF FACT FOR PURPOSES OF THE AWARD OF
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.  CONGRESS SOUGHT TO HAVE THE PROCUREMENT OFFICERS
ADVISED BY THE EXPERIENCE AND DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY RATHER THAN
OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  TO PERFORM HER FUNCTION SHE MUST DRAW
INFERENCES AND MAKE FINDINGS FROM THE SAME CONFLICTING MATERIALS THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED IN ANTICIPATING AND FORECLOSING HER
CONCLUSIONS.    THE PETITIONER HAS ADVANCED MANY MATTERS THAT ARE
ENTITLED TO HEARING AND CONSIDERATION IN ITS DEFENSE AGAINST THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT, BUT THEY ARE NOT OF A KIND THAT CAN BE
ACCEPTED AS A DEFENSE AGAINST THE SUBPOENA.  FN11    THE SUBPOENA POWER
DELEGATED BY THE STATUTE AS HERE EXERCISED IS SO CLEARLY WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS URGED BY THE PETITIONER, AND ON THE RECORD
BEFORE US THE CASES ON WHICH IT RELIES FN12  ARE INAPPLICABLE AND DO
NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 2036; 41 U.S.C. SEC. 35-45. 

THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED AGAINST BOTH PETITIONERS, THE
ENDICOTT JOHNSON CORPORATION AND ITS SECRETARY, AND BOTH PARTICIPATED
IN THE SUBSEQUENT LITIGATION.  FOR CONVENIENCE WE REFER TO BOTH AS "THE
PETITIONER." 

FN2  37 F.SUPP.  604 AND 40 F.SUPP.  254. 

FN3  128 F.2D 208. 

FN4  GENERAL TOBACCO & GROCERY CO. V. FLEMING, 125 F.2D 596. 

FN5  RULINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY PUBLIC
CONTRACTS ACT, NO. 1, SEC. 4(2)(A). 

FN6  IBID. SEC. 4(1). 

FN7  RULINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS NO. 2, PROVIDING IN SEC. 1(2): 

"WHEN A CONTRACTOR TO WHOM A CONTRACT SUBJECT TO THE ACT IS AWARDED
OPERATES AN INTEGRATED ESTABLISHMENT WHICH MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES
MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES THAT ARE INCORPORATED INTO OR OTHERWISE USED IN
THE MANUFACTURE OR SUPPLY OF THE MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, ARTICLES, OR
EQUIPMENT CALLED FOR BY THE CONTRACT, THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THOSE
DEPARTMENTS WHICH ARE ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF THE
MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES TO BE SO INCORPORATED INTO OR USED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OR PROCESSING OF THE ULTIMATE PRODUCT TO BE DELIVERED TO
THE GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS TO THE EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE
OR PROCESSING OF THAT ULTIMATE PRODUCT.  FOR EXAMPLE: THE PROCESSING OF
THE LEATHER AND RUBBER FOR THE SHOES SUPPLIED UNDER GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO THE ACT IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT AND
REGULATIONS, AND COMPLIANCE THEREWITH IS ESSENTIAL." 

FN8  THE BID STATED: 

"BIDDERS MUST STATE IN SPACE PROVIDED BELOW NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF
THE FACTORIES WHERE MANUFACTURE OF THE ITEM BID UPON WILL BE
PERFORMED.  THE PERFORMING OF ANY OF THE WORK CONTRACTED FOR IN ANY
PLACE OTHER THAN THAT NAMED IN THE BID IS PROHIBITED UNLESS THE SAME IS
SPECIFICALLY APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER.  IF MORE
THAN ONE PLACE OF MANUFACTURE IS NAMED, THE QUANTITY TO BE MANUFACTURED
IN EACH PLACE MUST BE GIVEN." 

A TYPICAL STATEMENT IN RESPONSE IS: 

NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF FACTORIES:                        QUANTITIES 

"GEORGE F. TABERNACLE" FACTORY (ITEM 1)................  133,524
PAIRS 

EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET (ITEM 2)................  182,256
PAIRS 

(SOUTH OF CORNER SUSQUEHANNA STREET), BINGHAMTON, 

N.Y., (TOTAL ITEMS 1 AND 2)............................  315,780
PAIRS 

A TYPICAL NOTICE OF AWARD STATED: 

FOR 133,524 PAIRS SHOES, SERVICE; SPECIAL TYPE "B" WITH FULL MIDDLE
SOLE AND RUBBER HEEL; 182,256 PAIRS SHOES, SERVICE, SPECIAL TYPE "B,"
WITH CORDED RUBBER SOLE AND UNCORDED RUBBER HEEL. 

TO BE MANUFACTURED AT OR SUPPLIED FROM GEO. F. TABERNACLE, (NAME AND
LOCATION OF PLANTS) 

BINGHAMTON, N.Y. 

FN9  ARTICLE 18(G). 

FN10  CF. PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113, AND CASES THERE
CITED. 

FN11  THESE RELATE TO:  THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT AND THE ACT AS
IMPLEMENTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE
MAKING AND PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT; THE QUESTION OF POSSIBLE
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF RULINGS AND REGULATIONS NO. 2, SUPRA, NOTE 7; THE
NATURE OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS ORGANIZATION; AND PRACTICES OF
PROCUREMENT, MANUFACTURE, STORAGE, CONSUMPTION AND DISTRIBUTION
OBTAINING AT PETITIONER'S PLANTS. 

FN12  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616; INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447; HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, 211 U.S. 407; ELLIS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 237
U.S. 434; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S.
298. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

BECAUSE OF THE VARIED AND IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITIES OF A QUASI
JUDICIAL NATURE THAT HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN
THE REGULATION OF OUR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC LIFE, THEIR ACTIVITIES
SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO UNWARRANTED AND ILL-ADVISED INTRUSIONS BY
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.  YET, IF THEY ARE FREED OF ALL
RESTRAINT UPON INQUISITORIAL ACTIVITIES AND ARE ALLOWED UNCONTROLLED
DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO
INVADE PRIVATE AFFAIRS THROUGH THE USE OF THE SUBPOENA, TO THE EXTENT
REQUIRED OR SOUGHT IN SITUATIONS LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US AND OTHER
INQUIRIES OF MUCH BROADER SCOPE, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WELL-MEANING
BUT OVER-ZEALOUS OFFICIALS THEY MAY AT TIMES BECOME INSTRUMENTS OF
INTOLERABLE OPPRESSION AND INJUSTICE.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE
POWER TO ENFORCE THEIR SUBPOENAS SHOULD NEVER BE ENTRUSTED TO
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, BUT THUS FAR CONGRESS, FOR UNSTATED REASONS,
HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO CONFER SUCH AUTHORITY UPON ANY AGENCY WHICH IT HAS
CREATED.  FN1  SO HERE, WHILE THE SECRETARY OF LABOR IS EMPOWERED TO
ADMINISTER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT, TO "PROSECUTE ANY INQUIRY NECESSARY TO
HIS FUNCTIONS," AND "TO ISSUE ORDERS REQUIRING THE ATTENDANCE AND THE
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE UNDER OATH," HE
ALONE CANNOT COMPEL OBEDIENCE OF THOSE ORDERS.  "JURISDICTION" SO TO DO
IS CONFERRED UPON THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND IT IS
OUR IMMEDIATE TASK TO DELINEATE THE PROPER FUNCTION OF THOSE COURTS IN
THE EXERCISE OF THIS JURISDICTION.  FN2  SPECIFICALLY THE QUESTION IS:
WHAT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURTS WHEN THE WITNESS OR PARTY CLAIMS THE
PROCEEDING IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW? 

THIS COURT, IN RECOGNITION OF THE DRASTIC NATURE OF THE SUBPOENA
POWER AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF SEVERE MISCHIEF INHERENT IN ITS USE, HAS
INSISTED THAT IT BE KEPT WITHIN WELLDEFINED CHANNELS.  CF. BOYD V.
UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616; HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43; FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298; CUDAHY PACKING CO. V.
HOLLAND, 315 U.S. 357, 363.  IN CONDITIONING ENFORCEMENT OF THE
SECRETARY'S ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS UPON APPLICATION THEREFOR TO A
DISTRICT COURT, CONGRESS EVIDENTLY INTENDED TO KEEP THE INSTANT
SUBPOENA POWER WITHIN LIMITS, AND CLEARLY MUST HAVE MEANT FOR THE
COURTS TO PERFORM MORE THAN A ROUTINE MINISTERIAL FUNCTION IN PASSING
UPON SUCH APPLICATIONS.  IF THIS WERE NOT THE CASE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
MUCH SIMPLER TO LODGE THE POWER OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTLY WITH THE
SECRETARY, OR ELSE TO MAKE DISREGARD OF HIS SUBPOENAS A MISDEMEANOR. 
SO WE HAVE SAID THAT "APPROPRIATE DEFENSE MAY BE MADE" TO SUCH AN
APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT.  MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41,
49. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE MORE THAN MERE
RUBBER STAMPS OF THE AGENCIES IN ENFORCING ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS AND
LISTS AS EXAMPLES OF APPROPRIATE DEFENSES, CLAIMS THAT A PRIVILEGE OF
THE WITNESS, LIKE THAT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, WOULD BE VIOLATED;
FN3  OR THAT THE SUBPOENA IS UNDULY VAGUE OR UNREASONABLY OPPRESSIVE;
FN4  OR THAT THE HEARING IS NOT OF THE KIND AUTHORIZED; FN5  OR THAT
THE SUBPOENA WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE PERSON VESTED WITH THE POWER; FN6
OR THAT IT IS PLAIN ON THE PLEADINGS THAT THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT IS NOT
GERMANE TO ANY LAWFUL SUBJECT OF INQUIRY.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS
THAT THE ISSUE OF "COVERAGE," I.E., WHETHER THE ACT EXTENDS TO PLANTS
OF PETITIONER'S ESTABLISHMENT WHICH MANUFACTURED MATERIALS USED IN
MAKING COMPLETE SHOES BUT NOT NAMED IN THE CONTRACTS, IS NOT A PROPER
GROUND FOR ATTACK IN THIS CASE.  I THINK IT IS. 

IF PETITIONER IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ACT AS TO THE PLANTS IN QUESTION,
THE SECRETARY HAS NO RIGHT TO START PROCEEDINGS OR TO REQUIRE THE
PRODUCTION OF RECORDS WITH REGARD TO THOSE PLANTS.  IN OTHER WORDS,
THERE WOULD BE NO LAWFUL SUBJECT OF INQUIRY, AND UNDER PRESENT STATUTES
GIVING THE COURTS JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS,
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE BEFORE
ITS PRIVACY IS INVADED.  CF. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. BRIMSON, 154
U.S. 447, 479; HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 211 U.S. 407;
ELLIS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 237 U.S. 434; GENERAL TOBACCO &
GROCERY CO. V. FLEMING, 125 F.2D 596. 

OF COURSE, THE COURTS SHOULD NOT ARROGATE TO THEMSELVES THE FUNCTIONS
OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  IT IS TRITE BUT TRUTHFUL TO SAY THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES RENDER VALUABLE AND VERY NECESSARY SERVICES IN
THE SOLUTION OF THE COMPLEX GOVERNMENTAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF OUR
TIME.  IN THE MAKING OF INVESTIGATIONS, THE DETERMINATION OF POLICY,
THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE, AND ITS CURRENT EVALUATION, PREPARATORY OR
INCIDENTAL TO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, EXPERIENCE AND SPECIAL TRAINING
ARE VALUABLE AIDS.  BUT AFTER ALL, AS POINTED OUT BY GELLHORN, FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, PP. 27-29, THE ADMINISTRATOR IS ONLY AN
EXPERT EX-OFFICIO.  FN7  JUST AS THE COURTS SHOULD NOT USURP THE
PREROGATIVES OF THE AGENCIES, NEITHER SHOULD THE WORD "ADMINISTRATIVE"
AND ITS COMPANION "EXPERTNESS" OVERAWE THEM INTO ABDICATING
RESPONSIBILITIES IMPOSED UPON THEM BY CONGRESS. 

THE LEGAL PROPRIETY OF INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS IS A QUESTION WHICH AN
AGENCY IS AUTHORIZED IF NOT OBLIGED TO DETERMINE, PROVISIONALLY AT
LEAST, BEFORE INSTITUTING THE PROCEEDINGS.  BUT WHILE THE DECISION MAY
BE THE AGENCY'S IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS NOT A DECISION WHICH IT IS
ORDINARILY MORE COMPETENT TO MAKE THAN THE COURTS AND JUDGES, WHO (AT
LEAST IN THEORY) SHOULD BE MORE QUALIFIED THAN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS,
MANY OF WHOM ARE LAYMEN, TO DETERMINE WHETHER A STATUTE EXTENDS TO A
CERTAIN SET OF FACTS.  IF THE PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS BY AN AGENCY
OF THE SCOPE OF ITS POWER AND JURISDICTION ARE SACROSANCT, WHY DID
CONGRESS SUBJECT THEIR FINAL DETERMINATION TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY, AS IT
HAS DONE IN THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT WITH REGARD, AT LEAST, TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE WAGE AND HOUR REQUIREMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE
EMPLOYEES?  AND IF THE COURTS ARE QUALIFIED TO PASS FINAL JUDGMENT ON
THE "QUASI-JUDICIAL" FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATORS,
WHICH THEY ARE ORDINARILY PERMITTED TO DO TO A GREATER OR LESSER
EXTENT,  FN8 THEY ARE NO LESS QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE WHICH MOVED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER A FORMAL COMPLAINT IS
SUFFICIENT IN LAW TO SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH
THE ADMINISTRATOR IS PROCEEDING COVERS THE CASE.  WITHOUT SUCH A
SHOWING OF PROBABLE CAUSE, THE DISTRICT COURTS OUGHT NOT TO BE REQUIRED
AS A MATTER OF MERE ROUTINE TO LEND THEIR AID TO THE PROCEEDING BY
COMPELLING OBEDIENCE TO THE SUBPOENA. 

IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD, OF COURSE, THAT IF THE MATTER IS IN DOUBT AND
IF THERE IS A REASONABLE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE CHARGE, THE COURT SHOULD
NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT ON THE LAW OR THE FACTS FOR THAT OF THE
AGENCY.  THE COURT'S DUTY IS TO ASSIST THE AGENCY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
ITS FUNCTIONS AND THE DISCHARGE OF ITS RESPONSIBILITIES, IN THE ABSENCE
OF A CLEAR AND CONVINCING SHOWING THAT IT IS PROCEEDING WITHOUT LEGAL
WARRANT.  BUT IT IS HARDLY ITS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE FACE OF SUCH A
SHOWING.  SO, WHEN IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR THE SECRETARY IN THE COURSE
OF A PROCEEDING UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT TO APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION OVER SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT,
IT IS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE AND AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO INQUIRE AND
SATISFY ITSELF WHETHER THERE IS PROBABLE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
PROCEEDING, BEFORE IT EXERCISES ITS JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE A
WITNESS OR A PARTY TO REVEAL HIS PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR BE HELD IN
CONTEMPT. 

CONSIDERATIONS OF PRACTICAL ADVANTAGE AND ELEMENTARY JUSTICE SUPPORT
THIS CONCLUSION.  SUCH A RULE CARRIES OUT WHAT MUST HAVE BEEN THE
STATUTORY INTENT, AND WOULD PERMIT A TIMELY AND REASONABLE MEASURE OF
JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER ADMINISTRATIVE USE OF THE DRASTIC SUBPOENA POWER,
SUBJECT TO PROMPT REVIEW IF THE CONTROL WERE ABUSED TO THE DETRIMENT OF
THE AGENCY.  IF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES MAY BE TEMPORARILY HANDICAPPED
IN SOME INSTANCES BY FRIVOLOUS OBJECTIONS, THE PUBLIC WILL BE PROTECTED
IN OTHER INSTANCES AGAINST THE NEEDLESS BURDEN AND VEXATION OF
PROCEEDINGS WHICH MAY BE INSTITUTED WITHOUT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION.  THERE
IS AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESENT CASE, WHEREIN THE DISTRICT
COURT EXERCISES A JURISDICTION EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO IT BY THE STATUTE,
AND THOSE CASES, SUCH AS MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41, AND
NEWPORT NEWS CO. V. SCHAUFFLER, 303 U.S. 54, IN WHICH WITHOUT EXPRESS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY A COURT IS ASKED TO ENJOIN AN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING AS BEING CONTRARY TO LAW.  INDEED, THE VERY DIFFERENCE IS
NOTED IN THE MYERS CASE, WHERE IT IS SAID THAT "APPROPRIATE DEFENSE MAY
BE MADE" TO AN APPLICATION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
SUBPOENA.  303 U.S. AT 49. 

JUST HOW MUCH OF A SHOWING OF STATUTORY COVERAGE SHOULD BE REQUIRED
TO SATISFY THE DISTRICT COURT, AND JUST HOW FAR IT SHOULD EXPLORE THE
QUESTION, ARE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS, TO BE SOLVED BEST BY A CAREFUL
BALANCING OF INTERESTS AND THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND AND INFORMED
DISCRETION.  IF THE PROPOSED EXAMINATION UNDER THE SUBPOENA OR THE
PROCEEDING ITSELF WOULD BE RELATIVELY BRIEF AND OF A LIMITED SCOPE, ANY
DOUBT SHOULD ORDINARILY BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE AGENCY'S POWER.  IF
IT PROMISES TO BE PROTRACTED AND BURDENSOME TO THE PARTY, A MORE
SEARCHING INQUIRY IS INDICATED.  A FORMAL FINDING OF COVERAGE BY THE
AGENCY, WHICH THE SECRETARY DID NOT MAKE HERE, SHOULD BE ACCORDED SOME
WEIGHT IN THE COURT'S DELIBERATION, UNLESS WHOLLY WANTING IN EITHER
LEGAL OR FACTUAL SUPPORT, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONCLUSIVE.  IN SHORT,
THE RESPONSIBILITY RESTING UPON THE COURT IN THIS SITUATION IS NOT
UNLIKE THAT OF A COMMITTING MAGISTRATE ON PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACCUSED SHOULD BE HELD FOR TRIAL.    WITH THESE
CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND, LET US TURN TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 
PETITIONER HAS WILLINGLY COMPLIED WITH ALL DEMANDS OF THE SECRETARY
RELATING TO THE PLANTS OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT, NAMED IN THE CONTRACTS, IN
WHICH THE SHOES WERE MANUFACTURED.  IT RESISTS THE APPLICATION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF RECORDS OF
OTHER PLANTS, NOT NAMED IN THE CONTRACTS, IN WHICH SOME COMPONENT PARTS
FOR THE SHOES WERE MANUFACTURED, ON THE GROUND THAT THE WALSH-HEALEY
ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO THOSE PLANTS.  IT IS TRUE THAT PETITIONER
VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, BUT THOSE
REFERRED ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC PLANTS WHERE THE FINISHED PRODUCT WAS
MADE.  AND, IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1939, AFTER ALL THE CONTRACTS WERE
COMPLETED, THAT THE SECRETARY ISSUED RULINGS SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH
"INTEGRATED ESTABLISHMENTS."  FN9  THE MERE FACT THAT PETITIONER
VOLUNTARILY CONTRACTED WITH REFERENCE TO SOME PLANTS DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE SECRETARY IS FREE TO INVESTIGATE PETITIONER'S
ENTIRE BUSINESS WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE.  THAT DEPENDS UPON WHETHER OR
NOT THE ACT EXTENDS TO THOSE OTHER PLANTS.  PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO
HAVE THIS QUESTION DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT BEFORE THE SUBPOENA
WAS ENFORCED OVER ITS OBJECTION. 

IN VIEW OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THERE IS NO REASON FOR
DISCUSSING WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONSTRUED THE SCOPE OF
THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT, OR WHETHER IT CONDUCTED ITS EXAMINATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OUTLINE IN THE
COURSE OF THIS OPINION.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT I AM OF OPINION THAT
UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED
MECHANICALLY TO ENFORCE THE SECRETARY'S SUBPOENA, IN THE EXERCISE OF
ITS STATUTORY JURISDICTION.  IT SHOULD FIRST SATISFY ITSELF THAT
PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE SECRETARY'S CONTENTION THAT THE ACT
COVERS THE PLANTS IN QUESTION. 

FN1  THE DISREGARD OF SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY SOME AGENCIES IS PUNISHABLE
BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, BUT APPARENTLY NO
FEDERAL AGENCY HAS EVER BEEN GIVEN THE POWER TO PUNISH DISOBEDIENCE AS
A CONTEMPT OF ITS AUTHORITY.  (SEE FINAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, APPENDIX K.)  THE
COMMON METHOD OF ENFORCING SUBPOENAS IS TO PUNISH DISREGARD OF THE
SUBPOENA AS CONTEMPT OF THE ISSUING BODY.  IT HAS BEEN HELD IN SOME
STATES THAT THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT CANNOT BE CONFERRED UPON A
BODY OF A NON-JUDICIAL CHARACTER.  SEE LANGENBERG V. DECKER, 131 IND.
471, 31 N.E. 190; IN RE WHITCOMB, 120 MASS. 118, 21 AM. REP. 502. 
CONTRA, IN RE HAYES, 200 N.C. 133, 156 S.E. 791.  COMPARE STATEMENTS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. BRINSON, 154 U.S. 447, AT 485 AND 489. 

FN2  SECTION 5 OF THE ACT PROVIDES IN PART:  "IN CASE OF CONTUMACY,
FAILURE, OR REFUSAL OF ANY PERSON TO OBEY SUCH AN ORDER, ANY DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY TERRITORY OR POSSESSION, OR THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
WHICH THE INQUIRY IS CARRIED ON, OR WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF WHICH
SAID PERSON WHO IS GUILTY OF CONTUMACY, FAILURE, OR REFUSAL IS FOUND,
OR RESIDES OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS, UPON THE APPLICATION BY THE SECRETARY
OF LABOR OR REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED BY HIM, SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION
TO ISSUE TO SUCH PERSON AN ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO APPEAR BEFORE
HIM OR REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED BY HIM, TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IF, AS,
AND WHEN SO ORDERED, AND TO GIVE TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE MATTER UNDER
INVESTIGATION OR IN QUESTION; AND ANY FAILURE TO OBEY SUCH ORDER OF THE
COURT MAY BE PUNISHED BY SAID COURT AS A CONTEMPT THEREOF; ...  " 

CRIMINAL SANCTIONS ARE NOT PROVIDED. 

FN3  CF. BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616. 

FN4  CF. HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298. 

FN5  CF. HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 211 U.S. 407; ELLIS
V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 237 U.S. 434. 

FN6  CF. CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HOLLAND, 315 U.S. 357. 

FN7  "WHEN REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE 'EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY,'
IT IS SURELY NOT INTENDED TO MEAN THAT THE NECESSARY EXPERTNESS IS
LODGED IN THE HEAD OR HEADS OF THE AGENCY OR THAT THEY, IN THEIR OWN
PERSON, POSSESS EVERY EXPERTISE NEEDED FOR THE INFORMED DISCHARGE OF
THE MANIFOLD DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THE MODERN ADMINISTRATIVE
ORGANIZATION.  ...  MAKE THE AGENCY EXPERT IN ITS ASSIGNED TASKS.  THIS
IS A CENTRAL REALITY.  ...  THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AS NOW ORGANIZED
IS A VEHICLE FOR BRINGING THE JUDGMENTS OF NUMEROUS SPECIALLY QUALIFIED
OFFICIALS TO BEAR UPON A SINGLE PROBLEM." 

FN8  THE WALSH-HEALEY ACT PROVIDES IN SEC. 5 THAT THE SECRETARY'S
FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
"IF SUPPORTED BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE." 

FN9  RULINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS UNDER THE WALSH-HEALEY PUBLIC
CONTRACTS ACT, NO. 2. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :













WRAGG V. FEDERAL LAND BANK, 317 U.S. 325 


NO. 172.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943.  - 125
F.2D 1003, REVERSED. 


1.  A FARMER-DEBTOR, WHOSE PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT HAS BEEN DISMISSED AND WHOSE APPLICATION TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDING
HAS BEEN DENIED, MAY INITIATE A NEW PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75 WHERE HE
RETAINS A PROPERTY INTEREST WHICH COULD BE ADMINISTERED IN SUCH A
PROCEEDING.  P. 327. 

2.  THE STATUTORY RIGHT OF A FARMER-DEBTOR, IN ALABAMA, TO REDEEM
AFTER FORECLOSURE OF A MORTGAGE, WHETHER IT BE DENOMINATED A PROPERTY
RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE, IS AN INTEREST WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT AND CAPABLE OF ADMINISTRATION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  PP. 328-329. 

3.  SECTION 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PRESCRIBES ITS OWN CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING WHAT PROPERTY INTERESTS MAY BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  IN THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES, FEDERAL
NOT LOCAL LAW APPLIES.  P. 328. 

WRAGG V. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF NEW ORLEANS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 608, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT (34 F.SUPP.  374) WHICH DENIED AN APPLICATION TO
REOPEN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OR FOR
PERMISSION TO BEGIN A NEW PROCEEDING UNDER THAT SECTION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AFTER HER PETITION FOR A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF HER DEBTS IN A
FARMER-DEBTOR PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 203, HAD BEEN DISMISSED, PETITIONER APPLIED TO REOPEN THE
PROCEEDING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO BE PERMITTED TO INSTITUTE A NEW
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75.  THE QUESTIONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE WHETHER
THE COURTS BELOW ERRED IN DENYING HER APPLICATION AND WHETHER, AT THE
TIME OF HER APPLICATION, HER RIGHT AS MORTGAGOR TO REDEEM ALABAMA REAL
ESTATE AFTER ITS SALE ON FORECLOSURE OF THE MORTGAGE WAS SUCH THAT IT
CAN BE ADMINISTERED BY THE COURT IN A SEC. 75 PROCEEDING. 

IN 1937, AFTER RESPONDENT MORTGAGEE HAD OBTAINED A DECREE OF
FORECLOSURE, BUT BEFORE FORECLOSURE SALE, PETITIONER FILED A PETITION
UNDER SEC. 75 SEEKING A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF HER DEBTS.  THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT REFERRED THE PROCEEDING TO A CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER; PETITIONER FILED PROPOSED TERMS OF COMPOSITION OR
EXTENSION TO WHICH RESPONDENT FILED OBJECTIONS; THE CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER THEN RECOMMENDED THAT THE OFFER BE NOT APPROVED, ON THE
GROUND THAT IT DID NOT CONTAIN AN EQUITABLE AND FEASIBLE METHOD OF
LIQUIDATING RESPONDENT'S CLAIM AND OF SECURING PETITIONER'S FINANCIAL
REHABILITATION. 

THE COURT CONFIRMED THE REPORT OF THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER,
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AMEND HER PETITION SO AS TO
PROCEED UNDER SEC. 75(S), AND DIRECTED THAT THE PROCEEDING BE DISMISSED
AS OF JANUARY 19, 1938.  PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND HER PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT WERE DENIED.  95 F.2D 252; 305 U.S. 596. 
AFTER THE FARMER-DEBTOR PROCEEDING WAS DISMISSED RESPONDENT PURCHASED
THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AT A FORECLOSURE SALE, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN
APRIL, 1938.  NEARLY A YEAR LATER, RESPONDENT CONTRACTED TO SELL THE
PROPERTY TO A THIRD PARTY, THE CONTRACT STIPULATING THAT IT WAS
"SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY RIGHT OF REDEMPTION FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE IF
ANY EXISTS." 

ALABAMA LAW ALLOWS TO THE MORTGAGOR A TWO-YEAR REDEMPTION PERIOD
AFTER FORECLOSURE SALE.  TITLE 7, SEC. 727, CODE OF ALABAMA, 1940.  ON
MARCH 11, 1940, ONE DAY BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THIS PERIOD,  FN1
PETITIONER FILED HER APPLICATION IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  IT REFERRED
TO HER PRIOR SEC. 75 PROCEEDING, ALLEGING THAT HER PROPERTY HAD NOT
BEEN FULLY ADMINISTERED IN THAT PROCEEDING AND THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO
FURTHER RELIEF, ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE CHANGED CONDITIONS AND
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT (OBVIOUSLY A REFERENCE TO THE DECISION IN
JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. BARTELS, 308 U.S. 180, DECIDED DECEMBER 4,
1939).  SHE ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE CASE BE REOPENED AND
REINSTATED.  IN THE ALTERNATIVE SHE ASKED THAT, IF SHE WERE ENTITLED
ONLY TO FILE A NEW PETITION, THEN HER FORMER SCHEDULES SHOULD BE DEEMED
A PART OF HER PETITION, AND SHE OFFERED TO PAY SUCH FILING FEES AS THE
STATUTE REQUIRES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DISMISSAL OF THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WAS ERRONEOUS UNDER THE RULE SUBSEQUENTLY ANNOUNCED
IN THE BARTELS CASE, THERE WERE NO CIRCUMSTANCES SUFFICIENT TO PERSUADE
THE COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, THAT THE PROCEEDING
SHOULD BE REOPENED UPON AN APPLICATION FILED MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER
IT HAD BEEN DISMISSED.  THE COURT ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE APPLICATION. 
34 F.SUPP.  374.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED.  125 F.2D 1003.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, POST, P. 608, THE
QUESTIONS RAISED BEING OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

WE DO NOT DIFFER WITH THE CONCLUSION OF BOTH COURTS BELOW THAT IT WAS
WITHIN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO DECLINE TO
REOPEN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL.  A MOTION TO REOPEN A
PROCEEDING MAY NOT PROPERLY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR AN APPEAL FROM ITS
DECISION.  SEE WAYNE GAS CO. V. OWENS CO., 300 U.S. 131, 135; PFISTER
V. NORTHERN ILLINOIS FINANCE CORP., ANTE, PP. 153-154.  BUT THE
DISMISSAL OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING AND DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION TO
REOPEN IT WERE NOT BARS TO A NEW PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75 TO SECURE
WHATEVER RELIEF THE ACT WOULD AFFORD WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S
REMAINING INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY.  WE FIND NO INTIMATION IN
THE LANGUAGE AND PURPOSES OF THE ACT THAT AN UNSUCCESSFUL EARLIER
PROCEEDING WOULD PRECLUDE A NEW PETITION SO LONG AS THE FARMER RETAINS
AN INTEREST WHICH COULD BE ADMINISTERED IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75. 

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT UNDER ALABAMA STATUTES AND DECISIONS THE
STATUTORY RIGHT OF REDEMPTION AFTER FORECLOSURE IS DEFINED AS A
"PERSONAL PRIVILEGE" RATHER THAN AS "PROPERTY OR PROPERTY RIGHTS"
(TITLE 7, SEC. 743), AND HENCE IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT IN A FARMER-DEBTOR PROCEEDING.  BUT SEC. 75 PRESCRIBES
ITS OWN CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHAT PROPERTY INTERESTS MAY BE BROUGHT
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  IN THE INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER FEDERAL
STATUTES, FEDERAL NOT LOCAL LAW APPLIES.  PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, 316
U.S. 89, 95 AND CASES CITED.  IT IS FOR THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO
DETERMINE, BY REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY STATUTE,
WHAT RIGHTS CREATED BY STATE LAW - REGARDLESS OF THE CHARACTERIZATION
WHICH MAY BE APPLIED TO THEM BY STATE STATUTES AND DECISIONS - ARE
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  UNITED STATES V.
PELZER, 312 U.S. 399, 402-03. 

UNDER SEC. 168 OF TITLE 47 OF THE ALABAMA CODE OF 1940, THE PURCHASER
AT FORECLOSURE SALE IS ENTITLED TO A DEED IMMEDIATELY UPON MAKING THE
PURCHASE AND THE DEED CONVEYS TO HIM FULL LEGAL TITLE SUBJECT ONLY TO
THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION.  BY SECS. 727 AND 743 OF TITLE 7, THE
MORTGAGOR RETAINS A RIGHT OF REDEMPTION, WHICH IS "NOT SUBJECT TO
ALIENATION," SAVE AS IT MAY BE TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED TO AN ASSIGNEE
WHO MAY REDEEM.  ESTES V. JOHNSON, 234 ALA. 191, 174 SO. 632; CRAWFORD
V. HORTON, 234 ALA. 439, 444, 175 SO. 310.  SECTION 75(N) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT CONFERS JURISDICTION OVER THE DEBTOR'S "RIGHT OR THE
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION WHERE THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION HAS NOT OR HAD NOT
EXPIRED."  WRIGHT V. LOGAN, 315 U.S. 139, 142; AND SEE STATE BANK OF
HARDINSBURG V. BROWN, ANTE, PP. 138-140.  LOOKING AT THE SCOPE AND
PURPOSE OF SEC. 75, WE THINK PETITIONER'S INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGED
PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE DENOMINATED A PROPERTY RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE OF
REDEMPTION, IS AN INTEREST INTENDED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION AND IS CAPABLE OF ADMINISTRATION IN A FARMER-DEBTOR
PROCEEDING.  SEE MANGUS V. MILLER, ANTE, P. 178. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHT OF REDEMPTION WAS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT; THAT SHE WAS ENTITLED TO INITIATE A NEW
PROCEEDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY IN FARMER-DEBTOR
PROCEEDINGS, AND TO ASK THAT HER PETITION AND SCHEDULES BE ALLOWED TO
STAND AS THE PETITION AND SCHEDULES IN SUCH A PROCEEDING.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT ON MARCH 11, 1940, NEARLY SIX WEEKS OF
THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION REMAINED.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE
THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS CONTENTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







DETROIT BANK V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 329 


NO. 156.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 10, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943.  -
127 F.2D 64, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TAX LIEN IMPOSED BY SEC. 315(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 FOR
FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES ATTACHES AT THE DATE OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH
WITHOUT ASSESSMENT OR DEMAND.  P. 332. 

2.  THE LIEN EXTENDS TO AN INTEREST OF THE DECEDENT AS A TENANT BY
THE ENTIRETY.  P. 332. 

3.  THE LIEN NEED NOT BE RECORDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.S. SEC.
3186, AS AMENDED, IN ORDER TO GIVE IT SUPERIORITY TO THE LIEN OF A
MORTGAGEE WHO ACQUIRED HIS MORTGAGE FOR VALUE IN GOOD FAITH WITHOUT
KNOWLEDGE OF THE TAX LIEN.  P. 333. 

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN R.S. SEC. 3186 AND SEC. 315(A), AND THEIR
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS SEPARATE ENACTMENTS, INDICATE THAT EACH WAS
INTENDED TO OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER.  P. 334. 

4.  IN AUTHORIZING AN UNRECORDED ESTATE TAX LIEN SUPERIOR TO THE LIEN
OF A SUBSEQUENT MORTGAGE, WHILE WITHHOLDING SUCH TAX LIEN AGAINST
INNOCENT PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY WHICH A DECEDENT HAD TRANSFERRED INTER
VIVOS IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, THE STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 337. 

UNLIKE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE FIFTH CONTAINS NO EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE AND IT PROVIDES NO GUARANTY AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY
LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS.  P. 337. 

DETROIT BANK (FORMERLY DETROIT SAVINGS BANK) V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 607, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 41 F.SUPP.  41, ENFORCING AT THE SUIT OF THE
GOVERNMENT AN UNRECORDED TAX LIEN ON REAL PROPERTY ASSESSED AS PART OF
A DECEDENT'S ESTATE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE: 

(1)  WHETHER THE LIEN FOR FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES AUTHORIZED BY SEC.
315(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 9, 80, ATTACHES TO THE
INTEREST OF THE DECEDENT IN AN ESTATE BY THE ENTIRETY. 

(2)  WHETHER THE LIEN IS REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF R.S. SEC. 3186, AS AMENDED, IN ORDER TO GIVE IT SUPERIORITY TO THE
LIEN OF A MORTGAGEE WHO ACQUIRED HIS MORTGAGE FOR VALUE IN GOOD FAITH
WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE TAX LIEN. 

(3)  WHETHER SEC. 315(A), SO APPLIED AS TO GIVE THE LIEN SUPERIORITY
OVER SUCH SUBSEQUENT MORTGAGES, OFFENDS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
PURSUANT TO R.S. SEC. 3207, TO FORECLOSE AN ASSERTED LIEN FOR ESTATE
TAXES ASSESSED UNDER SEC. 302(E) UPON CERTAIN PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE. 
THE REAL ESTATE HAD BEEN OWNED AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH BY DECEDENT AND
HIS WIFE AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY.  FOLLOWING HIS DEATH THE REAL
ESTATE WAS NOT INCLUDED AS A PART OF HIS ESTATE IN COMPUTING THE
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT OR PAYMENT OF THE TAX, THE
PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE IN QUESTION WERE MORTGAGED, SOME BY DECEDENT'S
WIDOW AND OTHERS BY HIS CHILDREN, TO PETITIONER WHO ACTED WITHOUT
KNOWLEDGE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSERTED LIEN OR CLAIM FOR TAXES. 
DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS HAVING OCCURRED,
PETITIONER BOUGHT IN THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY ON FORECLOSURE SALE.  THE
TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONER ACQUIRED THE MORTGAGES IN GOOD FAITH
AND FOR VALUE. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ASSESSED AN ESTATE TAX
DEFICIENCY AGAINST DECEDENT'S ESTATE BY REASON OF THE FAILURE TO
INCLUDE THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE BY THE ENTIRETY IN THE COMPUTATION OF
THE TAX, WHICH THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED.  THE GOVERNMENT THEN
BROUGHT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE THE LIEN.  THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD THAT THE TAX LIEN, ALTHOUGH UNRECORDED, WAS SUPERIOR TO THE
MORTGAGE LIEN AND TO LOCAL, STATE AND COUNTY LIENS FOR TAXES, WHICH HAD
ACCRUED AFTER THE DEATH OF DECEDENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, 127 F.2D 64.  WE WERE MOVED TO GRANT CERTIORARI, POST, P.
607, BY THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 


"UNLESS THE TAX IS SOONER PAID IN FULL, IT SHALL BE A LIEN FOR TEN
YEARS UPON THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, EXCEPT THAT SUCH PART OF
THE GROSS ESTATE AS IS USED FOR THE PAYMENT OF CHARGES AGAINST THE
ESTATE AND EXPENSES OF ITS ADMINISTRATION, ALLOWED BY ANY COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE DIVESTED OF SUCH LIEN.  IF THE
COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED THAT THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ESTATE HAS BEEN
FULLY DISCHARGED OR PROVIDED FOR, HE MAY, UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED
BY HIM WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, ISSUE HIS CERTIFICATE,
RELEASING ANY OR ALL PROPERTY OF SUCH ESTATE FROM THE LIEN HEREIN
IMPOSED." 

THE LIEN ATTACHES AT THE DATE OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, SINCE THE
GROSS ESTATE IS DETERMINED AS OF THAT DATE AND THE ESTATE TAX ITSELF
BECOMES AN OBLIGATION OF THE ESTATE AT THAT TIME WITHOUT ASSESSMENT. 
SEE HERTZ V. WOODMAN, 218 U.S. 205, 220; ITHACA TRUST CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 279 U.S. 151, 155; UNITED STATES V. AYER, 12 F.2D 194;
ROSENBERG V. MCLAUGHLIN, 66 F.2D 271.  THAT THE LIEN ATTACHES AT THE
DECEDENT'S DEATH WITHOUT NECESSITY FOR ASSESSMENT OR DEMAND IS IMPLICIT
IN THE PROVISO THAT SUCH PART OF THE ESTATE AS IS USED FOR PAYMENT OF
CHARGES AGAINST THE ESTATE AND EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION SHALL BE
"DIVESTED OF THE LIEN." 

PETITIONER URGES THAT SINCE THE LIEN HERE ASSERTED IS "UPON THE GROSS
ESTATE OF DECEDENT" IT DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE LAND HELD BY THE ENTIRETY
WHICH PASSED TO THE DECEDENT'S WIDOW, NOT AS A PART OF HIS ESTATE BUT
BY HER RIGHT TO SURVIVORSHIP.  BUT THIS ARGUMENT DISREGARDS THE FACT
THAT THE LIEN IS FOR THE PARTICULAR TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 302 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926 UPON "THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF DECEDENT" AT
THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, INCLUDING "THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF
ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL,  ...  (E) TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST
THEREIN HELD ...  AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY BY THE DECEDENT AND SPOUSE
..." 

SINCE THE LIEN AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 315(A) IS FOR THE TAX WHICH IN ITS
COMPUTATION INCLUDES AS A PART OF THE TAXABLE ESTATE THE VALUE OF THE
ESTATE BY THE ENTIRETY, SEE TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497, WE
THINK IT TOO PLAIN FOR ARGUMENT THAT THE LIEN EXTENDS TO THE ESTATE AS
THUS DEFINED AND MADE THE BASE ON WHICH THE TAX IS COMPUTED.  THE GROSS
ESTATE OF DECEDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 315(A) IS THE ESTATE OR
PROPERTY ON WHICH THE TAX CHARGEABLE TO DECEDENT'S ESTATE IS COMPUTED. 
CONGRESS, IN SEC. 314(B), SIMILARLY DENOMINATED THE PROCEEDS OF
INSURANCE ON THE LIFE OF DECEDENT PAYABLE TO BENEFICIARIES AS "A PART
OF THE GROSS ESTATE" IN PROVIDING FOR RECOVERY FROM THE BENEFICIARIES
OF THEIR PRO RATA SHARES OF THE ESTATE TAX.  WE CANNOT IMPUTE TO
CONGRESS AN INTENTION NOT DISCLOSED BY THE STATUTE OR ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY TO EXCLUDE FROM THE TAX LIEN PROPERTY WHICH IT DIRECTS TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING
THE TAX. 

NOR CAN WE CONCLUDE, AS PETITIONER ARGUES, THAT THE LIEN FOR ESTATE
TAX AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 315(A) IS SUBJECT TO THE EARLIER PROVISION FOR
RECORDING TAX LIENS IN R.S. SEC. 3186.  THIS SECTION, SO FAR AS NOW
RELEVANT, PROVIDES, 

"THAT IF ANY PERSON LIABLE TO PAY ANY TAX NEGLECTS OR REFUSES TO PAY
THE SAME AFTER DEMAND, THE AMOUNT SHALL BE A LIEN IN FAVOR OF THE
UNITED STATES FROM THE TIME WHEN THE ASSESSMENT LIST WAS RECEIVED BY
THE COLLECTOR, EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE PROVIDED, UNTIL PAID  ...  UPON
ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS TO PROPERTY BELONGING TO SUCH PERSON:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH LIEN SHALL NOT BE VALID AS AGAINST ANY
MORTGAGEE, PURCHASER, OR JUDGMENT CREDITOR UNTIL NOTICE OF SUCH LIEN
SHALL BE FILED BY THE COLLECTOR IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT WITHIN WHICH THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO
SUCH LIEN IS SITUATED  ..." 

THE SECTION CONTAINS A FURTHER PROVISO THAT WHENEVER ANY STATE, BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, MAKES PROVISION FOR THE FILING OF SUCH NOTICE
IN THE OFFICE OF A REGISTRAR OR RECORDER OF DEEDS, "THEN SUCH LIENS
SHALL NOT BE VALID IN THAT STATE AGAINST ANY MORTGAGEE, PURCHASER OR
JUDGMENT CREDITOR UNTIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE FILED" IN THE APPROPRIATE
OFFICE.  MICHIGAN HAS MADE PROVISION FOR FILING NOTICES OF SUCH TAX
LIENS IN THE OFFICES OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS IN THE COUNTIES OF THE
STATE.  SEC. 3746, COMPILED LAWS OF MICHIGAN, 1929. 

THE PART OF R.S. SEC. 3186 IMPOSING THE LIEN WAS ENACTED IN 1866, 14
STAT. 107.  THE PROVISION FOR FILING NOTICE OF GOVERNMENT TAX LIENS WAS
ADDED BY AMENDMENT OF MARCH 4, 1913, 37 STAT. 1016.  BEFORE THE
AMENDMENT THIS COURT HAD HELD IN UNITED STATES V. SNYDER, 149 U.S. 210;
CF. UNITED STATES V. CURRY, 201 F.371, 374, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A
FEDERAL STATUTE REQUIRING GOVERNMENT TAX LIENS TO BE RECORDED THEY ARE
SUPERIOR TO SUBSEQUENT MORTGAGES. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING SEC. 209 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1916, WHICH, WITH AMENDMENTS, BECAME SEC. 315(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, DID NOT IMPOSE AN INDEPENDENT LIEN BUT MERELY MADE
EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE TO THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX THE LIEN CREATED BY R.S.
SEC. 3186, MODIFYING THAT LIEN IN SOME RESPECTS AS WILL BE FURTHER
NOTED.  IT URGES THAT SAVE WHERE INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXPRESS TERMS OF
SEC. 315(A), ALL PROVISIONS OF R.S. SEC. 3186 ARE MADE APPLICABLE TO
THE ESTATE TAX LIEN BY REASON OF SEC. 211 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916,
WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THAT ALL ADMINISTRATIVE, SPECIAL, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS OF LAW,
INCLUDING THE LAWS IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF
TAXES NOT HERETOFORE SPECIFICALLY REPEALED ARE HEREBY MADE TO APPLY TO
THIS TITLE SO FAR AS APPLICABLE AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ITS
PROVISIONS." 

BUT WE THINK THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN R.S. SEC. 3186 AND SEC.
315(A), AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS SEPARATE ENACTMENTS, INDICATE
THAT EACH WAS INTENDED TO OPERATE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER. 

NO REFERENCE TO R.S. SEC. 3186 OR TO ANY REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDING
NOTICE OF THE LIEN.  THE LIEN OF R.S. SEC. 3186 IS UPON ALL THE
PROPERTY OF THE PERSON LIABLE FOR THE TAX, WHILE THE LIEN OF SEC.
315(A) ATTACHES ONLY TO THE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN AND TAXED AS THE GROSS
ESTATE NOT USED TO PAY ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES.  THE LIEN OF R.S. SEC.
3186 CONTINUES UNTIL THE TAX LIABILITY IS PAID WHILE THE LIEN OF SEC.
315(A) CONTINUES FOR TEN YEARS FROM THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.  OF
PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE IS THE DIFFERENCE IN TIME WHEN THE LIENS ATTACH
UNDER THE TWO SECTIONS.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 3186 THERE IS NO LIEN AND NO
NOTICE CAN BE RECORDED UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A DEMAND BY THE COLLECTOR
AND A REFUSAL TO PAY IT BY THE TAXPAYER.  UNDER SEC. 315(A), AS HAS
BEEN STATED, THE LIEN ARISES ON THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT AND BECOMES
EFFECTIVE AGAINST PURCHASERS AND MORTGAGEES WITHOUT ASSESSMENT OR
DEMAND AND OBVIOUSLY BEFORE IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF
LIEN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.S. SEC. 3186. 

SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916, R.S. SEC. 3186 HAS
BEEN AMENDED FOUR TIMES,  FN1 AND SEC. 209 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1916(WHICH BECAME SEC. 315(A) OF THE 1926 ACT) HAS BEEN AMENDED TWICE
AND TWICE REENACTED WITHOUT AMENDMENT.  FN2  WITH ONE EXCEPTION, IN
NONE OF THE AMENDMENTS OR REENACTMENTS OF THE ONE SECTION WAS ANY
REFERENCE MADE TO THE OTHER.  SECTION 409 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921
ADDED A PROVISION TO THE ESTATE TAX LIEN SECTION AUTHORIZING THE
COMMISSIONER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO RELEASE THE LIEN.  A
SIMILAR PROVISION WAS NOT ADDED TO R.S. SEC. 3186 UNTIL THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1928.  BY SEC. 613 OF THAT ACT, SEC. 3186 WAS AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR
SUCH RELEASE, THE AMENDMENT, BY SUBSECTION (F), BEING MADE APPLICABLE
TO "A LIEN IN RESPECT OF ANY INTERNAL REVENUE TAX, WHETHER OR NOT THE
LIEN WAS IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION." 

AT THE SAME TIME, THE RELEASE PROVISION OF SEC. 315(A) WAS REPEALED. 
BY SEC. 809 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, HOWEVER, THE LATTER WAS
REENACTED, IT HAVING BEEN DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS NEED FOR A
PROVISION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE ESTATE TAX LIEN PRIOR TO
ASSESSMENT.  H. REP. NO. 708, 72D CONG. 1ST SESS. 50.  MOREOVER IT IS
NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING A GIFT TAX IN THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, PROVIDED IN SEC. 510 OF THAT ACT THAT THE GIFT TAX
SHOULD BE A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY PASSING TO THE DONEE, USING WORDS
ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THESE OF SEC. 315(A).  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS STATE
THAT "BY THIS PROVISION THERE IS IMPOSED A LIEN ADDITIONAL TO THAT
IMPOSED BY SECTION 3186 OF THE REVISED STATUTES."  H. REP. NO. 708, 72D
CONG. 1ST SESS. 30; SEN. REP. NO. 665, 72D CONG. 1ST SESS. 42.  THIS
HISTORY AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS ALREADY NOTED, WOULD
SEEM TO COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 315(A) WAS INTENDED TO OPERATE
INDEPENDENTLY OF R.S. SEC. 3186, AND THAT THE ESTATE TAX LIEN CREATED
BY THE FORMER IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LATTER'S REQUIREMENT OF
RECORDATION. 

(B) SETS UP A PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE COMMISSIONER MAY BE REQUIRED TO
CERTIFY THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX DUE AND IN THAT EVENT SUBSECTION (C)
RELEASES ANY PART OF THE GROSS ESTATE SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED BY A BONA
FIDE PURCHASER, FROM ANY LIEN FOR A DEFICIENCY IN THE TAX WHICH MAY BE
THEREAFTER ASSESSED - A PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD HAVE AFFORDED ADEQUATE
PROTECTION TO PETITIONER FROM ANY DEFICIENCY LIEN IN THIS CASE.  THESE
PROVISIONS NOT ONLY RECOGNIZE THAT THE LIEN COMES INTO EXISTENCE BEFORE
THE TAX IS ASSESSED OR DEMANDED, BUT THEY ARE UNNECESSARY AND
INOPERATIVE IF NOTICE OF THE LIEN IS REQUIRED BY R.S. SEC. 3186 TO BE
RECORDED. 

IT IS EVIDENT FROM A COMPARISON OF THE TWO SECTIONS THAT CONGRESS, IN
PROVIDING FOR THE ESTATE TAX LIEN, HAS PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
IN THE CASE OF THE TAX ON PROPERTY PASSING AT DEATH AND WHICH IS
DISTRIBUTED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DEATH, THERE IS GREATER NEED OF A
LIEN IN ADVANCE OF ASSESSMENT AND DEMAND FOR PAYMENT OF THE TAX THAN IN
THE CASE OF OTHER TYPES OF TAXES; AND THAT THERE IS LESS NEED FOR
PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSONS BY A RECORDED NOTICE OF THE LIEN WHEN THE
PROPERTY PASSING AT DEATH IS NORMALLY DEALT WITH BY PROBATE AND ESTATE
TAX PROCEEDINGS OF PUBLIC NOTORIETY. 

THIS IS EMPHASIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 315(B) WHICH RELIEVE
BONA FIDE PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY TRANSFERRED INTER VIVOS BY THE
DECEDENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, FROM THE LIEN WHICH IN THE CASE OF
PROPERTY TRANSFERRED AT DEATH IS ENFORCIBLE AGAINST SUCH PURCHASERS. 
THIS PROVISION, LIKE SEC. 313(C) WOULD BE UNNECESSARY IF R.S. SEC. 3186
REQUIRED NOTICE OF THE LIEN TO BE RECORDED.  THE CONCLUSION SEEMS
INESCAPABLE THAT THE TWO SECTIONS APPLY INDEPENDENTLY, EACH OF THE
OTHER, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT NOTICE OF THE LIEN AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 315(A) IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED UNDER R.S. SEC. 3186. 
WHETHER THE LIEN CREATED BY SEC. 315(A) COULD BE RECORDED BY THE
PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY SEC. 3186 AND STATE STATUTES ENACTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THAT SECTION NEED NOT NOW BE DECIDED.    PETITIONER
ALSO INSISTS THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BY
AUTHORIZING AN UNRECORDED TAX LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY MORTGAGED TO IT
AND WITHHOLDING SUCH A LIEN AGAINST INNOCENT PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WHICH A DECEDENT HAD TRANSFERRED INTER VIVOS IN CONTEMPLATION OF
DEATH.  UNLIKE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE FIFTH CONTAINS NO EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE AND IT PROVIDES NO GUARANTY AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY
LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS.  LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S.
377, 392; STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 584-585; SUNSHINE
COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 400, 401; HELVERING V. LERNER STORES
CO., 314 U.S. 463, 468.  EVEN IF DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION MAY BE SO
ARBITRARY AND INJURIOUS IN CHARACTER AS TO VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, SEE STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA,
585; CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 13, NO SUCH CASE IS PRESENTED
HERE. 

FOR REASONS ALREADY INDICATED WE THINK THERE IS ADEQUATE BASIS FOR
THE DISTINCTION MADE BY THE STATUTE BETWEEN INNOCENT PURCHASERS OF
PROPERTY WHICH PASSES AT THE DECEDENT'S DEATH AND THOSE OF PROPERTY
WHICH HE CONVEYED IN HIS LIFETIME IN ANTICIPATION OF DEATH.  AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, THE ESTATE TAX STATUS OF PROPERTY PASSING AT DECEDENT'S
DEATH IS MORE READILY ASCERTAINED THAN THAT OF PROPERTY WHICH HE HAS
CONVEYED AWAY IN HIS LIFETIME AND WHICH SO FAR AS NORMAL PROBATE AND
TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE RELATED TO HIS
ESTATE OR TAXABLE AS A PART OF IT.  WE DO NOT FIND IN SUCH A
CLASSIFICATION ANY BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THE DISCRIMINATION IN THE
STATUTE IS SO ARBITRARY AS TO VIOLATE DUE PROCESS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF FEB. 26, 1925, 43 STAT. 994; REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SEC.
613, 45 STAT. 875; REVENUE ACT OF 1934, SEC. 509, 48 STAT. 757; REVENUE
ACT OF 1939, SEC. 401, 53 STAT. 882.  THE SECTION IS NOW SECS. 3670-77
OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

FN2  REVENUE ACT OF 1919, SEC. 409, 40 STAT. 1100; REVENUE ACT OF
1921, SEC. 409, 42 STAT. 283; REVENUE ACT OF 1924, SEC. 315(A), 43
STAT. 312; REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC. 315(A), 44 STAT. 80.  THE SECTION
IS NOW SEC. 827 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





MICHIGAN V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 338 


NO. 214.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 10, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943 - 127
F.2D 64, AFFIRMED. 


A FEDERAL TAX LIEN ON PRIVATE REAL ESTATE, SECURING A FEDERAL ESTATE
TAX, TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER LATER LIENS SECURING STATE TAXES.  P. 340. 

MICHIGAN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 607, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 41 F.SUPP.  41, ENFORCING A FEDERAL ESTATE TAX
LIEN. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO DETROIT BANK V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P.
329.  IT INVOLVES THE LIEN FOR ESTATE TAXES ASSERTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
AND CONSIDERED IN OUR OPINION IN THAT CASE. 

PETITIONERS, THE CITY OF DETROIT, THE COUNTY OF WAYNE, AND THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, ASSERT LIENS FOR CITY, COUNTY AND STATE TAXES ON THE REAL
ESTATE IN QUESTION, ACCRUING SUBSEQUENT TO THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX
LIEN.  AS DEFENDANTS IN THE SUIT BROUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO FORECLOSE
THE LIEN, THEY ATTACK IT ON ALL THE GROUNDS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN
OUR OPINION IN THE DETROIT BANK CASE.  THEY ALSO CONTEND THAT THE STATE
LIENS ARE GIVEN SUPERIORITY OVER THE FEDERAL LIEN BY VIRTUE OF STATE
STATUTES.  SECTION 3429 OF THE COMPILED LAWS OF MICHIGAN, 1929, AS
AMENDED BY ACT NO. 38 OF THE EXTRA SESSION OF 1934, DECLARES THAT TAXES
"SHALL BECOME A LIEN UPON SUCH REAL PROPERTY" ON SPECIFIED DATES
FOLLOWING THEIR ASSESSMENT AND, AS CONSTRUED BY PETITIONERS, STATES
THAT THEY SHALL BE A "FIRST LIEN, PRIOR, SUPERIOR, AND PARAMOUNT." 
R.S. SEC. 3186, IN THE OFFICES OF REGISTERS OF DEEDS IN THE COUNTIES OF
MICHIGAN.  PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THESE AND OTHER STATUTORY
PROVISIONS AS CONSTRUED BY MICHIGAN COURTS GIVE SUPERIORITY TO STATE
TAX LIENS OVER OTHER UNRECORDED LIENS, INCLUDING THE PRESENT ESTATE TAX
LIEN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE WHETHER THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE
STATUTES IS THE CORRECT ONE, FOR WE THINK THE ARGUMENT IGNORES THE
EFFECT OF A LIEN FOR FEDERAL TAXES UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX LIEN BY CONGRESS IS AN
EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER "TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES." 
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  UNITED STATES V. SNYDER, 149
U.S. 210.  AND LAWS OF CONGRESS ENACTED PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION
ARE BY ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION DECLARED TO BE "THE SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY
THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING." 

"IT IS OF THE VERY NATURE AND ESSENCE OF A LIEN, THAT NO MATTER INTO
WHOSE HANDS THE PROPERTY GOES, IT PASSES CUM ONERE."  BURTON V. SMITH,
13 PET. 464, 483; RANKIN V. SCOTT, 12 WHEAT.  177, 179; HOWARD V.
RAILWAY CO., 101 U.S. 837, 845.  HENCE IT IS NOT DEBATABLE THAT A TAX
LIEN IMPOSED BY A LAW OF CONGRESS, AS WE HAVE HELD THE PRESENT LIEN IS
IMPOSED, CANNOT, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, BE DISPLACED BY LATER
LIENS IMPOSED BY AUTHORITY OF ANY STATE LAW OR JUDICIAL DECISION. 
UNITED STATES V. SNYDER, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. GREENVILLE, 118 F.2D
963.  SIMILARLY WE HELD THAT THE PRIORITY OF PAYMENT COMMANDED BY R.S.
SEC. 3466 COULD NOT BE SET ASIDE BY STATE LEGISLATION.  UNITED STATES
V. TEXAS, 314 U.S. 480,486; SPOKANE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
80; NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S. 290; CF. MISSOURI V. ROSS, 299 U.S.
72. 

AS THE FEDERAL LIEN WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED ATTACHED TO
PRIVATE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE ACQUISITION OF ANY INTEREST IN THAT
PROPERTY BY THE STATE, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE EXTENT TO WHICH
CONGRESS MAY GIVE, OR INTENDED BY SEC. 315(A) TO GIVE, PRIORITY TO A
FEDERAL LIEN OVER A PREVIOUSLY PERFECTED STATE LIEN.  COMPARE NEW YORK
V. MACLAY, SUPRA, 292; SPOKANE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 95;
UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 484-6.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















PARKER V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341 


NO. 46.  ARGUED MAY 5, 1942(NO. 1040, 1941 TERM).  REARGUED OCTOBER 12,
13, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943.  - 39 F.SUPP.  895, REVERSED. 


1.  A SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE
AGRICULTURAL PRORATION PROGRAM, IN WHICH THE VALIDITY OF THE PROGRAM IS
CHALLENGED AS IN CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS, IS A SUIT
"ARISING UNDER" A "LAW REGULATING COMMERCE" AND IS MAINTAINABLE WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), (8).  P.
349. 

2.  A MAJORITY OF THE COURT ARE OF OPINION THAT THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF A MARKETING PLAN ADOPTED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
AGRICULTURAL PRORATE ACT IS WITHIN THE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, SINCE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES AND THE EVIDENCE SHOWS
THREATENED IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE COMPLAINANT'S BUSINESS AND
THREATENED PROSECUTIONS BY REASON OF HIS HAVING MARKETED HIS CROP UNDER
THE PROTECTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S INJUNCTION.  P. 349. 

3.  A PRORATE MARKETING PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL
PRORATE ACT, ADOPTED BY THE STATE FOR REGULATING THE HANDLING,
DISPOSITION, AND PRICES OF RAISINS PRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA, A LARGE PART
OF WHICH GO INTO INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, HELD NOT WITHIN THE
INTENDED SCOPE OF, AND NOT A VIOLATION OF, THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 350. 

4.  A PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL PRORATE ACT FOR
MARKETING THE 1940 RAISIN CROP, ADOPTED WITH THE COLLABORATION OF
OFFICIALS OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND AIDED BY LOANS FROM
THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION RECOMMENDED BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, HELD NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, WHERE THE SECRETARY HAD NOT PROPOSED
OR PROMULGATED ANY ORDER UNDER THAT ACT APPLICABLE TO THE MARKETING OF
RAISINS.  PP. 352, 358. 

5.  THE MARKETING PROGRAM FOR THE 1940 RAISIN CROP, ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL PRORATE ACT, THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF
WHICH IS TO "CONSERVE THE AGRICULTURAL WEALTH OF THE STATE" AND TO
"PREVENT ECONOMIC WASTE IN THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS" OF
THE STATE, AND WHICH OPERATES TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION AMONG PRODUCERS
IN RESPECT OF THE TERMS OF SALE (INCLUDING THE PRICE) OF THE CROP AND
TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION TO BUYERS WHO
SUBSEQUENTLY SELL AND SHIP IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HELD A REGULATION OF
STATE INDUSTRY OF LOCAL CONCERN WHICH, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DETAILED IN
THE OPINION, IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING OR REGULATING TRANSACTIONS
AFFECTED BY THE STATE PROGRAM.  PP. 359, 368. 

(1)  THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH THE STATE PROGRAM IMPOSES UPON THE
INTRASTATE SALE OF A COMMODITY BY ITS PRODUCER TO A PROCESSOR WHO
CONTEMPLATES DOING, AND IN FACT DOES, WORK UPON THE COMMODITY BEFORE
PACKING IT AND SHIPPING IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DO NOT VIOLATE THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 359. 

(2)  LEMKE V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50, AND SHAFER V. FARMERS
GRAIN CO., 268 U.S. 189, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 361. 

(3)  WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERTED ITS POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, AND STATE REGULATION OF MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN IS SO RELATED
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT IT ALSO OPERATES AS A REGULATION OF THAT
COMMERCE, THE RECONCILIATION OF SUCH POWER OF CONGRESS WITH THAT
RESERVED TO THE STATE IS TO BE ATTAINED BY THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE
COMPETING DEMANDS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED.  P.
362. 

(4)  STATE REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE TO BE
SUSTAINED, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE "INDIRECT" RATHER THAN "DIRECT," NOT
BECAUSE THEY AFFECT RATHER THAN COMMAND THE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, BUT BECAUSE, UPON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MATTER APPEARS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR LOCAL
REGULATIONS, FOR WHICH THERE MAY BE WIDE SCOPE WITHOUT MATERIALLY
OBSTRUCTING THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE.  P. 362. 

(5)  EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND OF AVAILABLE DATA
OF THE RAISIN INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA, OF WHICH THE COURT MAY TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE, LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE EVILS ATTENDING THE
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF RAISINS IN THAT STATE PRESENT A PROBLEM
LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND URGENTLY DEMANDING STATE ACTION FOR THE ECONOMIC
PROTECTION OF THOSE ENGAGED IN ONE OF ITS IMPORTANT INDUSTRIES.  P.
363. 

(6)  WHERE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, WHO COULD HAVE ADOPTED A
MARKETING PROGRAM FOR RAISINS UNDER THE FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AGREEMENT ACT, HAS INSTEAD, AS THAT ACT AUTHORIZES, COOPERATED IN
PROMOTING THE STATE MARKETING PROGRAM, THE COURT CANNOT SAY THAT THE
EFFECT OF THE STATE PROGRAM ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ONE WHICH THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBIDS.  AND PARTICULARLY SHOULD STATE REGULATION OF
LOCAL MATTERS BE SUSTAINED WHERE ITS EFFECT ON COMMERCE IS ONE WHICH IT
HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF CONGRESS, BY ITS LEGISLATION, TO ENCOURAGE.  P.
368. 

PARKER, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL. V. BROWN. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINING
THE ENFORCEMENT, AGAINST THE APPELLEE, OF A MARKETING PROGRAM ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL PRORATE ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION ARE WHETHER THE MARKETING PROGRAM
ADOPTED FOR THE 1940 RAISIN CROP UNDER THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL
PRORATE ACT  FN1  IS RENDERED INVALID (1) BY THE SHERMAN ACT, OR (2) BY
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C.
SECS. 601, ET SEQ., OR (3) BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

APPELLEE, A PRODUCER AND PACKER OF RAISINS IN CALIFORNIA, BROUGHT
THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN APPELLANTS - THE STATE
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, RAISIN PRORATION ZONE NO. 1, THE MEMBERS OF
THE STATE AGRICULTURAL PRORATE ADVISORY COMMISSION AND OF THE PROGRAM
COMMITTEE FOR ZONE NO. 1, AND OTHERS CHARGED BY THE STATUTE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PRORATE ACT - FROM ENFORCING, AS TO APPELLEE, A
PROGRAM FOR MARKETING THE 1940 CROP OF RAISINS PRODUCED IN "RAISIN
PRORATION ZONE NO. 1."  AFTER A TRIAL UPON ORAL TESTIMONY, A
STIPULATION OF FACTS AND CERTAIN EXHIBITS, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
THE 1940 RAISIN MARKETING PROGRAM WAS AN ILLEGAL INTERFERENCE WITH AND
UNDUE BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR APPELLEE
GRANTING THE INJUNCTION PRAYED FOR.  39 F.SUPP.  895.  THE CASE WAS
TRIED BY A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES AND COMES HERE ON APPEAL
UNDER SECS. 266 AND 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C.
SECS. 380, 345. 

AS APPEARS FROM THE EVIDENCE AND FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, ALMOST ALL THE RAISINS CONSUMED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND NEARLY
ONE-HALF OF THE WORLD CROP, ARE PRODUCED IN RAISIN PRORATION ZONE NO.
1.  BETWEEN 90 AND 95 PER CENT OF THE RAISINS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA ARE
ULTIMATELY SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

THE HARVESTING AND MARKETING OF THE CROP IN CALIFORNIA FOLLOWS A
UNIFORM PROCEDURE.  THE GROWER OF RAISINS PICKS THE BUNCHES OF GRAPES
AND PLACES THEM FOR DRYING ON TRAYS LAID BETWEEN THE ROWS OF VINES. 
WHEN THE GRAPES HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENTLY DRIED HE PLACES THEM IN "SWEAT
BOXES" WHERE THEIR MOISTURE CONTENT IS EQUALIZED.  AT THIS POINT THE
CURING PROCESS IS COMPLETE.  THE GROWERS SELL THE RAISINS AND DELIVER
THEM IN THE "SWEAT BOXES" TO HANDLERS OR PACKERS WHOSE PLANTS ARE ALL
LOCATED WITHIN THE ZONE.  THE PACKERS PROCESS THEM AT THEIR PLANTS AND
THEN SHIP THEM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THOSE RAISINS WHICH ARE TO BE
MARKETED IN CLUSTERS ARE SOMETIMES MERELY PACKED, UNSTEMMED, IN
SUITABLE CONTAINERS, BUT ARE MORE OFTEN CLEANED, FUMIGATED, AND, WHEN
NECESSARY, STEAMED TO MAKE THE STEMS PLIABLE.  MOST OF THE RAISINS ARE
NOT SOLD IN CLUSTERS; SUCH RAISINS ARE STEMMED BEFORE PACKING, AND MOST
PACKERS ALSO CLEAN, GRADE AND SORT THEM.  ONE VARIETY IS ALSO SEEDED
BEFORE PACKING. 

THE PACKERS SELL THEIR RAISINS THROUGH AGENTS, BROKERS, JOBBERS AND
OTHER MIDDLEMEN, PRINCIPALLY LOCATED IN OTHER STATES OR FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.  UNTIL HE IS READY TO SHIP THE RAISINS THE PACKER STORES
THEM IN THE FORM IN WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS.  THE
LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE RAISINS REMAIN AT THE PACKING PLANTS BEFORE
PROCESSING AND SHIPPING VARIES FROM A FEW DAYS UP TO TWO YEARS,
DEPENDING UPON THE PACKER'S CURRENT SUPPLY OF RAISINS AND THE MARKET
DEMAND.  THE PACKERS FREQUENTLY PLACE ORDERS WITH PRODUCERS FOR FALL
DELIVERY, BEFORE THE CROP IS HARVESTED, AND AT THE SAME TIME ENTER INTO
CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF RAISINS TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.  IN RECENT YEARS
MOST PACKERS HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL "CARRY OVER" OF STORED RAISINS AT
THE END OF EACH CROP SEASON, WHICH ARE USUALLY MARKETED BEFORE THE
RAISINS OF THE NEXT YEAR'S CROP ARE MARKETED. 

THE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL PRORATE ACT AUTHORIZES THE ESTABLISHMENT,
THROUGH ACTION OF STATE OFFICIALS, OF PROGRAMS FOR THE MARKETING OF
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES PRODUCED IN THE STATE, SO AS TO RESTRICT
COMPETITION AMONG THE GROWERS AND MAINTAIN PRICES IN THE DISTRIBUTION
OF THEIR COMMODITIES TO PACKERS.  THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO
"CONSERVE THE AGRICULTURAL WEALTH OF THE STATE" AND TO "PREVENT
ECONOMIC WASTE IN THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS" OF THE
STATE.  IT AUTHORIZES (SEC. 3) THE CREATION OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRORATE
ADVISORY COMMISSION OF NINE MEMBERS, OF WHICH A STATE OFFICIAL, THE
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, IS EX-OFFICIO A MEMBER.  THE OTHER EIGHT
MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED FOR TERMS OF FOUR YEARS BY THE GOVERNOR AND
CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE, AND ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH OF OFFICE. 
SEC. 4. 

UPON THE PETITION OF TEN PRODUCERS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRORATE
MARKETING PLAN FOR ANY COMMODITY WITHIN A DEFINED PRODUCTION ZONE (SEC.
8), AND AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING (SEC. 9), AND AFTER MAKING PRESCRIBED
ECONOMIC FINDINGS (SEC. 10) SHOWING THAT THE INSTITUTION OF A PROGRAM
FOR THE PROPOSED ZONE WILL PREVENT AGRICULTURAL WASTE AND CONSERVE
AGRICULTURAL WEALTH OF THE STATE WITHOUT PERMITTING UNREASONABLE
PROFITS TO PRODUCERS, THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO GRANT THE
PETITION.  THE DIRECTOR, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION, IS THEN
REQUIRED TO SELECT A PROGRAM COMMITTEE FROM AMONG NOMINEES CHOSEN BY
THE QUALIFIED PRODUCERS WITHIN THE ZONE, TO WHICH HE MAY ADD NOT MORE
THAN TWO HANDLERS OR PACKERS WHO RECEIVE THE REGULATED COMMODITY FROM
PRODUCERS FOR MARKETING.  SECS. 11, 14, 15. 

THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE IS REQUIRED (SEC. 15) TO FORMULATE A PRORATION
MARKETING PROGRAM FOR THE COMMODITY PRODUCED IN THE ZONE, WHICH THE
COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING AND A
"FINDING THAT THE PROGRAM IS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO CARRY OUT THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT."  THE COMMISSION MAY, IF SO ADVISED, MODIFY THE
PROGRAM AND APPROVE IT AS MODIFIED.  IF THE PROPOSED PROGRAM, AS
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, IS CONSENTED TO BY 65 PER CENT IN NUMBER OF
PRODUCERS IN THE ZONE OWNING 51 PER CENT OF THE ACREAGE DEVOTED TO
PRODUCTION OF THE REGULATED CROP, THE DIRECTOR IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE
THE PROGRAM INSTITUTED.  SEC. 16. 

AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, IS CONFERRED ON THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE.  SECS.
6, 18, 22.  SECTION 22.5 DECLARES THAT IT SHALL BE A MISDEMEANOR, WHICH
IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT (PENAL CODE SEC. 19), FOR ANY
PRODUCER TO SELL OR ANY HANDLER TO RECEIVE OR POSSESS WITHOUT PROPER
AUTHORITY ANY COMMODITY FOR WHICH A PRORATION PROGRAM HAS BEEN
INSTITUTED.  LIKE PENALTY IS IMPOSED UPON ANY PERSON WHO AIDS OR ABETS
IN THE COMMISSION OF ANY OF THE ACTS SPECIFIED IN THE SECTION, AND IT
IS DECLARED THAT EACH "INFRACTION SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT OFFENSE."  SECTION 25 IMPOSES A CIVIL LIABILITY OF $500 "FOR
EACH AND EVERY VIOLATION" OF ANY PROVISION OF A PRORATION PROGRAM. 

THE SEASONAL PRORATION MARKETING PROGRAM FOR RAISINS, WITH WHICH WE
ARE NOW CONCERNED, BECAME EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1940.  THIS
PROVIDED THAT THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE SHOULD CLASSIFY RAISINS AS
"STANDARD," "SUBSTANDARD," AND "INFERIOR"; "INFERIOR" RAISINS ARE THOSE
WHICH ARE UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, AS DEFINED IN THE FEDERAL FOOD,
DRUG AND COSMETIC ACT, 21 U.S.C. SECS. 301 ET SEQ.  THE COMMITTEE IS
REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH RECEIVING STATIONS WITHIN THE ZONE TO WHICH EVERY
PRODUCER MUST DELIVER ALL RAISINS WHICH HE DESIRES TO MARKET.  THE
RAISINS ARE GRADED AT THESE STATIONS.  ALL INFERIOR RAISINS ARE TO BE
PLACED IN THE "INFERIOR RAISIN POOL," TO BE DISPOSED OF BY THE
COMMITTEE "ONLY FOR ASSURED BY-PRODUCT AND OTHER DIVERSION PURPOSES." 
ALL SUBSTANDARD RAISINS, AND AT LEAST 20 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL STANDARD
AND SUBSTANDARD RAISINS PRODUCED, MUST BE PLACED IN A "SURPLUS POOL." 
RAISINS IN THIS POOL MAY ALSO BE DISPOSED OF ONLY FOR "ASSURED BY
PRODUCT AND OTHER DIVERSION PURPOSES," EXCEPT THAT UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE MAY TRANSFER STANDARD RAISINS FROM
THE SURPLUS POOL TO THE STABILIZATION POOL.  FIFTY PER CENT OF THE CROP
MUST BE PLACED IN A "STABILIZATION POOL." 

UNDER THE PROGRAM THE PRODUCER IS PERMITTED TO SELL THE REMAINING 30
PER CENT OF HIS STANDARD RAISINS, DENOMINATED "FREE TONNAGE," THROUGH
ORDINARY COMMERCIAL CHANNELS, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE OBTAIN
A "SECONDARY CERTIFICATE" AUTHORIZING SUCH MARKETING AND PAY A
CERTIFICATE FEE OF $2.50 FOR EACH TON COVERED BY THE CERTIFICATE. 
CERTIFICATION IS STATED TO BE A DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING "THE TIME AND
VOLUME OF MOVEMENT" OF FREE TONNAGE INTO SUCH ORDINARY COMMERCIAL
CHANNELS.  RAISINS IN THE STABILIZATION POOL ARE TO BE DISPOSED OF BY
THE COMMITTEE "IN SUCH MANNER AS TO OBTAIN STABILITY IN THE MARKET AND
TO DISPOSE OF SUCH RAISINS," BUT NO RAISINS (OTHER THAN THOSE SUBJECT
TO SPECIAL LENDING OR POOLING ARRANGEMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)
CAN BE SOLD BY THE COMMITTEE AT LESS THAN THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICE
FOR RAISINS OF THE SAME VARIETY AND GRADE ON THE DATE OF SALE.  UNDER
THE PROGRAM THE COMMITTEE IS TO MAKE ADVANCES TO PRODUCERS OF FROM $25
TO $27.50 A TON, DEPENDING UPON THE VARIETY OF RAISINS, FOR DELIVERIES
INTO THE SURPLUS POOL, AND FROM $50 TO $55 A TON FOR DELIVERIES INTO
THE STABILIZATION POOL.  THE COMMITTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO PLEDGE THE
RAISINS HELD IN THOSE POOLS IN ORDER TO SECURE FUNDS TO FINANCE POOL
OPERATIONS AND MAKE ADVANCES TO GROWERS. 

APPELLEE'S BILL OF COMPLAINT CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF THE PRORATION
PROGRAM AS IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE SHERMAN ACT; IN
SUPPORT OF THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT HE ALSO URGES THAT IT
CONFLICTS WITH AND IS SUPERSEDED BY THE FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT HE IS ENGAGED WITHIN
THE MARKETING ZONE BOTH IN PRODUCING AND IN PURCHASING AND PACKING
RAISINS FOR SALE AND SHIPMENT INTERSTATE; THAT BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF
THE PROGRAM HE HAD ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF 1940 CROP
RAISINS; THAT, UNLESS ENJOINED, APPELLANTS WILL ENFORCE THE PROGRAM
AGAINST APPELLEE BY CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND WILL PREVENT HIM FROM
MARKETING HIS 1940 CROP, FROM FULFILLING HIS SALES CONTRACTS, AND FROM
PURCHASING FOR SALE AND SELLING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE RAISINS OF THAT
CROP. 

APPELLEE'S ALLEGATIONS OF IRREPARABLE INJURY ARE IN GENERAL TERMS,
BUT IT APPEARS FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD PRODUCED 200 TONS OF 1940
CROP RAISINS; THAT HE HAD CONTRACTED TO SELL 762 1/2 TONS OF THE 1940
CROP; THAT HE HAD DEALT IN 2,000 TONS OF RAISINS OF THE 1939 CROP, AND
EXPECTED TO SELL, IF THE CHALLENGED PROGRAM WERE NOT IN FORCE, 3,000
TONS OF THE 1940 CROP AT $60 A TON; THAT THE PRE-SEASON PRICE TO
GROWERS OF RAISINS OF THE 1940 CROP, BEFORE THE PROGRAM BECAME
EFFECTIVE, WAS $45 PER TON, AND THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD IT ROSE TO
$55 PER TON OR HIGHER.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT, THE DISTRICT COURT HAVING
AWARDED THE FINAL INJUNCTION PRAYED, APPELLEE HAS PROCEEDED WITH THE
MARKETING OF HIS 1940 CROP AND HAS DISPOSED OF ALL EXCEPT TWELVE TONS,
WHICH REMAIN ON HAND.  ALTHOUGH THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $3,000, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT AS THE
COMPLAINT ASSAILS THE VALIDITY OF THE PROGRAM UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1-33, THE SUIT IS ONE "ARISING UNDER" A "LAW
REGULATING COMMERCE"; AND ALLEGATION AND PROOF OF THE JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNT ARE NOT REQUIRED.  28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(1), (8); PEYTON V. RAILWAY
EXPRESS AGENCY, 316 U.S. 350.  THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT IS ALSO OF
OPINION THAT THE SUIT IS WITHIN THE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE COURT,
SINCE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES, AND THE EVIDENCE SHOWS, THREATENED
IRREPARABLE INJURY TO RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THREATENED PROSECUTIONS
BY REASON OF HIS HAVING MARKETED HIS CROP UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE. 

VALIDITY OF THE PRORATE PROGRAM UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 

CONTRACT, COMBINATION ...  OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR
COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES."  AND SEC. 2, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 2,
MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO "MONOPOLIZE, OR ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE
OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF
THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES."  WE MAY ASSUME FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE CALIFORNIA PRORATE PROGRAM WOULD VIOLATE THE
SHERMAN ACT IF IT WERE ORGANIZED AND MADE EFFECTIVE SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF
A CONTRACT, COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY OF PRIVATE PERSONS, INDIVIDUAL OR
CORPORATE.  WE MAY ASSUME ALSO, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT CONGRESS COULD,
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS COMMERCE POWER, PROHIBIT A STATE FROM
MAINTAINING A STABILIZATION PROGRAM LIKE THE PRESENT BECAUSE OF ITS
EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  OCCUPATION OF A LEGISLATIVE "FIELD" BY
CONGRESS IN THE EXERCISE OF A GRANTED POWER IS A FAMILIAR EXAMPLE OF
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO SUSPEND STATE LAWS.  SEE ADAMS EXPRESS CO.
V. CRONINGER, 226 U.S. 491, 505; NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 272
U.S. 605, 607; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. PORTER, 273 U.S. 341;
ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 510.    BUT IT IS
PLAIN THAT THE PRORATE PROGRAM HERE WAS NEVER INTENDED TO OPERATE BY
FORCE OF INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENT OR COMBINATION.  IT DERIVED ITS AUTHORITY
AND ITS EFFICACY FROM THE LEGISLATIVE COMMAND OF THE STATE AND WAS NOT
INTENDED TO OPERATE OR BECOME EFFECTIVE WITHOUT THAT COMMAND.  WE FIND
NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SHERMAN ACT OR IN ITS HISTORY WHICH
SUGGESTS THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO RESTRAIN A STATE OR ITS OFFICERS OR
AGENTS FROM ACTIVITIES DIRECTED BY ITS LEGISLATURE.  IN A DUAL SYSTEM
OF GOVERNMENT IN WHICH, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THE STATES ARE
SOVEREIGN, SAVE ONLY AS CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBTRACT FROM
THEIR AUTHORITY, AN UNEXPRESSED PURPOSE TO NULLIFY A STATE'S CONTROL
OVER ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO
CONGRESS. 

THE SHERMAN ACT MAKES NO MENTION OF THE STATE AS SUCH, AND GIVES NO
HINT THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO RESTRAIN STATE ACTION OR OFFICIAL ACTION
DIRECTED BY A STATE.  THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO "PERSONS" INCLUDING
CORPORATIONS (SEC. 7), AND IT AUTHORIZES SUITS UNDER IT BY PERSONS AND
CORPORATIONS (SEC. 15).  A STATE MAY MAINTAIN A SUIT FOR DAMAGES UNDER
IT, GEORGIA V. EVANS, 316 U.S. 159, BUT THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT,
UNITED STATES V. COOPER CORP., 312 U.S. 600 - CONCLUSIONS DERIVED NOT
FROM THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE WORDS "PERSON" AND "CORPORATION" BUT
FROM THE PURPOSE, THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE CONTEXT AND THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE STATUTE. 

THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF A PURPOSE TO RESTRAIN STATE ACTION IN THE
ACT'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL WHICH WAS
ULTIMATELY ENACTED AS THE SHERMAN ACT DECLARED THAT IT PREVENTED ONLY
"BUSINESS COMBINATIONS."  21 CONG. REC. 2562, 2457; SEE ALSO AT 2459,
2461.  THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO SUPPRESS COMBINATIONS TO RESTRAIN
COMPETITION AND ATTEMPTS TO MONOPOLIZE BY INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS,
ABUNDANTLY APPEARS FROM ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  SEE APEX HOSIERY CO.
V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 492-93 AND N. 15; UNITED STATES V. ADDYSTON
PIPE & STEEL CO., 85 F. 271, AFFIRMED 175 U.S. 211; STANDARD OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 54-58. 

TRUE, A STATE DOES NOT GIVE IMMUNITY TO THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN
ACT BY AUTHORIZING THEM TO VIOLATE IT, OR BY DECLARING THAT THEIR
ACTION IS LAWFUL, NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S.
197, 332, 344-47; AND WE HAVE NO QUESTION OF THE STATE OR ITS
MUNICIPALITY BECOMING A PARTICIPANT IN A PRIVATE AGREEMENT OR
COMBINATION BY OTHERS FOR RESTRAINT OF TRADE, CF. UNION PACIFIC R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 450.  HERE THE STATE COMMAND TO THE
COMMISSION AND TO THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE OF THE CALIFORNIA PRORATE ACT
IS NOT RENDERED UNLAWFUL BY THE SHERMAN ACT SINCE, IN VIEW OF THE
LATTER'S WORDS AND HISTORY, IT MUST BE TAKEN TO BE A PROHIBITION OF
INDIVIDUAL AND NOT STATE ACTION.  IT IS THE STATE WHICH HAS CREATED THE
MACHINERY FOR ESTABLISHING THE PRORATE PROGRAM.  ALTHOUGH THE
ORGANIZATION OF A PRORATE ZONE IS PROPOSED BY PRODUCERS, AND A PRORATE
PROGRAM, APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, MUST ALSO BE APPROVED BY
REFERENDUM OF PRODUCERS, IT IS THE STATE, ACTING THROUGH THE
COMMISSION, WHICH ADOPTS THE PROGRAM AND WHICH ENFORCES IT WITH PENAL
SANCTIONS, IN THE EXECUTION OF A GOVERNMENTAL POLICY.  THE PREREQUISITE
APPROVAL OF THE PROGRAM UPON REFERENDUM BY A PRESCRIBED NUMBER OF
PRODUCERS IS NOT THE IMPOSITION BY THEM OF THEIR WILL UPON THE MINORITY
BY FORCE OF AGREEMENT OR COMBINATION WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT PROHIBITS. 
THE STATE ITSELF EXERCISES ITS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IN MAKING THE
REGULATION AND IN PRESCRIBING THE CONDITIONS OF ITS APPLICATION.  THE
REQUIRED VOTE ON THE REFERENDUM IS ONE OF THESE CONDITIONS.  COMPARE
CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 16; HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276
U.S. 394, 407; WICKARD V. FILBURN, ANTE, P. 111. 

THE STATE IN ADOPTING AND ENFORCING THE PRORATE PROGRAM MADE NO
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT AND ENTERED INTO NO CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR TO ESTABLISH MONOPOLY BUT, AS SOVEREIGN, IMPOSED THE RESTRAINT
AS AN ACT OF GOVERNMENT WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO
PROHIBIT.  OLSEN V. SMITH, 195 U.S. 332, 344-45; CF. LOWENSTEIN V.
EVANS, 69 F. 908, 910. 

VALIDITY OF THE PROGRAM UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT
ACT. 

THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 246, 7
U.S.C. SECS. 601 ET SEQ., AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO
ISSUE ORDERS LIMITING THE QUANTITY OF SPECIFIED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS,
INCLUDING FRUITS, WHICH MAY BE MARKETED "IN THE CURRENT OF  ...  OR SO
AS DIRECTLY TO BURDEN, OBSTRUCT, OR AFFECT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE."  SUCH ORDERS MAY ALLOT THE AMOUNTS WHICH HANDLERS MAY
PURCHASE FROM ANY PRODUCER BY MEANS WHICH EQUALIZE THE AMOUNT MARKETED
AMONG PRODUCERS; MAY PROVIDE FOR THE CONTROL AND ELIMINATION OF
SURPLUSES AND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESERVE POOLS OF THE REGULATED
PRODUCE.  SEC. 8C (6).  THE FEDERAL STATUTE DIFFERS FROM THE CALIFORNIA
PRORATE ACT IN THAT ITS SANCTION FALLS UPON HANDLERS ALONE WHILE THE
STATE ACT (SEC. 22.5(3)) APPLIES TO GROWERS AND EXTENDS ALSO TO
HANDLERS SO FAR AS THEY MAY UNLAWFULLY RECEIVE OR HAVE IN THEIR
POSSESSION WITHIN THE STATE ANY COMMODITY SUBJECT TO A PRORATE
PROGRAM. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY WOULD
EXTEND TO THE CONTROL OF SURPLUSES IN THE RAISIN INDUSTRY THROUGH A
POOLING ARRANGEMENT SUCH AS WAS PROMULGATED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
PRORATE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO
OP., 307 U.S. 533; CURRIN V. WALLACE, SUPRA.  WE MAY ASSUME ALSO THAT A
STABILIZATION PROGRAM ADOPTED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AGREEMENT ACT WOULD SUPERSEDE THE STATE ACT.  BUT THE FEDERAL ACT
BECOMES EFFECTIVE ONLY IF A PROGRAM IS ORDERED BY THE SECRETARY. 
REASON TO BELIEVE" THAT THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER WILL TEND TO
EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO ANY
COMMODITY, HE SHALL GIVE DUE NOTICE OF AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING
UPON A PROPOSED ORDER, AND SEC. 8C (4) PROVIDES THAT AFTER THE HEARING
HE SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER IF HE FINDS AND SETS FORTH IN THE ORDER THAT
ITS ISSUANCE WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT
WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMODITY IN QUESTION.  SINCE THE SECRETARY HAS NOT
GIVEN NOTICE OF HEARING AND HAS NOT PROPOSED OR PROMULGATED ANY ORDER
REGULATING RAISINS, IT MUST BE TAKEN THAT HE HAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE
ACT. 

THE SECRETARY, BY SEC. 10(I), IS AUTHORIZED "IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE
THE DECLARED POLICY" OF THE ACT, AND "IN ORDER TO OBTAIN UNIFORMITY IN
THE FORMULATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL AND STATE
PROGRAMS RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF THE HANDLING OF AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES," TO CONFER AND COOPERATE WITH DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES
OF ANY STATE.  FROM THIS AND THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE ACT, IT WOULD
SEEM THAT IT CONTEMPLATES THAT ITS POLICY MAY BE EFFECTUATED BY A STATE
PROGRAM EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT THE PROMULGATION OF A FEDERAL PROGRAM BY
ORDER OF THE SECRETARY.  CF. UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., SUPRA.
IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ADOPTION OF AN ADEQUATE PROGRAM BY THE STATE MAY
BE DEEMED BY THE SECRETARY A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR BELIEVING THAT THE
POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL ACT WILL BE EFFECTUATED WITHOUT THE
PROMULGATION OF AN ORDER. 

IT IS EVIDENT, THEREFORE, THAT THE MARKETING ACT CONTEMPLATES THE
EXISTENCE OF STATE PROGRAMS AT LEAST UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE SECRETARY
SHALL ESTABLISH A FEDERAL MARKETING PROGRAM, UNLESS THE STATE PROGRAM
IN SOME WAY CONFLICTS WITH THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  THE ACT
CONTEMPLATES THAT EACH SOVEREIGN SHALL OPERATE "IN ITS OWN SPHERE BUT
CAN EXERT ITS AUTHORITY IN CONFORMITY RATHER THAN IN CONFLICT WITH THAT
OF THE OTHER."  H. REP. NO. 1241, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. PP. 22-23; S.
REP. 1011, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. P. 15.  FN2  THE ONLY SUGGESTED
POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT IS BETWEEN THE DECLARED PURPOSES OF THE TWO
ACTS.  THE OBJECT OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE IS STATED TO BE THE
ESTABLISHMENT, BY EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE SECRETARY, OF
"ORDERLY MARKETING CONDITIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" SUCH AS WILL TEND TO ESTABLISH "PARITY PRICES" FOR
FARM PRODUCTS,  FN3  BUT WITH THE FURTHER PURPOSE THAT, IN THE INTEREST
OF CONSUMERS, CURRENT CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND IS TO BE CONSIDERED AND THAT
NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING PRICES ABOVE
THE PARITY LEVEL.  SEC. 2. 

THE DECLARED OBJECTIVE OF THE CALIFORNIA ACT IS TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE
SUPPLIES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES FROM "ADVERSELY AFFECTING" THE
MARKET, AND ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE SPEAKS IN TERMS OF "ECONOMIC
STABILITY" AND "AGRICULTURAL WASTE" RATHER THAN OF PRICE, THE EVIDENT
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE REGULATION IS TO "CONSERVE AGRICULTURAL
WEALTH OF THE STATE" BY RAISING AND MAINTAINING PRICES, BUT "WITHOUT
PERMITTING UNREASONABLE PROFITS TO PRODUCERS."  SEC. 10.  THE ONLY
POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT WOULD SEEM TO BE IF A STATE PROGRAM WERE TO
RAISE PRICES BEYOND THE PARITY PRICE PRESCRIBED BY THE FEDERAL ACT, A
CONDITION WHICH HAS NOT OCCURRED.  FN4 

THAT THE SECRETARY HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE STATE ACT WILL TEND
TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL ACT SO AS NOT TO REQUIRE THE
ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER THE LATTER IS EVIDENCED BY THE APPROVAL
GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO THE STATE PROGRAM BY THE LOAN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.  FN5
BY SEC. 302 OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 43, 7
U.S.C. SEC. 1302(A), THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION IS AUTHORIZED
"UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SECRETARY AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
PRESIDENT, TO MAKE AVAILABLE LOANS ON AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES  ...  "
THE "AMOUNT, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS" OF SUCH LOANS ARE TO BE "FIXED BY
THE SECRETARY, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CORPORATION AND THE
PRESIDENT."  UNDER THIS AUTHORITY THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION MADE
LOANS OF $5,146,000 TO ZONE NO. 1, SECURED BY A PLEDGE OF 109,000 TONS
OF 1940 CROP RAISINS IN THE SURPLUS AND STABILIZATION POOLS.  THESE
LOANS WERE ULTIMATELY LIQUIDATED BY SALES OF 76,000 TONS TO PACKERS AND
33,000 TONS TO THE FEDERAL SURPLUS MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, AN AGENCY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,  FN6  FOR RELIEF DISTRIBUTION AND FOR
EXPORT UNDER THE LEND-LEASE PROGRAM.  FN7  THE LOANS WERE CONDITIONAL
UPON THE ADOPTION BY THE STATE OF THE PRESENT SEASONAL MARKETING
PROGRAM.  WE ARE INFORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH AT OUR REQUEST FILED
A BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE, THAT UNDER THE LOAN AGREEMENT PRICES AND SALES
POLICIES AS TO THE PLEDGED RAISINS WERE TO BE CONTROLLED BY A COMMITTEE
APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY, AND THAT OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE COLLABORATED IN DRAFTING THE 1940 STATE RAISIN PROGRAM. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION TO MAKE NONRECOURSE LOANS TO PRODUCERS OF
CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AT SPECIFIED PERCENTAGES OF THE PARITY
PRICE, AND AUTHORIZES LOANS ON ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY.  THE
GOVERNMENT INFORMS US THAT IN MAKING LOANS UNDER THE LATTER AUTHORITY,
SEC. 302 HAS BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AS
REQUIRING THE LOANS TO BE MADE ONLY IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY
OF FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL LEGISLATION.  FN8  SECTION 2 OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938 DECLARES IT TO BE THE POLICY OF
CONGRESS TO ACHIEVE THE STATUTORY OBJECTIVES THROUGH LOANS.  THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938 AND THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 WERE BOTH DERIVED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 31, AND ARE COORDINATE PARTS OF A
SINGLE PLAN FOR RAISING FARM PRICES TO PARITY LEVELS.  THE CONDITIONS
IMPOSED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE COLLABORATION OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS IN THE
DRAFTING OF THE PROGRAM, MUST BE TAKEN AS AN EXPRESSION OF OPINION BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE THAT THE STATE PROGRAM THUS AIDED BY THE
LOAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT AND
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACTS.  WE FIND NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
TWO ACTS AND NO SUCH OCCUPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FIELD BY THE MERE
ADOPTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT, WITHOUT THE
ISSUANCE OF ANY ORDER BY THE SECRETARY PUTTING IT INTO EFFECT, AS WOULD
PRECLUDE THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF THE STATE ACT. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SAME CONCLUSION WOULD
FOLLOW IF THE STATE PROGRAM HAD NOT BEEN ADOPTED WITH THE COLLABORATION
OF OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND AIDED BY LOANS FROM
THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION RECOMMENDED BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE. 

VALIDITY OF THE PROGRAM UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT APPROXIMATELY 95 PER CENT OF THE
CALIFORNIA RAISIN CROP FINDS ITS WAY INTO INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE PRORATION PROGRAM IS SO DEVISED AS
TO COMPEL THE DELIVERY BY EACH PRODUCER, INCLUDING APPELLEE, OF OVER
TWO-THIRDS OF HIS 1940 RAISIN CROP TO THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE, AND TO
SUBJECT IT TO THE MARKETING CONTROL OF THE COMMITTEE.  THE PROGRAM,
ADOPTED THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER DELEGATED TO
STATE OFFICIALS, HAS THE FORCE OF LAW.  IT CLOTHES THE COMMITTEE WITH
POWER AND IMPOSES ON IT THE DUTY TO CONTROL MARKETING OF THE CROP SO AS
TO ENHANCE THE PRICE OR AT LEAST TO MAINTAIN PRICES BY RESTRAINTS ON
COMPETITION OF PRODUCERS IN THE SALE OF THEIR CROP.  THE PROGRAM
OPERATES TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION OF THE PRODUCERS IN THE TERMS OF SALE
OF THE CROP, INCLUDING PRICE.  AND SINCE 95 PER CENT OF THE CROP IS
MARKETED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE PROGRAM MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE A
SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE, IN PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE
AND MARKETING OF A PRODUCT TO BUYERS WHO EVENTUALLY SELL AND SHIP IT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.    THE QUESTION IS THUS PRESENTED WHETHER IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITING OR REGULATING THE
TRANSACTIONS AFFECTED BY THE STATE PROGRAM, THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH IT
IMPOSES UPON THE SALE WITHIN THE STATE OF A COMMODITY BY ITS PRODUCER
TO A PROCESSOR WHO CONTEMPLATES DOING, AND IN FACT DOES, WORK UPON THE
COMMODITY BEFORE PACKING AND SHIPPING IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN WITHIN THEIR TERRITORY
SAVE ONLY AS THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
OR AS THEIR ACTION IN SOME MEASURE CONFLICTS WITH POWERS DELEGATED TO
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, OR WITH CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION ENACTED IN
THE EXERCISE OF THOSE POWERS.  THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE
GRANT OF POWER TO CONGRESS BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DID NOT WHOLLY
WITHDRAW FROM THE STATES THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE COMMERCE WITH
RESPECT TO MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN, ON WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT SPOKEN. 
MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 399-400; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY
DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 187, ET SEQ.; CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113-14 AND CASES CITED; DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS,
314 U.S. 390.  A FORTIORI THERE ARE MANY SUBJECTS AND TRANSACTIONS OF
LOCAL CONCERN NOT THEMSELVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR A PART OF ITS
OPERATIONS WHICH ARE WITHIN THE REGULATORY AND TAXING POWER OF THE
STATES, SO LONG AS STATE ACTION SERVES LOCAL ENDS AND DOES NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE COMMERCE, EVEN THOUGH THE EXERCISE OF THOSE
POWERS MAY MATERIALLY AFFECT IT.  WHETHER WE RESORT TO THE MECHANICAL
TEST SOMETIMES APPLIED BY THIS COURT IN DETERMINING WHEN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BEGINS WITH RESPECT TO A COMMODITY GROWN OR MANUFACTURED
WITHIN A STATE AND THEN SOLD AND SHIPPED OUT OF IT - OR WHETHER WE
CONSIDER ONLY THE POWER OF THE STATE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION TO REGULATE MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN, EVEN THOUGH THE REGULATION
AFFECTS OR IN SOME MEASURE RESTRICTS THE COMMERCE - WE THINK THE
PRESENT REGULATION IS WITHIN STATE POWER. 

IN APPLYING THE MECHANICAL TEST TO DETERMINE WHEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
BEGINS AND ENDS (SEE FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17, 21
AND CASES CITED; MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1 AND CASES CITED) THIS
COURT HAS FREQUENTLY HELD THAT FOR PURPOSES OF LOCAL TAXATION OR
REGULATION "MANUFACTURE" IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE EVEN THOUGH THE
MANUFACTURING PROCESS IS OF SLIGHT EXTENT.  CRESCENT OIL CO. V.
MISSISSIPPI, 257 U.S. 129; OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172; UTAH
POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165; HOPE GAS CO. V. HALL, 274
U.S. 284; HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 245; CHAMPLIN
REFINING CO. V. COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210; BAYSIDE FISH CO. V. GENTRY,
297 U.S. 422.  AND SUCH REGULATIONS OF MANUFACTURE HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED
WHERE, AIMED AT MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN, THEY HAD THE EFFECT OF
PREVENTING COMMERCE IN THE REGULATED ARTICLE.  KIDD V. PEARSON, 128
U.S. 1; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. COMMISSION, SUPRA; SLIGH V. KIRKWOOD,
237 U.S. 52; SEE CAPITAL CITY DAIRY CO. V. OHIO, 183 U.S. 238, 245;
THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 300 U.S. 55, 77; CF. BAYSIDE FISH CO.
V. GENTRY, SUPRA.  A STATE IS ALSO FREE TO LICENSE AND TAX INTRASTATE
BUYING WHERE THE PURCHASER EXPECTS IN THE USUAL COURSE OF BUSINESS TO
RESELL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584. 
AND NO CASE HAS GONE SO FAR AS TO HOLD THAT A STATE COULD NOT LICENSE
OR OTHERWISE REGULATE THE SALE OF ARTICLES WITHIN THE STATE BECAUSE THE
BUYER, AFTER PROCESSING AND PACKING THEM, WILL, IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF
BUSINESS, SELL AND SHIP THEM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

ALL OF THESE CASES PROCEED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAXATION OR
REGULATION INVOLVED, HOWEVER DRASTICALLY IT MAY AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IS NEVERTHELESS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHERE
THE REGULATION IS IMPOSED BEFORE ANY OPERATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OCCURS.  APPLYING THAT TEST, THE REGULATION HERE CONTROLS THE
DISPOSITION, INCLUDING THE SALE AND PURCHASE, OF RAISINS BEFORE THEY
ARE PROCESSED AND PACKED PREPARATORY TO INTERSTATE SALE AND SHIPMENT. 
THE REGULATION IS THUS APPLIED TO TRANSACTIONS WHOLLY INTRASTATE BEFORE
THE RAISINS ARE READY FOR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED
FROM LEMKE V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50, AND SHAFER V. FARMERS
GRAIN CO., 268 U.S. 189, ON WHICH APPELLEE RELIES.  THERE THE STATE
REGULATION HELD INVALID WAS OF THE BUSINESS OF THOSE WHO PURCHASED
GRAIN WITHIN THE STATE FOR IMMEDIATE SHIPMENT OUT OF IT.  THE COURT WAS
OF OPINION THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE WHEAT FOR SHIPMENT OUT OF THE STATE
WITHOUT RESALE OR PROCESSING WAS A PART OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
COMPARE CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, SUPRA. 

THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN LOCAL REGULATION OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH THE COMMODITY WHICH THEY PRODUCE AND SELL
TO LOCAL BUYERS IS ULTIMATELY DESTINED FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE
REGULATION OF THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN THE COMMERCE BY SELLING THE PRODUCT
INTERSTATE, HAS IN GENERAL SERVED, AND SERVES HERE, AS A READY MEANS OF
DISTINGUISHING THOSE LOCAL ACTIVITIES WHICH, UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE,
ARE THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF STATE REGULATION DESPITE THEIR EFFECT ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT COURTS ARE NOT CONFINED TO SO MECHANICAL A
TEST.  WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERTED ITS POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, AND STATE REGULATION OF MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN IS SO RELATED
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT IT ALSO OPERATES AS A REGULATION OF THAT
COMMERCE, THE RECONCILIATION OF THE POWER THUS GRANTED WITH THAT
RESERVED TO THE STATE IS TO BE ATTAINED BY THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE
COMPETING DEMANDS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED.  SEE DI
SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, 44(WITH WHICH COMPARE CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, SUPRA); SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS.,
SUPRA; MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG CO., 306 U.S. 346; ILLINOIS GAS
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498, 504-5. 

SUCH REGULATIONS BY THE STATE ARE TO BE SUSTAINED, NOT BECAUSE THEY
ARE "INDIRECT" RATHER THAN "DIRECT," SEE DI SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA,
SUPRA; CF. WICKARD V. FILBURN, SUPRA, NOT BECAUSE THEY CONTROL
INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES IN SUCH A MANNER AS ONLY TO AFFECT THE COMMERCE
RATHER THAN TO COMMAND ITS OPERATIONS.  BUT THEY ARE TO BE UPHELD
BECAUSE UPON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES IT APPEARS THAT THE MATTER IS ONE WHICH MAY APPROPRIATELY
BE REGULATED IN THE INTEREST OF THE SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF
LOCAL COMMUNITIES, AND WHICH, BECAUSE OF ITS LOCAL CHARACTER, AND THE
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED, MAY NEVER BE ADEQUATELY DEALT WITH BY
CONGRESS.  BECAUSE OF ITS LOCAL CHARACTER ALSO THERE MAY BE WIDE SCOPE
FOR LOCAL REGULATION WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRING THE NATIONAL
INTEREST IN THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE BY A SINGLE AUTHORITY AND
WITHOUT MATERIALLY OBSTRUCTING THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, WHICH WERE
THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTS SOUGHT TO BE SECURED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SEE
MINNESOTA RATE CASES, SUPRA, 398-412; CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, SUPRA,
113.  THERE MAY ALSO BE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, LOCAL REGULATIONS
WHOSE EFFECT UPON THE NATIONAL COMMERCE IS SUCH AS NOT TO CONFLICT BUT
TO COINCIDE WITH A POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED WITH RESPECT
TO IT. 

EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND OF AVAILABLE DATA OF THE
RAISIN INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA, OF WHICH WE MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE,
LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE EVILS ATTENDING THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING
OF RAISINS IN THAT STATE PRESENT A PROBLEM LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND
URGENTLY DEMANDING STATE ACTION FOR THE ECONOMIC PROTECTION OF THOSE
ENGAGED IN ONE OF ITS IMPORTANT INDUSTRIES.  FN9  BETWEEN 1914 AND 1920
THERE WAS A SPECTACULAR RISE IN PRICE OF ALL TYPES OF CALIFORNIA
GRAPES, INCLUDING RAISIN GRAPES.  THE PRICE OF RAISINS REACHED ITS
PEAK, $235 PER TON, IN 1921, AND WAS FOLLOWED BY LARGE INCREASE IN
ACREAGE WITH ACCOMPANYING REDUCTION IN PRICE.  THE PRICE OF RAISINS IN
MOST YEARS SINCE 1922 HAS RANGED FROM $40 TO $60 PER TON BUT ACREAGE
CONTINUED TO INCREASE UNTIL 1926 AND PRODUCTION REACHED ITS PEAK,
1,433,000 TONS OF RAISIN GRAPES AND 290,000 TONS OF RAISINS, IN 1938. 
SINCE 1920 THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL CARRY OVER OF 30 TO 50% OF EACH
YEAR'S CROP.  THE RESULT HAS BEEN THAT AT LEAST SINCE 1934 THE
INDUSTRY, WITH A LARGE INCREASE IN ACREAGE AND THE ATTENDANT FALL IN
PRICE, HAS BEEN UNABLE TO MARKET ITS PRODUCT AND HAS BEEN COMPELLED TO
SELL AT LESS THAN PARITY PRICES AND IN SOME YEARS AT PRICES REGARDED BY
STUDENTS OF THE INDUSTRY AS LESS THAN THE COST OF PRODUCTION.  FN10 

THE HISTORY OF THE INDUSTRY, AT LEAST SINCE 1929, IS A RECORD OF A
CONTINUOUS SEARCH FOR EXPEDIENTS WHICH WOULD STABILIZE THE MARKETING OF
THE RAISIN CROP AND MAINTAIN A PRICE STANDARD WHICH WOULD BRING FAIR
RETURN TO THE PRODUCERS.  FN11  IT IS SIGNIFICANT OF THE RELATION OF
THE LOCAL INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THIS PROGRAM TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THAT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD FROM 1929 UNTIL THE
ADOPTION OF THE PRORATE PROGRAM FOR THE 1940 RAISIN CROP, THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THESE EFFORTS EITHER BY ITS ESTABLISHMENT
OF MARKETING PROGRAMS PURSUANT TO ACT OF CONGRESS OR BY AIDING PROGRAMS
SPONSORED BY THE STATE.  LOCAL COOPERATIVE MARKET STABILIZATION
PROGRAMS FOR RAISINS IN 1929 AND 1930 WERE APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL FARM
BOARD WHICH SUPPORTED THEM WITH LARGE LOANS.  FN12  IN 1934 A MARKETING
AGREEMENT FOR CALIFORNIA RAISINS WAS PUT INTO EFFECT UNDER SEC. 8(2) OF
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, 48 STAT. 528,
WHICH AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE
THE ACT'S DECLARED POLICY OF ACHIEVING PARITY PRICES, TO ENTER INTO
MARKETING AGREEMENTS WITH PROCESSORS, PRODUCERS AND OTHERS ENGAGED IN
HANDLING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES "IN THE CURRENT OF OR IN COMPETITION
WITH, OR SO AS TO BURDEN, OBSTRUCT, OR IN ANY WAY AFFECT, INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE."  FN13 

RAISIN PRORATION ZONE NO. 1 WAS ORGANIZED IN THE LATTER PART OF
1937.  NO PRORATION PROGRAM WAS ADOPTED FOR THE 1937 CROP, BUT LOANS OF
$1,244,000 WERE MADE ON RAISINS OF THAT CROP BY THE COMMODITY CREDIT
CORPORATION.  FN14  IN AID OF A PRORATION PROGRAM ADOPTED UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ACT FOR THE 1938 CROP, A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THAT CROP WAS
PLEDGED TO THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION AS SECURITY FOR A LOAN OF
$2,688,000, AND WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD TO THE FEDERAL SURPLUS COMMODITIES
CORPORATION FOR RELIEF DISTRIBUTION N15.  SUBSTANTIAL PURCHASES OF
RAISINS OF THE 1939 CROP WERE ALSO MADE BY FEDERAL SURPLUS COMMODITIES
CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH NO PRORATION PROGRAM WAS ADOPTED FOR THAT YEAR. 
FN16  IN AID OF THE 1940 PROGRAM, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED, THE
COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION MADE LOANS IN EXCESS OF $5,000,000, AND
33,000 TONS OF THE RAISINS PLEDGED TO IT WERE SOLD TO THE FEDERAL
SURPLUS MARKETING ADMINISTRATION.  FN17 

THIS HISTORY SHOWS CLEARLY ENOUGH THAT THE ADOPTION OF LEGISLATIVE
MEASURES TO PREVENT THE DEMORALIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY BY STABILIZING
THE MARKETING OF THE RAISIN CROP IS A MATTER OF STATE AS WELL AS
NATIONAL CONCERN AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF INCONSISTENT CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION, IS A PROBLEM WHOSE SOLUTION IS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE PROVINCE
OF THE STATE.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER THE STATE HAS ADOPTED A
MEASURE APPROPRIATE TO THE END SOUGHT.  THE PROGRAM WAS NOT AIMED AT
NOR DID IT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH IT
UNDOUBTEDLY AFFECTED THE COMMERCE BY INCREASING THE INTERSTATE PRICE OF
RAISINS AND CURTAILING INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS TO SOME UNDETERMINED
EXTENT.  THE EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE IS NOT GREATER, AND IN SOME
INSTANCES WAS FAR LESS, THAN THAT WHICH THIS COURT HAS HELD NOT TO
AFFORD A BASIS FOR DENYING TO THE STATES THE RIGHT TO PURSUE A
LEGITIMATE STATE END.  CF. KIDD V. PEARSON, SUPRA; SLIGH V. KIRKWOOD,
SUPRA; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. COMMISSION, SUPRA; SOUTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, AND CASES CITED AT P. 189 AND
NOTES 4 AND 5; CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, 113-15, AND CASES CITED. 

IN COMPARING THE RELATIVE WEIGHTS OF THE CONFLICTING LOCAL AND
NATIONAL INTERESTS INVOLVED, IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT CONGRESS, BY ITS
AGRICULTURAL LEGISLATION, HAS RECOGNIZED THE DISTRESSED CONDITION OF
MUCH OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND HAS
AUTHORIZED MARKETING PROCEDURES, SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE THE CALIFORNIA
PRORATE PROGRAM, FOR STABILIZING THE MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS.  ACTING UNDER THIS LEGISLATION THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
HAS ESTABLISHED A LARGE NUMBER OF MARKET STABILIZATION PROGRAMS FOR
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VARIOUS PARTS
OF THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING SEVEN AFFECTING CALIFORNIA CROPS.  FN18  ALL
INVOLVED ATTEMPTS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO PREVENT OVER-PRODUCTION OF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND EXCESSIVE COMPETITION IN MARKETING THEM, WITH
PRICE STABILIZATION AS THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE.  MOST IF NOT ALL HAD A
LIKE EFFECT IN RESTRICTING SHIPMENTS AND RAISING OR MAINTAINING PRICES
OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT WHATEVER EFFECT THE OPERATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
PROGRAM MAY HAVE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT IS ONE WHICH IT HAS BEEN
THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO AID AND ENCOURAGE THROUGH FEDERAL AGENCIES IN
CONFORMITY TO THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT, AND SEC. 302 OF
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.  NOR IS THE EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE
GREATER THAN OR SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT IN KIND FROM THAT CONTEMPLATED
BY THE STABILIZATION PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY FEDERAL STATUTES.  AS WE
HAVE SEEN, THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT IS APPLICABLE TO
RAISINS ONLY ON THE DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WHO,
INSTEAD OF ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL PROGRAM HAS, AS THE STATUTE
AUTHORIZES, COOPERATED IN PROMOTING THE STATE PROGRAM AND AIDED IT BY
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL LOANS.  HENCE WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE EFFECT OF THE
STATE PROGRAM ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ONE WHICH CONFLICTS WITH
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OR IS SUCH AS TO PRECLUDE THE STATE FROM THIS
EXERCISE OF ITS RESERVED POWER TO REGULATE DOMESTIC AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION.    WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CALIFORNIA PRORATE PROGRAM FOR THE
1940 RAISIN CROP IS A REGULATION OF STATE INDUSTRY OF LOCAL CONCERN
WHICH, IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WHICH WE HAVE DETAILED,
DOES NOT IMPAIR NATIONAL CONTROL OVER THE COMMERCE IN A MANNER OR TO A
DEGREE FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION.  REVERSED.    FN1  ACT OF JUNE 5,
1933, CH. 754, STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA OF 1933, AS AMENDED BY CHS.  471
AND 743, STATUTES OF 1935; CH. 6, EXTRA SESSION, 1938; CHS.  363, 548
AND 894, STATUTES OF 1939; AND CHS.  603, 1150 AND 1186, STATUTES OF
1941.  ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS
WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN AGRICULTURAL PRORATE
COMMISSION V. SUPERIOR COURT, 5 CAL.2D 550, 55 P.2D 495. 

FN2 SEE ALSO 79 CONG. REC. 9470, 11149-50, 11153; HEARINGS BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY ON S. 1807(MARCH, 1935)
29, 73; HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE (FEB.-MARCH,
1935) 53, 178-9.  THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 WAS
FOR THE MOST PART A REENACTMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 31, AS AMENDED IN 1935,
49 STAT. 753.  SEC. 10(I) WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN 1935, AND REENACTED
WITHOUT CHANGE IN 1937. 

FN3  A "PARITY" PRICE IS ONE WHICH WILL "GIVE AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES A PURCHASING POWER WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES THAT FARMERS
BUY, EQUIVALENT TO THE PURCHASING POWER OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN
THE BASE PERIOD."  7 U.S.C. SEC. 602(1).  THE PARITY PRICE IS COMPUTED
BY MULTIPLYING AN INDEX OF PRICES PAID BY FARMERS FOR GOODS USED IN
FARM PRODUCTION, AND FOR FAMILY LIVING EXPENSES, TOGETHER WITH REAL
ESTATE TAXES AND INTEREST ON FARM INDEBTEDNESS, BY THE AVERAGE PRICE
DURING THE BASE PERIOD OF THE COMMODITY IN QUESTION.  SEE DEPT. OF
AGRICULTURE, PARITY PRICES, WHAT THEY ARE AND HOW THEY ARE CALCULATED
(1942).  THE BASE PERIOD FOR COMMODITIES OTHER THAN TOBACCO AND
POTATOES IS AUGUST 1909-JULY 1914.  HOWEVER, BY 7 U.S.C. SEC. 608E THE
PERIOD OF AUGUST 1919-JULY 1929 OR A PART THEREOF MAY BE USED FOR ANY
COMMODITY AS TO WHICH THE SECRETARY FINDS AND PROCLAIMS THAT ADEQUATE
STATISTICS FOR THE 1909-14 PERIOD ARE NOT AVAILABLE.  BY PROCLAMATION
DATED JUNE 26, 1942, THE SECRETARY DESIGNATED THE PERIOD 1919-1929 AS
THE BASE PERIOD FOR RAISINS.  7 FED. REG. 4867. 

FN4  THE PARITY PRICE FOR RAISINS ON JUNE 15, 1942, AS PUBLISHED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WAS $100.51 PER TON.  PRELIMINARY FIGURES
SHOW THE AVERAGE PRICE FOR THE 1941-42 CROP TO BE $80.60.  PARITY
PRICES, WHAT THEY ARE AND HOW THEY ARE COMPUTED, SUPRA, VII.  PARITY
PRICES FOR RAISINS FOR PREVIOUS YEARS ARE NOT PUBLISHED.  HOWEVER THEY
MAY BE COMPUTED FROM THE BASE PERIOD PRICE OF $105.80 AND THE INDICES
OF PRICES PAID BY FARMERS PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN
THE STATISTICAL PUBLICATIONS CITED INFRA, NOTE 9.  SUCH COMPUTATIONS
FOR 1933 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, SUPPLIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, INDICATE THAT WHILE THE PRICE RECEIVED BY THE FARMER FOR
THE 1940 CROP WAS $57.60 THE PARITY PRICE FOR 1940 WAS $80.41 AND FOR
1941 WAS $86.76.  THEY FURTHER INDICATE THAT RAISIN PRICES HAVE NOT
SINCE 1933 EQUALLED PARITY AND THAT THE FIELD PRICES FOR ALL CROPS
PRIOR TO THAT OF 1941 HAVE BEEN FROM $15 TO $40 PER TON BELOW PARITY. 

FN5  THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION WAS CREATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER
NO. 6340, OCTOBER 16, 1933.  IT HAS BEEN CONTINUED IN EXISTENCE BY ACTS
OF CONGRESS, 49 STAT. 4; 50 STAT. 5; 53 STAT. 510.  BY REORGANIZATION
PLAN NO. I, 53 STAT. 1429, APPROVED BY ACT OF CONGRESS, 53 STAT. 813,
AND EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1939, THE CORPORATION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, TO BE "ADMINISTERED IN SUCH DEPARTMENT UNDER
THE GENERAL DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE."  BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 8219, AUG. 7, 1939, 4 FED. REG.
3565, EXCLUSIVE VOTING RIGHTS IN ITS CAPITAL STOCK WERE VESTED IN THE
SECRETARY. 

FN6  THE SURPLUS MARKETING ADMINISTRATION WAS CREATED BY
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. III, 45 STAT. 1232, APPROVED 54 STAT. 231,
EFFECTIVE JUNE 30, 1940, AS A CONSOLIDATION OF THE DIVISION OF
MARKETING AND MARKETING AGREEMENTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ADMINISTRATION, AND THE FEDERAL SURPLUS COMMODITIES CORPORATION.  THE
SURPLUS COMMODITIES CORPORATION WAS INCORPORATED ON OCTOBER 4, 1933,
UNDER THE NAME OF THE FEDERAL SURPLUS RELIEF CORPORATION.  ITS
EXISTENCE AS "AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE" WAS CONTINUED BY ACTS OF CONGRESS, 50 STAT.
323; 52 STAT. 38.  THE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION ARE THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ADMINISTRATION, AND THE GOVERNOR OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION. 

AS SUCCESSOR TO THE CORPORATION THE SURPLUS MARKETING ADMINISTRATION
EXERCISES THE AUTHORITY GIVEN BY SEC. 32 OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT OF 1935, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 612C, TO USE 30% OF ANNUAL GROSS CUSTOMS
RECEIPTS TO ENCOURAGE THE EXPORTATION, AND THE DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION BY
PERSONS IN LOW INCOME GROUPS, OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, AND TO
REESTABLISH FARMERS' PURCHASING POWER.  AS SUCCESSOR TO THE DIVISION OF
MARKETS AND MARKETING AGREEMENTS, THE ADMINISTRATION IS CHARGED WITH
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937. 

FN7  REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
(1941) 14, 21; WM. J. CECIL (ZONE AGENT, RAISIN PRORATION ZONE NO. 1),
THE 1940 RAISIN PROGRAM, 30 CALIF. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE BULLETIN 46. 

FN8  SEE ALSO REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMODITY CREDIT
CORPORATION (1940) 4, 6. 

FN9  THE PRINCIPAL STATISTICAL SOURCES ARE U.S. TARIFF COMMISSION,
GRAPES, RAISINS AND WINES, REPORT NO. 134, SECOND SERIES, ISSUED
PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. SEC. 1332, AND THE FOLLOWING PUBLICATIONS OF THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:  YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE (PUBLISHED
ANNUALLY UNTIL 1936); AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (PUBLISHED ANNUALLY SINCE
1936); CROPS AND MARKETS (PUBLISHED QUARTERLY); SEASON AVERAGE PRICES
AND VALUE OF PRODUCTION, PRINCIPAL CROPS, 1940 AND 1941(DEC.  18,
1941).  FOR GENERAL DISCUSSIONS OF THE ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE RAISIN
INDUSTRY, SEE GRAPES, RAISINS AND WINES, SUPRA; SHEAR AND GOULD,
ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE GRAPE INDUSTRY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN NO. 429(1927); SHEAR AND HOWE,
FACTORS AFFECTING CALIFORNIA RAISIN SALES AND PRICES, 1922-29, GIANNINI
FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, PAPER NO. 20(1931). 

FN10  STUDIES MADE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
INDICATE THAT THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF THOMPSON SEEDLESS RAISINS,
INCLUDING THE GROWERS' LABOR, A MANAGEMENT CHARGE, DEPRECIATION, AND
INTEREST ON INVESTMENT, IS $49.58 PER TON ON A FARM YIELDING TWO TONS
PER ACRE, AND $72.07 PER TON ON A FARM YIELDING ONE TON PER ACRE.  A
TWO-TON YIELD IS DESCRIBED AS "GOOD"; A ONE-TON YIELD AS "USUAL." 
ADAMS, FARM MANAGEMENT CROP MANUAL, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SYLLABUS
SERIES NO. 278(1941) 142-5.  ANOTHER STUDENT HAS COMPUTED THE COST OF
PRODUCTION AT $53.96 FOR A TWO-TON PER ACRE YIELD, ABOUT $65 FOR A 1.5
TON YIELD, AND $90 FOR A ONE-TON YIELD.  SHULTIS, STANDARDS OF
PRODUCTION, LABOR, MATERIAL AND OTHER COSTS FOR SELECTED CROPS AND
LIVESTOCK ENTERPRISES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXTENSION SERVICE
(1938) 13.  FIELD PRICES FOR THOMPSON SEEDLESS RAISINS WERE BELOW
$49.50 IN 1923, 1928, 1932, AND 1938; SINCE 1922 THEY HAVE BEEN AT
$65.00 OR HIGHER IN ONLY 5 YEARS, AND HAVE ONLY ONCE BEEN AS HIGH AS
$72.00.  GRAPES, RAISINS AND WINES, SUPRA, 149. 

FOR PARITY PRICES FOR RAISINS, SEE SUPRA, NOTE 4. 

FN11  FOR DISCUSSION OF PRIVATE EFFORTS WITHIN THE INDUSTRY PRIOR TO
1929 TO REGULATE THE MARKETING OF RAISINS, SEE GRAPES, RAISINS AND
WINES, SUPRA, 153-5. 

FN12  SEE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL FARM BOARD (1930) 18, 73; ID.
(1931) 59-61, 91; GRAPES, RAISINS AND WINES, SUPRA, 62-64; S.W. SHEAR,
THE CALIFORNIA GRAPE CONTROL PLAN, GIANNINI FOUNDATION OF AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS, PAPER NO. 22(1931); STOKDYK AND WEST, THE FARM BOARD (1930)
135-9.  LOANS OF $4,500,000 IN 1929 AND $6,755,000 IN 1930 WERE MADE BY
THE FEDERAL FARM BOARD.  SHEAR, SUPRA, STATES THAT THE 1930 PROGRAM,
WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE FORMATION OF A SINGLE MARKETING AGENCY, AND THE
DESTRUCTION OR DIVERSION TO BY-PRODUCTS USE OF SURPLUS RAISINS, "WAS
DESIGNED BY THE FEDERAL FARM BOARD." 

THE FEDERAL FARM BOARD WAS CREATED BY SEC. 2 OF THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING ACT OF 1929, 46 STAT. 11, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE BOARD TO MAKE
LOANS TO COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS TO AID IN "THE EFFECTIVE
MERCHANDISING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES  ...  " (SEC. 7) SO AS TO
ACHIEVE THE STATUTORY OBJECTIVE OF PLACING AGRICULTURE ON A "BASIS OF
ECONOMIC EQUALITY WITH OTHER INDUSTRIES" (SEC. 1). 

FN13  SEE U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT IN 1934,
202.  THE MARKETING PROGRAM ADOPTED IS PUBLISHED BY THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AS MARKETING
AGREEMENT SERIES - AGREEMENT NO. 44, LICENSE SERIES - LICENSE NO. 55. 
IT WAS IN EFFECT FROM MAY 29, 1934 TO SEPT. 14, 1935.  THE AGREEMENT
PROVIDED FOR THE CREATION OF A CONTROL BOARD ON WHICH REPRESENTATIVES
OF PACKERS AND GROWERS SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL VOICE.  SUBJECT TO THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE THE CONTROL BOARD COULD FIX
MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID GROWERS AND REQUIRE A PERCENTAGE OF THE CROP
TO BE DELIVERED TO THE CONTROL BOARD.  15% OF THE 1934 CROP WAS
REQUIRED TO BE DELIVERED TO THE BOARD, AND PRICES FOR THAT CROP WERE
FIXED AT $60, $65 AND $70 PER TON FOR MUSCAT, SULTANA, AND THOMPSON
SEEDLESS RAISINS RESPECTIVELY. 

FN14  REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
(1940) 16.  THESE RAISINS WERE ULTIMATELY SOLD TO THE FEDERAL SURPLUS
COMMODITIES CORPORATION FOR RELIEF DISTRIBUTION.  IBID.; REPORT OF THE
FEDERAL SURPLUS COMMODITIES CORPORATION (1938) 16. 

FN15  REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
(1940) 16; REPORT OF THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION IN CHARGE OF THE DIVISION OF MARKETING AND
MARKETING AGREEMENTS, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL SURPLUS
COMMODITIES CORPORATION (1939) 52.  THE FEDERAL LOAN WAS CONDITIONED
UPON THE ADOPTION OF A STATE PRORATION PROGRAM BY WHICH 20% OF THE CROP
WAS DELIVERED INTO A STABILIZATION POOL. 

FN16  CECIL, THE 1940 RAISIN PRORATION PROGRAM, SUPRA, 48; REPORT OF
THE FEDERAL SURPLUS COMMODITIES CORPORATION (1940) 6. 

FN17  THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION SIMILARLY MADE LOANS ON THE
1937, 1938, AND 1940 CROPS OF DRIED PRUNES, THE LOANS ON THE 1938 AND
1940 CROPS BEING IN AID OF PRORATION PROGRAMS WHICH WERE VERY SIMILAR
TO THOSE ADOPTED FOR RAISINS.  REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMODITY
CREDIT CORPORATION (1940) 15, 21; ID. (1941) 13-14, 21; REPORT OF THE
SURPLUS MARKETING ADMINISTRATION (1941) 33-4. 

FN18  TWENTY-EIGHT SUCH PROGRAMS AFFECTING MILK, AND NINETEEN
AFFECTING OTHER AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, WERE IN EFFECT DURING THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1941.  REPORT OF THE SURPLUS MARKETING
ADMINISTRATION (1941) PP. 7, 12.  FOR DISCUSSIONS OF THE NATURE AND
PURPOSE OF THESE PROGRAMS, SEE THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION; NOURSE, MARKETING AGREEMENTS UNDER THE
A.A.A. (1935). 
..END :









UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 369 


NO. 78.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 17, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943.  -
125 F.2D 75, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE, FROM THE DATE OF ITS AUTHORIZATION BY ACT OF CONGRESS, A
FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECT INCLUDED THE RELOCATION OF A LINE OF
RAILROAD, AND A PROBABLE ROUTE WAS MARKED OUT OVER CERTAIN LANDS
SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS, IT IS PROPER, IN
DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION, TO EXCLUDE FROM VALUE AS OF THE DATE OF
THE TAKING SUCH INCREASE AS OCCURRED SINCE THE DATE OF THE
AUTHORIZATION OF THE PROJECT AND AS A RESULT THEREOF.  P. 377. 

2.  THE EXCLUSION FROM VALUE, AS OF THE DATE OF THE TAKING, OF ANY
INCREASE WHICH OCCURRED SINCE THE DATE OF THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE
PROJECT AND AS A RESULT THEREOF, IS APPLICABLE ALSO IN THE
DETERMINATION OF SEVERANCE DAMAGE.  P. 379. 

3.  ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL COURT IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS IS
REQUIRED BY FEDERAL STATUTES TO FOLLOW THE FORMS AND METHODS OF
PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY LOCAL LAW, IT IS NOT BOUND BY THE LOCAL LAW ON
QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT - SUCH AS THE MEASURE OF COMPENSATION -
WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 379. 

4.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S ALLEGED DISREGARD OF THE LOCAL PRACTICE IN
RESPECT TO THE ADMISSION OF OPINION EVIDENCE AS TO VALUE, DID NOT IN
THIS CASE INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL OR PREJUDICIAL ERROR.  P. 380. 

5.  WHERE, PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1931, THE GOVERNMENT,
IN A PROCEEDING IN EMINENT DOMAIN, FILES A DECLARATION OF TAKING AND
DEPOSITS WITH THE COURT THE AMOUNT OF ESTIMATED COMPENSATION, IT IS
ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE EXCESS OF SUCH AMOUNT OVER THE AMOUNT OF THE
AWARD.  P. 380. 

6.  THE INCLUSION IN A GENERAL JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
OF A JUDGMENT OF RESTITUTION FOR THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE SUM DEPOSITED
BY THE GOVERNMENT AND PAID TO THE LANDOWNERS EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT
SUBSEQUENTLY AWARDED AS JUST COMPENSATION, DID NOT IN THIS CASE DENY
DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; FOR, UPON DEFENDANTS'
MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENTS, THERE WAS FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR A
HEARING.  P. 382. 

UNITED STATES V. MILLER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 657, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST CERTAIN LANDOWNERS IN EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS RESPECTING STANDARDS FOR
VALUING PROPERTY TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE.  FOR THIS REASON, AND BECAUSE OF
AN APPARENT CONFLICT WITH ONE OF OUR DECISIONS, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE UNITED STATES CONDEMNED A STRIP ACROSS THE RESPONDENTS' LANDS FOR
TRACKS OF THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD, RELOCATION OF WHICH WAS
NECESSARY ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROSPECTIVE FLOODING OF THE OLD RIGHT-OF
WAY BY WATERS TO BE IMPOUNDED BY THE CENTRAL VALLEY RECLAMATION PROJECT
IN CALIFORNIA.  FOR MANY YEARS A PROPOSAL TO INITIATE STATE RECLAMATION
WORKS IN THIS VICINITY HAD BEEN BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE.  IN
1932 THEY VOTED APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF THE PROJECT.  IT WAS,
HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES AS A FEDERAL
PROJECT. 

APRIL 6, 1934, THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS OF THE ARMY RECOMMENDED THAT
THE GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTE TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS TOWARDS THE PROJECT. 
FN1  CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE APPROPRIATION IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR.  FN2
DECEMBER 22, 1935, THE PRESIDENT APPROVED CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE
IMPROVEMENT.  IN 1936 CONGRESS APPROPRIATED $6,900,000 FOR IT AND IN
1937 $12,500,000.  FN3  IN AUGUST 1937 THE PROJECT WAS AGAIN AUTHORIZED
BY CONGRESS.  FN4 

IN HIS REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1937, THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR STATED THAT SHASTA, CALIFORNIA, HAD BEEN SELECTED FOR
THE SITE OF THE SACRAMENTO RIVER DAM.  ITS CONSTRUCTION INVOLVED
RELOCATION OF SOME THIRTY MILES OF THE LINE OF THE RAILROAD. 

PORTIONS OF RESPONDENTS' LANDS WERE REQUIRED FOR THE RELOCATED RIGHT
OF-WAY.  ALTERNATE ROUTES WERE SURVEYED BY MARCH 1936 AND STAKED AT
INTERVALS OF 100 FEET.  PRIOR TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE PROJECT, THE
AREA OF WHICH RESPONDENTS' TRACTS FORM A PART WAS LARGELY UNCLEARED
BRUSH LAND.  IN THE YEARS 1936 AND 1937 CERTAIN PARCELS WERE PURCHASED
WITH THE INTENTION OF SUBDIVIDING THEM AND, IN 1937, SUBDIVISIONS WERE
PLOTTED AND THERE GREW UP A SETTLEMENT KNOWN AS BOOMTOWN, IN WHICH THE
RESPONDENTS' LANDS LIE.  TWO OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE REALTORS
INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.  BY DECEMBER 1938 THE TOWN
HAD BEEN BUILT UP FOR BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. 

DECEMBER 14, 1938, THE UNITED STATES FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA A COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS WHOSE LANDS WERE NEEDED FOR THE RELOCATION OF
THE RAILROAD.  ON THAT DAY THE GOVERNMENT ALSO FILED A DECLARATION OF
TAKING.  FN5 IN THIS DECLARATION THE ESTIMATE OF JUST COMPENSATION TO
BE PAID FOR A TRACT BELONGING TO THREE OF THE RESPONDENTS AS CO-TENANTS
WAS ESTIMATED AT $2,550, AND THAT SUM WAS DEPOSITED IN COURT.  ON THE
APPLICATION OF THESE OWNERS, THE COURT DIRECTED THE CLERK TO PAY EACH
OF THEM ONE-THIRD OF THE DEPOSIT, OR $850, ON ACCOUNT OF THE
COMPENSATION THEY WERE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE. 

THE ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN WAS TRIED TO A JURY.  THE RESPONDENTS
OFFERED OPINION EVIDENCE AS TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TRACTS
INVOLVED AND ALSO AS TO SEVERANCE DAMAGE TO LOTS OF WHICH PORTIONS WERE
TAKEN.  EACH WITNESS WAS ASKED TO STATE HIS OPINION AS TO MARKET VALUE
OF THE LAND TAKEN AS AT DECEMBER 14, 1938, THE DATE OF THE FILING OF
THE COMPLAINT.  GOVERNMENT COUNSEL OBJECTED TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION
ON THE GROUND THAT, AS THE UNITED STATES WAS DEFINITELY COMMITTED TO
THE PROJECT AUGUST 26, 1937, THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE
INCLUDED IN AN ESTIMATE OF VALUE, AS OF THE DATE THE LANDS WERE TAKEN,
ANY INCREMENT OF VALUE DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S AUTHORIZATION OF, AND
COMMITMENT TO, THE PROJECT.  THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION
AND REQUIRED THE QUESTION TO BE REFRAMED SO AS TO CALL FOR MARKET VALUE
AT THE DATE OF THE TAKING, EXCLUDING THEREFROM ANY INCREMENT OF VALUE
ACCRUING AFTER AUGUST 26, 1937, DUE TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE
PROJECT.  UNDER STRESS OF THE RULING, AND OVER OBJECTION AND EXCEPTION,
QUESTIONS CALLING FOR OPINION EVIDENCE WERE PHRASED TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT'S DECISION.  THE JURY RENDERED VERDICTS IN FAVOR OF VARIOUS
RESPONDENTS. 

THE THREE RESPONDENTS WHO HAD RECEIVED $850 EACH ON ACCOUNT OF
COMPENSATION WERE AWARDED LESS THAN THE TOTAL PAID THEM.  THE COURT
ENTERED JUDGMENT THAT TITLE TO THE LANDS WAS IN THE UNITED STATES AND
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS RESPECTIVELY FOR THE AMOUNTS AWARDED
THEM.  JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED AGAINST THE THREE RESPONDENTS AND IN FAVOR
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE AMOUNTS THEY HAD RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THE
VERDICTS WITH INTEREST.  THEY MOVED TO SET ASIDE THE MONEY JUDGMENTS
AGAINST THEM ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENTER
THEM.  THE MOTIONS WERE OVERRULED.  ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS APPEALED,
ASSIGNING ERROR TO THE TRIAL JUDGE'S RULING WITH RESPECT TO THE
QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED THE WITNESSES, TO HIS CHARGE WHICH HAD INSTRUCTED
THE JURY THAT, IN ARRIVING AT MARKET VALUE AS OF THE DATE OF TAKING,
THEY SHOULD DISREGARD INCREMENT OF VALUE DUE TO THE INITIATION OF THE
PROJECT  FN6  AND ARISING AFTER AUGUST 26, 1937, AND THREE OF THEM TO
HIS ENTRY OF MONEY JUDGMENTS FOR THE UNITED STATES. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT, HOLDING, BY A
DIVIDED COURT, THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN HIS RULINGS AND IN HIS
CHARGE, AND UNANIMOUSLY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO AWARD THE UNITED STATES A JUDGMENT FOR AMOUNTS
OVERPAID.  FN7  A MAJORITY OF THE COURT WERE OF OPINION THE WITNESSES
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO STATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LANDS AS
OF THE DATE OF TAKING, WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, AND THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE
CHARGED THAT THIS VALUE MEASURED THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE
RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED. 

1.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT PRIVATE
PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. 
SUCH COMPENSATION MEANS THE FULL AND PERFECT EQUIVALENT IN MONEY OF THE
PROPERTY TAKEN.  FN8  THE OWNER IS TO BE PUT IN AS GOOD POSITION
PECUNIARILY AS HE WOULD HAVE OCCUPIED IF HIS PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN
TAKEN.  FN9 

IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT AN OWNER'S INDEMNITY SHOULD BE MEASURED IN
VARIOUS WAYS DEPENDING UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AND THAT NO
GENERAL FORMULA SHOULD BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE.  IN AN EFFORT, HOWEVER,
TO FIND SOME PRACTICAL STANDARD, THE COURTS EARLY ADOPTED, AND HAVE
RETAINED, THE CONCEPT OF MARKET VALUE.  THE OWNER HAS BEEN SAID TO BE
ENTITLED TO THE "VALUE,"  FN10  THE "MARKET VALUE,"  FN11  AND THE
"FAIR MARKET VALUE"  FN12  OF WHAT IS TAKEN.  THE TERM "FAIR" HARDLY
ADDS ANYTHING TO THE PHRASE "MARKET VALUE," WHICH DENOTES WHAT "IT
FAIRLY MAY BE BELIEVED THAT A PURCHASER IN FAIR MARKET CONDITIONS WOULD
HAVE GIVEN,"  FN13  OR, MORE CONCISELY, "MARKET VALUE FAIRLY
DETERMINED."  FN14 

RESPONDENTS CORRECTLY SAY THAT VALUE IS TO BE ASCERTAINED AS OF THE
DATE OF TAKING.  FN15  BUT THEY INSIST THAT NO ELEMENT WHICH GOES TO
MAKE UP VALUE AS AT THAT MOMENT IS TO BE DISCARDED OR ELIMINATED.  WE
THINK THE PROPOSITION IS TOO BROADLY STATED.  WHERE, FOR ANY REASON,
PROPERTY HAS NO MARKET, RESORT MUST BE HAD TO OTHER DATA TO ASCERTAIN
ITS VALUE; FN16  AND, EVEN IN THE ORDINARY CASE, ASSESSMENT OF MARKET
VALUE INVOLVES THE USE OF ASSUMPTIONS, WHICH MAKE IT UNLIKELY THAT THE
APPRAISAL WILL REFLECT TRUE VALUE WITH NICETY.  IT IS USUALLY SAID THAT
MARKET VALUE IS WHAT A WILLING BUYER WOULD PAY IN CASH TO A WILLING
SELLER.  WHERE THE PROPERTY TAKEN, AND THAT IN ITS VICINITY, HAS NOT IN
FACT BEEN SOLD WITHIN RECENT TIMES, OR IN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS, THE
APPLICATION OF THIS CONCEPT INVOLVES, AT BEST, A GUESS BY INFORMED
PERSONS. 

AGAIN, STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE CRITERION OF MARKET VALUE MAY INVOLVE
INCLUSION OF ELEMENTS WHICH, THOUGH THEY AFFECT SUCH VALUE, MUST IN
FAIRNESS BE ELIMINATED IN A CONDEMNATION CASE, AS WHERE THE FORMULA IS
ATTEMPTED TO BE APPLIED AS BETWEEN AN OWNER WHO MAY NOT WANT TO PART
WITH HIS LAND BECAUSE OF ITS SPECIAL ADAPTABILITY TO HIS OWN USE, AND A
TAKER WHO NEEDS THE LAND BECAUSE OF ITS PECULIAR FITNESS FOR THE
TAKER'S PURPOSES.  THESE ELEMENTS MUST BE DISREGARDED BY THE FACT
FINDING BODY IN ARRIVING AT "FAIR" MARKET VALUE. 

SINCE THE OWNER IS TO RECEIVE NO MORE THAN INDEMNITY FOR HIS LOSS,
HIS AWARD CANNOT BE ENHANCED BY ANY GAIN TO THE TAKER.  FN17  THUS,
ALTHOUGH THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE FIXED WITH DUE
CONSIDERATION OF ALL ITS AVAILABLE USES,  FN18  ITS SPECIAL VALUE TO
THE CONDEMNOR AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHERS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT POSSESS
THE POWER TO CONDEMN, MUST BE EXCLUDED AS AN ELEMENT OF MARKET VALUE. 
FN19  THE DISTRICT JUDGE SO CHARGED THE JURY, AND NO QUESTION IS MADE
AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INSTRUCTION. 

THERE IS, HOWEVER, ANOTHER POSSIBLE ELEMENT OF MARKET VALUE, WHICH IS
THE BONE OF CONTENTION HERE.  SHOULD THE OWNER HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ANY
INCREMENT OF VALUE ADDED TO THE PROPERTY TAKEN BY THE ACTION OF THE
PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN PREVIOUSLY CONDEMNING ADJACENT LANDS?  IF SO, WERE
THE LANDS IN QUESTION SO SITUATE AS TO ENTITLE RESPONDENTS TO THE
BENEFIT OF THIS INCREMENT? 

COURTS HAVE HAD TO ADOPT WORKING RULES IN ORDER TO DO SUBSTANTIAL
JUSTICE IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS.  ONE OF THESE IS THAT A PARCEL
OF LAND WHICH HAS BEEN USED AND TREATED AS AN ENTITY SHALL BE SO
CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF PART OR ALL OF
IT. 

THIS HAS BEGOTTEN SUBSIDIARY RULES.  IF ONLY A PORTION OF A SINGLE
TRACT IS TAKEN, THE OWNER'S COMPENSATION FOR THAT TAKING INCLUDES ANY
ELEMENT OF VALUE ARISING OUT OF THE RELATION OF THE PART TAKEN TO THE
ENTIRE TRACT.  FN20  SUCH DAMAGE IS OFTEN, THOUGH SOMEWHAT LOOSELY,
SPOKEN OF AS SEVERANCE DAMAGE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE TAKING HAS IN
FACT BENEFITED THE REMAINDER, THE BENEFIT MAY BE SET OFF AGAINST THE
VALUE OF THE LAND TAKEN.  FN21 

AS RESPECTS OTHER PROPERTY OF THE OWNER CONSISTING OF SEPARATE TRACTS
ADJOINING THAT AFFECTED BY THE TAKING, THE CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN
CONSTRUED AS REQUIRING PAYMENT OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES; FN22  AND
UNLESS THE LEGISLATURE SO PROVIDES, AS IT MAY,  FN23  BENEFITS ARE NOT
ASSESSED AGAINST SUCH NEIGHBORING TRACTS FOR INCREASE IN THEIR VALUE. 

IF A DISTINCT TRACT IS CONDEMNED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OTHER LANDS IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAY INCREASE IN MARKET VALUE DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF
THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ERECTED ON THE LAND TAKEN.  SHOULD THE
GOVERNMENT, AT A LATER DATE, DETERMINE TO TAKE THESE OTHER LANDS, IT
MUST PAY THEIR MARKET VALUE AS ENHANCED BY THIS FACTOR OF PROXIMITY. 
IF, HOWEVER, THE PUBLIC PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING INCLUDED THE TAKING
OF CERTAIN TRACTS BUT ONLY ONE OF THEM IS TAKEN IN THE FIRST INSTANCE,
THE OWNER OF THE OTHER TRACTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AN INCREASED VALUE
FOR HIS LANDS WHICH ARE ULTIMATELY TO BE TAKEN ANY MORE THAN THE OWNER
OF THE TRACT FIRST CONDEMNED IS ENTITLED TO BE ALLOWED AN INCREASED
MARKET VALUE BECAUSE ADJACENT LANDS NOT IMMEDIATELY TAKEN INCREASED IN
VALUE DUE TO THE PROJECTED IMPROVEMENT. 

THE QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS' LANDS WERE PROBABLY
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT FROM THE TIME THE GOVERNMENT WAS
COMMITTED TO IT.  IF THEY WERE NOT, BUT WERE MERELY ADJACENT LANDS, THE
SUBSEQUENT ENLARGEMENT OF THE PROJECT TO INCLUDE THEM OUGHT NOT TO
DEPRIVE THE RESPONDENTS OF THE VALUE ADDED IN THE MEANTIME BY THE
PROXIMITY OF THE IMPROVEMENT.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY WERE, THE
GOVERNMENT OUGHT NOT TO PAY ANY INCREASE IN VALUE ARISING FROM THE
KNOWN FACT THAT THE LANDS PROBABLY WOULD BE CONDEMNED.  THE OWNERS
OUGHT NOT TO GAIN BY SPECULATING ON PROBABLE INCREASE IN VALUE DUE TO
THE GOVERNMENT'S ACTIVITIES. 

IN WHICH CATEGORY DO THE LANDS IN QUESTION FALL?  THE PROJECT, FROM
THE DATE OF ITS FINAL AND DEFINITE AUTHORIZATION IN AUGUST 1937,
INCLUDED THE RELOCATION OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ONE PROBABLE
ROUTE WAS MARKED OUT OVER THE RESPONDENTS' LANDS.  THIS BEING SO, IT
WAS PROPER TO TELL THE JURY THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO NO
INCREASE IN VALUE ARISING AFTER AUGUST 1937 BECAUSE OF THE LIKELIHOOD
OF THE TAKING OF THEIR PROPERTY.  IF THEIR LANDS WERE PROBABLY TO BE
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT IN ITS ENTIRETY,
ANY INCREASE IN VALUE DUE TO THAT FACT COULD ONLY ARISE FROM
SPECULATION BY THEM, OR BY POSSIBLE PURCHASERS FROM THEM, AS TO WHAT
THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE COMPELLED TO PAY AS COMPENSATION. 

SHOEMAKER V. UNITED STATES, 147 U.S. 282, IS DIRECTLY IN POINT AND
SUPPORTS THIS VIEW, NOTWITHSTANDING RESPONDENTS' EFFORTS TO DISTINGUISH
THE CASE.  THERE CONGRESS, IN 1890, AUTHORIZED COMMISSIONERS TO
ESTABLISH A PARK ALONG ROCK CREEK IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND, FOR
THAT PURPOSE, TO SELECT NOT EXCEEDING TWO THOUSAND ACRES OF LAND.  IN
1891 THE COMMISSIONERS PREPARED A MAP OF THE LANDS TO BE ACQUIRED,
WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE. 
PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT TO CONDEMN CERTAIN TRACTS LYING WITHIN THE
MAPPED AREA.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT INSTRUCTED THE
APPRAISERS, WHOM THE ACT MADE THE TRIERS OF FACT, THAT THEY "SHALL
RECEIVE NO EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE THE PRICES ACTUALLY PAID ON SALES
OF PROPERTY SIMILAR TO THAT INCLUDED IN SAID PARK, AND SO SITUATED AS
TO ADJOIN IT OR TO BE WITHIN ITS IMMEDIATE VICINITY, WHEN SUCH SALES
HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT  ...  AUTHORIZING SAID
PARK  ...  "  THE INSTRUCTION WAS APPROVED BY THIS COURT.    THE
MAJORITY OF THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THE CASE DISTINGUISHABLE IN THE
VIEW THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PARK WERE FIXED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS
AUTHORIZING THE PROJECT AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS KNOWN WHAT LAND WOULD
LIE INSIDE, AND WHAT OUTSIDE, THE PARK FROM THE BEGINNING, AND THAT
LAND TAKEN FOR THE PARK SHOULD NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF AN INCREASE IN
VALUE WHICH ADJOINING LAND MIGHT ENJOY THROUGH ITS PROXIMITY TO THE
IMPROVEMENT.  THIS, OF COURSE, WOULD BE TRUE IF THE LINES OF THE PARK
HAD, IN THE BEGINNING, BEEN FIXED, BECAUSE PROPERTY LYING OUTSIDE THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE PARK, AND NOT INTENDED TO BE TAKEN, WOULD BE
DISSIMILAR FROM THAT LYING WITHIN IT, THE ONE GAINING VALUE BY
PROXIMITY AND THE OTHER GAINING NOTHING FROM THE FACT THAT IT WAS TO BE
TAKEN FROM ITS OWNER.  SUCH WAS THE RULING OF THE COURT IN KERR V.
SOUTH PARK COMMISSIONERS, 117 U.S. 379, 387.  FROM THE CITATION OF THAT
CASE IN THE SHOEMAKER OPINION, THE MAJORITY BELOW INFERRED THAT THE TWO
PRESENTED LIKE FACTS.  BUT, IN THE KERR CASE, THE LINES OF THE PARK HAD
BEEN DETERMINED, WHEREAS, IN THE SHOEMAKER CASE, THE ACT AUTHORIZED THE
APPROPRIATION OF A FIXED ACREAGE WITHIN A LARGER AREA.  CONSEQUENTLY
ANY LAND LYING WITHIN THAT AREA WAS LIKELY TO BE TAKEN.  IF A TRACT
HAPPENED NOT TO BE TAKEN, BECAUSE NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS FINALLY FIXED,
IT MIGHT SHOW AN INCREASE IN READILY REALIZABLE MARKET VALUE BY REASON
OF PROXIMITY TO THE IMPROVEMENT.  IN THE SHOEMAKER CASE, THE COURT
EXCLUDED ANY INCREMENT OF VALUE ARISING OUT OF THE FACT THAT CONGRESS
HAD AUTHORIZED THE LOCATION AND CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE PARK, FOR
THE VERY REASON THAT SHOEMAKER'S PROPERTY LAY IN THE AREA WITHIN WHICH
THE PARK WAS TO BE LAID OUT.  IF, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RESPONDENTS'
LANDS WERE, AT THE DATE OF THE AUTHORIZING ACT, CLEARLY WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF THE PROJECT, THE RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO NO
ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEIR LANDS WOULD BE TAKEN. 
IF THEY WERE WITHIN THE AREA WHERE THEY WERE LIKELY TO BE TAKEN FOR THE
PROJECT, BUT MIGHT NOT BE, THE OWNERS WERE NOT ENTITLED, IF THEY WERE
ULTIMATELY TAKEN, TO AN INCREMENT OF VALUE CALCULATED ON THE THEORY
THAT IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE VALUABLE BY
REASON OF THEIR PROXIMITY TO THE LAND TAKEN.  IN SO CHARGING THE JURY
THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT. 

THE RESPONDENTS ASSERT THAT A DIFFERENT RULE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED
IN RESPECT OF SEVERANCE DAMAGE, EVEN IF THE COURT'S RULINGS WERE
CORRECT AS TO THE VALUATION OF LAND TAKEN.  IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HAS
ALREADY BEEN SAID, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION. 

THE RESPONDENTS ALSO SAY THAT, WHATEVER THE CRITERION OF VALUE
ADOPTED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS, CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED THE LOCAL RULE
FOLLOWED IN THE STATE WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT SITS; AND THEY CLAIM THAT
THE CALIFORNIA RULE IS SETTLED THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE DATE OF
TAKING IS THE STANDARD OF VALUE, WITHOUT ELIMINATION OF ANY INCREMENT
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACTION OF THE TAKER.  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHAT IS
THE LOCAL LAW, FOR THE FEDERAL STATUTES  FN24  UPON WHICH RELIANCE IS
PLACED REQUIRE ONLY THAT, IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, A FEDERAL COURT
SHALL ADOPT THE FORMS AND METHODS OF PROCEDURE AFFORDED BY THE LAW OF
THE STATE IN WHICH THE COURT SITS.  THEY DO NOT, AND COULD NOT, AFFECT
QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT - SUCH AS THE MEASURE OF COMPENSATION -
GROUNDED UPON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN25 

THE RESPONDENTS URGE, FURTHER, THAT THE REVERSAL BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS IS JUSTIFIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISREGARD OF THE
PRACTICE OF THE CALIFORNIA COURTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTION OF
OPINION EVIDENCE AS TO MARKET VALUE, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS RIGHT AS TO THE
ELEMENTS WHICH MUST BE EXCLUDED.  THEY ALLEGE THAT, IN CALIFORNIA
COURTS, AN OPINION WITNESS MUST STATE HIS VALUATION AS AT THE DATE OF
TAKING AND THE OPPOSING PARTY IS AT LIBERTY, UPON CROSSEXAMINATION, TO
ELICIT THE FACTS ON WHICH THE WITNESS RELIED IN ARRIVING AT THAT
VALUE.  COUNSEL INSIST THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE
WITNESSES DISREGARD ANY INCREMENT OF VALUE DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT, IT COULD HAVE DEVELOPED, ON
CROSSEXAMINATION, HOW FAR THE INCLUSION OF ANY SUCH ELEMENT HAD
AFFECTED THE VALUE STATED.  WE THINK THAT PROBABLY UNDER CALIFORNIA
PROCEDURE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BETTER AND MORE APPROPRIATE WAY TO
DEVELOP THE BASIS OF THE WITNESSES' OPINIONS.  WE DO NOT FEEL, HOWEVER,
THAT IF THERE WAS A DISREGARD OF THE LOCAL PRACTICE IN THIS ASPECT THE
ERROR IS SUBSTANTIAL OR WORKED INJURY TO THE RESPONDENTS. 

2.  WE THINK THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THE DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT POWER TO ENTER A JUDGMENT AGAINST THREE OF THE RESPONDENTS TO
WHOM PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE JURY'S VERDICTS HAD BEEN MADE OUT OF THE
FUNDS DEPOSITED WITH THE COURT. 

EXAMINATION OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1931,  FN26  DISCLOSES THAT
THE DECLARATION OF TAKING IS TO BE FILED IN THE PROCEEDING FOR
CONDEMNATION AT ITS INCEPTION OR AT ANY LATER TIME.  WHEN THE
DECLARATION IS FILED THE AMOUNT OF ESTIMATED COMPENSATION IS TO BE
DEPOSITED WITH THE COURT, TO BE PAID AS THE COURT MAY ORDER "FOR OR ON
ACCOUNT" OF THE JUST COMPENSATION TO BE AWARDED THE OWNERS.  THUS THE
ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TITLE AND IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO
POSSESSION, AND THE DEPOSIT OF THE ESTIMATED COMPENSATION, OCCUR AS
STEPS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDING. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS TWO-FOLD.  FIRST, TO GIVE THE
GOVERNMENT IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND TO RELIEVE IT OF
THE BURDEN OF INTEREST ACCRUING ON THE SUM DEPOSITED FROM THE DATE OF
TAKING TO THE DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING. 
SECONDLY, TO GIVE THE FORMER OWNER, IF HIS TITLE IS CLEAR, IMMEDIATE
CASH COMPENSATION TO THE EXTENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ESTIMATE OF THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  THE ACT RECOGNIZES THAT THERE MAY BE AN ERROR
IN THE ESTIMATE, AND APPROPRIATELY PROVIDES THAT, IF THE JUDGMENT
ULTIMATELY AWARDED SHALL BE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED, THE
OWNER SHALL RECOVER THE EXCESS WITH INTEREST.  BUT THERE IS NO
CORRELATIVE PROVISION FOR REPAYMENT OF ANY EXCESS BY THE OWNER TO THE
UNITED STATES.  THE NECESSARY RESULT IS, SO THE RESPONDENTS SAY, THAT
ANY SUM PAID THEM IN EXCESS OF THE JURY'S AWARD IS THEIR PROPERTY,
WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT RECOVER. 

ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TAKEN TOGETHER REQUIRE A CONTRARY
CONCLUSION.  FN27  THE PAYMENT IS OF ESTIMATED COMPENSATION; IT IS
INTENDED AS A PROVISIONAL AND NOT A FINAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE OWNER; IT
IS A PAYMENT "ON ACCOUNT OF" COMPENSATION AND NOT A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF
THE AMOUNT DUE.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD DEFEAT THE POLICY OF THE
STATUTE AND WORK INJUSTICE; WOULD BE TO ENCOURAGE FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO
UNDERESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE RESULT THAT THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE SADDLED WITH INTEREST ON A LARGER SUM FROM DATE OF
TAKING TO FINAL AWARD, AND WOULD BE TO DENY THE OWNER THE IMMEDIATE USE
OF CASH APPROXIMATING THE VALUE OF HIS LAND. 

RESPONDENTS ASSERT THAT WHATEVER THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO REPAYMENT OF THE SURPLUS, THE DISTRICT COURT IN RENDERING
JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM DEPRIVED THEM OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  WE THINK THE CONTENTION IS UNSOUND. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS DEALING WITH MONEY DEPOSITED IN ITS CHANCERY
TO BE DISBURSED UNDER ITS DIRECTION IN CONNECTION WITH AN ACTION
PENDING BEFORE IT.  THE SITUATION IS LIKE THAT IN WHICH LITIGANTS
DEPOSIT MONEY AS SECURITY OR TO AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF LITIGATION. 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE COURT RELEASED THE FUND TO THE
RESPONDENTS, THE PARTIES WERE STILL BEFORE IT AND IT DID NOT LOSE
CONTROL OF THE FUND BUT RETAINED JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH ITS
RETENTION OR REPAYMENT AS JUSTICE MIGHT REQUIRE. 

DENIAL OF NOTICE AND HEARING IS ASSERTED.  BUT, WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT
THE COURT INCLUDED THE JUDGMENT OF RESTITUTION IN ITS GENERAL JUDGMENT
IN THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OR
HEARING, THE RESPONDENTS MADE MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AGAINST
THEM, AND THE COURT HEARD AND ACTED ON THE MOTIONS.  THE RESPONDENTS
HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO URGE ANY MERITORIOUS REASONS WHY JUDGMENT OF
RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED AGAINST THEM.  FN28  WE THINK THEY
WERE ENTITLED TO NO MORE. 

STATE COURTS HAVE PROCEEDED AS DID THE COURT BELOW, UNDER ANALOGOUS
STATUTES,  FN29  AND OUR DECISIONS JUSTIFY THE DISTRICT COURT'S
ACTION.  FN30 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  RIVERS AND HARBORS COMMITTEE DOCUMENT NO. 35, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 5. 

FN2  ACT AUG. 30, 1935, 49 STAT. 1028, 1038. 

FN3  ACT JUNE 22, 1936, 49 STAT. 1597, 1622; ACT AUG. 9, 1937, 50
STAT. 564, 597.  AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $9,000,000 WAS MADE BY
ACT OF MAY 9, 1938, 52 STAT. 291, 324. 

FN4  ACT AUG. 26, 1937, SEC. 2, 50 STAT. 844, 850. 

FN5  PURSUANT TO ACT OF FEB. 26, 1931, 46 STAT. 1421, 40 U.S.C. SECS.
258A-258E. 

FN6  THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT BELOW WERE IN ERROR IN CHARACTERIZING
THE RULING OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.  THEY SAID:  "TO PUT IT SIMPLY, THE
COURT RULED THAT NO EVIDENCE COULD COME IN AS TO SALES OF SIMILAR
PROPERTIES AFTER AUGUST 26, 1937, AND THAT QUALIFIED WITNESSES
TESTIFYING AS TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND ON THE DATE OF THE TAKING MUST
SUBTRACT FROM THIS VALUATION ANY INCREMENT IN VALUE AFTER AUGUST 26,
1937."  125 F.2D 78. 

FN7  125 F.2D 75. 

FN8  MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 312, 326. 

FN9  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299, 304;
UNITED STATES V. NEW RIVER COLLIERIES CO., 262 U.S. 341, 343. 

FN10  BAUMAN V. ROSS, 167 U.S. 548, 574. 

FN11  BOOM CO. V. PATTERSON, 98 U.S,. 403, 408; UNITED STATES V. NEW
RIVER COLLIERIES CO., SUPRA, 344. 

FN12  ORGEL, "VALUATION UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN" (P. 56):  "THE OWNER
MUST BE COMPENSATED FOR WHAT IS TAKEN FROM HIM, BUT THAT IS DONE WHEN
HE IS PAID ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR ALL AVAILABLE USES AND PURPOSES." 
UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 81. 

FN13  NEW YORK V. SAGE, 239 U.S. 57, 61. 

FN14  OLSON V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 246, 255. 

FN15  2 LEWIS, EMINENT DOMAIN, 3D ED., SEC. 705; KERR V. SOUTH PARK
COMMISSIONERS, 117 U.S. 379, 386; SHOEMAKER V. UNITED STATES, 147 U.S.
282, 304. 

FN16  SEE MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 312,
328-9, 337-8; HANSON LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 581, 589. 

FN17  BAUMAN V. ROSS, 167 U.S. 548, 574; BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
V. BOSTON, 217 U.S. 189, 195; OLSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 256. 

FN18  BOOM CO. V. PATTERSON, 98 U.S. 403, 408; UNITED STATES V.
CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 81. 

FN19  UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., SUPRA, P. 76. 

FN20  LEWIS, EMINENT DOMAIN, 3D ED. 686; NICHOLS, EMINENT DOMAIN, 2D
ED. SEC. 236; BAUMAN V. ROSS, SUPRA, 574; SHARP V. UNITED STATES, 191
U.S. 341, 351-2, 354; CF. UNITED STATES V. WELCH, 217 U.S. 333; UNITED
STATES V. GRIZZARD, 219 U.S. 180; CAMPBELL V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S.
368. 

FN21  BAUMAN V. ROSS, LOC.  CIT.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT IN
TAKINGS SUCH AS THAT HERE INVOLVED, BENEFITS TO THE REMAINDER OF THE
TRACT SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY WAY OF REDUCING THE COMPENSATION FOR WHAT
IS TAKEN.  ACT JULY 18, 1918, C. 155, SEC. 6, 40 STAT. 911, 33 U.S.C.
SEC. 595. 

FN22  SHARP V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; CAMPBELL V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 371-372. 

FN23  SHOEMAKER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 302. 

FN24  ACT OF AUG. 1, 1888, C. 728, 25 STAT. 357, SECS. 1 AND 2, 40
U.S.C. SECS. 257, 258; ACT OF APR. 24, 1888, C. 194, 25 STAT. 94, 33
U.S.C. SEC. 591. 

FN25  CHAPPELL V. UNITED STATES, 160 U.S. 499, 512-13; BROWN V.
UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 78, 86. 

FN26  SUPRA, NOTE 5. 

FN27  SEE GARROW V. UNITED STATES, 131 F.2D 724. 

FN28  IN THE JUDGMENT ORIGINALLY ENTERED, THE COURT ADDED INTEREST
FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE MONEYS TO THE RESPONDENTS.  AFTER
HEARING ON THE MOTIONS, THE COURT MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT TO IMPOSE
INTEREST ONLY FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDING. 

FN29  LEWIS, EMINENT DOMAIN, 3D ED., SEC. 843; CARISH V. COUNTY
HIGHWAY COMMITTEE, 216 WIS. 375, 257 N.W. 11. 

FN30  COMPARE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 781;
NORTHWESTERN FUEL CO. V. BROCK, 139 U.S. 216. 
..END :





















MARSHALL V. PLETZ, 317 U.S. 383 


NO. 93.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943.  - 127
F.2D 104, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, AN
ORDER OF A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISMISSING A CLAIM AS BARRED UNDER SEC.
13(A) BECAUSE NOT FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE INJURY, IS NOT
REVIEWABLE BY THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE THE QUESTION IS FACTUAL AND WHEN
THE ORDER IS SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH, IN TURN, ARE
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 388. 

2.  A TENDER OF COMPENSATION BY THE INSURANCE CARRIER TO AN INJURED
EMPLOYEE, KEPT GOOD TO WITHIN LESS THAN A YEAR OF THE FILING OF THE
EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM, IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A PAYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE EXCEPTION IN SEC. 13(A) OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, WHICH PROVIDES "THAT IF PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT AN AWARD ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INJURY
...  A CLAIM MAY BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF THE LAST
PAYMENT."  P. 388. 

3.  THE FURNISHING OF MEDICAL CARE TO AN INJURED EMPLOYEE UP TO A
TIME WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE PRESENTATION OF HIS CLAIM UNDER THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT IS NOT "PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION" WITHIN THE EXCEPTION IN SEC. 13(A) OF THE ACT.  P. 389. 

4.  THE TERMS "PAYMENT" AND "COMPENSATION" USED IN SEC. 13(A) OF THE
ACT REFER TO THE PERIODIC MONEY PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE EMPLOYER. 
P. 390. 

5.  A GROUND FOR SUPPORTING THE JUDGMENT BELOW MAY BE CONSIDERED BY
THIS COURT THOUGH RAISED HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME.  P. 390. 

MARSHALL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, U.S. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL. V. PLETZ. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 607, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH SET ASIDE THE ORDER MADE BY A DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT,  FN1  AS WELL AS A CONFLICT OF DECISIONS,  FN2  IMPELLED US TO
GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE RESPONDENT, A LONGSHOREMAN AND MARITIME WORKER EMPLOYED BY THE
PETITIONER MCCORMICK STEAMSHIP COMPANY IN LOADING A STEAMSHIP, WAS
INJURED NOVEMBER 12, 1935.  HE FILED A CLAIM BEFORE THE PETITIONER
MARSHALL, A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, APRIL 20, 1937.  THE PETITIONER
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, WHICH INSURED THE EMPLOYER AGAINST
LIABILITY ARISING UNDER THE ACT, APPEARED AT THE FIRST HEARING SET BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OBJECTED THAT THE CLAIM WAS UNTIMELY
FILED.  FN3  THE RESPONDENT ASSERTED THAT THE INSURER HAD, BY CONDUCT
AND NEGOTIATIONS WITH HIM, WAIVED THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE CLAIM ON
THE GROUND STATED.  AFTER HEARING WITNESSES THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MADE FINDINGS OF FACT ON WHICH HE BASED ULTIMATE FINDINGS THAT THE
CLAIM WAS NOT FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE INJURY AND THAT THE
RESPONDENT HAD NOT BEEN MISLED OR OVERREACHED BY THE EMPLOYER OR THE
INSURANCE CARRIER, AND DISMISSED THE CLAIM. 

THE RESPONDENT FILED HIS BILL IN THE DISTRICT COURT, PRAYING THAT THE
ORDER BE SET ASIDE AS "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  FN4  A MOTION TO
DISMISS WAS FILED AND, AFTER HEARING, THE COURT REMANDED THE CASE TO
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT UPON
ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND WITH LEAVE TO CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE
ALREADY TAKEN AND ANY OTHER FURTHER EVIDENCE WHICH MIGHT BE OFFERED AS
A BASIS FOR SUCH FINDINGS.  FURTHER EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN, THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER MADE DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND AGAIN CONCLUDED THAT
NEITHER THE EMPLOYER NOR THE INSURANCE CARRIER HAD MISLED THE
RESPONDENT AND THAT NEITHER THE CARRIER NOR THE EMPLOYER HAD WAIVED, OR
ESTOPPED THEMSELVES TO RELY UPON, THE LIMITATION SET BY THE STATUTE. 
THEREUPON THE RESPONDENT SUPPLEMENTED HIS BILL AND THE PETITIONERS
MOVED TO DISMISS.  THE COURT HEARD THE CASE UPON THE RECORD CERTIFIED
BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUT UPON THAT RECORD MADE ITS OWN
INDEPENDENT FINDINGS OF FACT.  ITS CONCLUSIONS, BASED ON ITS FINDINGS,
WERE THAT THE INSURANCE CARRIER WAS ESTOPPED TO ASSERT THAT THE CLAIM
WAS NOT TIMELY FILED AND HAD WAIVED ANY DEFENSE ON THAT GROUND.  THE
COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTED HIM
TO ENTER A FURTHER ORDER REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM AND
HOLDING IT TO BE IN ALL RESPECTS VALID, AND TO PROCEED TO ASCERTAIN THE
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION DUE THE RESPONDENT. 

THE INSURANCE CARRIER, THE EMPLOYER, AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THAT COURT AFFIRMED THE
DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  FN5 

ON THE DAY OF HIS INJURY RESPONDENT WAS SENT TO A HOSPITAL BY THE
EMPLOYER.  HE REMAINED THERE UNTIL ABOUT CHRISTMAS 1935.  A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INSURER CALLED ON HIM THERE, RECEIVED A STATEMENT
OF HIS INJURY, AND, WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE, TENDERED
HIM A CHECK FOR THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF COMPENSATION DUE HIM,
CALCULATED ACCORDING TO HIS WEEKLY EARNINGS AS NEARLY AS THE SAME COULD
BE ASCERTAINED FROM EMPLOYMENT RECORDS.  RESPONDENT REFUSED THE CHECK
ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT FOR AS MUCH AS HIS EARNINGS JUSTIFIED. 
IT WAS EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT ANY DEFICIENCY COULD BE ADJUSTED AS SOON
AS THE INSURER OR HE COULD ASCERTAIN THE FACTS MORE ACCURATELY.  AFTER
LEAVING THE HOSPITAL, RESPONDENT CALLED ON THE ATTORNEY OF THE INSURER,
WAS AGAIN TENDERED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION, AND AGAIN REFUSED IT ON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS INADEQUATE.  AT THAT TIME THE INSURER HAD SOME
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AND, AS A RESULT, ADVISED RESPONDENT THAT IT
WAS READY TO PAY HIM COMPENSATION AT A RATE SLIGHTLY IN EXCESS OF THAT
ORIGINALLY OFFERED. 

AFTER REFUSING COMPENSATION, THE RESPONDENT CONSULTED AN ATTORNEY WHO
ADVISED HIM THAT HE HAD A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER FOR
DAMAGES, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPENSATION ACT.  HE
SUBSEQUENTLY TOLD THE INSURER'S ATTORNEY THAT HE HAD BEEN SO ADVISED. 

THE RESPONDENT'S DISABILITY NECESSITATED A RETURN TO THE HOSPITAL IN
FEBRUARY 1936.  WHILE THERE, HIS PRESENT COUNSEL SAW HIM, ADVISED HIM
THAT HE HAD NO VALID CLAIMS AGAINST ANY THIRD PARTY OR HIS EMPLOYER,
AND THAT HE OUGHT TO TAKE COMPENSATION.  ON LEAVING THE HOSPITAL,
RESPONDENT CONTINUED TO RECEIVE MEDICAL AID WHICH WAS FURNISHED BY THE
INSURER, AS WAS ALL MEDICAL CARE THERETOFORE. 

RESPONDENT REPEATEDLY CALLED UPON THE INSURER'S ATTORNEY, WHO
CONSISTENTLY ADVISED HIM THAT HE OUGHT TO ACCEPT COMPENSATION.  THERE
IS DISPUTE AS TO WHO BROACHED THE SUBJECT OF A LUMP SUM SETTLEMENT IN
THESE CONVERSATIONS.  RESPONDENT SAYS THE ATTORNEY DID.  THE LATTER
INSISTS THAT THE RESPONDENT DEMANDED SUCH A SETTLEMENT; THAT HE
EXPLAINED THAT NO SUCH SETTLEMENT COULD BE MADE UNDER THE STATUTE UNTIL
ALL DISABILITY HAD TERMINATED AND THE CONSENT OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER HAD BEEN SECURED.  IT SEEMS TO BE AGREED THAT THE
RESPONDENT REPEATEDLY SAID HE WANTED A LUMP SUM SETTLEMENT WITH MEDICAL
CARE FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE, AND IT APPEARS THAT THE ATTORNEY
INSISTED THAT NO SUCH SETTLEMENT COULD BE MADE. 

SOMETIME IN THE SUMMER OF 1936 THE RESPONDENT AGAIN DISCUSSED HIS
CASE WITH HIS PRESENT COUNSEL AND WAS AGAIN ADVISED THAT HE SHOULD
ACCEPT COMPENSATION.  THERE IS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THE RESPONDENT
CALLED ON THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WITHIN A YEAR OF HIS INJURY, WAS
INFORMED THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TENDERED HIM WAS NOT THE
PROPER AMOUNT THIS COULD EASILY BE ADJUSTED BY REFERENCE TO THE ROLLS
AT THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, AND THAT HE THEN TOLD THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
A LAWYER HAD ADVISED HIM HE COULD DISREGARD THE COMPENSATION ACT AND
BRING AN ACTION TO RECOVER FOR HIS INJURIES.  RESPONDENT INSISTED,
HOWEVER, THAT THIS CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE AFTER THE YEAR HAD EXPIRED. 

THE EMPLOYER, OR THE INSURER, PROMPTLY NOTIFIED THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF THE INJURY, THAT MEDICAL TREATMENT WAS BEING FURNISHED
AND COMPENSATION WOULD BE PAID.  EARLY IN DECEMBER OF 1935 THE INSURER
WROTE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THAT RESPONDENT HAD REFUSED TO ACCEPT
COMPENSATION.  IN ANSWER TO AN INQUIRY OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE
INSURER REPEATED THIS INFORMATION IN A LETTER DATED JANUARY 10, 1936. 
THERE WAS NO FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE IN THE MATTER UNTIL NOVEMBER 5,
1936, WHEN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INQUIRED REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE
CASE AND WAS ADVISED BY THE INSURER'S ATTORNEY THAT THE RESPONDENT
STILL CLAIMED A DISABILITY, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH THE ATTORNEY
DOUBTED, BUT THAT RESPONDENT WAS RECEIVING MEDICAL CARE, AND SEEMED
MORE INTERESTED IN A LUMP SUM SETTLEMENT AND PERPETUAL MEDICAL CARE
THAN IN RECEIVING COMPENSATION. 

THERE SEEMS TO BE NO DOUBT THAT RESPONDENT AND INSURER'S ATTORNEY
TALKED REPEATEDLY ABOUT THE RESPONDENT'S PHYSICAL CONDITION AND THE
DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE.  THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE LITTLE DOUBT ON THE
EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS REPEATEDLY TENDERED COMPENSATION AND REFUSED IT. 

THESE ARE THE FACTS IN BROAD OUTLINE.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO RECITE
THE EVIDENCE IN DETAIL.  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID INDICATES THAT ISSUES OF
FACT WERE PRESENTED AND THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE FINDINGS OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. 

FIRST.  THE FINDINGS OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SUPPORTED HIS ORDER. 
THE DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER WITHOUT RETRYING
THE ISSUES OF FACT AND MAKING NEW AND INDEPENDENT FINDINGS BASED UPON
ITS OWN APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE.  BUT, UNDER THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT
OF AUTHORITY IN THIS AND IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, THE STATUTE
GRANTED NO POWER TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO TRY THESE ISSUES DE NOVO. 
FN6 

SECOND.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENT, DID NOT RELY UPON THAT COURT'S RESOLUTION OF THE
ISSUES OF FACT RAISED BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.  IT BASED ITS
DECISION ON A MATTER OF LAW.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNCONTRADICTED FACT
THAT THE INSURANCE CARRIER HAD TENDERED COMPENSATION AND HAD KEPT ITS
TENDER GOOD DOWN TO WITHIN LESS THAN A YEAR BEFORE THE FILING OF
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM, THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT A TENDER
OF COMPENSATION WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION WITHOUT
AN AWARD WITHIN THE INTENT AND MEANING OF SEC. 13(A) OF THE STATUTE. 
FN7  IT FOUND SUPPORT FOR ITS VIEW IN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14 OF THE
ACT,  FN8  WHICH REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER OR INSURER WHO DENIES LIABILITY TO
FILE WITH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER A NOTICE OF CONTROVERSY SO AS TO
BRING ON THE QUESTION OF LIABILITY FOR DECISION. 

WE THINK THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT INADMISSIBLE.  TENDER IS NOT
PAYMENT.  THE INSURER AT NO TIME DENIED LIABILITY BUT CONTINUOUSLY
ADMITTED IT AND EXPRESSED ITS DESIRE TO PAY COMPENSATION.  LAYING
ASIDE, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY DID, QUESTIONS OF
WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL, THERE WAS NOTHING TO PREVENT THE RESPONDENT'S
FILING HIS CLAIM AS THE ACT CONTEMPLATES  FN9  IF THE INSURER NEGLECTED
TO PAY COMPENSATION.  IF HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT PAYMENT AND REFRAINED
FROM FILING A CLAIM, WHETHER BECAUSE HE BELIEVED HE HAD A CAUSE OF
ACTION AGAINST A THIRD PARTY OR AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER, OR FOR ANY OTHER
REASON, HE WAS NONE THE LESS BOUND TO PRESENT HIS CLAIM WITHIN THE TIME
FIXED BY THE STATUTE.  THE FACT THAT THE INSURER WAS WILLING TO PAY
COMPENSATION, WHICH HE REFUSED, DOES NOT BRING HIM WITHIN THE EXCEPTION
STATED IN SEC. 13(A). 

THIRD.  AT THE ARGUMENT AT OUR BAR IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE JUDGMENT
BELOW MIGHT BE SUSTAINED ON ANOTHER GROUND, NAMELY, THAT THE FURNISHING
OF MEDICAL CARE TO THE RESPONDENT UP TO A TIME WELL WITHIN A YEAR OF
THE PRESENTATION OF HIS CLAIM WAS PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 13(A).  ON THIS THEORY IT WAS URGED THAT THE ONE YEAR
PERIOD WITHIN WHICH A CLAIM MUST BE FILED WOULD RUN FROM THE DATE OF
THE LAST RENDITION OF MEDICAL CARE. 

AT THE INSISTENCE OF RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TOOK AN OPPOSITE VIEW.  WHILE HE DENIED COMPENSATION IN THE FORM OF
MONEY PAYMENTS TO THE RESPONDENT, HE ORDERED THE CONTINUANCE OF MEDICAL
CARE.  THIS WAS UPON THE THEORY THAT THE ACT TREATS THE EMPLOYER'S
OBLIGATIONS TO PAY COMPENSATION AND TO RENDER MEDICAL AID AS
INDEPENDENT. 

ALTHOUGH THE POINT IS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS COURT, IF WE
FIND IT MERITORIOUS WE MAY CONSIDER IT AS SUPPORTING THE JUDGMENT
BELOW.  FN10  WE HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT THE FURNISHING OF MEDICAL AID IS
NOT THE "PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION" MENTIONED IN SEC. 13(A).  SECTION 2
OF THE ACT FN11  IS DEVOTED TO DEFINITIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS:  "(12)
'COMPENSATION' MEANS THE MONEY ALLOWANCE PAYABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE OR TO
HIS DEPENDENTS AS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS CHAPTER, AND INCLUDES FUNERAL
BENEFITS PROVIDED THEREIN." 

FIRST SEVEN DAYS OF THE DISABILITY, EXCEPT THE BENEFITS PROVIDED FOR IN
SEC. 7 OF THIS CHAPTER."  THE BENEFITS COVERED IN SEC. 7 ARE THE
MEDICAL SERVICES WHICH THE EMPLOYER IS BOUND TO FURNISH, BUT THAT
TO MEDICAL TREATMENT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAY, BY ORDER, "SUSPEND
THE PAYMENT OF FURTHER COMPENSATION DURING SUCH TIME AS SUCH REFUSAL
CONTINUES, AND NO COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID AT ANY TIME DURING THE
PERIOD OF SUCH SUSPENSION, UNLESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED THE
REFUSAL."  HERE COMPENSATION IS CONTRASTED WITH MEDICAL AID. 

DEALS SOLELY WITH MONEY COMPENSATION. 

CHAPTER, THE AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE OF THE INJURED EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF
THE INJURY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE BASIS UPON WHICH TO COMPUTE
COMPENSATION  ...  " 

OF ITS PROVISIONS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PERIODIC MONEY PAYMENTS TO BE
MADE TO THE INJURED EMPLOYE AND MAKE NO REFERENCE TO MEDICAL CARE. 

UNDER SECS. 7, 8, AND 9."  IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT AS 7 IS THE SECTION
DEALING WITH MEDICAL CARE, CONGRESS MEANT TO INCLUDE SUCH CARE WITHIN
THE TERM "COMPENSATION."  IN THE NORMAL CASE, HOWEVER, THE INSURER
DEFRAYS THE EXPENSE OF MEDICAL CARE BUT DOES NOT PAY THE INJURED
EMPLOYE ANYTHING ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CARE.  ONLY IF THE EMPLOYER AND THE
INSURER OMIT TO FURNISH SUCH CARE CAN THE EMPLOYE PROCURE IT FOR
HIMSELF AND THEN OBTAIN FROM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AN AWARD TO
REIMBURSE HIM FOR WHAT HE HAS SPENT.    IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WE ARE PERSUADED THAT THE TERMS "PAYMENT" AND
"COMPENSATION" USED IN SEC. 13(A) REFER TO THE PERIODIC MONEY PAYMENTS
TO BE MADE TO THE EMPLOYE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  MARCH 4, 1927, C. 509, 44 STAT. 1424, 33 U.S.C. C. 18. 

FN2  FULTON V. HOAGE, 77 F.2D 110. 

FN3  SEC. 13 OF THE ACT (33 U.S.C. 913) PROVIDES:  (A) "THE RIGHT TO
COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE BARRED UNLESS A
CLAIM THEREFOR IS FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE INJURY,  ...  EXCEPT
THAT IF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT AN AWARD ON
ACCOUNT OF SUCH INJURY  ...  A CLAIM MAY BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER
THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT"; AND (B) THAT THE BAR SHALL NOT BE
EFFECTIVE UNLESS OBJECTION TO THE FAILURE TO FILE IS MADE "AT THE FIRST
HEARING OF SUCH CLAIM IN WHICH ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST ARE GIVEN
REASONABLE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD."  THERE ARE OTHER
EXCEPTIONS IN PARAGRAPHS (C) AND (D) WHICH ARE HERE IRRELEVANT. 

FN4  AS PERMITTED BY SEC. 21(B) OF THE ACT, 33 U.S.C. 921(B). 

FN5  127 F.2D 104. 

FN6  CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 46, 66-72; SOUTH CHICAGO COAL &
DOCK CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251, 257.  THE CASES IN THE LOWER COURTS
ARE COLLECTED IN 33 U.S.C.A. SEC. 921, NOTE 3, PP. 216-218. 

FN7  SUPRA, NOTE 3. 

FN8  33 U.S.C. SEC. 914. 

FN9  33 U.S.C. 914(H), 919(A)(C). 

FN10  LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, 536, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

FN11  THE SECTIONS REFERRED TO IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION ARE FOUND
IN 33 U.S.C. UNDER THE SAME SECTION NUMBERS AS ARE USED IN THE ORIGINAL
ACT, EXCEPT THAT EACH IS PREFIXED WITH THE FIGURE "9"; E.G., SECTION 2
APPEARS IN THE CODE AS SECTION 902.  IN THE INTEREST OF BREVITY WE
SHALL REFER TO THEM AS THEY APPEAR IN THE ACT AS IT IS PRINTED AT 44
STAT. 1424. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR. 

IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THE ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION "SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED LIBERALLY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH  ...
ENACTED AND, IF POSSIBLE, SO AS TO AVOID INCONGRUOUS OR HARSH
RESULTS."  BALTIMORE & PHILADELPHIA STEAMBOAT CO. V. NORTON, 284 U.S.
408, 414.  THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE ACT BY THE COURT BELOW, WHICH I
THINK WAS CORRECT, AVOIDS SUCH A RESULT.  THE RESULT OF THE
CONSTRUCTION HERE IS TO DEPRIVE AN INJURED PERSON OF THE COMPENSATION
WHICH THE LAW INTENDED HE SHOULD HAVE AND WHICH THE INSURANCE COMPANY,
DEFENDANT, HAS ADMITTED IT OWES.  THE ONLY DEFENSE IS A ONE-YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND THAT DEFENSE WAS NOT SET UP UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SQUARE WITH THE ACT'S PURPOSES.  WHAT ARE THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES? 

THESE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED:  NOVEMBER 12, 1935, PLETZ WAS INJURED
WHILE WORKING FOR A STEAMSHIP COMPANY WHICH CARRIED LIABILITY INSURANCE
WITH THE FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO., ONE OF THE PETITIONERS HERE. 
NOVEMBER 26, 1935, THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S ATTORNEYS REPORTED TO THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ADMINISTERING THE ACT THAT PAYMENTS TO PLETZ HAD
BEGUN AND WOULD CONTINUE UNTIL NOTICE WAS GIVEN THE COMMISSIONER.  THE
INSURANCE COMPANY DID TENDER A CHECK TO PLETZ WHILE HE WAS IN THE
HOSPITAL WHICH HE DECLINED BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT INSUFFICIENT, AND ON
DECEMBER 4, 1935, THE INSURANCE COMPANY ADVISED THE COMMISSIONER OF THE
REFUSAL.  NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN PLETZ AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY
CONTINUED THROUGH REPEATED CONVERSATIONS FOR A YEAR AND FIVE MONTHS. 
THE COMPANY LAWYER TESTIFIED THAT "I MADE THE DEFINITE OFFER TO HIM
VERY EARLY IN THE CASE THAT I WOULD PAY HIM HIS COMPENSATION ANY TIME
HE WANTED TO TAKE IT  ...  AND I TOLD HIM THAT I MADE THAT OFFER AND
THAT HE COULD TAKE IT ANY TIME HE WANTED TO.  ...  "  IT IS APPARENT
THAT THE CONTROVERSY THROUGHOUT WAS NOT OVER THE EXISTENCE OF A JUST
CLAIM, BUT OVER ITS SIZE. 

NOVEMBER 5, 1936, WHILE NEGOTIATIONS WERE STILL IN PROGRESS, AND ONLY
SEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE YEAR, THE COMMISSIONER WROTE
THE ATTORNEY ASKING ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE CLAIM.  THE ATTORNEY
RESPONDED SIX DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE IS SAID TO HAVE OPERATED.  HE
GAVE NO INFORMATION THAT PLETZ HAD NEVER ACCEPTED COMPENSATION, AND
REPORTED ONLY THAT HE HAD PUT PLETZ UNDER A DOCTOR'S CARE AND THAT NO
REPORT HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DOCTOR.  IF THE COMMISSIONER HAD
THOUGHT THAT THE CLAIM WAS CONTROVERTED, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGATED
UNDER SEC. 14(H) OF THE ACT TO HOLD HEARINGS AND TAKE ACTION "UPON HIS
OWN INITIATIVE" TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  UNDER THAT
SUSPENDED.  INSTEAD, THE INSURANCE COMPANY ATTORNEY, ACCORDING TO HIS
OWN TESTIMONY, CONTINUED TO NEGOTIATE WITH PLETZ UNTIL HIS CLAIM WAS
FINALLY FILED ON APRIL 19, 1936.  THE CLAIM ITSELF WAS FILLED OUT IN
THE COMPANY LAWYER'S OFFICE WITHOUT A HINT OF LIMITATIONS.  THEN, FOR
THE FIRST TIME, THE COMPANY "FILED ITS CONTROVERSIAL" WITH THE
COMMISSIONER AND PLEADED IN IT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

THE COMMISSIONER FOUND IN SUBSTANCE THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO OVER
REACHING OF PLETZ BY THE COMPANY AND THAT THEREFORE THE COMPANY WAS NOT
ESTOPPED FROM SETTING UP THE STATUTE.  ACCEPTING HIS FINDING OF FACTS,
I THINK THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS
CONCLUSION OF THE LAW CONCERNING ESTOPPEL AND LIMITATIONS, AND THAT THE
CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF NEGOTIATION AND COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE
COMPANY, PLETZ, AND THE COMMISSIONER, BAR THE DEFENSE MADE HERE. 

IN SCHROEDER V. YOUNG, 161 U.S. 334, 344, THIS COURT SAID: 

"DEFENDANT RELIES MAINLY UPON THE FACT THAT THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION WAS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE BEFORE THIS BILL WAS FILED, BUT THE
COURT BELOW FOUND IN THIS CONNECTION THAT BEFORE THE TIME HAD EXPIRED
TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY, THE PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD BY THE DEFENDANT
STEPHENS THAT HE WOULD NOT BE PUSHED, THAT THE STATUTORY TIME TO REDEEM
WOULD NOT BE INSISTED UPON, AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BELIEVED AND RELIED
UPON SUCH ASSURANCE.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURTS HAVE HELD
WITH GREAT UNANIMITY THAT THE PURCHASER IS ESTOPPED TO INSIST UPON THE
STATUTORY PERIOD, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ASSURANCES WERE NOT IN WRITING
AND WERE MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, UPON THE GROUND THAT THE DEBTOR
WAS LULLED INTO A FALSE SECURITY." 

HERE, THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS SWORN, AND HIS
EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTED, THAT HE PROMISED TO PAY PLETZ "HIS COMPENSATION
ANY TIME HE WANTED TO TAKE IT," A STATEMENT WHICH WAS NEVER WITHDRAWN,
AND WHICH IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS FOR A LUMP SUM
SETTLEMENT, EVEN AFTER THE STATUTORY PERIOD HAD EXPIRED, WAS MORE THAN
AN EQUIVALENT OF AN EXPRESS PROMISE NOT TO PLEAD THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  IT IS PERHAPS AN UNDERSTATEMENT TO SAY THAT THE COMPANY
ATTORNEY'S CONDUCT WAS A TACIT ENCOURAGEMENT TO PLETZ TO ACT ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE COMPANY WOULD NEVER DISPUTE ITS CONSTANTLY ADMITTED
LIABILITY.  SWAIN V. SEAMENS, 9 WALL.  254, 274.  THE STATEMENT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL RULE OF LAW
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY:  "WHERE AN INSURANCE COMPANY LEADS A PARTY TO
DELAY THE BRINGING OF SUIT, OR TO DISMISS A SUIT ALREADY PENDING, BY
HOLDING OUT HOPES OF ADJUSTMENT, OR BY MAKING PROMISES TO PAY, IT IS
ESTOPPED FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SUCH DELAY OR DISMISSAL, BY PLEADING
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS."  RAILWAY CONDUCTORS' BENEFIT ASSN. V.
LOOMIS, 142 ILL. 560, 572, 32 N.E. 424, 427; CF. ENNIS V. PULLMAN
PALACE CAR CO., 165 ILL. 161, 178, 46 N.E. 439; O'HARA V. MURPHY, 196
ILL. 599, 63 N.E. 1081.  SEE ALSO HOWARD V. WEST JERSEY & SEASHORE R.
CO., 102 N.J. EQ. 517, 522, 147 A. 755; BAKER-MATTHEWS MANUFACTURING
CO. V. GRAYLING LUMBER CO., 134 ARK. 351, 354, 355, 203 S.W. 1021;
MCLEARN V. HILL, 276 MASS. 519, 177 N.E. 617.  THESE CASES ILLUSTRATE
THE PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT "THAT WHERE ONE PARTY HAS BY HIS
REPRESENTATIONS OR HIS CONDUCT INDUCED THE OTHER PARTY TO A TRANSACTION
TO GIVE HIM AN ADVANTAGE WHICH IT WOULD BE AGAINST EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE FOR HIM TO ASSERT, HE WOULD NOT IN A COURT OF JUSTICE BE
PERMITTED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THAT ADVANTAGE."  INSURANCE COMPANY V.
WILKINSON, 13 WALL.  222, 233. 
..END :


















CLYDE-MALLORY LINES V. EGLANTINE, 317 U.S. 395 


NO. 265.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 20, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943.  - 127
F.2D 569, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE A LIBEL IN REM IS BROUGHT AGAINST A VESSEL, IN PRIVATE
OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION, TO RECOVER UPON A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING OUT
OF A COLLISION WHICH OCCURRED WHEN THE VESSEL WAS OWNED AND OPERATED BY
THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE GOVERNMENT APPEARS IN THE SUIT AND ASSUMES
LIABILITY UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, THE TWO-YEAR
LIMITATION PERIOD OF SEC. 5 OF THAT ACT IS APPLICABLE.  P. 397. 

2.  SECTION 18 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920, WHICH INCORPORATES
SEC. 9 OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, PROVIDES THAT GOVERNMENT MERCHANT
VESSELS SHOULD BE "SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND LIABILITIES
GOVERNING MERCHANT VESSELS," LEAVING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO BRING
SUITS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF LIENS TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
GENERAL RULES OF LACHES UNDER ADMIRALTY PRACTICE.  IN A CASE SUCH AS
THE ONE HERE PRESENTED, THE TWO-YEAR BAR OF SEC. 5 OF THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT IS NOT AFFECTED BY SEC. 9 OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916 AS
REENACTED, EVEN THOUGH THE REENACTMENT WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT.  P. 398. 

CLYDE-MALLORY LINES V. THE EGLANTINE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 609, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE IN FAVOR
OF THE PETITIONER, 38 F.SUPP.  658, IN A SUIT BEGUN BY A LIBEL IN REM
AGAINST A VESSEL AND IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES INTERVENED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE LIBEL IN REM BROUGHT BY THE
PETITIONER AGAINST THE STEAMSHIP EGLANTINE IS BARRED BY SEC. 5 OF THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, 41 STAT. 525, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "SUITS
HEREUNDER SHALL BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION
ARISES." 

ON DECEMBER 21, 1932, WHILE THE EGLANTINE WAS BEING OPERATED BY THE
UNITED STATES AS A MERCHANT VESSEL, IT COLLIDED WITH THE STEAMSHIP
BRAZOS, OWNED BY THE PETITIONER.  FOUR AND ONE-HALF YEARS LATER, AFTER
THE GOVERNMENT HAD SOLD THE EGLANTINE TO A PRIVATE OPERATOR, THE
PETITIONER FILED THIS LIBEL IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL AND THE MARSHAL
TOOK IT FROM THE PRIVATE OWNER UNDER AN ADMIRALTY WARRANT OF
ATTACHMENT.  ADMIRALTY IMPOSES A LIEN UPON PRIVATELY OWNED VESSELS FOR
DAMAGES INFLICTED BY NEGLIGENT OPERATION AND PROVIDES FOR ENFORCEMENT
BY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE VESSELS THEMSELVES.  FN1  IN SEC. 9 OF THE
SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, 39 STAT. 728, CONGRESS PERMITTED ENFORCEMENT OF
SUCH LIENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT MERCHANT VESSELS BY PROVIDING THAT THEY
SHOULD BE "SUBJECT TO ALL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND LIABILITIES GOVERNING
MERCHANT VESSELS" GENERALLY.  THE SHIPPING ACT CONTAINED NO LIMITATION
OF TIME WITHIN WHICH SUCH ACTIONS MUST BE COMMENCED, BUT LEFT THAT
QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL RULES OF LACHES
UNDER ADMIRALTY PRACTICE.  FN2  THIS CLAUSE WAS CARRIED FORWARD AND
BECAME A PART OF SEC. 18 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920.  46 U.S.C.
SEC. 808. 

IT IS THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THIS ACTION IN REM WAS
AUTHORIZED AND CONTROLLED BY SEC. 9 AS AMENDED.  THE GOVERNMENT
CONTENDS THAT THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT WITHDREW THE PREVIOUS 1916
CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO IMPOSE AND ENFORCE LIENS AGAINST VESSELS FOR
INJURIES INFLICTED BY GOVERNMENT OPERATION WHETHER THE VESSELS ARE IN
ITS POSSESSION OR THAT OF ITS PURCHASERS.  IN ADDITION, THE GOVERNMENT
ASSERTS THAT THIS PROCEEDING IS ONE UNDER AND CONTROLLED BY SEC. 5 OF
THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT AND THEREFORE BARRED BECAUSE BROUGHT MORE
THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE COLLISION.  THE DISTRICT COURT RULED AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT ON BOTH THESE DEFENSES, UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE BASCOBAL,
295 F. 299.  BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECLINED TO FOLLOW ITS
FORMER RULING IN THE BASCOBAL, HELD SEC. 5 APPLICABLE, AND ACCORDINGLY
REVERSED, 127 F.2D 569.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS
RAISED ARE IMPORTANT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT,
AND ARE IN SOME DOUBT.  CF. THE CADDO, 285 F. 643.  WE THINK THE
LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 5 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT ARE CONTROLLING,
AND FOR THAT REASON WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE OTHER
DEFENSE SET UP BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

IN THE LAKE MONROE, 250 U.S. 246, THIS COURT DECIDED THAT SEC. 9 OF
THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916 DID MAKE GOVERNMENT MERCHANT VESSELS SUBJECT
TO SEIZURE UNDER IN REM PROCEEDINGS.  THIS DECISION HOWEVER PROMPTED
CONGRESS SHORTLY THEREAFTER TO REVIEW AND RECONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE
BROAD POWERS SEC. 9 HAD GRANTED.  FN3  THE RESULT OF THIS REVIEW WAS
PASSAGE OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT IN WHICH CONGRESS EXPRESSLY
WITHDREW ITS PREVIOUS CONSENT TO HAVE GOVERNMENT VESSELS SUBJECT TO THE
LAWS APPLICABLE TO MERCHANT SHIPS GENERALLY.  SECTION 1 PROVIDED FOR
THEIR IMMUNITY FROM ARREST OR SEIZURE BY JUDICIAL PROCESS IN THE UNITED
STATES OR ITS POSSESSIONS; SEC. 2 AUTHORIZED LIBELS IN PERSONAM
DIRECTLY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR INJURIES INFLICTED BY ITS
GOVERNMENTAL SHIP OPERATIONS.  BUT CONGRESS WENT BEYOND THE CASES OF
LIABILITY FOR SHIPS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES AND MADE
CAREFUL PROVISION IN SEC. 4 FOR A MANNER OF DETERMINING GOVERNMENTAL
LIABILITY FOR MARITIME TORTS OCCURRING DURING THE PERIOD OF GOVERNMENT
OWNERSHIP SHOULD GOVERNMENT VESSELS BE TRANSFERRED TO PRIVATE OWNERS
BEFORE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  THAT SECTION GAVE THE GOVERNMENT THE
PRIVILEGE, OF WHICH IT AVAILED ITSELF IN THIS CASE, TO APPEAR AS A
PARTY DEFENDANT AND ASSUME LIABILITY, AND EXPRESSLY PRESCRIBED THAT
"THEREAFTER SUCH CAUSE SHALL PROCEED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  IMMEDIATELY SUBSEQUENT IS
THE "PROVISION OF THIS ACT" HERE IN QUESTION:  "SUITS HEREUNDER SHALL
BE BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS."  THIS IS AS SURELY A PROVISION OF THE ACT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH THE CASES MUST BE GOVERNED AS IS ANY OTHER
CLAUSE.  THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT THUS PRESCRIBES A COMPREHENSIVE
PROCEDURAL PATTERN DESIGNED FULLY TO CONTROL THE METHOD BY AND THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH OBLIGATIONS FOR DAMAGES INFLICTED BY GOVERNMENT OPERATION
OF SHIPS MUST BE INSTITUTED AND DETERMINED. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT UNDER THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT SUITS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR MARITIME TORTS COMMITTED BY ITS VESSELS,
WHEN BROUGHT WHILE THE VESSELS ARE STILL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE
GOVERNMENT, ARE SUBJECT TO THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PROVISION.  SECTION
4 PROVIDES SO CLOSELY RELATED A METHOD OF PERMITTING THE GOVERNMENT TO
MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS ON A MARITIME TORT WITH ECONOMY AND DISPATCH THAT
WE SHOULD BE SLOW TO CONSTRUE ANY AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTE TO ESTABLISH
A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR IT.  THE CONCLUSION IS
INESCAPABLE THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUITS AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT AS OWNER OF THE VESSEL AND AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AS THE
PARTY IN INTEREST WHEN IT VOLUNTARILY APPEARS TO DEFEND ITS LATELY SOLD
PROPERTY AGAINST TORT LIABILITY. 

AS HAS BEEN NOTED, SEC. 9 OF THE 1916 ACT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE
1920 MERCHANT MARINE ACT, PASSED THREE MONTHS AFTER THE SUITS IN
ADMIRALTY ACT.  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, ALTHOUGH NOT VIGOROUSLY PRESSED,
THAT EVEN IF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT WAS INTENDED TO BAR ACTIONS
SUCH AS THIS, IT WAS MODIFIED BY RE-ENACTMENT OF SEC. 9.  CONGRESS DID
NOT, HOWEVER, IN PASSING THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, AS IT DID IN PASSAGE
OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, HAVE ITS ATTENTION FOCUSED ON THIS
PARTICULAR PROBLEM.  RUNNING THROUGH THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT THERE
APPEARS REPEATED MANIFESTATION OF A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO EXPEDITE
TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS INTO PRIVATE HANDS,  FN4  A PURPOSE
CLEARLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT WHICH THROUGH ITS
LIMITATION PROVISIONS CUT OFF LINGERING LIENS.  THERE IS NOTHING
WHATEVER IN THE 1920 MERCHANT MARINE ACT, NOR, SO FAR AS HAS BEEN
POINTED OUT TO US, ANYTHING IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, INDICATING THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO REPEAL, ALTER, OR AMEND THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT
IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  THE 1920 RE-ENACTMENT IS NOT MEANINGLESS; IT
RETAINS IN THE LAW THAT PORTION OF THE 1916 STATUTE UNAFFECTED BY THE
SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT.  IT REMAINS AN EXPRESSION OF THE BASIC POLICY
OF WAIVER OF IMMUNITY BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR MARITIME TORTS OF THE SORT
WITHIN ITS SCOPE. 

WE HOLD THAT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT VOLUNTARILY APPEARS IN AN ACTION
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 4 OF THE SUITS IN ADMIRALTY ACT, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE
GOVERNED BY SEC. 5 WITH ITS LIMITATION PROVISIONS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE JOHN G. STEVENS, 170 U.S. 113, 120. 

FN2  THE KEY CITY, 14 WALL.  653. 

FN3  BLAMBERG BROS. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 452, 458. 

FN4  41 STAT. 988, SECS. 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 19
..END :










KIESELBACH V. COMMISSIONER, 317 U.S. 399 


NO. 184.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943.  - 127
F.2D 359, AFFIRMED. 


TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK WAS TAKEN BY THE CITY,
TOGETHER WITH THE POSSESSION AND THE RIGHT TO ALL AFTER-ACCRUING RENTS,
BY A PROCEEDING IN CONDEMNATION UNDER SEC. 976 OF THE GREATER NEW YORK
CHARTER.  SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, THE FINAL DECREE AWARDED THE FORMER
OWNERS, AS JUST COMPENSATION, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DAY OF
TAKING, WITH INTEREST THEREON FROM THAT DATE TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. 
HELD THAT THE PART OF THE AWARD DESIGNATED AS "INTEREST," ALTHOUGH IT
WAS PART OF THE "JUST COMPENSATION" THAT MUST BE PAID THE OWNER TO
JUSTIFY THE TAKING, WAS NOT A PART OF THE SALE PRICE OF A CAPITAL ASSET
UNDER SEC. 117(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 AND WAS TAXABLE AS INCOME
UNDER SEC. 22 OF THAT ACT.  P. 403. 

KIESELBACH ET UX. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNALREVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 612, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 44 B.T.A. 279, OVERRULING A
DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED LIMITED TO A SINGLE NARROW POINT
IN THE LAW OF INCOME TAXES.  THE SUM IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED AS PART
OF THE COMPENSATION IN A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE CITY
OF NEW YORK.  PAYMENT WAS MADE SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE ACTUAL TAKING. 
THE ISSUE CONCERNS THE NATURE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PAYMENT WHICH IS
CALLED "INTEREST" BY THE GREATER NEW YORK CHARTER AND WHICH THE OWNER
MUST RECEIVE, IN ADDITION TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FIXED AS OF THE
TIME OF THE TAKING, TO PRODUCE, WHEN ACTUALLY PAID, THE FULL EQUIVALENT
OF THAT VALUE.  WAS THIS PORTION A CAPITAL GAIN OR ORDINARY INCOME? 

THE WRIT WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF CONFLICT UPON THE POINT BETWEEN THIS
CASE BELOW, COMMISSIONER V. KIESELBACH, 127 F.2D 359(C.C.A. 3), AND
SEASIDE IMPROVEMENT CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 105 F.2D 990(C.C.A. 2). 

THE TAXPAYERS OWNED A PIECE OF REALTY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.  IN
DECEMBER, 1932, THAT CITY'S BOARD OF ESTIMATE PASSED A RESOLUTION WHICH
DIRECTED THAT UPON JANUARY 3, 1933, THE TITLE IN FEE TO A LARGE PART OF
THE PARCEL WOULD VEST IN THE CITY.  THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, OF
WHICH THE RESOLUTION WAS A PART, WAS PURSUANT TO SEC. 976 OF THE
GREATER NEW YORK CHARTER, WHICH PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"UPON THE DATE OF THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE APPLICATION TO
CONDEMN, OR OF THE FILING OF THE DAMAGE MAP IN THE PROCEEDING, AS THE
CASE MAY BE, OR UPON SUCH SUBSEQUENT DATE AS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY
RESOLUTION OF SAID BOARD, THE CITY OF NEW YORK SHALL BECOME AND BE
SEIZED IN FEE OF OR OF THE EASEMENT, IN, OVER, UPON OR UNDER, THE SAID
REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE SAID ORDER OR DAMAGE MAP, AS THE BOARD
OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT MAY DETERMINE, THE SAME TO BE HELD,
APPROPRIATED, CONVERTED AND USED TO AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE ACCORDINGLY. 
INTEREST AT THE LEGAL RATE UPON THE SUM OR SUMS TO WHICH THE OWNERS ARE
JUSTLY ENTITLED UPON THE DATE OF THE VESTING OF TITLE IN THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, AS AFORESAID, FROM SAID DATE TO THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECREE
SHALL BE AWARDED BY THE COURT AS PART OF THE COMPENSATION TO WHICH SUCH
OWNERS ARE ENTITLED." 

THE CITY TOOK POSSESSION ON THE DATE NAMED IN THE RESOLUTION AND
RECEIVED ALL RENTS THEREAFTER ACCRUING.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK
ENTERED ITS FINAL DECREE IN THE PROCEEDINGS ON MARCH 31, 1937.  IT WAS
FOR $73,246.57 AND WAS STATED TO BE THE JUST COMPENSATION WHICH THE
OWNERS WERE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.  PAYMENT WAS MADE ON MAY 12, 1937.  IT
HAS BEEN STIPULATED THAT: 

"THE AMOUNT OF SAID PAYMENT WAS COMPUTED BY ADDING TO THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $58,000.00, INTEREST THEREON AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 976 OF
THE GREATER NEW YORK CHARTER, IN THE SUM OF $15,246.57, COMPUTED AT THE
RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM FROM JANUARY 3, 1933 TO MAY 12, 1937, OR A TOTAL
OF $73,246.57."  FN1 

WE ACCEPT AS A FACT THAT THE $58,000, PRINCIPAL AMOUNT JUST REFERRED
TO, WAS, AS PETITIONERS ALLEGE, AN AWARD TO THEM.  WE ASSUME IT WAS THE
VALUE ON JANUARY 3, 1933, OF THIS PROPERTY THEN TAKEN BY THE CITY. 

CONTAINS THE GENERAL DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME.  IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  GENERAL DEFINITION.  - 'GROSS INCOME' INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY
SOURCE WHATEVER.  ..." 

THE TAXPAYERS' BASIS ON THE CONDEMNED PROPERTY WAS AROUND $42,000. 
IN THEIR ORIGINAL RETURN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASIS AND THE TOTAL
SUM RECEIVED WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN AND ONLY A PERCENTAGE WAS
RETURNED AS INCOME PURSUANT TO SEC. 117.  FN2  THE COMMISSIONER
ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY ON THE PORTION OF THE AWARD COMPUTED AS INTEREST,
ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH PORTION WAS ORDINARY INCOME.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS REVERSED THE COMMISSIONER AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN
TURN, HELD WITH THE COMMISSIONER.  127 F.2D 359. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE SUM PAID THESE TAXPAYERS
ABOVE THE AWARD OF $58,000 WAS PAID BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO PUT THE
AWARD IN THE TAXPAYERS' HANDS ON THE DAY, JANUARY 3, 1933, WHEN THE
PROPERTY WAS TAKEN.  THIS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WAS NECESSARY TO GIVE THE
OWNER THE FULL EQUIVALENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME IT
WAS TAKEN.  WHETHER ONE CALLS IT INTEREST ON THE VALUE OR PAYMENTS TO
MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION IS
IMMATERIAL.  IT IS INCOME UNDER SEC. 22, PAID TO THE TAXPAYERS IN LIEU
OF WHAT THEY MIGHT HAVE EARNED ON THE SUM FOUND TO BE THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY ON THE DAY THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN.  IT IS NOT A CAPITAL GAIN
UPON AN ASSET SOLD UNDER SEC. 117.  THE SALE PRICE WAS THE $58,000. 
FN3 

THE PROPERTY WAS TURNED OVER IN JANUARY, 1933, BY THE RESOLUTION. 
THIS WAS THE SALE.  TITLE THEN PASSED.  THE SUBSEQUENT EARNINGS OF THE
PROPERTY WENT TO THE CITY.  THE TRANSACTION WAS AS THOUGH A PURCHASE
MONEY LIEN AT LEGAL INTEREST WAS RETAINED UPON THE PROPERTY.  SUCH
INTEREST WHEN PAID WOULD, OF COURSE, BE ORDINARY INCOME. 

FROM THE PREMISES THAT THE VALUE AT TIME OF THE TAKING PLUS
COMPENSATION FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT EQUALS JUST COMPENSATION, UNITED
STATES V. KLAMATH INDIANS, 304 U.S. 119, 123,  FN4  AND THAT A GOOD
MEASURE OF THE NECESSARY ADDITIONAL AMOUNT IS INTEREST "AT A PROPER
RATE."  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299, 306,
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT AS JUST COMPENSATION REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF
THESE SUMS FOR DELAY IN SETTLEMENT, THEY ARE A PART OF THE DAMAGES
AWARDED FOR THE PROPERTY.  BUT THESE PAYMENTS ARE INDEMNIFICATION FOR
DELAY, NOT A PART OF THE SALE PRICE.  WHILE WITHOUT THEIR PAYMENT JUST
COMPENSATION WOULD NOT BE RECEIVED BY THE VENDOR, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
THAT THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS ARE A PART OF THE SALE PRICE UNDER SEC.
117(A).  THE JUST COMPENSATION CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED IS NOT THE
SAME THING AS THE SALE PRICE OF A CAPITAL ASSET.  FN5 

IN SEASIDE IMPROVEMENT CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 105 F.2D 990, 994, AN
OPPOSITE CONCLUSION APPARENTLY WAS REACHED BY TREATING THE ADDITIONAL
PAYMENTS AS PART OF THE PURCHASE PRICE AS WELL AS PART OF "JUST
COMPENSATION."  FN6 

PETITIONERS URGE THAT THE ADDITIONAL SUM PAID SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS
A PART OF THE SALE PRICE, IN ANALOGY TO DECISIONS THAT SUCH SUMS, WHEN
PAID IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY A STATE, ARE NOT INTEREST ENTITLED
TO EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 22(B)(4), INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS "INTEREST
UPON THE OBLIGATIONS OF A STATE."  FN7  THE CASES CITED CONSTRUE THE
QUOTED PHRASE AS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE STATES' BORROWING POWER.  IN
ANY EVENT, THE QUESTION HERE IS NOT WHETHER THESE SUMS ARE INTEREST. 
THEY MAY NOT BE INTEREST AND YET BE OTHER THAN PART OF THE SALE PRICE. 
FN8  IF NOT INTEREST, THEY MAY BE COMPENSATION FOR THE DELAY IN
PAYMENT. 

OTHER CONTENTIONS ARE MADE BY THE PETITIONERS.  IT IS SAID THAT IN
OTHER SITUATIONS INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENTS HAS BEEN TREATED AS PART
OF THE PRINCIPAL RECEIVED AND NOT AS NORMAL INCOME.  FN9 BY ANALOGY IT
IS URGED THAT THE SAME PRINCIPLE BE APPLIED HERE.  THE FIRST THREE
CASES IN THE PRECEDING NOTE INVOLVED PAYMENTS OF AWARDS IN LIQUIDATION
OF CLAIMS AGAINST GERMANY ALLOWED BY THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION.  SEE
SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT. 254.  AS THE AGGREGATE
PAYMENTS DID NOT EQUAL THE TAXPAYERS' BASIS, THE DECISIONS REFUSED TO
CONSIDER AS INCOME THE PORTIONS DESIGNATED AS INTEREST ON THE GROUND
THAT IN LIQUIDATION THE INVESTMENT FIRST MUST BE RESTORED BEFORE INCOME
IS REALIZED.  KONINKLIJKE HOLLANDISCHE LLOYD V. COMMISSIONER AND
CONSORZIO VENEZIANO ETC. V. COMMISSIONER APPLIED THE RULE THAT PAYMENT
FOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION WAS NOT INTEREST UNDER SEC. 119(A)  FN10  OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 OR 1928.  THESE DECISIONS OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT IN
POINT ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS IN THE PRESENT
CASE ARE PART OF THE SALE PRICE OR OTHER INCOME UNDER SEC. 22.  NOR DO
WE FIND PERSUASIVE THE CASES REFUSING TO ALLOW AN INSTALLMENT PURCHASER
AN INTEREST DEDUCTION BECAUSE OF HIS DEFERRED PAYMENTS WHERE THE
PURPOSE WAS AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.  FN11
IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS SETTLED AS OF JANUARY 3,
1933, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN OVER.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  NO QUESTION IS RAISED INVOLVING THE ACCURACY OF THIS
COMPUTATION.  WHILE SEC. 976 REQUIRES INTEREST ONLY TO THE DATE OF THE
DECREE, SEC. 981, GREATER NEW YORK CHARTER, AS AMENDED BY LAWS OF 1932,
C. 391, REQUIRES INTEREST ON THE DECREE.  MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK
(CHRYSTIE ST.), 264 N.Y. 319, 190 N.E. 654. 

FN2  SECTION 117 READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  GENERAL RULE.  - IN THE CASE OF A TAXPAYER, OTHER THAN A
CORPORATION, ONLY THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE GAIN OR LOSS
RECOGNIZED UPON THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF A CAPITAL ASSET SHALL BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING NET INCOME: 

     .     .         .         .         . 

"40 PER CENTUM IF THE CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN HELD FOR MORE THAN 5
YEARS BUT NOT FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS; 

"30 PER CENTUM IF THE CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN HELD FOR MORE THAN 10
YEARS. 

"(B)  DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS.  - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
TITLE, 'CAPITAL ASSETS' MEANS PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER (WHETHER OR
NOT CONNECTED WITH HIS TRADE OR BUSINESS).  ..."  49 STAT. 1691. 

FN3  THE INVOLUNTARY CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT
SIGNIFICANT.  HELVERING V. HAMMEL, 311 U.S. 504, 510. 

NO REVIEW IS SOUGHT OF THE HOLDING THAT TRANSFER OF PROPERTY THROUGH
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS IS A SALE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 117 OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  COMMISSIONER V. KIESELBACH, 127 F.2D 359,
360. 

FN4  SEE ALSO SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 496;
PHELPS V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 341; BROOKS-SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 265 U.S. 106; LIGGETT & MYERS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S.
215. 

FN5  THE SAME PRINCIPLE IS APPLICABLE TO THE NEW YORK DECISIONS,
HOLDING THAT INTEREST IS A PART OF THE CONDEMNATION AWARD.  JUST
COMPENSATION REQUIRES SATISFACTION FOR THE DELAY BY PAYMENT OF THE
ADDITIONAL SUMS.  MATTER OF CITY OF NEW YORK (WEST 151ST ST.), 222 N.Y.
370, 372, 118 N.E. 807; MATTER OF MINZESHEIMER, 144 APP. DIV. 576, 579,
129 N.Y.S. 779, AFFIRMED 204 N.Y. 272, 97 N.E. 717; MATTER OF CITY OF
N.Y. (BRONX RIVER PARKWAY), 284 N.Y. 48, 54, 29 N.E.2D 465.  THE
OBLIGATION TO PAY ITS VALUE ARISES WHEN THE PROPERTY IS TAKEN.  TITLE
THEN PASSES.  KAHLEN V. STATE OF NEW YORK, 223 N.Y. 383, 389, 119 N.E.
883.  WOODWARD-BROWN REALTY CO. V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 235 N.Y. 278, 139
N.E. 267, IS NOT TO THE CONTRARY.  IT DEALS WITH THE UNITY OF A RIGHT
OF ACTION ON AN AWARD WITH INTEREST, HOLDING ONLY ONE PROCEEDING IS
AUTHORIZED AGAINST THE CONDEMNOR. 

FN6  "SUCH ADDITIONAL SUMS ARE NOT CONSIDERED NORMAL INTEREST BUT
PART OF THE COMPENSATION AWARDED FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN."  105 F.2D AT
994. 

FN7  HOLLEY V. UNITED STATES, 124 F.2D 909(C.C.A. 6, 1942); POSSELIUS
V. UNITED STATES, 90 CT. CLS. 519, 31 F.SUPP.  161(1940); WILLIAMS LAND
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 90 CT. CLS. 499, 31 F.SUPP.  154(1940); BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 78 F.2D 460(C.C.A. 4, 1935); U.S. TRUST
CO. OF NEW YORK V. ANDERSON, 65 F.2D 575(C.C.A. 2, 1933). 

FN8  "NOR IS IT QUITE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT INTEREST AS SUCH IS ADDED
TO VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT JUST
COMPENSATION SUBSEQUENTLY ASCERTAINED AND PAID."  UNITED STATES V.
KLAMATH INDIANS, 304 U.S. 119, 123. 

FN9  HELVERING V. DRIER, 79 F.2D 501(C.C.A. 4, 1935); COMMISSIONER V.
SPEYER, 77 F.2D 824(C.C.A. 2, 1935); DRIER V. HELVERING, 63 APP. D.C.
283, 72 F.2D 76(1934); CONSORZIO VENEZIANO DI ARMAMENTO E NAVIGAZIONE
V. COMMISSIONER, 21 B.T.A. 984(1930); N.V. KONINKLIJKE HOLLANDISCHE
LLOYD (ROYAL HOLLAND LLOYD) V. COMMISSIONER, 34 B.T.A. 830(1936). 

FN10  THIS SECTION SPECIFIES INTEREST ON INTEREST BEARING OBLIGATIONS
OF RESIDENTS AS ONE OF THE ITEMS OF INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES. 

FN11  HUNDAHL V. COMMISSIONER, 118 F.2D 349(C.C.A.5TH, 1941);
HENRIETTA MILLS V. COMMISSIONER, 52 F.2D 931(C.C.A.4TH, 1931); PRATT
MALLORY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 82 CT. CLS. 292, 12 F.SUPP.  1020(1936);
DANIEL BROTHERS CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 28 F.2D 761(C.C.A.5TH, 1928). 
..END :


















CORYELL V. PHIPPS, 317 U.S. 406 


NO. 246.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943.  - 128
F.2D 702, AFFIRMED. 


1.  REVISED STATUTES SEC. 4283 - THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY PROVISION
- SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED LIBERALLY.  P. 411. 

2. AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER OF A VESSEL WHO SELECTS COMPETENT MEN TO STORE
AND INSPECT IT, AND WHO IS NOT ON NOTICE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF ANY
DEFECT IN IT, CAN NOT, UPON THE THEORY THAT THE "PRIVITY" AND
"KNOWLEDGE" OF HIS NEGLIGENT AGENTS ARE IMPUTABLE TO HIM, BE DENIED THE
BENEFIT OF THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY UNDER R.S. SEC. 4283, AS
RESPECTS DAMAGE RESULTING FROM FIRE CAUSED BY AN EXPLOSION ON BOARD
DURING THE PERIOD OF STORAGE.  P. 412. 

CORYELL ET AL. V. PHIPPS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 609, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN ADMIRALTY, 39 F.SUPP.  142, PERMITTING LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY IN A SUIT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF
PETITIONERS' VESSELS RESULTING FROM FIRE ABOARD A VESSEL OWNED BY ONE
OF THE RESPONDENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS INSTITUTED A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF VESSELS OWNED BY THEM
AS A RESULT OF A FIRE WHICH OCCURRED IN JUNE, 1935, WHILE THE VESSELS
WERE AFLOAT AT PILKINGTON'S STORAGE BASIN AT FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. 
THE FIRE WAS CAUSED BY AN EXPLOSION OF GASOLINE FUMES IN THE ENGINE
ROOM OF THE YACHT SEMINOLE, REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SEMINOLE BOAT CO.
AND OWNED BY IT.  PRIOR TO 1929 THE SEMINOLE WAS OWNED BY RESPONDENT
PHIPPS AND HIS BROTHER.  AT THAT TIME THEY TRANSFERRED THE YACHT TO THE
SEMINOLE BOAT CO., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ALL OF THE STOCK OF WHICH
WAS ISSUED TO THE TWO BROTHERS.  AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE, RESPONDENT
PHIPPS STILL OWNED HALF OF THE SHARES OF STOCK, THE OTHER HALF HAVING
BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIS SISTER.  NEITHER SHE NOR PHIPPS WAS AN OFFICER OR
DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. 

RESPONDENT PHIPPS WAS SUED ON THE THEORY THAT HE WAS THE OWNER OF THE
YACHT AND OPERATED AND CONTROLLED HER AND THAT THE SEMINOLE BOAT CO.
WAS A DUMMY CORPORATION.  IN HIS ANSWER, PHIPPS SET UP, INTER ALIA, THE
DEFENSE OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CONTAINED IN R.S. SEC. 4283, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 183.  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART
OF THE SEMINOLE BOAT CO. IT HELD THAT THE CORPORATION WAS NOT A SHAM OR
A FRAUD BUT ADEQUATE TO INSULATE PHIPPS AS A STOCKHOLDER FROM LIABILITY
FOR THIS TORT.  IT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT, EVEN IF THE CORPORATION BE
DISREGARDED, PHIPPS WAS WITHOUT "PRIVITY OR KNOWLEDGE" OF THE EVENTS
WHICH CAUSED THE FIRE AND HENCE COULD LIMIT HIS LIABILITY TO THE VALUE
OF HIS INTEREST IN THE YACHT.  39 F.SUPP.  142.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  128 F.2D 702.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT, ON
THE POINT OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY UNDER SEC. 4283, BETWEEN THE
DECISION BELOW AND IN RE NEW YORK DOCK CO., 61 F.2D 777, AND IN RE
GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORP., 81 F.2D 441. 

THE SOLE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITION RELATE TO THE LIABILITY OF
PHIPPS.  PETITIONERS RENEW HERE THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE CORPORATE
EXISTENCE OF THE SEMINOLE BOAT CO. SHOULD BE DISREGARDED AND THAT IT
SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MERE DUMMY OR SHAM.  WE NEED NOT RECITE THE
FACTS ON WHICH THAT ARGUMENT RESTS NOR EXPRESS AN OPINION ON IT.  FOR
EVEN IF WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE CONTENTION IS A VALID ONE
AND THAT PHIPPS SHOULD BE TREATED AS OWNER OF THE YACHT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS LITIGATION, WE NEVERTHELESS CONCLUDE THAT THE COURTS
BELOW WERE CORRECT IN ALLOWING THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY UNDER SEC.
4283. 

THAT SECTION, AS IT READ AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE,  FN2  PROVIDED AS
WE HAVE STATED THAT THE "LIABILITY OF THE OWNER" MIGHT BE LIMITED TO
THE "AMOUNT OR VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF SUCH OWNER" IN THE VESSEL,
WHERE THE LOSS WAS OCCASIONED OR INCURRED WITHOUT HIS "PRIVITY OR
KNOWLEDGE."  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE
FIRE WAS THE PRESENCE OF GASOLINE FUMES IN THE ENGINE ROOM, CAUSED BY A
LEAK IN SOME PART OF THE MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT.  THAT LEAK, IT
CONCLUDED, OCCURRED NOT FROM FAULTY ORIGINAL INSTALLATION OF THE
GASOLINE TANKS BUT WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SUSTAINED THOSE FINDINGS.  IT WAS NOT FOUND BY EITHER OF THE
COURTS BELOW, NOR IS IT CLAIMED, THAT PHIPPS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
CONDITION.  IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT THE AGENTS OF PHIPPS AND THE
SEMINOLE BOAT CO. SELECTED TO MANAGE AND INSPECT THE YACHT WERE
INCOMPETENT AND NEGLIGENT, THAT THEIR NEGLIGENCE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
PHIPPS, AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, HE COULD NOT ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM FOR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WITHOUT SHOWING THAT HE HAD APPOINTED COMPETENT
PERSONS TO MAKE THE INSPECTION.  SEE M'GILL V. MICHIGAN S.S. CO., 144
F. 788; IN RE REICHERT TOWING LINE, 251 F. 214; THE SILVER PALM, 94
F.2D 776.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE VESSEL HAD BEEN
EXAMINED AND PRONOUNCED FIT BY AN EXPERIENCED SHIP SURVEYOR IN
FEBRUARY, 1935, THAT SHE DEVELOPED NO FAULTS IN A CRUISE BETWEEN
FEBRUARY AND APRIL OF THAT YEAR WHEN SHE WAS TURNED OVER TO PILKINGTON
FOR STORAGE, THAT "THE CREW LEFT HER GASOLINE VALVES CLOSED, HER
ELECTRIC SWITCHES OPEN, HER GAS TANKS REGISTERING EMPTY, AND HER BILGES
CLEAN AND FREE OF GASOLINE OR GASOLINE VAPOR," AND THAT "SHE WAS
REPEATEDLY EXAMINED BY COMPETENT MEN BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND JUNE 24,
1935, WHO DISCOVERED NOTHING WRONG WITH HER."  THERE IS EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THOSE FINDINGS AND WE WILL NOT DISTURB THEM.  THUS RESPONDENT
HAS SATISFIED THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WHICH IS ON THOSE WHO SEEK THE
BENEFIT OF SEC. 4283, OF ESTABLISHING THE LACK OF PRIVITY OR KNOWLEDGE
(M'GILL V. MICHIGAN S.S. CO., SUPRA; IN RE REICHERT TOWING LINE, SUPRA;
THE SILVER PALM, SUPRA) AND IS ENTITLED TO LIMIT HIS LIABILITY, UNLESS
ANY NEGLECT OF THOSE TO WHOM DUTIES WERE DELEGATED MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO
HIM FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 4283. 

PETITIONERS PRESS SEVERAL LINES OF CASES ON US.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED
HERE, HOWEVER, WITH THE QUESTION OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY WHERE THE
LOSS WAS OCCASIONED BY THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL.  THE
LIMITATIONS ACTS HAVE LONG BEEN HELD NOT TO APPLY WHERE THE LIABILITY
OF THE OWNER RESTS ON HIS PERSONAL CONTRACT.  PENDLETON V. BENNER LINE,
246 U.S. 353; LUCKENBACH V. MCCAHAN SUGAR CO., 248 U.S. 139; CAPITOL
TRANSPORTATION CO. V. CAMBRIA STEEL CO., 249 U.S. 334.  AS STATED BY
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO. V. BRASSERT, 289
U.S. 261, 264, "FOR HIS OWN FAULT, NEGLECT AND CONTRACTS THE OWNER
REMAINS LIABLE."  AND THAT EXCEPTION EXTENDS TO AN IMPLIED AS WELL AS
TO AN EXPRESS WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS.  CULLEN FUEL CO. V. HEDGER
CO., 290 U.S. 82.  BUT WHATEVER LIMIT THERE MAY BE TO THAT EXCEPTION
(ID., P. 89; CF. EARLE & STODDART V. ELLERMAN'S WILSON LINE, 287 U.S.
420, ARISING UNDER THE FIRE STATUTE) THOSE CASES ARE NO AUTHORITY FOR
IMPUTING TO THE INDIVIDUAL OWNER THE NEGLECT OF ANOTHER SO AS TO
ESTABLISH ON HIS PART PRIVITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE. 

PETITIONERS ALSO RELY ON CASES INVOLVING CORPORATE SHIPOWNERS.  IN
THOSE CASES IT IS HELD THAT LIABILITY MAY NOT BE LIMITED UNDER THE
STATUTE WHERE THE NEGLIGENCE IS THAT OF AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MANAGER
OR SUPERINTENDENT WHOSE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY INCLUDES SUPERVISION OVER
THE PHASE OF THE BUSINESS OUT OF WHICH THE LOSS OR INJURY OCCURRED. 
SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS V. HICKS, 285 U.S. 502, AND CASES CITED; 3
BENEDICT, ADMIRALTY (6TH ED.)  SEC.  490.  BUT THOSE CASES ARE NO
AUTHORITY FOR HOLDING THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF A SUBORDINATE MAY BE
IMPUTED TO AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER SO AS TO PLACE HIM IN PRIVITY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  A CORPORATION NECESSARILY ACTS THROUGH HUMAN
BEINGS.  THE PRIVITY OF SOME OF THOSE PERSONS MUST BE THE PRIVITY OF
THE CORPORATION ELSE IT COULD ALWAYS LIMIT ITS LIABILITY.  HENCE THE
SEARCH IN THOSE CASES TO SEE WHERE IN THE MANAGERIAL HIERARCHY THE
FAULT LAY. 

IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUAL OWNERS, IT HAS BEEN COMMONLY HELD OR
DECLARED THAT PRIVITY AS USED IN THE STATUTE MEANS SOME PERSONAL
PARTICIPATION OF THE OWNER IN THE FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE WHICH CAUSED OR
CONTRIBUTED TO THE LOSS OR INJURY.  THE 84-H, 296 F. 427; WARNKEN V.
MOODY, 22 F.2D 960; FLAT-TOP FUEL CO. V. MARTIN, 85 F.2D 39; AND SEE LA
BOURGOGNE, 210 U.S. 95, 122; RICHARDSON V. HARMON, 222 U.S. 96, 103; 3
BENEDICT, ADMIRALTY (6TH ED.)  SEC.  489.  THAT CONSTRUCTION STEMS FROM
THE WELL SETTLED POLICY TO ADMINISTER THE STATUTE NOT "WITH A TIGHT AND
GRUDGING HAND" (MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY IN PROVIDENCE & NEW YORK S.S. CO.
V. HILL MFG. CO., 109 U.S. 578, 589) BUT "BROADLY AND LIBERALLY" SO AS
"TO ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSE TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENTS IN SHIPBUILDING AND TO
AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE
VESSEL AND ITS OWNER."  JUST V. CHAMBERS, 312 U.S. 383, 385.  AND SEE
LARSEN V. NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION CO., 292 U.S. 20, 24; FLINK V.
PALADINI, 279 U.S. 59, 62; RICHARDSON V. HARMON, SUPRA, P. 103.  SOME
CASES, HOWEVER, HAVE BARRED THE INDIVIDUAL OWNER FROM THE BENEFITS OF
THE STATUTE EVEN THOUGH THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL PARTICIPATION IN THE
FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT PRESENT.  THUS IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT THAT THE
SCOPE OF AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER TO A SUBORDINATE
MAY BE SO BROAD AS TO JUSTIFY IMPUTING PRIVITY (IN RE NEW YORK DOCK
CO., SUPRA, P. 779) AS WELL AS KNOWLEDGE.  IN RE GREAT LAKES TRANSIT
CORP., SUPRA, P. 444.  WE NEED NOT REACH THOSE QUESTIONS IN THIS CASE. 
PRIVITY, LIKE KNOWLEDGE, TURNS ON THE FACTS OF PARTICULAR CASES.  HERE
TWO COURTS HAVE FOUND THE ABSENCE OF BOTH.  WE ACCEPT CONCURRENT
FINDINGS UPON SUCH MATTERS.  JUST V. CHAMBERS, SUPRA, P. 385.  AND EVEN
WERE WE TO ASSUME WITHOUT DECIDING THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 4283
PRIVITY AS WELL AS KNOWLEDGE OF AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER MAY BE CONSTRUCTIVE
RATHER THAN ACTUAL, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT PHIPPS SHOULD BE BARRED
FROM LIMITING HIS LIABILITY.  ONE WHO SELECTS COMPETENT MEN TO STORE
AND INSPECT A VESSEL AND WHO IS NOT ON NOTICE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF
ANY DEFECT IN IT CANNOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF THE LIMITATION AS
RESPECTS A LOSS INCURRED BY AN EXPLOSION DURING THE PERIOD OF STORAGE,
UNLESS "PRIVITY" OR "KNOWLEDGE" ARE TO BECOME EMPTY WORDS.  IF SEC.
4283 DOES NOT GIVE PROTECTION TO THE INDIVIDUAL OWNER IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE WHEN IT WOULD.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THAT SECTION, AS IT READ AT THE TIME OF THE FIRE, PROVIDED:
"THE LIABILITY OF THE OWNER OF ANY VESSEL, FOR ANY EMBEZZLEMENT, LOSS,
OR DESTRUCTION, BY ANY PERSON, OF ANY PROPERTY, GOODS, OR MERCHANDISE,
SHIPPED OR PUT ON BOARD OF SUCH VESSEL, OR FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE, OR
INJURY BY COLLISION, OR FOR ANY ACT, MATTER, OR THING, LOSS, DAMAGE, OR
FORFEITURE, DONE, OCCASIONED, OR INCURRED, WITHOUT THE PRIVITY, OR
KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH OWNER OR OWNERS, SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED THE AMOUNT
OR VALUE OF THE INTEREST OF SUCH OWNER IN SUCH VESSEL, AND HER FREIGHT
THEN PENDING." 

FN2  NO QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED HERE AS RESPECTS THE AMENDMENTS TO
THE SECTION MADE BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 29, 1935, 49 STAT. 960, OR BY THE
ACT OF JUNE 5, 1936, 49 STAT. 1479. 
..END :



















PENDERGAST V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 412 


NO. 183.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 15, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1943.  -
128 F.2D 676, REVERSED. 


1.  REVISED STATUTES SEC. 1044, PROVIDING THAT "NO PERSON SHALL BE
PROSECUTED, TRIED, OR PUNISHED FOR ANY OFFENSE, NOT CAPITAL,  ...
UNLESS THE INDICTMENT IS FOUND, OR THE INFORMATION IS INSTITUTED,
WITHIN THREE YEARS NEXT AFTER SUCH OFFENSE SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED,"
APPLIES TO A PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  P. 416. 

2.  THE ACT OF INDUCING A FEDERAL COURT THROUGH MISREPRESENTATIONS BY
ATTORNEYS TO ISSUE DECREES EFFECTUATING A CORRUPT SETTLEMENT OF
LITIGATION, INCLUDING A DISTRIBUTION OF IMPOUNDED FUNDS, IF ASSUMED TO
BE "MISBEHAVIOR" IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
JUD.  CODE SEC. 268, IS A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND AN "OFFENSE" AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF R.S. SEC. 1044.  P. 416. 

3.  THE TIME WHEN THE THREE-YEAR LIMITATION OF R.S. SEC. 1044 BEGINS
TO RUN AGAINST A PROSECUTION FOR A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT UNDER JUD.  CODE
SEC. 268 IS THE TIME WHEN THE ACT OF MISBEHAVIOR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
COURT WAS COMMITTED; AND, IN A CASE OF ALLEGED CONTEMPT COMMITTED BY
INDUCING THE COURT BY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO ORDER A DISTRIBUTION OF
IMPOUNDED FUNDS, EFFECTUATING A FRAUDULENT SCHEME, THE OFFENSE WAS
COMPLETE WHEN THE MISREPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE, AND THE THREE YEARS ARE
COUNTED FROM THAT TIME.  THE BAR OF THE STATUTE CAN NOT BE DEFERRED
UPON THE GROUND THAT THE OFFENSE WAS A CONTINUING ONE AND WAS NOT
COMPLETE UNTIL THE LITIGATION ENDED, OR UNTIL FURTHER ACTS DEHORS WERE
COMMITTED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME.  P. 419. 

PENDERGAST V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 186, O'MALLEY V. UNITED STATES, AND NO. 187,
MCCORMACK V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, POST, P. 608,
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 608, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS AFFIRMING SENTENCES FOR
CONTEMPT.  FOR OPINIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT, SEE 35 F.SUPP.  593, 39
F.SUPP.  189. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS, TOGETHER WITH ONE STREET, NOW DECEASED, CONCEIVED AND
EXECUTED A NEFARIOUS SCHEME IN FRAUD OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND
IN CORRUPTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  THE SHORT OF IT WAS
THAT PETITIONERS BY FRAUD AND DECEIT AND THROUGH MISREPRESENTATIONS BY
ATTORNEYS INDUCED THE COURT TO ISSUE DECREES EFFECTUATING A CORRUPT
SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION.  IT HAPPENED THIS WAY: 

SEVERAL INSURANCE COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN MISSOURI FILED WITH THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE AN INCREASE IN INSURANCE RATES WHICH THE
SUPERINTENDENT DENIED.  THE INSURANCE COMPANIES FILED OVER 130 SEPARATE
INJUNCTION SUITS AGAINST THE SUPERINTENDENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN
THE FEDERAL COURT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN STATUTES OF
MISSOURI ON THE GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS
CONVENED WHICH GRANTED MOTIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS ON JULY 2,
1930, WHEREBY THE SUPERINTENDENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WERE
ENJOINED, PENDING FINAL DECISION, FROM ENFORCING THE MISSOURI STATUTES
ON CONDITION, HOWEVER, THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT
OF INCREASE IN RATES WHICH WAS COLLECTED WITH A CUSTODIAN OF THE COURT
TO AWAIT THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION.  IN SEPTEMBER 1930 A
SPECIAL MASTER WAS APPOINTED, WHO HELD HEARINGS.  DURING THIS TIME THE
PREMIUMS IMPOUNDED BY THE COURT ACCUMULATED, UNTIL BY 1936 THEY
AMOUNTED TO ALMOST $10,000,000. 

THE LURE OF THIS SIZEABLE AMOUNT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY PLAYED AN
IMPORTANT PART IN THE SCHEME WHICH WAS HATCHED. 

STREET WAS IN CHARGE OF THE RATE LITIGATION FOR THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES.  PENDERGAST WAS A "POLITICAL BOSS."  O'MALLEY WAS THE THEN
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE.  MCCORMACK WAS AN INSURANCE AGENT.  OF
THESE, ONLY O'MALLEY WAS A PARTY TO THE LITIGATION.  STREET AGREED TO
PAY PENDERGAST A "FEE" OF $750,000 TO USE HIS INFLUENCE OVER O'MALLEY
AND OBTAIN A SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION WHICH WOULD BE SATISFACTORY
TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.  O'MALLEY WAS AGREEABLE.  MCCORMACK WAS THE
GO-BETWEEN.  STREET MADE AN INITIAL PAYMENT OF $100,000 IN CURRENCY,
WHICH WAS DIVIDED $55,000 TO PENDERGAST, $22,500 TO O'MALLEY, AND
$22,500 TO MCCORMACK.  THEREAFTER AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED AND REDUCED
TO WRITING IN FORM OF A MEMORANDUM.  O'MALLEY WOULD APPROVE AS OF JUNE
1, 1930, 80% OF THE INCREASE IN RATES WHICH THE COMPANIES HAD SOUGHT;
THE PARTIES WOULD APPEAR BY THEIR ATTORNEYS AND JOIN IN SEEKING
APPROPRIATE ORDERS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE IMPOUNDED MONEY; 20% WAS TO
GO TO THE POLICYHOLDERS, 50% DIRECTLY TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND
30% TO STREET AND ANOTHER AS TRUSTEES FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.  THE
LATTER WERE TO ACCOUNT TO THE COMPANIES BUT NOT TO THE COURT OR THE
SUPERINTENDENT.  THE MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE
COURT.  BUT ON JUNE 18, 1935, THE INSURANCE COMPANIES FILED IN EACH
CASE A MOTION RECITING TERMS OF SETTLEMENT AND PRAYING FOR AN ORDER OF
DISTRIBUTION.  ON THE NEXT DAY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND O'MALLEY
FILED STIPULATIONS AGREEING THAT THE COURT SHOULD MAKE THE ORDER OF
DISTRIBUTION.  THEREAFTER ON JUNE 22, 1935, OCTOBER 26, 1935 AND
JANUARY 24, 1936, HEARINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT ON THE MOTIONS, AND
BRIEFS WERE FILED.  COUNSEL, WHO WERE WHOLLY INNOCENT AND ACTING IN
GOOD FAITH, ASSURED THE COURT OF THE HONESTY, FAIRNESS, AND
DESIRABILITY OF THE SETTLEMENT.  ON FEBRUARY 1, 1936, THE COURT, ACTING
IN RELIANCE ON THE REPRESENTATIONS AND WITHOUT A HEARING ON THE MERITS,
ENTERED A DECREE ORDERING DISTRIBUTION OF THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS AS PRAYED
IN THE MOTIONS.  IT ALSO DISMISSED THE BILLS, RESERVING JURISDICTION,
HOWEVER, FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. 

PETITIONERS THEN PROCEEDED FURTHER WITH THEIR CORRUPT PLAN.  ABOUT
APRIL, 1936, STREET PAID $330,000 IN CURRENCY, OF WHICH PENDERGAST
RECEIVED $250,000, O'MALLEY $40,000 AND MCCORMACK $40,000.  IN THE FALL
OF 1936, PENDERGAST RECEIVED ANOTHER $10,000 IN CASH FROM STREET.  THAT
LEFT $310,000 OF THE $750,000 "FEE" UNPAID.  AND, SO FAR AS APPEARS, IT
WAS NEVER PAID, DUE TO THE UNRAVELING OF FACTS WHICH LED TO AN EXPOSURE
OF THE ENTIRE CORRUPT SCHEME.  FOR ABOUT THAT TIME AN INTERNAL REVENUE
INVESTIGATION OF STREET'S INCOME TAX RETURN DISCLOSED THAT OVER
$400,000 OF THE FUNDS FOR WHICH STREET WAS TO ACCOUNT AS TRUSTEE HAD
BEEN PAID TO UNKNOWN PERSONS.  THIS WAS REPORTED TO THE COURT IN
FEBRUARY 1939.  A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION FOLLOWED, IN WHICH THE REST
OF THE SORDID STORY WAS UNFOLDED.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PENDERGAST, 28
F.SUPP.  601.  THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CAUSED PENDERGAST AND O'MALLEY
TO BE INDICTED FOR EVASION OF INCOME TAXES ON THE AMOUNTS OF MONEY SO
RECEIVED.  THEY PLEADED GUILTY AND WERE FINED AND IMPRISONED LATE IN
MAY, 1939.  ID.  ON MAY 29, 1939, O'MALLEY'S SUCCESSOR FILED A MOTION
PRAYING THAT THE DECREES OF FEBRUARY 1, 1936, BE SET ASIDE ON THE BASIS
OF THOSE DISCLOSURES AND THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BE ORDERED TO
RESTORE THE FUNDS DISTRIBUTED TO THEM.  THE COURT ORDERED THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES TO MAKE RESTITUTION; AND THEY DID.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE
COURT ASKED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHETHER CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD
BE FILED.  ABOUT A YEAR PASSED, WHEN THE COURT ON MAY 20, 1940,
REQUESTED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST PETITIONERS.  AN INFORMATION WAS FILED JULY 13, 1940.  MOTIONS
TO ABATE AND QUASH WERE OVERRULED.  35 F.SUPP.  593.  THEREAFTER
ANSWERS WERE FILED AND A HEARING HAD.  PETITIONERS WERE ADJUDGED GUILTY
OF CONTEMPT - PENDERGAST AND O'MALLEY BEING SENTENCED TO TWO YEARS'
IMPRISONMENT AND MCCORMACK BEING SENTENCED TO PROBATION FOR TWO YEARS. 
39 F.SUPP.  189.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  128 F.2D
676.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED. 

PETITIONERS PRESS SEVERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE JUDGMENT BELOW.  THE
CHIEF OF THESE ARE THAT THE OFFENSE WAS NOT A CONTEMPT UNDER SEC. 268
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. 385) AS CONSTRUED BY NYE V. UNITED
STATES, 313 U.S. 33, AND THAT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS, THE PROSECUTION OF IT
WAS BARRED BY THE THREE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN SEC.
1044 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 582.  WE DO NOT REACH THE
FIRST OF THESE QUESTIONS AND NEED NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION ON IT.  FOR
ALTHOUGH WE ASSUME ARGUENDO THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
CORRECT IN HOLDING (128 F.2D P. 683) THAT THE CONDUCT OF PETITIONERS
WAS "MISBEHAVIOR" IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND THEREFORE PUNISHABLE AS A CONTEMPT,
WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS PROSECUTION WAS BARRED BY SEC. 1044 OF
THE REVISED STATUTES. 

THAT SECTION PROVIDES:  "NO PERSON SHALL BE PROSECUTED, TRIED, OR
PUNISHED FOR ANY OFFENSE, NOT CAPITAL,  ...  UNLESS THE INDICTMENT IS
FOUND, OR THE INFORMATION IS INSTITUTED, WITHIN THREE YEARS NEXT AFTER
SUCH OFFENSE SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED  ...  "  IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE
STATUTE FITS THIS CASE LIKE A GLOVE.  IF THE CONDUCT IN QUESTION WAS A
CONTEMPT, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT IT WAS A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AS
DEFINED BY OUR DECISIONS.  SEE NYE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 41-43
AND CASES CITED.  AS SUCH, IT WAS AN "OFFENSE" AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1044.  IT WAS HELD IN GOMPERS V.
UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 604, THAT A WILFUL VIOLATION OF AN INJUNCTION,
LIKEWISE PUNISHABLE AS A CONTEMPT UNDER SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
WAS SUCH AN "OFFENSE."  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. GOLDMAN, 277 U.S.
229.  CF. EX PARTE GROSSMAN, 267 U.S. 87.  IT WAS SAID IN THE GOMPERS
CASE THAT THOSE CONTEMPTS WERE "INFRACTIONS OF THE LAW, VISITED WITH
PUNISHMENT AS SUCH.  IF SUCH ACTS ARE NOT CRIMINAL, WE ARE IN ERROR AS
TO THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMES AS THAT WORD HAS BEEN
UNDERSTOOD IN ENGLISH SPEECH."  233 U.S. P. 610.  THAT OBSERVATION IS
EQUALLY PERTINENT HERE.  MOREOVER, WE CAN SEE NO REASON FOR TREATING
ONE TYPE OF CONTEMPT UNDER SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE DIFFERENTLY IN
THIS RESPECT FROM OTHERS UNDER THE SAME SECTION.  NO SUCH DIFFERENCE IS
DISCERNIBLE FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1044.  BECAUSE OF THAT AND
BECAUSE OF THE FURTHER CIRCUMSTANCE THAT CONGRESS CLASSIFIED THEM
TOGETHER IN DEFINING THE OFFENSE IN SEC. 268, WE CAN HARDLY CONCLUDE
THAT A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 1044 SHOULD BE
IMPLIED.  FURTHERMORE, THE FACT THAT THIS PROSECUTION WAS BY
INFORMATION, THE ABSENCE OF WHICH HAS BEEN HELD NOT FATAL UNDER SEC.
1044(GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 611-612), BRINGS THE CASE
SQUARELY WITHIN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION. 

CERTAINLY THE POWER TO PUNISH CONTEMPTS IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE
COURT, LIKE THE POWER TO PUNISH CONTEMPTS FOR WILFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE
COURT'S DECREES, "MUST HAVE SOME LIMIT IN TIME."  GOMPERS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, P. 612.  IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS NO
LIMITATION ON PROSECUTIONS FOR CONTEMPTS IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT
EXCEPT AS ONE MAY BE IMPLIED FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCEEDING IN
WHICH THE CONTEMPT ARISES.  BUT IF WE ARE FREE TO CONSIDER THE MATTER
AS OPEN, NO REASON FOR THAT DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF CONTEMPTS IN THE
"PRESENCE" OF THE COURT IS APPARENT.  ADAMS V. WOODS, 2 CRANCH 336,
HELD THAT THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS APPLICABLE TO AN ACTION OF
DEBT FOR A PENALTY.  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL STATED THAT IT WOULD BE
"UTTERLY REPUGNANT TO THE GENIUS OF OUR LAWS" TO ALLOW SUCH AN ACTION
TO LIE "AT ANY DISTANCE OF TIME."  ID., P. 342.  THAT OBSERVATION IS
EQUALLY APT HERE.  PROCEEDINGS LIKE THE RATE LITIGATION OUT OF WHICH
THIS PROSECUTION AROSE MIGHT WELL CONTINUE FOR YEARS ON END AWAITING
FINAL DISPOSITION OF ALL THE FUNDS.  IF THERE IS A CONTEMPT, IT TAKES
PLACE WHEN THE "MISBEHAVIOR" OCCURS IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT. 
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS NORMALLY BEGIN TO RUN WHEN THE CRIME IS
COMPLETE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. IRVINE, 98 U.S. 450.  EVERY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, OF COURSE, MAY PERMIT A ROGUE TO ESCAPE.  YET, AS CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL OBSERVED IN ADAMS V. WOODS, SUPRA, P. 342, "NOT EVEN
TREASON CAN BE PROSECUTED AFTER A LAPSE OF THREE YEARS."  THAT WAS
STILL TRUE AT THE TIME OF THIS OFFENSE.  SEE R.S. SEC. 1043, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 581.  THERE IS NO REASON WHY THIS LESSER CRIME, PUNISHABLE WITHOUT
SOME OF THE PROTECTIVE FEATURES OF CRIMINAL TRIALS, SHOULD RECEIVE
FAVORED TREATMENT. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION IS TO BE INFERRED FROM
GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, BECAUSE THIS COURT TOOK PAINS TO POINT
OUT THAT ITS RULING WAS APPLICABLE ONLY TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT
"NOT COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT."  233 U.S. P. 606.  BUT
THAT RESERVATION, MADE OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, ALSO EXTENDED TO
"PROCEEDINGS OF THIS SORT ONLY" (ID., P. 606), VIZ. PROCEEDINGS WHERE
NO INFORMATION WAS FILED.  EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289, 314,
SANCTIONED SUMMARY PUNISHMENT FOR "DIRECT CONTEMPTS" COMMITTED IN THE
"PRESENCE" OF THE COURT.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT PROCEDURE COULD BE
FOLLOWED "AT A SUBSEQUENT TERM, OR AT A SUBSEQUENT DAY OF THE SAME
TERM," WAS SPECIFICALLY RESERVED.  ID., P. 314.  THAT IS A PROCEDURAL
PROBLEM PECULIAR TO DIRECT CONTEMPTS IN THE FACE OF THE COURT (SEE
COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517), AND OBVIOUSLY HAS NO RELEVANCY
TO THE PROBLEM OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

THE PROSECUTION CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THE OFFENSE CONSISTED IN THE
IMPOSITION OF A FRAUDULENT SCHEME UPON THE COURT, THAT SUCCESSFUL
EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME REQUIRED NOT ONLY MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE
COURT BUT CONTINUOUS COOPERATION IN CONCEALING THE SCHEME UNTIL ITS
COMPLETION, THAT THE FRAUD ON THE COURT WOULD NOT BE FULLY EFFECTED
UNTIL 80% OF THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE INSURANCE
COMPANIES AND $750,000 PAID BY STREET AND DIVIDED AMONG PETITIONERS. 
ON THAT THEORY THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME, THOUGH COMMENCED BEFORE THE THREE
YEAR PERIOD, CONTINUED THEREAFTER.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ARGUED, BY
ANALOGY TO SUCH CASES AS UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, 218 U.S. 601, 607
608; HYDE V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 367-370; BROWN V. ELLIOTT,
225 U.S. 392, 400-401, THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN TO RUN
ONLY AFTER THE LATEST ACT IN THE EXECUTION OF THE SCHEME.  IT IS TRUE
THAT THE INFORMATION WAS DRAWN ON THE THEORY OF SUCH A CONTINUING
OFFENSE.  BUT THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT THEORY LIES IN THE NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE DESCRIBED BY SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

THAT SECTION, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, LIMITS THE POWER "TO PUNISH
CONTEMPTS" TO CASES OF "MISBEHAVIOR" IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT. 
IF THIS WAS AN ORDINARY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 135 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE (18 U.S.C. SEC. 241) FOR "CORRUPTLY" OBSTRUCTING "THE
DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE," QUITE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS WOULD
GOVERN.  THE FACT THAT THE ACTS WERE NOT IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT
WOULD BE IMMATERIAL.  AND WE MAY ASSUME THAT A FRAUDULENT SCHEME OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE PRESENT ONE WOULD CONSTITUTE A CONTINUOUS OFFENSE
UNDER THAT SECTION.  WE MAY ALSO ASSUME THAT CERTAIN "MISBEHAVIOR" IN
THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT MIGHT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 135
OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AS WELL AS A CONTEMPT UNDER SEC. 268 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, SO AS TO GIVE A CHOICE BETWEEN PROSECUTION BEFORE A JURY
AND PROSECUTION BEFORE A JUDGE.  BUT THE OFFENSE OF "MISBEHAVIOR" IN
THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE SWEEP OF "CORRUPTLY"
OBSTRUCTING OR CONSPIRING TO OBSTRUCT "THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE."  CONGRESS RESTRICTED THE CLASS OF OFFENSES FOR WHICH ONE MAY
BE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IN PROSECUTIONS FOR
CONTEMPT FOR WILFUL VIOLATIONS OF INJUNCTIONS (GOMPERS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, P. 610), EACH ACT "SO FAR AS IT WAS A CONTEMPT, WAS
PUNISHABLE AS SUCH" AND THEREFORE "MUST BE JUDGED BY ITSELF."  AS WE
HAVE SAID, ONCE THE "MISBEHAVIOR" OCCURS IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE
COURT, THE CRIME IS COMPLETE.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT BUT FOR THE
MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO
"MISBEHAVIOR" IN ITS "PRESENCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 268 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  AND IT IS NOT CLAIMED THAT THERE WERE ANY
MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE FILING
OF THE INFORMATION; OR IF MAY 29, 1939, THE DATE WHEN THE COURT
DIRECTED THE INQUIRY, BE DEEMED THE IMPORTANT ONE (GOMPERS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, P. 608), THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT ANY SUCH
MISREPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THAT TIME.  IT IS
NOT FRAUD ON THE COURT WHICH SEC. 268 MAKES PUNISHABLE AS A CONTEMPT,
UNLESS THAT FRAUD IS "MISBEHAVIOR" IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT OR
"SO NEAR THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE."  AND,
IF THE LATTER REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET, THE FACT THAT THE FRAUD MAY BE
"MISBEHAVIOR" IS NOT SUFFICIENT.  THE MERE CONTINUANCE OF A FRAUDULENT
INTENT AFTER AN ACT OF "MISBEHAVIOR" IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT
DOES NOT MAKE THAT "MISBEHAVIOR" A CONTINUING OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 268. 
THE MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT MADE POSSIBLE, OF COURSE, THE
CONSUMMATION OF THIS NEFARIOUS SCHEME.  BUT EACH SUBSEQUENT STEP IN
THAT SCHEME DID NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTEMPT UNLESS, LIKE THE
MISREPRESENTATION ITSELF, IT WAS "MISBEHAVIOR" IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE
COURT OR "SO NEAR THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE."  NO SUCH SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE HERE AND NONE HAS BEEN
ATTEMPTED.  THE FACT THAT THE SCHEME WAS FRAUDULENT AND CORRUPTLY
OBSTRUCTED THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DOES NOT ENLARGE THE LIMITED
POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.  IT MERELY MEANS THAT IF PETITIONERS CAN
BE PUNISHED, IT MUST BE THROUGH THE ORDINARY CHANNELS OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE.  WE ARE FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT
ANY CONTEMPT COMMITTED OCCURRED NOT LATER THAN FEBRUARY 1, 1936, WHEN
THE COURT ORDERED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS.  IT WAS
THEREFORE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

I DO NOT AGREE THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE UNDECIDED THE QUESTION WHETHER
CONDUCT OF THIS SORT CONSTITUTES PUNISHABLE CONTEMPT.  TO USE BRIBERY
AND FRAUD ON THE COURT TO OBTAIN ITS ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT OF NEARLY
$10,000,000 IN TRUST IN ITS CUSTODY IS NOT ONLY CONTEMPT BUT CONTEMPT
OF A KIND FAR MORE DAMAGING TO THE COURT'S GOOD NAME AND MORE SUBTLY
OBSTRUCTIVE OF JUSTICE THAN THROWING AN INKWELL AT A JUDGE OR
DISTURBING THE PEACE OF A COURTROOM.  I WOULD HOLD THE CONDUCT OF THESE
PETITIONERS TO BE "MISBEHAVIOR" AND WITHIN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT
AND HENCE A CONTEMPT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  I SHOULD NOT
DEFLECT WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE COURSE OF PRACTICAL AND OBVIOUS JUSTICE IN
THIS CASE BY RESORT TO METAPHYSICAL SPECULATIONS AS TO THE EFFECT OF
ABSENCE OF THE SCHEMERS FROM THE COURTROOM WHEN ATTORNEYS WHOM ALSO
THEY HAD DECEIVED OBTAINED THE ORDER FROM THE COURT. 

NEITHER CAN I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THIS CONTEMPT
EXPIRED WITH THE SETTING SUN AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION THEN BEGAN
ITS WORK OF IMMUNIZING THESE DEFENDANTS.  THE FRAUD HAD AS ITS OBJECT
NOT MERELY TO GET THE COURT ORDER, BUT TO GET THE MONEY FROM THE
COURT'S CUSTODY.  THE CONTEMPT AND THE FRAUD DID NOT CEASE TO OPERATE
SO LONG AS THE MONEY WAS BEING DISBURSED IN RELIANCE UPON IT, AND BY
VIRTUE OF ITS CONCEALMENT. 

HENCE, I FIND NO GOOD REASON FOR INTERFERING WITH THE EFFORT OF THE
LOWER COURT TO BRING THESE MEN TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR FRAUD ON IT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

I WHOLLY AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF MR. JUSTICE JACKSON THAT THE
PETITIONERS' CONDUCT CONSTITUTED A CONTEMPT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 385.  BUT I AM ALSO COMPELLED
TO CONCLUDE, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THAT
PROSECUTION FOR SUCH OFFENSE IS BARRED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, R.S. SEC. 1044, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 582. 
..END :











DEPT. OF BANKING V. PINK, 317 U.S. 264 


NO. 466.  DECIDED DECEMBER 21, 1942.  - PETITION DENIED. 


1.  AFTER A FINAL JUDGMENT BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, ENTERED
IN THE LOWER COURT UPON REMITTITUR, AN AMENDMENT MERELY CERTIFYING THAT
A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS PRESENTED AND DECIDED DOES NOT EXTEND THE TIME -
THREE MONTHS FROM THE RENDITION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHER COURT -
WITHIN WHICH PETITION FOR CERTIORARI CAN BE FILED IN THIS COURT.  P.
266. 

2.  ALTHOUGH A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST
COURT OF A STATE MAY PROPERLY RUN TO A LOWER COURT WHERE THE RECORD IS
PHYSICALLY LODGED, AND WHERE UNDER NEW YORK PRACTICE A JUDGMENT IS
ENTERED UPON THE REMITTITUR OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, IT IS NEVERTHELESS
IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE RECORD IS PHYSICALLY LODGED IN THE ONE COURT OR
THE OTHER, SINCE THIS COURT HAS AMPLE POWER TO OBTAIN IT FROM EITHER. 
P. 267. 

3.  THE TIME WITHIN WHICH APPLICATION TO REVIEW A FINAL JUDGMENT OF
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS MAY BE MADE TO THIS COURT RUNS FROM THE
DATE OF THE RENDITION OF THE JUDGMENT IN THAT COURT, AND NOT FROM THE
DATE WHEN, UNDER THE LOCAL PRACTICE, JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON REMITTITUR
IN THE LOWER STATE COURT.  P. 267. 

4.  A JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK IS FINAL
FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW BY THIS COURT WHEN THE RECORD REVEALS THAT IT
LEAVES NOTHING TO BE DONE BY THE LOWER COURT EXCEPT THE MINISTERIAL ACT
OF ENTERING JUDGMENT ON THE REMITTITUR.  P. 267. 

5.  THE TEST OF THE FINALITY PREREQUISITE TO A REVIEW IN THIS COURT
IS NOT WHETHER UNDER LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE THE JUDGMENT IS
DENOMINATED FINAL, BUT IS WHETHER THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ORDER OF
THE APPELLATE COURT HAS IN FACT FULLY ADJUDICATED RIGHTS AND THAT THAT
ADJUDICATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW BY A STATE COURT.  P.
268. 

6.  WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS FINAL IN THIS SENSE, THE TIME FOR APPLYING
TO THIS COURT RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT.  P. 268. 

DEPARTMENT OF BANKING OF NEBRASKA, RECEIVER, V. PINK, SUPERINTENDENT
OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEW YORK AS DIRECTED BY REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE.  FOR REPORT BELOW, SEE 288 N.Y. 712, 43 N.E.2D 93; 289
N.Y. 624, 43 N.E.2D 840; 289 N.Y. 841, 47 N.E.2D 441. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW YORK.  IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT A JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT
WAS AFFIRMED BY AN ORDER OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION, WHICH WAS ON JUNE
18, 1942 ORDERED AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHOSE REMITTITUR TO
THE SUPREME COURT WAS ISSUED THE SAME DAY.  ON JUNE 25 THE ORDER AND
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WERE MADE THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF
THE SUPREME COURT. 

A MOTION WAS AFTERWARDS FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TO AMEND ITS
REMITTITUR BY ADDING TO IT THE STATEMENT THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION, ON
WHICH THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI RELIES, WAS PRESENTED AND NECESSARILY
PASSED UPON IN THAT COURT.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, THE MOTION DID NOT SEEK
A REARGUMENT OR REHEARING OF ANY PART OF THE CASE; IT WAS NO MORE THAN
A REQUEST THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS DECLARE WHAT HAD IN FACT OCCURRED
UPON ITS PREVIOUS DECISION OF THE CASE.  ON JULY 29 THE COURT OF
APPEALS GRANTED THE MOTION AND AMENDED ITS REMITTITUR ACCORDINGLY.  ON
SEPTEMBER 16, THE SUPREME COURT DIRECTED THAT THE ORDER AMENDING THE
REMITTITUR BE MADE THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT.  THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI WAS FILED IN THIS COURT ON OCTOBER 20. 

UNDER THE THREE-MONTHS LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 350, THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS TIMELY ONLY IF THE AMENDMENT
OF THE REMITTITUR EXTENDED THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPLY FOR
CERTIORARI.  WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT IT HAD SUCH EFFECT.  UNLIKE
A MOTION FOR REARGUMENT OR REHEARING, IT DID NOT SEEK TO HAVE THE COURT
OF APPEALS RECONSIDER ANY QUESTION DECIDED IN THE CASE.  THE FINAL
JUDGMENT ALREADY RENDERED WAS NOT CHALLENGED; WHAT WAS SOUGHT WAS
MERELY THE COURT'S CERTIFICATION THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION HAD BEEN
PRESENTED TO IT FOR DECISION, AND THIS COULD HAVE NO DIFFERENT EFFECT
ON THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT THAN A LIKE AMENDMENT OF THE COURT'S
OPINION. 

A TIMELY PETITION FOR REHEARING TOLLS THE RUNNING OF THE THREE-MONTHS
PERIOD BECAUSE IT OPERATES TO SUSPEND THE FINALITY OF THE STATE COURT'S
JUDGMENT, PENDING THE COURT'S FURTHER DETERMINATION WHETHER THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE MODIFIED SO AS TO ALTER ITS ADJUDICATION OF THE
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  HERE NO SUCH ALTERATION OF THE RIGHTS
ADJUDICATED WAS ASKED, AND THE FINALITY OF THE COURT'S FIRST ORDER WAS
NEVER SUSPENDED.  ACCORDINGLY WE MUST DENY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY LAW. 

CERTAIN QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMELINESS OF APPLICATIONS FOR
REVIEW OF STATE COURT JUDGMENTS, WHICH ARE NOW PENDING BEFORE US IN
PETITIONS FOR REHEARING IN TWO CASES, HAVE RECURRED SO FREQUENTLY THAT
WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD A WORD FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE BAR.  IT
IS TRUE THAT OUR WRIT TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A
STATE MAY PROPERLY RUN TO A LOWER COURT WHERE THE RECORD IS PHYSICALLY
LODGED, AND WHERE UNDER NEW YORK PRACTICE A JUDGMENT IS ENTERED UPON
THE REMITTITUR OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  IT IS NEVERTHELESS IMMATERIAL
WHETHER THE RECORD IS PHYSICALLY LODGED IN THE ONE COURT OR THE OTHER,
SINCE WE HAVE AMPLE POWER TO OBTAIN IT FROM EITHER.  ATHERTON V.
FOWLER, 91 U.S. 143, 146.  IN RELIANCE UPON THE EARLY DECISION IN GREEN
V. VAN BUSKERK, 3 WALL.  448, THE PERIOD FOR APPEAL OR APPLICATION FOR
CERTIORARI HAS ON OCCASION BEEN COMPUTED NOT FROM THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER
OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, BUT FROM THE JUDGMENT SUBSEQUENTLY
ENTERED BY THE LOWER COURT UPON THE COURT OF APPEALS' REMITTITUR.  THIS
PRACTICE, WHICH IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE RULE APPLIED TO CASES FROM
OTHER STATES, IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR MANY DECISIONS ON THE NATURE OF
A FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344, AND CANNOT BE SANCTIONED.  SEE ESPECIALLY CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE'S
OPINION IN MOWER V. FLETCHER, 114 U.S. 127, WHERE A STATE APPELLATE
COURT'S JUDGMENT WAS HELD TO BE FINAL AND REVIEWABLE WHEN IT ENDED THE
LITIGATION BY FULLY DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, SO THAT
NOTHING REMAINED TO BE DONE BY THE LOWER COURT EXCEPT THE MINISTERIAL
ACT OF ENTERING THE JUDGMENT WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT HAD DIRECTED. 
SEE ALSO WURTS V. HOAGLAND, 105 U.S. 701, 702, AND CLARK V. WILLIARD,
292 U.S. 112, 117-118.  THIS RULE APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE TO CASES
FROM NEW YORK, IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
IS REVIEWABLE HERE AS A FINAL JUDGMENT WHEN THE RECORD REVEALS THAT IT
LEAVES NOTHING TO BE DONE BY THE LOWER COURT EXCEPT THE MINISTERIAL ACT
OF ENTERING JUDGMENT ON THE REMITTITUR.  SUCH AN ORDER IS, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, A FINAL JUDGMENT REVIEWABLE
HERE. 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FINALITY WHICH IS PREREQUISITE TO A REVIEW IN
THIS COURT, THE TEST IS NOT WHETHER UNDER LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE THE
JUDGMENT IS DENOMINATED FINAL (WICK V. SUPERIOR COURT, 278 U.S. 575;
CHELTENHAM & ABINGTON SEWERAGE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY
COMM'N, POST, P. 588), BUT RATHER WHETHER THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE
ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COURT HAS IN FACT FULLY ADJUDICATED RIGHTS AND
THAT THAT ADJUDICATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW BY A STATE
COURT (SEE GORMAN V. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, 316 U.S. 98).  WHERE THE
ORDER OR JUDGMENT IS FINAL IN THIS SENSE, THE TIME FOR APPLYING TO THIS
COURT RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPELLATE COURT'S ORDER, SINCE THE
OBJECT OF THE STATUTE IS TO LIMIT THE APPLICANT'S TIME TO THREE MONTHS
FROM THE DATE WHEN THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW
IS ESTABLISHED. 

IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT WE RECENTLY HELD THAT THE THREE-MONTHS
REQUIREMENT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN MONKS V. LEE, POST, P. 590,
AND BUNN V. ATLANTA, POST, P. 666, IN WHICH CASES JUDGMENTS WERE
BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURTS OF CALIFORNIA AND GEORGIA, AND
IN EACH OF WHICH A PETITION FOR REHEARING IS TODAY DENIED, POST, P.
711.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE MUST LIKEWISE BE DENIED
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :














ADAMS V. U.S. EX REL. MCCANN, 317 U.S. 269 


NO. 79.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 18, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 21, 1942.  -
126 F.2D 774, REVERSED. 


1.  A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS POWER TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AS AN INCIDENT TO AN APPEAL PENDING BEFORE IT.  P. 272. 

2.  THE RULE THAT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WILL NOT SERVE AS AN APPEAL
MUST BE STRICTLY OBSERVED.  P. 274. 

3.  UPON AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM A CONVICTION
OF FELONY, THE APPELLANT ASSIGNED SEVERAL ERRORS, INCLUDING THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; BUT THE PREPARATION OF A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS WAS OBSTRUCTED BY PECULIAR DIFFICULTIES, INCLUDING THE
INDIGENCE OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS INCARCERATION IN JAIL.  THE
APPELLATE COURT HAVING RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRIAL WAS VOID
BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAD BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE ACCUSED, AND A JURY HAD
BEEN WAIVED BY HIM, WITHOUT THE HELP OR ADVICE OF COUNSEL: 

HELD THAT FOR ITS AID IN DECIDING THIS QUESTION THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 262 TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS.  P. 274. 

4.  IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN A FEDERAL COURT, AN ACCUSED, IN THE
EXERCISE OF A FREE AND INTELLIGENT CHOICE AND WITH THE CONSIDERED
APPROVAL OF THE COURT, MAY WAIVE TRIAL BY JURY, AND SO, LIKEWISE, MAY
WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  P. 275. 

ADAMS, WARDEN, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES EX REL. MCCANN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 655, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE IN A PROSECUTION FOR USING THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD IN
VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 215. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A REVIEW OF AN ORDER BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT DISCHARGING THE RELATOR MCCANN FROM CUSTODY.  WE ACCEPT
AS FACTS, AS DID THE COURT BELOW, THOSE SET FORTH IN THE UNTRAVERSED
RETURN TO THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THAT COURT. 

MCCANN WAS INDICTED ON SIX COUNTS FOR USING THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 215 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 338.  FROM
THE TIME OF HIS ARRAIGNMENT ON FEBRUARY 18, 1941, TO THE PROSECUTION OF
HIS APPEAL IN THE COURT BELOW, MCCANN INSISTED ON CONDUCTING HIS CASE
WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A LAWYER.  WHEN CALLED UPON TO PLEAD TO THE
INDICTMENT, HE REFUSED TO DO SO; A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY WAS ENTERED ON
HIS BEHALF.  THE DISTRICT COURT AT THAT TIME ADVISED MCCANN TO RETAIN
COUNSEL.  HE REFUSED, HOWEVER, "STATING IN SUBSTANCE THAT HE DESIRED TO
REPRESENT HIMSELF, THAT THE CASE WAS VERY COMPLICATED, AND THAT HE WAS
SO FAMILIAR WITH ITS DETAILS THAT NO ATTORNEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE HIM
AS COMPETENT REPRESENTATION AS HE WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE HIMSELF." 

WHEN THE CASE CAME ON FOR TRIAL ON JULY 7, 1941, MCCANN REPEATED, IN
REPLY TO THE JUDGE'S INQUIRY WHETHER HE HAD COUNSEL, THAT HE WISHED TO
REPRESENT HIMSELF.  IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S FURTHER INQUIRY WHETHER
HE WAS ADMITTED TO THE BAR, MCCANN "REPLIED THAT HE WAS NOT, BUT THAT
HE HAD STUDIED LAW, AND WAS SUFFICIENTLY FAMILIAR THEREWITH ADEQUATELY
TO DEFEND HIMSELF, AND WAS MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPLICATED FACTS OF
HIS CASE THAN ANY ATTORNEY COULD EVER BE."  FN1 MCCANN "THEN MOVED TO
HAVE THE CASE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY BY THE JUDGE ALONE.  THERE WAS A
BRIEF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE COURT, THE PETITIONER, AND THE ASSISTANT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY," AFTER WHICH MCCANN SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING
OVER HIS SIGNATURE:  "I, GENE MCCANN, THE DEFENDANT HEREIN, APPEARING
PERSONALLY, DO HEREBY WAIVE A TRIAL BY JURY IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED CASE,
HAVING BEEN ADVISED BY THE COURT OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT."  THE
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CONSENTED, AND THE JUDGE (ONE OF LONG
TRIAL EXPERIENCE AND TESTED SOLICITUDE FOR THE CIVILIZED ADMINISTRATION
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE) ENTERED AN ORDER APPROVING THIS "WAIVER." 

THE TRIAL THEN GOT UNDER WAY.  IT LASTED FOR TWO WEEKS AND A HALF,
AND THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS MCCANN REPRESENTED HIMSELF.  HE
WAS CONVICTED ON JULY 22, 1941, AND WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR
SIX YEARS AND TO PAY A FINE OF $600.  HE TOOK AN APPEAL, AND THE TRIAL
JUDGE FIXED BAIL AT $10,000.  BEING UNABLE TO PROCURE THIS SUM, HE
REMAINED IN CUSTODY.  THEN FOLLOWED APPLICATIONS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, LIKEWISE PRESSED BY MCCANN HIMSELF, FOR EXTENDING THE TIME
FOR FILING A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.  IN THESE PROCEEDINGS BOTH THE TRIAL
AND APPELLATE COURTS AGAIN SUGGESTED TO MCCANN THE ADVISABILITY OF
BEING REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  AFTER HAVING PERSONALLY MADE THESE
NUMEROUS APPLICATIONS, MCCANN FINALLY SECURED THE ASSISTANCE OF AN
ATTORNEY.  THE LATTER APPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
REDUCTION OF BAIL.  IT WAS SO REDUCED.  BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE COURT
SUGGESTED THAT MCCANN TAKE OUT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, RETURNABLE TO
THE COURT, TO RAISE THE QUESTION WHETHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, "THE JUDGE HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY HIM." 

AS IS POINTED OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, "AT
NO TIME DID HE (MCCANN) INDICATE THAT HE WISHED A JURY OR THAT HE
REPENTED OF HIS CONSENT - EITHER WHILE THE CAUSE WAS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OR IN THIS COURT - UNTIL THE ATTORNEY, WHO NOW REPRESENTS HIM, IN
MARCH, 1942, RAISED THE POINT" AT THE COURT'S INVITATION.  THE "POINT"
THUS PROJECTED INTO THE CASE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
PRESENTED, IN ITS OWN WORDS, "IN THE BAREST POSSIBLE FORM:  HAS AN
ACCUSED, WHO IS WITHOUT COUNSEL, THE POWER AT HIS OWN INSTANCE TO
SURRENDER HIS RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY WHEN INDICTED FOR FELONY?"  FN2
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, ANSWERED THIS
QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE.  IT HELD THAT NO PERSON ACCUSED OF A FELONY -
WHO IS HIMSELF NOT A LAWYER - CAN WAIVE TRIAL BY A JURY, NO MATTER HOW
CAPABLE HE IS OF MAKING AN INTELLIGENT, INFORMED CHOICE AND HOW
STRENUOUSLY HE INSISTS UPON SUCH A CHOICE, UNLESS HE DOES SO UPON THE
ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY.  126 F.2D 774.  THE OBVIOUS IMPORTANCE OF THIS
QUESTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS LED US TO BRING THE CASE HERE.  316 U.S. 655. 

A JURISDICTIONAL OBSTACLE TO A CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE IS PRESSED
BEFORE US.  IT IS URGED THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE.  THE
DISCUSSION OF THIS QUESTION TOOK AN EXTENDED RANGE IN THE ARGUMENTS AT
THE BAR, BUT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE MATTER LIES WITHIN A
NARROW COMPASS.  UNINTERRUPTEDLY FROM THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT (SEC. 14
OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, 1 STAT. 73, 81) TO THE PRESENT DAY
(SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 377), THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES HAVE HAD POWERS OF AN AUXILIARY NATURE "TO ISSUE ALL
WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY
FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO
THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  IN WHITNEY V. DICK, 202 U.S. 132,
THIS COURT HELD THAT WHERE NO PROCEEDING OF AN APPELLATE CHARACTER IS
PENDING IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AUXILIARY
WRITS DOES NOT COME INTO OPERATION.  A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CANNOT
ISSUE THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS "AN INDEPENDENT AND ORIGINAL
PROCEEDING CHALLENGING IN TOTO THE VALIDITY OF A JUDGMENT RENDERED IN
ANOTHER COURT."  BUT THE COURT ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS POWER TO
ISSUE THE WRIT "WHERE IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF A
JURISDICTION ALREADY EXISTING."  202 U.S. AT 136-37.  IN THE CASE AT
BAR, A PROCEEDING OF AN APPELLATE CHARACTER WAS PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, FOR MCCANN HAD ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL FROM THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  THERE WAS, THEREFORE, "A JURISDICTION ALREADY
EXISTING" IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  BUT COULD THE ISSUANCE OF
THE WRIT BE DEEMED "NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE" OF THAT JURISDICTION? 

PROCEDURAL INSTRUMENTS ARE MEANS FOR ACHIEVING THE RATIONAL ENDS OF
LAW.  A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS NOT LIMITED TO ISSUING A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS ONLY WHEN IT FINDS THAT IT IS "NECESSARY" IN THE SENSE
THAT THE COURT COULD NOT OTHERWISE PHYSICALLY DISCHARGE ITS APPELLATE
DUTIES.  UNLESS APPROPRIATELY CONFINED BY CONGRESS, A FEDERAL COURT MAY
AVAIL ITSELF OF ALL AUXILIARY WRITS AS AIDS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS
DUTIES, WHEN THE USE OF SUCH HISTORIC AIDS IS CALCULATED IN ITS SOUND
JUDGMENT TO ACHIEVE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE ENTRUSTED TO IT.  UNDOUBTEDLY,
THEREFORE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD "JURISDICTION," IN THE
SENSE THAT IT HAD THE POWER, TO ISSUE THE WRIT AS AN INCIDENT TO THE
APPEAL THEN PENDING BEFORE IT.  THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ABUSED ITS POWER IN EXERCISING THAT
JURISDICTION IN THE SITUATION THAT CONFRONTED IT. 

OF COURSE THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT DO SERVICE FOR AN
APPEAL.  GLASGOW V. MOYER, 225 U.S. 420, 428; MATTER OF GREGORY, 219
U.S. 210, 213.  THIS RULE MUST BE STRICTLY OBSERVED IF ORDERLY
APPELLATE PROCEDURE IS TO BE MAINTAINED.  MERE CONVENIENCE CANNOT
JUSTIFY USE OF THE WRIT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPEAL.  BUT DRY
FORMALISM SHOULD NOT STERILIZE PROCEDURAL RESOURCES WHICH CONGRESS HAS
MADE AVAILABLE TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE,
BECAUSE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, ITS USE AS AN AID TO AN APPEAL OVER
WHICH THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE REASONABLY
NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS
AVAILABLE TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MOVED THE COURT BELOW TO THE EXERCISE OF ITS
JURISDICTION WERE THE PECULIAR DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN PREPARING A
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.  THE STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES HAD NEVER BEEN TYPED. 
THE RELATOR CLAIMED THAT HE WAS WITHOUT FUNDS.  SINCE HE WAS UNABLE TO
RAISE THE BAIL FIXED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, HE HAD BEEN IN CUSTODY SINCE
SENTENCE AND THEREFORE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS.  THE COURT DOUBTED "WHETHER ANY (BILL) CAN EVER BE MADE UP
ON WHICH THE APPEAL CAN BE HEARD  ...  IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE AT BAR, IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE WRIT IS 'NECESSARY TO THE
COMPLETE EXERCISE' OF OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION BECAUSE  ...  THERE IS
A DANGER THAT IT CANNOT BE OTHERWISE EXERCISED AT ALL AND A CERTAINTY
THAT IT MUST IN ANY EVENT BE A GOOD DEAL HAMPERED." 

THE COURT BELOW RECOGNIZED, HOWEVER, THAT A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS MIGHT
BE PREPARED WHICH WOULD BE CONFINED TO THE SINGLE POINT RAISED BY THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  THIS IS THE BASIS FOR THE CONTENTION THAT THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE PERFORMS THE FUNCTION OF AN APPEAL. 
BUT INASMUCH AS MCCANN WAS URGING A NUMBER OF GROUNDS FOR THE REVERSAL
OF HIS CONVICTION, INCLUDING THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT IT WOULD NOT
BE FAIR TO MAKE HIM STAKE HIS WHOLE APPEAL ON THE SINGLE POINT RAISED
BY THIS WRIT.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COURT WAS UNREASONABLE IN THE
VIEW IT TOOK OF THE SITUATION WITH WHICH IT WAS PRESENTED AND WITH
WHICH IT WAS MORE FAMILIAR THAN THE PRINTED RECORD ALONE CAN REVEAL. 
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PENDING APPEAL,
AND WAS THEREFORE NOT IMPROVIDENTLY ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT BELOW. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE MERITS.  THEY ARE CONTROLLED IN PRINCIPLE BY
PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276, AND JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S.
458.  THE SHORT OF THE MATTER IS THAT AN ACCUSED, IN THE EXERCISE OF A
FREE AND INTELLIGENT CHOICE, AND WITH THE CONSIDERED APPROVAL OF THE
COURT, MAY WAIVE TRIAL BY JURY, AND SO LIKEWISE MAY HE COMPETENTLY AND
INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION TO PREVENT AN ACCUSED FROM
CHOOSING TO HAVE HIS FATE TRIED BEFORE A JUDGE WITHOUT A JURY EVEN
THOUGH, IN DECIDING WHAT IS BEST FOR HIMSELF, HE FOLLOWS THE GUIDANCE
OF HIS OWN WISDOM AND NOT THAT OF A LAWYER.  IN TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW,
THE COURT BELOW APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN LARGELY INFLUENCED BY THE
RADIATIONS OF THIS COURT'S OPINION IN GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315
U.S. 60.  BUT PATTON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND JOHNSON V. ZERBST,
SUPRA, WERE LEFT WHOLLY UNIMPAIRED BY THE RULING IN THE GLASSER CASE. 

CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS ARE ESSENTIAL TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  THE COURT MUST
BE UNCOERCED, MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86, AND IT MUST HAVE NO
INTEREST OTHER THAN THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE, TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S.
510.  THE ACCUSED MUST HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE
PROSECUTION.  TO THAT END, THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
ABOLISHED THE RIGORS OF THE COMMON LAW BY AFFORDING ONE CHARGED WITH
CRIME THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE, JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304
U.S. 458.  SUCH ASSISTANCE "IN THE PARTICULAR SITUATION" OF "IGNORANT
DEFENDANTS IN A CAPITAL CASE" LED TO RECOGNITION THAT "THE BENEFIT OF
COUNSEL WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE SUBSTANCE OF A HEARING," AS GUARANTEED BY
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS IN THE STATE COURTS.  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319,
327.  COMPARE POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, AND BETTS V. BRADY, 316
U.S. 455.  THE RELATION OF TRIAL BY JURY TO CIVIL RIGHTS - ESPECIALLY
IN CRIMINAL CASES - IS FULLY REVEALED BY THE HISTORY WHICH GAVE RISE TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH GUARANTEE THAT RIGHT.  ARTICLE
III, SEC. 2, PARAGRAPH 3; SIXTH AMENDMENT; SEVENTH AMENDMENT.  THAT
HISTORY IS SUCCINCTLY SUMMARIZED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, IN
WHICH COMPLAINT WAS MADE THAT THE COLONIES WERE DEPRIVED, "IN MANY
CASES, OF THE BENEFITS OF TRIAL BY JURY."  BUT PROCEDURAL DEVICES
ROOTED IN EXPERIENCE WERE WRITTEN INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS NOT AS
ABSTRACT RUBRICS IN AN ELEGANT CODE BUT IN ORDER TO ASSURE FAIRNESS AND
JUSTICE BEFORE ANY PERSON COULD BE DEPRIVED OF "LIFE, LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY." 

IT HARDLY OCCURRED TO THE FRAMERS OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION AND OF
THE BILL OF RIGHTS THAT AN ACCUSED, ACTING IN OBEDIENCE TO THE DICTATES
OF SELF-INTEREST OR THE PROMPTINGS OF CONSCIENCE, SHOULD BE PREVENTED
FROM SURRENDERING HIS LIBERTY BY ADMITTING HIS GUILT.  THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT COMPEL AN ACCUSED WHO ADMITS HIS GUILT TO STAND TRIAL AGAINST
HIS OWN WISHES.  LEGISLATION APART, NO SOCIAL POLICY CALLS FOR THE
ADOPTION BY THE COURTS OF AN INEXORABLE RULE THAT GUILT MUST BE
DETERMINED ONLY BY TRIAL AND NOT BY ADMISSION.  A PLEA OF GUILT
EXPRESSES THE DEFENDANT'S BELIEF THAT HIS ACTS WERE PROSCRIBED BY LAW
AND THAT HE CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY BE DEFENDED.  IT IS TRUE, OF COURSE,
THAT GUILT UNDER SEC. 215 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, WHICH MAKES IT A CRIME
TO USE THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD, DEPENDS UPON ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS OF LAW
RAISED BY APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO PARTICULAR FACTS.  IT IS
EQUALLY TRUE THAT PROSECUTIONS UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE MAY RAISE EVEN MORE DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX QUESTIONS OF LAW.  BUT
SUCH QUESTIONS ARE NO LESS ABSENT WHEN A MAN PLEADS GUILTY THAN WHEN HE
RESISTS AN ACCUSATION OF CRIME.  AND NOT EVEN NOW IS IT SUGGESTED THAT
A LAYMAN CANNOT PLEAD GUILTY UNLESS HE HAS THE OPINION OF A LAWYER ON
THE QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT MIGHT ARISE IF HE DID NOT ADMIT HIS GUILT. 
PLAINLY, THE ENGRAFTING OF SUCH A REQUIREMENT UPON THE CONSTITUTION
WOULD BE A GRATUITOUS DISLOCATION OF THE PROCESSES OF JUSTICE.  THE
TASK OF JUDGING THE COMPETENCE OF A PARTICULAR ACCUSED CANNOT BE
ESCAPED BY ANNOUNCING DELUSIVELY SIMPLE RULES OF TRIAL PROCEDURE WHICH
JUDGES MUST MECHANICALLY FOLLOW.  THE QUESTION IN EACH CASE IS WHETHER
THE ACCUSED WAS COMPETENT TO EXERCISE AN INTELLIGENT, INFORMED JUDGMENT
- AND FOR DETERMINATION OF THIS QUESTION IT IS OF COURSE RELEVANT
WHETHER HE HAD THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.  BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER
TO SUGGEST THAT THE CONSTITUTION UNQUALIFIEDLY DEEMS AN ACCUSED
INCOMPETENT UNLESS HE DOES HAVE THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL.  IF A LAYMAN IS
TO BE PRECLUDED FROM DEFENDING HIMSELF BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION IS SAID
TO MAKE HIM HELPLESS WITHOUT A LAWYER'S ASSISTANCE ON QUESTIONS OF LAW
WHICH ABSTRACTLY UNDERLIE ALL FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, IT OUGHT
NOT TO MATTER WHETHER THE DECISION HE IS CALLED UPON TO MAKE IS THAT OF
PLEADING GUILTY OR OF WAIVING A PARTICULAR MODE OF TRIAL.  EVERY
CONVICTION, INCLUDING THE CONSIDERABLE NUMBER BASED UPON PLEAS OF
GUILTY, PRESUPPOSES AT LEAST A TACIT DISPOSITION OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS
INVOLVED. 

WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT ONE CHARGED WITH A SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIME
MAY DISPENSE WITH HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL, WHERE THIS
ACTION IS TAKEN WITH HIS EXPRESS, INTELLIGENT CONSENT, WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT ALSO CONSENTS, AND WHERE SUCH ACTION IS APPROVED BY THE
RESPONSIBLE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT.  PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281
U.S. 276.  FN3  AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN INTELLIGENT, COMPETENT,
SELF-PROTECTING WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL BY AN ACCUSED MUST DEPEND UPON THE
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.  THE LESS RIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT OF
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, THE GREATER INFORMALITY IN TRIAL PROCEDURE -
THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY ADVANTAGES THAT THE ABSENCE OF A JURY MAY AFFORD
TO A LAYMAN WHO PREFERS TO MAKE HIS OWN DEFENSE.  IN A VARIETY OF
SUBTLE WAYS TRIAL BY JURY MAY BE RESTRICTIVE OF A LAYMAN'S
OPPORTUNITIES TO PRESENT HIS CASE AS FREELY AS HE WISHES.  AND SINCE
TRIAL BY JURY CONFERS BURDENS AS WELL AS BENEFITS, AN ACCUSED SHOULD BE
PERMITTED TO FOREGO ITS PRIVILEGES WHEN HIS COMPETENT JUDGMENT COUNSELS
HIM THAT HIS INTERESTS ARE SAFER IN THE KEEPING OF THE JUDGE THAN OF
THE JURY. 

BUT WE ARE ASKED HERE TO HOLD THAT AN ACCUSED PERSON CANNOT WAIVE
TRIAL BY JURY, NO MATTER HOW FREELY AND UNDERSTANDINGLY HE SURRENDERS
THAT RIGHT, UNLESS HE ACTS ON A LAWYER'S ADVICE.  IN OTHER WORDS,
ALTHOUGH A SHREWD AND EXPERIENCED LAYMAN MAY, FOR HIS OWN SUFFICIENT
REASONS, CONDUCT HIS OWN DEFENSE IF HE PREFERS TO DO SO, NEVERTHELESS
IF HE DOES DO SO THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT HE MUST DEFEND HIMSELF
BEFORE A JURY AND NOT BEFORE A JUDGE.  BUT WE FIND NOTHING IN THE
CONSTITUTION, OR IN THE GREAT HISTORIC EVENTS WHICH GAVE RISE TO IT, OR
THE HISTORY TO WHICH IT HAS GIVEN RISE, TO JUSTIFY SUCH INTERPOLATION
INTO THE CONSTITUTION AND SUCH RESTRICTION UPON THE RATIONAL
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. 

THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND THE CORRELATIVE RIGHT TO
DISPENSE WITH A LAWYER'S HELP ARE NOT LEGAL FORMALISMS.  THEY REST ON
CONSIDERATIONS THAT GO TO THE SUBSTANCE OF AN ACCUSED'S POSITION BEFORE
THE LAW.  THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE MUST BE SATISFIED THAT FAIRNESS
DOMINATES THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  AN ACCUSED MUST HAVE THE
MEANS OF PRESENTING HIS BEST DEFENSE.  HE MUST HAVE TIME AND FACILITIES
FOR INVESTIGATION AND FOR THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE.  BUT EVIDENCE AND
TRUTH ARE OF NO AVAIL UNLESS THEY CAN BE ADEQUATELY PRESENTED. 
ESSENTIAL FAIRNESS IS LACKING IF AN ACCUSED CANNOT PUT HIS CASE
EFFECTIVELY IN COURT.  BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FORCE A LAWYER
UPON A DEFENDANT.  HE MAY WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL IF HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING AND HIS CHOICE IS MADE WITH
EYES OPEN.  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 468-69. 

REFERRING TO JURY TRIALS, MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, SPEAKING FOR THE
COURT, HAD OCCASION TO SAY, "FEW WOULD BE SO NARROW OR PROVINCIAL AS TO
MAINTAIN THAT A FAIR AND ENLIGHTENED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THEM."  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. AT 325. 
PUTTING THIS THOUGHT IN MORE GENERALIZED FORM, THE PROCEDURAL
SAFEGUARDS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS MECHANICAL
RIGIDITIES.  WHAT WERE CONTRIVED AS PROTECTIONS FOR THE ACCUSED SHOULD
NOT BE TURNED INTO FETTERS.  TO ASSERT AS AN ABSOLUTE THAT A LAYMAN, NO
MATTER HOW WISE OR EXPERIENCED HE MAY BE, IS INCOMPETENT TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN JUDGE AND JURY AS THE TRIBUNAL FOR DETERMINING HIS GUILT OR
INNOCENCE, SIMPLY BECAUSE A LAWYER HAS NOT ADVISED HIM ON THE CHOICE,
IS TO DOGMATIZE BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF LEARNING OR EXPERIENCE.  WERE WE
SO TO HOLD, WE WOULD IMPLIEDLY CONDEMN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE IN STATES DEEMED OTHERWISE ENLIGHTENED, MERELY BECAUSE IN THEIR
COURTS THE VAST MAJORITY OF CRIMINAL CASES ARE TRIED BEFORE A JUDGE
WITHOUT A JURY.  TO DENY AN ACCUSED A CHOICE OF PROCEDURE IN
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH HE, THOUGH A LAYMAN, IS AS CAPABLE AS ANY LAWYER
OF MAKING AN INTELLIGENT CHOICE, IS TO IMPAIR THE WORTH OF GREAT
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS BY TREATING THEM AS EMPTY VERBALISMS. 

UNDERLYING SUCH DOGMATISM IS DISTRUST OF THE ABILITY OF COURTS TO
ACCOMMODATE JUDGMENT TO THE VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL CASES. 
BUT THIS IS TO EXPRESS WANT OF FAITH IN THE VERY TRIBUNALS WHICH ARE
CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  "UNIVERSAL DISTRUST,"
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES ADMONISHED US, "CREATES UNIVERSAL INCOMPETENCE." 
GRAHAM V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 474, 480.  WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE CRIMINAL LAW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IS HEDGED ABOUT AS IT IS BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF AN ACCUSED, TO DENY HIM
IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS FREE CHOICE THE RIGHT TO DISPENSE WITH SOME OF
THESE SAFEGUARDS (WHEN SUCH SURRENDERS ARE AS JEALOUSLY GUARDED AS THEY
ARE BY OUR RULINGS IN PATTON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND JOHNSON V.
ZERBST, SUPRA), AND TO BASE SUCH DENIAL ON AN ARBITRARY RULE THAT A MAN
CANNOT CHOOSE TO CONDUCT HIS DEFENSE BEFORE A JUDGE RATHER THAN A JURY
UNLESS, AGAINST HIS WILL, HE HAS A LAWYER TO ADVISE HIM, ALTHOUGH HE
REASONABLY DEEMS HIMSELF THE BEST ADVISOR FOR HIS OWN NEEDS, IS TO
IMPRISON A MAN IN HIS PRIVILEGES AND CALL IT THE CONSTITUTION.  FOR IT
IS NEITHER OBNOZIOUS TO HUMANE STANDARDS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE AS THESE HAVE BEEN WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION, NOR VIOLATIVE
OF THE RIGHTS OF ANY PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME WHO IS CAPABLE OF WEIGHING
HIS OWN BEST INTEREST, TO PERMIT HIM TO CONDUCT HIS OWN DEFENSE IN A
TRIAL BEFORE A JUDGE WITHOUT A JURY, SUBJECT AS SUCH TRIAL IS TO PUBLIC
SCRUTINY AND AMENABLE AS IT IS TO THE CORRECTIVE OVERSIGHT OF AN
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ULTIMATELY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NATION. 

ONCE WE REJECT SUCH A DOCTRINAIRE VIEW OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THERE IS AN END TO THIS CASE.  THE PATTON DECISION LEFT
NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT A DETERMINATION OF GUILT BY A COURT AFTER WAIVER
OF JURY TRIAL COULD NOT BE SET ASIDE AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED EXCEPT
UPON A PLAIN SHOWING THAT SUCH WAIVER WAS NOT FREELY AND INTELLIGENTLY
MADE.  IF THE RESULT OF THE ADJUDICATORY PROCESS IS NOT TO BE SET AT
NAUGHT, IT IS NOT ASKING TOO MUCH THAT THE BURDEN OF SHOWING ESSENTIAL
UNFAIRNESS BE SUSTAINED BY HIM WHO CLAIMS SUCH INJUSTICE AND SEEKS TO
HAVE THE RESULT SET ASIDE, AND THAT IT BE SUSTAINED NOT AS A MATTER OF
SPECULATION BUT AS A DEMONSTRABLE REALITY.  SIMPLY BECAUSE A RESULT
THAT WAS INSISTENTLY INVITED, NAMELY, A VERDICT BY A COURT WITHOUT A
JURY, DISAPPOINTED THE HOPES OF THE ACCUSED, OUGHT NOT TO BE SUFFICIENT
FOR REJECTING IT.  AND IF THE RECORD BEFORE US DOES NOT SHOW AN
INTELLIGENT AND COMPETENT WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL BY A DEFENDANT WHO DEMANDED AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT THE JUDGE TRY
HIM, AND WHO IN HIS PERSISTENCE OF SUCH A CHOICE KNEW WHAT HE WAS
ABOUT, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN
WHICH THERE WAS SUCH A FREE CHOICE BY A SELF-DETERMINING INDIVIDUAL. 

THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST THEREFORE BE SET ASIDE
AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION, AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  MCCANN HAD BROUGHT SUIT IN 1933 AGAINST THE NEW YORK STOCK
EXCHANGE, ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU OF NEW
YORK, AND A LARGE NUMBER OF OTHER PERSONS, SEEKING THIRTY MILLION
DOLLARS DAMAGES FOR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  HE REPRESENTED
HIMSELF IN THIS EXTENSIVE LITIGATION, AND PERSONALLY BROUGHT APPEALS TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND TO THIS COURT.  SEE MCCANN V. NEW YORK
STOCK EXCHANGE, 80 F.2D 211; 107 F.2D 908; 309 U.S. 684. 

FN2  FELONY, IT MAY NOT BE IRRELEVANT TO NOTE, IS A VERBAL SURVIVAL
WHICH HAS BEEN EMPTIED OF ITS HISTORIC CONTENT.  UNDER THE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL CODE ALL OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR IMPRISONMENT FOR MORE
THAN A YEAR ARE FELONIES.  SEC. 335 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 541. 

FN3  THE RULING OF THE PATTON CASE, NAMELY, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION DEALING WITH TRIAL BY JURY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE
"MEANT TO CONFER A RIGHT UPON THE ACCUSED WHICH HE MAY FOREGO AT HIS
ELECTION," 281 U.S. AT 298, WAS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED AND ACTED UPON BY
CONGRESS IN THE ACT OF MARCH 8, 1934, C. 49, 48 STAT. 399, WHICH
EMPOWERED THE SUPREME COURT TO PRESCRIBE RULES OF PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO "PROCEEDINGS AFTER VERDICT, OR FINDING OF
GUILT BY THE COURT IF A JURY HAS BEEN WAIVED, OR PLEA OF GUILTY, IN
CRIMINAL CASES IN DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  ...  "
(ITALICS ADDED.)  COMPARE H. REP. NO. 858, SEN. REP. NO. 257, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

THE PATTON CASE (281 U.S. 276) HELD THAT A DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL MIGHT WAIVE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TRIAL BY A JURY OF
TWELVE AND SUBMIT TO TRIAL BY A JURY OF ONLY ELEVEN.  IN VIEW OF THE
STRICTNESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES, I AM BY NO MEANS CONVINCED
THAT IT FOLLOWS THAT AN ENTIRE JURY MAY BE WAIVED.  BUT ASSUMING
ARGUENDO THAT IT MAY BE, I THINK THE RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE HAD THE
BENEFIT OF LEGAL ADVICE BEFORE HIS WAIVER OF A JURY TRIAL WAS ACCEPTED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  FOR I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE CAN SAFELY ASSUME
THAT IN ABSENCE OF LEGAL ADVICE A WAIVER BY A LAYMAN OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WAS INTELLIGENT AND COMPETENT IN
SUCH A CASE AS THIS. 

RESPONDENT WAS INDICTED UNDER THE MAIL FRAUD STATUTE.  35 STAT. 1130,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 338.  IT SUBJECTS TO FINE OR IMPRISONMENT ONE WHO
"HAVING DEVISED OR INTENDING TO DEVISE ANY SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO
DEFRAUD  ...  SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING SUCH SCHEME OR
ARTIFICE OR ATTEMPTING SO TO DO, PLACE, OR CAUSE TO BE PLACED, ANY
LETTER, POSTAL CARD, PACKAGE, WRITING, CIRCULAR, PAMPHLET, OR
ADVERTISEMENT  ...  IN ANY POST-OFFICE  ...  OR OTHER LETTER BOX OF THE
UNITED STATES."  IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT A LAYMAN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT
OF LEGAL ADVICE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE LIMITED NATURE OF THE DEFENSES
AVAILABLE UNDER THAT STATUTE OR THE SCOPE OF THE ULTIMATE ISSUES ON
WHICH THE QUESTION OF GUILT USUALLY TURNS.  WITHOUT THAT UNDERSTANDING
I DO NOT SEE HOW AN INTELLIGENT CHOICE BETWEEN TRIAL BY JUDGE OR TRIAL
BY JURY COULD BE MADE. 

THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE STATUTE HAS NOT BEEN RESTRICTED BY JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION.  WHAT MIGHT APPEAR TO A LAYMAN AS A COMPLETE DEFENSE HAS
COMMONLY BEEN DENIED BY THE COURTS IN KEEPING WITH THE POLICY OF
CONGRESS TO DRAW TIGHT THE NET AROUND THOSE WHO TAX INGENUITY IN
DEVISING FRAUDULENT SCHEMES.  THUS AN INDICTMENT WILL BE UPHELD OR A
CONVICTION SUSTAINED THOUGH THE DEFENDANT DID NOT INTEND TO USE THE
MAILS AT THE TIME THE SCHEME WAS DESIGNED,  FN1  THOUGH NO ONE WAS
DEFRAUDED OR SUFFERED ANY LOSS,  FN2  THOUGH THE DEFENDANT DID NOT
INTEND TO RECEIVE  FN3  OR DID NOT RECEIVE FN4  ANY BENEFIT FROM THE
SCHEME, THOUGH THE DEFENDANT ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT HIS PLAN WOULD IN
THE END BENEFIT THE PERSONS SOLICITED,  FN5  THOUGH THE MEANS WERE
INEFFECTIVE FOR CARRYING OUT THE SCHEME,  FN6  AND, PERHAPS, EVEN
THOUGH THE MAILS WERE USED NOT FOR SOLICITATION BUT ONLY IN COLLECTION
OF CHECKS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO THE PLAN.  FN7  IN OTHER WORDS, THE
DEFENSES IN LAW ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, IF THE
MAILS WERE EMPLOYED AT ANY STAGE, THE QUESTION OF GUILT TURNS ON
WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAD A FRAUDULENT INTENT.  THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANT
FACT.  DURLAND V. UNITED STATES, 161 U.S. 306, 313. 

I THINK A LAYMAN NORMALLY WOULD NEED LEGAL ADVICE TO KNOW THAT MUCH. 
AND IT SEEMS TO ME UNLIKELY THAT HE WOULD BE CAPABLE OF APPRAISING HIS
CHANCES AS BETWEEN JUDGE AND JURY WITHOUT SUCH ADVICE.  WITHOUT IT HE
MIGHT WELL CONCLUDE THAT HE HAD ADEQUATE DEFENSES ON WHICH A JUDGE
COULD BETTER PASS THAN A JURY.  WITH SUCH ADVICE HE MIGHT WELL PAUSE TO
ENTRUST THE QUESTION OF HIS INTENT TO A PARTICULAR JUDGE, RATHER THAN
TO A JURY OF HIS PEERS DRAWN FROM THE COMMUNITY WHERE MOST OF THE
TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE AND INSTRUCTED TO ACQUIT IF THEY HAD A
REASONABLE DOUBT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF HE HAD A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE ISSUES, HE MIGHT CONCEIVABLY DEEM IT A MATTER OF LARGE IMPORTANCE
THAT HE BE TRIED BY THE JUDGE RATHER THAN A JURY.  THE POINT IS THAT WE
SHOULD NOT LEAVE TO SHEER SPECULATION THE QUESTION WHETHER HIS WAIVER
OF A JURY TRIAL WAS INTELLIGENT AND COMPETENT.  YET, ON THIS RECORD WE
CAN ONLY SPECULATE, SINCE ALL WE KNOW IS THAT RESPONDENT PROFESSED TO
HAVE "STUDIED LAW" AND THAT HE LOST A CIVIL SUIT WHICH HE HAD
PROSECUTED PRO SE.  MCCANN V. NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, 107 F.2D 908. 
FURTHERMORE, THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY, LIKE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IS "TOO FUNDAMENTAL AND ABSOLUTE TO ALLOW COURTS
TO INDULGE IN NICE CALCULATIONS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF PREJUDICE ARISING
FROM ITS DENIAL."  GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 76. 
MOREOVER, AS JUDGE LEARNED HAND STATED IN THE COURT BELOW, THE ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE WAIVER WAS INTELLIGENT SHOULD HARDLY BE
MADE TO DEPEND ON "THE OUTCOME OF A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY AS TO THE
COMPETENCY" OF THE PARTICULAR LAYMAN.  IF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS
TO BE JEALOUSLY PROTECTED, THERE SHOULD BE A RELIABLE OBJECTIVE
STANDARD BY WHICH THE TRIAL COURT SATISFIES ITSELF THAT THE LAYMAN WHO
WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN A CASE LIKE THIS HAS A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE CONSEQUENCES.  DILLINGHAM V. UNITED STATES, 76 F.2D 36, 39.  AT
LEAST, WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE FAILS TO INFORM HIM, THE ONLY SAFE AND
PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT ONE IS TO REQUIRE THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.  ONLY THEN SHOULD WE SAY THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE
HAS EXERCISED THAT "SOUND AND ADVISED DISCRETION" WHICH THE PATTON CASE
REQUIRED EVEN BEFORE A WAIVER OF ONE JUROR WAS ACCEPTED.  281 U.S. P.
312. 

THE QUESTION FOR US IS NOT WHETHER A JUDGE SHOULD BE TRUSTED AS MUCH
AS A JURY TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF GUILT.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH
ONE OF THE GREAT HISTORIC CIVIL LIBERTIES - THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY
JURY.  ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, WHICH GRANT THAT
RIGHT, CONTAIN NO EXCEPTION, THOUGH A FEW HAVE BEEN IMPLIED.  SEE EX
PARTE QUIRIN, ANTE, P. 1.  WE SHOULD NOT PERMIT THE EXCEPTIONS TO BE
ENLARGED BY WAIVER UNLESS IT IS PLAIN AND BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE WAIVER
WAS FREELY AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE.  THE PATTON CASE SURROUNDS SUCH A
WAIVER WITH NUMEROUS SAFEGUARDS EVEN WHERE, AS IN THAT CASE, THE WAIVER
WAS MADE BY ONE WHO WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.  WE SHOULD BE EVEN MORE
STRICT AND EXACTING IN CASE THE WAIVER IS MADE BY A LAYMAN ACTING ON
HIS OWN.  THEN THE REASONS FOR INDULGING EVERY REASONABLE PRESUMPTION
AGAINST A WAIVER OF "FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" (JOHNSON V.
ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 464) BECOME EVEN MORE COMPELLING. 

THE FACT THAT A DEFENDANT ORDINARILY MAY DISPENSE WITH A TRIAL BY
ADMITTING HIS GUILT IS NO REASON FOR ACCEPTING THIS LAYMAN'S WAIVER OF
A JURY TRIAL.  WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IS THAT THE "TRIAL" OF A
CRIME "SHALL BE BY JURY."  ART. III, SEC. 2.  AND IT SPECIFIES THE
MACHINERY WHICH SHALL BE EMPLOYED IF A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY IS ENTERED
AND THE PROSECUTION IS PUT TO ITS PROOF.  MOREOVER, WE ARE NOT DEALING
HERE WITH ABSOLUTES.  NORMALLY, ADMISSION OF GUILT COULD PROPERLY BE
ACCEPTED WITHOUT MORE, SINCE ORDINARILY A DEFENDANT WOULD KNOW WHETHER
OR NOT HE WAS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED.  BUT THERE MIGHT CONCEIVABLY
BE AN EXCEPTION, WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ISSUE OF GUILT TURNED NOT ONLY
ON THE ADMITTED FACTS BUT UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE.  EACH
CASE OF NECESSITY TURNS ON ITS OWN FACTS.  NOR IS IT A SUFFICIENT
ANSWER TO SAY THAT IF LEGAL ADVICE IS REQUIRED FOR A WAIVER OF TRIAL BY
JURY, THEN BY THE SAME TOKEN A LAYMAN REPRESENTING HIMSELF COULD NOT
EXERCISE HIS OWN JUDGMENT CONCERNING ANY MATTER DURING THE TRIAL WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH A LAWYER MIGHT HAVE SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE.  WHETHER THE
WAIVER OF COUNSEL FOR PURPOSES OF THE TRIAL MEETS THE EXACTING
STANDARDS OF JOHNSON V. ZERBST IS ONE THING.  WHETHER THAT DILUTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS MAY BE COMPOUNDED BY A WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY IS
QUITE ANOTHER.  IT IS THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE SEVERAL WAIVERS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN A GIVEN CASE WHICH MUST BE GAUGED.  NOR CAN I
ACCEDE TO THE SUGGESTION OF THE PROSECUTION THAT A LAYMAN'S RIGHT TO
WAIVE TRIAL BY JURY IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF HIS HIGH PRIVILEGE TO
MANAGE HIS OWN CASE THAT ITS EXERCISE SHOULD BE FREELY ACCORDED.  THAT
ARGUMENT IS FAINTLY REMINISCENT OF THOSE NOTIONS OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE
AND LIBERTY OF CONTRACT WHICH LONG DENIED PROTECTION TO THE INDIVIDUAL
IN OTHER FIELDS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. YOUNG, 232 U.S. 155. 

FN2  COWL V. UNITED STATES, 35 F.2D 794; UNITED STATES V. ROWE, 56
F.2D 747. 

FN3  KELLOGG V. UNITED STATES, 126 F. 323. 

FN4  CALNAY V. UNITED STATES, 1 F.2D 926; CHEW V. UNITED STATES, 9
F.2D 348. 

FN5  PANDOLFO V. UNITED STATES, 286 F. 8; FOSHAY V. UNITED STATES, 68
F.2D 205. 

FN6  SEE DURLAND V. UNITED STATES, 161 U.S. 306, 315. 

FN7  TINCHER V. UNITED STATES, 11 F.2D 18; BRADFORD V. UNITED STATES,
129 F.2D 274. 

BUT SEE DYHRE V. HUDSPETH, 106 F.2D 286; STAPP V. UNITED STATES, 120
F.2D 898. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY: 

I JOIN MY BROTHER DOUGLAS, BUT DESIRE TO ADD THE FOLLOWING VIEWS IN
DISSENT. 

THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:  "THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES,  ...  SHALL BE
BY JURY; ...  "  (ARTICLE III, SEC. 2), AND:  "IN ALL CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC
TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME
SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED,  ...  "  (AMENDMENT VI).  BECAUSE OF THESE
PROVISIONS, THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURY TRIAL,  FN1  AND ITS
BENEFICIAL EFFECTS AS A MEANS OF LEAVENING JUSTICE WITH THE SPIRIT OF
THE TIMES,  FN2  I DO NOT CONCEDE THAT THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL CAN BE
WAIVED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  WHATEVER MAY BE
THE LOGIC OF THE MATTER, THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN TRIAL BY ELEVEN JURORS, THE SITUATION IN PATTON V. UNITED
STATES, 281 U.S. 276, AND TRIAL TO THE COURT, AND PRACTICALITY IS A
STURDY GUIDE TO THE PRESERVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES. 

BUT IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT JURY TRIAL, THE PRIZED PRODUCT OF THE
TRAVAIL OF THE PAST, CAN BE WAIVED BY AN ACCUSED, THERE SHOULD BE
COMPLIANCE WITH RIGOROUS STANDARDS, ADEQUATELY DESIGNED TO INSURE THAT
AN ACCUSED FULLY UNDERSTANDS HIS RIGHTS AND INTELLIGENTLY APPRECIATES
THE EFFECTS OF HIS STEP, BEFORE A COURT SHOULD ACCEPT SUCH A WAIVER. 
AMONG THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THE CASE OF A LAYMAN DEFENDANT IN A
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING WHERE THE PUNISHMENT MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL, AS IN THE
INSTANT CASE, SHOULD BE THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE ADVICE OF
COUNSEL ON THE DESIRABILITY OF WAIVER.  OF COURSE THE CAPACITY OF
INDIVIDUALS TO APPRAISE THEIR INTERESTS VARIES, BUT SUCH A UNIFORM
GENERAL RULE WILL PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL MUCH BETTER THAN A RULE
DEPENDING UPON THE FLUCTUATING FACTUAL VARIABLES OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASE
WHICH ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT TO EVALUATE ON THE BASIS OF THE COLD RECORD. 
IN MY OPINION THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THIS GENERAL RULE AS AN
ABSOLUTE RIGHT IF A JURY IS TO BE WAIVED AT ALL. 

FN1  COMPARE GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60, 84-85, AND JACOB
V. NEW YORK CITY, 315 U.S. 752. 

FN2  THIS IS ADMIRABLY STATED BY JUDGE LEARNED HAND BELOW, 126 F.2D
AT 775-776. 
..END :











WILLIAMS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 317 U.S. 287 


NO. 29.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 21, 1942.  - 220
N.C. 445, 17 S.E.2D 769, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS BASED UPON A
GENERAL VERDICT THAT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE GROUND ON WHICH IT RESTS, AND
ONE OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH IT MAY REST IS INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, THE JUDGMENT CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED.  STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359.  P. 292. 

2.  A MAN AND A WOMAN WENT FROM NORTH CAROLINA TO NEVADA AND, AFTER
RESIDING THERE FOR A TIME SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF A
NEVADA STATUTE, SECURED DECREES FROM A NEVADA COURT, DIVORCING THEM
FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE SPOUSES IN NORTH CAROLINA, THE STATE IN WHICH
THEY HAD BEEN MARRIED AND DOMICILED.  THEY THEN MARRIED EACH OTHER IN
NEVADA, RETURNED TO NORTH CAROLINA AND COHABITED THERE AS MAN AND
WIFE.  PROSECUTED UNDER A NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE FOR BIGAMOUS
COHABITATION, THEY SET UP IN DEFENSE THE NEVADA DECREES.  A GENERAL
VERDICT WAS RETURNED, AFTER INSTRUCTIONS PERMITTING THAT THE DECREES BE
DISREGARDED UPON EITHER OF TWO GROUNDS, (1) THAT A NEVADA DIVORCE
DECREE BASED ON SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, WHERE THE DEFENDANT MADE NO
APPEARANCE, COULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED IN NORTH CAROLINA, AND (2) THAT THE
DEFENDANTS WENT TO NEVADA, NOT TO ESTABLISH BONA FIDE RESIDENCE, BUT
SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE LAWS OF THAT STATE TO
OBTAIN A DIVORCE THROUGH A FRAUD UPON THE NEVADA COURT.  HELD THAT, AS
IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED ON THE RECORD THAT THE VERDICT WAS NOT BASED
SOLELY UPON THE FIRST GROUND - INVOLVING A CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,  - THE REVIEW IN THIS COURT MUST BE OF
THAT GROUND, LEAVING THE OTHER OUT OF CONSIDERATION.  PP. 289, 292. 

3.  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT SEC. 9460, NEVADA COMP. L. 1929, IN REQUIRING
THAT THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT FOR DIVORCE SHALL HAVE "RESIDED" IN THE
STATE FOR A DESIGNATED PERIOD, MEANS A DOMICIL AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A
MERE RESIDENCE.  P. 298. 

4.  DECREES OF DIVORCE ARE MORE THAN IN PERSONAM JUDGMENTS,
INVOLVING, AS THEY DO, THE MARITAL STATUS OF THE PARTIES.  P. 298. 

5.  EACH STATE, BY VIRTUE OF ITS COMMAND OVER ITS DOMICILIARIES AND
ITS LARGE INTEREST IN THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE, CAN ALTER WITHIN ITS
OWN BORDERS THE MARRIAGE STATUS OF THE SPOUSE DOMICILED THERE, EVEN
THOUGH THE OTHER SPOUSE BE ABSENT.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER
IF THE FORM AND NATURE OF THE SUBSTITUTED SERVICE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 298. 

6.  UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND THE ACT OF MAY 26,
1790, WHERE A DECREE OF DIVORCE, GRANTED BY A STATE TO ONE WHO IS AT
THE TIME BONA FIDE DOMICILED THEREIN, IS RENDERED IN A PROCEEDING
COMPLYING WITH DUE PROCESS, SUCH DECREE, IF VALID UNDER THE LAWS OF
THAT STATE, IS BINDING UPON THE COURTS OF OTHER STATES, INCLUDING THE
STATE IN WHICH THE MARRIAGE WAS PERFORMED, AND WHERE THE OTHER PARTY TO
THE MARRIAGE WAS STILL DOMICILED WHEN THE DIVORCE WAS DECREED.  HADDOCK
V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562, OVERRULED.  P. 299. 

7.  IN THIS CASE THE COURT MUST ASSUME THAT PETITIONERS EACH HAD A
BONA FIDE DOMICIL IN NEVADA, NOT THAT THEIR NEVADA DOMICIL WAS A SHAM. 
P. 302. 

8.  THE CASE DOES NOT PRESENT THE QUESTION WHETHER NORTH CAROLINA HAS
POWER TO REFUSE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE NEVADA DIVORCE DECREES
BECAUSE THEY WERE BASED ON RESIDENCE RATHER THAN DOMICIL, OR BECAUSE,
CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE NEVADA COURT, NORTH CAROLINA FINDS THAT
NO BONA FIDE DOMICIL WAS ACQUIRED IN NEVADA.  P. 302. 

WILLIAMS ET AL. V. NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 795, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS AFFIRMING SENTENCES FOR
BIGAMOUS COHABITATION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE TRIED AND CONVICTED OF BIGAMOUS COHABITATION UNDER
SEC. 4342 OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CODE,  FN1  1939, AND EACH WAS
SENTENCED FOR A TERM OF YEARS TO A STATE PRISON.  THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.  220
N.C. 445, 17 S.E.2D 769.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

PETITIONER WILLIAMS WAS MARRIED TO CARRIE WYKE IN 1916 IN NORTH
CAROLINA AND LIVED WITH HER THERE UNTIL MAY, 1940.  PETITIONER HENDRIX
WAS MARRIED TO THOMAS HENDRIX IN 1920 IN NORTH CAROLINA AND LIVED WITH
HIM THERE UNTIL MAY, 1940.  AT THAT TIME PETITIONERS WENT TO LAS VEGAS,
NEVADA, AND ON JUNE 26, 1940, EACH FILED A DIVORCE ACTION IN THE NEVADA
COURT.  THE DEFENDANTS IN THOSE DIVORCE ACTIONS ENTERED NO APPEARANCE
NOR WERE THEY SERVED WITH PROCESS IN NEVADA.  IN THE CASE OF DEFENDANT
THOMAS HENDRIX, SERVICE BY PUBLICATION WAS HAD BY PUBLICATION OF THE
SUMMONS IN A LAS VEGAS NEWSPAPER AND BY MAILING A COPY OF THE SUMMONS
AND COMPLAINT TO HIS LAST POST-OFFICE ADDRESS.  FN2  IN THE CASE OF
DEFENDANT CARRIE WILLIAMS, A NORTH CAROLINA SHERIFF DELIVERED TO HER IN
NORTH CAROLINA A COPY OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT.  A DECREE OF
DIVORCE WAS GRANTED PETITIONER WILLIAMS BY THE NEVADA COURT ON AUGUST
26, 1940, ON THE GROUND OF EXTREME CRUELTY, THE COURT FINDING THAT "THE
PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN AND NOW IS A BONA FIDE AND CONTINUOUS RESIDENT OF
THE COUNTY OF CLARK, STATE OF NEVADA, AND HAD BEEN SUCH RESIDENT FOR
MORE THAN SIX WEEKS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS
ACTION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW."  FN3  THE NEVADA COURT GRANTED
PETITIONER HENDRIX A DIVORCE ON OCTOBER 4, 1940, ON THE GROUNDS OF
WILFUL NEGLECT AND EXTREME CRUELTY, AND MADE THE SAME FINDING AS TO
THIS PETITIONER'S BONA FIDE RESIDENCE IN NEVADA AS IT MADE IN THE CASE
OF WILLIAMS.  PETITIONERS WERE MARRIED TO EACH OTHER IN NEVADA ON
OCTOBER 4, 1940.  THEREAFTER THEY RETURNED TO NORTH CAROLINA WHERE THEY
LIVED TOGETHER UNTIL THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED.  PETITIONERS PLEADED
NOT GUILTY AND OFFERED IN EVIDENCE EXEMPLIFIED COPIES OF THE NEVADA
PROCEEDINGS, CONTENDING THAT THE DIVORCE DECREES AND THE NEVADA
MARRIAGE WERE VALID IN NORTH CAROLINA AS WELL AS IN NEVADA.  THE STATE
CONTENDED THAT SINCE NEITHER OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE NEVADA ACTIONS
WAS SERVED IN NEVADA NOR ENTERED AN APPEARANCE THERE, THE NEVADA
DECREES WOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED AS VALID IN NORTH CAROLINA.  ON THIS
ISSUE THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY IN SUBSTANCE THAT A NEVADA DIVORCE
DECREE BASED ON SUBSTITUTED SERVICE WHERE THE DEFENDANT MADE NO
APPEARANCE WOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED IN NORTH CAROLINA, UNDER THE RULE OF
PRIDGEN V. PRIDGEN, 203 N.C. 533, 166 S.E. 591.  THE STATE FURTHER
CONTENDED THAT PETITIONERS WENT TO NEVADA NOT TO ESTABLISH A BONA FIDE
RESIDENCE BUT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE LAWS OF
THAT STATE TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE THROUGH FRAUD UPON THAT COURT.  ON THAT
ISSUE THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT, UNDER THE RULE OF STATE V.
HERRON, 175 N.C. 754, 94 S.E. 698, THE DEFENDANTS HAD THE BURDEN OF
SATISFYING THE JURY, BUT NOT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, OF THE BONA
FIDES OF THEIR RESIDENCE IN NEVADA FOR THE REQUIRED TIME.  PETITIONERS
EXCEPTED TO THESE CHARGES.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA IN
AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT HELD THAT NORTH CAROLINA WAS NOT REQUIRED TO
RECOGNIZE THE NEVADA DECREES UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION (ART. IV, SEC. 1) BY REASON OF HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201
U.S. 562.  THE INTIMATION IN THE MAJORITY OPINION (220 N.C. PP. 460
464) THAT THE NEVADA DIVORCES WERE COLLUSIVE SUGGESTS THAT THE SECOND
THEORY ON WHICH THE STATE TRIED THE CASE MAY HAVE BEEN AN ALTERNATIVE
GROUND FOR THE DECISION BELOW, ADEQUATE TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT UNDER
THE RULE OF BELL V. BELL, 181 U.S. 175 - A CASE IN WHICH THIS COURT
HELD THAT A DECREE OF DIVORCE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
WHEN IT HAD BEEN GRANTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE BY THE COURTS OF A
STATE IN WHICH NEITHER SPOUSE WAS DOMICILED.  BUT THERE ARE TWO REASONS
WHY WE DO NOT REACH THAT ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, NORTH
CAROLINA DOES NOT SEEK TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT BELOW ON THAT GROUND. 
MOREOVER IT ADMITS THAT THERE PROBABLY IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
TO REQUIRE THAT PETITIONERS BE CONSIDERED "TO HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY
DOMICILED IN NEVADA."  IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE VERDICT AGAINST
PETITIONERS WAS A GENERAL ONE.  HENCE, EVEN THOUGH THE DOCTRINE OF BELL
V. BELL, SUPRA, WERE TO BE DEEMED APPLICABLE HERE, WE CANNOT DETERMINE
ON THIS RECORD THAT PETITIONERS WERE NOT CONVICTED ON THE OTHER THEORY
ON WHICH THE CASE WAS TRIED AND SUBMITTED, VIZ. THE INVALIDITY OF THE
NEVADA DECREES BECAUSE OF NEVADA'S LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE
DEFENDANTS IN THE DIVORCE SUITS.  THAT IS TO SAY, THE VERDICT OF THE
JURY FOR ALL WE KNOW MAY HAVE BEEN RENDERED ON THAT GROUND ALONE, SINCE
IT DID NOT SPECIFY THE BASIS ON WHICH IT RESTED.  IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS
HERE AS IN STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368, THAT IF ONE OF
THE GROUNDS FOR CONVICTION IS INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
THE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  NO REASON HAS BEEN SUGGESTED WHY THE
RULE OF THE STROMBERG CASE IS INAPPLICABLE HERE.  NOR HAS ANY REASON
BEEN ADVANCED WHY THE RULE OF THE STROMBERG CASE IS NOT BOTH
APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. 
TO SAY THAT A GENERAL VERDICT OF GUILTY SHOULD BE UPHELD THOUGH WE
CANNOT KNOW THAT IT DID NOT REST ON THE INVALID CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND
ON WHICH THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, WOULD BE TO COUNTENANCE A
PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD CAUSE A SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  ACCORDINGLY, WE CANNOT AVOID MEETING THE HADDOCK V. HADDOCK
ISSUE IN THIS CASE BY SAYING THAT THE PETITIONERS ACQUIRED NO BONA FIDE
DOMICIL IN NEVADA.  IF THE CASE HAD BEEN TRIED AND SUBMITTED ON THAT
ISSUE ONLY, WE WOULD HAVE QUITE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM, AS BELL V. BELL
INDICATES.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO MEET THAT ISSUE NOW AND WE INTIMATE
NO OPINION ON IT.  HOWEVER IT MIGHT BE RESOLVED IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING,
WE CANNOT EVADE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE ON THE EASY
ASSUMPTION THAT PETITIONERS' DOMICIL IN NEVADA WAS A SHAM AND A FRAUD. 
RATHER, WE MUST TREAT THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LIMITED
ISSUE BEFORE US PRECISELY THE SAME AS IF PETITIONERS HAD RESIDED IN
NEVADA FOR A TERM OF YEARS AND HAD LONG AGO ACQUIRED A PERMANENT ABODE
THERE.  IN OTHER WORDS, WE WOULD REACH THE QUESTION WHETHER NORTH
CAROLINA COULD REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE THE NEVADA DECREES BECAUSE, IN ITS
VIEW AND CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE NEVADA COURT, PETITIONERS HAD
NO ACTUAL, BONA FIDE DOMICIL IN NEVADA, IF AND ONLY IF WE CONCLUDED
THAT HADDOCK V. HADDOCK WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK IT
WAS. 

THE HADDOCK CASE INVOLVED A SUIT FOR SEPARATION AND ALIMONY, BROUGHT
IN NEW YORK BY THE WIFE ON PERSONAL SERVICE OF THE HUSBAND.  THE
HUSBAND PLEADED IN DEFENSE A DIVORCE DECREE OBTAINED BY HIM IN
CONNECTICUT WHERE HE HAD ESTABLISHED A SEPARATE DOMICIL.  THIS COURT
HELD THAT NEW YORK, THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL WHERE THE WIFE STILL
RESIDED, NEED NOT GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE CONNECTICUT DECREE,
SINCE IT WAS OBTAINED BY THE HUSBAND WHO WRONGFULLY LEFT HIS WIFE IN
THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL, SERVICE ON HER HAVING BEEN OBTAINED BY
PUBLICATION AND SHE NOT HAVING ENTERED AN APPEARANCE IN THE ACTION. 
BUT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY OF THE HADDOCK CASE THAT, SO FAR AS
THE MARITAL STATUS OF THE PARTIES IS CONCERNED,  FN4  A DECREE OF
DIVORCE GRANTED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BY ONE STATE NEED NOT BE GIVEN
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN ANOTHER. 

ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION NOT ONLY DIRECTS THAT "FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE PUBLIC ACTS,
RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE" BUT ALSO
PROVIDES THAT "CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN
WHICH SUCH ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE
EFFECT THEREOF."  CONGRESS HAS EXERCISED THAT POWER.  BY THE ACT OF MAY
26, 1790, C. 11, 28 U.S.C. 687, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT JUDGMENTS
"SHALL HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN."  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL STATED IN
HAMPTON V. M'CONNEL, 3 WHEAT.  234, 235, THAT "THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE
COURT SHOULD HAVE THE SAME CREDIT, VALIDITY, AND EFFECT, IN EVERY OTHER
COURT IN THE UNITED STATES, WHICH IT HAD IN THE STATE WHERE IT WAS
PRONOUNCED, AND THAT WHATEVER PLEAS WOULD BE GOOD TO A SUIT THEREON IN
SUCH STATE, AND NONE OTHERS, COULD BE PLEADED IN ANY OTHER COURT IN THE
UNITED STATES."  THAT VIEW HAS SURVIVED SUBSTANTIALLY INTACT. 
FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, 210 U.S. 230.  THIS COURT ONLY RECENTLY STATED THAT
ART. IV, SEC. 1 AND THE ACT OF MAY 26, 1790 REQUIRE THAT "NOT SOME, BUT
FULL" FAITH AND CREDIT BE GIVEN JUDGMENTS OF A STATE COURT.  DAVIS V.
DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32, 40.  THUS, EVEN THOUGH THE CAUSE OF ACTION COULD
NOT BE ENTERTAINED IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM, EITHER BECAUSE IT HAD
BEEN BARRED BY THE LOCAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR CONTRAVENED LOCAL
POLICY, THE JUDGMENT THEREON OBTAINED IN A SISTER STATE IS ENTITLED TO
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  SEE CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290;
FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, SUPRA; KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, 252 U.S. 411; TITUS
V. WALLICK, 306 U.S. 282, 291.  SOME EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN ENGRAFTED ON
THE RULE LAID DOWN BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL.  BUT AS STATED BY MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, 642, "THE ROOM
LEFT FOR THE PLAY OF CONFLICTING POLICIES IS A NARROW ONE."  SO FAR AS
JUDGMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE DECISIONS,  FN5  AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
DICTA,  FN6  SHOW THAT THE ACTUAL EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN FEW AND FAR
BETWEEN, APART FROM HADDOCK V. HADDOCK.  FOR THIS COURT HAS BEEN
RELUCTANT TO ADMIT EXCEPTIONS IN CASE OF JUDGMENTS RENDERED BY THE
COURTS OF A SISTER STATE, SINCE THE "VERY PURPOSE" OF ART. IV, SEC. 1
WAS "TO ALTER THE STATUS OF THE SEVERAL STATES AS INDEPENDENT FOREIGN
SOVEREIGNTIES, EACH FREE TO IGNORE OBLIGATIONS CREATED UNDER THE LAWS
OR BY THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE OTHERS, AND TO MAKE THEM INTEGRAL
PARTS OF A SINGLE NATION."  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., SUPRA, PP.
276-277. 

THIS COURT, TO BE SURE, HAS RECOGNIZED THAT IN CASE OF STATUTES, "THE
EXTRA-STATE EFFECT OF WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT PRESCRIBED," SOME
"ACCOMMODATION OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF THE TWO STATES" IS
NECESSARY.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 294
U.S. 532, 547.  BUT THAT PRINCIPLE WOULD COME INTO PLAY ONLY IN CASE
THE NEVADA DECREES WERE ASSAILED ON THE GROUND THAT NEVADA MUST GIVE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN ITS DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS TO THE DIVORCE
STATUTES OF NORTH CAROLINA.  EVEN THEN, IT WOULD BE OF NO AVAIL HERE. 
FOR AS STATED IN THE ALASKA PACKERS CASE, "PRIMA FACIE EVERY STATE IS
ENTITLED TO ENFORCE IN ITS OWN COURTS ITS OWN STATUTES, LAWFULLY
ENACTED.  ONE WHO CHALLENGES THAT RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE FORCE GIVEN TO
A CONFLICTING STATUTE OF ANOTHER STATE BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE, ASSUMES THE BURDEN OF SHOWING, UPON SOME RATIONAL BASIS, THAT
OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS INVOLVED THOSE OF THE FOREIGN STATE ARE
SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF THE FORUM."  ID., PP. 547-548.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO
PERCEIVE HOW NORTH CAROLINA COULD BE SAID TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN
NEVADA'S DOMICILIARIES SUPERIOR TO THE INTEREST OF NEVADA.  NOR IS
THERE ANY AUTHORITY WHICH LENDS SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE COMPELS THE COURTS OF ONE STATE TO SUBORDINATE THE
LOCAL POLICY OF THAT STATE, AS RESPECTS ITS DOMICILIARIES, TO THE
STATUTES OF ANY OTHER STATE.  CERTAINLY BRADFORD ELECTRIC CO. V.
CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, DID NOT SO HOLD.  INDEED, THE RECENT CASE OF
PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 306 U.S. 493,
502, HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF STATUTES "THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE ONE STATE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR ITS OWN STATUTE,
APPLICABLE TO PERSONS AND EVENTS WITHIN IT, THE CONFLICTING STATUTE OF
ANOTHER STATE, EVEN THOUGH THAT STATUTE IS OF CONTROLLING FORCE IN THE
COURTS OF THE STATE OF ITS ENACTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME PERSONS
AND EVENTS." 

MOREOVER, HADDOCK V. HADDOCK IS NOT BASED ON THE CONTRARY THEORY. 
NOR DID IT HOLD THAT A DECREE OF DIVORCE GRANTED BY THE COURTS OF ONE
STATE NEED NOT BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN ANOTHER IF THE GROUNDS
FOR THE DIVORCE WOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED BY THE COURTS OF THE FORUM.  IT
DOES NOT PURPORT TO CHALLENGE OR DISTURB THE RULE, EARLIER ESTABLISHED
BY CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, SUPRA, AND SUBSEQUENTLY FORTIFIED BY
FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, SUPRA, THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE CAUSE OF ACTION COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM, A JUDGMENT
OBTAINED THEREON IN A SISTER STATE IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT.  FOR THE MAJORITY OPINION IN THE HADDOCK CASE ACCEPTED BOTH
CHEEVER V. WILSON, 9 WALL.  108, AND ATHERTON V. ATHERTON, 181 U.S.
155.  CHEEVER V. WILSON HELD THAT A DECREE OF DIVORCE GRANTED BY A
STATE IN WHICH ONE SPOUSE WAS DOMICILED AND WHICH HAD PERSONAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER WAS AS CONCLUSIVE IN OTHER STATES AS IT WAS
IN THE STATE WHERE IT WAS OBTAINED.  ATHERTON V. ATHERTON HELD THAT
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT MUST BE GIVEN A DECREE OF DIVORCE GRANTED BY THE
STATE OF THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL ON CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE AGAINST THE
OTHER SPOUSE WHO WAS A NON-RESIDENT OF THAT STATE.  THE DECISIVE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE CASES AND HADDOCK V. HADDOCK WAS SAID TO BE
THAT, IN THE LATTER, THE STATE GRANTING THE DIVORCE HAD NO JURISDICTION
OVER THE ABSENT SPOUSE, SINCE IT WAS NOT THE STATE OF THE MATRIMONIAL
DOMICIL, BUT THE PLACE WHERE THE HUSBAND HAD ACQUIRED A SEPARATE
DOMICIL AFTER HAVING WRONGFULLY LEFT HIS WIFE.  THIS COURT ACCORDINGLY
CLASSIFIED HADDOCK V. HADDOCK WITH THAT GROUP OF CASES WHICH HOLD THAT
WHEN THE COURTS OF ONE STATE DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION EITHER OF THE
SUBJECT MATTER OR OF THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT, THE COURTS OF ANOTHER
STATE ARE NOT REQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO
ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT.  FN7  BUT SUCH DIFFERENCES IN RESULT BETWEEN
HADDOCK V. HADDOCK AND THE CASES WHICH PRECEDED IT REST ON DISTINCTIONS
WHICH IN OUR VIEW ARE IMMATERIAL, SO FAR AS THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE AND THE SUPPORTING LEGISLATION ARE CONCERNED. 

THE HISTORICAL VIEW THAT A PROCEEDING FOR A DIVORCE WAS A PROCEEDING
IN REM (2 BISHOP, MARRIAGE & DIVORCE, 4TH ED., SEC. 164) WAS REJECTED
BY THE HADDOCK CASE.  WE LIKEWISE AGREE THAT IT DOES NOT AID IN THE
SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THIS CASE TO LABEL THESE
PROCEEDINGS AS PROCEEDINGS IN REM.  SUCH A SUIT, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MERE
IN PERSONAM ACTION.  DOMICIL OF THE PLAINTIFF, IMMATERIAL TO
JURISDICTION IN A PERSONAL ACTION, IS RECOGNIZED IN THE HADDOCK CASE
AND ELSEWHERE (BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 110.1) AS ESSENTIAL IN
ORDER TO GIVE THE COURT JURISDICTION WHICH WILL ENTITLE THE DIVORCE
DECREE TO EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT, AT LEAST WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS
NEITHER BEEN PERSONALLY SERVED NOR ENTERED AN APPEARANCE.  THE FINDINGS
MADE IN THE DIVORCE DECREES IN THE INSTANT CASE MUST BE TREATED ON THE
ISSUE BEFORE US AS MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.  FOR IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT
THE PROVISION OF THE NEVADA STATUTE THAT A PLAINTIFF IN THIS TYPE OF
CASE MUST "RESIDE" IN THE STATE FOR THE REQUIRED PERIOD  FN8  REQUIRES
HIM TO HAVE A DOMICIL,  FN9  AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE RESIDENCE, IN
THE STATE.  LATTERNER V. LATTERNER, 51 NEV. 285, 274 P. 194; LAMB V.
LAMB, 57 NEV. 421, 65 P.2D 872.  HENCE, THE DECREES IN THIS CASE, LIKE
OTHER DIVORCE DECREES, ARE MORE THAN IN PERSONAM JUDGMENTS.  THEY
INVOLVE THE MARITAL STATUS OF THE PARTIES.  DOMICIL CREATES A
RELATIONSHIP TO THE STATE WHICH IS ADEQUATE FOR NUMEROUS EXERCISES OF
STATE POWER.  SEE LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, 279;
NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 313; MILLIKEN V. MEYER,
311 U.S. 457, 463-464; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69.  EACH STATE
AS A SOVEREIGN HAS A RIGHTFUL AND LEGITIMATE CONCERN IN THE MARITAL
STATUS OF PERSONS DOMICILED WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  THE MARRIAGE RELATION
CREATES PROBLEMS OF LARGE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE.  PROTECTION OF OFFSPRING,
PROPERTY INTERESTS, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF MARITAL RESPONSIBILITIES ARE
BUT A FEW OF COMMANDING PROBLEMS IN THE FIELD OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS
WITH WHICH THE STATE MUST DEAL.  THUS IT IS PLAIN THAT EACH STATE, BY
VIRTUE OF ITS COMMAND OVER ITS DOMICILIARIES AND ITS LARGE INTEREST IN
THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE, CAN ALTER WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS THE
MARRIAGE STATUS OF THE SPOUSE DOMICILED THERE, EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER
SPOUSE IS ABSENT.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER IF THE FORM AND
NATURE OF THE SUBSTITUTED SERVICE (SEE MILLIKEN V. MEYER, SUPRA, P.
463) MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  ATHERTON V. ATHERTON,
SUPRA, P. 172.  ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ADMITTED IN THE HADDOCK CASE THAT
THE DIVORCE DECREE, THOUGH NOT RECOGNIZED IN NEW YORK, WAS BINDING ON
BOTH SPOUSES IN CONNECTICUT WHERE GRANTED.  201 U.S. 569, 572, 575,
579.  AND THIS COURT IN MAYNARD V. HILL, 125 U.S. 190, UPHELD THE
VALIDITY WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF OREGON OF A DIVORCE DECREE GRANTED BY
THE LEGISLATURE TO A HUSBAND DOMICILED THERE, EVEN THOUGH THE WIFE
RESIDED IN OHIO WHERE THE HUSBAND HAD DESERTED HER.  IT THEREFORE
FOLLOWS THAT, IF THE NEVADA DECREES ARE TAKEN AT THEIR FULL FACE VALUE
(AS THEY MUST BE ON THE PHASE OF THE CASE WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY
CONCERNED), THEY WERE WHOLLY EFFECTIVE TO CHANGE IN THAT STATE THE
MARITAL STATUS OF THE PETITIONERS AND EACH OF THE OTHER SPOUSES BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA MARRIAGES.  APART FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL
DUE PROCESS (ATHERTON V. ATHERTON, SUPRA, P. 172) NOT CHALLENGED HERE
BY NORTH CAROLINA, NO REASON BASED ON THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN
ADVANCED FOR THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION.  BUT THE CONCESSION THAT THE
DECREES WERE EFFECTIVE IN NEVADA MAKES MORE COMPELLING THE REASONS FOR
REJECTION OF THE THEORY AND RESULT OF THE HADDOCK CASE. 

THIS COURT STATED IN ATHERTON V. ATHERTON, SUPRA, P. 162, THAT "A
HUSBAND WITHOUT A WIFE, OR A WIFE WITHOUT A HUSBAND, IS UNKNOWN TO THE
LAW."  BUT IF ONE IS LAWFULLY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED IN NEVADA AND
STILL MARRIED TO THE FIRST SPOUSE IN NORTH CAROLINA, AN EVEN MORE
COMPLICATED AND SERIOUS CONDITION WOULD BE REALIZED.  WE WOULD THEN
HAVE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DECLARED TO BE THE "MOST
PERPLEXING AND DISTRESSING COMPLICATIONS IN THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS OF
MANY CITIZENS IN THE DIFFERENT STATES."  DUNHAM V. DUNHAM, 162 ILL.
589, 607.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, A MAN WOULD HAVE TWO
WIVES, A WIFE TWO HUSBANDS.  THE REALITY OF A SENTENCE TO PRISON PROVES
THAT THAT IS NO MERE PLAY ON WORDS.  EACH WOULD BE A BIGAMIST FOR
LIVING IN ONE STATE WITH THE ONLY ONE WITH WHOM THE OTHER STATE WOULD
PERMIT HIM LAWFULLY TO LIVE.  CHILDREN OF THE SECOND MARRIAGE WOULD BE
BASTARDS IN ONE STATE BUT LEGITIMATE IN THE OTHER.  AND ALL THAT WOULD
FLOW FROM THE LEGALISTIC NOTION THAT WHERE ONE SPOUSE IS WRONGFULLY
DESERTED HE RETAINS POWER OVER THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL SO THAT THE
DOMICIL OF THE OTHER SPOUSE FOLLOWS HIM WHEREVER HE MAY GO, WHILE, IF
HE IS TO BLAME, HE RETAINS NO SUCH POWER.  BUT SUCH CONSIDERATIONS ARE
INAPPOSITE.  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN HIS DISSENT IN THE
HADDOCK CASE (201 U.S. P. 630), THEY CONSTITUTE A "PURE FICTION, AND
FICTION ALWAYS IS A POOR GROUND FOR CHANGING SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS." 
FURTHERMORE, THE FAULT OR WRONG OF ONE SPOUSE IN LEAVING THE OTHER
BECOMES UNDER THAT VIEW A JURISDICTIONAL FACT ON WHICH THIS COURT WOULD
ULTIMATELY HAVE TO PASS.  WHATEVER MAY BE SAID AS TO THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT WHICH SUCH A RULE WOULD HAVE IN CLOUDING DIVORCE DECREES, THE
QUESTION AS TO WHERE THE FAULT LIES HAS NO RELEVANCY TO THE EXISTENCE
OF STATE POWER IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  SEE BINGHAM, IN THE MATTER OF
HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 21 CORN.  L.Q. 393, 426.  THE EXISTENCE OF THE
POWER OF A STATE TO ALTER THE MARITAL STATUS OF ITS DOMICILIARIES, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE WISDOM OF ITS EXERCISE, IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE
UNDERLYING CAUSES OF THE DOMESTIC RIFT.  AS WE HAVE SAID, IT IS
DEPENDENT ON THE RELATIONSHIP WHICH DOMICIL CREATES AND THE PERVASIVE
CONTROL WHICH A STATE HAS OVER MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE WITHIN ITS OWN
BORDERS.  ATHERTON V. ATHERTON, WHICH PRECEDED HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, AND
THOMPSON V. THOMPSON, 226 U.S. 551, WHICH FOLLOWED IT, RECOGNIZED THAT
THE POWER OF THE STATE OF THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL TO GRANT A DIVORCE
FROM THE ABSENT SPOUSE DID NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER HIS DEPARTURE FROM THE
STATE WAS OR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED.  AS STATED ABOVE, WE SEE NO REASON, AND
NONE HAS HERE BEEN ADVANCED, FOR MAKING THE EXISTENCE OF STATE POWER
DEPEND ON AN INQUIRY AS TO WHERE THE FAULT IN EACH DOMESTIC DISPUTE
LIES.  AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO PRICK OUT ANY SUCH LINE OF DISTINCTION IN
THE GENERALITY OF THE WORDS OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE. 
MOREOVER, SO FAR AS STATE POWER IS CONCERNED, NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A
MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL AND A DOMICIL LATER ACQUIRED HAS BEEN SUGGESTED OR
IS APPARENT.  SEE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES DISSENTING, HADDOCK V. HADDOCK,
SUPRA, P. 631; GOODRICH, MATRIMONIAL DOMICILE, 27 YALE L. JOURN.  49. 
IT IS ONE THING TO SAY AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW THAT JURISDICTION TO
GRANT A DIVORCE FROM AN ABSENT SPOUSE SHOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER BY
CONSENT OR BY CONDUCT THE LATTER HAS SUBJECTED HIS INTEREST IN THE
MARRIAGE STATUS TO THE LAW OF THE SEPARATE DOMICIL ACQUIRED BY THE
OTHER SPOUSE.  BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 113.11; RESTATEMENT,
CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 113.  BUT WHERE A STATE ADOPTS, AS IT HAS THE
POWER TO DO, A LESS STRICT RULE, IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO SAY THAT
ITS DECREES AFFECTING THE MARITAL STATUS OF ITS DOMICILIARIES ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN SISTER STATES.  CERTAINLY IF
DECREES OF A STATE ALTERING THE MARITAL STATUS OF ITS DOMICILIARIES ARE
NOT VALID THROUGHOUT THE UNION EVEN THOUGH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ARE WHOLLY MET, A RULE WOULD BE FOSTERED WHICH
COULD NOT HELP BUT BRING "CONSIDERABLE DISASTER TO INNOCENT PERSONS"
AND "BASTARDIZE CHILDREN HITHERTO SUPPOSED TO BE THE OFFSPRING OF
LAWFUL MARRIAGE" (MR. JUSTICE HOLMES DISSENTING IN HADDOCK V. HADDOCK,
SUPRA, P. 628), OR ELSE ENCOURAGE COLLUSIVE DIVORCES.  BEALE,
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF DECREES FOR DIVORCE, 19 HARV. L. REV. 586,
596.  THESE INTENSELY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS EMPHASIZE FOR US THE
ESSENTIAL FUNCTION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IN SUBSTITUTING
A COMMAND FOR THE FORMER PRINCIPLES OF COMITY (BRODERICK V. ROSNER,
SUPRA, P. 643) AND IN ALTERING THE "STATUS OF THE SEVERAL STATES AS
INDEPENDENT FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTIES" BY MAKING THEM "INTEGRAL PARTS OF A
SINGLE NATION."  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., SUPRA, P. 277. 

IT IS OBJECTED, HOWEVER, THAT IF SUCH DIVORCE DECREES MUST BE GIVEN
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, A SUBSTANTIAL DILUTION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
OTHER STATES WILL BE EFFECTED.  FOR IT IS POINTED OUT THAT UNDER SUCH A
RULE ONE STATE'S POLICY OF STRICT CONTROL OVER THE INSTITUTION OF
MARRIAGE COULD BE THWARTED BY THE DECREE OF A MORE LAX STATE.  BUT SUCH
AN OBJECTION GOES TO THE APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE TO MANY SITUATIONS.  IT IS AN OBJECTION IN VARYING DEGREES OF
INTENSITY TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE BASED ON A
CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH COULD NOT BE ENFORCED IN THE STATE OF THE FORUM. 
MISSISSIPPI'S POLICY AGAINST GAMBLING TRANSACTIONS WAS OVERRIDDEN IN
FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, SUPRA, WHEN A MISSOURI JUDGMENT BASED ON SUCH A
MISSISSIPPI CONTRACT WAS ENFORCED BY THIS COURT.  SUCH IS PART OF THE
PRICE OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

THIS COURT, OF COURSE, IS THE FINAL ARBITER WHEN THE QUESTION IS
RAISED AS TO WHAT IS A PERMISSIBLE LIMITATION ON THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N,
SUPRA, P. 547; MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., SUPRA, P. 274.  BUT THE
QUESTION FOR US IS A LIMITED ONE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE REPEAT THAT
IN THIS CASE WE MUST ASSUME THAT PETITIONERS HAD A BONA FIDE DOMICIL IN
NEVADA, NOT THAT THE NEVADA DOMICIL WAS A SHAM.  WE THUS HAVE NO
QUESTION ON THE PRESENT RECORD WHETHER A DIVORCE DECREE GRANTED BY THE
COURTS OF ONE STATE TO A RESIDENT, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A DOMICILIARY,
IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN ANOTHER STATE.  NOR DO WE REACH
HERE THE QUESTION AS TO THE POWER OF NORTH CAROLINA TO REFUSE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT TO NEVADA DIVORCE DECREES BECAUSE, CONTRARY TO THE
FINDINGS OF THE NEVADA COURT, NORTH CAROLINA FINDS THAT NO BONA FIDE
DOMICIL WAS ACQUIRED IN NEVADA.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE QUESTION AS
TO WHAT IS A PERMISSIBLE LIMITATION ON THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
DOES NOT INVOLVE A DECISION ON OUR PART AS TO WHICH STATE POLICY ON
DIVORCE IS THE MOST DESIRABLE ONE.  IT DOES NOT INVOLVE SELECTION OF A
RULE WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE ON THE ONE HAND OR DISCOURAGE ON THE OTHER
THE PRACTICE OF DIVORCE.  THAT CHOICE IN THE REALM OF MORALS AND
RELIGION RESTS WITH THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES.  OUR OWN VIEWS AS
TO THE MARRIAGE INSTITUTION AND THE AVENUES OF ESCAPE WHICH SOME STATES
HAVE CREATED ARE IMMATERIAL.  IT IS A CONSTITUTION WHICH WE ARE
EXPOUNDING - A CONSTITUTION WHICH IN NO SMALL MEASURE BRINGS SEPARATE
SOVEREIGN STATES INTO AN INTEGRATED WHOLE THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  WITHIN THE LIMITS OF HER POLITICAL POWER
NORTH CAROLINA MAY, OF COURSE, ENFORCE HER OWN POLICY REGARDING THE
MARRIAGE RELATION - AN INSTITUTION MORE BASIC IN OUR CIVILIZATION THAN
ANY OTHER.  BUT SOCIETY ALSO HAS AN INTEREST IN THE AVOIDANCE OF
POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES (LOUGHRAN V. LOUGHRAN, 292 U.S. 216, 223) AND IN
THE PROTECTION OF INNOCENT OFFSPRING OF MARRIAGES DEEMED LEGITIMATE IN
OTHER JURISDICTIONS.  AND OTHER STATES HAVE AN EQUALLY LEGITIMATE
CONCERN IN THE STATUS OF PERSONS DOMICILED THERE AS RESPECTS THE
INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE.  SO, WHEN A COURT OF ONE STATE ACTING IN
ACCORD WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ALTERS THE
MARITAL STATUS OF ONE DOMICILED IN THAT STATE BY GRANTING HIM A DIVORCE
FROM HIS ABSENT SPOUSE, WE CANNOT SAY ITS DECREE SHOULD BE EXCEPTED
FROM THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE MERELY BECAUSE ITS ENFORCEMENT OR
RECOGNITION IN ANOTHER STATE WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE POLICY OF THE
LATTER.  WHETHER CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO CREATE EXCEPTIONS (SEE
YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 290 U.S. 202, 215, NT. 2, DISSENTING OPINION)
IS A QUESTION ON WHICH WE EXPRESS NO VIEW.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE TO
NOTE THAT CONGRESS, IN ITS SWEEPING REQUIREMENT THAT JUDGMENTS OF THE
COURTS OF ONE STATE BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE COURTS OF
ANOTHER, HAS NOT DONE SO.  AND THE CONSIDERABLE INTERESTS INVOLVED, AND
THE SUBSTANTIAL AND FAR-REACHING EFFECTS WHICH THE ALLOWANCE OF AN
EXCEPTION WOULD HAVE ON INNOCENT PERSONS, INDICATE THAT THE PURPOSE OF
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND OF THE SUPPORTING LEGISLATION
WOULD BE THWARTED TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE IF THE RULE OF HADDOCK V.
HADDOCK WERE PERPETUATED.    HADDOCK V. HADDOCK IS OVERRULED.  THE
JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
NORTH CAROLINA FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 4342 PROVIDES IN PART:  "IF ANY PERSON, BEING MARRIED,
SHALL CONTRACT A MARRIAGE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE,
WHICH MARRIAGE WOULD BE PUNISHABLE AS BIGAMOUS IF CONTRACTED WITHIN
THIS STATE, AND SHALL THEREAFTER COHABIT WITH SUCH PERSON IN THIS
STATE, HE SHALL BE GUILTY OF A FELONY AND SHALL BE PUNISHED AS IN CASES
OF BIGAMY.  NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL EXTEND  ...  TO ANY
PERSON WHO AT THE TIME OF SUCH SECOND MARRIAGE SHALL HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY
DIVORCED FROM THE BOND OF THE FIRST MARRIAGE  ...  "    FN2  DEFENDANT
HENDRIX HAD WRITTEN HIS WIFE'S NEVADA ATTORNEY, "UPON RECEIPT OF THE
ORIGINAL APPEARANCE, I WILL SIGN THE SAME."  BUT NO APPEARANCE WAS
ENTERED AND THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT A PROMISE TO
MAKE AN APPEARANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ONE. 

FN3  SEC. 9460, NEV. COMP. L. 1929, AS AMENDED L. 1931, P. 161,
PROVIDES IN PART:  "DIVORCE FROM THE BONDS OF MATRIMONY MAY BE OBTAINED
BY COMPLAINT, UNDER OATH, TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF ANY COUNTY IN WHICH
THE CAUSE THEREFOR SHALL HAVE ACCRUED, OR IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL
RESIDE OR BE FOUND, OR IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF SHALL RESIDE, OR IN WHICH
THE PARTIES LAST COHABITED, OR IF PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE RESIDED SIX
WEEKS IN THE STATE BEFORE SUIT BE BROUGHT, FOR THE FOLLOWING CAUSES, OR
ANY OTHER CAUSES PROVIDED BY LAW  ...  "  SEC. 9467.02 PROVIDES THAT
"IN ALL CIVIL CASES WHERE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT DEPENDS UPON
THE RESIDENCE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION, THE COURT SHALL
REQUIRE CORROBORATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH RESIDENCE."  L. 1931, P.
277. 

FN4  THUS WE HAVE HERE NO QUESTION AS TO EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT OF A
DIVORCE DECREE INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTS PROPERTY IN ANOTHER STATE.  SEE
THE CASES CITED, INFRA, NOTE 5. 

FN5  FALL V. EASTIN, 215 U.S. 1; OLMSTED V. OLMSTED, 216 U.S. 386;
HOOD V. MCGEHEE, 237 U.S. 611.  THESE DECISIONS REFUSE TO REQUIRE
COURTS OF ONE STATE TO ALLOW ACTS OR JUDGMENTS OF ANOTHER TO CONTROL
THE DISPOSITION OR DEVOLUTION OF REALTY IN THE FORMER.  THEY SEEM TO
REST ON THE DOCTRINE THAT THE STATE WHERE THE LAND IS LOCATED IS "SOLE
MISTRESS" OF ITS RULES OF REAL PROPERTY.  SEE HOOD V. MCGEHEE, SUPRA,
P. 615; AND THE CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN FALL V.
EASTIN, SUPRA, P. 14. 

THAT THE CASE OF ANGLO-AMERICAN PROVISION CO. V. DAVIS PROVISION CO.,
191 U.S. 373, IS NOT AN EXCEPTION BUT ONLY AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION
OF THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, SEE BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294
U.S. 629, 642-643. 

FN6  IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY STATED THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE ONE STATE TO ENFORCE THE PENAL LAWS OF
ANOTHER.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146 U.S. 657, 666;
CONVERSE V. HAMILTON, 224 U.S. 243, 260; BRADFORD ELECTRIC CO. V.
CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, 160. 

BUT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A JUDGMENT BASED ON A PENALTY IS ENTITLED
TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WAS RESERVED IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO.,
296 U.S. 268, 279. 

FOR OTHER DICTA THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE MAY BE LIMITED BY THE POLICY OF THE LAW OF THE FORUM, SEE
BRADFORD ELECTRIC CO. V. CLAPPER, SUPRA, P. 160; ALASKA PACKERS ASSN.
V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 294 U.S. 532, 546; BRODERICK V. ROSNER,
SUPRA, NOTE 5, P. 642. 

FN7  GROVER & BAKER MACHINE CO. V. RADCLIFFE, 137 U.S. 287; NATIONAL
EXCHANGE BANK V. WILEY, 195 U.S. 257; BAKER V. BAKER, ECCLES & CO., 242
U.S. 394; CHICAGO LIFE INS. CO. V. CHERRY, 244 U.S. 25, 29; FLEXNER V.
FARSON, 248 U.S. 289. 

FN8  SEC. 9460, NEV. COMP. L. 1929, AS AMENDED L. 1931, P. 161,
SUPRA, NOTE 3. 

FN9  THE FACT THAT A STAY IN A STATE IS NOT FOR LONG IS NOT
NECESSARILY FATAL TO THE EXISTENCE OF A DOMICIL.  AS STATED IN
WILLIAMSON V. OSENTON, 232 U.S. 619, 624, THE "ESSENTIAL FACT THAT
RAISES A CHANGE OF ABODE TO A CHANGE OF DOMICIL IS THE ABSENCE OF ANY
INTENTION TO LIVE ELSEWHERE."  THE INTENTION TO STAY FOR A TIME TO
WHICH A PERSON "DID NOT THEN CONTEMPLATE AN END" WAS HELD SUFFICIENT. 
ID., P. 625.  AND SEE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. MURPHY, 314 U.S. 441. 
NOR IS THERE ANY DOUBT THAT A MARRIED WOMAN MAY ACQUIRE IN THIS COUNTRY
A DOMICIL SEPARATE FROM HER HUSBAND.  WILLIAMSON V. OSENTON, SUPRA, PP.
625-626, AND CASES CITED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

I JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT BUT THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD A
FEW THOUSAND WORDS. 

ARTICLE 91 OF THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT (1867) GIVES THE
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.  SIMILARLY, ARTICLE 51 OF THE AUSTRALIA
CONSTITUTION ACT (1900) EMPOWERS THE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT TO MAKE
LAWS WITH RESPECT TO MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.  THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, RESERVES AUTHORITY OVER MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE TO
EACH OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES.  THAT IS OUR STARTING-POINT.  IN A
COUNTRY LIKE OURS WHERE EACH STATE HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
TRANSLATE INTO LAW ITS OWN NOTIONS OF POLICY CONCERNING THE FAMILY
INSTITUTION, AND WHERE CITIZENS PASS FREELY FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER,
TANGLED MARITAL SITUATIONS, LIKE THE ONE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE US,
INEVITABLY ARISE.  THEY AROSE BEFORE AND AFTER THE DECISION IN THE
HADDOCK CASE, 201 U.S. 562, AND WILL, I DARESAY, CONTINUE TO ARISE NO
MATTER WHAT WE DO TODAY.  FOR THESE COMPLICATIONS CANNOT BE REMOVED BY
ANY DECISIONS THIS COURT CAN MAKE - NEITHER THE CRUDEST NOR THE
SUBTLEST JUGGLING OF LEGAL CONCEPTS COULD ENABLE US TO BRING FORTH A
UNIFORM NATIONAL LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 

WE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED NOR ARE WE QUALIFIED TO FORMULATE A NATIONAL
CODE OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS.  WE CANNOT, BY MAKING "JURISDICTION" DEPEND
UPON A DETERMINATION OF WHO IS THE DESERTER AND WHO THE DESERTED, OR
UPON THE SHIFTING NOTIONS OF POLICY CONCEALED BY THE CLOUDY ABSTRACTION
OF "MATRIMONIAL DOMICILE," TURN THIS INTO A DIVORCE AND PROBATE COURT
FOR THE UNITED STATES.  THERE MAY BE SOME WHO THINK OUR MODERN SOCIAL
LIFE IS SUCH THAT THERE IS TODAY A NEED, AS THERE WAS NOT WHEN THE
CONSTITUTION WAS FRAMED, FOR VESTING NATIONAL AUTHORITY OVER MARRIAGE
AND DIVORCE IN CONGRESS, JUST AS THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURES OF CANADA
AND AUSTRALIA HAVE BEEN VESTED WITH SUCH POWERS.  BEGINNING IN 1884,
FN1  NUMEROUS PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO CONFER SUCH
AUTHORITY HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS.  BUT THOSE WHOSE BUSINESS
IT IS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION HAVE NOT SEEN FIT TO AMEND IT IN THIS
WAY.  THE NEED FOR SECURING NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IN DEALING WITH
DIVORCE, EITHER THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT OR BY SOME OTHER
MEANS, HAS LONG BEEN THE CONCERN OF THE CONFERENCE OF GOVERNORS AND OF
SPECIAL BODIES CONVENED TO CONSIDER THIS PROBLEM.  SEE, E.G.,
PROCEEDINGS OF GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE (1910) 185-98; PROCEEDINGS OF
NATIONAL CONGRESS ON UNIFORM DIVORCE LAWS (1906).  THIS COURT SHOULD
ABSTAIN FROM TRYING TO REACH THE SAME END BY INDIRECTION.  WE SHOULD
NOT FEEL CHALLENGED BY A TASK THAT IS NOT OURS, EVEN THOUGH IT IS
DIFFICULT.  JUDICIAL ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT ARE INTRINSICALLY
LEGISLATIVE - BECAUSE THEIR ELEMENTS DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO JUDICIAL
JUDGMENT OR BECAUSE THE NECESSARY REMEDIES ARE OF A SORT WHICH JUDGES
CANNOT PRESCRIBE - ARE APT TO BE AS FUTILE IN THEIR ACHIEVEMENT AS THEY
ARE PRESUMPTUOUS IN THEIR UNDERTAKING. 

THERE IS BUT ONE RESPECT IN WHICH THIS COURT CAN, WITHIN ITS
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY AND PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, CONTRIBUTE
UNIFORMITY TO THE LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, AND THAT IS TO ENFORCE
RESPECT FOR THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE BY ITS SISTER STATES WHEN THE
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SETTLED PROCEDURAL STANDARDS. 
AS THE COURT'S OPINION SHOWS, IT IS CLEARLY SETTLED THAT IF A JUDGMENT
IS BINDING IN THE STATE WHERE IT WAS RENDERED, IT IS EQUALLY BINDING IN
EVERY OTHER STATE.  THIS RULE OF LAW WAS NOT CREATED BY THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  IT COMES FROM THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT OF MAY 26, 1790, C.
11, 1 STAT. 122.  CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERCISED ITS POWER UNDER THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO MEET THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS RAISED BY DIVORCE
DECREES.  THERE WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER THE SCOPE OF ITS POWER
IN THIS REGARD WHEN CONGRESS CHOOSES TO EXERCISE IT. 

THE DUTY OF A STATE TO RESPECT THE JUDGMENTS OF A SISTER STATE ARISES
ONLY WHERE SUCH JUDGMENTS MEET THE TESTS OF JUSTICE AND FAIR DEALING
THAT ARE EMBODIED IN THE HISTORIC PHRASE, "DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  BUT IN
THIS CASE ALL TALK ABOUT DUE PROCESS IS BESIDE THE MARK.  IF THE
ACTIONS OF THE NEVADA COURT HAD BEEN TAKEN "WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW," THE DIVORCES WHICH IT PURPORTED TO DECREE WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT
LEGAL SANCTION IN EVERY STATE, INCLUDING NEVADA.  THERE WOULD BE NO
OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE.  IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THE NEVADA DECREES DO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND ARE BINDING IN NEVADA UPON
THE ABSENT SPOUSES THAT WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER THESE
JUDGMENTS, UNASSAILABLE IN THE STATE WHICH RENDERED THEM, ARE, DESPITE
THE COMMANDS OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, NULL AND VOID
ELSEWHERE. 

NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT BASE ITS DISREGARD OF THE NEVADA DECREES ON
THE CLAIM THAT THEY WERE A FRAUD AND A SHAM, AND NO CLAIM WAS MADE HERE
ON BEHALF OF NORTH CAROLINA THAT THE DECREES WERE NOT VALID IN NEVADA. 
IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT THE NEVADA DECREES HERE, LIKE THE CONNECTICUT
DECREE IN THE HADDOCK CASE, WERE VALID AND BINDING IN THE STATE WHERE
THEY WERE RENDERED.  HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562, 569-70; MAYNARD
V. HILL, 125 U.S. 190; ATHERTON V. ATHERTON, 181 U.S. 155.  IN DENYING
CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION TO SUCH A VALID JUDGMENT OUTSIDE THE STATE
WHICH RENDERED IT, THE HADDOCK DECISION MADE AN ARBITRARY BREAK WITH
THE PAST AND CREATED DISTINCTIONS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE ROLE OF THIS
COURT IN ENFORCING THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  FREED FROM THE
HOPELESS REFINEMENTS INTRODUCED BY THAT CASE, THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS
SIMPLY WHETHER THE NEVADA DECREES WERE RENDERED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT WOULD MAKE THEM BINDING AGAINST THE ABSENT SPOUSES IN THE STATE
WHERE THEY WERE RENDERED.  NORTH CAROLINA DID NOT CHALLENGE THE POWER
OF NEVADA TO DECLARE THE MARITAL STATUS OF PERSONS FOUND TO BE NEVADA
RESIDENTS.  NORTH CAROLINA CHOSE INSTEAD TO DISRESPECT THE CONSEQUENCES
OF NEVADA'S EXERTION OF SUCH POWER.  IT IS THEREFORE NO MORE RHETORICAL
TO SAY THAT NEVADA IS SEEKING TO IMPOSE ITS POLICY UPON NORTH CAROLINA
THAN IT IS TO SAY THAT NORTH CAROLINA IS SEEKING TO IMPOSE ITS POLICY
UPON NEVADA. 

FOR ALL BUT A VERY SMALL FRACTION OF THE COMMUNITY THE NICETIES OF
RESOLVING SUCH CONFLICTS AMONG THE LAWS OF THE STATES ARE, IN ALL
LIKELIHOOD, MATTERS OF COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE.  OUR OCCASIONAL
PRONOUNCEMENTS UPON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE DOUBTLESS HAVE LITTLE EFFECT UPON DIVORCES.  BE THIS AS IT MAY,
A COURT IS LIKELY TO LOSE ITS WAY IF IT STRAYS OUTSIDE THE MODEST
BOUNDS OF ITS OWN SPECIAL COMPETENCE AND TURNS THE DUTY OF ADJUDICATING
ONLY THE LEGAL PHASES OF A BROAD SOCIAL PROBLEM INTO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
FORMULATING JUDGMENTS OF SOCIAL POLICY QUITE BEYOND ITS COMPETENCE AS
WELL AS ITS AUTHORITY. 

FN1  SEE AMES, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES DURING THE FIRST CENTURY OF ITS HISTORY, CONTAINED IN THE ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, 1896, VOL. II, P. 190;
SEN. DOC. NO. 93, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AND THE SUCCESSIVE
COMPILATIONS PREPARED BY THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE OF THE
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY: 

I DISSENT BECAUSE THE COURT TODAY INTRODUCES AN UNDESIRABLE RIGIDITY
IN THE APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO A PROBLEM
WHICH IS OF ACUTE INTEREST TO ALL THE STATES OF THE UNION AND ON WHICH
THEY HOLD VARYING AND SHARPLY DIVERGENT VIEWS, THE PROBLEM OF HOW THEY
SHALL TREAT THE MARRIAGE RELATION. 

THIS CASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ONE INVOLVING THE CONSTITUTION
ALONE; RATHER THE CASE INVOLVES THE INTERACTION OF PUBLIC POLICY UPON
THE CONSTITUTION.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT OUR FUNCTION IS TO BECOME
CENSORS OF PUBLIC MORALS AND DECIDE THIS CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT
WE MAY THINK IS THE WISEST RULE FOR SOCIETY WITH RESPECT TO DIVORCE. 
BUT THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC POLICY ENTERS TO THIS DEGREE - MARRIAGE AND
THE FAMILY HAVE GENERALLY BEEN REGARDED AS BASIC COMPONENTS OF OUR
NATIONAL LIFE, AND THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS ENGENDERED BY THE
MARITAL RELATION, THE FORMULATION OF STANDARDS OF PUBLIC MORALITY IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND THE SUPERVISION OF DOMESTIC (IN THE SENSE OF
FAMILY) AFFAIRS, HAVE BEEN LEFT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.  EACH STATE
HAS THE DEEPEST CONCERN FOR ITS CITIZENS IN THOSE MATTERS, AND,
CONCOMITANTLY WITH THAT CONCERN, IT EXERCISES THE WIDEST CONTROL OVER
MARRIAGE, DETERMINING HOW IT IS TO BE SOLEMNIZED, THE ATTENDANT
OBLIGATIONS, AND HOW IT MAY BE DISSOLVED.  WHEN A CONFLICT ARISES
BETWEEN THE DIVERGENT POLICIES OF TWO STATES IN THIS AREA OF LEGITIMATE
GOVERNMENTAL CONCERN, AS HERE, THIS COURT SHOULD GIVE APPROPRIATE
CONSIDERATION TO THE INTERESTS OF EACH STATE. 

IN RECOGNITION OF THE PARAMOUNT INTEREST OF THE STATE OF DOMICILE
OVER THE MARITAL STATUS OF ITS CITIZENS, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT
ACTUAL GOOD FAITH DOMICILE OF AT LEAST ONE PARTY IS ESSENTIAL TO CONFER
AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION ON THE COURTS OF A STATE TO RENDER A DECREE
OF DIVORCE THAT WILL BE ENTITLED TO EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT UNDER THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, BELL V. BELL, 181 U.S. 175, EVEN THOUGH
BOTH PARTIES PERSONALLY APPEAR, ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14.  WHEN
THE DOCTRINE OF THOSE CASES IS APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THIS ONE, THE
QUESTION BECOMES A SIMPLE ONE:  DID PETITIONERS ACQUIRE A BONA FIDE
DOMICILE IN NEVADA?  I AGREE WITH MY BROTHER JACKSON THAT THE ONLY
PROPER ANSWER ON THE RECORD IS, NO. NORTH CAROLINA IS THE STATE IN
WHICH PETITIONERS HAVE THEIR ROOTS, THE STATE TO WHICH THEY IMMEDIATELY
RETURNED AFTER A BRIEF ABSENCE JUST SUFFICIENT TO ACHIEVE THEIR PURPOSE
UNDER NEVADA'S REQUIREMENTS.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE NEVADA DECREES ARE
ENTITLED TO NO EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT WHEN CHALLENGED IN ANOTHER
STATE.  BELL V. BELL, SUPRA; ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, SUPRA.    THIS IS NOT
TO SAY THAT THE NEVADA DECREES ARE WITHOUT ANY LEGAL EFFECT IN THE
STATE OF NEVADA.  THAT QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE US.  IT MAY BE THAT FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THAT STATE THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM
THEIR MARITAL VOWS, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ON THE BASIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE NON
RESIDENT SPOUSES.  BUT CONCEDING THE VALIDITY IN NEVADA OF ITS DECREES
DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGES, IT DOES NOT MECHANICALLY FOLLOW THAT THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE COMPELS NORTH CAROLINA TO ACCEPT THEM. 

WE HAVE RECOGNIZED AN AREA OF FLEXIBILITY IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
CLAUSE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT STATE POLICIES IN MATTERS OF VITAL
PUBLIC CONCERN.  WE HAVE SAID THAT CONFLICTS BETWEEN SUCH STATE
POLICIES SHOULD BE RESOLVED, "NOT BY GIVING AUTOMATIC EFFECT TO THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE,  ...  BUT BY APPRAISING THE GOVERNMENTAL
INTERESTS OF EACH JURISDICTION, AND TURNING THE SCALE OF DECISION
ACCORDING TO THEIR WEIGHT."  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMM'N, 294 U.S.
532, 547.  (SEE ALSO MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 273
274, AND COMPARE THE DISSENTING OPINION IN YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH,
290 U.S. 202, 213-227.)  THAT CLAUSE SHOULD NO MORE BE READ "WITH
LITERAL EXACTNESS LIKE A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA" THAN ARE OTHER GREAT AND
GENERAL CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION PLACING LIMITATIONS UPON THE STATES
TO WELD US INTO A NATION.  CF. HOME BLDG. & L. ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290
U.S. 398, 428.  RATHER IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO HARMONIZE ITS
DIRECTION "WITH THE NECESSARY RESIDUUM OF STATE POWER."  ID., AT P.
435. 

PROMINENT IN THE RESIDUUM OF STATE POWER, AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, IS
THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO DEAL WITH THE MARRIAGE RELATIONS OF ITS
CITIZENS AND TO PURSUE ITS CHOSEN DOMESTIC POLICY OF PUBLIC MORALITY IN
THAT CONNECTION.  BOTH NEVADA AND NORTH CAROLINA HAVE RIGHTS IN THIS
REGARD WHICH ARE ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION.  THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THOSE
RIGHTS HERE SHOULD NOT BE RESOLVED BY EXTENDING INTO NORTH CAROLINA THE
EFFECTS OF NEVADA'S ACTION THROUGH A PERFUNCTORY APPLICATION OF THE
LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, WITH THE RESULT
THAT MEASURES WHICH NORTH CAROLINA HAS ADOPTED TO SAFEGUARD THE WELFARE
OF HER CITIZENS IN THIS AREA OF LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL CONCERN ARE
UNDERMINED.  WHEN THE INTERESTS ARE CONSIDERED, THOSE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ARE OF SUFFICIENT VALIDITY THAT THEY SHOULD AS CLEARLY FREE HER OF THE
COMPULSIONS OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AS DID THE INTEREST OF
THE STATE IN THE DEVOLUTION OF PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES IN FALL
V. EASTIN, 215 U.S. 1; OLMSTED V. OLMSTED, 216 U.S. 386, AND HOOD V.
MCGEHEE, 237 U.S. 611, OR THE INTERESTS OF A STATE IN THE APPLICATION
OF ITS OWN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTE IN ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V.
COMM'N, SUPRA, OR ITS INTEREST IN DECLINING TO ENFORCE THE PENAL LAWS
OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION, CF. HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146 U.S. 657, 666,
ALL OF WHICH SEEM TO BE MATTERS OF FAR LESS CONCERN TO A STATE THAN THE
UNTRAMMELED ENFORCEMENT WITHIN ITS BORDERS OF THOSE STANDARDS OF PUBLIC
MORALITY WITH REGARD TO THE MARRIAGE RELATION WHICH IT CONSIDERS TO BE
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF ITS CITIZENS. 

THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF TRAGIC INCONGRUITY IN THE FACT THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL MAY BE VALIDLY DIVORCED IN ONE STATE BUT NOT IN ANOTHER. 
BUT OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NO UNIFORM
LAWS ON MANY SUBJECTS GIVE RISE TO OTHER INCONGRUITIES AS WELL - FOR
EXAMPLE, THE COMMON LAW TOOK THE LOGICAL POSITION THAT AN INDIVIDUAL
COULD HAVE BUT ONE DOMICILE AT A TIME, BUT THIS COURT HAS NEVERTHELESS
SAID THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT PREVENT CONFLICTING
STATE DECISIONS ON THE QUESTION OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S DOMICILE.  CF.
WORCESTER COUNTY CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 299.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A
UNIFORM LAW ON THE SUBJECT OF DIVORCE, THIS COURT IS NOT SO LIMITED IN
ITS APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE THAT IT MUST FORCE
NEVADA'S POLICY UPON NORTH CAROLINA, ANY MORE THAN IT MUST COMPEL
NEVADA TO ACCEPT NORTH CAROLINA'S REQUIREMENTS.  THE FAIR RESULT IS TO
LEAVE EACH FREE TO REGULATE WITHIN ITS OWN AREA THE RIGHTS OF ITS OWN
CITIZENS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

I CANNOT JOIN IN EXERTING THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO COMPEL THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TO SUBORDINATE ITS OWN
LAW TO THE NEVADA DIVORCE DECREES.  THE COURT'S DECISION TO DO SO
REACHES FAR BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE CASE.  IT SUBJECTS MATRIMONIAL LAWS OF
EACH STATE TO IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS THAT IT MUST
RECOGNIZE WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS AND AS TO ITS OWN PERMANENT
POPULATION.  IT NULLIFIES THE POWER OF EACH STATE TO PROTECT ITS OWN
CITIZENS AGAINST DISSOLUTION OF THEIR MARRIAGES BY THE COURTS OF OTHER
STATES WHICH HAVE AN EASIER SYSTEM OF DIVORCE.  IT SUBJECTS EVERY
MARRIAGE TO A NEW INFIRMITY, IN THAT ONE DISSATISFIED SPOUSE MAY CHOOSE
A STATE OF EASY DIVORCE, IN WHICH NEITHER PARTY HAS EVER LIVED, AND
THERE COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS.  THE
SPOUSE REMAINING WITHIN THE STATE OF DOMICILE NEED NEVER KNOW OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.  OR, IF THEY COME TO ONE'S KNOWLEDGE, THE CHOICE IS
BETWEEN EQUALLY USELESS ALTERNATIVES:  ONE IS TO IGNORE THE FOREIGN
PROCEEDINGS, IN WHICH CASE THE MARRIAGE IS QUITE CERTAIN TO BE
DISSOLVED; THE OTHER IS TO FOLLOW THE COMPLAINING SPOUSE TO THE STATE
OF HIS CHOICE AND THERE DEFEND UNDER THE LAWS WHICH GRANT THE
DISSOLUTION ON RELATIVELY TRIVIAL GROUNDS.  TO DECLARE THAT A STATE IS
POWERLESS TO PROTECT EITHER ITS OWN POLICY OR THE FAMILY RIGHTS OF ITS
PEOPLE AGAINST SUCH CONSEQUENCES HAS SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPLICATIONS.  IT IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION TO SAY THAT THIS DECISION
REPEALS THE DIVORCE LAWS OF ALL THE STATES AND SUBSTITUTES THE LAW OF
NEVADA AS TO ALL MARRIAGES ONE OF THE PARTIES TO WHICH CAN AFFORD A
SHORT TRIP THERE.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS DECISION IS BEST APPRAISED
BY ORIENTING ITS FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATES INVOLVED, FOR THE
COURT APPROVES THIS CONCRETE CASE AS A PATTERN WHICH ANYBODY IN ANY
STATE MAY HENCEFORTH FOLLOW UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS. 

FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF NORTH CAROLINA, THIS IS THE SITUATION:  THE
WILLIAMSES, NORTH CAROLINA PEOPLE, WERE MARRIED IN NORTH CAROLINA,
LIVED THERE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, AND HAVE FOUR CHILDREN.  THE HENDRIXES
WERE ALSO MARRIED IN NORTH CAROLINA AND RESIDED THERE SOME TWENTY
YEARS.  IN MAY OF 1940, MR. WILLIAMS AND MRS. HENDRIX LEFT THEIR HOMES
AND RESPECTIVE SPOUSES, DEPARTED THE STATE, BUT AFTER AN ABSENCE OF A
FEW WEEKS REAPPEARED AND SET UP HOUSEKEEPING AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. 
NORTH CAROLINA THEN HAD ON ITS HANDS THREE MARRIAGES AMONG FOUR PEOPLE
IN THE FORM OF TWO BROKEN FAMILIES, AND ONE GOING CONCERN.  WHAT
PROBLEMS WERE THEREBY CREATED AS TO PROPERTY OR SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE, WE DO NOT KNOW.  NORTH CAROLINA, FOR GOOD OR ILL, HAS A
STRICT POLICY AS TO DIVORCE.  THE SITUATION IS CONTRARY TO ITS LAWS,
AND IT HAS ATTEMPTED TO VINDICATE ITS OWN LAW BY CONVICTING THE PARTIES
OF BIGAMY. 

THE PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT NORTH CAROLINA IS MADE POWERLESS IN THE
MATTER, HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF PROCEEDINGS CARRIED ON IN NEVADA DURING
THEIR BRIEF ABSENCE FROM NORTH CAROLINA.  WE TURN TO NEVADA FOR THAT
PART OF THE EPISODE. 

WILLIAMS AND MRS. HENDRIX APPEAR IN THE STATE OF NEVADA ON MAY 15,
1940.  FOR BARELY SIX WEEKS THEY MADE THEIR RESIDENCES AT THE ALAMO
AUTO COURT ON THE LAS VEGAS-LOS ANGELES ROAD.  ON JUNE 26, 1940, BOTH
FILED BILLS OF COMPLAINT FOR DIVORCE THROUGH THE SAME LAWYER, AND
ALLEGING ALMOST IDENTICAL GROUNDS.  NO PERSONAL SERVICE WAS MADE ON THE
HOME-STAYING SPOUSE IN EITHER CASE; AND SERVICE WAS HAD ONLY BY
PUBLICATION AND SUBSTITUTED SERVICE.  BOTH OBTAINED DIVORCE DECREES. 
THE NEVADA POLICY OF DIVORCE IS REFLECTED IN MRS. HENDRIX'S CASE.  HER
GROUNDS WERE "EXTREME MENTAL CRUELTY."  SHE SUSTAINED THEM BY
TESTIFYING THAT HER HUSBAND WAS "MOODY"; DID NOT TALK OR SPEAK TO HER
"OFTEN"; WHEN SHE SPOKE TO HIM HE ANSWERED MOST OF THE TIME BY A NOD OR
SHAKE OF THE HEAD AND "THERE WAS NOTHING CHEERFUL ABOUT HIM AT ALL." 
THE LATTER OF THE TWO DIVORCES WAS GRANTED ON OCTOBER 4, 1940, AND ON
THAT DAY IN NEVADA THEY HAD BENEFIT OF CLERGY AND EMERGED AS MAN AND
WIFE.  NEVADA HAVING SERVED ITS PURPOSE IN THEIR AFFAIRS, THEY AT ONCE
RETURNED TO NORTH CAROLINA TO LIVE. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS COURT WILL NOW PROHIBIT NORTH CAROLINA
FROM ENFORCING ITS OWN POLICY WITHIN THAT STATE AGAINST THESE NORTH
CAROLINIANS ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAW OF NEVADA UNDER WHICH THEY LIVED
A FEW WEEKS IS IN SOME WAY PROJECTED INTO NORTH CAROLINA TO GIVE THEM
IMMUNITY. 

I.

                     OUR FUNCTION IN THE MATTER. 

THERE IS CONFIDED TO THE COURT ONLY THE POWER TO RESOLVE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THESE DIVORCE PROCEDURES, AND NOT
MORAL, RELIGIOUS, OR SOCIAL QUESTIONS AS TO DIVORCE ITSELF.  I DO NOT
KNOW WITH ANY CERTAINTY WHETHER IN THE LONG RUN STRICT OR EASY DIVORCE
IS BEST FOR SOCIETY OR WHETHER EITHER HAS MUCH EFFECT ON MORAL
CONDUCT.  IT IS ENOUGH FOR JUDICIAL PURPOSES THAT TO EACH STATE IS
RESERVED CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DETERMINE ITS OWN DIVORCE POLICY.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD UPHOLD IMPARTIALLY THE RIGHT OF
NEVADA TO ADOPT EASY DIVORCE LAWS AND THE RIGHT OF NORTH CAROLINA TO
ENACT SEVERE ONES.  NO DIFFICULTIES ARISE SO LONG AS EACH STATE APPLIES
ITS LAWS TO ITS OWN PERMANENT INHABITANTS.  THE COMPLICATIONS BEGIN
WHEN ONE STATE OPENS ITS COURTS AND EXTENDS THE PRIVILEGES OF ITS LAWS
TO PERSONS WHO NEVER WERE DOMICILED THERE AND ATTEMPTS TO VISIT
DISADVANTAGES THEREFROM UPON PERSONS WHO HAVE NEVER LIVED THERE, HAVE
NEVER SUBMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF ITS COURTS, AND HAVE NEVER BEEN
LAWFULLY SUMMONED BY PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS.  THIS STRIKES AT THE
ORDERLY FUNCTIONING OF OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, AND RAISES
QUESTIONS FOR US. 

THE PREVAILING OPINION RESTS UPON A LINE OF CASES OF WHICH CHRISTMAS
V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290, IS TYPICAL.  THERE IT WAS SAID THAT "IF A
JUDGMENT IS CONCLUSIVE IN THE STATE WHERE IT WAS PRONOUNCED, IT IS
EQUALLY CONCLUSIVE EVERYWHERE."  ID. AT 302.  THIS RULE WAS UTTERED
LONG AGO IN VERY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE JUDGMENT THERE IN
QUESTION WAS ON A PROMISSORY NOTE, AND THE COURT ALSO SAID THAT:
"NOTHING CAN BE PLAINER THAN THE PROPOSITION IS, THAT THE JUDGMENT  ...
WAS A VALID JUDGMENT IN THE STATE WHERE IT WAS RENDERED.  JURISDICTION
OF THE CASE WAS UNDENIABLE, AND THE DEFENDANT BEING FOUND IN THAT
JURISDICTION, WAS DULY SERVED WITH PROCESS, AND APPEARED AND MADE FULL
DEFENSE."  ID. AT 301.  BUT THE SAME DEFENDANT TRIED TO RELITIGATE HIS
LOST CAUSE WHEN IT WAS SOUGHT TO GIVE THAT JUDGMENT EFFECT IN HIS HOME
STATE.  THIS COURT PROPERLY HELD THAT IT WAS NOT COMPETENT FOR THE
COURTS OF ANY OTHER STATE TO REOPEN THE MERITS OF THE CAUSE.  THIS VERY
WISE RULE AGAINST COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT OF AN ORDINARY JUDGMENT BASED
UPON PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS NOW MADE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT WE
MUST ENFORCE THESE VERY DIFFERENT NEVADA JUDGMENTS WITHOUT MORE THAN
FORMAL INQUIRY INTO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT THAT RENDERED THEM. 

THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S DECISION TODAY - THAT WE MUST GIVE
EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT TO ANY JUDGMENT THAT A STATE HONORS FOR ITS OWN
PURPOSES - IS TO DEPRIVE THIS COURT OF CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IN CASES OF CONTESTED JURISDICTION AND TO VEST IT IN THE
FIRST STATE TO PASS ON THE FACTS NECESSARY TO JURISDICTION.  IT IS FOR
THIS COURT, I THINK, NOT FOR STATE COURTS, TO IMPLEMENT THESE GREAT BUT
GENERAL CLAUSES BY DEFINING THOSE JUDGMENTS WHICH ARE TO BE FORCED UPON
OTHER STATES. 

CONFLICT BETWEEN POLICIES, LAWS, AND JUDGMENTS OF CONSTITUENT STATES
OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM IS AN OLD, PERSISTENT, AND INCREASINGLY COMPLEX
PROBLEM.  THE RIGHT OF EACH STATE TO EXPERIMENT WITH RULES OF ITS OWN
CHOICE FOR GOVERNING MATRIMONIAL AND SOCIAL LIFE IS GREATLY IMPAIRED IF
ITS OWN AUTHORITY IS OVERLAPPED AND ITS OWN POLICY IS OVERRIDDEN BY
JUDGMENTS OF OTHER STATES FORCED ON IT BY THE POWER OF THIS FEDERAL
COURT.  IF WE ARE TO EXTEND PROTECTION TO THE ORDERLY EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHT OF EACH STATE TO MAKE ITS OWN POLICY, WE MUST FIND SOME WAY OF
CONFINING EACH STATE'S AUTHORITY TO MATTERS AND PERSONS THAT ARE BY
SOME STANDARD ITS OWN. 

THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT LAY DOWN RULES TO GUIDE US IN
SELECTING WHICH OF TWO CONFLICTING STATE JUDGMENTS OR PUBLIC ACTS WOULD
RECEIVE FEDERAL AID IN ITS EXTRATERRITORIAL ENFORCEMENT.  NOR WAS IT
NECESSARY.  THERE WAS, AND IS, AN ADEQUATE BODY OF LAW, IF WE DO NOT
REJECT IT, BY WHICH TO TEST JURISDICTION OR POWER TO RENDER THE
JUDGMENTS IN QUESTION SO FAR AS FAITH AND CREDIT BY FEDERAL COMMAND IS
CONCERNED.  BY THE APPLICATION OF WELL ESTABLISHED RULES THESE
JUDGMENTS FAIL TO MERIT ENFORCEMENT FOR TWO REASONS. 

II.

                     LACK OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS AGO THIS COURT DECIDED THAT A STATE COURT, EVEN OF
THE PLAINTIFF'S DOMICILE, COULD NOT RENDER A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE THAT
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT IN OTHER STATES AGAINST A
NONRESIDENT WHO DID NOT APPEAR, AND WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED WITH
PROCESS.  HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562(1905 TERM).  THE OPINION WAS
MUCH CRITICIZED, PARTICULARLY IN ACADEMIC CIRCLES.  FN1  UNTIL TODAY,
HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN REGARDED AS LAW, TO BE ACCEPTED AND APPLIED, FOR
GOOD OR ILL, DEPENDING ON ONE'S VIEW OF THE MATTER.  THE THEORETICAL
REASONS FOR THE CHANGE ARE NOT CONVINCING.    THE OPINION CONCEDES THAT
NEVADA'S JUDGMENT COULD NOT BE FORCED UPON NORTH CAROLINA IN ABSENCE OF
PERSONAL SERVICE IF A DIVORCE PROCEEDING WERE AN ACTION IN PERSONAM. 
IN OTHER WORDS, SETTLED FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS MAY BE DESTROYED BY A
PROCEDURE THAT WE WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE IF THE SUIT WERE ONE TO COLLECT A
GROCERY BILL.  FN2 

WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THIS IS BECAUSE DIVORCE IS A PROCEEDING IN
REM.  THE MARRIAGE RELATION IS TO BE REIFIED AND TREATED AS A RES.
THEN IT SEEMS THAT THIS RES FOLLOWS A FUGITIVE FROM MATRIMONY INTO A
STATE OF EASY DIVORCE, ALTHOUGH THE OTHER PARTY TO IT REMAINS AT HOME
WHERE THE RES WAS CONTRACTED AND WHERE YEARS OF COHABITATION WOULD SEEM
TO GIVE IT LOCAL SITUS.  WOULD IT BE LESS LOGICAL TO HOLD THAT THE
CONTINUED PRESENCE OF ONE PARTY TO A MARRIAGE GIVES NORTH CAROLINA
POWER TO PROTECT THE RES, THE MARRIAGE RELATION, THAN TO HOLD THAT THE
TRANSITORY PRESENCE OF ONE GIVES NEVADA POWER TO DESTROY IT?  COUNSEL
AT THE BAR MET THIS DILEMMA BY SUGGESTING THAT THE RES EXISTS IN
DUPLICATE - ONE FOR EACH PARTY TO THE MARRIAGE.  BUT THIS SEEMS FATAL
TO THE DECREE, FOR IF THAT IS TRUE THE DISSOLUTION OF THE RES IN
TRANSIT WOULD HARDLY OPERATE TO DISSOLVE THE RES THAT STAYED IN NORTH
CAROLINA.  OF COURSE THIS DISCUSSION IS ONLY TO REVEAL THE ARTIFICIAL
AND FICTIONAL CHARACTER OF THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF A RES AS APPLIED TO A
DIVORCE ACTION. 

I DOUBT THAT IT PROMOTES CLARITY OF THINKING TO DEAL WITH MARRIAGE IN
TERMS OF A RES, LIKE A PIECE OF LAND OR A CHATTEL.  IT MIGHT BE MORE
HELPFUL TO THINK OF MARRIAGE AS JUST MARRIAGE - A RELATIONSHIP OUT OF
WHICH SPRING DUTIES TO BOTH SPOUSE AND SOCIETY AND FROM WHICH ARE
DERIVED RIGHTS,  - SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO SOCIETY AND SERVICES AND TO
CONJUGAL LOVE AND AFFECTION - RIGHTS WHICH GENERALLY PROVE TO BE EITHER
PRICELESS OR WORTHLESS, BUT WHICH NONE THE LESS THE LAW SOMETIMES
ATTEMPTS TO EVALUATE IN TERMS OF MONEY WHEN ONE IS DEPRIVED OF THEM BY
THE NEGLIGENCE OR DESIGN OF A THIRD PARTY. 

IT DOES NOT SEEM CONSISTENT WITH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM THAT ONE WHO HAS
THESE CONTINUING RIGHTS SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THEM WITHOUT A HEARING. 
NEITHER DOES IT SEEM THAT HE OR SHE SHOULD BE SUMMONED BY MAIL,
PUBLICATION, OR OTHERWISE TO A REMOTE JURISDICTION CHOSEN BY THE OTHER
PARTY AND THERE BE OBLIGED TO SUBMIT MARITAL RIGHTS TO ADJUDICATION
UNDER A STATE POLICY AT ODDS WITH THAT OF THE STATE UNDER WHICH THE
MARRIAGE WAS CONTRACTED AND THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICILE WAS ESTABLISHED. 

MARRIAGE IS OFTEN DEALT WITH AS A CONTRACT.  OF COURSE A PERSONAL
JUDGMENT COULD NOT BE RENDERED AGAINST AN ABSENT PARTY ON A CAUSE OF
ACTION ARISING OUT OF AN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL CONTRACT, WITHOUT PERSONAL
SERVICE OF PROCESS.  I SEE NO REASON WHY THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT, IF SUCH
IT BE CONSIDERED, SHOULD BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, NOR WHY A PARTY TO A
MARRIAGE CONTRACT SHOULD BE MORE VULNERABLE TO A FOREIGN JUDGMENT
WITHOUT PROCESS THAN A PARTY TO ANY OTHER CONTRACT.  I AGREE THAT THE
MARRIAGE CONTRACT IS DIFFERENT, BUT I SHOULD THINK THE DIFFERENCE WOULD
BE IN ITS FAVOR. 

THE COURT THINKS THE DIFFERENCE IS THE OTHER WAY:  WE ARE TOLD THAT
DIVORCE IS NOT A "MERE IN PERSONAM ACTION" SINCE HADDOCK V. HADDOCK,
SUPRA, HELD THAT DOMICILE IS NECESSARY TO JURISDICTION FOR DIVORCE. 
BUT TO HOLD THAT A STATE CANNOT HAVE DIVORCE JURISDICTION UNLESS IT IS
THE DOMICILE IS NOT TO HOLD THAT IT MUST HAVE SUCH JURISDICTION IF IT
IS THE DOMICILE, AS HADDOCK V. HADDOCK ITSELF DEMONSTRATES.  FURTHER
SUPPORT FOR THIS VIEW SEEMS TO BE SEEN IN MAYNARD V. HILL, 125 U.S.
190, AND IN THE COURT'S SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL OF THAT CASE IN HADDOCK V.
HADDOCK, SUPRA, AT 569, 572, 574, 575, 579.  ALL THAT MAYNARD V. HILL
DECIDED WAS THAT THE TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON HAD JURISDICTION TO CUT
OFF ANY INTEREST OF AN ABSENT SPOUSE IN LAND WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  BUT
PROTECTION OF LAND IN THE JURISDICTION AND PROTECTION AGAINST BIGAMY
PROSECUTIONS OUT OF THE JURISDICTION ARE PLAINLY DIFFERENT MATTERS. 
FN3 

ALTHOUGH THE COURT CONCEDES THAT ITS PRESENT DECISION WOULD BE
INSUPPORTABLE IF DIVORCE WERE A "MERE IN PERSONAM ACTION," IT RELIES
FOR SUPPORT ON OPINIONS THAT THE STATE WHERE ONE IS DOMICILED HAS THE
POWER TO ENTER VALID CRIMINAL, TAX, AND SIMPLE MONEY JUDGMENTS AGAINST
NOT FOR - HIM.  FN4  THOSE OPINIONS ARE WHOLLY INAPPOSITE UNLESS THEY
MEAN THAT NEVADA HAS JURISDICTION TO NULLIFY CONTRACT RIGHTS OF A
PERSON NEVER IN THE STATE OR TO DECLARE THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE
COMMISSION OF CRIME, PAYMENT OF TAXES, OR THE BREACH OF A CONTRACT, IN
ANOTHER STATE; AND I AM SURE THAT NOBODY HAS EVER SUPPOSED THEY MEANT
THAT. 

TO HOLD THAT THE NEVADA JUDGMENTS WERE NOT BINDING IN NORTH CAROLINA
BECAUSE THEY WERE RENDERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER THE NORTH CAROLINA
SPOUSES, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HOLD THAT THEY WERE WITHOUT ANY
CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY.  IT MAY BE, AND PROBABLY IS, TRUE THAT NEVADA HAS
SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO SOJOURN THERE TO FREE
THEM AND THEIR SPOUSES TO TAKE NEW SPOUSES WITHOUT INCURRING CRIMINAL
PENALTIES UNDER NEVADA LAW.  I KNOW OF NOTHING IN OUR CONSTITUTION THAT
REQUIRES NEVADA TO ADHERE TO TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF BIGAMOUS UNIONS OR
THE LEGITIMACY OF THE FRUIT THEREOF.  AND THE CONTROL OF A STATE OVER
PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BORDERS IS SO COMPLETE THAT I SUPPOSE THAT NEVADA
COULD EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH IT IN THE NAME OF DIVORCE AS COMPLETELY AS
IN ANY OTHER.  FN5  BUT IT IS QUITE A DIFFERENT THING TO SAY THAT
NEVADA CAN DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGES OF NORTH CAROLINIANS AND DICTATE THE
INCIDENCE OF THE BIGAMY STATUTES OF NORTH CAROLINA BY WHICH NORTH
CAROLINA HAS SOUGHT TO PROTECT HER OWN INTERESTS AS WELL AS THEIRS.  IN
THIS CASE THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE BASIS OF JURISDICTION IN THE NEVADA
COURT OVER THE ABSENT SPOUSES,  FN6  AND, A FORTIORI, OVER NORTH
CAROLINA HERSELF.  I CANNOT BUT THINK THAT IN ITS PREOCCUPATION WITH
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE THE COURT HAS SLIGHTED THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE. 

                              III. 

    LACK OF DOMICILE. 

WE SHOULD, I THINK, REQUIRE THAT DIVORCE JUDGMENTS ASKING OUR
ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, UNLIKE JUDGMENTS
ARISING OUT OF COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS AND THE LIKE, MUST ALSO BE
SUPPORTED BY GOOD-FAITH DOMICILE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES WITHIN THE
JUDGMENT STATE.  FN7  SUCH IS CERTAINLY A REASONABLE REQUIREMENT.  A
STATE CAN HAVE NO LEGITIMATE CONCERN WITH THE MATRIMONIAL STATUS OF TWO
PERSONS, NEITHER OF WHOM LIVES WITHIN ITS TERRITORY. 

THE COURT WOULD SEEM, INDEED, TO PAY LIP SERVICE TO THIS PRINCIPLE. 
I UNDERSTAND THE HOLDING TO BE THAT IT IS DOMICILE IN NEVADA THAT GAVE
POWER TO PROCEED WITHOUT PERSONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS.  THAT BEING THE
COURSE OF REASONING, I DO NOT SEE HOW WE AVOID THE ISSUE CONCERNING THE
EXISTENCE OF THE DOMICILE WHICH THE FACTS ON THE FACE OF THIS RECORD
PUT TO US.  CERTAINLY WE CANNOT, AS THE COURT WOULD, BY-PASS THE MATTER
BY SAYING THAT "WE MUST TREAT THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
LIMITED ISSUE BEFORE US PRECISELY THE SAME AS IF PETITIONERS HAD
RESIDED IN NEVADA FOR A TERM OF YEARS AND HAD LONG AGO ACQUIRED A
PERMANENT ABODE THERE."  I THINK WE SHOULD TREAT IT AS IF THEY HAD DONE
JUST WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. 

THE ONLY SUGGESTION OF A DOMICILE WITHIN NEVADA WAS A STAY OF ABOUT
SIX WEEKS AT THE ALAMO AUTO COURT, AN ADDRESS HARDLY SUGGESTIVE OF
PERMANENCE.  MRS. HENDRIX TESTIFIED IN HER CASE (THE EVIDENCE IN
WILLIAMS' CASE IS NOT BEFORE US) THAT HER RESIDENCE IN NEVADA WAS
"INDEFINITE PERMANENT" IN CHARACTER.  THE NEVADA COURT MADE NO FINDING
THAT THE PARTIES HAD A "DOMICILE" THERE.  IT ONLY FOUND A RESIDENCE -
SOMETIMES, BUT NOT NECESSARILY, AN EQUIVALENT.  FN8  IT IS THIS COURT
THAT ACCEPTS THESE FACTS AS ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE. 

WHILE A STATE CAN NO DOUBT SET UP ITS OWN STANDARDS OF DOMICILE AS TO
ITS INTERNAL CONCERNS, I DO NOT THINK IT CAN REQUIRE US TO ACCEPT AND
IN THE NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION IMPOSE THEM ON OTHER STATES.  IF NEVADA
MAY PRESCRIBE SIX WEEKS OF INDEFINITE-PERMANENT ABODE IN A MOTOR COURT
AS CONSTITUTING DOMICILE, SHE MAY AS READILY PRESCRIBE SIX DAYS. 
INDEED, IF THE COURT'S OPINION IS CARRIED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION, A
STATE COULD GRANT A CONSTRUCTIVE DOMICILE FOR DIVORCE PURPOSES UPON THE
FILING OF SOME SORT OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION.  THEN IT WOULD FOLLOW
THAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT IT AS SUFFICIENT AND TO FORCE ALL
STATES TO RECOGNIZE MAIL-ORDER DIVORCES AS WELL AS TOURIST DIVORCES. 
INDEED, THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE BOTHER AND EXPENSE - NOT IN THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE THING. 

THE CONCEPT OF DOMICILE AS A CONTROLLING FACTOR IN CHOICE OF LAW TO
GOVERN MANY RELATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL WAS WELL KNOWN TO THE FRAMERS
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT WAS HARDLY CONTEMPLATED THAT A PERSON SHOULD
BE SUBJECT AT ONCE TO TWO CONFLICTING STATE POLICIES, SUCH AS THOSE OF
NEVADA AND NORTH CAROLINA.  IT WAS UNDOUBTEDLY EXPECTED THAT THE COURT
WOULD IN MANY CASES OF CONFLICT USE ONE'S DOMICILE AS AN APPROPRIATE
GUIDE IN SELECTING THE LAW TO GOVERN HIS CONTROVERSIES. 

DOMICILE MEANS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A PERSON AND A LOCALITY.  IT IS
THE PLACE, AND THE ONE PLACE, WHERE HE HAS HIS ROOTS AND HIS REAL,
PERMANENT HOME.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IN PROVIDING THAT ONE BY
RESIDENCE IN A STATE BECOMES A CITIZEN THEREOF, PROBABLY USED
"RESIDENCE" AS SYNONYMOUS WITH DOMICILE.  THUS DOMICILE FIXES THE PLACE
WHERE ONE BELONGS IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  IN SOME INSTANCES THE
EXISTENCE OF THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATE AND AN INDIVIDUAL MAY
BE A FEDERAL QUESTION, ALTHOUGH THIS COURT HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO ACCEPT
THAT VIEW.  FN9 

IF IN TESTING THIS JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT QUALIFIES FOR
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT WE SHOULD APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF DOMICILE TO
INTERPRETATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, NEVADA WOULD BE
HELD TO A DUTY TO RESPECT THE STATUTES OF NORTH CAROLINA AND NOT TO
INTERFERE WITH THEIR APPLICATION TO THOSE WHOSE INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS
MATRIMONIAL DOMICILE IS WITHIN THAT STATE UNLESS AND UNTIL THAT
DOMICILE HAS BEEN TERMINATED.  AND NORTH CAROLINA WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED
TO YIELD ITS POLICY AS TO PERSONS RESIDENT THERE EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING
THAT NEVADA HAD ACQUIRED A DOMICILIARY RIGHT TO REDEFINE THE
MATRIMONIAL STATUS. 

HOWEVER, THE TREND OF RECENT DECISION HAS BEEN TO BREAK DOWN THE
RIGID CONCEPT OF DOMICILE AS A TEST OF THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO DEAL
WITH IMPORTANT RELATIONS OF LIFE.  THIS TREND HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY
APPARENT IN CASES WHERE THE COURT HAS AUTHORIZED, IF NOT INDEED
ENCOURAGED, THE SEVERAL STATES TO SET UP THEIR OWN STANDARDS OF
DOMICILE AND TO MAKE CONFLICTING FINDINGS OF DOMICILE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF TAXING THE RIGHT OF SUCCESSION.  WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V.
RILEY, 302 U.S. 292.  THE COURT HAS COMPLETELY REPUDIATED DOMICILE AS
THE MEASURE OF A STATE'S RIGHT TO TAX INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.  STATE TAX
COMMISSION V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174, 185.  THE PRESENT DECISION EXTENDS
THE TREND TO THE FIELD OF MATRIMONIAL LEGISLATION.  THIS DIRECTION IS
CONTRARY TO WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE PURPOSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION TO
PREVENT OVERLAPPING AND CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE STATES. 

IN THE APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO THE VARIETY
OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARISE WHEN FAMILIES BREAK UP AND SEPARATE
DOMICILES ARE ESTABLISHED, THERE ARE, I GRANT, MANY AREAS OF GREAT
DIFFICULTY.  BUT I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A
DEMORALIZING DECISION IN ORDER TO AVOID MAKING DIFFICULT ONES. 

                                 IV.

                      PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

THE COURT SAYS THAT ITS JUDGMENT IS "PART OF THE PRICE OF OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM."  IT IS A PRICE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO PAY YESTERDAY AND THAT
WE WILL HAVE TO PAY TOMORROW, ONLY BECAUSE THIS COURT HAS WILLED IT TO
BE SO TODAY.  THIS COURT MAY FOLLOW PRECEDENTS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR
MERITS, AS A MATTER OF OBEDIENCE TO THE RULE OF STARE DECISIS. 
CONSISTENCY AND STABILITY MAY BE SO SERVED.  THEY ARE ENDS DESIRABLE IN
THEMSELVES, FOR ONLY THEREBY CAN THE LAW BE PREDICTABLE TO THOSE WHO
MUST SHAPE THEIR CONDUCT BY IT AND TO LOWER COURTS WHICH MUST APPLY IT.
BUT WE CAN BREAK WITH ESTABLISHED LAW, OVERRULE PRECEDENTS, AND START
A NEW CLUSTER OF LEADING CASES TO DEFINE WHAT WE MEAN, ONLY AS A MATTER
OF DELIBERATE POLICY.  WE THEREFORE SEARCH A JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT
THAT USHERS IN A NEW ORDER OF MATRIMONIAL CONFUSION AND
IRRESPONSIBILITY FOR SOME HINT OF THE COUNTERVAILING PUBLIC GOOD THAT
IS BELIEVED TO BE SERVED BY THE CHANGE.  LITTLE JUSTIFICATION IS
OFFERED.  AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT WHAT IS OFFERED IS
INTENDED SERIOUSLY. 

THE COURT ADVANCES TWO "INTENSELY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS" IN
SUPPORT OF ITS PRESENT DECISION.  ONE IS THE "COMPLICATED AND SERIOUS
CONDITION" IF "ONE IS LAWFULLY DIVORCED AND REMARRIED IN NEVADA AND
STILL MARRIED TO THE FIRST SPOUSE IN NORTH CAROLINA."  THIS OF COURSE
BEGS THE QUESTION, FOR THE DIVORCES WERE COMPLETELY INEFFECTUAL FOR ANY
PURPOSE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE.  I AGREE THAT IT IS SERIOUS IF A NEVADA
COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION FOR DIVORCE PURPORTS TO SAY THAT THE SOJOURN
OF TWO SPOUSES GIVES FOUR SPOUSES RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE FOUR MORE, BUT I
THINK IT FAR MORE SERIOUS TO FORCE NORTH CAROLINA TO ACQUIESCE IN ANY
SUCH PROPOSITION.  THE OTHER CONSIDERATION ADVANCED IS THAT IF THE
COURT DOESN'T ENFORCE DIVORCES SUCH AS THESE IT WILL, AS IT PUTS IT,
"BASTARDIZE" CHILDREN OF THE DIVORCEES.  WHEN THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS AGO
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES PERPETRATED THIS QUIP, IT HAD POINT, FOR THE COURT
WAS THEN HOLDING DIVORCES INVALID WHICH MANY, DUE TO THE CONFUSED STATE
OF THE LAW, HAD THOUGHT TO BE GOOD.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND THAT IT
HAS POINT NOW THAT THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT.  IN ANY EVENT, I HAD
SUPPOSED THAT OUR JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY IS FOR THE REGULARITY OF THE
LAW, NOT FOR THE REGULARITY OF PEDIGREES.    FN1  IT WAS TWENTY YEARS
BEFORE PROFESSOR BEALE COULD JUSTIFY THE DECISION TO HIS SATISFACTION. 
COMPARE HADDOCK REVISITED, 39 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 417, WITH BEALE,
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF DECREES FOR DIVORCE, 19 HARVARD LAW REVIEW
586.  OTHERS SEEM TO LACK HIS CAPACITY FOR QUICK ADJUSTMENT. 

FN2  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714; RIVERSIDE & DAN RIVER COTTON
MILLS V. MENEFFEE, 237 U.S. 189; CF. MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243 U.S. 90;
FLEXNER V. FARSON, 248 U.S. 289; DOHERTY & CO. V. GOODMAN, 294 U.S.
623; MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S. 457. 

FN3  CF. ARNDT V. GRIGGS, 134 U.S. 316; DEWEY V. DES MOINES, 173 U.S.
193; FALL V. EASTIN, 215 U.S. 1; OLMSTED V. OLMSTED, 216 U.S. 386; HOOD
V. MCGEHEE, 237 U.S. 611; GRANNIS V. ORDEAN, 234 U.S. 385; CLARK V.
WILLIARD, 294 U.S. 211; PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS CO., 314 U.S.
201. 

FN4  LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276, 279; NEW YORK EX
REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 313; MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S.
457, 463-464; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69. 

FN5  CF. ARNDT V. GRIGGS; DEWEY V. DES MOINES; GRANNIS V. ORDEAN;
CLARK V. WILLIARD, SUPRA, NOTE 3. 

FN6 A SPOUSE WHO APPEARS AND CONTESTS THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
OF ANOTHER STATE TO GRANT A DIVORCE MAY NOT COLLATERALLY ATTACK ITS
FINDINGS OF DOMICILE AND JURISDICTION MADE AFTER SUCH APPEARANCE. 
DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32.  SO ALSO, A DESERTER FROM THE MATRIMONIAL
DOMICILE MAY BE BOUND BY A DIVORCE GRANTED BY A COURT OF THE STATE
WHERE THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICILE IS SITUATED.  WHETHER FAULT ON THE PART
OF THE DESERTER IS AN ESSENTIAL SEEMS ON THE BASIS OF OUR CASES ON
JURISDICTION FOR DIVORCE TO BE AN OPEN QUESTION; ATHERTON V. ATHERTON,
181 U.S. 155; HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, SUPRA, AT 570, 572, 583; AND THOMPSON
V. THOMPSON, 226 U.S. 551; BUT OUR DECISIONS ON ANALOGOUS PROBLEMS
MIGHT BE FOUND TO AFFORD ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR A DECISION THAT IT IS
NOT.  CF. WASHINGTON EX REL. BOND & GOODWIN & TUCKER V. SUPERIOR COURT,
289 U.S. 361; DOHERTY & CO. V. GOODMAN, 294 U.S. 623.  SEE, FURTHER,
RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SECS. 112, 113. 

FN7  THIS WAS THE DECISION IN BELL V. BELL, 181 U.S. 175; AND ANDREWS
V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14.  DAVIS V. DAVIS, SUPRA, NOTE 6, IN NO WAY
INDICATES THAT A FINDING OF DOMICILE AFTER APPEARANCE OF THE ABSENT
SPOUSE AND LITIGATION OF THE QUESTION WOULD BE CONCLUSIVE UPON THE
STATE OF HIS DOMICILE IN LITIGATION INVOLVING ITS INTERESTS AND NOT
MERELY THOSE OF THE PARTIES.  CF. STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165, 172,
N. 13. 

FN8  1 BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS (1935) SEC. 10.3. 

FN9  COMPARE TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398, WITH MASSACHUSETTS V.
MISSOURI, 308 U.S. 1.  AND SEE TWEED AND SARGENT, DEATH AND TAXATION
ARE CERTAIN - BUT WHAT OF DOMICILE?, 53 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 68, 76;
"TEXAS V. FLORIDA DOES NOT HELP THE SITUATION IN THE ORDINARY CASE
BECAUSE AT THE RATES OF TAX PREVAILING IN MOST OF THE STATES A
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE STATES OF WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS
JURISDICTION CAN ARISE ONLY IF AT LEAST FOUR STATES CLAIM A TAX AND THE
ESTATE CONSISTS OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY HAVING A VALUE OF AT LEAST
$30,000,000.  ON NO OTHER STATE OF FACTS WILL THE ASSETS BE
INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CLAIMS OF ALL OF THE CLAIMANT STATES." 
..END :






















SHARPE V. BUCHANAN, WARDEN, 317 U.S. 238 


NO. 525.  DECIDED DECEMBER 14, 1942.  - 121 F.2D 448, VACATED. 


WHERE A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE
DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS UPON THE SOLE GROUND THAT
THE APPLICANT, WHO WAS CONFINED IN A STATE PENITENTIARY, HAD NOT
APPLIED FOR HABEAS CORPUS TO THE STATE COURTS, THIS COURT VACATED THE
JUDGMENT BECAUSE, AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI HERE,
HABEAS CORPUS HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY REFUSED BY THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT. 
P. 238. 

SHARPE V. BUCHANAN, WARDEN. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A
JUDGMENT DENYING HABEAS CORPUS, 36 F.SUPP.  386. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED AND THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS ALSO GRANTED.  IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD
THAT, AFTER HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN APPLICATION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY PETITIONER, WHO IS CONFINED IN A STATE
PENITENTIARY PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OF A STATE COURT. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER, 121
F.2D 448, ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT EXHAUSTED HIS
STATE REMEDIES BY APPLYING TO THE STATE COURTS FOR HABEAS CORPUS,
ALTHOUGH AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS HAD PREVIOUSLY
BEEN DENIED BY THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS.  SHARPE V. COMMONWEALTH,
284 KY. 88, 143 S.W.2D 857.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED A
PETITION FOR REHEARING, WHEN IT APPEARED THAT AN APPLICATION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS, FILED IN A STATE COURT AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD
RENDERED ITS JUDGMENT, WAS STILL PENDING ON APPEAL IN THE KENTUCKY
COURT OF APPEALS.  AFTER THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED HERE,
THE KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE STATE COURT'S ORDER DENYING
HABEAS CORPUS.  SHARPE V. COMMONWEALTH, 292 KY. 86, 165 S.W.2D 993.  IT
THUS APPEARS THAT THIS OBSTACLE TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OF
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ENCOUNTERED, HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED.  THE JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE VACATED,
WITHOUT COSTS, AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS IT MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE.  SO ORDERED. 
..END :







GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., 317 U.S. 239 


NO. 67.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 14, 1942.  - 344
PA. 69, 23 A.2D 503, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A SUIT BY A SEAMAN IN A STATE COURT FOR DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 33
OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT AND FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE, THE RIGHTS OF
THE PARTIES ARE MEASURED BY THE FEDERAL STATUTE AND ADMIRALTY
PRINCIPLES.  P. 243. 

2.  THE QUESTION WHETHER A STATE COURT, IN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES
UNDER SEC. 33 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT AND FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE,
PROTECTED ALL THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES UNDER CONTROLLING
FEDERAL LAW IS A FEDERAL QUESTION REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 237(B) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 245. 

3.  A SHIPOWNER, WHO, IN DEFENSE OF AN ACTION BY A SEAMAN FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES, SETS UP THE SEAMAN'S RELEASE, IS UNDER THE BURDEN OF
PROVING THAT IT WAS EXECUTED FREELY, WITHOUT DECEPTION OR COERCION, AND
THAT IT WAS MADE BY THE SEAMAN WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING OF HIS RIGHTS. 
THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONSIDERATION AND THE NATURE OF THE MEDICAL AND
LEGAL ADVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SEAMAN AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE RELEASE
ARE RELEVANT TO AN APPRAISAL OF THIS UNDERSTANDING.  P. 246. 

4.  THIS GENERAL ADMIRALTY RULE APPLIES NOT ONLY TO ACTIONS FOR
MAINTENANCE AND CURE BUT ALSO TO ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 33 OF
THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT.  P. 248. 

5.  SECTION 33 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT IS TO BE LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED FOR THE SEAMAN'S PROTECTION; IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
MARITIME LAW, AND RIGHTS FASHIONED BY IT ARE TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY
ADMIRALTY RULES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT.  P. 248. 

6.  THE RIGHT OF A SEAMAN SUING IN A PENNSYLVANIA COURT UNDER SEC. 33
OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT TO BE FREE FROM THE BURDEN OF PROOF IMPOSED
BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW UPON ONE ATTACKING THE VALIDITY OF A WRITTEN
RELEASE, IS A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT INHERENT IN HIS CAUSE OF ACTION.  P.
249. 

GARRETT V. MOORE-MCCORMACK CO., INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 656, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT NON
OBSTANTE VEREDICTO RENDERED AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER IN A SUIT
FOR DAMAGES AND FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS INJURED WHILE WORKING AS A SEAMAN FOR RESPONDENT
ON A VESSEL TRAVELING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPEAN PORTS, AND
SPENT A NUMBER OF MONTHS IN HOSPITALS IN GDYNIA, POLAND, AND IN THE
UNITED STATES.  HE BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN A PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT FOR
DAMAGES PURSUANT TO SEC. 33 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE (JONES) ACT,  FN1
AND FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  FN2 THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS, AS THIS
LITIGATION EVIDENCES, ARE APPARENTLY QUITE WILLING TO MAKE THEMSELVES
AVAILABLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE RIGHTS. 

PETITIONER ATTRIBUTED HIS CONDITION TO A BLOW BY A HATCH COVER WHICH
ALLEGEDLY FELL ON HIM THROUGH RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE.  RESPONDENT
JOINED ISSUE GENERALLY, CONTESTED THE EXTENT OF ANY INJURIES RECEIVED,
AND FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IF SERIOUS INJURIES DID EXIST THEY WERE
CAUSED BY A FIGHT IN COPENHAGEN OR BY ACCIDENTS PRIOR TO THE VOYAGE. 
AS AN ADDITIONAL DEFENSE THE RESPONDENT ALSO ALLEGED THAT FOR A
CONSIDERATION OF $100 PETITIONER HAD EXECUTED A FULL RELEASE.  DENYING
THAT HE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF HAVING SIGNED SUCH AN INSTRUMENT, THE
PETITIONER ASSERTED THAT, IF HIS NAME APPEARED ON IT, HIS SIGNATURE WAS
OBTAINED THROUGH FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION, AND WITHOUT "LEGAL,
BINDING AND VALID CONSIDERATION." 

THE PETITIONER DID EXECUTE A RELEASE FOR $100 SEVERAL DAYS AFTER HIS
RETURN TO THIS COUNTRY.  HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT HIS DISCUSSION WITH
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM AGENT TOOK PLACE WHILE HE WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF
DRUGS TAKEN TO ALLAY THE PAIN OF HIS INJURY, THAT HE WAS THREATENED
WITH IMPRISONMENT IF HE DID NOT SIGN AS DIRECTED, AND THAT HE
CONSIDERED THE $100 A PAYMENT OF WAGES.  FN3  THE RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
WAS THAT THE $100 WAS PAID NOT FOR WAGES BUT TO SETTLE ALL CLAIMS
GROWING OUT OF THE PETITIONER'S INJURIES, THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NOT
APPEARED TO BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS, AND THAT NO THREATS OF ANY
KIND WERE MADE. 

UPON THIS AND MUCH OTHER EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE CAUSE AND EXTENT OF
THE INJURIES, THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT FOR THE PETITIONER FOR $3000
UNDER THE JONES ACT, AND $1000 FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE. 

RESPONDENT MADE A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE
VEREDICTO WHICH UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA PRACTICE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
TRIAL COURT EN BANC.  FN4  THAT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT
NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO, NOT UPON AN APPRAISAL OF DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF
FACT CONCERNING THE ACCIDENT, BUT BECAUSE OF A CONCLUSION THAT
PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA LAW TO INVALIDATE THE RELEASE.  IT CONCEDED THAT, "IN
ADMIRALTY CASES, THE RESPONSIBILITY IS ON THE DEFENDANT TO SUSTAIN A
RELEASE RATHER THAN ON A PLAINTIFF TO OVERCOME IT," BUT CONCLUDED THAT
SINCE PETITIONER HAD CHOSEN TO BRING HIS ACTION IN A STATE, RATHER THAN
IN AN ADMIRALTY, COURT, HIS CASE MUST BE GOVERNED BY LOCAL, RATHER THAN
ADMIRALTY PRINCIPLES.  UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE, ONE WHO ATTACKS THE
VALIDITY OF A WRITTEN RELEASE HAS THE BURDEN OF SUSTAINING HIS
ALLEGATION BY "CLEAR, PRECISE, AND INDUBITABLE" EVIDENCE, MEANING
EVIDENCE "THAT IS NOT ONLY FOUND TO BE CREDIBLE BUT OF SUCH WEIGHT AND
DIRECTNESS AS TO MAKE OUT THE FACTS ALLEGED BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT."  WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY AGAINST THE RELEASE MUST NOT ONLY BE
CREDIBLE, BUT "DISTINCTLY REMEMBER THE FACTS TO WHICH THEY TESTIFY AND
NARRATE THE DETAILS EXACTLY."  THE COURT HELD THAT, SINCE THE
PETITIONER HAD NOT SUSTAINED THIS BURDEN OF PROOF, THE TRIAL JUDGE
SHOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN THE CASE FROM THE JURY. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA TOOK A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT VIEW.  IT
HELD THAT IN AN ACTION OF THIS SORT THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT WAS
OBLIGATED "TO APPLY THE FEDERAL LAW CREATING THE RIGHT OF ACTION IN THE
SAME SENSE IN WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS." 
HOWEVER, IT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT IN THE BELIEF THAT THE RULE AS TO
BURDEN OF PROOF ON RELEASES DOES NOT AFFECT THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF
THE PARTIES, BUT IS MERELY PROCEDURAL, AND IS THEREFORE CONTROLLED BY
STATE LAW. 

I. RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT SHOULD HAVE
APPLIED STATE RATHER THAN ADMIRALTY LAW IN MEASURING THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

WE DO NOT HAVE IN THIS CASE AN EFFORT OF THE STATE COURT TO ENFORCE
RIGHTS CLAIMED TO BE ROOTED IN STATE LAW.  THE PETITIONER'S SUIT RESTED
ON ASSERTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND THE STATE COURTS SO
TREATED IT.  JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT TO TRY THIS CASE RESTS
SOLELY UPON SEC. 33 OF THE JONES ACT AND UPON STATUTES TRACEABLE TO THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 WHICH "IN ALL CIVIL CAUSES OF ADMIRALTY AND
MARITIME JURISDICTION" SAVES TO SUITORS "THE RIGHT OF A COMMON-LAW
REMEDY WHERE THE COMMON LAW IS COMPETENT TO GIVE IT."  FN5  THESE
STATUTES AUTHORIZE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS TO TRY CASES COMING WITHIN THE
DEFINED CATEGORY.  FN6 WHETHER PENNSYLVANIA WAS REQUIRED BY THE ACTS TO
MAKE ITS COURTS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE FEDERAL REMEDIES, OR WHETHER IT
COULD CREATE ITS OWN REMEDY AS TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE BASED ON LOCAL
LAW, WE NEED NOT DECIDE; FN7  FOR, HAVING VOLUNTARILY OPENED ITS COURTS
TO PETITIONER, THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER PENNSYLVANIA WAS THEREUPON
REQUIRED TO GIVE TO PETITIONER THE FULL BENEFIT OF FEDERAL LAW AND, IF
SO, WHETHER IT FAILED TO AFFORD THAT BENEFIT. 

THERE IS NO DEARTH OF EXAMPLE OF THE OBLIGATION ON LAW COURTS WHICH
ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS ARISING FROM ADMIRALTY LAW TO DO
SO IN A MANNER CONFORMING TO ADMIRALTY PRACTICE.  CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BARRIER TO A PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY OR UNDER THE
JONES ACT, AND THE STATE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO APPLY THIS RULE IN
JONES ACT ACTIONS.  BEADLE V. SPENCER, 298 U.S. 124.  SIMILARLY STATE
COURTS MAY NOT APPLY THEIR DOCTRINES OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK IN ACTIONS
ARISING UNDER THE ACT.  THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110; SOCONY
VACUUM CO. V. SMITH, 305 U.S. 424.  STATE COURTS, WHETHER OR NOT
APPLYING THE JONES ACT TO ACTIONS ARISING FROM MARITIME TORTS, HAVE
USUALLY ATTEMPTED, ALTHOUGH NOT ALWAYS WITH COMPLETE SUCCESS, TO APPLY
ADMIRALTY PRINCIPLES.  FN8  THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHEN TREATING MARITIME
TORTS IN ACTIONS AT LAW RATHER THAN IN SUITS IN ADMIRALTY, HAVE ALSO
SOUGHT TO PRESERVE ADMIRALTY PRINCIPLES WHENEVER CONSONANT WITH THE
NECESSITIES OF COMMON LAW PROCEDURE.  FN9 

THIS COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT THE JONES ACT IS TO HAVE A
UNIFORM APPLICATION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, UNAFFECTED BY "LOCAL VIEWS
OF COMMON LAW RULES."  PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375, 392. 
THE ACT IS BASED UPON, AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE, THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WHICH ALSO REQUIRES UNIFORM INTERPRETATION. 
SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 55 ET SEQ. THIS
UNIFORMITY REQUIREMENT EXTENDS TO THE TYPE OF PROOF NECESSARY FOR
JUDGMENT.  NEW ORLEANS & NORTHEASTERN R. CO. V. HARRIS, 247 U.S. 367. 

IN MANY OTHER CASES THIS COURT HAS DECLARED THE NECESSARY DOMINANCE
OF ADMIRALTY PRINCIPLES IN ACTIONS IN VINDICATION OF RIGHTS ARISING
FROM ADMIRALTY LAW.  FN10  BELDEN V. CHASE, 150 U.S. 674, AN 1893
DECISION WHICH RESPONDENT RELIES UPON AS ESTABLISHING A CONTRARY RULE,
HAS NEVER BEEN THUS CONSIDERED IN ANY OF THE LATER CASES CITED. 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE STATE COURTS HAVE CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION WITH THE FEDERAL COURTS TO TRY ACTIONS EITHER UNDER THE
MERCHANT MARINE ACT OR IN PERSONAM SUCH AS MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  THE
SOURCE OF THE GOVERNING LAW APPLIED IS IN THE NATIONAL, NOT THE STATE,
GOVERNMENT N11.  IF BY ITS PRACTICE THE STATE COURT WERE PERMITTED
SUBSTANTIALLY TO ALTER THE RIGHTS OF EITHER LITIGANT, AS THOSE RIGHTS
WERE ESTABLISHED IN FEDERAL LAW, THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE STATE WOULD
NOT ENFORCE, BUT WOULD ACTUALLY DENY, FEDERAL RIGHTS WHICH CONGRESS, BY
PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES, INTENDED TO MAKE NOT LESS BUT MORE
SECURE.  THE CONSTANT OBJECTIVE OF LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE IS TO
ASSURE LITIGANTS FULL PROTECTION FOR ALL SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS INTENDED TO
BE AFFORDED THEM BY THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE RIGHT ITSELF
ORIGINATES.  NOT SO LONG AGO WE SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE THIS RESULT WITH
RESPECT TO ENFORCEMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF RIGHTS CREATED OR
GOVERNED BY STATE LAW.  FN12  AND ADMIRALTY COURTS, WHEN INVOKED TO
PROTECT RIGHTS ROOTED IN STATE LAW, ENDEAVOR TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF THE STATE.  FN13 SO HERE, IN
TRYING THIS CASE THE STATE COURT WAS BOUND TO PROCEED IN SUCH MANNER
THAT ALL THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES UNDER CONTROLLING
FEDERAL LAW WOULD BE PROTECTED.  WHETHER IT DID SO RAISES A FEDERAL
QUESTION REVIEWABLE HERE UNDER SEC. 237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 344(B).  FN14 

II.  A SEAMAN IN ADMIRALTY WHO ATTACKS A RELEASE HAS NO SUCH BURDEN
IMPOSED UPON HIM AS THAT TO WHICH THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE SUBJECTS HIM. 
OUR HISTORIC NATIONAL POLICY, BOTH LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL, POINTS THE
OTHER WAY.  CONGRESS HAS GENERALLY SOUGHT TO SAFEGUARD SEAMEN'S
RIGHTS.  THE FIRST CONGRESS, ON JULY 20, 1790, PASSED A PROTECTIVE ACT
FOR SEAMEN IN THE MERCHANT MARINE SERVICE, SAFEGUARDING WAGE CONTRACTS,
PROVIDING SUMMARY REMEDIES FOR THEIR BREACH, AND REQUIRING SHIPOWNERS
TO KEEP ON BOARD FRESH MEDICINES IN CONDITION FOR USE.  1 STAT. 131. 
THE FIFTH CONGRESS, JULY 16, 1798, 1 STAT. 605, ORIGINATED OUR PRESENT
SYSTEM OF MARINE HOSPITALS FOR DISABLED SEAMEN.  THE LANGUAGE OF
JUSTICE STORY, SITTING ON CIRCUIT IN 1823, DESCRIBED THE SOLICITUDE
WITH WHICH ADMIRALTY HAS TRADITIONALLY VIEWED SEAMEN'S CONTRACTS: 

"THEY ARE EMPHATICALLY THE WARDS OF THE ADMIRALTY; AND THOUGH NOT
TECHNICALLY INCAPABLE OF ENTERING INTO A VALID CONTRACT, THEY ARE
TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS COURTS OF EQUITY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO TREAT
YOUNG HEIRS, DEALING WITH THEIR EXPECTANCIES, WARDS WITH THEIR
GUARDIANS, AND CESTUIS QUE TRUSTENT WITH THEIR TRUSTEES.  ...  IF THERE
IS ANY UNDUE INEQUALITY IN THE TERMS, ANY DISPROPORTION IN THE BARGAIN,
ANY SACRIFICE OF RIGHTS ON ONE SIDE, WHICH ARE NOT COMPENSATED BY
EXTRAORDINARY BENEFITS ON THE OTHER, THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
TRANSACTION IS THAT THE BARGAIN IS UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE, THAT
ADVANTAGE HAS BEEN TAKEN OF THE SITUATION OF THE WEAKER PARTY, AND THAT
PRO TANTO THE BARGAIN OUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE AS INEQUITABLE.  ...  AND
ON EVERY OCCASION THE COURT EXPECTS TO BE SATISFIED, THAT THE
COMPENSATION FOR EVERY MATERIAL ALTERATION IS ENTIRELY ADEQUATE TO THE
DIMINUTION OF RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE ON THE PART OF THE SEAMEN."  HARDEN V.
GORDON, FED. CAS. NO. 6047, AT PP. 480, 485. 

IN KEEPING WITH THIS POLICY, CONGRESS HAS ITSELF ACTED CONCERNING
SEAMEN'S RELEASES IN RESPECT TO WAGES BY PROVIDING THAT A RELEASE FOR
WAGES MUST BE SIGNED BY A SEAMAN IN THE PRESENCE OF A SHIPPING
COMMISSIONER, AND THAT, EVEN THEN, "ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION MAY
ON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN SET ASIDE SUCH RELEASE AND TAKE SUCH ACTION AS
JUSTICE SHALL REQUIRE."  FN15  GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL POLICY IS FURTHER
SHOWN IN THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 33
U.S.C. SECS. 915, 916, IN WHICH ALL RELEASES NOT MADE UNDER THE EXPRESS
TERMS OF THE ACT ARE DECLARED INVALID. 

THE ANALOGY SUGGESTED BY JUSTICE STORY, IN THE PARAGRAPH QUOTED ABOVE,
BETWEEN SEAMEN'S CONTRACTS AND THOSE OF FIDUCIARIES AND BENEFICIARIES
REMAINS, UNDER THE PREVAILING RULE TREATING SEAMEN AS WARDS OF
ADMIRALTY, A CLOSE ONE.  WHETHER THE TRANSACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION IS
A CONTRACT, SALE, OR GIFT BETWEEN GUARDIAN AND WARD OR BETWEEN TRUSTEE
AND CESTUI, THE BURDEN OF PROVING ITS VALIDITY IS ON THE FIDUCIARY.  HE
MUST AFFIRMATIVELY SHOW THAT NO ADVANTAGE HAS BEEN TAKEN; AND HIS
BURDEN IS PARTICULARLY HEAVY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN INADEQUACY OF
CONSIDERATION.  FN16 

THE WARDSHIP THEORY HAS, AS WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE COURTS BELOW,
MARKED CONSEQUENCE ON THE TREATMENT GIVEN SEAMEN'S RELEASES.  SUCH
RELEASES ARE SUBJECT TO CAREFUL SCRUTINY.  "ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT A
SEAMAN HAS SIGNED AWAY HIS RIGHTS TO WHAT IN LAW IS DUE HIM MUST BE
PREPARED TO TAKE THE BURDEN OF SUSTAINING THE RELEASE AS FAIRLY MADE
WITH AND FULLY COMPREHENDED BY THE SEAMAN."  HARMON V. UNITED STATES,
59 F.2D 372, 373.  WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT THE BURDEN IS UPON ONE WHO
SETS UP A SEAMAN'S RELEASE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS EXECUTED FREELY, WITHOUT
DECEPTION OR COERCION, AND THAT IT WAS MADE BY THE SEAMAN WITH FULL
UNDERSTANDING OF HIS RIGHTS.  THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONSIDERATION AND THE
NATURE OF THE MEDICAL AND LEGAL ADVICE AVAILABLE TO THE SEAMAN AT THE
TIME OF SIGNING THE RELEASE ARE RELEVANT TO AN APPRAISAL OF THIS
UNDERSTANDING N17. 

THIS GENERAL ADMIRALTY RULE APPLIES NOT ONLY TO ACTIONS FOR
MAINTENANCE AND CURE BUT ALSO TO ACTIONS UNDER SEC. 33 OF THE MERCHANT
MARINE ACT.  THAT LAW IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO CARRY OUT ITS
FULL PURPOSE, WHICH WAS TO ENLARGE ADMIRALTY'S PROTECTION TO ITS
WARDS.  WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155, 156, 162; THE ARIZONA V.
ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110, 123.  BEING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MARITIME
LAW, RIGHTS FASHIONED BY IT ARE TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY ADMIRALTY RULES
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT.  SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V. SMITH, 305 U.S.
424, 430.    III.  THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT HAS CONCLUDED THAT IN
SOLVING PROBLEMS OF PROCEDURAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SUBSTANTIVE, LAW,
THE LAW COURT MAY APPLY ITS OWN DOCTRINE; AND THAT THE LOCUS OF BURDEN
OF PROOF PRESENTS A PROCEDURAL RATHER THAN A SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION. 

MUCH OF WHAT WE HAVE SAID ABOVE CONCERNING THE NECESSITY OF
PRESERVING ALL OF THE SUBSTANTIAL ADMIRALTY RIGHTS IN AN ACTION AT LAW
IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW.  THE RIGHT OF
THE PETITIONER TO BE FREE FROM THE BURDEN OF PROOF IMPOSED BY THE
PENNSYLVANIA LOCAL RULE INHERED IN HIS CAUSE OF ACTION.  DEEPLY ROOTED
IN ADMIRALTY AS THAT RIGHT IS, IT WAS A PART OF THE VERY SUBSTANCE OF
HIS CLAIM AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A MERE INCIDENT OF A FORM OF
PROCEDURE.  CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. V. WHITE, 238 U.S. 507, 511, 512;
CITIES SERVICE CO. V. DUNLAP, 308 U.S. 208, 212; AND CF. THE IRA M.
HEDGES, 218 U.S. 264, 270.  PENNSYLVANIA HAVING OPENED ITS COURTS TO
PETITIONER TO ENFORCE FEDERALLY CREATED RIGHTS, THE PETITIONER WAS
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE FULL SCOPE OF THESE RIGHTS.  THE CAUSE
IS REVERSED FOR ACTION NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  46 U.S.C. 688. 

FN2  THE RIGHT OF A SEAMAN TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENT INJURY
ARISES UNDER THE JONES ACT, AND THE RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE,
IRRESPECTIVE OF NEGLIGENCE, ARISES UNDER THE LAW OF ADMIRALTY.  THESE
RIGHTS ARE INDEPENDENT AND CUMULATIVE.  PACIFIC S.S. CO. V. PETERSON,
278 U.S. 130, 138.  FOR A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE,
SEE THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158; CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287
U.S. 367, 371; CALMAR S.S. CORP. V. TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525, 527. 

FN3  THERE WERE TWO ELEMENTS OF THE WAGE DISPUTE:  (A) WHETHER WAGES
SHOULD BE COMPUTED AT $50.00 OR $72.50 A MONTH; (B) WHETHER, SINCE
PETITIONER WAS LEFT IN A HOSPITAL IN POLAND AND COULD NOT RETURN WITH
HIS SHIP, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID WAGES UNTIL HE ACTUALLY ARRIVED IN
HIS HOME PORT.  HE WAS PAID ONLY UP TO THE TIME HE LEFT THE VESSEL. 
THERE IS CLEAR AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR WAGES TO THE END OF THE
VOYAGE FOR WHICH PETITIONER HAD BEEN SIGNED.  THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, 175. 

FN4  IN PENNSYLVANIA THE TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT PASS UPON SUCH MOTIONS
ALONE; INSTEAD, THEY ARE HEARD AND DECIDED BY THREE JUDGES OF THE COURT
SITTING EN BANC.  PURDON, PENN.  STAT.  ANN., VOL. 12, PAR. 680. 

FN5  28 U.S.C. SEC. 371. 

FN6  ENGEL V. DAVENPORT, 271 U.S. 33, 37, 38(JONES ACT); THE BELFAST,
7 WALL.  624, 644; LEON V. GALCERAN, 11 WALL.  185, 187-188; PANAMA R.
CO. V. VASQUEZ, 271 U.S. 557, 560-561.  THE LAST THREE CASES INVOLVE
NON-STATUTORY ACTIONS. 

FN7  THE HAMILTON, 207 U.S. 398, 404; JUST V. CHAMBERS, 312 U.S. 383,
391. 

FN8  COLONNA SHIPYARD V. BLAND, 150 VA. 349, 358, 143 S.E.
729(CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE); PAULSEN V. MCDUFFIE, 4 CAL.2D 111, 47
P.2D 709(ASSUMPTION OF RISK); LIEFLANDER V. STATES S.S. CO., 149 ORE. 
605, 42 P.2D 156(BURDEN OF PROOF). 

FN9  BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO. V. EASTERN STEAMSHIP CORP., 228 F.
726; PORT OF NEW YORK STEVEDORING CORP. V. CASTAGNA, 280 F. 618. 

FN10  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205; CHELENTIS V.
LUCKENBACH S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372; KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO. V. STEWART,
253 U.S. 149, 159; CARLISLE PACKING CO. V. SANDANGER, 259 U.S. 255,
259; MESSEL V. FOUNDATION CO., 274 U.S. 427, 434; AND SEE SCHUEDE V.
ZENITH S.S. CO., 216 F. 566.  DISAGREEMENT OVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES OF THE CASES IN THE JENSEN LINE HAS NOT EXTENDED TO THIS
PRINCIPLE.  CF. THE LOTTAWANNA, 21 WALL.  558, 575; DETROIT TRUST CO.
V. THE THOMAS BARLUM, 293 U.S. 21, 43. 

FN11  THE STEAMER ST. LAWRENCE, 1 BLACK 522, 526-527. 

FN12  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

FN13  WESTERN FUEL CO. V. GARCIA, 257 U.S. 233, 242.  CF. THE
HAMILTON, SUPRA. 

FN14  SEE CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 136-42; CF. STANDARD OIL
CO. V. JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481, 483. 

FN15  46 U.S.C. SEC. 597.  SEE PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO. V. LUCAS, 258
U.S. 266; IBID., 264 F. 938. 

FN16  MICHOUD V. GIROD, 4 HOW.  503, 556; CF. MAGRUDER V. DRURY, 235
U.S. 106, 120; THORN WIRE CO. V. WASHBURN & MOEN CO., 159 U.S. 423,
443; KLAMATH INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 296 U.S. 244, 254; AND UNITED
STATES V. DUNN, 268 U.S. 121, 131.  THE ADMIRALTY RULE IS WELL WITHIN
THE BOUNDS PUT ON THESE OTHER RELATIONSHIPS, SINCE MANY TRUSTEECESTUI
OR GUARDIAN AND WARD CONTRACTS ARE VOIDABLE ON THE ELECTION OF THE
BENEFICIARY.  SEE WADE V. PULSIFER, 54 VT. 45, 62; HATCH V. HATCH, 9
VES.  291(1804); AND CF. MADDEN, DOMESTIC RELATIONS, CH. 12, AND 3
BOGERT, TRUSTS, SEC. 493. 

FN17  SEE THE HARMON CASE, SUPRA, AND THE STANDARD, 103 F.2D 437;
SITCHON V. AMERICAN EXPORT LINES, 113 F.2D 830; HUME V. MOORE-MCCORMACK
LINES, 121 F.2D 336.  FOR SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE CASES INVOLVING RELEASES
FOR PERSONAL INJURIES ARISING FROM NONMARITIME TORTS, SEE UNION PACIFIC
RY. CO. V. HARRIS, 158 U.S. 326; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. HOWARD,
17, U.S. 153, 167; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. DASHIELL, 198 U.S. 521. 
CF. DUNCAN V. THOMPSON, 315 U.S. 1. 
..END :





















DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 317 U.S. 249 


NO. 86.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 14, 1942.  - 12
WASH.2D 349, 121 P.2D 365, REVERSED. 


AN EMPLOYEE OF A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, WHICH WAS A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION FUND OF THE STATE, WAS EMPLOYED IN OR ABOUT THE
DISMANTLING OF AN ABANDONED BRIDGE OVER A NAVIGABLE STREAM, WHICH
INVOLVED CUTTING STEEL FROM THE BRIDGE, LOWERING IT TO A BARGE AND
TOWING OR HAULING THE BARGE, WHEN LOADED, TO A STORAGE PLACE.  HE HAD
HELPED TO CUT SOME STEEL FROM THE BRIDGE AND, AT THE TIME OF THE
ACCIDENT, WAS WORKING ON THE BARGE, EXAMINING STEEL AFTER IT HAD BEEN
LOWERED AND CUTTING THE PIECES TO PROPER LENGTHS, AS NECESSARY.  WHILE
SO EMPLOYED HE FELL, OR WAS KNOCKED, INTO THE STREAM, IN WHICH HIS BODY
WAS FOUND.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO AN AWARD TO THE
DECEDENT'S WIDOW UNDER THE WASHINGTON ACT, WHICH PROVIDES COMPENSATION
FOR EMPLOYEES, OR DEPENDENTS OF EMPLOYEES, SUCH AS DECEDENT, IF
APPLICATION OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE "WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION
OF THE STATE," AND WHICH EXPRESSLY COVERS "ALL EMPLOYERS OR WORKMEN
...  ENGAGED IN MARITIME OCCUPATIONS FOR WHOM NO RIGHT OR OBLIGATION
EXISTS UNDER THE MARITIME LAWS"; AND THAT THE FEDERAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT, UNDER WHICH NO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION HAD BEEN
TAKEN, DID NOT EXCLUDE SUCH APPLICATION OF THE STATE LAW.  P. 255. 

2.  CERTAIN EMPLOYEES SUCH AS DECEDENT ARE IN A TWILIGHT ZONE OF
JURISDICTION; AND THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE SUBJECT TO A
STATE ACT OR TO THE FEDERAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT IS
LARGELY A QUESTION OF FACT.  P. 256. 

3.  FACED WITH THIS FACTUAL PROBLEM, COURTS WILL GIVE PRESUMPTIVE
WEIGHT TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES AND TO
STATE STATUTES.  P. 256. 

4.  NOT ONLY DOES THE STATE ACT IN THIS CASE APPEAR TO COVER THE
EMPLOYEE, ASIDE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATION, BUT NO
CONFLICTING PROCESS OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION IS APPARENT.  UNDER ALL
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COURT RELIES ON THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY IN FAVOR OF THE STATE ENACTMENT.  GIVING FULL WEIGHT
TO THE PRESUMPTION, AND RESOLVING ALL DOUBTS IN FAVOR OF THE ACT, THE
COURT HOLDS THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS NO OBSTACLE TO THE PETITIONER'S
RECOVERY.  P. 258. 

DAVIS V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 657, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REJECTING A CLAIM MADE
UNDER THE STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATE COULD
NOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, MAKE AN AWARD UNDER
ITS STATE COMPENSATION LAW TO THE WIDOW OF A WORKMAN DROWNED IN A
NAVIGABLE RIVER.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CAUSED THE COURT TO REACH
THIS CONCLUSION WERE THESE: 

THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND, A STRUCTURAL STEELWORKER, WAS DROWNED IN
THE SNOHOMISH RIVER WHILE WORKING AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE MANSON
CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION FUND OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.  CONTRIBUTIONS OF
WASHINGTON EMPLOYERS TO THIS FUND ARE COMPULSORY IN CERTAIN TYPES OF
OCCUPATIONS, INCLUDING THE JOB FOR WHICH THE DECEASED HAD BEEN
EMPLOYED.  REM.  REV. STAT. (1932) SEC. 7674.  THAT JOB WAS TO
DISMANTLE AN ABANDONED DRAWBRIDGE WHICH SPANNED THE RIVER.  A PART OF
THE TASK WAS TO CUT STEEL FROM THE BRIDGE WITH OXYACETYLENE TORCHES AND
MOVE IT ABOUT 250 FEET AWAY FOR STORAGE THERE TO AWAIT DELIVERY TO A
LOCAL PURCHASER.  THE STEEL WHEN CUT FROM THE BRIDGE WAS LOWERED TO A
BARGE BY A DERRICK; AND WHEN LOADED, THE BARGE WAS TO BE TOWED BY A
TUG, HAULED BY CABLE, OR, IF THE THE CURRENT MADE IT NECESSARY, BOTH
TOWED AND HAULED TO THE STORAGE POINT.  THREE VESSELS WHICH HAD BEEN
BROUGHT THERE ALONG THE STREAM, FOR USE BY THE EMPLOYER IN THE WORK - A
TUG, DERRICK BARGE, AND A BARGE,  - WERE ALL LICENSED BY THE U.S.
BUREAU OF NAVIGATION.  THE DERRICK BARGE WAS FASTENED TO THE BRIDGE;
THE BARGE WAS TIED TO THE DERRICK BARGE.  DECEASED HAD HELPED TO CUT
SOME STEEL FROM THE BRIDGE AND, AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, WAS
WORKING ON THE BARGE, WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN COMPLETELY LOADED FOR ITS
FIRST CARRIAGE OF STEEL TO THE PLACE OF STORAGE.  HIS DUTY APPEARS TO
HAVE BEEN TO EXAMINE THE STEEL AFTER IT WAS LOWERED TO THE BARGE AND,
WHEN NECESSARY, TO CUT THE PIECES TO PROPER LENGTHS.  FROM THIS BARGE
HE FELL OR WAS KNOCKED INTO THE STREAM IN WHICH HIS BODY WAS FOUND. 

THE WASHINGTON STATUTE PROVIDES COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES AND
DEPENDENTS OF EMPLOYEES, SUCH AS DECEDENT, IF ITS APPLICATION CAN BE
MADE "WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE."  A FURTHER
STATEMENT OF COVERAGE APPLIES THE ACT TO "ALL EMPLOYERS OR WORKMEN  ...
ENGAGED IN MARITIME OCCUPATIONS FOR WHOM NO RIGHT OR OBLIGATION EXISTS
UNDER THE MARITIME LAWS."  REM.  REV. STAT., SECS. 7674, 7693A.  A LINE
OF OPINIONS OF THIS COURT, BEGINNING WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205, 216, HELD THAT UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES STATES
COULD, BUT UNDER OTHERS COULD NOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH ARTICLE III, PAR.
2 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,  FN1 APPLY THEIR COMPENSATION LAWS TO
MARITIME EMPLOYEES.  STATE LEGISLATION WAS DECLARED TO BE INVALID ONLY
WHEN IT "WORKS MATERIAL PREJUDICE TO THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE
GENERAL MARITIME LAW OR INTERFERES WITH THE PROPER HARMONY AND
UNIFORMITY OF THAT LAW IN ITS INTERNATIONAL AND INTERSTATE RELATIONS." 
WHEN A STATE COULD, AND WHEN IT COULD NOT, GRANT PROTECTION UNDER A
COMPENSATION ACT WAS LEFT AS A PERPLEXING PROBLEM, FOR IT WAS HELD
"DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE," TO DEFINE THIS BOUNDARY WITH
EXACTNESS. 

WITH THE MANIFEST DESIRE OF REMOVING THIS UNCERTAINTY SO THAT WORKERS
WHOSE DUTIES WERE PARTLY ON LAND AND PARTLY ON NAVIGABLE WATERS MIGHT
BE COMPENSATED FOR INJURIES, CONGRESS ON OCTOBER 6, 1917, FIVE MONTHS
AFTER THE JENSEN DECISION, PASSED AN ACT ATTEMPTING TO GIVE SUCH
INJURED PERSONS "THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES UNDER THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION LAW OF ANY STATE."  40 STAT. 395.  MAY 17, 1920, THIS
COURT DECLARED THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO. V.
STEWART, 253 U.S. 149.  JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 634, CONGRESS MADE
ANOTHER EFFORT TO PERMIT STATE COMPENSATION LAWS TO PROTECT THESE
WATERFRONT EMPLOYEES, BUT THIS SECOND EFFORT WAS ALSO HELD INVALID. 
STATE OF WASHINGTON V. W.C. DAWSON & CO., 264 U.S. 219.  MARCH 4, 1927,
CAME THE FEDERAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT, 33 U.S.C. SEC.
901 ET SEQ. HERE AGAIN, HOWEVER, CONGRESS MADE CLEAR ITS PURPOSE TO
PERMIT STATE COMPENSATION PROTECTION WHENEVER POSSIBLE, BY MAKING THE
FEDERAL LAW APPLICABLE ONLY "IF RECOVERY FOR THE DISABILITY OR DEATH
THROUGH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT VALIDLY BE PROVIDED
BY STATE LAW." 

HARBOR WORKERS AND LONGSHOREMEN EMPLOYED "IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON
THE NAVIGABLE WATERS" ARE CLEARLY PROTECTED BY THIS FEDERAL ACT; BUT
EMPLOYEES SUCH AS DECEDENT HERE, OCCUPY THAT SHADOWY AREA WITHIN WHICH,
AT SOME UNDEFINED AND UNDEFINABLE POINT, STATE LAWS CAN VALIDLY PROVIDE
COMPENSATION.  THIS COURT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO GIVE ANY GUIDING, DEFINITE
RULE TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF STATE POWER IN ADVANCE OF LITIGATION,
AND HAS HELD THAT THE MARGINS OF STATE AUTHORITY MUST "BE DETERMINED IN
VIEW OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AS CASES ARISE."  BAIZLEY IRON WORKS
V. SPAN, 281 U.S. 222, 230.  THE DETERMINATION OF PARTICULAR CASES, OF
WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN A GREAT MANY, HAS BECOME EXTREMELY DIFFICULT.  IT
IS FAIR TO SAY THAT A NUMBER OF CASES CAN BE CITED BOTH IN BEHALF OF
AND IN OPPOSITION TO RECOVERY HERE.  FN2 

THE VERY CLOSENESS OF THE CASES CITED ABOVE, AND OTHERS RAISING
RELATED POINTS OF INTERPRETATION, HAS CAUSED MUCH SERIOUS CONFUSION. 
FN3  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT UNDER THE JENSEN HYPOTHESIS, BASIC
CONDITIONS ARE FACTUAL:  DOES THE STATE LAW "INTERFERE WITH THE PROPER
HARMONY AND UNIFORMITY OF" MARITIME LAW?  YET, EMPLOYEES ARE ASKED TO
DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY BEFORE BRINGING THEIR ACTIONS THAT FACTUAL
QUESTION OVER WHICH COURTS REGULARLY DIVIDE AMONG THEMSELVES AND WITHIN
THEIR OWN MEMBERSHIP.  AS PENALTY FOR ERROR, THE INJURED INDIVIDUAL MAY
NOT ONLY SUFFER SERIOUS FINANCIAL LOSS THROUGH THE DELAY AND EXPENSE OF
LITIGATION, BUT DISCOVER THAT HIS CLAIM HAS BEEN BARRED BY THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS IN THE PROPER FORUM WHILE HE WAS ERRONEOUSLY PURSUING IT
ELSEWHERE.  SEE E.G., AYRES V. PARKER, 15 F.SUPP.  447.  SUCH A RESULT
DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL ACT, WHICH SEEKS TO GIVE "TO THESE
HARDWORKING MEN, ENGAGED IN A SOMEWHAT HAZARDOUS EMPLOYMENT, THE
JUSTICE INVOLVED IN THE MODERN PRINCIPLE OF COMPENSATION," AND THE
STATE ACTS SUCH AS THE ONE BEFORE US, WHICH AIMS AT "SURE AND CERTAIN
RELIEF FOR WORKMEN."  FN4 

THE HORNS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL DILEMMA PRESS AS SHARPLY ON EMPLOYERS
AS ON EMPLOYEES.  IN THE FACE OF THE CASES REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE MOST
COMPETENT COUNSEL MAY BE UNABLE TO PREDICT ON WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE
PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT WILL FALL.  THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION TO A
STATE INSURANCE FUND MAY THEREFORE WHOLLY FAIL TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST
THE LIABILITIES FOR WHICH IT WAS SPECIFICALLY PLANNED.  IF THIS VERY
CASE IS AFFIRMED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EMPLOYER WILL NOT ONLY LOSE THE
BENEFIT OF THE STATE INSURANCE TO WHICH HE HAS BEEN COMPELLED TO
CONTRIBUTE AND BY WHICH HE HAS THOUGHT HIMSELF SECURED AGAINST LOSS FOR
ACCIDENTS TO HIS EMPLOYEES; HE MUST ALSO, BY VIRTUE OF THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL ACT AT THE TIME OF THE
ACCIDENT, BECOME LIABLE FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS.  HE WILL
ALSO BE SUBJECT TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR THE MISDEMEANOR OF HAVING
FAILED, AS IS APPARENTLY THE CASE, TO SECURE PAYMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEE
UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT.  33 U.S.C. SECS. 938, 932. 

WE ARE NOT ASKED HERE TO REVIEW AND RECONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPLICATIONS OF THE JENSEN LINE OF DECISIONS.  ON THE CONTRARY, EVEN
THE PETITIONER ARGUES THAT SUCH ACTION MIGHT BRING ABOUT STILL WORSE
CONFUSION IN AN ALREADY UNCERTAIN FIELD, AND POINTS OUT THAT STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE MADE REAL PROGRESS TOWARD CLOSING THE GAP.  THERE
IS MUCH FORCE IN THIS ARGUMENT.  SINCE 1917, CONGRESS AND THE STATES
HAVE SOUGHT TO RESTORE ORDER OUT OF THE CONFUSION WHICH RESULTED FROM
THE JENSEN DECISION.  THAT SUCCESS HAS NOT FINALLY BEEN ACHIEVED IS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE PRESENT CASE.  THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT, PASSED WITH
SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE JENSEN RULE, PROVIDED A PARTIAL SOLUTION. 
THE WASHINGTON STATUTE REPRESENTS A STATE EFFORT TO CLARIFY THE
SITUATION.  BOTH OF THESE LAWS SHOW CLEARLY THAT NEITHER WAS INTENDED
TO ENCROACH ON THE FIELD OCCUPIED BY THE OTHER.  BUT THE LINE
SEPARATING THE SCOPE OF THE TWO BEING UNDEFINED AND UNDEFINABLE WITH
EXACT PRECISION, MARGINAL EMPLOYMENT MAY, BY REASON OF PARTICULAR
FACTS, FALL ON EITHER SIDE.  OVERRULING THE JENSEN CASE WOULD NOT SOLVE
THIS PROBLEM.  IN OUR DECISION IN PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314 U.S.
244, WE HELD THAT CONGRESS HAS BY THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT ACCEPTED THE
JENSEN LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 
OBVIOUSLY, THE DETERMINATION OF THE MARGIN BECOMES NO SIMPLER BECAUSE
THE STANDARD APPLIED IS CONSIDERED TO BE EMBEDDED IN A STATUTE RATHER
THAN IN THE CONSTITUTION.  NOR CAN WE GAIN ASSISTANCE IN THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE FROM THE CLAUSE IN THE FEDERAL ACT WHICH MAKES THAT ACT
EXCLUSIVE.  33 U.S.C. SEC. 905.  THAT SECTION GAINS MEANING ONLY AFTER
A LITIGANT HAS BEEN FOUND TO OCCUPY ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF THE
DOUBTFUL JURISDICTIONAL LINE, AND IS NO ASSISTANCE IN DISCOVERING ON
WHICH SIDE HE CAN PROPERLY BE PLACED. 

THERE IS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASES REFERRED TO, CLEARLY A TWILIGHT
ZONE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEES MUST HAVE THEIR RIGHTS DETERMINED CASE BY
CASE, AND IN WHICH PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE VITAL
ELEMENTS.  THAT ZONE INCLUDES PERSONS SUCH AS THE DECEDENT WHO ARE, AS
A MATTER OF ACTUAL ADMINISTRATION, IN FACT PROTECTED UNDER THE STATE
COMPENSATION ACT. 

FACED WITH THIS FACTUAL PROBLEM WE MUST GIVE GREAT - INDEED,
PRESUMPTIVE - WEIGHT TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES AND TO THE STATE STATUTES THEMSELVES.  WHERE THERE HAS BEEN
A HEARING BY THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ENTRUSTED WITH BROAD
POWERS OF INVESTIGATION, FACT FINDING, DETERMINATION, AND AWARD, OUR
TASK PROVES EASY.  THERE, WE ARE AIDED BY THE PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL
ACT, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 920, WHICH PROVIDES THAT, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THAT
ACT, JURISDICTION IS TO BE "PRESUMED, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY."  FACT FINDINGS OF THE AGENCY, WHERE
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, ARE MADE FINAL.  THEIR CONCLUSION THAT A
CASE FALLS WITHIN THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO
GREAT WEIGHT AND WILL BE REJECTED ONLY IN CASES OF APPARENT ERROR.  IT
WAS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S
FINDINGS IN PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, SUPRA. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE DO NOT ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS AND MUST THEREFORE LOOK SOLELY TO STATE SOURCES
FOR GUIDANCE.  WE FIND HERE A STATE STATUTE WHICH PURPORTS TO COVER
THESE PERSONS, AND WHICH INDEED DOES COVER THEM IF THE DOUBTFUL AND
DIFFICULT FACTUAL QUESTIONS TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED ARE DECIDED ON
THE SIDE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATE.  THE PROBLEM HERE IS
COMPARABLE TO THAT IN ANOTHER FIELD OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN WHICH
COURTS ARE CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE WHETHER PARTICULAR STATE ACTS
UNDULY BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN MAKING THE FACTUAL JUDGMENT
THERE, WE HAVE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
IN FAVOR OF THE STATE STATUTE.  SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 188, 191.  FN5 

THE BENEFIT OF A PRESUMPTION IS ALSO GIVEN IN CASES OF CONFLICT OF
STATE OR STATE AND TERRITORIAL WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS UNDER THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  THERE, AS HERE, THE ISSUE IS A FACTUAL
ONE ARISING FROM A CLASH OF INTEREST OF TWO JURISDICTIONS.  IN SUCH A
CASE, INVOLVING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA OR THE ALASKA
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT SHOULD APPLY TO A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA
INJURED IN ALASKA WHO BROUGHT SUIT IN CALIFORNIA, THIS COURT HAS SAID:
"THE ENACTMENT OF THE PRESENT STATUTE OF CALIFORNIA WAS WITHIN STATE
POWER AND INFRINGES NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  PRIMA FACIE EVERY
STATE IS ENTITLED TO ENFORCE IN ITS OWN COURTS ITS OWN STATUTES,
LAWFULLY ENACTED."  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 294
U.S. 532, 547.  AND SEE PACIFIC INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, 306
U.S. 493, 503. 

NOT ONLY DOES THE STATE ACT IN THE INSTANT CASE APPEAR TO COVER THIS
EMPLOYEE, ASIDE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATION, BUT NO
CONFLICTING PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATION IS APPARENT.  THE FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN NO ACTION UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT, AND IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS EITHER MADE THE SPECIAL PAYMENTS
REQUIRED OR CONTROVERTED PAYMENT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT. 
33 U.S.C. SEC. 914(B) AND (D).  UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, WE WILL RELY ON THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN FAVOR OF
THIS STATE ENACTMENT; FOR ANY CONTRARY DECISION RESULTS IN OUR HOLDING
THE WASHINGTON ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THIS PETITIONER.  A
CONCLUSION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE CAN NOT BE RESTED
ON SO HAZARDOUS A FACTUAL FOUNDATION HERE, ANY MORE THAN IN THE OTHER
CASES CITED.    GIVING THE FULL WEIGHT TO THE PRESUMPTION, AND
RESOLVING ALL DOUBTS IN FAVOR OF THE ACT, WE HOLD THAT THE CONSTITUTION
IS NO OBSTACLE TO THE PETITIONER'S RECOVERY.  THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS ARTICLE EXTENDS THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS "TO ALL
CASES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION." 

FN2  CASES WHICH LEND STRENGTH TO PETITIONER'S POSITION ARE:  SULTAN
RAILWAY & TIMBER CO. V. DEPT. OF LABOR, 277 U.S. 135; GRANT SMITH
PORTER CO. V. ROHDE, 257 U.S. 469; MILLERS' UNDERWRITERS V. BRAUD, 270
U.S. 59; EX PARTE ROSENGRANT, 213 ALA. 202, 104 SO. 409, AFFIRMED 273
U.S. 664; STATE INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF N.Y. V. TERRY & TENCH CO., 273 U.S.
639, REPORTED AS LAHTI V. TERRY & TENCH CO., 240 N.Y. 292, 148 N.E.
527; ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION, 276 U.S.
467.  AND NOTE THE DISSENTING VIEW IN BAIZLEY IRON WORKS V. SPAN,
SUPRA; U.S. CASUALTY CO. V. TAYLOR, 64 F.2D 521, CERT. DEN.  290 U.S.
639; NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. V. MCMANIGAL, 87 F.2D 332; IN RE
HERBERT, 283 MASS. 348, 186 N.E. 554.  CASES AIDING RESPONDENT'S VIEW:
BAIZLEY IRON WORKS V. SPAN, 281 U.S. 222; GONSALVES V. MORSE DRY DOCK
CO., 266 U.S. 171; NOGUEIRA V. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. CO., 281 U.S. 128;
NORTHERN COAL CO. V. STRAND, 278 U.S. 142; EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ASSURANCE CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S. 233.  FOR A NUMBER OF STATE CASES
SUPPORTING EACH POSITION, SEE THE CIRCUIT COURT OPINION IN MOTOR BOAT
SALES V. PARKER, 116 F.2D 789.  FOR DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM, SEE
MORRISON, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND THE MARITIME LAW, 38 YALE L.J.
472. 

FN3  STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONS HAVE FOUND REAL DIFFICULTY IN
DETERMINING THEIR PROPER FUNCTION IN RESPECT TO MARITIME ACCIDENTS. 
SEE THE DISCUSSION OF THIS PROBLEM AT THE 19TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS, BULL.  577 OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, P.
119(1933).  A QUESTION NOT MENTIONED ABOVE WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN
SEVERAL CASES IS THAT OF THE JURISDICTION TO WHICH ARE TO BE ASSIGNED
ACCIDENTS AFFECTING PERSONS LOADING BOATS WHILE ON THE WHARF; ACCIDENTS
AFFECTING PERSONS LOADING VESSELS WHILE ON THE VESSEL; ACCIDENTS
AFFECTING PERSONS STANDING ON EITHER THE VESSEL OR THE WHARF WHO ARE
KNOCKED INTO THE WATER.  SMITH & SON V. TAYLOR, 276 U.S. 179; VANCOUVER
S.S. CO. V. RICE, 288 U.S. 445; MINNIE V. PORT HURON TERMINAL CO., 295
U.S. 647. 

FN4  FOR THIS EXPRESSION OF FEDERAL POLICY, SEE THE REPORT OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, S.R. 973, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 16.  FOR
THE EXPRESSION OF PUBLIC POLICY OF THE WASHINGTON ACT, SEE REM.  REV. 
STAT. (1932) SEC. 7673. 

FN5  SEE FOR OTHER EXAMPLES OF OUR APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE,
SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. KING, 217 U.S. 524(STATUTE REGULATING OPERATION OF
INTERSTATE TRAIN AT CROSSINGS); PURE OIL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 248 U.S.
158(STATUTE REQUIRING THE INSPECTION OF CERTAIN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE); INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. HOLYOKE RY.
CO., 273 U.S. 45(REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY FOR INTERSTATE CARRIER); INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT,
276 U.S. 245(STATE STATUTE TAXING INTERSTATE CARRIER); RAILWAY EXPRESS
AGENCY V. VIRGINIA, 282 U.S. 440(STATUTE REQUIRING CORPORATION TO HOLD
LOCAL CHARTER).  FOR STATE COMMERCE REGULATIONS APPROVED BY THIS COURT,
SEE THE BARNWELL CASE, SUPRA, P. 188, N. 5. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

ANY LEGISLATIVE SCHEME THAT COMPENSATES WORKMEN OR THEIR FAMILIES FOR
INDUSTRIAL MISHAPS SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF SIMPLE AND DEPENDABLE
ENFORCEMENT.  THAT WAS THE AIM OF CONGRESS WHEN, WITH DUE REGARD FOR
THE DIVERSE CONDITIONS IN THE SEVERAL STATES, IT AFFORDED TO HARBOR
WORKERS THE BENEFITS OF STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS.  ACT OF
OCTOBER 6, 1917, C. 97, 40 STAT. 395, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 10,
1922, C. 216, 42 STAT. 634.  BUT SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244
U.S. 205, AND CASES FOLLOWING, FRUSTRATED THIS PURPOSE. 

SUCH A DESIRABLE END CANNOT NOW BE ACHIEVED MERELY BY JUDICIAL
REPUDIATION OF THE JENSEN DOCTRINE.  TOO MUCH HAS HAPPENED IN THE
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS SINCE THAT ILL-STARRED DECISION.  FEDERAL AND STATE
ENACTMENTS HAVE SO ACCOMMODATED THEMSELVES TO THE COMPLEXITY AND
CONFUSION INTRODUCED BY THE JENSEN RULINGS THAT THE RESOURCES OF
ADJUDICATION CAN NO LONGER BRING RELIEF FROM THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS ITSELF BROUGHT INTO BEING.  THEREFORE, UNTIL CONGRESS
SEES FIT TO ATTEMPT ANOTHER COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM, THIS
COURT CAN DO NO MORE THAN BRING SOME ORDER OUT OF THE REMAINING
JUDICIAL CHAOS AS MARGINAL SITUATIONS COME BEFORE US.  BECAUSE IT
CONTRIBUTES TO THAT END, I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION. 

THEORETIC ILLOGIC IS INEVITABLE SO LONG AS THE EMPLOYEE IN A
SITUATION LIKE THE PRESENT IS PERMITTED TO RECOVER EITHER UNDER THE
FEDERAL ACT (CF. PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314 U.S. 244; NORTHERN
COAL CO. V. STRAND, 278 U.S. 142; NOGUEIRA V. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. CO.,
281 U.S. 128; EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S. 233)
OR UNDER A STATE STATUTE (CF. MILLERS' UNDERWRITERS V. BRAUD, 270 U.S.
59; ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. ACCIDENT COMM'N, 276 U.S. 467).  THAT IS
THE PRACTICAL RESULT, WHETHER IT BE REACHED BY THE COURT'S PATH OR THAT
APPARENTLY LEFT OPEN UNDER THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S VIEWS.  IT IS SCANT
COMFORT TO AN EMPLOYER THAT HE MAY FIND HE HAS COMMITTED A MISDEMEANOR
IN NOT POSTING A BOND AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL ACT BECAUSE HE MAY
HAVE BEEN ADVISED, NOT UNNATURALLY, THAT UNDER THE PRIOR RULINGS OF
THIS COURT THE ACTIVITIES OF HIS EMPLOYEES WERE LOCAL IN NATURE AND
HENCE HE COULD BE SUED ONLY UNDER STATE LAW. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

ANY EFFORT TO LESSEN THE UNCERTAINTIES AND COMPLEXITIES WHICH HAVE
FOLLOWED IN THE WAKE OF THE JENSEN DECISION AND ITS SUCCESSORS DURING
THE PAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS DESERVES SYMPATHETIC CONSIDERATION.  BUT IN
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW, THE COURT'S ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THEM BY
CONSTRUING STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS AND THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
HARBOR WORKERS' ACT SO THAT THEIR COVERAGES OVERLAP, CAN HARDLY BE
DEEMED TO BE WITHIN JUDICIAL COMPETENCE. 

PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION "ONLY  ...  IF RECOVERY FOR THE DISABILITY OR
DEATH THROUGH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT VALIDLY BE
PROVIDED BY STATE LAW."  IN PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314 U.S. 244,
250, WE HELD, AS A MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS CLAUSE OF THE
STATUTE, THAT IT HAD ADOPTED THE RATIONALE OF JENSEN AND ITS FOLLOWERS,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY, AS "THE MEASURE BY WHICH
CONGRESS INTENDED TO MARK THE SCOPE OF THE ACT THEY BROUGHT INTO
EXISTENCE."  WE THUS DECIDED THAT, IF BY THE APPLICATION OF THE JENSEN
DOCTRINE RECOVERY COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE HAD UNDER STATE LAWS,
THE FEDERAL ACT CONFERRED A RIGHT OF RECOVERY WHETHER OR NOT THE JENSEN
DECISION WAS SOUND. 

THE COURT'S OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE SEEMS TO PROCEED UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT, IF PETITIONER HAD FILED A CLAIM UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT,
AND THE FEDERAL COMMISSIONER HAD AWARDED COMPENSATION, WE WOULD SUSTAIN
HIS RULING, ALTHOUGH THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THE STATE AUTHORITIES
ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THEY WERE WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MAKE
THE AWARD.  INDEED, AFTER OUR DECISION IN PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES,
SUPRA, PETITIONER'S RIGHT OF RECOVERY UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT CAN HARDLY
BE DOUBTED:  NOT ONLY COULD A FEDERAL COMMISSIONER PROPERLY DECIDE IN
FAVOR OF JURISDICTION, BUT ANY CANDID APPLICATION OF THE JENSEN RULE
WOULD SEEM TO COMPEL REVERSAL OF A FEDERAL COMMISSIONER WHO DECLINED
JURISDICTION.  SEE NORTHERN COAL CO. V. STRAND, 278 U.S. 142, AND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S. 233, BOTH CITED TO
JUSTIFY THE FEDERAL AWARD IN THE MOTOR BOAT CASE, 314 U.S. AT 247. 

CONGRESS BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
ACT HAS LEFT NO ROOM FOR AN OVERLAPPING DUAL SYSTEM OF THE SORT WHICH
THE COURT NOW ESPOUSES BY PLACING ITS DECISION ON A NEW DOCTRINE THAT
RECOVERY UNDER EITHER THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL ACT IS TO BE SUSTAINED
IF THE CASE IS THOUGHT A CLOSE ONE.  SECTION 5 OF THE ACT, 33 U.S.C.
SEC. 905, PROVIDES THAT THE EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY UNDER IT "SHALL BE
EXCLUSIVE AND IN PLACE OF ALL OTHER LIABILITY OF SUCH EMPLOYER TO THE
EMPLOYEE, HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, HUSBAND OR WIFE, PARENTS,
DEPENDENTS, NEXT OF KIN, AND ANYONE OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FROM SUCH EMPLOYER AT LAW OR IN ADMIRALTY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH
INJURY OR DEATH  ...  "  SEE NOGUEIRA V. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. CO., 281
U.S. 128, 137.  I CANNOT SAY THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT MEAN WHAT IT
SAYS.  IF THERE IS LIABILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT, THAT LIABILITY IS
EXCLUSIVE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT, IN ANY CASE IN WHICH COMPENSATION MIGHT
HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT, A RECOVERY UNDER STATE LAW IS
IN PLAIN DEROGATION OF THE TERMS OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED
IN THE MOTOR BOAT CASE, SUPRA.  FN1  CONGRESS HAS MADE IT OUR DUTY,
BEFORE WE SANCTION A RECOVERY UNDER STATE LAW, TO ASCERTAIN THAT AN
AWARD UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT CAN NOT BE HAD. 

THE PROPOSITION THAT AN EMPLOYEE IN A "TWILIGHT ZONE" (WHERE IT IS
DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE FEDERAL OR A STATE ACT APPLIES) CAN RECOVER UNDER
EITHER ACT, NOT ONLY CONTROVERTS THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE BUT ALSO
IMPOSES AN UNAUTHORIZED BURDEN ON THE EMPLOYER.  BESIDES BEING
SUBJECTED TO A LIABILITY WHICH THE STATUTE FORBIDS, HE IS COMPELLED, IN
ORDER TO PROTECT HIMSELF IN THE LARGE NUMBER OF CASES IN WHICH THE
COURT APPARENTLY WOULD ALLOW RECOVERY UNDER EITHER ACT, TO COMPLY WITH
BOTH.  UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT, THE EMPLOYER MUST POST SECURITY FOR
COMPENSATION IN A MANNER SPECIFIED IN SEC. 32, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 932, AND
FAILURE TO DO SO IS A MISDEMEANOR, SEC. 38, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 938,
PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  UNDER STATE ACTS, THERE IS AN
OBLIGATION TO CONTRIBUTE INSURANCE PREMIUMS, OR TAKE SOME COMPARABLE
STEP, TO SAY NOTHING OF PENAL SANCTIONS WHICH A STATE MAY IMPOSE. 

CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED THAT IF THE CASE IS WITHIN THE FEDERAL STATUTE,
THE EMPLOYER SHALL BE RELIEVED OF ALL OTHER OBLIGATION.  BUT IN ORDER
TO RELIEVE THE EMPLOYEE IN A DOUBTFUL CASE OF THE NECESSITY OF FILING
TWO CLAIMS, ONE UNDER EACH ACT, A DOUBLE BURDEN IS IMPOSED ON THE
EMPLOYER BY AN INADMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  THE DUAL
SYSTEM OF PRESUMPTIONS, WHICH ARE TO OPERATE IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEE,
BUT APPARENTLY NEVER AGAINST HIM, WILL SERVE TO SUSTAIN AN EXERCISE OF
EITHER STATE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN EVERY CASE WITHIN THE SO-CALLED
"TWILIGHT ZONE."  BUT THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED ONLY BY DEPRIVING EMPLOYERS
OF THE IMMUNITY WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT TO CONFER WHEN IT SET UP A SYSTEM
IN WHICH FEDERAL AND STATE ACTS ARE MADE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. 

ALTHOUGH THE BASIC QUESTION IN THESE CASES IS SAID TO BE "FACTUAL,"
THE TWILIGHT ZONE DOCTRINE DOES NOT REVEAL HOW - IN VIEW OF THE GREAT
WEIGHT WHICH IS TO BE GIVEN THE FEDERAL COMMISSIONER'S FINDING, AS IN
THE MOTOR BOAT CASE - WE CAN IN THIS CASE DISREGARD THE FINDINGS OF
FOUR STATE TRIBUNALS,  FN2  OR WHAT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT IS TO BE
IN CASES WHERE THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE COMMISSIONERS BOTH FIND
AGAINST JURISDICTION, OR HOW THE LINE WHICH MARKS THE DOUBTFUL CASE IS
TO BE DRAWN MORE READILY THAN THAT WHICH, UNDER THE JENSEN DOCTRINE,
SEPARATES STATE FROM FEDERAL POWER. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE RULING IN THE MOTOR BOAT CASE THAT CONGRESS HAD
ADOPTED THE JENSEN BOUNDARY OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION, THERE ARE IN THE
PRESENT CASE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH TAKE IT OUT OF THAT RULING AND
LEAVE US FREE TO RECONSIDER JENSEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS.  THE
EXCLUSIVE LIABILITY SECTION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE CONTAINS A PROVISO
THAT IF THE EMPLOYER FAILS TO GIVE SECURITY FOR PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION, AS REQUIRED, THEN THE EMPLOYEE MAY ELECT TO CLAIM
COMPENSATION UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE, "OR TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION AT
LAW OR IN ADMIRALTY."  THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISO SEEMS TO BE TO
PRESERVE TO THE EMPLOYEE ALL REMEDIES WHICH HE MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE
HAD, IN THE EVENT THAT THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT GIVE THE PRESCRIBED
SECURITY.  SINCE THIS RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE EMPLOYER COMPLIED,
PETITIONER IS FREE TO PURSUE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION PERMITS AND WHICH THE STATE MAY CHOOSE TO AFFORD. 

ONLY IF THE COURT WERE TO OVERRULE THE JENSEN CASE IN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS COULD I JOIN IN A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT
HERE.  IF WE ARE TO CONTINUE TO APPLY THE JENSEN DOCTRINE, EVEN WHEN
NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO BY THE FEDERAL ACT, THEN OUR OWN DECISIONS,
INCLUDING THE RECENT MOTOR BOAT CASE, PRECLUDE A REVERSAL OF THE
WASHINGTON COURTS.  ESCAPE FROM JENSEN'S EMBARRASSMENTS BY THE ADOPTION
OF THE TWILIGHT ZONE DOCTRINE, IN DISREGARD OF THE JURISDICTIONAL
COMMAND OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE, IS PLAINLY NOT PERMISSIBLE.  I AM NOT
PERSUADED THAT IT IS PRACTICABLE. 

FN1  THE WASHINGTON STATUTE EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZES THE EXCLUSIVENESS
OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE, FOR IN ITS COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
MARITIME OCCUPATIONS IT IS MADE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THOSE "FOR WHOM NO
RIGHT OR OBLIGATION EXISTS UNDER THE MARITIME LAWS."  SEC. 7693A. 

FN2  THE STATE SUPERVISOR FOUND THAT "AFTER THOROUGH INVESTIGATION IT
HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE WORK WHICH THE CLAIMANT WAS DOING AT THE
TIME OF THE SAID FATAL ACCIDENT DOES NOT COME UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, BUT IS MARITIME IN CHARACTER" AND "THAT
THE ALLEGED INJURY WAS SUSTAINED ON BOARD A VESSEL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS
AND WAS THEREFORE UNDER ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION."  HIS FINDING AND
DECISION WERE SUSTAINED BY THE JOINT BOARD OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, THE STATE SUPERIOR COURT, AND THE STATE SUPREME
COURT. 
..END :



SOLA ELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON CO., 317 U.S. 173 


NO. 45.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942.  - 125
F.2D 322, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE, OWING TO THE INVALIDITY OF A PATENT, A PRICE-FIXING
STIPULATION IN A LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE THE PATENTED ARTICLE AND TO
SELL IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE SHERMAN LAW, THE
LICENSEE IS NOT ESTOPPED TO SET UP THE INVALIDITY AGAINST THE LICENSOR
IN A SUIT BY THE LATTER TO RECOVER ROYALTIES AND TO ENJOIN SALES NOT IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.  P. 175. 

2.  THIS QUESTION OF ESTOPPEL IS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  P. 175. 

LOCAL RULES OF ESTOPPEL WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO THWART THE PURPOSES
OF STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S.
64, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 176. 

SOLAELECTRIC CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 652, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT
COURT IN UPHOLDING A PRICE-FIXING PROVISION IN A PATENT LICENSE
AGREEMENT, AND DISMISSING A COUNTERCLAIM. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER A PATENT LICENSEE, BY VIRTUE
OF HIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, IS ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE A PRICE-FIXING
CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT BY SHOWING THAT THE PATENT IS INVALID, AND THAT
THE PRICE RESTRICTION IS ACCORDINGLY UNLAWFUL BECAUSE NOT PROTECTED BY
THE PATENT MONOPOLY. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, ASSERTING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND
ALLEGING THAT IT WAS THE OWNER OF PATENT NO. 1,777, 256 FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN AN ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER; THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTO A
LICENSE CONTRACT GRANTING PETITIONER A NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE PATENTED TRANSFORMERS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES, ITS TERRITORIES, DEPENDENCIES AND POSSESSIONS, ON PAYMENT OF A
STIPULATED ROYALTY UPON EACH TRANSFORMER SO MANUFACTURED AND SOLD.  THE
CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE LICENSE WAS GRANTED ON CONDITION THAT THE
"PRICES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS OF SALE, FOR USE OR SALE" THROUGHOUT THE
LICENSED TERRITORY SHOULD NOT BE MORE FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER'S
CUSTOMERS THAN THOSE PRESCRIBED FROM TIME TO TIME BY RESPONDENT FOR ITS
OWN SALES AND THOSE OF ITS OTHER LICENSEES.  RESPONDENT SOUGHT RECOVERY
OF UNPAID ROYALTIES AND ALSO AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING FURTHER SALES
EXCEPT IN CONFORMITY TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT. 

PETITIONER BY ITS ANSWER ADMITTED THAT IT HAD MANUFACTURED TWO TYPES
OF TRANSFORMERS, ONE COVERED BY CERTAIN NARROW CLAIMS OF THE PATENT,
CLAIMS 8, 14 AND 19, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH IT DOES NOT CHALLENGE, THE
OTHER ALLEGED TO BE COVERED BY CERTAIN BROADER CLAIMS.  PETITIONER ALSO
FILED A COUNTERCLAIM ALLEGING THAT THE BROAD CLAIMS ARE INVALID FOR
WANT OF NOVELTY, AS IT ASSERTED HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT IN FRANCE MFG. CO. V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 106 F.2D 605; AND
THAT RESPONDENT, BY REASON OF THE PRICE CONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE
LICENSING CONTRACT AND THE INVALIDITY OF THE BROAD CLAIMS, WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO RECOVER ROYALTIES UPON THOSE TRANSFORMERS COVERED ONLY BY
THE BROAD CLAIMS.  PETITIONER ACCORDINGLY PRAYED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
THAT MOST OF THE CLAIMS, EXCEPT 8, 14 AND 19, ARE INVALID, AND FOR
OTHER RELIEF. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE
DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER DISMISSING THE COUNTERCLAIM, 125 F.2D 322,
RULING THAT PETITIONER, HAVING ACCEPTED A LICENSE UNDER THE PATENT, WAS
ESTOPPED TO DENY ITS VALIDITY.  AND, TREATING THE PATENT AS VALID, IT
HELD THAT THE STIPULATION FOR CONTROL OF THE SALES PRICE OF THE
PATENTED ARTICLES MANUFACTURED BY THE LICENSEE WAS A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF
THE PATENT MONOPOLY.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 652, THE QUESTION
BEING OF IMPORTANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PATENT LAWS AND THE
SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER AS A
LICENSEE WAS ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT, DID NOT
SAY WHETHER IT CONSIDERED THAT IT WAS APPLYING A RULE OF FEDERAL OR OF
STATE LAW, AND IT CITED NO DECISIONS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR THE
ILLINOIS COURTS.  WHERE NO PRICE-FIXING STIPULATION WAS INVOLVED IN THE
LICENSE CONTRACT, THIS RULE OF ESTOPPEL, WHICH WAS NOT QUESTIONED BY
COUNSEL, WAS APPLIED WITHOUT DISCUSSION IN UNITED STATES V. HARVEY
STEEL CO., 196 U.S. 310; CF. KINSMAN V. PARKHURST, 18 HOW.  289.  WE
NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER IN SUCH A CASE THE RULE IS ONE OF LOCAL LAW,
CF. DALE TILE MFG. CO. V. HYATT, 125 U.S. 46, 53-54, OR WHETHER, IF IT
BE REGARDED AS A RULE OF FEDERAL LAW BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION AND
APPLICATION OF THE PATENT LAWS ARE INVOLVED, IT WAS RIGHTLY APPLIED IN
UNITED STATES V. HARVEY STEEL CO., SUPRA. FOR HERE A DIFFERENT QUESTION
IS PRESENTED - WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL AS INVOKED BELOW IS SO
IN CONFLICT WITH THE SHERMAN ACT'S PROHIBITION OF PRICE-FIXING THAT
THIS COURT MAY RESOLVE THE QUESTION EVEN THOUGH ITS CONCLUSION BE
CONTRARY TO THAT OF A STATE COURT. 

THE PRESENT LICENSE CONTRACT CONTEMPLATES AND REQUIRES THAT
PETITIONER, ON SALES OF THE LICENSED TRANSFORMERS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES, SHALL CONFORM TO THE PRICES FIXED BY RESPONDENT FOR THE SALE OF
COMPETING PATENTED ARTICLES BY OTHER LICENSEES AND BY RESPONDENT.  SUCH
A RESTRICTION ON THE PRICE OF ARTICLES ENTERING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT SAVE ONLY AS IT IS WITHIN THE PROTECTION
OF A LAWFULLY GRANTED PATENT MONOPOLY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS
LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241, 250, AND CASES CITED; UNITED STATES V. MASONITE
CORP., 316 U.S. 265, 275-77.  AGREEMENTS FIXING THE COMPETITIVE SALES
PRICE OF ARTICLES MOVING INTERSTATE, NOT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF A
PATENT, ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT. 

IT IS FAMILIAR DOCTRINE THAT THE PROHIBITION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE MAY
NOT BE SET AT NAUGHT, OR ITS BENEFITS DENIED, BY STATE STATUTES OR
STATE COMMON LAW RULES.  IN SUCH A CASE OUR DECISION IS NOT CONTROLLED
BY ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  THERE WE FOLLOWED STATE LAW
BECAUSE IT WAS THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  BUT THE
DOCTRINE OF THAT CASE IS INAPPLICABLE TO THOSE AREAS OF JUDICIAL
DECISION WITHIN WHICH THE POLICY OF THE LAW IS SO DOMINATED BY THE
SWEEP OF FEDERAL STATUTES THAT LEGAL RELATIONS WHICH THEY AFFECT MUST
BE DEEMED GOVERNED BY FEDERAL LAW HAVING ITS SOURCE IN THOSE STATUTES,
RATHER THAN BY LOCAL LAW.  ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313
U.S. 289, 296; PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, 316 U.S. 89, 95; BOARD OF
COMM'RS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343, 349-50; CF. O'BRIEN V. WESTERN
UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 113 F.2D 539, 541.  WHEN A FEDERAL STATUTE
CONDEMNS AN ACT AS UNLAWFUL, THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONDEMNATION, THOUGH LEFT BY THE STATUTE TO
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, ARE NEVERTHELESS FEDERAL QUESTIONS, THE ANSWERS
TO WHICH ARE TO BE DERIVED FROM THE STATUTE AND THE FEDERAL POLICY
WHICH IT HAS ADOPTED.  TO THE FEDERAL STATUTE AND POLICY, CONFLICTING
STATE LAW AND POLICY MUST YIELD.  CONSTITUTION, ART. VI, CL. 2; AWOTIN
V. ATLAS EXCHANGE BANK, 295 U.S. 209; DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S.
190, 200-01. 

THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT IN HOLDING THAT LOCAL RULES
OF ESTOPPEL WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO THWART THE PURPOSES OF STATUTES OF
THE UNITED STATES.  SEE, IN THE CASE OF FEDERAL STATUTES GOVERNING
INTERSTATE FREIGHT RATES, PITTSBURGH, C.C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. FINK,
250 U.S. 577, 582-83; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. MARTIN, 283 U.S.
209, 220-22; CF. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. HAROLD, 241 U.S. 371;
AND FEDERAL STATUTES AFFECTING NATIONAL BANKS, AWOTIN V. ATLAS EXCHANGE
BANK, SUPRA; DEITRICK V. GREANEY, SUPRA. 

A STATE BY APPLYING ITS OWN LAW OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE MAY NOT
COMPEL THE PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT CONTEMPLATING VIOLATION OF THE
FEDERAL LAND LAWS, ANDERSON V. CARKINS, 135 U.S. 483.  SIMILARLY, THIS
COURT HAS DECLARED THAT ANYONE SUED UPON A CONTRACT MAY SET UP AS A
DEFENSE THAT IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  BEMENT V. NATIONAL
HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, 88.  AND IT HAS PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT WHETHER THE PARTIES TO AN AGREEMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT ARE IN
PARI DELICTO IS A QUESTION OF FEDERAL, NOT STATE, LAW.  HARRIMAN V.
NORTHERN SECURITIES CO., 197 U.S. 244; EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN
PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359, 376-78.  IT DECIDED, IN CONTINENTAL WALL PAPER
CO. V. VOIGHT & SONS CO., 212 U.S. 227, THAT A VENDEE OF GOODS
PURCHASED FROM AN ILLEGAL COMBINATION IN PURSUANCE OF AN ILLEGAL
AGREEMENT, BOTH IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, CAN PLEAD THE
ILLEGALITY IN DEFENSE TO A SUIT FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE.  THIS DECISION
WENT MUCH FURTHER THAN IT IS NECESSARY TO GO HERE TO CONCLUDE THAT
PETITIONER MAY ASSERT THE ILLEGALITY OF THE PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENT AND
MAY OFFER ANY COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH ITS ILLEGALITY, INCLUDING
PROOF OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE PATENT. 

LOCAL RULES OF ESTOPPEL WHICH WOULD FASTEN UPON THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS
THE PETITIONER THE BURDEN OF AN AGREEMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT MUST YIELD TO THE ACT'S DECLARATION THAT SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE
UNLAWFUL, AND TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE ACT WHICH IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST PRECLUDES THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH UNLAWFUL AGREEMENTS.  CF.
MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488, 492-93.  REVERSED. 
..END :























MANGUS V. MILLER, 317 U.S. 178 


NO. 74.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942.  - 125
F.2D 507, REVERSED. 


1.  THE INTEREST OF ONE OF TWO JOINT TENANTS IN A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE
LAND PAYABLE IN INSTALLMENTS, WHERE UNDER STATE LAW IT IS AN INTEREST
WHICH MAY BE ALIENATED AND SUBJECTED TO EXECUTION AND SEPARATE SALE, IS
PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE ADMINISTERED IN FARMER-DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED, ALTHOUGH SUBSEQUENT TO THE
FILING OF THE PETITION THE INTEREST OF HIS CO-TENANT HAS BEEN FORFEITED
BY DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF THE INSTALLMENTS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.  P.
183. 

2.  THE FARMER-DEBTOR IN THIS CASE, WHO WAS A JOINT TENANT OF A
LANDPURCHASE CONTRACT, HIS WIFE BEING THE OTHER JOINT TENANT, BUT, SO
FAR AS APPEARS, NOT A FARMER-DEBTOR, WAS AUTHORIZED TO FILE HIS
PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND THUS TO SUBJECT HIS
INTEREST TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT; AND HE THEREUPON
BECAME ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE MORATORIUM AFFORDED BY SEC. 75(O)
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING HIM TO EFFECT A COMPOSITION WITH HIS
CREDITORS, FAILING WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED UNDER SEC. 75(S). 
P. 184. 

IN ADVANCE OF AN AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION BY THE STATE COURTS OF
THE RIGHTS OF PURCHASERS OF LAND AS JOINT TENANTS WHEN THE INTEREST OF
ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN FORFEITED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PURCHASE MONEY, THIS
COURT CAN NOT SAY THAT THE DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTERING THE INTERESTS
OF THE PARTIES UNDER SEC. 75(S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT ARE
INSURMOUNTABLE.  P. 185. 

3.  THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, HAVING CONTROL UNDER SEC. 75(E) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT OF THE FARMER'S PROPERTY, IS FREE TO PERMIT AND TO
FACILITATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS TO ADJUDICATE THE INTERESTS
OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT, SUBJECT TO THE STAY DIRECTED BY SEC.
75(O) OF ANY CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT OR FORECLOSURE OF THE FARMER
DEBTOR'S INTEREST IN IT.  P. 185. 

4.  IN THE EVENT THAT NO COMPOSITION IS EFFECTED, THE FARMER-DEBTOR
MAY ASK TO BE ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT AND AS SUCH TO BE PLACED IN
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(S) UPON
TERMS WHICH WILL ENABLE HIM, BY PAYING A SUITABLE RENTAL, TO REDEEM THE
PROPERTY UNLESS HE IS SOONER ABLE TO FINANCE HIMSELF.  IF HIS INTEREST
IS FOUND TO BE SUCH THAT IT IS IMPRACTICABLE TO PLACE HIM IN POSSESSION
OR OTHERWISE TO ADMINISTER THE PROPERTY AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 7(S), HE IS
ENTITLED TO PETITION THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY, AND IF
HE IS UNABLE TO REDEEM IT, A SALE OF HIS INTEREST MAY BE ORDERED AS
DIRECTED BY SEC. 75(S)(3).  P. 186. 

5.  IN PROCEEDINGS FOR A STAY UNDER SEC. 75(S)(2) OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT AS AN INCIDENT TO WHICH PETITIONERS MADE A DEPOSIT OF RENTAL, THEY
WITHDREW THE DEPOSIT WHEN THE COURT RENDERED A JUDGMENT, DENYING ITS
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW; FOR REVIEW OF WHICH THEY OBTAINED A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT WHETHER THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IS SO
INCONSISTENT WITH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR THE THREE-YEAR STAY
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 75(S) UPON PAYMENT OF A PRESCRIBED RENTAL, COULD NOT
BE DETERMINED ON THE RECORD BROUGHT TO THIS COURT, AND SHOULD, IN ANY
CASE, BE DETERMINED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE.  P. 187. 

(2)  THE WITHDRAWAL IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER REMEDIES WHICH THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GIVE UNDER SEC. 75, OR WITH
RECOURSE TO MEASURES WHICH THE COURT MAY TAKE TO PERMIT AN ADJUDICATION
OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN THE PROPERTY INVOLVED.  P. 187. 

(3)  SINCE DEPOSIT OF RENTAL IS NOT PREREQUISITE TO JURISDICTION,
RECALL AND RECEIPT OF THE MONEY, WHATEVER EFFECT IT MAY HAVE HAD ON THE
RIGHT TO THE THREE-YEAR STAY AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 75(S), INVOLVED NO
INCONSISTENCY WITH THE ASSERTION IN THIS CASE OF THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AS A
BASIS FOR COMPOSITION AND AFFORD OTHER RELIEF.  P. 187. 

MANGUS ET AL. V. MILLER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 657, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW
WHICH REVERSED ORDERS OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY DENYING MOTIONS BY THE
PRESENT RESPONDENT TO STRIKE FROM THE DEBTOR'S SCHEDULES OF PROPERTY
CERTAIN LAND WHICH RESPONDENT HAD CONTRACTED TO SELL TO THE FARMER
DEBTOR AND ANOTHER IN JOINT TENANCY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE INTEREST OF ONE OF TWO JOINT TENANTS OF A
LAND PURCHASE CONTRACT CAN BE ADMINISTERED IN FARMER-DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 203,
ALTHOUGH SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF HIS PETITION THE INTEREST OF HIS
CO-TENANT HAD BEEN FORFEITED BY DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENTS OF
THE PURCHASE PRICE. 

PETITIONERS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AS "JOINT TENANTS WITH FULL RIGHT OF
SURVIVORSHIP AND NOT AS TENANTS IN COMMON," ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT
WITH RESPONDENT'S ASSIGNOR FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PLOT OF LAND.  THEY
APPARENTLY ENTERED INTO POSSESSION UNDER THE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH THE
FACT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY APPEAR IN THE RECORD.  THE CONTRACT STIPULATED
FOR A DOWN PAYMENT OF $500 OF THE PURCHASE PRICE AND FOR PAYMENT OF THE
BALANCE IN EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS EXTENDING OVER A PERIOD OF MORE
THAN SEVEN YEARS.  NEARLY TWO YEARS LATER, THE BUYERS BEING IN DEFAULT
IN PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENTS, RESPONDENT GAVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE, IN
CONFORMITY TO STATE LAW, THAT THE CONTRACT WOULD BE FORFEITED UNLESS
ALL PAYMENTS DUE WERE MADE.  FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE
FORFEITURE WAS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE, THE HUSBAND ALONE, WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO HIS CO-TENANT, FILED HIS PETITION AS A FARMER-DEBTOR UNDER
SEC. 75.  AFTER THE DATE OF FORFEITURE, RESPONDENT MOVED, ON A SHOWING
OF THE FACTS AS STATED, TO STRIKE THE LAND IN QUESTION FROM THE
SCHEDULES OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT TO ADMINISTER IT.  THE WIFE THEREUPON FILED IN THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING A "JOINDER OF ROSE L. MANGUS" IN WHICH SHE ASKED TO BE
PERMITTED TO ADOPT THE PETITION OF HER HUSBAND FOR RELIEF UNDER SEC. 75
AND HIS SCHEDULES OF PROPERTY, REFERRING TO THE LAND IN QUESTION.  IT
DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER SHE WAS AN INSOLVENT FARMER-DEBTOR WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 75(R), AND SO ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT. 
UPON RESPONDENT'S FILING OF A SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO STRIKE THE LAND
FROM THE SCHEDULES OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, WITH A SHOWING THAT AT THE
TIME OF THE WIFE'S ATTEMPTED JOINDER SHE HAD FORFEITED HER INTEREST IN
THE PROPERTY, THE COURT DENIED BOTH OF RESPONDENT'S MOTIONS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, 125 F.2D 507,
HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT OR INTEREST WHICH THE WIFE HAD ACQUIRED IN THE
LAND BY THE CONTRACT OF PURCHASE HAD BEEN FORFEITED BEFORE HER
ATTEMPTED JOINDER IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, SEE FEDERAL LAND BANK
V. SORENSON, 121 P.2D 398; LEONE V. ZUNIGA, 84 UTAH 417, 34 P.2D 699,
AND THAT IN CONSEQUENCE SHE HAD NO REMAINING INTEREST IN THE LAND WHICH
SHE COULD ASK THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO ADMINISTER.  IT THOUGHT THAT BY
THE FORFEITURE RESPONDENT BECAME VESTED AS HER SUCCESSOR WITH THE
INTEREST WHICH SHE HAD ACQUIRED IN THE LAND BY VIRTUE OF THE CONTRACT. 
BUT IT WAS ALSO OF OPINION THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FORFEITURE SHE
REMAINED A JOINT TENANT OF THE CONTRACT WITH HER HUSBAND AND SO WAS AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO ANY JUDGMENT OR ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
MAKING DISPOSITION OF THE DEBTOR'S INTEREST IN THE CONTRACT AND THE
PROPERTY.  IT ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ALTHOUGH THE INTEREST OF A BANKRUPT
JOINT TENANT MAY BE SOLD IN A REGULAR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, THE
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75(A)-(R) DO NOT LOOK IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO A
SALE OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY OR OPERATE TO PASS TITLE TO A TRUSTEE OR
THE COURT, BUT CONTEMPLATE MAINTENANCE OF THE STATUS QUO BY A
MORATORIUM PENDING AN ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION OF HIS DEBTS, AND HIS
ULTIMATE EMERGENCE FROM BANKRUPTCY WITH ALL HIS PROPERTY.  SEE JOHN
HANCOCK INS. CO. V. BARTELS, 308 U.S. 180, 184; WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL
LIFE INS. CO., 311 U.S. 273. 

FROM ALL THIS THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE DIFFICULTIES OF
ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPT'S INTEREST IN SEC. 75 PROCEEDINGS ARE SO
INSURMOUNTABLE AS TO REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE PROCEEDING.  FN1  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT ATTRIBUTED THESE DIFFICULTIES TO THE
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE HUSBAND AS JOINT TENANT OF THE
CONTRACT WITH HIS WIFE AND AS TENANT IN COMMON WITH RESPONDENT OF THE
LAND.  THE UNCERTAINTY AROSE, IT WAS SUGGESTED, FROM THE DOUBT WHETHER
THE HUSBAND, UPON EFFECTING AN ADJUSTMENT AND COMPROMISE WITH
CREDITORS, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO ACQUIRE ALL THE LAND UPON PAYMENT OF
THE BALANCE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE, OR ONLY TO DEMAND HALF OF IT ON
PAYMENT OF ONEHALF OF THE PURCHASE MONEY DUE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
316 U.S. 657, ON A PETITION WHICH CHALLENGED THE RULINGS OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE WIFE WAS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO THE FARMER
DEBTOR PROCEEDING, AND THAT THE INTEREST OF THE HUSBAND ALONE WAS NOT
SUSCEPTIBLE OF ADMINISTRATION IN THAT PROCEEDING. 

"SHALL IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT THE FARMER AND ALL HIS PROPERTY  ...  FOR
ALL THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT  ...  INCLUDING  ...  ANY EQUITY OR RIGHT IN ANY SUCH PROPERTY,
INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASE, CONTRACTS FOR DEED, OR
CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACTS."  SECTION 75(O) PROVIDES AN EFFECTIVE
MORATORIUM, PENDING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, AGAINST THE FORFEITURE OF THE
DEBTOR'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY OVER WHICH THE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION.  THIS IT ACCOMPLISHES BY STAYING, UNLESS OTHERWISE
PERMITTED BY THE COURT, PROCEEDINGS FOR FORECLOSURE OF A MORTGAGE, OR
FOR CANCELLATION OR RESCISSION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF LAND, OR
FOR THE RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF LAND, OR FOR THE SEIZURE OR SALE OF
THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY UNDER CONDITIONAL SALES AGREEMENT.  KALB V.
FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433; JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. BARTELS, 308 U.S.
180. 

WE SEE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT, UNDER THESE PROVISIONS AND OTHERS
PRESENTLY TO BE NOTED, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAD JURISDICTION IN A SEC.
75 PROCEEDING OVER THE HUSBAND'S INTEREST AS JOINT TENANT IN THE
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND.  SECTION 75(N) EXPRESSLY
SUBJECTS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT THE VENDEE'S
INTEREST IN SUCH A CONTRACT.  AND, SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED, UTAH
ACCEPTS THE GENERAL COMMON LAW RULES RELATING TO JOINT TENANCIES,
INCLUDING THE RULES PERMITTING ALIENATION OF THE INTEREST OF A JOINT
TENANT, AND MAKING IT PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EXECUTION AND SEPARATE SALE. 
CF. SPALDING V. ALLRED, 23 UTAH 354, 64 P. 1100; NEILL V. ROYCE, 120
P.2D 327; SEC. 104-37-9 REVISED STATUTES OF UTAH, 1933; AND SEE 3
TIFFANY, REAL PROPERTY (3RD ED.)  SEC. 425; 2 THOMPSON, REAL PROPERTY,
SECS. 1714-17.  WHEN SO LOCALLY RECOGNIZED, THE INTEREST OF A JOINT
TENANT IS A PROPERTY INTEREST SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT UNDER SEC. 70 OF THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 110.  MATTER OF DEPREE, 30 A.B.R. (N.S.)  629; MATTER OF WILLIAMS,
16 A.B.R. (N.S.)  218; CF. IN RE BROWN, 60 F.2D 269; IN RE WILLIAMS'
ESTATE, 16 F.SUPP.  909. 

WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE FILING OF A PETITION SHALL SUBJECT "THE FARMER
AND ALL HIS PROPERTY" TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, FURTHER DIRECTS
THAT, "IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
HEREIN, THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE COURTS, THE TITLE, POWERS,
AND DUTIES OF ITS OFFICERS, THE DUTIES OF THE FARMER, AND THE RIGHTS
AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPERTY OF THE FARMER  ...  SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A VOLUNTARY
PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF ADJUDICATION
HAD BEEN ENTERED.  ...  "  AND SUB-SECTION (S)(4) OF SEC. 75 COMMANDS
THAT "  ...  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE SHALL BE HELD TO APPLY ALSO
TO PARTNERSHIPS, COMMON, ENTIRETY, JOINT, COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP  ...  AND
ANY SUCH PARTIES MAY JOIN IN ONE PETITION." 

THE FINAL CLAUSE OF THIS PROVISION, PERMITTING BOTH JOINT TENANTS TO
JOIN IN THE PETITION, SUGGESTS THAT EITHER, IF ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS
OF THE ACT, MAY FILE A PETITION WITHOUT THE OTHER.  SUCH WAS DECLARED
TO BE ITS PURPOSE BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH RECOMMENDED
ITS ADDITION BY WAY OF AMENDMENT TO SEC. 75(S) AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED. 
IN REPORTING THIS AMENDMENT THE COMMITTEE POINTED OUT THE DIVERSITY OF
RULINGS OF THE COURTS UNDER SEC. 75, SAYING, "SOME HAVE HELD THAT IF A
HUSBAND AND WIFE WERE JOINTLY INTERESTED, OR HAD INTERESTS IN COMMON,
OR WERE PARTNERS IN THE FARMING OPERATIONS, THAT THEN NEITHER OF THEM
COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ACT, NOR COULD THEY JOIN.  OBVIOUSLY SUCH
WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS."  H.R. REP. NO. 570, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 4.  WE NEED NOT NOW DETERMINE WHETHER THE WIFE, WHO DOES NOT
APPEAR TO BE A FARMER-DEBTOR, COULD BEFORE THE FORFEITURE HAVE JOINED
IN THE PETITION.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT ONE JOINT TENANT IS AUTHORIZED TO
FILE HIS PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 AND SUBJECT HIS INTEREST TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT JUST AS HE MAY UNDER SEC. 70 OF
THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

ACCORDINGLY WE CONCLUDE THAT THE HUSBAND'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY
HELD BY HIM AS JOINT TENANT WITH HIS WIFE IS PROPERTY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 75(N), AND THAT THE COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER
THAT INTEREST UPON THE FILING OF HIS PETITION.  THE HUSBAND'S INTEREST
AS JOINT TENANT BEING SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT, HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE MORATORIUM AFFORDED BY
SEC. 75(O) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING HIM TO EFFECT A COMPOSITION WITH
HIS CREDITORS, FAILING WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED UNDER SEC.
75(S).  JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. BARTELS, SUPRA. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS CITED NO DECISION OF THE UTAH COURTS, AND WE ARE
REFERRED TO NONE, WHICH SUPPORTS ITS CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT, AS THE
RESULT OF THE FORFEITURE OF THE WIFE'S INTEREST IN THE LAND, SUCCEEDED
TO THAT INTEREST AND BECAME A CO-TENANT WITH THE HUSBAND.  SO FAR AS
THE LAW OF THAT STATE IS CONCERNED, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN EQUALLY
TENABLE POSITION THAT THE FORFEITURE FREED RESPONDENT'S TITLE OF ANY
EQUITABLE INTEREST OF THE WIFE AND LEFT IT SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH DEMANDS
AS THE HUSBAND MIGHT ASSERT BY VIRTUE OF HIS INTEREST.  IN ADVANCE OF
AN AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION BY THE STATE COURTS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT AFTER THE FORFEITURE OF THE WIFE'S INTEREST, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTERING THE HUSBAND'S
INTEREST UNDER SEC. 75(S) ARE INSURMOUNTABLE.  INDEED, BEFORE
DISMISSING THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTIES IN ASCERTAINING THE
RIGHTS OF THE DEBTOR UNDER STATE LAW AND IN ADMINISTERING THEM IN
BANKRUPTCY, IT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION TO TAKE SUITABLE MEASURES TO REMOVE THOSE DIFFICULTIES BY
AFFORDING THE INTERESTED PARTIES OPPORTUNITY TO ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS IN
THE STATE COURTS AND, WHEN THEY ARE ASCERTAINED AND DEFINED, BY
ADMINISTERING THE DEBTOR'S INTEREST AS THE ACT PROVIDES, SO FAR AS MAY
BE FOUND TO BE PRACTICABLE. 

PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE COMPOSITION OR
EXTENSION PROPOSAL BY THE COURT, THE COURT SHALL EXERCISE SUCH CONTROL
OVER THE PROPERTY OF THE FARMER AS THE COURT DEEMS IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE FARMER AND HIS CREDITORS."  DURING SUCH CONTROL THE
COURT IS FREE TO PERMIT AND TO FACILITATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE
COURTS WHICH WOULD ADJUDICATE THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES IN THE
CONTRACT, SUBJECT TO THE STAY DIRECTED BY SEC. 75(O) OF ANY
CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT OR FORECLOSURE OF PETITIONER'S INTEREST IN
IT.  UTAH, BY SEC. 104-3-18 OF ITS REVISED STATUTES, HAS PROVIDED THAT
"ALL PERSONS HOLDING AS TENANTS IN COMMON OR AS JOINT TENANTS, OR ANY
NUMBER LESS THAN ALL, MAY JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY COMMENCE OR DEFEND ANY
CIVIL ACTION OR PROCEEDING FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OR PROTECTION OF THE
RIGHTS INVOLVED.  IN ALL CASES ONE TENANT IN COMMON OR JOINT TENANT CAN
SUE HIS CO-TENANT."  AND IT HAS ADOPTED THE UNIFORM DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS ACT, UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT OR PETITIONERS, OR EITHER OF
THEM, ARE FREE TO PROCEED TO AN ADJUDICATION OF THEIR RIGHTS.  SECS.
104-64-1 ET SEQ., REVISED STATUTES OF UTAH, 1933.  WE PERCEIVE NO
INSURMOUNTABLE OBSTACLE, IF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS SO ADVISED, TO THE
EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION SO AS TO PERMIT THE PARTIES TO ASCERTAIN
THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS BY AN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING IN THE STATE
COURTS.  SEE THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478, 483. 
WHILE SUCH PRACTICE IS TO BE REGARDED AS EXCEPTIONAL, THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH HERE SUGGEST IT APPEAR TO BE EXCEPTIONAL.  IT MAY BE SUGGESTED
TOO THAT IF, PENDING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION WITH
CREDITORS, THE WIFE WERE TO RELEASE OR ASSIGN TO HER CO-TENANT HER
INTEREST IN THE CONTRACT, ALL BENEFICIAL INTEREST UNDER WHICH SHE HAS
FORFEITED, THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THOUGHT TO EXIST BY REASON OF HER
ABSENCE AS A PARTY FROM THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS MIGHT BE REMOVED. 
WITH THE COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE DEBTOR'S INTEREST IN THE LAND
AND THE DUTY TO ADMINISTER IT ESTABLISHED, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
ACCOMMODATION WITH RESPONDENT AND OTHER CREDITORS WHICH THE STATUTE
CONTEMPLATES COULD NOT BE ARRIVED AT.  BUT, IN THE EVENT THAT NO
COMPOSITION IS EFFECTED, THE DEBTOR MAY ASK TO BE ADJUDICATED A
BANKRUPT, AID AS SUCH TO BE PLACED IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(S) UPON TERMS WHICH WILL ENABLE HIM, BY
PAYING A SUITABLE RENTAL, TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY UNLESS HE IS SOONER
ABLE TO FINANCE HIMSELF.  SEE JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. BARTELS, SUPRA.
IF HIS INTEREST IS FOUND TO BE SUCH THAT IT IS IMPRACTICABLE TO PLACE
HIM IN POSSESSION OR OTHERWISE TO ADMINISTER THE PROPERTY AS PROVIDED
BY SEC. 75(S), HE IS ENTITLED TO PETITION THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO REDEEM
THE PROPERTY; AND, IF HE IS UNABLE TO REDEEM IT, A SALE OF HIS INTEREST
MAY BE ORDERED AS DIRECTED BY SEC. 75(S)(3).  WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL
INS. CO., SUPRA.  THE SALE OF THE INTEREST OF A CO-TENANT MAY BE
SEPARATELY EFFECTED IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  IN RE TOMS, 101 F.2D
617; IN RE BROWN, SUPRA, 273.  AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT A COURT
POSSESSING THE POWERS OF A COURT OF EQUITY COULD NOT IN THIS CASE
DIRECT A SALE ON CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
DEBTOR, RESPONDENT, AND THE PURCHASER. 

RESPONDENT MOVES TO DISMISS THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE, AFTER THE
JUDGMENT BELOW DENYING THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION, PETITIONERS
PROCURED A RETURN OF RENTAL DEPOSITED BY THEM IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
AS AN INCIDENT TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75(S)(2).  IT IS ARGUED THAT
THIS ACTION IS SO INCONSISTENT WITH PETITIONERS' APPEAL AS TO ESTOP
THEM FROM FURTHER PROSECUTION OF IT.  THE ORDER, IF ANY, DIRECTING THE
DEPOSIT, AND THE ATTENDANT PROCEEDINGS DO NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD. 
WHETHER THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IS SO INCONSISTENT WITH
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR THE THREE-YEAR STAY AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 75(S)
UPON PAYMENT OF A PRESCRIBED RENTAL, OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON
THIS RECORD, AND SHOULD, IN ANY CASE, BE DETERMINED IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE.  BUT
IT PLAINLY IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER REMEDIES WHICH THE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION TO GIVE UNDER SEC. 75, OR WITH RECOURSE TO MEASURES WHICH
THE COURT MAY TAKE TO PERMIT AN ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A COMPOSITION MAY BE EFFECTED.  IN ANY
CASE, SINCE DEPOSIT OF RENTAL IS NOT PREREQUISITE TO JURISDICTION,
PETITIONERS' RECALL AND RECEIPT OF MONEY, WHATEVER EFFECT IT MAY HAVE
HAD ON THEIR RIGHT TO THE THREE-YEAR STAY AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 75(S),
INVOLVED NO INCONSISTENCY WITH THE ASSERTION ON THIS APPEAL OF THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THAT QUESTION AND TO TAKE OTHER
APPROPRIATE ACTION.  THE COURT'S AUTHORITY TO GIVE RELIEF UPON
COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH TERMS AS IT MAY PROPERLY IMPOSE, INCLUDING THE
PAYMENT OF RENTAL, EITHER BY MORATORIUM PENDING A COMPOSITION WITH
CREDITORS OR BY SALE AS THE STATUTE PROVIDES, REMAINS UNAFFECTED.  AT
LEAST IT HAS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 75(S) AND IS REQUIRED TO PERMIT
REDEMPTION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE DEBTOR BEFORE ORDERING A SALE. 
WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., SUPRA. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
DEBTOR'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, AND THAT IN ITS SOUND
DISCRETION IT SHOULD, IN EVERY PRACTICABLE WAY, EXERCISE THAT
JURISDICTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTEREST OF THE DEBTOR AS THE
STATUTE DIRECTS. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE BUSS V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO., 126 F.2D 960; IN RE HARRIS,
15 F.SUPP.  304. 
..END :












ETTELSON V. METRO. INS. CO., 317 U.S. 188 


NO. 70.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 13, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942. 


1.  IN A CIVIL ACTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AGAINST AN INSURER
TO RECOVER THE PROCEEDS OF POLICIES OF LIFE INSURANCE, WHEREIN THE
INSURER FILED A COUNTERCLAIM ALLEGING FRAUD BY THE INSURED IN THE
PROCUREMENT OF THE POLICIES AND PRAYING THEIR CANCELLATION AND THAT
FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION BE ENJOINED, AN ORDER THAT THE ISSUE
RAISED BY THE COUNTERCLAIM SHALL BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT
PRIOR TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT IS AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
GRANTING AN INJUNCTION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 129,
AND IS APPEALABLE UNDER THAT SECTION.  P. 190. 

THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 1 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THAT THE
OBJECT OF THE RULES IS "TO SECURE THE JUST, SPEEDY, AND INEXPENSIVE
DETERMINATION OF EVERY ACTION," AND OF RULE 2, THAT "THERE SHALL BE ONE
FORM OF ACTION TO BE KNOWN AS 'CIVIL ACTION,'" DO NOT REQUIRE A
DIFFERENT RESULT. 

2.  LOCAL LAW HAS NO BEARING ON THE QUESTION HERE DETERMINED.  P.
191. 

3.  THE APPLICABILITY OF JUD.  CODE SEC. 129 IS DETERMINED NOT BY THE
TERMINOLOGY OF THE ORDER BUT BY ITS SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT.  P. 192. 

ETTELSON ET AL. V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON AN APPEAL TO THAT
COURT FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 42 F.SUPP. 
488.  THE SUIT, TO RECOVER UPON POLICIES OF LIFE INSURANCE, WAS BEGUN
IN A STATE COURT BUT WAS REMOVED BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE FEDERAL
COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS CERTIFIED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: 

"IN A CIVIL ACTION IN A DISTRICT COURT UPON A CLAIM OF A CHARACTER
FORMERLY COGNIZABLE AT LAW IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAS FILED A
COUNTERCLAIM OF A CHARACTER FORMERLY COGNIZABLE IN EQUITY (OR IN AN
ACTION AT LAW UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 274B  FN1  OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE), IS AN ORDER THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE COUNTERCLAIM
SHALL BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT PRIOR TO THE ISSUE RAISED
BY THE COMPLAINT AN ORDER GRANTING AN INJUNCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THAT SECTION?" 

FROM THE CERTIFICATE IT APPEARS THAT THE QUESTION ARISES UPON THESE
FACTS:  THE PLAINTIFFS FILED, IN A NEW JERSEY STATE COURT, A COMPLAINT
IN FIVE COUNTS TO RECOVER AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO BE DUE PLAINTIFFS BY THE
DEFENDANT ON LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED BY IT UPON THE LIFE OF
RICHARD ETTELSON, DECEASED.  THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED TO THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW JERSEY.  PLAINTIFFS DEMANDED A JURY TRIAL.  THE
DEFENDANT FILED AN ANSWER IN THE DISTRICT COURT SETTING UP THAT THE
POLICIES WERE OBTAINED BY THE FRAUD OF THE INSURED AND ARE VOID BECAUSE
OF MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE INSURED IN THE APPLICATION FOR
THE POLICIES.  THE ANSWER DID NOT ALLEGE THAT THE FALSE STATEMENTS WERE
KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY MADE. 

WITH THE ANSWER, THE DEFENDANT FILED A COUNTERCLAIM ALLEGING THAT THE
POLICIES WERE OBTAINED BY THE FRAUD OF THE INSURED AND ARE VOID BECAUSE
OF THE MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE BY HIM IN THE APPLICATION; AND
PRAYED THAT THE POLICIES BE DECREED VOID UPON THE RETURN BY THE
DEFENDANT OF THE PREMIUMS PAID THEREON, AND THAT THE PLAINTIFFS BE
ENJOINED FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING THE ACTION AT LAW.  THE PLAINTIFFS
MOVED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTERCLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE
DEFENDANT HAS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW ON THE LAW SIDE OF THE COURT IN
THE PENDING ACTION IN WHICH ISSUE HAS BEEN JOINED; AND FURTHER THAT THE
COUNTERCLAIM FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH EQUITABLE RELIEF CAN OR
SHOULD BE GRANTED BY THE COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND ORDERED THAT THE
COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THE COURT SITTING IN
EQUITY PRIOR TO TRIAL OF THE ISSUE MADE BY THE COMPLAINT AND ANSWER IN
THE ACTION AT LAW.  42 F.SUPP.  488.  THE PLAINTIFFS THEREUPON APPEALED
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; AND THE DEFENDANT MOVED THAT COURT TO
DISMISS THE APPEAL, IN THE VIEW THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER IS NOT
APPEALABLE. 

THE PARTIES AGREE THAT, IF THE QUESTION HAD ARISEN PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,  FN3  OUR DECISION IN ENELOW
V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379, WOULD REQUIRE AN AFFIRMATIVE
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.  THE DEFENDANT ASSERTS, AND THE PLAINTIFFS
DENY, THAT THE RULES REQUIRE A NEGATIVE ANSWER.  THE DEFENDANT POINTS
TO RULE 1, WHICH STATES THAT THE OBJECT OF THE RULES IS "TO SECURE THE
JUST, SPEEDY, AND INEXPENSIVE DETERMINATION OF EVERY ACTION"; AND MORE
PARTICULARLY TO RULE 2, WHICH DECLARES THAT "THERE SHALL BE ONE FORM OF
ACTION TO BE KNOWN AS 'CIVIL ACTION.'" 

THE DEFENDANT'S CONTENTION, IN BRIEF, IS THAT WHEREAS, WHEN THE
ENELOW CASE WAS DECIDED, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACTIONS AT LAW AND
SUITS IN EQUITY IN FEDERAL COURTS STILL PERSISTED, THIS DISTINCTION HAS
NOW BEEN ABOLISHED; THAT EQUITABLE DEFENSES, WHETHER A BAR TO
PLAINTIFFS' RECOVERY AT LAW OR THE BASIS OF AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF AGAINST
THE PLAINTIFFS, ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE SINGLE ACTION INITIATED BY
THE PLAINTIFFS AND THAT ANY DIRECTION BY THE COURT RESPECTING THE ORDER
IN WHICH THE CLAIM AND THE COUNTERCLAIM ARE TO BE HEARD IS
INTERLOCUTORY, AMOUNTING, AT MOST, TO A STAY OF THE TRIAL OF ONE BRANCH
OF THE LITIGATION, AND IN NO SENSE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
PLAINTIFFS.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

AT THE ARGUMENT OF THE CAUSE MUCH TIME WAS DEVOTED TO THE APPLICABLE
LAW OF NEW JERSEY, WHERE THE ACTION ORIGINATED.  IT WAS URGED THAT,
UNDER THAT LAW, UPON ALLEGATION AND PROOF OF INNOCENT
MISREPRESENTATIONS INDUCING THE ISSUE OF A POLICY, AN INSURER IS
ENTITLED TO A DECREE CANCELLING THE POLICY AND RESTRAINING ANY ACTION
AT LAW UPON IT.  IT WAS URGED THAT THIS FEATURE OF THE LOCAL LAW MUST
BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE APPEALABILITY OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
ORDER.  BUT, WHATEVER EFFECT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE NEW JERSEY LAW IN
DETERMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S ACTION, THE LOCAL
LAW HAS NO BEARING UPON THE DECISION OF THE NARROW QUESTION CERTIFIED. 

AS IN THE ENELOW CASE, SO HERE, THE RESULT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S
ORDER IS THE POSTPONEMENT OF TRIAL OF THE JURY ACTION BASED UPON THE
POLICIES; AND IT MAY, IN PRACTICAL EFFECT, TERMINATE THAT ACTION.  IT
IS AS EFFECTIVE IN THESE RESPECTS AS AN INJUNCTION ISSUED BY A
CHANCELLOR.  IF THE ORDER BE FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS, IT WILL HAVE TO BE
SET ASIDE AND THE PLAINTIFFS PERMITTED TO PURSUE THEIR ACTION TO
JUDGMENT.  THE PLAINTIFFS ARE, THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, IN
NO DIFFERENT POSITION THAN IF A STATE EQUITY COURT HAD RESTRAINED THEM
FROM PROCEEDING IN THE LAW ACTION.  NOR ARE THEY DIFFERENTLY
CIRCUMSTANCED THAN WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ENELOW CASE.  THE RELIEF
AFFORDED BY SEC. 129 IS NOT RESTRICTED BY THE TERMINOLOGY USED.  THE
STATUTE LOOKS TO THE SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT OF THE ORDER MADE.  ENELOW V.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA, P. 383.  COMPARE GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V.
MARVEL RARE METALS CO., 287 U.S. 430, 432; SHANFEROKE COAL & SUPPLY
CORP. V. WESTCHESTER SERVICE CORP., 293 U.S. 449, 451; GRIESA V. MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO., 165 F. 48, 49. 

QUESTION ANSWERED "YES." 

FN1  28 U.S.C. SEC. 398. 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 227. 

FN3  308 U.S. 653; 28 U.S.C. 723C. 
..END :






















MILLER V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 192 


NO. 76.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942.  - 123
F.2D 715, REVERSED. 


1.  THE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUTE (ACT OF JULY 20, 1892, AS AMENDED)
DOES NOT ENTITLE AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE TO BE
FURNISHED A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVIDENCE AT PUBLIC EXPENSE.  P.
197. 

2.  A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR
THE PREPARATION OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; THE BILL MAY BE PREPARED FROM
THE JUDGE'S OR COUNSEL'S NOTES, OR FROM THE RECOLLECTION OF WITNESSES
AS TO WHAT OCCURRED AT THE TRIAL, OR, IN SHORT, FROM ANY AND ALL
SOURCES WHICH WILL CONTRIBUTE TO A VERACIOUS ACCOUNT OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE'S ACTION AND THE BASIS OF HIS RULING.  P. 198. 

3.  UPON A PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR REHEARING OF
ITS AFFIRMANCE, ON AN APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, OF A CONVICTION IN A
CRIMINAL CASE, IT APPEARED THAT THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY
PRESENTED BECAUSE OF HIS COUNSEL'S BELIEF THAT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE
EVIDENCE (WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT FUNDS TO OBTAIN) WAS
NECESSARY FOR THE PREPARATION OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS COVERING THE
POINT.  HELD, THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HAD POWER, UNDER RULE 4 OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES, TO REMAND THE
CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF A PROPER BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS.  P. 199. 

4. THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR ENTRY OF
AN ORDER PERMITTING SETTLEMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS PRESENTING THE POINT URGED BY THE PETITIONER.  THEREUPON, IT
WILL BE THE DUTY OF COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS MADE UP FROM THE BEST SOURCES AVAILABLE; AND IT WILL THEN BE
THE DUTY OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO ASSIST IN AMPLIFYING, CORRECTING AND
PERFECTING THE BILL, AND TO SETTLE THE SAME IN ORDER TO PRESENT THE
EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE TRIAL.  P. 199. 

MILLER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 658, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION OF
KIDNAPPING IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. SEC. 408A.  FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF
THE COURT BELOW IN THIS CASE, SEE 124 F.2D 849, 126 F.2D 462. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POOR PERSONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.  FOR THIS REASON WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE PETITIONER WAS INDICTED, TRIED, AND CONVICTED IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN ARKANSAS FOR KIDNAPPING IN VIOLATION
OF TITLE 18 U.S.C. SEC. 408A.  AS HE WAS WITHOUT FUNDS TO CONDUCT HIS
DEFENSE, THE COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR HIM.  THE PERSON CHARGED TO
HAVE BEEN KIDNAPPED WAS THE ILLEGITIMATE DAUGHTER OF PETITIONER'S
WIFE. 

TWO DEFENSES WERE PRESENTED.  THE FIRST WAS THAT THE PETITIONER CAME
WITHIN THE EXCEPTION STATED IN THE STATUTE, THAT IT SHALL NOT APPLY TO
A KIDNAPPING "IN THE CASE OF A MINOR, BY A PARENT THEREOF."  TO SUSTAIN
THIS DEFENSE, PETITIONER OFFERED EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE GIRL WAS A
MINOR AND THAT, HAVING MARRIED HER MOTHER, HE STOOD IN THE RELATION OF
A PARENT TO HER.  THE SECOND DEFENSE WAS THAT THE PETITIONER HAD
NEITHER TAKEN NOR DETAINED THE YOUNG WOMAN AGAINST HER WILL.  THE
DISTRICT JUDGE RULED AGAINST THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS A
PARENT WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF THE STATUTE, BUT SENT THE CASE TO THE
JURY ON THE QUESTION WHETHER HE HAD APPREHENDED OR DETAINED HIS WIFE'S
DAUGHTER AGAINST HER WILL.  THE JURY RENDERED A VERDICT OF GUILTY. 
JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE WAS ENTERED. 

IN DUE TIME, PETITIONERS COUNSEL FILED NOTICE OF APPEAL IN WHICH,
AMONGST OTHERS, REASONS ADVANCED WERE THAT THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING
PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTIONS FOR ACQUITTAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CASE AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE; THAT THE
VERDICT OF THE JURY WAS CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; AND
THAT THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT, IF THEY
FOUND THE COMPLAINING WITNESS WAS UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS AT
THE TIME OF THE KIDNAPPING THEY MUST FIND THE PETITIONER NOT GUILTY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN ORDER PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO
APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ALSO
PERMITTED THE PROSECUTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THAT COURT IN FORMA
PAUPERIS. 

IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEAL, ERRORS WERE SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED TO
THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT RESPECTING THE STATUS OF THE
PETITIONER AS A PARENT, BUT NO ERROR WAS SO ASSIGNED TO THE ACTION OF
THE COURT IN SUBMITTING THE FACT QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE ALLEGED
APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESS, ALTHOUGH THE
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR CONCLUDED WITH A PRAYER FOR A REVERSAL FOR "OTHER
MANIFEST ERRORS IN THE RECORD AND PROCEEDINGS."  THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT COURT SET FORTH ONLY SO MUCH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
AS WENT TO THE QUESTION OF PETITIONER'S ASSERTED PARENTHOOD OF THE
ALLEGED MINOR.  IT ALSO INCLUDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON MOTIONS FOR
DIRECTED VERDICT AND THE ACTION OF THE COURT UPON THOSE MOTIONS, BUT
NONE OF THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE MOTIONS WERE BASED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND, IN SO DOING,
DEALT ONLY WITH THE QUESTION OF THE PETITIONER'S PARENTHOOD.  FN1  AT
THE CLOSE OF ITS OPINION IT STATED:  "NO OTHER QUESTION HAVING BEEN
RAISED ON THIS APPEAL, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST BE AND IS
AFFIRMED." 

THE PETITIONER ENTERED UPON SERVICE OF HIS SENTENCE AND, BEING
WITHOUT COUNSEL, PERSONALLY FORWARDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS A
PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND A PETITION FOR REHEARING. 
IN THE LATTER, HE URGED THAT THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD
INDICATING THAT HE TOOK OR DETAINED HIS WIFE'S DAUGHTER AGAINST HER
WILL, AND PRAYED THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO BRING UP A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN AT
HIS TRIAL.  IN A PER CURIAM OPINION,  FN2  THE COURT STATED THAT IT HAD
DECIDED THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE IT, BUT ORDERED THAT THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY ANSWER THE PETITION SO THAT IT MIGHT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER A
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS COULD BE PREPARED TO RAISE THE QUESTIONS WHICH THE
PETITIONER DESIRED TO HAVE DECIDED.  THE PROSECUTING OFFICER ANSWERED
ALLEGING THAT THE ENTIRE TESTIMONY IN THE CASE HAD BEEN TAKEN
STENOGRAPHICALLY BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S SECRETARY, WHOSE NOTES WERE
AVAILABLE AND COULD BE TRANSCRIBED.  THE ANSWER FURTHER SET FORTH THAT
THE JUDGE'S SECRETARY HAD IMPORTANT DUTIES TO PERFORM; THAT THE
TESTIMONY WHICH HE TOOK STENOGRAPHICALLY WAS OF LARGE VOLUME; THAT ITS
TRANSCRIPTION WOULD INVOLVE LABOR FOR WHICH HE OUGHT TO BE PAID; AND
THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR A TRANSCRIPT OF
THE EVIDENCE OR TO FURNISH SUCH A TRANSCRIPT TO THE DEFENDANT. 

TO THIS ANSWER, THE PETITIONER FILED A RESPONSE IN WHICH, AMONGST
OTHER THINGS, HE ALLEGED THAT HE HAD REPEATEDLY URGED HIS ATTORNEY TO
PRESENT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE QUESTION OF THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN HIS CONVICTION, AND THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD
INVARIABLY REPLIED THAT THIS COULD NOT BE DONE WITHOUT OBTAINING A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVIDENCE SO AS TO MAKE A PROPER BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
COVERING THE SUBJECT; THAT THE ATTORNEY FURTHER ADVISED HIM THAT A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE TESTIMONY COULD NOT BE PROCURED BECAUSE THE
PETITIONER HAD NO FUNDS TO PAY FOR ITS PREPARATION.  IT STANDS ADMITTED
ON THE RECORD THAT THESE ARE THE FACTS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN A THIRD OPINION,  FN3  STATED THAT
IT HAD REQUESTED A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR REHEARING IN ORDER TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT, AS IN HOLMES V. UNITED STATES, 314
U.S. 583, WOULD CONSENT TO THE VACATION OF THE JUDGMENT SO THAT A
PROPER RECORD MIGHT BE MADE AS THE BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE
QUESTION URGED BY THE PETITIONER.  THE COURT STATED THAT, IN VIEW OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO A VACATION OF THE JUDGMENT OR A
REOPENING OF THE CASE, IT FELT ITSELF WITHOUT POWER TO ACT FURTHER IN
THE MATTER, AND INDICATED THAT IF THE PETITIONER DESIRED TO BRING THE
CAUSE TO THIS COURT SUCH FACILITIES SHOULD BE FURNISHED HIM AS WERE
NECESSARY TO THAT END WITHOUT THE OBLIGATION TO PAY FEES OR COSTS. 

THE PETITIONER PRESENTED TO THIS COURT A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND
A PETITION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  WE GRANTED THE WRIT
AND GAVE LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  AS HE WAS WITHOUT
COUNSEL, WE APPOINTED COUNSEL TO ACT FOR HIM IN THIS COURT. 

1.  THERE IS NO LAW OF THE UNITED STATES CREATING THE POSITION OF
OFFICIAL COURT STENOGRAPHER AND NONE REQUIRING THE STENOGRAPHIC REPORT
OF ANY CASE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, AND THERE IS NONE PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT
FOR THE SERVICES OF A STENOGRAPHER IN REPORTING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. 
THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN FOR THE PARTIES TO AGREE THAT A DESIGNATED PERSON
SHALL SO REPORT.  THE ONE SELECTED MUST BE PAID BY PRIVATE ARRANGEMENT
WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION.  THE AMOUNT PAID TO
HIM IS NOT COSTS IN THE CAUSE NOR TAXABLE AS SUCH AGAINST ANY OF THE
PARTIES. 

2.  AT THE INSTANCE OF THE CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES,
LEGISLATION HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS TO PROVIDE AN OFFICIAL
SYSTEM OF REPORTING AND TO DEFRAY THE COST OF IT.  THAT LEGISLATION, AS
WE UNDERSTAND, WILL, IF ADOPTED, OBVIATE THE DIFFICULTIES PRESENTED IN
THIS CASE.  AS THE MATTER STANDS, HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE JUDGE'S
SECRETARY WHO STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED THE TRIAL IS NOT AN OFFICER OF
THE UNITED STATES IN HIS CAPACITY AS REPORTER, IS NOT ENTITLED TO FEES
FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR HIS SERVICES, AND HIS COMPENSATION CANNOT BE
TREATED AS COSTS.  THE ACT OF JULY 20, 1892, AS AMENDED,  FN4  APPLIES
ONLY TO COURT COSTS, PERMITS THE TAKING OF AN APPEAL WITHOUT PREPAYMENT
OF COST OF PRINTING THE RECORD IN THE APPELLATE COURT, AND PROVIDES IN
CERTAIN CASES FOR THE PRINTING OF THAT RECORD AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. 
IT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE PROCUREMENT OF A TRANSCRIPT OF THE TESTIMONY
NOR THE PAYMENT FOR SERVICES IN REPORTING EVIDENCE TAKEN AT THE TRIAL
NOR FOR THE OBTAINING OF IT BY THE GOVERNMENT IN BEHALF OF AN INDIGENT
DEFENDANT. 

3.  IT IS URGED BY THE PETITIONER THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
INHERENT POWER, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, TO ORDER PREPARATION OF A
TRANSCRIPT FOR THE PETITIONER'S USE IN MAKING UP A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
AND TO IMPOSE THE EXPENSE OF SO DOING UPON THE GOVERNMENT.  THE
RESPONDENT POINTS OUT THAT THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL HAS RULED THAT THERE
IS NO APPROPRIATION FROM WHICH SUCH EXPENSE MAY BE PAID  FN5  AND,
WHETHER HE IS OR IS NOT RIGHT, IT REMAINS THAT NO APPROPRIATION IS
AVAILABLE WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
THAT OFFICER APPEARS UNWILLING TO TEST THE MATTER BY MAKING SUCH
AUTHORIZATION.  WE NEED NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THESE OPPOSING VIEWS
BECAUSE OF THE FACTS DEVELOPED IN THE BRIEFS AND IN ARGUMENT. 

4.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE TRIAL JUDGE'S SECRETARY TOOK STENOGRAPHIC
NOTES OF THE ENTIRE TESTIMONY AND HIS NOTES ARE AVAILABLE.  IT WAS
STATED AT THE BAR THAT THIS GENTLEMAN STANDS READY TO READ HIS NOTES
INTO A DICTAPHONE WITHOUT CHARGE TO THE PETITIONER.  IN THE LIGHT OF
THESE FACTS IT WOULD SEEM THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO PREPARE AN ADEQUATE
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS FAIRLY REFLECTING THE PURPORT OF THE TESTIMONY. 

IT HAS BECOME THE USUAL, BECAUSE THE MORE CONVENIENT, METHOD TO
PREPARE A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS BY THE USE OF A STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF
THE EVIDENCE.  EVEN SO, THE BILL OUGHT NOT TO CONTAIN ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE BUT ONLY THAT WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES MADE UPON THE
APPEAL, AND OFTEN IT IS EXPEDIENT AND SATISFACTORY TO SUMMARIZE THE
EVIDENCE AND TRANSMUTE IT INTO NARRATIVE FORM.  HISTORICALLY A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS DOES NOT EMBODY A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVIDENCE BUT,
ON THE CONTRARY, A STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE EVIDENCE ADEQUATE TO
PRESENT THE CONTENTIONS MADE IN THE APPELLATE COURT.  SUCH A BILL MAY
BE PREPARED FROM NOTES KEPT BY COUNSEL, FROM THE JUDGE'S NOTES, FROM
THE RECOLLECTION OF WITNESSES AS TO WHAT OCCURRED AT THE TRIAL, AND, IN
SHORT, FROM ANY AND ALL SOURCES WHICH WILL CONTRIBUTE TO A VERACIOUS
ACCOUNT OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S ACTION AND THE BASIS ON WHICH HIS RULING
WAS INVOKED. 

COUNSEL IN THIS CASE COULD, THEREFORE, HAVE PREPARED AND PRESENTED TO
THE TRIAL JUDGE, AS WAS HIS DUTY, A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS SO PREPARED, AND
IT WOULD THEN HAVE BECOME THE DUTY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE TO APPROVE IT, IF
ACCURATE, OR, IF NOT, TO ASSIST IN MAKING IT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS.  WE ARE UNWILLING TO HOLD THAT THE PETITIONER IS
FORECLOSED FROM OBTAINING A BILL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 
PETITIONER REPEATEDLY INSISTED THAT COUNSEL PROCURE A PROPER RECORD ON
APPEAL TO PRESENT THE QUESTION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN HIS CONVICTION.  THE PETITIONER DID EVERYTHING THAT LAY WITHIN
HIS POWER TO OBTAIN SUCH A PROPER RECORD, AND WE THINK HE SHOULD NOT BE
PENALIZED FOR THE FAILURE OF HIS APPOINTED COUNSEL TO TAKE THE
NECESSARY MEASURES, IF THE POWER EXISTS TO AFFORD HIM A HEARING ON THE
POINT HE DEEMS MATERIAL. 

5.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD POWER IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO REMAND THE CAUSE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF A PROPER
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.  RULE 4 OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES FN6  PROVIDES
THAT, AFTER THE FILING OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT
SHALL HAVE SUPERVISION OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, INCLUDING THE
PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL, AND
THAT IT MAY ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR DIRECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT.  THIS
POWER EXTENDS TO THE PROCUREMENT OF A PROPER BILL OF EXCEPTIONS  FN7
AND OUGHT TO BE LIBERALLY EXERCISED WHERE THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE
EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT.  FN8 

WE THINK THE RIGHT COURSE IN THIS INSTANCE IS TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ORDER THAT IT MAY ENTER AN ORDER
PERMITTING THE SETTLEMENT OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
TO PRESENT THE POINT URGED BY PETITIONER.  UPON THE ENTRY OF SUCH AN
ORDER IT WILL BE THE DUTY OF COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER TO PRESENT A BILL
MADE UP FROM THE BEST SOURCES AVAILABLE.  IT WILL THEN BECOME THE DUTY
OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO ASSIST IN AMPLIFYING, CORRECTING, AND
PERFECTING THIS BILL FROM SUCH SOURCES, AND TO SETTLE THE SAME IN ORDER
TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE TRIAL.  FROM SUCH A BILL THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL NO DOUBT BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE
WAS EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN PETITIONER'S CONVICTION.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  123 F.2D 715. 

FN2  124 F.2D 849. 

FN3  126 F.2D 462. 

FN4  28 U.S.C. SEC. 832. 

FN5  9 COMP. GEN. 503; CF. 21 COMP. GEN. 347. 

FN6  18 U.S.C.A. SEC. 688FF. 

FN7 RAY V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 158, 164, 167; HOLMES V. UNITED
STATES, 314 U.S. 583. 

FN8  HEMPHILL V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 657. 
..END :



U.S. V. WAYNE PUMP CO., 317 U.S. 200 


NOS. 81 AND 82.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942. 
- 44 F.SUPP.  949, APPEALS DISMISSED. 


1.  THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THESE CASES, SUSTAINING
DEMURRERS TO INDICTMENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, WAS BASED
NOT ONLY ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BUT ALSO ON THE INDEPENDENT
GROUND OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENTS AS PLEADINGS, AND
THEREFORE WAS NOT APPEALABLE DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT.  P. 207. 

2.  THE AMENDMENT BY ACT OF MAY 9, 1942, OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT,
WHICH FOR THE FIRST TIME PERMITS APPEALS TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS FROM ORDERS SUSTAINING DEMURRERS TO INDICTMENTS IN CASES NOT
DIRECTLY APPEALABLE TO THIS COURT, AND WHICH DIRECTS THAT SUCH APPEALS,
WHEN ERRONEOUSLY TAKEN TO THIS COURT, SHALL BE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION AND IS INAPPLICABLE
TO APPEALS FOR WHICH, WHEN TAKEN, THERE WAS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  P.
209. 

UNITED STATES V. WAYNE PUMP CO. ET AL. 

APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN TWO CASES, HEARD
TOGETHER, SUSTAINING DEMURRERS TO INDICTMENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE COMPANION APPEALS FROM ORDERS SUSTAINING DEMURRERS TO
INDICTMENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE INDICTMENT IN NO.
81 CHARGES THE DEFENDANTS, MANUFACTURERS OF GASOLINE PUMPS, A
MANUFACTURER OF GASOLINE COMPUTING MECHANISMS AND A GASOLINE PUMP
MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION, AND CERTAIN OF THEIR OFFICERS, WITH
CONSPIRACY, EXTENDING FROM 1932 TO THE DATE OF THE INDICTMENT, JANUARY
31, 1941, TO FIX THE PRICES OF COMPUTER PUMPS IN INTERSTATE TRADE AND
COMMERCE, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  COMPUTER PUMPS
ARE GASOLINE PUMPS EMBODYING A MECHANISM WHICH CALCULATES, MEASURES,
DISPLAYS AND RECORDS THE QUANTITIES AND PRICES OF GASOLINE PASSING
THROUGH THE PUMPS TO THE PURCHASERS.  IN NO. 82 THE DEFENDANTS ARE THE
SAME EXCEPT THAT THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS OFFICER ARE OMITTED.  THIS
LATTER INDICTMENT VARIES FROM THE FORMER IN THAT IN TWO COUNTS IT
CHARGES A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COMPUTER
PUMPS AND COMPUTING MECHANISMS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  FN1 

THE FACTS ALLEGED TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE IN THE COUNT FOR PRICE-FIXING
AND THOSE TO SUPPORT THE COUNT FOR MONOPOLIZING ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME.  THE COUNTS VARY ONLY AS TO THE PURPOSES ALLEGED.  THE SAME MEANS
ALLEGEDLY ARE EMPLOYED TO CARRY OUT EACH CONSPIRACY.  AS SIMILAR LEGAL
ISSUES ARISE IN EACH CASE AND AS OUR CONCLUSIONS UPON EACH COUNT ARE
BASED UPON THE SAME REASONING, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE FURTHER
DIFFERENTIATIONS BETWEEN THE COUNTS.  ONE OPINION WAS HANDED DOWN BY
THE DISTRICT COURT.  IT SETS OUT THE INDICTMENTS QUITE FULLY.  UNITED
STATES V. WAYNE PUMP CO., 44 F.SUPP.  949. 

AS OUR DECISION DOES NOT AND CANNOT IN OUR VIEW CONSIDER THE
CORRECTNESS OF A TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT THAT AN INDICTMENT FAILED
PROPERLY TO ALLEGE THE FACTS ESTABLISHING A CRIME (UNITED STATES V.
SANGES, 144 U.S. 310; UNITED STATES V. BURROUGHS, 289 U.S. 159), WE DO
NOT SET OUT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THESE COUNTS IN EXTENSO.  THIS HAS BEEN
DONE IN UNITED STATES V. WAYNE PUMP CO., SUPRA.  WE SHALL STATE HERE,
FOR CONVENIENCE IN GETTING A FOCUS ON THE PROBLEM ONLY, THAT THE COUNTS
OF THE INDICTMENTS CHARGED CONSPIRACIES AMONG THE DEFENDANTS TO FIX
PRICES ON, AND MONOPOLIZE THE INTERSTATE TRADE IN, COMPUTER PUMPS AND
COMPUTING MECHANISMS BY A SCHEME FOR USING PATENT RIGHTS AND LICENSES
TO MANUFACTURE UNDER THEM. 

THE DEFENDANTS DEMURRED TO THE INDICTMENTS AS INSUFFICIENT IN LAW TO
STATE AN OFFENSE.  IT WAS SAID IN THE DEMURRERS THAT THE INDICTMENTS
FAILED TO DESCRIBE OR PARTICULARIZE THE OFFENSE ATTEMPTED TO BE CHARGED
WITH SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS, CERTAINTY OR SPECIFICITY TO INFORM THE
DEFENDANTS OF THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE ACCUSATIONS OR TO ENABLE
THEM TO PLEAD AN ACQUITTAL OR CONVICTION THEREUNDER IN BAR OF OTHER
PROCEEDINGS. 

THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED THE DEMURRERS TO EACH COUNT, FROM WHICH
RULING APPEALS TO THIS COURT WERE PRAYED UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS
ACT, 34 STAT. 1246.  THAT STATUTE AUTHORIZES AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT
"FROM A DECISION OR JUDGMENT QUASHING, SETTING ASIDE, OR SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO, ANY INDICTMENT, OR ANY COUNT THEREOF, WHERE SUCH DECISION
OR JUDGMENT IS BASED UPON THE INVALIDITY, OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED."  FN2  WE HAVE NO
JURISDICTION IF THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS NOT SO BASED.  UNITED STATES V.
HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188; UNITED STATES V. HALSEY, STUART & CO., 296 U.S.
451; UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188. 

IN THEIR STATEMENT OPPOSING JURISDICTION, APPELLEES CONTENDED THAT
THE DEMURRERS WERE SUSTAINED BECAUSE OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE
INDICTMENTS AS PLEADINGS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENTS WERE BASED, AND THEREFORE QUESTIONED
OUR JURISDICTION UNDER THE ACT.  WE POSTPONED DECISION OF THIS QUESTION
TO THE ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS AND WE NOW COME TO ITS DECISION. 

THERE IS DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO WHETHER THE DISTRICT
COURT SUSTAINED THE DEMURRERS ON THE GROUND OF THE DEFICIENCY OF THE
PLEADINGS AS WELL AS UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  THE LANGUAGE
OF THE OPINION MAKES IT APPARENT TO US THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CONCLUSION WAS AT LEAST IN PART BOTTOMED UPON THE INDEFINITENESS,
UNCERTAINTY AND LACK OF SPECIFICITY OF THE INDICTMENTS.  IN THE OPINION
IT IS SAID, 44 F.SUPP.  949, 956: 

"THERE IS NO CHARGE THAT DEFENDANTS FIXED THE PRICES OF GASOLINE
PUMPS GENERALLY, OR RESTRICTED THEIR MANUFACTURE AND SALE.  THEY ARE
CHARGED ONLY WITH FIXING THE PRICES OF COMPUTER PUMPS, A RIGHT WHICH
THE WAYNE PUMP COMPANY ALREADY HAD UNDER THE STATUTORY MONOPOLY GRANTED
BY THE GOVERNMENT WHEN ITS PATENT WAS ISSUED.  WHAT IS MEANT BY THE
PHRASE 'USED THE JAUCH PATENT' IS NOT QUITE CLEAR.  IF THE DEFENDANTS
DID MORE THAN ENTER INTO ORDINARY PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENTS, UNDER THE
TERMS OF WHICH THE WAYNE PUMP COMPANY, AS OWNER OF THE PATENT, LICENSED
THE OTHERS TO MANUFACTURE COMPUTER PUMPS, AND FIXED THE PRICES AT WHICH
THE PUMPS SHOULD BE SOLD; OR IF THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT THESE
DEFENDANTS WERE INVOLVED IN SOME OFFENSE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT OTHER
THAN THE EXERCISE OF A PATENT MONOPOLY, THEN SUCH OFFENSE SHOULD BE SET
OUT CLEARLY IN THE INDICTMENTS." 

THE COURT FURTHER SAID, ID., 956:  "HOW THEY TOOK JOINT ACTION OR
ENTERED INTO JOINT AGREEMENTS TO USE THE JAUCH PATENT TO ACHIEVE THE
ALLEGED ILLEGAL OBJECTIVES, OR HOW THEY WENT OUTSIDE THE MONOPOLY
GRANTED TO THE PATENTEE AND ITS LICENSEES, IS NOWHERE SET OUT IN THE
INDICTMENTS." 

THE LOWER COURT IN UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 253 F. 522,
AFFIRMED 250 U.S. 300, HAD CRITICIZED AN INDICTMENT BECAUSE OF FAILURE
TO SET OUT FACTS AGAINST ANY SET OF WHOLESALERS OR RETAILERS ALLEGED TO
HAVE ACTED IN COMBINATION WITH THE DEFENDANT.  IN THIS CASE, COMMENTING
UPON WHAT IS SAID TO BE A SIMILAR SITUATION, THE DISTRICT COURT SAID,
ID., 958: 

"SO IN THE CASE AT BAR, IF THESE CONDITIONS EXIST, THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN SETTING FORTH AT LEAST ONE SPECIFIC
INSTANCE OF WHERE DEFENDANTS DETERMINED THE RESALE PRICE AT WHICH
JOBBERS MIGHT RESELL COMPUTER PUMPS.  IF THIS CONDITION DOES EXIST,
SURELY THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE IN POSSESSION OF THE FACTS, AND THEY
SHOULD BE SET OUT IN THE INDICTMENTS, SO AS TO REASONABLY INFORM
DEFENDANTS OF THE OFFENSE WITH WHICH THEY ARE CHARGED." 

THE OPINION ADDED, ID., 958: 

"THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS ARGUMENT INSISTS THAT COMPETING PATENTS ARE
HERE INVOLVED, AND THAT A MONOPOLY OF COMPETING PATENTS WAS ACQUIRED BY
SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN TO CARRY OUT THE
CONSPIRACY, BUT THE INDICTMENTS SET OUT NO FACTS WHEREBY TO IDENTIFY
THESE COMPETING PATENTS, NOR IN WHAT MANNER NOR BY WHOM SUCH MONOPOLY
IN THEM WAS ACQUIRED." 

FINALLY THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED, ID., 959: 

"IT IS FUNDAMENTAL THAT IN EVERY INDICTMENT THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED
TO BE INFORMED WITH SUCH DEFINITENESS AND CERTAINTY OF THE ACCUSATIONS
AGAINST HIM AS WILL ENABLE HIM TO MAKE HIS DEFENSE, AND AVAIL HIMSELF
OF ACQUITTAL OR CONVICTION IN ANY FURTHER PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME
OFFENSE.  HAVING IN MIND THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INSTANT
INDICTMENTS IS PROTECTED BY A PATENT, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE
DEFENDANTS HERE HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITH SUCH DEFINITE AND
PARTICULAR ALLEGATIONS OF FACT AS WILL MEET THIS TEST.  THE CHARGES ARE
MUCH TOO GENERAL.  THEY DO NOT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE
ALLEGED UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY AGREEMENTS OR ARRANGEMENTS WHICH DEFENDANTS
ARE ACCUSED OF HAVING MADE, NOR SHOW HOW THE DEFENDANTS BECAME PARTIES
THERETO, NOR HOW THEY COLLABORATED IN DOING THE UNLAWFUL THINGS; NOR
SET OUT ANY UNLAWFUL MEANS WHEREBY THE UNLAWFUL OBJECTIVES WERE
ACCOMPLISHED." 

FURTHER, THE DISTRICT COURT, IN OUR OPINION, MADE IT ALTOGETHER CLEAR
THAT IT WAS NOT DETERMINING SOLELY THE LIMITS OF A PATENT MONOPOLY.  IT
POINTED OUT THAT A PATENTEE MIGHT LICENSE (ID., 954) AS IT CHOSE,
PROVIDED ONLY THAT IN SO DOING IT DID NOT VIOLATE ANY OTHER LAW.  THE
SHERMAN ACT WAS IN MIND.  THE COURT SAID, ID., 956: 

"WHILE OWNERSHIP OF THE PATENT GIVES TO THE PATENTEE A COMPLETE
MONOPOLY WITHIN THE FIELD OF HIS PATENT, IT OF COURSE DOES NOT GIVE HIM
ANY LICENSE TO VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT OR OF ANY
OTHER LAW.  UNDER HIS MONOPOLY HE MAY NOT USE HIS PATENT AS A PRETEXT
FOR FIXING PRICES ON AN UNPATENTED ARTICLE OF COMMERCE; NOR FIX THE
RESALE PRICE ON HIS PATENTED ARTICLE; NOR MAKE USE OF 'TYING
CLAUSES.'" 

THE GOVERNMENT, OF COURSE, RECOGNIZES THAT THE OPINION MANIFESTS THE
DISTRICT COURT'S VIEW THAT THE INDICTMENT FAILED TO ALLEGE VIOLATIONS
OF THE SHERMAN ACT WITH SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS AND PARTICULARITY.  BUT
THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT SUCH A RULING AROSE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S
ERROR IN HOLDING, ON THE MERITS, THAT THE FACTS SET OUT IN THE
INDICTMENT DO NOT CHARGE, AS A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE, CRIMES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT,
AFTER MAKING THIS FUNDAMENTAL RULING, THE DISTRICT COURT "THEN SIMPLY
WENT ON TO SAY THAT THE INDICTMENTS ARE DEFECTIVE AS PLEADINGS IF THEY
ARE INTENDED TO CHARGE CRIMES WITHIN THE SHERMAN ACT AS THAT ACT IS
CONSTRUED BY THE COURT BELOW." 

WE DO NOT READ THE DISTRICT COURT'S OPINION IN THAT WAY.  WHERE A
COURT INTERPRETS A CRIMINAL STATUTE SO AS TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN ACTS AND
TRANSACTIONS FROM ITS REACH, IT WOULD OF NECESSITY ALSO HOLD, EXPRESSLY
OR IMPLIEDLY, AS THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS, THAT THE INDICTMENT,
CONSIDERED MERELY AS A PLEADING, WAS DEFECTIVE.  YET, THE ESSENCE OF
THE RULING WOULD BE BASED UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  WE
ACCEPT AS CORRECT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION ONLY, THE
GOVERNMENT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE OPINION AS HOLDING THAT THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT, CONSIDERED IN SUBSTANCE AND APART FROM
REQUIRED SPECIFICITY, DID NOT ALLEGE VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT
WAS A STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION SUCH AS THAT JUST STATED WHICH LED THIS
COURT TO ACCEPT JURISDICTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT IN UNITED
STATES V. HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188, 195. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE OPINION, HOWEVER, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE JUDGMENT
UPHOLDING THE DEMURRER WAS BASED ALSO ON GROUNDS INDEPENDENT OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE INVOLVED.  THE DEMURRERS UPON WHICH THE
RULING BELOW WAS BASED SHOW ON THEIR FACE, AS APPEARS FROM THE TYPICAL
EXAMPLE BELOW, THAT THEY WERE AIMED NOT AT THE COVERAGE OF THE SHERMAN
ACT BUT AT THE FORM OF THE INDICTMENTS.  FN3  THIS WAS THE OBJECTION
DETERMINED BY THE COURT.  THE EXCERPTS FROM THE OPINION QUOTED ABOVE
ARE CONCLUSIVE, WE THINK, THAT THE DISTRICT COURT RESTED ITS RULING ON
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADING AS AN INDEPENDENT GROUND. 

SINCE THE JUDGMENT BELOW WAS NOT PLACED SOLELY UPON THE INVALIDITY OR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BUT HAD AN ADDITIONAL AND INDEPENDENT
GROUND, THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE REVIEW.  UNITED
STATES V. HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188, 193; UNITED STATES V. HALSEY, STUART
& CO., 296 U.S. 451; UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 193. 
FN4  ANY CONTRARY HOLDING WOULD BE TO ASSUME A POWER OF REVIEW NOT
BESTOWED BY CONGRESS.  FN5  FURTHERMORE, AT THE TIME OF THE ENTRY OF
THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR REVIEW OF
ORDERS SUSTAINING DEMURRERS UPON GROUNDS OTHER THAN THOSE INVOLVING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE BASIC STATUTE. 

THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, FN6  UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT
THESE CASES HERE, NOW CONTAINS A PROVISION FOR A REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IF REVIEW BY THIS COURT ON DIRECT APPEAL IS FOUND TO
BE UNAUTHORIZED.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DIFFER WITH APPELLEES'
SPECIFIC STATEMENT THAT THE NEW PROVISION IS INAPPLICABLE TO THIS
APPEAL.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS APPLICABLE.  SIX WEEKS AFTER TIME
TO APPEAL HAD EXPIRED  FN7  THE ACT WAS AMENDED.  FN8  THE AMENDMENT
FOR THE FIRST TIME PERMITS APPEALS TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
FROM ORDERS SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT IN CASES NOT
DIRECTLY APPEALABLE TO THIS COURT.  THE TIME TO APPEAL TO ALL COURTS
REMAINS UNCHANGED.  THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT "IF AN APPEAL SHALL BE
TAKEN PURSUANT TO THIS ACT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THAT COURT, SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO A
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  ...  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
SHALL REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  ...  WHICH
SHALL THEN HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE SAME AS IF THE
APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THAT COURT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE; ...  "  THIS
LANGUAGE DIRECTS THE REMAND OF A CASE IN WHICH THE APPEAL, AT THE TIME
IT WAS TAKEN, SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
BUT WAS INSTEAD ERRONEOUSLY TAKEN TO THIS COURT.  IT IS INTENDED TO
SAVE TO THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT OF APPEAL WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE
LOST BY ITS ERRONEOUS VIEW AS TO THE PROPER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.  FN9
AT THE TIME THE INSTANT APPEALS WERE TAKEN, THERE WAS NO STATUTORY
AUTHORITY FOR AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THEREFORE
NO ROOM FOR AN ERRONEOUS CHOICE BETWEEN APPELLATE COURTS. 
CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISO HAS NO APPLICATION.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD
BE TO GIVE A RIGHT OF APPEAL WHERE NONE EXISTED AT THE TIME THE APPEAL
WAS TAKEN.  WHILE THIS MIGHT BE PERMISSIBLE IF THERE WERE SUCH A
LEGISLATIVE INTENTION, THE AMENDMENT IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN TERMS. 
STEPHENS V. CHEROKEE NATION, 174 U.S. 445, 478; FREEBORN V. SMITH, 2
WALL.  160.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT CONGRESS HAD THE INSTANT CASE IN
MIND IN ENACTING THE AMENDMENT.  H. ROUW CO. V. CRIVELLA, 310 U.S.
612.  WE THEREFORE VIEW THE RIGHT TO APPEAL AND THE COURT TO WHICH AN
APPEAL LIES AS THEY EXISTED AT THE TIME THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN.  GWIN V.
UNITED STATES, 184 U.S. 669, 674.  DISMISSED. 

FN1  SECTION 1:  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL.  ...  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MAKE ANY CONTRACT OR ENGAGE IN
ANY COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL SHALL BE
DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING $5,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING
ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT."  50 STAT. 693, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

MONOPOLIZE, OR COMBINE OR CONSPIRE WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO
MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THE TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND,
ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH
SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT."  26 STAT. 209, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 2. 

FN2  AS AMENDED ON MAY 9, 1942, THE ACT FURTHER PROVIDES:  "AN APPEAL
MAY BE TAKEN BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE DISTRICT
COURTS TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN ALL
CRIMINAL CASES, IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES, TO WIT:  FROM A DECISION OR
JUDGMENT QUASHING, SETTING ASIDE, OR SUSTAINING A DEMURRER OR PLEA IN
ABATEMENT TO ANY INDICTMENT OR INFORMATION, OR ANY COUNT THEREOF EXCEPT
WHERE A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IS
PROVIDED BY THIS ACT."  56 STAT. 271, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682. 

FN3  THE FORMAL PARTS ARE OMITTED: 

"1.  SAID INDICTMENT AND EACH COUNT THEREOF, IN VIOLATION OF THE
RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO SAID DEFENDANTS BY THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS
TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, FAILS TO DESCRIBE AND
PARTICULARIZE THE OFFENSES ATTEMPTED TO BE CHARGED THEREIN WITH
SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS, CERTAINTY AND SPECIFICITY TO INFORM THEM OF
THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION, TO ENABLE THEM TO PREPARE AND
MAKE THEIR DEFENSE THERETO, AND TO ENABLE THEM TO PLEAD AN ACQUITTAL OR
A CONVICTION THEREUNDER IN BAR OF ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM
BASED ON THE MATTERS OR THINGS, OR ANY OF THEM, ON WHICH SAID
INDICTMENT IS BASED. 

2.  THE AVERMENTS OF SAID INDICTMENT, AND EACH COUNT THEREOF,
PURPORTING TO CHARGE A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COMPUTER PUMPS AND A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY
TO MONOPOLIZE THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COMPUTING MECHANISMS ARE MERE
CONCLUSIONS. 

3.  SAID INDICTMENT FAILS TO MAKE AVERMENTS SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY
AND DESCRIBE THE SUPPOSED COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY IN EACH COUNT OF
SAID INDICTMENT ALLEGED IN THAT IT DOES NOT ALLEGE WITH PARTICULARITY
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 

(A)  THE FACTUAL BASIS UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES RELIES FOR ITS
CHARGE THAT SAID COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES EXIST OR HAVE EXISTED; 

(B)  THE MANNER OF FORMATION OF THE SUPPOSED COMBINATIONS AND
CONSPIRACIES; 

(C)  THE TERMS OF THE SUPPOSED COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES; OR 

(D)  THE MANNER IN AND BY WHICH IT IS CLAIMED THAT SAID DEFENDANTS
BECAME PARTIES TO THE SUPPOSED COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES. 

4.  THE AVERMENTS IN SAID INDICTMENT AND EACH COUNT THEREOF WITH
RESPECT TO THE SUPPOSED COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES TO MONOPOLIZE,
AND THE INTENDED MEANS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT THEREOF, ARE SO VAGUE,
INDEFINITE, UNCERTAIN, AND CONCLUSORY IN CHARACTER AS TO FAIL TO
APPRISE SAID DEFENDANTS OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROSECUTION CLAIMS
THAT THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW PERTAINING TO COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY
TO MONOPOLIZE THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF THE COMPUTER PUMPS OR THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF COMPUTING MECHANISMS." 

FN4  AT ONE TIME, THIS COURT PERMITTED REVIEW UNDER THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT OF QUESTIONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION EVEN WHERE SUCH
QUESTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT.  UNITED STATES V.
STEVENSON, 215 U.S. 190, 195.  THIS PRACTICE WAS DISAPPROVED.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188, 194. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188, 192, N. 2. 

FN6  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, 34 STAT. 1246, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682. 

FN7  THE ORDERS APPEALED FROM ARE DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1942.  THE ACT
PROVIDES THAT APPEALS BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE JUDGMENT IS
RENDERED.  PETITIONS FOR APPEAL WERE ALLOWED MARCH 26, 1942, WITHIN THE
THIRTY DAY PERIOD. 

FN8  ACT OF MAY 9, 1942, 56 STAT. 271. 

FN9  IN DESCRIBING THE EFFECT OF THE BILL, IT WAS SAID BY THE HOUSE
CONFERENCE MANAGERS THAT THE ACT "PERMITS APPEALS TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE APPEALS HAVE IMPROPERLY BEEN
TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT.  ...  IN OTHER WORDS, IT PERMITS
OF A CORRECTION OF THE APPEAL IN CASES WHERE APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN TO
THE WRONG COURT."  H. REP. NO. 2052, 77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2; SEE
ALSO H. REP. NO. 45, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE
APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND I ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE
JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE REVERSED.  IN OUR OPINION THE DISTRICT COURT'S
RULINGS THAT THE INDICTMENTS WERE DEFECTIVE RESULTED FROM
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE PATENT LAW WHICH ARE
ERRONEOUS IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORPORATION, 316 U.S.
265, AND RELATED CASES. 
..END :









ALBIN V. COWING JOINT CO., 317 U.S. 211 


NO. 234.  SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 20, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942.  -
REVERSED. 


AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT VACATING AN EARLIER ORDER RESTRAINING
THE PROSECUTION BY THE ALLEGED BANKRUPT OF A SUIT IN A STATE COURT, IN
WHICH SUIT, IT WAS ALLEGED, COUNTERCLAIMS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT
CLAIMED BY THE ALLEGED BANKRUPT WERE FILED, IS, UNDER SEC. 24(A) OF THE
CHANDLER ACT, APPEALABLE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 212. 

ALBIN V. COWING PRESSURE RELIEVING JOINT CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 608, TO REVIEW A DECREE DISMISSING FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION AN APPEAL FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT DISSOLVING A RESTRAINING ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER FILED AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY AGAINST
RESPONDENT, WHO ANSWERED DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION. 
PRIOR TO ADJUDICATION, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ENTERED AN EX PARTE ORDER,
ON PETITION OF THE SAME CREDITOR, RESTRAINING THE PROSECUTION BY
RESPONDENT OR ITS AGENTS OF A SUIT IN THE ILLINOIS STATE COURTS ON A
CLAIM AGAINST ONE FISHER, IN WHICH SUIT, IT WAS ALLEGED, FISHER HAD
FILED COUNTERCLAIMS WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE RESPONDENT'S
CLAIM.  THEREAFTER, ON PETITION OF RESPONDENT AND AFTER NOTICE TO ALL
PARTIES AND A HEARING, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT VACATED THE RESTRAINING
ORDER.  THIS LIKEWISE WAS, SO FAR AS APPEARS, PRIOR TO AN
ADJUDICATION.  PETITIONER APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
DISMISSED THE APPEAL "FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION."  THE CASE IS HERE ON
CERTIORARI. 

SEC. 24(A) OF THE CHANDLER ACT (52 STAT. 854, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 47)
GIVES THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS APPELLATE JURISDICTION FROM COURTS
OF BANKRUPTCY "IN PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY, EITHER INTERLOCUTORY OR
FINAL."  AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT VACATING A RESTRAINING ORDER
AGAINST PROSECUTION OF A SUIT IN A STATE COURT IS, LIKE A STAY ORDER
ITSELF, A PROCEEDING IN BANKRUPTCY.  SEE HARRISON SECURITIES CO. V.
SPINKS REALTY CO., 92 F.2D 904; TAYLOR V. VOSS, 271 U.S. 176, 181.  THE
AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 24(A) MADE BY THE CHANDLER ACT PRACTICALLY ABOLISHED
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN APPEALS AS OF RIGHT AND BY LEAVE.  S. REP. NO.
1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 4.  AND SEE DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL SITE V.
COWAN, 309 U.S. 382, 385-388.  WHATEVER MAY STILL BE THE POSSIBLE
LIMITATIONS ON THE REVIEWABILITY OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS (SEE IN RE
HOTEL GOVERNOR CLINTON, 107 F.2D 398; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. HANSEN, 113
F.2D 82, 84-85), NO REASON APPEARS WHY THIS ONE CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT BE
REVIEWED.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD WHICH IS BEFORE US THAT
THE ISSUE IS MOOT.  WE INTIMATE NO OPINION ON THE MERITS.  THE JUDGMENT
IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :




















PYLE V. KANSAS, 317 U.S. 213 


NO. 50.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 10, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  HABEAS CORPUS IS A REMEDY AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURTS OF KANSAS
TO PERSONS IMPRISONED IN VIOLATION OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 215. 

2.  A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ALLEGING THAT THE
PETITIONER IS IMPRISONED UPON A CONVICTION OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF
TESTIMONY KNOWN BY THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS TO HAVE BEEN PERJURED, AND
THROUGH THE SUPPRESSION BY THEM OF EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO HIM,
SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES A DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION; AND THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION WITHOUT A DETERMINATION AS
TO THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS WAS ERROR.  P. 216. 

3.  IN VIEW OF THE INEXPERT DRAFTING OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS CASE, THE REMAND TO THE STATE COURT IS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO ANY PROCEDURE THERE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE GREATER
PARTICULARITY IN THE ALLEGATIONS.  P. 216. 

PYLE V. KANSAS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 654, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SEEKS TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS
DENYING HIS APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  IN 1935 PETITIONER
WAS CONVICTED BY A JURY IN A KANSAS STATE COURT UPON AN INFORMATION
CHARGING HIM WITH THE CRIMES OF MURDER AND ROBBERY.  A MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL WAS OVERRULED, AND HE WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT UNDER
HIS CONVICTION FOR MURDER, AND TO A TERM OF FROM 10 TO 21 YEARS FOR
ROBBERY.  ON APPEAL THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
KANSAS.  STATE V. PYLE, 143 KAN. 772, 57 P.2D 93. 

ON NOVEMBER 20, 1941, PETITIONER, A LAYMAN ACTING IN HIS OWN BEHALF,
FILED AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF KANSAS.  THE CRUDE ALLEGATIONS OF THIS APPLICATION CHARGE THAT
HIS IMPRISONMENT WAS THE RESULT OF A DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED
HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THAT THE KANSAS
PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES OBTAINED HIS CONVICTION BY THE PRESENTATION OF
TESTIMONY KNOWN TO BE PERJURED, AND BY THE SUPPRESSION OF TESTIMONY
FAVORABLE TO HIM.  FILED WITH THIS APPLICATION WERE A BRIEF AND AN
ABSTRACT, ALSO APPARENTLY PREPARED BY PETITIONER HIMSELF, WHICH ARE
PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE US.  THESE DOCUMENTS ELABORATE THE GENERAL
CHARGES OF THE APPLICATION, AND SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE THAT "ONE TRUMAN
REYNOLDS WAS COERCED AND THREATENED BY THE STATE TO TESTIFY FALSELY
AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND THAT SAID TESTIMONY DID HARM TO THE
PETITIONER'S DEFENSE"; THAT "ONE LACY CUNNINGHAM WHO HAD BEEN
PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION WAS THREATENED WITH
PROSECUTION IF HE DID NOT TESTIFY FOR THE STATE"; THAT THE TESTIMONY OF
ONE ROY RILEY, MATERIAL TO PETITIONER'S DEFENSE, "WAS REPRESSED UNDER
THREAT AND COERCION BY THE STATE"; THAT MRS. ROY RILEY AND MRS. THELMA
RICHARDSON WERE INTIMIDATED AND THEIR TESTIMONY SUPPRESSED; AND, THAT
THE RECORD IN THE TRIAL OF ONE MERL HUDSON FOR COMPLICITY IN THE SAME
MURDER AND ROBBERY FOR WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED, HELD ABOUT SIX
MONTHS AFTER PETITIONER'S DIRECT APPEAL FROM HIS CONVICTION, REVEALS
THAT THE EVIDENCE THERE PRESENTED IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AT PETITIONER'S TRIAL, AND CLEARLY EXONERATES PETITIONER. 

CERTAIN EXHIBITS ACCOMPANIED THE APPLICATION; AMONG THESE WERE
COPIES, SWORN BY PETITIONER TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPIES OF THE
ORIGINALS, OF AN AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED BY TRUMAN REYNOLDS IN 1940, AND A
LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 28, 1941, FROM THE FORMER PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
WHO REPRESENTED THE STATE AT PETITIONER'S TRIAL.  THE AFFIDAVIT
CONTAINED A STATEMENT THAT AFFIANT "WAS FORCED TO GIVE PERJURED
TESTIMONY AGAINST HARRY PYLE UNDER THREAT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AT ST.
JOHN, KANSAS AND THE KANSAS STATE POLICE, OF A PENITENTIARY SENTENCE
FOR BURGLARY IF I DID NOT TESTIFY AGAINST MR. PYLE."  THE LETTER
STATED, "YOUR CONVICTION WAS A GRAVE MISTAKE," AND FURTHER THAT, "THE
EVIDENCE AT THE TRIAL OF MERL HUDSON CERTAINLY SHATTERED THE
CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT YOUR TRIAL." 

IN CONNECTION WITH HIS APPLICATION, PETITIONER MOVED FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM, FOR SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM TO
BRING UP THE RECORDS IN THE TRIALS OF MERL HUDSON AND ONE BERT (BUD)
RICHARDSON, FOR THE SUBPOENAING OF CERTAIN WITNESSES ALLEGEDLY MATERIAL
TO HIS CASE, AND FOR HIS PRESENCE IN COURT.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW
WHAT DISPOSITION, IF ANY, WAS MADE OF THESE VARIOUS MOTIONS. 

NO RETURN WAS MADE TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT.  ON DECEMBER 11,
1941, THE COURT BELOW ENTERED AN ORDER "THAT SAID PETITION BE FILED AND
DOCKETED WITHOUT COSTS, AND THEREUPON, AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION BY THE
COURT, IT IS ORDERED THAT SAID PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BE
DENIED."  THERE WAS NO OPINION.  A MOTION TO REHEAR WAS ALSO DENIED
WITHOUT OPINION.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 654,
BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVED. 

HABEAS CORPUS IS A REMEDY AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF KANSAS TO
PERSONS IMPRISONED IN VIOLATION OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255,
258.  PETITIONER'S PAPERS ARE INEXPERTLY DRAWN, BUT THEY DO SET FORTH
ALLEGATIONS THAT HIS IMPRISONMENT RESULTED FROM PERJURED TESTIMONY,
KNOWINGLY USED BY THE STATE AUTHORITIES TO OBTAIN HIS CONVICTION, AND
FROM THE DELIBERATE SUPPRESSION BY THOSE SAME AUTHORITIES OF EVIDENCE
FAVORABLE TO HIM.  THESE ALLEGATIONS SUFFICIENTLY CHARGE A DEPRIVATION
OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND, IF PROVEN, WOULD
ENTITLE PETITIONER TO RELEASE FROM HIS PRESENT CUSTODY.  MOONEY V.
HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103.  THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EXHIBITS REFERRED TO
ABOVE, AND NOWHERE ARE THEY REFUTED OR DENIED.  THE RECORD OF
PETITIONER'S CONVICTION, WHILE REGULAR ON ITS FACE, MANIFESTLY DOES NOT
CONTROVERT THE CHARGES THAT PERJURED EVIDENCE WAS USED, AND THAT
FAVORABLE EVIDENCE WAS SUPPRESSED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE KANSAS
AUTHORITIES.  NO DETERMINATION OF THE VERITY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE.  FN1  THE CASE IS THEREFORE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  COCHRAN V. KANSAS, SUPRA; SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312
U.S. 329; CF. WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101, 104.  IN VIEW OF
PETITIONER'S INEXPERT DRAFTSMANSHIP, WE OF COURSE DO NOT FORECLOSE ANY
PROCEDURE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE MORE PARTICULARITY IN PETITIONER'S
ALLEGATIONS AND ASSERTIONS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN RE PYLE, 153 KAN. 568, 112 P.2D 354, IS NOT SUCH A
DETERMINATION.  THAT WAS AN APPEAL BY PETITIONER FROM THE DISMISSAL OF
ANOTHER PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY THE KANSAS DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE LEAVENWORTH DISTRICT. 
..END :



















FISHER V. WHITON, 317 U.S. 217 


NO. 85.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942.  - 25
TENN. APP. 230, 155 S.W.2D 882, REVERSED. 


1.  THE QUESTION AS TO WHEN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS BEGINS TO RUN
AGAINST A RECEIVER'S CLAIM UPON AN ASSESSMENT LEVIED BY THE COMPTROLLER
OF THE CURRENCY ON STOCKHOLDERS OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK IS A
FEDERAL QUESTION; AND, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE QUESTION WAS DULY
RAISED AND PRESERVED BY APPROPRIATE EXCEPTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF
ERROR.  P. 220. 

2.  IT IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY TO
EXTEND FROM TIME TO TIME THE DATE FIXED FOR PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS OF INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANKS.  NOTHING IN THE
PERTINENT LEGISLATION, 12 U.S.C. SECS. 63, 64, 66, 191, 192, PREVENTS
SUCH EXTENSION.  P. 220. 

3.  THE RECEIVER OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK DID NOT HAVE A
COMPLETE AND PRESENT CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LIABILITY OF A
DECEASED STOCKHOLDER UNTIL THE DATE FINALLY FIXED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF
THE CURRENCY, AFTER EXTENSIONS OF DATES PREVIOUSLY FIXED, FOR PAYMENT;
AND, IN THIS VIEW, THE RECEIVER'S CLAIM AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDER'S
ESTATE WAS NOT BARRED BY SECS. 8225 AND 8604 OF THE TENNESSEE CODE. 
PUFAHL V. ESTATE OF PARKS, 299 U.S. 217, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 220. 

4.  THE DESIRABILITY OF CLOSING DECEDENTS' ESTATES SPEEDILY DOES NOT
WARRANT LIMITING THE POWER OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY TO EXTEND
THE TIME FOR PAYMENT OF AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS OF INSOLVENT
NATIONAL BANKS.  P. 221. 

FISHER, RECEIVER, V. WHITON, EXECUTRIX, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE. 

UPON A PETITION FOR REHEARING, AN EARLIER ORDER OF THIS COURT DENYING
CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 691, WAS VACATED AND CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 316
U.S. 707, TO REVIEW A DECREE OF AN INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT WHICH
AFFIRMED A DECREE OF THE STATE CHANCERY COURT BARRING ON THE GROUND OF
LIMITATIONS A CLAIM BY THE RECEIVER OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK UPON
A STOCKHOLDER'S ASSESSMENT.  THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE DENIED A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN RAWLINGS V. RAY, 312 U.S. 96, WE DECIDED THAT STATE STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS GOVERN THE TIME WITHIN WHICH TO ENFORCE THE LIABILITY
IMPOSED UPON STOCKHOLDERS OF INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANKS BY ASSESSMENTS
LEVIED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY; THAT THE QUESTION AS TO THE
TIME WHEN A COMPLETE AND PRESENT CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES IN THE RECEIVER
TO ENFORCE THAT LIABILITY BY SUIT IS A FEDERAL QUESTION; THAT NOTHING
IN THE APPLICABLE STATUTES, 12 U.S.C. SECS. 63, 64, 191, 192, PREVENTS
THE COMPTROLLER IN MAKING AN ASSESSMENT FROM FIXING A LATER DATE FOR
PAYMENT; AND, THAT SUIT CANNOT BE INSTITUTED PRIOR TO THE DATE FIXED
FOR PAYMENT AND A STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN
UNTIL THAT DATE.  IN THIS CASE THE COMPTROLLER EXTENDED THE TIME FOR
PAYMENT BEYOND THE DATE ORIGINALLY SET, AND WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER TIME
RUNS FROM THE FIRST OR THE FINAL DATE FIXED FOR PAYMENT. 

PETITIONER IS THE SUCCESSOR TO THE ORIGINAL RECEIVER FOR THE
INSOLVENT FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHATTANOOGA.  ON APRIL 19, 1934, THE
COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY LEVIED AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE BANK'S
STOCKHOLDERS FOR 100% OF THE PAR VALUE OF THEIR SHARES, PAYABLE ON MAY
26, 1934.  FN1  BY SUCCESSIVE ORDERS ENTERED ON MAY 17, 1934, JUNE 19,
1934, JUNE 22, 1934, AND MARCH 11, 1935, THE ORIGINAL MATURITY DATE OF
MAY 26, 1934, WAS EXTENDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT PAYABLE ON APRIL 15,
1935.  NOTICE OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS GIVEN TO ALL STOCKHOLDERS ON MARCH
13, 1935. 

RESPONDENT, AS SUCCESSOR TO THE ORIGINAL EXECUTRIX, REPRESENTS THE
ESTATE OF C.C. NOTTINGHAM, WHICH HELD STOCK OF THE BANK, TO THE EXTENT
OF $138,000 PAR VALUE, AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT.  NO STEPS WERE
TAKEN TO ENFORCE AGAINST THE ESTATE THE LIABILITY IMPOSED BY THE
ASSESSMENT UNTIL AUGUST 2, 1935, WHEN PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR FILED AN
ANSWER AND A CROSS-BILL IN AN ACTION COMMENCED ON JULY 24, 1935, IN THE
CHANCERY COURT FOR HAMILTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, BY THE ORIGINAL
EXECUTRIX TO REQUIRE ALL CREDITORS TO APPEAR AND ESTABLISH THEIR
CLAIMS. 

THE CHANCERY COURT HELD THAT PETITIONER'S ASSESSMENT CLAIM ACCRUED ON
THE DATE FIRST FIXED FOR PAYMENT, MAY 23, 1934,  FN2  AND THAT THE
CLAIM WAS BARRED BY SEC. 8225 OF THE TENNESSEE CODE, FN3 FIXING A
PERIOD OF "SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE THE CAUSE OF ACTION THEREON
ACCRUED" WITHIN WHICH TO ENFORCE PREVIOUSLY UNMATURED CLAIMS AGAINST
DECEDENTS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, RELYING UPON SEC. 8604 OF
THE CODE  FN4  AS WELL AS SEC. 8225.  25 TENN. APP. 230, 155 S.W.2D
882.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE DENIED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANKS FN5  AND A CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION IN
STRASBURGER V. SCHRAM, 68 APP. D.C. 87, 93 F.2D 246, CAUSED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI. 

OUR STARTING POINT, OF COURSE, IS RAWLINGS V. RAY, SUPRA.  THAT CASE
ADEQUATELY DISPOSES OF RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT NO FEDERAL QUESTION
IS PRESENTED BY THIS CASE; WHETHER PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF ACTION WAS
COMPLETE ON MAY 26, 1934, OR APRIL 15, 1935, IS A FEDERAL QUESTION, 312
U.S. AT P. 98, WHICH WAS DULY RAISED AND PRESERVED BY APPROPRIATE
EXCEPTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.  AND, EVEN AS WE FOUND NOTHING IN
THE APPLICABLE STATUTES TO QUESTION "THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMPTROLLER
IN MAKING AN ASSESSMENT TO FIX A LATER DATE FOR ITS PAYMENT," ID. AT P.
99, WE SEE NOTHING IN THE PERTINENT LEGISLATION, 12 U.S.C. SECS. 63,
64, 66, 191, 192, FORBIDDING THE COMPTROLLER TO EXTEND THE DATE FIXED
FOR PAYMENT WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS FROM TIME TO TIME.  SUCH
EXTENSIONS SEEM TO BE IN ACCORD WITH A LONG ESTABLISHED PRACTICE
DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRABLE RESULT OF AVOIDING EXCESSIVE AND
UNNECESSARY ASSESSMENTS.  FN6  SEE STRASBURGER V. SCHRAM, 68 APP. D.C.
87, 89; 93 F.2D 246, 248.  COMPARE KORBLY V. SPRINGFIELD INSTITUTION
FOR SAVINGS, 245 U.S. 330, WHERE, IN UPHOLDING THE POWER OF THE
COMPTROLLER TO WITHDRAW ONE ASSESSMENT AND LEVY A LATER ONE, WE
EMPHASIZED THE DESIRABILITY OF A LARGE MEASURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION AND FLEXIBILITY IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS TO THE
"EXIGENCIES OF EACH CASE."  P. 333. 

SINCE THE COMPTROLLER HAS POWER TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR PAYMENT,
RESPONDENT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY UNTIL APRIL 15, 1935, AND PRIOR TO
THAT TIME SUIT COULD NOT BE INSTITUTED AGAINST HER.  RAWLINGS V. RAY,
SUPRA, P. 98.  WHILE THE RECEIVER ENFORCES THE LIABILITY CREATED BY THE
ASSESSMENT, 12 U.S.C. SECS. 191, 192, HE DOES SO SUBJECT TO THE
DIRECTION OF THE COMPTROLLER, KENNEDY V. GIBSON, 8 WALL.  498, 505.  SO
PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE A COMPLETE AND PRESENT CAUSE OF ACTION UNTIL
APRIL 15, 1935.  SINCE THE WORDS "FROM THE DATE THE CAUSE OF ACTION
ACCRUED THEREON," AS USED IN SEC. 8225 OF THE TENNESSEE CODE, SEEM TO
HAVE THEIR USUAL MEANING AND REFER TO THE TIME WHEN SUIT MAY BE
INSTITUTED,  FN7  IT FOLLOWS THAT PETITIONER'S CLAIM, FILED ON AUGUST
2, 1935, WAS IN TIME. 

RESPONDENT STRESSES SEC. 8604 OF THE CODE.  FN8  BUT, AS POINTED OUT
ABOVE, PETITIONER HAD NO RIGHT TO DEMAND PAYMENT BEFORE APRIL 15, 1935,
SO, EVEN IF SEC. 8604 APPLIES, IT DOES NOT BAR PETITIONER'S CLAIM. 

RESPONDENT MISTAKENLY RELIES UPON PUFAHL V. ESTATE OF PARKS, 299 U.S.
217, WHICH HAS NO APPLICATION, BECAUSE IN THAT CASE "WE WERE NOT
CONSIDERING OR DECIDING THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICATION OF A STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS TO A SUIT AGAINST A STOCKHOLDER UPON AN ASSESSMENT MADE BY
THE COMPTROLLER WHERE PAYMENT WAS NOT REQUIRED BEFORE A SPECIFIED DATE,
PRIOR TO WHICH NO SUIT COULD BE MAINTAINED."  RAWLINGS V. RAY, SUPRA,
P. 99. 

WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL THAT IT IS DESIRABLE TO CLOSE DECEDENTS' ESTATE
SPEEDILY, BUT THERE IS NO WARRANT IN THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOR
ALLOWING THAT CONSIDERATION TO LIMIT THE POWER OF THE COMPTROLLER TO
EXTEND THE TIME FOR PAYMENT OF AN ASSESSMENT. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS IS THE DATE GIVEN IN THE PLEADINGS.  HOWEVER, THE OPINIONS
OF THE COURTS BELOW REFER TO MAY 23, 1934, AS THE FIRST DATE FIXED FOR
PAYMENT. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  MICHIE'S TENNESSEE CODE OF 1938, ANNOTATED. 

FN4  "SEC.  8604.  TIME RUNS FROM ACCRUAL OF RIGHT, NOT DEMAND.  WHEN
A RIGHT EXISTS, BUT A DEMAND IS NECESSARY TO ENTITLE THE PARTY TO AN
ACTION, THE LIMITATION COMMENCES FROM THE TIME THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO
MAKE THE DEMAND WAS COMPLETED, AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF THE DEMAND." 

FN5  THE DOUBLE LIABILITY FEATURE OF NATIONAL BANK STOCK HAS BEEN
ELIMINATED WHERE THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE, BUT THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO BANKS IN DIFFICULTY PRIOR TO JULY
1, 1937, EXCEPT AS TO STOCK ISSUED AFTER JUNE 16, 1933.  12 U.S.C. SEC.
64(A). 

FN6  THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE REASON FOR THE EXTENSIONS OF
TIME HERE, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THEY WERE MADE AT THE REQUEST OF A
STOCKHOLDERS' COMMITTEE WHICH PROTESTED THE NECESSITY OF A 100%
ASSESSMENT AND ASKED FOR A REAPPRAISAL OF THE BANK'S ASSETS.  SEE
COFFEY V. FISHER, 100 F.2D 51, 52, INVOLVING THE SAME ASSESSMENT HERE
CONSIDERED. 

FN7  SEE JONES V. WHITWORTH, 94 TENN. 602, 616, 30 S.W. 736;
GILLESPIE V. BROADWAY NATIONAL BANK, 167 TENN. 245, 249, 68 S.W.2D 479;
KNOXVILLE V. GERVIN, 169 TENN. 532, 544, 89 S.W.2D 348. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA.
..END :






MOTHER LODE CO. V. COMM'R, 317 U.S. 222 


NO. 94.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942.  - 125
F.2D 657, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1934, IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAD
ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME (AND RELATED DEDUCTIONS) FROM A MINING PROPERTY,
WAS THE "FIRST RETURN  ...  IN RESPECT OF" THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 114(B)(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, AND THE
TAXPAYER'S FAILURE IN THAT RETURN TO STATE WHETHER IT ELECTED TO HAVE
THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH PROPERTY COMPUTED ON THE PERCENTAGE
BASIS FORECLOSED A CLAIM OF A PERCENTAGE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE IN ITS
RETURN FOR 1934, - NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IN 1934 THE TAXPAYER HAD NO NET
INCOME AND NO BASIS FOR A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE.  P. 223. 

2.  THIS CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 114(B)(4) IS IN ACCORD WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION EVIDENCED BY ARTICLE 23(M)-5 OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS 86, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE AND SUPPORTED ALSO
BY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.  P. 224. 

MOTHER LODE COALITION MINES CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 660, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 42 B.T.A. 596, SUSTAINING THE COMMISSIONER'S
DISALLOWANCE OF A DEDUCTION FOR DEPLETION IN THE COMPUTATION OF
PETITIONER'S INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION IN ITS 1935 INCOME TAX RETURN FOR PERCENTAGE
DEPLETION UNDER SEC. 114(B)(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT.
680, WHICH ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME IN THE CASE OF
MINES, ETC., OF SPECIFIED PERCENTAGES OF GROSS INCOME, BUT NOT TO
EXCEED 50% OF THE NET INCOME COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO DEPLETION
ALLOWANCE, AND REQUIRED THAT: 

"A TAXPAYER MAKING HIS FIRST RETURN UNDER THIS TITLE IN RESPECT OF A
PROPERTY SHALL STATE WHETHER HE ELECTS TO HAVE THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
FOR SUCH PROPERTY FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR WHICH THE RETURN IS MADE
COMPUTED WITH OR WITHOUT REGARD TO PERCENTAGE DEPLETION, AND THE
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROPERTY FOR SUCH YEAR SHALL BE
COMPUTED ACCORDING TO THE ELECTION THUS MADE.  IF THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO
MAKE SUCH STATEMENT IN THE RETURN, THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH
PROPERTY FOR SUCH YEAR SHALL BE COMPUTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
PERCENTAGE DEPLETION.  THE METHOD, DETERMINED AS ABOVE, OF COMPUTING
THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE SHALL BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE PROPERTY
FOR ALL TAXABLE YEARS IN WHICH IT IS IN THE HANDS OF SUCH TAXPAYER,
..." 

THE PIVOTAL QUESTION IS WHETHER PETITIONER'S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR
1934 OR FOR 1935 WAS THE FIRST RETURN IN RESPECT OF ITS MINING PROPERTY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 114(B)(4).  DURING THE TAX YEAR 1934,
PETITIONER'S COPPER MINE WAS CLOSED.  IN ITS 1934 INCOME TAX RETURN,
PETITIONER REPORTED GROSS INCOME FROM THE SALE OF ORE MINED THE
PREVIOUS YEAR, BUT THE DEDUCTIONS, MOST OF WHICH WERE ATTRIBUTED TO
"SHUTDOWN EXPENSE," WERE SUCH THAT THERE WAS NO NET INCOME.  PETITIONER
CLAIMED NO DEPLETION ALLOWANCE IN THAT RETURN - DEPLETION ALLOWANCES
PRIOR TO 1933 HAD EXHAUSTED PETITIONER'S COST BASIS - AND MADE NO
STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO PERCENTAGE DEPLETION.  IN 1935, PETITIONER
DERIVED A NET PROFIT FROM THE OPERATION OF ITS MINE AND CLAIMED A
DEDUCTION FOR PERCENTAGE DEPLETION, STATING THAT IT HAD ELECTED
PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR THE FUTURE IN ITS 1933 RETURN, FILED UNDER
SEC. 114(B)(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169.  THE
COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE PERCENTAGE DEPLETION DEDUCTION FOR 1935,
RULING THAT, UNDER SEC. 114(B)(4) OF THE 1934 ACT, PETITIONER'S 1934
RETURN WAS ITS FIRST RETURN IN RESPECT OF ITS MINING PROPERTY AND THAT
ITS FAILURE TO MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE ELECTION IN THAT RETURN CONSTITUTED
AN ELECTION TO COMPUTE DEPLETION THEREAFTER WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
PERCENTAGE DEPLETION.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSIONER MADE A DEFICIENCY
DETERMINATION WHICH THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED.  THE COURT
BELOW AFFIRMED.  125 F.2D 657.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN
ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION IN PITTSTON-DURYEA COAL CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 117 F.2D 436.  FN2 

UNDER THIS TITLE (INCOME TAX) IN RESPECT OF A PROPERTY" WHETHER ITS
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE WAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH OR WITHOUT REGARD TO
PERCENTAGE DEPLETION, AND THE METHOD THUS CHOSEN BECAME BINDING FOR THE
SUBSEQUENT TAXABLE YEARS.  PETITIONER'S 1934 RETURN FALLS WITHIN THE
EXACT STATUTORY DEFINITION OF "FIRST RETURN."  IT WAS THE FIRST RETURN
FILED UNDER THE 1934 ACT, AND IT WAS "IN RESPECT OF" THE MINING
PROPERTY SINCE IT LISTED ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME AND DEDUCTIONS ARISING
OUT OF THAT PROPERTY.  PETITIONER'S FAILURE THERE TO STATE ITS ELECTION
FORECLOSED ANY SUBSEQUENT CLAIM TO PERCENTAGE DEPLETION.  THIS HAS BEEN
THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION.  ARTICLE 23(M)-5 OF REGULATIONS 86. 
FN3  WE THINK THIS REGULATION IS BINDING BECAUSE NOT ONLY IS IT
PRACTICALLY COMPELLED BY THE WORDS OF SEC. 114(B)(4), BUT ALSO IT IS A
REASONABLE INTERPRETATION WHICH, AS WILL BE SHORTLY POINTED OUT, IS
FAIR AND WORKABLE IN ITS OPERATION. 

PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THIS INTERPRETATION FAILS TO GIVE EFFECT TO
THE MEANING OF SEC. 114(B)(4) AS A WHOLE, AND CONTENDS THAT, WHEN SUCH
EFFECT IS GIVEN, "FIRST RETURN" MUST MEAN THE FIRST RETURN IN WHICH A
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE COULD BE CLAIMED.  THE ARGUMENT FOR THIS RESULT
RUNS AS FOLLOWS:  SECTION 114(B)(4) REQUIRES THE TAXPAYER TO STATE IN
ITS FIRST RETURN WHETHER IT ELECTS TO HAVE "THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR
SUCH PROPERTY FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR WHICH THE RETURN IS MADE
COMPUTED WITH OR WITHOUT REGARD TO PERCENTAGE DEPLETION," AND THEN
PROVIDES THAT "THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROPERTY FOR
SUCH YEAR SHALL BE COMPUTED ACCORDING TO THE ELECTION THUS MADE";
THEREFORE, THE "FIRST RETURN" MUST BE ONE IN WHICH PETITIONER COULD
ELECT TO HAVE THE "DEPLETION ALLOWANCE  ...  FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR"
COMPUTED WITH OR WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PERCENTAGE DEPLETION; AND, IN ITS
1934 RETURN, PETITIONER COULD NOT SO ELECT BECAUSE A PERCENTAGE
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE IS LIMITED IN ANY CASE TO 50% OF NET INCOME AND IT
HAD NO NET INCOME. 

THE FALLACY OF THIS ARGUMENT IS APPARENT, AND THE FAULT LIES IN THE
FINAL STEP.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR THE ELECTION OF A METHOD OF
COMPUTATION FOR THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE; IT DOES NOT, CONTRARY TO
PETITIONER'S ASSERTIONS, MAKE THE NECESSITY FOR ELECTION DEPEND UPON
WHETHER AN ALLOWANCE ACTUALLY RESULTS FROM THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION
CHOSEN.  PETITIONER COULD HAVE ELECTED IN 1934 TO HAVE THE DEPLETION
ALLOWANCE FO 1934 "COMPUTED WITH OR WITHOUT REGARD TO PERCENTAGE
DEPLETION," AND THE COMPUTATION COULD THEN HAVE BEEN MADE ACCORDING TO
THE METHOD CHOSEN.  IT SO HAPPENED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO
ANY ALLOWANCE IN 1934; ITS DEPLETABLE COST HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED, AND
COMPUTATION ON THE PERCENTAGE BASIS WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN NOTHING.  SO
THE CHOICE HAD NO SIGNIFICANCE FOR THAT YEAR, BUT, THAT COULD BE
ASCERTAINED ONLY AFTER THE COMPUTATION WAS MADE.  THE IDEA THAT IT
WOULD BE ABSURD TO COMPEL AN ELECTION UNTIL A DEDUCTION ACTUALLY
RESULTED, SEE PITTSTON-DURYEA COAL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 117 F.2D 436,
438, IS BEST ANSWERED BY THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE GAVE TAXPAYERS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT A DEPLETION PROGRAM FOR THE PRESENT AND FUTURE
YEARS; NOTHING IN IT INDICATES THAT CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED WITH WHETHER
A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE ACTUALLY RESULTED IN EACH YEAR FROM THE PROGRAM
SELECTED. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS REALLY RESOLVE INTO THE PROPOSITION THAT
"FIRST RETURN" MEANS "FIRST RETURN MADE BY A TAXPAYER HAVING NET INCOME
DERIVED FROM A PROPERTY."  BUT THE STATUTE DOES NOT SPEAK OF FIRST
RETURN SHOWING NET INCOME, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT SUCH
WAS CONGRESS' INTENTION.  FN4  FURTHERMORE, AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED
OUT, 125 F.2D 657 AT P. 659, IF PETITIONER HAD A BASIS FOR COST
DEPLETION IN 1934, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO AN ELECTION IN THAT YEAR
EVEN THOUGH IT HAD NO NET INCOME, BECAUSE COST DEPLETION ALLOWANCE IS
IN NO MANNER DEPENDENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF NET INCOME.  THE FACT THAT
PETITIONER'S DEPLETABLE COST WAS EXHAUSTED IS NO REASON FOR EXPANDING
THE STATUTORY DEFINITION.  SECTION 114(B)(4) IS A LIBERAL OFFER LIMITED
TO THOSE WHO MEET THE EXACT STATUTORY TERMS.  RILEY INVESTMENT CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 55. 

STRONG PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ALSO SUPPORT THE COMMISSIONER'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE AND WARRANT REJECTION OF PETITIONER'S
"FIRST RETURN WITH NET INCOME" THEORY.  ALL TAXPAYERS ARE PUT ON AN
EQUAL BASIS IF THEY MUST ELECT THEIR DEPLETION PROGRAM IN THE FIRST
RETURN FILED "IN RESPECT OF A PROPERTY"; A TAXPAYER, SITUATED AS
PETITIONER, IS NOT THEN FREE TO DEFER ELECTION UNTIL IT HAS NET INCOME
AT SOME FUTURE DATE WHEN CONDITIONS MAY BE SUCH THAT ITS ELECTION CAN
BE MADE MORE ADVISEDLY THAN THAT OF ITS COMPETITORS.  SECONDLY,
ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLICITY AND CERTAINTY ARE BEST ACHIEVED BY THE
COMMISSIONER'S INTERPRETATION.  IF, BY "FIRST RETURN MADE BY A TAXPAYER
HAVING NET INCOME DERIVED FROM A PROPERTY," PETITIONER MEANS FIRST
RETURN FOR A YEAR IN WHICH THERE ACTUALLY WAS NET INCOME, CF. KEHOE
BERGE COAL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 117 F.2D 439, IT COULD NOT BE KNOWN IN
SOME CASES WHETHER A TAXPAYER WAS PUT TO ITS ELECTION IN 1934 OR A
LATER YEAR UNTIL AFTER FINALLY DETERMINING, PERHAPS AFTER PROTRACTED
LITIGATION, WHETHER OR NOT THE TAXPAYER HAD ACTUAL NET INCOME IN 1934. 
THE UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION THEREBY CREATED WOULD BE MOST
UNDESIRABLE; A TAXPAYER COULD NOT INTELLIGENTLY PLAN ITS OPERATIONS,
AND THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO KEEP OPEN ALL
THE RETURNS FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS IN ORDER TO CHECK THE LATER DEPLETION
DEDUCTIONS.  IF IT IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE CRITICAL FACT OF
NET INCOME IS DISCLOSED BY THE FACE OF THE RETURN, THE OBLIGATION TO
STATE AN ELECTION WOULD DEPEND TO SOME EXTENT UPON THE ERRORS OF THE
TAXPAYER, A CONSEQUENCE WHICH IT IS NOT TO BE PRESUMED THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN2  IN GRANTING THE WRIT, WE EXCLUDED ARGUMENT ON THE POINT, DECIDED
ADVERSELY TO PETITIONER BELOW, THAT ITS ELECTION TO TAKE PERCENTAGE
DEPLETION IN ITS 1933 RETURN UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 MADE
UNNECESSARY A NEW ELECTION UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934. 

FN3  THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "IN HIS FIRST RETURN
MADE UNDER TITLE I OF THE ACT (FOR A TAXABLE YEAR BEGINNING AFTER
DECEMBER 31, 1933) THE TAXPAYER MUST STATE AS TO EACH PROPERTY WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS ANY ITEM OF INCOME OR DEDUCTION
WHETHER HE ELECTS TO HAVE THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR EACH SUCH
PROPERTY FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR COMPUTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PRECENTAGE
DEPLETION.  ...  IF THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MAKE SUCH STATEMENT IN THE
RETURN IN WHICH THE ELECTION SHOULD BE SO INDICATED, THE DEPLETION
ALLOWANCE FOR THE YEAR FOR WHICH AN ELECTION MUST BE FIRST EXERCISED
AND FOR ALL SUCCEEDING TAXABLE YEARS WILL BE COMPUTED WITHOUT REFERENCE
TO PERCENTAGE DEPLETION." 

FN4  PETITIONER RELIES UPON THE REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE DISNEY, WHO
OFFERED AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 114(B)(4) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS
PART OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, WHICH WOULD HAVE WRITTEN THE
PETITIONER'S INTERPRETATION INTO THE STATUTE WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT
THE AMENDEMENT CLARIFIED THE ORIGINAL CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  HEARINGS
BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON REVENUE REVISION OF 1942,
77TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 3489.  HOWEVER, THIS AMENDMENT WAS REJECTED IN
COMMITTEE.  SECTION 145(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1942, APPROVED OCTOBER
21, 1942, ELIMINATES THE NECESSITY OF ELECTION, BUT NOTHING IN ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CASTS ANY LIGHT UPON OUR PROBLEM. 
..END :





UNITED CARBON CO. V. BINNEY CO., 317 U.S. 228 


NO. 71.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1942.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 7, 1942.  - 125
F.2D 255, 126 F.2D 3, REVERSED. 


1.  PRODUCT CLAIMS OF PATENT NO. 1,889,429, TO WEIGAND AND VENUTO,
"1.  SUBSTANTIALLY PURE CARBON BLACK IN THE FORM OF COMMERCIALLY
UNIFORM, COMPARATIVELY SMALL, ROUNDED, SMOOTH AGGREGATES HAVING A
SPONGY OR POROUS INTERIOR.  2.  AS AN ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE, A PELLET
OF APPROXIMATELY ONE-SIXTEENTH OF AN INCH IN DIAMETER AND FORMED OF A
POROUS MASS OF SUBSTANTIALLY PURE CARBON BLACK," HELD, BAD FOR
INDEFINITENESS.  P. 232. 

2.  A PATENTEE MAY NOT BROADEN HIS CLAIMS BY DESCRIBING THE PRODUCT
IN TERMS OF FUNCTION.  P. 234. 

3.  AN INVENTION MUST BE CAPABLE OF ACCURATE DEFINITION, AND IT MUST
BE ACCURATELY DEFINED, TO BE PATENTABLE.  P. 237. 

UNITED CARBON CO. ET AL. V. BINNEY & SMITH CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 657, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 37
F.SUPP.  779, DISMISSING A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT SUED FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT NO. 1,889,429, ISSUED TO
WEIGAND AND VENUTO, RELATING TO CARBON BLACK IN AGGREGATED FORM AND A
PROCESS FOR ITS CONVERSION TO THAT FORM.  ITS COMPLAINT WAS
PARTICULARIZED TO APPLY ONLY TO CLAIMS 1 AND 2 OF THE PATENT, WHICH ARE
PRODUCT CLAIMS AND NOT PROCESS CLAIMS.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THESE
CLAIMS INVALID AS LACKING NOVELTY AND INVENTION AND BECAUSE THEY FAILED
TO DEFINE THE PRODUCT ASSERTED TO HAVE BEEN INVENTED IN SUCH CLEAR,
DEFINITE, AND EXACT TERMS AS REQUIRED BY PATENT LAW.  IT ALSO FOUND NO
INFRINGEMENT.  37 F.SUPP.  779.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD TO
THE CONTRARY ON EACH OF THESE PROPOSITIONS AND REVERSED.  125 F.2D
255.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS IN THE CASE PROMPTED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI.  316 U.S. 657. 

CARBON BLACK HAS BEEN MANUFACTURED FROM NATURAL GAS SINCE THE 1870'S.
AT PRESENT THE MOST EXTENSIVE OF ITS MANY USES IS AS A BINDER IN
AUTOMOBILE TIRES.  FN1  THE PARTICLES OF CARBON BLACK IN ITS ORIGINAL
FORM ARE EXTREMELY FINE AND DISPERSIBLE.  THEY ARE SMALLER THAN THE
LENGTH OF A LIGHT WAVE, HAVING A DIAMETER OF ABOUT ONE-MILLIONTH OF AN
INCH.  ONE POUND OF THEM IS SAID TO PRESENT SURFACES SUFFICIENT TO
COVER 12 OR 13 ACRES.  UNPROCESSED CARBON BLACK WEIGHS BUT TEN POUNDS
OR LESS PER CUBIC FOOT. 

THE FINENESS AND DISPERSIBILITY OF THE SUBSTANCE CAUSES IT TO RAISE
IN CLOUDS OF DUST WHEN HANDLED, WITH CONSEQUENT LOSSES, DISCOMFORT TO
WORKMEN, AND DIFFICULTIES IN MANUFACTURING PROCESSES.  SINCE 1915, WHEN
CARBON BLACK FIRST CAME TO BE WIDELY USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF RUBBER,
MANY ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO COPE WITH THE DUST PROBLEM.  IN MANY
CASES, MIXING ROOMS WERE SEGREGATED AT GREAT EXPENSE FROM OTHER PARTS
OF RUBBER FACTORIES, AND THE MILLS WHERE THE CARBON BLACK WAS MIXED
INTO THE RUBBER WERE ENCLOSED TO CONFINE THE CLOUDS OF DUST. 

EFFORTS WERE MADE TO PREVENT AS WELL AS TO CONTROL THE DUST. 
COMPRESSING THE CARBON BLACK TO FORCE OUT THE AIR AND INCREASE ITS
DENSITY MET WITH SOME, BUT ONLY INDIFFERENT, SUCCESS.  ATTEMPTS WERE
MADE TO PREVENT DUST BY THE USE OF BINDERS IN THE CARBON BLACK TO MAKE
THE PARTICLES ADHERE.  THESE WERE NOT SATISFACTORY, SINCE THE BINDERS
WERE UNWANTED AND SOMETIMES INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES AND, AT BEST, FOREIGN
MATTER TO RUBBER FORMULAS.  WETTING AND DRYING THE CARBON BLACK ALSO
PROVED UNSATISFACTORY, SINCE THIS CAUSED THE PARTICLES TO ADHERE IN
SUCH MANNER THAT THE AGGREGATE PRODUCT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY FRIABLE
(I.E., BREAKABLE) AND DISPERSIBLE WHEN MIXED WITH OTHER SUBSTANCES. 

WEIGAND AND VENUTO EXPERIMENTED EXTENSIVELY, AND THE PATENT IN
LITIGATION IS THE OUTCOME.  THEY MIXED CARBON BLACK WITH A LIQUID SUCH
AS WATER; DISPLACED THE WATER WITH ANOTHER LIQUID, SUCH AS GASOLINE,
WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY IMMISCIBLE WITH THE FIRST AND HAD A GREATER
ABILITY TO WET THE CARBON PARTICLES; AGITATED THE MIXTURE UNTIL THE
WATER WAS SUBSTANTIALLY FREE FROM CARBON; AND FINALLY REMOVED THE
GASOLINE BY EVAPORATION.  AS IT APPARENTLY MUST IN ORDER TO ASSERT
INVENTION AND INFRINGEMENT, RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT WEIGAND AND VENUTO
SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF CARBON BLACK DUST BY A PRODUCT CONSISTING OF
CARBON BLACK AGGREGATES FORMED WITHOUT THE USE OF ANY BINDER,
SUFFICIENTLY HARD AND FLOWABLE TO PREVENT THE FORMATION OF DUST, YET
SUFFICIENTLY FRIABLE AND DISPERSIBLE FOR USE AS A COMPONENT IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF RUBBER AND OTHER PRODUCTS. 

MANUFACTURE WAS UNDERTAKEN, ONE GLAXNER BEING EMPLOYED TO PUT INTO
USE THE PROCESS TAUGHT BY THIS PATENT.  HE SOON BETTERED HIS
INSTRUCTION BY DEVISING A SIMPLER AND MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE PROCESS
EMPLOYING BUT ONE LIQUID.  HIS PROCESS WAS THE SUBJECT OF ANOTHER
PATENT,  FN2  AND AT ONCE SUPERSEDED THAT OF THE PATENT IN SUIT, WHICH
THEREUPON BECAME OBSOLETE.  SEVERAL OTHER PROCESSES TO ACHIEVE VERY
SIMILAR RESULTS, INCLUDING THOSE USED BY THE PETITIONER, HAVE ALSO BEEN
DEVELOPED AND PATENTED.  FN3  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OF RESPONDENT'S
PROCESS WAS SHORT-LIVED, AND THE REALLY IMPRESSIVE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS
HAS BEEN ACHIEVED SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GLAXNER PROCESS.  FN4 

THE PRODUCT CLAIMS WHICH RESPONDENT SAYS THE PETITIONER'S PRODUCT
INFRINGED, REGARDLESS OF THE PROCESS BY WHICH IT WAS MADE, READ AS
FOLLOWS:  "1.  SUBSTANTIALLY PURE CARBON BLACK IN THE FORM OF
COMMERCIALLY UNIFORM, COMPARATIVELY SMALL, ROUNDED, SMOOTH AGGREGATES
HAVING A SPONGY OR POROUS INTERIOR.  2.  AS AN ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE,
A PELLET OF APPROXIMATELY ONE-SIXTEENTH OF AN INCH IN DIAMETER AND
FORMED OF A POROUS MASS OF SUBSTANTIALLY PURE CARBON BLACK." 

THAT THE APPLICANT FOR A PATENT "SHALL PARTICULARLY POINT OUT AND
DISTINCTLY CLAIM THE PART, IMPROVEMENT, OR COMBINATION WHICH HE CLAIMS
AS HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY."  AS THE COURT RECENTLY STATED IN
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CORP., 304 U.S. 364, 369: 

"PATENTS, WHETHER BASIC OR FOR IMPROVEMENTS, MUST COMPLY ACCURATELY
AND PRECISELY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS TO CLAIMS OF INVENTION
OR DISCOVERY.  THE LIMITS OF A PATENT MUST BE KNOWN FOR THE PROTECTION
OF THE PATENTEE, THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE INVENTIVE GENIUS OF OTHERS
AND THE ASSURANCE THAT THE SUBJECT OF THE PATENT WILL BE DEDICATED
ULTIMATELY TO THE PUBLIC.  THE STATUTE SEEKS TO GUARD AGAINST
UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGES TO THE PATENTEE AND DISADVANTAGES TO OTHERS
ARISING FROM UNCERTAINTY AS TO THEIR RIGHTS.  THE INVENTOR MUST 'INFORM
THE PUBLIC DURING THE LIFE OF THE PATENT OF THE LIMITS OF THE MONOPOLY
ASSERTED, SO THAT IT MAY BE KNOWN WHICH FEATURES MAY BE SAFELY USED OR
MANUFACTURED WITHOUT A LICENSE AND WHICH MAY NOT.'  THE CLAIMS 'MEASURE
THE INVENTION.'  ...  IN A LIMITED FIELD THE VARIANT MUST BE CLEARLY
DEFINED." 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE CLAIMS DID NOT MEET THESE
REQUIREMENTS, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THEY DID. 
MUCH TESTIMONY WAS DIRECTED TO THIS QUESTION AT THE TRIAL, AND IT HAS
BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEFS AND ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT.  PETITIONER
SEEKS REVERSAL ON THE GROUNDS OF ANTICIPATION AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. 
THE SCOPE AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE CLAIMS IN SUIT NECESSARILY PRESENT
THEMSELVES AS PRELIMINARY PROBLEMS IN THE RESOLUTION OF THESE ULTIMATE
ISSUES.  THE COURTS IN DETERMINING THE QUESTIONS OF INVENTION AND
INFRINGEMENT BROUGHT TO THEM BY RESPONDENT, NO LESS THAN THE PARTIES
LITIGANT, NEED AND MAY INSIST UPON THE PRECISION ENJOINED BY THE
STATUTE.  TO SUSTAIN CLAIMS SO INDEFINITE AS NOT TO GIVE THE NOTICE
REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE WOULD BE IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WHICH CONGRESS THEREIN RECOGNIZED AND SOUGHT TO PROTECT.  CF.
MUNCIE GEAR WORKS V. OUTBOARD, MARINE & MFG. CO., 315 U.S. 759. 

HERE, AS IN MANY OTHER CASES, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR PERSONS NOT SKILLED
IN THE ART TO MEASURE THE INCLUSIONS OR TO APPRECIATE THE DISTINCTIONS
WHICH MAY EXIST IN THE WORDS OF A CLAIM WHEN READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
ART ITSELF.  THE CLEAREST EXPOSITION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE WHICH THE
TERMS EMPLOYED IN THE CLAIMS HAD FOR THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART WAS GIVEN
BY THE TESTIMONY OF WEIGAND, ONE OF THE PATENTEES, WHOM RESPONDENT
CALLED AS ITS WITNESS.  WEIGAND WAS EMPLOYED AS DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH OF
THE COLUMBIAN CARBON COMPANY, WHOSE STOCK RESPONDENT OWNED, AND FOR
WHOM RESPONDENT ACTED AS SOLE SELLING AGENT.  HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS
RESPECT WAS GIVEN PRINCIPALLY UPON CROSSEXAMINATION, BUT IT WAS IN NO
WISE IMPEACHED OR CONTRADICTED, AND IS BORNE OUT BY THAT OF OTHER
WITNESSES.  FROM IT WE LEARN THAT "SUBSTANTIALLY PURE" REFERS, NOT TO
FREEDOM FROM ASH AND OTHER IMPURITIES, BUT RATHER TO FREEDOM FROM
BINDERS; "COMMERCIALLY UNIFORM" MEANS ONLY THE DEGREE OF UNIFORMITY
DEMANDED BY BUYERS; "COMPARATIVELY SMALL" IS NOT SHOWN TO ADD ANYTHING
TO THE CLAIMS, FOR NOWHERE ARE WE ADVISED WHAT STANDARD IS INTENDED FOR
COMPARISONS; "SPONGY" AND "POROUS" ARE SYNONYMOUS, AND RELATE TO THE
DENSITY AND GAS CONTENT OF AGGREGATES OF CARBON BLACK.  ALTHOUGH
SPONGINESS OR POROSITY IS NOT A NECESSARY ATTRIBUTE OF A FRIABLE
SUBSTANCE, IT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO THE FRIABILITY OF AGGREGATES OF CARBON
BLACK.  IT IS OF VALUE ONLY IN THAT REGARD.  A SPONGY OR POROUS
AGGREGATE OF CARBON BLACK MAY BE SO FRIABLE AS TO PERMIT OF THE
FORMATION OF DUST; AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT IT
MIGHT NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY FRIABLE TO MIX SATISFACTORILY WITH OTHER
SUBSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF RUBBER PRODUCTS. 
THE CORRECT DEGREE OF FRIABILITY CAN BE ASCERTAINED ONLY BY TESTING THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCT IN ACTUAL PROCESSES OF MANUFACTURE OF
PRODUCTS OF WHICH CARBON BLACK IS A COMPONENT.  A "PELLET" OF CARBON
BLACK IS "A SPHEROIDAL SHAPED AGGREGATE THAT HAS SUBSTANCE AND STRENGTH
TO IT."  FOR "STRENGTH" "WE HAVE THIS ROUGH AND READY TEST:  DOES IT
SURVIVE UNDER GENTLE RUBBING OF THE FINGERS.  I WOULD NOT SAY THAT IS
AN ADEQUATE TEST TO PREDICATE RUBBER BEHAVIOR ON, BUT IT IS A ROUGH AND
READY TEST"; AND IF IT RESPONDS TO THAT TEST IT IS A PELLET WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CLAIM.  FINALLY, WHAT ON FIRST IMPRESSION APPEARS TO BE
REASONABLE CERTAINTY OF DIMENSION DISAPPEARS WHEN WE LEARN THAT
"APPROXIMATELY ONE-SIXTEENTH OF AN INCH IN DIAMETER" INCLUDES A
VARIATION FROM APPROXIMATELY 1/4TH TO 1/100TH OF AN INCH. 

SO READ, THE CLAIMS ARE BUT INACCURATE SUGGESTIONS OF THE FUNCTIONS
OF THE PRODUCT, AND FALL AFOUL OF THE RULE THAT A PATENTEE MAY NOT
BROADEN HIS CLAIMS BY DESCRIBING THE PRODUCT IN TERMS OF FUNCTION. 
HOLLAND FURNITURE CO. V. PERKINS GLUE CO., 277 U.S. 245, 256-258;
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CORP., SUPRA, AT 371-372. 

RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE CLAIMS MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
PATENT SPECIFICATION,  FN5 AND THAT AS SO READ THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY
DEFINITE.  ASSUMING THE PROPRIETY OF THIS METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION, CF.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CORP., SUPRA, AT 373-375, IT DOES NOT
HAVE THE EFFECT CLAIMED, FOR THE DESCRIPTION IN THE SPECIFICATION IS
ITSELF ALMOST ENTIRELY IN TERMS OF FUNCTION.  IT IS THEREFORE
UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE REJECTION OF CERTAIN CLAIMS  FN6 BY
THE PATENT OFFICE MIGHT IN TURN DEPRIVE THE SPECIFICATION OF ANY
CURATIVE EFFECT IN THIS REGARD.  CF. SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND
TRUST CO., 311 U.S. 211; EXHIBIT SUPPLY CO. V. ACE PATENTS CORP., 315
U.S. 126. 

THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF PARTICULARITY AND DISTINCTNESS IN CLAIMS
IS MET ONLY WHEN THEY CLEARLY DISTINGUISH WHAT IS CLAIMED FROM WHAT
WENT BEFORE IN THE ART AND CLEARLY CIRCUMSCRIBE WHAT IS FORECLOSED FROM
FUTURE ENTERPRISE.  A ZONE OF UNCERTAINTY WHICH ENTERPRISE AND
EXPERIMENTATION MAY ENTER ONLY AT THE RISK OF INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS WOULD
DISCOURAGE INVENTION ONLY A LITTLE LESS THAN UNEQUIVOCAL FORECLOSURE OF
THE FIELD.  MOREOVER, THE CLAIMS MUST BE REASONABLY CLEAR-CUT TO ENABLE
COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER NOVELTY AND INVENTION ARE GENUINE. 
CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT A PATENT MAY BE AWARDED ONLY FOR A NEW AND
USEFUL MANUFACTURE "NOT PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN ANY PRINTED
PUBLICATION IN THIS OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY, BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY THEREOF."  R.S. SEC. 4886, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 31.  WHILE WE DO
NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS OF NOVELTY AND INVENTION,
IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CLAIMS IN SUIT, A MERE READING OF PRIOR ART
PATENTS SHOWS HOW, IF THEY ARE READ WITH THE LIBERALITY AND
INCLUSIVENESS CLAIMED FOR THOSE IN SUIT, THEY DESCRIBE PRODUCTS, IF NOT
IDENTICAL, AT LEAST OF CONFUSING SIMILARITY.  FN7  WHETHER THE
VAGUENESS OF THE CLAIM HAS ITS SOURCE IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED OR IN
THE SOMEWHAT INDETERMINATE CHARACTER OF THE ADVANCE CLAIMED TO HAVE
BEEN MADE IN THE ART IS NOT MATERIAL.  AN INVENTION MUST BE CAPABLE OF
ACCURATE DEFINITION, AND IT MUST BE ACCURATELY DEFINED, TO BE
PATENTABLE.  CF. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CORP., SUPRA, AT 372
373. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION ARE BAD FOR
INDEFINITENESS, AND HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS OF NOVELTY,
INVENTION, AND INFRINGEMENT.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  CARBON BLACK IS ALSO USED AS AN INGREDIENT IN VARIOUS RUBBER,
WAX AND RESIN COMPOSITIONS, PHONOGRAPH RECORDS, PAINTS AND LACQUERS,
PRINTER'S INK, AND CARBON PAPER. 

FN2  GLAXNER, RE. NO. 21,379. 

FN3  BILLINGS & OFFUTT, RE. NO. 19,750; NOS. 2,039,766, 2,120,540,
2,120,541; PRICE, NO. 2,127,137; HELLER & SNOW, NO. 2,131,686; OFFUTT,
NO. 2,134,950; GROTE, RE. NO. 21,390. 

FN4  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MAY BE GAUGED BY REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING
STATISTICS ON THE SALES OF POUNDS OF CARBON BLACK AGGREGATES:

               SALES BY PETITIONER

                                        SALES BY

      SALES BY                                       CABOT CO.

  YEAR       RESPONDENT    "EXTRUSION"  "SAYRE"      "CABOT"
"CABOT"

                           PROCESS* PROCESS  $*    PROCESS  $*
PROCESS    1929---------      20,000 

1930---------     164,000 

1931---------     194,000        (TOTAL GROSS SALES PRICE, ABOUT
$2,000.) 

1932---------     281,000    (IN THIS YEAR THE WEIGAND AND VENUTO
PROCESS

                           WAS SUPERSEDED BY THE GLAXNER PROCESS,
WHICH

         MADE POSSIBLE THE ELIMINATION OF A PRICE

                                                      PREMIUM.) 

1933---------     800,000 ------------------------------------
8,000,000    1934---------   3,300,000       2,000 --------------------
--- 23,000,000 

1935---------  15,000,000      84,875 ------------  3,656,294
39,000,000 

1936---------  30,000,000   7,031,000 ------------ 18,135,756
62,000,000 

1937---------  44,000,000  26,205,000     680,363  11,928,742
58,000,000 

1938---------  53,000,000  29,858,000   3,747,538  11,298,887
45,000,000 

1939---------  97,000,000  48,578,000  17,752,439  11,533,200
73,000,000 

*IN THIS PROCESS, CARBON BLACK MIXED WITH WATER IS FORCED THROUGH
SMALL APERBTURES, DRIED, AND BROKEN INTO SHORT CYLINDERS. 

$*  THIS PROCESS, LIKE THE GLAXNER PROCESS, EMPLOYS BUT ONE LIQUID,
WATER, AND AGITATION. 

$*  THIS IS A "DRY" PROCESS, EMPLOYING ONLY AGITATION TO CAUSE THE
PARTICLES OF CARBON BLACK TO ADHERE.  IT IS THE SUBJECT OF A NUMBER OF
PATENTS, THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS APPLIED FOR BY BILLINGS AND OFFUTT ON
JULY 18, 1932 AND ISSUED AS NO. 2,120,540.  MANUFACTURE IS UNDER
LICENSE OF THE CABOT COMPANY, PATENT OWNER. 

FN5  THIS STATES IN PERTINENT PART THAT: 

"THE MAIN OBJECT OF OUR INVENTION IS TO SECURE CARBON BLACK HAVING
THE DESIRED DISPERSIVE PROPERTIES, GREATER DENSITY, FREEDOM FROM DUST,
FREEDOM FROM GRITTY PARTICLES, LESS ABSORBED OR OCCLUDED GASES, REDUCED
OIL ABSORPTION THAN THE ORDINARY POWDER FORM, AND CAPABLE OF
CONSIDERABLE HANDLING WITHOUT CRUSHING OR DUSTING. 

     .         .         .         .   . 

"THIS PROCESS, IF CARRIED OUT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, CAUSES THE
CARBON BLACK TO FORM INTO PELLETS WHICH ARE HARD ENOUGH TO STAND ANY
ORDINARY SHIPMENT OR HANDLING WITHOUT DUSTING, FLYING OR BREAKING DOWN,
AND WHICH AT THE SAME TIME ARE EASILY CRUSHED BY MODERATE PRESSURE, AS
BETWEEN THE FINGERS OR BY THE PRESSURES COMMONLY EMPLOYED IN THE ROLLS
OF RUBBER COMPOUNDING MACHINERY, PRINTER'S INK MIXERS AND THE LIKE. 
THE CRUSHED PARTICLES HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY THEIR ORIGINAL SOFTNESS AND
THE MATERIAL DISPERSES FREELY WITHOUT LEAVING ANY PARTICLES OF
UNDISPERSED CARBON IN THE MATERIAL. 

"WHILE THE PELLET FORM IS A VERY CONVENIENT FORM OF THE CARBON BLACK,
THE SHAPE OF THE PARTICLES IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC OF
THIS NOVEL CARBON BLACK. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE PELLETS ARE VERY POROUS, OF SUBSTANTIALLY SPHERICAL OR GLOBULAR
FORM, HAVE A SMOOTH SOMEWHAT LUSTROUS OUTER SURFACE WHICH IS NOT EASILY
BROKEN BY HANDLING, ARE MORE COMPACT THAN UNTREATED CARBON, ARE FRAGILE
UNDER LIGHT PRESSURE, AND MAY BE EASILY REDUCED TO SOFT MINUTE
PARTICLES WHICH CANNOT BE TOLD FROM THE ORIGINAL PARTICLES EXCEPT THAT
POSSIBLY THEY HAVE A MORE UNCTUOUS FEEL.  THEY SOMEWHAT RESEMBLE LEAD
SHOT AND MAY BE ROLLED IN THE HAND WITHOUT DIRTYING OR DUSTING. 
APPARENTLY THE OUTER SURFACE PORTION OR SHELL OF EACH PELLET IS
SLIGHTLY MORE COMPACT THAN THE INNER PART, BUT STILL POROUS. 

"IN SHIPPING OR STORING, WE FIND THAT APPROXIMATELY TWICE THE NUMBER
OF POUNDS OF THESE PELLETS CAN BE PLACED IN A CONTAINER OF A GIVEN SIZE
THAN IS THE CASE WITH THE UNTREATED CARBON BLACK.  THUS, EXPENSE IS
REDUCED FOR SHIPMENT OR STORAGE. 

     .         .      .         .         . 

"THERE ARE VARIOUS FACTORS WHICH ENTER INTO THE PROCESS AND THESE MAY
BE VARIED TO GET THE PELLETS HARDER OR SOFTER OR LARGER OR SMALLER. 
AMONG THESE FACTORS ARE THE THICKNESS OF THE PASTE, THE AMOUNT OF
GASOLINE USED, THE ADDING OF THE GASOLINE IN BULK OR A LITTLE AT A
TIME, SPEED OF AGITATION, TEMPERATURE, TYPE OF GASOLINE USED, AND
CHARACTER OF THE CARBON BLACK. 

     .         .         . .         . 

"IF SMALL PELLETS ARE DESIRED, A LESSER AMOUNT OF GASOLINE OR OTHER
LIQUID SHOULD BE USED IN RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF WATER AND CARBON, AND
GREATER AGITATION SHOULD BE EMPLOYED.  TO SECURE LARGE PELLETS, WE USE
A LARGER AMOUNT OF GASOLINE AND SLOWER AGITATION.  IN PRACTICE, WE DO
NOT CONSIDER A SIZE LARGER THAN ONE-QUARTER OF AN INCH DESIRABLE. 
THERE ARE MANY KINDS, GRADES OR VARIETIES OF CARBON BLACK AND OFTEN
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTICULAR KIND OR GRADE IS DIFFICULT.  WITH OUR
IMPROVED PROCESS THE DIFFERENT KINDS OR GRADES MAY BE MADE INTO PELLETS
OF DIFFERENT SIZES SO THAT IDENTIFICATION IS FACILITATED, FOR INSTANCE,
VERY SMALL PELLETS MAY BE MADE FOR PRINTER'S INK AND LARGER ONES FOR
RUBBER, ETC." 

FN6  TO MEET OBJECTIONS OF THE EXAMINER, THE FOLLOWING PRODUCT CLAIMS
WERE WITHDRAWN IN COURSE OF PROSECUTION OF THE APPLICATION: 

"4. A PELLET FORMED OF (SUBSTANTIALLY PURE)*  SOFT CARBON BLACK
PARTICLES, THE PELLET BEING SUFFICIENTLY HARD TO WITHSTAND ORDINARY
SHIPMENT OR HANDLING, BUT READILY BREAKING DOWN TO A FINE STATE OF
SUBDIVISION UPON THE APPLICATION OF SLIGHT PRESSURE. 

*ADDED BY AMENDMENT. 

"8.  SOFT CARBON BLACK PARTICLES COHERING IN SMALL MASSES OF
SUBSTANTIALLY UNIFORM SIZE AND HAVING SMOOTH OUTER SURFACES. 

"2.  CARBON BLACK IN THE FORM OF PELLETS OF SPONGE-LIKE OR POROUS
STRUCTURE. 

"7.  A CARBON BLACK PELLET FORMED OF SOFT CARBON BLACK, THE PELLET
HAVING SUFFICIENT HARDNESS TO WITHSTAND ORDINARY SHIPMENT OR HANDLING
WITHOUT DUSTING, BUT SUFFICIENTLY FRAGILE TO PERMIT REDUCTION TO THE
ORIGINAL FINE STATE OF SUBDIVISION UPON THE APPLICATION OF LIGHT
PRESSURE." 

FN7  THE PRIOR KNOWLTON AND HOFFMAN PATENT, NO. 1,286,024, STATED IN
THE SPECIFICATION THAT "INSTEAD OF USING THE LAMPBLACK IN ITS NATURAL
CONDITION, WE PREPARE AND TREAT THE FINE POWDER SO AS TO CAUSE ITS
CONCRETION INTO FRIABLE GRAINS OR SMALL LUMPS, DRY AND SUBSTANTIALLY
FREE FROM DUST, AND IN THIS FORM INCORPORATE IT WITH THE RUBBER ON THE
ROLLER MILL  ...  THE FRIABILITY OF THE LUMPS OR GRAINS PERMITTING A
UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION OF THE FILLER THROUGHOUT THE RUBBER."  CLAIM NO. 7
OF THIS PATENT IS:  "THE METHOD OF COMPOUNDING RUBBER WITH LAMPBLACK
WHICH CONSISTS IN MIXING THE LAMPBLACK WITH WATER AND A BINDER,
PRODUCING A GRANULAR CONDITION, EVAPORATING THE WATER, AND
INCORPORATING THE DRY, GRANULAR LAMPBLACK WITH RUBBER ON A HEATED
MIXING MILL." 

CLAIM NO. 10 OF THE PRIOR COFFIN AND KEEN PATENT, NO. 1,561,971, IS:
"AS A NEW ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE, DRIED PULVERULENT MATERIAL IN THE
FORM OF VERY SMALL INDIVIDUALLY DRIED FRIABLE GLOBULAR MASSES COMPOSED
OF LIGHTLY COHERING PARTICLES OF THE MATERIAL." 
..END :







HUGHES V. WENDEL, 317 U.S. 134 


NO. 176.  DECIDED NOVEMBER 16, 1942.  - 139 OHIO ST. 632, 41 N.E.2D 702,
APPEAL DISMISSED. 


SINCE THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN THE CONTRACT NOR AN ADEQUATE SUMMARY
THEREOF, APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPAIRMENT OF THE
OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT CAN NOT BE DETERMINED, AND THE APPEAL IS
DISMISSED.  P. 134. 

HUGHES V. WENDEL, COUNTY TREASURER, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

PER CURIAM. 

APPELLANT IS THE OWNER OF A 99-YEAR PERPETUALLY RENEWABLE LEASE OF
WHICH THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, IN OHIO, IS LESSOR, AND WHICH HAS BEEN
SUBJECTED TO ASSESSMENT OF COUNTY TAXES PURSUANT TO SEC. 5330 OF THE
OHIO GENERAL CODE.  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THIS STATUTE AS APPLIED
VIOLATES AN EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION GRANTED BY SEC. 13 OF AN OHIO
STATUTE OF FEBRUARY 17, 1809(7 OHIO LAWS, P. 188), WHICH ALLEGEDLY
BECAME A PART OF HER CONTRACT THROUGH EXECUTION OF THE LEASE, AND
IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF HER CONTRACT CONTRARY TO ARTICLE I, SEC. 10
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE RECORD, HOWEVER, DOES NOT SET FORTH
APPELLANT'S LEASE, AND THE INCOMPLETE SUMMARY OF IT CONTAINED IN HER
PLEADING IS NOT ADEQUATE TO ENABLE US TO DETERMINE WHAT HER RIGHTS MAY
BE.  ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST DISMISS THE APPEAL.  DISMISSED. 
..END :























STATE BANK V. BROWN, 317 U.S. 135 


NO. 23.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 16, 1942.  - 124
F.2D 701, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 75(N) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE FILING OF A FARMER
DEBTOR'S PETITION CAN NOT BRING INTO THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS,
AND AS TO WHICH, UNDER THE STATE LAW, EVERY EQUITY OR RIGHT OF THE
DEBTOR HAS BEEN EXTINGUISHED.  P. 138. 

2.  THE LAW OF INDIANA GIVES THE DEBTOR A YEAR FROM THE INSTITUTION
OF FORECLOSURE SUIT WITHIN WHICH TO REDEEM AND TERMINATES HIS RIGHT AND
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AT THE SALE.  THE DELIVERY OF A DEED BY THE
SHERIFF BECOMES A MINISTERIAL ACT CONSTITUTING MERELY A RECORD EVIDENCE
OF THE PURCHASER'S TITLE WHICH IS PERFECT FROM THE DATE OF SALE.  P.
141. 

STATE BANK OF HARDINSBURG V. BROWN ET UX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 794, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED AN
ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, STRIKING A FARM FROM THE BANKRUPT'S
SCHEDULES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT BELOW HAS CONSTRUED SEC. 75(N) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN1
AS BRINGING WITHIN THE COURT'S JURISDICTION PROPERTY MORTGAGED BY THE
DEBTOR AS TO WHICH, AFTER FORECLOSURE, THE DEBTOR'S EQUITY OF
REDEMPTION HAD EXPIRED.  FN2  BECAUSE OF CONFLICT OF DECISION  FN3  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 75 THE RESPONDENTS BORROWED $2,500
FROM THE PETITIONER AND GAVE A PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY MORTGAGE ON
THEIR FARM IN INDIANA.  IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IN AN INDIANA STATE
COURT PETITIONER OBTAINED JUDGMENT NOVEMBER 20, 1939, ORDERING THAT THE
PROPERTY BE SOLD TO SATISFY THE DEBT.  MAY 25, 1940, THE SHERIFF SOLD
THE FARM TO THE PETITIONER.  THE RESPONDENTS, WHO HAD NOT REDEEMED,
FILED THEIR PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 ON MAY 28, 1940, LISTING THE FARM IN
THEIR SCHEDULES. 

JUNE 1, 1940, THE SHERIFF EXECUTED AND DELIVERED HIS DEED TO THE
PETITIONER; AND, JUNE 30, 1940, PETITIONER FILED, IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, A MOTION TO STRIKE THE FARM FROM THE SCHEDULES ON THE GROUND
THAT, AT THE DATE OF THE PETITION, THE RESPONDENTS HAD NO RIGHT OR
EQUITY IN THE PROPERTY AS THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION PROVIDED BY STATE
LAW EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF THE SHERIFF'S SALE.  THE COURT GRANTED THE
MOTION AND STRUCK THE PROPERTY FROM THE SCHEDULES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, BY A DIVIDED COURT, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT. 


"THE FILING OF A PETITION  ...  PRAYING FOR RELIEF UNDER  ...  (THIS
WHEREVER LOCATED, FOR ALL THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, TO THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, INCLUDING ALL REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY, OR ANY EQUITY OR RIGHT IN ANY SUCH PROPERTY, INCLUDING, AMONG
OTHERS  ...  THE RIGHT OR THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION WHERE THE PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION HAS NOT OR HAD NOT EXPIRED, OR WHERE A DEED OF TRUST HAS
BEEN GIVEN AS SECURITY, OR WHERE THE SALE HAS NOT OR HAD NOT BEEN
CONFIRMED, OR WHERE DEED HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED, AT THE TIME OF FILING
THE PETITION. 

"IN ALL CASES WHERE, AT THE TIME OF FILING THE PETITION, THE PERIOD
OF REDEMPTION HAS NOT OR HAD NOT EXPIRED, OR WHERE THE RIGHT UNDER A
DEED OF TRUST HAS NOT OR HAD NOT BECOME ABSOLUTE, OR WHERE THE SALE HAS
NOT OR HAD NOT BEEN CONFIRMED, OR WHERE DEED HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED,
THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION SHALL BE EXTENDED OR THE CONFIRMATION OF SALE
WITHHELD FOR THE PERIOD NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION." 

THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF INDIANA IS CHAPTER 90 OF THE ACTS OF 1931. 
FN4  ALTHOUGH THIS STATUTE APPEARS NOT TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE
STATE COURTS, IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT UNDER ITS PROVISIONS A SALE IN
FORECLOSURE CAN NOT BE HAD UNTIL ONE YEAR AFTER THE INSTITUTION OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AND THAT A SALE, THEN MADE, CUTS OFF ALL EQUITY OF
REDEMPTION.  THE COURT BELOW SO CONCEDED. 

THE QUESTION THEN IS, SHOULD SEC. 75(N) BE SO READ THAT, ALTHOUGH THE
DEBTOR HAS NO INTEREST OR EQUITY IN THE LAND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD, AND
IS AT MOST A TRUSTEE OF THE BARE LEGAL TITLE, THE LAND IS TO BE DRAWN
INTO THE BANKRUPTCY IF THE SHERIFF HAS NOT DELIVERED HIS DEED AT THE
DATE OF THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE RESPONDENTS INSIST THAT
THE SECTION LITERALLY SO PROVIDES AND SHOULD BE GIVEN EFFECT
ACCORDINGLY.  THE PETITIONER REPLIES THAT THE FAIR MEANING OF THE
OF REDEMPTION DOES THE LAND COME UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION.  IT
ADDS THAT IF THE LANGUAGE BE OF DOUBTFUL IMPORT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
FULLY SUPPORTS THE CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH IT CONTENDS.  WE HOLD WITH
THE PETITIONER. 

COME UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, ADDS
THAT ANY EQUITY OR RIGHT IN SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE WITHIN THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION.  IT THEN ATTEMPTS TO DETAIL SUCH RIGHTS, BY A CLAUSE
OPENING WITH THE PHRASE "INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS,  ...  THE RIGHT OR
THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION WHERE THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION HAS NOT OR HAD
NOT EXPIRED,  ...  "  THIS LANGUAGE WOULD SEEM ADEQUATE TO VEST IN THE
TRUSTEE ANY UNEXPIRED EQUITY OF REDEMPTION AND FURNISH THE BASIS FOR
DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO SUCH EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. 
APPARENTLY OUT OF AN EXCESS OF CAUTION THE SENTENCE THEN PROCEEDS TO
CATALOG CERTAIN INSTANCES WHERE, UNDER STATE LAW, SOME ACT OR THING HAS
NOT OCCURRED WHOSE OCCURRENCE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE TERMINATION OF THE
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.  THUS THE SECTION PROCEEDS "OR WHERE A DEED OF
TRUST HAS BEEN GIVEN AS SECURITY, OR WHERE THE SALE HAS NOT OR HAD NOT
BEEN CONFIRMED, OR WHERE DEED HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED, AT THE TIME OF
FILING THE PETITION."  IT IS, OF COURSE, COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT, IN
VARIOUS STATES, ONE OR OTHER OF THE EVENTS MENTIONED IS NECESSARY
FINALLY TO CUT OFF THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION. 

THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE SECTION MERELY EXTENDS THE PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION IN CASES WHERE, AT THE TIME OF FILING THE PETITION, THE
PERIOD OF REDEMPTION HAS NOT OR HAD NOT EXPIRED.  HERE AGAIN, HOWEVER,
IN AN EXCESS OF CAUTION, THE STATUTE PROVIDES, AFTER MENTIONING THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION, "OR WHERE THE RIGHT UNDER A
DEED OF TRUST HAS NOT OR HAD NOT BECOME ABSOLUTE, OR WHERE THE SALE HAS
NOT OR HAD NOT BEEN CONFIRMED, OR WHERE DEED HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED,
THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION SHALL BE EXTENDED  ...  "  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT
IF NO RIGHT OF REDEMPTION EXISTS THERE CAN BE NO PERIOD OF REDEMPTION
TO EXTEND. 

A FAIR READING OF THE ENTIRE SECTION INDICATES A CLEAR INTENT TO
EXTEND THE BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION OVER ALL PROPERTY WHICH STILL
REMAINS SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION UNDER STATE LAW AT THE TIME OF FILING THE
PETITION.  THE SECTION DOES NOT EVIDENCE ANY INTENT ON THE PART OF
CONGRESS TO BRING BACK INTO THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING PROPERTY WHICH
WAS ONCE OWNED BY THE BANKRUPT AND AS TO WHICH HIS OWNERSHIP AND
INTEREST HAS BEEN EXTINGUISHED, UNLESS SUCH INTENT CAN BE DRAWN FROM
THE PROVISIONS QUALIFYING THE GENERAL WORDS OF THE SECTION.  WE THINK
THAT IF CONGRESS INTENDED THAT A BANKRUPTCY MIGHT REACH BACK INTO THE
PAST AND BRING UNDER THE COURT'S JURISDICTION A FORMER INTEREST IN
PROPERTY, WHICH, UNDER STATE LAW, HAD IRREVOCABLY PASSED TO A THIRD
PERSON, IT WOULD HAVE SO STATED IN TERMS TOO CLEAR TO LEAVE ANY DOUBT. 

IF IT BE CONCEDED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTION IS DOUBTFUL,
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS OVERWHELMINGLY IN SUPPORT OF THE VIEW WE
HAVE STATED. 

SUBSECTION (N) AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED  FN5  PROVIDED THAT THE FILING OF
A PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 "SHALL SUBJECT THE FARMER AND HIS PROPERTY,
WHEREVER LOCATED, TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT."  IN
ADMINISTERING THIS SECTION THE FEDERAL COURTS HELD DIVERSE VIEWS AS TO
THEIR POWER TO DEAL WITH THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION OF A MORTGAGOR AFTER
FORECLOSURE.  FN6  WHEN CONGRESS CAME TO AMEND THE ACT TO MEET THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT IN LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD,
295 U.S. 555, IT HAD IN MIND THE FACT THAT IN MANY STATES A DEED OF
TRUST IS USED AS A METHOD OF GIVING REAL ESTATE SECURITY FOR LOANS
WHEREUNDER THE TRUSTEE MAY MAKE A SALE; THAT IN SOME STATES THE EQUITY
OF REDEMPTION EXISTS UNTIL A DEED HAS BEEN DELIVERED; THAT IN OTHERS IT
EXPIRES WITH THE ACTUAL SALE UNDER FORECLOSURE; THAT IN OTHERS IT
EXPIRES WHEN THE SALE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE COURT AND THAT IN SOME,
ALTHOUGH ALL OF THESE ACTS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED, THE DEBTOR HAS A RIGHT
TO RELIEF DURING A SPECIFIED PERIOD AFTER CONFIRMATION OF SALE,
DELIVERY OF DEED AND ENTRY INTO POSSESSION BY THE PURCHASER.  FN7  THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE  FN8  WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT EVINCE A PURPOSE TO AMEND THE EXISTING LAW SO AS TO
RENDER IT CLEAR THAT, WHATEVER THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION UNDER STATE LAW,
THE BANKRUPT AND HIS ESTATE WERE TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THAT RIGHT. 
REFERRING, INTER ALIA, TO THE AMENDMENTS TO SUBSECTION (N), THE HOUSE
REPORT STATES: 

"THESE OTHER AMENDMENTS ARE LARGELY CLARIFICATION, AND HAVE BECOME
NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE DIVERSE RULINGS AND HOLDINGS OF THE VARIOUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 75.  SOME
OF THESE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE FARMER-DEBTOR COULD NOT TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE ACT AFTER FORECLOSURE SALE, AND DURING THE PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION.  SOME OF THESE COURTS HAVE REFUSED TO PERMIT THE FARMER IN
THAT POSITION TO FILE HIS PETITION, ALTHOUGH UNDER THE LAW OF HIS STATE
HE WAS IN POSSESSION, ENTITLED TO RENTS AND PROFITS, AND IN FULL
CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY, AND COULD REDEEM IT WITHIN THE PERIOD
ALLOWED. 

"AGAIN, OTHER COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE FARMER COULD NOT TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE ACT DURING THE PERIOD OF MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY A
STATE, WHILE OTHERS HAVE HELD THAT THE DEBTOR COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THE ACT AFTER SALE, BUT PRIOR TO CONFIRMATION, ALTHOUGH IN ALL OF
THESE CASES IF THE DEBTOR HAD THE MONEY, AND WERE IN A POSITION TO PAY,
HE COULD REDEEM, AND SAVE THE PROPERTY. 

"IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE COURTS ARE REASONING TOO TECHNICALLY, AND
HAVE FAILED TO CARRY OUT THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS, WHICH WAS TO
PROTECT THE FARMER'S HOME AND PROPERTY, AND AT THE SAME TIME TO PROTECT
THE CREDITOR.  ON THE OTHER HAND, OTHER COURTS HAVE HELD JUST THE
OPPOSITE, AND HAVE GIVEN FULL PROTECTION, AND CARRIED OUT THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS.  UNDER THIS CONDITION, WE THINK IT IS ADMITTED BY ALL THAT
THERE SHOULD BE UNIFORMITY." 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE SENATE REPORT GOES INTO SOMEWHAT MORE DETAIL BUT
IS OF THE SAME PURPORT.  WHEN THE AMENDMENTS WERE BEFORE THE SENATE,
SENATOR BORAH, A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE, EXPLAINED THEM TO THE SENATE
IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:  FN9 

"IN THE FIRST PLACE, HOWEVER, IT OUGHT TO BE SAID THAT WE UNDERTOOK
TO MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS IN SECTION 75 BEFORE WE GOT TO SUBSECTION (S). 
THESE AMENDMENTS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING SECTION 75.  SOME OF
THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE FARMER DEBTOR COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THE ACT AFTER FORECLOSURE SALE AND DURING THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION. 
THE BILL UNDERTAKES TO CLARIFY IT SO AS TO PERMIT THE FARMER TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF SECTION 75 AFTER FORECLOSURE AND DURING THE PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION. 

"SOME OF THE COURTS ALSO REFUSED TO PERMIT THE FARMER WHO WAS IN THAT
POSITION TO FILE HIS PETITION, ALTHOUGH UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE HE
WAS IN POSSESSION AND FULL CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY AND COULD REDEEM IT
DURING THE PERIOD OF MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY THE STATES.  ONE OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 75 TAKES CARE OF THAT OBJECTION WHICH WAS RAISED
BY THE COURT. 

"AMENDED SUBSECTION (S) CONSTRUES, INTERPRETS, AND CLARIFIES BOTH
SUBSECTIONS (N) AND (O) OF SECTION 75.  BY READING SUBSECTIONS (N) AND
(O) AS NOW ENACTED, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT IT WAS THE INTENTION OF
CONGRESS, WHEN IT PASSED SECTION 75, THAT THE DEBTOR AND ALL OF HIS
PROPERTY SHOULD COME UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY,
AND THAT THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT SHOULD EXTEND TO THE FARMER PRIOR TO
CONFIRMATION OF SALE AND DURING THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION.  IN OTHER
WORDS, THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDE THAT THE FARMER MAY AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE
ACT AFTER FORECLOSURE AND DURING THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION, AND MAY ALSO
AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE ACT DURING THE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM PROVIDED
FOR HIM WITHIN THE STATE." 

THE LAW OF INDIANA GIVES THE DEBTOR A YEAR FROM THE INSTITUTION OF
FORECLOSURE SUIT WITHIN WHICH TO REDEEM AND TERMINATES HIS RIGHT AND
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AT THE SALE.  THE DELIVERY OF A DEED BY THE
SHERIFF, THEREFORE, BECOMES A MINISTERIAL ACT WHICH HE CAN BE COMPELLED
TO PERFORM.  FN10  SUCH DELIVERY CONSTITUTES MERE RECORD EVIDENCE OF
THE PURCHASER'S TITLE WHICH IS PERFECT FROM THE DATE OF SALE.  AS THE
SALE CUT OFF ALL RIGHTS OF THE DEBTOR, SEC. 75(N) DOES NOT BRING THE
PROPERTY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

THE PETITIONER URGES THAT THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE SECTION BY THE
COURT BELOW WOULD RENDER IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE
MEANING OF THE STATUTE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THIS
CONTENTION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  11 U.S.C. SEC. 203. 

FN2  124 F.2D 701. 

FN3  GLENN V. HOLLUMS, 80 F.2D 555; SHREINER V. FARMERS TRUST CO., 91
F.2D 606.  COMPARE IN RE RANDALL, 20 F.SUPP.  470; BUTTARS V. UTAH
MORTGAGE LOAN CORP., 116 F.2D 622. 

FN4  BURNS INDIANA STATUTES 1933, SECS. 3-1801 TO 3-1809, INCLUSIVE. 

FN5  47 STAT. 1473. 

FN6  SEE 99 A.L.R. 1390-1393. 

FN7  SEE JONES, MORTGAGES (8TH ED.)  SECS.  1695-1746; WILTSIE,
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE (5TH ED.)  SEC. 1199. 

FN8  H.R. REPORT NO. 1808, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S.R. 985, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN9  CONG. REC. VOL. 79, PT. 13, P. 13632.    FN10  JESSUP V. CAREY,
61 IND. 584, 592; HUBBLE V. BERRY, 180 IND. 513, 519, 103 N.E. 328;
STATE EX REL. MILLER V. BENDER, 102 IND. APP. 185, 1 N.E.2D 662. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE
OPINION OF THE COURT.  SECTION 75(N) SUBJECTS TO THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ALL PROPERTY IN WHICH THE
PETITIONING FARMER-DEBTOR HAS ANY EQUITY OR RIGHT, "INCLUDING, AMONG
OTHERS  ...  THE RIGHT OR THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION WHERE THE PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION HAS NOT OR HAD NOT EXPIRED,  ...  OR WHERE DEED HAD NOT BEEN
DELIVERED, AT THE TIME OF FILING THE PETITION."  CONCEDING THAT
RESPONDENTS' EQUITY OF REDEMPTION WAS CUT OFF UNDER INDIANA LAW PRIOR
TO THE FILING OF THEIR PETITION, THE DEED HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED AT THE
TIME OF FILING.  RESPONDENTS THUS COME WITHIN THE EXACT TERMS OF SEC.
75(N), AND THE PROPERTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK FROM THEIR
SCHEDULES. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT DOUBTS IN SEC. 75 ARE TO BE SETTLED IN THE DEBTOR'S
FAVOR, AND THAT IT "MUST BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO GIVE THE DEBTOR THE
FULL MEASURE OF THE RELIEF AFFORDED BY CONGRESS, LEST ITS BENEFITS BE
FRITTERED AWAY BY NARROW FORMALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS WHICH DISREGARD
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE ACT."  WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS.
CO., 311 U.S. 273, 279.  BUT WE ARE NOW TOLD THAT THE SPIRIT AND THE
LETTER OF SEC. 75(N), ESPECIALLY THE PHRASE "OR WHERE DEED HAD NOT BEEN
DELIVERED," MAY BE DISREGARDED UPON A "FAIR READING OF THE ENTIRE
IT IS CLAIMED, DISCLOSE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE BENEFITS OF
SEC. 75 TO EXTEND BEYOND THE EXPIRATION OF THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION BY
FORCE OF STATE LAW, THE ABOVE-QUOTED PHRASE BEING ADDED, "APPARENTLY
OUT OF AN EXCESS OF CAUTION," TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE STATES IN WHICH THE
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION SURVIVES UNTIL THE DELIVERY OF A DEED.  IF
CONGRESS SO INTENDED, ITS WORDS WERE POORLY CHOSEN.  CONGRESS COULD
EASILY HAVE DECLARED THAT BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION DOES NOT SURVIVE THE
EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION UNDER STATE LAW, WHETHER
THAT EXTINGUISHMENT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY SALE, CONFIRMATION, OR THE
DELIVERY OF A DEED.  INSTEAD CONGRESS USED THE DISJUNCTIVE "OR".  THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT SO INTEND IS CLEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
ACT.  THE TRUE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE WAS "TO PROTECT THE FARMER'S HOME
AND PROPERTY, AND AT THE SAME TIME TO PROTECT THE CREDITOR."  FN1  THIS
PURPOSE IS BEST ACHIEVED BY GIVING EFFECT TO THE PRECISE WORDS OF SEC.
75(N).  THE FARMER IS GIVEN A CHANCE TO REHABILITATE HIMSELF SO LONG AS
HE HAS ANY VESTIGE OF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY, CALL IT "BARE LEGAL
TITLE" OR WHAT YOU WILL.  THE CREDITOR IS PROTECTED BECAUSE THE VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY REMAINS, UNDER ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED BY THE ACT,
AS SECURITY FOR THE DEBT.  "THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM OF THE
CREDITOR TO MORE THAN THAT."  WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., 311
U.S. 273, 278. 

FN1  H. REP. NO. 1808, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.  SEE ALSO S. REP.
NO. 985, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 
..END :




PFISTER V. FINANCE CORP., 317 U.S. 144 


NOS. 26 AND 27.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 16, 1942. 
- 123 F.2D 543, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A PETITION MAY BE FILED TO REVIEW AN ORDER
OF A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, FIXING RENTAL OR GRANTING STAY OR
DIRECTING SALE, IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 39(C) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND IS
FIXED AT TEN DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER "OR WITHIN SUCH EXTENDED
TIME AS THE COURT MAY FOR CAUSE SHOWN ALLOW."  P. 147. 

2.  THE TEN-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION TO REVIEW A
COMMISSIONER'S ORDER UNDER SEC. 39(C) IS NOT EXTENDED BY A PETITION FOR
REHEARING WHICH IS DENIED BY THE COMMISSIONER WITHOUT REEXAMINATION OF
THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER.  P. 150. 

3.  THE TEN-DAY PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 39(C) IS A LIMITATION ON
THE RIGHT OF THE AGGRIEVED PARTY TO APPEAL, BUT NOT A LIMITATION ON THE
JURISDICTION OF THE REVIEWING COURT TO ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE
EXERCISE OF SOUND DISCRETION CAN REVIEW ORDERS ON PETITIONS TO REVIEW
FILED AFTER THE TEN-DAY PERIOD HAS RUN.  P. 152. 

4.  IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSIONER ENTERTAINED OUT-OF-TIME PETITIONS
TO REHEAR ORDERS FIXING RENTAL, GRANTING STAY AND DIRECTING SALE AND
DENIED THE PETITIONS UPON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE INADEQUATE TO
INDUCE A REEXAMINATION OF THE MERITS OF THE ORDERS THEY SOUGHT TO RE
OPEN.  HELD, ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT
ERR IN REFUSING AN OUT-OF-TIME REVIEW OF THE MERITS OF THE ORIGINAL
ORDERS.  P. 153. 

PFISTER V. NORTHERN ILLINOIS FINANCE CORP. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 795, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS WHICH AFFIRMED ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT EN BANC
DISMISSING, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, PETITIONS TO REVIEW ORDERS OF A
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 795, BRINGS HERE CERTAIN RULINGS ON THE
RIGHT OF PETITIONER, A FARMER-DEBTOR, TO HAVE REVIEWED THE ORDERS OF A
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER  FN1  UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 
THIS SECTION DEALS WITH AGRICULTURAL COMPOSITIONS AND EXTENSIONS.  A
CONFLICT OF CIRCUITS AS TO WHETHER THE TEN-DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A COMMISSIONER'S ORDER WAS A LIMITATION ON THE
POWER OF THE REVIEWING COURT TO ACT OR ON THE RIGHT OF AN AGGRIEVED
PARTY TO APPEAL,  FN2  IMPELLED US TO GRANT OUR WRIT.  IN RE PFISTER,
123 F.2D 543, 548; THUMMESS V. VON HOFFMAN, 109 F.2D 291, AND IN RE
ALBERT, 122 F.2D 393. 

IN ADDITION TO THIS POINT, NUMEROUS OTHER QUESTIONS AS TO THE RIGHT
TO REVIEW ARE PRESENTED WHICH MAY BE FAIRLY SUBSUMED UNDER PETITIONER'S
ALLEGATIONS OF ERROR BELOW:  (1) BECAUSE THE COURTS DID NOT APPLY THE
LIMITATION IN THE PROVISO OF 75(S)  FN3  INSTEAD OF THAT IN 39(C); (2)
BECAUSE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING OF A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER'S
ORDERS, WHICH PETITIONS WERE ENTERTAINED AND DENIED, WERE NOT HELD TO
EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR REVIEW; AND (3) BECAUSE THE ORDER OF STAY
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER 75(S)(2) WAS FOR LESS THAN THE
STATUTORY PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE ENTRY OF THE STAY ORDER. 

AFTER FAILING TO OBTAIN A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION UNDER SEC. 75(A)
TO (R) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE PETITIONER, A FARMER, SOUGHT RELIEF
UNDER SEC. 75(S).  IN DUE COURSE ON AUGUST 10, 1940, HE PETITIONED THE
COMMISSIONER TO FIX HIS RENT, PERMIT HIM TO RETAIN HIS PROPERTY AND
ESTABLISH A STAY OR MORATORIUM.  IN THE PETITION HE STATED THAT HIS
MORATORIUM BEGAN TO RUN ON APRIL 26, 1940.  ON AUGUST 13, 1940, THE
COMMISSIONER, AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE UPON ITS AMOUNT, ORDERED THAT THE
RENTAL BE FIXED AT A SUM NAMED, AND DIRECTED A STAY FROM APRIL 26,
1940, AS THE PETITIONER SUGGESTED.  AN APPRAISAL WAS APPROVED BY A
SEPARATE ORDER ON THE SAME DAY, AUGUST 13.  ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1940,
ORDERS WERE ENTERED FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY, CHIEFLY
LIVESTOCK, STIPULATED BY THE DEBTOR TO BE PERISHABLE UNDER SEC.
75(S)(2).  AFTER THE TEN DAYS FIXED FOR REVIEW UNDER 39(C), PETITIONS
FOR REHEARING ON THE ORDERS FIXING RENTAL, GRANTING STAY AND DIRECTING
SALE WERE FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER.  THE BASIS OF THESE PETITIONS
AND THE REASONS FOR THEIR DENIAL BY THE COMMISSIONER ARE DETAILED IN
DIVISION II OF THIS OPINION. 

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE FILED WHICH WERE TIMELY IF PETITIONER WAS
RIGHT IN HIS CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S ACTION ON THE PETITIONS
FOR REHEARING EXTENDED THE TIME FOR APPEAL FOR TEN DAYS FROM THE ENTRY
OF THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER DENYING REHEARING.  THE TWO NUMBERS, 26 AND
27, OF OUR DOCKET, REFER TO THESE TWO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW CONSOLIDATED
FOR HEARING.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED EACH OF THE PETITIONS FOR
REVIEW ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION IN IT TO REVIEW,
SINCE THE PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE FILED AFTER THE TEN DAYS PROVIDED
BY 39(C) AND THE RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND SINCE THE DENIAL OF
THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING DID NOT EXTEND THE TIME.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUNDS THAT 39(C) GOVERNED, THAT
THE TIME FOR REVIEW WAS NOT EXTENDED BY THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING,
THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR REVERSING THE COMMISSIONER'S ACTION ON THE
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW, AND THAT THE "PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WERE NOT FILED
IN TIME."  WE DISAGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS UPON THE LAST GROUND
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE LANGUAGE MEANT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
WITHOUT "POWER" TO REVIEW THE ORDERS.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF
APPEALS UPON THE FIRST THREE GROUNDS AND THEREFORE AFFIRM THE
JUDGMENT. 

I. THE PROVISO OF SUBSECTION 75(S), NOTE 3 SUPRA, IS, WE THINK,
LIMITED IN ITS EFFECT TO STEPS BEFORE COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(S) WHICH PRECEDE THE PROVISO.  CONGRESS EVIDENTLY
INTENDED TO ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME FOR REFLECTION AND PREPARATION BEFORE
APPEAL BY PARTIES AGGRIEVED BY THE BASIC AND DIFFICULT FINDING OF
VALUE.  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(S) FOLLOWING THE PROVISO AUTHORIZE
ORDERS SETTING ASIDE EXEMPTIONS, LEAVING THE APPRAISED PROPERTY IN THE
HANDS OF THE DEBTOR AND FIXING RENTALS THEREFOR, STAYING JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, SELLING PERISHABLE PROPERTY, DIRECTING REAPPRAISALS AND
FINAL SALE OF THE ESTATE.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS PROVISO, COUCHED IN
TERMS OF APPEAL, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO CONTROL THE REVIEW OF
THE MANIFOLD ACTIVITIES OF A COMMISSIONER ENGAGED IN HANDLING AN ESTATE
THROUGH THREE OR MORE YEARS OF BANKRUPTCY.  TO HOLD THE PROVISO
GENERALLY APPLICABLE WOULD LEAVE UNREGULATED REVIEWS OF ORDERS ENTERED
MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE COMMISSIONER APPROVES THE APPRAISAL. 
THE SECTION APPLICABLE TO THESE REVIEWS IS SEC. 39(C).  FN4 

II.  THE PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDERS OF AUGUST
13, 1940, AND SEPTEMBER 7, 1940, WHICH WERE FILED NOVEMBER 28, 1940,
AND OCTOBER 9, 1940, NO EXTENSION HAVING BEEN GRANTED, WERE OUT OF TIME
UNDER SEC. 39(C)  FN5  UNLESS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PETITIONER'S
CONTENTIONS, THE TIME FOR REVIEW WAS TO RUN FROM THE ENTRY OF THE
ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER DENYING THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING OF THE
ORDER OF AUGUST 13, WHICH PETITION WAS FILED SEPTEMBER 16, 1940, AND OF
THE ORDERS OF SEPTEMBER 7, WHICH PETITION WAS FILED SEPTEMBER 20,
1940.  THESE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER DENYING THE PETITIONS FOR
REHEARING WERE ENTERED NOVEMBER 28, 1940, AND SEPTEMBER 30, 1940. 

WHERE A PETITION FOR REHEARING OF A REFEREE'S ORDER IS PERMITTED TO
BE FILED, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR A PETITION FOR REVIEW,
AND DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AS HERE, THEY
MAY BE ACTED ON,  FN6  THAT IS, THEY MAY BE GRANTED "BEFORE RIGHTS HAVE
VESTED ON THE FAITH OF THE ACTION," AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL
ORDER MAY BE REEXAMINED.  WAYNE GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 300 U.S.
131, 137.  FN7  WHEN SUCH A PETITION FOR REHEARING IS GRANTED AND THE
ISSUES OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER ARE REEXAMINED AND AN ORDER IS ENTERED,
EITHER DENYING OR ALLOWING A CHANGE IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER, THE TIME FOR
REVIEW UNDER 39(C) BEGINS TO RUN FROM THAT ENTRY.  BOWMAN V. LOPERENA,
311 U.S. 262, 266; WAYNE GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 300 U.S. 131,
137-8.  THE REASON FOR TAKING THE LATER DATE FOR BEGINNING THE RUNNING
OF THE TIME FOR REVIEW IS THAT THE OPENING OF THE EARLIER ORDER BY THE
COURT PUTS THE BASIS OF THAT EARLIER ORDER AGAIN IN ISSUE.  A REFUSAL
TO MODIFY THE ORIGINAL ORDER, HOWEVER, REQUIRES THE APPEAL TO BE FROM
THE ORIGINAL ORDER, EVEN THOUGH THE TIME IS COUNTED FROM THE LATER
ORDER REFUSING TO MODIFY THE ORIGINAL.  AN APPEAL DOES NOT LIE FROM THE
DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR REHEARING.  CONBOY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 203
U.S. 141, 145; BOWMAN V. LOPERENA, 311 U.S. 262, 266; BROCKETT V.
BROCKETT, 2 HOW.  238; ROEMER V. BERNHEIM, 132 U.S. 103; JONES V.
THOMPSON, 128 F.2D 888; MISSOURI V. TODD, 122 F.2D 804. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE OUT OF TIME PETITIONS FOR REHEARING ARE
FILED AND THE REFEREE OR COURT MERELY CONSIDERS WHETHER THE PETITION
SETS OUT, AND THE FACTS - IF ANY ARE OFFERED - SUPPORT, GROUNDS FOR
OPENING THE ORIGINAL ORDER AND DETERMINES THAT NO GROUNDS FOR A
REEXAMINATION OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER ARE SHOWN, THE HEARING UPON OR
EXAMINATION OF THE GROUNDS FOR ALLOWING A REHEARING DOES NOT ENLARGE
THE TIME FOR REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER.  THIS RESULT FOLLOWS FROM
THE WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE THAT WHERE AN UNTIMELY PETITION FOR REHEARING
IS FILED WHICH IS NOT ENTERTAINED OR CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS THE TIME
TO APPEAL FROM THE ORIGINAL ORDER IS NOT EXTENDED.  FN8 

IF A CONSIDERATION OF THE REASONS FOR ALLOWING A REHEARING OUT OF
TIME WHICH ARE BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE PETITION FOR REHEARING WERE
SUFFICIENT TO RESURRECT THE ORIGINAL ORDER, THE MERE FILING OF AN OUT
OF TIME PETITION WOULD BE ENOUGH.  OF COURSE, THE COURT MUST EXAMINE
THE PETITION TO SEE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE GRANTED.  INDEED THE
EXAMINATION GIVEN A MOTION TO FILE SUCH A PETITION MIGHT JUST AS WELL
BE SAID TO JUSTIFY THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE TIME FOR REVIEW.  IT IS QUITE
TRUE THAT IN A PETITION FOR REVIEW UPON THE GROUND OF ERROR IN LAW IN
THE ORIGINAL ORDER, THE EXAMINATION OF THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING IS EQUIVALENT TO A REEXAMINATION OF THIS BASIS OF THE
ORIGINAL DECREE.  BUT IN SUCH A CASE THE ORDER ON THE PETITION FOR
REVIEW WOULD CONTROL.  IT WOULD SHOW EITHER A REFUSAL TO ALLOW THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING OR A REFUSAL TO MODIFY THE ORIGINAL ORDER.  CF.
WAYNE GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 300 U.S. 131, 137-38.  WHETHER
TIME FOR APPEAL WOULD BE ENLARGED OR NOT WOULD DEPEND UPON WHAT THE
ORDER SHOWED THE COURT DID. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS QUITE PLAIN THE DENIAL WAS GROUNDED UPON A
FAILURE OF THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING TO ESTABLISH ADEQUATE GROUNDS
FOR THE REEXAMINATION OF THE ORIGINAL ORDERS.  THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING OF THE ORDER OF AUGUST 13, RELATING TO RENT, SOUGHT TO
PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE RENTAL FIXED WAS TOO HIGH, RAISED A QUESTION
OF LAW THAT A FULL THREE YEARS STAY WAS NOT ALLOWED AND ALLEGED A LACK
OF REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL.  A MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING AS OUT OF TIME WAS DENIED.  THE COMMISSIONER EXAMINED THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND DETERMINED THAT THE DEBTOR HAD HAD FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING AND THAT THE STAY
WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEBTOR'S MOTION AND THAT COUNSEL FOR THE
DEBTOR APPEARED AT EACH HEARING AND KNEW OF EACH ORDER.  HE THEREFORE
CONCLUDED "THAT THERE IS NO EQUITY OR MERIT IN THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING" AND DENIED THE PETITION.  THE PETITION FOR REHEARING OF THE
ORDERS OF SEPTEMBER 7 WAS SIMILARLY HANDLED.  THEY WERE ORDERS FOR
SALES OF PERISHABLE PROPERTY, SEC. 75(S)(2), STIPULATED TO BE
PERISHABLE BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR.  REHEARING WAS SOUGHT BECAUSE OF
LACK OF REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL AND LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ORDERS. 
THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION ON THE PETITION FOR REHEARING SETS OUT THE
RECORD FACTS SHOWING REPRESENTATION AND NOTICE.  WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE
THAT THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT REEXAMINE THE BASIS OF ANY OF THE
ORIGINAL ORDERS AND THAT TIME FOR FILING THE PETITIONS FOR REVIEW WAS
NOT EXTENDED. 

III.  SINCE THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING, IN OUR OPINION, DID NOT
EXTEND THE TIME FOR REVIEW, WE ARE BROUGHT TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION AS
TO WHETHER SEC. 39(C), SUPRA NOTE 2, IS A LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT TO ACT OR ON THE RIGHT OF A PARTY TO SEEK REVIEW. 
COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY ARE COURTS OF EQUITY WITHOUT TERMS. 
COMMISSIONERS, LIKE REFEREES, MASTERS AND RECEIVERS, SUPERVISE ESTATES
UNDER THE EYES OF THE COURT WITH THEIR ORDERS SUBJECT TO ITS REVIEW. 
THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF REHABILITATION, REORGANIZATION OR LIQUIDATION IS
OPEN TO REEXAMINATION OUT OF TIME BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IN ITS
DISCRETION, AND SUBJECT TO INTERVENING RIGHTS.  CF. WAYNE GAS CO. V.
OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 300 U.S. 131, 137; BOWMAN V. LOPERENA, 311 U.S.
262, 266. 

PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF 39(C), GENERAL ORDER IN BANKRUPTCY NO.
XXVII,  FN9  NOW ABROGATED, FN10  GOVERNED REVIEW OF REFEREES' ORDERS
BUT IT PRESCRIBED NO TIME LIMITATIONS.  IT WAS HELD THAT PETITIONS
SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.  FN11  SOME LOCAL COURT RULES
THEREFORE SPECIFIED TIME LIMITATIONS.  WHERE SUCH RULES IMPOSED
DEFINITE LIMITS ON THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A PETITION FOR REVIEW COULD BE
FILED, WITH EXTENSIONS TO BE GRANTED ON CAUSE SHOWN, OUT OF TIME
PETITIONS NEVERTHELESS WERE ENTERTAINED AND CONSIDERED IF CAUSE WAS
SHOWN.  FN12 

PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW OF A REFEREE'S ORDER IN THE INTEREST OF CERTAINTY
AND UNIFORMITY BUT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY REVEALS NO INTENTION TO
CHANGE THE PREEXISTING RULE AS TO POWER.  FN13  INDEED, THE CHANDLER
ACT BY THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 2(10)  FN14  SOUGHT TO CONFORM THE ACT TO
THE PREVAILING PRACTICE AS TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S EXERCISE OF ITS
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER REFEREES' ORDERS.  FN15  WE DO NOT THINK
SEC. 39(C) WAS INTENDED TO BE A LIMITATION ON THE SOUND DISCRETION OF
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO PERMIT THE FILING OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD.  THE POWER IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO
REVIEW ORDERS OF THE REFEREE IS UNQUALIFIEDLY GIVEN IN SEC. 2(10).  THE
LANGUAGE QUOTED FROM SEC. 39(C) IS RATHER A LIMITATION ON THE "PERSON
AGGRIEVED" TO FILE SUCH A PETITION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.  FN16 

THE REVIEW OUT OF TIME OF THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDERS IS THEN A MATTER
FOR THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  AS THAT COURT WAS OF THE
OPINION IT WAS "WITHOUT JURISDICTION" BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 39(C), ITS
DISCRETION WAS NOT EXERCISED.  HOWEVER, AS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE
PETITIONS FOR REHEARING WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE FACTS JUSTIFYING
A REEXAMINATION OF THE BASES FOR THE ORDERS OF AUGUST 13 AND SEPTEMBER
7, 1940, AND NO OTHERS ARE ALLEGED, AND THAT THEREFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ENTERED INTO AN OUT OF TIME REVIEW OF THESE
ORIGINAL ORDERS, THERE IS NO REASON FOR A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENTS. 
THE COMMISSIONER UPHELD THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AGAINST A MOTION TO
DISMISS BECAUSE THEY WERE OUT OF TIME.  HE THEREUPON HEARD AND PASSED
UPON THE PETITION'S MERITS AS BASES FOR REHEARINGS.  HIS REASONS FOR
REFUSING TO OPEN THE ORIGINAL ORDERS COMPLAINED OF ARE ADEQUATE AND
AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  THE APPRAISAL WAS MADE AND THE TIME OF
STAY FIXED PURSUANT TO THE DEBTOR'S MOTION, HE WAS REPRESENTED BY ONE
OR MORE COUNSEL AT EACH MEETING, HAD OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE,
AND STIPULATED TO THE PERISHABLE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY ORDERED
SOLD.  SEE THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF DIVISION II. 

IV.  ON ACCOUNT OF DEBTOR'S MOTION, REQUESTING THE RUNNING OF THE
MORATORIUM OF THREE YEARS FROM APRIL 26, 1940, THE DAY OF HIS
ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY UNDER 75(S), WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE
CORRECTNESS OF A STAY OF LESS THAN THREE YEARS UNDER OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN THIS INSTANCE IT WAS CORRECT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE REFEREE APPOINTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR HANDLING
AGRICULTURAL COMPOSITIONS IS KNOWN AS A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER. 
SEC. 75(A)-(R).  WHEN THE FARMER SEEKS BANKRUPTCY UNDER (S) THE
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER ACTS AS REFEREE.  SEC. 75(S)(4).  49 STAT.
942. 

FN2  52 STAT. 840, 858. 

WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY THEREOF OR WITHIN SUCH EXTENDED TIME AS
THE COURT MAY FOR CAUSE SHOWN ALLOW, FILE WITH THE REFEREE A PETITION
FOR REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER BY A JUDGE AND SERVE A COPY OF SUCH PETITION
UPON THE ADVERSE PARTIES WHO WERE REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING.  ...  " 

FN3  49 STAT. 942, 943. 

MAJORITY IN NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF ALL CREDITORS WHOSE CLAIMS ARE
AFFECTED BY A COMPOSITION AND/OR EXTENSION PROPOSAL, OR IF HE FEELS
AGGRIEVED BY THE COMPOSITION AND/OR EXTENSION, MAY AMEND HIS PETITION
OR ANSWER, ASKING TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT.  SUCH FARMER MAY, AT THE
SAME TIME, OR AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST HEARING, PETITION THE COURT THAT
ALL OF HIS PROPERTY, WHEREVER LOCATED, WHETHER PLEDGED, ENCUMBERED, OR
UNENCUMBERED, BE APPRAISED, AND THAT HIS UNENCUMBERED EXEMPTIONS, AND
UNENCUMBERED INTEREST OR EQUITY IN HIS EXEMPTIONS, AS PRESCRIBED BY
STATE LAW, BE SET ASIDE TO HIM, AND THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN
POSSESSION, UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT, OF ANY PART
OR PARCEL OR ALL OF THE REMAINDER OF HIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING HIS
ENCUMBERED EXEMPTIONS, UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, SHALL DESIGNATE AND APPOINT APPRAISERS, AS
PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT.  SUCH APPRAISERS SHALL APPRAISE ALL OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR, WHEREVER LOCATED, AT ITS THEN FAIR AND
REASONABLE MARKET VALUE.  THE APPRAISALS SHALL BE MADE IN ALL OTHER
RESPECTS WITH RIGHTS OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND APPEALS, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ACT:  PROVIDED, THAT IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS
WITHIN FOUR MONTHS FROM THE DATE THAT THE REFEREE APPROVES THE
APPRAISAL." 

SIX OTHER SUBDIVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (S) FOLLOW, NUMBERED (1) TO (6)
INCLUSIVE, AND RELATE CHIEFLY TO PROCEEDINGS AFTER APPRAISAL. 

FN4  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PROVISO INDICATES THE SOUNDNESS
OF THIS CONCLUSION.  IT APPEARS FIRST IN THE EARLIER SUBSECTION (S), 48
STAT. 1289, WHICH WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK
LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555.  THE PRECEDING PROVISIONS WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE PRESENT ONES BUT THE PROVISO READ "THAT
IN CASE OF REAL ESTATE EITHER PARTY MAY FILE OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS,
AND APPEALS WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF ORDER APPROVING APPRAISAL." 
THE SPECIFICATION OF REAL ESTATE, OF COURSE, EXCLUDED THE PROVISO FROM
ANY GENERALITY OF SCOPE.  WHEN THE SECTION WAS AMENDED AFTER THE
RADFORD CASE, THE COMMITTEE REPORTS TREATED THE PARAGRAPH OF (S), AS
QUOTED IN NOTE 3, SEPARATELY FROM THE SUCCEEDING NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS
AND THE LANGUAGE CONNOTES THE IDEA THAT THE PROVISO RELATES ONLY TO
APPEALS FROM THE APPRAISAL.  THE COMMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:  "IT PROVIDES
THAT THE REFEREE, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, SHALL DESIGNATE
AND APPOINT APPRAISERS, TO APPRAISE ALL OF THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR,
AT ITS THEN FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET VALUE.  THE APPRAISAL IS MADE IN
ALL OTHER RESPECTS, WITH RIGHTS OF OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND APPEALS,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BANKRUPTCY ACT; AND EITHER PARTY MAY FILE
OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, OR TAKE SUCH APPEALS WITHIN 4 MONTHS.  SURELY
THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY UP TO THIS POINT."  S. REP.
NO. 985, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3; H. REP. NO. 1808, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 3-4. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  SEE THE DISCUSSION IN DIVISION III OF THIS OPINION. 

FN7  WHERE A PETITION FOR REHEARING IS FILED BEFORE THE TIME FOR A
PETITION FOR REVIEW HAS EXPIRED, IT TOLLS THE RUNNING OF THE TIME, AND
LIMITATION UPON PROCEEDINGS FOR REVIEW BEGINS FROM THE DATE OF DENIAL
OF THE PETITION FOR REHEARING.  MORSE V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 151,
153-4; UNITED STATES V. SEMINOLE NATION, 299 U.S. 417, 421; GYPSY OIL
CO. V. ESCOE, 275 U.S. 498. 

FN8  BERNARDS V. JOHNSON, 314 U.S. 19, 31; BOWMAN V. LOPERENA, 311
U.S. 262, AND CASES CITED; CHAPMAN V. FEDERAL LAND BANK, 117 F.2D 321,
324. 

FN9  172 U.S. 662. 

FN10  ABROGATED JANUARY 16, 1939, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 13, 1939.  305
U.S. 681. 

FN11  AMERICAN TRUST CO. V. W.S. DOIG, INC., 23 F.2D 398; CRIM V.
WOODFORD, 136 F. 34; BACON V. ROBERTS, 146 F. 729; IN RE GRANT, 143 F.
661; IN RE FOSS, 147 F. 790.  8 REMINGTON ON BANKRUPTCY (5TH ED. 1942)
SEC. 3704. 

FN12  IN RE OAKLAND & BELGRADE SILVER FOX RANCH CO., 26 F.2D 748; IN
RE T.M. LESHER & SON, 176 F. 650; AMICK V. HOTZ, 101 F.2D 311; IN RE
WISTER, 232 F. 898, AFFIRMED 237 F. 793; SEE ROBERTS AUTO & RADIO
SUPPLY CO. V. DATTLE, 44 F.2D 159. 

FN13  H. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11; COMMITTEE
PRINT, H.R. 12889, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., 149-50. 

FN14  SECTION 2(10) GIVES THE BANKRUPTCY COURT JURISDICTION TO
"CONSIDER RECORDS, FINDINGS, AND ORDERS CERTIFIED TO THE JUDGES BY
REFEREES, AND CONFIRM, MODIFY, OR REVERSE SUCH FINDINGS AND ORDERS, OR
RETURN SUCH RECORDS WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  52
STAT. 842.  WHEREAS THE SUBSECTION FORMERLY READ "CONSIDER AND CONFIRM,
MODIFY OR OVERRULE, OR RETURN, WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, RECORDS AND FINDINGS CERTIFIED TO THEM BY REFEREES."  30
STAT. 545. 

FN15  H. REP. NO. 1409, SUPRA, P. 19; S. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG.,
3D SESS., P. 11, COMPARE COMMITTEE PRINT, H.R. 12889, SUPRA, P. 11. 

FN16  THUMMESS V. VON HOFFMAN, 109 F.2D 291; IN RE ALBERT, 122 F.2D
393; BOYUM V. JOHNSON, 127 F.2D 491, 497, SEE BIGGS V. MAYS, 125 F.2D
693, 696; IN RE LORING, 30 F.SUPP.  758, 759.  CONTRA, IN RE PFISTER,
123 F.2D 543, 548; IN RE PARENT, 30 F.SUPP.  943.  COMPARE 2 COLLIER ON
BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED. 1940) SECS. 39.16, 39.20; 8 REMINGTON ON
BANKRUPTCY, SUPRA, SEC. 3705. 
..END :






















HELVERING V. STUART, 317 U.S. 154 


NO. 49.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 16, 1942.  - 124
F.2D 772, REVERSED IN PART - AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  IN RESISTING A TAXPAYER'S PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION OF
DEFICIENCIES, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE MAY INVOKE BEFORE
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON REVIEW, AND IN THIS COURT BY
CERTIORARI, PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE LAW WHICH WERE NOT RELIED ON OR
ADDUCED IN HIS ANSWER TO THE TAXPAYER'S PETITION.  P. 159. 

2.  SECTION 166 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, IN PROVIDING THAT THE
INCOME FROM A TRUST SHALL BE TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THE GRANTOR "WHERE AT
ANY TIME THE POWER TO REVEST IN THE GRANTOR TITLE TO ANY PART OF THE
CORPUS OF THE TRUST IS VESTED IN ANY PERSON NOT HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL
ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH PART OF THE CORPUS OR THE
INCOME THEREFROM," INTENDS THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER SUCH POWER IS SO
VESTED BY THE TRUST INSTRUMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
AND LEGAL EFFECT OF THE INSTRUMENT UNDER THE STATE LAW.  P. 161. 

3.  SECTION 167 OF THE REVENUE LAW OF 1934, IN PROVIDING THAT "WHERE
ANY PART OF THE INCOME OF A TRUST MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE GRANTOR
OR OF ANY PERSON NOT HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE
DISPOSITION OF SUCH PART OF THE INCOME, BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE GRANTOR;
...  SUCH PART OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN
COMPUTING THE NET INCOME OF THE GRANTOR," INTENDS THAT WHETHER SUCH A
DISTRIBUTION IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE TRUST INSTRUMENT SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY THE STATE LAW.  UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER, UNDER THE LAW
OF ILLINOIS, IN A TRUST DEED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DONOR'S CHILDREN, A
PROVISION PURPORTING TO EMPOWER A MAJORITY OF THREE TRUSTEES (THE
DONOR'S WIFE, AND BROTHER) TO AMEND THE DEED, BY CHANGING THE
BENEFICIARIES AND IN OTHER RESPECTS, COULD BE APPLIED TO REVEST THE
PROPERTY IN THE DONOR, THIS COURT ACCEPTS THE REASONED JUDGMENT TO THE
CONTRARY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WHOSE CIRCUIT EMBRACES THAT STATE.  P.
161. 

4.  IF REASONABLY AVOIDABLE THIS COURT SHOULD NOT UNDERTAKE FIRST
INSTANCE DETERMINATIONS OF RULES OF LOCAL LAW.  P. 164. 

5.  IT WOULD NOT BE AN ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE OR EVEN AN UNLIKELY
HOLDING ON THE PART OF THE COURTS OF ILLINOIS TO CONCLUDE THAT UNDER
THE TERMS OF THE TRUSTS INVOLVED HERE, EQUITY OUGHT TO AND WOULD
PREVENT THE WIFE AND BROTHER OF THE DONOR, CLAIMING, AS TRUSTEES,
AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
INDENTURE, FROM VESTING THE PROPERTY IN THEMSELVES OR IN THE DONOR OR
IN OTHERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEMSELVES OR THE DONOR, TO THE DETRIMENT
OF THE PRESENT BENEFICIARIES.  P. 164. 

6.  ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT UNDER SUCH A TRUST DEED THE ILLINOIS LAW
FORBIDS THE VESTING OF THE RES IN THE DONOR BY ACT OF THE TRUSTEES,
WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF SEC. 166 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, SO ALSO
IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE TRUSTEES TO ACCUMULATE THE INCOME FOR
THE DONOR OR TO DISTRIBUTE IT TO HIM DIRECTLY, WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF
SEC. 167.  P. 166. 

7.  UNDER THE ILLINOIS LAW, THE POWER TO AMEND WHICH COULD NOT BE
EXERCISED BY THE TRUSTEES IN FAVOR OF THE DONOR COULD NOT BE EXERCISED
IN FAVOR OF HIS CREDITORS.  P. 166. 

8.  UNDER SECS. 22(A) AND 167 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, WHERE THERE
IS A TRUST DIRECTING AND EMPOWERING THE TRUSTEES TO DEVOTE SO MUCH OF
THE NET INCOME, AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM ADVISABLE, TO THE EDUCATION,
SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DONOR'S MINOR CHILDREN, THE POSSIBILITY
OF THE USE OF THE INCOME TO RELIEVE THE DONOR, PRO TANTO, OF HIS
PARENTAL OBLIGATION, CAUSES THE ENTIRE NET INCOME TO BE TAXABLE AS
INCOME OF THE DONOR.  DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1.  P. 167. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. R. DOUGLAS STUART.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 48, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. JOHN STUART, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 654, TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22
AND 23, 1942. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 654, TO REVIEW TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT BELOW,
REVERSING DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 42 B.T.A. 1421,
SUSTAINING DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI BRING HERE THE LIABILITY OF EACH
RESPONDENT FOR INCREASED INCOME TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1934 AND 1935.  A
DEFICIENCY WAS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR EACH YEAR BECAUSE OF
THE TAXPAYERS' FAILURE TO INCLUDE IN THEIR RETURN INCOME FROM VARIOUS
TRUSTS PREVIOUSLY CREATED BY THEM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR CHILDREN. 

THE TAXPAYERS ARE BROTHERS, RESIDENTS OF ILLINOIS.  IN 1930 JOHN
STUART, THE RESPONDENT IN NO. 48, CREATED ONE TRUST FOR EACH OF HIS
THREE CHILDREN:  JOAN, ELLEN AND JOHN.  LATER, IN 1932, R. DOUGLAS
STUART, THE RESPONDENT IN NO. 49, CREATED SUCH TRUSTS FOR EACH OF HIS
FOUR CHILDREN: ROBERT, ANNE, MARGARET AND HARRIET.  THE TRUSTS WERE
MUCH ALIKE.  THEY WERE MADE IN ILLINOIS AND SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT
THEY WERE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THAT STATE.  THE THREE CHILDREN
OF JOHN WERE ALL OF AGE BY JANUARY 1, 1934.  NONE OF THE CHILDREN OF
DOUGLAS WERE OF AGE DURING EITHER OF THE TAXABLE YEARS. 

BY THE CREATION OF THE TRUSTS, EACH TAXPAYER TRANSFERRED TO THREE
TRUSTEES CERTAIN SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY,
OF WHICH RESPONDENTS WERE RESPECTIVELY PRESIDENT AND FIRST VICE
PRESIDENT.  THE TRUSTEES NAMED IN EACH INSTRUMENT WERE THE TAXPAYER
SETTLOR, HIS WIFE AND HIS BROTHER.  THE TRUSTS CREATED BY JOHN THUS HAD
JOHN, HIS WIFE AND DOUGLAS AS TRUSTEES, AND THOSE CREATED BY DOUGLAS
HAD DOUGLAS, HIS WIFE AND JOHN AS TRUSTEES. 

THE TRUSTEES WERE GIVEN THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF "ABSOLUTE OWNERS"
OVER THE HANDLING OF THE FINANCIAL DETAILS OF THE RESPECTIVE TRUSTS. 
THEY WERE FREED FROM LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY EXCEPT SUCH AS WERE
DUE TO ACTUAL FRAUD OR WILLFUL MISMANAGEMENT. 

IN THE TRUSTS CREATED BY R. DOUGLAS STUART FOR HIS MINOR CHILDREN,
THE TRUSTEES WERE DIRECTED TO "PAY OVER TO (THE BENEFICIARY) SO MUCH OF
THE NET INCOME FROM THE TRUST FUND, OR SHALL APPLY SO MUCH OF SAID
INCOME FOR HIS EDUCATION, SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE, AS TO THEM SHALL
SEEM ADVISABLE, AND IN SUCH MANNER AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM BEST, AND FREE
FROM CONTROL OF ANY GUARDIAN, THE UNEXPENDED PORTION, IF ANY, OF SUCH
INCOME TO BE ADDED TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST FUND.  WHEN THE SAID
(BENEFICIARY) SHALL ATTAIN THE AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, THE TRUSTEES
SHALL PAY OVER AND DELIVER TO HIM ONE-HALF OF THE TRUST FUND; AND THEY
SHALL PAY OVER TO HIM IN REASONABLE INSTALLMENTS THE INCOME FROM THE
REMAINING ONE-HALF OF THE TRUST FUND UNTIL HE SHALL ATTAIN THE AGE OF
THIRTY YEARS, WHEN THEY SHALL PAY OVER AND DELIVER TO HIM THE REMAINDER
OF THE TRUST FUND." 

IN THE TRUSTS CREATED BY JOHN STUART FOR HIS ADULT CHILDREN, THE
DIRECTIONS WERE THAT THE TRUSTEES SHOULD FOR FIFTEEN YEARS "PAY OVER
AND DISTRIBUTE, IN REASONABLE INSTALLMENTS," TO THE BENEFICIARIES SO
MUCH OF THE NET INCOME "AS THEY IN THEIR SOLE DISCRETION SHALL DEEM
ADVISABLE, THE UNDISTRIBUTED PORTION OF SUCH INCOME TO BE ADDED TO AND
BECOME A PART OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST FUND."  AFTER THE FIFTEEN
YEARS, THE ENTIRE NET INCOME WAS TO BE PAID TO THE BENEFICIARY FOR AND
DURING HER LIFE. 

EACH TRUST PROVIDED FOR THE DEVOLUTION OF THE CORPUS TO THE ISSUE OF
THE BENEFICIARY NAMED IN THE INSTRUMENT, AND IN DEFAULT OF SUCH ISSUE
TO THE ISSUE OF THE DONOR, AND IN DEFAULT OF ISSUE OF EITHER TO NAMED
EDUCATIONAL OR CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. 

TWO PARAGRAPHS RELATING TO CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS ARE IMPORTANT. 
THEY WERE THE SAME IN ALL THE INSTRUMENTS AND READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"EIGHTH.  THE DONOR RESERVES AND SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME AND
FROM TIME TO TIME TO DIRECT THE TRUSTEES TO SELL THE WHOLE OF THE TRUST
FUND, OR ANY PART THEREOF, AND TO REINVEST THE PROCEEDS IN SUCH OTHER
PROPERTY AS THE DONOR SHALL DIRECT.  THE DONOR FURTHER RESERVES AND
SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME AND FROM TIME TO TIME TO WITHDRAW AND
TAKE OVER TO HIMSELF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TRUST FUND UPON FIRST
TRANSFERRING AND DELIVERING TO THE TRUSTEES OTHER PROPERTY SATISFACTORY
TO THEM OF A MARKET VALUE AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT OF THE PROPERTY SO
WITHDRAWN. 

"NINTH.  DURING THE LIFE OF THE DONOR, THE SAID (WIFE AND BROTHER OF
THE DONOR), OR THE SURVIVOR OF THEM, SHALL HAVE FULL POWER AND
AUTHORITY, BY AN INSTRUMENT IN WRITING SIGNED AND DELIVERED BY THEM OR
BY THE SURVIVOR OF THEM TO THE TRUSTEES, TO ALTER, CHANGE OR AMEND THIS
INDENTURE AT ANY TIME AND FROM TIME TO TIME BY CHANGING THE BENEFICIARY
HEREUNDER, OR BY CHANGING THE TIME WHEN THE TRUST FUND, OR ANY PART
THEREOF, OR THE INCOME, IS TO BE DISTRIBUTED, OR BY CHANGING THE
TRUSTEES, OR IN ANY OTHER RESPECT." 

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF PARAGRAPH NINTH, THE TWO TRUSTEES
AUTHORIZED IN THE TRUSTS TO MAKE CHANGES DID PROVIDE ON THE 2D AND 3D
OF AUGUST, 1935, RESPECTIVELY, FOR THE CANCELLATION AND EXPUNCTION OF
BOTH THE EIGHTH AND NINTH PARAGRAPHS, SET OUT ABOVE, AND FOR THE
SUBSTITUTION OF THE FOLLOWING IN LIEU OF THE EXPUNGED NINTH PARAGRAPH: 

"NINTH.  THIS INDENTURE AND ALL OF THE PROVISIONS THEREOF ARE
IRREVOCABLE AND NOT SUBJECT TO ALTERATION, CHANGE OR AMENDMENT." 

THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT CLAIM THAT ANY TRUST INCOME RECEIVED AFTER
THESE AMENDMENTS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TAXPAYERS. 

IN ANSWER TO THE TAXPAYER'S PETITION IN NO. 49 FOR THE
REDETERMINATION OF THE DEFICIENCIES, THE COMMISSIONER ASSERTED THE
INCREASE WAS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 22, 166, AND 167 OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680.  SECTION 22 WAS NOT RAISED BY
THE COMMISSIONER IN HIS ANSWER TO THE PETITION IN NO. 48.  BUT THE
APPLICABILITY OF THAT SECTION WAS RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER AS
APPELLEE BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (HELVERING V. GOWRAN, 302
U.S. 238, 245).  THE CONTENTION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS RESTED ON THE
FACTS STIPULATED IN THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  ON THE REJECTION OF THAT
GROUND IN THE COURT BELOW, THE COMMISSIONER WAS ENTITLED TO RAISE THE
QUESTION, AS HE DID, IN HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND RELY ON SEC. 22
IN THIS COURT.  HELVERING V. GOWRAN, IBID, 246; CF. HORMEL V.
HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552.  SO FAR AS PERTINENT THE SECTIONS ARE SET OUT
IN THE FOOTNOTE BELOW.* 

*TEXT OF STATUTES, ID., 686, 729. 

"SEC. 22.  GROSS INCOME. 

(A)  GENERAL DEFINITION.  - 'GROSS INCOME' INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY
SOURCE WHATEVER.  ... 

     .         .         .       .         . 

"SEC. 166.  REVOCABLE TRUSTS. 

WHERE AT ANY TIME THE POWER TO REVEST IN THE GRANTOR TITLE TO ANY
PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST IS VESTED - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

(2)  IN ANY PERSON NOT HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE
DISPOSITION OF SUCH PART OF THE CORPUS OR THE INCOME THEREFROM, THEN
THE INCOME OF SUCH PART OF THE TRUST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE
NET INCOME OF THE GRANTOR. 

"SEC. 167.  INCOME FOR BENEFIT OF GRANTOR. 

(A)  WHERE ANY PART OF THE INCOME OF A TRUST - 

.         .         .         .         . 

(2)  MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE GRANTOR OR OF ANY PERSON NOT
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH PART
OF THE INCOME, BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE GRANTOR; 

     .         .       .         .         . THEN SUCH PART OF THE
INCOME OF THE TRUST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME OF
THE GRANTOR." 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UPHELD THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATIONS
THAT SEC. 166 GOVERNED THE TRUSTS' INCOMES BECAUSE THE POWERS OF THE
WIFE AND BROTHER, AS TRUSTEES, UNDER THE NINTH PARAGRAPH WERE
SUFFICIENT TO REVEST THE FUNDS IN THE GRANTORS AND BECAUSE THE TRUSTEES
WERE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTERESTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED THIS DETERMINATION, STUART V. COMMISSIONER, 124 F.2D
772, ON ITS CONCLUSION THAT UNDER THE LAW OF ILLINOIS "THE WIFE AND
BROTHER AS TRUSTEES HAD NO AUTHORITY  ...  TO REVEST THE PROPERTY IN
THE GRANTOR."  THE SAME REASONING LED THE APPELLATE COURT TO SAY THAT
NEITHER SEC. 167 NOR SEC. 22 WAS APPLICABLE, EXCEPT AS TO THE INCOME OF
THE DOUGLAS STUART TRUSTS ACTUALLY USED FOR THE SUPPORT OF A MINOR
CHILD. 

THE APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIORARI WERE GRANTED BECAUSE OF DIFFERING
VIEWS IN THE COURTS OF APPEALS AS TO THE INCLUSION OF THE INCOMES OF
TRUSTS WITH SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN THE GROSS INCOMES OF THE DONORS BY
VIRTUE OF THE SECTIONS OF THE ACT RELIED UPON BY THE COMMISSIONER. 
ALTMAIER V. COMMISSIONER, 116 F.2D 162; FULHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 110
F.2D 916; WHITELEY V. COMMISSIONER, 120 F.2D 782; COMMISSIONER V. BUCK,
120 F.2D 775. 

TO REACH A DECISION AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECS. 166 AND 167 OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934(SEE FOOTNOTE, P. 159, SUPRA) TO THESE TRUSTS,
THE INSTRUMENTS MUST BE CONSTRUED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE POWER TO
REVEST TITLE TO ANY PART OF THE CORPORA IN THE GRANTORS, OR TO
DISTRIBUTE TO THEM ANY OF THE INCOME, LIES WITH ANY PERSONS NOT HAVING
A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST TO THE GRANTORS.  THAT CONSTRUCTION MUST
BE MADE IN THE LIGHT OF RULES OF LAW FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH
DOCUMENTS.  THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS CONTROLS WHAT LAW, FEDERAL OR
STATE, IS TO BE APPLIED.  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110; LYETH V.
HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 194.  SINCE THE FEDERAL REVENUE LAWS ARE DESIGNED
FOR A NATIONAL SCHEME OF TAXATION, THEIR PROVISIONS ARE NOT TO BE
DEEMED SUBJECT TO STATE LAW "UNLESS THE LANGUAGE OR NECESSARY
IMPLICATION OF THE SECTION INVOLVED" SO REQUIRES.  UNITED STATES V.
PELZER, 312 U.S. 399, 402-3.  THIS DECISION APPLIED FEDERAL DEFINITION
TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY WAS CALLED A "FUTURE
INTEREST."  WHEN CONGRESS FIXES A TAX ON THE POSSIBILITY OF THE
REVESTING OF PROPERTY OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME, THE "NECESSARY
IMPLICATION," WE THINK, IS THAT THE POSSIBILITY IS TO BE DETERMINED BY
THE STATE LAW.  GRANTEES UNDER DEEDS, WILLS AND TRUSTS, ALIKE, TAKE
ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF THE STATE LAW.  THE POWER TO TRANSFER OR
DISTRIBUTE ASSETS OF A TRUST IS ESSENTIALLY A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW. 
BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 9; FREULER V. HELVERING, 291 U.S.
35, 43-45.  FN1  CONGRESS HAS SELECTED AN EVENT, THAT IS THE RECEIPT OR
DISTRIBUTIONS OF TRUST FUNDS BY OR TO A GRANTOR, NORMALLY BROUGHT ABOUT
BY LOCAL LAW, AND HAS DIRECTED A TAX TO BE LEVIED IF THAT EVENT MAY
OCCUR.  WHETHER THAT EVENT MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR DEPENDS UPON THE
INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON THE TERMS OF THE INSTRUMENT BY STATE LAW. 
ONCE RIGHTS ARE OBTAINED BY LOCAL LAW, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE CALLED,
THESE RIGHTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF TAXABILITY. 
RECENTLY IN DEALING WITH THE ESTATE TAX LEVIED UPON THE VALUE OF
PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER, WE SAID THAT "STATE LAW CREATES
LEGAL INTERESTS AND RIGHTS.  THE FEDERAL REVENUE ACTS DESIGNATE WHAT
INTERESTS OR RIGHTS, SO CREATED, SHALL BE TAXED."  MORGAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78, 80(A CASE DEALING WITH THE TAXABILITY AT
DEATH OF PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT).  IN
THIS CASE, AS IN LYETH V. HOEY,  FN2  WE WERE DETERMINING WHAT
INTERESTS OR RIGHTS SHOULD BE TAXED, NOT WHAT INTERESTS OR RIGHTS HAD
BEEN CREATED, AND THEREFORE APPLIED THE FEDERAL RULE.  CF. BURNET V.
HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110; PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 555; HEINER
V. MELLON, 304 U.S. 271, 279; HELVERING V. FULLER, 310 U.S. 69, 74.  IN
THIS VIEW THE RULES OF LAW TO BE APPLIED ARE THOSE OF ILLINOIS.  THAT
STATE IS THE RESIDENCE OF THE PARTIES, THE PLACE OF EXECUTION OF THE
INSTRUMENT, AS WELL AS THE JURISDICTION CHOSEN BY THE PARTIES TO GOVERN
THE INSTRUMENT. 

THIS WAS THE VIEW OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  124 F.2D 772,
778.  THEIR EXAMINATION OF THE ILLINOIS LAW LED THEM TO CONCLUDE THAT
"THE WIFE AND BROTHER AS TRUSTEES HAD NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE ILLINOIS
LAW TO REVEST THE PROPERTY IN THE GRANTOR," A REQUIREMENT FOR LIABILITY
UNDER SEC. 166.  THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT SPRING FROM A STATUTE OF THAT
STATE NOR EVEN FROM A CLEAR OR SATISFYING LINE OF DECISIONS.  IT IS,
HOWEVER, THE REASONED JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT WHICH INCLUDES ILLINOIS
IN WHICH A JUDGE OF LONG EXPERIENCE IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THAT STATE
PARTICIPATED.  WITHOUT A DEFINITE CONVICTION OF ERROR IN THE
CONCLUSION, THIS COURT WILL NOT REVERSE THAT JUDGMENT.  MACGREGOR V.
STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO., 315 U.S. 280.  CF. REITZ V. MEALEY,
314 U.S. 33, P. 39; RAILROAD COMM'N V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496, 499. 
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT ILLINOIS LAW CONTROLS.  IT SHARPLY DIFFERS AS TO THE
MEANING OF PARAGRAPH NINTH, CONSTRUED GENERALLY, AND AS TO THE ILLINOIS
RULE, BUT DOES NOT URGE THAT A FEDERAL RULE OF INTERPRETATION APPLIES. 

THE SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT HELVERING V. FITCH, 309 U.S. 149, 156;
HELVERING V. FULLER, 310 U.S. 69; HELVERING V. LEONARD, ID. 80; AND
PEARCE V. COMMISSIONER, 315 U.S. 543, REQUIRE DETERMINATION BY THIS
COURT OF THE ILLINOIS LAW.  IN EACH OF THESE CASES, AFTER COURTS OF
APPEALS HAD GIVEN THEIR OPINION OF THE LAW OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES ON
THE POWER OF THE STATE COURTS TO ALTER OR REVISE PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS
IN JUDGMENTS OF DIVORCE, WE REVIEWED THE STATE DECISIONS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE HUSBAND OR WIFE WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM
UPON THE INCOME FROM THE SETTLEMENTS.  THIS DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE
HUSBAND COULD SHOW CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY UNDER THE STATE LAW THAT
THE SETTLEMENT INCOME WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE WIFE PURSUANT TO HIS
CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT OR WHETHER THE WIFE COULD RAISE DOUBTS
AND UNCERTAINTIES AS TO THE PROPER CONCLUSION.  PEARCE V. COMMISSIONER,
SUPRA, 547. 

IT IS TRUE WE EXAMINED THE STATE CASES TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABLE
STATE LAW, BUT WE DID IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE
TAXPAYERS HAD MET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE WRONG IN ASSESSING DEFICIENCIES AGAINST THEM.  WE COULD DO THE
SAME HERE BUT WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE FINDING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
ON ILLINOIS LAW IS A DETERMINATION THAT MEETS THAT BURDEN.  A
REQUIREMENT OF A DEMONSTRATION OF STATE LAW, "CLEARLY AND
CONVINCINGLY," MAY WELL NECESSITATE A REVIEW OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS, WHILE A REQUIREMENT OF A FINDING, AS HERE, OF THE
ULTIMATE FACT AS TO THE LAW WOULD NOT.  IF REASONABLE AVOIDABLE WE
SHOULD CERTAINLY AVOID BECOMING A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF THE VARIED RULES OF LOCAL LAW PREVAILING IN THE FORTY
EIGHT STATES.  NOR DO WE SEE ANY REASON WHY WE SHOULD PREFER THE VIEW
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CONCERNING ILLINOIS LAW TO THAT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN WHICH ILLINOIS IS EMBRACED. 

ONE CANNOT SAY THAT IT WOULD BE AN ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE OR EVEN
AN UNLIKELY HOLDING ON THE PART OF THE COURTS OF ILLINOIS TO CONCLUDE
THAT, UNDER THE TERMS OF THESE TRUSTS, EQUITY OUGHT TO AND WOULD
PREVENT THE WIFE AND BROTHER OF THE DONOR, CLAIMING AUTHORITY UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH NINE OF THE INDENTURE, FROM VESTING THE
PROPERTY IN THEMSELVES OR IN THE DONOR OR IN OTHERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THEMSELVES OR THE DONOR, TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PRESENT
BENEFICIARIES.  TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTRUCTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS
CITES FRANK V. FRANK, 305 ILL. 181, 187, 137 N.E. 151, 152.  IN THAT
CASE THERE WAS A DEED FOR A LIFE ESTATE IN REALTY WITH VESTED REMAINDER
TO OTHERS, WITH "FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY" TO THE LIFE TENANT TO SELL
THE PREMISES BY HER SOLE DEED.  THE LIFE TENANT SOLD THE FEE FOR LIFE
SUPPORT, A CONSIDERATION NECESSARILY USABLE BY THE LIFE TENANT ALONE. 
THE POWER WAS CONSTRUED AS APPLICABLE TO THE LIFE ESTATE ALONE AND ITS
USE UNAUTHORIZED FOR THE FEE.  IN ROCK ISLAND BANK V. RHOADS, 353 ILL.
131, 142, 187 N.E. 139, 141, THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE CONSTRUED
THE AUTHORITY OF A LIFE TENANT TO USE AND DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY AS
MAY "IN HER JUDGMENT BE NECESSARY FOR HER COMFORT AND SATISFACTION IN
LIFE" TO STOP SHORT OF PERMITTING HER TO ADD ANY OF THE LIFE ESTATE
PROPERTY TO BUILD UP HER OWN SEPARATE ESTATE.  FOR THE AUTHORITY OF
COURTS OF EQUITY IN ILLINOIS OVER TRUSTEES, THERE ARE CITED CASES
ESTABLISHING THEIR GENERAL POWER TO REQUIRE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INTENT OF THE DONOR.  MAGUIRE V. CITY OF MACOMB, 293 ILL. 441, 453,
127 N.E. 682; JONES V. JONES, 124 ILL. 254, 262, 264, 15 N.E. 751;
WELCH V. CALDWELL, 226 ILL. 488, 495, 498, 80 N.E. 1014. 

THE COMMISSIONER CITES NO ILLINOIS CASES WHICH BRING US TO A
CONVICTION OF ERROR ON THE PART OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  PEOPLE V.
KAISER, 306 ILL. 313, 137 N.E. 826, GOES NO FURTHER THAN TO SAY A
RESIDUARY ESTATE BEQUEATHED TO A TRUSTEE FOR GIFTS TO SUCH CHARITABLE
INSTITUTIONS OR NEEDY PERSONS AS THE TRUSTEE DEEMS DESERVING WILL BE
ENFORCED BY THE COURTS.  IT ALSO SEEMS THAT IN ILLINOIS A GENERAL POWER
OF APPOINTMENT IS EXERCISABLE IN FAVOR OF THE DONEE OR HIS CREDITORS. 
ID., 317; GILMAN V. BELL, 99 ILL. 144, 149; BOTZUM V. HAVANA NATIONAL
BANK, 367 ILL. 539, 543, 12 N.E.2D 203.  BUT EVIDENTLY THE COURT OF
APPEALS DOES NOT CONSIDER THAT THESE TRUSTEES UNDER ILLINOIS LAW HAVE
THE POWER TO VEST THIS PROPERTY IN THEMSELVES.  SUCH A RESULT FOLLOWS
FROM THEIR VIEW THAT THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE VESTED IN THE GRANTORS. 
CONSEQUENTLY, THIS POWER OF THE TRUSTEES IS NOT A GENERAL POWER BUT A
POWER IN TRUST EXERCISABLE AS FIDUCIARIES TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF
THE TRUST.  WE THEREFORE DO NOT NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER IF THEY COULD
VEST THE PROPERTY IN THEMSELVES THEY WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST ADVERSE TO
THE GRANTOR.  WITHOUT THAT POWER THEIR INTEREST CERTAINLY IS NOT
ADVERSE.  CF. REINECKE V. SMITH, 289 U.S. 172, 174. 

THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER, UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, THE TRUSTEES'
AUTHORITY UNDER PARAGRAPH NINE OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENTS "TO ALTER,
CHANGE OR AMEND THIS INDENTURE AT ANY TIME AND FROM TIME TO TIME BY
CHANGING THE BENEFICIARY HEREUNDER  ...  OR IN ANY OTHER RESPECT," GOES
SO FAR AS TO PERMIT THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE DONOR FOR THE
BENEFICIARIES.  WOULD THE TRUSTEES WITH AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE TERMS
AND "THE TIME WHEN THE TRUST FUND  ...  IS TO BE DISTRIBUTED" BE
PERMITTED TO REVOKE THE TRUST AND THUS VEST THE CORPUS IN THE DONOR. 
THESE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND WE ACCEPT THAT CONCLUSION.  THESE TRUSTS, THEREFORE, STAND AS
THOUGH AN ILLINOIS STATUTE OR A PROVISION OF THE INSTRUMENTS FORBADE
ASSIGNMENTS OF ANY OF THE CORPORA OR OF THE INCOME TO THE GRANTORS
EXCEPT AS MAY BE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY THEIR TERMS.  THE EXCEPTION
IS OF IMPORTANCE IN EXAMINING THE TRUSTS' PROVISIONS FOR THE MINOR
CHILDREN OF DOUGLAS STUART. 

ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ILLINOIS LAW FORBIDS THE VESTING OF THE
TRUST RES IN THE TAXPAYERS UNDER SEC. 166, IT WOULD ALSO BE IMPOSSIBLE
FOR THE TRUSTEES TO ACCUMULATE THE INCOME FOR OR TO DISTRIBUTE IT TO
THE GRANTOR DIRECTLY SO AS TO COME WITHIN SEC. 167.  124 F.2D 772,
778.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE CONTENTION THAT THE DONORS ARE TAXABLE, AS
DIRECT BENEFICIARIES, BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 167 ALONE, MUST
FAIL.  COULD IT BE, HOWEVER, THAT THE DONORS WERE TAXABLE UNDER SEC.
167 BECAUSE THE TRUSTEES COULD CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUSTS
TO THE CREDITORS OF THE DONORS OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON AND THEREBY
RELIEVE THE DONOR OF A LEGAL OBLIGATION?  ASSUMING THAT SUCH A CHANGE
WOULD RESULT IN A DISTRIBUTION TO THE GRANTOR UNDER SEC. 167 AND
DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1, THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ON
ILLINOIS LAW FORBIDS SUCH A DISTRIBUTION FROM THESE TRUSTS.  A DECISION
THAT A DONOR CANNOT TAKE FROM A TRUST UNDER STATE LAW CERTAINLY
PROHIBITS A CHANGE OF THE INSTRUMENT SO AS TO RELIEVE THE DONOR OF
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. 

THE COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER, RAISED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND HAS
PRESSED HERE THE LIABILITY OF THE DONORS FOR TAXATION UNDER 22(A), SEE
FOOTNOTE, P. 159, ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRUST INCOMES ARE CHARGEABLE
TO THE DONORS UNDER THE RULE OF HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331. 
THAT IS, WHETHER AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TRUST THE GRANTOR MAY
STILL BE TREATED AS THE OWNER OF THE CORPUS AND THEREFORE TAXABLE ON
ITS INCOME.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IF EACH OF THE TRUST INCOMES IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DONORS UNDER THIS RULE, THEY BECOME A PART OF THE
PRESENT TAXPAYERS' INCOME UNDER SEC. 167(A)(1) AND (2) ALSO.  THIS
LEADS US TO CONSIDER BOTH SEC. 22(A) AND SEC. 167, AND THEIR INTERPLAY
ON ONE ANOTHER, TOGETHER. 

ENACTED ESPECIALLY TO PREVENT AVOIDANCE OF SURTAX BY THE TRUST DEVICE,
WHEN THE INCOME REALLY REMAINED IN SUBSTANCE AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE
SETTLOR.  S.REP.  NO. 665, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 34-35.  IT IS TO
BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
FEDERAL REVENUE.  UNITED STATES V. HODSON, 10 WALL.  395, 406; UNITED
STATES V. PELZER, 312 U.S. 399, 403.  OF COURSE, WHERE THE SETTLOR OR
DONOR IS NOT ACTUALLY OR IN SUBSTANCE A PRESENT OR POSSIBLE BENEFICIARY
OF THE TRUST, HE ESCAPES THE SURTAX BY A GIFT IN TRUST.  REVENUE ACT OF
1934, SECS. 161 TO 168, SUPPLEMENT E, 48 STAT. 727.  CF. HELVERING V.
FULLER, 310 U.S. 69, 74.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A LEGISLATIVE RULE, WE HAVE
LEFT TO THE PROCESS OF REPEATED ADJUDICATIONS THE LINE BETWEEN "GIFTS
OF INCOME-PRODUCING PROPERTY AND GIFTS OF INCOME FROM PROPERTY OF WHICH
THE DONOR REMAINS THE OWNER, FOR ALL SUBSTANTIAL AND PRACTICAL
PURPOSES."  HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, 312 U.S. 579, 583. 

IN THE JOHN STUART TRUSTS, THE TRUSTEES, IN THEIR DISCRETION, WERE TO
DISTRIBUTE INCOME TO THE NAMED BENEFICIARIES FOR FIFTEEN YEARS AND
THEREAFTER TO DISTRIBUTE THE ENTIRE NET INCOME.  IN THE DOUGLAS STUART
TRUSTS, THE DIRECTIONS AUTHORIZED DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION TO THE
BENEFICIARIES OR ITS APPLICATION TO THEIR EDUCATION, SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE UNTIL THE CHILDREN REACHED THE AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. 
UNDISTRIBUTED PORTIONS OF THE INCOME WERE TO BE ADDED TO THE CORPUS. 
PLAINLY, THESE DISTRIBUTIONS OR ACCUMULATIONS WERE TO BE USED FOR THE
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE OF THE CHILDREN OF THE SETTLORS AND TO THE AMOUNT OF
THESE DISTRIBUTIONS AND ACCUMULATIONS WOULD SATISFY THE NORMAL DESIRE
OF A PARENT TO MAKE GIFTS TO HIS CHILDREN.  IS THIS ALONE SUFFICIENT TO
MAKE THE INCOME OF THE TRUSTS TAXABLE TO THE SETTLORS? 

DISREGARDING FOR THE MOMENT THE MINORITY OF SOME OF THE
BENEFICIARIES, WE THINK NOT.  SO BROAD A BASIS WOULD TAX TO A FATHER
THE INCOME OF A SIMPLE TRUST WITH A DISINTERESTED TRUSTEE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF HIS ADULT CHILD.  NO ACT OF CONGRESS MANIFESTS SUCH AN
INTENTION.  ECONOMIC GAIN REALIZED OR REALIZABLE BY THE TAXPAYER IS
NECESSARY TO PRODUCE A TAXABLE INCOME UNDER OUR STATUTORY SCHEME.  THAT
GAIN NEED NOT BE COLLECTED BY THE TAXPAYER.  HE MAY GIVE AWAY THE RIGHT
TO RECEIVE IT, AS WAS DONE IN HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112,
HELVERING V. EUBANK, 311 U.S. 122, 125, AND HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, 312
U.S. 579.  BUT THE DONOR NEVERTHELESS HAD THE "USE (REALIZATION) OF HIS
ECONOMIC GAIN."  311 U.S. AT 117.  IN NONE OF THE CASES HAD THE
TAXPAYER REALLY DISPOSED OF THE RES WHICH PRODUCED THE INCOME.  IN
CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376, HE HAD DISPOSED OF THE RES BUT WITH A
POWER TO REVOKE AT ANY MOMENT.  THIS RIGHT TO REALIZE INCOME BY
REVOCATION AT THE SETTLOR'S OPTION OVERCAME THE TECHNICAL DISPOSITION. 
THE "NON-MATERIAL SATISFACTIONS" (GIFTS-CONTRIBUTIONS) OF A DONOR ARE
NOT TAXABLE AS INCOME.  HELVERING V. HORST.  SUPRA. 

THAT ECONOMIC GAIN FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE
NON-MATERIAL SATISFACTIONS, MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH A CONTROL OF A
TRUST SO COMPLETE THAT IT MUST BE SAID THE TAXPAYER IS THE OWNER OF ITS
INCOME.  SO IT WAS IN HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 335, 336. 
CF. HELVERING V. FULLER, 310 U.S. 69, 72 NOTE 1, 76.  SECTION 22(A), WE
HAVE SAID, INDICATED THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO USE ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF INCOME TAXATION TO THEIR "FULL MEASURE." 
HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 334; HELVERING V. MIDLAND LIFE
INS. CO., 300 U.S. 216, 223; DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1, 9; IRWIN
V. GAVIT, 268 U.S. 161, 166.  CONTROL OF THE STOCKS OF THE COMPANY OF
WHICH THE GRANTORS WERE EXECUTIVES MAY HAVE DETERMINED THE MANNER OF
CREATING THE TRUSTS.  PARAGRAPH EIGHT PERMITS RECAPTURE OF THE STOCKS
FROM THE TRUST BY PAYMENT OF THEIR VALUE.  (SEE P. 158, ANTE.)  FAMILY
RELATIONSHIP EVIDENTLY PLAYED A PART IN THE SELECTION OF THE TRUSTEES. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, BROAD POWERS OF MANAGEMENTS IN TRUSTEES, EVEN THOUGH
WITHOUT ADVERSE INTEREST, POINT TO COMPLETE DIVESTMENT OF CONTROL, AS
DOES THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF REVERSION TO THE GRANTORS.  FN3  THE
INTERLOCKING TRUSTEES WERE NOT APPOINTED SIMULTANEOUSLY.  THE TRIERS OF
FACT HAVE MADE NO FINDING UPON THIS POINT.  CF. HELVERING V. CLIFFORD,
SUPRA, 336, 338.  WHEN THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DECIDED THESE CASES
UNDER SEC. 166 IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR IT TO REACH A CONCLUSION ON
22(A) OR ITS EFFECT UPON SEC. 167.  THAT SHOULD BE DONE IN NO. 48, THE
JOHN STUART TRUSTS. 

IN NO. 49, THE R. DOUGLAS STUART TRUSTS, THE MINORITY OF EACH OF THE
BENEFICIARIES BRINGS THE INCOME FROM THE TRUSTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
167(A)(1) AND (2).  THE GRANTOR OWES TO EACH THE PARENTAL OBLIGATION OF
SUPPORT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ASSUMED THAT ALL INCOME EXPENDED WAS
USED FOR SUCH A PURPOSE UNLESS THE TAXPAYER SHOWED TO THE CONTRARY.  SO
FAR AS THE INCOME WAS USED TO DISCHARGE THIS OBLIGATION, THE SUMS
EXPENDED WERE PROPERLY ADDED TO THE TAXPAYER'S INCOME.  FN4 

AS INDICATED IN THE CASES OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CITED IN THE
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING NOTE, THE BOARD HAS RESTRICTED THE TAX LIABILITY
OF A GRANTOR OF A TRUST FOR THE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF AN INFANT
AND OTHER PURPOSES TO SUCH SUMS AS, ACTUALLY OR BY PRESUMPTION, HAVE
BEEN EXPENDED TO RELIEVE THE SETTLOR OF HIS OBLIGATIONS.  THE BOARD HAS
NOT TAXED THE WHOLE OF SUCH INCOME TO THE TAXPAYER MERELY BECAUSE A
PART COULD HAVE BEEN BUT WAS NOT USED FOR THE SUPPORT OF AN INFANT.  WE
TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW.  AMONG THESE INVOLVED PROBLEMS OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION, WE OBSERVE THE TIME-TRIED ADMONITION OF RESTRICTING THE
SCOPE OF OUR DECISION TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE US.  WE ARE NOT HERE
APPRAISING THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 167 TO CASES WHERE A WIFE IS THE
TRUSTEE OR BENEFICIARY OF THE FUNDS WHICH MAY BE USED FOR THE FAMILY
BENEFIT.  CF. SUHR V. COMMISSIONER, 126 F.2D 283, 285, WITH ALTMAIER V.
COMMISSIONER, 116 F.2D 162, AND FULHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 110 F.2D 916. 
WE ARE DEALING WITH A TRUST FOR MINORS WHERE THE TRUSTEES, WITHOUT ANY
INTEREST ADVERSE TO THE GRANTOR, HAVE AUTHORITY TO DEVOTE SO MUCH OF
THE NET INCOME AS "TO THEM SHALL SEEM ADVISABLE" TO THE "EDUCATION,
SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE" OF THE MINOR.  THE APPLICABLE STATUTE SAYS,
"WHERE ANY PART OF THE INCOME ...  MAY  ...  BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE
GRANTOR  ...  THEN SUCH PART  ...  SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE
NET INCOME OF THE GRANTOR."  UNDER SUCH A PROVISION THE POSSIBILITY OF
THE USE OF THE INCOME TO RELIEVE THE GRANTOR, PRO TANTO, OF HIS
PARENTAL OBLIGATION IS SUFFICIENT TO BRING THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THESE
TRUSTS FOR MINORS WITHIN THE RULE OF ATTRIBUTION LAID DOWN IN DOUGLAS
V. WILLCUTS. 

NO. 48 IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
REMAND TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 

NO. 49 IS REVERSED AND, FOR THE REASONS HEREIN STATED, THE DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.  NO. 48 REVERSED.  NO. 49
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE INCORPORATION OF LOCAL LAW IN FEDERAL TAX ACTS HAS BEEN
REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED.  CF. CROOKS V. HARRELSON, 282 U.S. 55(MISSOURI
REAL PROPERTY EXCLUDED FROM FEDERAL ESTATE TAX BECAUSE OF STATE RULE OF
LAW); POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101(COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS); UTERHART
V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 598, 603(LOCAL LAW OF WILLS). 

FN2  305 U.S. 188, 193, 194(EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAX OF FUNDS
RECEIVED BY AN HEIR IN COMPROMISE OF LITIGATION OVER A WILL AS AN
INHERITANCE, A RESULT CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE STATE OF PROBATE). 

FN3  CF. HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA; SUHR V. COMMISSIONER, 126 F.2D
283; WHITELEY V. COMMISSIONER, 120 F.2D 782; COMMISSIONER V. BUCK, 120
F.2D 775; FULHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 110 F.2D 916. 

FN4  DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1; COMMISSIONER V. GROSVENOR, 85
F.2D 2; BLACK V. COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 346; TIERNAN V. COMMISSIONER,
37 B.T.A. 1048, 1054; PYEATT V. COMMISSIONER, 39 B.T.A. 774, 780;
CHANDLER V. COMMISSIONER, 41 B.T.A. 165, 178; WOLCOTT V. COMMISSIONER,
42 B.T.A. 1151, 1157. 

SEE ALSO GENERAL COUNSEL'S MEMORANDUM 18972, 1937-2 CUM. BULL.  231,
233. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

I THINK JUDGMENT SHOULD GO FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN EACH CASE. 

ASSUMING, AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT DECLARES, THAT WE MUST LOOK TO
ILLINOIS LAW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRUSTEES WERE FREE TO DISTRIBUTE
TO RESPONDENTS THE TRUST INCOME WHICH THE COMMISSIONER HAS TAXED UNDER
SEC. 167 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, STILL I THINK RESPONDENTS HAVE
FAILED TO CARRY THE BURDEN WHICH RESTS ON THEM TO SHOW THAT THE
ILLINOIS LAW PREVENTS SUCH DISTRIBUTION.  THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE
TRUSTEES TO DISPOSE OF FUTURE INCOME WAS WITHOUT RESTRICTION.  THEY
WERE IN TERMS AUTHORIZED AT ANY TIME TO ALTER THE TRUST INSTRUMENT SO
AS TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARY, TO CHANGE THE TIME WHEN THE TRUST FUND OR
ANY PART OF IT OR THE INCOME WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED, OR TO CHANGE IT "IN
ANY OTHER RESPECT."  ON ITS FACE EACH TRUST GAVE TO THE TRUSTEES OTHER
THAN THE SETTLOR PLENARY POWER TO BESTOW UNDISTRIBUTED INCOME ON ANY
PERSON THEY MIGHT CHOOSE AS BENEFICIARIES, INCLUDING THE SETTLOR. 

WE ARE CITED TO NO DECISION IN THE ILLINOIS COURTS WHICH EITHER HOLDS
OR SUGGESTS THAT A POWER IN TRUST SO BROADLY PHRASED MAY NOT BE
EXERCISED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS DONOR.  EVEN THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED
RULE THAT THE DONEE OF A POWER IN TRUST MAY NOT USE IT FOR HIS OWN
BENEFIT, WHICH ILLINOIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO FOLLOW, WOULD HARDLY SUPPORT
THE CONCLUSION THAT HE COULD NOT EXERCISE IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
DONOR.  REINECKE V. SMITH, 289 U.S. 172, 176.  WE ARE WITHOUT EVEN A
SPECULATIVE BASIS IN JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OR IN REASON FOR PREDICTING
THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS WOULD FORBID SUCH AN EXERCISE OF THE
POWER. 

WHEN STATE LAW HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY DECLARED WE PAY GREAT
DEFERENCE TO THE REASONED OPINION OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, WHOSE
DUTY IT IS TO ASCERTAIN FROM ALL AVAILABLE DATA WHAT THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE WILL PROBABLY HOLD THE STATE LAW TO BE.  WICHITA ROYALTY
CO. V. CITY BANK, 306 U.S. 103; WEST V. A.T. & T. CO., 311 U.S. 223. 
BUT WE HAVE NOT WHOLLY ABDICATED OUR FUNCTION OF REVIEWING SUCH
DETERMINATIONS OF STATE LAW, MERELY BECAUSE COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE MADE
THEM. 

HERE OUR TASK IS THE EASIER BECAUSE OF THE SALUTARY RULE THAT HE WHO
ASSAILS A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ASSUMES
THE BURDEN OF SHOWING, IN POINT OF LAW AS WELL AS OF FACT, THAT THE TAX
IS UNLAWFULLY ASSESSED.  HELVERING V. FITCH, 309 U.S. 149.  THE TERMS
OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENTS BRING THEM SO PLAINLY WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF
THE TAXING STATUTE AS CONCEDEDLY TO SUBJECT RESPONDENTS TO THE TAX
UNLESS WE ARE ABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT SOME LAW OF ILLINOIS DENIES EFFECT
TO THEIR WORDS.  RESPONDENTS SUGGEST NO REASON FOR SUCH A RULE OF LAW
WHICH HAS EVER BEEN ADVANCED IN JUDICIAL OPINION, TREATISE OR
ELSEWHERE, AND THEY POINT TO NO DECISION OF THE ILLINOIS COURTS
RECOGNIZING ITS EXISTENCE.  I AM UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT IT DOES EXIST
AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT THE TAX WAS NOT PROPERLY LAID. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND THAT THE TRUST INSTRUMENTS MEANT WHAT
THEY SAID AND THAT IN THE FAMILY CIRCLE INVOLVED THEY WOULD BE CARRIED
OUT ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANING.  IT WAS HARDLY EXCESSIVE SKEPTICISM ON
THE BOARD'S PART TO CONCLUDE THAT ILLINOIS LAW WOULD NOT PREVENT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXPRESSED INTENTION.  ITS JUDGMENT OUGHT NOT
LIGHTLY TO BE DISREGARDED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :

















BRAVERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 317 U.S. 49 


NO. 43.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 9, 1942.  - 125
F.2D 283, REVERSED. 


1.  A CONVICTION UPON SEVERAL COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT, EACH CHARGING
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE A DIFFERENT PENAL PROVISION OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE LAWS, WHERE THE JURY'S VERDICT IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF BUT
A SINGLE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THOSE OFFENSES, WILL NOT SUSTAIN A
SENTENCE OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT, THE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR
A SINGLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE.  P. 52. 

2.  THE LIMITATION APPLICABLE TO A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF SEC.
37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, WHERE THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY IS TO EVADE
OR DEFEAT THE PAYMENT OF A FEDERAL TAX, IS NOT THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD
APPLICABLE GENERALLY TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES, BUT THE SIX-YEAR PERIOD
SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 3748(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 
P. 54. 

3.  A CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER THAT HIS PLEA OF FORMER JEOPARDY
SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IS NOT PASSED UPON HERE, SINCE THE EARLIER
INDICTMENT TO WHICH HE PLEADED GUILTY, AND WHICH HE ARGUES CHARGED THE
SAME OFFENSE AS THAT OF WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED IN THIS CASE, IS NOT A
PART OF THE RECORD.  P. 55. 

BRAVERMAN V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 44, WAINER V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 653, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 653, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF SENTENCES UPON
CONVICTIONS OF CONSPIRACY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE:  (1)  WHETHER A CONVICTION UPON THE
SEVERAL COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT, EACH CHARGING CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE A
DIFFERENT PROVISION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS, WHERE THE JURY'S
VERDICT IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF BUT A SINGLE CONSPIRACY, WILL
SUSTAIN A SENTENCE OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT, THE MAXIMUM
PENALTY FOR A SINGLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE, AND (2)
WHETHER THE SIX-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 3748(A) OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES ARISING UNDER SEC.
37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. 88(THE CONSPIRACY STATUTE), WHERE
THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY IS TO EVADE OR DEFEAT THE PAYMENT OF A
FEDERAL TAX. 

PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED, WITH OTHERS, ON SEVEN COUNTS, EACH
CHARGING A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT INTERNAL
REVENUE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN1  ON THE TRIAL THERE WAS EVIDENCE
FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT, FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF
TIME, PETITIONERS, WITH OTHERS, COLLABORATED IN THE ILLICIT
MANUFACTURE, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF DISTILLED SPIRITS,
INVOLVING THE VIOLATIONS OF STATUTE MENTIONED IN THE SEVERAL COUNTS OF
THE INDICTMENT.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE TRIAL, PETITIONERS RENEWED A
MOTION WHICH THEY HAD MADE AT ITS BEGINNING TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT
TO ELECT ONE OF THE SEVEN COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT UPON WHICH TO
PROCEED, CONTENDING THAT THE PROOF COULD NOT AND DID NOT ESTABLISH MORE
THAN ONE AGREEMENT.  IN RESPONSE THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTORNEY TOOK THE
POSITION THAT THE SEVEN COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT CHARGED AS DISTINCT
OFFENSES THE SEVERAL ILLEGAL OBJECTS OF ONE CONTINUING CONSPIRACY, THAT
IF THE JURY FOUND SUCH A CONSPIRACY IT MIGHT FIND THE DEFENDANTS GUILTY
OF AS MANY OFFENSES AS IT HAD ILLEGAL OBJECTS, AND THAT FOR EACH SUCH
OFFENSE THE TWO-YEAR STATUTORY PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY ON THAT THEORY.  THE
JURY RETURNED A GENERAL VERDICT FINDING PETITIONERS "GUILTY AS
CHARGED," AND THE COURT SENTENCED EACH TO EIGHT YEARS' IMPRISONMENT. 
ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 125 F.2D
283, ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS EARLIER DECISIONS IN FLEISHER V. UNITED
STATES, 91 F.2D 404 AND MEYERS V. UNITED STATES, 94 F.2D 433.  IT FOUND
THAT "FROM THE EVIDENCE MAY BE READILY DEDUCED A COMMON DESIGN OF
APPELLANTS AND OTHERS, FOLLOWED BY CONCERTED ACTION," TO COMMIT THE
SEVERAL UNLAWFUL ACTS SPECIFIED IN THE SEVERAL COUNTS OF THE
INDICTMENT.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE FACT THAT THE CONSPIRACY WAS "A
GENERAL ONE TO VIOLATE ALL LAWS REPRESSIVE OF ITS CONSUMMATION DOES NOT
GAINSAY THE SEPARATE IDENTITY OF EACH OF THE SEVERAL CONSPIRACIES."  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 653, TO RESOLVE AN ASSERTED CONFLICT OF
DECISIONS.  FN2  THE GOVERNMENT, IN ITS ARGUMENT HERE, SUBMITTED THE
CASE FOR OUR DECISION WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT THE DECISION BELOW IS
ERRONEOUS. 

BOTH COURTS BELOW RECOGNIZED THAT A SINGLE AGREEMENT TO COMMIT AN
OFFENSE DOES NOT BECOME SEVERAL CONSPIRACIES BECAUSE IT CONTINUES OVER
A PERIOD OF TIME, SEE UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, 218 U.S. 601, 607; CF.
IN RE SNOW, 120 U.S. 274, 281-3, AND THAT THERE MAY BE SUCH A SINGLE
CONTINUING AGREEMENT TO COMMIT SEVERAL OFFENSES.  BUT THEY THOUGHT
THAT, IN THE LATTER CASE, EACH CONTEMPLATED OFFENSE RENDERS THE
AGREEMENT PUNISHABLE AS A SEPARATE CONSPIRACY. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER A SINGLE AGREEMENT TO COMMIT ACTS IN VIOLATION
OF SEVERAL PENAL STATUTES IS TO BE PUNISHED AS ONE OR SEVERAL
CONSPIRACIES IS RAISED ON THE PRESENT RECORD, NOT BY THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE INDICTMENT, BUT BY THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSION AT THE TRIAL AND
HERE, REFLECTED IN THE CHARGE TO THE JURY, THAT ONLY A SINGLE AGREEMENT
TO COMMIT THE OFFENSES ALLEGED WAS PROVEN.  WHERE EACH OF THE COUNTS OF
AN INDICTMENT ALLEGES A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE A DIFFERENT PENAL
STATUTE, IT MAY BE PROPER TO CONCLUDE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS BRINGING UP THE EVIDENCE, THAT SEVERAL CONSPIRACIES ARE
CHARGED RATHER THAN ONE, AND THAT THE CONVICTION IS FOR EACH.  SEE
FLEISHER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; SHULTZ V. HUDSPETH, 123 F.2D 729,
730.  BUT IT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER TO HOLD, AS THE COURT BELOW APPEARS
TO HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE AND IN MEYERS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THAT
EVEN THOUGH A SINGLE AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO, THE CONSPIRATORS ARE
GUILTY OF AS MANY OFFENSES AS THE AGREEMENT HAS CRIMINAL OBJECTS. 

THE GIST OF THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY AS DEFINED BY THE STATUTE IS THE
AGREEMENT OR CONFEDERATION OF THE CONSPIRATORS TO COMMIT ONE OR MORE
UNLAWFUL ACTS "WHERE ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PARTIES DO ANY ACT TO EFFECT
THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY."  THE OVERT ACT, WITHOUT PROOF OF WHICH A
CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY CANNOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, MAY BE THAT OF
ONLY A SINGLE ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS AND NEED NOT BE ITSELF A CRIME. 
BANNON V. UNITED STATES, 156 U.S. 464, 468-9; JOPLIN MERCANTILE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 236 U.S. 531, 535, 536; UNITED STATES V. RABINOWICH, 238
U.S. 78, 86; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S. 239, 244.  BUT IT IS
UNIMPORTANT, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, WHETHER WE REGARD THE OVERT ACT AS A
PART OF THE CRIME WHICH THE STATUTE DEFINES AND MAKES PUNISHABLE, SEE
HYDE V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 357-9, OR AS SOMETHING APART FROM
IT, EITHER AN INDISPENSABLE MODE OF CORROBORATING THE EXISTENCE OF THE
CONSPIRACY OR A DEVICE FOR AFFORDING A LOCUS POENITENTIAE, SEE UNITED
STATES V. BRITTON, 108 U.S. 193, 204, 205; DEALY V. UNITED STATES, 152
U.S. 539, 543, 547; BANNON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 469; HYDE V. SHINE,
199 U.S. 62, 76; HYDE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 388; JOPLIN MERCANTILE
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

FOR WHEN A SINGLE AGREEMENT TO COMMIT ONE OR MORE SUBSTANTIVE CRIMES
IS EVIDENCED BY AN OVERT ACT, AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES, THE PRECISE
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE CONSPIRACY MUST BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO
THE AGREEMENT WHICH EMBRACES AND DEFINES ITS OBJECTS.  WHETHER THE
OBJECT OF A SINGLE AGREEMENT IS TO COMMIT ONE OR MANY CRIMES, IT IS IN
EITHER CASE THAT AGREEMENT WHICH CONSTITUTES THE CONSPIRACY WHICH THE
STATUTE PUNISHES.  THE ONE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE SEVERAL
AGREEMENTS AND HENCE SEVERAL CONSPIRACIES BECAUSE IT ENVISAGES THE
VIOLATION OF SEVERAL STATUTES RATHER THAN ONE. 

THE ALLEGATION IN A SINGLE COUNT OF A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEVERAL
CRIMES IS NOT DUPLICITOUS, FOR "THE CONSPIRACY IS THE CRIME, AND THAT
IS ONE, HOWEVER DIVERSE ITS OBJECTS."  FROHWERK V. UNITED STATES, 249
U.S. 204, 210; FORD V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 593, 602; UNITED STATES
V. MANTON, 107 F.2D 834, 838.  A CONSPIRACY IS NOT THE COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME WHICH IT CONTEMPLATES, AND NEITHER VIOLATES NOR "ARISES
UNDER" THE STATUTE WHOSE VIOLATION IS ITS OBJECT.  UNITED STATES V.
RABINOWICH, SUPRA, 87-9; UNITED STATES V. MCELVAIN, 272 U.S. 633, 638;
SEE UNITED STATES V. HIRSCH, 100 U.S. 33, 34, 35.  SINCE THE SINGLE
CONTINUING AGREEMENT, WHICH IS THE CONSPIRACY HERE, THUS EMBRACES ITS
CRIMINAL OBJECTS, IT DIFFERS FROM SUCCESSIVE ACTS WHICH VIOLATE A
SINGLE PENAL STATUTE AND FROM A SINGLE ACT WHICH VIOLATES TWO
STATUTES.  SEE BLOCKBURGER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 299, 301-4;
ALBRECHT V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 1, 11-12.  THE SINGLE AGREEMENT IS
THE PROHIBITED CONSPIRACY, AND HOWEVER DIVERSE ITS OBJECTS IT VIOLATES
BUT A SINGLE STATUTE, SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  FOR SUCH A
VIOLATION, ONLY THE SINGLE PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE CAN BE
IMPOSED. 

PETITIONER WAINER CONTENDS THAT HIS PROSECUTION WAS BARRED BY THE
THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 582, SINCE HE
WITHDREW FROM THE CONSPIRACY MORE THAN THREE, ALTHOUGH NOT MORE THAN
SIX, YEARS BEFORE HIS INDICTMENT.  THIS COURT, IN UNITED STATES V.
MCELVAIN, 272 U.S. 633, 638, AND UNITED STATES V. SCHARTON, 285 U.S.
518, HELD THAT THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE
GENERALLY TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES BARRED PROSECUTION FOR A CONSPIRACY TO
VIOLATE THE REVENUE ACTS, SINCE IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE EXCEPTION CREATED
BY THE ACT OF NOVEMBER 17, 1921, 42 STAT. 220, NOW SEC. 3748(A)(1) OF
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHICH PROVIDED A SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS "FOR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE DEFRAUDING OR ATTEMPTING TO
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, WHETHER BY CONSPIRACY
OR NOT."  TO OVERCOME THE EFFECT OF THESE DECISIONS, THAT ACT WAS
AMENDED, REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 288, BY THE ADDITION OF A
SECOND EXCEPTION, WHICH PROVIDED A SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS "FOR
THE OFFENSE OF WILLFULLY ATTEMPTING IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR DEFEAT
ANY TAX OR THE PAYMENT THEREOF," AND BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW
PARAGRAPH, READING AS FOLLOWS: 

"FOR OFFENSES ARISING UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, WHERE
THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY IS TO ATTEMPT IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR
DEFEAT ANY TAX OR THE PAYMENT THEREOF, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHALL
ALSO BE SIX YEARS." 

TO BE WITHIN THIS LAST PARAGRAPH IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE
CONSPIRACY HAVE AS ITS OBJECT THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE IN WHICH
DEFRAUDING OR ATTEMPTING TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IS AN ELEMENT. 
IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE CONSPIRACY INVOLVES AN ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT
THE PAYMENT OF FEDERAL TAXES, WHICH WAS AMONG THE OBJECTS OF THE
CONSPIRACY OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED.  ENLARGEMENT, TO SIX
YEARS, OF THE TIME FOR PROSECUTION OF SUCH CONSPIRACIES WAS THE
EXPRESSED PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT.  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1492, 72D CONG.,
1ST SESS., 29. 

WE DO NOT PASS UPON PETITIONER WAINER'S ARGUMENT THAT HIS PLEA OF
FORMER JEOPARDY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED, SINCE THE EARLIER
INDICTMENT TO WHICH HE PLEADED GUILTY AND WHICH HE INSISTS CHARGED THE
SAME OFFENSE AS THAT OF WHICH HE HAS NOW BEEN CONVICTED, IS NOT A PART
OF THE RECORD. 

THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WILL BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT, WHERE THE PETITIONERS WILL BE RESENTENCED IN
CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SEVEN COUNTS RESPECTIVELY CHARGED THEM WITH CONSPIRACY, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, UNLAWFULLY (1) TO CARRY ON
THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE AND RETAIL LIQUOR DEALERS WITHOUT HAVING THE
SPECIAL OCCUPATIONAL TAX STAMPS REQUIRED BY STATUTE, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
3253; (2) TO POSSESS DISTILLED SPIRITS, THE IMMEDIATE CONTAINERS OF
WHICH DID NOT HAVE STAMPS AFFIXED DENOTING THE QUANTITY OF THE
DISTILLED SPIRITS WHICH THEY CONTAINED AND EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF ALL
INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES IMPOSED ON SUCH SPIRITS, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2803;
(3) TO TRANSPORT QUANTITIES OF DISTILLED SPIRITS, THE IMMEDIATE
CONTAINERS OF WHICH DID NOT HAVE AFFIXED THE REQUIRED STAMPS, 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 2803; (4) TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF DISTILLERS WITHOUT HAVING
GIVEN BOND AS REQUIRED BY LAW, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2833; (5) TO REMOVE,
DEPOSIT AND CONCEAL DISTILLED SPIRITS IN RESPECT WHEREOF A TAX IS
IMPOSED BY LAW, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OF SUCH TAX,
26 U.S.C. SEC. 3321; (6) TO POSSESS UNREGISTERED STILLS AND DISTILLING
APPARATUS, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2810; AND (7) TO MAKE AND FERMENT MASH, FIT
FOR DISTILLATION, ON UNAUTHORIZED PREMISES, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 2834. 

FN2  COMPARE THE DECISION BELOW AND THOSE IN BEDDOW V. UNITED STATES,
70 F.2D 674, 676(C.C.A.8TH); YENKICHI ITO V. UNITED STATES, 64 F.2D 73,
77(C.C.A.9TH); AND OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 19 F.2D 842,
847(C.C.A.9TH), WITH THOSE IN UNITED STATES V. MAZZOCHI, 75 F.2D 497,
498(C.C.A. 2ND); SHORT V. UNITED STATES, 91 F.2D 614, 622(C.C.A.4TH);
POWE V. UNITED STATES, 11 F.2D 598, 599(C.C.A.5TH); AND UNITED STATES
V. ANDERSON, 101 F.2D 325, 333(C.C.A.7TH). 
..END :























U.S. V. CALLAHAN WALKER CO., 317 U.S. 56 


NO. 65.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 9, 1942.  - 95
CT.CLS.  314, REVERSED. 


UNDER THE GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT HERE INVOLVED, AN
"EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT" FOR THE EXTRA WORK PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR
REQUIRED MERELY THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE COST OF DIGGING, MOVING, AND
PLACING EARTH, AND OF A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR PROFIT.  THESE WERE
QUESTIONS OF FACT; AND, IF THEY WERE ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED BY THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER, THE CONTRACTOR'S REMEDY WAS BY APPEAL TO THE HEAD
OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED, AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 15 OF THE
CONTRACT.  P. 61. 

UNITED STATES V. CALLAHAN WALKER CONSTRUCTION CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 656, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES IN A SUIT BY A CONTRACTOR UPON A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE TERMS OF A
STANDARD FORM OF GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY BE SUMMARIZED.  IN 1931 THE
WAR DEPARTMENT ASKED BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LEVEE ON THE EAST
SIDE OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.  THE RESPONDENT BID 14.43[ A CUBIC YARD
ON A SECTION OF THE WORK INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 3,881,600 CUBIC YARDS
OF EARTHWORK.  A PARAGRAPH OF THE SPECIFICATIONS RESERVED THE RIGHT TO
MAKE SUCH CHANGES IN THE WORK CONTEMPLATED AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY OR
EXPEDIENT TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE CONTRACT OR TO MEET
UNANTICIPATED CONDITIONS, BUT ADDED THAT NO SUCH MODIFICATION WOULD BE
THE BASIS FOR A CLAIM FOR EXTRA COMPENSATION EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE
REGULAR FORM OF CONTRACT TO BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 

THE RESPONDENT BEGAN CONSTRUCTION AT THE SOUTH END OF THE PROJECT AND
PROCEEDED NORTHWARD.  THE LENGTH OF THE PROPOSED LEVEE WAS DIVIDED BY
STATIONS ONE HUNDRED FEET APART AND NUMBERED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. 
SIXTY-EIGHT PER CENT. OF THE CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN STATION 5123 AND
STATION 5113 HAD BEEN COMPLETED WHEN PORTIONS OF THE LEVEE ALREADY
CONSTRUCTED SOUTH OF STATION 5123 WERE FOUND TO HAVE A TENDENCY TO
SUBSIDE.  FOR THIS REASON THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING OFFICER, ON
OCTOBER 7, 1932, ORDERED THE WORK STOPPED BETWEEN THE TWO STATIONS
WHILE HE SOUGHT TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE SUBSIDENCE.  HE CONCLUDED
THAT THE PLACING OF AN ENLARGED FALSE BERM, NOT CALLED FOR IN THE
ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS, WOULD PREVENT SUBSIDENCE IN THE SECTOR BETWEEN
THE TWO STATIONS.  ON OCTOBER 18TH HE GAVE RESPONDENT A WRITTEN ORDER
TO CONSTRUCT SUCH A BERM; THE ORDER STATED THAT RESPONDENT WOULD BE
GIVEN ONE HUNDRED PER CENT. CREDIT FOR THE EARTH PLACED SOUTH OF
STATION 5123 WHERE THE SUBSIDENCE HAD OCCURRED, AND THAT PAYMENT FOR
ADDITIONAL YARDAGE REQUIRED BY THE FALSE BERM WOULD BE MADE AT THE
CONTRACT PRICE PER CUBIC YARD.  THE ADDITIONAL YARDAGE INVOLVED WAS
ABOUT 64,000 CUBIC YARDS.  THE WORK COVERED BY THE CHANGE ORDER WAS
NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.  THE ORDER WAS ISSUED
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT'S PROTEST THAT AN EXTRA PRICE SHOULD BE ALLOWED
AS THE ADDITIONAL WORK WOULD COST THE RESPONDENT MORE THAN 14.43[ PER
CUBIC YARD, AND THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT.  THE RESPONDENT ASSERTED IT WOULD LATER PRESENT A CLAIM FOR
EXTRA COST OCCASIONED IT BY THE ADDITIONAL WORK. 

ARTICLE 3 OF THE STANDARD FORM OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SIGNED BY THE
PARTIES PROVIDES: 

"ARTICLE 3.  CHANGES.  - THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MAY AT ANY TIME, BY
A WRITTEN ORDER, AND WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE SURETIES, MAKE CHANGES IN
THE DRAWINGS AND (OR) SPECIFICATIONS OF THIS CONTRACT AND WITHIN THE
GENERAL SCOPE THEREOF.  IF SUCH CHANGES CAUSE AN INCREASE OR DECREASE
IN THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THIS CONTRACT, OR IN THE TIME REQUIRED FOR ITS
PERFORMANCE, AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE MADE AND THE CONTRACT
SHALL BE MODIFIED IN WRITING ACCORDINGLY.  ...  ANY CLAIM FOR
ADJUSTMENT UNDER THIS ARTICLE MUST BE ASSERTED WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE
DATE THE CHANGE IS ORDERED, UNLESS THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHALL FOR
PROPER CAUSE EXTEND SUCH TIME, AND IF THE PARTIES CAN NOT AGREE UPON
THE ADJUSTMENT THE DISPUTE SHALL BE DETERMINED AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE
15 HEREOF.  BUT NOTHING PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE SHALL EXCUSE THE
CONTRACTOR FROM PROCEEDING WITH THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK SO
CHANGED." 

ARTICLE 15 PROVIDES: 

"ARTICLE 15.  DISPUTES.  - EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
IN THIS CONTRACT, ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF FACT ARISING
UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE DECIDED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OR HIS
DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO WRITTEN APPEAL BY THE
CONTRACTOR WITHIN THIRTY DAYS TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED,
WHOSE DECISION SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES THERETO
AS TO SUCH QUESTIONS OF FACT.  IN THE MEANTIME THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
DILIGENTLY PROCEED WITH THE WORK AS DIRECTED." 

THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE CONTRACTING
OFFICER TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED.  AFTER COMPLETION OF
THE WORK, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FINAL PAYMENT WAS UNDER
PROTEST.  THEREAFTER RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR ITS ADDITIONAL
COSTS OVER THE PRICE OF 14.43[ PAID IT FOR THE EXTRA WORK, AND WAS
AWARDED A RECOVERY BY THE COURT BELOW. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S DEFENSE WAS THAT, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT,
THE CONTRACTING OFFICER'S DECISION AS TO WHAT WAS AN EQUITABLE
ADJUSTMENT INVOLVED ONLY A QUESTION OF FACT, AND THAT, IF THE
RESPONDENT WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE OFFICER'S JUDGMENT, THE CONTRACT
LIMITED FURTHER RECOURSE TO AN APPEAL TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD.  THE
COURT BELOW OVERRULED THE CONTENTION BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 2, ONE OF THE
JUDGES IN THE MAJORITY WRITING A SEPARATE OPINION.  FN1  TWO OF THE
JUDGES WERE OF OPINION THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER PAID NO ATTENTION
TO ART. 3 OF THE CONTRACT, MADE NO ADJUSTMENT, AND, WITHOUT CONSIDERING
THE POSSIBILITY OF EXTRA COSTS INVOLVED IN THE EXTRA WORK, SIMPLY RULED
THAT THE CONTRACT PRICE APPLIED TO IT. 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT THIS VIEW FOR SEVERAL REASONS.  IN THE FIRST PLACE,
THERE ARE NO FINDINGS TO SUPPORT IT.  THE FINDINGS SHOW THAT THE
OFFICER GAVE THE MATTER CONSIDERATION, REACHED A DECISION ABOUT IT, AND
ISSUED THE ORDER WHICH GAVE RESPONDENT A CREDIT TO WHICH IT MIGHT NOT
HAVE BEEN ENTITLED UNDER THE CONTRACT, AND FIXED THE RATE OF 14.43[ PER
CUBIC YARD FOR THE EXTRA YARDAGE REQUIRED BY THE CHANGE IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS.  THERE ARE NO FINDINGS THAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER
FAILED TO ASCERTAIN THE PROBABLE COST OF THE NEW WORK OR THAT HE DID
NOT HONESTLY DECIDE THAT THE CONTRACT PRICE WOULD BE A FAIR ALLOWANCE
FOR THE EXTRA WORK.  IF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE OPINION AND THE
FINDINGS WERE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A REMAND FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS IS
OBVIATED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE BY CERTIFICATION OF THE EVIDENCE,
WHICH SUPPORTS THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS.  BETWEEN OCTOBER 7TH, THE
DATE OF THE STOP ORDER, AND OCTOBER 18TH, THE DATE OF THE CHANGE ORDER,
THE RESPONDENT'S OFFICIALS WERE IN TOUCH WITH THE AREA ENGINEER AND THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER, REPRESENTED THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EARTH IN
THE BORROW PIT OPPOSITE THE SECTOR IN QUESTION BUT THAT THE EARTH WOULD
HAVE TO BE BROUGHT FROM OTHER POINTS, AND THAT THE CONTRACT PRICE OF
14.43[ WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT TO COMPENSATE FOR THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE
INVOLVED.  THE GOVERNMENT'S REPRESENTATIVES DISAGREED WITH THE
CONTENTIONS.  PRIOR TO OCTOBER 18TH, HOWEVER, AFTER TALKING WITH THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER, RESPONDENT'S OFFICIALS SIGNIFIED THAT THEY WOULD
PROCEED WITH THE WORK AS ORDERED, KEEP A CAREFUL RECORD OF THE WORK
DONE AND ITS COST, AND WOULD LATER INSIST ON PAYMENT OF ANY COST
GREATER THAN THAT SPECIFIED BY THE CHANGE ORDER. 

ALL THREE JUDGES WHO WERE IN THE MAJORITY BELOW AGREED, AS AN
ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF DECISION, THAT IF WHAT THE CONTRACTING OFFICER
DID CONSTITUTED HIS NOTION OF AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT, HE WAS WRONG;
AND THE RESPONDENT WAS RIGHT IN ITS CLAIM THAT THE ADJUSTMENT MADE WAS
UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE.  TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INSISTENCE THAT THE
QUESTION WAS ONE OF FACT AND, THEREFORE, TO BE SETTLED FINALLY BY
APPEAL TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ART. 15 OF THE
CONTRACT, THE COURT BELOW REPLIED THAT THIS COURT, IN CASE V. LOS
ANGELES LUMBER CO., 308 U.S. 106, AND SECURITIES COMMISSION V. UNITED
STATES REALTY CO., 310 U.S. 434, HELD THAT WHAT CONSTITUTES AN
EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT IS NOT A QUESTION OF FACT BUT A QUESTION OF LAW. 
IN THIS VIEW THEY HELD THAT ART. 15 WAS INAPPLICABLE; THAT THE
CONTRACTING OFFICER HAVING ERRED IN HIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT
HAD THEREBY BREACHED ITS TERMS, AND THE RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED TO
SUE FOR THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE INCURRED BY THAT BREACH. 

THE DECISIONS CITED ARE NOT AUTHORITY FOR THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHAT IS
FAIR AND EQUITABLE IS ALWAYS A QUESTION OF LAW.  QUITE THE CONTRARY. 
IN SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE COURT SHOULD
CONFIRM A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION IF SATISFIED "IT IS FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" AND DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF ANY CLASS OF
CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS.  WE HELD THAT, IN THIS CONNECTION, THE
PHRASE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" HAD BECOME A TERM OF ART, THAT CONGRESS
USED IT IN THE SENSE IN WHICH IT HAD BEEN USED BY THE COURTS IN
REORGANIZATION CASES, AND THAT WHETHER A PLAN MET THE TEST OF FAIRNESS
AND EQUITY LONG ESTABLISHED BY JUDICIAL DECISION WAS NOT A QUESTION TO
BE ANSWERED BY THE CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS BUT BY THE COURT AS A
MATTER OF LAW. 

AN "EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT" OF THE RESPONDENT'S ADDITIONAL PAYMENT FOR
EXTRA WORK INVOLVED MERELY THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE COST OF DIGGING,
MOVING, AND PLACING EARTH, AND THE ADDITION TO THAT COST OF A
REASONABLE AND CUSTOMARY ALLOWANCE FOR PROFIT.  THESE WERE INQUIRIES OF
FACT.  IF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER ERRONEOUSLY ANSWERED THEM, ARTICLE 15
OF THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THE ONLY AVENUE FOR RELIEF. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  95 CT. CLS. 314. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. RICE, 317 U.S. 61 


NO. 31.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 9, 1942.  - 95
CT.CLS.  84, REVERSED. 


UNDER A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT IN A
BUILDING, THE CONTRACTOR AGREED TO COMPLETE THE WORK WITHIN THE TIME
ALLOWED UNDER ANOTHER CONTRACT, WITH ANOTHER CONTRACTOR, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING.  THE BUILDING CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR
COMPLETION WITHIN 250 DAYS AFTER NOTICE, BUT PERMITTED CHANGES IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS TO BE MADE IN THE EVENT OF DISCOVERY OF SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS OR
INDICATED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.  SHORTLY AFTER NOTICE TO BEGIN HAD
BEEN GIVEN, WORK UNDER THE BUILDING CONTRACT WAS SUSPENDED PENDING THE
MAKING OF SUCH A PERMITTED CHANGE.  HELD: 

1.  A DELAY RESULTING FROM SUCH A PERMITTED CHANGE DID NOT CONSTITUTE
A BREACH BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE EQUIPMENT CONTRACT.  P. 64. 

THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT BOUND TO HAVE THE BUILDING READY FOR THE WORK
OF THE EQUIPMENT CONTRACTOR AT A PARTICULAR TIME. 

2.  THE EQUIPMENT CONTRACTOR WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR DELAY THUS RESULTING; FOR SUCH A DELAY,
EXTENSION OF THE TIME FOR COMPLETION WAS AN "EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT"
UNDER THE CONTRACT.  P. 66. 

UNITED STATES V. RICE ET AL., RECEIVERS FOR D.C. ENGINEERING COMPANY,
INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 653, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES IN A SUIT UPON A CONTRACT.  THE ENGINEERING COMPANY, IN CHARGE
OF THE RECEIVERS, IS REFERRED TO IN THE FOLLOWING OPINION AS THE
RESPONDENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, 95 CT. CLS. 84, INTERPRETING A WIDELY USED
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN A MANNER ALLEGED TO BE IN
CONFLICT WITH THIS COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF AN ANALOGOUS CONTRACT IN
CROOK CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 4. 

RESPONDENT AGREED TO INSTALL PLUMBING, HEATING, AND ELECTRICAL
EQUIPMENT IN A VETERANS' HOME TO BE ERECTED AT TOGUS, MAINE, WHILE
ANOTHER CONTRACTOR WAS TO DO THE GENERAL WORK OF PREPARING THE SITE AND
CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING.  RESPONDENT AGREED, FOR A STIPULATED PRICE,
TO BEGIN WORK UPON NOTICE TO PROCEED AND TO FINISH BY THE TIME THE WORK
HAD BEEN COMPLETED BY THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR.  IF RESPONDENT FAILED
TO COMPLETE THE WORK WITHIN THE TIME THUS SET, THE GOVERNMENT WAS
ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT OR TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  THE LENGTH OF TIME ALLOWED THE PRINCIPAL
CONTRACTOR UNDER HIS CONTRACT, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS
DISCUSSED BELOW, WAS 250 DAYS, AND IT WAS INTO THIS SCHEDULE THAT
RESPONDENT WAS TO COORDINATE ITS OWN ACTIVITY. 

THE GOVERNMENT GAVE NOTICE TO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO BEGIN WORK ON
MAY 9, 1932.  ON MAY 12, RESPONDENT WAS NOTIFIED TO BEGIN; AND EARLY IN
JUNE ITS SUPERINTENDENT ARRIVED IN MAINE WITH TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT. 
UPON HIS ARRIVAL HE FOUND THAT THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR HAD BEEN STOPPED
BY THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THE UNEXPECTED DISCOVERY OF AN UNSUITABLE
SOIL CONDITION.  IT BECAME NECESSARY TO CHANGE THE SITE OF THE BUILDING
AND TO ALTER THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND, BECAUSE OF THE DELAY ATTENDANT
UPON PREPARING A NEW FOUNDATION, RESPONDENT WAS UNABLE TO BEGIN WORK
UNTIL OCTOBER.  AS A CONSEQUENCE, OVERHEAD EXPENSES ACCUMULATED DURING
THE PERIOD OF DELAY, AND MUCH OF THE WORK WHICH RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES
OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE DONE EITHER DURING WARM WEATHER OR AFTER THE
BUILDING WAS ENCLOSED, WAS DONE OUTSIDE IN COLD WEATHER. 

BECAUSE OF THE DELAY AND PURSUANT TO THE ADJUSTMENT CLAUSES OF THE
CONTRACT, THE GOVERNMENT EXTENDED THE TIME OF PERFORMANCE BY
RESPONDENT; AND, BECAUSE OF STRUCTURAL CHANGES, IT RE-ADJUSTED THE
AMOUNT DUE.  IT INCREASED PAYMENTS TO THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR, REDUCED
THE PAYMENT TO RESPONDENT BY ABOUT $1,000 BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION
ECONOMIES UNDER THE NEW PLANS, AND WAIVED ANY CLAIM TO LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES FOR THE PERIOD OF THE EXTENSION.  THE HOSPITAL WAS COMPLETED
SOME MONTHS AFTER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FINISHED HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE
CHANGE OF PLAN. 

THE RESPONDENT WAS PAID THE FULL AMOUNT AGREED ON FOR THE WORK IT
DID.  IT THEN SUED FOR ABOUT $26,000 FOR DAMAGES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
SUFFERED DUE TO DELAY FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS RESPONSIBLE.  THE
COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THE GOVERNMENT WAS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES RESULTING
SOLELY FROM DELAY, BUT FOUND THAT $13,600 OF THE ALLEGED LOSS WAS DUE
TO RESPONDENT'S OWN FAULTY ESTIMATE AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, AND THAT
$3,000 OF IT WAS CAUSED BY RESPONDENT'S AND THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR'S
DELAYS.  RESPONDENT SOUGHT NO REVIEW OF DENIAL OF THIS PART OF ITS
CLAIM.  HOWEVER, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE BALANCE CLAIMED, $9,349,
AROSE FROM OVERHEAD COSTS DURING THE SUMMER OF 1932 WHEN THE NEW
FOUNDATION WAS BEING PREPARED, AND FROM A DECREASE IN LABOR
EFFECTIVENESS RESULTING BECAUSE MUCH OF THE WORK HAD TO BE DONE OUTSIDE
IN COLD WEATHER.  THE JUDGMENT RENDERED UNDER THIS CONCLUSION IS WHAT
WE HAVE BEFORE US. 

THE CHIEF ISSUES OF THE CASE ARE WHETHER THE DELAY IN COMMENCING THE
CONSTRUCTION WAS A BREACH OF CONTRACT BY THE GOVERNMENT; WHETHER,
REGARDLESS OF THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO
AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE DELAY, IN
ADDITION TO THE EXTENSION OF TIME ALREADY GRANTED; AND WHETHER
RESPONDENT IS BARRED FROM ANY RECOVERY BECAUSE IT FAILED TO APPEAL
CERTAIN DECISIONS AFFECTING ITS CONTRACT TO THE CHIEF OFFICER OF THE
DEPARTMENT.  UNDER THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE FIRST TWO OF THESE
QUESTIONS, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO ANSWER THE THIRD. 

I. THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, AS IT DID IN THE CROOK CASE, SUPRA, THAT
THE CHANGE IN SPECIFICATIONS RESULTING IN DELAY WAS NOT A BREACH OF THE
CONTRACT, BUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS; THAT THE EXTENT OF ITS
OBLIGATION FOR PERMITTED CHANGES WAS FIXED BY THE CONTRACT; AND THAT
FOR DELAY THE GOVERNMENT WAS REQUIRED TO DO NO MORE THAN GRANT AN
EXTENSION OF TIME.  PUT ANOTHER WAY, THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT, IF
AN ALTERATION OF PLAN REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO USE AN EXTRA 50 TONS OF
STEEL, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE LIABLE FOR THE VALUE OF THE STEEL AND
THE COST OF INSTALLATION; BUT IT ARGUES THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS
CONTRACT AN EXTENSION OF TIME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS FULL EQUITABLE
ADJUSTMENT FOR ALL DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE FACT THAT THE WORK WAS DONE AT
THE LATER PERIOD MADE NECESSARY BY THE PERMITTED CHANGE.  ESSENTIALLY
IT REPEATS THE DOCTRINE OF CHOUTEAU V. UNITED STATES, 95 U.S. 61, 68:
"FOR THE REASONABLE COST AND EXPENSES OF THE CHANGES MADE IN THE
CONSTRUCTION, PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE; BUT FOR ANY INCREASE IN THE COST
OF THE WORK NOT CHANGED, NO PROVISION WAS MADE." 

WE AGREE WITH THIS VIEW.  WE DO NOT THINK THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
BOUND THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE CONTEMPLATED STRUCTURE READY FOR
RESPONDENT AT A FIXED TIME.  PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT SHOWED THAT THE
DATES WERE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY THE GOVERNMENT. 
THE CONTRACTOR WAS ABSOLVED FROM PAYMENT OF PRESCRIBED LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES FOR DELAY, IF IT RESULTED FROM A NUMBER OF CAUSES, INCLUDING
"ACTS OF GOVERNMENT" AND "UNUSUALLY SEVERE WEATHER."  THE GOVERNMENT
RESERVED THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES WHICH MIGHT INTERRUPT THE WORK, AND
EVEN TO SUSPEND ANY PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION IF IT WERE DEEMED
NECESSARY.  RESPONDENT WAS REQUIRED TO ADJUST ITS WORK TO THAT OF THE
GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SO THAT DELAY BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WOULD
NECESSARILY DELAY RESPONDENT'S WORK.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT
SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO REPEAT WHAT WAS SAID IN THE CROOK CASE, THAT "WHEN
SUCH A SITUATION WAS DISPLAYED BY THE CONTRACT IT WAS NOT TO BE
EXPECTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BIND ITSELF TO A FIXED TIME FOR THE
WORK TO COME TO AN END, AND THERE IS NOT A WORD IN THE INSTRUMENT BY
WHICH IT DID SO, UNLESS AN UNDERTAKING CONTRARY TO WHAT SEEMS TO US THE
IMPLICATION IS IMPLIED."  CROOK CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 6. 
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT PRIOR TO THE CROOK CASE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
CONTRACTS SUCH AS THIS DO NOT BIND THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE PROPERTY
READY FOR WORK BY A CONTRACTOR AT A PARTICULAR TIME.  WELLS BROS. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 83, 86; CHOUTEAU V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
CF. UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 94 U.S. 214, 217. 

AS POINTED OUT, THE DELAY HERE RESULTED FROM A CHANGE IN
SPECIFICATIONS MADE NECESSARY BY DISCOVERY OF SOIL UNSUITABLE FOR
FOUNDATION PURPOSES.  THE GOVERNMENT HAVING RESERVED THE RIGHT TO MAKE
SUCH CHANGES UPON DISCOVERY OF "SUBSURFACE AND (OR) LATENT CONDITIONS
AT THE SITE MATERIALLY DIFFERING FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR
INDICATED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS," DELAYS INCIDENT TO THE PERMITTED
CHANGES CANNOT AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF CONTRACT.  IF THERE ARE RIGHTS TO
RECOVER DAMAGES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES ITS RESERVED POWER TO
DELAY, THEY MUST BE FOUND IN THE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS FIXING THE
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES. 

II.  TWO OF THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THOUGHT CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM DELAY WERE RECOVERABLE UNDER PARAGRAPHS 4 AND 3
OF THE CONTRACT.  THESE PARAGRAPHS  FN1  DEAL WITH CLOSELY RELATED
PROBLEMS.  ARTICLE 3, ENTITLED "CHANGES," GOVERNS THE PROCEDURE UNDER
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY ALTER THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CONTRACT FOR
GENERAL CAUSES.  ARTICLE 4, ENTITLED "CHANGED CONDITIONS," GOVERNS THE
PROCEDURE UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY ALTER THE CONTRACT TO MEET
UNANTICIPATED PHYSICAL CONDITIONS.  ARTICLE 4 INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE
THE SAME MACHINERY OF ADJUSTMENT AS THAT SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 3.  BOTH
CLAUSES ESSENTIALLY PROVIDE THAT, IF CHANGES ARE MADE AFFECTING AN
INCREASE OR DECREASE OF COST OR AFFECTING THE LENGTH OF TIME OF
PERFORMANCE, AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE MADE. 

CLEARLY, QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION IN CLAUSES SO SIMILAR SHOULD, IF
POSSIBLE, BE RESOLVED IN THE SAME FASHION IN EACH OF THEM.  CLAUSE 4
WAS ADDED TO THE STANDARD FORM CONTRACT SINCE CLAUSE 3, AND WE
THEREFORE TURN FIRST TO DECISIONS INTERPRETING THE LATTER CLAUSE.  THE
COURT OF CLAIMS, RELYING ON PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE CHOUTEAU,
WELLS, AND CROOK CASES, SUPRA, HAS UNIFORMLY HELD THAT THE "INCREASE OR
DECREASE OF COST" LANGUAGE IN ART. 3, AND IN SIMILAR CLAUSES, IS NOT
BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE DAMAGES FOR DELAY; THAT "IT WAS NEVER
CONTEMPLATED  ...  THAT DELAYS INCIDENT TO CHANGES WOULD SUBJECT THE
GOVERNMENT TO DAMAGE BEYOND THAT INVOLVED IN THE CHANGES THEMSELVES." 
MORAN BROS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 61 CT. CLS. 73, 102; AND FOR THE SAME
VIEW, SEE MCCORD V. UNITED STATES, 9 CT. CLS. 155, 169; SWIFT V. UNITED
STATES, 14 CT. CLS. 208, 231; GRIFFITHS V. UNITED STATES, 74 CT. CLS.
245, 255. 

WERE THIS A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, WE WOULD AGAIN COME TO THE
SAME CONCLUSION REGARDING THIS CLAUSE.  IT SEEMS WHOLLY REASONABLE THAT
"AN INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT DUE" SHOULD BE MET WITH AN
ALTERATION OF PRICE, AND THAT "AN INCREASE OR DECREASE  ...  IN THE
TIME REQUIRED" SHOULD BE MET WITH ALTERATION OF THE TIME ALLOWED; FOR
"INCREASE OR DECREASE OF COST" PLAINLY APPLIES TO THE CHANGES IN COST
DUE TO THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES REQUIRED BY THE ALTERED SPECIFICATION AND
NOT TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT FLOW FROM DELAY TAKEN CARE OF
IN THE "DIFFERENCE IN TIME" PROVISION.  THE PROVISION AS TO TIME SERVES
THE LARGE PURPOSE OF REMOVING FROM PERSONS IN THE POSITION OF
RESPONDENT LIABILITY FOR "DELAY" BEYOND THE STIPULATED DATE FOR WHICH
THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE THEIR CONTRACT TERMINATED OR MIGHT BE
REQUIRED TO PAY LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WITHOUT FAULT. 

DESPITE THE SIMILARITY OF THE TWO CLAUSES, A MINORITY OF THE COURT
BELOW HAS IN THIS INSTANCE CONCLUDED THAT THEY MAY BE DISTINGUISHED AND
THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR DELAY UNDER CLAUSE 4.  IN
SUPPORTING THIS VIEW, RESPONDENTS HERE RELY PRIMARILY ON RUST
ENGINEERING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 86 CT. CLS. 461, 475, WHERE THE COURT
BELOW DISTINGUISHES THE TWO CLAUSES BY SAYING THAT THE TYPE OF CHANGE
CONTEMPLATED IN CLAUSE 4 IS MORE BASIC THAN THAT UNDER CLAUSE 3, AND
THAT THEREFORE DIFFERENT LIABILITIES SHOULD ATTACH: 

"THE CHANGES MADE NECESSARY BY REASON OF THE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED
IN EXCAVATING FOR THE FOUNDATION OF THE BUILDING WERE NOT REASONABLE
CHANGES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AS
CONTEMPLATED IN ART. 3 OF THE CONTRACT, BUT REPRESENTED IMPORTANT
CHANGES BASED UPON CHANGED CONDITIONS WHICH WERE UNKNOWN AND MATERIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR INDICATED IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS.  SUCH CHANGES WERE, THEREFORE, CLEARLY NOT WITHIN THE
CONTEMPLATION OF EITHER PARTY TO THE CONTRACT AT THE TIME IT WAS MADE. 
...  " 

AND SEE SOBEL V. UNITED STATES, 88 CT. CLS. 149, 165. 

NO SUCH STRAINED DISTINCTION BETWEEN PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 CAN STAND. 
IT DOES NOT HELP TO ARGUE THAT THE CHANGES MADE UNDER CLAUSE 4 "ARE NOT
WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF EITHER PARTY," SINCE THE CHANGES MADE UNDER
CLAUSE 3 ARE ALSO NOT CONTEMPLATED IN ADVANCE.  BOTH CLAUSES DEAL WITH
CHANGES MADE NECESSARY BY NEW PLANS OR NEW DISCOVERIES MADE SUBSEQUENT
TO THE SIGNING OF THE CONTRACT.  FOR DELAYS INCIDENT TO SUCH
UNANTICIPATED CHANGES, THE CONTRACTOR WAS, UNDER EITHER SECTION, TO BE
GRANTED A "COMPENSATING EXTENSION OF TIME."  WELLS BROS. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 86. 

IN THIS CASE THERE WERE TWO CONSEQUENCES OF THE DISCOVERY THAT THE
HOME COULD NOT BE BUILT AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED.  ONE WAS AN ALTERATION
OF SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH RESULTED IN A SLIGHT CUT IN RESPONDENT'S
OUTLAY AND IN ITS COMPENSATION.  THE OTHER WAS THE DELAY ITSELF, AND
FOR THIS THE TIME NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT WAS EQUITABLY
ADJUSTED BY EXTENSION, THEREBY RELIEVING RESPONDENT OF LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES WHICH COULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN IMPOSED.  UNDER THE TERMS OF
THE CONTRACT, IT IS ENTITLED TO NO MORE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "ARTICLE 3.  CHANGES.  - THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MAY AT ANY
TIME, BY A WRITTEN ORDER, AND WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE SURETIES, MAKE
CHANGES IN THE DRAWINGS AND (OR) SPECIFICATIONS OF THIS CONTRACT AND
WITHIN THE GENERAL SCOPE THEREOF.  IF SUCH CHANGES CAUSE AN INCREASE OR
DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THIS CONTRACT, OR IN THE TIME REQUIRED
FOR ITS PERFORMANCE, AN EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE MADE AND THE
CONTRACT SHALL BE MODIFIED IN WRITING ACCORDINGLY.  ... 

"ARTICLE 4.  CHANGED CONDITIONS.  - SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTER,
OR THE GOVERNMENT DISCOVER, DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK, SUBSURFACE
AND (OR) LATENT CONDITIONS AT THE SITE MATERIALLY DIFFERING FROM THOSE
SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR INDICATED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE ATTENTION
OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHALL BE CALLED IMMEDIATELY TO SUCH
CONDITIONS BEFORE THEY ARE DISTURBED.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER SHALL
THEREUPON PROMPTLY INVESTIGATE THE CONDITIONS, AND IF HE FINDS THAT
THEY MATERIALLY DIFFER FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR INDICATED IN
THE SPECIFICATIONS, HE SHALL AT ONCE, WITH THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE, MAKE SUCH CHANGES IN THE
DRAWINGS AND (OR) SPECIFICATIONS AS HE MAY FIND NECESSARY, AND ANY
INCREASE OR DECREASE OF COST AND (OR) DIFFERENCE IN TIME RESULTING FROM
SUCH CHANGES SHALL BE ADJUSTED AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 3 OF THIS
CONTRACT." 
..END :









EX PARTE KAWATO, 317 U.S. 69 


NO. 10, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 9,
1942.  - WRIT ISSUED. 


1.  IN AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS COURT UPON A PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE DISTRICT COURT TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL OF A
SUIT IN ADMIRALTY, A CONTENTION THAT THE WRIT SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE
THE DISTRICT COURT, ALTHOUGH IT HAD ORDERED THE ABATEMENT OF THE SUIT
FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR SOLELY ON THE GROUND OF THE LIBELANT'S
STATUS AS AN ALIEN ENEMY, COULD HAVE DISMISSED THE LIBEL ON OTHER
GROUNDS, PARTICULARLY FOR CLAIMED DEFECTS IN THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
LIBEL, IS IRRELEVANT; SINCE, IF THE SUIT WAS ERRONEOUSLY ABATED ON THE
GROUND ASSIGNED, THE LIBELANT IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE DISTRICT COURT
PROCEED WITH THE ACTION AND PASS UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF HIS
ALLEGATIONS IN AN ORDERLY WAY.  P. 71. 

2.  MANDAMUS IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
ERRONEOUSLY ORDERED THE ABATEMENT, FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR, OF A
SUIT IN ADMIRALTY BY A RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMY.  P. 71. 

3.  THE ANCIENT RULE OF THE COMMON LAW BARRING SUITS BY RESIDENT
ALIEN ENEMIES HAS SURVIVED ONLY SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT USE OF
THE COURTS TO ACCOMPLISH A PURPOSE WHICH MIGHT HAMPER THE WAR EFFORT OR
GIVE AID TO THE ENEMY.  P. 72. 

4.  THE PRESIDENT NOT HAVING MADE, UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT, ANY DECLARATION AS TO "ALIEN ENEMIES," A RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMY -
CLAIMING WAGES AND AN ALLOWANCE FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE, ARISING OUT
OF HIS LAWFUL EMPLOYMENT AS A SEAMAN - IS NOT BARRED FROM THE COURTS BY
SEC. 7 OF THAT ACT.  P. 75. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY.  P. 77. 

5.  THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT WAS NOT INTENDED, WITHOUT
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION, TO AFFECT RESIDENT ALIENS.  P. 76. 

EX PARTE KUMEZO KAWATO. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS (LEAVE TO FILE GRANTED, 316 U.S.
650) TO COMPEL THE DISTRICT COURT TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL OF A SUIT
IN ADMIRALTY BY A RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, BORN IN JAPAN, BECAME A RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN 1905.  APRIL 15, 1941, HE FILED A LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE
VESSEL RALLY IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA.  HE CLAIMED WAGES WERE DUE HIM FOR SERVICES AS A SEAMAN AND
FISHERMAN ON THE RALLY, AND SOUGHT AN ALLOWANCE FOR MAINTENANCE AND
CURE ON ALLEGATIONS THAT HE HAD SUSTAINED SEVERE INJURIES WHILE ENGAGED
IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.  CLAIMANTS OF THE VESSEL APPEARED AND
FILED AN ANSWER ON GROUNDS NOT HERE MATERIAL, BUT LATER, ON JANUARY 20,
1942, MOVED TO ABATE THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER, BY
REASON OF THE STATE OF WAR THEN EXISTING BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE UNITED
STATES, HAD BECOME AN ENEMY ALIEN AND THEREFORE HAD NO "RIGHT TO
PROSECUTE ANY ACTION IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE
PENDENCY OF SAID WAR."  THE DISTRICT JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION. 
PETITIONER SOUGHT MANDAMUS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT TO COMPEL THE DISTRICT COURT TO VACATE ITS JUDGMENT AND
PROCEED TO TRIAL OF HIS ACTION, BUT HIS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WAS
DENIED WITHOUT OPINION.  WE GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE IN THIS COURT, 316
U.S. 650, AND THE CAUSE WAS SUBMITTED ON ANSWER, BRIEFS AND ORAL
ARGUMENT. 

ALTHOUGH THE COURT'S ORDER OF ABATEMENT FOR THE DURATION OF THE WAR
RESTED SOLELY ON THE GROUND OF PETITIONER'S STATUS AS AN ALIEN ENEMY,
IT HAS BEEN ARGUED HERE THAT THE WRIT SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE
COURT COULD HAVE DISMISSED THE BILL ON OTHER GROUNDS, PARTICULARLY
CLAIMED DEFECTS IN THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE LIBEL.  THESE CONTENTIONS ARE
IRRELEVANT HERE.  UNLESS THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY ABATED FOR THE REASONS
SET OUT IN THE MOTION AND THE COURT'S ORDER, THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED
TO HAVE THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEED WITH HIS ACTION AND PASS UPON THE
SUFFICIENCY OF HIS ALLEGATIONS.  THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL STEP IN AN
ORDERLY TRIAL LEADING TO A FINAL JUDGMENT FROM WHICH AN APPEAL WILL LIE
TO CORRECT ERRORS.  IF THE COURT'S ORDER OF ABATEMENT WAS ERRONEOUS,
MANDAMUS IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY.  28 U.S.C. 377; MCCLELLAN V.
CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268, 279-282; EX PARTE METROPOLITAN WATER CO., 220
U.S. 539, 546. 

"ALIEN ENEMY" AS APPLIED TO PETITIONER IS AT PRESENT BUT THE LEGAL
DEFINITION OF HIS STATUS BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN JAPAN, WITH WHICH WE
ARE AT WAR.  NOTHING IN THIS RECORD INDICATES, AND WE CANNOT ASSUME,
THAT HE CAME TO AMERICA FOR ANY PURPOSE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH
PROMPTED MILLIONS OF OTHERS TO SEEK OUR SHORES - A CHANCE TO MAKE HIS
HOME AND WORK IN A FREE COUNTRY, GOVERNED BY JUST LAWS, WHICH PROMISE
EQUAL PROTECTION TO ALL WHO ABIDE BY THEM.  HIS SUIT INVOKES THE
PROTECTION OF THOSE LAWS THROUGH OUR COURTS BOTH TO OBTAIN PAYMENT OF
WAGES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PROMISED HIM BY AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR LAWFUL
WORK AND REIMBURSEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DAMAGES SUFFERED WHILE WORKING FOR
THOSE CITIZENS. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND
TREATIES TO PROCEED WITH HIS ACTION, AND THAT THIS RIGHT IS NOT LIMITED
BY THE STATUTES.  IN OUR VIEW THE POSSIBILITY OF TREATY RIGHTS, WHICH
HAS NOT BEEN ARGUED EXTENSIVELY, NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED.  APPLICABLE
TREATIES ARE AMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT MORE CARE
THAN IS NECESSARY IN THIS CASE.  FN1 

THERE DOUBTLESS WAS A TIME WHEN THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND WOULD HAVE
SUPPORTED DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER'S ACTION, BUT THAT TIME HAS LONG
SINCE PASSED.  A NUMBER OF EARLY ENGLISH DECISIONS, BASED ON A GROUP
CONCEPT WHICH MADE LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRIENDS AND ENEMIES BARRED
ALL ALIENS FROM THE COURTS.  THIS RULE WAS GRADUALLY RELAXED AS TO
FRIENDLY ALIENS  FN2  UNTIL FINALLY, IN WELLS V. WILLIAMS, 1 LD. RAYM. 
282(1698), THE COURT PUT THE NECESSITIES OF TRADE AHEAD OF WHATEVER
ADVANTAGES HAD BEEN IMAGINED TO EXIST IN THE OLD RULE, AND HELD THAT
ENEMY ALIENS IN ENGLAND UNDER LICENSE FROM THE CROWN MIGHT PROCEED IN
THE COURTS.  AS APPLIED EVER SINCE, ALIEN ENEMIES RESIDING IN ENGLAND
HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN ACTIONS, WHILE THOSE IN THE LAND OF THE
ENEMY WERE NOT; AND THIS MODERN, HUMANE PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED EVEN
WHEN THE ALIEN WAS INTERNED, AS IS PETITIONER HERE.  FN3  SCHAFFENIUS
V. GOLDBERG, (1916) 1 K.B. 284. 

THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH COMMON LAW RULE, LONG AGO ABANDONED THERE, WAS,
FROM THE BEGINNING, OBJECTIONABLE HERE.  THE POLICY OF SEVERITY TOWARD
ALIEN ENEMIES WAS CLEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A COUNTRY WHOSE LIFEBLOOD CAME
FROM AN IMMIGRANT STREAM.  IN THE WAR OF 1812, FOR EXAMPLE, MANY
PERSONS BORN IN ENGLAND FOUGHT ON THE AMERICAN SIDE.  FN4  HARSHNESS
TOWARD IMMIGRANTS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT NATIONAL KNOWLEDGE,
PRESENT THEN AS NOW, OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN PEACE AND WAR BY THE
MILLIONS OF IMMIGRANTS WHO HAVE LEARNED TO LOVE THE COUNTRY OF THEIR
ADOPTION MORE THAN THE COUNTRY OF THEIR BIRTH.  HENCE IN 1813 CHIEF
JUSTICE KENT, IN CLARKE V. MOREY, 10 JOHNS.  69, 72, SET THE LEGAL
PATTERN WHICH, WITH SPORADIC EXCEPTIONS, HAS SINCE BEEN FOLLOWED.  FN5
THE CORE OF THAT DECISION HE PUT IN THESE WORDS:  "A LAWFUL RESIDENCE
IMPLIES PROTECTION, AND A CAPACITY TO SUE AND BE SUED.  A CONTRARY
DOCTRINE WOULD BE REPUGNANT TO SOUND POLICY, NO LESS THAN TO JUSTICE
AND HUMANITY."  FN6  THUS THE COURTS ALIGNED THEIR POLICY WITH THAT
ENJOINED UPON THE PRESIDENT BY CONGRESS IN 1812, WHEN IT DIRECTED HIM
TO ADMINISTER THE LAWS CONTROLLING ALIENS IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BE
"CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY, AND ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF
HUMANITY AND NATIONAL HOSPITALITY."  50 U.S.C. SEC. 22. 

IN ASKING THAT THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENT ALIENS BE ABROGATED IN THEIR
BEHALF, PRIVATE LITIGANTS IN EFFECT SEEK TO STAND IN THE POSITION OF
GOVERNMENT.  BUT ONLY THE GOVERNMENT, AND NOT THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL,
IS VESTED WITH THE POWER TO PROTECT ALL THE PEOPLE, INCLUDING LOYAL
ALIENS, FROM POSSIBLE INJURY BY DISLOYAL ALIENS.  IF THE PUBLIC WELFARE
DEMANDS THAT THIS ALIEN SHALL NOT RECEIVE COMPENSATION FOR HIS WORK OR
PAYMENT FOR HIS INJURIES RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, THE
GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE THE DECISION WITHOUT ALLOWING A WINDFALL TO THESE
CLAIMANTS.  EVEN IF PETITIONER WERE A NON-RESIDENT ENEMY ALIEN, IT
MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO RELEASE THE AMOUNT OF HIS CLAIM TO THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN RATHER THAN TO THE CLAIMANTS; AND THIS IS
PRECISELY WHAT WAS DONE IN BIRGE-FORBES CO. V. HEYE, 251 U.S. 317, 323,
IN WHICH THIS COURT SAID THAT THE SOLE OBJECTION TO GIVING JUDGMENT FOR
AN ALIEN ENEMY "GOES ONLY SO FAR AS IT WOULD GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO
THE OTHER SIDE."  THE ANCIENT RULE AGAINST SUITS BY RESIDENT ALIEN
ENEMIES HAS SURVIVED ONLY SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT USE OF THE
COURTS TO ACCOMPLISH A PURPOSE WHICH MIGHT HAMPER OUR OWN WAR EFFORTS
OR GIVE AID TO THE ENEMY.  THIS MAY BE TAKEN AS THE SOUND PRINCIPLE OF
THE COMMON LAW TODAY. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE PETITIONER IS BARRED FROM THE COURTS BY THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 50 U.S.C. APPENDIX.  THE PARTICULAR CLAUSE
RELIED ON IS SEC. 7:  "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO AUTHORIZE
THE PROSECUTION OF ANY SUIT OR ACTION AT LAW OR IN EQUITY IN ANY COURT
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES BY AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY PRIOR TO THE END
OF THE WAR, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 10 HEREOF (WHICH RELATES TO
PATENTS); ...  "  ANALYSIS OF ITS TERMS MAKES CLEAR THAT THIS SECTION
WAS NOT MEANT TO APPLY TO PETITIONER, AND AN EXAMINATION OF ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MAKES THIS DOUBLY CERTAIN.  SECTION 7 BARS FROM THE
COURTS ONLY AN "ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY."  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT DEFINES
THE "ALIEN ENEMY" TO WHICH THE ACT APPLIES AS THOSE RESIDING WITHIN THE
TERRITORY OWNED OR OCCUPIED BY THE ENEMY; THE ENEMY GOVERNMENT OR ITS
OFFICERS; FN7  OR CITIZENS OF AN ENEMY NATION, WHEREVER RESIDING, AS
THE PRESIDENT BY PROCLAMATION MAY INCLUDE WITHIN THE DEFINITION.  SINCE
THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT UNDER THIS ACT  FN8  MADE ANY DECLARATION AS TO
ENEMY ALIENS, THE ACT DOES NOT BAR PETITIONER FROM MAINTAINING HIS
SUIT. 

THIS INTERPRETATION, COMPELLED BY THE WORDS OF THE ACT, IS WHOLLY IN
ACCORD WITH ITS GENERAL SCOPE, FOR THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT WAS
NEVER INTENDED, WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION, TO AFFECT RESIDENT
ALIENS AT ALL.  PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT, THE COURTS HAD
CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT, DURING A STATE OF WAR, COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE
BETWEEN OUR NATIONALS AND NON-RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMIES, UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE, WAS ABSOLUTELY
PROHIBITED, AND THAT CONTRACTS MADE IN SUCH INTERCOURSE WERE VOID AND
UNENFORCEABLE.  FN9  THIS STRICT BARRIER COULD BE RELAXED ONLY BY
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION, AND THEREFORE THE ACT WAS PASSED WITH ITS
DECLARED PURPOSE "TO MITIGATE THE RULES OF LAW WHICH PROHIBIT ALL
INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE CITIZENS OF WARRING NATIONS, AND TO PERMIT,
UNDER CAREFUL SAFEGUARDS AND RESTRICTIONS, CERTAIN KINDS OF BUSINESS TO
BE CARRIED ON."  FN10  THUS CONGRESS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED BY THE
PASSAGE OF THE ACT THAT "THE MORE ENLIGHTENED VIEWS OF THE PRESENT DAY
AS TO TREATMENT OF ENEMIES MAKES POSSIBLE CERTAIN RELAXATIONS IN THE
OLD LAW."  FN11 

SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS TO PERMIT CERTAIN RELATIONS WITH
NON-RESIDENT ALIEN ENEMIES, THERE IS NO FRUSTRATION OF ITS PURPOSE IN
PERMITTING RESIDENT ALIENS TO SUE IN OUR COURTS.  STATEMENTS MADE ON
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL
MAKE THIS INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIVE.  FN12 

NOT ONLY HAS THE PRESIDENT NOT SEEN FIT TO USE THE AUTHORITY
POSSESSED BY HIM UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT TO EXCLUDE
RESIDENT ALIENS FROM THE COURTS, BUT HIS ADMINISTRATION HAS ADOPTED
PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE PROGRAM.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS PRIMARILY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF ALIEN AFFAIRS.  HE HAS CONSTRUED
THE EXISTING STATUTES AND PROCLAMATIONS AS NOT BARRING THIS PETITIONER
FROM OUR COURTS,  FN13  AND THIS STAND IS EMPHASIZED BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S APPEARANCE IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER IN THIS CASE.  FN14 

THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY IS A
CLEAR AUTHORIZATION TO RESIDENT ENEMY ALIENS TO PROCEED IN ALL COURTS
UNTIL ADMINISTRATIVE OR LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS TAKEN TO EXCLUDE THEM. 
WERE THIS NOT TRUE, CONTRACTUAL PROMISES MADE TO THEM BY INDIVIDUALS,
AS WELL AS PROMISES HELD OUT TO THEM UNDER OUR LAWS, WOULD BECOME NO
MORE THAN TEASING ILLUSIONS.  THE DOORS OF OUR COURTS HAVE NOT BEEN
SHUT TO PEACEABLE LAW-ABIDING ALIENS SEEKING TO ENFORCE RIGHTS GROWING
OUT OF LEGAL OCCUPATIONS.  LET THE WRIT ISSUE. 

FN1  PETITIONER ARGUES THAT HIS CASE IS COVERED BY ARTICLE 23 H OF
THE ANNEX TO THE IVTH HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1907:  "IT IS ESPECIALLY
PROHIBITED  ...  TO DECLARE ABOLISHED, SUSPENDED, OR INADMISSIBLE IN A
COURT OF LAW THE RIGHTS AND ACTION OF THE NATIONALS OF THE HOSTILE
PARTY."  THIS CLAUSE, WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE CONVENTION OF 1899 WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION EITHER BY THE DELEGATES IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR
BY THE COMMITTEE AND SUB-COMMITTEE WHICH DEALT WITH IT, III PROCEEDINGS
OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1907, 12, 107, 136, 240; AND I IBID. 83, WAS
CONSTRUED BY AN ENGLISH COURT TO APPLY SOLELY IN ENEMY AREAS OCCUPIED
BY A BELLIGERENT.  PORTER V. FREUDENBERG, (1915) 1 K.B. 857.  THE
QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN RAISED IN THE COURTS IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT THE
ENGLISH INTERPRETATION WAS REPEATED WITH APPROVAL BY REPRESENTATIVE
MONTAGUE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE IN HIS ADDRESS TO THE
HOUSE WHEN HE PRESENTED TO IT THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  55 CONG.
REC. 4842(1917). 

FN2  ACCORDING TO LITTLETON, AN ALIEN MIGHT NOT SUE IN EITHER A REAL
OR PERSONAL ACTION; BUT THIS RULE WAS MODIFIED BY COKE TO BAR SUCH
ACTIONS ONLY BY ALIEN ENEMIES AND TO PERMIT PERSONAL ACTIONS BY ALIEN
FRIENDS.  SEE COKE ON LITTLETON 129 B. POLLOCK AND MAITLAND SUGGEST
THAT THIS MODIFICATION BY COKE WAS "A BOLD TREATMENT OF A CAREFULLY
WORDED TEXT."  1 HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 2D ED., 459.  THE EARLY LAW
TREATED ALL ALIENS AS A GROUP.  SEE THE SUB-TITLES OF POLLOCK AND
MAITLAND'S CHAPTER, "THE SORTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEN," SOME OF WHICH
ARE:  THE KNIGHTS, THE UNFREE, THE CLERGY, ALIENS, THE JEWS, WOMEN,
ETC.  IBID., CHAP. II.  FOR A SUMMARY OF ENGLISH VIEWS NOW LARGELY
OBSOLETE ON ALIEN STANDING IN COURT, SEE HANSARD, LAW RELATING TO
ALIENS, CHAP. 7(1844).  FOR A SURVEY OF THE COMMON LAW ON INHERITANCE
OF LAND BY ALIENS, SEE TECHT V. HUGHES, 229 N.Y. 222, 128 N.E.
185(CARDOZO, J.). 

FN3  PETITIONER WAS INTERNED SOME MONTHS AFTER THE COURT HAD ABATED
HIS ACTION.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF STATING THAT
IT DOES NOT CONSIDER THAT THIS CIRCUMSTANCE ALTERS THE POSITION OF
PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO HIS PRIVILEGE OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS. 

FN4  ONE WRITER ESTIMATES THAT HALF OF THE 400 MEN ON BOARD THE
CONSTITUTION WHEN IT CAPTURED THE GUERRIERE WERE SEAMEN WHO HAD
DESERTED THE BRITISH, AND THE SHIP UNITED STATES WAS REPORTED BY ITS
CAPTAIN TO HAVE NO MEN ON BOARD WHO HAD NOT SERVED WITH BRITISH
WARSHIPS.  BRADLEY, THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS, 192; AND SEE 3
MCMASTER, HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, 242.    FN5  FOR COLLECTION OF
CASES, SEE 30 GEORGETOWN L.J. 421; 28 VIRGINIA L.R. 429; 27 YALE L.J.
105; HUBERICH, TRADING WITH THE ENEMY, 188 ET SEQ.; DAIMLER CO. V.
CONTINENTAL TYRE CO., ANNO.  CAS.  1917 C, 170, 204; PETITION OF
BERNHEIMER, 130 F.2D 396; AND FOR ENGLISH CASES, MCNAIR, LEGAL EFFECTS
OF WAR. 

FN6 STORY WAS ONE OF THE FEW COMMENTATORS TO APPROVE ANY PART OF THE
EARLY COMMON LAW RULE.  HE ACCEPTED SO MUCH OF THAT DOCTRINE AS
REQUIRED ENEMY ALIENS ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN THE COURTS TO HAVE ENTERED
THE COUNTRY UNDER SAFE CONDUCT OR LICENSE.  STORY ON CIVIL PLEADINGS,
P. 10; STORY'S EQUITY PLEADINGS, SEC. 51-54, AND PARTICULARLY SEC.
724.  THIS REQUIREMENT WAS REDUCED TO LEGAL FICTION IN CLARKE V. MOREY,
SUPRA, AT 72, WHEN CHIEF JUSTICE KENT HELD THAT "THE LICENSE IS IMPLIED
BY LAW AND THE USAGE OF NATIONS." 

FN7  SOME POSSIBLE CONFUSION ON THE PART OF THE COURT BELOW AND OF
OTHER COURTS MAY HAVE DEVELOPED FROM OUR PER CURIAM OPINION IN EX PARTE
COLONNA, 314 U.S. 510, IN WHICH LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRITS OF
PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS IN CONNECTION WITH A PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN
BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT WAS DENIED ON THE BASIS OF THE TRADING
WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  THAT OPINION EMPHASIZED THAT AN ENEMY GOVERNMENT
WAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASSIFICATION "ENEMY" AS
USED IN THAT ACT, AND THAT SUCH ENEMY PLAINTIFFS HAD NO RIGHT TO
PROSECUTE ACTIONS IN OUR COURTS.  THE DECISION HAS NO BEARING ON THE
RIGHTS OF RESIDENT ENEMY ALIENS.  THE COLONNA DECISION WAS MOMENTARILY
MISAPPLIED IN KAUFMAN V. EISENBERG, 177 N.Y. MISC. 939, 32 N.Y.S.2D
450, BUT THE TRIAL JUDGE CORRECTED A STAY IN PROCEEDINGS HE HAD
PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED, UPON HIS FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE FACT THAT THE
PLAINTIFF WAS A RESIDENT ALIEN. 

FN8  THE PRESIDENT HAS ISSUED A PROCLAMATION TAKING CERTAIN STEPS
WITH REFERENCE TO ALIEN ENEMIES UNDER THE ALIEN ENEMY ACT OF 1798 AS
AMENDED, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21, BUT THIS PROCLAMATION HAS NO BEARING ON THE
POWER OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT. 

FN9  REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, REPORT NO. 111, 65TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PAGES 15-22.  COPPELL V. HALL, 7 WALL.  542, 554,
557, 558. 

FN10  REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, REPORT NO. 111,
65TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 1. 

FN11  REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, REPORT NO. 111,
65TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 2. 

FN12  "MR. MONTAGUE:  A GERMAN RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT
AN ENEMY UNDER THE TERMS OF THE BILL, UNLESS HE SHOULD BE SO DECLARED
SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT, IN WHICH CASE HE
WOULD HAVE NO STANDING IN COURT."  ... 

"MR. STAFFORD:  DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS BILL CONFERS UPON THE
PRESIDENT ANY AUTHORITY TO GRANT TO AN ALIEN SUBJECT DOING BUSINESS IN
THIS COUNTRY THE RIGHT TO SUE IN THE COURTS TO ENFORCE HIS CONTRACT? 

"MR. MONTAGUE:  IF HE IS A RESIDENT OF THIS COUNTRY, HE HAS THAT
RIGHT UNDER THIS BILL WITHOUT THE PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT. 

"MR. STAFFORD:  IF SO, WHERE IS THAT AUTHORITY? 

"MR. MONTAGUE:  IN THE VERY TERMS OF THE BILL DEFINING AN ENEMY,
WHEREBY GERMAN RESIDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE ALL RIGHTS IN THIS
RESPECT OF NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS, UNLESS THESE RIGHTS BE RECALLED BY THE
PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT FOR HOSTILE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE
GERMANS RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES."  55 CONG. REC. 4842,
4843(1917). 

FN13  "NO NATIVE, CITIZEN, OR SUBJECT OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE
UNITED STATES IS AT WAR AND WHO IS RESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
PREVENTED BY FEDERAL STATUTE OR REGULATION FROM SUING IN FEDERAL OR
STATE COURTS."  DEPT. OF JUSTICE PRESS RELEASE, JAN. 31, 1942. 

FN14 THE DETERMINATION BY CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE NOT TO INTERFERE
WITH THE RIGHTS OF RESIDENT ENEMY ALIENS TO PROCEED IN THE COURTS MARKS
A CHOICE OF REMEDIES RATHER THAN A WAIVER OF PROTECTION.  THE
GOVERNMENT HAS AN ELABORATE PROTECTIVE PROGRAM.  UNDER THE ALIEN ENEMY
ACT, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21, THE PRESIDENT HAS ORDERED THE INTERNMENT OF
ALIENS, HAS INSTITUTED A SYSTEM OF IDENTIFICATION, AND HAS REGULATED
TRAVEL.  UNDER THE FIRST WAR POWERS ACT, 50 U.S.C. SUPP. I, 1940 ED.
APPENDIX, SEC. 5(B), AND VARIOUS EXECUTIVE ORDERS HE HAS CONTROLLED THE
FUNDS OF RESIDENT ENEMY ALIENS.  MANY OTHER STATUTES MAKE A COMPOSITE
PATTERN WHICH CONGRESS HAS APPARENTLY THOUGHT ADEQUATE FOR THE CONTROL
OF THIS PROBLEM.  SEE, E.G., THE CONTROLS ON ALIEN OWNERSHIP OF LAND IN
THE TERRITORIES, 8 U.S.C. CHAP. 5. 
..END :

















MARINE PROPERTIES V. TRUST CO., 317 U.S. 78 


NO. 24.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 19, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 9, 1942.  -
125 F.2D 296, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY POWER, CONGRESS MAY EXCLUDE
EVERY COMPETING OR CONFLICTING PROCEEDING IN STATE OR FEDERAL
TRIBUNALS.  P. 83. 

2.  ALTHOUGH THE PENDENCY OF A PRIOR PROCEEDING IN A STATE OR FEDERAL
COURT DOES NOT BAR THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY NOT IN SUCH CASE APPROVE THE
PETITION UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND
STOCKHOLDERS WOULD NOT BE BEST SUBSERVED IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDING.  P.
83. 

3.  THE PARTY FILING A PETITION UNDER CH. X WHILE A PRIOR PROCEEDING
IS PENDING IN A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT
THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WOULD NOT BE BEST SUBSERVED
IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDING.  P. 83. 

4.  WHEN A PRIOR PROCEEDING IS PENDING, A PETITIONER'S SHOWING OF
"NEED FOR RELIEF" UNDER CH. X, WHICH SEC. 130(7) REQUIRES THAT EVERY
PETITION CONTAIN, MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT AT LEAST IN SOME SUBSTANTIAL
PARTICULAR THE BENEFITS, ADVANTAGES, OR PROTECTION WHICH CH. X AFFORDS
TO CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS ARE UNAVAILABLE IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDING. 
P. 84. 

5.  THAT A DEBTOR WAS SEEKING TO ESCAPE THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE
COURT TO WHICH IT HAD THERETOFORE VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED, IS IMMATERIAL
IN THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ITS PETITION UNDER CH. X WAS FILED IN
"GOOD FAITH" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 146(4).  P. 84. 

6.  THE ISSUE AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AS COMPARED
WITH CH. X IS THE SAME WHETHER THE PETITION IS FILED BY THE DEBTOR OR
BY CREDITORS.  P. 85. 

7.  WHETHER FILED BY THE DEBTOR OR BY OTHERS, ALL PETITIONS UNDER CH.
X MUST SHOW THE "NEED FOR RELIEF" (SECS. 130-131); AND THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT MUST BE SATISFIED IN EVERY CASE THAT THE PETITION HAS BEEN FILED
IN "GOOD FAITH" (SECS. 141-144).  P. 85. 

8.  IN THIS CASE, WHEREIN PRIOR PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN A STATE
COURT, AND THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR WAS LESS THAN THE
AMOUNT OF A FIRST MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS THEREON, HELD THAT THE DEBTOR,
PETITIONING UNDER CH. X, HAD NOT SUSTAINED THE BURDEN WHICH WAS UPON IT
OF SHOWING THAT THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WOULD NOT
BE BEST SUBSERVED IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT.  P. 85. 

(A)  THE RULE OF FULL PRIORITY OF CREDITORS OVER STOCKHOLDERS,
APPLIED IN SEC. 77B PROCEEDINGS, OBTAINS ALSO IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER CH.
X. P. 85. 

(B)  IT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY APPEAR IN THIS CASE THAT THE
STOCKHOLDERS WERE WILLING TO MAKE A FRESH CONTRIBUTION IN MONEY OR IN
MONEY'S WORTH IN RETURN FOR A PARTICIPATION REASONABLY EQUIVALENT TO
THEIR CONTRIBUTION.  P. 85. 

(C)  IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT CONTINUATION OF THE STATE PROCEEDINGS
WOULD DENY JUNIOR CREDITORS ANY BENEFITS WHICH CH. X WOULD AFFORD
THEM.  THE FULL PRIORITY RULE WHICH OBTAINS UNDER CH. X PROTECTS THE
RIGHTS OF SENIOR CREDITORS AGAINST DILUTION EITHER BY JUNIOR CREDITORS
OR BY EQUITY INTERESTS.  P. 86. 

(D)  IT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY APPEAR IN THIS CASE THAT A STATE
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, INSTITUTED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FIRST MORTGAGE
CREDITORS EXCLUSIVELY, WAS INADEQUATE, MEASURED BY CH. X STANDARDS, TO
PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.  P. 87. 

MARINE HARBOR PROPERTIES, INC. V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 794, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 41 F.SUPP.  814, APPROVING A PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FILED BY A DEBTOR CORPORATION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT A DEBTOR'S PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER
CH. X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (52 STAT. 883, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 501) WAS NOT
FILED IN "GOOD FAITH." 

THE DEBTOR'S SOLE ASSET IS AN APARTMENT BUILDING IN NEW YORK CITY
WHICH IS SUBJECT TO A FIRST MORTGAGE OF $370,000.  THIS MORTGAGE IS
HELD BY THE RESPONDENT, MANUFACTURERS TRUST CO. (SUCCESSOR TO THE
MORTGAGE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK), AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATE HOLDERS. 
THERE ARE ALSO JUNIOR MORTGAGES AND OTHER CLAIMS, INCLUDING AN
UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT OF UNSECURED INDEBTEDNESS.  CONCEDEDLY THE PROPERTY
OF THE DEBTOR IS WORTH LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE
DEBT.  THE FIRST MORTGAGE WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED IN 1931 AND WAS HELD
BY TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST CO., WHICH ISSUED AND SOLD TO THE PUBLIC
CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, GUARANTEED AS TO PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST
BY BOND AND MORTGAGE GUARANTEE CO. THE LATTER COMPANY BECAME INVOLVED
IN FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES IN 1933 AND WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF NEW YORK FOR REHABILITATION.  FN1
PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE SCHACKNO ACT (N.Y. LAWS 1933, C. 745),
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE PROMULGATED, IN 1934, A PLAN FOR THE
READJUSTMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS IN THE MORTGAGE,
BY WHICH THE MORTGAGE WAS EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 1, 1937 AND THE INTEREST
REDUCED.  OVER TWO-THIRDS OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CONSENTED TO THE
PLAN, AND THE DEBTOR JOINED IN THE EXTENSION AGREEMENT.  THE NEW YORK
COURT APPROVED IT.  IN 1935 THE NEW YORK MORTGAGE COMMISSION SUCCEEDED
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE AS ADMINISTRATOR OF CERTIFICATED BONDS
AND MORTGAGES.  N.Y. LAWS 1935, C. 19, C. 290.  THAT COMMISSION,  FN2
IN 1938, PROPOSED THE DESIGNATION OF THE MORTGAGE CORPORATION OF NEW
YORK AS TRUSTEE OF THE BOND AND MORTGAGE IN THE INSTANT CASE, UNDER A
DECLARATION OF TRUST GRANTING THE TRUSTEE BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE
POWERS.  THIS PROPOSAL WAS CONSENTED TO BY OVER TWO-THIRDS OF THE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS AND APPROVED BY THE NEW YORK COURT.  THE ORDER OF
THE COURT PROVIDED "THAT THIS COURT, HAVING ASSUMED JURISDICTION OF
THIS PROCEEDING, SHALL RETAIN JURISDICTION HEREOF UNTIL THE COMPLETE
LIQUIDATION OF THE TRUST ESTATE AND THE TERMINATION OF THE TRUST; AND
THE TRUSTEE, OR ANY OTHER INTERESTED PARTY HEREIN, MAY APPLY AT THE
FOOT OF THIS FINAL ORDER UPON SUCH NOTICE AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT FOR
SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS TO THE COURT MAY SEEM JUST AND
PROPER." 

THE PRINCIPAL OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE WAS NOT PAID AT ITS EXTENDED
MATURITY IN 1937.  BUT UNTIL APRIL 1, 1941, THE DEBTOR MADE ALL OTHER
PAYMENTS DUE UNDER THE 1934 EXTENSION AGREEMENT.  AT THAT TIME THE
DEBTOR DEFAULTED IN PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND TAXES.  BOTH BEFORE AND
AFTER THAT DEFAULT THE DEBTOR AND THE TRUSTEE NEGOTIATED FOR AN
AGREEMENT OF FURTHER EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION.  BUT NO AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THEM COULD BE REACHED AND NO FURTHER PROPOSAL FOR A
MODIFICATION OR EXTENSION OF THE MORTGAGE WAS PRESENTED TO THE STATE
COURT OR TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS.  ON MAY 1, 1941, THE TRUSTEE
INSTITUTED FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT.  A RECEIVER WAS
APPOINTED, WHO TOOK POSSESSION.  IN SEPTEMBER 1941 THE DEBTOR FILED ITS
VOLUNTARY PETITION UNDER CH. X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  AN EX PARTE
ORDER APPROVING THE PETITION AND APPOINTING TRUSTEES WAS OBTAINED. 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE MORTGAGE TRUSTEE MOVED TO VACATE THAT ORDER AND
TO DISMISS THE DEBTOR'S PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT FILED IN
"GOOD FAITH."  THAT MOTION WAS DENIED.  41 F.SUPP.  814.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, 125 F.2D 296.  WE
GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED. 

EVERY PETITION UNDER CH. X MUST STATE, INTER ALIA, "THE SPECIFIC
FACTS SHOWING THE NEED FOR RELIEF UNDER THIS CHAPTER."  SEC. 130(7). 
SEC. 141 PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGE SHALL ENTER AN ORDER APPROVING A
DEBTOR'S PETITION "IF SATISFIED THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THIS CHAPTER AND HAS BEEN FILED IN GOOD FAITH, OR DISMISSING IT IF
NOT SO SATISFIED."  SEC. 146 DEFINES "GOOD FAITH" AND PROVIDES IN
PART: 

"WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE MEANING OF THE TERM 'GOOD
FAITH', A PETITION SHALL BE DEEMED NOT TO BE FILED IN GOOD FAITH IF - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(4)  A PRIOR PROCEEDING IS PENDING IN ANY COURT AND IT APPEARS THAT
THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WOULD BE BEST SUBSERVED IN
SUCH PRIOR PROCEEDING." 

THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY POWER IS, OF COURSE, PARAMOUNT AND SUPREME AND
MAY BE SO EXERCISED BY CONGRESS AS TO EXCLUDE EVERY COMPETING OR
CONFLICTING PROCEEDING IN STATE OR FEDERAL TRIBUNALS.  KALB V.
FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433.  IN FASHIONING CH. X CONGRESS, HOWEVER, DID
NOT GO SO FAR.  WHILE THE PENDENCY OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN STATE OR
FEDERAL COURTS DOES NOT BAR THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER CH. X (SEC.
256), CONGRESS IN EFFECT DIRECTED THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS NOT TO APPROVE
PETITIONS UNDER CH. X IN SUCH CASES UNLESS IT APPEARED THAT THE
INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WOULD NOT BE BEST SUBSERVED IN
THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS.  AND IT PUT THE BURDEN ON THE PETITIONER TO MAKE
THAT SHOWING.  THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STATES THAT
THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 146(4) WAS TO "STOP THE REMOVAL OF PRIOR PENDING
CASES FROM OTHER COURTS WHERE THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND
STOCKHOLDERS WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY RETAINING AND CONTINUING THE
PRIOR PROCEEDINGS."  H. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 42. 
SEC. 146 REPRESENTS A CODIFICATION OF SOME OF THE INTERPRETATIONS WHICH
THE COURTS HAD GIVEN THE WORDS "GOOD FAITH" IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.
77B.  S. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 27.  THUS THE
NECESSITY OF SHOWING "A NEED FOR THE MACHINERY OF 77B AS AN ESSENTIAL
IN ACCOMPLISHING A REORGANIZATION BECAUSE OTHER PROCEDURES WERE EITHER
UNAVAILABLE OR MORE CUMBERSOME AND EXPENSIVE" LED COURTS TO FIND AN
ABSENCE OF "GOOD FAITH," IN THE SENSE THAT NO "NEED FOR RELIEF" HAD
BEEN ESTABLISHED, WHERE 77B WAS SOUGHT TO BE EMPLOYED BY A DEBTOR AS "A
MECHANISM FOR PRESERVING EQUITIES AT THE EXPENSE OF CREDITORS."  SEE
REPORT ON THE STUDY AND INVESTIGATION OF THE WORK, ACTIVITIES,
PERSONNEL AND FUNCTIONS OF PROTECTIVE AND REORGANIZATION COMMITTEES,
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PT. VIII, P. 94(1940). 

IN VIEW OF THAT HISTORY, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT, WHEN A PRIOR PROCEEDING
IS PENDING, A PETITIONER'S SHOWING OF "NEED FOR RELIEF" UNDER CH. X,
REQUIRED TO BE CONTAINED IN EVERY PETITION BY THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 130(7), MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT AT LEAST IN SOME SUBSTANTIAL
PARTICULAR THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS WITHHOLD OR DENY CREDITORS OR
STOCKHOLDERS BENEFITS, ADVANTAGES, OR PROTECTION WHICH CH. X AFFORDS. 
IN ABSENCE OF SUCH A SHOWING, THE "NEED FOR RELIEF" HAS NOT BEEN
ESTABLISHED AND THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT ENABLED TO MAKE AN INFORMED
JUDGMENT ON THE "GOOD FAITH" ISSUE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE, AS IN BROOKLYN TRUST CO.
V. REMBAUGH, 110 F.2D 838, HELD THAT THE DEBTOR'S PETITION WAS NOT
FILED IN "GOOD FAITH," SINCE IT WAS SEEKING TO ESCAPE THE JURISDICTION
OF THE STATE COURT TO WHICH IT HAD VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED ITSELF.  BUT
THAT IS NOT THE TEST WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN SEC. 146(4).  THAT
PROVISION REQUIRES THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO INQUIRE WHETHER "THE
INTERESTS OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS" WOULD BE BETTER SUBSERVED IN
THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS OR UNDER CH. X. THAT THE DESIRE OF THE PETITIONER
TO ESCAPE THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IS IMMATERIAL TO THAT INQUIRY IS
SUPPORTED NOT ONLY BY THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 146(4) BUT ALSO BY THE FACT
THAT SEC. 256 EXPRESSLY SANCTIONS THE FILING OF PETITIONS UNDER CH. X
ALTHOUGH PRIOR PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING.  TO DISQUALIFY A PETITIONER
UNDER CH. X MERELY BECAUSE HE HAD IN SOME WAY PARTICIPATED IN THE PRIOR
PROCEEDING WOULD EFFECT A SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT OF SEC. 146(4), SINCE
IT WOULD BE THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE WHERE BOTH THE DEBTOR
AND THE CREDITORS HAD NOT TAKEN SOME PART IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS. 
FURTHERMORE, THE ISSUE AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AS
COMPARED WITH CH. X IS THE SAME WHETHER THE PETITION IS FILED BY
CREDITORS OR BY THE DEBTOR.  ALL PETITIONS, WHETHER FILED BY THE DEBTOR
OR BY OTHERS, MUST SHOW THE "NEED FOR RELIEF" (SECS. 130-131); AND IN
EVERY CASE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE PETITION HAS
BEEN FILED IN "GOOD FAITH."  SECS. 141-144. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION, HOWEVER, THAT THE DEBTOR DID NOT SUSTAIN THE
BURDEN WHICH THE FEDERAL STATUTE PLACES ON A PETITIONER.  SO FAR AS THE
"INTERESTS" OF STOCKHOLDERS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT APPARENT THAT THE
EQUITY OWNERS WOULD BE DENIED IN THE STATE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS
BENEFITS, ADVANTAGES, OR PROTECTION WHICH CH. X WOULD AFFORD THEM. 
ADMITTEDLY THE PROPERTY IS WORTH LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS.  UNDER THE RULE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
BOYD, 228 U.S. 482, AND CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308
U.S. 106, A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WOULD NOT BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE
WHICH IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ADMITTED THE STOCKHOLDERS TO PARTICIPATION,
UNLESS THE STOCKHOLDERS MADE A FRESH CONTRIBUTION IN MONEY OR IN
MONEY'S WORTH, IN RETURN FOR "A PARTICIPATION REASONABLY EQUIVALENT TO
THEIR CONTRIBUTION."  CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA,
P. 121.  THAT RULE OBTAINS UNDER CH. X AS WELL AS UNDER ITS
PREDECESSOR, SEC. 77B.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE RECORD THAT THE
EQUITY OWNERS DESIRE TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION ON THAT BASIS, AND THAT,
UNLESS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT UNDER CH. X, THEY WILL BE BARRED.  ALL
THAT THE RECORD SHOWS IS AN AFFIDAVIT BY ONE SILVERMAN THAT, "IF THE
CREDITORS DESIRE LIQUIDATION OF THEIR CLAIMS ON THE BASIS OF PRESENT
ACTUAL VALUES RATHER THAN ON THE FACE AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIMS," $50,000
IN CASH COULD BE RAISED.  CH. X WOULD NOT PERMIT SUCH A DILUTION OF
CREDITORS' INTERESTS.  HENCE, SUCH A SHOWING DOES NOT ESTABLISH ON
BEHALF OF THE STOCKHOLDERS THAT "NEED FOR RELIEF" WHICH SEC. 130(7),
READ IN LIGHT OF SEC. 146(4), REQUIRES.  IN FACT, THE APPROVAL OF THE
PETITION ON THAT GROUND WOULD BE GIVING THE EQUITY OWNERS A NUISANCE
VALUE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED BY THE REORGANIZATION STANDARDS WHICH ARE
INCORPORATED INTO CH. X. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS IN THE INTERESTS
OF ALL THE CREDITORS THAT THE CH. X PETITION BE APPROVED.  IT NOTED
THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE CERTIFICATES WAS FAR UNDER PAR AND THAT
THERE WERE LIENORS AND CREDITORS, OTHER THAN THE FIRST MORTGAGE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, WITH WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, BUT NOT THE STATE
COURT, COULD DEAL.  IF THERE WERE A SHOWING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE
PROPERTY WAS WORTH MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF FIRST MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS
AND IT APPEARED THAT THAT EXCESS VALUE WOULD BE LOST TO THE JUNIOR
INTERESTS IN THE STATE PROCEEDINGS, OR THAT THE STATE PROCEEDINGS WERE
LESS ADEQUATE BY REORGANIZATION STANDARDS THAN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO
PROTECT SUCH INTERESTS, APPROVAL OF THE PETITION CLEARLY WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED WHETHER FILED BY THE DEBTOR OR BY CREDITORS.  BUT NO SUCH
SHOWING WAS MADE.  HENCE IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT CONTINUATION OF
THE STATE PROCEEDINGS WOULD DENY THE JUNIOR CREDITORS ANY BENEFITS
WHICH CH. X WOULD AFFORD THEM.  APPROVAL OF THE PETITION ON THE GROUNDS
ADVANCED BY THE DISTRICT COURT COULD BE MADE ONLY UNDER THE COMPOSITION
THEORY OF REORGANIZATION, WHICH CH. X, LIKE SEC. 77B, REJECTED IN FAVOR
OF THE FULL PRIORITY RULE OF THE BOYD CASE.  SEE CASE V. LOS ANGELES
LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, P. 119, N. 14.  THAT RULE PROTECTS THE
RIGHTS OF SENIOR CREDITORS AGAINST DILUTION EITHER BY JUNIOR CREDITORS
OR BY EQUITY INTERESTS.  SEE ID., P. 123; CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS
CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510, 525-526, 529-530. 

THERE REMAINS THE CONTENTION THAT IT WAS IN THE "INTERESTS" OF THE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS TO HAVE THE PROCEEDINGS TRANSFERRED TO CH. X. IN
THIS CONNECTION, MUCH EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON NUMEROUS SAFEGUARDS
CONTAINED IN CH. X, WHICH THIS COURT REVIEWED IN SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES REALTY & IMP.  CO., 310 U.S. 434, 448-450. 
AND IT IS ASSERTED THAT COMPARABLE SAFEGUARDS ARE WHOLLY OR LARGELY
LACKING IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SCHACKNO ACT.  THOSE CONSIDERATIONS
WOULD BE HIGHLY RELEVANT AND PERSUASIVE IF THIS WERE A CASE OF THE
USUAL REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING DEALING WITH MORE THAN ONE CLASS OF
SECURITIES UNDER THE OLDER PROCEDURES WHICH CH. X WAS DESIGNED TO
IMPROVE AND SUPPLANT.  SEE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. UNITED
STATES REALTY & IMP.  CO., SUPRA, P. 448; H. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 37 ET SEQ.  THEN THE SAFEGUARDS AFFORDED BY CH. X WOULD
HAVE SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE IN PROTECTING THE RESPECTIVE CLASSES OF
INVESTORS AGAINST IMPROVIDENT, UNFAIR OR INEQUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS,
COMPROMISES, AND SETTLEMENTS - STEPS WHICH ARE BASIC TO THE
REORGANIZATION PROCESS BUT WHICH IN SELFISH HANDS LED TO MUCH ABUSE. 
H. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 37 ET SEQ. BUT HERE THE
MACHINERY OF THE STATE WHICH IS BEING USED IS THE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDING, WHICH, SO FAR AS APPEARS, HAS BEEN INVOKED ON BEHALF OF THE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS ALONE.  PRESUMPTIVELY, THE RESULT OF THE
FORECLOSURE WILL BE AN APPROPRIATION OF THE ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS EXCLUSIVELY.  THERE IS NO
SHOWING THAT THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED IN SUCH A
WAY AS TO JEOPARDIZE THE INTERESTS OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CONTRARY
TO THE DESIGN OF CH. X. THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT ASSETS SUBJECT TO THE
PAYMENT OF THE CERTIFICATES ARE BEING NEGLECTED.  THUS IT IS NOT SHOWN
THAT THE CLAIM AGAINST THE GUARANTEE COMPANY IS NOT BEING PURSUED OR
THAT ITS COLLECTION COULD BETTER BE HANDLED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER CH. X.
THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE MACHINERY EMPLOYED OR AVAILABLE IN THE
STATE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING TO SAFEGUARD AND PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF
THOSE CREDITORS AFTER THE SALE IS NOT COMPARABLE TO THAT CONTAINED IN
CH. X FOR THE CONSUMMATION OF PLANS WHICH ARE NOT ONLY FAIR BUT
FEASIBLE.  SEC. 221(2).  IN VIEW OF THE BURDEN ON A PETITIONER TO MAKE
THE SHOWING REQUIRED BY SEC. 130(7) AND SEC. 146(4), THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT IS NOT WARRANTED IN ASSUMING, WITHOUT MORE, THAT A STATE
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, INSTITUTED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST
MORTGAGE CREDITORS EXCLUSIVELY, IS INADEQUATE, MEASURED BY CH. X
STANDARDS, TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.  THE CONTRARY COURSE WOULD
RESULT IN CH. X MAKING GREATER INROADS ON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAN SEC.
130(7) AND SEC. 146(4) INDICATE WAS THE PURPOSE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE GENERALLY, REPORT OF COMMISSIONER GEORGE W. ALGER TO THE
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OCT. 5, 1934. 

FN2  ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMISSION, SEE ANNUAL REPORT 1939,
N.Y. LEG.  DOC., NO. 94. 
..END :





















WARREN-BRADSHAW CO. V. HALL, 317 U.S. 88 


NO. 21.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 9, 1942.  - 124
F.2D 42, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DEPENDS UPON THE
CHARACTER OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EMPLOYEE.  P. 90. 

2.  EMPLOYEES SEEKING TO RECOVER OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, HELD TO HAVE
SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ACT.  P. 90. 

3.  MEMBERS OF A ROTARY DRILLING CREW, ENGAGED WITHIN A STATE, AS
EMPLOYEES OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, IN PARTIALLY DRILLING OIL WELLS
(TO A DEPTH SHORT OF THE OIL SAND STRATUM) - WHICH WELLS WERE LATER
"BROUGHT IN" BY OTHER WORKMEN; AND SOME OF THE OIL AND GAS FROM WHICH,
IN CRUDE FORM OR AS REFINED PRODUCTS, MOVED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE -
WERE ENGAGED IN A "PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION"
OF OIL FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND WERE COVERED BY THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.  P. 91. 

4.  ASSUMING THAT THIS IS PREREQUISITE TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT
IN THIS CASE, THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE EMPLOYER TO
ANTICIPATE, AT THE TIME OF DRILLING, THAT OIL WHEN PRODUCED BY THE
WELLS WOULD MOVE INTO OTHER STATES.  P. 92. 

5.  IN THE CASE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS EMPLOYED ON THE BASIS OF AN
EIGHT HOUR DAY AT A FIXED DAILY WAGE, AND REGULARLY WORKS SEVEN DAYS A
WEEK, THE FACT THAT HE IS PAID, AND ACCEPTS, WAGES WHICH ARE IN EXCESS
OF THE STATUTORY MINIMUM, INCLUDING THE MINIMUM FOR OVERTIME, DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE COMPLIANCE WITH THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION REQUIREMENTS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  OVERNIGHT TRANSPORTATION CO. V. MISSEL,
316 U.S. 572.  P. 93. 

WARREN-BRADSHAW DRILLING CO. V. HALL, AGENT, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 660, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, 40
F.SUPP.  272, AGAINST AN EMPLOYER IN AN ACTION ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN OF
ITS EMPLOYEES FOR UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
UNDER SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CONCERNED HERE, AS IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517,
WITH A PROBLEM OF STATUTORY DELINEATION, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, IN
THE APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT  FN1  TO A PARTICULAR
SITUATION.  THIS IS AN ACTION TO RECOVER UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION
AND AN EQUAL AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT
EMPLOYEES UNDER SEC. 16(B).  WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER RESPONDENTS ARE
ENGAGED "IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE," WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THEY WERE SO
ENGAGED, AND, SINCE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR
OVERTIME HOURS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 7(A), ACCORDINGLY RENDERED JUDGMENT
FOR EACH RESPONDENT IN THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED WITH AN IMMATERIAL MODIFICATION,  FN3  AND THE CASE
COMES HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT DEPENDS UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE
EMPLOYEES' ACTIVITIES.  KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, P. 524.  THE
BURDEN WAS THEREFORE UPON RESPONDENTS TO PROVE THAT, IN THE COURSE OF
PERFORMING THEIR SERVICES FOR PETITIONER AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS, THEY WERE, AS ITS EMPLOYEES, ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, AND THAT SUCH
PRODUCTION WAS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE AGREE WITH BOTH COURTS
BELOW THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE SUSTAINED THAT BURDEN. 

PETITIONER IS THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF ROTARY DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND
MACHINERY, WHO CONTRACTS WITH THE OWNERS OR LESSEES OF OIL LANDS TO
DRILL HOLES TO AN AGREED-UPON DEPTH SHORT OF THE OIL SAND STRATUM. 
WHEN THAT DEPTH IS REACHED, THE ROTARY RIG IS REMOVED, AND THE
MACHINERY AND CREW MOVE ON TO OTHER LOCATIONS.  FOR REASONS PECULIAR TO
THE OIL INDUSTRY, A CABLE DRILLING CREW THEN UNDERTAKES WITH CABLE
TOOLS TO "BRING IN" THE WELL, OR ELSE DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS A DRY
HOLE.  RESPONDENTS WERE EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER AS MEMBERS OF ITS ROTARY
DRILLING CREW AND WORKED ON APPROXIMATELY THIRTY-TWO WELLS IN THE
PANHANDLE OIL FIELD OF TEXAS; THIRTY-ONE OF THOSE WELLS PRODUCED OIL,
AND THE OTHER ONE PRODUCED GAS.  PETITIONER WAS NOT THE OWNER OR LESSEE
OF ANY OF THE LANDS ON WHICH RESPONDENTS DRILLED, AND WAS NOT SHOWN TO
HAVE ANY INTEREST THEREIN OR IN THE OIL PRODUCED. 

IN SEC. 3(J) CONGRESS HAS BROADLY DEFINED THE TERM "PRODUCED," N4 AND
HAS PROVIDED THAT "AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN
THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN PRODUCING,
MANUFACTURING, MINING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER
WORKING ON SUCH GOODS, OR IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE
PRODUCTION THEREOF, IN ANY STATE."  WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS, IN
DRILLING TO A SPECIFIED DEPTH SHORT OF OIL, MAY BE REGARDED AS ENGAGED
IN PRODUCING OR MINING - AND WE CERTAINLY ARE NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS
INTIMATING THAT THEY MAY NOT - RECOGNITION OF THE OBVIOUS REQUIRES US
TO HOLD THAT, AT THE VERY LEAST, THEY WERE ENGAGED IN A "PROCESS OR
OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF OIL.  OIL IS OBTAINED ONLY
BY PIERCING THE EARTH'S SURFACE; DRILLING A WELL IS A NECESSARY PART OF
THE PRODUCTIVE PROCESS TO WHICH IT IS INTIMATELY RELATED.  THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES IN PARTIALLY DRILLING WELLS
AND THE CAPTURE OF OIL IS QUITE SUBSTANTIAL, AND THOSE ACTIVITIES
CERTAINLY BEAR AS "CLOSE AND IMMEDIATE TIE" TO PRODUCTION AS DID THE
SERVICES OF THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKERS HELD WITHIN THE ACT IN
KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, SUPRA, PP. 525-526. 

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE FINDING THAT SOME OF THE OIL PRODUCED
ULTIMATELY FOUND ITS WAY INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ALL THE WELLS HAD
PIPELINE CONNECTIONS, SOME OF THEM BEING WITH PETROLEUM COMPANIES
OPERATING ON A NATIONAL SCALE, WHEREIN THE OIL WAS COMMINGLED WITH THE
PRODUCTION OF OTHER WELLS.  OFFICIALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS TESTIFIED
THAT SOME CRUDE OIL IS SHIPPED OUT OF THE STATE BY THESE PIPELINES, AND
THAT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF CRUDE OIL SENT TO REFINERIES IN TEXAS
THEREAFTER PASSES OUT OF THE STATE IN THE FORM OF REFINED PRODUCTS. 

PETITIONER CONTESTS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT
IT, AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN THE
WELLS, HAD NO INTENTION, EXPECTATION OR BELIEF THAT ANY OIL PRODUCED
WOULD BE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND CITES AS SUPPORT UNITED
STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 118, WHERE IT WAS SAID THAT THE
"PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE" INTENDED BY CONGRESS INCLUDES "AT LEAST
PRODUCTION OF GOODS, WHICH, AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION, THE EMPLOYER,
ACCORDING TO THE NORMAL COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS, INTENDS OR EXPECTS TO
MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALTHOUGH, THROUGH THE EXIGENCIES OF THE
BUSINESS, ALL OF THE GOODS MAY NOT THEREAFTER ACTUALLY ENTER INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  RESPONDENTS COUNTER WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT IT IS ENOUGH
THAT THE OWNERS OF THE OIL WELLS EXPECTED THE OIL PRODUCED TO MOVE
ACROSS STATE LINES, BUT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ASK,  FN5  AND THERE IS
NO NEED FOR, US TO PASS UPON THAT PROPOSITION.  THE ACT EXTENDS AT
LEAST TO THE EMPLOYER WHO EXPECTS GOODS TO MOVE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA.  ASSUMING THAT SUCH
EXPECTATION, OR A REASONABLE BASIS THEREFOR, WAS NECESSARY ON
PETITIONER'S PART BEFORE THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO PETITIONER, IT
IS HERE PRESENT.  THE RECORD CONTAINS AMPLE INDICATION THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR PETITIONER TO ANTICIPATE, AT THE TIME OF
DRILLING, THAT OIL PRODUCED BY THE WELLS DRILLED, WOULD MOVE INTO OTHER
STATES.  PETITIONER, CLOSELY IDENTIFIED AS IT IS WITH THE BUSINESS OF
OIL PRODUCTION, CANNOT ESCAPE THE IMPACT OF THE ACT BY A TRANSPARENT
CLAIM OF IGNORANCE OF THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF THE TEXAS OIL
INDUSTRY.  ST. JOHN V. BROWN, 38 F.SUPP.  385, 388; CF. FLEMING V.
ENTERPRISE BOX CO., 37 F.SUPP.  331, 334-335, AFFIRMED, 125 F.2D 897. 

ONE FINAL CONTENTION MERITS BUT SLIGHT CONSIDERATION.  RESPONDENTS
WERE EMPLOYED ON THE BASIS OF AN EIGHT HOUR DAY AND REGULARLY WORKED
SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, RECEIVING FIXED WAGES RANGING FROM $6.50 TO $11 PER
DAY.  THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR AN HOURLY RATE OF PAY OR
THAT THE WEEKLY SALARY INCLUDED ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME
HOURS.  PETITIONER URGES THAT IT COMPLIED WITH THE OVERTIME
COMPENSATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT BECAUSE RESPONDENTS RECEIVED WAGES
IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE, INCLUDING TIME AND ONE-HALF OF
THAT MINIMUM WAGE FOR ALL OVERTIME HOURS, WHICH WAGES RESPONDENTS
IMPLIEDLY AGREED INCLUDED OVERTIME COMPENSATION BY ACCEPTING THEM.  A
SIMILAR ARGUMENT WAS SQUARELY REJECTED IN OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V.
MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ. 

FN2  40 F.SUPP.  272. 

FN3  124 F.2D 42. 

FN4  "'PRODUCED' MEANS PRODUCED, MANUFACTURED, MINED, HANDLED, OR IN
ANY OTHER MANNER WORKED ON IN ANY STATE; ...  " 

FN5  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SUBMITTED A BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, AS AMICUS CURIAE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I DISSENT, AS I DID IN KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517, AND
FOR THE SAME REASON.  BUT I THINK THE PRESENT A MORE EXTRAVAGANT
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE THAN THAT THERE APPROVED.  WE MAY ASSUME
THAT CONGRESS, IN DRAFTING THE ACT, HAD IN MIND THE PRACTICAL, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM A THEORETICAL, DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS NATIONAL
AND WHAT IS LOCAL,  - BETWEEN WHAT, IN FACT, TOUCHES INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND WHAT, IN TRUTH, IS INTRASTATE. 

THE PHRASES ON WHICH RESPONDENTS RELY ARE THESE:  AN EMPLOYEE "WHO IS
ENGAGED IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
(INTERSTATE) COMMERCE," SEC. 7(A); AND "'PRODUCED' MEANS PRODUCED,
MANUFACTURED, MINED, HANDLED, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WORKED ON IN ANY
STATE; AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO
HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS
EMPLOYED IN PRODUCING, MANUFACTURING, MINING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING,
OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WORKING ON SUCH GOODS, OR IN ANY PROCESS OR
OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION THEREOF, IN ANY STATE," SEC.
3(J). 

THE OPINION DISAVOWS ANY THOUGHT THAT THE RESPONDENTS MAY BE CLASSED
AS THOSE WHO MINE THE OIL WHICH PASSES INTO COMMERCE; BUT THIS SEEMS TO
BE A RESERVATION INTENDED NOT TO PRECLUDE SUCH A HOLDING.  THE COURT
RELIES, RATHER, ON THE ACT'S INCLUSION OF ANYONE EMPLOYED "IN ANY
PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE. 

THE REASONING SEEMS TO BE AS FOLLOWS:  THE OIL WILL PASS INTO COMMERCE
IF IT IS MINED.  BUT IT CANNOT BE MINED UNLESS SOMEBODY DRILLS A WELL. 
AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR'S MEN DO PART OF THE DRILLING.  THEIR WORK IS
"NECESSARY" TO THE MINING AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE OIL.  SO THEY
FALL WITHIN THE ACT. 

THIS IS TO IGNORE ALL PRACTICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS PAROCHIAL
AND WHAT IS NATIONAL.  IT IS BUT THE APPLICATION TO THE PRACTICAL
AFFAIRS OF LIFE OF A PHILOSOPHIC AND IMPRACTICAL TEST.  IT IS BUT TO
REPEAT, IN ANOTHER FORM, THE OLD STORY OF THE PEBBLE THROWN INTO THE
POOL, AND THE THEORETICALLY INFINITE EXTENT OF THE RESULTING WAVES,
ALBEIT TOO TINY TO BE SEEN OR FELT BY THE EXERCISE OF ONE'S SENSES. 

THE LABOR OF THE MAN WHO MADE THE TOOLS WHICH DRILLED THE WELL, THAT
OF THE SAWYER WHO CUT THE WOOD INCIDENTALLY USED, THAT OF HIM WHO MINED
THE IRON OF WHICH THE TOOLS WERE MADE, ARE ALL JUST AS NECESSARY TO THE
ULTIMATE EXTRACTION OF OIL AS THE LABOR OF RESPONDENTS.  EACH IS AN
ANTECEDENT OF THE CONSEQUENT,  - THE PRODUCTION OF THE GOODS FOR
COMMERCE.  INDEED, IF RESPONDENTS WERE NOT FED, THEY COULD NOT HAVE
DRILLED THE WELL, AND THE OIL WOULD NOT HAVE GONE INTO COMMERCE.  IS
THE COOK'S WORK "NECESSARY" TO THE PRODUCTION OF THE OIL, AND WITHIN
THE ACT? 

I THINK CONGRESS COULD NOT AND DID NOT INTEND TO EXERT ITS GRANTED
POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE UPON WHAT IN PRACTICE AND COMMON
UNDERSTANDING IS PURELY LOCAL ACTIVITY, ON THE PRETEXT THAT EVERYTHING
EVERYBODY DOES IS A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE TO THE EXISTENCE OF COMMERCE
BETWEEN THE STATES, AND IN THAT SENSE NECESSARY TO ITS EXISTENCE. 
..END :






RIGGS V. DEL DRAGO, 317 U.S. 95 


NO. 30.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 9, 1942.  - 287
N.Y. 61, 38 N.E.2D 131, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 124 OF THE NEW YORK DECEDENT ESTATE LAW, REQUIRING THAT,
UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DECEDENT'S WILL, THE BURDEN OF ANY
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX PAID BY THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR BE APPORTIONED
AMONG THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE, IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX LAW (INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SEC. 800 ET SEQ.), AND
DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
PP. 97, 102. 

THE INTENT OF CONGRESS WAS THAT THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX SHOULD BE PAID
OUT OF THE ESTATE AS A WHOLE, AND THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
REMAINING ESTATE AND THE ULTIMATE IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL TAX SHOULD BE
DETERMINED UNDER THE STATE LAW.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1916 AND SUBSEQUENT ACTS, THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION SUPPORT THIS CONCLUSION; AND SECS. 826(B), 826(C), AND
826(D) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE DO NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT. 

2.  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THE ULTIMATE INCIDENCE OF THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX IS THUS GOVERNED BY STATE LAW VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT OF GEOGRAPHICAL UNIFORMITY IN FEDERAL TAXATION.  P. 102. 

RIGGS, SPECIAL GUARDIAN, V. DEL DRAGO ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SURROGATE'S COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 795, TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF NEW YORK, HOLDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL SECTION 124 OF THE NEW
YORK DECEDENT ESTATE LAW.  THE SURROGATE'S COURT ENTERED ITS ORDER UPON
THE REMITTITUR OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER SEC. 124 OF THE NEW YORK
DECEDENT ESTATE LAW,  FN1  WHICH PROVIDES IN EFFECT THAT, EXCEPT AS
OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE DECEDENT'S WILL, THE BURDEN OF ANY FEDERAL
DEATH TAXES PAID BY THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR SHALL BE SPREAD
PROPORTIONATELY AMONG THE DISTRIBUTEES OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE,
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX
LAW, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SEC. 800 ET SEQ. 

TESTATRIX, A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, DIED ON OCTOBER 8, 1937, LEAVING A
WILL DATED MARCH 27, 1934, WHICH, AFTER CERTAIN GIFTS OF PERSONAL
EFFECTS AND SMALL SUMS OF CASH, BEQUEATHED $300,000 OUTRIGHT TO
RESPONDENT GIOVANNI DEL DRAGO, AND CREATED A TRUST OF $200,000 FOR THE
BENEFIT OF RESPONDENT MARCEL DEL DRAGO DURING HIS LIFE, WITH REMAINDER
OVER UPON HIS DEATH.  THE RESIDUE OF TESTATRIX'S ESTATE WAS LEFT IN
TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF GIOVANNI DURING HIS LIFE, WITH REMAINDER OVER
UPON HIS DEATH.  THE WILL CONTAINED NO REFERENCE TO THE PAYMENT OF
ESTATE OR INHERITANCE TAXES. 

THE EXECUTORS PAID APPROXIMATELY $230,000 ON ACCOUNT OF THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX, AND THEN ASKED THE SURROGATE, IN A PETITION FOR THE
SETTLEMENT OF THEIR ACCOUNT, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT PAYMENT SHOULD
BE EQUITABLY APPORTIONED AMONG ALL THE PERSONS BENEFICIALLY INTERESTED
IN THE ESTATE, PURSUANT TO SEC. 124 OF THE DECEDENT ESTATE LAW. 
GIOVANNI AND MARCEL DEL DRAGO ANSWERED, RAISING OBJECTIONS TO THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 124.  PETITIONER, WHO WAS APPOINTED SPECIAL
GUARDIAN TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE INFANT REMAINDERMEN UNDER
THE RESIDUARY TRUST, URGED THAT THE TAX BE APPORTIONED.  THE SURROGATE
OVERRULED THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS, AND DIRECTED APPORTIONMENT. 
FN2  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, BY A DIVIDED COURT, REVERSED,
HOLDING SEC. 124 REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX LAW - PARTICULARLY
TO SEC. 826(B) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE - AND IN VIOLATION OF THE
SUPREMACY (ART. VI, CL. 2) AND THE UNIFORMITY (ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 1)
CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN3  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION MOVED
US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX
SHOULD BE PAID OUT OF THE ESTATE AS A WHOLE, AND THAT THE APPLICABLE
STATE LAW AS TO THE DEVOLUTION OF PROPERTY AT DEATH SHOULD GOVERN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE REMAINDER AND THE ULTIMATE IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL
TAX; ACCORDINGLY, SEC. 124 IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ESTATE
TAX LAW.  THIS CONCLUSION IS BASED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1916, 39 STAT. 756, AND SUBSEQUENT ACTS, THEIR LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION. 

IN THE ACT OF 1916 CONGRESS TURNED FROM THE PREVIOUS CENTURY'S
INHERITANCE TAX UPON THE RECEIPT OF PROPERTY BY SURVIVORS (SEE KNOWLTON
V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41; SCHOLEY V. REW, 23 WALL.  331) TO AN ESTATE TAX
UPON THE TRANSMISSION OF A STATUTORY "NET ESTATE" BY A DECEDENT.  THAT
ACT DIRECTED PAYMENT BY THE EXECUTOR IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, SEC. 207,
BUT PROVIDED ALSO FOR PAYMENT IN THE EVENT THAT HE FAILED TO PAY, SEC.
208.  IT DID NOT UNDERTAKE IN ANY MANNER TO SPECIFY WHO WAS TO BEAR THE
BURDEN OF THE TAX.  ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES CLEARLY THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE AFTER THE TAX WAS PAID, AND THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THAT STATE LAW SHOULD DETERMINE THE ULTIMATE THRUST
OF THE TAX.  FN4  THAT CONGRESS, FROM 1916 ONWARD, HAS UNDERSTOOD LOCAL
LAW AS GOVERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE AFTER PAYMENT OF THE
TAX (WITH THE LIMITED EXCEPTIONS CREATED BY SEC. 826(C) AND (D) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, TO BE DISCUSSED PRESENTLY) IS CONFIRMED BY SEC.
812(D) OF THE CODE, DEALING WITH CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONS, WHICH
RECOGNIZES THAT ESTATE TAXES MAY BE PAYABLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART OUT OF
CERTAIN BEQUESTS, ETC., "BY THE LAW OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER WHICH THE
ESTATE IS ADMINISTERED."  FN5  THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION HAS
BEEN IN ACCORD,  FN6  AND THAT HAS BEEN THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS,  FN7  AND OF SOME STATE COURTS.  FN8 

IN REACHING A CONTRARY RESULT, THE COURT BELOW RELIED PRIMARILY UPON
SEC. 826(B).  FN9  BUT THAT SECTION DOES NOT DIRECT HOW THE ESTATE IS
TO BE DISTRIBUTED, NOR DOES IT DETERMINE WHO SHALL BEAR THE ULTIMATE
BURDEN OF THE TAX.  AS POINTED OUT BEFORE, WHILE THE FEDERAL STATUTE
NORMALLY CONTEMPLATES PAYMENT OF THE TAX BEFORE THE ESTATE IS
DISTRIBUTED, SEC. 822(B) OF THE CODE, PROVISION IS MADE FOR COLLECTION
OF THE TAX IF DISTRIBUTION SHOULD PRECEDE PAYMENT, SEC. 826(A).  IF ANY
DISTRIBUTEE IS THUS CALLED UPON TO PAY THE TAX, SEC. 826(B) PROVIDES
THAT SUCH PERSON "SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OUT OF ANY PART OF
THE ESTATE STILL UNDISTRIBUTED OR BY A JUST AND EQUITABLE CONTRIBUTION
BY THE PERSONS WHOSE INTEREST IN THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT WOULD HAVE
BEEN REDUCED IF THE TAX HAD BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ESTATE."  BY THAT SECTION CONGRESS INTENDED TO PROTECT A DISTRIBUTEE
AGAINST BEARING A GREATER BURDEN OF THE TAX THAN HE WOULD HAVE
SUSTAINED HAD THE TAX BEEN CARVED OUT OF THE ESTATE PRIOR TO
DISTRIBUTION; ANY DOUBT THAT THIS IS THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION IS REMOVED
BY THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF THE SECTION, SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT IT
IS "THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS SUBCHAPTER THAT SO FAR AS IS
PRACTICABLE AND UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE WILL OF THE DECEDENT
THE TAX SHALL BE PAID OUT OF THE ESTATE BEFORE ITS DISTRIBUTION." 
CHARGE ON THE RESIDUARY ESTATE; TO READ THE PHRASE "THE TAX SHALL BE
PAID OUT OF THE ESTATE" AS MEANING "THE TAX SHALL BE PAID OUT OF THE
RESIDUARY ESTATE" IS TO DISTORT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION AND
TO CREATE AN OBVIOUS FALLACY.  FOR IN SOME ESTATES THERE MAY BE NO
RESIDUE, OR ELSE ONE TOO SMALL TO SATISFY THE TAX; RESORT MUST THEN BE
HAD TO STATE LAW TO DETERMINE WHETHER PERSONALTY OR REALTY, OR GENERAL,
DEMONSTRATIVE OR SPECIAL LEGACIES ABATE FIRST.  IN SHORT, SEC. 826(B),
ESPECIALLY WHEN CAST IN THE BACKGROUND OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT,
DISCUSSED BEFORE, SIMPLY PROVIDES THAT, IF THE TAX MUST BE COLLECTED
AFTER DISTRIBUTION, THE FINAL IMPACT OF THE TAX SHALL BE THE SAME AS
THOUGH IT HAD FIRST BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE ESTATE BEFORE DISTRIBUTION,
THUS LEAVING TO STATE LAW THE DETERMINATION OF WHERE THAT FINAL IMPACT
SHALL BE. 

RESPONDENTS ALSO RELY ON SEC. 826(C),  FN10  AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTOR
TO COLLECT THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE TAX FROM THE BENEFICIARY OF
LIFE INSURANCE INCLUDABLE IN THE GROSS ESTATE BY REASON OF SEC. 811(G),
AND SEC. 826(D),  FN11  AUTHORIZING SIMILAR ACTION AGAINST A PERSON
RECEIVING PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A POWER WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER SEC.
811(F), AS FORBIDDING FURTHER APPORTIONMENT BY FORCE OF STATE LAW
AGAINST OTHER DISTRIBUTEES.  FN12  BUT THESE SECTIONS DEAL WITH
PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT PASS THROUGH THE EXECUTOR'S HANDS, AND THE
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION WITH REGARD TO SUCH PROPERTY IS WHOLLY
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INTENT TO LEAVE THE DETERMINATION OF THE BURDEN OF
THE ESTATE TAX TO STATE LAW AS TO PROPERTIES ACTUALLY HANDLED AS PART
OF THE ESTATE BY THE EXECUTOR. 

SINCE SEC. 124 OF THE NEW YORK DECEDENT ESTATE LAW IS NOT IN CONFLICT
WITH THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX STATUTE, IT DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE
SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THE
ULTIMATE INCIDENCE OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX IS GOVERNED BY STATE LAW
VIOLATE THE REQUIREMENT OF GEOGRAPHICAL UNIFORMITY.  CF. PHILLIPS V.
COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 602. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CHAPTER 709, LAWS OF 1930. 

FN2  175 MISC. (N.Y.)  489, 23 N.Y.S.2D 943. 

FN3  287 N.Y. 61, 38 N.E.2D 131. 

FN4  CONGRESSMAN CORDELL HULL, ONE OF THE SUPPORTERS OF THE 1916 ACT
AND ITS REPUTED DRAFTSMAN, DECLARED:  "UNDER THE GENERAL LAWS OF
DESCENT THE PROPOSED ESTATE TAX WOULD BE FIRST TAKEN OUT OF THE NET
ESTATE BEFORE DISTRIBUTION, AND DISTRIBUTION MADE UNDER THE SAME RULE
THAT WOULD OTHERWISE GOVERN IT.  WHERE THE DECEDENT MAKES A WILL HE CAN
ALLOW THE ESTATE TAX TO FASTEN ON HIS NET ESTATE IN THE SAME MANNER, OR
IF HE OBJECTS TO THIS EQUITABLE METHOD OF IMPOSING IT UPON THE ENTIRE
NET ESTATE BEFORE DISTRIBUTION HE CAN INSERT A RESIDUARY CLAUSE OR
OTHER PROVISION IN HIS WILL, THE EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD MORE OR LESS
CHANGE THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX."  53 CONG. REC. 10657. 

CONGRESSMAN KITCHIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE,
STATED:  "WE LEVY AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM OF INHERITANCE TAXES. 
WE LEVY THE TAX ON THE TRANSFER OF THE FLAT OR WHOLE NET ESTATE.  WE DO
NOT FOLLOW THE BENEFICIARIES AND SEE HOW MUCH THIS ONE GETS AND THAT
ONE GETS, AND WHAT RATE SHOULD BE LEVIED ON LINEAL AND WHAT ON
COLLATERAL RELATIONS, BUT WE SIMPLY LEVY ON THE NET ESTATE.  THIS ALSO
PREVENTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, GOING
INTO THE COURTS CONTESTING AND CONSTRUING WILLS AND STATUTES OF
DISTRIBUTION."  53 CONG. REC. APP. P. 1942. 

FN5  SECTION 812(D) WAS FIRST ENACTED AS SEC. 303(A) OF THE 1924 ACT,
43 STAT. 253.  IT WAS REPEALED BY SEC. 323(A) OF THE 1926 ACT, 44 STAT.
9, AND REENACTED BY SEC. 807 OF THE 1932 ACT, 47 STAT. 169.  THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS ACCOMPANYING THE 1932 ACT RECOGNIZE THAT LOCAL LAW
DETERMINES THE ULTIMATE INCIDENCE OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  H. REP.
NO. 708, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 49; S. REP. NO. 665, 72D CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 52.  SEE ALSO ARTICLE 44 OF REGULATIONS 68 AND REGULATIONS
80; SEC. 81.84 OF REGULATIONS 105. 

FN6  THE TREASURY HAS TAKEN THE POSITION, AT LEAST SINCE 1922, THAT
IT HAS NO INTEREST IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BURDEN OF THE ESTATE
TAX.  SEE ARTICLE 85 OF REGULATIONS 63; ARTICLE 87 OF REGULATIONS 68,
REGULATIONS 70(1926 AND 1929 EDS.), AND REGULATIONS 80(1934 AND 1937
EDS.); AND SEC. 81.84 OF REGULATIONS 105. 

FN7  EDWARDS V. SLOCUM, 287 F. 651, 653, AFFIRMED, 264 U.S. 61, 63;
Y.M.C.A. V. DAVIS, 264 U.S. 47, 51; NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. EISNER, 256
U.S. 345, 349; HEPBURN V. WINTHROP, 65 APP. D.C. 309, 83 F.2D 566,
572. 

FN8  AMOSKEAG TRUST CO. V. TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, 89 N.H.
471, 200 A. 786; THOMPSON V. UNION MERCANTILE TRUST CO., 164 ARK. 411,
262 S.W. 324; HENDERSON V. USHER, 125 FLA. 709, 170 SO. 846.  AND SEE
IN RE NEWTON'S ESTATE, 74 PA. SUPER.  CT. 361; PLUNKETT V. OLD COLONY
TRUST CO., 233 MASS. 471, 124 N.E. 265; CORBIN V. TOWNSHEND, 92 CONN.
501, 103 A. 647; GAEDE V. CARROLL, 114 N.J. EQ. 524, 169 A. 172. 

BUT COMPARE MATTER OF HAMLIN, 226 N.Y. 407, 124 N.E. 4; FARMERS' LOAN
& TRUST CO. V. WINTHROP, 238 N.Y. 488, 144 N.E. 769; MATTER OF OAKES,
248 N.Y. 280, 162 N.E. 79; BEMIS V. CONVERSE, 246 MASS. 131, 140 N.E.
686. 

FN9  THIS SECTION WAS ORIGINALLY ENACTED AS PART OF SEC. 208 OF THE
ACT OF 1916.  ITS FULL TEXT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

SEC. 826.  COLLECTION OF UNPAID TAX. 

     .         .    .         .         . 

(B)  REIMBURSEMENT OUT OF ESTATE.  IF THE TAX OR ANY PART THEREOF IS
PAID BY, OR COLLECTED OUT OF THAT PART OF THE ESTATE PASSING TO OR IN
THE POSSESSION OF, ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE EXECUTOR IN HIS CAPACITY
AS SUCH, SUCH PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OUT OF ANY PART
OF THE ESTATE STILL UNDISTRIBUTED OR BY A JUST AND EQUITABLE
CONTRIBUTION BY THE PERSONS WHOSE INTEREST IN THE ESTATE OF THE
DECEDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED IF THE TAX HAD BEEN PAID BEFORE THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE OR WHOSE INTEREST IS SUBJECT TO EQUAL OR
PRIOR LIABILITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAXES, DEBTS, OR OTHER CHARGES
AGAINST THE ESTATE, IT BEING THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS SUBCHAPTER
THAT SO FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE AND UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE WILL
OF THE DECEDENT THE TAX SHALL BE PAID OUT OF THE ESTATE BEFORE ITS
DISTRIBUTION. 

FN10  THIS SECTION WAS FIRST ADOPTED IN SEC. 408 OF THE 1918 ACT, 40
STAT. 1057.  SEE H. REP. NO. 767, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN11  THIS SECTION WAS ADDED BY SEC. 403(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1942, APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 1942.  SEE H. REP. NO. 2333, 77TH CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 161. 

FN12  THIS ARGUMENT WAS ACCEPTED IN BEMIS V. CONVERSE, 246 MASS. 131,
140 N.E. 686, AND FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. V. WINTHROP, 238 N.Y. 488,
144 N.E. 769. 
..END :





















HELVERING V. OHIO LEATHER CO., 317 U.S. 102 


NO. 40.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1942.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 9, 1942.  - 124
F.2D 360, 397, REVERSED. 


1.  A CORPORATION CLAIMING A CREDIT UNDER SEC. 26(C)(2) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1936, IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THAT ACT ON
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS, HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
EXACT TERMS OF THE SECTION.  P. 106. 

2.  THE OBLIGATION OF THE TAXPAYER'S CONTRACT IN EACH OF THESE CASES,
TO PAY A SPECIFIED PORTION OF THE EARNINGS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR UPON
INDEBTEDNESS, WAS ONLY THAT PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE ON OR BEFORE A
CERTAIN DATE SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR; AND A CREDIT
IN COMPUTING THE TAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER
SEC. 26(C)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, SINCE THE CONTRACT DID NOT
REQUIRE THE SPECIFIED PORTION OF EARNINGS "TO BE PAID WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR" OR "TO BE IRREVOCABLY SET ASIDE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR,"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION.  P. 107. 

3.  THAT A TAXPAYER WITH SUCH A CONTRACT MIGHT BE CONSTRAINED BY
PRUDENT BUSINESS JUDGMENT OR BY THE POSSIBILITY OF FIDUCIARY LIABILITY
TO REFRAIN FROM USING THE PORTION OF EARNINGS INVOLVED OR ACTUALLY TO
SET IT ASIDE, IS IMMATERIAL.  NOR IS IT MATERIAL THAT ANTICIPATORY
PAYMENTS WERE IN FACT MADE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR.  P. 107. 

4.  SECTION 43 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 IS INAPPLICABLE HERE, SINCE
THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE TAXPAYERS MADE PAYMENT, EITHER ON A
CASH OR ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS, WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR, BUT WHETHER THEIR
CONTRACTS REQUIRED THEM TO PAY OR TO "IRREVOCABLY SET ASIDE" WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR.  P. 108. 

5.  THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF A TAX DEDUCTION STATUTE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ITS PLAIN MEANING PRODUCES HARSH RESULTS IS A MATTER FOR CONGRESS
AND NOT THE COURTS.  P. 110. 

6.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 26(C)(2) DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
CONTENTION THAT THE SECTION EMBRACES THE CONTRACTS INVOLVED HERE.  P.
110. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. OHIO LEATHER CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 41, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. STRONG MFG. CO., AND NO. 42, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, V. WARREN TOOL CORP., ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 316 U.S.
651, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 651, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF DECISIONS OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (NO. 41, 41 B.T.A. 1273) REDETERMINING TAX
DEFICIENCIES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO CERTAIN CLAIMED
CREDITS AGAINST THEIR UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX FOR THE 1936 TAXABLE
YEAR  FN1  BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 26(C)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49
STAT. 1648.  FN2 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THE TAXPAYER CORPORATION CONTRACTED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1936, BY A WRITTEN AGREEMENT, TO APPLY A PERCENTAGE OF ITS NET
EARNINGS OF A PARTICULAR CALENDAR YEAR TO AN INDEBTEDNESS OF THE
CORPORATION; IN EACH CASE THE AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED ONLY THAT
THE PAYMENT OF THE SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE WAS TO BE MADE ON OR BEFORE A
CERTAIN DATE - APRIL 1 IN THE CASE OF THE OHIO LEATHER COMPANY AND
WARREN TOOL CORPORATION, AND APRIL 15 IN THE CASE OF THE STRONG
MANUFACTURING COMPANY - IN THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE CALENDAR YEAR DURING
WHICH THE NET EARNINGS AROSE.  FN3  HOWEVER, THE SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE
WAS ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN EACH CASE.  BY REASON OF
THESE CONTRACTS AND PAYMENTS, TAXPAYERS HAVE SOUGHT TO AVAIL THEMSELVES
OF THE CREDIT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 26(C)(2), WHICH RELIEVES FROM THE TAX
ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS, IMPOSED BY SEC. 14 OF THE 1936 ACT, ANY
PROFITS WHICH MAY NOT BE DISTRIBUTED BECAUSE OF A CONTRACT REQUIRING
THAT A PORTION OF EARNINGS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR BE PAID OR IRREVOCABLY
SET ASIDE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A DEBT.  THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DETERMINED THAT THE CREDITS CLAIMED
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, AND ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES IN EACH CASE.  THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS OVERRULED THE COMMISSIONER, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN4  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED
CONFLICT WITH ANTIETAM HOTEL CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 123 F.2D 274.  FN5 

SINCE SEC. 26(C)(2) GRANTS A SPECIAL CREDIT IN THE NATURE OF A
DEDUCTION, THE TAXPAYER MUST SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF SHOWING COMPLIANCE
WITH ITS EXACT TERMS.  HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL MILLS, 311 U.S. 46,
49; WHITE V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 281, 292; NEW COLONIAL ICE CO. V.
HELVERING, 292 U.S. 435, 440.  WE AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER THAT
TAXPAYERS HAVE NOT CARRIED THAT BURDEN. 

PRECEDENT WITH WHICH A CORPORATION DEVOTING PART OF ITS EARNINGS TO THE
PAYMENT OF DEBTS RATHER THAN THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS MUST COMPLY
BEFORE IT IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM THE TAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS -
(1) THERE MUST BE A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION PRIOR
TO MAY 1, 1936; (2) THIS CONTRACT MUST CONTAIN A PROVISION EXPRESSLY
DEALING WITH THE DISPOSITION OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE
YEAR; AND (3) THIS CONTRACT MUST CONTAIN A PROVISION REQUIRING THAT A
PORTION OF SUCH EARNINGS AND PROFITS EITHER (A) "BE PAID WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR IN DISCHARGE OF A DEBT," OR (B) "BE IRREVOCABLY SET ASIDE
WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A DEBT."  A TAXPAYER WHOSE
CONTRACT SATISFIES EACH OF THESE THREE REQUIREMENTS IS ENTITLED TO A
CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN SO PAID OR
IRREVOCABLY SET ASIDE. 

WHILE TAXPAYERS HAVE MET THE FIRST TWO STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS - THE
WRITTEN CONTRACTS ANTEDATE MAY 1, 1936, AND CONTAIN PROVISIONS
EXPRESSLY DEALING WITH THE DISPOSITION OF EARNINGS FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR
-, THEY HAVE NOT MET THE THIRD ONE.  FN6  THE CONTRACTS CLEARLY CONTAIN
NO PROVISION REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF EARNINGS "WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR
IN DISCHARGE OF A DEBT."  NOR DO THEY, CONTRARY TO TAXPAYERS'
ASSERTION, REQUIRE THE IRREVOCABLE SETTING ASIDE OF EARNINGS "WITHIN
THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A DEBT," WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 26(C)(2).  THE CONTRACTS ARE WHOLLY SILENT IN RESPECT OF ANY
SETTING ASIDE; THEY DO NOT IN TERMS REQUIRE TAXPAYERS TO SET ASIDE THE
AMOUNT DUE, NOR DO THEY DIRECT ANY SEGREGATION OR PHYSICAL RETENTION
WHATSOEVER.  THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT TAXPAYERS PAY ON OR BEFORE A
DATE AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THIS IS NOT ENOUGH.  UNTIL
THAT DATE TAXPAYERS WERE FREE TO USE THE SPECIFIED PERCENTAGES AS THEY
PLEASED, SO FAR AS THE AGREEMENTS WERE CONCERNED.  THAT PRUDENT
BUSINESS JUDGMENT, OR THE POSSIBILITY OF FIDUCIARY LIABILITY IMPOSED BY
OPERATION OF LAW MIGHT HAVE CONSTRAINED TAXPAYERS TO REFRAIN FROM USING
THESE PERCENTAGES AND ACTUALLY TO SET THEM ASIDE IS IMMATERIAL; SUCH
SETTING ASIDE WAS NOT REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN CONTRACTS,
AND THEREFORE DID NOT SATISFY SEC. 26(C)(2).  CF. HELVERING V.
NORTHWEST STEEL MILLS, 311 U.S. 46, 52.  LIKEWISE, THE FACT THAT
TAXPAYERS ACTUALLY IRREVOCABLY SET THE FUNDS ASIDE BY ANTICIPATORY
PAYMENTS WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR IS OF NO MOMENT, BECAUSE THESE
PAYMENTS WERE VOLUNTARY AND NOT PURSUANT TO THE COMMAND OF THE
AGREEMENTS. 

THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT THE STATUTORY CONDITION OF AN
IRREVOCABLE SETTING ASIDE WOULD BE SATISFIED BY A CONTRACT WHICH,
WITHOUT MORE, MERELY REQUIRES THAT A PERCENTAGE OF EARNINGS OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR BE PAID IN SOME FUTURE YEAR FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A DEBT,
IS EVIDENT, BECAUSE SUCH A CONSTRUCTION REDUCES THE ALTERNATIVE
CONDITION OF SEC. 26(C)(2), RELATING TO ACTUAL PAYMENT WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR, TO A MEANINGLESS SUPERFLUITY.  THE DATE SPECIFIED FOR
PAYMENT WOULD BECOME IMMATERIAL FOR ALL PURPOSES IF THE MERE
REQUIREMENT BY CONTRACT OF FUTURE PAYMENT OUT OF EARNINGS IN A GIVEN
YEAR AUTOMATICALLY ENTAILS AN "IRREVOCABLE SETTING ASIDE" WITHIN THAT
YEAR. 

TAXPAYERS HERE PLACE GREAT EMPHASIS UPON THE DIFFERENT PREPOSITIONS
USED IN THE ALTERNATIVE PHRASES - "TO BE PAID WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR
IN DISCHARGE OF A DEBT, OR TO BE IRREVOCABLY SET ASIDE WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A DEBT" - TO SHOW THAT PAYMENT MAY BE
MADE AFTER THE TAXABLE YEAR COMPATIBLY WITH SEC. 26(C)(2).  TRUE
ENOUGH, PAYMENT CAN BE POSTPONED TO A FUTURE YEAR AND A CREDIT ALLOWED
IF, BUT ONLY IF, THE CONTRACT DIRECTING SUCH FUTURE PAYMENTS REQUIRES,
IN TERMS, THE IRREVOCABLE SETTING ASIDE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR OF
THOSE FUTURE PAYMENTS.  THE INSTANT CONTRACTS DO NOT SO PROVIDE. 

RESPONDENTS, THE OHIO LEATHER COMPANY AND WARREN TOOL CORPORATION,
CONTEND THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, THEY
WERE ENTITLED TO THE CREDIT BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 43, FN7  WHICH STATES
THAT IT IS TO BE DISREGARDED IN COMPUTING THE CREDIT PROVIDED BY SEC.
27 AND MAKES NO STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO SEC. 26.  THE CONTENTION IS
WITHOUT MERIT BECAUSE PRINCIPLES OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING HAVE NO BEARING
ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A CONTRACT IN TERMS REQUIRES A PAYMENT OR AN
IRREVOCABLE SETTING ASIDE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THE QUESTION HERE
IS NOT WHETHER TAXPAYERS MADE PAYMENT, EITHER ON A CASH OR AN ACCRUAL
BASIS, WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR, BUT WHETHER THEIR CONTRACTS REQUIRED
THEM TO PAY OR IRREVOCABLY SET ASIDE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR. 

TAXPAYERS INSIST THAT IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO HOLD THAT ONLY
CONTRACTS EXPRESSLY REQUIRING PAYMENT OR AN IRREVOCABLE SETTING ASIDE
OF A PERCENTAGE OF EARNINGS WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR SATISFY SEC.
26(C)(2), BECAUSE MANY CORPORATIONS ARE UNABLE TO DETERMINE THEIR
EARNINGS UNTIL AFTER THE CLOSE OF THEIR FISCAL YEAR, AND CONSEQUENTLY
THEIR CONTRACTS DISPOSING OF A PERCENTAGE OF EARNINGS IN SATISFACTION
OF DEBT CUSTOMARILY ALLOW SOME SHORT PERIOD AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE
YEAR, BEFORE PAYMENT IS REQUIRED.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1936
ACT REVEALS THAT CONGRESS WAS CONVERSANT WITH THE PROBLEM OF COMPUTING
EARNINGS BEFORE THE END OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, IN CONNECTION WITH
DIVIDEND PAYMENTS, BUT DECLINED TO ACT.  FN8  CORPORATIONS WITH ORAL
CONTRACTS, OR WRITTEN CONTRACTS EXECUTED AFTER MAY 1, 1936, DEALING
WITH THE DISPOSITION OF PROFITS IN SATISFACTION OF DEBTS, ALSO PROBABLY
THINK SEC. 26(C)(2) IS A MOST UNREASONABLE STATUTE.  BUT ARGUMENTS
URGING THE BROADENING OF A TAX DEDUCTION STATUTE BEYOND ITS PLAIN
MEANING TO AVOID HARSH RESULTS ARE MORE PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO CONGRESS
THAN TO THE COURTS.  WHITE V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 281, 292.  FN9 

FINALLY, TAXPAYERS CONTEND THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC.
26(C)(2) SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT THEIR CONTRACTS ARE COVERED BY THAT
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX DEMONSTRATES, CONTRARY TO TAXPAYERS'
CONTENTIONS, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE TAX TO BE IMPOSED PRIMARILY
UPON INCOME NOT DISTRIBUTED IN THE FORM OF DIVIDENDS, RATHER THAN ONLY
UPON CORPORATE INCOME WHICH WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED AT ALL, AND ACCORDINGLY
MEANT TO LIMIT SEVERELY CREDITS FOR A CORPORATION'S PAYMENT OF DEBTS
AND PRECISELY TO DEFINE THE AREA IN WHICH TAXPAYERS WERE TO BE ENTITLED
TO THE CREDIT.  THUS, WHILE THE ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL CONTAINED
COMPLICATED PROVISIONS AFFORDING SOME RELIEF TO CORPORATIONS WITH
DEFICITS, OR CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED EITHER TO PAY DEBTS OR NOT TO PAY
DIVIDENDS, THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE STRUCK THEM ALL OUT,
SUBSTITUTING ONLY A PROVISION DEALING WITH A CREDIT FOR CONTRACTUAL
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.  FN10  AN AMENDMENT
OFFERED FROM THE SENATE FLOOR, GIVING A BROAD CREDIT FOR ALL PORTIONS
OF ADJUSTED NET INCOME USED TO PURCHASE OR REPLACE MACHINERY,
EQUIPMENT, ETC., OR "EXPENDED OR APPLIED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR
THE LIQUIDATION, PAYMENT, OR REDUCTION OF THE PRINCIPAL OF ANY BONA
FIDE INDEBTEDNESS OUTSTANDING AT THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT,"
WAS REJECTED.  FN11  THE MUCH NARROWER AMENDMENT WHICH BECAME SEC.
26(C)(2) WAS THEN OFFERED, WITH LITTLE EXPLANATION OTHER THAN THAT IT
WAS INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE CREDIT FOR CONTRACTUAL PROHIBITION
AGAINST DIVIDEND PAYMENTS, THE PROVISION WHICH BECAME SEC. 26(C)(1). 
FN12 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE JUDGMENTS BELOW WERE ERRONEOUS.  ACCORDINGLY
THEY ARE REVERSED, AND THE CAUSES REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO UPHOLD
THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  TAXPAYER IN NO. 42 IS ALSO CLAIMING A CREDIT FOR THE 1937
TAXABLE YEAR. 

FN2  SEC. 26.  CREDITS OF CORPORATIONS. 

IN THE CASE OF A CORPORATION THE FOLLOWING CREDITS SHALL BE ALLOWED
TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE VARIOUS SECTIONS IMPOSING TAX - 

     .         . .         .         . 

(C)  CONTRACTS RESTRICTING PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.  - 

     .         .         .         .    . 

(2)  DISPOSITION OF PROFITS OF TAXABLE YEAR.  - AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
THE PORTION OF THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR WHICH IS
REQUIRED (BY A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE
CORPORATION PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936, WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS WITH
THE DISPOSITION OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR) TO BE PAID
WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR IN DISCHARGE OF A DEBT, OR TO BE IRREVOCABLY
SET ASIDE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A DEBT; TO THE
EXTENT THAT SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN SO PAID OR SET ASIDE.  FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, A REQUIREMENT TO PAY OR SET ASIDE AN AMOUNT
EQUAL TO A PERCENTAGE OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS SHALL BE CONSIDERED A
REQUIREMENT TO PAY OR SET ASIDE SUCH PERCENTAGE OF EARNINGS AND
PROFITS.  AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH, THE WORD "DEBT" DOES NOT INCLUDE A
DEBT INCURRED AFTER APRIL 30, 1936. 

FN3  THE RELEVANT CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS IN EACH CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

                             NO. 40 

BY AN INDENTURE ENTERED INTO ON APRIL 17, 1936, THE OHIO LEATHER
COMPANY COVENANTED TO PAY $25,000 ANNUALLY TO A TRUSTEE TO CREATE A
SINKING FUND FOR THE SECURITY OF ITS DEBENTURES, AND FURTHER COVENANTED
THAT IT WOULD "ON OR BEFORE THE NEXT SUCCEEDING FIRST DAY OF APRIL, PAY
AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TEN PERCENT (10%) OF THE NET EARNINGS EARNED BY THE
COMPANY DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING ON THE THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF THE
NEXT PRECEDING DECEMBER, AS SUCH NET EARNINGS ARE DEFINED HEREINAFTER
IN THE ARTICLE, WHICH SUMS AND AMOUNTS SHALL BE HELD BY THE TRUSTEE FOR
THE SECURITY OF ALL OUTSTANDING DEBENTURES UNTIL PAID OUT AS
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED." 

                            NO. 41 

BY A NOTE AND MORTGAGE AGREEMENT EXECUTED APRIL 15, 1932, THE STRONG
MANUFACTURING COMPANY BOUND ITSELF TO APPLY FORTY PER CENTUM OF ITS NET
EARNINGS UPON ITS UNPAID OBLIGATION.  THE MORTGAGE PROVIDED: 

"THE COMPANY COVENANTS AND AGREES THAT UNTIL THE PRINCIPAL AND
INTEREST OF THE NOTE HEREBY SECURED SHALL HAVE BEEN FULLY PAID AND
BEGINNING ON JANUARY 1ST, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR, THE
COMPANY WILL APPLY FORTY PER CENTUM (40%) PER ANNUM OF ITS NET EARNINGS
FOR ANY CALENDAR YEAR IN PAYMENT OF THE INTEREST ACCRUING AND BECOMING
PAYABLE UPON SUCH NOTE IN SUCH YEAR, AND THE BALANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF SUCH NOTE UNPAID PRIOR TO APRIL 15TH IN SUCH YEAR; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE COVENANT HEREIN MADE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO
RELIEVE THE COMPANY FROM THE PAYMENT ON APRIL 15TH IN SUCH YEAR OF THE
INSTALLMENT SPECIFIED FOR PAYMENT BY THE TERMS OF SAID NOTE NOR OF THE
REGULAR INTEREST PAYMENTS IN SUCH YEAR, LIKEWISE AS SPECIFIED IN SAID
NOTE.           .         .         .         .         . 

"SETTLEMENT FOR ALL AMOUNTS BECOMING PAYABLE UNDER THIS PROVISION IN
EXCESS OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED IN
THE CALENDAR YEAR AS OF WHICH SUCH NET EARNINGS ARE DETERMINED SHALL BE
MADE BY THE COMPANY TO THE BANK NOT LATER THAN APRIL 15TH OF THE
SUCCEEDING YEAR."         NO. 42 

ON NOVEMBER 1, 1932, THE WARREN TOOL CORPORATION EXECUTED A FIRST
MORTGAGE AND DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE A BOND ISSUE.  THE MORTGAGE
CONTAINED A SINKING FUND PROVISION WHICH REQUIRED THE CORPORATION, ON
AND AFTER APRIL 1, 1935, TO PAY TO THE TRUSTEE "ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST
DAY OF APRIL OF EACH YEAR THEREAFTER TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 1, 1942, A
SUM OF MONEY EQUAL TO TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT (25%) OF ITS NET EARNINGS
FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR NEXT PRECEDING." 

FN4  AN OPINION WAS WRITTEN ONLY IN COMMISSIONER V. STRONG MFG. CO.,
124 F.2D 360.  THE OTHER TWO CASES WERE PER CURIAM AFFIRMANCES ON THE
AUTHORITY OF THAT OPINION.  124 F.2D 397. 

FN5  COMPARE HELVERING V. MOLONEY ELECTRIC CO., 120 F.2D 617, 621. 

FN6  THIS HOLDING MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE COMMISSIONER'S
CONTENTION THAT THE STRONG MANUFACTURING COMPANY DID NOT MEET THE
SECOND REQUIREMENT AS TO $5,000 OF THE $46,500 PAID IN 1936, BECAUSE IT
WAS OBLIGATED TO PAY THAT SUM BY APRIL 15, 1937, EVEN IN THE EVENT THAT
THERE WERE NO EARNINGS IN 1936. 

FN7  "SEC.  43.  PERIOD FOR WHICH DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS TAKEN. 

"THE DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS (OTHER THAN THE DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT
PROVIDED IN SECTION 27) PROVIDED FOR IN THIS TITLE SHALL BE TAKEN FOR
THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH 'PAID OR ACCRUED' OR 'PAID OR INCURRED,'
DEPENDENT UPON THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE NET
INCOME IS COMPUTED,  ..." 

FN8  THE ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL (H.R. 12395, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
INTRODUCED AT 80 CONG. REC. 5978) PROVIDED FOR THE USE OF THE "DIVIDEND
YEAR" IN COMPUTING UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME UNDER SEC. 13 AND DIVIDEND
CREDIT UNDER SEC. 15.  SECTION 27 DEFINED "DIVIDEND YEAR" AS THE PERIOD
BEGINNING ON THE 15TH DAY OF THE THIRD MONTH AFTER THE DAY BEFORE THE
BEGINNING OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, AND ENDING ON THE 14TH DAY OF THE THIRD
MONTH AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THUS, WHERE THE CALENDAR
YEAR AND THE TAXABLE YEAR COINCIDED, THE "DIVIDEND YEAR" WOULD COVER
THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 15 OF THE TAXABLE YEAR TO MARCH 14 OF THE
FOLLOWING YEAR.  CONGRESSMAN HILL, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, EXPLAINED THAT THE "DIVIDEND YEAR" WAS
DESIGNED TO ALLOW CORPORATIONS TIME TO CAST UP THEIR ACCOUNTS AFTER THE
CLOSE OF THE TAXABLE YEAR AND THEN DETERMINE WHAT DIVIDENDS SHOULD BE
DISTRIBUTED.  80 CONG. REC. 6005.  NEVERTHELESS, CONGRESSMAN HILL LATER
OFFERED, AND THE HOUSE ADOPTED, A COMMITTEE AMENDMENT SUBSTITUTING THE
"TAXABLE YEAR" FOR THE "DIVIDEND YEAR."  80 CONG. REC. 6308.  SEE ALSO
80 CONG. REC. 10265. 

FN9  APPEALS TO CONGRESS BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED SCOPE OF SEC.
26(C)(2) WERE SUCCESSFUL IN 1938.  SECTION 27(A)(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1938 ALLOWS A CREDIT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE PARTICULAR TERMS OR
REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDEBTEDNESS.  SEE H. REP. NO. 1860, 75TH CONG., 3D
SESS., P. 4. 

FN10  THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS DISCUSSED IN HELVERING V. NORTHWEST
STEEL MILLS, 311 U.S. 46, 50. 

FN11  80 CONG. REC. 9055, 9070, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN12  80 CONG. REC. 9071, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.
..END :





















WICKARD V. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 


NO. 59.  ARGUED MAY 4, 1942.  REARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1942.  - DECIDED
NOVEMBER 9, 1942.  - 43 F.SUPP.  1017, REVERSED. 


1.  PENDING A REFERENDUM VOTE OF FARMERS UPON WHEAT QUOTAS PROCLAIMED
BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT
OF 1938, THE SECRETARY MADE A RADIO ADDRESS IN WHICH HE ADVOCATED
APPROVAL OF THE QUOTAS AND CALLED ATTENTION TO THE RECENT ENACTMENT BY
CONGRESS OF THE AMENDATORY ACT, LATER APPROVED MAY 26, 1941.  THE
SPEECH MENTIONED THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT FOR INCREASE OF LOANS
ON WHEAT BUT NOT THE FACT THAT IT ALSO INCREASED THE PENALTY ON EXCESS
PRODUCTION, AND ADDED THAT BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAIN WORLD SITUATION
EXTRA ACREAGES OF WHEAT HAD BEEN DELIBERATELY PLANTED AND "FARMERS
SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROVIDED INSURANCE AGAINST
SHORTAGES OF FOOD."  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE SUBSEQUENT
REFERENDUM VOTE APPROVING THE QUOTAS WAS INFLUENCED BY THE SPEECH. 
HELD, THAT, IN ANY EVENT AND EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE PENALTIES REFERRED
TO IN THE SPEECH WERE THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT, THE VALIDITY OF THE
VOTE WAS NOT THEREBY AFFECTED.  P. 117. 

2.  THE WHEAT MARKETING QUOTA AND ATTENDANT PENALTY PROVISIONS OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 26,
1941, WHEN APPLIED TO WHEAT NOT INTENDED IN ANY PART FOR COMMERCE BUT
WHOLLY FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE FARM ARE WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER OF
CONGRESS.  P. 118. 

3.  THE EFFECT OF THE ACT IS TO RESTRICT THE AMOUNT OF WHEAT WHICH
MAY BE PRODUCED FOR MARKET AND THE EXTENT AS WELL TO WHICH ONE MAY
FORESTALL RESORT TO THE MARKET BY PRODUCING FOR HIS OWN NEEDS.  P.
127. 

4.  THAT THE PRODUCTION OF WHEAT FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE FARM MAY BE
TRIVIAL IN THE PARTICULAR CASE IS NOT ENOUGH TO REMOVE THE GROWER FROM
THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL REGULATION, WHERE HIS CONTRIBUTION, TAKEN WITH
THAT OF MANY OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IS FAR FROM TRIVIAL.  P. 127. 

5.  THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE INCLUDES THE POWER TO
REGULATE THE PRICES AT WHICH COMMODITIES IN THAT COMMERCE ARE DEALT IN
AND PRACTICES AFFECTING SUCH PRICES.  P. 128. 

6.  A FACTOR OF SUCH VOLUME AND VARIABILITY AS WHEAT GROWN FOR HOME
CONSUMPTION WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE ON PRICE CONDITIONS ON
THE WHEAT MARKET, BOTH BECAUSE SUCH WHEAT, WITH RISING PRICES, MAY FLOW
INTO THE MARKET AND CHECK PRICE INCREASES AND, BECAUSE, THOUGH NEVER
MARKETED, IT SUPPLIES THE NEED OF THE GROWER WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE
SATISFIED BY HIS PURCHASES IN THE OPEN MARKET.  P. 128. 

7.  THE AMENDATORY ACT OF MAY 26, 1941, WHICH INCREASED THE PENALTY
UPON "FARM MARKETING EXCESS" AND INCLUDED IN THAT CATEGORY WHEAT WHICH
PREVIOUSLY HAD NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO PENALTY, HELD NOT INVALID AS
RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION REPUGNANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WHEN APPLIED
TO WHEAT PLANTED AND GROWING BEFORE IT WAS ENACTED BUT HARVESTED AND
THRESHED THEREAFTER.  P. 131. 

WICKARD, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL. V. FILBURN. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND OTHER APPELLANTS
FROM ENFORCING CERTAIN PENALTIES AGAINST THE APPELLEE, A FARMER, UNDER
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLEE FILED HIS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
OF THE UNITED STATES, THREE MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY AGRICULTURAL
CONSERVATION COMMITTEE FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO, AND A MEMBER OF THE
STATE AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE FOR OHIO.  HE SOUGHT TO
ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT AGAINST HIMSELF OF THE MARKETING PENALTY IMPOSED BY
THE AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1941,  FN1  TO THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT
OF 1938,  FN2  UPON THAT PART OF HIS 1941 WHEAT CROP WHICH WAS
AVAILABLE FOR MARKETING IN EXCESS OF THE MARKETING QUOTA ESTABLISHED
FOR HIS FARM.  HE ALSO SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE WHEAT
MARKETING QUOTA PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS AMENDED AND APPLICABLE TO HIM
WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE NOT SUSTAINABLE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
OR CONSISTENT WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE SECRETARY MOVED TO DISMISS THE ACTION AGAINST HIM FOR IMPROPER
VENUE, BUT LATER WAIVED HIS OBJECTION AND FILED AN ANSWER.  THE OTHER
APPELLANTS MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD NO POWER OR
AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE WHEAT MARKETING QUOTA PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,
AND AFTER THEIR MOTION WAS DENIED THEY ANSWERED, RESERVING EXCEPTIONS
TO THE RULING ON THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS N3.  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED
FOR DECISION ON THE PLEADINGS AND UPON A STIPULATION OF FACTS. 

THE APPELLEE FOR MANY YEARS PAST HAS OWNED AND OPERATED A SMALL FARM
IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO, MAINTAINING A HERD OF DAIRY CATTLE, SELLING
MILK, RAISING POULTRY, AND SELLING POULTRY AND EGGS.  IT HAS BEEN HIS
PRACTICE TO RAISE A SMALL ACREAGE OF WINTER WHEAT, SOWN IN THE FALL AND
HARVESTED IN THE FOLLOWING JULY; TO SELL A PORTION OF THE CROP; TO FEED
PART TO POULTRY AND LIVESTOCK ON THE FARM, SOME OF WHICH IS SOLD; TO
USE SOME IN MAKING FLOUR FOR HOME CONSUMPTION; AND TO KEEP THE REST FOR
THE FOLLOWING SEEDING.  THE INTENDED DISPOSITION OF THE CROP HERE
INVOLVED HAS NOT BEEN EXPRESSLY STATED. 

IN JULY OF 1940, PURSUANT TO THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938,
AS THEN AMENDED, THERE WERE ESTABLISHED FOR THE APPELLEE'S 1941 CROP A
WHEAT ACREAGE ALLOTMENT OF 11.1 ACRES AND A NORMAL YIELD OF 20.1
BUSHELS OF WHEAT AN ACRE.  HE WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF SUCH ALLOTMENT IN
JULY OF 1940, BEFORE THE FALL PLANTING OF HIS 1941 CROP OF WHEAT, AND
AGAIN IN JULY OF 1941, BEFORE IT WAS HARVESTED.  HE SOWED, HOWEVER, 23
ACRES, AND HARVESTED FROM HIS 11.9 ACRES OF EXCESS ACREAGE 239 BUSHELS,
WHICH UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT AS AMENDED ON MAY 26, 1941,
CONSTITUTED FARM MARKETING EXCESS, SUBJECT TO A PENALTY OF 49 CENTS A
BUSHEL, OR $117.11 IN ALL.  THE APPELLEE HAS NOT PAID THE PENALTY AND
HE HAS NOT POSTPONED OR AVOIDED IT BY STORING THE EXCESS UNDER
REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, OR BY DELIVERING IT UP TO
THE SECRETARY.  THE COMMITTEE, THEREFORE, REFUSED HIM A MARKETING CARD,
WHICH WAS, UNDER THE TERMS OF REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARY,
NECESSARY TO PROTECT A BUYER FROM LIABILITY TO THE PENALTY AND UPON ITS
PROTECTING LIEN.  FN4 

THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938 AS
RELATED TO WHEAT IS TO CONTROL THE VOLUME MOVING IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE IN ORDER TO AVOID SURPLUSES AND SHORTAGES AND THE
CONSEQUENT ABNORMALLY LOW OR HIGH WHEAT PRICES AND OBSTRUCTIONS TO
COMMERCE.  FN5  WITHIN PRESCRIBED LIMITS AND BY PRESCRIBED STANDARDS
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IS DIRECTED TO ASCERTAIN AND PROCLAIM EACH
YEAR A NATIONAL ACREAGE ALLOTMENT FOR THE NEXT CROP OF WHEAT, WHICH IS
THEN APPORTIONED TO THE STATES AND THEIR COUNTIES, AND IS EVENTUALLY
BROKEN UP INTO ALLOTMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL FARMS.  FN6  LOANS AND
PAYMENTS TO WHEAT FARMERS ARE AUTHORIZED IN STATED CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN7 

THE ACT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER IT APPEARS THAT THE TOTAL
SUPPLY OF WHEAT AS OF THE BEGINNING OF ANY MARKETING YEAR, BEGINNING
JULY 1, WILL EXCEED A NORMAL YEAR'S DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION AND EXPORT BY
MORE THAN 35 PER CENT, THE SECRETARY SHALL SO PROCLAIM NOT LATER THAN
MAY 15 PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF SUCH MARKETING YEAR; AND THAT DURING
THE MARKETING YEAR A COMPULSORY NATIONAL MARKETING QUOTA SHALL BE IN
EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKETING OF WHEAT.  FN8  BETWEEN THE
ISSUANCE OF THE PROCLAMATION AND JUNE 10, THE SECRETARY MUST, HOWEVER,
CONDUCT A REFERENDUM OF FARMERS WHO WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE QUOTA, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THEY FAVOR OR OPPOSE IT; AND, IF MORE THAN ONE-THIRD
OF THE FARMERS VOTING IN THE REFERENDUM DO OPPOSE, THE SECRETARY MUST,
PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE QUOTA, BY PROCLAMATION SUSPEND ITS
OPERATION.  FN9 

ON MAY 19, 1941, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE MADE A RADIO ADDRESS TO
THE WHEAT FARMERS OF THE UNITED STATES IN WHICH HE ADVOCATED APPROVAL
OF THE QUOTAS AND CALLED ATTENTION TO THE PENDENCY OF THE AMENDMENT OF
MAY 26, 1941, WHICH HAD AT THE TIME BEEN SENT BY CONGRESS TO THE WHITE
HOUSE, AND POINTED OUT ITS PROVISION FOR AN INCREASE IN THE LOANS ON
WHEAT TO 85 PER CENT OF PARITY.  HE MADE NO MENTION OF THE FACT THAT IT
ALSO INCREASED THE PENALTY FROM 15 CENTS A BUSHEL TO ONE-HALF OF THE
PARITY LOAN RATE OF ABOUT 98 CENTS, BUT STATED THAT "BECAUSE OF THE
UNCERTAIN WORLD SITUATION, WE DELIBERATELY PLANTED SEVERAL MILLION
EXTRA ACRES OF WHEAT.  ...  FARMERS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED BECAUSE
THEY HAVE PROVIDED INSURANCE AGAINST SHORTAGES OF FOOD." 

PURSUANT TO THE ACT, THE REFERENDUM OF WHEAT GROWERS WAS HELD ON MAY
31, 1941.  ACCORDING TO THE REQUIRED PUBLISHED STATEMENT OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, 81 PER CENT OF THOSE VOTING FAVORED THE
MARKETING QUOTA, WITH 19 PER CENT OPPOSED. 

THE COURT BELOW HELD, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, THAT THE SPEECH OF
THE SECRETARY INVALIDATED THE REFERENDUM; AND THAT THE AMENDMENT OF MAY
26, 1941, "IN SO FAR AS IT INCREASED THE PENALTY FOR THE FARM MARKETING
EXCESS OVER THE FIFTEEN CENTS PER BUSHEL PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF
PLANTING AND SUBJECTED THE ENTIRE CROP TO A LIEN FOR THE PAYMENT
THEREOF," SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE APPELLEE BECAUSE AS SO APPLIED
IT WAS RETROACTIVE AND IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; AND,
ALTERNATIVELY, BECAUSE THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE SO REQUIRED.  43
F.SUPP.  1017.  ITS JUDGMENT PERMANENTLY ENJOINED APPELLANTS FROM
COLLECTING A MARKETING PENALTY OF MORE THAN 15 CENTS A BUSHEL ON THE
FARM MARKETING EXCESS OF APPELLEE'S 1941 WHEAT CROP, FROM SUBJECTING
APPELLEE'S ENTIRE 1941 CROP TO A LIEN FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PENALTY,
AND FROM COLLECTING A 15-CENT PENALTY EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 339 OF THE ACT AS THAT SECTION STOOD PRIOR TO THE
AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1941.  FN10  THE SECRETARY AND HIS CO-DEFENDANTS
HAVE APPEALED.  FN11

I 

THE HOLDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE SECRETARY'S SPEECH
INVALIDATED THE REFERENDUM IS MANIFEST ERROR.  READ AS A WHOLE AND IN
THE CONTEXT OF WORLD EVENTS THAT CONSTITUTED HIS PRINCIPAL THEME, THE
PENALTIES OF WHICH HE SPOKE WERE MORE LIKELY THOSE IN THE FORM OF
RUINOUSLY LOW PRICES RESULTING FROM THE EXCESS SUPPLY RATHER THAN THE
PENALTIES PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT.  BUT UNDER ANY INTERPRETATION THE
SPEECH CANNOT BE GIVEN THE EFFECT OF INVALIDATING THE REFERENDUM. 
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY VOTER PUT UPON THE SECRETARY'S WORDS THE
INTERPRETATION THAT IMPRESSED THE COURT BELOW OR WAS IN ANY WAY
MISLED.  THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE SPEECH INFLUENCED THE OUTCOME OF
THE REFERENDUM.  THE RECORD IN FACT DOES NOT SHOW THAT ANY, AND DOES
NOT SUGGEST A BASIS FOR EVEN A GUESS AS TO HOW MANY, OF THE VOTING
FARMERS DROPPED WORK TO LISTEN TO "WHEAT FARMERS AND THE BATTLE FOR
DEMOCRACY" AT 11:30 IN THE MORNING OF MAY 19TH, WHICH WAS A BUSY HOUR
IN ONE OF THE BUSIEST OF SEASONS.  IF THIS DISCOURSE INTENDED REFERENCE
TO THIS LEGISLATION AT ALL, IT WAS OF COURSE A PUBLIC ACT, WHOSE TERMS
WERE READILY AVAILABLE, AND THE SPEECH DID NOT PURPORT TO BE AN
EXPOSITION OF ITS PROVISIONS. 

TO HOLD THAT A SPEECH BY A CABINET OFFICER, WHICH FAILED TO MEET
JUDICIAL IDEALS OF CLARITY, PRECISION, AND EXHAUSTIVENESS, MAY DEFEAT A
POLICY EMBODIED IN AN ACT OF CONGRESS, WOULD INVEST COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN ADMINISTRATORS AND THE PEOPLE WITH PERILS HERETOFORE
UNSUSPECTED.  MOREOVER, WE SHOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH AN OFFICER
IS ABLE TO DO BY ACCIDENT WHAT HE HAS NO POWER TO DO BY DESIGN. 
APPELLEE'S COMPLAINT, IN SO FAR AS IT IS BASED ON THIS SPEECH, IS
FRIVOLOUS, AND THE INJUNCTION, IN SO FAR AS IT RESTS ON THIS GROUND, IS
UNWARRANTED.  UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533. 

                 II 

IT IS URGED THAT UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 3, CONGRESS DOES NOT POSSESS THE POWER IT HAS
IN THIS INSTANCE SOUGHT TO EXERCISE.  THE QUESTION WOULD MERIT LITTLE
CONSIDERATION SINCE OUR DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S.
100,  FN12 SUSTAINING THE FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE PRODUCTION OF GOODS
FOR COMMERCE, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THIS ACT EXTENDS FEDERAL
REGULATION TO PRODUCTION NOT INTENDED IN ANY PART FOR COMMERCE BUT
WHOLLY FOR CONSUMPTION ON THE FARM.  THE ACT INCLUDES A DEFINITION OF
"MARKET" AND ITS DERIVATIVES, SO THAT AS RELATED TO WHEAT, IN ADDITION
TO ITS CONVENTIONAL MEANING, IT ALSO MEANS TO DISPOSE OF "BY FEEDING
(IN ANY FORM) TO POULTRY OR LIVESTOCK WHICH, OR THE PRODUCTS OF WHICH,
ARE SOLD, BARTERED, OR EXCHANGED, OR TO BE SO DISPOSED OF."  FN13
HENCE, MARKETING QUOTAS NOT ONLY EMBRACE ALL THAT MAY BE SOLD WITHOUT
PENALTY BUT ALSO WHAT MAY BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES.  WHEAT PRODUCED
ON EXCESS ACREAGE IS DESIGNATED AS "AVAILABLE FOR MARKETING" AS SO
DEFINED, AND THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED THEREON.  FN14  PENALTIES DO NOT
DEPEND UPON WHETHER ANY PART OF THE WHEAT, EITHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE
QUOTA, IS SOLD OR INTENDED TO BE SOLD.  THE SUM OF THIS IS THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FIXES A QUOTA INCLUDING ALL THAT THE FARMER MAY
HARVEST FOR SALE OR FOR HIS OWN FARM NEEDS, AND DECLARES THAT WHEAT
PRODUCED ON EXCESS ACREAGE MAY NEITHER BE DISPOSED OF NOR USED EXCEPT
UPON PAYMENT OF THE PENALTY, OR EXCEPT IT IS STORED AS REQUIRED BY THE
ACT OR DELIVERED TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 

APPELLEE SAYS THAT THIS IS A REGULATION OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
OF WHEAT.  SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE, HE URGES, BEYOND THE REACH OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SINCE THEY ARE LOCAL IN
CHARACTER, AND THEIR EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE AT MOST
"INDIRECT."  IN ANSWER THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE STATUTE REGULATES
NEITHER PRODUCTION NOR CONSUMPTION, BUT ONLY MARKETING; AND, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, THAT IF THE ACT DOES GO BEYOND THE REGULATION OF MARKETING
IT IS SUSTAINABLE AS A "NECESSARY AND PROPER"  FN15  IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCERN LEST THE ACT BE HELD TO BE A REGULATION OF
PRODUCTION OR CONSUMPTION, RATHER THAN OF MARKETING, IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
A FEW DICTA AND DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH MIGHT BE UNDERSTOOD TO
LAY IT DOWN THAT ACTIVITIES SUCH AS "PRODUCTION," "MANUFACTURING," AND
"MINING" ARE STRICTLY "LOCAL" AND, EXCEPT IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH ARE NOT PRESENT HERE, CANNOT BE REGULATED UNDER THE COMMERCE
POWER BECAUSE THEIR EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE, AS MATTER OF
LAW, ONLY "INDIRECT."  FN16  EVEN TODAY, WHEN THIS POWER HAS BEEN HELD
TO HAVE GREAT LATITUDE, THERE IS NO DECISION OF THIS COURT THAT SUCH
ACTIVITIES MAY BE REGULATED WHERE NO PART OF THE PRODUCT IS INTENDED
FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR INTERMINGLED WITH THE SUBJECTS THEREOF.  WE
BELIEVE THAT A REVIEW OF THE COURSE OF DECISION UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE WILL MAKE PLAIN, HOWEVER, THAT QUESTIONS OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS ARE NOT TO BE DECIDED BY REFERENCE TO ANY FORMULA WHICH WOULD
GIVE CONTROLLING FORCE TO NOMENCLATURE SUCH AS "PRODUCTION" AND
"INDIRECT" AND FORECLOSE CONSIDERATION OF THE ACTUAL EFFECTS OF THE
ACTIVITY IN QUESTION UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

AT THE BEGINNING CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL DESCRIBED THE FEDERAL
COMMERCE POWER WITH A BREADTH NEVER YET EXCEEDED.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9
WHEAT.  1, 194-195.  HE MADE EMPHATIC THE EMBRACING AND PENETRATING
NATURE OF THIS POWER BY WARNING THAT EFFECTIVE RESTRAINTS ON ITS
EXERCISE MUST PROCEED FROM POLITICAL RATHER THAN FROM JUDICIAL
PROCESSES.  ID. AT 197. 

FOR NEARLY A CENTURY, HOWEVER, DECISIONS OF THIS COURT UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE DEALT RARELY WITH QUESTIONS OF WHAT CONGRESS MIGHT DO
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS GRANTED POWER UNDER THE CLAUSE, AND ALMOST
ENTIRELY WITH THE PERMISSIBILITY OF STATE ACTIVITY WHICH IT WAS CLAIMED
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST OR BURDENED INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  DURING THIS
PERIOD THERE WAS PERHAPS LITTLE OCCASION FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE EXERCISE
OF THE COMMERCE POWER, AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE CLAUSE ON AMERICAN LIFE
AND LAW WAS A NEGATIVE ONE, RESULTING ALMOST WHOLLY FROM ITS OPERATION
AS A RESTRAINT UPON THE POWERS OF THE STATES.  IN DISCUSSION AND
DECISION THE POINT OF REFERENCE, INSTEAD OF BEING WHAT WAS "NECESSARY
AND PROPER" TO THE EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS GRANTED POWER, WAS OFTEN
SOME CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY THOUGHT TO BE IMPLICIT IN THE STATUS OF
STATEHOOD.  CERTAIN ACTIVITIES SUCH AS "PRODUCTION," "MANUFACTURING,"
AND "MINING" WERE OCCASIONALLY SAID TO BE WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF STATE
GOVERNMENTS AND BEYOND THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  FN17    IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1887, WITH THE ENACTMENT OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,  FN18  THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE POWER
BEGAN TO EXERT POSITIVE INFLUENCE IN AMERICAN LAW AND LIFE.  THIS FIRST
IMPORTANT FEDERAL RESORT TO THE COMMERCE POWER WAS FOLLOWED IN 1890 BY
THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT FN19  AND, THEREAFTER, MAINLY AFTER 1903, BY
MANY OTHERS.  THESE STATUTES USHERED IN NEW PHASES OF ADJUDICATION,
WHICH REQUIRED THE COURT TO APPROACH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE IN THE LIGHT OF AN ACTUAL EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS POWER
THEREUNDER. 

WHEN IT FIRST DEALT WITH THIS NEW LEGISLATION, THE COURT ADHERED TO
ITS EARLIER PRONOUNCEMENTS, AND ALLOWED BUT LITTLE SCOPE TO THE POWER
OF CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES V. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1.  FN20 THESE
EARLIER PRONOUNCEMENTS ALSO PLAYED AN IMPORTANT PART IN SEVERAL OF THE
FIVE CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT LATER HELD THAT ACTS OF CONGRESS UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WERE IN EXCESS OF ITS POWER.  FN21 

EVEN WHILE IMPORTANT OPINIONS IN THIS LINE OF RESTRICTIVE AUTHORITY
WERE BEING WRITTEN, HOWEVER, OTHER CASES CALLED FORTH BROADER
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DESTINED TO SUPERSEDE THE
EARLIER ONES, AND TO BRING ABOUT A RETURN TO THE PRINCIPLES FIRST
ENUNCIATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN GIBBONS V. OGDEN, SUPRA. 

NOT LONG AFTER THE DECISION OF UNITED STATES V. KNIGHT CO., SUPRA,
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, IN SUSTAINING THE EXERCISE OF NATIONAL POWER OVER
INTRASTATE ACTIVITY, STATED FOR THE COURT THAT "COMMERCE AMONG THE
STATES IS NOT A TECHNICAL LEGAL CONCEPTION, BUT A PRACTICAL ONE, DRAWN
FROM THE COURSE OF BUSINESS."  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S.
375, 398.  IT WAS SOON DEMONSTRATED THAT THE EFFECTS OF MANY KINDS OF
INTRASTATE ACTIVITY UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE SUCH AS TO MAKE THEM
A PROPER SUBJECT OF FEDERAL REGULATION.  FN22  IN SOME CASES SUSTAINING
THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER OVER INTRASTATE MATTERS THE TERM "DIRECT"
WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STATING, RATHER THAN OF REACHING, A RESULT;
FN23  IN OTHERS IT WAS TREATED AS SYNONYMOUS WITH "SUBSTANTIAL" OR
"MATERIAL"; FN24 AND IN OTHERS IT WAS NOT USED AT ALL.  FN25  OF LATE
ITS USE HAS BEEN ABANDONED IN CASES DEALING WITH QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL
POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

IN THE SHREVEPORT RATE CASES, 234 U.S. 342, THE COURT HELD THAT
RAILROAD RATES OF AN ADMITTEDLY INTRASTATE CHARACTER AND FIXED BY
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE MIGHT, NEVERTHELESS, BE REVISED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS WHICH THEY HAD UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HUGHES FOUND FEDERAL
INTERVENTION CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED BECAUSE OF "MATTERS HAVING
SUCH A CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO INTERSTATE TRAFFIC THAT THE
CONTROL IS ESSENTIAL OR APPROPRIATE TO THE SECURITY OF THAT TRAFFIC, TO
THE EFFICIENCY OF THE INTERSTATE SERVICE, AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE CONDUCTED UPON FAIR
TERMS AND WITHOUT MOLESTATION OR HINDRANCE."  ID. AT 351. 

THE COURT'S RECOGNITION OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS IN
THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, EXEMPLIFIED BY THIS STATEMENT,
HAS MADE THE MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF LEGAL FORMULAS NO LONGER
FEASIBLE.  ONCE AN ECONOMIC MEASURE OF THE REACH OF THE POWER GRANTED
TO CONGRESS IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS ACCEPTED, QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL
POWER CANNOT BE DECIDED SIMPLY BY FINDING THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION TO
BE "PRODUCTION," NOR CAN CONSIDERATION OF ITS ECONOMIC EFFECTS BE
FORECLOSED BY CALLING THEM "INDIRECT."  THE PRESENT CHIEF JUSTICE HAS
SAID IN SUMMARY OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW:  "THE COMMERCE POWER
IS NOT CONFINED IN ITS EXERCISE TO THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE AMONG THE
STATES.  IT EXTENDS TO THOSE ACTIVITIES INTRASTATE WHICH SO AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR THE EXERTION OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER IT,
AS TO MAKE REGULATION OF THEM APPROPRIATE MEANS TO THE ATTAINMENT OF A
LEGITIMATE END, THE EFFECTIVE EXECUTION OF THE GRANTED POWER TO
REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ...  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS PLENARY AND COMPLETE IN ITSELF, MAY BE EXERCISED
TO ITS UTMOST EXTENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGES NO LIMITATIONS OTHER THAN ARE
PRESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION.  ...  IT FOLLOWS THAT NO FORM OF STATE
ACTIVITY CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY THWART THE REGULATORY POWER GRANTED BY
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO CONGRESS.  HENCE THE REACH OF THAT POWER EXTENDS
TO THOSE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES WHICH IN A SUBSTANTIAL WAY INTERFERE
WITH OR OBSTRUCT THE EXERCISE OF THE GRANTED POWER."  UNITED STATES V.
WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315 U.S. 110, 119. 

WHETHER THE SUBJECT OF THE REGULATION IN QUESTION WAS "PRODUCTION,"
"CONSUMPTION," OR "MARKETING" IS, THEREFORE, NOT MATERIAL FOR PURPOSES
OF DECIDING THE QUESTION OF FEDERAL POWER BEFORE US.  THAT AN ACTIVITY
IS OF LOCAL CHARACTER MAY HELP IN A DOUBTFUL CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER
CONGRESS INTENDED TO REACH IT.  FN26  THE SAME CONSIDERATION MIGHT HELP
IN DETERMINING WHETHER IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IT WOULD
BE PERMISSIBLE FOR THE STATE TO EXERT ITS POWER ON THE SUBJECT MATTER,
EVEN THOUGH IN SO DOING IT TO SOME DEGREE AFFECTED INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  BUT EVEN IF APPELLEE'S ACTIVITY BE LOCAL AND THOUGH IT MAY
NOT BE REGARDED AS COMMERCE, IT MAY STILL, WHATEVER ITS NATURE, BE
REACHED BY CONGRESS IF IT EXERTS A SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC EFFECT ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THIS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER SUCH EFFECT IS
WHAT MIGHT AT SOME EARLIER TIME HAVE BEEN DEFINED AS "DIRECT" OR
"INDIRECT." 

THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED A SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMICS OF THE WHEAT
INDUSTRY.  COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES IN WHEAT IS LARGE AND IMPORTANT. 
ALTHOUGH WHEAT IS RAISED IN EVERY STATE BUT ONE, PRODUCTION IN MOST
STATES IS NOT EQUAL TO CONSUMPTION.  SIXTEEN STATES ON AVERAGE HAVE HAD
A SURPLUS OF WHEAT ABOVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS FOR FEED, SEED, AND
FOOD.  THIRTY-TWO STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHERE PRODUCTION
HAS BEEN BELOW CONSUMPTION, HAVE LOOKED TO THESE SURPLUS-PRODUCING
STATES FOR THEIR SUPPLY AS WELL AS FOR WHEAT FOR EXPORT AND CARRY
OVER. 

THE WHEAT INDUSTRY HAS BEEN A PROBLEM INDUSTRY FOR SOME YEARS. 
LARGELY AS A RESULT OF INCREASED FOREIGN PRODUCTION AND IMPORT
RESTRICTIONS, ANNUAL EXPORTS OF WHEAT AND FLOUR FROM THE UNITED STATES
DURING THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD ENDING IN 1940 AVERAGED LESS THAN 10 PER
CENT OF TOTAL PRODUCTION, WHILE DURING THE 1920'S THEY AVERAGED MORE
THAN 25 PER CENT.  THE DECLINE IN THE EXPORT TRADE HAS LEFT A LARGE
SURPLUS IN PRODUCTION WHICH, IN CONNECTION WITH AN ABNORMALLY LARGE
SUPPLY OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS IN RECENT YEARS, CAUSED CONGESTION IN
A NUMBER OF MARKETS; TIED UP RAILROAD CARS; AND CAUSED ELEVATORS IN
SOME INSTANCES TO TURN AWAY GRAINS, AND RAILROADS TO INSTITUTE
EMBARGOES TO PREVENT FURTHER CONGESTION. 

MANY COUNTRIES, BOTH IMPORTING AND EXPORTING, HAVE SOUGHT TO MODIFY
THE IMPACT OF THE WORLD MARKET CONDITIONS ON THEIR OWN ECONOMY. 
IMPORTING COUNTRIES HAVE TAKEN MEASURES TO STIMULATE PRODUCTION AND
SELF-SUFFICIENCY.  THE FOUR LARGE EXPORTING COUNTRIES OF ARGENTINA,
AUSTRALIA, CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES HAVE ALL UNDERTAKEN VARIOUS
PROGRAMS FOR THE RELIEF OF GROWERS.  SUCH MEASURES HAVE BEEN DESIGNED,
IN PART AT LEAST, TO PROTECT THE DOMESTIC PRICE RECEIVED BY PRODUCERS. 
SUCH PLANS HAVE GENERALLY EVOLVED TOWARDS CONTROL BY THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT.  FN27 

IN THE ABSENCE OF REGULATION, THE PRICE OF WHEAT IN THE UNITED STATES
WOULD BE MUCH AFFECTED BY WORLD CONDITIONS.  DURING 1941, PRODUCERS WHO
COOPERATED WITH THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM RECEIVED AN AVERAGE
PRICE ON THE FARM OF ABOUT $1.16 A BUSHEL, AS COMPARED WITH THE WORLD
MARKET PRICE OF 40 CENTS A BUSHEL. 

DIFFERENCES IN FARMING CONDITIONS, HOWEVER, MAKE THESE BENEFITS MEAN
DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT WHEAT GROWERS.  THERE ARE SEVERAL LARGE
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION IN WHEAT, AND THE CONCENTRATION ON THIS CROP
REACHES 27 PER CENT OF THE CROP LAND, AND THE AVERAGE HARVEST RUNS AS
HIGH AS 155 ACRES.  EXCEPT FOR SOME USE OF WHEAT AS STOCK FEED AND FOR
SEED, THE PRACTICE IS TO SELL THE CROP FOR CASH.  WHEAT FROM SUCH AREAS
CONSTITUTES THE BULK OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE THEREIN. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IN SOME NEW ENGLAND STATES LESS THAN ONE PER CENT
OF THE CROP LAND IS DEVOTED TO WHEAT, AND THE AVERAGE HARVEST IS LESS
THAN FIVE ACRES PER FARM.  IN 1940 THE AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
WHEAT PRODUCTION THAT WAS SOLD IN EACH STATE, AS MEASURED BY VALUE,
RANGED FROM 29 PER CENT THEREOF IN WISCONSIN TO 90 PER CENT IN
WASHINGTON.  EXCEPT IN REGIONS OF LARGE-SCALE PRODUCTION, WHEAT IS
USUALLY GROWN IN ROTATION WITH OTHER CROPS; FOR A NURSE CROP FOR GRASS
SEEDING; AND AS A COVER CROP TO PREVENT SOIL EROSION AND LEACHING. 
SOME IS SOLD, SOME KEPT FOR SEED, AND A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
PRODUCTION MUCH LARGER THAN IN AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION IS CONSUMED ON
THE FARM AND GROWN FOR SUCH PURPOSE.  SUCH FARMERS, WHILE GROWING SOME
WHEAT, MAY EVEN FIND THE BALANCE OF THEIR INTEREST ON THE CONSUMER'S
SIDE. 

THE EFFECT OF CONSUMPTION OF HOME-GROWN WHEAT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT CONSTITUTES THE MOST VARIABLE FACTOR IN THE
DISAPPEARANCE OF THE WHEAT CROP.  CONSUMPTION ON THE FARM WHERE GROWN
APPEARS TO VARY IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN 20 PER CENT OF AVERAGE
PRODUCTION.  THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WHEAT CONSUMED AS FOOD VARIES BUT
RELATIVELY LITTLE, AND USE AS SEED IS RELATIVELY CONSTANT. 

THE MAINTENANCE BY GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF A PRICE FOR WHEAT
UNDOUBTEDLY CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED AS EFFECTIVELY BY SUSTAINING OR
INCREASING THE DEMAND AS BY LIMITING THE SUPPLY.  THE EFFECT OF THE
STATUTE BEFORE US IS TO RESTRICT THE AMOUNT WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED FOR
MARKET AND THE EXTENT AS WELL TO WHICH ONE MAY FORESTALL RESORT TO THE
MARKET BY PRODUCING TO MEET HIS OWN NEEDS.  THAT APPELLEE'S OWN
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEMAND FOR WHEAT MAY BE TRIVIAL BY ITSELF IS NOT
ENOUGH TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL REGULATION WHERE, AS
HERE, HIS CONTRIBUTION, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THAT OF MANY OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, IS FAR FROM TRIVIAL.  LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306
U.S. 601, 606 ET SEQ.; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA, AT 123. 

IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT THE POWER TO
REGULATE COMMERCE INCLUDES THE POWER TO REGULATE THE PRICES AT WHICH
COMMODITIES IN THAT COMMERCE ARE DEALT IN AND PRACTICES AFFECTING SUCH
PRICES.  FN28  ONE OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF THE ACT IN QUESTION WAS
TO INCREASE THE MARKET PRICE OF WHEAT, AND TO THAT END TO LIMIT THE
VOLUME THEREOF THAT COULD AFFECT THE MARKET.  IT CAN HARDLY BE DENIED
THAT A FACTOR OF SUCH VOLUME AND VARIABILITY AS HOME-CONSUMED WHEAT
WOULD HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE ON PRICE AND MARKET CONDITIONS. 
THIS MAY ARISE BECAUSE BEING IN MARKETABLE CONDITION SUCH WHEAT
OVERHANGS THE MARKET AND, IF INDUCED BY RISING PRICES, TENDS TO FLOW
INTO THE MARKET AND CHECK PRICE INCREASES.  BUT IF WE ASSUME THAT IT IS
NEVER MARKETED, IT SUPPLIES A NEED OF THE MAN WHO GREW IT WHICH WOULD
OTHERWISE BE REFLECTED BY PURCHASES IN THE OPEN MARKET.  HOME-GROWN
WHEAT IN THIS SENSE COMPETES WITH WHEAT IN COMMERCE.  THE STIMULATION
OF COMMERCE IS A USE OF THE REGULATORY FUNCTION QUITE AS DEFINITELY AS
PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS THEREON.  THIS RECORD LEAVES US IN NO
DOUBT THAT CONGRESS MAY PROPERLY HAVE CONSIDERED THAT WHEAT CONSUMED ON
THE FARM WHERE GROWN, IF WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE SCHEME OF REGULATION, WOULD
HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT IN DEFEATING AND OBSTRUCTING ITS PURPOSE TO
STIMULATE TRADE THEREIN AT INCREASED PRICES. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THIS ACT, FORCING SOME FARMERS INTO THE
MARKET TO BUY WHAT THEY COULD PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES, IS AN UNFAIR
PROMOTION OF THE MARKETS AND PRICES OF SPECIALIZING WHEAT GROWERS.  IT
IS OF THE ESSENCE OF REGULATION THAT IT LAYS A RESTRAINING HAND ON THE
SELFINTEREST OF THE REGULATED AND THAT ADVANTAGES FROM THE REGULATION
COMMONLY FALL TO OTHERS.  THE CONFLICTS OF ECONOMIC INTEREST BETWEEN
THE REGULATED AND THOSE WHO ADVANTAGE BY IT ARE WISELY LEFT UNDER OUR
SYSTEM TO RESOLUTION BY THE CONGRESS UNDER ITS MORE FLEXIBLE AND
RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  FN29  SUCH CONFLICTS RARELY LEND
THEMSELVES TO JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  AND WITH THE WISDOM,
WORKABILITY, OR FAIRNESS, OF THE PLAN OF REGULATION WE HAVE NOTHING TO
DO.

            III 

THE STATUTE IS ALSO CHALLENGED AS A DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW CONTRARY TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, BOTH BECAUSE OF ITS
REGULATORY EFFECT ON THE APPELLEE AND BECAUSE OF ITS ALLEGED
RETROACTIVE EFFECT.  THE COURT BELOW SUSTAINED THE PLEA ON THE GROUND
OF FORBIDDEN RETROACTIVITY, "OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE EQUITIES
OF THE CASE AS SHOWN BY THE RECORD FAVOR THE PLAINTIFF."  43 F.SUPP. 
1017, 1019.  AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS NOT TO BE REFUSED APPLICATION BY THE
COURTS AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND FORBIDDEN BY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS DEEMED IN A PARTICULAR CASE TO WORK AN
INEQUITABLE RESULT. 

APPELLEE'S CLAIM THAT THE ACT WORKS A DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS EVEN
APART FROM ITS ALLEGEDLY RETROACTIVE EFFECT IS NOT PERSUASIVE.  CONTROL
OF TOTAL SUPPLY, UPON WHICH THE WHOLE STATUTORY PLAN IS BASED, DEPENDS
UPON CONTROL OF INDIVIDUAL SUPPLY.  APPELLEE'S CLAIM IS NOT THAT HIS
QUOTA REPRESENTED LESS THAN A FAIR SHARE OF THE NATIONAL QUOTA, BUT
THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT HE BE FREE FROM PENALTY FOR
PLANTING WHEAT AND DISPOSING OF HIS CROP AS HE SEES FIT. 

WE DO NOT AGREE.  IN ITS EFFORT TO CONTROL TOTAL SUPPLY, THE
GOVERNMENT GAVE THE FARMER A CHOICE WHICH WAS, OF COURSE, DESIGNED TO
ENCOURAGE COOPERATION AND DISCOURAGE NON-COOPERATION.  THE FARMER WHO
PLANTED WITHIN HIS ALLOTMENT WAS IN EFFECT GUARANTEED A MINIMUM RETURN
MUCH ABOVE WHAT HIS WHEAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IF SOLD ON A WORLD MARKET
BASIS.  EXEMPTION FROM THE APPLICABILITY OF QUOTAS WAS MADE IN FAVOR OF
SMALL PRODUCERS.  FN30  THE FARMER WHO PRODUCED IN EXCESS OF HIS QUOTA
MIGHT ESCAPE PENALTY BY DELIVERING HIS WHEAT TO THE SECRETARY, OR BY
STORING IT WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF SALE WITHOUT PENALTY IN A LATER YEAR
TO FILL OUT HIS QUOTA, OR IRRESPECTIVE OF QUOTAS IF THEY ARE NO LONGER
IN EFFECT, AND HE COULD OBTAIN A LOAN OF 60 PER CENT OF THE RATE FOR
COOPERATORS, OR ABOUT 59 CENTS A BUSHEL, ON SO MUCH OF HIS WHEAT AS
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY IF MARKETED.  FN31 FINALLY, HE MIGHT MAKE
OTHER DISPOSITION OF HIS WHEAT, SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY.  IT IS AGREED
THAT AS THE RESULT OF THE WHEAT PROGRAMS HE IS ABLE TO MARKET HIS WHEAT
AT A PRICE "FAR ABOVE ANY WORLD PRICE BASED ON THE NATURAL REACTION OF
SUPPLY AND DEMAND."  WE CAN HARDLY FIND A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, PARTICULARLY SINCE IT IS EVEN DOUBTFUL THAT
APPELLEE'S BURDENS UNDER THE PROGRAM OUTWEIGH HIS BENEFITS.  IT IS
HARDLY LACK OF DUE PROCESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE THAT WHICH IT
SUBSIDIZES. 

THE AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1941 IS SAID TO BE INVALIDLY RETROACTIVE IN
TWO RESPECTS:  FIRST, IN THAT IT INCREASED THE PENALTY FROM 15 CENTS TO
49 CENTS A BUSHEL; SECONDLY, IN THAT, BY THE NEW DEFINITION OF "FARM
MARKETING EXCESS," IT SUBJECTED TO THE PENALTY WHEAT WHICH HAD
THERETOFORE BEEN SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY AT ALL, I.E., WHEAT NOT
"MARKETED" AS DEFINED IN THE ACT. 

IT IS NOT TO BE DENIED THAT BETWEEN SEED TIME AND HARVEST IMPORTANT
CHANGES WERE MADE IN THE ACT WHICH AFFECTED THE DESIRABILITY AND
ADVANTAGE OF PLANTING THE EXCESS ACREAGE.  THE LAW AS IT STOOD WHEN THE
APPELLEE PLANTED HIS CROP MADE THE QUOTA FOR HIS FARM THE NORMAL OR THE
ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF THE ACREAGE ALLOTMENT, WHICHEVER WAS GREATER, PLUS
ANY CARRY-OVER WHEAT THAT HE COULD HAVE MARKETED WITHOUT PENALTY IN THE
PRECEDING MARKETING YEAR.  FN32  THE ACT ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE FARMER
WHO, WHILE QUOTAS WERE IN EFFECT, MARKETED WHEAT IN EXCESS OF THE QUOTA
FOR THE FARM ON WHICH IT WAS PRODUCED SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO A PENALTY OF
15 CENTS A BUSHEL ON THE EXCESS SO MARKETED.  FN33  MARKETING OF WHEAT
WAS DEFINED AS INCLUDING DISPOSITION "BY FEEDING (IN ANY FORM) TO
POULTRY OR LIVESTOCK WHICH, OR THE PRODUCTS OF WHICH, ARE SOLD,
BARTERED, OR EXCHANGED,  ...  " FN34  THE AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1941,
MADE BEFORE THE APPELLEE HAD HARVESTED THE GROWING CROP, CHANGED THE
QUOTA AND PENALTY PROVISIONS.  THE QUOTA FOR EACH FARM BECAME THE
ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF ACREAGE PLANTED TO WHEAT, LESS THE NORMAL OR THE
ACTUAL PRODUCTION, WHICHEVER WAS SMALLER, OF ANY EXCESS ACREAGE N35. 
WHEAT IN EXCESS OF THIS QUOTA, KNOWN AS THE "FARMMARKETING EXCESS" AND
DECLARED BY THE AMENDMENT TO BE "REGARDED AS AVAILABLE FOR MARKETING,"
WAS SUBJECTED TO A PENALTY FIXED AT 50 PER CENT OF THE BASIC LOAN RATE
FOR COOPERATORS,  FN36  OR 49 CENTS, INSTEAD OF THE PENALTY OF 15 CENTS
WHICH OBTAINED AT THE TIME OF PLANTING.  AT THE SAME TIME, THERE WAS
AUTHORIZED AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN WHICH MIGHT BE MADE TO
NON-COOPERATORS SUCH AS THE APPELLEE UPON WHEAT WHICH "WOULD BE SUBJECT
TO PENALTY IF MARKETED" FROM ABOUT 34 CENTS PER BUSHEL TO ABOUT 59
CENTS.  FN37  THE ENTIRE CROP WAS SUBJECTED BY THE AMENDMENT TO A LIEN
FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PENALTY. 

THE PENALTY PROVIDED BY THE AMENDMENT CAN BE POSTPONED OR AVOIDED
ONLY BY STORING THE FARM MARKETING EXCESS ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARY OR BY DELIVERING IT TO HIM WITHOUT
COMPENSATION; AND THE PENALTY IS INCURRED AND BECOMES DUE ON THRESHING
N38.  THUS THE PENALTY WAS CONTINGENT UPON AN ACT WHICH APPELLEE
COMMITTED NOT BEFORE BUT AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, AND HAD HE
CHOSEN TO CUT HIS EXCESS AND CURE IT OR FEED IT AS HAY, OR TO REAP AND
FEED IT WITH THE HEAD AND STRAW TOGETHER, NO PENALTY WOULD HAVE BEEN
DEMANDED.  SUCH MANNER OF CONSUMPTION IS NOT UNCOMMON.  ONLY WHEN HE
THRESHED AND THEREBY MADE IT A PART OF THE BULK OF WHEAT OVERHANGING
THE MARKET DID HE BECOME SUBJECT TO PENALTY.  HE HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO
SHOW THAT THE VALUE OF HIS EXCESS WHEAT CONSUMED WITHOUT THRESHING WAS
LESS THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD IT BEEN THRESHED WHILE SUBJECT TO THE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF PLANTING.  CONCURRENTLY
WITH THE INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PENALTY, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED A
SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN WHICH MIGHT BE MADE TO
COOPERATORS UPON STORED FARM MARKETING EXCESS WHEAT.  THAT APPELLEE IS
THE WORSE OFF FOR THE AGGREGATE OF THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOT APPEAR; IT
ONLY APPEARS THAT, IF HE COULD GET ALL THAT THE GOVERNMENT GIVES AND DO
NOTHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT ASKS, HE WOULD BE BETTER OFF THAN THIS LAW
ALLOWS.  TO DENY HIM THIS IS NOT TO DENY HIM DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  CF.
MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38.  REVERSED. 

FN1  55 STAT. 203, 7 U.S.C. (SUPP. NO. I) SEC. 1340. 

FN2  52 STAT. 31, AS AMENDED, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1281 ET SEQ. 

FN3  BECAUSE OF THE CONCLUSION REACHED AS TO THE MERITS, WE NEED NOT
CONSIDER THE QUESTION WHETHER THESE APPELLANTS WOULD BE PROPER IF OUR
DECISION WERE OTHERWISE. 

FN4  WHEAT - 507, SECS. 728.240, 728.248, 6 FEDERAL REGISTER 2695,
2699-2701. 

FN5  SEC. 331, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1331. 

FN6  SEC. 335, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1335. 

FN7  SECS. 302(B)(H), 303, 7 U.S.C. SECS. 1302(B)(H), 1303; SEC. 10
OF THE AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1941, 7 U.S.C. (SUPP. I), SEC. 1340(10). 

FN8  SEC. 335(A), 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1335(A). 

FN9  SEC. 336, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1336. 

FN10 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1339.  THIS IMPOSED A PENALTY OF 15[ PER BUSHEL
UPON WHEAT MARKETED IN EXCESS OF THE FARM MARKETING QUOTA WHILE SUCH
QUOTA WAS IN EFFECT.  SEE ALSO, AMENDMENTS OF JULY 26, 1939, 53 STAT.
1126, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1335(C), AND OF JULY 2, 1940, 54 STAT. 727, 7
U.S.C. SEC. 1301(B)(6)(A), (B). 

FN11  50 STAT. 752-753, SEC. 3, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A. 

FN12  SEE ALSO, GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402; UNITED STATES V.
WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315 U.S. 110; CLOVERLEAF CO. V. PATTERSON, 315
U.S. 148; KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517; OVERNIGHT
TRANSPORTATION CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572. 

FN13  54 STAT. 727, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1301(B)(6)(A), (B). 

FN14  SECS. 1, 2, OF THE AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1941; WHEAT - 507, SEC.
728.251, 6 FEDERAL REGISTER 2695, 2701. 

FN15  CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 18. 

FN16  AFTER DISCUSSING AND AFFIRMING THE CASES STATING THAT SUCH
ACTIVITIES WERE "LOCAL," AND COULD BE REGULATED UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE ONLY IF BY VIRTUE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THEIR EFFECTS UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE "DIRECT," THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN CARTER
V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 308, STATED THAT:  "THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN A DIRECT AND AN INDIRECT EFFECT TURNS, NOT UPON THE MAGNITUDE
OF EITHER THE CAUSE OR THE EFFECT, BUT ENTIRELY UPON THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE EFFECT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT.  ...  THE MATTER OF DEGREE HAS
NO BEARING UPON THE QUESTION HERE, SINCE THAT QUESTION IS NOT - WHAT IS
THE EXTENT OF THE LOCAL ACTIVITY OR CONDITION, OR THE EXTENT OF THE
EFFECT PRODUCED UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE?  BUT - WHAT IS THE RELATION
BETWEEN THE ACTIVITY OR CONDITION AND THE EFFECT?"  SEE ALSO, CASES
CITED INFRA, NOTES 17 AND 21. 

FN17  VEAZIE V. MOOR, 14 HOW.  568, 573-574; KIDD V. PEARSON, 128
U.S. 1, 20-22. 

FN18  24 STAT. 379, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1, ET SEQ. 

FN19 26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1, ET SEQ. 

FN20  SEE ALSO, HOPKINS V. UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 578; ANDERSON V.
UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 604. 

FN21  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S. 463; HAMMER V. DAGENHART,
247 U.S. 251; RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330;
SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495; CARTER V. CARTER COAL
CO., 298 U.S. 238; CF. UNITED STATES V. DEWITT, 9 WALL.  41; TRADEMARK
CASES, 100 U.S. 82; HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44; HEISLER V. THOMAS
COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 245, 259-260; OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S.
172, 178-179; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165. 

FN22  NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197; SWIFT &
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274; BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 221 U.S. 612; SOUTHERN
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 222 U.S. 20; SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
CASES, 223 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525. 

FN23  UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT CO., 265 U.S. 457, 471; CF.
APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 511; DI SANTO V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, 44(DISSENT); NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197, 395; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
221 U.S. 1, 66-69. 

FN24  IN SANTA CRUZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 466-467, CHIEF
JUSTICE HUGHES SAID: "'DIRECT' HAS BEEN CONTRASTED WITH 'INDIRECT,' AND
WHAT IS 'REMOTE' OR 'DISTANT' WITH WHAT IS 'CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL.' 
WHATEVER TERMINOLOGY IS USED, THE CRITERION IS NECESSARILY ONE OF
DEGREE AND MUST BE SO DEFINED.  THIS DOES NOT SATISFY THOSE WHO SEEK
FOR MATHEMATICAL OR RIGID FORMULAS.  BUT SUCH FORMULAS ARE NOT PROVIDED
BY THE GREAT CONCEPTS OF THE CONSTITUTION SUCH AS 'INTERSTATE
COMMERCE,' 'DUE PROCESS,' 'EQUAL PROTECTION.'" 

FN25  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 221
U.S. 612; SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1; INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION V. GOODRICH TRANSIT CO., 224 U.S. 194. 

FN26  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349. 

FN27  IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ALL OF THESE HAVE FEDERATED
SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT, NOT OF COURSE WITHOUT IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES.  IN
ALL OF THEM, WHEAT REGULATION IS BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  IN
ARGENTINA, WHEAT MAY BE PURCHASED ONLY FROM THE NATIONAL GRAIN BOARD. 
A CONDITION OF SALE TO THE BOARD, WHICH BUYS AT PEGGED PRICES, IS THE
PRODUCER'S AGREEMENT TO BECOME SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ON PLANTING. 
SEE NOLAN, ARGENTINE GRAIN PRICE GUARANTY, FOREIGN AGRICULTURE (OFFICE
OF FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE) MAY,
1942, PP. 185, 202.  THE AUSTRALIAN SYSTEM OF REGULATION INCLUDES THE
LICENSING OF GROWERS, WHO MAY NOT SOW MORE THAN THE AMOUNT LICENSED,
AND WHO MAY BE COMPELLED TO CUT PART OF THEIR CROPS FOR HAY IF A HEAVY
CROP IS IN PROSPECT.  SEE WRIGHT, AUSTRALIAN WHEAT STABILIZATION,
FOREIGN AGRICULTURE (OFFICE OF FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL RELATIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE) SEPTEMBER, 1942, PP. 329, 336.  THE CANADIAN
WHEAT BOARD HAS WIDE CONTROL OVER THE MARKETING OF WHEAT BY THE
INDIVIDUAL PRODUCER.  4 GEO. VI, C. 25, SEC. 5.  CANADIAN WHEAT HAS
ALSO BEEN THE SUBJECT OF NUMEROUS ORDERS IN COUNCIL.  E.G., 6
PROCLAMATIONS AND ORDERS IN COUNCIL (1942) 183, WHICH GIVES THE WHEAT
BOARD FULL CONTROL OF SALE, DELIVERY, MILLING AND DISPOSITION BY ANY
PERSON OR INDIVIDUAL.  SEE, ALSO, WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION ACT, 1942, 6
GEO. VI, C. 10. 

FN28  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375; STAFFORD V.
WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1;
CORONADO COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295; UNITED STATES
V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392; TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED
STATES, 280 U.S. 420; STANDARD OIL CO. OF INDIANA V. UNITED STATES, 283
U.S. 163; CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38;
UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V.
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150; SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V.
ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V.
WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., SUPRA; FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. PIPELINE CO.,
315 U.S. 575. 

FN29  CF. M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 413-415, 435-436;
GIBBONS V. OGDEN, SUPRA, AT 197; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495,
521; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, 37; HELVERING V.
GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 412. 

FN30  SECTION 7 OF THE AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1941 PROVIDED THAT A FARM
MARKETING QUOTA SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO ANY FARM ON WHICH THE
ACREAGE PLANTED TO WHEAT IS NOT IN EXCESS OF FIFTEEN ACRES.  WHEN THE
APPELLEE PLANTED HIS WHEAT THE QUOTA WAS INAPPLICABLE TO ANY FARM ON
WHICH THE NORMAL PRODUCTION OF THE ACREAGE PLANTED TO WHEAT WAS LESS
THAN 200 BUSHELS.  SEC. 335(D) OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF
1938, AS AMENDED BY 54 STAT. 232. 

FN31  SECS. 6, 10(C) OF THE AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1941. 

FN32  SEC. 335(C) AS AMENDED JULY 26, 1939, 53 STAT. 1126, 7 U.S.C.
SEC. 1335(C). 

FN33  SEC. 339, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 1339. 

FN34  SEC. 301(B)(6)(A), (B), AS AMENDED JULY 2, 1940, 54 STAT. 727,
7 U.S.C. SEC. 1301(B)(6)(A), (B). 

FN35  BY AN AMENDMENT OF DECEMBER 26, 1941, 55 STAT. 872, EFFECTIVE
AS OF MAY 26, 1941, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE FARM MARKETING EXCESS
SHOULD NOT BE LARGER THAN THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION
EXCEEDS THE NORMAL PRODUCTION OF THE FARM WHEAT-ACREAGE ALLOTMENT, IF
THE PRODUCER ESTABLISHES SUCH ACTUAL PRODUCTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THE SECRETARY, PROVISION BEING MADE FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE PENALTY IN
THE EVENT OF A DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE FARM MARKETING
EXCESS. 

FN36  SECS. 1, 2, 3 OF THE AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1941. 

FN37  SECTION 302(B) HAD PROVIDED FOR A LOAN TO NON-COOPERATORS OF
60% OF THE BASIC LOAN RATE FOR COOPERATORS, WHICH IN 1940 WAS 64[.  SEE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PRESS RELEASE, MAY 20, 1940. 
THE SAME PERCENTAGE WAS EMPLOYED IN SEC. 10(C) OF THE AMENDMENT OF MAY
26, 1941, AND THE INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN IS THE RESULT OF
AN INCREASE IN THE BASIC LOAN RATE EFFECTED BY SEC. 10(A) OF THE
AMENDMENT. 

FN38  WHEAT - 507, SEC. 728.251(B), 6 FEDERAL REGISTER 2695, 2701. 
..END :















EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 


ARGUED JULY 29-30, 1942.  - DECIDED JULY 31, 1942.  - PER CURIAM
DECISION FILED, JULY 31, 1942.  FN3 FULL OPINION FILED, OCTOBER 29,
1942.  FN4  - LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS COURT
DENIED.  - ORDERS OF DISTRICT COURT (47 F.SUPP.  431), AFFIRMED. 

FN3  SEE FOOTNOTE, POST, P. 18. 

FN4  POST, P. 18. 


1.  A FEDERAL COURT MAY REFUSE TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WHERE
THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION, IF PROVED, WOULD NOT WARRANT
DISCHARGE OF THE PRISONER.  P. 24. 

2.  PRESENTATION TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS THE
INSTITUTION OF A SUIT; AND DENIAL BY THAT COURT OF LEAVE TO FILE THE
PETITION WAS A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY
REVIEWABLE BY APPEAL TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AND IN THIS COURT BY CERTIORARI.  P. 24. 

3.  THE PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION OF JULY 2, 1942, DECLARING THAT ALL
PERSONS WHO ARE CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS OF, OR WHO ACT UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF, ANY NATION AT WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES, AND WHO DURING TIME OF
WAR ENTER THE UNITED STATES THROUGH COASTAL OR BOUNDARY DEFENSES, AND
ARE CHARGED WITH COMMITTING OR ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT SABOTAGE,
ESPIONAGE, HOSTILE ACTS, OR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR, "SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF WAR AND TO THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY
TRIBUNALS," DOES NOT BAR ACCUSED PERSONS FROM ACCESS TO THE CIVIL
COURTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE
PROCLAMATION TO THE PARTICULAR CASE; NOR DOES THE PROCLAMATION, WHICH
IN TERMS DENIED TO SUCH PERSONS ACCESS TO THE COURTS, NOR THE ENEMY
ALIENAGE OF THE ACCUSED, FORECLOSE CONSIDERATION BY THE CIVIL COURTS OF
THE CONTENTION THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
FORBID THEIR TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION.  P. 24. 

4.  IN TIME OF WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY,
PETITIONERS, WEARING GERMAN MILITARY UNIFORMS AND CARRYING EXPLOSIVES,
FUSES, AND INCENDIARY AND TIME DEVICES, WERE LANDED FROM GERMAN
SUBMARINES IN THE HOURS OF DARKNESS, AT PLACES ON THE EASTERN SEABOARD
OF THE UNITED STATES.  THEREUPON THEY BURIED THE UNIFORMS AND SUPPLIES,
AND PROCEEDED, IN CIVILIAN DRESS, TO VARIOUS PLACES IN THE UNITED
STATES.  ALL HAD RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS IN GERMANY FROM AN OFFICER OF
THE GERMAN HIGH COMMAND TO DESTROY WAR INDUSTRIES AND WAR FACILITIES IN
THE UNITED STATES, FOR WHICH THEY OR THEIR RELATIVES IN GERMANY WERE TO
RECEIVE SALARY PAYMENTS FROM THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT.  THEY ALSO HAD BEEN
PAID BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT DURING THEIR COURSE OF TRAINING AT A
SABOTAGE SCHOOL, AND HAD WITH THEM, WHEN ARRESTED, SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS
OF UNITED STATES CURRENCY, WHICH HAD BEEN HANDED TO THEM BY AN OFFICER
OF THE GERMAN HIGH COMMAND, WHO HAD INSTRUCTED THEM TO WEAR THEIR
GERMAN UNIFORMS WHILE LANDING IN THE UNITED STATES.  SPECIFICATION 1 OF
THE CHARGES ON WHICH THEY WERE PLACED ON TRIAL BEFORE A MILITARY
COMMISSION CHARGED THAT THEY, "BEING ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND
ACTING FOR  ...  THE GERMAN REICH, A BELLIGERENT ENEMY NATION, SECRETLY
AND COVERTLY PASSED, IN CIVILIAN DRESS, CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF WAR,
THROUGH THE MILITARY AND NAVAL LINES AND DEFENSES OF THE UNITED STATES
...  AND WENT BEHIND SUCH LINES, CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF WAR, IN
CIVILIAN DRESS  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING  ...  HOSTILE ACTS,
AND, IN PARTICULAR, TO DESTROY CERTAIN WAR INDUSTRIES, WAR UTILITIES
AND WAR MATERIALS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES."  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE SPECIFICATION SUFFICIENTLY CHARGED AN OFFENSE AGAINST
THE LAW OF WAR WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO ORDER TRIED BY A
MILITARY COMMISSION; NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT, EVER SINCE THEIR
ARREST, THE COURTS IN THE JURISDICTIONS WHERE THEY ENTERED THE COUNTRY
AND WHERE THEY WERE ARRESTED AND HELD FOR TRIAL WERE OPEN AND
FUNCTIONING NORMALLY.  EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2, DISTINGUISHED. 
PP. 21, 23, 36, 48. 

(2)  THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER OF JULY 2, 1942, SO FAR AS IT LAYS DOWN
THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED ON THE TRIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND ON
THE REVIEW OF ITS FINDINGS AND SENTENCE, AND THE PROCEDURE IN FACT
FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSION, WERE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ARTICLES OF WAR
38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 AND 70.  P. 46. 

(3)  THE PETITIONERS WERE IN LAWFUL CUSTODY FOR TRIAL BY A MILITARY
COMMISSION; AND, UPON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, DID NOT
SHOW CAUSE FOR THEIR DISCHARGE.  P. 47. 

5.  ARTICLES 15, 38 AND 46 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, ENACTED BY
CONGRESS, RECOGNIZE THE "MILITARY COMMISSION" AS AN APPROPRIATE
TRIBUNAL FOR THE TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF
WAR NOT ORDINARILY TRIED BY COURTS-MARTIAL.  AND BY THE ARTICLES OF
WAR, ESPECIALLY ARTICLE 15, CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED, SO FAR AS
IT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY DO SO, THAT MILITARY TRIBUNALS SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR IN APPROPRIATE
CASES.  PP. 26-28. 

6.  CONGRESS, IN ADDITION TO MAKING RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF OUR
ARMED FORCES, BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR HAS EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER
ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DEFINE AND PUNISH
OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS, OF WHICH THE LAW OF WAR IS A PART,
BY SANCTIONING, WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, THE JURISDICTION OF
MILITARY COMMISSIONS TO TRY PERSONS FOR OFFENSES WHICH, ACCORDING TO
THE RULES AND PRECEPTS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS, AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE
LAW OF WAR, ARE COGNIZABLE BY SUCH TRIBUNALS.  AND BY ARTICLE OF WAR
15, CONGRESS HAS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, AS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS, ALL OFFENSES WHICH ARE DEFINED AS SUCH BY THE
LAW OF WAR AND WHICH MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE INCLUDED WITHIN THAT
JURISDICTION.  PP. 28, 30. 

7.  THIS COURT HAS ALWAYS RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED THE LAW OF WAR AS
INCLUDING THAT PART OF THE LAW OF NATIONS WHICH PRESCRIBES, FOR THE
CONDUCT OF WAR, THE STATUS, RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF ENEMY NATIONS AS WELL
AS OF ENEMY INDIVIDUALS.  P. 27. 

8.  THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THIS CASE WAS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW
OF WAR, THE TRIAL OF WHICH BY MILITARY COMMISSION HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED
BY CONGRESS, AND WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE TRIED BY
JURY.  EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 45. 

9.  BY THE LAW OF WAR, LAWFUL COMBATANTS ARE SUBJECT TO CAPTURE AND
DETENTION AS PRISONERS OF WAR; UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS, IN ADDITION, ARE
SUBJECT TO TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS FOR ACTS WHICH
RENDER THEIR BELLIGERENCY UNLAWFUL.  P. 30. 

10.  IT HAS LONG BEEN ACCEPTED PRACTICE BY OUR MILITARY AUTHORITIES
TO TREAT THOSE WHO, DURING TIME OF WAR, PASS SURREPTITIOUSLY FROM ENEMY
TERRITORY INTO OUR OWN, DISCARDING THEIR UNIFORMS UPON ENTRY, FOR THE
COMMISSION OF HOSTILE ACTS INVOLVING DESTRUCTION OF LIFE OR PROPERTY,
AS UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS PUNISHABLE AS SUCH BY MILITARY COMMISSION.  THIS
PRACTICE, ACCEPTED AND FOLLOWED BY OTHER GOVERNMENTS, MUST BE REGARDED
AS A RULE OR PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW OF WAR RECOGNIZED BY THIS GOVERNMENT
BY ITS ENACTMENT OF THE FIFTEENTH ARTICLE OF WAR.  P. 35. 

11.  CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH THE
MILITARY ARM OF AN ENEMY GOVERNMENT, AND WITH ITS AID, GUIDANCE AND
DIRECTION ENTER THIS COUNTRY BENT ON HOSTILE ACTS, ARE ENEMY
BELLIGERENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION AND THE LAW OF
WAR.  P. 37. 

12.  EVEN WHEN COMMITTED BY A CITIZEN, THE OFFENSE HERE CHARGED IS
DISTINCT FROM THE CRIME OF TREASON DEFINED IN ARTICLE III, SEC. 3 OF
THE CONSTITUTION, SINCE THE ABSENCE OF UNIFORM ESSENTIAL TO ONE IS
IRRELEVANT TO THE OTHER.  P. 38. 

13.  ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, AND THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION DID NOT EXTEND THE RIGHT TO DEMAND A JURY TO TRIALS BY
MILITARY COMMISSION OR REQUIRE THAT OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR,
NOT TRIABLE BY JURY AT COMMON LAW, BE TRIED ONLY IN CIVIL COURTS.  P.
38. 

14.  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF APRIL 10, 1806, DERIVED FROM
THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS OF AUGUST 21, 1776, AND
WHICH IMPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY ON ALIEN SPIES "ACCORDING TO THE LAW
AND USAGE OF NATIONS, BY SENTENCE OF A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL," WAS A
CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS, AS NOT FORECLOSING TRIAL BY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS, WITHOUT A JURY, FOR OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR
COMMITTED BY ENEMIES NOT IN OR ASSOCIATED WITH OUR ARMED FORCES.  IT IS
A CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED SINCE THE FOUNDING OF OUR
GOVERNMENT, AND IS NOW CONTINUED IN THE 82ND ARTICLE OF WAR.  SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION IS ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT.  P. 41. 

15.  SINCE VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR IS ADEQUATELY ALLEGED IN THIS
CASE, THE COURT FINDS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF OTHER
SPECIFICATIONS BASED ON THE 81ST AND 82ND ARTICLES OF WAR, OR TO
CONSTRUE THOSE ARTICLES OR DECIDE UPON THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY AS SO
CONSTRUED.  P. 46. 

EX PARTE QUIRIN ET AL. FN1  AND UNITED STATES EX REL. QUIRIN ET AL. V.
COX, PROVOST MARSHAL.  FN2 

NOS. - , ORIGINAL.  MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF
HABEAS CORPUS 

NOS. 1-7.  CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

FN1  NO. - , ORIGINAL, EX PARTE RICHARD QUIRIN; NO. - , ORIGINAL, EX
PARTE HERBERT HANS HAUPT; NO. - , ORIGINAL, EX PARTE EDWARD JOHN
KERLING; NO. - , ORIGINAL, EX PARTE ERNEST PETER BURGER; NO. - ,
ORIGINAL, EX PARTE HEINRICH HARM HEINCK; NO. - , ORIGINAL, EX PARTE
WERNER THIEL; AND NO. - , ORIGINAL, EX PARTE HERMANN OTTO NEUBAUER. 

FN2  NO. 1, UNITED STATES EX REL. QUIRIN V. COX, PROVOST MARSHALL;
NO. 2, UNITED STATES EX REL. HAUPT V. COX, PROVOST MARSHALL; NO. 3,
UNITED STATES EX REL. KERLING V. COX, PROVOST MARSHALL; NO. 4, UNITED
STATES EX REL. BURGER V. COX, PROVOST MARSHALL; NO. 5, UNITED STATES EX
REL. HEINCK V. COX, PROVOST MARSHALL; NO. 6, UNITED STATES EX REL.
THIEL V. COX, PROVOST MARSHALL; AND NO. 7 UNITED STATES EX REL.
NEUBAUER V. COX, PROVOST MARSHAL. 

THE COURT MET IN SPECIAL TERM, ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 1942, PURSUANT
TO A CALL BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAVING THE APPROVAL OF ALL THE ASSOCIATE
JUSTICES. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE ANNOUNCED THAT THE COURT HAD CONVENED IN SPECIAL
TERM IN ORDER THAT CERTAIN APPLICATIONS MIGHT BE PRESENTED TO IT AND
ARGUMENT BE HEARD IN RESPECT THERETO. 

IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATED THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S SON, MAJOR LAUSON H. STONE, U.S.A.,
HAD, UNDER ORDERS, ASSISTED DEFENSE COUNSEL BEFORE THE MILITARY
COMMISSION, IN THE CASE RELATIVE TO WHICH THE SPECIAL TERM OF THE COURT
WAS CALLED; BUT THAT MAJOR STONE HAD HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THIS
PROCEEDING BEFORE THIS COURT.  THEREFORE, SAID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
COUNSEL FOR ALL THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN THIS PROCEEDING JOINED IN
URGING THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION AND
DECISION OF THE MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED.  COLONEL KENNETH C. ROYALL, OF
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS, CONCURRED IN THE STATEMENT AND REQUEST OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

THE APPLICATIONS, SEVEN IN NUMBER (ANTE, P. 1, N. 1), FIRST TOOK THE
FORM OF PETITIONS TO THIS COURT FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR WRITS
OF HABEAS CORPUS TO SECURE THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONERS FROM THE
CUSTODY OF BRIGADIER GENERAL ALBERT L. COX, U.S.A., PROVOST MARSHAL OF
THE MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, WHO, PURSUANT TO ORDERS, WAS
HOLDING THEM IN THAT DISTRICT FOR AND DURING A TRIAL BEFORE A MILITARY
COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.  DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENT, THE PETITIONERS WERE
PERMITTED TO FILE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI, DIRECTED TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO REVIEW,
BEFORE JUDGMENT BY THAT COURT, ORDERS THEN BEFORE IT BY APPEAL BY WHICH
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAD DENIED APPLICATIONS
FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

AFTER THE ARGUMENT, THIS COURT DELIVERED A PER CURIAM OPINION,
DISPOSING OF THE CASES (FOOTNOTE, P. 18).  A FULL OPINION, WHICH IS THE
BASIS OF THIS REPORT, WAS FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT ON OCTOBER
29, 1942, POST, P. 18. 

ENEMY ALIENS MAY RESORT TO HABEAS CORPUS.  EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4
WALL.  2, AT PP. 115-121; KAUFMAN V. EISENBERG, 32 N.Y.S.2D 450; EX
PARTE OROZCO, 201 F. 106; EX PARTE RISSE, 257 F. 102; 55 HARVARD L.
REV. 1058; 31 OPS.  ATTY.  GEN. 361. 

50 U.S.C. SEC. 21 RELATES ONLY TO INTERNMENT AND DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A
PROCLAMATION DENYING TO ALIEN ENEMIES THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS. 

THE 82ND ARTICLE OF WAR, WHICH PROVIDES FOR TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT OF
SPIES BY COURTS-MARTIAL OR BY MILITARY COMMISSION, MUST BE CONSTRUED AS
APPLYING ONLY TO OFFENSES COMMITTED IN CONNECTION WITH ACTUAL MILITARY
OPERATIONS, OR ON OR NEAR MILITARY FORTIFICATIONS, ENCAMPMENTS, OR
INSTALLATIONS. 

MERE PROOF THAT PERSONS IN UNIFORM LANDED ON THE AMERICAN COAST FROM
A SUBMARINE, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT SUPPLY ANY OF THE ELEMENTS OF
SPYING.  NONE OF THE PETITIONERS COMMITTED ANY ACTS ON, NEAR, OR IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY FORTIFICATIONS, POSTS, QUARTERS, OR ENCAMPMENTS OF
THE ARMY; OR ON, NEAR, OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS; OR AT ANY LOCATION WITHIN THE ZONE OF OPERATIONS.  2
WHEATON, INT. L., 6TH ED., 766; 2 OPPENHEIM, INT. L., 1905 ED., 161;
HALLECK, INT. L., 3D ED., 573.  IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF ANY ACTS
WITHIN THIS ZONE, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR A MILITARY COMMISSION UNDER
ARTICLE OF WAR 82. 

THAT THE ACTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN
VIOLATION OF THE 81ST ARTICLE WERE NOT IN THE ZONE OF MILITARY
OPERATIONS WOULD ALSO PRECLUDE THE JURISDICTION OF A MILITARY
COMMISSION TO TRY THIS OFFENSE.  SEE 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1; 50 U.S.C. SECS.
31-42, 101-106.  THE PETITIONERS WERE ARRESTED BY THE CIVIL
AUTHORITIES, WAIVED ARRAIGNMENT BEFORE A CIVIL COURT, AND ALSO WAIVED
REMOVAL TO ANOTHER FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT.  THE CIVIL COURTS THEREBY
ACQUIRED JURISDICTION; AND THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE MILITARY
AUTHORITIES TO OUST THESE COURTS OF THIS JURISDICTION. 

THE RULES OF LAND WARFARE DESCRIBE NO SUCH OFFENSE AS THAT SET FORTH
IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE FIRST CHARGE.  THESE RULES WERE PREPARED
IN 1940 UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, AND PURPORT
TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR. 

THE SO-CALLED LAW OF WAR IS A SPECIES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ANALOGOUS
TO COMMON LAW.  THERE IS NO COMMON LAW CRIME AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES. 

THE FIRST CHARGE SETS OUT NO MORE THAN THE OFFENSES OF SABOTAGE AND
ESPIONAGE, WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY 50 U.S.C., SECS. 31-42,
101-106, AND WHICH ARE TRIABLE BY THE CIVIL COURTS. 

THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY CAN NOT STAND IF THE OTHER CHARGES FALL. 
FURTHERMORE, 18 U.S.C. 88 DEALS EXPRESSLY WITH THE OFFENSE OF
CONSPIRACY, AND THIS CHARGE IS NOT TRIABLE BY A MILITARY COMMISSION. 

THE CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONERS WAS NOTHING MORE THAN PREPARATION TO
COMMIT THE CRIME OF SABOTAGE.  THE OBJECTS OF SABOTAGE HAD NEVER BEEN
SPECIFICALLY SELECTED AND THE PLAN DID NOT CONTEMPLATE ANY ACT OF
SABOTAGE WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS.  THESE FACTS ARE NOT EVEN
SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SABOTAGE. 

THE CIVIL COURTS WERE FUNCTIONING BOTH IN THE LOCALITIES IN WHICH THE
OFFENSES WERE CHARGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED AND IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA WHERE THE ALLEGED OFFENSES WERE BEING TRIED.  IN THESE
LOCALITIES THERE WAS NO MARTIAL LAW AND NO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
WOULD JUSTIFY ACTION BY A MILITARY TRIBUNAL. 

THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS AS A PRACTICAL MATTER COULD
RAISE THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION WAS BY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS. 

THE MILITARY COMMISSION HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONERS. 
ARTICLE OF WAR 2 DEFINES THE PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAW,
AND INCLUDES MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND OTHER DESIGNATED PERSONS. 
MILITARY COURTSMARTIAL AND OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS HAVE NO
JURISDICTION TO TRY ANY OTHER PERSON FOR OFFENSES IN VIOLATION OF THE
ARTICLES OF WAR, EXCEPT IN THE CASES OF ARTICLES 81 AND 82.  THE SAME
IS TRUE OF ANY ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR.  EX PARTE
MILLIGAN, SUPRA; 31 OPS.  ATTY.  GEN. 356. 

CIVIL PERSONS WHO COMMIT ACTS IN OTHER LOCALITIES THAN THE ZONE OF
ACTIVE MILITARY OPERATIONS ARE TRIABLE ONLY IN THE CIVIL COURTS AND
UNDER THE CRIMINAL STATUTES.  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE TERRITORY ALONG
THE COAST WAS PATROLLED BY THE COAST GUARD, THE PATROL WAS UNARMED.  IT
WOULD BE A STRAINED USE OF LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT THIS PATROL MADE THE
BEACH A MILITARY LINE OR PART OF THE ZONE OF ACTIVE OPERATIONS. 

NOR IS THE SITUATION CHANGED BY THE FACT THAT ON THE LONG ISLAND
BEACH, SOME DISTANCE AWAY, WAS LOCATED A SIGNAL CORPS PLATOON ENGAGED
IN OPERATING A RADIO LOCATOR STATION.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THIS
PLATOON DID NOT PATROL THE BEACH AND WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY MILITARY
OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE OPERATION AT THE TIME THE PETITIONERS LANDED. 
THE WHOLE UNITED STATES IS DIVIDED INTO DEFENSE AREAS OR SECTORS AND
THE ORDERS THEREFOR ARE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE PROVIDING FOR
THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN DEFENSE SECTORS.  IF THE PROSECUTION WERE
CORRECT IN ITS CONTENTION THAT THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS FOR THESE SECTORS
CREATES A ZONE OF ACTIVE MILITARY OPERATIONS, THEN THE ENTIRE UNITED
STATES IS A ZONE OF ACTIVE MILITARY OPERATIONS, AND PERSONS LOCATED
THEREIN ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  THE
FLORIDA AND LONG ISLAND SEACOASTS WERE NOT AND ARE NOT IN ANY TRUE
SENSE ZONES OF ACTIVE MILITARY OPERATIONS, BUT ARE INSTEAD PARTS OF THE
ZONE OF THE INTERIOR AS DEFINED IN THE FIELD SERVICE REGULATIONS. 

MARTIAL LAW IS A MATTER OF FACT AND NOT A MATTER OF PROCLAMATION; AND
A PROCLAMATION ASSUMING TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW IS INVALID UNLESS THE
FACTS THEMSELVES SUPPORT IT.  SEE STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S.
378. 

THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER AND PROCLAMATION DID NOT CREATE A STATE OF
MARTIAL LAW IN THE ENTIRE EASTERN PART OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN VIEW
OF THE FACTS, THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE REASON, EITHER OF MILITARY
NECESSITY OR OTHERWISE, FOR DEPRIVING ANY PERSONS IN THAT AREA OF THE
BENEFIT OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS GUARANTEEING AN ORDINARY AND
PROPER TRIAL BEFORE A CIVIL COURT.  EX PARTE MILLIGAN, SUPRA. 

THE PRESIDENT HAD NO AUTHORITY, IN ABSENCE OF STATUTE, TO ISSUE THE
PROCLAMATION.  IN ENGLAND, THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO OBTAIN AUTHORITY OF
PARLIAMENT FOR SIMILAR ACTION.  4 AND 5 GEO. V, C. 29; 5 AND 6 GEO. V,
C. 8; 10 AND 11 GEO. V, C. 55; 2 AND 3 GEO. VI, (1939) C. 62.  CONGRESS
ALONE CAN SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND THEN ONLY IN CASES OF
REBELLION OR INVASION.  CONST., ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 2; EX PARTE
MERRYMAN, 17 FED. CAS. 114; EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 4 CRANCH 101; MCCALL V.
MCDOWELL, FED. CAS. NO. 8673; EX PARTE BENEDICT, 3 FED. CAS. NO. 1292;
WILLOUGHBY, CONST. L., SEC. 1057. 

THE PROCLAMATION WAS ISSUED AFTER THE COMMISSION OF THE ACTS WHICH
ARE CHARGED AS CRIMES AND IS EX POST FACTO.  CONGRESS ITSELF COULD NOT
HAVE PASSED VALID LEGISLATION INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR ACTS ALREADY
COMMITTED.  CONST., ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 3; THOMPSON V. UTAH, 170 U.S.
343; BURGESS V. SALMON, 97 U.S. 384. 

THE PROCLAMATION IS VIOLATIVE OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS, OF
ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 3, AND OF ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 2, OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE ORDER IS INVALID BECAUSE IT VIOLATES EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE OF WAR 38 RESPECTING RULES OF EVIDENCE; AND IS INCONSISTENT
WITH PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 43 REQUIRING CONCURRENCE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF
THE COMMISSION'S MEMBERS FOR CONVICTION OR SENTENCE. 

ARTICLE 70 REQUIRES A PRELIMINARY HEARING LIKE ONE BEFORE A
COMMITTING MAGISTRATE, WITH LIBERTY OF THE ACCUSED TO CROSS-EXAMINE. 
THIS IS IGNORED BY THE ORDER. 

WHEREAS ARTICLE 50 1/2 REQUIRES ACTION BY THE BOARD OF REVIEW AND THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL BEFORE THE CASE IS
SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT, THE ORDER REQUIRES THAT THE COMMISSION
TRANSMIT THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL, INCLUDING ANY JUDGMENT OR SENTENCE,
DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS ACTION THEREON. 

THE ORDER HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS, BY DIRECTING THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL) TO CONDUCT THE PROSECUTION, THEREBY DISQUALIFYING THE JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL AND HIS SUBORDINATES FROM ACTING AS A REVIEWING
AUTHORITY.  THE PROCEEDINGS DISCLOSE THAT THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
HAS IN FACT ASSISTED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTION. 

THIS IS A MATERIAL VIOLATION OF THE STATUTORY RIGHTS AFFORDED ACCUSED
PERSONS BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR.  THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 46 AND 50
1/2 ARE THE METHODS OF APPEAL BY A PERSON TRIED BEFORE A MILITARY
COMMISSION.  THE ORDER DEPRIVES THEM OF THIS METHOD OF APPEAL. 

A CARDINAL PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 38 WAS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR
MILITARY COMMISSIONS, WITH THE PROVISO THAT NOTHING IN THE PROCEDURE
SHALL BE "CONTRARY TO OR INCONSISTENT WITH" THE ARTICLES OF WAR. 

THE PRESIDENT HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE RULEMAKING POWER UNDER
ART. 38 TO THE COMMISSION.  IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 38 AND 18 THE
PETITIONERS WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE A MEMBER OF THE
COMMISSION PEREMPTORILY.  CONFESSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE IMPROPERLY
ADMITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER. 

IF IT BE SUGGESTED THAT THESE ARE MATTERS WHICH DO NOT AFFECT THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION OR THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS, BUT
ARE MERELY QUESTIONS WHICH MAY BE RAISED ON APPEAL OR REVIEW, THE
ANSWER IS THAT THE ORDER DEPRIVED THE PETITIONERS OF SUCH APPEAL OR
REVIEW. 

CITING EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287
U.S. 378; CALDWELL V. PARKER, 252 U.S. 376; KAHN V. ANDERSON, 255 U.S.
1; HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398; CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 330; 55 HARVARD L. REV. 1295; 31 OPS.  A.G.
363. 

ENEMIES WHO INVADE THE COUNTRY IN TIME OF WAR HAVE NO PRIVILEGE TO
QUESTION THEIR DETENTION BY HABEAS CORPUS.  HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND,
2D ED., VOL. IX, P. 701, PAR. 1200; P. 710, PAR. 1212; BLACKSTONE, 21
ED., VOL. 1, C. 10, P. 372; SYLVESTER'S CASE, 7 MOD. 150(1703); REX V.
KNOCKALOE CAMP COMMANDANT, 87 L.J.K.B.N.S. 43(1917); REX V. SCHIEVER, 2
BURR.  765(1759); FURLY V. NEWNHAM, 2 DOUG.  K.B. 419(1780); THREE
SPANISH SAILORS, 2 W.B. 1324(1779); REX V. SUPERINTENDENT OF VINE
STREET POLICE STATION, (1916) 1 K.B. 268; SCHAFFENIUS V. GOLDBERG,
(1916) 1 K.B. 284; RULES OF LAND WARFARE, PARS. 9, 70, 351, 352, 356. 
IF PRISONERS OF WAR ARE DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, IT IS INESCAPABLE THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT.  BY
REMOVAL OF THEIR UNIFORMS BEFORE THEIR CAPTURE, THEY LOST THE POSSIBLE
ADVANTAGES OF BEING PRISONERS OF WAR.  SURELY, THEY DID NOT THUS
ACQUIRE A PRIVILEGE EVEN PRISONERS OF WAR DO NOT HAVE.    WHATEVER
PRIVILEGE MAY BE ACCORDED TO SUCH ENEMIES IS ACCORDED BY SUFFERANCE,
AND MAY BE TAKEN AWAY BY THE PRESIDENT.  ALIEN ENEMIES - EVEN THOSE
LAWFULLY RESIDENT WITHIN THE COUNTRY - HAVE NO PRIVILEGE OF HABEAS
CORPUS TO INQUIRE INTO THE CAUSE OF THEIR DETENTION AS DANGEROUS
PERSONS.  EX PARTE GRABER, 247 F. 882; MINOTTO V. BRADLEY, 252 F. 600. 
SEE ALSO EX PARTE WEBER, (1916) 1 K.B. 280, AFFIRMED (1916) 1 A.C. 421;
REX V. SUPERINTENDENT OF VINE STREET POLICE STATION, (1916) 1 K.B. 268;
REX V. KNOCKALOE CAMP COMMANDANT, 87 L.J.K.B.N.S. 43; RE CHAMRYK, 25
MAN.  L. REP. 50; RE BERANEK, 33 ONT.  L. REP. 139; RE GOTTESMAN, 41
ONT.  L. REP. 547; GUSETU V. DATE, 17 QUEBEC PR. 95; ACT OF JULY 6,
1798, 50 U.S.C. SEC. 21; DE LACEY V. UNITED STATES, 249 F. 625. 

THE FACT IS THAT ORDINARY CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES DO NOT IMPEDE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ITS DEALINGS WITH ENEMIES.  BROWN V. UNITED
STATES, 8 CRANCH 110, 121-123; MILLER V. UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  268;
JURAGUA IRON CO. V. UNITED STATES, 212 U.S. 297; DE LACEY V. UNITED
STATES, 249 F. 625. 

THE PRESIDENT'S POWER OVER ENEMIES WHO ENTER THIS COUNTRY IN TIME OF
WAR, AS ARMED INVADERS INTENDING TO COMMIT HOSTILE ACTS, MUST BE
ABSOLUTE. 

IN HIS PROCLAMATION, THE PRESIDENT TOOK THE ACTION HE DEEMED
NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH PERSONS HE AND THE ARMED FORCES UNDER HIS
COMMAND REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE ENEMY INVADERS.  HE DECLARED THAT ALL
SUCH PERSONS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF WAR AND TRIABLE BY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  HE REMOVED WHATEVER PRIVILEGE SUCH PERSONS MIGHT
OTHERWISE HAVE HAD TO SEEK ANY REMEDY OR MAINTAIN ANY PROCEEDING IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THESE ACTS WERE CLEARLY WITHIN HIS POWER AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, AND WERE LAWFUL ACTS OF THE SOVEREIGN - THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES - IN TIME OF WAR. 

THE PRISONERS ARE ENEMIES WHO FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE
PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION.  CF. TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917,
SECS. 2, 7(B). 

TO WHATEVER EXTENT THE PRESIDENT HAS POWER TO BAR ENEMIES FROM
SEEKING WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, HE CLEARLY HAS POWER TO DEFINE "ENEMY"
AS INCLUDING A CLASS AS BROAD AS THAT DESCRIBED IN THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT. 

EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT BURGER AND HAUPT ARE CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THEIR STATUS AS "ENEMIES" OF THE
UNITED STATES.  HALL, INT. L. (1909) 490-497; 2 OPPENHEIM, INT. L.
(1940) 216-218.  THIS RULE APPLIES TO ALL PERSONS LIVING IN ENEMY
TERRITORY, EVEN IF THEY ARE TECHNICALLY UNITED STATES CITIZENS.  MILLER
V. UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  268; JURAGUA IRON CO. V. UNITED STATES, 212
U.S. 297, 308.  THE RETURN OF BURGER AND HAUPT TO THE UNITED STATES CAN
NOT BY ANY POSSIBILITY BE CONSTRUED AS AN ATTEMPT TO DIVEST THEMSELVES
OF THEIR ENEMY CHARACTER BY REASSUMING THEIR DUTIES AS CITIZENS. 

THE OFFENSES CHARGED AGAINST THESE PRISONERS ARE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS MILITARY COMMISSION.  ARTICLES OF WAR 81 AND 82(10
U.S.C., SECS. 1553-4). 

THE LAW OF WAR, LIKE CIVIL LAW, HAS A GREAT LEX NON SCRIPTA, ITS OWN
COMMON LAW.  THIS "COMMON LAW OF WAR" (EX PARTE VALLANDIGHAM, 1 WALL. 
243, 249) IS A CENTURIESOLD BODY OF LARGELY UNWRITTEN RULES AND
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH GOVERNS THE BEHAVIOR OF BOTH
SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS DURING TIME OF WAR.  WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW AND
PRECEDENTS (1920), 17, 41, 42, 773 FF. 

THE LAW OF WAR HAS ALWAYS BEEN APPLIED IN THIS COUNTRY.  THE OFFENSE
FOR WHICH MAJOR ANDRE WAS CONVICTED - PASSING THROUGH OUR LINES IN
CIVILIAN DRESS, WITH HOSTILE PURPOSE - IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS
OFFENSES KNOWN TO THE LAW OF WAR.  THE OTHER OFFENSES HERE CHARGED -
APPEARING BEHIND THE LINES IN CIVILIAN GUISE, SPYING, RELIEVING THE
ENEMY, AND CONSPIRACY - ARE EQUALLY SERIOUS AND ALSO DEMAND SEVERE
PUNISHMENT.  SEE DIGEST OF OPINIONS OF JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HOWLAND
(1912), PP. 1070-1071.  CF. INSTRUCTION FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD (G.O. 100, A.G.O. 1863) SEC. I, PAR. 13;
DAVIS, MILITARY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES (1913), P. 310; RULES OF LAND
WARFARE, SECS. 348, 351, 352; ARTICLE OF WAR 15. 

THE DEFINITION OF LAWFUL BELLIGERENTS APPEARING IN THE RULES OF LAND
WARFARE (RULE 9) WAS ADOPTED BY THE SIGNATORIES TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION
IN ARTICLE I, ANNEX TO HAGUE CONVENTION NO. IV OF OCT. 18, 1907, TREATY
SERIES NO. 539, AND WAS RATIFIED BY THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
36 STAT. 2295.  OUR GOVERNMENT HAS THUS RECOGNIZED THE EXISTENCE OF A
CLASS OF UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENTS.  THESE UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENTS, UNDER
ARTICLE OF WAR 15, ARE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE COMMON LAW OF WAR.  SEE
TEXT WRITERS, SUPRA; EX PARTE VALLANDIGHAM, 1 WALL.  243, 249. 

MILITARY COMMISSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES DERIVE THEIR AUTHORITY FROM
THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL AS STATUTES, MILITARY USAGE, AND THE COMMON
LAW OF WAR.  CONST., ART. I; ART. II, SEC. 2(1).  IN CONGRESS AND THE
PRESIDENT TOGETHER IS LODGED THE POWER TO WAGE WAR SUCCESSFULLY.  HOME
BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 426. 

MILITARY COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES
WHICH HAVE RECOGNIZED THEM AS COURTS OF MILITARY LAW.  ARTICLES OF WAR
15, 38, 81, 82; 10 U.S.C. SECS. 1486, 1509, 1553, 1554.  THEIR
AUTHORITY HAS ALSO BEEN RECOGNIZED IN PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS AND
ORDERS, RULINGS OF THE COURTS, AND OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL. 

THE OFFENSES CHARGED HERE ARE UNQUESTIONABLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS.  THE PRISONERS ARE CHARGED WITH VIOLATING
ARTICLES OF WAR 81 AND 82(10 U.S.C., SECS. 1553-4) WHICH SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDE FOR TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION.  THEY ARE ALSO CHARGED WITH
VIOLATING THE COMMON LAW OF WAR IN CROSSING OUR MILITARY LINES AND
APPEARING BEHIND OUR LINES IN CIVILIAN DRESS, WITH HOSTILE PURPOSE, AND
WITH CONSPIRING TO COMMIT ALL THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS, WHICH IN ITSELF
CONSTITUTES AN ADDITIONAL VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR.  THE
JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS OVER THESE OFFENSES UNDER THE LAW
OF WAR (IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIFIC OFFENSES CODIFIED IN THE ARTICLES
OF WAR) IS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED BY ARTICLE OF WAR 15(10 U.S.C. SEC.
1486). 

THE MILITARY COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS OF THESE
PRISONERS.  EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2, 123, 138-139.  THE OFFENSES
CHARGED HERE ARISE IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES.  THE LAW OF WAR
EMBRACES CITIZENS AS WELL AS ALIENS (ENEMY OR NOT); AND CIVILIANS AS
WELL AS SOLDIERS ARE ALL WITHIN THEIR SCOPE.  INDEED IT WAS FOR THE
VERY PURPOSE OF TRYING CIVILIANS FOR WAR CRIMES THAT MILITARY
COMMISSIONS FIRST CAME INTO USE.  WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS
(1920) 831-841. 

THIS BROAD COMPREHENSION OF PERSONS IS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE
EXCEPTING CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THAT CLAUSE HAS BEEN ALMOST
UNIVERSALLY CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE CIVILIANS.  WIENER, MANUAL OF MARTIAL
LAW (1940), 137; MORGAN, COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION OVER NONMILITARY
PERSONS UNDER THE ARTICLES OF WAR, 4 MINN. L. REV. 79, 107; WINTHROP,
MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS (1920 ED.)  48, 767; FLETCHER, THE CIVILIAN
AND THE WAR POWER, 2 MINN. L. REV. 110, 126; 16 OP. ATTY. GEN. 292; EX
PARTE WILDMAN, 29 FED. CAS. 1232.  SUCH CONSTRUCTION IS FOUNDED IN
COMMON SENSE:  OF ALL HOSTILE ACTS, THOSE BY CIVILIANS ARE MOST
DANGEROUS AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED MOST SEVERELY. 

BY THE LAW OF WAR, WAR CRIMES CAN BE COMMITTED ANYWHERE "WITHIN THE
LINES OF A BELLIGERENT."  OPPENHEIM'S INT. L. (LAUTERPACHT'S 6TH ED.
1940) 457.  HAVING VIOLATED THE LAW OF WAR IN AN AREA WHERE IT
OBVIOUSLY APPLIES, OFFENDERS ARE SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS
WHEREVER THEY MAY BE APPREHENDED.  CONGRESS MAY GRANT JURISDICTION TO
TRY CIVILIANS FOR OFFENSES WHICH "OCCUR IN THE THEATRE OF WAR, IN THE
THEATRE OF OPERATIONS, OR IN ANY PLACE OVER WHICH THE MILITARY FORCES
HAVE ACTUAL CONTROL AND JURISDICTION."  CF. MORGAN, SUPRA, AT 107;
WIENER, SUPRA, AT 137.  NEITHER THE BILL OF RIGHTS NOR EX PARTE
MILLIGAN GRANTS TO SUCH PERSONS CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES WHICH THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT EXPRESSLY DENIES TO OUR OWN SOLDIERS.  CF. 2 WARREN,
THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY (1937) 418; CORWIN, THE
PRESIDENT:  OFFICE AND POWERS (2D ED. 1741) 165; UNITED STATES V.
MCDONALD, 265 F. 754.  THE TEST OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CIVIL COURTS ARE
OPEN TO PUNISH CIVIL CRIMES IS TOO UNREALISTIC A TEST TO BE APPLIED
BLINDLY TO ALL EXERCISES OF MILITARY JURISDICTION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRESIDENT AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES NECESSITY FOR
TRIAL BY MILITARY TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT LIGHTLY BE DISREGARDED.  PRIZE
CASES, 2 BLACK 635.  THE ENGLISH COURTS HAVE NOT ONLY LONG SINCE
REJECTED THE DOCTRINE OF EX PARTE MILLIGAN, WHICH THEY ONCE ACCEPTED,
BUT ALSO HAVE RECENTLY SUSTAINED A WIDE DISCRETION GRANTED TO THE
EXECUTIVE FOR THE DETENTION OF PERSONS SUSPECTED OF HOSTILE
ASSOCIATIONS.  LIVERSIDGE V. ANDERSON, (1942) 1 A.C. 206; GREENE V.
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME AFFAIRS, (1942) 1 A.C. 284. 

COURTS DO NOT INQUIRE INTO THE EXECUTIVE'S DETERMINATION ON MATTERS
OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED.  MARTIN V. MOTT, 12 WHEAT.  19.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. GEORGE S. BUSH & CO., 310 U.S. 371; UNITED STATES V. CURTISS
WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 320; DAKOTA CENTRAL TEL. CO. V.
SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 163.  EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
NOMINATION OF A MILITARY COMMISSION TO TRY WAR CRIMINALS, AS SPECIFIED
BY CONGRESS, MUST BE TESTED BY THE "ACTUAL AND PRESENT NECESSITY"
CRITERION OF THE MAJORITY OPINION IN THE MILLIGAN CASE, THIS COURT WILL
NOT REVIEW THE PRESIDENT'S JUDGMENT SAVE IN A CASE OF GRAVE AND OBVIOUS
ABUSE.  MOYER V. PEABODY, 212 U.S. 78; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S.
378. 

THE COMMISSION WAS LEGALLY CONVENED AND CONSTITUTED.  KURTZ V.
MOFFITT, 115 U.S. 487, 500; KEYES V. UNITED STATES, 109 U.S. 336. 

THE PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT ARE
PROPER.  ARTICLE OF WAR 43, REQUIRING UNANIMITY FOR A DEATH SENTENCE,
REFERS TO COURTS-MARTIAL.  IT HAS NO APPLICATION TO CHARGES REFERRED TO
A MILITARY COMMISSION.  THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER DID NOT MAKE IMPROPER
PROVISION FOR REVIEW, ARTICLES OF WAR 46, 48, 50 1/2 AND 51
CONSIDERED.  THERE WAS NO IMPROPER DELEGATION OF RULE-MAKING POWER. 

THE DOCTRINE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF POWERS RELATES ONLY TO
THE IMPROPER TRANSFER OF POWERS FROM ONE OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO ANOTHER.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DELEGATIONS BY THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO HIS MILITARY SUBORDINATES WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH.  MILITARY COURTS "FORM NO PART OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF THE
UNITED STATES."  KURTZ V. MOFFITT, 115 U.S. 487, 500. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON A VARIETY OF GROUNDS,
RANGING FROM ITS REFUSAL TO PERMIT PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO ITS RULINGS
ON THE ADMISSIBILITY AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE, ARE NOT COGNIZABLE BY
THIS COURT.  THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAN ONLY BE USED TO QUESTION THE
JURISDICTION OF A MILITARY TRIBUNAL.  IT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A
DEVICE FOR CIVIL COURT REVIEW. 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE PER CURIAM OPINION FILED JULY 31, 1942: 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THESE CAUSES MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS
WERE PRESENTED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, WHICH ENTERED ORDERS DENYING THE MOTIONS.  MOTIONS FOR LEAVE
TO FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS WERE THEN PRESENTED TO THIS COURT,
AND THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATIONS WERE FULLY ARGUED AT THE SPECIAL
TERM OF COURT CONVENED ON JULY 29, 1942.  COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
SUBSEQUENTLY FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, AND THEY HAVE PERFECTED THEIR APPEALS TO THAT COURT.  THEY
HAVE PRESENTED TO THIS COURT PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI BEFORE
JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 347(A).  THE PETITIONS ARE
GRANTED.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STIPULATION BETWEEN COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONERS AND FOR THE RESPONDENT, THE PAPERS FILED AND ARGUMENT HAD
IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR
HABEAS CORPUS ARE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS. 

THE COURT HAS FULLY CONSIDERED THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THESE CASES
AND THOROUGHLY ARGUED AT THE BAR, AND HAS REACHED ITS CONCLUSION UPON
THEM.  IT NOW ANNOUNCES ITS DECISION AND ENTERS ITS JUDGMENT IN EACH
CASE, IN ADVANCE OF THE PREPARATION OF A FULL OPINION WHICH NECESSARILY
WILL REQUIRE A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME FOR ITS PREPARATION AND
WHICH, WHEN PREPARED, WILL BE FILED WITH THE CLERK. 

THE COURT HOLDS: 

(1)  THAT THE CHARGES PREFERRED AGAINST PETITIONERS ON WHICH THEY ARE
BEING TRIED BY MILITARY COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE ORDER OF THE
PRESIDENT OF JULY 2, 1942, ALLEGE AN OFFENSE OR OFFENSES WHICH THE
PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO ORDER TRIED BEFORE A MILITARY COMMISSION. 

(2)  THAT THE MILITARY COMMISSION WAS LAWFULLY CONSTITUTED. 

(3)  THAT PETITIONERS ARE HELD IN LAWFUL CUSTODY FOR TRIAL BEFORE THE
MILITARY COMMISSION, AND HAVE NOT SHOWN CAUSE FOR BEING DISCHARGED BY
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

THE MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS
ARE DENIED.    THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ARE AFFIRMED.  THE
MANDATES ARE DIRECTED TO ISSUE FORTHWITH. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES ARE BROUGHT HERE BY PETITIONERS' SEVERAL APPLICATIONS FOR
LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS COURT, AND BY THEIR
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHICH DENIED THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE
PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THAT COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE DETENTION OF PETITIONERS BY
RESPONDENT FOR TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION, APPOINTED BY ORDER OF THE
PRESIDENT OF JULY 2, 1942, ON CHARGES PREFERRED AGAINST THEM PURPORTING
TO SET OUT THEIR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR AND OF THE ARTICLES OF
WAR, IS IN CONFORMITY TO THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

AFTER DENIAL OF THEIR APPLICATIONS BY THE DISTRICT COURT, 47 F.SUPP. 
431, PETITIONERS ASKED LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN
THIS COURT.  IN VIEW OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED
BY THEIR PETITIONS AND OF THE DUTY WHICH RESTS ON THE COURTS, IN TIME
OF WAR AS WELL AS IN TIME OF PEACE, TO PRESERVE UNIMPAIRED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS OF CIVIL LIBERTY, AND BECAUSE IN OUR OPINION
THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRED THAT WE CONSIDER AND DECIDE THOSE
QUESTIONS WITHOUT ANY AVOIDABLE DELAY, WE DIRECTED THAT PETITIONERS'
APPLICATIONS BE SET DOWN FOR FULL ORAL ARGUMENT AT A SPECIAL TERM OF
THIS COURT, CONVENED ON JULY 29, 1942.  THE APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO
FILE THE PETITIONS WERE PRESENTED IN OPEN COURT ON THAT DAY AND WERE
HEARD ON THE PETITIONS, THE ANSWERS TO THEM OF RESPONDENT, A
STIPULATION OF FACTS BY COUNSEL, AND THE RECORD OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN
BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

WHILE THE ARGUMENT WAS PROCEEDING BEFORE US, PETITIONERS PERFECTED
THEIR APPEALS FROM THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THEREUPON
FILED WITH THIS COURT PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
BEFORE JUDGMENT, PURSUANT TO SEC. 240(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 347(A).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT FOR THE
REASONS WHICH MOVED US TO CONVENE THE SPECIAL TERM OF COURT.  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STIPULATION OF COUNSEL WE TREAT THE RECORD, BRIEFS
AND ARGUMENTS IN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT AS THE
RECORD, BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS UPON THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI. 

ON JULY 31, 1942, AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL AND AFTER FULL
CONSIDERATION OF ALL QUESTIONS RAISED, THIS COURT AFFIRMED THE ORDERS
OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND DENIED PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO
FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  BY PER CURIAM OPINION WE ANNOUNCED
THE DECISION OF THE COURT, AND THAT THE FULL OPINION IN THE CAUSES
WOULD BE PREPARED AND FILED WITH THE CLERK. 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS APPEAR FROM THE PETITIONS OR ARE STIPULATED. 
EXCEPT AS NOTED THEY ARE UNDISPUTED. 

ALL THE PETITIONERS WERE BORN IN GERMANY; ALL HAVE LIVED IN THE
UNITED STATES.  ALL RETURNED TO GERMANY BETWEEN 1933 AND 1941.  ALL
EXCEPT PETITIONER HAUPT ARE ADMITTEDLY CITIZENS OF THE GERMAN REICH,
WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR.  HAUPT CAME TO THIS COUNTRY
WITH HIS PARENTS WHEN HE WAS FIVE YEARS OLD; IT IS CONTENDED THAT HE
BECAME A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF THE NATURALIZATION
OF HIS PARENTS DURING HIS MINORITY AND THAT HE HAS NOT SINCE LOST HIS
CITIZENSHIP.  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, TAKES THE POSITION THAT ON
ATTAINING HIS MAJORITY HE ELECTED TO MAINTAIN GERMAN ALLEGIANCE AND
CITIZENSHIP, OR IN ANY CASE THAT HE HAS BY HIS CONDUCT RENOUNCED OR
ABANDONED HIS UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.  SEE PERKINS V. ELG, 307 U.S.
325, 334; UNITED STATES EX REL. ROJAK V. MARSHALL, 34 F.2D 219; UNITED
STATES EX REL. SCIMECA V. HUSBAND, 6 F.2D 957, 958; 8 U.S.C. SEC. 801,
AND COMPARE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 808.  FOR REASONS PRESENTLY TO BE STATED WE
DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THESE CONTENTIONS. 

AFTER THE DECLARATION OF WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE GERMAN
REICH, PETITIONERS RECEIVED TRAINING AT A SABOTAGE SCHOOL NEAR BERLIN,
GERMANY, WHERE THEY WERE INSTRUCTED IN THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES AND IN
METHODS OF SECRET WRITING.  THEREAFTER PETITIONERS, WITH A GERMAN
CITIZEN, DASCH, PROCEEDED FROM GERMANY TO A SEAPORT IN OCCUPIED FRANCE,
WHERE PETITIONERS BURGER, HEINCK AND QUIRIN, TOGETHER WITH DASCH,
BOARDED A GERMAN SUBMARINE WHICH PROCEEDED ACROSS THE ATLANTIC TO
AMAGANSETT BEACH ON LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK.  THE FOUR WERE THERE LANDED
FROM THE SUBMARINE IN THE HOURS OF DARKNESS, ON OR ABOUT JUNE 13, 1942,
CARRYING WITH THEM A SUPPLY OF EXPLOSIVES, FUSES, AND INCENDIARY AND
TIMING DEVICES.  WHILE LANDING THEY WORE GERMAN MARINE INFANTRY
UNIFORMS OR PARTS OF UNIFORMS.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER LANDING THEY BURIED
THEIR UNIFORMS AND THE OTHER ARTICLES MENTIONED, AND PROCEEDED IN
CIVILIAN DRESS TO NEW YORK CITY. 

THE REMAINING FOUR PETITIONERS AT THE SAME FRENCH PORT BOARDED
ANOTHER GERMAN SUBMARINE, WHICH CARRIED THEM ACROSS THE ATLANTIC TO
PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA.  ON OR ABOUT JUNE 17, 1942, THEY CAME
ASHORE DURING THE HOURS OF DARKNESS, WEARING CAPS OF THE GERMAN MARINE
INFANTRY AND CARRYING WITH THEM A SUPPLY OF EXPLOSIVES, FUSES, AND
INCENDIARY AND TIMING DEVICES.  THEY IMMEDIATELY BURIED THEIR CAPS AND
THE OTHER ARTICLES MENTIONED, AND PROCEEDED IN CIVILIAN DRESS TO
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, AND THENCE TO VARIOUS POINTS IN THE UNITED
STATES.  ALL WERE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY IN NEW YORK OR CHICAGO BY AGENTS
OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.  ALL HAD RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS
IN GERMANY FROM AN OFFICER OF THE GERMAN HIGH COMMAND TO DESTROY WAR
INDUSTRIES AND WAR FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, FOR WHICH THEY OR
THEIR RELATIVES IN GERMANY WERE TO RECEIVE SALARY PAYMENTS FROM THE
GERMAN GOVERNMENT.  THEY ALSO HAD BEEN PAID BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT
DURING THEIR COURSE OF TRAINING AT THE SABOTAGE SCHOOL AND HAD RECEIVED
SUBSTANTIAL SUMS IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, WHICH WERE IN THEIR
POSSESSION WHEN ARRESTED.  THE CURRENCY HAD BEEN HANDED TO THEM BY AN
OFFICER OF THE GERMAN HIGH COMMAND, WHO HAD INSTRUCTED THEM TO WEAR
THEIR GERMAN UNIFORMS WHILE LANDING IN THE UNITED STATES.  FN1 

THE PRESIDENT, AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND
NAVY, BY ORDER OF JULY 2, 1942,  FN2  APPOINTED A MILITARY COMMISSION
AND DIRECTED IT TO TRY PETITIONERS FOR OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR
AND THE ARTICLES OF WAR, AND PRESCRIBED REGULATIONS FOR THE PROCEDURE
ON THE TRIAL AND FOR REVIEW OF THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL AND OF ANY
JUDGMENT OR SENTENCE OF THE COMMISSION.  ON THE SAME DAY, BY
PROCLAMATION,  FN3  THE PRESIDENT DECLARED THAT "ALL PERSONS WHO ARE
SUBJECTS, CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS OF ANY NATION AT WAR WITH THE UNITED
STATES OR WHO GIVE OBEDIENCE TO OR ACT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ANY SUCH
NATION, AND WHO DURING TIME OF WAR ENTER OR ATTEMPT TO ENTER THE UNITED
STATES  ...  THROUGH COASTAL OR BOUNDARY DEFENSES, AND ARE CHARGED WITH
COMMITTING OR ATTEMPTING OR PREPARING TO COMMIT SABOTAGE, ESPIONAGE,
HOSTILE OR WARLIKE ACTS, OR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR, SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF WAR AND TO THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY
TRIBUNALS." 

THE PROCLAMATION ALSO STATED IN TERMS THAT ALL SUCH PERSONS WERE
DENIED ACCESS TO THE COURTS. 

PURSUANT TO DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION SURRENDERED CUSTODY OF PETITIONERS TO RESPONDENT, PROVOST
MARSHAL OF THE MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, WHO WAS DIRECTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF WAR TO RECEIVE AND KEEP THEM IN CUSTODY, AND WHO
THEREAFTER HELD PETITIONERS FOR TRIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

ON JULY 3, 1942, THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
PREPARED AND LODGED WITH THE COMMISSION THE FOLLOWING CHARGES AGAINST
PETITIONERS, SUPPORTED BY SPECIFICATIONS: 

1.  VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR. 

2.  VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 81 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, DEFINING THE
OFFENSE OF RELIEVING OR ATTEMPTING TO RELIEVE, OR CORRESPONDING WITH OR
GIVING INTELLIGENCE TO, THE ENEMY. 

3.  VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 82, DEFINING THE OFFENSE OF SPYING. 

4.  CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE OFFENSES ALLEGED IN CHARGES 1, 2 AND 3. 

THE COMMISSION MET ON JULY 8, 1942, AND PROCEEDED WITH THE TRIAL,
WHICH CONTINUED IN PROGRESS WHILE THE CAUSES WERE PENDING IN THIS
COURT.  ON JULY 27TH, BEFORE PETITIONERS' APPLICATIONS TO THE DISTRICT
COURT, ALL THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE HAD BEEN
TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION AND THE CASE HAD BEEN CLOSED EXCEPT FOR
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT EVER SINCE PETITIONERS'
ARREST THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS IN FLORIDA, NEW YORK, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND IN THE STATES IN WHICH EACH OF THE
PETITIONERS WAS ARRESTED OR DETAINED, HAVE BEEN OPEN AND FUNCTIONING
NORMALLY. 

WHILE IT IS THE USUAL PROCEDURE ON AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE THE WRIT AND
ON THE RETURN TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OF THE CASE, IT MAY WITHOUT ISSUING
THE WRIT CONSIDER AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE FACTS ALLEGED BY THE
PETITION, IF PROVED, WOULD WARRANT DISCHARGE OF THE PRISONER.  WALKER
V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275, 284.  PRESENTATION OF THE PETITION FOR
JUDICIAL ACTION IS THE INSTITUTION OF A SUIT.  HENCE DENIAL BY THE
DISTRICT COURT OF LEAVE TO FILE THE PETITIONS IN THESE CAUSES WAS THE
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY, REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS AND REVIEWABLE HERE BY CERTIORARI.  SEE EX
PARTE MILLIGAN, 4 WALL.  2, 110-13; BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455, 458
461. 

PETITIONERS' MAIN CONTENTION IS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS WITHOUT ANY
STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE PETITIONERS TO BE
TRIED BY MILITARY TRIBUNAL FOR OFFENSES WITH WHICH THEY ARE CHARGED;
THAT IN CONSEQUENCE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO BE TRIED IN THE CIVIL COURTS
WITH THE SAFEGUARDS, INCLUDING TRIAL BY JURY, WHICH THE FIFTH AND SIXTH
AMENDMENTS GUARANTEE TO ALL PERSONS CHARGED IN SUCH COURTS WITH
CRIMINAL OFFENSES.  IN ANY CASE IT IS URGED THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER,
IN PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION AND THE METHOD FOR
REVIEW OF ITS FINDINGS AND SENTENCE, AND THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION UNDER THE ORDER, CONFLICT WITH ARTICLES OF WAR ADOPTED BY
CONGRESS - PARTICULARLY ARTICLES 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 AND 70 - AND ARE
ILLEGAL AND VOID. 

THE GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES EACH OF THESE PROPOSITIONS.  BUT REGARDLESS
OF THEIR MERITS, IT ALSO INSISTS THAT PETITIONERS MUST BE DENIED ACCESS
TO THE COURTS, BOTH BECAUSE THEY ARE ENEMY ALIENS OR HAVE ENTERED OUR
TERRITORY AS ENEMY BELLIGERENTS, AND BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT'S
PROCLAMATION UNDERTAKES IN TERMS TO DENY SUCH ACCESS TO THE CLASS OF
PERSONS DEFINED BY THE PROCLAMATION, WHICH APTLY DESCRIBES THE
CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF PETITIONERS.  IT IS URGED THAT IF THEY ARE
ENEMY ALIENS OR IF THE PROCLAMATION HAS FORCE, NO COURT MAY AFFORD THE
PETITIONERS A HEARING.  BUT THERE IS CERTAINLY NOTHING IN THE
PROCLAMATION TO PRECLUDE ACCESS TO THE COURTS FOR DETERMINING ITS
APPLICABILITY TO THE PARTICULAR CASE.  AND NEITHER THE PROCLAMATION NOR
THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ENEMY ALIENS FORECLOSES CONSIDERATION BY THE
COURTS OF PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONALLY ENACTED FORBID THEIR TRIAL BY
MILITARY COMMISSION.  AS ANNOUNCED IN OUR PER CURIAM OPINION, WE HAVE
RESOLVED THOSE QUESTIONS BY OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION HAS
JURISDICTION TO TRY THE CHARGE PREFERRED AGAINST PETITIONERS.  THERE IS
THEREFORE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES UNRELATED TO
THIS ISSUE.  WE PASS AT ONCE TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BASIS OF THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY. 

WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH ANY QUESTION OF THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE
OF PETITIONERS.  FN4 CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF
ALL WHO ARE CHARGED WITH OFFENSES ARE NOT TO BE DISREGARDED IN ORDER TO
INFLICT MERITED PUNISHMENT ON SOME WHO ARE GUILTY.  EX PARTE MILLIGAN,
SUPRA, 119, 132; TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S. 510, 535; HILL V. TEXAS, 316
U.S. 400, 406.  BUT THE DETENTION AND TRIAL OF PETITIONERS - ORDERED BY
THE PRESIDENT IN THE DECLARED EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS AS COMMANDER IN
CHIEF OF THE ARMY IN TIME OF WAR AND OF GRAVE PUBLIC DANGER - ARE NOT
TO BE SET ASIDE BY THE COURTS WITHOUT THE CLEAR CONVICTION THAT THEY
ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF CONGRESS
CONSTITUTIONALLY ENACTED. 

CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT, LIKE THE COURTS, POSSESS NO POWER NOT
DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION.  BUT ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AS DECLARED BY ITS PREAMBLE, IS TO "PROVIDE FOR THE
COMMON DEFENCE."  AS A MEANS TO THAT END, THE CONSTITUTION GIVES TO
CONGRESS THE POWER TO "PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE," ART. I, SEC. 8,
CL. 1; "TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES," "TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY,"
ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 12, 13; AND "TO MAKE RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND
REGULATION OF THE LAND AND NAVAL FORCES," ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 14. 
CONGRESS IS GIVEN AUTHORITY "TO DECLARE WAR, GRANT LETTERS OF MARQUE
AND REPRISAL, AND MAKE RULES CONCERNING CAPTURES ON LAND AND WATER,"
ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 11; AND "TO DEFINE AND PUNISH PIRACIES AND FELONIES
COMMITTED ON THE HIGH SEAS, AND OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS,"
ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 10.  AND FINALLY, THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES
CONGRESS "TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR
CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS, AND ALL OTHER POWERS
VESTED BY THIS CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR
IN ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF."  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 18. 

THE CONSTITUTION CONFERS ON THE PRESIDENT THE "EXECUTIVE POWER," ART.
II, SEC. 1, CL. 1, AND IMPOSES ON HIM THE DUTY TO "TAKE CARE THAT THE
LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED."  ART. II, SEC. 3.  IT MAKES HIM THE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMY AND NAVY, ART. II, SEC. 2, CL. 1, AND
EMPOWERS HIM TO APPOINT AND COMMISSION OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
ART. II, SEC. 3, CL. 1.    THE CONSTITUTION THUS INVESTS THE PRESIDENT,
AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF, WITH THE POWER TO WAGE WAR WHICH CONGRESS HAS
DECLARED, AND TO CARRY INTO EFFECT ALL LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS FOR THE
CONDUCT OF WAR AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND REGULATION OF THE ARMED
FORCES, AND ALL LAWS DEFINING AND PUNISHING OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF
NATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE WHICH PERTAIN TO THE CONDUCT OF WAR. 

BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR, 10 U.S.C. SECS. 1471-1593, CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ARMY.  IT HAS PROVIDED FOR THE
TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT, BY COURTS MARTIAL, OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ARTICLES
BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND BY SPECIFIED CLASSES OF PERSONS
ASSOCIATED OR SERVING WITH THE ARMY.  ARTS. 1, 2.  BUT THE ARTICLES
ALSO RECOGNIZE THE "MILITARY COMMISSION" APPOINTED BY MILITARY COMMAND
AS AN APPROPRIATE TRIBUNAL FOR THE TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENSES
AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR NOT ORDINARILY TRIED BY COURT MARTIAL.  SEE
ARTS. 12, 15.  ARTICLES 38 AND 46 AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT, WITH CERTAIN
LIMITATIONS, TO PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 
ARTICLES 81 AND 82 AUTHORIZE TRIAL, EITHER BY COURT MARTIAL OR MILITARY
COMMISSION, OF THOSE CHARGED WITH RELIEVING, HARBORING OR CORRESPONDING
WITH THE ENEMY AND THOSE CHARGED WITH SPYING.  AND ARTICLE 15 DECLARES
THAT "THE PROVISIONS OF THESE ARTICLES CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON
COURTS MARTIAL SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS DEPRIVING MILITARY COMMISSIONS
...  OR OTHER MILITARY TRIBUNALS OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN RESPECT
OF OFFENDERS OR OFFENSES THAT BY STATUTE OR BY THE LAW OF WAR MAY BE
TRIABLE BY SUCH MILITARY COMMISSIONS  ...  OR OTHER MILITARY
TRIBUNALS."  ARTICLE 2 INCLUDES AMONG THOSE PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY
LAW THE PERSONNEL OF OUR OWN MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.  BUT THIS, AS
ARTICLE 12 PROVIDES, DOES NOT EXCLUDE FROM THAT CLASS "ANY OTHER PERSON
WHO BY THE LAW OF WAR IS SUBJECT TO TRIAL BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS" AND
WHO UNDER ARTICLE 12 MAY BE TRIED BY COURT MARTIAL OR UNDER ARTICLE 15
BY MILITARY COMMISSION. 

SIMILARLY THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917, WHICH AUTHORIZES TRIAL IN THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF CERTAIN OFFENSES THAT TEND TO INTERFERE WITH THE
PROSECUTION OF WAR, PROVIDES THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE ACT "SHALL
BE DEEMED TO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE GENERAL COURTS-MARTIAL,
MILITARY COMMISSIONS, OR NAVAL COURTS-MARTIAL."  50 U.S.C. SEC. 38. 

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF ITS HISTORY THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED AND
APPLIED THE LAW OF WAR AS INCLUDING THAT PART OF THE LAW OF NATIONS
WHICH PRESCRIBES, FOR THE CONDUCT OF WAR, THE STATUS, RIGHTS AND DUTIES
OF ENEMY NATIONS AS WELL AS OF ENEMY INDIVIDUALS.  FN5  BY THE ARTICLES
OF WAR, AND ESPECIALLY ARTICLE 15, CONGRESS HAS EXPLICITLY PROVIDED, SO
FAR AS IT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY DO SO, THAT MILITARY TRIBUNALS SHALL
HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENDERS OR OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR
IN APPROPRIATE CASES.  CONGRESS, IN ADDITION TO MAKING RULES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT OF OUR ARMED FORCES, HAS THUS EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY TO
DEFINE AND PUNISH OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS BY SANCTIONING,
WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY
COMMISSIONS TO TRY PERSONS FOR OFFENSES WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE RULES
AND PRECEPTS OF THE LAW OF NATIONS, AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE LAW OF
WAR, ARE COGNIZABLE BY SUCH TRIBUNALS.  AND THE PRESIDENT, AS COMMANDER
IN CHIEF, BY HIS PROCLAMATION IN TIME OF WAR HAS INVOKED THAT LAW.  BY
HIS ORDER CREATING THE PRESENT COMMISSION HE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO EXERCISE
THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON HIM BY CONGRESS, AND ALSO SUCH AUTHORITY
AS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF GIVES THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, TO DIRECT THE
PERFORMANCE OF THOSE FUNCTIONS WHICH MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE PERFORMED
BY THE MILITARY ARM OF THE NATION IN TIME OF WAR. 

AN IMPORTANT INCIDENT TO THE CONDUCT OF WAR IS THE ADOPTION OF
MEASURES BY THE MILITARY COMMAND NOT ONLY TO REPEL AND DEFEAT THE
ENEMY, BUT TO SEIZE AND SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINARY MEASURES THOSE ENEMIES
WHO IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO THWART OR IMPEDE OUR MILITARY EFFORT HAVE
VIOLATED THE LAW OF WAR.  IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR PRESENT PURPOSES TO
DETERMINE TO WHAT EXTENT THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF HAS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO CREATE MILITARY COMMISSIONS WITHOUT THE SUPPORT
OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.  FOR HERE CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED TRIAL
OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR BEFORE SUCH COMMISSIONS.  WE ARE
CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO PLACE PETITIONERS
UPON TRIAL BEFORE A MILITARY COMMISSION FOR THE OFFENSES WITH WHICH
THEY ARE CHARGED.  WE MUST THEREFORE FIRST INQUIRE WHETHER ANY OF THE
ACTS CHARGED IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR COGNIZABLE BEFORE A
MILITARY TRIBUNAL, AND IF SO WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS THE
TRIAL.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT THERE ARE ACTS REGARDED IN OTHER COUNTRIES,
OR BY SOME WRITERS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, AS OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF
WAR WHICH WOULD NOT BE TRIABLE BY MILITARY TRIBUNAL HERE, EITHER
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RECOGNIZED BY OUR COURTS AS VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW
OF WAR OR BECAUSE THEY ARE OF THAT CLASS OF OFFENSES CONSTITUTIONALLY
TRIABLE ONLY BY A JURY.  IT WAS UPON SUCH GROUNDS THAT THE COURT DENIED
THE RIGHT TO PROCEED BY MILITARY TRIBUNAL IN EX PARTE MILLIGAN, SUPRA.
BUT AS WE SHALL SHOW, THESE PETITIONERS WERE CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE
AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE
TRIED BY JURY. 

IT IS NO OBJECTION THAT CONGRESS IN PROVIDING FOR THE TRIAL OF SUCH
OFFENSES HAS NOT ITSELF UNDERTAKEN TO CODIFY THAT BRANCH OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW OR TO MARK ITS PRECISE BOUNDARIES, OR TO ENUMERATE OR
DEFINE BY STATUTE ALL THE ACTS WHICH THAT LAW CONDEMNS.  AN ACT OF
CONGRESS PUNISHING "THE CRIME OF PIRACY, AS DEFINED BY THE LAW OF
NATIONS" IS AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY,
ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 10, "TO DEFINE AND PUNISH" THE OFFENSE, SINCE IT
HAS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE THE SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE DEFINITION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW.  UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 5 WHEAT.  153; SEE THE
MARIANNA FLORA, 11 WHEAT.  1, 40-41; UNITED STATES V. BRIG MALEK ADHEL,
2 HOW.  210, 232; THE AMBROSE LIGHT, 25 F. 408, 423-28; 18 U.S.C. SEC.
481.  FN6  SIMILARLY, BY THE REFERENCE IN THE 15TH ARTICLE OF WAR TO
"OFFENDERS OR OFFENSES THAT  ...  BY THE LAW OF WAR MAY BE TRIABLE BY
SUCH MILITARY COMMISSIONS," CONGRESS HAS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, AS
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS, ALL OFFENSES WHICH ARE
DEFINED AS SUCH BY THE LAW OF WAR (COMPARE DYNES V. HOOVER, 20 HOW. 
65, 82), AND WHICH MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE INCLUDED WITHIN THAT
JURISDICTION.  CONGRESS HAD THE CHOICE OF CRYSTALLIZING IN PERMANENT
FORM AND IN MINUTE DETAIL EVERY OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR, OR OF
ADOPTING THE SYSTEM OF COMMON LAW APPLIED BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS SO FAR
AS IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND DEEMED APPLICABLE BY THE COURTS.  IT
CHOSE THE LATTER COURSE. 

BY UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT AND PRACTICE, THE LAW OF WAR DRAWS A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ARMED FORCES AND THE PEACEFUL POPULATIONS OF
BELLIGERENT NATIONS  FN7  AND ALSO BETWEEN THOSE WHO ARE LAWFUL AND
UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS.  LAWFUL COMBATANTS ARE SUBJECT TO CAPTURE AND
DETENTION AS PRISONERS OF WAR BY OPPOSING MILITARY FORCES.  UNLAWFUL
COMBATANTS ARE LIKEWISE SUBJECT TO CAPTURE AND DETENTION, BUT IN
ADDITION THEY ARE SUBJECT TO TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS
FOR ACTS WHICH RENDER THEIR BELLIGERENCY UNLAWFUL.  FN8  THE SPY WHO
SECRETLY AND WITHOUT UNIFORM PASSES THE MILITARY LINES OF A BELLIGERENT
IN TIME OF WAR, SEEKING TO GATHER MILITARY INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATE
IT TO THE ENEMY, OR AN ENEMY COMBATANT WHO WITHOUT UNIFORM COMES
SECRETLY THROUGH THE LINES FOR THE PURPOSE OF WAGING WAR BY DESTRUCTION
OF LIFE OR PROPERTY, ARE FAMILIAR EXAMPLES OF BELLIGERENTS WHO ARE
GENERALLY DEEMED NOT TO BE ENTITLED TO THE STATUS OF PRISONERS OF WAR,
BUT TO BE OFFENDERS AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR SUBJECT TO TRIAL AND
PUNISHMENT BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS.  SEE WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW, 2D ED.,
PP. 1196-97, 1219-21; INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE
UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT, GENERAL ORDER
NO. 100, APRIL 24, 1863, SECS. IV AND V. 

SUCH WAS THE PRACTICE OF OUR OWN MILITARY AUTHORITIES BEFORE THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, FN9  AND DURING THE MEXICAN AND CIVIL
WARS.  FN10 

PARAGRAPH 83 OF GENERAL ORDER NO. 100 OF APRIL 24, 1863, DIRECTED
THAT:  "SCOUTS OR SINGLE SOLDIERS, IF DISGUISED IN THE DRESS OF THE
COUNTRY, OR IN THE UNIFORM OF THE ARMY HOSTILE TO THEIR OWN, EMPLOYED
IN OBTAINING INFORMATION, IF FOUND WITHIN OR LURKING ABOUT THE LINES OF
THE CAPTOR, ARE TREATED AS SPIES, AND SUFFER DEATH."  AND PARAGRAPH 84,
THAT "ARMED PROWLERS, BY WHATEVER NAMES THEY MAY BE CALLED, OR PERSONS
OF THE ENEMY'S TERRITORY, WHO STEAL WITHIN THE LINES OF THE HOSTILE
ARMY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROBBING, KILLING, OR OF DESTROYING BRIDGES,
ROADS, OR CANALS, OR OF ROBBING OR DESTROYING THE MAIL, OR OF CUTTING
THE TELEGRAPH WIRES, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGES OF THE PRISONER
OF WAR."  FN11 THESE AND RELATED PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN CONTINUED IN
SUBSTANCE BY THE RULES OF LAND WARFARE PROMULGATED BY THE WAR
DEPARTMENT FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ARMY.  RULES OF 1914, PAR. 369-77;
RULES OF 1940, PAR. 345-57.  PARAGRAPH 357 OF THE 1940 RULES PROVIDES
THAT "ALL WAR CRIMES ARE SUBJECT TO THE DEATH PENALTY, ALTHOUGH A
LESSER PENALTY MAY BE IMPOSED."  PARAGRAPH 8(1940) DIVIDES THE ENEMY
POPULATION INTO "ARMED FORCES" AND "PEACEFUL POPULATION," AND PARAGRAPH
9 NAMES AS DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF LAWFUL BELLIGERENTS THAT
THEY "CARRY ARMS OPENLY" AND "HAVE A FIXED DISTINCTIVE EMBLEM." 
PARAGRAPH 348 DECLARES THAT "PERSONS WHO TAKE UP ARMS AND COMMIT
HOSTILITIES" WITHOUT HAVING THE MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION PRESCRIBED FOR
BELLIGERENTS ARE PUNISHABLE AS "WAR CRIMINALS."  PARAGRAPH 351 PROVIDES
THAT "MEN AND BODIES OF MEN, WHO, WITHOUT BEING LAWFUL BELLIGERENTS"
"NEVERTHELESS COMMIT HOSTILE ACTS OF ANY KIND" ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE
PRIVILEGES OF PRISONERS OF WAR IF CAPTURED AND MAY BE TRIED BY MILITARY
COMMISSION AND PUNISHED BY DEATH OR LESSER PUNISHMENT.  AND PARAGRAPH
352 PROVIDES THAT "ARMED PROWLERS  ...  OR PERSONS OF THE ENEMY
TERRITORY WHO STEAL WITHIN THE LINES OF THE HOSTILE ARMY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ROBBING, KILLING, OR OF DESTROYING BRIDGES, ROADS, OR
CANALS, OF ROBBING OR DESTROYING THE MAIL, OR OF CUTTING THE TELEGRAPH
WIRES, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BE TREATED AS PRISONERS OF WAR."  AS IS
EVIDENT FROM READING THESE AND RELATED PARAGRAPHS 345-347, THE
SPECIFIED VIOLATIONS ARE INTENDED TO BE ONLY ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW OF WAR, AND NOT AN EXCLUSIVE
ENUMERATION OF THE PUNISHABLE ACTS RECOGNIZED AS SUCH BY THAT LAW.  THE
DEFINITION OF LAWFUL BELLIGERENTS BY PARAGRAPH 9 IS THAT ADOPTED BY
ARTICLE 1, ANNEX TO HAGUE CONVENTION NO. IV OF OCTOBER 18, 1907, TO
WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS A SIGNATORY AND WHICH WAS RATIFIED BY THE
SENATE IN 1909.  36 STAT. 2295.  THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONVENTION
DECLARES: 

"UNTIL A MORE COMPLETE CODE OF THE LAWS OF WAR HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE
HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES DEEM IT EXPEDIENT TO DECLARE THAT, IN CASES
NOT INCLUDED IN THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THEM, THE INHABITANTS AND
THE BELLIGERENTS REMAIN UNDER THE PROTECTION AND THE RULE OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATIONS, AS THEY RESULT FROM THE USAGES
ESTABLISHED AMONG CIVILIZED PEOPLES, FROM THE LAWS OF HUMANITY, AND THE
DICTATES OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE." 

OUR GOVERNMENT, BY THUS DEFINING LAWFUL BELLIGERENTS ENTITLED TO BE
TREATED AS PRISONERS OF WAR, HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS A CLASS OF
UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENTS NOT ENTITLED TO THAT PRIVILEGE, INCLUDING THOSE
WHO, THOUGH COMBATANTS, DO NOT WEAR "FIXED AND DISTINCTIVE EMBLEMS." 
AND BY ARTICLE 15 OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR CONGRESS HAS MADE PROVISION
FOR THEIR TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT BY MILITARY COMMISSION, ACCORDING TO
"THE LAW OF WAR." 

BY A LONG COURSE OF PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION BY ITS
MILITARY AUTHORITIES, OUR GOVERNMENT HAS LIKEWISE RECOGNIZED THAT THOSE
WHO DURING TIME OF WAR PASS SURREPTITIOUSLY FROM ENEMY TERRITORY INTO
OUR OWN, DISCARDING THEIR UNIFORMS UPON ENTRY, FOR THE COMMISSION OF
HOSTILE ACTS INVOLVING DESTRUCTION OF LIFE OR PROPERTY, HAVE THE STATUS
OF UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS PUNISHABLE AS SUCH BY MILITARY COMMISSION.  THIS
PRECEPT OF THE LAW OF WAR HAS BEEN SO RECOGNIZED IN PRACTICE BOTH HERE
AND ABROAD, AND HAS SO GENERALLY BEEN ACCEPTED AS VALID BY AUTHORITIES
ON INTERNATIONAL LAW  FN12  THAT WE THINK IT MUST BE REGARDED AS A RULE
OR PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW OF WAR RECOGNIZED BY THIS GOVERNMENT BY ITS
ENACTMENT OF THE FIFTEENTH ARTICLE OF WAR. 

SPECIFICATION 1 OF THE FIRST CHARGE IS SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE ALL THE
PETITIONERS WITH THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENCY, TRIAL OF WHICH
IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND THE ADMITTED FACTS
AFFIRMATIVELY SHOW THAT THE CHARGE IS NOT MERELY COLORABLE OR WITHOUT
FOUNDATION. 

SPECIFICATION 1 STATES THAT PETITIONERS, "BEING ENEMIES OF THE UNITED
STATES AND ACTING FOR ...  THE GERMAN REICH, A BELLIGERENT ENEMY
NATION, SECRETLY AND COVERTLY PASSED, IN CIVILIAN DRESS, CONTRARY TO
THE LAW OF WAR, THROUGH THE MILITARY AND NAVAL LINES AND DEFENSES OF
THE UNITED STATES  ...  AND WENT BEHIND SUCH LINES, CONTRARY TO THE LAW
OF WAR, IN CIVILIAN DRESS  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING  ...
HOSTILE ACTS, AND, IN PARTICULAR, TO DESTROY CERTAIN WAR INDUSTRIES,
WAR UTILITIES AND WAR MATERIALS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES." 

THIS SPECIFICATION SO PLAINLY ALLEGES VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR AS
TO REQUIRE BUT BRIEF DISCUSSION OF PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS.  AS WE
HAVE SEEN, ENTRY UPON OUR TERRITORY IN TIME OF WAR BY ENEMY
BELLIGERENTS, INCLUDING THOSE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE ENEMY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING PROPERTY USED OR
USEFUL IN PROSECUTING THE WAR, IS A HOSTILE AND WARLIKE ACT.  IT
SUBJECTS THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN IT WITHOUT UNIFORM TO THE PUNISHMENT
PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW OF WAR FOR UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENTS.  IT IS WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANCE THAT PETITIONERS WERE NOT ALLEGED TO HAVE BORNE
CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS OR THAT THEIR PROPOSED HOSTILE ACTS DID NOT
NECESSARILY CONTEMPLATE COLLISION WITH THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES.  PARAGRAPHS 351 AND 352 OF THE RULES OF LAND WARFARE, ALREADY
REFERRED TO, PLAINLY CONTEMPLATE THAT THE HOSTILE ACTS AND PURPOSES FOR
WHICH UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENTS MAY BE PUNISHED ARE NOT LIMITED TO ASSAULTS
ON THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.  MODERN WARFARE IS DIRECTED
AT THE DESTRUCTION OF ENEMY WAR SUPPLIES AND THE IMPLEMENTS OF THEIR
PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION, QUITE AS MUCH AS AT THE ARMED FORCES. 
EVERY CONSIDERATION WHICH MAKES THE UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENT PUNISHABLE IS
EQUALLY APPLICABLE WHETHER HIS OBJECTIVE IS THE ONE OR THE OTHER.  THE
LAW OF WAR CANNOT RIGHTLY TREAT THOSE AGENTS OF ENEMY ARMIES WHO ENTER
OUR TERRITORY, ARMED WITH EXPLOSIVES INTENDED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF
WAR INDUSTRIES AND SUPPLIES, AS ANY THE LESS BELLIGERENT ENEMIES THAN
ARE AGENTS SIMILARLY ENTERING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING FORTIFIED
PLACES OR OUR ARMED FORCES.  BY PASSING OUR BOUNDARIES FOR SUCH
PURPOSES WITHOUT UNIFORM OR OTHER EMBLEM SIGNIFYING THEIR BELLIGERENT
STATUS, OR BY DISCARDING THAT MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION AFTER ENTRY, SUCH
ENEMIES BECOME UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENTS SUBJECT TO TRIAL AND PUNISHMENT. 

CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES OF AN ENEMY BELLIGERENT DOES NOT
RELIEVE HIM FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF A BELLIGERENCY WHICH IS UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR.  CITIZENS WHO ASSOCIATE
THEMSELVES WITH THE MILITARY ARM OF THE ENEMY GOVERNMENT, AND WITH ITS
AID, GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION ENTER THIS COUNTRY BENT ON HOSTILE ACTS,
ARE ENEMY BELLIGERENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION AND
THE LAW OF WAR.  CF. GATES V. GOODLOE, 101 U.S. 612, 615, 617-18.  IT
IS AS AN ENEMY BELLIGERENT THAT PETITIONER HAUPT IS CHARGED WITH
ENTERING THE UNITED STATES, AND UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENCY IS THE GRAVAMEN
OF THE OFFENSE OF WHICH HE IS ACCUSED. 

NOR ARE PETITIONERS ANY THE LESS BELLIGERENTS IF, AS THEY ARGUE, THEY
HAVE NOT ACTUALLY COMMITTED OR ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT ANY ACT OF
DEPREDATION OR ENTERED THE THEATRE OR ZONE OF ACTIVE MILITARY
OPERATIONS.  THE ARGUMENT LEAVES OUT OF ACCOUNT THE NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CHARGES AND WHICH THE ACT OF CONGRESS, BY
INCORPORATING THE LAW OF WAR, PUNISHES.  IT IS THAT EACH PETITIONER, IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH GAVE HIM THE STATUS OF AN ENEMY BELLIGERENT, PASSED
OUR MILITARY AND NAVAL LINES AND DEFENSES OR WENT BEHIND THOSE LINES,
IN CIVILIAN DRESS AND WITH HOSTILE PURPOSE.  THE OFFENSE WAS COMPLETE
WHEN WITH THAT PURPOSE THEY ENTERED - OR, HAVING SO ENTERED, THEY
REMAINED UPON - OUR TERRITORY IN TIME OF WAR WITHOUT UNIFORM OR OTHER
APPROPRIATE MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION.  FOR THAT REASON, EVEN WHEN
COMMITTED BY A CITIZEN, THE OFFENSE IS DISTINCT FROM THE CRIME OF
TREASON DEFINED IN ARTICLE III, SEC. 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION, SINCE THE
ABSENCE OF UNIFORM ESSENTIAL TO ONE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE OTHER.  CF.
MORGAN V. DEVINE, 237 U.S. 632; ALBRECHT V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 1,
11-12. 

BUT PETITIONERS INSIST THAT, EVEN IF THE OFFENSES WITH WHICH THEY ARE
CHARGED ARE OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR, THEIR TRIAL IS SUBJECT TO
THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO
ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME UNLESS ON A
PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY, AND THAT SUCH TRIALS BY
ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT MUST BE BY JURY IN A CIVIL
COURT.  BEFORE THE AMENDMENTS, SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III, THE JUDICIARY
ARTICLE, HAD PROVIDED, "THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES, EXCEPT IN CASES OF
IMPEACHMENT, SHALL BE BY JURY," AND HAD DIRECTED THAT "SUCH TRIAL SHALL
BE HELD IN THE STATE WHERE THE SAID CRIMES SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED." 

PRESENTMENT BY A GRAND JURY AND TRIAL BY A JURY OF THE VICINAGE WHERE
THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED WERE AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION FAMILIAR PARTS OF THE MACHINERY FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS IN THE
CIVIL COURTS.  BUT THEY WERE PROCEDURES UNKNOWN TO MILITARY TRIBUNALS,
WHICH ARE NOT COURTS IN THE SENSE OF THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE, EX PARTE
VALLANDIGHAM, 1 WALL.  243; IN RE VIDAL, 179 U.S. 126; CF. WILLIAMS V.
UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 553, AND WHICH IN THE NATURAL COURSE OF EVENTS
ARE USUALLY CALLED UPON TO FUNCTION UNDER CONDITIONS PRECLUDING RESORT
TO SUCH PROCEDURES.  AS THIS COURT HAS OFTEN RECOGNIZED, IT WAS NOT THE
PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III, READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
COMMON LAW, TO ENLARGE THE THEN EXISTING RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.  THE
OBJECT WAS TO PRESERVE UNIMPAIRED TRIAL BY JURY IN ALL THOSE CASES IN
WHICH IT HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMON LAW AND IN ALL CASES OF A
LIKE NATURE AS THEY MIGHT ARISE IN THE FUTURE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V.
COLTS, 282 U.S. 63, BUT NOT TO BRING WITHIN THE SWEEP OF THE GUARANTY
THOSE CASES IN WHICH IT WAS THEN WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT A JURY TRIAL
COULD NOT BE DEMANDED AS OF RIGHT. 

THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS, WHILE GUARANTEEING THE CONTINUANCE OF
CERTAIN INCIDENTS OF TRIAL BY JURY WHICH ARTICLE III, SEC. 2 HAD LEFT
UNMENTIONED, DID NOT ENLARGE THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL AS IT HAD BEEN
ESTABLISHED BY THAT ARTICLE.  CALLAN V. WILSON, 127 U.S. 540, 549. 
HENCE PETTY OFFENSES TRIABLE AT COMMON LAW WITHOUT A JURY MAY BE TRIED
WITHOUT A JURY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, NOTWITHSTANDING ARTICLE III, SEC.
2, AND THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS.  SCHICK V. UNITED STATES, 195
U.S. 65; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. CLAWANS, 300 U.S. 617.  TRIAL BY JURY
OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE DISPENSED WITH IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THEY COULD BE TRIED WITHOUT A
JURY AT COMMON LAW.  EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289, 302-04; SAVIN,
PETITIONER, 131 U.S. 267, 277; IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564, 594-96; UNITED
STATES V. SHIPP, 203 U.S. 563, 572; BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S.
421, 440; NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, 48; SEE UNITED STATES V.
HUDSON AND GOODWIN, 7 CRANCH 32, 34.  SIMILARLY, AN ACTION FOR DEBT TO
ENFORCE A PENALTY INFLICTED BY CONGRESS IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS UPON CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.  UNITED STATES
V. ZUCKER, 161 U.S. 475; UNITED STATES V. REGAN, 232 U.S. 37, AND CASES
CITED. 

ALL THESE ARE INSTANCES OF OFFENSES COMMITTED AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, FOR WHICH A PENALTY IS IMPOSED, BUT THEY ARE NOT DEEMED TO BE
WITHIN ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, OR THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH
AMENDMENTS RELATING TO "CRIMES" AND "CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS."  IN THE
LIGHT OF THIS LONGCONTINUED AND CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION WE MUST
CONCLUDE THAT SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III AND THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS
CANNOT BE TAKEN TO HAVE EXTENDED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND A JURY TO TRIALS
BY MILITARY COMMISSION, OR TO HAVE REQUIRED THAT OFFENSES AGAINST THE
LAW OF WAR NOT TRIABLE BY JURY AT COMMON LAW BE TRIED ONLY IN THE CIVIL
COURTS. 

THE FACT THAT "CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES" ARE
EXCEPTED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE AMENDMENTS DOES NOT MILITATE AGAINST
THIS CONCLUSION.  SUCH CASES ARE EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED FROM THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, AND ARE DEEMED EXCEPTED BY IMPLICATION FROM THE SIXTH.  EX
PARTE MILLIGAN, SUPRA, 123, 138-39.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE EXCEPTION,
WHICH EXCLUDES FROM THE AMENDMENT CASES ARISING IN THE ARMED FORCES,
HAS ALSO BY IMPLICATION EXTENDED ITS GUARANTY TO ALL OTHER CASES; THAT
SINCE PETITIONERS, NOT BEING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES, ARE NOT WITHIN THE EXCEPTION, THE AMENDMENT OPERATES TO GIVE TO
THEM THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.  BUT WE THINK THIS ARGUMENT
MISCONCEIVES BOTH THE SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENT AND THE PURPOSE OF THE
EXCEPTION. 

WE MAY ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT A TRIAL PROSECUTED BEFORE A
MILITARY COMMISSION CREATED BY MILITARY AUTHORITY IS NOT ONE "ARISING
IN THE LAND  ...  FORCES," WHEN THE ACCUSED IS NOT A MEMBER OF OR
ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE FORCES.  BUT EVEN SO, THE EXCEPTION CANNOT BE
TAKEN TO AFFECT THOSE TRIALS BEFORE MILITARY COMMISSIONS WHICH ARE
NEITHER WITHIN THE EXCEPTION NOR WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE III,
SEC. 2, WHOSE GUARANTY THE AMENDMENTS DID NOT ENLARGE.  NO EXCEPTION IS
NECESSARY TO EXCLUDE FROM THE OPERATION OF THESE PROVISIONS CASES NEVER
DEEMED TO BE WITHIN THEIR TERMS.  AN EXPRESS EXCEPTION FROM ARTICLE
III, SEC. 2, AND FROM THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS, OF TRIALS OF
PETTY OFFENSES AND OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS HAS NOT BEEN FOUND NECESSARY
IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE TRADITIONAL PRACTICE OF TRYING THOSE OFFENSES
WITHOUT A JURY.  IT IS NO MORE SO IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE PRACTICE OF
TRYING, BEFORE MILITARY TRIBUNALS WITHOUT A JURY, OFFENSES COMMITTED BY
ENEMY BELLIGERENTS AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR. 

DERIVED FROM THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS OF AUGUST 21,
1776,  FN13  IMPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY ON ALIEN SPIES "ACCORDING TO THE
LAW AND USAGE OF NATIONS, BY SENTENCE OF A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL." 
THIS ENACTMENT MUST BE REGARDED AS A CONTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH
ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, AND THE AMENDMENTS AS NOT FORECLOSING TRIAL BY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS, WITHOUT A JURY, OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR
COMMITTED BY ENEMIES NOT IN OR ASSOCIATED WITH OUR ARMED FORCES.  IT IS
A CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED SINCE THE
FOUNDING OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AND IS NOW CONTINUED IN THE 82ND ARTICLE OF
WAR.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS ENTITLED TO THE GREATEST RESPECT.  STUART
V. LAIRD, 1 CRANCH 299, 309; FIELD V. CLARK, 143 U.S. 649, 691; UNITED
STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 328.  IT HAS NOT HITHERTO
BEEN CHALLENGED, AND, SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED, IT HAS NEVER BEEN
SUGGESTED IN THE VERY EXTENSIVE LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT THAT AN ALIEN
SPY, IN TIME OF WAR, COULD NOT BE TRIED BY MILITARY TRIBUNAL WITHOUT A
JURY.  FN14 

THE EXCEPTION FROM THE AMENDMENTS OF "CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR
NAVAL FORCES" WAS NOT AIMED AT TRIALS BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS, WITHOUT A
JURY, OF SUCH OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR.  ITS OBJECTIVE WAS QUITE
DIFFERENT - TO AUTHORIZE THE TRIAL BY COURT MARTIAL OF THE MEMBERS OF
OUR ARMED FORCES FOR ALL THAT CLASS OF CRIMES WHICH UNDER THE FIFTH AND
SIXTH AMENDMENTS MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN DEEMED TRIABLE IN THE CIVIL
COURTS.  THE CASES MENTIONED IN THE EXCEPTION ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO
THOSE INVOLVING OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR ALONE, BUT EXTEND TO
TRIAL OF ALL OFFENSES, INCLUDING CRIMES WHICH WERE OF THE CLASS
TRADITIONALLY TRIABLE BY JURY AT COMMON LAW.  EX PARTE MASON, 105 U.S.
696; KAHN V. ANDERSON, 255 U.S. 1, 8-9; CF. CALDWELL V. PARKER, 252
U.S. 376. 

SINCE THE AMENDMENTS, LIKE SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III, DO NOT PRECLUDE ALL
TRIALS OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR BY MILITARY COMMISSION
WITHOUT A JURY WHEN THE OFFENDERS ARE ALIENS NOT MEMBERS OF OUR ARMED
FORCES, IT IS PLAIN THAT THEY PRESENT NO GREATER OBSTACLE TO THE TRIAL
IN LIKE MANNER OF CITIZEN ENEMIES WHO HAVE VIOLATED THE LAW OF WAR
APPLICABLE TO ENEMIES.  UNDER THE ORIGINAL STATUTE AUTHORIZING TRIAL OF
ALIEN SPIES BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS, THE OFFENDERS WERE OUTSIDE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF TRIAL BY JURY, NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE ALIENS
BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY HAD VIOLATED THE LAW OF WAR BY COMMITTING
OFFENSES CONSTITUTIONALLY TRIABLE BY MILITARY TRIBUNAL. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT CONGRESS IN PREPARING THE FIFTH AND SIXTH
AMENDMENTS INTENDED TO EXTEND TRIAL BY JURY TO THE CASES OF ALIEN OR
CITIZEN OFFENDERS AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR OTHERWISE TRIABLE BY MILITARY
COMMISSION, WHILE WITHHOLDING IT FROM MEMBERS OF OUR OWN ARMED FORCES
CHARGED WITH INFRACTIONS OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. 
IT IS EQUALLY INADMISSIBLE TO CONSTRUE THE AMENDMENTS - WHOSE PRIMARY
PURPOSE WAS TO CONTINUE UNIMPAIRED PRESENTMENT BY GRAND JURY AND TRIAL
BY PETIT JURY IN ALL THOSE CASES IN WHICH THEY HAD BEEN CUSTOMARY - AS
EITHER ABOLISHING ALL TRIALS BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS, SAVE THOSE OF THE
PERSONNEL OF OUR OWN ARMED FORCES, OR, WHAT IN EFFECT COMES TO THE SAME
THING, AS IMPOSING ON ALL SUCH TRIBUNALS THE NECESSITY OF PROCEEDING
AGAINST UNLAWFUL ENEMY BELLIGERENTS ONLY ON PRESENTMENT AND TRIAL BY
JURY.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS DID NOT RESTRICT
WHATEVER AUTHORITY WAS CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO TRY OFFENSES
AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR BY MILITARY COMMISSION, AND THAT PETITIONERS,
CHARGED WITH SUCH AN OFFENSE NOT REQUIRED TO BE TRIED BY JURY AT COMMON
LAW, WERE LAWFULLY PLACED ON TRIAL BY THE COMMISSION WITHOUT A JURY. 

PETITIONERS, AND ESPECIALLY PETITIONER HAUPT, STRESS THE PRONOUNCEMENT
OF THIS COURT IN THE MILLIGAN CASE, SUPRA, P. 121, THAT THE LAW OF WAR
"CAN NEVER BE APPLIED TO CITIZENS IN STATES WHICH HAVE UPHELD THE
AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND WHERE THE COURTS ARE OPEN AND THEIR
PROCESS UNOBSTRUCTED."  ELSEWHERE IN ITS OPINION, AT PP. 118, 121-22
AND 131, THE COURT WAS AT PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT MILLIGAN, A CITIZEN
TWENTY YEARS RESIDENT IN INDIANA, WHO HAD NEVER BEEN A RESIDENT OF ANY
OF THE STATES IN REBELLION, WAS NOT AN ENEMY BELLIGERENT EITHER
ENTITLED TO THE STATUS OF A PRISONER OF WAR OR SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES
IMPOSED UPON UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENTS.  WE CONSTRUE THE COURT'S STATEMENT
AS TO THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE LAW OF WAR TO MILLIGAN'S CASE AS
HAVING PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE FACTS BEFORE IT.  FROM THEM THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT MILLIGAN, NOT BEING A PART OF OR ASSOCIATED WITH
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE ENEMY, WAS A NON-BELLIGERENT, NOT SUBJECT TO
THE LAW OF WAR SAVE AS - IN CIRCUMSTANCES FOUND NOT THERE TO BE
PRESENT, AND NOT INVOLVED HERE - MARTIAL LAW MIGHT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
ESTABLISHED. 

THE COURT'S OPINION IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE CASE PRESENTED BY THE
PRESENT RECORD.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION NOW TO DEFINE WITH METICULOUS CARE
THE ULTIMATE BOUNDARIES OF THE JURISDICTION OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS TO
TRY PERSONS ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF WAR.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT PETITIONERS
HERE, UPON THE CONCEDED FACTS, WERE PLAINLY WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES,
AND WERE HELD IN GOOD FAITH FOR TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION, CHARGED
WITH BEING ENEMIES WHO, WITH THE PURPOSE OF DESTROYING WAR MATERIALS
AND UTILITIES, ENTERED, OR AFTER ENTRY REMAINED IN, OUR TERRITORY
WITHOUT UNIFORM - AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR.  WE HOLD ONLY THAT
THOSE PARTICULAR ACTS CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES TO BE TRIED BY MILITARY COMMISSION. 
SINCE THE FIRST SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE I SETS FORTH A VIOLATION OF
THE LAW OF WAR, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO PASS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE
SECOND SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE I, OR TO CONSTRUE THE 81ST AND 82ND
ARTICLES OF WAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE
SPECIFICATIONS UNDER CHARGES II AND III ALLEGE VIOLATIONS OF THOSE
ARTICLES OR WHETHER IF SO CONSTRUED THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  MCNALLY
V. HILL, 293 U.S. 131. 

THERE REMAINS THE CONTENTION THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER OF JULY 2,
1942, SO FAR AS IT LAYS DOWN THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED ON THE TRIAL
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND ON THE REVIEW OF ITS FINDINGS AND SENTENCE,
AND THE PROCEDURE IN FACT FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSION, ARE IN CONFLICT
WITH ARTICLES OF WAR 38, 43, 46, 50 1/2 AND 70.  PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT
THEIR TRIAL BY THE COMMISSION, FOR OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR AND
THE 81ST AND 82ND ARTICLES OF WAR, BY A PROCEDURE WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PROHIBITED WOULD INVALIDATE ANY CONVICTION WHICH COULD BE OBTAINED
AGAINST THEM AND RENDERS THEIR DETENTION FOR TRIAL LIKEWISE UNLAWFUL
(SEE MCCLAUGHRY V. DEMING, 186 U.S. 49; UNITED STATES V. BROWN, 206
U.S. 240, 244; RUNKLE V. UNITED STATES, 122 U.S. 543, 555-56; DYNES V.
HOOVER, 20 HOW.  65, 80-81); THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER PRESCRIBES SUCH
AN UNLAWFUL PROCEDURE; AND THAT THE SECRECY SURROUNDING THE TRIAL AND
ALL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AS WELL AS ANY REVIEW OF ITS
DECISION, WILL PRECLUDE A LATER OPPORTUNITY TO TEST THE LAWFULNESS OF
THE DETENTION. 

PETITIONERS DO NOT ARGUE AND WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE PRESIDENT IS COMPELLED BY THE ARTICLES OF WAR TO AFFORD UNLAWFUL
ENEMY BELLIGERENTS A TRIAL BEFORE SUBJECTING THEM TO DISCIPLINARY
MEASURES.  THEIR CONTENTION IS THAT, IF CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THEIR
TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION UPON THE CHARGES PREFERRED - VIOLATIONS OF
THE LAW OF WAR AND THE 81ST AND 82ND ARTICLES OF WAR - IT HAS BY THE
ARTICLES OF WAR PRESCRIBED THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE TRIAL IS TO BE
CONDUCTED; AND THAT, SINCE THE PRESIDENT HAS ORDERED THEIR TRIAL FOR
SUCH OFFENSES BY MILITARY COMMISSION, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE
PROTECTION OF THE PROCEDURE WHICH CONGRESS HAS COMMANDED SHALL BE
CONTROLLING. 

WE NEED NOT INQUIRE WHETHER CONGRESS MAY RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF TO DEAL WITH ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.  FOR THE COURT IS
UNANIMOUS IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE ARTICLES IN QUESTION COULD NOT AT
ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFFORD ANY BASIS FOR ISSUING THE WRIT. 
BUT A MAJORITY OF THE FULL COURT ARE NOT AGREED ON THE APPROPRIATE
GROUNDS FOR DECISION.  SOME MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE OF OPINION THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE ARTICLES OF WAR TO GOVERN A PRESIDENTIAL
MILITARY COMMISSION CONVENED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS
RELATING TO ADMITTED ENEMY INVADERS, AND THAT THE CONTEXT OF THE
ARTICLES MAKES CLEAR THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY IN THAT
CLASS OF CASES.  OTHERS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT - EVEN THOUGH THIS TRIAL
IS SUBJECT TO WHATEVER PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR CONGRESS HAS
IN TERMS MADE APPLICABLE TO "COMMISSIONS" - THE PARTICULAR ARTICLES IN
QUESTION, RIGHTLY CONSTRUED, DO NOT FORECLOSE THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED
BY THE PRESIDENT OR THAT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMMISSION,
IN A TRIAL OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR AND THE 81ST AND 82ND
ARTICLES OF WAR, BY A MILITARY COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCLUDE THAT CHARGE I, ON WHICH PETITIONERS WERE
DETAINED FOR TRIAL BY THE MILITARY COMMISSION, ALLEGED AN OFFENSE WHICH
THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO ORDER TRIED BY MILITARY COMMISSION; THAT
HIS ORDER CONVENING THE COMMISSION WAS A LAWFUL ORDER AND THAT THE
COMMISSION WAS LAWFULLY CONSTITUTED; THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE HELD IN
LAWFUL CUSTODY AND DID NOT SHOW CAUSE FOR THEIR DISCHARGE.  IT FOLLOWS
THAT THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED, AND THAT
LEAVE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THIS COURT SHOULD BE
DENIED. 

FN1  FROM JUNE 12 TO JUNE 18, 1942, AMAGANSETT BEACH, NEW YORK, AND
PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA, WERE WITHIN THE AREA DESIGNATED AS THE
EASTERN DEFENSE COMMAND OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, AND SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF A PROCLAMATION DATED MAY 16, 1942, ISSUED BY LIEUTENANT
GENERAL HUGH A. DRUM, UNITED STATES ARMY, COMMANDING GENERAL, EASTERN
DEFENSE COMMAND (SEE 7 FEDERAL REGISTER 3830).  ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12
13, 1942, THE WATERS AROUND AMAGANSETT BEACH, LONG ISLAND, WERE WITHIN
THE AREA COMPRISING THE EASTERN SEA FRONTIER, PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS
ISSUED BY ADMIRAL ERNEST J. KING, COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE UNITED
STATES FLEET AND CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS.  ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 16
17, 1942, THE WATERS AROUND PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA, WERE WITHIN THE
AREA COMPRISING THE GULF SEA FRONTIER, PURSUANT TO SIMILAR ORDERS. 

ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12-13, 1942, MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES COAST
GUARD, UNARMED, MAINTAINED A BEACH PATROL ALONG THE BEACHES SURROUNDING
AMAGANSETT, LONG ISLAND, UNDER WRITTEN ORDERS MENTIONING THE PURPOSE OF
DETECTING LANDINGS.  ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 17-18, 1942, THE UNITED
STATES ARMY MAINTAINED A PATROL OF THE BEACHES SURROUNDING AND
INCLUDING PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA, UNDER WRITTEN ORDERS MENTIONING
THE PURPOSE OF DETECTING THE LANDING OF ENEMY AGENTS FROM SUBMARINES. 

FN2  7 FEDERAL REGISTER 5103. 

FN3  7 FEDERAL REGISTER 5101. 

FN4  AS APPEARS FROM THE STIPULATION, A DEFENSE OFFERED BEFORE THE
MILITARY COMMISSION WAS THAT PETITIONERS HAD HAD NO INTENTION TO OBEY
THE ORDERS GIVEN THEM BY THE OFFICER OF THE GERMAN HIGH COMMAND. 

FN5  TALBOT V. JANSON, 3 DALL.  133, 153, 159-61; TALBOT V. SEEMAN, 1
CRANCH 1, 40-41; MALEY V. SHATTUCK, 3 CRANCH 458, 488; FITZSIMMONS V.
NEWPORT INS. CO., 4 CRANCH 185, 199; THE RAPID, 8 CRANCH 155, 159-64;
THE ST. LAWRENCE, 9 CRANCH 120, 122; THIRTY HOGSHEADS OF SUGAR V.
BOYLE, 9 CRANCH 191, 197-98; THE ANNE, 3 WHEAT.  435, 447-48; UNITED
STATES V. READING, 18 HOW.  1, 10; PRIZE CASES, 2 BLACK 635, 666-67,
687; THE VENICE, 2 WALL.  258, 274; THE WILLIAM BAGALEY, 5 WALL.  377;
MILLER V. UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  268; COLEMAN V. TENNESSEE, 97 U.S.
509, 517; UNITED STATES V. PACIFIC RAILROAD, 120 U.S. 227, 233; JURAGUA
IRON CO. V. UNITED STATES, 212 U.S. 297. 

FN6  COMPARE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(17), CONFERRING ON THE FEDERAL COURTS
JURISDICTION OVER SUITS BROUGHT BY AN ALIEN FOR A TORT "IN VIOLATION OF
THE LAWS OF NATIONS"; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 341, CONFERRING UPON THE SUPREME
COURT SUCH JURISDICTION OF SUITS AGAINST AMBASSADORS AS A COURT OF LAW
CAN HAVE "CONSISTENTLY WITH THE LAW OF NATIONS"; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 462,
REGULATING THE ISSUANCE OF HABEAS CORPUS WHERE THE PRISONER CLAIMS SOME
RIGHT, PRIVILEGE OR EXEMPTION UNDER THE ORDER OF A FOREIGN STATE, "THE
VALIDITY AND EFFECT WHEREOF DEPEND UPON THE LAW OF NATIONS"; 15 U.S.C.
SECS. 606(B) AND 713(B), AUTHORIZING CERTAIN LOANS TO FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS, PROVIDED THAT "NO SUCH LOANS SHALL BE MADE IN VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE." 

FN7  HAGUE CONVENTION NO. IV OF OCTOBER 18, 1907, 36 STAT. 2295,
ARTICLE I OF THE ANNEX TO WHICH DEFINES THE PERSONS TO WHOM BELLIGERENT
RIGHTS AND DUTIES ATTACH, WAS SIGNED BY 44 NATIONS.  SEE ALSO GREAT
BRITAIN, WAR OFFICE, MANUAL OF MILITARY LAW (1929) CH. XIV, SECS. 17
19; GERMAN GENERAL STAFF, KRIEGSBRAUCH IM LANDKRIEGE (1902) CH. 1; 7
MOORE, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, SEC. 1109; 2 HYDE, INTERNATIONAL
LAW (1922) SEC. 653-54; 2 OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW (6TH ED. 1940)
SEC. 107; BLUNTSCHLI, DROIT INTERNATIONAL (5TH ED. TR. LARDY) SECS. 531
32; 4 CALVO, LE DROIT INTERNATIONAL THEORIQUE ET PRATIQUE (5TH ED.
1896) SECS. 2034-35. 

FN8  GREAT BRITAIN, WAR OFFICE, MANUAL OF MILITARY LAW, CH. XIV,
SECS. 445-451; REGOLAMENTO DI SERVIZIO IN GUERRA, SEC. 133, 3 LEGGI E
DECRETI DEL REGNO D'ITALIA (1896) 3184; 7 MOORE, DIGEST OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW, SEC. 1109; 2 HYDE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, SECS. 654,
652; 2 HALLECK, INTERNATIONAL LAW (4TH ED. 1908) SEC. 4; 2 OPPENHEIM,
INTERNATIONAL LAW, SEC. 254; HALL, INTERNATIONAL LAW, SECS. 127, 135;
BATY & MORGAN, WAR, ITS CONDUCT AND LEGAL RESULTS (1915) 172;
BLUNTSCHLI, DROIT INTERNATIONAL, SECS. 570 BIS. 

FN9  ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1780, MAJOR JOHN ANDRE, ADJUTANT-GENERAL TO THE
BRITISH ARMY, WAS TRIED BY A "BOARD OF GENERAL OFFICERS" APPOINTED BY
GENERAL WASHINGTON, ON A CHARGE THAT HE HAD COME WITHIN THE LINES FOR
AN INTERVIEW WITH GENERAL BENEDICT ARNOLD AND HAD BEEN CAPTURED WHILE
IN DISGUISE AND TRAVELLING UNDER AN ASSUMED NAME.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT
THE FACTS CHARGED WERE TRUE, AND THAT WHEN CAPTURED MAJOR ANDRE HAD IN
HIS POSSESSION PAPERS CONTAINING INTELLIGENCE FOR THE ENEMY, AND
REPORTED THEIR CONCLUSION THAT "MAJOR ANDRE  ...  OUGHT TO BE
CONSIDERED AS A SPY FROM THE ENEMY, AND THAT AGREEABLY TO THE LAW AND
USAGE OF NATIONS  ...  HE OUGHT TO SUFFER DEATH."  MAJOR ANDRE WAS
HANGED ON OCTOBER 2, 1780.  PROCEEDINGS OF A BOARD OF GENERAL OFFICERS
RESPECTING MAJOR JOHN ANDRE, SEPT. 29, 1780, PRINTED AT PHILADELPHIA IN
1780. 

FN10  DURING THE MEXICAN WAR MILITARY COMMISSIONS WERE CREATED IN A
LARGE NUMBER OF INSTANCES FOR THE TRIAL OF VARIOUS OFFENSES.  SEE
GENERAL ORDERS CITED IN 2 WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW (2D ED. 1896) P. 1298,
NOTE 1. 

DURING THE CIVIL WAR THE MILITARY COMMISSION WAS EXTENSIVELY USED FOR
THE TRIAL OF OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR.  AMONG THE MORE
SIGNIFICANT CASES FOR PRESENT PURPOSES ARE THE FOLLOWING: 

ON MAY 22, 1865, T.E. HOGG AND OTHERS WERE TRIED BY A MILITARY
COMMISSION, FOR "VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS AND USAGES OF CIVILIZED WAR,"
THE SPECIFICATIONS CHARGING THAT THE ACCUSED "BEING COMMISSIONED,
ENROLLED, ENLISTED OR ENGAGED" BY THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT, CAME ON
BOARD A UNITED STATES MERCHANT STEAMER IN THE PORT OF PANAMA "IN THE
GUISE OF PEACEFUL PASSENGERS" WITH THE PURPOSE OF CAPTURING THE VESSEL
AND CONVERTING HER INTO A CONFEDERATE CRUISER.  THE COMMISSION FOUND
THE ACCUSED GUILTY AND SENTENCED THEM TO BE HANGED.  THE REVIEWING
AUTHORITY AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENTS, WRITING AN EXTENSIVE OPINION ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR WERE ALLEGED, BUT
MODIFIED THE SENTENCES TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND FOR VARIOUS PERIODS
OF YEARS.  DEPT. OF THE PACIFIC, G.O. NO. 52, JUNE 27, 1865. 

ON JANUARY 17, 1865, JOHN Y. BEALL WAS TRIED BY A MILITARY COMMISSION
FOR "VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR."  THE OPINION BY THE REVIEWING
AUTHORITY REVEALS THAT BEALL, HOLDING A COMMISSION IN THE CONFEDERATE
NAVY, CAME ON BOARD A MERCHANT VESSEL AT A CANADIAN PORT IN CIVILIAN
DRESS AND, WITH ASSOCIATES, TOOK POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL IN LAKE ERIE;
THAT, ALSO IN DISGUISE, HE UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED TO DERAIL A TRAIN
IN NEW YORK STATE, AND TO OBTAIN MILITARY INFORMATION.  HIS CONVICTION
BY THE COMMISSION WAS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS BOTH A SPY AND
A "GUERRILLA," AND HE WAS SENTENCED TO BE HANGED.  DEPT. OF THE EAST,
G.O. NO. 14, FEB. 14, 1865. 

ON JANUARY 17, 1865, ROBERT C. KENNEDY, A CAPTAIN OF THE CONFEDERATE
ARMY, WHO WAS SHOWN TO HAVE ATTEMPTED, WHILE IN DISGUISE, TO SET FIRE
TO THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND TO HAVE BEEN SEEN IN DISGUISE IN VARIOUS
PARTS OF NEW YORK STATE, WAS CONVICTED ON CHARGES OF ACTING AS A SPY
AND VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR "IN UNDERTAKING TO CARRY ON IRREGULAR
AND UNLAWFUL WARFARE."  HE WAS SENTENCED TO BE HANGED, AND THE SENTENCE
WAS CONFIRMED BY THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY.  DEPT. OF THE EAST, G.O. NO.
24, MARCH 20, 1865. 

ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1865, WILLIAM MURPHY, "A REBEL EMISSARY IN THE
EMPLOY OF AND COLLEAGUED WITH REBEL ENEMIES," WAS CONVICTED BY A
MILITARY COMMISSION OF "VIOLATION OF THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR" FOR
COMING WITHIN THE LINES AND BURNING A UNITED STATES STEAMBOAT AND OTHER
PROPERTY.  G.C.M.O. NO. 107, APRIL 18, 1866. 

SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS "NOW OR LATE OF THE CONFEDERATE ARMY," WERE
TRIED AND CONVICTED BY MILITARY COMMISSION FOR "BEING SECRETLY WITHIN
THE LINES OF THE UNITED STATES FORCES," JAMES HAMILTON, DEPT. OF THE
OHIO, G.O. NO. 153, SEPT. 18, 1863; FOR "RECRUITING MEN WITHIN THE
LINES," DANIEL DAVIS, G.O. NO. 397, DEC. 18, 1863, AND WILLIAM F.
CORBIN AND T. G. MCGRAW, G.O. NO. 114, MAY 4, 1863; AND FOR "LURKING
ABOUT THE POSTS, QUARTERS, FORTIFICATIONS AND ENCAMPMENTS OF THE ARMIES
OF THE UNITED STATES," ALTHOUGH NOT "AS A SPY," AUGUSTUS A. WILLIAMS,
MIDDLE DEPT., G.O. NO. 34, MAY 5, 1864.  FOR OTHER CASES OF VIOLATIONS
OF THE LAW OF WAR PUNISHED BY MILITARY COMMISSIONS DURING THE CIVIL
WAR, SEE 2 WINTHROP, MILITARY LAWS AND PRECEDENTS (2D ED. 1896) 1310
11. 

FN11  SEE ALSO PARAGRAPH 100:  "A MESSENGER OR AGENT WHO ATTEMPTS TO
STEAL THROUGH THE TERRITORY OCCUPIED BY THE ENEMY, TO FURTHER, IN ANY
MANNER, THE INTERESTS OF THE ENEMY, IF CAPTURED, IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE
PRIVILEGES OF THE PRISONER OF WAR, AND MAY BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE." 

COMPARE PARAGRAPH 101. 

FN12  GREAT BRITAIN, WAR OFFICE, MANUAL OF MILITARY LAW (1929) SEC.
445, LISTS A LARGE NUMBER OF ACTS WHICH, WHEN COMMITTED WITHIN ENEMY
LINES BY PERSONS IN CIVILIAN DRESS ASSOCIATED WITH OR ACTING UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF ENEMY ARMED FORCES, ARE "WAR CRIMES."  THE LIST INCLUDES:
"DAMAGE TO RAILWAYS, WAR MATERIAL, TELEGRAPH, OR OTHER MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF THE ENEMY.  ...  "  SECTION 449
STATES THAT ALL "WAR CRIMES" ARE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. 

AUTHORITIES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW HAVE REGARDED AS WAR CRIMINALS SUCH
PERSONS WHO PASS THROUGH THE LINES FOR THE PURPOSE OF (A) DESTROYING
BRIDGES, WAR MATERIALS, COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, ETC.:  2 OPPENHEIM,
INTERNATIONAL LAW (6TH ED. 1940) SEC. 255; SPAIGHT, AIR POWER AND WAR
RIGHTS (1924) 283; SPAIGHT, WAR RIGHTS ON LAND (1911) 110; PHILLIPSON,
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE GREAT WAR (1915) 208; LISZT, DAS VOLKERRECHT
(12 ED. 1925), SEC. 58(B) 4; (B) CARRYING MESSAGES SECRETLY:  HALL,
INTERNATIONAL LAW (8TH ED. 1924) SEC. 188; SPAIGHT, WAR RIGHTS ON LAND
215; 3 MERIGNHAC, DROIT PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL (1912) 296-97; BLUNTSCHLI,
DROIT INTERNATIONAL CODIFIE (5TH ED. TR. LARDY) SEC. 639; 4 CALVO, LE
DROIT INTERNATIONAL THEORIQUE ET PRATIQUE (5TH ED. 1896) SEC. 2119; (C)
ANY HOSTILE ACT:  2 WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW AND PRECEDENTS, (2ND ED.
1896) 1224.  CF. LIEBER, GUERRILLA PARTIES (1862), 2 MISCELLANEOUS
WRITINGS (1881) 288. 

THESE AUTHORITIES ARE UNANIMOUS IN STATING THAT A SOLDIER IN UNIFORM
WHO COMMITS THE ACTS MENTIONED WOULD BE ENTITLED TO TREATMENT AS A
PRISONER OF WAR; IT IS THE ABSENCE OF UNIFORM THAT RENDERS THE OFFENDER
LIABLE TO TRIAL FOR VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR. 

FN13  SEE MORGAN, COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION OVER NON-MILITARY
PERSONS UNDER THE ARTICLES OF WAR, 4 MINNESOTA L. REV. 79, 107-09. 

FN14  IN A NUMBER OF CASES DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR ENEMY SPIES
WERE TRIED AND CONVICTED BY MILITARY TRIBUNALS:  (1) MAJOR JOHN ANDRE,
SEPT. 29, 1780, SEE NOTE 9 SUPRA.  (2) THOMAS SHANKS WAS CONVICTED BY A
"BOARD OF GENERAL OFFICERS" AT VALLEY FORGE ON JUNE 3, 1778, FOR "BEING
A SPY IN THE SERVICE OF THE ENEMY," AND SENTENCED TO BE HANGED.  12
WRITINGS OF WASHINGTON (BICENTENNIAL COMM'N ED.)  14.  (3) MATTHIAS
COLBHART WAS CONVICTED OF "HOLDING A CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE ENEMY" AND
"LIVING AS A SPY AMONG THE CONTINENTAL TROOPS" BY A GENERAL COURT
MARTIAL CONVENED BY ORDER OF MAJOR GENERAL PUTNAM ON JAN. 13, 1778;
GENERAL WASHINGTON, THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, ORDERED THE SENTENCE OF
DEATH TO BE EXECUTED, 12 ID. 449-50.  (4) JOHN CLAWSON, LUDWICK LASICK,
AND WILLIAM HUTCHINSON WERE CONVICTED OF "LURKING AS SPIES IN THE
VICINITY OF THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES" BY A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL
HELD ON JUNE 18, 1780.  THE DEATH SENTENCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE
COMMANDER IN CHIEF.  19 ID. 23.  (5) DAVID FARNSWORTH AND JOHN BLAIR
WERE CONVICTED OF "BEING FOUND ABOUT THE ENCAMPMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES AS SPIES" BY A DIVISION GENERAL COURT MARTIAL HELD ON OCT. 8,
1778 BY ORDER OF MAJOR GENERAL GATES.  THE DEATH SENTENCE WAS CONFIRMED
BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.  13 ID. 139-40.  (6) JOSEPH BETTYS WAS
CONVICTED OF BEING "A SPY FOR GENERAL BURGOYNE" BY COMING SECRETLY
WITHIN THE AMERICAN LINES, BY A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL HELD ON APRIL 6,
1778 BY ORDER OF MAJOR GENERAL MCDOUGALL.  THE DEATH SENTENCE WAS
CONFIRMED BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.  15 ID. 364.  (7) STEPHEN SMITH
WAS CONVICTED OF "BEING A SPY" BY A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL HELD ON JAN.
6, 1778.  THE DEATH SENTENCE WAS CONFIRMED BY MAJOR GENERAL MCDOUGALL. 
IBID. (8) NATHANIEL AHERLY AND REUBEN WEEKS, LOYALIST SOLDIERS, WERE
SENTENCED TO BE HANGED AS SPIES.  PROCEEDINGS OF A GENERAL COURT
MARTIAL CONVENED AT WEST POINT ACCORDING TO A GENERAL ORDER OF MAJOR
GENERAL ARNOLD, AUG. 20-21, 1780(NATIONAL ARCHIVES, WAR DEPT.,
REVOLUTIONARY WAR RECORDS, MS NO. 31521).  (9) JONATHAN LOVEBERRY, A
LOYALIST SOLDIER, WAS SENTENCED TO BE HANGED AS A SPY.  PROCEEDINGS OF
A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL CONVENED AT THE REQUEST OF MAJOR GENERAL ARNOLD
AT THE TOWNSHIP OF BEDFORD, AUG. 30-31, 1780(ID. MS NO. 31523).  HE
LATER ESCAPED, 20 WRITINGS OF WASHINGTON 253N.  (10) DANIEL TAYLOR, A
LIEUTENANT IN THE BRITISH ARMY, WAS CONVICTED AS A SPY BY A GENERAL
COURT MARTIAL CONVENED ON OCT. 14, 1777, BY ORDER OF BRIGADIER GENERAL
GEORGE CLINTON, AND WAS HANGED.  2 PUBLIC PAPERS OF GEORGE CLINTON
(1900) 443.  (11) JAMES MOLESWORTH WAS CONVICTED AS A SPY AND SENTENCED
TO DEATH BY A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL HELD AT PHILADELPHIA, MARCH 29,
1777; CONGRESS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF MAJOR GENERAL GATES FOR THE
EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE.  7 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
210.  SEE ALSO CASES OF "M.A."  AND "D.C.," G.O. HEADQUARTERS OF
GENERAL SULLIVAN, PROVIDENCE, R.I., JULY 24, 1778, REPRINTED IN NILES,
PRINCIPLES AND ACTS OF THE REVOLUTION (1822) 369; OF LIEUTENANT PALMER,
9 WRITINGS OF WASHINGTON, 56N; OF DANIEL STRANG, 6 ID. 497N; OF EDWARD
HICKS, 14 ID. 357; OF JOHN MASON AND JAMES OGDEN, EXECUTED AS SPIES
NEAR TRENTON, N.J., ON JAN. 10, 1781, MENTIONED IN HATCH,
ADMINISTRATION OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY ARMY (1904) 135 AND VAN
DOREN, SECRET HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1941) 410. 

DURING THE WAR OF 1812, WILLIAM BAKER WAS CONVICTED AS A SPY AND
SENTENCED TO BE HANGED, BY A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL PRESIDED OVER BY
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS A. SMITH AT PLATTSBURG, N.Y., ON MARCH 25,
1814.  NATIONAL ARCHIVES, WAR DEPT., JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
RECORDS OF COURTS MARTIAL, MS NO. O-13.  WILLIAM UTLEY, TRIED AS A SPY
BY A COURT MARTIAL HELD AT PLATTSBURG, MARCH 3-5, 1814, WAS ACQUITTED. 
ID., MS NO. X-161.  ELIJAH CLARK WAS CONVICTED AS A SPY, AND SENTENCED
TO BE HANGED, BY A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL HELD AT BUFFALO, N.Y., AUG. 5
8, 1812.  HE WAS ORDERED RELEASED BY PRESIDENT MADISON ON THE GROUND
THAT HE WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.  MILITARY MONITOR, VOL. I, NO. 23,
FEB. 1, 1813, PP. 121-122; MALTBY, TREATISE ON COURTS MARTIAL AND
MILITARY LAW (1813) 35-36. 

IN 1862 CONGRESS AMENDED THE SPY STATUTE TO INCLUDE "ALL PERSONS"
INSTEAD OF ONLY ALIENS.  12 STAT. 339, 340; SEE ALSO 12 STAT. 731,
737.  FOR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, SEE MORGAN, COURT-MARTIAL
JURISDICTION OVER NON-MILITARY PERSONS UNDER THE ARTICLES OF WAR, 4
MINNESOTA L. REV. 79, 109-11.  DURING THE CIVIL WAR A NUMBER OF
CONFEDERATE OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS, FOUND WITHIN THE UNION LINES IN
DISGUISE, WERE TRIED AND CONVICTED BY MILITARY COMMISSION FOR BEING
SPIES.  CHARLES H. CLIFFORD, G.O. NO. 135, MAY 18, 1863; WILLIAM S.
WALLER, G.O. NO. 269, AUG. 4, 1863; ALFRED YATES AND GEORGE W. CASEY,
G.O. NO. 382, NOV. 28, 1863; JAMES R. HOLTON AND JAMES TAYLOR, G.C.M.O.
NO. 93, MAY 13, 1864; JAMES MCGREGORY, G.C.M.O. NO. 152, JUNE 4, 1864;
E.S. DODD, DEPT. OF OHIO, G.O. NO. 3, JAN. 5, 1864.  FOR OTHER CASES OF
SPIES TRIED BY MILITARY COMMISSION, SEE 2 WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW AND
PRECEDENTS, 1193 ET SEQ. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :







OVERNIGHT MOTOR CO. V. MISSEL, 316 U.S. 572 


NO. 939.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 7, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1942.  - 126 F.2D
98, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN EMPLOYEE OF AN INTERSTATE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, WHO
ACTED AS RATE CLERK AND PERFORMED OTHER INCIDENTAL DUTIES, HELD
"ENGAGED IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7 OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, AND ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF ITS OVERTIME
PROVISIONS.  P. 574. 

2.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO REGULATE WAGES AND HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CONGRESS MAY INCREASE WAGES FOR
OVERTIME, NOT MERELY TO SAFEGUARD THE HEALTH OF EMPLOYEES, BUT ALSO TO
DISCOURAGE OVERTIME WORK, WITH A VIEW TO SPREADING EMPLOYMENT AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.  P. 576. 

3.  IT IS A PURPOSE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT NOT MERELY TO
INCREASE SUBSTANDARD PAY, BUT TO DISCOURAGE OVERTIME WORK BY REQUIRING
EXTRA PAY FOR IT EVEN THOUGH THE WAGES, AS CONTRACTED FOR AND PAID BY
THE EMPLOYER, FOR BOTH REGULAR HOURS AND OVERTIME, EXCEED THE STATUTORY
MINIMUM.  P. 577. 

4.  SECTION 7(A) OF THE ACT REQUIRES PAYMENT TO THE EMPLOYEE, FOR
OVERTIME, OF NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE "REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED," MEANING THE RATE ACTUALLY AGREED ON AND PAID BY
THE EMPLOYER IF GREATER THAN THE STATUTORY MINIMUM.  P. 577. 

5.  WHERE THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IS FOR A FIXED WEEKLY WAGE AND
VARIABLE OR FLUCTUATING HOURS OF WORK, THE "REGULAR RATE" IN THE
STATUTORY SENSE, FOR ANY PARTICULAR WEEK, IS THE QUOTIENT OF THE AMOUNT
PAID PER WEEK DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED IN THAT WEEK. 
WALLING V. BELO CORP., POST, P. 624, DIST'D.  P. 580. 

6.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 16(B) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
MAKING AN EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES SEC. 6 OR SEC. 7 LIABLE TO THE
EMPLOYEES AFFECTED, NOT ONLY IN THE AMOUNT OF HIS UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES
OR UNPAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION, BUT IN AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL AMOUNT AS
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES,  - HELD CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO AN EMPLOYER
WHOSE FAILURE TO COMPLY RESULTED FROM INABILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE EMPLOYEE WAS COVERED BY THE ACT.  P. 581. 

OVERNIGHT MOTOR TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. V. MISSEL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 791, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 40 F.SUPP.  174, IN AN ACTION BROUGHT
AGAINST AN EMPLOYER BY ITS EMPLOYEE TO RECOVER ALLEGED UNPAID OVERTIME
COMPENSATION AND AN EQUAL AMOUNT IN ADDITION AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND
COUNSEL FEE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE APPLICATION OF THE OVERTIME SECTION OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938  FN1  TO AN EMPLOYEE WORKING IRREGULAR
HOURS FOR A FIXED WEEKLY WAGE. 

RESPONDENT, MISSEL, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PETITIONER, OVERNIGHT
MOTOR TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE MOTOR
TRANSPORTATION AS A COMMON CARRIER.  HE ACTED AS RATE CLERK AND
PERFORMED OTHER INCIDENTAL DUTIES, NONE OF WHICH WERE CONNECTED WITH
SAFETY OF OPERATION.  THE WORK FOR WHICH HE WAS EMPLOYED INVOLVED WIDE
FLUCTUATIONS IN THE TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE HIS DUTIES.  THE
EMPLOYMENT OF RESPONDENT BEGAN BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT, OCTOBER 24, 1938, AND TERMINATED OCTOBER 19,
1940.  UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1938, HIS SALARY WAS $25.50 PER WEEK AND
THEREAFTER $27.50.  TIME RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR ONLY A THIRD OF THE
CRITICAL PERIOD, AND THESE SHOW AN AVERAGE WORKWEEK OF 65 HOURS, WITH A
MAXIMUM OF 80 FOR EACH OF TWO WEEKS IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE ACT'S
OPERATION AND A MAXIMUM OF 75 HOURS IN EACH OF THREE WEEKS IN THE
SECOND YEAR.  NOTHING ABOVE THE WEEKLY WAGE WAS PAID, BECAUSE THESE
MAXIMUM WORKWEEKS, COMPUTED AT THE STATUTORY MINIMUM RATES WITH TIME
AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION, WOULD NOT REQUIRE AN
ADDITION TO THE WEEKLY WAGE. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT A STATUTORY ACTION TO RECOVER ALLEGED UNPAID
OVERTIME COMPENSATION IN SUCH SUM AS MIGHT BE FOUND DUE HIM, AN
ADDITIONAL EQUAL AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND COUNSEL FEE.  FN2
THE TRIAL COURT, REFUSING TO HEAR EVIDENCE ON THE PRECISE AMOUNT
CLAIMED, DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT AN
AGREEMENT FOR A FIXED WEEKLY WAGE FOR IRREGULAR HOURS SATISFIED THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT WAS OF THE
VIEW THAT PAY WOULD BE ADEQUATE WHICH AMOUNTED TO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM
FOR THE REGULAR HOURS AND TIME AND A HALF THE MINIMUM FOR OVERTIME.  40
F.SUPP.  174.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO
ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OPINION, AN
ORDER WHICH WE INTERPRET AS AUTHORIZING A HEARING IN THE TRIAL COURT AS
TO THE AMOUNTS DUE.  126 F.2D 98.  AS THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED WERE
IMPORTANT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

PETITIONER RENEWS HERE ITS CONTENTIONS THAT THE PRIVATE RIGHT TO
CONTRACT FOR A FIXED WEEKLY WAGE WITH EMPLOYEES IN COMMERCE IS
RESTRICTED ONLY BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE WAGES PAID SHOULD COMPLY
WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE SCHEDULE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, SEC. 6,
WITH OVERTIME PAY AT TIME AND A HALF THAT MINIMUM, THAT IN ANY EVENT
THE ACT DOES NOT PRECLUDE LUMP SUM SALARIES IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM,
AND THAT A CONTRARY INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE WOULD RENDER IT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE RESPONDENT AS A TRANSPORTATION WORKER WAS
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT,  FN3  AND UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED WAS ENTITLED TO WHATEVER BENEFITS THE OVERTIME
PROVISIONS CONFERRED. 

WHILE NOW CONCEDING THAT UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100,
SETTLES THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE AGAINST LABOR
CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO A MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING REQUIRED FOR THE
GENERAL WELL-BEING OF WORKERS, PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THERE IS NO POWER
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO REGULATE THE HOURS OR WAGES OF WORKERS WHOSE
PAY, IN EVERY INSTANCE, AT LEAST EQUALS THE MINIMUM AND WHOSE HOURS ARE
NOT INJURIOUS TO HEALTH.  FREEDOM OF CONTRACT BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE, IT IS URGED, IS DESTROYED BY SUCH AN INTERPRETATION.  FN4
BUT HOURS OR WAGES NOT PATENTLY BURDENSOME TO HEALTH MAY YET BE SUBJECT
TO REGULATION TO ACHIEVE OTHER PURPOSES.  WE ASSUME HERE THE STATUTORY
OBJECTIVES DISCUSSED LATER, I.E., THAT THE ACT IS AIMED AT HOURS AS
WELL AS WAGES.  THE COMMERCE POWER IS PLENARY,  FN5  MAY DEAL WITH
ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE,  FN6  AND, AS
SAID IN THE DARBY CASE, MAY EXTEND "TO THOSE ACTIVITIES INTRASTATE
WHICH SO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER IT AS TO MAKE REGULATION OF THEM APPROPRIATE MEANS TO THE
ATTAINMENT OF A LEGITIMATE END, THE EXERCISE OF THE GRANTED POWER OF
CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  P. 118.  LONG HOURS MAY
IMPEDE THE FREE INTERSTATE FLOW OF COMMODITIES BY CREATING FRICTION
BETWEEN PRODUCTION AREAS WITH DIFFERENT LENGTH WORK WEEKS, BY OFFERING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION, THROUGH UNDUE EXTENSION OF HOURS,
AND BY INDUCING LABOR DISCONTENT APT TO LEAD TO INTERFERENCE WITH
COMMERCE THROUGH INTERRUPTION OF WORK.  OVERTIME PAY PROBABLY WILL NOT
SOLVE ALL PROBLEMS OF OVERTIME WORK, BUT CONGRESS MAY PROPERLY USE IT
TO LESSEN THE IRRITATIONS.  SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS WERE DEEMED BY
CONGRESS TO BE "INJURIOUS TO THE COMMERCE AND TO THE STATES FROM AND TO
WHICH THE COMMERCE FLOWS."  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 115. 
TO PROTECT THAT COMMERCE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF PRODUCTION OF GOODS
UNDER SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS, IT MAY CHOOSE MEANS REASONABLY ADAPTED TO
THOSE ENDS, INCLUDING REGULATION OF INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES, P. 121, BY
MINIMUM WAGE AND MAXIMUM HOUR REQUIREMENTS, P. 123.  COMPARE SANTA CRUZ
CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 466.  IF OVERTIME PAY MAY HAVE THIS
EFFECT UPON COMMERCE, PRIVATE CONTRACTS MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE
PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION REGULATING OVERTIME CANNOT TAKE THE OVERTIME
TRANSACTIONS "FROM THE REACH OF DOMINANT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER."  NORMAN
V. B. & O.R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, 306-311.  IF, IN THE JUDGMENT OF
CONGRESS, TIME AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME HAS A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON
THESE CONDITIONS, IT LIES WITH CONGRESS' POWER TO USE IT TO PROMOTE THE
EMPLOYEES' WELL-BEING. 

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  THE PETITIONER ATTACKS THE BASIC CONCEPTIONS
UPON WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THAT THE
COMPENSATION PAID BY THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SEC. 7(A) OF THE ACT.  FN7
THAT COURT FELT THAT "ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF THE ACT WAS
TO INDUCE WORKSHARING AND RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT BY REDUCING HOURS OF
WORK."  WE AGREE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS NOT LIMITED TO A
SCHEME TO RAISE SUBSTANDARD WAGES FIRST BY A MINIMUM WAGE AND THEN BY
INCREASED PAY FOR OVERTIME WORK.  OF COURSE, THIS WAS ONE EFFECT OF THE
TIME AND A HALF PROVISION, BUT ANOTHER AND AN INTENDED EFFECT WAS TO
REQUIRE EXTRA PAY FOR OVERTIME WORK BY THOSE COVERED BY THE ACT EVEN
THOUGH THEIR HOURLY WAGES EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY MINIMUM.  THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 7(A) REQUIRING THIS EXTRA PAY FOR OVERTIME IS CLEAR
AND UNAMBIGUOUS.  IT CALLS FOR 150% OF THE REGULAR, NOT THE MINIMUM,
WAGE.  BY THIS REQUIREMENT, ALTHOUGH OVERTIME WAS NOT FLATLY
PROHIBITED, FINANCIAL PRESSURE WAS APPLIED TO SPREAD EMPLOYMENT TO
AVOID THE EXTRA WAGE AND WORKERS WERE ASSURED ADDITIONAL PAY TO
COMPENSATE THEM FOR THE BURDEN OF A WORKWEEK BEYOND THE HOURS FIXED IN
THE ACT.  IN A PERIOD OF WIDESPREAD UNEMPLOYMENT AND SMALL PROFITS, THE
ECONOMY INHERENT IN AVOIDING EXTRA PAY WAS EXPECTED TO HAVE AN
APPRECIABLE EFFECT IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE WORK.  REDUCTION OF
HOURS WAS A PART OF THE PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING.  "A FAIR DAY'S PAY FOR
A FAIR DAY'S WORK" WAS THE OBJECTIVE STATED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE
WHICH INITIATED THE LEGISLATION N8.  THAT MESSAGE REFERRED TO A
"GENERAL MAXIMUM WORKING WEEK," "LONGER HOURS ON THE PAYMENT OF TIME
AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME" AND THE EVIL OF "OVERWORK" AS WELL AS
"UNDERPAY."  THE MESSAGE OF NOVEMBER 15, 1937, CALLING FOR THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION REFERRED AGAIN TO PROTECTION FROM
EXCESSIVE HOURS.  FN9  SENATE REPORT NO. 884, JUST CITED, PAGE 4, THE
COMPANION HOUSE REPORT  FN10  AND THE CONFERENCE REPORT  FN11  ALL
SPOKE OF MAXIMUM HOURS AS A SEPARATELY DESIRABLE OBJECT.  INDEED, THE
FORM OF THE ACT ITSELF IN SETTING UP TWO SECTIONS OF STANDARDS, SEC. 6
FOR WAGES AND SEC. 7 FOR HOURS, EMPHASIZES THE DUALITY OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PURPOSE IS NO LESS
CERTAIN BECAUSE CONGRESS CHOSE TO USE A LESS DRASTIC FORM OF LIMITATION
THAN OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION OF OVERTIME.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ACT WAS
DESIGNED TO REQUIRE PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME AT TIME AND A HALF THE REGULAR
PAY, WHERE THAT PAY IS ABOVE THE MINIMUM, AS WELL AS WHERE THE REGULAR
PAY IS AT THE MINIMUM.  FN12 

WE NOW COME TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE MEANING OF THE WORDS "THE
REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  SINCE WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY
DETERMINED IN THIS OPINION, IN THE DISCUSSION OF PETITIONER'S OBJECTION
TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY,
THAT THE SCOPE OF THE COMMERCE POWER IS BROAD ENOUGH TO SUPPORT FEDERAL
REGULATION OF HOURS, WE ARE CONCERNED AT THIS POINT ONLY WITH THE
METHOD OF FINDING THE REGULAR RATE UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH RESPONDENT. 
CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE SOUGHT ITS OBJECTIVE OF CLEARING THE CHANNEL OF
COMMERCE OF THE OBSTACLES OF BURDENSOME LABOR DISPUTES BY MINIMUM WAGE
LEGISLATION ONLY.  WE HAVE SEEN THAT IT ADDED OVERTIME PAY.  THE WAGES
FOR MINIMUM PAY ARE EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF SO MUCH AN HOUR.  SEC.
6(A)(1) - "NOT LESS THAN 25 CENTS AN HOUR" WITH RAISES FOR SUCCEEDING
YEARS OR BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 8.  CF. OPP COTTON
MILLS V. ADMININSTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126.  NEITHER THE WAGE, THE HOUR NOR
THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF SECS. 6 AND 7 ON THEIR PASSAGE SPOKE
SPECIFICALLY OF ANY OTHER METHOD OF PAYING WAGES EXCEPT BY HOURLY
RATE.  FN13  BUT WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT PAY BY THE WEEK, TO BE REDUCED
BY SOME METHOD OF COMPUTATION TO HOURLY RATES, WAS ALSO COVERED BY THE
ACT.  FN14  IT IS LIKEWISE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM THE WORDS OF SEC. 7
THAT THE UNIT OF TIME UNDER THAT SECTION WITHIN WHICH TO DISTINGUISH
REGULAR FROM OVERTIME IS THE WEEK.  "NO EMPLOYER SHALL  ...  EMPLOY ANY
OF HIS EMPLOYEES  ...  (1) FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS
...  "  SEC. 7(A)(1).  FN15 

NO PROBLEM IS PRESENTED IN ASSIMILATING THE COMPUTATION OF OVERTIME
FOR EMPLOYEES UNDER CONTRACT FOR A FIXED WEEKLY WAGE FOR REGULAR
CONTRACT HOURS WHICH ARE THE ACTUAL HOURS WORKED,  FN16  TO SIMILAR
COMPUTATIONS FOR EMPLOYEES ON HOURLY RATES.  WHERE THE EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT IS FOR A WEEKLY WAGE WITH VARIABLE OR FLUCTUATING HOURS THE
SAME METHOD OF COMPUTATION PRODUCES THE REGULAR RATE FOR EACH WEEK.  AS
THAT RATE IS ON AN HOURLY BASIS, IT IS REGULAR IN THE STATUTORY SENSE,
INASMUCH AS THE RATE PER HOUR DOES NOT VARY FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK, THOUGH
WEEK BY WEEK THE REGULAR RATE VARIES WITH THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED. 
IT IS TRUE THAT THE LONGER THE HOURS, THE LESS THE RATE AND THE PAY PER
HOUR.  THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, AGAINST THIS METHOD OF
DETERMINING THE REGULAR RATE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE WEEK IN QUESTION. 
APART FROM THE ACT, IF THERE IS A FIXED WEEKLY WAGE REGARDLESS OF THE
LENGTH OF THE WORKWEEK, THE LONGER THE HOURS THE LESS ARE THE EARNINGS
PER HOUR.  THIS METHOD OF COMPUTATION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY EACH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WHICH HAS CONSIDERED SUCH PROBLEMS.  SEE WARREN
BRADSHAW DRILLING CO. V. HALL, 124 F.2D 42, 44; BUMPUS V. CONTINENTAL
BAKING CO., 124 F.2D 549, 552, CF. CARLETON SCREW PRODUCTS CO. V.
FLEMING, 126 F.2D 537, 541.  IT IS THIS QUOTIENT WHICH IS THE "REGULAR
RATE AT WHICH AN EMPLOYEE IS EMPLOYED" UNDER CONTRACTS OF THE TYPES
DESCRIBED AND APPLIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH FOR FIXED WEEKLY COMPENSATION
FOR HOURS, CERTAIN OR VARIABLE.  FN17 

PETITIONER INVOKES THE PRESUMPTION THAT CONTRACTING PARTIES
CONTEMPLATE COMPLIANCE WITH LAW AND CONTENDS THAT ACCORDINGLY THERE IS
NO WARRANT FOR CONSTRUING THE CONTRACT AS PAYING THE EMPLOYEE ONLY HIS
BASE PAY OR "REGULAR RATE," REGARDLESS OF HOURS WORKED.  IT IS TRUE
THAT THE WAGE PAID WAS SUFFICIENTLY LARGE TO COVER BOTH BASE PAY AND
FIFTY PER CENT ADDITIONAL FOR THE HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED OVER THE
STATUTORY MAXIMUM WITHOUT VIOLATING SECTION SIX.  BUT THERE WAS NO
CONTRACTUAL LIMIT UPON THE HOURS WHICH PETITIONER COULD HAVE REQUIRED
RESPONDENT TO WORK FOR THE AGREED WAGE, HAD HE SEEN FIT TO DO SO, AND
NO PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL PAY IN THE EVENT THE HOURS WORKED REQUIRED
MINIMUM COMPENSATION GREATER THAN THE FIXED WAGE.  IMPLICATION CANNOT
MEND A CONTRACT SO DEFICIENT IN COMPLYING WITH THE LAW.  THIS CONTRACT
DIFFERS FROM THE ONE IN WALLING V. BELO CORP., POST, P. 624, WHERE THE
CONTRACT SPECIFIED AN HOURLY RATE AND NOT LESS THAN TIME AND A HALF FOR
OVERTIME, WITH A GUARANTY OF A FIXED WEEKLY SUM, AND REQUIRED THE
EMPLOYER TO PAY MORE THAN THE WEEKLY GUARANTY WHERE THE HOURS WORKED AT
THE CONTRACT RATE EXCEEDED THAT SUM. 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  FN18  IT WAS HELD THAT THE
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION, SEC. 16(B) OF THE ACT, 52 STAT. 1069, WAS
MANDATORY ON THE COURTS, REGARDLESS OF THE GOOD FAITH OF THE EMPLOYER
OR THE REASONABLENESS OF HIS ATTITUDE.  PETITIONER ATTACKS THIS
CONCLUSION AS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS BECAUSE, IF THE DAMAGE PROVISION
IS MANDATORY, THE EMPLOYER IS "WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO TEST THE ISSUES
BEFORE THE COURTS," CITING EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, WADLEY
SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. GEORGIA, 235 U.S. 651, AND OTHER SIMILAR CASES. 
PETITIONER POINTS OUT THAT, IF THERE WAS A FAILURE TO PAY THE STATUTORY
OVERTIME, IT RESULTED FROM AN INABILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
EMPLOYEE WAS COVERED BY THE ACT.    SECTION 13(B)(1)  FN19  EXEMPTS
FROM SEC. 7 EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS
POWER TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE.  THIS EXEMPTION WAS
DERIVED FROM THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 543, WHICH
AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE "MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF
EMPLOYEES."  A DEFINITIVE ORDER LEAVING EMPLOYEES WITH THE DUTIES OF
RESPONDENT SUBJECT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS NOT PASSED BY
THE COMMISSION UNTIL MARCH 4, 1941,  FN20  AFTER RESPONDENT'S
EMPLOYMENT ENDED.  THIS CONCLUSION, HOWEVER, WAS FORESHADOWED BY THE
RULING OF THE COMMISSION, DECEMBER 29, 1937  FN21  THAT IT WOULD LIMIT
REGULATIONS CONCERNING MAXIMUM HOURS TO EMPLOYEES WHOSE FUNCTIONS
AFFECTED THE SAFETY OF OPERATIONS.  OTHER ORDERS, BULLETINS AND
OPINIONS POINTING TO THE FINAL CONCLUSION INTERVENED.  FN22  THESE
VARIOUS DETERMINATIONS NOW MAKE IT CLEAR THAT RESPONDENT WAS SUBJECT AT
ALL TIMES SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO
ITS PROVISIONS.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION NEVER HAD THE POWER
TO REGULATE HIS HOURS. 

PERPLEXING AS PETITIONER'S PROBLEM MAY HAVE BEEN, THE DIFFICULTY DOES
NOT WARRANT SHIFTING THE BURDEN TO THE EMPLOYEE.  THE WAGES WERE
SPECIFIED FOR HIM BY THE STATUTE,  FN23  AND HE WAS NO MORE AT FAULT
THAN THE EMPLOYER.  THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE
MINIMUM WAGES UNDER SECS. 6(A) AND 7(A) ARE COMPENSATION, NOT A PENALTY
OR PUNISHMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FN24 CF. HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146
U.S. 657, 667, 668, 674, 681; COX V. LYKES BROTHERS, 237 N.Y. 376, 143
N.E. 226.  THE RETENTION OF A WORKMAN'S PAY MAY WELL RESULT IN DAMAGES
TOO OBSCURE AND DIFFICULT OF PROOF FOR ESTIMATE OTHER THAN BY
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. NICHOLS, 264 U.S.
348, 351; JAMES-DICKINSON CO. V. HARRY, 273 U.S. 119.  NOR CAN IT BE
SAID THAT THE EXACTION IS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.  IT IS NOT A THREAT
OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OR PROHIBITIVE FINES, SUCH AS HAVE BEEN HELD
BEYOND LEGISLATIVE POWER BY THE AUTHORITIES CITED BY PETITIONER.  EVEN
DOUBLE DAMAGES TREATED AS PENALTIES HAVE BEEN UPHELD AS WITHIN
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  FN25  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  7.  (A)  NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
IN THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

(1)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. 

(2)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-TWO HOURS DURING THE SECOND YEAR
FROM SUCH DATE, OR 

(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED
AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  52 STAT. 1063; 29 U.S.C. SEC. 207. 

FN2  "SEC.  16.  ... 

"(B)  ANY EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR
AFFECTED IN THE AMOUNT OF THEIR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OR THEIR UNPAID
OVERTIME COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IN AN ADDITIONAL EQUAL
AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ACTION TO RECOVER SUCH LIABILITY MAY BE
MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BY ANY ONE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AND OTHER
EMPLOYEES SIMILIARLY SITUATED, OR SUCH EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES MAY
DESIGNATE AN AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE TO MAINTAIN SUCH ACTION FOR AND IN
BEHALF OF ALL EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE COURT IN SUCH ACTION
SHALL, IN ADDITION TO ANY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR
PLAINTIFFS, ALLOW A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE TO BE PAID BY THE
DEFENDANT, AND COSTS OF THE ACTION."  52 STAT. 1069, 29 U.S.C. SEC.
216. 

FN3  "SEC.  3.  AS USED IN THIS ACT - 

     .        .         .         .         . 

(B)  'COMMERCE' MEANS TRADE, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION,
OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR FROM ANY STATE TO ANY
PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF."  52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 203. 

FN4  "IT IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THOUGH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
IS CLEARLY SETTLED AS TO THE QUESTION OF CORRECTING 'SUB-STANDARD LABOR
CONDITIONS,' A CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT WHICH HAS NO RELATIONSHIP
WHATSOEVER TO 'SUB-STANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS' WOULD NONETHELESS BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FOR THE POTENTIALITY OF SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS TO
DESTROY FREEDOM OF CONTRACT BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE." 

FN5  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 37. 

FN6  SANTA CRUZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 464. 

FN7  NOTE 1 SUPRA. 

FN8  MAY 24, 1937, 81 CONG. REC. 4983, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., SEN.
REP. NO. 884 ON S. 2475, JULY 6, 1937, P. 2. 

FN9  82 CONG. REC. 11, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN10  HOUSE REP. 1452, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 14, 15. 

FN11  83 CONG. REC. 9246, 9254. 

FN12  CF. BUMPUS V. CONTINENTAL BAKING CO., 124 F.2D 549, 551;
CARLETON SCREW PRODUCTS CO. V. FLEMING, 126 F.2D 537, 539; TIDEWATER
OPTICAL CO. V. WITTKAMP, 179 VA. 545, 551, 19 S.E.2D 897, 899; MCMILLAN
V. WILSON & CO., 212 MINN. 142, 2 N.W.2D 838, 839; SEE UNITED STATES V.
DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 125. 

FN13  SEC. 3(M) DEFINED WAGE TO INCLUDE BOARD, LODGING OR OTHER
FACILITY CUSTOMARILY FURNISHED EMPLOYEES.  THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE
26, 1940, FOR WORK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1941, SEC.
3(F) DEALS WITH PIECE WORK IN PUERTO RICO OR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.  54
STAT. 611, 616. 

FN14  ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION WOULD RENDER ALMOST USELESS THE
EXEMPTIONS FROM THE ACT OF EMPLOYEES IN "EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE,
PROFESSIONAL, OR LOCAL RETAILING CAPACITY, OR IN THE CAPACITY OF
OUTSIDE SALESMAN."  SEC. 13(A)(1).  SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE RARELY PAID BY
THE HOUR. 

FN15  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS
INCONCLUSIVE AS TO THE INTENDED MEANING OF THE WORDS "THE REGULAR RATE
AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS DO NOT DISCUSS THEM. 
THE BILL WHICH CAME OUT OF THE CONFERENCE AND WAS ADOPTED CHANGED
"REGULAR HOURLY RATE" OF PREVIOUS BILLS (S. 2475, INTRODUCED MAY 24,
1937; H.R. 7200, INTRODUCED MAY 24, 1937; AND S. 2475 IN THE SENATE,
APRIL 20, CALENDAR DAY MAY 25, 1938) TO "REGULAR RATE."  CONFERENCE
REPORT, 83 CONG. REC. 9247, 75TH CONG., 3RD SESS.  "HOURLY" MAY HAVE
BEEN OMITTED AS NOT DESCRIPTIVE OF PIECEWORK OR SALARY PAYMENTS. 

FN16  WAGE DIVIDED BY HOURS EQUALS REGULAR RATE.  TIME AND A HALF
REGULAR RATE FOR HOURS EMPLOYED BEYOND STATUTORY MAXIMUM EQUALS
COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME HOURS. 

FN17  THIS HAS BEEN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT. 
INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 4 ISSUED OCTOBER 21, 1938, REVISED
NOVEMBER, 1940.  WHILE THE INTERPRETATIVE BULLETINS ARE NOT ISSUED AS
REGULATIONS UNDER STATUTORY AUTHORITY, THEY DO CARRY PERSUASIVENESS AS
AN EXPRESSION OF THE VIEW OF THOSE EXPERIENCED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ACT AND ACTING WITH THE ADVICE OF A STAFF SPECIALIZING IN ITS
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.  CF. UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING
ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534, 549; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 118,
N. 2; GRAVES V. ARMSTRONG CREAMERY CO., 154 KAN. 365, 370, 118 P.2D
613, 616.  EVEN NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTION MAY BE SIGNIFICANT.  TRADE COMM'N
V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349, 351, 352. 

REGULATIONS ON RECORDS ISSUED PURSUANT TO SEC. 11(A) HAVE SINCE
SEPTEMBER 15, 1941, REFERRED TO INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN 4 FOR THE
METHOD OF COMPUTATION.  6 FED. REG. 4695, N. 9. 

FN18  126 F.2D 98, 111, AND CASES CITED WHICH SO CONSTRUED THE ACT. 

FN19  "SEC.  13.  ...  (B)  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 SHALL NOT
APPLY WITH RESPECT TO (1) ANY EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS
AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204
OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935; ...  " 52 STAT. 1068; 29 U.S.C. SEC.
213(B). 

FN20  EX PARTE MC-2, 28 M.C.C. 125. 

FN21  EX PARTE MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665, 667. 

FN22  MARCH 25, 1939, INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN, WAGE & HOUR DIVISION
NO. 9; MAY 9, 1939, EX PARTE MC-28, 13 M.C.C. 481, 488; JUNE 15, 1939,
EX PARTE MC-C-139, 16 M.C.C. 497; MAY 27, 1940, UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534. 

FN23  CF. LABOR BOARD V. ELECTRIC VACUUM CLEANER CO., 315 U.S. 685,
697-698. 

FN24  THE GOVERNMENT HAS COLLECTED THE CASES UNDER THE ACT UPON THE
POINT:  "ONE LINE OF CASES HOLDS THAT THE 'DOUBLE DAMAGES' DO NOT
CONSTITUTE A PENALTY INCURRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 24(9) AND 256 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28
U.S.C. SECS. 41(9) AND 371).  ROBERTSON V. ARGUS HOSIERY MILLS, 121
F.2D 285, 286(C.C.A.6TH), CERTIORARI DENIED, 314 U.S. 681; STEWART V.
HICKMAN, 36 F.SUPP.  861(W.D. MO.); KULIGOWSKI V. HART, 43 F.SUPP. 
207, 4 WAGE HOUR REPT. 203(N.D. OHIO); WINGATE V. GENERAL AUTO PARTS
CO., 40 F.SUPP.  364(W.D. MO.); BARRON V. F.H.E. OIL CO., 4 WAGE HOUR
REPT. 551(W.D. TEX.); HART V. GREGORY, 218 N.C. 184, 10 S.E.2D 644;
FORSYTH V. CENTRAL FOUNDRY CO., 240 ALA. 277, 198 SO. 706; GRAVES V.
ARMSTRONG CREAMERY CO., 154 KAN. 365, 118 P.2D 613; EMERSON V. MARY
LINCOLN CANDIES, 173 MISC. 531, 17 N.Y.S.2D 851; AFFIRMED 261 APP. DIV.
879, 26 N.Y.S.2D 489; AFFIRMED, 287 N.Y. 33, 38 N.E.2D 234; ABROE V.
LINDSAY BROS. CO., 300 N.W. 456(S. CT. MINN.); TAPP V. PRICE-BASS CO.,
147 S.W.2D 107(S. CT. TENN.); DUKE V. HELENA-GLENDALE FERRY CO., 159
S.W.2D 74, 5 WAGE HOUR REPT. 206(S. CT. ARK.); DENNIS V. EQUITABLE
EQUIPMENT CO., 7 SO.2D 397(CT. APP. LA.); ADAIR V. TRACO DIVISION, 192
GA. 59, 14 S.E.2D 466.  ...  THE OTHER LINE OF CASES HOLDING SEC. 16(B)
TO BE REMEDIAL RATHER THAN PENAL INVOLVES DETERMINATION OF THE
APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  COLLINS V. HANCOCK, 4 WAGE HOUR
REPT. 522(D. LA. CADDO PARISH); TUCKER V. HITCHCOCK, NO. 370, S.D.
FLA., OCT. 2, 1941; KLOTZ V. IPPOLITO, 40 F.SUPP.  422(S.D. TEXAS)." 

FN25  CF. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. HUMES, 115 U.S. 512;
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RY. CO. V. BECKWITH, 129 U.S. 26; KANSAS CITY
SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. ANDERSON, 233 U.S. 325. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS IN THE RESULT.  MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
DISSENTS. 
..END :












JONES V. OPELIKA, 316 U.S. 584 


ARGUED (NO. 280) FEBRUARY 5, 1942 AND (NOS. 314 AND 966) APRIL 30,
1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1942.  - 7 SO.2D 503, AFFIRMED.  - 202 ARK.
614, 151 S.W.2D 1000, AFFIRMED.  - 118 P.2D 97, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CITY ORDINANCE WHICH REQUIRES THAT LICENSES BE PROCURED AND THAT
TAXES REASONABLE IN AMOUNT BE PAID, FOR THE CONDUCT OF VARIOUS
BUSINESSES WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY, INCLUDING THE BUSINESS OF SELLING
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS ON THE STREETS OR FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE, AND WHICH IS
GENERAL AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY IN ITS INCIDENCES, DOES NOT INFRINGE THE
LIBERTIES OF FREE SPEECH, FREE PRESS OR FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION WHEN
APPLIED TO A MEMBER OF A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION WHO IS ENGAGED IN
SELLING THE PRINTED PROPAGANDA OF HIS SECT.  PP. 593, 598. 

2.  ONE WHO SELLS RELIGIOUS LITERATURE ON CITY STREETS, WITHOUT
HAVING COMPLIED WITH PROVISIONS OF AN ORDINANCE VALIDLY REQUIRING THAT
HE FIRST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN A LICENSE AND PAY A LICENSE TAX, CAN NOT
DEFEND UPON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDINANCE IS RENDERED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AS TO HIM BY A PROVISION PURPORTING TO EMPOWER THE LICENSING AUTHORITY
TO REVOKE LICENSES WITHOUT NOTICE.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 304 U.S. 444,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 599. 

JONES V. OPELIKA. 

NO. 280.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

BOWDEN ET AL. V. FORT SMITH. 

NO. 314.  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

JOBIN V. ARIZONA. 

NO. 966.  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA. 

THE FIRST TWO OF THESE CASES WERE BROUGHT HERE BY WRITS OF CERTIORARI,
314 U.S. 593, 315 U.S. 793.  THE THIRD CAME UP BY APPEAL.  IN EACH CASE
THE REVIEW WAS OF A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A CONVICTION AND FINE FOR
VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINANCE DECLARING IT UNLAWFUL TO SELL BOOKS OR
PAMPHLETS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS WITHOUT HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE
AND PAID A LICENSE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN NOS. 280 AND 314 AND BY APPEAL IN NO. 966 WE
HAVE BEFORE US THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF VARIOUS CITY
ORDINANCES IMPOSING THE LICENSE TAXES UPON THE SALE OF PRINTED MATTER
FOR NONPAYMENT OF WHICH THE APPELLANT, JOBIN, AND THE PETITIONERS,
JONES, BOWDEN AND SANDERS, ALL MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WERE CONVICTED. 

                              NO. 280 

THE CITY OF OPELIKA, ALABAMA, FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF LEE COUNTY, CHARGING PETITIONER JONES WITH VIOLATION OF ITS
LICENSING ORDINANCE BY SELLING BOOKS WITHOUT A LICENSE, BY OPERATING AS
A BOOK AGENT WITHOUT A LICENSE, AND BY OPERATING AS A TRANSIENT AGENT,
DEALER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF BOOKS WITHOUT A LICENSE.  FN1  THE LICENSE FEE
FOR BOOK AGENTS (BIBLES EXCEPTED) WAS $10 PER ANNUM, THAT FOR TRANSIENT
AGENTS, DEALERS OR DISTRIBUTORS OF BOOKS $5.  FN2  UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE
ORDINANCE, ALL LICENSES WERE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION IN THE DISCRETION OF
THE CITY COMMISSION, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE.  FN3  THERE IS A CLAUSE
PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE IN CASE OF INVALIDITY OF ANY SECTION, CONDITION
OR PROVISION.  FN4  PETITIONER DEMURRED, ALLEGING THAT THE ORDINANCE,
BECAUSE OF UNLIMITED DISCRETION IN REVOCATION AND REQUIREMENT OF A
LICENSE, WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENCROACHMENT UPON FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS.  DURING THE TRIAL, WITHOUT A JURY, THESE CONTENTIONS, WITH THE
ADDED CLAIM OF INTERFERENCE WITH FREEDOM OF RELIGION, WERE RENEWED AT
THE END OF THE CITY'S CASE, AND AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE.  THE
COURT OVERRULED THESE MOTIONS, AND FOUND PETITIONER GUILTY ON EVIDENCE
THAT, WITHOUT A LICENSE, HE HAD BEEN DISPLAYING PAMPHLETS IN HIS
UPRAISED HAND AND WALKING ON A CITY STREET SELLING THEM TWO FOR FIVE
CENTS.  FN5  THE COURT EXCLUDED, AS IRRELEVANT, TESTIMONY DESIGNED TO
SHOW THAT THE PETITIONER WAS AN ORDAINED MINISTER, AND THAT HIS
ACTIVITIES WERE IN FURTHERANCE OF HIS BELIEFS AND THE TEACHINGS OF
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  ONCE AGAIN, BY AN UNSUCCESSFUL MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL, THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WERE RAISED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
ALABAMA REVERSED THE CONVICTION ON APPEAL, BECAUSE IT THOUGHT THE
UNLIMITED DISCRETION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO REVOKE THE LICENSES
INVALIDATED THE ORDINANCE.  WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THIS POINT, THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA DECIDED THAT NONDISCRIMINATORY LICENSING OF
THE SALE OF BOOKS OR TRACTS WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, REVERSED THE COURT OF
APPEALS, AND STAYED EXECUTION PENDING CERTIORARI.  241 ALA. 279, 3
SO.2D 76.  THIS COURT, HAVING GRANTED CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 593,
DISMISSED THE WRIT FOR LACK OF A FINAL JUDGMENT.  315 U.S. 782.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS THEREUPON ENTERED A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE
CONVICTION, WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT AND IS
FINAL.  242 ALA. 549, 7 SO.2D 503.  WE THEREFORE GRANT THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE WRIT, AND PROCEED WITH THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE. 

                               NO. 314 

PETITIONERS BOWDEN AND SANDERS WERE ARRESTED BY POLICE OFFICERS OF
FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS, BROUGHT BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COURT ON CHARGES OF
VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCE NO. 1172, AND CONVICTED.  THEY APPEALED TO
THE SEBASTIAN CIRCUIT COURT, AND THERE MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND
THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM OF
RELIGION AND OF THE PRESS, CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE
CIRCUIT JUDGE HEARD THE CASE DE NOVO WITHOUT A JURY, ON STIPULATED
FACTS.  THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED A LICENSE "FOR EACH PERSON PEDDLING DRY
GOODS, NOTIONS, WEARING APPAREL, HOUSEHOLD GOODS OR OTHER ARTICLES NOT
HEREIN OR OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED $25 PER MONTH, $10 PER WEEK,
$2.50 PER DAY."  FN6  THE PETITIONERS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR BELIEFS
CONCERNING THEIR DUTY TO PREACH THE GOSPEL, ADMITTED GOING FROM HOUSE
TO HOUSE WITHOUT A LICENSE, PLAYING PHONOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPTIONS OF
BIBLE LECTURES, AND DISTRIBUTING BOOKS SETTING FORTH THEIR VIEWS TO THE
RESIDENTS IN RETURN FOR A CONTRIBUTION OF TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER BOOK. 
WHEN PERSONS DESIRING BOOKS WERE UNABLE TO CONTRIBUTE, THE BOOKS WERE
IN SOME INSTANCES GIVEN AWAY FREE.  THE CIRCUIT JUDGE CONCLUDED AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT THE BOOKS WERE "OTHER ARTICLES" AND THAT PETITIONERS
WERE GUILTY OF PEDDLING WITHOUT A LICENSE.  A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS
DENIED.  ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HELD THE ORDINANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS PREVIOUS DECISION IN COOK V.
HARRISON, 180 ARK. 546, 21 S.W.2D 966, AND AFFIRMED THE CONVICTIONS. 
202 ARK. 614, 151 S.W.2D 1000.  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 314 U.S.
651, BUT LATER, BECAUSE OF THE SIMILARITY OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED TO
THOSE IN THE JOBIN CASE, NO. 966, VACATED THE DENIAL OF CERTIORARI AND
ISSUED A WRIT.  315 U.S. 793. 

                               NO. 966 

THE CITY OF CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA, BY ORDINANCE MADE IT A MISDEMEANOR
FOR ANY PERSON TO CARRY ON ANY OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS SPECIFIED WITHOUT
FIRST PROCURING A LICENSE.  FN7  TRANSIENT MERCHANTS, PEDDLERS AND
STREET VENDORS WERE LISTED AS SUBJECT TO A QUARTERLY LICENSE FEE OF
$25.00, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.  FN8  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PINAL
COUNTY, JOBIN WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED BY A JURY ON A COMPLAINT CHARGING
THAT, NOT HAVING "A PERMANENT PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE CITY," HE THERE
CARRIED ON THE "BUSINESS OF PEDDLING, VENDING, SELLING, OFFERING FOR
SALE AND SOLICITING THE SALE OF GOODS, WARES AND MERCHANDISE, TO WIT:
PAMPHLETS, BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS WITHOUT FIRST HAVING PROCURED A
LICENSE," CONTRARY TO THE ORDINANCE.  THE EVIDENCE FOR THE STATE SHOWED
THAT, WITHOUT A LICENSE, THE APPELLANT CALLED AT TWO HOMES AND A
LAUNDRY, AND OFFERED FOR SALE AND SOLD BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS OF A
RELIGIOUS NATURE.  AT ONE HOME, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS WIFE, HE WAS REFUSED
ADMISSION, BUT WAS ALLOWED BY THE GIRL WHO CAME TO THE DOOR TO PLAY A
PORTABLE PHONOGRAPH ON THE PORCH.  THE GIRL PURCHASED ONE OF HIS STOCK
OF BOOKS, "RELIGION," FOR A QUARTER, AND RECEIVED A PAMPHLET FREE. 
DURING THE CONVERSATION, HE STATED THAT HE WAS AN ORDAINED MINISTER
PREACHING THE GOSPEL, AND QUOTED PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE.  AT THE
SECOND HOME, THE LADY OF THE HOUSE ALLOWED HIM AND HIS WIFE TO ENTER
AND PLAY THE PHONOGRAPH, BUT SHE REFUSED TO BUY EITHER BOOKS OR
PAMPHLETS.  WHEN DEPARTING THE APPELLANT LEFT SOME LITERATURE ON THE
TABLE, ALTHOUGH INFORMED BY THE LADY THAT IT WOULD NOT BE READ AND HAD
BETTER BE GIVEN TO SOMEONE ELSE.  AT THE LAUNDRY, THE APPELLANT
INTRODUCED HIMSELF AS ONE OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND DISCUSSED WITH
THE PROPRIETOR THEIR WORK AND RELIGION GENERALLY.  THE PROPRIETOR
BOUGHT THE BOOK "RELIGION" FOR A QUARTER, BUT DECLINED TO BUY OTHERS AT
THE SAME PRICE.  HE WAS GIVEN A PAMPHLET FREE.  WHEN ARRESTED, THE
APPELLANT STATED THAT HE WAS "SELLING RELIGIOUS BOOKS AND PREACHING THE
GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM," AND THAT BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS HE
WOULD NOT TAKE OUT A LICENSE.  A MOTION AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE
FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDINANCE
VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WAS DENIED.  THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED
TO ACQUIT UNLESS IT FOUND THE DEFENDANT WAS SELLING BOOKS OR
PAMPHLETS.  IT RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY.  ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME
COURT OF ARIZONA HELD THAT THE ORDINANCE, AN "ORDINARY OCCUPATIONAL
LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE," DID NOT DENY FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND OF THE
PRESS, AND AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  118 P.2D 97.  AN APPEAL TO THIS
COURT WAS ALLOWED UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344. 

THE OPELIKA ORDINANCE REQUIRED BOOK AGENTS TO PAY $10.00 PER ANNUM,
TRANSIENT DISTRIBUTORS OF BOOKS (ANNUAL ONLY) $5.00.  THE LICENSE FEE
IN CASA GRANDE WAS $25 PER QUARTER, THAT IN FORT SMITH RANGED FROM
$2.50 PER DAY TO $25 PER MONTH.  ALL THE FEES WERE SMALL, YET
SUBSTANTIAL.  BUT THE APPELLANT AND THE PETITIONERS, SO FAR AS THE
RECORDS DISCLOSE, ADVANCED NO CLAIM AND PRESENTED NO PROOF IN THE
COURTS BELOW THAT THESE FEES WERE INVALID BECAUSE SO HIGH AS TO MAKE
THE COST OF COMPLIANCE A DETERRENT TO THE FURTHER DISTRIBUTION OF THEIR
LITERATURE IN THOSE CITIES.  ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS IN NO. 314 CONTENDED
THAT THEIR ENTERPRISE WAS OPERATED AT A LOSS, THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION
THAT THEY COULD NOT OBTAIN FROM THE SAME SOURCES WHICH NOW SUPPLY THE
FUNDS TO MEET WHATEVER DEFICIT THERE MAY BE, SUMS SUFFICIENT TO DEFRAY
LICENSE FEES ALSO.  THE AMOUNT OF THE FEES WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE
OPINIONS BELOW, EXCEPT FOR A BARE STATEMENT BY THE ALABAMA COURT THAT
THE EXACTION WAS "REASONABLE," AND NEITHER THE BRIEFS NOR THE
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IN THIS COURT HAVE DIRECTED THEIR ATTACK
SPECIFICALLY TO THAT ISSUE.  CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NOT BEFORE US THE
QUESTION OF THE POWER TO LAY FEES, OBJECTIONABLE IN THEIR EFFECT
BECAUSE OF THEIR SIZE, UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS OF
FREE SPEECH, PRESS OR THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  IF THE SIZE OF THE
FEES WERE TO BE CONSIDERED, TO REACH A CONCLUSION ONE WOULD DESIRE TO
KNOW THE ESTIMATED VOLUME, THE MARGIN OF PROFIT, THE SOLICITOR'S
COMMISSION, THE EXPENSE OF POLICING AND OTHER PERTINENT FACTS OF INCOME
AND EXPENSE.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE VENTURE NO OPINION CONCERNING
THE VALIDITY OF LICENSE TAXES IF IT WERE PROVED, OR AT LEAST DISTINCTLY
CLAIMED, THAT THE BURDEN OF THE TAX WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CLOG UPON
ACTIVITIES OF THE SORT HERE INVOLVED.  FN9  THE SOLE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION CONSIDERED IS WHETHER A NONDISCRIMINATORY LICENSE FEE,
PRESUMABLY APPROPRIATE IN AMOUNT, MAY BE IMPOSED UPON THESE
ACTIVITIES. 

WE TURN TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM SQUARELY PRESENTED BY THESE
ORDINANCES.  THERE ARE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF GREATER VALUE TO MANKIND
THAN THE GUARANTEES OF THE CONSTITUTION, PERSONAL LIBERTIES WHICH ARE
BEYOND THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO IMPAIR.  THESE PRINCIPLES AND
LIBERTIES BELONG TO THE MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL REALM, WHERE THE JUDGMENTS
AND DECREES OF MUNDANE COURTS ARE INEFFECTIVE TO DIRECT THE COURSE OF
MAN.  THE RIGHTS OF WHICH OUR CONSTITUTION SPEAKS HAVE A MORE EARTHY
QUALITY.  THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTES  FN10  TO BE EXERCISED INDEPENDENTLY
OF OTHER CHERISHED PRIVILEGES, PROTECTED BY THE SAME ORGANIC
INSTRUMENT.  CONFLICTS IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ARISE, AND THE
CONFLICTING FORCES SEEK ADJUSTMENTS IN THE COURTS, AS DO THESE PARTIES,
CLAIMING ON THE ONE SIDE THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH AND THE PRESS,
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, FN11  AND ON THE OTHER THE
RIGHT TO EMPLOY THE SOVEREIGN POWER EXPLICITLY RESERVED TO THE STATE BY
THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO ENSURE ORDERLY LIVING, WITHOUT WHICH
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF CIVIL LIBERTIES WOULD BE A MOCKERY.  FN12
COURTS, NO MORE THAN CONSTITUTIONS, CAN INTRUDE INTO THE CONSCIENCES OF
MEN OR COMPEL THEM TO BELIEVE CONTRARY TO THEIR FAITH OR THINK CONTRARY
TO THEIR CONVICTIONS; BUT COURTS ARE COMPETENT TO ADJUDGE THE ACTS MEN
DO UNDER COLOR OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, SUCH AS THAT OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS OR THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, AND TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE CLAIMED RIGHT IS LIMITED BY OTHER RECOGNIZED
POWERS, EQUALLY PRECIOUS TO MANKIND.  FN13  SO THE MIND AND SPIRIT OF
MAN REMAIN FOREVER FREE, WHILE HIS ACTIONS REST SUBJECT TO NECESSARY
ACCOMMODATION TO THE COMPETING NEEDS OF HIS FELLOWS. 

IF ALL EXPRESSION OF RELIGION OR OPINION, HOWEVER, WERE SUBJECT TO
THE DISCRETION OF AUTHORITY, OUR UNFETTERED DYNAMIC THOUGHTS OR MORAL
IMPULSES MIGHT BE MADE ONLY COLORLESS AND STERILE IDEAS.  TO GIVE THEM
LIFE AND FORCE, THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THEIR USE.  NO DIFFERENCE OF
VIEW AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FREEDOMS OF PRESS OR RELIGION EXISTS. 
THEY ARE "FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES."  SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161.  TO PROSCRIBE THE DISSEMINATION OF DOCTRINES
OR ARGUMENTS WHICH DO NOT TRANSGRESS MILITARY OR MORAL LIMITS IS TO
DESTROY THE PRINCIPAL BASES OF DEMOCRACY,  - KNOWLEDGE AND DISCUSSION. 
ONE MAN, WITH VIEWS CONTRARY TO THE REST OF HIS COMPATRIOTS, IS
ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGE OF EXPRESSING HIS IDEAS BY SPEECH OR
BROADSIDE TO ANYONE WILLING TO LISTEN OR TO READ.  TOO MANY SETTLED
BELIEFS HAVE IN TIME BEEN REJECTED TO JUSTIFY THIS GENERATION IN
REFUSING A HEARING TO ITS OWN DISSENTIENTS.  BUT THAT HEARING MAY BE
LIMITED BY ACTION OF THE PROPER LEGISLATIVE BODY TO TIMES, PLACES AND
METHODS FOR THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH, IN VIEW OF
EXISTING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, ARE NOT AT ODDS WITH THE
PRESERVATION OF PEACE AND GOOD ORDER.    THIS MEANS THAT THE PROPONENTS
OF IDEAS CANNOT DETERMINE ENTIRELY FOR THEMSELVES THE TIME AND PLACE
AND MANNER FOR THE DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE OR FOR THEIR EVANGELISM, ANY
MORE THAN THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES MAY HAMPER OR SUPPRESS THE PUBLIC
DISSEMINATION OF FACTS AND PRINCIPLES BY THE PEOPLE.  FN14  THE
ORDINARY REQUIREMENTS OF CIVILIZED LIFE COMPEL THIS ADJUSTMENT OF
INTERESTS.  THE TASK OF RECONCILEMENT IS MADE HARDER BY THE TENDENCY TO
ACCEPT AS DOMINANT ANY CONTENTION SUPPORTED BY A CLAIM OF INTERFERENCE
WITH THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION OR THE SPREAD OF IDEAS.  BELIEVING, AS
THIS NATION HAS FROM THE FIRST, THAT THE FREEDOMS OF WORSHIP AND
EXPRESSION ARE CLOSELY AKIN TO THE ILLIMITABLE PRIVILEGES OF THOUGHT
ITSELF, ANY LEGISLATION AFFECTING THOSE FREEDOMS IS SCRUTINIZED TO SEE
THAT THE INTERFERENCES ALLOWED ARE ONLY THOSE APPROPRIATE TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF A CIVILIZED SOCIETY.  THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT
LIMITATIONS MAY BE PERMITTED UNDER SUCH AN ABSTRACT TEST RESTS WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE BODIES, THE COURTS, THE EXECUTIVE, AND THE PEOPLE
THEMSELVES, GUIDED BY THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PAST, THE NEEDS OF REVENUE
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE REQUIREMENTS AND CAPACITIES OF POLICE
PROTECTION, THE DANGERS OF DISORDER, AND OTHER PERTINENT FACTORS. 

UPON THE COURTS FALLS THE DUTY OF DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF SUCH
ENACTMENTS AS MAY BE CHALLENGED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY LITIGANTS.  FN15
IN DEALING WITH THESE DELICATE ADJUSTMENTS, THIS COURT DENIES ANY
PLACE TO ADMINISTRATIVE CENSORSHIP OF IDEAS OR CAPRICIOUS APPROVAL OF
DISTRIBUTORS.  IN LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, THE REQUIREMENT OF
PERMISSION FROM THE CITY MANAGER INVALIDATED THE ORDINANCE, PP. 447 AND
451; IN SCHNEIDER V. STATE, THAT OF A POLICE OFFICER, PP. 157 AND 163. 
IN THE CANTWELL CASE, THE SECRETARY OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE COUNCIL WAS
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OBJECT OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION WAS WORTHY,
P. 302.  WE HELD THE REQUIREMENT BAD.  FN16  ORDINANCES ABSOLUTELY
PROHIBITING THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ARE, A
FORTIORI, INVALID.  FN17 

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CENSORSHIP AND COMPLETE PROHIBITION, EITHER
OF SUBJECT MATTER OR THE INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING, UPON THE ONE HAND,
AND REGULATION OF THE CONDUCT OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE TIME, MANNER AND
PLACE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES UPON THE OTHER, ARE DECISIVE.  "ONE WHO IS A
MARTYR TO A PRINCIPLE  ...  DOES NOT PROVE BY HIS MARTYRDOM THAT HE HAS
KEPT WITHIN THE LAW," SAID MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, CONCURRING IN HAMILTON
V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245, 268, WHICH HELD THAT CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
TO MILITARY TRAINING WOULD NOT EXCUSE A STUDENT, DURING HIS ENROLLMENT,
FROM ATTENDING REQUIRED COURSES IN THAT SCIENCE.  FN18  THERE IS TO BE
NOTED, TOO, A DISTINCTION BETWEEN NONDISCRIMINATORY REGULATION OF
OPERATIONS WHICH ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION OR THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR THE PRESS AND THOSE WHICH ARE IMPOSED UPON THE
RELIGIOUS RITE ITSELF OR THE UNMIXED DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION. 
CASUAL REFLECTION VERIFIES THE SUGGESTION THAT BOTH TEACHERS AND
PREACHERS NEED TO RECEIVE SUPPORT FOR THEMSELVES AS WELL AS ALMS AND
BENEFACTIONS FOR CHARITY AND THE SPREAD OF KNOWLEDGE.  BUT WHEN, AS IN
THESE CASES, THE PRACTITIONERS OF THESE NOBLE CALLINGS CHOOSE TO
UTILIZE THE VENDING OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BOOKS AND TRACTS AS A SOURCE OF
FUNDS, THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THEIR TRANSACTIONS NEED NOT BE WHOLLY
DISREGARDED.  TO SUBJECT ANY RELIGIOUS OR DIDACTIC GROUP TO A
REASONABLE FEE FOR THEIR MONEY-MAKING ACTIVITIES DOES NOT REQUIRE A
FINDING THAT THE LICENSED ACTS ARE PURELY COMMERCIAL.  IT IS ENOUGH
THAT MONEY IS EARNED BY THE SALE OF ARTICLES.  A BOOK AGENT CANNOT
ESCAPE A LICENSE REQUIREMENT BY A PLEA THAT IT IS A TAX ON KNOWLEDGE. 
IT WOULD HARDLY BE CONTENDED THAT THE PUBLICATION OF NEWSPAPERS IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE USUAL GOVERNMENTAL FISCAL EXACTIONS, GIRAGI V. MOORE,
301 U.S. 670; 48 ARIZ. 33, 58 P.2D 1249; 49 ARIZ. 74, 64 P.2D 819, OR
THE OBLIGATIONS PLACED BY STATUTES ON OTHER BUSINESS.  ASSOCIATED PRESS
V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 103, 130.  THE CONSTITUTION DRAWS NO LINE
BETWEEN A PAYMENT FROM GROSS RECEIPTS OR A NET INCOME TAX AND A
SUITABLY CALCULATED OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE.  COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING
CANNOT ESCAPE CONTROL BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF PRINTING MATTER OF
PUBLIC INTEREST ON THE SAME SHEET OR HANDBILL.  VALENTINE V.
CHRESTENSEN, ANTE, P. 52.  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT TO THE PARTICIPANTS A
FORMATION IN THE STREETS IS AN "INFORMATION MARCH," AND "ONE OF THEIR
WAYS OF WORSHIP," SUFFICE TO EXEMPT SUCH A PROCESSION FROM A CITY
ORDINANCE WHICH, NARROWLY CONSTRUED, REQUIRED A LICENSE FOR SUCH A
PARADE.  FN19 

WHEN PROPONENTS OF RELIGIOUS OR SOCIAL THEORIES USE THE ORDINARY
COMMERCIAL METHODS OF SALES OF ARTICLES TO RAISE PROPAGANDA FUNDS, IT
IS A NATURAL AND PROPER EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE STATE TO CHARGE
REASONABLE FEES FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CANVASSING.  CAREFUL AS WE MAY AND
SHOULD BE TO PROTECT THE FREEDOMS SAFEGUARDED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IT
IS DIFFICULT TO SEE IN SUCH ENACTMENTS A SHADOW OF PROHIBITION OF THE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION OR OF ABRIDGEMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR THE
PRESS.  IT IS PROHIBITION AND UNJUSTIFIABLE ABRIDGEMENT WHICH ARE
INTERDICTED, NOT TAXATION.  NOR DO WE BELIEVE IT CAN BE FAIRLY SAID
THAT BECAUSE SUCH PROPER CHARGES MAY BE EXPANDED INTO UNJUSTIFIABLE
ABRIDGEMENTS THEY ARE THEREFORE INVALID ON THEIR FACE.  THE FREEDOMS
CLAIMED BY THOSE SEEKING RELIEF HERE ARE GUARANTEED AGAINST ABRIDGEMENT
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ITS COMMANDS PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS.  THE
LEGISLATIVE POWER OF MUNICIPALITIES MUST YIELD WHEN ABRIDGEMENT IS
SHOWN.  COMPARE GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, WITH
GIRAGI V. MOORE, 301 U.S. 670.  IF WE WERE TO ASSUME, AS IS HERE
ARGUED, THAT THE LICENSED ACTIVITIES INVOLVE RELIGIOUS RITES, A
DIFFERENT QUESTION WOULD BE PRESENTED.  THESE ARE NOT TAXES ON FREE
WILL OFFERINGS.  BUT IT IS BECAUSE WE VIEW THESE SALES AS PARTAKING
MORE OF COMMERCIAL THAN RELIGIOUS OR EDUCATIONAL TRANSACTIONS THAT WE
FIND THE ORDINANCES, AS HERE PRESENTED, VALID.  A TAX ON RELIGION OR A
TAX ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY ALIKE BE FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION. 
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT LICENSES FOR SELLING BIBLES OR FOR MANUFACTURE
OF ARTICLES OF GENERAL USE, MEASURED BY EXTRASTATE SALES, MUST FALL. 
IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE WISDOM OF AMERICAN COMMUNITIES WILL PERSUADE
THEM TO PERMIT THE POOR AND WEAK TO DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE PETTY SALES
OF RELIGIOUS BOOKS WITHOUT CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
USING THE STREETS AND CONVENIENCES OF THE MUNICIPALITY.  SUCH AN
EXEMPTION, HOWEVER, WOULD BE A VOLUNTARY, NOT A CONSTITUTIONALLY
ENFORCED, CONTRIBUTION. 

IN THE ORDINANCES OF CASA GRANDE AND FORT SMITH, WE HAVE NO
DISCRETIONARY POWER IN THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO REFUSE A LICENSE TO
ANY ONE DESIROUS OF SELLING RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.  NO CENSORSHIP OF THE
MATERIAL WHICH ENTERS INTO THE BOOKS OR PAPERS IS AUTHORIZED.  NO
RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM IS INVOLVED, SUCH AS WAS URGED AGAINST THE FLAG
SALUTE IN MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586.  FOR US
THERE IS NO OCCASION TO APPLY HERE THE PRINCIPLES TAUGHT BY THAT
OPINION.  NOTHING MORE IS ASKED FROM ONE GROUP THAN FROM ANOTHER WHICH
USES SIMILAR METHODS OF PROPAGATION.  WE SEE NOTHING IN THE COLLECTION
OF A NONDISCRIMINATORY LICENSE FEE, UNCONTESTED IN AMOUNT, FROM THOSE
SELLING BOOKS OR PAPERS, WHICH ABRIDGES THE FREEDOMS OF WORSHIP, SPEECH
OR PRESS.  CF. GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 250.  AS
TO THE CLAIM THAT EVEN SMALL LICENSE CHARGES, IF VALID, WILL IMPOSE
UPON THE ITINERANT COLPORTEUR A CRUSHING AGGREGATE, IT IS PLAIN THAT IF
EACH SINGLE FEE IS, AS WE ASSUME, COMMENSURATE WITH THE ACTIVITIES
LICENSED, THEN THOUGH THE ACCUMULATION OF FEES FROM CITY TO CITY MAY IN
TIME BULK LARGE, HE WILL HAVE ENJOYED A CORRELATIVELY ENLARGED FIELD OF
DISTRIBUTION.  CF. COVERDALE V. PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604, 612-613. 
THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE A SUBSIDY IN THE FORM OF FISCAL
EXEMPTION.  GIRAGI V. MOORE, SUPRA.  ACCORDINGLY, THE CHALLENGE TO THE
FORT SMITH AND CASA GRANDE ORDINANCES FAILS. 

THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL CONTENTION BY PETITIONER AS TO THE OPELIKA
ORDINANCE.  IT IS URGED THAT, SINCE THE LICENSES WERE REVOCABLE,
ARBITRARILY, BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES, NOTE 3, SUPRA, THERE CAN BE NO
TRUE FREEDOM FOR PETITIONERS IN THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION,
BECAUSE OF THE CENSORSHIP UPON THEIR ACTIONS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE
LICENSE.  BUT THERE HAS BEEN NEITHER APPLICATION FOR, NOR REVOCATION
OF, A LICENSE.  THE COMPLAINT WAS BOTTOMED ON SALES WITHOUT A LICENSE. 
IT WAS THAT CHARGE AGAINST WHICH PETITIONER CLAIMED THE PROTECTION OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  THIS ISSUE HE HAD STANDING TO RAISE.  SMITH V.
CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553, 562.  FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID PREVIOUSLY, IT
FOLLOWS THAT THE OBJECTION TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF REQUIRING A
LICENSE FAILS.  THERE IS NO OCCASION, AT THIS TIME, TO PASS ON THE
VALIDITY OF THE REVOCATION SECTION, AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT HIS PRESENT
DEFENSE.  HIGHLAND FARMS DAIRY V. AGNEW, 300 U.S. 608, 616; LEHON V.
CITY OF ATLANTA, 242 U.S. 53, 56. 

IN LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, WE HELD INVALID A STATUTE WHICH
PLACED THE GRANT OF A LICENSE WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE LICENSING
AUTHORITY.  BY THIS DISCRETION, THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN A LICENSE WAS MADE
AN EMPTY RIGHT.  THEREFORE THE FORMALITY OF GOING THROUGH AN
APPLICATION WAS NATURALLY NOT DEEMED A PREREQUISITE TO INSISTENCE ON A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  HERE WE HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION.  A
LICENSE IS REQUIRED THAT MAY PROPERLY BE REQUIRED.  THE FACT THAT SUCH
A LICENSE, IF IT WERE GRANTED, MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE REVOKED DOES NOT
NECESSARILY DESTROY THE LICENSING ORDINANCE.  THE HAZARD OF SUCH
REVOCATION IS MUCH TOO CONTINGENT FOR US NOW TO DECLARE THE LICENSING
PROVISIONS TO BE INVALID.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN HAS, IN EFFECT, HELD THAT
DISCRETIONARY CONTROL IN THE GENERAL AREA OF FREE SPEECH IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THEREFORE, THE HAZARD THAT THE LICENSE PROPERLY
GRANTED WOULD BE IMPROPERLY REVOKED IS FAR TOO SLIGHT TO JUSTIFY
DECLARING THE VALID PART OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS ALONE NOW AT ISSUE,
ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

THE JUDGMENTS IN NOS. 280, 314 AND 966 ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "4.  PENALTIES.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON  ...  TO
ENGAGE IN ANY OF THE BUSINESSES OR VOCATIONS FOR WHICH A LICENSE MAY BE
REQUIRED WITHOUT FIRST HAVING PROCURED A LICENSE THEREFOR, AND ANY
VIOLATION HEREOF SHALL CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, AND SHALL BE
PUNISHABLE BY FINE  ...  AND BY IMPRISONMENT. 

     .         .         .         .        . 

"9.  PERSONS ENGAGED IN TWO OR MORE VOCATIONS.  ALL TRADES OR
VOCATIONS DEALING IN TWO OR MORE OF THE ARTICLES OR ENGAGED IN TWO OR
MORE OF THE TRADES OR VOCATIONS FOR WHICH LICENSES ARE REQUIRED BY THE
CITY, SHALL PAY FOR AND TAKE OUT LICENSES FOR EACH LINE OF BUSINESS,
CALLING OR VOCATION. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"12.  VOCATIONS NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN.  ANY APPLICANT DESIRING TO
CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS OR VOCATION OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THIS
LICENSE ORDINANCE SHALL MAKE APPLICATION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
COMMISSION, WHO SHALL THEREON FIX A REASONABLE LICENSE FOR SUCH
BUSINESS OR VOCATION AND INSTRUCT THE CLERK AS TO THE AMOUNT SO
FIXED." 

FN2  "AGENTS (ANNUAL ONLY) 

BOOK AGENTS (BIBLES EXCEPTED)  ...  10.00 

     .         .         .         .       . 

TRANSIENT OR ITINERANT AGENTS SELLING RUGS, ANTIQUES, GOODS, WARES,
MERCHANDISE OR TAKING ORDERS FOR SAME  ...  25.00 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"PEDDLERS, OR ITINERANT DEALERS, DISTRIBUTORS OR SALESMEN NOT
OTHERWISE INCLUDED IN THIS SCHEDULE (ANNUAL ONLY)  ...  75.00 

    .         .         .         .         . 

"TRANSIENT AGENTS OR DEALERS OR DISTRIBUTORS OF BOOKS (ANNUAL ONLY)
...  5.00 

"TRANSIENT DEALERS  ...  25.00 

(NOT  COVERED HERETOFORE IN THIS SCHEDULE, DEFINITION SAME AS
TRANSIENT DEALER.) 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THERE WILL BE AN ISSUANCE FEE OF $0.50 ADDED TO AND COLLECTED ON
EACH LICENSE." 

FN3  "1.  RIGHT OF CITY TO REVOKE.  ALL LICENSES, PERMITS OR OTHER
GRANTS TO CARRY ON ANY BUSINESS, TRADE, VOCATION, OR PROFESSIONS FOR
WHICH A CHARGE IS MADE BY THE CITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION IN
THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY COMMISSION, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE
LICENSEE." 

FN4  "SHOULD ANY SECTION, CONDITION, OR PROVISION OR ANY RATE OR
AMOUNT SCHEDULED AS AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR OCCUPATION EXHIBITED IN THE
FOREGOING SCHEDULE BE HELD VOID OR INVALID, SUCH INVALIDITY SHALL NOT
AFFECT ANY OTHER SECTION, RATE OR PROVISION OF THIS LICENSE SCHEDULE." 

FN5  HIS WIFE WAS SELLING PAMPHLETS FROM A PORTABLE STAND ON THE
SIDEWALK NEARBY. 

FN6  "BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF
FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS: 

"SECTION 1.  THAT THE LICENSE HEREINAFTER NAMED SHALL BE FIXED AND
IMPOSED AND COLLECTED AT THE FOLLOWING RATES AND SUMS AND IT SHALL BE
UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON OR PERSONS TO EXERCISE OR PURSUE ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING VOCATIONS OF BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF FORT SMITH, ARKANSAS,
WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE THEREFOR FROM THE CITY CLERK
AND HAVING PAID FOR THE SAME.  ... 

"SECTION 40.  FOR EACH PERSON PEDDLING DRY GOODS, NOTIONS, WEARING
APPAREL, HOUSEHOLD GOODS OR OTHER ARTICLES NOT HEREIN OR OTHERWISE
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED $25 PER MONTH, $10 PER WEEK, $2.50 PER DAY.  A
PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION USING TWO OR MORE MEN IN THEIR PEDDLING
BUSINESS $50 PER ANNUM." 

FN7  "SECTION 1.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON  ...  TO CARRY
ON ANY TRADE, CALLING, PROFESSION, OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS, IN THIS
ORDINANCE SPECIFIED, WITHOUT FIRST HAVING PROCURED A LICENSE FROM THE
CITY OF CASA GRANDE, SO TO DO,  ...  AND EACH AND EVERY DAY OR
FRACTIONAL PART OF A DAY THAT ANY TRADE, CALLING, PROFESSION, BUSINESS
OR OCCUPATION IN THIS ORDINANCE SPECIFIED IS CONDUCTED OR CARRIED ON
WITHOUT SUCH LICENSE SHALL BE A MISDEMEANOR,  ...    "SECTION 2.  IT
SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE CITY CLERK  ...  TO PREPARE AND TO ISSUE A
LICENSE UNDER THIS ORDINANCE FOR EVERY PERSON  ...  LIABLE TO PAY A
LICENSE HEREUNDER.  ... 

"SECTION 4.  ...  EVERY PERSON HAVING SUCH A LICENSE, AND NOT HAVING
A FIXED PLACE OF BUSINESS SHALL CARRY SUCH LICENSE WITH HIM AT ALL
TIMES WHILE CARRYING ON THE TRADE  ...  OR BUSINESS FOR WHICH THE SAME
WAS GRANTED.  EVERY PERSON  ...  HAVING A LICENSE  ...  SHALL PRODUCE
AND EXHIBIT THE SAME,  ...  WHENEVER REQUESTED TO DO SO BY ANY POLICE
OFFICER OR BY ANY OTHER OFFICER AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE, INSPECT OR COLLECT
LICENSES."    FN8  "SECTION 12.  PEDDLERS, TRANSIENT MERCHANTS,
VENDORS, DEFINED: 

(A)  'TRANSIENT MERCHANT' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL
INCLUDE EVERY PERSON WHO, NOT FOR OR IN CONNECTION WITH A BUSINESS AT A
FIXED PLACE WITHIN THE CITY OF CASA GRANDE, SOLICITS ORDERS FROM HOUSE
TO HOUSE FOR THE FUTURE DELIVERY OF GOODS, OR WHO SHALL DELIVER GOODS
PREVIOUSLY SOLICITED BY A SOLICITOR AT RETAIL, OR AN ORDER FOR FUTURE
DELIVERY. 

(B)  AS USED IN THIS ORDINANCE, THE TERM 'PEDDLERS' SHALL INCLUDE
SOLICITORS AND OTHER VENDORS NOT HAVING A PERMANENT PLACE OF BUSINESS
IN THE CITY OF CASA GRANDE, AND WHO ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY LICENSED OR
PERMITTED TO SELL ANY CLASS OF GOODS WHATSOEVER. 

(C)  AS USED IN THIS ORDINANCE, THE TERM 'STREET VENDORS' INCLUDES
ALL PERSONS ENGAGED IN SELLING IN OR UPON THE STREETS, ALLEYS OR VACANT
GROUNDS WITHIN THE CITY, ANY GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE OR ARTICLES,
INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS, AND ALSO INCLUDES ALL PERSONS ENGAGED IN
CONDUCTING UPON THE STREETS, ALLEYS, OR VACANT GROUNDS OF THE CITY ANY
RING, KNIFE OR SIMILAR GAME, OR ANY 'FAKER' BUSINESS, GAME OR DEVICE. 

ALL PERSONS COMING WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE OCCUPATIONS DEFINED
HEREIN SHALL PAY A QUARTERLY LICENSE FEE OF TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS
($25.00), IN ADVANCE." 

FN9  CF. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S. 86; NEW YORK
V. KLEINERT, 268 U.S. 646; DEWEY V. DES MOINES, 173 U.S. 193; AND CLARK
V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583; STANDARD STOCK FOOD CO. V. WRIGHT,
225 U.S. 540. 

FN10  VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN, ANTE, 52, 54-55; CHAPLINSKY V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 571, AND CASES CITED; MINERSVILLE SCHOOL
DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586, 594; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296, 304, 310; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 165; HAGUE V.
C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 515-516; DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 364. 

FN11  CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568, 570-571; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 303; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160;
LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 450; GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S.
652. 

FN12  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 574; HOME BLDG. & L. ASSN.
V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 435. 

FN13  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 303; REYNOLDS V. UNITED
STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 166. 

FN14  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 573, 576; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 306; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160. 

FN15 CF. SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA, 161. 

FN16  CF. HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 516. 

FN17  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 501, 518, INVALIDATES AN
ORDINANCE FORBIDDING ANY PERSON TO "DISTRIBUTE OR CAUSE TO BE
DISTRIBUTED OR STREWN ABOUT ANY STREET OR PUBLIC PLACE ANY NEWSPAPERS,
PAPER, PERIODICAL, BOOK, MAGAZINE, CIRCULAR, CARD, OR PAMPHLET," P.
501; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 162, HOLDS SIMILAR PROHIBITORY
ORDINANCES UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

FN18  CF. CITY OF MANCHESTER V. LEIBY, 117 F.2D 661, REQUIREMENT OF
BADGE FOR STREET SELLING OF BOOKS, PAPERS OR PAMPHLETS. 

FN19  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 572, 573, 576. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH THE FOURTEENTH MAKES APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES, DECLARES:  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS."  I THINK THAT THE
ORDINANCE IN EACH OF THESE CASES IS ON ITS FACE A PROHIBITED INVASION
OF THE FREEDOMS THUS GUARANTEED, AND THAT THE JUDGMENT IN EACH SHOULD
BE REVERSED. 

THE ORDINANCE IN THE OPELIKA CASE SHOULD BE HELD INVALID ON TWO
INDEPENDENT GROUNDS.  ONE IS THAT THE ANNUAL TAX IN ADDITION TO THE 50
CENT "ISSUANCE FEE" WHICH THE ORDINANCE IMPOSES IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
RESTRICTION ON THOSE FREEDOMS, FOR REASONS WHICH WILL PRESENTLY
APPEAR.  THE OTHER IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE FOR
DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS, WHEN, AS HERE, THE LICENSE IS REVOCABLE AT WILL
WITHOUT CAUSE AND IN THE UNRESTRAINED DISCRETION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICERS, IS LIKEWISE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT ON THOSE FREEDOMS. 

THE SOLE CONDITION WHICH THE OPELIKA ORDINANCE PRESCRIBES FOR GRANT
OF THE LICENSE IS PAYMENT OF THE DESIGNATED ANNUAL TAX AND ISSUANCE
FEE.  THE PRIVILEGE THUS PURCHASED, FOR THE PERIOD OF A YEAR, IS
FORTHWITH REVOCABLE IN THE UNRESTRAINED AND UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION OF
THE LICENSING COMMISSION, WITHOUT CAUSE AND WITHOUT NOTICE OR
OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING.  THE CASE PRESENTS IN ITS BALDEST FORM THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE FREEDOMS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PURPORTS TO
SAFEGUARD CAN BE COMPLETELY SUBJECTED TO UNCONTROLLED ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION.  ONLY RECENTLY THIS COURT WAS UNANIMOUS IN HOLDING VOID ON ITS
FACE THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS
WHICH WAS TO BE ISSUED IN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF A MUNICIPAL OFFICER. 
LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 451.  THE PRECISE GROUND OF OUR
DECISION WAS THAT THE ORDINANCE MADE ENJOYMENT OF THE FREEDOM WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES CONTINGENT UPON THE UNCONTROLLED WILL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.  WE DECLARED: 

"WE THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE IS INVALID ON ITS FACE.  WHATEVER THE
MOTIVE WHICH INDUCED ITS ADOPTION, ITS CHARACTER IS SUCH THAT IT
STRIKES AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BY
SUBJECTING IT TO LICENSE AND CENSORSHIP.  THE STRUGGLE FOR THE FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS WAS PRIMARILY DIRECTED AGAINST THE POWER OF THE LICENSOR. 
IT WAS AGAINST THAT POWER THAT JOHN MILTON DIRECTED HIS ASSAULT BY HIS
'APPEAL FOR THE LIBERTY OF UNLICENSED PRINTING.'  AND THE LIBERTY OF
THE PRESS BECAME INITIALLY A RIGHT TO PUBLISH 'WITHOUT A LICENSE WHAT
FORMERLY COULD BE PUBLISHED ONLY WITH ONE.'  WHILE THIS FREEDOM FROM
PREVIOUS RESTRAINT UPON PUBLICATION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS EXHAUSTING
THE GUARANTY OF LIBERTY, THE PREVENTION OF THAT RESTRAINT WAS A LEADING
PURPOSE IN THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION." 

THAT PURPOSE CANNOT RIGHTLY BE DEFEATED BY SO TRANSPARENT A
SUBTERFUGE AS THE PRONOUNCEMENT THAT, WHILE A LICENSE MAY NOT BE
REQUIRED IF ITS AWARD IS CONTINGENT UPON THE WHIM OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER, IT MAY BE IF ITS RETENTION AND THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PRIVILEGE
WHICH IT PURPORTS TO GIVE ARE WHOLLY CONTINGENT UPON HIS WHIM.  IN
EITHER CASE, ENJOYMENT OF THE FREEDOM IS DEPENDENT UPON THE SAME
CONTINGENCY, AND THE CENSORSHIP IS AS EFFECTIVE IN ONE AS IN THE
OTHER.  NOR IS ANY PALLIATIVE AFFORDED BY THE ASSERTION THAT THE
DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO APPLY FOR A LICENSE DEPRIVES HIM OF STANDING TO
CHALLENGE THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF ITS REVOCATION PROVISION, BY THE
TERMS OF WHICH RETENTION OF THE LICENSE AND EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE
MAY BE CUT OFF AT ANY TIME WITHOUT CAUSE. 

INDEED, THE PRESENT ORDINANCE IS A MORE CALLOUS DISREGARD OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAN THAT EXHIBITED IN LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA.
THERE AT LEAST THE DEFENDANT MIGHT HAVE BEEN GIVEN A LICENSE IF HE HAD
APPLIED FOR IT.  IN ANY EVENT HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPELLED TO PAY A
MONEY EXACTION FOR A LICENSE TO EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGE OF FREE SPEECH -
A LICENSE WHICH IF GRANTED IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN WHOLLY
ILLUSORY.  HERE THE DEFENDANT JONES WAS PROHIBITED FROM DISTRIBUTING
HIS PAMPHLETS AT ALL, UNLESS HE PAID IN ADVANCE A YEAR'S TAX FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE AND SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO TERMINATION OF THE
LICENSE WITHOUT CAUSE, NOTICE OR HEARING, AT THE WILL OF CITY
OFFICIALS.  TO SAY THAT HE WHO IS FREE TO WITHHOLD AT WILL THE
PRIVILEGE OF PUBLICATION EXERCISES A POWER OF CENSORSHIP PROHIBITED BY
THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT HE WHO HAS UNRESTRICTED POWER TO WITHDRAW
THE PRIVILEGE DOES NOT, WOULD BE TO IGNORE HISTORY AND DENY THE
TEACHINGS OF EXPERIENCE, AS WELL AS TO PERPETUATE THE EVILS AT WHICH
THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS AIMED. 

IT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPLY FOR A
LICENSE.  AS THIS COURT HAS OFTEN POINTED OUT, WHEN A LICENSING STATUTE
IS ON ITS FACE A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF REGULATORY POWER, IT WILL NOT BE
ASSUMED THAT IT WILL BE UNLAWFULLY ADMINISTERED IN ADVANCE OF AN ACTUAL
DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR THE LICENSE.  BUT HERE IT IS THE PROHIBITION
OF PUBLICATION, SAVE AT THE UNCONTROLLED WILL OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS,
WHICH TRANSGRESSES CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS AND MAKES THE ORDINANCE
VOID ON ITS FACE.  THE CONSTITUTION CAN HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO DENY TO
ONE SUBJECTED TO THE RESTRAINTS OF SUCH AN ORDINANCE THE RIGHT TO
ATTACK ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT YIELDED TO ITS
DEMANDS.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA, 452-53; SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S.
553, 562.  THE QUESTION OF STANDING TO RAISE THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT IN THE LOVELL CASE, WHERE IT WAS RESOLVED
IN THE ONLY MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

THE SEPARABILITY PROVISION OF THE OPELIKA ORDINANCE  FN1  CANNOT
SERVE, IN ADVANCE OF JUDICIAL DECISION BY THE STATE COURT, TO SEPARATE
THOSE PARTS WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLICABLE FROM THOSE WHICH ARE
NOT.  WE HAVE NO MEANS OF KNOWING THAT THE CITY WOULD GRANT ANY LICENSE
IF THE LICENSE COULD NOT BE MADE REVOCABLE AT WILL.  THE STATE COURT
APPLIED THE ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN.  IT DID NOT RELY OR PASS UPON THE
EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, OR DETERMINE WHETHER ANY
EFFECT WAS TO BE GIVEN TO IT.  UNTIL IT HAS DONE SO, THIS COURT - AS WE
DECIDED ONLY LAST MONDAY - MUST DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
OF THE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS AND AS IT STOOD WHEN OBEDIENCE TO IT WAS
DEMANDED AND PUNISHMENT FOR ITS VIOLATION INFLICTED.  SKINNER V.
OKLAHOMA, ANTE, P. 535; SMITH V. CAHOON, SUPRA, 563-64. 

IN ALL THREE CASES THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE RECORD AND FULLY
ARGUED HERE AND BELOW IS WHETHER THE ORDINANCES - WHICH AS APPLIED
PENALIZE THE DEFENDANTS FOR NOT HAVING PAID THE FLAT FEE TAXES LEVIED -
VIOLATE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, AND RELIGION GUARANTEED BY THE
FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  DEFENDANTS' CHALLENGE TO THE
ORDINANCES, NAMING THEM, IS A CHALLENGE TO THE SUBSTANTIAL TAXES WHICH
THEY IMPOSE, IN SPECIFIED AMOUNTS, AND NOT TO SOME TAX OF A DIFFERENT
OR LESSER AMOUNT WHICH SOME OTHER ORDINANCE MIGHT LEVY.  IN THEIR
BRIEFS HERE THEY ARGUE, AS UPON THE RECORDS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DO,
THAT THE TAXES ARE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH AND FREE RELIGION, COMPARABLE TO LICENSE TAXES WHICH THIS COURT
HAS OFTEN HELD TO BE AN INADMISSIBLE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THEY ARGUE ALSO THAT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF SUCH TAXES, IN TOWN AFTER
TOWN THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE OF FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS FOR ALL PERSONS EXCEPT THOSE FINANCIALLY ABLE TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR
LITERATURE WITHOUT SOLICITING FUNDS FOR THE SUPPORT OF THEIR CAUSE. 

WHILE THESE ARE QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN STUDIOUSLY LEFT UNANSWERED
BY THE OPINION OF THE COURT, IT SEEMS INESCAPABLE THAT AN ANSWER MUST
BE GIVEN BEFORE THE CONVICTIONS CAN BE SUSTAINED.  DECISION OF THEM
CANNOT RIGHTLY BE AVOIDED NOW BY ASSERTING THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX
HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN ISSUE; THAT THE TAX IS "UNCONTESTED IN AMOUNT" BY
THE DEFENDANTS, AND CAN THEREFORE BE ASSUMED BY US TO BE "PRESUMABLY
APPROPRIATE," "REASONABLE," OR "SUITABLY CALCULATED"; THAT IT HAS NOT
BEEN PROVED THAT THE BURDEN OF THE TAX IS A SUBSTANTIAL CLOG ON THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEFENDANTS, OR THAT THOSE WHO HAVE DEFRAYED THE
EXPENSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES WILL NOT WILLINGLY DEFRAY THE
LICENSE TAXES ALSO.  ALL THESE ARE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WOULD SEEM TO
BE IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US - WHETHER A FLAT TAX, MORE
THAN A NOMINAL FEE TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF A REGULATORY LICENSE, CAN
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE LAID ON A NON-COMMERCIAL, NON-PROFIT ACTIVITY
DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS, EDUCATIONAL AND
RELIGIOUS IN CHARACTER, TO THOSE PERSONS WHO CONSENT TO RECEIVE THEM. 

NOR IS THE ESSENTIAL ISSUE HERE DISGUISED BY THE REITERATED
CHARACTERIZATION OF THESE EXACTIONS, NOT AS TAXES BUT AS "FEES" - A
CHARACTERIZATION TO WHICH THE RECORDS LEND NO SUPPORT.  ALL THESE
ORDINANCES ON THEIR FACE PURPORT TO BE AN EXERCISE OF THE
MUNICIPALITY'S TAXING POWER.  IN NONE IS THERE THE SLIGHTEST PRETENSE
BY THE TAXING AUTHORITY, OR THE SLIGHTEST SUGGESTION BY THE STATE
COURT, THAT THE "FEE" IS TO DEFRAY EXPENSES OF THE LICENSING SYSTEM. 
THE AMOUNTS OF THE "FEES," WITHOUT MORE, DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH A
CONTENTION IS GROUNDLESS.  IN NO. 280, OPELIKA ITSELF CONTENDS THAT THE
ISSUE RELATES SOLELY TO ITS POWER TO RAISE MONEY FOR GENERAL REVENUE
PURPOSES, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA REFERRED TO THE LEVY AS A
"REASONABLE" "TAX."  THE TAX EXACTED BY OPELIKA, ON THE FACE OF THE
ORDINANCE, IS IN ADDITION TO A 50 CENT "ISSUANCE FEE," WHICH ALONE IS
PRESUMABLY WHAT THE CITY DEEMS ADEQUATE TO DEFRAY THE COST OF
ADMINISTERING THE LICENSING SYSTEM.  SIMILARLY IN THE FORT SMITH AND
CASA GRANDE CASES, THE STATE COURTS SUSTAINED THE ORDINANCES AS A TAX,
AND NOTHING ELSE.  IF THIS LITIGATION HAS INVOLVED ANY CONTROVERSY -
AND THE STATE COURTS ALL SEEMED TO THINK THAT IT DID - THE CONTROVERSY
HAS BEEN ONE SOLELY RELATING TO THE POWER TO TAX, AND NOT THE POWER TO
COLLECT A "FEE" TO SUPPORT A LICENSING SYSTEM WHICH, AS HAS ALREADY
BEEN INDICATED, HAS NO REGULATORY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT INVOLVED IN
THE RAISING OF REVENUE.    THIS COURT HAS OFTEN HAD OCCASION TO POINT
OUT THAT WHERE THE STATE MAY, AS A REGULATORY MEASURE, LICENSE
ACTIVITIES WHICH IT IS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO TAX, IT MAY
CHARGE A SMALL OR NOMINAL FEE SUFFICIENT TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF
LICENSING, AND SIMILARLY IT MAY CHARGE A REASONABLE FEE FOR THE USE OF
ITS HIGHWAYS BY INTERSTATE MOTOR TRAFFIC WHICH IT CANNOT TAX.  COMPARE
CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583, 598-600, WITH INGELS V. MORF,
300 U.S. 290, AND CASES CITED; SEE COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569,
576-77.  BUT WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN THESE CASES WITH A NOMINAL FEE FOR
A REGULATORY LICENSE, WHICH MAY BE ASSUMED, FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, TO BE
VALID.  HERE THE LICENSES ARE NOT REGULATORY, SAVE AS THE LICENSES
CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT OF THE TAX MAY SERVE TO RESTRAIN OR SUPPRESS
PUBLICATION.  NONE OF THE ORDINANCES, IF COMPLIED WITH, PURPORTS TO, OR
COULD, CONTROL THE TIME, PLACE OR MANNER OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS CONCERNED.  NONE HAS ANY DISCERNIBLE RELATIONSHIP
TO THE POLICE PROTECTION OR THE GOOD ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY.  THE ONLY
CONDITION AND PURPOSE OF THE LICENSES UNDER ALL THREE ORDINANCES IS
SUPPRESSION OF THE SPECIFIED DISTRIBUTIONS OF LITERATURE IN DEFAULT OF
THE PAYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL TAX FIXED IN AMOUNT AND MEASURED NEITHER
BY THE EXTENT OF THE DEFENDANTS' ACTIVITIES UNDER THE LICENSE NOR THE
AMOUNTS WHICH THEY RECEIVE FOR AND DEVOTE TO RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE LICENSED PRIVILEGE.  OPELIKA EXACTS A LICENSE FEE FOR
BOOK AGENTS OF $10 PER ANNUM, AND OF $5 PER ANNUM FOR TRANSIENT
DISTRIBUTORS OF BOOKS, IN ADDITION TO A 50 CENT "ISSUANCE FEE" ON EACH
LICENSE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER BOTH OR ONLY ONE OF THESE TAXES WAS PAYABLE BY
DEFENDANT JONES.  THE FORT SMITH TAX OF $25 A MONTH, OR $10 A WEEK, OR
$2.50 A DAY IS SUBSTANTIAL IN AMOUNT FOR TRANSIENT DISTRIBUTORS OF
LITERATURE OF THE CHARACTER HERE INVOLVED; THE OPELIKA EXACTION IS EVEN
MORE ONEROUS WHEN APPLIED AGAINST ONE WHO MAY BE IN THE CITY FOR ONLY A
DAY OR TWO; AND THE TAX OF $25 PER QUARTER EXACTED BY THE CASA GRANDE
ORDINANCE, ADOPTED IN A COMMUNITY HAVING AN ADULT POPULATION OF LESS
THAN 1,000 AND APPLIED TO DISTRIBUTIONS OF LITERATURE LIKE THE PRESENT,
IS PROHIBITIVE IN EFFECT. 

IN CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF SUCH A TAX ON THE DEFENDANTS'
ACTIVITIES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE STATE COURTS HAVE APPLIED
LEVIES OBVIOUSLY DEVISED FOR THE TAXATION OF BUSINESS EMPLOYMENTS - IN
THE FIRST CASE THE "BUSINESS OR VOCATION" OF "BOOK AGENT"; IN THE
SECOND THE BUSINESS OF PEDDLING SPECIFIED TYPES OF MERCHANDISE OR
"OTHER ARTICLES"; IN THE THIRD, THE PRACTICE OF THE CALLINGS OF
"PEDDLERS, TRANSIENT MERCHANTS AND VENDORS" - TO ACTIVITIES WHICH
CONCEDEDLY ARE NOT ORDINARY BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS.  AS
APPEARS BY STIPULATION OR UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY, THE DEFENDANTS ARE
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, ENGAGED IN SPREADING THEIR RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES IN
CONFORMITY TO THE TEACHINGS OF ST. MATTHEW, MATT.  10:11-14 AND 24:14,
BY GOING FROM CITY TO CITY, FROM VILLAGE TO VILLAGE, AND HOUSE TO
HOUSE, TO PROCLAIM THEM.  AFTER ASKING AND RECEIVING PERMISSION FROM
THE HOUSEHOLDER, THEY PLAY TO HIM PHONOGRAPH RECORDS AND TENDER TO HIM
BOOKS OR PAMPHLETS ADVOCATING THEIR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.  FOR THE LATTER
THEY ASK PAYMENT OF A NOMINAL AMOUNT, TWO TO FIVE CENTS FOR THE
PAMPHLETS AND TWENTY-FIVE CENTS FOR BOOKS, AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE
RELIGIOUS CAUSE WHICH THEY SEEK TO ADVANCE.  BUT THEY DISTRIBUTE THE
PAMPHLETS, AND SOMETIMES THE BOOKS, GRATIS WHEN THE HOUSEHOLDER IS
UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO PAY FOR THEM.  THE LITERATURE IS PUBLISHED FOR
SUCH DISTRIBUTION BY NON-PROFIT CHARITABLE CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED BY
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  THE FUNDS COLLECTED ARE USED FOR THE SUPPORT OF
THE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT, AND NO ONE DERIVES A PROFIT FROM THE
PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE LITERATURE.  IN THE OPELIKA CASE,
THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIVITIES WERE CONFINED TO DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE
AND SOLICITATION OF FUNDS IN THE PUBLIC STREETS. 

NO ONE COULD DOUBT THAT TAXATION WHICH MAY BE FREELY LAID UPON
ACTIVITIES NOT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS COULD, WHEN
APPLIED TO THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS, BE MADE THE READY INSTRUMENT FOR
DESTRUCTION OF THAT RIGHT.  FEW WOULD DENY THAT A LICENSE TAX LAID
SPECIFICALLY ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DISSEMINATING IDEAS WOULD INFRINGE THE
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  FOR ONE REASON AMONG OTHERS, IF THE STATE MAY
TAX THE PRIVILEGE IT MAY FIX THE RATE OF TAX AND, THROUGH THE TAX,
CONTROL OR SUPPRESS THE ACTIVITY WHICH IT TAXES.  MAGNANO CO. V.
HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, 45; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S.
233, 244-45.  IF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LITERATURE HAD BEEN CARRIED ON
BY THE DEFENDANTS WITHOUT SOLICITATION OF FUNDS, THERE PLAINLY WOULD
HAVE BEEN NO BASIS, EITHER STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL, FOR LEVYING THE
TAX.  IT IS THE COLLECTION OF FUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN SEIZED UPON TO
JUSTIFY THE EXTENSION, TO THE DEFENDANTS' ACTIVITIES, OF THE TAX LAID
UPON BUSINESS CALLINGS.  BUT IF WE ASSUME, DESPITE OUR RECENT DECISION
IN SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 163, THAT THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER
OF THESE ACTIVITIES IS IN SOME MEASURE ALTERED BY THE COLLECTION OF
FUNDS FOR THE SUPPORT OF A RELIGIOUS UNDERTAKING, STILL IT SEEMS PLAIN
THAT THE OPERATION OF THE PRESENT FLAT TAX IS SUCH AS TO ABRIDGE THE
PRIVILEGES WHICH THE DEFENDANTS HERE INVOKE. 

IT LENDS NO SUPPORT TO THE PRESENT TAX TO INSIST THAT ITS RESTRAINT
ON FREE SPEECH AND RELIGION IS NON-DISCRIMINATORY BECAUSE THE SAME LEVY
IS MADE UPON BUSINESS CALLINGS CARRIED ON FOR PROFIT, MANY OF WHICH
INVOLVE NO QUESTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION AND ALL OF WHICH
INVOLVE COMMERCIAL ELEMENTS - LACKING HERE - WHICH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES
MAY BE ASSUMED TO AFFORD A BASIS FOR TAXATION APART FROM THE EXERCISE
OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF
THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT TO BE EVADED BY CLASSIFYING WITH BUSINESS
CALLINGS AN ACTIVITY WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS,
AND TAXING IT AS BUSINESS CALLINGS ARE TAXED.  THE IMMUNITY WHICH PRESS
AND RELIGION ENJOY MAY SOMETIMES BE LOST WHEN THEY ARE UNITED WITH
OTHER ACTIVITIES NOT IMMUNE.  VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN, ANTE, P. 52. 
BUT, HERE, THE ONLY ACTIVITIES INVOLVED ARE THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS,
EDUCATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS, AND THE COLLECTION OF FUNDS FOR THE
PROPAGATION OF THOSE IDEAS, WHICH WE HAVE SAID IS LIKEWISE THE SUBJECT
OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 304-07. 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT CONFINED TO SAFEGUARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY ATTEMPTS TO WIPE THEM
OUT.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE CONSTITUTION, BY VIRTUE OF THE FIRST AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, HAS PUT THOSE FREEDOMS IN A PREFERRED POSITION. 
THEIR COMMANDS ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO CASES WHERE THE PROTECTED
PRIVILEGE IS SOUGHT OUT FOR ATTACK.  THEY EXTEND AT LEAST TO EVERY FORM
OF TAXATION WHICH, BECAUSE IT IS A CONDITION OF THE EXERCISE OF THE
PRIVILEGE, IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED TO CONTROL OR SUPPRESS IT. 

EVEN WERE WE TO ASSUME - WHAT I DO NOT CONCEDE - THAT THERE COULD BE
A LAWFUL NON-DISCRIMINATORY LICENSE TAX OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS
RECEIPTS COLLECTED BY CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS ORDERS IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR RELIGIOUS WORK, CF. GIRAGI V. MOORE, 301 U.S. 670, WE HAVE NO
SUCH TAX HERE.  THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE ORDINANCES IN THESE CASES IS
MORE BURDENSOME AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE ACTIVITY TAXED THAN ANY GROSS
RECEIPTS TAX.  THE TAX IS FOR A FIXED AMOUNT, UNRELATED TO THE EXTENT
OF THE DEFENDANTS' ACTIVITIES OR THE RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM THEM.  IT IS
THUS THE TYPE OF FLAT TAX WHICH, WHEN APPLIED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
HAS REPEATEDLY BEEN DEEMED BY THIS COURT TO BE PROHIBITED BY THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SEE MCGOLDRICK V. BERWINDWHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, 55
57, AND CASES CITED; CF. BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454, 456. 
WHEN APPLIED, AS IT IS HERE, TO ACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE EXERCISE OF
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, ITS VICE IS EMPHASIZED IN THAT IT IS LEVIED AND PAID
IN ADVANCE OF THE ACTVITIES TAXED, AND APPLIED AT RATES WELL CALCULATED
TO SUPPRESS THOSE ACTIVITIES, SAVE ONLY AS OTHERS MAY VOLUNTEER TO PAY
THE TAX.  IT REQUIRES A SIZABLE OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSE BY SOMEONE WHO
MAY NEVER SUCCEED IN RAISING A PENNY IN HIS EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE
WHICH IS TAXED. 

THE DEFENDANTS' ACTIVITIES, IF TAXABLE AT ALL, ARE TAXABLE ONLY
BECAUSE OF THE FUNDS WHICH THEY SOLICIT.  BUT THAT SOLICITATION IS FOR
FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, AND THE PRESENT TAXES ARE IN NO WAY
GAUGED TO THE RECEIPTS.  THE TAXES ARE INSUPPORTABLE EITHER AS A TAX ON
THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS OR AS A TAX ON THE COLLECTION OF FUNDS FOR
RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.  FOR ON ITS FACE A FLAT LICENSE TAX RESTRAINS IN
ADVANCE THE FREEDOM TAXED AND TENDS INEVITABLY TO SUPPRESS ITS
EXERCISE.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS ALL LAWS ABRIDGING FREEDOM OF
PRESS AND RELIGION, NOT MERELY SOME LAWS OR ALL EXCEPT TAX LAWS.  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF PRESS AND
RELIGION, LIKE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN FIXED
SUM TAXES AND OTHER KINDS.  BUT THAT FACT AFFORDS NO EXCUSE FOR COURTS,
WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO ENFORCE THOSE GUARANTIES, TO CLOSE THEIR EYES TO
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TAX WHICH RENDER IT DESTRUCTIVE OF FREEDOM OF
PRESS AND RELIGION. 

WE MAY LAY TO ONE SIDE THE COURT'S SUGGESTION THAT A TAX OTHERWISE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS TO BE DEEMED VALID UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE
ARE NONE WHO, FOR RELIGION'S SAKE, WILL COME FORWARD TO PAY THE
UNLAWFUL EXACTION.  THE DEFENDANTS TO WHOM THE ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN
APPLIED HAVE NOT PAID IT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION TO
COMPEL THEM TO SEEK THE CHARITY OF OTHERS TO PAY IT BEFORE PROTESTING
THE TAX.  IT SEEMS FAIRLY OBVIOUS THAT IF THE PRESENT TAXES, LAID IN
SMALL COMMUNITIES UPON PERIPATETIC RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDISTS, ARE TO BE
SUSTAINED, A WAY HAS BEEN FOUND FOR THE EFFECTIVE SUPPRESSION OF SPEECH
AND PRESS AND RELIGION DESPITE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES.  THE VERY
TAXES NOW BEFORE US ARE BETTER ADAPTED TO THAT END THAN WERE THE STAMP
TAXES WHICH SO SUCCESSFULLY CURTAILED THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS BY
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY NEWSPAPERS AND PAMPHLETEERS, AND WHICH WERE A MOVING
CAUSE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.  SEE COLLETT, HISTORY OF THE TAXES ON
KNOWLEDGE, VOL. 1, C. 1; MAY, CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND, 7TH
ED., VOL. 2, P. 245; HANSON, GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESS, 1695-1763, PP. 7
14; MORISON, THE ENGLISH NEWSPAPER, 1622-1932, PP. 83-88; GROSJEAN V.
AMERICAN PRESS CO., SUPRA, 245-49.  VIVID RECOLLECTIONS OF THE EFFECT
OF THOSE TAXES ON THE FREEDOM OF PRESS SURVIVED TO INSPIRE THE ADOPTION
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

FREEDOM OF PRESS AND RELIGION, EXPLICITLY GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, MUST AT LEAST BE ENTITLED TO THE SAME FREEDOM FROM
BURDENSOME TAXATION WHICH IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT THAT THE MORE GENERAL
PHRASEOLOGY OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS EXTENDED TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WHATEVER DOUBTS MAY BE ENTERTAINED AS TO THIS COURT'S
FUNCTION TO RELIEVE, UNAIDED BY CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, FROM
BURDENSOME TAXATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SEE GWIN, WHITE &
PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 441, 446-55; MCCARROLL V.
DIXIE LINES, 309 U.S. 176, 184-85, IT CANNOT BE THOUGHT THAT THAT
FUNCTION IS WANTING UNDER THE EXPLICIT GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
PRESS AND RELIGION.  IN ANY CASE, THE FLAT LICENSE TAX CAN HARDLY
BECOME ANY THE LESS BURDENSOME OR MORE PERMISSIBLE, WHEN LEVIED ON
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PROTECTION EXTENDED BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS BOTH TO THE ORDERLY COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS, EDUCATIONAL AND
RELIGIOUS, TO PERSONS WILLING TO RECEIVE THEM, SEE CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, SUPRA, AND TO THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION AND THE
SOLICITATION OF FUNDS IN ITS SUPPORT.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA. 

IN ITS POTENCY AS A PRIOR RESTRAINT ON PUBLICATION, THE FLAT LICENSE
TAX FALLS SHORT ONLY OF OUTRIGHT CENSORSHIP OR SUPPRESSION.  THE MORE
HUMBLE AND NEEDY THE CAUSE, THE MORE EFFECTIVE IS THE SUPPRESSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN
THIS OPINION. 

FN1  "SHOULD ANY SECTION, CONDITION, OR PROVISION OR ANY RATE OR
AMOUNT SCHEDULED AS AGAINST ANY PARTICULAR OCCUPATION EXHIBITED IN THE
FOREGOING SCHEDULE BE HELD VOID OR INVALID, SUCH INVALIDITY SHALL NOT
EFFECT ANY OTHER SECTION, RATE OR PROVISION OF THIS LICENSE SCHEDULE." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK,
AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR, DISSENTING. 

WHEN A STATUTE IS CHALLENGED AS IMPINGING ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, OR FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, THOSE HISTORIC PRIVILEGES
WHICH ARE SO ESSENTIAL TO OUR POLITICAL WELFARE AND SPIRITUAL PROGRESS,
IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO SUBJECT SUCH LEGISLATION TO
EXAMINATION, IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED, TO DETERMINE WHETHER
IT IS SO DRAWN AS NOT TO IMPAIR THE SUBSTANCE OF THOSE CHERISHED
FREEDOMS IN REACHING ITS OBJECTIVE.  ORDINANCES THAT MAY OPERATE TO
RESTRICT THE CIRCULATION OR DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS ON RELIGIOUS OR
OTHER SUBJECTS SHOULD BE FRAMED WITH FASTIDIOUS CARE AND PRECISE
LANGUAGE TO AVOID UNDUE ENCROACHMENT ON THESE FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES. 
AND THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE EXTENDED TO ALL, NOT
ONLY TO THOSE WHOSE VIEWS ACCORD WITH PREVAILING THOUGHT BUT ALSO TO
DISSIDENT MINORITIES WHO ENERGETICALLY SPREAD THEIR BELIEFS.  BEING
SATISFIED BY THE EVIDENCE THAT THE ORDINANCES IN THE CASES NOW BEFORE
US, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THE STATE COURTS, IMPOSE A BURDEN ON
THE CIRCULATION AND DISCUSSION OF OPINION AND INFORMATION IN MATTERS OF
RELIGION, AND THEREFORE VIOLATE THE PETITIONERS'  FN1  RIGHTS TO
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND FREEDOM OF WORSHIP IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, I AM OBLIGED TO DISSENT FROM
THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT PETITIONERS, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WERE
ORDAINED MINISTERS PREACHING THE GOSPEL, AS THEY UNDERSTOOD IT, THROUGH
THE STREETS AND FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE, ORALLY AND BY PLAYING RELIGIOUS
RECORDS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE HOUSEHOLDER, AND BY DISTRIBUTING BOOKS
AND PAMPHLETS SETTING FORTH THE TENETS OF THEIR FAITH.  IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT THEIR MOTIVES WERE COMMERCIAL, BUT ONLY THAT THEY WERE
EVANGELIZING THEIR FAITH AS THEY SAW IT.    IN NO. 280 THE TRIAL COURT
EXCLUDED AS IRRELEVANT PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY THAT HE WAS AN ORDAINED
MINISTER AND THAT HIS ACTIVITIES ON THE STREETS OF OPELIKA WERE IN
FURTHERANCE OF HIS MINISTERIAL DUTIES.  THE TESTIMONY OF TEN CLERGYMEN
OF OPELIKA THAT THEY DISTRIBUTED FREE RELIGIOUS LITERATURE IN THEIR
CHURCHES, THE COST OF WHICH WAS DEFRAYED BY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION, AND
THAT THEY HAD NEVER BEEN FORCED TO PAY ANY LICENSE FEE, WAS ALSO
EXCLUDED.  IT IS ADMITTED HERE THAT PETITIONER WAS A JEHOVAH'S WITNESS
AND CONSIDERED HIMSELF AN ORDAINED MINISTER. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA STATED IN NO. 966 THAT APPELLANT WAS "A
REGULARLY ORDAINED MINISTER OF THE DENOMINATION COMMONLY KNOWN AS
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES  ...  GOING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE IN THE CITY OF CASA
GRANDE PREACHING THE GOSPEL, AS HE UNDERSTOOD IT, BY MEANS OF HIS
SPOKEN WORD, BY PLAYING VARIOUS RELIGIOUS RECORDS ON A PHONOGRAPH, WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE HOUSEHOLDER, AND BY DISTRIBUTING PRINTED BOOKS,
PAMPHLETS AND TRACTS WHICH SET FORTH HIS VIEWS AS TO THE MEANING OF THE
BIBLE.  THE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION OF THESE PRINTED BOOKS, PAMPHLETS
AND TRACTS WAS AS FOLLOWS:  HE FIRST OFFERED THEM FOR SALE AT VARIOUS
PRICES RANGING FROM FIVE TO TWENTY-FIVE CENTS EACH.  IF THE HOUSEHOLDER
DID NOT DESIRE TO PURCHASE ANY OF THEM HE THEN LEFT A SMALL LEAFLET
SUMMARIZING SOME OF THE DOCTRINES WHICH HE PREACHED."  118 P.2D 97,
98. 

THE FACTS WERE STIPULATED IN NO. 314.  EACH PETITIONER "CLAIMS TO BE
AN ORDAINED MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL  ... THEY DO NOT ENGAGE IN THIS WORK
FOR ANY SELFISH REASON BUT BECAUSE THEY FEEL CALLED TO PUBLISH THE NEWS
AND PREACH THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM TO ALL THE WORLD AS A WITNESS
BEFORE THE END COMES.  ...  THEY BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY TO
PREACH IS TO GO FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE AND MAKE PERSONAL CONTACT WITH THE
PEOPLE AND DISTRIBUTE TO THEM BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS SETTING FORTH THEIR
VIEWS ON CHRISTIANITY."  PETITIONERS "WERE GOING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE IN
THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT SMITH  ...  PRESENTED
TO THE RESIDENTS OF THESE HOUSES VARIOUS BOOKLETS, LEAFLETS AND
PERIODICALS SETTING FORTH THEIR VIEWS OF CHRISTIANITY HELD BY JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES."  THEY SOLICITED "A CONTRIBUTION OF TWENTY-FIVE CENTS FOR
EACH BOOK," BUT "THESE BOOKS IN SOME INSTANCES ARE DISTRIBUTED FREE
WHEN THE PEOPLE WISHING THEM ARE UNABLE TO CONTRIBUTE."  151 S.W.2D
1000, 1001. 

THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN ANY OF THESE THREE CASES THAT PETITIONERS
WERE PERPETRATING A FRAUD, THAT THEY WERE DEMEANING THEMSELVES IN AN
OBNOXIOUS MANNER, THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES CREATED ANY PUBLIC DISTURBANCE
OR INCONVENIENCE, THAT PRIVATE RIGHTS WERE CONTRAVENED, OR THAT THE
LITERATURE DISTRIBUTED WAS OFFENSIVE TO MORALS OR CREATED ANY "CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER" TO ORGANIZED SOCIETY. 

THE ORDINANCE IN EACH CASE IS SOUGHT TO BE SUSTAINED AS A SYSTEM OF
NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION OF VARIOUS BUSINESSES, PROFESSIONS, AND
VOCATIONS, INCLUDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS FOR WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS
ARE ASKED, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF RAISING REVENUE.  FN2  ANY
INCLINATION TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT PETITIONERS, WHO WERE
PROSELYTIZING BY DISTRIBUTING INFORMATIVE LITERATURE SETTING FORTH
THEIR RELIGIOUS TENETS, AND WHOSE ACTIVITIES WERE WHOLLY UNRELATED TO
ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, WERE NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THESE
OCCUPATIONAL TAX ORDINANCES,  FN3  IS FORECLOSED BY THE DECISIONS OF
THE STATE COURTS BELOW TO THE CONTRARY.  AS SO CONSTRUED, THE
ORDINANCES, IN EFFECT, IMPOSE DIRECT TAXES ON THE DISSEMINATION OF
IDEAS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE, RELATING TO AND DEALING WITH
RELIGIOUS MATTERS, FOR WHICH A CONTRIBUTION IS ASKED IN AN ATTEMPT TO
GAIN CONVERTS, BECAUSE THOSE WERE PETITIONERS' ACTIVITIES.  SUCH TAXES
HAVE BEEN HELD TO VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, MCCONKEY V.
FREDERICKSBURG, 179 VA. 556, 19 S.E.2D 682; STATE V. GREAVES, 112 VT.
222, 22 A.2D 497; BLUE ISLAND V. KOZUL, 379 ILL. 511, 41 N.E.2D 515;
AND THAT SHOULD BE THE HOLDING HERE.  FN4 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. 

IN VIEW OF THE RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT STRIKING DOWN ACTS
WHICH IMPAIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NO ELABORATION
ON THAT SUBJECT IS NOW NECESSARY.  WE HAVE "UNEQUIVOCALLY HELD THAT THE
STREETS ARE PROPER PLACES FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE FREEDOM OF
COMMUNICATING INFORMATION AND DISSEMINATING OPINION AND THAT, THOUGH
THE STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES MAY APPROPRIATELY REGULATE THE PRIVILEGE
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THEY MAY NOT UNDULY BURDEN OR PROSCRIBE ITS
EMPLOYMENT IN THESE PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES."  VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN,
ANTE, 52, 54.  AND AS THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS TO SPREAD
INFORMATION AND OPINION ON THE STREETS AND FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE FOR NON
COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IS PROTECTED FROM THE PRIOR RESTRAINT OF
CENSORSHIP, LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON,
308 U.S. 147, SO SHOULD IT BE PROTECTED FROM THE BURDEN OF TAXATION. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX IS NOT
BEFORE US AND THAT A "NONDISCRIMINATORY LICENSE FEE, PRESUMABLY
APPROPRIATE IN AMOUNT, MAY BE IMPOSED UPON THESE ACTIVITIES."  BOTH OF
THESE HOLDINGS MUST BE REJECTED. 

WHERE REGULATION OR INFRINGEMENT OF THE LIBERTY OF DISCUSSION AND THE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION AND OPINION ARE INVOLVED, THERE ARE
SPECIAL REASONS FOR TESTING THE CHALLENGED STATUTE ON ITS FACE. 
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 96-98, AND SEE LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
303 U.S. 444, 452; DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR CO., 312 U.S. 287, 297. 
THAT SHOULD BE DONE HERE.  FN5 

CONSIDERATION OF THE TAXES LEADS TO BUT ONE CONCLUSION - THAT THEY
PROHIBIT OR SERIOUSLY HINDER THE DISTRIBUTION OF PETITIONERS' RELIGIOUS
LITERATURE.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT ADMITS THAT ALL THE TAXES ARE
"SUBSTANTIAL."  THE $25 QUARTERLY TAX OF CASA GRANDE APPROACHES
PROHIBITION.  THE 1940 POPULATION OF THAT TOWN WAS 1,545.  WITH SO FEW
POTENTIAL PURCHASERS IT WOULD TAKE A GIFTED EVANGELIST, INDEED, IN VIEW
OF THE ANTAGONISM GENERALLY ENCOUNTERED BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, TO SELL
ENOUGH TRACTS AT PRICES RANGING FROM FIVE TO TWENTY-FIVE CENTS TO GROSS
ENOUGH TO PAY THE TAX.  CF. MCCONKEY V. FREDERICKSBURG, 179 VA. 556, 19
S.E.2D 682.  WHILE THE AMOUNT IS ACTUALLY LOWER IN OPELIKA,  FN6  AND
MAY BE LOWER IN FORT SMITH IN THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET A LICENSE FOR
A SHORT PERIOD,  FN7  AND WHILE THE CIRCLE OF PURCHASERS IS WIDER IN
THOSE TOWNS,  FN8  THESE EXACTIONS ALSO PLACE A HEAVY HAND ON
PETITIONERS' ACTIVITIES.  THE PETITIONERS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO
SUCH TRIBUTE. 

BUT WHATEVER THE AMOUNT, THE TAXES ARE IN REALITY TAXES UPON THE
DISSEMINATION OF RELIGIOUS IDEAS, A DISSEMINATION CARRIED ON BY THE
DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS LITERATURE FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS ALONE AND
NOT FOR PERSONAL PROFIT.  AS SUCH THEY PLACE A BURDEN ON FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION EVEN IF THE
QUESTION OF AMOUNT IS LAID ASIDE.  LIBERTY OF CIRCULATION IS THE VERY
LIFE BLOOD OF A FREE PRESS, CF. LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 452,
AND TAXES ON THE CIRCULATION OF IDEAS HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF MISUSE
AGAINST FREEDOM OF THOUGHT.  FN9  SEE GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO.,
297 U.S. 233, 245-249.  AND TAXES ON CIRCULATION SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF REVENUE WERE SUCCESSFULLY RESISTED, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, AS INTERFERENCES WITH FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  FN10
SURELY ALL THIS WAS FAMILIAR KNOWLEDGE TO THE FRAMERS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.  WE NEED NOT SHUT OUR EYES TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT USE MAY
AGAIN BE MADE OF SUCH TAXES, EITHER BY DISCRIMINATION IN ENFORCEMENT OR
OTHERWISE, TO SUPPRESS THE UNPALATABLE VIEWS OF MILITANT MINORITIES
SUCH AS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.  SEE MCCONKEY V. FREDERICKSBURG, 179 VA.
556, 19 S.E.2D 682.  AS THE EVIDENCE EXCLUDED IN NO. 280 TENDED TO
SHOW, NO ATTEMPT WAS THERE MADE TO APPLY THE ORDINANCE TO MINISTERS
FUNCTIONING IN A MORE ORTHODOX MANNER THAN PETITIONER. 

OTHER OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES IN ADDITION TO THE FACTOR OF HISTORICAL
MISUSE EXIST.  THERE IS THE UNFAIRNESS PRESENT IN ANY SYSTEM OF FLAT
FEE TAXATION, BEARING NO RELATION TO THE ABILITY TO PAY.  AND THERE IS
THE CUMULATIVE BURDEN OF MANY SUCH TAXES THROUGHOUT THE MUNICIPALITIES
OF THE LAND, AS THE NUMBER OF RECENT CASES INVOLVING SUCH ORDINANCES
ABUNDANTLY DEMONSTRATES.  FN11  THE ACTIVITIES OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
ARE WIDESPREAD, AND THE AGGREGATE EFFECT OF NUMEROUS EXACTIONS, NO
MATTER HOW SMALL, CAN CONCEIVABLY FORCE THEM TO CHOOSE BETWEEN
REFRAINING FROM ATTEMPTING TO RECOUP PART OF THE COST OF THEIR
LITERATURE, OR ELSE PAYING OUT LARGE SUMS IN TAXES.  EITHER CHOICE
HINDERS AND MAY EVEN POSSIBLY PUT AN END TO THEIR ACTIVITIES.  THERE IS
NO BASIS, OTHER THAN A REFUSAL TO CONSIDER THE CHARACTERISTICS OF TAXES
SUCH AS THESE, FOR ANY ASSUMPTION THAT SUCH TAXES ARE "COMMENSURATE
WITH THE ACTIVITIES LICENSED."  NOR IS THERE ANY ASSURANCE THAT "A
CORRELATIVELY ENLARGED FIELD OF DISTRIBUTION" WILL INSURE SUFFICIENT
PROCEEDS EVEN TO MEET SUCH EXACTIONS, LET ALONE LEAVING ANY RESIDUE FOR
THE CONTINUATION OF PETITIONERS' EVANGELIZATION. 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION ALL
HAVE A DOUBLE ASPECT - FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND FREEDOM OF ACTION. 
FREEDOM TO THINK IS ABSOLUTE OF ITS OWN NATURE; THE MOST TYRANNICAL
GOVERNMENT IS POWERLESS TO CONTROL THE INWARD WORKINGS OF THE MIND. 
BUT EVEN AN AGGRESSIVE MIND IS OF NO MISSIONARY VALUE UNLESS THERE IS
FREEDOM OF ACTION, FREEDOM TO COMMUNICATE ITS MESSAGE TO OTHERS BY
SPEECH AND WRITING.  SINCE IN ANY FORM OF ACTION THERE IS A POSSIBILITY
OF COLLISION WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THIS
FREEDOM TO ACT IS NOT ABSOLUTE BUT QUALIFIED, BEING SUBJECT TO
REGULATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH DOES NOT UNDULY INFRINGE THE
RIGHT.  HOWEVER, THERE IS NO ASSERTION HERE THAT THE ORDINANCES WERE
REGULATORY, BUT IF THERE WERE SUCH A CLAIM, THEY STILL SHOULD NOT BE
SUSTAINED.  NO ABUSES JUSTIFYING REGULATION ARE ADVANCED AND THE
ORDINANCES ARE NOT NARROWLY AND PRECISELY DRAWN TO DEAL WITH ACTUAL, OR
EVEN HYPOTHETICAL, EVILS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PRESERVING THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE RIGHT.  CF. THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 105;
CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 311.  THEY IMPOSE A TAX ON THE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION AND OPINION ANYWHERE WITHIN THE CITY
LIMITS, WHETHER ON THE STREETS OR FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE.  "AS WE HAVE
SAID, THE STREETS ARE NATURAL AND PROPER PLACES FOR THE DISSEMINATION
OF INFORMATION AND OPINION; AND ONE IS NOT TO HAVE THE EXERCISE OF HIS
LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION IN APPROPRIATE PLACES ABRIDGED ON THE PLEA THAT
IT MAY BE EXERCISED ELSEWHERE."  SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON, 308 U.S. 147,
163.  THESE TAXES ABRIDGE THAT LIBERTY. 

IT MATTERS NOT THAT PETITIONERS ASKED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THEIR
LITERATURE.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS CANNOT AND MUST
NOT MEAN FREEDOM ONLY FOR THOSE WHO CAN DISTRIBUTE THEIR BROADSIDES
WITHOUT CHARGE.  THERE MAY BE OTHERS WITH MESSAGES MORE VITAL BUT
PURSES LESS FULL, WHO MUST SEEK SOME REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR OUTLAY OR
ELSE FOREGO PASSING ON THEIR IDEAS.  THE PAMPHLET, AN HISTORIC WEAPON
AGAINST OPPRESSION,  FN12  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 452, IS
TODAY THE CONVENIENT VEHICLE OF THOSE WITH LIMITED RESOURCES BECAUSE
NEWSPAPER SPACE AND RADIO TIME ARE EXPENSIVE AND THE COST OF
ESTABLISHING SUCH ENTERPRISES GREAT.  IF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS ARE TO HAVE ANY CONCRETE MEANING, PEOPLE SEEKING TO
DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION AND OPINION, TO THE END ONLY THAT OTHERS SHALL
HAVE THE BENEFIT THEREOF, SHOULD NOT BE TAXED FOR CIRCULATING SUCH
MATTER.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER NOW THE VALIDITY OF SUCH TAXES
ON COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES ENGAGED IN THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS.  CF.
VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN, ANTE, P. 52; GIRAGI V. MOORE, 301 U.S. 670. 
PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENGAGED IN A TRAFFIC FOR PROFIT.  WHILE THE COURTS
BELOW HELD THEIR ACTIVITIES WERE COVERED BY THE ORDINANCES, IT IS CLEAR
THAT THEY WERE SEEKING ONLY TO FURTHER THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS BY
PREACHING THE GOSPEL TO OTHERS. 

THE EXERCISE, WITHOUT COMMERCIAL MOTIVES, OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, OR FREEDOM OF WORSHIP ARE NOT PROPER SOURCES OF
TAXATION FOR GENERAL REVENUE PURPOSES.  IN DEALING WITH A PERMISSIBLE
REGULATION OF THESE FREEDOMS AND THE FEE CHARGED IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH, WE EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT THE FEE "WAS NOT A REVENUE TAX,
BUT ONE TO MEET THE EXPENSE INCIDENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT
AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER," AND STATED ONLY THAT, "THERE
IS NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION IN THE CHARGE OF A FEE LIMITED
TO THE PURPOSE STATED."  COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569, 577.  THE
TAXES HERE INVOLVED ARE OSTENSIBLY FOR REVENUE PURPOSES; THEY ARE NOT
REGULATORY FEES.  RESPONDENTS DO NOT SHOW THAT THE INSTANT ACTIVITIES
OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CREATE SPECIAL PROBLEMS CAUSING A DRAIN ON THE
MUNICIPAL COFFERS, OR THAT THESE TAXES ARE COMMENSURATE WITH ANY
EXPENSES ENTAILED BY THE PRESENCE OF THE WITNESSES.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH A SHOWING, I THINK NO TAX WHATEVER CAN BE LEVIED ON PETITIONERS'
ACTIVITIES IN DISTRIBUTING THEIR LITERATURE OR DISSEMINATING THEIR
IDEAS.  IF THE GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
ARE TO BE PRESERVED, MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD NOT BE FREE TO RAISE GENERAL
REVENUE BY TAXES ON THE CIRCULATION OF INFORMATION AND OPINION IN NON
COMMERCIAL CAUSES; OTHER SOURCES CAN BE FOUND, THE TAXATION OF WHICH
WILL NOT CHOKE OFF IDEAS.  TAXES SUCH AS THE INSTANT ONES VIOLATE
PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,
PROTECTED AGAINST STATE INVASION BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
FREEDOM OF RELIGION. 

UNDER THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS, ANY PERSON WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UPON THE ACT OF
DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION OR OPINION OF ANY KIND, WHETHER POLITICAL,
SCIENTIFIC, OR RELIGIOUS IN CHARACTER, WHEN DONE SOLELY IN AN EFFORT TO
SPREAD KNOWLEDGE AND IDEAS, WITH NO THOUGHT OF COMMERCIAL GAIN.  BUT
THERE IS ANOTHER, AND PERHAPS MORE PRECIOUS, REASON WHY THESE
ORDINANCES CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLY TO PETITIONERS.  IMPORTANT AS
FREE SPEECH AND A FREE PRESS ARE TO A FREE GOVERNMENT AND A FREE
CITIZENRY, THERE IS A RIGHT EVEN MORE DEAR TO MANY INDIVIDUALS - THE
RIGHT TO WORSHIP THEIR MAKER ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS AND THE DICTATES
OF THEIR SOULS AND TO CARRY THEIR MESSAGE OR THEIR GOSPEL TO EVERY
LIVING CREATURE.  THESE ORDINANCES INFRINGE THAT RIGHT, WHICH IS ALSO
PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296. 

PETITIONERS WERE ITINERANT MINISTERS GOING THROUGH THE STREETS AND
FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, PREACHING THE GOSPEL BY
DISTRIBUTING BOOKLETS AND PAMPHLETS SETTING FORTH THEIR VIEWS OF THE
BIBLE AND THE TENETS OF THEIR FAITH.  WHILE PERHAPS NOT SO ORTHODOX AS
THE ORAL SERMON, THE USE OF RELIGIOUS BOOKS IS AN OLD, RECOGNIZED AND
EFFECTIVE MODE OF WORSHIP AND MEANS OF PROSELYTIZING.  FN13  FOR THIS,
PETITIONERS WERE TAXED.  THE MIND REBELS AT THE THOUGHT THAT A MINISTER
OF ANY OF THE OLD ESTABLISHED CHURCHES COULD BE MADE TO PAY FEES TO THE
COMMUNITY BEFORE ENTERING THE PULPIT.  THESE TAXES ON PETITIONERS'
EFFORTS TO PREACH THE "NEWS OF THE KINGDOM" SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN
BECAUSE THEY BURDEN PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO WORSHIP THE DEITY IN THEIR
OWN FASHION AND TO SPREAD THE GOSPEL AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT.  THERE IS
HERE NO CONTENTION THAT THEIR MANNER OF WORSHIP GIVES RISE TO CONDUCT
WHICH CALLS FOR REGULATION, AND THESE ORDINANCES ARE NOT AIMED AT ANY
SUCH PRACTICES. 

ONE NEED ONLY READ THE DECISIONS OF THIS AND OTHER COURTS IN THE PAST
FEW YEARS TO SEE THE UNPOPULARITY OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE
DIFFICULTIES PUT IN THEIR PATH BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  AN
ARRESTING PARALLEL EXISTS BETWEEN THE TROUBLES OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
AND THE STRUGGLES OF VARIOUS DISSENTIENT GROUPS IN THE AMERICAN
COLONIES FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WHICH CULMINATED IN THE VIRGINIA STATUTE
FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM,  FN14  THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE OF 1787, FN15
AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  IN MOST OF THE COLONIES THERE WAS AN
ESTABLISHED CHURCH, AND THE WAY OF THE DISSENTER WAS HARD.  ALL SECTS,
INCLUDING QUAKER, METHODIST, BAPTIST, EPISCOPALIAN, SEPARATIST,
ROGERINE, AND CATHOLIC, SUFFERED.  FN16  MANY OF THE NON-CONFORMING
MINISTERS WERE ITINERANTS, AND MEASURES WERE ADOPTED TO CURB THEIR
UNWANTED ACTIVITIES.  THE BOOKS OF CERTAIN DENOMINATIONS WERE BANNED. 
FN17  VIRGINIA AND CONNECTICUT HAD BURDENSOME LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. 
FN18  CF. LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON, 308
U.S. 147; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296.  OTHER STATES REQUIRED
OATHS BEFORE ONE COULD PREACH WHICH MANY MINISTERS COULD NOT
CONSCIENTIOUSLY TAKE.  FN19  CF. REID V. BROOKVILLE, 39 F.SUPP.  30;
KENNEDY V. MOSCOW, 39 F.SUPP.  26.  RESEARCH REVEALS NO ATTEMPT TO
CONTROL OR PERSECUTE BY THE MORE SUBTLE MEANS OF TAXING THE FUNCTION OF
PREACHING, OR EVEN ANY ATTEMPT TO TAP IT AS A SOURCE OF REVENUE.  FN20 

BY APPLYING THESE OCCUPATIONAL TAXES TO PETITIONERS' NON-COMMERCIAL
ACTIVITIES, RESPONDENTS NOW TAX SINCERE EFFORTS TO SPREAD RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS, AND A HEAVY BURDEN FALLS UPON A NEW SET OF ITINERANT ZEALOTS,
THE WITNESSES.  THAT BURDEN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND, ESPECIALLY
IF, AS THE EXCLUDED TESTIMONY IN NO. 280 INDICATES, THE ACCEPTED
CLERGYMEN OF THE TOWN CAN TAKE TO THEIR PULPITS AND DISTRIBUTE THEIR
LITERATURE WITHOUT THE IMPACT OF TAXATION.  LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE IS
TOO FULL OF MEANING FOR THE INDIVIDUALS IN THIS NATION TO PERMIT
TAXATION TO PROHIBIT OR SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR THE SPREAD OF RELIGIOUS
IDEAS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE CONTROVERSIAL AND RUN COUNTER TO THE
ESTABLISHED NOTIONS OF A COMMUNITY.  IF THIS COURT IS TO ERR IN
EVALUATING CLAIMS THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND
FREEDOM OF RELIGION HAVE BEEN INVADED, FAR BETTER THAT IT ERR IN BEING
OVERPROTECTIVE OF THESE PRECIOUS RIGHTS. 

FN1  FOR CONVENIENCE, APPELLANT IN NO. 966, PETITIONERS IN NO. 314,
AND PETITIONER IN NO. 280 ARE HEREIN COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS
"PETITIONERS." 

FN2  RESPONDENT IN NO. 280 CONTENDS THAT THE QUESTION PRESENTED "IN
NO RESPECT RELATES TO REGULATORY OR POLICE POWER ACTION OF A MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT, BUT IS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE MUNICIPALITY'S RIGHT TO LEVY
TAXES." 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA STATED IN NO. 966 THAT "THE ORDINANCE ON
ITS FACE IS THE ORDINARY OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE." 

FN3  SEVERAL COURTS HAVE TAKEN THIS POSITION.  STATE EX REL. SEMANSKY
V. STARK, 196 LA. 307, 199 SO. 129; PEOPLE V. FINKELSTEIN, 170 N.Y.
MISC. 188, 9 N.Y.S.2D 941; THOMAS V. ATLANTA, 59 GA. APP. 520, 1 S.E.2D
598; STATE V. MEREDITH, 197 S.C. 351, 15 S.E.2D 678; STATE EX REL.
HOUGH V. WOODRUFF, 147 FLA. 299, 2 SO.2D 577; CINCINNATI V. MOSIER, 61
OHIO APP. 81, 22 N.E.2D 418.  COMPARE, GREGG V. SMITH, 8 L.R.Q.B. (1872
3), P. 302; DUNCAN V. GAIRNS, 27 CANADIAN CR. CASES 440; BUT SEE REX V.
STEWART, 53 CANADIAN CR. CASES 24. 

FN4  AND SEE RUTLEDGE, J., DISSENTING IN BUSEY V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 129 F.2D 24, DECIDED APRIL 15, 1942. 

FN5  WHEN THE OPELIKA ORDINANCE IS CONSIDERED ON ITS FACE, THERE IS
AN ADDITIONAL REASON FOR ITS INVALIDITY.  THE UNCONTROLLED POWER OF
REVOCATION LODGED WITH THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IS BUT THE CONVERSE OF THE
SYSTEM OF PRIOR LICENSING STRUCK DOWN IN LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S.
444.  HERE, AS THERE, THE PERVASIVE THREAT OF CENSORSHIP INHERENT IN
SUCH A POWER VITIATES THE ORDINANCE. 

FN6  $5 OR $10, DEPENDING UPON WHICH SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE IS HELD
TO APPLY. 

FN7  $2.50 PER DAY, $10 PER WEEK, AND $25 PER MONTH. 

FN8  THE 1940 POPULATION OF FORT SMITH WAS 36,584 AND THAT OF
OPELIKA, 8,487. 

FN9  THE ENGLISH STAMP ACT OF 1712, 10 ANNE, C. 19, PUT A TAX ON
NEWSPAPERS AND PAMPHLETS TO CHECK WHAT SEEMED TO THE GOVERNMENT TO BE
"FALSE AND SCANDALOUS LIBELS" AND "THE MOST HORRID BLASPHEMIES AGAINST
GOD AND RELIGION."  THIS AND SUBSEQUENT ENACTMENTS LED TO A LONG
STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND FOR THE REPEAL OF THESE "TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE" AND
THE RECOGNITION OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  SEE COLLETT, HISTORY OF
THE TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE (1899); PLACE, TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE (1831). 

FN10  STAMP TAXES FOR PURELY REVENUE PURPOSES WERE SUCCESSFULLY
RESISTED IN MASSACHUSETTS IN 1757 AND AGAIN IN 1785 ON THE GROUND THAT
THEY INTERFERED WITH FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  SEE DUNIWAY, FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS IN MASSACHUSETTS (1906), PP. 119-120, 136-137; THOMAS, HISTORY OF
PRINTING IN AMERICA (1810), VOL. 2, PP. 267-268.  THE PRESS ALSO
VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED THE STAMP ACT OF 1765, 5 GEO. III, C. 12, WHICH WAS
ALSO A REVENUE MEASURE.  SEE DUNIWAY, OP. CIT., P. 124; THOMAS, OP.
CIT., PP. 189, 297, 322, 329, 350; VAN TYNE, CAUSES OF THE WAR OF
INDEPENDENCE (1922), P. 160; 15 SCOTTISH HISTORICAL REVIEW 322, 326. 

FN11  IN ADDITION TO THE INSTANT CASES, SEE CINCINNATI V. MOSIER, 61
OHIO APP. 81, 22 N.E.2D 418; STATE V. MEREDITH, 197 S.C. 351, 15 S.E.2D
678; THOMAS V. ATLANTA, 59 GA. APP. 520, 1 S.E.2D 598; COMMONWEALTH V.
REID, 144 PA. SUPER.  569, 20 A.2D 841; PEOPLE V. BANKS, 168 N.Y. MISC.
515, 6 N.Y.S.2D 41; COOK V. HARRISON, 180 ARK. 546, 21 S.W.2D 966;
STATE V. GREAVES, 112 VT. 222, 22 A.2D 497; BUSEY V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 129 F.2D 24; MCCONKEY V. FREDERICKSBURG, 179 VA. 556, 19
S.E.2D 682; BLUE ISLAND V. KOZUL, 379 ILL. 511, 41 N.E.2D 515; STATE EX
REL. SEMANSKY V. STARK, 196 LA. 307, 199 SO. 129; PEOPLE V.
FINKELSTEIN, 170 N.Y. MISC. 188, 9 N.Y.S.2D 941; STATE EX REL. HOUGH V.
WOODRUFF, 147 FLA. 299, 2 SO.2D 577; BORCHERT V. RANGER, 42 F.SUPP. 
577. 

FN12  THE PAMPHLETS OF PAINE WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED GRATUITOUSLY.  SEE
INTRODUCTION TO PAINE'S POLITICAL WRITINGS (LONDON, 1909) PP. 3, 5. 

PAMPHLETS WERE EXTENSIVELY USED IN THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM.  SEE GREENE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN
CONNECTICUT (1905), PP. 282-283, 299-301. 

FN13  SEE, THE VOLUMES OF THE AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY (1848), PP. 15
16, 24; HOME EVANGELIZATION (1850), PP. 70-74; LEE, HISTORY OF THE
METHODISTS (1810), P. 48. 

FN14  ADOPTED IN 1785 THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF JEFFERSON AND MADISON. 
VIRGINIA CODE OF 1930, SEC. 34. 

FN15  ARTICLE I. NO PERSON DEMEANING HIMSELF IN A PEACEABLE AND
ORDERLY MANNER SHALL EVER BE MOLESTED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS MODE OF WORSHIP
OR RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS IN THE SAID TERRITORY. 

FN16  SEE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (1861), VOL. VIII, PP. 398
402(NOTES ON VIRGINIA, QUERY XVII); COBB, RISE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN
AMERICA (1902); LITTLE, IMPRISONED PREACHERS AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN
VIRGINIA (1938); LEE, HISTORY OF THE METHODISTS (1810), PP. 62-74;
GREENE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN CONNECTICUT (1905), PP.
158-180; GUILDAY, LIFE AND TIMES OF JOHN CARROLL (1922), VOL. 1,
CHAPTERS V AND VIII. 

FN17  JEFFERSON, OP. CIT.; GREENE, OP. CIT., P. 165. 

FN18  LITTLE, OP. CIT., PP. 11-13, 67-69; GREENE, OP. CIT., PP. 243,
262-263, 358; COBB, OP. CIT., PP. 98, 104, 358; WRIGHT, HAWKERS AND
WALKERS IN EARLY AMERICA (1927), CHAPTER X; BALDWIN, THE NEW ENGLAND
CLERGY AND THE REVOLUTION (1928), P. 59. 

FN19  THE JOURNAL OF THE REV. FRANCIS ASBURY (1821), VOL. 1, PP. 208,
253; LEE, OP. CIT., PP. 62-74. 

FN20  THE STAMP ACT OF 1765 EXEMPTED "ANY BOOKS CONTAINING ONLY
MATTERS OF DEVOTION OR PIETY."  MACDONALD, DOCUMENTARY SOURCE BOOK OF
AMERICAN HISTORY (3D ED., 1934), P. 128. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY: 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT SANCTIONS A DEVICE WHICH IN OUR OPINION
SUPPRESSES OR TENDS TO SUPPRESS THE FREE EXERCISE OF A RELIGION
PRACTICED BY A MINORITY GROUP.  THIS IS BUT ANOTHER STEP IN THE
DIRECTION WHICH MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586,
TOOK AGAINST THE SAME RELIGIOUS MINORITY, AND IS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF
THE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THAT DECISION RESTED.  SINCE WE JOINED IN THE
OPINION IN THE GOBITIS CASE, WE THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE OCCASION
TO STATE THAT WE NOW BELIEVE THAT IT ALSO WAS WRONGLY DECIDED. 
CERTAINLY OUR DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT, FUNCTIONING UNDER THE
HISTORIC BILL OF RIGHTS, HAS A HIGH RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE
ITSELF TO THE RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF MINORITIES, HOWEVER UNPOPULAR AND
UNORTHODOX THOSE VIEWS MAY BE.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PUT THE
RIGHT FREELY TO EXERCISE RELIGION IN A SUBORDINATE POSITION.  WE FEAR,
HOWEVER, THAT THE OPINIONS IN THESE AND IN THE GOBITIS CASE DO EXACTLY
THAT. 
..END :





WALLING V. BELO CORP., 316 U.S. 624 


NO. 622.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 8, 1942.  - 121 F.2D
207, AFFIRMED. 


1.  NOTHING IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BARS AN EMPLOYER FROM
CONTRACTING WITH HIS EMPLOYEES TO PAY THEM THE SAME WAGES THAT THEY
RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY, SO LONG AS THE NEW RATE EQUALS OR EXCEEDS THE
MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE ACT.  P. 630. 

2.  AN EMPLOYER WHOSE EMPLOYEES WORKED IRREGULAR HOURS AND WERE PAID
FIXED WEEKLY SALARIES, ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH THEM, INDIVIDUALLY,
WHICH IN EACH CASE SPECIFIED A BASIC RATE OF PAY PER HOUR, FOR THE
MAXIMUM HOURS FIXED BY THE ACT, AND NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF
TIMES THAT RATE PER HOUR FOR OVERTIME, WITH A GUARANTY THAT THE
EMPLOYEE SHOULD RECEIVE EACH WEEK FOR REGULAR TIME AND OVERTIME NOT
LESS THAN AN AMOUNT SPECIFIED.  UNDER THIS PLAN, THE EMPLOYEE WORKED
MORE THAN THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM REGULAR HOURS BEFORE HE BECAME ENTITLED
TO ANY PAY IN ADDITION TO THE WEEKLY GUARANTY, BUT WHEN HE WORKED
ENOUGH HOURS TO EARN MORE THAN THE GUARANTY, THE SURPLUS TIME WAS PAID
FOR AT 150% OF THE "BASIC," OR CONTRACT, RATE.  HIS COMPENSATION
EQUALLED OR APPROXIMATED THAT WHICH HE WAS RECEIVING WHEN THE ACT WENT
INTO EFFECT, AND EXCEEDED THE MINIMA WHICH THE ACT PRESCRIBES.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE RATE PER HOUR SO AGREED ON WAS THE "REGULAR RATE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7(A)(3) OF THE ACT WHERE IT PROVIDES THAT
FOR OVERTIME THE EMPLOYEE SHALL RECEIVE COMPENSATION "AT A RATE NOT
LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE FOR WHICH HE IS
EMPLOYED."  P. 630. 

(2)  THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO FIX THE AMOUNT PER HOUR
SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR INTENTION TO
GUARANTY THE SPECIFIED WEEKLY INCOME.  P. 631. 

(3)  THE ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT PAYING MORE FOR OVERTIME THAN 150% OF
THE BASIC RATE.  P. 632. 

(4)  THE CONTRACT CONFORMS TO THE INTENTION OF THE ACT.  OVERNIGHT
MOTOR TRANSPORTATION CO. V. MISSEL, ANTE, P. 572, DISTINGUISHED.  P.
634. 

WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR, V. A.H. BELO CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 601, TO REVEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH DISMISSED A BILL BROUGHT BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, LABOR DEPARTMENT, TO
ENJOIN THE RESPONDENT FROM ADHERING TO A WAGE SYSTEM, BASED UPON
CONTRACTS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES, WHICH PLAINTIFF ATTACKED AS CONTRARY TO
WAGE AND HOUR PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  IN THE
DISTRICT COURT THIS CASE WAS TRIED WITH ANOTHER IN WHICH THE PRESENT
RESPONDENT OBTAINED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AGAINST CERTAIN OF ITS
EMPLOYEES.  SEE 35 F.SUPP.  430, 36 F.SUPP.  907. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A PROCEEDING BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO RESTRAIN THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION FROM ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 
FN1  THE ADMINISTRATOR SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE USE BY RESPONDENT, UNDER
CERTAIN CONTRACTS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES, OF WAGE AGREEMENTS DEEMED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR VIOLATIVE OF THE TIME AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 7(A)  FN2  AS IMPLEMENTED BY SECS. 15(A)(1) AND (2).  FN3 

THE RESPONDENT, A TEXAS CORPORATION, IS THE PUBLISHER OF THE DALLAS
MORNING NEWS AND OTHER PERIODICALS, AND THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF RADIO
STATION WFAA.  IT HAS SOME 600 EMPLOYEES.  THOSE IN THE MECHANICAL
DEPARTMENTS WORK UNDER A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND ARE NOT
INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT DISPUTE.  THE OTHERS, AND PARTICULARLY THOSE IN
THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS, WORK IRREGULAR HOURS.  PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ACT, OCTOBER 24, 1938, RESPONDENT HAD BEEN PAYING ALL BUT
TWO OR THREE OF THESE EMPLOYEES MORE THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE REQUIRED BY
THE ACT.  THEY RECEIVED VACATIONS OF APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS EACH YEAR
AT FULL PAY; SPECIAL BONUSES AT THE END OF THE YEAR AMOUNTING TO
APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK'S EARNINGS; AND FULL PAY DURING PERIODS OF
ILLNESS, SOMETIMES CONTINUING FOR WEEKS AND SOMETIMES FOR MONTHS.  AT
THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, 28 SUPERANNUATED EMPLOYEES WERE CARRIED ON THE
PAYROLL AT FULL RATES OF PAY.  EMPLOYEES WERE PERMITTED ABSENCES TO
ATTEND TO PERSONAL AFFAIRS WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS FROM PAY.  WHEN THEY WERE
REQUIRED TO WORK LONG HOURS IN ANY WEEK, THEY WERE GIVEN COMPENSATING
TIME OFF IN SUCCEEDING WEEKS.  LIFE INSURANCE WAS CARRIED FOR THEM AT
RESPONDENT'S EXPENSE. 

AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BUT BEFORE ITS
EFFECTIVE DATE, RESPONDENT ENDEAVORED TO ADJUST ITS COMPENSATION SYSTEM
TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT BY NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT WITH EACH
OF ITS EMPLOYEES EXCEPT THOSE IN THE MECHANICAL DEPARTMENTS.  THESE
CONTRACTS WERE IN THE FORM OF LETTERS STATING TERMS WHICH WERE AGREED
TO BY THE EMPLOYEES.  THE FOLLOWING IS A TYPICAL LETTER: 

"THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WHICH GOES INTO EFFECT ON OCTOBER 24,
1938, PROVIDES FOR THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM WAGES AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT:

    "FIRST YEAR - 25[ PER HOUR MINIMUM

    44 HOURS MAXIMUM PER WEEK

                  "SECOND YEAR - 30[ PER HOUR MINIMUM

                       42 HOURS MAXIMUM PER WEEK

               "THIRD YEAR - 40[ PER HOUR MINIMUM  FN4

                       40 HOURS MAXIMUM PER WEEK 

EXCEPT THAT EMPLOYEES MAY WORK MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF HOURS
SPECIFIED ABOVE, PROVIDED THAT OVERTIME RATES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF ONE
AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE BASIC RATE. 

"IN ORDER TO CONFORM OUR EMPLOYMENT ARRANGEMENTS TO THE SCHEME OF THE
ACT WITHOUT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WHICH YOU RECEIVE EACH WEEK,
WE ADVISE THAT FROM AND AFTER OCTOBER 24, 1938, YOUR BASIC RATE OF PAY
WILL BE  ...  67  ...  CENTS PER HOUR FOR THE FIRST FORTY-FOUR HOURS
EACH WEEK, AND THAT FOR TIME OVER FORTY-FOUR HOURS EACH WEEK YOU WILL
RECEIVE FOR EACH HOUR OF WORK NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIME SUCH
BASIC RATE ABOVE MENTIONED, WITH A GUARANTY ON OUR PART THAT YOU SHALL
RECEIVE WEEKLY, FOR REGULAR TIME AND FOR SUCH OVERTIME AS THE
NECESSITIES OF THE BUSINESS MAY DEMAND, A SUM NOT LESS THAN $40.  ...
" 

IN MOST CASES, AS IN THIS EXAMPLE, THE SPECIFIED HOURLY RATE WAS
FIXED AT 1/60TH OF THE GUARANTEED WEEKLY WAGE.  THE RESULT WAS THAT
DURING THE FIRST YEAR UNDER THE ACT, WHEN THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OF
REGULAR HOURS WAS 44, THE EMPLOYEE WAS REQUIRED TO WORK 54 1/2 HOURS
BEFORE HE BECAME ENTITLED TO ANY PAY IN ADDITION TO THE WEEKLY
GUARANTY.  FN5  WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WORKED ENOUGH HOURS AT THE CONTRACT
RATE TO EARN MORE THAN THE GUARANTY, THE SURPLUS TIME WAS PAID FOR AT
THE RATE OF 150% OF THE HOURLY CONTRACT WAGE.  IF THE EMPLOYEE RECEIVED
AN INCREASE IN PAY, THE HOURLY RATE AND WEEKLY RATE WERE READJUSTED. 

FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS THE SYSTEM EMBODIED IN THESE CONTRACTS WAS
FOLLOWED TO THE APPARENT SATISFACTION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES. 
RESPONDENT WAS THEN ADVISED THAT THE ARRANGEMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF
THE ACT AND THAT IT WAS LIABLE TO ITS EMPLOYEES IN AN AMOUNT OF FROM 30
TO 60 THOUSAND DOLLARS.  IT WAS INFORMED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR IN
DALLAS AND BY AN OFFICIAL IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE IN WASHINGTON
THAT AN EMPLOYEE'S COMPLAINT HAD PRECIPITATED THE INVESTIGATION.  THESE
OFFICIALS DECLINED TO GIVE THE NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE. 

RESPONDENT THEREUPON BROUGHT SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, JOINING THE REGIONAL
DIRECTOR AND THREE OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS DEFENDANTS.  THE DEFENDANT
EMPLOYEES ANSWERED THAT THEY AND ALL THE OTHER EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY
THE SYSTEM APPROVED OF IT.  THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR MOVED TO DISMISS ON
TWO GROUNDS, ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT HE REPRESENTED NONE OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS DENIED.  35 F.SUPP.  430.  IN THE
MEANTIME, PETITIONER INSTITUTED THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN RESPONDENT FROM
CONTINUING TO OPERATE THE WAGE SYSTEM BASED UPON ITS CONTRACTS WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES.  THE TWO SUITS WERE CONSOLIDATED AND TRIED TOGETHER.  THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT AND
DISMISSED THE BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION.  36 F.SUPP.  907. 

PETITIONER APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE
DISMISSAL OF ITS COMPLAINT.  THAT COURT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  121 F.2D 207.  IT FOUND THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE
"ACTUAL BONA FIDE CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT" AND THAT "THEY WERE INTENDED
TO, AND DID, REALLY FIX THE REGULAR RATES AT WHICH EACH EMPLOYEE WAS
EMPLOYED."  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 

IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE, AS PETITIONER CONTENDS, THAT THE PURPOSE OF
RESPONDENT'S ARRANGEMENT WITH ITS EMPLOYEES WAS TO PERMIT, AS FAR AS
POSSIBLE, THE PAYMENT OF THE SAME TOTAL WEEKLY WAGE AFTER THE ACT AS
BEFORE.  BUT NOTHING IN THE ACT BARS AN EMPLOYER FROM CONTRACTING WITH
HIS EMPLOYEES TO PAY THEM THE SAME WAGES THAT THEY RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY,
SO LONG AS THE NEW RATE EQUALS OR EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE
ACT.  FN6 

THE ACT REQUIRES THAT FOR EACH HOUR OF WORK BEYOND THE STATUTORY
MAXIMUM, THE EMPLOYEES MUST BE PAID "NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF
TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED."  THIS CASE TURNS UPON
THE MEANING OF THE WORDS "THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED." 
RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE REGULAR RATE UNDER THE ILLUSTRATIVE
CONTRACT, WHICH IS SET OUT ABOVE AND TO WHICH WE SHALL REFER
THROUGHOUT, IS 67 CENTS AN HOUR.  PETITIONER ARGUES, HOWEVER, THAT THE
67 CENTS HOURLY RATE MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT IS MEANINGLESS AND THAT
THE AGREEMENT IS, IN EFFECT, FOR A WEEKLY SALARY OF $40 WITHOUT REGARD
TO FLUCTUATIONS IN THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED EACH WEEK.  TREATING THE
CONTRACT AS ONE FOR A FIXED WEEKLY SALARY, HE URGES THAT THE REGULAR
HOURLY RATE FOR ANY SINGLE WEEK IS THE QUOTIENT OF THE $40 GUARANTY
DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED IN THAT WEEK.  FN7
UNDER THIS FORMULA THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO THE REGULAR HOURLY RATE
THUS DETERMINED FOR THE FIRST 44 HOURS  FN8  EACH WEEK AND TO NOT LESS
THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THAT RATE FOR EACH HOUR THEREAFTER. 

IN ITS INITIAL STAGE THE QUESTION TO WHICH THIS DISPUTE GIVES RISE IS
A QUESTION OF LAW, A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTORY TERM
"REGULAR RATE."  BUT IT IS AGREED THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE MAY ESTABLISH THE "REGULAR RATE" BY CONTRACT.  IN THE CASE
BEFORE US, SUCH AN EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE, AND IN THE EXAMPLE GIVEN THE
REGULAR RATE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED AS 67 CENTS AN HOUR.  THE DIFFICULTY
ARISES FROM THE INCLUSION OF THE $40 GUARANTY.  THE PROBLEM IS WHETHER
THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO SET 67 CENTS AN HOUR AS THE REGULAR
RATE SQUARES WITH THEIR INTENTION TO GUARANTEE A WEEKLY INCOME OF $40. 
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POSITION IS THAT THESE TWO OBJECTIVES ARE
INHERENTLY INCONSISTENT AND THAT THE INTENTION TO FIX THE REGULAR
HOURLY RATE AT 67 CENTS IS OVERRIDDEN BY THE INTENTION TO GUARANTEE THE
$40 PER WEEK. 

WE CANNOT AGREE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WORKS MORE
THAN 54 1/2 HOURS IN A SINGLE WEEK, HE IS ADMITTEDLY ENTITLED TO MORE
THAN THE $40 GUARANTEE.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN SUCH A CASE, THE
EMPLOYEE IS PAID AT THE RATE OF $1.00 AN HOUR (150% X $.67) FOR EACH
HOUR OF OVERTIME.  IN THIS SITUATION, THEN, IT IS CLEARLY THE GUARANTY
THAT BECOMES INOPERATIVE AND THE 67 CENT HOURLY RATE FIXED BY THE
CONTRACT THAT IS CONTROLLING. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, ALTHOUGH IT IS PERFECTLY TRUE THAT WHEN THE
EMPLOYEE WORKS LESS THAN 54 1/2 HOURS DURING THE WEEK HIS PAY IS
DETERMINED BY THE $40 GUARANTY, IT DOES NOT DISPOSE OF THE PROBLEM
SIMPLY TO SAY THIS.  THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE $40 CONTEMPLATES
COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME AS WELL AS BASIC PAY.  THE CONTRACT SAYS THAT
THE EMPLOYEE IS TO RECEIVE 67 CENTS AN HOUR FOR THE FIRST 44 HOURS AND
"NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIME SUCH BASIC RATE" FOR EACH HOUR
OVER 44.  CONSEQUENTLY, IF AN EMPLOYEE WORKS 50 HOURS IN A GIVEN WEEK,
IT MIGHT REASONABLY BE SAID THAT HIS $40 WAGE CONSISTS OF $29.48 FOR
THE FIRST 44 HOURS (44 X $.67) PLUS $10.52 FOR THE REMAINING SIX HOURS
(6 X $1.753).  TO BE SURE, $1.753 IS MORE THAN 150% OF $.67.  BUT THE
ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT PAYING MORE; IT REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE OVERTIME
RATE BE "NOT LESS THAN" 150% OF THE BASIC RATE.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT
UNDER THIS FORMULA THE OVERTIME RATE PER HOUR MAY VARY FROM WEEK TO
WEEK.  BUT NOTHING IN THE ACT FORBIDS SUCH FLUCTUATION. 

THE GIST OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OBJECTION TO THIS INTERPRETATION IS
THAT BOTH THE BASIC RATE AND THE OVERTIME RATE ARE SO "ARTIFICIAL" THAT
THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT CANNOT FAIRLY BE SUPPOSED TO HAVE INTENDED
THAT IT BE SO CONSTRUED.  IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE FLEXIBILITY OF
THE OVERTIME RATE IS CONSIDERABLE, BUT THIS FLEXIBILITY MAY WELL HAVE
BEEN INTENDED IF IT WAS THE ONLY MEANS OF SECURING UNIFORMITY IN WEEKLY
INCOME.  MOREOVER, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION, THE
REGULAR RATE IN THE EXAMPLE GIVEN IS $40 DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS
WORKED EACH WEEK.  SINCE THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED FLUCTUATES SO
DRASTICALLY FROM WEEK TO WEEK, THIS "REGULAR" RATE IS CERTAINLY
"IRREGULAR" IN A MATHEMATICAL SENSE.  AND INASMUCH AS IT CANNOT BE
CALCULATED UNTIL AFTER THE WORKWEEK HAS BEEN COMPLETED, IT IS DIFFICULT
TO SAY THAT IT IS "REGULAR" IN THE SENSE THAT EITHER EMPLOYER OR
EMPLOYEE KNOWS WHAT IT IS OR CAN PLAN ON THE BASIS OF IT. 

THE ARTIFICIALITY OF THE METHOD URGED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IS
ACCENTUATED BY THE NATURE OF HIS COUNTER-PROPOSAL OF TWO PLANS BY WHICH
THE WEEKLY WAGE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE HOURS VARY FROM WEEK TO WEEK MAY
BE STABILIZED.  ONE OF THESE OFFICIALLY APPROVED PLANS IS KNOWN AS THE
"TIME-OFF PLAN" AND IS EXPLAINED IN INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 4. 
UNDER THIS PLAN THE EMPLOYMENT MUST BE PLACED UPON AN HOURLY RATE BASIS
WITH NO MENTION OF A GUARANTY.  THE PAY DAYS MUST BE SPACED AT
INTERVALS OF TWO WEEKS OR LONGER.  IF THE PAY PERIOD IS SET AT TWO
WEEKS AND THE EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO WORK OVERTIME DURING THE FIRST
WEEK, HE IS GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME OFF DURING THE SECOND WEEK TO KEEP
HIS PAYCHECK AT A CONSTANT LEVEL.  IN OUR VIEW, THIS COUNTER-PROPOSAL
FAR EXCEEDS IN TECHNICALITY THE PLAN ADOPTED BY RESPONDENT.  MOREOVER,
ITS OPERATION IS TO PROVIDE A CEILING BUT NOT A FLOOR FOR THE WAGE. 
SINCE THE PAY IS BY THE HOUR AND THERE IS NO GUARANTY, IN A PAY PERIOD
IN WHICH AN EMPLOYEE WORKS FEW HOURS, HIS WAGE MAY FALL FAR BELOW THE
LEVEL AIMED AT. 

THE OTHER OFFICIALLY APPROVED ARRANGEMENT IS KNOWN AS THE "PRE
PAYMENT PLAN," AND IS ALSO EXPLAINED IN BULLETIN NO. 4.  UNDER THIS
PLAN, VIRTUALLY THE SAME ARRANGEMENT AS THAT WHICH WE HAVE BEEN USING
AS AN EXAMPLE CAN STAND.  THAT IS TO SAY, AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE PROMISED
67 CENTS AN HOUR FOR THE FIRST 44 HOURS, $1.00 FOR EACH HOUR OVER 44,
FN9  WITH A GUARANTY OF $40 A WEEK.  HOWEVER, IN ANY WEEK IN WHICH THE
EMPLOYEE'S EARNINGS AT THE STATED HOURLY RATES DO NOT EQUAL THE $40
GUARANTY, THE BALANCE NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE GUARANTY MUST BE TREATED
AS A LOAN TO HIM.  IF IN ANY SUCCEEDING WEEK HIS EARNINGS AT THE STATED
HOURLY RATES EXCEED THE GUARANTY, THE EXCESS IS WITHHELD BY THE
EMPLOYER AS A REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN.  BUT IF HIS EARNINGS DO NOT EXCEED
THE GUARANTY IN ANY SUCCEEDING WEEK, AND AFTER RECEIVING HIS PAY CHECK
HE DOES NOT RETURN TO WORK, THE EMPLOYER IS PRESUMED TO MAKE AN EFFORT
TO COLLECT THE EXCESS AMOUNT PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE IN A PREVIOUS WEEK. 
IF THE EMPLOYER DOES NOT RECOVER THIS EXCESS AMOUNT, THEN FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE PLAN OPERATES JUST AS DOES THE PLAN FOLLOWED BY
THE RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE.  ABOUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT ONE IS
CALLED A "GUARANTY PLAN," WHILE THE OTHER IS CALLED A "PRE-PAYMENT
PLAN."  IN THE OPINION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE "PRE-PAYMENT PLAN" IS
LAWFUL; THE "GUARANTY PLAN" IS UNLAWFUL.    BUT THE GUARANTY CONTRACT
IN THIS CASE CARRIES OUT THE INTENTION OF THE CONGRESS.  IT SPECIFIES A
BASIC HOURLY RATE OF PAY AND NOT LESS THAN TIME AND A HALF THAT RATE
FOR EVERY HOUR OF OVERTIME WORK BEYOND THE MAXIMUM HOURS FIXED BY THE
ACT.  IT IS ENTIRELY UNLIKE THE MISSEL CASE, ANTE, P. 572.  IN THE
CONTRACT IN THAT CASE, THERE IS NO STATED HOURLY WAGE AND NO PROVISION
FOR OVERTIME.  UNDER THE DECISION IN THAT CASE, AN EMPLOYER WHO ENGAGES
A WORKER FOR A FIXED WEEKLY WAGE OF $40 FOR IRREGULAR HOURS AND WORKS
HIM 65 HOURS (IN A YEAR WHEN THE MAXIMUM WORKWEEK IS 44 HOURS), OWES
THE EMPLOYEE $46.38.  SEE MISSEL CASE.  FOR THE SAME HOURS UNDER THE
BELO CONTRACT, AT THE HOURLY CONTRACT RATE OF 67 CENTS, THE WORKER
WOULD RECEIVE $50.48.  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN COMPENSATION, BUT THAT
IS THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AND IT IS WITHIN THE LETTER AND THE
INTENTION OF THE LAW. 

THE PROBLEM PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS DIFFICULT - DIFFICULT BECAUSE
WE ARE ASKED TO PROVIDE A RIGID DEFINITION OF "REGULAR RATE" WHEN
CONGRESS HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ONE.  PRESUMABLY, CONGRESS REFRAINED
FROM ATTEMPTING SUCH A DEFINITION BECAUSE THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
TO WHICH THE ACT WOULD APPLY WERE SO VARIOUS AND UNPREDICTABLE.  AND
THAT WHICH IT WAS UNWISE FOR CONGRESS TO DO, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DO.
WHEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES HAVE AGREED UPON AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH HAS
PROVEN MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY, WE SHOULD NOT UPSET IT AND APPROVE AN
INFLEXIBLE AND ARTIFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT WHICH FINDS NO
SUPPORT IN ITS TEXT AND WHICH AS A PRACTICAL MATTER ELIMINATES THE
POSSIBILITY OF STEADY INCOME TO EMPLOYEES WITH IRREGULAR HOURS.  WHERE
THE QUESTION IS AS CLOSE AS THIS ONE, IT IS WELL TO FOLLOW THE
CONGRESSIONAL LEAD AND TO AFFORD THE FULLEST POSSIBLE SCOPE TO
AGREEMENTS AMONG THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ACTUALLY AFFECTED.  THIS
POLICY IS BASED UPON A COMMON SENSE RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIAL PROBLEMS
CONFRONTING EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IN BUSINESSES WHERE THE WORK HOURS
FLUCTUATE FROM WEEK TO WEEK AND FROM DAY TO DAY.  MANY SUCH EMPLOYEES
VALUE THE SECURITY OF A REGULAR WEEKLY INCOME.  THEY WANT TO OPERATE ON
A FAMILY BUDGET, TO MAKE COMMITMENTS FOR PAYMENTS ON HOMES AND
AUTOMOBILES AND INSURANCE.  CONGRESS HAS SAID NOTHING TO PREVENT THIS
DESIRABLE OBJECTIVE.  THIS COURT SHOULD NOT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT BY INJUNCTION IS
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 17.  "THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF THE TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION, FOR CAUSE SHOWN, AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
20(RELATING TO NOTICE TO OPPOSITE PARTY) OF THE ACT ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO
SUPPLEMENT EXISTING LAWS AGAINST UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' APPROVED OCTOBER 15, 1914, AS AMENDED (U.S.C.,
1934 EDITION, TITLE 28, SEC. 381), TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF SECTION
15."  52 STAT. 1069; 29 U.S.C. SEC. 217. 

FN2  "SEC.  7.  (A)  NO EMPLOYER SHALL, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
IN THIS SECTION, EMPLOY ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE
OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE - 

(1)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-FOUR HOURS DURING THE FIRST
YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION, 

(2)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY-TWO HOURS DURING THE SECOND
YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, OR 

(3)  FOR A WORKWEEK LONGER THAN FORTY HOURS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE SECOND YEAR FROM SUCH DATE, UNLESS SUCH EMPLOYEE RECEIVES
COMPENSATION FOR HIS EMPLOYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE HOURS ABOVE SPECIFIED
AT A RATE NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONEHALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH
HE IS EMPLOYED."  52 STAT. 1063; 29 U.S.C. SEC. 207. 

FN3  "SEC.  15.  (A)  AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY
DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR
ANY PERSON - 

(1)  TO TRANSPORT, OFFER FOR TRANSPORTATION, SHIP, DELIVER, OR SELL
IN COMMERCE, OR TO SHIP, DELIVER, OR SELL WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT SHIPMENT
OR DELIVERY OR SALE THEREOF IN COMMERCE IS INTENDED, ANY GOODS IN THE
PRODUCTION OF WHICH ANY EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 6
OR SECTION 7, OR IN VIOLATION OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED UNDER SECTION 14; EXCEPT THAT NO PROVISION OF THIS
ACT SHALL IMPOSE ANY LIABILITY UPON ANY COMMON CARRIER FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION IN COMMERCE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS OF ANY
GOODS NOT PRODUCED BY SUCH COMMON CARRIER, AND NO PROVISION OF THIS ACT
SHALL EXCUSE ANY COMMON CARRIER FROM ITS OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT ANY GOODS
FOR TRANSPORTATION; 

(2)  TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR SECTION 7, OR
ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF ANY REGULATION OR ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
ISSUED UNDER SECTION 14; ...  " 52 STAT. 1068; 29 U.S.C. SEC. 215. 

FN4  IN LATER LETTERS THIS MISSTATEMENT, IMMATERIAL HERE, WAS
CORRECTED.  THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR THE FIRST 40 HOURS REMAINS 30 CENTS
UNTIL OCTOBER 24, 1945.  SEE SEC. 6 OF THE ACT. 

FN5  44 HOURS AT 67 CENTS EQUALS $29.48; 10 1/2 HOURS AT THE
STATUTORY MINIMUM OVERTIME RATE OF $1.00(150% X $.67) EQUALS $10.50;
$29.48 PLUS $10.50 EQUALS $39.98. 

FN6  SECTION 18 PROVIDES:  "NO PROVISION OF THIS ACT SHALL JUSTIFY
ANY EMPLOYER IN REDUCING A WAGE PAID BY HIM WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE
APPLICABLE MINIMUM WAGE UNDER THIS ACT, OR JUSTIFY ANY EMPLOYER IN
INCREASING HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT MAINTAINED BY HIM WHICH ARE SHORTER THAN
THE MAXIMUM HOURS APPLICABLE UNDER THIS ACT."  WHATEVER THE LEGAL
EFFECT OF THIS LANGUAGE, IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A PROHIBITION AND THE
ADMINISTRATOR DOES NOT RELY UPON IT.  THE FINDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS THAT RESPONDENT'S EFFORT TO MAINTAIN THE WEEKLY INCOMES OF
ITS EMPLOYEES AT THEIR PRE-ACT LEVEL WAS IN GOOD FAITH GAINS SUPPORT
FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT AT THE VERY TIME WHEN RESPONDENT WAS
FORMULATING ITS NEW WAGE POLICY THE WAGE AND HOUR ADMINISTRATOR
DECLARED: 

"CLERICAL FORCES, WE ALL FEEL, ARE INCLUDED IN THE ACT.  BUT I CANNOT
SEE WHERE THERE IS GOING TO BE ANY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY THERE BECAUSE
YOUR CLERICAL FORCE IN ANY PLANT OF ANY CONSEQUENCE CERTAINLY IS
EARNING ON A BASIS OF MORE THAN 25 CENTS AN HOUR WEEKLY WAGES DIVIDED
BY THE HOURS THEY WORK.  IF THEY ARE WELL ABOVE 25 CENTS AN HOUR, IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE MUCH QUESTION ABOUT TIME AND A HALF
FOR OVERTIME, BECAUSE YOU COULD FIGURE IN THAT WEEKLY WAGE THAT TIME
AND A HALF OVER THE 44 HOURS HAD BEEN GIVEN CONSIDERATION AS
REMUNERATION FOR THEIR FULL WEEK'S PAY." 

SPEECH BEFORE THE SOUTHERN STATES INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL AT BIRMINGHAM,
ALABAMA, ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1938.  3 WAGE AND HOUR REPORTER 228. 

FN7  THIS HAS BEEN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, AS
SET FORTH IN INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 4, ISSUED OCTOBER 21, 1938 AND
REVISED IN NOVEMBER, 1940. 

FN8  FOR THE FIRST YEAR AFTER PASSAGE OF THE ACT; NOW 40 HOURS. 

FN9  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT RESPONDENT'S CONTRACT, SET OUT ABOVE,
DOES NOT FIX $1.00 AS THE HOURLY RATE FOR OVERTIME.  INSTEAD IT
PROVIDES THAT THE OVERTIME RATE SHALL BE "NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE
HALF" TIMES 67 CENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

THE COURT HOLDS, "WHEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES HAVE AGREED UPON AN
ARRANGEMENT WHICH HAS PROVEN MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY, WE SHOULD NOT UPSET
IT AND APPROVE AN INFLEXIBLE AND ARTIFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT
WHICH FINDS NO SUPPORT IN ITS TEXT AND WHICH AS A PRACTICAL MATTER
ELIMINATES THE POSSIBILITY OF STEADY INCOME TO EMPLOYEES WITH IRREGULAR
HOURS."  YET IT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONTRACT "TURNS UPON THE MEANING OF THE WORDS 'THE REGULAR RATE AT
WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED,'" THE PHRASE LEFT UNDEFINED BY CONGRESS, WHICH IT
IS SAID THE COURTS ALSO SHOULD LEAVE UNDEFINED AND FLEXIBLE.  NOT ONLY
DOES THE COURT'S CONCLUSION ASSUME THAT THE TYPICAL BELO CONTRACT
CONFORMS TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BY THE PROVISION FOR HOURLY
WAGES AND TIME AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME, BUT, IN THE OPINION JUST
ANNOUNCED, THE COURT APPROVES THIS TYPE CONTRACT FOR HIRING, "SO LONG
AS THE NEW RATE EQUALS OR EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE ACT."  IN
SO DECIDING, THE COURT GIVES THE PHRASE "REGULAR RATE" AN
INTERPRETATION AS INFLEXIBLE AND ARTIFICIAL AS THAT WHICH IT CONDEMNS. 

THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF BAD FAITH, ANY
FORM OF CONTRACT WHICH ASSURES THE PAYMENT OF THE MINIMUM WAGE AND THE
REQUIRED OVERTIME COMPLIES WITH THE ACT MAY BE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. 
BUT SINCE THE OVERTIME HOURS MUST BE COMPENSATED "AT A RATE NOT LESS
THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE AT WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED,"
SEC. 7(A)(3), THE REGULAR RATE CANNOT BE LEFT WITHOUT "DEFINITION,"
"FLEXIBLE" OR UNFOUND FOR THIS CASE.  AND ONCE SO FOUND, IT MUST BE
APPLIED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS LITIGATION.  NO ALL-INCLUSIVE
DEFINITION WILL BE ATTEMPTED.  THE POSSIBILITIES OF VARIATION IN
CONTRACTS ARE TOO GREAT.  CERTAINLY, HOWEVER, THE COURT DOES NOT MEAN
TO SAY THAT THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE MAY CAPRICIOUSLY SELECT A CERTAIN
FIGURE, UNRELATED TO THE WAGES PAID, AND SAY "THAT IS THE REGULAR RATE
OF EMPLOYMENT."  EVERY CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IS ASSUMED, BY THE
STATUTE, TO CONTAIN A "REGULAR RATE," AND FOR EACH CONTRACT IT IS A
LEGAL, NOT A FACTUAL, CONCLUSION.  WHAT THAT RATE IS HERE IS THE OBJECT
OF OUR INQUIRY.  ONCE DETERMINED FOR THIS CASE, THAT CONCLUSION BECOMES
A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER SIMILAR CONTRACTS AND SO, IN ONE SENSE, WHETHER
WE WISH IT OR NOT, A DEFINITION TO BE APPLIED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ACT. 

THIS COURT ACCEPTS THE VIEW THAT THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS
INTENDED NOT ONLY TO PUT A FLOOR UNDER WAGES BUT ALSO A CEILING OVER
HOURS.  THE LIMITATION OF HOURS IN TURN HAD TWO PURPOSES - THE
SPREADING OF WORK AND EXTRA COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME, NO MATTER HOW
HIGH THE REGULAR WAGE MAY BE.  OVERNIGHT MOTOR TRANSPORTATION CO. V.
MISSEL, ANTE, PP. 572, 577.  SINCE OVERTIME PAY MUST AT LEAST EQUAL
TIME AND A HALF THE REGULAR RATE, AS SEC. 7(A) SPECIFIES, EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BE PERMITTED TO CONTRACT IN AVOIDANCE OF THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.  CONTRACTS FOR A REGULAR RATE PER HOUR CONFORM
EASILY TO THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT CONTRACTS FOR COMPENSATION IN OTHER
FORMS COMPEL AN ANALYSIS OF THEIR TERMS TO FIND THE REGULAR RATE. 
FIXED SALARIES, AS THIS COURT AGREES TODAY IN MISSEL'S CASE, ARE TO BE
REDUCED TO HOURLY RATES ON THE BASIS OF A WEEK AS THE UNIT OF TIME. 
BELO'S CONTRACT CONTAINS ELEMENTS BOTH OF HOURLY WAGE AND FIXED WEEKLY
WAGE CONTRACTS.  WE COME THEN TO THIS POINT.  ARE THE CONTRACTS HERE
INVOLVED FOR WEEKLY WAGES WITH VARIABLE HOURS, OR FOR HOURLY RATES WITH
TIME AND A HALF OF SUCH RATES FOR OVERTIME?  IF THE LATTER, RESPONDENT
CONTENDS THE ACT HAS LEFT HIM FREE TO CONTRACT WITH HIS EMPLOYEES AT
SUCH HOURLY REGULAR RATES AS MAY BE AGREED UPON, LIMITED ONLY BY THE
MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS.  AS A COURT, WE MUST APPRAISE THE NATURE OF
THESE CONTRACTS AND, IN MY JUDGMENT, THEY ARE AGREEMENTS FOR WEEKLY
WAGES FOR VARIABLE HOURS, WITH A PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
PER HOUR CONTINGENT UPON WORK IN EXCESS OF AN ASCERTAINABLE NUMBER OF
HOURS - THE NUMBER OF HOURS OF WORK REQUIRED FOR THE WAGES EARNED UNDER
THE HOURLY WAGE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT TO EQUAL THE GUARANTY.  FN1
UNTIL THESE HOURS ARE EXCEEDED, THE STIPULATED WAGE PER HOUR HAS NO
DEMONSTRABLE EFFECT. 

THE CONTRACTS STATED THEY WERE DRAWN TO COMPLY WITH THE "SCHEME OF
THE ACT WITHOUT REDUCING" WEEKLY WAGES.  THE HOURLY RATE WAS
CUSTOMARILY WRITTEN AS ONE-SIXTIETH OF THE WEEKLY WAGES.  THE OVERTIME
ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HOURS WAS SET AT 150% OF THE HOURLY WAGE OR ONE
FORTIETH OF THE WEEKLY.  THIS WAS THEN FOLLOWED BY A GUARANTY THAT THE
EMPLOYEE SHOULD "RECEIVE WEEKLY," FOR REGULAR AND OVERTIME, THE FORMER
WEEKLY WAGE.  THIS GUARANTY WAS THE DOMINATING FEATURE OF THE
CONTRACT.  WITHOUT THE GUARANTY, THE ADOPTION OF A LOW HOURLY RATE
WOULD ENCOUNTER THE FULL WEIGHT OF EMPLOYEE BARGAINING POWER.  THE
GUARANTY AVOIDS THIS CONFLICT BY FIXING THE MINIMUM WEEKLY WAGE.  THIS
GUARANTY CONTROLS THE WEEKLY WAGE UP TO 54 1/2 HOURS OF WORK, THE
NUMBER OF HOURS CONTRACTED FOR BY BELO WITHOUT PAYING MORE THAN THE
FIXED WEEKLY WAGE.  IN A 54 1/2 HOUR WEEK OR LESS, THE REGULAR RATE
SHOULD BE THE GUARANTY DIVIDED BY THE HOURS ACTUALLY WORKED. 

IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE GUARANTY WAS THE HEART OF THE ARRANGEMENT. 
THE EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT IN THE ILLUSTRATIVE CASE IS TO PAY 73 CENTS
AN HOUR FOR WORK UP TO 54 1/2 HOURS AND $1.00(EXPRESSED IN THE
CIRCUMLOCUTION OF TIME AND A HALF 67 CENTS) FOR OVERTIME BEYOND THOSE
HOURS, WITH A GUARANTY THAT THERE WILL BE $40 WORTH OF WORK EACH WEEK. 
THE "BASIC" HOURLY RATE, THE HOURS CONTRACTED FOR AT THE BASIC RATE AND
THE STATED PERCENTAGE PAID FOR OVERTIME MAY BE VARIED WITHOUT EFFECT ON
EARNINGS PROVIDED THE GUARANTY AND REAL OVERTIME RATE ARE KEPT FIXED. 
FN2 

THE EMPLOYEE WILLING, THE NUMBER OF HOURS WHICH MUST BE WORKED TO
EARN THE GUARANTY CAN BE INCREASED BY SUITABLE ADJUSTMENT OF THE
CONTRACT FIGURES OF HOURLY RATE, HOURS CONTRACTED AND OVERTIME
PERCENTAGES.  BY SUCH A VERBAL DEVICE, ASTUTE MANAGEMENT MAY AVOID MANY
OF THE DISADVANTAGES OF ORDINARY OVERTIME, CHIEF OF WHICH IS A DEFINITE
INCREASE IN THE COST OF LABOR AS SOON AS THE HOURS WORKED EXCEED THE
STATUTORY WORKWEEK.  IF THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS IS TO REQUIRE AT
LEAST TIME AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME WORK BEYOND A FIXED MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF HOURS (40, 42 OR 44 HOURS), THAT INTENTION IS FRUSTRATED BY TODAY'S
HOLDING.  UNDER MISSEL'S CASE, AN EMPLOYER WHO ENGAGES A WORKER FOR A
FIXED WEEKLY WAGE OF $40 FOR IRREGULAR HOURS AND WORKS HIM 54 1/2 HOURS
A WEEK IN A YEAR WITH A 44 HOUR MAXIMUM, OWES $43.86.  UNDER THE BELO
CONTRACT, THE WORKER WOULD RECEIVE $40.  BECAUSE THERE IS NO INCREASE
OF LABOR COST BETWEEN THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM AND THE HOURS CONTRACTED
FOR (54 1/2), THE EMPLOYER HAS A FINANCIAL INDUCEMENT TO REQUIRE HOURS
BEYOND THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM.    AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, THIS CONTRACT IS
NOT ONLY AN AGREEMENT TO PAY A FIXED WAGE, $40.00, FOR VARIABLE HOURS
UP TO 54 1/2, BUT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR
THE HOURS OVER THE CONTRACT MAXIMUM.  WHERE THE HOURS WORKED EXCEED THE
NUMBER NECESSARY TO ENTITLE THE EMPLOYEE TO HOURLY PAY UNDER THE
CONTRACT, EQUAL IN THE AGGREGATE TO THE GUARANTY, THE EMPLOYEE IS
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE HIS REGULAR RATE FOR THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM HOURS
AND 150% OF THAT RATE FOR ALL OVERTIME.  THE CONTRACTS IN MOST
INSTANCES FIXED THE BASIC RATE AT ONE-SIXTIETH OF THE GUARANTY, BUT THE
EFFECT OF THE GUARANTY, IN OUR VIEW, IS TO MAKE THE REGULAR RATE OF
EMPLOYMENT FOR THE PRECISE NUMBER OF HOURS NECESSARY UNDER THE CONTRACT
TO EARN THE GUARANTY, THE QUOTIENT OF THE GUARANTY DIVIDED BY THE
HOURS.  FN3  FOR THE SURPLUS HOURS OVER 54 1/2 THE SAME REGULAR RATE
CONTINUES TO BE APPLICABLE.  FN4 

IT IS THE GUARANTY WHICH GIVES CHARACTER TO THESE CONTRACTS, WHICH
DETERMINES THE AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEE UNDER ITS TERMS,
EXCEPT IN THE INSTANCES OF WORK BEYOND 54 1/2 HOURS.  IT IS ONLY WORK
BEYOND THE 54 1/2 HOURS WHICH CALLS FOR EXTRA PAY FROM THE EMPLOYER. 
CONSEQUENTLY IT SEEMS PROPER TO FIND THE REGULAR RATE OF EMPLOYMENT BY
USING THE GUARANTEE AS THE DIVIDEND AND THE MAXIMUM HOURS POSSIBLE
WITHOUT INCREASED CONTRACT PAY AS THE DIVISOR.  THE OBJECTION THAT THIS
PERMITS STATUTORY OVERTIME PAY TO BE COMPUTED ON CONTRACT OVERTIME PAY
SPRINGS FROM THE WORDING OF THE CONTRACT MAKING THE GUARANTEE COVER
OVERTIME UP TO THE 54 1/2 HOURS.  THIS OBJECTION LOSES ITS FORCE WITH
THE DETERMINATION THAT THE GUARANTY FIXES THE QUALITY OF THE CONTRACT,
RATHER THAN THE SO-CALLED BASIC OR HOURLY RATE OF PAY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND
THIS ACTION REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

FN1  CF. CARLETON SCREW PRODUCTS CO. V. FLEMING, 126 F.2D 537. 

FN2  AN EXAMPLE WILL ILLUSTRATE THE LACK OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OTHER
NUMBERS IN THE CONTRACT.  VARYING RATES, HOURS AND OVERTIME PERCENTAGES
ARE SUBSTITUTED FOR THOSE IN THE BELO CONTRACT QUOTED IN THE COURT'S
OPINION.  "IN ORDER TO CONFORM OUR EMPLOYMENT ARRANGEMENTS TO THE
SCHEME OF THE ACT WITHOUT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WHICH YOU
RECEIVE EACH WEEK, WE ADVISE THAT FROM AND AFTER OCTOBER 24, 1938, YOUR
BASIC RATE OF PAY WILL BE (50) CENTS PER HOUR FOR THE FIRST (29) HOURS
EACH WEEK, AND THAT FOR TIME OVER (29) HOURS EACH WEEK YOU WILL RECEIVE
FOR EACH HOUR OF WORK NOT LESS THAN (DOUBLE) TIME SUCH BASIC RATE ABOVE
MENTIONED, WITH A GUARANTY ON OUR PART THAT YOU SHALL RECEIVE WEEKLY,
FOR REGULAR TIME AND FOR SUCH OVERTIME AS THE NECESSITIES OF THE
BUSINESS MAY DEMAND, A SUM NOT LESS THAN $40.00." 

29 HOURS X $.50 $14.50.  54.5 HOURS - 29 HOURS 25.5 HOURS AT 

$1.00 PER HOUR   $25.50.  TIME PLUS OVERTIME   $40.00.  THEREAFTER
THE EMPLOYEE RECEIVES $1.00 PER HOUR. 

THE SAME IS TRUE OF A BASIC RATE OF $.60 FOR 36 1/4 HOURS AND TIME
AND TWO-THIRDS THEREAFTER, WITH A GUARANTY OF $40. 

FN3  WEEKLY GUARANTY - $40.  HOURS WORKED - 54 2/3.  STRAIGHT HOURLY
CONTRACT WAGE - $40/60 $.66 2/3.  STRAIGHT CONTRACT HOURS - 44.  44 X
$.66 2/3   $29.33 1/3.  OVERTIME HOURLY CONTRACT WAGE - $1.00. 
OVERTIME CONTRACT HOURS - 10 2/3.  10 2/3 X $1   $10.66 2/3.  TOTAL
CONTRACT WAGE PAID - $40.  STATUTORY REGULAR RATE - 40/54 2/3   $.732
PER HOUR.  STATUTORY MAXIMUM HOURS - 44.  44 X $.732   $32.20. 
STATUTORY OVERTIME RATE - $1.098.  STATUTORY OVERTIME HOURS   10 2/3. 
10 2/3 X $1.098   $11.71.  TOTAL REQUIRED COMPENSATION - $43.91. 

FN4  HOURS WORKED - 60.  STATUTORY MAXIMUM HOURS - 44.  REGULAR RATE
$.732.  44 X $.732 $32.20.  STATUTORY OVERTIME HOURS - 16.  OVERTIME
RATE - $1.098.  16 X $1.098   $17.57.  TOTAL REQUIRED COMPENSATION -
$49.77. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



















HILL V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 400 


NO. 1119.  ARGUED MAY 11, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 157 S.W.2D
369, REVERSED. 


1.  EVIDENCE HELD SUFFICIENT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN THE SELECTION OF GRAND
JURORS,  - VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 404. 

2.  STATE GRAND JURY COMMISSIONERS WHO CONSCIOUSLY OMIT TO PLACE ANY
NEGRO ON THE GRAND JURY LIST, MAKING NO EFFORTS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
THERE ARE IN THE COUNTY NEGROES QUALIFIED UNDER THE STATE LAW TO SERVE
AS JURORS, FAIL TO PERFORM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, RECOGNIZED BY
SEC. 4 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF MARCH 1, 1875.  P. 404. 

3.  WHERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT A LARGE
NUMBER OF NEGROES WHO ARE LITERATE RESIDE IN THE COUNTY FROM WHICH
GRAND JURORS ARE DRAWN, THERE IS NO ROOM TO INFER THAT THERE ARE NOT
AMONG THEM LITERATE HOUSEHOLDERS OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, QUALIFIED AND
AVAILABLE FOR GRAND JURY SERVICE UNDER THE STATE LAW.  P. 404. 

HILL V. TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 655, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
CONVICTION FOR RAPE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS INDICTED FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE BY THE GRAND
JURY FOR DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.  WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR TRIAL HE
SUBMITTED TO THE COURT HIS VERIFIED WRITTEN MOTION TO QUASH THE
INDICTMENT BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDENT.  THE GROUNDS OF HIS MOTION WERE
THAT NEGROES HAD BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE GRAND JURY WHICH RETURNED THE
INDICTMENT, AND THAT THE JURY COMMISSIONERS AND OTHER STATE OFFICERS
CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ORGANIZING AND IMPANELLING GRAND JURIES IN
DALLAS COUNTY HAVE FOR MANY YEARS SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED, AND IN THIS
CASE DID EXCLUDE, NEGROES FROM THE GRAND JURY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. 

AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE THE COURT DENIED THE MOTION AND PROCEEDED WITH
THE TRIAL, WHICH RESULTED IN A VERDICT AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  THE
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UPHELD THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING ON THE
MOTION AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.   - TEX. CR. -; 157 S.W.2D 369.  IT
HELD THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTING ON
HIM TO SHOW THAT THE FAILURE TO SELECT NEGROES FOR SERVICE ON THE GRAND
JURIES IN DALLAS COUNTY WAS BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE RATHER THAN THEIR
LACK OF STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS FOR GRAND JURY SERVICE.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, POST, P. 655, TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE COURT'S RULING IS
CONSONANT WITH OUR DECISIONS IN NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370; PIERRE
V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354; AND SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128. 

ARTICLE 339 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT A
GRAND JUROR MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE STATE AND COUNTY, QUALIFIED TO
VOTE THERE, A FREEHOLDER WITHIN THE STATE OR A HOUSEHOLDER WITHIN THE
COUNTY, OF SOUND MIND AND GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, ABLE TO READ AND
WRITE.  HE MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY OR BE UNDER
INDICTMENT OR OTHER LEGAL ACCUSATION OF ANY FELONY.  THE SECTION
DIRECTS THAT "WHENEVER IT SHALL BE MADE TO APPEAR TO THE COURT THAT THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF JURORS WHO HAVE PAID THEIR POLL TAXES CANNOT BE
FOUND WITHIN THE COUNTY, THE COURT SHALL NOT REGARD THE PAYMENT OF POLL
TAXES AS A QUALIFICATION FOR SERVICE AS A JUROR." 

IN REJECTING THE PROOF OF DISCRIMINATION ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIED,
THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS SAID "APPELLANT ASSUMED THE BURDEN
OF SUSTAINING HIS ALLEGATIONS BY PROOF.  HE ATTEMPTED TO DO SO BY
SHOWING CERTAIN FACTS FROM WHICH, AS HE CLAIMS, SUCH A CONCLUSION COULD
BE REASONABLY DRAWN.  HE SHOWED THAT 58,000 WHITE PERSONS AND 8,000
NEGROES PAID POLL TAXES IN DALLAS COUNTY, BUT THE RECORD IS SILENT AS
TO HOW MANY OF THEM WERE MALE AND HOW MANY WERE FEMALE PERSONS; NOR IS
IT SHOWN HOW MANY OF THESE MALE PERSONS COULD READ AND WRITE; NOR HOW
MANY OF THEM WERE FREEHOLDERS IN THE STATE OR HOUSEHOLDERS IN THE
COUNTY."  AND THE STATE ARGUES HERE THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE
CAN BE NO INFERENCE THAT LONG-CONTINUED FAILURE OF THE COUNTY OFFICIALS
TO SELECT MEMBERS OF THE COLORED RACE TO SERVE ON GRAND JURIES IS
DISCRIMINATORY, WITHOUT PROOF THAT THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THAT RACE
LIVING IN THE COUNTY WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS GRAND JURORS. 

THE STATE FILED A GENERAL DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S MOTION, BUT
SUBMITTED NO ANSWERING AFFIDAVITS, AND CALLED NO WITNESSES, AND SO THE
ONLY QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER PETITIONER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE
CASE OF THE DISCRIMINATORY EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM THE GRAND JURY. 
PETITIONER CALLED AS WITNESSES TWO OF THE THREE GRAND JURY
COMMISSIONERS, WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO SUMMON SIXTEEN MEN, OF WHOM TWELVE
ARE SELECTED FOR SERVICE ON EACH GRAND JURY IN DALLAS COUNTY (ARTICLES
338, 357).  THEY TESTIFIED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD SUMMONED, FOR
SERVICE ON THE GRAND JURY WHICH RETURNED THE INDICTMENT, MEMBERS OF THE
WHITE RACE WITH WHOM THEY WERE ACQUAINTED AND WHOM THEY KNEW TO BE
QUALIFIED TO SERVE.  THEY TESTIFIED THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAD
NO PREJUDICE AGAINST THE COLORED RACE; THAT THEY DISCUSSED THE
POSSIBILITY OF SELECTING NEGROES TO SERVE, AND THAT THEY KNEW NEGROES
IN THE COUNTY.  ONE TESTIFIED:  "I PERSONALLY DID NOT KNOW OF A
QUALIFIED NEGRO THAT I THOUGHT WOULD MAKE A GOOD GRAND JUROR."  THE
OTHER TESTIFIED HE DID NOT KNOW WHICH OF THE NEGROES OF HIS
ACQUAINTANCE COULD READ AND WRITE.  BOTH TESTIFIED THAT THEY MADE NO
INVESTIGATION OR INQUIRY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE WERE NEGROES IN THE
COUNTY QUALIFIED FOR GRAND JURY SERVICE. 

AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY, WHO HAD LIVED IN
DALLAS COUNTY FOR TWENTY-SEVEN OR TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS AND HAD SERVED FOR
SIXTEEN YEARS AS A JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL COURT IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS
TRIED AND CONVICTED, TESTIFIED THAT HE NEVER KNEW OF A NEGRO BEING
CALLED TO SERVE ON A GRAND JURY IN THE COUNTY.  THE DISTRICT CLERK OF
THE COUNTY, WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO CERTIFY THE GRAND JURY LIST TO THE
SHERIFF (ARTICLE 344), KNEW OF NO CITATIONS ISSUED FOR NEGROES TO SERVE
UPON THE GRAND JURY.  A COLORED WITNESS, A PROPERTY OWNER AND POLL TAX
PAYER IN DALLAS COUNTY, ENGAGED IN THE INSURANCE AND BONDING BUSINESS,
AND RESIDENT IN THE COUNTY FOR FIFTY-FOUR YEARS, TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD
OFTEN BEEN CALLED TO SERVE AS A PETIT JUROR BUT HAD NEVER KNOWN OF ANY
COLORED MAN TO BE CALLED AS A GRAND JUROR.  TWO OTHER COLORED
WITNESSES, PROPERTY OWNERS AND POLL TAX PAYERS, WHO HAD LIVED IN THE
COUNTY FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, HAD NEVER KNOWN OF A NEGRO TO BE CALLED
ON A GRAND JURY.  THERE WAS ALSO EVIDENCE ALREADY MENTIONED WHICH THE
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOUND SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT OF THE
66,000 POLL TAX PAYERS IN THE COUNTY 8,000 WERE NEGROES. 

ANOTHER WITNESS ESTIMATED THE TOTAL NEGRO POPULATION OF THE COUNTY AS
55,000.  ACTUALLY THIS WAS AN UNDERESTIMATE, FOR THE 1940 CENSUS SHOWS
THE TOTAL POPULATION OF THE COUNTY TO BE 398,564, OF WHOM 61,605 ARE
NEGROES, AND, OF THESE, 19,133 ARE MALES TWENTY-ONE YEARS OLD OR MORE. 
THE CENSUS OF 1930 SHOWED ONLY 7.5 PERCENT OF THE NEGRO POPULATION OF
THE COUNTY TO BE ILLITERATE.  THE CENSUS DATA OF 1940 SHOW THAT OF THE
17,263 MALE NEGROES IN THE COUNTY WHO WERE TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR
MORE, 16,107 HAD ATTENDED GRADE SCHOOL OR HIGHER INSTITUTIONS OF
LEARNING.  OF THESE, 7,979 HAD ATTENDED GRADE SCHOOL FROM FIVE TO EIGHT
YEARS; 1,970 HAD ATTENDED HIGH SCHOOL FROM ONE TO THREE YEARS, AND
1,124 FOR FOUR YEARS; 466 HAD ATTENDED COLLEGE FROM ONE TO THREE YEARS,
AND 284 FOR FOUR YEARS OR MORE. 

WE THINK PETITIONER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE, WHICH THE STATE
FAILED TO MEET, OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF GRAND
JURORS WHICH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE FORBIDS.  AS WE POINTED OUT IN
SMITH V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 131, CHANCE OR ACCIDENT COULD HARDLY HAVE
ACCOUNTED FOR THE CONTINUOUS OMISSION OF NEGROES FROM THE GRAND JURY
LISTS FOR SO LONG A PERIOD AS SIXTEEN YEARS OR MORE.  THE JURY
COMMISSIONERS, ALTHOUGH THE MATTER WAS DISCUSSED BY THEM, CONSCIOUSLY
OMITTED TO PLACE THE NAME OF ANY NEGRO ON THE JURY LIST.  THEY MADE NO
EFFORT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE WERE WITHIN THE COUNTY MEMBERS OF THE
COLORED RACE QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS JURORS, AND IF SO WHO THEY WERE. 
THEY THUS FAILED TO PERFORM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY - RECOGNIZED BY
SEC. 4 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF MARCH 1, 1875, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 44, AND
FULLY ESTABLISHED SINCE THE DECISION IN 1881 OF NEAL V. DELAWARE, SUPRA
- NOT TO PURSUE A COURSE OF CONDUCT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR
OFFICE WHICH WOULD OPERATE TO DISCRIMINATE IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS
ON RACIAL GROUNDS.  DISCRIMINATION CAN ARISE FROM THE ACTION OF
COMMISSIONERS WHO EXCLUDE ALL NEGROES WHOM THEY DO NOT KNOW TO BE
QUALIFIED AND WHO NEITHER KNOW NOR SEEK TO LEARN WHETHER THERE ARE IN
FACT ANY QUALIFIED TO SERVE.  IN SUCH A CASE, DISCRIMINATION
NECESSARILY RESULTS WHERE THERE ARE QUALIFIED NEGROES AVAILABLE FOR
JURY SERVICE.  WITH THE LARGE NUMBER OF COLORED MALE RESIDENTS OF THE
COUNTY WHO ARE LITERATE, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COUNTERVAILING
TESTIMONY, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR INFERENCE THAT THERE ARE NOT AMONG THEM
HOUSEHOLDERS OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, WHO CAN READ AND WRITE, QUALIFIED
AND AVAILABLE FOR GRAND JURY SERVICE. 

MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS AGO, IN NEAL V. DELAWARE, SUPRA, 397, A CASE
SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE THE PRESENT, THIS COURT LAID DOWN THE RULE WHICH WE
THINK CONTROLLING HERE: 

"THE SHOWING THUS MADE, INCLUDING, AS IT DID, THE FACT (SO GENERALLY
KNOWN THAT THE COURT FELT OBLIGED TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IT) THAT
NO COLORED CITIZEN HAD EVER BEEN SUMMONED AS A JUROR IN THE COURTS OF
THE STATE,  - ALTHOUGH ITS COLORED POPULATION EXCEEDED TWENTY THOUSAND
IN 1870, AND IN 1880 EXCEEDED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND, IN A TOTAL
POPULATION OF LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND,  - PRESENTED A
PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DENIAL, BY THE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE SELECTION
OF GRAND AND PETIT JURORS, OF THAT EQUALITY OF PROTECTION WHICH HAS
BEEN SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT
WAS, WE THINK, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, A VIOLENT PRESUMPTION WHICH
THE STATE COURT INDULGED, THAT SUCH UNIFORM EXCLUSION OF THAT RACE FROM
JURIES, DURING A PERIOD OF MANY YEARS, WAS SOLELY BECAUSE, IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THOSE OFFICERS, FAIRLY EXERCISED, THE BLACK RACE IN
DELAWARE WERE UTTERLY DISQUALIFIED, BY WANT OF INTELLIGENCE,
EXPERIENCE, OR MORAL INTEGRITY, TO SIT ON JURIES." 

AND RECENTLY WE HELD IN PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA, THAT A PRIMA
FACIE CASE OF RACE DISCRIMINATION HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED WHERE THERE HAD
BEEN A LONG-CONTINUED FAILURE TO SELECT COLORED CITIZENS FOR SERVICE ON
GRAND JURIES IN A COUNTY, 50 PER CENT OF WHOSE POPULATION, OR
APPROXIMATELY 7,000, WERE COLORED, OF WHOM FROM 70 TO 80 PER CENT WERE
SHOWN TO BE LITERATE.  WE THOUGHT, AS WE THINK HERE, THAT HAD THERE
BEEN EVIDENCE OBTAINABLE TO CONTRADICT THE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM
THIS TESTIMONY, THE STATE WOULD NOT HAVE REFRAINED FROM INTRODUCING IT,
AND THAT THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS INTRODUCED SUFFICIENTLY SHOWED THAT
THERE WERE COLORED CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY QUALIFIED AND AVAILABLE FOR
SERVICE ON THE GRAND JURY. 

A PRISONER WHOSE CONVICTION IS REVERSED BY THIS COURT NEED NOT GO
FREE IF HE IS IN FACT GUILTY, FOR TEXAS MAY INDICT AND TRY HIM AGAIN BY
THE PROCEDURE WHICH CONFORMS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  BUT NO
STATE IS AT LIBERTY TO IMPOSE UPON ONE CHARGED WITH CRIME A
DISCRIMINATION IN ITS TRIAL PROCEDURE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION, AND AN
ACT OF CONGRESS PASSED PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, ALIKE FORBID.  NOR
IS THIS COURT AT LIBERTY TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD THE BENEFITS OF EQUAL
PROTECTION, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS FOR ALL, MERELY AS WE MAY
DEEM THE DEFENDANT INNOCENT OR GUILTY.  TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S. 510,
535.  IT IS THE STATE'S FUNCTION, NOT OURS, TO ASSESS THE EVIDENCE
AGAINST A DEFENDANT.  BUT IT IS OUR DUTY AS WELL AS THE STATE'S TO SEE
TO IT THAT THROUGHOUT THE PROCEDURE FOR BRINGING HIM TO JUSTICE HE
SHALL ENJOY THE PROTECTION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES.  WHERE,
AS IN THIS CASE, TIMELY OBJECTION HAS LAID BARE A DISCRIMINATION IN THE
SELECTION OF GRAND JURORS, THE CONVICTION CANNOT STAND, BECAUSE THE
CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH IT WAS OBTAINED.  EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS SOMETHING MORE THAN AN ABSTRACT RIGHT.  IT IS
A COMMAND WHICH THE STATE MUST RESPECT, THE BENEFITS OF WHICH EVERY
PERSON MAY DEMAND.  NOT THE LEAST MERIT OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM IS
THAT ITS SAFEGUARDS EXTEND TO ALL - THE LEAST DESERVING AS WELL AS THE
MOST VIRTUOUS.  REVERSED. 
..END :


















COLUMBIA SYSTEM V. U.S., 316 U.S. 407 


NO. 1026.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 44 F.SUPP. 
688, REVERSED. 


1.  TO MAINTAIN A SUIT UNDER SEC. 402(A) OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
ACT OF 1934, AND THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38
STAT. 219, 220, THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE
MUST BE AN "ORDER," AND THE BILL MUST STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN
EQUITY.  P. 415. 

2.  WHERE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS RULE-MAKING POWER, TO
GOVERN ITS POLICY AND ACTION IN THE LICENSING OF BROADCASTING STATIONS,
PROVIDE THAT THERE SHALL BE NO RENEWAL OF THE LICENSES OF STATIONS
WHOSE CONTRACTS WITH A BROADCASTING NETWORK CONTAIN CERTAIN PROVISIONS
PROSCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION AND THAT SUCH LICENSES MAY BE REVOKED,
WHICH REGULATIONS IF VALID ALTER THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OF THE
NETWORKS, A NETWORK ORGANIZATION WHOSE BUSINESS IS SO DEPENDENT UPON
THE MAINTENANCE AND RENEWAL OF SUCH CONTRACTS THAT THEIR CANCELLATION,
OR THE THREAT OF IT, WILL CAUSE IRREPARABLE INJURY TO ITS ENTERPRISE
AND PROPERTY, IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ORDER AND
REGULATIONS WHOSE VALIDITY IS CHALLENGED, BY A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER SEC.
402(A) OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, WITHOUT AWAITING
ACTION BY THE COMMISSION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS AGAINST A
STATION LICENSEE.  PP. 416, 425. 

COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION A BILL TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, BY ITS ORDER OF MAY 2, 1941, AS
AMENDED BY ITS ORDER OF OCTOBER 11, 1941, PROMULGATED REGULATIONS WHICH
PURPORT TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO REFUSE TO GRANT A LICENSE TO ANY
BROADCASTING STATION WHICH ENTERS INTO CERTAIN DEFINED TYPES OF
CONTRACT WITH ANY BROADCASTING NETWORK ORGANIZATION.  THESE
REGULATIONS, IT IS ALLEGED, AFFECT ADVERSELY APPELLANT'S CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONS WITH BROADCASTING STATIONS AND IMPAIR ITS ABILITY TO CARRY ON
ITS BUSINESS IN MAINTAINING AND OPERATING ITS NATIONWIDE BROADCASTING
NETWORK.  THE REGULATIONS AS AMENDED ON OCTOBER 11, 1941, TOGETHER WITH
A SUPPLEMENTAL "MINUTE" PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 31,
1941, ARE SET FORTH AT THE END OF THIS OPINION, POST, P. 425.  THE
QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO SECURE A
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ORDER BY A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 402(A) OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1093, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 402(A), AND
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, 38 STAT. 219, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47. 

PURSUANT TO SEC. 402(A) APPELLANT BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND BEYOND THE COMMISSION'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY, AND ON THE
FURTHER GROUND, IF THE ORDER BE DEEMED WITHIN THAT AUTHORITY, THAT THE
STATUTE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY
CONGRESS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND
OPERATES TO DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE CASE WAS HEARD BY A COURT OF
THREE JUDGES, WHICH PERMITTED THE COMMISSION AND THE MUTUAL
BROADCASTING COMPANY TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS.  IT GRANTED APPELLEES'
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, 44 F.SUPP. 
688, AND STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER PENDING DIRECT
APPEAL TO THIS COURT. 

IN 1938 THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AUTHORIZED AN INVESTIGATION "TO
DETERMINE WHAT SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RADIO STATIONS ENGAGED
IN CHAIN OR OTHER BROADCASTING ARE REQUIRED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY."  EXTENSIVE HEARINGS WERE HELD BY A
COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AT WHOSE
REQUEST THE NATIONAL NETWORKS, INCLUDING APPELLANT, INTERVENED.  IN
JUNE, 1940, THE COMMITTEE MADE A REPORT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH BRIEFS
WERE FILED AND ORAL ARGUMENT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE THE FULL COMMISSION
BY THE THREE NATIONAL NETWORKS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES.  IN MAY,
1941, THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS "REPORT ON CHAIN BROADCASTING" AND
ORDERED THE ADOPTION OF THE REGULATIONS WHICH, IN THEIR AMENDED FORM,
ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY. 

THE RELEVANT FACTS STATED IN THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:
APPELLANT OR ITS PREDECESSOR HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
NATIONWIDE NETWORK OR CHAIN BROADCASTING SINCE 1927.  IT HAS A LARGE
AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL PROPERTY USED IN THE BUSINESS AND HAS BUILT UP A
VALUABLE GOODWILL.  FOR ITS BROADCASTS IT MAINTAINS A STAFF OF
EMPLOYEES AND EXPENDS LARGE AMOUNTS FOR MUSICIANS AND BROADCASTING
PERFORMERS.  IT HAS COMMITMENTS BY LONG-TERM CONTRACTS AGGREGATING MORE
THAN $4,000,000 FOR BROADCASTING EXPENDITURES, INCLUDING THOSE FOR THE
USE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS AND FOR THE FURNISHING OF NEWS AND
BROADCASTING PROGRAMS IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.  APPELLANT'S TOTAL
PROPERTY DEVOTED TO ITS BROADCASTING BUSINESS EXCEEDS $18,000,000 IN
VALUE; ITS EARNINGS FROM THE NETWORK EXCEEDED $3,000,000 IN BOTH 1939
AND 1940. 

CHAIN BROADCASTING IS THE MEANS BY WHICH RADIO PROGRAMS ARE MADE
AVAILABLE TO ALL OR A LARGE PART OF THE NATIONWIDE RADIO AUDIENCE.  IT
IS DEFINED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 153(P), AS THE
"SIMULTANEOUS BROADCASTING OF AN IDENTICAL PROGRAM BY TWO OR MORE
CONNECTED STATIONS."  THE CHAIN BROADCASTER PREPARES RADIO PROGRAMS,
FOR WHICH IT ENGAGES PERFORMERS IN ADVANCE, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY
BROADCASTS THEM OVER A LARGE NUMBER OF RADIO STATIONS TO WHICH THE
PROGRAMS ARE TRANSMITTED FROM SOME CENTRAL POINT OF ORIGINATION BY WIRE
TELEPHONE LINES LEASED BY THE BROADCASTER, HERE THE APPELLANT.  THE
PROGRAMS, WHICH ARE PREPARED WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE BROADCAST AND GIVEN
BY PERSONS EMPLOYED FOR THE PURPOSE BY APPELLANT, ARE OF TWO CLASSES -
COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS SPONSORED AND PAID FOR BY ADVERTISERS, AND
SUSTAINING PROGRAMS FURNISHED BY APPELLANT AND NOT PAID FOR BY ANY
ADVERTISER. 

APPELLANT'S NETWORK COMPRISES 123 STATIONS IN 122 CITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES.  IT IS SO OPERATED AS TO ENABLE NINETY PER CENT OF THE
RADIO AUDIENCE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LISTEN SIMULTANEOUSLY TO
PROGRAMS PROVIDED BY APPELLANT AND BROADCASTED OVER THESE STATIONS. 
APPELLANT OWNS AND OPERATES SEVEN OF THE STATIONS AND LEASES AN EIGHTH,
ALL LICENSED BY THE COMMISSION.  WITH THE REMAINING 115 STATIONS IT
ENTERS INTO INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS, USUALLY FOR PERIODS OF FIVE YEARS,
TERMINABLE IN SOME INSTANCES BY APPELLANT ON TWELVE MONTHS' NOTICE.  BY
THESE CONTRACTS, APPELLANT UNDERTAKES TO FURNISH EACH STATION WITH AN
AVERAGE OF AT LEAST SIXTY HOURS PER WEEK OF NETWORK SUSTAINING AND
SPONSORED PROGRAMS.  THE SUSTAINING PROGRAMS ARE FURNISHED WITHOUT
CHARGE, THE STATION BEING FREE TO USE THEM OR NOT AS IT CHOOSES. 
APPELLANT UNDERTAKES TO FURNISH THE STATION WITH ALL COMMERCIAL
PROGRAMS WHICH THE SPONSOR REQUESTS THE STATION TO BROADCAST AND TO PAY
THE STATION A SPECIFIED HOURLY RATE FOR THE USE OF ITS FACILITIES IN
BROADCASTING SUCH PROGRAMS.  APPELLANT AGREES NOT TO FURNISH ITS
PROGRAMS TO OTHER STATIONS IN THE SAME CITY; THE AFFILIATED STATION,
WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, AGREES NOT TO BROADCAST THE PROGRAM
OF ANY OTHER NETWORK.  OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION
IS THE STIPULATION OF THE AFFILIATED STATION THAT IT WILL, UPON NOT
LESS THAN TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS' NOTICE FROM APPELLANT, BROADCAST THE
SPONSORED OR COMMERCIAL PROGRAM FURNISHED TO IT BY APPELLANT FOR AT
LEAST FIFTY "CONVERTED" HOURS (AVERAGING SEVENTY-NINE REGULAR CLOCK
HOURS) PER WEEK. 

THESE PROVISIONS OF APPELLANT'S CONTRACTS ARE ALLEGED TO BE
INDISPENSABLE TO THE MAINTENANCE AND EFFICIENT OPERATION OF ITS NETWORK
AND TO THE EXISTENCE OF A STRONG AND EFFICIENT NETWORK BROADCASTING
SYSTEM, AND NECESSARY TO ENABLE APPELLANT TO COMPETE WITH OTHER
ADVERTISING MEDIA.  ON MAY 2, 1941, THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS ORDER
WHICH, AS AMENDED BY ITS ORDER OF OCTOBER 11, 1941, PROMULGATED THE
"CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS" OF WHICH APPELLANT COMPLAINS, AND
WHICH THE COMMISSION CHARACTERIZED IN ITS REPORT AS "THE EXPRESSION OF
THE GENERAL POLICY WE WILL FOLLOW IN EXERCISING OUR LICENSING POWER." 
FN1  THE REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
BROADCAST STATION HAVING CONTRACTS WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION,
CONTAINING ANY OF SEVERAL PROVISIONS WHICH ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF
APPELLANT'S CONTRACTS WITH ITS AFFILIATES.  THESE INCLUDE PROVISIONS BY
WHICH THE STATION IS PREVENTED FROM BROADCASTING THE PROGRAMS OF ANY
OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATION (3.101); OR WHICH PREVENT ANOTHER STATION
SERVING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AREA FROM BROADCASTING THE NETWORK
PROGRAMS NOT TAKEN BY THE STATION APPLYING FOR LICENSE, OR PREVENT
ANOTHER STATION SERVING A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT AREA FROM
BROADCASTING ANY PROGRAM OF THE NETWORK ORGANIZATION (3.102); OR BY
WHICH THE STATION CONTRACTS FOR AFFILIATION WITH THE NETWORK FOR A
PERIOD LONGER THAN TWO YEARS (3.103); OR BY WHICH THE STATION "OPTIONS
FOR NETWORK PROGRAMS ANY TIME SUBJECT TO CALL ON LESS THAN 56 DAYS'
NOTICE OR MORE TIME THAN A TOTAL OF THREE HOURS" WITHIN EACH OF FOUR
SPECIFIED SEGMENTS OF THE BROADCAST DAY, THE REGULATION DECLARING "SUCH
OPTIONS MAY NOT BE EXCLUSIVE AS AGAINST OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS AND
MAY NOT PREVENT OR HINDER THE STATION FROM OPTIONING OR SELLING ANY OR
ALL OF THE TIME COVERED BY THE OPTION, OR OTHER TIME, TO OTHER NETWORK
ORGANIZATIONS" (3.104); OR WHICH PREVENT THE STATION (A) FROM REJECTING
NETWORK PROGRAMS WHICH THE STATION REASONABLY BELIEVES TO BE
UNSATISFACTORY OR UNSUITABLE OR (B) FROM SUBSTITUTING FOR THE NETWORK
PROGRAM A PROGRAM OF OUTSTANDING LOCAL OR NATIONAL IMPORTANCE (3.105). 

AFTER MAKING ITS ORDER OF MAY 2, 1941, THE COMMISSION DEFERRED ITS
EFFECTIVE DATE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER.  BY ITS ORDER OF OCTOBER 11, 1941,
THE COMMISSION FIXED THE EFFECTIVE DATE AS NOVEMBER 15, 1941, AND
DIRECTED "THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION 3.106 WITH RESPECT TO
ANY STATION MAY BE EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE
ORDERLY DISPOSITION OF PROPERTIES," AND "THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
REGULATION 3.107 SHALL BE SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY AND ANY FURTHER ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION PLACING SAID REGULATION 3.107 IN EFFECT SHALL PROVIDE
FOR NOT LESS THAN SIX MONTHS' NOTICE AND FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE
EFFECTIVE DATE FROM TIME TO TIME IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE ORDERLY
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTIES." 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGES THAT THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE
REGULATIONS ARE TO PROHIBIT STATION LICENSEES FROM HAVING AGREEMENTS OF
THE KIND WHICH APPELLANT HAS WITH ITS AFFILIATES; THAT PRIOR TO THE
ORDER OF MAY 2, 1941, IT WAS THE PRACTICE OF THE COMMISSION TO RENEW
THE LICENSES OF STATIONS ANNUALLY AND THAT THE LICENSED STATIONS HAVE
HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTANCY OF THE ANNUAL RENEWAL OF THEIR LICENSES;
THAT 115 LICENSED STATIONS HAVE SUCH CONTRACTS WITH APPELLANT, EXPIRING
AT VARIOUS TIMES BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATIONS
AND DECEMBER 31, 1947.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT WHEN THEIR CURRENT LICENSES
EXPIRE, AT THE LATEST, AND PERHAPS EARLIER THROUGH THE REVOCATION OF
EXISTING LICENSES, SUCH STATIONS FACE THE LOSS OF THEIR LICENSES IF
THEY PERFORM OR CONTINUE IN FORCE OR RENEW ANY EXISTING CONTRACTS
CONTAINING THE DESCRIBED PROVISIONS. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT SINCE THE STATIONS FEAR THE LOSS OF THEIR
LICENSES, AS A RESULT OF THE REGULATIONS, THEY WILL NOT NEGOTIATE FOR
OR RENEW AFFILIATION CONTRACTS CONTAINING SUCH PROVISIONS.  AND BECAUSE
THEY FEAR THE LOSS OF THEIR LICENSES, THE STATIONS HAVE THREATENED TO
CANCEL AND REPUDIATE THEIR AFFILIATION CONTRACTS, AND MANY HAVE
NOTIFIED APPELLANT THAT THEY WILL NOT BE BOUND BY THEIR CONTRACTS AFTER
THE REGULATIONS BECOME EFFECTIVE.  AS A CONSEQUENCE, APPELLANT'S
ABILITY TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS AND MAINTAIN ITS PUBLIC BROADCASTING
SERVICE IS SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED AND THE REGULATIONS WILL MAKE THE
OPERATION OF APPELLANT'S BUSINESS MORE COSTLY, REDUCE ITS EARNINGS AND
RENDER ITS PROPERTY AND BUSINESS LESS VALUABLE. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT WAS FILED OCTOBER 30, 1941.  THE FOLLOWING DAY
THE COMMISSION PROMULGATED A SUPPLEMENTAL "MINUTE" SETTING UP A
PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS MIGHT BE TESTED UPON
APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE BY AN INDIVIDUAL LICENSEE.  THE MINUTE
DECLARED THAT IF A STATION WISHED TO CHALLENGE THE REGULATIONS THE
COMMISSION WOULD GRANT A TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ITS LICENSE UNTIL THERE
HAD BEEN A FINAL COURT DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES.  IN THE EVENT OF
SUCH LITIGATION, AND IF THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS WERE SUSTAINED,
"THE COMMISSION WILL NEVERTHELESS GRANT A REGULAR LICENSE TO THE
LICENSEE, OTHERWISE ENTITLED THERETO, WHO HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED
THAT ISSUE, IF THE LICENSEE THEREUPON CONFORMS TO THE DECISION." 

AN AFFIDAVIT SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION STATES THAT SINCE THE COMMISSION'S
MINUTE OF OCTOBER 31ST, APPELLANT HAS CONTINUED TO RECEIVE INDICATIONS
THAT ITS AFFILIATES WILL CANCEL AND REPUDIATE THEIR CONTRACTS AND
REFUSE TO RENEW THEM, AND HAS RECEIVED NO INDICATION THAT THE MINUTE
HAS OR WILL HAVE THE EFFECT OF INDUCING STATIONS TO ASSUME THE BURDEN
OF TESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS.  ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT
ARE LETTERS FROM FIVE AFFILIATES, WRITTEN AFTER OCTOBER 31ST,
INDICATING THEIR INTENTION NOT TO BE BOUND BY THE CONTRACTS.  THE
AFFIDAVIT ALSO STATES APPELLANT'S BELIEF THAT IT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED
MORE SUCH LETTERS HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR ITS CIRCULATION OF INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE PENDENCY OF THIS SUIT. 

ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AS TRUE, AS FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES WE MUST, IT IS EVIDENT THAT APPLICATION BY THE COMMISSION OF
ITS REGULATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TERMS WOULD DISRUPT
APPELLANT'S BROADCASTING SYSTEM AND SERIOUSLY DISORGANIZE ITS
BUSINESS.  AS THE BILL ALLEGES, STATION LICENSES HAVE BEEN RENEWABLE BY
THE COMMISSION ANNUALLY,  FN2  WHEREAS APPELLANT'S CONTRACTS ARE FOR
FIVE YEAR PERIODS AND MANY OF THEM WILL SURVIVE THE EXPIRATION OF THE
EXISTING LICENSES TO THE AFFILIATED STATIONS.  UNDER REGULATIONS 3.101,
3.102, 3.103 AND 3.104, EACH AFFILIATE MUST REPUDIATE HIS CONTRACT OR
BE DENIED THE RENEWAL OF HIS LICENSE.  IN EITHER CASE, THIS WOULD
DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF THE STATION'S PARTICIPATION IN ITS NETWORK, FOR
WHICH ITS CONTRACTS CALL.    REGULATION 3.104 NOT ONLY REQUIRES ALL
OPTIONS BY APPELLANT TO BE EXERCISED ON 56 DAYS' RATHER THAN 28 DAYS'
NOTICE AS AT PRESENT, BUT PROVIDES THAT NO OPTION TIME IS EXCLUSIVE OF
OTHER NETWORKS, AND THUS ALLOWS TO APPELLANT NO OPTION TIME WITHIN
WHICH IT CAN COMMAND THE USE OF AFFILIATED STATIONS FOR ANY PROGRAM FOR
BROADCASTING ON A NATIONAL SCALE.  THESE SECTIONS TOGETHER THUS OPERATE
TO BREAK DOWN THE NETWORK ENTERPRISE IN WHICH APPELLANT AND ITS
AFFILIATES ARE BY THEIR CONTRACTS COOPERATING, AND TO SUBSTITUTE A
SYSTEM IN WHICH EVERY STATION IS AVAILABLE TO EVERY NETWORK ON A "FIRST
COME FIRST SERVED BASIS."    THE COMMISSION CONCEDES BY ITS BRIEF THAT,
AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 312(A), "ANY STATION LICENSE MAY BE REVOKED  ...
BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS REVEALED BY SUCH STATEMENTS OF FACT AS MAY BE
REQUIRED (OF A LICENSEE) FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH WOULD WARRANT THE
COMMISSION IN REFUSING TO GRANT A LICENSE ON AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION." 
CONSEQUENTLY THE REGULATIONS BY THEIR TERMS, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH
SEC. 312(A), EXPOSE LICENSEES, WHO RENEW THEIR AFFILIATION CONTRACTS,
TO REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS BY THE COMMISSION WHENEVER, UPON A STATEMENT
WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE, IT APPEARS THAT THE LICENSEE HAS
ENTERED INTO AN AFFILIATION CONTRACT WHICH THE REGULATIONS PROSCRIBE. 

A PROCEEDING TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC.
402(A) AND THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT IS A PLENARY SUIT IN EQUITY. 
HENCE THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE MOTION TO DISMISS ARE WHETHER THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IS AN "ORDER," REVIEW OF WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC.
402(A) OF THE ACT, AND IF SO WHETHER THE BILL STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION
IN EQUITY.  THE SUIT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED UNLESS BOTH QUESTIONS ARE
ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

DEFICIENCIES ACT TO "SUITS TO ENFORCE, ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL, OR
SUSPEND ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION" EXCEPT ORDERS "GRANTING OR
REFUSING AN APPLICATION FOR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A RADIO STATION,
OR FOR A RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING RADIO
STATION LICENSE, OR FOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING RADIO STATION
LICENSE, OR SUSPENDING A RADIO OPERATOR'S LICENSE."  REVIEW OF THE
ORDERS EXCEPTED FROM SEC. 402(A) IS BY APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 402(B).  SEE
SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N, ANTE, P. 4. 
SINCE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER NEITHER GRANTS, DENIES NOR MODIFIES ANY
LICENSE, ANY REVIEW IN ADVANCE OR INDEPENDENTLY OF AN APPLICATION FOR A
STATION LICENSE MUST BE UNDER SEC. 402(A), AND THEN ONLY IF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER PROMULGATING THE REGULATIONS IS AN "ORDER" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THIS SECTION.  THE PARTICULAR LABEL PLACED UPON IT BY
THE COMMISSION IS NOT NECESSARILY CONCLUSIVE, FOR IT IS THE SUBSTANCE
OF WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS PURPORTED TO DO AND HAS DONE WHICH IS
DECISIVE.  POWELL V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 276, 284-85; A.F. OF L. V.
LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401, 408. 

THE COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION OF THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN
THE NETWORKS AND THE STATIONS, WHICH RESULTED IN THE ORDER NOW UNDER
ATTACK, WAS FOR THE STATED PURPOSE OF PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS OF SUCH
RELATIONSHIPS.  THE ORDER AUTHORIZING THE INVESTIGATION RECITED THAT
THE PROCEEDING WAS TAKEN UNDER SEC. 303(I) OF THE ACT, WHICH GIVES THE
COMMISSION "AUTHORITY TO MAKE SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO RADIO
STATIONS ENGAGED IN CHAIN BROADCASTING."  SINCE THE COMMISSION IS NOT
IN TERMS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
STATIONS AND THE NETWORKS, REGULATION OF THEM COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED
ONLY BY REGULATING LICENSED RADIO STATIONS WHICH PARTICIPATE IN CHAIN
BROADCASTING.  IT WAS BY REGULATIONS IN TERMS APPLICABLE TO SUCH
STATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION SOUGHT TO CONTROL THEIR CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE NETWORKS. 

THE ORDER IS THUS IN ITS GENESIS AND ON ITS FACE, AND IN ITS
PRACTICAL OPERATION, AN ORDER PROMULGATING REGULATIONS WHICH OPERATE TO
CONTROL SUCH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS, AND IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE
COMMISSION IN THE AVOWED EXERCISE OF ITS RULE-MAKING POWER.  SUCH
REGULATIONS WHICH AFFECT OR DETERMINE RIGHTS GENERALLY, EVEN THOUGH NOT
DIRECTED TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR CORPORATION, WHEN LAWFULLY
PROMULGATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, HAVE THE FORCE OF
LAW AND ARE ORDERS REVIEWABLE UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT. 
ASSIGNED CAR CASES, 274 U.S. 564; UNITED STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., 293
U.S. 454.  AND REGULATIONS OF LIKE CHARACTER, BY WHICH THE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAS PRESCRIBED GENERALLY THE RECORDS AND
ACCOUNTS TO BE KEPT BY TELEPHONE COMPANIES SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION,
ARE SIMILARLY REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 402(A).  A.T. & T. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 299 U.S. 232. 

THE REGULATIONS HERE PRESCRIBE RULES WHICH GOVERN THE CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE STATIONS AND THE NETWORKS.  IF THE APPLICANT
FOR A LICENSE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AFFILIATION CONTRACT, THE REGULATIONS
REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO REJECT HIS APPLICATION.  IF A LICENSEE RENEWS
HIS CONTRACT, THE REGULATIONS, WITH THE SANCTION OF SEC. 312(A),
AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO CANCEL HIS LICENSE.  IN A PROCEEDING FOR
REVOCATION OR CANCELLATION OF A LICENSE, THE DECISIVE QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE STATION, BY ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT, HAS FORFEITED ITS
RIGHT TO A LICENSE AS THE REGULATIONS PRESCRIBE.  IT IS THE SIGNING OF
THE CONTRACT WHICH, BY VIRTUE OF THE REGULATIONS ALONE, HAS LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES TO THE STATIONS AND TO APPELLANT.  THE REGULATIONS ARE NOT
ANY THE LESS REVIEWABLE BECAUSE THEIR PROMULGATION DID NOT OPERATE OF
THEIR OWN FORCE TO DENY OR CANCEL A LICENSE.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THEM PENALIZES LICENSEES, AND APPELLANT, WITH WHOM THEY
CONTRACT.  IF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER HAS THAT EFFECT IT IS REVIEWABLE
AND IT DOES NOT CEASE TO BE SO MERELY BECAUSE IT IS NOT CERTAIN WHETHER
THE COMMISSION WILL INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE PENALTY
INCURRED UNDER ITS REGULATIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.  ASSIGNED CAR CASES,
SUPRA; A.T. & T. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE REGULATIONS ARE RULES WHICH IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
REQUIRE IT TO REJECT AND AUTHORIZE IT TO CANCEL LICENSES ON THE GROUNDS
SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS WITHOUT MORE.  IF THE REGULATIONS ARE
VALID THEY ALTER THE STATUS OF APPELLANT'S CONTRACTS AND THUS DETERMINE
THEIR VALIDITY IN ADVANCE OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS.  BY STRIKING THEM DOWN
BY A DETERMINATION PROCLAIMED IN ADVANCE THAT LICENSES SHALL BE
CANCELLED OR REFUSED BECAUSE OF A PREVIOUS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
REGULATIONS, THEY IMPOSE A PENALTY AND SANCTION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE FAR
MORE DRASTIC THAN THE FINES CUSTOMARILY INFLICTED FOR BREACH OF
REVIEWABLE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS. 

MOST RULES OF CONDUCT HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW ARE NOT SELF-EXECUTING
BUT REQUIRE JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO IMPOSE THEIR SANCTIONS
WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS.  UNLIKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
OR A COURT JUDGMENT ADJUDICATING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, WHICH IS
BINDING ONLY ON THE PARTIES TO THE PARTICULAR PROCEEDING, A VALID
EXERCISE OF THE RULE-MAKING POWER IS ADDRESSED TO AND SETS A STANDARD
OF CONDUCT FOR ALL TO WHOM ITS TERMS APPLY.  IT OPERATES AS SUCH IN
ADVANCE OF THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UPON ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. 
IT IS COMMON EXPERIENCE THAT MEN CONFORM THEIR CONDUCT TO REGULATIONS
BY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY SO AS TO AVOID THE UNPLEASANT LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES WHICH FAILURE TO CONFORM ENTAILS.  AND IN THIS CASE IT IS
ALLEGED WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT NUMEROUS AFFILIATED STATIONS HAVE
CONFORMED TO THE REGULATIONS TO AVOID LOSS OF THEIR LICENSES WITH
CONSEQUENT INJURY TO APPELLANT. 

SUCH REGULATIONS HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW BEFORE THEIR SANCTIONS ARE
INVOKED AS WELL AS AFTER.  WHEN, AS HERE, THEY ARE PROMULGATED BY ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION AND THE EXPECTED CONFORMITY TO THEM CAUSES INJURY
COGNIZABLE BY A COURT OF EQUITY, THEY ARE APPROPRIATELY THE SUBJECT OF
ATTACK UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 402(A) AND THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES
ACT.  A.T. & T. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. GOODRICH
TRANSIT CO., 224 U.S. 194; KANSAS CITY SO. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
231 U.S. 423; ASSIGNED CAR CASES, SUPRA; CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 80; UNITED STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., SUPRA. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE ADDRESSED ONLY TO THE
COMMISSION AND MERELY PROHIBIT IT FROM GRANTING - AND AUTHORIZE IT TO
CANCEL - LICENSES IN THE CASE OF ALL STATIONS ENTERING INTO SUCH
CONTRACTS, AND THAT ACCORDINGLY ALL STATIONS ARE LEFT FREE TO ENTER
INTO CONTRACTS OR NOT, AS THEY CHOOSE.  THEY ARE FREE ONLY IN THE SENSE
THAT ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT CHOOSE TO CONFORM TO REGULATIONS WHICH MAY BE
DETERMINED TO BE LAWFUL ARE FREE BY THEIR CHOICE TO ACCEPT THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTS.  FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS
ENTAILS SUCH CONSEQUENCES TO THE STATION OWNER AND TO APPELLANT.  THESE
ARE THE LOSS OF THE AFFILIATED STATIONS' LICENSES IF THEY ADHERE TO
THEIR CONTRACTS, AND DISRUPTION OF APPELLANT'S NETWORK THROUGH THE
DECLARED UNLAWFULNESS OF THE CONTRACTS, IF THE REGULATIONS ARE VALID. 

THE PURPOSES SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY SEC. 402(A) AND THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED IF A SUITOR WERE UNABLE TO RESORT TO
THEM TO AVOID REASONABLY ANTICIPATED IRREPARABLE INJURY RESULTING FROM
SUCH LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, MERELY BECAUSE THE
COMMISSION AS YET HAS NEITHER REFUSED TO RENEW A LICENSE, AS THE
REGULATIONS REQUIRE, NOR CANCELLED A LICENSE, AS THE REGULATIONS
PERMIT.  SUCH AN ARGUMENT ADDRESSED TO THE FORM RATHER THAN THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE ORDER WAS REJECTED IN POWELL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA
(300 U.S. 276); CF. A.F. OF L. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 308 U.S. 408. 
THE POWELL CASE LIKEWISE REPUDIATES THE SUGGESTION THAT, MERELY BECAUSE
THE ORDER IS NOT IN TERMS ADDRESSED TO THOSE WHOSE RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED,
THEY CANNOT SEEK ITS REVIEW.  SEE ALSO WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 284 U.S. 47; CLAIBORNE-ANNAPOLIS FERRY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 285 U.S. 382. 

THE ORDER HERE IS NOT ONE, AS THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES AND AS THE COURT
BELOW SEEMED TO THINK, WHERE THE COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED ONLY
ON THE CONTINGENCY OF FUTURE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, AS IN UNITED STATES
V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299; CF. ROCHESTER TELEPHONE
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 307 U.S. 130.  AS THE COURT DECLARED IN
THE LOS ANGELES CASE, 309, 310, REVIEWABLE ORDERS ARE "AN EXERCISE
EITHER OF THE QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF DETERMINING CONTROVERSIES OR
OF THE DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION OF RATE MAKING AND RULE MAKING." 
AND THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE "SO-CALLED ORDER" IN THAT CASE DID
NOT "DETERMINE ANY RIGHT OR OBLIGATION" OR CHANGE THE PLAINTIFF'S
"EXISTING OR FUTURE STATUS OR CONDITION," AND THAT IT WAS "MERELY THE
FORMAL RECORD OF CONCLUSIONS REACHED AFTER A STUDY OF DATA COLLECTED IN
THE COURSE OF EXTENSIVE RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION" AND "IS
THE EXERCISE SOLELY OF THE FUNCTION OF INVESTIGATION." 

HERE THE COMMISSION EXERCISED ITS RULE-MAKING POWER BY ADOPTING
REGULATIONS WHOSE OPERATION IS NOT MADE SUBJECT TO FUTURE
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS, SAVE ONLY AS THE COMMISSION MAY BE
CALLED ON TO DECIDE IN ANY GIVEN CASE WHETHER A STATION'S CONTRACT WITH
A NETWORK IS WITHIN THE REGULATIONS.  THE REGULATIONS' APPLICABILITY TO
ALL WHO ARE WITHIN THEIR TERMS DOES NOT DEPEND UPON FUTURE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  INSTEAD, THEY OPERATE TO CONTROL SUCH ACTION
AND TO DETERMINE IN ADVANCE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS AFFECTED BY IT.  THE
COMMISSION GAVE ITS OWN RECOGNITION THAT SUCH IS THEIR OPERATION BY ITS
SUCCESSIVE POSTPONEMENTS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDER FOR A
PERIOD NOW EXPIRED, AND BY ITS SUSPENSION OF REGULATIONS 3.106 AND
3.107, IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE NETWORKS TO DISPOSE OF THEIR PROPERTIES. 

OF COURSE, THE COMMISSION WAS AT LIBERTY TO FOLLOW A WHOLLY DIFFERENT
PROCEDURE.  INSTEAD OF PROCLAIMING GENERAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
ALL LICENSES, IN ADVANCE OF ANY SPECIFIC CONTEST OVER A LICENSE, IT
MIGHT HAVE AWAITED SUCH A CONTEST TO DECLARE THAT THE POLICY WHICH
THESE REGULATIONS EMBODY REPRESENTS ITS CONCEPT OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  AS A MATTER OF SOUND ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, BOTH THE RULE
MAKING PROCEEDING AND THE SPECIFIC LICENSE PROCEEDING UNDOUBTEDLY HAVE
MUCH TO COMMEND THEM.  BUT THEY ARE BY NO MEANS THE SAME, NOR DO THEY
NECESSARILY GIVE RISE TO THE SAME KIND OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  HAVING
ADOPTED THIS ORDER UNDER ITS RULE-MAKING POWER, THE COMMISSION CANNOT
INSIST THAT THE APPELLANT BE RELEGATED TO THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH
WOULD BE EXCLUSIVE IF THE RULE-MAKING POWER HAD NEVER BEEN EXERCISED
AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD NEVER SUBJECTED APPELLANT TO THE THREATENED
IRREPARABLE INJURY. 

THE COURT BELOW ASSUMED THAT IF APPELLANT HAD ANY EQUITABLE CAUSE OF
ACTION, IT MUST BE PROSECUTED IN AN ORDINARY SUIT AND NOT UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  BUT WE THINK THIS MISTAKES
BOTH THE NATURE OF THE REGULATIONS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUITS UNDER THAT
ACT, AS INCORPORATED IN SEC. 402(A).  SUCH A CAUSE OF ACTION OBVIOUSLY
CAN ARISE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE OPERATION OF THE REGULATIONS.  THE
REGULATIONS ARE THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENT BY WHICH THE INJURY COMPLAINED
OF IS WROUGHT, AND HENCE MUST BE THE OBJECT OF THE ATTACK.  IT IS
BECAUSE THEY ARE AN EXERCISE OF THE RULE-MAKING POWER, AND BECAUSE THEY
PRESENTLY DETERMINE RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE COMMISSION IS
REQUIRED TO WITHHOLD LICENSES AND AUTHORIZED TO CANCEL THEM, THAT THERE
IS AN ORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 402(A) AND THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT. 

THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT, SINCE ITS REPORT CHARACTERIZED THE
REGULATIONS AS ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLICY, THE ORDER PROMULGATING THEM IS
NO MORE SUBJECT TO REVIEW THAN A PRESS RELEASE SIMILARLY ANNOUNCING ITS
POLICY.  UNDOUBTEDLY, REGULATIONS ADOPTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE-MAKING POWER, LIKE LAWS ENACTED BY LEGISLATURES,
EMBODY ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLICY.  BUT THEY MAY BE SOMETHING MORE.  WHEN,
AS HERE, THE REGULATIONS ARE AVOWEDLY ADOPTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT
POWER, COUCHED IN TERMS OF COMMAND AND ACCOMPANIED BY AN ANNOUNCEMENT
OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE POLICY IS ONE "WHICH WE WILL FOLLOW IN
EXERCISING OUR LICENSING POWER," THEY MUST BE TAKEN BY THOSE ENTITLED
TO RELY UPON THEM AS WHAT THEY PURPORT TO BE - AN EXERCISE OF THE
DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE POWER - WHICH, UNTIL AMENDED, ARE CONTROLLING
ALIKE UPON THE COMMISSION AND ALL OTHERS WHOSE RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
BY THE COMMISSION'S EXECUTION OF THEM.  THE COMMISSION'S CONTENTION
THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE NO MORE REVIEWABLE THAN A PRESS RELEASE IS
HARDLY RECONCILABLE WITH ITS OWN RECOGNITION THAT THE REGULATIONS
AFFORD LEGAL BASIS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE LICENSE OF A STATION IF IT
RENEWS ITS CONTRACT WITH APPELLANT. 

APPELLANT'S STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE PRESENT SUIT IN EQUITY IS
UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO
APPELLANT AND DO NOT IN TERMS COMPEL ACTION BY IT OR IMPOSE PENALTIES
UPON IT BECAUSE OF ITS ACTION OR FAILURE TO ACT.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT, BY
SETTING THE CONTROLLING STANDARDS FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTION, THE
REGULATIONS PURPORT TO OPERATE TO ALTER AND AFFECT ADVERSELY
APPELLANT'S CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS AND BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH STATION
OWNERS WHOSE APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES THE REGULATIONS WILL CAUSE TO BE
REJECTED AND WHOSE LICENSES THE REGULATIONS MAY CAUSE TO BE REVOKED. 
CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 266-68; WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., SUPRA; CLAIBORNE-ANNAPOLIS FERRY CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA; COMPARE, IN THE CASE OF AN ATTACK UPON THE VALIDITY OF A
STATUTE, TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, 38-39; PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF
SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, AND OF THE
EFFECT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IF THOSE ALLEGATIONS ARE SUSTAINED
UPON THE TRIAL, IS ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE THREAT OF IRREPARABLE INJURY
TO APPELLANT'S BUSINESS AND TO SHOW ALSO THAT THE INJURY CAN NOT BE
AVOIDED, AS THE COMMISSION SUGGESTS, BY APPELLANT'S INTERVENTION IN
PROCEEDINGS UPON APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSES BY ITS AFFILIATES
OR IN PROCEEDINGS TO CANCEL THEIR LICENSES, IF AND WHEN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED.  APPELLANT HAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT
THE AFFILIATES ARE CANCELLING OR THREATENING TO CANCEL THEIR CONTRACTS
IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE REGULATIONS.  IT IS TO AVOID THE IRREPARABLE
INJURY WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM SUCH WHOLESALE CANCELLATIONS OF ITS
CONTRACTS, INDUCED BY THE FORCE OF THE REGULATIONS, THAT APPELLANT
MAKES ITS ATTACK ON THEM NOW RATHER THAN IN LATER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES IN THOSE CASES, IF ANY, IN WHICH
THE STATIONS ARE WILLING TO SEEK LICENSES WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE
PREREQUISITES LAID DOWN BY THE REGULATIONS. 

THE ISSUES IN SUCH A PROCEEDING ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS THE
ISSUES HERE.  INTERVENTION IN IT WOULD AFFORD APPELLANT NO ASSURANCE
EITHER OF AN ADJUDICATION OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS OR THAT THE ACTION
OF OTHER STATIONS WOULD BE GOVERNED BY IT.  MOREOVER, IF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IS, AS WE HOLD, A REVIEWABLE ORDER, APPELLANT IS
FREE TO SEEK REVIEW UNDER SEC. 402(A).  IT IS NOT THEREBY, AS THE COURT
BELOW SEEMED TO THINK, IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTING A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE
AND COURT FOR THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED FOR THE TRIAL OF LIKE
ISSUES SO FAR AS THEY MAY BE RAISED ON REVIEW OF AN ORDER DENYING A
LICENSE.  SUCH ISSUES MAY LIKEWISE BE INVOLVED IN A PROCEEDING, UPON
THE COMMISSION'S OWN MOTION, FOR MODIFICATION OR CANCELLATION OF A
LICENSE, WHICH CONCEDEDLY IS REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 402(A).  SEE SCRIPPS
HOWARD RADIO V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N, ANTE, P. 4.  BUT REVIEW
OF THE ORDER BY A LICENSEE IN SUCH A PROCEEDING AFFORDS NO ADEQUATE
REMEDY.  IF EVER INSTITUTED, WHICH IS UNCERTAIN, IT WOULD COME TOO LATE
TO SAVE APPELLANT FROM THE INJURY WROUGHT BY THE OUTLAWRY OF ITS
CONTRACTS. 

NOR DOES THE COMMISSION'S MINUTE, FILED AFTER THE PRESENT SUIT WAS
BROUGHT, AFFORD AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR REQUIRING APPELLANT TO SEEK
RELIEF BY INTERVENTION IN A PROCEEDING ON APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE
REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 402(B).  IN THAT EVENT THE MINUTE WOULD NOT
OPERATE TO BROADEN THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE RENEWAL APPLICATION.  NOR
WOULD IT AFFORD A BASIS FOR RESTRAINING ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS
AS TO OTHER AFFILIATED STATIONS, PENDING ADJUDICATION OF THE VALIDITY
OF THE REGULATIONS.  WITHOUT FULL EXPLORATION OF THE SUBJECT, SUCH AS
CAN BE HAD ONLY AT THE TRIAL, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE MINUTE WILL AFFORD
A SUFFICIENT INDUCEMENT TO PERSUADE THE AFFILIATED STATIONS TO CEASE
CANCELLATIONS AND ASSUME THE INITIATIVE IN LITIGATING THE VALIDITY OF
THE REGULATIONS AND OF THE CONTRACTS WHICH THEY UNDERTAKE TO CONDEMN. 
THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN THE COURT BELOW ON THE APPLICATION FOR A STAY IS
TO THE CONTRARY.  AND IN ANY CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE ARE
NO EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THE RIGHT OF APPELLANT, UPON THE
SHOWING MADE BY ITS COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT, TO TEST THE ORDER UNDER
SEC. 402(A) CAN JUSTLY BE SUSPENDED TO AWAIT ACTION WHICH THE STATION
OWNERS MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE IN ASSUMING THE BURDEN OF CHALLENGING THE
REGULATIONS. 

WE NEED NOT STOP TO DISCUSS HERE THE GREAT VARIETY OF ADMINISTRATIVE
RULINGS WHICH, UNLIKE THIS ONE, ARE NOT REVIEWABLE - EITHER BECAUSE
THEY DO NOT ADJUDICATE RIGHTS OR DECLARE THEM LEGISLATIVELY, OR BECAUSE
THERE ARE ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES WHICH MUST BE PURSUED BEFORE
RESORTING TO JUDICIAL REMEDIES, OR BECAUSE THERE IS NO OCCASION TO
RESORT TO EQUITABLE REMEDIES.  BUT WE SHOULD NOT FOR THAT REASON FAIL
TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THEM AND THIS CASE IN WHICH, BECAUSE OF ITS
PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES, ALL THE ELEMENTS PREREQUISITE TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW ARE PRESENT.  THE ULTIMATE TEST OF REVIEWABILITY IS NOT TO BE
FOUND IN AN OVERREFINED TECHNIQUE, BUT IN THE NEED OF THE REVIEW TO
PROTECT FROM THE IRREPARABLE INJURY THREATENED IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE
BY ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS WHICH ATTACH LEGAL CONSEQUENCES TO ACTION
TAKEN IN ADVANCE OF OTHER HEARINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS THAT MAY FOLLOW,
THE RESULTS OF WHICH THE REGULATIONS PURPORT TO CONTROL. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSION'S PROMULGATION OF THE REGULATIONS IS
AN ORDER REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 402(A) OF THE ACT, AND THAT THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY.  THE STAY NOW IN EFFECT
WILL BE CONTINUED, ON TERMS TO BE SETTLED BY THE COURT BELOW. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
CONSIDERED IN THE FOREGOING OPINION OF THE COURT:

           ORDER OF MAY 2, 1941, AS AMENDED OCTOBER 11, 1941 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, THAT THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS
BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY ADOPTED: 

SEC. 3.101.  EXCLUSIVE AFFILIATION OF STATION.  - NO LICENSE SHALL BE
GRANTED TO A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT,
ARRANGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION UNDER WHICH THE STATION IS PREVENTED OR HINDERED FROM, OR
PENALIZED FOR, BROADCASTING THE PROGRAMS OF ANY OTHER NETWORK
ORGANIZATION. 

SEC. 3.102.  TERRITORIAL EXCLUSIVITY.  - NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED
TO A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR
UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION WHICH
PREVENTS OR HINDERS ANOTHER STATION SERVING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AREA
FROM BROADCASTING THE NETWORK'S PROGRAMS NOT TAKEN BY THE FORMER
STATION, OR WHICH PREVENTS OR HINDERS ANOTHER STATION SERVING A
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT AREA FROM BROADCASTING ANY PROGRAM OF THE
NETWORK ORGANIZATION.  THIS REGULATION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO
PROHIBIT ANY CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN A STATION
AND A NETWORK ORGANIZATION PURSUANT TO WHICH THE STATION IS GRANTED THE
FIRST CALL IN ITS PRIMARY SERVICE AREA UPON THE PROGRAMS OF THE NETWORK
ORGANIZATION. 

SEC. 3.103.  TERM OF AFFILIATION.  - NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR
UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION WHICH
PROVIDES, BY ORIGINAL TERM, PROVISIONS FOR RENEWAL, OR OTHERWISE FOR
THE AFFILIATION OF THE STATION WITH THE NETWORK ORGANIZATION FOR A
PERIOD LONGER THAN TWO YEARS: PROVIDED, THAT A CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT,
OR UNDERSTANDING FOR A PERIOD UP TO TWO YEARS, MAY BE ENTERED INTO
WITHIN 120 DAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH PERIOD. 

SEC. 3.104.  OPTION TIME.  - NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
STANDARD BROADCAST STATION WHICH OPTIONS FOR NETWORK PROGRAMS ANY TIME
SUBJECT TO CALL ON LESS THAN 56 DAYS' NOTICE, OR MORE TIME THAN A TOTAL
OF THREE HOURS WITHIN EACH OF FOUR SEGMENTS OF THE BROADCAST DAY, AS
HEREIN DESCRIBED.  THE BROADCAST DAY IS DIVIDED INTO 4 SEGMENTS, AS
FOLLOWS:  8:00 A.M. TO 1.00 P.M.; 1:00 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M.; 6:00 P.M. TO
11:00 P.M.; 11:00 P.M. TO 8:00 A.M.  SUCH OPTIONS MAY NOT BE EXCLUSIVE
AS AGAINST OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS AND MAY NOT PREVENT OR HINDER
THE STATION FROM OPTIONING OR SELLING ANY OR ALL OF THE TIME COVERED BY
THE OPTION, OR OTHER TIME, TO OTHER NETWORK ORGANIZATIONS. 

SEC. 3.105.  RIGHT TO REJECT PROGRAMS.  - NO LICENSE SHALL BE GRANTED
TO A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT, ARRANGEMENT, OR
UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION WHICH
(A), WITH RESPECT TO PROGRAMS OFFERED PURSUANT TO AN AFFILIATION
CONTRACT, PREVENTS OR HINDERS THE STATION FROM REJECTING OR REFUSING
NETWORK PROGRAMS WHICH THE STATION REASONABLY BELIEVES TO BE
UNSATISFACTORY OR UNSUITABLE; OR WHICH (B), WITH RESPECT TO NETWORK
PROGRAMS SO OFFERED OR ALREADY CONTRACTED FOR, PREVENTS THE STATION
FROM REJECTING OR REFUSING ANY PROGRAM WHICH, IN ITS OPINION, IS
CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, OR FROM SUBSTITUTING A PROGRAM OF
OUTSTANDING LOCAL OR NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. 

SEC. 3.106.  NETWORK OWNERSHIP OF STATIONS.  - NO LICENSE SHALL BE
GRANTED TO A NETWORK ORGANIZATION, OR TO ANY PERSON DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY CONTROLLED BY OR UNDER COMMON CONTROL WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION, FOR MORE THAN ONE STANDARD BROADCAST STATION WHERE ONE OF
THE STATIONS COVERS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SERVICE AREA OF THE OTHER
STATION, OR FOR ANY STANDARD BROADCAST STATION IN ANY LOCALITY WHERE
THE EXISTING STANDARD BROADCAST STATIONS ARE SO FEW OR OF SUCH UNEQUAL
DESIRABILITY (IN TERMS OF COVERAGE, POWER, FREQUENCY, OR OTHER RELATED
MATTERS) THAT COMPETITION WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY RESTRAINED BY SUCH
LICENSING. 

SEC. 3.107.  DUAL NETWORK OPERATION.  - NO LICENSE SHALL BE ISSUED TO
A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION AFFILIATED WITH A NETWORK ORGANIZATION
WHICH MAINTAINS MORE THAN ONE NETWORK:  PROVIDED, THAT THIS REGULATION
SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE IF SUCH NETWORKS ARE NOT OPERATED
SIMULTANEOUSLY, OR IF THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL OVERLAP IN THE TERRITORY
SERVED BY THE GROUP OF STATIONS COMPRISING EACH SUCH NETWORK. 

SEC. 3.108.  CONTROL BY NETWORKS OF STATION RATES.  - NO LICENSE
SHALL BE GRANTED TO A STANDARD BROADCAST STATION HAVING ANY CONTRACT,
ARRANGEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH A NETWORK
ORGANIZATION UNDER WHICH THE STATION IS PREVENTED OR HINDERED FROM, OR
PENALIZED FOR, FIXING OR ALTERING ITS RATES FOR THE SALE OF BROADCAST
TIME FOR OTHER THAN THE NETWORK'S PROGRAMS. 

(EFFECTIVE DATE.)  THESE REGULATIONS SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY:  PROVIDED, THAT, WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING CONTRACTS,
ARRANGEMENTS OR UNDERSTANDINGS, OR NETWORK ORGANIZATION STATION
LICENSES, THE EFFECTIVE DATE SHALL BE DEFERRED UNTIL NOVEMBER 15, 1941:
PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION 3.106 WITH
RESPECT TO ANY STATION MAY BE EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME IN ORDER TO
PERMIT THE ORDERLY DISPOSITION OF PROPERTIES; AND PROVIDED FURTHER,
THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATION 3.107 SHALL BE SUSPENDED
INDEFINITELY AND ANY FURTHER ORDER OF THE COMMISSION PLACING SAID
REGULATION 3.107 IN EFFECT SHALL PROVIDE FOR NOT LESS THAN SIX MONTHS'
NOTICE AND FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE FROM TIME TO
TIME IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE ORDERLY DISPOSITION OF PROPERTIES. 

THE MINUTE OF OCTOBER 31, 1941 

THE COMMISSION TODAY ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING MINUTE SETTING FORTH THE
PROCEDURE THAT IT WILL FOLLOW IN APPLYING THE POLICIES ANNOUNCED IN THE
CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS: 

IF A STATION WISHES TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE CHAIN BROADCASTING
REGULATIONS ADOPTED IN DOCKET NO. 5060, OR THE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR
APPLICATION TO THE PARTICULAR STATION, ITS LICENSE WILL BE SET FOR
HEARING.  IN ORDER TO INSURE THAT THE STATION MAY REMAIN ON THE AIR AND
BE IN NO WAY INJURED BY ANY SUCH COMMISSION PROCEEDING AND APPEAL TO
COURT FROM A DECISION IN SUCH PROCEEDING, THE COMMISSION WILL GRANT
SUCH LICENSEE A TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ITS LICENSE, WITH RENEWALS FROM
TIME TO TIME UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES
RAISED AT SUCH HEARING.  IN THE EVENT OF SUCH LITIGATION, AND IF THE
VALIDITY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS TO
SUCH LICENSEE IS SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS, THE COMMISSION WILL
NEVERTHELESS GRANT A REGULAR LICENSE TO THE LICENSEE, OTHERWISE
ENTITLED THERETO, WHO HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED THAT ISSUE, IF THE
LICENSEE THEREUPON CONFORMS TO THE DECISION. 

THE SUPPLEMENTARY DECISION AND ORDER IN DOCKET NO. 5060 INDEFINITELY
SUSPENDED REGULATION 3.107, RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF MORE THAN ONE
NETWORK BY A SINGLE NETWORK ORGANIZATION.  NO SIMILAR SUSPENSION WAS
MADE OF THAT PORTION OF REGULATION 3.106, RELATING TO NETWORK OPERATION
OF MORE THAN ONE STANDARD BROADCAST STATION WITH SUBSTANTIALLY
OVERLAPPING SERVICE AREAS.  THE COMMISSION WILL POSTPONE INDEFINITELY
ANY ACTION TO PREVENT SUCH DUAL STATION OPERATION IF IT IS SHOWN THAT
THE OPERATION OF TWO STATIONS IN ANY CITY IS INDISPENSABLE TO THE
CONTINUED OPERATION OF TWO NETWORKS BY A SINGLE NETWORK ORGANIZATION. 
THE ADOPTION OF THE FOREGOING PROCEDURE IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
RIGHTS OF ANY PERSON WHO MAY PETITION THE COMMISSION FOR MODIFICATION
OR STAY OF THE CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS. 

FN1  THE COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT SAYS, P. 85: 

"WE BELIEVE THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES WE INTEND TO
APPLY IN EXERCISING OUR LICENSING POWER WILL EXPEDITE BUSINESS AND
FURTHER THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.    "ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLICY MAY TAKE THE
FORM OF REGULATIONS OR OF GENERAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS.  IN EITHER CASE,
THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO A HEARING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER HE DOES IN
FACT PROPOSE TO OPERATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS FULLY PRESERVED.  THE
REGULATIONS WE ARE ADOPTING ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE EXPRESSION OF THE
GENERAL POLICY WE WILL FOLLOW IN EXERCISING OUR LICENSING POWER.  THE
FORMULATION OF A REGULATION IN GENERAL TERMS IS AN IMPORTANT AID TO
CONSISTENCY AND PREDICTABILITY AND DOES NOT PREJUDICE ANY RIGHTS OF THE
APPLICANT.  GOOD ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE WOULD SEEM TO DEMAND THAT SUCH
A STATEMENT OF POLICY OR RULES AND REGULATIONS BE PROMULGATED WHEREVER
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE UPON WHICH THEY MAY BE BASED." 

FN2  ON OCTOBER 11, 1941, THE COMMISSION AMENDED REGULATION 3.34 TO
MAKE THE NORMAL LICENSE PERIOD TWO YEARS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

THE CRITERIA GOVERNING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF "ORDERS" UNDER THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT WERE DEFINED BY A UNANIMOUS COURT IN UNITED STATES V.
LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 309-10: "THE SO-CALLED ORDER
HERE COMPLAINED OF IS ONE WHICH DOES NOT COMMAND THE CARRIER TO DO, OR
TO REFRAIN FROM DOING, ANY THING; WHICH DOES NOT GRANT OR WITHHOLD ANY
AUTHORITY, PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE; WHICH DOES NOT EXTEND OR ABRIDGE ANY
POWER OR FACILITY; WHICH DOES NOT SUBJECT THE CARRIER TO ANY LIABILITY,
CIVIL OR CRIMINAL; WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE THE CARRIER'S EXISTING OR
FUTURE STATUS OR CONDITION; WHICH DOES NOT DETERMINE ANY RIGHT OR
OBLIGATION."  IF "BROADCASTING COMPANY" WERE SUBSTITUTED FOR "CARRIER,"
THIS ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACTION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE LOS ANGELES CASE WOULD FIT PERFECTLY THE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACTION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION IN MAKING PUBLIC THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS. 

THE FACT THAT AN ACTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OCCASIONS EVEN
IRREPARABLE LOSS DOES NOT IN ITSELF AFFORD SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  EVEN IF THE COMMISSION COMMITTED A WRONG, THE
QUESTION OF JUDICIAL REVIEWABILITY STILL REMAINS THAT PUT IN THE LOS
ANGELES CASE, 273 U.S. AT 313, TO WIT, IS IT "A WRONG FOR WHICH
CONGRESS PROVIDES A REMEDY UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT" OF
OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 208, 219, AS INCORPORATED IN SEC. 402(A) OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934? 

FOR CONGRESS HAS NOT AUTHORIZED RESORT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS MERELY
BECAUSE SOMEONE FEELS AGGRIEVED, HOWEVER DEEPLY, BY AN ACTION OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.  A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES CAN TAKE A CASE ONLY WHEN CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED THAT TYPE OF
CASE TO BE TAKEN.  CONGRESS DID NOT LEAVE OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEWING
DAMAGING ACTION BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO THE GENERAL
EQUITY POWERS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS.  IT CIRCUMSCRIBED THE POWER OF
THE COURTS IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION IN THE MOST DETAILED WAY.  ITS
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, OF THE
SCOPE OF REVIEW ALLOWED IN REVIEWING AN "ORDER" OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION GAVE ALL THE PRECISE, DEFINITE, AND TECHNICAL
BOUNDARIES WHICH THE CONCEPT OF A REVIEWABLE "ORDER" HAD ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  THE PRECISE REQUIREMENTS OF AN "ORDER" OF THE
COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ARE THEREFORE AS INFLEXIBLE
AS THOUGH THEY WERE WRITTEN INTO THE ACT ITSELF. 

OUR PROBLEM, THEN, IS THIS:  DOES THE ISSUANCE OF THE CHAIN
BROADCASTING REGULATIONS CONSTITUTE AN "ORDER" REVIEWABLE IN A
PROCEEDING BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 402(A) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, IN THE
LIGHT OF THE SETTLED RULES FOR DETERMINING WHAT SUCH AN "ORDER" IS WHEN
A DETERMINATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS MADE THE BASIS
OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.  IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO PUT OUT OF MIND WHAT
THIS CASE IS NOT.  IT IS NOT THE INVOCATION OF EQUITY JURISDICTION IN
ORDER TO AVOID THREATENED IRREPARABLE HARM RESULTING FROM THE CRIMINAL
ENFORCEMENT OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE, AS IN PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF
SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510.  NOR DO WE HAVE HERE A RESORT TO EQUITY BECAUSE
IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF ASSERTED RIGHTS THAT CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS UNAUTHORIZED BY LAW BE RESTRAINED, AS IN SHIELDS V. UTAH
IDAHO R. CO., 305 U.S. 177, 183. 

IN PROMULGATING THESE REGULATIONS THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MERELY ANNOUNCED ITS CONCEPTION OF ONE ASPECT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
NAMELY, THE RELATIONSHIP OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN NETWORK-AFFILIATION
CONTRACTS TO THE OBLIGATION OF A STATION LICENSEE TO RENDER THE MOST
EFFECTIVE SERVICE TO THE LISTENING PUBLIC.  THE REGULATIONS THEMSELVES
DETERMINE NO RIGHTS.  THEY ALTER THE STATUS OF NEITHER THE NETWORKS NOR
LICENSEES.  AS SUCH THEY REQUIRE NOBODY - NEITHER THE NETWORKS, THE
LICENSEES, NOR THE COMMISSION - TO DO ANYTHING.  THEY ARE MERELY AN
ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE PUBLIC OF WHAT THE COMMISSION INTENDS TO DO IN
PASSING UPON FUTURE APPLICATIONS FOR STATION LICENSES.  NO ACTION OF
THE STATIONS OR THE NETWORKS CAN VIOLATE THE REGULATIONS, FOR THERE IS
NOTHING THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE THEM TO DO OR REFRAIN FROM DOING. 

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICIES INTENDED TO BE FOLLOWED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES CUSTOMARILY TAKE ANY ONE OF VARIOUS FORMS. 
SOMETIMES THEY ARE NOTED IN THE AGENCY'S ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS,
SOMETIMES IN A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OR PRESS RELEASE, AND SOMETIMES, AS
WAS THE CASE HERE, THEY ARE PUBLISHED AS "RULES" OR "REGULATIONS."  SEE
FINAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE (1941), PP. 26-27.  BUT WHATEVER FORM SUCH ANNOUNCEMENTS MAY
TAKE, THEIR NATURE AND EFFECT IS THE SAME.  THE REASON WHY THE
COMMISSION FORMULATED ITS CHAIN BROADCASTING POLICY IN THE FORM OF A
"REGULATION" IS GIVEN IN ITS REPORT:  "WE BELIEVE THAT THE ANNOUNCEMENT
OF THE PRINCIPLES WE INTEND TO APPLY IN EXERCISING OUR LICENSING POWER
WILL EXPEDITE BUSINESS AND FURTHER THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  ...  GOOD
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE WOULD SEEM TO DEMAND THAT SUCH A STATEMENT OF
POLICY OR RULES AND REGULATIONS BE PROMULGATED WHEREVER SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE UPON WHICH THEY MAY BE BASED."  REPORT ON
CHAIN BROADCASTING, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ORDER NO. 37,
DOCKET NO. 5060, P. 85. 

WITH RESPECT TO ITS JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS RELATING TO RADIO
BROADCASTING, THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IS ESSENTIALLY A LICENSING
AGENCY.  ITS REGULATORY POWER OVER THE INDUSTRY IS DERIVED, FOR THE
MOST PART, FROM ITS AUTHORITY TO GRANT AND WITHHOLD STATION LICENSES. 
UNDER SEC. 309 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 THE COMMISSION IS
REQUIRED TO EXAMINE EACH APPLICATION FOR A STATION LICENSE AND TO
DETERMINE IN EACH CASE WHETHER A GRANT WOULD SERVE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY.  AS WAS NOTED IN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 138, THE ACT
"EXPRESSES A DESIRE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO MAINTAIN, THROUGH
APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL, A GRIP ON THE DYNAMIC ASPECTS OF
RADIO TRANSMISSION."  TO THAT END, CONGRESS ESTABLISHED AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE UNDER WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST MAKE A
SPECIFIC DETERMINATION IN EACH CASE WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD
BE SERVED BY GRANTING THE PARTICULAR APPLICATION BEFORE IT.  NO
ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL LICENSING POLICY CAN RELIEVE THE COMMISSION OF
ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO EXAMINE EACH APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE AND
DETERMINE WHETHER A GRANT OR DENIAL IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC
INTEREST. 

THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZED THIS FACT IN ISSUING THESE REGULATIONS.  IT
EXPLICITLY STATED THAT A DETERMINATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST WILL, IN SPITE OF THE REGULATIONS, STILL HAVE TO BE
MADE IN PASSING UPON PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS:  "ANNOUNCEMENTS OF POLICY
MAY TAKE THE FORM OF REGULATIONS OR OF GENERAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS.  IN
EITHER CASE, THE APPLICANT'S RIGHT TO A HEARING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER
HE DOES IN FACT PROPOSE TO OPERATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS FULLY
PRESERVED.  THE REGULATIONS WE ARE ADOPTING ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE
EXPRESSION OF THE GENERAL POLICY WE WILL FOLLOW IN EXERCISING OUR
LICENSING POWER.  THE FORMULATION OF A REGULATION IN GENERAL TERMS IS
AN IMPORTANT AID TO CONSISTENCY AND PREDICTABILITY AND DOES NOT
PREJUDICE ANY RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANT."  REPORT ON CHAIN BROADCASTING,
SUPRA, P. 85. 

SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROMULGATION OF THE REGULATIONS, THE COMMISSION
FOUND THAT SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS WERE NECESSARY.  IN ITS
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON THESE AMENDMENTS, THE COMMISSION GAVE FURTHER
EVIDENCE OF THE FLEXIBLE NATURE OF THE REGULATIONS:  "THE COMMISSION
STANDS READY AT ALL TIMES TO AMEND AND MODIFY ITS REGULATIONS UPON THE
PETITION OF ANY NETWORK, NATIONAL OR REGIONAL, OR ANY STATION OR GROUP
OF STATIONS IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THOSE REGULATIONS PREVENT
PROFITABLE NETWORK OPERATIONS, OR UNDULY DISTURB ANY ASPECT OF
BROADCASTING, OR THAT BECAUSE OF SPECIAL OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE
CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO ANY
PARTICULAR SITUATION."  MOREOVER, IN ITS MINUTE OF OCTOBER 31, 1941,
DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF STATION LICENSEES WHO
CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS, THE COMMISSION AGAIN MADE IT
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE REGULATIONS WERE NOT FINAL:  "IF A STATION
WISHES TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE CHAIN BROADCASTING REGULATIONS
...  , OR THE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR APPLICATION TO THE PARTICULAR
STATION, ITS LICENSE WILL BE SET FOR HEARING." 

THE REGULATIONS DO NOT, THEREFORE, COMMIT THE COMMISSION TO ANY
DEFINITIVE COURSE OF ACTION IN PASSING UPON APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES. 
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE REGULATIONS (AND, PARENTHETICALLY, CONSISTENTLY
WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO DEPART FROM GENERAL REGULATIONS
WHERE SUCH DEPARTURE IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SEE RADIO COMMISSION V.
NELSON BROS. CO., 289 U.S. 266, 285), THE COMMISSION IS FREE TO DILUTE
THEM WITH AMENDMENTS AND EXCEPTIONS.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
REGULATIONS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO PARTICULAR SITUATIONS IS STILL IN
THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION.  ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION IS STILL
OPEN.  BEFORE ITS COMPLETION IT IS NOT RIPE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS IN ALL THE
CASES ON WHICH THE COURT'S OPINION RELIES WERE WHOLLY DIFFERENT.  IN
EACH ONE THE FORCE OF THE LAW, EITHER THROUGH CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR
INJUNCTION OR FINE OR SOME OTHER JUDICIAL REMEDY, COULD IMMEDIATELY BE
BROUGHT TO BEAR TO ENFORCE THE COMMAND OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. 
IN NONE OF THE CASES WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION HELD REVIEWABLE WHICH
IN ITSELF ENTAILED NO IMMEDIATE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES. 

THUS, IN THE ASSIGNED CAR CASES, 274 U.S. 564, SUIT WAS BROUGHT UNDER
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT TO ANNUL AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION PRESCRIBING FOR ALL RAILROADS WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION A RULE GOVERNING DISTRIBUTION OF CARS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF BITUMINOUS COAL.  UNDER SEC. 402 OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 456, 476, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
1(12)(14), THE CARRIERS WERE REQUIRED "TO MAKE JUST AND REASONABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF CARS," AND THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED TO "ESTABLISH
REASONABLE RULES, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO CAR
SERVICE BY CARRIERS BY RAILROAD."  FAILURE OF A CARRIER TO COMPLY WITH
SUCH REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION WAS DECLARED UNLAWFUL,
SUBJECTING THE CARRIER TO A FINE OF $100 FOR EACH OFFENSE.  SINCE THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION COMMANDED CARRIERS TO TAKE SPECIFIED ACTIONS,
AND SINCE THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER WOULD BRING IMMEDIATE
LEGAL SANCTIONS, THE ORDER WAS HELD REVIEWABLE. 

SIMILARLY, IN UNITED STATES V. B. & O.R. CO., 293 U.S. 454, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REQUIRED RAILROADS SUBJECT TO ITS
JURISDICTION TO EQUIP LOCOMOTIVES WITH A SUITABLE TYPE OF POWER
OPERATED REVERSE GEAR.  THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, 36 STAT. 913, 916,
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT VIOLATION BY A CARRIER OF ANY RULE OR
REGULATION ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE ACT WAS PUNISHABLE BY A
FINE RECOVERABLE IN A CIVIL ACTION.  A SUIT UNDER THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS THEREFORE
ENTERTAINED. 

A.T. & T. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232, WAS A SUIT UNDER SEC.
402(A) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, THE SAME PROVISION UPON WHICH
JURISDICTION OF THE PRESENT LITIGATION IS BASED, TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PRESCRIBING A UNIFORM SYSTEM
OF ACCOUNTS FOR TELEPHONE COMPANIES WITHIN THE ACT.  SECTION 220(A)
AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE SUCH FORMS OF ACCOUNTS, AND SEC.
220(D) MADE THE FAILURE OR REFUSAL OF A COMPANY TO KEEP ACCOUNTS IN THE
MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION UNLAWFUL, PUNISHABLE BY A $500
FORFEITURE FOR EACH DAY OF THE CONTINUANCE OF THE OFFENSE.  BECAUSE OF
THE LEGAL SANCTIONS IMMEDIATELY ATTACHING UPON ITS VIOLATION, THE ORDER
WAS HELD REVIEWABLE. 

IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. GOODRICH TRANSIT CO., 224 U.S. 194,
THE COMMISSION, UNDER THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN IT BY SEC. 20 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, ISSUED ORDERS PRESCRIBING FORMS OF ACCOUNTS,
RECORDS, AND MEMORANDA AND CALLING FOR ANNUAL REPORTS OF CARRIERS BY
WATER.  SECTION 20(7) MADE IT UNLAWFUL FOR SUCH CARRIERS TO KEEP ANY
ACCOUNTS OTHER THAN THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION.  A SUIT TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDERS WAS THEREFORE ENTERTAINED.  SIMILARLY, IN KANSAS CITY
SO. RY. V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 423, SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO ANNUL
REGULATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PRESCRIBING A UNIFORM
BOOKKEEPING AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOR INTERSTATE RAILWAY CARRIERS. 
SINCE CARRIERS WHO FAILED TO KEEP ACCOUNTS AS ORDERED BY THE
REGULATIONS WERE SUBJECT TO PENALTIES UNDER SEC. 20(7) OF THE ACT,
JURISDICTION WAS TAKEN.  AND IN CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 284 U.S. 80, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PRESCRIBED CAR
HIRE SETTLEMENT RULES GOVERNING USE BY COMMON CARRIERS OF EACH OTHER'S
CARS.  VIOLATION OF SUCH RULES BY CARRIERS WAS DECLARED UNLAWFUL AND
SUBJECT TO FINES.  CONSEQUENTLY, A SUIT TO SET ASIDE THE RULES WAS
ENTERTAINED. 

OF COURSE, THE MERE FACT THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER DETERMINES A
STATUS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NOT REVIEWABLE.  IF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION OF STATUS HAS THE EFFECT OF SUBJECTING A PERSON TO LEGAL
OBLIGATIONS, WHETHER EMBODIED IN STATUTE OR PREVIOUSLY FORMULATED
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMANDS, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING LEGAL RIGHTS, SUCH A
DETERMINATION POSSESSES THE ELEMENTS OF A REVIEWABLE ORDER.  THUS, IN
ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HAD ISSUED ORDERS REQUIRING ALL TELEPHONE
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 TO FILE SCHEDULES OF
THEIR CHARGES, COPIES OF CONTRACTS WITH OTHER CARRIERS, ETC.  SECTION
203(E) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT A CARRIER WHICH FAILS OR REFUSES TO
COMPLY WITH SUCH RULES OF THE COMMISSION SHALL FORFEIT $500 FOR EACH
OFFENSE, AND $25 FOR EACH DAY OF ITS CONTINUANCE.  AFTER INVESTIGATION
AND HEARING, THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT THE ROCHESTER TELEPHONE
CORPORATION WAS A TELEPHONE CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE ACT AND THEREFORE
SUBJECT TO THE PREVIOUSLY PROMULGATED GENERAL ORDERS DIRECTED TO
CARRIERS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  "THE ORDER OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IN THIS CASE WAS THEREFORE REVIEWABLE.  IT
WAS NOT A MERE ABSTRACT DECLARATION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE
ROCHESTER UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, NOR WAS IT A STAGE IN AN
INCOMPLETE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION.  THE CONTESTED ORDER
DETERMINING THE STATUS OF THE ROCHESTER NECESSARILY AND IMMEDIATELY
CARRIED DIRECTION OF OBEDIENCE TO PREVIOUSLY FORMULATED MANDATORY
ORDERS ADDRESSED GENERALLY TO ALL CARRIERS AMENABLE TO THE COMMISSION'S
AUTHORITY.  INTO THIS CLASS OF CARRIERS THE ORDER UNDER DISPUTE COVERED
THE ROCHESTER, AND BY THAT FACT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER ORDERS,
MADE DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THE ROCHESTER A REVIEWABLE ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION."  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S.
AT 143-44.  COMPARE A.F. OF L. V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401, 408. 
UNLIKE THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IN THE
ROCHESTER CASE, ITS ACTION HERE CARRIED NO DIRECTIONS OF OBEDIENCE OF
ANY KIND TO ANYONE. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE REGULATIONS DERIVE LEGAL EFFECT THROUGH SEC.
312(A) GIVING THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO REVOKE LICENSES, AND THAT "BY
VIRTUE OF THE REGULATIONS ALONE," THE NETWORKS AND THEIR AFFILIATES ARE
NOW SUBJECTED TO LEGAL DETRIMENT.  BUT THIS IS MERELY ANOTHER WAY OF
PHRASING THE MAIN CONTENTION THAT THE REGULATIONS AT ONCE AND WITHOUT
OUT FURTHER ACTION BY THE COMMISSION RELEASE LEGAL SANCTIONS.  BUT THE
REGULATIONS HAVE NO SUCH EFFECT.  TO BE SURE, THE COMMISSION CAN REVOKE
A STATION LICENSE "BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS REVEALED BY SUCH STATEMENTS OF
FACT AS MAY BE REQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH WOULD WARRANT THE
COMMISSION IN REFUSING TO GRANT A LICENSE ON AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION." 
BUT THE COMMISSION MAY NEVER REQUIRE A LICENSEE TO FILE A STATEMENT OF
FACT UNDER SEC. 312(A); ITS PROVISIONS MAY THEREFORE NEVER COME INTO
OPERATION.  IN ANY EVENT, THE REGULATIONS AS SUCH DO NOT SUBJECT
LICENSEES TO ANY SANCTIONS.  A LICENSE CAN BE REVOKED UNDER SEC. 312(A)
BECAUSE OF THE LICENSEE'S FAILURE TO OPERATE ITS STATION IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE.  THE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE
COMMISSION CANNOT OPERATE TO REVOKE ANY LICENSES.  IT IS ONLY AFTER A
PROCEEDING HAS BEEN STARTED (IN WHICH THE LICENSEE IS ENTITLED TO A
HEARING DURING WHICH THE REVOCATION ORDER IS SUSPENDED) AND ADVERSELY
CONCLUDED AGAINST A PARTY THAT LEGAL SANCTIONS COME INTO PLAY - THE
COMMISSION CAN BRING PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE ITS ORDER OF REVOCATION
AND, CORRESPONDINGLY, THE LICENSEE CAN BRING SUIT UNDER SEC. 402(A)
CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S TERMINATION OF THE
LICENSE. 

"ANY RULE, REGULATION, RESTRICTION, OR CONDITION MADE OR IMPOSED BY THE
COMMISSION UNDER AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT" SHALL BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. 
WOULD THE RENEWAL BY A LICENSEE OF ITS NETWORK-AFFILIATION CONTRACT
SUBJECT IT TO THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES IMPOSED BY SEC. 502?  OBVIOUSLY
NOT, FOR THE REGULATIONS DO NOT FORBID A LICENSEE FROM TAKING THAT OR
ANY OTHER ACTION.  AND, FOR THE SAME REASON, A LICENSE COULD NOT BE
REVOKED UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 312(A) WHICH AUTHORIZES REVOCATION
"FOR VIOLATION OF OR FAILURE TO OBSERVE  ...  ANY REGULATION OF THE
COMMISSION AUTHORIZED BY THIS ACT.  ...  "  IF THE COMMISSION HAD
ISSUED REGULATIONS WHICH ORDERED LICENSEES TO DO OR REFRAIN FROM DOING
SOMETHING, THE PROBLEM WOULD BE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.  VIOLATION BY A
LICENSEE OF SUCH A REGULATION WOULD BE GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF ITS
LICENSE, UNDER SEC. 312(A), AND FOR THE IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL
PENALTIES, UNDER SEC. 502.  AND, THE OTHER REQUISITES BEING PRESENT,
SUCH A REGULATION COULD BE REVIEWED AS A FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION. 

THIS LEAVES ONLY THE SUGGESTION THAT SINCE THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE
COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH NOT THE COMPLETION OF ITS ADJUDICATORY PROCESS,
NEVERTHELESS DRASTICALLY AFFECTS SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS INTERESTS, IT IS
PROPER FOR THE COURTS TO INTERCEDE AT THIS STAGE.  EVEN IF THIS
ARGUMENT WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEFORE BEEN MADE TO
AND REJECTED BY THIS COURT, ITS INFIRMITIES ARE OBVIOUS.  AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, THE IMPACT UPON THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE
NETWORKS AND THEIR AFFILIATED STATIONS WOULD PROBABLY BE AS DISTURBING
AS IF THE POLICIES FORMULATED IN THE REGULATIONS HAD BEEN EXPRESSED
THROUGH A PRESS RELEASE, OR IF ONLY THE REPORT, WHICH IS NOT ONLY THE
FOUNDATION OF THE REGULATIONS BUT ALSO EMBODIES THEM, HAD BEEN
PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE REGULATIONS WHICH ARE ONLY THE SUMMARY OF THE
REPORT, OR IF CONGRESS ITSELF HAD INCORPORATED THESE REGULATIONS INTO
THE TEXT OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  IT WILL HARDLY BE ARGUED THAT ANY
OF THESE STEPS COULD BE THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW BEFORE THE
COMMISSION ACTED UPON PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS.  BUT ASSUME THAT THE
GREATER FORMALITY GIVEN TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S
STATEMENT OF POLICY THROUGH THE REGULATIONS INTENSIFIED THE PRACTICAL
BUSINESS CONSEQUENCES.  CONGRESS HAS NOT CONFERRED UPON THE DISTRICT
COURTS JURISDICTION OVER "PRACTICAL BUSINESS CONSEQUENCES."  THEY CAN
REVIEW ACTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ONLY WHEN THERE IS AN "ORDER,"
AND WHEN CONGRESS IN SEC. 402(A) MADE ONLY AN "ORDER" OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REVIEWABLE, IT INCORPORATED THE SETTLED
DOCTRINE ESTABLISHED BY AN UNBROKEN SERIES OF DECISIONS IN THIS COURT
THAT THE COURTS COULD REVIEW ONLY A FINAL DETERMINATION BY AN AGENCY
WHEREBY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS HAS BEEN CONCLUDED. 

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN URGED TO
SIT IN JUDGMENT UPON "PRACTICAL BUSINESS CONSEQUENCES" WHERE THE ACTION
TO BE REVIEWED DID NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL STAGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATION.  THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THIS CASE HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE
PAST BUT HERETOFORE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN REJECTED BY THIS COURT.  THE
CLASSIC FORMULATION AND APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF FINALITY AS TO
ORDERS UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT WAS CONTAINED IN UNITED STATES
V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299.  IN VIEW OF THE THOROUGHNESS
OF THE ARGUMENT AT THE BAR, AND THE WEIGHTINESS OF THE OPINION, THAT
CASE HAS EVER SINCE BEEN REGARDED AS FURNISHING THE GUIDEPOSTS IN THIS
FIELD OF LAW.  IT SHOULD GOVERN HERE. 

SUIT WAS BROUGHT THERE TO ANNUL AND ENJOIN AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION DETERMINING THE FINAL VALUATION FOR RATE-MAKING
PURPOSES OF THE LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE RAILROAD COMPANY, WHICH
OPERATED A THOUSAND MILES OF RAILROAD LINES.  THE VALUATION FIXED BY
THE COMMISSION WAS $45,200,000; THE CARRIER CLAIMED THAT, IF THE
COMMISSION HAD EMPLOYED PROPER STANDARDS OF VALUATION, THE FIGURE WOULD
BE $70,000,000, A DIFFERENCE OF $24,800,000.  AT THE TIME SUIT WAS
BROUGHT, APPROXIMATELY 250,000 MILES OF RAILROAD LINES THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY WERE UNDERGOING VALUATION.  THE VALIDITY OF THE CRITERIA
EMPLOYED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF THE LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE
RAILROAD COMPANY WAS THEREFORE OF ENORMOUS NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.  IN
THE WORDS OF COMMISSIONER EASTMAN, "THIS CASE DEALS WITH AN ISSUE OF
GREATER MOMENT TO THE COUNTRY THAN ANY THAT WE HAVE EVER DETERMINED." 
75 I.C.C. 523.  THESE ISSUES, INVOLVING PRACTICALLY EVERY PHASE OF
VALUATION LAW, WERE CANVASSED IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING BEFORE THE
COMMISSION LASTING NEARLY A YEAR AND A HALF, RESULTING IN A REPORT OF
ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY PAGES, AND EXPRESSED IN A FORMAL "ORDER" OF TEN
PAGES.  COUNSEL FOR THE RAILROAD COMPANY THERE, AS DO COUNSEL FOR THE
BROADCASTING COMPANY HERE, RELIED UPON THE PRACTICAL FINALITY OF THE
ORDER AS A BASIS FOR REVIEW:  "AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE COMMISSION IN
ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH IT HAS OCCASION TO USE THIS VALUATION
WILL GIVE IT NOT PRIMA FACIE BUT CONCLUSIVE EFFECT.  IN THE VALUATION
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION WHICH RESULTED IN THIS ORDER
PETITIONER INTRODUCED ITS EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES AND
THE PROCEEDING RESULTED IN A VALUATION GREATLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE
EVIDENCE AND CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER.  NO GREATER EFFECT WILL BE
GIVEN TO EVIDENCE WHICH PETITIONER MAY INTRODUCE IN SOME FUTURE
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN AN ATTEMPT TO OVERCOME THE PRIMA
FACIE EFFECT ACCORDED BY THE ACT TO THIS VALUATION ORDER.  THEREFORE,
UNLESS AND UNTIL SET ASIDE AND ANNULLED, THIS VALUATION WILL STAND AS A
CONTINUING MENACE AGAINST PETITIONER, AND MAY BE REPEATEDLY USED TO
PETITIONER'S PREJUDICE IN RATE, DIVISION, CONSOLIDATION, SECURITY-ISSUE
AND RECAPTURE PROCEEDINGS."  BRIEF FOR APPELLEE, PP. 64-65. 

THE COURT SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO THIS ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL:  "ONE
(ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION) IS THAT SINCE THE COMMISSION HAS
BY REASON OF ERRORS OF LAW AND OF JUDGMENT GROSSLY UNDERVALUED THE
PROPERTY, ITS REPORT WILL, UNLESS SUPPRESSED, INJURE THE CREDIT OF THE
CARRIER WITH THE PUBLIC."  FINDING, HOWEVER, THAT THE ORDER DID NOT
FINALLY DETERMINE ANY LEGAL RIGHTS, THE COURT REFUSED REVIEW:  "ITS
(THE COMMISSION'S) CONCLUSIONS, IF ERRONEOUS IN LAW, MAY BE
DISREGARDED.  BUT NEITHER ITS UTTERANCES, NOR ITS PROCESSES OF
REASONING, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS ACTS, ARE A SUBJECT FOR
INJUNCTION."  273 U.S. AT 314-15.  FN1 

TO ARGUE THAT IRREPARABLE INJURY IMPLIES REVIEWABILITY IS, IN EFFECT,
TO CONTEND THAT THERE MUST BE A REMEDY BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS
SERIOUS DAMAGE.  BUT IN THESE SITUATIONS - IN REVIEWING "ORDERS" UNDER
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT - FEDERAL COURTS CAN GIVE A REMEDY ONLY TO
ENFORCE A LEGAL RIGHT, AND A LEGAL RIGHT CANNOT BE DERIVED MERELY BY
CONCLUDING THAT A PARTICULAR CLAIM OF HARDSHIP SHOULD AFFORD A REMEDY. 
WHILE FORMALLY WE MAY APPEAR TO BE DEALING WITH TECHNICALITIES, BEHIND
THESE CONSIDERATIONS LIE DEEP ISSUES OF POLICY IN THE DIVISION OF
AUTHORITY AS BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND COURTS IN CARRYING OUT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL WILL OF CONGRESS.  THE SOURCE OF THE MISCONCEPTION
UNDERLYING THE CLAIM FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THIS CASE IS THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THIS IS MERELY AN ORDINARY INVOCATION OF EQUITY, AS
THOUGH IT WERE A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO LITIGANTS OF WHICH ONLY THE
COURTS ARE OR CAN BE SEIZED.  WHAT WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH IS DUE
REGARD FOR THE PROPER DISTRIBUTION MADE BY CONGRESS OF LEGAL AUTHORITY
AS BETWEEN TWO LAW-ENFORCING AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AND THE JUDICIAL.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 190-91;
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S.
134. 

THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES ANEW THE INFLUENCE OF A PARTICULAR INSTANCE OF
FELT HARDSHIP IN DERAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES FROM CUSTOMARY TRACKS.  BUT
THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED CASE.  IF THREATENED DAMAGE THROUGH GENERAL
PRONOUNCEMENT OF POLICY FOR FUTURE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, EVEN IF CAST
IN THE FORMAL LANGUAGE OF A REGULATION, IS TO GIVE RISE TO EQUITABLE
REVIEW APART FROM THE RULE THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PREMATURE BECAUSE OF
WANT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY, THE SAME BASIS OF IRREPARABLE HARM
WHICH IS HERE EQUATED TO JURISDICTION WILL BEAR RICH LITIGIOUS FRUIT IN
THE CASE OF "REGULATIONS" ISSUED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION WHICH ARE DAMAGING IN THEIR IMMEDIATE REPERCUSSIONS TO STOCK
EXCHANGE AND HOLDING COMPANIES, OR REGULATIONS ANNOUNCED BY THE
TREASURY FOR THE GUIDANCE OF TAXPAYERS BUT WHICH ADVERSELY AFFECT
BUSINESS INTERESTS, OR REGULATIONS BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,
ETC.  SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
ISSUES A RULING THAT PROFITS DERIVED BY RADIO STATIONS FROM THEIR
NETWORK OPERATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO A TAX DEEMED BY THEM ONEROUS AND
ILLEGAL.  COULD A NETWORK SUCCESSFULLY BRING A SUIT IN EQUITY PRIOR TO
THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH TAXES TO INVALIDATE THE RULING ON THE GROUND
THAT ITS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCE WAS THE CANCELLATION OF OR REFUSAL TO
RENEW NETWORK AFFILIATIONS?  ONE HAD SUPPOSED THAT THE ANSWER WAS
CLEARLY NO. BUT SURELY IN PRINCIPLE THE PROBLEM IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF
THE CASES BEFORE US.    A FINAL CONSIDERATION REMAINS.  WE ARE NOT
DEALING WITH THE REVIEWABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS IN VACUO.  THE
REVIEWABILITY OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
DEPENDS UPON THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF JUDICIAL REVIEW EMBODIED IN SEC.
402 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.  THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE
REGULATIONS COULD BE DEEMED TO POSSESS THE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF A
REVIEWABLE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT INEVITABLY FOLLOW THAT THE ORDER IS
REVIEWABLE IN THE MANNER PROVIDED FOR BY SEC. 402(A) OF THE ACT.  THE
SCOPE AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROVISIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
CONTAINED IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 HAVE TOO RECENTLY BEEN
CANVASSED, SEE SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N,
ANTE, P. 4; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING
SYSTEM, 311 U.S. 132; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE
BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, TO REQUIRE DETAILED CONSIDERATION
HERE.  BRIEFLY, THE ACT CREATED TWO AVENUES BY WHICH ORDERS OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WERE OPEN TO REVIEW BY THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  UNDER SEC. 402(A), INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 208, 219, RELATING TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, A SUIT
TO ENFORCE, SET ASIDE, ANNUL, OR SUSPEND AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MAY BE BROUGHT IN A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED
DISTRICT COURT, WITH A RIGHT OF DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, ONLY IF
THE ORDER DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS ENUMERATED BY SEC.
402(B), NAMELY, ORDERS GRANTING OR DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR STATION
LICENSES OR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND FOR RENEWAL OR MODIFICATION OF
LICENSES.  REVIEW OF THE ORDERS COMPREHENDED WITHIN SEC. 402(B) IS
AVAILABLE ONLY THROUGH AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WITH NO RIGHT OF DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT. 

IF THE REGULATIONS DO CONSTITUTE AN ORDER, WHAT KIND OF AN ORDER CAN
IT BE?  IT MUST BE IN THE NATURE OF A BLANKET DENIAL, OPERATING IN
FUTURO, TO BE SURE, OF APPLICATIONS FOR RENEWAL OF STATION LICENSES. 
BUT THE ACT EXPRESSLY PRECLUDES JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS DENYING
RENEWAL APPLICATIONS OF LICENSEES IN ANY MANNER OTHER THAN THAT
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 402(B), TO WIT, BY AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, THE EFFECT OF
TAKING JURISDICTION IN THESE CASES IS TO SUBSTITUTE A DIFFERENT COURT
AND A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE FOR THOSE SPECIFIED BY CONGRESS.  THIS COURT
HAS NOT IN THE PAST DISPLAYED SUCH AN INDIFFERENCE TO THE
PARTICULARITIES OF LEGISLATION DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS.  ON THE CONTRARY, ONLY LAST TERM DID THE COURT INSIST
UPON STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY SCHEME FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.  SEE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, 311 U.S. 132. 

EVEN IF WE WERE FREE TO DISREGARD THE SCHEME FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
WHICH CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED, I COULD NOT AGREE THAT AN APPEAL UNDER
SEC. 402(B) WOULD NOT BE AN ADEQUATE MEANS FOR TESTING THE CLAIMS MADE
IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION.  THERE IS ESSENTIALLY ONLY ONE ISSUE ON THE
MERITS IN THIS PROCEEDING, NAMELY, WHETHER THE ADOPTION BY THE
COMMISSION OF THE POLICIES EXPRESSED IN THE REGULATIONS TRANSGRESSES
ITS STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.  BUT THIS ISSUE COULD BE
RAISED AND FULLY DETERMINED IN AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 402(B) FROM AN
ORDER DENYING A RENEWAL APPLICATION.  INDEED, IN ITS MINUTE OF OCTOBER
31, 1941, THE COMMISSION EXPLICITLY STATED THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATIONS COULD BE PUT IN ISSUE IN A RENEWAL PROCEEDING.  IF
ANYTHING, THEREFORE, THE ISSUES IN AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 402(B) WOULD BE
BROADER AND NOT NARROWER THAN THE ISSUES HERE.  MOREOVER, SINCE THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE APPLICATION OF THE REGULATIONS TO THE PARTICULAR
SITUATION WOULD ALSO BE IN ISSUE IN THE RENEWAL PROCEEDING, THE
REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE BEFORE IT A RECORD CONTAINING ELEMENTS OF
CONCRETENESS AND PARTICULARITY NOT PRESENT IN THE RECORD NOW BEFORE
US. 

THE COMMISSION'S MINUTE ENABLES A LICENSEE TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF
THE REGULATIONS, OR THE REASONABLENESS OF APPLYING THEM TO THE
PARTICULAR CASE, WITHOUT FEAR OF LOSING ITS LICENSE.  "IN ORDER TO
INSURE THAT THE STATION MAY REMAIN ON THE AIR AND BE IN NO WAY INJURED
BY ANY SUCH COMMISSION PROCEEDING (CONTESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE
REGULATIONS) AND APPEAL TO COURT FROM A DECISION IN SUCH PROCEEDING,
THE COMMISSION WILL GRANT SUCH LICENSEE A TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF ITS
LICENSE, WITH RENEWALS FROM TIME TO TIME UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED AT SUCH HEARING.  IN THE EVENT OF
SUCH LITIGATION, AND IF THE VALIDITY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CHAIN
BROADCASTING REGULATIONS TO SUCH LICENSEE IS SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS,
THE COMMISSION WILL NEVERTHELESS GRANT A REGULAR LICENSE TO THE
LICENSEE, OTHERWISE ENTITLED THERETO, WHO HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY LITIGATED
THAT ISSUE, IF THE LICENSEE THEREUPON CONFORMS TO THE DECISION." 

PLAINLY, THEREFORE, A LICENSEE IS UNDER NO COMPULSION TO CANCEL OR
MODIFY ITS AFFILIATION CONTRACT.  LICENSEES WHO REGARD THE REGULATIONS
AS INVALID ARE FREE TO CONTINUE THEIR EXISTING CONTRACTS AND AT THE
SAME TIME CHALLENGE THE REGULATIONS IN THE ORDERLY MANNER PROVIDED BY
THE ACT - AND WITHOUT ANY DANGER OF LOSING THEIR RIGHT TO CONTINUE
BROADCASTING.  SIMILARLY, THE INTERESTS OF THE NETWORKS MAY BE
PROTECTED THROUGH INTERVENTION IN RENEWAL PROCEEDINGS.  UNDER THE
COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE, RULE 1.102 OF THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE, WHERE A RENEWAL APPLICATION IS DESIGNATED FOR HEARING
BECAUSE OF THE LICENSEE'S CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHERS, THE
LATTER ARE CUSTOMARILY PERMITTED TO INTERVENE.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE,
APPLICATION OF E. J. REGAN AND F. ARTHUR BOSTWICK, DOCKET NO. 5788;
APPLICATION OF JOHN H. STENGER, JR., DOCKET NO. 5430. 

WE NEED GO NO FARTHER THAN THIS LITIGATION TO PERCEIVE THE
UNFORTUNATE EFFECTS OF PREMATURE JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THE CHAIN
BROADCASTING REGULATIONS WERE ISSUED ON MAY 2, 1941, MORE THAN A YEAR
AGO.  THEY WERE ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ITS
FINDING, AFTER AN INVESTIGATION LASTING MORE THAN THREE YEARS, THAT
CERTAIN FEATURES OF NETWORK-AFFILIATION CONTRACTS PREVENTED LICENSEES
FROM EFFECTIVELY DISCHARGING THEIR OBLIGATION TO RENDER THE FULLEST
SERVICE TO THE LISTENING PUBLIC.  THE POLICY FORMULATED BY THE
COMMISSION MAY OR MAY NOT BE WISE - THAT IS NOT OUR CONCERN.  BUT WE
CANNOT BLINK THE FACT THAT THIS LITIGATION HAS FOR MORE THAN A YEAR
PREVENTED THE COMMISSION FROM TESTING BY EXPERIENCE THE PRACTICAL
WISDOM OF A POLICY FOUND BY IT TO BE REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
THE COMMENCEMENT OF A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 402(B) WOULD NOT HAVE
PRESENTED THE JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS PRESENT IN THIS PROCEEDING. 
SURELY THOSE DESIROUS OF A SPEEDY ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS WERE AWARE THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF A
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 402(A) WOULD NOT PRODUCE A PROMPT ADJUDICATION ON
THE MERITS, BUT THAT IT WOULD INSTEAD RESULT IN POSTPONING FOR A
CONSIDERABLE PERIOD THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATIONS, WITH ALL THE
CONTINGENT ADVANTAGES AFFORDED BY SUCH POSTPONEMENT. 

HARDSHIP THERE MAY WELL COME THROUGH ACTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY.  BUT TO SLIDE FROM RECOGNITION OF A HARDSHIP TO ASSERTION OF
JURISDICTION IS ONCE MORE TO ASSUME THAT ONLY THE COURTS ARE THE
GUARDIANS OF THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE.  IN DENYING THAT
IT HAD POWER TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION BECAUSE THAT BODY HAD NOT YET DETERMINED A LEGAL RIGHT, THE
COURT BELOW, AS JUDGE LEARNED HAND'S OPINION ABUNDANTLY PROVES, WAS NOT
RESPECTING A RULE OF ETIQUETTE.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT MERELY RECOGNIZED
THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE ENTRUSTED WITH THE CORRECTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS OR WRONG-DOING ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.  TO SAY THAT THE COURTS SHOULD REJECT THE
DOCTRINE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY AND TAKE JURISDICTION WHENEVER
ACTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY MAY SERIOUSLY AFFECT SUBSTANTIAL
BUSINESS INTERESTS, REGARDLESS OF HOW INTERMEDIATE OR INCOMPLETE THE
ACTION MAY BE, IS, IN EFFECT, TO IMPLY THAT THE PROTECTION OF LEGAL
INTERESTS IS ENTRUSTED SOLELY TO THE COURTS.  THE UNBROKEN CURRENT OF
THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN CONSTRUING THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, AND WHICH IS THE ONLY WARRANT FOR
JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE, REPELS SUCH A CONTENTION.  THE DECISION
SHOULD THEREFORE BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TO THE SAME EFFECT IS UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO.,
244 U.S. 82.  THERE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER
FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING COMPLAINTS MADE BY VARIOUS COAL
COMPANIES SEEKING DAMAGES AGAINST RAILROADS FOR FAILING TO SUPPLY A
SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF COAL CARS FOR THEIR SHIPPING NEEDS.  THE RAILROADS
BROUGHT SUIT UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT TO ANNUL THIS ORDER,
ALLEGING THAT UNLESS THE HEARING WERE RESTRAINED, THE RAILROADS WOULD
BE PUT TO ENORMOUS EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE
NOTICE OF HEARING "HAD NO CHARACTERISTIC OF AN ORDER, AFFIRMATIVE OR
NEGATIVE," AND SINCE IT "WAS A MERE INCIDENT IN THE PROCEEDING," THE
SUIT COULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED.  244 U.S. AT 89. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :















NAT. BROADCASTING CO. V. U.S., 316 U.S. 447 


NO. 1025.  ARGUED APRIL 30, MAY 1, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 44
F.SUPP.  688, REVERSED. 


DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NO. 1026, COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM V.
UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 407.  P. 449. 

NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., INC., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION A BILL TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. UNITED
STATES, ANTE, P. 407.  BOTH PRESENT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR FACTS AND THE
SAME ISSUES OF LAW. 

APPELLANT, NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, MAINTAINS TWO RADIO
BROADCASTING SYSTEMS, THE "BLUE NETWORK" AND THE "RED NETWORK."  THE
TWO OTHER APPELLANTS OPERATE RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENSED BY
THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AND HAVE ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH
NATIONAL SIMILAR TO THOSE INVOLVED IN THE COLUMBIA CASE AND TO THOSE OF
OTHER STATIONS WHICH PARTICIPATE IN NATIONAL'S NETWORKS. 

APPELLANTS BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION OF MAY 2, 1941, AS
AMENDED BY ITS ORDER OF OCTOBER 11, 1941, PROMULGATING THE CHAIN
BROADCASTING REGULATIONS WHICH WE CONSIDERED IN THE COLUMBIA CASE, ON
THE GROUNDS THAT THE ORDER IS BEYOND THE COMMISSION'S STATUTORY
AUTHORITY OR, IF WITHIN IT, THAT THE STATUTE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE
I, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND OPERATES TO DEPRIVE APPELLANTS OF
PROPERTY WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, 44
F.SUPP.  688, HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS NOT REVIEWABLE
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 402(A) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934,
48 STAT. 1093, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 402(A), AND THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT,
38 STAT. 219, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47, BUT STAYED THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER
PENDING DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT. 

ACCORDING TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, NATIONAL
CONDUCTS ITS BROADCASTING BUSINESS IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME MANNER AS
COLUMBIA.  IT ESTABLISHES TELEPHONE WIRE CONNECTIONS WITH LICENSED
BROADCASTING STATIONS WITH WHICH IT ENTERS INTO CONTRACTS FOR LIMITED
PERIODS FOR CHAIN BROADCASTING OF ITS RADIO PROGRAMS.  THESE CONTRACTS
DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THE STATION SHALL BROADCAST THE PROGRAMS OF NO
OTHER CHAIN THAN NATIONAL.  BUT A FEATURE OF THEM IS THE OPTION GIVEN
TO NATIONAL FOR USE OF THE STATION ON 28 DAYS' NOTICE FOR CERTAIN
SPECIFIED PERIODS OF RADIO TIME IN BROADCASTING COMMERCIAL NETWORK
PROGRAMS PROVIDED BY NATIONAL.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT, BECAUSE OF THE
CONTRACT PROVISIONS, THE REGULATIONS WILL REQUIRE THE STATIONS
AFFILIATED WITH NATIONAL TO ABANDON THEIR CONTRACTS OR LOSE THEIR
LICENSES EITHER BY THE COMMISSION'S CANCELLATION OF OR REFUSAL TO RENEW
THEM.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT MAKES A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF IRREPARABLE
INJURY TO NATIONAL, INCLUDING AN ALLEGATION THAT FORTY-EIGHT AFFILIATED
STATIONS HAVE SERVED NOTICE OF ABROGATION OF THE CONTRACTS. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED AT LENGTH IN THE OPINION IN THE COLUMBIA CASE,
WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IS REVIEWABLE IN THE PRESENT
SUIT BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY.  THE JUDGMENT WILL ACCORDINGLY BE
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

UNLIKE THE COLUMBIA CASE, THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO FACTS SHOWING WHAT
EFFECT THE COMMISSION'S MINUTE ADOPTED AFTER THE PRESENT SUIT WAS
BROUGHT HAS HAD OR WILL HAVE UPON THE CANCELLATION OF APPELLANTS'
CONTRACTS BY THE AFFILIATED STATIONS.  SO FAR AS RELEVANT THAT WILL BE
A MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT BELOW, AS WILL BE THE QUESTION,
NOT CONSIDERED HERE, WHETHER THE APPELLANTS OTHER THAN NATIONAL ARE
PROPER PARTIES PLAINTIFF. 

AS IN THE COLUMBIA CASE THE STAY NOW IN EFFECT WILL BE CONTINUED, ON
TERMS TO BE SETTLED BY THE COURT BELOW.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
DISSENT FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN COLUMBIA
BROADCASTING SYSTEM V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 407. 
..END :







AMERICAN CHICLE CO. V. U.S., 316 U.S. 450 


NO. 913.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 94 CT.CLS. 
699, 41 F.SUPP.  537, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 131(F) OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938, ALLOWING
TO A DOMESTIC CORPORATION IN RESPECT OF DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM A
FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY, A TAX CREDIT OF THAT PROPORTION OF "TAXES PAID" BY
THE SUBSIDIARY WHICH THE AMOUNT OF THE DIVIDEND BEARS TO THE AMOUNT OF
THE SUBSIDIARY'S "ACCUMULATED PROFITS" (I.E., ITS INCOME LESS TAXES
THEREON), THE WORDS "TAXES PAID" ARE PROPERLY CONSTRUED AS MEANING SO
MUCH OF THE SUBSIDIARY'S TAXES AS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS "ACCUMULATED
PROFITS," OR THE SAME PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL TAXES WHICH THE
ACCUMULATED PROFITS BEAR TO THE TOTAL PROFITS.  P. 452. 

2.  A CHANGE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, TO CONFORM TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE REVENUE
ACT, AND OPERATING PROSPECTIVELY, IS NOT PRECLUDED BY AN ANTECEDENT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION THOUGH OF LONG STANDING.  P. 454. 

AMERICAN CHICLE CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 793, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF A SUIT TO
RECOVER AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 131(F) OF THE REVENUE ACTS
OF 1936 AND 1938,  FN1 WHICH ALLOWS A TAX CREDIT TO DOMESTIC
CORPORATIONS IN RESPECT OF INCOME RECEIVED FROM FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES. 

DURING THE TAXABLE YEARS 1936, 1937, AND 1938, THE PETITIONER, A
DOMESTIC CORPORATION, RECEIVED DIVIDENDS FROM FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES OF
WHICH IT WAS SOLE STOCKHOLDER.  THE SUBSIDIARIES PAID TAXES UPON THEIR
EARNINGS TO THE COUNTRIES OF THEIR DOMICILE.  IN ITS INCOME TAX
RETURNS, THE PETITIONER CLAIMED THE CREDIT ALLOWED BY SEC. 131 FOR THE
FOREIGN TAXES SO PAID.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE COMPUTED
THE CREDIT AT A LESS SUM THAN THAT THE PETITIONER CLAIMED.  THE
PETITIONER PAID THE RESULTANT TAXES, AND PRESENTED CLAIMS FOR REFUND,
WHICH WERE REJECTED.  THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS
FOR ASSERTED OVERPAYMENTS. 

THE SOLE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS THE PROPER METHOD OF ARRIVING AT
THE CREDIT GRANTED BY SEC. 131.  THAT SECTION PERMITS A DOMESTIC
CORPORATION TO CREDIT AGAINST ITS TAX THE AMOUNT OF INCOME, WAR
PROFITS, AND EXCESS-PROFITS TAXES PAID OR ACCRUED DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY, WITH CERTAIN LIMITS SET BY SUBSECTIONS
(B)(1) AND (2).  THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION, LIKE THAT OF ITS
PREDECESSOR, SEC. 238 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921,  FN2  IS TO OBVIATE
DOUBLE TAXATION.  FN3 

PROVIDES THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION, A DOMESTIC CORPORATION
RECEIVING DIVIDENDS FROM SUCH A SUBSIDIARY "IN ANY TAXABLE YEAR SHALL
BE DEEMED TO HAVE PAID THE SAME PROPORTION OF ANY INCOME, WAR-PROFITS,
OR EXCESSPROFITS TAXES PAID" BY THE SUBSIDIARY TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
"UPON OR WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS" OF THE SUBSIDIARY
"FROM WHICH SUCH DIVIDENDS WERE PAID, WHICH THE AMOUNT OF SUCH
DIVIDENDS BEARS TO THE AMOUNT OF SUCH ACCUMULATED PROFITS." 
"ACCUMULATED PROFITS" OF THE SUBSIDIARY ARE DEFINED AS "THE AMOUNT OF
ITS GAINS, PROFITS, OR INCOME IN EXCESS OF THE INCOME, WAR-PROFITS, AND
EXCESSPROFITS TAXES IMPOSED UPON OR WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PROFITS OR
INCOME." 

THE PARTIES ARE IN AGREEMENT AS TO THE FRACTION TO BE USED IN
CALCULATING THE PROPORTION.  THE NUMERATOR IS THE DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY
THE PARENT.  THE DENOMINATOR IS THE "ACCUMULATED PROFITS" OF THE
SUBSIDIARY.  THE DISPUTE RELATES TO THE MULTIPLICAND TO WHICH THE
FRACTION IS TO BE APPLIED.  THE PETITIONER SAYS IT IS THE TOTAL FOREIGN
TAXES PAID BY THE SUBSIDIARY.  THE RESPONDENT SAYS IT IS THE TAXES PAID
UPON OR WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF THE SUBSIDIARY;
I.E., SO MUCH OF THE TAXES AS IS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE ACCUMULATED
PROFITS, OR THE SAME PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL TAXES WHICH THE
ACCUMULATED PROFITS BEAR TO THE TOTAL PROFITS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS SO
HELD.  FN5  SINCE SEVERAL DECISIONS HAVE GONE THE OTHER WAY,  FN6  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE REVENUE ACT IS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT, THE
GOVERNMENT'S VIEW SEEMS CORRECT.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO ALLOW
A CREDIT FOR A STATED PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL FOREIGN TAXES PAID OR THE
FOREIGN TAXES PAID "UPON OR WITH RESPECT TO" TOTAL FOREIGN PROFITS, BUT
FOR TAXES PAID "UPON OR WITH RESPECT TO" THE SUBSIDIARY'S "ACCUMULATED
PROFITS," WHICH, BY DEFINITION, ARE ITS TOTAL TAXABLE PROFITS LESS
TAXES PAID. 

IF, AS IS ADMITTED, THE PURPOSE IS TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION, THE
STATUTE, AS WRITTEN, ACCOMPLISHES THAT RESULT THE PARENT RECEIVES
DIVIDENDS.  SUCH DIVIDENDS, NOT ITS SUBSIDIARY'S PROFITS, CONSTITUTE
ITS INCOME TO BE RETURNED FOR TAXATION.  THE SUBSIDIARY PAYS TAX ON, OR
IN RESPECT OF, ITS ENTIRE PROFITS; BUT, SINCE THE PARENT RECEIVES
DISTRIBUTIONS OUT OF WHAT IS LEFT AFTER PAYMENT OF THE FOREIGN TAX,  -
THAT IS, OUT OF WHAT THE STATUTE CALLS "ACCUMULATED PROFITS," IT SHOULD
RECEIVE A CREDIT ONLY FOR SO MUCH OF THE FOREIGN TAX PAID AS RELATES TO
OR, AS THE ACT SAYS, IS PAID UPON, OR WITH RESPECT TO, THE ACCUMULATED
PROFITS. 

HENCE WE THINK THAT, UNDER THE PLAIN TERMS OF THE ACT, THE
COMMISSIONER AND THE COURT BELOW WERE RIGHT IN LIMITING THE CREDIT BY
THE USE AS MULTIPLICAND OF A PROPORTION OF THE TAX PAID ABROAD
APPROPRIATELY REFLECTING THE RELATION OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS TO TOTAL
PROFITS OF THE SUBSIDIARY.  BUT THE PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND A LONG INDULGED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION
REQUIRE US, IN EFFECT, TO ELIDE THE PHRASE "UPON OR WITH RESPECT TO THE
ACCUMULATED PROFITS" OF THE FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY. 

PARENT RECEIVING DIVIDENDS FROM A FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY A CREDIT FOR THE
SAME PROPORTION OF THE TAXES PAID BY THE FOREIGN CORPORATION DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY WHICH THE AMOUNT OF THE DIVIDENDS
RECEIVED BY THE PARENT DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR BORE TO THE TOTAL
TAXABLE INCOME OF THE SUBSIDIARY UPON OR WITH RESPECT TO WHICH SUCH
TAXES WERE PAID. 

THIS PROVISION HAD THE SAME OBJECT AS SEC. 131 OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF
1936 AND 1938; THAT IS, TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION.  THE DIFFICULTY WITH
IT WAS THAT IT DID NOT RELATE THE CREDIT TO THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS OR
SURPLUS OF THE SUBSIDIARY OUT OF WHICH THE DIVIDENDS WERE PAID.  THUS,
IF DIVIDENDS WERE PAID OUT OF SURPLUS EARNED IN PRIOR YEARS, AND IT
HAPPENED THAT THE SUBSIDIARY PAID NO TAX TO THE FOREIGN COUNTRY IN THE
TAXABLE YEAR IN QUESTION, THE PARENT COULD CLAIM NO CREDIT WHATEVER. 
THERE WERE OTHER ECCENTRIC RESULTS FLOWING FROM THE PROVISION OF THE
ACT OF 1918. 

IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, SEC. 238(E)  FN8  WAS THE ANALOGOUS
IN CHARGE OF THE MEASURE:  "I REWROTE THE OLD PROVISION, SAFEGUARDING
IT FROM SOME ABUSES WHICH IT WAS OPEN TO AND CLOSING UP SOME OF THE
GAPS THAT WERE IN THE OLD PROVISION."  SECTION 238(E) IS SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME AS SEC. 131(F).  THE ALTERATIONS OF SEC. 240(C) OF THE ACT OF
1918 WERE MADE TO PERMIT IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF
EACH TAXABLE YEAR OUT OF WHICH THE DIVIDENDS MIGHT HAVE BEEN PAID AND
TO GIVE CREDIT FOR A PROPORTION OF THE SUBSIDIARY'S TAXES ATTRIBUTABLE
TO SUCH ACCUMULATED PROFITS. 

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE INDICATED THAT THE
CALCULATION OF THE PROPORTION OF FOREIGN TAX PAID WOULD BE EXACTLY THE
SAME AS IT HAD BEEN UNDER THE 1918 ACT.  BUT THIS WOULD BE TRUE ONLY IF
THE DIVIDENDS WERE PAID IN A GIVEN YEAR OUT OF THE PRIOR YEAR'S
EARNINGS AND TAXES WERE PAID IN THE SAME YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE SAME
PRIOR YEAR'S EARNINGS.  THE PETITIONER SEEKS IN THIS CASE TO APPLY THE
PROPORTION PROVIDED BY THE 1918 ACT; BUT THIS IS TO IGNORE THE
ALTERATIONS MADE IN THAT ACT IN 1921 WHICH HAVE EVER SINCE BEEN
RETAINED.  IN COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND IN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS WITH
RESPECT TO THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE CHANGES WROUGHT BY THE 1921
ACT, THERE WERE STATEMENTS INDICATING AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CREDIT
WAS TO BE PROPORTIONED TO THE DIVIDENDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PARENT IN
THIS COUNTRY. 

THE TREASURY MADE NO REGULATION APPLICABLE TO SEC. 238(E) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1921.  IT PROVIDED A FORM FOR REPORTING THE TAX, WHICH
SANCTIONED THE PETITIONER'S METHOD OF COMPUTING THE CREDIT; AND, FROM
1921 TO 1930, THE COMMISSIONER CALCULATED CREDITS FOR FOREIGN
SUBSIDIARIES' TAXES BY THAT METHOD.  IN 1930, HOWEVER, THE TREASURY
PROMULGATED A NEW FORM WHICH REQUIRED THE CREDIT TO BE COMPUTED IN THE
WAY THE COMMISSIONER DID IN THE PRESENT CASE; AND PROMULGATED
REGULATIONS 77 UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, WHICH, IN ARTICLE 698,
REQUIRED THE COMPUTATION OF THE CREDIT IN THE SAME MANNER.  THE
REGULATIONS HAVE SINCE REMAINED UNCHANGED:  SEE REGULATIONS 103 SECS.
19.131-3 AND 19.131-8.  ALTHOUGH THE REGULATIONS DEFINITELY GOVERN THIS
CASE, AND WERE MADE PRIOR TO THE YEARS IN CONTROVERSY, THE PETITIONER
INSISTS THAT THE ANTECEDENT ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION LONG IN FORCE
RENDERS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO PROMULGATE A REGULATION
CHANGING FOR THE FUTURE THE EARLIER PRACTICE, EVEN THOUGH THE NEW
REGULATION COMPORTS WITH THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  WE THINK
THE CONTENTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  FN9 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 1648, 1696; 52 STAT. 447, 506; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 131. 

FN2  42 STAT. 227, 258. 

FN3  BURNET V. CHICAGO PORTRAIT CO., 285 U.S. 1. 

FN4  A FOREIGN CORPORATION OF WHOSE VOTING STOCK THE TAXPAYER OWNS A
MAJORITY. 

FN5  94 CT. CLS. 699, 41 F.SUPP.  537. 

FN6  F.W. WOOLWORTH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 91 F.2D 973; INTERNATIONAL
MILLING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 89 CT. CLS. 128, 27 F.SUPP.  592;
ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA V. UNITED STATES, 123 F.2D 615. 

FN7  C. 18, 40 STAT. 1057, 1082. 

FN8  C. 136, 42 STAT. 227, 259. 

FN9  HELVERING V. WILSHIRE OIL CO., 308 U.S. 90; HELVERING V.
REYNOLDS, 313 U.S. 428; WHITE V. WINCHESTER COUNTRY CLUB, 315 U.S. 32. 

..END :













BETTS V. BRADY, 316 U.S. 455 


NO. 837.  ARGUED APRIL 13, 14, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LAW OF MARYLAND, AN ORDER OF THE
CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, HE BEING ALSO THE JUDGE OF THAT
COURT FROM THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, DENYING PETITIONER'S RELEASE UPON A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, HELD REVIEWABLE HERE BY CERTIORARI UNDER JUD. 
CODE SEC. 237, AS A "FINAL JUDGMENT" OF THE "HIGHEST COURT" IN WHICH A
DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION INVOLVED COULD BE HAD.  P. 458. 

2.  A JUDGMENT OF A STATE TRIBUNAL DENYING RELEASE ON HABEAS CORPUS,
WHICH IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN ANY OTHER STATE COURT AND ENDS THE
PARTICULAR PROCEEDING, IS A FINAL JUDGMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF JUD. 
CODE SEC. 237, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT UNDER THE STATE LAW THE PRISONER
RETAINS THE RIGHT TO SEEK DISCHARGE BY APPLICATIONS TO OTHER COURTS AND
JUDGES SUCCESSIVELY.  P. 460. 

3.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
INCORPORATE, AS SUCH, THE SPECIFIC GUARANTEES FOUND IN THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH A DENIAL BY A STATE OF RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES
SPECIFICALLY EMBODIED IN THAT AND OTHERS OF THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS
MAY, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, OR IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER ELEMENTS,
OPERATE, IN A GIVEN CASE, TO DEPRIVE A LITIGANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH.  P. 461. 

4.  THE APPLICATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO STATE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IS NOT GOVERNED BY HARD AND FAST RULES.  ASSERTED DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS IS TO BE TESTED BY APPRAISAL OF ALL FACTS IN THE CASE; AND
THAT WHICH, IN ONE SETTING, MAY CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS,
BECAUSE IT IS A DENIAL OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS SHOCKING TO THE
UNIVERSAL SENSE OF JUSTICE, MAY, IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN THE
LIGHT OF OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, FALL SHORT OF SUCH A DENIAL.  P. 462. 

5.  DECISIONS OF THIS COURT DO NOT LAY DOWN A RULE THAT IN EVERY
CASE, WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ONE CHARGED WITH CRIME, WHO IS UNABLE
TO OBTAIN COUNSEL, MUST BE FURNISHED COUNSEL BY THE STATE.  P. 462. 

6.  A REVIEW OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON THE
SUBJECT, IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMON LAW, DEMONSTRATES THAT, IN THE
GREAT MAJORITY OF THE STATES, IT HAS BEEN THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF
THE PEOPLE, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR COURTS THAT AN APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES IS NOT A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR TRIAL, AND THAT THE MATTER HAS
GENERALLY BEEN DEEMED ONE OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS
EVIDENCE IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS
INCORPORATED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OBLIGES THE STATES, WHATEVER
MAY BE THEIR OWN VIEWS, TO FURNISH COUNSEL IN EVERY SUCH CASE.  P.
471. 

7.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE REFUSAL OF A STATE COURT TO
APPOINT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT AT A TRIAL IN WHICH
HE WAS CONVICTED OF ROBBERY, DID NOT DENY HIM DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 472. 

BETTS V. BRADY, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO HON. CARROLL T. BOND, A JUDGE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
BEING A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND FROM THE CITY OF
BALTIMORE. 

CRETIONARI, 315 U.S. 791, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A JUDGE OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND FROM THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, DENYING PETITIONER'S
RELEASE UPON A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS INDICTED FOR ROBBERY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND.  DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS, HE WAS UNABLE TO
EMPLOY COUNSEL, AND SO INFORMED THE JUDGE AT HIS ARRAIGNMENT.  HE
REQUESTED THAT COUNSEL BE APPOINTED FOR HIM.  THE JUDGE ADVISED HIM
THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE DONE, AS IT WAS NOT THE PRACTICE IN CARROLL
COUNTY TO APPOINT COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT DEFENDANTS, SAVE IN PROSECUTIONS
FOR MURDER AND RAPE. 

WITHOUT WAIVING HIS ASSERTED RIGHT TO COUNSEL, THE PETITIONER PLEADED
NOT GUILTY AND ELECTED TO BE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY.  AT HIS REQUEST
WITNESSES WERE SUMMONED IN HIS BEHALF.  HE CROSS-EXAMINED THE STATE'S
WITNESSES AND EXAMINED HIS OWN.  THE LATTER GAVE TESTIMONY TENDING TO
ESTABLISH AN ALIBI.  ALTHOUGH AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY, HE DID NOT TAKE
THE WITNESS STAND.  THE JUDGE FOUND HIM GUILTY AND IMPOSED A SENTENCE
OF EIGHT YEARS. 

WHILE SERVING HIS SENTENCE, THE PETITIONER FILED WITH A JUDGE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND, A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS ALLEGING THAT HE HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE WRIT ISSUED, THE CAUSE WAS HEARD, HIS
CONTENTION WAS REJECTED, AND HE WAS REMANDED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE
PRISON WARDEN. 

SOME MONTHS LATER, A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS
PRESENTED TO HON. CARROLL T. BOND, CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND, SETTING UP THE SAME GROUNDS FOR THE PRISONER'S RELEASE AS
THE FORMER PETITION.  THE RESPONDENT ANSWERED, A HEARING WAS AFFORDED,
AT WHICH AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS WAS OFFERED BY COUNSEL FOR THE
PARTIES, THE EVIDENCE TAKEN AT THE PETITIONER'S TRIAL WAS INCORPORATED
IN THE RECORD, AND THE CAUSE WAS ARGUED.  JUDGE BOND GRANTED THE WRIT
BUT, FOR REASONS SET FORTH IN AN OPINION, DENIED THE RELIEF PRAYED AND
REMANDED THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT'S CUSTODY. 

THE PETITIONER APPLIED TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI DIRECTED TO JUDGE
BOND.  THE WRIT WAS ISSUED ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED AND CONFLICTING DECISIONS FN1  UPON
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED.  IN AWARDING THE WRIT, WE
REQUESTED COUNSEL TO DISCUSS THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT,
"PARTICULARLY (1) WHETHER THE DECISION BELOW IS THAT OF A COURT WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 237  FN2  OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND (2) WHETHER
STATE REMEDIES, EITHER BY APPEAL OR BY APPLICATION TO OTHER JUDGES OR
ANY OTHER STATE COURT, HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED." 

1.  SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE DECLARES THIS COURT COMPETENT TO
REVIEW, UPON CERTIORARI, "ANY CAUSE WHEREIN A FINAL JUDGMENT  ...  HAS
BEEN RENDERED  ...  BY THE HIGHEST COURT" OF A STATE "IN WHICH A
DECISION COULD BE HAD" ON A FEDERAL QUESTION.  WAS JUDGE BOND'S
JUDGMENT THAT OF A COURT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE?  ANSWER
MUST BE MADE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LAW OF MARYLAND. 

ART. 4, SEC. 6 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:  "ALL JUDGES SHALL
BY VIRTUE OF THEIR OFFICES BE CONSERVATORS OF THE PEACE THROUGHOUT THE
STATE; ...  "  SEC. 1 OF ART. 42 OF THE PUBLIC GENERAL LAWS OF MARYLAND
(FLACK'S 1939 EDITION) INVESTS THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE CHIEF JUDGE
THEREOF, THE CIRCUIT COURTS FOR THE RESPECTIVE COUNTIES, AND THE
SEVERAL JUDGES THEREOF, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS OF THAT CITY, THE CIRCUIT COURT AND CIRCUIT COURT NO. 2
OF BALTIMORE CITY, THE BALTIMORE CITY COURT, AND THE JUDGES OF THE SAID
COURTS, OUT OF COURT, AND THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE
CITY OF BALTIMORE, WITH POWER TO GRANT WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND TO
EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN ALL MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO. 

ALTHOUGH IT IS SETTLED THAT THE GRANT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID,  FN3  AND
ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE DOES NOT CONFER ON INDIVIDUAL JUDGES OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS THE POWER TO ISSUE A WRIT AND PROCEED THEREON, NEVERTHELESS,
THOSE JUDGES, AS CONSERVATORS OF THE PEACE, HAVE THE POWER UNDER THE
QUOTED SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN4  IN ANY EVENT, JUDGE BOND IS
THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE JUDGE OF THAT COURT
FROM THE CITY OF BALTIMORE AND, AS SUCH, IS EMPOWERED TO ACT. 

PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE ISSUE OF THE WRIT, ITS SERVICE,
THE RETURN, AND THE HEARING.  NO QUESTION IS MADE BUT THAT JUDGE BOND
COMPLIED WITH THESE PROVISIONS.  IT IS, THEREFORE, APPARENT THAT IN ALL
RESPECTS HE ACTED IN A JUDICIAL CAPACITY AND THAT, IN HIS PROPER
PERSON, HE WAS A JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL HAVING JURISDICTION, UPON PLEADINGS
AND PROOFS, TO HEAR AND TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF THE LEGALITY OF THE
PETITIONER'S DETENTION.  IF JUDGE BOND HAD BEEN SITTING IN TERM TIME AS
A MEMBER OF A COURT, CLOTHED WITH POWER TO ACT AS ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF
THAT COURT, HIS JUDGMENT WOULD BE THAT OF A COURT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
SEC. 237.  DOUBT THAT HIS JUDGMENT IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE IS SUCH
ARISES OUT OF OUR DECISION IN MCKNIGHT V. JAMES, 155 U.S. 685, WHERE WE
REFUSED TO REVIEW THE DENIAL OF A DISCHARGE BY A JUDGE OF AN INFERIOR
COURT OF OHIO WHO ISSUED THE WRIT AND HEARD THE CASE AT CHAMBERS.  IT
APPEARED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD ADDRESSED HIS PETITION TO A JUDGE OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT INSTEAD OF THE COURT ITSELF; AND THAT, FOR THIS
REASON, THE ORDER OF THE JUDGE WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF OHIO AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE WRIT BEEN ADDRESSED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT THOUGH HEARD BY A SINGLE JUDGE.  THE PETITIONER HAD NOT
EXHAUSTED HIS STATE REMEDY SINCE, THOUGH HE COULD HAVE OBTAINED A
DECISION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, HE HAD AVOIDED DOING SO,
AND THEN SOUGHT TO COME TO THIS COURT DIRECTLY FROM THE ORDER OF THE
CIRCUIT JUDGE ON THE THEORY THAT THAT JUDGE'S ORDER WAS THE FINAL ORDER
OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE WHICH COULD DECIDE HIS CASE.  IN A
LATER DECISION, WE REFERRED TO THIS AND OTHER COGNATE CASES AS DECIDING
THAT APPEALS DO NOT LIE TO THIS COURT FROM ORDERS BY JUDGES AT CHAMBERS
N5, BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON FOR DENYING OUR JURISDICTION WAS THAT
THE APPELLANT HAD NOT EXHAUSTED STATE REMEDIES. 

SINCE JUDGE BOND'S ORDER WAS A FINAL DISPOSITION BY THE HIGHEST COURT
OF MARYLAND IN WHICH A JUDGMENT COULD BE HAD OF THE ISSUE JOINED ON THE
INSTANT PETITION WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW IT. 

3.  WAS THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE A DEPRIVATION OF HIS
LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO APPOINT COUNSEL AT HIS
REQUEST? 

THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION APPLIES ONLY TO
TRIALS IN FEDERAL COURTS.  FN9 THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT INCORPORATE, AS SUCH, THE SPECIFIC GUARANTEES FOUND
IN THE SIXTH AMENDMENT N10, ALTHOUGH A DENIAL BY A STATE OF RIGHTS OR
PRIVILEGES SPECIFICALLY EMBODIED IN THAT AND OTHERS OF THE FIRST EIGHT
AMENDMENTS MAY, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, OR IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER
ELEMENTS, OPERATE, IN A GIVEN CASE, TO DEPRIVE A LITIGANT OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH.  FN11  DUE PROCESS OF
LAW IS SECURED AGAINST INVASION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, AND IS SAFEGUARDED AGAINST STATE ACTION IN IDENTICAL WORDS
BY THE FOURTEENTH.  THE PHRASE FORMULATES A CONCEPT LESS RIGID AND MORE
FLUID THAN THOSE ENVISAGED IN OTHER SPECIFIC AND PARTICULAR PROVISIONS
OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  ITS APPLICATION IS LESS A MATTER OF RULE. 
ASSERTED DENIAL IS TO BE TESTED BY AN APPRAISAL OF THE TOTALITY OF
FACTS IN A GIVEN CASE.  THAT WHICH MAY, IN ONE SETTING, CONSTITUTE A
DENIAL OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS, SHOCKING TO THE UNIVERSAL SENSE OF
JUSTICE, MAY, IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS, FALL SHORT OF SUCH DENIAL.  FN12  IN THE APPLICATION OF
SUCH A CONCEPT, THERE IS ALWAYS THE DANGER OF FALLING INTO THE HABIT OF
FORMULATING THE GUARANTEE INTO A SET OF HARD AND FAST RULES, THE
APPLICATION OF WHICH IN A GIVEN CASE MAY BE TO IGNORE THE QUALIFYING
FACTORS THEREIN DISCLOSED. 

THE PETITIONER, IN THIS INSTANCE, ASKS US, IN EFFECT, TO APPLY A RULE
IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  HE SAYS THE RULE TO BE
DEDUCED FROM OUR FORMER DECISIONS IS THAT, IN EVERY CASE, WHATEVER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, ONE CHARGED WITH CRIME, WHO IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN COUNSEL,
MUST BE FURNISHED COUNSEL BY THE STATE.  EXPRESSIONS IN THE OPINIONS OF
THIS COURT LEND COLOR TO THE ARGUMENT,  FN13  BUT, AS THE PETITIONER
ADMITS, NONE OF OUR DECISIONS SQUARELY ADJUDICATES THE QUESTION NOW
PRESENTED. 

IN POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, IGNORANT AND FRIENDLESS NEGRO
YOUTHS, STRANGERS IN THE COMMUNITY, WITHOUT FRIENDS OR MEANS TO OBTAIN
COUNSEL, WERE HURRIED TO TRIAL FOR A CAPITAL OFFENSE WITHOUT EFFECTIVE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON WHOM THE BURDEN OF PREPARATION AND TRIAL
WOULD REST, AND WITHOUT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT EVEN THE
COUNSEL CASUALLY APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THEM.  THIS OCCURRED IN A STATE
WHOSE STATUTE LAW REQUIRED THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT
DEFENDANTS PROSECUTED FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED.  THUS THE TRIAL WAS
CONDUCTED IN DISREGARD OF EVERY PRINCIPLE OF FAIRNESS AND IN DISREGARD
OF THAT WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE A REQUISITE OF A
FAIR TRIAL.  THIS COURT HELD THE RESULTING CONVICTIONS WERE WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  IT SAID THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FACTS, THE
FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO AFFORD THE DEFENDANTS REASONABLE TIME AND
OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE COUNSEL WAS A CLEAR DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  THE
COURT STATED FURTHER THAT "UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES  ...  THE NECESSITY
OF COUNSEL WAS SO VITAL AND IMPERATIVE THAT THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL
COURT TO MAKE AN EFFECTIVE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL WAS LIKEWISE A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS," BUT ADDED:  "WHETHER THIS WOULD BE SO IN OTHER
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, OR UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, WE NEED NOT
DETERMINE.  ALL THAT IT IS NECESSARY NOW TO DECIDE, AS WE DO DECIDE, IS
THAT, IN A CAPITAL CASE, WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS UNABLE TO EMPLOY
COUNSEL, AND IS INCAPABLE ADEQUATELY OF MAKING HIS OWN DEFENSE BECAUSE
OF IGNORANCE, FEEBLE-MINDEDNESS, ILLITERACY, OR THE LIKE, IT IS THE
DUTY OF THE COURT, WHETHER REQUESTED OR NOT, TO ASSIGN COUNSEL FOR HIM
AS A NECESSARY REQUISITE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW,  ...  " 

LIKEWISE, IN AVERY V. ALABAMA, 308 U.S. 444, THE STATE LAW REQUIRED
THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.  THE CLAIM WHICH WE FELT REQUIRED
EXAMINATION, AS IN THE POWELL CASE, WAS THAT THE PURPORTED COMPLIANCE
WITH THIS REQUIREMENT AMOUNTED TO MERE LIP SERVICE.  SCRUTINY OF THE
RECORD DISCLOSED THAT COUNSEL HAD BEEN APPOINTED AND THE DEFENDANT HAD
BEEN AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE WITH THE AID
OF COUNSEL.  WE, THEREFORE, OVERRULED THE CONTENTION THAT DUE PROCESS
HAD BEEN DENIED. 

IN SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329, THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
ALLEGED A FAILURE TO APPOINT COUNSEL BUT AVERRED OTHER FACTS WHICH, IF
ESTABLISHED, WOULD PROVE THAT THE TRIAL WAS A MERE SHAM AND PRETENSE,
OFFENSIVE TO THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS.  THERE ALSO, STATE LAW
REQUIRED THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR ONE ON TRIAL FOR THE OFFENSE
INVOLVED. 

THOSE CASES, WHICH ARE THE PETITIONER'S CHIEF RELIANCE, DO NOT RULE
THIS.  THE QUESTION WE ARE NOW TO DECIDE IS WHETHER DUE PROCESS OF LAW
DEMANDS THAT IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE, WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, A
STATE MUST FURNISH COUNSEL TO AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT.  IS THE FURNISHING
OF COUNSEL IN ALL CASES WHATEVER DICTATED BY NATURAL, INHERENT, AND
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS?  THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION MAY BE
FOUND IN THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THOSE WHO HAVE LIVED UNDER THE
ANGLO-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF LAW.  BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT THE PEOPLE
ORDAINED THAT, IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHOULD "ENJOY
THE RIGHT  ...  TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE."  WE
HAVE CONSTRUED THE PROVISION TO REQUIRE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN ALL
CASES WHERE A DEFENDANT IS UNABLE TO PROCURE THE SERVICES OF AN
ATTORNEY, AND WHERE THE RIGHT HAS NOT BEEN INTENTIONALLY AND
COMPETENTLY WAIVED.  FN14  THOUGH, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE AMENDMENT LAYS
DOWN NO RULE FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE STATES, THE QUESTION RECURS WHETHER
THE CONSTRAINT LAID BY THE AMENDMENT UPON THE NATIONAL COURTS EXPRESSES
A RULE SO FUNDAMENTAL AND ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR TRIAL, AND SO, TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, THAT IT IS MADE OBLIGATORY UPON THE STATES BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  RELEVANT DATA ON THE SUBJECT ARE AFFORDED BY
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS SUBSISTING IN THE COLONIES AND
THE STATES PRIOR TO THE INCLUSION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE NATIONAL
CONSTITUTION, AND IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL
HISTORY OF THE STATES TO THE PRESENT DATE.  THESE CONSTITUTE THE MOST
AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES FOR ASCERTAINING THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THE
CITIZENS OF THE STATES UPON THE QUESTION.    THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE
THIRTEEN ORIGINAL STATES, AS THEY WERE AT THE TIME OF FEDERAL UNION,
EXHIBIT GREAT DIVERSITY IN RESPECT OF THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL IN
CRIMINAL CASES.  RHODE ISLAND HAD NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON THE
SUBJECT UNTIL 1843, NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA HAD NONE UNTIL
1868.  VIRGINIA HAS NEVER HAD ANY.  MARYLAND, IN 1776, AND NEW YORK, IN
1777, ADOPTED PROVISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT A DEFENDANT ACCUSED OF
CRIME SHOULD BE "ALLOWED" COUNSEL.  A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE THAT THE
ACCUSED SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND BY HIS COUNSEL
WAS ADOPTED BY PENNSYLVANIA IN 1776, NEW HAMPSHIRE IN 1774, BY DELAWARE
IN 1782, AND BY CONNECTICUT IN 1818.  IN 1780 MASSACHUSETTS ORDAINED
THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF OR HIS
COUNSEL AT HIS ELECTION.  IN 1798 GEORGIA PROVIDED THAT THE ACCUSED
MIGHT BE HEARD BY HIMSELF OR COUNSEL, OR BOTH.  IN 1776 NEW JERSEY
GUARANTEED THE ACCUSED THE SAME PRIVILEGES OF WITNESSES AND COUNSEL AS
THEIR PROSECUTORS "ARE OR SHALL BE ENTITLED TO." 

THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE PROVISIONS OF COLONIAL AND EARLY STATE
CONSTITUTIONS IS EXPLAINED BY THE CONTEMPORARY COMMON LAW.  ORIGINALLY,
IN ENGLAND, A PRISONER WAS NOT PERMITTED TO BE HEARD BY COUNSEL UPON
THE GENERAL ISSUE OF NOT GUILTY ON ANY INDICTMENT FOR TREASON OR
FELONY.  FN15  THE PRACTICE OF ENGLISH JUDGES, HOWEVER, WAS TO PERMIT
COUNSEL TO ADVISE WITH A DEFENDANT AS TO THE CONDUCT OF HIS CASE AND TO
REPRESENT HIM IN COLLATERAL MATTERS AND AS RESPECTS QUESTIONS OF LAW
ARISING UPON THE TRIAL.  FN16  IN 1695 THE RULE WAS RELAXED BY STATUTE
FN17  TO THE EXTENT OF PERMITTING ONE ACCUSED OF TREASON THE PRIVILEGE
OF BEING HEARD BY COUNSEL.  THE RULE FORBIDDING THE PARTICIPATION OF
COUNSEL STOOD, HOWEVER, AS TO INDICTMENTS FOR FELONY, UNTIL 1836, WHEN
A STATUTE ACCORDED THE RIGHT TO DEFEND BY COUNSEL AGAINST SUMMARY
CONVICTIONS AND CHARGES OF FELONY.  FN18  IN MISDEMEANOR CASES AND,
AFTER 1695, IN PROSECUTIONS FOR TREASON, THE RULE WAS THAT THE DEFENSE
MUST BE CONDUCTED EITHER BY THE DEFENDANT IN PERSON OR BY COUNSEL, BUT
THAT BOTH MIGHT NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL.  FN19 

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COMMON LAW PRACTICE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT A DEFENDANT SHOULD BE
"ALLOWED" COUNSEL OR SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT "TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND
HIS COUNSEL," OR THAT HE MIGHT BE HEARD BY "EITHER OR BOTH," AT HIS
ELECTION, WERE INTENDED TO DO AWAY WITH THE RULES WHICH DENIED
REPRESENTATION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS, BUT WERE NOT AIMED TO COMPEL THE STATE TO PROVIDE COUNSEL
FOR A DEFENDANT.  AT THE LEAST, SUCH A CONSTRUCTION BY STATE COURTS AND
LEGISLATORS CAN NOT BE SAID TO LACK REASONABLE BASIS. 

THE STATUTES IN FORCE IN THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL STATES AT THE TIME OF
THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE ALSO ILLUMINATING.  IT IS OF
INTEREST THAT THE MATTER OF APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, IF
DEALT WITH AT ALL, WAS DEALT WITH BY STATUTE RATHER THAN BY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  THE CONTEMPORARY LEGISLATION EXHIBITS GREAT
DIVERSITY OF POLICY.  FN20 

THE CONSTITUTIONS OF ALL THE STATES, PRESENTLY IN FORCE, SAVE THAT OF
VIRGINIA, CONTAIN PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
IN CRIMINAL TRIALS.  THOSE OF NINE STATES FN21  MAY BE SAID TO EMBODY A
GUARANTEE TEXTUALLY THE SAME AS THAT OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, OR OF LIKE
IMPORT.  IN THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF MOST STATES, HOWEVER, THE LANGUAGE
USED INDICATES ONLY THAT A DEFENDANT IS NOT TO BE DENIED THE PRIVILEGE
OF REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE.  FN22 

IN THREE STATES, THE GUARANTEE, WHETHER OR NOT IN THE EXACT
PHRASEOLOGY OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, HAS BEEN HELD TO REQUIRE
APPOINTMENT IN ALL CASES WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS UNABLE TO PROCURE
COUNSEL.  FN23  IN SIX, THE PROVISIONS (ONE OF WHICH IS LIKE THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT) HAVE BEEN HELD NOT TO REQUIRE THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR
INDIGENT DEFENDANTS N24.  IN EIGHT, PROVISIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE
SAME AS THAT OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, HAVE EVIDENTLY NOT BEEN VIEWED AS
REQUIRING SUCH APPOINTMENT, SINCE THE COURTS HAVE ENFORCED STATUTES
MAKING APPOINTMENT DISCRETIONARY, OR OBLIGATORY ONLY IN PROSECUTIONS
FOR CAPITAL OFFENSES OR FELONIES.  FN25 

IN TWELVE STATES, IT SEEMS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION DOES NOT REQUIRE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, SINCE STATUTES OF
GREATER OR LESS ANTIQUITY CALL FOR SUCH APPOINTMENT ONLY IN CAPITAL
CASES OR CASES OF FELONY OR OTHER GRAVE CRIME,  FN26  OR REFER THE
MATTER TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  FN27  IN EIGHTEEN STATES THE
STATUTES NOW REQUIRE THE COURT TO APPOINT IN ALL CASES WHERE DEFENDANTS
ARE UNABLE TO PROCURE COUNSEL.  FN28  BUT THIS HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IN SOME OF THOSE STATES.  FN29  AND IT SEEMS TO
HAVE BEEN ASSUMED BY MANY LEGISLATURES THAT THE MATTER WAS ONE FOR
REGULATION FROM TIME TO TIME AS DEEMED NECESSARY, SINCE LAWS REQUIRING
APPOINTMENT IN ALL CASES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO REQUIRE IT ONLY IN THE
CASE OF CERTAIN OFFENSES.  FN30 

THIS MATERIAL DEMONSTRATES THAT, IN THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE STATES,
IT HAS BEEN THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THE PEOPLE, THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR COURTS THAT APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS NOT A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, ESSENTIAL TO A FAIR TRIAL.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
MATTER HAS GENERALLY BEEN DEEMED ONE OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  IN THE
LIGHT OF THIS EVIDENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE CONCEPT OF DUE
PROCESS INCORPORATED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OBLIGATES THE STATES,
WHATEVER MAY BE THEIR OWN VIEWS, TO FURNISH COUNSEL IN EVERY SUCH
CASE.  EVERY COURT HAS POWER, IF IT DEEMS PROPER, TO APPOINT COUNSEL
WHERE THAT COURSE SEEMS TO BE REQUIRED IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS. 

THE PRACTICE OF THE COURTS OF MARYLAND GIVES POINT TO THE PRINCIPLE
THAT THE STATES SHOULD NOT BE STRAIGHT-JACKETED IN THIS RESPECT, BY A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  JUDGE BOND'S OPINION STATES,
AND COUNSEL AT THE BAR CONFIRMED THE FACT, THAT IN MARYLAND THE USUAL
PRACTICE IS FOR THE DEFENDANT TO WAIVE A TRIAL BY JURY.  THIS THE
PETITIONER DID IN THE PRESENT CASE.  SUCH TRIALS, AS JUDGE BOND
REMARKS, ARE MUCH MORE INFORMAL THAN JURY TRIALS AND IT IS OBVIOUS THAT
THE JUDGE CAN MUCH BETTER CONTROL THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL AND IS IN A
BETTER POSITION TO SEE IMPARTIAL JUSTICE DONE THAN WHEN THE FORMALITIES
OF A JURY TRIAL ARE INVOLVED.  FN31 

IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE COMMISSION OF A ROBBERY. 
THE STATE'S CASE CONSISTED OF EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING THE PETITIONER AS
THE PERPETRATOR.  THE DEFENSE WAS AN ALIBI.  PETITIONER CALLED AND
EXAMINED WITNESSES TO PROVE THAT HE WAS AT ANOTHER PLACE AT THE TIME OF
THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.  THE SIMPLE ISSUE WAS THE VERACITY OF
THE TESTIMONY FOR THE STATE AND THAT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  AS JUDGE BOND
SAYS, THE ACCUSED WAS NOT HELPLESS, BUT WAS A MAN FORTY-THREE YEARS
OLD, OF ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE, AND ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF HIS OWN
INTERESTS ON THE TRIAL OF THAT NARROW ISSUE.  HE HAD ONCE BEFORE BEEN
IN A CRIMINAL COURT, PLEADED GUILTY TO LARCENY AND SERVED A SENTENCE
AND WAS NOT WHOLLY UNFAMILIAR WITH CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.  IT IS QUITE
CLEAR THAT IN MARYLAND, IF THE SITUATION HAD BEEN OTHERWISE AND IT HAD
APPEARED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS, FOR ANY REASON, AT A SERIOUS
DISADVANTAGE BY REASON OF THE LACK OF COUNSEL, A REFUSAL TO APPOINT
WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  ONLY
RECENTLY THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS REVERSED A CONVICTION BECAUSE IT WAS
CONVINCED ON THE WHOLE RECORD THAT AN ACCUSED, TRIED WITHOUT COUNSEL,
HAD BEEN HANDICAPPED BY THE LACK OF REPRESENTATION.  FN32 

TO DEDUCE FROM THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE A RULE BINDING UPON THE STATES
IN THIS MATTER WOULD BE TO IMPOSE UPON THEM, AS JUDGE BOND POINTS OUT,
A REQUIREMENT WITHOUT DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMINAL CHARGES OF DIFFERENT
MAGNITUDE OR IN RESPECT OF COURTS OF VARYING JURISDICTION.  AS HE SAYS:
"CHARGES OF SMALL CRIMES TRIED BEFORE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND CAPITAL
CHARGES TRIED IN THE HIGHER COURTS WOULD EQUALLY REQUIRE THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.  PRESUMABLY IT WOULD BE ARGUED THAT TRIALS IN
THE TRAFFIC COURT WOULD REQUIRE IT."  AND, INDEED, IT WAS SAID BY
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL BOTH BELOW AND IN THIS COURT, THAT AS THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EXTENDS THE PROTECTION OF DUE PROCESS TO PROPERTY
AS WELL AS TO LIFE AND LIBERTY, IF WE HOLD WITH THE PETITIONER, LOGIC
WOULD REQUIRE THE FURNISHING OF COUNSEL IN CIVIL CASES INVOLVING
PROPERTY. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE CONVICTION
AND INCARCERATION OF ONE WHOSE TRIAL IS OFFENSIVE TO THE COMMON AND
FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF FAIRNESS AND RIGHT, AND WHILE WANT OF COUNSEL IN A
PARTICULAR CASE MAY RESULT IN A CONVICTION LACKING IN SUCH FUNDAMENTAL
FAIRNESS, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE AMENDMENT EMBODIES AN INEXORABLE
COMMAND THAT NO TRIAL FOR ANY OFFENSE, OR IN ANY COURT, CAN BE FAIRLY
CONDUCTED AND JUSTICE ACCORDED A DEFENDANT WHO IS NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN RE MCKNIGHT, 52 F. 799; WILSON V. LANAGAN, 99 F.2D 544; BOYD
V. O'GRADY, 121 F.2D 146; CAREY V. BRADY, 125 F.2D 253; COMMONWEALTH EX
REL. SCHULTZ V. SMITH, 139 PA. SUPER.  CT. 357, 11 A.2D 656;
COMMONWEALTH EX REL. MCGLINN V. SMITH, 344 PA. 41, 24 A.2D 1. 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(B). 

FN3  STATE V. GLENN, 54 MD. 572, 596; SEVINSKEY V. WAGUS, 76 MD. 335,
25 A. 468. 

FN4  EX PARTE O'NEILL, 8 MD. 227; EX PARTE MAULSBY, 13 MD. 625. 

FN5  CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255, 276. 

IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID OF THE POWER OF JUDGE BOND AS A
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL TO HEAR AND FINALLY DECIDE THE CAUSE, AND OF THE
JUDICIAL QUALITY OF HIS ACTION WE ARE OF OPINION THAT HIS JUDGMENT WAS
THAT OF A COURT WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF SEC. 237. 

2.  DID THE JUDGMENT ENTERED COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 237
THAT IT MUST BE A FINAL JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE HIGHEST COURT IN WHICH
A DECISION COULD BE HAD?  AGAIN ANSWER MUST BE MADE IN THE LIGHT OF THE
APPLICABLE LAW OF MARYLAND.  THE JUDGMENT WAS FINAL IN THE SENSE THAT
AN ORDER OF A MARYLAND JUDGE IN A HABEAS CORPUS CASE, WHATEVER THE
COURT TO WHICH HE BELONGS, IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY ANY OTHER COURT OF
MARYLAND EXCEPT IN SPECIFIC INSTANCES NAMED IN STATUTES WHICH ARE HERE
INAPPLICABLE N6.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT FINAL, AND THE
PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED STATE REMEDIES IN THE SENSE THAT IN
MARYLAND, AS IN ENGLAND, IN MANY OF THE STATES, AND IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS, A PRISONER MAY APPLY SUCCESSIVELY TO ONE JUDGE AFTER ANOTHER
AND TO ONE COURT AFTER ANOTHER WITHOUT EXHAUSTING HIS RIGHT.  FN7  WE
THINK THIS CIRCUMSTANCE DOES NOT DENY TO THE JUDGMENT IN A GIVEN CASE
THE QUALITY OF FINALITY REQUISITE TO THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION. 
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT IS FINAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO
REVIEW BY ANY OTHER COURT OF THE STATE, WE MAY, IN OUR DISCRETION,
REFUSE THE WRIT WHEN THERE IS A HIGHER COURT OF THE STATE TO WHICH
ANOTHER PETITION FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT COULD BE ADDRESSED,  FN8  BUT
THIS IS NOT SUCH A CASE.  TO HOLD THAT, SINCE SUCCESSIVE APPLICATIONS
TO COURTS AND JUDGES OF MARYLAND MAY BE MADE AS OF RIGHT, THE JUDGMENT
IN ANY CASE IS NOT FINAL, WOULD BE TO DENY ALL RECOURSE TO THIS COURT
IN SUCH CASES. 

FN6  BELL V. STATE, 4 GILL.  301; EX PARTE O'NEILL, 8 MD. 227; IN RE
COSTON, 23 MD. 271; COSTON V. COSTON, 25 MD. 500; STATE V. GLENN, 54
MD. 572; ANNAPOLIS V. HOWARD, 80 MD. 244, 30 A. 910; PETITION OF OTHO
JONES, 179 MD. 240, 16 A.2D 901. 

FN7  JUDGE BOND INTIMATES THAT SEC. 3 OF ART. 42, AS AMENDED BY LAWS
1941, C. 484 PERMITS THE USE OF A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE (CF. HOLIDAY V.
JOHNSTON, 313 U.S. 342) OR OTHER FORM OF PRELIMINARY INQUIRY TO AVOID
THE NECESSITY OF THE ISSUE OF A WRIT AND A HEARING WHERE A REDUNDANT
PETITION IS FILED DISCLOSING NO NEW MATTER.  SEE, SALINGER V. LOISEL,
265 U.S. 224, 231-232.  HE DETERMINED, HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE TO ISSUE
THE WRIT AND AFFORD A HEARING. 

FN8  TENNER V. DULLEA, 314 U.S. 692. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. DAWSON, 15 HOW.  467, 487; TWITCHELL V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 7 WALL.  321, 325; SPIES V. ILLINOIS, 123 U.S. 131, 166;
IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200, 219; BROOKS V. MISSOURI, 124 U.S. 394, 397;
EILENBECKER V. DISTRICT COURT, 134 U.S. 31, 34, 35; WEST V. LOUISIANA,
194 U.S. 258, 263; HOWARD V. KENTUCKY, 200 U.S. 164, 172. 

FN10  HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516; MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S.
581; WEST V. LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S.
78; FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309; SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S.
97; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319. 

FN11  COMPARE TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 98; POWELL V.
ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 323 FF. 

FN12  COMPARE LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219, 236-237. 

FN13  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 73; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS
CO., 297 U.S. 233, 243, 244; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 462;
AVERY V. ALABAMA, 308 U.S. 444, 447. 

FN14  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458. 

FN15  CHITTY CRIMINAL LAW (5TH AM. ED.)  VOL.  1, P. 406. 

FN16  CHITTY, SUPRA, VOL. I, P. 407; REX V. PARKINS, 1 C. & P. 314. 

FN17  7 WILL.  3, C. 3, SEC. 1. 

FN18  6 & 7 WILL.  4, C. 114, SECS. I AND II. 

FN19  REX V. WHITE, 3 CAMP.  N.P. 97; REGINA V. BOUCHER, 8 C. & P.
655. 

FN20  CONNECTICUT HAD NO STATUTE, ALTHOUGH IT WAS THE CUSTOM OF THE
COURTS TO ASSIGN COUNSEL IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES.  SWIFT, "SYSTEM OF
LAWS, CONNECTICUT," 1796, VOL. II, P. 392.  IN DELAWARE PENN'S LAWS OF
1719, C. XXII, AND IN PENNSYLVANIA THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1718, SEC. III
(MITCHELL AND FLANDERS' STATUTES AT LARGE OF PENNA., 1682-1801, VOL.
III, P. 201) PROVIDED FOR APPOINTMENT ONLY IN CASE OF "FELONIES OF
DEATH."  GEORGIA HAS NEVER HAD ANY LAW ON THE SUBJECT.  MARYLAND HAD NO
SUCH LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  AN ACT OF
1777 IN MASSACHUSETTS GAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL APPOINTED IN CASES
OF TREASON OR MISPRISION OF TREASON.  LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS FROM NOV. 28, 1780 TO FEB. 28, 1807, C. LXXI, VOL. II,
APPENDIX, P. 1049.  BY AN ACT OF FEB. 8, 1791, NEW HAMPSHIRE REQUIRED
APPOINTMENT IN ALL CASES WHERE THE PUNISHMENT WAS DEATH.  METCALF'S
LAWS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1916, VOL. 5, PP. 596, 599.  AN ACT OF NEW
JERSEY OF MARCH 6, 1795, SEC. 2, REQUIRED APPOINTMENT IN THE CASE OF
ANY PERSON TRIED UPON AN INDICTMENT.  ACTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
THE SESSION OF 1794, C. DXXXII, P. 1012.  NEW YORK APPARENTLY HAD NO
STATUTE ON THE SUBJECT.  SEE ACT.  FEB.  20, 1787, LAWS OF NEW YORK,
SESSIONS 1ST TO 20TH (1798), VOL. I, PP. 356-7.  AN ACT OF 1777 OF
NORTH CAROLINA MADE NO PROVISION FOR APPOINTMENT, BUT ACCORDED
DEFENDANTS THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL.  LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1789,
PP. 40, 56.  RHODE ISLAND HAD NO STATUTE UNTIL 1798, WHEN ONE WAS
PASSED IN THE WORDS OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  LAWS 1798, P. 80.  SOUTH
CAROLINA, BY ACT OF AUGUST 20, 1731, LIMITED APPOINTMENT TO CAPITAL
CASES.  GRIMKE'S SO. CAR.  PUB.  LAWS, 1682-1790, P. 130.  VIRGINIA, BY
ACT OF OCT. 1786, ENACTED WITH RESPECT TO ONE CHARGED WITH TREASON OR
FELONY THAT "THE COURT SHALL ALLOW HIM COUNSEL ...  IF HE DESIRE IT." 
HENING'S STATUTES OF VIRGINIA, 1785-1788, VOL. 12, P. 343. 

FN21  GEORGIA (ART. I, PAR. V); IOWA (ART. I, SEC. 10); LOUISIANA
(ART. I, SEC. 9); MICHIGAN (DEC. OF RIGHTS, ART. II, SEC. 19);
MINNESOTA (ART. I, SEC. 6); NEW JERSEY (ART. I, SEC. 8); NORTH CAROLINA
(ART. I, SEC. 11); RHODE ISLAND (ART. I, SEC. 10); WEST VIRGINIA (ART.
III, SEC. 14). 

FN22  SOME ASSERT THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT "TO APPEAR AND DEFEND IN
PERSON AND BY COUNSEL."  ARIZONA (ART. II, SEC. 24); COLORADO (ART. II,
SEC. 16); ILLINOIS (ART. II, SEC. 9); MISSOURI (ART. II, SEC. 22);
MONTANA (ART. III, SEC. 16); NEW MEXICO (ART. II, SEC. 14); SOUTH
DAKOTA (ART. VI, SEC. 7); UTAH (ART. I, SEC. 12); WYOMING (ART. I, SEC.
10).  OTHERS PHRASE THE RIGHT AS THAT "TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND (HIS)
COUNSEL":  ARKANSAS (ART. II, SEC. 10); DELAWARE (ART. I, SEC. 7);
INDIANA (ART. I, SEC. 13); KENTUCKY (BILL OF RIGHTS, SEC. 11);
PENNSYLVANIA (ART. I, SEC. 9); TENNESSEE (ART. I, SEC. 9); VERMONT (CH.
I, ART. 10TH); OR "BY HIMSELF AND BY COUNSEL": CONNECTICUT (ART. I,
SEC. 9); OR "BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL": NEW HAMPSHIRE (BILL OF RIGHTS,
15TH); OKLAHOMA (ART. II, SEC. 20); OREGON (ART. I, SEC. 11); WISCONSIN
(ART. I, SEC. 7); OR "BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL OR EITHER":  ALABAMA (ART.
I, SEC. 6); "BY HIMSELF OR COUNSEL OR (BY) BOTH":  FLORIDA (DEC. OF
RIGHTS, SEC. 11); MISSISSIPPI (ART. III, SEC. 26); SOUTH CAROLINA (ART.
I, SEC. 18); TEXAS (ART. I, SEC. 10).  THE VERBIAGE SOMETIMES EMPLOYED
IS:  "TO APPEAR AND DEFEND IN PERSON AND WITH COUNSEL":  CALIFORNIA
(ART. I, SEC. 13), IDAHO, (ART. I, SEC. 13); NORTH DAKOTA (ART. I, SEC.
13); OHIO (ART. I, SEC. 10); OR "IN PERSON OR BY COUNSEL"; KANSAS (BILL
OF RIGHTS, SEC. 10); NEBRASKA (ART. I, SEC. 11); WASHINGTON (ART. I,
SEC. 22).  NEVADA (ART. I, SEC. 8) AND NEW YORK (ART. I, SEC. 6) ADD:
"AS IN CIVIL ACTIONS."  SOME CONSTITUTIONS FORMULATE THE RIGHT AS ONE
"TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND HIS COUNSEL AT HIS ELECTION" OR "HIMSELF
AND HIS COUNSEL OR EITHER AT HIS ELECTION":  MASSACHUSETTS (PART I,
SEC. 12), MAINE (ART. I, SEC. 6).  MARYLAND (DEC. OF RIGHTS, ART. 21)
STATES THE RIGHT AS THAT "TO BE ALLOWED COUNSEL." 

FN23  ELAM V. JOHNSON, 48 GA. 348; DELK V. STATE, 99 GA. 667, 26 S.E.
752; FUGATE V. COMMONWEALTH, 254 KY. 663, 72 S.W.2D 47; CARPENTER V.
DANE COUNTY, 9 WIS. 274. 

FN24  CUTTS V. STATE, 54 FLA. 21, 45 SO. 491; MCDONALD V.
COMMONWEALTH, 173 MASS. 322, 53 N.E. 874; PEOPLE V. DUDLEY, 173 MICH.
389, 138 N. W. 1044; PEOPLE V. WILLIAMS, 225 MICH. 133, 195 N.W. 818;
PEOPLE V. HARRIS, 266 MICH. 317, 253 N.W. 312; PEOPLE V. CRANDELL, 270
MICH. 124, 258 N.W. 224; COMMONWEALTH V. SMITH, 344 PA. 41, 24 A.2D 1;
STATE V. SWEENEY, 48 S.D. 248, 203 N.W. 460; STATE V. YOES, 67 W. VA.
546, 68 S.E. 181; CF. PARDEE V. SALT LAKE COUNTY, 39 UTAH 482, 118 P.
122. 

FN25  ALABAMA:  CODE (1940) TIT. 15, SEC. 318; CAMPBELL V. STATE, 182
ALA. 18, 62 SO. 57; GILCHRIST V. STATE, 234 ALA. 73, 173 SO. 651; CLARK
V. STATE, 239 ALA. 380, 195 SO. 260.  LOUISIANA:  CODE CRIM. PROC.
(DART, 1932) TIT. XIII, ART. 143; STATE V. DAVIS, 171 LA. 449, 131 SO.
295.  MARYLAND:  ANNOTATED CODE (FLACK, 1939), ART. 26, PAR. 7, P.
1060; CF. THE DECISION BELOW AND COATES V. MARYLAND, 180 MD. 502, 25
A.2D 676.  MISSISSIPPI:  ANNOTATED CODE (1930) CRIM. PROC., C. 21, SEC.
1262; LAWS 1934, C. 303; REED V. STATE, 143 MISS.  686, 109 SO. 715;
ROBINSON V. STATE, 178 MISS.  568, 173 SO. 451.  RHODE ISLAND:  GENERAL
LAWS 1938, C. 625, SEC. 62; ACTS & RESOLVES, 1891, C. 921, P. 165;
STATE V. HUDSON, 55 R.I. 141, 179 A. 130.  SOUTH CAROLINA: CODE 1932,
VOL. 1, SEC. 979; STATE V. JONES, 172 S.C. 129, 173 S.E. 77.  TEXAS:
LOPEZ V. STATE, 46 TEX. CR. 473, 80 S.W. 1016; FAGGETT V. STATE, 122
TEX. CR. 399, 55 S.W.2D 842; THOMAS V. STATE, 132 TEX. CR. 549, 106
S.W.2D 289; AUSTIN V. STATE, 51 S.W. 249.  VERMONT:  PUBLIC LAWS (1933)
C. 57, SEC. 1424; C. 101, SEC. 2327; C. 102, SEC. 2370; STATE V. GOMEZ,
89 VT. 490, 96 A. 190. 

FN26  ARKANSAS:  STEEL & MCCAMPBELL'S COMPILED LAWS OF ARKANSAS
TERRITORY, 1835, "CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS," SEC. 37, P. 194; GANTT'S
DIGEST OF ARK. STATS. 1874, CRIM. PROC. C. 43, ART. XII, SEC. 1824, P.
410; POPE'S DIGEST (1937), VOL. 1, C. 43, SEC. 3877, P. 1180. 
DELAWARE:  PENN'S LAWS, C. XXII (1719); REV. CODE (1935) C. 114, 4305
6.  KANSAS:  GEN. STATS. 1868, C. 82, SEC. 160, P. 845; GEN. STATS.
1935, C. 62, SEC. 1304, P. 1449.  MAINE:  ACT OF MARCH 8, 1826, SEC. 6,
P. 146; R.S. APR. 17, 1857, C. 134, SEC. 12, P. 713; R.S. 1930, C. 146,
SEC. 14, P. 1655.  MINNESOTA:  ACT OF MARCH 5, 1869, G.L. 1869, C.
LXXII, SEC. 1; MASON'S MINN. STATS. (1927) VOL. 2, C. 94, SEC. 9957. 
MISSOURI:  CASSELBERRY'S REV. STATS. 1845, PP. 434, 443-4, 458; REV.
STATS. (1939) CRIM. PROC. SEC. 4003.  NEBRASKA:  GEN. STATS. 1873, C.
58, SEC. 437, P. 821; COMP. STAT. (1929) CRIM. PROC. ART. 18, SEC. 29
1803.  NEW HAMPSHIRE:  R.S. 1843, TIT. XXVII, C. 225, P. 457; PUB. LAWS
(1926), C. 368, LAWS 1937, C. 22.  WASHINGTON:  TERRITORIAL STATS.
1881, C. LXXXV, SEC. 1063; REM.  REV.  STATS. VOL. 4, C. 2, SEC. 2305. 

FN27  ARIZONA:  CODE (1939) ART. 9, SECS. 44-904, 44-905.  COLORADO:
COLO. STATS. ANNOTATED (1935), VOL. 2, C. 48, SEC. 502, P. 1148. 
MARYLAND:  LAWS 1886, C. 46, P. 66; ANNO.  CODE (FLACK, 1939), ART. 26,
PAR. 7. 

FN28  CALIFORNIA, PENAL CODE, DEERING (1937), PT. 2, TIT. 6, C. 1,
SEC. 987; IDAHO, CODE ANNO.  (1932) SEC. 19-1412; ILLINOIS, R.S. 1935,
C. 38, $* 754; IOWA, CODE 1939, C. 640, SEC. 13773; KANSAS, LAWS 1941,
C. 291; MICHIGAN, STATUTES ANN. SEC. 28.1253; MONTANA, REV. CODES ANN.
(1935) C. 73, SEC. 11886; NEVADA, COMP. LAWS (1929) CR. L. & PROC. SEC.
10883; NEW JERSEY, N.J. STAT. ANN. SEC. 2:  190-3; NEW YORK, THOMPSON'S
LAWS (1939) PT. II, CODE OF CRIM. PROC. SEC. 308; NORTH DAKOTA, COMP.
LAWS (1913) VOL. II, SEC. 8965; OHIO, THROCKMORTON'S CODE ANN. (1940)
SEC. 13439-2; OKLAHOMA, STATS. ANN. TIT. 22, SEC. 1271; OREGON, COMP.
LAWS ANN. VOL. 3, SEC. 26-804; SOUTH DAKOTA, CODE (1939) SEC. 34.1901;
TENNESSEE, MICHIE'S CODE (1938) SEC. 11734; UTAH, R.S. (1938) CODE CR.
PROC. SEC. 105-22-12; WYOMING, R.S. (1931) SEC. 33-501.  CONNECTICUT
PROVIDES OFFICIAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS AVAILABLE TO ALL PERSONS UNABLE TO
RETAIN COUNSEL.  G.S. (REVISION OF 1930), C. 335, SEC. 6476. 

AT LEAST AS EARLY AS 1903(3 EDW.  7, C. 38) ENGLAND ADOPTED A POOR
PRISONERS' DEFENCE ACT, UNDER WHICH A RULE WAS ADOPTED WHEREBY AN
ACCUSED MIGHT DEFEND BY COUNSEL ASSIGNED BY THE COURT.  BOWEN-ROWLANDS,
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, LONDON (1904) PP. 46-47.  THE EXISTING STATUTE IS
THE POOR PRISONERS' DEFENCE ACT (1930) 20 & 21 GEO. 5, C. 32.  SEE
ARCHBOLD'S CRIMINAL PLEADING, EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE, 30TH ED. (1938) P.
167.  UNDER THIS ACT A POOR DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT TO
COUNSEL ON A CHARGE OF MURDER, BUT ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL IS
DISCRETIONARY IN OTHER CASES. 

FN29  SEE E.G. EARLIER AND MORE RESTRICTED STATUTES:  IDAHO, TERR. 
LAWS, 2D SESS., 1864, C. II, P. 246; IOWA, ACT OF JANUARY 4, 1839, SEC.
64; KORF V. JASPER COUNTY, 132 IA. 682, 108 N.W. 1031; MICHIGAN, LAWS
1857, ACT NO. 109, P. 239; MONTANA, ACT JANUARY 12, 1872, C. IX, SEC.
196; NEVADA, COMP. L. 1861-73, C. LIII.  CHANGES IN THE STATUTES OF
OTHER STATES MIGHT BE CITED.  COMPARE NOTES 20 AND 28. 

FN30  LOUISIANA.  COMPARE LAWS, 1855, ACT NO. 121; STATE V. FERRIS,
16 LA. ANN. 424; STATE V. BRIDGES, 109 LA. 530, 33 SO. 589, WITH LA.
CODE CRIM. PROC. (DART) 1932, TIT. XIII, ART. 143.  NEBRASKA.  COMPARE
LAWS OF 1869, P. 163, WITH COMP. STATS. (1929) SEC. 29-1803. 
WASHINGTON.  COMPARE CODE OF WASHINGTON TERR.  (1881) C. LXXXV, SEC.
1063 WITH REM.  REV.  STATS. VOL. 4, C. 2, SEC. 2305.  AND COMPARE
TEXAS CODE CRIM. PROC. (1856), PT. III, ARTS. 466-7 WITH VERNON'S
STATS. (1936), ART. 1917, AND LOPEZ V. STATE, 46 TEX. CR. 473, 80 S.W.
1016, AND THOMAS V. STATE, 132 TEX. CR. 549, 106 S.W.2D 289. 

FN31  JUDGE BOND ADDS:  "CERTAINLY MY OWN EXPERIENCE IN CRIMINAL
TRIALS OVER WHICH I HAVE PRESIDED (OVER 2000, AS I ESTIMATE IT), HAS
DEMONSTRATED TO ME THAT THERE ARE FAIR TRIALS WITHOUT COUNSEL EMPLOYED
FOR THE PRISONERS." 

FN32  COATES V. STATE, 180 MD. 502, 25 A.2D 676. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR. 

TO HOLD THAT THE PETITIONER HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN
THIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO SAY THAT "NO TRIAL FOR ANY OFFENSE, OR
IN ANY COURT, CAN BE FAIRLY CONDUCTED AND JUSTICE ACCORDED A DEFENDANT
WHO IS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL."  THIS CASE CAN BE DETERMINED BY A
RESOLUTION OF A NARROWER QUESTION:  WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF
THE OFFENSE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS TRIAL AND CONVICTION, THIS
PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE PROCEDURAL PROTECTION WHICH IS HIS RIGHT
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  I THINK HE WAS. 

THE PETITIONER, A FARM HAND, OUT OF A JOB AND ON RELIEF, WAS INDICTED
IN A MARYLAND STATE COURT ON A CHARGE OF ROBBERY.  HE WAS TOO POOR TO
HIRE A LAWYER.  HE SO INFORMED THE COURT AND REQUESTED THAT COUNSEL BE
APPOINTED TO DEFEND HIM.  HIS REQUEST WAS DENIED.  PUT TO TRIAL WITHOUT
A LAWYER, HE CONDUCTED HIS OWN DEFENSE, WAS FOUND GUILTY, AND WAS
SENTENCED TO EIGHT YEARS' IMPRISONMENT.  THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD "AT LEAST AN ORDINARY AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE."  IT IS
CLEAR FROM HIS EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES THAT HE WAS A MAN OF LITTLE
EDUCATION. 

IF THIS CASE HAD COME TO US FROM A FEDERAL COURT, IT IS CLEAR WE
SHOULD HAVE TO REVERSE IT, BECAUSE THE SIXTH AMENDMENT MAKES THE RIGHT
TO COUNSEL IN CRIMINAL CASES INVIOLABLE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  I
BELIEVE THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MADE THE SIXTH APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES.  FN1 BUT THIS VIEW, ALTHOUGH OFTEN URGED IN DISSENTS, HAS NEVER
BEEN ACCEPTED BY A MAJORITY OF THIS COURT AND IS NOT ACCEPTED TODAY.  A
STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS SUPPORTING IT IS, THEREFORE, UNNECESSARY AT
THIS TIME.  I BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT, UNDER THE PREVAILING VIEW OF DUE
PROCESS, AS REFLECTED IN THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED, A VIEW WHICH GIVES
THIS COURT SUCH VAST SUPERVISORY POWERS THAT I AM NOT PREPARED TO
ACCEPT IT WITHOUT GRAVE DOUBTS, THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THIS COURT HAS JUST DECLARED THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS DENIED IF A
TRIAL IS CONDUCTED IN SUCH MANNER THAT IT IS "SHOCKING TO THE UNIVERSAL
SENSE OF JUSTICE" OR "OFFENSIVE TO THE COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF
FAIRNESS AND RIGHT."  ON ANOTHER OCCASION, THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT WHATEVER IS "IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY" AND
"ESSENTIAL TO THE SUBSTANCE OF A HEARING" IS WITHIN THE PROCEDURAL
PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF DUE PROCESS. 
PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 327. 

THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS "FUNDAMENTAL." 
POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 70; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297
U.S. 233, 243-244.  IT IS GUARDED FROM INVASION BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT,
ADOPTED TO RAISE AN EFFECTIVE BARRIER AGAINST ARBITRARY OR UNJUST
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  JOHNSON V. ZERBST,
304 U.S. 458, 462. 

AN HISTORICAL EVALUATION OF THE RIGHT TO A FULL HEARING IN CRIMINAL
CASES, AND THE DANGERS OF DENYING IT, WERE SET OUT IN THE POWELL CASE,
WHERE THIS COURT SAID:  "WHAT  ...  DOES A HEARING INCLUDE? 
HISTORICALLY AND IN PRACTICE, IN OUR OWN COUNTRY AT LEAST, IT HAS
ALWAYS INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO THE AID OF COUNSEL WHEN DESIRED AND
PROVIDED BY THE PERSON ASSERTING THE RIGHT  ...  EVEN THE INTELLIGENT
AND EDUCATED LAYMAN  ...  LACKS BOTH THE SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE ADEQUATELY
TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE, EVEN THOUGH HE HAVE A PERFECT ONE.  HE REQUIRES
THE GUIDING HAND OF COUNSEL IN EVERY STEP IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
HIM.  WITHOUT IT, THOUGH HE BE NOT GUILTY, HE FACES THE DANGER OF
CONVICTION BECAUSE HE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE." 
POWELL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 68-69.  CF. JOHNSON V. ZERBST, SUPRA, 462
463. 

A PRACTICE CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS OF
FAIRNESS AND RIGHT," WHICH SUBJECTS INNOCENT MEN TO INCREASED DANGERS
OF CONVICTION MERELY BECAUSE OF THEIR POVERTY.  WHETHER A MAN IS
INNOCENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM A TRIAL IN WHICH, AS HERE, DENIAL OF
COUNSEL HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE, WITH ANY SATISFACTORY
DEGREE OF CERTAINTY, THAT THE DEFENDANT'S CASE WAS ADEQUATELY
PRESENTED.  NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT DUE PROCESS REQUIRES A HEARING BEFORE
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR THE SERIOUS CRIME OF ROBBERY.  AS THE
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SAID, IN 1859, " ...  WOULD IT NOT BE A
LITTLE LIKE MOCKERY TO SECURE TO A PAUPER THESE SOLEMN CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTIES FOR A FAIR AND FULL TRIAL OF THE MATTERS WITH WHICH HE WAS
CHARGED, AND YET SAY TO HIM WHEN ON TRIAL, THAT HE MUST EMPLOY HIS OWN
COUNSEL, WHO COULD ALONE RENDER THESE GUARANTIES OF ANY REAL PERMANENT
VALUE TO HIM.  ...  WHY THIS GREAT SOLICITUDE TO SECURE HIM A FAIR
TRIAL IF HE CANNOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL?"  CARPENTER V. DANE
COUNTY, 9 WIS. 274, 276-277.    DENIAL TO THE POOR OF THE REQUEST FOR
COUNSEL IN PROCEEDINGS BASED ON CHARGES OF SERIOUS CRIME HAS LONG BEEN
REGARDED AS SHOCKING TO THE "UNIVERSAL SENSE OF JUSTICE" THROUGHOUT
THIS COUNTRY.  IN 1854, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA SAID:
"IT IS NOT TO BE THOUGHT OF, IN A CIVILIZED COMMUNITY, FOR A MOMENT,
THAT ANY CITIZEN PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIBERTY, SHOULD BE DEBARRED
OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HE WAS TOO POOR TO EMPLOY SUCH AID.  NO COURT COULD
BE RESPECTED, OR RESPECT ITSELF, TO SIT AND HEAR SUCH A TRIAL.  THE
DEFENCE OF THE POOR, IN SUCH CASES, IS A DUTY RESTING SOMEWHERE, WHICH
WILL BE AT ONCE CONCEDED AS ESSENTIAL TO THE ACCUSED, TO THE COURT, AND
TO THE PUBLIC."  WEBB V. BAIRD, 6 IND. 13, 18.  AND MOST OF THE OTHER
STATES HAVE SHOWN THEIR AGREEMENT BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS,
STATUTES, OR ESTABLISHED PRACTICE JUDICIALLY APPROVED, WHICH ASSURE
THAT NO MAN SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF COUNSEL MERELY BECAUSE OF HIS
POVERTY.  FN2  ANY OTHER PRACTICE SEEMS TO ME TO DEFEAT THE PROMISE OF
OUR DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY TO PROVIDE EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW. 

                               APPENDIX 

I. STATES WHICH REQUIRE THAT INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN NONCAPITAL AS
WELL AS CAPITAL CRIMINAL CASES BE PROVIDED WITH COUNSEL ON REQUEST: 

A. BY STATUTE.  ARIZONA:  REVISED STATUTES OF ARIZONA TERRITORY,
1901, PENAL CODE, PT. II, TITLE VII, SEC. 858; ARIZONA CODE ANN. 1939,
VOL. III, SEC. 44-904.  ARKANSAS:  COMPILED LAWS, ARKANSAS TERRITORY,
1835, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, SEC. 37; POPE'S DIGEST, 1937, VOL. I, C.
43, SEC. 3877.  CALIFORNIA:  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE OF 1872, SEC. 987;
DEERING'S PENAL CODE, 1937, SEC. 987.  IDAHO:  TERRITORIAL CRIMINAL
PRACTICE ACT, 1864, SEC. 267; IDAHO CODE, 1932, SECS. 19-1412, 19
1413.  ILLINOIS:  REV. STAT. 1874, CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 422; JONES'S
ILL. STAT. ANN. 1936, SEC. 37.707.  CF. LAWS, 1933, 430-431.  SEE ALSO,
VISE V. COUNTY OF HAMILTON, 19 ILL. 78, 79(1857).  IOWA:  TERRITORIAL
LAWS, 1839, COURTS, SEC. 64; IOWA CODE, 1939, SEC. 13773.  KANSAS:  SEE
COMPILATION PUBLISHED IN 1856 AS S. DOC. NO. 23, 34TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
520(C. 129, ART. V, SEC. 4).  LAWS, 1941, C. 291.  LOUISIANA:  ACT OF
MAY 4, 1805, OF THE TERRITORY OF ORLEANS, SEC. 35; DART'S LOUISIANA
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1932, TITLE XIII, ART. 143.  MINNESOTA:
MINNESOTA GENERAL LAWS, 1869, C. LXXII, SEC. 1; MASON'S MINNESOTA
STATUTES, 1927, SECS. 9957, 10667.  MISSOURI:  DIGEST OF LAWS OF
MISSOURI TERRITORY, 1818, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS, SEC. 35; REV. STAT.
1939, SEC. 4003.  MONTANA:  MONTANA TERRITORY CRIMINAL PRACTICE ACT OF
1872, SEC. 196(LAWS OF MONTANA, CODIFIED STAT. 1871-1872, 220); REVISED
CODE, 1935, SEC. 11886.  NEBRASKA:  GENERAL STATUTES, 1873, C. 58, SEC.
437; COMPILED STAT. 1929, SEC. 29-1803.  NEVADA:  ACT OF NOVEMBER 26,
1861(COMPILED LAWS, 1861-1873, VOL. I, 477, 493); COMPILED LAWS, 1929,
VOL. 5, SEC. 10883.  NEW HAMPSHIRE:  LAWS, 1907, C. 136; LAWS, 1937, C.
22.  NEW JERSEY:  ACT OF MARCH 6, 1795, SEC. 2; NEW JERSEY STAT. SEC.
2.190-3.  NEW YORK:  CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEC. 308(ENACTED IN
1881, STILL IN FORCE).  SEE PEOPLE V. SUPERVISORS OF ALBANY COUNTY, 28
HOW.  PR. 22, 24(1864).  NORTH DAKOTA:  DAKOTA TERRITORY CODE OF
PROCEDURE, 1863, SEC. 249(REV.  CODES, 1877, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 875);
COMPILED LAWS, 1913, VOL. II, SECS. 8965, 10721.  OHIO: ACT OF FEBRUARY
26, 1816, SEC. 14(CHASE, STATUTES OF OHIO, 1788-1833, VOL. II, 982);
THROCKMORTON'S OHIO CODE ANN. 1940, VOL. II, SEC. 13439-2.  OKLAHOMA:
OKLAHOMA TERRITORIAL STAT. 1890, C. 70, SEC. 10; STAT. ANN. 1941 SUPP.,
TITLE 22, SEC. 464.  OREGON:  ACT OF OCTOBER 19, 1864(GENERAL LAWS,
1845-1864, C. 37, SEC. 381; LAWS 1937, C. 406(COMPILED LAWS ANN., VOL.
III, SEC. 26-804).  SOUTH DAKOTA:  DAKOTA TERRITORY CODE OF PROCEDURE,
1863, SEC. 249(REV.  CODES, 1877, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 875); CODE OF
1939, VOL. II, SEC. 34.1901.  TENNESSEE:  CODE OF 1857-1858, SECS.
5205, 5206; CODE OF 1938, SECS. 11733, 11734.  UTAH:  LAWS OF TERRITORY
OF UTAH, 1878, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEC. 181; REV. STAT. 1933, SEC. 105
22-12.  WASHINGTON:  STATUTES OF TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON, 1854,
CRIMINAL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 89; REMINGTON'S REVISED STATUTES, 1932,
VOL. IV, SECS. 2095, 2305.  WYOMING:  LAWS OF WYOMING TERRITORY, 1869,
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SEC. 98; REV. STAT. 1931, SEC. 33-501. 

B. BY JUDICIAL DECISION OR ESTABLISHED PRACTICE JUDICIALLY APPROVED. 
CONNECTICUT:  FOR AN ACCOUNT OF EARLY PRACTICE IN CONNECTICUT, SEE
ZEPHANIAH SWIFT "A SYSTEM OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT,"
VOL. II, 392:  "THE CHIEF JUSTICE THEN, BEFORE THE PRISONER IS CALLED
UPON TO PLEAD, ASKS THE PRISONER IF HE DESIRES COUNSEL, WHICH IF
REQUESTED, IS ALWAYS GRANTED, AS A MATTER OF COURSE.  ON HIS NAMING
COUNSEL, THE COURT WILL APPOINT OR ASSIGN THEM.  IF FROM ANY CAUSE, THE
PRISONER DECLINE TO REQUEST OR NAME COUNSEL, AND A TRIAL IS HAD,
ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF MINORS, THE COURT WILL ASSIGN PROPER
COUNSEL.  WHEN COUNSEL ARE ASSIGNED, THE COURT WILL ENQUIRE OF THEM,
WHETHER THEY HAVE ADVISED WITH THE PRISONER, SO THAT HE IS READY TO
PLEAD, AND IF NOT, WILL ALLOW THEM PROPER TIME FOR THAT PURPOSE.  BUT
IT IS USUALLY THE CASE THAT THE PRISONER HAS PREVIOUSLY EMPLOYED AND
CONSULTED COUNSEL, AND OF COURSE IS PREPARED TO PLEAD."  SEE POWELL V.
ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, FOOTNOTE, 63-64.  SEE ALSO, CONNECTICUT GENERAL
STATUTES, REVISION OF 1930, SECS. 2267, 6476.  FLORIDA:  CUTTS V.
STATE, 54 FLA. 21, 23, 45 SO. 491(1907).  SEE COMPILED GENERAL LAWS,
1927, SEC. 8375(CAPITAL CRIMES).  INDIANA:  WEBB V. BAIRD, 6 IND. 13,
18(1854).  SEE ALSO KNOX COUNTY COUNCIL V. STATE EX REL. MCCORMICK, 217
IND. 493, 497-498, 29 N.E.2D 405(1940); STATE V. HILGEMANN, 218 IND.
572, 34 N.E.2D 129, 131(1941).  MICHIGAN:  PEOPLE V. CRANDELL, 270
MICH. 124, 127, 258 N.W. 224(1935).  PENNSYLVANIA:  COMMONWEALTH V.
RICHARDS, 111 PA. SUPER.  124, 169 A. 464(1933).  SEE COMMONWEALTH EX
REL. MCGLINN V. SMITH, 344 PA. 41, 49, 59, 24 A.2D 1.  VIRGINIA:
WATKINS V. COMMONWEALTH, 174 VA. 518, 521-525, 6 S.E.2D 670(1940). 
WEST VIRGINIA: STATE V. KELLISON, 56 W. VA. 690, 692-693, 47 S.E.
166(1904).  WISCONSIN:  CARPENTER V. DANE COUNTY, 9 WIS. 274(1859). 
SEE STAT. 1941, SEC. 357.26. 

C. BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  GEORGIA:  CONSTITUTION OF 1865, ART.
1, PAR. 8.  SEE MARTIN V. GEORGIA, 51 GA. 567, 568(1874).  KENTUCKY:
KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION, SEC. 11.  SEE FUGATE V. COMMONWEALTH, 254 KY.
663, 665, 72 S.W.2D 47(1934).  II.  STATES WHICH ARE WITHOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, STATUTES, OR JUDICIAL DECISIONS CLEARLY
ESTABLISHING THIS REQUIREMENT: 

COLORADO:  GENERAL LAWS, 1877, SECS. 913-916; COLORADO STAT. ANN.
1935, VOL. 2, C. 48, SECS. 502, 505, AS AMENDED BY LAWS OF 1937, 498,
SEC. 1.  SEE ABSHIER V. PEOPLE, 87 COLO. 507, 517, 289 P. 1081. 
DELAWARE:  SEE 6 LAWS OF DELAWARE 741; 7 ID. 410; REV. CODE, 1935,
SECS. 4306, 4310.  MAINE:  SEE REV. STAT. 1857, 713; REV. STAT. 1930,
C. 146, SEC. 14.  MASSACHUSETTS:  SEE MCDONALD V. COMMONWEALTH, 173
MASS. 322, 327, 53 N.E. 874(1899).  NEW MEXICO.  NORTH CAROLINA.  RHODE
ISLAND:  SEE STATE V. HUDSON, 55 R.I. 141, 179 A. 130(1935); GENERAL
LAWS, 1938, C. 625, SEC. 62.  SOUTH CAROLINA:  SEE STATE V. JONES, 172
S.C. 129, 130, 173 S.E. 77(1934); CODE, 1932, VOL. I, SEC. 980. 
VERMONT.  III.  STATES IN WHICH DICTA OF JUDICIAL OPINIONS ARE IN
HARMONY WITH THE DECISION BY THE COURT BELOW IN THIS CASE: 

ALABAMA:  GILCHRIST V. STATE, 234 ALA. 73, 74, 173 SO. 651. 
MISSISSIPPI:  REED V. STATE, 143 MISS.  686, 689, 109 SO. 715. 

IV.  STATES IN WHICH THE REQUIREMENT OF COUNSEL FOR INDIGENT
DEFENDANTS IN NON-CAPITAL CASES HAS BEEN AFFIRMATIVELY REJECTED: 

MARYLAND:  SEE, HOWEVER, COATES V. STATE, 180 MD. 502, 25 A.2D 676. 
TEXAS:  GILLEY V. STATE, 114 TEX. CR. 548, 26 S.W.2D 1070.  BUT CF.
BRADY V. STATE, 122 TEX. CR. 275, 278, 54 S.W.2D 513. 

FN1  DISCUSSION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY ITS SPONSORS IN THE
SENATE AND HOUSE SHOWS THEIR PURPOSE TO MAKE SECURE AGAINST INVASION BY
THE STATES THE FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES AND SAFEGUARDS SET OUT IN THE BILL
OF RIGHTS.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND SUBSEQUENT COURSE OF THE
AMENDMENT TO ITS FINAL ADOPTION HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN FLACK, "THE
ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  FLACK CITES THE CONGRESSIONAL
DEBATES, COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND OTHER DATA ON THE SUBJECT.  WHETHER THE
AMENDMENT ACCOMPLISHED THE PURPOSE ITS SPONSORS INTENDED HAS BEEN
CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, AMONG OTHERS:
O'NEIL V. VERMONT, 144 U.S. 323, DISSENT, 337; MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S.
581, DISSENT, 605; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 98-99, DISSENT,
114. 

FN2  IN THIRTY-FIVE STATES, THERE IS SOME CLEAR LEGAL REQUIREMENT OR
AN ESTABLISHED PRACTICE THAT INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN SERIOUS NON-CAPITAL
AS WELL AS CAPITAL CRIMINAL CASES (E.G., WHERE THE CRIME CHARGED IS A
FELONY, A "PENITENTIARY OFFENSE," AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT
FOR SEVERAL YEARS) BE PROVIDED WITH COUNSEL ON REQUEST.  IN NINE
STATES, THERE ARE NO CLEARLY CONTROLLING STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS AND NO DECISIVE REPORTED CASES ON THE SUBJECT.  IN TWO
STATES, THERE ARE DICTA IN JUDICIAL DECISIONS INDICATING A PROBABILITY
THAT THE HOLDING OF THE COURT BELOW IN THIS CASE WOULD BE FOLLOWED
UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN ONLY TWO STATES (INCLUDING THE ONE IN
WHICH THIS CASE AROSE) HAS THE PRACTICE HERE UPHELD BY THIS COURT BEEN
AFFIRMATIVELY SUSTAINED.  APPENDED TO THIS OPINION IS A LIST OF THE
SEVERAL STATES DIVIDED INTO THESE FOUR CATEGORIES. 
..END :





















STANDARD OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 316 U.S. 481 


NO. 1125.  ARGUED MAY 5, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 19 CAL.2D
104, 119 P.2D 329, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED, WAS DRAWN IN
QUESTION IN THE STATE COURT ON THE GROUND OF ITS BEING REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AN APPEAL LIES UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC.
237(A) FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT SUSTAINING THE STATUTE.  P.
482. 

2.  IN UPHOLDING A STATE TAX ON SALES OF MOTOR FUEL, AS APPLIED TO
SALES TO UNITED STATES ARMY POST EXCHANGES, UNDER A STATE STATUTE
CONTAINING AN EXPRESS EXCEPTION OF FUEL SOLD TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OR ANY DEPARTMENT THEREOF, THE STATE COURT CONSTRUED THE
EXCEPTION AS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE, AS IT CONCLUDED UPON A CONSIDERATION
OF THE RELATION OF SUCH EXCHANGES TO THE UNITED STATES, THEY WERE NOT
INSTRUMENTALITIES OR AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  HELD, A DECISION
OF A FEDERAL QUESTION BY WHICH THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND UPON APPEAL.  P.
483. 

3.  ARMY POST EXCHANGES ARE ESTABLISHED AND OPERATED UNDER
REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR, AUTHORIZED BY ACTS OF CONGRESS,
AND HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW.  P. 483. 

4.  ARMY POST EXCHANGES ARE ARMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT -
INTERGRAL PARTS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT PARTAKING OF ITS IMMUNITY UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES.  P. 485. 

5.  SINCE THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA SUPERME
COURT WOULD HAVE CONSTRUED THE ACT IN QUESTION AS APPLICABLE TO POST
EXCHANGES IF IT HAD CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD THEIR FEDERAL STATUS, A
DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH APPLICATION IS NOT
CALLED FOR BY THE PRESENT RECORD; AND THE CASE IS THEREFORE REMANDED TO
THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  P. 485. 

STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA V. JOHNSON, TREASURER OF
CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OIL COMPANY IN
AN ACTION TO RECOVER A TAX PAYMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CALIFORNIA MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL LICENSE TAX ACT  FN1  IMPOSES A
LICENSE TAX, MEASURED BY GALLONAGE, ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DISTRIBUTING
ANY MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL.  SECTION 10 STATES THAT THE ACT IS INAPPLICABLE
"TO ANY MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SOLD TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
OR ANY DEPARTMENT THEREOF FOR OFFICIAL USE OF SAID GOVERNMENT."  THE
APPELLANT, A "DISTRIBUTOR"  FN2 WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, SOLD
GASOLINE TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY POST EXCHANGES IN CALIFORNIA.  THE
STATE LEVIED A TAX, AND THE APPELLANT PAID IT UNDER PROTEST.  THE
APPELLANT THEN FILED THIS SUIT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO
COUNTY SEEKING TO RECOVER THE PAYMENT ON TWO GROUNDS:  (1) THAT SALES
TO THE EXCHANGES WERE EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER SEC. 10; (2) THAT, IF
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF THE TAX ON SUCH SALES, THE
ACT WOULD IMPOSE A BURDEN UPON INSTRUMENTALITIES OR AGENCIES OF THE
UNITED STATES CONTRARY TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  HOLDING AGAINST
THE APPELLANT ON BOTH GROUNDS, THE TRIAL COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR
THE STATE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AFFIRMED.  19 CAL.2D 104,
119 P.2D 329.  SINCE VALIDITY OF THE STATE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED WAS
DRAWN IN QUESTION ON THE GROUND OF ITS BEING REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, WE THINK THE CASE IS PROPERLY HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC.
237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

SINCE SEC. 10 OF THE CALIFORNIA ACT MADE THE TAX INAPPLICABLE "TO ANY
MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SOLD TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY
DEPARTMENT THEREOF," IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LANGUAGE OF THIS EXEMPTION INCLUDED
SALES TO POST EXCHANGES.  IF THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 10 OF THE
ACT HAD BEEN BASED PURELY ON LOCAL LAW, THIS CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE
BEEN CONCLUSIVE, AND WE SHOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATUTE SO
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IS REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  BUT IN
DECIDING THAT POST EXCHANGES WERE NOT "THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OR ANY DEPARTMENT THEREOF," THE COURT DID NOT RELY UPON THE LAW
OF CALIFORNIA.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT RELIED UPON ITS DETERMINATION
CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POST EXCHANGES AND THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, A RELATIONSHIP WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY FEDERAL
LAW.  FOR POST EXCHANGES OPERATE UNDER REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF
WAR PURSUANT TO FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  THESE REGULATIONS AND THE PRACTICES
UNDER THEM ESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE POST EXCHANGE AND THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, AND TOGETHER WITH THE RELEVANT STATUTORY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS FROM WHICH THEY DERIVE, AFFORD THE DATA UPON
WHICH THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE POST EXCHANGE MAY BE DETERMINED.  IT WAS
UPON A DETERMINATION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION, THEREFORE, THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA RESTED ITS CONCLUSION THAT, BY SEC. 10, SALES TO
POST EXCHANGES WERE NOT EXEMPTED FROM THE TAX.  SINCE THIS
DETERMINATION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS BY A STATE COURT, WE ARE NOT
BOUND BY IT.  WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT IS CORRECT. 

ON JULY 25, 1895, THE SECRETARY OF WAR, UNDER AUTHORITY OF
CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS  FN3 PROMULGATED REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF POST EXCHANGES.  FN4  THESE REGULATIONS HAVE SINCE
BEEN AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND THE EXCHANGE HAS BECOME A REGULAR
FEATURE OF ARMY POSTS.  THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTROL OF POST
EXCHANGES HAVE BEEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS RATHER THAN SPECIFIC
STATUTORY DIRECTIONS DOES NOT ALTER THEIR STATUS, FOR AUTHORIZED WAR
DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW.  FN5 

CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF POST EXCHANGES ARE
GOVERNMENTAL HAS BEEN FREQUENT.  SINCE 1903,  FN6  CONGRESS HAS
REPEATEDLY MADE SUBTANTIAL APPROPRIATIONS TO BE EXPENDED UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR FOR CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND
MAINTENANCE OF SUITABLE BUILDINGS FOR POST EXCHANGES.  IN 1933 AND
1934, CONGRESS ORDERED CERTAIN MONEYS DERIVED FROM DISBANDED EXCHANGES
TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE FEDERAL TREASURY.  FN7  AND IN 1936, CONGRESS
GAVE CONSENT TO STATE TAXATION OF GASOLINE SOLD BY OR THROUGH POST
EXCHANGES, WHEN THE GASOLINE WAS NOT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE
UNITED STATES.  FN8 

THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF AN ARMY POST, SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS
AND THE COMMANDS OF HIS OWN SUPERIOR OFFICERS, HAS COMPLETE AUTHORITY
TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN EXCHANGE.  HE DETAILS A POST EXCHANGE
OFFICER TO MANAGE ITS AFFAIRS.  THIS OFFICER AND THE COMMANDING
OFFICERS OF THE VARIOUS COMPANY UNITS MAKE UP A COUNCIL WHICH
SUPERVISES EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES.  NONE OF THESE OFFICERS RECEIVES ANY
COMPENSATION OTHER THAN HIS REGULAR SALARY.  THE OBJECT OF THE
EXCHANGES IS TO PROVIDE CONVENIENT AND RELIABLE SOURCES WHERE SOLDIERS
CAN OBTAIN THEIR ORDINARY NEEDS AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE PRICES. 
SOLDIERS, THEIR FAMILIES, AND CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON MILITARY POSTS HERE
AND ABROAD CAN BUY AT EXCHANGES.  THE GOVERNMENT ASSUMES NONE OF THE
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE EXCHANGE.  BUT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS, UNDER
GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, HANDLE AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL FUNDS OF THE
EXCHANGE WHICH ARE OBTAINED FROM THE COMPANIES OR DETACHMENTS COMPOSING
ITS MEMBERSHIP.  PROFITS, IF ANY, DO NOT GO TO INDIVIDUALS.  THEY ARE
USED TO IMPROVE THE SOLDIERS' MESS, TO PROVIDE VARIOUS TYPES OF
RECREATION, AND IN GENERAL TO ADD TO THE PLEASURE AND COMFORT OF THE
TROOPS. 

FROM ALL OF THIS, WE CONCLUDE THAT POST EXCHANGES AS NOW OPERATED ARE
ARMS OF THE GOVERNMENT DEEMED BY IT ESSENTIAL FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  THEY ARE INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT,
SHARE IN FULFILLING THE DUTIES ENTRUSTED TO IT, AND PARTAKE OF WHATEVER
IMMUNITIES IT MAY HAVE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL STATUTES.  IN
CONCLUDING OTHERWISE, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA WAS IN ERROR. 

WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE CONSTRUED THE MOTOR
VEHICLE FUEL LICENSE ACT AS APPLICABLE TO POST EXCHANGES IF IT HAD
DECIDED THE ISSUE OF LEGAL STATUS OF POST EXCHANGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THIS OPINION, WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.  HENCE, A DETERMINATION HERE
OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH AN APPLICATION OF THE ACT IS NOT
CALLED FOR BY THE STATE OF THE RECORD.  CF. MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA
CO., 309 U.S. 551, 557.  ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND
REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE COURT BELOW FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CAL. STATS. 1923, PP. 572, 573, 574; 1927, P. 1309; 1933, PP.
1636, 1637; 1937, P. 2219. 

FN2 SECTION 7 OF THE ACT PROVIDES:  "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT ALL
MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL SOLD, DONATED, CONSIGNED FOR SALE, BARTERED OR USED
SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE DISTRIBUTED.  ..." 

FN3  16 STAT. 315, 319; 18 STAT. 337. 

FN4  G.O. 46, HDQRS.  OF THE ARMY. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. ELIASON, 16 PET. 291, 302; GRATIOT V. UNITED
STATES, 4 HOW.  80, 117-118. 

FN6  32 STAT. 927, 938. 

FN7  47 STAT. 1571, 1573; 48 STAT. 1224, 1229.  SEE HEARINGS, HOUSE,
WAR DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1934, 72D CONG., 2D SESS,, 648. 

FN8  49 STAT. 1519, 1521, AMENDED BY 54 STAT. 1059, 1060-1061. 
..END :















QUERY V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 486 


NO. 619.  ARGUED MAY 5, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 121 F.2D 631,
VACATED. 


1.  A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE TAX ON THE PURCHASE
AND SALE OF GOODS AT ARMY POST EXCHANGES, UPON THE GROUND THAT SUCH
EXCHANGES ARE FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES AND THAT THEREFORE THE STATE
STATUTE IMPOSING THE TAX IS, AS APPLIED TO THEM, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS A
SUIT COGNIZABLE BY A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC.
266.  PP. 487, 490. 

2.  AN APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF INJUNCTION GRANTED BY A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 266, LIES DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT,
NOT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 490. 

3.  WHERE APPEALS IN SUCH A CASE WERE TAKEN ERRONEOUSLY TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND FROM THE COURT TO THIS, AND THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH A DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT TO
THIS COURT, UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 266, HAD ELAPSED, THE DECREE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF A FRESH DECREE FROM WHICH A TIMELY
APPEAL MIGHT BE TAKEN.  P. 491. 

QUERY ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMMISSION, V.
UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 653, TO REVIEW A DECREE SUSTAINING AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE SALES TAX AS APPLIED TO THE PURCHASE AND
SALE OF GOODS AT ARMY POST EXCHANGES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A STATUTE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IMPOSES A LICENSE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE
OF SELLING TOBACCO PRODUCTS, PLAYING CARDS, SOFT DRINKS, AND OTHER
ENUMERATED ARTICLES.  FN1 THE UNITED STATES AND TWO ARMY OFFICERS
BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA TAX
COMMISSION TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THIS STATUTE WITH RESPECT TO
ACTIVITIES OF UNITED STATES ARMY POST EXCHANGES LOCATED WITHIN THE
STATE.  THE BILL ALLEGED THAT POST EXCHANGES ARE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
THE UNITED STATES, OPERATING AS VOLUNTARY UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS
UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARY OF
WAR; THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD ORDERED THAT THE TAX BE APPLIED TO THE
PURCHASE AND SALE OF COMMODITIES BY THE EXCHANGES; THAT ENFORCEMENT
WOULD INFLICT IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE FOR WHICH THE
COMPLAINANTS WERE WITHOUT ANY PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY IN
THE COURTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT GIVEN BY A
RECENT FEDERAL STATUTE (54 STAT. 1059) FOR THE IMPOSITION OF CERTAIN
KINDS OF STATE TAXES WITHIN "FEDERAL AREAS" DID NOT EXTEND TO THE
IMPOSITION OF TAXES ON THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF COMMODITIES BY POST
EXCHANGES; AND THAT THE THREATENED APPLICATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA
STATUTE WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT AND WOULD BE REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE RESPONDENTS' ANSWER ADMITTED THE THREATENED ENFORCEMENT
AND THE ABSENCE OF REMEDY IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA COURTS, BUT DENIED THAT
POST EXCHANGES ARE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO THEM WOULD BE REPUGNANT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION.  WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL STATUTE REFERRED TO
IN THE COMPLAINT, THE ANSWER STATED:  "  ...  NO CONSENT OF CONGRESS IS
NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE STATE TO LEVY ITS LAWFUL TAX  ...  , THE
TERRITORIAL IMMUNITY HAVING BEEN REMOVED BY PUBLIC ACT NO. 819, 76TH
CONGRESS." 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS
OF SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,  FN2  HEARD THE CASE AND GRANTED THE
INJUNCTION SOUGHT BY THE COMPLAINANTS.  37 F.SUPP.  972.  THE OPINION
ACCOMPANYING THE DECREE STATED, HOWEVER, THAT THE THREE JUDGES WERE OF
THE VIEW THAT A DISTRICT JUDGE ALONE HAD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO PASS
UPON THE CASE; AND THAT THE DECREE SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED "NOT
AS THE DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT, BUT AS HIS DECREE, FROM WHICH
APPEAL LIES TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND NOT TO THE SUPREME
COURT."  NEVERTHELESS, ALL THREE JUDGES SIGNED THE DECREE "SO THAT IN
THE EVENT IT SHOULD HEREAFTER BE DETERMINED THAT THE CASE WAS ONE FOR
THREE JUDGES UNDER THE STATUTE, AN APPROPRIATE DECREE WILL HAVE BEEN
ENTERED."  37 F.SUPP.  972, 977.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, OF THE
SAME VIEW ON THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, GRANTED AN APPEAL AND
AFFIRMED.  121 F.2D 631. 

IF NO MORE THAN A QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE HAD
BEEN INVOLVED, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NECESSITY FOR A THREE-JUDGE
COURT PURSUANT TO SEC. 266.  EX PARTE BUDER, 271 U.S. 461, 466-467.  AS
A BASIS FOR ITS CONCLUSION THAT A COURT OF ONE DISTRICT JUDGE WAS THE
APPROPRIATE FORUM HERE, THE DISTRICT COURT STATED THAT THE "QUESTION
INVOLVED IS WHETHER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC ACT NO. 819, 76TH
CONG., 3D SESS.,  ...  THE TAXES IMPOSED BY  ...  THE STATE STATUTE,
ARE APPLICABLE TO AND COLLECTIBLE FROM THE UNITED STATES ARMY POST
EXCHANGE AT FORT JACKSON, RICHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA."  FN3  AND
BOTH COURTS BELOW THOUGHT THAT DISPOSITION OF THE CASE REQUIRED ONLY A
DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF POST EXCHANGES CHANGES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  37 F.SUPP.  972, 973, 977; 121 F.2D
631, 632.  BUT THE COMPLAINANTS SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE STATE OFFICERS
FROM ENFORCING THE STATE STATUTE UPON THE GROUND OF THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE THREATENED APPLICATION.  NOT ONLY WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY THE GROUND ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINTS FOR THE
RELIEF SOUGHT, BUT IT APPEARS THAT THE RELIEF AWARDED WAS PREDICATED ON
THE SAME GROUND.  CF. WILENTZ V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, 306 U.S. 573, 576. 

FOR THE FEDERAL ACT, SO FAR AS HERE RELEVANT, MERELY DECLARES THAT
"NO PERSON SHALL BE RELIEVED FROM LIABILITY" FOR CERTAIN STATE TAXES
"ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE OR USE, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH SUCH TAX IS
LEVIED, OCCURRED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHIN A FEDERAL AREA."  A PROVISO
ADDS THAT THE "ACT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OR
COLLECTION OF ANY TAX ON OR FROM THE UNITED STATES OR ANY
INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF."  THE COMPLAINANTS, ASSERTING THAT THE POST
EXCHANGE IS A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY TO WHICH THE STATUTORY CONSENT
DOES NOT APPLY, REST THEIR ENTIRE CASE UPON A NON-STATUTORY GROUND: THE
IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION WHICH THEY CONTEND MUST BE GIVEN, UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION, TO THE POST EXCHANGE AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
UNITED STATES.  AND NOTWITHSTANDING ITS ASSERTION THAT ONLY THE MEANING
OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE WAS INVOLVED, THE DISTRICT COURT NEVERTHELESS
FOUND IT NECESSARY TO INCLUDE IN THE OPINION ACCOMPANYING THE DECREE A
STATEMENT THAT THE THREATS AND ATTEMPTS TO ENFORCE THE STATE STATUTE
"CONSTITUTE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL." 

HERE A SUBSTANTIAL CHARGE HAS BEEN MADE THAT A STATE STATUTE, AS
APPLIED TO THE COMPLAINANTS, VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.  UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE HELD THAT RELIEF IN THE FORM OF AN INJUNCTION
CAN BE AFFORDED ONLY BY A THREE-JUDGE COURT PURSUANT TO SEC. 266. 
STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS S.W. RY. CO., 282 U.S. 10; EX PARTE BRANSFORD,
310 U.S. 354, 361.  AND THIS IS NOT, LIKE PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES,
312 U.S. 246, A CASE IN WHICH THE STATE OFFICIALS THREATENED TO ENGAGE
IN CONDUCT WHICH STATE LAW COULD NOT REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED TO
AUTHORIZE.  THE COMPLAINANTS IN THIS CASE SOUGHT INTERLOCUTORY AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST "THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR
EXECUTION" OF A "STATUTE OF A STATE"; THEY SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE
ACTION OF OFFICERS "OF SUCH STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF
SUCH STATUTE"; AND THEIR ATTACK WAS BASED ENTIRELY "UPON THE GROUND OF
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH STATUTE." 

SINCE THERE WAS SUCH COMPLETE SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH
MAKE SEC. 266 APPLICABLE, THE CAUSE WAS A PROPER ONE FOR A THREE-JUDGE
COURT AND APPEAL DID NOT LIE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  BUT A
DIRECTION BY US TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL
WHICH THE PETITIONERS BROUGHT TO IT WOULD, WITHOUT MORE, TERMINATE THE
LITIGATION.  FOR THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A DIRECT APPEAL MIGHT HAVE BEEN
BROUGHT TO THIS COURT UNDER SEC. 266 HAS ELAPSED.  IN THE PRESENT
CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, WE THINK THE PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO SUCH AN
APPEAL SHOULD BE PRESERVED.  CF. PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
254.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS THEREFORE VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF A FRESH DECREE, FROM WHICH A TIMELY
APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN IF THE PETITIONERS SO DESIRE.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA (1932) VOL. II, SECS. 2527-2557. 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 380.  THIS SECTION PROVIDES IN PART:  "NO
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SUSPENDING OR RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT,
OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF ANY STATUTE OF A STATE BY RESTRAINING THE
ACTION OF ANY OFFICER OF SUCH STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF
SUCH STATUTE  ...  SHALL BE ISSUED OR GRANTED  ...  UNLESS THE
APPLICATION FOR THE SAME SHALL BE PRESENTED TO  ...  AND SHALL BE HEARD
AND DETERMINED BY THREE JUDGES, OF WHOM AT LEAST ONE SHALL BE A JUSTICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT OR A CIRCUIT JUDGE, AND THE OTHER TWO MAY BE
EITHER CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGES, AND UNLESS A MAJORITY OF SAID THREE
JUDGES SHALL CONCUR IN GRANTING SUCH APPLICATION.  ...  AN APPEAL MAY
BE TAKEN DIRECT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE
ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING  ...  AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IN SUCH
CASE." 

FN3  THERE WAS A STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT IF THE
COMPLAINANTS SHOULD PREVAIL WITH RESPECT TO THE POST EXCHANGES AT FORT
JACKSON, THE RELIEF GRANTED SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN OTHER POST
EXCHANGES, SHIPS' STORES, AND OFFICERS' CLUBS.  BOTH COURTS BELOW
PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION, WHICH WE ACCEPT HERE, THAT ALL OF THESE
ORGANIZATIONS WERE LOCATED IN "FEDERAL AREAS."  TO THIS EXTENT, IF ANY,
THAT THIS ASSUMPTION IS INCORRECT, PUBLIC ACT NO. 819(54 STAT. 1059)
HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER. 
..END :













BRILLHART V. EXCESS INS. CO., 316 U.S. 491 


NO. 772.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 121 F.2D
776, REVERSED. 


BEFORE DISMISSING A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS ACT AND PRESENTING ONLY LOCAL QUESTIONS, UPON THE GROUND THAT
ANOTHER SUIT INVOLVING THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER AND BETWEEN THE SAME
PARTIES IS PENDING IN A STATE COURT, THE FEDERAL COURT MUST DETERMINE
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WHETHER THE CLAIMS SET UP BY THE PLAINTIFF HAVE
BEEN FORECLOSED BY LOCAL LAW, OR CAN ADEQUATELY BE TESTED IN THE SUIT
IN THE STATE COURT.  P. 495. 

BRILLHART, ADMINISTRATOR, V. EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 606, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH REVERSED A DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING A BILL FILED UNDER THE FEDERAL
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE EXCESS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, THE RESPONDENT HERE, BROUGHT
THIS SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE ITS RIGHTS UNDER A
REINSURANCE AGREEMENT MADE IN 1932 WITH THE CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.  BY THAT CONTRACT THE RESPONDENT AGREED
TO REIMBURSE CENTRAL, WITHIN SPECIFIED LIMITS, FOR ANY "ULTIMATE NET
LOSS" (DEFINED AS "THE SUM ACTUALLY PAID IN CASH IN SETTLEMENT OF
LOSSES") SUSTAINED BY CENTRAL UNDER AUTOMOBILE PUBLIC LIABILITY
POLICIES THEREAFTER TO BE ISSUED.  CENTRAL UNDERTOOK TO NOTIFY THE
RESPONDENT OF ANY ACCIDENT THAT MIGHT BE COVERED BY THE REINSURANCE
AGREEMENT.  IN 1934, CENTRAL ISSUED A PUBLIC LIABILITY POLICY TO COOPER
JARRETT, INC. LATER IN THAT YEAR, THE PETITIONER'S DECEDENT WAS KILLED
BY A TRUCK LEASED BY COOPER-JARRETT, INC., AND SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST
THE LATTER IN A MISSOURI STATE COURT.  CENTRAL REFUSED TO DEFEND THE
SUIT, HOWEVER, CLAIMING THAT THE POLICY DID NOT COVER THE ACCIDENT. 

WHILE THE SUIT WAS PENDING, BOTH CENTRAL AND COOPER-JARRETT, INC.,
ENCOUNTERED FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES.  BY ORDER OF AN ILLINOIS STATE
COURT, CENTRAL WAS LIQUIDATED AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST IT BARRED.  COOPER
JARRETT, INC., FILED A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B IN
THE MISSOURI FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, AND THE FINAL DECREE IN THAT
PROCEEDING DISCHARGED IT FROM ANY JUDGMENT THAT HAD BEEN OR MIGHT BE
OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER.  COOPER-JARRETT, INC., HAVING ABANDONED
DEFENSE OF THE SUIT, THE PETITIONER OBTAINED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF
$20,000 AGAINST IT ON APRIL 22, 1939, AND SUBSEQUENTLY INSTITUTED
GARNISHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CENTRAL IN A MISSOURI STATE COURT. 
BEING UNABLE TO RECOVER ANY PART OF THE JUDGMENT FROM EITHER COOPER
JARRETT, INC., OR CENTRAL, THE PETITIONER ON MAY 29, 1940, MADE THE
RESPONDENT A PARTY TO THE GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING THROUGH SERVICE ON THE
MISSOURI SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE. 

BUT, IN THE MEANTIME, THE RESPONDENT HAD FILED THIS SUIT FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR KANSAS.  ITS
BILL SHOWED DIVERSITY OF THE PARTIES' CITIZENSHIP AND THE REQUISITE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  IT ALLEGED, INTER ALIA, THAT, WHEN THE BILL IN
THE FEDERAL SUIT WAS FILED, THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE
GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURT; THAT, IN VIOLATION OF THE
TERMS OF THE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT, CENTRAL HAD NEVER NOTIFIED THE
RESPONDENT EITHER OF THE ACCIDENT RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF THE
PETITIONER'S DECEDENT OR OF THE SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST COOPER-JARRETT,
INC.; THAT THE RESPONDENT'S ONLY OBLIGATION UNDER THE REINSURANCE
AGREEMENT WAS TO INDEMNIFY CENTRAL AGAINST LOSS FOR SUMS ACTUALLY PAID
IN CASH IN SETTLEMENT OF LOSSES FOR WHICH CENTRAL WAS LIABLE, AND,
SINCE CENTRAL HAD NEVER SATISFIED THE CLAIM AGAINST COOPER-JARRETT,
INC., THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE OBLIGATED IN ANY WAY UNDER THE
REINSURANCE AGREEMENT; THAT COOPER-JARRETT, INC., WAS NOT LIABLE TO THE
PETITIONER FOR THE DEATH OF HIS DECEDENT; THAT, EVEN IF IT WERE,
CENTRAL WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE SUIT, AND ITS FAILURE TO DO SO
DISCHARGED THE RESPONDENT OF ANY LIABILITY UNDER THE REINSURANCE
AGREEMENT; THAT, EVEN IF IT WERE ORIGINALLY LIABLE, THE DISCHARGE OF
CENTRAL AND COOPER-JARRETT, INC., HAD THE EFFECT OF RELEASING THE
RESPONDENT; AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPER
JARRETT, INC., HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED. 

THE PETITIONER MOVED TO DISMISS THE SUIT, PRINCIPALLY ON THE GROUND
THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE SUIT COULD NOW BE DECIDED IN THE
GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING PENDING IN THE MISSOURI STATE COURT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE BILL, APPARENTLY BECAUSE OF A RELUCTANCE
TO PROLONG THE LITIGATION, FN1  WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER THE CLAIMS
ASSERTED BY THE RESPONDENT COULD, UNDER MISSOURI LAW, BE RAISED IN THE
PENDING GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT
DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, BUT, INSTEAD OF
REMITTING THE CAUSE FOR A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DISCRETION, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT WITH DIRECTIONS THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT PROCEED TO A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS.  121 F.2D 776.  IN VIEW
OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTION AFFECTING THE INTER-RELATIONSHIP OF THE STATE
AND FEDERAL COURTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS ACT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  314 U.S.
606. 

ALTHOUGH THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT UNDER THE
FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT, IT WAS UNDER NO COMPULSION TO
EXERCISE THAT JURISDICTION.  THE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE
BILL WAS ADDRESSED TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  AETNA CASUALTY CO.
V. QUARLES, 92 F.2D 321; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. CONSUMERS FINANCE
SERVICE, 101 F.2D 514; AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. V. FREUNDT, 103
F.2D 613; SEE NOTE, 51 YALE L.J. 511.  COMPARE CANADA MALTING CO. V.
PATERSON CO., 285 U.S. 413, 422-23; DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R.
CO., 279 U.S. 377.  THE MOTION RESTED UPON THE CLAIM THAT, SINCE
ANOTHER PROCEEDING WAS PENDING IN A STATE COURT IN WHICH ALL THE
MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES COULD BE FULLY ADJUDICATED,
A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT WAS UNWARRANTED.  THE
CORRECTNESS OF THIS CLAIM WAS CERTAINLY RELEVANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER
THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD ASSUME JURISDICTION AND PROCEED TO DETERMINE
THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  ORDINARILY IT WOULD BE UNECONOMICAL AS WELL
AS VEXATIOUS FOR A FEDERAL COURT TO PROCEED IN A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
SUIT WHERE ANOTHER SUIT IS PENDING IN A STATE COURT PRESENTING THE SAME
ISSUES, NOT GOVERNED BY FEDERAL LAW, BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES. 
GRATUITOUS INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDERLY AND COMPREHENSIVE DISPOSITION
OF A STATE COURT LITIGATION SHOULD BE AVOIDED. 

WHERE A DISTRICT COURT IS PRESENTED WITH A CLAIM SUCH AS WAS MADE
HERE, IT SHOULD ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE QUESTIONS IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
THE PARTIES TO THE FEDERAL SUIT, AND WHICH ARE NOT FORECLOSED UNDER THE
APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE LAW, CAN BETTER BE SETTLED IN THE PROCEEDING
PENDING IN THE STATE COURT.  THIS MAY ENTAIL INQUIRY INTO THE SCOPE OF
THE PENDING STATE COURT PROCEEDING AND THE NATURE OF DEFENSES OPEN
THERE.  THE FEDERAL COURT MAY HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE CLAIMS OF
ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST CAN SATISFACTORILY BE ADJUDICATED IN THAT
PROCEEDING, WHETHER NECESSARY PARTIES HAVE BEEN JOINED, WHETHER SUCH
PARTIES ARE AMENABLE TO PROCESS IN THAT PROCEEDING, ETC. 

WE DO NOT NOW ATTEMPT A COMPREHENSIVE ENUMERATION OF WHAT IN OTHER
CASES MAY BE REVEALED AS RELEVANT FACTORS GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF A
DISTRICT COURT'S DISCRETION.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE
RECORD BEFORE US THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER,
UNDER APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW, THE CLAIMS SOUGHT TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN THIS SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT HAD EITHER BEEN
FORECLOSED BY MISSOURI LAW OR COULD ADEQUATELY BE TESTED IN THE
GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING PENDING IN THE MISSOURI STATE COURT.  THIS WAS A
MATTER FOR DETERMINATION, CERTAINLY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  NOR DID THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN REVERSING THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, PURPORT TO FIND THAT UNDER CONTROLLING
MISSOURI LAW THE ISSUES SET UP BY THE RESPONDENT IN THIS SUIT COULD NOT
BE CONTESTED IN THE PENDING MISSOURI PROCEEDING.  FN2 

WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A REINSURER CAN BE REACHED
THROUGH A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED ARE QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW. 
WHETHER THE JUDGMENT AGAINST COOPER-JARRETT, INC., COULD SERVE AS A
BASIS FOR GARNISHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT WAS THEREFORE
A MATTER OF MISSOURI LAW.  BUT THAT ISSUE WAS NEVER TENDERED BEFORE THE
KANSAS DISTRICT COURT; THAT COURT DID NOT PROFESS TO PASS UPON IT, AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN REVERSING THE DECREE OF DISMISSAL,
SHED NO LIGHT UPON IT. 

IF THE LOWER COURTS HAD FOUND THAT UNDER MISSOURI LAW THE
RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS COULD NOT ADEQUATELY BE TESTED IN THE PENDING
GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING, OR THAT MISSOURI LAW ON THE SUBJECT WAS
DOUBTFUL, AND UPON THE BASIS OF SUCH A FINDING HAD TAKEN JURISDICTION
OF THIS SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, WE WOULD NOT DISTURB SUCH A
FINDING.  BUT NO SUCH FINDING CAN BE EXTRACTED FROM THIS RECORD.  AND
IT IS NOT FOR US TO ATTEMPT TO PRONOUNCE INDEPENDENTLY UPON MISSOURI
LAW.  TO DO SO WOULD BE TO DISREGARD THE LIMITATIONS INHERENT IN OUR
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO FIND OUR WAY THROUGH
A MAZE OF LOCAL STATUTES AND DECISIONS ON SO TECHNICAL AND SPECIALIZED
A SUBJECT AS THE SCOPE OF A GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING IN A PARTICULAR
JURISDICTION.  FOR ONE THING, IT IS TOO EASY TO LOSE OUR WAY.  FOR
EXAMPLE, THERE ARE NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
WHICH DECLARE A GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT THE GARNISHEE CAN ASSERT ANY
DEFENSES IN A GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING THAT WOULD BE OPEN IN A SUIT
BROUGHT AGAINST HIM BY THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR.  E.G., WEIL V. TYLER, 38
MO. 545, 547; MCDERMOTT V. DONEGAN, 44 MO. 85, 89; SHEEDY V. SECOND
NATIONAL BANK, 62 MO. 17, 24.  WE DO NOT CITE THESE DECISIONS TO SHOW
THAT THE RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS IN THIS CASE COULD ADEQUATELY BE TESTED IN
THE GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING PENDING IN THE MISSOURI STATE COURT.  FOR
THE CRUX OF OUR RULING IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE CALLED UPON TO MAKE
SUCH A DETERMINATION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  BUT THESE UTTERANCES OF
THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT DO SERVE AS A WARNING THAT SCATTERED
OPINIONS OF AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF A STATE MAY CONVEY ONLY
DOUBTS AND CONFUSION TO ONE INEXPERT IN THE LAW OF THAT STATE AND YET
BE ENTIRELY CLEAR AND CONSISTENT WHEN PLACED IN THE MOSAIC OF THE WHOLE
LAW OF THAT STATE.  COMPARE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DISSENTING IN RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. LOS ANGELES RY. CORP., 280 U.S. 145, 164.  WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED HERE WITH THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN ESTABLISHING FACTS AS TO
WHICH ONLY THE PARTIES TO A PRIVATE LITIGATION ARE INTERESTED.  WE ARE
CONCERNED RATHER WITH THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DETERMINE LEGAL
ISSUES GOVERNING THE PROPER EXERCISE OF THEIR JURISDICTION. 

THE CAUSE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN ORDER THAT IT
MAY PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN PASSING UPON THE PETITIONER'S
MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SUIT.  REVERSED. 

FN1 IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE RECORD THE PRECISE GROUNDS
FOR THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION.  SOME LIGHT IS SHED BY THE FOLLOWING
COLLOQUY, WHICH OCCURRED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT UPON THE
MOTION TO DISMISS THE BILL: 

"THE COURT:  AS I UNDERSTAND, THE MERITS OF THE CASE WITH REFERENCE
TO THE DEATH OF THIS DECEDENT HAVE NEVER BEEN TRIED? 

"MR. WOODS (COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT):  THAT IS CORRECT, AND IT IS
ALMOST SIX YEARS NOW. 

"THE COURT:  WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH
THAT.  THE CASE WILL BE DISMISSED.  YOU MAY DRAW A JOURNAL SHOWING THAT
AFTER THIS LONG LAPSE OF TIME, AFTER YOUR LITIGATION IN MISSOURI, THAT
THIS COURT FEELS IN ITS DISCRETION THAT IT OUGHT NOT TO INTERFERE WITH
THAT LITIGATION IN ANY WAY." 

FN2  THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONTAINS A SINGLE
SENTENCE WHICH, IF READ WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS CONTEXT, MIGHT APPEAR
TO BE SUCH A FINDING:  "THE ISSUES IN THE GARNISHMENT ACTION COULD NOT
DETERMINE THE LIABILITY OF APPELLANT (THE RESPONDENT HERE) UNDER ITS
REINSURANCE CONTRACT."  121 F.2D AT 778.  BUT, AS WE READ ITS OPINION,
THE COURT BELOW CLEARLY WAS REFERRING ONLY TO THE GARNISHMENT ACTION
AGAINST CENTRAL BEFORE THE RESPONDENT WAS JOINED AS A PARTY.  OF
COURSE, AT THAT TIME THE RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE
IN THE GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING THE CLAIMS WHICH IT ASSERTED IN THE
FEDERAL SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  BUT WHEN THE PETITIONER'S
MOTION TO DISMISS THE FEDERAL SUIT WAS FILED, THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN
MADE A PARTY TO THE GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING.  AND, AS ITS OPINION SHOWS,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT FIND THAT UNDER MISSOURI LAW THE
CLAIMS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL SUIT, WHICH WERE
GOVERNED BY MISSOURI LAW AND WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY FORECLOSED BY IT,
COULD NOT BE ADJUDICATED IN THE GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING AFTER THE
RESPONDENT HAD BEEN JOINED AS A PARTY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

IF WE HAD HERE ONLY THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ISSUES FRAMED BY
RESPONDENT IN THIS SUIT COULD BE LITIGATED IN THE STATUTORY GARNISHMENT
PROCEEDING IN MISSOURI, I WOULD AGREE WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE
CHIEF JUSTICE.  BUT THERE IS THE FURTHER, AND FOR ME THE CONTROLLING,
QUESTION WHETHER, AS STATED BY THE MAJORITY, THE CLAIMS RAISED BY
RESPONDENT HAD BEEN "PREVIOUSLY FORECLOSED" UNDER MISSOURI LAW.  IT IS
A FAIR INFERENCE FROM THIS RECORD THAT RESPONDENT, LIKE CENTRAL,
RECEIVED NOTICE AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THE SUIT BROUGHT
AGAINST COOPER-JARRETT, ALTHOUGH ALL OF THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES DO
NOT CLEARLY APPEAR.  UNDER MISSOURI LAW THE GENERAL RULE SEEMS TO BE
THAT NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND BINDS THE REINSURER ON JUDGMENTS
AGAINST THE REASSURED.  SEE E.G. STRONG V. PHOENIX INS. CO., 62 MO.
289; GANTT V. AMERICAN CENTRAL INS. CO., 68 MO. 503; CITY OF ST. JOSEPH
V. UNION RY. CO., 116 MO. 636, 643, 22 S.W. 794; FINKLE V. WESTERN
AUTO.  INS.  CO., 224 MO. APP. 285, 300, 26 S.W.2D 843.  BY STATUTE (6
MO. STAT. ANN. SECS. 5898, 5899) THE LIABILITY OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY
BECOMES ABSOLUTE WHEN LOSS OCCURS; AND JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED
ESTABLISHES PRIVITY BETWEEN THE INJURED PARTY AND THE INSURER.  SEE
SCHOTT V. AUTO INS. UNDERWRITERS, 326 MO. 92, 31 S.W.2D 7; LAJOIE V.
CENTRAL WEST CASUALTY CO., 228 MO. APP. 701, 71 S.W.2D 803; TAVERNO V.
AMERICAN AUTO INS. CO., 232 MO. APP. 820, 112 S.W.2D 941.  THE PROBLEM
IS WHETHER BY REASON OF THE INSURER'S LIABILITY UNDER THE POLICY AND
THE STATUTE, AND RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY UNDER ITS REINSURANCE CONTRACT
(SEE E.G. HOMAN V. EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORP., 345 MO. 650, 136 S.W.2D
289), NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THE EARLIER SUIT WERE SUFFICIENT
(SCHOTT V. AUTO INS. UNDERWRITERS, SUPRA) TO BIND RESPONDENT AS
REINSURER.  RESPONDENT'S CHARGES OF FRAUD CENTER ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE
NOTICE WHICH IT RECEIVED AND THE FAILURE OF THE INSURED AND THE INSURER
TO DEFEND.  THAT SEEMS TO BE BUT ONE PHASE OF THE QUESTION WHETHER
UNDER MISSOURI LAW RESPONDENT WAS BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE EARLIER
SUIT. 

THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS
ACT IS CERTAINLY NOT COMPULSORY; IT IS DISCRETIONARY.  BORCHARD,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS (2D ED.), P. 312.  IF IT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID UNDER
MISSOURI LAW THAT RESPONDENT WAS BOUND BY ITS FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO
DEFEND THE EARLIER SUIT AFTER NOTICE, THEN IT WOULD CLEARLY BE AN ABUSE
OF DISCRETION FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO TAKE OR AT LEAST TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE IN CASE IT APPEARED AFTER A HEARING ON THAT
ISSUE THAT RESPONDENT WAS SO BOUND. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

I THINK THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT AND
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

RESPONDENT, REINSURER OF AN AUTOMOBILE PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE
POLICY, HAS BEEN MADE A PARTY TO A GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING INSTITUTED
UNDER THE MISSOURI STATUTES BY PETITIONER, WHO HAS SECURED A MISSOURI
DEFAULT JUDGMENT UPON A LIABILITY OF THE INSURED SAID TO BE COVERED BY
THE POLICY.  BY THIS SUIT BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR
KANSAS, RESPONDENT NOW SEEKS AMONG OTHER THINGS TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT, SO FAR AS IT ESTABLISHES LIABILITY AGAINST THE INSURER, AS
FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED. 

RESPONDENT'S BILL OF COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IT IS
ENTITLED TO HAVE ADJUDICATED IN SOME COURT.  THE CONSIDERATIONS
SUGGESTED BY MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS ARE OF COURSE RELEVANT TO THE MERITS
OF RESPONDENT'S CASE, AND SHOULD BE TRIED WITH OTHER ISSUES WHEREVER
AND WHENEVER THEY ARE TO BE TRIED.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT BELOW HAD
JURISDICTION - AND AS NO OTHER REASON IS ADVANCED FOR DECLINING
JURISDICTION - IT WAS PLAINLY ITS DUTY TO HEAR AND DECIDE ALL THE
ISSUES NECESSARY FOR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE UNLESS IT WAS MADE TO
APPEAR WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY THAT THE ISSUES COULD BE ADJUDICATED
IN THE MISSOURI COURTS.  PETITIONER ASSUMED THAT BURDEN BY HIS MOTION
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ORDER DISMISSING THE SUIT AND REMITTING
RESPONDENT TO THE STATE COURTS.  THE DATA, INCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE
FACTS SPREAD UPON THE RECORD, WHICH HE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION HAVE NOW RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION OF THREE COURTS.  NONE OF
THEM HAS SAID, AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE NO FEDERAL COURT
COULD SAY, EITHER WITH BINDING AUTHORITY OR WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY,
THAT RESPONDENT CAN LITIGATE IN THE MISSOURI COURTS ITS ASSERTED RIGHT
TO SET ASIDE PETITIONER'S JUDGMENT FOR FRAUD.  PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT A
CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF MISSOURI AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
ITS COURTS UNLESS HE VOLUNTARILY APPEARS IN AN ACTION THERE, HAS NOT
SAID, AND IN THIS COURT HAS CAREFULLY AVOIDED SAYING, THAT HE WOULD
APPEAR IN ANY INDEPENDENT SUIT BROUGHT IN THE MISSOURI COURTS TO ATTACK
THE JUDGMENT. 

FURTHER, IT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER
RESPONDENT CAN LITIGATE ITS PRESENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE STATUTORY
GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING IN MISSOURI IS AT BEST NOT FREE FROM DOUBT.  THE
MISSOURI GARNISHMENT STATUTES DO NOT DEAL EXPRESSLY WITH THE NATURE OF
THE ISSUES THAT CAN BE RAISED IN A GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING.  MISSOURI
REVISED STATUTES, 1939, SECS. 1560-1589.  BUT THE MISSOURI INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURTS SEEM TO AGREE THAT IN SUCH A PROCEEDING THE GARNISHEE
CANNOT CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE JUDGMENT SAVE
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHICH RENDERED IT.  POTTER V.
WHITTEN, 161 MO. APP. 118, 131-32, 142 S.W. 453; NEVATT V. SPRINGFIELD
NORMAL SCHOOL, 79 MO. APP. 198, 201; REID, MURDOCK & CO. V. MERCURIO,
91 MO. APP. 673, 678.  THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER DISAPPROVED
THESE DECISIONS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOW IN DECIDING THAT THE CAUSE SHOULD BE
LITIGATED IN THE PRESENT SUIT DECLARED, 121 F.2D AT 778: 

"A FEDERAL COURT MAY NOT REFUSE TO ASSUME JURISDICTION MERELY ON THE
GROUND THAT ANOTHER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE OR BECAUSE ANOTHER SUIT IS
PENDING, IF THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE
DETERMINED THEREIN.  MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. CONSUMERS FINANCE
SERVICE, INC., 101 F.2D 514." 

HERE IT IS EVIDENT, DESPITE THE DILIGENCE OF COUNSEL, THAT THE
ABILITY OF RESPONDENT TO ASSERT ITS CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE MISSOURI
GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING IS UNCERTAIN AND MUST REMAIN SO UNTIL THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI HAS SPOKEN.  JUST HOW RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO
MAINTAIN ITS SUIT IN MISSOURI CAN BE MADE MORE CERTAIN OR EVEN
REASONABLY PROBABLE, OR HOW THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WILL BE ADVANCED BY
COMPELLING RESPONDENT TO BEGIN OVER AGAIN THE NEARLY THREE YEARS'
COURSE OF LITIGATION WHICH IT HAS NOW TRAVELED, IS NOT REVEALED.  THE
CONCEDEDLY ERRONEOUS DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT HAS BEEN REVERSED
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  UNLESS THIS COURT IS NOW PREPARED TO
SAY THAT RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT IN THE STATE COURT
IS FREE FROM DOUBT, WE SHOULD LEAVE THE JUDGMENT UNDISTURBED AND NOT
DENY TO RESPONDENT THE BENEFIT OF THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION WHICH
CONGRESS HAS SANCTIONED.  ONE OF THE CHIEF PURPOSES OF CREATING THE
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION WAS TO AFFORD TO SUITORS AN
UNCLOUDED OPPORTUNITY TO ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WHEN
THE EXIGENCIES OF STATE COURT JURISDICTION OF SUBJECT MATTER OR
PARTIES, OR BOTH TOGETHER, AS IN THIS CASE, RENDER DOUBTFUL THEIR
ABILITY TO PROCEED IN THE STATE COURTS.  IN SUCH A CASE A SUITOR OUGHT
NOT TO BE PENALIZED, AS RESPONDENT PLAINLY IS, FOR INVOKING THE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION. 

THE MISSOURI LAW, IF NOT CONCLUSIVELY AGAINST THE ASSERTION OF THE
PRESENT CAUSE IN THE MISSOURI GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING, IS AT LEAST SO
DOUBTFUL THAT RESPONDENT OUGHT NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO SEEK THE FUTILE
PROPHECY OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN KANSAS AS TO HOW THE MISSOURI COURTS
WILL RESOLVE AN UNSETTLED POINT OF MISSOURI PRACTICE.  SINCE PETITIONER
HAS FAILED TO SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE CASE IS A PROPER
ONE FOR DISMISSAL, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION
BY PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE MERITS WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY.  IF THIS
LITIGATION IS EVER TO END, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR IT TO GET STARTED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



FAITOUTE CO. V. ASBURY PARK, 316 U.S. 502 


NO. 896.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 127 N.J.L.
239, 21 A.2D 796, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, A PLAN FOR THE ADJUSTMENT
OR COMPOSITION OF THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS OF AN INSOLVENT MUNICIPALITY
MAY BE MADE BINDING ON ALL CREDITORS, IF APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPALITY,
BY THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION, AND BY CREDITORS REPRESENTING 85
PER CENT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS AFFECTED, AND IF ADOPTED, UNDER PRESCRIBED
CONDITIONS, BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  AS APPLIED TO HOLDERS OF
DEFAULTED BONDS AND INTEREST COUPONS OF A MUNICIPALITY, WHO, UNDER AN
ADJUSTMENT DECREED BY THE STATE COURT, WERE OBLIGED TO CONVERT THEIR
BONDS INTO OTHERS BEARING A LOWER RATE OF INTEREST, HELD: 

1.  THE ACT IS NOT INOPERATIVE AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE BANKRUPTCY
POWER EXERCISED BY CONGRESS.  P. 507. 

2.  THE ACT DOES NOT EFFECT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPAIRMENT OF THE
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.  P. 509. 

3.  THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT AS APPLIED TO SECURED
CLAIMS, IS NOT INVOLVED AND NOT DECIDED.  P. 516. 

FAITOUTE IRON & STEEL CO. ET AL. V. CITY OF ASBURY PARK. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL, BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW JERSEY, 19 N.J. MISC. 322, 19 A.2D 445, OF A SUIT TO RECOVER
UPON BONDS AND INTEREST COUPONS ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A NEW JERSEY STATUTE, ADOPTED IN 1931, AUTHORIZED STATE CONTROL OVER
INSOLVENT MUNICIPALITIES.  BY A SUPPLEMENTARY LAW, ENACTED IN 1933, A
PLAN FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS OF SUCH AN INSOLVENT
MUNICIPALITY COULD BE MADE BINDING UPON ALL CREDITORS.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER AN ADJUSTMENT SO AUTHORIZED BY A STATE IMPAIRS RIGHTS IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK IS A SEASHORE RESORT WITH A RESIDENT
POPULATION OF 15,000.  IT PRESENTS A FAMILIAR PICTURE OF OPTIMISTIC AND
EXTRAVAGANT MUNICIPAL EXPANSION CAUGHT IN THE DESTRUCTIVE GRIP OF
GENERAL ECONOMIC DEPRESSION:  ELABORATE BEACHFRONT IMPROVEMENTS, COSTS
IN EXCESS OF ESTIMATES, DEFICITS NOT ANNUALLY MET BY TAXATION,
DECLINING REAL-ESTATE VALUES, INABILITY TO REFINANCE A
DISPROPORTIONATELY HEAVY LOAD OF SHORT-TERM OBLIGATIONS, AND,
INEVITABLY, DEFAULT.  ACCORDINGLY, IN JANUARY, 1935, AVAILING
THEMSELVES OF THE NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, CREDITORS APPLIED
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY TO PLACE THE STATE MUNICIPAL FINANCE
COMMISSION IN CONTROL OF THE CITY'S FINANCES. 

THE LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED "TO MEET THE PUBLIC EMERGENCY ARISING
FROM A DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS, AND THE
RESULTING IMPAIRMENT OF PUBLIC CREDIT," LAWS OF NEW JERSEY (1931), C.
340, SEC. 405.  IN BROAD TERMS, THE LEGISLATION, THROUGH COMBINED
ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTION, ADAPTED THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
OF AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP TO THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF INSOLVENT
MUNICIPALITIES.  BY A SUPPLEMENTING ACT, LAWS OF NEW JERSEY (1933), C.
331, A "PLAN OF ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION OF THE CLAIMS OF ALL
CREDITORS" MAY BE SUBMITTED ON THEIR BEHALF TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE.  IF APPROVED BY 85 PER CENT IN AMOUNT OF THE CREDITORS AND BY
THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE COMMISSION, SUCH PLAN OF ADJUSTMENT MAY BE
ADOPTED "IF THE COURT BY ITS JUSTICE DETERMINES (1) THAT THE
MUNICIPALITY IS UNABLE TO PAY IN FULL ACCORDING TO THEIR TERMS THE
CLAIMS PROPOSED TO BE ADJUSTED OR COMPOSED, AND PERFORM ITS PUBLIC
FUNCTIONS AND PRESERVE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION, (2)
THAT THE ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION IS SUBSTANTIALLY MEASURED BY THE
CAPACITY OF A MUNICIPALITY TO PAY, (3) THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF
ALL THE CREDITORS AFFECTED THEREBY, AND (4) THAT IT IS NOT DETRIMENTAL
TO OTHER CREDITORS OF THE MUNICIPALITY."  THE PLAN CANNOT BE
AUTHORIZED, HOWEVER, IF IT INVOLVES ANY REDUCTION OF THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF ANY OUTSTANDING OBLIGATION.  ANY CREDITOR IS ENTITLED TO
APPEAR AND TO BE HEARD, BUT A PLAN WHICH IS SO AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT
IS BINDING UPON ALL CREDITORS WHETHER OR NOT THEY APPEAR, AND THE
SUBSTITUTION OF NEW OBLIGATIONS FOR OLD IN CARRYING OUT THE PLAN IS
MADE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DAY FIXED BY JUDICIAL ORDER.  TO EFFECTUATE
SUCH A PLAN, THE ACT PROVIDES FURTHER THAT THE COURT SHALL RETAIN
JURISDICTION AND "THEREAFTER NO CREDITOR WHOSE CLAIM IS INCLUDED IN
SUCH ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO BRING ANY ACTION
OR PROCEEDING OF ANY KIND OR CHARACTER FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF HIS CLAIM
EXCEPT WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THEN ONLY TO
RECOVER AND ENFORCE THE RIGHTS GIVEN HIM BY THE ADJUSTMENT OR
COMPOSITION."  FN1 

PURSUANT TO THIS LEGISLATIVE SCHEME, THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK WAS ON
MARCH 7, 1935, PLACED UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE
COMMISSION; ON FEBRUARY 1, 1936, A PLAN FOR THE REFUNDING OF ITS BONDED
DEBT WAS FILED IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT, AND THAT COURT TOOK
JURISDICTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS; THE PLAN, AS AMENDED, WAS APPROVED BY
THE COURT ON JULY 21, 1937; ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1937, IT WAS DULY APPROVED
BY THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION; ON APRIL 29, 1938, IT WAS
CONSENTED TO BY CREDITORS REPRESENTING "85 PER CENT IN AMOUNT OF THE
INDEBTEDNESS AFFECTED" BY THE PLAN; AND, ON JUNE 15, 1938, IT WAS PUT
INTO OPERATION.  THE PLAN PROVIDED FOR THE REFUNDING OF $10,750,000 OF
OUTSTANDING BONDS; THESE WERE TO BE EXCHANGED BY THE CONSENTING
CREDITORS FOR NEW BONDS TO BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF
THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANTS WERE HOLDERS OF DEFAULTED BONDS AND INTEREST COUPONS
ISSUED BY THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK IN 1929 AND 1930 - PRIOR, THEREFORE,
TO THE LEGISLATION WHICH AUTHORIZED THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTING IN THE
CHALLENGED REFUNDING SCHEME.  THE BONDS OF THE APPELLANTS WERE PART OF
THE $10,750,000 OF REFUNDED BONDS WHICH, UNDER THE ADJUSTMENT DECREED
BY THE COURT, COULD ONLY BE CONVERTED INTO NEW BONDS MATURING IN 1966
AND BEARING A LOWER RATE OF INTEREST THAN THE ORIGINAL BONDS.  DEEMING
THE ARRANGEMENT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE TO BE VIOLATIVE
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE APPELLANTS BROUGHT THIS
SUIT FOR THE FACE VALUE OF THE OLD BONDS AND COUPONS.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEW JERSEY DISMISSED THE SUIT, 19 N.J. MISC. 322, 19 A.2D 445;
THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL, 127 N.J.L. 239,
21 A.2D 796; AND THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344. 

IF THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATION WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE
REFUNDING PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK IS VALID, APPELLANTS' CLAIM
ON THE OLD BONDS WAS BARRED BY LAW, AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST STAND. 
THE VALIDITY OF THAT LEGISLATION IS ASSAILED ON TWO GROUNDS.  IT IS
CONTENDED, FIRST, THAT THE NEW JERSEY LAWS CONSTITUTE MUNICIPAL
BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION, THAT THAT FIELD OF LAW-MAKING HAS BEEN
PREEMPTED BY CONGRESS, AND THAT THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATION IS THEREFORE
INOPERATIVE.  TO THIS ARGUMENT A FEW DATES FURNISH A SHORT ANSWER.  THE
PRESENT COURT PROCEEDINGS BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 1, 1936.  THE FIRST FEDERAL
MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON MAY 25,
1936.  ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY DIST., 298 U.S. 513.  THE REFUNDING
PLAN NOW ASSAILED WAS APPROVED, AS WE HAVE SEEN, ON JULY 21, 1937.  IT
WAS THUS AUTHORIZED MORE THAN A YEAR BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE ONLY
RELEVANT FEDERAL STATUTE, THE ACT OF AUGUST 16, 1937, 50 STAT. 653,
AMENDING THE BANKRUPTCY ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPOSITION OF
INDEBTEDNESS OF TAXING AGENCIES.  ASSUMING CONGRESS HAD POWER TO DO SO,
THIS ACT DID NOT PROFESS TO TERMINATE A PENDING STATE COURT PROCEEDING
LIKE THAT NOW IN QUESTION.  IT WOULD OFFEND THE MOST SETTLED HABITS IN
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE NATION TO IMPLY SUCH A
RETROACTIVE NULLIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY OVER ITS SUBORDINATE
ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT. 

WE PREFER, HOWEVER, TO DISPOSE OF THIS OBJECTION ON A BROADER
GROUND.  NOT UNTIL APRIL 25, 1938, WAS THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO AFFORD
RELIEF SIMILAR TO THAT GIVEN BY NEW JERSEY FOR ITS MUNICIPALITIES
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED, UNITED STATES V. BEKINS, 304 U.S. 27, AND THEN
ONLY BECAUSE CONGRESS HAD BEEN "ESPECIALLY SOLICITOUS TO AFFORD NO
GROUND" FOR THE "OBJECTION" THAT AN EXERCISE OF FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY OVER
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE "MIGHT MATERIALLY RESTRICT ITS
CONTROL OVER ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS" WHEREBY STATES WOULD NO LONGER BE
"FREE TO MANAGE THEIR OWN AFFAIRS."  THE STATUTE WAS "CAREFULLY DRAWN
SO AS NOT TO IMPINGE UPON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.  THE STATE
RETAINS CONTROL OF ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS.  THE BANKRUPTCY POWER IS
EXERCISED  ... ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE ACTION OF THE TAXING AGENCY IN
CARRYING OUT A PLAN OF COMPOSITION APPROVED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS
AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW."  304 U.S. AT 50, 51.  NEW JERSEY EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITS ANY MUNICIPALITY TO AVAIL ITSELF OF A FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT
"UNLESS THE APPROVAL OF THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION  ...  BE FIRST
HAD AND OBTAINED."  REVISED STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY (1937), 52:  27-40. 
THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK HAS NEVER ATTEMPTED TO RESORT TO A FEDERAL
BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND THE NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION HAS
NOT AUTHORIZED IT TO DO SO.  CAN IT BE THAT A POWER THAT WAS NOT
RECOGNIZED UNTIL 1938, AND WHEN SO RECOGNIZED, WAS CAREFULLY
CIRCUMSCRIBED TO RESERVE FULL FREEDOM TO THE STATES, HAS NOW BEEN
COMPLETELY ABSORBED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - THAT A STATE WHICH, AS
IN THE CASE OF NEW JERSEY, HAS AFTER LONG STUDY DEVISED ELABORATE
MACHINERY FOR THE AUTONOMOUS REGULATION OF PROBLEMS SO PECULIARLY LOCAL
AS THE FISCAL MANAGEMENT OF ITS OWN HOUSEHOLD, IS POWERLESS IN THIS
FIELD?  WE THINK NOT. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE SECOND AND MAIN CONTENTION, NAMELY, THAT THE
APPELLANTS' CLAIMS IN THE FORM OF THE BONDS AND COUPONS ISSUED BY THE
CITY OF ASBURY PARK, CONSTITUTED CONTRACTS, THE OBLIGATION OF WHICH IS
IMPAIRED BY THE DENIAL OF THEIR RIGHT TO RECOVER THEREON AND BY THEIR
TRANSMUTATION, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, INTO THE SECURITIES AUTHORIZED BY
THE PLAN OF ADJUSTMENT. 

THE PRINCIPAL ASSET OF A MUNICIPALITY IS ITS TAXING POWER AND THAT,
UNLIKE AN ASSET OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION, CAN NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR
DISTRIBUTION.  AN UNSECURED MUNICIPAL SECURITY IS THEREFORE MERELY A
DRAFT ON THE GOOD FAITH OF A MUNICIPALITY IN EXERCISING ITS TAXING
POWER.  THE NOTION THAT A CITY HAS UNLIMITED TAXING POWER IS, OF
COURSE, AN ILLUSION.  A CITY CANNOT BE TAKEN OVER AND OPERATED FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ITS CREDITORS, NOR CAN ITS CREDITORS TAKE OVER THE TAXING
POWER.  INDEED, SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED, THE
TAXING POWER OF A MUNICIPALITY IS NOT EVEN WITHIN ITS OWN CONTROL - IT
IS WHOLLY SUBORDINATE TO THE UNRESTRAINED POWER OF THE STATE OVER
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF ITS OWN CREATION.  "A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
...  IS A REPRESENTATIVE NOT ONLY OF THE STATE, BUT IS A PORTION OF ITS
GOVERNMENTAL POWER  ...  THE STATE MAY WITHDRAW THESE LOCAL POWERS OF
GOVERNMENT AT PLEASURE, AND MAY, THROUGH ITS LEGISLATURE OR OTHER
APPOINTED CHANNELS, GOVERN THE LOCAL TERRITORY AS IT GOVERNS THE STATE
AT LARGE.  IT MAY ENLARGE OR CONTRACT ITS POWERS OR DESTROY ITS
EXISTENCE."  UNITED STATES V. RAILROAD COMPANY, 17 WALL.  322, 329. 
AND SEE HUNTER V. PITTSBURGH, 207 U.S. 161. 

IN EFFECT, THEREFORE, THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF AN UNSECURED CLAIM
AGAINST THE CITY IS INSEPARABLE FROM RELIANCE UPON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE CITY'S TAXING POWER.  THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH A
CLAIM IS A MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE LEVYING OF AUTHORIZED TAXES.  THE
EXPERIENCE OF THE TWO MODERN PERIODS OF MUNICIPAL DEFAULTS, AFTER THE
DEPRESSIONS OF '73 AND '93, SHOWS THAT THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE CLAIMS
AGAINST THE CITY THROUGH MANDAMUS IS THE EMPTY RIGHT TO LITIGATE.  SEE
HILLHOUSE, LESSONS FROM PREVIOUS ERAS OF DEFAULT (CHAP. IV IN CHATTERS,
MUNICIPAL DEBT DEFAULTS); REPORT OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION ON THE STUDY AND INVESTIGATION OF THE WORK, ACTIVITIES,
PERSONNEL AND FUNCTIONS OF PROTECTIVE AND REORGANIZATION COMMITTEES
(1936), PT. IV:  COMMITTEES FOR THE HOLDERS OF MUNICIPAL AND QUASI
MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS, PASSIM; DIMOCK, LEGAL PROBLEMS OF FINANCIALLY
EMBARRASSED MUNICIPALITIES, CONTAINED IN SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS,
AMERICAN BAR ASSN., 1ST ANNUAL MEETING (1935), SECTION OF MUNICIPAL
LAW, P. 12(SEE ALSO XXII VIRGINIA L. REV. 39). 

HOW, THEN, CAN CLAIMS AGAINST A FINANCIALLY EMBARRASSED CITY BE
ENFORCED?  EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT THREE CONDITIONS ARE ESSENTIAL IF THE
MUNICIPALITY IS TO BE KEPT GOING AS A POLITICAL COMMUNITY AND, AT THE
SAME TIME, THE UTMOST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CREDITORS IS TO BE
REALIZED:  IMPARTIAL, OUTSIDE CONTROL OVER THE FINANCES OF THE CITY;
CONCERTED ACTION BY ALL THE CREDITORS TO AVOID DESTRUCTIVE ACTION BY
INDIVIDUALS; AND RATEABLE DISTRIBUTION.  IN SHORT, WHAT IS NEEDED IS A
TEMPORARY SCHEME OF PUBLIC RECEIVERSHIP OVER A SUBDIVISION OF THE
STATE.  A POLICY OF EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF IS DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
POTENTIAL RESOURCES UPON WHICH RESTS THE TAXING POWER WHICH IN ACTUAL
FACT CONSTITUTES THE SECURITY FOR UNSECURED OBLIGATIONS OUTSTANDING
AGAINST A CITY. 

TO DENY A STATE THE MEANS OF GIVING SUBSTANCE TO THE TAXING POWER
WHICH ALONE GIVES MEANING TO UNSECURED MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS, IS TO
HOLD, IN EFFECT, THAT THE RIGHT TO PURSUE A STERILE LITIGATION IS AN
"OBLIGATION" PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  FOR
THERE IS NO REMEDY WHEN RESORT IS HAD TO "DEVICES AND CONTRIVANCES" TO
NULLIFY THE TAXING POWER WHICH CAN BE CARRIED OUT ONLY THROUGH
AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS.  SEE REES V. CITY OF WATERTOWN, 19 WALL.  107,
124.  AND SO WE HAVE HAD THE SPECTACLE OF TAXING OFFICIALS RESIGNING
FROM OFFICE IN ORDER TO FRUSTRATE TAX LEVIES THROUGH MANDAMUS, AND
OFFICIALS RUNNING ON A PLATFORM OF WILLINGNESS TO GO TO JAIL RATHER
THAN TO ENFORCE A TAX LEVY (SEE RAYMOND, STATE AND MUNICIPAL BONDS, 342
43), AND EVASION OF SERVICE BY TAX COLLECTORS, THUS MAKING IMPOTENT A
COURT'S MANDATE.  YOST V. DALLAS COUNTY, 236 U.S. 50, 57.  BUT IF TAXES
CAN ONLY BE PROTECTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE AND THE STATE CAN
WITHDRAW THAT AUTHORITY, THE AUTHORITY TO LEVY A TAX IS IMPORTED INTO
AN OBLIGATION TO PAY AN UNSECURED MUNICIPAL CLAIM, AND THERE IS ALSO
IMPORTED THE POWER OF THE STATE TO MODIFY THE MEANS FOR EXERCISING THE
TAXING POWER EFFECTIVELY IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE SUCH OBLIGATION, IN VIEW
OF CONDITIONS NOT CONTEMPLATED WHEN THE CLAIMS AROSE.  IMPAIRMENT OF AN
OBLIGATION MEANS REFUSAL TO PAY AN HONEST DEBT; IT DOES NOT MEAN
CONTRIVING WAYS AND MEANS FOR PAYING IT.  THE NECESSITY COMPELLED BY
UNEXPECTED FINANCIAL CONDITIONS TO MODIFY AN ORIGINAL ARRANGEMENT FOR
DISCHARGING A CITY'S DEBT IS IMPLIED IN EVERY SUCH OBLIGATION FOR THE
VERY REASON THAT THEREBY THE OBLIGATION IS DISCHARGED, NOT IMPAIRED. 
MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS AGO, LORD BRYCE POINTED OUT THAT THE DEBT AND
TAXATION OF AMERICAN CITIES HAD REACHED "AN ALARMING FIGURE."  BRYCE,
THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH, P. 607.  BEGINNING WITH 1915, THE EVIL
CONSEQUENCES OF THE UNHEALTHY FINANCIAL CONDITIONS OF NEW JERSEY
MUNICIPALITIES BEGAN TO OCCUPY THE ATTENTION OF ITS LEGISLATURE. 
INVESTIGATIONS BY EXPERT BODIES LED TO A SERIES OF ENACTMENTS
TIGHTENING STATE CONTROL OVER MUNICIPAL FINANCES.  SEE REPORTS OF NEW
JERSEY LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION FOR THE SURVEY OF MUNICIPAL FINANCING,
1915, 1916, 1917; REPORTS OF NEW JERSEY COMMISSION ON MUNICIPAL
TAXATION AND FINANCE, PARTICULARLY REPORT NO. 2(MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY
DEBT, 1931).  THE DEPRESSION INTENSIFIED THE NEED FOR STATE CONTROL,
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION WITH THE
POWERS OUTLINED ABOVE WAS DESIGNED, AS STATED BY THE LEGISLATURE, TO
MEET "THE PUBLIC EMERGENCY ARISING FROM A DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF
MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS, AND THE RESULTING IMPAIRMENT OF PUBLIC CREDIT." 
BUT THIS EMERGENCY, AS THE DECISIONS IN THIS COURT DURING THE LAST TEN
YEARS AMPLY TESTIFY, DID NOT EVAPORATE.  STUDENTS OF THE SUBJECT HAVE
POINTED OUT THAT, IN THE DEPRESSION OF 1893 AS IN THAT OF 1873, "THE
WORST FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES FOR MUNICIPALITIES CAME IN THE FOURTH YEAR
OF THE DEPRESSION."  SEE HILLHOUSE, SUPRA, AT 14.  HISTORY REPEATED
ITSELF, CERTAINLY AS TO NEW JERSEY MUNICIPALITIES.  SEE REPORT OF NEW
JERSEY MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION, 1937, AND SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (TO WHICH THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL
FINANCE COMMISSION WERE TRANSFERRED IN 1939), 1940, P. 11.  THE WHOLE
HISTORY OF NEW JERSEY LEGISLATION LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE STATE WAS
BENT ON HOLDING THE MUNICIPALITIES TO THEIR OBLIGATIONS BY UTILIZING
THE MOST WIDELY APPROVED MEANS FOR MAKING THEM EFFECTIVE.  THE
INTERVENTION OF THE STATE IN THE FISCAL AFFAIRS OF ITS CITIES IS
PLAINLY AN EXERCISE OF ITS ESSENTIAL RESERVE POWER TO PROTECT THE VITAL
INTERESTS OF ITS PEOPLE BY SUSTAINING THE PUBLIC CREDIT AND MAINTAINING
LOCAL GOVERNMENT.  THE PAYMENT OF THE CREDITORS WAS THE END TO BE
OBTAINED, BUT IT COULD BE MAINTAINED ONLY BY SAVING THE RESOURCES OF
THE MUNICIPALITY - THE GOOSE WHICH LAYS ITS GOLDEN EGGS, NAMELY, THE
TAXES WHICH ALONE CAN MEET THE OUTSTANDING CLAIMS. 

THE REAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION BARS THE ONLY PROVEN WAY FOR ASSURING PAYMENT OF
UNSECURED MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS.  FOR, IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY, AND
MORE PARTICULARLY ON THE BASIS OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITS EXPERT
ADVISERS, THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE WAS ENTITLED TO FIND THAT IN ORDER
TO KEEP ITS INSOLVENT MUNICIPALITIES GOING, AND AT THE SAME TIME
FRUCTIFY THEIR LANGUISHING SOURCES OF REVENUE AND THUS AVOID
REPUDIATION, FAIR AND JUST ARRANGEMENTS BY WAY OF COMPOSITIONS,
SCRUTINIZED AND AUTHORIZED BY A COURT, MIGHT BE NECESSARY, AND THAT TO
BE EFFICACIOUS SUCH A COMPOSITION MUST BIND ALL, AFTER 85 PER CENT OF
THE CREDITORS ASSENT, IN ORDER TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE MINORITY
OBSTRUCTION.  AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT, IN VIEW OF THE SLUMP OF
THE CREDIT OF THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN
NOW ASSAILED, APPELLANTS' BONDS HAD LITTLE VALUE; THE NEW BONDS ISSUED
UNDER THE PLAN, HOWEVER, ARE NOT IN DEFAULT AND THERE IS A VERY
SUBSTANTIAL MARKET FOR THEM.  THE REFUNDING SCHEME, AS PART OF A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SALVAGING ASBURY PARK, BOTH GOVERNMENTALLY AND
FINANCIALLY, WAS SO SUCCESSFUL THAT THE REFUNDING BONDS WERE SELLING AT
AROUND 69 AT THE TIME OF REFUNDING, WHILE AT ABOUT THE TIME THE PRESENT
SUIT WAS BROUGHT COMMANDED A MARKET AT BETTER THAN 90.  SEE SECOND
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NEW JERSEY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, 1940, P. 39. 

FROM TIME TO TIME, EVER SINCE STURGES V. CROWNINSHIELD, 4 WHEAT. 
122, 199, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT A STATE INSOLVENCY ACT IS LIMITED BY
THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN AUTHORIZING COMPOSITION OF
PREEXISTING DEBTS.  SO IT IS, BUT IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT IS AFFECTED BY
SUCH A COMPOSITION AND WHAT STATE POWER IT BRINGS INTO PLAY.  THE
DICTUM FROM STURGES V. CROWNINSHIELD IS ONE OF THOSE INACCURATE
GENERALIZATIONS THAT HAVE GAINED MOMENTUM FROM UNCRITICAL REPETITION. 

IF A STATE RETAINS POLICE POWER WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS, VEIX V. SIXTH WARD ASSN., 310 U.S. 32, 38, BECAUSE OF
THEIR RELATION TO THE FINANCIAL WELL-BEING OF THE STATE, AND IF IT MAY
AUTHORIZE THE REORGANIZATION OF AN INSOLVENT BANK UPON THE APPROVAL OF
A STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS AND A COURT, BUT OVER THE DISSENT OF
ONEFOURTH OF THE DEPOSITORS (EXCEPT PREFERRED OR SECURED CLAIMANTS),
DOTY V. LOVE, 295 U.S. 64, A STATE SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE DENIED A
LIKE POWER FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND FOR
THE PROTECTION NOT ONLY OF THEIR CREDIT BUT OF ALL THE CREDITORS BY AN
ADJUSTMENT ASSENTED TO BY AT LEAST 85 PER CENT OF THE CREDITORS,
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE STATE HAVING OVERSIGHT OF ITS
MUNICIPALITIES, AND FOUND WISE AND JUST AFTER DUE HEARING BY A COURT. 

THE CONSTITUTION IS "INTENDED TO PRESERVE PRACTICAL AND SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHTS, NOT TO MAINTAIN THEORIES."  DAVIS V. MILLS, 194 U.S. 451, 457. 
PARTICULARLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS ARE WE IN THE REALM OF ACTUALITIES AND
NOT OF ABSTRACTIONS AND PAPER RIGHTS, OF WHAT THINGS ARE WORTH IN
DOLLARS AND CENTS, AND IN WHAT IS PROPOSED TO REALIZE PAPER VALUES. 
"THE QUESTION WHETHER THE REMEDY ON THIS CONTRACT WAS IMPAIRED
MATERIALLY IS AFFECTED NOT ONLY BY THE PRECARIOUS CHARACTER OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT, BUT BY CONSIDERATIONS OF FACT - OF WHAT THE REMEDY
AMOUNTED TO IN PRACTICE."  PITTSBURGH STEEL CO. V. BALTIMORE EQUITABLE
SOC., 226 U.S. 455, 459.  THIS WAS SAID OF THE CLAIM OF A CREDITOR OF A
PRIVATE CORPORATION.  HOW MUCH MORE PERTINENT IS IT TO CLAIMS OF THESE
APPELLANTS AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY OF ASBURY PARK IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
BEFORE US.  FN2  TO SAY THAT THE RIGHT OF THE ASBURY PARK BONDHOLDERS
IN 1935 WAS OF PRECARIOUS CHARACTER IS PURE UNDERSTATEMENT.  AND WE
HAVE ALREADY SEEN HOW EMPTY WAS THE REMEDY WITH WHICH TO ENFORCE THAT
RIGHT. 

"IN THE BOOKS THERE IS MUCH TALK ABOUT DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN CHANGES
OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONTRACT AND CHANGES OF THE REMEDY  ... THE
DIVIDING LINE IS AT TIMES OBSCURE."  WORTHEN CO. V. KAVANAUGH, 295 U.S.
56, 60.  THE DIVIDING LINE WILL REMAIN OBSCURE IF WE DEAL WITH EMPTY
ABSTRACT RIGHTS INSTEAD OF WORLDLY GAINS AND LOSSES, IF WE INDULGE IN
DOCTRINAIRE TALK ABOUT "RIGHTS" AND "REMEDIES," INSTEAD OF GIVING THESE
CONCEPTS A CONTENT THAT CARRIES MEANING TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF MEN. 
HERE WE HAVE NO SUCH ACTION AS THAT DISCLOSED IN WORTHEN CO. V.
KAVANAUGH, SUPRA, WHERE WITH "STUDIED INDIFFERENCE TO THE INTERESTS OF
THE MORTGAGEE OR TO HIS APPROPRIATE PROTECTION," LEGISLATION WAS FOUND
"TO HAVE TAKEN FROM THE MORTGAGE THE QUALITY OF AN ACCEPTABLE
INVESTMENT FOR A RATIONAL INVESTOR," AND THE CHALLENGED CHANGES OF
REMEDY WERE FOUND TO BE "AN OPPRESSIVE AND UNNECESSARY DESTRUCTION OF
NEARLY ALL THE INCIDENTS THAT GIVE ATTRACTIVENESS AND VALUE TO
COLLATERAL SECURITY."  HERE WE HAVE JUST THE OPPOSITE - NO SECURITY
WHATEVER EXCEPT THE EFFECTIVE TAXING POWER OF THE MUNICIPALITY; THE
EFFECTIVE TAXING POWER OF THE MUNICIPALITY PROSTRATE WITHOUT STATE
INTERVENTION TO REVIVE THE FAMISHED FINANCES OF THE CITY; STATE
INTERVENTION, CAREFULLY DEVISED, WORKED OUT WITH SCRUPULOUS DETAIL AND
WITH DUE REGARD TO THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE CREDITORS, AND SCRUTINIZED
TO THAT END BY THE STATE JUDICIARY WITH THE RESULT THAT THAT WHICH WAS
A MOST DEPRECIATED CLAIM OF LITTLE VALUE HAS, BY THE VERY SCHEME
COMPLAINED OF, BEEN SAVED AND TRANSMUTED INTO SUBSTANTIAL VALUE.  TO
CALL A LAW SO BENEFICENT IN ITS CONSEQUENCES ON BEHALF OF THE CREDITOR
WHO, HAVING HAD SO MUCH RESTORED TO HIM, NOW INSISTS ON STANDING ON THE
PAPER RIGHTS THAT WERE MERELY PAPER BEFORE THIS RESUSCITATING SCHEME,
AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT IS INDEED TO MAKE OF THE
CONSTITUTION A CODE OF LIFELESS FORMS INSTEAD OF AN ENDURING FRAMEWORK
OF GOVERNMENT FOR A DYNAMIC SOCIETY. 

WE DO NOT GO BEYOND THE CASE BEFORE US.  DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS MAY
COME INTO PLAY IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.  THUS WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED
WITH LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TOUCHING SECURED CLAIMS.  THE NEW JERSEY
COURTS HAVE HELD THAT UNDER THIS VERY STATUTE TAX ANTICIPATIONS AND
REVENUE NOTES STAND ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FOOTING FROM OTHER
MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS, AND IN RELATION TO THEM NO CLAIM IS AFFECTED BY
THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION ACT OF 1931.  STATE V. FORT LEE, 14
N.J. MISC. 895, 188 A. 689; AFFIRMED 118 N.J.L. 181, 191 A. 836.  THE
DIFFERENTIATION THUS MADE BY NEW JERSEY REGARDING VARIOUS OBLIGATIONS
IN ITSELF INDICATES THE DETAILED CARE WITH WHICH THE LEGISLATION OF THE
STATE PROCEEDED IN READJUSTING OUTSTANDING MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION AS INCORPORATED IN N.J. REVISED
STATUTES (1937), TIT. 52, C. 27, INDICATES THE CAREFUL CHARACTER OF THE
LEGISLATION: 

"52:  27-34.  PETITION BY CREDITORS; PLAN OF ADJUSTMENT OR
COMPOSITION; PARTIES; NOTICE.  UPON THE VERIFIED PETITION OF ANY
CREDITORS OF A MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH THE COMMISSION SHALL FUNCTION,
MADE ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER CREDITORS OF THE
MUNICIPALITY, FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PLAN OF ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION
OF THE CLAIMS OF ALL CREDITORS OR OF A CLASS OR CLASSES OF THEM
SIMILARLY SITUATED, WHICH PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH AND MADE A PART
OF THE PETITION, THE SUPREME COURT BY A JUSTICE THEREOF MAY TAKE
JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND ORDER THE FILING OF THE PETITION
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT. 

"THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE COMMISSION SHALL BE MADE PARTIES TO SUCH
PROCEEDING.  ALL CREDITORS OF THE MUNICIPALITY SHALL BE MADE PARTIES
THERETO BY NOTICE TO BE PUBLISHED AND GIVEN IN SUCH MANNER AS THE
SUPREME COURT BY ITS JUSTICE MAY DIRECT.  ANY CREDITOR OF THE
MUNICIPALITY MAY APPEAR AND ASSERT HIS RIGHTS. 

"52:  27-35.  ALLEGATIONS IN PETITION.  IN THE PETITION THE CREDITORS
SHALL ALLEGE THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS OR WILL BE UNABLE TO PAY IN FULL
ACCORDING TO THEIR TERMS THE CLAIMS PROPOSED TO BE ADJUSTED OR COMPOSED
AND PERFORM ITS PUBLIC FUNCTIONS AND PRESERVE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO TAXATION, THAT THE ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION PROPOSED IN THE
PLAN IS SUBSTANTIALLY MEASURED BY THE CAPACITY OF THE MUNICIPALITY TO
PAY, IS IN THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE CREDITORS AFFECTED THEREBY, AND IS
NOT DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER CREDITORS OF THE MUNICIPALITY. 

"52:  27-36.  APPROVAL BY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF PLAN OF ADJUSTMENT
OR COMPOSITION; FINDINGS.  IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDING, AFTER HEARING ON THE
PLAN PROPOSED OR ON THE PLAN AS MODIFIED BY ORDER AND IF SUCH PLAN AS
PROPOSED OR MODIFIED IS APPROVED IN WRITING BY CREDITORS REPRESENTING
EIGHTY-FIVE PER CENT IN AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS AFFECTED THEREBY AND
BY THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE COMMISSION, THE SUPREME COURT BY A JUSTICE
THEREOF MAY BY ORDER AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE SUCH ADJUSTMENT OR
COMPOSITION IF THE COURT BY ITS JUSTICE DETERMINES (1) THAT THE
MUNICIPALITY IS UNABLE TO PAY IN FULL ACCORDING TO THEIR TERMS THE
CLAIMS PROPOSED TO BE ADJUSTED OR COMPOSED, AND PERFORM ITS PUBLIC
FUNCTIONS AND PRESERVE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION, (2)
THAT THE ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION IS SUBSTANTIALLY MEASURED BY THE
CAPACITY OF THE MUNICIPALITY TO PAY, (3) THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF
ALL THE CREDITORS AFFECTED THEREBY, AND (4) THAT IT IS NOT DETRIMENTAL
TO OTHER CREDITORS OF THE MUNICIPALITY. 

"52:  27-37.  APPROVED PLAN BINDING ON ALL CREDITORS; SUBSTITUTED
OBLIGATIONS.  THE PLAN OF ADJUSTMENT SO AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED SHALL
FORTHWITH AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ACTION OF ANY KIND BE BINDING UPON
ALL THE CREDITORS INCLUDED IN THE PLAN, WHETHER OR NOT THEY APPEAR IN
THE PROCEEDING.  IN SO FAR AS SAID PLAN PROVIDES FOR THE SUBSTITUTION
OF ANY NEW BONDS, NOTES OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE MUNICIPALITY IN
PLACE OF ANY OUTSTANDING BONDS, NOTES OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS, OR CLAIMS
THEN OUTSTANDING, SUCH SUBSTITUTION SHALL BE EFFECTUAL FROM AND AFTER
SUCH DATE AS MAY BE FIXED IN SUCH ORDER. 

"52:  27-38.  CONTINUANCE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
MUNICIPALITY; ACTION BY CREDITOR TO ENFORCE CLAIM RESTRICTED.  AFTER
THE INSTITUTION OF ANY PROCEEDING PROVIDED FOR BY THIS ARTICLE AND
PENDING THE DETERMINATION THEREOF, THE SUPREME COURT BY A JUSTICE
THEREOF MAY BY ORDER CONTINUE THE STAY PROVIDED BY SECTIONS 52:  27
32.1 AND 52:  27-33 OF THIS TITLE. 

"IN THE EVENT THAT A PLAN SHALL BE AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED PURSUANT
TO THIS ARTICLE THE COURT SHALL RETAIN JURISDICTION OF SUCH PROCEEDING
AND THEREAFTER NO CREDITOR WHOSE CLAIM IS INCLUDED IN SUCH ADJUSTMENT
OR COMPOSITION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING OF
ANY KIND OR CHARACTER FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF HIS CLAIM EXCEPT WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THEN ONLY TO RECOVER AND ENFORCE
THE RIGHTS GIVEN HIM BY THE ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION. 

"52:  27-39.  REDUCTION IN PRINCIPAL OF OUTSTANDING NOTES OR BONDS
PROHIBITED.  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE THE
COMMISSION SHALL NOT APPROVE ANY ADJUSTMENT OR COMPOSITION, OR PLAN
PRESENTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE REDUCTION IN
THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ANY OUTSTANDING NOTES OR BONDS OF THE
MUNICIPALITY."    FN2  COMPARE CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. NEBRASKA, 170
U.S. 57, 72.  "USUALLY, WHERE A CONTRACT, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
POLICY, HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PARTIES COMPETENT TO CONTRACT, IT
IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF EITHER PARTY TO WITHDRAW FROM ITS TERMS
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER; AND THE OBLIGATION OF SUCH A CONTRACT
IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FROM HOSTILE LEGISLATION.  WHERE,
HOWEVER, THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES ARE NOT PRIVATE PERSONS, DEALING WITH
MATTERS AND THINGS IN WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS NO CONCERN, BUT ARE PERSONS
OR CORPORATIONS WHOSE RIGHTS AND POWERS WERE CREATED FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSES, BY LEGISLATIVE ACTS, AND WHERE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE
CONTRACT IS ONE WHICH AFFECTS THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC,
OTHER PRINCIPLES APPLY.  CONTRACTS OF THE LATTER DESCRIPTION ARE HELD
TO BE WITHIN THE SUPERVISING POWER AND CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE WHEN
EXERCISED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND MORALS, AND THAT
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHICH PROTECTS CONTRACTS FROM
LEGISLATIVE ACTION CANNOT IN EVERY CASE BE SUCCESSFULLY INVOKED.  THE
PRESUMPTION IS THAT WHEN SUCH CONTRACTS ARE ENTERED INTO IT IS WITH THE
KNOWLEDGE THAT PARTIES CANNOT, BY MAKING AGREEMENTS ON SUBJECTS
INVOLVING THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC, WITHDRAW SUCH SUBJECTS FROM THE
POLICE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE." 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :










KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, 316 U.S. 517 


NO. 910.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 29, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 124
F.2D 567 AND 125 F.2D 278, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 HELD APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES
ENGAGED IN THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A BUILDING WHOSE TENANTS
ARE ENGAGED PRINCIPALLY IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  P. 524. 

2.  SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED IN AN "OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE
PRODUCTION" OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
3(J) OF THE ACT.  P. 524. 

3.  THE EMPLOYEES HERE INVOLVED CAN NOT BE REGARDED AS ENGAGED IN
"SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS" WITHIN THE EXEMPTION OF SEC. 13(A)(2) OF THE
ACT.  P. 526. 

A.B. KIRSCHBAUM CO. V. WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE & HOUR
DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 924, ARSENAL BUILDING CORP. ET AL. V. WALLING,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE & HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 792, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT.   - ARGUED APRIL 29, 1942. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 792, TO REVIEW, IN NO. 910, THE AFFIRMANCE OF A
DECREE ENJOINING THE PETITIONERS FROM AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 38 F.SUPP.  204; AND, IN NO. 924, THE REVERSAL OF
A DECREE DENYING SUCH AN INJUNCTION, 38 F.SUPP.  207. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, AND OPP COTTON MILLS V.
ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 201 ET SEQ., WAS
SUSTAINED.  IN THE CASES NOW BEFORE US WE ARE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE
SCOPE OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO A PARTICULAR PHASE OF INDUSTRIAL
ACTIVITY.  SPECIFICALLY, THE PROBLEM IS THIS: UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE ACT
AN EMPLOYER MUST PAY PRESCRIBED MINIMUM WAGES "TO EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES
WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE,"
AND UNDER SEC. 7 OVERTIME COMPENSATION MUST BE GIVEN "ANY OF HIS
EMPLOYEES WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE."  SECTION 3(J) PROVIDES THAT "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT AN
EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS IF SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED ...  IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION
NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION THEREOF, IN ANY STATE."  THE EMPLOYEES HERE
ARE ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A LOFT BUILDING IN
WHICH LARGE QUANTITIES OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE PRODUCED. 
DOES THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT EXTEND TO SUCH EMPLOYEES? 

THE FACTS IN THE TWO CASES DIFFER ONLY IN MINOR DETAIL.  IN NO. 910,
THE PETITIONER OWNS AND OPERATES A SIX-STORY LOFT BUILDING IN
PHILADELPHIA.  THE TENANTS ARE, FOR THE MOST PART, MANUFACTURERS OF
MEN'S AND BOYS' CLOTHING.  IN NO. 924, THE PETITIONERS OWN AND OPERATE
A TWENTY-TWO STORY BUILDING LOCATED IN THE HEART OF THE NEW YORK CITY
CLOTHING MANUFACTURING DISTRICT.  PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE TENANTS
MANUFACTURE OR BUY AND SELL LADIES' GARMENTS.  CONCEDEDLY, IN BOTH
CASES THE TENANTS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE PRINCIPALLY ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN NO. 910, THE
PETITIONER EMPLOYS AN ENGINEER, THREE FIREMEN, THREE ELEVATOR
OPERATORS, TWO WATCHMEN, A PORTER, A CARPENTER, AND A CARPENTER'S
HELPER.  IN NO. 924, THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVES TWO FIREMEN, AN
ELECTRICIAN, FOURTEEN ELEVATOR OPERATORS, TWO WATCHMEN, AND SIX
PORTERS.  THESE EMPLOYEES PERFORM THE CUSTOMARY DUTIES OF PERSONS
CHARGED WITH THE EFFECTIVE MAINTENANCE OF A LOFT BUILDING.  THE
ENGINEER AND THE FIREMEN PRODUCE HEAT, HOT WATER, AND STEAM NECESSARY
TO THE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS.  THEY KEEP ELEVATORS, RADIATORS, AND
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN REPAIR.  THE ELECTRICIAN MAINTAINS THE SYSTEM
WHICH FURNISHES THE TENANTS WITH LIGHT AND POWER.  THE ELEVATOR
OPERATORS RUN BOTH THE FREIGHT ELEVATORS WHICH START AND FINISH THE
INTERSTATE JOURNEYS OF GOODS GOING FROM AND COMING TO THE TENANTS, AND
THE PASSENGER ELEVATORS WHICH CARRY EMPLOYEES, CUSTOMERS, SALESMEN, AND
VISITORS.  THE WATCHMEN PROTECT THE BUILDINGS FROM FIRE AND THEFT.  THE
CARPENTERS REPAIR THE HALLS AND STAIRWAYS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE
BUILDINGS COMMONLY USED BY THE TENANTS.  THE PORTERS KEEP THE BUILDINGS
CLEAN AND HABITABLE. 

DEEMING THESE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE ACT BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP
TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TENANTS, THE ADMINISTRATOR BROUGHT SUITS TO
ENJOIN THE PETITIONERS FROM VIOLATING THE ACT BY PAYING WAGES AT LOWER
RATES THAN THOSE FIXED BY THE ACT.  IN NO. 910, THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED AN INJUNCTION, 38 F.SUPP.  204, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  124 F.2D 567.  IN NO. 924, THE
DISTRICT COURT DENIED AN INJUNCTION, 38 F.SUPP.  207, BUT THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED.  125 F.2D 278. 
DESPITE THIS CONCURRENCE OF VIEWS OF THE TWO CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS,
FN1  WE BROUGHT THE CASES HERE BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS
PRESENTED AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  315 U.S.
792. 

TO SEARCH FOR A DEPENDABLE TOUCHSTONE BY WHICH TO DETERMINE WHETHER
EMPLOYEES ARE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE" IS AS REWARDING AS AN ATTEMPT TO SQUARE THE CIRCLE.  THE
JUDICIAL TASK IN MARKING OUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXERCISED
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE IS NOT THAT OF DEVISING AN
ABSTRACT FORMULA.  PERHAPS IN NO DOMAIN OF PUBLIC LAW ARE GENERAL
PROPOSITIONS LESS HELPFUL AND INDEED MORE MISCHIEVOUS THAN WHERE
BOUNDARIES MUST BE DRAWN, UNDER A FEDERAL ENACTMENT, BETWEEN WHAT IT
HAS TAKEN OVER FOR ADMINISTRATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND WHAT IT
HAS LEFT TO THE STATES.  TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT THE TASK IS ONE OF
ACCOMMODATION AS BETWEEN ASSERTIONS OF NEW FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND
HISTORIC FUNCTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.  THE EXPANSION OF OUR
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMY HAS INEVITABLY BEEN REFLECTED IN THE EXTENSION OF
FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE AND ITS ABSORPTION OF
AUTHORITY PREVIOUSLY POSSESSED BY THE STATES.  FEDERAL LEGISLATION OF
THIS CHARACTER CANNOT THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
IMPLICATIONS OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 

THE BODY OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS REGULATING COMMERCE REVEALS A
PROCESS OF LEGISLATION WHICH IS STRIKINGLY EMPIRIC.  THE DEGREE OF
ACCOMMODATION MADE BY CONGRESS FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS HAS VARIED WITH THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE LEGISLATION, THE HISTORY BEHIND THE PARTICULAR FIELD OF
REGULATION, THE SPECIFIC TERMS IN WHICH THE NEW REGULATORY LEGISLATION
HAS BEEN CAST, AND THE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION. 
SEE, E.G., VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515.  THUS, WHILE
A PHASE OF INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE MAY BE SUBJECT TO CONTROL UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, A DIFFERENT PHASE OF THE SAME ENTERPRISE
MAY NOT COME WITHIN THE "COMMERCE" PROTECTED BY THE SHERMAN LAW. 
COMPARE, FOR EXAMPLE, UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT, 265 U.S. 457,
AND LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103, WITH LABOR BOARD
V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO., 301 U.S. 58, AND LABOR BOARD V.
FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601.  SIMILARLY, ENTERPRISES SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
INDUSTRIAL REGULATION MAY NEVERTHELESS BE TAXED BY THE STATES WITHOUT
PUTTING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  COMPARE
HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 245, AND OLIVER IRON CO. V.
LORD, 262 U.S. 172, WITH SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381. 

WE CANNOT, THEREFORE, INDULGE IN THE LOOSE ASSUMPTION THAT, WHEN
CONGRESS ADOPTS A NEW SCHEME FOR FEDERAL INDUSTRIAL REGULATION, IT
THEREBY DEALS WITH ALL SITUATIONS FALLING WITHIN THE GENERAL MISCHIEF
WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE LEGISLATION.  SUCH AN ASSUMPTION MIGHT BE VALID
WHERE REMEDY OF THE MISCHIEF IS THE CONCERN OF ONLY A SINGLE UNITARY
GOVERNMENT.  IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WHERE THE PRACTICALITIES OF
FEDERALISM - OR, MORE PRECISELY, THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS OF OUR DUAL
FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE CONSEQUENT PRESUPPOSITIONS OF LEGISLATIVE
DRAFTSMANSHIP WHICH ARE EXPRESSIVE OF OUR HISTORY AND HABITS - CUT
ACROSS WHAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE THE IMPLIED RANGE OF THE LEGISLATION. 
CONGRESS MAY CHOOSE, AS IT HAS CHOSEN FREQUENTLY IN THE PAST, TO
REGULATE ONLY PART OF WHAT IT CONSTITUTIONALLY CAN REGULATE, LEAVING TO
THE STATES ACTIVITIES WHICH, IF ISOLATED, ARE ONLY LOCAL.  ONE NEED
REFER ONLY TO THE HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OVER THE RATES OF
INTRASTATE CARRIERS WHICH AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE,  FN2  AND THE
AMENDMENT OF AUGUST 11, 1939, TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT,
EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF THAT ACT TO EMPLOYEES WHO "SHALL, IN ANY WAY
DIRECTLY OR CLOSELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY, AFFECT" INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 53
STAT. 1404.  COMPARE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S.
349.  THE HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION REGULATING NOT ONLY
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS SUCH BUT ALSO ACTIVITIES INTERTWINED WITH IT,
JUSTIFIES THE GENERALIZATION THAT, WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKES
OVER SUCH LOCAL RADIATIONS IN THE VAST NETWORK OF OUR NATIONAL ECONOMIC
ENTERPRISE AND THEREBY RADICALLY READJUSTS THE BALANCE OF STATE AND
NATIONAL AUTHORITY, THOSE CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF LEGISLATING ARE
REASONABLY EXPLICIT AND DO NOT ENTRUST ITS ATTAINMENT TO THAT
RETROSPECTIVE EXPANSION OF MEANING WHICH PROPERLY DESERVES THE STIGMA
OF JUDICIAL LEGISLATION. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR DOES NOT CONTEND THAT THE EMPLOYEES IN THE CASES
BEFORE US ARE WITHIN THE ACT BECAUSE CONGRESS COULD HAVE PLACED THEM
THERE.  THE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS
CHOSE NOT TO ENTER AREAS WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE OCCUPIED.  AS PASSED BY
THE HOUSE, THE BILL APPLIED TO EMPLOYERS "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE IN ANY
INDUSTRY AFFECTING COMMERCE."  SEE H. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3RD
SESS., P. 2; 83 CONG. REC. 7749-50.  BUT THE BILL RECOMMENDED BY THE
CONFERENCE APPLIED ONLY TO EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  H. REP. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3RD
SESS., PP. 29-30; 83 CONG. REC. 9158, 9266-67.  MOREOVER, IN ONE OF ITS
INTERMEDIATE STAGES, THE MEASURE INCORPORATED THE SHREVEPORT DOCTRINE,
HOUSTON, E. & W.T. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, IN THAT IT WAS
SPECIFICALLY MADE APPLICABLE TO INTRASTATE PRODUCTION WHICH COMPETED
WITH GOODS PRODUCED IN ANOTHER STATE.  S. 2475, 75TH CONG. 3RD SESS.,
AS RECOMMITTED DECEMBER 17, 1937, SEC. 8(A).  BUT, AS REPORTED BY THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, THIS PROVISION WAS DELETED.  S. 2475, SUPRA,
AS REPORTED APRIL 21, 1938; SEE H. REP. 2182, SUPRA. 

SINCE THE SCOPE OF THE ACT IS NOT COEXTENSIVE WITH THE LIMITS OF THE
POWER OF CONGRESS OVER COMMERCE, THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THESE
EMPLOYEES FALL WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE," CONSTRUED AS THE
PROVISION MUST BE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL ABSORPTION
OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY OVER INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE.  IN THIS TASK OF
CONSTRUCTION, WE ARE WITHOUT THE AID AFFORDED BY A PRELIMINARY
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE PARTICULAR SITUATION
IS WITHIN THE REGULATED AREA.  UNLIKE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND OTHER LEGISLATION, THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT PUTS UPON THE COURTS THE INDEPENDENT RESPONSIBILITY OF
APPLYING AD HOC THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE STATUTE TO AN INFINITE VARIETY
OF COMPLICATED INDUSTRIAL SITUATIONS.  OUR PROBLEM IS, OF COURSE, ONE
OF DRAWING LINES.  BUT IT IS NOT AT ALL A PROBLEM IN MENSURATION. 
THERE ARE NO FIXED POINTS, THOUGH LINES ARE TO BE DRAWN.  THE REAL
QUESTION IS HOW THE LINES ARE TO BE DRAWN - WHAT ARE THE RELEVANT
CONSIDERATIONS IN PLACING THE LINE HERE RATHER THAN THERE.  TO THAT END
WE HAVE TRIED TO STATE WITH CANDOR THE LARGER CONSIDERATIONS OF
NATIONAL POLICY, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICALITIES
THAT UNDERLIE THE VARIATIONS IN THE TERMS OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMERCIAL
REGULATORY MEASURES AND WHICH THEREFORE SHOULD GOVERN THEIR JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION. 

WE START WITH THE WEIGHTY OPINIONS OF THE TWO CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS THAT THE EMPLOYEES HERE ARE WITHIN THE ACT BECAUSE THEY WERE
ENGAGED IN OCCUPATIONS "NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION" OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE BY THE TENANTS.  WITHOUT LIGHT AND HEAT AND POWER THE TENANTS
COULD NOT ENGAGE, AS THEY DO, IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE MAINTENANCE OF A SAFE, HABITABLE BUILDING IS
INDISPENSABLE TO THAT ACTIVITY.  THE NORMAL AND SPONTANEOUS MEANING OF
THE LANGUAGE BY WHICH CONGRESS DEFINED IN SEC. 3(J) THE CLASS OF
PERSONS WITHIN THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT, TO WIT, EMPLOYEES ENGAGED "IN
PRODUCING, MANUFACTURING, MINING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, OR IN ANY
OTHER MANNER WORKING ON SUCH GOODS, OR IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION
NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION THEREOF," ENCOMPASSES THESE EMPLOYEES, IN
VIEW OF THEIR RELATION TO THE CONCEDED PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE
BY THE TENANTS.  THE PETITIONERS ASSERT, HOWEVER, THAT THE BUILDING
INDUSTRY OF WHICH THEY ARE PART IS PURELY LOCAL IN NATURE AND THAT THE
ACT DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE EMPLOYER IS NOT HIMSELF ENGAGED IN AN
INDUSTRY PARTAKING OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT EXPRESSLY MAKE ITS APPLICATION DEPENDENT UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE
EMPLOYEES' ACTIVITIES.  AND, IN ANY EVENT, TO THE EXTENT THAT HIS
EMPLOYEES ARE "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE," THE EMPLOYER IS HIMSELF SO ENGAGED.  FN3  NOR CAN WE FIND IN
THE ACT, AS DO THE PETITIONERS, ANY REQUIREMENT THAT EMPLOYEES MUST
THEMSELVES PARTICIPATE IN THE PHYSICAL PROCESS OF THE MAKING OF THE
GOODS BEFORE THEY CAN BE REGARDED AS ENGAGED IN THEIR PRODUCTION.  SUCH
A CONSTRUCTION ERASES THE FINAL CLAUSE OF SEC. 3(J) WHICH INCLUDES
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED "IN ANY PROCESS OR OCCUPATION NECESSARY TO THE
PRODUCTION" AND THEREBY DOES NOT LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE TO THE
PRECEDING CLAUSE WHICH DEALS WITH EMPLOYEES "IN ANY OTHER MANNER
WORKING ON SUCH GOODS."    BUT THE PETITIONERS URGE THAT SEC. 3(J)
CANNOT BE CONSTRUED LITERALLY, THAT CONGRESS SURELY DID NOT DESIGN THE
ACT TO APPLY TO EVERY EMPLOYEE WHO HAPPENS TO PERFORM SERVICES THAT ARE
ESSENTIAL TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  BUT BECAUSE SOME
EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BE WITHIN THE ACT EVEN THOUGH THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE IN
AN ULTIMATE SENSE "NECESSARY" TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE,
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT NO EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES ARE "NECESSARY"
ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT.  SECTION 3(J) CANNOT THUS BE
READ OUT OF THE ACT.  THE LOWER COURT IN NO. 924 MET THE PETITIONERS'
ARGUMENT BY FINDING THE ACT APPLICABLE TO THESE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEIR
WORK WAS "IN KIND SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE IF THE
MANUFACTURERS EMPLOYED THEM DIRECTLY."  IN THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION, THE
ANSWER MAY BE ADEQUATE; BUT AS A GUIDING CRITERION IT MAY PROVE TOO
MUCH.  "NECESSARY" IS COLORED BY THE CONTEXT NOT ONLY OF THE TERMS OF
THIS LEGISLATION BUT OF ITS IMPLICATIONS IN THE RELATION BETWEEN STATE
AND NATIONAL AUTHORITY.  WE CANNOT, IN CONSTRUING THE WORD "NECESSARY,"
ESCAPE AN INQUIRY INTO THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES TO
THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE.  IF THE WORK OF THE EMPLOYEES HAS
ONLY THE MOST TENUOUS RELATION TO, AND IS NOT IN ANY FITTING SENSE
"NECESSARY" TO, THE PRODUCTION, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES
WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IF THE EMPLOYEES WORKED DIRECTLY FOR
THE PRODUCERS OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE. 

WE AGREE, HOWEVER, WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURTS BELOW.  IN OUR
JUDGMENT, THE WORK OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THESE CASES HAD SUCH A CLOSE AND
IMMEDIATE TIE WITH THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE, AND WAS
THEREFORE SO MUCH AN ESSENTIAL PART OF IT, THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE
REGARDED AS ENGAGED IN AN OCCUPATION "NECESSARY TO THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR COMMERCE."  WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT A RELATED PROBLEM IS NOT
INAPPOSITE HERE:  "WHATEVER TERMINOLOGY IS USED, THE CRITERION IS
NECESSARILY ONE OF DEGREE AND MUST BE SO DEFINED.  THIS DOES NOT
SATISFY THOSE WHO SEEK FOR MATHEMATICAL OR RIGID FORMULAS.  BUT SUCH
FORMULAS ARE NOT PROVIDED BY THE GREAT CONCEPTS OF THE CONSTITUTION
SUCH AS 'INTERSTATE COMMERCE,' 'DUE PROCESS,' 'EQUAL PROTECTION.'  IN
MAINTAINING THE BALANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTS AND LIMITATIONS,
IT IS INEVITABLE THAT WE SHOULD DEFINE THEIR APPLICATIONS IN THE
GRADUAL PROCESS OF INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION.  THERE IS THUS NO POINT IN
THE INSTANT CASE IN A DEMAND FOR THE DRAWING OF A MATHEMATICAL LINE. 
AND WHAT IS REASONABLY CLEAR IN A PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS NOT TO BE
OVERBORNE BY THE SIMPLE AND FAMILIAR DIALECTIC OF SUGGESTING DOUBTFUL
AND EXTREME CASES."  SANTA CRUZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 467. 
"WHAT IS NEEDED IS SOMETHING OF THAT COMMON-SENSE ACCOMMODATION OF
JUDGMENT TO KALEIDOSCOPIC SITUATIONS WHICH CHARACTERIZES THE LAW IN ITS
TREATMENT OF PROBLEMS OF CAUSATION."  GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299
U.S. 109, 117. 

A FINAL OBJECTION TO THE DECISIONS BELOW NEED NOT DETAIN US LONG. 
THE PETITIONERS' BUILDINGS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS "SERVICE
ESTABLISHMENTS" WITHIN THE EXEMPTION OF SEC. 13(A)(2).  SELLING SPACE
IN A LOFT BUILDING IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF SELLING SERVICES TO
CONSUMERS, AND, IN ANY EVENT, THE "GREATER PART" OF THE "SERVICING"
DONE BY THE PETITIONERS HERE IS NOT IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE ACT, IF APPLIED TO THESE EMPLOYEES, GOES BEYOND THE
BOUNDS OF THE COMMERCE POWER IS WITHOUT MERIT.  LABOR BOARD CASES, 301
U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA; OPP COTTON MILLS V.
ADMINISTRATOR, SUPRA. 

IN BOTH CASES THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  COMPARE WARREN-BRADSHAW DRILLING CO. V. HALL, 124 F.2D 42;
KILLINGBECK V. GARMENT CENTER CAPITOL, INC., 259 APP. DIV. (N.Y.)  691,
20 N.Y.S.2D 521; ROBINSON V. MASSACHUSETTS MUT. LIFE INS. CO., 158
S.W.2D 441(TENN.); CECIL V. GRADISON, 40 N.E.2D 958(OHIO APP.);
PEDERSEN V. FITZGERALD CONSTRUCTION CO., 262 APP. DIV. (N.Y.)  665, 30
N.Y.S.2D 989. 

FN2  FOR THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS EXTENSION OF FEDERAL
AUTHORITY, SEE SHEPARD V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 184 F. 765,
REVERSED SUB NOM. MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352; HOUSTON, E. &
W.T. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342, AS APPLIED IN ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 245 U.S. 493, AND AS
CONFIRMED BY SEC. 416 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 456,
484, AND AS EXTENDED BY SEC. 13(4) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563. 

FN3  THE EXACT SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DEALING WITH THE
COMPOSITION, AUTHORITY, AND PROCEDURE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES IS NOT NOW
BEFORE US.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, WE DO NOT FIND IN THEM ANY LIMITATION
UPON THE AREA OF REGULATION OUTLINED BY SECS. 6 AND 7. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I DISSENT.  I THINK THE POWER OF CONGRESS DOES NOT REACH THE PURELY
LOCAL ACTIVITIES IN QUESTION.  IF IT DID, THE COMMERCE POWER ALONE
WOULD SUPPORT REGULATION OF ANY LOCAL ACTION, SINCE IT IS CONCEIVABLE
THAT SUCH ACTIVITY, HOWEVER REMOTELY, "AFFECTS" COMMERCE OR IS
"NECESSARY" TO THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE. 

BUT I AM CONVINCED THAT CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED BY THE STATUTE TO
REACH THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONERS.  NEITHER THE WORDS OF THE ACT,
NOR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, NOR THE PURPOSE TO BE SERVED, REQUIRES THE
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IN THESE CASES. 
..END :
















HELVERING V. CEMENT INVESTORS, 316 U.S. 527 


NO. 644.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 122 F.2D
380, 416, AFFIRMED. 


A PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF A CORPORATION AND ITS WHOLLY-OWNED
SUBSIDIARY IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
PROVIDED FOR THE CREATION OF A NEW COMPANY WHICH WOULD ASSUME THE
OBLIGATIONS OF THE BONDS OF THE PARENT COMPANY AND WOULD ISSUE INCOME
BONDS AND COMMON STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR THE FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OF THE
SUBSIDIARY COMPANY, THE LATTER HAVING BEEN GUARANTEED AS TO PRINCIPAL
AND INTEREST BY THE PARENT COMPANY.  STOCKHOLDERS OF THE DEBTOR
COMPANIES WERE TO RECEIVE IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR STOCK ONLY WARRANTS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF SHARES OF THE NEW COMPANY.  THE PLAN WAS CONFIRMED BY
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AND WAS CONSUMMATED BY A CONVEYANCE OF THE ASSETS
OF THE OLD COMPANIES TO THE NEW BY THE DEBTOR COMPANIES, THE BANKRUPTCY
TRUSTEE, AND THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE INDENTURE SECURING THE BONDS OF THE
SUBSIDIARY COMPANY.  THE NEW SECURITIES WERE ISSUABLE TO, OR ON THE
ORDER OF, THE REORGANIZATION MANAGERS, ACTING AS "AGENTS" OF THE
SECURITY HOLDERS.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN, ALL
OF THE ISSUED SHARES OF THE NEW COMPANY (552,660 COMMON SHARES OF AN
AUTHORIZED 1,000,000) BELONGED TO THE FORMER HOLDERS OF THE BONDS OF
THE OLD SUBSIDIARY COMPANY.  NEARLY TWO YEARS LATER, ONLY 465 SHARES
HAD BEEN ISSUED TO HOLDERS OF WARRANTS.  HELD: 

1.  THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT A "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN SEC.
112(G)(1)(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936(HELVERING V. SOUTHWEST
CONSOLIDATED CORP., 315 U.S. 194), NOR WITHIN SEC. 112(G)(1)(C) OF THAT
ACT.  P. 530. 

2.  THE TRANSACTION SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 112(B)(5) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, AND NO GAIN RESULTING THEREFROM TO HOLDERS OF
BONDS OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS TO BE RECOGNIZED.  P. 531. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 112(B)(5) SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION. 

3.  THE "REORGANIZATION" PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACTS DO NOT
FURNISH THE EXCLUSIVE METHODS FOR SECURING A DEFERMENT OF GAINS OR
LOSSES ARISING OUT OF TRANSACTIONS POPULARLY KNOWN AS CORPORATE
READJUSTMENTS OR REORGANIZATIONS.  P. 533. 

4.  WHETHER A TAX LIABILITY IN THIS CASE MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED UNDER
SEC. 112(A) - A QUESTION NOT FAIRLY WITHIN THE ISSUES AS FRAMED BY THE
COMMISSIONER, AND NOT DECIDED BELOW - IS NOT HERE DETERMINED.  P. 535. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. CEMENT INVESTORS,
INC.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 645, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. JAMES Q. NEWTON TRUST, AND NO. 646, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, V. NEWTON, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 825,
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 825, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCES OF DECISIONS OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 42 B.T.A. 473, IN FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYERS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THESE CASES IS WHETHER, UNDER SEC. 112(B)(5)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936(49 STAT. 1648, 1678, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
112(B)(5)), THE GAIN OF THE TAXPAYERS FROM THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION
SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED. 

THE TAXPAYERS OWNED FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OF COLORADO INDUSTRIAL CO.,
WHICH WAS A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE COLORADO FUEL AND IRON CO.
THE BONDS WERE GUARANTEED BOTH AS TO PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST BY THE
PARENT COMPANY.  AFTER DEFAULTS ON THESE BONDS, AND ON OTHER BONDS
ISSUED BY THE PARENT COMPANY, EACH COMPANY FILED A PETITION UNDER SEC.
77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WAS FORMULATED BY
COMMITTEES OF THE SECURITY HOLDERS.  IT PROVIDED FOR THE FORMATION OF A
NEW COMPANY, TO WHICH ALL THE ASSETS OF THE TWO DEBTOR COMPANIES WOULD
BE TRANSFERRED.  THE NEW COMPANY WOULD ASSUME THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
BONDS OF THE OLD PARENT COMPANY, COLORADO FUEL AND IRON CO., AND ISSUE
INCOME BONDS AND COMMON STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR THE BONDS OF THE OLD
SUBSIDIARY COMPANY, COLORADO INDUSTRIAL CO. THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
DEBTOR COMPANIES WOULD RECEIVE NO INTEREST IN THE NEW COMPANY; BUT IN
EXCHANGE FOR THEIR STOCK THEY WOULD RECEIVE WARRANTS FOR THE PURCHASE
OF SHARES OF THE NEW COMPANY.  APPROVAL OF THE PLAN BY THE REQUISITE
PERCENTAGE OF SECURITY HOLDERS WAS OBTAINED.  THE PLAN WAS CONFIRMED BY
THE COURT IN APRIL, 1936, AND WAS DULY CONSUMMATED AS FOLLOWS:  THE
DEBTOR COMPANIES, THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE, AND THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE
INDENTURE SECURING THE BONDS OF THE OLD SUBSIDIARY COMPANY, CONVEYED
THE ASSETS OF THE DEBTORS TO THE NEW COMPANY.  THE NEW SECURITIES WERE
ISSUABLE TO, OR ON THE ORDER OF, THE REORGANIZATION MANAGERS, WHO WERE
ACTING, AS STATED IN THE PLAN, AS "AGENTS" OF THE SECURITY HOLDERS. 
THE REORGANIZATION MANAGERS EFFECTED AN EXCHANGE OF THE OLD SECURITIES
FOR THE NEW ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 1, 1936.  IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN, ALL OF THE ISSUED SHARES OF THE NEW COMPANY
(552,660 SHARES OF COMMON, OUT OF AN AUTHORIZED ISSUE OF 1,000,000
SHARES) BELONGED TO THE FORMER HOLDERS OF THE BONDS OF THE OLD
SUBSIDIARY COMPANY.  NO STOCK WAS ISSUED BY THE NEW COMPANY TO OTHER
PARTIES UNTIL OCTOBER, 1936, WHEN 37 SHARES WERE ISSUED ON EXERCISE OF
THE WARRANTS.  BY JUNE, 1938, ONLY 465 SHARES HAD BEEN ISSUED TO
HOLDERS OF THE WARRANTS. 

EACH OF THE TAXPAYERS IN THESE CASES EXCHANGED HIS COLORADO
INDUSTRIAL CO. BONDS FOR INCOME BONDS AND COMMON STOCK OF THE NEW
COMPANY IN EACH CASE, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE NEW SECURITIES
EXCEEDED THE BASIS OF THE OLD.  THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED
DEFICIENCIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROFIT FROM THE EXCHANGE WAS A
TAXABLE GAIN.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD FOR THE TAXPAYERS.  SEE 42
B.T.A. 473.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED (122 F.2D 380, 416),
HOLDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE EXCHANGE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
112(B)(5).  WE GRANTED THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE
APPLICATION OF SEC. 112(B)(5) TO RECEIVERSHIP OR BANKRUPTCY
REORGANIZATIONS RAISED IMPORTANT PROBLEMS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
INCOME TAX LAW. 

IT IS PLAIN FROM HELVERING V. SOUTHWEST CONSOLIDATED CORP., 315 U.S.
194, WHICH INVOLVED IDENTICAL DEFINITIONS OF THE TERM "REORGANIZATION"
AS ARE INVOLVED HERE, THAT THIS TRANSACTION DOES NOT MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 112(G)(1)(B) OF THE 1936 ACT.  FN1  THE ASSETS OF
THE OLD COMPANIES WERE NOT ACQUIRED IN EXCHANGE "SOLELY" FOR VOTING
STOCK OF THE NEW COMPANY, SINCE INCOME BONDS AND WARRANTS WERE ALSO
ISSUED.  IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 112(G)(1)(C)
WERE NOT SATISFIED, SINCE CLAUSE C "CONTEMPLATES THAT THE OLD
CORPORATION OR ITS STOCKHOLDERS, RATHER THAN ITS CREDITORS, SHALL BE IN
THE DOMINANT POSITION OF 'CONTROL' IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRANSFER AND
NOT EXCLUDED OR RELEGATED TO A MINORITY POSITION."  ID., P. 202.  BUT
IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT SEC. 112(B)(5) IS INAPPLICABLE. 
SEC. 112(B)(5) PROVIDES: 

"NO GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE RECOGNIZED IF PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED TO A
CORPORATION BY ONE OR MORE PERSONS SOLELY IN EXCHANGE FOR STOCK OR
SECURITIES IN SUCH CORPORATION, AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXCHANGE SUCH
PERSON OR PERSONS ARE IN CONTROL OF THE CORPORATION; BUT IN THE CASE OF
AN EXCHANGE BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL APPLY ONLY IF
THE AMOUNT OF THE STOCK AND SECURITIES RECEIVED BY EACH IS
SUBSTANTIALLY IN PROPORTION TO HIS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO
THE EXCHANGE." 

"CONTROL" IS DEFINED IN SEC. 112(H) TO MEAN 

"THE OWNERSHIP OF STOCK POSSESSING AT LEAST 80 PER CENTUM OF THE
TOTAL COMBINED VOTING POWER OF ALL CLASSES OF STOCK ENTITLED TO VOTE
AND AT LEAST 80 PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OF ALL OTHER
CLASSES OF STOCK OF THE CORPORATION." 

IF IT MAY BE SAID THAT PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE BONDHOLDERS TO
THE NEW CORPORATION, THEN THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 112(B)(5) WERE
SATISFIED.  FOR THE BONDHOLDERS, AS OWNERS OF ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING
SHARES OF THE NEW CORPORATION, WERE IN "CONTROL" OF IT "IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE EXCHANGE."  AND IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT THE STOCK AND
INCOME BONDS ACQUIRED BY EACH BONDHOLDER WERE SUBSTANTIALLY IN
PROPORTION TO HIS INTEREST IN THE ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR COMPANIES PRIOR
TO THE EXCHANGE.  PETITIONER, HOWEVER, MAINTAINS THAT THE ONLY TRANSFER
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 112(B)(5) WAS EFFECTED BY THE DEBTOR
COMPANIES, THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE, AND THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE; AND THAT
THE EXCHANGE OF THE BONDS FOR THE NEW SECURITIES WAS MERELY PART OF THE
MECHANICS FOR CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN, AND NOT AN EXCHANGE BY WHICH
"PROPERTY" WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW CORPORATION.  THOUGH WE AGREED
WITH THE LATTER PROPOSITION, IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 112(B)(5) WERE NOT MET. 

IN CASE OF REORGANIZATIONS OF INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS, THE CREDITORS
HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE THE STOCKHOLDERS ENTIRELY FROM THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN.  WHEN THE STOCKHOLDERS ARE EXCLUDED AND THE
CREDITORS OF THE OLD COMPANY BECOME THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE NEW, "IT
CONFORMS TO REALITIES TO DATE THEIR EQUITY OWNERSHIP" FROM THE TIME
WHEN THE PROCESSES OF THE LAW WERE INVOKED "TO ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS OF
FULL PRIORITY."  HELVERING V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE CO., 315 U.S.
179.  UNDER THAT APPROACH, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE EQUITY IN THESE DEBTOR
COMPANIES EFFECTIVELY PASSED TO THESE CREDITORS AT LEAST WHEN SEC. 77B
PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED.  BUT HOWEVER THEIR INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY MAY BE DESCRIBED, IT CLEARLY WAS AN EQUITABLE CLAIM IN OR TO
IT.  IT WAS THAT EQUITABLE INTEREST WITH WHICH THE PLAN DEALT.  THE
TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE DEBTOR COMPANIES TO THE NEW
CORPORATION WAS MADE PURSUANT TO THAT PLAN.  THE PLAN WAS APPROVED BY
THE REQUISITE PERCENTAGE OF THESE CREDITORS, AS REQUIRED BY SEC.
77BE)(1) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THUS IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE
PROPERTY TRANSFERRED WAS PROPERTY IN WHICH THE CREDITORS HAD AN
EQUITABLE INTEREST, AND THAT THE TRANSFER WAS MADE WITH THEIR AUTHORITY
AND ON THEIR BEHALF.  CERTAINLY, "PROPERTY," AS USED IN SEC. 112(B)(5),
INCLUDES SUCH AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY.  AND WE SEE NO REASON TO
CONCLUDE THAT A BENEFICIAL OWNER OF, OR EQUITABLE CLAIMANT TO, PROPERTY
IS PRECLUDED FROM CONSUMMATING AN EXCHANGE WHICH QUALIFIES UNDER SEC.
112(B)(5) MERELY BECAUSE THE ACTUAL CONVEYANCE IS MADE BY HIS TRUSTEE
OR TITLE HOLDER.  IN SITUATIONS COMPARABLE TO THIS ONE, THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS HAS HELD THAT SEC. 112(B)(5) IS APPLICABLE.  LECKIE V.
COMMISSIONER, 37 B.T.A. 252; MILLER & PAINE V. COMMISSIONER, 42 B.T.A.
586.  CF. ROCKFORD BRICK & TILE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 31 B.T.A. 537.  WE
ACCEPT ITS VIEW. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 112(B)(5) SUPPORTS THAT CONCLUSION. 
SEC. 112(B)(5) AND THE "REORGANIZATION" PROVISIONS ARE RATHER CLOSELY
RELATED.  SEE MILLER, HENDRICKS, AND EVERETT, REORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER
EXCHANGES IN INCOME TAXATION (1931), CH. 6.  WHILE THE "REORGANIZATION"
PROVISIONS ARE RESTRICTED TO INTER-CORPORATE TRANSACTIONS, SEC.
112(B)(5) IS NOT SO CONFINED, SINCE THE PHRASE "ONE OR MORE PERSONS"
INCLUDES "INDIVIDUALS, TRUSTS OR ESTATES, PARTNERSHIPS AND
CORPORATIONS."  TREASURY REG. 94, ART. 112(B)(5)-1.  BUT THERE IS NO
INDICATION THAT THE "REORGANIZATION" PROVISIONS WERE DESIGNED AS THE
EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF DEFERRING RECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS IN ALL CASES
OF CORPORATE READJUSTMENTS OR REORGANIZATIONS.  THE HISTORY OF SEC.
112(B)(5) MAKES CLEAR THAT IT TOO WAS DESIGNED TO FUNCTION IN THAT
FIELD (AMERICAN COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. V. BENDER, 70 F.2D 655, 657
658) AND TO PERMIT DEFERMENT OF GAINS OR LOSSES WHERE "THERE HAS BEEN A
MERE CHANGE IN THE FORM OF OWNERSHIP" OR WHERE THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT
"CLOSED OUT A LOSING VENTURE."  PORTLAND OIL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 109
F.2D 479, 488.  SEC. 112(B)(5) DERIVES FROM SEC. 202(C)(3) OF THE 1921
ACT.  42 STAT. 229, 230.  ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS THAT IT WAS
DESIGNED TO PERMIT "READJUSTMENTS"  FN2  WITHOUT PRESENT RECOGNITION OF
GAIN OR LOSS BY ALLOWING PROPERTY TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A CONTROLLED
CORPORATION BY AN INDIVIDUAL, A PARTNERSHIP, A CORPORATION, OR OTHERS. 
FN3  SEE HEARINGS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, PROPOSED REVENUE ACT OF
1921, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., MAY 9-27, 1921, PP. 536-537, 546, 557-558;
MAGILL, TAXABLE INCOME (1936), PP. 123-131.  IF A TRANSACTION MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 112(B)(5), THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS
OF THE ACQUIRING CORPORATION IS THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF
THE TRANSFEROR.  SEC. 113(A)(8).  SEE P. A. BIRREN & SON, INC. V.
COMMISSIONER, 116 F.2D 718.  A SIMILAR RESULT OBTAINS IN CASE OF A
TRANSACTION WHICH QUALIFIES AS A "REORGANIZATION."  SEE SEC.
113(A)(7)(B).  AND THE THEORY UNDERLYING THE TWO BASIS PROVISIONS IS
THE SAME.  MILLER, HENDRICKS, AND EVERETT, OP. CIT., PP. 304, 404; S.
REP. NO. 398, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE REVENUE
ACTS, 1913-1938, INT. REV. BULL., PP. 278-279.  THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SEC. 112(B)(5) AND THE "REORGANIZATION" PROVISIONS IS FURTHER
EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT THEY OVERLAP TO A DEGREE.  THUS, A
TRANSACTION WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE B OR CLAUSE C OF
SEC. 112(G)(1) MAY ALSO QUALIFY UNDER SEC. 112(B)(5).  IN SHORT, THE
"REORGANIZATION" PROVISIONS DO NOT FURNISH THE EXCLUSIVE METHODS FOR
SECURING A DEFERMENT OF GAINS OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF TRANSACTIONS
POPULARLY KNOWN AS CORPORATE READJUSTMENTS OR REORGANIZATIONS.  THE
INSTANT TRANSACTION COMES FAIRLY WITHIN THE FAMILY OF BUSINESS
READJUSTMENTS FOR WHICH SEC. 112(B)(5) WAS DESIGNED.  HENCE THE FACT
THAT IT CANNOT MEET THE STATUTORY STANDARDS OF A "REORGANIZATION" DOES
NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT CANNOT QUALIFY AS AN "EXCHANGE," ANY MORE
THAN THE FAILURE TO SATISFY ONE CLAUSE OF THE "REORGANIZATION"
PROVISIONS MEANS THAT NONE CAN BE SATISFIED. 

BUT THE ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE THAT, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS AN
"EXCHANGE" WHICH MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 112(B)(5), THERE WAS
NEVERTHELESS A GAIN WHICH IS TAXABLE.  THAT GAIN, IT IS SUGGESTED,
AROSE FROM THE ACQUISITION BY THE TAXPAYERS OF THEIR EQUITABLE INTEREST
IN THE PROPERTIES IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THEIR OLD BONDS.  AND IT IS
ARGUED THAT, UNLIKE THE SITUATION WHICH OBTAINS UNDER THE
"REORGANIZATION" PROVISIONS (HELVERING V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE
CO., SUPRA), SEC. 112(B)(5) COVERS ONLY THE EXCHANGE ITSELF AND NOT THE
ANTECEDENT STEPS IN CONNECTION WITH A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  THUS THE
CONTENTION SEEMS TO BE THAT, SINCE A GAIN AROSE FROM A TRANSACTION
WHICH WAS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM AND ANTERIOR TO THE EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY FOR THE NEW SECURITIES, IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED UNDER THE
GENERAL RULE OF SEC. 112(A).  WE EXPRESS NO VIEW ON THAT CONTENTION. 
THE DEFICIENCIES WERE NOT ASSESSED ON THAT TRANSACTION BUT ONLY UPON
THE EXCHANGE OF STOCK AND SECURITIES IN THE NEW CORPORATION FOR BONDS
OF THE OLD.  WE WILL NOT CONSIDER HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME THE QUESTION
WHETHER A TAX LIABILITY MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED UNDER SEC. 112(A) BY
REASON OF THE EARLIER TRANSACTION, A QUESTION NOT FAIRLY WITHIN THE
ISSUES AS FRAMED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND HENCE NOT DECIDED BELOW.  CF.
HELVERING V. WOOD, 309 U.S. 344, 349.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN HELVERING V. SOUTHWEST CONSOLIDATED CORP., SUPRA, NO QUESTION
AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 112(B)(5) WAS INVOLVED.  THE ONLY
QUESTION RAISED OR CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, OR PASSED ON BY THIS COURT, WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE TRANSACTION
IN QUESTION QUALIFIED AS A "REORGANIZATION" UNDER SEC. 112(G)(1) OF THE
1934 ACT. 

FN2  H. REP. NO. 350, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 275, 67TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE REVENUE ACTS, 1913-1938,
INT. REV. BULL., PP. 175-176, 188-189.    FN3  FOR THE RESULT WHICH
WOULD OTHERWISE OBTAIN IN SUCH SITUATIONS, SEE INSURANCE & TITLE
GUARANTEE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 36 F.2D 842, AND CASES CITED. 
..END :






SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535 


NO. 782.  ARGUED MAY 6, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 189 OKLA. 235,
115 P.2D 123, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATUTE OF OKLAHOMA PROVIDES FOR THE STERILIZATION, BY VASECTOMY
OR SALPINGECTOMY, OF "HABITUAL CRIMINALS" - AN HABITUAL CRIMINAL BEING
DEFINED THEREIN AS ANY PERSON WHO, HAVING BEEN CONVICTED TWO OR MORE
TIMES, IN OKLAHOMA OR IN ANY OTHER STATE, OF "FELONIES INVOLVING MORAL
TURPITUDE," IS THEREAFTER CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT IN
OKLAHOMA FOR SUCH A CRIME.  EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED FROM THE TERMS OF THE
STATUTE ARE CERTAIN OFFENSES, INCLUDING EMBEZZLEMENT.  AS APPLIED TO
ONE WHO WAS CONVICTED ONCE OF STEALING CHICKENS AND TWICE OF ROBBERY,
HELD THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 537. 

2.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAVING SUSTAINED THE ACT, AS APPLIED TO
THE PETITIONER HERE, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, THE
QUESTION WHETHER THAT CLAUSE WOULD BE SO APPLIED AS TO REMOVE THE
PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION IS ONE WHICH MAY APPROPRIATELY BE
LEFT FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE STATE COURT.  P. 542. 

SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 789, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER THE OKLAHOMA HABITUAL CRIMINAL STERILIZATION ACT,
WHEREIN IT WAS ORDERED THAT THE DEFENDANT (PETITIONER HERE) BE MADE
STERILE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE TOUCHES A SENSITIVE AND IMPORTANT AREA OF HUMAN RIGHTS. 
OKLAHOMA DEPRIVES CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS OF A RIGHT WHICH IS BASIC TO THE
PERPETUATION OF A RACE - THE RIGHT TO HAVE OFFSPRING.  OKLAHOMA HAS
DECREED THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS LAW AGAINST PETITIONER, OVERRULING HIS
CLAIM THAT IT VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BECAUSE THAT DECISION
RAISED GRAVE AND SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, WE GRANTED THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

THE STATUTE INVOLVED IS OKLAHOMA'S HABITUAL CRIMINAL STERILIZATION
ACT.  OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 57, SECS. 171, ET SEQ.; L. 1935, PP. 94 ET
SEQ. THAT ACT DEFINES AN "HABITUAL CRIMINAL" AS A PERSON WHO, HAVING
BEEN CONVICTED TWO OR MORE TIMES FOR CRIMES "AMOUNTING TO FELONIES
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE," EITHER IN AN OKLAHOMA COURT OR IN A COURT
OF ANY OTHER STATE, IS THEREAFTER CONVICTED OF SUCH A FELONY IN
OKLAHOMA AND IS SENTENCED TO A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IN AN OKLAHOMA
PENAL INSTITUTION.  SEC. 173.  MACHINERY IS PROVIDED FOR THE
INSTITUTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF A PROCEEDING AGAINST SUCH A
PERSON IN THE OKLAHOMA COURTS FOR A JUDGMENT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL BE
RENDERED SEXUALLY STERILE.  SECS. 176, 177.  NOTICE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO
BE HEARD, AND THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL ARE PROVIDED.  SECS. 177-181. 
THE ISSUES TRIABLE IN SUCH A PROCEEDING ARE NARROW AND CONFINED.  IF
THE COURT OR JURY FINDS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS AN "HABITUAL CRIMINAL"
AND THAT HE "MAY BE RENDERED SEXUALLY STERILE WITHOUT DETERIMENT TO HIS
OR HER GENERAL HEALTH," THEN THE COURT "SHALL RENDER JUDGMENT TO THE
EFFECT THAT SAID DEFENDANT BE RENDERED SEXUALLY STERILE" (SEC. 182) BY
THE OPERATION OF VASECTOMY IN CASE OF A MALE, AND OF SALPINGECTOMY IN
CASE OF A FEMALE.  SEC. 174.  ONLY ONE OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT IS
MATERIAL HERE, AND THAT IS SEC. 195, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "OFFENSES
ARISING OUT OF THE VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITORY LAWS, REVENUE ACTS,
EMBEZZLEMENT, OR POLITICAL OFFENSES, SHALL NOT COME OR BE CONSIDERED
WITHIN THE TERMS OF THIS ACT." 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN 1926 OF THE CRIME OF STEALING CHICKENS,
AND WAS SENTENCED TO THE OKLAHOMA STATE REFORMATORY.  IN 1929 HE WAS
CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH FIREARMS, AND WAS SENTENCED TO
THE REFORMATORY.  IN 1934 HE WAS CONVICTED AGAIN OF ROBBERY WITH
FIREARMS, AND WAS SENTENCED TO THE PENITENTIARY.  HE WAS CONFINED THERE
IN 1935 WHEN THE ACT WAS PASSED.  IN 1936 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM.  PETITIONER IN HIS ANSWER
CHALLENGED THE ACT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY REASON OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  A JURY TRIAL WAS HAD.  THE COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT
THE CRIMES OF WHICH PETITIONER HAD BEEN CONVICTED WERE FELONIES
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, AND THAT THE ONLY QUESTION FOR THE JURY WAS
WHETHER THE OPERATION OF VASECTOMY COULD BE PERFORMED ON PETITIONER
WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO HIS GENERAL HEALTH.  THE JURY FOUND THAT IT COULD
BE.  A JUDGMENT DIRECTING THAT THE OPERATION OF VASECTOMY BE PERFORMED
ON PETITIONER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA BY A FIVE
TO FOUR DECISION.  189 OKLA. 235, 115 P.2D 123. 

SEVERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN
PRESSED UPON US.  IT IS URGED THAT THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS AN
EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER, IN VIEW OF THE STATE OF SCIENTIFIC
AUTHORITIES RESPECTING INHERITABILITY OF CRIMINAL TRAITS.  FN1  IT IS
ARGUED THAT DUE PROCESS IS LACKING BECAUSE, UNDER THIS ACT, UNLIKE THE
ACT  FN2  UPHELD IN BUCK V. BELL, 274 U.S. 200, THE DEFENDANT IS GIVEN
NO OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER HE IS THE
PROBABLE POTENTIAL PARENT OF SOCIALLY UNDESIRABLE OFFSPRING.  SEE DAVIS
V. BERRY, 216 F. 413; WILLIAMS V. SMITH, 190 IND. 526, 131 N.E. 2.  IT
IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE ACT IS PENAL IN CHARACTER AND THAT THE
STERILIZATION PROVIDED FOR IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND
VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE DAVIS V. BERRY, SUPRA.  CF.
STATE V. FEILEN, 70 WASH. 65, 126 P. 75; MICKLE V. HENRICHS, 262 F.
687.  WE PASS THOSE POINTS WITHOUT INTIMATING AN OPINION ON THEM, FOR
THERE IS A FEATURE OF THE ACT WHICH CLEARLY CONDEMNS IT.  THAT IS, ITS
FAILURE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO POINT OUT ALL OF THE INEQUALITIES IN THIS ACT.  A
FEW EXAMPLES WILL SUFFICE.  IN OKLAHOMA, GRAND LARCENY IS A FELONY. 
OKLA. STATS. ANN. TIT. 21, SECS. 1705, 5.  LARCENY IS GRAND LARCENY
WHEN THE PROPERTY TAKEN EXCEEDS $20 IN VALUE.  ID. SEC. 1704. 
EMBEZZLEMENT IS PUNISHABLE "IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED FOR FELONIOUSLY
STEALING PROPERTY OF THE VALUE OF THAT EMBEZZLED."  ID. SEC. 1462. 
HENCE, HE WHO EMBEZZLES PROPERTY WORTH MORE THAN $20 IS GUILTY OF A
FELONY.  A CLERK WHO APPROPRIATES OVER $20 FROM HIS EMPLOYER'S TILL
(ID. SEC. 1456) AND A STRANGER WHO STEALS THE SAME AMOUNT ARE THUS BOTH
GUILTY OF FELONIES.  IF THE LATTER REPEATS HIS ACT AND IS CONVICTED
THREE TIMES, HE MAY BE STERILIZED.  BUT THE CLERK IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
PAINS AND PENALTIES OF THE ACT NO MATTER HOW LARGE HIS EMBEZZLEMENTS
NOR HOW FREQUENT HIS CONVICTIONS.  A PERSON WHO ENTERS A CHICKEN COOP
AND STEALS CHICKENS COMMITS A FELONY (ID. SEC. 1719); AND HE MAY BE
STERILIZED IF HE IS THRICE CONVICTED.  IF, HOWEVER, HE IS A BAILEE OF
THE PROPERTY AND FRAUDULENTLY APPROPRIATES IT, HE IS AN EMBEZZLER.  ID.
SEC. 1455.  HENCE, NO MATTER HOW HABITUAL HIS PROCLIVITIES FOR
EMBEZZLEMENT ARE AND NO MATTER HOW OFTEN HIS CONVICTION, HE MAY NOT BE
STERILIZED.  THUS, THE NATURE OF THE TWO CRIMES IS INTRINSICALLY THE
SAME AND THEY ARE PUNISHABLE IN THE SAME MANNER.  FURTHERMORE, THE LINE
BETWEEN THEM FOLLOWS CLOSE DISTINCTIONS - DISTINCTIONS COMPARABLE TO
THOSE HIGHLY TECHNICAL ONES WHICH SHAPED THE COMMON LAW AS TO
"TRESPASS" OR "TAKING."  BISHOP, CRIMINAL LAW (9TH ED.)  VOL.  2, SECS.
760, 799, ET SEQ. THERE MAY BE LARCENY BY FRAUD RATHER THAN
EMBEZZLEMENT EVEN WHERE THE OWNER OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY DELIVERS IT
TO THE DEFENDANT, IF THE LATTER HAS AT THAT TIME "A FRAUDULENT
INTENTION TO MAKE USE OF THE POSSESSION AS A MEANS OF CONVERTING SUCH
PROPERTY TO HIS OWN USE, AND DOES SO CONVERT IT."  BIVENS V. STATE, 6
OKLA. CR. 521, 529, 120 P. 1033, 1036.  IF THE FRAUDULENT INTENT OCCURS
LATER AND THE DEFENDANT CONVERTS THE PROPERTY, HE IS GUILTY OF
EMBEZZLEMENT.  BIVENS V. STATE, SUPRA; FLOHR V. TERRITORY, 14 OKLA.
477, 78 P. 565.  WHETHER A PARTICULAR ACT IS LARCENY BY FRAUD OR
EMBEZZLEMENT THUS TURNS NOT ON THE INTRINSIC QUALITY OF THE ACT BUT ON
WHEN THE FELONIOUS INTENT AROSE - A QUESTION FOR THE JURY UNDER
APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS.  BIVENS V. STATE, SUPRA; RILEY V. STATE, 64
OKLA. CR. 183, 78 P.2D 712. 

IT WAS STATED IN BUCK V. BELL, SUPRA, THAT THE CLAIM THAT STATE
LEGISLATION VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS "THE USUAL LAST RESORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS."  274
U.S. P. 208.  UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM THE STATES IN DETERMINING
THE REACH AND SCOPE OF PARTICULAR LEGISLATION NEED NOT PROVIDE
"ABSTRACT SYMMETRY."  PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138, 144.  THEY
MAY MARK AND SET APART THE CLASSES AND TYPES OF PROBLEMS ACCORDING TO
THE NEEDS AND AS DICTATED OR SUGGESTED BY EXPERIENCE.  SEE BRYANT V.
ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63, AND CASES CITED.  IT WAS IN THAT CONNECTION
THAT MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN BAIN PEANUT CO. V.
PINSON, 282 U.S. 499, 501, STATED, "WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE MACHINERY
OF GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT WORK IF IT WERE NOT ALLOWED A LITTLE PLAY IN
ITS JOINTS."  ONLY RECENTLY WE REAFFIRMED THE VIEW THAT THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE DOES NOT PREVENT THE LEGISLATURE FROM RECOGNIZING
"DEGREES OF EVIL" (TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, 43) BY OUR RULING IN
TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141, 147, THAT "THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
REQUIRE THINGS WHICH ARE DIFFERENT IN FACT OR OPINION TO BE TREATED IN
LAW AS THOUGH THEY WERE THE SAME."  AND SEE NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY.
V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362.  THUS, IF WE HAD HERE ONLY A QUESTION AS TO
A STATE'S CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES, SUCH AS EMBEZZLEMENT OR LARCENY, NO
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION WOULD BE RAISED.  SEE MOORE V. MISSOURI,
159 U.S. 673; HAWKER V. NEW YORK, 170 U.S. 189; FINLEY V. CALIFORNIA,
222 U.S. 28; PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA. FOR A STATE IS NOT
CONSTRAINED IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER TO IGNORE EXPERIENCE
WHICH MARKS A CLASS OF OFFENDERS OR A FAMILY OF OFFENSES FOR SPECIAL
TREATMENT.  NOR IS IT PREVENTED BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE FROM
CONFINING "ITS RESTRICTIONS TO THOSE CLASSES OF CASES WHERE THE NEED IS
DEEMED TO BE CLEAREST."  MILLER V. WILSON, 236 U.S. 373, 384.  AND SEE
MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS, 211 U.S. 539.  AS STATED IN BUCK V. BELL, SUPRA, P.
208, "  ...  THE LAW DOES ALL THAT IS NEEDED WHEN IT DOES ALL THAT IT
CAN, INDICATES A POLICY, APPLIES IT TO ALL WITHIN THE LINES, AND SEEKS
TO BRING WITHIN THE LINES ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED SO FAR AND SO FAST AS
ITS MEANS ALLOW." 

BUT THE INSTANT LEGISLATION RUNS AFOUL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE, THOUGH WE GIVE OKLAHOMA THAT LARGE DEFERENCE WHICH THE RULE OF
THE FOREGOING CASES REQUIRES.  WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH LEGISLATION
WHICH INVOLVES ONE OF THE BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS OF MAN.  MARRIAGE AND
PROCREATION ARE FUNDAMENTAL TO THE VERY EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL OF THE
RACE.  THE POWER TO STERILIZE, IF EXERCISED, MAY HAVE SUBTLE, FAR
REACHING AND DEVASTATING EFFECTS.  IN EVIL OR RECKLESS HANDS IT CAN
CAUSE RACES OR TYPES WHICH ARE INIMICAL TO THE DOMINANT GROUP TO WITHER
AND DISAPPEAR.  THERE IS NO REDEMPTION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL WHOM THE LAW
TOUCHES.  ANY EXPERIMENT WHICH THE STATE CONDUCTS IS TO HIS IRREPARABLE
INJURY.  HE IS FOREVER DEPRIVED OF A BASIC LIBERTY.  WE MENTION THESE
MATTERS NOT TO REEXAMINE THE SCOPE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATES. 
WE ADVERT TO THEM MERELY IN EMPHASIS OF OUR VIEW THAT STRICT SCRUTINY
OF THE CLASSIFICATION WHICH A STATE MAKES IN A STERILIZATION LAW IS
ESSENTIAL, LEST UNWITTINGLY, OR OTHERWISE, INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATIONS
ARE MADE AGAINST GROUPS OR TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF JUST AND EQUAL LAWS.  THE GUARANTY OF "EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS A PLEDGE OF THE PROTECTION OF EQUAL LAWS." 
YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 369.  WHEN THE LAW LAYS AN UNEQUAL
HAND ON THOSE WHO HAVE COMMITTED INTRINSICALLY THE SAME QUALITY OF
OFFENSE AND STERILIZES ONE AND NOT THE OTHER, IT HAS MADE AS INVIDIOUS
A DISCRIMINATION AS IF IT HAD SELECTED A PARTICULAR RACE OR NATIONALITY
FOR OPPRESSIVE TREATMENT.  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, SUPRA; GAINES V. CANADA,
305 U.S. 337.  STERILIZATION OF THOSE WHO HAVE THRICE COMMITTED GRAND
LARCENY, WITH IMMUNITY FOR THOSE WHO ARE EMBEZZLERS, IS A CLEAR,
POINTED, UNMISTAKABLE DISCRIMINATION.  OKLAHOMA MAKES NO ATTEMPT TO SAY
THAT HE WHO COMMITS LARCENY BY TRESPASS OR TRICK OR FRAUD HAS
BIOLOGICALLY INHERITABLE TRAITS WHICH HE WHO COMMITS EMBEZZLEMENT
LACKS.  OKLAHOMA'S LINE BETWEEN LARCENY BY FRAUD AND EMBEZZLEMENT IS
DETERMINED, AS WE HAVE NOTED, "WITH REFERENCE TO THE TIME WHEN THE
FRAUDULENT INTENT TO CONVERT THE PROPERTY TO THE TAKER'S OWN USE"
ARISES.  RILEY V. STATE, SUPRA, 64 OKLA. CR. AT P. 189, 78 P.2D P.
715.  WE HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST BASIS FOR INFERRING THAT THAT LINE HAS
ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN EUGENICS, NOR THAT THE INHERITABILITY OF CRIMINAL
TRAITS FOLLOWS THE NEAT LEGAL DISTINCTIONS WHICH THE LAW HAS MARKED
BETWEEN THOSE TWO OFFENSES.  IN TERMS OF FINES AND IMPRISONMENT, THE
CRIMES OF LARCENY AND EMBEZZLEMENT RATE THE SAME UNDER THE OKLAHOMA
CODE.  ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO STERILIZATION ARE THE PAINS AND PENALTIES
OF THE LAW DIFFERENT.  THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE WOULD INDEED BE A
FORMULA OF EMPTY WORDS IF SUCH CONSPICUOUSLY ARTIFICIAL LINES COULD BE
DRAWN.  SEE SMITH V. WAYNE PROBATE JUDGE, 231 MICH. 409, 420-421, 204
N.W. 40.  IN BUCK V. BELL, SUPRA, THE VIRGINIA STATUTE WAS UPHELD
THOUGH IT APPLIED ONLY TO FEEBLE-MINDED PERSONS IN INSTITUTIONS OF THE
STATE.  BUT IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT "SO FAR AS THE OPERATIONS ENABLE
THOSE WHO OTHERWISE MUST BE KEPT CONFINED TO BE RETURNED TO THE WORLD,
AND THUS OPEN THE ASYLUM TO OTHERS, THE EQUALITY AIMED AT WILL BE MORE
NEARLY REACHED."  274 U.S. P. 208.  HERE THERE IS NO SUCH SAVING
FEATURE.  EMBEZZLERS ARE FOREVER FREE.  THOSE WHO STEAL OR TAKE IN
OTHER WAYS ARE NOT.  IF SUCH A CLASSIFICATION WERE PERMITTED, THE
TECHNICAL COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF A "TRESPASS" (BISHOP, CRIMINAL LAW, 9TH
ED., VOL. 1, SECS. 566, 567) BASED ON DISTINCTIONS WHICH ARE "VERY
LARGELY DEPENDENT UPON HISTORY FOR EXPLANATION" (HOLMES, THE COMMON
LAW, P. 73) COULD READILY BECOME A RULE OF HUMAN GENETICS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE ACT HAS A BROAD SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.  FN3  BUT WE
WILL NOT ENDEAVOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER ITS APPLICATION WOULD SOLVE THE
EQUAL PROTECTION DIFFICULTY.  THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA SUSTAINED
THE ACT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.  WE HAVE
THEREFORE A SITUATION WHERE THE ACT AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED TO
PETITIONER IS ALLOWED TO PERPETUATE THE DISCRIMINATION WHICH WE HAVE
FOUND TO BE FATAL.  WHETHER THE SEVERABILITY CLAUSE WOULD BE SO APPLIED
AS TO REMOVE THIS PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION IS A QUESTION
WHICH MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATELY LEFT FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE OKLAHOMA
COURT.  DORCHY V. KANSAS, 264 U.S. 286.  THAT IS REEMPHASIZED HERE BY
OUR UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHAT EXCISION, IF ANY, WOULD BE MADE AS A MATTER
OF OKLAHOMA LAW.  CF. SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553.  IT IS BY NO MEANS
CLEAR WHETHER, IF AN EXCISION WERE MADE, THIS PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL
DIFFICULTY MIGHT BE SOLVED BY ENLARGING ON THE ONE HAND OR CONTRACTING
ON THE OTHER (CF. MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DISSENTING, NATIONAL LIFE INS.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 508, 534-535) THE CLASS OF CRIMINALS WHO
MIGHT BE STERILIZED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  HEALY, THE INDIVIDUAL DELINQUENT (1915), PP. 188-200;
SUTHERLAND, CRIMINOLOGY (1924), PP. 112-118, 621-622; GILLIN,
CRIMINOLOGY AND PENOLOGY (1926), C. IX; POPENOE, STERILIZATION AND
CRIMINALITY, 53 REP. AM. BAR.  ASSOC.  575; MYERSON ET AL., EUGENICAL
STERILIZATION (1936), C. VIII; LANDMAN, HUMAN STERILIZATION (1932), C.
IX; SUMMARY OF THE REPORT OF THE AMERICAN NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF STERILIZATION, 1 AM. JOURN.  MED. 
JUR. 253(1938). 

FN2  AND SEE STATE V. TROUTMAN, 50 IDA.  673, 299 P. 668;
CHAMBERLAIN, EUGENICS IN LEGISLATURES AND COURTS, 15 AM. BAR ASSN.
JOURN.  165; CASTLE, THE LAW AND HUMAN STERILIZATION, 53 REP. AM. BAR
ASSOC., 556, 572; 2 BILL OF RIGHTS REVIEW 54. 

FN3  SEC. 194 PROVIDES: 

"IF ANY SECTION, SUB-SECTION, PARAGRAPH, SENTENCE, CLAUSE OR PHRASE
OF THIS ACT SHALL BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OR VOID FOR ANY OTHER
REASON BY ANY COURT OF FINAL JURISDICTION, SUCH FACT SHALL NOT IN ANY
MANNER INVALIDATE OR AFFECT ANY OTHER OR THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THIS
ACT, BUT THE SAME SHALL CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.  THE
LEGISLATURE HEREBY DECLARES THAT IT WOULD HAVE PASSED THIS ACT, AND
EACH SECTION, SUBSECTION, PARAGRAPH, SENTENCE, CLAUSE OR PHRASE
THEREOF, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT ANY ONE OR MORE OTHER SECTIONS,
SUB-SECTIONS, PARAGRAPHS, SENTENCES, CLAUSES OR PHRASES BE DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL." 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING: 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT, BUT I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT WE ARE AIDED IN
REACHING IT BY RECOURSE TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. 

IF OKLAHOMA MAY RESORT GENERALLY TO THE STERILIZATION OF CRIMINALS ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEIR PROPENSITIES ARE TRANSMISSIBLE TO FUTURE
GENERATIONS BY INHERITANCE, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE REQUIRES IT TO APPLY THE MEASURE TO ALL CRIMINALS IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, OR TO NONE.  SEE ROSENTHAL V. NEW YORK, 226 U.S. 260, 271;
KEOKEE COKE CO. V. TAYLOR, 234 U.S. 224, 227; PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA,
232 U.S. 138, 144. 

MOREOVER, IF WE MUST PRESUME THAT THE LEGISLATURE KNOWS - WHAT
SCIENCE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO ASCERTAIN - THAT THE CRIMINAL TENDENCIES OF
ANY CLASS OF HABITUAL OFFENDERS ARE TRANSMISSIBLE REGARDLESS OF THE
VARYING MENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ITS INDIVIDUALS, I SHOULD SUPPOSE
THAT WE MUST LIKEWISE PRESUME THAT THE LEGISLATURE, IN ITS WISDOM,
KNOWS THAT THE CRIMINAL TENDENCIES OF SOME CLASSES OF OFFENDERS ARE
MORE LIKELY TO BE TRANSMITTED THAN THOSE OF OTHERS.  AND SO I THINK THE
REAL QUESTION WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS NOT ONE OF EQUAL PROTECTION, BUT
WHETHER THE WHOLESALE CONDEMNATION OF A CLASS TO SUCH AN INVASION OF
PERSONAL LIBERTY, WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO ANY INDIVIDUAL TO SHOW THAT
HIS IS NOT THE TYPE OF CASE WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY RESORT TO IT, SATISFIES
THE DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS. 

THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY CAN BE PRESSED, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE LIBERTY OF THE
PERSON IS CONCERNED (SEE UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304
U.S. 144, 152, N. 4) AND WHERE THE PRESUMPTION IS RESORTED TO ONLY TO
DISPENSE WITH A PROCEDURE WHICH THE ORDINARY DICTATES OF PRUDENCE WOULD
SEEM TO DEMAND FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL FROM ARBITRARY
ACTION.  ALTHOUGH PETITIONER HERE WAS GIVEN A HEARING TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER STERILIZATION WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO HIS HEALTH, HE WAS GIVEN
NONE TO DISCOVER WHETHER HIS CRIMINAL TENDENCIES ARE OF AN INHERITABLE
TYPE.  UNDOUBTEDLY A STATE MAY, AFTER APPROPRIATE INQUIRY,
CONSTITUTIONALLY INTERFERE WITH THE PERSONAL LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
TO PREVENT THE TRANSMISSION BY INHERITANCE OF HIS SOCIALLY INJURIOUS
TENDENCIES.  BUCK V. BELL, 274 U.S. 200.  BUT UNTIL NOW WE HAVE NOT
BEEN CALLED UPON TO SAY THAT IT MAY DO SO WITHOUT GIVING HIM A HEARING
AND OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE EXISTENCE AS TO HIM OF THE ONLY FACTS
WHICH COULD JUSTIFY SO DRASTIC A MEASURE. 

SCIENCE HAS FOUND AND THE LAW HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN
TYPES OF MENTAL DEFICIENCY ASSOCIATED WITH DELINQUENCY WHICH ARE
INHERITABLE.  BUT THE STATE DOES NOT CONTEND - NOR CAN THERE BE ANY
PRETENSE - THAT EITHER COMMON KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE, OR SCIENTIFIC
INVESTIGATION,  FN1 HAS GIVEN ASSURANCE THAT THE CRIMINAL TENDENCIES OF
ANY CLASS OF HABITUAL OFFENDERS ARE UNIVERSALLY OR EVEN GENERALLY
INHERITABLE.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, INQUIRY WHETHER SUCH IS THE FACT
IN THE CASE OF ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL CANNOT RIGHTLY BE DISPENSED
WITH.  WHETHER THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH A STATUTE CARRIES ITS MANDATE
INTO EXECUTION SATISFIES DUE PROCESS IS A MATTER OF JUDICIAL
COGNIZANCE.  A LAW WHICH CONDEMNS, WITHOUT HEARING, ALL THE INDIVIDUALS
OF A CLASS TO SO HARSH A MEASURE AS THE PRESENT BECAUSE SOME OR EVEN
MANY MERIT CONDEMNATION, IS LACKING IN THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF DUE
PROCESS.  MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 82, 90, AND CASES CITED;
TAYLOR V. GEORGIA, 315 U.S. 25.  AND SO, WHILE THE STATE MAY PROTECT
ITSELF FROM THE DEMONSTRABLY INHERITABLE TENDENCIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL
WHICH ARE INJURIOUS TO SOCIETY, THE MOST ELEMENTARY NOTIONS OF DUE
PROCESS WOULD SEEM TO REQUIRE IT TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO SAFEGUARD
THE LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL BY AFFORDING HIM, BEFORE HE IS CONDEMNED
TO AN IRREPARABLE INJURY IN HIS PERSON, SOME OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT
HE IS WITHOUT SUCH INHERITABLE TENDENCIES.  THE STATE IS CALLED ON TO
SACRIFICE NO PERMISSIBLE END WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO REACH ITS OBJECTIVE
BY A REASONABLE AND JUST PROCEDURE ADEQUATE TO SAFEGUARD RIGHTS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL WHICH CONCEDEDLY THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS. 

FN1  SEE EUGENICAL STERILIZATION, A REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE
AMERICAN NEUROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (1936), PP. 150-52; MYERSON, SUMMARY
OF THE REPORT, 1 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE 253;
POPENOE, STERILIZATION AND CRIMINALITY, 53 AMERICAN BAR ASSN. REPORTS
575; JENNINGS, EUGENICS, 5 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES 617, 620
21; MONTAGU, THE BIOLOGIST LOOKS AT CRIME, 217 ANNALS OF AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE 46. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCURRING: 

I JOIN THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN HOLDING THAT THE HEARINGS PROVIDED ARE
TOO LIMITED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT ACT TO AFFORD DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  I ALSO AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS THAT THE
SCHEME OF CLASSIFICATION SET FORTH IN THE ACT DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAW.  I DISAGREE WITH THE OPINION OF EACH IN SO FAR AS IT
REJECTS OR MINIMIZES THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE OTHER. 

PERHAPS TO EMPLOY A BROAD AND LOOSE SCHEME OF CLASSIFICATION WOULD BE
PERMISSIBLE IF ACCOMPANIED BY THE INDIVIDUAL HEARINGS INDICATED BY THE
CHIEF JUSTICE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, NARROW CLASSIFICATION WITH REFERENCE
TO THE END TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ACT MIGHT JUSTIFY LIMITING
INDIVIDUAL HEARINGS TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL BELONGED TO A
CLASS SO DEFINED.  SINCE THIS ACT DOES NOT PRESENT THESE QUESTIONS, I
RESERVE JUDGMENT ON THEM. 

I ALSO THINK THE PRESENT PLAN TO STERILIZE THE INDIVIDUAL IN PURSUIT
OF A EUGENIC PLAN TO ELIMINATE FROM THE RACE CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE
ONLY VAGUELY IDENTIFIED AND WHICH IN OUR PRESENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ARE
UNCERTAIN AS TO TRANSMISSIBILITY PRESENTS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS OF GRAVITY.  THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED SUCH AN EXPERIMENT WITH
RESPECT TO AN IMBECILE, A PERSON WITH DEFINITE AND OBSERVABLE
CHARACTERISTICS, WHERE THE CONDITION HAD PERSISTED THROUGH THREE
GENERATIONS AND AFFORDED GROUNDS FOR THE BELIEF THAT IT WAS
TRANSMISSIBLE AND WOULD CONTINUE TO MANIFEST ITSELF IN GENERATIONS TO
COME.  BUCK V. BELL, 274 U.S. 200. 

THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH A LEGISLATIVELY REPRESENTED
MAJORITY MAY CONDUCT BIOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
DIGNITY AND PERSONALITY AND NATURAL POWERS OF A MINORITY - EVEN THOSE
WHO HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF WHAT THE MAJORITY DEFINE AS CRIMES.  BUT THIS
ACT FALLS DOWN BEFORE REACHING THIS PROBLEM, WHICH I MENTION ONLY TO
AVOID THE IMPLICATION THAT SUCH A QUESTION MAY NOT EXIST BECAUSE NOT
DISCUSSED.  ON IT I WOULD ALSO RESERVE JUDGMENT. 
..END :






















WARD V. TEXAS, 316 U.S. 547 


NO. 974.  ARGUED MAY 6, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - 158 S.W.2D
516, REVERSED. 


1.  THE USE IN A PROSECUTION FOR MURDER OF A CONFESSION OBTAINED BY
OFFICERS OF THE LAW BY COERCING THE ACCUSED, IS FORBIDDEN BY THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 555. 

2.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, ACTING BEYOND
THEIR AUTHORITY AND IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, ARRESTED WITHOUT A
WARRANT AN IGNORANT NEGRO, ACCUSED OF MURDER, AND TOOK HIM BY NIGHT AND
DAY TO STRANGE TOWNS IN SEVERAL COUNTIES; INCARCERATED HIM IN SEVERAL
JAILS; AND BY THESE MEANS AND BY PERSISTENT QUESTIONING, COERCED HIM TO
CONFESS.  THE USE OF THE CONFESION AT THE TRIAL VOIDS THE CONVICTION. 
PP. 550, 555. 

WARD V. TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 653, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A SENTENCE. 
THE CONVICTION WAS OF MURDER WITHOUT MALICE, AND THE PUNISHMENT
ASSESSED WAS CONFINEMENT FOR THREE YEARS IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WILLIAM WARD, A NEGRO, WAS INDICTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 1939
TERM OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF TITUS COUNTY, TEXAS, FOR THE MURDER OF
LEVI BROWN, A WHITE MAN.  HE WAS PLACED ON TRIAL AT THAT TERM BUT THE
JURY WAS UNABLE TO AGREE UPON A VERDICT.  AT THE JANUARY 1941 TERM HE
WAS AGAIN TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER WITHOUT MALICE, THE JURY
ASSESSING HIS PUNISHMENT AT CONFINEMENT IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY FOR
THREE YEARS.  UPON APPEAL THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  ON THE STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING,
THE COURT REVERSED ITSELF AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR REHEARING WAS DENIED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  158 S.W.2D
516.  A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS. 

THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT THE TRIAL WAS SUCH THAT THE JURY COULD
HAVE DRAWN THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS:  THE DECEASED, WHO WAS SEVENTY
TWO YEARS OLD, LIVED IN OMAHA, IN MORRIS COUNTY.  HE HAD PREVIOUSLY
RESIDED AT MOUNT PLEASANT, IN THE ADJOINING COUNTY OF TITUS.  HE WENT
TO MOUNT PLEASANT ON SATURDAY, JUNE 24, 1939.  ON SATURDAY EVENING HE
WAS SEEN FOR THE LAST TIME, TALKING TO PETITIONER AND A NEGRO WOMAN ON
A STREET CORNER TWO AND A HALF BLOCKS SOUTH OF WHERE HIS BODY WAS
FOUND.  HE THEN MOVED OFF NORTHWARD ALONG THE STREET FOLLOWED AT A
LITTLE DISTANCE BY PETITIONER AND THE WOMAN.  A SHORT TIME LATER
PETITIONER AND THE WOMAN RETURNED TO THE CORNER.  THEY SEPARATED THERE
AND SHE WALKED OFF TO THE SOUTH WHILE HE RETURNED IN THE DIRECTION IN
WHICH THE DECEASED HAD GONE.  THE BODY WAS DISCOVERED ON SUNDAY MORNING
LYING IN A FIELD IN GRASS ABOUT KNEE HIGH.  THERE WERE NO SIGNS OF A
STRUGGLE AND NO EVIDENCE OF ROBBERY.  THE SKIN ON THE NECK WAS BRUISED
AND DISCOLORED, THE FACE WAS SWOLLEN AND THE EYES DISTENDED.  THE FRONT
OF THE TROUSERS WAS OPEN AND THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE TAIL OF THE SHIRT. 
FOR SOME TIME THE DECEASED HAD BEEN AFFLICTED WITH A HEART AILMENT, AND
UNDER ADVICE OF HIS PHYSICIAN REGULARLY TOOK DIGITALIS.  HE HAD TAKEN A
DOSE ON SATURDAY BEFORE LEAVING HIS HOME.  THE EXAMING PHYSICIAN,
HOWEVER, FOUND THAT DEATH WAS DUE TO STRANGULATION. 

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IN ITS FINAL OPINION DENYING
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A REHEARING CONCLUDED:  "IT MAY BE STATED
BLUNTLY THAT NO CONVICTION COULD BE SUSTAINED IN THE PRESENT CASE
WITHOUT THE CONFESSION OF APPELLANT."  THE DETAILS OF THE CONFESSION
NEED NOT BE RECITED.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT IN IT PETITIONER
STATED THAT UNDER HIS AGREEMENT WITH DECEASED HE WAS TO RECEIVE ONE
DOLLAR; THAT THE DECEASED REFUSED TO PAY HIM AND CURSED HIM AND HIT
HIM; THAT HE GRABBED THE DECEASED, CHOKED HIM FOR NEARLY FIVE MINUTES,
AND NOT KNOWING WHETHER HE WAS DEAD OR ALIVE LEFT HIM ON THE GROUND. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THIS CONFESSION WAS SIGNED BY HIM ONLY AFTER
HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT, TAKEN FROM HIS HOME TOWN,
DRIVEN FOR THREE DAYS FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY, PLACED IN A JAIL MORE THAN
100 MILES FROM HIS HOME, QUESTIONED CONTINUOUSLY, AND BEATEN, WHIPPED
AND BURNED BY THE OFFICER TO WHOM THE CONFESSION WAS FINALLY MADE.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONFESSION WAS THE
RESULT OF SUCH COERCION AND DURESS THAT ITS USE BY THE STATE AT THE
TRIAL CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

IN ITS FIRST OPINION REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, THE TEXAS
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE METHODS EMPLOYED IN
OBTAINING THE CONFESSION VIOLATED APPLICABLE TEXAS STATUTES.  IT ADDED
THAT THE REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION WAS "IN KEEPING WITH THE RECENT
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN WHITE V. STATE OF
TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530," IN WHICH WE SET ASIDE A CONVICTION BECAUSE IT WAS
BASED UPON A CONFESSION OBTAINED BY MEANS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BUT IN ITS SECOND OPINION
REINSTATING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
DECIDED THAT THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE
ISSUES UPON WHICH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONFESSION DEPENDED AND THAT
THE QUESTION OF ADMISSIBILITY WAS SOLELY FOR THE JURY AND HAD BEEN
SUBMITTED WITH PROPER INSTRUCTIONS.  IT CONCLUDED THAT "NO MATTER WHAT
OUR PERSONAL BELIEF MIGHT BE, WE DO NOT FEEL THAT WE HAVE, NOR DO WE
USURP THE POWER TO SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THIS JURY IN THE CASE AT
BAR." 

EACH STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE THE TESTS GOVERNING THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF A CONFESSION.  IN VARIOUS STATES THERE MAY BE VARIOUS
TESTS.  BUT WHEN, AS IN THIS CASE, THE QUESTION IS PROPERLY RAISED AS
TO WHETHER A DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DENIED THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW
GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WE CANNOT BE PRECLUDED BY THE
VERDICT OF A JURY FROM DETERMINING WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH THE CONFESSION WAS MADE WERE SUCH THAT ITS ADMISSION IN EVIDENCE
AMOUNTS TO A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. 

THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE SIGNING OF THE CONFESSION WAS
PRECEDED BY THE FOLLOWING EVENTS.  PETITIONER WAS EMPLOYED AS A HOUSE
SERVANT IN MOUNT PLEASANT BY JUDGE S. B. CALDWELL, A MEMBER OF THE BAR
OF TITUS COUNTY.  WHEN THE BODY OF THE DECEASED WAS DISCOVERED ON
SUNDAY, JUNE 25, PETITIONER WAS TAKEN TO THE COURT HOUSE FOR
QUESTIONING ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER NEGROES.  HE PLEADED HIS
INNOCENCE.  DURING THE EXAMINATION HE WAS SLAPPED BY A CONSTABLE NAMED
REDFEARN, WHO GAVE AS HIS REASON THAT PETITIONER TOLD HIM HE "DIDN'T
KNOW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND QUILLA GADDIS WAS A LIAR."  HAVING
NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HOLDING HIM IN CUSTODY, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, AT
THE REQUEST OF JUDGE CALDWELL, LET PETITIONER RETURN TO HIS HOME. 
THEREAFTER, ON SUNDAY AND MONDAY, HE WAS QUESTIONED BY OFFICERS SEVERAL
TIMES AND REITERATED HIS ASSERTIONS OF INNOCENCE.  ON TUESDAY, THE
OFFICERS WERE STILL QUESTIONING SEVERAL NEGROES IN CONNECTION WITH
THEIR INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME.  ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY,
THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE BY TUESDAY NIGHT TO JUSTIFY THE ARREST OF
PETITIONER.  ON THAT NIGHT, WHILE PETITIONER WAS ATTENDING A PARTY AT
HIS CHURCH IN MOUNT PLEASANT, HE WAS CALLED OUT, HANDCUFFED, AND TAKEN
INTO CUSTODY BY THE SHERIFF OF MORRIS COUNTY, WHICH ADJOINS TITUS
COUNTY.  THE SHERIFF WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY ANY OFFICER OF TITUS
COUNTY.  HE TOOK PETITIONER AND ANOTHER NEGRO IN HIS CAR AND DROVE THEM
OUT OF THE CITY TO HART'S CREEK, WHERE HE HAD ARRANGED TO MEET
CONSTABLE REDFEARN OF TITUS COUNTY, THE MAN WHO HAD SLAPPED PETITIONER
ON SUNDAY.  THE OFFICERS THEN CARRIED PETITIONER AND TWO OTHER NEGROES
TO DAINGERFIELD IN MORRIS COUNTY, WHERE THE DECEASED HAD RESIDED, THEN
TO PITTSBURG IN CAMP COUNTY, AND THEN TO GILMER IN UPSHUR COUNTY, WHERE
HE SPENT THE NIGHT IN JAIL.  ON WEDNESDAY NIGHT HE WAS TAKEN BACK TO
JAIL IN PITTSBURG.  CONSTABLE REDFEARN VISITED HIM FROM TIME TO TIME,
AND ON THURSDAY MORNING TOOK HIM TO TYLER IN SMITH COUNTY, WHERE
REDFEARN PLACED HIM IN THE CUSTODY OF TWO HIGHWAY PATROLMEN, ADVISING
THEM OF THE DETAILS OF THE CRIME.  ABOUT THIRTY MINUTES LATER, THE
PATROLMEN CARRIED PETITIONER TO ATHENS, IN HENDERSON COUNTY, AND TURNED
HIM OVER TO SHERIFF SWEETEN.  ATHENS IS 110 MILES FROM MOUNT PLEASANT. 
DURING THIS TIME HE HAD BEEN QUESTIONED CONTINUOUSLY.  ACCORDING TO THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY OF TITUS COUNTY, WHO QUESTIONED PETITIONER IN THREE
DIFFERENT JAILS ON THREE DIFFERENT DAYS, PETITIONER STATED, ONCE IN
GILMER AND AGAIN IN PITTSBURG, THAT HE WOULD BE GLAD TO MAKE ANY
STATEMENT THAT "I WANTED HIM TO MAKE BUT THAT HE DIDN'T DO IT."  AFTER
SHERIFF SWEETEN HAD TALKED TO PETITIONER, THE LATTER SIGNED THE
CONFESSION BEFORE A COUNTY ATTORNEY.  WITHIN SIX HOURS AFTER HIS
ARRIVAL IN ATHENS HE WAS RETURNED TO TYLER.  EVENTUALLY HE WAS TAKEN
BACK TO GILMER, WHERE HE WAS KEPT UNTIL THE TRIAL. 

THESE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED.  PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS
BEATEN, WHIPPED AND BURNED BY SHERIFF SWEETEN JUST BEFORE THE
CONFESSION WAS MADE, HOWEVER, WAS SQUARELY DENIED.  ALL OF THE OFFICERS
INVOLVED ASSERTED THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN MISTREATED, WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF THE SLAP BY REDFEARN.  SWEETEN'S EXPLANATION OF HOW THE CONFESSION
WAS OBTAINED WAS:  "WE JUST TALKED THAT CONFESSION OUT OF HIM.  IT TOOK
US 20 TO 30 MINUTES TO GET THAT CONFESSION."  AND ONE OF THE PATROLMEN
WHO TOOK PETITIONER TO THE JAIL IN ATHENS STATED:  "WE JUST TALKED TO
HIM TO GET THAT STATEMENT.  YES SIR, WE JUST SWEET TALKED HIM OUT OF
IT."  SEVERAL WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT OFFICERS TESTIFIED THAT THEY HAD
EXAMINED PETITIONER'S BODY AND FOUND NO BRUISES OR BURNS.  ONLY THE
SHERIFF OF TITUS COUNTY CORROBORATED PETITIONER'S CHARGES.  HE
TESTIFIED THAT WHEN PETITIONER WAS BACK IN THE GILMER JAIL SEVERAL DAYS
AFTER THE CONFESSION, "I SAW SOME MARKS ON HIS NECK AND SHOULDERS AND
ARMS THAT APPEARED TO BE CIGARETTE STUB BURNS.  YES SIR, THEY WERE
FRESH.  THERE WERE SEVERAL OF THEM ON HIS BODY." 

CONCEDING THAT THE QUESTION OF PHYSICAL MISTREATMENT WAS CONCLUSIVELY
RESOLVED BY THE JURY'S VERDICT, WE RETURN TO THE ADMITTED FACTS.  THERE
CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT FROM FIRST TO LAST THE OFFICERS ACTED WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF LAW.  THE SHERIFF OF MORRIS COUNTY HAD NO POWER TO ARREST
PETITIONER IN TITUS COUNTY.  WITHOUT THE BOUNDARIES OF MORRIS COUNTY HE
HAD NO MORE AUTHORITY THAN ANY PRIVATE CITIZEN.  LEDBETTER V. STATE, 23
TEX. APP. 247, 5 S.W. 226; HOOPER V. DIESHER, 113 S.W.2D 966, 967.  NOR
DID CONSTABLE REDFEARN OF TITUS COUNTY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE
PETITIONER INTO CUSTODY.  UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE SHERIFF MUST PROCURE A WARRANT BEFORE MAKING AN
ARREST UNLESS HE HAS BEEN ADVISED BY A CREDIBLE PERSON THAT A FELONY
HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND THAT THE OFFENDER IS ABOUT TO ESCAPE.  SEE
RUTHERFORD V. STATE, 104 TEX. CR. 127, 283 S.W. 512.  AND ARTICLE 217
PROVIDES THAT THE PERSON MAKING THE ARREST MUST IMMEDIATELY TAKE THE
PERSON ARRESTED BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE IF THE ARREST IS MADE WITHOUT A
WARRANT.  NEITHER THE SHERIFF OF MORRIS COUNTY NOR CONSTABLE REDFEARN
MADE ANY EFFORT TO SECURE A WARRANT.  INSTEAD OF TAKING PETITIONER TO
THE NEAREST MAGISTRATE, THEY TOOK HIM AWAY FROM THE NEAREST
MAGISTRATE.  THERE WAS NO PRETENSE THAT THE ARREST WAS MADE BECAUSE OF
INFORMATION THAT HE WAS ABOUT TO ESCAPE.  HE HAD BEEN RELEASED ON
SUNDAY AFTER HIS FIRST DETENTION, AND ON TUESDAY EVENING HE WAS
ATTENDING A PARTY AT HIS CHURCH, WHEN THE SHERIFF OF MORRIS COUNTY
ARRESTED HIM. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HE WAS MOVED FROM TITUS COUNTY BECAUSE THE
OFFICERS FEARED THAT IF HE WERE PLACED IN JAIL THERE JUDGE CALDWELL
WOULD APPLY FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO SECURE HIS RELEASE, AND
BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE CONFESSION FROM HIM MORE
EASILY IN A STRANGE PLACE.  THE STATE'S ANSWER IS THAT THE OFFICERS'
PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT HIM FROM THREATENED MOB VIOLENCE. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY LAW WAS NOT OBSERVED IN
MAKING THE REMOVAL.  ARTICLE 262 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PROVIDES THAT, IF THERE IS NO SAFE JAIL IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE
PROSECUTION IS CARRIED ON, THE MAGISTRATE MAY COMMIT THE PRISONER TO
THE NEAREST SAFE JAIL IN ANY OTHER COUNTY.  HERE NO APPLICATION WAS
MADE TO A MAGISTRATE FOR A COMMITTAL TO A JAIL IN ANOTHER COUNTY. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE EVIDENCE OF THREATENED MOB VIOLENCE IS
EXTREMELY VAGUE AND BY NO MEANS ADEQUATELY EXPLAINS THE COURSE OF THE
OFFICERS' ACTIVITIES.  THE ONLY TESTIMONY ON THIS SUBJECT IS THAT, IN
MORRIS COUNTY WHERE DECEASED LIVED, ONE OR TWO PERSONS HAD EXPRESSED
THE OPINION THAT THE MAN WHO KILLED HIM SHOULD BE GIVEN A "NECK-TIE
PARTY," AND THAT SOME PEOPLE IN TITUS COUNTY HAD TALKED ABOUT THE
"POSSIBILITY OF THREATENING MOB VIOLENCE."  YET, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
ARREST, PETITIONER WAS TAKEN INTO MORRIS COUNTY, WHERE THE FEELING WAS
SUPPOSEDLY RUNNING HIGHEST.  IN CONVERSATION WITH TWO ATTORNEYS IN
MOUNT PLEASANT PRIOR TO THE TUESDAY NIGHT ARREST, CONSTABLE REDFEARN
COMPLAINED ABOUT "THE TROUBLE WE WERE HAVING IN QUESTIONING WILLIAM
WARD" BECAUSE OF JUDGE CALDWELL'S INTERFERENCE.  AT THE TRIAL HE
STATED:  "IN MOVING THE DEFENDANT, AS I HAVE TESTIFIED, THE SOLE AND
ONLY CONSIDERATION IN DOING SO WAS TO GET A STATEMENT FROM THE NEGRO IN
TALKING TO HIM ALONE OR IN CONNECTION WITH OTHERS WHO POSSIBLY KNEW
SOMETHING ABOUT THE CRIME AND I WAS PROTECTING HIM AGAINST RUMORS OF
POSSIBLE MOB VIOLENCE."  ROLSTON, COUNTY ATTORNEY OF TITUS COUNTY, WAS
ASKED AT THE TRIAL WHETHER THE REASON FOR TAKING PETITIONER OUT OF
TITUS COUNTY WAS TO PREVENT JUDGE CALDWELL "FROM GETTING OUT A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS."  HE REPLIED:  "I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THAT IS ALL THE
REASON OR NOT.  I DIDN'T ADVISE THE OFFICERS TO TAKE HIM OUT.  ...  I
KNOW THERE WAS SOME PLAN ON FOOT TO TAKE HIM OUT."  AND HE TESTIFIED
FURTHER:  "IT IS A FACT THAT MR. REDFEARN AND SOME OF THE OTHER
OFFICERS TOLD ME ABOUT THE EDWARDS NEGRO, THAT THEY WERE GOING TO TRY
TO GET THEM OUT OF MOUNT PLEASANT AND QUESTION HER AND THEN QUESTION
WILLIAM AND TRY TO CONFRONT THE TWO WITH THE STATEMENT OF EACH OTHER
AND TRY TO GET THEM TO BREAK DOWN AND TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT IT." 
SPEAKING OF THE CONDUCT OF THE OFFICERS, THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
IN ITS FIRST OPINION SAID:  "WE GIVE EFFECT TO THE GOOD FAITH AND
INTENT OF THE OFFICERS IN MOVING APPELLANT OUT OF TITUS COUNTY IN ORDER
TO SECURE HIS SAFETY.  YET WE CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE IDEA THAT IT WAS
NECESSARY TO CARRY HIM 110 MILES, TO ATHENS, TEXAS, FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
THAT SUCH WAS NOT THE REASON APPELLANT WAS CARRIED TO ATHENS IS
DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT HE WAS KEPT THERE ONLY TWENTY OR THIRTY
MINUTES,  FN1  AND WAS CARRIED BACK TO TYLER IMMEDIATELY AFTER HE HAD
MADE THE CONFESSION.  THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT HE WAS CARRIED
TO ATHENS AS PART OF THE PLAN TO 'GET A STATEMENT FROM THE NEGRO,' AND
WHICH HAD FAILED UP TO THAT TIME."  WE ARE NOT PERSUADED THAT THE
INITIAL REMOVAL OF PETITIONER FROM TITUS COUNTY WAS PROMPTED BY FEAR
FOR HIS SAFETY, BUT WE CONCUR IN THE TEXAS COURT'S OPINION AS TO THE
MOTIVE THAT PROMPTED THE OFFICERS TO TRANSPORT HIM AS FAR AS ATHENS. 

THE EFFECT OF MOVING AN IGNORANT NEGRO BY NIGHT AND DAY TO STRANGE
TOWNS, TELLING HIM OF THREATS OF MOB VIOLENCE, AND QUESTIONING HIM
CONTINUOUSLY IS EVIDENT FROM PETITIONER'S STATEMENT TO COUNTY ATTORNEY
ROLSTON THAT HE WOULD BE GLAD TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT THAT ROLSTON
DESIRED.  DISREGARDING PETITIONER'S CLAIMS THAT HE WAS WHIPPED AND
BURNED, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THIS CONFESSION WAS NOT FREE AND
VOLUNTARY BUT WAS THE PRODUCT OF COERCION AND DURESS, THAT PETITIONER
WAS NO LONGER ABLE FREELY TO ADMIT OR TO DENY OR TO REFUSE TO ANSWER,
AND THAT HE WAS WILLING TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT THAT THE OFFICERS WANTED
HIM TO MAKE. 

THIS COURT HAS SET ASIDE CONVICTIONS BASED UPON CONFESSIONS EXTORTED
FROM IGNORANT PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO PERSISTENT AND
PROTRACTED QUESTIONING, OR WHO HAVE BEEN THREATENED WITH MOB VIOLENCE,
OR WHO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY HELD INCOMMUNICADO WITHOUT ADVICE OF
FRIENDS OR COUNSEL, OR WHO HAVE BEEN TAKEN AT NIGHT TO LONELY AND
ISOLATED PLACES FOR QUESTIONING.  FN2  ANY ONE OF THESE GROUNDS WOULD
BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR REVERSAL.  ALL OF THEM ARE TO BE FOUND IN THIS
CASE. 

THE USE OF A CONFESSION OBTAINED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS, AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT PETITIONER WAS ACTUALLY IN
ATHENS FOR SEVERAL HOURS.  HOWEVER, THE SIGNIFICANT FACT THAT HE WAS
RETURNED TO TYLER IMMEDIATELY AFTER SIGNING THE CONFESSION IS NOT
CONTROVERTED.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT THE OBJECT IN CARRYING
HIM FROM TYLER TO ATHENS WAS TO SECURE HIM FROM HARM. 

FN2  WAN V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1, 14; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297
U.S. 278; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 241; CANTY V.ALABAMA, 309
U.S. 629; WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530; LOMAX V. TEXAS, 313 U. S. 544;
VERNON V. ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 547. 
..END :












CHRYSLER CORPORATION V. U.S., 316 U.S. 556 


NO. 1036.  ARGUED MAY 1, 4, 1942.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1942.  - AFFIRMED. 


A CORPORATION, SUED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAW,
CONSENTED TO A RESTRAINING DECREE WHICH CONTAINED AN EXPRESS CONDITION
THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD BE FREED FROM A PROVISION FORBIDDING FINANCIAL
DEALINGS WITH ANY FINANCE COMPANY IF, ON OR BEFORE A FUTURE DAY NAMED,
NO FINAL DECREE IMPOSING A SIMILAR RESTRAINT HAD BEEN ENTERED IN A LIKE
SUIT THEN PENDING IN ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT AGAINST ITS COMPETITOR. 
THE DECREE EXPRESSLY RESERVED IN THE COURT POWER TO MODIFY ITS
PROVISIONS.  HELD, THAT THE POWER WAS NOT ABUSED BY ORDERS POSTPONING
THE TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION BECAUSE OF DELAYS IN THE
OTHER SUIT, SINCE THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE CONSENT DECREE WAS TO HAVE
THE ULTIMATE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES DETERMINED BY THE OTHER LITIGATION,
AND SINCE THE FUNCTION OF THE TIME LIMITATION WAS TO PROTECT THE
DEFENDANT FROM BEING PLACED AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE THROUGH UNDUE
DELAY OF THAT LITIGATION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHEREAS IT DID
NOT APPEAR THAT THE TIME EXTENSION HAD HAD THAT EFFECT, AND THERE WAS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE OTHER SUIT HAD BEEN PROSECUTED
DILIGENTLY.  P. 562. 

CHRYSLER CORPORATION ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT MODIFYING A DECREE WHICH
HAD BEEN ENTERED BY CONSENT IN A PROSECUTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON MAY 27, 1938, AN INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED AGAINST APPELLANTS
(REFERRED TO HEREAFTER AS CHRYSLER) AND COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY AND
CERTAIN SUBSIDIARIES OF THE LATTER IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA.  TWO SIMILAR INDICTMENTS WERE RETURNED ON
THE SAME DAY, ONE AGAINST FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND CERTAIN FINANCE
COMPANIES AFFILIATED WITH IT, AND THE OTHER AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION AND GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, ITS SUBSIDIARY. 
THE GIST OF EACH OF THESE INDICTMENTS WAS THAT THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURER HAD COMBINED AND CONSPIRED WITH ITS AFFILIATED FINANCE
COMPANY OR COMPANIES TO RESTRAIN TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE WHOLESALE
AND RETAIL SALE AND FINANCING OF ITS AUTOMOBILES, IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  FN1 

DURING THE ENSUING MONTHS, CHRYSLER AND FORD REACHED AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE INDICTMENTS AGAINST THEM WOULD BE QUASHED
AND CONSENT DECREES ENTERED.  CONSEQUENTLY, ON NOVEMBER 7, 1938, BILLS
OF EQUITY WERE FILED AGAINST CHRYSLER AND FORD, PRAYING FOR INJUNCTIONS
AGAINST THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF.  ANSWERS WERE FILED,  FN2  AND ON
NOVEMBER 15, 1938, THE CONSENT DECREES WERE ENTERED. 

THE LENGTHY DECREE AGAINST CHRYSLER NEED NOT BE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL. 
FN3  PARAGRAPH 6 IMPOSED NUMEROUS SPECIFIC RESTRAINTS UPON
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES BY CHRYSLER IN FAVOR OF COMMERCIAL CREDIT
COMPANY.  PARAGRAPH 7 IMPOSED CORRELATIVE RESTRAINTS UPON COMMERCIAL
CREDIT COMPANY IN ITS DEALINGS WITH CHRYSLER.  PARAGRAPH 12A CONTAINED
ALTERNATIVE PROVISIONS DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE THEN STILL
PENDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS.  IT PROVIDED:  (1)
THAT IF THOSE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT RESULT IN CONVICTION, EVERY
PROVISION OF THIS CONSENT DECREE AGAINST CHRYSLER SHOULD BE SUSPENDED
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL DECREE SHOULD BE OBTAINED
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS; OR (2) THAT UPON CONVICTION OF GENERAL MOTORS
IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, OR UPON THE ENTRY OF A DECREE IN A CIVIL
ACTION AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS, OR UPON JANUARY 1, 1940 - WHICHEVER
SHOULD OCCUR FIRST - CHRYSLER SHOULD BE FREE OF ALL RESTRAINTS IMPOSED
BY PARAGRAPH 6, TO THE EXTENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL RESTRAINTS
HAD NOT BEEN IMPOSED UPON GENERAL MOTORS BY THE VERDICT OF GUILTY, OR
BY THE CIVIL DECREE, AND UNTIL SUCH RESTRAINTS WERE IMPOSED. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US CONCERNS PARAGRAPH 12, WHICH IS SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT FROM PARAGRAPH 12A.  PARAGRAPH 12 FORBADE CHRYSLER TO "MAKE
ANY LOAN TO OR PURCHASE THE SECURITIES OF" COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY OR
ANY OTHER CREDIT COMPANY.  IT THEN PROVIDED: 

"IT IS AN EXPRESS CONDITION OF THIS DECREE THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OF THIS PARAGRAPH 12 AND OF ANY
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS DECREE, IF AN EFFECTIVE FINAL ORDER OR DECREE
NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED ON OR BEFORE
JANUARY 1, 1941, REQUIRING GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PERMANENTLY TO
DIVEST ITSELF OF ALL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION AND OF ALL INTEREST THEREIN, THEN AND IN THAT EVENT,
NOTHING IN THIS DECREE SHALL PRECLUDE THE MANUFACTURER (CHRYSLER) FROM
ACQUIRING AND RETAINING OWNERSHIP OF AND/OR CONTROL OVER OR INTEREST IN
ANY FINANCE COMPANY, OR FROM DEALING WITH SUCH FINANCE COMPANY AND WITH
THE DEALERS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THIS DECREE OR IN ANY ORDER OR
MODIFICATION OR SUSPENSION THEREOF ENTERED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 12A
...  "  ITALICS ADDED.  AFFILIATION BETWEEN CHRYSLER AND COMMERCIAL
CREDIT COMPANY, OR ANOTHER FINANCE COMPANY, WAS THUS SINGLED OUT FOR
SPECIAL TREATMENT IN PARAGRAPH 12.  THE VARIOUS RESTRAINTS IMPOSED BY
PARAGRAPHS 6 AND 7 WERE SUBJECT TO TERMINATION UPON THE CONTINGENCIES
DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 12A, BUT THE PROHIBITION AGAINST AFFILIATION WAS
SUBJECT TO EXPIRATION UPON THE DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT CONTINGENCY
DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 12, VIZ., THE ENTRY OF "AN EFFECTIVE FINAL ORDER
OR DECREE NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW  ...  ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1,
1941, REQUIRING GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PERMANENTLY TO DIVEST ITSELF
OF ALL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
AND OF ALL INTEREST THEREIN  ...  " 

JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE WAS RETAINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IN
PARAGRAPH 14, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING THE PARTIES TO APPLY AT ANY
TIME "FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE IN RELATION TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF OR CARRYING OUT OF THIS
DECREE" OR "FOR THE MODIFICATION THEREOF." 

THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS RESULTED IN
CONVICTION OF THE CORPORATION ON NOVEMBER 17, 1939.  GENERAL MOTORS
APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.  ON
MAY 1, 1941, THAT COURT AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION AND ON JULY 2, 1941,
DENIED REHEARING.  121 F.2D 376.  A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS DENIED
ON OCTOBER 13, 1941, 314 U.S. 618.  A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS DENIED
ON NOVEMBER 10, 1941, 314 U.S. 710. 

MEANTIME, A CIVIL SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION HAD BEEN INSTITUTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS ON OCTOBER 4, 1940 IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.  ON OCTOBER 26, 1940, THE
GOVERNMENT AGREED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER TO JANUARY 20,
1941.  THIS EXTENSION OF TIME RENDERED IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT
TO OBTAIN "AN EFFECTIVE FINAL ORDER OR DECREE" AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1941, AS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE CONSENT
DECREE AGAINST CHRYSLER.  ACCORDINGLY, ON DECEMBER 17, 1940, THE
GOVERNMENT FILED A MOTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN INDIANA ASKING THAT
PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE CONSENT DECREE AGAINST CHRYSLER BE MODIFIED BY
SUBSTITUTING "JANUARY 1, 1942" FOR "JANUARY 1, 1941."  CHRYSLER OPPOSED
THIS MOTION, BUT ON DECEMBER 21, 1940 AN ORDER WAS ENTERED CHANGING THE
DATE AS REQUESTED.  CHRYSLER APPEALED TO THIS COURT FROM THE ORDER OF
MODIFICATION, BUT THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED ON DECEMBER 8, 1941 FOR WANT
OF A QUORUM OF JUSTICES QUALIFIED TO SIT, 314 U.S. 583, AND ON JANUARY
5, 1942 REHEARING WAS DENIED, 314 U.S. 716. 

PURSUANT TO ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND
GENERAL MOTORS, THE TIME TO ANSWER THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT IN THE
CIVIL SUIT IN THE ILLINOIS DISTRICT COURT WAS SUCCESSIVELY EXTENDED TO
JANUARY 27, 1941, TO MAY 1, 1941, TO JUNE 15, 1941, AND TO JUNE 21,
1941.  ON THE LATTER DATE, THE GOVERNMENT FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. 
BY AGREEMENT, THE TIME IN WHICH TO ANSWER THIS AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS
EXTENDED TO JULY 15, 1941.  GENERAL MOTORS THEN SOUGHT A FURTHER
EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, URGING THAT THE
CIVIL SUIT SHOULD BE POSTPONED PENDING A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE
CRIMINAL CASE AND THAT IT WAS ABOUT TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI IN THE CRIMINAL CASE.  THE GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO AGREE TO AN
EXTENSION, STATING THAT ANY FURTHER DELAY MIGHT PREJUDICE THE
GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH ITS CONSENT DECREE AGAINST CHRYSLER.  THE
DISTRICT COURT NEVERTHELESS ENTERED AN ORDER FOR AN INDEFINITE
EXTENSION OF THE TIME IN WHICH GENERAL MOTORS MIGHT ANSWER THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT.  ON DECEMBER 1, 1941, THE GOVERNMENT MOVED THE DISTRICT
COURT TO SET A DAY CERTAIN BY WHICH GENERAL MOTORS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
ANSWER AND OTHERWISE PLEAD.  IN THE MOTION AND IN AN ACCOMPANYING
AFFIDAVIT, THE GOVERNMENT EXPLAINED THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CONSENT
DECREE AGAINST CHRYSLER AND THE CIVIL SUIT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS. 
AFTER A HEARING ON THE MOTION, THE DISTRICT COURT SET JANUARY 15, 1942,
AS THE DATE BY WHICH GENERAL MOTORS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ANSWER. 

THE DATE FIXED BY THE LAST MENTIONED ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
ILLINOIS IN THE SUIT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS CREATED FURTHER DIFFICULTY
WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSENT DECREE IN THE CHRYSLER CASE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF INDIANA.  IT HAD NOW BECOME IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO
OBTAIN "AN EFFECTIVE FINAL ORDER OR DECREE" AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE CHRYSLER CONSENT DECREE,
PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1942.  ON DECEMBER 22, 1941, THEREFORE, THE
GOVERNMENT MOVED THE DISTRICT COURT IN INDIANA FOR A SECOND
MODIFICATION OF PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE CHRYSLER CONSENT DECREE BY
SUBSTITUTING "JANUARY 1, 1943" FOR "JANUARY 1, 1942."  IN ITS ANSWER
CHRYSLER OPPOSED THE MODIFICATION.  THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CIVIL SUIT AGAINST GENERAL
MOTORS.  HEARING ON THE MOTION WAS CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 16, 1942.  ON
THAT DATE NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED, BUT ARGUMENT OF
COUNSEL WAS HEARD. 

THE DISTRICT COURT THEREUPON MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
(A) THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD SPECIFICALLY RETAINED JURISDICTION TO
MODIFY THE CONSENT DECREE; (B) THAT PARAGRAPH 12 WAS "FRAMED UPON THE
BASIS THAT THE ULTIMATE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES THEREUNDER SHOULD BE
DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S CIVIL ANTITRUST PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND AFFILIATED COMPANIES"; (C) THAT "TIME
WAS NOT OF THE ESSENCE WITH RESPECT TO LAPSE OF THE BAR AGAINST
AFFILIATION (BETWEEN CHRYSLER AND COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY OR ANY
OTHER FINANCE COMPANY)"; (D) "THAT TO SAFEGUARD DEFENDANTS AGAINST
UNDUE DELAY IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS THE DECREE PROVIDED FOR SUSPENSION OF
CERTAIN OF ITS PROHIBITIONS IN THE EVENT CONVICTIONS WERE NOT OBTAINED
IN THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION BY JANUARY 1,
1940"; (E) "THAT THE DECREE PROVIDED FOR A TERMINATION OF THE BAR
AGAINST AFFILIATION, IF THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION WERE NOT SUCCESSFULLY CONCLUDED BY A COURT OF LAST RESORT
BY JANUARY 1, 1941"; (F) THAT A CONVICTION HAD BEEN OBTAINED IN THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS ON NOVEMBER 17, 1939; (G)
"THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROCEEDED DILIGENTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY IN ITS
SUIT TO DIVORCE GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION FROM GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION"; AND (H) "THAT FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE BAR AGAINST
AFFILIATION WILL NOT IMPOSE A SERIOUS BURDEN UPON DEFENDANTS."  IT THEN
CONCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW "THAT THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE DECREE
WILL BE CARRIED OUT IF CHRYSLER IS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY AT ANY FUTURE
TIME TO PROPOSE A PLAN FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A FINANCE COMPANY, AND TO
MAKE A SHOWING THAT SUCH PLAN IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT CHRYSLER
CORPORATION FROM BEING PUT AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE DURING THE
PENDENCY OF COMPLAINANT'S CIVIL LITIGATION AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION, ET AL." 

UPON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED AN ORDER MODIFYING PARAGRAPH 12 BY CHANGING THE DATE TO JANUARY
1, 1943, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION.  THE CASE IS
BEFORE US ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER.  15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT UNDER PARAGRAPH 14 OF THE ORIGINAL DECREE THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO MODIFY IT.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE CHANGE IN DATE IN PARAGRAPH 12 AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF THIS POWER
TO MODIFY.  WE THINK THAT THE TEST TO BE APPLIED IN ANSWERING THIS
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CHANGE SERVED TO EFFECTUATE OR TO THWART THE
BASIC PURPOSE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSENT DECREE.  UNITED STATES V. SWIFT &
CO., 286 U.S. 106. 

THE TEXT OF THE DECREE ITSELF PLAINLY REVEALS THE NATURE OF THAT
PURPOSE.  IT WAS, AS STATED IN THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS, "THAT THE
ULTIMATE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES THEREUNDER SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S CIVIL ANTITRUST PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
CORPORATION AND AFFILIATED COMPANIES."  THE TIME LIMITATION WAS
INSERTED TO PROTECT CHRYSLER FROM BEING PLACED AT A COMPETITIVE
DISADVANTAGE IN THE EVENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT UNDULY DELAYED THE
INITIATION AND PROSECUTION OF THE GENERAL MOTORS INJUNCTIVE
PROCEEDINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND "THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS
PROCEEDED DILIGENTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY IN ITS SUIT TO DIVORCE GENERAL
MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION FROM GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION."  THERE
IS ROOM FOR ARGUMENT THAT THIS STATEMENT IS MARKEDLY GENEROUS TO THE
GOVERNMENT, INASMUCH AS THE CIVIL SUIT AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT
INSTITUTED UNTIL ALMOST TWO YEARS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE CONSENT DECREE
AND ONLY THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE LIMITING DATE IN PARAGRAPH 12.  BUT
THE FINDING IS SUPPORTED BY SEVERAL CIRCUMSTANCES:  THE EXTENDED COURSE
OF THE APPEALS IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS, FOR
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE; THE OBVIOUS BEARING OF THE
RESULTS IN THAT LITIGATION UPON THE METHOD OF HANDLING THE CIVIL
LITIGATION WITH GENERAL MOTORS; AND THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
ILLINOIS IN JULY, 1941, IN THE GENERAL MOTORS CIVIL ACTION,
INDEFINITELY EXTENDING THE TIME TO ANSWER DESPITE THE GOVERNMENT'S
OBJECTION, PRESUMABLY TO AWAIT THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CRIMINAL
CASE.  IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, THE FINDING OF THE COURT BELOW
WAS NOT UNREASONABLE, AND WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT LOST ITS
RIGHT TO SEEK A MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE.    THE CONTROLLING FACTOR
THUS BECOMES WHETHER THE EXTENSION OF THE BAN ON AFFILIATION CONTAINED
IN PARAGRAPH 12 PLACES CHRYSLER AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. 
CHRYSLER MADE NO SHOWING TO THAT EFFECT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE
ORDER OF DECEMBER 21, 1941 SET THE HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 16, 1942, WITH
THE EXPLANATION THAT CHRYSLER HAD "REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE IN ORDER TO
PRODUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE."  BUT ON FEBRUARY 16 NO EVIDENCE WAS
FORTHCOMING.  THE RECORD THEREFORE REVEALS THAT CHRYSLER TERMINATED ITS
AFFILIATION WITH COMMERCIAL CREDIT IN 1938 BEFORE THE CONSENT DECREE
WAS ENTERED, AND DOES NOT REVEAL THAT IT HAS SINCE ASSERTED ANY DESIRE
OR INTENTION TO AFFILIATE WITH COMMERCIAL CREDIT OR WITH ANY OTHER
FINANCE COMPANY.  MOREOVER, WE CANNOT BE BLIND TO THE FACT THAT THE
COMPLETE CESSATION OF THE MANUFACTURE OF NEW AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT
TRUCKS HAS DRASTICALLY MINIMIZED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COMPETITIVE
FACTOR.  FN4  CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR DISTURBING THE
FINDING OF THE COURT BELOW "THAT FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE BAR AGAINST
AFFILIATION WILL NOT IMPOSE A SERIOUS BURDEN UPON DEFENDANTS."  IF
CHRYSLER DESIRES TO AFFILIATE WITH A FINANCE COMPANY AND FEELS THAT ITS
INABILITY TO DO SO PLACES IT AT A DISADVANTAGE WITH ITS COMPETITORS, IT
SHOULD MAKE SUCH A SHOWING TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT COURT EXPRESSLY
DECLARED THAT CHRYSLER WAS FREE AT ANY TIME TO PROPOSE A PLAN FOR
AFFILIATION AND TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH A PLAN IS NECESSARY TO AVOID
UNFAIRNESS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1. 

FN2  CHRYSLER'S ANSWER INCLUDED AN ALLEGATION THAT IT HAD COMPLETELY
TERMINATED ITS AFFILIATION WITH COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY BY FEBRUARY,
1938. 

FN3  THE CONSENT DECREE AGAINST FORD IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. 

FN4  SEE THE ORDER OF JANUARY 21, 1942, OF THE DIRECTOR OF PRIORITIES
OF THE OFFICE OF PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT.  F.R. DOCS.  41-636, 42-637, 7
F.R. 473. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

IN THE SPRING OF 1938 THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE THREE LEADING AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, CHRYSLER, FORD, AND
GENERAL MOTORS.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, FORD MAY BE DISREGARDED.  EACH
INDICTMENT CHARGED VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW ARISING OUT OF THE
MANUFACTURER'S AFFILIATION WITH A FINANCE COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYMENT OF
CERTAIN TRADE PRACTICES.  CHRYSLER WAS PREPARED TO CONSENT TO A DECREE
PROHIBITING IT FROM AFFILIATION WITH ANY FINANCE COMPANY, IN ADDITION
TO ITS ACCEPTANCE OF RESTRAINTS AGAINST ALLEGED ILLEGAL TRADE
PRACTICES, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE GOVERNMENT SUCCEEDED IN
OBTAINING SIMILAR RELIEF AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS.  THE PROBLEM BEFORE
THE NEGOTIATORS OF THE CONSENT DECREE WAS, THEREFORE, THAT OF
DETERMINING HOW LONG CHRYSLER SHOULD REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE RESTRAINTS
IMPOSED BY THE DECREE WHILE GENERAL MOTORS, CONTESTING THE CLAIMS OF
THE GOVERNMENT, REFUSED TO COME TO TERMS WITH IT AND PUT IT TO ITS
LAW.  AS THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES IN ITS BRIEF HERE, CHRYSLER WAS
"ENTITLED TO PROTECTION AGAINST UNDUE DELAY IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS."  WITH RESPECT TO THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST AFFILIATION, THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED BY PROVIDING IN PARAGRAPH
12 THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE OBTAINED A FINAL DECREE
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS BY JANUARY 1, 1941, REQUIRING GENERAL MOTORS TO
DIVEST ITSELF OF ALL INTEREST IN ITS AFFILIATED FINANCE COMPANY, THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST CHRYSLER WOULD CEASE.  THIS WAS MADE AN "EXPRESS
CONDITION" NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE DECREE.  FN1
OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF THE CONSENT DECREE AGAINST
CHRYSLER THAT THE PROHIBITION OF AFFILIATION WITH THE FINANCE COMPANY
SHOULD RESULT IN THIS GREAT COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE ONLY LONG ENOUGH
TO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO PRESS ITS CLAIM AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS TO
SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION WITH ALL REASONABLE SPEED.  THE PARTIES MIGHT
HAVE REFRAINED FROM FIXING ANY DEFINITE PERIOD, LEAVING THE MATTER
WHOLLY FOR DETERMINATION IN THE FUTURE AND BY UNDEFINED STANDARDS OF
REASONABLENESS.  INSTEAD, THE GOVERNMENT CHOSE TO SPECIFY WITH
PARTICULARITY THE LENGTH OF THE PERIOD - MORE THAN TWO YEARS - IN WHICH
CHRYSLER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BEAR COMPETITIVE HARDSHIPS RESULTING FROM
THE LACK OF THE SAME RESTRAINTS UPON GENERAL MOTORS. 

CONSIDERING THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE DECREE, THE INTERESTS, BOTH
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, WITH WHICH IT WAS DEALING, AND ITS TECHNICAL
DRAFTSMANSHIP, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PRECISE LIMITS OF
PARAGRAPH 12 WERE NOT CASUALLY OR CARELESSLY DEFINED.  OF COURSE, THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD THE POWER TO MODIFY THE CONSENT DECREE IN ORDER TO
EFFECTUATE ITS BASIC PURPOSES.  THE FACT THAT THE DECREE EMBODIED THE
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES NO MORE LIMITED THE POWER OF THE COURT THAN IF
IT HAD BEEN A CONTESTED DECREE.  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S.
311; UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 286 U.S. 106, 114; UNITED STATES V.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., 274 U.S. 693.  THE DECREE ITSELF CONTAINS
AN EXPRESS RECOGNITION OF THE COURT'S POWER OF MODIFICATION, BUT SUCH A
RESERVATION PLAINLY ADDED NOTHING TO THE DECREE AND SUBTRACTED NOTHING
FROM THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TERMS MADE AN EXPRESS CONDITION OF THE IMPOSED
RESTRAINT.  THE BURDEN WAS STILL, AS IT ALWAYS IS, ON THE MOVING PARTY
AND HERE IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT - TO SHOW THAT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED
A CHANGE IN SUCH TERMS.  IN FACT, ON DECEMBER 17, 1940, WITHIN THREE
WEEKS OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE RESTRAINT AGAINST CHRYSLER, THE
GOVERNMENT SOUGHT FOR AN EXTENSION OF THAT RESTRAINT FOR ANOTHER YEAR
UPON THE GROUNDS THAT THE TIME "WAS BY MISTAKE OF THE PARTIES
UNDERESTIMATED."  THE EXTENSION WAS OPPOSED, BUT GRANTED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT.  AN APPEAL WAS BROUGHT HERE BUT WAS DISMISSED ON
DECEMBER 8, 1941, "FOR WANT OF A QUORUM OF JUSTICES QUALIFIED TO SIT." 
CHRYSLER CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 583.  A WEEK LATER, THE
PRESENT PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGUN FOR A FURTHER EXTENSION.  THE EFFECT OF
THE MODIFICATION SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT AND GRANTED BY THE COURT
BELOW WAS TO EXTEND UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1943, THE RESTRICTIONS UPON
CHRYSLER'S FREEDOM OF ACTION WHICH WERE NOT IMPOSED UPON ITS PRINCIPAL
RIVAL. 

IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A MODIFICATION HAVING SUCH DRASTIC BUSINESS
CONSEQUENCES, IT WAS SURELY INCUMBENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW THAT
IT HAD PROCEEDED WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS.  THE
RECORD REVEALS THAT NO SUCH SHOWING WAS MADE.  THE HISTORY OF THE
LITIGATION AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS PROVES THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
MADE.  ALTHOUGH THE CONSENT DECREE AGAINST CHRYSLER WAS ENTERED ON
NOVEMBER 15, 1938, THE TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL ACTION AGAINST GENERAL
MOTORS WAS NOT BEGUN UNTIL OCTOBER 9, 1939.  THIS TRIAL RESULTED IN A
CONVICTION AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS ON NOVEMBER 17, 1939.  SINCE THE
TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT AFFILIATION AS SUCH WAS
UNLAWFUL, AND INDEED THE CONTRARY, THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING COULD NO
LONGER BE CLAIMED TO CONTROL THE VALIDITY OF THE AFFILIATION PROHIBITED
BY PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE CHRYSLER DECREE.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS IRRELEVANT
THAT THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS WERE NOT FINALLY
CONCLUDED UNTIL THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI ON OCTOBER 13, 1941.  BUT,
IN ANY EVENT, THE CONTINGENCIES OF REVIEW OF A CRIMINAL CONVICTION DO
NOT JUSTIFY HOLDING IN ABEYANCE AN EQUITY SUIT, EVEN THOUGH IT CONCERNS
A RELATED ISSUE, WHEN THE DETERMINATION OF THAT EQUITY SUIT WITHIN A
TIME CERTAIN, TO WIT, JANUARY 1, 1941, EXPLICITLY DEFINED THE DURATION
OF THE RESTRAINT IMPOSED UPON CHRYSLER.  THE APPEAL OF THE CRIMINAL
CONVICTION AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS WAS AT LAST DISPOSED OF IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON MAY 1, 1941.  121 F.2D 376.  BUT EVEN THEN
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOTHING TO PRESS THE EQUITY SUIT, INDEED IT PROMOTED
ITS FURTHER DELAY. 

IT WAS NOT UNTIL OCTOBER 4, 1940, THAT THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT A CIVIL
SUIT IN EQUITY AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS.  THIS WAS ALMOST TWO YEARS AFTER
THE ENTRY OF THE DECREE AGAINST CHRYSLER, AND, PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT,
LESS THAN THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE DATE UPON WHICH THE BAR AGAINST
CHRYSLER WAS TO BE LIFTED.  HERE AGAIN THE RECORD CONTAINS NOTHING TO
EXPLAIN THIS PERIOD OF INACTION, WHEN, BY THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE
DECREE, THE DUTY OF ACTION WAS LAID UPON THE GOVERNMENT AND THE RESULT
OF SUCH ACTION WAS OF OBVIOUS BUSINESS IMPORTANCE TO THE STATUS OF
CHRYSLER UNDER ITS DECREE.  NOR DOES THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE
GOVERNMENT UNDERTOOK TO PREVENT ANY UNTOWARD DELAYS IN THE
DETERMINATION OF THE GENERAL MOTORS CIVIL SUIT.  ON THE CONTRARY, NO
LESS THAN SIX TIMES DID THE GOVERNMENT AGREE TO EXTENSIONS OF THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH GENERAL MOTORS SHOULD PLEAD.  ON OCTOBER 26, 1940, THE
GOVERNMENT ACQUIESCED IN AN EXTENSION TO JANUARY 20, 1941; ON JANUARY
16, 1941, IN AN EXTENSION TO JANUARY 27, 1941; ON JANUARY 24, 1941, IN
AN EXTENSION OF MORE THAN THREE MONTHS, TO MAY 1, 1941; ON APRIL 21,
1941, IN A FURTHER EXTENSION TO JUNE 15, 1941; AND ON JUNE 13, 1941, IN
AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION TO JUNE 21, 1941.  ON THAT DATE, THE GOVERNMENT
FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND ON JUNE 28, 1941, IT AGREED TO A
FURTHER EXTENSION TO JULY 15, 1941.  ON THE LATTER DATE, GENERAL MOTORS
REQUESTED THE COURT THAT IT BE GIVEN A FURTHER EXTENSION; THE REQUEST
RECITED THE GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION BECAUSE OF ITS EFFECT
UPON THE CHRYSLER DECREE.  THE COURT NEVERTHELESS GRANTED GENERAL
MOTORS AN INDEFINITE EXTENSION.  ON NOVEMBER 29, 1941, THE GOVERNMENT
FOR THE FIRST TIME MOVED THAT GENERAL MOTORS BE REQUIRED TO FILE AN
ANSWER OR OTHER PLEADING.  IN RESPONSE TO THIS MOTION, THE COURT
ORDERED THAT GENERAL MOTORS FILE A PLEADING BY JANUARY 15, 1942. 

THIS IS THE BACKGROUND OF FACT IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS REQUIRED TO JUDGE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WAS EQUITABLY
ENTITLED TO IMPOSE UPON CHRYSLER FOR A FURTHER PERIOD THE CURTAILMENT
OF ITS FREEDOM OF ACTION EMBODIED IN THE CONSENT DECREE.  RELEVANT TO
ITS DETERMINATION, ALSO, WAS THE FACT THAT PARAGRAPH 12 PROVIDED ONLY
THAT, IF THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT OBTAIN A FINAL ORDER OF DIVORCEMENT
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS BY JANUARY 1, 1941, THEN NOTHING IN THE DECREE
AGAINST CHRYSLER WOULD PROHIBIT THE LATTER FROM AFFILIATING WITH A
FINANCE COMPANY.  NOTHING IN PARAGRAPH 12 GAVE, OR EVEN PURPORTED TO
GIVE, CHRYSLER ANY IMMUNITY FROM THE ANTITRUST LAWS AFTER JANUARY 1,
1941.  THEREFORE, IF THE DECREE WERE NOT MODIFIED, IT WOULD NOT MEAN
THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE POWERLESS TO PROCEED AGAINST CHRYSLER IF
THE LATTER RESUMED THE ACTIVITIES FORBIDDEN BY THE DECREE.  THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD STILL BE FREE TO TAKE ANY ACTION IT MIGHT HAVE TAKEN
BEFORE CHRYSLER CONSENTED TO THE DECREE AGAINST IT. 

A COURT OF EQUITY IS NOT JUST AN UMPIRE BETWEEN TWO LITIGANTS.  IN A
VERY SPECIAL SENSE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS IN ITS KEEPING AS THE
CONSCIENCE OF THE LAW.  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES IS THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT IN ITSELF MEAN THAT THE INTEREST WHICH IT ASSERTS
DEFINES AND COMPREHENDS THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH THE COURT MUST
VINDICATE.  A MODIFICATION OF A DECREE REQUESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS
NOT IPSO FACTO A MODIFICATION WARRANTED BY CONSIDERATIONS WHICH CONTROL
EQUITY.  REGARD FOR THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, WHICH MAKES
DETERMINATIONS DEPEND UPON PROOF AND NOT UPON UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS OF
ONE OF THE LITIGANTS, IS A VITAL ASPECT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE
BURDEN OBVIOUSLY RESTED UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR
DISREGARDING AN EXPRESS PROVISION IN A CAREFULLY FRAMED DECREE, AND
EXTENDING TO TWICE ITS ORIGINAL DURATION THE PERIOD OF RESTRAINT
AGAINST CHRYSLER.  SO TO ENLARGE THE BURDEN OF THE DECREE WITHOUT ANY
SUCH SHOWING BY THE GOVERNMENT IS A ONE-SIDED RESTRICTION OF CHRYSLER'S
FREEDOM OF ACTION, AT LEAST OF ITS RIGHT TO PROVE THAT THE RESTRICTED
ACTION IS INNOCENT.  INSTEAD OF EXACTING SUCH PROOF FROM THE
GOVERNMENT, THE DISTRICT COURT CAST UPON CHRYSLER THE DUTY OF SHOWING
THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED IF THE FETTERS REMAINED AFTER THE
PERIOD FIXED BY THE DECREE.  HE WHO SEEKS RELIEF FROM EQUITY HAS THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO IT.  IT IS UNFAIR TO CAST UPON
CHRYSLER THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE HARMED IF THE
GOVERNMENT GOT WHAT IT WANTED.  AS A PRACTICAL BUSINESS MATTER,
CHRYSLER IS NOT STANDING ON AN ABSTRACT RIGHT TO DEVISE MEANS OF
FINANCING ITS SALES SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT READY TODAY WITH
ARRANGEMENTS FOR A FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AND THE WAR PRECLUDES THEM. 
SUCH ARRANGEMENTS CANNOT BE DEVISED OVERNIGHT.  IT MAY WELL TAKE A YEAR
TO GET THEM UNDER WAY. 

CONSIDERING, ON THE ONE HAND, THE DRASTIC ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE TO
WHICH CHRYSLER IS PUT, IN BEING SUBJECTED TO THE HAZARD OF CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS IF IT TAKES ANY STEPS TOWARD PREPARING FOR AFFILIATION IN
THE FUTURE, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
EXPLAIN THE APPARENT LACK OF DILIGENCE IN PROSECUTING THE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS AND TO SHOW THAT THE MODIFICATION WAS NECESSARY
TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSES OF THE CONSENT DECREE, I AM BOUND TO CONCLUDE
THAT THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, UNEXPLAINED BY ANY OPINION, WAS
NOT WITHIN THE PROPER LIMITS OF ITS DISCRETION. 

FN1  THE FULL TEXT OF PARAGRAPH 12 IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY SHALL NOT PAY TO ANY AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND THE MANUFACTURER SHALL NOT OBTAIN FROM ANY
FINANCE COMPANY ANY MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE AS A BONUS OR
COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF RETAIL TIME SALES PAPER ACQUIRED BY THE
FINANCE COMPANY FROM DEALERS OF THE MANUFACTURER.  THE MANUFACTURER
SHALL NOT MAKE ANY LOAN TO OR PURCHASE THE SECURITIES OF RESPONDENT
FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY, AND IF IT SHALL PAY ANY
MONEY TO RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY OTHER FINANCE COMPANY WITH
THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF INDUCING OR ENABLING SUCH FINANCE COMPANY TO
OFFER TO THE DEALERS OF THE MANUFACTURER A LOWER FINANCE CHARGE THAN IT
WOULD OFFER IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT, IT SHALL OFFER IN WRITING
TO MAKE, AND IF SUCH OFFER IS ACCEPTED IT SHALL MAKE, PAYMENT UPON
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR BASES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO EVERY OTHER
FINANCE COMPANY OFFERING SUCH LOWER FINANCE CHARGE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT
THE MANUFACTURER FROM ACQUIRING NOTES, BONDS, COMMERCIAL PAPER, OR
OTHER EVIDENCE OF INDEBTEDNESS OF RESPONDENT FINANCE COMPANY OR ANY
OTHER FINANCE COMPANY IN THE OPEN MARKET.    "IT IS AN EXPRESS
CONDITION OF THIS DECREE THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OF THIS PARAGRAPH 12 AND OF ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF
THIS DECREE, IF AN EFFECTIVE FINAL ORDER OR DECREE NOT SUBJECT TO
FURTHER REVIEW SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN ENTERED ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1,
1941, REQUIRING GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION PERMANENTLY TO DIVEST ITSELF
OF ALL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
AND OF ALL INTEREST THEREIN, THEN AND IN THAT EVENT, NOTHING IN THIS
DECREE SHALL PRECLUDE THE MANUFACTURER FROM ACQUIRING AND RETAINING
OWNERSHIP OF AND/OR CONTROL OVER OR INTEREST IN ANY FINANCE COMPANY, OR
FROM DEALING WITH SUCH FINANCE COMPANY AND WITH THE DEALERS IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED IN THIS DECREE OR IN ANY ORDER OF MODIFICATION OR
SUSPENSION THEREOF ENTERED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 12A.  THE COURT, UPON
APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS OR ANY OF THEM, WILL ENTER AN ORDER OR
DECREE TO THAT EFFECT AT THE FOOT OF THIS DECREE, AND THE RIGHT OF ANY
RESPONDENT HEREIN TO MAKE THE APPLICATION AND TO OBTAIN SUCH ORDER OR
DECREE IS EXPRESSLY CONCEDED AND GRANTED." 

MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



U.S. EX REL. COY V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 342 


NO. 973.  ARGUED MAY 4, 5, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 25, 1942.  - 124 F.2D
1019, DISMISSED. 


1.  WHERE A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS AN ORDER
OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION A MOTION TO
CORRECT A SENTENCE MADE BY THE CONVICT AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TERM IN
WHICH THE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED, THE TIME ALLOWED FOR PETITION TO THIS
COURT FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GOVERNED BY RULE XI OF THE RULES IN
CRIMINAL CASES, AND IS 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 344. 

2.  THE FAILURE OF THE RULES IN CRIMINAL CASES TO FIX THE TIME
ALLOWED FOR APPEALING SUCH AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS A CASUS OMISSUS WHICH LEFT IN FULL FORCE
SEC. 8(C) OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, REQUIRING
APPLICATION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF APPEALS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TO BE MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER
APPEALED FROM.  P. 345. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. COY V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 652, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 38 F.SUPP.  610, DISMISSING A MOTION TO CORRECT A
SENTENCE OUT OF TERM FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN 1937, PETITIONER WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED ON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING
HIM WITH VIOLATION OF SECS. 2(A) AND (B) OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1934, 12
U.S.C. SEC. 588(B), WHICH RESPECTIVELY DEFINE THE OFFENSES (A) OF
TAKING OR ATTEMPTING TO TAKE BY FORCE FROM ANY PERSON MONEY OR PROPERTY
BELONGING TO A BANK INSURED WITH THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, AND (B), IN THE COMMISSION OF SUCH OFFENSE, ASSAULTING ANY
PERSON, OR PUTTING IN JEOPARDY THE LIFE OF ANY PERSON BY USE OF A
DANGEROUS WEAPON. 

THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THE FORCIBLE TAKING OF
MONEY OF THE BANK FROM THE PERSON OF ANOTHER.  THE SECOND COUNT CHARGED
THE SAME TAKING BY USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON, AND THE THIRD ALLEGED A
CONSPIRACY OF PETITIONER WITH OTHERS TO COMMIT THE OFFENSES SET OUT IN
THE FIRST TWO COUNTS.  PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED TO TWENTY YEARS
IMPRISONMENT ON COUNT ONE, AND A YEAR AND A DAY ON EACH OF COUNTS TWO
AND THREE, THE THREE SENTENCES TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY.  HE TOOK NO
APPEAL, BUT TWO YEARS LATER MOVED IN THE TRIAL COURT TO SET ASIDE THE
SENTENCE ON THE FIRST COUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN
THE FIRST WAS INCLUDED IN THAT CHARGED IN THE SECOND.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DENIED THE MOTION, HOLDING THAT ITS JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE
ENDED WITH THE TERM OF COURT IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED.  38
F.SUPP.  610. 

AFTER THE LAPSE OF MORE THAN THE FIVE DAYS PRESCRIBED BY RULE III OF
THE RULES IN CRIMINAL CASES, BUT LESS THAN THE THREE MONTHS PRESCRIBED
BY SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 230,
PETITIONER FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ASKED LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION "UPON THE
GROUNDS AND FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT
JUDGE."  124 F.2D 1019.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON A PETITION FILED MORE
THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY THE COURT BELOW, AND
REQUESTED COUNSEL, IN PRESENTING THE CASE HERE, TO DISCUSS THE
QUESTIONS WHETHER THE TIME FOR APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AND FOR PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT ARE GOVERNED BY THE RULES
IN CRIMINAL CASES, AND IF NOT WHAT STATUTE APPLIES. 

RULE XI OF THE CRIMINAL RULES PROVIDES THAT "PETITION TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT
OF THE APPELLATE COURT SHALL BE MADE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE
ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT."  IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS ONE TO WHICH RULE XI APPLIES, THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
WAS FILED TOO LATE AND WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  PETITIONER INSISTS
THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS ONE NOT EMBRACED IN THE CRIMINAL RULES
SINCE THEY MAKE NO PROVISION GOVERNING THE APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT; THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AS IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT WITHIN THE
CRIMINAL RULES, IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 8(A) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13,
1925, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 350, WHICH ALLOWS THREE MONTHS FOR
FILING THE PETITION.  CF. NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, 43-44. 

THE CRIMINAL RULES WERE PROMULGATED BY THIS COURT, 292 U.S. 661,
PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF MARCH 8, 1934, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 688, WHICH
AUTHORIZED THE COURT TO ADOPT "RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE WITH
RESPECT TO ANY OR ALL PROCEEDINGS AFTER VERDICT, OR FINDING OF GUILT BY
THE COURT IF A JURY HAS BEEN WAIVED, OR PLEA OF GUILTY, IN CRIMINAL
CASES IN DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED THE COURT TO "PRESCRIBE THE TIMES FOR AND MANNER OF TAKING
APPEALS AND APPLYING FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI."  IN ADOPTING THE RULES
IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THIS COURT TO EXPEDITE APPEALS IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS; AND, AS DECLARED IN ITS ORDER PROMULGATING THEM, THEY WERE
TO APPLY "IN ALL PROCEEDINGS" AFTER PLEAS OR VERDICT OR FINDING OF
GUILT AND "IN ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN SUCH CASES IN THE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS  ...  AND IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES." 

THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE IN RULE III OR ELSEWHERE FOR APPEALING AN
ORDER LIKE THE PRESENT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IS A CASUS OMISSUS WHICH LEFT IN FULL FORCE SEC. 8(C) OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 230, WHICH REQUIRES
APPLICATION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF APPEALS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TO BE MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER
APPEALED FROM.  BUT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
THIS CASE IS A JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AFTER VERDICT AND
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, AND THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT IS A "SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING" IN SUCH A CASE TO WHICH RULE XI
SPECIFICALLY APPLIES. 

WE SEE NO REASON FOR EXCEPTING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FROM THE
THIRTY-DAY LIMITATION OF RULE XI MERELY BECAUSE THE DRAFTSMEN OMITTED
TO PROVIDE IN RULE III FOR AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IN CASES LIKE THE PRESENT.  ON THE CONTRARY, SINCE THE PURPOSE IN
ADOPTING THE RULES WAS TO EXPEDITE CRIMINAL APPEALS, AND THE RULES IN
TERMS APPLY TO PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE EXPRESS
REQUIREMENTS OF RULE XI CANNOT RIGHTLY BE DISREGARDED EVEN THOUGH THE
GENERAL PURPOSE WAS NOT MADE COMPLETELY EFFECTIVE BECAUSE OF THE
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SHORT PERIOD FOR APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  DESPITE THIS OMISSION, RULE XI HAS MADE THE PURPOSE
EFFECTIVE IN THE CASE OF REVIEW BY CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT. 

THE WRIT WILL ACCORDINGLY BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
RULE XI.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO PASS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION, ON A GROUND WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS WAS ERRONEOUS, WILL BAR A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SIMILAR RELIEF.  DISMISSED. 
..END :













NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. U.S., 316 U.S. 346 


NO. 927.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 30, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 25, 1942.  - 41
F.SUPP.  439, AFFIRMED. 


THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOUND THAT, AT CERTAIN COMPLAINING
MARKETS, THE RAILROADS ABSORBED SWITCHING CHARGES ON COMPETITIVE GRAIN
SHIPMENTS (I.E., TRAFFIC ORIGINATING AT POINTS SERVED BY MORE THAN ONE
RAILROAD), BUT NOT ON NON-COMPETITIVE OR LOCAL TRAFFIC (ORIGINATING AT
POINTS SERVED BY ONLY ONE RAILROAD), WHILE AT ALL OTHER MARKETS IN
CENTRAL-WESTERN TERRITORY THE CARRIERS ABSORBED THE SWITCHING CHARGES
ON BOTH COMPETITIVE AND NON-COMPETITIVE SHIPMENTS.  THIS PRACTICE, IT
FOUND, WAS AT VARIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE GRAIN-RATE
STRUCTURE TO BRING ABOUT "AN ADJUSTMENT UNDER WHICH THE RATES TO AND
FROM ALL WESTERN MARKETS WOULD BE ON RELATIVELY THE SAME LEVEL, OR AN
ADJUSTMENT UNDER WHICH THE RATES TO AND FROM THE MARKETS WOULD
APPROXIMATE A MILEAGE PARITY," AND WAS SUPPORTED NEITHER BY REVENUE
CONSIDERATIONS NOR SOUND TRANSPORTATION FACTORS, AND WAS UNREASONABLE. 
HELD, THAT A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER BASED UPON THESE FINDINGS WAS
WITHIN THE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.  P.
348. 

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING A SUIT TO SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  SEE 245 I.C.C.
11. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 41 F.SUPP. 
439, DISMISSING A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, 245 I.C.C. 11, REQUIRING THE APPELLANT RAILROADS TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM MAINTAINING CERTAIN ABSORPTION RULES AND PRACTICES
FOUND TO BE UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY AND UNREASONABLE, AND THEREFORE
OFFENSIVE TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 1(6), 3(1),
15(1). 

UPON COMPLAINT OF THE MINNEAPOLIS TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING
GRAIN INTERESTS IN MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL, AND DULUTH, MINNESOTA, AND
SUPERIOR, WISCONSIN, THE COMMISSION INSTITUTED AN INQUIRY INTO THE
PRACTICES OF THE RAIL CARRIERS AT THE COMPLAINING MARKETS, WITH RESPECT
TO ABSORPTION OF CONNECTING-LINE SWITCHING CHARGES ON SO-CALLED
NONCOMPETITIVE OR LOCAL SHIPMENTS (I.E., ORIGINATING AT POINTS SERVED
BY ONLY ONE RAILROAD) OF GRAIN, GRAIN PRODUCTS, AND SEEDS.  AFTER
EXTENSIVE HEARINGS, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT AT THE COMPLAINING
MARKETS THE RAILROADS GENERALLY ABSORBED THE SWITCHING CHARGES ON
COMPETITIVE TRAFFIC (I.E., ORIGINATING AT POINTS SERVED BY MORE THAN
ONE RAILROAD) BUT NOT ON NONCOMPETITIVE OR LOCAL TRAFFIC, WHILE AT ALL
OTHER MARKETS IN CENTRAL-WESTERN TERRITORY THE CARRIERS ABSORBED THE
SWITCHING CHARGES ON BOTH COMPETITIVE AND NONCOMPETITIVE SHIPMENTS. 
THIS PRACTICE, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED, WAS WHOLLY AT VARIANCE WITH
THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE GRAIN-RATE STRUCTURE TO BRING ABOUT "AN
ADJUSTMENT UNDER WHICH THE RATES TO AND FROM ALL WESTERN MARKETS WOULD
BE ON RELATIVELY THE SAME LEVEL, OR AN ADJUSTMENT UNDER WHICH THE RATES
TO AND FROM THE MARKETS WOULD APPROXIMATE A MILEAGE PARITY."  245
I.C.C. 11, 13.  IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE CARRIERS' ABSORPTION
PRACTICES AT THE COMPLAINING MARKETS WERE SUPPORTED NEITHER BY REVENUE
CONSIDERATIONS NOR SOUND TRANSPORTATION FACTORS, AND THAT THE
WIDESPREAD ABSORPTION OF SWITCHING CHARGES ON NON-COMPETITIVE TRAFFIC
AT OTHER IMPORTANT MARKETS WAS STRONG EVIDENCE OF THE REASONABLENESS OF
SUCH PRACTICE AND OF THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE CARRIERS' REFUSAL TO
ABSORB SUCH CHARGES AT THE COMPLAINING MARKETS.  UPON THE BASIS OF
THESE FINDINGS, THE COMMISSION ENTERED THE ORDER CHALLENGED ON THIS
APPEAL. 

NEITHER THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS NOR ITS COMPLIANCE
WITH PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IS ASSAILED HERE.  THE ORDER IS ATTACKED ON
THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY POWERS. 

SUBJECT TO THE ACT "TO ESTABLISH, OBSERVE AND ENFORCE  ...  JUST AND
REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES AFFECTING CLASSIFICATIONS, RATES,
OR TARIFFS,  ...  AND ALL OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH
THE RECEIVING, HANDLING, TRANSPORTING, STORING, AND DELIVERY OF
PROPERTY  ...  WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY OR PROPER TO SECURE THE SAFE AND
PROMPT RECEIPT, HANDLING, TRANSPORTATION, AND DELIVERY OF PROPERTY  ...
UPON JUST AND REASONABLE TERMS, AND EVERY UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION, AND PRACTICE IS PROHIBITED AND DECLARED TO
BE UNLAWFUL."  SECTION 3(1) MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR COMMON CARRIERS TO
GIVE "ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY
PARTICULAR PERSON,  ...  LOCALITY,  ...  REGION, DISTRICT, TERRITORY,
OR ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC, IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER; OR
TO SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON,  ... LOCALITY,  ...  REGION,
DISTRICT, TERRITORY, OR ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC TO ANY
UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT
WHATSOEVER  ...  "  SECTION 15(1) AUTHORIZES AND EMPOWERS THE
COMMISSION, UPON FINDING THAT A PRACTICE OF CARRIERS IS "UNJUST OR
UNREASONABLE OR UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY," TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE CEASE
AND-DESIST ORDER. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FURNISH AMPLE
AUTHORITY FOR THE ORDER MADE HERE BY THE COMMISSION.  THE FINDINGS
SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORT THE COMMISSION IN UNDERTAKING TO REMOVE A
DISCRIMINATION AS BETWEEN GRAIN SHIPPERS AND MARKETS.  AS WAS NOTED
ONLY THE OTHER DAY IN BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534,
548, INVOLVING ANOTHER PHASE OF THE ELABORATE AND DELICATELY BALANCED
GRAIN RATE STRUCTURE, "WE CERTAINLY HAVE NEITHER TECHNICAL COMPETENCE
NOR LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PRONOUNCE UPON THE WISDOM OF THE COURSE TAKEN BY
THE COMMISSION."  SINCE THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION WAS BASED UPON
RELEVANT TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONTENTIONS ARE PLAINLY WITHOUT MERIT, THE ORDER WILL NOT BE SET
ASIDE.  LOS ANGELES SWITCHING CASE, 234 U.S. 294; BOARD OF TRADE V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :









PEYTON V. RY. EXPRESS AGENCY, 316 U.S. 350 


NO. 903.  SUBMITTED MAY 1, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 25, 1942.  - 124 F.2D
430, REVERSED. 


1.  A SUIT AGAINST A SINGLE INTERSTATE CARRIER TO RECOVER DAMAGES
RESULTING FROM A NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO DELIVER A PACKAGE SHIPPED
INTERSTATE BY EXPRESS IS A SUIT ARISING UNDER A LAW REGULATING
COMMERCE, VIZ., UNDER THE CARMACK AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, - OF WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. 
JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(8).  P. 352. 

2.  WHETHER A SUIT ARISES UNDER A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES MUST
APPEAR FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S PLEADING, NOT THE DEFENSES WHICH MAY BE
INTERPOSED TO, OR BE ANTICIPATED BY IT.  A PLEADING THAT ADEQUATELY
DISCLOSES A PRESENT CONTROVERSY DEPENDENT FOR ITS OUTCOME UPON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE SATISFIES THIS REQUIREMENT.  P. 353. 

PEYTON V. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 793, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A DISMISSAL
BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION OF AN ACTION AGAINST THE
EXPRESS COMPANY FOR NON-DELIVERY. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS, ALLEGING THAT RESPONDENT, KNOWN TO BE AN INTERSTATE
CARRIER, HAD NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DELIVER TO THE ADDRESSEE IN
CALIFORNIA A PACKAGE SHIPPED FROM WACO, TEXAS, AND CLAIMING DAMAGES IN
THE SUM OF $750,000.  THE TRIAL COURT ORDERED PETITIONER TO ATTACH TO
HIS COMPLAINT A COPY OF THE EXPRESS RECEIPT WHICH HE RECEIVED UPON
DELIVERING THE PACKAGE TO RESPONDENT.  THIS RECEIPT CONTAINED A $50
VALUATION.  THEREUPON THE COURT GRANTED RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY WAS LESS
THAN THE $3,000 NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC.
41(1), JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(1).  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE SUIT
COULD BE MAINTAINED UNDER 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(8), JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(8),
GRANTING THE DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION "OF ALL SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS
ARISING UNDER ANY LAW REGULATING COMMERCE," IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT
INVOLVED. 

THE PERTINENT ACT OF CONGRESS IS 49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(11), ORIGINALLY
THE CARMACK AMENDMENT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 593, SINCE AMENDED SEVERAL
TIMES TO ITS PRESENT FORM.  THE SECTION REQUIRES AN INTERSTATE COMMON
CARRIER RECEIVING PROPERTY FOR SHIPMENT TO ISSUE A RECEIPT OR BILL OF
LADING.  THE CARRIER IS MADE LIABLE TO THE HOLDER "FOR ANY LOSS,
DAMAGE, OR INJURY TO SUCH PROPERTY CAUSED BY IT" OR CONNECTING
CARRIERS.  IF THE INJURY DOES NOT OCCUR ON THE INITIAL CARRIER'S LINE,
BUT IT RESPONDS IN DAMAGES, IT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER OVER FROM THE
RESPONSIBLE CARRIER.  FURTHER, THE INITIAL CARRIER IS MADE LIABLE TO
THE SHIPPER FOR FULL DAMAGES SUSTAINED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY LIMITATION
OF LIABILITY IN THE RECEIPT OR BILL OF LADING, WITH THE EXCEPTION,
IMPORTANT HERE, THAT WHERE A CARRIER BY AUTHORITY OR DIRECTION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION MAINTAINS RATES DEPENDENT UPON THE VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY DECLARED IN WRITING BY THE SHIPPER, SUCH DECLARATION
ALSO LIMITS LIABILITY OF THE CARRIER FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO AN AMOUNT
NOT IN EXCESS OF THE DECLARED VALUE. 

FOLLOWING THE CARMACK AMENDMENT, THIS COURT IN SEVERAL CASES UPHELD
THE POWER OF THE RECEIVING CARRIER TO LIMIT ITS LIABILITY TO AN AGREED
VALUATION, MADE TO OBTAIN THE LOWER OF TWO OR MORE RATES.  SEE ADAMS
EXPRESS CO. V. CRONINGER, 226 U.S. 491; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V.
HARRIMAN, 227 U.S. 657; PIERCE CO. V. WELLS, FARGO & CO., 236 U.S.
278.  THE SO-CALLED FIRST CUMMINS AMENDMENT OF MARCH 4, 1915, 38 STAT.
1196, PROHIBITED IN GENERAL ANY SUCH LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.  BY THE
SECOND CUMMINS AMENDMENT OF AUGUST 9, 1916, 39 STAT. 441, CONGRESS
ADOPTED THE PRESENT PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IN
THE MANNER ALREADY NOTED, AND SUBSTANTIALLY RESTORED THE RULE OF ADAMS
EXPRESS CO. V. CRONINGER, SUPRA. 

RESPONDENT, CONFESSING ERROR, ASSERTS THAT UNDER SEC. 20(11) AS IT
NOW STANDS, A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST A SINGLE INTERSTATE CARRIER FOR ITS
NEGLIGENT NON-DELIVERY, IS ONE NOT MERELY TO ENFORCE A COMMON LAW
LIABILITY LIMITED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS; BUT THAT PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF
ACTION HAS ITS ORIGIN IN AND IS CONTROLLED BY SUCH ACT, AND SO "ARISES
UNDER" IT.  ANY DOUBTS AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS POSITION N1 ARE
RESOLVED BY THE ACT OF JANUARY 20, 1914, C. 11, 38 STAT. 278, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 71, REGULATING REMOVAL TO THE FEDERAL COURTS OF SUITS BROUGHT
UNDER THE CARMACK AMENDMENT IN THE STATE COURTS. 

AFTER THE CARMACK AMENDMENT A CONFLICT OF DECISIONS HAD DEVELOPED IN
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER SUITS FOR DAMAGES
BROUGHT AGAINST INTERSTATE CARRIERS UNDER THE AMENDMENT WERE SUITS
"ARISING UNDER" AN ACT REGULATING COMMERCE, SO THAT THEIR REMOVAL FROM
STATE TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS WOULD BE PERMITTED.  MCGOON V.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 204 F. 998; STORM LAKE TUB & TANK FACTORY V.
MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L.R. CO., 209 F. 895; ADAMS V. CHICAGO G.W. RY. CO.,
210 F. 362.  THE DECISION IN THE MCGOON CASE, SUSTAINING REMOVAL
JURISDICTION IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, WAS FOLLOWED BY
THE REMOVAL OF MANY SMALL SUITS AGAINST CARRIERS TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS.  CONGRESS ENDED THIS PRACTICE BY THE ACT OF JANUARY
20, 1914, WHICH FORBADE REMOVAL OF SUITS UNDER THE CARMACK AMENDMENT
INVOLVING LESS THAN $3,000. 

THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON H.R. 9994, 63D CONG.,
2D SESS. (WHICH WAS THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE AS S. 3484, WHICH BECAME THE
1914 LAW), EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THE EFFECT AND AUTHORITY OF THE
DECISION IN THE MCGOON CASE.  IN PROHIBITING REMOVALS WHERE LESS THAN
$3,000 IS IN CONTROVERSY, INSTEAD OF IMPOSING THE $3,000 LIMITATION
DIRECTLY ON ALL SUITS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS UNDER THE CARMACK
AMENDMENT, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT SUCH SUITS ARISE UNDER A LAW
REGULATING COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(8), AND
SANCTIONED THE EXERCISE OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION BY THE DISTRICT COURTS
IN SUCH CASES.  SEE H. REP. NO. 120, 63D CONG., 2D SESS.; ALSO 51 CONG.
REC. 1327, 1544-1548. 

WHETHER A SUIT ARISES UNDER A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES MUST APPEAR
FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S PLEADING, NOT THE DEFENSES WHICH MAY BE INTERPOSED
TO, OR BE ANTICIPATED BY IT.  PETITIONER'S PLEADING, WHICH WE HAVE
SUMMARIZED, SATISFIES THIS REQUIREMENT, SINCE IT ADEQUATELY DISCLOSES A
PRESENT CONTROVERSY DEPENDENT FOR ITS OUTCOME UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A FEDERAL STATUTE.  SEE TENNESSEE V. UNION & PLANTERS' BANK, 152 U.S.
454; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RY. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 211 U.S. 149; THE FAIR
V. KOHLER DIE & SPECIALTY CO., 228 U.S. 22, 25; TAYLOR V. ANDERSON, 234
U.S. 74; GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 109, 113.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE CINCINNATI, N.O. & T.P. RY. CO. V. RANKIN, 241 U.S. 319,
326; CHICAGO & E.I.R. CO. V. COLLINS CO., 249 U.S. 186, 191, WITH ADAMS
EXPRESS CO. V. CRONINGER, 226 U.S. 491, 505; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO.
V. HARRIMAN, 227 U.S. 657, 672; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. PRESCOTT, 240 U.S.
632, 639-40. 
..END :














STEWART V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 354 


NO. 848.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 28, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 25, 1942.  - 121
F.2D 705, REVERSED.  - 29 F.SUPP.  59, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FINDINGS IN THIS CASE, SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
ESTABLISH THAT THE MEXICAN GRANT TO CASTRO, AS CONFIRMED BY THE BOARD
OF LAND COMMISSIONERS, AND CONVEYING MARE ISLAND, IN SAN PABLO BAY,
CALIFORNIA, DOES NOT INCLUDE THE LARGE AREA OF TULE MARSH CLAIMED BY
THE PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE.  P. 358. 

2.  UNDER MEXICAN LAW THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND BORDERING ON NAVIGABLE
WATER EXTENDS TO THE LINE OF THE HIGHEST HIGH TIDE.  P. 359. 

3.  THE DECREE OF THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS CONFIRMING THE
GRANT TO CASTRO AND FIXING THE BOUNDARY IS TO BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING
TO THE COMMON LAW IN FORCE IN CALIFORNIA AT THE TIME IT WAS ENTERED. 
UNDER THAT LAW, THE BOUNDARY WOULD BE THE LINE OF ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK.  P. 359. 

4.  WHERE A DECREE CONFIRMING A MEXICAN GRANT DESCRIBED THE LAND
CONFIRMED AS "A PLACE  ... CALLED  ...  MARE ISLAND  ...  ," ADDING
THAT BEING AN ISLAND IT WAS BOUNDED BY THE WATER'S EDGE, EVIDENCE OF
WHAT WAS COMMONLY KNOWN AS MARE ISLAND IS ADMISSIBLE, NOT TO ATTACK THE
DECREE BUT TO INTERPRET AND APPLY IT IN IDENTIFYING THE BOUNDARIES
INTENDED.  P. 362. 

STEWART ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 791, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING A DECREE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DISMISSED A BILL BY THE UNITED STATES SEEKING
TO QUIET TITLE TO AN AREA OF MARSH LAND LYING IN THE VICINITY OF THE
MARE ISLAND NAVY YARD. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO QUIET ITS TITLE TO A LARGE
AREA OF TULE MARSH LANDS LYING NORTHWEST OF THE MARE ISLAND NAVY YARD
IN SAN PABLO BAY IN CALIFORNIA.  UNITED STATES V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S.
501, WAS A SIMILAR SUIT TO QUIET THE GOVERNMENT'S TITLE TO MARSH LANDS
LYING BETWEEN THE HIGH LAND ON WHICH THE NAVY YARD IS LOCATED AND THE
LANDS IN CONTROVERSY, WHICH TERMINATED FAVORABLY TO THE GOVERNMENT.  IN
BOTH CASES, THE GOVERNMENT DERAIGNED TITLE THROUGH A GRANT BY THE
MEXICAN GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA TO ONE CASTRO, AND CERTAIN MESNE
CONVEYANCES BY CASTRO AND HIS GRANTEES.  IN BOTH CASES, THE DEFENDANTS
CLAIMED TITLE UNDER THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON THE THEORY THAT THE
STATE ACQUIRED THE LANDS UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT OF SEPTEMBER 28,
1850.  FN1 THE O'DONNELL CASE INVOLVED THE VALIDITY OF THE GRANT TO
CASTRO, THE VALIDITY OF THE DECREE OF THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS
CONFIRMING THAT GRANT, THE QUESTION OF PRIORITY OF RIGHT AS BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AS PURCHASER OF THE LAND GRANTED TO CASTRO AND THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA AND ITS GRANTEES UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT.  THE DECISION
IN THAT CASE SETTLED THESE QUESTIONS IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

IN THE O'DONNELL CASE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LANDS THERE IN
CONTROVERSY WERE NOT EMBRACED WITHIN THE GRANT TO CASTRO.  THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND AGAINST THE CONTENTION AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
APPROVED THE FINDING.  WE REFUSED TO REVIEW THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF
THE LOWER COURTS. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PETITIONERS DO NOT CONTEST THE RULINGS IN
THE O'DONNELL CASE.  THEIR DEFENCES ARE THAT THEIR LANDS, WHICH THEY
HOLD UNDER PATENTS ISSUED FOR SWAMP AND OVERFLOWED LANDS, UNDER THE
SWAMP LANDS ACT, WERE NEVER PART OF THE LAND GRANTED TO CASTRO BY THE
MEXICAN GOVERNOR; AND FURTHER THAT, IF THEY WERE, THE DECISION IN SAN
FRANCISCO SAVINGS UNION V. IRWIN, 28 F. 708, AFFIRMED 136 U.S. 578,
CONSTITUTES A RULING AS TO THEIR TITLE WHICH OUGHT NOW TO BE FOLLOWED. 
IN ADDITION, THEY CLAIM THAT THE ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS BARRED
BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891,  FN2  WHICH PROHIBITS SUIT BY THE UNITED
STATES TO ANNUL ANY PATENT AFTER SIX YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE. 
THEY ALSO CONTEND THAT LACHES, ESTOPPEL, AND FAILURE TO UNDERTAKE TO DO
EQUITY AS A CONDITION OF OBTAINING THE DESIRED RELIEF REQUIRE A DECREE
DISMISSING THE BILL. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED BEFORE THE SAME DISTRICT JUDGE WHO PRESIDED AT THE
TRIAL OF THE O'DONNELL CASE.  UPON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADINGS AND
PROOFS, HE MADE, INTER ALIA, THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT BEARING
UPON THE DEFENCE THAT THE LANDS IN CONTROVERSY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
GRANT TO CASTRO OR THE CONFIRMATION THEREOF, AND HENCE NEVER PASSED TO
THE UNITED STATES AS ULTIMATE TRANSFEREE OF CASTRO'S TITLE: 

THAT NONE OF THE LANDS INVOLVED WAS EVER A PART OF MARE ISLAND. 

THAT NONE OF THESE LANDS WAS, EITHER AT THE TIME OF THE GRANT TO
CASTRO OR AT THE TIME OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE GRANT,
A PART OF THE LANDS KNOWN AS, OR REFERRED TO AS, OR BY THE NAME OF,
MARE ISLAND. 

THAT NONE OF THE LANDS WAS EMBRACED IN OR COVERED BY THE GRANT OF
MARE ISLAND TO CASTRO. 

THAT NONE OF THE LANDS WAS EVER OCCUPIED BY, OR IN POSSESSION OF,
CASTRO. 

THAT NONE OF THE LANDS WAS CLAIMED AS A PART OF, OR TO BE A PART OF,
MARE ISLAND. 

THAT NONE OF THE LANDS WAS COVERED BY, OR EMBRACED WITHIN, THE
CONFIRMATION PROCEEDINGS OR THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION OF THE BOARD OR
THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION
OF THE BOARD. 

THAT NONE OF THE LANDS WAS PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES
AS PART OF ITS PURCHASE OF MARE ISLAND. 

THE JUDGE ALSO FURTHER MADE FINDINGS THAT THE PETITIONERS' TITLE WAS
DERIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNDER
THE SWAMP LANDS ACT.  HE CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTION WAS BARRED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT THE OWNER OF
THE LANDS IN SUIT.  FN3 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DECREE BY A VOTE OF 2 TO
1.  FN4  THE DISSENTING JUDGE SAID:  "THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, IN
EFFECT, THAT THE 'PLACE' WHICH AT THE TIME OF THE GRANT TO CASTRO AND
AT THE TIME OF THE CONFIRMATION TO BISSELL AND ASPINWALL WAS CALLED
ISLA DE LA YEGUA OR MARE ISLAND, DID NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE LAND HERE
IN CONTROVERSY.  THE FINDING IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE." 

THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT DID NOT OVERRULE THE FINDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT JUDGE ABOVE OUTLINED.  AFTER MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE
EVIDENCE, THEY SAID:  "BUT WHATEVER MAY BE THE FACT THERE IS NO
OCCASION TO INQUIRE INTO THE EXTENT OF CASTRO'S OCCUPANCY, OR INTO THE
MATTER OF EARLY REPUTE."  THEY HELD THAT, WHATEVER THE EXTENT OF THE
MEXICAN GRANT TO CASTRO, THE DECREE OF THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS,
MADE PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1851,  FN5  ESTABLISHED A DEFINITE
BOUNDARY - THE LINE OF ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK - WHICH WAS
CONTROLLING.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT A PORTION OF THE MARSH LANDS EMBRACED
IN SURVEY NO. 34, WHICH ARE THE LANDS INVOLVED IN THE O'DONNELL CASE,
IS, AND HAS BEEN, ABOVE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK.  THE COURT HELD THAT
THERE WAS SOME LAND ABOVE THAT MARK IN THE NARROW NECK OF LAND CONVEYED
BY SURVEY NO. 34 AND CONNECTING THE HIGH LAND ON WHICH THE NAVY YARD IS
CONSTRUCTED WITH THE LARGE TRACT OF ABOUT 7500 ACRES COVERED BY SURVEY
NO. 569, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE LAND IN THIS SUIT.  CONSTRUING THE
DECREE OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMON LAW OF
CALIFORNIA IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE CONFIRMATION OF THE CASTRO
GRANT, THE COURT HELD THAT THE TRACT CONFIRMED TO CASTRO'S GRANTEES
COMPRISED NOT ONLY THE HIGH LAND ON WHICH THE NAVY YARD STANDS BUT THE
NARROW STRIP TO THE NORTHWESTWARD EMBRACED IN SURVEY NO. 34, AND THE
LARGE TRACT OF TULE MARSH LYING STILL FARTHER TO THE NORTHWESTWARD
EMBRACED IN SURVEY NO. 569.  ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTIONS INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
FINDINGS, WHICH ARE UNDISTRUBED, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT.  IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ACCEPTED, OR AT LEAST DID NOT OVERRULE, THE
FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE.  IF, AS WE THINK, THESE FINDINGS WERE
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH
REQUIRES A DECISION THAT THE DECREE OF CONFIRMATION EXTENDED THE TRACT
ACTUALLY GRANTED TO CASTRO SO AS TO EMBRACE THE MARSH LANDS, TITLE TO
WHICH IS IN CONTROVERSY. 

THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS SHOWS THAT, ON OCTOBER 30, 1840,
CASTRO PETITIONED THAT HE BE GRANTED AN ISLAND CALLED "MARE ISLAND,"
THAT THE GOVERNOR AD INTERIM GRANTED HIS PETITION ON OCTOBER 31, 1840,
AND THAT ON MAY 2, 1841, THE GOVERNOR OF THE CALIFORNIAS, ONE ALVARADO,
CONFIRMED CASTRO'S OWNERSHIP IN FEE OF THE SAME ISLAND "IN ALL ITS
EXTENT," WHICH HE DESIGNATED AS "THE ISLAND NAMED LA YEGUA."  THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS, AND NONE IN THE TRIAL OF THIS
CASE, TO THE EFFECT THAT CASTRO OCCUPIED ANY PORTION OF THE TULE MARSH
IN CONTROVERSY.  THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS WAS DEVOTED
ALMOST ENTIRELY TO THE QUESTION OF THE AUTHENTICITY AND GOOD FAITH OF
THE GRANT TO CASTRO.  THE ONLY EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE SIZE OR
EXTENT OF THE ISLAND WAS THAT GIVEN BY A WITNESS, VALLEJO, WHO RESIDED
NEAR IT.  HE TESTIFIED THAT THE ISLAND WAS TWO AND ONE-HALF MILES IN
LENGTH AND CONTAINED ABOUT HALF A LEAGUE OF LAND.  THIS DESCRIPTION
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MARSH LAND INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE BUT COVERS
ONLY THE HIGH LAND WHERE THE NAVY YARD IS LOCATED. 

THE PETITION OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL FOR A CONFIRMATION TO THEM OF
TITLE TO THE LANDS GRANTED TO CASTRO BY THE COMMISSIONERS WAS FILED
AUGUST 31, 1852.  IT STATED THAT THE SUBJECT OF THE GRANT WAS "THE
ISLAND CALLED 'ISLA DE LA YEGUA'" AND ASKED THAT THE COMMISSIONERS
CONFIRM TO THEM THE SAID "TRACT OF LAND."  THE DECREE OF THE
COMMISSIONERS, AFTER STATING THAT THE CLAIM WAS VALID AND THE
APPLICATION FOR CONFIRMATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED, CONTINUED:  "THE PLACE
OF WHICH CONFIRMATION IS HEREBY GIVEN IS SITUATE IN THE BAY OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND IS CALLED 'ISLA DE LA YEGUA' OR MARE ISLAND AND BEING AN
ISLAND IS BOUNDED BY THE WATER'S EDGE." 

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ORIGINAL GRANT TO CASTRO WAS GOVERNED BY
THE MEXICAN LAW AND THAT, UNDER THAT LAW, THE TITLE OF AN OWNER OF LAND
BORDERING ON NAVIGABLE WATERS RAN TO THE LINE OF THE HIGHEST HIGH
TIDE.  THE RECORD CONTAINS EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT, AT SUCH HIGHEST
TIDE, THE NECK OF LAND TO THE NORTHWESTWARD OF THE HIGH LAND ON WHICH
THE NAVY YARD IS LOCATED WAS COVERED, AT LEAST AT CERTAIN POINTS, BY
WATER.  THIS FACT COULD NOT ALTER BOUNDARIES DEFINITELY FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION'S DECREE, WHICH IS TO BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE COMMON
LAW IN FORCE IN CALIFORNIA AT THE TIME IT WAS ENTERED.  UNDER THE
COMMON LAW, THE BOUNDARY WOULD BE THE LINE OF ORDINARY HIGH WATER.  BUT
THE BOUNDARY OF THE MEXICAN GRANT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE IN
DETERMINING WHAT THE MEXICAN GOVERNOR INTENDED TO, AND DID IN FACT,
GRANT TO CASTRO, ESPECIALLY AS BOTH GRANT AND CONFIRMATION REFERRED TO
THE TRACT AS WHAT IS NAMED OR CALLED MARE ISLAND. 

IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT THE DECREE OF CONFIRMATION REFERS NOT TO A
TRACT OF LAND BUT TO A "PLACE" AND TO THE PLACE WHICH "IS CALLED" MARE
ISLAND. 

AT THE TIME THE DECREE OF CONFIRMATION WAS ENTERED, SEVERAL EARLY
MAPS OF THE AREA EXISTED WHICH, ALTHOUGH THEY DID NOT DESIGNATE MARE
ISLAND BY ANY NAME, SHOWED THE HIGH LAND AS ENTIRELY SURROUNDED BY
WATER.  THEY INDICATE A CHANNEL ACROSS THE LOW NECK OF MARSH LAND TO
THE WESTWARD OF THE HIGH PROMONTORY ON WHICH THE NAVY YARD IS
CONSTRUCTED. 

COMING TO ABOUT THE DATE OF THE GRANT AND CONFIRMATION, WE FIND
SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT MAPS.  ONE OF THESE, MADE BY AN ARMY LIEUTENANT IN
1848, SHOWS AN ACTUAL BREAK AT THE NORTHERLY END OF THE HIGH LAND AND
INDICATES THAT, AT THIS POINT, WATER COVERED THE LAND, AT LEAST AT HIGH
TIDE.  THE ISLAND THUS DELIMITED IS MARKED ON THE MAP "MARE ISLAND" AND
THE LOW TULE MARSH TO THE NORTHWESTWARD IS NOT COMPREHENDED IN THE AREA
SO DESIGNATED.  ANOTHER, MADE BY ONE ELLIS IN 1852, MARKS THE HIGH LAND
"MARES ISLAND."  ALL THE AREA TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE HIGH LAND,
INCLUDING THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY, IS SHOWN AS WATER.  A THIRD, MADE BY
ONE RINGGOLD, A COMMANDER OF THE NAVY IN 1850, SHOWS THE SWAMP LAND TO
THE NORTHWEST OF WHAT IS NOW THE NAVY YARD TRACT BUT DESIGNATES ONLY
THE LATTER AS MARE ISLAND. 

SEVEN UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY CHARTS, DATED
RESPECTIVELY 1851, 1851, 1856, 1859, 1861, 1863, AND 1915, DESIGNATE
ONLY THE HIGH LAND BY THE NAME OF "MARE ISLAND."  THE UNITED STATES
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PREPARED MAPS OF THE NAPA QUADRANGLE AND THE MARE
ISLAND QUADRANGLE IN 1902 AND 1916.  IN EACH, THE HIGH LAND IS MARKED
MARE ISLAND AND THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY IS MARKED "ISLAND NO. 1."  THE
STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CALIFORNIA PREPARED A MAP IN 1873 WHICH
APPLIES THE NAME "MARE ISLAND" TO THE HIGH LAND. 

SAN FRANCISCO SAVINGS UNION V. IRWIN, SUPRA, WAS TRIED ABOUT 1885. 
THE COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY PREPARED A MAP FOR USE IN THAT CASE WHICH
SHOWS ONLY THE HIGH LAND AS CONSTITUTING MARE ISLAND.  IN THE TRIAL OF
THE INSTANT CASE, IT WAS TESTIFIED THAT THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY HAS
BEEN FOR SOME YEARS KNOWN AS "CROSS ISLAND." 

SHORTLY BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASED MARE ISLAND, AND AS A BASIS OF
THE PURCHASE, A BOARD OF OFFICERS KNOWN AS THE SLOAT BOARD REPORTED ON
THE ISLAND AS A SITE FOR A NAVY YARD.  THIS REPORT WAS MADE BEFORE THE
CONFIRMATION PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.  ONE OF THE PLANS ATTACHED TO
THE REPORT PURPORTS TO BE A PLAN OF MARE ISLAND, SHOWING ITS
TOPOGRAPHY.  THE PLAN COVERS ONLY THE HIGH LAND.  THE REPORT STATES
THAT MARE ISLAND IS "BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY MARE ISLAND STRAITS WHICH
SEPARATES IT FROM THE CITY OF VALLEJO ON THE WEST BY THE BAY OF SAN
PABLO, AND ON THE NORTH BY A LARGE TRACT OF TULE LAND, EXTENDING
SEVERAL MILES IN THE DIRECTION OF SONOMA."  THE REPORT SPEAKS OF THE
"NORTH END" OF THE ISLAND AS MORE UNIFORM THAN THE SOUTHERLY END, SO
THAT IT MAY EASILY BE REDUCED TO A CONVENIENT GRADE.  THESE REMARKS
CANNOT WELL APPLY TO THE TULE MARSH IN QUESTION.  THE REPORT STATES
THAT THE ISLAND CONTAINS, "INCLUDING THE TULE OPPOSITE VALLEJO, ABOUT
900 ACRES."  THERE IS A FURTHER STATEMENT THAT THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE
ISLAND IS ABOUT TWO MILES.  THIS DESCRIBES ONLY THE HIGH LAND, AS THE
LENGTH WOULD BE ABOUT TEN MILES IF THE TULE MARSH IN CONTROVERSY WERE
INCLUDED. 

THE FOREGOING FACTS SEEM TO US TO FURNISH ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR A
FINDING THAT WHAT WAS GRANTED TO CASTRO WAS THE HIGH LAND KNOWN AT THE
TIME AS MARE ISLAND, AND NOT THE GREAT EXTENT OF TULE MARSH LYING TO
THE NORTHWESTWARD OF THE FORMER WHICH WAS APPARENTLY NOT OCCUPIED OR
CLAIMED BY CASTRO OR COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE A PART OF THE LAND
CALLED MARE ISLAND.  ALL THAT THE DECREE PURPORTED TO CONFIRM WAS THE
TITLE TO A "PLACE  ...  CALLED  ...  MARE ISLAND."  EVEN IF THE HIGH
LAND WAS CONNECTED BY A NARROW NECK WITH THE TULE MARSH TO THE
NORTHWESTWARD, THAT HIGH LAND MIGHT STILL BE CALLED AN ISLAND EITHER
BECAUSE THE NARROW NECK OF LOW MARSH LAND TO ITS WESTWARD WAS SOMETIMES
FLOODED OR BECAUSE THE NAME "ISLAND" WAS COLLOQUIALLY APPLIED TO A
PIECE OF LAND WHICH A GEOGRAPHER WOULD MORE ACCURATELY CALL A
PENINSULA.  FN6    THE COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, HELD, AND THE
GOVERNMENT HERE URGES, THAT THE FACTS RECITED ARE IMMATERIAL IN VIEW OF
THE TERMS OF THE DECREE OF CONFIRMATION.  THE UNDOUBTED PRINCIPLE THAT,
WHEN SUCH A DECREE DEFINES THE BOUNDARIES OF A TRACT WITH PRECISION,
THE DECREE CANNOT BE ATTACKED ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOUNDARIES NAMED
WERE ERRONEOUS,  FN7  IS INVOKED.  BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS, WHETHER
THE PETITIONERS' CONTENTION IN THIS CASE AMOUNTS TO SUCH AN ATTACK. 
THE DESCRIPTION IN THE DECREE OF CONFIRMATION IS AT BEST BUT A VAGUE
ONE.  IT IS OF A "PLACE  ... CALLED  ...  MARE ISLAND."  IF THERE WERE
NOTHING MORE, IT WOULD BE COMPETENT TO SHOW WHAT WAS IN FACT THE PLACE
SO KNOWN OR CALLED.  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION IS, HOWEVER, THAT,
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION ADDED THAT, BEING AN ISLAND, IT WAS BOUNDED BY
THE WATER'S EDGE, THIS SUPEREROGATORY STATEMENT GIVES A FIXED AND
DEFINITE BOUNDARY WHICH OVERCOMES ANY VAGUENESS INHERENT IN THE
DESIGNATION OF THE PLACE GRANTED.  WE THINK NO SUCH STRICT RULE HAS
BEEN APPLIED IN THE INTERPRETATION OF DEEDS OR, INDEED, OF DECREES OF
CONFIRMATION OF MEXICAN GRANTS IN LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES.  ON THE CONTRARY,
COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY RESORTED TO EVIDENCE OF WHAT WAS COMMONLY KNOWN
AND CALLED A RANCH, OR LOT, OR OTHER PLACE, IN ORDER TO CORRECT
ERRONEOUS BOUNDARIES STATED IN A DEED DESCRIPTION OR A DECREE OF
CONFIRMATION.  FN8  THUS TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING AND EXTENT OF A DECREE
IS NOT TO ATTACK IT FOR ERROR, BUT TO RECONCILE ALL OF THE DESCRIPTIVE
LANGUAGE USED TO DESIGNATE THE TRACT TITLE TO WHICH IS CONFIRMED. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE EVIDENCE IN QUESTION WAS OF PROBATIVE
VALUE; THAT ITS RECEPTION AND CONSIDERATION DID NOT RUN COUNTER TO THE
RULE THAT THE DECREE OF CONFIRMATION WAS NOT OPEN TO ATTACK BY REASON
OF ERRONEOUS DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND CONFIRMED, AND THAT THE PROOFS
FURNISHED A BASIS FOR A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY
WAS NOT A PART OF THAT GRANTED TO CASTRO AND CONFIRMED TO HIS VENDEES. 
THIS VIEW RENDERS IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE OTHER QUESTIONS
PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONERS.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  C. 84, 9 STAT. 519, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 982. 

FN2  C. 561, SEC. 8, 26 STAT. 1095, 1099. 

FN3  29 F.SUPP.  59. 

FN4  121 F.2D 705. 

FN5  C. 41, 9 STAT. 631. 

FN6  IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT LANDS NOT IN FACT SURROUNDED BY
WATER ARE SOMETIMES CALLED ISLANDS.  SEE, CENTURY DICTIONARY; WEBSTER'S
NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY; ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA, 14TH ED., VOL.
XII, P. 715; VOL. III, P. 381.  AND COMPARE CALIFORNIA STATE GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY MAP OF 1873, SHOWING LANDS CALLED DEER ISLAND, SIMMS ISLAND, AND
GREEN ISLAND. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. HALLECK, 1 WALL.  439; HIGUERAS V. UNITED
STATES, 5 WALL.  827; UNITED STATES V. HANCOCK, 133 U.S. 193. 

FN8  PARKER V. KANE, 22 HOW.  1; UNITED STATES V. DE HARO, 25 FED.
CAS. 803; PIPER V. TRUE, 36 CAL. 606; HALEY V. AMESTOY, 44 CAL. 132;
WISE V. WATTS, 239 F. 207. 
..END :












WILLIAMS CO. V. SHOE MACH. CORP., 316 U.S. 364 


NO. 332.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 25, 1942.  - 121 F.2D
273, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT, CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE TWO
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS TO THE EFFECT THAT COMBINATIONS CLAIMED, THOUGH
INVOLVING OLD MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTIONS, COMBINE THESE IN THE MACHINE IN
A NEW WAY, SO AS TO PRODUCE A NEW RESULT, ARE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH
WILL NOT BE DISTURBED BY THIS COURT WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THEM.  P. 367. 

2.  A CLAIM IN A PATENT FOR A NEW COMBINATION OF SPECIFIED MEANS,
APPLICABLE TO A PORTION OF AN OLD MACHINE, WHICH DESCRIBES OR REFERS TO
THE OLDER MECHANISM IN ORDER TO SHOW THE APPLICATION AND OPERATION OF
THE IMPROVEMENT, IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS EMBRACING THE OLD AS WELL AS
THE NEW.  P. 368. 

3.  CERTAIN CLAIMS OF A PATENT TO MCFEELY FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN
AUTOMATIC HEEL-LASTING MACHINES, SUSTAINED.  PP. 364, 370. 

WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 600, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 29 F.SUPP.  1015, SUSTAINING CERTAIN CLAIMS OF A
PATENT, IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SUIT WAS FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIMS 6, 23, 42, 85, AND 91 OF
THE MCFEELY PATENT NO. 1,558,737 FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN AUTOMATIC HEEL
LASTING MACHINES.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE CLAIMS VALID AND
INFRINGED.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN2 

THE DEFENDANT SOUGHT CERTIORARI ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIMS WERE
INVALID UNDER RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT BECAUSE THEY CONSTITUTED
ATTEMPTS TO REPATENT A BROAD COMBINATION OF OLD DEVICES - BED LASTERS
AND AUTOMATIC TACKERS - AND EMBODIED ONLY AGGREGATIONS OF NEW
UNPATENTABLE MECHANISMS WITH OLD MECHANICAL COMBINATIONS.  IN PRESSING
US TO GRANT THE WRIT, THE PETITIONER INSISTED THAT IT DESIRED NO
RETRIAL OF THE FACTS BUT MERELY A PROPER APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE
FACTS FOUND BY THE COURTS BELOW.  WE GRANTED THE WRIT. 

IN THE MANUFACTURE OF SHOES, AFTER THE UPPER, THE LINING, AND THE
COUNTER HAVE BEEN PLACED ON A WOODEN LAST, AND AN INSOLE HAS BEEN
TACKED TO THE LAST, THE PROTRUDING EDGES OF THE MATERIALS ARE FLATTENED
OVER THE INSOLE AND TACKED DOWN AT THE TOE AND SHANK OF THE SHOE.  THE
NEXT OPERATION IS "HEEL SEAT LASTING," WHICH CONSISTS OF CONFORMING THE
UPPER MATERIALS AND INSOLE SNUGLY TO THE CONTOUR OF THE HEEL OF THE
LAST AND FASTENING THEM DOWN WITH TACKS.  ORIGINALLY THIS WAS DONE BY
HAND.  LATER SO-CALLED "BED" MACHINES WERE USED WHICH EMPLOYED
HORIZONTALLY MOVING PLATES, CALLED "WIPERS," TO FLATTEN THE PROJECTING
MATERIALS OVER THE HEEL SEAT, WHERE THEY WERE TACKED BY HAND.  HEEL
LASTING ON A BED MACHINE INVOLVES THE REPEATED USE OF LEVERS AND A FOOT
TREADLE, AND THE RESULT IS NOT UNIFORM. 

MARCH 2, 1915, MCFEELY OBTAINED A PATENT FOR A MACHINE WHICH WOULD
AUTOMATICALLY PERFORM, IN ONE POWER STROKE, THE WIPING AND TACKING
NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF HEEL SEAT LASTING.  IN THIS PATENT
HE CLAIMED NUMEROUS COMBINATIONS OF MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH SPECIFIC STEPS
IN THE PROCESS, AMONGST OTHERS COMBINATIONS TO EFFECT THE CLAMPING OF
THE LAST, AND POSITIONING IT DURING THE PROCESS, AND TO OPERATE THE
WIPERS AND THE TACKERS IN PROPER RELATION TO THE LAST.  A DECLARED
PURPOSE WAS THAT THE MACHINE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LAST THE HEELS OF SHOES
OF DIFFERENT SIZES.  ONE MACHINE WAS BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PATENT AND USED FOR SOME TIME.  IT WAS FOUND TO WORK SATISFACTORILY ON
SHOES OF A SMALL RANGE OF SIZES, BUT NOT TO WORK ON SHOES OF A WIDE
RANGE OF SIZES AS WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE OPERATIONS OF THE ORDINARY
FACTORY. 

OCTOBER 27, 1925, MCFEELY OBTAINED THE PATENT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
FOR IMPROVEMENTS  FN3  OF THE LASTING MACHINE DESCRIBED IN HIS EARLIER
PATENT.  THE IMPROVEMENTS EMBODIED IN THE CLAIMS IN SUIT HAD TO DO WITH
A NEW COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS FOR CLAMPING THE LAST IN THE MACHINE, A
NEW COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS FOR THE OPERATION OF WIPERS AND TACKERS IN
FIXED RELATION TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE HEEL OF THE LAST, AND A NEW
COMBINATION OF MEANS FOR POSITIONING THE LAST VERTICALLY AND
AUTOMATICALLY ALTERING THE POSITION DURING THE OPERATION.  A MANUAL
ADJUSTMENT WAS A PART OF EACH OF THESE COMBINATIONS BY WHICH THE HEEL
CLAMPING, THE WIPING AND TACKING, AND THE VERTICAL POSITIONING
MECHANISMS COULD BE ADJUSTED IN ADVANCE FOR DIFFERENT SIZES OF SHOES. 
THE RESPONDENT IS THE ASSIGNEE OF BOTH MCFEELY PATENTS. 

THE PETITIONER PURCHASED FROM A GERMAN MAKER, AND USED, FOUR MACHINES
WHICH WERE FOUND BY THE COURTS BELOW TO BE EXACT COPIES OF THE
RESPONDENT'S COMMERCIAL MACHINES MADE UNDER THE PATENT IN SUIT.  SO
THOROUGH WAS THE IMITATION THAT EVEN MINOR FEATURES NOT COVERED BY THE
PATENT WERE COPIED.  AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, ALTERATIONS HAD BEEN
MADE IN THE PETITIONER'S MACHINES, BUT THE COURTS BELOW FOUND THAT
THESE WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING INFRINGEMENT AND THAT THEY WERE
NOT EFFECTIVE TO THAT END. 

IF THE PETITIONER'S STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR
CERTIORARI ARE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, THE POINT FOR DECISION IS EXTREMELY
NARROW.  IN ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, THE PETITIONER SOUGHT TO OVERTURN THE
CONCURRENT FINDINGS BELOW AND TO HAVE US REDETERMINE THE QUESTION OF
THE NOVELTY AND USEFULNESS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE
COMBINATION CLAIMS HELD VALID AND INFRINGED. 

THE COURTS BELOW HAVE CONCURRENTLY FOUND THAT NONE OF THE EARLIER
PATENTS CITED, INCLUDING THAT OF MCFEELY, EMBODIED THE COMBINATIONS OF
THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS COVERING MEANS FOR CLAMPING AND HOLDING THE LAST,
MEANS FOR THE MOVEMENT OF WIPERS AND TACKERS IN FIXED RELATION TO EACH
OTHER, AND MEANS FOR THE TIMED VERTICAL POSITIONING OF THE LAST DURING
THE POWER STROKE OF THE MACHINE, EACH COMBINATION INCLUDING MEANS FOR
MANUALLY ADJUSTING THE MECHANISM IN ADVANCE FOR DIFFERENT SIZES OF
SHOES.  THESE FINDINGS ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE NEW COMBINATIONS,
WHILE THEY INVOLVE OLD MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTIONS, COMBINE THESE IN A NEW
WAY SO AS TO PRODUCE AN IMPROVED RESULT.  THESE ARE FINDINGS OF FACT,
FN4 DESPITE THE PETITIONER'S APPARENT CONTENTION TO THE CONTRARY, AND
WE WILL NOT DISTURB SUCH CONCURRENT FINDINGS WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.  FN5  THE CLAIM THAT THE COMBINATIONS ARE
MERELY OF OLD ELEMENTS, WHICH PERFORM NO NEW FUNCTION AND PRODUCE NO
NEW RESULT, MUST BE OVERRULED. 

WE COME TO THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE COURTS BELOW HAVE
HELD THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED ON THE THEORY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS
AND ADJUSTMENTS DISCLOSED IN THE CLAIMS ENTITLE MCFEELY TO REPATENT THE
ENTIRE COMBINATION OF THE OLD DEVICES, KNOWN AS BED LASTERS AND
AUTOMATIC TACKERS.  PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THEY HAVE SO HELD ONLY
BECAUSE THE MECHANISM OF THE PATENTED MACHINE PERMITS OF ITS OPERATION
UPON A WIDER RANGE OF SIZES OF SHOES THAN THE MACHINE EARLIER PATENTED,
AND THAT IT DOES SO OPERATE MERELY BECAUSE OF THREE TRIFLING MECHANICAL
ADJUSTMENTS WHICH IT EMBODIES. 

THE CONTENTION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE HOLDINGS BELOW.  IT IS TRUE
THAT BOTH COURTS FOUND THAT MANUAL ADJUSTMENTS ARE PROVIDED WHICH ARE
NOT FOUND IN THE EARLIER MCFEELY PATENT OR IN THE PRIOR ART AS APPLIED
TO THE THREE COMBINATIONS EMBODIED IN THE CLAIMS IN SUIT.  BUT THE
FINDINGS DO NOT STOP THERE.  IN RESPECT OF EACH CLAIMED COMBINATION,
BOTH COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT THEY EMBODY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, IN ADDITION
TO MERE MANUAL PRELIMINARY ADJUSTMENTS, AND THAT EACH COMBINATION
EXHIBITS INVENTION IN THAT ITS ELEMENTS COOPERATE IN A NEW AND USEFUL
WAY TO ACCOMPLISH AN IMPROVED RESULT. 

THE PETITIONER, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT THE BREADTH OF THE CLAIMS IN
SUIT IS SUCH THAT, INSTEAD OF PATENTING THE COMBINATIONS CLAIMED AS
IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE PRIOR ART, AND RESTRICTING THE CLAIMS TO THE
IMPROVEMENTS, THE PATENTEE SOUGHT TO BLANKET EVERY MACHINE WHICH
COMBINES THE OLD BED LASTER WITH THE EQUALLY OLD AUTOMATIC TACKING
DEVICE.  IT IS SAID THAT OUR DECISIONS IN BASSICK MFG. CO. V.
HOLLINGSHEAD, 298 U.S. 415, AND LINCOLN ENGINEERING CO. V. STEWART
WARNER CORP., 303 U.S. 545, FORBID ANY SUCH EXTENSION OF THE PATENT
MONOPOLY. 

WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT EACH OF THE CLAIMS IS CONFINED TO A
COMBINATION OF SPECIFIED MEANS APPLICABLE ONLY TO A RESTRICTED PORTION
AND FUNCTION OF THE WHOLE MACHINE.  IN STATING HIS CLAIMS, THE PATENTEE
SOMETIMES SAYS "A MACHINE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED HAVING, IN
COMBINATION,  ...  " OBVIOUSLY, NO MACHINE WILL INFRINGE WHICH DOES NOT
HAVE IN COMBINATION THE MEANS SPECIFIED IN EACH OF THE CLAIMS FOR
ACCOMPLISHING THE PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE TOTAL OPERATION COVERED BY
THE CLAIM.  OTHER CLAIMS REFER TO "A LASTING MECHANISM OF THE CLASS
DESCRIBED HAVING, IN COMBINATION, ...  "  THE SAME COMMENT IS
APPLICABLE.  OTHER CLAIMS READ:  "IN A MACHINE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED,
THE COMBINATION  ..."  SUCH PRELIMINARY STATEMENT IS COMMONLY AND
PROPERLY USED TO SPECIFY THE TYPE OF MACHINE IN WHICH THE CLAIMED
SUBSIDIARY COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS WORKS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE PRIOR
ART. FN6  IN DESCRIBING THE NOVEL COMBINATIONS EMBODIED IN THE CLAIMS,
IT WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE REFERENCE TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE MACHINE
IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH THE NEW COMBINATIONS WERE TO OPERATE AND WITH
WHICH THEY WERE TO DOVETAIL,  FN7  BUT, IN MENTIONING THESE OTHER
MECHANICAL PARTS, THE CLAIM DOES NOT PURPORT TO EMBODY THEM AS ELEMENTS
OF THE CLAIMED COMBINATION.  TO CONSTRUE SUCH A CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION
OF NEW ELEMENTS INTENDED TO BE EMBODIED IN SOME WELL RECOGNIZED
MECHANICAL AGGREGATION, SUCH AS A SEWING MACHINE OR A WASHING MACHINE,
AS A CLAIM COVERING ALL THE MECHANICAL DETAILS, OR ALL THE WELL KNOWN
PARTS OF THE MACHINE, WOULD BE TO NULLIFY EVERY PATENT FOR AN
IMPROVEMENT IN A TYPE OF MACHINE LONG IN USE AND WOULD INVALIDATE
THOUSANDS OF PATENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN STANDARD MACHINES.  IT WOULD
BE DIFFICULT TO DESCRIBE AN IMPROVEMENT IN A WASHING MACHINE WITHOUT
NAMING SUCH A MACHINE AS THE THING TO WHICH THE PATENT IS ADDRESSED,
AND EQUALLY DIFFICULT TO REFRAIN FROM REFERRING TO VARIOUS PARTS OF THE
MACHINE, SUCH AS THE TUB OR THE MOTOR WHICH ACTUATES THE WASHER.  BUT
IT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT THAT A CLAIM LIMITED TO AN IMPROVEMENT IN
SOME ELEMENT OF THE MACHINE IS, BY SUCH REFERENCE, RENDERED BAD AS
CLAIMING A MONOPOLY OF TUBS OR MOTORS USED IN WASHING MACHINES. 

BASSICK MFG. CO. V. HOLLINGSHEAD, SUPRA, AND LINCOLN ENGINEERING CO.
V. STEWART-WARNER CORP., SUPRA, LEND NO SUPPORT TO THE PETITIONER'S
ARGUMENT.  THOSE WERE SUITS FOR CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT.  IN THE
BASSICK CASE, THE INVENTION WAS OF AN IMPROVED PIN FITTING FOR
RECEIVING GREASE.  THE COMBINATION CLAIMED WAS STATED AS A COMBINATION
OF A GREASE GUN, A COUPLER, AND A PIN FITTING OF THE IMPROVED TYPE.  IT
WAS SOUGHT TO CONVICT ONE WHO SOLD GREASE GUNS, COMMON IN THE PRIOR
ART, OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT BECAUSE THE SELLER KNEW, AND
INTENDED, THAT THE GUNS SHOULD BE USED WITH THE IMPROVED PIN FITTING. 
THE EFFORT WAS TO EXTEND THE MONOPOLY EMBODIED IN THE IMPROVED PIN
FITTING SO AS TO PREVENT SALE OR USE OF WELL KNOWN GREASE GUNS OF THE
PRIOR ART, ALTHOUGH WHATEVER WAS NOVEL IN THE IMPROVED PIN FITTING WAS
PECULIAR TO ITSELF AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GREASE GUN COMMONLY
USED IN CONNECTION WITH ALL PIN FITTINGS.  HAD THE CLAIM MERELY RECITED
THAT IT APPLIED TO AN IMPROVED TYPE OF PIN FITTING TO BE USED IN
CONNECTION WITH GREASE GUNS AND COUPLERS, THE CLAIM FOR THE PIN FITTING
WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD, AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RENDERED BAD BY THE
STATEMENT THAT THE FITTING WAS INTENDED FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH
THOSE OTHER INSTRUMENTALITIES. 

THE LINCOLN ENGINEERING CASE WENT ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE. 

THE PRESENT SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT IS NOT FOR THE USE OF AN AUTOMATIC
BED LASTING AND TACKING MACHINE AS SUCH.  IT IS FOR THE USE IN SUCH A
MACHINE OF IMPROVEMENTS OF CERTAIN FEATURES OF THE MACHINE.  THE
RESPONDENT DOES NOT PRETEND TO FIX LIABILITY ON THE PETITIONER FOR
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT BY REASON OF THE USE OF AN AUTOMATIC POWER
DRIVEN LASTING AND TACKING MACHINE WHICH DOES NOT EMPLOY THE NOVEL
IMPROVEMENTS OF THE COMBINATIONS CLAIMED, AND COULD NOT DO SO.  IT IS
ADMITTED, AS IT MUST BE, THAT THE PETITIONER IS FREE TO USE THE MACHINE
SHOWN IN THE FIRST MCFEELY PATENT, WHICH HAS EXPIRED, OR ANY OTHER
AUTOMATIC LASTING AND TACKING MACHINE WHICH DOES NOT EMBODY THE THREE
IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY THE CLAIMS IN SUIT.  FN8  IT IS NOT FREE,
HOWEVER, TO USE SUCH A MACHINE IF IT EMBODIES ANY ONE OF THE THREE
COMBINATIONS EMBRACED IN THOSE CLAIMS RESPECTIVELY.  THE USE OF THESE
COMBINATIONS IS THE BASIS OF ITS LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT. 

THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  29 F.SUPP.  1015. 

FN2  121 F.2D 273. 

FN3  "ANY PERSON WHO HAS INVENTED OR DISCOVERED ANY NEW AND USEFUL
...  MACHINE  ...  OR ANY NEW AND USEFUL IMPROVEMENTS THEREOF  ...  MAY
...  OBTAIN A PATENT THEREFOR."  R.S. 4886, AS AMENDED, 35 U.S.C. SEC.
31. 

FN4  BATTIN V. TAGGERT, 17 HOW.  74, 85; BISCHOFF V. WETHERED, 9
WALL.  812, 814; THOMSON SPOT WELDER CO. V. FORD MOTOR CO., 265 U.S.
445, 446; STILZ V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 144, 147. 

FN5  CONTINENTAL PAPER BAG CO. V. EASTERN PAPER BAG CO., 210 U.S.
405, 416, 422; ADAMSON V. GILLILAND, 242 U.S. 350. 

FN6  COMPARE E.G. GRIER V. WILT, 120 U.S. 412, 420, 421; MORLEY
MACHINE CO. V. LANCASTER, 129 U.S. 263, 266; KEYSTONE MANUFACTURING CO.
V. ADAMS, 151 U.S. 139, 142; DEERING V. WINONA HARVESTER WORKS, 155
U.S. 286, 289, 290; BOYD V. JANESVILLE HAY TOOL CO., 158 U.S. 260, 264;
KOKOMO FENCE MACHINE CO. V. KITSELMAN, 189 U.S. 8, 10, 14; ALTOONA
PUBLIX THEATRES V. AMERICAN TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477, 482. 

FN7  COMPARE MCCORMICK V. TALCOTT, 20 HOW.  402, 404; LOOM COMPANY V.
HIGGINS, 105 U.S. 580, 586. 

FN8  SEYMOUR V. OSBORNE, 11 WALL.  516, 541, 548. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR. 

 I    IN 1873, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, SPEAKING FOR THIS COURT IN
CARLTON V. BOKEE, SAID:  "WE THINK IT PROPER TO REITERATE OUR
DISAPPROBATION OF THESE INGENIOUS ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND A SIMPLE INVENTION
OF A DISTINCT DEVICE INTO AN ALLEMBRACING CLAIM, CALCULATED BY ITS WIDE
GENERALIZATIONS AND AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE TO DISCOURAGE FURTHER INVENTION
IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND TO COVER ANTECEDENT INVENTIONS. 
WITHOUT DECIDING THAT A REPETITION OF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CLAIM IN
DIFFERENT WORDS WILL VITIATE A PATENT, WE HOLD THAT WHERE A
SPECIFICATION BY AMBIGUITY AND A NEEDLESS MULTIPLICATION OF NEBULOUS
CLAIMS IS CALCULATED TO DECEIVE AND MISLEAD THE PUBLIC, THE PATENT IS
VOID."  17 WALL.  463, 471-472.  I BELIEVE THAT THE PATENT OF WHICH THE
FIVE CLAIMS NOW HELD VALID ARE A PART EMBODIES EVERY ONE OF THE VICES
REFERRED TO BY MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, AND MANY MORE BESIDES. 

I RECOGNIZE THAT THE AUTOMATIC POWER-DRIVEN HEEL SEAT LASTER, THE
MACHINE TO WHICH THESE FIVE CLAIMS RELATE, IS A GREAT TECHNOLOGICAL
ACHIEVEMENT.  BUT IT IS NOT THE WORK OF A SINGLE PERSON, NOR CAN IT BE
ATTRIBUTED TO ANY ONE GENERATION.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT REPRESENTS THE
SUM OF GRADUAL DEVELOPMENTS WROUGHT BY THE SKILL, PERSEVERANCE, AND
CREATIVE GENIUS OF COUNTLESS PERSONS THROUGHOUT MANY CENTURIES.  TO
THIS FINISHED MACHINE, CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THOSE WHO FIRST
HARNESSED STEAM, GAS, AND ELECTRICITY TO MACHINERY, AS WELL AS THOSE
WHO DISCOVERED AND USED IN COMBINATION CAMS, PIVOTS, PULLEYS, BELTS,
LATCHES, TRIGGERS, SPRINGS AND SPRING LATCHES, BRAKES AND BRAKE
BLOCKS. 

THE EXACT DATE OF THE FIRST USE OF MACHINES IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
SHOES IS NOT KNOWN.  BUT WE KNOW THAT, IN 1790, THOMAS SAINT SECURED A
PATENT IN ENGLAND ON A MACHINE FOR THE FASTENING OF SOLES TO UPPERS;
AND THAT, IN 1810, M. I. BRUNEL SECURED A PATENT IN THIS COUNTRY ON A
MACHINE TO PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTION.  THE PROGRESS OF THE ART FOR THE
NEXT FIFTY YEARS CULMINATED IN THE STITCHING MACHINE JOINTLY PATENTED
BY BLAKE AND MCKAY IN 1860.  BY 1876, THIS AND SUBSEQUENT MCKAY SHOE
MACHINES WERE EARNING MORE THAN A HALF MILLION DOLLARS IN ANNUAL PATENT
ROYALTIES FOR HIM, AND HAD GIVEN HIM THE DOMINANT POSITION IN THE
INDUSTRY.  DURING THIS PERIOD ANOTHER CURRENT OF INVENTION PRODUCED THE
CABLE NAILING MACHINE WHICH CUT NAILS AND DROVE THEM AUTOMATICALLY. 
AND IN 1883, JAN ERNST MATZELIGER INVENTED AND PATENTED A MACHINE WHICH
"COULD SIMULTANEOUSLY AND IN A MINUTE'S TIME HOLD THE LAST IN PLACE TO
RECEIVE THE LEATHER; MOVE IT FORWARD STEP BY STEP SO THAT THE OTHER
COACHING PARTS MIGHT DRAW THE LEATHER OVER THE HEEL; PROPERLY PUNCH AND
GRIP THE UPPER AND DRAW IT DOWN OVER THE LAST; LAY THE LEATHER PROPERLY
AT THE HEEL AND TOE; FEED THE NAILS AND HOLD THEM IN POSITION FOR
DRIVING; AND THEN DISCHARGE THE COMPLETED SHOE FROM THE MACHINE."  FN1
THE FOREGOING INVENTIONS AND NUMEROUS OTHERS PATENTED AND PUT INTO USE
BY THE CLOSE OF THE CENTURY COMPLETELY TRANSFORMED THE NATURE OF SHOE
MANUFACTURING.  REVIEWING THESE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, THE UNITED
STATES CENSUS REPORT OF 1900 CONCLUDED THAT "THE GENIUS OF THE AMERICAN
INVENTOR HAS PROVIDED FOR EVERY DETAIL OF SHOEMAKING, EVEN THE SMALLEST
PROCESSES BEING PERFORMED BY MECHANICAL DEVICES OF SOME KIND."  FN2 

THE UNITED SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY WAS FORMED IN 1899.  IT COMBINED IN
ONE ENTERPRISE THE MORE IMPORTANT COMPANIES IN THE SHOE MACHINERY
INDUSTRY AT THE TIME, AND BROUGHT UNDER UNIFIED CONTROL THE MULTITUDE
OF PATENTS WHICH THOSE COMPANIES OWNED.  SINCE THAT TIME, THE UNITED
SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY OR ITS PARENT, THE UNITED SHOE MACHINERY
CORPORATION, WHICH IS THE RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE, HAS CONTINUOUSLY AND
OVERWHELMINGLY DOMINATED THE INDUSTRY.  THE SHOE MACHINERY PATENTS
WHICH THE RESPONDENT HAD ACQUIRED BY 1918 WERE RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT
TO BE "TOO GREAT IN NUMBER FOR EXPLANATION OR ENUMERATION."  UNITED
STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACH. CO., 247 U.S. 32, 40.  IN 1920, THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT CONTROLLED, THROUGH ITS SYSTEM OF LEASING, AT LEAST 95% OF
ALL THE SHOE MACHINERY USED IN THE UNITED STATES.  SEE UNITED SHOE
MACH. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451, 455. 

THE NARROW FIELD INTO WHICH THE PATENT IN CONTROVERSY WAS PROJECTED
HAD ALREADY BEEN SO CROWDED BY PRIOR PATENTS, A MULTITUDE OF WHICH WERE
OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT, THAT THE AREA LEFT FOR PATENTABLE INVENTION
WAS VERY SMALL.  AS THE BRIEF TREATMENT IN THE COURT'S OPINION
INDICATES, THE INVENTIONS SET OUT IN THE CLAIMS NOW HELD VALID, IF
INVENTIONS AT ALL, ARE COMPARATIVELY SIMPLE IMPROVEMENTS OF AN
AUTOMATIC POWER-DRIVEN HEEL SEAT LASTING MACHINE. 

THE WORK OF A HEEL SEAT LASTING MACHINE IS TO BEND AND FLATTEN OUT
THE OVERLAPPING PART OF THE SHOE UPPER OVER THE INSOLE AND THEN TACK IT
DOWN SO THAT IT WILL BE READY FOR ATTACHING THE HEEL.  IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THESE OPERATIONS THE INCOMPLETED SHOE IS FIRMLY HELD BY
A CLASPING DEVICE IN A PROPER POSITION TO PERMIT THE LEATHER TO BE BENT
AND FLATTENED BY "WIPERS" AND FASTENED TO THE INSOLE BY "TACKERS." 

IT IS TO THE CLASPING DEVICE, THE WIPERS, AND THE TACKERS THAT THE
ASSERTED IMPROVEMENTS RELATE.  THE OPERATION OF THESE PARTS MUST BE
CAREFULLY COORDINATED, AND THE COORDINATION MUST BE MAINTAINED WHEN THE
MACHINE IS ADJUSTED FOR DIFFERENT SIZES OF SHOES.  MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH
THE NECESSARY COORDINATION OVER A RANGE OF DIFFERENT SIZES HAD BEEN
CLAIMED IN A PRIOR PATENT  FN3 WHICH, LIKE THE PATENT IN SUIT, WAS
ISSUED TO RONALD F. MCFEELY AND ASSIGNED TO THE RESPONDENT.  THE COURTS
BELOW FOUND AND THE RESPONDENT HERE ARGUES THAT, ALTHOUGH THE MACHINE
MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST MCFEELY PATENT "SUCCESSFULLY LASTED
SHOES OF SPECIFIC SIZES, IT PROVED INCAPABLE OF OPERATING
SATISFACTORILY UPON A RANGE OF SIZES LARGE ENOUGH TO ADAPT IT FOR
COMMERCIAL OPERATION IN THE ORDINARY SHOE FACTORY."  121 F.2D 273,
278. 

THE IMPROVEMENTS SAID TO CURE THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE EARLIER MACHINE
ARE COVERED IN THE FIVE CLAIMS HERE HELD VALID.  INSOFAR AS THESE
CLAIMS SET OUT ANYTHING NOT CONTAINED IN THE FIRST MCFEELY PATENT, THE
MODIFICATIONS ARE NOT AT ALL COMPLEX.  THE TACKERS AND WIPERS, FORMERLY
CONNECTED IN A MANNER WHICH PERMITTED SOME SLIGHT INDEPENDENCE OF
MOVEMENT, WERE NOW RIGIDLY INTERCONNECTED SO THAT ONE COULD NOT MOVE
WITHOUT THE OTHER; AND A HANDLE WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR A SCREW NUT AS A
MEANS OF MAKING A PRELIMINARY MANUAL ADJUSTMENT FOR SHOES OF DIFFERENT
SIZES.  CHANGES OF EQUAL SIMPLICITY WERE MADE IN THE "HOLD-DOWN" AND
THE "HEEL BAND," TWO OF THE PARTS WHICH CLASP THE SHOE AND HOLD IT IN
PLACE DURING THE ACTUAL LASTING PROCESS. 

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION,
PARTICULARLY SINCE IT MAINTAINS A PATENT DEPARTMENT IN WHICH PATENT
LAWYERS ARE REGULARLY EMPLOYED, COULD HAVE CAUSED THESE SIMPLE
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PATENTED SEPARATELY AND WITHOUT AMBIGUITY OR
PROLIXITY.  NO POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION CAN BE OFFERED FOR INEXTRICABLY
COMBINING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED IMPROVEMENTS WITH A
DESCRIPTION OF A COMPLETE LASTING MACHINE.  LET US NOW TURN TO THE
PATENT IN SUIT TO SEE HOW FAR IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF R.S. SEC.
4888, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33, THAT A PATENTEE "SHALL PARTICULARLY POINT OUT
AND DISTINCTLY CLAIM THE PART, IMPROVEMENT, OR COMBINATION WHICH HE
CLAIMS AS HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY." 

THE PATENT AS A WHOLE SETS OUT 137 CLAIMS COVERING 16 LARGE CLOSELY
PRINTED PAGES; IT INCLUDES 11 1/2 MORE PAGES OF SPECIFICATIONS AND
NUMEROUS DRAWINGS; IT HAS A TEXT OF MORE THAN 25,000 WORDS, ABOUT
14,000 OF WHICH ARE DEVOTED TO THE CLAIMS.  REMARKS OF JUDGE LEARNED
HAND, MADE WITH RESPECT TO A PATENT MUCH SHORTER THAN THE ONE BEFORE
US, ARE PERTINENT HERE:  "SUCH CLAIMS VIOLATE THE VERY PURPOSE OF ANY
CLAIMS AT ALL, WHICH IS TO DEFINE THE FORBIDDEN FIELD.  IN SUCH A WASTE
OF ABSTRACT VERBIAGE  ...  IT TAKES THE SCHOLASTIC INGENUITY OF A ST.
THOMAS WITH THE PATIENCE OF A YOGI TO DECIPHER THEIR MEANING, AS THEY
STAND."  VICTOR TALKING MACH. CO. V. THOMAS A. EDISON, INC., 229 F.
999, 1001.  ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL'S BASIC PATENT ON THE TELEPHONE, A
PIONEER INVENTION,  FN4  AFFORDS AN ILLUMINATING CONTRAST.  ALL OF
BELL'S CLAIMS - HE FOUND FIVE AMPLE - CONTAIN IN THE AGGREGATE 229
WORDS, LESS THAN MANY SINGLE CLAIMS OF THIS PATENT; AND THE ENTIRE TEXT
OF HIS PATENT IS ABOUT ONE-TENTH THE LENGTH OF THIS ONE.  FN5  THE
SECOND MCFEELY PATENT, UNLIKE BELL'S, DISCLOSES NO PIONEER INVENTION. 
ON THE CONTRARY, MCFEELY STATED IN HIS APPLICATION THAT HE WAS SEEKING
TO PATENT IMPROVEMENTS.  YET, THE FEATURES OF A HEEL SEAT LASTER ARE
SET OUT SO COMPREHENSIVELY AND IN SUCH DETAIL THAT A TRAINED PERSON
WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD A COMPLETE MACHINE WITH ONLY THIS IMPROVEMENT
PATENT AS HIS PRIMARY SOURCE OF INFORMATION. 

IF THE MACHINE AS A WHOLE WERE BEING CLAIMED IN THE SECOND MCFEELY,
ARGUMENTS OF SOME PLAUSIBILITY COULD PERHAPS BE MADE TO JUSTIFY THE
LENGTH OF THE PATENT.  FOR THE AUTOMATIC HEEL SEAT LASTER IN ITS
ENTIRETY IS A HIGHLY COMPLEX MACHINE COMBINING A NUMBER OF INTERRELATED
MECHANISMS IN A MANNER WHICH, AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT, ENABLES
IT TO PERFORM ITS INTRICATE FUNCTION "IN THE FRACTION OF A SECOND AND
TOO SWIFTLY FOR THE EYE TO FOLLOW."  121 F.2D 273, 274.  BUT WE MUST
NOT ALLOW OURSELVES TO CONFUSE THE OLD AND THE NEW.  THE IMPRESSIVE
SPEED OF THE MACHINE IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.  LIKE MOST
OF THE OTHER ADMIRABLE QUALITIES OF THE MACHINE AS A WHOLE, IT WAS
ATTAINABLE BEFORE THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE PATENTED AND TO IT THE
IMPROVEMENTS MADE NO CONTRIBUTION. 

EVEN IF THERE IS SOME CONCEIVABLE BASIS FOR CREDITING THE MACHINE AS
A WHOLE TO MCFEELY'S GENIUS, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM IT IN THIS
PATENT.  FOR HIS EARLIER PATENT, EVEN LENGTHIER THAN THIS ONE, HAD
DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED AS PATENTABLE INVENTION EVERY FEATURE OF THE
MACHINE EXCEPT THE MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED. 

ONE WHO INVENTS IMPROVEMENTS ON A PRIOR INVENTION, WHETHER HIS OWN OR
SOMEONE ELSE'S, MAY PATENT THE IMPROVEMENTS SEPARATELY.  BUT I DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT OUR PATENT SYSTEM WAS INTENDED TO ALLOW THE INDISCRIMINATE
JUMBLING OF THE NEW AND THE OLD WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE INVENTOR OF
IMPROVEMENTS TO EXTEND HIS DOMAIN OF MONOPOLY BY PERPETUATING RIGHTS IN
OLD INVENTIONS BEYOND THE 17 YEARS PERIOD CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED. 

IF WE TURN FROM THE PATENT AS A WHOLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS, WE
FIND IN MANY OF THEM THE SAME GROUND FOR CRITICISM:  THE INTRODUCTION
OF SOMETHING NEW IS TAKEN AS AN OCCASION FOR RECLAIMING THE OLD.  CLAIM
42, ONE OF THE FIVE CLAIMS HELD VALID AND INFRINGED, IS ILLUSTRATIVE. 
IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE RESPONDENT MAKES THIS CLAIM THE BASIS OF HIS
ASSERTION THAT THE SECOND MCFEELY EMBODIES A PATENTABLE IMPROVEMENT IN
THE HOLD-DOWN MECHANISM, THE PART OF THE MACHINE WHICH HOLDS THE SHOE
IN THE APPROPRIATE VERTICAL POSITION DURING THE LASTING OPERATION.  BUT
THERE IS NO CLEAR AND DISTINCT STATEMENT IN CLAIM 42 SO LIMITING ITS
SCOPE.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE TRIAL COURT REFERRED TO THIS CLAIM AS "A
GENERAL CLAIM COVERING THE MACHINE BASED ON THE MCFEELY PATENT IN
SUIT," AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIM ITSELF PURPORTS TO COVER A
"MACHINE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED."  FN6 

NOT ONLY DOES 42 CLAIM MANY OLD ELEMENTS, BUT THEY ARE CLAIMED IN THE
SAME MANNER AND WITH THE SAME EMPHASIS AS THE HOLD-DOWN MECHANISM. 
INCLUDED AMONG THESE OLD ELEMENTS ARE:  "CLAMPING MEANS TO EMBRACE ONE
END OF A LAST AND SHOE"; "END WIPERS POSITIONED TO OPERATE ON THE EDGES
OF THE UPPER AT THE SAID END OF THE SHOE"; "A SUPPORT FOR A LAST AND
SHOE CONSTRUCTED AND ARRANGED FOR MANUALLY EFFECTED MOVEMENT TO ENGAGE
THE LAST AND SHOE WITH (THE) CLAMPING MEANS AND HOLD-DOWN"; AND
"MECHANISM OPERATIVE TO ACTUATE THE WIPERS TO BREAK DOWN THE EDGE OF
THE UPPER OVER THE BOTTOM OF THE POSITIONED LAST AND SHOE."  ALL OF
THESE OLD ELEMENTS WERE TO OPERATE IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER
PRESCRIBED EITHER IN THE FIRST MCFEELY OR OTHER PRIOR PATENTS, AND THEY
WERE TO PERFORM THE SAME FUNCTIONS THEY HAD ALWAYS PERFORMED. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT IF A CLAIM DOES NOT CONTAIN A DISTINCT AND SPECIFIC
STATEMENT OF WHAT THE PATENTEE CLAIMS TO BE NEW, IT IS VOID.  GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CO., 304 U.S. 364.  AND WE HAVE ALSO HELD VOID A
CLAIM WHICH SETS OUT AN IMPROVEMENT OF ONE PART OF AN OLD COMBINATION
BUT AT THE SAME TIME PURPORTS TO COVER THE IMPROVEMENT IN COMBINATION
WITH OLD PARTS WHICH PERFORM NO NEW FUNCTION.  LINCOLN CO. V. STEWART
WARNER CORP., 303 U.S. 545.  CLAIM 42, TODAY HELD VALID, CLEARLY
VIOLATES BOTH OF THESE STANDARDS. 

I BELIEVE IT COULD BE CONCLUSIVELY SHOWN THAT ALMOST ALL OF THE 137
CLAIMS ARE OBJECTIONABLE FOR ONE OR BOTH OF THE SAME REASONS AS CLAIM
42.  BUT THE UNNECESSARY LENGTH OF THIS PATENT MAKES IT IMPRACTICABLE
TO PRESENT A COMPLETE EXPOSITION OF THE VICES OF EACH SEPARATE CLAIM IN
A JUDICIAL OPINION.  IT MAY BE POSSIBLE, HOWEVER, TO SUGGEST IN A FEW
BRIEF STATEMENTS THE EXTENT OF THE DEFICIENCIES AND THEIR CUMULATIVE
TENDENCY "TO DECEIVE AND MISLEAD THE PUBLIC" WITH RESPECT TO THE SCOPE
OF THE PATENT.  CARLTON V. BOKEE, SUPRA, 472. 

OF THE 137 CLAIMS, 68 PURPORT TO COVER IN UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE EITHER
"A MACHINE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED" OR "A LASTING MACHINE" OR "A HEEL
SEAT LASTING MECHANISM" WITHOUT ANY HINT OF LIMITATION TO A CLAIMED
IMPROVEMENT.  THE USE OF SUCH BROAD LANGUAGE CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS AN
INCONSEQUENTIAL MATTER OF FORM, SINCE IN SUBSTANCE THESE CLAIMS
EMBRACE, WITH VARYING DEGREES OF COMPREHENSIVENESS, ALL THE FUNDAMENTAL
FEATURES OF AN AUTOMATIC POWER DRIVEN HEEL SEAT LASTER.  FN7 

ALL BUT ONE  FN8  OF THE REMAINING 79 CLAIMS ARE INTRODUCED BY THE
SOMEWHAT LIMITING PHRASE "IN A MACHINE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED."  BUT IN
ALMOST ALL OF THESE THE INTRODUCTION IS FOLLOWED BY A RECITAL OF OLD
ELEMENTS CLAIMED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEY WERE IN THE EARLIER
MCFEELY,  FN9  AND HERE AGAIN THE AGGREGATE EFFECT IS TO RECLAIM A HEEL
SEAT LASTING MACHINE IN ITS ENTIRETY.    RECENT STUDIES CONDUCTED BY
THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC COMMITTEE SHOW THAT THE TECHNIQUE
EMPLOYED IN THE SECOND MCFEELY PATENT IS NOT UNUSUAL.  FN10  IN
ESSENCE, IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO UTILIZE MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO PERPETUATE
EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT OF A MAJOR INSTRUMENT OF PRODUCTION WHICH
RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC.  DISTINCT SEPARATION OF THE NEW WOULD
AFFORD GUIDANCE TO THOSE WHO WISHED TO USE THE OLD WHEN THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHTS TO IT EXPIRED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, BLURRING THE LINES OF
SEPARATION PLACES ANYONE WHO ATTEMPTS TO USE ANY PART OF THE AMALGAM IN
JEOPARDY OF BURDENSOME INFRINGEMENT SUITS.  WHERE THE PATENT OWNER HAS
AMPLE RESOURCES TO BEAR THE COSTS OF REPEATED LITIGATION, THE POWER OF
THE INFRINGEMENT SUIT TO STIFLE COMPETITION IS INCREASED.  AND WHERE
POTENTIAL COMPETITORS ARE WEAK AND FEW, IT MAY AFFORD A PRACTICALLY
COMPLETE PROTECTION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF UNDERSERVED MONOPOLY. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE ARE MOST FAVORABLE FOR THE USE OF PATENT
PRIVILEGES AS A DETERRENT TO ALL COMPETITION.  BY ITS VAGUENESS AND
GENERALITY, THE PATENT IN SUIT CREATES AN OVERHANGING THREAT TO ANYONE
WHO MIGHT WANT TO PRODUCE ANY KIND OF HEEL SEAT LASTING MACHINERY.  AND
THIS THREAT IS INTENSIFIED BY THE UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION OF THE PATENT
OWNER'S LONG ESTABLISHED RULE OVER THE ENTIRE SHOE MACHINERY INDUSTRY. 

MOREOVER, IT IS ENTIRELY UNREALISTIC TO JUDGE THIS PATENT IN
ISOLATION.  IT IS A STAGE OF A PROCESS WHICH THE RECORD SHOWS BEGAN
YEARS BEFORE AND IS STILL CONTINUING, A PROCESS BY WHICH IT APPEARS
POSSIBLE FOR THE RESPONDENT TO MAKE THE MONOPOLY ENDLESS.  THE FIRST
MCFEELY PATENT, ASSIGNED TO THE RESPONDENT, EMBRACED THE WHOLE UNIVERSE
OF PRIOR DEVELOPMENT IN HEEL SEAT LASTING MACHINES.  ABOUT A YEAR AFTER
IT WAS ISSUED, THE UNITED SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY BECAME THE OWNER OF
ANOTHER PATENT ON A LASTING MACHINE, BROCK NO. 1,188,616.  THE 77
CLAIMS OF THIS PATENT REEMBODY TOO MANY OF THE FEATURES PREVIOUSLY
COVERED BY THE FIRST MCFEELY TO ALLOW ENUMERATION HERE.  FOUR YEARS
LATER, PYM NO. 1,368,968, ALSO ON A LASTING MACHINE, WAS ISSUED AND
ASSIGNED TO THE RESPONDENT.  OF THE 172 CLAIMS OF THIS PATENT, THERE IS
ANOTHER MULTITUDE EMBODYING IDENTICAL FEATURES OF THE FIRST MCFEELY. 
ALTHOUGH APPLIED FOR ABOUT A YEAR AFTER THE FIRST MCFEELY, THE PATENT
IN SUIT WAS NOT ISSUED UNTIL 1925, FOUR YEARS AFTER THE PYM PATENT. 
THE SECOND MCFEELY APPEARS TO BE ONLY THE CURRENTLY USED WEAPON; THE
RECORD REVEALS ANOTHER IN THE RESPONDENT'S ARSENAL, AWAITING SERVICE
WHEN THIS ONE IS NO LONGER USEFUL.  FN11  TO DATE, THE SERIES OF
OVERLAPPING PATENTS HAS BEEN CONTINUOUS.  THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE
THAT ABANDONMENT OF SO SUCCESSFUL A PRACTICE IS CONTEMPLATED FOR THE
FUTURE. 

THE DISCOURAGEMENT TO FUTURE INVENTION AND THE POTENTIALITIES OF
DECEIVING AND MISLEADING THE PUBLIC, WHICH THIS COURT CONDEMNED 70
YEARS AGO, ARE HERE PRESENT IN FULLEST MEASURE.  CARLTON V. BOKEE,
SUPRA.  OPPOSED TO DEPARTURE FROM THE SALUTARY RULE ANNOUNCED BY MR.
JUSTICE BRADLEY, I BELIEVE THE PATENT BEFORE US SHOULD BE DECLARED
VOID. 

               II 

IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING REASONS FOR DECLARING THE ENTIRE PATENT
VOID, THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT NARROWER GROUND FOR REVERSING THE
DECISION BELOW.  THE FIVE CLAIMS HERE RELIED UPON SET OUT ONLY AN
AGGREGATION OF OLD ELEMENTS NOT CONSTITUTING PATENTABLE INVENTION. 
FN12  AND WHERE, AS HERE, AN APPELLATE COURT CAN DETERMINE FROM A MERE
CONSTRUCTION AND COMPARISON OF PATENTS THAT AN ALLEGED NEW INVENTION IS
IN REALITY IDENTICAL WITH INVENTIONS CLAIMED IN PRIOR PATENTS, THE
QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY SHOULD BE REVIEWED.  HEALD V. RICE, 104 U.S.
737, 749.  CF. SINGER CO. V. CRAMER, 192 U.S. 265, 275. 

IT WAS THE VIEW OF BOTH COURTS BELOW THAT, ALTHOUGH A MACHINE
MANUFACTURED UNDER MCFEELY'S EARLIER PATENT HAD "SUCCESSFULLY LASTED
SHOES OF SPECIFIC SIZES, IT PROVED INCAPABLE OF OPERATING
SATISFACTORILY UPON A RANGE OF SIZES LARGE ENOUGH TO ADAPT IT FOR
COMMERCIAL OPERATION IN THE ORDINARY SHOE FACTORY."  THE FIVE CLAIMS IN
SUIT RELATE TO THREE SMALL ADJUSTMENTS OF THE FIRST MCFEELY MACHINE,
INTENDED TO CURE THIS ALLEGED DEFICIENCY.  THE RESPONDENT NOWHERE
ASSERTS THAT THE ADJUSTMENTS WERE INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH ANY OTHER
PURPOSE OR THAT IN FACT THEY DID.  NOR DID THE COURTS BELOW REST THEIR
CONCLUSIONS UPON FINDINGS THAT ANY OTHER PURPOSE WAS ACCOMPLISHED. 
THEY FOUND NOVELTY AND USEFULNESS IN THE INCREASED ADAPTABILITY OF THE
LATER MACHINES OVER A WIDER RANGE OF SIZES; AND IN THE MINOR MECHANICAL
CHANGES MADE TO CURE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE EARLIER MACHINE, THEY
FOUND PATENTABLE INVENTION. 

BUT NOVELTY AND USEFULNESS ARE NOT ENOUGH, FOR, TO BE PATENTABLE,
IMPROVEMENTS "MUST, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUTE, AMOUNT TO
AN INVENTION OR DISCOVERY."  THOMPSON V. BOISSELIER, 114 U.S. 1, 11. 
AND EVEN THOUGH IMPROVEMENTS PRODUCE "A MORE CONVENIENT AND ECONOMICAL
MECHANISM," OR A "MORE CONVENIENT AND MORE SALABLE" PRODUCT, OR A
MACHINE OF "GREATER PRECISION," THEY ARE NOT PATENTABLE IF THEY "SPRANG
NATURALLY FROM THE EXPECTED SKILL OF THE MAKER'S CALLING."  FN13  AS
THIS COURT SAID IN 1875, "PERFECTION OF WORKMANSHIP, HOWEVER MUCH IT
MAY INCREASE THE CONVENIENCE, EXTEND THE USE, OR DIMINISH EXPENSE, IS
NOT PATENTABLE."  RECKENDORFER V. FABER, 92 U.S. 347, 356-357.  CF.
CUNO ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., 314 U.S. 84, 90-92. 

A COMPARISON OF THE PATENT IN SUIT WITH PATENTS OF THE PAST SHOWS
THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS HERE WERE BUT DUPLICATIONS OF OLD ELEMENTS TO
OBTAIN AN OLD RESULT AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE FIRST MCFEELY MACHINE
WAS NO MORE THAN A COMMON MECHANICAL EXPEDIENT.  THE OBJECTIVE,
ADAPTING THE MACHINE TO SHOES OF DIFFERENT SIZES, SUGGESTS ITS OWN
MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT. 

EVEN BEFORE 1900, AUTOMATIC TACKING MACHINES AND AUTOMATIC WIPING
MACHINES, ADAPTABLE TO SHOES OF DIFFERENT SIZES, HAD BEEN IN USE
COMMERCIALLY.  IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF HIS EARLIER PATENT,
MCFEELY REPRESENTED THAT HE HAD SUCCEEDED IN COMBINING TACKERS AND
WIPERS IN A SINGLE MACHINE AND THAT HIS PATENT THEREFORE SET OUT A
PIONEER INVENTION, DISCLOSING THE FIRST MACHINE ORGANIZED FOR THE
ENTIRE PROCESS OF HEEL SEAT LASTING.  THE UNITED SHOE MACHINERY COMPANY
BUILT A MACHINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PATENT AND PLACED IT IN A
FACTORY FOR TESTING PURPOSES.  SHOES LASTED ON IT WERE SOLD TO THE
FACTORY OWNER'S REGULAR SHOE TRADE.  MCFEELY HAD DESCRIBED IN DETAIL
MEANS TO SET THE PARTS BEFORE THE LASTING OPERATION BEGAN SO THAT THE
MACHINE WOULD PROPERLY DO ITS WORK WHATEVER THE SIZE OF THE SHOE.  FN14
IT IS SAID THE TESTS REVEALED THAT THESE PRELIMINARY ADJUSTMENT
DEVICES WERE NOT ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL SIZES, ALTHOUGH THEY DID
PERMIT THE MACHINE TO FUNCTION SATISFACTORILY ON SOME. 

THE PROBLEM WAS TO ENABLE THE OPERATOR IN ADVANCE TO ENLARGE OR
DIMINISH THE AREA WITHIN WHICH THE TACKERS, WIPERS, AND SHOE CLASPING
DEVICES WOULD DO THEIR WORK AS THE SHOE TO BE LASTED MIGHT BE LARGER OR
SMALLER.  THE MOST OBVIOUS ANSWER WAS ADJUSTMENTS TO PERMIT APPROPRIATE
POSITIONING OF THE PARTS.  THREE SEPARATE HAND ADJUSTMENTS WERE
THEREFORE PROVIDED TO SET THE TACKER-WIPER COMBINATION, THE HEEL
CLASPING DEVICE, AND THE HOLD-DOWN MECHANISM.  THE ADJUSTMENTS WERE SO
ARRANGED THAT THE OPERATOR OF THE MACHINE COULD EITHER BY USE OF A SET
SCREW OR HANDLE PLACE THESE SEPARATE PARTS IN APPROPRIATE POSITIONS FOR
THE PARTICULAR SIZE OF SHOE TO BE LASTED.  THE POSITIONS SET BY THE
OPERATOR ARE MAINTAINED UNTIL RESET FOR SHOES OF ANOTHER SIZE. 

TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND DEVELOPMENT HAD ADVANCED TOO FAR BY 1916
TO WARRANT ELEVATION OF SUCH HAND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PRIVILEGED
POSITION RESERVED FOR INVENTIONS.  EITHER IN OR OUT OF THE COMBINATION
THESE ADJUSTMENTS PERFORMED NO MORE THAN THE OLD FUNCTIONS THAT
ADJUSTMENTS BY HAND LEVERS AND SET SCREWS HAD ALWAYS PERFORMED.  YET
WITHOUT THESE HAND ADJUSTMENTS THE PROBLEM ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
REVEALED BY OPERATION OF THE FIRST MCFEELY MACHINE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
MET.  FOR HAND ADJUSTMENTS WERE THE INDISPENSABLE ELEMENTS OF THE
CLAIMED IMPROVEMENTS.  SINCE I BELIEVE THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD NOT
BE RAISED TO THE DIGNITY OF PATENTABLE INVENTION I THINK THE FIVE
CLAIMS SHOULD BE HELD INVALID. 

NO ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT THE REMAINING ELEMENTS STANDING ALONE WOULD
HAVE CAUSED THE MACHINE TO FUNCTION SATISFACTORILY ON SHOES OF ALL
SIZES.  NEVERTHELESS, I SHALL GIVE THE REASONS FOR MY BELIEF THAT THERE
IS NOT PATENTABLE INVENTION IN THE REMAINING ELEMENTS OF THE FIVE
CLAIMS. 

TACKER-WIPER CONNECTION.  IN THE FIRST MACHINE, THE TACKERS AND
WIPERS WERE LOOSELY CONNECTED IN A MANNER ALLOWING A SLIGHT
INDEPENDENCE OF MOVEMENT.  DEMONSTRATION OF THE MACHINE INDICATED THAT
MORE SATISFACTORY RESULTS WOULD BE OBTAINED IF TACKERS AND WIPERS
MAINTAINED A FIXED RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER THROUGHOUT ALL THE
MOVEMENTS OF THE LASTING OPERATION.  HERE AGAIN THE PROBLEM SUGGESTED
ITS OWN ANSWER.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT ANY MECHANIC WOULD BE
IGNORANT OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT IF TWO PARTS ARE FASTENED TOGETHER, THEY
WILL MOVE SIMULTANEOUSLY.  THE CHANGE IN THE TACKER-WIPER MECHANISM WAS
NO MORE THAN THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE.  TACKERS AND WIPERS
WERE MORE RIGIDLY INTERCONNECTED.  EVEN IF SUCH AN EXPEDIENT COULD EVER
HAVE BEEN INVENTION, IT HAD BEEN ANTICIPATED IN THE FIELD OF SHOE
MACHINERY AS FAR BACK AS 1881, WHEN GEOGE W. COPELAND, MATTHIAS BROCK,
AND JOSEPH E. CRISP OBTAINED PATENT NO. 244,714 ON AN AUTOMATIC POWER
DRIVEN LASTING MACHINE WHICH CLAIMED A COMBINATION OF WIPER PLATES AND
FASTENERS TO BE MOVED SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE PROPER POSITION FOR WIPING
AND FASTENING THE SOLE.  I CAN SEE NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER OF AN EXERCISE
OF THE INVENTIVE FACULTY IN THE FASTENING OF TACKERS AND WIPERS RIGIDLY
TOGETHER SO AS TO CAUSE THEM TO MOVE SIMULTANEOUSLY AND MAINTAIN A
FIXED RELATIONSHIP WITH EACH OTHER. 

HEEL BAND AND HOLD-DOWN.  THE FIRST MCFEELY, AS HAD MANY PRIOR
PATENTS, DESCRIBED A U-SHAPED LEATHER HEEL BAND ADAPTED TO GRIP AND
HOLD THE SHOE WHILE IT WAS WIPED AND TACKED.  IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE
PATENT IN SUIT ADDED ATTACHMENTS WHICH PERMIT THE HEEL BAND TO SLIDE
RELATIVE TO ITS SUPPORTS.  THE FIRST MCFEELY ALSO DESCRIBED A HOLD-DOWN
DEVICE FOR MAINTAINING THE SHOE IN APPROPRIATE VERTICAL POSITION FOR
THE LASTING OPERATIONS.  IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE SECOND
MCFEELY WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE HOLD-DOWN MECHANISM MODIFIES THE FIRST
BY INTRODUCING A NEW "SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS."  THE ASSERTED
MODIFICATIONS OF BOTH HEEL BAND AND HOLD-DOWN ARE CLAIMED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE HAND ADJUSTMENTS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. 

SINCE THE BEGINNING OF SHOE LASTING, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE
SHOE MUST BE HELD FIRMLY IN THE PROPER POSITION FOR WIPING AND
TACKING.  HEEL BANDS AND HOLD-DOWNS SIMILAR TO THOSE CLAIMED HERE
APPEAR IN THE RECORD IN NUMEROUS DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND CLAIMS
OF A LONG SERIES OF PATENTS PRIOR TO THE ONE BEFORE US.  THE GREAT
NUMBER OF PATENTS, EMBODYING APPARENTLY LIMITLESS VARIATIONS OF THE
SAME BASIC PRINCIPLES, SUGGESTS THAT THE PUBLIC HAD BEFORE MCFEELY'S
SECOND PATENT ALREADY PAID IN FULLEST MEASURE FOR HEEL BANDS AND HOLD
DOWNS. 

EXAMINATION OF ONLY THREE OF THESE PATENTS - PLANT NO. 958,280(1910),
KEYES NO. 1,023,854(1912), AND BROCK NO. 1,188,616(1916) - IS ENOUGH TO
SHOW COMPLETE ANTICIPATION OF THE ENTIRE PRINCIPLE OF THE SLIDING HEEL
BAND CAPABLE OF FORWARD AND BACKWARD MOVEMENT IF NOT EVERY ESSENTIAL
MECHANICAL DETAIL. 

THE GENERAL CLAIM OF THE SECOND MCFEELY WHICH SETS OUT THE HOLD-DOWN
MECHANISM IS SAID TO PROVIDE FOR A "PARTICULAR SEQUENCE" OF
OPERATIONS.  INSOFAR AS THE AMBIGUITIES OF THIS CLAIM  FN15 PERMIT SUCH
A DEDUCTION, THERE IS NEVERTHELESS A FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ANY PATENTABLE
INVENTION.  OF COURSE, THE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS IN WHICH THE HOLD
DOWN PLAYS A CRUCIAL PART IS IMPORTANT.  FOR THE SHOE MUST BE
MAINTAINED IN SUCH A VERTICAL POSITION THAT THE SUCCESSIVE STROKES OF
THE WIPERS WILL PERFORM THEIR PROPER FUNCTION.  IF THE SHOE IS TOO LOW
WITH RESPECT TO THE WIPERS, THE LEATHER WILL NOT BE BENT DOWN
SUFFICIENTLY FAR; IF THE SHOE IS TOO HIGH WITH RESPECT TO THE WIPERS,
THE WIPERS WILL HIT THE SHOE BELOW THE INSOLE AND THEREFORE WILL NOT
PRODUCE ANY BENDING OF THE LEATHER AT ALL.  BUT IN SETTING OUT A
MECHANISM TO INSURE THE PROPER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEVEL OF THE
SHOE AND THE LEVEL OF THE WIPERS DURING SUCCESSIVE STROKES OF THE
MACHINE, THE SECOND MCFEELY PATENT IS BY NO MEANS NEW.  CLAIM 49 OF THE
FIRST MCFEELY PATENT INCLUDES A "PROVISION FOR CHANGING RELATIVELY THE
PLANE OF ACTION OF THE WIPERS AND THE POSITION OF THE SHOE BETWEEN
SUCCESSIVE ACTUATIONS OF THE WIPERS."  AND IN CLAIM 164 OF THE FIRST
MCFEELY IT APPEARS THAT THE HOLD-DOWN MECHANISM WAS RECOGNIZED AS
HAVING A MAJOR ROLE IN ACCOMPLISHING THIS PURPOSE.  FOR CLAIM 164
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES "MEANS FOR AUTOMATICALLY ACTUATING THE HOLD DOWN
UPWARDLY AND THEN DOWNWARDLY AGAIN BETWEEN THE INITIAL ADVANCE OF THE
WIPER AND A FINAL RETRACTION OF THE WIPER."  IF THE "SEQUENCE" OF THE
SECOND MCFEELY IS ANY DIFFERENT, THE DIFFERENCE CANNOT BE SEEN IN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CLAIM RELIED UPON, NOR IS IT EXPLAINED IN THE RECORD;
IF, AS I BELIEVE, THE "SEQUENCE" IN BOTH PATENTS IS THE SAME, THE
SECOND IS INVALID BECAUSE ANTICIPATED. 

IN SHORT, THIS RECORD SHOWS THAT THE OLD ELEMENTS COMPOSING THE
ASSERTED IMPROVEMENTS HERE HAD BEEN DESCRIBED AND REDESCRIBED, CLAIMED
AND RECLAIMED AS PATENTABLE INVENTIONS.  THE RESPONDENT HAS USED EVERY
ONE OF THEM IN PREVIOUS PATENTS NOW EXPIRED.  IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED
TO CONTINUE ITS EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THEIR USE AND ENJOYMENT. 

THERE IS PERHAPS ANOTHER POSSIBLE GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE FIVE
CLAIMS SET OUT PATENTABLE INVENTION.  CONCEIVABLY THE THREE ASSERTED
IMPROVEMENTS, ALTHOUGH EACH SEPARATELY IS NO MORE THAN A MECHANICAL
EXPEDIENT OR A SIMPLE ADAPTATION OF PRIOR INVENTION, COULD BE ACCEPTED
IN COMBINATION AS AN EXERCISE OF THE INVENTIVE FACULTY.  THE COURT
BELOW APPARENTLY DID EVALUATE THE IMPROVEMENTS IN COMBINATION, FOR IT
FOUND THAT, TAKEN TOGETHER, THEY RESULTED IN A "NEW UNITARY MODE OF
OPERATION OF THE ENTIRE MACHINE."  121 F.2D 273, 278.  BUT THE
STATEMENT IS UNEXPLAINED, AND I CANNOT FIND SUPPORT FOR IT IN THE
RECORD.  ON THE CONTRARY, COMPARISON OF THE FIRST AND SECOND MCFEELY
PATENTS SHOWS THAT THE BASIC MODE OF OPERATION OF THE ENTIRE MACHINE IN
BOTH WAS IDENTICAL.  IN THE EARLIER MACHINE, THE SHOE WAS PLACED ON A
LAST AT THE END OF A JACK, FIRMLY HELD IN POSITION WHILE THE WIPING AND
TACKING TOOK PLACE, AND THEN RELEASED.  IN THESE FUNDAMENTAL RESPECTS,
THE MODE OF OPERATION PROVIDED FOR IN THE SECOND MCFEELY PATENT IS THE
SAME, WHATEVER MODIFICATIONS MCFEELY MAY HAVE ADDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCREASING ADAPTABILITY TO DIFFERENT SIZES OF SHOES NOT HAVING AFFECTED
IT IN THE SLIGHTEST. 

IN ANY EVENT, "EACH CLAIM MUST STAND OR FALL, AS ITSELF SUFFICIENTLY
DEFINING INVENTION, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHERS."  ALTOONA THEATRES V.
TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477, 487.  NONE OF THE FIVE CLAIMS HERE IN
SUIT DISCLOSES A "NEW UNITARY MODE OF OPERATION OF THE ENTIRE
MACHINE."  EVEN IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO DEDUCE FROM THE FIVE CLAIMS
TAKEN TOGETHER THAT MCFEELY HAD MADE SUCH A DISCLOSURE, NEVERTHELESS
THE PATENT OUGHT NOT TO BE TREATED AS IF THE DISCLOSURE HAD ACTUALLY
BEEN MADE IN APPROPRIATE FORM.  FOR THE CREATION OF A SIXTH CLAIM, A
COMBINATION OF THE OTHER FIVE, WHICH MCFEELY HIMSELF FAILED TO INCLUDE
IN HIS PATENT WOULD ENTAIL A KIND OF CONSTRUCTIVE PATENTING PROCEDURE
FOR WHICH THERE IS NO JUDICIAL OR STATUTORY PRECEDENT. 

THE COURTS BELOW CONCLUDED THAT THE FIVE CLAIMS IN SUIT EMBODIED
PATENTABLE INVENTION.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, WHICH I BELIEVE IS
OVERWHELMINGLY REFUTED BY EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS THEMSELVES AGAINST
THE BACKGROUND OF PRIOR DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ART, HEAVY RELIANCE WAS
PLACED ON TWO EXTRINSIC CONSIDERATIONS:  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS AND THE
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY ARISING FROM THE FACT OF ISSUANCE OF A PATENT
BY THE PATENT OFFICE. 

COMMERCIAL SUCCESS.  WHEN IT IS A CLOSE QUESTION WHETHER THE CHANGES
EMBODIED IN A LATER PATENT ARE A SUFFICIENT ADVANCE OVER EARLIER
PATENTS TO CONSTITUTE PATENTABLE INVENTION, THE MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS OF THE LATER PATENT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY COURTS AS AFFORDING
SOME AID IN REACHING A CONCLUSION.  BUT WHILE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS HAS
BEEN SAID TO HAVE RELEVANCE IN RESOLVING DOUBTS, SMITH V. HALL, 301
U.S. 216, 233, IT CANNOT TRANSFORM AN EXERCISE OF THE COMMON SKILL OF A
CALLING, OR AN ADAPTATION READILY SUGGESTED BY EXPERIENCE WITH PRIOR
INVENTIONS, OR AN AGGREGATION OF FAMILIAR MECHANICAL EXPEDIENTS INTO
PATENTABLE INVENTION.  CF. HILDRETH V. MASTORAS, 257 U.S. 27, 34.  AND
WHERE THE PATENT IN QUESTION REEMBODIES A PRIOR PATENT NOT YET EXPIRED,
ITS COMMERCIAL SUCCESS DOES QUITE THE REVERSE OF ESTABLISHING
PATENTABILITY; IT ESTABLISHES THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE INFRINGEMENT.  IF
THE REEMBODIED PRIOR PATENT HAS EXPIRED, OR IF IT IS OWNED BY THE OWNER
OF THE LATER PATENT, COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS ONE INDEX OF SUCCESS IN
APPROPRIATING WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC OR IN
EXTENDING SPECIAL PRIVILEGES BEYOND THE LEGALLY PERMITTED TERM. 

I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THE REASONS WHICH CONVINCE ME THAT NO PATENTABLE
INVENTION IS SET OUT IN THE FIVE CLAIMS IN SUIT.  THE FORCE OF NONE OF
THOSE REASONS IS AFFECTED BY THE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS WHICH THE
RESPONDENT HAS REALIZED.  AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORD, I CAN FIND NO
SERIOUS DOUBTS TO BE RESOLVED.  ALL I CAN DEDUCE FROM THE COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS OF THE RESPONDENT WITH THESE MACHINES IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE
CONSEQUENCES TO THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE HAD TO PAY FOR THE RESPONDENT'S
EXTENSION OF AN UNDESERVED MONOPOLY THROUGH THE USE OF AN INVALID
PATENT. 

EVEN IF THE ISSUE OF PATENTABLE INVENTION WERE A DOUBTFUL ONE, THE
FORCE OF DEDUCTIONS THAT MIGHT NORMALLY BE DRAWN FROM COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS IS GREATLY REDUCED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  FOR, BY
VIRTUE OF ITS DOMINANT POSITION IN THE SHOE MACHINERY INDUSTRY, THE
UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION WAS NOT SERIOUSLY THREATENED BY LOSS
OF BUSINESS TO COMPETITORS WHEN IT WITHDREW THE FIRST MCFEELY MACHINE
FROM COMMERCIAL USE.  BECAUSE THERE WAS NO COMPELLING ECONOMIC
INCENTIVE TO HASTEN THE COMMERCIAL ADAPTATION OF THE FIRST MCFEELY
MACHINE, THE INFERENCES TO BE MADE FROM ITS WITHDRAWAL ARE EXTREMELY
WEAK.  CONTROLLING THE SHOE MACHINERY BUSINESS TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
DID, THE RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO ACCELERATE OR DELAY THE COMMERCIAL
EXPLOITATION OF ITS HEEL SEAT LASTING MACHINE AT ITS PLEASURE. 

MOREOVER, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS RELIED
UPON BY THE COURTS BELOW WOULD BE INCONCLUSIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE
SECOND MCFEELY PATENT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.  FOR THERE IS
UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONY THAT OF THE 1250 LATER MACHINES IN COMMERCIAL
USE ONLY 12 WERE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DISCLOSURES OF THE SECOND
MCFEELY PATENT.  THE REMAINDER EMBODY FEATURES SET OUT IN A SUBSEQUENT
PATENT, JORGENSEN NO. 1,852,015, OR A PRIOR PATENT, HOYT NO. 1,508,394,
(DECLARED INVALID BY THE COURT BELOW) OR BOTH.  SINCE I BELIEVE THAT
THE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OF THE RESPONDENT'S MACHINE COULD IN NO EVENT
ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF THE FIVE CLAIMS IN SUIT, I DO NOT FIND IT
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH OF THE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS OF THE
RESPONDENT'S MACHINES IS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO FEATURES NOT SET OUT IN
THE SECOND MCFEELY PATENT.  SUCH A DETERMINATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO
HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ENTIRE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE. 

PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY ARISING FROM ISSUANCE.  QUOTING FROM THE
OPINION OF THIS COURT IN RADIO CORP. V. RADIO LABORATORIES, 293 U.S. 1,
8, THE COURT BELOW STATED THAT THE PRESENT CASE OBLIGED IT "TO GIVE
CONSIDERATION TO THE RULE THAT 'ONE OTHERWISE AN INFRINGER WHO ASSAILS
THE VALIDITY OF A PATENT FAIR UPON ITS FACE BEARS A HEAVY BURDEN OF
PERSUASION, AND FAILS UNLESS HIS EVIDENCE HAS MORE THAN A DUBIOUS
PREPONDERANCE.'"  121 F.2D 273, 277.  FOR REASONS I HAVE ALREADY SET
OUT I CAN AGREE NEITHER THAT THE SECOND MCFEELEY IS "A PATENT FAIR UPON
ITS FACE" NOR THAT THE EVIDENCE OF NON-PATENTABILITY HAS NO MORE THAN A
"DUBIOUS PREPONDERANCE."  HENCE, THE PREREQUISITES FOR ESTABLISHING A
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY ARE NOT HERE PRESENT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A
STATUTORY PRESCRIPTION TO THE CONTRARY, I SEE NO REASON FOR EXTENDING
THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY ARISING FROM THE MERE ISSUANCE OF A PATENT
BEYOND THE NARROW COMPASS INDICATED BY THE PASSAGE QUOTED FROM THE
RADIO CORPORATION CASE. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE MANY POSITIVE REASONS FOR NOT DOING SO.
A PATENT IS A GRANT OF EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE.  YET IT IS NORMALLY ISSUED
IN A NON-ADVERSARY PROCEEDING.  INDEED, IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THE
PATENT OFFICE TO KEEP PATENT APPLICATIONS ON FILE IN SECRECY UNTIL THE
TIME OF ISSUANCE.  FN16  THE PUBLIC, WHO WILL BE EXCLUDED FOR 17 YEARS
FROM THE FIELD GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT, ARE REPRESENTED ONLY INSOFAR
AS THE ENORMOUS VOLUME OF BUSINESS PERMITS THE EXAMINING STAFF OF THE
PATENT OFFICE TO WATCH OUT FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST N17.  MOREOVER, THE
PATENT EXAMINER, UNLIKE THE COURT IN AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT, DOES NOT
HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE RESEARCHES OF OPPOSING COUNSEL UPON THE STATE
OF THE PRIOR ART. EVEN WHERE THE PATENT OFFICE CONDUCTS INTERFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PRIORITY OF INVENTION, A
CONTESTANT IS NOT PERMITTED TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER TO THE PROCEEDINGS
WAS THE FIRST INVENTOR.  HE CAN OPPOSE ONLY HIS OWN CLAIM OF PRIORITY
AGAINST THAT OF THE OTHER PARTY.  SEE LOFTIN V. SMITH, 126 F.2D 514,
515. 

WHATEVER THE SMALL WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THE PRESUMPTION ARISING FROM
ISSUANCE OF A PATENT, IT IS HERE OVERCOME BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE
OF THIS CASE.  FOR THE PATENT IN SUIT, LIKE THE PRIOR ONE ON WHICH IT
IS ASSERTED TO HAVE MADE IMPROVEMENTS, WAS ISSUED TO THE SAME PATENTEE
AND ASSIGNED TO THE SAME OWNER.  IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION, THE BURDEN
OF ESTABLISHING THE VALIDITY OF THE SECOND PATENT IS INCREASED, THIS
COURT HAVING SAID THAT IN THIS "CLASS OF CASES IT MUST DISTINCTLY
APPEAR THAT THE INVENTION COVERED BY THE LATER PATENT WAS A SEPARATE
INVENTION, DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENT FROM THAT COVERED BY
THE FIRST PATENT."  MILLER V. EAGLE MANUFACTURING CO., 151 U.S. 186,
198.  AT VERY BEST, THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY ARISING FROM THE MERE
ISSUANCE OF A PATENT MIGHT BE PERMITTED TO TIP THE SCALE WHEN OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS LEAVE THE ISSUE OF PATENTABILITY IN EQUILIBRIUM.  IN THE
PRESENT CASE, I BELIEVE THAT THE EMPHASIS OF THE COURT BELOW ON THIS
PRESUMPTION WAS ENTIRELY MISPLACED. 

AS I VIEW THIS PATENT ITS TOTAL IMPACT IS APPALLING.  OUT OF ITS
GREAT BULK, THE RESPONDENT IS ABLE TO ASSERT ONLY THREE SIMPLE
IMPROVEMENTS EMBRACED IN FIVE CLAIMS.  AND ON EXAMINATION, IT APPEARS
THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS FALL FAR BELOW THE ESTABLISHED REQUIREMENTS OF
PATENTABLE INVENTION.  YET BY ITS TERMS THE PATENT AS A WHOLE PURPORTS
TO APPROPRIATE FOR EXCLUSIVE USE, NOT MERELY THESE IMPROVEMENTS, BUT A
MAJOR INSTRUMENT OF PRODUCTION IN ITS ENTIRETY.  FURTHERMORE, THIS
PATENT IS ONE OF A GROUP WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE AN INTERMINABLE CAPACITY
FOR SELF-PERPETUATION.  IF JUDICIAL APPROVAL IS TO BE GIVEN TO PATENTS
OF THIS KIND, THE PUBLIC BENEFITS WHICH MIGHT REASONABLY BE HOPED FOR
UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND THE FEDERAL STATUTES RELATING
TO PATENTS CAN NEVER BE ATTAINED. 

FN1  DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY, "MATZELIGER, JAN ERNST." 

FN2  CENSUS REPORTS (12TH CENSUS, 1900), VOL. IX, PART III, 756.  ON
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHOE MACHINERY INDUSTRY, SEE GANNON, SHOE
MAKING, PASSIM, AND HIS ARTICLE "SHOE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES" IN
ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA; HAZARD, ORGANIZATION OF BOOT AND SHOE INDUSTRY
IN MASSACHUSETTS BEFORE 1875, PASSIM; KAEMPFFERT, A POPULAR HISTORY OF
AMERICAN INVENTION, VOL. II, 404-434; DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY,
"GOODYEAR, CHARLES (JR.)," "MCKAY, GORDON," "MATZELIGER, JAN ERNST,"
"WINSLOW, SIDNEY WILMOT"; ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES,
"LEATHER INDUSTRIES," E.G., 307-309. 

FN3 CLAIM NO. 167, FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE EARLIER MCFEELY PATENT (NO.
1,129,881) SETS OUT "MEANS TO ADJUST THE BACK STOP FOR SHOES OF
DIFFERENT SIZES INCLUDING PROVISION FOR INDICATING THE CORRECT
ADJUSTMENT FOR PARTICULAR SIZES." 

FN4  SEE WESTINGHOUSE V. BOYDEN POWER BRAKE CO., 170 U.S. 537, 561
562. 

FN5  TELEPHONE CASES, 126 U.S. 1, 4-14. 

FN6  CLAIM 42 PROVIDES:  "A MACHINE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED HAVING, IN
COMBINATION, CLAMPING MEANS TO EMBRACE ONE END OF A LAST AND SHOE, END
WIPERS POSITIONED TO OPERATE ON THE EDGES OF THE UPPER AT SAID END OF
THE SHOE, A HOLD-DOWN MOUNTED FOR VERTICAL MOVEMENT AND POSITIONED TO
ENGAGE THE BOTTOM OF THE LAST AND SHOE, A SUPPORT FOR A LAST AND SHOE
CONSTRUCTED AND ARRANGED FOR MANUALLY EFFECTED MOVEMENT TO ENGAGE THE
LAST AND SHOE WITH SAID CLAMPING MEANS AND HOLD-DOWN, POWER OPERATED
MECHANISM EFFECTIVE TO MOVE SAID SUPPORT FORCIBLY TO PRESS THE LAST AND
SHOE AGAINST SAID CLAMPING MEANS AND HOLD-DOWN AND TO ACTUATE THE
CLAMPING MEANS, MECHANISM EFFECTIVE IN TIMED RELATION TO THE CLAMPING
MEANS TO DEPRESS THE HOLD-DOWN AND SUPPORT TO POSITION THE SHOE BOTTOM
DETERMINATELY BELOW THE PLANE OF THE WIPERS, MECHANISM OPERATIVE TO
ACTUATE THE WIPERS TO BREAK DOWN THE EDGE OF THE UPPER OVER THE BOTTOM
OF THE POSITIONED LAST AND SHOE, THE SAID HOLD-DOWN MECHANISM BEING
AUTOMATICALLY OPERATIVE SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINATELY TO RAISE THE HOLD
DOWN, THE SAID POWER OPERATED MECHANISM BEING OPERATIVE SUBSTANTIALLY
COINCIDENTLY CORRESPONDINGLY TO RAISE THE SAID SUPPORT TO ENGAGE THE
BOTTOM OF THE LAST AND SHOE WITH SAID HOLD-DOWN WITH THE SHOE BOTTOM
POSITIONED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE PLANE OF THE WIPERS, AND THE END WIPER
MECHANISM BEING SUBSEQUENTLY OPERATIVE IN TIMED RELATION TO WIPE OVER
AND COMPACT THE BROKEN DOWN EDGE OF THE UPPER OVER THE BOTTOM OF THE
LAST AND SHOE, AND MANUALLY ADJUSTABLE MEANS FOR DETERMINATELY VARYING
THE AMOUNT OF VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE HOLD-DOWN." 

FN7  CLAIM 55 IS ILLUSTRATIVE.  IT PROVIDES:  "A HEEL SEAT LASTING
MACHINE HAVING, IN COMBINATION, CLAMPING MEANS TO EMBRACE THE HEEL END
OF A SHOE, WIPERS TO OPERATE UPON THE UPSTANDING EDGES OF THE UPPER AT
THE CLAMPED END OF THE SHOE, MEANS TO SUPPORT A LAST AND SHOE IN
INVERTED POSITION, MEANS TO RAISE SAID SUPPORT TO POSITION THE LAST AND
SHOE FOR CO-OPERATION WITH THE CLAMPING MEANS WITH THE BOTTOM OF THE
SHOE ABOVE THE OPERATING PLANE OF THE WIPERS, MEANS TO OPERATE THE
CLAMPING MEANS TO EMBRACE THE HEEL END OF THE POSITIONED SHOE,
MECHANISM OPERATIVE DETERMINATELY TO DEPRESS SAID LAST AND SHOE SUPPORT
RELATIVELY TO THE CLAMPING MEANS TO UPWIPE THE UPPER OVER THE SIDES OF
THE LAST AND TO POSITION THE SHOE WITH ITS BOTTOM IN A PLANE
DETERMINATELY BELOW THE OPERATING PLANE OF THE WIPERS WITH THE UPPER
EDGES IN SAID OPERATING PLANE, AND MEANS SUBSEQUENTLY TO OPERATE SAID
WIPERS IN TIMED RELATION TO THE SHOE SUPPORT TO BREAK DOWN THE
UPSTANDING EDGES OF THE UPPER OVER THE HEEL SEAT, SAID SUPPORT
OPERATING MECHANISM BEING SUBSEQUENTLY EFFECTIVE IN TIMED RELATION
DETERMINATELY TO RAISE SAID SUPPORT AND SHOE TO POSITION THE SHOE
BOTTOM IN THE OPERATING PLANE OF THE WIPERS, AND SAID WIPER OPERATING
MEANS BEING SUBSEQUENTLY EFFECTIVE IN TIMED RELATION TO OPERATE THE
WIPERS TO WIPE DOWN AND COMPACT OVER THE HEEL SEAT THE BROKEN DOWN
EDGES OF THE UPPER." 

FN8  CLAIM 39 PURPORTS TO COVER "AN END LASTING MECHANISM," BUT IT,
TOO, ATTEMPTS TO RECLAIM VARIOUS OLD ELEMENTS. 

FN9  CLAIM 84 IS ILLUSTRATIVE.  IT PROVIDES:  "IN A MACHINE OF THE
CLASS DESCRIBED, THE COMBINATION WITH LAST AND SHOE POSITIONING MEANS,
OF END EMBRACING WIPERS, OPERATING MEANS FOR SAID WIPERS INCLUDING
PARTS MOVABLE TO EFFECT A PRELIMINARY ADJUSTMENT OF THE WIPERS TO THE
CONTOUR OF THE SHOE WHILE OTHER PORTIONS OF SAID OPERATING MEANS ARE
STATIONARY, AND TACKERS MOVABLE INWARDLY OVER THE SHOE AND CONNECTED TO
SAID WIPERS FOR PRELIMINARY ADJUSTMENT WITH THEM."    FN10  E.G., A
"MEMORANDUM OF POLICY" FROM THE FILES OF AN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, SET
OUT IN THE TNEC HEARINGS, CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING GUIDANCE FOR THE
CORPORATION'S PATENT DIVISION: 

"CONTINUING THE MONOPOLY BY US OR OTHERS 

"IT OFTEN HAPPENS THAT IF MINOR IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY
PATENTS, MACHINES AND PROCESSES LICENSED UNDER THE ORIGINAL BASIC
PATENTS ARE GIVEN A MUCH LONGER EARNING LIFE BY THE FACT THAT THE MINOR
IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE THE PROTECTION ON THE MACHINES, AND EVEN WHEN THE
BASIC PATENTS EXPIRE, OTHERS ARE PREVENTED FROM USING THE LATEST
COMMERCIAL FORM OF THE MACHINE.    "EXAMPLE:  THE  ...  BASIC PATENTS
EXPIRED SEVERAL YEARS AGO.  NOBODY, HOWEVER, DARE USE THE PRESENT TYPE
OF  ...  MACHINE BECAUSE OF IMPROVEMENTS COVERED BY MINOR PATENTS. 
LIKEWISE, IF THE ORIGINAL PATENT PROTECTION OBTAINED ON PARTICULAR
MACHINES SHOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS, YET A SECOND LINE OF
DEFENSE PATENTS COVERING DETAILS AND IMPROVEMENTS MAY BECOME A MOST
VALUABLE ASSET. 

"IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR AMBITION TO OBTAIN PATENTS WHICH WILL BE
RELATED TO FURNACE, MELTING AND REFINING, FEEDING, DELIVERY, FORMING,
AUTOMATIC HANDLING, CARRYING, STACKING AND ANNEALING.  CONCEIVABLY WE
MIGHT LOSE PATENT DOMINATION OF ONE OR MORE IMPORTANT LINKS, BUT STILL
RETAIN PRACTICAL CONTROL OF THE WHOLE CHAIN BY MEANS OF CONTROLLING THE
MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF THE OTHER LINKS."  TNEC HEARINGS, PART 2, 777
778. 

CF. TNEC MONOGRAPH NO. 31, 160:  "A PATENT PROVIDES A SANCTION BUT IT
IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE - BY SOME MEANS OR OTHER ITS LIFE MUST BE
PROLONGED.  AN IMPROVEMENT ALONE IS HARDLY ENOUGH; ITS IMPORTANCE MUST
BE MAGNIFIED UNTIL THE LINE BETWEEN INVENTION AND IMPROVEMENT IS
COMPLETELY BLURRED.  A MULTIPLICATION OF IMPROVEMENTS IS FAR BETTER; IT
CREATES AT LEAST AN APPEARANCE THAT AN INDUSTRIAL ART IS BEING
TRANSFORMED." 

FN11  JORGENSEN NO. 1,852,015, ISSUED IN 1932 AND ASSIGNED TO THE
RESPONDENT, PURPORTS TO COVER IMPROVEMENTS ON A MACHINE FOR SHAPING
SHOE UPPERS "OVER LASTS OR OTHER FORMS."  IT STATES THAT THE INVENTION
"IS HEREIN ILLUSTRATED AS EMBODIED IN A MACHINE FOR LASTING THE HEEL
ENDS OF SHOES, BUT IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT IN ITS MORE GENERAL
ASPECTS IT IS NOT LIMITED TO HEEL-END-LASTING MACHINES." 

FN12  THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI CLEARLY RAISES THIS
ISSUE.  ONE OF THE REASONS WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE WAS THE OPPORTUNITY
IT WOULD AFFORD TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE SECOND
MCFEELY "MERELY AGGREGATES OLD ADJUSTING FEATURES WITH AN OLD
COMBINATION  ...  IN CONFLICT WITH THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN SUCH CASES
AS GRINNELL V. JOHNSON CO., 247 U.S. 426." 

FN13  GRINNELL WASHING MACH. CO. V. JOHNSON CO., 247 U.S. 426, 434;
OFFICE SPECIALTY MFG. CO. V. FENTON MFG. CO., 174 U.S. 492, 498;
ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477, 486; AMERICAN ROAD
MACH. CO. V. PENNOCK & SHARP CO., 164 U.S. 26, 41. 

FN14  THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EARLIER
MCFEELY IS ILLUSTRATIVE:  "IN FIG. 18 THE BACK STOP IS SHOWN AS FORMED
ON A RACK BAR ADJUSTABLE BY A SHAFT 690 HAVING A HANDLE AT THE SIDE OF
THE MACHINE WITH A PAWL IN IT TO ENGAGE A LOCKING RATCHET 691 HAVING
MARKED ON IT GRADUATIONS INDICATING THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT FOR DIFFERENT
SIZES.  THE RATCHET CAN BE ADJUSTED TO POSITION THE GRADUATIONS FOR
DIFFERENT GROUPS OF SIZES SUCH AS MEN'S, WOMEN'S OR CHILDREN'S SIZES." 
AND THE FIRST CLAIM SETS OUT "MEANS FOR FIXING THE GRIPPER IN DIFFERENT
POSITIONS OF ADJUSTMENT BOTH VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY RELATIVELY TO
THE LAST SPINDLE FOR LASTS OF DIFFERENT HEIGHTS AND LENGTHS." 

FN15  SEE DISCUSSION OF THE INVALIDITY OF THIS CLAIM (NO. 42) AT PP.
377-378, SUPRA. 

FN16  RULE NO. 15, RULES OF PRACTICE, UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE. 

FN17  SEE REPORT OF SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD, SET OUT IN TNEC HEARINGS,
PART 3, 1139, 1140. 
..END :











MAGRUDER V. SUPPLEE, 316 U.S. 394 


NO. 947.  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 25, 1942.  - 123 F.2D
399, REVERSED. 


WHERE, IN A SALE OF REAL ESTATE, CURRENT TAXES, WHICH ARE A LIEN ON
THE PROPERTY AND FOR WHICH THE VENDOR IS PERSONALLY LIABLE UNDER THE
STATE LAW, ARE APPORTIONED, SO THAT THE VENDEE PAYS THE PART
PROPORTIONAL TO THE FRACTION OF THE TAX YEAR ENSUING AFTER THE
PURCHASE, THE PAYMENT IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE BY THE VENDEE IN HIS INCOME TAX
RETURN AS "TAXES PAID" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(C) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1936, BUT IS PART OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.  P. 397. 

MAGRUDER, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. SUPPLEE ET UX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 794, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
A REFUND OF INCOME TAXES, 36 F.SUPP.  722. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DURING THE YEARS 1936 AND 1937, RESPONDENTS PURCHASED VARIOUS PARCELS
OF REAL ESTATE IN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.  IN EACH INSTANCE, THE STATE AND
CITY TAXES ON THE REAL ESTATE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR HAD NOT BEEN PAID AT
THE TIME OF PURCHASE.  THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR THE
APPORTIONMENT OF THESE CURRENT REAL ESTATE TAXES, RESPONDENTS AGREEING
TO PAY THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES, AND THE VENDORS UNDERTAKING TO BEAR THE
BURDEN OF THAT PORTION OF THE TAXES ARITHMETICALLY ALLOCABLE TO THE
FRACTION OF THE YEAR THAT HAD EXPIRED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PURCHASE. 
ADJUSTMENTS WERE ACCORDINGLY MADE IN THE PURCHASE PRICES TO REFLECT
THIS ARRANGEMENT. 

RESPONDENTS PAID THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES THE FULL AMOUNTS NECESSARY TO
DISCHARGE THE TAX LIABILITY.  IN THEIR 1936 AND 1937 INCOME TAX
RETURNS, WHICH WERE ON THE CASH BASIS, THEY DEDUCTED THAT PORTION OF
THOSE TAXES "ALLOCABLE" TO THE PERIODS AFTER PURCHASE.  THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE RULED THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION
WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49
STAT. 1648, 1659,  FN1  BUT INSTEAD WERE MERELY PART OF THE COST OF THE
PROPERTIES.  ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS
PAID UNDER PROTEST.  THIS SUIT FOR REFUND FOLLOWED.  THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD THE AMOUNTS WERE DEDUCTIBLE,  FN2  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED  FN3  ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS PREVIOUS DECISION IN
COMMISSIONER V. RUST'S ESTATE, 116 F.2D 636.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH LIFSON V. COMMISSIONER, 98 F.2D
508. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE AMOUNTS APPORTIONED BY
RESPONDENTS ON THE BASIS OF THE FRACTIONS OF THE TAXABLE YEARS
REMAINING AFTER THE SEVERAL PURCHASES CONSTITUTE "TAXES PAID WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1936, 49 STAT. 1648, 1659, AND HENCE ARE DEDUCTIBLE. 

THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PAYMENT SATISFYING A
TAX LIABILITY IS A "TAX PAID" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(C) IS
FURNISHED BY THE APPLICABLE TREASURY REGULATION, WHICH STATES THAT "IN
GENERAL TAXES ARE DEDUCTIBLE ONLY BY THE PERSON UPON WHOM THEY ARE
IMPOSED."  FN4 SEE COLSTON V. BURNET, 61 APP. D.C. 192, 59 F.2D 867;
SMALL V. COMMISSIONER, 27 B.T.A. 1219; PAUL, SELECTED STUDIES IN
FEDERAL TAXATION, SECOND SERIES, P. 24.  RESORT MUST BE HAD HERE TO THE
LAWS OF MARYLAND AND OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE TO DETERMINE UPON WHOM
THE STATE AND CITY REAL ESTATE TAXES WERE IMPOSED.  WALSH-MCGUIRE CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 97 F.2D 983, 984; CF. HELVERING V. FULLER, 310 U.S.
69, 74-75; AND SEE PAUL, OP. CIT. SUPRA, PP. 23-24. 

TO ILLUSTRATE CONCRETELY THE WORKINGS OF THE MARYLAND TAX SYSTEM WITH
RESPECT TO RESPONDENTS' PURCHASES, THE PROPERTY BOUGHT ON MAY 10, 1936,
MAY BE TAKEN AS TYPICAL OF ALL THE OTHER TRANSACTIONS.  THE ASSESSMENT
DATE, OR "DATE OF FINALITY," FOR BOTH STATE AND CITY TAXES WAS OCTOBER
1, 1935.  FN5  THESE TAXES WERE FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1936  FN6  AND
BECAME DUE AND PAYABLE ON JANUARY 1, 1936,  FN7  ALTHOUGH THE DEFAULT
DATE FOR CITY TAXES WAS NOT UNTIL JULY 1, 1936, AND FOR STATE TAXES
JANUARY 1, 1937.  FN8  BOTH THE STATE AND THE CITY HAD LIENS AGAINST
THE PROPERTY FROM THE DUE DATE, JANUARY 1, 1936.  FN9  AND,
RESPONDENTS' VENDOR BECAME PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THESE TAXES BEFORE THE
SALE.  AN ACTION OF ASSUMPSIT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST HIM FOR
THE TAXES AT ANY TIME AFTER THE DUE DATE.  FN10  HAD HE SOLD THE
PROPERTY BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 1935 AND JANUARY 1, 1936, HE APPARENTLY
WOULD STILL HAVE REMAINED PERSONALLY LIABLE, AND IF HE HAD GONE INTO
BANKRUPTCY AFTER SUCH SALE THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WOULD HAVE HAD A
PROVABLE CLAIM AGAINST HIM.  IN RE WELLS, 4 F.SUPP.  329; CF. BALTIMORE
V. PERRIN, 178 MD. 101, 107, 12 A.2D 261. 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT TAX LIENS HAD ATTACHED AGAINST THE
PROPERTIES AND THAT RESPONDENTS' PREDECESSORS IN TITLE HAD BECOME
PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THE TAXES PRIOR TO ANY OF THE PURCHASES.  THE
ATTACHMENT OF A LIEN FOR TAXES AGAINST PROPERTY BEFORE ITS SALE HAS
BEEN HELD TO PROHIBIT THE VENDEE FROM DEDUCTING, AS "TAXES PAID,"
AMOUNTS PAID BY HIM TO DISCHARGE THIS LIABILITY.  LIFSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 98 F.2D 508; WALSH-MCGUIRE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 97 F.2D
983; MERCHANTS BANK BLDG. CO. V. HELVERING, 84 F.2D 478; HELVERING V.
MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO., 78 F.2D 778, 781.  A TAX LIEN IS AN
ENCUMBRANCE UPON THE LAND, AND PAYMENT, SUBSEQUENT TO PURCHASE, TO
DISCHARGE A PREEXISTING LIEN IS NO MORE THE PAYMENT OF A TAX IN ANY
PROPER SENSE OF THE WORD THAN IS A PAYMENT TO DISCHARGE ANY OTHER
ENCUMBRANCE, FOR INSTANCE A MORTGAGE.  IT IS TRUE THAT RESPONDENTS HERE
COULD NOT HAVE RETAINED THE PROPERTIES UNLESS THE TAXES WERE PAID, BUT
IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THEY COULD NOT RETAIN THEM WITHOUT PAYING THE
PURCHASE PRICE.  IT IS NO ANSWER THEREFORE TO SAY THAT THE PROPERTY WAS
BURDENED WITH THE TAXES AND THAT RESPONDENTS BECAME OBLIGATED TO PAY
THEM.  THERE WAS A BURDEN, BUT IT WAS CONTRACTUALLY ASSUMED.  IN
DISCHARGING THIS ASSUMED OBLIGATION RESPONDENTS WERE NOT PAYING TAXES
IMPOSED UPON THEM WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(C).  FOR "ONLY THE
PERSON OWNING THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME (I.E., WHEN THE TAX LIEN
ATTACHES) IS SUBJECTED TO THE BURDEN WHICH THE LAW IMPOSES; AND ONLY
THE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN THUS SUBJECTED TO THE BURDEN OF THE TAX IS
ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION FOR PAYING IT.  PAYMENT BY A SUBSEQUENT
PURCHASER IS NOT THE DISCHARGE OF A BURDEN WHICH THE LAW HAS PLACED
UPON HIM, BUT IS ACTUALLY AS WELL AS THEORETICALLY A PAYMENT OF
PURCHASE PRICE; FOR, AFTER THE LIEN ATTACHES AND THE TAXING AUTHORITY
BECOMES PRO TANTO AN OWNER OF AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, PAYMENT OF
THE TAX BY A PURCHASER IS NOTHING BUT A PART OF THE PAYMENT FOR
UNENCUMBERED TITLE."  JUDGE PARKER, DISSENTING IN COMMISSIONER V.
RUST'S ESTATE, 116 F.2D 636, 641. 

FURTHERMORE, RESPONDENTS PAID TAXES FOR WHICH THEIR VENDORS WERE
PERSONALLY LIABLE.  THIS WAS CLEARLY THE PAYMENT OF A TAX IMPOSED UPON
ANOTHER AND THEREFORE NOT DEDUCTIBLE BY RESPONDENTS.  CF. WALSH-MCGUIRE
CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 97 F.2D 983; GATENS INVESTMENT CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 309; KOHLSAAT V. COMMISSIONER, 40 B.T.A. 528. 
AND SEE COMMISSIONER V. COWARD, 110 F.2D 725, 727. 

THUS EITHER A PRE-EXISTING TAX LIEN OR PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR THE
TAXES ON THE PART OF A VENDOR IS SUFFICIENT TO FORECLOSE A SUBSEQUENT
PURCHASER, WHO PAYS THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO DISCHARGE THE TAX
LIABILITY, FROM DEDUCTING SUCH PAYMENT AS A "TAX PAID."  WHERE BOTH
LIEN AND PERSONAL LIABILITY COINCIDE, AS HERE, THERE CAN BE NO OTHER
CONCLUSION THAN THAT THE TAXES WERE IMPOSED ON THE VENDORS. 
RESPONDENTS SIMPLY PAID THEIR VENDORS' TAXES; THEY CANNOT DEDUCT THE
AMOUNTS, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, PAID TO DISCHARGE LIABILITIES SO
FIRMLY FIXED AGAINST THEIR PREDECESSORS IN TITLE BY THE LAWS OF
MARYLAND. 

THE VIEW OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE PARTIES' CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT
FOR APPORTIONMENT OF THE TAX BURDEN WAS CONTROLLING IS UNTENABLE.  FN11
PARTIES CANNOT CHANGE THE INCIDENCE OF LOCAL TAXES BY THEIR
AGREEMENT.  AND IT IS MISLEADING TO SPEAK OF REAL ESTATE TAXES AS
"APPLICABLE" TO THE FRACTIONAL PART OF A TAX PERIOD FOLLOWING
PURCHASE.  SUCH TAXES ARE SIMPLY ONE FORM OF RAISING REVENUE FOR THE
SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT.  THEY ARE NOT LIKE RENT, NOR ARE THEY PAID FOR
THE PRIVILEGE OF OCCUPYING PROPERTY FOR ANY GIVEN PERIOD OF TIME. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

(C)  TAXES GENERALLY.  - TAXES PAID OR ACCRUED WITHIN THE TAXABLE
YEAR,  ..." 

FN2  36 F.SUPP.  722. 

FN3  123 F.2D 399. 

FN4  ARTICLE 23(C)-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, PROMULGATED UNDER
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  THIS IS A REGULATION OF LONG STANDING.  SEE
TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934,
ARTICLE 23(C)-1; TREASURY REGULATIONS 77, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1932, ARTICLE 151; TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, PROMULGATED UNDER
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, ARTICLE 151; TREASURY REGULATIONS 69,
PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, ARTICLE 131; TREASURY
REGULATIONS 65, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924, ARTICLE
131. 

FN5  ANN. CODE OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1939), VOL. 2, ART. 81, SEC.
26(B), PROVIDES THAT STATE AND LOCAL TAXES SHALL HAVE THE SAME DATE OF
FINALITY AS IS PROVIDED BY LOCAL LAW, AND THE DATE OF FINALITY FOR
BALTIMORE WITH RESPECT TO ANY TAX YEAR IS OCTOBER 1 OF THE PRECEDING
YEAR.  SEE CODE, PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1930), ART. 4,
SEC. 40. 

FN6  TAXES ARE IMPOSED ANNUALLY ON A CALENDAR YEAR BASIS.  SEE ANN.
CODE OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1939), VOL. 2, ART. 81, SEC. 26(A) AND (B);
CODE, PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1930), ART. 4, SEC. 40. 

FN7  SEE ANN. CODE OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1939), VOL. 2, ART. 81, SEC.
46(B), WHICH PROVIDES THAT STATE TAXES ARE PAYABLE ON JANUARY 1.  SEC.
46(A) PROVIDES THAT LOCAL TAXES SHALL BE PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LOCAL LAW, AND UNDER LOCAL LAW BALTIMORE TAXES ARE DUE ON JANUARY 1. 
CODE, PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1930), ART. 4, SEC. 40. 

FN8  CODE, PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1930), NO. 4, SEC.
40; ANN. CODE OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1939), VOL. 2, ART. 81, SEC. 74. 

FN9  ANN. CODE OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1939), VOL. 2, ART. 81, SEC. 72. 

FN10  ANN. CODE OF MARYLAND (FLACK, 1939), VOL. 2, ART. 81, SEC.
154.  SEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. CLAGETT, 31 MD. 210; BASSETT V. OCEAN
CITY, 118 MD. 114, 119, 84 A. 262; FREE V. GREENE, 175 MD. 36, 41, 199
A. 857. 

FN11  THE OPINION BELOW WAS A PER CURIAM AFFIRMANCE ON THE AUTHORITY
OF COMMISSIONER V. RUST'S ESTATE, 116 F.2D 636.  THE COURT THERE RELIED
ON THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES HAD AGREED TO APPORTION THE TAX
OBLIGATION.  P. 640. 
..END :






U.S. V. UNIVIS LENS CO., 316 U.S. 241 


NO. 855.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 10, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 11, 1942.  - NO. 855,
REVERSED.  - NO. 856, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FACTS ESTABLISH VENUE FOR THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN
WHICH IT WAS BROUGHT.  P. 246. 

2.  SALE BY A PATENT-OWNER OF AN ARTICLE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF USE ONLY
IN PRACTICING THE PATENT IS A RELINQUISHMENT OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY
WITH RESPECT TO THAT ARTICLE.  P. 249. 

3.  A PATENT DOES NOT CONFER THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE RESALE PRICES
OF THE PATENTED ARTICLES AFTER THEIR SALE BY THE PATENTEE.  P. 250. 

4.  THE OWNER OF A PATENT COVERING LENS BLANKS (CAPABLE OF USE ONLY
IN MANUFACTURING EYE GLASS LENSES) AND ALSO (AS WAS ASSUMED IN THIS
CASE) COVERING THE PROCESS OF GRINDING AND POLISHING THEM, BY WHICH THE
BLANKS ARE CONVERTED INTO FINISHED LENSES FOR USE AS EYE GLASSES,
DEVISED A LICENSING AND PRICE-FIXING SYSTEM, PURSUANT TO WHICH, FOR A
STIPULATED ROYALTY, ONE LICENSEE WAS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE BLANKS AND
SELL THEM TO OTHER LICENSEES, WHO IN TURN WERE AUTHORIZED TO BUY THEM
FROM THE MAKER AT PRICES FIXED AND TO FINISH THEM AS LENSES ACCORDING
TO THE PATENT AND TO SELL THE LENSES TO OTHER LICENSEES, WHO WERE
AUTHORIZED TO SELL THEM TO THE PUBLIC - THE PRICES IN ALL CASES BEING
THOSE FIXED BY THE PATENT OWNER.  THE REWARDS OF THE PATENT OWNER AND
THE MANUFACTURER OF THE BLANKS FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF THE PATENT AND
THE PATENTED LENSES WERE DERIVED WHOLLY FROM THE PROCEEDS OF SALES OF
THE BLANKS BY THE MANUFACTURER, FROM WHICH PROCEEDS THE ROYALTY WAS
PAID.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT, WITH THE SALE OF THE LENS BLANKS FOR USE IN MANUFACTURING
LENSES, THE PATENT-OWNER CONFERRED ON THE BUYER THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE
THE PATENT WITH RESPECT TO THE BLANKS AND PARTED WITH THE RIGHT TO
ASSERT ITS PATENT MONOPOLY WITH RESPECT TO THEM, AND COULD NO LONGER
CONTROL THE PRICE AT WHICH THEY MIGHT BE SOLD IN THEIR UNFINISHED, OR
THEIR FINISHED, FORMS.  P. 250. 

(2)  THE STIPULATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE OF PRICES DERIVED NO SUPPORT
FROM THE PATENT AND MUST STAND ON THE SAME FOOTING UNDER THE SHERMAN
ACT AS LIKE STIPULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO UNPATENTED COMMODITIES.  P.
251. 

5.  AGREEMENTS FOR MAINTAINING PRICES OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, INCLUDING RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SELLER UPON RESALE
PRICES, HELD UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  P. 252. 

6.  THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT CAN NOT BE SO APPLIED TO PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURED IN SUCCESSIVE STAGES BY DIFFERENT PROCESSORS THAT THE
FIRST PROCESSOR MAY CONTROL THE PRICES OF HIS SUCCESSORS.  P. 253. 

7.  FEATURES OF A LICENSING SYSTEM, WHICH, BY THEMSELVES, MIGHT BE
LAWFUL, BUT WHICH ARE CLOSELY IDENTIFIED AND INTERWOVEN WITH A SCHEME
OF PRICE RESTRICTIONS VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN ACT, WILL BE SUPPRESSED
WITH THE SCHEME AS A WHOLE.  P. 254. 

UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., INC. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 856, UNIVIS LENS CO., INC. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH
GRANTED IN PART, AND IN PART REFUSED, RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT
IN A SUIT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES COME HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL AND CROSS APPEAL FROM A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE
GOVERNMENT'S PRAYER FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1
AND 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 3, WHICH MAKE UNLAWFUL ANY
CONTRACT, COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE
AMONG THE STATES.  THE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE: 

FIRST:  WHETHER THE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED BY THE UNIVIS
CORPORATION, APPELLEE AND CROSS APPELLANT, FOR LICENSING THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PATENTED MULTIFOCAL EYEGLASS LENSES IS EXCLUDED
BY THE PATENT MONOPOLY FROM THE OPERATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

SECOND:  WHETHER IF NOT SO EXCLUDED THE RESALE PRICE PROVISIONS OF
THE LICENSING SYSTEM ARE WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND
NOT EXEMPTED FROM IT BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT
AMENDMENT OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, 50 STAT. 693. 

APPELLEE, UNIVIS LENS COMPANY, WAS THE OWNER OF A NUMBER OF PATENTS
AND TWO TRADEMARKS RELATING TO MULTIFOCAL LENSES.  IN 1931 IT ORGANIZED
APPELLEE, UNIVIS CORPORATION.  THE LENS COMPANY THEN ACQUIRED AND NOW
HOLDS A MAJORITY OF THE STOCK OF THE CORPORATION.  THE INDIVIDUAL
APPELLEES ARE THE PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS OF THE LENS COMPANY.  THEY ARE
STOCKHOLDERS IN THE CORPORATION AND ARE THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS OF BOTH
CORPORATIONS, WHICH MAY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUIT BE TREATED AS
THOUGH THEY WERE A SINGLE CORPORATION.  UPON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE
CORPORATION, THE LENS COMPANY TRANSFERRED TO IT ALL ITS INTEREST IN THE
PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS PRESENTLY INVOLVED, AND THE CORPORATION THEN
PROCEEDED TO SET UP AND HAS SINCE MAINTAINED THE LICENSING SYSTEM WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT NOW ASSAILS. 

THE RELEVANT FEATURES OF THE SYSTEM ARE AS FOLLOWS:  THE CORPORATION
LICENSES THE LENS COMPANY TO MANUFACTURE LENS BLANKS AND TO SELL THEM
TO DESIGNATED LICENSEES OF THE CORPORATION, UPON THE LENS COMPANY'S
PAYMENT TO THE CORPORATION OF AN AGREED ROYALTY OF 50 CENTS A PAIR. 
THE LENS BLANKS ARE ROUGH OPAQUE PIECES OF GLASS OF SUITABLE SIZE,
DESIGN AND COMPOSITION FOR USE, WHEN GROUND AND POLISHED, AS MULTIFOCAL
LENSES IN EYEGLASSES.  EACH BLANK IS COMPOSED OF TWO OR MORE PIECES OF
GLASS OF DIFFERENT REFRACTIVE POWER, OF SUCH SIZE, SHAPE, AND
COMPOSITION AND SO DISPOSED THAT WHEN FUSED TOGETHER IN THE BLANK IT IS
SAID TO CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS OF SOME ONE OF THE
CORPORATION'S PATENTS. 

THE CORPORATION ALSO ISSUES THREE CLASSES OF LICENSES - LICENSES TO
WHOLESALERS, TO FINISHING RETAILERS AND TO PRESCRIPTION RETAILERS.  THE
LICENSES TO WHOLESALERS AUTHORIZE THE LICENSEES TO PURCHASE THE BLANKS
FROM THE LENS COMPANY, TO FINISH THEM BY GRINDING AND POLISHING, AND TO
SELL THEM TO PRESCRIPTION LICENSEES ONLY AT PRICES FIXED BY THE
CORPORATION LICENSOR.  IN FINISHING THE LENSES SO AS TO MAKE THEM AN
EFFECTIVE AID TO VISION OF THE PROSPECTIVE WEARER, TO WHOM THE
PRESCRIPTION RETAILER SELLS, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE WHOLESALER, BY
GRINDING THE BLANKS, TO CONFORM THEIR CURVATURES TO THE PRESCRIPTION
SUPPLIED BY THE RETAILER WITH HIS ORDER.  BY THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE
THE WHOLESALERS ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP FULL ACCOUNTS OF ALL SALES,
SHOWING THE SALES PRICES OF LENSES AND THE NAMES OF THE PURCHASERS, AND
TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CORPORATION. 

THE LICENSES TO FINISHING RETAILERS - WHO PURCHASE THE BLANKS FROM
THE LENS COMPANY, GRIND AND POLISH THEM AND ADJUST THE LENSES, IN
FRAMES OR SUPPORTS, TO THE EYES OF THE CONSUMERS - CONTAIN SIMILAR
PROVISIONS.  THE RETAILERS ARE LICENSED TO PURCHASE THE BLANKS OF THE
LENS COMPANY AND TO SELL THEM TO THEIR CUSTOMERS AT PRICES PRESCRIBED
BY THE CORPORATION LICENSOR. 

BOTH THE LICENSES TO WHOLESALERS AND TO FINISHING RETAILERS REQUIRE
THE LICENSEE TO NOTIFY THE CORPORATION "OF ANY VIOLATION ON THE PART OF
ANY JOBBERS OR OTHER LICENSEES OF THE AGREEMENTS RESPECTIVELY MADE BY
THEM WITH THE CORPORATION, AND TO ASSIST THE CORPORATION IN ALL
POSSIBLE WAYS IN SECURING EVIDENCE AGAINST, AND ENFORCING ITS
AGREEMENTS WITH SUCH JOBBERS AND LICENSEES." 

THE LICENSES TO PRESCRIPTION RETAILERS, WHO ARE WITHOUT FACILITIES
FOR GRINDING AND FINISHING THE LENSES, BUT WHO PRESCRIBE AND ADJUST
GLASSES FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS, ARE SIGNED BOTH BY THE CORPORATION AND A
LICENSOR WHOLESALER, AND GRANT TO THE RETAILER A "FRANCHISE TO
PRESCRIBE AND FIT UNIVIS LENSES," IN RETURN FOR WHICH THE PRESCRIPTION
RETAILER AGREES TO SELL FINISHED LENSES ONLY TO CONSUMERS AND ONLY AT
PRICES PRESCRIBED BY THE CORPORATION. 

ALL THE LICENSES TO WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS RECITE THE
CORPORATION'S OWNERSHIP OF THE LENS PATENTS AND PURPORT TO CONFER ON
THE LICENSEE THE PRIVILEGE OF SELLING THE PATENTED INVENTION IN THE
MANNER AND TO THE EXTENT STATED.  NO ROYALTIES ARE EXACTED OF ANY OF
THE LICENSEES OTHER THAN THE 50 CENTS COLLECTED BY THE CORPORATION FOR
EACH PAIR OF BLANKS SOLD BY THE LENS COMPANY.  THE REWARDS OF THE
CORPORATE APPELLEES FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF THE PATENTS AND THE
PATENTED LENSES ARE DERIVED WHOLLY FROM THE SALES BY THE LENS COMPANY
OF THE BLANKS, FROM THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH THE 50 CENT ROYALTY IS PAID. 

THE PRICES PRESCRIBED AND MAINTAINED UNDER THE LICENSING SYSTEM ARE:
$3.25 A PAIR FOR THE BLANKS SOLD BY THE LENS COMPANY TO WHOLESALERS,
AND $4 A PAIR FOR THOSE SOLD TO FINISHING RETAILERS; $7 A PAIR FOR
FINISHED LENSES SOLD BY WHOLESALERS; $16 A PAIR FOR WHITE, AND $20 FOR
TINTED, LENSES SOLD TO CONSUMERS BY PRESCRIPTION AND FINISHING
RETAILERS. 

THE CORPORATION PURSUES THE POLICY OF ISSUING LICENSES TO "QUALIFIED
LICENSEES" WHO, IT IS SAID, ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN "HIGH STANDARDS OF
PRACTICE" AND TO BE SKILLED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES WHICH
THEY UNDERTAKE TO RENDER.  ACCORDING TO THE CORPORATION'S INSTRUCTIONS
TO ITS FIELD REPRESENTATIVES, "PRICE CUTTERS" ARE NOT ELIGIBLE AS
PRESCRIPTION RETAILER LICENSEES.  INQUIRY IS MADE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
PROSPECTIVE LICENSEES ADVERTISE PRICES, AND WHETHER THEY ARE CONSIDERED
IN THEIR COMMUNITIES TO BE PRICE CUTTERS.  THE CORPORATION CANCELS
LICENSES PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF LICENSEES TO ADHERE TO
THE PRICE FIXING PROVISIONS BUT ALSO BECAUSE THEY ADVERTISE PRICES OR
THE ACCEPTANCE OF INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS, OR FOR OTHER FORMS OF
ADVERTISING OBJECTIONABLE TO IT; FOR SELLING UNIVIS LENSES TO CUSTOMERS
OTHER THAN THOSE DESIGNATED BY THE CORPORATION; FOR NOT GIVING A
CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE LICENSEES' MULTIFOCAL LENS BUSINESS TO
UNIVIS; BECAUSE THE LICENSEE IS LOCATED IN A DRUG, DEPARTMENT OR
JEWELRY STORE, OR BECAUSE THE LICENSEE ENGAGED IN PRICE CUTTING IN THE
SALE OF THE PRODUCTS OF OTHER MANUFACTURERS. 

FOR A TIME THE CORPORATION LICENSED APPROXIMATELY 20 PER CENT OF THE
RETAILERS IN A LOCALITY.  IT NOW LICENSES A LARGER PERCENTAGE BUT NOT
MORE THAN 50 PER CENT.  THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 330 WHOLESALER
LICENSEES, 325 FINISHING RETAILER LICENSEES AND 6,500 PRESCRIPTION
RETAILER LICENSEES LOCATED IN VARIOUS STATES OF THE UNION, INCLUDING
NEW YORK AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE CORPORATION, BY ITS
REPRESENTATIVES, SOLICITS LICENSES AND NEGOTIATES WITH LICENSEES IN THE
TOWNS AND CITIES WHERE THEY CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS, INCLUDING THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  THE LENS COMPANY, WHOSE ANNUAL SALES
VOLUME IS APPROXIMATELY $1,000,000, SHIPS BLANKS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
FROM ITS FACTORY IN OHIO TO WHOLESALERS AND FINISHING LICENSEES IN THE
VARIOUS PLACES WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED, INCLUDING THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT,
WHERE ITS REPRESENTATIVES VISIT LICENSEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INSTRUCTING THEM IN FINISHING LENS BLANKS AND FOR PROMOTING SALES OF
UNIVIS LENSES.  THE FACTS AMPLY ESTABLISHED THE VENUE OF THE COURT
BELOW.  EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359, 373. 

OF THE SIXTEEN PATENTS OWNED BY THE CORPORATION, THREE ARE UNRELATED
TO THE ISSUES OF THE PRESENT CASE; FIVE ARE FOR METHODS OF PRODUCING
LENSES UTILIZED BY THE LENS COMPANY IN MANUFACTURING BLANKS AND DO NOT
CONCERN ANY METHOD OR PROCESS EMPLOYED BY THE LICENSEES WHO FINISH THE
LENS BLANKS.  EACH OF THE REMAINING EIGHT PATENTS RELATES TO THE SHAPE,
SIZE, COMPOSITION AND DISPOSITION OF THE PIECES OF GLASS OF DIFFERENT
REFRACTIVE POWER IN THE BLANKS INTO WHICH THEY ARE FUSED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, 41 F.SUPP.  258, THAT THE CLAIMS OF EACH OF
THESE EIGHT PATENTS ARE FOR A FINISHED LENS AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE
WHOLESALERS AND FINISHING RETAILERS, IN GRINDING AND POLISHING EACH
LENS, PRACTICE IN PART THE PATENT, IN CONFORMITY TO WHICH THE LENS
COMPANY HAS MANUFACTURED THE BLANKS WHICH IT SUPPLIES.  THE COURT
THOUGHT THAT WITHOUT THE GRANTED LICENSE THE FINAL STEP IN FINISHING
THE LENS WOULD INFRINGE THE PATENT AND CONCLUDED THAT FOR THIS REASON
THE CORPORATION COULD CONDITION ITS LICENSES UPON THE MAINTENANCE BY
THE LICENSEE OF THE PRESCRIBED RETAIL PRICE.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476.  BUT IT HELD THAT THE PRESCRIPTION
RETAILER LICENSES ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEIR RESTRICTIONS UPON THE
RESALE OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT ARE NOT WITHIN THE PATENT MONOPOLY AND
ARE PROSCRIBED BY THE SHERMAN ACT. 

IT ALSO HELD THAT CERTAIN "FAIR TRADE AGREEMENTS" ENTERED INTO BY THE
LENS COMPANY WITH THE LICENSEES FOR THE CONTROL OF RESALE PRICES OF THE
FINISHED LENSES, WERE NOT WITHIN THE EXCEPTION TO THE SHERMAN ACT
CREATED BY THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT.  THIS WAS BECAUSE THE LENS COMPANY
HAD UNDERTAKEN TO FIX THE RESALE PRICE OF THE FINISHED LENSES, WHICH
ARE A DIFFERENT PRODUCT FROM THE LENS BLANKS WHICH IT MANUFACTURES AND
SELLS.  THE COURT ACCORDINGLY LIMITED THE RELIEF WHICH IT GRANTED TO AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING RESPONDENTS FROM CARRYING OUT OR ENFORCING THE
RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE PRESCRIPTION RETAILER LICENSES AND THE
FAIR TRADE AGREEMENTS, AND FROM USING ITS LICENSING SYSTEM - AS HAS
BEEN DONE IN ONE INSTANCE - AS THE MEANS OF PREVENTING A PARTICULAR
COMPETITIOR FROM MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTING MULTIFOCAL LENS BLANKS
SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE TO THOSE PRODUCED BY THE LENS COMPANY. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PUT IN ISSUE THE VALIDITY OF THE LENS PATENTS,
BUT ARGUES THAT THEIR SCOPE DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE STRUCTURE OF THE
LENS BLANKS AND CONSEQUENTLY AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR THE CORPORATION'S
RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF THE FINISHED LENSES WHICH THE WHOLESALERS
AND FINISHING RETAILERS FASHION FROM BLANKS PURCHASED FROM THE LENS
COMPANY.  IT INSISTS THAT THE NOVEL FEATURES OF THE INVENTION DO NOT
INCLUDE MORE THAN THE COMBINATION OF SHAPE, SIZE AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE
DESCRIBED PIECES OF GLASS WHEN THEY ARE FUSED INTO THE BLANK; THAT THE
GRINDING AND POLISHING OF THE BLANK INVOLVE NO PRACTICE AND ADD NO
FEATURE NOT COMMON TO THE FINISHING AND "FITTING" OF OTHER TYPES OF
MULTIFOCAL LENSES WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY THE PATENTS; AND THAT THEIR
SCOPE CANNOT BE LAWFULLY EXTENDED TO A PROCEDURE NOT IN ITSELF NOVEL
MERELY BECAUSE IT IS APPLIED TO AN ARTICLE WHICH EMBODIES THE ONLY
NOVEL FEATURES OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION, AND HAS BY THE SALE BECOME A
LAWFUL SUBJECT OF COMMERCE. 

THE RECORD GIVES NO ACCOUNT OF THE PRIOR ART AND DOES NOT PROVIDE US
WITH OTHER MATERIAL TO WHICH, IF AVAILABLE, RESORT MIGHT APPROPRIATELY
BE HAD IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF AN ALLEGED INVENTION AND THE
VALIDITY AND SCOPE OF THE PATENT CLAIMS FOUNDED UPON IT.  IN ANY EVENT,
WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, TO DECIDE
WHETHER, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, THE PATENT CLAIMS CAN RIGHTLY BE SAID
TO INCLUDE THE FINISHING OF THE BLANKS. 

AS APPELLEES CONCEDE, THE INVENTION OF ONLY A SINGLE LENS PATENT IS
UTILIZED IN MAKING EACH BLANK AND FINISHING IT AS A LENS.  WE THEREFORE
PUT TO ONE SIDE QUESTIONS WHICH MIGHT ARISE IF THE FINISHER OF A
PARTICULAR LENS BLANK UTILIZED THE INVENTION OF SOME PATENT OTHER THAN
THE PATENT WHICH WAS PRACTICED IN PART BY THE MANUFACTURE OF THE
BLANK.  AND WE ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE
PATENT IS NOT FULLY PRACTICED UNTIL THE FINISHING LICENSEE HAS GROUND
AND POLISHED THE BLANK SO THAT IT WILL SERVE ITS PURPOSE AS A LENS. 
BUT MERELY BECAUSE THE LICENSEE TAKES THE FINAL STEP IN THE MANUFACTURE
OF THE PATENTED PRODUCT, BY DOING WORK ON THE BLANK WHICH HE HAS
PURCHASED FROM THE PATENTEE'S LICENSEE, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE
PATENTEE CAN CONTROL THE PRICE AT WHICH THE FINISHED LENS IS SOLD. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE ASSUMPTION WHICH WE HAVE MADE AS TO THE SCOPE OF
THE PATENT, EACH BLANK, AS APPELLEES INSIST, EMBODIES ESSENTIAL
FEATURES OF THE PATENTED DEVICE AND IS WITHOUT UTILITY UNTIL IT IS
GROUND AND POLISHED AS THE FINISHED LENS OF THE PATENT.  WE MAY ASSUME
ALSO, AS APPELLEES CONTEND, THAT SALE OF THE BLANKS BY AN UNLICENSED
MANUFACTURER TO AN UNLICENSED FINISHER FOR THEIR COMPLETION WOULD
CONSTITUTE CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT BY THE SELLER.  LEEDS & CATLIN CO.
V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO., 213 U.S. 325, 332-33; CF. CARBICE CORP.
V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27, 34.    BUT IN ANY CASE IT IS
PLAIN THAT WHERE THE SALE OF THE BLANK IS BY THE PATENTEE OR HIS
LICENSEE - HERE THE LENS COMPANY - TO A FINISHER, THE ONLY USE TO WHICH
IT COULD BE PUT AND THE ONLY OBJECT OF THE SALE IS TO ENABLE THE LATTER
TO GRIND AND POLISH IT FOR USE AS A LENS BY THE PROSPECTIVE WEARER.  AN
INCIDENT TO THE PURCHASE OF ANY ARTICLE, WHETHER PATENTED OR
UNPATENTED, IS THE RIGHT TO USE AND SELL IT, AND UPON FAMILIAR
PRINCIPLES THE AUTHORIZED SALE OF AN ARTICLE WHICH IS CAPABLE OF USE
ONLY IN PRACTICING THE PATENT IS A RELINQUISHMENT OF THE PATENT
MONOPOLY WITH RESPECT TO THE ARTICLE SOLD.  LEITCH MFG. CO. V. BARBER
CO., 302 U.S. 458, 460-61; B.B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS, 314 U.S. 495. 
SALE OF A LENS BLANK BY THE PATENTEE OR BY HIS LICENSEE IS THUS IN
ITSELF BOTH A COMPLETE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE BLANK, WHICH IS
WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENT LAW, AND A LICENSE TO PRACTICE THE
FINAL STAGE OF THE PATENT PROCEDURE.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ENTIRE
CONSIDERATION AND COMPENSATION FOR BOTH IS THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY
THE FINISHING LICENSEE TO THE LENS COMPANY.  WE HAVE NO QUESTION HERE
OF WHAT OTHER STIPULATIONS, FOR ROYALTIES OR OTHERWISE, MIGHT HAVE BEEN
EXACTED AS A PART OF THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION, WHICH DO NOT SEEK TO
CONTROL THE DISPOSITION OF THE PATENTED ARTICLE AFTER THE SALE.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PATENTEE OR HIS LICENSEE, NO LONGER AIDED BY
THE PATENT, MAY LAWFULLY EXERCISE SUCH CONTROL. 

THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE PATENT LAW IS TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF
SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS BY GRANTING TO THE INVENTOR A LIMITED
MONOPOLY, THE EXERCISE OF WHICH WILL ENABLE HIM TO SECURE THE FINANCIAL
REWARDS FOR HIS INVENTION.  CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ART. I,
SEC. 8, CL. 8; 35 U.S.C. SECS. 31, 40.  THE FULL EXTENT OF THE MONOPOLY
IS THE PATENTEE'S "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE, AND VEND THE INVENTION
OR DISCOVERY."  THE PATENTEE MAY SURRENDER HIS MONOPOLY IN WHOLE BY THE
SALE OF HIS PATENT OR IN PART BY THE SALE OF AN ARTICLE EMBODYING THE
INVENTION.  HIS MONOPOLY REMAINS SO LONG AS HE RETAINS THE OWNERSHIP OF
THE PATENTED ARTICLE.  BUT SALE OF IT EXHAUSTS THE MONOPOLY IN THAT
ARTICLE AND THE PATENTEE MAY NOT THEREAFTER, BY VIRTUE OF HIS PATENT,
CONTROL THE USE OR DISPOSITION OF THE ARTICLE.  BLOOMER V. MCQUEWAN, 14
HOW.  539, 549-50; ADAMS V. BURKE, 17 WALL.  453; HOBBIE V. JENNISON,
149 U.S. 355.  HENCE THE PATENTEE CANNOT CONTROL THE RESALE PRICE OF
PATENTED ARTICLES WHICH HE HAS SOLD, EITHER BY RESORT TO AN
INFRINGEMENT SUIT, OR, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE SHERMAN ACT (UNLESS THE
MILLER-TYDINGS ACT APPLIES), BY STIPULATING FOR PRICE MAINTENANCE BY
HIS VENDEES.  BAUER & CIE V. O'DONNELL, 229 U.S. 1; BOSTON STORE V.
AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO., 246 U.S. 8; STRAUS V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE
CO., 243 U.S. 490; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436,
456-57, AND CASES CITED. 

WE THINK THAT ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH SUPPORT THESE RESULTS LEAD
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHERE ONE HAS SOLD AN UNCOMPLETED ARTICLE WHICH,
BECAUSE IT EMBODIES ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF HIS PATENTED INVENTION, IS
WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF HIS PATENT, AND HAS DESTINED THE ARTICLE TO BE
FINISHED BY THE PURCHASER IN CONFORMITY TO THE PATENT, HE HAS SOLD HIS
INVENTION SO FAR AS IT IS OR MAY BE EMBODIED IN THAT PARTICULAR
ARTICLE.  THE REWARD HE HAS DEMANDED AND RECEIVED IS FOR THE ARTICLE
AND THE INVENTION WHICH IT EMBODIES AND WHICH HIS VENDEE IS TO PRACTICE
UPON IT.  HE HAS THUS PARTED WITH HIS RIGHT TO ASSERT THE PATENT
MONOPOLY WITH RESPECT TO IT AND IS NO LONGER FREE TO CONTROL THE PRICE
AT WHICH IT MAY BE SOLD EITHER IN ITS UNFINISHED OR FINISHED FORM.  NO
ONE WOULD DOUBT THAT IF THE PATENTEE'S LICENSEE HAD SOLD THE BLANKS TO
A WHOLESALER OR FINISHING RETAILER, WITHOUT MORE, THE PURCHASER WOULD
NOT INFRINGE BY GRINDING AND SELLING THEM.  THE ADDED STIPULATION BY
THE PATENTEE FIXING RESALE PRICES DERIVES NO SUPPORT FROM THE PATENT
AND MUST STAND ON THE SAME FOOTING UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AS LIKE
STIPULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO UNPATENTED COMMODITIES.  ETHYL GASOLINE
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

OUR DECISIONS HAVE UNIFORMLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
PATENT LAW IS FULFILLED WITH RESPECT TO ANY PARTICULAR ARTICLE WHEN THE
PATENTEE HAS RECEIVED HIS REWARD FOR THE USE OF HIS INVENTION BY THE
SALE OF THE ARTICLE, AND THAT ONCE THAT PURPOSE IS REALIZED THE PATENT
LAW AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR RESTRAINING THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE THING
SOLD.  ADAMS V. BURKE, SUPRA, 456; KEELER V. STANDARD FOLDING BED CO.,
157 U.S. 659; MOTION PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 243 U.S. 502;
AND SEE CASES COLLECTED IN GENERAL PICTURES CO. V. ELECTRIC CO., 305
U.S. 124, 128, N. 1.  IN CONSTRUING AND APPLYING THE PATENT LAW SO AS
TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PUBLIC POLICY WHICH LIMITS THE GRANTED MONOPOLY
STRICTLY TO THE TERMS OF THE STATUTORY GRANT, MORTON SALT CO. V.
SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488, THE PARTICULAR FORM OR METHOD BY WHICH THE
MONOPOLY IS SOUGHT TO BE EXTENDED IS IMMATERIAL.  THE FIRST VENDING OF
ANY ARTICLE MANUFACTURED UNDER A PATENT PUTS THE ARTICLE BEYOND THE
REACH OF THE MONOPOLY WHICH THAT PATENT CONFERS.  WHETHER THE LICENSEE
SELLS THE PATENTED ARTICLE IN ITS COMPLETED FORM OR SELLS IT BEFORE
COMPLETION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING THE BUYER TO FINISH AND SELL IT,
HE HAS EQUALLY PARTED WITH THE ARTICLE, AND MADE IT THE VEHICLE FOR
TRANSFERRING TO THE BUYER OWNERSHIP OF THE INVENTION WITH RESPECT TO
THAT ARTICLE.  TO THAT EXTENT HE HAS PARTED WITH HIS PATENT MONOPOLY IN
EITHER CASE, AND HAS RECEIVED IN THE PURCHASE PRICE EVERY BENEFIT OF
THAT MONOPOLY WHICH THE PATENT LAW SECURES TO HIM.  IF HE WERE
PERMITTED TO CONTROL THE PRICE AT WHICH IT COULD BE SOLD BY OTHERS HE
WOULD EXTEND HIS MONOPOLY QUITE AS MUCH IN THE ONE CASE AS IN THE
OTHER, AND HE WOULD EXTEND IT BEYOND THE FAIR MEANING OF THE PATENT
STATUTES AND THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS HITHERTO BEEN GIVEN TO THEM. 

THERE IS THUS NO OCCASION FOR OUR RECONSIDERATION, AS THE GOVERNMENT
ASKS, OF UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA, ON WHICH
APPELLEES RELY.  THE COURT IN THAT CASE WAS AT PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT
A PATENTEE WHO MANUFACTURES THE PRODUCT PROTECTED BY THE PATENT AND
FAILS TO RETAIN HIS OWNERSHIP IN IT CAN NOT CONTROL THE PRICE AT WHICH
IT IS SOLD BY HIS DISTRIBUTORS (272 U.S. AT 489).  ACCORDINGLY, NEITHER
THE LENS COMPANY NOR THE CORPORATION, BY VIRTUE OF THE PATENTS, COULD
AFTER THE SALE OF THE LENS BLANK EXERCISE ANY FURTHER CONTROL OVER THE
ARTICLE SOLD. 

THE PRICE FIXING FEATURES OF APPELLEES' LICENSING SYSTEM, WHICH ARE
NOT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENT LAW, VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT
SAVE ONLY AS THE FAIR TRADE AGREEMENTS MAY BRING THEM WITHIN THE MILLER
TYDINGS ACT.  AGREEMENTS FOR PRICE MAINTENANCE OF ARTICLES MOVING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE, WITHOUT MORE, UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE THEY ELIMINATE COMPETITION,
UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392; UNITED STATES V.
SOCONY-VACUUM CO., 310 U.S. 150, AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SELLER
UPON RESALE PRICES OF ARTICLES MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE,
UNTIL THE ENACTMENT OF THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT, 50 STAT. 693,
CONSISTENTLY HELD TO BE VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  ETHYL GASOLINE
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 457, AND CASES CITED. 

THE MILLER-TYDINGS ACT PROVIDES THAT NOTHING IN THE SHERMAN ACT
"SHALL RENDER ILLEGAL, CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBING MINIMUM
PRICES FOR THE RESALE OF A COMMODITY WHICH BEARS, OR THE LABEL OR
CONTAINER OF WHICH BEARS, THE TRADE MARK, BRAND, OR NAME OF THE
PRODUCER OR DISTRIBUTOR OF SUCH COMMODITY AND WHICH IS IN FREE AND OPEN
COMPETITION WITH COMMODITIES OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS PRODUCED OR
DISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS  ...  " WHENEVER SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE LAWFUL WHERE
THE RESALE IS MADE. 

THE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE LENS COMPANY WITH THE LICENSEES OF
THE CORPORATION STIPULATE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRICES WHICH ARE
PRESCRIBED BY THE LICENSING SYSTEM.  APPELLEES ASSERT, AND WE ASSUME
FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THAT THE BLANKS WHICH THE LENS COMPANY SELLS AND
THE FINISHED LENSES ARE MARKED BY APPELLEES' TRADEMARK AS REQUIRED BY
THE STATUTE.  IN THE CONTRACTS THE LENS COMPANY IS DESIGNATED AS THE
MANUFACTURER OF "EYE GLASS LENSES" WHICH ARE DISTRIBUTED AND SOLD UNDER
THE TRADEMARK OF THE MANUFACTURER.  BUT THE LENS COMPANY MANUFACTURES
THE BLANKS AND NOT THE FINISHED LENSES TO WHICH THE RESALE PRICES
APPLY.  IT IS THEREFORE NOT THE MANUFACTURER OF THE "COMMODITY" WHICH
THE LICENSEES SELL, AND THE LICENSEES ARE NOT ENGAGED IN THE "RESALE"
OF THE SAME COMMODITY THEY BUY.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
MILLER-TYDINGS ACT, OR IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, TO INDICATE THAT ITS
PROVISIONS WERE TO BE SO APPLIED TO PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED IN SUCCESSIVE
STAGES BY DIFFERENT PROCESSORS THAT THE FIRST WOULD BE FREE TO CONTROL
THE PRICE OF HIS SUCCESSORS.  THE PRESCRIBED PRICES ARE THUS NOT WITHIN
THE MILLER-TYDINGS EXCEPTION TO THE SHERMAN ACT. 

APPELLEES STRESS THE FEATURES OF THEIR LICENSING SYSTEM BY WHICH IT
IS SAID THEY PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THEIR OWN GOOD WILL BY THE
SELECTION AS LICENSEES OF THOSE WHO ARE SPECIALLY SKILLED AND COMPETENT
TO RENDER THE SERVICE WHICH THEY UNDERTAKE.  BUT IF WE ASSUME THAT SUCH
RESTRICTIONS MIGHT OTHERWISE BE VALID, CF. FASHION GUILD V. TRADE
COMMISSION, 312 U.S. 457, 467, THESE FEATURES ARE SO INTERWOVEN WITH
AND IDENTIFIED WITH THE PRICE RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE THE CORE OF THE
LICENSING SYSTEM THAT THE CASE IS AN APPROPRIATE ONE FOR THE
SUPPRESSION OF THE ENTIRE LICENSING SCHEME EVEN THOUGH SOME OF ITS
FEATURES, INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED, MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED FOR LAWFUL
PURPOSES.  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 461.  THE
INJUNCTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WILL THEREFORE BE CONTINUED, AND
EXTENDED SO AS TO SUPPRESS ALL THE LICENSE CONTRACTS AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE LICENSING SYSTEM WHICH APPELLEES HAVE ESTABLISHED,
OTHER THAN THE CORPORATION'S LICENSE TO THE LENS COMPANY.  THE JUDGMENT
IN NO. 856 IS AFFIRMED.  THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 855 IS REVERSED, AND BOTH
CASES ARE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF AN
APPROPRIATE DECREE IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  NO. 855 REVERSED. 
NO. 856 AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :























COCHRAN V. KANSAS, 316 U.S. 255 


NO. 510.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 8, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 11, 1942.  - 153 KAN.
777, 113 P.2D 1048, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS - THAT THE RECORD OF
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS
REPRESENTED THROUGHOUT BY COUNSEL AND REVEALING ON ITS FACE NO
IRREGULARITY IN THE TRIAL IS SUFFICIENT REFUTATION OF HIS UNSUPPORTED
CHARGE IN A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS THAT HE WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO
SUMMON WITNESSES AND TO TESTIFY FOR HIMSELF - IS ACCEPTED IN THIS
CASE.  P. 256. 

2.  UPON REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF A STATE SUPREME COURT DENYING A
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WHICH ALLEGED THAT THE PETITIONER,
HAVING BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIME AND INCARCERATED IN A PENITENTIARY, HAD
ENDEAVORED TO APPEAL FROM HIS CONVICTION WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED BY
STATE LAW, BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS BECAUSE THE PRISON OFFICIALS, FOLLOWING
PRISON RULES, HAD SUPPRESSED HIS APPEAL DOCUMENTS; BUT WHERE IT DID NOT
APPEAR THAT THE TRUTH OF THESE ALLEGATIONS HAD BEEN INQUIRED INTO
BEFORE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION - HELD THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE SENT
BACK TO THE STATE COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  P. 256. 

COCHRAN V. KANSAS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 588, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF KANSAS DISMISSING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1933, THE PETITIONER COCHRAN WAS CONVICTED BY A JURY IN A KANSAS
STATE COURT UPON A CHARGE OF PASSING A $12.60 CHECK WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT
IT WAS FORGED.  HIS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WAS OVERRULED.  UPON A
FINDING THAT COCHRAN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF TWO OTHER
FELONIES, THE COURT SENTENCED HIM TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT AS AN HABITUAL
CRIMINAL PURSUANT TO A KANSAS STATUTE.  KAN. GEN. STAT. (CORRICK, 1935)
SEC. 21-107A.  TWO DAYS LATER, HE WAS SENT TO THE STATE PENITENTIARY,
WHERE HE HAS SINCE BEEN CONFINED. 

IN JANUARY, 1941, COCHRAN, ACTING IN HIS OWN BEHALF, FILED AN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS. 
HIS APPLICATION SETS OUT THE ALLEGATIONS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE TRIAL
JUDGE HAD DENIED HIM THE RIGHT TO SUMMON WITNESSES AND TO TESTIFY ON
HIS OWN BEHALF; AND THAT OFFICIALS OF THE STATE PENITENTIARY ENFORCING
PRISON RULES THERE IN EFFECT HAD SUPPRESSED APPEAL DOCUMENTS HE HAD
PREPARED, THEREBY MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO PERFECT AN APPEAL
DURING THE TWO YEAR PERIOD ALLOWED BY KANSAS STATUTE.  THE STATE FILED
A RETURN CONTAINING A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INFORMATION ON WHICH
COCHRAN WAS TRIED, JOURNAL ENTRIES OF THE TRIAL, AN ORDER OVERRULING
COCHRAN'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE. 

THE KANSAS SUPREME COURT DENIED THE WRIT, STATING THAT "THE RECORDS
OF COURTS ARE NOT SET ASIDE UPON THE UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS OF A
DEFEATED LITIGANT."  153 KAN. 777, 113 P.2D 1048, 1049.  WE ACCEPT THE
COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE RECORD, SHOWING THAT COCHRAN WAS
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL THROUGHOUT, AND REVEALING ON ITS FACE NO
IRREGULARITIES IN THE TRIAL, IS SUFFICIENT REFUTATION OF HIS
UNSUPPORTED CHARGE THAT HE WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO SUMMON WITNESSES AND
TESTIFY FOR HIMSELF. 

BUT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT PRISON OFFICIALS FRUSTRATED COCHRAN'S
EFFORTS TO PERFECT AN APPEAL ARE A DIFFERENT MATTER.  SINCE THESE
ALLEGATIONS RELATE TO A PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO COCHRAN'S COMMITMENT, AND
SINCE THAT IS THE LATEST EVENT REFERRED TO IN THE RECORD, THE RECORD
ITSELF AFFORDS NO REFUTATION.  NOR ARE THESE ALLEGATIONS DENIED IN ANY
OTHER PART OF THE STATE'S ANSWER.  MOREOVER, THE OPINION OF THE COURT
ITSELF RECOGNIZES THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS HAD "SOME BASIS," POINTING OUT
THAT, "UNDER RULES  ...  PREVAILING AT THE PENITENTIARY" FOR SOME TIME
FOLLOWING COCHRAN'S COMMITMENT, HE WAS PREVENTED FROM SENDING OUT A
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, AND THAT IT WAS NOT UNTIL OCTOBER,
1935(AFTER THE TIME FOR APPEAL HAD EXPIRED) THAT SUCH A PETITION WAS
ACTUALLY FILED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, NOTHING IN THE OPINION INDICATES
THAT THE COURT DENIED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD
CANVASSED THE ALLEGATIONS AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS OF COCHRAN AND
THREE OTHERS PERTAINING TO SUPPRESSION OF APPEAL AND HAD CONCLUDED THAT
THEY WERE UNTRUE. 

COCHRAN'S APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS DOES NOT BEAR THE NAME OF
COUNSEL.  NOT A LAWYER, HE APPARENTLY PREPARED IT HIMSELF.  ON THE
ISSUE OF DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO PERFECT AN APPEAL, HE ALLEGED THAT
THE "RECORD SHOWS THAT THE DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND PRISON
OFFICIALS EXERCISED UNLAWFUL AUTHORITY BY SURPRESSING YOUR PETITIONERS
APPEAL DOCUMENTS," ETC.  IN ITS BRIEF AND ARGUMENT BEFORE US, THE STATE
HAS CONTENDED THAT THE WORD "RECORD" CAN REFER ONLY TO THE TRIAL RECORD
SET OUT IN ITS RETURN TO COCHRAN'S APPLICATION.  SINCE THAT RECORD DOES
NOT SHOW THE ALLEGED SUPPRESSION, IT IS URGED THAT COCHRAN'S
APPLICATION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED.  AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, THE RECORD OF THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS, RELATING AS IT
DID TO A PERIOD ENDING WITH COCHRAN'S COMMITMENT, COULD PROVE NOTHING
WITH RESPECT TO INDEPENDENT SUBSEQUENT EVENTS.  HENCE, TO PLACE THE
CONSTRUCTION URGED BY THE STATE ON THE WORD "RECORD" AS USED BY COCHRAN
WOULD NOT MERELY IMPUTE TO HIM A TECHNICAL PRECISION WHICH HIS
APPLICATION AS A WHOLE CONTRADICTS; IT WOULD RENDER THE APPLICATION
ENTIRELY MEANINGLESS. 

THE STATE PROPERLY CONCEDES THAT IF THE ALLEGED FACTS PERTAINING TO
SUPPRESSION OF COCHRAN'S APPEAL "WERE DISCLOSED AS BEING TRUE BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT THERE
WAS A VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT."  AND IN KANSAS, HABEAS CORPUS IS RECOGNIZED AS AFFORDING A
REMEDY FOR A PERSON HELD IN PRISON IN VIOLATION OF A RIGHT GUARANTEED
BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FN1  HOWEVER INEPT COCHRAN'S CHOICE OF
WORDS, HE HAS SET OUT ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS, AND NOWHERE
DENIED, THAT KANSAS REFUSED HIM PRIVILEGES OF APPEAL WHICH IT AFFORDED
TO OTHERS.  SINCE NO DETERMINATION OF THE VERITY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE, THE CAUSE MUST BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE E.G. IN RE JARVIS, 66 KAN. 329, 31 P.2D 576.  CF. SMITH V.
O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329. 
..END :





U.S. V. NUNNALLY INVESTMENT CO., 316 U.S. 258 


NO. 990, OCTOBER TERM, 1940.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 11, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY
11, 1942.  - 92 CT.CLS.  358, 36 F.SUPP.  332, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A JUDGMENT FOR A REFUND OF INCOME TAXES IN A SUIT AGAINST THE
COLLECTOR IS NOT A BAR TO A LATER SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR AN
ADDITIONAL REFUND OF INCOME TAXES FOR THE SAME YEAR, PAID TO THE SAME
COLLECTOR.  SAGE V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 33.  P. 260. 

2.  THE TAXPAYER SOLD ALL ITS ASSETS FOR A CONSIDERATION CONSISTING
OF CASH AND THE ASSUMPTION BY THE PURCHASER OF CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS
INCLUDING FEDERAL TAXES FOR PREVIOUS YEARS.  THE PURCHASER PAID PART OF
THESE TAXES IN 1920, AND THE REMAINDER IN 1921 AND 1922.  IN
DETERMINING A DEFICIENCY FOR 1920, THE COMMISSIONER USED A LOWER BASIS
OF THE ASSETS SOLD THAN WAS USED BY THE TAXPAYER AND INCLUDED IN THE
SELLING PRICE THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE TAXES WHICH THE PURCHASER HAD
ASSUMED.  THE TAXPAYER, HAVING PAID, SUED THE COLLECTOR AND RECOVERED A
REFUND BASED UPON THE COMMISSIONER'S UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE BASIS OF THE
ASSETS SOLD.  HELD, THAT THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR DID NOT BAR
A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CLAIMING FURTHER REFUND ON THE GROUND
THAT THE TAXES ASSUMED BY THE PURCHASER WHICH WERE NOT PAID IN 1920
WERE NOT TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THAT YEAR.  PP. 259, 264. 

UNITED STATES V. NUNNALLY INVESTMENT CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 584, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT GRANTING A REFUND OF
MONEY ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED AS INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER TAXES FOR THE
YEAR 1920.  IN THAT YEAR THE TAXPAYER, THE RESPONDENT HERE, SOLD ITS
BUSINESS AND ALL ITS ASSETS TO ANOTHER CORPORATION.  THE CONSIDERATION
CONSISTED OF CASH AND THE ASSUMPTION OF CERTAIN OF THE RESPONDENT'S
OBLIGATIONS, INCLUDING FEDERAL TAXES FOR PREVIOUS YEARS.  THE PURCHASER
PAID PART OF THESE TAXES IN 1920, THE REMAINDER IN 1921 AND 1922.  IN
DETERMINING A DEFICIENCY FOR THE YEAR 1920, THE COMMISSIONER EMPLOYED A
LOWER BASIS OF THE ASSETS SOLD THAN WAS USED BY THE RESPONDENT.  THE
COMMISSIONER COMPUTED THE SELLING PRICE BY INCLUDING THE FULL AMOUNT OF
THE TAXES WHICH THE PURCHASER AGREED TO ASSUME.  AFTER PAYING THE
ASSESSED TAX, THE RESPONDENT FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND, ALLEGING ONLY
THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAD UNDERSTATED THE BASIS OF THE ASSETS SOLD.  IN
DUE COURSE A SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  A SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED, UNDER WHICH JUDGMENT FOR THE TAXPAYER
WAS ENTERED.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR AGREEMENT, NEITHER PARTY
APPEALED. 

THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT FILED A SECOND REFUND CLAIM, ASSERTING
THAT THE TAXES ASSUMED BY THE PURCHASER WHICH WERE NOT PAID IN 1920
WERE NOT TAXABLE TO THE RESPONDENT IN THAT YEAR.  THIS CLAIM WAS
REJECTED, AND A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WAS BEGUN IN THE COURT
OF CLAIMS.  HOLDING THAT THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR IN THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE TAXPAYERS' CLAIM IN THIS
SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THE COURT OF CLAIMS (WITH ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING) GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT.  36 F.SUPP.  332.  IN
VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW AND ITS RELATION TO THE DECISION IN MOORE ICE
CREAM CO. V. ROSE, 289 U.S. 373, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  314 U.S.
702. 

NEARLY A QUARTER-CENTURY AGO IN SAGE V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 33,
THIS COURT UPON FULL CONSIDERATION ANNOUNCED THE DOCTRINE THAT THE
UNITED STATES IS A "STRANGER" TO A JUDGMENT RESULTING FROM A SUIT
BROUGHT AGAINST A COLLECTOR, AND THAT SUCH A JUDGMENT IS, THEREFORE,
NOT A BAR IN A SUBSEQUENT ACTION UPON THE SAME CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  THIS WAS NOT A NOVEL DOCTRINE.  THE RESULT WAS DRAWN FROM THE
CONCEPTION OF A SUIT AGAINST A COLLECTOR AS "PERSONAL," SINCE HE WAS
PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ILLEGALLY EXACTING MONIES UNDER THE CLAIM
THAT THEY WERE DUE AS TAXES.  SUCH A "PERSONAL" REMEDY AGAINST THE
COLLECTOR, DERIVED FROM THE COMMON-LAW ACTION OF INDEBITATUS ASSUMPSIT,
HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF OUR FISCAL ADMINISTRATION.  UNLESS THE
APPLICATION GIVEN TO THIS REMEDY BY THE DOCTRINE OF THE SAGE CASE HAS
BEEN DISPLACED BY CONGRESS OR RENOUNCED BY LATER DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT, THE JUDGMENT MUST STAND.  CONCEDEDLY, CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE SO.
AND ALTHOUGH RECOGNITION HAS BEEN MADE OF THE TECHNICAL NATURE OF A
SUIT AGAINST A COLLECTOR, NO SUPPORT CAN BE FOUND FOR THE CONTENTION
THAT THE SAGE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN DISCARDED AS AN ANACHRONISM.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THE RULE HAS BEEN REAFFIRMED IN AN UNBROKEN LINE OF
AUTHORITY. 

SOON AFTER THE DECISION IN THE SAGE CASE, THE QUESTION WAS PRESENTED
WHETHER AN ACTION AGAINST A COLLECTOR COULD BE CONTINUED AGAINST HIS
SUCCESSOR.  THIS COURT HELD THAT IT COULD NOT, BECAUSE THE SAGE CASE
HAD SETTLED THAT SUCH A SUIT WAS "PERSONAL."  SEE SMIETANKA V. INDIANA
STEEL CO., 257 U.S. 1; UNION TRUST CO. V. WARDELL, 258 U.S. 537.  IN
BANKERS COAL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 308, A SUIT AGAINST A COLLECTOR
WITH RESPECT TO TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1914-1919 HAD RESULTED IN A
DETERMINATION THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS ENTITLED TO A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
OF FIVE CENTS PER TON ON COAL MINE ROYALTIES.  IT WAS CONTENDED THAT
THIS DETERMINATION WAS RES JUDICATA OF THAT ISSUE IN A SUBSEQUENT
ACTION AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER RELATING TO TAXES FOR LATER YEARS.  THE
COURT, AGAIN RELYING ON THE SAGE CASE, REJECTED THE ARGUMENT IN THESE
WORDS:  "WITH RESPECT TO THIS CONTENTION IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT
THE SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, THE RESPONDENT HERE, BUT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR,
JUDGMENT AGAINST WHOM IS NOT RES ADJUDICATA AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OR
THE UNITED STATES."  287 U.S. AT 311-312. 

THE GOVERNMENT LEANS HEAVILY UPON MOORE ICE CREAM CO. V. ROSE, 289
U.S. 373.  IN THAT CASE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 1014 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 253, 343, PROVIDING THAT A TAXPAYER MAY
RECOVER AN UNLAWFUL FEDERAL TAX EVEN THOUGH HE PAID THE TAX WITHOUT
PROTEST, WAS UPHELD AS APPLIED TO A PAYMENT WITHOUT PROTEST MADE PRIOR
TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE PROVISION.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, THE
COURT NOTED THAT, UNDER R.S. SEC. 989, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 842, A COLLECTOR
WHO ACTS UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, OR
OTHER PROPER OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT, "IS ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT TO A
CERTIFICATE CONVERTING THE SUIT AGAINST HIM INTO ONE AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT  ...  A SUIT AGAINST A COLLECTOR WHO HAS COLLECTED A TAX IN
THE FULFILLMENT OF A MINISTERIAL DUTY IS TODAY AN ANOMALOUS RELIC OF
BYGONE MODES OF THOUGHT.  HE IS NOT SUABLE AS A TRESPASSER, NOR IS HE
TO PAY OUT OF HIS OWN PURSE.  HE IS MADE A DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE
STATUTE HAS SAID FOR MANY YEARS THAT SUCH A REMEDY SHALL EXIST, THOUGH
HE HAS BEEN GUILTY OF NO WRONG, AND THOUGH ANOTHER IS TO PAY.  ...
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN UTILITY IN SUCH PROCEDURAL DEVICES IN DAYS WHEN THE
GOVERNMENT WAS NOT SUABLE AS FREELY AS NOW.  ...  THEY HAVE LITTLE
UTILITY TODAY, AT ALL EVENTS WHERE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER
SHOWS UPON ITS FACE THAT IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING HE WAS ACTING IN
THE LINE OF DUTY, AND THAT IN THE LINE OF DUTY HE HAS TURNED THE MONEY
OVER.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HIS PRESENCE AS A DEFENDANT IS MERELY A
REMEDIAL EXPEDIENT FOR BRINGING THE GOVERNMENT INTO COURT."  289 U.S.
AT 381-83. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE MOORE ICE CREAM CASE WAS
NOT CONCERNED WITH THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF A JUDGMENT IN A SUIT AGAINST
THE COLLECTOR, ITS RATIONALE UNDERMINED THE SAGE DOCTRINE.  BUT SUCH
HAS NOT BEEN THE INFLUENCE OF THE MOORE ICE CREAM CASE ON THE
SUBSEQUENT COURSE OF DECISIONS RELEVANT TO OUR PURPOSE.  TAIT V.
WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 289 U.S. 620, DECIDED BY A UNANIMOUS COURT
THREE WEEKS AFTER THE DECISION IN THE MOORE ICE CREAM CASE, IS
INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT THE SAGE DOCTRINE WAS LEFT UNIMPAIRED.  THE
COURT THERE HELD THAT A JUDGMENT IN A SUIT AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER WAS
BINDING IN A SUBSEQUENT ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND THE
COLLECTOR.  THE DOCTRINE IN THE SAGE CASE WAS EXPLICITLY REAFFIRMED:
"IN A SUIT FOR UNLAWFUL EXACTION THE LIABILITY OF A COLLECTOR IS NOT
OFFICIAL BUT PERSONAL.  SAGE V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 33; SMIETANKA
V. INDIANA STEEL CO., 257 U.S. 1; GRAHAM & FOSTER V. GOODCELL, 282 U.S.
409, 430.  AND FOR THIS REASON A JUDGMENT IN A SUIT TO WHICH HE WAS A
PARTY DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE COMMISSIONER OR THE UNITED STATES.  BANKERS
POCAHONTAS COAL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 308, 311.  WE THINK, HOWEVER,
THAT WHERE A QUESTION HAS BEEN ADJUDGED AS BETWEEN A TAXPAYER AND THE
GOVERNMENT OR ITS OFFICIAL AGENT, THE COMMISSIONER, THE COLLECTOR,
BEING AN OFFICIAL INFERIOR IN AUTHORITY, AND ACTING UNDER THEM, IS IN
SUCH PRIVITY WITH THEM THAT HE IS ESTOPPED BY THE JUDGMENT."  289 U.S.
AT 627. 

MORE RECENTLY, IN SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, WHERE
THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA WAS APPLIED TO SUITS TO WHICH AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WAS A PARTY, THE COURT AGAIN EXPRESSLY ADHERED TO
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SAGE CASE:  "CASES HOLDING THAT A JUDGMENT IN A
SUIT AGAINST A COLLECTOR FOR UNLAWFUL EXACTION IS NOT A BAR TO A
SUBSEQUENT SUIT BY OR AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OR THE UNITED STATES
(SAGE V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 33; BANKERS POCAHONTAS COAL CO. V.
BURNET, 287 U.S. 308) ARE NOT IN POINT, SINCE THE SUIT AGAINST THE
COLLECTOR IS 'PERSONAL AND ITS INCIDENTS, SUCH AS THE NATURE OF THE
DEFENSES OPEN AND THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, ARE DIFFERENT.'"  310 U.S.
AT 403.  AND EARLIER IN THIS TERM IN UNITED STATES V. KALES, 314 U.S.
186, IN SPEAKING OF THE RIGHT OF A TAXPAYER TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE SUITS
AGAINST A COLLECTOR AND THE GOVERNMENT FOR TAX PAYMENTS MADE TO TWO
COLLECTORS ON INCOME DERIVED FROM A SINGLE TRANSACTION IN A SINGLE TAX
YEAR, THE COURT SAID:  "THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR IS A
PERSONAL JUDGMENT, TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A STRANGER EXCEPT AS
IT HAS OBLIGATED ITSELF TO PAY IT.  SEE SAGE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
SMIETANKA V. INDIANA STEEL CO., SUPRA, 4, 5.  WHILE THE STATUTES HAVE
FOR MOST PRACTICAL PURPOSES REDUCED THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE
COLLECTOR TO A FICTION, THE COURSE OF THE LEGISLATION INDICATES CLEARLY
ENOUGH THAT IT IS A FICTION INTENDED TO BE ACTED UPON TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT AND ITS INCIDENTS, UNTIL JUDGMENT
RENDERED, ARE TO BE LEFT UNDISTURBED.  ...  THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE
COMMON LAW ACTION AGAINST THE COLLECTOR IS TOO DEEPLY IMBEDDED IN THE
STATUTES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ADMIT OF SO
RADICAL A DEPARTURE FROM ITS TRADITIONAL USE AND CONSEQUENCES AS THE
GOVERNMENT NOW URGES, WITHOUT FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION."  314 U.S.
AT 199-200. 

IN SUMMARY, THEREFORE, AN IMPOSING SERIES OF OPINIONS HAS FORTIFIED
THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY OF THE SAGE DOCTRINE.  NO DOUBT THE PRECISE
QUESTION RAISED IN EACH OF THESE CASES WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE NOW
BEFORE US, AND EACH CASE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DECIDED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE RULE IN THE SAGE CASE.  BUT THIS ONLY
SERVES TO EMPHASIZE THE OBDURACY OF THE DOCTRINE AS PART OF THE
HISTORICAL SCHEME OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY
IN ALL OF THESE CASES TO DISSIPATE THE FORCE OF THE DOCTRINE WHICH THE
SAGE CASE REPRESENTS BY REJECTING IT AND RESTING THE DECISION IN THAT
CASE UPON THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND AFFORDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1912,
C. 256, 37 STAT. 240.  THAT THIS LONG LINE OF CASES SHOULD HAVE
REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON THE SAGE CASE WITHOUT REJECTING THE
DOCTRINE FOR WHICH IT WAS CITED ONLY UNDERLINES STILL FURTHER ITS
PERSISTENCE. 

EVEN WHEN THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT TO SUE THE
COLLECTOR HAD ARGUMENTATIVELY BEEN WITHDRAWN, SEE CARY V. CURTIS, 3
HOW.  236, CONGRESS PROMPTLY RESTORED THAT RIGHT.  ACT OF FEBRUARY 26,
1845, C. 22, 5 STAT. 727.  THE PROBLEM OF LEGAL REMEDIES APPROPRIATE
FOR FISCAL ADMINISTRATION RESTS WITHIN EASY CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL. 
CONGRESS CAN DEAL WITH THE MATTER COMPREHENSIVELY, UNEMBARRASSED BY THE
LIMITATIONS OF A LITIGATION INVOLVING ONLY ONE PHASE OF A COMPLEX
PROBLEM.  THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF DOES NOT NOW ASK US TO JETTISON THE
WHOLE NOTION OF SUING A COLLECTOR PERSONALLY.  IT MERELY ASKS US TO
ELIMINATE ONE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT CONCEPTION.  IN THE FIELD OF CUSTOM
DUTIES CONGRESS HAS DEVISED A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTERRELATED SCHEME OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REMEDIES.  SEE ACT OF JUNE 17, 1930, 46
STAT. 590, 734, 19 U.S.C. SECS. 1514-15; FREUND, ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS
OVER PERSONS AND PROPERTY, PP. 553-60.  IF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SAGE
CASE IS NOW TO BE ABANDONED, SUCH A DETERMINATION OF POLICY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INCOME TAX LAW SHOULD BE MADE BY CONGRESS, WHICH
MAINTAINS A JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION CHARGED WITH
THE DUTY OF INVESTIGATING THE OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL REVENUE LAWS AND
RECOMMENDING SUCH LEGISLATION AS MAY BE DEEMED DESIRABLE.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE BYRNES
DISSENT FOR THE REASONS (1) THAT HERE, UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN UNITED
STATES V. KALES, 314 U.S. 186, THE TAXPAYER HAD BUT A SINGLE CAUSE OF
ACTION AND COULD HAVE RAISED EVERY ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY
OF THE TAXES IN THE EARLIER SUIT; (2) THAT HERE, UNLIKE THE SITUATION
IN SAGE V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 33, 38-39, THERE HAD BEEN NO
INTERVENING LEGISLATION WHICH CREATED RIGHTS AND LIFTED THE BAR OF THE
JUDGMENT IN THE EARLIER SUIT; AND (3) THAT IN THE EARLIER SUIT THE
UNITED STATES BECAME "A PARTY TO THE JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW"
(GRISWOLD, RES JUDICATA IN FEDERAL TAX CASES, 46 YALE L. JOURN.  1320,
1342), SINCE IN THESE DAYS THE PRESENCE OF THE COLLECTOR AS A DEFENDANT
WHO ACTS "IN THE LINE OF DUTY" IS "MERELY A REMEDIAL EXPEDIENT FOR
BRINGING THE GOVERNMENT INTO COURT."  MOORE ICE CREAM CO. V. ROSE, 289
U.S. 373, 383. 
..END :



















U.S. V. MASONITE CORP., 316 U.S. 265 


NO. 723.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 10, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 11, 1942.  - 40
F.SUPP.  852, REVERSED. 


1.  A PRICE-FIXING COMBINATION OF COMPETITORS IN INTERSTATE TRADE
VIOLATES THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 274. 

2.  ACCEPTANCE BY COMPETITORS, WITHOUT PREVIOUS AGREEMENT, OF AN
INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN, THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF
WHICH, IF CARRIED OUT, WILL BE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
RENDERS THEM LIABLE AS CONSPIRATORS UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 275. 

3.  THE FIXING OF PRICES BY ONE MEMBER OF A GROUP PURSUANT TO EXPRESS
DELEGATION, ACQUIESCENCE, OR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OTHERS, IS NO LESS
ILLEGAL THAN IF DONE BY THEIR DIRECT, JOINT ACTION.  P. 276. 

4.  A COMBINATION FIXING PRICES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CAN NOT BE
JUSTIFIED BY BUSINESS REASONS OR BY ITS TENDENCY TO INCREASE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMMODITY WITHOUT INCREASE OF PRICE TO CONSUMERS,
OR BY ITS TENDENCY TO PROMOTE COMPETITION BETWEEN DEALERS.  P. 276. 

5.  A PATENT AFFORDS NO IMMUNITY FOR A MONOPOLY NOT PLAINLY WITHIN
THE GRANT; AND THE GRANT CAN NOT BE EXTENDED BY CONTRACT.  P. 277. 

6.  WHEN A PATENTED ARTICLE IS DISPOSED OF TO A PURCHASER, IT PASSES
BEYOND THE MONOPOLY PROTECTED BY THE PATENT LAW.  P. 277. 

7.  A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR DISPOSITION OF A
PATENTED ARTICLE EXHAUSTS THE PATENT MONOPOLY IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE
FORM OF THE TRANSACTION BUT DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN SUCH A
DISPOSITION THAT IT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID THE PATENTEE HAS RECEIVED HIS
REWARD FOR THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.  P. 278. 

8.  IN MAKING SUCH A DETERMINATION, REGARD MUST BE HAD FOR THE
DOMINANT CONCERN OF THE PATENT SYSTEM, VIZ., PROMOTION OF THE PROGRESS
OF SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS; THE REWARD TO THE INVENTOR IS SECONDARY
AND MERELY A MEANS TO AN END.  P. 278. 

9.  THE SCOPE OF THE PATENTEE'S STATUTORY RIGHT TO "VEND" CANNOT BE
DETERMINED BY THE PRIVATE LAW OF SALES ALONE.  SUCH RIGHTS MUST BE
STRICTLY CONSTRUED SINCE PATENTS ARE PRIVILEGES RESTRICTIVE OF A FREE
ECONOMY.  P. 280. 

10.  NUMEROUS CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE IN ACTIVE COMPETITION WITH EACH
OTHER AS DEALERS IN BUILDING MATERIALS ENTERED INTO A COMBINATION
WHEREBY ONE OF THEM, WHICH MANUFACTURED AND SOLD MATERIAL CALLED
"HARDBOARD" FOR WHICH IT HELD A PATENT, UNDERTOOK TO CONSTITUTE THE
OTHERS ITS DEL CREDERE AGENTS FOR THE SALE OF THAT PRODUCT THROUGH
THEIR RESPECTIVE SALES ORGANIZATIONS AT PRICES FIXED BY THE PATENT
OWNER.  HELD, THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT WENT BEYOND THE PATENT PRIVILEGE
AND VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
272 U.S. 476, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 280, 282. 

UNITED STATES V. MASONITE CORPORATION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DISMISSED A BILL
BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER APPELLEES HAVE
COMBINED TO RESTRAIN TRADE OR COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT.  15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2, 26 STAT. 209.  THE BILL TO
ENJOIN THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT (40 F.SUPP.  852) ON THE AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES V. GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476.  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  15 U.S.C.
SEC. 29, 32 STAT. 823, 36 STAT. 1167; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345, JUDICIAL
CODE, SEC. 238. 

THE APPELLEES ARE MASONITE CORPORATION, CELOTEX CORPORATION, CERTAIN
TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION, JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, INSULITE
COMPANY, FLINTKOTE COMPANY, NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY, WOOD CONVERSION
COMPANY, ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY, AND DANT & RUSSELL, INC. EACH IS
ENGAGED EITHER IN MANUFACTURING AND SELLING BUILDING MATERIALS, OR IN
SELLING BUILDING MATERIALS MANUFACTURED BY OTHERS.  ALL MAINTAIN
SELLING ORGANIZATIONS AND TO A LARGE EXTENT COMPETE IN THE SAME
MARKETS.  AS WE SHALL SEE, SOME HAVE COMPETING PATENTS, THOUGH OTHERS
DO NOT.  MASONITE IS A MANUFACTURER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF HARDBOARD. 
HARDBOARD - A HOMOGENEOUS, HARD, DENSE, GRAINLESS, SYNTHETIC BOARD - IS
MADE FROM WOOD CHIPS.  IT HAS A HIGH TENSILE STRENGTH, LOW WATER
ABSORPTION AND A DENSITY THAT RANGES FROM 30 TO 60 LBS. PER CUBIC
FOOT.  IT IS USED IN THE BUILDING INDUSTRY AS WALLBOARD, PANELLING,
FLOORING, CEILINGS AND FORMS INTO WHICH CONCRETE IS POURED.  IT ALSO
HAS NUMEROUS INDUSTRIAL USES.  MASONITE BEGAN ITS PRODUCTION OF
HARDBOARD IN 1926 AND DISTRIBUTED IT THROUGH ITS OWN SELLING
ORGANIZATION.  BETWEEN MARCH 30, 1926 AND MARCH 20, 1928, FOUR PATENTS
WERE ISSUED TO IT, THE CLAIMS OF WHICH COVERED BOTH HARDBOARD AND THE
PROCESSES FOR MAKING IT.  CELOTEX FOR SOME PERIOD PRIOR TO 1928 HAD
BEEN MANUFACTURING AND SELLING INSULATION BOARD - A FIBRE BOARD WHICH
HAS A DENSITY OF LESS THAN 30 LBS. PER CUBIC FOOT AND WHICH IS SOFTER
AND LIGHTER, HAS A LOWER TENSILE STRENGTH, AND IS LESS RESISTANT TO
WATER THAN HARDBOARD.  IN 1928, CELOTEX ANNOUNCED THAT IT INTENDED TO
BEGIN THE MANUFACTURE OF HARDBOARD FROM BAGASSE, A WASTE PRODUCT FROM
THE GRINDING OF SUGAR CANE.  IT BEGAN PRODUCTION IN 1929.  SEVERAL
PATENTS WERE ISSUED TO IT.  LATE IN 1928, MASONITE NOTIFIED CELOTEX
THAT ITS HARDBOARD INFRINGED MASONITE'S PATENTS.  VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS
WERE HAD WITH A VIEW OF AVOIDING PATENT LITIGATION BY ENTERING INTO A
CROSS-LICENSING AGREEMENT.  MASONITE REFUSED.  CELOTEX CONTINUED TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL HARDBOARD.  ITS PRODUCTION INCREASED FROM ABOUT
800,000 SQUARE FEET IN 1929 TO ABOUT 12,000,000 SQUARE FEET IN 1933. 
IT SOLD ITS PRODUCT IN COMPETITION WITH MASONITE'S HARDBOARD AND
MARKETED IT AT PRICES LOWER THAN MASONITE SOLD ITS HARDBOARD.  IN 1931,
MASONITE INSTITUTED SUIT AGAINST CELOTEX FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ONE OF ITS
PATENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD MASONITE'S PATENT VALID BUT NOT
INFRINGED.  1 F.SUPP.  494.  MASONITE APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HELD THAT MASONITE'S PATENT WAS BOTH VALID AND INFRINGED.  66
F.2D 451.  A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS FILED IN THIS COURT
IN SEPTEMBER, 1933.  ABOUT THAT TIME MASONITE RENEWED NEGOTIATIONS WITH
CELOTEX.  THOSE NEGOTIATIONS RESULTED IN A SETTLEMENT OF THE PATENT
LITIGATION AND IN THE EXECUTION OF THE SO-CALLED "AGENCY" AGREEMENT OF
OCTOBER 10, 1933  FN1  - ONE OF THE AGREEMENTS WHICH IS HERE ATTACKED
AND WHICH WE DISCUSS LATER. 

SHORTLY AFTER THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE
PATENT LITIGATION BETWEEN CELOTEX AND MASONITE, THE LATTER COMPANY SENT
THE SAME PROPOSED "AGENCY" AGREEMENT WHICH IT HAD WORKED OUT WITH
CELOTEX TO VARIOUS OF THE APPELLEES.  JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION,
NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY, ARMSTRONG NEWPORT COMPANY (PREDECESSOR OF
ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY), HAWAIIAN CANE PRODUCTS LTD. (ASSIGNOR OF
CERTAIN-TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION), AND WOOD CONVERSION COMPANY EACH
EXECUTED IDENTICAL AGREEMENTS WITH MASONITE ON VARIOUS DATES BETWEEN
OCTOBER 31, 1933 AND JUNE 25, 1934.  AS EACH AGREEMENT WAS MADE,
MASONITE INFORMED THE OTHER PARTY OF THE EXISTENCE AND TERMS OF EACH OF
THE AGREEMENTS WHICH MASONITE HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE WITH THE OTHERS.  AND
AS EACH CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED, MASONITE SENT COPIES TO THE COMPANIES
WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED SIMILAR CONTRACTS. 

INSULITE, A MANUFACTURER OF INSULATION BOARD, BEGAN PRODUCING
HARDBOARD IN 1930.  ITS PRODUCTION ROSE FROM ABOUT 4,500,000 SQUARE
FEET IN 1932 TO ABOUT 9,000,000 SQUARE FEET IN 1933, AND AMOUNTED TO
OVER 7,000,000 SQUARE FEET ANNUALLY IN 1934 AND 1935.  THERE WAS SOME
EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS SELLING HARDBOARD AT PRICES LOWER THAN THOSE OF
MASONITE.  IT WAS ADVISED BY MASONITE IN JULY, 1933, OF POSSIBLE LEGAL
ACTION IF IT CONTINUED TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL HARDBOARD.  IT RECEIVED
FROM MASONITE A COPY OF THE PROPOSED "AGENCY" AGREEMENT.  IT FORMALLY
ADVISED MASONITE OF ITS REFUSAL TO ENTER INTO ANY SUCH AGREEMENT IN
DECEMBER, 1933.  IN MARCH, 1934, MASONITE FILED SUIT AGAINST A DEALER
WHO HANDLED INSULITE'S HARDBOARD CHARGING INFRINGEMENT OF ONE OF
MASONITE'S PATENTS.  INSULITE UNDERTOOK THE DEFENSE; BUT, BEFORE ISSUE
WAS JOINED, NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN INSULITE AND MASONITE RESULTED IN THE
EXECUTION IN FEBRUARY, 1935 OF A SO-CALLED "AGENCY" AGREEMENT
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MASONITE AND
CELOTEX.  FN2  AT THAT TIME, INSULITE KNEW THAT MASONITE AND THE OTHER
COMPANIES HAD PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED THE OTHER AGREEMENTS. 

DISPUTES AROSE BETWEEN MASONITE AND THE SO-CALLED "AGENTS" CONCERNING
THE OPERATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE "AGENCY" AGREEMENTS.  AS A
RESULT, THE AGREEMENTS WERE MODIFIED IN 1936.  EACH AGREEMENT WHEN
EXECUTED IN 1936 WAS PLACED IN ESCROW.  THE ESCROW AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED
BY EACH OF THE COMPANIES AND INCLUDED THE NAME OF EACH OF THE OTHER
"AGENTS."  EACH "AGENT" KNEW AT THAT TIME THAT MASONITE PROPOSED TO
MAKE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE OTHERS.  THE ESCROW
AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT IT SHOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE ONLY WHEN ALL THE
"AGENTS" HAD AGREED TO IT. THE NEW AGREEMENTS BECAME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER
29, 1936.  IN 1937, FLINTKOTE COMPANY AND DANT & RUSSELL, INC. ENTERED
INTO IDENTICAL AGREEMENTS WITH MASONITE.  THOUGH THEIR AGREEMENTS
DIFFERED SOMEWHAT FROM THE 1936 AGREEMENTS, THEY WERE SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR FOR PRESENT PURPOSES.  BOTH COMPANIES KNEW, WHEN THEY SIGNED
THE CONTRACTS, THAT SIMILAR "AGENCY" AGREEMENTS EXISTED BETWEEN
MASONITE AND THE OTHER APPELLEES. 

BY EACH OF THE 1933 AGREEMENTS, MASONITE DESIGNATED THE OTHER PARTY
AS AN "AGENT" AND APPOINTED IT AS A "DEL CREDERE FACTOR" TO SELL
MASONITE'S HARDBOARD PRODUCTS.  THE "AGENT" EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE
VALIDITY OF MASONITE'S HARDBOARD PATENTS SO LONG AS THE AGREEMENT
REMAINED IN FORCE.  THE "AGENT" AGREED TO PROMOTE THE SALE OF MASONITE
HARDBOARDS.  MASONITE AGREED TO MANUFACTURE DESIGNATED HARDBOARD
PRODUCTS IN SPECIFIED SIZES AND TO SHIP ON ORDERS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FROM THE "AGENT" TO ANY PLACE WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES OR
HAWAII.  MASONITE AGREED TO DESIGNATE FROM TIME TO TIME THE MINIMUM
SELLING PRICE AND THE MAXIMUM TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE AT WHICH THE
"AGENT" MIGHT SELL MASONITE'S PRODUCTS.  THE LIST PRICES AND TERMS OF
SALE WERE TO BE THE MINIMUM PRICES AND MAXIMUM TERMS OF SALE AT WHICH
MASONITE WAS EITHER OFFERING OR MAKING SALES TO ITS CUSTOMERS.  THE
RIGHT TO CHANGE THE LIST PRICES AND TERMS OF SALE WAS VESTED SOLELY IN
MASONITE AND MIGHT BE EXERCISED ON 10 DAYS' NOTICE.  IT WAS AGREED THAT
MASONITE WAS BOUND TO ADHERE TO THE PRICES, AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
SALE WHICH IT FIXED FOR ITS "AGENTS."  IN CASE THE "AGENT" SOLD FOR
LESS THAN THE MINIMUM PRICE, IT WAS OBLIGATED TO PAY LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
AT A SPECIFIED RATE.  ON DIRECT SHIPMENTS TO THE "AGENT," THE
HARDBOARDS "SHALL BE RECEIVED AND HELD ON CONSIGNMENT" AND "TITLE
THERETO SHALL REMAIN" IN MASONITE UNTIL SOLD BY THE "AGENT."  THE
MINIMUM PRICES WERE F.O.B. MASONITE'S FACTORY, THE "AGENT" PAYING
FREIGHT AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS, AND SALES AND OTHER TAXES.  THE
"AGENT" ALSO AGREED AT ITS EXPENSE TO CARRY INSURANCE ON ALL PRODUCTS
CONSIGNED TO IT.  THE "AGENT'S" COMPENSATION WAS FIXED BY WAY OF
SPECIFIED COMMISSIONS ON EACH SALE.  THE "AGENT" WAS PROHIBITED FROM
MAKING SALES (EXCEPT FOR OFF-SIZED BOARDS) TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN
SPECIFIED CLASSES.  THOSE PROVISIONS PERMITTED THE "AGENT" TO SELL ONLY
TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, THE INDUSTRIAL MARKET BEING RESERVED FOR
MASONITE.  THE "AGENT" AGREED TO COMPENSATE MASONITE BY ADVANCING ONE
HALF OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIST PRICE AND THE AGENT'S DISCOUNT
WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS
SHIPPED, AND THE BALANCE WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE MONTH IN
WHICH THE PRODUCTS WERE SOLD BY THE "AGENT" TO ITS CUSTOMERS.  IN CASE
OF DIRECT SHIPMENTS BY MASONITE TO THE CUSTOMERS OF THE "AGENT," THE
LATTER AGREED TO PAY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DUE MASONITE WITHIN 20 DAYS
AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE SHIPMENT WAS MADE.  THE
"AGENT" AGREED NOT TO USE THE TRADE NAME OR THE TRADE MARKS OF
MASONITE.  BUT THE LATTER AGREED TO MARK, WITHOUT EXTRA COST, ALL
HARDBOARD WITH THE "AGENT'S" OR ITS CUSTOMER'S NAME OR TRADE MARK, IF
THE "AGENT" OR CUSTOMERS SO DESIRED.  AND MASONITE RESERVED THE RIGHT
TO MARK ALL PRODUCTS SOLD BY THE "AGENT" WITH MASONITE'S PATENT
NOTICE.  MASONITE WARRANTED THAT THE PRODUCTS WERE TO BE "GOOD,
WORKMANLIKE PRODUCTS OF A CHARACTER AND QUALITY EQUAL TO THAT CURRENTLY
MANUFACTURED BY IT AND SOLD TO ITS CUSTOMERS."  ITS LIABILITY WAS TO BE
LIMITED TO REPLACING, WITHOUT COST TO THE "AGENT," ANY "DEFECTIVE
MATERIAL WHEN THE DEFECT IS ONE OF MANUFACTURE."  THE "AGENT" AGREED TO
MAKE MONTHLY REPORTS ON INVENTORY CONSIGNED AND ON HAND.  FOR ANY
DEFAULT OF THE "AGENT," MASONITE COULD TERMINATE THE ARRANGEMENT ON 30
DAYS' NOTICE.  MASONITE COULD ALSO TERMINATE IN CASE OF THE BANKRUPTCY,
RECEIVERSHIP, OR INSOLVENCY OF THE "AGENT," OR IN CASE THE "AGENT"
FAILED TO ORDER FROM MASONITE AT LEAST 1,500,000 SQUARE FEET OF
HARDBOARD PRODUCTS FOR ANY SIX MONTHS' PERIOD.  THE "AGENT" COULD
TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT ON SIX MONTHS' WRITTEN NOTICE.  ON TERMINATION
OF THE AGREEMENT, THE "AGENT" AGREED TO "PURCHASE AND PAY FOR ALL
PRODUCTS CONSIGNED TO IT AND UNSOLD"; OR, AT THE OPTION OF MASONITE,
THE LATTER MIGHT HAVE THE PRODUCTS RETURNED TO IT AND REFUND TO THE
"AGENT" ALL ADVANCES MADE BY THE "AGENT" TO OR FOR MASONITE'S ACCOUNT. 
MASONITE AGREED TO ISSUE TO THE "AGENT" AT ITS REQUEST "A LICENSE TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL HARD BOARDS" UNDER ITS PATENTS ON SPECIFIED TERMS
AND CONDITIONS AND ON PAYMENT OF DESIGNATED SUMS - $200,000 IF THE
LICENSE WAS ISSUED BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1934, AND DECREASING AMOUNTS IF
THE LICENSE WAS ISSUED AT SUBSEQUENT DATES.  MASONITE RESERVED THE
RIGHT TO INSPECT AND EXAMINE, THROUGH CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, THE
PHYSICAL INVENTORY AND THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF THE "AGENT" RELATING TO
THE TRANSACTIONS COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.  MASONITE AGREED TO SAVE
HARMLESS AND PROTECT THE "AGENT" AND ITS CUSTOMERS AGAINST ANY CLAIM
THAT THE HARDBOARDS INFRINGED ANY PATENT OWNED BY OTHERS THAN THE
PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT.  PROVISIONS FOR ARBITRATION AND FOR
ASSIGNMENT OF THE AGREEMENT WERE INCLUDED.  AND IT WAS PROVIDED THAT
THE AGREEMENT SHOULD CONTINUE "DURING THE LIFE OF THAT ONE" OF
SPECIFIED PATENTS OF MASONITE "HAVING THE LONGEST TERM TO RUN,
INCLUDING ANY REISSUES, EXTENSIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS THEREOF," UNLESS THE
AGREEMENT WAS SOONER TERMINATED BY EITHER PARTY.  EACH AGREEMENT HAD
ATTACHED A FORM OF "LICENSE" TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL, TO BE USED IN
CASE THE OPTION LICENSE WAS EXERCISED.  FN3 

WE NEED NOT STOP TO ANALYZE THE 1936 AGREEMENTS.  THEY CONTAINED
NUMEROUS CHANGES AND ELABORATIONS.  BUT THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, SINCE THE PATTERN OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
APPELLEES WAS FIXED IN 1933 AND ITS FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS WERE
MAINTAINED, NOT BASICALLY ALTERED, IN 1936.  NOR NEED WE STOP TO
EXPLORE ALL OF THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE UNITED STATES.  THEY INCLUDE
ARGUMENTS THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ILLEGAL DIVISION OF MARKETS (ADDYSTON
PIPE & STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211); THAT THE "AGENCY"
AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN USED TO CONTROL UNLAWFULLY OTHER MATERIALS SOLD IN
COMBINATION WITH HARDBOARD, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF MASONITE'S PATENTS
(CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS DEV.  CORP., 283 U.S. 27); THAT, IN
SOME INSTANCES, THE COMBINATION UNLAWFULLY CONTROLLED THE PRICE OF
HARDBOARD "OWNED" BY THE "AGENTS" (ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 309 U.S. 436); AND THAT THE ARRANGEMENT INCLUDED AGREEMENTS TO
SUPPRESS THE USE OF PATENTS, CONTRARY TO THE RULE OF STANDARD SANITARY
MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, AND STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 174.  BUT WE CAN PUT THESE CONTENTIONS TO ONE
SIDE WITHOUT EXPRESSING AN OPINION ON THEM.  FOR THERE IS ONE PHASE OF
THE CASE WHICH IS DECISIVE.  THAT IS THE AGREEMENT FOR PRICE-FIXING. 
BUT FOR MASONITE'S PATENTS AND THE DEL CREDERE AGENCY AGREEMENTS, THERE
CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THIS IS A PRICE-FIXING COMBINATION WHICH IS
ILLEGAL PER SE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  UNITED STATES V. TRENTON
POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309
U.S. 436; UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150.  THAT
IS TRUE THOUGH THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT, IN NEGOTIATING AND
ENTERING INTO THE FIRST AGREEMENTS, EACH APPELLEE, OTHER THAN MASONITE,
ACTED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHERS, NEGOTIATED ONLY WITH MASONITE,
DESIRED THE AGREEMENT REGARDLESS OF THE ACTION THAT MIGHT BE TAKEN BY
ANY OF THE OTHERS, DID NOT REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF ITS ACCEPTANCE
THAT MASONITE MAKE SUCH AN AGREEMENT WITH ANY OF THE OTHERS, AND HAD NO
DISCUSSIONS WITH ANY OF THE OTHERS.  IT IS NOT CLEAR AT WHAT PRECISE
POINT OF TIME EACH APPELLEE BECAME AWARD OF THE FACT THAT ITS CONTRACT
WAS NOT AN ISOLATED TRANSACTION BUT PART OF A LARGER ARRANGEMENT.  BUT
IT IS CLEAR THAT, AS THE ARRANGEMENT CONTINUED, EACH BECAME FAMILIAR
WITH ITS PURPOSE AND SCOPE.  HERE, AS IN INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. V.
UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208, 226, "IT WAS ENOUGH THAT, KNOWING THAT
CONCERTED ACTION WAS CONTEMPLATED AND INVITED, THE DISTRIBUTORS GAVE
THEIR ADHERENCE TO THE SCHEME AND PARTICIPATED IN IT."  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE MAKING OF THE 1936 AGREEMENTS AND THE
JOINDER IN 1937 OF THE TWO OTHER COMPANIES LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT
ALL HAD AN AWARENESS OF THE GENERAL SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE
UNDERTAKING.  AS THIS COURT STATED IN THE INTERSTATE CIRCUIT CASE (P.
227):  "IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY MAY BE AND OFTEN
IS FORMED WITHOUT SIMULTANEOUS ACTION OR AGREEMENT ON THE PART OF THE
CONSPIRATORS.  ...  ACCEPTANCE BY COMPETITORS, WITHOUT PREVIOUS
AGREEMENT, OF AN INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN, THE NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH, IF CARRIED OUT, IS RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT."  AND AS RESPECTS STATEMENTS OF VARIOUS APPELLEES THAT
THEY DID NOT INTEND TO JOIN A COMBINATION OR TO FIX PRICES, WE NEED
ONLY SAY THAT THEY "MUST BE HELD TO HAVE INTENDED THE NECESSARY AND
DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTS AND CANNOT BE HEARD TO SAY THE
CONTRARY."  UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 543.  NOR CAN THE
FACT THAT MASONITE ALONE FIXED THE PRICES, AND THAT THE OTHER APPELLEES
NEVER CONSULTED WITH MASONITE CONCERNING THEM, MAKE THE COMBINATION ANY
THE LESS ILLEGAL.  PRICES ARE FIXED WHEN THEY ARE AGREED UPON.  UNITED
STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., SUPRA, P. 222.  THE FIXING OF PRICES
BY ONE MEMBER OF A GROUP, PURSUANT TO EXPRESS DELEGATION, ACQUIESCENCE,
OR UNDERSTANDING, IS JUST AS ILLEGAL AS THE FIXING OF PRICES BY DIRECT,
JOINT ACTION.  ID.  SINCE THERE WAS PRICE-FIXING, THE FACT THAT THERE
WERE BUSINESS REASONS WHICH MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS DESIRABLE TO THE
APPELLEES, THE FACT THAT THE EFFECT OF THE COMBINATION MAY HAVE BEEN TO
INCREASE THE DISTRIBUTION OF HARDBOARD, WITHOUT INCREASE OF PRICE TO
THE CONSUMER, OR EVEN TO PROMOTE COMPETITION BETWEEN DEALERS, OR THE
FACT THAT FROM OTHER POINTS OF VIEW THE ARRANGEMENTS MIGHT BE DEEMED TO
HAVE DESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE NO MORE A LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR
PRICE-FIXING THAN WERE THE "COMPETITIVE EVILS" IN THE SOCONY-VACUUM
CASE. 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT THE ARRANGEMENT IS SAVED FROM THE SHERMAN ACT BY
THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE.  THE DISTRICT COURT SO HELD, AS WE HAVE
NOTED.  IN THAT CONNECTION, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT MASONITE'S
PATENTS ON HARDBOARD WERE "FUNDAMENTAL AND BASIC," THAT THERE WAS NO
MONOPOLY OR RESTRAINT OTHER THAN THE MONOPOLY OR RESTRAINT GRANTED BY
THE PATENTS, THAT THE PARTIES HAD AN HONEST AND SINCERE INTENT TO
RECOGNIZE AND EXERCISE THE RIGHTS BELONGING TO MASONITE UNDER ITS
PATENTS, AND THAT THE AGREEMENTS CONSTITUTED A "TRUE AGENCY" TO CARRY
OUT THAT PURPOSE.  WE ASSUME ARGUENDO THAT THE PATENTS IN QUESTION,
OWNED BY MASONITE, ARE VALID.  BUT WE DO NOT AGREE THAT THE "AGENCY"
DEVICE SAVED THE ARRANGEMENT FROM THE SHERMAN ACT. 

DEL CREDERE AGENCY HAS AN ANCIENT LINEAGE AND HAS BEEN PUT TO
NUMEROUS BUSINESS AND MERCANTILE USES.  CHORLEY, DEL CREDERE, 45 LAW
QUARTERLY REV. 221; MECHEM, AGENCY (2D ED.)  CH. IV.  BUT, HOWEVER
USEFUL IT MAY BE IN ALLOCATING RISKS BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND
DETERMINING THEIR RIGHTS INTER SE, ITS TERMS DO NOT NECESSARILY CONTROL
WHEN THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS INTERVENE, WHETHER THEY BE CREDITORS OR THE
SOVEREIGN.  SEE KLAUS, SALE, AGENCY AND PRICE MAINTENANCE, 28 COL. L.
REV. 441, 443-450.  WE ASSUME IN THIS CASE THAT THE AGREEMENTS
CONSTITUTED THE APPELLEES AS DEL CREDERE AGENTS OF MASONITE.  BUT THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE DOES NOT PREVENT THE ARRANGEMENT FROM RUNNING AFOUL OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THE OWNER OF A PATENT CANNOT EXTEND HIS STATUTORY GRANT
BY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT.  A PATENT AFFORDS NO IMMUNITY FOR A MONOPOLY
NOT FAIRLY OR PLAINLY WITHIN THE GRANT.  WE HAVE RECENTLY STATED IN
MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488, 492, THAT "THE PUBLIC
POLICY WHICH INCLUDES INVENTIONS WITHIN THE GRANTED MONOPOLY EXCLUDES
FROM IT ALL THAT IS NOT EMBRACED IN THE INVENTION.  IT EQUALLY FORBIDS
THE USE OF THE PATENT TO SECURE AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OR LIMITED MONOPOLY
NOT GRANTED BY THE PATENT OFFICE AND WHICH IT IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
POLICY TO GRANT."  BEYOND THE LIMITED MONOPOLY WHICH IS GRANTED, THE
ARRANGEMENTS BY WHICH THE PATENT IS UTILIZED ARE SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL
LAW.  STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; BOSTON STORE
V. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO., 246 U.S. 8, 25; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

WE DO NOT HAVE HERE ANY QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A LICENSE TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL, SINCE NONE OF THE "AGENTS" EXERCISED ITS OPTION
TO ACQUIRE SUCH A LICENSE FROM MASONITE.  HENCE WE NEED NOT REACH THE
PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70, AND
THAT PART OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE WHICH DEALT WITH THE LICENSE TO
WESTINGHOUSE COMPANY.  RATHER, WE ARE CONCERNED HERE ONLY WITH A
LICENSE TO VEND.  BUT IT WILL NOT DO TO SAY THAT, SINCE THE PATENTEE
HAS THE POWER TO REFUSE A LICENSE, HE HAS THE LESSER POWER TO LICENSE
ON HIS OWN CONDITIONS.  THERE ARE STRICT LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
THE PATENTEE TO ATTACH CONDITIONS TO THE USE OF THE PATENTED ARTICLE. 
AS CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY SAID IN BLOOMER V. MCQUEWAN, 14 HOW.  539, 549,
WHEN THE PATENTED PRODUCT "PASSES TO THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER, IT IS
NO LONGER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE MONOPOLY.  IT PASSES OUTSIDE OF IT,
AND IS NO LONGER UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS."  AND SEE
ADAMS V. BURKE, 17 WALL.  453; HOBBIE V. JENNISON, 149 U.S. 355.  IN
APPLYING THAT RULE, THIS COURT HAS QUITE CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO ALLOW
THE FORM INTO WHICH THE PARTIES CHOSE TO CAST THE TRANSACTION TO
GOVERN.  THE TEST HAS BEEN WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN SUCH A
DISPOSITION OF THE ARTICLE THAT IT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE PATENTEE
HAS RECEIVED HIS REWARD FOR THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.  STRAUS V. VICTOR
TALKING MACHINE CO., 243 U.S. 490; BOSTON STORE V. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE
CO., SUPRA.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO., ANTE, P. 241. 
IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION COMES WITHIN THE
RULE OF THE BLOOMER CASE, REGARD MUST BE HAD FOR THE DOMINANT CONCERN
OF THE PATENT SYSTEM.  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE STORY IN PENNOCK V.
DIALOGUE, 2 PET. 1, 19, THE PROMOTION OF THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND
THE USEFUL ARTS IS THE "MAIN OBJECT"; REWARD OF INVENTORS IS SECONDARY
AND MERELY A MEANS TO THAT END.  OR, IN THE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE DANIEL
IN KENDALL V. WINSOR, 21 HOW.  322, 329, "WHILST THE REMUNERATION OF
GENIUS AND USEFUL INGENUITY IS A DUTY INCUMBENT UPON THE PUBLIC, THE
RIGHTS AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY MUST BE FAIRLY DEALT WITH AND
EFFECTUALLY GUARDED.  CONSIDERATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL EMOLUMENT CAN NEVER
BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE TO THE INJURY OF THESE."  AND SEE BLOUNT MFG.
CO. V. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO., 166 F. 555. 

THAT MUST BE THE POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR DECISION ON THE FACTS OF
CASES SUCH AS THE PRESENT ONE LEST THE LIMITED PATENT PRIVILEGE BE
ENLARGED BY PRIVATE AGREEMENTS SO AS TO BY-PASS THE SHERMAN ACT.  ETHYL
GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 456-459.  CERTAINLY IF THE
DEL CREDERE AGENCY DEVICE WERE GIVEN BROAD APPROVAL, WHOLE INDUSTRIES
COULD BE KNIT TOGETHER SO AS TO REGULATE PRICES AND SUPPRESS
COMPETITION.  THAT WOULD ALLOW THE PATENT OWNER, UNDER THE GUISE OF HIS
PATENT MONOPOLY, NOT MERELY TO SECURE A REWARD FOR HIS INVENTION BUT TO
SECURE PROTECTION FROM COMPETITION WHICH THE PATENT LAW, UNAIDED BY
RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS, DOES NOT AFFORD.  DOUBTLESS THERE IS A PROPER
AREA FOR UTILIZATION BY A PATENTEE OF A DEL CREDERE AGENT IN THE SALE
OR DISPOSITION OF THE PATENTED ARTICLE.  A PATENTEE WHO EMPLOYS SUCH AN
AGENT TO DISTRIBUTE HIS PRODUCT CERTAINLY IS NOT ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF
HIS PATENT PRIVILEGE IF IT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THAT DISTRIBUTION IS
PART OF THE PATENTEE'S OWN BUSINESS AND OPERATES ONLY TO SECURE TO HIM
THE REWARD FOR HIS INVENTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED.  BUT WHERE HE
UTILIZES THE SALES ORGANIZATION OF ANOTHER BUSINESS - A BUSINESS WITH
WHICH HE HAS NO INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP - QUITE DIFFERENT PROBLEMS ARE
POSED SINCE SUCH A REGIMENTATION OF A MARKETING SYSTEM IS PECULIARLY
SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT CONDEMNS. 
AND WHEN IT IS CLEAR, AS IT IS IN THIS CASE, THAT THE MARKETING SYSTEMS
UTILIZED BY MEANS OF THE DEL CREDERE AGENCY AGREEMENTS ARE THOSE OF
COMPETITORS OF THE PATENTEE, AND THAT THE PURPOSE IS TO FIX PRICES AT
WHICH THE COMPETITORS MAY MARKET THE PRODUCT, THE DEVICE IS, WITHOUT
MORE, AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE LIMITED PATENT PRIVILEGE AND A VIOLATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN SUCH A CASE THE PATENTEE EXHAUSTS HIS LIMITED
PRIVILEGE WHEN HE DISPOSES OF THE PRODUCT TO THE DEL CREDERE AGENT.  HE
THEN HAS, SO FAR AS THE SHERMAN ACT IS CONCERNED, NO GREATER RIGHTS TO
PRICE MAINTENANCE  FN4  THAN THE OWNER OF AN UNPATENTED COMMODITY WOULD
HAVE.  DR. MILES MEDICAL CO. V. JOHN D. PARKS & SONS CO., 220 U.S.
373.  OUR REASONS FOR THAT CONCLUSION ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT A PATENTEE SHALL HAVE THE "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
TO MAKE, USE, AND VEND THE INVENTION OR DISCOVERY" FOR A LIMITED
PERIOD.  46 STAT. 376, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 40.  BUT THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT
TO "VEND" CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO THE PRIVATE LAW OF SALES
ALONE.  SINCE PATENTS ARE PRIVILEGES RESTRICTIVE OF A FREE ECONOMY, THE
RIGHTS WHICH CONGRESS HAS ATTACHED TO THEM MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED
SO AS NOT TO DEROGATE FROM THE GENERAL LAW BEYOND THE NECESSARY
REQUIREMENTS OF THE PATENT STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V. UNIVIS LENS CO.,
INC., SUPRA.  SO FAR AS THE SHERMAN ACT IS CONCERNED, THE RESULT MUST
TURN NOT ON THE SKILL WITH WHICH COUNSEL HAS MANIPULATED THE CONCEPTS
OF "SALE" AND "AGENCY" BUT ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BUSINESS
PRACTICES IN TERMS OF RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

IN THIS CASE, SOME OF THE APPELLEES HAD PATENTS ON HARDBOARD, SOME
DID NOT.  BUT EACH WAS TIED TO MASONITE BY AN AGREEMENT WHICH EXPRESSLY
RECOGNIZED THE VALIDITY OF MASONITE'S PATENTS DURING THE LIFE OF THE
AGREEMENT AND WHICH REQUIRED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PATENTED PRODUCT
AT FIXED PRICES.  IN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, THE COURT THOUGHT THAT
THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE MARKETING PLAN WAS TO SECURE TO THE
PATENTEE ONLY A REWARD FOR HIS INVENTION.  WE CANNOT AGREE THAT THAT IS
TRUE HERE.  IN THIS CASE, THE PRICE REGULATION WAS BASED ON MUTUAL
AGREEMENT AMONG DISTRIBUTORS OF COMPETING PRODUCTS, SOME OF WHOM HAD
COMPETING PATENTS, AS WE HAVE NOTED.  NONE OF THESE PATENTS, EXCEPT
POSSIBLY SOME HELD BY CELOTEX, HAD BEEN HELD TO CONFLICT WITH OR
INFRINGE THE MASONITE PATENTS.  NOR ARE WE WARRANTED IN ASSUMING, IN
ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE ADJUDICATION, THAT ONE GRANT BY THE PATENT OFFICE
IS MORE VALID THAN ANOTHER.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE AGREEMENTS IN QUESTION, THE VARIOUS
APPELLEES HAD BEEN ACTIVE IN ATTEMPTING TO FIND A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE
PATENTED HARDBOARD WHICH WOULD NOT INFRINGE MASONITE'S SO-CALLED
"BASIC" PATENTS; THAT THEY WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL IN THAT SEARCH; THAT THE
AGREEMENTS DID NOT DISCOURAGE OR DISSUADE THEM FROM THEIR EFFORTS TO
DISCOVER OR DEVELOP NON-INFRINGING PRODUCTS; THAT THEY WERE WILLING AND
INTENDED TO TERMINATE THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENCY AGREEMENTS WHENEVER IT
SHOULD BECOME COMMERCIALLY POSSIBLE TO OFFER A COMPETITIVE NON
INFRINGING PRODUCT; AND THAT MANY OF THE APPELLEES HAVE IN FACT
DISTRIBUTED PRODUCTS WHICH WERE IN MANY RESPECTS COMPETITIVE WITH
HARDBOARD.  BUT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CONTROLLING. 

THE POWER OF MASONITE TO FIX THE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT WHICH IT
MANUFACTURES, AND WHICH THE ENTIRE GROUP SELLS AND WITH RESPECT TO
WHICH ALL HAVE BEEN AND ARE NOW ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL COMPETITORS, IS A
POWERFUL INDUCEMENT TO ABANDON COMPETITION.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH THAT
INDUCEMENT IN A GIVEN CASE WILL HAVE OR HAS HAD THE DESIRED EFFECT IS
DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, OF MEASUREMENT.  THE FORCES WHICH THAT
INFLUENCE PUTS TO WORK ARE SUBTLE AND INCALCULABLE.  ACTIVE AND
VIGOROUS COMPETITION THEN TENDS TO BE IMPAIRED, NOT FROM ANY PREFERENCE
OF THE PUBLIC FOR THE PATENTED PRODUCT, BUT FROM THE PREFERENCE OF THE
COMPETITORS FOR A MUTUAL ARRANGEMENT FOR PRICE-FIXING WHICH PROMISES
MORE PROFIT IF THE PARTIES ABANDON RATHER THAN MAINTAIN COMPETITION. 
THE PRESENCE OF COMPETING PATENTS SERVES MERELY TO ACCENTUATE THAT
TENDENCY AND TO UNDERLINE THE POTENCY OF THE FORCES AT WORK.  CONTROL
OVER PRICES THUS BECOMES AN ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL BRAKE ON COMPETITION. 
THIS KIND OF MARKETING DEVICE THUS, ACTUALLY OR POTENTIALLY, THROTTLES
OR SUPPRESSES COMPETING AND NON-INFRINGING PRODUCTS AND TENDS TO PLACE
A PREMIUM ON THE ABANDONMENT OF COMPETITION.  IT IS OUTSIDE OUR
COMPETENCE TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE RESULT WAS OR WAS NOT BENEFICENT, OR
WHETHER THE EVIL WAS OR WAS NOT REALIZED.  AS IN CASE OF AN APPRAISAL
OF THE REASONABLENESS OF PRICES WHICH ARE FIXED, SUCH A DETERMINATION
COULD SATISFACTORILY BE MADE "ONLY AFTER A COMPLETE SURVEY OF OUR
ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION AND A CHOICE BETWEEN RIVAL PHILOSOPHIES" (UNITED
STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., SUPRA, 273 U.S. AT P. 398) AND ONLY
AFTER WEIGHING A HOST OF INTANGIBLES.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM
OIL CO., SUPRA.  THE POWER OF THIS TYPE OF COMBINATION TO INFLICT THE
KIND OF PUBLIC INJURY WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT CONDEMNS RENDERS IT ILLEGAL
PER SE.  IF IT WERE SANCTIONED IN THIS SITUATION, IT WOULD PERMIT THE
PATENTEE TO ADD TO HIS DOMAIN AT PUBLIC EXPENSE BY OBTAINING COMMAND
OVER A COMPETITOR.  HE WOULD THEN NOT ONLY SECURE A REWARD FOR HIS
INVENTION; HE WOULD ENHANCE THE VALUE OF HIS OWN TRADE POSITION BY
ELIMINATING OR IMPAIRING COMPETITION.  THAT WOULD BE NO MORE
PERMISSIBLE THAN A CONTRACT BETWEEN A COPYRIGHT OWNER AND ONE WHO HAS
NO COPYRIGHT, OR A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO COPYRIGHT OWNERS OR PATENTEES,
TO RESTRAIN THE COMPETITIVE DISTRIBUTION OF THE COPYRIGHTED OR PATENTED
ARTICLES IN THE OPEN MARKET.  INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, P. 230.  AS STATED IN STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 226 U.S. AT P. 49, RIGHTS CONFERRED BY PATENTS
"DO NOT GIVE ANY MORE THAN OTHER RIGHTS AN UNIVERSAL LICENSE AGAINST
POSITIVE PROHIBITIONS.  THE SHERMAN LAW IS A LIMITATION OF RIGHTS,
RIGHTS WHICH MAY BE PUSHED TO EVIL CONSEQUENCES AND THEREFORE
RESTRAINED." 

SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS HERE CHALLENGED WERE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
NO QUESTION AS TO THE VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT REMAINS. 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT THE AGREEMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLEES IN 1941,
AFTER THE PRESENT SUIT WAS INSTITUTED, MARK AN ABANDONMENT OF THE
FORMER COMBINATION; AND THAT, SINCE THE NEW ARRANGEMENT IS
UNOBJECTIONABLE, THERE IS NOTHING TO ENJOIN.  THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT
CONTENTION IS THAT THE 1941 AGREEMENTS, THOUGH IMPROVED MODELS OF AN
AGENCY ARRANGEMENT, REMOVED NONE OF THE FEATURES WHICH WE HAVE FOUND TO
BE FATAL.  THEY STILL ARE UNMISTAKABLE PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS WITH
COMPETITORS.  AND IF THERE WERE ANY LINGERING DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE
APPELLEES WERE PARTIES TO A CONSPIRACY, IT IS DISPELLED AT THIS POINT. 
A COMMITTEE OF THE APPELLEES WAS APPOINTED TO DRAFT THE NEW AGREEMENT. 
THE AGREEMENT WAS COMPLETED AFTER MEETINGS AT WHICH REPRESENTATIVES OF
ALL OF THE APPELLEES ATTENDED.  THE 1941 AGREEMENTS WERE THE PRODUCT OF
JOINT AND CONCERTED ACTION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN 1932, RECEIVERS FOR CELOTEX WERE APPOINTED BY THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AND AN ANCILLARY
RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.  THE AGREEMENT WITH MASONITE WAS
AUTHORIZED BY THOSE COURTS. 

FN2  AT THE TIME INSULITE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT WITH MASONITE,
ITS PARENT COMPANY WAS IN RECEIVERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.  THE RECEIVERSHIP COURT AUTHORIZED
INSULITE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WITH MASONITE. 

FN3  THERE WERE IN SOME CASES SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS.  THUS, CELOTEX
AGREED TO WITHDRAW ITS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT,
MASONITE WAIVED AN ACCOUNTING IN CONNECTION WITH THAT INFRINGEMENT
SUIT, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES AGREED TO PAY ITS OWN COSTS AND EXPENSES
INCURRED IN THAT LITIGATION.  IN THE CASE OF INSULITE, MASONITE AGREED
TO DISMISS THE PATENT SUIT WHICH IT HAD INSTITUTED AGAINST ONE OF
INSULITE'S DEALERS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PATENT CLAIMS OF EITHER
PARTY.  MASONITE ALSO AGREED TO PURCHASE A PRESS FROM INSULITE, AND TO
LEASE THAT PRESS TO INSULITE ON CONDITION THAT ANY HARDBOARD MADE WITH
IT SHOULD BE OF THE TYPE THERETOFORE MANUFACTURED BY INSULITE AND
SHOULD NOT BE MARKETED EXCEPT "BY SALE FOR EXPORT ONLY."  MASONITE
COULD TERMINATE INSULITE'S RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE FOR EXPORT BY OFFERING
TO SELL INSULITE HARDBOARD FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THIS AGREEMENT WAS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO MASONITE'S RIGHTS OR THE RIGHTS OF ITS FOREIGN
LICENSEES UNDER MASONITE'S FOREIGN PATENTS. 

IN 1937, BOTH INSULITE AND MASONITE HAD APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS
RELATING TO HARDBOARD PENDING IN THE PATENT OFFICE.  CERTAIN CLAIMS OF
THESE APPLICATIONS WERE INVOLVED IN INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS.  MASONITE
WAS CONTENDING THAT INSULITE WAS INFRINGING ITS PATENTS IN FINLAND.  BY
CONTRACT, THE INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS WERE SETTLED, IN 1938, BY
MASONITE CONCEDING PRIORITY TO CERTAIN PATENT CLAIMS OF INSULITE AND BY
INSULITE GIVING MASONITE AN EXCLUSIVE ROYALTY-FREE LICENSE UNDER ALL OF
INSULITE'S PATENTS AND PATENT APPLICATIONS RELATING TO HARDBOARD.  THE
LICENSE EXCLUDED INSULITE FROM USING THE PATENTS.  THE ALLEGED
INFRINGEMENT OF THE FINNISH PATENTS WAS SETTLED BY MASONITE ASSIGNING
ITS FINNISH PATENTS TO INSULITE. 

FN4  IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT THE MILLER-TYDINGS
ACT (50 STAT. 693) WHICH AMENDED SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT SO AS TO
LEGALIZE CERTAIN TYPES OF RESALE PRICE AGREEMENTS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED
"ANY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OR
MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM RESALE PRICES ON ANY COMMODITY HEREIN INVOLVED,
BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS, OR BETWEEN PRODUCERS, OR BETWEEN WHOLESALERS, OR
BETWEEN BROKERS, OR BETWEEN FACTORS, OR BETWEEN RETAILERS, OR BETWEEN
PERSONS, FIRMS, OR CORPORATIONS IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN
THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :

















REEVES V. BEARDALL, 316 U.S. 283 


NO. 841.  SUBMITTED APRIL 8, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 11, 1942.  -
REVERSED. 


UNDER RULE 54(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE A JUDGMENT WHICH
TERMINATES THE ACTION WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF SEVERAL CLAIMS JOINED IN A
COMPLAINT IS FINAL FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 128,
THOUGH THE OTHER CLAIMS REMAIN UNDISPOSED OF, WHERE THE SEVERAL CLAIMS
AROSE OUT OF WHOLLY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT TRANSACTIONS OR ENGAGEMENTS. 
P. 285. 

REEVES V. BEARDALL, EXECUTOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 790, TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS WHICH DISMISSED AN APPEAL UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 128 UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM WAS NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS COMMITTED ERROR IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT IN QUESTION WAS "NOT FINAL." 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS INVOKED ON THE BASIS OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE COMPLAINT CONTAINED THREE COUNTS.  COUNT
I CONTAINED A CLAIM ON A PROMISSORY NOTE EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT'S
DECEDENT.  COUNT II CONTAINED A CLAIM ON AN ALLEGED CONTRACT BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT'S DECEDENT, WHEREBY THE LATTER AGREED NOT TO
CHANGE HER WILL, IN CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S RETURN OF CERTAIN
SECURITIES AND PETITIONER'S AGREEMENT NOT TO PRESS FOR PAYMENT OF THE
NOTE.  SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DAMAGES EQUAL TO
THE NET VALUE OF THE ESTATE, WAS SOUGHT.  COUNT III CONTAINED A CLAIM
AGAINST ONE HAMER, WHO WAS ALLEGED TO HOLD CERTAIN ASSETS OF DECEDENT
TO WHICH PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED BY REASON OF THE CONTRACT ON WHICH
COUNT II WAS BASED.  THE PRAYER WAS FOR AN ACCOUNTING AGAINST HAMER. 
RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS COUNTS II AND III.  THE MOTION WAS GRANTED,
WITH PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER TO AMEND. COUNTS II AND III WERE
AMENDED IN RESPECTS NOT MATERIAL HERE.  RESPONDENT THEN MOVED TO
DISMISS COUNT II. PETITIONER HAVING ANNOUNCED THAT SHE DID NOT DESIRE
TO AMEND, THE COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND ORDERED THAT "FINAL
JUDGMENT" BE ENTERED ON COUNT II IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT.  AN APPEAL TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT OPINION, ON THE
GROUND THAT IT "WAS TAKEN FROM A JUDGMENT THAT IS NOT FINAL."  WE
GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN APPARENT CONFLICT
BETWEEN THAT DECISION AND SUCH CASES FROM OTHER CIRCUITS AS COLLINS V.
METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP., 106 F.2D 83. 

IN THIS TYPE OF CASE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS APPELLATE
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BY APPEAL ONLY "FINAL DECISIONS."  JUDICIAL CODE
SEC. 128, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 225.  THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDE:
"WHEN MORE THAN ONE CLAIM FOR RELIEF IS PRESENTED IN AN ACTION, THE
COURT AT ANY STAGE, UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES MATERIAL TO A
PARTICULAR CLAIM AND ALL COUNTERCLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSACTION
OR OCCURRENCE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CLAIM, MAY ENTER A
JUDGMENT DISPOSING OF SUCH CLAIM.  THE JUDGMENT SHALL TERMINATE THE
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM SO DISPOSED OF AND THE ACTION SHALL
PROCEED AS TO THE REMAINING CLAIMS.  IN CASE A SEPARATE JUDGMENT IS SO
ENTERED, THE COURT BY ORDER MAY STAY ITS ENFORCEMENT UNTIL THE ENTERING
OF A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OR JUDGMENTS AND MAY PRESCRIBE SUCH CONDITIONS
AS ARE NECESSARY TO SECURE THE BENEFIT THEREOF TO THE PARTY IN WHOSE
FAVOR THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED."  RULE 54(B).  THAT RULE, THE JOINDER
PROVISIONS (SEE RULES 13, 14, 18, 20), AND THE PROVISION OF RULE 42
WHICH PERMITS THE COURT TO ORDER A SEPARATE TRIAL OF ANY SEPARATE CLAIM
OR ISSUE, INDICATE A "DEFINITE POLICY" (COLLINS V. METRO-GOLDWYN
PICTURES CORP., SUPRA, P. 85) TO PERMIT THE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENTS
WHERE THE CLAIMS ARE "ENTIRELY DISTINCT."  3 MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE,
CUM. SUPP. 1941, P. 96.  SUCH A SEPARATE JUDGMENT WILL FREQUENTLY BE A
FINAL JUDGMENT AND APPEALABLE, THOUGH NO DISPOSITION HAS BEEN MADE OF
THE OTHER CLAIMS IN THE ACTION.  BOWLES V. COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INS.
CO., 107 F.2D 169, 170.  THAT RESULT PROMOTES THE POLICY OF THE RULES
IN EXPEDITING APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS WHICH "TERMINATE THE ACTION WITH
RESPECT TO THE CLAIM SO DISPOSED OF," THOUGH THE TRIAL COURT HAS NOT
FINISHED WITH THE REST OF THE LITIGATION.  SEE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, PROCEEDINGS OF INSTITUTES, WASHINGTON & NEW YORK (1938), P.
329. 

THE RULES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS "DIFFERING OCCURRENCES OR
TRANSACTIONS, WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF SEPARATE UNITS OF JUDICIAL
ACTION."  ATWATER V. NORTH AMERICAN COAL CORP., 111 F.2D 125, 126.  AND
SEE MOORE, OP. CIT., 92-101; 49 YALE L. JOURN.  1476.  IF A JUDGMENT
HAS BEEN ENTERED WHICH TERMINATES THE ACTION WITH RESPECT TO SUCH A
CLAIM, IT IS FINAL FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL UNDER SEC. 128 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  THE JUDGMENT HERE IN QUESTION MEETS THAT TEST.  THE
CLAIM AGAINST RESPONDENT ON THE PROMISSORY NOTE WAS UNRELATED TO THE
CLAIM ON THE CONTRACT NOT TO CHANGE THE WILL.  THOSE TWO CLAIMS AROSE
OUT OF WHOLLY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT TRANSACTIONS OR ENGAGEMENTS.  AND
THE QUESTION AS TO HAMER'S LIABILITY TO ACCOUNT TO PETITIONER WOULD
ARISE ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT THE CLAIM ON THE CONTRACT NOT TO CHANGE
THE WILL WAS SUSTAINED.  HENCE NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED HERE AS
RESPECTS THE APPEALABILITY OF A JUDGMENT DISMISSING A COMPLAINT AS TO
ONE OF SEVERAL DEFENDANTS ALLEGED TO BE JOINTLY LIABLE ON THE SAME
CLAIM.  SEE HUNTEMAN V. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC., 119 F.2D
465.  AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT ON COUNT II, THE CLAIM BASED ON
THE CONTRACT NOT TO CHANGE THE WILL WAS TERMINATED AND COULD NOT BE
AFFECTED BY ANY ACTION WHICH THE COURT MIGHT TAKE AS RESPECTS THE
REMAINING CLAIMS.  NOTHING REMAINED TO BE DONE EXCEPT APPEAL. 

THE JUDGMENT THEREFORE WAS FINAL.  REVERSED. 
..END :
















SEMINOLE NATION V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 286 


NO. 348.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 2, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 11, 1942.  - 93
CT.CLS.  500, REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  A CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BY THE SEMINOLE NATION, BASED ON
ARTICLE VIII OF THE TREATY OF AUGUST 7, 1856, WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT
UNDERTOOK TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN SUM ANNUALLY FOR TEN YEARS, TO BE USED
FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES, BUT WHICH, IN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED, WAS DIVERTED
TO THE CLOTHING AND FEEDING OF REFUGEE INDIANS, HELD TO HAVE BEEN
RELEASED BY ARTICLE VIII OF THE TREATY OF MARCH 21, 1866, AND PROPERLY
DISALLOWED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  P. 290. 

2.  PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE TRIBAL TREASURER OF THE SEMINOLE
NATION, OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS WHICH, BY ARTICLE III OF THE TREATY OF 1866,
THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO PAY FOR THE SUPPORT OF SCHOOLS, SATISFIED THE
OBLIGATION OF THE TREATY AND DEFEATS RECOVERY, WHETHER PAYMENT TO THE
TRIBAL TREASURER WAS AUTHORIZED OR NOT, SINCE THE SCHOOLS ACTUALLY
RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE PAYMENTS.  P. 292. 

3.  UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, A SUM DUE UNDER
ARTICLE III OF THE TREATY OF 1866, WAS IN 1907 PROPERLY PAID BY THE
GOVERNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES INDIAN AGENT FOR THE SEMINOLES.  P.
292. 

4.  A PROVISION IN ARTICLE VI OF THE TREATY OF 1866, WHEREBY THE
GOVERNMENT UNDERTOOK TO CONSTRUCT AT A COST NOT EXCEEDING $10,000
"SUITABLE AGENCY BUILDINGS" ON THE SEMINOLE RESERVATION, HELD NOT
BREACHED.  P. 293. 

5.  IN RESPECT OF A CLAIM OF THE SEMINOLE NATION BASED ON THE
GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION, UNDER A PROVISION OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE
TREATY OF 1856, TO ESTABLISH A TRUST FUND IN A SPECIFIED AMOUNT AND TO
PAY THE INTEREST THEREFROM TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SEMINOLE NATION PER
CAPITA AS AN ANNUITY, HELD: 

(A)  THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY DEDUCTED THE AMOUNT OF OVERPAYMENTS
FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN CERTAIN YEARS.  P. 294. 

(B)  UNDER THE ACT OF 1906, WHICH WAS NOT REPEALED BY THE
JURISDICTIONAL ACT, PAYMENTS IN 1907, 1908, AND 1909 WERE PROPERLY MADE
TO THE UNITED STATES INDIAN AGENT FOR THE SEMINOLES.  P. 294. 

(C)  AS TO PAYMENTS MADE FROM 1870 TO 1874 DIRECTLY TO THE TRIBAL
TREASURER AND TO DESIGNATED CREDITORS, PURSUANT TO REQUESTS OF THE
SEMINOLE GENERAL COUNCIL, THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE MADE
FINDINGS, SINCE THE ISSUE WAS MATERIAL, AS TO WHETHER THE GENERAL
COUNCIL, DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION, WAS CORRUPT, VENAL, AND FALSE TO
ITS TRUST; WHETHER, IF SUCH WERE THE FACT, IT WAS KNOWN TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH THE DISBURSEMENT
OF INDIAN MONEYS; AND WHETHER THE SEMINOLE NATION RECEIVED THE BENEFIT
OF ANY OF THE PAYMENTS.  THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE
COURT OF CLAIMS IN ORDER THAT THE ESSENTIAL FINDINGS OF FACT MAY BE
MADE.  PP. 294, 300. 

6.  CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE TRIBAL TREASURER
OF THE SEMINOLE NATION, AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE CURTIS ACT OF JUNE 28,
1898, HELD NOT TO HAVE CONTRAVENED SEC. 19 OF THAT ACT, SINCE THAT
DISTRIBUTED BY THEM TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE.  HOWEVER, THIS
BRANCH OF THE CASE ALSO IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR FURTHER
FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER FROM 1899 TO 1907 TRIBAL OFFICERS WERE MULCTING
THE SEMINOLE NATION; IF SO, WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT DISBURSING MONEYS TO THE SEMINOLES HAD KNOWLEDGE THEREOF;
AND WHETHER THE SEMINOLE NATION RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF PAYMENTS MADE
TO THE TRIBAL TREASURER.  PP. 301, 307. 

7.  IN RESPECT TO AMOUNTS WHICH WERE EXPENDED GRATUITOUSLY BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SEMINOLE NATION, AND WHICH, UNDER ACT
OF AUGUST 12, 1935, MAY BE OFFSET AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY,
HELD THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD FIND AND DESIGNATE THE PRECISE
EXPENDITURES TO BE USED AS OFFSETS, INSTEAD OF FINDING GENERALLY ALL
THE ITEMS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY EVER BE ENTITLED TO USE.  P. 308. 

SEMINOLE NATION V. UNITED STATES.* 

*OPINION REPORTED HEREIN AS AMENDED BY ORDER OF JUNE 8, 1942, POST,
P. 651. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 597, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS, AS MODIFIED ON MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, IN A SUIT BY THE
SEMINOLE NATION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, BROUGHT UNDER A SPECIAL
JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF AUGUST 16, 1937. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT TO ADJUDICATE CERTAIN CLAIMS OF THE SEMINOLE NATION AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES GROWING OUT OF VARIOUS TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND ACTS
OF CONGRESS IS NOW BEFORE US FOR THE SECOND TIME.  AFTER WE REVERSED,
299 U.S. 417, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, A
PREVIOUS JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT AWARDING THE SEMINOLE NATION
$1,317,087.27,  FN1  THE JURISDICTIONAL BARRIER WAS REMOVED BY STATUTE,
FN2  AND THE SEMINOLE NATION THEN FILED A SECOND AMENDED PETITION IN
THE COURT OF CLAIMS, REASSERTING THE SIX ITEMS OF CLAIM PREVIOUSLY
DENIED BY THIS COURT ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS.  FN3  THE COURT OF
CLAIMS THEREUPON DISALLOWED THREE ITEMS IN THEIR ENTIRETY, ALLOWED ONE
IN FULL, AND ALLOWED THE REMAINING TWO IN PART, DECIDING THAT THE
SEMINOLE NATION WAS ENTITLED TO $18,388.30, AGAINST WHICH THE UNITED
STATES WAS ENTITLED TO GRATUITY OFFSETS IN THE AMOUNT OF $705,337.33. 
FN4  ACCORDINGLY, THE SECOND AMENDED PETITION WAS ORDERED DISMISSED. 
FN5  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON A PETITION CHALLENGING THE CORRECTNESS OF
THE DECISION BELOW ON EACH OF THE FIVE ITEMS DISALLOWED IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, AND AS TO NUMEROUS ITEMS WHICH THE COURT INCLUDED IN ITS LIST OF
GRATUITY OFFSETS. 

                                  I 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT PETITIONER, THE SEMINOLE NATION, IS ENTITLED
TO NO ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE ON ITEMS ONE, THREE, AND FOUR OF ITS CLAIM. 

ITEM ONE. 

THIS ITEM IS A CLAIM FOR $61,563.42, BASED ON ARTICLE VIII OF THE
TREATY OF AUGUST 7, 1856, 11 STAT. 699, 702, WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT
PROMISED THE SEMINOLE NATION: 

"TO PROVIDE ANNUALLY FOR TEN YEARS THE SUM OF THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS
FOR THE SUPPORT OF SCHOOLS; TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR AGRICULTURAL
ASSISTANCE; AND TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR THE SUPPORT OF
SMITHS AND SMITH SHOPS  ...  " 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT CONGRESS ANNUALLY MADE THE NECESSARY
APPROPRIATION OF $7,200 TO DISCHARGE THIS OBLIGATION DURING THE FISCAL
YEARS FROM 1858 TO 1867, INCLUSIVE; THAT ONLY $10,436.58 WAS ACTUALLY
EXPENDED FOR THE PURPOSES SPECIFIED IN THE TREATY; AND THAT THE BALANCE
($61,563.42) WAS DIVERTED AND DISBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO JUNE
30, 1866, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLOTHING AND FEEDING REFUGEE AND DESTITUTE
INDIANS DRIVEN FROM THEIR HOMES DURING THE CIVIL WAR BECAUSE OF THEIR
LOYALTY TO THE UNION. 

PETITIONER'S CLAIM TO THE DIVERTED BALANCE WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED
BECAUSE PETITIONER RELEASED ITS CLAIM BY ARTICLE VIII OF THE TREATY OF
MARCH 21, 1866, 14 STAT. 755, 759, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THE STIPULATIONS OF THIS TREATY ARE TO BE A FULL SETTLEMENT OF ALL
CLAIMS OF SAID SEMINOLE NATION FOR DAMAGES AND LOSSES OF EVERY KIND
GROWING OUT OF THE LATE REBELLION, AND ALL EXPENDITURES BY THE UNITED
STATES OF ANNUITIES IN CLOTHING AND FEEDING REFUGEE AND DESTITUTE
INDIANS SINCE THE DIVERSION OF ANNUITIES FOR THAT PURPOSE, CONSEQUENT
UPON THE LATE WAR WITH THE SO-CALLED CONFEDERATE STATES.  AND THE
SEMINOLES HEREBY RATIFY AND CONFIRM ALL SUCH DIVERSIONS OF ANNUITIES
HERETOFORE MADE FROM THE FUNDS OF THE SEMINOLE NATION BY THE UNITED
STATES.  AND THE UNITED STATES AGREE THAT NO ANNUITIES SHALL BE
DIVERTED FROM THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THEY WERE ORIGINALLY DEVOTED BY
TREATY STIPULATIONS WITH THE SEMINOLES, TO THE USE OF REFUGEE AND
DESTITUTE INDIANS, OTHER THAN THE SEMINOLES OR MEMBERS OF THE SEMINOLE
NATION, AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PRESENT FISCAL YEAR, JUNE THIRTIETH,
EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SIX." 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT BY THIS
ARTICLE IT DID NOT RATIFY THE DIVERSIONS IN QUESTION BECAUSE THEY WERE
MADE FROM THE FUNDS OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT FROM FUNDS OF THE
SEMINOLE NATION.  THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE VIII OF TREATY OF 1866,
QUOTED ABOVE, CONSTITUTES A RELEASE TO THE UNITED STATES OF ALL
EXPENDITURES OF ANNUITIES DIVERTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLOTHING AND
FEEDING REFUGEE INDIANS.  THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE ANNUITIES
THERE REFERRED TO MUST BE DERIVED "FROM THE FUNDS OF THE SEMINOLE
NATION," AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE RELEASES CONTAINED IN THE
FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE VIII ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE RATIFICATION
CONTAINED IN THE SECOND SENTENCE.  THE PAYMENTS DUE THE SEMINOLE NATION
UNDER ARTICLE VIII OF THE TREATY OF 1856 CLEARLY COME WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THE RELEASE - BEING ANNUAL PAYMENTS, THEY WERE ANNUITIES, AND THEY
WERE DIVERTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLOTHING AND FEEDING REFUGEE INDIANS. 

ITEM THREE. 

THIS CLAIM FOR $61,347.20 GROWS OUT OF ARTICLE III OF THE TREATY OF
1866, IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO ESTABLISH A $50,000 TRUST FUND
FOR THE SEMINOLE NATION AND TO PAY THEREON ANNUAL INTEREST OF 5%
($2,500) FOR THE SUPPORT OF SCHOOLS. 

DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1867 TO 1874, THE GOVERNMENT ONLY PARTIALLY
DISCHARGED THIS ANNUAL OBLIGATION, DISBURSING ONLY $16,902.80 OF THE
$20,000 APPROPRIATED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IT IS HERE UNDISPUTED THAT, AS
THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD, PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE DEFICIENCY OF
$3,097.20. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS CORRECTLY DISALLOWED THE BALANCE OF THIS ITEM. 
DURING THE TWENTY-THREE YEARS FROM 1875 TO 1898, THE ANNUAL PAYMENTS,
AMOUNTING IN ALL TO $57,500, WERE PAID DIRECTLY TO THE TRIBAL
TREASURER.  SINCE THAT OFFICIAL DISBURSED ANNUALLY NOT LESS THAN $2,500
IN EXCESS OF AMOUNTS HE WAS OTHERWISE OBLIGATED TO EXPEND FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF SCHOOLS,  FN6  THERE IS NO NEED TO INQUIRE WHETHER
PAYMENT TO THAT OFFICIAL WAS AUTHORIZED.  THE SCHOOLS ACTUALLY RECEIVED
THE BENEFIT OF THE MONEY.  THAT SATISFIED THE OBLIGATION OF THE TREATY
AND DEFEATS RECOVERY. 

THE REMAINDER OF THIS ITEM, $750, WAS PAID TO THE UNITED STATES
INDIAN AGENT FOR THE SEMINOLES IN 1907.  SUCH PAYMENT WAS PROPER UNDER
SEC. 11 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, C. 1876, 34 STAT. 137, 141,  FN7
AND NOTHING IN THE APPLICABLE JURISDICTIONAL ACT  FN8  INDICATES ANY
INTENTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO OVERRIDE OR REPEAL THE ACT OF
1906. 

ITEM FOUR. 

THE GOVERNMENT AGREED IN ARTICLE VI OF THE TREATY OF 1866 TO
CONSTRUCT, "AT AN EXPENSE NOT EXCEEDING TEN THOUSAND ($10,000) DOLLARS,
SUITABLE AGENCY BUILDINGS" ON THE SEMINOLE RESERVATION.  IN 1870 AND
1872, $931.76 WAS EXPENDED FOR AGENCY BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS. 
PETITIONER'S CLAIMS FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF $9,068.24 BETWEEN THIS SUM
AND $10,000 IS WITHOUT MERIT.  IN 1872, CONGRESS APPROPRIATED $10,000
TO FULFILL THIS TREATY OBLIGATION; FN9  $9,030.15 OF THIS APPROPRIATION
WAS EXPENDED FOR SOME UNDISCLOSED PURPOSE, AS ONLY $969.85 WAS RETURNED
TO SURPLUS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT AN AGENCY BUILDING WAS
ERECTED ON THE SEMINOLE RESERVATION IN 1873.  FN10 PETITIONER MAKES NO
CLAIM THAT THE BUILDING ERECTED WAS UNSUITABLE.  SINCE THE GOVERNMENT'S
PROMISE WAS NOT TO EXPEND $10,000, BUT TO ERECT SUITABLE BUILDINGS AT A
COST NOT IN EXCESS OF $10,000, IT FOLLOWS THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION
OF THE TREATY PROVISION, AND HENCE NO RIGHT OF RECOVERY. 

                                  II 

WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS TWO AND FIVE WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CAUSE
MUST BE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR FURTHER MATERIAL FINDINGS
OF FACT. 

ITEM TWO. 

THIS IS A CLAIM FOR $154,551.28 BASED ON ONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE VIII OF THE TREATY OF 1856, NAMELY, THE GOVERNMENT'S PROMISE TO
ESTABLISH A $500,000 TRUST FUND (ORIGINALLY TWO FUNDS OF $250,000
EACH), THE ANNUAL INTEREST THEREFROM ($25,000) TO BE PAID OVER TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE SEMINOLE NATION PER CAPITA AS AN ANNUITY.  THE FINDINGS
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOW THAT, ALTHOUGH CONGRESS APPROPRIATED
$25,000 ANNUALLY FOR EACH OF THE FISCAL YEARS IN CONTROVERSY (1867
1898, 1907-1909), THE GOVERNMENT DID IN FACT FAIL TO MAKE DIRECT PER
CAPITA DISBURSEMENTS OF A PORTION OF THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED IN 1867
1874, 1876, AND 1879, THE UNDERPAYMENTS FOR THOSE YEARS TOTALLING
$92,051.28, AND THAT ONE-HALF THE APPROPRIATION IN 1907 AND THE ENTIRE
APPROPRIATION IN 1908 AND 1909($62,500 IN ALL), INSTEAD OF BEING PAID
DIRECTLY TO THE INDIVIDUAL SEMINOLES, WAS PAID TO THE UNITED STATES
INDIAN AGENT FOR THE SEMINOLE NATION. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS REDUCED PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR $154,551.28, BASED
ON THESE UNDERPAYMENTS AND ALLEGED MISPAYMENTS, TO $13,501.10, ALLOWING
THE GOVERNMENT THREE SETOFFS, CONSISTING OF (A) OVERPAYMENTS OF
$12,127.54 MADE IN 1875, 1877, 1880, 1882, AND 1883; (B) PAYMENT OF
$62,500 MADE TO THE UNITED STATES INDIAN AGENT FOR THE SEMINOLES IN
1907, 1908, AND 1909; AND (C) PAYMENTS OF $66,422.64 MADE PURSUANT TO
REQUESTS OF THE SEMINOLE GENERAL COUNCIL DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1870 TO
1874. 

THE OVERPAYMENTS WERE RIGHTLY DEDUCTED, CF. WISCONSIN CENTRAL R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 190, AND PETITIONER DOES NOT CONTEND
OTHERWISE.  NOR IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO ANY PART OF THE $62,500 PAID
DIRECTLY TO THE INDIAN AGENT, FOR SUCH PAYMENTS WERE PROPER UNDER THE
ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 137, 141, WHICH, AS POINTED OUT IN THE DISCUSSION
OF ITEM THREE, ANTE, WAS NOT REPEALED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT, 43
STAT. 133.  THERE IS THUS LEFT FOR CONSIDERATION ONLY THE PAYMENTS FROM
1870 TO 1874 MADE PURSUANT TO REQUESTS OF THE SEMINOLE GENERAL COUNCIL
AND TOTALLING $66,422.64; OF THIS AMOUNT, $37,500 WAS PAID DIRECTLY TO
THE TRIBAL TREASURER, AND THE REMAINING $28,922.64 TO DESIGNATED
CREDITORS. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT, SINCE THOSE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AT THE
REQUEST OF THE TRIBAL COUNCIL, THE GOVERNING BODY OF A SEMIAUTONOMOUS
POLITICAL ENTITY, POSSESSING THE POWER TO ENTER INTO TREATIES AND
AGREEMENTS WITH THE UNITED STATES, THE TRIBE IS NOT NOW ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE PAYMENT A SECOND TIME; AND THAT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE
TREATY OF 1856 PROVIDED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE TO BE MADE PER CAPITA
FOR THE BENEFIT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL INDIAN, THESE PAYMENTS AT THE
REQUEST OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL DISCHARGED THE TREATY OBLIGATION,
BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT WAS ONE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE
SEMINOLE NATION AND NOT ONE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER SOUND IT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE,
FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF CERTAIN EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS AND
THE EFFECT OF THE FIDUCIARY DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ITS INDIAN
WARDS.  THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT, 43 STAT. 133, EXPRESSLY CONFERS
JURISDICTION ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO ADJUDICATE "ALL LEGAL AND
EQUITABLE CLAIMS," ARISING UNDER TREATY OR STATUTE, WHICH THE SEMINOLE
NATION MAY HAVE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, AND THE SECOND AMENDED
PETITION AVERS: 

"THAT SINCE THE PASSAGE OF SAID ACT OF APRIL 15, 1874, IT WAS
REPORTED BY THE OFFICERS OF DEFENDANT (THE UNITED STATES) THAT THE
SEMINOLE TRIBAL OFFICIALS WERE MISAPPROPRIATING THE SEMINOLE TRIBAL
FUNDS ENTRUSTED TO THEM, AND ROBBING THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE OF AN
EQUAL SHARE OF THE TRIBAL INCOME.  THAT THE REPORTS OF THE DAWES
COMMISSION SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED
TRIBES WERE NOTORIOUSLY AND INCURABLY CORRUPT, THAT EVERY BRANCH OF THE
SERVICE WAS INFESTED WITH FAVORITISM, GRAFT AND CROOKEDNESS, AND THAT
BY SUCH METHODS THE TRIBAL OFFICERS ACQUIRED LARGE FORTUNES, WHILE THE
OTHER MEMBERS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE TRIBAL INCOME RECEIVED LITTLE
BENEFIT THEREFROM." 

IT IS A WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY THAT A THIRD PARTY WHO
PAYS MONEY TO A FIDUCIARY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BENEFICIARY, WITH
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE FIDUCIARY INTENDS TO MISAPPROPRIATE THE MONEY OR
OTHERWISE BE FALSE TO HIS TRUST, IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE BREACH OF
TRUST AND LIABLE THEREFOR TO THE BENEFICIARY.  CF. DUNCAN V. JAUDON, 15
WALL.  165; MANHATTAN BANK V. WALKER, 130 U.S. 267.  SEE BOGERT, TRUSTS
AND TRUSTEES (1935), VOL. 4, SECS. 901, 955; SCOTT, TRUSTS (1939), VOL.
3, SEC. 321.1; AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF TRUSTS
(1935), SEC. 321.  THE SEMINOLE GENERAL COUNCIL, REQUESTING THE
ANNUITIES ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
OF THE TRIBE, STOOD IN A FIDUCIARY CAPACITY TO THEM.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE
PAYMENTS AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL DID NOT DISCHARGE THE TREATY
OBLIGATION IF THE GOVERNMENT, FOR THIS PURPOSE THE OFFICIALS
ADMINISTERING INDIAN AFFAIRS AND DISBURSING INDIAN MONEYS, ACTUALLY
KNEW THAT THE COUNCIL WAS DEFRAUDING THE MEMBERS OF THE SEMINOLE
NATION. 

FURTHERMORE, THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE DISTINCTIVE OBLIGATION OF
TRUST INCUMBENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS DEALINGS WITH THESE
DEPENDENT AND SOMETIMES EXPLOITED PEOPLE.  E.G., CHEROKEE NATION V.
GEORGIA, 5 PET. 1; UNITED STATES V. KAGAMA, 118 U.S. 375; CHOCTAW
NATION V. UNITED STATES, 119 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. PELICAN, 232 U.S.
442; UNITED STATES V. CREEK NATION, 295 U.S. 103; TULEE V. WASHINGTON,
315 U.S. 681.  IN CARRYING OUT ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS WITH THE INDIAN
TRIBES, THE GOVERNMENT IS SOMETHING MORE THAN A MERE CONTRACTING
PARTY.  UNDER A HUMANE AND SELF IMPOSED POLICY WHICH HAS FOUND
EXPRESSION IN MANY ACTS OF CONGRESS  FN11  AND NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT, IT HAS CHARGED ITSELF WITH MORAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE HIGHEST
RESPONSIBILITY AND TRUST.  ITS CONDUCT, AS DISCLOSED IN THE ACTS OF
THOSE WHO REPRESENT IT IN DEALINGS WITH THE INDIANS, SHOULD THEREFORE
BE JUDGED BY THE MOST EXACTING FIDUCIARY STANDARDS.  PAYMENT OF FUNDS
AT THE REQUEST OF A TRIBAL COUNCIL WHICH, TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
AND THE DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS TO SATISFY TREATY OBLIGATIONS, WAS
COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES FAITHLESS TO THEIR OWN PEOPLE AND WITHOUT
INTEGRITY WOULD BE A CLEAR BREACH OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATION.  FN12  IF THOSE WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES, EITHER HISTORICALLY
NOTORIOUS SO AS TO BE JUDICIALLY NOTICED OR OTHERWISE OPEN TO PROOF,
WHEN THE $66,422.64 WAS PAID OVER AT THE REQUEST OF THE SEMINOLE
GENERAL COUNCIL DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1870 TO 1874, THE SEMINOLE
NATION IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THAT SUM, MINUS SUCH AMOUNTS AS WERE
ACTUALLY EXPENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NATION BY THE COUNCIL. 

HAVING FORMULATED THE PROPER RULE OF LAW, WE MUST EXAMINE THE FACTS
OF THIS CASE.  ALTHOUGH THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD JURISDICTION OF THIS
ISSUE, FOR SUCH AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY GROWING OUT OF
TREATY OBLIGATIONS IS CLEARLY AN EQUITABLE CLAIM WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT, 43 STAT. 133, THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER, AND
HENCE MADE NO FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE.  WE THINK THE ISSUE MATERIAL. 
DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, 1870-1874, THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS AND THE DISBURSEMENT OF INDIAN MONEYS WERE LODGED WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, UNDER
THE GENERAL SUPERVISION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ACTIVELY
SUPERVISED THESE MATTERS.  FN13  THERE ARE AMPLE INDICATIONS IN THE
RECORD BEFORE US THAT THE SEMINOLE GENERAL COUNCIL WAS MULCTING THE
NATION AND THAT THE PROPER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS MAY WELL HAVE HAD
KNOWLEDGE THEREOF AT THE TIME SOME, AT LEAST, OF THE PAYMENTS WERE
MADE.  FOR ABOUT THIS TIME THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RECEIVED
SEVERAL WARNINGS FROM HIS SUBORDINATES THAT "INJUSTICE TO THE MAJORITY"
OF THE SEMINOLES EXISTED,  FN14  THAT THE CHIEFS WERE IN THE HABIT "OF
TAKING OUT WHAT AMOUNT THEY CHOSE" FROM THE ANNUITIES,  FN15  THAT THE
SEMINOLES WERE "IN BAD HANDS,"  FN16  AND THAT THE CHIEFS INTENDED "TO
'GOBBLE' THE NEXT MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING UP THEIR
GOVERNMENT."  N17  AND THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS WAS
EVIDENTLY AWARE, IN 1872, OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE COUNCIL WAS
FAITHLESS, FOR HE DECLINED TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF PAYMENT AT THE
REQUEST OF THE SEMINOLE CHIEFS "UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE FULLY
SATISFIED THAT A PROPER DISPOSITION WILL BE MADE OF THE FUNDS IF PAID
IN THE MANNER PROPOSED BY THE CHIEFS."  FN18 

WE DO NOT SAY THAT ALL THIS ESTABLISHES LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT, FOR IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION, IN REVIEWING JUDGMENTS OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS, TO MAKE BASIC FINDINGS OF FACT.  WHEN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FAILS TO MAKE FINDINGS ON A MATERIAL ISSUE, IT IS PROPER TO
REMAND THE CASE FOR SUCH FINDINGS.  CF. UNIVERSAL BATTERY CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 281 U.S. 580, 584-585.  WE DO THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE MATTER
OUTLINED ABOVE WAS SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO MAKE
FINDINGS ON THIS MATERIAL ISSUE, THAT IS, FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER THE
SEMINOLE GENERAL COUNCIL, DURING THE YEARS 1870 TO 1874, WAS CORRUPT,
VENAL, AND FALSE TO ITS TRUST; WHETHER THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS, CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ADMINISTERING INDIAN AFFAIRS AND
DISBURSING FUNDS TO THE SEMINOLES, KNEW OF THAT CORRUPTION, VENALITY,
AND FAITHLESSNESS, IF SUCH IN FACT EXISTED, WHEN ANY OF THE PAYMENTS IN
QUESTION WERE MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL; AND, IF SO, WHETHER
THE NATION RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF ANY OF THOSE PAYMENTS.  ACCORDINGLY,
THIS PHASE OF THE CASE MUST BE REMANDED SO THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS CAN
CONSIDER SUCH RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND OTHER DATA AS MAY BE BROUGHT TO ITS
ATTENTION, MAKE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS OF FACT, AND THUS DETERMINE
WHETHER THIS CASE FITS INTO THE RULE WHICH WE HAVE ENUNCIATED. 

ITEM FIVE. 

THIS IS A CLAIM FOR THE MONEYS, $864,702.58 IN ALL, PAID TO THE
SEMINOLE TRIBAL TREASURER AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE CURTIS ACT OF JUNE
28, 1898, C. 517, 30 STAT. 495, 502.  THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE
FISCAL YEARS 1899 TO 1907 AND CONSISTED OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:  (A)
$212,500 PAID TO DISCHARGE THE PER CAPITA OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE VIII
OF THE TREATY OF 1856(SEE ITEM TWO, ANTE); (B) $29,750 PAID TO
DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION OF ARTICLE III OF THE TREATY OF 1866 PROVIDING
FOR THE SUPPORT OF SCHOOLS (SEE ITEM THREE, ANTE) AND FOR THE SUPPORT
OF THE SEMINOLE GOVERNMENT; (C) $622,156.87 PAID PURSUANT TO SEC. 12 OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1889, C. 412, 25 STAT. 980, 1004, PROVIDING FOR THE
PAYMENT OF INTEREST AT FIVE PER CENTUM PER ANNUM ON $1,500,000 "TO BE
PAID SEMI-ANNUALLY TO THE TREASURER OF SAID NATION"; AND, (D) $295.71,
THE "PROCEEDS OF LABOR." 


"THAT NO PAYMENT OF ANY MONEYS ON ANY ACCOUNT WHATEVER SHALL
HEREAFTER BE MADE BY THE UNITED STATES TO ANY OF THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
OR TO ANY OFFICER THEREOF FOR DISBURSEMENT, BUT PAYMENTS OF ALL SUMS TO
MEMBERS OF SAID TRIBES SHALL BE MADE UNDER DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR BY AN OFFICER APPOINTED BY HIM; AND PER CAPITA PAYMENTS
SHALL BE MADE DIRECT TO EACH INDIVIDUAL IN LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND THE SAME SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF ANY
PREVIOUSLY CONTRACTED OBLIGATION." 

PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THIS SECTION PROHIBITED THE GOVERNMENT FROM
MAKING THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION TO THE SEMINOLE TREASURER, AND THAT IT
IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE SUMS ILLEGALLY SO PAID. 

ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT SEC. 19 IS APPLICABLE TO THE
SEMINOLE NATION AND THAT AN ACTION COULD BE BROUGHT BY THE NATION FOR
PAYMENTS MADE IN VIOLATION THEREOF, THERE CAN BE NO RECOVERY HERE
BECAUSE NONE OF THE PAYMENTS CONTRAVENED SEC. 19.  THE TEXT OF THAT
PAYMENTS TO TRIBAL OFFICERS WHICH ARE "FOR DISBURSEMENT" - I.E.,
PAYMENTS TO BE DISTRIBUTED BY THEM TO MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE.  IF THE
FIRST CLAUSE OF SEC. 19 IS CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING ALL PAYMENTS TO THE
TRIBE OR ITS OFFICERS, THEN THE LATER CLAUSES, PROVIDING ONLY FOR
PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS AND PER CAPITA PAYMENTS, ARE INADEQUATE TO DISPOSE
OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE FIRST CLAUSE.  FOR THEN NO PROVISION IS
MADE FOR THE EXPENSES OF MAINTAINING AND CONDUCTING THE TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SEMINOLE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT WAS
NOT ONLY TO CONTINUE AFTER THE CURTIS ACT BUT WAS IN FACT RELIEVED OF
THE NECESSITY OF SECURING PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL OF ITS LEGISLATION
FN19  BY AN AGREEMENT RATIFIED THREE DAYS AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THAT
STATUTE.  SEE 30 STAT. 567, 569.  SECTION 19, AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED
IN THE HOUSE, PROVIDED THAT PAYMENTS OF "ALL EXPENSES INCURRED IN
TRANSACTING THEIR BUSINESS" WERE TO BE MADE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  FN20  THE DELETION OF THIS CLAUSE IS
PERSUASIVE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT TRIBAL OFFICERS SHOULD RETAIN
THE RIGHT TO DISBURSE THEIR FUNDS FOR THE EXPENSES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS.  FOR THESE REASONS WE THINK SEC. 19 PROHIBITS
PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE TRIBAL TREASURER ONLY WHEN SUCH
PAYMENTS ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED BY HIM TO MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE.  IT HAS
NO APPLICATION TO MONEY EARMARKED FOR EDUCATIONAL OR TRIBAL PURPOSES,
AND MONEY INTENDED FOR ANY PURPOSE THE TRIBE MAY DESIGNATE. 

NONE OF THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION WERE FOR DISBURSEMENT TO THE
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE SEMINOLE NATION.  WHILE THE SUM OF $212,500
WAS PAID PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VIII OF THE TREATY OF 1856, AND WHILE THAT
OBLIGATION WAS ORIGINALLY AN ANNUITY PAYABLE PER CAPITA TO THE
INDIVIDUAL SEMINOLES, THE CHARACTER AND PURPOSE OF THIS INTEREST
PAYMENT WERE BY AGREEMENT CHANGED INTO A PAYMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
SEMINOLE NATION ITSELF, AND THIS BEFORE THE PAYMENT OF THE $212,500
FROM 1899 TO 1907.  THE ACT OF APRIL 15, 1874, C. 97, 18 STAT. 29,
AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE PRESIDENT, TO PAY THIS ANNUITY INTO
THE TREASURY OF THE SEMINOLE NATION, PROVIDED $5,000 WAS ANNUALLY
APPROPRIATED OUT OF THE ANNUITY BY THE GENERAL COUNCIL FOR THE SCHOOL
FUND, AND PROVIDED "THAT THE CONSENT OF SAID TRIBE TO SUCH EXPENDITURES
AND PAYMENT SHALL BE FIRST OBTAINED."  BY ACT OF THE SEMINOLE GENERAL
COUNCIL ON APRIL 2, 1879, THE SEMINOLE NATION ACCEPTED THE PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT OF 1874, AND CONSENTED THAT ALL ANNUITIES DUE OR TO BECOME
DUE UNDER ARTICLE VIII OF THE TREATY OF 1856 SHOULD BE PAID INTO THE
SEMINOLE TREASURY, TO BE USED AS THE TRIBAL COUNCIL SHOULD PROVIDE. 
THIS WAS A CONSENSUAL CONVERSION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION FROM
PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS TO PAYMENTS TO THE TRIBE, AND SEC. 19 OF THE
CURTIS ACT IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE $212,500 PAID PURSUANT TO THIS
CONVERTED AGREEMENT. 

WHILE NONE OF THE PAYMENTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 19 OF THE CURTIS
ACT AND THERE CAN THEREFORE BE NO RECOVERY ON THAT SCORE, THE
GOVERNMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY RELIEVED OF ALL LIABILITY FOR THIS
$864,702.58 CLAIM.  THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION THE FIDUCIARY DUTY
OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS DISCUSSED IN ITEM TWO, ANTE.  DURING THIS PERIOD,
1899 TO 1907, AS FROM 1870 TO 1874, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS SUPERVISED INDIAN MATTERS AND THE
DISBURSEMENT OF INDIAN MONEYS.  APPARENTLY, IT WAS THE PRACTICE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO DEPOSIT THE SEMINOLE FUNDS WITH THE
ASSISTANT TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AT ST. LOUIS TO THE CREDIT OF
THE TRIBAL TREASURER; THE INDIAN AGENT FOR THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES
DID NOT DISBURSE THE SEMINOLE PAYMENTS ALTHOUGH HE DID DISTRIBUTE
MONEYS TO THE OTHER TRIBES.  FN21  SHORTLY BEFORE THE PAYMENTS IN
QUESTION WERE MADE, THE COMMISSION TO THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES  FN22
POINTEDLY DESCRIBED IN ITS ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR AND CONGRESS THE UNBRIDLED CORRUPTION OF THE VARIOUS TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS, WITHOUT SINGLING OUT ANY PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT FOR
UNENVIABLE DISTINCTION.  THUS: 

"CORRUPTION OF THE GROSSEST KIND, OPENLY AND UNBLUSHINGLY PRACTICED,
HAS FOUND ITS WAY INTO EVERY BRANCH OF THE SERVICE OF THE TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS.  ALL BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENTS ARE REEKING WITH IT, AND
SO COMMON HAS IT BECOME THAT NO ATTEMPT AT CONCEALMENT IS THOUGHT
NECESSARY.  THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE FALLEN INTO THE HANDS OF A FEW ABLE
AND ENERGETIC INDIAN CITIZENS, NEARLY ALL MIXED BLOOD AND ADOPTED
WHITES, WHO HAVE SO ADMINISTERED THEIR AFFAIRS AND HAVE ENACTED SUCH
LAWS THAT THEY ARE ENABLED TO APPROPRIATE TO THEIR OWN EXCLUSIVE USE
ALMOST THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OF THE TERRITORY OF ANY KIND THAT CAN BE
RENDERED PROFITABLE AND AVAILABLE."  FN23 

AND AGAIN: 

"THE COMMISSION IS COMPELLED BY THE EVIDENCE FORCED UPON THEM DURING
THEIR EXAMINATION INTO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SO-CALLED GOVERNMENTS
IN THIS TERRITORY TO REPORT THAT THESE GOVERNMENTS IN ALL THEIR
BRANCHES ARE WHOLLY CORRUPT, IRRESPONSIBLE, AND UNWORTHY TO BE LONGER
TRUSTED WITH THE CARE AND CONTROL OF THE MONEY AND OTHER PROPERTY OF
INDIAN CITIZENS, MUCH LESS THEIR LIVES, WHICH THEY SCARCELY PRETEND TO
PROTECT."  FN24  WHILE THESE WARNINGS WERE OF A GENERAL NATURE,
SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS OF MISGOVERNMENT, VENALITY, AND FRAUDULENT CONDUCT
ON THE PART OF THE SEMINOLE LEADERS WERE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 
BY A LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, DATED JANUARY 24, 1898,
CERTAIN SEMINOLES REMONSTRATED AGAINST THE RATIFICATION OF THE
AGREEMENT CONCLUDED WITH THE SEMINOLE LEADERS ON DECEMBER 16, 1897. 
THE REMONSTRANCE ALLEGED MISGOVERNMENT AND THE PARTICIPATION BY THESE
LEADERS IN A LAND SWINDLE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TRIBE.  THE SECRETARY
LAID THIS PROTEST BEFORE CONGRESS.  FN25  DURING MUCH OF THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION, 1899-1907, AND FOR SOME TIME PRIOR THERETO, TWO HALF-BREED
BROTHERS WERE PRINCIPAL CHIEF AND TREASURER, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE
SEMINOLE NATION.  TOGETHER THEY RAN A TRADING STORE IN THE SEMINOLE
COUNTRY AND EXTENDED CREDIT BY GIVING DUE BILLS, GOOD ONLY IN TRADE AT
THEIR STORE, TO INDIVIDUAL SEMINOLES IN THE AMOUNT OF ANNUITIES OR
OTHER PAYMENTS OWING THOSE INDIVIDUALS.  THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE
BROTHERS, AND THEIR SYSTEM OF CREDIT IN PARTICULAR, WERE ATTACKED ON
THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS IN 1896 AND 1897,  FN26  AND SEVERELY CRITICIZED
BY AN INVESTIGATOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN 1905, PART OF WHOSE
REPORT WAS SET FORTH IN A LETTER FROM THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, DATED NOVEMBER 11, 1905. 
FN27 

ALL THIS TENDS TO SHOW THAT THE SEMINOLE TRIBAL OFFICERS MIGHT HAVE
BEEN FAITHLESS TO THEIR TRUST DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, AND THAT
THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ADMINISTERING INDIAN AFFAIRS AND DISBURSING
SEMINOLE FUNDS MIGHT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THAT FAITHLESSNESS AT THE TIME
PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE SEMINOLE TREASURER.  HERE AGAIN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS DID NOT ADDRESS ITSELF TO, AND MADE NO FINDINGS ON, THIS
MATERIAL ISSUE.  AS WE SAID IN THE DISCUSSION OF ITEM TWO, ANTE, IT IS
NOT OUR FUNCTION TO MAKE BASIC FINDINGS OF FACT.  AGAIN, WE DO NOT SAY
THAT THE SHOWING WITH RESPECT TO THIS ITEM ESTABLISHES BREACH OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION, BUT WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IT IS
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY REMANDING THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS FOR FURTHER FINDINGS, IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH EVIDENCE AS MAY BE
BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION, AS TO WHETHER THE SEMINOLE TRIBAL OFFICERS
WERE MULCTING THE NATION FROM 1899 TO 1907; WHETHER, IF SUCH WERE THE
CASE, THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ADMINISTERING INDIAN AFFAIRS
AND DISBURSING MONEYS TO THE SEMINOLES HAD KNOWLEDGE THEREOF AT THE
TIME ANY OF THE PAYMENTS TO THE TRIBAL TREASURER WERE MADE; AND, IF SO,
WHETHER THE SEMINOLE NATION RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF ANY SUMS EXPENDED
BY THE TRIBAL TREASURER.  ON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS, THE COURT OF
CLAIMS CAN THEN DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS A BREACH OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION, AS DEFINED IN THE DISCUSSION OF ITEM
TWO, ANTE, AND IF THERE WAS A BREACH, THE RESULTANT LIABILITY. 
                        III 

PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS COMMITTED NUMEROUS ERRORS
WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS WHICH IT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF GRATUITOUS
OFFSETS, AND THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT THE COURT ERRED IN A FEW
INSTANCES.  HOWEVER, SINCE THE CASE MUST BE REMANDED TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS ANY FURTHER OBLIGATION ON ITEMS TWO AND
FIVE, WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER IN DETAIL THE CHALLENGED
OFFSETS. 

ONE PHASE OF THIS QUESTION DOES REQUIRE ATTENTION.  IN SEMINOLE
NATION V. UNITED STATES, NO. 830, POST, P. 310, PETITIONER ASSERTED
THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS GAVE THE GOVERNMENT CREDIT THERE FOR AN OFFSET
WHICH IT HAD EMPLOYED IN THE INSTANT CASE, THUS ALLOWING A DOUBLE
CREDIT.  TO AVOID THIS CONFUSION THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD FIND AND
DESIGNATE THE PRECISE GRATUITOUS EXPENDITURES TO BE OFFSET AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY, INSTEAD OF FINDING GENERALLY ALL THE ITEMS
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY EVER BE ENTITLED TO USE.  GRATUITY OFFSETS
RESEMBLE A FUND IN A BANK, TO BE DRAWN UPON BY THE GOVERNMENT IN
SUCCESSIVE INDIAN CLAIMS CASES UNTIL EXHAUSTED.  SINCE THEY MAY BE
NEEDED IN FUTURE CASES, IT BECOMES IMPORTANT TO KNOW PRECISELY WHAT
ITEMS HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED TO EXTINGUISH LIABILITY IN A PARTICULAR CASE,
AS THE INSTANT CASE AND NO. 830 DEMONSTRATE.  THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE
ALTERNATIVE, TO TREAT AS BINDING IN SUBSEQUENT SUITS INVOLVING THE SAME
PARTIES THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS
TOTAL OFFSETS IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT, IS EVIDENT BECAUSE IT MAY REQUIRE
THIS COURT TO DO A VAIN THING, THAT IS, TO EXAMINE OFFSETS WHICH MIGHT
NEVER BE NEEDED AND WHICH, EVEN IF DISAPPROVED, WOULD NOT CHANGE THE
RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DISPOSITION
OF ITEMS ONE, THREE AND FOUR WHICH IS IN ALL RESPECTS AFFIRMED, AND THE
ENTIRE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS WITH DIRECTIONS TO MAKE
FURTHER FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS TWO AND FIVE; TO DETERMINE THE
ADDITIONAL LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, IF ANY, THEREON; AND, TO FIND
AND DESIGNATE THE PARTICULAR GRATUITOUS EXPENDITURES TO BE OFFSET
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S TOTAL LIABILITY. 

UPON THE REMAND THE COURT OF CLAIMS WILL BE FREE TO CONSIDER ANY
LEGAL OR EQUITABLE DEFENSES WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY INTERPOSE TO THE
CLAIMS ASSERTED THERE BY PETITIONER.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  82 CT. CLS. 135. 

FN2  THE ACT OF AUGUST 16, 1937, C. 651, 50 STAT. 650, CONFERRED
JURISDICTION ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO REINSTATE AND RETRY, ON THE
MERITS, CLAIMS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED
BECAUSE SET UP BY AMENDED PETITION AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME
LIMIT FIXED IN THE RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONAL ACTS. 

FN3  SEVEN ITEMS, AMOUNTING TO $1,307,478.02, WERE CONSIDERED BY THIS
COURT IN 299 U.S. 417.  AS TO SIX OF THOSE ITEMS IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT
NO JURISDICTION EXISTED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, AND NO DECISION ON THE
MERITS OF THOSE CLAIMS WAS EXPRESSED.  THE SEVENTH ITEM WAS EXAMINED ON
ITS MERITS AND DISALLOWED IN LARGE PART.  299 U.S. 417, 431. 

FN4  THE ACT OF AUGUST 12, 1935, C. 596, 49 STAT. 571, 596, 25 U.S.C.
SEC. 475A, PROVIDES IN PART: 

"IN ALL SUITS NOW PENDING IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY AN INDIAN TRIBE
OR BAND WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED OR SUBMITTED, AND IN ANY SUIT
HEREAFTER FILED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY ANY SUCH TRIBE OR BAND, THE
COURT OF CLAIMS IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO CONSIDER AND TO OFFSET AGAINST
ANY AMOUNT FOUND DUE THE SAID TRIBE OR BAND ALL SUMS EXPENDED
GRATUITOUSLY BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID TRIBE OR
BAND; ...  " 

FN5  93 CT. CLS. 500. 

FN6  PETITIONER DOES NOT QUESTION THIS FINDING OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  SEE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
1876, PP. 212-213; 1877, PP. 690-691; 1878, PP. 286-287; 1879, PP. 341
342; 1881, PP. 280-281; 1883, PP. 90, 250-251; 1884, PP. 270-271; 1886,
PP. 146, 154; 1887, PP. 98, 110; 1888, PP. 113, 122; 1890, PP. 89, 94;
1891, PP. 240, 250; 1892, PP. 247, 256; 1893, PP. 143, 147; 1894, P.
140; 1895, PP. 155, 161; 1896, PP. 151-158. 

FN7  "THAT ALL REVENUES OF WHATEVER CHARACTER ACCRUING TO THE
CHOCTAW, CHICKASAW, CHEROKEE, CREEK, AND SEMINOLE TRIBES, WHETHER
BEFORE OR AFTER DISSOLUTION OF THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS, SHALL, AFTER THE
APPROVAL HEREOF, BE COLLECTED BY AN OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY HIM;
AND HE SHALL CAUSE TO BE PAID ALL LAWFUL CLAIMS AGAINST SAID TRIBES
WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN CONTRACTED AFTER JULY FIRST, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND
TWO, OR FOR WHICH WARRANTS HAVE BEEN REGULARLY ISSUED, SUCH PAYMENTS TO
BE MADE FROM ANY FUNDS IN THE UNITED STATES TREASURY BELONGING TO SAID
TRIBES.  ...  " 

FN8  ACT OF MAY 20, 1924, C. 162, 43 STAT. 133, AS AMENDED BY 44
STAT. 568, 45 STAT. 1229, AND 50 STAT. 650. 

FN9  ACT OF MAY 18, 1872, C. 172, 17 STAT. 122, 132. 

FN10  SEE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS FOR 1873, PP.
211-212. 

FN11  THERE IS NO BETTER EXAMPLE OF THIS THAN THE FACTS OF THE
INSTANT CASE.  DESPITE THE LAPSE OF TIME AND THE BAR OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO ADJUDICATE ALL
LEGAL AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS, ARISING UNDER STATUTE OR TREATY, WHICH THE
SEMINOLE NATION MAY HAVE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  AND AFTER AN
ADVERSE DECISION BY THIS COURT ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS, 299 U.S. 417,
CONGRESS AGAIN REMOVED THE BAR.  50 STAT. 650. 

FN12  AS WAS WELL SAID BY CHIEF JUDGE (LATER MR. JUSTICE) CARDOZO IN
MEINHARD V. SALMON, 249 N.Y. 458, 464, 164 N.E. 545, 546: 

"MANY FORMS OF CONDUCT PERMISSIBLE IN A WORKADAY WORLD FOR THOSE
ACTING AT ARM'S LENGTH, ARE FORBIDDEN TO THOSE BOUND BY FIDUCIARY
TIES.  A TRUSTEE IS HELD TO SOMETHING STRICTER THAN THE MORALS OF THE
MARKET PLACE.  NOT HONESTY ALONE, BUT THE PUNCTILIO OF AN HONOR THE
MOST SENSITIVE, IS THEN THE STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR.  AS TO THIS THERE HAS
DEVELOPED A TRADITION THAT IS UNBENDING AND INVETERATE.  UNCOMPROMISING
RIGIDITY HAS BEEN THE ATTITUDE OF COURTS OF EQUITY WHEN PETITIONED TO
UNDERMINE THE RULE OF UNDIVIDED LOYALTY BY THE 'DISINTEGRATING EROSION'
OF PARTICULAR EXCEPTIONS.  ...  ONLY THUS HAS THE LEVEL OF CONDUCT FOR
FIDUCIARIES BEEN KEPT AT A LEVEL HIGHER THAN THAT TRODDEN BY THE
CROWD." 

FN13 SEE R.S. SECS. 441, 444, 445, 463, 464, 2089.  CF. ACT OF APRIL
15, 1874, C. 97, 18 STAT. 29. 

FN14  ON DECEMBER 6, 1869, THE UNITED STATES INDIAN AGENT FOR THE
SEMINOLES WROTE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AS FOLLOWS: 

"I WOULD STATE THAT THEY ARE IN THE HABIT OF CALLING COUNCILS, FOR
ANY LITTLE THING THAT MAY ARISE, AND SPENDING FROM 2 TO 15 DAYS WITHOUT
EFFECTING ANYTHING WHATEVER, WHICH WOULD BE OF THE LEAST SERVICE TO THE
NATION (SEMINOLE), EXCEPT IN EXPENDING THE FUNDS; WHICH ARE TAKEN OUT
OF THOSE ORDERED PAID PER 'CAPITA' TO THE NATION. 

"I FIND THAT IT HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM HERETOFORE FOR THE CHIEFS TO
ORDER HOW THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME MAKING
RETURN TO THE DEPARTMENT, UPON ROLLS AS IF IT HAD BEEN PAID PER
'CAPITA'. 

"I THINK THAT IT IS AN INJUSTICE TO THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE,
COMPRISING THIS NATION AND THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID UNNECESSARY
EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FOR COUNCILS, ETC. WHICH ARE OF BUT LITTLE BENEFIT
TO THE NATION (FOR EXAMPLE THE LAST COUNCIL HELD COST THE NATION
$700.00 FOR EDIBLES ALONE AND DID NO BUSINESS) IS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO
GIVE SPECIAL ORDERS IN REFERENCE AS TO WHAT AMOUNT SHALL BE TURNED OVER
TO THE CHIEFS AND THE BALANCE PAID TO HEADS OF FAMILIES IN PERSON." 

FN15  IN HIS ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 1870, THE UNITED STATES INDIAN AGENT FOR THE
SEMINOLES SAID: 

"PER CAPITA PAYMENTS ARE, IN SOME INSTANCES, I THINK, A GREAT EVIL;
BUT AS THE SYSTEM CANNOT BE ABOLISHED, THIS NATION (SEMINOLE) HAVING NO
CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND UNTIL SUCH A FORM OF GOVERNMENT BE
ADOPTED, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY BE RIGIDLY
ENFORCED, AND NO MONEYS ALLOWED TO BE PAID EXCEPT TO THE HEADS OF
FAMILIES.  HERETOFORE, AS I HAVE REPORTED, THE CHIEFS HAVE BEEN IN THE
HABIT OF TAKING OUT WHAT AMOUNT THEY CHOSE, ALLOWING THE BALANCE TO BE
PAID PER CAPITA.  THIS IS AN INJUSTICE, AS FEW RECEIVE THE BULK OF
THEIR ANNUITIES."  REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, 41ST CONG.,
3D SESS. (1870-71), VOL. 1, PP. 766-767. 

FN16  THE REPORT OF JOHN P. C. SHANKS, SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DATED AUGUST 9, 1875, STATES: 

"THESE CLAIMS ARE ENORMOUS IN AMOUNT, AND SHOW TOO CLEARLY THAT THE
SEMINOLES ARE IN BAD HANDS.  THESE PARTIES WHO HAD THESE CLAIMS (EXCEPT
HARJO, WHO IS AN ASSIGNEE) ARE OR HAVE BEEN OFFICIALS IN THE NATION. 
ROBERT JOHNSON IS A NEGRO, AND IS INTERPRETER TO THE CHIEF; CHUPCO IS
PRESENT CHIEF; JOHN JUMPER WAS FORMER CHIEF; JAMES FACTOR, A HALF
BREED, IS TREASURER; E. J. BROWN IS A WHITE MAN, FORMERLY U.S. INDIAN
AGENT OF THE SEMINOLE NATION, SINCE HAS HAD THE ADDRESS TO PROCURE HIS
ADMISSION AS A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE. 

"THESE MEN HAVE EVIDENTLY STOOD TOGETHER IN THE WRONG, OF PROCURING
SUCH ALLOWANCES, AND DID STAND TOGETHER IN REFUSING TO RELINQUISH THE
CLAIMS, OR A PART OF THEM, EXCEPT A DEDUCTION FOR PRESENT PAYMENT UPON
CLAIMS WHICH DID NOT BEAR INTEREST." 

FN17  ON NOVEMBER 20, 1878, SPECIAL AGENT MEACHAM WROTE THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS THAT "SOME OF THE BAND CHIEFS ARE
TYRANTS AND DESPOTS, HOLDING THEIR PEOPLE UNDER ABJECT FEAR AND IN SOME
INSTANCES OF ACTUAL SERVITUDE."  THE LETTER ALSO REFERRED TO THE
INTENTION OF THE CHIEFS "TO 'GOBBLE' THE NEXT MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
KEEPING UP THEIR GOVERNMENT." 

FN18  ON JANUARY 5, 1872, THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
WROTE THE UNITED STATES INDIAN AGENT FOR THE SEMINOLES: 

"IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF THE 20 DEC. LAST, AND TO THE REQUEST OF
THE SEMINOLE CHIEFS THAT THEIR NATIONAL FUNDS BE HEREAFTER PAID TO THE
TREASURER OF THE NATION INSTEAD OF PER CAPITA, I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT IS
NOT DEEMED ADVISABLE TO CHANGE THE MANNER IN WHICH PAYMENT OF ANNUITIES
TO THESE INDIANS HAS HERETOFORE BEEN MADE UNTIL THE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE
FULLY SATISFIED THAT A PROPER DISPOSITION WILL BE MADE OF THE FUNDS IF
PAID IN THE MANNER PROPOSED BY THE CHIEFS." 

FN19  ACT OF JUNE 7, 1897, C. 3, 30 STAT. 62, 84. 

FN20  SECTION 19, AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  THAT NO PAYMENT OF ANY MONEYS ON ANY ACCOUNT WHATEVER SHALL
HEREAFTER BE MADE TO ANY OF THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS OR TO ANY OFFICER
THEREOF FOR DISBURSEMENT, BUT PAYMENTS OF ALL EXPENSES INCURRED IN
TRANSACTING THEIR BUSINESS AND OF ALL SUMS TO MEMBERS OF SAID TRIBES
SHALL BE MADE UNDER DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BY AN
OFFICER APPOINTED BY HIM; AND PER CAPITA PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE DIRECT
TO EACH INDIVIDUAL IN LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE SAME
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF ANY PREVIOUSLY CONTRACTED
OBLIGATION."  H.R. 8581, 55TH CONG., 2D SESS., 31 CONG. REC. 3869. 

FN21  LETTER OF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL VAN DEVANTER TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, DATED JULY 12, 1898; H. DOC. VOL. 23, 57TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.  (1901-1902), P. 231. 

FN22  COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DAWES COMMISSION.  IT WAS CREATED BY THE
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1893, C. 209, 27 STAT. 612, 645, TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE
CREEKS, CHEROKEES, CHOCTAWS, CHICKASAWS, AND SEMINOLES FOR THE
EXTINGUISHMENT OF TRIBAL TITLES TO LAND, THE ALLOTMENT OF THEIR LANDS
IN SEVERALTY, AND THE DIVISION OF THEIR FUNDS EQUALLY AMONG THE MEMBERS
OF THOSE TRIBES. 

FN23  REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1934, APPENDIX B.H. EX. DOC., VOL.
14, 53D CONG., 3D SESS. (1894-95), P. LXVIII.  SEE ALSO PP. LXIX-LXX. 

FN24  REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 18, 1895, EXHIBIT A, H. DOC., VOL. 14,
54TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1895-96), P. XCV.  SEE ALSO PP. LXXXVII, XCIII
XCIV. 

AND SEE REPORT DATED OCTOBER 11, 1897, EXHIBIT B, H. DOC., VOL. 12,
55TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1897-98), PP. CXIX, CXXI. 

FN25  SEE S. DOC. 105, 55TH CONG., 2D SESS., (1898), PP. 2-4.  THIS
REMONSTRANCE STATED IN PART: 

"THERE WAS THE SUM OF $191,294.20 WHICH NEVER ENTERED THE TREASURIES
OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE SEMINOLES.  THE REPLY GIVEN TO US ABOUT THE
DISPOSITION OF THIS MONEY BY OUR AUTHORITIES WAS THAT DURING THE
TRANSFER OF THESE LANDS TO THE UNITED STATES THERE WAS A LAWYER WHO
NEGOTIATED THE AGREEMENT AND TOOK THAT AMOUNT FOR HIS PAY.  THE NAME OF
THE LAWYER WAS NEVER MENTIONED AND NO RECEIPT OF THE ALLEGED DEAL WAS
EVER SHOWN.  WE CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS.  WE ASK THAT YOU TAKE NOTE
OF THE TOWN-SITE LAWS OF WEWOKA AND SEE TO WHOM ONLY THESE LAWS ARE
BENEFICIAL AND WHOM THEY OPPRESS.  ... 

"WE BEG LEAVE TO STATE FURTHER THAT WE HAVE NO LAW REGULATING THE
BOND OF OUR TREASURER OR CHIEF, AND ACCORDING TO THE SEMINOLE LAW NO
ACTION OR BILL CAN BE PLACED BEFORE THE COUNCIL WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE CHIEF.  OUR LAWS DO NOT ADMIT OF AN AUDITOR, AND OUR PEOPLE ARE
ENTIRELY IGNORANT OF THE CONDITION OF OUR FINANCES.  ...  WE ASK THAT
ANY DISPOSITION OF MONEYS BELONGING TO THE SEMINOLES AND THE MANAGEMENT
OF THEIR SCHOOLS BE MADE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR.  ...  "    FN26  SEE 28 CONG. REC. 2070; 29 CONG. REC. 1261. 

FN27  THIS REPORT STATED IN PART: 

"IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO SAY THAT, IN VIEW OF THE IGNORANCE OF THESE
INDIANS, THIS SYSTEM OF CREDIT IS DISHONEST.  IT SHOULD BE CONDEMNED
BECAUSE IT KEEPS THESE INDIANS IN A CONSTANT STATE OF POVERTY.  THEY DO
NOT REALIZE THAT THESE DUE BILLS ARE IN FACT MONEY, AND THE RESULT IS
THAT THEY ARE SQUANDERED WITHOUT CARE.  I AM NOT INFORMED AS TO WHETHER
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HAS KNOWLEDGE OF THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS. 
IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION, SO THAT, IF POSSIBLE, IT MAY
TAKE STEPS LOOKING TO THE BREAKING UP OF THE SYSTEM, WHICH CAN BE DONE
BY HAVING THE APPROPRIATIONS DISTRIBUTED IN SOME OTHER MANNER." 

WM. L. BOWIE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT,
REPORTED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES IN 1916
THAT: 

"GOVERNOR BROWN AND HIS BROTHER HAVE BEEN IN THE MERCANTILE BUSINESS
IN THE SEMINOLE NATION FOR MANY YEARS.  IT IS A FACT MUCH COMMENTED
UPON BY THOSE ACQUAINTED WITH SEMINOLE TRIBAL AFFAIRS, THAT FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS GOVERNOR BROWN HELD THE DUAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF GOVERNOR AND PAYMASTER ON THE ONE
HAND, AND INDIAN TRADER ON THE OTHER HAND." 

"  ...  IN MY OPINION, GOVERNOR BROWN HAS SHOWN IN HIS TRANSACTIONS
WITH JOHN SMITH AND LIZZIE YAHOLA, THAT HE HAS LITTLE REGARD FOR THE
WELFARE AND PROTECTION OF THE INDIANS IN GENERAL, AND IT IS UNFORTUNATE
THAT HE OCCUPIES A POSITION WHICH ENABLES HIM BY REASON OF THE
CONFIDENCE PLACED IN HIM AS SUCH OFFICIAL TO IMPOSE UPON THEM." 

ON THE BASIS OF REPORTS FROM SUBORDINATES ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS MERRIT RECOMMENDED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS, BY A LETTER DATED JULY 20, 1916, THAT THE SEMINOLE TRIBAL
GOVERNMENT BE ABOLISHED AS "THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT BROWN AND CRAIN
FROM CONTINUING TO USE THEIR OFFICIAL POSITIONS TO ADVANCE THEIR
PERSONAL INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INDIANS UNDER THEIR
AUTHORITY." 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 
..END :






SEMINOLE NATION V. U.S., 316 U.S. 310 


NO. 830.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 11, 1942.  - 94 CT.CLS. 
240, REVERSED. 


1.  THE ACQUISITION FROM THE CREEK NATION AND THE TRANSFER TO THE
SEMINOLE NATION, BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1882, OF A 175,000 ACRE TRACT,
HELD UNRELATED TO AN ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN A TRACT PREVIOUSLY
TRANSFERRED TO THE SEMINOLES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III OF THE TREATY OF
MARCH 21, 1866, SINCE AT THE TIME OF THE 1882 TRANSFER NO SUGGESTION OF
A DEFICIENCY IN THE TREATY GRANT HAD BEEN ADVANCED.  P. 315. 

2.  UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 12, 1935, WHICH, IN THE SETTLEMENT OF
CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BY AN INDIAN TRIBE, AUTHORIZED OFFSETS
OF SUMS EXPENDED GRATUITOUSLY BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE TRIBE, THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS REQUIRED TO FIND THE AMOUNT OF THE
LIABILITY, IF ANY, OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE CLAIM OF THE TRIBE, AND
TO DESIGNATE AND FIND THE EXACT AMOUNT OF THE GRATUITOUS EXPENDITURES
WHICH MAY BE UTILIZED TO EXTINGUISH, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, THAT
LIABILITY.  P. 315. 

SEMINOLE NATION V. UNITED STATES* . 

*OPINION REPORTED HEREIN AS AMENDED BY ORDER OF MAY 25, 1942, POST,
P. 647. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 791, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE
PETITION OF THE SEMINOLE NATION IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
UNDER A SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE UNITED STATES
REMAINS UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO THE SEMINOLE NATION WITH RESPECT TO
ARTICLE III OF THE TREATY OF MARCH 21, 1866, 14 STAT. 755, 756, WHICH
PROVIDES IN PART: 

"  ...  THE UNITED STATES HAVING OBTAINED BY GRANT OF THE CREEK
NATION THE WESTERLY HALF OF THEIR LANDS, HEREBY GRANT TO THE SEMINOLE
NATION THE PORTION THEREOF HEREAFTER DESCRIBED, WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE
THE NATIONAL DOMAIN OF THE SEMINOLE INDIANS.  SAID LANDS SO GRANTED BY
THE UNITED STATES TO THE SEMINOLE NATION ARE BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS, TO WIT:  BEGINNING ON THE CANADIAN RIVER WHERE THE LINE
DIVIDING THE CREEK LANDS ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THEIR SALE TO THE
UNITED STATES BY THEIR TREATY OF FEBRUARY 6, 1866, FOLLOWING SAID LINE
DUE NORTH TO WHERE SAID LINE CROSSES THE NORTH FORK OF THE CANADIAN
RIVER; THENCE UP SAID NORTH FORK OF THE CANADIAN RIVER A DISTANCE
SUFFICIENT TO MAKE TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES BY RUNNING DUE SOUTH TO
THE CANADIAN RIVER; THENCE DOWN SAID CANADIAN RIVER TO THE PLACE OF
BEGINNING.  IN CONSIDERATION OF SAID CESSION OF TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
ACRES OF LAND DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE SEMINOLE NATION AGREES TO PAY
THEREFOR THE PRICE OF FIFTY CENTS PER ACRE, AMOUNTING TO THE SUM OF ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, ...  " 

PETITIONER'S CLAIM IS FOR JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE ALLEGED TAKING BY
THE UNITED STATES OF AN ASSERTED DEFICIENCY IN THE TRACT GRANTED BY
THIS ARTICLE. 

LATE IN 1866, BEFORE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SEMINOLE DOMAIN HAD BEEN
LOCATED, THE SEMINOLES MOVED TO WHAT WAS ASSUMED TO BE THEIR TREATY
LAND.  FN1  THE FIRST SURVEY OF THE LINE DIVIDING THE CREEK AND THE
SEMINOLE TERRITORIES, MADE BY ONE RANKIN, IN 1868, UNDER A CONTRACT
WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.  IN 1871 ONE BARDWELL RE-SURVEYED THE
DIVIDING LINE AND PLACED IT SEVEN MILES WEST OF THE RANKIN LINE.  TWO
MONTHS LATER, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT, ONE ROBBINS RAN THE
WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SEMINOLE LANDS SO AS TO INCLUDE 200,000 ACRES
FROM THE BARDWELL LINE.  ACCORDING TO ROBBINS' CALCULATIONS, 200,000.03
ACRES WERE INCLUDED BETWEEN THE CANADIAN RIVER ON THE SOUTH, THE NORTH
FORK OF THE CANADIAN RIVER ON THE NORTH, THE BARDWELL LINE ON THE EAST
AND THE ROBBINS LINE ON THE WEST.  THE BARDWELL AND ROBBINS SURVEYS
WERE BOTH APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ON FEBRUARY 5,
1872. 

MEANWHILE, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I OF THE TREATY OF FEBRUARY 27, 1867,
15 STAT. 531,  FN2  THE POTTAWATOMIE TRIBE SELECTED A TRACT BOUNDED "BY
THE WEST LINE OF THE SEMINOLE LANDS," AND ON NOVEMBER 9, 1870, THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR APPROVED THAT SELECTION.  IN 1872, AFTER THE
LOCATION OF THE ROBBINS LINE, THE POTTAWATOMIES OCCUPIED THE TERRITORY
IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THAT LINE.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE GOVERNMENT ALLOTTED
AND PATENTED THE LANDS WEST OF THE ROBBINS LINE TO THE POTTAWATOMIES IN
SEVERALTY, OR SOLD AND PATENTED THEM TO SETTLERS AND TURNED THE
PURCHASE PRICE INTO THE TREASURY AS PUBLIC MONEY.  FN3 

THE BARDWELL SURVEY DISCLOSED THAT A CONSIDERABLE AREA EAST OF THE
SEMINOLE-CREEK DIVIDING LINE HAD BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE SEMINOLES, WHO
HAD MADE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS LAND.  IN ORDER THAT THE
SEMINOLES MIGHT RETAIN THE LANDS WHICH THEY HAD IMPROVED, CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THESE LANDS EAST OF THE
BARDWELL LINE.  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1873, 17 STAT. 626.  AN AGREEMENT WAS
ENTERED INTO ON FEBRUARY 14, 1881, WITH THE CREEK NATION WHEREBY THAT
NATION CEDED LAND EAST OF THE BARDWELL LINE TO THE UNITED STATES, THE
AGREEMENT PROVIDING THAT THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE LAND CEDED WAS TO
BE DRAWN SO THAT THE TRACT WOULD AGGREGATE 175,000 ACRES.  CREEK NATION
V. UNITED STATES, 93 CT. CLS. 561, 566.  THE CREEKS RECEIVED $175,000
FOR THIS TRACT.  ACT OF AUGUST 5, 1882, 22 STAT. 257, 265.  THIS LAND
BECAME A PART OF THE SEMINOLE DOMAIN AND WAS DISPOSED OF EITHER BY
ALLOTMENT TO MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE OR BY SALE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE
TRIBE. 

THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEFICIENCY IN THE ORIGINAL 200,000 ACRE TRACT
WAS FIRST SUSPECTED IN 1900.  FN4  BY AN AMENDED PETITION FILED IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS IN 1937,  FN5  THE SEMINOLE NATION ALLEGED THAT, OWING
TO AN ERROR IN THE LOCATION OF THE ROBBINS LINE, THE TERRITORY ENCLOSED
BETWEEN THE ROBBINS AND BARDWELL LINES WAS 11,550.54 ACRES SHORT OF
200,000 ACRES, AND THAT THE UNITED STATES TOOK FROM THE SEMINOLES
11,550.54 ACRES WEST OF THE ROBBINS LINE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT PATENTED
THAT LAND TO INDIVIDUALS IN 1892 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  JUDGMENT WAS
PRAYED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR VALUE AT THE TIME OF TAKING OF THE
11,550.54 ACRES, WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF FIVE PERCENT PER ANNUM. 
THE COURT OF CLAIMS MADE NO FINDING AS TO WHETHER A SHORTAGE IN FACT
EXISTED IN THE TRACT BETWEEN THE BARDWELL AND ROBBINS LINES, BUT HELD
THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE SEMINOLE NATION WAS MORE THAN COMPENSATED FOR
THE ALLEGED SHORTAGE BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASE FOR THE SEMINOLES OF
175,000 ACRES OF LAND FROM THE CREEK NATION.  THE COURT ALSO STATED
THAT, EVEN IF PETITIONER WERE ENTITLED TO RECOVER FOR ANY DEFICIT IN
THE 200,000 ACRE TRACT, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO OFFSET THE
VALUE OF THE 175,000 ACRE TRACT AS A GRATUITOUS EXPENDITURE UNDER THE
ACT OF AUGUST 12, 1935, 49 STAT. 571, 596, A VALUE ASSUMED TO BE FAR IN
EXCESS OF THE VALUE OF WHATEVER DEFICIT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS CASE
AND SEMINOLE NATION V. UNITED STATES, NO. 348, ANTE, P. 286.  FN6 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON EITHER OF
THE GROUNDS ADVANCED.  THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS COURT AGREES TO THIS
PROPOSITION AND SUGGESTS THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS. 

         I 

UNDERLYING THE DENIAL OF RECOVERY FOR ANY DEFICIT IN THE 200,000 ACRE
TRACT BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS COMPENSATED THEREFOR "FIFTEEN-FOLD" BY THE
RECEIPT OF AN ADDITIONAL 175,000 ACRES, IS THE THEORY THAT THE
ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE SEMINOLES UNDER THE TREATY OF 1866 AND THE
ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND TO THE EAST BY TRANSFER FROM THE CREEKS
IN 1882 WERE BUT TWO PARTS OF AN INTEGRAL TRANSACTION, INTENDED TO GIVE
THE SEMINOLES 200,000 ACRES OF LAND AND THUS DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION
OF THE TREATY OF 1866.  HOWEVER, THE FACTS DO NOT SUPPORT THAT THEORY,
FOR IN 1882 THE SUGGESTION THAT A SHORTAGE EXISTED IN THE SUPPOSED
200,000 ACRE TRACT BETWEEN THE BARDWELL AND ROBBINS LINES HAD NOT YET
BEEN ADVANCED.  THERE WAS THEREFORE NO THOUGHT AT THE TIME THE TRANSFER
OF THE 175,000 ACRE TRACT WAS MADE THAT THE GOVERNMENT THEREBY
FULFILLED ITS TREATY OBLIGATION BY COMPENSATING THE SEMINOLES FOR A
DEFICIENCY IN THE ORIGINAL TRACT. 

                                  II 

THE ACT OF AUGUST 12, 1935, 49 STAT. 571, 596, DIRECTS THE COURT OF
CLAIMS, IN SUITS BY AN INDIAN TRIBE OR BAND, "TO CONSIDER AND TO OFFSET
AGAINST ANY AMOUNT FOUND DUE THE SAID TRIBE OR BAND ALL SUMS EXPENDED
GRATUITOUSLY BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID TRIBE OR
BAND."  THIS LANGUAGE PLAINLY REQUIRES THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO FIND,
FIRST, THAT MONEY IS DUE FROM THE UNITED STATES, TO CONSIDER THEN
WHETHER THE UNITED STATES HAS GRATUITOUSLY SPENT SUMS FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE TRIBE AND, IF IT FINDS SUCH GRATUITOUS EXPENDITURES, TO OFFSET
THEM AGAINST THE AMOUNT FOUND DUE. 

IN ALLOWING THE GRATUITY OFFSET HERE, THE COURT OF CLAIMS FELL SHORT
OF COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFSET STATUTE.  THERE WAS NO
FINDING THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS UNDER ANY LIABILITY TO THE SEMINOLE
NATION; THE COURT STATED ONLY THAT THE VALUE OF THE 175,000 ACRE TRACT
WAS "FAR IN EXCESS OF THE VALUE OF WHATEVER DEFICIT THERE MAY HAVE
BEEN."  THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THIS APPROACH ARE EVIDENT.  AS WE SAID IN
SEMINOLE NATION V. UNITED STATES, NO. 348, ANTE, P. 286, GRATUITY
OFFSETS RESEMBLE A FUND IN A BANK, TO BE DRAWN ON BY THE GOVERNMENT AS
NEEDED.  IF THE GOVERNMENT OWES NOTHING, IT IS ENTITLED TO A DISMISSAL
ON THAT GROUND, AND SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO USE ITS GRATUITY
OFFSETS.  IF LIABILITY EXISTS ON THE GOVERNMENT'S PART, THE EXACT
AMOUNT OF GRATUITOUS EXPENDITURES UTILIZED TO EXTINGUISH THAT
LIABILITY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, SHOULD BE PRECISELY FOUND AND
DESIGNATED.  THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO SATISFY ITS LIABILITY
BY THE USE OF GRATUITY EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF THE LIABILITY. 
CONVERSELY, THE INDIAN TRIBE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE AN EXACT DETERMINATION
OF THE AMOUNT OWED IT BY THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER THAT AN AMOUNT OF
GRATUITY EXPENDITURES EQUAL TO THE LIABILITY MAY BE EXHAUSTED, OR THAT,
IF THE AVAILABLE OFFSETS ARE INSUFFICIENT, IT RECEIVE A MONEY JUDGMENT
FOR THE DIFFERENCE.  OTHERWISE, CONFUSION AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A
DOUBLE CREDIT FOR A SINGLE OFFSET ARISE, AS THIS CASE AND NO. 348
ABUNDANTLY DEMONSTRATE.  IN THE LATTER CASE, A GRATUITY OFFSET IN THE
AMOUNT OF $165,847.17 ON ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASE OF THE 175,000 ACRE
TRACT FROM THE CREEKS WAS ALLOWED, AND HERE THE ASSUMED VALUE OF THAT
TRACT IS THE OFFSET EMPLOYED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS WITH DIRECTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE IT WITH NO. 348; TO DETERMINE
WHETHER A SHORTAGE EXISTS IN THE 200,000 ACRE TRACT; TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE THEREFOR, AND THE AMOUNT OF SUCH
LIABILITY, IF A SHORTAGE EXISTS; AND, TO FIND AND DESIGNATE THE PRECISE
GRATUITOUS EXPENDITURES USED TO OFFSET THE TOTAL LIABILITY, IF ANY,
ARISING FROM THIS CLAIM AND FROM ITEMS TWO AND FIVE OF NO. 348. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  ALTHOUGH NEGOTIATIONS WERE IN PROGRESS WITH THE CREEKS AT THE
TIME THE SEMINOLE TREATY WAS MADE AND A TREATY WAS SIGNED WITH THEM ON
FEBRUARY 6, 1866, THE CREEK TREATY WAS NOT CONCLUDED UNTIL JUNE 14,
1866.  SEE 14 STAT. 785.  THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN THE TWO HALVES OF
THE CREEK COUNTRY WAS NOT SETTLED UNTIL THE BARDWELL SURVEY WAS
APPROVED IN 1872. 

FN2  BY THAT ARTICLE THE UNITED STATES AGREED THAT A DELEGATION FROM
THE POTTAWATOMIES SHOULD ACCOMPANY A GOVERNMENT COMMISSION TO THE
INDIAN COUNTRY "  ...  IN ORDER TO SELECT, IF POSSIBLE, A SUITABLE
LOCATION FOR THEIR PEOPLE WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE LOCATIONS MADE
FOR OTHER INDIANS; AND IF SUCH LOCATION SHALL BE FOUND SATISFACTORY TO
THE POTTAWATOMIES, AND APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, SUCH
TRACT OF LAND, NOT EXCEEDING THIRTY MILES SQUARE, SHALL BE SET APART AS
A RESERVATION FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THAT TRIBE; AND
UPON THE SURVEY OF ITS LINES AND BOUNDARIES, AND ASCERTAINING OF ITS
AREA, AND PAYMENT TO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SAME, AS HEREINAFTER
MENTIONED AND SET FORTH, THE SAID TRACT SHALL BE PATENTED TO THE
POTTAWATOMIE NATION." 

FN3  PROVISION WAS MADE FOR ALLOTTING THE LANDS TO THE POTTAWATOMIES
IN SEVERALTY BY ACT OF MAY 23, 1872, 17 STAT. 159, AND ACT OF FEBRUARY
8, 1887, 24 STAT. 388.  BY AN AGREEMENT RATIFIED BY ACT OF MARCH 3,
1891, 26 STAT. 989, 1016-1017, THE POTTAWATOMIES CEDED TO THE GOVENMENT
THE TRACT ASSIGNED TO THEM.  IT WAS STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT THAT
ALL ALLOTMENTS IN SEVERALTY, MADE OR TO BE MADE, SHOULD BE COMPLETED
AND CONFIRMED, AND THAT OTHER ALLOTMENTS IN SEVERALTY COULD BE MADE
UNTIL FEBRUARY 8, 1891.  THE RATIFYING ACT PROVIDED THAT THE REMAINING
LANDS WERE TO BE OPENED TO SETTLEMENT AS PUBLIC LANDS.  26 STAT. 1026. 

FN4  LETTER FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS TO THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR, DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1900. 

LETTER FROM THE ACTING SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO THE COMMISSION TO
THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, DATED OCTOBER 16, 1900. 

FN5  THE ORIGINAL PETITION WAS FILED IN 1930.  THE AMENDED PETITION
WAS FILED AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT.  43 STAT. 133,
AS AMENDED BY 50 STAT. 650. 

FN6  PETITIONER HAS HERE LIMITED ITS CLAIM TO 10,351.82 ACRES,
ADOPTING THE SHORTAGE GIVEN IN THE REPORT, DATED MARCH 18, 1941, OF
ARTHUR D. KIDDER, DISTRICT CADASTRAL ENGINEER OF THE GENERAL LAND
OFFICE, WHO SURVEYED THE AREA AFTER THE ORIGINAL PETITION WAS FILED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENTS. 
..END :






SIOUX TRIBE V. U.S., 316 U.S. 317 


NO. 798.  ARGUED APRIL 10, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 11, 1942.  - 94 CT.CLS. 
450, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT, IN 1875 AND 1876, WITHDRAWING AREAS OF
PUBLIC LANDS FROM SALE AND SETTLEMENT AND SETTING THEM APART FOR THE
USE OF THE SIOUX INDIANS AS ADDITIONS TO THEIR PERMANENT TREATY
RESERVATION, CONVEYED NO INTEREST TO THE TRIBE FOR WHICH IT WAS
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FROM THE UNITED STATES WHEN, BY SUBSEQUENT
EXECUTIVE ORDERS, THE LANDS WERE RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  PP.
325, 330. 

2.  SINCE THE CONSTITUTION PLACES THE AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF PUBLIC
LANDS EXCLUSIVELY IN CONGRESS, THE EXECUTIVE'S POWER TO CONVEY ANY
INTEREST IN THESE LANDS MUST BE TRACED TO CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF
ITS AUTHORITY.  P. 326. 

3.  THE BASIS OF DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO., 236
U.S. 459, WAS THAT, SO FAR AS THE POWER TO WITHDRAW PUBLIC LANDS FROM
SALE IS CONCERNED, SUCH A DELEGATION COULD BE SPELLED OUT FROM LONG
CONTINUED CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE IN THE EXECUTIVE PRACTICE.  P.
326. 

4.  THE ANSWER TO WHETHER A SIMILAR DELEGATION OCCURRED WITH RESPECT
TO THE POWER TO CONVEY A COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN THESE LANDS TO THE
INDIANS MUST BE FOUND IN THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE OF WHAT CONSEQUENCES
WERE THOUGHT BY THE EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESS TO FLOW FROM THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS.  P. 326. 

5.  THERE WAS NO EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR
THE CONVEYANCE OF A COMPENSABLE INTEREST TO THE TRIBE BY THE EXECUTIVE
ORDERS OF 1875 AND 1876, AND NO IMPLIED CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF THE
POWER TO DO SO CAN BE INFERRED FROM THE EVIDENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND
EXECUTIVE UNDERSTANDING.  P. 331. 

6.  THE INCLUSION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS IN THE PROVISIONS
OF THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT FOR ALLOTTING RESERVATION LAND TO INDIANS
IN SEVERALTY, DID NOT AMOUNT TO A RECOGNITION OF TRIBAL OWNERSHIP OF
THE LAND PRIOR TO ALLOTMENT.  P. 330. 

SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 790, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT, IN A SUIT AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES UNDER A SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL ACT.  THE JUDGMENT DENIED
RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION FOR LAND ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE
UNITED STATES FROM THE PETITIONING TRIBE OF INDIANS. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR SOME 5 1/2 MILLION
ACRES OF LAND ALLEGEDLY TAKEN FROM THE PETITIONER TRIBE IN 1879 AND
1884.  THE SUIT WAS INITIATED UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 3, 1920, 41 STAT.
738, PERMITTING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS ANY CLAIMS
ARISING FROM THE ASSERTED FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES TO PAY MONEY OR
PROPERTY DUE, WITHOUT REGARD TO LAPSE OF TIME OR STATUTES OF
LIMITATION.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS DENIED RECOVERY, 94 CT. CLS. 150, AND
WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

IN 1868 THE UNITED STATES AND THE SIOUX TRIBE ENTERED INTO THE FORT
LARAMIE TREATY (15 STAT. 635).  BY ARTICLE II OF THIS TREATY, A CERTAIN
DESCRIBED TERRITORY, KNOWN AS THE GREAT SIOUX RESERVATION AND LOCATED
IN WHAT IS NOW SOUTH DAKOTA AND NEBRASKA, WAS "SET APART FOR THE
ABSOLUTE AND UNDISTURBED USE AND OCCUPATION" OF THE TRIBE.  THE UNITED
STATES PROMISED THAT NO PERSONS, OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND
AGENTS DISCHARGING THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, WOULD BE PERMITTED "TO PASS
OVER, SETTLE UPON, OR RESIDE IN THE TERRITORY DESCRIBED IN THIS
ARTICLE, OR IN SUCH TERRITORY AS MAY BE ADDED TO THIS RESERVATION FOR
THE USE OF SAID INDIANS."  FOR THEIR PART, THE INDIANS RELINQUISHED
"ALL CLAIMS OR RIGHT IN AND TO ANY PORTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR
TERRITORIES, EXCEPT SUCH AS IS EMBRACED WITHIN THE LIMITS AFORESAID." 
NO QUESTION ARISES IN THIS CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDS SPECIFICALLY
INCLUDED WITHIN THE RESERVATION BY THIS TREATY. 

THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE GREAT SIOUX RESERVATION, AS CONSTITUTED
BY THE FT. LARAMIE TREATY, WAS THE LOW WATER MARK ON THE EAST BANK OF
THE MISSOURI RIVER.  FN1  THE LARGE TRACT BORDERING UPON AND EXTENDING
EASTWARD FROM THE EAST BANK OF THE RIVER REMAINED A PART OF THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN OPEN TO SETTLEMENT AND AFFORDED EASY ACCESS TO THE RESERVATION. 
AS A RESULT, GREAT NUMBERS OF WHITE MEN "INFESTED" THE REGION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.  ANXIETY OVER THIS
DEVELOPMENT LED THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, ON JANUARY 8, 1875,
TO SUGGEST TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR THAT HE REQUEST THE
PRESIDENT TO ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER WITHDRAWING FROM SALE AND SETTING
APART FOR INDIAN PURPOSES A CERTAIN LARGE TRACT OF THE LAND ALONG THE
EASTERN BANK OF THE MISSOURI RIVER.  IN THE COMMISSIONER'S LETTER TO
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND IN THE LATTER'S LETTER OF JANUARY
9TH TO THE PRESIDENT, THE REASON ADVANCED FOR THE PROPOSED EXECUTIVE
ORDER WAS THAT IT WAS "DEEMED NECESSARY FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE
LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITH THE INDIANS UPON THE MISSOURI RIVER."  ON JANUARY
11, 1875, THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE SUGGESTED ORDER.  IT DESCRIBED THE
TERRITORY AFFECTED AND PROVIDED THAT IT "BE, AND THE SAME HEREBY IS,
WITHDRAWN FROM SALE AND SET APART FOR THE USE OF THE SEVERAL TRIBES OF
SIOUX INDIANS AS AN ADDITION TO THEIR PRESENT RESERVATION."  ON TWO
OCCASIONS THEREAFTER, ONCE IN FEBRUARY AND AGAIN IN MAY, WHITE PERSONS
WHO HAD SETTLED ON THE LAND IN QUESTION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER AND WHO FEARED THAT ITS EFFECT WAS TO DEPRIVE THEM OF
THEIR HOLDINGS, WERE INFORMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
THAT THE OBJECT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS "TO ENABLE THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITH THE INDIANS ON THE MISSOURI RIVER," THAT IT
DID NOT AFFECT THE EXISTING RIGHTS OF ANY PERSONS IN THE AREA, THAT IT
WAS NOT "SUPPOSED THAT THE WITHDRAWAL WILL BE MADE PERMANENT," AND THAT
NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE PEACEFUL OCCUPANCY OF THE TERRITORY HAD BEEN
INTENDED. 

ON MARCH 13, 1875, THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS ADDRESSED
ANOTHER LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  IN IT HE RECOMMENDED
THAT THE SECRETARY REQUEST THE PRESIDENT TO WITHDRAW FROM SALE AND SET
APART FOR INDIAN PURPOSES ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND BORDERING THE GREAT
SIOUX RESERVATION, THIS TIME TO THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST.  THE REASON
GIVEN WAS SIMILAR TO THAT FOR WHICH THE FIRST ORDER HAD BEEN SOUGHT:
"VIZ:  THE SUPPRESSION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITH INDIANS AT THE
STANDING ROCK AGENCY."  AS A "FURTHER REASON FOR SAID REQUEST" THE
COMMISSIONER STATED THAT "THE AGENCY BUILDINGS, AS NOW LOCATED AT
STANDING ROCK, ARE OUTSIDE THE RESERVATION AS DEFINED BY (THE FORT
LARAMIE) TREATY  ...  BUT ARE INCLUDED IN THE TRACT PROPOSED TO BE
WITHDRAWN."  THE SECRETARY FORWARDED THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT TO THE
PRESIDENT WITH HIS CONCURRENCE, REPEATING THAT THE "ENLARGEMENT OF THE
SIOUX RESERVATION IN DAKOTA" WAS "DEEMED NECESSARY FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITH THE INDIANS AT THE STANDING ROCK AGENCY." 
ON MARCH 16, 1875, THE PRESIDENT ISSUED A SECOND EXECUTIVE ORDER
DESCRIBING THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED AND DECLARING THAT IT "BE, AND
THE SAME HEREBY IS, WITHDRAWN FROM SALE AND SET APART FOR THE USE OF
THE SEVERAL TRIBES OF THE SIOUX INDIANS AS AN ADDITION TO THEIR PRESENT
RESERVATION IN SAID TERRITORY." 

IN MID-MAY OF 1875 THE SECRETARY OF WAR TRANSMITTED TO THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR A LETTER FROM THE OFFICER IN COMMAND OF THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF DAKOTA IN WHICH IT WAS POINTED
OUT THAT A SMALL TRACT OF LAND ALONG THE EASTERN BANK OF THE MISSOURI
RIVER OPPOSITE THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE SIOUX RESERVATION WAS STILL
OPEN TO SETTLEMENT AND AFFORDED "A VERY NICE POINT FOR WHISKEY SELLERS
AND HORSE THIEVES."  UPON THE BASIS OF THIS LETTER, THE COMMISSIONER
RECOMMENDED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY
RECOMMENDED TO THE PRESIDENT THE ISSUANCE OF STILL A THIRD EXECUTIVE
ORDER WITHDRAWING THE DESCRIBED TRACT FROM SETTLEMENT.  ON MAY 20,
1875, THE EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS ISSUED IN THE SAME FORM AS ITS TWO
PREDECESSORS. 

FINALLY, UPON A SIMILAR COMPLAINT FROM THE ACTING AGENT OF THE
STANDING ROCK AGENCY THAT A SMALL PIECE OF LAND TO THE NORTH OF THE
RESERVATION WAS BEING USED AS A BASE OF OPERATIONS BY PERSONS SELLING
LIQUOR AND AMMUNITION TO THE SIOUX INDIANS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR RECOMMENDED A FURTHER ORDER
TO "EFFECTUALLY CUT OFF THESE WHISKEY DEALERS."  IN HIS LETTER TO THE
SECRETARY DATED NOVEMBER 24, 1876, THE COMMISSIONER STATED: "IT IS NOT
PROPOSED TO INTERFERE WITH THE VESTED RIGHTS, OR THE LEGITIMATE
BUSINESS OF ANY SETTLER WHO MAY BE UPON THIS TRACT."  THE PRESIDENT
ISSUED A FOURTH EXECUTIVE ORDER IN THE USUAL FORM ON NOVEMBER 28,
1876.  ON DECEMBER 13, 1876, THE COMMISSIONER NOTIFIED THE AGENT AT
STANDING ROCK THAT THE ORDER HAD BEEN ISSUED, AND ADDED THAT IT WAS
"NOT INTENDED TO INTERFERE WITH THE VESTED RIGHTS OF ANY SETTLERS UPON
THIS TRACT OR WITH THE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS PURSUITS OF ANY PERSON
LAWFULLY RESIDING WITHIN ITS LIMITS." 

ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER THE LAST OF THESE FOUR EXECUTIVE
ORDERS WITHDRAWING LANDS FROM SALE AND SETTING THEM APART FOR THE USE
OF THE SIOUX, THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS SUBMITTED TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR A REPORT UPON A SUGGESTION THAT THE ORDERS BE
MODIFIED SO AS TO PERMIT THE RETURN OF THE LANDS TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 
THE REPORT, DATED JUNE 6, 1879, REVIEWED THE PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE
LIQUOR TRADE DURING THE YEARS FOLLOWING THE FORT LARAMIE TREATY,
RECALLED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE FOUR EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 1875 AND 1876
HAD BEEN TO ELIMINATE THIS TRAFFIC, OBSERVED THAT THEY HAD "TO A GREAT
EXTENT ACCOMPLISHED THE OBJECT DESIRED, VIZ:  THE PREVENTION OF THE
SALE OF WHISKEY TO THE INDIANS," AND CONCLUDED THAT ANY CHANGE IN THE
BOUNDARIES ESTABLISHED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS WOULD "GIVE RENEWED LIFE
TO THIS UNLAWFUL TRAFFIC, AND BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE INDIANS." 

THREE WEEKS LATER, HOWEVER, UPON RECONSIDERATION, THE COMMISSIONER
INFORMED THE SECRETARY THAT, IN HIS OPINION, THE LANDS INCLUDED IN THE
EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 1875 AND 1876 MIGHT BE "RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN, AND THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIANS STILL BE PROTECTED."  IN
EXPLANATION HE STATED: 

"THESE LANDS WERE SET APART FOR THE PURPOSE, AS ALLEGED, OF
PREVENTING ILLEGAL LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITH THE INDIANS.  AT THE TIME SAID
LANDS WERE SET APART THERE WAS NO LAW PROVIDING A PUNISHMENT FOR THE
SALE OF LIQUOR TO INDIANS, 'EXCEPT TO INDIANS IN THE INDIAN COUNTRY,'
BUT, BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 27, 1877, (19 STAT. 244) PERSONS WHO NOW
ENGAGE IN LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITH INDIANS, NO MATTER IN WHAT LOCALITY, ARE
LIABLE TO A PENALTY OF $300, AND TWO YEARS IMPRISONMENT, AND,
THEREFORE, THE NECESSITY FOR SO LARGE A RESERVATION FOR THE PROTECTION
OF THESE INDIANS IN THIS RESPECT DOES NOT NOW EXIST."  FN2 

ACCORDINGLY, HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE LANDS WITHDRAWN FROM SALE BY THE
PRESIDENT IN 1875 AND 1876 BE RETURNED TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THREE SMALL TRACTS DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THE CHEYENNE, GRAND
RIVER, AND STANDING ROCK AGENCIES.  ON AUGUST 9, 1879, AN EXECUTIVE
ORDER TO THIS EFFECT WAS PROMULGATED AND THE LAND, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS
INDICATED, WAS "RESTORED TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN."  FIVE YEARS LATER, THE
COMMISSIONER INFORMED THE SECRETARY THAT THE GRAND RIVER AGENCY HAD
CEASED TO EXIST AND THAT THE AGENTS AT CHEYENNE AND STANDING ROCK
CONSIDERED IT NO LONGER NECESSARY TO WITHHOLD THE TRACTS OPPOSITE THEIR
AGENCIES FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN "FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY HAVE
THUS FAR BEEN RETAINED."  CONSEQUENTLY, AN EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS PREPARED
AND SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT ON MARCH 20, 1884, RESTORING THESE THREE
SMALL PIECES OF LAND TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, "THE SAME BEING NO LONGER
NEEDED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE WITHDRAWN FROM SALE AND
SETTLEMENT." 

ONE ADDITIONAL EVENT REMAINS TO BE NOTED.  IN THE INDIAN APPROPRIATION
ACT FOR 1877, APPROVED AUGUST 15, 1876(19 STAT. 176, 192), CONGRESS
PROVIDED: 

"  ...  HEREAFTER THERE SHALL BE NO APPROPRIATION MADE FOR THE
SUBSISTENCE OF SAID INDIANS (I.E., THE SIOUX), UNLESS THEY SHALL FIRST
AGREE TO RELINQUISH ALL RIGHT AND CLAIM TO ANY COUNTRY OUTSIDE THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE PERMANENT RESERVATION ESTABLISHED BY THE TREATY OF
EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-EIGHT (THE FORT LARAMIE TREATY) FOR SAID
INDIANS; AND ALSO SO MUCH OF THEIR SAID PERMANENT RESERVATION AS LIES
WEST OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRD MERIDIAN OF LONGITUDE (THE WESTERN
BOUNDARY SET BY THE FORT LARAMIE TREATY HAD BEEN THE 104TH MERIDIAN),
AND SHALL ALSO GRANT RIGHT OF WAY OVER SAID RESERVATION TO THE COUNTRY
THUS CEDED FOR WAGON OR OTHER ROADS, FROM CONVENIENT AND ACCESSIBLE
POINTS ON THE MISSOURI RIVER  ...  " 

ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1876 - A DATE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FIRST THREE OF THE
FOUR EXECUTIVE ORDERS SETTING APART ADDITIONAL LANDS FOR THE USE OF THE
SIOUX, BUT ABOUT TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO THE LAST OF THOSE ORDERS - THE
SIOUX TRIBE SIGNED AN AGREEMENT CONFORMING TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY
CONGRESS IN THE INDIAN APPROPRIATION ACT AND PROMISED TO "RELINQUISH
AND CEDE TO THE UNITED STATES ALL THE TERRITORY LYING OUTSIDE THE SAID
RESERVATION, AS HEREIN MODIFIED AND DESCRIBED  ...  " FN3 

PETITIONER'S POSITION IS THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 1875 AND 1876
WERE EFFECTIVE TO CONVEY TO THE TRIBE THE SAME KIND OF INTEREST IN THE
LANDS AFFECTED AS IT HAD ACQUIRED IN THE LANDS COVERED BY THE FORT
LARAMIE TREATY, THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 1879 AND 1884 RESTORING
THE LANDS TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF THIS INTEREST,
AND THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
LANDS AS OF 1879 AND 1884.  THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDS ON SEVERAL GROUNDS:
FIRST, THAT, IN GENERAL, THE PRESIDENT LACKED AUTHORITY TO CONFER UPON
ANY INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP A COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN ANY PART OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN; SECOND, THAT, EVEN IF HE HAD THE POWER TO CONVEY SUCH A
COMPENSABLE INTEREST, THE PRESIDENT DID NOT PURPORT TO DO SO IN THIS
CASE; AND THIRD, THAT, IN ANY EVENT, BY THE TREATY OF 1876 THE SIOUX
RELINQUISHED WHATEVER RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE HAD IN THE LANDS COVERED BY
THE FIRST THREE OF THE FOUR EXECUTIVE ORDERS. 

EXCLUSIVELY "THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF AND MAKE ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE
UNITED STATES."  NEVERTHELESS, "FROM AN EARLY PERIOD IN THE HISTORY OF
THE GOVERNMENT IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO ORDER, FROM
TIME TO TIME, AS THE EXIGENCIES OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE REQUIRED, PARCELS
OF LAND BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES TO BE RESERVED FROM SALE AND SET
APART FOR PUBLIC USES."  GRISAR V. MCDOWELL, 6 WALL.  363, 381.  AS
LONG AGO AS 1830, CONGRESS REVEALED ITS AWARENESS OF THIS PRACTICE AND
ACQUIESCED IN IT.  FN4  BY 1855 THE PRESIDENT HAD BEGUN TO WITHDRAW
PUBLIC LANDS FROM SALE BY EXECUTIVE ORDER FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF
ESTABLISHING INDIAN RESERVATIONS.  FN5  FROM THAT DATE UNTIL 1919, FN6
HUNDREDS OF RESERVATIONS FOR INDIAN OCCUPANCY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
WERE CREATED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER.  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, EXECUTIVE
ORDERS RELATING TO INDIAN RESERVATIONS, PASSIM; UNITED STATES V.
MIDWEST OIL CO., 236 U.S. 459, 469-470.  ALTHOUGH THE VALIDITY OF THESE
ORDERS WAS OCCASIONALLY QUESTIONED,  FN7  DOUBTS WERE QUIETED IN UNITED
STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO., SUPRA.  IN THAT CASE, IT WAS SQUARELY HELD
THAT, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, IT LAY
WITHIN THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO WITHDRAW LANDS FROM THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN.  CF. MASON V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 545.    THE GOVERNMENT
THEREFORE DOES NOT DENY THAT THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 1875 AND 1876
INVOLVED HERE WERE EFFECTIVE TO WITHDRAW THE LANDS IN QUESTION FROM THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN.  IT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE
PRESENTED BY THIS CASE.  IT URGES THAT, INSTEAD, WE ARE CALLED UPON TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAD THE POWER TO BESTOW UPON THE SIOUX
TRIBE AN INTEREST IN THESE LANDS OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS TO REQUIRE
COMPENSATION WHEN THE INTEREST WAS EXTINGUISHED BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS
OF 1879 AND 1884.  CONCEDEDLY, WHERE LANDS HAVE BEEN RESERVED FOR THE
USE AND OCCUPATION OF AN INDIAN TRIBE BY THE TERMS OF A TREATY OR
STATUTE, THE TRIBE MUST BE COMPENSATED IF THE LANDS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY
TAKEN FROM THEM.  SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476; UNITED
STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304 U.S. 111; UNITED STATES V. KLAMATH
INDIANS, 304 U.S. 119.  SINCE THE CONSTITUTION PLACES THE AUTHORITY TO
DISPOSE OF PUBLIC LANDS EXCLUSIVELY IN CONGRESS, THE EXECUTIVE'S POWER
TO CONVEY ANY INTEREST IN THESE LANDS MUST BE TRACED TO CONGRESSIONAL
DELEGATION OF ITS AUTHORITY.  THE BASIS OF DECISION IN UNITED STATES V.
MIDWEST OIL CO. WAS THAT, SO FAR AS THE POWER TO WITHDRAW PUBLIC LANDS
FROM SALE IS CONCERNED, SUCH A DELEGATION COULD BE SPELLED OUT FROM
LONG CONTINUED CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE IN THE EXECUTIVE PRACTICE. 
THE ANSWER TO WHETHER A SIMILAR DELEGATION OCCURRED WITH RESPECT TO THE
POWER TO CONVEY A COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN THESE LANDS TO THE INDIANS
MUST BE FOUND IN THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE OF WHAT CONSEQUENCES WERE
THOUGHT BY THE EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESS TO FLOW FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS.  FN8 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT CONSISTENTLY
INDICATED ITS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS WHICH THE
INDIANS ENJOYED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS WERE DIFFERENT FROM AND
LESS THAN THEIR RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN TREATY OR STATUTE
RESERVATIONS.  THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
DURING THE YEARS WHEN RESERVATIONS WERE FREQUENTLY BEING ESTABLISHED BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER CONTAIN STATEMENTS THAT THE INDIANS HAD "NO ASSURANCE
FOR THEIR OCCUPATION OF THESE LANDS BEYOND THE PLEASURE OF THE
EXECUTIVE,"  FN9  THAT THEY "ARE MERE TENANTS AT WILL, AND POSSESS NO
PERMANENT RIGHTS TO THE LANDS UPON WHICH THEY ARE TEMPORARILY PERMITTED
TO REMAIN,"  FN10  AND THAT THOSE OCCUPYING LAND IN EXECUTIVE ORDER
RESERVATIONS "DO NOT HOLD IT BY THE SAME TENURE WITH WHICH INDIANS IN
OTHER PARTS OF THE INDIAN TERRITORY POSSESS THEIR RESERVES."  FN11 

ALTHOUGH THERE ARE ABUNDANT SIGNS THAT CONGRESS WAS AWARE OF THE
PRACTICE OF ESTABLISHING INDIAN RESERVATIONS BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, THERE
IS LITTLE TO INDICATE WHAT IT UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE KIND OF INTEREST
THAT THE INDIANS OBTAINED IN THESE LANDS.  HOWEVER, IN ITS REPORT IN
1892 UPON A BILL TO RESTORE TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN A PORTION OF THE
COLVILLE EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATION, THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN
AFFAIRS EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER "THE
INDIANS WERE GIVEN A LICENSE TO OCCUPY THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN IT SO
LONG AS IT WAS THE PLEASURE OF THE GOVERNMENT THEY SHOULD DO SO, AND NO
RIGHT, TITLE, OR CLAIM TO SUCH LANDS HAS VESTED IN THE INDIANS BY
VIRTUE OF THIS OCCUPANCY."  FN12 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT ITS POSITION FINDS SUPPORT IN SEC. 1 OF THE
GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT OF FEBRUARY 8, 1887,  FN13  WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THAT IN ALL CASES WHERE ANY TRIBE OR BAND OF INDIANS HAS BEEN, OR
SHALL HEREAFTER BE, LOCATED UPON ANY RESERVATION CREATED FOR THEIR USE,
EITHER BY TREATY STIPULATION OR BY VIRTUE OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS OR
EXECUTIVE ORDER SETTING APART THE SAME FOR THEIR USE, THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES BE, AND, HE HEREBY IS, AUTHORIZED  ...  TO CAUSE SAID
RESERVATION  ...  TO BE SURVEYED ...  AND TO ALLOT THE LANDS IN SAID
RESERVATION IN SEVERALTY TO ANY INDIAN LOCATED THEREON  ...  " 

BY SEC. 5, PROVISION WAS MADE FOR ISSUANCE OF PATENTS TO THE
ALLOTTEES, BY WHICH THE UNITED STATES PROMISED TO HOLD THE LANDS IN
TRUST FOR THE ALLOTTEES AND THEIR HEIRS FOR 25 YEARS, AND THEREAFTER TO
CONVEY TO THEM FULL TITLE.  PETITIONER URGES THAT, BY INCLUDING
EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT,
CONGRESS REVEALED ITS BELIEF THAT THE DEGREE OF OWNERSHIP ENJOYED BY
INDIAN TRIBES IS IDENTICAL WHETHER THE RESERVATION IS CREATED BY
TREATY, STATUTE, OR EXECUTIVE ORDER.  BUT THERE IS MUCH TO CONTRADICT
THIS INTERPRETATION.  FOR EXAMPLE, DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEBATE ON
THE MEASURE, SENATOR DAWES, A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE REPORTING THE
BILL, FREQUENTLY DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE CHARACTER OF TITLE ENJOYED
BY THE INDIANS ON STATUTE AND TREATY RESERVATIONS AND THAT ENJOYED BY
THOSE ON EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS, AND NO EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN TO
HIS REMARKS.  17 CONG. REC. 1559, 1630, 1631, 1763.  MOREOVER, IN ITS
1892 REPORT ON THE BILL TO ABOLISH A PORTION OF THE COLVILLE
RESERVATION, TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED, THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN
AFFAIRS EXPLAINED: 

"AN ERRONEOUS IDEA SEEMS TO HAVE GROWN UP, THAT THE INDIAN ALLOTMENT
ACT (OF 1887) AND ITS AMENDMENTS HAVE GIVEN ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS TO
EXECUTIVE RESERVATIONS, AND OPERATED TO CONFER TITLES UPON THE INDIANS
OCCUPYING THEM THEY DID NOT BEFORE POSSESS  ...  AT THE TIME OF THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS STATUTE, THERE WERE FIFTY-SIX EXECUTIVE RESERVATIONS,
EMBRACING PERHAPS FROM 75,000,000 TO 100,000,000 ACRES OF THE PUBLIC
LANDS, IN WHICH THE INDIANS HAD NO RIGHT OR CLAIM OF TITLE AND WHICH
COULD BE EXTINGUISHED BY ACT OF THE PRESIDENT.  IT WOULD BE
PREPOSTEROUS TO PLACE SUCH A CONSTRUCTION UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THIS ACT
AS WOULD DIVEST THE UNITED STATES OF ITS TITLE TO THESE LANDS."  FN14 

THIS STATEMENT BY THE COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT
ACT OF 1887, MADE WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF ITS PASSAGE, IS VIRTUALLY
CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT ACT.  WE THINK THAT THE
INCLUSION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS MEANT NO MORE THAN THAT
CONGRESS WAS WILLING THAT THE LANDS WITHIN THEM SHOULD BE ALLOTTED TO
INDIVIDUAL INDIANS ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED.  IT DID NOT
AMOUNT TO A RECOGNITION OF TRIBAL OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDS PRIOR TO
ALLOTMENT.  SINCE THE LANDS INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE US WERE NEVER
ALLOTTED - INDEED, THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 1879 AND 1884 TERMINATED THE
RESERVATION EVEN BEFORE THE ALLOTMENT ACT WAS PASSED,  - WE THINK THE
ACT HAS NO BEARING UPON THE ISSUE PRESENTED. 

PERHAPS THE MOST STRIKING PROOF OF THE BELIEF SHARED BY CONGRESS AND
THE EXECUTIVE THAT THE INDIANS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION UPON
THE ABOLITION OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATION IS THE VERY ABSENCE OF
COMPENSATORY PAYMENTS IN SUCH SITUATIONS.  IT WAS A COMMON PRACTICE,
DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH RESERVATIONS WERE CREATED BY EXECUTIVE
ORDER, FOR THE PRESIDENT SIMPLY TO TERMINATE THE EXISTENCE OF A
RESERVATION BY CANCELLING OR REVOKING THE ORDER ESTABLISHING IT. THAT
IS TO SAY, THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THE CASE BEFORE US WAS TYPICAL. 
NO COMPENSATION WAS MADE, AND NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR THE INDIANS
SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS DUE.  FN15  IT IS TRUE THAT ON SEVERAL OF THE
MANY OCCASIONS WHEN CONGRESS ITSELF ABOLISHED EXECUTIVE ORDER
RESERVATIONS, IT PROVIDED FOR A MEASURE OF COMPENSATION TO THE
INDIANS.  IN THE ACT OF JULY 1, 1892, RESTORING TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN A
LARGE PORTION OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION,  FN16  AND IN THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 20, 1893, RESTORING A PORTION OF THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE
INDIAN RESERVATION,  FN17  CONGRESS DIRECTED THAT THE PROCEEDS FROM THE
SALE OF THE LANDS BE USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIANS.  BUT BOTH
ACTS CONTAINED AN EXPLICIT PROVISO:  "THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED
SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS RECOGNIZING TITLE OR OWNERSHIP OF SAID INDIANS TO
ANY PART OF SAID  ...  RESERVATION, WHETHER THAT HEREBY RESTORED TO THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN OR THAT STILL RESERVED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THEIR USE
AND OCCUPANCY."  CONSEQUENTLY, THE GRANTING OF COMPENSATION MUST BE
REGARDED AS AN ACT OF GRACE RATHER THAN A RECOGNITION OF AN
OBLIGATION. 

WE CONCLUDE THEREFORE THAT THERE WAS NO EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL OR
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF A COMPENSABLE INTEREST TO
PETITIONER BY THE FOUR EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 1875 AND 1876, AND THAT NO
IMPLIED CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF THE POWER TO DO SO CAN BE SPELLED
OUT FROM THE EVIDENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE UNDERSTANDING. 
THE ORDERS WERE EFFECTIVE TO WITHDRAW FROM SALE THE LANDS AFFECTED AND
TO GRANT THE USE OF THE LANDS TO THE PETITIONER.  BUT THE INTEREST
WHICH THE INDIANS RECEIVED WAS SUBJECT TO TERMINATION AT THE WILL OF
EITHER THE EXECUTIVE OR CONGRESS AND WITHOUT OBLIGATION TO THE UNITED
STATES.  THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS OF 1879 AND 1884 WERE SIMPLY AN EXERCISE
OF THIS POWER OF TERMINATION, AND THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION WAS NOT
REQUIRED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE GREAT SIOUX RESERVATION ALSO INCLUDED TWO SMALL THERETOFORE
EXISTING RESERVATIONS LOCATED ON THE EAST BANK OF THE RIVER.  THEY ARE
OF NO CONSEQUENCE SO FAR AS THE PRESENT DISPUTE IS CONCERNED. 

FN2  LETTER FROM COMMISSIONER TO SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, DATED
JUNE 27, 1879. 

FN3  THIS TREATY WAS RATIFIED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1877(19
STAT. 254). 

FN4  THE PRE-EMPTION ACT OF MAY 29, 1830, EXCLUDED FROM ITS
PROVISIONS "ANY LAND, WHICH IS RESERVED FROM SALE BY ACT OF CONGRESS,
OR BY ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT."  4 STAT. 420, 421.  "LANDS INCLUDED IN
ANY RESERVATION, BY ANY TREATY, LAW, OR PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT"
WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE PRE-EMPTION ACT OF SEPTEMBER 4,
1841.  5 STAT. 453, 456. 

FN5  COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW (1941) 299; DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATING TO INDIAN RESERVATIONS, VOL. I,
P. 79. 

FN6  BY SEC. 27 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1919, CONGRESS DECLARED THAT
THEREAFTER "NO PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE WITHDRAWN BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER, PROCLAMATION, OR OTHERWISE, FOR OR AS AN INDIAN
RESERVATION EXCEPT BY ACT OF CONGRESS."  41 STAT. 3, 34.  IN 1927,
CONGRESS ADDED A PROVISION THAT ANY FUTURE CHANGES IN THE BOUNDARIES OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS SHOULD BE MADE BY CONGRESS ALONE.  SEC. 4,
44 STAT. 1347. 

FN7  SEE 14 OP. A.G. 181(1873).  BUT CF. 17 OP. A.G. 258(1882). 

FN8  THIS QUESTION IS AN OPEN ONE.  IT IS TRUE THAT LANGUAGE
APPEARING IN TWO DECISIONS OF THIS COURT SUGGESTS THAT THE TRIBAL TITLE
TO A RESERVATION IS THE SAME WHETHER THE RESERVATION HAS BEEN CREATED
BY STATUTE OR TREATY OR BY EXECUTIVE ORDER.  RE WILSON, 140 U.S. 575,
577; SPALDING V. CHANDLER, 160 U.S. 394, 403.  CF. C.N. COTTON, 12 L.D.
205(1890); WILLIAM F. TUCKER ET AL., 13 L.D. 628(1891).  IN RE WILSON,
HOWEVER, IT WAS CONCEDED BY ALL CONCERNED THAT AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
RESERVATION WAS "INDIAN COUNTRY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM AS IT
APPEARED IN CERTAIN STATUTES DEFINING THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF
UNITED STATES COURTS AND TERRITORIAL COURTS.  NO QUESTION WAS RAISED BY
THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE TRIBE'S INTEREST IN THE
RESERVATION.  MOREOVER, THE DICTUM REFERRED TO WAS BASED UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE ALLOTMENT ACT OF 1887(24 STAT. 388) AMOUNTED TO A
CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION OF TRIBAL TITLE TO EXECUTIVE ORDER
RESERVATIONS.  THE INVALIDITY OF THIS ASSUMPTION IS DEMONSTRATED IN A
LATER PORTION OF OUR OPINION.  THE ISSUE IN SPALDING V. CHANDLER
CONCERNED THE EFFECT OF THE PRE-EMPTION ACT OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1841(5
STAT. 453) UPON AN INDIAN RESERVATION CREATED BY TREATY AND PRESERVED
BY EXECUTIVE ORDER AND DID NOT INVOLVE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE
INDIANS ENJOYED A COMPENSABLE INTEREST IN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
RESERVATION.  AND TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS THEREAFTER WHEN THE ATTORNRY
GENERAL RULED, ON THE AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO.,
THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS WERE NOT A PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
FOR PURPOSES OF THE GENERAL LEASING ACT OF 1920(41 STAT. 437), HE TOOK
OCCASION TO REMARK:  "WHETHER THE PRESIDENT MIGHT LEGALLY ABOLISH, IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, INDIAN RESERVATIONS ONCE CREATED BY HIM, HAS BEEN
SERIOUSLY QUESTIONED (12 L.D. 205; 13 L.D. 628) AND NOT WITHOUT STRONG
REASONS; FOR THE INDIAN RIGHTS ATTACH WHEN THE LANDS ARE THUS SET
ASIDE; AND MOREOVER, THE LANDS THEN AT ONCE BECOME SUBJECT TO ALLOTMENT
UNDER THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT.  NEVERTHELESS, THE PRESIDENT HAS IN
FACT, AND IN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES, CHANGED THE BOUNDARIES OF EXECUTIVE
ORDER INDIAN RESERVATIONS BY EXCLUDING LANDS THEREFROM, AND THE
QUESTION OF HIS AUTHORITY TO DO SO HAS NOT APPARENTLY COME BEFORE THE
COURTS."  34 OP. A.G. 171, 176. 

FN9  ANNUAL REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (1872), H.R.
EXEC. DOC., 42D CONG., 3D SESS., VOL. III, NO. 1, PART 5, P. 472. 

FN10  ID. (1878), H.R. EXEC. DOC., 46TH CONG., 3D SESS., VOL. IX, NO.
1, PART 5, P. 486; ID. (1880), H.R. EXEC. DOC., 46TH CONG., 3D SESS.,
VOL. IX, NO. 1, PART 5, P. 96. 

FN11  ID. (1886), H.R. EXEC. DOC., 49TH CONG., 2D SESS., VOL. 8, NO.
1, PART 5, P. 88. 

FN12  S. REP. NO. 664, 52D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

FN13  24 STAT. 388. 

FN14  S. REP. NO. 664, 52D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

FN15  SEE, E.G., DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, EXECUTIVE ORDERS
RELATING TO INDIAN RESERVATIONS, VOL. I, PP. 5, 6, 21, 30, 37, 43, 44,
48-50; HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN
AFFAIRS ON S. 1722 AND S. 3159, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 104-105. 
FN16  27 STAT. 62, 63. 

FN17  27 STAT. 469, 470. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :














PENCE V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 332 


NO. 665.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 12, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 11, 1942.  - 121
F.2D 804, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN AN ACTION ON A GOVERNMENT LIFE INSURANCE POLICY THE GOVERNMENT
IS ENTITLED TO A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD WHERE MATERIAL
REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO HIS HEALTH MADE BY THE INSURED IN HIS
APPLICATION FOR THE INSURANCE, AND RELIED UPON BY THE GOVERNMENT IN
ISSUING THE POLICY, ARE CLEARLY CONTRADICTED BY STATEMENTS MADE BY HIM
AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY IN SUPPORT OF CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY
BENEFITS; WHERE THE LATER REPRESENTATIONS LEAVE NO DOUBT OF THE FALSITY
OF THE EARLIER ONES NOR OF THE APPLICANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR FALSITY,
AND ARE NEITHER CONTRADICTED, QUALIFIED NOR EXPLAINED BY OTHER EVIDENCE
IN THE CASE.  P. 338. 

2.  THE REPRESENTATIONS IN THE SWORN APPLICATION FOR GOVERNMENT LIFE
INSURANCE WERE NOT EVIDENCE OF THEIR OWN VERACITY WHEN CHALLENGED AS
FALSE AND FRAUDULENT.  P. 339. 

3.  UPON THE FACTS ABOVE STATED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO DEFRAUD IS
PRESUMED.  P. 339. 

PENCE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 602, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENTERED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT ON A VERDICT FOR THE PRESENT PETITIONER IN AN ACTION ON
A GOVERNMENT LIFE INSURANCE POLICY.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION, UNDER RULE 50(B), FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VERDICT OR FOR A NEW TRIAL. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BEGUN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BY THE PETITIONER, A WIDOW, AS SOLE
BENEFICIARY OF A POLICY OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LIFE INSURANCE
ISSUED TO HER DECEASED HUSBAND, DOCTOR LAWRENCE W. PENCE.  THE ONLY
CONTESTED ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE THAT
THE POLICY HAD BEEN REINSTATED AS THE RESULT OF FRAUDULENT
REPRESENTATIONS IN DOCTOR PENCE'S APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE
POLICY AFTER IT HAD LAPSED FOR NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUM. 

AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL COURT, THE GOVERNMENT MOVED
FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT IN ITS FAVOR.  THE TRIAL JUDGE WITHHELD A RULING
ON THE MOTION UNDER RULE 50(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND
SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY, WHICH RETURNED A GENERAL VERDICT FOR
THE PETITIONER.  THE GOVERNMENT THEN MOVED UNDER RULE 50(B) FOR
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A
NEW TRIAL.  THE TRIAL JUDGE DENIED BOTH MOTIONS AND ENTERED JUDGMENT ON
THE VERDICT FOR THE PETITIONER.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, WHICH HELD, WITH ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A CASE FOR
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE JURY AND THAT THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT GROUND
REQUIRING THAT A NEW TRIAL BE GRANTED.  IT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AND REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
HARMONY WITH ITS OPINION.  121 F.2D 804.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  314
U.S. 602. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE EVIDENCE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT FOR
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE JURY, AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THEREFORE DENIES HER THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.  FN1 

DOCTOR PENCE HAD BEEN A PHYSICIAN AND MEDICAL OFFICER IN THE MILITARY
SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES FROM AUGUST 7, 1918, TO JANUARY 9, 1919. 
WHILE IN THE SERVICE HE OBTAINED A $10,000 POLICY OF YEARLY RENEWABLE
WAR RISK TERM INSURANCE, WHICH HE ALLOWED TO LAPSE ON MARCH 2, 1920,
FOR NONPAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM DUE ON FEBRUARY 1, 1920.  IN 1925 HE GAVE
UP A PRIVATE MEDICAL PRACTICE TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT AS A PHYSICIAN WITH
THE GOVERNMENT, ACTING THEREAFTER AS A SPECIALIST IN EYE, EAR, NOSE,
AND THROAT DISEASES AT VARIOUS VETERANS' HOSPITALS AND HOMES MAINTAINED
BY THE GOVERNMENT.  ON JUNE 21, 1927, PENCE APPLIED FOR REINSTATEMENT
AND CONVERSION OF THE LAPSED TERM POLICY.  THE POLICY WAS ACCORDINGLY
REINSTATED AND CONVERTED EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1927; AND, EXCEPT FOR THE
QUESTION OF FRAUD,  FN2  WAS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH ON
SEPTEMBER 21, 1934. 

IN HIS APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT, PENCE CATEGORICALLY DENIED,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT HE HAD EVER BEEN TREATED FOR ANY DISEASE OF
THE THROAT, HEART OR STOMACH.  SO ALSO DID HE DENY THAT SINCE THE LAPSE
OF THE POLICY HE HAD CONSULTED ANY PHYSICIAN IN REGARD TO HIS HEALTH,
OR HAD BEEN ILL OR PREVENTED BY ILL HEALTH FROM ATTENDING TO HIS USUAL
OCCUPATION. 

AT THE TRIAL THERE WAS SUBMITTED IN EVIDENCE A COMMUNICATION FROM THE
REGIONAL MEDICAL OFFICER AT SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA, TO THE MANAGER
OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION IN MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, AND DATED
DECEMBER 9, 1931.  THIS REPORTED THAT A GASTRO-INTESTINAL X-RAY
EXAMINATION HAD BEEN MADE OF PENCE AT THE SIOUX FALLS VETERANS'
HOSPITAL ON APRIL 6, 1925, AND HAD RESULTED IN A DIAGNOSIS OF
"SUSPECTED DUODENAL PATHOLOGY."  PENCE MADE SEVERAL STATEMENTS,
SUBSEQUENT TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF HIS INSURANCE AND IN SUPPORT OF
CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS FROM THE GOVERNMENT, THAT THIS
EXAMINATION HAD BEEN MADE AT HIS REQUEST.  MRS. PENCE ADMITTED THAT SHE
KNEW THAT SUCH AN EXAMINATION HAD BEEN MADE. 

ABOUT FIFTEEN MONTHS AFTER HIS APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT, AND ON
AUGUST 27, 1928, PENCE APPLIED TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR DISABILITY
COMPENSATION, CLAIMING THAT HE WAS DISABLED BY CHRONIC SINUSITIS,
ETHMOIDITIS, ATROPHIC RHINITIS, AND BY MYOCARDITIS.  ON SEPTEMBER 7,
1928, HE EXECUTED AND SUBMITTED A SWORN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS
APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY COMPENSATION THAT HE SUFFERED FROM THE
FOLLOWING DISABILITIES:  "SINUSITIS, FRONTAL, ETHMOIDITIS, CHRONIC,
ATROPHIC RHINITIS, CHRONIC, WITH LOSS OF SENSE OF SMELL, MYOCARDITIS,
CHRONIC  ...  INCURRED  ...  ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 1918."  HE ALSO STATED
"THAT A PHYSICIAN WAS CALLED IN TO TREAT ME ON JAN. 1927, WHEN HE
PRONOUNCED MY DISABILITY SINUSITIS, FRONTAL, ACUTE EXACERBATION AND
PRESCRIBED SERUM AND LOCAL TREATMENT TENDING TO INDUCE DRAINAGE. 
TREATMENT WAS CARRIED OUT BY MYSELF.  WAS CONFINED TO BED FOR 8 DAYS." 
TOGETHER WITH THIS HE SUBMITTED A SUPPORTING "PHYSICIAN'S AFFIDAVIT,"
BY DOCTOR L. GRANT GLICKMAN, A PRACTICING PHYSICIAN STATIONED AT THE
TIME OF THE ASSERTED EXAMINATION AT THE NATIONAL HOME AT LEAVENWORTH,
KANSAS, WHERE PENCE WAS STATIONED; AND EMPLOYED AT THE TIME OF THE
TRIAL BY THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION AT FORT SNELLING, MINNESOTA. 
FN3 

IN 1931 AND 1933 PENCE MADE STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF OTHER CLAIMS FOR
BENEFITS, SIMILAR TO THOSE SET FORTH ABOVE IN THAT THEY CONTRADICTED
THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN HIS APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE.  ON NOVEMBER 28, 1931, HE SUBMITTED A STATEMENT IN
SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT, TO THE EFFECT THAT IN 1918 A
CAMP PHYSICIAN, BY WHOSE AUTHORITY HE REMAINED IN BARRACKS UNDER
SPECIAL CARE WHILE IN SERVICE, EXAMINED HIS HEART AND TOLD HIM IT WAS
"SHOT"; THAT HE HAD ACUTE MYOCARDITIS AND A SEVERE GASTRIC UPSET WHICH
"TURNED OUT TO BE A FORERUNNER OF DUODENAL ULCER WHICH PERFORATED IN
1920 AND AGAIN IN 1925"; AND THAT BECAUSE OF DISTRESS AND CERTAIN
SYMPTOMS HE LATER REQUESTED A GASTRO-INTESTINAL EXAMINATION AT THE
VETERANS' BUREAU OFFICE AT SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA.  HE CONCLUDED HIS
STATEMENT:  "I NEVER HAD A DAY OF SICKNESS IN MY LIFE BEFORE THIS AND I
DO NOT BELIEVE I HAVE HAD AN ENTIRELY WELL ONE SINCE."  ON DECEMBER 8,
1933, HE SUBMITTED A SWORN APPLICATION FOR PENSION FOR DISABILITY
RESULTING FROM ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE, STATING THAT SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF SERVICE ONE CIVILIAN PHYSICIAN HAD TREATED HIM FOR
SINUSITIS AND MYOCARDITIS; AND FOUR OTHERS FOR SINUSITIS ALONE.  ONE OF
THE LATTER EXAMINATIONS WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY DOCTOR GLICKMAN
IN 1926, AND ANOTHER WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT A TIME AFTER THE
LAPSE OF THE POLICY IN SUIT. 

DOCTOR GLICKMAN WAS PRODUCED AT THE TRIAL AS A WITNESS FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, IN WHOSE EMPLOY HE STILL WAS AT THE TIME.  THE TRIAL JUDGE
RULED OUT, AS IMPROPER, QUESTIONS BY PETITIONER'S COUNSEL BEARING UPON
THE QUESTION WHETHER DISCIPLINARY ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN AGAINST
GLICKMAN AND OTHERS BECAUSE OF THE EXECUTION OF AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT
OF PENCE'S CLAIM FOR DISABILITY COMPENSATION AND OTHER OF HIS CLAIMS. 
UPON BEING ASKED WHETHER HE HAD AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THE
EXAMINATION REFERRED TO, HE STATED THAT HE HAD COPIES OF "RECORDS," BUT
NOT THE "ORIGINALS."  THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTORNEY THEN ASKED:  "WELL,
DOCTOR, DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF YOUR EXAMINATION - REFRESH YOUR
RECOLLECTION OF YOUR EXAMINATION OF DR. LAWRENCE PENCE IN JANUARY,
1927?"  GLICKMAN ANSWERED "I DO."  THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT LOCATE THE
RECORD OF THE TREATMENT MADE ON GLICKMAN'S REPORT AS OFFICER OF THE DAY
- APPARENTLY THE ONLY RECORD MADE OF THE TREATMENT - AND IT WAS NOT
PRODUCED AT THE TRIAL. 

GLICKMAN TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:  PENCE CALLED UPON HIM FOR
TREATMENT ON JANUARY 16, 1927, WHILE HE WAS ACTING AS OFFICER OF THE
DAY.  HE CONCLUDED THAT PENCE WAS SUFFERING FROM SINUSITIS AND
ETHMOIDITIS.  PENCE KNEW WHAT HIS FINDINGS WERE, AND STATED THAT HE WAS
SUFFERING FROM A RECURRENCE OF A CHRONIC CONDITION.  GLICKMAN TREATED
PENCE AT PENCE'S HOME ON TWO OR THREE OCCASIONS BETWEEN JANUARY 16 AND
JANUARY 25.  MRS. PENCE WAS AT HOME THEN, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS NOT ON ALL
OCCASIONS.  PENCE HAD NO COLD, BUT GLICKMAN PRESCRIBED A COLD SERUM FOR
HIM, AND ALSO SOME ARGYROL PACKS. 

MRS. PENCE TESTIFIED, HOWEVER, THAT:  SHE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT HER
HUSBAND HAD CONSULTED A PHYSICIAN.  SHE WAS CLOSE TO HIM, AND
CONSTANTLY WITH HIM, AND BELIEVED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TOLD HER OF
ANYTHING SERIOUSLY THE MATTER WITH HIM.  HE NEVER TOLD HER, HOWEVER, OF
CONSULTING A PHYSICIAN, OR THAT HE SUFFERED FROM SINUSITIS,
ETHMOIDITIS, OR MYOCARDITIS.  HER HUSBAND LED AN ACTIVE, VIGOROUS LIFE,
AND WAS NEVER CONFINED TO BED, EXCEPT BY OCCASIONAL COLDS, AND SUFFERED
FROM NO OTHER SICKNESS.  IT APPEARED FROM HER TESTIMONY, HOWEVER, THAT
SHE WAS UNABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A "COLD" AND A SINUS
INFECTION. 

PENCE'S TWO SONS AND TWO FRIENDS ALSO TESTIFIED TO HIS ACTIVE LIFE
AND APPARENT GOOD HEALTH. 

WITH THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CONDITION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO WITHDRAW THE CASE FROM THE
JURY. 

THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD WAS ENTITLED
TO A DIRECTED VERDICT, HAD THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ISSUE OF FRAUD. 
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE RECITED, THE CREDIBILITY OF DOCTOR
GLICKMAN, ITS WITNESS, WAS CLEARLY FOR THE JURY.  THE EVIDENCE OF THE
GASTRO-INTESTINAL EXAMINATION WAS LIKEWISE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE
DIRECTION OF A VERDICT.  WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE JURY
COULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH AN EXAMINATION HAD BEEN
MADE.  YET THE JURY COULD HAVE PROPERLY REFUSED TO DEDUCE FROM THIS ALL
THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF THE DEFENSE OF FRAUD, ESTABLISHED BY OUR
DECISIONS TO BE:  (1) A FALSE REPRESENTATION (2) IN REFERENCE TO A
MATERIAL FACT (3) MADE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ITS FALSITY (4) AND WITH THE
INTENT TO DECEIVE (5) WITH ACTION TAKEN IN RELIANCE UPON THE
REPRESENTATION.  FN4 

THE CASE OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT RESTS, THEREFORE,
UPON THE STATEMENTS OF PENCE MADE AFTER THE REINSTATEMENT OF HIS
INSURANCE AND CONTRADICTING THE REPRESENTATIONS IN HIS APPLICATION FOR
REINSTATEMENT.  THEIR ADMISSIBILITY AS AGAINST THE BENEFICIARY
PLAINTIFF, MRS. PENCE, IS NOT IN ISSUE ON THIS RECORD, FOR THEY WERE
INTRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE WITHOUT
OBJECTION.  FN5 

PENCE'S REPRESENTATIONS IN THE APPLICATION WERE NOT EVIDENCE OF THEIR
OWN VERACITY.  FN6  HIS LATER CONTRARY STATEMENTS WERE REPEATED, AND
USUALLY UNDER OATH; THEY ARE IN NO WAY IMPROBABLE, AND ARE THE
STATEMENTS OF ONE WHO, BEING HIMSELF A DOCTOR, SPOKE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF
THE SUBJECT AND BEARING OF HIS STATEMENTS.  HIS ADMISSIONS LEFT NO ROOM
FOR CONJECTURE AS TO THE FALSITY OF THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS IN THE
APPLICATION, AND OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH FALSITY.  FROM THESE FACTS
THE REQUISITE INTENT TO DEFRAUD IS PRESUMED,  FN7  AND THEREFORE NEED
NOT BE PROVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE.  MATERIALITY
AND RELIANCE WERE CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED BY EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT
THE TRIAL, IF INDEED SUCH PROOF WERE NEEDED. 

NO EVIDENCE IN THE CASE SERVED IN ANY WAY TO CONTRADICT, QUALIFY, OR
EXPLAIN PENCE'S ADMISSIONS.  FN8  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE, HIS ADMISSIONS ESTABLISHED SO
OVERWHELMING A CASE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AS TO REQUIRE THE
DIRECTION OF A VERDICT IN ITS FAVOR,  FN9  AND THE DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS, THEREFORE, AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS RIGHT WAS CONFERRED BY AMENDMENT TO SEC. 19 OF THE WORLD
WAR VETERANS ACT, 43 STAT. 1302, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 445.  WHITNEY V. UNITED
STATES, 8 F.2D 476; HACKER V. UNITED STATES, 16 F.2D 702; UNITED STATES
V. SALMON, 42 F.2D 353; UNITED STATES V. GREEN, 107 F.2D 19; H.R. REP.
NO. 1518, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2. 

FN2  A DEFENSE ON THIS GROUND IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 307 OF THE WORLD
WAR VETERANS ACT, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 518. 

FN3  THIS AFFIDAVIT CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING:  "I FIRST EXAMINED THE
CLAIMANT ON JAN. 16, 1927.  HIS COMPLAINT AT THAT TIME WAS:  FRONTAL
SINUSITIS & ETHMOIDITIS, CHRONIC.  UPON PHYSICAL EXAMINATION I FOUND
THE FOLLOWING SYMPTOMS PRESENT:  HEADACHE, SEVERE; BLOODY PURULENT
DISCHARGE FROM NOSE.  I DIAGNOSED THE INJURY OR DISEASE AS CHRONIC
ETHMOIDITIS & FRONTAL SINUSITIS WITH AN AUTO EXACERBATION.  THE
PROGNOSIS WAS FAIR BUT INCURABLE.  I DO BELIEVE THE CLAIMANT'S
DISABILITY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIS MILITARY SERVICE, FOR THE FOLLOWING
REASONS:  STATEMENT OF CLAIMANT THAT ABOVE TROUBLE FOLLOWED INFLUENZA
IN SERVICE.  NEVER TROUBLED BEFORE THAT TIME WITH ABOVE DISABILITIES. 
CLAIMANT CONTINUED UNDER MY CARE UNTIL JAN. 25, 1927, DURING WHICH TIME
I TREATED HIM AS FOLLOWS:  ARGYROL INSTILLATIONS & PACKS.  SERUM
THERAPY." 

FN4  CLAFLIN V. COMMONWEALTH INS. CO., 110 U.S. 81; LEHIGH ZINC &
IRON CO. V. BAMFORD, 150 U.S. 665, 673; MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. HILTON
GREEN, 241 U.S. 613; CF. DERRY V. PEEK, 14 APP. CAS. 337, 374.    FN5
COMPARE TRUELSCH V. MILLER, 186 WIS. 239, 250, 202 N.W. 352;
CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. HILLMON, 188 U.S. 208.  IT DOES NOT
APPEAR FROM THE REPORT OF THE HILLMON CASE WHETHER THE INSURED HAD THE
POWER TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARY, AS PENCE DID IN THE PRESENT CASE. 
SEC. 301 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 512.  THE EFFECT
OF SUCH A POWER TO MAKE THE INSURED'S STATEMENTS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE
BENEFICIARY HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE COURTS AND
COMMENTATORS.  4 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (2D ED.)  146, NOTE 6; KALES,
ADMISSIBILITY OF DECLARATIONS OF THE INSURED AGAINST THE BENEFICIARY, 6
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 509; MORGAN, THE RATIONALE OF VICARIOUS ADMISSIONS,
42 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 461, 477-78; FINALE, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
DECLARATIONS OF THE ASSURED IN LIFE INSURANCE LITIGATION, 8 ST. JOHN'S
LAW REVIEW 258; 4 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW 359. 

THE CASH, LOAN, AND OTHER VALUES OF THE POLICY IN SUIT TO PENCE AT
THE TIME OF HIS VARIOUS STATEMENTS CONTRADICTING THE REPRESENTATIONS IN
HIS APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT AND CONVERSION OF THE POLICY IN SUIT
DO NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD.  COMPARE SEC. 301 OF THE WORLD WAR
VETERANS ACT, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 512. 

FN6  IF THE LAW WERE OTHERWISE, IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT A VERDICT COULD
NEVER BE DIRECTED IN FAVOR OF A PARTY ALLEGING FRAUD IN ANY CASE IN
WHICH THE FALSITY OF A REPRESENTATION WAS IN ISSUE.  YET, VERDICTS HAVE
FREQUENTLY BEEN DIRECTED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  CF. BELLA S.S. CO. V.
INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA, 5 F.2D 570; AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V.
BOLDING, 57 F.2D 626; AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. PERRON, 69 F.2D 401,
CERTIORARI DENIED, 293 U.S. 570; COLUMBIAN NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
RODGERS, 93 F.2D 740. 

FN7 CLAFLIN V. COMMONWEALTH INS. CO., 110 U.S. 81, 95; MUTUAL LIFE
INS. CO. V. HILTON-GREEN, 241 U.S. 613, 622; CF. AGNEW V. UNITED
STATES, 165 U.S. 36, 53; STIPCICH V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 277
U.S. 311, 316-317. 

FN8  THE DENIAL OF PENCE'S VARIOUS CLAIMS IS IN NO WAY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE TRUTH OF HIS ADMISSIONS HERE INVOLVED, SINCE HIS CLAIMS WERE
ALLOWABLE ONLY IN THE EVENT OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL DISABILITY AT THE TIME. 
THAT A MAN IS NOT PRESENTLY DISABLED IN NO WAY MILITATES AGAINST THE
TRUTH OF STATEMENTS THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY CONSULTED A PHYSICIAN, ETC. 

FN9  WILKINSON V. KITCHIN, 1 LORD RAYMOND 89; DECKER V. POPER, 1
SELWYN, NISI PRIUS (13TH ED.)  91; HENDRICK V. LINDSAY, 93 U.S. 143;
ARTHUR V. MORGAN, 112 U.S. 495; ANDERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. BEAL,
113 U.S. 227, 241-242; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. MARTIN, 283 U.S.
209, 216. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

IN VIEW OF THE HIGH VALUE AND IMPORTANCE ATTACHED BY CUSTOM AND
TRADITION TO THE RIGHT OF JURY TRIAL AS A FEATURE OF OUR FEDERAL
JURISPRUDENCE, AND THE SIGNIFICANT EMPHASIS PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL AND
STATE CONSTITUTIONS, SCRUPULOUS CARE SHOULD BE EXERCISED BY COURTS AND
JUDGES TO AVOID RULINGS, ON MOTIONS FOR THE DIRECTION OF A VERDICT,
WHICH IN EFFECT WRONGFULLY DEPRIVE A LITIGANT OF THE CHERISHED RIGHT. 
ON SUCH A MOTION OUR FUNCTION IS NOT TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER FRAUD HAS BEEN COMMITTED.  I AM UNABLE
TO AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT, BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY SUBMITTING THE ISSUE OF FRAUD TO THE
JURY. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT THE TESTIMONY OF GLICKMAN
AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE GASTRO-INTESTINAL EXAMINATION WERE INSUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN THE DIRECTION OF A VERDICT, AND CORRECTLY STATES THE ISSUE
THUS:  "THE CASE OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT RESTS,
THEREFORE, UPON THE STATEMENTS OF PENCE MADE AFTER THE REINSTATEMENT OF
HIS INSURANCE AND CONTRADICTING THE REPRESENTATIONS IN HIS APPLICATION
FOR REINSTATEMENT."  SO STATED, THE CASE PRESENTS A CONTROVERTED
QUESTION OF FACT, AND, IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, IT WAS FOR
THE JURY TO FIND THE ANSWER BY RESOLVING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO
CONTRARY SETS OF SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS MADE BY PENCE. 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT "PENCE'S REPRESENTATIONS IN THE APPLICATION WERE
NOT EVIDENCE OF THEIR OWN VERACITY."  AS AN ABSTRACT MATTER ONE WOULD
SUPPOSE THAT PENCE'S LATER CONFLICTING STATEMENTS WERE LIKEWISE "NOT
EVIDENCE OF THEIR OWN VERACITY."  HOWEVER, IT IS SAID THAT REASONABLE
MEN HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ADMIT THE TRUTH OF THOSE LATER STATEMENTS,
BECAUSE THEY "WERE REPEATED, AND USUALLY UNDER OATH; THEY ARE IN NO WAY
IMPROBABLE, AND ARE THE STATEMENTS OF ONE WHO, HIMSELF A DOCTOR, SPOKE
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT AND BEARING OF HIS STATEMENTS."  THESE
FACTORS MIGHT BE PERSUASIVE TO A JURY THAT THE LATER STATEMENTS WERE
TRUE, BUT IT IS QUITE A DIFFERENT THING TO HOLD THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY
COMPEL BELIEF.  ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD, AN EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE
PREMISE IS THAT THE STATEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION WERE THE TRUE ONES. 
PENCE WAS NEVER ABSENT FROM WORK FOR ANY APPRECIABLE PERIOD OF TIME. 
THE REPORTS OF HIS PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS FROM 1928 TO HIS DEATH WERE
NOT ALTOGETHER CONSISTENT, AND ANY DEFECT DISCLOSED WAS EVIDENTLY
THOUGHT INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT ALLOWING ANY OF HIS VARIOUS CLAIMS FOR
DISABILITY BENEFITS, ETC.  HIS WIDOW TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE "PRETTY
CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER," THAT SHE BELIEVED HE WOULD HAVE TOLD HER IF
ANYTHING WAS SERIOUSLY WRONG WITH HIM, AND THAT SHE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF
ANY SERIOUS AILMENT OR CONSULTATION WITH A PHYSICIAN ON HIS PART.  ALL
THIS CASTS DOUBT ON THE TRUTH OF PENCE'S STATEMENTS MADE AFTER HIS
APPLICATION FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF HIS INSURANCE AND ENTITLED THE
JURY TO PASS JUDGMENT ON THEM. 

WHETHER PENCE WAS A MALINGERER OR NOT, DISAVOWING AND THEN ASSERTING
INJURY AND DISEASE AS A MEANS OF COLLECTING DIFFERENT BENEFITS FROM THE
GOVERNMENT, IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE.  SUSPICION THAT SUCH WAS THE CASE
DOES NOT JUSTIFY USURPING THE JURY'S FUNCTION OF DETERMINING, IN THE
LIGHT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, WHICH OF PENCE'S STATEMENTS WERE TRUE AND
WHICH WERE FALSE.  THE CASE WAS PROPERLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  ITS
VERDICT, RENDERED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET
ASIDE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




MISHAWAKA MFG. CO. V. KRESGE CO., 316 U.S. 203 


NO. 649.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 4, 1942.  - 119 F.2D 316,
REVERSED. 


IN ORDER THAT HE MAY RECOVER PROFITS UNDER SEC. 19 OF THE TRADEMARK
ACT, THE TRADEMARK OWNER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASERS
OF GOODS BEARING THE INFRINGING MARK WERE INDUCED BY IT TO BELIEVE THAT
THE GOODS WERE THE GOODS OF THE TRADEMARK OWNER AND PURCHASED FOR THAT
REASON, AND THAT THEY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BOUGHT OF HIM.  P. 206. 

MISHAWAKA RUBBER & WOOLEN MANUFACTURING CO. V. S.S. KRESGE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 603, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE IN A
SUIT TO ENJOIN INFRINGEMENTS OF A TRADEMARK AND FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF
PROFITS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, WHICH MANUFACTURES AND SELLS SHOES AND RUBBER HEELS,
EMPLOYS A TRADE-MARK, REGISTERED UNDER THE TRADE-MARK ACT OF 1905, 33
STAT. 724, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 81 ET SEQ., CONSISTING OF A RED CIRCULAR PLUG
EMBEDDED IN THE CENTER OF A HEEL.  THE HEELS WERE NOT SOLD SEPARATELY,
BUT WERE ATTACHED TO SHOES MADE BY THE PETITIONER.  IT HAS SPENT
CONSIDERABLE SUMS OF MONEY IN SEEKING TO GAIN THE FAVOR OF THE
CONSUMING PUBLIC BY PROMOTING THE MARK AS ASSURANCE OF A DESIRABLE
PRODUCT.  THE RESPONDENT SOLD HEELS NOT MADE BY THE PETITIONER BUT
BEARING A MARK DESCRIBED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS "A CIRCULAR PLUG OF
RED OR REDDISH COLOR SO CLOSELY RESEMBLING THAT OF THE PLAINTIFF
(PETITIONER) THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH THE PRODUCTS SOLD BY
THE DEFENDANT FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S PRODUCTS."  THE HEELS SOLD BY THE
RESPONDENT WERE INFERIOR IN QUALITY TO THOSE MADE BY THE PETITIONER,
AND "THIS TENDED TO DESTROY THE GOOD WILL CREATED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN
THE MANUFACTURE OF ITS SUPERIOR PRODUCT."  ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE THAT PARTICULAR PURCHASERS WERE ACTUALLY DECEIVED INTO
BELIEVING THAT THE HEELS SOLD BY THE RESPONDENT WERE MANUFACTURED BY
THE PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS A "REASONABLE
LIKELIHOOD" THAT SOME PURCHASES MIGHT HAVE BEEN INDUCED BY THE
PURCHASER'S BELIEF THAT HE WAS OBTAINING THE PETITIONER'S PRODUCT. 
"THE ORDINARY PURCHASER, HAVING BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE PLAINTIFF'S
TRADE-MARK, WOULD NATURALLY BE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE HEELS MARKETED
BY THE DEFENDANT WERE THE PRODUCT OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY." 
CONCLUDING THAT THE PETITIONER'S MARK HAD THUS BEEN INFRINGED, THE
COURT ENJOINED FUTURE INFRINGEMENT AND ALSO ORDERED THAT THE RESPONDENT
ACCOUNT TO THE PETITIONER FOR PROFITS MADE FROM SALES "TO PURCHASERS
WHO WERE INDUCED TO BUY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE HEELS TO BE THOSE OF
PLAINTIFF AND WHICH SALES PLAINTIFF WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE MADE." 

COMPLAINING OF THIS CRITERION FOR DETERMINING THE PROFITS THAT
IMPROPERLY ACCRUED TO THE RESPONDENT BY REASON OF THE INFRINGEMENT, THE
PETITIONER APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT, WHICH AFFIRMED THE DECREE.  119 F.2D 316.  DEEMING THE MATTER
TO PRESENT AN IMPORTANT QUESTION UNDER THE TRADE-MARK ACT, WE BROUGHT
THE CASE HERE SOLELY TO REVIEW THE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE DEALING
WITH THE MEASURE OF PROFITS AND DAMAGES FOR THE INFRINGEMENT FOUND BY
THE TWO LOWER COURTS.  WHETHER THERE WAS SUCH AN INFRINGEMENT AS TO
ENTITLE THE PETITIONER TO THE REMEDIES PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE
MARK LAWS IS THEREFORE NOT OPEN HERE. 

THE PROTECTION OF TRADE-MARKS IS THE LAW'S RECOGNITION OF THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF SYMBOLS.  IF IT IS TRUE THAT WE LIVE BY
SYMBOLS, IT IS NO LESS TRUE THAT WE PURCHASE GOODS BY THEM.  A TRADE
MARK IS A MERCHANDISING SHORT-CUT WHICH INDUCES A PURCHASER TO SELECT
WHAT HE WANTS, OR WHAT HE HAS BEEN LED TO BELIEVE HE WANTS.  THE OWNER
OF A MARK EXPLOITS THIS HUMAN PROPENSITY BY MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO
IMPREGNATE THE ATMOSPHERE OF THE MARKET WITH THE DRAWING POWER OF A
CONGENIAL SYMBOL.  WHATEVER THE MEANS EMPLOYED, THE AIM IS THE SAME -
TO CONVEY THROUGH THE MARK, IN THE MINDS OF POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS, THE
DESIRABILITY OF THE COMMODITY UPON WHICH IT APPEARS.  ONCE THIS IS
ATTAINED, THE TRADE-MARK OWNER HAS SOMETHING OF VALUE.  IF ANOTHER
POACHES UPON THE COMMERCIAL MAGNETISM OF THE SYMBOL HE HAS CREATED, THE
OWNER CAN OBTAIN LEGAL REDRESS.  AND IN THIS CASE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO
ASCERTAIN THE EXTENT OF THE REDRESS AFFORDED FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A MARK
REGISTERED UNDER THE TRADE-MARK ACT OF 1905. 

THE "RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST AN UNWARRANTED USE OF THE
REGISTERED MARK HAS BEEN MADE A STATUTORY RIGHT" BY THAT ACT.  THADDEUS
DAVIDS CO. V. DAVIDS MFG. CO., 233 U.S. 461, 471.  SECTION 19 OF THE
ACT PROVIDES THAT "UPON A DECREE BEING RENDERED IN ANY SUCH CASE FOR
WRONGFUL USE OF A TRADE-MARK THE COMPLAINANT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
RECOVER, IN ADDITION TO THE PROFITS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE
DEFENDANT, THE DAMAGES THE COMPLAINANT HAS SUSTAINED THEREBY, AND THE
COURT SHALL ASSESS THE SAME OR CAUSE THE SAME TO BE ASSESSED UNDER ITS
DIRECTION  ...  ; AND IN ASSESSING PROFITS THE PLAINTIFF SHALL BE
REQUIRED TO PROVE DEFENDANT'S SALES ONLY; DEFENDANT MUST PROVE ALL
ELEMENTS OF COST WHICH ARE CLAIMED."  FN1  33 STAT. 724, 729; 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 99.  INFRINGEMENT AND DAMAGE HAVING BEEN FOUND, THE ACT REQUIRES
THE TRADE-MARK OWNER TO PROVE ONLY THE SALES OF ARTICLES BEARING THE
INFRINGING MARK.  ALTHOUGH THE AWARD OF PROFITS IS DESIGNED TO MAKE THE
PLAINTIFF WHOLE FOR LOSSES WHICH THE INFRINGER HAS CAUSED BY TAKING
WHAT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM, CONGRESS DID NOT PUT UPON THE DESPOILED THE
BURDEN - AS OFTEN AS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN - OF SHOWING THAT BUT
FOR THE DEFENDANT'S UNLAWFUL USE OF THE MARK, PARTICULAR CUSTOMERS
WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE PLAINTIFF'S GOODS. 

IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE INFRINGEMENT HAD NO RELATION TO PROFITS
MADE BY THE DEFENDANT, THAT SOME PURCHASERS BOUGHT GOODS BEARING THE
INFRINGING MARK BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANT'S RECOMMENDATION OR HIS
REPUTATION OR FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A RESPONSE TO THE DIFFUSED
APPEAL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S SYMBOL, THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THIS IS UPON
THE POACHER.  THE PLAINTIFF OF COURSE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PROFITS
DEMONSTRABLY NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNLAWFUL USE OF HIS MARK.  CF.
STRAUS V. NOTASEME CO., 240 U.S. 179, 183; COMPARE SHELDON V. METRO
GOLDWYN CORP., 309 U.S. 390; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO. V. WAGNER MFG.
CO., 225 U.S. 604.  THE BURDEN IS THE INFRINGER'S TO PROVE THAT HIS
INFRINGEMENT HAD NO CASH VALUE IN SALES MADE BY HIM.  IF HE DOES NOT DO
SO, THE PROFITS MADE ON SALES OF GOODS BEARING THE INFRINGING MARK
PROPERLY BELONG TO THE OWNER OF THE MARK.  HAMILTON-BROWN SHOE CO. V.
WOLF BROS., 240 U.S. 251.  THERE MAY WELL BE A WINDFALL TO THE TRADE
MARK OWNER WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ISOLATE THE PROFITS WHICH ARE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE USE OF THE INFRINGING MARK.  BUT TO HOLD OTHERWISE
WOULD GIVE THE WINDFALL TO THE WRONGDOER.  IN THE ABSENCE OF HIS
PROVING THE CONTRARY, IT PROMOTES HONESTY AND COMPORTS WITH EXPERIENCE
TO ASSUME THAT THE WRONGDOER WHO MAKES PROFITS FROM THE SALES OF GOODS
BEARING A MARK BELONGING TO ANOTHER WAS ENABLED TO DO SO BECAUSE HE WAS
DRAWING UPON THE GOOD WILL GENERATED BY THAT MARK.  AND ONE WHO MAKES
PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE UNLAWFUL APPROPRIATION OF A MARK BELONGING TO
ANOTHER CANNOT RELIEVE HIMSELF OF HIS OBLIGATION TO RESTORE THE PROFITS
TO THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNER MERELY BY SHOWING THAT THE LATTER DID NOT
CHOOSE TO USE THE MARK IN THE PARTICULAR MANNER EMPLOYED BY THE
WRONGDOER. 

THE STARTING POINT OF THE CASE BEFORE US IS RESPONDENT'S INFRINGEMENT
OF THE PETITIONER'S TRADE-MARK IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  THE
DECREE IS ASSAILED BY THE PETITIONER BECAUSE, UPON ITS READING OF THE
DECREE, IT IS AWARDED ONLY THOSE PROFITS WHICH IT CAN AFFIRMATIVELY
PROVE TO HAVE RESULTED FROM SALES "TO PURCHASERS WHO WERE INDUCED TO
BUY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE HEELS TO BE THOSE OF PLAINTIFF, AND WHICH
SALES PLAINTIFF WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE MADE."  WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO SAY
THAT SUCH IS NOT A SENSIBLE READING OF THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE DECREE
WAS CAST, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS TO RECOVER PROFITS THAT CAME TO THE
RESPONDENT THROUGH ITS INFRINGEMENT AND THAT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE BELONG
TO THE PETITIONER.  THE DECREE IN EFFECT REQUIRES THE PETITIONER TO
PROVE BY A PROCESSION OF WITNESSES, THAT WHEN THEY BOUGHT HEELS FROM
THE INFRINGER THEY HAD A CLEAR, WELL-FOCUSSED CONSCIOUSNESS THAT THEY
WERE BUYING THE PETITIONER'S HEELS AND THAT OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT
HAVE BOUGHT THEM.  BUT THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FOOT.  THE CREATION OF
A MARKET THROUGH AN ESTABLISHED SYMBOL IMPLIES THAT PEOPLE FLOAT ON A
PSYCHOLOGICAL CURRENT ENGENDERED BY THE VARIOUS ADVERTISING DEVICES
WHICH GIVE A TRADE-MARK ITS POTENCY.  IT IS THAT WHICH THE TRADE-MARK
ACT OF 1905 PROTECTS.  WE THEREFORE VACATE THE DECREE IN ORDER THAT THE
CAUSE BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ENTRY OF A DECREE IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  IF THE PETITIONER SUFFERED DAMAGES
BEYOND THE LOSS OF PROFITS THE DECREE SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE ASSESSMENT
OF SUCH DAMAGES.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS UPON THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE 1905 ACT
MAKE THESE OBSERVATIONS ON SEC. 19:  "BY SECTION 19 PROVISION IS MADE
FOR PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY AGAINST THE INFRINGER OF A REGISTERED TRADE
MARK.  THIS SECTION CORRESPONDS IN TERMS WITH SECTION 4921 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES RELATING TO PATENT CASES, EXCEPT THAT IT SPECIALLY
PROVIDES THE MANNER IN WHICH PROFITS SHALL BE ASCERTAINED.  UNDER
EXISTING RULES IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLAINANT TO PROVE SALES AND
COSTS WITH ENTIRE AND ABSOLUTE ACCURACY.  THE ONLY PERSONS HAVING
KNOWLEDGE OF THE COST OF MAKING THE SALES ARE THE DEFENDANT OR SOME ONE
IN HIS EMPLOY.  IT HAS SEEMED, THEREFORE, ONLY FAIR AND JUST THAT IF
THE COMPLAINANT PROVES THE SALES, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO
PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE EXPENSES HE WAS PUT TO IN MAKING SUCH SALES AS
AN OFFSET AGAINST THE SALES PROVEN BY THE COMPLAINANT."  SEN. REP. NO.
3278, 58TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 10; H. REP. NO. 3147, 58TH CONG., 3D
SESS., P. 9. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR: 

MISHAWAKA DOES NOT SELL DETACHED RUBBER HEELS.  THE HEELS BEARING ITS
MARK ARE ATTACHED TO THE RUBBER BOOTS AND SHOES IT MANUFACTURES, AND
REACH THE MARKET ONLY AS PARTS OF THESE LARGER PRODUCTS.  KRESGE, ON
THE OTHER HAND, SELLS IN ITS RETAIL STORES DETACHED RUBBER HEELS
MANUFACTURED BY OTHERS.  HENCE, LIKE THE COURTS BELOW, I FIND IT
DIFFICULT TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WERE SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITIES OF
DECEPTION AND THAT KRESGE'S SALES TOOK AWAY BUSINESS THAT MIGHT
OTHERWISE HAVE GONE TO MISHAWAKA.  IN ANY EVENT, THE ECONOMIC RIVALRY,
IF IT EXISTED AT ALL, WAS SO REMOTE AND INDIRECT THAT AN INJUNCTION
ALONE WOULD SEEM TO HAVE AFFORDED AMPLE RELIEF AGAINST THE
INFRINGEMENT, FOUND BY BOTH COURTS BELOW TO HAVE BEEN WITHOUT
FRAUDULENT INTENT. 

MOREOVER, UPON THE EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY BOTH PARTIES, THE
TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS "NO DIRECT PROOF OF ANY ORDINARY
PURCHASER BEING MISLED INTO BELIEVING THAT HEELS MARKETED BY THE
DEFENDANT WERE PRODUCTS OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY."  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REACHED A SIMILAR CONCLUSION:  "NO JUSTIFICATION IS FOUND IN
THE RECORD FOR AN INFERENCE THAT ANY ONE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DECEIVED
BY APPELLEE'S TRADE-MARK INTO PURCHASING ITS SHOE HEELS AND LIFTS IN
THE BELIEF THAT HE WAS PURCHASING SHOE HEELS PRODUCED BY APPELLANT." 
119 F.2D 316, 324. 

IF THE RESPONDENT HAD WILFULLY PALMED OFF THE HEELS IT SOLD AS
PRODUCTS OF THE PETITIONER, AND IF IT HAD BEEN SHOWN THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD SUFFERED ANY INJURY, I SHOULD AGREE TO A DECISION
RESOLVING DOUBTS ABOUT THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF THE
PETITIONER.  BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, I BELIEVE THE
EFFECT OF THE DECISION HANDED DOWN IS TO GRANT A WINDFALL TO THE
PETITIONER AND TO IMPOSE A PENALTY UPON THE RESPONDENT, NEITHER OF
WHICH IS DESERVED.  FINDING NOTHING IN THE TRADE-MARK ACT OF 1905 WHICH
COMPELS SUCH A RESULT, I CAN SEE NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN THE DECREE
OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
SAXLEHNER V. SIEGEL-COOPER CO., 179 U.S. 42.  CF. STRAUS V. NOTASEME
CO., 240 U.S. 179, 182-183. 
..END :






















U.S. V. CITIZENS LOAN CO., 316 U.S. 209 


NO. 738.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 4, 1942.  - 74 APP. D.C.
244, 122 F.2D 638, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 303 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT OF 1924, AS AMENDED
BY ACT OF 1925, WHERE THE BENEFICIARY OF A YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM
INSURANCE POLICY DIES, AFTER HAVING RECEIVED PART OF THE 240 MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONTRACT, AND THE ESTATE OF THE
INSURED BECOMES ENTITLED, THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE ESTATE IS THE
PRESENT VALUE OF REMAINING UNPAID INSTALLMENTS, COMPUTED AS OF THE DATE
OF THE BENEFICIARY'S DEATH, EXCLUDING INTEREST.  P. 214. 

2.  THE FACT THAT, BECAUSE OF THE REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
RECOGNIZE THE CLAIM, ITS PAYMENT WAS DELAYED UNTIL AFTER THE PERIOD FOR
MONTHLY PAYMENTS PROVIDED IN THE POLICY HAD EXPIRED, DID NOT ENTITLE
THE ESTATE IN THIS CASE TO HAVE THE INTEREST INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE
PRESENT VALUE OF SUCH INSTALLMENTS.  P. 214. 

3.  THE PROVISION OF THE AMENDATORY ACT OF 1925 THAT PRESENT VALUE
SHALL BE COMPUTED "AS OF THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT MADE UNDER ANY
EXISTING AWARD," IS CONFINED TO CASES WHERE, PRIOR TO 1924, PART
PAYMENT TO SUCH ESTATES HAD BEEN MADE IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS,
INCLUDING INTEREST; AND THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT WAS TO AVOID THE
RETRACTION OF INTEREST ALREADY SO PAID, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE RESULT
FROM THE RETROACTIVE LUMP SUM PROVISION OF THE 1924 ACT.  P. 213. 

UNITED STATES V. CITIZENS LOAN & TRUST CO., ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 605, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT RECOVERED IN A SUIT ON
A VETERAN'S INSURANCE POLICY IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THE COURT BELOW, ON THE PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL, DIRECTED THAT
THE RECOVERY BE INCREASED. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

JOSEPH KELLY KERR, WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY DURING THE LAST
WAR, TOOK OUT A YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE POLICY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$10,000, NAMING AS BENEFICIARY HIS FATHER, EUGENE KERR.  THE INSURED
DIED NOVEMBER 8, 1919.  ON MARCH 6, 1920, THE WAR RISK BUREAU DENIED
ANY LIABILITY UNDER THE CONTRACT.  EUGENE KERR, THE DESIGNATED
BENEFICIARY, DIED JUNE 24, 1924.  THIS SUIT WAS FILED NOVEMBER 6,
1925. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED DENYING ANY RECOVERY ON
THE POLICY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ON
DECEMBER 4, 1939, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  71 APP.
D.C. 222, 108 F.2D 585.  THE DISTRICT COURT, ON APRIL 5, 1940, ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR $3,220.00 IN FAVOR OF THE ESTATE OF EUGENE KERR, THE
BENEFICIARY UNDER THE POLICY, AND A JUDGMENT FOR $10,580.00 IN FAVOR OF
THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED, JOSEPH KELLY KERR.  UPON REHEARING, THE
DISTRICT COURT, BY ITS ORDER OF JANUARY 9, 1941, REDUCED THE LATTER
JUDGMENT TO $8,227.50.  ON APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS AGAIN REVERSED
THE DISTRICT COURT AND ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF $10,580.00.  74 APP. D.C.
244, 122 F.2D 638.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 605. 

THE INSURANCE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR THE PAYMENT OF 240 MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS OF $57.50 EACH.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT EUGENE KERR, AS
BENEFICIARY, WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE 56 MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS THAT
ACCRUED DURING HIS LIFETIME.  FN1  THEY AGGREGATED $3,220.00.  THE
PORTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT WHICH AWARDED THAT SUM TO
EUGENE KERR'S ESTATE IS NOT IN CONTROVERSY. 

THE ISSUE HERE INVOLVES ONLY THE AMOUNT DUE THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH
KELLY KERR, THE INSURED, ON THE 184 INSTALLMENTS REMAINING AFTER THE
DEATH OF THE BENEFICIARY.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE AMOUNT DUE
THE ESTATE IS $8,234, WHICH REPRESENTS THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE 184
INSTALLMENTS COMPUTED AS OF THE DEATH OF THE BENEFICIARY ON JUNE 24,
1924.  RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE AMOUNT DUE IS $10,580, WHICH IS THE
AGGREGATE OF 184 INSTALLMENTS OF $57.50 EACH.  FN2 

PRIOR TO 1924, THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DIRECTED THAT, WHEN
THE ESTATE OF AN INSURED BECAME ELIGIBLE TO PROCEEDS UNDER THE
CONTRACT,  FN3  THEY SHOULD BE PAID IN REGULAR MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS. 
THE MOST RECENT ENACTMENT PRIOR TO THAT YEAR WAS THE ACT OF AUGUST 9,
1921, WHICH PROVIDED: 

"IF NO PERSON WITHIN THE PERMITTED CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES SURVIVE THE
INSURED, THEN THERE SHALL BE PAID TO THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED THE
MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS PAYABLE AND APPLICABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE IV OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT (ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, C.
105, 40 STAT. 398, 409)  ...  "  FN4 

THE WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT OF 1924  FN5  SUPERSEDED THE WAR RISK
INSURANCE ACT OF 1917 AND ITS AMENDMENTS.  IT PROVIDED, IN SEC. 303: 

"IF NO PERSON WITHIN THE PERMITTED CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES SURVIVE THE
INSURED, OR IF BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF PAYMENTS THE BENEFICIARY OR
BENEFICIARIES SHALL DIE AND THERE BE NO SURVIVING PERSON WITHIN SAID
PERMITTED CLASS, THEN THERE SHALL BE PAID TO THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED
THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS THEREAFTER PAYABLE UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE  ...  " 

THIS SECTION ALTERED THE METHOD OF PAYMENT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO
BENEFITS PAYABLE TO THE ESTATES OF INSURED.  IT DID NOT CHANGE THE
METHOD OF PAYMENT TO BENEFICIARIES.  ITS OBVIOUS PURPOSE WAS TO HAVE
THE OBLIGATION TO THE ESTATE PAID IN ONE LUMP SUM RATHER THAN IN
MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS.  SINCE THESE INSTALLMENTS INCLUDED INTEREST AS
WELL AS PRINCIPAL, CONGRESS DESIRED TO ELIMINATE THE INTEREST WHEN IT
PROVIDED FOR THE LUMP SUM PAYMENT.  ACCORDINGLY, IT DECLARED THAT THE
LUMP SUM SHOULD BE EQUAL TO "THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS THEREAFTER PAYABLE."  THE WORD "THEREAFTER" PLAINLY
RELATES TO THE DEATH OF THE BENEFICIARY, IN A CASE LIKE THE ONE BEFORE
US. AND THIS HAS BEEN THE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON THE SECTION BY THE
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION EVER SINCE, THE REQUIREMENT BEING THAT THE
PRESENT VALUE IS TO BE COMPUTED AS OF THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF THE
BENEFICIARY. 

IN 1925, SEC. 303 WAS AMENDED IN SEVERAL RESPECTS.  FN6  THE ONLY ONE
OF THESE WHICH IS IMPORTANT HERE IS THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING
WORDS:  "SAID VALUE TO BE COMPUTED AS OF THE DATE OF LAST PAYMENT MADE
UNDER ANY EXISTING AWARD."  AND THIS IS IMPORTANT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE
CONFUSION WHICH IT HAS GENERATED IN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 
ACCORDING TO A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE SOLICITOR GENERAL BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION ON JULY 14, 1941, THE
LANGUAGE QUOTED WAS ADDED TO SEC. 303 TO CORRECT A SPECIFIC INEQUITY
WHICH HAD ARISEN IN A NUMBER OF CASES FOLLOWING THE 1924 ACT BUT WHICH
IS NOT ENCOUNTERED HERE.  THAT INEQUITY AROSE IN THIS WAY:  IN SEVERAL
CASES THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED HAD BECOME ENTITLED TO THE PROCEEDS OF
THE POLICY PRIOR TO 1924 AND A NUMBER OF THE $57.50 MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID TO THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED AT THE
TIME CONGRESS ENACTED SEC. 303 WITH ITS PROVISION FOR A LUMP SUM
PAYMENT TO THE ESTATE.  SINCE SEC. 303 WAS MADE RETROACTIVE TO OCTOBER
6, 1917, THE AMOUNT DUE THE ESTATE IN THESE CASES, AS IN THE OTHERS,
WAS HELD TO BE THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE INSTALLMENTS REMAINING DUE
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE BENEFICIARY, COMPUTED AS OF THE DATE OF DEATH OF
THE BENEFICIARY.  BUT IN THESE CASES, UNLIKE THE OTHERS, THAT PORTION
OF THE INSTALLMENTS ALREADY PAID TO THE ESTATE WHICH REPRESENTED
INTEREST HAD TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE LUMP SUM AWARD.  TO AVOID THIS
PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS WHICH HAD ACTUALLY BEEN RELEASED IN THESE
PARTICULAR CASES, CONGRESS PROVIDED IN THE 1925 AMENDMENT THAT THE
"PRESENT VALUE OF THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS THEREAFTER PAYABLE" SHOULD
BE COMPUTED "AS OF DATE OF LAST PAYMENT MADE UNDER ANY EXISTING
AWARD."  UNDER THIS FORMULA, THE INSTALLMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN PAID TO
THE ESTATE OF AN INSURED PRIOR TO 1924 WERE NOT DISTURBED.  THE
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HAS CONSISTENTLY TREATED THE 1925 AMENDMENT AS
APPLICABLE ONLY TO THIS LIMITED NUMBER OF CASES.  IN THE OTHERS, IT HAS
INVARIABLY COMPUTED THE "PRESENT VALUE" AS OF THE DATE OF DEATH OF THE
BENEFICIARY.  THIS ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OVER A PERIOD OF 17
YEARS, CONTROLLING THE SETTLEMENT OF THOUSANDS OF CASES, IS ENTITLED TO
GREAT WEIGHT, "AND SUCH CONSTRUCTION IS NOT TO BE OVERTURNED UNLESS
CLEARLY WRONG, OR UNLESS A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION IS PLAINLY
REQUIRED."  UNITED STATES V. JACKSON, 280 U.S. 183, 193. 

IN THIS CASE, NO AWARD HAD BEEN MADE PRIOR TO 1924, AND HENCE THE
AMOUNT DUE TO THE INSURED'S ESTATE COULD NOT BE COMPUTED "AS OF DATE OF
LAST PAYMENT MADE UNDER ANY EXISTING AWARD."  THIS LANGUAGE OF THE 1925
AMENDMENT THEREFORE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS HERE.  BUT IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT THE BALANCE OF SEC. 303 DOES NOT APPLY.  INDEED, SEC.
303 IS THE ONLY PRESENT AUTHORITY FOR THE MAKING OF ANY PAYMENTS TO THE
ESTATE OF THE INSURED.  FN7  DISREGARDING THE WORDS ADDED BY THE 1925
AMENDMENT, THE SECTION SIMPLY REQUIRES THE PAYMENT TO THE ESTATE OF A
LUMP SUM EQUAL TO "THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS
THEREAFTER PAYABLE."  AND THE LATTER LANGUAGE, AS WE HAVE SAID, HAS
BEEN CONSISTENTLY INTERPRETED TO MEAN "PRESENT VALUE" AS OF THE DATE OF
DEATH OF THE BENEFICIARY. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT, BECAUSE RECOGNITION OF
THE CLAIM HAD BEEN DELAYED UNTIL AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE 240 MONTHS,
THE PRINCIPLES OF COMPUTATION EMBODIED IN THE 1924 ACT AND THE 1925
AMENDMENT REQUIRED A SETTLEMENT AS IF THERE HAD BEEN AN AWARD OF
MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS.  THAT IS, IT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE 184 MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS CONCEDEDLY DUE TO THE ESTATE SHOULD BE MULTIPLIED BY
$57.50, WHICH REPRESENTS A PAYMENT OF INTEREST AS WELL AS PRINCIPAL,
AND THE RESULTING TOTAL OF $10,580 AWARDED TO RESPONDENT.  BUT ONE OF
THE PURPOSES OF THE 1924 AND 1925 ENACTMENTS WAS TO ABOLISH THE MONTHLY
INSTALLMENT METHOD OF SETTLING THE CLAIMS OF VETERANS' ESTATES. 
CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE MADE CLEARER ITS INTENTION THAT THE VALUE OF
THE REMAINING INSTALLMENTS, PURGED OF INTEREST, SHOULD BE PAID IN A
LUMP SUM TO THE ESTATE.  BOTH THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION AND THIS
COURT HAVE RECOGNIZED A LEGISLATIVE POLICY AGAINST THE ALLOWANCE OF
INTEREST ON PAST DUE PAYMENTS ON THESE POLICIES.  UNITED STATES V.
WORLEY, 281 U.S. 339.  THE ERROR WHICH UNDERMINES RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS THE FAILURE TO
GIVE FULL EFFECT TO THIS CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO ELIMINATE INTEREST
FROM THE LUMP SUM SETTLEMENT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS EVIDENTLY IMPRESSED BY THE DELAY IN THE
SETTLEMENT OF RESPONDENT'S CLAIM.  WE SHARE THAT CONCERN.  THE INSURED
DIED ALMOST 23 YEARS AGO AND FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE IS ONLY NOW
IN VIEW.  BUT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DELAY IS NOT EASILY APPORTIONED. 
FN8  AND IN ANY EVENT, IT COULD NOT INFLUENCE OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED NEITHER THE PAYMENT
OF DAMAGES FOR THE DELAY NOR AN AWARD OF INTEREST ON PAST DUE
OBLIGATIONS INCURRED UNDER THESE INSURANCE CERTIFICATES, AND IT IS NOT
WITHIN OUR POWER TO DO SO. 

THE CASE IS REMANDED FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  I.E. FROM NOV. 8, 1919, THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF THE INSURED,
THROUGH JUNE 8, 1924, THE LAST DUE DATE FOR A MONTHLY INSTALLMENT PRIOR
TO THE BENEFICIARY'S DEATH. 

FN2  IT IS AGREED THAT, HOWEVER THIS ISSUE IS RESOLVED, RESPONDENT'S
RECOVERY IS SUBJECT TO A DEDUCTION OF $6.50, THE AMOUNT OF A PREMIUM
DUE ON THE POLICY FOR NOVEMBER 1919, THE MONTH DURING WHICH THE INSURED
DIED. 

FN3  THE CLAIM TO THE PROCEEDS MIGHT FALL TO THE ESTATE IN SEVERAL
WAYS, SUCH AS BY THE DEATH OF THE NAMED BENEFICIARY OR BY THE DEATH OF
AN INSURED WHO HAS DESIGNATED NO BENEFICIARY.  SINCE THE RESPONDENT IN
THIS CASE BECAME ENTITLED AS OF THE DEATH OF EUGENE KERR, THE
BENEFICIARY, THE LATTER WILL BE SPOKEN OF AS THE CRITICAL EVENT IN OUR
DISCUSSION. 

FN4  SEC. 407, 42 STAT. 148. 

FN5  C. 320, 43 STAT. 607. 

FN6  43 STAT. 1310. 

FN7  THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS EXPRESSLY MADE SUBJECT TO THE WAR RISK
INSURANCE ACT OF 1917, AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO.  SEE WHITE V. UNITED
STATES, 270 U.S. 175, 180. 

FN8  ALTHOUGH THE VETERANS BUREAU DENIED RECOVERY ON THE POLICY IN
1920, IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1925 THAT THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED. 
..END :







SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 216 


NO. 595.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 9, 1942.  - DECIDED MAY 4, 1942.  - AFFIRMED. 


1.  TRANSPORTATION BY RAILROAD OF LIVESTOCK IN CARLOAD LOTS TO PUBLIC
STOCKYARDS INCLUDES UNLOADING INTO SUITABLE PENS.  SEC. 15, INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  P. 223. 

2.  WHETHER THE USE OF STOCKYARDS FACILITIES FOR EGRESS OF LIVESTOCK
TO THE PUBLIC STREET AFTER UNLOADING IS A PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE FOR WHICH CHARGES MAY REASONABLY BE MADE, IS A QUESTION TO BE
DECIDED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
JUDGMENT UPON THE FACTS OF EACH PARTICULAR CASE, AND NOT FOR DECISION
ACCORDING TO ANY FIXED RULE OF LAW.  P. 225. 

3.  PURSUANT TO LONG AND UNIFORM PRACTICE, DIRECT SHIPMENTS OF
LIVESTOCK MADE BY CHICAGO MEAT PACKERS TO THEMSELVES AT THE CHICAGO
STOCKYARDS ARE THERE UNLOADED IN PENS FURNISHED BY THE STOCKYARDS
COMPANY - A SERVICE FOR WHICH THE CARRIER PAYS THE STOCKYARDS,
ABSORBING THE CHARGE IN ITS TRANSPORTATION RATES; AND FURTHER "YARDAGE"
CHARGES ARE COLLECTED BY THE STOCKYARDS COMPANY FROM THE PACKERS FOR
SUBSEQUENT STOCKYARDS SERVICES, INCLUDING THE USE OF THE STOCKYARDS
PROPERTY FOR EGRESS OF THE LIVESTOCK TO THE PUBLIC STREET.  THE PACKING
COMPANIES ASKED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH RULES
AND PRACTICES UNDER WHICH THEY MIGHT OBTAIN DELIVERY OF THE LIVESTOCK
IN THE PENS, WITH EGRESS FOR ITS IMMEDIATE REMOVAL TO THE NEAREST
PUBLIC STREET BY A WAY TO BE DESIGNATED BY THE CARRIERS, WITHOUT
PAYMENT OF YARDAGE CHARGES TO THE STOCKYARDS COMPANY OR OF ANY CHARGES
OTHER THAN THE LINE-HAUL RATES.  HELD: 

(1)  IN DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE PRACTICE, THE
COMMISSION PROPERLY CONSIDERED ITS EVOLUTION, INCLUDING THE HISTORY OF
DEALINGS BETWEEN THE PACKERS AND THE STOCKYARDS COMPANY, AND CONSIDERED
THE EFFECT OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED PRACTICES ON THE INTERESTS OF
THE CARRIERS, THE PUBLIC AND OTHER SHIPPERS.  P. 225. 

(2)  A FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE PRACTICE IS REASONABLE IS
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND IS THEREFORE CONCLUSIVE ON THIS COURT.  P.
231. 

(3)  THE COMMISSION, HAVING DECIDED THAT TRANSPORTATION ENDED WITH
THE UNLOADING OF THE LIVESTOCK INTO THE UNLOADING PENS, RIGHTLY
CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO INQUIRE INTO THE
REASONABLENESS OF PRACTICES OR CHARGES OF THE STOCKYARDS COMPANY BEYOND
THAT POINT.  P. 231. 

(4)  IN SO FAR AS THE STOCKYARDS COMPANY IS AN AGENCY IN
TRANSPORTATION, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND TO THE
CONTROL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  IN SO FAR AS IT
PERFORMS STOCKYARDS SERVICES, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE PACKERS AND
STOCKYARDS ACT AND TO REGULATION BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  P.
232. 

SWIFT & CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THREE JUDGES SITTING,
WHICH DISMISSED A BILL TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SWIFT & COMPANY AND OMAHA PACKING COMPANY, ITS WHOLLY-OWNED
SUBSIDIARY, FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION A COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE COMMON CARRIERS BY RAILROAD WHICH SERVED THE CHICAGO UNION
STOCK YARDS, OPERATED BY THE UNION STOCK YARD & TRANSIT COMPANY.  FN1
THEY WERE LATER JOINED BY ARMOUR & COMPANY, AS INTERVENOR, TO
CONSTITUTE THE INTEREST REFERRED TO HEREIN AS THE PACKERS.  ALTHOUGH
ARMOUR SOUGHT NO RELIEF, IT WAS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE BECAUSE IT WAS AT
THE TIME LITIGATING IN THE COURTS A SIMILAR COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS LATER
PASSED ON BY THIS COURT IN ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 312 U.S. 195. 
THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE CONCERNED PRACTICES OF THE UNION STOCK YARD
& TRANSIT COMPANY AND CHARGES COLLECTED BY IT FROM THE PACKERS, BUT THE
YARD COMPANY WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE PACKERS SOUGHT A
REVISION OF THE YARD COMPANY'S PRACTICES, WHICH THEY SAID WERE PART OF
THE CARRIER-SHIPPER RELATION, THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER THE RAILROADS AND OVER
TRANSPORTATION. 

THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT THE PACKERS SHIPPED OVER LINES OF
DEFENDANT CARRIERS FROM VARIOUS POINTS OF ORIGIN THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, WHAT ARE KNOWN AS "DIRECT SHIPMENTS" OF
LIVESTOCK.  "DIRECT SHIPMENTS" REFERS TO LIVESTOCK CONSIGNED DIRECTLY
TO A PACKER AT THE UNION STOCK YARDS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SHIPMENT
CONSIGNED TO A COMMISSION MERCHANT AT THE STOCK YARDS FOR SALE.  FN2
DIRECT SHIPMENTS ARE GENERALLY OF LIVESTOCK WHICH HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY
THE PACKER OR ITS BUYERS AT COUNTRY POINTS OR AT MARKETS OTHER THAN
CHICAGO.  ON ARRIVAL, THE CARS CONTAINING THE LIVESTOCK ARE PLACED AT
UNLOADING OR CHUTE PENS OF THE YARD COMPANY BY THE RAILROAD EMPLOYEES,
AND THE STOCK IS THEN UNLOADED AND PLACED IN THE PENS BY EMPLOYEES OF
THE YARD COMPANY.  FOR THIS UNLOADING SERVICE, THE YARD COMPANY IS PAID
AT PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES  FN3  BY THE RAILROADS, WHICH ABSORB THE
CHARGE OUT OF THEIR LINE-HAUL RATES. 

THE PACKERS DESIRE IMMEDIATELY TO TAKE THEIR CONSIGNMENTS FROM THESE
UNLOADING PENS AND INSIST THAT THEY DESIRE NO FURTHER SERVICES, AND, OF
COURSE, DESIRE TO INCUR NO FURTHER CHARGES. 

THE YARD COMPANY, HOWEVER, UNDER TARIFFS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE PURSUANT TO THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT,  FN4  IMPOSES
UPON THE PACKERS A SCHEDULE OF CHARGES KNOWN AS YARDAGE CHARGES, WHICH
VARY FROM TEN CENTS TO FORTY-FIVE CENTS PER HEAD OF STOCK.  THE PACKERS
SAY THAT THEY DESIRE NONE OF THE SERVICES, SUCH AS WEIGHING, WATERING,
FEEDING, OR HOLDING, WHICH YARDAGE CHARGES COMPENSATE, AND DESIRE ONLY
TO MOVE THEIR STOCK IMMEDIATELY FROM THE UNLOADING PENS TO THE PUBLIC
STREETS, WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE YARDAGE CHARGES.  CONTENDING THAT IT IS
THEIR LEGAL RIGHT SO TO OBTAIN DELIVERY, THE PACKERS MADE SUFFICIENT
DEMAND UPON THE YARD COMPANY AND UPON THE RAILROAD COMPANIES FOR
IMMEDIATE AND FREE DELIVERY OF THEIR STOCK FROM THE UNLOADING PENS. 
THIS WAS REFUSED, AND YARDAGE CHARGES HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE YARD
COMPANY UNDER PROTEST.  THE PACKERS DEMANDED FROM THE COMMISSION RELIEF
BY WAY OF REPARATION, AND ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH RULES AND
PRACTICES UNDER WHICH THEY MAY OBTAIN DELIVERY TO THEMSELVES BY THE
RAILROADS OF DIRECT SHIPMENTS AT THE UNION STOCK YARDS IN CONVENIENT,
SAFE, AND SUITABLE PENS, WITH EGRESS FOR THE IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF THE
LIVESTOCK TO THE NEAREST PUBLIC STREET, BY A WAY TO BE DESIGNATED BY
THE RAILROADS, WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF ANY YARDAGE CHARGES TO THE UNION
STOCK YARDS & TRANSIT COMPANY, AND WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF ANY CHARGES
OTHER THAN THE LINE-HAUL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES OF THE RAILROADS. 

THE COMMISSION, AFTER HEARINGS, DENIED THE PACKERS RELIEF, FOR
REASONS LATER TO BE CONSIDERED.  IT FOUND THAT THE DELIVERY OF STOCK
CONSIGNED BY THE PACKERS TO THEMSELVES AT THE STOCK YARDS, INTO THE
YARD COMPANY'S PENS WITHOUT AFFORDING FREE EGRESS FOR THE SHIPMENTS, IS
NOT AN UNREASONABLE PRACTICE ON THE PART OF THE CARRIERS, AND THAT THE
YARDAGE CHARGES THEREAFTER ASSESSED BY THE UNION STOCKYARDS & TRANSIT
COMPANY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  238 I.C.C.
179. 

APPELLANTS SWIFT AND OMAHA THEN BROUGHT SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT OF
THREE JUDGES FOR A DECREE PERMANENTLY SUSPENDING AND ANNULLING THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AND FOR A REMAND OF THE COMPLAINT FOR DECISION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF LAW TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT. 
APPELLANT ARMOUR INTERVENED, AND PARTICIPATED IN THE TRIAL.  THE
RAILROADS WHICH HAD BEEN NAMED AS DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ALSO
INTERVENED, AS DEFENDANTS IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  AFTER HEARING, THE
DISTRICT COURT HELD, WITHOUT OPINION, THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
WERE PROPERLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE; THAT THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE
COMMISSION WERE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION; THAT THE PRACTICES
COMPLAINED OF WERE NOT UNREASONABLE; AND THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT
HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE YARDAGE CHARGES.  IT DISMISSED THE PACKERS'
COMPLAINT, AND APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THIS COURT.  FN5 

THE MANY ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR MAY BE GROUPED UNDER THREE INQUIRIES:
(1) DO THE PACKERS HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO TAKE
THEIR DIRECT SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK FROM THE UNLOADING PENS FREE FROM
YARDAGE CHARGES?  (2) IF THERE IS NO SUCH ABSOLUTE RIGHT, WAS THE
COMMISSION IN ERROR IN CONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF DEALINGS BETWEEN
PACKERS AND THE YARD COMPANY, TOGETHER WITH OTHER FACTS BEARING ON THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE CARRIERS' METHOD OF DELIVERY AT THE STOCK YARDS? 
(3) IF THE PRACTICE AS TO DELIVERY WAS CORRECTLY HELD A REASONABLE
METHOD OF TERMINATING THE CARRIERS' OBLIGATION TO FURNISH
TRANSPORTATION, DID THE COMMISSION HAVE JURISDICTION IN A PROCEEDING
AGAINST THE RAILROAD COMPANIES TO INQUIRE INTO OR PRESCRIBE THE YARDAGE
CHARGES COMPLAINED OF?

                   I 

THE PACKERS' CONTENTION THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF
ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DELIVERY OF THEIR LIVESTOCK FROM THE UNLOADING PENS
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF YARDAGE CHARGES, IS BASED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS
COURT IN COVINGTON STOCK-YARDS CO. V. KEITH, 139 U.S. 128, AND THE
SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED SEC. 1(3) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

IN THE COVINGTON CASE, DECIDED ON FACTS ANTEDATING THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, THIS COURT SAID THAT "A CARRIER OF LIVE STOCK HAS NO MORE
RIGHT TO MAKE A SPECIAL CHARGE FOR MERELY RECEIVING OR MERELY
DELIVERING SUCH STOCK, IN AND THROUGH STOCK YARDS PROVIDED BY ITSELF,
IN ORDER THAT IT MAY PROPERLY RECEIVE AND LOAD, OR UNLOAD AND DELIVER,
SUCH STOCK, THAN A CARRIER OF PASSENGERS MAY MAKE A SPECIAL CHARGE FOR
THE USE OF ITS PASSENGER DEPOT BY PASSENGERS WHEN PROCEEDING TO OR
COMING FROM ITS TRAINS, OR THAN A CARRIER MAY CHARGE THE SHIPPER FOR
THE USE OF ITS GENERAL FREIGHT DEPOT IN MERELY DELIVERING HIS GOODS FOR
SHIPMENT, OR THE CONSIGNEE OF SUCH GOODS FOR ITS USE IN MERELY
RECEIVING THEM THERE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THEY ARE UNLOADED
FROM THE CARS.  IF THE CARRIER MAY NOT MAKE SUCH SPECIAL CHARGES IN
RESPECT TO STOCK YARDS WHICH ITSELF OWNS, MAINTAINS OR CONTROLS, IT
CANNOT INVEST ANOTHER CORPORATION OR COMPANY WITH AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE
BURDENS OF THAT KIND UPON SHIPPERS AND CONSIGNEES.  THE TRANSPORTATION
OF LIVE STOCK BEGINS WITH THEIR DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER TO BE LOADED
UPON ITS CARS, AND ENDS ONLY AFTER THE STOCK IS UNLOADED AND DELIVERED,
OR OFFERED TO BE DELIVERED, TO THE CONSIGNEE, IF TO BE FOUND, AT SUCH
PLACE AS ADMITS OF THEIR BEING SAFELY TAKEN INTO POSSESSION."  139 U.S.
AT 135-136. 

AFTER THE DECISION IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS ENACTED SEC. 1(3) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, PROVIDING THAT "THE TERM 'TRANSPORTATION' AS
USED IN THIS CHAPTER SHALL INCLUDE  ...  ALL INSTRUMENTALITIES AND
FACILITIES OF SHIPMENT OR CARRIAGE, IRRESPECTIVE OF OWNERSHIP OR OF ANY
CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR THE USE THEREOF AND ALL SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE RECEIPT, DELIVERY, ELEVATION, AND TRANSFER IN
TRANSIT,  ...  STORAGE, AND HANDLING OF PROPERTY TRANSPORTED ...  "  36
STAT. 539, 545, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(3)(A). 

AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 1(3), THIS COURT DECIDED ADAMS V. MILLS,
286 U.S. 397, WHICH AROSE BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 15(5), SET FORTH
BELOW.  THE PROPRIETY OF AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR THE UNLOADING OF
LIVESTOCK AT THE CHICAGO UNION STOCK YARDS WAS IN ISSUE, AND IT WAS
SAID:  "THAT THE YARDS ARE, IN EFFECT, TERMINALS OF THE RAILROADS IS
CLEAR.  THEY ARE IN FACT USED AS TERMINALS; AND NECESSARILY SO.
WHETHER THE UNLOADING IN THE YARDS WAS A PART OF TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT
A PURE QUESTION OF LAW TO BE DETERMINED BY MERELY READING THE TARIFFS. 
COMPARE GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. MERCHANTS ELEVATOR CO., 259 U.S. 285,
294.  THE DECISION OF THE QUESTION WAS DEPENDENT UPON THE DETERMINATION
OF CERTAIN FACTS, INCLUDING THE HISTORY OF THE STOCK YARDS AND THEIR
RELATION TO THE LINE-HAUL CARRIERS; THE HISTORY OF THE UNLOADING CHARGE
AT THESE YARDS; AND THE ACTION OF THE PARTIES IN RELATION THERETO.  IF
THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ON THESE
MATTERS, ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE COLLECTION OF THE EXTRA CHARGE FROM
THE SHIPPERS WAS AN UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL PRACTICE MUST BE
SUSTAINED.  ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S.
199, 221; LOS ANGELES SWITCHING CASE, 234 U.S. 294, 310, 311."  ID. AT
409-410. 

ON FEBRUARY 28, 1920, PRIOR TO THIS DECISION AND DURING THE PENDENCY
OF THE CONTROVERSY WHICH LED TO IT, THERE WAS ENACTED SEC. 15(5) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHICH PROVIDED THAT: "TRANSPORTATION WHOLLY BY
RAILROAD OF ORDINARY LIVESTOCK IN CAR-LOAD LOTS DESTINED TO OR RECEIVED
AT PUBLIC STOCKYARDS SHALL INCLUDE ALL NECESSARY SERVICE OF UNLOADING
AND RELOADING EN ROUTE, DELIVERY AT PUBLIC STOCKYARDS OF INBOUND
SHIPMENTS INTO SUITABLE PENS, AND RECEIPT AND LOADING AT SUCH YARDS OF
OUTBOUND SHIPMENTS, WITHOUT EXTRA CHARGE THEREFOR TO THE SHIPPER,
CONSIGNEE OR OWNER, EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE THE UNLOADING OR RELOADING EN
ROUTE IS AT THE REQUEST OF THE SHIPPER, CONSIGNEE OR OWNER, OR TO TRY
AN INTERMEDIATE MARKET, OR TO COMPLY WITH QUARANTINE REGULATIONS.  THE
COMMISSION MAY PRESCRIBE OR APPROVE JUST AND REASONABLE RULES GOVERNING
EACH OF SUCH EXCEPTED SERVICES.  NOTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO AFFECT THE DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF THE CARRIERS NOW
EXISTING ON FEBRUARY 28, 1920, BY VIRTUE OF LAW RESPECTING THE
TRANSPORTATION OF OTHER THAN ORDINARY LIVESTOCK, OR THE DUTY OF
PERFORMING SERVICE AS TO SHIPMENTS OTHER THAN THOSE TO OR FROM PUBLIC
STOCKYARDS."  41 STAT. 456, 486, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(5). 

IN THE SUBSEQUENT CASE OF ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 193, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT, IN APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMMISSION MIGHT PROPERLY FIND THAT THE CARRIERS'
DUTY TO DELIVER LIVESTOCK ENDED WITH DELIVERY INTO SUITABLE PENS AT THE
CHICAGO UNION STOCK YARDS, AND IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE QUESTION OF
WHERE THE CARRIER'S OBLIGATION ENDS IS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

OUR MOST RECENT DECISION BEARING ON THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO
DETERMINE WHEN TRANSPORTATION ENDS, WITH REFERENCE TO SHIPMENTS OF
LIVESTOCK TO THE CHICAGO UNION STOCK YARDS, IS ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R.
CO., 312 U.S. 195, RENDERED IN THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE PROPRIETY OF
YARDAGE CHARGES MADE IN CIRCUMSTANCES PRECISELY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE
PRESENT CASE, BY VIRTUE OF WHICH ARMOUR & CO. INTERVENED IN THE PRESENT
LITIGATION.  THERE IT WAS HELD BY A UNANIMOUS COURT THAT ARMOUR'S
COMPLAINT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE DISMISSED, SINCE
PRIMARY JURISDICTION WAS LODGED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION;
AND IT WAS SAID THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT REVEALED THAT
"THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS RELATING TO COMPLEX TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS
THAT MUST BE SOLVED AS A PREREQUISITE TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE
RAILROADS, IN VIOLATION OF CONTRACTS OR GOVERNING LAWS, HAVE FAILED
PROPERLY TO DELIVER PETITIONER'S LIVESTOCK."  ID. AT 200.  BY WAY OF
ILLUSTRATION, THE OPINION DETAILED SEVERAL QUESTIONS WHICH WOULD ARISE,
AND AMONG THEM WAS THE FOLLOWING:  "AT WHAT POINT DID THE COMMON
CARRIERS' DUTY TO TRANSPORT COME TO AN END?  NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR
ANY APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE OF GOVERNING LAW CAN BE SAID TO MARK THIS
BOUNDARY, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS AND IN ALL CASES." 
IBID.  THE DECISION AGREED WITH THE VIEW OF THE RAILROADS AND COURTS
BELOW THAT "ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED RELATES TO SUCH
COMPLEX TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS THAT DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL
QUESTIONS MUST NECESSARILY BE PRECEDED BY THE CONSIDERATION OF
EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE IN A SPECIALIZED FIELD, AND THAT DECISION OF SUCH
QUESTIONS IS BY STATUTE VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION."  ID. AT 197.  FINALLY, IT WAS SAID THAT "IF USE OF THE
TERMINAL FACILITIES FOR EGRESS TO THE STREET AFTER UNLOADING OF
LIVESTOCK IS A PART OF TRANSPORTATION, AS PETITIONER ALLEGES, AND IF
THIS USE IS A SERVICE FOR WHICH REASONABLE COMPENSATION IS JUSTIFIED,
IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THIS CHARGE, LIKE THE UNLOADING CHARGE, IS A
PART OF THAT REASONABLE TRANSPORTATION RATE DETERMINATION OF WHICH IS
COMMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
AND BEFORE SUCH LONG-STANDING TRANSPORTATION CUSTOMS CAN BE HELD
ILLEGAL, IT IS OF COURSE NECESSARY THAT EVIDENCE BE HEARD."  ID. AT 200
201.    THUS IT IS SEEN THAT, BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 15(5),
WHETHER TRANSPORTATION INCLUDED UNLOADING WAS A QUESTION OF FACT FOR
THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.  ADAMS V. MILLS, SUPRA. SECTION
15(5) CHANGED THIS, BUT IT DID NOT ALTER THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO
YARDAGE SERVICES, ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 193; AND WHETHER THEY ARE INCLUDED IN TRANSPORTATION IS THEREFORE
A QUESTION TO BE DECIDED BY THE COMMISSION UPON THE FACTS OF EACH
PARTICULAR CASE, AND NOT BY MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF A FIXED RULE OF
LAW AS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANTS.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 193; ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., SUPRA.
OTHERWISE, WE ERRED IN REQUIRING "PRIMARY RESORT" TO THE COMMISSION IN
THE ARMOUR CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION WHERE TRANSPORTATION
ENDED.  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. MERCHANTS ELEVATOR CO., 259 U.S.
285.  THE PROPRIETY OF THE YARDAGE CHARGES IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS A
QUESTION FOR DECISION BY THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
JUDGMENT, AND NOT FOR DECISION ACCORDING TO ANY FIXED RULE OF LAW. 

                                  II 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE YARD COMPANY'S UNLOADING PENS WERE
SUITABLE POINTS AT WHICH TO TERMINATE THE DUTIES OF CARRIERS TO
CONSIGNEES, AND POINTS WHERE THE CONSIGNEES ENTERED INTO A RELATIONSHIP
WITH SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE CARRIERS, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN
CONSIDERING, AS IT DID, ALL THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE
PRACTICE COMPLAINED OF, AS WELL AS THE EFFECT OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED
PRACTICES ON THE INTEREST OF THE CARRIERS, THE PUBLIC, AND OTHER
SHIPPERS.  ADAMS V. MILLS, SUPRA, AT 409 ET SEQ.; ATCHISON, T. & S.F.
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. AT 198 ET SEQ.; ARMOUR & CO. V.
ALTON R. CO., SUPRA, AT 201.  NEITHER THE RAILROADS NOR THE STOCK YARDS
EXIST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PACKERS ALONE.  THEIR PATRONAGE IS LARGE
AND IMPORTANT, BUT NEITHER IN THE REGULATION OF THE CARRIERS NOR IN THE
REGULATION OF THE STOCK YARDS ARE THEY ENTITLED TO FACILITIES OR
TREATMENT THAT WILL IGNORE THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER INTERESTS.  THE STOCK
YARDS ARE NOT ONLY A FACILITY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF DIRECT
SHIPMENTS FROM POINTS OF COUNTRY ORIGIN TO THE PACKERS; THEY ALSO ARE
AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE ENTIRE ANIMAL INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE DIRECT SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK
TRANSPORTED BY RAIL TO THE PACKERS AT CHICAGO HAVE EXCEEDED 30,000
CARLOADS ANNUALLY FOR SEVERAL YEARS, BUT THAT THE TOTAL ANNUAL AVERAGE
RAIL MOVEMENT TO THE STOCK YARDS WAS 94,629 CARLOADS. 

THE BULK OF THE MOVEMENT OF STOCK IS RECEIVED IN THE YARDS DURING THE
FIRST DAYS OF THE WEEK, AND APPROXIMATELY THREE-FOURTHS OF THE DAILY
MOVEMENT IS UNLOADED BETWEEN THREE AND EIGHT IN THE MORNING.  IN SOME
INSTANCES, IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF THE ANIMALS FROM THE UNLOADING PENS IS
NECESSARY TO PRESERVE AN EVEN FLOW OF LIVESTOCK FROM THE CARS INTO THE
YARDS.  APART FROM THE DIRECT SHIPMENTS, MUCH OF THIS STOCK MUST BE
WATERED, FED, AND WEIGHED IN THE YARDS.  IT IS REMOVED TO HOLDING PENS,
AND ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF THE STOCK YARDS IS TO FURNISH THE
FACILITIES FOR MARKETING.  COMMISSION BROKERS OR MARKET AGENCIES
RECEIVE CONSIGNMENTS OF LIVESTOCK AND SELL THEM FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE
PRODUCER, SOMETIMES TO THE PACKERS AND SOMETIMES TO PURCHASERS WHO
REQUIRE RE-SHIPMENT. 

SHIPMENTS MUST BE MOVED WITH GREAT RAPIDITY AND ORDER, AND IT MAY BE
THAT THIS CAN BEST BE DONE BY EMPLOYEES UNDER A SINGLE MANAGEMENT AND
DISCIPLINE.  THE CUSTOMARY HANDLING OVER MANY YEARS LED TO THE BUILDING
UP OF A PHYSICAL PLANT WHICH THE COMMISSION FINDS MAKES IT PHYSICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO REMOVE THIS STOCK FROM THE UNLOADING PENS EXCEPT BY USE
OF THE PROPERTY OF THE YARD COMPANY. 

THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC AND OF THE COMMUNITY ARE ENTITLED TO
CONSIDERATION.  THIS TRANSPORTATION IS OF A SPECIAL KIND OF PROPERTY ON
THE HOOF, WHICH CALLS FOR SPECIAL HANDLING IN THE INTERESTS OF ECONOMY,
SAFETY, SANITATION, AND HEALTH.  THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT "THE
EVIDENCE FAILS TO DISCLOSE HOW, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, AN ANNUAL VOLUME
OF 30,000 CARLOADS OF LIVESTOCK COULD BE DISCHARGED INTO AND HANDLED
THROUGH THE PUBLIC STREETS OF CHICAGO."  FN6 

THE EXISTENCE AND SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES FOR DELIVERY
OF LIVESTOCK WERE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION.  SOME STOCK IS AND CAN
BE DELIVERED AT TEAM TRACKS AND SOME AT INDUSTRIAL SIDINGS.  THESE
FACILITIES ARE INADEQUATE FOR HANDLING THE ENTIRE VOLUME OF DIRECT
SHIPMENTS.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THE EXISTENCE OR ADEQUACY
OF ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES FOR DELIVERY AT OTHER POINTS IS PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT IN THE CASE, BECAUSE THE SHIPMENTS INVOLVED ARE CONSIGNED TO
THE PACKERS AT THE UNION STOCK YARDS BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.  IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT THEY ARE DEMANDING AN INCREASE OF OTHER FACILITIES, AND THE
CASE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THAT LIGHT. 

THE PACKERS OBJECT TO CONSIDERATION OF THEIR OWN PART IN EVOLVING THE
SITUATION OF WHICH THEY COMPLAIN.  THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, CONSIDERED
IT AND MADE FINDINGS AS TO THE HISTORY OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE YARD
COMPANY AND THE PACKERS. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT, SINCE THE YARD COMPANY BEGAN OPERATION IN
1865, THERE HAS BEEN A LINE OF DEMARKATION BETWEEN THE SERVICES WHICH
SHIPPERS WERE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES AND
THE SERVICES RECEIVED FROM THE YARD COMPANY.  THE LINE-HAUL CARRIERS
HAVE PAID THE YARD COMPANY FOR THE UNLOADING SERVICE AND ABSORBED THE
CHARGE MADE FOR SUCH SERVICE OUT OF THEIR LINE-HAUL RATES.  FROM THE
BEGINNING, HOWEVER, ALL SHIPPERS WERE REQUIRED TO PAY TO THE YARD
COMPANY A YARDAGE CHARGE ON EVERY ANIMAL UNLOADED.  DEALINGS WITH
RESPECT TO THOSE CHARGES WERE BETWEEN THE YARD COMPANY AND THE
SHIPPERS, WITH NO INTERVENTION BY THE CARRIERS.  AFTER THESE PRACTICES
HAD BEEN IN EFFECT FOR ABOUT TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, THE YARD COMPANY
ENTERED INTO CERTAIN ARRANGEMENTS UNDER WHICH THESE PACKERS
PARTICIPATED IN THE PROFITS FROM ITS OPERATIONS.  SOME TIME BEFORE
1890, THE PACKERS THREATENED TO MOVE THEIR PLANTS FROM CHICAGO AND TO
ESTABLISH FACILITIES OF THEIR OWN FOR THE RECEIPT OF THEIR LIVESTOCK. 
THE PACKERS HAD ACQUIRED A LARGE TRACT OF LAND IN INDIANA AS A SITE FOR
THEIR PROPOSED PLANTS.  THEY HAD ALSO PURCHASED PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
"CENTRAL STOCK YARDS" NEAR THE UNION STOCK YARDS AND HAD ERECTED
THEREON PLATFORMS, PENS, SHEDS, AND SIDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RECEIVING ALL CATTLE AND LIVESTOCK CONSIGNED TO THEM.  THEY HAD ALSO
FILED A COMPLAINT IN AN ILLINOIS COURT DEMANDING THAT THE YARD COMPANY
BE REQUIRED TO PERMIT THE LINE-HAUL CARRIERS TO USE ITS TRACKS IN
MAKING DELIVERIES TO THE PACKERS' CENTRAL STOCK YARDS. 

HAVING PUT THEMSELVES IN THIS INDEPENDENT POSITION AND THREATENED TO
REDUCE THE REVENUES OF THE YARD COMPANY, THE PACKERS NEGOTIATED A
CONTRACT WHICH, IN SUBSTANCE, INVOLVED THE ABANDONMENT BY THE PACKING
COMPANIES OF THIS THREATENED MOVE TO INDIANA AND SURRENDER OF THEIR OWN
FACILITIES FOR RECEIVING DIRECT SHIPMENTS IN RETURN FOR A PARTICIPATION
IN THE PROFITS AND CAPITAL OF THE YARD COMPANY.  IN 1892, THE PACKERS
CONVEYED TO STOCK YARD INTERESTS THE INDIANA SITE AND THE CENTRAL STOCK
YARDS, AND AGREED BY CONTRACT TO DISMISS THE SUIT FILED IN THE ILLINOIS
COURT AND TO REFRAIN FROM FILING ANY SIMILAR SUIT FOR A PERIOD OF
FIFTEEN YEARS; TO CONTINUE THEIR BUSINESS AT PACKINGTOWN, ADJACENT TO
THE UNION STOCK YARDS, FOR FIFTEEN YEARS FROM JULY 1, 1891; TO HAVE ALL
LIVESTOCK SLAUGHTERED BY THEM ON THEIR PREMISES OR WITHIN TWO HUNDRED
MILES OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, DURING SUCH PERIOD, PASS THROUGH AND USE
THE UNION STOCK YARDS, AND TO PAY THE USUAL YARDAGE CHARGE THEREFOR;
AND THEY GUARANTEED THAT THE YARD COMPANY WOULD RECEIVE AND COLLECT
FROM ITS YARDAGE CHARGES ON PACKERS' LIVESTOCK THE AGGREGATE SUM OF
$2,000,000 WITHIN SIX YEARS, AND AGREED TO MAKE UP ANY DEFICIENCY IN
THAT AMOUNT.  THE PACKERS ALSO AGREED THAT, AS LONG AS THE YARD COMPANY
CONDUCTED ITS BUSINESS IN CHICAGO, THEY WOULD NOT INTEREST THEMSELVES
IN ANY OTHER STOCKYARDS IN CHICAGO FOR THE RECEIPT AND USE OF THEIR OWN
LIVESTOCK. 

THE PACKERS RECEIVED INCOME BONDS OF A NEW CORPORATION, THE SECURITY
OF WHICH WAS THE REVENUES OF THE STOCK YARDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,000,000.  SWIFT RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD.  THESE BONDS WERE
SUBSEQUENTLY REDEEMED BY THE ISSUING CORPORATION. 

THE RAILROAD COMPANIES WERE NOT PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT, AND THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PACKERS, AT THE TIME THE AGREEMENT WAS
ENTERED INTO, DID NOT CONSIDER THE ASSESSMENT OF THE YARDAGE CHARGES TO
BE A MATTER OF ANY CONCERN TO THE RAILROADS.  DURING THE EXISTENCE OF
THE AGREEMENT DESCRIBED, THE PACKERS PAID THE YARDAGE CHARGES, AND
PARTICIPATED IN THE RECEIPTS FROM SUCH CHARGES.  THIS AGREEMENT EXPIRED
IN 1907, EXCEPT FOR THE COVENANT BY THE PACKERS NOT TO ESTABLISH OR
BECOME INTERESTED IN ANY OTHER STOCKYARDS FOR THE RECEIPT OF THEIR
LIVESTOCK SO LONG AS THE YARD COMPANY MAINTAINED ITS BUSINESS IN
CHICAGO.  IT APPEARS, HOWEVER, THAT AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE
CONTRACT THE YARD INTERESTS WERE INFORMED THAT THE PACKERS WERE STILL
THREATENING TO MOVE THEIR PLANT FROM CHICAGO, AND IT APPEARS THAT SWIFT
EXPECTED TO RECEIVE A SHARE OF THE YARD'S EARNINGS AS LATE AS 1918, BUT
THERE IS NO PROOF THAT IT DID RECEIVE ANYTHING IN ADDITION TO THE BONDS
RECEIVED UNDER THE CONTRACT OF 1892.  J.O. ARMOUR, OF ARMOUR & COMPANY,
HOWEVER, RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS AFTER 1907. 

THUS, FOR MORE THAN SEVENTY YEARS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RAILROADS
IN RESPECT OF DIRECT SHIPMENTS CONSIGNED TO THE PACKERS HAS ENDED WITH
THE UNLOADING SERVICE.  THE PACKERS, FROM THAT POINT ON, HAVE
NEGOTIATED THEIR OWN ARRANGEMENT WITH THE YARD COMPANY.  MORE RECENTLY,
OF COURSE, THE STOCK YARDS HAVE PASSED UNDER PUBLIC REGULATION, AND
DISCRIMINATION OR REBATING OF THE KIND ONCE PRACTICED IS NO LONGER
POSSIBLE.  THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT IT WAS THE ATTITUDE OF THE PACKERS
THAT THEIR PATRONAGE WAS A THING OF VALUE TO THE STOCK YARDS, AND THEY
PROPOSED TO SELL THAT PATRONAGE TO THE YARD COMPANY.  THE PACKERS AND
STOCKYARDS ACT HAVING MADE PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS OF THIS KIND UNLAWFUL,
FN7  THE PACKERS NOW CONTEND THAT THE CARRIERS MUST PROTECT THEM
AGAINST YARDAGE CHARGES ON THEIR DIRECT SHIPMENTS. 

IT WAS THE PACKERS THEMSELVES WHO SUPPRESSED THE COMPETITIVE YARDS
AND ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES FOR UNLOADING THEIR STOCK.  THE COMMISSION,
HOWEVER, HAS NOT HELD THE PACKERS TO BE ESTOPPED BY THEIR CONDUCT.  IT
HAS ONLY CONSIDERED THE PRACTICE AND USAGE OF THE PACKERS AS BEARING ON
THE SUITABILITY OF THE YARD COMPANY'S UNLOADING PENS AS A POINT OF
TERMINATION OF THE CARRIERS' RESPONSIBILITY.  THE COMMISSION HAS HELD
IT TO BE A REASONABLE PRACTICE THAT THE RAILROADS' RESPONSIBILITY FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH DIRECT SHIPMENT CONSIGNED BY THE PACKERS TO
THEMSELVES AT THE UNION STOCK YARDS ENDS WITH UNLOADING INTO THE
UNLOADING PENS, WHICH IT FOUND TO BE SUITABLE, AND THAT THE CARRIERS'
FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE OR PURCHASE FREE EGRESS FOR SUCH SHIPMENTS FROM
THE UNLOADING PENS HAS NOT RESULTED AND DOES NOT RESULT IN AN
UNREASONABLE PRACTICE.  THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DETERMINATION,
AND THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY CHARGED WITH MAKING IT IS
THEREFORE CONCLUSIVE ON THIS COURT.  FN8

               III 

HAVING PROPERLY DECIDED THAT TRANSPORTATION ENDED WHEN THE LIVESTOCK
REACHED THE UNLOADING PENS, WAS THE COMMISSION IN ERROR IN CONCLUDING
THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO INQUIRE INTO THE REASONABLENESS OF
PRACTICES OR CHARGES OF THE YARD COMPANY BEYOND THAT POINT? 

THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THE FACT THAT PROPERTY OF THE YARD
COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN FURNISHING EGRESS TO THE APPELLANTS' SHIPMENTS
DID NOT PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM EXERCISING SUCH JURISDICTION.  THE
YARD COMPANY, THEY SAY, WAS THE AGENT OF THE RAILROADS AND ACTED IN A
DUAL CAPACITY, AS PUBLIC STOCKYARDS SUBJECT TO THE PACKERS AND
STOCKYARDS ACT AND ALSO AS A COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  IN THE LATTER CAPACITY, IT IS SAID, THE YARD
COMPANY, AS THE RAILROADS' AGENT, PROVIDES TERMINAL FACILITIES FOR
LIVESTOCK DELIVERY, WHICH IS A PART OF THE RAILROADS' OBLIGATION. 

THE STOCK YARDS ARE NAMED IN THE RAILROADS' TARIFFS AS A SPECIFIC
STATION TO WHICH THE RAILROAD RATES TO CHICAGO ARE APPLICABLE.  THE
LINE-HAUL RAILROADS PUBLISH AN ALLOWANCE TO THE YARD COMPANY OF $1.25
PER SINGLE-DECK CAR, AND $1.50 PER DOUBLE-DECK CAR, FOR UNLOADING
LIVESTOCK.  THE YARD COMPANY ALSO FILES WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION ITS TARIFF WHICH PUBLISHES THE SAME AMOUNTS AS CHARGES FOR
UNLOADING THE LIVESTOCK "AS CARRIER'S AGENT."  SINCE UNLOADING IS
REQUIRED BY STATUTE AS A PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, THE FILING
OF THE TERMS ON WHICH IT IS PERFORMED IS MANIFESTLY PROPER, ALTHOUGH
SHIPPERS ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE CHARGE BECAUSE THE RAILROADS ABSORB
IT IN THE LINE-HAUL RATE.  BECAUSE THE YARD COMPANY IN THIS SPECIFIC
AND LIMITED MATTER ACTS AS AGENT FOR THE RAILROADS, AND IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THAT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IS SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW
THAT THE COMMISSION MAY REGULATE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR SOMEHOW, THROUGH
THE RAILROADS, THE OTHER PRACTICES AND CHARGES OF THE YARD COMPANY. 
IF THE YARD COMPANY IS IN THE DUAL POSITION OF BEING AT ONCE THE AGENT
OF THE CARRIERS FOR THE UNLOADING OF THE STOCK AND THE PRINCIPAL IN
RENDERING ANY SUBSEQUENT SERVICES, SO IS IT UNDER DUAL REGULATORY
SCHEMES AND AUTHORITIES.  IN SO FAR AS IT IS AN AGENCY IN
TRANSPORTATION, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND TO THE
CONTROL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  IN SO FAR AS IT
PERFORMS STOCKYARD SERVICES, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE PACKERS AND
STOCKYARDS ACT AND TO THE REGULATION OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 
THE STATUTES CLEARLY DISCLOSE AN INTENTION THAT JURISDICTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE OVER STOCKYARD SERVICES SHALL NOT OVERLAP THAT
OF THE COMMISSION OVER TRANSPORTATION.  FN9  THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
TWO IS THE PLACE WHERE TRANSPORTATION ENDS, AND IN THIS CASE THAT IS
ESTABLISHED TO BE THE UNLOADING PENS. 

THE UNION STOCK YARDS ARE A PUBLIC UTILITY.  THE DECISION OF THE
COMMISSION THAT THE TRANSPORTATION ENDS WITH UNLOADING LEAVES THE STOCK
IN THE HANDS OF A PUBLIC UTILITY - THE UNION STOCK YARDS - FOR DELIVERY
TO THE CONSIGNEE.  NEITHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION NOR THIS
COURT CAN ASSUME THAT THE CHARGES OR PRACTICES OF THAT UTILITY ARE
UNFAIR OR UNREASONABLE, THAT IT IS CHARGING FOR SERVICES THAT ARE NOT
PERFORMED OR FACILITIES NOT USED, OR THAT IT IS IMPOSING ON CONSIGNEES
UNNECESSARY SERVICES.  NOR CAN THE COMMISSION OR THIS COURT ASSUME
THAT, IF UNREASONABLE PRACTICES OR CHARGES ARE IMPOSED BY THIS UTILITY,
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WOULD FAIL TO CORRECT THEM UPON AN
APPROPRIATE COMPLAINT IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE YARD COMPANY IS A
PARTY AND MAY DEFEND ITS PRACTICES FOR ITSELF.  IN ANY EVENT, CONGRESS
HAS PROVIDED THAT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IS THE FORUM IN WHICH
SUCH CHARGES AND PRACTICES MAY BE QUESTIONED AND MAY BE WEIGHED IN THE
INTEREST, NOT ONLY OF THE PACKERS, BUT OF OTHERS WHO USE THE YARDS AND
MARKETS AND WHO MIGHT BE AFFECTED COMPETITIVELY BY GRANTING THE
PACKERS' PRESENT DEMANDS.  CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED AN APPROPRIATE
FORUM IN WHICH ANY COMPLAINT OF THE PACKERS AGAINST THE REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST MAY BE HEARD AND ANY LAWFUL GRIEVANCES ADJUSTED, AND THE
COMMISSION WAS QUITE RIGHT IN REFUSING TO TRESPASS UPON ITS
JURISDICTION. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DECREE BELOW SHOULD BE AND HEREBY IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  OTHER PHASES OF THE GENERAL PROBLEM OF THE PRESENT CASE HAVE
BEEN CONSIDERED IN ADAMS V. MILLS, 286 U.S. 397; ATCHISON, T. & S.F.
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 193; UNION STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 213; ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 312 U.S. 195. 

FN2  THE COMMISSION FOUND, FROM AN ANALYSIS OF THE BILLING OF 3,061
CARS UNLOADED AT THE UNION STOCK YARDS FROM JANUARY 1935 TO MARCH 1938,
THAT 84.4% WERE CONSIGNED TO THE STOCK YARDS, AND THE REMAINING 15.6%
WERE DELIVERED TO THE STOCK YARDS ALTHOUGH DELIVERY AT THAT POINT WAS
NOT SPECIFIED IN THE LIVESTOCK CONTRACTS.  "UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT, COMPLAINANT COULD HAVE REQUIRED DELIVERY OF THE 15.6 PERCENT
OF SHIPMENTS EITHER AT THE STOCKYARDS OR ON DEFENDANTS' TEAM TRACKS,
BUT COMPLAINANT NEVER REQUESTED DELIVERY OF THOSE SHIPMENTS TO ANY
POINT OTHER THAN THE UNION STOCK YARDS."  238 I.C.C. 179, 189.  THEY
WERE THEREFORE INCLUDED IN "DIRECT SHIPMENTS." 

FN3  UNDER TARIFFS FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BY
THE YARD COMPANY, THE RAILROADS PAY TO THE YARD COMPANY $1.25 PER
SINGLE-DECK CAR AND $1.50 PER DOUBLE-DECK CAR, FOR SERVICES RENDERED AS
THEIR AGENT IN UNLOADING THE STOCK. 

FN4  ACT OF AUGUST 15, 1921, 42 STAT. 159, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 181 ET SEQ. 

FN5  SECS. 210 AND 238(4) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED BY THE ACT
OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 938, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47A, 345. 

FN6  238 I.C.C. 179, 194. 

FN7  42 STAT. 161, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 192. 

FN8  ADAMS V. MILLS, SUPRA; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 193; ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., SUPRA. 

FN9  SECTION 406 OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT PROVIDES IN PART:
"NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OR JURISDICTION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, NOR CONFER UPON THE SECRETARY
CONCURRENT POWER OR JURISDICTION OVER ANY MATTER WITHIN THE POWER OR
JURISDICTION OF SUCH COMMISSION."  42 STAT. 169, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 226. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS NOT WHERE THE TRANSPORTATION ENDS BUT
WHAT THE PARTICULAR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INCLUDES.  I DO NOT SUPPOSE
THAT IT WOULD BE CONTENDED THAT A RAILROAD COULD LAWFULLY EXACT FROM A
PASSENGER WHO HAD ALIGHTED ON THE STATION PLATFORM AN EXTRA CHARGE FOR
PASSING THROUGH THE STATION TO THE STREET.  THE REASON WHY IT COULD NOT
MAKE THAT EXACTION IS THAT, ALTHOUGH THE TRANSPORTATION ENDED AT THE
PLATFORM, THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INCLUDED FREE EGRESS FROM THE
STATION.  I THINK THAT THAT PRINCIPLE IS APPLICABLE AND CONTROLLING
HERE. 

COVINGTON STOCK-YARDS CO. V. KEITH, 139 U.S. 128, WHICH AROSE PRIOR
TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, APPLIED THAT PRINCIPLE TO THE DELIVERY
OF LIVESTOCK AT STOCKYARDS.  THIS COURT, AFTER STATING THAT A CARRIER
OF LIVESTOCK HAS NO RIGHT "TO MAKE A SPECIAL CHARGE FOR MERELY
RECEIVING OR MERELY DELIVERING SUCH STOCK, IN AND THROUGH STOCK YARDS
PROVIDED BY ITSELF," ADDED (PP. 135-136):  "IF THE CARRIER MAY NOT MAKE
SUCH SPECIAL CHARGES IN RESPECT TO STOCK YARDS WHICH ITSELF OWNS,
MAINTAINS OR CONTROLS, IT CANNOT INVEST ANOTHER CORPORATION OR COMPANY
WITH AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE BURDENS OF THAT KIND UPON SHIPPERS AND
CONSIGNEES.  THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIVESTOCK BEGINS WITH THEIR DELIVERY
TO THE CARRIER TO BE LOADED UPON ITS CARS, AND ENDS ONLY AFTER THE
STOCK IS UNLOADED AND DELIVERED, OR OFFERED TO BE DELIVERED, TO THE
CONSIGNEE, IF TO BE FOUND, AT SUCH PLACE AS ADMITS OF THEIR BEING
SAFELY TAKEN INTO POSSESSION." 

SO FAR AS I AM AWARE, THE COVINGTON CASE HAS NEVER BEEN OVERRULED. 
AS RECENTLY AS 1939 WE APPROVED IT.  FOR WE STATED IN UNION STOCK YARD
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 213, 219, AFTER REVIEWING SECS. 1(3) AND
15(5) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT:  "WITHOUT THE AID OF THESE
STATUTES THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIVESTOCK BY RAIL WAS HELD TO BEGIN WITH
ITS DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER FOR LOADING ONTO ITS CARS, AND TO END ONLY
AFTER UNLOADING FOR DELIVERY OR TENDER TO THE CONSIGNEE AT THE PLACE OF
DESTINATION.  COVINGTON STOCK-YARDS CO. V. KEITH, 139 U.S. 128, 136. 
THE SAME RULE HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY APPLIED SINCE THE STATUTE WAS
ADOPTED.  ERIE R. CO. V. SHUART, 250 U.S. 465, 468; ATCHISON, T. & S.F.
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 193, 198, AND CASES CITED; DENVER
UNION STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 470; 2 HUTCHISON,
CARRIERS, 3D ED. SEC. 510." 

ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 193, DID NOT
ALTER THAT RULE.  AS STATED BY THE MAJORITY IN THAT CASE (295 U.S. P.
200):  "THE HYGRADE COMPANY DID NOT SEEK AND THE COMMISSION DID NOT
GRANT RELIEF UPON THE GROUND THAT THE CARRIERS FAILED TO PROVIDE EGRESS
FROM THE UNLOADING PENS IN THE PUBLIC STOCKYARDS TO THE CITY STREETS BY
MEANS OF WHICH CONSIGNEE'S ANIMALS MIGHT BE REMOVED TO ITS PLANT. 
CONSIGNEE SOUGHT FREE DELIVERY IN CARS SWITCHED INTO ITS PLANT, BUT THE
COMMISSION FOUND THE SWITCHING CHARGE NOT UNREASONABLE.  CONSIGNEE ALSO
SOUGHT FREE USE OF THE YARDS COMPANY'S PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE
OVERHEAD RUNWAY TO TAKE ITS ANIMALS FROM HOLDING PENS AS WELL AS FROM
UNLOADING PENS TO ITS PLANT."  AND THE MAJORITY ADDED (P. 201):
"PLAINLY THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ROUTE FROM
UNLOADING PENS TO CONSIGNEE'S PLANT AND A MERE WAY OUT TO THE PUBLIC
HIGHWAYS.  TRANSPORTATION DOES NOT INCLUDE DELIVERY WITHIN THE HYGRADE
PLANT OR THE FURNISHING OF THE PROPERTIES, OVERHEAD RUNWAY AND ALL,
THAT ARE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE."  ALTHOUGH CERTAIN GENERAL STATEMENTS
IN THE OPINION ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE RULE OF THE COVINGTON CASE,
A UNANIMOUS COURT RECENTLY EXPLAINED ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES AS FOLLOWS:  "THERE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DIRECTING THE
DISCONTINUANCE OF APPELLANT'S YARDAGE CHARGE TO CONSIGNEES WAS SET
ASIDE ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS FAILED TO SHOW
THAT THE SERVICE FOR WHICH THE CHARGE WAS MADE WAS ANY PART OF THE
LOADING OR UNLOADING SERVICES, OR OTHERWISE A SERVICE WHICH THE RAIL
CARRIER WAS BOUND TO FURNISH."  UNION STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, P. 219.  THAT IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE
MAJORITY ITSELF FOR SETTING ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN THE
ATCHISON CASE:  "BUT THE COMMISSION, IN RESPECT OF THE SHIPMENTS
COVERED BY ITS ORDER, MADE NO DEFINITE FINDING AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES
COMPLETE DELIVERY OR WHERE TRANSPORTATION ENDS.  ITS REPORT DOES NOT
DISCLOSE THE BASIC FACTS ON WHICH IT MADE THE CHALLENGED ORDER.  THIS
COURT WILL NOT SEARCH THE RECORD TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER, BY USE OF WHAT
THERE MAY BE FOUND, GENERAL AND AMBIGUOUS STATEMENTS IN THE REPORT
INTENDED TO SERVE AS FINDINGS MAY BY CONSTRUCTION BE GIVEN A MEANING
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND CERTAIN TO CONSTITUTE A VALID BASIS FOR THE
ORDER."  295 U.S. PP. 201-202.  AND ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 312
U.S. 195, DID NOT WEAKEN THE RULE OF THE COVINGTON CASE.  WE MERELY
HELD IN THAT CASE THAT THE COMPLAINT OF A PACKER WHO SOUGHT TO BE RID
OF "YARDAGE CHARGES" RAISED CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS
NECESSITATING PRIMARY RESORT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  WE
DID NOT REACH IN THAT CASE THE MERITS OF THAT CONTROVERSY NOR THE
QUESTIONS OF LAW INVOLVED HERE.  FN1 

HENCE, I THINK WE REACH THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE
OF THE COVINGTON CASE TO THIS SITUATION UNEMBARRASSED BY A PRIOR
HOLDING. 

I DO NOT AGREE THAT CONGRESS HAS LEFT TO THE COMMISSION THE POWER TO
ELIMINATE FREE EGRESS FROM THIS PARTICULAR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. 
WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION
PRIOR TO THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920(ADAMS V. MILLS, 286 U.S. 397),
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, THE AUTHOR OF ADAMS V.
MILLS, JOINED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE ATCHISON CASE, WHICH
REPUDIATED THE NOTION THAT THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IN THIS TYPE OF
SHIPMENT WAS COMPLETED AT THE UNLOADING PENS.  FURTHERMORE, AS STATED
IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE ATCHISON CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT
CONGRESS ITSELF PROVIDED A RULE, IN SEC. 15(5) OF THAT ACT, WHICH
PLACED ON THE COMMISSION THE DUTY AND THE AUTHORITY TO SEE TO IT THAT
TRIBUTE WAS NOT EXACTED FROM A SHIPPER BY EXACTION OF A SEPARATE CHARGE
FOR EGRESS FROM THE STATION TO THE STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACE.  41
STAT. 456, 486, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(5).  THAT SECTION, SO FAR AS MATERIAL
HERE, PROVIDES THAT TRANSPORTATION WHOLLY BY RAILROAD OF ORDINARY
LIVESTOCK IN CARLOAD LOTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC STOCKYARDS "SHALL INCLUDE
ALL NECESSARY SERVICE OF UNLOADING AND  ...  DELIVERY AT PUBLIC
STOCKYARDS OF INBOUND SHIPMENTS INTO SUITABLE PENS  ...  WITHOUT EXTRA
CHARGE THEREFOR TO THE SHIPPER, CONSIGNEE, OR OWNER  ...  "  TO SAY
THAT CARRIERS NEED NOT FURNISH FACILITIES FOR DELIVERY AND IMMEDIATE
REMOVAL OF LIVESTOCK BY THE CONSIGNEE, WITHOUT EXTRA CHARGE, IS TO GIVE
SEC. 15(5) AN INTERPRETATION WHICH IS NOT ONLY "INGENIOUS" (ATCHISON,
T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 205, DISSENTING OPINION)
BUT WHICH IS ALSO QUITE OBLIVIOUS OF THE CRYING ABUSES WHICH SEC. 15(5)
WAS DESIGNED TO CORRECT.  THE WORDS "ALL NECESSARY SERVICE OF UNLOADING
AND  ... DELIVERY" OF LIVESTOCK AT PUBLIC STOCKYARDS MUST BE TAKEN TO
INCLUDE ALL SERVICES AT A TERMINAL INCIDENTAL TO OBTAINING DELIVERY OF
THE LIVESTOCK.  ANY DELIVERY "INTO SUITABLE PENS" MUST BE TAKEN "TO
MEAN PENS TO WHICH THE CONSIGNEES MAY GAIN UNIMPEDED ACCESS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REMOVING THEIR STOCK."  ID., P. 206.  AS STATED BY
COMMISSIONER EASTMAN IN HYGRADE FOOD PRODUCTS CORP. V. ATCHISON, T. &
S.F. RY. CO., 195 I.C.C. 553, 559, PENS ARE NOT "SUITABLE," WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 15(5), WHERE THEY DO NOT "PERMIT OF REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO ACCEPT DELIVERY AND REMOVE THE LIVESTOCK FROM THE
PREMISES AFTER NOTICE OF ARRIVAL."  OTHERWISE, THE PURPOSE OF SEC.
15(5) IN REMOVING "AN OLD EVIL" IS DEFEATED AND "A CROP OF NEW ONES" IS
SANCTIONED "BY GIVING STOCK YARDS AND RAIL CARRIERS OF LIVESTOCK CARTE
BLANCHE TO IMPOSE VEXATIOUS CHARGES WHICH FOR MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS
HAD BEEN CONDEMNED BY THIS COURT."  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 295 U.S. AT P. 206, DISSENTING OPINION. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 15(5) WAS REVIEWED IN THE DISSENTING
OPINION IN THE ATCHISON CASE.  295 U.S. AT PP. 207-208.  THE MANDATE
CONTAINED IN SEC. 15(5) ORIGINATED WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL LIVE
STOCK ASSOCIATION (59 CONG. REC. 674) AND THE NATIONAL LIVE STOCK
SHIPPERS' LEAGUE.  HEARINGS, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE, H.R. 4378, 66TH CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. I, PP. 139-141.  THE
PROPOSAL WAS NOT VAGUE.  IT WAS THAT THERE BE "ONE THROUGH RATE ON LIVE
STOCK FOR THE WHOLE SERVICES FROM POINT OF ORIGIN TO THE DESTINATION AT
PUBLIC STOCKYARDS USED AT MARKET PLACE WHICH SHALL INCLUDE UNLOADING
INTO SUITABLE PENS AND DELIVERY THEREIN AT SUCH STOCKYARDS, WHERE THE
ANIMALS MAY BE COUNTED AND CHECKED, INCLUDING SUCH FACILITIES AS ARE
NECESSARY OR IN USE FOR MAKING SUCH DELIVERY."  ID., P. 141.  IT WAS
THE ENACTMENT OF THE RULE OF THE COVINGTON CASE WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY
ASKED.  ID., P. 874.  THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT A RAILROAD WOULD NOT "MAKE
TWO RATES TO ITS OWN PENS IF IT OWNED AND OPERATED THEM, AND NEITHER
SHOULD IT DO SO WITH RESPECT TO PENS WHICH IT USES IN THE SAME MANNER. 
THERE SHOULD BE ONE FARE, THE SAME AS A PASSENGER RATE, TO SUCH DEPOT
AS THEY USE IN A GIVEN CITY."  ID., P. 881.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
CONGRESS WAS ALIVE TO THE EVILS OF WHICH THE SHIPPERS COMPLAINED AND
THAT IT ENDEAVORED TO CORRECT THEM.  AS STATED BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS,
THE AIM OF THE AMENDMENT INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE AND AMPLIFIED IN
CONFERENCE WAS TO PROVIDE THAT THE "THROUGH RATES ON LIVE STOCK SHOULD
INCLUDE UNLOADING AND OTHER INCIDENTAL CHARGES."  59 CONG. REC. 3264. 
INDEED, THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT WAS TO IMPOSE ON THE
COMMISSION THE DUTY AND AUTHORITY TO ELIMINATE THE PRACTICES CONDEMNED
BY THE COVINGTON CASE.  IN VIEW OF THAT EXPLICIT HISTORY, IT COMES AS A
SURPRISE THAT THE COMMISSION CAN NOW ABDICATE AND SAY THAT A CONSIGNEE
OR OWNER WHO HAS PAID A THROUGH RATE MAY NOT HAVE FREE RECEIPT OF HIS
STOCK AT THE STATION.  TO HOLD THAT THE SEPARATE CHARGE FOR UNLOADING
LIVESTOCK INTO PENS, WHICH SEC. 15(5) OUTLAWED, MAY NOW BE EXACTED FOR
TAKING THE LIVESTOCK OUT, IS TO MAKE THE RELIEF AFFORDED BY THAT
TO THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT OF 1921 AND THAT, IF RELIEF IS TO BE
HAD, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE MUST GIVE IT.  THE DIFFICULTY WITH
THAT VIEW IS THAT THAT ACT PROVIDES, "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL AFFECT
THE POWER OR JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, NOR
CONFER UPON THE SECRETARY CONCURRENT POWER OR JURISDICTION OVER ANY
MATTER WITHIN THE POWER OR JURISDICTION OF SUCH COMMISSION."  42 STAT.
169, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 226.  THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IS NOT THE PLACE WHERE THE TRANSPORTATION ENDS
BUT THE TIME WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IS COMPLETED.  IT IS NOT
COMPLETED UNTIL THE CONSIGNEE HAS UNIMPEDED ACCESS TO THE STATION FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING THE LIVESTOCK.  THAT VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY UNION
STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WHERE THE STOCKYARDS ARGUED
THAT THEIR LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICES WERE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NOT BY THE COMMISSION.  WE HELD THAT
LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICES WERE "COMMON CARRIER SERVICES PLACED
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT." 
308 U.S. P. 221.  AND WE DEFINED THE SCOPE OF THOSE SERVICES IN TERMS
OF THE RULE OF THE COVINGTON CASE.  ID., P. 219.  TO CALL THE
WITHHOLDING OF THE STOCK UNTIL AN ADDITIONAL FEE IS PAID A STOCKYARD
"SERVICE," IS INDEED INCONGRUOUS.  IT IS TO FORGET OVER HALF A CENTURY
OF HISTORY.  IT IS TO TAKE AWAY PART OF THE PROTECTION WHICH CONGRESS
AFFORDED SHIPPERS BY SEC. 15(5).  IT IS TO INTERPRET SEC. 15(5) NOT
LIBERALLY, AS A REMEDIAL PROVISION, BUT STRICTLY AGAINST THE STOCK
RAISERS FOR WHOSE ULTIMATE BENEFIT IT WAS PASSED.  FOR YEARS THE
CARRIERS AND STOCKYARDS PERSISTENTLY SOUGHT TO DIGNIFY THIS TYPE OF
TRIBUTE AND EXPLOITATION AS A "STOCK YARD SERVICE."  UNTIL THE PRESENT,
THEY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.  THEY SHOULD FAIL AGAIN.  THE COVINGTON CASE
STATES THE CORRECT RULE.  IT IS THAT RULE WHICH CONGRESS ENACTED INTO
SEC. 15(5) FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE STOCK RAISERS, WHO ULTIMATELY PAY
THE TRIBUTE AND VEXATIOUS CHARGES WHICH THE MIDDLEMAN EXACTS.  IT IS
THAT RULE WHICH WE SHOULD ENFORCE, UNTIL CONGRESS CHANGES IT. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOLLOWED THAT RULE IN HYGRADE FOOD
PRODUCTS CORP. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY CO., 195 I.C.C. 553.  THAT
CASE MET WITH REVERSAL HERE.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  AND THE OPINION OF THE COURT CONTAINED A DICTUM THAT
"USAGE AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONS COMBINED DEFINITELY TO END
TRANSPORTATION, AT LEAST IN RESPECT OF THESE SHIPMENTS, WITH UNLOADING
INTO SUITABLE PENS AS IS NOW REQUIRED BY SEC. 15(5)."  295 U.S. P.
201.  IT IS THAT DICTUM WHICH HAS HAUNTED THIS LITIGATION AND WHICH
LARGELY SHAPED THE RULING OF THE COMMISSION IN THE INSTANT CASE.  FOR
THE COMMISSION PROCEEDED FROM THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS "NO DIFFERENCE
IN PRINCIPLE" BETWEEN THE ATCHISON CASE AND THIS ONE, AND THAT THIS
COURT HAD STATED IN THE EARLIER CASE "THAT THE OBLIGATION OF THE LINE
HAUL CARRIERS CEASED WHEN THE ANIMALS WERE PLACED IN THE UNLOADING
PENS."  238 I.C.C. 179, 189-190, 196.  BUT THE COMMISSION WAS UNDER NO
SUCH COMPULSION.  COMMISSIONER ALLDREDGE WAS QUITE RIGHT WHEN HE
POINTED OUT IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION MISCONSTRUED
THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN THE ATCHISON CASE.  238 I.C.C. PP. 197
198.  HENCE THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION, REACHED IN LARGE MEASURE
UNDER THE COMPULSION OF THAT ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION, SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN
THE WEIGHT NORMALLY DUE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF SUCH AN EXPERT
BODY. 

WE SHOULD REAFFIRM ONCE MORE THE RULE OF THE COVINGTON CASE AND
REJECT THE DICTUM IN THE ATCHISON CASE.  WE SHOULD HOLD THAT SEC. 15(5)
IS REMEDIAL AND SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED AND, AS THE COMMISSION
ITSELF HELD IN THE ATCHISON CASE, THAT THIS PARTICULAR TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE INCLUDES THE TIME-HONORED OPPORTUNITY OF THE CONSIGNEE OR OWNER
TO GO TO THE STATION AND TAKE AWAY HIS LIVESTOCK WITHOUT PAYMENT OF AN
ADDITIONAL TOLL. 

FN1  IT WILL NOT DO TO SAY THAT, IF THE RULE OF THE COVINGTON CASE
APPLIED, WE ERRED IN REQUIRING PRIMARY RESORT TO THE COMMISSION IN THE
ARMOUR CASE.  THERE WERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS RELATING TO COMPLEX
TRANSPORTATIONS INVOLVED IN THAT CASE WHICH REQUIRED PRIMARY
DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION.  THEY INCLUDED POSSIBLE READJUSTMENTS
OF RATE SCHEDULES, POSSIBLE REFUNDS TO SHIPPERS, AND DEFINITION OF THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE STATION NAMED IN THE TARIFF.  THE STATEMENT IN THE
ARMOUR CASE THAT THE STATUTE DID NOT MARK THE POINT WHERE THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WAS COMPLETED "UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CONDITIONS AND IN ALL CASES" (312 U.S. P. 200) IS BORNE OUT BY THE
ATCHISON CASE, WHERE THE CONSIGNEE, AS WE HAVE NOTED, SOUGHT FREE
DELIVERY IN CARS SWITCHED INTO ITS PLANT AND THE USE OF AN OVERHEAD
RUNWAY FROM HOLDING PENS TO ITS PLANT.  CLEARLY, A DETERMINATION OF THE
PRECISE FACTS CONCERNING THE CHARACTERISTICS AND USE OF A PARTICULAR
STATION WAS NECESSARY BEFORE A CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE APPLICABLE
RULE OF LAW COULD BE MADE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :












PRUDENCE CORP. V. GEIST, 316 U.S. 89 


NO. 757.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 122 F.2D
503, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SECS. 77B (F)(1) AND 65(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND THE
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AN INSOLVENT
DEFAULTING GUARANTOR OF CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION IN A MORTGAGE,
WHO IS ALSO THE OWNER OF A PART OF THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS, IS
ENTITLED TO SHARE PRO RATA IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE
MORTGAGE, IN A SEC. 77B REORGANIZATION.  P. 93. 

2.  A RULE ASSERTED TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY DECISIONS OF THE NEW
YORK COURT OF APPEALS, TO THE EFFECT THAT ONE WHO GUARANTEES PAYMENT OF
CERTIFICATES REPRESENTING UNDIVIDED INTERESTS IN A MORTGAGE, WHICH ARE
SOLD TO INVESTORS, THEREBY IMPLIEDLY AGREES THAT ANY CLAIM OF HIS OWN
IN THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS SHALL BE SUBORDINATED TO THOSE OF OTHER
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, IS TO BE TAKEN AS A RULE OF STATE LAW GOVERNING
RELATIVE RIGHTS OF CLAIMANTS IN A STATE LIQUIDATION, BUT IS
INAPPLICABLE IN FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  P. 93. 

NOTHING DECIDED IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, REQUIRES A
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY TO APPLY SUCH A LOCAL RULE GOVERNING THE
LIQUIDATION OF INSOLVENT ESTATES.  THE BANKRUTCY ACT PRESCRIBES ITS OWN
CRITERIA FOR DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS.  P. 95. 

PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORP. V. GEIST, TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 606, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DIRECTING THAT THE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT SHARE IN THE
PROCEEDS OF THE MORTGAGE UNTIL OTHER OWNERS OF UNDIVIDED INTERESTS IN
THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS WERE PAID IN FULL. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER AN INSOLVENT DEFAULTING
GUARANTOR OF CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION IN A MORTGAGE, WHO IS ALSO
THE OWNER OF A PART OF THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS, IS ENTITLED TO SHARE
PRO RATA IN A DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE MORTGAGE IN A SEC.
77B BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION. 

PRUDENCE COMPANY, PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR, AND A WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARY OF NEW YORK INVESTORS, INC., LOANED TO ZO-GALE REALTY
COMPANY $480,000 ON ITS BOND SECURED BY A FIRST MORTGAGE ON REAL
ESTATE.  IN 1925, PRUDENCE COMPANY PUT INTO EXECUTION A PLAN FOR
SELLING PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES IN THE MORTGAGE.  IT ASSIGNED THE
BOND AND MORTGAGE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION TO PRUDENCE BONDS CORPORATION,
ALSO A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF NEW YORK INVESTORS, INC. PRUDENCE
BONDS IN TURN LODGED THE BOND AND MORTGAGE WITH A TRUST COMPANY
DEPOSITARY.  PRUDENCE COMPANY THEN EXECUTED A GUARANTY OF PAYMENT OF
THE BOND AND MORTGAGE, WHEREUPON PRUDENCE BONDS ISSUED CERTIFICATES OF
PARTICIPATION AUTHENTICATED BY THE TRUST COMPANY, AND TOTALING
$382,800.  IT DELIVERED THEM, WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ANY CONSIDERATION, TO
THE PRUDENCE COMPANY WHICH THEN SOLD THEM TO INVESTORS.  THE GUARANTY
OF PRUDENCE COMPANY, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO IN THE PARTICIPATION
CERTIFICATES, WAS OF PAYMENT OF THE BOND INTEREST WHEN DUE AND OF THE
PRINCIPAL WHEN DUE OR WITHIN EIGHTEEN MONTHS THEREAFTER. 

EACH CERTIFICATE DECLARES THAT THE PURCHASER IS ENTITLED TO AN
UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE MORTGAGE OF A SPECIFIED AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SUM
PAID FOR IT BY THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER.  EACH PROVIDES THAT THE SHARE IN
THE BOND AND MORTGAGE REPRESENTED BY IT IS NOT SUBORDINATE TO ANY OTHER
SHARES OR SUBJECT TO ANY PRIOR INTEREST, AND EACH RESERVES TO PRUDENCE
BONDS THE RIGHT "TO BE THE HOLDER OR PLEDGEE OF SIMILAR SHARES" IN THE
BOND AND MORTGAGE.  THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS WAS LATER REDUCED TO
$390,000, LEAVING AN UNDIVIDED SHARE OF $7,200 OF WHICH PRUDENCE
COMPANY WAS THE EQUITABLE OWNER, FOR WHICH NO PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE
HAD BEEN ISSUED. 

IN 1938, AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN WHICH PRUDENCE COMPANY
AND PRUDENCE BONDS WERE THEN BEING REORGANIZED, DIRECTED A TRANSFER TO
PRUDENCE COMPANY OF THE $7,200 INTEREST, AS PART OF A SETTLEMENT AND
ADJUSTMENT OF MUTUAL CLAIMS BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES, AND PRUDENCE
COMPANY HAS CONTINUED TO BE THE OWNER OF THIS SHARE OF THE MORTGAGE
INDEBTEDNESS.  IT HAS ALSO ACQUIRED, BY PURCHASE FROM CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS, $816.67 IN CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION IN THE MORTGAGE. 

ON FORECLOSURE OF A SECOND MORTGAGE ON THE ZO-GALE PROPERTY,
AMALGAMATED PROPERTIES, INC., A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PRUDENCE
COMPANY, ACQUIRED TITLE TO THE PROPERTY FROM THE MORTGAGOR, AND LATER
WENT INTO A BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION.  UPON APPROVAL BY THE COURT OF A
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF THE ZO-GALE CERTIFICATE ISSUE, THE TITLE TO
THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO RESPONDENT GEIST, AS TRUSTEE
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS.  IN CONFIRMING THE PLAN FOR
REORGANIZATION OF AMALGAMATED, THE COURT RESERVED FOR FUTURE DECISION
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PRUDENCE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF
ITS TWO CLAIMS IN THE MORTGAGE PRO RATA WITH THE OTHER CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS. 

AS PROVIDED BY THE REORGANIZATION PLAN OF PRUDENCE COMPANY, PETITIONER
PRUDENCE REALIZATION CORPORATION WAS ORGANIZED TO TAKE OVER THE ASSETS
FROM THE TRUSTEES OF PRUDENCE COMPANY AND TO LIQUIDATE THEM FOR THE
BENEFIT OF CREDITORS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 
PETITIONER HAS THUS ACQUIRED CERTIFICATES ISSUED IN THE AMALGAMATED
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING, REPRESENTING THE INTEREST OF PRUDENCE
COMPANY IN THE ZO-GALE BOND AND MORTGAGE.  THE CLAIMS AGAINST PRUDENCE
COMPANY RECOGNIZED BY ITS PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AMOUNTED TO
$133,723,000, INCLUDING ITS GUARANTIES OF MORTGAGES AMOUNTING TO
$12,523,000; GUARANTIES OF BONDS ISSUED BY PRUDENCE BONDS FOR
$58,833,000; AND GUARANTIES OF MORTGAGE PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES
ISSUED BY PRUDENCE BONDS (INCLUDING THE ZO-GALE MORTGAGE CERTIFICATES)
FOR $50,858,000. 

THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN BY RESPONDENT'S PETITION IN THE
CONSOLIDATED REORGANIZATION OF PRUDENCE COMPANY AND AMALGAMATED
PROPERTIES IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING
THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DISTRIBUTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE
PRUDENCE COMPANY'S INTEREST IN THE ZO-GALE MORTGAGE UNTIL THE OTHER
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS WERE PAID IN FULL.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE
ORDER, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED.  122 F.2D 503.  BOTH COURTS APPLIED THE RULE OF THE NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS, SEE MATTER OF TITLE & MORTGAGE GUARANTY CO., 275 N.Y.
347, 9 N.E.2D 957; PINK V. THOMAS, 282 N.Y. 10, 24 N.E.2D 724; MATTER
OF PEOPLE (UNION GUARANTEE & MORTGAGE CO.), 285 N.Y. 337, 34 N.E.2D
345, THAT A GUARANTOR OF MORTGAGE CERTIFICATES, WHO ALSO HAS AN
INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGE, CANNOT SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF ITS
COLLECTION UNTIL THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS ARE PAID, UNLESS THERE IS A
CLEAR RESERVATION IN THE CERTIFICATE OF THE RIGHT OF THE GUARANTOR TO
SHARE ON A PARITY WITH OTHER CERTIFICATE HOLDERS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS BY A DIVIDED COURT HELD THAT IT WAS BOUND TO APPLY THE RULE
ANNOUNCED IN THE NEW YORK CASES CITED, WHICH IT DEEMED TO BE A RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUARANTY OF THE CERTIFICATES.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 606, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE IN BANKRUPTCY
ADMINISTRATION OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED. 

THE COURT BELOW RECOGNIZED THE IMPLICATION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT A
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER FORMER SEC. 77B (F)(1) OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT (SEE 11 U.S.C. SEC. 621(2)) BE ONE WHICH "IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND
DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN THE CASE OF ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS,"
SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. BOGERT, 250 U.S. 483, 492; CASE V. LOS
ANGELES LUMBER CO., 308 U.S. 106, AND THAT SEC. 65(A) REQUIRES THAT IN
LIQUIDATIONS A DISTRIBUTION OF "DIVIDENDS OF AN EQUAL PER CENTUM" SHALL
BE MADE "ON ALL ALLOWED CLAIMS, EXCEPT SUCH AS HAVE PRIORITY OR ARE
SECURED," SEE GLOBE BANK & TRUST CO. V. MARTIN, 236 U.S. 288, 305;
MOORE V. BAY, 284 U.S. 4.  IT RECOGNIZED ALSO THAT THE EQUITY POWERS OF
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY BE EXERTED TO SUBORDINATE THE CLAIMS OF ONE
CLAIMANT TO THOSE OF OTHERS OF THE SAME CLASS WHERE HIS CONDUCT IN
ACQUIRING OR ASSERTING HIS CLAIM IS CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES.  SEE TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS CO., 306 U.S. 307; PEPPER V.
LITTON, 308 U.S. 295; IN RE BOWMAN HARDWARE & ELECTRIC CO., 67 F.2D
792. 

BUT THE COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SUCH COMPETING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND RESTED ITS DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT PRUDENCE
COMPANY'S GUARANTY OF THE CERTIFICATES WAS UNDER STATE LAW TO BE
INTERPRETED AS IMPLIEDLY AGREEING THAT ANY CLAIM OF ITS OWN TO THE
MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS WAS TO BE SUBORDINATED TO THOSE OF OTHER
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS.  AFTER REFERRING TO CASES IN WHICH THE NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS HAD DIRECTED SUCH A SUBORDINATION, THE COURT SAID (122
F.2D 505): 

"AN IMPORTANT ISSUE HEREIN IS WHETHER THIS IS PRIMARILY A RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE GUARANTY IN THE CERTIFICATES OR IS A RULE OF
ADMINISTRATION OF INSOLVENT ESTATES WHICH VIOLATES BANKRUPTCY
PRINCIPLES OF EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF A BANKRUPT ESTATE AMONG CREDITORS. 
IF IT IS A RULE OF CONSTRUCTION WE WOULD FOLLOW IT  ...  ," CITING ERIE
R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  "AND IF WE THUS FOUND THE GUARANTEE
TO AMOUNT TO AN ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO CREDITORS THAT THE CLAIM
OF ONE AGAINST THE DEBTOR SHOULD BE SUBORDINATED TO THAT OF THE OTHER,
WE SHOULD GIVE THAT EFFECT TO IT  ...  " 

THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF THE ACTUAL INTENT OF THE PARTIES TO WHICH THE
COURT REFERRED WAS THE FACT THAT PRUDENCE COMPANY, UNLIKE PRUDENCE
BONDS, HAD NOT RESERVED THE RIGHT IN THE CERTIFICATES TO BE THE HOLDER
OF "SIMILAR SHARES" IN THE BOND AND MORTGAGE.  BUT THERE IS NO
CONTENTION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PROVISION IN THE CERTIFICATES,
PRUDENCE COMPANY WAS NOT FREE TO ACQUIRE CERTIFICATES OR HOLD AN
INTEREST IN THE GUARANTEED MORTGAGE IN ITS OWN RIGHT.  CONSEQUENTLY,
ITS OWNERSHIP OF THE $816.67 IN CERTIFICATES AND $7,200 OF THE
UNCERTIFICATED INDEBTEDNESS EVIDENCES NO ACTUAL INTENTION TO
SUBORDINATE THOSE INTERESTS IN A LIQUIDATION.  AND NEITHER THE TERMS OF
THE GUARANTY NOR OF THE CERTIFICATES GIVE ANY INDICATION OF SUCH AN
INTENT OF THE PARTIES. 

THE COURT ARRIVED AT ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE PRUDENCE COMPANY HAD
AGREED TO SUBORDINATE ITS CLAIMS, NOT FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES,
EXCEPT AS WE HAVE NOTED, BUT FROM ITS READING AND APPLICATION OF THE
OPINIONS OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  THESE RECOGNIZE THAT THE
GUARANTOR OF A MORTGAGE, WHO IS ALSO A PART OWNER OF IT, IS FREE TO
STIPULATE THAT HE MAY SHARE IN A LIQUIDATION ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH
OTHER OWNERS OF THE MORTGAGE DESPITE HIS DEFAULT ON HIS GUARANTY, AND
THAT EFFECT WILL BE GIVEN TO SUCH A STIPULATION.  SEE MATTER OF TITLE &
MORTGAGE GUARANTY CO., SUPRA, 352; PINK V. THOMAS, SUPRA, 12; MATTER OF
PEOPLE (UNION GUARANTEE & MORTGAGE CO.), SUPRA, 343.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, SOME OF THEM HAVE FOUND VISIBLE EVIDENCE, IN THE TERMS OF THE
CERTIFICATES, OF AN ACTUAL INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO SUBORDINATE THE
GUARANTOR'S INTEREST.  TO THAT EXTENT THEY ARE INAPPLICABLE TO THE
CERTIFICATES IN THIS CASE, WHICH AFFORD NO SUCH EVIDENCE.  SEE MATTER
OF TITLE & MORTGAGE GUARANTY CO., SUPRA, 355; MATTER OF PEOPLE (UNION
GUARANTEE & MORTGAGE CO.), SUPRA, 345. 

BUT SO FAR AS THE NEW YORK CASES, WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF THE ACTUAL
INTENT OF THE PARTIES, SUBORDINATE THE GUARANTOR ON GROUNDS OF
"PRESUMED INTENTION," OR "THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIAL EQUITIES," OR THE
"NATURAL EQUITIES" INVOLVED, TITLE GUARANTEE & TRUST CO. V. MORTGAGE
COMMISSION, 273 N.Y. 415, 426, 7 N.E.2D 841; MATTER OF TITLE & MORTGAGE
GUARANTY CO., SUPRA, 355; PINK V. THOMAS, SUPRA, 12; MATTER OF PEOPLE
(UNION GUARANTEE & MORTGAGE CO.), SUPRA, 343; MATTER OF LAWYERS' TITLE
& GUARANTY CO., 287 N.Y. 264, 272, 39 N.E.2D 233, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY
THAT THE RULE LAID DOWN IS OTHER THAN ONE OF STATE LAW GOVERNING THE
RELATIVE RIGHTS OF CLAIMANTS IN A STATE LIQUIDATION.  NOTHING DECIDED
IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, REQUIRES A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY
TO APPLY SUCH A LOCAL RULE GOVERNING THE LIQUIDATION OF INSOLVENT
ESTATES.  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PRESCRIBES ITS OWN CRITERIA FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS.  IN THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
FEDERAL STATUTES, FEDERAL NOT LOCAL LAW APPLIES.  SEE AWOTIN V. ATLAS
EXCHANGE BANK, 295 U.S. 209; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. V. MARTIN, 283 U.S.
209, 212-213; BOARD OF COMM'RS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343, 349-350;
DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190, 200; ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 313 U.S. 289, 296.  THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IS A COURT OF
EQUITY TO WHICH THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE IS
COMMITTED, SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. U.S. REALTY CO., 310
U.S. 434, 455-457, AND IT IS FOR THAT COURT - NOT WITHOUT APPROPRIATE
REGARD FOR RIGHTS ACQUIRED UNDER RULES OF STATE LAW - TO DEFINE AND
APPLY FEDERAL LAW IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INEQUITABLE
CONDUCT OF A CLAIMANT IN ACQUIRING OR ASSERTING HIS CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY
REQUIRES ITS SUBORDINATION TO OTHER CLAIMS WHICH, IN OTHER RESPECTS,
ARE OF THE SAME CLASS.  CF TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS CO., SUPRA; PEPPER V.
LITTON, SUPRA. 

BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THERE IS ANY EQUITY ARISING FROM THE
PRUDENCE COMPANY'S FAILURE TO PERFORM ITS CONTRACT OF GUARANTY WHICH A
BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD RECOGNIZE AS REQUIRING THE SUBORDINATION OF THE
COMPANY'S INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGE TO THE CLAIMS OF THE OTHER MORTGAGE
CREDITORS.  IT IS A FAMILIAR EQUITY RULE, APPLIED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS
IN LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES, THAT A SOLVENT
GUARANTOR OR SURETY OF AN INSOLVENT'S OBLIGATION WILL NOT BE PERMITTED,
EITHER BY TAKING INDEMNITY FROM HIS PRINCIPAL OR BY VIRTUE OF HIS RIGHT
OF SUBROGATION, TO COMPETE WITH OTHER CREDITORS PAYMENT OF WHOSE CLAIMS
HE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO ASSURE, UNTIL THEY ARE PAID IN FULL.  IF THE
SURETY WERE ALLOWED TO PROVE HIS OWN CLAIM BEFORE THE CREDITOR IS PAID,
HE WOULD TO THAT EXTENT DIMINISH THE CREDITOR'S DIVIDENDS UPON HIS
CLAIM, AND THUS DEFEAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH HE HAD GIVEN THE
INDEMNITY.  UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 254 U.S. 73, 76;
JENKINS V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 277 U.S. 258; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V.
ELECTRIC CO., 296 U.S. 133; PEOPLES V. PEOPLES BROS., 254 F. 489; U.S.
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. UNION BANK & TRUST CO., 228 F. 448, 455. 
FOR LIKE REASONS EQUITY REQUIRES THE SURETY WHO HOLDS SECURITY OF THE
INSOLVENT PRINCIPAL TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF IT TO THE CREDITOR FOR WHOM
HE IS SURETY UNTIL THE DEBT IS PAID.  KELLER V. ASHFORD, 133 U.S. 610;
SEE CHAMBERLAIN V. ST. PAUL & SIOUX CITY R. CO., 92 U.S. 299, 306;
HAMPTON V. PHIPPS, 108 U.S. 260, 263; 4 POMEROY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE
(5TH ED.)  SEC.  1419.    BUT WE THINK THE EQUITABLE BASIS FOR
REQUIRING THE SURETY OR GUARANTOR TO POSTPONE THE ASSERTION OF RIGHTS
WHICH HE DERIVES FROM OR ARE INCIDENTAL TO HIS SURETYSHIP, TO THE
RIGHTS OF CREDITORS WHOM HE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO SECURE, IS WANTING HERE. 
THE RIGHTS ASSERTED BY PRUDENCE COMPANY IN THE MORTGAGE ARE NOT THOSE
OF A SUBROGEE; THEY WERE ACQUIRED INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS GUARANTY.  THEY
ARE NOT DERIVED FROM OR AN INCIDENT TO IT.  THEIR ASSERTION IS IN NO
WAY INCONSISTENT WITH ANY DUTY OR OBLIGATION IT ASSUMED BY ITS CONTRACT
OF GUARANTY.  BY THAT CONTRACT THE GUARANTOR PLEDGED ONLY ITS PERSONAL
OBLIGATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE CERTIFICATES.  IT GAVE TO THE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS NO LIEN UPON, OR OTHER PRIORITY RIGHT IN, ITS
INTEREST IN THE MORTGAGE MORE THAN TO ITS OTHER ASSETS. 

POSTPONEMENT OF ITS RIGHTS IN THE MORTGAGE TO THOSE OF THE OTHER
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AS OPERATING TO AVOID CIRCUITY
OF ACTION.  THE PRUDENCE COMPANY IS NOT SOLVENT.  ITS PROPERTY IS BEING
LIQUIDATED IN BANKRUPTCY, WHERE ALL THE CLAIMANTS ON ITS PRESENT AND
OTHER GUARANTY OBLIGATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO SHARE EQUALLY IN ITS
UNPLEDGED ASSETS.  DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO PROVE ITS CLAIM, WHICH IS AN
ASSET IN WHICH ALL OF PRUDENCE'S CREDITORS ARE OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO
SHARE, WILL SERVE ONLY TO DIVERT THIS ASSET FROM ALL CREDITORS TO ONE
CLASS OF CREDITORS, THE ZO-GALE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, AND THUS GIVE TO
THEM THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF A SECURITY FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NOT
BARGAINED.  ALLOWANCE OF THE PRUDENCE COMPANY'S CLAIM DOES NOT INVOLVE
ANY BREACH OF ITS DUTY AS GUARANTOR.  NOR DOES IT DEPRIVE CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO SHARE IN THIS ASSET PARI PASSU WITH THE OTHER
CREDITORS, OR OF ANY RIGHT, LEGAL OR EQUITABLE, TO WHICH THEY ARE
ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR POSITION AS GUARANTEED CREDITORS.  SEE
HAMPTON V. PHIPPS, SUPRA; PRAIRIE STATE BANK V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S.
227; HENNINGSEN V. U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 208 U.S. 404. 

SINCE THE NEW YORK RULE, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ACTUAL AGREEMENT TO
SUBORDINATE THE GUARANTOR, IS MERELY A GENERAL RULE OF LAW GOVERNING
INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NOT CONTROLLING IN BANKRUPTCY.  AND SINCE
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND NO AGREEMENT AND NO
EQUITABLE BASIS FOR DEPRIVING THE PRUDENCE COMPANY AND ITS CREDITORS OF
THE BENEFITS OF THE USUAL BANKRUPTCY RULE OF EQUALITY, THE JUDGMENT
BELOW MUST BE REVERSED. 
..END :










GORMAN V. WASHINGTON UNIV., 316 U.S. 98 


NO. 711.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 348 MO.
310, 153 S.W.2D 35, WRIT DISMISSED. 


1.  THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A DECISION BY A STATE
COURT WHICH IS NOT THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH A DECISION
COULD BE HAD.  JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(B).  P. 99. 

2.  UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF MISSOURI AND THE RULES OF THE STATE
SUPREME COURT, A JUDGMENT OF A DIVISION OF THAT COURT IN A CASE
INVOLVING A FEDERAL QUESTION IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF REVIEW BY THE FULL COURT
SITTING EN BANC.  P. 99. 

THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW SUCH A JUDGMENT UNLESS
THE PETITIONER HAS FIRST APPLIED FOR REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT BY THE FULL
COURT SITTING EN BANC. 

3.  UPON APPLICATION TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF A
STATE COURT IT IS THE PETITIONER'S BURDEN TO SHOW AFFIRMATIVELY THAT
THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION.  P. 101. 

GORMAN, CITY TREASURER OF KANSAS CITY, ET AL. V. WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 604, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A
JUDGMENT ENJOINING THE COLLECTION OF A TAX. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY,
MISSOURI, TO RESTRAIN THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF A TAX UPON ITS
REAL ESTATE.  THE VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION
AND STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE TAX WAS LAID WAS ASSAILED ON THE GROUND
THAT THEY VIOLATE THE TAX-EXEMPTION PROVISION OF RESPONDENT'S CHARTER
AND THEREFORE CONFLICT WITH THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
ARTICLE I, SEC. 10.  THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT ENJOINING COLLECTION OF THE TAX.  348 MO.
310, 153 S.W.2D 35.  BOTH COURTS HELD THAT THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION
AND STATUTES AS APPLIED VIOLATE RESPONDENT'S CHARTER PROVISIONS FOR TAX
EXEMPTION, AND INFRINGE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  CF.
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY V. ROUSE, 8 WALL.  439; WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY V.
BAUMANN, 341 MO. 708, 108 S.W.2D 403.  WE GRANTED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
314 U.S. 604, TO REVIEW THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION DECIDED BY THE
STATE COURT. 

UPON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD IT APPEARS THAT THE DECISION AND
JUDGMENT BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW WERE RENDERED BY DIVISION ONE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, WHICH CONSISTS OF FOUR OF THE SEVEN JUDGES
OF THE COURT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE JUDGMENT THUS RENDERED HAS
BEEN REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT SITTING EN BANC, OR THAT PETITIONERS
HAVE MADE APPLICATION, AS THEY COULD HAVE DONE UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE 1890
AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE VI OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, TO TRANSFER THE
CAUSE TO THE FULL COURT FOR REVIEW.  THE QUESTION THUS ARISES WHETHER
WE HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, WHICH
RESTRICTS OUR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS TO THOSE
CAUSES WHEREIN A JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED "BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A
STATE IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD." 

CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT THE SUPREME COURT SHALL CONSIST OF SEVEN
JUDGES AND "SHALL BE DIVIDED INTO TWO DIVISIONS," ONE OF FOUR AND THE
OTHER OF THREE JUDGES.  IT DIRECTS THAT A DIVISION SHALL SIT SEPARATELY
FOR THE HEARING AND DISPOSITION OF CAUSES, AND SHALL HAVE CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION OF ALL MATTERS AND CAUSES IN THE SUPREME COURT, EXCEPT
THAT DIVISION TWO SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE COGNIZANCE OF CRIMINAL CAUSES,
AND THAT THE "JUDGMENTS AND DECREES OF EITHER DIVISION, AS TO CAUSES
AND MATTERS PENDING BEFORE IT, SHALL HAVE THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF THOSE
OF THE COURT." 

BUT SEC. 1 ALSO CONTAINS A PROVISO THAT A CAUSE PENDING IN A DIVISION
MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 4.  SECTION 4 READS
AS FOLLOWS:  "WHEN THE JUDGES OF A DIVISION ARE EQUALLY DIVIDED IN
OPINION IN A CAUSE, OR WHEN A JUDGE OF A DIVISION DISSENTS FROM THE
OPINION THEREIN, OR WHEN A FEDERAL QUESTION IS INVOLVED, THE CAUSE, ON
THE APPLICATION OF THE LOSING PARTY, SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT
FOR ITS DECISION; ...  "  AND RULE 24 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF MISSOURI AUTHORIZES THE TRANSFER BY MOTION OF A CAUSE PURSUANT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, "FROM EITHER DIVISION TO COURT EN
BANC" "AFTER FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE BY THE DIVISION." 

UNDER THESE PROVISIONS, DIVISION ONE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
MISSOURI, SITTING IN THE PRESENT CAUSE, IN WHICH "A FEDERAL QUESTION IS
INVOLVED," WAS NOT THE LAST STATE COURT IN WHICH A DECISION OF THAT
QUESTION COULD BE HAD.  SUCH A CASE IS ONE WHICH "AFTER FINAL
DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE BY THE DIVISION" COULD ON PETITIONERS'
APPLICATION BE TRANSFERRED TO THE FULL COURT FOR REVIEW, AND THE
DECISION AND JUDGMENT RENDERED BY DIVISION ONE COULD BE SET ASIDE BY
THE COURT SITTING EN BANC.  SINCE THE CONSTITUTION OF MISSOURI HAS THUS
PROVIDED IN THIS CLASS OF CASES FOR REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF A
DIVISION, THE JUDGMENT HERE OF DIVISION ONE IS NOT THAT OF THE "HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH A DECISION COULD BE HAD" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, AS WELL
AS THAT OF ALL ITS PREDECESSORS, THAT NO DECISION OF A STATE COURT
SHOULD BE BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW EITHER BY APPEAL OR CERTIORARI UNTIL
THE POSSIBILITIES AFFORDED BY STATE PROCEDURE FOR ITS REVIEW BY ALL
STATE TRIBUNALS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  FISHER V. PERKINS, 122 U.S. 522;
MCCOMB V. COMMISSIONERS, 91 U.S. 1, 2; MCMASTER V. GOULD, 276 U.S. 284;
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC CO. V. STODDARD, 269 U.S. 186; STRATTON V. STRATTON,
239 U.S. 55; MULLEN V. WESTERN UNION BEEF CO., 173 U.S. 116; GREAT
WESTERN TELEGRAPH CO. V. BURNHAM, 162 U.S. 339.  HENCE IT IS THE LAST
STATE TRIBUNAL - HERE THE COURT EN BANC - TO WHICH THE CAUSE COULD BE
BROUGHT FOR REVIEW WHICH IS THE "HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE IN WHICH A
DECISION COULD BE HAD" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL
STATUTE, REGARDLESS OF THE PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OR DESIGNATION WHICH
MAY BE APPLIED TO IT BY STATE STATUTES. 

UPON APPLICATION TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE
COURT, IT IS THE PETITIONER'S BURDEN TO SHOW AFFIRMATIVELY THAT WE HAVE
JURISDICTION.  MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. BEELER, 315 U.S. 649.  AS THE
RECORD FAILS TO DISCLOSE THAT THE JUDGMENT, REVIEW OF WHICH IS NOW
SOUGHT, IS THAT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE IN WHICH A DECISION
COULD BE HAD, WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE WRIT MUST BE
DISMISSED. 
..END :





















WALEY V. JOHNSTON, 316 U.S. 101 


NO. 1006.  DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 124 F.2D 587, REVERSED. 


1.  A CONVICTION ON A PLEA OF GUILTY COERCED BY A FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS WANTING IN DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 103. 

2.  A PLEA OF GUILTY WHICH BECAUSE OF COERCION WILL NOT SUPPORT A
CONVICTION HAS NO VALIDITY AS A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO ASSAIL A
CONVICTION BASED ON THE PLEA.  P. 104. 

3.  THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A CONVICTION WAS VOID BECAUSE BASED ON A
COERCED PLEA OF GUILTY, WHEN DEPENDENT ON FACTS DEHORS THE RECORD OF
THE CRIMINAL CASE, AND NOT OPEN TO CONSIDERATION OR REVIEW ON APPEAL,
IS DETERMINABLE IN HABEAS CORPUS.  P. 104. 

4.  A DECISION DENYING A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS IN A CRIMINAL
CASE, RENDERED ON THE FACE OF THE PETITION AND WITHOUT A HEARING, AND
NOT SHOWN TO HAVE INVOLVED THE ISSUE RAISED LATER BY A PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS, HELD NOT RES JUDICATA AS APPLIED TO THE LATTER.  P.
105. 

5.  WHEN A MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT IS RAISED IN HABEAS CORPUS THE
PRISONER MUST BE PRODUCED AND THE MATTER HEARD BY THE COURT OR JUDGE. 
P. 104. 

WALEY V. JOHNSTON, WARDEN. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI (HEREIN GRANTED) TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A
JUDGMENT DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, 38
F.SUPP.  408. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER FILED HIS PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, ALLEGING UPON OATH THAT HE HAD BEEN COERCED, BY INTIMIDATION AND
THREATS BY AN AGENT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, TO PLEAD
GUILTY TO AN INDICTMENT FOR KIDNAPING, AND THAT HE IS HELD IN CUSTODY
BY RESPONDENT UNDER THE CONSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
COMMITMENT. 

THE PETITION STATED GENERALLY THAT THREATS OF FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AGENTS TO THROW PETITIONER OUT OF A WINDOW AND "BEAT ME
UP" "DIDN'T BOTHER ME."  BUT IT SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER'S
PLEA OF GUILTY HAD BEEN INDUCED BY THE THREATS OF A NAMED FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AGENT TO PUBLISH FALSE STATEMENTS AND
MANUFACTURE FALSE EVIDENCE THAT THE KIDNAPED PERSON HAD BEEN INJURED,
AND BY SUCH PUBLICATIONS AND FALSE EVIDENCE TO INCITE THE PUBLIC AND TO
CAUSE THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TO HANG THE PETITIONER AND THE OTHER
DEFENDANTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A WRIT SHOULD
NOT ISSUE, AND APPOINTED COUNSEL TO REPRESENT PETITIONER.  RESPONDENT'S
RETURN TO THE ORDER INCLUDED CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE DOCKET ENTRIES,
INDICTMENT, TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ON ARRAIGNMENT, ENTRY OF PLEA,
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE, AND COMMITMENT PAPERS.  THE TRANSCRIPT DISCLOSES
THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD EXPLAINED TO PETITIONER HIS RIGHT TO BE
ASSISTED BY COUNSEL AND HAD APPOINTED COUNSEL WHO REPRESENTED HIM AT
THE TRIAL.  THE RETURN ALSO INCLUDED AN AFFIDAVIT OF A SPECIAL AGENT OF
THE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NOT THE ONE MENTIONED IN THE PETITION,
STATING THAT PETITIONER, IN AFFIANT'S PRESENCE, VOLUNTARILY SIGNED TWO
STATEMENTS CONFESSING HIS GUILT, AND THAT NO THREAT OR PROMISE TO
PETITIONER OF ANY KIND WAS MADE IN AFFIANT'S PRESENCE.  THE RETURN MADE
NO DENIAL OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF COERCION SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH AND
RELIED ON IN THE PETITION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT WITHOUT
HEARING EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF THE PRISONER
IN COURT.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF COERCION BY THREATENING
TO PUBLISH FALSE STATEMENTS AND MANUFACTURE FALSE EVIDENCE WERE
INCONSISTENT WITH PETITIONER'S STATEMENT THAT THREATS BY GOVERNMENT
AGENTS TO THROW HIM OUT OF THE WINDOW AND BEAT HIM UP "DIDN'T BOTHER"
HIM; THAT THE TRANSCRIPT FILED WITH THE RETURN SHOWED THAT PETITIONER
WAS NEITHER "ACTUATED NOR INDUCED BY FEAR"; AND THAT AN EARLIER
DECISION OF THE SENTENCING JUDGE DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR A
WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS WAS RES JUDICATA. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 124 F.2D 587.  IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT PETITIONER WHEN
HE PLEADED GUILTY HAD BEEN REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, A MAJORITY OF THE
COURT THOUGHT HE COULD NOT BY HABEAS CORPUS ATTACK HIS SENTENCE ON THE
GROUND THAT HIS PLEA WAS COERCED.  THE OPINION STATES THAT PETITIONER
"WAIVED THE DEFENSE AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, IF ANY HE HAD, AND
CANNOT ASSERT IT NOW ON HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS."  THE CASE IS BEFORE
US ON A MOTION OF PETITIONER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON HIS
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND THE GOVERNMENT'S CONFESSION OF ERROR.  WE
GRANT THE MOTION AND THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONFESSES ERROR FOR THE REASON THAT THE HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION RAISES THE MATERIAL ISSUE WHETHER THE PLEA WAS IN FACT COERCED
BY THE PARTICULAR THREATS ALLEGED WHICH STAND UNDENIED ON THE RECORD,
AND THAT UPON THAT ISSUE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING IN
ACCORDANCE WITH WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275. 

TRUE, PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE MAY
TAX CREDULITY.  BUT IN VIEW OF THEIR SPECIFIC NATURE, THEIR LACK OF ANY
NECESSARY RELATION TO THE OTHER THREATS ALLEGED, AND THE FAILURE OF
RESPONDENT TO DENY OR TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS FAILURE TO DENY THEM
SPECIFICALLY, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT ONE CALLING FOR A
HEARING WITHIN THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN WALKER V. JOHNSTON, SUPRA.
IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE FOUND TO BE TRUE, PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS WERE INFRINGED.  FOR A CONVICTION ON A PLEA OF GUILTY COERCED BY
A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS NO MORE CONSISTENT WITH DUE
PROCESS THAN A CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY A COERCED CONFESSION.  BRAM V.
UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532, 543; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227. 
AND IF HIS PLEA WAS SO COERCED AS TO DEPRIVE IT OF VALIDITY TO SUPPORT
THE CONVICTION, THE COERCION LIKEWISE DEPRIVED IT OF VALIDITY AS A
WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO ASSAIL THE CONVICTION.  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304
U.S. 458, 467. 

THE ISSUE HERE WAS APPROPRIATELY RAISED BY THE HABEAS CORPUS
PETITION.  THE FACTS RELIED ON ARE DEHORS THE RECORD AND THEIR EFFECT
ON THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPEN TO CONSIDERATION AND REVIEW ON APPEAL.  IN
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE USE OF THE WRIT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO TEST
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A CONVICTION FOR CRIME IS NOT RESTRICTED
TO THOSE CASES WHERE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS VOID FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT TO RENDER IT.  IT EXTENDS ALSO TO THOSE
EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE THE CONVICTION HAS BEEN IN DISREGARD OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED, AND WHERE THE WRIT IS THE ONLY
EFFECTIVE MEANS OF PRESERVING HIS RIGHTS.  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S.
86; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103; BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19,
24. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO A DECISION ON HABEAS
CORPUS REFUSING TO DISCHARGE A PRISONER, SALINGER V. LOISEL, 265 U.S.
224.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ON PETITIONER'S EARLIER APPLICATION FOR A
WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS THE SAME ISSUE WAS RAISED AS THAT NOW PRESENTED. 
THE EARLIER APPLICATION WAS DENIED FOR INSUFFICIENCY UPON ITS FACE AND
WITHOUT A HEARING.  THERE IS THUS NO BASIS FOR THE HOLDING OF THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT THE DENIAL IS RES JUDICATA OF THE PRESENT
PETITION. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW WILL BE VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR A
HEARING IN CONFORMITY TO WALKER V. JOHNSTON, SUPRA.  SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















LABOR BOARD V. NEVADA COPPER CO., 316 U.S. 105 


NO. 774.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 122 F.2D
587, REVERSED. 


FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE ARE CONCLUSIVE.  P. 106. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NEVADA CONSOLIDATED COPPER CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 789, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REFUSING TO ENFORCE AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS CASE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND THAT
RESPONDENT, IN REFUSING TO REEMPLOY A NUMBER OF ITS FORMER EMPLOYEES
AND TO EMPLOY TWO NEW APPLICANTS, HAD DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THEM IN
ORDER TO DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR UNION IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(1) AND (3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 151.  THE BOARD MADE ITS ORDER DIRECTING EMPLOYMENT OF
THESE INDIVIDUALS WITH BACK PAY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED
TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT ITS FINDINGS WERE
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  122 F.2D 587. 

EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE BOARD COULD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT'S
REFUSAL TO EMPLOY THE MEN WAS MOTIVATED BY ITS BELIEF THAT THEY HAD
ENGAGED OR THREATENED TO ENGAGE IN DESTRUCTION OF RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY
AND HAD THREATENED TO INJURE SOME OF RESPONDENT'S MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES
AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES.  THERE WAS ALSO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
FROM WHICH THE BOARD COULD HAVE CONCLUDED, AS IT DID, THAT RESPONDENT'S
MOTIVE FOR REFUSING THE EMPLOYMENT WAS DISCOURAGEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP IN
A LABOR UNION.  THE POSSIBILITY OF DRAWING EITHER OF TWO INCONSISTENT
INFERENCES FROM THE EVIDENCE DID NOT PREVENT THE BOARD FROM DRAWING ONE
OF THEM, AS THE COURT BELOW SEEMS TO HAVE THOUGHT. 

WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT CONGRESS, BY PROVIDING, SEC. 10(C), (E)
AND (F), OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THAT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS
"AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE,"
PRECLUDES THE COURTS FROM WEIGHING EVIDENCE IN REVIEWING THE BOARD'S
ORDERS, AND IF THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THE
COURTS ARE NOT FREE TO SET THEM ASIDE, EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD COULD HAVE
DRAWN DIFFERENT INFERENCES.  LABOR BOARD V. LINK-BELT CO., 311 U.S.
584, AND CASES CITED; LABOR BOARD V. AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE CO., 315
U.S. 282; CF. SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 307;
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. PACIFIC PAPER ASSN., 273 U.S. 52, 63; FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. ALGOMA CO., 291 U.S. 67, 73.  SINCE UPON AN EXAMINATION
OF THE RECORD WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE BOARD ARE
WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE, THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED
WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER, BUT WITH THE MODIFICATION
PROPOSED BY THE BOARD TO CONFORM TO OUR DECISION IN REPUBLIC STEEL
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7.  REVERSED. 
..END :


















HELVERING V. CREDIT ALLIANCE CO., 316 U.S. 107 


NO. 708.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 122 F.2D
361, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 27(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, A DISTRIBUTION IN
LIQUIDATION OF SURPLUS ACCUMULATED SINCE FEBRUARY 28, 1913, IS TO BE
TREATED, IN COMPUTING THE DIVIDENDS-PAID CREDIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 14 ON UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME, AS A TAXABLE
DIVIDEND PAID.  P. 110. 

SO HELD ALTHOUGH, UNDER SEC. 112(B)(6), THE DISTRIBUTION RESULTED IN
NO GAIN OR LOSS TO THE DISTRIBUTEE FOR TAX PURPOSES; AND ALTHOUGH THE
DISTRIBUTEE DID NOT, IN THE TAX YEAR OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION, DISTRIBUTE
TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS ANY PART OF THE DISTRIBUTION, AND DID NOT APPORTION
OR ALLOCATE TO THE DISTRIBUTOR ANY PART THEREOF. 

2.  THE CLAUSE "PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS
ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913" IN SUBSECTION 27(F) REFERS TO THE
EARNINGS OR PROFITS OF THE DISTRIBUTOR, NOT TO THOSE OF THE
DISTRIBUTEE.  P. 111. 

3.  SUBSECTION (H) OF SEC. 27 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, DEALING
WITH "NONTAXABLE DISTRIBUTIONS," IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE, AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION HERE OF SUBSECTION (F).  P.
112. 

4.  BECAUSE THE DISTRIBUTION IN THIS CASE WAS OF PROPERTY AND MONEY,
AND NOT OF STOCK OR SECURITIES, SEC. 115(H) AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME
OF THIS TRANSACTION IS INAPPLICABLE; AND (CONSIDERING THE UNAMBIGUOUS
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 27(F)) THE POLICY DISCLOSED BY ITS SUBSEQUENT
AMENDMENT MAY NOT BE READ INTO IT.  P. 112. 

5.  TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, ART. 27(F), HELD CONTRARY TO SUBSECTION
(F) OF SEC. 27 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 AND AN ATTEMPT TO ADD A
SUPPLEMENTARY LEGISLATIVE PROVISION, AND THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE.  P.
113. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. CREDIT ALLIANCE CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 604, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 42 B.T.A. 1020, SETTING ASIDE A DETERMINATION
OF A DEFICIENCY IN UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ACQUIRED AND
OWNED OVER 99% OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE RESPONDENT, A NEW YORK
CORPORATION ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS.  IN 1936 THE RESPONDENT'S
STOCKHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS RESOLVED TO LIQUIDATE THE CORPORATION AND TO
MAKE DISTRIBUTION TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS IN LIQUIDATION.  PART OF THE
DISTRIBUTION SO MADE IN 1936 WAS OF CASH AND PROPERTY CONSTITUTING
SURPLUS EARNED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913, OF THE VALUE OF $950,734.  OF
THIS, COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY'S SHARE WAS $947,228.  FURTHER
DISTRIBUTIONS WERE MADE IN 1937, AND FINAL DISTRIBUTION IN 1938, AND
THE CORPORATION WAS LEGALLY DISSOLVED.  THE LIQUIDATION COMPLIED WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 112(B)(6) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936,  FN1
UNDER WHICH NO GAIN OR LOSS FOR TAX PURPOSES WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY AS A RESULT OF THE DISTRIBUTION.  THAT
CORPORATION DID NOT, IN 1936, DISTRIBUTE TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS ANY OF THE
DISTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE RESPONDENT AND DID NOT APPORTION
OR ALLOCATE ANY PART THEREOF TO THE RESPONDENT. 

THE QUESTION IS, TO WHAT DIVIDENDS-PAID CREDIT IS THE RESPONDENT
ENTITLED UNDER THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936. 
FN2 

BY SEC. 14 THERE WAS IMPOSED FOR THE FIRST TIME A TAX UPON
"UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME."  IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE BASE FOR THIS LEVY
THE DIVIDENDS-PAID CREDIT IS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM ADJUSTED NET INCOME. 

PROVIDES THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF TITLE I OF THE ACT, THE DIVIDENDS
PAID CREDIT SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS PAID DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR.  EACH OF THE ADDITIONAL SUBSECTIONS DEALS WITH A SEPARATE TOPIC
RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION AND ALLOWANCE OF THE CREDIT.  THE ONLY ONES
HERE OF IMPORTANCE ARE (F) AND (H). 

"(F)  DISTRIBUTIONS IN LIQUIDATION.  - IN THE CASE OF AMOUNTS
DISTRIBUTED IN LIQUIDATION THE PART OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION WHICH IS
PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER
FEBRUARY 28, 1913, SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE DIVIDENDS
PAID CREDIT UNDER THIS SECTION, BE TREATED AS A TAXABLE DIVIDEND
PAID." 

"(H)  NONTAXABLE DISTRIBUTIONS.  - IF ANY PART OF A DISTRIBUTION
(INCLUDING STOCK DIVIDENDS AND STOCK RIGHTS) IS NOT A TAXABLE DIVIDEND
IN THE HANDS OF SUCH OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AS ARE SUBJECT TO TAXATION
UNDER THIS TITLE FOR THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE DISTRIBUTION IS MADE, NO
DIVIDENDS PAID CREDIT SHALL BE ALLOWED WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PART." 

THE TAXPAYER INSISTS THAT THE DISTRIBUTION IN QUESTION IS GOVERNED BY
THE PROVISIONS OF (F).  THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT IT IS NOT, FOR
THESE REASONS:  THAT THE PHRASE "WHICH IS PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE
EARNINGS OR PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913" TAKES THE
DISTRIBUTION OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF THE SECTION; THAT (H) DENIES THE
BENEFIT OF (F) TO THE TAXPAYER IF THE MONEY OR PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IS
NOT TAXABLE TO THE DISTRIBUTEE; THAT THE POLICY OF THE ACT, AND THE
PURPOSE UNDERLYING PROVISIONS OTHER THAN SEC. 27, REQUIRE THAT (F) BE
NOT CONSTRUED AS PERMITTING THE CREDIT WHERE THE DISTRIBUTION GIVES
RISE TO NO TAX UPON THE DISTRIBUTEE, AND THAT AN APPLICABLE REGULATION
PRECLUDES THE CREDIT. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S SECOND CONTENTION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT,  FN3 BUT BOTH THE FIRST AND THE
SECOND HAVE BEEN OVERRULED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT,  FN4  AND BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND THE COURT
BELOW IN THE INSTANT CASE.  FN5  IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICT, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

1.  ALTHOUGH A DISTRIBUTION IN LIQUIDATION OF EARNINGS WHICH ACCRUED
SUBSEQUENTLY TO FEBRUARY 28, 1913, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DIVIDEND IN
THE PROPER SENSE OF THE TERM,  FN6  SUBSECTION (F) CATEGORICALLY
DECLARES THAT A LIQUIDATING DISTRIBUTION, TO THE EXTENT IT IS COMPOSED
OF SUCH EARNINGS, SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE
DIVIDENDSPAID CREDIT "BE TREATED AS A TAXABLE DIVIDEND PAID."  PLAINLY
THE SECTION INTENDS THAT A DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH EARNINGS SHALL BE
CONSIDERED A DIVIDEND.  FURTHER IT PROVIDES THAT THE DISTRIBUTING
CORPORATION MAY USE THE AMOUNT IN COMPUTING ITS CREDIT FOR DIVIDENDS
PAID.  AND, TO PUT THE MATTER BEYOND CAVIL, THE SECTION ALSO SAYS THAT
THE DISTRIBUTION SHALL BE TREATED AS THE PAYMENT TO THE DISTRIBUTEE OF
A TAXABLE DIVIDEND. 

THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT THE CLAUSE "PROPERLY
CHARGEABLE TO THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28,
1913," MEANS PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE DISTRIBUTEE AS SUCH EARNINGS OR
PROFITS.  THE ARGUMENT HAS, WE THINK, RIGHTLY BEEN REJECTED BY ALL THE
COURTS WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED IT.  THE LINE DRAWN IN ALL OF THE REVENUE
ACTS BETWEEN PROFITS ACCUMULATED BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE FIRST
INCOME TAX ACT AND AFTER THAT DATE, FOR DISTINGUISHING CAPITAL AND
INCOME, FURNISHES THE REASON FOR THE INSERTION OF THE CLAUSE IN
SUBSECTION (F).  SECTION 27 DEALS WITH A CREDIT TO THE DISTRIBUTING
CORPORATION AND THE PHRASE FINDS ITS PROPER OFFICE IN LIMITING THE
AMOUNT OF THE DISTRIBUTION IN LIQUIDATION WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED A
DIVIDEND FROM EARNINGS OR PROFITS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ONE COMPOSED OF
CAPITAL.  WE, THEREFORE, CONCLUDE THAT (F), STANDING ALONE, JUSTIFIES
THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT. 

2. IT IS URGED THAT THE SWEEPING PROVISION OF (H) PRECLUDES THE
APPLICATION OF (F) IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED, BECAUSE (H) DENIES
THE CREDIT UNLESS THE AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED IS TAXABLE TO THE
DISTRIBUTEE.  BY CONCESSION, THE DISTRIBUTION HERE DOES NOT RESULT IN
GAIN OR LOSS TO THE PARENT COMPANY.  THE ARGUMENT IS, IN EFFECT, THAT
(H) CREATES AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE FORMULATED BY (F). 

AS ABOVE SAID, EACH OF THE SUBSECTIONS OF SEC. 27 DEALS WITH A
SPECIFIC AND PARTICULAR TOPIC.  SUBSECTION (F) DEALS WITH
"DISTRIBUTIONS IN LIQUIDATION" WHILE SUBSECTION (H) DEALS WITH
"NONTAXABLE DISTRIBUTIONS."  IF (F) APPLIES IN THIS CASE, (H) IS LEFT
TO COVER A SUBSTANTIAL FIELD OF OTHER SORTS OF DISTRIBUTIONS.  WE
SHOULD, OF COURSE, READ THE TWO SECTIONS AS CONSISTENT RATHER THAN
CONFLICTING, IF THAT BE POSSIBLE.  HERE, IT IS NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT
BEGETS NO ABSURD OR IMPRACTICAL RESULT.  WE HOLD THAT (H) IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THAT (F) IS. 

3.  THE PETITIONER POINTS OUT THAT THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 INTRODUCED
A NEW POLICY, - TO TAX UNDISTRIBUTED EARNINGS IN ORDER TO PREVENT A
TAXPAYER FROM ACCUMULATING UNTAXED SURPLUS, BY FORCING THE PAYMENT OF
DIVIDENDS WHICH BECOME TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE DISTRIBUTEE.  THIS
IS TRUE, BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE ACT MADE DISTRIBUTIONS TO PARENT
CORPORATIONS NONTAXABLE IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE THE SIMPLIFICATION OF
CORPORATE STRUCTURES; IT WAS AVOWEDLY FOR THIS REASON THAT SEC.
112(B)(6) PROVIDED THAT NO GAIN OR LOSS TO THE PARENT COMPANY SHOULD IN
SUCH CASE BE RECOGNIZED, AND IT MAY WELL BE THAT SUBSECTION (F) OF SEC.
27 WAS INSERTED WITH THE SAME PURPOSE.  THE GOVERNMENT THAT, AS SEC.
115(H)  FN7  PROVIDES THAT A DISTRIBUTION OF THE TAXPAYER'S STOCK OR
SECURITIES, OR THOSE OF ANOTHER CORPORATION, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A
DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS OR PROFITS OF THE TAXPAYER IF NO GAIN TO THE
DISTRIBUTEE FROM THE RECEIPT OF SUCH STOCK OR SECURITIES IS RECOGNIZED
BY THE LAW, SUBSECTION (F) MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE POLICY THUS
DECLARED BY SEC. 115(H).  THE LATTER SECTION IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS
CONTROVERSY, BECAUSE THE DISTRIBUTION HERE WAS IN PROPERTY AND MONEY,
AND NOT IN STOCK OR SECURITIES.  SECTION 115(H) WAS AMENDED IN 1938,
SUBSEQUENT TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTION HERE IN QUESTION, TO
INCLUDE MONEY OR PROPERTY, BUT WE CANNOT, AS THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS,
READ INTO THE SECTION, AS IT STOOD WHEN THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE, AN
INTENT DERIVED FROM THE POLICY DISCLOSED BY THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT. 

WE SHALL NOT BURDEN THIS OPINION BY EXTENDED REFERENCE TO THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT OF 1936.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT IT IS
INCONCLUSIVE AND, TO SOME EXTENT, SUPPORTS THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH
PARTIES.  BUT WHATEVER MAY BE SAID OF THE POLICY BEHIND THE STATUTE'S
PROVISIONS, WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISREGARD THE DIRECT AND
UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF SUBSECTION (F). 

4.  TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, ART. 27(F), DECLARE THAT ONE MAKING A
LIQUIDATING DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS ACCUMULATED SINCE FEBRUARY 28,
1913, MUST BE DENIED THE DIVIDENDS CREDIT IN RESPECT OF SUCH
DISTRIBUTION UNLESS THE AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED IS TAXABLE IN THE SAME YEAR
TO THE DISTRIBUTEE, BUT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT IF THE DISTRIBUTEE, IN
THAT YEAR, MAKES A DISTRIBUTION WHICH ENTITLES IT TO A DIVIDENDS CREDIT
IT MAY ALLOCATE A PROPER PROPORTION THEREOF TO THE DISTRIBUTOR OF THE
LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND.  IT IS INSISTED THAT THE SITUATION PRESENTED TO
THE TREASURY BY THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 WAS
CONFUSED AND COMPLEX, AND THE ADOPTION OF THE REGULATION WAS PROPER IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SHOULD CONTROL. 

IN VIEW OF WHAT WE HAVE SAID AS TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF SUBSECTION
(F), WE THINK THAT NO COMPLEXITY OR CONFUSION IS DISCOVERABLE AND THAT
THE REGULATION NOT ONLY WAS CONTRADICTORY OF THE PLAIN TERMS OF THE
SUBSECTION BUT ATTEMPTED TO ADD A SUPPLEMENTARY LEGISLATIVE PROVISION,
WHICH COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN ENACTED BY CONGRESS.  WE HOLD, THEREFORE,
THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT IN REFUSING TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
REGULATION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 1648, 1679. 

FN2  SECS. 14, 27, AND 112, 49 STAT. 1648, 1655, 1665, 1678. 

FN3  CENTENNIAL OIL CO. V. THOMAS, 109 F.2D 359, HUTCHESON, J.,
DISSENTING. 

FN4  COMMISSIONER V. KAY MFG. CORP., 122 F.2D 443. 

FN5  42 B.T.A. 1020; 122 F.2D 361. 

FN6  HELLMICH V. HELLMAN, 276 U.S. 233. 

FN7  49 STAT. 1688. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE REED, AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
DISSENT.  THEY ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE ART. 27(F) OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS 94 RESOLVES THE AMBIGUITIES BETWEEN SEC. 27(F) AND SEC.
27(H) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, IT IS A VALID INTERPRETATIVE
REGULATION AND A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY. 
..END :

















GOLDSTEIN V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 114 


NO. 256.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 120
F.2D 485, AFFIRMED. 


INADMISSIBLE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN A FEDERAL COURT, TESTIMONY
(OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE) OF WITNESSES WHO WERE INDUCED TO TESTIFY BY THE
USE, IN ADVANCE OF THE TRIAL, OF COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTED IN
VIOLATION OF THE ACT, BUT TO WHICH COMMUNICATIONS THE DEFENDANTS WERE
NOT PARTIES.  P. 117. 

GOLDSTEIN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 588, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS OF
USING THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD AND OF CONSPIRACY TO DO SO. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 605 OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT  FN1  BY THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY IN A FEDERAL
CRIMINAL TRIAL.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED, AND A
CLAIMED CONFLICT WITH OUR DECISIONS, MOVED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS WERE INDICTED UNDER THE MAIL FRAUD  FN2
AND CONSPIRACY  FN3 STATUTES.  THE ALLEGED SCHEME WAS TO DEFRAUD
INSURANCE COMPANIES BY PRESENTING FALSE CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY
BENEFITS. 

AT THE OPENING OF THE TRIAL, THE PETITIONERS MOVED THAT THE COURT
SUPPRESS ALL RECORDS AND TRANSCRIPTS OF INTERCEPTED TELEPHONE MESSAGES;
SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED BY THE USE OF SUCH
MESSAGES; SUPPRESS THE TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESS OBTAINED IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE BY THE USE OF SUCH MESSAGES, AND THAT OF ANY WITNESS WHOSE
RECOLLECTION HAD BEEN REFRESHED OR AIDED BY SUCH MESSAGES. 

A PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS CONDUCTED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PRACTICE ESTABLISHED IN NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S.
338.  THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECT OF CONTENTION WAS THE PROSPECTIVE TESTIMONY
OF MESSMAN AND GARROW, ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS WHO, THE PETITIONERS
ASSERTED, HAD CONFESSED AND TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE BECAUSE THEY HAD
BEEN CONFRONTED WITH INTERCEPTED TELEPHONE MESSAGES.  MESSMAN AND
GARROW WERE PARTIES TO THESE MESSAGES, OR SOME OF THEM, BUT THE
PETITIONERS WERE NOT.  FN4  THE JUDGE ORDERED ALL RECORDS AND
TRANSCRIPTS OF INTERCEPTED MESSAGES SUPPRESSED AS WELL AS ALL EVIDENCE
OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF SUCH MESSAGES, BUT HE REFUSED TO ORDER
SUPPRESSION OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES WHOSE MEMORIES HAD BEEN
REFRESHED OR AIDED THEREBY.  HE RESERVED TO THE TRIAL FINAL DECISION ON
SO MUCH OF THE MOTION AS REQUESTED THE SUPPRESSION OF TESTIMONY ALLEGED
TO BE THE RESULT OF INFORMATION DERIVED FROM THE MESSAGES. 

AT THE TRIAL, GOVERNMENT WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT WIRE TAPPING HAD
NOT FURNISHED CLUES USED IN PREPARING THE CASE.  MESSMAN AND GARROW
WERE PERMITTED TO TESTIFY TO THE FACTS OF WHICH THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE
KNOWLEDGE, OVER THE OBJECTION OF PETITIONERS.  THEY DID NOT REFER TO
ANY INTERCEPTED MESSAGES OR TO THEIR CONTENTS. 

THE PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED AND THE JUDGMENTS WERE AFFIRMED ON
APPEAL.  FN5  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE CONVICTIONS
OUGHT NOT TO STAND IF EITHER MESSMAN OR GARROW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ALLOWED TO TESTIFY.  IT THOUGHT THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVING PROVED
DIVULGENCE BY FEDERAL OFFICERS OF THE MESSAGES TO THE WITNESSES, THE
BURDEN WAS UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE THAT THEIR TESTIMONY WAS NOT
INDUCED THEREBY; THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE FAILED TO FIND THE WIRE TAPPING
HAD NOT BEEN A MEANS OF INDUCING THEM TO TESTIFY, BUT FOUND ONLY THAT
THE PETITIONERS HAD FAILED TO PROVE IT HAD BEEN THE MEANS.  IN THIS
SITUATION THE COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT IF THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY
INDUCED BY USE OF THE MESSAGES WAS PROHIBITED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS
ACT, THE JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE REVERSED.  THE COURT RULED, HOWEVER, THAT,
AS THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT PARTIES TO ANY OF THE INTERCEPTED
COMMUNICATIONS, THEY HAD NO STANDING TO OBJECT TO THEIR DIVULGENCE.  IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, IT RULED THAT THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT A DIVULGENCE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 605, BUT, AT MOST, THE PRESENTATION IN COURT
OF EVIDENCE PROCURED THROUGH PAST DIVULGENCES.  THE COURT ALSO
OVERRULED PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS THAT THEY HAD BEEN DENIED THEIR FULL
RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND THAT THE
CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS IMPROPER. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR BUT FIND NO SUBSTANCE
IN ANY OF THEM SAVE THOSE WHICH GO TO THE ADMISSION OF MESSMAN'S AND
GARROW'S TESTIMONY.  IN BRIEFS AND ORAL ARGUMENT, THE PARTIES HAVE
LABORED THE SUBJECT OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. 
THE PETITIONERS SAY IT LAY WITH THE GOVERNMENT AFTER A SHOWING OF WIRE
TAPPING AND DIVULGENCE; THE RESPONDENT SAYS IT LAY WITH THE PETITIONERS
THROUGHOUT.  EACH ASSERTS THE OTHER FAILED TO CARRY IT.  IN OUR VIEW, A
DECISION UPON THE POINT IS UNNECESSARY. 

WE COME TO THE CAPITAL AND PIVOTAL QUESTION:  ASSUMING THE WITNESSES'
TESTIMONY WAS INDUCED BY DIVULGING TO THEM THE CONTENTS OF INTERCEPTED
TELEPHONE MESSAGES, WAS THE ADMISSION OF THIS TESTIMONY ERRONEOUS?  WE
HOLD THAT IT WAS NOT. 

THE PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT SEC. 605 OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
ACT FORBIDS THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY THE USE IN ADVANCE OF
THE TRIAL OF UNLAWFULLY INTERCEPTED TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS, AND THAT
ONE WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO SUCH COMMUNICATIONS HAS STANDING TO OBJECT
TO THE ADMISSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE.  THEY INSIST THAT THE DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT IN WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 321, AND NARDONE V.
UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338, REQUIRE US SO TO HOLD AND THAT THE COURT
BELOW, IN RULING TO THE CONTRARY, FAILED TO FOLLOW THOSE DECISIONS. 

IT MAY BE HELPFUL IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE CONTENTIONS TO QUOTE
THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE STATUTE AND TO RECAPITULATE THIS COURT'S
DECISIONS IN CASES INVOLVING THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF ITS TERMS.  THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION DECLARE
THAT " ...  NO PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER SHALL
INTERCEPT ANY COMMUNICATION AND DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE EXISTENCE,
CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT, OR MEANING OF SUCH INTERCEPTED
COMMUNICATION TO ANY PERSON," AND THAT "NO PERSON HAVING RECEIVED SUCH
INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION OR HAVING BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH THE
CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT, OR MEANING OF THE SAME OR ANY
PART THEREOF, KNOWING THAT SUCH INFORMATION WAS SO OBTAINED, SHALL
DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE EXISTENCE, CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT,
OR MEANING OF THE SAME OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR USE THE SAME OR ANY
INFORMATION THEREIN CONTAINED FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ANOTHER NOT ENTITLED THERETO.  ...  " 

IN NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379, WE HELD THAT THE
GOVERNMENT'S INTRODUCTION OF TRANSCRIPTS AND RECORDINGS OF INTERCEPTED
INTERSTATE MESSAGES IN THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE CONSTITUTED A
DIVULGENCE OF SUCH MESSAGES CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE
STATUTE. 

IN WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 321, INTRASTATE TELEPHONE
COMMUNICATIONS WERE INTERCEPTED BY FEDERAL AGENTS, THEIR CONTENTS WERE
DIVULGED TO CERTAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS, AND, AS A RESULT, THESE
DEFENDANTS CONFESSED AND AGREED TO TURN STATE'S EVIDENCE.  THEY WERE
PERMITTED TO TESTIFY TO THE CONTENTS OF THE MESSAGES.  WE HELD THAT THE
INTERDICTION OF THE STATUTE EXTENDED TO THE INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE
OF INTRASTATE AS WELL AS INTERSTATE MESSAGES.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FACTS WE DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM THAT THE WITNESSES' TESTIFYING
TO THE CONTENTS OF THE MESSAGES AMOUNTED TO AN AUTHORIZATION BY THEM,
AS SENDERS, OF THE DIVULGENCE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE STATUTE. 

IN NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT
UNLAWFULLY INTERCEPTED MESSAGES HAD BEEN USED TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE
AGAINST THE SENDERS, AND THAT SUCH USE, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED, OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE SENDERS, WHO WERE
DEFENDANTS, CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THE PURPOSE AND POLICY OF THE
STATUTE.  WE HELD THAT, IF THE FACTS SUSTAINED THE CLAIM, THE EVIDENCE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, AND WE FORMULATED A PROCEDURE FOR
ASCERTAINING THE FACTS. 

IN NONE OF THESE CASES DID THIS COURT PASS UPON THE QUESTION NOW
PRESENTED.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE WITNESSES WHO CONFESSED AND TURNED
STATE'S EVIDENCE DID NOT TESTIFY EITHER TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS OR TO THEIR CONTENTS.  THE CONTENTS OF MESSAGES TO SOME
OF WHICH THEY WERE PARTIES, BUT TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT
PARTIES, WERE USED BY THE GOVERNMENT, AS WE ASSUME, TO PERSUADE THE
WITNESSES TO TESTIFY.  WE FURTHER ASSUME THAT THE INTERCEPTION AND
DIVULGENCE OF THE MESSAGES TO THESE WITNESSES WAS UNLAWFUL BECAUSE NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER. 

THE PETITIONERS URGE THAT OUR DECISION IN WEISS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, NECESSARILY INVOLVED THE RULING THAT ONE WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO
THE INTERCEPTED MESSAGES HAS STANDING TO OBJECT TO THEIR DIVULGENCE AT
THE TRIAL, AND, IN VIEW OF OUR APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IN NARDONE V.
UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338, HE HAS STANDING TO OBJECT TO TESTIMONY
INDUCED AS A RESULT OF UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION AND USE OF THE MESSAGES. 

THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED WAS NOT DECIDED IN WEISS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.  THE CHARGE WAS CONSPIRACY.  GOLDSTEIN, WHO WAS NOT A
PARTICIPANT, AND OTHER DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE PARTICIPANTS, IN THE
INTERCEPTED CONVERSATIONS, WERE TRIED TOGETHER.  ALL OBJECTED TO
TESTIMONY RESPECTING THE CONVERSATIONS.  WE HELD THE EVIDENCE
INADMISSIBLE.  THE FACT THAT GOLDSTEIN WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE
COMMUNICATIONS WAS NOT OVERLOOKED.  IN THE OPINION RENDERED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IT WAS HELD THAT THE FACT COULD NOT SUSTAIN
HIS CONVICTION IF THE MESSAGES WERE ERRONEOUSLY INTRODUCED.  FN6  THIS
COURT ASSUMED, IN DECIDING THE CASE, THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT, IF THE ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE WAS WRONG
AS TO THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGMENT OUGHT TO BE REVERSED AS TO
ALL.  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF OPINION IN THE PRESENT
CASE THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MESSAGES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED
IN THE WEISS CASE AGAINST ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS AND EXCLUDED AS TO THE
OTHERS, WITH ANY REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT PREJUDICE WOULD NOT HAVE
RESULTED TO THE DEFENDANTS AS TO WHOM THE ADMISSION OF THE MESSAGES
WOULD HAVE BEEN ERROR.  FN7  IN THIS VIEW WE CONCUR. 

NONE OF THE PETITIONERS WAS A PARTY TO THE COMMUNICATIONS USED IN
OBTAINING THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  NO PREJUDICE, THEREFORE, COULD
RESULT BY REASON OF THE DIFFICULTY OF NULLIFYING THE EFFECT UPON SOME
DEFENDANTS OF EVIDENCE INCOMPETENT AS TO THEM BUT COMPETENT AS AGAINST
OTHER DEFENDANTS. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE
PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT CANNOT BE USED IN A PROSECUTION
AGAINST THE VICTIM OF THE UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE IF HE MAKES
TIMELY OBJECTION.  FN8  THIS, FOR THE REASON THAT OTHERWISE THE POLICY
AND PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT MIGHT BE THWARTED.  AND WE HAVE FURTHER
HELD THAT THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE AMENDMENT CANNOT BE CIRCUMVENTED BY
THE INDIRECT USE AGAINST THE VICTIM OF EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED.  FN9 

ALTHOUGH THE UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION OF A TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION DOES
NOT AMOUNT TO A SEARCH OR SEIZURE PROHIBITED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
FN10  WE HAVE APPLIED THE SAME POLICY IN RESPECT OF THE PROHIBITIONS OF
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE SENDER OF THE
MESSAGE AGAINST WHOM EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM ITS UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION IS
SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED.  NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338. 

THE QUESTION NOW TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER WE SHALL EXTEND THE
SANCTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT SO AS TO MAKE
AVAILABLE TO ONE NOT A PARTY TO THE INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION THE
OBJECTION THAT ITS USE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM, AND PRIOR TO THE TRIAL,
INDUCED EVIDENCE WHICH, EXCEPT FOR THAT USE, WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE. 

NO COURT HAS EVER GONE SO FAR IN APPLYING THE IMPLIED SANCTION FOR
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  WHILE THIS COURT HAS NEVER BEEN
CALLED UPON TO DECIDE THE POINT,  FN11  THE FEDERAL COURTS IN NUMEROUS
CASES, AND WITH UNANIMITY, HAVE DENIED STANDING TO ONE NOT THE VICTIM
OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE TO OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION
IN EVIDENCE OF THAT WHICH WAS SEIZED.  FN12  A FORTIORI THE SAME RULE
SHOULD APPLY TO THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE INDUCED BY THE USE OR
DISCLOSURE THEREOF TO A WITNESS OTHER THAN THE VICTIM OF THE SEIZURE. 
WE THINK NO BROADER SANCTION SHOULD BE IMPOSED UPON THE GOVERNMENT IN
RESPECT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  THE COURT BELOW WAS
OF THE VIEW THAT A DIVULGENCE OF THE INTERCEPTED MESSAGES MIGHT
LAWFULLY BE MADE WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SENDER, AND WE AGREE.  THE
COURT FURTHER THOUGHT THAT, AS THE SENDER MIGHT MAKE SUCH DIVULGENCE
LAWFUL BY HIS CONSENT, NONE BUT HE WAS INTENDED TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST
DIVULGENCE BY THE STATUTE.  FN13  AGAIN WE AGREE. 

THE PETITIONERS, HOWEVER, POINT OUT THAT THE STATUTE ALSO FORBIDS THE
USE OF AN UNLAWFULLY INTERCEPTED MESSAGE, OR ANY INFORMATION THEREIN
CONTAINED, BY ANY PERSON FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT OR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER
NOT ENTITLED THERETO; AND THEY SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
VIOLATED THE ACT BY USING THE MESSAGES, AND THE INFORMATION THEY
CONTAINED, TO INDUCE THE SENDERS' CONFESSIONS AND TESTIMONY.  THEY URGE
THAT SUCH USE IS FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT AND THAT THEY HAVE STANDING TO
OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE THUS OBTAINED.  THE
GOVERNMENT ANSWERS THAT THIS PROVISION OF THE ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO
REACH THE USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE MESSAGES BY FEDERAL OFFICERS FOR
OBTAINING EVIDENCE, BUT WAS MEANT TO PREVENT USE FOR THE PERSONAL
ADVANTAGE OR BENEFIT OF THE USER.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE THE
SOUNDNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT.    WE ARE OF OPINION THAT, EVEN
THOUGH THE USE MADE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS
TO INDUCE THE PARTIES TO THEM TO TESTIFY WERE HELD A VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTE, THIS WOULD NOT RENDER THE TESTIMONY SO PROCURED INADMISSIBLE
AGAINST A PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THE MESSAGE.  THIS IS THE SETTLED
COMMON LAW RULE.  FN14  THERE WAS NO USE AT THE TRIAL OF THE
INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS, OR OF ANY INFORMATION THEY CONTAINED AS
SUCH.  IF SUCH USE AS OCCURRED HERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE ACT, THE
STATUTE ITSELF IMPOSES A SANCTION.  FN15    THE JUDGMENTS ARE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, C. 652, 48 STAT. 1064, 1103; 47 U.S.C.
SEC. 605. 

FN2  CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 215; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 338. 

FN3  CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 37; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88. 

FN4  IT IS SAID THAT PETITIONERS HAVE NOW DISCOVERED THAT GOLDSTEIN
WAS A PARTICIPANT IN TWELVE OF THE INTERCEPTED TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS,
BUT IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THIS FACT, AND
THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT ANY OF THE TWELVE COMMUNICATIONS WERE USED
IN OBTAINING THE CONFESSIONS. 

FN5  120 F.2D 485. 

FN6  "IT MAY BE SAID WITH SOME PLAUSIBILITY THAT THE DEFENDANT
GOLDSTEIN WAS NOT PREJUDICED SINCE HE WAS NEITHER A PARTY TO, NOR
MENTIONED IN, THE CONVERSATIONS OBTAINED THROUGH WIRE TAPPING.  THESE
CONVERSATIONS, HOWEVER, SHOWED THAT GOLDSTEIN'S CODEFENDANTS WERE
ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY WHICH OTHER PROOF INDICATED THAT HE JOINED. 
THEY ALSO GAVE CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF MESSMAN.  SUCH EVIDENCE
WEIGHED AGAINST GOLDSTEIN AND HIS CONVICTION OUGHT NOT TO STAND IF THE
COMMUNICATIONS IMPLICATING THE OTHERS WERE IMPROPERLY RECEIVED."  103
F.2D 352.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. THOMSON, 113 F.2D 643. 

FN7  120 F.2D 489. 

FN8  WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383. 

FN9  SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385. 

FN10  OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438; GOLDMAN V. UNITED
STATES, POST, P. 129. 

FN11  THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AFFORDED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT IS PERSONAL TO THE WITNESS.  HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43;
WILSON V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361. 

FN12  THE PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED IN AT LEAST FIFTY CASES BY THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS IN NINE CIRCUITS, AND IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOT TO MENTION MANY DECISIONS BY DISTRICT
COURTS.  MANY OF THE CASES ARE COLLECTED IN NOTE 168 TO THE TEXT OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE U.S.C. ANNOTATED. 

FN13  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT BOTH PARTIES TO A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
ARE SENDERS, AS THE STATUTE USES THE TERM.  UNITED STATES V. POLAKOFF,
112 F.2D 888. 

FN14  OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 466, 467. 

FN15  SEC. 501, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 501. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND I CANNOT AGREE WITH
THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MESSMAN AND GARROW WERE THE CHIEF WITNESSES FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND
THE TESTIMONY OF EACH WAS VITAL.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT MESSMAN
TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE AFTER HE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE CONTENTS OF
TELEPHONE MESSAGES WHICH IMPLICATED HIM IN THE OFFENSE, BUT WHICH HAD
BEEN OBTAINED BY WIRE-TAPPING IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 605 OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  THE EXTENT OF THE UNLAWFUL "TAPPING" AND THE KEEN
DESIRE OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO USE THE "TAPS" TO SECURE OTHER
TESTIMONY ARE GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED BY THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT MADE
BY AN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TO MESSMAN AFTER HIS ARREST: 

"I AM TELLING YOU BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER THAT THERE IS NO USE OF US
KIDDING EACH OTHER.  WE HAVE WATCHED YOUR TELEPHONE; WE HAVE WATCHED
ALL THESE LAWYERS' TELEPHONES; WE HAVE HAD ROOMS TAPPED.  WE KNOW WHAT
IS GOING ON.  WE ARE NOT STABBING IN THE DARK.  IF YOU WANT TO HEAR
YOUR VOICE ON A RECORD WE WILL BE GLAD TO PLAY IT.  IN YOUR INSTANCE,
DOCTOR, THERE IS SO MUCH TO COVER.  YOU HAVE BEEN IN THIS FOR SO MANY
YEARS THAT WE FEEL THAT IN ORDER FOR YOU TO HELP YOURSELF, SINCE YOU
ARE CONSIDERED ONE OF THE PRINCIPALS HERE, IT WOULD BE WISE FOR YOU TO
INDICATE TO US WHETHER YOU INTEND TO TELL US EVERYTHING AND COME CLEAN,
OR WHETHER YOU INTEND TO PLAY BALL WITH THE GARROWS AND THE REST OF THE
CROWD.  WE FEEL THAT YOU CAN BE OF GREAT VALUE AND YOU WANT TO HELP
YOURSELF.  THAT IS STRAIGHT TALK." 

AND GARROW KNEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF RECORDS OF DAMAGING CONVERSATIONS
MADE BY ILLEGAL "TAPS" ON HIS LINES BEFORE HIS DECISION TO TESTIFY FOR
THE GOVERNMENT. 

NEITHER THE INTERCEPTED MESSAGES NOR THEIR PURPORT WERE PLACED IN
EVIDENCE, AND, SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, PETITIONERS WERE NOT PARTIES
TO THEM.  IT IS EVIDENT, NEVERTHELESS, THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE
GOVERNMENT AGAINST PETITIONERS THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF MESSMAN AND
GARROW WAS OBTAINED BY THE USE OF INFORMATION GATHERED BY WIRE-TAPPING
IN VIOLATION OF LAW.  FN1 

THE MAIN QUESTION PRESENTED FOR DECISION IS WHETHER EVIDENCE SO
OBTAINED IS VITIATED AND RENDERED INADMISSIBLE BY SEC. 605, THE
RELEVANT PART OF WHICH READS:  "  ...  AND NO PERSON NOT BEING
AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER SHALL INTERCEPT ANY COMMUNICATION AND DIVULGE
OR PUBLISH THE EXISTENCE, CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT, OR
MEANING OF SUCH INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION TO ANY PERSON; ...  AND NO
PERSON HAVING RECEIVED SUCH INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION OR HAVING BECOME
ACQUAINTED WITH THE CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT, OR MEANING OF
THE SAME OR ANY PART THEREOF, KNOWING THAT SUCH INFORMATION WAS SO
OBTAINED, SHALL DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE EXISTENCE, CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE,
PURPORT, EFFECT, OR MEANING OF THE SAME OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR USE THE
SAME OR ANY INFORMATION THEREIN CONTAINED FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT OR FOR
THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER NOT ENTITLED THERETO  ..." 

THE STATUTE EXPRESSES A RULE OF PUBLIC POLICY.  IN ENACTING SEC. 605,
CONGRESS SOUGHT TO PROTECT SOCIETY AT LARGE AGAINST THE EVILS OF WIRE
TAPPING AND KINDRED UNAUTHORIZED INTRUSIONS INTO PRIVATE INTERCOURSE
CONDUCTED BY MEANS OF THE MODERN MEDIA OF COMMUNICATION, TELEPHONE,
TELEGRAPH, AND RADIO.  TO THAT END THE STATUTE PROHIBITS NOT ONLY THE
INTERCEPTION AND THE DIVULGENCE OF PRIVATE MESSAGES WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF THE SENDER, BUT ALSO THE USE OF INFORMATION SO ACQUIRED BY ANY
PERSON NOT ENTITLED TO IT.  THE PROTECTION OF THE STATUTE WOULD HAVE
BEEN ILLUSORY INDEED IF, WHILE INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE WERE
PENALIZED, ONE WAS FREE, NEVERTHELESS, TO USE INFORMATION SO OBTAINED. 
UNLESS THE LANGUAGE OF THE "USE FOR BENEFIT" PROHIBITION DOES NOT MEAN
WHAT IT SAYS, THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS IN SECURING THE
BENEFIT OF THE CRUCIAL TESTIMONY OF MESSMAN AND GARROW BY THE USE OF
ILLEGAL "TAPS" WERE CLEAR VIOLATIONS OF THAT PROHIBITION.  THERE IS NO
MERIT IN THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE OF
THE "USE FOR BENEFIT" CLAUSE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS CONDEMNING ONLY
SUCH USES AS ARE DESIGNED TO RESULT IN SOME MONETARY OR OTHER SIMILAR
BENEFIT OF A PRIVATE NATURE, FOR THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 605 ARE
APPLICABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICERS, AS WELL AS TO PRIVATE
PERSONS.  NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379.  THE PROHIBITION IN
THIS LAST CLAUSE OF SEC. 605 BY CONGRESS OF THE "USE" OF OUTLAWED
EVIDENCE IS SO UNEQUIVOCAL AND CONTROLLING THAT THE FAILURE OF THE
COURT BELOW EVEN TO REFER TO THIS CLAUSE CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS OVERLOOKED. 

ON THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY, THE SECOND NARDONE CASE, 308 U.S. 338,
THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NARDONE V. UNITED STATES,
302 U.S. 379, AND WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 321, SHOULD CONTROL
OUR DECISION.  IN THAT CASE, AS IN THIS, THE EVIDENCE IN DISPUTE WAS
NOT THE MESSAGES THEMSELVES OR THEIR PURPORT, BUT THE CLAIM WAS MADE
THAT OTHER EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS WAS OBTAINED BY THE USE OF
INFORMATION GAINED BY UNLAWFUL WIRE-TAPPING.  WE HELD THAT THE POLICY
OF SEC. 605 REQUIRED THE EXCLUSION NOT MERELY OF THE INTERCEPTED
MESSAGES BUT ALSO OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE ACQUIRED THROUGH THEIR UNLAWFUL
USE.  OTHERWISE THE BROAD PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO OUTLAW PRACTICES
"INCONSISTENT WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS AND DESTRUCTIVE OF PERSONAL
LIBERTY"  FN3  WOULD HAVE BEEN LARGELY DEFEATED.  WE ALSO SUGGESTED THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING AS A PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHAT EVIDENCE WAS
THE "FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE" AND HENCE INADMISSIBLE.  SINCE THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE TESTIMONY OF
MESSMAN AND GARROW WAS THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ADMITTED. 

THE ONLY POSSIBLE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE SECOND
NARDONE CASE IS THAT, HERE, PETITIONERS WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE
ILLEGALLY INTERCEPTED MESSAGES, BUT THAT CALLS FOR NO DIFFERENCE IN
LEGAL RESULT.  WHILE THE SENDER CAN RENDER INTERCEPTION, DIVULGENCE, OR
USE LAWFUL BY HIS CONSENT, IT IS A COMPLETE NON SEQUITUR TO CONCLUDE
THAT HE ALONE HAS STANDING TO OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE
OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 605.  TO SAY THAT PETITIONERS HAVE NO
STANDING TO OBJECT TO THE TESTIMONY OF MESSMAN AND GARROW BECAUSE THEY
WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE INTERCEPTED MESSAGES USED TO SECURE THAT
TESTIMONY, IS TO IGNORE THE GOVERNING FACTOR THAT CONTROLLED OUR
DECISION IN THE SECOND NARDONE CASE, NAMELY, THAT TO PERMIT THE USE OF
EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED WOULD DEFEAT OR SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR THE
UNDERLYING POLICY AND PURPOSE OF SEC. 605.  IT IS IMMATERIAL, FOR THE
OBJECT TO BE SERVED BY THAT SECTION, WHETHER OBJECTION IS MADE BY THE
ONE SENDING THE COMMUNICATION OR BY ANOTHER WHO IS PREJUDICED BY ITS
USE.  THE RULE THAT EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY A VIOLATION OF SEC. 605 IS
INADMISSIBLE IS NOT A REMEDY FOR THE SENDER; IT IS THE OBEDIENT ANSWER
TO THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND THAT SOCIETY SHALL NOT BE PLAGUED WITH
SUCH PRACTICES AS WIRE-TAPPING. 

LOWER FEDERAL COURT CASES TO THE EFFECT THAT ONLY THE VICTIM OF A
SEARCH AND SEIZURE CONTRAVENING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT CAN OBJECT TO THE
EVIDENCE THEREBY OBTAINED DO NOT OFFER A PROPER ANALOGY.  NOT ONLY ARE
THOSE DECISIONS HARD TO SQUARE WITH STATEMENTS BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN
SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385, 392,  FN4  BUT,
EVEN ASSUMING THEIR SOUNDNESS, SUFFICIENT DIFFERENCE IN SCOPE EXISTS
BETWEEN SEC. 605 AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO RENDER ANALOGY UNSAFE. 
THUS SEC. 605 FORBIDS ALL INTERCEPTION, DIVULGENCE, OR USE BY ANY
PERSON WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE SENDER, WHILE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
BANS ONLY UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. 

THE HOLDING IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT THAT EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 605 IS NOT RENDERED INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE SEC. 501 OF
THE ACT PROVIDES SPECIFIC SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 605, IS A
DIRECT REPUDIATION OF BOTH NARDONE CASES AND THE WEISS CASE.  IN EACH
OF THOSE CASES, EVIDENCE SECURED BY VIOLATION OF SEC. 605 WAS DECLARED
TO BE INADMISSIBLE, DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF SEC. 501.  THIS IS SO
BECAUSE, AS WE HELD IN THE FIRST NARDONE CASE, "THE ACT FORBIDS SUCH
TESTIMONY."  302 U.S. 379, 382.  THAT EVIDENCE PROCURED IN VIOLATION OF
FEDERAL LAW BY AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IS INADMISSIBLE IN FEDERAL
PROSECUTIONS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND ENFORCED BY AN UNBROKEN SERIES OF
DECISIONS IN THIS COURT BEGINNING WITH WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S.
383.  BY THESE DECISIONS THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO MAKE ITSELF A
PARTICIPANT IN LAWLESS CONDUCT BY SANCTIONING THE USE IN OPEN COURT OF
EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY SECURED.  THAT PRINCIPLE WAS FORCIBLY PUT IN A
SEPARATE OPINION IN SORRELLS V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 435, 453. 
AFTER REFERRING TO "THE INHERENT RIGHT OF THE COURT NOT TO BE MADE THE
INSTRUMENT OF WRONG," THE OPINION CONTINUES:  "THE DOCTRINE (THE
DEFENSE OF ENTRAPMENT) RESTS, RATHER, ON A FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF PUBLIC
POLICY.  THE PROTECTION OF ITS OWN FUNCTIONS AND THE PRESERVATION OF
THE PURITY OF ITS OWN TEMPLE BELONGS ONLY TO THE COURT.  IT IS THE
PROVINCE OF THE COURT AND OF THE COURT ALONE TO PROTECT ITSELF AND THE
GOVERNMENT FROM SUCH PROSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW."  287 U.S. 435,
456, 457.  WHEN CONGRESS CONDEMNED THE "USE" OF LAWLESSLY INTERCEPTED
COMMUNICATIONS, THE LAST THING IT INTENDED TO SANCTION WAS THE USE OF
SUCH INTERCEPTIONS IN A COURT OF JUSTICE.  THERE CAN BE NO REASON TO
IGNORE OR SILENTLY OVERRULE OUR CONSIDERED DECISIONS IN BOTH NARDONE
CASES AND THE WEISS CASE, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT CONGRESS
HAS HAD SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES SINCE THE FIRST NARDONE CASE TO AMEND
SEC. 605 TO OBVIATE THE RESULT OF THAT CASE IF IT WERE NOT A TRUE
INTERPRETATION OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY AND INTENT.  FN5 

FN1  BOTH MESSMAN AND GARROW TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING
THAT THE "TAPS" DID NOT INFLUENCE THEIR DECISIONS TO TESTIFY FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT EACH WAS AN ACCOMPLISHED PERJURER.  WE DO NOT
UNDERSTAND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE, IN RULING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF
MESSMAN AND GARROW WAS ADMISSIBLE, MEANT TO FIND THAT THE GOVERNMENT
PROVED THAT THE "TAPS" DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR BREAKDOWN.  ON THE
CONTRARY, IT IS CLEAR THAT HE MEANT TO FIND ONLY THAT PETITIONERS
FAILED TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE GOVERNMENT SECURED THE
TESTIMONY OF MESSMAN AND GARROW BY USE OF THE "TAPS," A BURDEN WHICH HE
ERRONEOUSLY PUT UPON PETITIONERS.  FOR AFTER AN ACCUSED SUSTAINS THE
INITIAL BURDEN, IMPOSED BY NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338, OF
PROVING TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THE PRELIMINARY
HEARING THAT WIRE-TAPPING WAS UNLAWFULLY EMPLOYED, AS PETITIONERS DID
HERE, IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT THE BURDEN SHOULD THEN SHIFT TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO CONVINCE THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT ITS PROOF HAD AN
INDEPENDENT ORIGIN.  AS THE COURT BELOW SAID:    "  ...  THIS SHOULD BE
THE RULE IN ANALOGY TO THE WELL SETTLED DOCTRINE IN CIVIL CASES THAT A
WRONGDOER WHO HAS MINGLED THE CONSEQUENCES OF LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT, HAS THE BURDEN OF DISENTANGLING THEM AND MUST BEAR THE
PREJUDICE OF HIS FAILURE TO DO SO; THAT IS, THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO THROW
UPON THE INNOCENT PARTY THE DUTY OF UNRAVELLING THE SKEIN WHICH THE
GUILTY PARTY HAS SNARLED.  TO IMPOSE THE DUTY UPON THE PROSECUTION IS
PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE HERE, FOR IT NECESSARILY HAS FULL KNOWLEDGE OF
JUST HOW ITS CASE HAS BEEN PREPARED; GIVEN A PRIMA FACIE CASE AGAINST
IT, I.E., 'TAPS' AND SOME USE OF THEM, IT SHOULD DO THE REST."  120
F.2D 485, 488.  SINCE THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE
GOVERNMENT AFTER PETITIONERS' INITIAL SHOWING AS HE SHOULD HAVE DONE,
THERE CAN BE NO CONTENTION ON THIS RECORD THAT THE TESTIMONY OF MESSMAN
AND GARROW WAS UNTAINTED BY "TAPS." 

FN2  NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379, 383. 

FN4  "THE ESSENCE OF A PROVISION FORBIDDING THE ACQUISITION OF
EVIDENCE IN A CERTAIN WAY IS THAT NOT MERELY EVIDENCE SO ACQUIRED SHALL
NOT BE USED BEFORE THE COURT BUT THAT IT SHALL NOT BE USED AT ALL.  ...
THE KNOWLEDGE GAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN WRONG CANNOT BE USED BY
IT IN THE WAY PROPOSED." 

THE GUARANTIES OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT "ARE TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED
TO PREVENT IMPAIRMENT OF THE PROTECTION EXTENDED."  GRAU V. UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 124, 128, AND CASES CITED. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO USE EVIDENCE OBTAINED
IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AGAINST PARTIES NOT VICTIMS OF THE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE IS TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO
PROFIT BY ITS WRONG AND TO REDUCE IN LARGE MEASURE THE PROTECTION OF
THE AMENDMENT. 

FN5  SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO AMEND SEC. 605 SINCE THE FIRST NARDONE CASE
HAVE FAILED OF ENACTMENT.  SEE S. 3756, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. (1938) AND
S. REP. NO. 1790, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS. (1938) P. 3.  SEE ALSO H.J. RES.
571, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS. (1940); H.R. 2266, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1941); H.R. 3099, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1941); H.R. 4228, 77TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. (1941). 
..END :




















GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES, 316 U.S. 129 


NO. 962, OCTOBER TERM, 1940.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 6, 1942.  - DECIDED
APRIL 27, 1942.  - 118 F.2D 310, AFFIRMED. 


1.  REFUSAL OF THE JUDGE IN THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE IN THE
FEDERAL COURT, TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT TO INSPECT THE MEMORANDA OF
GOVERNMENT WITNESSES - WHERE THE MEMORANDA WERE NOT USED BY THE
WITNESSES IN COURT, BUT ONLY TO REFRESH THEIR RECOLLECTION PRIOR TO
TESTIFYING, AND WERE ALSO PART OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FILES - HELD NOT AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  P. 132. 

2.  DIVULGENCE OF A PERSON'S TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, OVERHEARD AS IT
WAS SPOKEN INTO THE TELEPHONE RECEIVER, DOES NOT VIOLATE SEC. 605 OF
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT, AS IN SUCH CASE THERE IS NEITHER A
"COMMUNICATION" NOR AN "INTERCEPTION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 
P. 133. 

3.  EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY FEDERAL AGENTS BY USE OF A DETECTAPHONE,
APPLIED TO THE WALL OF A ROOM ADJOINING THE OFFICE OF THE DEFENDANT,
HELD NOT UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A PRIOR TRESPASS
COMMITTED BY THE AGENTS IN THE DEFENDANT'S OFFICE, WHERE SUCH TRESPASS,
AS FOUND BY THE COURTS BELOW, DID NOT AID MATERIALLY IN THE USE OF THE
DETECTAPHONE.  P. 134. 

4.  THE USE BY FEDERAL AGENTS OF A DETECTAPHONE, WHEREBY
CONVERSATIONS IN THE OFFICE OF A DEFENDANT WERE OVERHEARD THROUGH
CONTACT ON THE WALL OF AN ADJOINING ROOM, DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT, AND EVIDENCE THUS OBTAINED WAS ADMISSIBLE IN A FEDERAL
COURT.  P. 135. 

GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 963, OCTOBER TERM, 1940, SHULMAN V. UNITED STATES,
AND NO. 980, OCTOBER TERM, 1940, THEODORE GOLDMAN V. UNITED STATES,
ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 701, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 701, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS OF
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS AND ANOTHER WERE INDICTED FOR CONSPIRACY N1 TO
VIOLATE SEC. 29(B)(5) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN2  BY RECEIVING, OR
ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN, MONEY FOR ACTING, OR FORBEARING TO ACT, IN A
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  THEY WERE CONVICTED AND SENTENCED, AND THE
JUDGMENTS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN3  THE
FACTS ARE FULLY STATED IN THE OPINION BELOW AND WE SHALL ADVERT ONLY TO
THOSE ESSENTIAL TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTIONS OPEN IN THIS
COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS WERE LAWYERS.  ONE OF THEM, MARTIN GOLDMAN,
APPROACHED HOFFMAN, THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING AN ASSIGNEE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSIGNEE SELL THE
ASSETS IN BULK FOR AN OSTENSIBLE PRICE WHICH WOULD NET THE CREDITORS A
CERTAIN DIVIDEND, BUT IN FACT AT A SECRET GREATER PRICE, AND THAT
HOFFMAN AND THE PETITIONERS SHOULD DIVIDE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. 
HOFFMAN REFUSED.  SHULMAN, ONE OF THE PETITIONERS, THEN FILED AN
INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY AGAINST THE ASSIGNOR, IN SUCH FORM
THAT IT COULD BE DISMISSED ON MOTION AND WITHOUT NOTICE, AND OBTAINED A
STAY OF THE ASSIGNEE'S SALE.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT REFUSED TO REVOKE
THE STAY, AND SHULMAN AGAIN APPROACHED HOFFMAN STATING THAT, IF HE
AGREED TO THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT, THE BANKRUPTCY PETITION COULD BE
DISMISSED AND THE PLAN CONSUMMATED.  HOFFMAN SAID HE WOULD AGREE, BUT
HE WENT AT ONCE TO THE REFEREE AND DISCLOSED THE SCHEME.  A FEDERAL
INVESTIGATOR WAS CONSULTED AND IT WAS ARRANGED THAT HOFFMAN SHOULD
CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE PETITIONERS.  HE DID SO. NUMEROUS
CONFERENCES WERE HAD AND THE NECESSARY PAPERS DRAWN AND STEPS TAKEN. 
SUCCESS WAS FRUSTRATED ONLY BY THE REFUSAL OF A CREDITOR TO RELEASE FOR
THE OFFERED PERCENTAGE OF HIS CLAIM. 

MEANTIME, TWO FEDERAL AGENTS, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE BUILDING
SUPERINTENDENT, OBTAINED ACCESS AT NIGHT TO SHULMAN'S OFFICE AND TO THE
ADJOINING ONE AND INSTALLED A LISTENING APPARATUS IN A SMALL APERTURE
IN THE PARTITION WALL, WITH A WIRE TO BE ATTACHED TO EARPHONES
EXTENDING INTO THE ADJOINING OFFICE.  THIS WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OVERHEARING A CONFERENCE WITH HOFFMAN, SET FOR THE FOLLOWING
AFTERNOON.  THE NEXT AFTERNOON, ONE OF THE AGENTS RETURNED TO THE
ADJOINING ROOM WITH TWO OTHERS AND A STENOGRAPHER.  THEY CONNECTED THE
EARPHONES TO THE APPARATUS BUT IT WOULD NOT WORK.  THEY HAD WITH THEM
ANOTHER DEVICE, A DETECTAPHONE, HAVING A RECEIVER SO DELICATE AS, WHEN
PLACED AGAINST THE PARTITION WALL, TO PICK UP SOUND WAVES ORIGINATING
IN SHULMAN'S OFFICE, AND MEANS FOR AMPLIFYING AND HEARING THEM.  WITH
THIS THE AGENTS OVERHEARD, AND THE STENOGRAPHER TRANSCRIBED, PORTIONS
OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN HOFFMAN, SHULMAN, AND MARTIN GOLDMAN ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND ALSO HEARD WHAT SHULMAN SAID WHEN TALKING OVER
THE TELEPHONE FROM HIS OFFICE. 

BEFORE THE TRIAL, SHULMAN LEARNED THE FACTS AND MADE A MOTION, IN
WHICH THE OTHER PETITIONERS JOINED, TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE THUS
OBTAINED.  A PRELIMINARY HEARING WAS HAD AND THE MOTION WAS DENIED.  AT
THE TRIAL, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED OVER OBJECTION THAT ITS RECEIPT
VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND, AS RESPECTS
SHULMAN'S TALK INTO THE TELEPHONE RECEIVER, VIOLATED ALSO SEC. 605 OF
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  FN4 

AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, AND AT THE TRIAL, COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
DEMANDED THAT THEY BE PERMITTED TO INSPECT THE NOTES AND MEMORANDA MADE
BY THE AGENTS DURING THE INVESTIGATION, THE AGENTS HAVING ADMITTED THEY
HAD REFRESHED THEIR RECOLLECTION FROM THESE PAPERS PRIOR TO
TESTIFYING.  THE TRIAL JUDGE RULED THAT THE PAPERS NEED NOT BE
EXHIBITED BY THE WITNESSES. 

1.  WE HOLD THERE WAS NO ERROR IN DENYING THE INSPECTION OF THE
WITNESSES' MEMORANDA.  THE JUDGE WAS CLEARLY RIGHT IN HIS RULING AT THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING, AS THE PETITIONERS SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD ACCESS,
PRIOR TO TRIAL, TO MATERIAL CONSTITUTING A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CASE. 

WE THINK IT THE BETTER RULE THAT WHERE A WITNESS DOES NOT USE HIS
NOTES OR MEMORANDA IN COURT, A PARTY HAS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO HAVE THEM
PRODUCED AND TO INSPECT THEM.  WHERE, AS HERE, THEY ARE NOT ONLY THE
WITNESS' NOTES BUT ARE ALSO PART OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FILES, A LARGE
DISCRETION MUST BE ALLOWED THE TRIAL JUDGE.  WE ARE UNWILLING TO HOLD
THAT THE DISCRETION WAS ABUSED IN THIS CASE. 

2.  WE HOLD THAT THE OVERHEARING AND DIVULGENCE OF WHAT SHULMAN SAID
INTO A TELEPHONE RECEIVER WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF SEC. 605. 

THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT A COMMUNICATION FALLS WITHIN THE
PROTECTION OF THE STATUTE ONCE A SPEAKER HAS UTTERED WORDS WITH THE
INTENT THAT THEY CONSTITUTE A TRANSMISSION OF A TELEPHONE
CONVERSATION.  THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTENTION MUST BE TESTED BY THE
TERMS OF THE ACT FAIRLY CONSTRUED.  SO CONSIDERED, THERE WAS NEITHER A
"COMMUNICATION" NOR AN "INTERCEPTION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 
THE PROTECTION INTENDED AND AFFORDED BY THE STATUTE IS OF THE MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION AND NOT OF THE SECRECY OF THE CONVERSATION.  SECTION 3
EMBODIES THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION:  FN5 

"(A)  'WIRE COMMUNICATION' OR 'COMMUNICATION BY WIRE' MEANS THE
TRANSMISSION OF WRITING, SIGNS, SIGNALS, PICTURES, AND SOUNDS OF ALL
KINDS BY AID OF WIRE, CABLE, OR OTHER LIKE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
POINTS OF ORIGIN AND RECEPTION OF SUCH TRANSMISSION, INCLUDING ALL
INSTRUMENTALITIES, FACILITIES, APPARATUS, AND SERVICES (AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THE RECEIPT, FORWARDING, AND DELIVERY OF COMMUNICATIONS)
INCIDENTAL TO SUCH TRANSMISSION." 

WHAT IS PROTECTED IS THE MESSAGE ITSELF THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF ITS
TRANSMISSION BY THE INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF TRANSMISSION.  FN6
WORDS WRITTEN BY A PERSON AND INTENDED ULTIMATELY TO BE CARRIED AS SO
WRITTEN TO A TELEGRAPH OFFICE DO NOT CONSTITUTE A COMMUNICATION WITHIN
THE TERMS OF THE ACT UNTIL THEY ARE HANDED TO AN AGENT OF THE TELEGRAPH
COMPANY.  WORDS SPOKEN IN A ROOM IN THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER INTO A
TELEPHONE RECEIVER DO NOT CONSTITUTE A COMMUNICATION BY WIRE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SECTION.  LETTERS DEPOSITED IN THE POST OFFICE ARE
PROTECTED FROM EXAMINATION BY FEDERAL STATUTE,  FN7  BUT IT COULD NOT
RIGHTLY BE CLAIMED THAT THE OFFICE CARBON OF SUCH LETTER, OR INDEED THE
LETTER ITSELF BEFORE IT HAS LEFT THE OFFICE OF THE SENDER, COMES WITHIN
THE PROTECTION OF THE STATUTE.  THE SAME VIEW OF THE SCOPE OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT FOLLOWS FROM THE NATURAL MEANING OF THE TERM
"INTERCEPT."  AS HAS RIGHTLY BEEN HELD, THIS WORD INDICATES THE TAKING
OR SEIZURE BY THE WAY OR BEFORE ARRIVAL AT THE DESTINED PLACE.  IT DOES
NOT ORDINARILY CONNOTE THE OBTAINING OF WHAT IS TO BE SENT BEFORE, OR
AT THE MOMENT, IT LEAVES THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPOSED SENDER, OR
AFTER, OR AT THE MOMENT, IT COMES INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE INTENDED
RECEIVER.  FN8  THE LISTENING IN THE NEXT ROOM TO THE WORDS OF SHULMAN
AS HE TALKED INTO THE TELEPHONE RECEIVER WAS NO MORE THE INTERCEPTION
OF A WIRE COMMUNICATION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, THAN WOULD HAVE
BEEN THE OVERHEARING OF THE CONVERSATION BY ONE SITTING IN THE SAME
ROOM. 

3.  WE HOLD THAT WHAT WAS HEARD BY THE USE OF THE DETECTAPHONE WAS
NOT MADE ILLEGAL BY TRESPASS OR UNLAWFUL ENTRY. 

THE PETITIONERS' CONTEND THAT THE TRESPASS COMMITTED IN SHULMAN'S
OFFICE WHEN THE LISTENING APPARATUS WAS THERE INSTALLED, AND WHAT WAS
LEARNED AS THE RESULT OF THAT TRESPASS, WAS OF SOME ASSISTANCE ON THE
FOLLOWING DAY IN LOCATING THE RECEIVER OF THE DETECTAPHONE IN THE
ADJOINING OFFICE, AND THIS CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TRESPASS AND THE
LISTENING RESULTED IN A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  WHATEVER
TRESPASS WAS COMMITTED WAS CONNECTED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE
LISTENING APPARATUS.  AS RESPECTS IT, THE TRESPASS MIGHT BE SAID TO BE
CONTINUING AND, IF THE APPARATUS HAD BEEN USED IT MIGHT, WITH REASON,
BE CLAIMED THAT THE CONTINUING TRESPASS WAS THE CONCOMITANT OF ITS
USE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TRESPASS AND THE USE
OF THE DETECTAPHONE WAS THAT OF ANTECEDENT AND CONSEQUENT.  BOTH COURTS
BELOW HAVE FOUND THAT THE TRESPASS DID NOT AID MATERIALLY IN THE USE OF
THE DETECTAPHONE.  SINCE WE ACCEPT THESE CONCURRENT FINDINGS, WE NEED
NOT CONSIDER A CONTENTION BASED ON A DENIAL OF THEIR VERITY. 

4.  WE HOLD THAT THE USE OF THE DETECTAPHONE BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS WAS
NOT A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 

IN ASKING US TO HOLD THAT THE INFORMATION OBTAINED WAS OBTAINED IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT ITS USE AT THE TRIAL WAS,
THEREFORE, BANNED BY THE AMENDMENT, THE PETITIONERS RECOGNIZE THAT THEY
MUST RECKON WITH OUR DECISION IN OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S.
438.  THEY ARGUE THAT THE CASE MAY BE DISTINGUISHED.  THE SUGGESTED
GROUND OF DISTINCTION IS THAT THE OLMSTEAD CASE DEALT WITH THE TAPPING
OF TELEPHONE WIRES, AND THE COURT ADVERTED TO THE FACT THAT, IN USING A
TELEPHONE, THE SPEAKER PROJECTS HIS VOICE BEYOND THE CONFINES OF HIS
HOME OR OFFICE AND, THEREFORE, ASSUMES THE RISK THAT HIS MESSAGE MAY BE
INTERCEPTED.  IT IS URGED THAT WHERE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, ONE TALKS
IN HIS OWN OFFICE, AND INTENDS HIS CONVERSATION TO BE CONFINED WITHIN
THE FOUR WALLS OF THE ROOM, HE DOES NOT INTEND HIS VOICE SHALL GO
BEYOND THOSE WALLS AND IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED HE TAKES THE RISK OF
SOMEONE'S USE OF A DELICATE DETECTOR IN THE NEXT ROOM.  WE THINK,
HOWEVER, THE DISTINCTION IS TOO NICE FOR PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE, AND NO REASONABLE OR LOGICAL DISTINCTION CAN
BE DRAWN BETWEEN WHAT FEDERAL AGENTS DID IN THE PRESENT CASE AND STATE
OFFICERS DID IN THE OLMSTEAD CASE. 

THE PETITIONERS ASK US, IF WE ARE UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH OLMSTEAD V.
UNITED STATES, TO OVERRULE IT.  THIS WE ARE UNWILLING TO DO.  THAT CASE
WAS THE SUBJECT OF PROLONGED CONSIDERATION BY THIS COURT.  THE VIEWS OF
THE COURT, AND OF THE DISSENTING JUSTICES, WERE EXPRESSED CLEARLY AND
AT LENGTH.  TO REHEARSE AND REAPPRAISE THE ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON, AND
THE CONFLICTING VIEWS EXHIBITED IN THE OPINIONS, WOULD SERVE NO GOOD
PURPOSE.  NOTHING NOW CAN BE PROFITABLY ADDED TO WHAT WAS THERE SAID. 
IT SUFFICES TO SAY THAT WE ADHERE TO THE OPINION THERE EXPRESSED. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 37; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88. 

FN2  11 U.S.C. SEC. 52(B)(5). 

FN3  118 F.2D 310. 

FN4  ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 1103; 47 U.S.C. SEC. 605. 

FN5  47 U.S.C. SEC. 153. 

FN6  COMPARE DIAMOND V. UNITED STATES, 108 F.2D 859, 860; UNITED
STATES V. POLAKOFF, 112 F.2D 888, 890. 

FN7  EX PARTE JACKSON, 96 U.S. 727. 

FN8  UNITED STATES V. YEE PING JONG, 26 F.SUPP.  69, 70. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

HAD A MAJORITY OF THE COURT BEEN WILLING AT THIS TIME TO OVERRULE THE
OLMSTEAD CASE, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO JOIN THEM.  BUT AS THEY
HAVE DECLINED TO DO SO, AND AS WE THINK THIS CASE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE
IN PRINCIPLE FROM OLMSTEAD'S, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO REPEAT HERE THE
DISSENTING VIEWS IN THAT CASE WITH WHICH WE AGREE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, DISSENTING: 

I CANNOT AGREE, FOR TO ME IT IS CLEAR THAT THE USE OF THE
DETECTAPHONE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES REVEALED BY THIS RECORD WAS AN
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITHIN THE CLEAR INTENDMENT OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT. 

ONE OF THE GREAT BOONS SECURED TO THE INHABITANTS OF THIS COUNTRY BY
THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE RIGHT OF PERSONAL PRIVACY GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT.  IN NUMEROUS WAYS THE LAW PROTECTS THE INDIVIDUAL
AGAINST UNWARRANTED INTRUSIONS BY OTHERS INTO HIS PRIVATE AFFAIRS.  FN1
IT COMPENSATES HIM FOR TRESPASS ON HIS PROPERTY OR AGAINST HIS
PERSON.  IT PROHIBITS THE PUBLICATION AGAINST HIS WILL OF HIS THOUGHTS,
SENTIMENTS, AND EMOTIONS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THOSE ARE EXPRESSED IN
WORDS, PAINTING, SCULPTURE, MUSIC, OR IN OTHER MODES.  FN2  IT MAY
PROHIBIT THE USE OF HIS PHOTOGRAPH FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WITHOUT HIS
CONSENT N3.  THESE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON THE ACTIVITIES OF PRIVATE
PERSONS.  BUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PUTS A RESTRAINT ON THE ARM OF THE
GOVERNMENT ITSELF, AND PREVENTS IT FROM INVADING THE SANCTITY OF A
MAN'S HOME OR HIS PRIVATE QUARTERS IN A CHASE FOR A SUSPECT, EXCEPT
UNDER SAFEGUARDS CALCULATED TO PREVENT OPPRESSION AND ABUSE OF
AUTHORITY. 

ON THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AS DEAR AS ANY TO FREE MEN,
LITTLE CAN OR NEED BE ADDED TO WHAT WAS SAID IN ENTICK V. CARRINGTON,
19 HOW.  ST. TR. 1030, BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, AND MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS' MEMORABLE DISSENT IN OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277
U.S. 438, 471.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE SPIRITUAL FREEDOM OF THE
INDIVIDUAL DEPENDS IN NO SMALL MEASURE UPON THE PRESERVATION OF THAT
RIGHT.  INSISTENCE ON ITS RETENTION DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PERSON HAS
ANYTHING TO CONCEAL, BUT MEANS RATHER THAT THE CHOICE SHOULD BE HIS AS
TO WHAT HE WISHES TO REVEAL, SAVING ONLY TO THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO
SEEK OUT CRIME UNDER A PROCEDURE WITH SUITABLE SAFEGUARDS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, SUCH AS THE WARRANT WHOSE REQUISITES
ARE SET FORTH IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.    IT WILL BE CONCEDED THAT IF
THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT WERE GIVEN ONLY A LITERAL CONSTRUCTION,
IT MIGHT NOT FIT THE CASE NOW PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.  THE PETITIONERS
WERE NOT PHYSICALLY SEARCHED.  THEIR HOMES WERE NOT ENTERED.  THEIR
FILES WERE NOT RANSACKED.  THEIR PAPERS AND EFFECTS WERE NOT
DISTURBED.  BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN THE RULE OR PRACTICE OF THIS COURT TO
PERMIT THE SCOPE AND OPERATION OF BROAD PRINCIPLES ORDAINED BY THE
CONSTITUTION TO BE RESTRICTED, BY A LITERAL READING OF ITS PROVISIONS,
TO THOSE EVILS AND PHENOMENA THAT WERE CONTEMPORARY WITH ITS FRAMING. 
CF. WEEMS V. UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 349, 373; UNITED STATES V.
CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299, 316. 

THE CONDITIONS OF MODERN LIFE HAVE GREATLY EXPANDED THE RANGE AND
CHARACTER OF THOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH REQUIRE PROTECTION FROM INTRUSIVE
ACTION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IF MEN AND WOMEN ARE TO ENJOY THE FULL
BENEFIT OF THAT PRIVACY WHICH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE.  IT IS OUR DUTY TO SEE THAT THIS HISTORIC PROVISION RECEIVES A
CONSTRUCTION SUFFICIENTLY LIBERAL AND ELASTIC TO MAKE IT SERVE THE
NEEDS AND MANNERS OF EACH SUCCEEDING GENERATION.  CF. GRAU V. UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 124, 128, AND CASES CITED.  OTHERWISE, IT MAY BECOME
OBSOLETE, INCAPABLE OF PROVIDING THE PEOPLE OF THIS LAND ADEQUATE
PROTECTION.  TO THIS END WE MUST GIVE MIND NOT MERELY TO THE EXACT
WORDS OF THE AMENDMENT, BUT ALSO TO ITS HISTORIC PURPOSE, ITS HIGH
POLITICAL CHARACTER, AND ITS MODERN SOCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. 

WITH THE PASSING OF THE YEARS SINCE 1787, MARKED CHANGES HAVE ENSUED
IN THE WAYS OF CONDUCTING BUSINESS AND PERSONAL AFFAIRS.  MANY
TRANSACTIONS OF A BUSINESS OR PERSONAL CHARACTER THAT IN THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY WERE CONDUCTED AT HOME ARE NOW CARRIED ON IN BUSINESS OFFICES
AWAY FROM THE HOME.  IF THE METHOD AND HABITS OF THE PEOPLE IN 1787
WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDUCT OF THEIR PRIVATE BUSINESS HAD BEEN WHAT
THEY ARE TODAY, IS IT POSSIBLE TO THINK THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY LESS SOLICITOUS OF THE PRIVACY OF
TRANSACTIONS CONDUCTED IN THE OFFICE OF A LAWYER, A DOCTOR, OR A MAN OF
BUSINESS, THAN THEY WERE OF A PERSON'S PAPERS AND EFFECTS?  FN4 

THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL ENTRY IN THIS CASE.  BUT THE SEARCH OF ONE'S
HOME OR OFFICE NO LONGER REQUIRES PHYSICAL ENTRY, FOR SCIENCE HAS
BROUGHT FORTH FAR MORE EFFECTIVE DEVICES FOR THE INVASION OF A PERSON'S
PRIVACY THAN THE DIRECT AND OBVIOUS METHODS OF OPPRESSION WHICH WERE
DETESTED BY OUR FOREBEARS AND WHICH INSPIRED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT N5. 
SURELY THE SPIRIT MOTIVATING THE FRAMERS OF THAT AMENDMENT WOULD ABHOR
THESE NEW DEVICES NO LESS.  PHYSICAL ENTRY MAY BE WHOLLY IMMATERIAL. 
FN6  WHETHER THE SEARCH OF PRIVATE QUARTERS IS ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACING
ON THE OUTER WALLS OF THE SANCTUM A DETECTAPHONE THAT TRANSMITS TO THE
OUTSIDE LISTENER THE INTIMATE DETAILS OF A PRIVATE CONVERSATION, OR BY
NEW METHODS OF PHOTOGRAPHY THAT PENETRATE WALLS OR OVERCOME DISTANCES,
THE PRIVACY OF THE CITIZEN IS EQUALLY INVADED BY AGENTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND INTIMATE PERSONAL MATTERS ARE LAID BARE TO VIEW.  SUCH
INVASIONS OF PRIVACY, UNLESS THEY ARE AUTHORIZED BY A WARRANT ISSUED IN
THE MANNER AND FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE AMENDMENT, OR OTHERWISE CONDUCTED
UNDER ADEQUATE SAFEGUARDS DEFINED BY STATUTE, ARE AT ONE WITH THE EVILS
WHICH HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN HELD TO BE WITHIN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, AND
EQUALLY CALL FOR REMEDIAL ACTION.  FN7 

ON THE BASIS OF THE NARROW, LITERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE CLAUSE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN OLMSTEAD V. UNITED
STATES, 277 U.S. 438,  FN8  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS COULD WELL BELIEVE
THAT ACTIVITIES OF THE CHARACTER HERE INVOLVED DID NOT CONTRAVENE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.  BUT FOR MY PART, I THINK THAT THE OLMSTEAD
CASE WAS WRONG.  THE ERROR OF THE STULTIFYING CONSTRUCTION THERE
ADOPTED IS BEST SHOWN BY THE RESULTS TO WHICH IT LEADS.  IT IS STRANGE
DOCTRINE THAT KEEPS INVIOLATE THE MOST MUNDANE OBSERVATIONS ENTRUSTED
TO THE PERMANENCE OF PAPER BUT ALLOWS THE REVELATION OF THOUGHTS
UTTERED WITHIN THE SANCTITY OF PRIVATE QUARTERS, THOUGHTS PERHAPS TOO
INTIMATE TO BE SET DOWN EVEN IN A SECRET DIARY, OR INDEED, UTTERANCES
ABOUT WHICH THE COMMON LAW DREW THE CLOAK OF PRIVILEGE - THE MOST
CONFIDENTIAL REVELATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE, CLIENT AND LAWYER,
PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN, AND PENITENT AND SPIRITUAL ADVISER.  NOR CAN I
SEE ANY RATIONAL BASIS FOR DENYING TO THE MODERN MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
THE SAME PROTECTION THAT IS EXTENDED BY THE AMENDMENT TO THE SEALED
LETTER IN THE MAILS.  SEE EX PARTE JACKSON, 96 U.S. 727.  OFFICERS
CONDUCTING AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH ARE SEEKING EVIDENCE AS SUCH; THE
FORM IT TAKES IS OF NO CONCERN TO THEM. 

BUT EVEN IF OLMSTEAD'S CASE IS TO STAND, IT DOES NOT GOVERN THE
PRESENT CASE.  IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF PETITIONERS TO PROJECT THEIR
CONVERSATIONS BEYOND THE WALLS OF PETITIONER SHULMAN'S PRIVATE OFFICE. 
FN9  WHATEVER MAY BE SAID OF A WIRE-TAPPING DEVICE THAT PERMITS AN
OUTSIDE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION TO BE OVERHEARD, IT CAN HARDLY BE
DOUBTED THAT THE APPLICATION OF A DETECTAPHONE TO THE WALLS OF A HOME
OR A PRIVATE OFFICE CONSTITUTES A DIRECT INVASION OF THE PRIVACY OF THE
OCCUPANT, AND A SEARCH OF HIS PRIVATE QUARTERS. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT PETITIONERS WERE OBVIOUSLY GUILTY OF GROSS
FRAUD IS IMMATERIAL.  THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES NO EXCEPTION IN ITS
GUARANTY OF PROTECTION.  ITS GREAT PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT THE CITIZEN
AGAINST OPPRESSIVE TACTICS.  ITS BENEFITS ARE ILLUSORY INDEED IF THEY
ARE DENIED TO PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED WITH EVIDENCE
GATHERED BY THE VERY MEANS WHICH THE AMENDMENT FORBIDS.  CF. WEEKS V.
UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 383.  ITS PROTECTING ARM EXTENDS TO ALL ALIKE,
WORTHY AND UNWORTHY, WITHOUT DISTINCTION.  RIGHTS INTENDED TO PROTECT
ALL MUST BE EXTENDED TO ALL, LEST THEY SO FALL INTO DESUETUDE IN THE
COURSE OF DENYING THEM TO THE WORST OF MEN AS TO AFFORD NO AID TO THE
BEST OF MEN IN TIME OF NEED. 

THE BENEFITS THAT ACCRUE FROM THIS AND OTHER ARTICLES OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF DEMOCRATIC RULE.  THEY ARE AMONG THE
AMENITIES THAT DISTINGUISH A FREE SOCIETY FROM ONE IN WHICH THE RIGHTS
AND COMFORTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARE WHOLLY SUBORDINATED TO THE INTERESTS
OF THE STATE.  WE CHERISH AND UPHOLD THEM AS NECESSARY AND SALUTARY
CHECKS ON THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT.  THEY PROVIDE A STANDARD OF
OFFICIAL CONDUCT WHICH THE COURTS MUST ENFORCE.  AT A TIME WHEN THE
NATION IS CALLED UPON TO GIVE FREELY OF LIFE AND TREASURE TO DEFEND AND
PRESERVE THE INSTITUTIONS OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM, WE SHOULD NOT
PERMIT ANY OF THE ESSENTIALS OF FREEDOM TO LOSE VITALITY THROUGH LEGAL
INTERPRETATIONS THAT ARE RESTRICTIVE AND INADEQUATE FOR THE PERIOD IN
WHICH WE LIVE. 

FN1  SEE GENERALLY, BRANDEIS AND WARREN, "THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY," 4
HARV. L. REV. 193(1890). 

FN2  IBID., PP. 198-199. 

FN3  SEE PAVESICH V. NEW ENGLAND LIFE INS. CO., 122 GA. 190, 50 S.E.
68; BAZEMORE V. SAVANNAH HOSPITAL, 171 GA. 257, 155 S.E. 194; KUNZ V.
ALLEN, 102 KAN. 883, 172 P. 532; FOSTER-MILBURN V. CHINN, 134 KY. 424,
120 S.W. 364; MUNDEN V. HARRIS, 153 MO. APP. 652, 134 S.W. 1076; FLAKE
V. GREENSBORO NEWS CO., 212 N.C. 780, 195 S.E. 55; HOLLOMAN V. LIFE
INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA, 192 S.C. 454, 7 S.E.2D 169.  CF. HENRY V. CHERRY
& WEBB, 30 R.I. 13, 73 A. 97; HILLMAN V. STAR PUBLISHING CO., 64 WASH.
691, 117 P. 594; ATKINSON V. JOHN E. DOHERTY & CO., 121 MICH. 372; 80
N.W. 285; JONES V. HERALD POST CO., 230 KY. 227, 18 S.W.2D 972; O'BRIEN
V. PABST SALES CO. 124 F.2D 167.  SEE ALSO SEC. 51 OF THE NEW YORK
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW. 

FN4  PAPERS TAKEN FROM AN OFFICE IN THE COURSE OF AN UNREASONABLE
SEARCH ARE TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  SILVERTHORNE
LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385; GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255
U.S. 298; GO-BART IMPORTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344; UNITED
STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452. 

FN5  THOSE DEVICES WERE THE GENERAL WARRANTS, THE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE
AND THE LETTRES DE CACHET. 

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE GENERAL WARRANT, SEE ENTICK V. CARRINGTON, 19
HOW.  ST. TR. 1030, AND MAY, CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND (2D
ED.), VOL. III, PP. 1-10. 

FOR AN ACCOUNT OF THE WRITS OF ASSISTANCE, SEE QUINCY (MASS.)
51(1761) AND GRAY'S APPENDIX TO QUINCY'S REPORTS.  SEE ALSO TUDOR,
JAMES OTIS, P. 66, AND JOHN ADAMS, WORKS, VOL. II, P. 524. 

THE LETTRES DE CACHET ARE DISCUSSED IN CHASSAIGNE, LES LETTRES DE
CACHET SOUS L'ANCIEN REGIME (PARIS, 1903). 

FN6  "IT IS NOT THE BREAKING OF HIS (MAN'S) DOORS, AND THE RUMMAGING
OF HIS DRAWERS, THAT CONSTITUTES THE ESSENCE OF THE OFFENCE" - THOSE
ARE BUT "CIRCUMSTANCES OF AGGRAVATION."  BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116
U.S. 616, 630. 

FN7  A WARRANT CAN BE DEVISED WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE USE OF A
DETECTAPHONE.  CF. ARTICLE 1, SEC. 12 OF THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION
(1938).  AND, WHILE A SEARCH WARRANT, WITH ITS PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
HAS GENERALLY BEEN REGARDED AS PREREQUISITE TO THE REASONABLENESS OF A
SEARCH IN THOSE AREAS OF ESSENTIAL PRIVACY, SUCH AS THE HOME, TO WHICH
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT APPLIES (SEE AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S.
20, 32), SOME METHOD OF RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION COULD BE
EVOLVED FOR THE USE OF THE DETECTAPHONE WHICH, LIKE THE VALID SEARCH
WARRANT, WOULD ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST
IRRESPONSIBLE AND INDISCRIMINATE INTRUSIONS BY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS. 
SEE WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.), VOL. 8, SEC. 2184B, PP. 51-2. 

WHILE THE DETECTAPHONE IS PRIMARILY USED TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE, AND
WHILE SUCH USE APPEARS TO BE CONDEMNED BY THE RULINGS OF THIS COURT IN
GOULED V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, AND UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ,
285 U.S. 452, I AM NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THIS PURPOSE NECESSARILY
MAKES ALL DETECTAPHONE "SEARCHES" UNREASONABLE, NO MATTER WHAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, OR THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS EMPLOYED.  CF. MARRON V.
UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 192.  SEE WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.), VOL. 8,
SECS. 2251, 2264; 31 YALE L.J. 518, 522; CHAFEE, PROGRESS OF THE LAW,
1919-1922, 35 HARV. L. REV. 673, 699; 32 COL. L. REV. 386; COOLEY,
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (8TH ED.), VOL. 1, P. 625. 

FN8  THE OLMSTEAD CASE LIMITS THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE CLAUSE TO "AN
OFFICIAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF HIS (DEFENDANT'S) PERSON OR SUCH A
SEIZURE OF HIS PAPERS OR HIS TANGIBLE MATERIAL EFFECTS, OR AN ACTUAL
PHYSICAL INVASION OF HIS HOUSE 'OR CURTILAGE' FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING
A SEIZURE."  277 U.S. 438, 466. 

THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT PRIOR TO THE OLMSTEAD CASE INSISTED ON A
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND PLACED WITHIN ITS
COMPASS ACTIVITIES BEARING SLIGHT, IF ANY, RESEMBLANCE TO THE MISCHIEFS
KNOWN AT THE TIME OF ITS ADOPTION.  SEE BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S.
616; SILVERTHORNE LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385; GOULED V.
UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298. 

FN9  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS OVERHEARD SHULMAN'S
END OF SOME OUTSIDE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. 
..END :
























MILCOR STEEL CO. V. FULLER CO., 316 U.S. 143 


NO. 720.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 122 F.2D
292, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IT IS THE CLAIMS, NOT THE SPECIFICATIONS, THAT MEASURE THE GRANT
OF A PATENT.  P. 145. 

2.  A DISCLAIMER UNDER THE PATENT LAW, R.S. SEC. 4917, WHICH ATTEMPTS
TO ADD NEW ELEMENTS TO A CLAIM AND THEREBY CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THE
CLAIM, IS INVALID, EVEN THOUGH IN OTHER RESPECTS IT NARROWS THE CLAIM. 
P. 147. 

MILCOR STEEL CO. V. GEORGE A. FULLER CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 604, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF TWO
CLAIMS OF A PATENT ISSUED TO ONE HOLDSWORTH AND ASSIGNED TO THE
PETITIONER.  ONE DEFENSE PLEADED BY THE RESPONDENTS WAS THAT HOLDSWORTH
WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL INVENTOR.  WHEN A PATENTEE, "THROUGH INADVERTENCE,
ACCIDENT, OR MISTAKE, AND WITHOUT ANY FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE INTENTION
...  HAS CLAIMED MORE THAN THAT OF WHICH HE WAS THE ORIGINAL OR FIRST
INVENTOR  ...  ," REV. STAT. SEC. 4917, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 65, PRESERVES
FOR HIM OR HIS ASSIGNEE "ALL THAT PART WHICH IS TRULY AND JUSTLY HIS
OWN, PROVIDED THE SAME IS A MATERIAL OR SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE THING
PATENTED."  THE METHOD PRESCRIBED FOR SAVING THE PATENT IN PART IS
"DISCLAIMER OF SUCH PARTS OF THE THING PATENTED" AS THE PATENTEE OR HIS
ASSIGNEE "SHALL NOT CHOOSE TO CLAIM."  AFTER THE RESPONDENTS ANSWERED,
THE PETITIONER FILED DISCLAIMERS IN THE PATENT OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO
THE TWO CLAIMS IN SUIT, PURPORTING TO NARROW THEIR SCOPE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.  THE DEFENDANTS THEN MOVED FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO RULES 12(C) AND 56(B) OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  THEIR GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS,
WERE THAT THE REVISED CLAIMS ADDED NEW ELEMENTS NOT RECITED IN THE
ORIGINAL ONES; AND REPRESENTED AN EFFORT TO GIVE THE OLD PATENT A NEW
SCOPE NOT PREVIOUSLY CONTEMPLATED AND NEVER PASSED UPON IN THE LIGHT OF
THE PRIOR ART BY THE PATENT OFFICE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE
DISCLAIMERS DID IMPORT NEW ELEMENTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIMS
AND HELD THAT THEY RENDERED THE CLAIMS INVALID, RELYING UPON OUR
DECISION IN ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477. 
ACCORDINGLY, IT ENTERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  122 F.2D 292. 

AS WE READ THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW, IT AFFIRMS THE PROPOSITION
THAT, WHERE A DISCLAIMER ATTEMPTS TO ADD A NEW ELEMENT TO A CLAIM, THE
DISCLAIMER IS INVALID EVEN THOUGH IT MAY ALSO MAKE THE REVISED CLAIM
NARROWER THAN THE ORIGINAL.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS ON THE QUESTION IN OTHER CIRCUITS.  FN1 

THE PATENT IN SUIT HERE IS FOR A WALL, TO BE USED AS A PARTITION
BETWEEN ROOMS OR ON THE INNER SIDE OF THE WALLS OF THE BUILDING
ITSELF.  THE NECESSARY PARTS ARE A PIECE OF METAL TO BE FASTENED TO THE
CEILING; ANOTHER TO BE FASTENED TO THE FLOOR; UPSTANDING CHANNEL IRON
SUPPORTS RUNNING BETWEEN THE TOP AND BOTTOM MEMBERS; METAL LATHING TO
BE FASTENED BY WIRES TO THE SKELETON WALL IN ORDER THAT PLASTERING MAY
BE SUPPORTED. 

THE SPECIFICATIONS DESCRIBE AND DRAWINGS ILLUSTRATE (1) A TOP ANGLE
IRON MEMBER WITH A PERFORATED SURFACE OR FLANGE HANGING DOWNWARD SO AS
TO FIT INTO SLOTS AT THE TOP OF THE UPSTANDING IRONS; (2) RECESSES IN
THE BASE MEMBER PROVIDING A SNUG FIT FOR THE BOTTOM PART OF THE
UPSTANDING CHANNEL IRONS.  THE TWO CLAIMS IN CONTROVERSY ARE PRINTED IN
THE MARGIN.  FN2  AS THE COURTS BELOW POINTED OUT, IT IS THESE CLAIMS,
NOT THE SPECIFICATIONS, THAT AFFORD THE MEASURE OF THE GRANT TO THE
PATENTEE.  FN3  "OUT OF ALL THE POSSIBLE PERMUTATIONS OF ELEMENTS WHICH
CAN BE MADE FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS, HE RESERVES FOR HIMSELF ONLY THOSE
CONTAINED IN THE CLAIMS."  122 F.2D 292, 294.  THE FOREGOING FEATURES
APPEARING IN THE SPECIFICATIONS ARE NOT SET OUT IN THE CLAIMS
THEMSELVES; THE CLAIMS DO NOT INDICATE IN ANY WAY THAT THESE FEATURES
WERE ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THE COMBINATION FOR WHICH THE PATENT WAS
ISSUED.  ON THE CONTRARY, HOLDSWORTH ASSERTED THAT HIS SPECIFICATIONS
IN GENERAL SHOWED ONLY A "PREFERRED EMBODIMENT" OF HIS INVENTION, AND
WITH RESPECT TO THE CEILING MEMBER IN PARTICULAR, STATED:  "I DO NOT
WISH TO BE LIMITED TO AN ANGLE IRON FOR COMPLETING THE TOP OF THE METAL
CONSTRUCTION." 

THE DISCLAIMERS, HOWEVER, PURPORTED TO MAKE THESE TWO FEATURES
ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THE CLAIMED COMBINATION.  ONE DISCLAIMER SUBSTITUTED
FOR PART OF ONE OF THE ORIGINAL GENERAL CLAIMS A DESCRIPTION OF A
"CEILING MEMBER (WHICH) COMPRISES A VERTICAL DEPENDING PERFORATED
FLANGE, ONE SIDE OF WHICH IS OVERLAPPED BY METAL LATHING"; AND THE
OTHER DISCLAIMER SUBSTITUTED FOR PART OF ANOTHER ORIGINAL GENERAL CLAIM
A DESCRIPTION OF A "BASE MEMBER  ...  COMPOSED OF A LONGITUDINAL STRIP
HAVING RECESSES TO RECEIVE THE LOWER ENDS OF THE WEBS OF CHANNEL WALL
SUPPORTS, THE FLANGES OF THE CHANNEL WALL SUPPORTS OVERLAPPING THE BASE
MEMBER ADJACENT THE RECESSES."  LIMITING OURSELVES, AS WE MUST, TO THE
ORIGINAL CLAIMS TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF THE COMBINATION COVERED BY
THE PATENT WHEN IT WAS GRANTED, AND COMPARING THAT COMBINATION WITH THE
ONE PURPORTEDLY EMBODIED BY THE CLAIMS AFTER THE DISCLAIMER, WE CAN
ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE REVISED PATENT INCLUDES NEW ELEMENTS WHICH WERE
NOT PRESENT IN THE ORIGINAL. 

THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS THAT THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES ANY
DISCLAIMER WHICH ACTUALLY NARROWS THE CLAIM, AND THAT ITS DISCLAIMER
WOULD HAVE THE REQUISITE NARROWING EFFECT BECAUSE IT WOULD RESTRICT THE
CLAIMS TO COVER THE COMBINATION ONLY WHEN THE FEATURES DESCRIBED IN THE
DISCLAIMERS WERE PRESENT. 

BUT IN ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., SUPRA, 489-490, THE TEST
WHICH THE PETITIONER ARGUES FOR HERE WAS REJECTED.  ALTHOUGH THIS COURT
RECOGNIZED THAT AN EFFECT OF THE DISCLAIMER IN CONTROVERSY IN THE
ALTOONA CASE WAS "IN ONE SENSE TO NARROW THE CLAIMS," IT CONCLUDED THAT
THE DISCLAIMER STATUTE "DOES NOT PERMIT THE ADDITION OF A NEW ELEMENT
TO THE COMBINATION PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED, WHEREBY THE PATENT ORIGINALLY
FOR ONE COMBINATION IS TRANSFORMED INTO A NEW AND DIFFERENT ONE FOR THE
NEW COMBINATION." 

THE HOLDSWORTH PATENT WAS FOR A STRUCTURE COMPOSED OF A COMBINATION
OF FAMILIAR ELEMENTS.  IF THERE WAS NOVELTY, IT CONSISTED IN THE
COMBINATION.  "A COMBINATION IS ALWAYS AN ENTIRETY.  IN SUCH CASES, THE
PATENTEE CANNOT ABANDON A PART AND CLAIM THE REST, NOR CAN HE BE
PERMITTED TO PROVE THAT A PART IS USELESS, AND, THEREFORE, IMMATERIAL. 
HE MUST STAND BY HIS CLAIM AS HE HAS MADE IT.  IF MORE OR LESS THAN THE
WHOLE OF HIS INGREDIENTS ARE USED BY ANOTHER, SUCH PARTY  ... HAS NOT
USED THE INVENTION OR DISCOVERY PATENTED.  WITH THE CHANGE OF THE
ELEMENTS THE IDENTITY OF THE PRODUCT DISAPPEARS."  SCHUMACHER V.
CORNELL, 96 U.S. 549, 554.  THIS COURT HAS EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT
THE DISCLAIMER STATUTE CANNOT BE INVOKED TO JUSTIFY SUCH A CHANGE. 
VANCE V. CAMPBELL, 1 BLACK 427, 429.  AND HERE, AS IN THE ALTOONA CASE,
THE REVISED CLAIMS CHANGE THE COMBINATION SET OUT IN THE ORIGINAL
CLAIMS.  THE DISCLAIMERS DO MORE THAN DELETE A "DISTINCT AND SEPARABLE
MATTER  ...  WITHOUT MUTILATING OR CHANGING WHAT IS LEFT STANDING";
THEY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION AND ARE THEREFORE
UNAUTHORIZED BY THE DISCLAIMER STATUTE.  HAILES V. ALBANY STOVE CO.,
123 U.S. 582, 587. 

IF AN ALTERATION OF ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A CLAIMED
COMBINATION WERE PERMISSIBLE AT ALL, IT WOULD BE UNDER THE REISSUE
STATUTE, REV. STAT. SEC. 4916, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 64, WHICH GRANTS RIGHTS
ONLY FROM THE DATE OF REISSUE AND AFTER CONSIDERATION BY THE PATENT
OFFICE.  ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., SUPRA, 491.  TO PERMIT
SUCH SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATIONS UNDER THE DISCLAIMER STATUTE, WHICH, WHERE
APPLICABLE, GIVES EFFECT TO THE REVISED CLAIMS FROM THE DATE OF THE
ORIGINAL ISSUE WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION BY THE PATENT OFFICE, WOULD BE
CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF THE PATENT LAWS.  IN THE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE
BRADLEY, IT WOULD PERMIT "A MAN  ...  BY MERELY FILING A PAPER DRAWN UP
BY HIS SOLICITOR, (TO) MAKE TO HIMSELF A NEW PATENT."  HAILES V. ALBANY
STOVE CO., SUPRA, 587.  CF. BROOKS V. FISKE, 15 HOW.  212, 219.  IT
WOULD ALSO RETROACTIVELY CREATE POSSIBILITIES OF INNOCENT INFRINGEMENT
WHERE NO ONE WOULD REASONABLY HAVE SUSPECTED THEM TO EXIST. 

THE COURTS BELOW PROPERLY DECIDED THAT THE ATTEMPTED DISCLAIMERS HERE
INVALIDATED THE CLAIMS IN CONTROVERSY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE E.G., PAYNE FURNACE & SUPPLY CO. V. WILLIAMS-WALLACE CO.,
117 F.2D 823; CINCINNATI RUBBER MFG. CO. V. STOWE-WOODWARD, INC., 111
F.2D 239. 

FN2  "6.  A WALL CONSTRUCTION FOR A ROOM HAVING A FLOOR AND A
CEILING, SAID WALL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING A BASE MEMBER AND A CEILING
MEMBER, SAID WALL CONSTRUCTION ALSO INCLUDING UPSTANDING WALL-SUPPORTS
WHOSE HEIGHT IS LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM VERTICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN SAID
BASE MEMBER AND SAID CEILING MEMBER, SAID UPSTANDING WALL SUPPORTS
BEING LOCATED BETWEEN SAID BASE MEMBER AND SAID CEILING MEMBER, SAID
WALL SUPPORTS BEING VERTICALLY MOVABLE RELATIVE TO SAID BASE MEMBER AND
TO SAID CEILING MEMBER WHEN SAID WALL SUPPORTS ARE ASSEMBLED WITH SAID
BASE MEMBER AND SAID CEILING MEMBER, AND MEANS OPERATIVE TO PREVENT ANY
SUBSTANTIAL TILTING MOVEMENT OF SAID WALL SUPPORTS FROM THEIR
PREDETERMINED UPSTANDING POSITION. 

"7.  A WALL CONSTRUCTION FOR A ROOM HAVING A FLOOR AND A CEILING,
SAID WALL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING A BASE MEMBER AND A CEILING MEMBER,
SAID WALL CONSTRUCTION ALSO INCLUDING UPSTANDING WALL-SUPPORTS WHOSE
HEIGHT IS LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM VERTICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN SAID BASE
MEMBER AND SAID CEILING MEMBER, SAID UPSTANDING WALL SUPPORTS BEING
LOCATED BETWEEN SAID BASE MEMBER AND SAID CEILING MEMBER, SAID WALL
SUPPORTS BEING VERTICALLY MOVABLE RELATIVE TO SAID BASE MEMBER AND TO
SAID CEILING MEMBER WHEN SAID WALL SUPPORTS ARE ASSEMBLED WITH SAID
BASE MEMBER AND SAID CEILING MEMBER, SAID BASE MEMBER AND SAID CEILING
MEMBER BEING SHAPED TO PROVIDE MEANS WHICH ARE OPERATIVE TO PREVENT ANY
SUBSTANTIAL TILTING OF SAID WALL SUPPORTS FROM THEIR PREDETERMINED
UPSTANDING POSITION." 

ITALICS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO MARK THOSE PORTIONS IN WHICH THE TWO
CLAIMS DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER. 

FN3  REV. STAT. SEC. 4888, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33, REQUIRES THAT THE
APPLICANT FOR A PATENT "SHALL PARTICULARLY POINT OUT AND DISTINCTLY
CLAIM THE PART, IMPROVEMENT, OR COMBINATION WHICH HE CLAIMS AS HIS
INVENTION OR DISCOVERY."  SEE PAPER BAG PATENT CASE, 210 U.S. 405, 419;
MAHN V. HARWOOD, 112 U.S. 354, 360-361. 
..END :

















TRADE COMM'N V. RALADAM CO., 316 U.S. 149 


NO. 826.  ARGUED APRIL 13, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 123 F.2D
34, REVERSED. 


1.  A JUDGMENT REFUSING TO ENFORCE A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION BECAUSE OF THE INADEQUACY OF THE FINDINGS AND
PROOF AS REVEALED BY THE PARTICULAR RECORD IS NOT CONTROLLING IN LATER
PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING DIFFERENT FACTS AND A DIFFERENT RECORD.  P.
150. 

2.  ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT WAS TO
PREVENT POTENTIAL INJURY BY STOPPING UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN
THEIR INCIPIENCY.  P. 152. 

3.  WHEN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FINDS THAT DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS
ARE BEING MADE EXTOLLING THE QUALITY OF MERCHANDISE IN ACTIVE
COMPETITION WITH OTHER MERCHANDISE, IT IS AUTHORIZED TO INFER THAT
TRADE WILL BE DIVERTED FROM COMPETITORS WHO DO NOT ENGAGE IN SUCH
UNFAIR METHODS.  P. 152. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. RALADAM COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 790, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE A CEASE
AND-DESIST ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER OF
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION UPON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN FINDINGS WERE
NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  123 F.2D 34.  THE REFUSAL OF THE COURT TO
ENFORCE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER RESTED IN PART UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF
THIS COURT'S DECISION IN A PRIOR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES. 
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643.  BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF QUESTIONS RAISED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

U.S.C. SEC. 45, DECLARES UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE TO
BE UNLAWFUL; EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO PREVENT SUCH METHODS; AND
AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION AFTER HEARINGS AND FINDINGS OF FACT TO ISSUE
ORDERS REQUIRING VIOLATORS "TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM USING SUCH METHOD
OF COMPETITION."  IN 1929, THE COMMISSION, AFTER HEARINGS, FOUND THAT
THE RALADAM COMPANY HAD USED UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN SELLING A
PREPARATION CALLED MARMOLA BY MAKING MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE
STATEMENTS CONCERNING ITS QUALITIES AS A REMEDY FOR OVERWEIGHT.  THE
COMMISSION ISSUED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS VACATED.  42 F.2D 430.  THIS COURT AFFIRMED THE COURT OF
APPEALS' JUDGMENT, SAYING THAT THERE WAS "NEITHER FINDING NOR EVIDENCE
FROM WHICH THE CONCLUSION LEGITIMATELY CAN BE DRAWN THAT THESE
ADVERTISEMENTS SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED OR TENDED  ...  TO INJURE THE
BUSINESS OF ANY COMPETITOR OR OF COMPETITORS GENERALLY, WHETHER
LEGITIMATE OR NOT.  ...  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY WHETHER, AS A RESULT
OF RESPONDENT'S ADVERTISEMENTS, ANY BUSINESS WAS DIVERTED, OR WAS
LIKELY TO BE DIVERTED, FROM OTHERS ENGAGED IN LIKE TRADE, OR WHETHER
COMPETITORS, IDENTIFIED OR UNIDENTIFIED, WERE INJURED IN THEIR
BUSINESS, OR WERE LIKELY TO BE INJURED, OR, INDEED, WHETHER ANY OTHER
ANTI-OBESITY REMEDIES WERE SOLD OR OFFERED FOR SALE IN COMPETITION, OR
WERE OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS NATURALLY TO COME INTO ANY REAL
COMPETITION, WITH RESPONDENT'S PREPARATION IN THE INTERSTATE MARKET." 
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. RALADAM CO., SUPRA, 652-653.  IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE REASONS FOR REFUSING TO ENFORCE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ARE GROUNDED
UPON THE INADEQUACY OF THE FINDINGS AND PROOF, AS REVEALED IN THE
PARTICULAR RECORD THEN BEFORE THIS COURT.  HENCE, THESE REASONS ARE NOT
CONTROLLING IN THIS CASE, ARISING, AS IT DOES, OUT OF DIFFERENT
PROCEEDINGS AND PRESENTING DIFFERENT FACTS AND A DIFFERENT RECORD FOR
OUR CONSIDERATION. 

IN 1935, THE COMMISSION INSTITUTED THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
RALADAM, CHARGING UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 5
OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  HEARINGS WERE HELD AND MUCH
EVIDENCE WAS HEARD CONCERNING RALADAM'S TRADE METHODS SINCE THE DATE OF
THE EARLIER CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  THIS TIME THE COMMISSION FOUND
WITH METICULOUS PARTICULARITY THAT RALADAM HAD MADE MANY MISLEADING AND
DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS TO FURTHER SALES OF MARMOLA; THAT MARMOLA HAD MANY
ACTIVE RIVALS FOR THE TRADE OF THOSE WHO WERE INTERESTED IN FATREDUCING
REMEDIES; THAT RALADAM'S MISLEADING STATEMENTS HAD THE "TENDENCY AND
CAPACITY" TO INDUCE PEOPLE "TO PURCHASE AND USE RESPONDENT'S  ...
PREPARATION OR MEDICINE FOR REDUCING PURPOSES  ...  IN PREFERENCE TO
AND TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE PRODUCTS OF COMPETITORS,  ...  AND TO
DIVERT TRADE TO RESPONDENT FROM SUCH COMPETITORS ENGAGED IN THE SALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF MEDICINES, PREPARATIONS, SYSTEMS, METHODS, BOOKS
OF INSTRUCTION, AND OTHER ARTICLES AND MEANS DESIGNED, INTENDED AND
USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING WEIGHT." 

THESE FINDINGS WERE AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 
THE COURT BELOW, HOWEVER, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT THE ALLEGED UNFAIR
METHODS "SUBSTANTIALLY INJURED OR TENDED TO INJURE THE BUSINESS OF ANY
COMPETITOR."  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT SALES OF MARMOLA TO THE CONSUMING
PUBLIC ARE MADE AT RETAIL DRUG STORES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY; THAT
RALADAM DISTRIBUTES MARMOLA BOTH TO WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS; THAT THE
WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS WHO SELL MARMOLA ALSO SELL NUMEROUS OTHER
REMEDIES FOR TAKING OFF FAT; THAT THE ESSENTIAL FAT-REDUCING ELEMENT IN
MARMOLA IS DESICCATED THYROID, WHICH IS ALSO AN ELEMENT IN SOME OF THE
OTHER REMEDIES SOLD TO THE PUBLIC WITH OR WITHOUT DOCTORS'
PRESCRIPTIONS; THAT MANY BOOKS OF INSTRUCTION ON METHODS OF REDUCING
WEIGHT ARE SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND THAT THE GROSS SALES OF
MARMOLA WERE FROM $350,000 TO $400,000 A YEAR.  FROM THIS AND OTHER
EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT NUMEROUS ANTIFAT REMEDIES WERE
OFFERED FOR SALE IN THE SAME MARKET AS MARMOLA, AND THAT MARMOLA WAS IN
ACTIVE COMPETITION WITH THEM FOR THE FAVOR OF THE REMEDY-PURCHASING
PUBLIC. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOW SPECIFICALLY THAT LOSSES
TO ANY PARTICULAR TRADER OR TRADERS ARISE FROM RALADAM'S SUCCESS IN
CAPTURING PART OF THE MARKET.  ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ACT CREATING
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WAS TO PREVENT POTENTIAL INJURY BY
STOPPING UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN THEIR INCIPIENCY.  FASHION
GUILD V. TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457, 466.  AND WHEN THE COMMISSION
FINDS, AS IT DID HERE, THAT MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS WERE
MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUALITY OF MERCHANDISE IN ACTIVE COMPETITION
WITH OTHER MERCHANDISE, IT IS ALSO AUTHORIZED TO INFER THAT TRADE WILL
BE DIVERTED FROM COMPETITORS WHO DO NOT ENGAGE IN SUCH "UNFAIR
METHODS."  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. WINSTED CO., 258 U.S. 483, 493.  THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED
AGAINST THE ATTACK MADE UPON THEM. 

RALADAM CONTENDS HERE, AS IT DID BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE FIRST
CASE MAKES THE ISSUES HERE IN CONTROVERSY RES JUDICATA, AND THEREFORE
BARS THESE PROCEEDINGS.  IT ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE DENIAL BY THIS COURT
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS, OF THE
COMMISSION'S MOTION TO OFFER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO
COMPETITORS AND INJURY TO COMPETITION, SHOULD HAVE A LIKE EFFECT.  WE
THINK THESE CONTENTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT, AND THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE
COURT BELOW IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT A DECISION ON THE MERITS WAS
APPROPRIATE. 

THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT SOUGHT IN THIS COURT TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BELOW ON ANY OTHER GROUND.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS THAT THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
BE AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 
..END :





MUNICIPAL INVESTORS V. BIRMINGHAM, 316 U.S. 153 


NO. 755.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 298 MICH.
314, 299 N.W. 90, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHEN ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER A CONTRACT HAS BEEN IMPAIRED BY STATE
LEGISLATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
THIS COURT FIRST ASCERTAINS WHETHER THE ALLEGED CONTRACT EXISTS, EVEN
THOUGH, IN SO DOING, IT MUST DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW WHICH
HAVE NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE STATE COURT.  P. 157. 

2.  PROVISIONS IN A MUNICIPAL CHARTER FOR MAKING "AN ADDITIONAL PRO
RATA ASSESSMENT" TO SUPPLY THE DEFICIENCY WHEN ANY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
SHALL "PROVE INSUFFICIENT" TO PAY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT FOR WHICH IT WAS
LEVIED, AND DECLARING THAT THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BONDS ISSUED
TO PAY FOR AN IMPROVEMENT SHALL "BE PAYABLE OUT OF THE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FUND WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS COLLECTED"; TOGETHER
WITH PROVISIONS IN THE BONDS WHEREBY THE MUNICIPALITY PROMISES TO PAY
THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST "FROM THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND CREATED
FOR THE PURPOSE," AND PLEDGES ITS FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR THE PAYMENT
OF EACH BOND "FROM THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE
WHEN THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN COLLECTED," DO NOT ESTABLISH A
CONTRACTUAL RIGHT IN THE BONDHOLDERS TO REQUIRE THAT THE MUNICIPALITY,
IN ORDER TO MEET DEFICIENCIES IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS, SHALL
RE-ASSESS LOTS IN THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD FOR NON
PAYMENT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS.  P. 158. 

MUNICIPAL INVESTORS ASSOCIATION V. BIRMINGHAM ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT REFUSING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE CITY
OF BIRMINGHAM TO LEVY AN ADDITIONAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON LAND IN A
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN,
WHICH UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MICHIGAN STATUTES  FN1
EXTINGUISHING UNMATURED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, TAX LIENS OR OTHER
ENCUMBRANCES ON LAND SOLD FOR TAX DELINQUENCY, AND WHICH THEREFORE
REFUSED A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM TO LEVY AN
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON LAND SO SOLD, TO PAY DEFAULTED PAVING
BONDS ISSUED IN 1928 BY ITS PREDECESSOR, THE VILLAGE OF BIRMINGHAM. 
298 MICH. 314, 299 N.W. 90.  THE APPELLANT, MUNICIPAL INVESTORS
ASSOCIATION, AS HOLDER OF THESE BONDS, CLAIMS TO HAVE A CONTRACT RIGHT
UNDER THE LAW OF MICHIGAN IN 1928 TO REQUIRE SUCH AN ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENT, AND ASSERTS THAT THE SUBSEQUENT MICHIGAN STATUTES CONSTRUED
TO PREVENT THE LEVY IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF ITS CONTRACT CONTRARY TO
ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

DETERMINATION OF THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL WAS
POSTPONED TO THE HEARING OF THE CASE UPON THE MERITS.  WE THINK THAT
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TWO 1937 STATUTES UPHELD BY THE MICHIGAN
SUPREME COURT WAS SUFFICIENTLY AND SEASONABLY DRAWN IN QUESTION IN
APPELLANT'S REPLY, AND THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 237
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 344) ARE SATISFIED.  APPELLANT
CHALLENGED THE ACTS AS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE.  BUT WE FIND
IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OR VALIDITY OF THESE STATUTES,
FOR WE THINK THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY CONTRACT RIGHT
TO AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT AFTER A SALE TO ENFORCE AN ASSESSMENT LIEN
UNDER THE PREEXISTING MICHIGAN LAW, IN FORCE WHEN THE BONDS WERE
ISSUED. 

THE DECISION REFUSING MANDAMUS FOR AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT WAS
ENTERED ON THE PLEADINGS.  THESE DISCLOSE THAT THE VILLAGE OF
BIRMINGHAM, IN ORDER TO PAY THE COST OF PAVING CERTAIN STREETS, TOOK
PROCEEDINGS IN 1928 TO ASSESS 23.4% OF THE COST TO THE VILLAGE AT
LARGE, AND 76.6% TO THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THE IMPROVEMENT, SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 146.  THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT WAS PAYABLE IN
FIVE EQUAL ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS COMMENCING WITH 1928.  OF ONE HUNDRED
AND TEN PARCELS IN DISTRICT NO. 146, ABOUT ONE HUNDRED NEVER PAID THEIR
SHARES OF THE ASSESSMENT, WERE OFFERED FOR SALE FOR THESE AND OTHER
UNPAID TAXES AT THE ANNUAL TAX SALE OF 1938, AND WERE BID IN BY THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN.  THEY WERE NOT REDEEMED, AND WERE LATER SOLD BY THE
STATE.  ABOUT TEN PARCELS IN THE DISTRICT PAID THEIR SHARES OF THE
PAVING ASSESSMENT AND HAVE NEVER BEEN SOLD FOR TAXES. 

IN ANTICIPATION OF THE COLLECTION OF THIS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT THE
VILLAGE HAD ISSUED IN 1928 SEVENTEEN ANNUALLY MATURING SERIAL 5 1/4%
BONDS.  OF THESE, NO. 1 TO NO. 7 APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PAID, NO. 8 TO NO.
11 WERE REFUNDED, AND NO. 12 TO NO. 17, WHICH ARE HELD BY APPELLANT,
HAVE ALL BEEN IN DEFAULT BOTH AS TO INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL AT LEAST
SINCE OCTOBER 1, 1933.  A NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT IS ON HAND IN THE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT FUND, AND NOT OVER 20% OF THE AMOUNT STILL OWING WILL BE
REALIZED FROM THE DISTRICT'S SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX SALES. 
IN ORDER TO REPLENISH THE FUND, THE APPELLANT SEEKS TO COMPEL THE
DEFENDANTS BY THE LAWS IN FORCE WHEN THE BONDS WERE ISSUED TO LEVY UPON
ALL THE LAND IN THE DISTRICT, INCLUDING THE LOTS PREVIOUSLY SOLD FOR
TAXES AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT EQUAL TO
THE UNPAID PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST. 

THE GENERAL ACT UNDER WHICH THE VILLAGE WAS INCORPORATED LISTED AMONG
THE PERMISSIBLE CHARTER POWERS A PROVISION "FOR ASSESSING AND
REASSESSING THE COST, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, OF ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
TO A SPECIAL DISTRICT," ACT NO. 278, PUBLIC ACTS OF 1909, SEC. 24(E);
MICH. COMP. LAWS (1929) SEC. 1786(E).  FN2  PURSUANT TO THIS
AUTHORIZATION, SEC. 15 OF CHAPTER XXI OF THE VILLAGE CHARTER PROVIDED:
"SHOULD ANY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROVE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OR WORK FOR WHICH IT WAS LEVIED, AND THE EXPENSES INCIDENT
THERETO, THE COMMISSION MAY MAKE AN ADDITIONAL PRO RATA ASSESSMENT TO
SUPPLY THE DEFICIENCY; AND IN CASE A LARGER AMOUNT SHALL HAVE BEEN
COLLECTED THAN WAS NECESSARY, THE EXCESS SHALL BE REFUNDED RATABLY TO
THOSE BY WHOM IT WAS PAID."  FN3  SECTION 22 OF CHAPTER XX OF THE
CHARTER STATED THAT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS SHOULD "BE PAYABLE OUT OF
THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FUND WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS
COLLECTED."  IN THE BONDS THEMSELVES THE VILLAGE PROMISED TO PAY THE
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, "SAID PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST HOWEVER, BEING
PAYABLE FROM THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE  ...
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE VILLAGE OF BIRMINGHAM ARE HEREBY
PLEDGED FOR THE PUNCTUAL PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF THIS
BOND FROM THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE, WHEN THE
SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN COLLECTED." 

THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT ASSUMED, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THESE
VARIOUS PROVISIONS DID INCLUDE IN THE BONDHOLDERS' CONTRACT A RIGHT TO
ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS AFTER A TAX SALE FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEFICIENCIES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO NON-PAYMENT OF VALID PRIOR ASSESSMENTS.  298 MICH. 314,
319, 299 N.W. 90, 92.  AS A CONTRACT MUST EXIST BEFORE IT CAN BE
IMPAIRED, AND AS OUR CONCLUSION AGAINST EXISTENCE OF THE CONTRACT RIGHT
SETTLES THIS CASE, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO CONSIDER ONLY WHETHER THERE WAS
A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BONDHOLDERS AND THE VILLAGE FOR AN ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENT ON THE DISTRICT PROPERTY TO MEET DEFICIENCIES, INSTEAD OF
UNDERTAKING THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE
CHALLENGED STATUTES OF MICHIGAN.  WHILE THIS APPROACH FORCES US TO
DECIDE THE MEANING OF MICHIGAN LEGISLATION WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF
THE COURTS OF THAT STATE, IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO BECAUSE OF THE
OBLIGATION OF THIS COURT TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
UPON WHICH INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REST.  FN4 

THE COMPLETE CHARTER OF THE VILLAGE IS NOT BEFORE US.  FROM THE
AUTHORIZED POWER GRANTED BY THE PUBLIC ACT OF 1909 UNDER WHICH IT WAS
ORGANIZED, HOWEVER, FROM THE LANGUAGE IN SEC. 15 OF CHAPTER XXI OF THE
CHARTER PROVIDING FOR "AN ADDITIONAL PRO RATA ASSESSMENT" AND FROM THE
TERMS OF THE BOND, LIMITING ITS PAYMENT TO "THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND
CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE, WHEN THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN COLLECTED," WE
ARE SATISFIED THERE WAS NO CONTRACT TO REASSESS LOTS ONCE SOLD FOR THE
ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT.  IF THE STATED POWERS OF THE VILLAGE TO LEVY AN
ASSESSMENT ON IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROPERTY REQUIRED THAT THE LOTS
ASSESSED, AFTER SALE FOR DEFAULT IN THEIR INSTALLMENTS, SHOULD BE
SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT TO COVER SUCH DEFICIENCIES, THE
BURDEN MIGHT DEPRESS THEIR VALUE TO A POINT WHERE LITTLE IF ANYTHING
COULD BE REALIZED FOR THE BONDHOLDERS, AND SUCCESSFUL SALE FOR NON
PAYMENT WOULD BE FRUSTRATED.  THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE TRUE WHERE, AS
HERE, A VERY LARGE PROPORTION OF THE ASSESSMENTS WERE DEFAULTED.  A
PROSPECTIVE INVESTOR IN THE BONDS MUST LOOK ULTIMATELY TO THE SALE OF
EACH LOT FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT ASSESSED AGAINST THAT PARTICULAR
PARCEL.  FN5 

WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROVES INSUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT.  ASSESSMENT BONDS MAY BE BASED ON UNDERTAKINGS WHEREBY
BENEFITED LANDS MAY BE LIABLE EVEN AFTER THEY WERE SOLD TO PAY THE
ASSESSMENT LIENS UPON THEM TO RECOVER FOR DEFAULTS IN SALES OF OTHER
ASSESSED PROPERTIES.  SEE KADOW V. PAUL, 274 U.S. 175.  BUT IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONTROLLING MICHIGAN LAW, SEC. 15 REPELS SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION.  THE LANGUAGE FALLS FAR SHORT OF SUBJECTING LOTS WHICH
HAVE BEEN SOLD TO PAY TAX OR ASSESSMENT LIENS TO AN ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENT FOR THE DEFICIT.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD DEFEAT THE
REMEDY OF TAX SALES AS A MEANS OF REALIZING THE ASSESSMENT LIEN.  FN6 

THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN DOES NOT DEAL
SPECIFICALLY WITH THE STATUS OF THE LOTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SOLD TO
SATISFY THE ASSESSMENTS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR UPON
THAT GROUND, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION THEREON.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACTS NOS. 114, 155, MICH. PUB. ACTS OF 1937. 

FN2  THE SAME ACT STATED THAT "NO VILLAGE SHALL HAVE POWER:  ...  TO
ISSUE ANY BONDS WITHOUT CREATING A SINKING FUND FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE
SAME, EXCEPT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS WHICH ARE A CHARGE UPON A SPECIAL
DISTRICT CREATED FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF, AND SERIAL BONDS PAYABLE
ANNUALLY."  ACT NO. 278, PUBLIC ACTS OF 1909, SEC. 26(K); MICH.  COMP.
LAWS (1929) SEC. 1788(K). 

FN3  SECTION 18 OF CHAPTER X OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF
BIRMINGHAM, ADOPTED IN 1933, MAKES PROVISION FOR AN ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENT TO MEET INSUFFICIENCIES IN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS "FOR ANY
CAUSE, MISTAKE OR INADVERTENCE."  SECTION 12 OF CHAPTER XVIII MAKES
THESE PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE FOR THE VILLAGE DEBTS WHERE LEGALLY
APPLICABLE.  OBVIOUSLY, UNLESS THE VILLAGE CHARTER PROVISION IN EFFECT
WHEN THE BONDS WERE ISSUED AUTHORIZED ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS TO MEET
DEFICIENCIES, THE CITY CLAUSE COULD NOT ADD THAT BURDEN TO THE LOTS. 
IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE ONLY IF IT WERE A MEANS OF ENFORCING AN EXISTING
RIGHT.  CF. IN RE FARM DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1, WAUPACA COUNTY, 232 WIS.
455, 460, 461, 287 N.W. 806, 809 

FN4  APPLEBY V. NEW YORK, 271 U.S. 364, 379; KERSH LAKE DIST. V.
JOHNSON, 309 U.S. 485, 489-490; HALE V. STATE BOARD, 302 U.S. 95, 101. 

FN5  A GENERAL LIEN UPON LANDS IN A DISTRICT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE
CREATED BY SUITABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  AMERICAN SECURITIES CO. V.
FORWARD, 220 CAL. 566, 32 P.2D 343. 

IN DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION DISTRICTS THE CASES DIFFER AS TO WHETHER
BONDS WITH THE DISTRICT AS OBLIGOR ARE THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE
DISTRICT OR PAYABLE ONLY FROM THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST EACH
PARCEL. 

SEPARATE OBLIGATIONS:  INTERSTATE TRUST CO. V. MONTEZUMA DISTRICT, 66
COLO. 219, 181 P. 123; STATE V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 89 MONT. 37,
95, 296 P. 1, 18; NELSON V. BOARD OF COMM'RS, 62 UTAH 218, 218 P. 952. 

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS:  AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR DIST. V. THRALL, 39
IDAHO 105, 124, 228 P. 236, 241; NOBLE V. YANCEY, 116 ORE.  356, 241 P.
335; STATE EX REL. CLANCY V. COLUMBIA IRRIGATION DIST., 121 WASH. 79,
87, 208 P. 27, 30. 

FN6 COURTS OF OTHER STATES HAVE CONSIDERED SIMILAR QUESTIONS.  HENRY
WILCOX & SON V. RIVERVIEW DIST., 93 COLO. 115, 25 P.2D 172; REYNARD V.
CALDWELL, 55 IDAHO 342, 42 P.2D 292; HARTZ V. TRUCKENMILLER, 228 IOWA
819, 293 N.W. 568; STATE EX REL. JOHNSON V. DAYTON, 200 WASH. 91, 93
P.2D 909.  BUT CF. STATE EX REL. FRAZER V. HOLT COUNTY COURT, 135 MO.
533, 37 S.W. 521; IN RE FARM DRAINAGE DIST. NO. 1, WAUPACA COUNTY, 232
WIS. 455, 287 N.W. 806(DISTRICT WAS PROMISOR). 
..END :












GEORGIA V. EVANS, 316 U.S. 159 


NO. 872.  ARGUED APRIL 14, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 123 F.2D
57, REVERSED. 


A STATE IS A "PERSON" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT
AND ENTITLED THEREBY TO SUE FOR TREBLE DAMAGES WHEN, AS A PURCHASER OF
ASPHALT, IT IS INJURED BY A COMBINATION SUPPRESSING COMPETITION AND
FIXING PRICES OF THAT COMMODITY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UNITED STATES
V. COOPER CORP., 312 U.S. 600, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 162. 

GEORGIA V. EVANS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 792, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING AN ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER SEC. ( OF THE SHERMAN
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

COMPLAINING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD COMBINED TO FIX PRICES AND
SUPPRESS COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF ASPHALT IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
LAW, THE STATE OF GEORGIA, WHICH EACH YEAR PURCHASES LARGE QUANTITIES
OF ASPHALT FOR USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC ROADS, BROUGHT THIS
SUIT TO RECOVER TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 7 OF THAT ACT, 26 STAT. 209,
210; 15 U.S.C. SEC. 15.  ACCORDING TO THAT SECTION, "ANY PERSON WHO
SHALL BE INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY ANY OTHER PERSON OR
CORPORATION BY REASON OF ANYTHING FORBIDDEN OR DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL
BY THIS ACT, MAY SUE THEREFOR IN ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES  ...  , AND SHALL RECOVER THREEFOLD THE DAMAGES BY HIM SUSTAINED
...  "  SECTION 8 PROVIDES THAT "THE WORD 'PERSON,' OR 'PERSONS,'
WHEREVER USED IN THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE CORPORATIONS AND
ASSOCIATIONS EXISTING UNDER OR AUTHORIZED BY THE LAWS OF EITHER THE
UNITED STATES, THE LAWS OF ANY OF THE TERRITORIES, THE LAWS OF ANY
STATE, OR THE LAWS OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY."  26 STAT. 209, 210; 15
U.S.C. SEC. 7. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE OF
GEORGIA IS NOT A "PERSON" UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE ACT.  DEEMING THE
QUESTION CONTROLLED BY UNITED STATES V. COOPER CORP., 312 U.S. 600, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT. 
123 F.2D 57.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
SHERMAN LAW IS ATTESTED BY THE FACT THAT THIRTY-FOUR STATES, AS FRIENDS
OF THE COURT, SUPPORTED GEORGIA'S REQUEST THAT THE DECISION BE REVIEWED
ON CERTIORARI.  AND SO WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE. 

THE ONLY QUESTION IN THE COOPER CASE WAS "WHETHER, BY THE USE OF THE
PHRASE 'ANY PERSON,' CONGRESS INTENDED TO CONFER UPON THE UNITED STATES
THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES AGAINST A VIOLATOR
OF THE ACT."  312 U.S. AT 604.  EMPHASIZING THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD
CHOSEN FOR ITSELF THREE POTENT WEAPONS FOR ENFORCING THE ACT - NAMELY,
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION UNDER SECS. 1, 2, AND 3, INJUNCTION UNDER SEC. 4,
AND SEIZURE OF PROPERTY UNDER SEC. 6 - , THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT ALSO GIVE THE UNITED STATES THE REMEDY OF A CIVIL
ACTION FOR DAMAGES.  THIS INTERPRETATION WAS DRAWN FROM THE STRUCTURE
OF THE ACT, ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THE PRACTICE UNDER IT, AND PAST
JUDICIAL EXPRESSIONS.  IT WAS NOT HELD THAT THE WORD "PERSON,"
ABSTRACTLY CONSIDERED, COULD NOT INCLUDE A GOVERNMENTAL BODY.  WHETHER
THE WORD "PERSON" OR "CORPORATION" INCLUDES A STATE OR THE UNITED
STATES DEPENDS UPON ITS LEGISLATIVE ENVIRONMENT.  OHIO V. HELVERING,
292 U.S. 360, 370.  THE COOPER CASE RECOGNIZED THAT "THERE IS NO HARD
AND FAST RULE OF EXCLUSION.  THE PURPOSE, THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE
CONTEXT, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND THE EXECUTIVE INTERPRETATION OF
THE STATUTE ARE AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION WHICH MAY INDICATE AN INTENT, BY
THE USE OF THE TERM, TO BRING STATE OR NATION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
LAW."  312 U.S. AT 604-605.  CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTORS, THE COURT
FOUND THAT CONGRESS DID NOT GIVE TO THE GOVERNMENT, IN ADDITION TO THE
OTHER REMEDIES EXCLUSIVELY PROVIDED FOR IT, THE REMEDY OF TREBLE
DAMAGES - THE ONLY REMEDY ORIGINALLY GIVEN TO VICTIMS, OTHER THAN THE
GOVERNMENT, OF PRACTICES PROSCRIBED BY THE ACT. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED TO THIS CONSTRUCTION ARE ENTIRELY
LACKING HERE.  THE STATE OF GEORGIA, UNLIKE THE UNITED STATES, CANNOT
PROSECUTE VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  FN1  NOR CAN IT SEIZE
PROPERTY TRANSPORTED IN DEFIANCE OF IT.  AND AN AMENDMENT WAS NECESSARY
TO PERMIT SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION BY OTHERS THAN THE UNITED STATES.  SEE
MINNESOTA V. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO., 194 U.S. 48, 70-71, AND ACT OF
OCTOBER 15, 1914, C. 323, SEC. 16, 38 STAT. 730, 737.  IF THE STATE IS
NOT A "PERSON" WITHIN SEC. 8, THE SHERMAN LAW LEAVES IT WITHOUT ANY
REDRESS FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM PRACTICES OUTLAWED BY THAT ACT. 

THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER NO REMEDY WHATEVER
IS OPEN TO A STATE WHEN IT IS THE IMMEDIATE VICTIM OF A VIOLATION OF
THE SHERMAN LAW.  WE CAN PERCEIVE NO REASON FOR BELIEVING THAT CONGRESS
WANTED TO DEPRIVE A STATE, AS PURCHASER OF COMMODITIES SHIPPED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OF THE CIVIL REMEDY OF TREBLE DAMAGES WHICH IS
AVAILABLE TO OTHER PURCHASERS WHO SUFFER THROUGH VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 
WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT SUCH A REMEDY IS AFFORDED TO A SUBDIVISION OF
THE STATE, A MUNICIPALITY, WHICH PURCHASES PIPES FOR USE IN
CONSTRUCTING A WATERWORKS SYSTEM.  CHATTANOOGA FOUNDRY V. ATLANTA, 203
U.S. 390.  REASON BALKS AGAINST IMPLYING DENIAL OF SUCH A REMEDY TO A
STATE WHICH PURCHASES MATERIALS FOR USE IN BUILDING PUBLIC HIGHWAYS. 
NOTHING IN THE ACT, ITS HISTORY, OR ITS POLICY, COULD JUSTIFY SO
RESTRICTIVE A CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD "PERSON" IN SEC. 7 AS TO EXCLUDE
A STATE.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD DENY ALL REDRESS TO A STATE, WHEN
MULCTED BY A VIOLATOR OF THE SHERMAN LAW, MERELY BECAUSE IT IS A
STATE.  FN2 REVERSED. 

FN1  IN 1914 CONGRESS REJECTED AN AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF ANY STATE TO INSTITUTE A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, IN THE NAME OF
THE UNITED STATES, TO ENFORCE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  51 CONG. REC.
14519, 14527. 

FN2  WE PUT TO ONE SIDE THE SUGGESTION THAT IF THE SHERMAN LAW GIVES
A STATE A RIGHT OF ACTION, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD GIVE
THIS COURT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF SUCH A SUIT IF A STATE SAW FIT TO
PURSUE ITS REMEDY HERE.  IF THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION,
A STATE MAY BRING SUIT THERE EVEN THOUGH UNDER ARTICLE III SUIT MIGHT
BE BROUGHT HERE.  UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 187. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I AGREE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT RULED BY OUR DECISION IN UNITED STATES
V. COOPER CORP., 312 U.S. 600.  CERTAIN OF THE REASONS ADDUCED IN
SUPPORT OF THAT DECISION ARE INAPPLICABLE HERE.  I AM, NEVERTHELESS, OF
OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  I BASE THIS CONCLUSION
UPON THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  SECTION 7 PROVIDES THAT "ANY
PERSON WHO SHALL BE INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY ANY OTHER
PERSON," BY ANY ACTION FORBIDDEN BY THE STATUTE, MAY SUE AND RECOVER
DAMAGES THEREFOR.  SECTION 8 PROVIDES THAT THE WORD "PERSON" OR
"PERSONS," WHEREVER USED IN THE ACT, "SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE
CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS EXISTING UNDER OR AUTHORIZED BY THE LAWS
OF EITHER THE UNITED STATES, THE LAWS OF ANY OF THE TERRITORIES, THE
LAWS OF ANY STATE, OR THE LAWS OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY." 

IF THE WORD "PERSON" IS TO INCLUDE A STATE AS PLAINTIFF, IT MUST
EQUALLY INCLUDE A STATE AS A DEFENDANT OR THE LANGUAGE USED IS
MEANINGLESS.  MOREOVER, WHEN IN SEC. 8 CONGRESS TOOK THE TROUBLE TO
INCLUDE AS "PERSONS" CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF A STATE,
THE INFERENCE IS PLAIN THAT THE STATE ITSELF WAS NOT TO BE DEEMED A
CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER ITS OWN LAWS, ANY MORE THAN THE UNITED
STATES IS TO BE DEEMED A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER ITS OWN LAWS. 

IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO SPECULATE AS TO WHAT CONGRESS PROBABLY
INTENDED BY THE WORDS IT USED, OR TO ENFORCE THE SUPPOSED POLICY OF THE
ACT BY ADDING A PROVISION WHICH CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE INCORPORATED BUT
OMITTED. 
..END :





















WILMINGTON CO. V. HELVERING, 316 U.S. 164 


NO. 775.  ARGUED APRIL 10, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 124 F.2D
156, REVERSED. 


1.  A FINDING OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT CERTAIN SALES OF STOCK
BY THE TAXPAYER IN THIS CASE WERE ORDINARY SALES AND NOT "SHORT" SALES,
WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS THEREFORE CONCLUSIVE.  P.
167. 

2.  THE CRITERIA WHICH THE BOARD EMPLOYED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE
SALES OF STOCK IN THIS CASE WERE "SHORT" SALES COMPLIED WITH THE LEGAL
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN PROVOST V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 443.  P.
168. 

3.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE TO MODIFY
OR REVERSE A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ONLY IF IT IS "NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  P. 168. 

WILMINGTON TRUST CO., EXECUTOR, V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 789, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 42 B.T.A. 173, REDETERMINING A DEFICIENCY IN
INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER CERTAIN SALES OF
SHARES OF STOCK MADE BY THE TAXPAYER, PETITIONER'S DECEDENT, WERE
"SHORT" SALES OR SALES OF "LONG" STOCK.  IF THEY WERE NOT "SHORT"
SALES, THEN THE TAXPAYER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DEDUCTING FROM DIVIDENDS
CREDITED TO THE "LONG" SHARES THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS CHARGED TO THE
SHARES SOLD. 

THE TAXPAYER MAINTAINED SEVERAL ACCOUNTS WITH A BROKERAGE HOUSE -
"REGULAR," "SPECIAL," AND "SHORT."  THE "REGULAR" AND "SPECIAL"
ACCOUNTS WERE "LONG" ACCOUNTS.  DURING THE YEARS 1934 AND 1935 THE
TAXPAYER'S "LONG" ACCOUNTS WERE CREDITED WITH DIVIDENDS ON CERTAIN
SHARES.  DURING THE SAME YEARS, HER "SHORT" ACCOUNT WAS CHARGED WITH
DIVIDENDS ON SHARES OF THE SAME STOCK ISSUES.  THE TAXPAYER DID NOT
INCLUDE IN HER INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1934 AND 1935 THE DIVIDENDS
CREDITED TO HER "LONG" ACCOUNTS - ON THE THEORY THAT THE AMOUNT OF
STOCK WHICH SHE OWNED WAS NOT THE NUMBER OF SHARES CREDITED TO HER IN
THE "LONG" ACCOUNTS, BUT ONLY THE NUMBER OF SHARES BY WHICH HER "LONG"
POSITION EXCEEDED HER "SHORT" POSITION IN EACH OF THE STOCK ISSUES HELD
IN THE SEVERAL ACCOUNTS.  THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES ON THE
THEORY THAT THE SALES MADE THROUGH THE "SHORT" ACCOUNT WERE IN FACT
"SHORT" SALES, AND THAT THE DIVIDENDS CHARGED TO THE "SHORT" ACCOUNT
REPRESENTED ADDITIONAL COST OF THE SHARES AND COULD NOT BE OFFSET
AGAINST THE DIVIDENDS CREDITED TO THE "LONG" ACCOUNTS.  ACCORDINGLY, HE
RULED THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS TAXABLE ON ALL OF THE DIVIDENDS CREDITED TO
HER "LONG" ACCOUNTS.  ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS FOUND THAT THE SALES MADE THROUGH THE "SHORT" ACCOUNT WERE
SALES OF SHARES HELD IN THE TAXPAYER'S "LONG" ACCOUNTS.  IT THEREFORE
HELD THAT THE DIVIDENDS CHARGED TO THE "SHORT" ACCOUNT SHOULD BE OFFSET
AGAINST THE DIVIDEND CREDITS.  42 B.T.A. 173.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED 124 F.2D 156.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SALES IN THE "SHORT" ACCOUNT WERE
IN FACT "SHORT" SALES, BECAUSE THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN SETTING ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD ON THAT ISSUE WAS
SEEMINGLY ERRONEOUS UNDER THE RULE OF SUCH CASES AS HELVERING V.
LAZARUS & CO., 308 U.S. 252. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD WERE SUBSTANTIALLY AS FOLLOWS:  THE SALES
IN QUESTION WERE SALES OF SHARES OF WHICH THE TAXPAYER HELD AN EQUAL OR
GREATER NUMBER OF THE SAME KIND IN HER "LONG" ACCOUNTS.  IN EVERY SUCH
INSTANCE THE BROKER, ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY FROM THE TAXPAYER TO
CONSIDER ALL HER ACCOUNTS AS A UNIT, TREATED THE SALES THROUGH THE
"SHORT" ACCOUNT AS SALES OF THE TAXPAYER'S "LONG" SHARES.  NONE OF
THESE SALES WAS LABELED AS A "SHORT" SALE.  THE BROKER REQUIRED NO
MARGIN AND CHARGED NO "SHORT" SALE TAX.  HE CREDITED THE "SHORT"
ACCOUNT WITH THE PROCEEDS AND MADE AN ENTRY THEREIN SHOWING DELIVERY OF
THE SHARES AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SALES TO THE PURCHASER. 
IN NO SUCH CASE DID THE BROKER BORROW ANY STOCK FROM OTHER BROKERS OR
CUSTOMERS.  ORDERS WERE EXECUTED ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE REGULAR
WAY, AND DELIVERY WAS MADE ON THE NEXT FULL BUSINESS DAY FROM
CERTIFICATES IN "STREET" NAMES HELD BY THE BROKER'S NEW YORK
CORRESPONDENTS.  THOSE "STREET" CERTIFICATES INCLUDED SHARES HELD BY
THE BROKER FOR THE TAXPAYER, THOUGH NONE OF THEM WAS SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNATED AS BELONGING TO THE TAXPAYER.  THE TAXPAYER WAS ALLOWED
INTEREST ON THE PROCEEDS OF SALE.  DIVIDENDS WERE COLLECTED FOR THE
TAXPAYER ONLY ON THE NUMBER OF SHARES BY WHICH HER "LONG" POSITION
EXCEEDED HER "SHORT" POSITION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WHENEVER THE
TAXPAYER'S "LONG" ACCOUNTS CONTAINED NO SHARES OF THE KIND SOLD, THE
BROKER EXECUTED THE SALE AS A "SHORT" SALE, REQUIRED THE CUSTOMARY
MARGIN, CHARGED THE "SHORT" SALE TAX, AND MADE DELIVERY FROM BORROWED
STOCK.  ON THE BASIS OF SUCH FACTS, THE BOARD FOUND THAT "THE SALES IN
QUESTION WERE INTENDED TO BE AND WERE ACTUALLY EXECUTED AS ORDINARY
SALES, OR SALES OF SHARES HELD" IN THE TAXPAYER'S "LONG ACCOUNTS." 

IN OVERTURNING THAT FINDING OF FACT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
LAID GREAT EMPHASIS ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TRANSACTIONS WERE
ENTERED ON THE TAXPAYER'S BOOKS.  IT ALSO NOTED THAT GAINS OR LOSSES
WERE NOT REPORTED AT THE MOMENT OF THE SALES, BUT ONLY WHEN THE
COVERING TRANSACTION WAS COMPLETED, AND THAT THE CERTIFICATES USED IN
COMPLETING THE SALES WERE IN NO WAY DESIGNATED AS BELONGING TO THE
TAXPAYER.  AND IT ALSO STATED THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE BROKER
DID NOT USE BORROWED STOCK TO MAKE DELIVERIES ON THE "SHORT" SALES.  ON
THAT ASPECT OF THE CASE, RESPONDENT LAYS PRIMARY EMPHASIS.  THE
CONTENTION IS THAT THE TAXPAYER'S "LONG" STOCK WAS NOT "DELIVERED" IN
CONSUMMATION OF THE SALES IN THE "SHORT" ACCOUNT, SINCE THE BROKER
MERELY MADE DELIVERY OUT OF CERTIFICATES IN "STREET" NAMES HELD BY IT
OR FOR ITS ACCOUNT, INSTEAD OF BORROWING FROM OTHER BROKERS, AND SINCE
NONE OF THOSE "STREET" CERTIFICATES WAS IN ANY WAY DESIGNATED AS THE
TAXPAYER'S.  IT IS URGED THAT, THE FACTS BEING UNDISPUTED, THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER STOCK WAS BORROWED TO COMPLETE THE SALES WAS A QUESTION OF
LAW AS RESPECTS WHICH THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE THE FINAL SAY. 

THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE "SHORT" ACCOUNT IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE
DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OUTWARD OR MANIFESTED INTENTION OF THE
TAXPAYER AND THE WAY IN WHICH THE ACCOUNT WAS ACTUALLY MANAGED.  THE
DESIGNATION OF THE ACCOUNTS, THE FACT THAT, AS A MATTER OF BOOKKEEPING,
SALES MADE THROUGH THE "SHORT" ACCOUNT APPARENTLY WERE NOT REFLECTED IN
THE "LONG" ACCOUNTS, THE METHOD OF REPORTING GAINS OR LOSSES ARE SOME
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW.  BUT THERE ARE
NUMEROUS OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LOOK THE OTHER WAY.  THEY ARE
EMBRACED IN THE SEVERAL SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS WHICH THE BOARD MADE AND
WHICH WE HAVE ENUMERATED.  THOSE FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE AND ARE ABUNDANT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BOARD'S ULTIMATE
FINDING THAT THE SALES MADE THROUGH THE "SHORT" ACCOUNT WERE ORDINARY
SALES.  IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD, NOT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM THE FACTS, AND
TO CHOOSE BETWEEN CONFLICTING INFERENCES.  THE COURT MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE
ITS VIEW OF THE FACTS FOR THAT OF THE BOARD.  WHERE THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THEY ARE CONCLUSIVE. 
HELVERING V. LAZARUS & CO., SUPRA; HELVERING V. KEHOE, 309 U.S. 277,
AND CASES CITED.  UNDER THE STATUTE, THE COURT MAY MODIFY OR REVERSE
THE DECISION OF THE BOARD ONLY IF IT IS "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW." 
44 STAT. 110, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1141(C)(1).  IN THIS CASE THE CRITERIA
WHICH THE BOARD EMPLOYED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE SALES WERE "SHORT"
SALES COMPLIED WITH THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN PROVOST V. UNITED
STATES, 269 U.S. 443.  REVERSED. 
..END :




CHICAGO V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES, 316 U.S. 168 


NO. 706.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 31, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 122
F.2D 132, REVERSED. 


THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY A MICHIGAN
DAIRY CORPORATION AGAINST AN ILLINOIS CITY AND ITS OFFICIALS WERE:
FIRST, WHETHER A CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRING THAT MILK BE DELIVERED IN
"STANDARD MILK BOTTLES" SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS FORBIDDING DELIVERY IN
PAPER CONTAINERS; SECOND, WHETHER, IF THE ORDINANCE WERE DEEMED
APPLICABLE, IT WAS IN CONFLICT WITH AN ILLINOIS STATUTE ENACTED WHILE
THE SUIT WAS PENDING; AND THIRD, WHETHER, IF APPLICABLE AND VALID UNDER
THE STATE LAW, IT WAS INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  HELD
THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE HELD BY THE FEDERAL COURTS TO AWAIT THE OUTCOME
OF A LATER SUIT IN THE STATE COURT IN WHICH ANOTHER CORPORATION, PARENT
OF THE MICHIGAN COMPANY, RAISED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ISSUES. 
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 49L, FOLLOWED.  P. 171. 

CHICAGO ET AL. V. FIELDCREST DAIRIES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 604, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH, ON APPEAL FROM A
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 35 F.SUPP.  451, RESTRAINED THE CITY AND
ITS OFFICIALS FROM PROHIBITING THE USE BY RESPONDENT OF PAPER
CONTAINERS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF MILK. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN
ILLINOIS, SELLS MILK TO WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS IN VARIOUS CITIES IN
THE VICINITY OF CHICAGO.  BY AN ORDINANCE PASSED ON JANUARY 4, 1935,
THE CITY OF CHICAGO REQUIRED THAT MILK OR MILK PRODUCTS "SOLD IN
QUANTITIES OF LESS THAN ONE GALLON SHALL BE DELIVERED IN STANDARD MILK
BOTTLES."  SEC. 3094.  RESPONDENT SOUGHT A PERMIT FROM PETITIONER BOARD
OF HEALTH TO SELL MILK IN "PURE-PAK" PAPER CONTAINERS IN THAT CITY. 
THAT PERMIT WAS NOT GRANTED.  THEREAFTER, RESPONDENT FILED SUIT AGAINST
PETITIONERS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, ALLEGING, INTER ALIA, THAT ITS "SINGLE SERVICE,
STERILE, SANITARY AND NON-ABSORBENT" CONTAINERS ARE "STANDARD MILK
BOTTLES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CHICAGO ORDINANCE; THAT, IF THE
ORDINANCE IS CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING RESPONDENT FROM USING ITS PAPER
CONTAINERS, THE ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID UNDER THE
FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS; AND THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE PERMIT HAS
CAUSED AND WILL CAUSE RESPONDENT IRREPARABLE DAMAGE.  THE COMPLAINT
PRAYED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ORDINANCE BE CONSTRUED SO AS
NOT TO PROHIBIT RESPONDENT FROM USING ITS CONTAINERS; OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE ORDINANCE, INSOFAR AS IT DOES PREVENT SUCH USE,
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID.  ISSUE WAS JOINED.  IN MAY, 1939, THE
DISTRICT COURT REFERRED THE CAUSE TO A MASTER, WHO HELD EXTENDED
HEARINGS.  IN JULY, 1939, THE SO-CALLED ILLINOIS MILK PASTEURIZATION
PLANT LAW (L. 1939, PP. 660-666; REV. STAT. 1941, C. 56 1/2, SECS. 115
134) WAS ENACTED, CONTAINING CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGULATING THE USE OF
SINGLE SERVICE AND PAPER CONTAINERS (SEC. 15), AND RESERVING TO CITIES,
VILLAGES AND INCORPORATED TOWNS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE DISTRIBUTION,
ETC., "OF PASTEURIZED MILK AND PASTEURIZED MILK PRODUCTS, PROVIDED THAT
SUCH REGULATION NOT PERMIT ANY PERSON TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT."  SEC. 19.  ON APRIL 27, 1940, THE MASTER SUBMITTED HIS REPORT,
FINDING THAT RESPONDENT'S PAPER CONTAINERS WERE NOT "STANDARD MILK
BOTTLES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THAT THE ORDINANCE AS
CONSTRUED WAS VALID AND CONSTITUTIONAL.  IN OCTOBER, 1940, THE DISTRICT
COURT, ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE MASTER'S REPORT, HELD THAT RESPONDENT'S
CONTAINERS WERE "STANDARD MILK BOTTLES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ORDINANCE.  AND IT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT, UNDER THE MILK PASTEURIZATION
PLANT LAW, THE CITY WAS WITHOUT POWER TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF SUCH
CONTAINERS.  IT ENTERED A DECREE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT FINDING, AND
ENJOINED PETITIONERS FROM INTERFERING WITH RESPONDENT IN THE SALE AND
DELIVERY OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS IN THOSE CONTAINERS.  35 F.SUPP. 
451.  ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THAT COURT HELD THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT'S CONTAINERS WERE
"STANDARD MILK BOTTLES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ORDINANCE.  BUT IT
CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDINANCE, INSOFAR AS IT PROHIBITED, RATHER THAN
REGULATED, THE USE OF PAPER CONTAINERS, WAS INVALID BY REASON OF THE
STATE ACT.  AND IT WENT ON TO INTIMATE BY WAY OF OBITER DICTUM THAT, IF
THE ORDINANCE WERE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF RESPONDENT'S
CONTAINERS, IT WOULD NOT SURVIVE AS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE
POLICE POWER.  122 F.2D 132. 

ON MAY 15, 1940, WHILE THE CAUSE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT, DEAN MILK COMPANY, OF WHICH RESPONDENT IS A WHOLLY-OWNED
SUBSIDIARY, INSTITUTED AN ACTION IN THE ILLINOIS STATE COURT AGAINST
PETITIONERS AND OTHER CITY OFFICIALS, RAISING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
ISSUES AND SEEKING SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RELIEF AS RESPONDENT RAISED
AND SOUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  AFTER JUDGMENT HAD BEEN RENDERED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE, AND WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING, DEAN
MILK COMPANY MOVED IN THE STATE COURT FOR A DECREE GRANTING THE RELIEF
PRAYED FOR AND RETAINING JURISDICTION BY THE STATE COURT PENDING FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE.  SUCH A DECREE WAS ENTERED BY
THE STATE COURT IN DECEMBER 1940. 

WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE DOUBTFUL
PROPRIETY OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
UNDERTAKING TO DECIDE SUCH AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF ILLINOIS LAW
INSTEAD OF REMITTING THE PARTIES TO THE STATE COURTS FOR LITIGATION OF
THE STATE QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V.
PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROCEDURE WHICH WE FOLLOWED IN THE
PULLMAN CASE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED HERE.  ILLINOIS HAS THE FINAL SAY AS TO
THE MEANING OF THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION.  IT ALSO HAS THE FINAL WORD
ON THE ALLEGED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE AND THE STATE ACT.  THE
DETERMINATION WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
OR WE, MIGHT MAKE COULD NOT BE ANYTHING MORE THAN A FORECAST - A
PREDICTION AS TO THE ULTIMATE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS.  HERE, AS IN THE PULLMAN CASE, "A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY IS
ASKED TO DECIDE AN ISSUE BY MAKING A TENTATIVE ANSWER WHICH MAY BE
DISPLACED TOMORROW BY A STATE ADJUDICATION."  312 U.S. P. 500. 
FURTHERMORE, THE DISPUTE IN ITS BROAD REACH INVOLVES A QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER A CITY HAS TRESPASSED ON THE DOMAIN OF A STATE.  THOUGH THAT
ISSUE WAS NOT IN THE CASE WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED, IT EMERGED, DUE
TO THE PASSAGE OF THE MILK PASTEURIZATION PLANT LAW, LONG BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ITS DECREE.  THE DELICACY OF THAT ISSUE AND AN
APPROPRIATE REGARD "FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS"
(BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 312 U.S. 45, 50) REEMPHASIZE THAT IT
IS A WISE AND PERMISSIBLE POLICY FOR THE FEDERAL CHANCELLOR TO STAY HIS
HAND IN ABSENCE OF AN AUTHORITATIVE AND CONTROLLING DETERMINATION BY
THE STATE TRIBUNALS.  AS WE SAID IN THE PULLMAN CASE, "THE RESOURCES OF
EQUITY ARE EQUAL TO AN ADJUSTMENT THAT WILL AVOID THE WASTE OF A
TENTATIVE DECISION" AND ANY "NEEDLESS FRICTION WITH STATE POLICIES." 
SEE P. 500 AND CASES CITED; THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309
U.S. 478, 483-484.  IT IS AN EXERCISE OF A "SOUND DISCRETION, WHICH
GUIDES THE DETERMINATION OF COURTS OF EQUITY."  BEAL V. MISSOURI
PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA, P. 50.  IN THIS CASE, THAT DISCRETION CALLS FOR
A REMISSION OF THE PARTIES TO THE STATE COURTS, WHICH ALONE CAN GIVE A
DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THE MAJOR QUESTIONS POSED.  PLAINLY, THEY
CONSTITUTE THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THE TRIAL OF THOSE ISSUES. 
SEE 54 HARV. L. REV. 1379.  CONSIDERATIONS OF DELAY, INCONVENIENCE, AND
COST TO THE PARTIES, WHICH HAVE BEEN URGED UPON US, DO NOT CALL FOR A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  FOR WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH THE MUCH LARGER ISSUE
AS TO THE APPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE
AUTHORITIES FUNCTIONING AS A HARMONIOUS WHOLE. 

THE DESIRABILITY OF THE COURSE WHICH WE HAVE SUGGESTED IS NOT
EMBARRASSED BY ANY QUESTION AS TO WHETHER READY RECOURSE MAY BE HAD TO
THE STATE COURTS.  THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STATE TRIBUNAL IS OBVIOUS,
SINCE A CASE INVOLVING SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL ISSUES AND BROUGHT BY
RESPONDENT'S PARENT CORPORATION IS PENDING IN THE STATE COURT.  CF.
GILCHRIST V. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., 279 U.S. 159. 

IT IS OF COURSE TRUE THAT RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO RAISE IN ITS COMPLAINT
A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE - AN ISSUE WHICH LURKS IN THE CASE EVEN THOUGH
IT NOT BE DEEMED SUBSTANTIAL.  BUT HERE, AS IN THE PULLMAN CASE, THAT
ISSUE MAY NOT SURVIVE THE LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURTS.  IF IT DOES
NOT, THE LITIGATION IS AT AN END.  THAT AGAIN INDICATES THE WISDOM OF
ALLOWING THE LOCAL LAW ISSUES FIRST TO BE RESOLVED BY THOSE WHO HAVE
THE FINAL SAY.  AVOIDANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATIONS WHERE NOT
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY IS PART OF THE WISDOM OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE
PULLMAN CASE. 

WE THEREFORE VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO RETAIN THE BILL PENDING A DETERMINATION OF
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  IT IS
SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :






STATE TAX COMM'N V. ALDRICH, 316 U.S. 174 


NO. 814.  ARGUED MARCH 12, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 27, 1942.  - 116 P.2D
923, REVERSED. 


A STATE MAY, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IMPOSE A TAX
UPON A TRANSFER BY DEATH OF SHARES OF STOCK IN A CORPORATION WHICH IS
INCORPORATED UNDER ITS LAWS, EVEN THOUGH THE DECEDENT, OF WHOSE ESTATE
THE SHARES WERE A PART, WAS DOMICILED AT THE TIME OF DEATH IN ANOTHER
STATE, WHERE THE CERTIFICATES REPRESENTING THE SHARES WERE HELD; THOUGH
THE CERTIFICATES WERE NEVER WITHIN THE STATE OF INCORPORATION; AND
THOUGH FOR MANY YEARS THE CORPORATION HAD KEPT ITS STOCK BOOKS, RECORDS
AND TRANSFER AGENTS IN THE STATE WHERE DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED, AND HAD
MAINTAINED NONE OF THESE IN THE STATE OF INCORPORATION.  FIRST NATIONAL
BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312, OVERRULED.  P. 180. 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH V. ALDRICH ET AL., ADMINISTRATORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH. 

CERTIORARI, 315 U.S. 789, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT THAT THE TRANSFER OF STOCK BY DEATH, HERE INVOLVED, WAS NOT
SUBJECT TO TAX UNDER THE UTAH INHERITANCE TAX LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE STATE OF UTAH
IS PRECLUDED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM IMPOSING A TAX UPON A
TRANSFER BY DEATH OF SHARES OF STOCK IN A UTAH CORPORATION, FORMING
PART OF THE ESTATE OF A DECEDENT WHO, AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, WAS
DOMICILED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND HELD THERE THE CERTIFICATES
REPRESENTING THOSE SHARES. 

IN 1940, EDWARD S. HARKNESS DIED TESTATE, BEING AT THAT TIME
DOMICILED IN NEW YORK.  HIS ESTATE WAS PROBATED IN NEW YORK, WHERE
RESPONDENTS WERE APPOINTED EXECUTORS.  RESPONDENTS WERE ALSO APPOINTED
ADMINISTRATORS WITH THE WILL ANNEXED, IN UTAH.  AT THE TIME OF HIS
DEATH, HARKNESS WAS THE OWNER OF 10,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK AND 400
SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., A UTAH
CORPORATION.  THE CERTIFICATES REPRESENTING THOSE SHARES WERE NEVER
WITHIN UTAH.  THEY WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF HARKNESS IN NEW YORK AT
THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, AND ARE NOW HELD BY RESPONDENTS.  FOR MANY
YEARS, THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. HAS KEPT ITS STOCK BOOKS AND
RECORDS AND TRANSFER AGENTS IN NEW YORK, AND HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY IN
UTAH.  THESE SHARES ARE THE ONLY PROPERTY OWNED BY DECEDENT WHICH IS
CLAIMED TO BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF UTAH.  AT THE DATE OF
DECEDENT'S DEATH, A NEW YORK STATUTE ALLOWED AS A CREDIT AGAINST THE
ESTATE TAX IMPOSED BY NEW YORK THE AMOUNT OF ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID
ESTATE OR INHERITANCE TAX PAID TO ANY OTHER STATE WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH.  FN1 

RESPONDENTS SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN THE UTAH COURT HOLDING
THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE SHARES WAS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX BY UTAH UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF ITS INHERITANCE TAX LAW.  FN2  THE TRIAL COURT
ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH, UNDER THE
COMPULSION OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312, AFFIRMED. 
116 P.2D 923.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI SO THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE COULD BE
REEXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH RECENT DECISIONS AS CURRY V. MCCANLESS,
307 U.S. 357, AND GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383.  AND SEE
COMMONWEALTH V. STEWART, 338 PA. 9, 12 A.2D 444, AFF'D 312 U.S. 649. 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT BUT THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED
IF FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE IS TO SURVIVE, AS THE JUDGMENT IN THAT
CASE PROHIBITED THE STATE OF MAINE FROM DOING WHAT THE STATE OF UTAH IS
HERE ATTEMPTING.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD SURVIVE.  AND CERTAINLY
IT CANNOT IF THE PRINCIPLES WHICH GOVERN THE CURRY AND GRAVES CASES
REST ON FIRM CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, LIKE ITS FORERUNNERS FARMERS LOAN &
TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204, AND BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S.
586, READ INTO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A "RULE OF IMMUNITY FROM
TAXATION BY MORE THAN ONE STATE."  284 U.S. P. 326.  AS WE SAID IN THE
CURRY CASE, THAT DOCTRINE IS OF RECENT ORIGIN.  PRIOR TO 1930, WHEN
BLACKSTONE V. MILLER, 188 U.S. 189, WAS OVERRULED BY FARMERS LOAN &
TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, THE ADJUDICATIONS OF THIS COURT CLEARLY
DEMANDED A RESULT OPPOSITE FROM THAT WHICH OBTAINED IN FIRST NATIONAL
BANK V. MAINE.  THAT WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE MAJORITY IN THE LATTER CASE
(284 U.S. P. 321) - AND PROPERLY SO, BECAUSE BLACKSTONE V. MILLER
REJECTED THE NOTION THAT THERE WERE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS TO DOUBLE
TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES BY STATES WHICH HAD COMMAND OVER THEM OR THEIR
OWNER.  AND SEE KIDD V. ALABAMA, 188 U.S. 730, 732.  BLACKSTONE V.
MILLER PERMITTED NEW YORK TO TAX THE TRANSFER OF DEBTS OWED BY NEW YORK
CITIZENS TO A DECEDENT WHO DIED DOMICILED IN ILLINOIS, ALTHOUGH
ILLINOIS HAD TAXED THE ENTIRE SUCCESSION.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING
FOR THE COURT, UPHELD THE POWER OF NEW YORK TO COLLECT THE TAX BECAUSE
THE TRANSFER OF THE DEBTS "NECESSARILY DEPENDS UPON AND INVOLVES THE
LAW OF NEW YORK FOR ITS EXERCISE."  188 U.S. P. 205.  IT WAS THAT VIEW
WHICH THE MINORITY IN FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE CHAMPIONED.  THEY
MAINTAINED THAT THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER TO TAXATION BY
MAINE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE SHARES OF STOCK OF THE MAINE CORPORATION,
SINCE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE DECEDENT'S INTEREST IN THE SHARES
WERE "DEFINED BY THE LAWS OF MAINE, AND HIS POWER TO SECURE THE
COMPLETE TRANSFER" WAS "DEPENDENT UPON THEM."  284 U.S. P. 332.  THAT
VIEW HAD BEEN REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED IN OTHER EARLIER CASES TOUCHING ON
THE RIGHTS OF A STATE TO TAX INTANGIBLES OVER WHICH IT HAD COMMAND
THOUGH THE OWNER WAS A NON-RESIDENT.  TAPPAN V. MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK,
19 WALL.  490, 503-504; HAWLEY V. MALDEN, 232 U.S. 1, 12; BAKER V.
BAKER, ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394, 401; FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S.
473, 497; RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, 270 U.S. 69,
81.  AS STATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4
WHEAT.  316, 429, THE POWER TO TAX "IS AN INCIDENT OF SOVEREIGNTY, AND
IS CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THAT TO WHICH IT IS AN INCIDENT.  ALL SUBJECTS
OVER WHICH THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF A STATE EXTENDS, ARE OBJECTS OF
TAXATION.  ..." 

IT WAS THAT VIEW WHICH WE FOLLOWED IN THE CURRY CASE.  WE HELD THERE
THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT PREVENT BOTH ALABAMA AND
TENNESSEE FROM IMPOSING DEATH TAXES UPON THE TRANSFER OF AN INTEREST IN
INTANGIBLES HELD IN TRUST BY AN ALABAMA TRUSTEE BUT PASSING UNDER THE
WILL OF A BENEFICIARY DECEDENT DOMICILED IN TENNESSEE.  WE STATED THAT
RIGHTS TO INTANGIBLES "ARE BUT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONS, NATURAL
OR CORPORATE, WHICH THE LAW RECOGNIZES BY ATTACHING TO THEM CERTAIN
SANCTIONS ENFORCEABLE IN COURTS.  THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT OVER THEM AND
THE PROTECTION WHICH IT GIVES THEM CANNOT BE EXERTED THROUGH CONTROL OF
A PHYSICAL THING.  THEY CAN BE MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY THROUGH CONTROL OVER
AND PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THOSE PERSONS WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS ARE THE
ORIGIN OF THE RIGHTS.  ...  OBVIOUSLY, AS SOURCES OF ACTUAL OR
POTENTIAL WEALTH - WHICH IS AN APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF ANY TAX IMPOSED
ON OWNERSHIP OR ITS EXERCISE - THEY CANNOT BE DISSOCIATED FROM THE
PERSONS FROM WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS THEY ARE DERIVED.  THESE ARE NOT IN
ANY SENSE FICTIONS.  THEY ARE INDISPUTABLE REALITIES."  307 U.S. P.
366.  WE HELD THAT THE POWER TO TAX INTANGIBLES WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO
ONE STATE, WHETHER "WE REGARD THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO TAX AS FOUNDED ON
POWER OVER THE OBJECT TAXED, AS DECLARED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN
MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, THROUGH DOMINION OVER TANGIBLES OR OVER
PERSONS WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS ARE THE SOURCE OF INTANGIBLE RIGHTS; OR ON
THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION CONFERRED BY THE TAXING SOVEREIGNTY, OR
BOTH."  ID. PP. 367-368.  AND WE ADDED:  "SHARES OF CORPORATE STOCK MAY
BE TAXED AT THE DOMICILE OF THE SHAREHOLDER AND ALSO AT THAT OF THE
CORPORATION WHICH THE TAXING STATE HAS CREATED AND CONTROLS; AND INCOME
MAY BE TAXED BOTH BY THE STATE WHERE IT IS EARNED AND BY THE STATE OF
THE RECIPIENT'S DOMICILE.  PROTECTION, BENEFIT, AND POWER OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER ARE NOT CONFINED TO EITHER STATE."  ID., P. 368.  IN THE
RECENT CASE OF WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444, WE GAVE
RENEWED EXPRESSION TO THE SAME VIEW:  "A STATE IS FREE TO PURSUE ITS
OWN FISCAL POLICIES, UNEMBARRASSED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IF BY THE
PRACTICAL OPERATION OF A TAX THE STATE HAS EXERTED ITS POWER IN
RELATION TO OPPORTUNITIES WHICH IT HAS GIVEN, TO PROTECTION WHICH IT
HAS AFFORDED, TO BENEFITS WHICH IT HAS CONFERRED BY THE FACT OF BEING
AN ORDERLY, CIVILIZED SOCIETY."  AND SEE GRAVES V. SCHMIDLAPP, 315 U.S.
657. 

FURTHERMORE, THE RULE OF IMMUNITY AGAINST DOUBLE TAXATION ESPOUSED BY
FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, HAD LONG BEEN REJECTED IN OTHER CASES. 
KIDD V. ALABAMA, SUPRA; FORT SMITH LUMBER CO. V. ARKANSAS, 251 U.S.
532; CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS, 253 U.S. 325.  WE REJECTED IT
AGAIN ONLY RECENTLY.  ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 309 U.S.
157.  AND AS WE POINTED OUT IN THE CURRY CASE, THE REASONS WHY THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT "DOES NOT REQUIRE US TO FIX A SINGLE EXCLUSIVE PLACE OF
TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR FOREIGN OWNER" (BURNET
V. BROOKS, 288 U.S. 378) ARE NO LESS COGENT IN CASE OF THE FOURTEENTH. 
307 U.S. PP. 369, 370. 

THE RECENT CASES TO WHICH WE HAVE ALLUDED ARE ALL DISTINGUISHABLE ON
THEIR FACTS.  BUT THEIR GUIDING PRINCIPLES ARE IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE
VIEWS EXPRESSED IN FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE.  IF WE RAISED A
CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER IN THIS CASE AFTER HAVING LET IT DOWN IN THE
CURRY CASE, WE WOULD INDEED BE DRAWING NEAT LEGAL DISTINCTIONS AND
REFINEMENTS WHICH CERTAINLY CANNOT BE DIVINED FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  CERTAINLY ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SHARES OF STOCK IN
THIS CASE AND THE INTANGIBLES IN THE CURRY CASE DO NOT WARRANT
DIFFERENCES IN CONSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT SO AS TO FORBID TAXATION BY TWO
STATES IN THE ONE CASE AND TO PERMIT IT IN THE OTHER.  IF WE
PERPETUATED ANY SUCH DIFFERENCES, WE WOULD BE DOING VIOLENCE TO THE
WORDS "DUE PROCESS" BY DRAWING LINES WHERE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
FAILS TO DRAW THEM.  FURTHERMORE, THE LEGAL INTERESTS IN THE
INTANGIBLES HERE INVOLVED ARE AS DIVERSE AS THEY WERE IN THE
INTANGIBLES IN THE CURRY CASE.  AND TO SAY THAT THESE SHARES OF STOCK
WERE LOCALIZED OR HAD AN EXCLUSIVE SITUS IN NEW YORK WOULD BE TO
INDULGE IN THE FICTION WHICH WE REJECTED IN THE CURRY CASE.  ANY SUCH
ATTEMPT TO FIX THEIR WHEREABOUTS IN NEW YORK WOULD DISREGARD THE
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP WHICH UTAH HAS TO THIS CORPORATION AND ITS
SHARES. 

MORE SPECIFICALLY, IF THE QUESTION IS "WHETHER THE STATE HAS GIVEN
ANYTHING FOR WHICH IT CAN ASK RETURN" (WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO.,
SUPRA, P. 444), OR WHETHER THE TRANSFER DEPENDS UPON AND INVOLVES THE
LAW OF UTAH FOR ITS EXERCISE (BLACKSTONE V. MILLER), THERE CAN BE NO
DOUBT THAT UTAH IS NOT RESTRAINED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM
TAXING THIS TRANSFER.  THE CORPORATION OWES ITS EXISTENCE TO UTAH. 
UTAH LAW DEFINES THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE INTEREST OF THE
SHAREHOLDERS IN THE CORPORATION.  UTAH LAW AFFORDS PROTECTION FOR THOSE
RIGHTS.  UTAH HAS POWER OVER THE TRANSFER BY THE CORPORATION OF ITS
SHARES OF STOCK.  CERTAINLY THAT PROTECTION, BENEFIT, AND POWER OVER
THE SHARES WOULD HAVE SATISFIED THE TEST OF BLACKSTONE V. MILLER AND
CURRY V. MCCANLESS.  BUT IT IS SAID THAT WE ARE HERE INTERESTED ONLY IN
THE FACTUM OF THE TRANSFER, AND THAT THE STOCKHOLDER IN THE CASE AT BAR
HAD NO NEED TO INVOKE THE LAW OF UTAH TO EFFECT A COMPLETE TRANSFER OF
HIS INTEREST.  THE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE TRANSFER
OFFICE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE UTAH, AND THAT, UNDER THE UNIFORM STOCK
TRANSFER ACT WHICH UTAH HAS ADOPTED (REV. STAT. 1933 SECS. 18-3-1 ET
SEQ.), THE TREND IS TO TREAT THE SHARES AS MERGED INTO THE CERTIFICATES
IN SITUATIONS INVOLVING THE OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER OF THE SHARES.  WE
DO NOT STOP TO ANALYZE THE MANY CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN CITED, NOR TO
SPECULATE AS TO HOW UTAH WOULD INTERPRET ITS LAW IN THIS REGARD. 
SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THAT IF THAT FREEDOM OF TRANSFER EXISTS AS
RESPONDENTS CLAIM, IT STEMS FROM UTAH LAW.  IT FINDS ITS ULTIMATE
SOURCE IN THE AUTHORITY WHICH UTAH HAS GRANTED.  IT IS INDEED A BENEFIT
WHICH UTAH HAS BESTOWED.  FOR IT ALONE UTAH MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY ASK A
RETURN.  IN VIEW OF THESE REALITIES, WE CANNOT SAY WITH THE MAJORITY IN
FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, P. 327, THAT A "TRANSFER FROM THE DEAD TO
THE LIVING OF ANY SPECIFIC PROPERTY IS AN EVENT SINGLE IN CHARACTER AND
IS EFFECTED UNDER THE LAWS, AND OCCURS WITHIN THE LIMITS, OF A
PARTICULAR STATE," SO AS TO PRECLUDE UTAH FROM IMPOSING A TAX ON THIS
TRANSFER. 

WE ARE OF COURSE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE NOTIONS EXPRESSED IN FARMERS
LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, AND REPEATED IN FIRST NATIONAL BANK V.
MAINE, THAT THE VIEW CHAMPIONED BY BLACKSTONE V. MILLER DISTURBED THE
"GOOD RELATIONS AMONG THE STATES" AND HAD A "BAD" PRACTICAL EFFECT
WHICH LED MANY STATES "TO AVOID THE EVIL BY RESORT TO RECIPROCAL
EXEMPTION LAWS."  280 U.S. P. 209.  BUT, AS STATED BY THE MINORITY IN
FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, "WE CAN HAVE NO ASSURANCE THAT RESORT TO
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS THE ILL-ADAPTED INSTRUMENT OF SUCH A
REFORM, WILL NOT CREATE MORE DIFFICULTIES AND INJUSTICES THAN IT WILL
REMOVE."  284 U.S. P. 334.  MORE BASICALLY, EVEN THOUGH WE BELIEVED
THAT A DIFFERENT SYSTEM SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST MULTIPLE
TAXATION, IT IS NOT OUR PROVINCE TO PROVIDE IT.  SEE CURRY V.
MCCANLESS, SUPRA, PP. 373-374.  TO DO SO WOULD BE TO INDULGE IN THE
DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT "WAS INTENDED TO
GIVE US CARTE BLANCHE TO EMBODY OUR ECONOMIC OR MORAL BELIEFS IN ITS
PROHIBITIONS."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, DISSENTING, BALDWIN V. MISSOURI,
SUPRA, P. 595.  IT WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION TO STRIKE DOWN STATE LEGISLATION ON THE BASIS OF OUR
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OR PREFERENCES AS TO POLICY, WHETHER THE STATE LAWS
DEAL WITH TAXES OR OTHER SUBJECTS OF SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC LEGISLATION. 
FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE DO NOT THINK THAT FIRST NATIONAL BANK V.
MAINE SHOULD SURVIVE.  WE OVERRULE IT.  IN LINE WITH OUR RECENT
DECISIONS IN CURRY V. MCCANLESS, GRAVES V. ELLIOTT AND GRAVES V.
SCHMIDLAPP, WE REPEAT THAT THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF IMMUNITY
FROM TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES BY MORE THAN ONE STATE.  IN CASE OF SHARES
OF STOCK, "JURISDICTION TO TAX" IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE DOMICILIARY
STATE.  ANOTHER STATE WHICH HAS EXTENDED BENEFITS OR PROTECTION, OR
WHICH CAN DEMONSTRATE "THE PRACTICAL FACT OF ITS POWER" OR SOVEREIGNTY
AS RESPECTS THE SHARES (BLACKSTONE V. MILLER, P. 205), MAY LIKEWISE
CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE ITS EXACTION.  IN OTHER WORDS, WE RESTORE THESE
INTANGIBLES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS WHICH THEY OCCUPIED UP TO A
FEW YEARS AGO.  SEE GREVES V. SHAW, 173 MASS. 205, 53 N.E. 372; LARSON
V. MACMILLER, 56 UTAH 84, 189 P. 579, AND CASES COLLECTED IN 42 A.L.R.
PP. 365 ET SEQ. 

WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF UTAH FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1 N.Y.L. 1930, C. 710, SEC. 1, AMENDED L. 1934, C. 639, SEC. 1;
MCKINNEY'S CONS.  L., BK. 59, TAX LAW, SEC. 249-O.  THIS SECTION WAS
REPEALED BY L. 1940, C. 138.  FOR THE PRESENT PROVISION, SEE MCKINNEY,
OP. CIT., CUM. ANN. PT. (1941) SEC. 249-O. 

FN2  REV. STAT. UTAH, 1933, SEC. 80-12-2 PROVIDES: 

"A TAX EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE MARKET
VALUE OF THE NET ESTATE SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE TRANSFER OF THE NET
ESTATE OF EVERY DECEDENT, WHETHER A RESIDENT OR NONRESIDENT OF THIS
STATE: 

"THREE PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE NET ESTATE EXCEEDS $10,000
AND DOES NOT EXCEED $25,000; 

"FIVE PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE NET ESTATE EXCEEDS
$25,000." 

SEC. 80-12-3 PROVIDES: 

"THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF A DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR
PERSONAL, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE, AND ANY INTEREST
THEREIN, WHETHER TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHICH SHALL PASS TO ANY
PERSON, IN TRUST OR OTHERWISE, BY TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OR BY LAW OF
INHERINTANCE OR SUCCESSION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER STATE OR COUNTRY, OR BY
DEED, GRANT, BARGAIN, SALE OR GIFT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE DEATH
OF THE GRANTOR, VENDOR OR DONOR, OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

A CASE OF THIS KIND RECALLS US TO FIRST PRINCIPLES. 

THE TAXING POWER IS AN INCIDENT OF GOVERNMENT.  IT DOES NOT DERIVE
FROM TECHNICAL LEGAL CONCEPTS.  THE POWER TO TAX IS COEXTENSIVE WITH
THE FUNDAMENTAL POWER OF SOCIETY OVER THE PERSONS AND THINGS MADE
SUBJECT TO TAX.  EACH STATE OF THE UNION HAS THE SAME TAXING POWER AS
AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THAT POWER HAS BEEN
CURTAILED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES WAS LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE ORIGINAL TEN AMENDMENTS IN ONLY THREE RESPECTS:  (1) NO STATE CAN,
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS
OR EXPORTS, EXCEPT AS NECESSARY FOR EXECUTING ITS INSPECTION LAWS, ART.
I, SEC. 10(2); (2) NO STATE CAN, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, LAY
ANY TONNAGE DUTIES, ART. I, SEC. 10(3); AND (3) BY VIRTUE OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, ART. I, SEC. 8(3), NO STATE CAN TAX SO AS TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  (FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, I PUT
THE CONTRACT CLAUSE TO ONE SIDE).  NONE OF THESE LIMITATIONS TOUCHES
THE POWER OF A STATE TO CREATE CORPORATIONS AND THE INCIDENTAL POWER TO
TAX OPPORTUNITIES WHICH SUCH STATE-CREATED CORPORATIONS AFFORD. 

THIS PHASE OF THE TAXING POWER, ROOTED IN THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICES
OF THE STATES IN COMMON WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS, WAS NOT SUDDENLY
ABROGATED ON JULY 28, 1868, WHEN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAME THE
LAW OF THE LAND.  ON THE CONTRARY, TAXES BASED ON THE STATES' POWER
OVER CORPORATIONS OF THEIR OWN CREATION THEREAFTER BECAME AN
INCREASINGLY FAMILIAR SOURCE OF REVENUE.  OF COURSE, THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE HAS ITS APPLICATION TO THE TAXING POWERS OF THE STATES - A STATE
CANNOT TAX A STRANGER FOR SOMETHING THAT IT HAS NOT GIVEN HIM.  WHEN A
STATE GIVES NOTHING IN RETURN FOR EXACTING A TAX, IT MAY BE SAID THAT
THERE IS NO "JURISDICTION TO TAX."  BUT THAT PHRASE OBSCURES RATHER
THAN ENLIGHTENS, FOR IT ONLY STATES A RESULT AND DOES NOT ANALYZE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM.  THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO TAX THE EFFECTIVE
ACQUISITION OF MEMBERSHIP IN A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, WHEREVER THE PIECE
OF PAPER REPRESENTING SUCH A TAXABLE INTEREST MAY BE PHYSICALLY
LOCATED, - THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION BEFORE US - WAS NOT DOUBTED UNTIL THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT ONLY TEN YEARS AGO IN FIRST NATIONAL BANK V.
MAINE, 284 U.S. 312.  THAT DECISION, AS WAS MADE CLEAR IN ITS DISSENT,
WAS AN UNWARRANTED DEVIATION FROM UNBROKEN LEGAL HISTORY AND FISCAL
PRACTICE.  DRAWN AS THE DECISION WAS "FROM THE VOID OF 'DUE PROCESS OF
LAW', WHEN LOGIC, TRADITION AND AUTHORITY HAVE UNITED TO DECLARE THE
RIGHT OF THE STATE TO LAY" SUCH A TAX (HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN
BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586, 596), DUE REGARD FOR THE
CONSTITUTION DEMANDS THAT THE DEVIATION BE NOT PERPETUATED AND THAT THE
POWER ERRONEOUSLY WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATES BE AGAIN RECOGNIZED. 

MODERN ENTERPRISE OFTEN BRINGS DIFFERENT PARTS OF AN ORGANIC
COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WITHIN THE TAXING POWER OF MORE THAN ONE STATE,
AS WELL AS OF THE NATION.  IT DOES SO BECAUSE THE TRANSACTION IN ITS
ENTIRETY MAY RECEIVE THE BENEFITS OF MORE THAN ONE GOVERNMENT.  AND THE
EXERCISE BY THE STATES OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO TAX MAY
UNDOUBTEDLY PRODUCE DIFFICULT POLITICAL AND FISCAL PROBLEMS.  BUT THEY
ARE INHERENT IN THE NATURE OF OUR FEDERALISM AND ARE PART OF ITS
PRICE.  THESE DIFFICULTIES ARE NOT PECULIAR TO US.  KINDRED PROBLEMS
HAVE TROUBLED OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISMS.  FOR AUSTRALIA, SEE
REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION, PARLIAMENT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (1929), P. 187 ET SEQ.; FOR CANADA, SEE 1
REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS (1940),
P. 202 ET SEQ. 

"A GOOD DEAL HAS TO BE READ INTO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO GIVE IT
ANY BEARING UPON THIS CASE."  HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN FARMERS LOAN
CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204, 218.  WE WOULD HAVE TO READ INTO THAT
AMENDMENT PRIVATE NOTIONS AS TO TAX POLICY.  BUT WHETHER A TAX IS WISE
OR EXPEDIENT IS THE BUSINESS OF THE POLITICAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT,
NOT OURS.  CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO INVALIDATION OF A TAX MEASURE ARE
WHOLLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE THAT COME INTO PLAY IN JUSTIFYING
DISAPPROVAL OF A TAX ON THE SCORE OF POLITICAL OR FINANCIAL UNWISDOM. 

IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE LAST WORD HAS NOT BEEN SAID BY THE VARIOUS
DEVICES NOW AVAILABLE - THROUGH UNIFORM AND RECIPROCAL LEGISLATION,
THROUGH ACTION BY THE STATES UNDER THE COMPACT CLAUSE, ART. I, SEC.
10(3), OR THROUGH WHATEVER OTHER MEANS STATESMEN MAY DEVISE - FOR
DISTRIBUTING WISELY THE TOTAL NATIONAL INCOME FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES
AS BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE NATION.  BUT EVEN IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO
MAKE THE NEEDED ADJUSTMENTS IN THE FISCAL RELATIONS OF THE STATES TO
ONE ANOTHER AND TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
EPISODIC LITIGATION - WHICH TO ME SEEMS MOST ILL-ADAPTED FOR DEVISING
FISCAL POLICIES - IT IS ENOUGH THAT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM DENIES
SUCH A FUNCTION TO THIS COURT. 

I AGREE, THEREFORE, THAT FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE SHOULD BE
OVERRULED AND THAT THE TAX IMPOSED BY UTAH IN THIS CASE IS VALID.  TO
REFUSE TO NULLIFY LEGISLATION THE FRAILTIES OF WHICH WE THINK WE SEE,
IS TO RESPECT THE BOUNDS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND NOT TO
INDULGE IN A FICTION.  SEE JAMES BRADLEY THAYER, THE ORIGIN AND SCOPE
OF THE AMERICAN DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7 HARV. L. REV. 129. 
TO ALLOW LAWS TO STAND IS TO ALLOW LAWS TO BE MADE BY THOSE WHOSE TASK
IT IS TO LEGISLATE.  THE NULLIFICATION OF LEGISLATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FROM THE BEGINNING AS A MOST "DELICATE"
FUNCTION, NOT TO BE INDULGED IN BY THIS COURT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAS
FORMAL POWER TO DO SO, BUT ONLY WHEN COMPELLING CONSIDERATIONS LEAVE NO
OTHER CHOICE.  TO SUGGEST THAT WHEN THIS COURT FINDS THAT A LAW IS NOT
OFFENSIVE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT IT MUST THEREFORE STAND, WE MAKE
THE SAME KIND OF JUDGMENT AS WHEN ON RARE OCCASIONS WE FIND THAT A LAW
IS OFFENSIVE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND MUST THEREFORE FALL, IS TO
DISREGARD THE ROLE OF THIS COURT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM SINCE ITS
ESTABLISHMENT IN 1789. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

STATE TAXATION OF TRANSFER BY DEATH OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY IS IN
SOMETHING OF A JURISDICTIONAL SNARL, TO THE SOLUTION OF WHICH THIS
COURT OWES ALL THAT IT HAS OF WISDOM AND POWER.  THE THEORETICAL BASIS
OF SOME DECISIONS IN THE VERY PRACTICAL MATTER OF TAXATION IS NOT
PARTICULARLY SATISFYING.  FN1  BUT A SWITCH OF ABSTRACT CONCEPTS IS
HARDLY TO BE EXPECTED WITHOUT AT LEAST CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ITS
IMPACT ON THE VERY PRACTICAL AND CONCRETE PROBLEMS OF STATES AND
TAXPAYERS.  WEIGHING THE HIGHLY DOCTRINAIRE REASONS ADVANCED FOR THIS
DECISION AGAINST ITS PRACTICAL EFFECTS ON OUR ECONOMY AND UPON OUR
WHOLE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF STATE TAXATION, I CAN SEE NOTHING IN THE
COURT'S DECISION MORE USEFUL THAN THE PROVERBIAL LEAP FROM THE FRYING
PAN INTO THE FIRE. 

                                  I 

THERE IS LITTLE PERSUASION AND CERTAINLY NO COMPULSION IN THE
AUTHORITIES MUSTERED BY THE COURT'S PRESENT OPINION, WHICH ARE EITHER
ADMITTEDLY OVERRULED CASES, SUCH AS BLACKSTONE V. MILLER, 188 U.S. 189,
OR ADMITTEDLY DISTINGUISHABLE ONES, SUCH AS CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307
U.S. 357; GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383; WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY
CO., 311 U.S. 435.  SUCH AUTHORITIES ARE NOT IMPRESSIVE IN VINDICATION
OF SUCH A JUDGMENT.  WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE ACADEMIC MERITS OF THE
DECISION THAT IS BEING OVERRULED, I AM WILLING TO PROCEED ON THE
ESTIMATE OF IT MADE AT THE TIME OF ITS PRONOUNCEMENT BY THE PRESENT
CHIEF JUSTICE, WHO SAID IN HIS DISSENT: "SITUS OF AN INTANGIBLE, FOR
TAXING PURPOSES, AS THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING THE PRESENT
ONE, ABUNDANTLY DEMONSTRATE, IS NOT A DOMINATING REALITY, BUT A
CONVENIENT FICTION WHICH MAY BE JUDICIALLY EMPLOYED OR DISCARDED,
ACCORDING TO THE RESULT DESIRED."  FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284
U.S. 312, 332.  THE COURT NOW DISCARDS THIS FICTION IN FAVOR OF ONE
CALLING FOR A DIFFERENT RESULT. 

THIS OLDER RULE ASCRIBED A FICTIONAL CONSEQUENCE TO THE DOMICILE OF A
NATURAL PERSON; IT IS OVERRULED BY ASCRIBING A FICTIONAL CONSEQUENCE TO
THE DOMICILE OF AN ARTIFICIAL CORPORATION.  THE OLDER RULE EMPHASIZED
DOMINANCE BY THE INDIVIDUAL OVER HIS INTANGIBLE PROPERTY, THE TAX SITUS
OF WHICH FOLLOWED THE DOMICILE OF ITS OWNER.  TODAY'S NEW RULE
EMPHASIZES THE DOMINANCE OF THE CORPORATION, A CREATURE OF THE LEGAL
IMAGINATION.  FN2  TO THIS FICTIONAL PERSONALITY IT ASCRIBES A
HYPOTHETICAL "DOMICILE" IN A PLACE WHERE IT HAS BUT A FRACTION OF ITS
PROPERTY AND CONDUCTS ONLY ITS FORMAL CORPORATE ACTIVITIES; AND ON THE
UNION OF THESE TWO FICTIONS IT PERMITS THE CHARTERING STATE TO TAX THE
ESTATES OF PERSONS WHO NEVER LIVED OR DID BUSINESS THEREIN.  THE
REASONING BACK OF THE HOLDING IS THIS:  BECAUSE UTAH ISSUED A CHARTER
TO A CORPORATION, WHICH ISSUED STOCK TO A NONRESIDENT, WHICH CHANGED
HANDS AT HIS DEATH, WHICH REQUIRED A TRANSFER ON THE CORPORATION'S
BOOKS, WHICH TRANSFER WAS PERMITTED BY UTAH LAW, UTAH GOT JURISDICTION
TO TAX SUCCESSION TO THE STOCK.  IT IS REALLY AS REMOTE AS THAT. 

NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT A STATE WHICH CHARTERS A CORPORATION, EVEN
THOUGH IT AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN GIVING "TO AIRY NOTHING A LOCAL
HABITATION AND A NAME," HAS THE RIGHT TO EXACT A CHARTER FEE, AN
INCORPORATION TAX, OR A FRANCHISE TAX FROM THE ARTIFICIAL ENTITY IT HAS
CREATED.  BUT THAT SUCH CHARTERING ENABLES THE TAXING ARM OF THE STATE
TO REACH THE ESTATE OF EVERY STOCKHOLDER, WHEREVER HE LIVES, AND TO TAX
THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE STOCK BECAUSE OF "OPPORTUNITIES WHICH IT HAS
GIVEN," "PROTECTION WHICH IT HAS AFFORDED," OR "BENEFITS WHICH IT HAS
CONFERRED" IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER.  UTAH IS PERMITTED TO TAX THE FULL
VALUE OF EACH SHARE OF UNION PACIFIC STOCK PASSING BY DEATH.  ANY
CONCEIVABLE "OPPORTUNITY," "PROTECTION," OR "BENEFIT" DERIVED BY THE
UNION PACIFIC STOCKHOLDERS FROM UTAH IS NEGLIGIBLE IN PROPORTION TO THE
VALUES UTAH IS AUTHORIZED TO TAX. 

IT WOULD BE HARD TO SELECT A CASE THAT WOULD BETTER DEMONSTRATE THE
FICTIONAL BASIS OF THE COURT'S DOCTRINE OF BENEFITS AND PROTECTION THAN
THIS CASE OF UTAH AND THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD.  WHEN UTAH WAS
ADMITTED TO STATEHOOD IN 1896, THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD WAS ALREADY
OLD AS A NATIONAL INSTITUTION.  THE FIRST WHITE SETTLEMENT IN UTAH MADE
BY THE MORMONS WAS IN ITS SECOND YEAR WHEN PRESIDENT TAYLOR RECOMMENDED
TO CONGRESS CONSIDERATION OF A RAILROAD TO THE PACIFIC AS A "WORK OF
GREAT NATIONAL IMPORTANCE AND OF A VALUE TO THE COUNTRY WHICH IT WOULD
BE DIFFICULT TO ESTIMATE."  FN3  IN 1853, CONGRESS APPROPRIATED
$150,000 TO MAKE EXPLORATIONS AND SURVEYS TO "ASCERTAIN THE MOST
PRACTICAL AND ECONOMICAL ROUTE."  FN4  IN 1860, BOTH THE LEADING
POLITICAL PARTIES IN THEIR PLATFORMS DECLARED IN FAVOR OF BUILDING SUCH
A ROAD.  FN5  PRESIDENT LINCOLN, ON JULY 1, 1862, SIGNED  FN6  THE WAR
MEASURE CREATING THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND SUBSIDIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD,  FN7  WHICH OPENED ON MAY 10, 1869.  FN8  THE
STORY OF THE UNION PACIFIC HAS BEEN A PART OF OUR NATIONAL HISTORY. 
NOT EVEN ITS SCANDALS WERE LOCAL.  ITS CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL ROCKED
THE NATION.  FN9 

THE ROAD CONTINUED TO BE A NATIONAL PROBLEM AS WELL AS A NATIONAL
ENTERPRISE.  PRESIDENT CLEVELAND RECOMMENDED TO CONGRESS IN HIS MESSAGE
OF DECEMBER 3, 1894 CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION.  FN10  THE STEPS
TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT WERE REPORTED TO THE CONGRESS BY PRESIDENT
MCKINLEY IN HIS ANNUAL MESSAGES OF 1897, 1898, AND 1899.  HE REPORTED
THE SALE OF THE UNION PACIFIC MAIN LINE UNDER THE DECREE OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ON NOVEMBER 1 AND 2, 1897. 
FN11  UTAH, ON JULY 1, 1897, GRANTED A CHARTER TO THE PRESENT UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY ONE OF
SEVERAL STATE GOVERNMENTS MIGHT HAVE DONE.  IT HAS BECOME ONE OF THE
GREAT AND STABLE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES.    IF IT
HAD ONLY THE "OPPORTUNITIES" AND "BENEFITS" CONFERRED BY UTAH AND ONLY
THE PROPERTIES PROTECTED BY HER LAWS, THE UNION PACIFIC WOULD CUT
LITTLE FIGURE EITHER IN TRANSPORTATION OR FINANCE.  IT HOLDS ITS
STOCKHOLDERS' MEETINGS IN THAT STATE.  BUT IT MAINTAINS NO EXECUTIVE
OFFICE OR STOCK TRANSFER OFFICE IN UTAH.  ITS EXECUTIVE AND STOCK
TRANSFER OFFICES ARE IN NEW YORK CITY.  ITS STOCKS ARE LISTED ON THE
NEW YORK, BOSTON, LONDON, AND AMSTERDAM STOCK EXCHANGES.  OVER 200,000
SHARES OF ITS STOCK WERE TRADED ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE IN
1939.  FN12  ITS WESTERN OPERATING OFFICE IS NOT IN UTAH, BUT IN OMAHA,
NEBRASKA.  IT IS STIPULATED THAT LESS THAN 9% OF ITS 9877 MILES OF
TRACKAGE ARE IN UTAH AND THAT, DURING 1939, THE RAILWAY OPERATING
REVENUE FROM UTAH INTRASTATE BUSINESS PLUS THE UTAH PROPORTION ON A
MILEAGE BASIS OF ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS WAS 8.97% OF THE ENTIRE GROSS
OPERATING REVENUES OF THE COMPANY. 

WHAT GIVES THE UNION PACIFIC STOCK ITS VALUE, ALL OF WHICH IS
APPROPRIATED BY THIS DECISION TO UTAH'S TAXING POWER, IS ITS OPERATION
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, A PRIVILEGE WHICH COMES FROM THE UNITED STATES
AND ONE WHICH UTAH DOES NOT GIVE OR PROTECT AND COULD NOT DENY.  THE
UNION PACIFIC SYSTEM ITSELF IS IN INTERSTATE OPERATION, EMBRACING
THIRTEEN STATES AND DRAWING ITS BUSINESS FROM THE WHOLE COUNTRY. 
APPROXIMATELY 37% OF ITS TOTAL TONNAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM CONNECTING
LINES.  FN13  IF THE VALUES DERIVED FROM PRIVILEGES EXTENDED BY THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND FROM RENDERING NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WERE TO
BE ALLOCATED TO ANY SINGLE STATE FOR TAX PURPOSES, A REALISTIC BASIS
WOULD ENTITLE THE FIVE STATES OF IDAHO, KANSAS, NEBRASKA, OREGON, AND
WASHINGTON TO SOME CONSIDERATION, FOR EACH EMBRACES, AUTHORIZES, AND
PROTECTS BY ITS LAWS MORE MILES OF TRACKAGE THAN DOES UTAH.  FN14 

THESE FACTS LEAVE NOTHING OF UTAH'S CLAIM TO TAX THE FULL VALUE OF
UNION PACIFIC SHARES WHEN TRANSFERRED BY DEATH OF A NONRESIDENT
STOCKHOLDER, AND NO BASIS FOR THE COURT'S DECISION THAT IT MAY DO SO,
EXCEPT THE METAPHYSICS OF THE CORPORATE CHARTER. 

                                II 

THE THEORIES ON WHICH THIS CASE IS DECIDED CONTRAST SHARPLY WITH
CERTAIN HARD FACTS WHICH MEASURE THE DECISION'S PRACTICAL WISDOM OR
LACK OF IT. 

1.  THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S DECISION IS TO INTENSIFY THE ALREADY
UNWHOLESOME CONFLICT AND FRICTION BETWEEN THE STATES OF THE UNION IN
COMPETITIVE EXPLOITATION OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY AS A SOURCE OF DEATH
DUTIES. 

THE PRACTICAL ISSUE UNDERLYING THIS CASE IS NOT WHETHER THE HARKNESS
ESTATE SHALL PAY OR AVOID A TRANSFER TAX.  THE ISSUE IS WHETHER UTAH OR
NEW YORK WILL COLLECT THIS TAX.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT IF THIS COURT
BREATHES CONSTITUTIONALITY INTO THIS UTAH TAX, ALL THAT UTAH GETS WILL
BE CREDITED TO THE HARKNESS ESTATE ON ITS TAX PAYABLE IN NEW YORK AS
THE STATE OF DOMICILE.  THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO TAX SUCCESSION TO
CORPORATE STOCK BY DEATH OF ONE DOMICILED THEREIN, WHILE NOT ABROGATED,
IS NOW SUBJECTED TO AN INTERFERING AND OVERLAPPING RIGHT OF THE STATE
WHICH CHARTERED THE CORPORATION TO TAX THE SAME STOCK TRANSFER ON A
DIFFERENT AND INCONSISTENT PRINCIPLE.  SINCE THE CHARTERING STATE HAS
APPARENTLY BEEN EMPOWERED TO EXACT ITS TAX AS A CONDITION OF PERMITTING
THE TRANSFER, THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE OF THE STOCKHOLDER'S
DOMICILE IS REALLY SUBORDINATED AND DEFERRED TO THE TAXING POWER OF THE
CHARTERING STATE.  BY LAYING ITS TAX ON THE GROSS VALUE TRANSFERRED,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NET VALUE OF THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE, THE CHARTERING
STATE MAY GIVE ITS TAX AN EFFECTIVE PRIORITY OF PAYMENT OVER THE TAXES
LAID BY THE DOMICILIARY STATE AND MAY COLLECT WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN
INHERITANCE TAX EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO NET ESTATE TO TRANSFER.  THUS,
THROUGH THE CORPORATE CHARTER FICTION, THE CHARTERING STATE MAY THRUST
ITS OWN TAX WITH EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT BETWEEN THE TAXING POWER OF
THE STATE OF DOMICILE AND TAX RESOURCES TO WHICH THAT STATE HAS HAD,
AND I THINK SHOULD HAVE, FIRST AND, UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,
EXCLUSIVE RESORT. 

2.  TO SUBJECT INTANGIBLE PROPERTY TO MANY MORE SOURCES OF TAXATION
THAN OTHER WEALTH, PREJUDICES ITS RELATION TO OTHER INVESTMENTS AND
OTHER WEALTH BY A DISCRIMINATION WHICH HAS NO BASIS IN THE FUNCTION
THAT INTANGIBLES PERFORM FOR OUR PRESENT SOCIETY.  FN15  INTANGIBLES,
EXCEPT FOR GOVERNMENT ISSUES, ARE AN OUTGROWTH OF OUR MODERN
CORPORATION SYSTEM.  OF RELATIVELY RECENT GROWTH, THE CORPORATION HAS
BECOME ALMOST THE UNIT OF ORGANIZATION OF OUR ECONOMIC LIFE.  WHETHER
FOR GOOD OR ILL, THE STUBBORN FACT IS THAT IN OUR PRESENT SYSTEM THE
CORPORATION CARRIES ON THE BULK OF PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION, IS
THE CHIEF EMPLOYER OF BOTH LABOR AND CAPITAL, PAYS A LARGE PART OF OUR
TAXES, AND IS AN ECONOMIC INSTITUTION OF SUCH MAGNITUDE AND IMPORTANCE
THAT THERE IS NO PRESENT SUBSTITUTE FOR IT EXCEPT THE STATE ITSELF. 
EXCEPT FOR THE EASY CIRCULATION AND READY ACCEPTABILITY OF PIECES OF
PAPER CHARACTERIZED AS STOCKS OR BONDS, THIS EXISTING SYSTEM COULD NOT
FUNCTION.  IT IS THESE INTANGIBLE SYMBOLS OR TOKENS WHICH GIVE
LIQUIDITY AND MOBILITY TO OTHERWISE FIXED UNDERLYING PLANT ASSETS,
WHICH GIVE READY NEGOTIABILITY TO FRACTIONAL INTERESTS THEREIN THAT
WOULD OTHERWISE TRANSFER WITH DIFFICULTY, AND WHICH DIVIDE AMONG MANY
BOTH BENEFITS AND RISKS FROM AGGREGATION OF PROPERTIES WHOSE SUCCESSFUL
FUNCTIONING FOR SOCIETY REQUIRES UNIFIED MANAGEMENT OF THE BULK.  THE
AMOUNT OF PLANT AND MATERIAL AND GOODS IN PROCESS, WORKING CAPITAL,
GOOD WILL, AND ORGANIZATION AT ANY TIME DEVOTED TO ENTERPRISE
SUBSTANTIALLY WILL DEPEND UPON THE WILLINGNESS OF THE PUBLIC TO STAND
IN THE POSITION OF STOCKHOLDER OR BONDHOLDER.  WHEN THIS COURT
DETERMINES THAT THE EFFECT OF OWNING THIS TYPE OF CIRCULATING MEDIUM IS
TO SUBJECT THE ESTATE OF THE OWNER TO AN INHERITANCE TAX FROM EVERY
STATE THAT CHARTERED ONE OF THE COMPANIES IN WHICH HE HAS INVESTED, IT
IMPOSES A HANDICAP ON SUCH OWNERSHIP THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL AND
INFLUENTIAL UPON OUR ECONOMY. 

NOT ONE SUBSTANTIAL EVIL IS SAID BY THE OPINION IN THIS CASE TO FLOW
FROM THE RULE BEING UPSET, AND EVILS OF SOME MAGNITUDE ADMITTEDLY
FOLLOW FROM THE ONE BEING REINSTATED.  THESE CONSEQUENCES THE COURT
DECLINES EVEN TO CONSIDER, ALTHOUGH THEY BEAR UPON A SEGMENT OF OUR
ECONOMY BIGGER THAN THE NATIONAL DEBT  FN16  AND AFFECT MORE PERSONS
THAN ARE NOW IN THE ARMED FORCES.  FN17 INTANGIBLES CONSTITUTE WELL
ABOVE 50% OF ALL PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY DEATH,  FN18  AND AN EVEN
GREATER PROPORTION OF THAT TRANSFERRED BY GIFT, WHICH I ASSUME IS
EQUALLY VULNERABLE TO THIS TAX.  FN19  THE GRAVITY OF SUBJECTING SUCH
EXTENSIVE INTERESTS TO COMPLEX, CONFUSING, AND OVERLAPPING TAX
JURISDICTIONS SHOULD BE WEIGHED AGAINST THE REASONS ADVANCED FOR THE
CHANGE. 

THE REVENUE THAT THE STATES MAY COLLECT IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS
DECISION IS NOT THE MEASURE OF THE BURDEN IT IMPOSES ON TAXPAYERS.  THE
ASCERTAINMENT OF TAXES OF THIS TYPE IS COSTLY AND WASTEFUL.  SUCH
TAXATION FREQUENTLY REQUIRES TAKING OUT ANCILLARY LETTERS IN THE STATE
OF THE CORPORATION'S DOMICILE, THE HIRING OF LOCAL COUNSEL, THE
FURNISHING OF AFFIDAVITS TO LOCAL PROBATE COURTS AND INHERITANCE TAX
OFFICIALS, AND THE PAYMENT OF VARIOUS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES.  FOR
THE ASSURANCE OF LOCAL CREDITORS, BONDS ARE SOMETIMES REQUIRED AND LONG
KEPT IN FORCE.  REALIZATION UPON ASSETS AND DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATES IS
DELAYED BY INABILITY TO GET WAIVERS OR CONSENTS TO TRANSFER UNTIL AFTER
EXTENSIVE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED.  THE SERIOUSNESS OF THESE
BURDENS IS INCREASED IF THE DECEDENT OWNS STOCK IN CONSOLIDATED
CORPORATIONS INCORPORATED IN SEVERAL STATES; AND UNDER THIS DECISION
STOCKS OF SOME CONSOLIDATED RAILROADS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO TAX ON THEIR
FULL VALUES BY FIVE OR SIX STATES.  ONE NEED NOT BE UNDULY SOFT-HEARTED
TOWARDS TAXPAYERS TO DOUBT WHETHER THE EXHAUSTION OF ESTATES THROUGH
MULTIPLICATION OF REPORTS, RETURNS, APPRAISALS, LITIGATION, COUNSEL
FEES, AND EXPENSES ULTIMATELY MAKES FOR A SOUND FISCAL POLICY OR AN
ENLIGHTENED SOCIAL POLICY. 

MOREOVER, THE BURDENS IMPOSED BY THIS TYPE OF TAXATION ARE UNEQUAL AND
CAPRICIOUS AND IN INVERSE ORDER TO THE ABILITY OF THE ESTATE TO PAY.  I
SUPPOSE WE NEED HAVE LITTLE ANXIETY ABOUT MR. HARKNESS'S $87,000,000
NET ESTATE WITH ITS $1,000,000 INVESTMENT IN UNION PACIFIC STOCK.  AS
WE HAVE POINTED OUT, IT IS NOT HE, BUT THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THAT WILL
PAY THIS TAX TO THE STATE OF UTAH.  AND IF NEW YORK HAD NO PROVISION IN
ITS STATUTES FOR CREDIT AND MR. HARKNESS COULD HAVE FORESEEN THE SHIFT
OF POSITION OF THIS COURT, IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
CAUGHT WITH THE TAX.  THOSE WHO HAVE LARGE ESTATES AND WATCHFUL LAWYERS
WILL FIND WAYS OF MINIMIZING THESE BURDENS.  BUT MR. HARKNESS IS NOT A
TYPICAL UNION PACIFIC STOCKHOLDER.  IN 1939, THE UNION PACIFIC HAD
50,131 STOCKHOLDERS.  FN20  THE MANY SMALL STOCKHOLDERS CANNOT AFFORD
PROFESSIONAL COUNSEL OR EVASION DEVICES.  THE BURDEN OF REPORTS AND
APPRAISALS AND FOREIGN TAX PROCEEDINGS BEARS HEAVILY UPON THEM BECAUSE
OF THE RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THEIR TRANSFERS.  THE NEW
TAX WE HAVE AUTHORIZED UNDERMINES THE PRINCIPLE OF GRADUATION OF TAX
BURDENS IN PROPORTION TO ABILITY TO PAY.  NO TAX LAID ON ANYTHING LESS
THAN THE TOTAL NET WORTH OF THE ESTATE CAN BE GRADUATED EVEN ROUGHLY
ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE WHICH PROGRESSIVE MODERN TAXATION STRIVES TO
HEED.  THE IMPOSITION OF UNPREDICTABLE ASSESSMENTS FROM MANY SOURCES
MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE STATE OF DOMICILE TO MAKE INTELLIGENT USE
OF ITS OWN TAXING POWER AS AN INSTRUMENT OF ENLIGHTENED SOCIAL POLICY. 
CHAOS SERVES NO SOCIAL END. 

3.  A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE STATES, BY EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO THE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE DECISION, FOUND THE SYSTEM OF TAXATION WHICH
THIS COURT IMPOSES ON ALL STATES TODAY TO BE UNWORKABLE AND TO
CONSTITUTE A THREAT TO THE DEATH TAX ON INTANGIBLES AS A STATE SOURCE
OF REVENUE.  COMPETITIVE USE BY THE STATES OF DEATH TAXATION AND
IMMUNITIES INVITED FEDERAL INVASION OF THE FIELD, ONE PHASE OF WHICH
WAS THE ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS OF SEC. 301, REVENUE ACT OF 1926,
SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT IN FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12.  THERE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD LAID AN ESTATE TAX, BUT RETAINED ONLY 20% OF THE
REVENUE AND USED AN 80% CREDIT PROVISION TO EQUALIZE THE DEMANDS OF THE
STATES.  THERE WAS AN UNEASY PREMONITION AMONG THE STATES THAT
OVERLAPPING, CAPRICIOUS, AND MULTIPLE TAXATION WOULD LEAD TO FEDERAL
OCCUPATION OF THE FIELD.  APPEARING IN THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK CASE AS
AMICUS CURIAE, THE NEW YORK STATE TAX COMMISSION URGED THAT BOTH
PRINCIPLE AND POLICY PREVENT THE LEVYING OF TAXES BY MORE THAN ONE
JURISDICTION, AND ADDED:  "THE NEW YORK TAX COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT
THE PRESENT IS A CRUCIAL PERIOD IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEATH TAXATION IN
THIS COUNTRY AND THAT A FALSE STEP MAY MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE STATES
TO RETAIN THE DEATH TAX AS A SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIAL REVENUE."  WE REVIEW
THEIR DIFFICULTIES. 

FARSIGHTED STATES SAW THAT THE TOTAL REVENUE RESOURCES PRACTICALLY
AVAILABLE TO THE STATES WAS NOT INCREASED BY OVERLAPPING THEIR TAXATION
AND INVADING EACH OTHER'S DOMICILIARY SOURCES OF TAXATION.  MANY FELT
THAT JUSTICE REQUIRED CREDITS TO THEIR OWN DOMICILED DECEDENTS' ESTATES
FOR TAXES EXACTED ELSEWHERE, AND THE CREDITS GRANTED OFFSET LARGELY THE
REVENUE DERIVED FROM THE TAX.  THE MULTIPLE TAXATION ADDED
SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE COST OF ADMINISTRATION AND TO THE ANNOYANCE OF
TAXPAYERS.  BECAUSE OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENT OF
FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, THIRTY-SEVEN STATES HAD ENACTED
RECIPROCITY STATUTES WHICH VOLUNTARILY RENOUNCED REVENUES FROM THIS
TYPE OF TAXATION.  THE COURT WAS URGED TO STAY THE HAND OF SISTER
STATES WHICH WOULD NOT COOPERATE.  THE RESTRAINT LAID BY THIS COURT IN
RESPONSE TO THOSE APPEALS IS NOW WITHDRAWN AT THE BEHEST OF A STATE
WHICH HAS AT NO TIME ENACTED A RECIPROCITY STATUTE OR GIVEN A CREDIT
FOR SUCH TAXES PAID BY ITS DOMICILED DECEDENTS ELSEWHERE.  WE HAVE NOT
HEARD THE VIEWS OF ANY OTHER STATE NOR CONSIDERED THEIR CONCERN ABOUT
RETAINING THE SOURCE OF TAXATION OPENED TO THEM.  I DO NOT DOUBT THAT
TODAY'S DECISION WILL GIVE A NEW IMPETUS TO FEDERAL ABSORPTION OF THIS
REVENUE SOURCE AND TO FEDERAL INCORPORATION OF LARGE ENTERPRISES. 

4.  AN UNFORTUNATE ASPECT OF THIS DECISION IS THAT, IN COMMON WITH
OTHER JUDGE-MADE LAW, IT HAS RETROACTIVE EFFECT.  CONSEQUENTLY,
INEQUALITIES AND INJUSTICES WILL BE SUFFERED BY STATES AS WELL AS BY
INDIVIDUALS.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAS WRITTEN INTO ITS
OWN CONSTITUTION THE LIMITATIONS ON ITS TAXING POWER WHICH THIS COURT
HAD ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISION WE NOW OVERRULE.  FN21  UNTIL IT CAN
ADJUST ITS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, SUCH A STATE MAY NOT TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THE TAX PRIVILEGES THE COURT CONFERS TODAY, ALTHOUGH OTHER
STATES MAY DO SO.  WE HAVE NOT BEEN ADVISED AS TO THE NUMBER OF STATES
WHICH HAVE REPEALED OR MODIFIED RECIPROCITY OR CREDIT PROVISIONS IN
THEIR OWN STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS IN RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION WE
OVERRULE.  CREDIT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN STATUTES MAY BE THE
FOUNDATION FOR CLAIMS FOR REFUND AGAINST DOMICILIARY STATES AS
CHARTERING STATES PROCEED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PRIVILEGE OF
RETROACTIVE TAXATION ACCORDED THEM BY THIS DECISION.  ESTATES CLOSED
AND DISTRIBUTED UNDER EXISTING LAWS BECOME INDEBTED BY FORCE OF THIS
DECISION TO CHARTERING STATES ON CLAIMS FOR TRANSFER TAX THAT MAY HAVE
EXISTED IN THE STATE STATUTES BUT HAD NEVER BEEN SUSPECTED OF HAVING
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY.  FOR WHAT PERIODS THESE CLAIMS MAY HAVE
VITALITY DEPENDS ON STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION.  WHETHER PERSONAL
LIABILITY MAY BE ASSERTED AGAINST EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS FOR
FAILURE TO PAY TAXES THAT OUR DECISIONS DID NOT TOLERATE AT THE TIME
THE ESTATES WERE CLOSED, LIKEWISE DEPENDS ON THE LAWS OF THE CHARTERING
STATES.  WITH CONFIDENCE WE MAY ANTICIPATE THAT THIS DECISION WILL
PRODUCE MUCH CONFUSION, SOME CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE STATES, AND A
LUSTY CROP OF LITIGATION.         III 

THE COURT CASTS ASIDE FORMER LIMITATIONS ON STATE POWER TO TAX
NONRESIDENTS IN SUCH TERMS AS TO LEAVE DOUBT WHETHER ANY LEGAL
LIMITATIONS ARE HEREAFTER TO BE RECOGNIZED OR APPLIED.  THE OPINION OF
THE COURT SAYS THAT THE STATE MAY "CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE ITS EXACTION"
"WHICH CAN DEMONSTRATE 'THE PRACTICAL FACT OF ITS POWER.'"  THE
CONCURRING OPINION ADDS THAT "EACH STATE OF THE UNION HAS THE SAME
TAXING POWER AS AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THAT POWER
HAS BEEN CURTAILED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION," AND IT ENUMERATES
THREE LIMITATIONS, EACH OF WHICH PROHIBITS A KIND OF TAX OR PROTECTS
KINDS OF BUSINESS FROM TAX; BUT NONE OF THEM RESTRAINS TAXATION BY
REFERENCE TO WHAT WE HAVE USUALLY EXPRESSED BY "JURISDICTION."  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE CONCURRING OPINION SAYS THAT "THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HAS
ITS APPLICATION TO THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES," BUT WE ARE NOT TOLD
WHAT IT MAY BE, AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A SITUATION WHERE IT
WILL EVER BE USEFUL IF IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A TEST OF
JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE A TAX. 

DESPITE TODAY'S DECISION, I TRUST THIS COURT DOES NOT INTEND TO SAY
THAT MIGHT ALWAYS MAKES RIGHT IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION.  I HOPE THERE
IS AGREEMENT, THOUGH UNEXPRESSED, THAT THERE ARE LIMITS, AND THAT OUR
PROBLEM IS TO SEARCH OUT AND MARK THOSE LIMITS.  ONE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT
IS TO SAY THAT THOSE STATES CAN TAX WHICH HAVE THE PHYSICAL POWER TO DO
SO AND HAVE CONFERRED SOME BENEFITS OR PROTECTION ON THE TAXPAYER.  OF
COURSE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT THIS, BUT THAT IS A
CRITICISM THAT CAN BE DIRECTED AT ANY TEST THAT I CAN THINK OF.  MY
DIFFICULTY IS THAT ON ITS FACE - AND AS SO FAR APPLIED - THIS TEST
COMES OUT TO THE POINT WHERE MIGHT DOES MAKE RIGHT.  FOR IN A VERY REAL
SENSE EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY IN THE UNION HAS CONFERRED VERY REAL
BENEFITS UPON EVERY INHABITANT OF THE UNION.  SOME STATES HAVE SEEN TO
IT THAT OUR FOOD IS PROPERLY PRODUCED AND INSPECTED; OTHERS HAVE
FOSTERED AND PROTECTED THE INDUSTRY UPON WHICH WE ARE UTTERLY DEPENDENT
FOR THE ORDINARY CONVENIENCES OF LIFE AND FOR LIFE ITSELF.  ALL OF THEM
HAVE YIELDED UP MEN TO PROVIDE GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND TO REPEAL THE
ENEMY ABROAD.  I AM THE VERY REAL DEBTOR, BUT AM FRANK ENOUGH TO SAY I
HOPE NOT A POTENTIAL TAXPAYER, OF ALL. 

CERTAIN IT IS THAT WHILE ONLY CORPORATE STOCK IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED
IN THE OPINION OR INVOLVED IN THE JUDGMENT TODAY, THE FICTION OF
BENEFITS AND PROTECTION IS CAPABLE OF AS READY ADAPTABILITY TO OTHER
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.  OUR TOMORROWS WILL WITNESS AN EXTENSION OF THE
TAXING POWER OF THE CHARTERING OR ISSUING STATE TO CORPORATE BONDS AND
BONDS OF STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES (BY OVERRULING FARMERS LOAN & TRUST
CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204), TO BANK CREDITS FOR CASH DEPOSITED (BY
OVERRULING BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586), AND TO CHOSES IN ACTION
(BY OVERRULING BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 282 U.S. 1).  AND WHILE TODAY
THE COURT SUSTAINS ONLY A DEATH TRANSFER TAX, ITS THEORIES ARE EQUALLY
SERVICEABLE TO SUSTAIN AN INCOME OR EXCISE TAX, ON DIVIDENDS FROM SUCH
STOCK OR INTEREST ON BONDS, OR A SALES TAX, OR A GIFT TAX.  WHETHER
EACH CHARTERING OR ISSUING STATE WILL BE PERMITTED TO CALCULATE ITS TAX
ON SOME FORMULA THAT WILL CONSIDER THE TOTAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
DECEDENT, I DO NOT KNOW, BUT IN THE PRESENT TREND OF DECISION THERE IS
LITTLE RESTRAINT ON SUCH FORMULAS.  I THEREFORE TAKE TODAY'S DECISION
TO MEAN THAT ANY STATE MAY LAY SUBSTANTIALLY ANY TAX ON ANY TRANSFER OF
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY TOWARD WHICH IT CAN SPELL OUT A CONCEIVABLE LEGAL
RELATIONSHIP. 

AND SINCE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE SPEAKS WITH NO MORE CLARITY AS TO
TANGIBLE THAN AS TO INTANGIBLE PROPERTY, THE QUESTION IS OPENED WHETHER
OUR DECISIONS AS TO TAXATION OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY ARE NOT DUE TO BE
OVERHAULED.  AND IF THE STATE OF UTAH IS NOT DENIED JURISDICTION OVER
THE TRANSFER OF THIS STOCK OWNED BY A NEW YORK RESIDENT, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE WHERE THE COURT COULD FIND A BASIS FOR DENYING IT
JURISDICTION TO PRESCRIBE THE RULE OF SUCCESSION TO IT. 

THE COURT, IT SEEMS TO ME, WILL BE OBLIGED TO DRAW THE LINE AT WHICH
STATE POWER TO REACH NONRESIDENTS' ESTATES AND EXTRATERRITORIAL
TRANSACTIONS COMES TO AN END.  I FIND LITTLE DIFFICULTY IN CONCLUDING
THAT EXACTION OF A TAX BY A STATE WHICH HAS NO JURISDICTION OR LAWFUL
AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE IT IS A TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT THE CONCEPT OF JURISDICTION IS NOT DEFINED
BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ANY DECISION WHICH ACCEPTS OR REJECTS ANY ONE OF
THE MANY GROUNDS ADVANCED AS JURISDICTIONAL FOR STATE TAXING PURPOSES
FN22  WILL READ INTO THE CONSTITUTION AN INCLUSION OR AN EXCLUSION THAT
IS NOT FOUND IN ITS TEXT.  TO READ INTO THE CONSTITUTION THE COURT'S
PRESENT CONCEPT OF JURISDICTION THROUGH CHARTER GRANTING, AND TO HOLD
THAT IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT THIS TAX, IS TO
MAKE NEW LAW QUITE AS CERTAINLY AS TO ADHERE TO THE CONCEPT OF
JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO THE DECEDENT'S DOMICILE AND TO HOLD THAT THE
CONSTITUTION THEREFORE DOES PROHIBIT IT.  FN23 

I AM CONTENT WITH EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW UNLESS IT APPEARS MORE
PLAINLY THAT IT IS UNSOUND OR UNTIL IT WORKS BADLY IN OUR PRESENT DAY
AND SOCIETY. 

FN1  OF ONE OF THEM, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID:  "IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT PROBABLY IS A DESIRABLE ONE, BUT I
HARDLY UNDERSTAND HOW IT CAN BE DEDUCED FROM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
..."  UNION REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, 211. 

FN2  A CORPORATION IS DEFINED BY JOHN MARSHALL AS "AN ARTIFICIAL
BEING, INVISIBLE, INTANGIBLE, AND EXISTING ONLY IN CONTEMPLATION OF
LAW."  TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT.  518, 636. 
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAS SAID:  "A CORPORATION, HOWEVER, IS A
MERE CONCEPTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE MIND.  IT EXISTS ONLY ON PAPER
THROUGH THE COMMAND OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT ITS MENTAL CONCEPTION SHALL
BE CLOTHED WITH POWER."  PEOPLE V. KNAPP, 206 N.Y. 373, 381, 99 N.E.
841, 844.  "IT TOOK HALF A CENTURY OF LITIGATION IN THIS COURT FINALLY
TO CONFER ON A CORPORATION, THROUGH THE USE OF A FICTION, CITIZENSHIP
IN THE CHARTERING STATE FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES.  ...  THROUGHOUT,
THE MODE OF THOUGHT WAS METAPHORICAL."  MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, IN
NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S. 165, 169.  COMPARE
THE CASES WHERE COURTS ARE OBLIGED TO DISREGARD THE CORPORATE ENTITY TO
AVOID A VARIETY OF INJUSTICES.  SEE WORMSER, DISREGARD OF THE CORPORATE
FICTION (1927). 

FN3  6 MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 2558, MESSAGE OF
DECEMBER 4, 1849.  PRESIDENT BUCHANAN ALSO REPEATEDLY RECOMMENDED THE
ROAD AS A DEFENSE NECESSITY TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE WAR POWER.  ID.
AT 2988; ID., VOL. 7, AT 3057, 3103, 3181. 

FN4  10 STAT. 219. 

FN5  TROTTMAN, HISTORY OF THE UNION PACIFIC (1923) 8. 

FN6  SANDBURG, ABRAHAM LINCOLN - THE WAR YEARS, VOL. 1, 510.  SEE
ALSO VOL. 2, 461, FOR AN ACCOUNT OF LINCOLN'S SELECTION OF THE LOCATION
OF ITS EASTERN TERMINAL. 

FN7  IT GRANTED A RIGHT OF WAY ACROSS THE PUBLIC LANDS OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES AND A SUBSIDY LOAN OF $16,000 PER MILE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION ON THE PLAIN, $48,000 PER MILE FOR ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY
MILES OVER THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS, AND $32,000 PER MILE FOR THE
REMAINDER.  THE CONSTRUCTION AMOUNTED TO 1,034 MILES, AND THE SUBSIDY
LOAN TO $27,236,512.  THE CENTRAL PACIFIC, FOR 883 MILES CONSTRUCTED
FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO MEET THE UNION PACIFIC, RECEIVED NEARLY AN EQUAL
AMOUNT.  12 STAT. 489.  FURTHER GRANTS WERE MADE BY AN ACT OF JULY 2,
1864, 13 STAT. 356. 

FN8  11 MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 638. 

FN9  BOWERS, THE TRAGIC ERA (1929) 396 ET SEQ. 

FN10  13 MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 5969. 

FN11  13 MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS 6273, 6343, 6390. 

FN12  MOODY'S STEAM RAILROADS (1940) 907. 

FN13  MOODY'S STEAM RAILROADS (1940) 895. 

FN14  MILEAGE OF THE SYSTEM IS AS FOLLOWS:  (1) IDAHO, 2051.12; (2)
NEBRASKA, 1355.68; (3) OREGON, 1172.48; (4) KANSAS, 1159.87; (5)
WASHINGTON, 1047.04; (6) UTAH, 888.47; (7) WYOMING, 717.32; (8)
COLORADO, 609.13; (9) CALIFORNIA, 390.52; (10) NEVADA, 358.12; (11)
MONTANA, 143.46; (12) IOWA, 2.48; (13) MISSOURI, 2.16.  MOODY'S STEAM
RAILROADS (1940) 893. 

FN15  THE BURDENS IMPOSED BY THE PRESENT DECISION ARE CUMULATIVE AND
MUST BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES BY STATES OTHER THAN THAT OF DOMICILE (CURRY V.
MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357; GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383), AND ALSO IN
REFERENCE TO THE CLOSING OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO BOTH STATE AND
TAXPAYERS WHERE DIFFERENT STATE COURTS MAKE INCONSISTENT FINDINGS ON
DOMICILE RESULTING IN ESTATE TAXATION BY TWO OR MORE STATES. 
MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, 308 U.S. 1; TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398;
WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292; NEW JERSEY V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 287 U.S. 580; DORRANCE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 287 U.S. 660 AND
288 U.S. 617, CERTIORARI DENIED TO REVIEW DORRANCE'S ESTATE, 309 PA.
151; HILL V. MARTIN, 296 U.S. 393; DORRANCE V. MARTIN, 298 U.S. 678,
CERTIORARI DENIED TO REVIEW DORRANCE V. THAYER-MARTIN, 116 N.J.L. 362;
SARGENT AND TWEED, DEATH AND TAXES ARE CERTAIN - BUT WHAT OF DOMICILE?,
53 HARVARD L. REV. 68; CF. TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S.
66. 

FN16  U.S. TREASURY STATISTICS OF INCOME FOR 1938, PART II, P.
4(LATEST AVAILABLE) SHOWS THAT 520,501 CORPORATIONS FILED RETURNS. 
169,884 OF THEM REPORTED NET INCOME AGGREGATING $6,525,979,257, WHILE
301,148 REPORTED AN AGGREGATE LOSS FOR THE YEAR OF $2,853,097,727. 

THE COMMISSIONER COMPUTES DIVIDENDS PAID IN CASH OR ASSETS OTHER THAN
STOCK TO HAVE BEEN $5,013,432,827.  ID. AT 22. 

BALANCE SHEETS WERE SUBMITTED BY 411,941 CORPORATIONS SHOWING TOTAL
ASSETS OF $300,021,727,000.  ID. AT 28. 

THE VOLUME OF INTANGIBLES AFLOAT AS A RESULT OF CORPORATE FINANCING
IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CALCULATED, BUT SOME IDEA OF IT IS GLEANED FROM THE
AGGREGATE OF ITEMS AS FOLLOWS: 

COMMON STOCK..................$74,791,662,000 

PREFERRED STOCKS.............. 18,108,066,000 

BONDS, NOTES AND MORTGAGES - 

MATURITY 1 YEAR OR MORE....... 50,278,233,000 IBID. 

FN17  I KNOW OF NO ACCURATE CALCULATION OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO
HOLD STOCKS OR BONDS.  MANY ESTIMATES ARE EXTRAVAGANT AND INCLUDE AN
ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF DUPLICATIONS - FOR EXAMPLE, THE AGGREGATE OF
STOCKHOLDERS' LISTS OF ALL CORPORATIONS.  I THINK THE ESTIMATE OF BERLE
AND MEANS AS OF 1927 THAT BETWEEN FOUR AND SIX MILLION PERSONS OWNED
STOCKS, INCLUDING AN ESTIMATED TWO MILLION EMPLOYEE OR CUSTOMER
STOCKHOLDERS, IS A REASONABLE ONE.  THE MODERN CORPORATION AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY (1934) 374.  MANY ARE, OF COURSE, ALSO BONDHOLDERS, AND THE
NUMBER TO BE ADDED AFTER ALLOWING FOR DUPLICATION IS DIFFICULT TO
ESTIMATE.  IT MUST ALSO, OF COURSE, BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THIS INCLUDES
MANY VERY SMALL HOLDINGS AND THAT SUCH STATISTICS ARE OF LITTLE VALUE
IN CONSIDERING THE RELATIVE BENEFITS FROM SUCH HOLDINGS DERIVED BY
THOSE IN DIFFERENT INCOME BRACKETS. 

FN18  UNITED STATES TREASURY STATISTICS OF INCOME FOR 1938, PART I,
P. 220, SHOWS THAT 15,221 ESTATES FILED RETURNS SHOWING TOTAL GROSS
ESTATES OF $2,746,143,000, OF WHICH REAL ESTATE WAS $433,487,000,
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, $34,637,000, AND INTANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY $2,278,019,000. 

THE INTANGIBLES SO REPORTED INCLUDED: 

CAPITAL STOCK IN CORPORATIONS..........  $1,079,231,000 

STATE AND MUNICIPAL BONDS..............     242,537,000 

GOVERNMENT BONDS.......................     148,802,000 

OTHER BONDS............................     164,796,000 

OF COURSE IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE SAME PROPORTIONS HOLD GOOD FOR
ESTATES TOO SMALL TO BE REPORTED UNDER FEDERAL LAW.  BECAUSE THEY WOULD
BE MORE HEAVILY WEIGHTED WITH FARM AND HOME OWNING, I AM CONFIDENT
THESE STATISTICS DO NOT PRESENT PROPORTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL TRANSFERS
BY DEATH.  THEY DO, I BELIEVE, SUSTAIN THE STATEMENT MADE IN THE TEXT. 

FN19  UNITED STATES TREASURY STATISTICS OF INCOME FOR 1938, PART I,
P. 264, SHOW TOTAL GIFTS REPORTED FOR TAXATION AS - 

REAL ESTATE...............................  $41,241,000 

STOCKS AND BONDS..........................  214,583,000 

CASH......................................   72,390,000 

INSURANCE.................................   21,795,000 

MISCELLANEOUS.............................   49,764,000 

FN20  MOODY'S STEAM RAILROADS (1940) 888. 

FN21  ARTICLE XVI, SEC. 3 OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, ADOPTED
IN 1938, PROVIDES: 

"MONEYS, CREDITS, SECURITIES AND OTHER INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
WITHIN THE STATE NOT EMPLOYED IN CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS THEREIN BY
THE OWNER SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE LOCATED AT THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER
FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION, AND, IF HELD IN TRUST, SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO
BE LOCATED IN THIS STATE FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION BECAUSE OF THE
TRUSTEE BEING DOMICILED IN THIS STATE, PROVIDED THAT IF NO OTHER STATE
HAS JURISDICTION TO SUBJECT SUCH PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST TO DEATH
TAXATION, IT MAY BE DEEMED PROPERTY HAVING A TAXABLE SITUS WITHIN THIS
STATE FOR PURPOSES OF DEATH TAXATION.  INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
SHALL NOT BE TAXED AD VALOREM NOR SHALL ANY EXCISE TAX BE LEVIED SOLELY
BECAUSE OF THE OWNERSHIP OR POSSESSION THEREOF, EXCEPT THAT THE INCOME
THEREFROM MAY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN COMPUTING ANY EXCISE TAX
MEASURED BY INCOME GENERALLY.  UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS SHALL NOT BE
TAXED."    THAT DECISION APPARENTLY ENDED THE NECESSITY FOR RECIPROCAL
EXEMPTION AND I KNOW OF NONE ENACTED SINCE.  TEXAS AND MISSOURI APPEAR
TO HAVE OMITTED RECIPROCAL EXEMPTION PROVISIONS IN LATER REVISIONS OF
THEIR INHERITANCE TAX LAWS. 

FN22  SEE LOWNDES, STATE TAXATION OF INHERITANCES, 29 MICHIGAN LAW
REVIEW 850; HINE, SITUS OF SHARES ISSUED UNDER THE UNIFORM STOCK
TRANSFER ACT, 87 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 700. 

FN23  BUT FEAR OF LEGISLATING NEED NOT INTIMIDATE THOSE OF EITHER
VIEW.  THE NECESSITY OF EVENTUALLY FINDING SOME JURISDICTIONAL BASIS
FOR STATE ACTION AFFECTING NONRESIDENTS PRESENTS A PROBLEM SIMILAR TO
THAT STATED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN,
244 U.S. 205, 221:  "I RECOGNIZE WITHOUT HESITATION THAT JUDGES DO AND
MUST LEGISLATE, BUT THEY CAN DO SO ONLY INTERSTITIALLY; THEY ARE
CONFINED FROM MOLAR TO MOLECULAR MOTIONS."  AND ANOTHER CANDID JURIST
HAS SAID:  "I WILL NOT HESITATE IN THE SILENCE OR INADEQUACY OF FORMAL
SOURCES TO INDICATE AS THE GENERAL LINE OF DIRECTION FOR THE JUDGE THE
FOLLOWING:  THAT HE OUGHT TO SHAPE HIS JUDGMENT OF THE LAW IN OBEDIENCE
TO THE SAME AIMS WHICH WOULD BE THOSE OF A LEGISLATOR WHO WAS PROPOSING
TO HIMSELF TO REGULATE THE QUESTION."  CARDOZO, THE NATURE OF THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS (1932) 120. 

WHERE PRESCRIBED SOURCES OF LAW FAIL TO GUIDE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS,
THE SWISS CIVIL CODE PROVIDES THAT THE JUDGE "MUST PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT
ACCORDING TO THE RULE WHICH HE WOULD SET UP IF HE WERE LEGISLATOR
HIMSELF."  WILLIAMS, SOURCES OF LAW IN THE SWISS CIVIL CODE (1923) 34
ET SEQ.; SCHOCH, THE SWISS CONFLICT OF LAWS, 55 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 738,
749, NOTE 57.  THE SWISS MAY HAVE THOUGHT A CANDID RECOGNITION OF WHAT
NECESSARILY IS THE PRACTICE WOULD FORESTALL JUDICIAL DISCLAIMER OF
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF LAW ANNOUNCED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :














VALENTINE V. CHRESTENSEN, 316 U.S. 52 


NO. 707.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 13, 1942.  - 122 F.2D
511, REVERSED. 


1.  A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE FORBIDDING DISTRIBUTION IN THE STREETSOF
PRINTED HANDBILLS BEARING COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING MATTER, HELD
CONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 54. 

2.  A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE IN THE STREETS HANDBILLS OF
PRINTED COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING MATTER, CONTRARY TO A MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCE, CAN NOT BE ACQUIRED BY ADDING TO THE HANDBILLS MATTER OF
POSSIBLE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH BY ITSELF MIGHT BE PRIVILEGED BUT WHICH
IS ADDED WITH THE PURPOSE OF EVADING THE PROHIBITION OF THE ORDINANCE
WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVERTISING MATTER.  P. 55. 

VALENTINE, POLICE COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, V.
CHRESTENSEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 604, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH AFFIRMED A DECREE,
34 F.SUPP.  596, PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THE POLICE COMMISSIONER OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK FROM INTERFERING WITH DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENT'S
HANDBILLS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT, A CITIZEN OF FLORIDA, OWNS A FORMER UNITED STATES
NAVY SUBMARINE WHICH HE EXHIBITS FOR PROFIT.  IN 1940 HE BROUGHT IT TO
NEW YORK CITY AND MOORED IT AT A STATE PIER IN THE EAST RIVER.  HE
PREPARED AND PRINTED A HANDBILL ADVERTISING THE BOAT AND SOLICITING
VISITORS FOR A STATED ADMISSION FEE.  ON HIS ATTEMPTING TO DISTRIBUTE
THE BILL IN THE CITY STREETS, HE WAS ADVISED BY THE PETITIONER, AS
POLICE COMMISSIONER, THAT THIS ACTIVITY WOULD VIOLATE SEC. 318 OF THE
SANITARY CODE, WHICH FORBIDS DISTRIBUTION IN THE STREETS OF COMMERCIAL
AND BUSINESS ADVERTISING MATTER,  FN1  BUT WAS TOLD THAT HE MIGHT
FREELY DISTRIBUTE HANDBILLS SOLELY DEVOTED TO "INFORMATION OR A PUBLIC
PROTEST." 

RESPONDENT THEREUPON PREPARED AND SHOWED TO THE PETITIONER, IN PROOF
FORM, A DOUBLE-FACED HANDBILL.  ON ONE SIDE WAS A REVISION OF THE
ORIGINAL, ALTERED BY THE REMOVAL OF THE STATEMENT AS TO ADMISSION FEE
BUT CONSISTING ONLY OF COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING.  ON THE OTHER SIDE WAS A
PROTEST AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CITY DOCK DEPARTMENT IN REFUSING THE
RESPONDENT WHARFAGE FACILITIES AT A CITY PIER FOR THE EXHIBITION OF HIS
SUBMARINE, BUT NO COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING.  THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
ADVISED THAT DISTRIBUTION OF A BILL CONTAINING ONLY THE PROTEST WOULD
NOT VIOLATE SEC. 318, AND WOULD NOT BE RESTRAINED, BUT THAT
DISTRIBUTION OF THE DOUBLE-FACED BILL WAS PROHIBITED.  THE RESPONDENT,
NEVERTHELESS, PROCEEDED WITH THE PRINTING OF HIS PROPOSED BILL AND
STARTED TO DISTRIBUTE IT.  HE WAS RESTRAINED BY THE POLICE. 

RESPONDENT THEN BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN THE PETITIONER FROM
INTERFERING WITH THE DISTRIBUTION.  IN HIS COMPLAINT HE ALLEGED
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP; AN AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IN EXCESS OF $3,000;
THE ACTS AND THREATS OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF
SEC. 318; ASSERTED A CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION; AND PRAYED AN INJUNCTION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, FN2  AND AFTER TRIAL ON A
STIPULATION FROM WHICH THE FACTS APPEAR AS ABOVE RECITED, GRANTED A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BY A DIVIDED
COURT, AFFIRMED.  FN3 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE TO THE
RESPONDENT'S ACTIVITY WAS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ABRIDGEMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND OF SPEECH. 

1.  THIS COURT HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY HELD THAT THE STREETS ARE PROPER
PLACES FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATING INFORMATION AND
DISSEMINATING OPINION AND THAT, THOUGH THE STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES
MAY APPROPRIATELY REGULATE THE PRIVILEGE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THEY
MAY NOT UNDULY BURDEN OR PROSCRIBE ITS EMPLOYMENT IN THESE PUBLIC
THOROUGHFARES.  WE ARE EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE CONSTITUTION IMPOSES NO
SUCH RESTRAINT ON GOVERNMENT AS RESPECTS PURELY COMMERCIAL
ADVERTISING.  WHETHER, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, ONE MAY PROMOTE OR PURSUE A
GAINFUL OCCUPATION IN THE STREETS, TO WHAT EXTENT SUCH ACTIVITY SHALL
BE ADJUDGED A DEROGATION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF USER, ARE MATTERS FOR
LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE BODY
MAY INTERFERE WITH THE HARMLESS PURSUIT OF A LAWFUL BUSINESS, BUT
WHETHER IT MUST PERMIT SUCH PURSUIT BY WHAT IT DEEMS AN UNDESIRABLE
INVASION OF, OR INTERFERENCE WITH, THE FULL AND FREE USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS BY THE PEOPLE IN FULFILLMENT OF THE PUBLIC USE TO WHICH
STREETS ARE DEDICATED.  IF THE RESPONDENT WAS ATTEMPTING TO USE THE
STREETS OF NEW YORK BY DISTRIBUTING COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING, THE
PROHIBITION OF THE CODE PROVISION WAS LAWFULLY INVOKED AGAINST HIS
CONDUCT. 

2.  THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT, IN TRUTH, HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE
DISSEMINATION OF MATTER PROPER FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION, NONE THE LESS SO
BECAUSE THERE WAS INEXTRICABLY ATTACHED TO THE MEDIUM OF SUCH
DISSEMINATION COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING MATTER.  THE COURT BELOW APPEARS
TO HAVE TAKEN THIS VIEW, SINCE IT ADVERTS TO THE THE DIFFICULTY OF
APPORTIONING, IN A GIVEN CASE, THE CONTENTS OF THE COMMUNICATION AS
BETWEEN WHAT IS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND WHAT IS FOR PRIVATE PROFIT.  WE
NEED NOT INDULGE NICE APPRAISAL BASED UPON SUBTLE DISTINCTIONS IN THE
PRESENT INSTANCE NOR ASSUME POSSIBLE CASES NOT NOW PRESENTED.  IT IS
ENOUGH FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE THAT THE STIPULATED FACTS JUSTIFY THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE AFFIXING OF THE PROTEST AGAINST OFFICIAL CONDUCT TO
THE ADVERTISING CIRCULAR WAS WITH THE INTENT, AND FOR THE PURPOSE, OF
EVADING THE PROHIBITION OF THE ORDINANCE.  IF THAT EVASION WERE
SUCCESSFUL, EVERY MERCHANT WHO DESIRES TO BROADCAST ADVERTISING
LEAFLETS IN THE STREETS NEED ONLY APPEND A CIVIC APPEAL, OR A MORAL
PLATITUDE, TO ACHIEVE IMMUNITY FROM THE LAW'S COMMAND. 

THE DECREE IS REVERSED. 

FN1  "HANDBILLS, CARDS AND CIRCULARS.  - NO PERSON SHALL THROW, CAST
OR DISTRIBUTE, OR CAUSE OR PERMIT TO BE THROWN, CAST OR DISTRIBUTED,
ANY HANDBILL, CIRCULAR, CARD, BOOKLET, PLACARD OR OTHER ADVERTISING
MATTER WHATSOEVER IN OR UPON ANY STREET OR PUBLIC PLACE, OR IN A FRONT
YARD OR COURT YARD, OR ON ANY STOOP, OR IN THE VESTIBULE OR ANY HALL OF
ANY BUILDING, OR IN A LETTERBOX THEREIN; PROVIDED THAT NOTHING HEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL BE DEEMED TO PROHIBIT OR OTHERWISE REGULATE THE
DELIVERY OF ANY SUCH MATTER BY THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, OR
PROHIBIT THE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE COPIES OF NEWSPAPERS REGULARLY SOLD
BY THE COPY OR BY ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION.  THIS SECTION IS NOT INTENDED TO
PREVENT THE LAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL AND
BUSINESS ADVERTISING MATTER." 

FN2  34 F.SUPP.  596. 

FN3  122 F.2D 511. 
..END :
















HELVERING V. SAFE DEPOSIT CO., 316 U.S. 56 


NO. 600.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 13, 1942.  - 121 F.2D
307, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 302(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, THAT IN
THE GROSS ESTATE OF A DECEDENT THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED THE VALUE OF ALL
PROPERTY "(A)  TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST THEREIN OF THE DECEDENT AT
THE TIME OF HIS DEATH," DOES NOT EMBRACE PROPERTY AS TO WHICH HE HELD
MERELY A GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT WHICH HE DID NOT
EXERCISE.  P. 57. 

THIS VIEW IS COMPELLED BY THE LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION. 

2.  WHERE PROPERTY IN LITIGATION WAS CLAIMED BY RELATIVES OF A
DECEDENT AS APPOINTEES UNDER HIS WILL, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH WAS
CONTESTED, AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AS HIS HEIRS - ALSO A MATTER IN
DISPUTE - AND A SHARE OF THE PROPERTY WAS ALLOTTED TO THEM BY A
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE COURT, HELD: 

(1)  THAT SO MUCH OF THE SHARE AS WAS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR
CLAIM UNDER THE APPOINTMENT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE
UNDER SEC. 302(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS "PROPERTY PASSING
UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY THE DECEDENT  ...  BY
WILL."  P. 63. 

(2)  THE DETERMINATION OF HOW MUCH OF THE SHARE SHOULD BE IMPUTED TO
THE CLAIM BASED ON THE ATTEMPTED EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT
AND HOW MUCH TO THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM - NECESSARILY AN APPROXIMATION -
WAS A MATTER FOR THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  P. 66. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST
CO. OF BALTIMORE, TRUSTEE, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.  A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 42 B.T.A. 145. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE
TAX OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 121 F.2D 307, AFFIRMING A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 42 B.T.A. 145. 

ZACHARY SMITH REYNOLDS, AGE 20, DIED ON JULY 6, 1932.  BY HIS
FATHER'S WILL IN 1918, ONE BY DEED EXECUTED BY HIS MOTHER IN 1923, AND
ONE CREATED BY HIS MOTHER'S WILL IN 1924.  FROM HIS FATHER'S TRUST, THE
DECEDENT WAS TO RECEIVE ONLY A PORTION OF THE INCOME PRIOR TO HIS
TWENTY-EIGHTH BIRTHDAY, AT WHICH TIME, IF LIVING, HE WAS TO BECOME THE
OUTRIGHT OWNER OF THE TRUST PROPERTY AND ALL ACCUMULATED INCOME.  HIS
MOTHER'S TRUSTS DIRECTED THAT HE ENJOY THE INCOME FOR LIFE, SUBJECT TO
CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS BEFORE HE REACHED THE AGE OF 28.  EACH OF THE
TRUSTS GAVE THE DECEDENT A GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT
OVER THE TRUST PROPERTY; IN DEFAULT OF EXERCISE OF THE POWER THE
PROPERTIES WERE TO GO TO HIS DESCENDANTS, OR IF HE HAD NONE, TO HIS
BROTHER AND SISTERS AND THEIR ISSUE PER STIRPES. 

THE COMMISSIONER INCLUDED ALL THE TRUST PROPERTY WITHIN THE
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE FEDERAL ESTATE
TAX.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
HOWEVER, HELD THAT NO PART OF THE TRUST PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN
INCLUDED. 

                                  I 

THE CASE PRESENTS TWO QUESTIONS, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS WHETHER THE
DECEDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH HAD BY VIRTUE OF HIS GENERAL POWERS
OF APPOINTMENT, EVEN IF NEVER EXERCISED, SUCH AN INTEREST IN THE TRUST
PROPERTY AS TO REQUIRE ITS INCLUSION IN HIS GROSS ESTATE UNDER SEC.
302(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 9, 70.  THIS SECTION
PROVIDES: 

"THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR
PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED - 

(A)  TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST THEREIN OF THE DECEDENT AT THE
TIME OF HIS DEATH;" 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH THE DECEDENT HAD
AN "INTEREST" IN THE TRUST PROPERTIES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN
HIS GROSS ESTATE, BECAUSE HE, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER PERSONS,
COULD ENJOY THE INCOME FROM THEM; WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE CORPUS OF ONE
TRUST UPON REACHING THE AGE OF 28; AND COULD ALONE DECIDE TO WHOM THE
BENEFITS OF ALL THE TRUSTS WOULD PASS AT HIS DEATH.  THESE RIGHTS, IT
IS SAID, WERE ATTRIBUTES OF OWNERSHIP SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO A FEE
SIMPLE TITLE, SUBJECT ONLY TO SPECIFIED RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION AND
THE USE OF INCOME.  THE RESPONDENTS DENY THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE
DECEDENT WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THE THREE TRUSTS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT TO OWNERSHIP IN FEE, EMPHASIZING THE PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF
THE RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATION AND THE USE OF INCOME, AND ARGUING
FURTHER THAT THE DECEDENT NEVER ACTUALLY HAD THE CAPACITY TO MAKE AN
EFFECTIVE TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE HE DIED
BEFORE REACHING HIS MAJORITY. 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE BETWEEN THESE CONFLICTING
CONTENTIONS ON THE ECONOMIC EQUIVALENCE OF THE DECEDENT'S RIGHTS AND
COMPLETE OWNERSHIP.  FN1  FOR EVEN IF WE ASSUME WITH THE GOVERNMENT
THAT THE RESTRICTIONS UPON THE DECEDENT'S USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE
TRUST PROPERTIES MAY BE DISMISSED AS NEGLIGIBLE AND THAT HE HAD THE
CAPACITY TO EXERCISE A TESTAMENTARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT, THE QUESTION
STILL REMAINS:  DID THE DECEDENT HAVE "AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH" SUCH
AN "INTEREST" AS CONGRESS INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN A DECEDENT'S GROSS
ESTATE UNDER SEC. 302(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926?  IT IS NOT
CONTENDED THAT THE BENEFITS DURING LIFE WHICH THE TRUSTS PROVIDED FOR
THE DECEDENT, TERMINATING AS THEY DID AT HIS DEATH, MADE THE TRUST
PROPERTIES PART OF HIS GROSS ESTATE UNDER THE STATUTE.  AND VIEWING
SEC. 302(A) IN ITS BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY, WE CANNOT REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORDS
"INTEREST ...  OF THE DECEDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH" WERE INTENDED
BY CONGRESS TO INCLUDE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER
OF APPOINTMENT UNEXERCISED BY THE DECEDENT. 

THE FORERUNNER OF SEC. 302(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 WAS SEC.
202(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916, 39 STAT. 777.  IN UNITED STATES V.
FIELD, 255 U.S. 257, THIS COURT HELD THAT PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A
GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY A DECEDENT WAS NOT SUCH AN
"INTEREST" OF THE DECEDENT AS THE 1916 ACT BROUGHT WITHIN THE
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE.  WHILE THE HOLDING WAS LIMITED TO EXERCISED
POWERS OF APPOINTMENT, THE APPROACH OF THE COURT, THE AUTHORITIES
CITED, AND CERTAIN EXPLICIT STATEMENTS  FN2 IN THE OPINION LEFT LITTLE
DOUBT THAT THE COURT REGARDED PROPERTY SUBJECT TO UNEXERCISED GENERAL
POWERS OF APPOINTMENT AS SIMILARLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY
PHRASE "INTEREST OF THE DECEDENT."  FN3 

AFTER THE FIELD CASE, THE PROVISION IT PASSED UPON WAS REENACTED
WITHOUT CHANGE IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921(SEC.  402(A), 42 STAT. 278)
AND IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924(SEC.  302(A), 43 STAT. 304).  IF THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE FIELD OPINION WITH RESPECT TO UNEXERCISED POWERS
HAD BEEN CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE INTENDMENT OF THE WORDS "INTEREST
OF THE DECEDENT," IT IS REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE
ADDED SOME CLARIFYING AMENDMENT. 

IF THE COUNTERPARTS IN THE EARLIER ACTS OF SEC. 302(A) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1926 DID NOT REQUIRE THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AN
UNEXERCISED GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT WITHIN THE
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE
AMENDMENT OF 1926 CHANGED THE ACT IN THIS RESPECT.  PRIOR TO 1926 AN
"INTEREST OF THE DECEDENT" WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS ESTATE ONLY
IF SUBJECT "AFTER HIS DEATH  ...  TO THE PAYMENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST
HIS ESTATE AND THE EXPENSES OF ITS ADMINISTRATION AND ...  SUBJECT TO
DISTRIBUTION AS PART OF HIS ESTATE."  IN THE 1926 ACT THIS
QUALIFICATION WAS ABANDONED.  IN THE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE BILL WHICH
EMBODIED THIS CHANGE, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS STATED ONLY
THAT "IN THE INTEREST OF CERTAINTY IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE LIMITING
LANGUAGE  ... SHALL BE ELIMINATED IN THE PROPOSED BILL, SO THAT THE
GROSS ESTATE SHALL INCLUDE THE ENTIRE INTEREST OF THE DECEDENT AT THE
TIME OF HIS DEATH IN ALL THE PROPERTY."  FN4  NOTHING IN THE REPORT
SUGGESTED THAT THE CHANGE WAS INTENDED TO HAVE ANY RELEVANCE TO POWERS
OF APPOINTMENT, AND NO SUCH INTENTION CAN REASONABLY BE INFERRED FROM
THE AMENDED SECTION ITSELF.  IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE REGULATIONS OF
THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE ISSUED AFTER PASSAGE OF THE 1926 ACT
CONTAIN NO INDICATION THAT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT REGARDED THE
AMENDMENT AS AFFECTING UNEXERCISED POWERS OF APPOINTMENT.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE ARTICLE PERTAINING TO POWERS OF APPOINTMENT WAS
REINCORPORATED IN THE 1926 REGULATIONS WITH THE SAME CONTENT, SO FAR AS
HERE RELEVANT, AS THE CORRESPONDING ARTICLE IN THE LAST REGULATIONS
ISSUED PRIOR TO THE 1926 ACT.  FN5 

WHEN IT WAS HELD IN THE FIELD CASE THAT PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AN
EXERCISED GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT WAS NOT TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916,
THIS COURT REFERRED TO AN AMENDMENT PASSED IN 1919 WHICH SPECIFICALLY
DECLARED PROPERTY PASSING UNDER AN EXERCISED GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER
TO BE PART OF THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE.  THE PASSAGE OF THIS
AMENDMENT, SAID THE COURT, "INDICATES THAT CONGRESS AT LEAST WAS
DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE PREVIOUS ACT INCLUDED PROPERTY PASSING BY
APPOINTMENT."  FN6  IN THE FACE OF SUCH DOUBTS, WHICH CANNOT REASONABLY
BE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN LESS THAN DOUBTS WITH RESPECT TO UNEXERCISED
POWERS, CONGRESS NEVERTHELESS SPECIFIED ONLY THAT PROPERTY SUBJECT TO
EXERCISED POWERS SHOULD BE INCLUDED.  FROM THIS DELIBERATE SINGLING OUT
OF EXERCISED POWERS ALONE, WITHOUT THE CORROBORATION OF THE OTHER
MATTERS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO TREAT UNEXERCISED
POWERS OTHERWISE CAN BE DEDUCED.  AT THE LEAST, SEC. 302(F) OF THE 1926
ACT,  FN7  THE COUNTERPART OF THE 1919 AMENDMENT REFERRED TO IN THE
FIELD CASE, REPRESENTS A COURSE OF ACTION FOLLOWED BY CONGRESS, SINCE
1919, ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH A PURPOSE TO EXCLUDE FROM DECEDENTS'
GROSS ESTATES PROPERTY SUBJECT TO UNEXERCISED GENERAL TESTAMENTARY
POWERS OF APPOINTMENT. 

IN NO JUDICIAL OPINION BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION HAS IT BEEN HELD THAT
THE GROSS ESTATE OF A DECEDENT INCLUDES, FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL
ESTATE TAX, PROPERTY SUBJECT TO AN UNEXERCISED GENERAL POWER.  ON THE
CONTRARY, AS THE COURT BELOW POINTS OUT, "THE COURTS HAVE BEEN AT PAINS
TO CONSIDER WHETHER PROPERTY PASSED UNDER A GENERAL POWER OR NOT SO AS
TO BE TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 302(F), A CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD HAVE
BEEN ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY IF THE ESTATE WERE TAXABLE UNDER 302(A)
BECAUSE OF THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A GENERAL POWER WHETHER EXERCISED OR
NOT."  FN8  121 F.2D 307, 312.  IN ADDITION, THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE UNTIL THIS CASE AROSE APPEARS TO HAVE PLACED AN INTERPRETATION
UPON THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX CONTRARY TO THAT THE GOVERNMENT NOW URGES. 
NO REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE SEVERAL REVENUE ACTS, INCLUDING THOSE
IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THIS SUIT WAS INITIATED, PRESCRIBE THAT PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO AN UNEXERCISED GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN A DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE.  BECAUSE OF THE
COMBINED EFFECT OF ALL OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE BELIEVE THAT A
DEPARTURE FROM THE LONG-STANDING, GENERALLY ACCEPTED  FN9  CONSTRUCTION
OF SEC. 302(A), NOW CONTESTED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE GOVERNMENT,
WOULD OVERRIDE THE BEST INDICATIONS WE HAVE OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. 

                                  II 

THE SECOND QUESTION IS THE TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN, UNDER SEC. 302(F)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, TO A SHARE OF THE TRUST PROPERTY PASSING TO
THE DECEDENT'S BROTHER AND SISTERS AS A RESULT OF A COMPROMISE
SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER CLAIMANTS.  SHOULD THAT SHARE BE INCLUDED IN
WHOLE OR IN PART WITHIN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE AS "PROPERTY
PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY THE DECEDENT
...  BY WILL"? 

THE CLAIM OF THE BROTHER AND SISTERS WAS BASED UPON:  (1) A PURPORTED
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT IN THEIR FAVOR BY THE DECEDENT IN
A WILL HE EXECUTED IN NEW YORK, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, (2) THEIR RIGHT
TO TAKE IN DEFAULT OF APPOINTMENT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TRUSTS.  EACH
OF THE TWO CHILDREN OF THE DECEDENT (1) DENIED THE VALIDITY OF THE NEW
YORK WILL AND (2) CHALLENGING THE RIGHT OF THE BROTHER AND SISTERS TO
TAKE IN DEFAULT, INDEPENDENTLY ASSERTED HIS OWN.  THESE ISSUES,
COMPLICATED BY MANY OTHER FACTORS WHICH IT IS UNNECESSARY HERE TO
DISCUSS, WERE NEVER FINALLY RESOLVED BY JUDICIAL DECISION, ALTHOUGH
THERE HAD BEEN MUCH LITIGATION INVOLVING THEM IN THE NORTH CAROLINA
COURTS.  EVENTUALLY, THE SEVERAL CLAIMANTS AGREED TO A COMPROMISE UNDER
WHICH 37 1/2% OF THE TRUST PROPERTY WENT TO THE BROTHER AND SISTERS. 
THE COMPROMISE WAS CONFIRMED BY A JUDGMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
SUPERIOR COURT AND THIS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE NORTH CAROLINA
SUPREME COURT.  208 N.C. 578, 182 S.E. 341. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT A PORTION OF THE SHARE RECEIVED BY THE
BROTHER AND SISTERS REFLECTS RECOGNITION BY THE OTHER CLAIMANTS AS WELL
AS BY THE NORTH CAROLINA COURTS OF THE ASSERTION THAT THE POWER OF
APPOINTMENT WAS VALIDLY EXERCISED; AND THAT UNDER THE DOCTRINE APPROVED
BY THIS COURT IN LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, THAT PORTION MUST BE
TREATED AS THOUGH IT ACTUALLY PASSED PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE EXERCISE
OF THE POWER. 

THE LYETH CASE, LIKE THE ONE NOW BEFORE US, CAME TO THIS COURT AFTER
A COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT.  AN HEIR OF THE DECEDENT HAD CONTESTED THE
VALIDITY OF THE DECEDENT'S WILL IN WHICH NO PROVISION HAD BEEN MADE FOR
HIM.  THE HEIR AND THE DEVISEES AND LEGATEES UNDER THE WILL ENTERED
INTO A COMPROMISE PROVIDING THAT THE WILL BE PROBATED AND THAT A
SPECIFIC SUM BE PAID TO THE HEIR.  WE HELD THAT THE MONEY THE HEIR
RECEIVED PURSUANT TO THE COMPROMISE SHOULD BE TREATED, WITH RESPECT TO
HIS TAX LIABILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX STATUTE,  FN10  AS IF
ACQUIRED "BY INHERITANCE," FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR HIM
TO RECEIVE IT ONLY "BECAUSE OF HIS STANDING AS AN HEIR AND OF HIS CLAIM
IN THAT CAPACITY."  FN11 

THE CLAIM OF THE DECEDENT'S BROTHER AND SISTERS HERE, SO FAR AS BASED
ON THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED APPOINTMENT, HAD ITS ROOTS, LIKE THE
CLAIMED INVALIDITY OF THE WILL IN THE LYETH CASE, IN AN ISSUE NEVER
DECIDED IN LITIGATION.  IF IT HAD BEEN LITIGATED TO FINAL JUDGMENT BY A
COMPETENT TRIBUNAL AND THE BROTHER AND SISTERS HAD SUCCEEDED IN
ESTABLISHING THE VALIDITY OF THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER, THE INCLUSION
IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE OF WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED AS
APPOINTEES, PURSUANT TO SEC. 302(F), COULD NOT SERIOUSLY BE
QUESTIONED.  IN THE LYETH CASE WE SAID THAT "THE DISTINCTION SOUGHT TO
BE MADE BETWEEN ACQUISITION THROUGH SUCH A JUDGMENT AND ACQUISITION BY
A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT IN LIEU OF SUCH A JUDGMENT IS TOO FORMAL TO BE
SOUND."  FN12  THERE IS NO LESS REASON FOR THE SAME CONCLUSION HERE. 
THE RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF THE LYETH CASE, ANNOUNCED
BY THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO INCOME TAX LIABILITY, SHOULD NOT BE
CONTROLLING WHERE, AS HERE, THE QUESTION IS ONE OF ESTATE TAX
LIABILITY.  IT IS URGED THAT TAXES SHOULD NOT BE INFLUENCED BY WHAT
OCCURS AFTER THE TAXABLE EVENT; THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO CONSIDER A
COMPROMISE PRECEDING THE RECEIPT OF INCOME IN CONNECTION WITH AN INCOME
TAX; BUT THAT A COMPROMISE OCCURRING AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, WHICH
IS THE "TAXABLE EVENT" UNDER AN ESTATE TAX, SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. 
WHATEVER MAY BE THE GENERAL RULE IN THIS RESPECT,  FN13  THIS COURT HAS
CLEARLY RECOGNIZED, IN HELVERING V. GRINNELL, 294 U.S. 153, THAT EVENTS
SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, EVENTS CONTROLLED BY HIS
BENEFICIARIES, CAN DETERMINE THE INCLUSION OR NOT OF CERTAIN ASSETS
WITHIN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE UNDER SEC. 302(F).  IN THAT CASE,
THE DECEDENT HAD EXERCISED A GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT,
AN ACT WHICH UNDER SEC. 302(F) BRINGS THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE POWER
WITHIN THE GROSS ESTATE.  THE SUBSEQUENT RENOUNCEMENT BY THE APPOINTEES
OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE BY APPOINTMENT AND THEIR ELECTION TO TAKE AS
REMAINDERMEN IN DEFAULT OF APPOINTMENT WERE HELD BY THIS COURT TO PLACE
THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE POWER OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SEC. 302(F). 

THE RESPONDENTS FURTHER CONTEND THAT, JUDICIAL DETERMINATIONS HAVING
BEEN MADE IN THE STATE COURTS THAT THE ATTEMPTED APPOINTMENT WAS
INVALID, THE SHARE OF THE BROTHER AND SISTERS IN THE COMPROMISE
REFLECTS ONLY THEIR ALTERNATIVE CLAIM TO THE TRUST PROPERTY.  WHILE
THERE ARE EXPLICIT STATEMENTS IN THE OPINION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
SUPERIOR COURT THAT THE ATTEMPTED APPOINTMENT WAS INVALID, THESE
STATEMENTS MUST BE REGARDED AS SUPERSEDED BY THE OPINION WHICH THE
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, WHOSE DETERMINATION CONSTITUTED THE FINAL
APPROVAL OF THE COMPROMISE, RENDERED ON APPEAL.  FOR, IN THE COURSE OF
THAT OPINION THE SUPREME COURT GAVE CLEAR RECOGNITION TO THE ALLEGED
VALIDITY OF THE DECEDENT'S ATTEMPTED APPOINTMENT AS A BASIS OF THE
CLAIM THE BROTHER AND SISTERS ASSERTED.  THE COURT STATED (208 N.C.
578, 618): 

"SERIOUS AND GRAVE QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACTS WERE RAISED.  THE
JUDGMENT SETS THEM OUT AND WE REFER TO SAME, ALL TROUBLESOME, BUT WE
WILL CONSIDER ONE FOR EXAMPLE:  THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF THE ALLEGED
WILL EXECUTED IN NEW YORK BY ZACHARY SMITH REYNOLDS, AS A BASIS OF THE
OFFER OF THE BROTHER AND SISTERS OF ZACHARY SMITH REYNOLDS." 

INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS MADE IN THE COURSE OF A DECREE ISSUED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS OVERCOMING
THE FORCE OF THE FOREGOING, SINCE THE DECREE PURPORTED ONLY TO
AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE MARYLAND TRUSTEE TO DIVIDE THE TRUST PROPERTY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPROMISE AS APPROVED IN NORTH CAROLINA. 

HOW MUCH, IF ANY, OF THE 37 1/2% GOING TO THE DECEDENT'S BROTHER AND
SISTERS SHOULD BE IMPUTED TO THE CLAIM BASED ON THE ATTEMPTED EXERCISE
OF THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT AND HOW MUCH TO THEIR ALTERNATIVE CLAIM WE
DO NOT DECIDE.  IN REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR
A DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE, WE RECOGNIZE THAT A DECISION MUST
NECESSARILY BE AN APPROXIMATION DERIVED FROM THE EVALUATION OF ELEMENTS
NOT EASILY MEASURED.  IN MATTERS SO PRACTICAL AS THE ADMINISTRATION OF
TAX LAWS AND IN THE DECISION OF PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THEM, A HIGH
DEGREE OF PRECISION IS OFTEN IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE.  BUT IT IS FAR
BETTER TO MAKE SUCH A ROUGH ESTIMATE AS THE DATA WILL PERMIT THAN
COMPLETELY TO IGNORE THE REALITIES OF THE COMPROMISE BECAUSE OF THE
DIFFICULTIES OF EVALUATION.  FN14 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED WITH
DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN DECLINING TO PASS UPON THIS ISSUE, WE DO NOT REJECT THE
PRINCIPLE WE HAVE OFTEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE REALITIES OF THE TAXPAYER'S
ECONOMIC INTEREST, RATHER THAN THE NICETIES OF THE CONVEYANCER'S ART,
SHOULD DETERMINE THE POWER TO TAX.  SEE CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S.
357, 371, AND CASES THERE CITED.  NOR DO WE DENY THE RELEVANCE OF THIS
PRINCIPLE AS A GUIDE TO STATUTORY INTERPRETATION WHERE, UNLIKE HERE,
THE LANGUAGE OF A STATUTE AND ITS STATUTORY HISTORY DO NOT AFFORD MORE
SPECIFIC INDICATIONS OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT.  HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309
U.S. 331. 

FN2  E.G.:  "BUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER DOES NOT OF ITSELF VEST
ANY ESTATE IN THE DONEE."  (P. 263.) 

"IF THERE BE NO APPOINTMENT, IT (THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE POWER)
GOES ACCORDING TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE DONOR."  (P. 264.) 

"...  THE INTEREST IN QUESTION (WAS) NOT  ...  PROPERTY OF MRS. FIELD
AT  ...  HER DEATH."  (P. 264.) 

FN3  IN BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, 288, THIS COURT STATED: 

"UNITED STATES V. FIELD  ...  HOLDS THAT UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1916  ...  THE SUBJECT OF A POWER CREATED BY ANOTHER IS NOT A PART OF
THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT TO WHOM THE POWER WAS COMMITTED."  IT IS TO
BE NOTED THAT NO DISTINCTION WAS RECOGNIZED BETWEEN EXERCISED AND
UNEXERCISED POWERS UNDER THE RULE OF THE FIELD CASE. 

FN4  HOUSE REPORT NO. 1, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 15. 

FN5  ARTICLE 24 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 70(1926 ED.)  UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926; ARTICLE 24 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 68(1924 ED.) 
UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. FIELD, SUPRA, 265. 

FN7  "THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL
PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED
 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(F)  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF
APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY THE DECEDENT (1) BY WILL, OR (2) BY DEED
EXECUTED IN CONTEMPLATION OF, OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION
OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER, HIS DEATH, EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE
FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH;" 44
STAT. 9, 70-71. 

FN8  SEE, E.G., HELVERING V GRINNELL, 294 U.S. 153; ROTHENSIES V.
FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO., 112 F.2D 758. 

FN9  SEE I PAUL, FEDERAL ESTATE AND GIFT TAXATION, P. 425:  "AS LONG
AS THERE IS NO ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE EXERCISE OF THE POWER, THERE CAN
BE NO TAX UNDER THE PRESENT STATUTE." 

FN10  SECTION 22(B)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT.
178, UNDER WHICH THE LYETH CASE AROSE, EXEMPTED FROM THE INCOME TAX THE
"VALUE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED  ...  BY INHERITANCE ..." 

FN11  LYETH V. HOEY, SUPRA, 196. 

FN12  ID. 

FN13  SEE ITHACA TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 151, 155. 

FN14  CF. UNITED STATES V. LUDEY, 274 U.S. 295, 302. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND
MR. JUSTICE BYRNES CONCUR IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT UPON THE FIRST
QUESTION DECIDED.  THEY DISSENT FROM THE DECISION OF THE SECOND
QUESTION.  THEY ARE OF OPINION THAT THAT QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN
FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENTS ON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. GRINNELL, 294
U.S. 153, AND THAT LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, FURNISHES NO SUPPORT
FOR A DIFFERENT ANSWER. 

THE ESTATE IN QUESTION IS NOT THAT OF THE DECEDENT.  THE PROPERTY IS
A PORTION OF THE ESTATES OF HIS MOTHER AND FATHER.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT
NO PART OF EITHER ESTATE PASSED BY VIRTUE OF THE EXECUTION BY THE
DECEDENT OF THE POWERS OF APPOINTMENT WITH WHICH HE WAS CLOTHED.  THE
PROPERTY PASSED UNDER THE DEED AND WILLS OF HIS PARENTS, AND THAT
PASSAGE WAS THE TAXABLE EVENT.  IF HE HAD VOLUNTARILY REFRAINED FROM
EXERCISING THE POWER, HIS ESTATE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIABLE TO PAY AN
ESTATE TAX, FOR THE PROPERTY WOULD THEN HAVE PASSED FROM THE ESTATES OF
HIS MOTHER AND FATHER TO THE DISTRIBUTEES.  BUT IT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY
COMPETENT TRIBUNALS THAT HE DID NOT EXERCISE THE POWER, ALTHOUGH HE
ATTEMPTED SO TO DO; AND, IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NO DETERMINATION HERE,
OR ELSEWHERE, THAT THE POWER WAS EVER EXERCISED.  THIS BEING SO, THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER ANYTHING PASSED FROM HIM TO HIS RELATIVES UNDER THE
INTESTATE LAW AT HIS DEATH.  IT IS PLAIN THAT NOTHING DID SO PASS. 

IN HELVERING V. GRINNELL, SUPRA, THE DECEDENT EXERCISED THE POWER,
BUT THE APPOINTEES, AS WAS THEIR RIGHT UNDER STATE LAW, ELECTED NOT TO
TAKE UNDER THE APPOINTMENT BUT TO TAKE AS REMAINDERMEN DIRECTLY FROM
THE ESTATE OF THE CREATOR OF THE POWER, AND IT WAS HELD THAT SEC. 302
COULD NOT BE INVOKED TO IMPOSE A TAX UPON THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT. 
IT WAS THERE SAID: 

"THE CRUCIAL WORDS ARE 'PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF
APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY THE DECEDENT BY WILL.'  ANALYSIS OF THIS
CLAUSE DISCLOSES THREE DISTINCT REQUISITES - (1) THE EXISTENCE OF A
GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT; (2) AN EXERCISE OF THAT POWER BY THE
DECEDENT BY WILL; AND (3) THE PASSING OF THE PROPERTY IN VIRTUE OF SUCH
EXERCISE.  CLEARLY, THE GENERAL POWER EXISTED AND WAS EXERCISED; AND
THIS IS NOT DISPUTED.  BUT IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT NO PROPERTY PASSED
UNDER THE POWER OR AS A RESULT OF ITS EXERCISE SINCE THAT RESULT WAS
DEFINITELY REJECTED BY THE BENEFICIARIES.  IF THEY HAD WHOLLY REFUSED
TO TAKE THE PROPERTY, IT COULD NOT WELL BE SAID THAT THE PROPERTY HAD
PASSED UNDER THE POWER, FOR IN THAT EVENT IT WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED AT
ALL.  CAN IT PROPERLY BE SAID THAT BECAUSE THE BENEFICIARIES ELECTED TO
TAKE THE PROPERTY UNDER A DISTINCT AND SEPARATE TITLE, THE PROPERTY
NEVERTHELESS PASSED UNDER THE POWER?  PLAINLY ENOUGH, WE THINK, THE
ANSWER MUST BE IN THE NEGATIVE." 

LYETH V. HOEY, SUPRA, DECIDES NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY.  IN THAT CASE,
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS THE PROPERTY OF THE DECEDENT HIMSELF.  HE
DISPOSED OF IT BY WILL.  THE WILL WAS CONTESTED.  THE CONTEST WAS
COMPROMISED AND, AS A RESULT, THOSE WHO WERE HIS HEIRS AT LAW RECEIVED
AT LEAST A PORTION OF THAT WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED AS HIS HEIRS
IN THE ABSENCE OF A WILL.  THUS, AS A RESULT OF THE COMPROMISE,
PROPERTY DID PASS FROM THE DECEDENT TO HIS HEIRS AT LAW, AND IT WAS
HELD THAT, AS THEY WERE HIS HEIRS, THEY TOOK BY INHERITANCE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF THE REVENUE ACT.  HERE, NOTHING PASSED BY VIRTUE OF
THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER AND NO PORTION OF THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE
PASSED UNDER THE LAW OF DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION, OR AS PROPERTY WOULD
HAVE PASSED UNDER THAT LAW FROM THE DECEDENT TO THE BENEFICIARIES OF
THE COMPROMISE. 

WE ARE AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CAN BE
PERMITTED TO FIND THAT ANY TAXABLE TRANSFER OCCURRED WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 302 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  MOREOVER, THE COMPROMISE WAS
MOTIVATED BY CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN THE INVALIDITY OF THE POWER, FOR
THE CLAIMS OF THE DECEDENT'S CHILDREN HAD A LARGE INFLUENCE IN BRINGING
IT ABOUT.  WE CANNOT PERCEIVE HOW THE BOARD CAN CALCULATE THE RELATIVE
WEIGHT OF THESE CONFLICTING CLAIMS AND THUS ASSESS AS TAXABLE AN
APPORTIONED PART OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT THE DECEDENT'S COLLATERAL
RELATIVES RECEIVED, AND THUS DETERMINE WHAT PART OF THE PROPERTY PASSED
UNDER THE POWER AND WHAT PART DID NOT. 
..END :









MAGRUDER V. REALTY CORP., 316 U.S. 69 


NO. 601.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 10, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 13, 1942.  - 120
F.2D 441, REVERSED. 


1.  A CORPORATION WHICH WAS ORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATING
THE PROPERTIES OF ANOTHER CORPORATION, AND WHICH, SINCE ITS
ORGANIZATION, HAS BEEN CARRYING ON NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE SALE OF THE
PROPERTIES, SELLING THEM FROM TIME TO TIME AS SATISFACTORY OFFERS ARE
RECEIVED, AND RENTING UNSOLD PROPERTIES UNDER SHORT TERM LEASES IN AN
ATTEMPT TO EARN THE CARRYING CHARGES PENDING ULTIMATE SALE, WAS
"CARRYING ON OR DOING BUSINESS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1935, AND SUBSEQUENT REVENUE ACTS, IMPOSING A TAX ON THE
CAPITAL STOCK OF EVERY DOMESTIC CORPORATION "CARRYING ON OR DOING
BUSINESS" DURING THE TAX YEAR.  P. 71. 

2.  THE PROVISION OF THE TREASURY REGULATIONS THAT "DOING BUSINESS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CAPITAL STOCK TAX PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1935, AND SUBSEQUENT REVENUE ACTS, INCLUDES ACTIVITIES OF A
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN "LIQUIDATION  ...  OF PROPERTIES TAKEN OVER FROM
ANOTHER CORPORATION" IS VALID AND APPLICABLE TO THE CORPORATION HERE
INVOLVED.  P. 72. 

MAGRUDER, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. WASHINGTON, BALTIMORE &
ANNAPOLIS REALTY CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 601, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE TAXPAYER, 35 F.SUPP.  340, IN A SUIT FOR REFUND OF CAPITAL STOCK
TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT FOR REFUND OF CAPITAL STOCK TAXES PAID BY RESPONDENT
FOR THE YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1936, THROUGH 1939.  WE ARE ASKED TO
DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS "CARRYING ON OR DOING BUSINESS" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 105(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1935, C. 829, 49 STAT.
1017, AND SUBSEQUENT ACTS, WHICH PROVIDE: 

"FOR EACH YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, BEGINNING WITH THE YEAR ENDING JUNE
30, 1936, THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON EVERY DOMESTIC CORPORATION WITH
RESPECT TO CARRYING ON OR DOING BUSINESS FOR ANY PART OF SUCH YEAR AN
EXCISE TAX OF $1.40 FOR EACH $1,000 OF THE ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE OF
ITS CAPITAL STOCK."  FN1 

RESPONDENT WAS ORGANIZED IN 1935 WITH BROAD CORPORATE POWERS UNDER THE
LAWS OF MARYLAND BY THE PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE BONDHOLDERS OF THE
DEFUNCT WASHINGTON, BALTIMORE & ANNAPOLIS RAILWAY COMPANY.  IT WAS
FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATING CERTAIN PROPERTIES, FORMERLY
BELONGING TO THE RAILWAY COMPANY, WHICH THE COMMITTEE HAD ACQUIRED
THROUGH FORECLOSURE.  AMONG THE PROPERTIES RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT FROM
THE COMMITTEE WERE CERTAIN RIGHTS OF WAY, EASEMENTS, TERMINAL
PROPERTIES, AND OTHER REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN BALTIMORE, ANNAPOLIS, AND
WASHINGTON, AS WELL AS AT THE OTHER POINTS ALONG THE LINE OF THE
RAILROAD, AND THE STOCK OF A REALTY HOLDING COMPANY WHICH OWNED ANOTHER
REALTY COMPANY, BOTH OF WHICH HAD BEEN SUBSIDIARIES OF THE RAILWAY
COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING LEGAL TITLE TO REAL ESTATE.  THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES RECEIVED IN 1935, AS SHOWN BY RESPONDENT'S
BALANCE SHEET, WAS $419,250. 

SINCE ITS INCORPORATION RESPONDENT HAS BEEN CARRYING ON NEGOTIATIONS
FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTIES ACQUIRED, SELLING THEM FROM TIME TO TIME
AS SATISFACTORY OFFERS WERE RECEIVED, AND RENTING UNSOLD PROPERTIES
UNDER SHORT TERM LEASES IN AN ATTEMPT TO EARN THE CARRYING CHARGES
PENDING ULTIMATE SALE.  RECEIPTS FROM SALES DURING THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD
HERE IN QUESTION WERE APPROXIMATELY $675,000, AND RENTALS AMOUNTED TO
$136,000.  AT THE END OF THIS PERIOD RESPONDENT'S BOOK STILL SHOWED
PROPERTIES WORTH $122,000.  ALL NET INCOME, EXCEPT SMALL RESERVES FOR
CONTINGENCIES, WAS DISTRIBUTED AS RECEIVED TO THE STOCKHOLDERS, FORMER
BONDHOLDERS OF THE RAILWAY COMPANY. 

RESPONDENT PAID CAPITAL STOCK TAXES FOR THE FOUR YEARS IN QUESTION,
AND THEN BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR REFUND OF THE PAYMENTS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE COURT HELD THAT, BECAUSE RESPONDENT WAS A LIQUIDATING
CORPORATION, IT WAS NOT "CARRYING ON OR DOING BUSINESS" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CAPITAL STOCK TAX AND WAS THEREFORE EXEMPT.  IN SO
HOLDING, THE COURT REFUSED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE TREASURY REGULATION
CLAIMED TO BE APPLICABLE.  FN2  35 F.SUPP.  340.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  120 F.2D 441.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE ACTS. 
314 U.S. 601. 

THE REGULATION, ARTICLE 43(A)(5), PROVIDES: 

"ART. 43.  ILLUSTRATIONS.  - (A) GENERAL.  - IN GENERAL 'DOING
BUSINESS' INCLUDES ANY ACTIVITIES OF A CORPORATION WHETHER IT ENGAGES
IN - 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"(5) THE ORDERLY LIQUIDATION OF PROPERTY BY NEGOTIATING SALES FROM
TIME TO TIME AS OPPORTUNITY AND JUDGMENT DICTATE AND DISTRIBUTING THE
PROCEEDS AS LIQUIDATION IS EFFECTED - FOR EXAMPLE, THE LIQUIDATION OF
AN ESTATE, OR OF PROPERTIES TAKEN OVER FROM ANOTHER CORPORATION, OR OF
THE SHAREHOLDERS' FRACTIONAL INTERESTS IN PARTICULAR PROPERTY;" 

IF THE REGULATION IS BOTH APPLICABLE AND VALID, RESPONDENT MANIFESTLY
CANNOT PREVAIL. 

ON THE QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT, FOR THE
LANGUAGE OF THE REGULATION PRECISELY DESCRIBES RESPONDENT'S
ACTIVITIES.  WE FIND WITHOUT SUBSTANCE RESPONDENT'S ASSERTIONS THAT
ARTICLE 43(B)(2)  FN3  IS INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 43(A)(5) AND THAT
IT MORE EXACTLY FITS THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.  DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION, RESPONDENT DID NOT FALL INTO THAT STATE OF QUIETUDE, COVERED
BY THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 43(B)(2), IN WHICH IT WAS MERELY
OWNING AND HOLDING SPECIFIC PROPERTY AND DISTRIBUTING THE RESULTING
PROCEEDS.  SEE ZONNE V. MINNEAPOLIS SYNDICATE, 220 U.S. 187; CF. VON
BAUMBACH V. SARGENT LAND CO., 242 U.S. 503, 516-17.  ON THE CONTRARY,
RESPONDENT WAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN FULFILLING THE PURPOSE OF ITS
CREATION, THE LIQUIDATION OF ITS HOLDINGS FOR THE BEST OBTAINABLE
PRICE. 

ARTICLE 43(A)(5) IS BOTH A CONTEMPORARY AND A LONG STANDING
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION, HAVING BEEN IN EFFECT IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME FORM SINCE 1918, EXCEPT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1926 TO 1933 WHEN
THE TAX WAS NOT IMPOSED.  FN4  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IT IS VALID, AS
WELL AS APPLICABLE.  THE CRUCIAL WORDS OF THE STATUTE, "CARRYING ON OR
DOING BUSINESS," ARE NOT SO EASY OF APPLICATION TO VARYING FACTS THAT
THEY LEAVE NO ROOM FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OR ELUCIDATION. 
TO BE SURE, IN MANY, IF NOT IN MOST, INSTANCES THE FACTUAL SITUATION
WILL BE SO EXTREME AS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT WHETHER A CORPORATION IS DOING
BUSINESS OR NOT.  BUT THE NUANCES OF FACTS BETWEEN THE TWO EXTREMES
HAVE PRODUCED A NEBULOUS FIELD OF CONFUSION WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED
BY COURTS STRIVING TO FIT CLOSE CASES INTO ONE CATEGORY OR THE OTHER. 
FN5 INTERPRETATIVE REGULATIONS, SUCH AS ARTICLE 43(A)(5), ARE
APPROPRIATE AIDS TOWARD ELIMINATING THAT CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY. 
CF. HELVERING V. WILSHIRE OIL CO., 308 U.S. 90, 102; TEXTILE MILLS
SECURITIES CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 326.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS LANGUAGE HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED, EXCEPT FOR THE TAX PERIODS
AND THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX, IN THE SUBSEQUENT ACTS COVERING THE TAX
PERIOD HERE IN QUESTION.  SEE SEC. 401, REVENUE ACT OF 1936, C. 690, 49
STAT. 1733; SEC. 601, REVENUE ACT OF 1938, C. 289, 52 STAT. 565.  THE
PROVISION IS NOW INCORPORATED IN SEC. 1200(A) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE. 

FN2  ARTICLE 43(A)(5) OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 64(1936 EDITION). 

FN3  "EXCEPTIONS.  - ORDINARILY THE EXCEPTIONS TO 'DOING BUSINESS'
ARE RESTRICTED TO LIMITED ACTIVITIES OF A CORPORATION, SUCH AS - 

     .         .         .         .    . 

"(2)  THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE AVAILS OF PROPERTY AND THE DOING ONLY
OF SUCH ACTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS CORPORATE
STATUS IN THE CASE IN WHICH THE CORPORATION EITHER WAS ORGANIZED FOR,
OR HAS REDUCED ITS ACTIVITIES TO, THE MERE OWNING AND HOLDING OF
SPECIFIC PROPERTY." 

FN4  ARTICLE 5 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 38(1918 ED.), ISSUED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1916, C. 463, 39 STAT. 756, PROVIDED: 

"...  A CORPORATION FORMED TO TAKE OVER MISCELLANEOUS STOCKS, BONDS,
AND OTHER PROPERTY, TO NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS FROM
TIME TO TIME AS OPPORTUNITY AND JUDGMENT DICTATE, AND TO DISTRIBUTE THE
PROCEEDS FROM TIME TO TIME AS LIQUIDATION IS EFFECTED, IS ORGANIZED FOR
PROFIT AND WHILE ENGAGED IN SUCH LIQUIDATION IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS." 

THIS PROVISION, WITH MINOR CHANGES IN WORDING, WAS CONTINUED IN
TREASURY REGULATIONS 50(1919 ED.), ART. 18; (1920 ED.), ART. 11;
TREASURY REGULATIONS 64(1922 ED.), ART. 12; (1924 ED.), ART. 12; (1933
ED.), ART. 22; (1934 ED.), ART. 33.  IN 1936 TREASURY REGULATIONS 64
WERE REORGANIZED AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROVISION QUOTED ABOVE WAS
CONTINUED AS ART. 43(A)(5) OF THE 1936 EDITION.  NO CHANGE WAS MADE IN
THE 1938 EDITION. 

FN5  SEE EATON V. PHOENIX SECURITIES CO., 22 F.2D 497, 498; UNITED
STATES V. HOTCHKISS REDWOOD CO., 25 F.2D 958; HARMAR COAL CO. V.
HEINER, 34 F.2D 725, 727; ARGONAUT CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. V. ANDERSON,
52 F.2D 55, 56; AMERICAN INVESTMENT SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES,
112 F.2D 231, 232. 

THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ILLUSTRATE THE DIFFICULT PROBLEMS OF
CLASSIFICATION ENCOUNTERED.  SEE CEDAR STREET CO. V. PARK REALTY CO.,
220 U.S. 107, 170; VON BAUMBACH V. SARGENT LAND CO., 242 U.S. 503;
EDWARDS V. CHILE COPPER CO., 270 U.S. 452; PHILLIPS V. INTERNATIONAL
SALT CO., 274 U.S. 718 - WITH WHICH COMPARE ZONNE V. MINNEAPOLIS
SYNDICATE, 220 U.S. 187; MCCOACH V. MINEHILL RAILWAY CO., 228 U.S. 295;
UNITED STATES V. EMERY, BIRD, THAYER CO., 237 U.S. 28. 
..END :
























GREGG CARTAGE CO. V. U.S., 316 U.S. 74 


NO. 535.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 13, 1942.  - 42
F.SUPP.  266, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 206(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935,
GRANTING "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS TO COMMON CARRIERS "IN BONA FIDE
OPERATION ON JUNE 1, 1935, AND SINCE THAT TIME," REQUIRES THAT THE
SERVICE SHALL HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUS (EXCEPT FOR INTERRUPTIONS OVER WHICH
THE CARRIER "HAD NO CONTROL") FROM JUNE 1, 1935, UNTIL THE TIME OF THE
HEARING BY THE COMMISSION ON THE APPLICATION.  P. 78. 

2.  THE COMMISSION WAS WARRANTED IN HOLDING AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT
AN INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE CAUSED BY THE CARRIER'S BANKRUPTCY WAS NOT
ONE OVER WHICH THE CARRIER "HAD NO CONTROL" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ACT; AND IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO GO BEHIND THE ADJUDICATION AND EXAMINE
INTO THE PARTICULAR CAUSES OF THE BANKRUPTCY.  P. 79. 

3.  THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT IS TO BE
CONSTRUED AS EXTENDING ONLY TO CARRIERS PLAINLY WITHIN ITS TERMS.  P.
83. 

4.  A PURCHASER OF THE GRANDFATHER RIGHTS OF A BANKRUPT CARRIER
STANDS IN NO BETTER POSITION WITH RESPECT TO SUCH RIGHTS THAN DID THE
BANKRUPT.  P. 82. 

5.  IN THIS CASE, THE INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE WAS OF SUFFICIENT
DURATION - AT LEAST 69 DAYS - TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CARRIER HAD NOT
BEEN IN OPERATION "SINCE" JUNE 1, 1935, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
206(A).  P. 83. 

6.  A CLAIM THAT THE DELAY OF THE COMMISSION IN ACTING UPON AN
APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 206(A) DEPRIVED THE APPLICANT OF AN ADVANTAGE
WHICH HE WOULD HAVE HAD UNDER SEC. 212(A) - WHERE SUCH DELAY IS NOT
SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ARBITRARY OR DISCRIMINATORY, NOR, IN VIEW OF THE
MAGNITUDE OF THE COMMISSION'S TASK IN RESPECT TO APPLICATIONS UNDER
SEC. 206(A), UNREASONABLE - IS NO GROUND FOR RELIEF.  P. 83. 

GREGG CARTAGE & STORAGE CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. 

APPEAL FROM A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY UNDER SEC. 206(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL IS FROM A JUDGMENT OF A STATUTORY THREE-JUDGE COURT
DENYING APPELLANTS' PETITION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION REFUSING THE GREGG CARTAGE & STORAGE COMPANY A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY UNDER THE SO-CALLED
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE OF SEC. 206(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 306(A). 

THE GREGG COMPANY, AN OHIO CORPORATION, OPERATED IN 1935 AND EARLIER
AS A COMMON CARRIER OF GENERAL FREIGHT BETWEEN POINTS IN SEVERAL
NORTHEASTERN STATES.  IN A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT CITIES, IT MAINTAINED
TERMINALS AT WHICH FREIGHT WAS ASSEMBLED.  IT PERFORMED NO OVER-THE
ROAD CARRIER SERVICE WITH ITS OWN VEHICLES, BUT PROVIDED SUCH SERVICE
ENTIRELY BY THE USE OF SO-CALLED OWNER-OPERATOR VEHICLES.  SUCH
VEHICLES AS IT OWNED AND OPERATED DIRECTLY WERE USED IN CARTAGE IN AND
ABOUT CLEVELAND. 

ON FEBRUARY 12, 1936, THE GREGG COMPANY FILED AN APPLICATION WITH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY AS A COMMON CARRIER UNDER THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE OF SEC.
206(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  A HEARING WAS HELD ON JUNE 8 AND 9,
1937, BEFORE AN EXAMINER WHO, ON DECEMBER 17, 1937, RECOMMENDED THAT
THE CERTIFICATE BE GRANTED. 

MEANWHILE, THE GREGG COMPANY HAD FAILED AND CEASED TO OPERATE.  IT
HAD ARRANGED THE FILING ON OCTOBER 4, 1937, OF A CREDITOR'S BILL IN A
STATE COURT OF OHIO, WHICH ON THE FOLLOWING DAY APPOINTED THE COMPANY'S
COUNSEL TO BE ITS RECEIVER WITH AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE THE BUSINESS.  ON
THE DAY OF THIS RECEIVER'S APPOINTMENT, OTHER CREDITORS FILED A
PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, WHICH ON OCTOBER 27
ADJUDICATED THE COMPANY A BANKRUPT, AND ON OCTOBER 30 APPOINTED A
RECEIVER TO PRESERVE THE ASSETS OF THE ESTATE PENDING THE ELECTION AND
QUALIFICATION OF A TRUSTEE.  FN1  IN OPERATING THE BUSINESS, THE STATE
COURT RECEIVER CONFINED HIMSELF TO THE COMPLETION OF SHIPMENTS EN
ROUTE, AND DID NOT SOLICIT OR ACCEPT NEW BUSINESS.  ON OCTOBER 14, HE
FILED WITH THE COMMISSION A PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO SUSPEND
OPERATIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RIGHTS UNDER THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. 
THE COMMISSION, OF THE OPINION THAT IT LACKED POWER TO AUTHORIZE SUCH A
SUSPENSION, DENIED THIS PETITION ON NOVEMBER 30, 1937.  THE RECEIVER IN
BANKRUPTCY TOOK OVER THE BUSINESS ON THE DAY OF HIS APPOINTMENT, AND
CONDUCTED NO OPERATIONS AT ANY TIME.  PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, ON DECEMBER 6, 1937, HE SOLD THE TRADE NAMES AND GOOD
WILL OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE, TOGETHER WITH ITS RIGHTS UNDER THE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE APPLICATION, TO APPELLANT NORTHEASTERN
TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, FOR $850 AT PUBLIC AUCTION. 

ON JANUARY 7, 1938, NORTHEASTERN AND THE RECEIVER IN BANKRUPTCY FILED
A JOINT APPLICATION WITH THE COMMISSION ASKING THAT NORTHEASTERN BE
SUBSTITUTED AS APPLICANT IN LIEU OF GREGG.  THE COMMISSION WITHHELD
ACTION UNTIL IT HAD DETERMINED GREGG'S RIGHTS.  NORTHEASTERN CONSIDERED
A RESUMPTION OF OPERATIONS, BUT DECIDED AGAINST IT ON THE ADVICE OF
FIELD REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

A FURTHER HEARING BEFORE ANOTHER EXAMINER, CONFINED TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INTERRUPTION OF GREGG'S SERVICE, RESULTED IN
ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE UNDER THE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.  THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, DENIED THE APPLICATION
DECEMBER 12, 1939, AFTER A REHEARING FOLLOWING THE REPORT OF DIVISION
5, A MAJORITY OF WHICH HAD HELD SIMILARLY ON NOVEMBER 14, 1938.  10
M.C.C. 255, 21 M.C.C. 17.  THE COMMISSION RULED THAT AN INTERRUPTION OF
SERVICE WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT HAD OCCURRED, THAT THE
PURCHASE BY NORTHEASTERN HAD CONFERRED NO OPERATING RIGHTS, AND THAT
THEREFORE NEITHER CORPORATION WAS ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE UNDER THE
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE.  FIVE COMMISSIONERS DISSENTED.  GREGG AND ITS
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY THEN FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION,
PRAYING THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DENYING GREGG'S APPLICATION BE
ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE AND THAT THE COMMISSION BE DIRECTED TO ISSUE A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO GREGG.  A STATUTORY
COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS CONVENED, NORTHEASTERN WAS ALLOWED TO
INTERVENE, AND JUDGMENT WENT AGAINST THE COMPLAINANTS, WHO APPEALED TO
THIS COURT, WHICH NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION.  FN2  42 F.SUPP.  266. 

APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT BELOW
ERRONEOUSLY CONSTRUED SEC. 206(A) FN3  OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT IN
HOLDING THAT, EXCEPTING THE SPECIFIED INTERRUPTIONS OF SERVICE, THE
STATUTE REQUIRED CONTINUOUS OPERATION FROM JUNE 1, 1935, UNTIL THE
HEARING BY THE COMMISSION ON THE APPLICATION.  WE HAVE, HOWEVER, HELD
TO THE CONTRARY.  UNITED STATES V. MAHER, 307 U.S. 148, PETITION FOR
LIMITED REHEARING DENIED, 307 U.S. 649.  HOEY V. UNITED STATES, 308
U.S. 510; LUBETICH V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 57. 

APPELLANTS CONTEND ALTERNATIVELY THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE
REVERSED FOR REFUSING TO HOLD THAT THE APPLICANT "HAD NO CONTROL" OVER
THE CESSATION OF OPERATIONS. 

FROM OCTOBER 15, 1935 TO DECEMBER 31, 1936, GREGG WAS INSURED AGAINST
PUBLIC LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY, WHICH IN
1936 FAILED EITHER TO DISPROVE OR SETTLE CERTAIN CLAIMS AGAINST GREGG
AND WAS RUMORED TO BE INSOLVENT.  FOR THESE REASONS GREGG CANCELLED ITS
CONTRACT WITH THIS COMPANY AND OBTAINED SIMILAR INSURANCE WITH ANOTHER
COMPANY, PAYING THE PREMIUMS IN ADVANCE.  THE FAILING INSURANCE COMPANY
WAS ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT IN JANUARY OF 1937, AND CEASED TO PAY ANY
CLAIMS.  GREGG, THEREBY LEFT WITH THE BURDEN OF SATISFYING CLAIMS FOR
PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE ARISING DURING THE PERIOD WHEN IT
HAD CARRIED INSURANCE IN THE BANKRUPT COMPANY, PAID SOME OF THEM IN THE
LATER MONTHS OF 1937; BUT APPROXIMATELY 175, ESTIMATED TO AGGREGATE IN
THEIR FACE AMOUNT ABOUT $200,000, REMAINED UNPAID.  IT ALSO PAID ABOUT
$15,000 ON CLAIMS FOR CARGO LOSS AND DAMAGE, WHICH TWO OTHER INSURERS,
RELYING UPON "TECHNICAL" INSURERS' DEFENSES, REFUSED TO PAY.  ALL
POLICIES OF INSURANCE TAKEN OUT BY GREGG HAD THE REQUIRED APPROVAL OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

SOLVENT ON JUNE 30, 1937, GREGG HAD BECOME INSOLVENT BY OCTOBER 30,
1937.  WHEN IT APPEARED IMPOSSIBLE TO SATISFY ALL DEMANDS IN FULL,
RESORT WAS HAD TO THE FRIENDLY RECEIVERSHIP IN THE STATE COURT.  THIS
PRECIPITATED THE INVOLUNTARY BANKRUPTCY IN THE FEDERAL COURT, WHICH IN
TURN BROUGHT OPERATIONS TO A HALT. 

THE COMMISSION BASED ITS REFUSAL TO FIND THAT THE APPLICANT "HAD NO
CONTROL" OVER THE INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE UPON THE FACT THAT SUCH
INTERRUPTION FOLLOWED UPON AN ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY RESULTING FROM
THE UNSUCCESSFUL CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS AFFAIRS, AND DID NOT GO BACK
OF THE ADJUDICATION TO FIND AND GIVE DETAILED CONSIDERATION TO THE
PARTICULAR CAUSES OF THE FAILURE.  APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THIS WAS
ERROR, AND FOR A RULE REQUIRING THAT IN EVERY CASE OF THIS SORT THE
COMMISSION MUST TRACE OUT THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION AND WEIGH THE
BANKRUPT'S JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PRESSURES OF CIRCUMSTANCE.  WE SUSTAIN
THE COMMISSION IN CONSTRUING THE STATUTE AS NOT REQUIRING IT TO GO BACK
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ADJUDICATION TO SEARCH FOR ULTIMATE CAUSES. 

HOW FAR ONE BY AN EXERCISE OF FREE WILL MAY DETERMINE HIS GENERAL
DESTINY OR HIS COURSE IN A PARTICULAR MATTER AND HOW FAR HE IS THE TOY
OF CIRCUMSTANCE HAS BEEN DEBATED THROUGH THE AGES BY THEOLOGIANS,
PHILOSOPHERS, AND SCIENTISTS.  WHATEVER DOUBTS THEY HAVE ENTERTAINED AS
TO THE MATTER, THE PRACTICAL BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE LAW IS OBLIGED TO PROCEED ON MORE OR LESS ROUGH AND READY
JUDGMENTS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT MATURE AND RATIONAL PERSONS ARE
IN CONTROL OF THEIR OWN CONDUCT.  CERTAINLY THAT ASSUMPTION MUST BE
MADE IN REFERENCE TO A CORPORATION SUCH AS THE APPLICANT.  SOCIETY, IN
CREATING A CORPORATION, VESTING ITS MANAGEMENT IN A BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
GRANTING IT LARGE POWERS AND NOT INCONSIDERABLE IMMUNITIES, CAN HARDLY
ALLOW THAT ITS BUSINESS AFFAIRS ARE AT ANY TIME OUT OF THE CONTROL OF
THOSE WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO CONDUCT THEM.  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT STATES THAT
EVEN AN INVOLUNTARY ADJUDICATION RESULTS ONLY FROM SOME "ACT OF
BANKRUPTCY," DEFINED UPON THE CLEAR ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS WITHIN THE
BANKRUPT'S CONTROL.  FN4 WHETHER OR NOT THIS ASSUMPTION SQUARES WITH
PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINE, OR EVEN WITH REALITY,  FN5  IS NOT FOR OUR
DETERMINATION.  THE COMMISSION, AND THE COURTS TOO, MUST GET ON WITH
THE APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTES WITHOUT WAITING TO SETTLE THE
VERITY OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH THEY REST. 

THE COMMISSION WAS WARRANTED IN HOLDING AS MATTER OF LAW THAT THE
INTERRUPTION BECAUSE OF BANKRUPTCY WAS NOT ONE OVER WHICH THE APPLICANT
HAD NO CONTROL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  THE
COMPLEXITY OF THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION SHOWN IN THIS CASE MAKES IT AN APT
ILLUSTRATION OF THE IMPRACTICABILITY OF ANY OTHER RULE. 

WHEN IT FOUND ITSELF UNABLE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS, GREGG ARRANGED A
RECEIVERSHIP IN THE STATE COURT, SECURING THE APPOINTMENT OF ITS OWN
COUNSEL AS RECEIVER.  ONLY THE ONE CREDITOR WHICH FILED THE BILL
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CONSULTED.  THUS, THE PETITIONER NOT ONLY ARRANGED
DELIBERATELY TO COMMIT AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY, BUT IT MANAGED THE AFFAIR
IN A MANNER NOT UNLIKELY TO PROVOKE THE UNCONSULTED CREDITORS TO FILE A
PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY - PRESUMABLY CONSIDERED THEIR BEST OR ONLY MEANS
OF OBTAINING THE DISINTERESTEDNESS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE
TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED. 

THE CLAIMS WHICH, TOGETHER WITH THE ADVANCE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS FOR
NEW INSURANCE, CONSTITUTED THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF GREGG'S FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES, WERE, AS WE HAVE SAID, OF VARIOUS SORTS.  BULKING LARGEST
WERE THOSE FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, WHICH NUMBERED
APPROXIMATELY 175 AND IN THEIR FACE AMOUNT AGGREGATED APPROXIMATELY
$200,000.  THEIR PRECISE NATURE IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD, AND
CONJECTURE IN THIS REGARD IS MADE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT BY GREGG'S
METHOD OF DOING BUSINESS - WHICH WAS TO AVAIL ITSELF ENTIRELY OF "OWNER
OPERATOR" VEHICLES FOR ITS "OVER-THE-ROAD" SERVICES.  DOUBTLESS THESE
CLAIMS WERE FOUNDED ALMOST ENTIRELY UPON THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF
VEHICLES FOR WHICH GREGG WAS IN SOME WAY HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE.  WE
ARE NOT INFORMED WHETHER SUCH RESPONSIBILITY RESTED UPON THE PRINCIPLE
OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, EXPRESS CONTRACTUAL ASSUMPTION, OR BOTH.  THE
REST OF THE CLAIMS, UPON WHICH ABOUT $15,000 WERE PAID, WERE FOR CARGO
LOSS AND DAMAGE.  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER PAYMENT WAS MADE
SOLELY TO RETAIN THE GOOD WILL OF SHIPPERS, OR ALSO TO SATISFY THE
APPLICANT'S LEGAL LIABILITY - WHICH WOULD HAVE RESTED UPON ITS LEGAL
CONTROL OF THE CARGO. 

IT IS TRUE THAT GREGG WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF MOST,
IF NOT ALL, OF THE CLAIMS, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR SOME UNFORTUNATE
EXPERIENCES WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES.  ITS MAJOR MISFORTUNE WAS THE
FAILURE OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH IT CARRIED ITS INSURANCE AGAINST
LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE.  WHAT CONSIDERATION
ACTUATED THE CHOICE OF THE PARTICULAR INSURANCE COMPANY, AND WHAT
CAUTION, IF ANY, WAS OBSERVED IN SELECTING IT, DO NOT APPEAR.  IT
EITHER MISUNDERSTOOD THE COVERAGE OF ITS OTHER POLICIES OR PURCHASED
POLICIES NOT SPECIFICALLY COMPREHENSIVE, AND FOUND ITSELF TAKING CARE
OF VERY SUBSTANTIAL CLAIMS FOR CARGO LOSS BECAUSE OF "TECHNICAL"
INSURERS' DEFENSES WHICH SEEM TO HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT UNDER THE OHIO
LAW. 

IN ANY EVENT, THE CHOICES OF INSURERS, AS WELL OF ITS SERVANTS AND
OPERATORS, WERE GREGG'S OWN - AS WAS THE JUDGMENT WHICH WAS EXERCISED
WITH REGARD TO THE NUMEROUS OTHER PHASES OF ITS BUSINESS BEARING UPON
ITS SOLVENCY - AND THE FINAL PRODUCT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A MATTER OVER
WHICH IT HAD NO CONTROL. 

FURTHERMORE, THE INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE WAS THE DELIBERATE ACT OF
THOSE WHO FOR THE TIME BEING STOOD IN THE POSITION OF APPLICANT AND
OWNED ITS RIGHTS.  DURING THE INTERVAL BETWEEN RECEIVERSHIP AND SALE OF
THESE RIGHTS TO NORTHEASTERN, WE TAKE IT THAT THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST
THEREIN VESTED IN THE CREDITORS AND THE LEGAL TITLE IN THE RECEIVER OR
TRUSTEE.  THE FEDERAL RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE COULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO
CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF THE BANKRUPT FOR A LIMITED PERIOD, IF IN THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE ESTATE.  SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, AS
AMENDED, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 11.  THE CREDITORS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES,
HOWEVER, FAILED TO SEEK SUCH AUTHORITY, EVIDENTLY REGARDING THE RIGHTS,
WHICH LATER SOLD FOR $850, NOT WORTH THE EXPENSE AND RISK OF CONTINUING
BUSINESS.  IT IS THE PURCHASER NORTHEASTERN, ORGANIZED TO ACQUIRE THE
"GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS, AND TO AN UNDETERMINED EXTENT IDENTIFIED WITH THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE BANKRUPT,  FN6  WHICH, HAVING BOUGHT THESE RIGHTS IN
THIS STATE OF VOLUNTARILY SUSPENDED ANIMATION, SEEKS TO REVIVE THEM. 
BUT IT CANNOT SAY THAT IT TAKES THE RIGHTS FREE OF ANY IMPAIRMENT BY
THE VOLUNTARY SUSPENSION OF OPERATION BY THE THEN OWNER FROM WHOM IT
DERIVES TITLE.    THE APPLICANT FOR A CERTIFICATE UNDER THE GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE SEEKS TO EXEMPT HIS FURTHER OPERATIONS FROM SCRUTINY AS TO
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  IF HE IS ABLE TO MEET THOSE TESTS,
HE MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE, EVEN IF HE NEVER HAD GRANDFATHER
RIGHTS, OR IF THOSE HE ONCE HAD HAVE BEEN LOST.  AS THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT IS REMEDIAL, AND THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE CONFERS A SPECIAL
PRIVILEGE, THE PROVISO DEFINING EXEMPTIONS IS TO BE HELD TO EXTEND ONLY
TO CARRIERS PLAINLY WITHIN ITS TERMS.  MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S.
263, 266. 

IN ITS OPINION THE COMMISSION STATED THAT "IT IS USELESS TO SPECULATE
UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE 'GRANDFATHER' RIGHT EXPIRED BEFORE OR
AFTER THE SALE."  THIS WE UNDERSTAND TO MEAN THAT, HAVING DETERMINED
THAT THE CESSATION OF OPERATIONS WAS NOT A MATTER OVER WHICH GREGG "HAD
NO CONTROL," THE COMMISSION WAS OF OPINION THAT BY THE TIME OF THE SALE
THE CESSATION OF OPERATIONS WAS OF SUFFICIENT DURATION - AT LEAST 69
DAYS - TO ESTABLISH THAT GREGG HAD NOT BEEN "IN  ... OPERATION SINCE"
JUNE 1, 1935, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 206(A).  THIS WAS A REASONABLE
CONCLUSION, ESPECIALLY SINCE ANY SUBSTANTIAL INTERRUPTION OF ONE
CARRIER'S SERVICE TENDS TO RESULT IN EXPANSION OF OTHER FACILITIES TO
MEET THE CONTINUING NEEDS OF SHIPPERS, AND THUS TO CAUSE OVERCROWDING
IF THE SUSPENDED SERVICE IS RESUMED. 

FINALLY, APPELLANTS CLAIM TO BE ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM PREJUDICE
SAID TO HAVE RESULTED FROM DELAY OF THE COMMISSION IN ACTING ON GREGG'S
APPLICATION MADE UNDER SEC. 206(A) ON FEBRUARY 12, 1936.  THEY POINT
OUT THAT, HAD THE COMMISSION ACTED AT ONCE, A CERTIFICATE WOULD HAVE
ISSUED, THUS CONFERRING THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 212(A).  FN7  BUT BY ITS
TERMS SEC. 212(A) IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE A CERTIFICATE HAS ALREADY
ISSUED; AND, BEING A SECTION OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, AT LEAST FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES, IT HAS NO ANALOGICAL BEARING UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SPECIFIC PROVISION RELATING TO INTERRUPTIONS OF SERVICE MADE IN
SEC. 206(A).  THE DELAY IN PASSING UPON THE APPLICATION WAS
CONSIDERABLE AND REGRETTABLE, AS THE COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGED, BUT IT
DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ARBITRARY OR THE RESULT OF ANY DELIBERATE
DISCRIMINATION, NOR, IN VIEW OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE COMMISSION'S TASK,
UNREASONABLE.  THE COMMISSION HAD NEARLY 90,000 APPLICATIONS TO PASS
UPON UNDER SEC. 206(A), AND OF COURSE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO
PASS UPON THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY.  IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR PROVINCE TO REMEDY
INEQUALITIES NECESSARILY INCIDENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
STATUTE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, AN APPELLANT HERE, WAS APPOINTED NEAR
THE END OF DECEMBER, 1937. 

FN2  URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47A. 

FN3  THIS PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART THAT:  "IF ANY SUCH CARRIER OR
PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER
BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE 1, 1935, OVER THE ROUTE OR ROUTES OR WITHIN
THE TERRITORY FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE AND HAS SO OPERATED SINCE
THAT TIME, ...  EXCEPT  ...  AS TO INTERRUPTIONS OF SERVICE OVER WHICH
THE APPLICANT OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST HAD NO CONTROL, THE
COMMISSION SHALL ISSUE SUCH CERTIFICATE WITHOUT REQUIRING FURTHER PROOF
THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED BY SUCH
OPERATION."  49 U.S.C., SEC. 306(A). 

FN4  THE FOLLOWING ARE DEFINED AS ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY:  (1) FRAUDULENT
CONVEYANCES OR CONCEALMENTS OF PROPERTY, (2) TRANSFERS WHILE INSOLVENT,
(3) PERMITTING, WHILE INSOLVENT, A CREDITOR'S LIEN TO ATTACH TO
PROPERTY THROUGH LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, (4) ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS, (5) PERMITTING OR PROCURING, WHILE INSOLVENT IN EITHER THE
BANKRUPTCY OR EQUITY SENSE, A RECEIVER TO BE APPOINTED TO TAKE CHARGE
OF THE BANKRUPT'S PROPERTY, (6) ADMISSIONS IN WRITING OF INABILITY TO
PAY DEBTS AND OF WILLINGNESS TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT.  SEC. 3A OF THE
ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, AS AMENDED, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 21(A). 

FN5  TREIMAN, ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY:  A MEDIEVAL CONCEPT IN MODERN
BANKRUPTCY LAW, 52 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 189. 

FN6  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT NORTHEASTERN WAS INCORPORATED TO TAKE
OVER THE BANKRUPT'S RIGHTS AND BUSINESS, THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF
GREGG IS THE NEW COMPANY'S GENERAL FREIGHT AGENT, AND THE FORMER
SUPERINTENDENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS A STOCKHOLDER OF THE NEW COMPANY;
AND THAT "OTHER CONNECTIONS, IF ANY, BETWEEN THE COMPANIES THROUGH
THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM THE
RECORDS." 

FN7  THIS READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "THAT NO SUCH CERTIFICATE,
PERMIT, OR LICENSE SHALL BE REVOKED (EXCEPT UPON APPLICATION OF THE
HOLDER) UNLESS THE HOLDER THEREOF WILLFULLY FAILS TO COMPLY, WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME, NOT LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS, TO BE FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION, WITH A LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, MADE AS PROVIDED IN
TO THE RULE OR REGULATION OF THE COMMISSION THEREUNDER, OR TO THE TERM,
CONDITION, OR LIMITATION OF SUCH CERTIFICATE, PERMIT, OR LICENSE, FOUND
BY THE COMMISSION TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY SUCH HOLDER."  49 U.S.C.
SEC. 312(A). 

ORIGINALLY THE PERIOD WAS 90 DAYS.  BY AN AMENDMENT OF JUNE 29, 1938,
52 STAT. 1239, IT WAS REDUCED TO THE PRESENT 30 DAYS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT EXPERTS OF THE SUBJECT - SAY, REFEREES CHARGED
WITH THE DUTIES OF ADMINISTERING THE BANKRUPTCY LAW - WOULD CONCLUDE
THAT EVERY BANKRUPTCY AROSE WITHOUT EXCEPTION FROM CONDITIONS WHICH
WERE WITHIN IN THE "CONTROL" OF THE BANKRUPT IN ANY ACCEPTED MEANING OF
THE WORD.  NOR DO I THINK THAT THAT VIEW WOULD BE TAKEN IN CASE OF
RECEIVERSHIPS.  YET THAT IS THE IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAS CREATED IN THIS TYPE OF CASE.  CONGRESS DID NOT CREATE
IT.  CONGRESS MERELY PROVIDED THAT THIS CLASS OF CARRIER HAD A RIGHT TO
THE STATUTORY GRANT ON A SHOWING, INTER ALIA, THAT IT WAS IN "BONA FIDE
OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE 1, 1935" AND
"HAS SO OPERATED SINCE THAT TIME" EXCEPT AS TO "INTERRUPTIONS OF
SERVICE OVER WHICH THE APPLICANT OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST HAD NO
CONTROL."  MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, SEC. 206(A); 49 U.S.C. SEC.
306(A).  I WOULD HAVE SUPPOSED THAT THE QUESTION OF "CONTROL" WAS "AN
ISSUE OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH
CASE."  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 145. 
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT "SO LONG AS THERE IS WARRANT IN THE RECORD FOR THE
JUDGMENT OF THE EXPERT BODY IT MUST STAND."  ID. PP. 145-146.  BUT THAT
IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM GIVING THE WORD "CONTROL" A CONSTRUCTION WHICH
PREVENTS A PERSON FROM SHOWING UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE EVENTS
WHICH LED TO HIS BUSINESS DISASTER WERE NOT SUBJECT TO HIS "CONTROL." 
ON THE ONE HAND, THE COMMISSION RULES THAT INTERRUPTIONS OF SERVICE
OWING TO FLOODS, FN1  SNOW,  FN2  UNSAFE  FN3  OR IMPASSABLE  FN4
ROADS, HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION,  FN5  DROUGHTS WHICH DESTROY A CARRIER'S
CHIEF SOURCE OF BUSINESS,  FN6  ILL HEALTH,  FN7  STRIKES,  FN8  OR THE
ILLEGAL ACTION OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES  FN9  CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR
HOLDING THAT AN INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE IS BEYOND AN APPLICANT'S
"CONTROL."  BUT SIMILAR MISFORTUNES OF A PURELY ACCIDENTAL CHARACTER
WHICH AFFECT FINANCIAL STABILITY AND END IN BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP
ARE HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CARRIER'S "CONTROL." 

THE DISTORTION WHICH THAT INTERPRETATION INVOLVES IS WELL ILLUSTRATED
BY THIS CASE.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THE FOLLOWING:
DURING THE YEAR 1936 THE APPLICANT WAS INSURED AGAINST PUBLIC LIABILITY
AND PROPERTY DAMAGE BY THE CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. HEARING RUMORS
THAT CENTRAL MUTUAL WAS IN FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND WAS NOT PAYING
CLAIMS, APPLICANT DROPPED ITS POLICY IN DECEMBER 1936 AND PLACED ITS
INSURANCE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY.  ON JANUARY 11, 1937, CENTRAL MUTUAL
WAS ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT AND CEASED PAYMENT OF ALL CLAIMS.  IN THE FALL
OF 1937, APPLICANT WAS FORCED TO PAY SEVERAL SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE CLAIMS
ARISING FROM ACCIDENTS DURING THE PERIOD WHEN ITS INSURANCE POLICY WAS
IN EFFECT WITH CENTRAL MUTUAL.  THESE PAYMENTS SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED ITS
WORKING CAPITAL.  FURTHERMORE, APPLICANT WAS CONFRONTED WITH
APPROXIMATELY 175 ADDITIONAL CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE.  THESE WERE ESTIMATED AT ABOUT $200,000 AND AROSE DURING THE
PERIOD WHEN APPLICANT WAS INSURED BY CENTRAL MUTUAL.  APPLICANT SETTLED
SOME OF THESE CLAIMS.  IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE, HOWEVER, TO SATISFY THE
DEMANDS OF ALL OF THESE CLAIMANTS.  RECEIVERSHIP FOLLOWED AND ON ITS
HEELS CAME BANKRUPTCY.  THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE IN THIS
RECORD OF ANY NEGLIGENCE, DERELICTION, OR MISMANAGEMENT ON THE PART OF
APPLICANT.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ITS FAILURE WAS DUE TO THE FAILURE OF
ITS INSURER.  AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD THAT IT DID NOT
EXERCISE DUE CARE IN THE SELECTION OF THAT INSURER.  IT WOULD INDEED BE
IRONICAL TO CAST A PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE APPLICANT ON THAT SCORE WHEN
THE INSURANCE POLICY PRESUMABLY WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSION, AND
UNDER ITS REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO SECS. 211(C) AND 215 OF
THE ACT (49 U.S.C. SECS. 311(C) AND 315) HAD TO BE "APPROVED" BY IT.
FN10 FEDERAL REGISTER (1936) VOL. 1, P. 1163, RULE 1.  AND SEE 49 CODE
OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PT. 174, SEC. 174.1. 

AN APPLICANT CARRIES THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING HIS RIGHT TO THE
STATUTORY GRANT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE.  ALTON
R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 15.  BUT HE SHOULD NOT BE MET AT THE
THRESHOLD WITH A CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION AGAINST HIM, UNLESS CONGRESS
HAS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS CASE HE HAS NO
RIGHT EVEN TO UNDERTAKE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  IF CONGRESS HAD DESIRED
TO ELIMINATE ALL APPLICANTS WHOSE CONTINUOUS SERVICE WAS INTERRUPTED BY
BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP, I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO.  AS STATED
BY COMMISSIONER LEE IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION (10 M.C.C. P. 263):  "IF
SUCH INTERRUPTIONS IN SERVICE ARE TO BE CONSTRUED AS PUTTING AN END TO
'GRANDFATHER' RIGHTS OF CARRIERS, WHOSE APPLICATIONS THEREFOR HAVE NOT
BEEN DETERMINED, THEN, WHERE SUCH A CARRIER GOES INTO RECEIVERSHIP OR
BANKRUPTCY, AND SUCH AN INTERRUPTION OCCURS, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THE CARRIER TO COME OUT OF RECEIVERSHIP AND RESUME OPERATIONS; IT COULD
NOT EFFECT A COMPOSITION OR AN ARRANGEMENT WITH ITS CREDITORS AND
RESUME OPERATIONS; IF A CORPORATION, IT COULD NOT BE REORGANIZED UNDER
THE CORPORATE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND
CREDITORS COULD REALIZE NOTHING FROM 'GRANDFATHER' RIGHTS, HOWEVER
VALUABLE."  SUCH A WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF OPERATING RIGHTS SHOULD NOT
BE READILY OR LIGHTLY INFERRED.  OPERATING RIGHTS ARE THE VERY LIFE OF
ANY BUSINESS.  WITHOUT THEM THIS BUSINESS CERTAINLY HAS NO MORE THAN
SCRAP VALUE.  NO FINDINGS ON THAT ISSUE BUT INVOKED AN IRREBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION WHICH WOULD AUTOMATICALLY FORECLOSE IN ALL CASES AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE REAL CAUSE OF THE BANKRUPTCY OR
RECEIVERSHIP. 

FN1  WALTZ TRANSPORTATION, INC., 10 M.C.C. 30, 33. 

FN2  LEWIS MCKAY, 4 M.C.C. 93, 94. 

FN3  EDWARDS MOTOR TRANSIT CO., INC., 2 M.C.C. 73, 74. 

FN4  INTER-CAROLINAS MOTOR BUS CO., 21 M.C.C. 633, 635; WALTER
STAGES, INC., 24 M.C.C. 451, 454. 

FN5  MAGEE TRUCK LINES, INC., 28 M.C.C. 386, 389. 

FN6  BARNES TRUCK CO., INC., 24 M.C.C. 465, 467. 

FN7  H. BRUCE BLACKBURN, 20 M.C.C. 747, 748-749. 

FN8  MOTOR FREIGHT EXPRESS, 26 M.C.C. 374, 375; TRANSAMERICAN FREIGHT
LINES, INC., 28 M.C.C. 493, 502. 

FN9  W.H. TOMPKINS CO., 29 M.C.C. 359, 362. 

FN10  AND SEE FEDERAL REGISTER, OP. CIT., RULE IX; 49 CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS, PT. 174, SEC. 174.9. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE BYRNES JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. MALPHURS, 316 U.S. 1 


NO. 558.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 6, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1942.  - 41
F.SUPP.  817, REVERSED. 


ALTHOUGH THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT TO
PASS UPON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS
CASE SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT
SECS. 3 AND 4 OF THE HATCH ACT WERE INAPPLICABLE, THE JUDGMENT IS
VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTES,
OTHER THAN THE HATCH ACT, REFERRED TO IN THIS OPINION.  P. 3. 

UNITED STATES V. MALPHURS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS APPEAL COMES HERE DIRECTLY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT, 34 STAT. 1246, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682, AND SEC. 238 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 43 STAT. 936, 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345.  IN
THE DISTRICT COURT, A DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT WAS SUSTAINED ON THE
SOLE GROUND THAT SECS. 3 AND 4 OF THE HATCH ACT, "AN ACT TO PREVENT
PERNICIOUS POLITICAL ACTIVITIES" APPROVED AUGUST 2, 1939, 53 STAT.
1147, SET OUT BELOW,  FN1  WERE INAPPLICABLE TO A STATE PRIMARY.  FN2
NEITHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS NOR THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
SPECIFIES ANY OTHER STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE INDICTMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
FOUND. 

DEFENDANTS, EMPLOYEES OF THE WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION AND A
MUNICIPAL CHIEF OF POLICE, WERE INDICTED UNDER COUNT I FOR THREATENING,
ON MAY 6, 1940, TO DEPRIVE A NAMED PERSON OF EMPLOYMENT, MADE POSSIBLE
BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, UNLESS HE VOTED FOR AND SUPPORTED IN THE FLORIDA
PRIMARY, DEFENDANTS' CANDIDATES FOR VARIOUS NATIONAL AND STATE OFFICES,
AND UNDER COUNT II FOR PROMISING ON MAY 23RD CONTINUED AND MORE
REMUNERATIVE EMPLOYMENT IF THAT PERSON DID SUPPORT THEM.  IN EACH COUNT
IT WAS ALLEGED THAT:  "FRANK M. STRICKLAND WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE WORKS
PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION, AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
WHICH SAID AGENCY WAS ADMINISTERING CERTAIN PROJECTS IN THE SAID COUNTY
AND WAS FURNISHING EMPLOYMENT TO PERSONS ON RELIEF IN SAID COUNTY
PROVIDED FOR AND MADE POSSIBLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ACT OF CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES, TO WIT, THE EMERGENCY RELIEF APPROPRIATION ACT OF
1939." 

IN ITS BRIEF FOR THIS COURT, THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS FOR THE FIRST
TIME THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE EMERGENCY RELIEF APPROPRIATION ACT OF
1939, SEC. 30(A), 53 STAT. 927, 937, APPLIES SANCTIONS TO ALLEGATIONS
SUCH AS ARE MADE IN COUNT II OF THE INDICTMENT.  SEE ALSO SEC. 30(B) OF
THAT ACT AND SEC. 3(A) OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF FEBRUARY 4, 1939,
MAKING AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR WORK RELIEF FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 1939, 53 STAT. 507, 508.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THESE
POSSIBLY APPLICABLE TO THE WHOLE INDICTMENT. 

WHILE WE HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT TO PASS
UPON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER ENTERED BELOW, UNITED STATES V.
NIXON, 235 U.S. 231, WE THINK THAT IT IS ADVISABLE TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CASE IN ITS ENTIRETY, WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE
HATCH ACT.  FN3  WE REMAND THIS CASE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTES,
OTHER THAN THE HATCH ACT, REFERRED TO IN THIS OPINION.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  "SEC.  3.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, TO PROMISE ANY EMPLOYMENT, POSITION, WORK, COMPENSATION, OR
OTHER BENEFIT, PROVIDED FOR OR MADE POSSIBLE IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY
ACT OF CONGRESS, TO ANY PERSON AS CONSIDERATION, FAVOR, OR REWARD FOR
ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY OR FOR THE SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO ANY
CANDIDATE OR ANY POLITICAL PARTY IN ANY ELECTION. 

"SEC. 4.  ...  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO DEPRIVE,
ATTEMPT TO DEPRIVE, OR THREATEN TO DEPRIVE, BY ANY MEANS, ANY PERSON OF
ANY EMPLOYMENT, POSITION, WORK, COMPENSATION, OR OTHER BENEFIT PROVIDED
FOR OR MADE POSSIBLE BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
WORK RELIEF OR RELIEF PURPOSES, ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED, COLOR, OR
ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY, SUPPORT OF, OR OPPOSITION TO ANY CANDIDATE OR
ANY POLITICAL PARTY IN ANY ELECTION." 

FN2  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THIS INDICTMENT RELATES TO ACTS OCCURRING
PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT OF JULY 19, 1940, 54 STAT. 767. 

FN3  CF. GAINESVILLE V. BROWN-CRUMMER CO., 277 U.S. 54, 60-61. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO V. COMM'N, 316 U.S. 4 


NO 508.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1942. 


WHERE, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 402(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
ACT OF 1934, AN APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN, TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FROM AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, THAT COURT, IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE STATUS
QUO PENDING APPEAL, HAS POWER TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER FROM WHICH THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN, PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE
APPEAL.  P. 11. 

SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO, INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 

ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION CERTIFIED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RESPECT OF AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION GRANTING PERMISSION TO CHANGE THE
FREQUENCY AND INCREASE THE POWER OF A RADIO STATION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 239, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346.  THE
QUESTION CERTIFIED RELATES TO THE POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO STAY
THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PENDING DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL TAKEN UNDER SEC. 402(B) OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 1093. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INDUCED THE COURT TO CERTIFY THE QUESTION ARE
THESE:  ON OCTOBER 10, 1939, THE COMMISSION GRANTED WITHOUT HEARING THE
APPLICATION OF WCOL, INC., LICENSEE OF STATION WCOL, COLUMBUS, OHIO,
FOR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO CHANGE ITS FREQUENCY FROM 1210 TO 1200
KILOCYCLES AND TO INCREASE ITS POWER FROM 100 TO 250 WATTS.  THE
APPELLANT, SCRIPPS-HOWARD RADIO, INC., WHICH IS THE LICENSEE OF STATION
WCPO, CINCINNATI, OHIO, OPERATING ON A FREQUENCY OF 1200 KILOCYCLES
WITH POWER OF 250 WATTS, FILED A PETITION FOR "HEARING OR REHEARING"
REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO VACATE ITS PREVIOUS ORDER AND SET THE WCOL
APPLICATION FOR HEARING.  THE COMMISSION DENIED THIS PETITION ON MARCH
29, 1940, AND AN APPEAL FOLLOWED.  IN ITS STATEMENT OF "REASONS FOR
APPEAL," THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT THE COMMISSION COULD NOT LAWFULLY
GRANT THE WCOL APPLICATION WITHOUT HEARING; THAT IN GRANTING THE
APPLICATION THE COMMISSION DEPARTED FROM ITS RULES AND STANDARDS OF
GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE; THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING
IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION DID NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST SINCE IT WOULD RESULT IN MATERIALLY REDUCING THE COVERAGE OF
STATION WCPO AND THEREBY DEPRIVE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF LISTENERS OF
"THE ONLY LOCAL REGIONAL NON-NETWORK SERVICE" AVAILABLE TO THEM; AND
THAT IN GRANTING THE WCOL APPLICATION WITHOUT HEARING, THE COMMISSION
VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE APPELLANT ASKED THE COURT OF APPEALS TO STAY THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF ITS APPEAL.  EVEN THOUGH THE COURT
"HAD CONSISTENTLY OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS, AND WITHOUT OBJECTION ON
THE PART OF THE COMMISSION, ISSUED STAY ORDERS" IN CASES WHERE SUCH
ORDERS WERE FOUND TO BE NECESSARY, THE COMMISSION OPPOSED THE ISSUANCE
OF A STAY ORDER IN THIS CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT
POWER TO GRANT A STAY.  THE APPLICATION WAS HEARD BEFORE THE COURT
SITTING WITH THREE JUDGES, WHICH, WITH ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, UPHELD THE
COMMISSION'S CONTENTION.  A MOTION FOR REHEARING BEFORE ALL SIX MEMBERS
OF THE COURT WAS GRANTED.  THE JUDGES BEING EQUALLY DIVIDED ON THE
QUESTION OF THE COURT'S POWER TO GRANT A STAY, THE FOLLOWING QUESTION
WAS CERTIFIED TO US: 

"WHERE, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 402(B) OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AN APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN, TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FROM AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, DOES THE COURT, IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO PENDING
APPEAL, HAVE POWER TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER FROM
WHICH THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN, PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL?" 

THE COMMISSION SUGGESTS THAT THE CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE DISMISSED
BECAUSE OF THE GENERALITY OF THE QUESTION.  LOWDEN V. NORTHWESTERN NAT.
BANK, 298 U.S. 160.  READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
CERTIFYING THE FACTS WHICH PRESENTED THE QUESTION, HILL V. WAMPLER, 298
U.S. 460, 464, THE QUESTION IS LIMITED TO THE TYPE OF ORDER MADE BY THE
COMMISSION IN THIS CASE.  IT IS THEREFORE SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC. 

THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 IS A HYBRID.  BY THAT ACT CONGRESS
ESTABLISHED A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM FOR THE REGULATION OF COMMUNICATION
BY WIRE AND RADIO.  TO SECURE EFFECTIVE EXECUTION OF ITS POLICY OF
MAKING AVAILABLE "A RAPID, EFFICIENT, NATION-WIDE, AND WORLD-WIDE WIRE
AND RADIO COMMUNICATION SERVICE WITH ADEQUATE FACILITIES AT REASONABLE
CHARGES," CONGRESS CREATED A NEW AGENCY, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, TO WHICH IT ENTRUSTED AUTHORITY PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED BY
SEVERAL OTHER AGENCIES.  UNDER THE RADIO ACT OF 1927, 44 STAT. 1162,
THE FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION HAD BROAD POWERS OVER THE LICENSING AND
REGULATION OF RADIO FACILITIES.  THE MANN-ELKINS ACT OF 1910, 36 STAT.
539, GAVE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION GENERAL REGULATORY
AUTHORITY OVER TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CARRIERS.  IN ADDITION, THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL WAS EMPOWERED, UNDER THE POST ROADS ACT OF 1866, 14
STAT. 221, TO FIX RATES ON GOVERNMENT TELEGRAMS.  FN1  THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 WAS DESIGNED TO CENTRALIZE THIS SCATTERED
REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN ONE AGENCY.  SEE MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO
CONGRESS, FEBRUARY 26, 1934, SEN. DOC. NO. 144, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.;
SEN. REP. NO. 781, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 1; H. REP. NO. 1850, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 3-4. 

THE PROVISIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE ACT OF 1934 REFLECT ITS
MIXED ORIGINS.  SECTION 402(A) MAKES THE PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 208, 219, PERTAINING TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
APPLICABLE TO "SUITS TO ENFORCE, ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL, OR SUSPEND
ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS ACT (EXCEPT ANY ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION GRANTING OR REFUSING AN APPLICATION FOR A CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT FOR A RADIO STATION, OR FOR A RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR
RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR MODIFICATION OF AN
EXISTING RADIO STATION LICENSE)."  48 STAT. 1064, 1093.  THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT, WHICH IS THUS INCORPORATED IN SEC. 402(A) OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, PROVIDES FOR REVIEW IN A SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED DISTRICT COURT, WITH DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT.  THAT ACT
AUTHORIZES THE DISTRICT COURT, IN CASES "WHERE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE WOULD
OTHERWISE ENSUE TO THE PETITIONER," TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY STAY OF THE
ORDER UNDER REVIEW, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED SAFEGUARDS.  38 STAT. 208,
220. 

OF THE ORDERS EXCEPTED FROM SEC. 402(A).  IT GIVES AN APPEAL "FROM
DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CASES:  (1) BY ANY APPLICANT FOR A
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A RADIO STATION, OR FOR A RADIO STATION
LICENSE, OR FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR
MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING RADIO STATION LICENSE, WHOSE APPLICATION IS
REFUSED BY THE COMMISSION.  (2) BY ANY OTHER PERSON AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE
INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY ANY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
GRANTING OR REFUSING SUCH APPLICATION."  48 STAT. 1064, 1093.  THIS
AMENDED IN 1930, 46 STAT. 844, THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF WHICH ARE SET
FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN2  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 781, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.,
P. 9; H. REPORT NO. 1918, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 49-50; REMARKS OF
SENATOR DILL, IN CHARGE OF THE MEASURE IN THE SENATE, 78 CONG. REC.
8825, AND OF REPRESENTATIVE RAYBURN, WHO OCCUPIED THE SAME ROLE IN THE
HOUSE, 78 CONG. REC. 10314. 

THUS, IN BOTH THE RADIO ACT OF 1927 AND THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934, ORDERS GRANTING OR DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
OR STATION LICENSES AND FOR RENEWAL OR MODIFICATION OF LICENSES WERE
MADE REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
FN3  AND WITH RESPECT TO SUCH APPEALS, BOTH SEC. 16 OF THE RADIO ACT
AND SEC. 402(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT WERE SILENT WITH RESPECT TO
THE POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO STAY ORDERS PENDING APPEAL.  IT IS
UPON THIS SILENCE IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT THAT THE COMMISSION BASES
ITS CONTENTION, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN THIS LITIGATION AROSE IN
1940, THAT THE COURT IS WITHOUT SUCH POWER. 

NO COURT CAN MAKE TIME STAND STILL.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING A
CONTROVERSY MAY CHANGE IRREVOCABLY DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN APPEAL,
DESPITE ANYTHING A COURT CAN DO.  BUT WITHIN THESE LIMITS IT IS
REASONABLE THAT AN APPELLATE COURT SHOULD BE ABLE TO PREVENT
IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE PARTIES OR TO THE PUBLIC RESULTING FROM THE
PREMATURE ENFORCEMENT OF A DETERMINATION WHICH MAY LATER BE FOUND TO
HAVE BEEN WRONG.  IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HELD, THEREFORE, THAT AS PART OF
ITS TRADITIONAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,  FN4  A
FEDERAL COURT CAN STAY THE ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT PENDING THE
OUTCOME OF AN APPEAL.  IN RE CLAASEN, 140 U.S. 200; IN RE MCKENZIE, 180
U.S. 536. 

GENERALLY SPEAKING, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS IS
LIMITED TO DETERMINING WHETHER ERRORS OF LAW HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. 
ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 139-40. 
BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL DIFFERENCES IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AND REVIEWING COURTS AND THAT BETWEEN LOWER AND
UPPER COURTS, A COURT OF REVIEW EXHAUSTS ITS POWER WHEN IT LAYS BARE A
MISCONCEPTION OF LAW AND COMPELS CORRECTION.  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134, 144-45.  IF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HAS COMMITTED ERRORS OF LAW FOR THE
CORRECTION OF WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED APPROPRIATE RESORT TO
THE COURTS, SUCH JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE AN IDLE CEREMONY IF THE
SITUATION WERE IRREPARABLY CHANGED BEFORE THE CORRECTION COULD BE
MADE.  THE EXISTENCE OF POWER IN A REVIEWING COURT TO STAY THE
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER DOES NOT MEAN, OF COURSE, THAT
ITS EXERCISE SHOULD BE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DIVISION OF FUNCTION WHICH
THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND THE COURT
OF REVIEW.  "A STAY IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT, EVEN IF IRREPARABLE
INJURY MIGHT OTHERWISE RESULT TO THE APPELLANT.  IN RE HABERMAN
MANUFACTURING CO., 147 U.S. 525.  IT IS AN EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL
DISCRETION.  THE PROPRIETY OF ITS ISSUE IS DEPENDENT UPON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE."  VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 272 U.S. 658, 672-73; SEE MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 501, 513-14. 

THESE CONTROLLING CONSIDERATIONS COMPEL THE ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS
WOULD NOT, WITHOUT CLEARLY EXPRESSING SUCH A PURPOSE, DEPRIVE THE COURT
OF APPEALS OF ITS CUSTOMARY POWER TO STAY ORDERS UNDER REVIEW.  IT IS
URGED THAT SUCH A MANIFESTATION APPEARS IN THE PROVISIONS FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW CONTAINED IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.  SPECIFICALLY, THE
COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT SINCE SEC. 402(A) INCORPORATES THE PROVISIONS
OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913 WHICH EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZE AND
REGULATE THE ISSUANCE OF STAY ORDERS, THE OMISSION OF ANY REFERENCE IN
SEC. 402(B) TO A POWER TO STAY ORDERS UNDER REVIEW REFLECTS A
DELIBERATE CONGRESSIONAL CHOICE TO DEPRIVE THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THIS
POWER. 

THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANCE IN THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS IS TOO OFTEN
THE PURSUIT OF A MIRAGE.  WE MUST BE WARY AGAINST INTERPOLATING OUR
NOTIONS OF POLICY IN THE INTERSTICES OF LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS.  HERE
CONGRESS SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE POWER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO ISSUE
STAY ORDERS UNDER SEC. 402(B).  BUT DENIAL OF SUCH POWER IS NOT TO BE
INFERRED MERELY BECAUSE CONGRESS FAILED SPECIFICALLY TO REPEAT THE
GENERAL GRANT OF AUXILIARY POWERS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE
COMMISSION ARGUES THAT THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS, IN VIEW OF THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT AND THE NATURE OF THE ORDERS REVIEWABLE
UNDER THE ACT, QUALIFIES THIS GENERAL AUTHORITY AND IS AS COMMANDING AS
IF CONGRESS HAD EXPRESSLY WITHHELD FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS THE POWER
TO STAY ORDERS APPEALED UNDER SEC. 402(B). 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CAN FURNISH NO SUPPORT FOR THIS CONTENTION. 
NEITHER THE COMMITTEE REPORTS NOR THE HEARINGS NOR THE DEBATES CONTAIN
ANY REFERENCE TO THE POWER TO STAY COMMISSION ORDERS ON APPEAL. 
SIGNIFICANCE IS FOUND IN H.R. 7716, 72D CONGRESS, A BILL WHICH WAS
PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES IN 1933 BUT WHICH FAILED OF ENACTMENT BECAUSE OF
A POCKET VETO.  THAT BILL PROPOSED TO AMEND SEC. 16 OF THE RADIO ACT OF
1927 SO AS TO VEST CONCURRENT JURISDICTION (WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) OF REVOCATION CASES IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS, RATHER THAN IN THE DISTRICT COURTS.  THE BILL ALSO PROVIDED
THAT THE REVIEWING COURT, WHETHER A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COULD ENTER A STAY ORDER
"UPON THE GIVING OF A BOND BY THE PARTY APPLYING FOR THE STAY IN SUCH
AMOUNT AND WITH SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS" AS THE COURT DEEMED PROPER. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED IN THE ACT OF 1934 TO
AUTHORIZE THE COURT OF APPEALS TO ISSUE STAY ORDERS IN APPEALS UNDER
SEC. 402(B), IT WOULD NOT HAVE REMAINED SILENT WHEN ONLY THE YEAR
BEFORE IT HAD ATTEMPTED TO ENACT INTO LAW A SPECIFIC PROVISION
CONFERRING THAT POWER.  BUT H.R. 7716 AND THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934 WERE NOT PARALLEL LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS.  THE FORMER WAS NOT A
COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME FOR THE UNIFICATION OF FEDERAL
REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER COMMUNICATIONS.  IT PROPOSED MERELY TO AMEND
THE RADIO ACT OF 1927 IN SEVERAL MINOR PARTICULARS.  SEE H. REP. NO.
221, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 7; SEN. REP. NO. 564, 72D CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 7; SEN. REP. NO. 1004, 72D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 9.  THE
ENACTMENT OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, HOWEVER, CAME AFTER A
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS FROM THE PRESIDENT ON FEBRUARY 26, 1934,
RECOMMENDING THE CREATION OF A SINGLE AUTHORITY OVER COMMUNICATION BY
WIRE AND RADIO.  SEN. DOC. NO. 144, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.  EARLIER IN
1934 AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE HAD MADE A STUDY OF THE ENTIRE
COMMUNICATIONS SITUATION.  EXTENSIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE QUESTION OF
REGULATING THE WHOLE FIELD OF COMMUNICATIONS WERE HELD BY BOTH THE
SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS OBVIOUS,
THEREFORE, THAT WHAT CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO DO BY THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT
OF 1934 WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT TRIED TO DO THE PREVIOUS
YEAR IN H.R. 7716. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT IN DRAFTING SEC. 402 CONGRESS HAD BEFORE IT AND
RELIED EXTENSIVELY UPON H.R. 7716, AND REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE
CITATIONS TO THAT BILL IN THE STATEMENT OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS.  H. REP.
NO. 1918, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 47-49.  BUT WHATEVER RELIANCE WAS
PLACED UPON H.R. 7716 BY THE FRAMERS OF THE 1934 LEGISLATION WAS
WITHOUT RELATION TO ITS PROVISIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.  FOR IN THAT
SAME STATEMENT (P. 47) IT IS SAID THAT THE "PROVISIONS OF THE RADIO ACT
OF 1927 RELATING TO JUDICIAL REVIEW HAVE BEEN INCLUDED" IN THE BILL. 
AND, AS HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN NOTED, EVEN THOUGH THE RADIO ACT OF 1927
CONTAINED NO PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO STAY ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION
ON APPEAL, THE COURT HAD BEEN ISSUING STAYS AS A MATTER OF COURSE
WHEREVER THEY WERE FOUND TO BE APPROPRIATE, WITHOUT OBJECTION BY THE
COMMISSION.  BOSTON BROADCASTING CO. V. FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION, 62
APP. D.C. 299, 67 F.2D 505, DECIDED JUNE 19, 1933. 

IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT, AT LEAST SINCE 1930, THE COURT OF APPEALS
HAS BEEN STAYING ORDERS BOTH OF THE FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION, UNDER
SEC. 16 OF THE RADIO ACT OF 1927, AND OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, UNDER SEC. 402(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934,
WHENEVER STAYS WERE REGARDED AS NECESSARY.  TO BE SURE, IN ONLY ONE
CASE, THE BOSTON BROADCASTING DECISION, SUPRA, DID THE COURT OF APPEALS
EVEN REFER TO THE GRANTING OF A STAY ORDER.  THE EXPLANATION IS NOT
HARD TO FIND.  THE POWER TO STAY WAS SO FIRMLY IMBEDDED IN OUR JUDICIAL
SYSTEM, SO CONSONANT WITH THE HISTORIC PROCEDURES OF FEDERAL APPELLATE
COURTS, THAT THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS TO JUSTIFY
ITS SETTLED PRACTICE.  FN5 

THE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY WHICH ARE INVOKED ARE AS FRAGILE AS THE
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS ARE INAPPOSITE.  IT IS SAID THAT THE NATURE OF
THE ORDERS REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 402(B) MAKES THE GRANT OF A STAY ORDER
MANIFESTLY INAPPROPRIATE SINCE A STAY WOULD IN EFFECT INVOLVE THE
JUDICIAL EXERCISE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION.  AN EXAMPLE IS ADDUCED
OF AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT OR A STATION LICENSE, OR FOR MODIFICATION OR RENEWAL OF A
LICENSE.  OF COURSE, NO COURT CAN GRANT AN APPLICANT AN AUTHORIZATION
WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS REFUSED.  NO ORDER THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
COULD MAKE WOULD ENABLE AN APPLICANT TO GO ON THE AIR WHEN THE
COMMISSION HAS DENIED HIM A LICENSE TO DO SO.  A STAY OF AN ORDER
DENYING AN APPLICATION WOULD IN THE NATURE OF THINGS STAY NOTHING.  IT
COULD NOT OPERATE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE AUTHORIZATION OF THAT WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAS REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE.  BUT THIS IS NO REASON FOR DENYING
THE COURT THE POWER TO ISSUE A STAY IN A SITUATION WHERE THE FUNCTION
OF THE STAY IS TO AVOID IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST
SOUGHT TO BE VINDICATED BY THE APPEAL. 

THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 DID NOT CREATE NEW PRIVATE RIGHTS. 
THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
COMMUNICATIONS.  BY SEC. 402(B)(2) CONGRESS GAVE THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO
PERSONS "AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED" BY
COMMISSION ACTION.  48 STAT. 1064, 1093.  BUT THESE PRIVATE LITIGANTS
HAVE STANDING ONLY AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470, 477. 
COMPARE NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 362-63. 
THAT A COURT IS CALLED UPON TO ENFORCE PUBLIC RIGHTS AND NOT THE
INTERESTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY DOES NOT DIMINISH ITS POWER TO PROTECT
SUCH RIGHTS.  "COURTS OF EQUITY MAY, AND FREQUENTLY DO, GO MUCH FARTHER
BOTH TO GIVE AND WITHHOLD RELIEF IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST
THAN THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO GO WHEN ONLY PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE
INVOLVED."  VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552.  AN
HISTORIC PROCEDURE FOR PRESERVING RIGHTS DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN
APPEAL IS NO LESS APPROPRIATE - UNLESS CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN TO WITHDRAW
IT - BECAUSE THE RIGHTS TO BE VINDICATED ARE THOSE OF THE PUBLIC AND
NOT OF THE PRIVATE LITIGANTS.  UNLESS CONGRESS EXPLICITLY DISCLOSES
SUCH AN INTENTION WE SHOULD NOT LIGHTLY ATTRIBUTE TO IT A DESIRE TO
WITHHOLD FROM A REVIEWING COURT THE POWER TO SAVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
FROM INJURY OR DESTRUCTION WHILE AN APPEAL IS BEING HEARD.  TO DO SO
WOULD STULTIFY THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO UTILIZE THE COURTS AS A MEANS
FOR VINDICATING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS COMPETITORS IN THE TASK OF
SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S.
183, 190-91; FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE
BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134.  COURTS NO LESS THAN ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES ARE AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT.  BOTH ARE INSTRUMENTS FOR REALIZING
PUBLIC PURPOSES. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE ORDERS REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 402(A), AS TO WHICH
THE POWER TO GRANT STAYS IS UNDENIABLE, ARE INTRINSICALLY DIFFERENT
FROM THOSE REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 402(B).  BUT WHILE THE TWO SECTIONS
ROUTE APPEALS TO DIFFERENT COURTS, THE DIFFERENTIATION WAS IN LARGE
MEASURE THE PRODUCT OF CONGRESSIONAL SOLICITUDE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF
LITIGANTS.  IT HAD NO RELATION TO THE SCOPE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION
WHICH THE COURTS WERE CALLED UPON TO PERFORM.  FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE
COMMISSION ON ITS OWN MOTION MODIFIES A STATION LICENSE, REVIEW IS HAD
UNDER SEC. 402(A) IN THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT.  HOWEVER, IF IT
GRANTS AN APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF A LICENSE, AN APPEAL LIES
UNDER SEC. 402(B) TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  BOTH CASES GIVE RISE TO THE SAME KIND OF ISSUES ON APPEAL. 
BOTH ORDERS ARE EQUALLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING STAYED ON APPEAL.  AS THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT PLAINLY SHOWS, CONGRESS PROVIDED THE TWO
ROADS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW ONLY TO SAVE A LICENSEE THE INCONVENIENCE OF
LITIGATING AN APPEAL IN WASHINGTON IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER AROSE OUT OF A PROCEEDING NOT INSTITUTED BY THE LICENSEE.  FN6 

JUDGED BY ITS OWN TERMS, ITS HISTORY, AND THE PRACTICE UNDER IT, THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 AFFORDS NO WARRANT FOR DEPRIVING THE COURT
OF APPEALS OF THE CONVENTIONAL POWER OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO STAY THE
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL
CHALLENGING ITS VALIDITY.  INDIRECT LIGHT IS SOMETIMES CAST UPON
LEGISLATION BY PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THE SAME PROBLEM IN RELATED
ENACTMENTS.  NO SUCH LIGHT IS SHED HERE.  THE NUMEROUS LAWS IN WHICH
CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES FOR THE EXERCISE OF
ITS REGULATORY POWERS DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY GENERAL LEGISLATIVE POLICY
REGARDING THE POWER TO STAY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS PENDING REVIEW.  SOME
STATUTES ARE WHOLLY SILENT; FN7  SOME TURN A COURT REVIEW INTO AN
AUTOMATIC STAY; FN8  SOME PROVIDE THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF A SUIT SHALL
NOT OPERATE AS A STAY UNLESS THE COURT SPECIFICALLY SO PROVIDES; FN9
SOME AUTHORIZE THE REVIEWING COURT TO GRANT A STAY WHERE NECESSARY. 
FN10 SIGNIFICANTLY, THE RECENT EMERGENCY PRICE CONTROL ACT OF 1942, 56
STAT. 23, EXPLICITLY DENIES THE POWER OF THE REVIEWING COURT TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS. 

THE VARIOUS ENACTMENTS IN WHICH THE STAYING POWER IS MADE EXPLICIT,
AS WELL AS THE STATUTES THAT ARE SILENT ABOUT IT, AFFORD DEBATING
POINTS BUT NO RELIABLE AIDS IN CONSTRUING THE ACT BEFORE US. ONE THING
IS CLEAR.  WHERE CONGRESS WISHED TO DEPRIVE THE COURTS OF THIS HISTORIC
POWER, IT KNEW HOW TO USE APT WORDS - ONLY ONCE HAS IT DONE SO AND IN A
STATUTE BORN OF THE EXIGENCIES OF WAR. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS BY SEC. 402(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934 HAS NOT DEPRIVED THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE POWER TO STAY - A
POWER AS OLD AS THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF THE NATION.  WE DO NOT OF COURSE
GO BEYOND THE QUESTION PUT TO US.  WE MERELY RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF
THE POWER TO GRANT A STAY.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH THE CRITERIA
WHICH SHOULD GOVERN THE COURT IN EXERCISING THAT POWER.  NOR DO WE IN
ANY WAY IMPLY THAT A STAY WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED UPON THE
SHOWING MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE. 

THE QUESTION CERTIFIED TO US IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  A SUMMARY OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE FEDERAL RADIO
COMMISSION, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL, AND OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH AUTHORITY WAS ACTUALLY
EXERCISED, IS CONTAINED IN APPENDIX A, HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, OF THE MONOGRAPH OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE DEALING WITH THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, SEN. DOC. NO. 186, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., PT.
3; SEE ALSO HERRING AND GROSS, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, PP. 210-45. 

FN2  "ANY APPLICANT FOR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FOR A STATION LICENSE,
OR FOR THE RENEWAL OR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING STATION LICENSE WHOSE
APPLICATION IS REFUSED BY THE LICENSING AUTHORITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT
TO APPEAL FROM SAID DECISION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  ...  "  44 STAT. 1162, 1169. 

FN3  WHERE THE COMMISSION REVOKES A STATION LICENSE OR MODIFIES A
LICENSE ON ITS OWN MOTION, JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AVAILABLE ONLY UNDER SEC.
402(A) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  THE REASON FOR THIS DIFFERENTIATION
APPEARS IN THE FOLLOWING SATEMENT OF SENATOR DILL, WHO STEERED THE BILL
IN THE SENATE: 

"I DESIRE TO CALL ATTENTION TO WHAT I THINK IS AN IMPORTANT FACT TO
CONSIDER IN THIS APPEAL PROVISION.  THOSE OWNERS OF RADIO BROADCASTING
STATIONS LIVING LONG DISTANCES FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHOULD NOT
BE REQUIRED TO COME TO WASHINGTON TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL FROM A
DECISION FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE.  WHEN I SAY 'WERE NOT
RESPONSIBLE' I MEAN A DECISION WHICH WAS GRANTED AGAINST THEM OR
AFFECTING THEM WHEN THEY DID NOT BRING THE CASE INTO COURT.  ...  SO WE
PROVIDE THAT WHERE THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION ARE MADE IN CASES
WHEREIN THE STATIONS TOOK NO PART IN BEGINNING THE SUITS, APPEAL MAY BE
TAKEN IN THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURTS IN THE JURISDICTIONS WHERE THE
STATIONS ARE LOCATED.  BUT IN THE CASE WHERE THE APPLICANT FOR THE
LICENSE OR THE PERMIT, OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, COMES TO THE COMMISSION
AND ASKS FOR A CHANGE IN HIS LICENSE OR ASKS FOR A NEW LICENSE, OR ASKS
FOR SOMETHING TO BE DONE BY THE COMMISSION, THEN IF THE COMMISSION
MAKES A DECISION FROM WHICH HE DESIRES TO APPEAL HE MUST MAKE HIS
APPEAL IN THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  78 CONG. REC. 8825
26.  CF. SEN. REP. NO. 781, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 9-10. 

REVOCATION ORDERS TO EITHER THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA OR THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE STATION WAS
LOCATED.  44 STAT. 1162, 1169. 

FN4  SECTION 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 377, EMPOWERS
THE FEDERAL COURTS "TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY
STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW." 
THIS PROVISION APPEARED IN THE VERY FIRST JUDICIARY ACT, 1 STAT. 73, 81
82.  COMPARE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE (1940 ED.)  TITLE 11-208,
AUTHORIZING THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA "TO ISSUE
ALL NECESSARY AND PROPER REMEDIAL PREROGATIVE WRITS IN AID OF ITS
APPELLATE JURISDICTION."  31 STAT. 1189, 1227. 

FN5  AS LATE AS FEBRUARY 23, 1939, THE COMMISSION STATED ITS POSITION
AS FOLLOWS:  "THE COMMISSION HAS NOT OPPOSED IN THE PAST, AND DOES NOT
PROPOSE IN THE FUTURE TO OPPOSE THE GRANTING OF A STAY OR SUCH
INTERLOCUTORY RESTRAINING ORDER BY THIS COURT AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OR PRESERVE THE STATUS
QUO PENDING DETERMINATION OF AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION,
IN ANY CASE WHERE SUCH A STAY OR RESTRAINING ORDER APPEARS REASONABLY
TO BE NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE."  OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR STAY ORDER
FILED BY THE COMMISSION IN CROSLEY CORP. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, NO. 7351, COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
FEB. 23, 1939, PP. 1-2. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN7  E.G., COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT OF 1922, 42 STAT. 998, 1001, 7
U.S.C. SEC. 9; RADIO ACT OF 1927, 44 STAT. 1162; RAILROAD RETIREMENT
ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 307, 315, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 228K. 

FN8  E.G., FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 977,
980, 27 U.S.C. SEC. 204H; INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 789,
844, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 80A-42(B). 

FN9  E.G., AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 31, 7 U.S.C.
SEC. 1367; SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 74, 80, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77I;
TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939, 53 STAT. 1175, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77VVV;
PUBLIC UTILITY ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 803, 834, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79X;
INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 789, 844, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 80A
42(B); INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT. 847, 856, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 80B-13; FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, 1065, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 210(B); BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 85, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 836(B); NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 821, 832, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
717R (C).    FN10  E.G., CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 973,
1024, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 228K; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT OF 1914, 38
STAT. 719, AS AMENDED, 52 STAT. 111, 113, 15 U.S.C. SEC.
45(C)(AUTHORIZING THE COURT TO ISSUE SUCH WRITS AS "ARE NECESSARY IN
ITS JUDGMENT TO PREVENT INJURY TO THE PUBLIC OR TO COMPETITORS PENDENTE
LITE"). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE.    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THROUGH SEC. 402(A) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT
OF 1934 THAT IN APPEALS FROM CERTAIN CLASSES OF ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION THE APPELLATE COURT MAY ISSUE A STAY.  THE
ORDER HERE INVOLVED IS OF A CLASS WHICH IS EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED FROM SEC.
402(A).  SEC. 402(B), WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN APPEAL FROM THIS CLASS OF
ORDER, CONTAINS NO PROVISION WHATSOEVER FOR A JUDICIAL STAY.  WHERE
CONGRESS IN ONE SECTION OF AN ACT HAS PROVIDED FOR A STAY OF CERTAIN
ORDERS BUT NOT OF OTHERS, IT HAS NOT REMAINED SILENT ON THE SUBJECT. 
IT HAS DRAWN A LINE.  AND THAT LINE SHOULD NOT BE OBLITERATED BY US, IN
ABSENCE OF PLAIN AND COMPELLING INDICATIONS THAT THE PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE FACE OF THE STATUTE REVEALS. 
THERE ARE NO SUCH REASONS HERE. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY GIVES NO COMFORT TO THE VIEW OF THE
MAJORITY.  IN DRAFTING SEC. 402, CONGRESS HAD BEFORE IT H.R. 7716, 72D
CONGRESS.  THAT BILL, DESIGNED TO AMEND THE RADIO ACT OF 1927, HAD BEEN
PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES IN 1933 BUT HAD FAILED OF ENACTMENT BECAUSE OF A
POCKET VETO.  UNDER SEC. 16(F) OF THAT BILL, ORDERS OF THE TYPE HERE IN
QUESTION COULD BE STAYED BY THE APPELLATE COURT.  CONGRESS RELIED
EXTENSIVELY ON THAT EARLIER BILL IN DRAFTING SEC. 402.  H. REP. NO.
1918, 73D CONG., 2ND SESS., PP. 47-49.  IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED THE
APPELLATE COURT TO HAVE THE POWER TO STAY THIS TYPE OF ORDER, IT HARDLY
SEEMS LIKELY, AS THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT, THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE
FAILED TO INCLUDE IT, WHEN, ONLY THE YEAR BEFORE, IT HAD ATTEMPTED TO
WRITE INTO THE STATUTE A SPECIFIC PROVISION CONFERRING THAT POWER.  BUT
IF WE DISREGARD THAT CIRCUMSTANCE AND TURN TO OTHER PARTS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS THAT THE LINE WHICH
CONGRESS DREW BETWEEN SEC. 402(A) AND SEC. 402(B) WAS INADVERTENT OR
ACCIDENTAL. 

NOR ARE WE JUSTIFIED IN REWRITING THE STATUTE TO IRON OUT POSSIBLE
LOGICAL INCONSISTENCIES IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF ORDERS WHICH CONGRESS
HAS MADE IN SEC. 402(A) AND SEC. 402(B).  IF WE WERE A LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE, PERHAPS WE WOULD NOT RETAIN IN SEC. 402(A) ORDERS WHICH ARE
MADE BY THE COMMISSION ON ITS OWN MOTION AND WHICH MODIFY A STATION
LICENSE, SINCE SUCH ORDERS IF MADE PURSUANT TO AN APPLICATION ARE
COVERED BY SEC. 402(B).  BUT TO SEIZE ON THAT LACK OF SYMMETRY HERE IS
TO MISS THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.  THE NATURE OF THE RUN OF THE ORDERS
EXCEPTED FROM THE STAY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 402(A) DEMANDS RESPECT FOR
THE WORDS OF THE ACT.  THE INSTANT CASE IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS BROS., 309 U.S. 470, HOLDS
THAT A COMPETITOR SUCH AS APPELLANT HAS NO PRIVATE PROPERTY INTEREST
WHICH MAY BE PROTECTED ON APPEAL.  "THE POLICY OF THE ACT IS CLEAR THAT
NO PERSON IS TO HAVE ANYTHING IN THE NATURE OF A PROPERTY RIGHT AS A
RESULT OF THE GRANTING OF A LICENSE."  ID., P. 475.  ANY INJURY TO AN
EXISTING STATION AS IS ALLEGED HERE "IS NOT A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT
ELEMENT TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION IN DETERMINING
WHETHER IT SHALL GRANT OR WITHHOLD A LICENSE."  ID., P. 476.  THUS IT
IS MANIFEST THAT THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO EXTEND THE STAY PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 402(A) TO THE RUN OF ORDERS OF THIS TYPE MAKES SENSE.  THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, WHICH IS INCORPORATED INTO SEC. 402(A), ALLOWS
A TEMPORARY STAY "WHERE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE WOULD OTHERWISE ENSUE TO THE
PETITIONER."  38 STAT. 208, 220.  BUT WHERE APPEALS UNDER SEC.
402(B)(2), AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, ARE NOT SHOWN TO INVOLVE PRIVATE
RIGHTS, ANALOGIES TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE POWER TO ISSUE A STAY IS
IMPLIED BECAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE MAY BE DONE AN APPELLANT WHOSE
INDIVIDUAL INTEREST HAS BEEN UNLAWFULLY INVADED ARE INAPPOSITE.  FOR
THE SAME REASON, STATISTICS AS TO THE PRESENCE OF THIS POWER IN
STATUTES OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ARE IRRELEVANT, IN ABSENCE OF
A SHOWING THAT IN THE PRECISE SITUATIONS THERE INVOLVED NO PRIVATE
RIGHTS WERE AT STAKE. 

AND THAT LEADS TO A RELATED REASON WHY IT WILL NOT DO TO LEAN ON "THE
HISTORIC PROCEDURES OF FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS" SO THAT AN IMPLIED
POWER TO ISSUE A STAY IN THIS TYPE OF CASE MAY BE FOUND.  "THE OFFICE
AND JURISDICTION OF A COURT OF EQUITY, UNLESS ENLARGED BY EXPRESS
STATUTE, ARE LIMITED TO THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF PROPERTY."  IN RE
SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200, 210.  ALL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ASIDE (MUSKRAT
V. UNITED STATES, 219 U.S. 346), WE SHOULD REQUIRE EXPLICIT,
UNEQUIVOCAL AUTHORIZATION BEFORE WE PERMITTED AN APPELLANT WHO HAS NO
INDIVIDUAL SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT AT STAKE IN THE LITIGATION TO OBTAIN A
STAY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  REPEATED ATTEMPTS OF PRIVATE
LITIGANTS TO OBTAIN A SPECIAL STAKE IN PUBLIC RIGHTS HAVE BEEN
CONSISTENTLY DENIED.  SEE MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447; SPRUNT
& SON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 249; ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302
U.S. 464; TENNESSEE ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
306 U.S. 118; ATLANTA V. ICKES, 308 U.S. 517; SINGER & SONS V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., 311 U.S. 295.  THE ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A STAY IS BUT
ANOTHER MANIFESTATION, ALBEIT OBLIQUE, OF THAT SAME ENDEAVOR.  HENCE,
INSTEAD OF STARTING FROM THE PREMISE THAT AN "HISTORIC POWER" TO ISSUE
A STAY IN THIS TYPE OF CASE WILL BE READILY IMPLIED, WE SHOULD ASSUME
JUST THE CONTRARY.  NOT EVEN LONG ACQUIESCENCE OR APPROVAL ON THE PART
OF THE COMMISSION SHOULD LEAD US TO MAKE SUCH A DEPARTURE FROM THOSE
HISTORIC, ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES.  FOR THAT REASON ALONE, SEC. 402(B)
SHOULD BE READ NARROWLY AND RESTRICTIVELY. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT CONGRESS ENTRUSTED THE VINDICATION OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST TO PRIVATE LITIGANTS.  THE SANDERS CASE, PROPERLY CONSTRUED,
MERELY MEANS THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION OF APPEALS BY A
"PERSON AGGRIEVED" OR BY ONE "WHOSE INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED"
BY THE COMMISSION'S DECISION.  SEC. 402(B).  BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN
THAT AN APPELLANT HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A
COMPETING STATION.  UNLESS HE CAN SHOW THAT HIS INDIVIDUAL INTEREST HAS
BEEN UNLAWFULLY INVADED, THERE IS MERELY DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA AND NO
CAUSE OF ACTION ON THE MERITS.  ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, SUPRA;
GREENWOOD COUNTY V. DUKE POWER CO., 81 F.2D 986, 999.  AND SEE DUKE
POWER CO. V. GREENWOOD COUNTY, 302 U.S. 485.  CONGRESS COULD HAVE SAID
THAT THE HOLDER OF A RADIO LICENSE HAS AN INDIVIDUAL SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT
TO BE FREE OF COMPETITION RESULTING FROM THE ISSUANCE OF ANOTHER
LICENSE AND CAUSING INJURY.  IN THAT EVENT, UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN
MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THERE WOULD BE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
INVASION OF A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT.  BUT AS WE SAID IN THE SANDERS CASE,
CONGRESS DID NOT CREATE SUCH A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT.  AND NO FACTS ARE
SHOWN HERE WHICH WOULD BRING THIS APPEAL OUTSIDE THE RULE OF THAT
CASE.  ON THAT ASSUMPTION, I FAIL TO SEE HOW AN APPEAL STATUTE
CONSTITUTIONALLY COULD AUTHORIZE A PERSON WHO SHOWS NO CASE OR
CONTROVERSY TO CALL ON THE COURTS TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION.  A FORTIORI HE WOULD HAVE NO STANDING TO OBTAIN A STAY. 

FURTHERMORE, THE POWER TO ISSUE A STAY IN THIS TYPE OF CASE CANNOT BE
FOUND IN THE "ALL WRITS" STATUTES.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 262; DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CODE (1940 ED.)  TITLE 11-208.  AS WE STATED IN FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134,
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE COMMISSION IS NOT
THAT OF FEDERAL COURTS INTER SE.  "  ...  TO ASSIMILATE THE RELATION OF
THESE ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AND THE COURTS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LOWER AND UPPER COURTS IS TO DISREGARD THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSES OF THE
MOVEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION AND AT THE SAME TIME TO
DISREGARD THE TRADITIONAL SCOPE, HOWEVER FAR-REACHING, OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS.  UNLESS THESE VITAL DIFFERENTIATIONS BETWEEN THE FUNCTIONS OF
JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ARE OBSERVED, COURTS WILL STRAY
OUTSIDE THEIR PROVINCE AND READ THE LAWS OF CONGRESS THROUGH THE
DISTORTING LENSES OF INAPPLICABLE LEGAL DOCTRINE."  P. 144.  THE
COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS, IS THE ULTIMATE GUARDIAN OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST UNDER THIS ACT.  THE APPELLATE COURT IS LIMITED TO A
CORRECTION OF "ERRORS OF LAW."  ID., P. 145.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COMMISSION, NOT THE COURT, DETERMINES WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST WILL
BE SERVED BY AN APPLICATION.  ID., PP. 144-145.  HENCE, THE POWER OF
THE COURTS IN THIS SITUATION TO ISSUE WRITS UNDER THE "ALL WRITS"
STATUTES SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE PROTECTION OF ITS JURISDICTION.  IF,
AS HERE, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STATION IS COMPLETED PENDING APPEAL BY
ANOTHER LICENSEE, THE COURT'S JURISDICTION IS NOT IMPAIRED, THOUGH WE
ASSUME THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL AND THAT APPELLANT HAS A
CAUSE OF ACTION ON THE MERITS.  IF THE COMMISSION HAS COMMITTED AN
ERROR OF LAW, IT MUST BOW TO THE DECREE OF THE COURT AND REVISE ITS
ORDER.  BUT TO ALLOW THE COURT TO GO BEYOND THAT AND FIND AN IMPLIED
POWER TO ISSUE A STAY IN THIS TYPE OF CASE IS TO DISTORT THE STATUTORY
SCHEME.  12 AIR L. REV. 224.  JEALOUS REGARD FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE
ROLE AND FUNCTION IN THIS FIELD WILL LEAVE TO CONGRESS ANY ENLARGEMENT,
WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, OF THE JUDICIAL POWER. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. IRWIN, 316 U.S. 23 


NO. 658.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1942.  - 122 F.2D
73, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LIBRARY BUILDING AT HOWARD UNIVERSITY IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - A PROJECT FOR WHICH FEDERAL FUNDS WERE
APPROPRIATED BY ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1931, AND WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY WAS
APPROVED, AND FUNDS ALLOTTED THEREFOR, BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER TITLE II OF THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT OF JUNE 16, 1933 - WAS A "PUBLIC WORK"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MILLER ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1935; AND THEREFORE
THE CONTRACTORS WERE PROPERLY REQUIRED TO POST A PAYMENT BOND SECURING
MATERIALMEN; AND A MATERIALMAN WHO SUPPLIED MATERIALS FOR THE PROJECT
AND HAD NOT BEEN PAID THEREFOR WAS ENTITLED TO SUE ON THE BOND IN THE
NAME OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 27. 

2.  THE MILLER ACT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE "PUBLIC WORKS"
AUTHORIZED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY
ACT; AND, UNDER THE LATTER ACT, THE LIBRARY AT HOWARD UNIVERSITY WAS A
"PUBLIC WORK," SINCE IT WAS A PROJECT "OF THE CHARACTER HERETOFORE
CONSTRUCTED OR CARRIED ON  ...  WITH PUBLIC AID TO SERVE THE INTERESTS
OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC."  P. 30. 

UNITED STATES TO THE USE OF NOLAND COMPANY, INC. V. IRWIN ET AL.,
TRADING AS IRWIN & LEIGHTON, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 602, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
OVERRULING A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT UPON A BOND. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY ACT OF FEBRUARY 14, 1931,  FN1  MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
LIBRARY BUILDING AT HOWARD UNIVERSITY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE
COST WAS NOT TO EXCEED $800,000, OF WHICH SUM $400,000 WAS MADE
IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE.  ONLY A SMALL PART OF THIS MONEY HAD BEEN USED
FOR ARCHITECTS' FEES WHEN THE PRESIDENT, SHORTLY AFTER HIS INAUGURATION
IN 1933, ORDERED IMPOUNDED THESE AND ALL OTHER FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR
CONSTRUCTION. 

TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT OF JUNE 16, 1933,
FN2 CREATED A FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS, WITH
ALL OF ITS POWERS VESTED IN AN ADMINISTRATOR.  BY SEC. 202 THE
ADMINISTRATOR WAS DIRECTED TO "PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF
PUBLIC WORKS, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE AMONG OTHER THINGS THE FOLLOWING:
...  (C) ANY PROJECTS OF THE CHARACTER HERETOFORE CONSTRUCTED OR
CARRIED ON EITHER DIRECTLY BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR WITH PUBLIC AID TO
SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; ...  "  AND SEC. 203
PROVIDED THAT "WITH A VIEW TO INCREASING EMPLOYMENT QUICKLY  ...  THE
PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR OR
THROUGH SUCH OTHER AGENCIES AS HE MAY DESIGNATE OR CREATE, (1) TO
CONSTRUCT, FINANCE, OR AID IN THE CONSTRUCTION OR FINANCING OF ANY
PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAM PREPARED PURSUANT TO SEC.
202; ...  " 

ON AUGUST 24, 1935, CONGRESS PASSED THE MILLER ACT.  FN3  BY THE TERMS
OF THIS STATUTE, "BEFORE ANY CONTRACT, EXCEEDING $2,000 IN AMOUNT, FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, OR REPAIR OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING OR
PUBLIC WORK OF THE UNITED STATES IS AWARDED TO ANY PERSON, SUCH PERSON
SHALL FURNISH TO THE UNITED STATES ...  A PAYMENT BOND WITH A SURETY OR
SURETIES SATISFACTORY TO SUCH OFFICER FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS
SUPPLYING LABOR AND MATERIAL IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK PROVIDED
FOR IN SAID CONTRACT FOR THE USE OF EACH SUCH PERSON."  THE ACT ALSO
PERMITTED PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED MATERIALS AND LABOR TO BRING SUIT ON THE
BOND IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THESE ARE THE STATUTES APPLICABLE TO THIS DISPUTE. 

AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (WHO HAD BEEN NAMED ADMINISTRATOR PURSUANT TO
TITLE II) APPROVED THE LIBRARY BUILDING AT HOWARD UNIVERSITY AS A PART
OF THE PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM AND ALLOTTED $1,120,811.58 FOR ITS
CONSTRUCTION.  ON DECEMBER 5, 1936, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH
RESPONDENT, IRWIN & LEIGHTON, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIBRARY
BUILDING.  AS A CONDITION OF THE CONTRACT, IRWIN & LEIGHTON WAS
REQUIRED TO FURNISH A BOND TO SECURE THE LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN,
UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE MILLER ACT.  FN4  ACCORDINGLY, IT POSTED SUCH A
BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $408,618, WITH RESPONDENT UNITED STATES GUARANTEE
COMPANY AS SURETY. 

PETITIONER FURNISHED TO A SUB-CONTRACTOR MATERIALS WORTH $23,649.35. 
OF THIS SUM IT WAS PAID $11,146.80, LEAVING DUE $12,502.55 WITH
INTEREST.  WHEN PAYMENT OF THIS AMOUNT WAS REFUSED, PETITIONER BROUGHT
THIS SUIT ON THE BOND IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES.  RESPONDENTS
MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE LIBRARY BUILDING AT HOWARD UNIVERSITY WAS NOT A "PUBLIC WORK,"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MILLER ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE
MOTION TO DISMISS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ALLOWED A SPECIAL APPEAL AND
REVERSED, 122 F.2D 73, ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS OWN EARLIER DECISION IN
MAIATICO CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 65 APP. D.C. 62, 79 F.2D
418.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US THEREFORE IS WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
LIBRARY WAS A "PUBLIC WORK" AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE MILLER ACT.  WE
THINK THAT IT IS, THAT THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WAS
CONSEQUENTLY AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE RESPONDENTS TO POST A BOND SECURING
MATERIALMEN, AND THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO SUE ON THE BOND IN THE
NAME OF THE UNITED STATES. 

NO AID IN ASCERTAINING THE MEANING OF "PUBLIC WORKS" IS TO BE FOUND
IN THE MILLER ACT ITSELF.  BUT IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT,
PASSED TWO YEARS BEFORE THE MILLER ACT, CONGRESS DEFINED IT AS
INCLUDING "ANY PROJECTS OF THE CHARACTER HERETOFORE CONSTRUCTED OR
CARRIED ON EITHER DIRECTLY BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR WITH PUBLIC AID TO
SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC."  THE LIBRARY AT HOWARD
UNIVERSITY WAS NOT ONLY A PROJECT "OF THE CHARACTER HERETOFORE
CONSTRUCTED OR CARRIED ON  ...  WITH PUBLIC AID"; IT HAD BEEN DIRECTLY
AND SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS IN 1931 AND MONEY HAD ACTUALLY
BEEN APPROPRIATED FOR IT.  AND IT REQUIRES NO DISCUSSION THAT HOWARD
UNIVERSITY, ESTABLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS "FOR THE EDUCATION
OF YOUTH IN THE LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES,"  FN5  SERVES "THE INTERESTS
OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC." 

IN MAIATICO CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, UPON WHICH THE
COURT OF APPEALS PRINCIPALLY RELIED IN REACHING AN OPPOSITE CONCLUSION,
THE SAME COURT HAD CONSTRUED A DIFFERENT STATUTE, THE HEARD ACT OF
AUGUST 13, 1894.  FN6  THAT ACT REQUIRED THAT "ANY PERSON OR PERSONS
ENTERING INTO A FORMAL CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING, OR THE PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION
OF ANY PUBLIC WORK, OR FOR REPAIRS UPON ANY PUBLIC BUILDING OR PUBLIC
WORK, SHALL BE REQUIRED" TO POST A BOND FOR THE SECURITY OF BOTH THE
UNITED STATES AND THE SUPPLIERS OF LABOR AND MATERIALS.  IT PERMITTED
THE LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN TO ENFORCE THEIR CLAIMS BY INTERVENING IN
ANY SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES ON THE BOND.  THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE
MAIATICO CASE SUPPLIED LABOR AND MATERIALS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE
DORMITORY BUILDINGS AT HOWARD UNIVERSITY, THE CONTRACT FOR WHICH HAD
BEEN LET TO THE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BY THE UNITED STATES IN
NOVEMBER, 1930.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT THE PLAINTIFFS COULD
NOT RECOVER ON THE DEFENDANT'S BOND BECAUSE THE DORMITORIES WERE NOT
"PUBLIC BUILDINGS" AND THEIR CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT A "PUBLIC WORK."  IT
BASED THIS CONCLUSION ON THE THEORY THAT "PUBLIC BUILDINGS" OR "PUBLIC
WORKS," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HEARD ACT, INCLUDED ONLY BUILDINGS
WHICH BELONGED TO THE UNITED STATES.  SINCE HOWARD UNIVERSITY IS A
PRIVATE INSTITUTION AND SINCE IT HELD TITLE TO THE DORMITORIES,
RECOVERY ON THE BOND WAS DENIED TO THE SUPPLIERS OF MATERIALS AND
LABOR.  FN7 

WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE VALIDITY OF THIS NARROW FORMULA WHEN
APPLIED TO THE HEARD ACT, WE CANNOT APPROVE ITS APPLICATION TO THIS
SUIT UNDER THE MILLER ACT.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF
"PUBLIC WORKS" HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLY ALTERED SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE
HEARD ACT IN 1894, AND PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE LAST DOZEN YEARS, AND
THE QUESTION OF TITLE TO THE BUILDINGS OR IMPROVEMENTS OR TO THE LAND
ON WHICH THEY ARE SITUATED IS NO LONGER OF PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE.  FN8
BUT WE ARE NOT LEFT TO SUCH VAGUE GUIDANCE.  TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER
THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT INVOLVED IN THE MAIATICO CASE, CONGRESS,
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, SPECIFICALLY DEFINED "PUBLIC
WORKS" AS INCLUDING "ANY PROJECTS OF THE CHARACTER HERETOFORE
CONSTRUCTED OR CARRIED ON EITHER DIRECTLY BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR WITH
PUBLIC AID TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC."  THE MILLER
ACT WAS PASSED TWO YEARS LATER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENLARGING THE
PROTECTION WHICH THE HEARD ACT HAD AFFORDED TO LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN
BY FACILITATING THE PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCING THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE
CONTRACTOR.  DURING THE HEARINGS ON THE SEVERAL BILLS FROM WHICH THE
MILLER ACT EVOLVED, CONGRESSMAN DUFFY, OF OHIO, THE AUTHOR OF ONE OF
THE BILLS AND A MEMBER OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE THAT DRAFTED THE ACT,
DECLARED WITHOUT DISSENT BY ANY REPRESENTATIVE:  "IF THIS BILL WERE
PASSED BY THIS CONGRESS IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PUBLIC
WORKS PROGRAM AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR ITS IMPORTANCE."  FN9 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE MILLER ACT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE
"PUBLIC WORKS" AUTHORIZED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT.  THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT DID NOT
LEAVE TO SPECULATION THE NATURE OF THE "PUBLIC WORKS" THAT CONGRESS
ENVISAGED.  ITS LANGUAGE WAS NOT TECHNICAL, BUT PLAIN AND SPECIFIC. 
EXPRESSLY INCLUDED WERE "PROJECTS OF THE CHARACTER HERETOFORE
CONSTRUCTED OR CARRIED ON  ...  WITH PUBLIC AID TO SERVE THE INTERESTS
OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC."  BEYOND QUESTION THE LIBRARY AT HOWARD
UNIVERSITY WAS SUCH A PROJECT. 

THE RESPONDENTS EVIDENTLY HAD NO DIFFICULTY INTERPRETING THE LANGUAGE
OF THE RECOVERY ACT OR THE MILLER ACT UNTIL THEY WERE CALLED UPON TO
MEET THE CLAIMS OF PETITIONER.  THE RECORD DOES NOT REVEAL THAT IRWIN &
LEIGHTON OBJECTED TO POSTING THE BOND WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED. 
IT PAID A PREMIUM OF $8,172.25 FOR THE BOND, AND THE SURETY COMPANY
ACCEPTED IT WITHOUT QUESTION.  PRESUMABLY, THESE ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH CAUSED THE COURT OF APPEALS TO REMARK UPON "THE STRONG EQUITIES"
OF PETITIONER'S CASE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE BOND,
AND THAT PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO BRING THIS ACTION ON IT.  HOLDING
THIS VIEW, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE OTHER QUESTIONS
RAISED BY PETITIONER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  46 STAT. 1115, 1160. 

FN2  48 STAT. 195, 201. 

FN3  49 STAT. 793; U.S.C., TITLE 40, SECS. 270 A-D: 

"SEC. 1(A)  BEFORE ANY CONTRACT, EXCEEDING $2,000 IN AMOUNT, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, OR REPAIR OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING OR PUBLIC
WORK OF THE UNITED STATES IS AWARDED TO ANY PERSON, SUCH PERSON SHALL
FURNISH TO THE UNITED STATES THE FOLLOWING BONDS, WHICH SHALL BECOME
BINDING UPON THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO SUCH PERSON, WHO IS
HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED AS 'CONTRACTOR': 

"(1)  A PERFORMANCE BOND WITH A SURETY OR SURETIES SATISFACTORY TO
THE OFFICER AWARDING SUCH CONTRACT, AND IN SUCH AMOUNT AS HE SHALL DEEM
ADEQUATE, FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"(2)  A PAYMENT BOND WITH A SURETY OR SURETIES SATISFACTORY TO SUCH
OFFICER FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS SUPPLYING LABOR AND MATERIAL
IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK PROVIDED FOR IN SAID CONTRACT FOR THE
USE OF EACH SUCH PERSON.  WHENEVER THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE
TERMS OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE NOT MORE THAN $1,000,000 THE SAID
PAYMENT BOND SHALL BE IN A SUM OF ONE-HALF THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY
THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.  WHENEVER THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE
TERMS OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE MORE THAN $1,000,000 AND NOT MORE THAN
$5,000,000, THE SAID PAYMENT BOND SHALL BE IN A SUM OF 40 PER CENTUM OF
THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.  WHENEVER THE
TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE MORE THAN
$5,000,000 THE SAID PAYMENT BOND SHALL BE IN THE SUM OF $2,500,000. 

"(B)  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ANY CONTRACT IS
AUTHORIZED TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT OF A PERFORMANCE BOND AND PAYMENT
BOND FOR SO MUCH OF THE WORK UNDER SUCH CONTRACT AS IS TO BE PERFORMED
IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY IF HE FINDS THAT IT IS IMPRACTICABLE FOR THE
CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH SUCH BONDS. 

"(C)  NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE
AUTHORITY OF ANY CONTRACTING OFFICER TO REQUIRE A PERFORMANCE BOND OR
OTHER SECURITY IN ADDITION TO THOSE, OR IN CASES OTHER THAN THE CASES
SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION. 

"SEC. 2(A)  EVERY PERSON WHO HAS FURNISHED LABOR OR MATERIAL IN THE
PROSECUTION OF THE WORK PROVIDED FOR IN SUCH CONTRACT, IN RESPECT OF
WHICH A PAYMENT BOND IS FURNISHED UNDER THIS ACT AND WHO HAS NOT BEEN
PAID IN FULL THEREFOR BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF A PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS
AFTER THE DAY ON WHICH THE LAST OF THE LABOR WAS DONE OR PERFORMED BY
HIM OR MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED OR SUPPLIED BY HIM FOR WHICH SUCH CLAIM
IS MADE, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE ON SUCH PAYMENT BOND FOR THE
AMOUNT, OR THE BALANCE THEREOF, UNPAID AT THE TIME OF INSTITUTION OF
SUCH SUIT AND TO PROSECUTE SAID ACTION TO FINAL EXECUTION AND JUDGMENT
FOR THE SUM OR SUMS JUSTLY DUE HIM: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY PERSON
HAVING DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A SUBCONTRACTOR BUT NO
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WITH THE CONTRACTOR
FURNISHING SAID PAYMENT BOND SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF ACTION UPON THE SAID
PAYMENT BOND UPON GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO SAID CONTRACTOR WITHIN
NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH PERSON DID OR PERFORMED THE
LAST OF THE LABOR OR FURNISHED OR SUPPLIED THE LAST OF THE MATERIAL FOR
WHICH SUCH CLAIM IS MADE, STATING WITH SUBSTANTIAL ACCURACY THE AMOUNT
CLAIMED AND THE NAME OF THE PARTY TO WHOM THE MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED OR
SUPPLIED OR FOR WHOM THE LABOR WAS DONE OR PERFORMED.  SUCH NOTICE
SHALL BE SERVED BY MAILING THE SAME BY REGISTERED MAIL, POSTAGE
PREPAID, IN AN ENVELOP ADDRESSED TO THE CONTRACTOR AT ANY PLACE HE
MAINTAINS AN OFFICE OR CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS, OR HIS RESIDENCE, OR IN
ANY MANNER IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH
THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IS SITUATED IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO SERVE
SUMMONS.    "(B)  EVERY SUIT INSTITUTED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE
BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON
SUING, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH
THE CONTRACT WAS TO BE PERFORMED AND EXECUTED AND NOT ELSEWHERE,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IN SUCH SUIT, BUT NO SUCH
SUIT SHALL BE COMMENCED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE
OF FINAL SETTLEMENT OF SUCH CONTRACT.  THE UNITED STATES SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY COSTS OR EXPENSES OF ANY SUCH SUIT." 

FN4  BULLETIN NO. 51 OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC
WORKS, "INFORMATION RELATING TO THE NEGOTIATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
CONTRACTS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS UNDER TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT" (REVISED, OCT. 1, 1935).  PART I, SEC. 2(A):
"THE FORMS REQUIRED FOR GENERAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
REPAIR PROJECTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:  ... U.S. GOVERNMENT STANDARD FORM OF
PAYMENT BOND NO. 25A FOR THE PROTECTION OF LABOR AND MATERIALMEN,
PURSUANT TO PUBLIC ACT NO. 321, SEVENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, APPROVED
AUGUST 24, 1935(THE MILLER ACT)." 

FN5  14 STAT. 438. 

FN6  28 STAT. 278, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF FEB. 24, 1905, 33 STAT.
811 AND THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1911, 36 STAT. 1167. 

FN7  THIS EMPHASIS UPON TITLE TO THE BUILDING OR PROJECT OR TO THE
LAND ON WHICH IT IS SITUATED FINDS SUPPORT, AS FAR AS THE HEARD ACT IS
CONCERNED, IN TITLE GUARANTY & TRUST CO. V. CRANE CO., 219 U.S. 24; 23
OP. ATTY. GEN. 174. 

FN8  SEE PETERSON V. UNITED STATES, 119 F.2D 145, AT 147-148. 

FN9  HEARINGS ON H.R. 2068, H.R. 4027, H.R. 4231, H.R. 4461, H.R.
5054, H.R. 6018, H.R. 6115, H.R. 6677, H.R. 8519(MARCH 8, 22, APRIL 26,
AND MAY 3, 1935), COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 71. 
..END :





SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 316 U.S. 31 


NO. 320.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 10, 1942.  - DECIDED APRIL 6, 1942.  - 120
F.2D 505, REVERSED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS NOT OBLIGED TO PERMIT THE
PRESENCE OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYER AT AN ELECTION BY THE
EMPLOYEES OF THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  P. 37. 

2.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EMPLOYMENT OF SEAMEN AUTOMATICALLY
TERMINATES WHEN THEY SIGN OFF SHIPPING ARTICLES AT THE END OF THE
VOYAGE MUST BE DETERMINED UPON ALL THE EVIDENCE OF THE EMPLOYER'S
EMPLOYMENT CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES.  LABOR BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP
CORP., 309 U.S. 206.  P. 37. 

3.  SEAMEN WHO, IN ORDER TO COMPEL RECOGNITION OF THEIR UNION, STAGE
A STRIKE ON BOARD THEIR SHIP WHILE SHE IS AWAY FROM HER HOME PORT AND
LYING TIED UP TO A DOCK IN ANOTHER PORT IN THIS COUNTRY; AND WHO
DELIBERATELY AND PERSISTENTLY DISOBEY AND DEFY THE LAWFUL COMMANDS OF
THEIR CAPTAIN AND OTHER OFFICERS THAT THEY PERFORM THEIR DUTIES IN
MAKING READY FOR THE DEPARTURE OF THE SHIP, ARE GUILTY OF MUTINY AND
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MUTINY IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 292 AND 293 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE.  P. 40. 

4.  WHEN SEAMEN ARE DISCHARGED FOR ACTS OF MUTINY ABOARD SHIP, THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10(C) OF THAT
ACT TO COMPEL THEIR REINSTATEMENT.  P. 46. 

SOUTHERN STEAMSHIP CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 594, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENFORCING AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UPON THE PETITION OF A UNION NOT A PARTY TO THE PRESENT SUIT, THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED AN ELECTION AMONG PETITIONER'S
UNLICENSED EMPLOYEES TO DETERMINE THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE.  THE ELECTIONS WERE HELD ON BOARD SEVEN OF PETITIONER'S
VESSELS DURING OCTOBER, 1937.  IN THE CASE OF THE ELECTION ON BOARD THE
S.S. CITY OF HOUSTON, THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED OBJECTED TO THE
PRESENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER DURING THE VOTING, AND
CONSEQUENTLY NONE WAS ADMITTED BY THE BOARD.  NO SUCH OBJECTION WAS
RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBSEQUENT BALLOTING, AND PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATIVES WERE PRESENT WHILE THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON BOARD THE
REMAINING SIX VESSELS.  THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OBTAINED A CLEAR
MAJORITY OF ALL THE VOTES CAST.  BECAUSE OF THE EXCLUSION OF ITS
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE VOTING ON THE S.S. CITY OF HOUSTON, PETITIONER
OBJECTED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF THE N.M.U. AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT.  ON JANUARY 26, 1938, THE
BOARD REJECTED PETITIONER'S CONTENTION, AND ISSUED A CERTIFICATION
ORDER.  4 N.L.R.B. 1140. 

SIX MONTHS LATER, ON JULY 26, THE N.M.U. FILED CHARGES AGAINST
PETITIONER, WHICH IT AMENDED ON NOVEMBER 22.  ON NOVEMBER 23, THE BOARD
ISSUED A COMPLAINT IN WHICH IT ACCUSED PETITIONER OF VIOLATIONS OF
SECS. 8(1), (3) AND (5) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  U.S.C.,
TITLE 29, SEC. 158(1), (3), (5).  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT WERE
THAT THE N.M.U. HAD BEEN CERTIFIED IN JANUARY AS EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE; THAT PETITIONER HAD CONSISTENTLY REFUSED SINCE THAT
TIME TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION; THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN A STRIKE HAD OCCURRED, ON JULY 18, ABOARD PETITIONER'S S.S.
CITY OF FORT WORTH, WHILE DOCKED AT HOUSTON, TEXAS; THAT UPON THE CITY
OF FORT WORTH'S RETURN TO PHILADELPHIA, ON JULY 25, FIVE MEMBERS OF THE
CREW FN1  WERE DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITY IN
THE UNION, AND PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE
STRIKE; AND THAT AS A RESULT OF THESE DISCHARGES OTHER MEMBERS  FN2  OF
THE CREW OF THE FORT WORTH HAD GONE ON STRIKE WHILE THE VESSEL WAS AT
HOME DOCK IN PHILADELPHIA.  IN ITS ANSWER TO THIS COMPLAINT, PETITIONER
GENERALLY DENIED THESE ALLEGATIONS AND CHIEFLY CONTENDED:  FIRST, THAT
IT HAD BEEN UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN WITH THE N.M.U., BECAUSE THE
BOARD'S REFUSAL TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE ELECTION
ABOARD THE S.S. CITY OF HOUSTON RENDERED THE ENTIRE CERTIFICATION
PROCEEDINGS VOID; AND SECOND, THAT THE DISCHARGE OF THE FIVE MEMBERS OF
THE CITY OF FORT WORTH WAS NOT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, BECAUSE IT WAS
BASED UPON THEIR MISCONDUCT IN STRIKING, ON JULY 18, WHILE UNDER
SHIPPING ARTICLES, AWAY FROM HOME PORT, AND ON BOARD SHIP. 

AFTER THE USUAL PROCEEDINGS, ON APRIL 22, 1940, THE BOARD ISSUED ITS
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER.  23 N.L.R.B. 26.  ITS
FINDINGS, WHICH MUST BE SET OUT IN SOME DETAIL, FOLLOW: 

AFTER THE ELECTION AND THE CERTIFICATION OF THE N.M.U. IN JANUARY,
1938, THE UNION MADE PERSISTENT EFFORTS THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVES TO
ARRANGE A BARGAINING CONFERENCE WITH OFFICIALS OF THE PETITIONER. 
EVERY SUCH ATTEMPT WAS FRUSTRATED BY THE LATTER, WHO REFUSED EVEN TO
ANSWER THE REQUESTS, UNTIL AUGUST.  IN THAT MONTH, THE UNION WAS
NOTIFIED THAT PETITIONER WOULD NOT UNDERTAKE TO BARGAIN WITH IT "UNTIL
THE VALIDITY OF THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION WAS SETTLED BY THE BOARD AND
THE COURTS." 

ON JULY 17, WHILE THE CITY OF FORT WORTH WAS DOCKED AT HOUSTON,
THIRTEEN UNLICENSED MEMBERS OF THE CREW MET IN A UNION HALL.  THEY
DECIDED TO STRIKE THE NEXT DAY, TO COMPEL PETITIONER TO RECOGNIZE THE
UNION AND TO ISSUE TO THE UNION'S SHORE DELEGATES THE PASSES WITHOUT
WHICH THEY COULD NOT BOARD PETITIONER'S VESSELS.  AT 8 O'CLOCK THE
FOLLOWING MORNING, THE STRIKE BEGAN.  ONE OF THE MEN, TRACEY, FAILED TO
TURN THE STEAM "ON DECK" FOR USE IN LOADING THE CARGO.  HE WAS THEN
ASKED BY THE FIRST ASSISTANT ENGINEER WHY HE HAD FAILED TO DO SO, AND
ANSWERED THAT A STRIKE WAS ON, EXPLAINING THE STRIKERS' DEMANDS.  WHEN
THE FIRST ASSISTANT ENGINEER TURNED ON THE STEAM HIMSELF, TRACEY
PERSUADED BRAUN, THE FIREMAN, TO LEAVE HIS POST.  AND FERGUSON, WHO
CAME ON DUTY JUST AT THAT MOMENT TO REPLACE BRAUN AS FIREMAN, ALSO
REFUSED TO TEND THE FIRES.  THE SECOND ASSISTANT ENGINEER THEN
UNDERTOOK TO TEND THE FIRES HIMSELF, AND TRACEY, FERGUSON AND BRAUN
WENT TO THE POOP DECK, WHERE THE REST OF THE STRIKERS WERE SITTING. 
THE POOP DECK IS THE USUAL MEETING PLACE OF THE CREW WHEN NOT ON DUTY. 

FROM THAT TIME UNTIL EVENING THE STRIKERS SAT QUIETLY BY, ENGAGING IN
NO VIOLENCE AND NOT INTERFERING WITH THE OFFICERS OF THE SHIP OR THE
NON-STRIKING MEMBERS OF THE CREW, WHO PROCEEDED WITH THE LOADING OF THE
CARGO.  THE STRIKERS DID NOT "CLAIM TO HOLD THE SHIP IN DEFIANCE OF THE
RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF THE OWNER."  FN3  BUT WHEN THE CAPTAIN ORDERED
THEM TO RETURN TO WORK, THEY REFUSED.  THEY CONTINUED TO REFUSE AFTER A
DEPUTY UNITED STATES SHIPPING COMMISSIONER CAME ABOARD AND READ TO THEM
THAT PROVISION OF THEIR SHIPPING ARTICLES IN WHICH THEY HAD PROMISED
"TO BE OBEDIENT TO THE LAWFUL COMMANDS" OF THE MASTER.  LATE IN THE
AFTERNOON, ALTHOUGH HE HAD NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, PETITIONER'S
ATTORNEY IN HOUSTON PROMISED THE UNION'S ATTORNEY IN THAT CITY THAT HE
WOULD MEET WITH THE LATTER DURING THE FOLLOWING WEEK TO NEGOTIATE AN
AGREEMENT AND THAT HE WOULD RECOMMEND TO PETITIONER THAT PASSES BE
GRANTED TO SHORE DELEGATES.  AS A RESULT OF THIS PROMISE, THE STRIKE
WAS ENDED AT ABOUT 7 P.M. AND THE SHIP SAILED ON SCHEDULE AT ABOUT 9
P.M. 

THE RETURN VOYAGE TO PHILADELPHIA WAS MARKED BY NO FURTHER
DIFFICULTY.  HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF IT THE CAPTAIN DECIDED NOT
TO RESHIP FIVE OF THE STRIKERS.  FN4  WHEN THE SHIP REACHED PORT ON
JULY 25 AND THE MEN SIGNED OFF THE SHIPPING ARTICLES, THESE FIVE WERE
INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE RESHIPPED.  MOST OF THEM HAD BEEN
MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH'S CREW CONTINUOUSLY FOR A
CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME.  FN5  IT WAS THE CUSTOM OF PETITIONER TO
HAVE THE SEAMEN SIGN NEW ARTICLES FOR THE NEXT VOYAGE WHEN SIGNING OFF
THE OLD, BUT EVEN WHEN THIS WAS NOT DONE THE MEN CONSIDERED THEMSELVES
EMPLOYED FOR THE NEXT VOYAGE UNLESS NOTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY.  UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE FIVE MEN IN QUESTION HAD
ACTUALLY BEEN DISCHARGED AND THAT THEIR EMPLOYMENT HAD NOT SIMPLY ENDED
AS OF COURSE WHEN THE SHIPPING ARTICLES EXPIRED.  SEVEN  FN6  OF THE
OTHER MEN WHO HAD ENGAGED IN THE HOUSTON STRIKE IMMEDIATELY STRUCK
AGAIN IN PROTEST AGAINST THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR FELLOWS.  ON THE BASIS
OF THIS EVIDENCE, THE BOARD FOUND THAT BOTH THE STRIKE AT HOUSTON ON
JULY 18 AND THE STRIKE AT PHILADELPHIA ON JULY 25 WERE CAUSED BY
PETITIONER'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  AND IT MADE A SPECIFIC FINDING
WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE FIVE MEN THAT THE DISCHARGE WAS BASED UPON
PARTICIPATION IN THE HOUSTON STRIKE.  IT CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER HAD
INTERFERED WITH ITS EMPLOYEES' RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1); THAT IT HAD DISCRIMINATED WITH
REGARD TO TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(3); AND THAT IT
HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(5). 

CONSEQUENTLY, IT ORDERED PETITIONER TO CEASE AND DESIST:  (A) FROM
DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN THE N.M.U., OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION,
BY DISCRIMINATING IN REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT; (B) FROM REFUSING TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE N.M.U.; AND (C) FROM INTERFERING WITH,
RESTRAINING, OR COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN ANY WAY IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY.  IN ADDITION, AND "IN
ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT," THE ORDER INCLUDED THE
FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE REQUIREMENTS:  (A) THAT PETITIONER BARGAIN WITH
THE N.M.U.; (B) THAT IT REINSTATE WITH BACK PAY THE FIVE MEN
DISCHARGED; (C) THAT, UPON APPLICATION, IT OFFER IMMEDIATE
REINSTATEMENT TO THE JULY 25TH STRIKERS; AND (D) THAT IT POST NOTICES
OF ITS INTENTION TO CONFORM TO THIS ORDER. 

PETITIONER SOUGHT TO HAVE THIS ORDER SET ASIDE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT, HOWEVER, SITTING EN BANC, AND WITH ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING, ENTERED A DECREE ENFORCING THE ORDER WITH A SINGLE
MINOR MODIFICATION.  FN7  120 F.2D 505.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED, AND BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED
CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OF OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS IN THIS COURT ARE:  (1) THAT THE REFUSAL BY
THE BOARD TO PERMIT A COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE ABOARD THE S.S. CITY OF
HOUSTON DURING THE VOTING VITIATED THE ENTIRE ELECTION AND
CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING AND ABSOLVED PETITIONER OF ANY DUTY UNDER THE
ACT TO BARGAIN WITH THE N.M.U.; (2) THAT THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE SEAMEN
INVOLVED AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED WHEN THEY SIGNED OFF THE SHIPPING
ARTICLES IN PHILADELPHIA, SO THAT THEY CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN
"DISCHARGED"; AND (3) THAT PARTICIPATION IN THE HOUSTON STRIKE BY THE
DISCHARGED SEAMEN WAS MISCONDUCT OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT THE BOARD
CANNOT ORDER THEIR REINSTATEMENT. 

THE FIRST TWO OF THESE ARGUMENTS ARE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  THE BOARD
ENJOYS A WIDE DISCRETION IN DETERMINING THE PROCEDURE NECESSARY TO
INSURE THE FAIR AND FREE CHOICE OF BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES BY
EMPLOYEES.  LABOR BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP., 309 U.S. 206, 226;
LABOR BOARD V. FALK CORPORATION, 308 U.S. 453, 458.  IT IS WHOLLY
REASONABLE TO REMOVE ANY POSSIBILITY OF INTIMIDATION BY CONDUCTING THE
ELECTION IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EMPLOYER'S REPRESENTATIVES.  WITH
RESPECT TO WHETHER THE FIVE MEN IN QUESTION WERE ACTUALLY DISCHARGED
UPON THE SHIP'S RETURN TO PHILADELPHIA, PETITIONER CONCEDES THAT THE
FORMAL SIGNING OFF OF THE SHIPPING ARTICLES WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  THE
TENURE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE
EVIDENCE CONCERNING PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES. 
LABOR BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP., 309 U.S. 206, 218.  THE
ARGUMENT HERE THEREFORE COMES TO THIS, THAT THIS RECORD DOES NOT
WARRANT A FINDING THAT THE TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT SURVIVED THE
TERMINATION OF THE SHIPPING ARTICLES.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD
CONVINCES US THAT THE CONCURRENT FINDING OF THE BOARD AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT ON THIS QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. 

THE SITUATION, THEN, IS ONE IN WHICH AN EMPLOYER INDULGES IN AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, A STRIKE RESULTS, AND SEVERAL MEN ARE DISCHARGED
FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE STRIKE.  IF THERE WERE NO MORE TO THE CASE,
AND THE BOARD FOUND THAT IT WOULD SERVE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF
THE ACT TO REINSTATE THE STRIKERS, AN ORDER REQUIRING REINSTATEMENT
WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY BE ENFORCEABLE.  LABOR BOARD V. STACKPOLE CARBON CO.,
105 F.2D 167.  BUT THERE IS MORE TO THIS CASE.  THE STRIKE WAS
CONDUCTED BY SEAMEN ON BOARD A VESSEL AND AWAY FROM HOME PORT.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE RENDERS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION
FOR THE BOARD TO ORDER THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE STRIKERS.  WE THINK
THAT IT DOES. 

EVER SINCE MEN HAVE GONE TO SEA, THE RELATIONSHIP OF MASTER TO SEAMAN
HAS BEEN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF EMPLOYER TO EMPLOYEE ON LAND. 
THE LIVES OF PASSENGERS AND CREW, AS WELL AS THE SAFETY OF SHIP AND
CARGO, ARE ENTRUSTED TO THE MASTER'S CARE.  EVERY ONE AND EVERY THING
DEPEND ON HIM.  HE MUST COMMAND AND THE CREW MUST OBEY.  AUTHORITY
CANNOT BE DIVIDED.  THESE ARE ACTUALITIES WHICH THE LAW HAS ALWAYS
RECOGNIZED.  ON THE ONE HAND, IT HAS IMPOSED NUMEROUS PROHIBITIONS
AGAINST CONDUCT BY SEAMEN WHICH DESTROYS OR IMPAIRS THIS AUTHORITY.  WE
SHALL CONSIDER IN A MOMENT THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS IMPOSED IN CASE OF REVOLT AND MUTINY.  BUT IT IS WORTH NOTING
HERE THAT THE FORM OF THE "SHIPPING ARTICLES," WHICH THE MASTER AND
EVERY MEMBER OF THE CREW MUST SIGN PRIOR TO THE VOYAGE, HAS BEEN
CAREFULLY PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS, AND THAT THESE ARTICLES CONTAIN THIS
PROMISE:  "AND THE SAID CREW AGREE  ...  TO BE OBEDIENT TO THE LAWFUL
COMMANDS OF THE SAID MASTER  ...  AND THEIR SUPERIOR OFFICERS IN
EVERYTHING RELATING TO THE VESSEL, AND THE STORES AND CARGO THEREOF,
WHETHER ON BOARD, IN BOATS, OR ON SHORE ...  "  U.S.C., TITLE 46 SECS.
564, 713.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WORKERS AT SEA HAVE BEEN THE
BENEFICIARIES OF EXTRAORDINARY LEGISLATIVE SOLICITUDE, UNDOUBTEDLY
PROMPTED BY THE LIMITS UPON THEIR ABILITY TO HELP THEMSELVES.  THE
STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES CONTAIN ELABORATE REQUIREMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH MATTERS AS THEIR MEDICINES, CLOTHING, HEAT, HOURS AND
WATCHES, WAGES, AND RETURN TRANSPORTATION TO THIS COUNTRY IF DESTITUTE
ABROAD.  U.S.C., TITLE 46, SECS. 651-692, 1131.  IT IS IN THIS SETTING
OF FACT AND LAW THAT WE MUST TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER OF
REINSTATEMENT.    PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE STRIKE ABOARD THE CITY
OF FORT WORTH AT THE DOCK IN HOUSTON WAS MUTINY AND VIOLATED SECS. 292
AND 293 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  THOSE SECTIONS PROVIDE: 

SEC. 292.  INCITING REVOLT OR MUTINY ON SHIPBOARD.  "WHOEVER, BEING
OF THE CREW OF A VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE HIGH SEAS, OR ON
ANY OTHER WATERS WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, ENDEAVORS TO MAKE A REVOLT OR MUTINY ON BOARD SUCH
VESSEL, OR COMBINES, CONSPIRES, OR CONFEDERATES WITH ANY OTHER PERSON
ON BOARD TO MAKE SUCH REVOLT OR MUTINY, OR SOLICITS, INCITES, OR STIRS
UP ANY OTHER OF THE CREW TO DISOBEY OR RESIST THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF THE
MASTER OR OTHER OFFICER OF SUCH VESSEL, OR TO REFUSE OR NEGLECT THEIR
PROPER DUTY ON BOARD THEREOF, OR TO BETRAY THEIR PROPER TRUST, OR
ASSEMBLES WITH OTHERS IN A TUMULTUOUS AND MUTINOUS MANNER, OR MAKES A
RIOT ON BOARD THEREOF, OR UNLAWFULLY CONFINES THE MASTER OR OTHER
COMMANDING OFFICER THEREOF, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR BOTH."  U.S.C., TITLE 18, SEC.
483. 

SEC. 293.  REVOLT OR MUTINY ON SHIPBOARD.  "WHOEVER, BEING OF THE
CREW OF A VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE HIGH SEAS, OR ON ANY
OTHER WATERS WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, UNLAWFULLY AND WITH FORCE, OR BY FRAUD, OR INTIMIDATION,
USURPS THE COMMAND OF SUCH VESSEL FROM THE MASTER OR OTHER LAWFUL
OFFICER IN COMMAND THEREOF, OR DEPRIVES HIM OF AUTHORITY AND COMMAND ON
BOARD, OR RESISTS OR PREVENTS HIM IN THE FREE AND LAWFUL EXERCISE
THEREOF, OR TRANSFERS SUCH AUTHORITY AND COMMAND TO ANOTHER NOT
LAWFULLY ENTITLED THERETO, IS GUILTY OF A REVOLT AND MUTINY, AND SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $2,000 AND IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS." 
U.S.C., TITLE 18, SEC. 484. 

THE BOARD'S DEFENSE TO THIS CONTENTION IS TWO-FOLD.  IT ARGUES,
FIRST, THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE STRIKERS DID NOT VIOLATE EITHER OF THESE
THEIR REINSTATEMENT. 

FIRST.  WE THINK THAT THE STRIKE ABOARD THE CITY OF FORT WORTH ON
JULY 18 WAS IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 292 AND 293.  IT MAY HARDLY BE
DISPUTED THAT EACH OF THE STRIKERS RESISTED THE CAPTAIN AND OTHER
OFFICERS IN THE FREE AND LAWFUL EXERCISE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AND
COMMAND, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 293, OR THAT THEY COMBINED AND
CONSPIRED TO THAT END, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 292.  DELIBERATELY
AND PERSISTENTLY THEY DEFIED DIRECT COMMANDS TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES IN
MAKING READY FOR THE DEPARTURE FROM PORT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THEY DID NOT
ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE OR PREVENT THE OTHER MEN AND OFFICERS FROM
PROCEEDING WITH PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE.  FN8  BUT SHORT OF THAT,
THEY DID WHAT THEY COULD TO PREVENT THE SHIP FROM SAILING.  IN THE
WORDS OF THE STRIKER TRACEY, HAD THEY NOT BELIEVED THAT THEIR DEMANDS
HAD BEEN SATISFIED, "WE WOULD STILL BE SITTING THERE."  THERE IS NO
DOUBT THAT THEY UNDERTOOK TO IMPOSE THEIR WILL UPON THE CAPTAIN AND
OFFICERS. 

NONE OF THESE FACTS IS DENIED BY THE RESPONDENTS OR BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT.  FN9  INDEED IT IS ADMITTED THAT, HAD THE STRIKE OCCURRED ON THE
HIGH SEAS, THE PARTICIPANTS WOULD HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF MUTINY.  BUT A
DISTINCTION IS SAID TO LIE BETWEEN STRIKES AT SEA AND AT DOCK.  TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THIS DISTINCTION WE TURN FIRST TO THE WORDS
OF THE STATUTE.  THEY ARE PLAIN ENOUGH: "WHOEVER, BEING OF THE CREW OF
A VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE HIGH SEAS, OR ON ANY OTHER WATERS
WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES,"
ETC.  IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT THE ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES INCLUDES ALL NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN
THE COUNTRY.  THE GENESEE CHIEF, 12 HOW.  443.  FN10  THE WATER IN THE
HARBOR OF HOUSTON IS CERTAINLY NAVIGABLE, AND A BOAT AT DOCK THERE IS
OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
WORDS OF THE STATUTE ALONE, THEREFORE, DO NOT WARRANT AN EXCEPTION IN
THE CASE OF A VESSEL SITUATED AS THE CITY OF FORT WORTH WAS WHEN THE
STRIKE OCCURRED. 

NOR ARE WE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF ANY COURT IN WHICH SUCH AN
EXCEPTION HAS BEEN IMPLIED.  UNDER THE ORIGINAL MUTINY ACT OF 1970,
FN11  JUSTICE STORY HELD WITHOUT HESITATION THAT A REFUSAL TO WORK
WHILE A VESSEL WAS IN AN AMERICAN HARBOR WAS A VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTE.  FN12  THE ACT OF 1790 WAS SUPPLANTED IN 1835 BY A STATUTE
WHICH, WITH ONLY MINOR CHANGES, NOW APPEARS AS SECS. 292 AND 293 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE, SET OUT ABOVE.  FN13  SINCE 1835, WHENEVER THE QUESTION
HAS ARISEN, THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT A MUTINY MAY OCCUR IN A HARBOR,
EITHER FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, AS WELL AS AT SEA.  FN14  IT IS TRUE,
HOWEVER, THAT IN NONE OF THESE CASES DOES IT EXPRESSLY APPEAR THAT THE
VESSEL WAS TIED TO A DOCK, AS WAS THE CITY OF FORT WORTH IN THIS CASE. 
AND IN THE REES CASE, THE COURT SPECIFICALLY RESERVED THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE MUTINY ACT BARS A STRIKE ON BOARD A VESSEL SO SITUATED.  95
F.2D 784, AT 792. 

IT WAS THEREFORE STRICTLY ACCURATE FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO
OBSERVE THAT "THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT OF SEAMEN TO STRIKE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US IS STILL AN OPEN ONE."  ON THIS
ASSUMPTION, HOWEVER, IT PROCEEDED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE NECESSITY FOR
ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY IN THE MASTER IS SO CONSIDERABLY DIMINISHED WHEN THE
SHIP IS MOORED IN A "SAFE" PORT THAT A STRIKE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO VIOLATE THE ACT.  THIS THEORY HAS BEEN REGARDED
WITH FAVOR BY A NUMBER OF COURTS AND COMMENTATORS  FN15  AND IS SAID TO
CONFORM MORE CLOSELY TO CHANGED CONCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FREEDOM
OF WORKERS ON LAND OR SEA TO ORGANIZE, TO BARGAIN, AND TO USE ECONOMIC
WEAPONS TO ENFORCE THEIR DEMANDS. 

THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE CONTENTION IS THAT IT IGNORES THE PLAIN
CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE THAT A REBELLION BY SEAMEN AGAINST THEIR OFFICERS
ON BOARD A VESSEL ANYWHERE WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS TO BE PUNISHED AS MUTINY.  IF THIS
MANDATE IS TO BE CHANGED, IT MUST BE CHANGED BY CONGRESS, AND NOT BY
THE COURTS.  IF FURTHER PROOF BE NEEDED OF A CONGRESSIONAL BELIEF THAT
THE REQUIREMENTS OF DISCIPLINE DURING A VOYAGE DO NOT VARY WITH EACH
CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE, IT MAY BE FOUND IN THE SHIPPING ARTICLES TO
WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED.  FOR IN THOSE ARTICLES THE MEMBERS OF
THE CREW ARE OBLIGED TO PROMISE TO OBEY LAWFUL COMMANDS "WHETHER ON
BOARD, IN BOATS, OR ON SHORE."  AND BEFORE A SEAMAN'S CERTIFICATE IS
ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF MARINE INSPECTION AND NAVIGATION THE APPLICANT
MUST TAKE AN OATH TO "  ...  CARRY OUT THE THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF MY
SUPERIOR OFFICERS ON SHIPBOARD."  FN16  THE LOWER COURT EXPRESSED THE
OPINION, "UPON REASON, HOWEVER,  ...  THERE IS NO SOUND BASIS FOR
DEPRIVING SEAMEN OF THIS RIGHT (TO STRIKE) WHEN, AS HERE, THEIR VESSEL
IS MOORED TO THE DOCK IN A SAFE DOMESTIC PORT."  BUT THE SOUNDNESS OR
UNSOUNDNESS OF THE REASONING IS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CONGRESS.  AS
RECENTLY AS 1939, TWO BILLS WERE INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIMITING THE SCOPE OF SECS. 292 AND
293 TO VESSELS "UNDER WAY ON THE HIGH SEAS."  H.R. 3427, 3428, 76TH
CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.  THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION
COMMUNICATED TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
ITS FIRM OBJECTION TO THE MEASURES,  FN17  AND THEY WERE NEVER
ENACTED.  WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE IS SO PLAIN, WE CANNOT ASSUME TO
DO THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS REFUSED TO DO. 

IN ANY EVENT, A SWEEPING REQUIREMENT OF OBEDIENCE THROUGHOUT THE
COURSE OF A VOYAGE IS CERTAINLY NOT WITHOUT BASIS IN REASON.  THE
STRATEGY OF DISCIPLINE IS NOT SIMPLE.  THE MAINTENANCE OF AUTHORITY
HINGES UPON A DELICATE COMPLEX OF HUMAN FACTORS, AND CONGRESS MAY VERY
SENSIBLY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT A MASTER WHOSE ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
CREW'S VETO IN PORT CANNOT ENFORCE THEM AT SEA.  MOREOVER, IT IS BY NO
MEANS CLEAR THAT A SHIP MOORED TO A DOCK IS "SAFE" IF THE CREW REFUSES
TO TEND IT, AS THE STRIKERS DID AT HOUSTON.  AT THE VERY LEAST, STEAM
MUST BE MAINTAINED TO PROVIDE LIGHT AND FIRE PROTECTION.  FN18  THE
DAMAGE TO THE NORMANDIE IS GRIM ENOUGH PROOF THAT THE HAZARD OF FIRE IS
EVER PRESENT.  FN19  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT, IN THE CASE BEFORE
US, THE STRIKERS DID NOT PREVENT THESE PRECAUTIONS FROM BEING TAKEN;
ONLY THE EFFORTS OF OTHERS AVERTED THE DANGERS TO WHICH THEY OPENED THE
DOOR. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
THE STRIKE AT HOUSTON DID NOT VIOLATE SECS. 292 AND 293. 

SECOND.  ASSUMING THAT THE STRIKE DID VIOLATE THESE SECTIONS, THE
BOARD CONTENDS THAT THE REINSTATEMENT PROVISIONS OF ITS ORDER WERE
NEVERTHELESS VALID.  SECTION 10(C) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
PERMITS THE BOARD TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER WHO HAS COMMITTED AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE TO TAKE "SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES  ...  , AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF
THE ACT."  THIS AUTHORIZATION IS OF CONSIDERABLE BREADTH, AND THE
COURTS MAY NOT LIGHTLY DISTURB THE BOARD'S CHOICE OF REMEDIES.  BUT IT
IS ALSO TRUE THAT THIS DISCRETION HAS ITS LIMITS, AND WE HAVE ALREADY
BEGUN TO DEFINE THEM.  LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORP., 306
U.S. 240; REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7.  A COMPLETE
DEFINITION OF COURSE WAS NOT AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED IN THOSE
CASES.  NOR WILL IT BE ATTEMPTED HERE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THIS CASE
TO OBSERVE THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT BEEN COMMISSIONED TO EFFECTUATE THE
POLICIES OF THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT SO SINGLE-MINDEDLY THAT IT MAY
WHOLLY IGNORE OTHER AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAL OBJECTIVES. 
FREQUENTLY THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE CALLS FOR CAREFUL
ACCOMMODATION OF ONE STATUTORY SCHEME TO ANOTHER, AND IT IS NOT TOO
MUCH TO DEMAND OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY THAT IT UNDERTAKE THIS
ACCOMMODATION WITHOUT EXCESSIVE EMPHASIS UPON ITS IMMEDIATE TASK. 

THIS WAS THE KIND OF CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THE PRESENT CASE
CALLED.  TO BOLSTER ITS CLAIM THAT IT RESPONDED TO THIS CALL, THE BOARD
RELIES UPON WHAT IT ASSERTS TO HAVE BEEN THE "TECHNICAL" NATURE OF THE
VIOLATION OF SECS. 292 AND 293.  SPECIFICALLY, IT POINTS TO THE
COMPARATIVE SAFETY OF THE SHIP WHEN MOORED TO THE DOCK, THE ABSENCE OF
VIOLENCE, AND THE DOUBLE CHARACTER OF THE SHIP AS THE STRIKERS' PLACE
OF EMPLOYMENT AND THEIR HOME DURING THE COURSE OF THE VOYAGE.  WHILE WE
HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE DANGER TO THE VESSEL WAS CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE STRIKE OCCURRED AT SEA, WE HAVE ALREADY
INDICATED THAT IT WAS CERTAINLY PRESENT AND THAT CONSIDERATIONS OTHER
THAN IMMEDIATE DANGER TO THE SHIP REQUIRE MAINTENANCE OF DISCIPLINE
THROUGHOUT THE VOYAGE.  LIKEWISE, THE ABSENCE OF VIOLENCE WAS A
FORTUNATE FEATURE OF THE AFFAIR, BUT THE FLOUTING OF THE CAPTAIN'S
AUTHORITY WAS NEVERTHELESS DELIBERATE AND COMPLETE.  FINALLY, FOR THESE
STRIKERS TO REMAIN ABOARD THE SHIP WAS INDEED AN ACT OF VERY DIFFERENT
SIGNIFICANCE THAN FOR STRIKERS AT AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT TO REMAIN INSIDE
A FACTORY.  BUT IN ONE RESPECT AT LEAST THE COMPARISON IS UNFAVORABLE
TO THE STRIKERS HERE.  AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE CITY OF FORT WORTH
WAS DEFINITELY WRESTED FROM THE CONTROL OF ITS OFFICERS.  IN AN
INDUSTRIAL PLANT THE EMPLOYER IS CONFRONTED ONLY WITH THE NECESSITY OF
PLACING NEW MEN AT THE MACHINES.  BUT UNDER THE LAW PETITIONER WAS
REQUIRED TO FURNISH LIVING QUARTERS TO ANY NEW CREW WHOM IT MIGHT HAVE
HIRED FOR THE RETURN VOYAGE TO PHILADELPHIA.  THIS MEANT THE REMOVAL OF
THE STRIKERS FROM THEIR QUARTERS AS WELL AS THEIR POSTS OF DUTY.  IT IS
DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SURRENDERED THEIR JOBS AND
THEIR QUARTERS WITHOUT A STRUGGLE.  THEY ASSERTED THEIR RIGHT TO OCCUPY
THE QUARTERS AND TO EAT THE FOOD WHICH THE MASTER WAS REQUIRED TO
FURNISH THEM AS MEMBERS OF THE CREW, AND YET TO REFUSE TO WORK OR TO
OBEY HIS ORDERS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ALBERS, 115 F.2D 833, AT 836. 
IN FACT, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THEY INTENDED, ACCORDING TO THE WITNESS
TRACEY, TO "STILL BE SITTING THERE" IF PETITIONER HAD NOT CAPITULATED
TO THEIR DEMANDS. 

WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE STRIKE WAS UNLAWFUL FROM ITS VERY
INCEPTION.  IT DIRECTLY CONTRAVENED THE POLICY OF CONGRESS AS EXPRESSED
IN SECS. 292 AND 293, AND IT WAS MORE THAN A "TECHNICAL" VIOLATION OF
THOSE PROVISIONS.  CONSEQUENTLY, AND DESPITE THE INITIAL UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE WHICH CAUSED THE STRIKE, WE HOLD THAT THE REINSTATEMENT
PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER EXCEEDED THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH
REQUIREMENTS "AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT."  FN20 

IT SHOULD BE STRESSED THAT THE VIEW WE HAVE TAKEN DOES NOT PREVENT
THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES UNDER THE ACT.  AT ANY TIME FOLLOWING THE
CERTIFICATION OF THE N.M.U. IN JANUARY, 1938, THE UNION AND THE BOARD
COULD HAVE SECURED THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COURTS IN FORCING PETITIONER
TO BARGAIN.  THE IMPORTANCE OF SEEKING SUCH ASSISTANCE PROMPTLY IS
STRIKINGLY ILLUSTRATED IN THIS CASE.  FN21 HAD THE UNION AND THE BOARD
DONE SO, THE UNFORTUNATE OCCURRENCE AT HOUSTON MIGHT HAVE BEEN
AVERTED.  AND WHAT IS MORE, NOTHING THAT WE HAVE SAID WOULD PREVENT THE
UNION FROM STRIKING, PICKETING OR RESORTING TO ANY OTHER MEANS OF SELF
HELP, SO LONG AS THE TIME AND PLACE IT CHOOSES DO NOT COME WITHIN THE
EXPRESS PROHIBITION OF CONGRESS. 

THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO LIMIT ITS DECREE OF ENFORCEMENT TO THOSE PROVISIONS OF
THE BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO BARGAIN WITH THE N.M.U. AND
TO POST NOTICES TO THAT EFFECT, BUT TO ELIMINATE THE OTHER PROVISIONS
OF THE ORDER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  WARREN, TRACEY, PFUHL, SMITH AND FERGUSON. 

FN2  CRASSAVAZ, REEVES, LATHAN, BURNS, HUGHES, NEELEY AND HOLT. 

FN3  THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE STRIKERS WERE AT NO TIME ORDERED TO
LEAVE THE SHIP.  IT IS TRUE THAT THREE OF THE OFFICERS TESTIFIED THAT
THEY HAD NEITHER GIVEN NOR HEARD ANY OF THE OFFICERS GIVE SUCH AN
ORDER.  BUT DESPITE A GREAT RELUCTANCE TO OVERTURN A FINDING ON SUCH A
PURE MATTER OF FACT, WE CANNOT SQUARE IT WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE AND
UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY OF TRACEY, ONE OF THE STRIKERS, THAT
PETITIONER'S AGENT IN HOUSTON BOARDED THE SHIP AT LEAST FOUR TIMES
DURING THE DAY, AT LEAST ONCE IN THE COMPANY OF THE CAPTAIN, ORDERED
THE STRIKERS TO LEAVE THE SHIP WITHIN THE NEXT HALF HOUR, AND ANNOUNCED
THAT HE WAS GOING TO BRING ON A NEW CREW (R. 140-141, 161-162).    FN4
SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN5  THE BOARD'S FINDING ON THIS MATTER WAS THAT "TRACEY HAD BEEN
EMPLOYED CONTINUOUSLY OVER A PERIOD OF 16 MONTHS, FERGUSON FOR A PERIOD
OF 1 YEAR, PFUHL OVER A PERIOD OF 8 MONTHS, WARREN OVER A PERIOD OF 6
WEEKS, AND SMITH OVER A PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS.  EACH ROUND-TRIP VOYAGE OF
THE CITY OF FORT WORTH IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE ABOUT 25 DAYS."  (R. 27.) 

FN6  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN7  THE BOARD'S ORDER PERMITTED PETITIONER TO DEDUCT FROM THE BACK
PAY DUE ANY AMOUNTS THAT THE DISCHARGED MEN MIGHT HAVE EARNED DURING
THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, BUT REQUIRED IT TO REIMBURSE ANY PUBLIC WORK
RELIEF AGENCY FOR SUMS PAID TO ANY OF THE MEN DURING THAT TIME.  THE
LATTER PHASE OF THE ORDER WAS ELIMINATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ON THE AUTHORITY OF REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311
U.S. 7.  THE BOARD RAISES NO OBJECTION TO THIS MODIFICATION OF ITS
ORDER. 

FN8  IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT ACCORDING TO THE SECOND
ASSISTANT ENGINEER'S TESTIMONY, WHEN HE TOLD TRACEY THAT HE INTENDED TO
PUT THE STEAM ON DECK HIMSELF, TRACEY REPLIED, "YOU HAD BETTER NOT. 
YOU WILL BE SORRY."  NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO CARRY OUT THIS THREAT. 

FN9  THE BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE STRIKE
AMOUNTED TO MUTINY. 

FN10  ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES OVER MEN AND VESSELS
IN FOREIGN WATERS, SEE UNITED STATES V. FLORES, 289 U.S. 137; UNITED
STATES V. ROBERTS, 27 FED. CAS. NO. 16,173(C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1843.) 

FN11  1 STAT. 112, SECS. 8 AND 12. 

FN12  UNITED STATES V. HAMILTON, 26 FED. CAS. NO. 15,291(C.C.D. MASS.
1818)(THE REPORT OF THIS CASE IS NOT ALTOGETHER CLEAR ON WHETHER THE
SHIP WAS AT ANCHOR IN SALEM BAY OR TIED TO A DOCK THERE, BUT THE FORMER
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE CASE); UNITED STATES V. GARDNER, 25 FED. CAS.
NO. 15,188(C.C.D. MASS. 1829)(THIS REPORT ALSO FAILS TO REVEAL THE
EXACT SITUATION OF THE VESSEL IN BOSTON HARBOR AT THE TIME OF THE
STRIKE, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT WAS MOORED TO THE DOCK SINCE BOSTON
WAS ITS HOME PORT AND IT WAS "ALL READY FOR SEA," AND PRESUMABLY THE
LOADING HAD JUST BEEN COMPLETED). 

FN13  4 STAT. 775, 776. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. CASSEDY, 25 FED. CAS. NO. 14,745(C.C.D. MASS.
1837); UNITED STATES V. LYNCH, 26 FED. CAS. NO. 15,648(C.C.S.D. N.Y.
1843); UNITED STATES V. ROBERTS, 27 FED. CAS. NO. 16,173(C.C. S.D.N.Y.
1843); UNITED STATES V. STALY, 27 FED. CAS. NO. 16,374(C.C.D.R.I.
1846)(AT ANCHOR IN THE PROVIDENCE RIVER); UNITED STATES V. NYE, 27 FED.
CAS. NO. 15,906(C.C.D. MASS. 1855); HAMILTON V. UNITED STATES, 268 F.
15; REES V. UNITED STATES, 95 F.2D 784; UNITED STATES V. ALBERS, 115
F.2D 833. 

FN15  SEE THE BLAKE, 1 W. ROB.  73, 166 ENG. REP. 500; BUDDINGTON V.
SMITH, 13 CONN. 334; SAPIRO AND FRANK, MUTINY AT THE DOCK, 25 CAL. L.
REV. 41; ROTHSCHILD, THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF A STRIKE BY SEAMEN, 45
YALE L.J. 1181; DECISION, 38 COL. L. REV. 1294.  BUT SEE MCLAUGHLIN,
NOTE, 18 ORE.  L. REV. 128; NOTE, LABOR DISPUTES IN THE MERCHANT
MARINE, 28 VA. L. REV. 79. 

FN16  SEE CURRENT "APPLICATION FOR SEAMEN'S CERTIFICATE," ISSUED BY
SHIPPING SECTION, BUREAU OF MARINE INSPECTION AND NAVIGATION,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.  AND SEE ALSO U.S.C., TITLE 46, SEC. 672(G). 

FN17  LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE DATED MARCH 27, 1939 AND SIGNED BY THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION, EMORY S. LAND: 

"UNDER DATE OF FEBRUARY 1, 1939, YOU REQUESTED THE VIEWS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO H.R. 3427 AND H.R.
3428. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"THE PROPOSED BILLS WOULD EMASCULATE THE PRESENT LAWS IN RESPECT OF
REVOLT OR MUTINY ON SHIPBOARD.  NO CONDUCT BY MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A
VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTES UNLESS THE VESSEL WERE UNDER WAY ON THE HIGH SEAS AND THEN
ONLY IF ACTUAL FORCE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE LESSER DEGREES OF REVOLT
OR MUTINY INVOLVING USE OF FRAUD OR INTIMIDATION WERE USED AGAINST THE
COMMANDING OFFICER.  MOREOVER, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD REDUCE THE
MAXIMUM PENALTIES BY SEVENTY-FIVE PER CENT. 

"IT IS THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO REASON
WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE CONGRESS IN LESSENING THE AUTHORITY OF THE
MASTERS ON BOARD VESSELS OF THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE. 

     .         .         .         .      . 

"THE CRIMES OF ENDEAVORING TO INCITE TO REVOLT OR MUTINY, OR ACTUALLY
ACCOMPLISHING REVOLT OR MUTINY, MAY BE COMMITTED 'ON THE HIGH SEAS, OR
ON ANY OTHER WATERS WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION OF
THE UNITED STATES'.  IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THIS INCLUDES ALL SUCH
OFFENSES COMMITTED ON THE VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES ON NAVIGABLE
WATERS, INCLUDING THE PORTS, RIVERS AND HARBORS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 
(UNITED STATES V. FLORES, 289 U.S. 137.) 

     .         .         .        .         . 

"SEAMEN WHO SIGN ARTICLES TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE CREW OF A VESSEL
OF THE UNITED STATES ENTER INTO A RELATIONSHIP WHICH, IN THE NATURE OF
THINGS, IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT ASSUMED BY PERSONS EMPLOYED ON LAND. 
BOTH AS 'WARDS OF THE ADMIRALTY' UNDER THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW AND BY
SPECIAL ACTS OF CONGRESS APPLYING ONLY TO THEM, SEAMEN ENJOY MANY
BENEFITS NOT ACCORDED TO LAND WORKERS.  AT THE SAME TIME THEY MUST
ASSUME CERTAIN CORRELATIVE DUTIES NOT NECESSARY TO LAND OCCUPATIONS. 

"IN THE ECONOMIC SURVEY OF THE AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE, THE
COMMISSION SAID (P. 46): 

"'THE SEA IS NO PLACE FOR DIVIDED AUTHORITY.  WHEN A MAN PUTS FOOT ON
THE DECK OF A SHIP, HE BECOMES PART OF A DISCIPLINED ORGANISM SUBJECT
TO THE NAVIGATION LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.' 

"IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE MUTINY STATUTES DO NOT APPLY UNLESS
THE VESSEL IS IN ACTUAL DANGER AND A FORTIORI THERE CAN BE NO MUTINY IN
A SAFE HARBOR.  THIS CONTENTION, NOT HAVING MET WITH SUCCESS IN THE
COURTS (REES V. UNITED STATES; HAMILTON V. UNITED STATES) IS BROUGHT
BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE FORM OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.  THE FACT THAT A VESSEL MAY BE IN A SAFE HARBOR
DOES NOT, UNDER EXISTING LAW, AND IT IS SUBMITTED, SHOULD NOT, GIVE
SANCTION TO THE OFFENSES COVERED BY THE MUTINY STATUTES.  IT IS
APPARENT TO ALL THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE SEA THAT NO VESSEL IS SAFE
UNLESS SHE IS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, MANNED BY A COMPETENT CREW WHICH
MEANS, IN SHORT, A CREW ALERT TO ITS DUTIES AND RESPONSIVE AT ALL TIMES
TO THE LAWFUL COMMANDS OF THE MASTER.  A CREW WHICH DOES NOT MEET THIS
TEST IS NOT COMPETENT AND MUST, MOREOVER, BE LACKING IN THAT MORALE
WHICH IS NECESSARY TO THE SAFE PRESERVATION OF THE SHIP, HER PASSENGERS
AND CARGO.  BECAUSE OF THE HUMAN FACTOR INVOLVED, IT IS DIFFICULT TO
SEE HOW THE MORALE OF A CREW WHICH FEELS THAT IT SHOULD BE FREE TO
DISOBEY THE LAWFUL COMMANDS OF THE MASTER WHEN THE VESSEL IS NOT 'UNDER
WAY ON THE HIGH SEAS', CAN BE REVIVED WITH AUTOMATIC REGULARITY WHEN
THE SHIP WEIGHS ANCHOR OR CROSSES AN IMAGINARY LINE TO THE HIGH SEAS. 

     .         .         .         .        . 

"CERTAINLY THERE NEED BE NO FEAR, ON THE PART OF MEMBERS OF AN
ORDERLY AND COMPETENT CREW, THAT THEY WILL RUN AFOUL OF EXISTING
STATUTES GOVERNING DISCIPLINE ON BOARD VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
AS THERE CAN BE NO ESCAPE FROM THE NECESSITIES OF SUCH DISCIPLINE,
THERE SHOULD BE NO DIMINUTION OF THE AUTHORITY REQUIRED TO MEET THOSE
NECESSITIES. 

"THE COMMISSION IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, IF
ENACTED, WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMERICAN MERCHANT
MARINE AND IT IS, ACCORDINGLY, OPPOSED TO THE MEASURES. 

"THE COMMISSION IS ADVISED BY THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF
THE BUDGET THAT THERE WOULD BE NO OBJECTION TO THE SUBMISSION OF THIS
REPORT TO YOUR COMMITTEE." 

FN18  MEMORANDUM TO SHIP OPERATORS DATED DECEMBER 10, 1941, BUREAU OF
MARINE INSPECTION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. 

FN19  N.Y. TIMES, FEB. 10, 1942, P. 1, COL. 8. 

FN20  CF. PENINSULAR & OCCIDENTAL S.S. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 98 F.2D
411, 414. 

FN21  WE DO NOT QUESTION THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT PETITIONER REFUSED
TO BARGAIN WITH THE N.M.U. AFTER JANUARY 26, 1938.  BUT THE FINDINGS
AND THE RECORD INDICATE THAT THE UNION WAS NOT MARKEDLY DILIGENT.  THE
BOARD FOUND THAT ONE REQUEST FOR A CONFERENCE WAS MADE BY A UNION
REPRESENTATIVE AT HOUSTON "SHORTLY AFTER THE CERTIFICATION."  "IN LATE
JANUARY OR EARLY FEBRUARY," THE UNION'S BUSINESS AGENT IN PHILADELPHIA
MADE A SIMILAR REQUEST.  HE RENEWED IT "ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY." 
"DURING THE NEXT MONTH" HE MADE TWO ATTEMPTS TO REPEAT HIS REQUEST BY
TELEPHONE.  FROM THAT TIME UNTIL AUGUST 18, A MONTH AFTER THE STRIKE AT
HOUSTON, HE MADE ONLY ONE OTHER ATTEMPT, THE DATE OF WHICH HE WAS
UNABLE TO FIX. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

TO SUPPORT ITS JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL THIS COURT RELIES UPON THE
EMPLOYEES' VIOLATION OF SECS. 292 AND 293 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AS
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE STEAMSHIP COMPANY'S DISCHARGE OF ITS SEAMEN.  IF
THE SEAMEN WERE DISCHARGED NOT FOR LABOR ACTIVITY BUT BECAUSE OF THE
COMMISSION OF SERIOUS CRIME, LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP., 306 U.S.
240, WOULD BE AUTHORITY FOR THE COURT'S HOLDING.  IT WAS THERE DECIDED
THAT SEC. 2(3) OF THE LABOR ACT DID NOT PRESERVE A STRIKER'S
ELIGIBILITY FOR REINSTATEMENT BY THE BOARD UNDER SEC. 10(C), IF THE
STRIKER WAS DISCHARGED FOR REASONS OTHER THAN "UNION ACTIVITY OR
AGITATION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING," E.G., CRIMINAL ACTS.  306 U.S. AT
255.  THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT WHERE "AN EMPLOYER INDULGES IN AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, A STRIKE RESULTS, AND SEVERAL MEN ARE DISCHARGED
FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE STRIKE," AND NOTHING MORE APPEARS, THE LABOR
BOARD MAY PROPERLY REINSTATE THE STRIKERS.  IT CONCLUDES, HOWEVER, THAT
WHERE THE STRIKE PROVOKED BY THE UNFAIR PRACTICES IS ITSELF UNLAWFUL,
THE BOARD, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, LOSES ITS POWER TO
REINSTATE AFTER DISCHARGE.  THIS POSITION, WE THINK, UNDULY EXPANDS
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DISCRETIONARY POWER OF REINSTATEMENT
UNDER SEC. 10(C) AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FANSTEEL DECISION. 

THIS COURT RECOGNIZED IN THE FANSTEEL CASE THAT THE BOARD HAD
DISCRETION OVER REINSTATEMENT.  306 U.S. 258.  IT WAS THOUGHT THAT,
HOWEVER WIDE THAT DISCRETION MIGHT BE, "ITS LIMITS WERE TRANSCENDED" IN
THAT CASE.  THE NINETYFIVE MEN IN FANSTEEL WERE DISCHARGED "FOR THE
SEIZURE AND RETENTION OF THE BUILDINGS."  306 U.S. 252.  BUT THOSE MEN
HELD THE BUILDINGS FROM FEBRUARY 17 UNTIL FEBRUARY 26.  THEY DISCOBEYED
A COURT INJUNCTION ORDER TO SURRENDER THE FACTORY, AND SUCCESSFULLY
RESISTED BY FORCE THE SHERIFF'S EFFORTS TO ENFORCE IT.  ONLY ON HIS
SECOND ATTEMPT, WITH AN INCREASED NUMBER OF DEPUTIES, DID THE SHERIFF
ACCOMPLISH THEIR EVICTION AND ARREST.  306 U.S. 248-49. 

NOTHING APPROACHING SUCH DISORDER OCCURRED HERE.  THE SEAMEN'S
CONDUCT DID NOT AFFECT THE SAFETY OF THE VESSEL.  THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF
VIOLATION OF THE STATUTES IS THAT THE ORDERS TO LOAD WERE IGNORED.  WE
MAY ASSUME, FOR THIS DISSENT, THAT THIS RESULTED IN A VIOLATION OF THE
CRIMINAL STATUTES.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION, THAT PRIMARILY THIS PRECIPITATED
THE STRIKE, AND THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT WARRANTED IN DISCHARGING
ANY EMPLOYEE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE STRIKE.  IT FURTHER FOUND THAT THE
STRIKERS DID NOT HOLD THE SHIP IN DEFIANCE OF THE OWNER NOR DID THEY
TRESPASS.  THE BOARD FOUND IN EACH INSTANCE THAT THE DISCHARGES WERE
NOT FOR DISOBEYING ORDERS BUT FOR STRIKING, FOR PEACEFULLY, ALBEIT
UNLAWFULLY, RESORTING TO SELF-HELP IN RETALIATION AGAINST DENIAL OF
THEIR RIGHTS.  FN1  ON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS, SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE BOARD EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION TO REINSTATE
THESE MEN. 

WE THINK THAT, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT ACTED WITHIN ITS
AUTHORITY.  WE CAN SEE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR AN IRON RULE THAT A
DISCHARGE OF A STRIKER BY HIS EMPLOYER FOR SOME PARTICULAR, UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT IN FURTHERANCE OF A STRIKE IS SUFFICIENT TO BAR HIS
REINSTATEMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.  FANSTEEL TEACHES THAT THERE ARE
EXTREMES OF CONDUCT WHICH LEAVE NO DISCRETION TO THE BOARD.  WE THINK
THAT THE ACTS HERE FALL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LINE AND THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY SO DETERMINED. 

FN1  "THE EVIDENCE IS PLAIN THAT BOTH TRACEY AND FERGUSON WERE
DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THE LEADING PARTS THEY PLAYED IN THE STRIKE. 
CHIEF ENGINEER NORTON TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT RECOMMEND FERGUSON'S
DISCHARGE MERELY BECAUSE HE HAD DISOBEYED ORDERS.  'I WOULD HAVE
OVERLOOKED THAT HAD HE TAKEN THE FIRES UNTIL WE GOT STRAIGHTENED OUT.' 
CAPTAIN RUDAN TESTIFIED THAT HE DISCHARGED BOTH THESE MEN UPON NORTON'S
COMPLAINT THAT 'THEY HAD BEEN ON WATCH AT THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT
OF THIS WHAT I CONSIDER DISOBEDIENCE, AND IF THEY HAD GONE ON WATCH AT
THE TIME, THAT THE REST OF THE MEN PROBABLY WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED.  ...
'" 

"CAPTAIN RUDAN'S TESTIMONY MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE
MOTIVATING FACTOR IN THE RESPONDENT'S DECISION TO DISCHARGE PFUHL WAS
HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE STRIKE.  ... 

"WE ENTERTAIN NO DOUBT THAT AN EMPLOYEE'S INTOXICATION PROVIDES AMPLE
REASON FOR HIS DISCHARGE.  WE BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THE RESPONDENT DID
NOT DISCHARGE WARREN FOR THIS REASON, BUT RATHER THAT IT SEIZED UPON
HIS DRINKING PROCLIVITIES TO RID ITSELF OF AN ACTIVE UNION OFFICER. 
... 

"ON CROSS-EXAMINATION SHERRY ADMITTED THAT SMITH WAS DISCHARGED
BECAUSE OF HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE STRIKE.  ...  "    MR. JUSTICE
BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR IN THIS
DISSENT. 
..END :



MEMPHIS GAS CO. V. BEELER, 315 U.S. 649 


NO. 499.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ATTACK UPON A STATE TAX UPON THE GROUND THAT IT INFRINGES A
TAXPAYER'S FEDERAL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, BUT WITHOUT
DRAWING IN QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE, WILL NOT SUSTAIN
AN APPEAL UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(A).  P. 650. 

2.  A CHALLENGE OF THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE, FIRST MADE IN A
BRIEF FILED IN THE HIGHEST STATE COURT AND CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT AS
PART OF THE RECORD, WILL NOT SUPPORT AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT UPHOLDING THE STATUTE, IF THE APPELLANT
FAILS TO SHOW THAT UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE SUCH A CONTENTION CAN BE
AVAILED OF WHEN ADVANCED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE APPELLATE COURT.  P.
651. 

3.  A CORPORATION IS SUBJECT TO BE TAXED ON ITS INTANGIBLE PROPERTY
BY A STATE, NOT OF ITS ORIGIN, IN WHICH IT HAS ITS COMMERCIAL DOMICILE,
IF THE TAX DOES NOT INFRINGE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 652. 

4.  A DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT BASED UPON A NON-FEDERAL
GROUND IS RE-EXAMINABLE BY THIS COURT ONLY TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE
GROUND IS NOT SO COLORABLE OR UNSUBSTANTIAL AS TO BE IN EFFECT AN
EVASION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  P. 655. 

5.  NATURAL GAS WAS PIPED INTO A STATE BY A PIPELINE CORPORATION,
DELIVERED TO A LOCAL DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION AND SOLD BY THE LATTER TO
LOCAL CONSUMERS, UNDER AN ARRANGEMENT MAKING THE TWO COMPANIES PARTNERS
OR JOINT ENTERPRISES SHARING THE PROFITS.  HELD, THAT IT WAS COMPETENT
FOR THE STATE TO LEVY A TAX ON THE PIPELINE COMPANY MEASURED BY THE NET
PROFITS IT SO DERIVED.  P. 655. 

6.  A NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAX UPON THE NET INCOME OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION ENGAGED SOLELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHEN THE CORPORATION IS COMMERCIALLY DOMICILED IN
THE TAXING STATE AND THE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM WITHIN THE STATE AND
ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS DONE THERE.  P. 656. 

MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. BEELER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TENNESSEE, ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE, WHICH
SUSTAINED A TAX AND REVERSED A DECREE OF THE TENNESSEE CHANCERY COURT
ENJOINING ITS COLLECTION.  THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION BUT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER A TAX LAID PURSUANT TO SECS.
1316-1318 OF THE TENNESSEE CODE OF 1932 UPON THE MEMPHIS NATURAL GAS
COMPANY'S NET INCOME DERIVED FROM SALES OF NATURAL GAS IN TENNESSEE,
DURING THE YEARS 1932 TO 1935, VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE CASE COMES HERE BY APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
TENNESSEE, WHICH SUSTAINED THE TAX AND REVERSED A DECREE OF THE
TENNESSEE CHANCERY COURT ENJOINING ITS COLLECTION.  APPELLANT CONTENDS
THAT THE CASE IS PROPERLY AN APPEAL, UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), BECAUSE THE VALIDITY OF THE
TENNESSEE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE HAS BEEN DRAWN
IN QUESTION.  CF. DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282.  BUT
APPELLANT'S BILL OF COMPLAINT, FILED IN THE CHANCERY COURT, ALLEGED
ONLY THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX AND THE THREATENED LEVY VIOLATED
ITS RIGHTS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  OUR DECISIONS HAVE LONG SINCE
ESTABLISHED THAT AN ATTACK UPON A TAX ASSESSMENT OR LEVY, ON THE GROUND
THAT IT INFRINGES A TAXPAYER'S FEDERAL RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES OR
IMMUNITIES, WILL NOT SUSTAIN AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A).  JETT BROS.
DISTILLING CO. V. CITY OF CARROLLTON, 252 U.S. 1; MILLER V. CITY OF
DENVER, 290 U.S. 586; BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 296
U.S. 538; IRVINE V. SPAETH, 314 U.S. 575.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT AN
APPELLANT COULD HAVE LAUNCHED HIS ATTACK UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE ITSELF AS APPLIED; IF HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO WE ARE WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OVER THE APPEAL.  THE JUDICIAL CODE WAS INTENDED TO
RESTRICT OUR OBLIGATORY APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO A NARROW CLASS OF
CASES, AND TO FORECLOSE AN APPEAL AS OF RIGHT WHENEVER THE PRESCRIBED
CONDITIONS HAVE NOT BEEN RIGOROUSLY FULFILLED. 

IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN THIS CASE REACHED THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
THE APPELLANT INCLUDED IN ITS BRIEF, WHICH HAS BEEN CERTIFIED AS PART
OF THE RECORD HERE, A STATEMENT OF ITS LEGAL POSITION WHICH MIGHT SERVE
AS A CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE.  BUT APPELLANT HAS
FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT UNDER TENNESSEE PRACTICE SUCH A CONTENTION CAN
BE AVAILED OF IF ADVANCED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE APPELLATE COURT,
CF. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. ILLINOIS BRICK CO., 297 U.S. 447, 462-63;
JACOBI V. ALABAMA, 187 U.S. 133, 135-36; MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
MCGREW, 188 U.S. 291, AND APPELLANT'S BURDEN IS TO SHOW AFFIRMATIVELY
THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION.  CHICAGO, I. & L. RY. CO. V. MCGUIRE, 196
U.S. 128, 132; CF. LYNCH V. NEW YORK, 293 U.S. 52, 54-55; ENRIQUEZ V.
ENRIQUEZ (NO. 2), 222 U.S. 127, 130; BRADY V. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN.,
302 U.S. 678. 

THE FIRST OPINION RENDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE MADE NO
MENTION OF ANY FEDERAL QUESTION, AND IN A SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION THE
COURT STATED ONLY THAT "THE CLAIM OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHT WAS
DECIDED ADVERSELY TO COMPLAINANT."  SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE WAS EITHER DRAWN IN QUESTION OR PASSED UPON IN
THE TRIAL COURT OR DEEMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO BE IN ISSUE, WE
MUST DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  TREATING THE PAPERS
ON WHICH THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 237(C) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 344(C), CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, AND WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE
MERITS OF THE CASE. 

TAXPAYER, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, WAS ENGAGED DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING NATURAL GAS IN LOUISIANA AND
TRANSPORTING IT THROUGH ITS PIPELINE TO POINTS IN TENNESSEE WHERE IT
DELIVERED THE GAS INTO THE PIPELINES OF TWO DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES -
MEMPHIS POWER & LIGHT CO. AND WEST TENNESSEE POWER & LIGHT CO. - WHICH
SOLD THE GAS TO LOCAL CONSUMERS.  TAXPAYER SELLS SOME OF ITS GAS IN
OTHER STATES, BUT IN TENNESSEE IT SELLS FROM 1 TO 2% OF ITS OUTPUT TO
THE WEST TENNESSEE POWER & LIGHT CO. AND DELIVERS 80% OR MORE TO THE
MEMPHIS COMPANY.  THAT COMPANY DISTRIBUTES IT TO CONSUMERS UNDER A
CONTRACT WITH TAXPAYER WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE HAS FOUND
TO BE A JOINT UNDERTAKING OF THE TWO COMPANIES WHEREBY TAXPAYER
FURNISHES GAS FROM ITS PIPELINE, THE MEMPHIS COMPANY FURNISHES
FACILITIES AND SERVICE FOR DISTRIBUTION AND SALE TO CONSUMERS, AND THE
PROCEEDS OF THE SALE, AFTER DEDUCTION OF SPECIFIED COSTS AND EXPENSES,
ARE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES. 

TAXPAYER IS LICENSED BY THE STATE OF TENNESSEE TO DO BUSINESS THERE. 
IT MAINTAINS A STATUTORY OFFICE IN DELAWARE AND A STOCK TRANSFER OFFICE
IN NEW YORK CITY, BUT CONDUCTS NO BUSINESS AT EITHER.  IT MANAGES ITS
BUSINESS FROM ITS OFFICE IN MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, WHERE IT KEEPS ITS
ACCOUNTS, PROVIDES FOR THE PAYROLL OF EMPLOYEES ON ITS LINE IN
TENNESSEE AND OTHER STATES, AND PREPARES AND SENDS OUT BILLS FOR GAS
DELIVERED IN TENNESSEE AND OTHER STATES.  IT HAS THUS ESTABLISHED A
COMMERCIAL DOMICILE IN TENNESSEE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH IT IS SUBJECT TO
TAXATION THERE UPON ITS INTANGIBLES, UNLESS SUCH TAXATION INFRINGES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S. 193. 

DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS FOR PROFIT IN THE STATE AN ANNUAL
EXCISE TAX OF "THREE PER CENT. OF THE NET EARNINGS FOR THEIR PRECEDING
FISCAL YEAR  ...  ARISING FROM BUSINESS DONE WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE,
EXCLUDING EARNINGS ARISING FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THE SUPREME
COURT OF TENNESSEE SUSTAINED THE TAX ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS LAID ON
APPELLANT'S NET EARNINGS FROM THE DISTRIBUTION OF GAS UNDER ITS
CONTRACT WITH THE MEMPHIS COMPANY, WHICH DISTRIBUTION IT HELD NOT TO BE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  IT DECIDED
THAT, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CONTRACT, THE COMPANIES BECAME IN EFFECT
PARTNERS OR JOINT ENTERPRISERS IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF THE GAS
TO TENNESSEE CONSUMERS, THE NET EARNINGS FROM WHICH ARE TAXABLE UNDER
THE STATUTE. 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING, TAXPAYER ASKED A MODIFICATION OF THE
DECREE ON THE GROUND THAT, INCLUDED IN THE MEASURE OF THE TAX WERE
PROFITS DERIVED FROM SALES OF GAS TO THE WEST TENNESSEE POWER & LIGHT
CO., AND FROM CERTAIN OTHER SALES TO THE MEMPHIS COMPANY, NOT UNDER THE
JOINT ADVENTURE AGREEMENT, WHICH IT WAS INSISTED WERE CONCEDEDLY SALES
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COURT REJECTED THIS CONTENTION UPON THE
ADEQUATE STATE GROUND, NOT CHALLENGED HERE, THAT TAXPAYER HAD FAILED TO
SHOW WHAT PORTION, IF ANY, OF THE TAXED PROFITS WAS DERIVED FROM SUCH
SALES AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD LAID NO BASIS FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
COLLECTION OF THAT PART OF THE TAX. 

THIS COURT HAS OFTEN HAD OCCASION TO RULE THAT THE RETAIL SALE OF GAS
AT THE BURNER TIPS BY ONE WHO PIPES THE GAS INTO THE STATE, OR BY A
LOCAL DISTRIBUTOR ACQUIRING THE GAS FROM ANOTHER WHO HAS SIMILARLY
BROUGHT IT INTO THE STATE, IS SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION AND
REGULATION.  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. LANDON, 249 U.S. 236; EAST OHIO
GAS CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 283 U.S. 465; SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301
U.S. 148, 154; CF. MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, 309;
ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314
U.S. 498.  IT FOLLOWS THAT IF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE CORRECTLY
CONSTRUED TAXPAYER'S CONTRACT WITH THE MEMPHIS COMPANY AS ESTABLISHING
A PROFIT-SHARING JOINT ADVENTURE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO
TENNESSEE CONSUMERS, THE TAXPAYER'S NET EARNINGS UNDER THE CONTRACT
WERE SUBJECT TO LOCAL TAXATION. 

THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT, SO FAR AS THEY ESTABLISH
TAXPAYER'S PARTICIPATION IN AND OWNERSHIP OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE
RETAIL SALE OF THE GAS, ARE LOCAL QUESTIONS CONCLUSIVELY SETTLED BY THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT SAVE ONLY AS THIS COURT, IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF ITS DUTY TO SAFEGUARD AN ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, MAY INQUIRE
WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE STATE QUESTION RESTS UPON A FAIR OR
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS.  SEE BROAD RIVER CO. V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 281 U.S.
537, AND CASES CITED.  WE EXAMINE THE CONTRACT ONLY TO MAKE CERTAIN
THAT THE NON-FEDERAL GROUND OF DECISION IS NOT SO COLORABLE OR
UNSUBSTANTIAL AS TO BE IN EFFECT AN EVASION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUE. 

THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO AS A PRELIMINARY TO THE AWARD BY THE
CITY OF MEMPHIS TO THE MEMPHIS COMPANY OF ITS FRANCHISE TO DISTRIBUTE
GAS TO CONSUMERS, AND EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT WAS A CONDITION OF THE
GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE.  BY THE CONTRACT, THE MEMPHIS COMPANY UNDERTOOK
TO ESTABLISH ITS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  TAXPAYER UNDERTOOK TO CONSTRUCT
ITS PIPELINE WITH FACILITIES, INCLUDING MEASURING STATIONS AT A
DELIVERY POINT, FOR SUPPLYING THE MEMPHIS COMPANY WITH A VARYING FLOW
OF GAS INTO THE SERVICE PIPES AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY THE MEMPHIS
COMPANY FOR CONSUMER NEEDS.  THE AMOUNT SO FURNISHED, LESS CERTAIN
DEDUCTIONS COVERED BY A SEPARATE CONTRACT NOT NOW MATERIAL, WAS TO BE
DIVIDED INTO FIVE CLASSES, ACCORDING TO THE USE MADE OF THE GAS BY
CONSUMERS, AND WAS TO BE BILLED BY TAXPAYER TO THE MEMPHIS COMPANY AT
FIVE DIFFERENT SPECIFIED RATES.  THE AMOUNT OF GAS ALLOCATED TO EACH
CLASS WAS TO BE IN PROPORTION TO THE AMOUNT OF THAT CLASS OF GAS SOLD
BY THE MEMPHIS COMPANY FOR LIKE USE DURING THE PRECEDING MONTH. 

AT THE END OF EACH YEAR THE COMBINED NET SURPLUS OR DEFICIT OF THE
TWO COMPANIES WAS TO BE DIVIDED BETWEEN THEM BY A CASH SETTLEMENT.  THE
SURPLUS OR DEFICIT OF EACH WAS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY DEDUCTING FROM ITS
GROSS REVENUES THE OPERATING COSTS, COSTS OF PROPERTY RESTORATIONS AND
REPLACEMENTS, TAXES, AMORTIZATION OF INVESTMENT, AND 6% UPON
INVESTMENT.  AFTER ALL NET DEFICITS OF BOTH PARTIES HAD BEEN MADE UP
AND THE MEMPHIS COMPANY HAD RECEIVED FROM THE COMBINED NET SURPLUSES 1
1/2% OF ITS TOTAL INVESTMENT ANNUALLY, ANY ADDITIONAL COMBINED NET
INCOME WAS TO BE PAID TO OR RETAINED BY TAXPAYER. 

THE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR READJUSTMENT FROM TIME TO TIME OF THE
BILLING PRICE OF THE GAS SUPPLIED BY TAXPAYER, SO AS TO ADMIT OF
REDUCTION IN THE RATES TO CONSUMERS, AFTER FIRST ALLOWING "A REASONABLE
RETURN" ON TAXPAYER'S INVESTMENT.  THE CONTRACT CONTAINS THE USUAL
PROVISIONS FOR INSPECTION OF BOOKS BY THE PARTIES AND THE CITY, AND A
CLAUSE REQUIRING ALL NOTICES TO BE GIVEN TO TAXPAYER AT ITS MEMPHIS
OFFICE. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE HELD THAT THE CITY WAS A PARTY TO THE
CONTRACT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF ITS PROVISIONS FOR RATE
REDUCTIONS.  IT HELD THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT TAXPAYER AND THE
MEMPHIS COMPANY WERE DESIGNATED BY THE CONTRACT AS "SELLER" AND "BUYER"
DID NOT ALTER OR OBSCURE THE FACT THAT TAXPAYER WAS A PARTICIPANT IN
THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE JOINT UNDERTAKING, AND THAT THE PRECISE
TIME WHEN THE TITLE TO THE GAS PASSED, IF IT PASSED BEFORE DISTRIBUTION
TO CONSUMERS, WAS IMMATERIAL.  IN ANY CASE, IT THOUGHT THAT THE
TENTATIVE AMOUNTS TO BE PAID BY THE MEMPHIS COMPANY FOR THE GAS IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE WERE TO BE DETERMINED AFTER DELIVERY BY THE USE MADE OF
IT BY CONSUMERS. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE STATE
COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT IN SUBSTANCE THE CONTRACT CALLED FOR THE
CONTRIBUTION OF THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES OF THE COMPANIES TO A JOINT
ENTERPRISE, THE TAXPAYER'S DELIVERY OF GAS INTO THE MAINS OF THE
MEMPHIS COMPANY FOR DISTRIBUTION TO CONSUMERS, AND A DIVISION BETWEEN
THE TWO COMPANIES OF THE OPERATING PROFITS AFTER PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN
AGREED INITIAL COSTS AND EXPENSES.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT BY THIS
PARTICIPATION THE TAXPAYER DID NOT DO SUCH A BUSINESS IN THE STATE AS
TO BE TAXABLE THERE, OR THAT THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM IT ARE NOT AN
APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF THE TAX. 

TAXPAYER'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE JOINT UNDERTAKING WITH THE MEMPHIS
COMPANY FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO LOCAL CONSUMERS, AND ITS
ACTIVITIES AT ITS MEMPHIS GENERAL OFFICE IN SUPPLYING GAS TO BE
DISTRIBUTED FOR THE JOINT ACCOUNT AS REQUIRED BY THE MEMPHIS COMPANY
AND IN SAFEGUARDING AND SECURING PAYMENT OF ITS SHARE OF THE PROFITS,
WENT BEYOND THE MERE SALE, TO A DISTRIBUTOR, OF GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IT ALSO CONSTITUTED PARTICIPATION IN THE BUSINESS OF
DISTRIBUTING THE GAS TO CONSUMERS AFTER ITS DELIVERY INTO THE SERVICE
PIPES OF THE MEMPHIS COMPANY.  CHENEY BROS. CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246
U.S. 147, 155-56; ATLANTIC LUMBER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 298 U.S. 553;
SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, SUPRA.  SINCE IT WAS COMPETENT FOR THE
STATE TO TAX SUCH BUSINESS DONE WITHIN IT, IT WAS COMPETENT TO MEASURE
THE TAX BY THE NET EARNINGS OF THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS BY THE CAPITAL
EMPLOYED.  SEE SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 156-57. 

IN ANY CASE, EVEN IF TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS WERE WHOLLY INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, A NONDISCRIMINATORY TAX BY TENNESSEE UPON THE NET INCOME OF A
FOREIGN CORPORATION HAVING A COMMERCIAL DOMICILE THERE, CF. WHEELING
STEEL CORP. V. FOX, SUPRA, OR UPON NET INCOME DERIVED FROM WITHIN THE
STATE, SHAFFER V. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, 57; WISCONSIN V. MINNESOTA
MINING CO., 311 U.S. 452; CF. NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S.
308, IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ON WHICH ALONE TAXPAYER
RELIES.  U.S. GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321; UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER
CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113, 119-20; CF. BASS, RATCLIFF & GRETTON,
LTD. V. TAX COMM'N, 266 U.S. 271; WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, 303
U.S. 250, 255.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION OR SHOWING HERE THAT THE TAX
ASSESSED IS NOT UPON NET EARNINGS JUSTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO TENNESSEE. 
UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, SUPRA; CF. BASS, RATCLIFF &
GRETTON, LTD. V. TAX COMM'N, SUPRA; BUTLER BROS. V. MCCOLGAN, ANTE, P.
501.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT UPON ANY THEORY THE TAX CAN BE DEEMED TO
INFRINGE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  CERTIORARI GRANTED AND
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















GRAVES V. SCHMIDLAPP, 315 U.S. 657 


NO. 604.  ARGUED MARCH 12, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - 286 N.Y.
596, 35 N.E.2D 937, REVERSED. 


1.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DID NOT
PRECLUDE THE STATE OF NEW YORK FROM TAXING THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE, BY
THE WILL OF A DOMICILED RESIDENT, OF A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT OF
WHICH HE WAS THE DONEE UNDER THE WILL OF A RESIDENT OF MASSACHUSETTS,
THE PROPERTY APPOINTED BEING INTANGIBLES HELD BY TRUSTEES UNDER THE
DONOR'S WILL.  WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, 272 U.S. 567,
OVERRULED.  PP. 660, 665. 

2.  CONTROL BY THE STATE OF THE DONEE'S DOMICILE OVER HIS PERSON AND
ESTATE AND HIS DUTY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT THERE,
AFFORD ADEQUATE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX.  P.
660. 

THE DONEE OF THE POWER THE EXERCISE OF WHICH WAS TAXED WAS ALSO ONE
OF THE TRUSTEES NAMED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS WILL; AND THE PAPER
EVIDENCES OF THE INTANGIBLES, WHICH CONSISTED WHOLLY OF RECEIVABLES AND
CORPORATE STOCKS AND BONDS, WERE KEPT BY HIM AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH
AND FOR SOME YEARS BEFORE, IN NEW YORK, THE STATE OF HIS RESIDENCE.  HE
AND OTHER TRUSTEES ACCOUNTED TO A MASSACHUSETTS PROBATE COURT FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND. 

GRAVES ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF NEW YORK, V.
SCHMIDLAPP ET AL., EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SURROGATE'S COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, STATE
OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 601, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF NEW YORK AFFIRMING WITHOUT OPINION AN ORDER OF THE
SURROGATE'S COURT OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK REDUCING AN ESTATE TAX
ASSESSMENT.  172 MISC. 426, 15 N.Y.S.2D 208. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO SAY WHETHER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT PRECLUDES NEW YORK FROM TAXING THE EXERCISE, BY A DOMICILED
RESIDENT, OF A GENERAL TESTAMENTARY POWER OF APPOINTMENT OF WHICH HE
WAS THE DONEE UNDER THE WILL OF A RESIDENT OF MASSACHUSETTS, THE
PROPERTY APPOINTED BEING INTANGIBLES HELD BY TRUSTEES UNDER THE DONOR'S
WILL. 

RESPONDENTS' DECEDENT DIED A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, WHERE HIS WILL WAS
PROBATED AND LETTERS TESTAMENTARY WERE ISSUED.  DECEDENT'S FATHER HAD
PREVIOUSLY DIED A RESIDENT OF MASSACHUSETTS, WHERE HIS WILL HAD BEEN
PROBATED.  BY HIS WILL THE FATHER BEQUEATHED HIS RESIDUARY ESTATE IN
TRUST TO DIVIDE THE TRUST FUND INTO AS MANY SHARES AS HE SHOULD LEAVE
CHILDREN SURVIVING.  TO HIS SON, THE NEW YORK DECEDENT, HE GAVE A LIFE
ESTATE IN ONE SHARE AND A GENERAL POWER TO DISPOSE OF THAT SHARE "BY
WILL." 

THE SON WAS ALSO ONE OF THE THREE TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES.  FOR SOME
YEARS THEY MANAGED THE TRUST PROPERTY AS A SINGLE TRUST FUND, BUT IN
1911 HIS ONE-THIRD SHARE WAS SEGREGATED AND HE WAS PERMITTED BY THE
OTHER TRUSTEES TO MANAGE IT AS A SEPARATE TRUST, ALTHOUGH ALL CONTINUED
AS TRUSTEES AND AS SUCH ACCOUNTED TO THE MASSACHUSETTS PROBATE COURT
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF HIS SHARE OF THE FUND.  FROM 1918 TO 1929 THE
NEW YORK DECEDENT RESIDED IN NEW YORK; FROM THEN UNTIL 1934 HE RESIDED
IN ILLINOIS, WHEN HE RETURNED TO NEW YORK WHERE HE RESIDED UNTIL HIS
DEATH IN 1937.  THROUGHOUT HE KEPT IN THE STATE OF HIS RESIDENCE THE
PAPER EVIDENCES OF THE INTANGIBLES COMPRISING HIS SHARE OF THE TRUST. 
AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH IT CONSISTED WHOLLY OF RECEIVABLES AND
CORPORATE STOCKS AND BONDS.  BY HIS WILL DECEDENT APPOINTED HIS SHARE
OF THE TRUST FUND TO HIS WIDOW, AND THE NEW YORK TAX AUTHORITIES, IN
COMPUTING THE TAX, INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE THE
INTANGIBLES BEQUEATHED TO HER UNDER THE POWER. 

ARTICLE 10-C OF THE NEW YORK TAX LAW, BY SEC. 249-N, IMPOSES AN
ESTATE TAX "UPON THE TRANSFER OF THE NET ESTATE" OF RESIDENT
DECEDENTS.  UNDER THIS STATUTE THE NET TAXABLE ESTATE IS ARRIVED AT BY
DEDUCTING FROM THE GROSS ESTATE, AS DEFINED BY SEC. 249-R, THE
SPECIFIED DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SEC. 249-S.  SECTION 249-R, SO FAR AS
RELEVANT, PROVIDES: 

"THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR
PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED ... 

"7.  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF
APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY THE DECEDENT (A) BY WILL  ..." 

AN ORDER OF THE NEW YORK SURROGATE'S COURT, 172 MISC. 426, 15
N.Y.S.2D 208, REDUCED THE ESTATE TAX ASSESSED AGAINST THE DECEDENT'S
ESTATE BY EXCLUDING FROM HIS GROSS ESTATE THE SHARE OF THE TRUST FUND
PASSING TO THE WIDOW BY THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER, ON THE GROUND THAT
THE STATE WAS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO TAX THE EXERCISE BY A
RESIDENT DONEE OF A POWER OF APPOINTMENT CREATED BY A NONRESIDENT
DONOR, CITING WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, 272 U.S. 567.  THE
NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER WITHOUT OPINION, 286 N.Y.
596, 35 N.E.2D 937, BUT CERTIFIED BY ITS REMITTITUR THAT IT HELD THAT
THE TAXING STATUTE, AS SOUGHT TO BE APPLIED IN THIS PROCEEDING,
VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 314 U.S.
601, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

FOR PURPOSES OF ESTATE AND INHERITANCE TAXATION, THE POWER TO DISPOSE
OF PROPERTY AT DEATH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF OWNERSHIP.  BULLEN V.
WISCONSIN, 240 U.S. 625; WHITNEY V. TAX COMM'N, 309 U.S. 530, 538; SEE
GRAY, RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES, 3D ED. 1916, SEC. 524.  IT IS A
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF WEALTH TO THE APPOINTEE.  THE DISPOSITION OF WEALTH
EFFECTED BY ITS EXERCISE OR RELINQUISHMENT AT DEATH IS ONE FORM OF THE
ENJOYMENT OF WEALTH AND IS AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF TAXATION.  THE
POWER TO TAX "IS AN INCIDENT OF SOVEREIGNTY, AND IS COEXTENSIVE WITH
THAT TO WHICH IT IS AN INCIDENT.  ALL SUBJECTS OVER WHICH THE SOVEREIGN
POWER OF A STATE EXTENDS ARE OBJECTS OF TAXATION."  MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 429.  INTANGIBLES, WHICH ARE LEGAL
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONS AND WHICH IN FACT HAVE NO GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION, ARE SO ASSOCIATED WITH THE OWNER THAT THEY AND THEIR TRANSFER
AT DEATH ARE TAXABLE AT THE PLACE OF HIS DOMICILE, WHERE HIS PERSON AND
THE EXERCISE OF HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE
SOVEREIGN POWER.  HIS TRANSFER OF INTERESTS IN INTANGIBLES, BY VIRTUE
OF THE EXERCISE OF A DONATED POWER INSTEAD OF THAT DERIVED FROM
OWNERSHIP, STANDS ON THE SAME FOOTING.  IN BOTH CASES THE SOVEREIGN'S
CONTROL OVER HIS PERSON AND ESTATE AT THE PLACE OF HIS DOMICILE, AND
HIS DUTY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT THERE,
AFFORD ADEQUATE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX. 
CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357; CF. GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383. 

THESE WERE NOT NOVEL PROPOSITIONS, WHEN THEY WERE RESTATED IN THE
MCCANLESS AND ELLIOTT CASES, FN1  AND THEY WERE CHALLENGED THEN, THOUGH
UNSUCCESSFULLY, ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE INTANGIBLES
WAS SUBJECT TO TAXATION IN ANOTHER STATE WHERE THEY WERE HELD IN
TRUST.  BUT THE CONTENTION THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FORECLOSES
TAXATION OF AN INTEREST IN INTANGIBLES BY THE STATE OF ITS OWNER WHEN
THEY ARE HELD IN TRUST IN ANOTHER STATE WAS REJECTED IN BULLEN V.
WISCONSIN, 240 U.S. 625.  IN THAT CASE, A FUND HAD BEEN GIVEN IN TRUST
RESERVING TO THE DONOR A GENERAL POWER OF REVOCATION AND THE
DISPOSITION OF THE TRUST INCOME DURING LIFE.  THIS COURT HELD THAT UPON
HIS DEATH AN INHERITANCE TAX COULD BE LEVIED BY THE STATE OF HIS
DOMICILE ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE AND THE TRUST FUND WERE OUTSIDE THE
STATE. 

IN NUMEROUS OTHER CASES THE JURISDICTION TO TAX THE USE AND ENJOYMENT
OF INTERESTS IN INTANGIBLES, REGARDLESS OF THE LOCATION OF THE PAPER
EVIDENCES OF THEM, HAS BEEN THOUGHT TO DEPEND ON NO FACTOR OTHER THAN
THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER WITHIN THE TAXING STATE.  AND IT HAS BEEN
HELD THAT THEY MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY TAXED THERE EVEN THOUGH IN SOME
INSTANCES THEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, TO
WHOSE CONTROL THEY ARE SUBJECT AND WHOSE LEGAL PROTECTION THEY ENJOY. 
FN2  AND SUCH INTERESTS TAXABLE AT THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER HAVE BEEN
DEEMED TO INCLUDE THE EXERCISE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF A POWER TO DISPOSE
OF INTANGIBLES.  CHANLER V. KELSEY, 205 U.S. 466; BULLEN V. WISCONSIN,
SUPRA; CF. ORR V. GILMAN, 183 U.S. 278; SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, 276
U.S. 260. 

DECEDENT'S COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE POWER TO DISPOSE OF THE INTANGIBLES
AT DEATH WAS PROPERTY IN HIS HANDS IN NEW YORK, WHERE HE WAS
DOMICILED.  GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, SUPRA.  HE THERE MADE EFFECTIVE USE OF
THE POWER TO BESTOW HIS BOUNTY ON THE WIDOW.  ITS EXERCISE BY HIS WILL
TO MAKE A GIFT WAS AS MUCH AN ENJOYMENT OF A PROPERTY RIGHT AS WOULD
HAVE BEEN A LIKE BEQUEST TO HIS WIDOW FROM HIS OWN SECURITIES.  SEE
HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112, 117.  FOR SUCH ENJOYMENT OF PROPERTY
RIGHTS, THROUGH RESORT TO NEW YORK LAW, DECEDENT WAS UNDER THE HIGHEST
OBLIGATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT WHOSE
PROTECTION HE ENJOYED IN COMMON WITH OTHER RESIDENTS.  TAXATION OF SUCH
ENJOYMENT OF THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF PROPERTY IS AS MUCH WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATE OF HIS DOMICILE AS IS THE TAXATION OF
THE TRANSFER AT DEATH OF INTANGIBLES WHICH HE OWNS. 

SINCE IT IS THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF THE INTANGIBLES
WHICH IS THE TAXABLE EVENT, THE MERE FACT THAT THE POWER WAS ACQUIRED
AS A DONATION FROM ANOTHER IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  WE CAN PERCEIVE NO
GROUND FOR SAYING THAT ITS EXERCISE BY THE DONEE IS FOR THAT REASON ANY
THE LESS THE ENJOYMENT OF A PROPERTY RIGHT, OR ANY THE LESS SUBJECT TO
TAXATION AT HIS DOMICILE.  THE SOURCE OF THE POWER BY GIFT NO MORE
TAKES ITS EXERCISE BY THE DONEE OUT OF THE TAXING POWER THAN THE LIKE
DISPOSITION OF A CHOSE IN ACTION OR A SHARE OF STOCK, OWNERSHIP OF
WHICH IS ACQUIRED BY GIFT. 

BUT RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT BECAUSE HERE THE POWER WAS BEQUEATHED BY A
MASSACHUSETTS WILL, WHICH PLACED THE INTANGIBLES SUBJECT TO THE POWER
IN A MASSACHUSETTS TRUST, THERE WAS NOTHING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OR
CONTROL OF NEW YORK WHICH COULD BE DEEMED SUBJECT TO ITS TAXING POWER. 
IF BY THIS IS MEANT THAT THE POWER WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE ITS EXERCISE
BY THE NEW YORK WILL DID NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WILL
CREATING THE POWER AND DEFINING THE MANNER OF ITS EXERCISE, OR TO THE
LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNING THE DISPOSITION OF INTANGIBLES, NO SUCH
QUESTION IS BEFORE US.  WE MUST TAKE IT THAT THE NEW YORK COURTS
ASSUMED, AS WE DO, THAT THE POWER HAD BEEN SO EXERCISED BY THE NEW YORK
WILL AS TO CONFER ON THE WIDOW THE RIGHT TO DEMAND THE PROPERTY OF THE
TRUSTEES IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND THAT EVEN UPON THAT ASSUMPTION THEY HELD
THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER IN NEW YORK COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
BE TAXED. 

WHETHER THE NEW YORK TAX STATUTE WOULD APPLY IF THE NEW YORK WILL
WERE INEFFECTIVE TO TRANSFER THE INTANGIBLES BECAUSE IT FAILED TO
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS WILL OR STATUTES, IS
FOR THE NEW YORK COURTS TO DECIDE.  WHETHER IN SUCH A CASE THE STATUTE
COULD BE CONSTITUTIONALLY SO APPLIED IS A QUESTION NOT PRESENTED BY THE
RECORD.  BUT IF, AS IS ASSUMED, THE POWER HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY
EXERCISED, THE NEW YORK WILL IS THE IMPLEMENT OF ITS EXERCISE, MADE
EFFECTIVE AS A WILL BY NEW YORK LAW WHOSE AID THE DECEDENT INVOKED FOR
THE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT CONFERRED ON HIM BY
THE MASSACHUSETTS WILL.  ITS EXERCISE IS A SUBJECT OVER WHICH THE
SOVEREIGN POWER OF TAXATION EXTENDS. 

ADMITTEDLY, UNDER PREVAILING NOTIONS OF CHOICE OF LAW IN THE COURTS
OF THESE TWO STATES, THE LAW OF THE DONOR'S DOMICILE, HERE
MASSACHUSETTS, MAY BE LOOKED TO IN NEW YORK IN DETERMINING WHETHER, IN
SOME RESPECTS AT LEAST, THERE HAS BEEN A VALID AND EFFECTIVE EXECUTION
OF THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT.  SEWALL V. WILMER, 132 MASS. 131; HOGARTH
SWANN V. WEED, 274 MASS. 125, 130, 174 N.E. 314; HILLEN V. ISELIN, 144
N.Y. 365, 378, 39 N.E. 368; IN RE NEW YORK LIFE INS. & TRUST CO., 209
N.Y. 585, 103 N.E. 315.  BUT A TRANSFER WHICH HAS IN FACT BEEN EFFECTED
BY RECOURSE IN PART TO THE LAW OF NEW YORK IS NOT FREE OF TAXATION
THERE BECAUSE THE POWER MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXERCISED ELSEWHERE OR BY SOME
OTHER MODE, OR BECAUSE IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE TRANSFEREE TO INVOKE
THE LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY. 
A TRANSFER IN ONE STATE OF A CHOSE IN ACTION OR A SHARE OF STOCK MAY BE
TAXED THERE EVEN THOUGH THE TRANSFEREE IN ORDER TO ENJOY ITS BENEFITS
MUST DEPEND IN PART UPON THE LAW OF THE STATE OF THE DEBTOR OR OF THE
CORPORATION.  BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1, 10-17.  HERE THE
RELATIONSHIP OF THE POWER TO MASSACHUSETTS DOES NOT LEAVE NEW YORK
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE DONEE AND HIS EXERCISE OF THE POWER
TO SUPPORT ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO TAX.  FOR THE FACT REMAINS
THAT HE, AS A RESIDENT ENJOYING THE PROTECTION OF NEW YORK'S LAWS AND
OWING TO IT THE DUTY OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT, HAS DISPOSED OF WEALTH BY A
WILL EXECUTED AND PROBATED IN NEW YORK WITH THE SAME RESULT AS IF HE
HAD OWNED THE PROPERTY.  THIS TRANSMISSION OF WEALTH AT DEATH BY A
RESIDENT IS NOT A FORBIDDEN SOURCE OF REVENUE TO THE STATE. 

WACHOVIA TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, SUPRA, ON WHICH RESPONDENTS RELY,
DENIED THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF A STATE TO TAX THE EFFECTIVE
EXERCISE OF A TESTAMENTARY POWER IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THE PRESENT. 
THE ONLY GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION WERE THAT THE INTANGIBLES HELD IN
TRUST IN ANOTHER STATE, WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE POWER, HAD NO
SITUS IN THE STATE WHERE THE DOMICILED TESTATOR HAD EXERCISED THE POWER
BY HIS WILL; THAT ITS EXERCISE WAS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
WHERE THE WILL DONATING THE POWER AND ESTABLISHING THE TRUST HAD BEEN
PROBATED, AND THAT NO "RIGHT" EXERCISED BY THE DONEE WAS CONFERRED BY
THE STATE OF HIS DOMICILE WHERE IT WAS EXERCISED. 

THE CONCLUSION THERE REACHED AND THE REASONS ADVANCED IN ITS SUPPORT
CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE DECISION AND THE REASONING OF THE BULLEN,
THE MCCANLESS AND THE ELLIOTT CASES.  IT IS PLAIN THAT IF APPROPRIATE
EMPHASIS BE PLACED ON THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE RATHER THAN
BLIND ADHERENCE TO CONFLICTING PRECEDENTS, THE WACHOVIA CASE MUST BE
OVERRULED.  THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE STATE SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE
DEPRIVED OF REVENUE FROM A SUBJECT WHICH FROM THE BEGINNING HAS BEEN
WITHIN THE REACH OF ITS TAXING POWER; A SUBJECT OVER WHICH WE CANNOT
SAY THE STATE'S CONTROL HAS BEEN CURTAILED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  NO INTEREST WHICH COULD BE SERVED BY SO
RIGID AN ADHERENCE TO STARE DECISIS IS SUPERIOR TO THE DEMANDS OF A
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE BASED ON A CONSIDERED AND A CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393,
406, FOOTNOTE 1; AND CF. HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303
U.S. 376, 387.  THE WACHOVIA CASE SHOULD BE AND NOW IS OVERRULED AND
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF NEW YORK TO LEVY THE PRESENT TAX IS
SUSTAINED.  REVERSED.    FN1  SEE ORR V. GILMAN, 183 U.S. 278; CHANLER
V. KELSEY, 205 U.S. 466; BULLEN V. WISCONSIN, 240 U.S. 625; SALTONSTALL
V. SALTONSTALL, 276 U.S. 260, 271; CF. REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO.,
278 U.S. 339, 345; CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 327,
337; TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497, 503; PORTER V. COMMISSIONER,
288 U.S. 436, 444. 

FN2  SEE KIRTLAND V. HOTCHKISS, 100 U.S. 491; HAWLEY V. MALDEN, 232
U.S. 1; CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS, 253 U.S. 325; BLODGETT V.
SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1; VIRGINIA V. IMPERIAL COAL SALES CO., 293 U.S.
15; FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V. MINNESOTA, 301 U.S. 234, 239-40, AND
CASES CITED; STEWART V. PENNSYLVANIA, 338 PA. 9, AFFIRMED 312 U.S. 649;
CF. CARPENTER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 17 HOW.  456(BEFORE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT); ALSO FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204;
BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586; BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 282 U.S.
1(ALL RECOGNIZING THE POWER OF THE STATE OF DOMICILE TO TAX).  IN THE
CASE OF INCOME TAXATION, SEE LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 286 U.S.
276; NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308; GUARANTY TRUST CO.
V. VIRGINIA, 305 U.S. 19. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT ONLY BECAUSE HE CONSIDERS
HIMSELF BOUND BY THE DECISIONS IN CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, AND
GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383.  OTHERWISE HE WOULD VOTE TO AFFIRM. 
..END :



















PECHEUR CO. V. NAT. CANDY CO., 315 U.S. 666 


NO. 648.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - 122 F.2D
318, VACATED. 


A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN INFRINGEMENT OF A TRADEMARK AND
FOR RESULTING DAMAGES CAN NOT BE MAINTAINED AS A SUIT ARISING UNDER THE
TRADEMARK LAW WHERE THE REGISTRATION OF PLAINTIFF'S LABELS WAS NOT
UNDER THAT LAW BUT UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAW.  P. 657. 

PECHEUR LOZENGE CO., INC. V. NATIONAL CANDY CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER DAMAGES
AND FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR
COMPETITION.  THERE WAS DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT "THIS SUIT ARISES UNDER THE TRADEMARK LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES" AND THAT PETITIONER'S WRAPPER DESIGN "WAS REGISTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE BY THE PLAINTIFF ON MAY 1, 1936,
UNDER THE NO. 47748."  IT PRAYED TREBLE DAMAGES "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE TRADEMARK LAW OF 1905," AND WAS AMENDED TO ALLEGE
REGISTRATION OF A SECOND WRAPPER DESIGN IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE
NO. 46862. 

A DECREE FOR PETITIONER, 36 F.SUPP.  730, WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  122 F.2D 318.  BOTH COURTS
BELOW HAVING FAILED TO CONSIDER OR APPLY LOCAL LAW, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 603, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER LOCAL LAW OR
FEDERAL LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A
TRADEMARK REGISTERED UNDER THE TRADEMARK ACT OF 1905, 33 STAT. 724, AND
WE REQUESTED COUNSEL "TO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS AS TO WHETHER STATE LAW
GOVERNS AND, IF SO, WHAT THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW IS." 

THE OPINIONS BELOW, THE PRINTED RECORD AND THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI GIVE NO INDICATION THAT THE SUIT WAS NOT FOUNDED UPON A
TRADEMARK REGISTERED UNDER THE 1905 ACT, AS THE BILL OF COMPLAINT HAD
MADE IT APPEAR.  BUT AN EXAMINATION OF THE ORIGINAL EXHIBITS, NOT
PRINTED IN THE RECORD, AND OF PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS HERE,
DISCLOSES THAT THE REGISTRATION REFERRED TO IS THAT OF PETITIONER'S
LABELS UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT
REGISTRATION UNDER THE TRADEMARK LAW.  IT THUS APPEARS THAT PETITIONER
HAS ALLEGED NO CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAW AND IS NOT
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE TRADEMARK LAW.  THE
ONLY CAUSE OF ACTION THAT THIS RECORD COULD POSSIBLY SUPPORT IS FOR
UNFAIR COMPETITION AND COMMON LAW "TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT," TO WHICH
LOCAL LAW APPLIES.  SEE FASHION GUILD V. TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S.
457, 468. 

THE DECREE WILL BE VACATED WITHOUT COSTS IN THIS COURT TO EITHER
PARTY, AND THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
TO AFFORD IT OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL LAW, AND FOR
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS AS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE
PROPER.  DECREE VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 
..END :

















U.S. CHEMICALS CO. V. CARBIDE CORP., 315 U.S. 668 


NO. 680.  ARGUED MARCH 13, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - 121 F.2D
665, REVERSED. 


1.  A REISSUE PATENT MUST BE FOR THE SAME INVENTION AS THE ORIGINAL
PATENT.  R.S. SEC. 4916.  P. 675. 

2.  ORIGINAL PATENT NO. 1,998,878, TO LEFORT, FOR A PROCESS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF ETHYLENE OXIDE, CALLED FOR THE INTRODUCTION INTO A HEATED
REACTION CHAMBER OF ETHYLENE AND OXYGEN, IN THE PRESENCE OF A
CATALYZER, AND ALSO, AS AN ESSENTIAL, THE VOLUNTARY INTRODUCTION OF
WATER.  REISSUE PATENT NO. 20,370, IN DESCRIBING THE PROCESS, TREATS
THE VOLUNTARY INTRODUCTION OF WATER AS PERMISSIVE BUT NOT MANDATORY. 
HELD, THAT THE REISSUE IS VOID.  P. 677. 

3.  ALTHOUGH IT IS THE DUTY OF A COURT TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF, BY
EXAMINATION OF THE ORIGINAL AND THE REISSUE, WHETHER THEY ARE FOR THE
SAME INVENTION, IT IS PERMISSIBLE, AND OFTEN NECESSARY, TO RECEIVE
EXPERT EVIDENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF A TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC
TERM OR TERM OF ART, SO THAT THE COURT MAY BE AIDED IN UNDERSTANDING
NOT WHAT THE INSTRUMENTS MEAN BUT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAY.  P. 678. 

4.  IT IS INADMISSIBLE TO ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT BY
RECOURSE TO EXPERT TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT THAT A PROCESS DESCRIBED AND
CLAIMED IN THE REISSUE, DIFFERENT FROM THAT DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN
THE ORIGINAL PATENT, IS, BECAUSE EQUALLY EFFICACIOUS, IN SUBSTANCE THAT
CLAIMED ORIGINALLY.  P. 678. 

5.  THE OMISSION FROM A REISSUE PATENT OF ONE OF THE STEPS OR
ELEMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THE ORIGINAL, THUS BROADENING THE CLAIMS TO
COVER A NEW AND DIFFERENT COMBINATION, RENDERS THE REISSUE VOID, EVEN
THOUGH THE RESULT ATTAINED IS THE SAME AS THAT BROUGHT ABOUT BY
FOLLOWING THE PROCESS CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT.  P. 678. 

U.S. INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS, INC. V. CARBIDE & CARBON CHEMICALS CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 603, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT UPHOLDING A REISSUE PATENT IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BY THE RESPONDENT TO RESTRAIN THE PETITIONER FROM
INFRINGING CLAIMS 8 AND 9 OF REISSUE PATENT NO. 20,370.  THE
APPLICATION FOR REISSUE WAS FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 1936, AND GRANTED MAY
18, 1937.  THE ORIGINAL PATENT WAS NO. 1,998,878, APPLIED FOR MARCH 22,
1932, AND GRANTED APRIL 23, 1935, TO THEODORE EMILE LEFORT, OF PARIS,
FRANCE, FOR A "PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ETHYLENE OXIDE."  THE
APPLICATION WAS BASED ON EARLIER FRENCH PATENTS.  THE RESPONDENT
PURCHASED THE UNITED STATES PATENT IN APRIL 1936 AND, AS A RESULT OF
ITS STUDY THEREOF, THE PATENTEE WAS PERSUADED TO APPLY FOR THE
REISSUE. 

IF THE REISSUE PATENT IS VALID, NO QUESTION IS NOW RAISED AS TO
PETITIONER'S INFRINGEMENT OF THE CLAIMS IN SUIT.  THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  FN2  WE TOOK THE CASE BECAUSE OF AN APPARENT CONFLICT WITH
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND SEVERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, TO THE
EFFECT THAT A REISSUE PATENT MUST, UNDER THE STATUTE, BE FOR THE SAME
INVENTION AS THE ORIGINAL PATENT.  FN3  THE PETITIONER ALSO RAISED A
QUESTION AS TO INTERVENING RIGHTS WHICH, IN THE VIEW WE TAKE, NEED NOT
BE CONSIDERED OR DECIDED. 

ETHYLENE IS A HYDROCARBON GAS, C2H4.  FOR A LONG TIME IT WAS THOUGHT
IMPOSSIBLE DIRECTLY TO OXYGENIZE IT TO FORM C2H4O BY BRINGING OXYGEN
AND ETHYLENE INTO CONTACT, THOUGH THE FORMATION OF ETHYLENE OXIDE BY
DIRECT OXIDATION WAS COMMERCIALLY DESIRABLE.  EFFORTS AT DIRECT
OXIDATION, INSTEAD OF PRODUCING THE OXIDE, RESULTED IN LESS DESIRABLE
OXYGENATED COMPOUNDS SUCH AS ALDEHYDES.  LEFORT CONCEIVED THE IDEA OF
EFFECTING THE OXIDATION BY CATALYTIC REACTION, THAT IS, THE USE OF A
SUBSTANCE, WHICH, IN SOME UNEXPLAINED WAY, CAUSES A CHEMICAL UNION OR
REACTION WHEN THE TWO SUBSTANCES TO BE AFFECTED ARE BROUGHT INTO
CONTACT IN ITS PRESENCE UNDER GIVEN CONDITIONS.  HE RECOGNIZED ONE
INCIDENT OF THE DIRECT OXIDATION PROCESS AS APPLIED TO ETHYLENE TENDING
TO DECREASE ITS EFFICIENCY, NAMELY, THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL
REACTION PRODUCING C2H4O, THERE OCCURS A SIDE REACTION BY WHICH A
PORTION OF THE ETHYLENE IS CONVERTED INTO CARBON DIOXIDE AND WATER,
AND, TO THAT EXTENT, THE ETHYLENE IS WASTED.  HE FOUND THAT, BY CERTAIN
CONTROL OF THE PROCESS, THIS SIDE REACTION COULD BE SO RESTRICTED AS
NOT TO DECREASE THE PRODUCTION OF ETHYLENE OXIDE BELOW A PROFITABLE
LEVEL. 

ACCORDING TO BOTH THE ORIGINAL PATENT AND THE REISSUE, ETHYLENE AND
OXYGEN ARE TO BE INTRODUCED INTO A HEATED REACTION CHAMBER IN THE
PRESENCE OF A CATALYZER.  THE PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE ORIGINAL
PATENT ALSO TREATS AS A MANDATORY OR NECESSARY STEP THE VOLUNTARY
INTRODUCTION OF WATER, WHEREAS THE REISSUE IN SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS
8 AND 9 OMITS THIS REQUIREMENT, AND THEREFORE DESCRIBES A DIFFERENT
PROCESS.  THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSERTS THAT AS BOTH
PATENTS DESCRIBE THE OXYGEN OF AIR AS THAT WHICH MAY BE USED, AND AS
ATMOSPHERIC AIR CONTAINS MOISTURE, THE FIRST, SPECIFYING WATER, AND THE
REISSUE SPECIFYING AIR, BOTH CONTEMPLATE THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER IN
SOME FORM AND THEREFORE ARE FOR THE SAME PROCESS.  FN4  THIS DISPUTE
MUST BE RESOLVED BY A COMPARISON OF THE DISCLOSURES OF THE TWO
INSTRUMENTS.  IF THAT COMPARISON LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
REISSUE IS NOT FOR THE SAME INVENTION AS THE ORIGINAL, THE REISSUE IS
VOID AS NOT WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE. 

WE SHALL POSTPONE DISCUSSION OF THE TESTS OF IDENTITY OR DIFFERENCE
OF INVENTION, AND THE USE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, TO A STATEMENT OF THE
CRITERIA OF JUDGMENT FURNISHED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATIONS
AND CLAIMS OF THE TWO DOCUMENTS. 

THE OPENING PARAGRAPH OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT IS: 

"THIS INVENTION HAS FOR OBJECT A PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
ETHYLENE OXIDE WHICH MAINLY CONSISTS IN SUBJECTING ETHYLENE TO THE
SIMULTANEOUS ACTION OF THE OXYGEN OF AIR AND OF WATER, IN PRESENCE OF A
CATALYZER AND, IF NEED BE, OF HYDROGEN." 

AFTER REFERRING TO THE USE OF HYDROGEN AS OPTIONAL, THE SPECIFICATION
DEALS WITH THE CHARACTER AND COMPOSITION OF METALS TO BE USED AS
CATALYZERS.  IT THEN SPEAKS OF THE ELEMENTS TO BE USED TO OBTAIN THE
DESIRED REACTION THUS: 

"THE ETHYLENE CAN BE OBTAINED FROM ANY SOURCE OF SUPPLY:  ... 

"WATER CAN BE ADMITTED IN THE REACTION VESSEL, EITHER IN THE LIQUID
STATE, OR AS STEAM. 

"THE OXYGEN CAN BE THE OXYGEN OF THE AIR, THIS LATTER GAS BEING
INTRODUCED IN THE REACTION." 

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, IT IS SAID: 

"THE EFFICIENCY OF THE REACTION IS INCREASED BY DIMINISHING THE CO2
WHICH IS FORMED, BY INTRODUCTION, IN THIS REACTION, OF A SUITABLE
QUANTITY OF WATER.  A SUITABLE VOLUME OF CO2 CAN ALSO BE PREVIOUSLY
INTRODUCED IN THE REACTING GASES." 

THE CO2 WHICH IT IS DESIRED TO DIMINISH IS THAT WHICH IS FORMED BY
THE UNDESIRABLE SIDE REACTION ABOVE MENTIONED.  THIS REACTION IS AGAIN
MENTIONED, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER AGAIN SPECIFIED THUS: 

"MOREOVER, THE APPLICANT HAS FOUND THAT THE REACTION GIVING CO2 IS,
CONTRARILY TO PREVIOUS BELIEF, A REACTION OF OXIDATION INDEPENDENT FROM
THAT GIVING ETHYLENE OXIDE AND FROM THAT GIVING ALDEHYDES.  FROM
EXPERIMENTS EFFECTED BY THE APPLICANT, IT RESULTS THAT, IF WATER IS
INTRODUCED IN SUITABLE QUANTITY, THE REACTION IS NOT ONLY FACILITATED,
AS ABOVE STATED, BUT, IN ADDITION, THE REACTION GIVING CO2, PROBABLY BY
DIRECT OXIDATION OF ETHYLENE ACCORDING TO THE EQUATION: C2H4   3O2 2H2O
2CO2 IS CHECKED, OWING, AS IS PROBABLE, TO THE PARTIAL PRESSURE OF
WATER." 

IT IS FURTHER SAID THAT THE EXPERIMENTS INDICATE THAT THE SIDE
REACTION PRODUCING CO2 AND WATER MAY BE COMPLETELY CHECKED AND THE
EFFICIENCY OF THE REACTION PRODUCING ETHYLENE OXIDE INCREASED IF CO2 IS
PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED IN ADDITION TO THE WATER AND THE REACTING GASES. 

THREE MODI OPERANDI ARE NEXT INDICATED AS EXAMPLES.  IN THE FIRST,
COMPRESSED ETHYLENE AND COMPRESSED AIR ARE LED, WITH OR WITHOUT
HYDROGEN, INTO A HEATED TUBE CONTAINING THE CATALYZER, THE TUBE BEING
CONNECTED WITH A CIRCULATING PUMP TO SUPPLY WATER UNDER PRESSURE.  IN
THE SECOND, THE CATALYZER IS INTRODUCED AND THE TUBE HEATED AND THEN "A
MIXTURE OF ETHYLENE, AIR, WATER VAPOUR AND HYDROGEN" IS SENT THROUGH
THE TUBE.  IN THE THIRD, THE CATALYZER IS INTRODUCED INTO A HIGH
PRESSURE TUBE FILLED WITH WATER.  PURE ETHYLENE IS ADDED "IN ORDER THAT
IT CAN DISSOLVE IN THE WATER."  THE TUBE IS HEATED AND "AIR AND
HYDROGEN ARE SLOWLY INTRODUCED." 

THE SPECIFICATION CONCLUDES: 

"THE EXPERIMENTS  ...  HAVE SHOWN THAT, IN PRESENCE OF THE CATALYZERS
INDICATED, WATER, IN THE FORM OF STEAM OR NOT, CONSIDERABLY PROMOTES
THE REACTION ENSURING THE PRODUCTION OF ETHYLENE OXIDE." 

ALL OF THE SEVEN CLAIMS INCLUDE OXYGEN AND WATER OR STEAM.  CLAIM 1
IS TYPICAL.  IT RUNS: 

"A PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ETHYLENE OXIDE, CONSISTING IN
SUBJECTING ETHYLENE TO THE SIMULTANEOUS ACTION OF OXYGEN AND WATER, IN
PRESENCE OF A CATALYST (DESCRIBING THE CATALYST) AT A TEMPERATURE
BETWEEN 150 AND 400 DEGREE C." 

IN SOME OF THE CLAIMS THE WORD "STEAM" IS SUBSTITUTED FOR "WATER"; IN
TWO, "HYDROGEN" IS ADDED. 

VARIOUS OPTIONS OR ALTERNATIVES ARE MENTIONED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS,
BUT NOWHERE IN THEM, OR IN THE CLAIMS, IS THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER
TREATED AS OPTIONAL OR PERMISSIVE.  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE NO FINDING
DIRECTED TO THIS FACT, BUT THE COURT BELOW DEFINITELY HOLDS, AND WE
AGREE, THAT, IN THE PROCESS DEFINED IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT, THE
VOLUNTARY INTRODUCTION OF WATER INTO THE REACTION CHAMBER IS
MANDATORY. 

EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT JUST BEFORE IT ACQUIRED THE
PATENT DEMONSTRATED THAT ETHYLENE OXIDE COULD BE PRODUCED BY PASSING
ETHYLENE AND AIR OVER A CATALYST AT THE TEMPERATURE DESCRIBED IN THE
PATENT WITHOUT THE VOLUNTARY INTRODUCTION OF WATER.  ITS PATENT
ATTORNEY WAS ASKED TO STUDY THE PATENT AND HE CONCLUDED THAT LEFORT
SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED FAR BROADER CLAIMS.  HE PREPARED TWO OATHS FOR
EXECUTION BY LEFORT TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION FOR REISSUE. 

IN THE FIRST, IT WAS AVERRED THAT THE SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS FAILED
TO EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT THE REACTION TAKES PLACE "WHETHER OR NOT
WATER IS PRESENT"; AND THAT THE ATTORNEY IN DRAWING THE APPLICATION HAD
NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY INSTRUCTED THAT THE "FULLEST BENEFIT AND
APPLICATION" OF THE INVENTION WAS THE PRODUCTION OF THE OXIDE IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE CATALYST "WITH OR WITHOUT THE INCLUSION OF WATER IN THE
REACTION." 

AFTER REJECTION, THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED.  THIS STATED THAT A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WATER WAS NECESSARILY PRESENT IN THE REACTION CHAMBER
DUE TO THE SIDE REACTION WHICH GIVES CO2 AND WATER, AND THAT THE
INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL WATER AND CARBON DIOXIDE WAS MERELY
PERMISSIVE IN ORDER TO AUGMENT THE QUANTITIES ALREADY FORMED BY THAT
REACTION. 

THEREUPON REISSUE WAS GRANTED WITH A REWRITTEN SPECIFICATION, THE
SEVEN ORIGINAL CLAIMS AND TWO NEW ONES, 8 AND 9, WHICH ARE THOSE IN
SUIT. 

THE SUBSTITUTED SPECIFICATION OPENS THUS: 

"THIS INVENTION PROVIDES A SPECIFIC AND NOVEL PROCESS FOR MAKING
ETHYLENE OXIDE.  IT ESSENTIALLY CONSISTS IN CAUSING ETHYLENE TO COMBINE
DIRECTLY WITH MOLECULAR OXYGEN AT TEMPERATURES OF ABOUT 150 DEGREE TO
ABOUT 400 DEGREE C. IN THE PRESENCE OF A SURFACE CATALYST WHICH FAVORS
THE OXIDATION OF ETHYLENE TO ETHYLENE OXIDE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS." 

THE STATEMENT IS MADE THAT ETHYLENE FROM ANY SOURCE CAN BE USED, AND
THAT THE OXYGEN CAN BE THAT OF THE AIR. 

THE ONLY REFERENCE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER IS: 

"THE OXIDATION OF ETHYLENE TAKES PLACE WITH A GIVING OFF OF HEAT, AND
IT IS, OF COURSE, DESIRABLE TO MAINTAIN THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ZONE OF
REACTION WITHIN THE RANGE SPECIFIED.  THIS CAN BE FACILITATED BY
SUITABLE DILUTION OF THE REACTION GASES, SUCH AS THAT ACCOMPLISHED BY
THE USE OF AIR AS THE SOURCE OF OXYGEN, AND SOME WATER OR CARBON
DIOXIDE IN ADDITION TO THAT FORMED CAN BE ADMITTED TO THE MIXTURE IN
THE REACTION ZONE IF DESIRED.  HYDROGEN MAY BE SIMILARLY ADDED." 

THE DESCRIPTION OF THE MODE OF CONDUCTING THE PROCESS DIFFERS FROM
ALL THOSE GIVEN IN THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION IN OMITTING THE
INTRODUCTION OF WATER. 

THE SPECIFICATION CONCLUDES: 

"IN ANY CASE, THE ETHYLENE AND OXYGEN ARE THUS REACTED SIMULTANEOUSLY
AT THE TEMPERATURES SET FORTH IN THE PRESENCE OF A SURFACE CATALYST AND
OF WATER  ...  " 

THE NEW CLAIMS 8 AND 9 ARE BROADER THAN THOSE OF THE ORIGINAL
PATENT.  FN5  IT WILL SUFFICE TO QUOTE 8.  IT IS: 

"THE PROCESS OF MAKING ETHYLENE OXIDE BY THE DIRECT CHEMICAL
COMBINATION OF OXYGEN WITH ETHYLENE IN THE PROPORTIONS OF ONE ATOM OF
OXYGEN TO ONE MOLECULE OF ETHYLENE, WHICH COMPRISES FORMING A MIXTURE
CONTAINING ETHYLENE AND MOLECULAR OXYGEN AND CONDUCTING SAID MIXTURE
THROUGH A CONFINED REACTION ZONE WHICH IS MAINTAINED AT AN ELEVATED
TEMPERATURE; CONTROLLING SAID TEMPERATURE TO MAINTAIN SAID MIXTURE IN
SAID ZONE AT A TEMPERATURE BETWEEN ABOUT 150 DEGREE AND ABOUT 400
DEGREE C.; SUBJECTING SAID MIXTURE IN SAID ZONE AT SAID ELEVATED
CONTROLLED TEMPERATURE TO INTIMATE CONTACT WITH AN ACTIVE SURFACE
CATALYST" (DESCRIBING IT, INTER ALIA, AS ONE WHICH FAVORS THE FORMATION
OF "OXIDATION PRODUCTS CONTAINING ETHYLENE OXIDE IN THE PRESENCE OF
WATER.")  AND DESCRIBING OTHER STEPS NOT NECESSARY TO BE RECITED. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCLOSURES CONTAINED IN
THE TWO PATENTS, THEY ARE FOR THE SAME INVENTION.  THIS COURT HAS SAID
THAT THEY ARE IF THE REISSUE FULLY DESCRIBES AND CLAIMS THE VERY
INVENTION INTENDED TO BE SECURED BY THE ORIGINAL PATENT; FN6  IF THE
REISSUE DESCRIBES AND CLAIMS ONLY THOSE THINGS WHICH WERE EMBRACED IN
THE INVENTION INTENDED TO HAVE BEEN SECURED BY THE ORIGINAL PATENT; FN7
IF THE BROADER CLAIMS IN THE REISSUE ARE NOT MERELY SUGGESTED OR
INDICATED IN THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION BUT CONSTITUTE PARTS OR
PORTIONS OF THE INVENTION WHICH WERE INTENDED OR SOUGHT TO BE COVERED
OR SECURED BY THE ORIGINAL PATENT.  FN8  THE REQUIRED INTENTION DOES
NOT APPEAR IF THE ADDITIONAL MATTER COVERED BY THE CLAIMS OF THE
REISSUE IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT.  FN9  IF THERE BE
FAILURE OF DISCLOSURE IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT OF MATTER CLAIMED IN THE
REISSUE, IT WILL NOT AID THE PATENTEE THAT THE NEW MATTER COVERED BY
THE REISSUE WAS WITHIN HIS KNOWLEDGE WHEN HE APPLIED FOR HIS ORIGINAL
PATENT.  FN10  AND IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT AN INVENTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN
CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT BECAUSE IT WAS SUGGESTED OR INDICATED IN
THE SPECIFICATION.  IT MUST APPEAR FROM THE FACE OF THE INSTRUMENT THAT
WHAT IS COVERED BY THE REISSUE WAS INTENDED TO HAVE BEEN COVERED AND
SECURED BY THE ORIGINAL.  FN11 

AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THE ORIGINAL SPECIFICATION AND
CLAIMS TREATED THE VOLUNTARY INTRODUCTION OF WATER INTO THE REACTION
CHAMBER AS A NECESSARY STEP IN THE PROCESS, WHEREAS SUCH INTRODUCTION
IS MADE PERMISSIVE BY THE REISSUE.  WE AGREE WITH THAT COURT'S VIEW
THAT THERE IS THUS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN THE
TWO DOCUMENTS.  BUT WE CANNOT AGREE WITH ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE
DIFFERENCE IS SO INSUBSTANTIAL AS NOT TO INVALIDATE THE NEW CLAIMS 8
AND 9.  ON THE FACE OF THE PAPERS, THE PROCESS DESCRIBED IN THE
ORIGINAL PATENT INCLUDED A STEP NOT DESIGNATED AS OPTIONAL OR DESIRABLE
BUT DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WHOLE OPERATION. 
IN CONTRAST, THE REISSUE TREATS THIS STEP AS IMMATERIAL AND MENTIONS
THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER AS FOR THE MERE PURPOSE OF CONTROLLING THE
TEMPERATURE IN THE REACTION ZONE, - A THOUGHT NOT EVEN SUGGESTED BY THE
SPECIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT, WHICH, ON THE CONTRARY, IN ITS
VERY FIRST SENTENCE, SPEAKS OF THE SIMULTANEOUS ACTION OF THE OXYGEN OF
AIR AND OF WATER. 

WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT THE REISSUE OMITTED A STEP IN THE PROCESS
WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED AS ESSENTIAL IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT. 
THE COURT BELOW WAS PERSUADED BY EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT, FROM A
CHEMIST'S POINT OF VIEW, THE PRESCRIBED STEP (THE INTRODUCTION OF
WATER) WAS IMMATERIAL; IN OTHER WORDS, CHEMISTS TESTIFIED THAT, BY
CARRYING OUT THE PROCEDURE, OMITTING THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER, THEY
OBTAINED THE RESULTS DESCRIBED IN THE PATENT.  NATURALLY ENOUGH, THIS
FACT LED THEM TO STATE, AS CHEMISTS, THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE WATER
WAS IMMATERIAL.  APPARENTLY THIS TESTIMONY INDUCED BOTH OF THE COURTS
BELOW TO CONCLUDE THAT LEFORT, WHEN HE APPLIED FOR HIS ORIGINAL PATENT,
KNEW THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER WAS UNNECESSARY.  THE INQUIRY AT
ONCE ARISES, IF THIS WERE SO, WHY DID HE NOT SAY SO.  IF HE HAD
DISCOVERED A PROCESS, WHICH THE CLAIMS OF THE REISSUE ARE CERTAINLY
BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER,  - THAT OF MIXING DRY OXYGEN AND ETHYLENE IN THE
PRESENCE OF A CATALYST AT THE PRESCRIBED TEMPERATURE TO PRODUCE
ETHYLENE OXIDE,  - IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD WHY, THROUGHOUT HIS
SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS, HE SPOKE OF EXPOSING ETHYLENE TO THE
SIMULTANEOUS ACTION OF OXYGEN AND WATER OR STEAM. 

WE THINK THE COURT BELOW FELL INTO ERROR IN ADOPTING THE SCIENTIFIC
CONCLUSION OF EXPERT WITNESSES THAT THE RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME
WHETHER WATER WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE REACTION CHAMBER OR NOT, AS
PROOF THAT LEFORT'S INVENTION WAS NOT WHAT HE STATED IT TO BE IN HIS
ORIGINAL PATENT BUT RATHER THE INVENTION OF A PROCESS OF BRINGING
ETHYLENE AND OXYGEN INTO CONTACT IN THE PRESENCE OF A CATALYST. 

ALTHOUGH IT IS THE DUTY OF A COURT TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF, BY
EXAMINATION OF THE ORIGINAL AND THE REISSUE, WHETHER THEY ARE FOR THE
SAME INVENTION, IT IS PERMISSIBLE, AND OFTEN NECESSARY, TO RECEIVE
EXPERT EVIDENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF A TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC
TERM OR TERM OF ART SO THAT THE COURT MAY BE AIDED IN UNDERSTANDING NOT
WHAT THE INSTRUMENTS MEAN BUT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAY.  FN12  IT IS
INADMISSIBLE TO ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT BY RECOURSE TO
EXPERT TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT THAT A PROCESS DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN
THE REISSUE, DIFFERENT FROM THAT DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL
PATENT, IS, BECAUSE EQUALLY EFFICACIOUS, IN SUBSTANCE THAT CLAIMED
ORIGINALLY.  FN13  IF SUCH TESTIMONY COULD TIP THE SCALES ON THE ISSUE
OF THE VALIDITY OF A REISSUE, IT WOULD ALWAYS BE POSSIBLE TO SUBSTITUTE
ANY NEW COMBINATION OF STEPS OR ELEMENTS OR DEVICES FOR THE ONE
ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED BY PROVING THAT THE OMISSION OF ANY
ONE OR MORE STEPS WOULD NOT ALTER THE RESULT. 

THIS COURT HAS UNIFORMLY HELD THAT THE OMISSION FROM A REISSUE PATENT
OF ONE OF THE STEPS OR ELEMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THE ORIGINAL, THUS
BROADENING THE CLAIMS TO COVER A NEW AND DIFFERENT COMBINATION, RENDERS
THE REISSUE VOID, EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT ATTAINED IS THE SAME AS THAT
BROUGHT ABOUT BY FOLLOWING THE PROCESS CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT. 

IN RUSSELL V. DODGE, 93 U.S. 460, THE ORIGINAL PATENT WAS FOR
TREATING SKINS BY THE USE OF A COMPOUND IN WHICH HEATED FAT LIQUOR WAS
EXPRESSLY STATED AS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT.  THERE WAS NO DISCLOSURE
THAT THE FAT LIQUOR COULD BE USED COLD.  IN A REISSUE THE SPECIFICATION
WAS ALTERED BY ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LIQUOR BE HEATED. 
THE COURT SAID: 

"THE CHANGE MADE IN THE OLD SPECIFICATION, BY ELIMINATING THE
NECESSITY OF USING THE FAT LIQUOR IN A HEATED CONDITION, AND MAKING IN
THE NEW SPECIFICATION ITS USE IN THAT CONDITION A MERE MATTER OF
CONVENIENCE, AND THE INSERTION OF AN INDEPENDENT CLAIM FOR THE USE OF
FAT LIQUOR IN THE TREATMENT OF LEATHER GENERALLY, OPERATED TO ENLARGE
THE CHARACTER AND SCOPE OF THE INVENTION.  THE EVIDENT OBJECT OF THE
PATENTEE IN SEEKING A REISSUE WAS NOT TO CORRECT ANY DEFECTS IN
SPECIFICATION OR CLAIM, BUT TO CHANGE BOTH, AND THUS OBTAIN, IN FACT, A
PATENT FOR A DIFFERENT INVENTION.  THIS RESULT THE LAW, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, DOES NOT PERMIT." 

IN GILL V. WELLS, 22 WALL.  1, THE ORIGINAL PATENT DISCLOSED AND
CLAIMED A MACHINE FOR MAKING HAT BODIES.  ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE
MACHINE WAS A TUNNEL THROUGH WHICH A CURRENT OF AIR WAS TO BE PASSED. 
THE SPECIFICATIONS DID NOT INDICATE THAT THIS PART COULD BE OMITTED. 
THE REISSUE FOR A MACHINE WITHOUT ANY TUNNEL, WAS HELD INVALID.  THE
COURT SAID (P. 26): 

"ARGUMENT TO SHOW THAT AN INVENTION CONSISTING OF A COMBINATION OF
THREE INGREDIENTS WHICH ARE OLD IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT OF A
COMBINATION OF FOUR OLD INGREDIENTS IS QUITE UNNECESSARY, AS THE
NEGATIVE OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS WELL SETTLED IN THE PATENT LAW AS IT
IS IN MATHEMATICS." 

MANY OTHER CASES MIGHT BE CITED TO THE SAME EFFECT. 

THE COURT BELOW WAS PERSUADED TO CONSTRUE THE REISSUE PATENT AS NOT
DIFFERING FROM THE ORIGINAL BY THE ARGUMENT THAT, IN BOTH, THE
INTRODUCTION OF WATER WAS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE TECHNOLOGICAL SUCCESS OF
THE PROCESS.  WHEN CERTIORARI WAS APPLIED FOR IN THIS COURT, THE
RESPONDENT IN ITS BRIEF SAID:  "THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS PRESENCE, IN THE REACTION ZONE IS NOT 'AN
ESSENTIAL FEATURE' IN THE INVENTION AT BAR, AND WAS NOT 'DESCRIBED AND
CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT AS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE.'" 

THIS ARGUMENT GOES UPON THE THEORY THAT IF THE PRESENCE OF WATER IS
NECESSARY TO THE REACTION, ITS PRESENCE IS ASSURED BY THE SIDE REACTION
WE HAVE MENTIONED WHICH PRODUCES CO2 AND WATER.  IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN,
HOWEVER, WHY, IF THIS IS THE SOURCE OF THE NECESSARY WATER, LEFORT DID
NOT SAY SO IN HIS ORIGINAL PATENT.  NOR DOES IT SUGGEST HOW THE
REACTION CAN BE INITIATED OR CAUSED WHEN DRY OXYGEN IS USED AND THE
SIDE REACTION HAS NOT COMMENCED. 

IN THE ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS IN THIS COURT, THE RESPONDENT SHIFTED
ITS POSITION.  IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT IT STATED THAT BOTH THE ORIGINAL
AND REISSUE COVER THE SAME INVENTION, FOR, IF BOTH REQUIRE THE
INTRODUCTION OF WATER, THE DESCRIBED INTRODUCTION OF AIR EFFECTS ALSO
THE INTRODUCTION OF WATER SINCE ATMOSPHERIC AIR CONTAINS BOTH OXYGEN
AND MOISTURE.  IT IS THUS SOUGHT TO AVOID THE FINDING OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE ORIGINAL PATENT CALLED FOR THE VOLUNTARY
INTRODUCTION OF WATER AND THE REISSUE DOES NOT.  THIS ARGUMENT FAILS TO
SQUARE WITH THE SPECIFICATION OR CLAIMS OF EITHER THE ORIGINAL PATENT
OR THE REISSUE.  THE CLAIMS OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT ARE NOT LIMITED TO
THE OXYGEN OF AIR; AND THE SPECIFICATION MERELY SAYS THE OXYGEN "CAN BE
THE OXYGEN OF AIR."  THE SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS OF THE REISSUE ARE
SATISFIED BY THE INTRODUCTION OF DRY OXYGEN. 

IN SHORT, TO AVOID THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH STARE ONE IN THE FACE WHEN
THE ATTEMPT IS MADE TO READ SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS AS CALLING FOR
THE SAME PROCESS, THE RESPONDENT IS DRIVEN TO TAKE INCONSISTENT
POSITIONS, NEITHER OF WHICH COMPORTS WITH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE TWO
PATENTS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE REISSUE IS NOT FOR THE SAME INVENTION DESCRIBED AND
CLAIMED AND INTENDED TO BE SECURED BY THE ORIGINAL PATENT, AND IS,
THEREFORE, VOID. 

THE DECREE IS REVERSED. 

FN1  34 F.SUPP.  813. 

FN2  121 F.2D 665. 

FN3  R.S. 4916, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 64:  "WHENEVER ANY PATENT IS WHOLLY OR
PARTIALLY INOPERATIVE OR INVALID, BY REASON OF A DEFECTIVE OR
INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICATION, OR BY REASON OF THE PATENTEE CLAIMING AS
HIS OWN INVENTION OR DISCOVERY MORE THAN HE HAD A RIGHT TO CLAIM AS
NEW, IF THE ERROR HAS ARISEN BY INADVERTENCE, ACCIDENT, OR MISTAKE, AND
WITHOUT ANY FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE INTENTION, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL
...  CAUSE A PATENT FOR THE SAME INVENTION, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CORRECTED SPECIFICATION, TO BE REISSUED.  ...  " 

FN4  NO QUESTION OF UNREASONABLE DELAY IS PRESENTED.  COMPARE MAHN V.
HARWOOD, 112 U.S. 354, 363; IVES V. SARGENT, 119 U.S. 652, 661; TOPLIFF
V. TOPLIFF, 145 U.S. 156, 169.  NOR HAVE WE OCCASION TO DECIDE WHAT MAY
BE THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE COURT REVIEW OF THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE ERROR OF THE PATENTEE AROSE "BY INADVERTENCE,
ACCIDENT OR MISTAKE, WITHOUT FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE INTENTION." 

FN5  THIS FACT, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT VITIATE THE REISSUE. 
TOPLIFF V. TOPLIFF, 145 U.S. 156. 

FN6  POWDER CO. V. POWDER WORKS, 98 U.S. 126, 138. 

FN7  PARKER & WHIPPLE CO. V. YALE CLOCK CO., 123 U.S. 87, 99; HOSKIN
V. FISHER, 125 U.S. 217, 223; FLOWER V. DETROIT, 127 U.S. 563, 571. 

FN8  CORBIN CABINET LOCK CO. V. EAGLE LOCK CO., 150 U.S. 38, 42. 

FN9  CLEMENTS V. ODORLESS EXCAVATING APPARATUS CO., 109 U.S. 641,
647; COON V. WILSON, 113 U.S. 268, 277; ELECTRIC GAS-LIGHTING CO. V.
BOSTON ELECTRIC CO., 139 U.S. 481, 501; FREEMAN V. ASMUS, 145 U.S. 226,
239; OLIN V. TIMKEN, 155 U.S. 141, 147. 

FN10  POWDER CO. V. POWDER WORKS, SUPRA, P. 138; MANUFACTURING CO. V.
LADD, 102 U.S. 408, 413; HUBER V. NELSON MFG. CO., 148 U.S. 270. 

FN11  PARKER & WHIPPLE CO. V. YALE CLOCK CO., SUPRA; FLOWER V.
DETROIT, SUPRA. 

FN12  SEYMOUR V. OSBORNE, 11 WALL.  516, 546. 

FN13  COLLAR CO. V. VAN DUSEN, 23 WALL.  530, 557. 
..END :
























TULEE V. WASHINGTON, 315 U.S. 681 


NO. 318.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - 7 WASH.2D
124, 109 P.2D 280, REVERSED. 


UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE TREATY OF MAY 29, 1855, WITH THE YAKIMA
INDIANS, RESERVING TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE THE RIGHT TO TAKE FISH
"AT ALL USUAL AND ACCUSTOMED PLACES, IN COMMON WITH THE CITIZENS" OF
WASHINGTON TERRITORY, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAS THE POWER TO IMPOSE
ON THE INDIANS EQUALLY WITH OTHERS SUCH RESTRICTIONS OF A PURELY
REGULATORY NATURE CONCERNING THE TIME AND MANNER OF FISHING OUTSIDE THE
RESERVATION AS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE CONSERVATION OF FISH, BUT IT CAN
NOT REQUIRE THEM TO PAY LICENSE FEES THAT ARE BOTH REGULATORY AND
REVENUE-PRODUCING.  P. 685. 

TULEE V. STATE OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A CONVICTION OF A MEMBER OF THE
YAKIMA TRIBE OF INDIANS ON A CHARGE OF CATCHING SALMON WITH A NET
WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT, SAMPSON TULEE, A MEMBER OF THE YAKIMA TRIBE OF
INDIANS, WAS CONVICTED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR KLICKITAT COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ON A CHARGE OF CATCHING SALMON WITH A NET, WITHOUT FIRST
HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.  FN1  THE SUPREME
COURT OF WASHINGTON AFFIRMED.  7 WASH.2D 124, 109 P.2D 280.  THE CASE
IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. 344(A),
THE APPELLANT CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE WASHINGTON STATUTE, AS
APPLIED TO HIM, ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS REPUGNANT TO A TREATY MADE
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE YAKIMA INDIANS. 

IN 1855, THE YAKIMAS AND OTHER INDIANS OWNED AND OCCUPIED CERTAIN
LANDS IN THE TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON, WHICH THE UNITED STATES WISHED TO
OPEN UP FOR SETTLERS.  MAY 29, 1855, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT
MET IN COUNCIL WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INDIANS, AND AFTER EXTENDED
DISCUSSIONS LASTING UNTIL JUNE 11, THE INDIANS AGREED TO A TREATY,
UNDER WHICH THEY WERE TO CEDE 16,920 SQUARE MILES OF THEIR TERRITORY,
RESERVING 1,233 SQUARE MILES FOR THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES REPRESENTED AT
THE MEETING.  AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE CESSION BY THE INDIANS, A
CESSION WHICH FURTHERED THE NATIONAL PROGRAM OF TRANSFORMING WILDERNESS
INTO POPULOUS, PRODUCTIVE TERRITORY, THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO PAY
$200,000; TO BUILD CERTAIN SCHOOLS, SHOPS, AND MILLS AND KEEP THEM
EQUIPPED FOR TWENTY YEARS; TO ERECT AND EQUIP A HOSPITAL; AND TO
PROVIDE TEACHERS AND VARIOUS HELPERS FOR TWENTY YEARS.  THIS AGREEMENT
WAS RATIFIED AND PROCLAIMED AS A TREATY IN 1859.  12 STAT. 951. 

THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THE WASHINGTON STATUTE COMPELLING HIM TO
OBTAIN A LICENSE IN ORDER TO FISH FOR SALMON VIOLATES THE FOLLOWING
PROVISION OF ARTICLE III OF THE TREATY: 

"THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF TAKING FISH IN ALL THE STREAMS, WHERE RUNNING
THROUGH OR BORDERING SAID RESERVATION, IS FURTHER SECURED TO SAID
CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF INDIANS, AS ALSO THE RIGHT OF TAKING
FISH AT ALL USUAL AND ACCUSTOMED PLACES, IN COMMON WITH CITIZENS OF THE
TERRITORY, AND OF ERECTING TEMPORARY BUILDINGS FOR CURING THEM;
TOGETHER WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF HUNTING, GATHERING ROOTS AND BERRIES,
AND PASTURING THEIR HORSES AND CATTLE UPON OPEN AND UNCLAIMED LAND." 

THE STATE DOES NOT CLAIM POWER TO REGULATE FISHING BY THE INDIANS IN
THEIR OWN RESERVATION.  PIONEER PACKING CO. V. WINSLOW, 159 WASH. 655,
294 P. 557.  NOR DOES IT DENY THAT TREATY RIGHTS OF INDIANS, WHATEVER
THEIR SCOPE, WERE PRESERVED BY CONGRESS IN THE ACT WHICH CREATED THE
WASHINGTON TERRITORY AND THE ENABLING ACT WHICH ADMITTED WASHINGTON AS
A STATE.  10 STAT. 172; 25 STAT. 676.  RELYING UPON ITS BROAD POWERS TO
CONSERVE GAME AND FISH WITHIN ITS BORDERS,  FN2  HOWEVER, THE STATE
ASSERTS THAT ITS RIGHT TO REGULATE FISHING MAY BE EXERCISED AT PLACES
LIKE THE SCENE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE, WHICH, ALTHOUGH WITHIN THE
TERRITORY ORIGINALLY CEDED BY THE YAKIMAS, IS OUTSIDE OF THEIR
RESERVATION.  IT ARGUES THAT THE TREATY SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AN
IMPAIRMENT OF THIS RIGHT, AND THAT, SINCE ITS LICENSE LAWS DO NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE INDIANS, THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE
TREATY.  THE APPELLANT, ON THE OTHER HAND, CLAIMS THAT THE TREATY GIVES
HIM AN UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO FISH IN THE "USUAL AND ACCUSTOMED PLACES,"
FREE FROM STATE REGULATION OF ANY KIND.  WE THINK THE STATE'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY IS TOO NARROW AND THE APPELLANT'S TOO BROAD;
THAT, WHILE THE TREATY LEAVES THE STATE WITH POWER TO IMPOSE ON
INDIANS, EQUALLY WITH OTHERS, SUCH RESTRICTIONS OF A PURELY REGULATORY
NATURE CONCERNING THE TIME AND MANNER OF FISHING OUTSIDE THE
RESERVATION AS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE CONSERVATION OF FISH,  FN3  IT
FORECLOSES THE STATE FROM CHARGING THE INDIANS A FEE OF THE KIND IN
QUESTION HERE. 

IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE RESERVED RIGHTS OF HUNTING AND
FISHING, WE MUST NOT GIVE THE TREATY THE NARROWEST CONSTRUCTION IT WILL
BEAR.  IN UNITED STATES V. WINANS, 198 U.S. 371, THIS COURT HELD THAT,
DESPITE THE PHRASE "IN COMMON WITH CITIZENS OF THE TERRITORY," ARTICLE
III CONFERRED UPON THE YAKIMAS CONTINUING RIGHTS, BEYOND THOSE WHICH
OTHER CITIZENS MAY ENJOY, TO FISH AT THEIR "USUAL AND ACCUSTOMED
PLACES" IN THE CEDED AREA; AND IN SEUFERT BROS. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
249 U.S. 194, A SIMILAR CONCLUSION WAS REACHED EVEN WITH RESPECT TO
PLACES OUTSIDE THE CEDED AREA.  FROM THE REPORT SET OUT IN THE RECORD
BEFORE US, OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE LONG COUNCIL AT WHICH THE TREATY
AGREEMENT WAS REACHED, WE ARE IMPRESSED BY THE STRONG DESIRE THE
INDIANS HAD TO RETAIN THE RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
IMMEMORIAL CUSTOMS OF THEIR TRIBES.  IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE
THAT THE TERMS OF THE TREATY ARE CARRIED OUT, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEANING THEY WERE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE BY THE TRIBAL
REPRESENTATIVES AT THE COUNCIL, AND IN A SPIRIT WHICH GENEROUSLY
RECOGNIZES THE FULL OBLIGATION OF THIS NATION TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS
OF A DEPENDENT PEOPLE.  UNITED STATES V. KAGAMA, 118 U.S. 375, 384;
SEUFERT BROS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 198-199. 

VIEWING THE TREATY IN THIS LIGHT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
STATE IS WITHOUT POWER TO CHARGE THE YAKIMAS A FEE FOR FISHING.  A
STATED PURPOSE OF THE LICENSING ACT WAS TO PROVIDE FOR "THE SUPPORT OF
THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND ITS EXISTING PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS."  LAWS OF
WASHINGTON (1937) 529, 534.  THE LICENSE FEES PRESCRIBED ARE REGULATORY
AS WELL AS REVENUE PRODUCING.  BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THEIR REGULATORY
PURPOSE COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED OTHERWISE, THAT THE IMPOSITION OF LICENSE
FEES IS NOT INDISPENSABLE TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A STATE CONSERVATION
PROGRAM.  EVEN THOUGH THIS METHOD MAY BE BOTH CONVENIENT AND, IN ITS
GENERAL IMPACT, FAIR, IT ACTS UPON THE INDIANS AS A CHARGE FOR
EXERCISING THE VERY RIGHT THEIR ANCESTORS INTENDED TO RESERVE.  WE
BELIEVE THAT SUCH EXACTION OF FEES AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE ENJOYMENT
OF FISHING IN THE "USUAL AND ACCUSTOMED PLACES" CANNOT BE RECONCILED
WITH A FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY.  WE THEREFORE HOLD THE STATE
STATUTE INVALID AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON IS REVERSED. 

FN1  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO CATCH, TAKE OR FISH FOR FOOD FISH WITH
ANY APPLIANCE OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER EXCEPT WITH HOOK AND LINE  ...
UNLESS LICENSE SO TO DO HAS BEEN FIRST OBTAINED.  ...  "  REMINGTON'S
REVISED STATUTES OF WASHINGTON, SEC. 5693.  "FOR EACH DIP BAG NET
LICENSE FOR THE TAKING OF SALMON ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER, (THE LICENSE
FEE SHALL BE) FIVE DOLLARS.  ...  " ID. (VOL. 7, 1940 SUPP.), SEC.
5703. 

FN2  GEER V. CONNECTICUT, 161 U.S. 519; WARD V. RACE HORSE, 163 U.S.
504, 507; PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138; LACOSTE V. DEPT. OF
CONSERVATION, 263 U.S. 545, 549. 

FN3  CF. KENNEDY V. BECKER, 241 U.S. 556.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
WINANS, SUPRA, 384. 
..END :























LABOR BOARD V. ELECTRIC CLEANER CO., 315 U.S. 685 


NO. 588.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - 120 F.2D
611, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FINDING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT, BY A
SUPPLEMENTARY ORAL CONTRACT BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND A LABOR UNION, IT
WAS AGREED ONLY THAT NEW EMPLOYEES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO JOIN THE UNION,
WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 690. 

2.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOARD THAT THE CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND A LABOR UNION IN THIS CASE WAS NOT VALID UNDER
SEC. 8(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, BECAUSE PRIOR TO SUCH
AGREEMENT THE UNION - ALTHOUGH THEN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES - HAD BEEN ASSISTED BY
COOPERATION OF THE EMPLOYER CONSTITUTING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, WAS
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 694. 

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE BOARD'S RULING THAT THE EMPLOYER, CONTRARY
TO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, COERCED OLD EMPLOYEES TO JOIN
CERTAIN UNIONS WITH WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAD NO CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACTS; IN
VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE, GUARANTEED BY THE
LABOR ACT. 

3.  AN ORDER OF THE BOARD REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER IN THIS CASE TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM ENCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN SUCH UNION AND
DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN ANOTHER; FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE
CLOSEDSHOP PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT; FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE
REMAINDER OF THE CONTRACT, WHEN ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION SHALL BE
CERTIFIED AS EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE; FROM INTERFERING WITH
ITS EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION; AND REQUIRING REINSTATEMENT
WITH BACK PAY OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES, POSTING OF NOTICES OF COMPLIANCE,
AND NOTIFICATION OF THE BOARD, WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND THE
FINDINGS, AND WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.  PP. 689, 698. 

4.  A FINDING BY THE BOARD THAT A CLAUSE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN AN
EMPLOYER AND A LABOR UNION, WHEREBY NEW EMPLOYEES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
JOIN THE UNION, WAS ABANDONED AND NOT SUBSEQUENTLY REVIVED, HELD
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 696. 

5.  SHORTENING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE BOARD ORDERED COMPENSATION TO
BE PAID TO EMPLOYEES WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED OR REFUSED EMPLOYMENT IS NOT
JUSTIFIED BY THE DELAYS IN DISPOSING OF THIS CASE.  P. 698. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. ELECTRIC VACUUM CLEANER CO., INC.,
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 600, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REFUSING ENFORCEMENT
OF AND SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE BASIC QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS REVIEW IS THE RIGHT OF
THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER, THE ELECTRIC VACUUM CLEANER COMPANY, INC., TO
COOPERATE WITH UNIONS, REPRESENTING AN UNCOERCED MAJORITY OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, TO SECURE NEW MEMBERS.  THE RIGHT IS CHALLENGED BECAUSE
EXERCISED PRIOR TO A CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT. 

THE OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE VARIOUS UNIONS, ALL AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WHICH WE SHALL CALL THE AFFILIATES. 
SINCE JUNE 22, 1935, THESE UNIONS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE EMPLOYER
AS THE DULY CHOSEN AGENTS OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 
ON THAT DATE, THE AFFILIATES AND THE EMPLOYER ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN
CONTRACT COVERING HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
JUNE 23, 1936.  A SIMILAR CONTRACT EXTENDED THE ARRANGEMENTS TO JUNE
23, 1937.  IN MAKING THE LATTER CONTRACT, THE AFFILIATES SATISFIED THE
EMPLOYER OF THEIR RIGHT TO REPRESENT THE WORKERS, BY EXHIBITING
AUTHORIZATION CARDS TOTALING 771 OUT OF THE 809 EMPLOYEES AFFECTED. 
THESE CARDS GAVE THE AFFILIATES "FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY" TO CONCLUDE
FOR THE SIGNER "ALL AGREEMENTS AS TO HOURS OF LABOR, WAGES AND OTHER
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS."  THEY WERE TO "REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT
FOR ONE YEAR FROM DATE AND THEREAFTER, SUBJECT TO THIRTY (30) DAYS
WRITTEN NOTICE OF MY DESIRE TO WITHDRAW SUCH POWER AND AUTHORITY TO ACT
FOR ME IN THE MATTERS REFERRED TO HEREIN."  WE ASSUME THAT THE
CANCELLATION CLAUSE IS INEFFECTIVE PRIOR TO TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE DATE
OF THE CARD AND THAT ALL CARDS WERE DATED JUST PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION
OF THE FIRST, OR 1935, CONTRACT. 

IN MARCH 1937, WHEN THE CONTRACT AND THE INDIVIDUAL POWERS OF
ATTORNEY STILL HAD SEVERAL MONTHS TO RUN, THE UNITED ELECTRICAL AND
RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA (HEREAFTER CALLED UNITED), AFFILIATED WITH THE
COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, BEGAN AN EFFORT TO ORGANIZE THE
PLANT.  THE BOARD, ON ADEQUATE EVIDENCE, FOUND THAT ABOUT SIXTY
EMPLOYEES IMMEDIATELY SIGNED UNITED CARDS, THAT ON MARCH 19TH A MEETING
OF UNITED WAS HELD AT THE POST OFFICE BUILDING IN EAST CLEVELAND,
ATTENDED BY A "LARGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES," AND THAT ON MARCH 28TH
ANOTHER UNITED MEETING WAS HELD "BY A LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SECURING FORMAL RESIGNATIONS FROM THE A.F. OF L.
AFFILIATES."  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT A UNITED CHARTER WAS ISSUED TO THE
INTERESTED EMPLOYEES FOR A LOCAL 720, AND THAT ON APRIL 2ND THE LOCAL
NOTIFIED THE EMPLOYER BY LETTER THAT A MAJORITY OF ITS EMPLOYEES HAD
RESIGNED THEIR MEMBERSHIPS IN THE AFFILIATES AND HAD "AFFILIATED"
THEMSELVES WITH UNITED.  LOCAL 720 CLAIMED IN THE LETTER THE RIGHT TO
NEGOTIATE GRIEVANCES "UNDER THE EXISTING CONTRACT," I.E., THAT EXPIRING
JUNE 23, 1937.  THIS LETTER WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYER UNTIL
APRIL 5TH. 

PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, AND DURING A SHUTDOWN OF THE
PLANT BY THE EMPLOYER, WHICH HAD BEGUN ON MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1937,
PURSUANT TO A REQUEST OF THE AFFILIATES, DATED MARCH 20TH, THE EMPLOYER
AND THE AFFILIATES HAD ENTERED INTO AN ORAL ARRANGEMENT ON SATURDAY,
APRIL 3RD, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE EMPLOYER NOTIFIED ITS EMPLOYEES IT WAS
REOPENING ITS PLANT MONDAY, APRIL 5TH, UNDER THE CONTRACT EXPIRING THE
SUBSEQUENT JUNE 23RD, AND ADDED "BUT ONLY THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
MEMBERS OF THE CRAFTS UNDER CONTRACT WITH US WILL BE EMPLOYED." 
EVENTUALLY, A CLOSED SHOP CLAUSE APPEARED IN A BILATERAL WRITTEN
CONTRACT, SUPERSEDING THE ONE EXPIRING JUNE 23RD, EXECUTED AS OF MAY
20, 1937, IN THE FOLLOWING FORM: 

ARTICLE III (D) "THE EMPLOYER AGREES TO EMPLOY ONLY MEMBERS OF THE
UNIONS IN GOOD STANDING IN THEIR RESPECTIVE UNIONS, AND SHOULD THE
EMPLOYER REQUIRE MORE EMPLOYEES THAN THOSE NOW EMPLOYED, THE EMPLOYER
WILL SECURE SUCH EMPLOYEES THROUGH THE UNIONS, IF HOWEVER, THE UNIONS
ARE UNABLE TO FURNISH SUCH EMPLOYEES, THE EMPLOYER MAY SECURE THEM
ELSEWHERE, IT BEING UNDERSTOOD, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES SO SECURED
SHALL BECOME MEMBERS OF THE UNION." 

ON THE REOPENING OF THE PLANT, NO ONE WAS PERMITTED TO RETURN TO WORK
WHO DID NOT PRESENT A CLEARANCE CARD FROM THE AFFILIATES.  THE REFUSAL
OF THE COMPANY TO REEMPLOY CERTAIN MEMBERS OF UNITED LOCAL 720 GAVE
RISE TO CHARGES OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, WHICH WERE SUSTAINED BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  18 N.L.R.B. 591.  THE EMPLOYER WAS
ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN UNITED AND
ENCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN THE AFFILIATES; FROM GIVING ANY EFFECT AT ANY
TIME TO PARAGRAPH (D) OF ARTICLE III OF THE MAY 20, 1937, AGREEMENT,
QUOTED ABOVE, REQUIRING A CLOSED SHOP; FROM GIVING ANY EFFECT TO THE
REMAINDER OF THE MAY 20, 1937, AGREEMENT UPON CERTIFICATION OF ANY
OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION THAN THE AFFILIATES AS EXCLUSIVE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, AND FROM IN ANY MANNER INTERFERING WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION.  THE ORDER REQUIRED AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION BY THE EMPLOYER, FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES, TO THE EXTENT OF
REINSTATEMENT AND BACK PAY, WITH THE USUAL PROVISIONS FOR POSTING
NOTICES OF COMPLIANCE AND NOTIFICATION OF THE BOARD.  SOME OTHER
CHARGES, AND A PETITION FOR INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES, WERE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  FN1 

THE RESPONDENTS SUCCESSFULLY CONTESTED AN ENFORCEMENT PETITION.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE THE ORDER, 120 F.2D 611, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE REFUSAL TO PERMIT MEMBERS OF THE UNITED TO RESUME THEIR
WORK WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE, AT THE TIME, A VALID CLOSED SHOP CONTRACT,
IN FAVOR OF THE AFFILIATES, UNDER SEC. 8(3) OF THE STATUTE, SET OUT
BELOW, WAS IN EFFECT.  FN2  DEEMING THE ISSUES IMPORTANT IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  314 U.S. 600. 

IN ADDITION TO THE FACTS JUST STATED, THE BOARD FOUND THERE WAS AN
ORAL PROVISION, PERTAINING TO A CLOSED SHOP, INCLUDED IN THE 1935 AND
1936 CONTRACTS.  THIS WAS TO THE EFFECT, THE BOARD CONCLUDED, THAT ALL
EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER THE DATE OF THE FIRST CONTRACT (REFERRED TO AS
NEW EMPLOYEES) SHOULD BE REQUIRED, AFTER A WORK-PROBATION PERIOD OF TWO
WEEKS, TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE APPROPRIATE AFFILIATE UNION. 
RESPONDENTS CONTEND THE ORAL ADDITION WAS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT, AND THAT,
UNDER IT, NOT ONLY WERE NEW EMPLOYEES COMPELLED TO JOIN THE AFFILIATES,
BUT OLD EMPLOYEES (THOSE EMPLOYED BEFORE THE FIRST CONTRACT) WHO WERE,
OR WHO BECAME, MEMBERS OF THE AFFILIATES WERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN
THEIR MEMBERSHIP UNIMPAIRED.  RESPONDENTS' POSITION WAS UPHELD BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS.  THE FREEDOM OF
OLD EMPLOYEES, UNDER THE EARLIER CONTRACTS, TO JOIN OR NOT, AS THEY
WISHED, IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY ALL. 

THE COURT RELIED HEAVILY UPON THE AUTHORIZATIONS TO BARGAIN,  FN3
FURNISHED THE AFFILIATES BY THE OLD EMPLOYEES, AS INDICATING THE OLD
EMPLOYEES WHO WERE MEMBERS MUST MAINTAIN THAT STATUS UNTIL THE YEAR WAS
UP.  ASSUMING THAT EVERY OLD EMPLOYEE FURNISHED A POWER OF
REPRESENTATION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING NOT REVOCABLE DURING THE YEAR,
IT NEED NOT BE INFERRED THE EMPLOYEE ALSO WAS BOUND THEREBY NOT TO
SWITCH HIS UNION ALLEGIANCE.  IF THE EMPLOYEE WERE FORCED TO AWAIT THE
EXPIRATION OF THE YEAR BEFORE CHANGING MEMBERSHIP, THE FIRST BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE MIGHT HAVE A CONTRACT FOR THE ENSUING YEAR EXECUTED
BEFORE A NEW REPRESENTATIVE COULD BE ORGANIZED AND EMPOWERED TO ACT. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS RECORD TO COMPEL SUCH INTERPRETATION OF THE
AUTHORIZATIONS.  WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND
THE AFFILIATES, THE BOARD CITES THE EVIDENCE OF SEVERAL, INCLUDING A
LETTER FROM THE EMPLOYER'S PRESIDENT, WRITTEN BEFORE ANY CONTROVERSY
AROSE, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ORAL PROVISION WAS THAT NEW EMPLOYEES
MUST JOIN THE AFFILIATES.  FROM THIS EVIDENCE, THE BOARD WAS FULLY
JUSTIFIED IN REACHING ITS DETERMINATION THAT NOTHING MORE WAS AGREED. 
LABOR BOARD V. AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE MACH. CO., 315 U.S. 282; LABOR
BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453, 461; LABOR BOARD V. GREYHOUND LINES,
303 U.S. 261, 271.  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING BOUND TO RETAIN
THE SAME BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD, AND BEING
BOUND NOT TO BECOME A MEMBER OF A DIFFERENT UNION DURING THE TERM OF
THE CONTRACT.  THE FIRST SITUATION, NOT THE SECOND, AROSE FROM THE
EARLIER CONTRACTS. 

THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE UNITED CAMPAIGN FOR MEMBERSHIP, IN MARCH,
BROUGHT COOPERATIVE ACTION BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE AFFILIATES TO
STRENGTHEN THE LATTER'S POSITION.  UNDER THE ORAL CONTRACT, AS DEFINED
BY THE RULING OF THE BOARD, NOW APPROVED HERE, NEW EMPLOYEES COULD
PROPERLY BE REQUIRED TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE AFFILIATES, BUT OLD
EMPLOYEES COULD NEITHER BE REQUIRED TO BECOME MEMBERS NOR TO MAINTAIN
THEIR MEMBERSHIP.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT, TO FORESTALL DEFECTIONS OF OLD
EMPLOYEES FROM THE AFFILIATES TO THE UNITED, THE EMPLOYER "SUMMONED OLD
EMPLOYEES TO THE OFFICE AND THERE SOUGHT TO, AND IN MANY INSTANCES WAS
ABLE TO, COERCE THEM INTO JOINING THE A.F. OF L. AFFILIATES."  IN THE
OFFICE WERE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AFFILIATES AS WELL AS THE EMPLOYER. 
A NUMBER OF OLD MEN WERE CALLED BEFORE THIS GROUP.  IT IS NOT CLEAR
FROM THE RECORD WHICH ONES HAD BEEN MEMBERS OF THE AFFILIATES AND LOST
THEIR STANDING, OR WHICH ONES HAD NEVER BEEN MEMBERS.  THERE WERE
INSTANCES OF EACH TYPE.  VITOSKY HAD BEEN A MEMBER.  RAMSEY HAD NOT. 
BOTH VITOSKY AND RAMSEY WERE OLD EMPLOYEES, EACH IN SERVICE LONG PRIOR
TO THE FIRST CONTRACT.  VITOSKY AND FOUR OTHERS SIGNED AFFILIATE CARDS
ON DEMAND, AND RETURNED TO WORK.  RAMSEY REFUSED TO SIGN, AND WAS
DISCHARGED.  UPON THE REPORT OF RAMSEY'S DISCHARGE REACHING THE
WORKSHOPS, THERE WAS A ONE DAY SITDOWN STRIKE.  RESPONDENTS URGE THAT
RAMSEY'S DISCHARGE WAS THE RESULT OF AN ERROR.  THIS ISSUE NEED NOT BE
RESOLVED, AS THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SOME OLD MEN, IN VIOLATION OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, WERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN OR RENEW
THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE AFFILIATES PRIOR TO THE CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT
OF APRIL 3RD.  SUCH FACTS ARE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S RULING OF
COERCION OF EMPLOYEES BY THE EMPLOYER IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE
MEMBERSHIP OF THE AFFILIATES.  WITHOUT A CLOSED SHOP CONTRACT COVERING
THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED, THIS COMPANY EFFORT TO MAINTAIN A UNION
VIOLATES PROVISIONS PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE AS
THEY MAY WISH.  49 STAT. 452, SECS. 7, 8(1), 8(3); 29 U.S.C. SECS. 157,
158(1), 158(3). 

FURTHERMORE, UPON THE ADJUSTMENT OF THIS SIT-DOWN STRIKE, WHICH TOOK
PLACE FRIDAY, MARCH 19TH, AFTER THE OCCURRENCES JUST DESCRIBED, THE
AFFILIATES REQUESTED, AND THE EMPLOYER ORDERED, A SHUTDOWN OF THE
ENTIRE PLANT, WHICH LASTED FROM MARCH 22ND TO APRIL 5TH.  THE BOARD
FOUND THAT THIS SHUTDOWN WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING "FURTHER
PROSELYTING" AMONG MEMBERS OF THE AFFILIATES BY THE UNITED.  A VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE EMPLOYER TESTIFIED TO SUCH FACTS, LEARNED BY HIM IN
CONFERENCE WITH OFFICIALS OF THE AFFILIATES WHO STATED THEY NEEDED THE
TIME TO "GET THEIR LINES IN ORDER."  ASSISTANCE TO A UNION BY A
SHUTDOWN, LIKE ANY OTHER EMPLOYER ASSISTANCE, IS FORBIDDEN.  FN4 

RESPONDENTS ASSERT THAT WHATEVER EMPLOYER ASSISTANCE WAS RENDERED THE
AFFILIATES WAS JUSTIFIED, EVEN UNDER AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT
WHICH RESTRICTS THE ORAL PORTION TO A REQUIREMENT THAT NEW MEMBERS JOIN
THE AFFILIATES.  THE ASSISTANCE, IT IS URGED, WAS RENDERED TO
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES, SELECTED FREELY BY A MAJORITY OF
THE EMPLOYEES AND POSSESSED OF UNRESTRICTED AND UNREVOKED POWERS TO
NEGOTIATE GENERALLY OVER LABOR CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE CLOSED SHOP
CLAUSE OF APRIL 3RD AND THE NEW CLOSED SHOP CONTRACT OF MAY 20, 1937. 
UNDER THIS VIEW, SINCE THE DISCHARGES TOOK PLACE AFTER A VALID CLOSED
SHOP AMENDMENT, THEY WERE IN CONFORMITY WITH SEC. 8(3) OF THE LABOR
ACT. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE PROVISO OF SEC. 8(3) WILL DEMONSTRATE THE ERROR
OF THIS POSITION.  THAT PROVISO READS, SO FAR AS PERTINENT, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT  ... SHALL PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER
FROM MAKING AN AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION (NOT ESTABLISHED,
MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THIS ACT AS AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE) TO REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP
THEREIN, IF SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 9(A), IN THE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING UNIT COVERED BY SUCH AGREEMENT WHEN MADE." 

UNDER THE FINDINGS ALREADY SUSTAINED, THE AFFILIATES WERE ASSISTED
AND MAINTAINED BY THE COOPERATION OF THE EMPLOYER IN DEALING WITH THE
OLD EMPLOYEES.  SUCH ACTS ENCOURAGED THE LABOR ORGANIZATION, IN
VIOLATION OF THE PORTION OF SEC. 8(3) PRECEDING THE PROVISO, SET OUT IN
NOTE 2.  CONSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT WAS ADOPTED,
APRIL 3RD, IT WAS INVALID BECAUSE ENTERED INTO WITH A LABOR
ORGANIZATION ASSISTED BY AN EMPLOYER, IN THE PRECISE WORDS OF SEC. 8(3)
QUOTED ABOVE.  CF. I.A. OF M.V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 81.  BEING
INVALID, THE DISCHARGES VIOLATED SECS. 7, 8(1) AND (3).    RESPONDENTS,
HOWEVER, TAKE THE POSITION THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE EMBODIED IN
THE LABOR ACT IS NOT SERVED BY SUCH LITERALNESS.  AS THEY SEE THE
SITUATION, FREEDOM TO ORGANIZE MUST NECESSARILY BE QUALIFIED AFTER
UNCOERCED EMPLOYEES OBTAIN VALIDLY CHOSEN MAJORITY REPRESENTATIVES. 
PREVIOUSLY UNTRAMMELED RIGHTS, THEY ARGUE, MUST BE SUBJECTED TO THE
MODICUM OF INTERFERENCE HERE PRACTICED, IN ORDER THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL
OBJECT OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE MAY BE REALIZED.  WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT
THE BOARD'S INTERPRETATION OF THE APPLICABLE LANGUAGE IS CORRECT.  THE
PROVISION FOR A CLOSED SHOP, AS PERMITTED BY SEC. 8(3), FOLLOWS
GRAMMATICALLY A PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING.  THESE WORDS
OF THE EXCEPTION MUST HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CHOSEN TO EXPRESS THE PRECISE
NATURE AND LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE EMPLOYER ACTIVITY IN UNION
ORGANIZATION.  TO PERMIT EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION
OF A CLOSED SHOP CONTRACT, AS SOON AS A BARE MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES HAD
PROPERLY SELECTED THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, WOULD GO FAR TO RESTORE THE
TYPE OF COMPANY-UNION COORDINATION IN LABOR MATTERS WHICH THE ACT
FORBIDS.  FN5 

SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT ASSISTANCE WAS GIVEN THE AFFILIATES BY THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF ENCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN THOSE UNIONS, IT
FOLLOWS THAT THE CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT OF APRIL 3RD, REQUIRING OLD
EMPLOYEES TO BE MEMBERS OF THE AFFILIATES, WAS MADE WITH AN ASSISTED
LABOR ORGANIZATION AND COULD BE HELD INVALID.  I.A. OF M. V. LABOR
BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 75.  HOW LONG THAT INVALIDITY CONTINUES IS AN
INFERENCE OF FACT FOR THE FAIR DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD.  CF. H.J.
HEINZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 514, 522.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE REFUSAL
OF THE EMPLOYER TO PERMIT THE EMPLOYEES TO WORK WITHOUT CLEARANCE FROM
THE AFFILIATES COULD BE FOUND A FORBIDDEN INTERFERENCE AND
DISCRIMINATION.  SEC. 8(1) AND (3).  LABOR BOARD V. LINK-BELT CO., 311
U.S. 584, 601.  FURTHER, THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT THE INFIRMITIES OF
THE APRIL 3RD ARRANGEMENT WERE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE MAY 20TH CONTRACT
PROCEEDS NATURALLY FROM ITS DECISION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE EMPLOYER
ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO APRIL 3RD.  THE FORCE OF THE UNFAIR PRACTICES WAS
NOT NECESSARILY DISSIPATED SO QUICKLY. 

THE EMPLOYER CALLS OUR ATTENTION TO PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER
REINSTATING EMPLOYEES, WHICH IT FEELS ERRONEOUS.  SO FAR AS THIS
OBJECTION IS BASED ON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE 1936 ORAL CONTRACT TO
REQUIRE OLD EMPLOYEES TO MAINTAIN THEIR MEMBERSHIP, IT IS ANSWERED BY
PRIOR PORTIONS OF THIS OPINION.  THE EMPLOYER'S REFUSAL TO ADMIT THESE
OLD EMPLOYEES TO WORK ON AND AFTER APRIL 5TH IS PROPERLY REMEDIED BY
REINSTATING THEM IN THEIR POSITION AND GRANTING THEM BACK PAY. 

THERE IS A DIFFERENT BASIS, HOWEVER, FOR THE OBJECTION TO THE
REINSTATEMENT OF THE NEW EMPLOYEES.  THIS IS THAT, UNDER ANY
INTERPRETATION OF THE ORAL CLAUSE OF THE 1936 CONTRACT, THESE MEN MUST
BECOME MEMBERS OF THE AFFILIATES, AND THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER'S REFUSAL
TO TAKE THEM BACK ON THEIR JOBS IS PROPER, EVEN THOUGH THE APRIL 3RD
ARRANGEMENT IS INVALID.  THE BOARD ANSWERS THAT THE APRIL 3RD
ARRANGEMENT WAS AN ABANDONMENT OF THE EARLIER ORAL CLAUSE, AND THAT,
CONSEQUENTLY, THE DISCHARGES MADE PURSUANT TO THE LATER INVALID CLOSED
SHOP ARRANGEMENTS ARE IMPROPER.  THE ABANDONMENT, THE BOARD FINDS, WAS
INTENTIONAL, AND THEREFORE THE SUBSEQUENT INVALIDATION OF THE LATER
ARRANGEMENT DID NOT REVIVE THE VITALITY OF THE EARLIER ORAL CONTRACT. 

THIS FINDING OF ABANDONMENT OF THE 1936 MEMBERSHIP CLAUSE WAS AN
INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE BOARD FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE
ADOPTION OF THE APRIL 3RD ARRANGEMENT.  IT IS AN INFERENCE THE BOARD IS
ENTITLED TO MAKE WHEN SUPPORTED BY MATERIAL EVIDENCE.  TO THE BOARD,
THE CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED THE APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE
DRAWING OF SUCH INFERENCES.  49 STAT. 454, SEC. 10(E); LABOR BOARD V.
WATERMAN S.S. CO., 309 U.S. 206, 209; LABOR BOARD V. LINK-BELT CO., 311
U.S. 584, 597.  THE LACK OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF THE ABANDONMENT IS
NATURAL.  IT WAS FOUND ABANDONED BY THE BOARD BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF
THE PARTIES, THE EMPLOYER AND THE AFFILIATES, LOOKING TO THE CREATION
OF A NEW, ALL EMBRACING CLOSED SHOP CONTRACT.  WHILE THE BOARD FOUND
THE 1936 ORAL CLAUSE HAD COVERED ONLY NEW EMPLOYEES, THE AFFILIATES
ISSUED A NOTICE TO THEIR MEMBERS, DATED MARCH 31ST, SAYING THE
"SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM (I.E., "THE SITUATION THAT RESULTED IN THE
CLOSING OF THE PLANT") IS PROPER ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRESENT AGREEMENT,
AND THAT NO ONE BE ALLOWED TO RESUME WORK UNLESS AFFILIATED WITH THESE
ORGANIZATIONS."  ON APRIL 3, 1937, THE EMPLOYER NOTIFIED ITS EMPLOYEES
THAT IN 1936 "IT WAS AGREED THAT WE EMPLOY ONLY PERSONS AFFILIATED WITH
SAID CRAFTS" (THE AFFILIATES).  SUCH INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD CLAUSE,
VARYING SO RADICALLY FROM THAT ADOPTED BY THE BOARD, IS NOT CONDUCTIVE
TO CLEAR-CUT EVIDENCE OF THE PURPOSE OF THE SUBSTITUTE CLOSED SHOP
ARRANGEMENT OF APRIL 3RD.  CONSIDERED AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF
COERCION OF OLD EMPLOYEES, THE STRIKE DIFFICULTIES AND THE CLOSING OF
THE PLANT, ALL AFFECTED AT LEAST BY THE UNITED'S MEMBERSHIP CAMPAIGN,
WE ARE NOT WILLING TO SAY THAT THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT "IN SUBSTANCE,
THOUGH NOT IN FORM, THE ARRANGEMENT EFFECTED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND
THE A.F. OF L. AFFILIATES ON OR ABOUT APRIL 3, 1937, WAS AN ABANDONMENT
OF THE ORAL AGREEMENT AS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE EXIGENCIES OF THE
SITUATION AND ITS REPLACEMENT BY A CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT," IS
UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

WE HAVE NOTED THE EMPLOYER'S OBJECTION TO THE BURDEN OF BACK PAY
PLACED UPON IT BECAUSE OF THE BOARD'S ALLEGED DELAY IN ENTERING THE
FINAL ORDER.  HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS AS QUICKLY AS IS CONSISTENT WITH
GOOD ADMINISTRATION IS OF COURSE ESSENTIAL.  IT IS IMPORTANT BOTH TO
THE EMPLOYER, WHO MAY HAVE TO PAY BACK WAGES, AND TO THE EMPLOYEE, WHO
MUST LIVE WITHOUT HIS JOB.  UNFORTUNATELY, THIS CAUSE TOOK FROM JUNE
10, 1937, TO DECEMBER 31, 1939.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD, BEYOND
A FAILURE OF THE BOARD TO FILE AN INTERMEDIATE REPORT, WHICH WOULD TEND
TO JUSTIFY US, HOWEVER, IN SHORTENING THE PERIOD FOR COMPENSATION. 
THIS ERROR WAS ADMITTED AND CORRECTED BY THE BOARD.  WE CANNOT PENALIZE
THE EMPLOYEES FOR THIS HAPPENING. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED WITH
DIRECTIONS TO ENFORCE THE ORDER OF THE BOARD EXCEPT AS TO REIMBURSEMENT
OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL WORK-RELIEF PROJECTS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CERTAIN CLAUSES OF THE ORDER RELATING TO REIMBURSEMENT OF
FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL WORK-RELIEF PROJECTS ARE ABANDONED BY THE
BOARD AND SHOULD BE ELIMINATED.  REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD,
311 U.S. 7. 

FN2  49 STAT. 452, C. 372, SEC. 8:  "IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER - ...  (3) BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE
OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO
ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:
PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT, OR  ...  ANY OTHER STATUTE OF THE
UNITED STATES, SHALL PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER FROM MAKING AN AGREEMENT WITH
A LABOR ORGANIZATION (NOT ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED BY ANY
ACTION DEFINED IN THIS ACT AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE) TO REQUIRE AS A
CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP THEREIN, IF SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION
IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 9(A), IN
THE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT COVERED BY SUCH AGREEMENT
WHEN MADE."  29 U.S.C. SEC. 158(3). 

FN3  "I, THE UNDERSIGNED,  ...  HEREBY AUTHORIZE MY CRAFT
ORGANIZATION  ...  TO REPRESENT ME AND, IN MY BEHALF, TO NEGOTIATE AND
CONCLUDE ALL AGREEMENTS AS TO HOURS OF LABOR, WAGES AND OTHER
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS.  ... 

"THE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE UNDERSIGNED AS DESCRIBED
HEREIN SUPERSEDES ANY POWER OR AUTHORITY HERETOFORE GIVEN TO ANY PERSON
OR ORGANIZATION TO REPRESENT ME, AND SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND
EFFECT FOR ONE YEAR FROM DATE AND THEREAFTER, SUBJECT TO THIRTY (30)
DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE OF MY DESIRE TO WITHDRAW SUCH POWER AND AUTHORITY
TO ACT FOR ME IN THE MATTERS REFERRED TO HEREIN." 

FN4  LABOR BOARD V. LUND, 103 F.2D 815; LABOR BOARD V. NATIONAL MOTOR
BEARING CO., 105 F.2D 652. 

FN5  THERE IS AN ILLUMINATING COMMENT IN THE SENATE REPORT ON THE
LABOR BILL.  S. REP. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 12: 

"THE ASSERTION THAT THE BILL FAVORS THE CLOSED SHOP IS PARTICULARLY
MISLEADING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PROVISO IN TWO RESPECTS
ACTUALLY NARROWS THE NOW EXISTENT LAW REGARDING CLOSED-SHOP
AGREEMENTS.  WHILE TODAY AN EMPLOYER MAY NEGOTIATE SUCH AN AGREEMENT
EVEN WITH A MINORITY UNION, THE BILL PROVIDES THAT AN EMPLOYER SHALL BE
ALLOWED TO MAKE A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT ONLY WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION
THAT REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE
COLLECTIVEBARGAINING UNIT COVERED BY SUCH AGREEMENT WHEN MADE. 

"SECONDLY, THE BILL IS EXTREMELY CAREFUL TO FORESTALL THE MAKING OF
CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENTS WITH ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN 'ESTABLISHED,
MAINTAINED, OR ASSISTED' BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THE BILL AS AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE.  AND OF COURSE IT IS CLEAR THAT NO AGREEMENT HERETOFORE
MADE COULD GIVE VALIDITY TO THE PRACTICES HEREIN PROHIBITED BY SECTION
8." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE OPINION THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED
FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
120 F.2D 611. 
..END :






MILES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 315 U.S. 698 


NO. 272.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  -
REVERSED. 


COURT FROM ENJOINING, ON THE GROUND OF THE INCONVENIENCE OR EXPENSE TO
THE RAILROAD, A RESIDENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE FROM PROSECUTING OR
FURTHERING AN ACTION UNDER THE ACT (OR RECEIVING THE PROCEEDS OF ANY
JUDGMENT THEREIN) IN A STATE COURT OF ANOTHER STATE WHICH HAS
JURISDICTION UNDER THE ACT.  P. 705. 

MILES ET AL. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 602, TO REVIEW A DECREE OF INJUNCTION.  THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAD REFUSED A REVIEW BY CERTIORARI. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE EFFECT OF SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT  FN1  ON
THE POWER OF A STATE COURT TO ENJOIN ITS CITIZENS, ON THE GROUND OF
OPPRESSIVENESS AND INEQUITY TO THE DEFENDANT CARRIER, FROM SUING ON A
F.E.L.A. CLAIM IN THE STATE COURTS OF ANOTHER STATE, FURTHERING SUCH A
SUIT IN ANY MANNER, OR RECEIVING THE PROCEEDS OF ANY JUDGMENT SO
OBTAINED, IS BEFORE US FOR DECISION. 

THE RESPONDENT, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
ILLINOIS CENTRAL, BROUGHT AN ORIGINAL BILL IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF
SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, SEEKING TO ENJOIN ONE OF THE PETITIONERS
HERE, MRS. MILES, THEN THE TENNESSEE ADMINISTRATRIX OF HER HUSBAND, A
RESIDENT OF THAT STATE, FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING IN A MISSOURI STATE
COURT HER F.E.L.A. CLAIM AGAINST THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL FOR THE DEATH OF
HER HUSBAND, ITS EMPLOYEE.  THE FATAL ACCIDENT HAD OCCURRED AT MEMPHIS,
TENNESSEE.  AFTER A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ISSUED, MRS. MILES PROMPTLY
DISMISSED HER MISSOURI SUIT AND WAS DISCHARGED AS ADMINISTRATRIX BY THE
TENNESSEE PROBATE COURT.  A MISSOURI ADMINISTRATOR WAS THEN APPOINTED
AT HER SUGGESTION, AND HE INSTITUTED ANOTHER MISSOURI SUIT FOR THE SAME
CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL FILED AN AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL, ADDING DECEDENT'S CHILDREN, LIKEWISE RESIDENTS OF
TENNESSEE, AS DEFENDANTS, AND ENLARGING ITS PRAYER TO FORBID FURTHERING
THE NEW SUIT IN ANY MANNER OR RECEIVING THE PROCEEDS OF ANY JUDGMENT. 
A NEW TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED AS PRAYED. 

THE GROUNDS FOR THE INJUNCTION WERE THE INCONVENIENCE AND EXPENSE TO
THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL OF TAKING ITS MEMPHIS EMPLOYEES TO ST. LOUIS, AND
THE RESULTING BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE ANTICIPATED EXTRA
EXPENSE WAS SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS PER DAY FOR AN ESTIMATED TWO DAYS
OF ACTUAL TRIAL AND WHATEVER ADDITIONAL TIME MIGHT BE LOST BY
CONTINUANCES OR DELAY.  INCONVENIENCE WAS EXPECTED THROUGH THE
WITHDRAWAL OF SOME TWELVE TO TWENTY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS FROM THEIR
DUTIES FOR THE SAME PERIOD.  THE DEFENSE RELIED UPON A TIMELY PLEA THAT
SEC. 6 OF THE F.E.L.A. PREVENTED THE ENJOINING OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE
MISSOURI COURTS. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE CONTINUED PROSECUTION OF THE PENDING
MISSOURI CASE WOULD BE "OPPRESSIVE AND INEQUITABLE" TO THE ILLINOIS
CENTRAL AND "A BURDEN ON THE COMMERCE AND BUSINESS OF THE
COMPLAINANT."  AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE COURT CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT
THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS.  ON
APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DECREE AND MADE THE TEMPORARY
INJUNCTIONS PERMANENT.  FURTHER STATE REVIEW BY CERTIORARI IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE WAS REFUSED, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS TO SETTLE AN IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTION  FN2  AS
TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 6 OF THE F.E.L.A. TO THIS SITUATION.  314
U.S. 602.  CF. PAYNE V. KNAPP, 197 IOWA 737, 198 N.W. 62; PETERSON V.
CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 187 MINN. 228, 244 N.W. 823; BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO. V. KEPNER, 137 OHIO ST. 409, 30 N.E.2D 982, AFFIRMED 314 U.S.
44. 

THE KEPNER CASE DEALT WITH THE POWER OF A STATE COURT TO ENJOIN A
RESIDENT FROM CONTINUED PROSECUTION OF A SUIT UNDER THE F.E.L.A. IN A
DISTANT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUND OF INEQUITY, VEXATIOUSNESS
AND HARASSMENT.  THE DECISION DENIED THE POWER TO INTERFERE WITH THE
PRIVILEGES OF FEDERAL VENUE "FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CARRIER OR THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM." 

AS IN THE KEPNER CASE, THERE IS IN THIS CASE NO OCCASION TO GO INTO
THE QUESTION OF THE AVAILABILITY, AS SUPPORT FOR AN INJUNCTION, OF A
CHARGE OF INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY REASON OF THE BURDEN
OF EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND A BURDEN ON THE
COMMERCE OF THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL, BUT MADE NO FINDING AS TO ANY BURDEN
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MOREOVER, THE COURT OF APPEALS STATED THAT THE
ILLINOIS CENTRAL "EXPRESSLY ABANDONED THE CONTENTION" "THAT THE
PROSECUTION OF THE SUIT IN ST. LOUIS WAS A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  NO CONTENTION IS MADE HERE THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH BURDEN OR
THAT THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL IS NOT DOING SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS IN
MISSOURI, AS FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT.  IT OPERATES DAILY PASSENGER
TRAINS WITH ITS OWN CREWS INTO ST. LOUIS OVER THE ST. LOUIS TERMINAL
COMPANY TRACKS, MAINTAINS PASSENGER AND FREIGHT OFFICES AND HAD TOTAL
RECEIPTS, IN ST. LOUIS, OF A MILLION-AND-A-HALF THE YEAR THE SUIT WAS
FILED.  UNDER THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO. V. TERTE, 284
U.S. 284, 287, THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL IS PROPERLY SUABLE IN MISSOURI.  IN
THE KEPNER CASE, 314 U.S. 44, 51, WE POINTED OUT, WITH A DISCUSSION OF
THE APPLICABLE CASES, THAT THE CARRIER MUST SUBMIT TO INCONVENIENCE AND
EXPENSE, IF THERE IS JURISDICTION, "ALTHOUGH THEREBY INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS INCIDENTALLY BURDENED."  THERE IS NO OCCASION TO REPEAT THE
COMMENTS HERE.  THE SPECIFIC DECLARATION IN SEC. 6 THAT THE UNITED
STATES COURTS SHOULD HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THOSE OF THE
SEVERAL STATES, AND THE PROHIBITION AGAINST REMOVAL, POINT CLEARLY TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS HAS EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE EXTENT OF PERMITTING SUITS IN STATE COURTS,
DESPITE THE INCIDENTAL BURDEN, WHERE PROCESS MAY BE OBTAINED ON A
DEFENDANT, NOT MERELY SOLICITING BUSINESS BUT ACTUALLY CARRYING ON
RAILROADING BY OPERATING TRAINS AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC OFFICES WITHIN
THE TERRITORY OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION.  FN3 

THE REAL POINT OF CONTROVERSY HERE IS WHETHER THAT PORTION OF SEC. 6
OF THE F.E.L.A., WHICH HOLDS LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURT WHERE IT IS
INSTITUTED, PREVENTS THE COURT OF ANOTHER STATE FROM ENJOINING
CITIZENS, WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, FROM CONTINUED PROSECUTION OF THE
SUIT ON GROUNDS OF INEQUITY.  HERE, AS IN KEPNER'S CASE, THERE IS NO
QUESTION BUT THAT THE MISSOURI COURT HAS VENUE OF THE PROCEEDING. 
HERE, TOO, WE NEED TO LOOK NO FARTHER INTO TENNESSEE LAW THAN THE
OPINION OF THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT, IN THIS RECORD, TO CONCLUDE THAT
UNDER STATE LAW A COURT OF EQUITY MAY ENJOIN A RESIDENT CITIZEN FROM
ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE HIS RIGHTS, OPPRESSIVELY AND INEQUITABLY,  FN4
AND THAT THE EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE HEREINBEFORE SET OUT RESULTED IN
OPPRESSIVENESS AND INCONVENIENCE IN THE EYE OF THE STATE COURT. 

IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 6,  FN5  THE PROVISION THAT
REMOVAL MAY NOT BE HAD FROM A "STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION"
WAS ADDED TO THE HOUSE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AND LATER
ACCEPTED BY THE HOUSE, IN ORDER TO ASSURE A HEARING TO THE EMPLOYEE IN
A STATE COURT.  WORDS WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY ADOPTED RECOGNIZING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURTS BY PROVIDING THAT THE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION SHOULD BE CONCURRENT.  THE VENUE OF STATE COURT SUITS WAS
LEFT TO THE PRACTICE OF THE FORUM.  THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT CAUSES
OF ACTION ARISING UNDER THE F.E.L.A. IN THE STATE COURTS CAME, HOWEVER,
NOT FROM THE STATE LAW BUT FROM THE FEDERAL.  BY VIRTUE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES MUST REMAIN OPEN TO SUCH
LITIGANTS ON THE SAME BASIS THAT THEY ARE OPEN TO LITIGANTS WITH CAUSES
OF ACTION SPRINGING FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MAKES THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES THE SUPREME
LAW OF THE LAND, BINDING ON EVERY CITIZEN AND EVERY COURT AND
ENFORCEABLE WHEREVER JURISDICTION IS ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE.  SECOND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 56-59.  THE MISSOURI COURT HERE
INVOLVED MUST PERMIT THIS LITIGATION.  TO DENY CITIZENS FROM OTHER
STATES, SUITORS UNDER F.E.L.A., ACCESS TO ITS COURTS WOULD, IF IT
PERMITTED ACCESS TO ITS OWN CITIZENS, VIOLATE THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE.  CONSTITUTION, ART. IV, SEC. 2; MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS
& S.F. RY. CO., 292 U.S. 230, 233.  FN6  SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF THE
CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE PRIVILEGE OF VINDICATING RIGHTS UNDER THE
F.E.L.A. IN STATE COURTS SPRING FROM FEDERAL LAW, THE RIGHT TO SUE IN
STATE COURTS OF PROPER VENUE WHERE THEIR JURISDICTION IS ADEQUATE IS OF
THE SAME QUALITY AS THE RIGHT TO SUE IN FEDERAL COURTS.  IT IS NO MORE
SUBJECT TO INTERFERENCE BY STATE ACTION THAN WAS THE FEDERAL VENUE IN
THE KEPNER CASE. 

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT STATES CANNOT CONTROL THEIR COURTS.  WE DO
NOT DEAL HERE WITH THE POWER OF MISSOURI BY JUDICIAL DECISION OR
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS COURTS GENERALLY, AS
WAS APPROVED IN THE DOUGLAS OR THE CHAMBERS CASES, NOTE 6 SUPRA.  WE
ARE CONSIDERING ANOTHER STATE'S POWER TO SO CONTROL ITS OWN CITIZENS
THAT THEY CANNOT EXERCISE THE FEDERAL PRIVILEGE OF LITIGATING A FEDERAL
RIGHT IN THE COURT OF ANOTHER STATE. 

STATE COURTS HAVE ASSUMED THE RIGHT TO ENJOIN THEIR CITIZENS FROM
PROCEEDING IN THE COURTS OF OTHER STATES.  THIS WAS DONE, FOR EXAMPLE,
IN REED'S ADMRX.  V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 182 KY. 455, 206 S.W.
794.  THE BASIS OF THE DECISION WAS THE INEQUITY OF ALLOWING A SUIT AT
A DISTANT POINT IN A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT, PAGE 464.  FN7  REED'S
CASE WAS RELIED UPON BY KERN V. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 204
IND. 595, 185 N.E. 446, FOR THE AUTHORITY OF A STATE COURT TO ENJOIN
ITS CITIZENS FROM INEQUITABLE CONDUCT UNDER THE F.E.L.A.  OTHER STATE
COURTS DENY THEIR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUCH INJUNCTIONS.  FN8 

THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY CONGRESS TO SUE IN STATE COURTS MAY BE
EXERCISED ONLY WHERE THE CARRIER IS FOUND DOING BUSINESS.  IF SUITS IN
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS AT THOSE POINTS DO NOT UNDULY BURDEN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SUITS IN SIMILARLY LOCATED STATE COURTS CANNOT BE
BURDENSOME.  AS CONGRESS HAS PERMITTED BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL
SUITS, ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE CARRIERS MUST BEAR THE INCIDENTAL
BURDEN IS A DETERMINATION THAT THE STATE COURTS MAY NOT TREAT THE
NORMAL EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE OF TRIAL IN PERMITTED PLACES, SUCH AS
THE ONE SELECTED HERE, AS INEQUITABLE AND UNCONSCIONABLE. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  36 STAT. 291.  "SEC.  6.  THAT NO ACTION SHALL BE MAINTAINED
UNDER THIS ACT UNLESS COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DAY THE CAUSE
OF ACTION ACCRUED. 

"UNDER THIS ACT AN ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, OR IN
WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, OR IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE
DOING BUSINESS AT THE TIME OF COMMENCING SUCH ACTION.  THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE CONCURRENT
WITH THAT OF THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, AND NO CASE ARISING
UNDER THIS ACT AND BROUGHT IN ANY STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION
SHALL BE REMOVED TO ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  45 U.S.C. SEC.
56. 

FN2  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237(B).  SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. PAINTER, 314
U.S. 155, 159-60:  "IF A STATE COURT PROCEEDS AS THE CHANCERY COURT OF
TENNESSEE ACTED, THE ULTIMATE VINDICATION OF ANY FEDERAL RIGHT LIES
WITH THIS COURT."  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44, 52. 

FN3  HOFFMAN V. MISSOURI EX REL. FORAKER, 274 U.S. 21.  CF.
INTERNATIONAL MILLING CO. V. COLUMBIA CO., 292 U.S. 511, LIMITING DAVIS
V. FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE CO., 262 U.S. 312; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO.
V. WELLS, 265 U.S. 101, AND MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO. V. MIX, 278 U.S.
492, TO THE RULE THAT SUITS UPON EXTRA-STATE CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER
F.E.L.A. BURDEN COMMERCE AND WILL NOT BE PERMITTED IN COURTS OF STATES
WHERE THE DEFENDANT CARRIERS DO NO MORE THAN MAINTAIN FACILITIES FOR
SOLICITATION OF BUSINESS.  THE THREE CASES LAST MENTIONED AND THE
FORAKER CASE WERE ALL WRITTEN BY THE SAME JUSTICE, WITHIN THE SPACE OF
A FEW YEARS. 

FN4  CF. CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 207 U.S. 142, 149. 

FN5  HOUSE RESOLUTION 17263, 61ST CONGRESS, 2D SESSION, WHICH
EVENTUALLY BECAME THE ACT OF 1910, CONTAINED NO PROHIBITION OR
RESTRICTION UPON REMOVAL OF SUITS FROM STATE COURTS WHEN IT PASSED THE
HOUSE, AND WAS REPORTED TO THE SENATE BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY.  SEN. REP. NO. 432, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., MARCH 22, 1910. 
UPON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE SEVERAL AMENDMENTS WERE PROPOSED, VARYING
IN TERMS, BUT ALL SEEKING TO ACHIEVE SOME SUCH LIMITATION.  45 CONG.
REC. 3995, 3998, 4051.  SENATOR PAYNTER'S SECOND VERSION WAS THE
AMENDMENT EVENTUALLY ADOPTED.  45 CONG. REC. 4093.  THE HOUSE CONCURRED
IN THE SENATE AMENDMENT WITHOUT MODIFICATION.  45 CONG. REC. 4159. 

THE REASON FOR THE AMENDMENT WAS STATED BY SENATOR PAYNTER THUS: 

"I OFFER AN AMENDMENT WHICH WILL GIVE TO THE PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO
SELECT THE FORUM IN WHICH HIS CASE SHALL BE TRIED.  HE CAN SELECT THE
FEDERAL OR THE STATE COURT, AS HE MAY PREFER, TO TRY HIS CASE ARISING
UNDER THE ACT IN QUESTION."  P. 4051. 

"IF THIS AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED, THE CONGRESS HAS NOT CONFERRED BY THE
ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION UPON STATE COURTS. 
THE PLAINTIFF CAN CHOOSE EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE COURT IN WHICH TO
PROSECUTE HIS ACTION.  THE EFFECT OF MY AMENDMENT IS TO PREVENT THE
REMOVAL OF THE ACTION FROM THE STATE COURTS WHEN BROUGHT THERE."  P.
4093.    FN6  CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 207 U.S. 142, OR
DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377, DO NOT IMPINGE UPON
THIS PRINCIPLE.  IN THE FORMER CASE, AN OHIO STATUTE FORBADE SUITS IN
ITS COURTS FOR WRONGFUL DEATH OCCURRING IN ANOTHER STATE UNLESS THE
DECEDENT WAS A CITIZEN OF OHIO.  THIS COURT SAW NO DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF ANY DECEDENT, SINCE THEIR RIGHT TO
SUE DID NOT DEPEND UPON THEIR CITIZENSHIP BUT UPON THE CITIZENSHIP OF
THEIR DECEDENT.  IN THE LATTER CASE, A STATUTE OF NEW YORK, WHICH GAVE
ONLY DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION TO SUITS BY NONRESIDENTS BUT COMPULSORY
JURISDICTION TO SUITS BY RESIDENTS WAS HELD VALID BECAUSE IT TREATED
CITIZENS AND NONCITIZENS ALIKE AND TESTED THEIR RIGHT TO MAINTAIN AN
ACTION BY THEIR RESIDENCE OR NONRESIDENCE. 

FN7  THIS IS NOT THE POSITION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  CONNELLY V.
CENTRAL R. CO., 238 F. 932; SCHENDEL V. MCGEE, 300 F. 273, 278;
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. VIGOR, 90 F.2D 7. 

FN8  MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. V. BALL, 126 KAN. 745, 271 P. 313;
MOBILE & OHIO R. CO. V. PARRENT, 260 ILL. APP. 284; LANCASTER V. DUNN,
153 LA. 15, 95 SO. 385. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING: 

I AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION AND, WITH EXCEPTIONS STATED HEREIN, WITH
THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE REED, THOUGH I AM NOT ABLE TO SUBLIMATE THE
CONFLICT THAT UNDERLIES THIS CASE TO THE LEVEL OF EITHER OF THE
CONFLICTING OPINIONS.  REALISTICALLY CONSIDERED, THE ISSUE IS EARTHY
AND UNPRINCIPLED.  SO VIEWED, THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER A PLAINTIFF
WITH A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT MAY
GO SHOPPING FOR A JUDGE OR A JURY BELIEVED TO BE MORE FAVORABLE THAN HE
WOULD FIND IN HIS HOME FORUM.  AN ADVANTAGE WHICH IT IS HOPED WILL BE
REFLECTED IN A JUDGMENT IS WHAT MAKES PLAINTIFFS LEAVE HOME AND INCUR
BURDENS OF EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE THAT WOULD BE REGARDED AS
OPPRESSIVE IF FORCED UPON THEM.  AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES RAILROADS SEEK
INJUNCTIONS SUCH AS THIS ONE. 

THE JUDICIARY HAS NEVER FAVORED THIS SORT OF SHOPPING FOR A FORUM. 
IT HAS SOUGHT TO PROTECT ITS OWN GOOD NAME AS WELL AS TO PROTECT
DEFENDANTS BY INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE PRACTICE OF SEEKING OUT SOFT
SPOTS IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN WHICH TO BRING PARTICULAR KINDS OF
LITIGATION.  BUT THE JUDGES, WITH LAWYERLY INDIRECTION, HAVE NOT AVOWED
THE INTEREST OF THE JUDICIARY IN ORDERLY RESORT TO THE COURTS AS A
BASIS FOR THEIR DECISION, AND HAVE CAST THEIR PROTECTIVE DOCTRINES IN
TERMS OF SHELTERING DEFENDANTS AGAINST VEXATIOUS AND HARASSING SUITS. 
THIS JUDICIAL TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT OF VENUE LEADS CONGRESS AND THE
PARTIES TO THINK OF THE CHOICE OF A FORUM AS A PRIVATE MATTER BETWEEN
LITIGANTS, AND IN CASES LIKE THE PRESENT OBSCURES THE PUBLIC INTEREST
IN VENUE PRACTICES BEHIND A RATHER FANTASTIC FICTION THAT A WIDOW IS
HARASSING THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD.  IF CONGRESS HAD LEFT US FREE
TO CONSULT THE ULTIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ORDERLY RESORT TO THE
JUDICIAL SYSTEM, I SHOULD AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER'S
CONCLUSION.  BUT THE PLAINTIFFS SAY THAT THEY GO SHOPPING, NOT BY LEAVE
OF THE COURTS THEMSELVES, BUT BY THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS.  WHETHER
THE CONGRESS HAS GRANTED SUCH LATITUDE IS OUR QUESTION. 

UNLESS THERE IS SOME HIDDEN MEANING IN THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS HAS
EMPLOYED, THE INJURED WORKMAN OR HIS SURVIVING DEPENDENTS MAY CHOOSE
FROM THE ENTIRE TERRITORY SERVED BY THE RAILROAD ANY PLACE IN WHICH TO
SUE, AND IN WHICH TO CHOOSE EITHER A FEDERAL OR A STATE COURT OF WHICH
TO ASK HIS REMEDY.  THERE IS NOTHING WHICH REQUIRES A PLAINTIFF TO WHOM
SUCH A CHOICE IS GIVEN TO EXERCISE IT IN A SELF-DENYING OR LARGE
HEARTED MANNER.  THERE IS NOTHING TO RESTRAIN USE OF THAT PRIVILEGE, AS
ALL CHOICES OF TRIBUNAL ARE COMMONLY USED BY ALL PLAINTIFFS TO GET AWAY
FROM JUDGES WHO ARE CONSIDERED TO BE UNSYMPATHETIC, AND TO GET BEFORE
THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERED MORE FAVORABLE; TO GET AWAY FROM JURIES
THOUGHT TO BE SMALL-MINDED IN THE MATTER OF VERDICTS, AND TO GET TO
THOSE THOUGHT TO BE GENEROUS; TO ESCAPE COURTS WHOSE PROCEDURES ARE
BURDENSOME TO THE PLAINTIFF, AND TO SEEK OUT COURTS WHOSE PROCEDURES
MAKE THE GOING EASY. 

THAT SUCH A PRIVILEGE PUTS A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY WELL
BE ADMITTED, BUT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO BURDEN.  THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ITSELF LEAVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE
BURDEN OF A MEDIEVAL SYSTEM OF COMPENSATING THE INJURED RAILROAD WORKER
OR HIS SURVIVORS.  HE IS NOT GIVEN A REMEDY, BUT ONLY A LAWSUIT.  IT IS
WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT IN MOST CASES HE WILL BE UNABLE TO PURSUE THAT
EXCEPT BY SPLITTING HIS SPECULATIVE PROSPECTS WITH A LAWYER.  THE
FUNCTIONING OF THIS BACKWARD SYSTEM OF DEALING WITH INDUSTRIAL
ACCIDENTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BURDENS IT WITH PERHAPS TWO DOLLARS OF
JUDGMENT FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT ACTUALLY REACHES THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
DAMAGED, AND IT LEAVES THE BURDEN OF MANY INJURIES TO BE BORNE BY THEM
UTTERLY UNCOMPENSATED.  SUCH BEING THE MAJOR BURDEN UNDER WHICH THE
WORKMEN AND THE INDUSTRY MUST FUNCTION, I SEE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED THE RELATIVELY MINOR ADDITIONAL BURDEN
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM LOADING THE DICE A LITTLE IN FAVOR OF THE
WORKMAN IN THE MATTER OF VENUE.  IT SEEMS MORE PROBABLE THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO GIVE THE DISADVANTAGED WORKMAN SOME LEVERAGE IN THE CHOICE
OF VENUE, THAN THAT IT INTENDED TO LEAVE HIM IN A POSITION WHERE THE
RAILROAD COULD FORCE HIM TO TRY ONE LAWSUIT AT HOME TO FIND OUT WHETHER
HE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TRY HIS PRINCIPAL LAWSUIT ELSEWHERE.  THIS
LATTER WOULD BE A FREQUENT RESULT IF WE UPHELD THE CONTENTION MADE IN
THIS CASE AND IN THE KEPNER CASE.  I THINK, THEREFORE, THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD A RIGHT TO RESORT TO THE MISSOURI COURT UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE FOR HER REMEDY. 

I DO NOT, HOWEVER, AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT IN MR. JUSTICE REED'S
OPINION THAT "THE MISSOURI COURT HERE INVOLVED MUST PERMIT THIS
LITIGATION."  IT IS VERY DOUBTFUL IF ANY REQUIREMENT CAN BE SPELLED OUT
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THAT A STATE MUST FURNISH A FORUM FOR A
NONRESIDENT PLAINTIFF AND A FOREIGN CORPORATION TO FIGHT OUT ISSUES
IMPORTED FROM ANOTHER STATE WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE.  IT SEEMS
UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE NOW WHETHER THIS LITIGATION COULD BE IMPOSED ON
THE MISSOURI COURT, FOR IT APPEARS TO HAVE EMBRACED THE LITIGATION. 
EVEN IF MISSOURI, BY REASON OF ITS CONTROL OF ITS OWN COURTS MIGHT
REFUSE TO OPEN THEM TO SUCH A CASE, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT ANOTHER
STATE MAY CLOSE MISSOURI'S COURTS TO ONE WITH A FEDERAL CAUSE OF
ACTION.  IF MISSOURI ELECTS TO ENTERTAIN THE CASE, THE COURTS OF NO
OTHER STATE CAN OBSTRUCT OR PREVENT ITS EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION AS
CONFERRED BY THE FEDERAL STATUTE OR ITS RIGHT TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE AND TO
DISTRIBUTE THE PROCEEDS, IF ANY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  I THEREFORE FAVOR REVERSAL. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

THE DECISION IN THIS CASE MUTILATES PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE LONG BEEN
REGARDED AS BASIC IN THE LAW.  FEW LEGAL DOCTRINES HAVE BEEN MORE
UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED THAN THOSE RECOGNIZING THE POWERS WHICH THIS COURT
NOW DENIES TO THE STATES WHEN SUITS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT ARE BROUGHT IN STATE COURTS:  THE POWER OF A COURT TO
PREVENT INJUSTICE BY RESTRAINING A PERSON SUBJECT TO ITS AUTHORITY FROM
MAINTAINING AN INEQUITABLE SUIT IN THE COURTS OF ANOTHER STATE, COLE V.
CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107; THE RIGHT OF A COURT TO DECLINE ITS
FACILITIES TO A SUIT THAT "IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE" SHOULD BE TRIED
ELSEWHERE, CANADA MALTING CO. V. PATERSON CO., 285 U.S. 413, 422-23. 
THE DECISION DISREGARDS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
"JUDICIAL POWER" OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THAT OF THE STATES
WHEREBY STATE COURTS ENFORCE FEDERAL RIGHTS (WHEN SUCH REMEDIES HAVE
NOT BEEN EXCLUSIVELY ENTRUSTED TO THE FEDERAL COURTS) AS PART OF THEIR
"DUTY TO SAFEGUARD AND ENFORCE THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THE PARTICULAR EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER FROM WHICH
THE RIGHT MAY HAVE ARISEN."  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V.
BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S. 211, 222. 

FOR A DECISION SO FAR-REACHING IN ITS IMPLICATIONS, WARRANT IS FOUND
IN THE INARTICULATE RADIATIONS OF SEC. 6 OF THE 1910 AMENDMENT TO THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  WHILE THE WORDS OF A STATUTE DO NOT
BY THEMSELVES DISTIL ITS MEANING, WE MUST AT LEAST BEGIN WITH THEM. 
THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 6 IS SIMPLE AND DIRECT.  AFTER ESTABLISHING A TWO
YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS, IT CONTINUES:  "UNDER THIS ACT AN ACTION
MAY BE BROUGHT IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE DISTRICT
OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, OR IN WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION
AROSE, OR IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE DOING BUSINESS AT THE TIME OF
COMMENCING SUCH ACTION.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF THE COURTS OF
THE SEVERAL STATES, AND NO CASE ARISING UNDER THIS ACT AND BROUGHT IN
ANY STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SHALL BE REMOVED TO ANY COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES."  36 STAT. 291. 

THIS IS A CONVENTIONAL PROVISION.  THERE IS NOTHING NOVEL OR
DISTINCTIVE ABOUT IT.  RECOGNITION OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN THE
STATE COURTS TO VINDICATE FEDERAL RIGHTS IS FOUND IN THE FIRST
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789.  1 STAT. 73, 77.  AND THE STATUTE BOOKS ARE
REPLETE WITH INSTANCES IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE EXISTENCE
OF THIS JURISDICTION IN THE STATE COURTS UNLESS EXPLICITLY WITHHELD
FROM THEM.  SEE THE DISCUSSION OF MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY IN CLAFLIN V.
HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 139-43.  THE ESSENCE OF SEC. 6 IS MERELY THAT
THE STATE COURTS ARE OPEN TO A PLAINTIFF SUING UNDER THE ACT, AND THAT
IF HE CHOOSES TO BRING SUIT IN A STATE COURT, THE DEFENDANT MAY NOT
REMOVE THE CAUSE TO A FEDERAL COURT.  SO FAR AS LANGUAGE CONVEYS IDEAS,
THE ACT AFFORDS NO INTIMATION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED ANYTHING MORE. 

WE ARE NOT OF COURSE CONCERNED HERE, AS WE WERE IN THE KEPNER CASE,
DECIDED THE OTHER DAY, 314 U.S. 44, WITH AN ATTEMPT BY A STATE COURT TO
PREVENT RESORT TO A FEDERAL COURT.  HISTORICALLY, THE PROBLEM OF
INTERFERENCES, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IS
ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM THE PROBLEM OF THE RELATIONS OF THE STATE COURTS
TO EACH OTHER.  SEE WARREN, FEDERAL AND STATE COURT INTERFERENCE, 43
HARV. L. REV. 345.  THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US - RELATING TO THE POWER
OF A STATE TO ENJOIN THOSE SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION FROM UNJUSTLY
RESORTING TO THE COURTS OF A SISTER STATE - IS AN ASPECT OF THE LATTER
PROBLEM.  IN THE KEPNER CASE, THIS COURT HELD ONLY THAT THE PROVISION
OF SEC. 6 "FILLED THE ENTIRE FIELD OF VENUE IN FEDERAL COURTS" AND THAT
WHAT HAD THUS BEEN LEGISLATIVELY GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL COURTS COULD NOT
JUDICIALLY BE TAKEN AWAY.  THE KEPNER DECISION CAST NO CLOUD UPON
DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377, WHICH SUSTAINED THE
POWER OF A STATE TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS TO
SUITS UNDER THE ACT BROUGHT IN ITS COURTS BY NON-RESIDENTS.  THE ISSUE
IN THE CASE AT BAR IS ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER PHASE OF THE PROBLEM IN THE
DOUGLAS CASE - WHETHER, MERELY BY AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE STATE
COURTS TO ENFORCE RIGHTS CREATED BY THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, CONGRESS IMPLIEDLY REPEALED PRO TANTO THE MEANS FOR ACHIEVING
JUSTICE WHICH THE STATES CUSTOMARILY EMPLOY IN SIMILAR CASES. 
SPECIFICALLY, THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS THIS:  HAS CONGRESS, BY
PROVIDING EXPLICITLY THAT STATE COURTS SHALL HAVE CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION OF SUITS UNDER THE ACT, WITHDRAWN FROM EACH STATE ITS
RECOGNIZED POWER TO ENJOIN PERSONS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION FROM
BRINGING A SUIT UNDER THE ACT "CONTRARY TO EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE"
IN THE COURTS OF ANOTHER STATE?  THIS QUESTION WAS WHOLLY OUTSIDE THE
SCOPE OF THE KEPNER CASE.  IT WAS NOT PRESENTED, AND WAS THEREFORE NOT
DECIDED, BY THAT CASE. 

THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES HERE ARE THESE.  A RESIDENT OF TENNESSEE
WAS KILLED IN A RAILROAD ACCIDENT OCCURRING IN TENNESSEE.  THE
RAILROAD, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, HAS ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICES IN
TENNESSEE.  ALL OF THE WITNESSES RESIDE IN TENNESSEE, AS DO THE
DECEASED'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.  BUT SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN A STATE
COURT OF MISSOURI, WHERE THE RAILROAD DOES SOME BUSINESS.  FINDING THAT
THE MISSOURI SUIT WAS "OPPRESSIVE AND INEQUITABLE," THE TENNESSEE COURT
OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE POWER OF THE CHANCELLOR TO RESTRAIN THE
FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THAT SUIT.  THE FINDING THAT THE MISSOURI SUIT
WAS "OPPRESSIVE AND INEQUITABLE" WAS CHALLENGED BY THE PETITIONERS
NEITHER BEFORE US NOR IN THE COURTS OF TENNESSEE, AND THE PROPRIETY OF
THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE TENNESSEE COURT, AS A MATTER OF EQUITABLE
DISCRETION, IS NOT HERE IN ISSUE.  WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE ONLY
WHETHER CONGRESS HAS DEPRIVED TENNESSEE OF THE POWER WHICH IT HAS
ASSERTED IN THIS CASE. 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE COURTS OF TENNESSEE CUSTOMARILY EXERCISE THIS
POWER IN SITUATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT CASE.  SEE AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. V.
FOX, 135 TENN. 489, 187 S.W. 1117.  IF THE ACCIDENT HERE HAD OCCURRED
WHILE THE DECEASED WAS ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, AND CONSEQUENTLY
HAD NOT GIVEN RISE TO A RIGHT OF ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE,
TENNESSEE WOULD UNQUESTIONABLY HAVE HAD THE POWER TO DO WHAT SHE HAS
DONE HERE.  FOR WHILE THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, ART. IV,
SEC. 2, SECURES TO CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES SUCH RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE
COURTS OF A STATE AS THAT STATE GIVES TO ITS OWN CITIZENS, CHAMBERS V.
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 207 U.S. 142, 148; MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F.
RY. CO., 292 U.S. 230, 233, IT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM A STATE ITS
HISTORIC POWER TO PREVENT UNJUST RESORT TO THE COURTS OF ANOTHER
STATE.  COLE V. CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107.  MOREOVER, THE CONSTITUTION
WOULD NOT PREVENT MISSOURI FROM DECLINING TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT TO
VINDICATE A FEDERAL RIGHT, SUCH AS WAS BROUGHT HERE, IF AN ACTION TO
ENFORCE A SIMILAR NON-FEDERAL RIGHT WOULD ALSO NOT LIE IN HER COURTS. 
THE AVAILABILITY OF STATE COURTS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS
HAS NOT RESULTED IN PUTTING FEDERAL RIGHTS ON ANY DIFFERENT FOOTING
FROM STATE RIGHTS.  "A STATE MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST RIGHTS
ARISING UNDER FEDERAL LAWS," MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F. RY. CO.,
SUPRA, AT 234, BUT NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION NOR CONGRESS HAS COMPELLED
THE STATES TO DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF FEDERAL RIGHTS.  AND THIS COURT
HAS EXPRESSLY HELD THAT THE RIGHTS CREATED BY THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT ARE NOT DIFFERENT, IN THIS RESPECT, FROM OTHER FEDERAL
RIGHTS.  "AS TO THE GRANT OF JURISDICTION IN THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT, THAT STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO REQUIRE STATE COURTS TO ENTERTAIN
SUITS ARISING UNDER IT, BUT ONLY TO EMPOWER THEM TO DO SO, SO FAR AS
THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED."  DOUGLAS V. NEW YORK,
N.H. & H.R. CO., SUPRA, AT 387. 

THE UTILIZATION OF STATE COURTS FOR THE VINDICATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THEIR ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES BE REMODELLED OR
THAT THEIR CUSTOMARY MODES FOR ADMINISTERING JUSTICE BE RESTRICTED. 
"AND IT WAS OF COURSE PRESUMABLY AN APPRECIATION OF THE PRINCIPLES SO
THOROUGHLY SETTLED WHICH CAUSED CONGRESS IN THE ENACTMENT OF THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT TO CLEARLY CONTEMPLATE THE EXISTENCE OF A
CONCURRENT POWER AND DUTY OF BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS TO
ADMINISTER THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
MODES OF PROCEDURE PREVAILING IN SUCH COURTS."  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS
R. CO. V. BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S. 211, 218; AND SEE SECOND EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 56.  THE MERE FACT THAT A FEDERAL RIGHT IS
THE BASIS OF SUIT CANNOT THEREFORE DEPRIVE THE STATE COURTS OF THE
POWER TO USE THEIR CUSTOMARY PROCEDURES FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
JUSTICE.  IN SIMPLY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FACILITIES AFFORDED BY THE
COURTS OF THE STATES, CONGRESS CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE ALTERED THE
SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE OF THE STATES SO AS TO OPERATE MORE FAVORABLY FOR
FEDERAL RIGHTS THAN FOR SIMILAR RIGHTS CREATED BY THE STATES
THEMSELVES.  SUCH DRASTIC INROADS UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES
SHOULD BE MADE ONLY UPON CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE. 

THE COURT FINDS SUCH A PLAIN COMMAND IN THE ACT BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS
EXPLICITLY PROVIDED IN SEC. 6 THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURTS
"SHALL BE CONCURRENT" WITH THAT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  BUT CONGRESS
THEREBY MERELY SPELT OUT WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNQUESTIONED
CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE.  "IT IS A GENERAL RULE THAT THE GRANT OF
JURISDICTION TO ONE COURT DOES NOT, OF ITSELF, IMPLY THAT THE
JURISDICTION IS TO BE EXCLUSIVE.  ...  UPON THE STATE COURTS, EQUALLY
WITH THE COURTS OF THE UNION, RESTS THE OBLIGATION TO GUARD AND ENFORCE
EVERY RIGHT SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
WHENEVER THOSE RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THEM."  UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK CO., 296 U.S. 463, 479; SEE
CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 136-37, ROBB V. CONNOLLY, 111 U.S.
624, 635-37.  AND IN GRUBB V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 281 U.S. 470,
476, THE COURT REAFFIRMED THE DOCTRINE THAT "THE STATE AND FEDERAL
COURTS HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE ARISING
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, SAVE IN
EXCEPTIONAL INSTANCES WHERE THE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BY
CONGRESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS."  THE SOURCE OF THESE FORMULATIONS IS
HAMILTON'S CLASSIC STATEMENT IN NO. 82 OF THE FEDERALIST
(SESQUICENTENNIAL ED., P. 536): 

"I HOLD THAT THE STATE COURTS WILL BE DIVESTED OF NO PART OF THEIR
PRIMITIVE JURISDICTION, FURTHER THAN MAY RELATE TO AN APPEAL; AND I AM
EVEN OF OPINION THAT IN EVERY CASE IN WHICH THEY WERE NOT EXPRESSLY
EXCLUDED BY THE FUTURE ACTS OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, THEY WILL OF
COURSE TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CAUSES TO WHICH THOSE ACTS MAY GIVE
BIRTH.  THIS I INFER FROM THE NATURE OF JUDICIARY POWER, AND FROM THE
GENERAL GENIUS OF THE SYSTEM.  THE JUDICIARY POWER OF EVERY GOVERNMENT
LOOKS BEYOND ITS OWN LOCAL OR MUNICIPAL LAWS, AND IN CIVIL CASES LAYS
HOLD OF ALL SUBJECTS OF LITIGATION BETWEN PARTIES WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION, THOUGH THE CAUSES OF DISPUTE ARE RELATIVE TO THE LAWS OF
THE MOST DISTANT PART OF THE GLOBE.  ...  WHEN IN ADDITION TO THIS WE
CONSIDER THE STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, AS THEY
TRULY ARE, IN THE LIGHT OF KINDRED SYSTEMS, AND AS PARTS OF ONE WHOLE,
THE INFERENCE SEEMS TO BE CONCLUSIVE, THAT THE STATE COURTS WOULD HAVE
A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN ALL CASES ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNION, WHERE IT WAS NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED." 

THEREFORE, IF CONGRESS HAD BEEN SILENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS OF SUITS ARISING UNDER THE ACT, THE STATE
COURTS WOULD STILL HAVE HAD SUCH JURISDICTION.  IF IT BE SUGGESTED THAT
BY ARTICULATING WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN IMPLIED, CONGRESS MUST
HAVE HAD SOME PURPOSE, SOME INTEREST OF EMPHASIS, IT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO
SAY THAT SUCH PUNCTILIOUSNESS, AND PERHAPS REDUNDANCY, OF PHRASING IS
NOT UNCOMMON IN PROCEDURAL LEGISLATION.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1910 AMENDMENT CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INSERT THIS PROVISION IN ORDER TO CUT DOWN THE NORMAL
POWERS OF STATE COURTS.  THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE STATE
COURTS WAS EXPLICITLY DEFINED IN ORDER TO DISSIPATE AN UNWARRANTED
DOUBT AS TO THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF STATE COURTS TO ENTERTAIN SUITS
ARISING UNDER THE ACT.  CONGRESS WANTED TO AVOID AN IMPLICATION OF
DENIAL TO THE STATE COURTS OF POWER TO ENTERTAIN CASES UNDER THE ACT,
AND NOT TO CREATE AN IMPLICATION OF DENIAL TO THE STATE COURTS OF THEIR
TRADITIONAL POWERS IN DEALING WITH SUCH CASES. 

THE ACT OF 1908 CONTAINED NO PROVISION SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH
VENUE.  35 STAT. 65.  ON JANUARY 7, 1910, REPRESENTATIVE STERLING
INTRODUCED A BILL, H.R. 17263, THAT EVENTUALLY BECAME THE 1910
AMENDMENT TO THE ACT.  THE BILL HAD THIS PROVISION:  "THIS ACT SHALL
NOT BE CONSTRUED AS EXCLUDING THE EXERCISE OF A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
OF CASES ARISING UNDER THE ACT BY THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES." 
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY REPORTING ON THE BILL EXPLAINED
ITS PURPOSE: 

"IT IS PROPOSED TO FURTHER AMEND THE ACT BY MAKING THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES 'CONCURRENT WITH THE COURTS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES.' 

"THIS IS PROPOSED IN ORDER THAT THERE SHALL BE NO EXCUSE FOR COURTS
OF THE STATES TO FOLLOW IN THE ERROR OF  ...  HOXIE V. N.Y., N.H. &
H.R.R. CO. (82 CONN. 352)(73 ATLANTIC REP., 754) IN WHICH THE COURT
DECLINED JURISDICTION UPON THE GROUND, INTER ALIA, THAT CONGRESS DID
NOT INTEND THAT JURISDICTION OF CASES ARISING UNDER THE ACT SHOULD BE
ASSUMED BY STATE COURTS. 

"IT IS CLEAR UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, THAT THIS CONCLUSION OF THE CONNECTICUT COURT IS ERRONEOUS. 
AND THE REASONS RECITED BY THE CONNECTICUT COURT LEAD TO AN OPPOSITE
CONCLUSION FROM THAT WHICH THE OPINION DECLARES UPON THE SUBJECT.  BUT
NO HARM CAN COME, AND MUCH INJUSTICE AND WRONG TO SUITORS MAY BE
PREVENTED BY AN EXPRESS DECLARATION THAT THERE IS NO INTENT ON THE PART
OF CONGRESS TO CONFINE REMEDIAL ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER THE EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT TO THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES."  H. REP. NO. 513,
61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 7. 

THE COMMITTEE ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE WORDING OF THE PROVISION BE
CHANGED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF THE
COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES."  THIS LANGUAGE WAS EMBODIED IN THE ACT. 

WHEN THE BILL CAME TO THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVE
STERLING, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE MEASURE, UNDERSCORED THE SOLE REASON
FOR THE PROVISION: 

"THE SECOND CHANGE IN THE LAW PROVIDES THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS AND
THE STATE COURTS SHALL HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.  I AM VERY SURE
THAT THEY HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION AS THE LAW IS NOW, BUT ON
ACCOUNT OF A DECISION OF ONE OF THE STATE COURTS OF CONNECTICUT, WHERE
ONE JUDGE DECLINED TO TAKE JURISDICTION IN A CASE BECAUSE IT WAS UNDER
A FEDERAL STATUTE, THE COMMITTEE THOUGHT BEST TO EXPRESSLY PROVIDE IN
THE LAW THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE STATE COURTS SHOULD HAVE
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A CONSTRUCTION
IN THE FUTURE."  45 CONG. REC. 2253. 

IN REPLY TO A QUESTION AS TO THE COMMITTEE'S PURPOSE IN RECOMMENDING
THIS PROVISION, "DID YOU INTEND TO LIMIT THE STATE COURTS IN ANY WAY IN
THIS MATTER?", THE ANSWER WAS, "OH, NO; JUST THE CONTRARY."  45 CONG.
REC. 2254. 

WITH THESE AUTHORITATIVE EXPLANATIONS THE BILL WAS PASSED BY THE
HOUSE ON FEBRUARY 23, 1910.  45 CONG. REC. 2260.  IT WAS THEN SENT TO
THE SENATE AND THERE REFERRED TO ITS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.  THE REPORT
OF THAT COMMITTEE REPEATED IN HAEC VERBA THE EXPLANATION OF THE
PROVISION MADE BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE.  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 432, 61ST
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 5.  SENATOR BORAH, WHO STEERED THE BILL IN THE
SENATE, SAID: 

"THE AMENDMENT WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN THE LATTER PORTION OF
REASON OF A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. 
MY INDIVIDUAL VIEW IS THAT THE LAW IS NOW AS THE AMENDMENT ATTEMPTS TO
MAKE IT - THAT IS TO SAY, THAT BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS HAVE
JURISDICTION OF THIS MATTER - CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.   ...  AS I
UNDERSTAND THE LAW, UNLESS THERE IS A CLAUSE PROHIBITING OR INHIBITING
THE STATE COURT IT ALWAYS HAS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THE FEDERAL
COURTS IN SUCH A SUBJECT-MATTER AS THIS.  THE REPORT CITES A NUMBER OF
AUTHORITIES TO THIS EFFECT.  BUT THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT
REFUSED TO ASSUME JURISDICTION OR TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF THE MATTER,
THOUGH THE WELL-ESTABLISHED LEGAL PRINCIPLE SEEMS TO BE ABSOLUTELY
DIFFERENT.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY.  I BELIEVE IT
IS THOROUGHLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE STATE COURTS
HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.  BUT IN ORDER TO AVOID COURTS BEING
MISLED UPON THIS PROPOSITION THIS SPECIFIC PROVISION IS THOUGHT TO BE
NECESSARY IN THE LAW."  45 CONG. REC. 3995.  SEE ALSO HIS REMARKS AT 45
CONG. REC. 4034-35. 

THE COURT APPEARS TO DRAW COMFORT FROM THE PROVISION OF THE ACT
PROHIBITING REMOVAL OF A SUIT FROM A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION TO A FEDERAL COURT.  THE BILL AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE
CONTAINED NO SUCH PROVISION.  IT WAS OFFERED AS AN AMENDMENT ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE BY SENATOR PAYNTER WHO, IN PROPOSING THE AMENDMENT,
MADE A FEW REMARKS THAT ARE UNENLIGHTENING FOR PRESENT PURPOSES.  THE
AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE SENATE WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION.  45
CONG. REC. 4093.  WHEN THE BILL CAME BACK TO THE HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVE
CLAYTON, A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, EXPLAINED THE
PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT: 

"THE REAL AMENDMENT (MADE BY THE SENATE) AND THE ONE THAT I THINK IS
A DISTINCT IMPROVEMENT OF THE BILL, CERTAINLY MORE SO THAN THE OTHER
TWO, IS TO ADD  ... THESE WORDS:  'AND NO CASE ARISING UNDER THIS ACT
AND BROUGHT IN ANY STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SHALL BE
REMOVED TO ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.'  AND THE GENTLEMAN, BEING,
AS I AM, A STATES-RIGHTS DEMOCRAT, WILL CERTAINLY SAY THAT IS A DECIDED
IMPROVEMENT UPON THE BILL AS IT ORIGINALLY PASSED THE HOUSE. 
FURTHERMORE, I SAY THAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL TEND TO RELIEVE THE FEDERAL
COURTS OF SOME LITIGATION WHICH CAN BE AS WELL, IF NOT BETTER,
DETERMINED IN THE COURTS OF THE STATES."  45 CONG. REC. 4158. 

SUCH A RESTRICTION AGAINST REMOVAL OF LITIGATION NORMALLY ARISING IN
THE STATE COURTS IS NOT UNIQUE IN THE HISTORY OF LEGISLATION DEALING
WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  THIRTY YEARS EARLIER,
CONGRESS HAD BEGUN TO LIMIT THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  SEE, E.G., ACT OF JULY 12, 1882, SEC. 4, 22 STAT. 162, 163;
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, 24 STAT. 552, CORRECTED BY ACT OF AUGUST 13,
1888, 25 STAT. 433.  THE REMOVAL PROHIBITION OF THE 1910 ACT MUST BE
REGARDED AS A PHASE OF THE MOVEMENT TO EASE THE PRESSURE UPON THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS BY CURTAILING ACCESS TO THEM RATHER THAN BY MULTIPLYING
UNDULY THE NUMBER OF FEDERAL JUDGES.  NOTHING WARRANTS THE INFERENCE
THAT THEREBY CONGRESS INTENDED A REVERSAL OF THE HISTORIC RELATION OF
STATE COURTS TO ONE ANOTHER. 

THAT NO EXPRESSION OF CONGRESS, NOR THE PURPOSES REVEALED BY IT
OUTSIDE OF THE LANGUAGE IT EMPLOYED, CALLS FOR A BREAK WITH THE PAST IN
GIVING EFFECT TO THE 1910 AMENDMENT WAS THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THIS
COURT UPON THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
PROVISION.  "THE AMENDMENT, AS APPEARS BY ITS LANGUAGE," IT WAS HELD IN
THE SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 56, "INSTEAD OF
GRANTING JURISDICTION TO THE STATE COURTS, PRESUPPOSES THAT THEY
ALREADY POSSESSED IT."  LATER, IN THE DOUGLAS CASE, THE COURT NOTED
THAT THE AMENDMENT "DOES NOT PURPORT TO REQUIRE STATE COURTS TO
ENTERTAIN SUITS ARISING UNDER IT, BUT ONLY TO EMPOWER THEM TO DO SO, SO
FAR AS THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED."  279 U.S. AT
387.  AND AGAIN IN MCKNETT'S CASE, 292 U.S. AT 233, THE COURT
EMPHASIZED THAT "CONGRESS HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO COMPEL STATES TO PROVIDE
COURTS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT." 
IN SHORT, EVERY TIME THE QUESTION HAS ARISEN THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT BY THE 1910 AMENDMENT CONGRESS DID NOT WRITE A NEW CHAPTER IN
JUDICIAL HISTORY, NOR DID IT MODIFY THE HISTORIC FUNCTION OF STATE
COURTS AS AGENCIES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS EMPLOYING THE
SAME INSTRUMENTS FOR ACHIEVING JUSTICE AS THEY EMPLOY WHEN ENFORCING
RIGHTS HAVING THEIR SOURCE IN STATE LAW. 

THE COURT NOW HOLDS THAT, WHERE CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE
ARE OTHERWISE COMPELLING, SEC. 6 HAS DEPRIVED THE STATE COURTS OF THE
POWER TO ENJOIN A PLAINTIFF FROM PURSUING A SUIT AGAINST A CARRIER IN
THE COURTS OF ANY STATE IN WHICH THE CARRIER DOES BUSINESS.  BUT A
SERIES OF DECISIONS FOLLOWING DAVIS V. FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE CO., 262
U.S. 312, ENFORCES A CONTRARY PROPOSITION.  IN THESE CASES, NOTABLY
DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO. V. TERTE, 284 U.S. 284, AND MICHIGAN CENTRAL R.
CO. V. MIX, 278 U.S. 492, SUITS AGAINST A CARRIER IN A STATE WHERE IT
DID BUSINESS WERE NEVERTHELESS FOUND TO CONSTITUTE AN UNJUSTIFIABLE
BURDEN ON COMMERCE AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED.  IF CONGRESS
HAD CONFERRED OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION UPON THE STATE COURTS, IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY BEYOND THE PROVINCE OF THIS COURT TO HOLD, AS IT DID
IN THESE DECISIONS, THAT A SUIT IN A STATE COURT WHICH WAS GIVEN
"CONCURRENT JURISDICTION" BY THE 1910 AMENDMENT CONSTITUTED A BURDEN ON
COMMERCE.  TO SUGGEST THAT THE GRANT OF "CONCURRENT JURISDICTION"
REPEALED THE HISTORIC POWERS OF EQUITY SANCTIONED BY COLE V.
CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107, IS TO IMPLY THAT IN ALL THESE CASES THE COURT
DISREGARDED WHAT IS NOW FOUND TO BE THE RIGHT OF A PLAINTIFF TO RESORT
TO A STATE COURT, UNHAMPERED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE COURTS TO
INVOKE THEIR FAMILIAR EQUITABLE POWERS TO RESTRAIN OPPRESSIVE AND
VEXATIOUS SUITS IN OTHER STATE COURTS.  THIS IS TO SAY THAT IN ALL
THESE CASES OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS THIS COURT DISREGARDED THE
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 
YET THE ACT WAS CONSTANTLY BEFORE THE COURT, AND, IT MAY NOT BE AMISS
TO RECALL, NO MEMBER OF THIS COURT, IN MODERN TIMES AT LEAST, WAS MORE
FAMILIAR WITH AND MORE MINDFUL OF JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAN MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS, WHO SPOKE FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT IN BOTH THE DAVIS AND
MIX CASES. 

THE COURT DOES NOT NOW OVERRULE THESE DECISIONS.  THEY STAND AS
UNCHALLENGED AUTHORITIES THAT, IN GIVING THE STATE COURTS CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION OF SUITS UNDER THE ACT, CONGRESS DID NOT THEREBY PRECLUDE
THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE TO SUCH SUITS. 
THESE DECISIONS SHOW CLEARLY THAT SEC. 6 DID NOT GIVE THE STATE COURTS
COMPULSIVE JURISDICTION; IT MERELY CONFERRED AUTHORITY TO BE
ADMINISTERED IN THE CONTEXT OF EXISTING LAW. 

THE POWER INVOKED BY TENNESSEE IN THIS CASE WAS A FAMILIAR HEAD OF
EQUITY JURISDICTION LONG BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION.  INJUNCTIONS BY THE
CHANCELLOR AGAINST SUITS IN OTHER COURTS GO BACK TO AT LEAST THE LATE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY.  SEE CLIFFE V. TURNOR, CARY 83(1579); CHOCK V. CHEA,
CARY 83(1579); TANFIELD V. DAVENPORT, TOT.  114(1638); TRINICK V.
BORDFIELD, TOT.  117(1638).  WHEN LORD CHANCELLOR CLARENDON IN 1677
REFUSED TO ENJOIN A FOREIGN ATTACHMENT, LOVE V. BAKER, CH. CAS. 67, THE
REPORTER NOTED THAT "ALL THE BAR WAS OF ANOTHER OPINION.  IT WAS SAID,
THE INJUNCTION DID NOT LIE FOR FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS, NOR OUT OF THE
KING'S DOMINIONS.  BUT TO THAT IT WAS ANSWERED, THE INJUNCTION WAS NOT
TO THE COURT, BUT TO THE PARTY."  THE OPINION OF THE BAR SOON BECAME
THE ACCEPTED LAW OF ENGLAND.  IN THE LEADING CASE OF LORD PORTARLINGTON
V. SOULBY, 3 MYL.  & K. 104, BROUGHAM, L.C., EXPRESSED THE HISTORIC
DOCTRINE OF EQUITY JURISDICTION.  REFERRING TO THE ATTITUDE OF THE BAR
TOWARDS LOVE V. BAKER, HE COMMENTED:  "A VERY SOUND ANSWER, AS IT
APPEARS TO ME; FOR THE SAME ARGUMENT MIGHT APPLY TO A COURT WITHIN THIS
COUNTRY, WHICH NO ORDER OF THIS COURT EVER AFFECTS TO BIND, OUR ORDERS
BEING ONLY POINTED AT THE PARTIES TO RESTRAIN THEM FROM PROCEEDING. 
ACCORDINGLY, THIS CASE OF LOVE V. BAKER HAS NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED OR
FOLLOWED IN LATER TIMES."  3 MYL.  & K. AT 107.  SEE WHARTON V. MAY, 5
VES.  JR. 27; KENNEDY V. EARL OF CASSILLIS, 2 SWANS.  313; HARRISON V.
GURNEY, 2 JAC.  & W. 563; BUSHBY V. MUNDAY, 5 MADD.  184; BEAUCHAMP V.
MARQUIS OF HUNTLEY, JAC.  546; EDEN ON INJUNCTIONS (1822 ED.)  PP. 3 ET
SEQ., 101-02. 

THIS DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE POWER HAS BEEN UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY
AMERICAN COURTS.  SEE, E.G., DEHON V. FOSTER, 4 ALLEN 545, 550; COLE V.
YOUNG, 24 KAN. 435, 438; BIGELOW V. OLD DOMINION CO., 74 N.J. EQ. 457,
473, 71 A. 153.  AND THE POWER HAS BEEN EXERCISED BY THE STATE COURTS
GENERALLY TO ENJOIN OPPRESSIVE SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THE ACT IN OTHER
STATE COURTS.  SEE REED'S ADMRX.  V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 182 KY.
455, 206 S.W. 794; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MCGINLEY, 175 WIS.
565, 185 N.W. 218; STATE EX REL. NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V.
NORTONI, 331 MO. 764, 55 S.W.2D 272; KERN V. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L.
RY. CO., 204 IND. 595, 185 N.E. 446.  OF COURSE, SINCE A FEDERAL RIGHT
IS INVOLVED, NO STATE COURT CAN SCREEN DENIAL OF OR DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST A FEDERAL RIGHT, UNDER THE GUISE OF ENFORCING ITS LOCAL LAW. 
DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. PAINTER, 314 U.S.
155, 159-60. 

THE POWER OF EQUITY TO RESTRAIN THE PROSECUTION OF UNCONSCIONABLE
SUITS HAS BEEN PART OF THE VERY FABRIC OF THE STATE COURTS AS WE HAVE
KNOWN THEM IN OUR WHOLE HISTORY.  AND NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, ITS LANGUAGE, ITS HISTORY, OR ITS POLICY, WARRANTS A
DENIAL OF THIS POWER TO THE STATES. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE BYRNES JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






CARPENTERS UNION V. RITTER'S CAFE, 315 U.S. 722 


NO. 527.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - 149
S.W.2D 694, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS NOT INFRINGED BY A DECREE OF A STATE COURT
ENJOINING, AS A VIOLATION OF THE STATE ANTI-TRUST LAW, THE PICKETING OF
A RESTAURANT BY UNION CARPENTERS AND PAINTERS HAVING NO GRIEVANCE
AGAINST ITS OWNER OTHER THAN THAT HE HAD CONTRACTED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING NOT CONNECTED WITH THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS,
AND A MILE-AND-A-HALF AWAY, WITH A CONTRACTOR WHO EMPLOYED NON-UNION
LABOR.  P. 726. 

2.  THIS COURT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WISDOM OF THE POLICY
UNDERLYING STATE LAWS, BUT WITH THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY.  P.
728. 

CARPENTERS & JOINERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 213, ET AL. V.
RITTER'S CAFE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL
DISTRICT, OF TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 595, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING AN ORDER
ENJOINING PETITIONERS FROM CERTAIN PICKETING.  THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE REFUSED A WRIT OF ERROR. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SIMPLE.  RITTER, THE RESPONDENT, MADE AN
AGREEMENT WITH A CONTRACTOR NAMED PLASTER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
BUILDING AT 2810 BROADWAY, HOUSTON, TEXAS.  THE CONTRACT GAVE PLASTER
THE RIGHT TO MAKE HIS OWN ARRANGEMENTS REGARDING THE EMPLOYMENT OF
LABOR IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING.  HE EMPLOYED NON-UNION
CARPENTERS AND PAINTERS.  THE RESPONDENT WAS ALSO THE OWNER OF RITTER'S
CAFE, A RESTAURANT AT 418 BROADWAY, A MILE AND A HALF AWAY.  SO FAR AS
THE RECORD DISCLOSES, THE NEW BUILDING WAS WHOLLY UNCONNECTED WITH THE
BUSINESS OF RITTER'S CAFE.  ALL OF THE RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES WERE
MEMBERS OF THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE,
LOCAL 808.  AS TO THEIR RESTAURANT WORK, THERE WAS NO CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN RITTER AND HIS EMPLOYEES OR THEIR UNION.  NOR DID THE
CARPENTERS' AND PAINTERS' UNIONS, THE PETITIONERS HERE, HAVE ANY
QUARREL WITH RITTER OVER HIS OPERATION OF THE RESTAURANT.  NO
CONSTRUCTION WORK OF ANY KIND WAS PERFORMED AT THE RESTAURANT, AND NO
CARPENTERS OR PAINTERS WERE EMPLOYED THERE. 

BUT BECAUSE PLASTER EMPLOYED NON-UNION LABOR, MEMBERS OF THE
CARPENTERS' AND PAINTERS' UNIONS BEGAN TO PICKET RITTER'S CAFE
IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION GOT UNDER WAY.  WALKING BACK AND
FORTH IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT, A PICKET CARRIED A PLACARD WHICH
READ:  "THIS PLACE IS UNFAIR TO CARPENTERS AND JOINERS UNION OF
AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 213, AND PAINTERS LOCAL NO. 130, AFFILIATED WITH
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR."  LATER ON, THE WORDING WAS CHANGED AS
FOLLOWS:  "THE OWNER OF THIS CAFE HAS AWARDED A CONTRACT TO ERECT A
BUILDING TO W.A. PLASTER WHO IS UNFAIR TO THE CARPENTERS UNION 213 AND
PAINTER UNION 130, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR." 
ACCORDING TO THE UNDISPUTED FINDING OF THE TEXAS COURTS, WHICH IS
CONTROLLING HERE, RITTER'S CAFE WAS PICKETED "FOR THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF
FORCING AND COMPELLING PLAINTIFF (RITTER) TO REQUIRE THE SAID
CONTRACTOR, PLASTER, TO USE AND EMPLOY ONLY MEMBERS OF THE DEFENDANT
UNIONS ON THE BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN THE 2800 BLOCK ON
BROADWAY."  CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THIS PICKETING, THE RESTAURANT
WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL NO. 808, CALLED RITTER'S EMPLOYEES OUT ON STRIKE
AND WITHDREW THE UNION CARD FROM HIS ESTABLISHMENT.  UNION TRUCK
DRIVERS REFUSED TO CROSS THE PICKET LINE TO DELIVER FOOD AND OTHER
SUPPLIES TO THE RESTAURANT.  THE EFFECT OF ALL THIS WAS "TO PREVENT
MEMBERS OF ALL TRADES-UNIONS FROM PATRONIZING PLAINTIFF'S CAFE AND TO
ERECT A BARRIER AROUND PLAINTIFF'S CAFE, ACROSS WHICH NO MEMBER OF
DEFENDANT-UNIONS OR AN AFFILIATE WILL GO."  A CURTAILMENT OF SIXTY PER
CENT OF RITTER'S BUSINESS RESULTED. 

HOLDING THE PETITIONERS' ACTIVITIES TO CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE
STATE ANTI-TRUST LAW, TEXAS PENAL CODE, ART. 1632 ET SEQ., THE TEXAS
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS ENJOINED THEM FROM PICKETING RITTER'S CAFE.  THE
DECREE FORBADE NEITHER PICKETING ELSEWHERE (INCLUDING THE BUILDING
UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY PLASTER) NOR COMMUNICATION OF THE FACTS OF THE
DISPUTE BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN THE PICKETING OF RITTER'S RESTAURANT. 
149 S.W.2D 694.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM THAT
THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS (THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
HAVING REFUSED A WRIT OF ERROR) INFRINGED THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  314
U.S. 595. 

THE ECONOMIC CONTEST BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE HAS NEVER
CONCERNED MERELY THE IMMEDIATE DISPUTANTS.  THE CLASH OF SUCH
CONFLICTING INTERESTS INEVITABLY IMPLICATES THE WELL-BEING OF THE
COMMUNITY.  SOCIETY HAS THEREFORE BEEN COMPELLED TO THROW ITS WEIGHT
INTO THE CONTEST.  THE LAW HAS UNDERTAKEN TO BALANCE THE EFFORT OF THE
EMPLOYER TO CARRY ON HIS BUSINESS FREE FROM THE INTERFERENCE OF OTHERS
AGAINST THE EFFORT OF LABOR TO FURTHER ITS ECONOMIC SELF-INTEREST.  AND
EVERY INTERVENTION OF GOVERNMENT IN THIS STRUGGLE HAS IN SOME RESPECT
ABRIDGED THE FREEDOM OF ACTION OF ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH. 

THE TASK OF MEDIATING BETWEEN THESE COMPETING INTERESTS HAS, UNTIL
RECENTLY, BEEN LEFT LARGELY TO JUDICIAL LAWMAKING AND NOT TO
LEGISLATION.  "COURTS WERE REQUIRED, IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION, TO
DETERMINE WHAT THE PUBLIC WELFARE DEMANDED; - WHETHER IT WOULD NOT BE
BEST SUBSERVED BY LEAVING THE CONTESTANTS FREE TO RESORT TO ANY MEANS
NOT INVOLVING A BREACH OF THE PEACE OR INJURY TO TANGIBLE PROPERTY;
WHETHER IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT THE CONTESTANTS
SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO INVOKE THE AID OF OTHERS NOT DIRECTLY INTERESTED
IN THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY; AND TO WHAT EXTENT INCIDENTAL INJURY TO
PERSONS NOT PARTIES TO THE CONTROVERSY SHOULD BE HELD JUSTIFIABLE." 
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 363.  THE
RIGHT OF THE STATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMON INTEREST IS BEST
SERVED BY IMPOSING SOME RESTRICTIONS UPON THE USE OF WEAPONS FOR
INFLICTING ECONOMIC INJURY IN THE STRUGGLE OF CONFLICTING INDUSTRIAL
FORCES HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN DOUBTED.  SEE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN
AIKENS V. WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194, 205, AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN
TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, SUPRA, AT 372, DORCHY V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306, 311,
AND SENN V. TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION, 301 U.S. 468, 481.  BUT THE
PETITIONERS NOW CLAIM THAT THERE IS TO BE FOUND IN THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND THAT
PEACEFUL PICKETING MUST BE WHOLLY IMMUNE FROM REGULATION BY THE
COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE GENERAL INTEREST, THAT THE STATES
MUST BE POWERLESS TO CONFINE THE USE OF THIS INDUSTRIAL WEAPON WITHIN
REASONABLE BOUNDS. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE PEACEABLY TO THE PUBLIC THE
FACTS OF A LEGITIMATE DISPUTE IS NOT LOST MERELY BECAUSE A LABOR
DISPUTE IS INVOLVED, THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, OR BECAUSE THE
COMMUNICATION TAKES THE FORM OF PICKETING, EVEN WHEN THE COMMUNICATION
DOES NOT CONCERN A DISPUTE BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND THOSE DIRECTLY
EMPLOYED BY HIM.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321. 
BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT A LABOR DISPUTE IS THE OCCASION OF EXERCISING
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION DOES NOT GIVE THAT FREEDOM ANY GREATER
CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION OR RENDER IT COMPLETELY INVIOLABLE.  WHERE, AS
HERE, CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF FREE SPEECH ARE MET WITH CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF
THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO IMPOSE REASONABLE REGULATIONS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, THE DUTY OF THIS COURT IS
PLAIN.  WHENEVER STATE ACTION IS CHALLENGED AS A DENIAL OF "LIBERTY,"
THE QUESTION ALWAYS IS WHETHER THE STATE HAS VIOLATED "THE ESSENTIAL
ATTRIBUTES OF THAT LIBERTY."  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 708.  WHILE THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IS
EMBODIED IN THE LIBERTY SAFEGUARDED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THAT
CLAUSE POSTULATES THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO TRANSLATE INTO LAW
LOCAL POLICIES "TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL
WELFARE OF ITS PEOPLE.  ...  THE LIMITS OF THIS SOVEREIGN POWER MUST
ALWAYS BE DETERMINED WITH APPROPRIATE REGARD TO THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT
OF ITS EXERCISE."  IBID., AT 707.  "THE BOUNDARY AT WHICH THE
CONFLICTING INTERESTS BALANCE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY ANY GENERAL
FORMULA IN ADVANCE, BUT POINTS IN THE LINE, OR HELPING TO ESTABLISH IT,
ARE FIXED BY DECISIONS THAT THIS OR THAT CONCRETE CASE FALLS ON THE
NEARER OR FARTHER SIDE."  HUDSON WATER CO. V. MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349,
355. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US, TEXAS HAS DECLARED THAT
ITS GENERAL WELFARE WOULD NOT BE SERVED IF, IN A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN A
CONTRACTOR AND BUILDING WORKERS' UNIONS, THE UNIONS WERE PERMITTED TO
BRING TO BEAR THE FULL WEIGHT OF FAMILIAR WEAPONS OF INDUSTRIAL COMBAT
AGAINST A RESTAURANT BUSINESS, WHICH, AS A BUSINESS, HAS NO NEXUS WITH
THE BUILDING DISPUTE BUT WHICH HAPPENS TO BE OWNED BY A PERSON WHO
CONTRACTS WITH THE BUILDER.  THE PRECISE QUESTION IS, THEREFORE,
WHETHER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS TEXAS FROM DRAWING THIS LINE
IN CONFINING THE AREA OF UNRESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL WARFARE. 

TEXAS HAS UNDERTAKEN TO LOCALIZE INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT BY PROHIBITING
THE EXERTION OF CONCERTED PRESSURE DIRECTED AT THE BUSINESS, WHOLLY
OUTSIDE THE ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE REAL DISPUTE, OF A PERSON WHOSE
RELATION TO THE DISPUTE ARISES FROM HIS BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH ONE OF
THE DISPUTANTS.  THE STATE HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO OUTLAW WHATEVER
PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE MAY BE INVOLVED IN THE MERE COMMUNICATION BY AN
INDIVIDUAL OF THE FACTS RELATING TO HIS DIFFERENCES WITH ANOTHER.  NOR
ARE WE CONFRONTED HERE WITH A LIMITATION UPON SPEECH IN CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE THERE EXISTS AN "INTERDEPENDENCE OF ECONOMIC INTEREST OF ALL
ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY," AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING,
312 U.S. 321, 326.  COMPARE JOURNEYMEN TAILORS UNION LOCAL NO. 195 V.
MILLER'S, INC., 312 U.S. 658, AND BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS & HELPERS
LOCAL NO. 802 V. WOHL, POST, P. 769.  THE LINE DRAWN BY TEXAS IN THIS
CASE IS NOT THE LINE DRAWN BY NEW YORK IN THE WOHL CASE.  THE DISPUTE
THERE RELATED TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BAKERY PRODUCTS WERE SOLD
AND DELIVERED TO RETAILERS.  THE BUSINESS OF THE RETAILERS WAS
THEREFORE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE.  IN PICKETING THE RETAIL
ESTABLISHMENTS, THE UNION MEMBERS WOULD ONLY BE FOLLOWING THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THEIR DISPUTE.  HERE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SITUATION.  THE
DISPUTE CONCERNS THE LABOR CONDITIONS SURROUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
BUILDING BY A CONTRACTOR.  TEXAS HAS DEEMED IT DESIRABLE TO INSULATE
FROM THE DISPUTE AN ESTABLISHMENT WHICH INDUSTRIALLY HAS NO CONNECTION
WITH THE DISPUTE.  TEXAS HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO PROTECT OTHER BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES OF THE BUILDING CONTRACTOR, PLASTER, WHO IS THE
PETITIONERS' REAL ADVERSARY.  WE NEED NOT THEREFORE CONSIDER PROBLEMS
THAT WOULD ARISE IF TEXAS HAD UNDERTAKEN TO DRAW SUCH A LINE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT BY PEACEFUL PICKETING WORKINGMEN COMMUNICATE THEIR
GRIEVANCES.  AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATING THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE,
PEACEFUL PICKETING MAY BE A PHASE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE
UTTERANCE.  BUT RECOGNITION OF PEACEFUL PICKETING AS AN EXERCISE OF
FREE SPEECH DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE STATES MUST BE WITHOUT POWER TO
CONFINE THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATION TO THAT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE
DISPUTE.  RESTRICTION OF PICKETING TO THE AREA OF THE INDUSTRY WITHIN
WHICH A LABOR DISPUTE ARISES LEAVES OPEN TO THE DISPUTANTS OTHER
TRADITIONAL MODES OF COMMUNICATION.  TO DENY TO THE STATES THE POWER TO
DRAW THIS LINE IS TO WRITE INTO THE CONSTITUTION THE NOTION THAT EVERY
INSTANCE OF PEACEFUL PICKETING - ANYWHERE AND UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES -
IS NECESSARILY A PHASE OF THE CONTROVERSY WHICH PROVOKED THE
PICKETING.  SUCH A VIEW OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WOULD COMPEL THE
STATES TO ALLOW THE DISPUTANTS IN A PARTICULAR INDUSTRIAL EPISODE TO
CONSCRIPT NEUTRALS HAVING NO RELATION TO EITHER THE DISPUTE OR THE
INDUSTRY IN WHICH IT AROSE. 

IN FORBIDDING SUCH CONSCRIPTION OF NEUTRALS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE BEFORE US, TEXAS REPRESENTS THE PREVAILING, AND PROBABLY THE
UNANIMOUS, POLICY OF THE STATES.  FN1  WE HOLD THAT THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT FORBID TEXAS TO DRAW THE LINE WHICH HAS BEEN DRAWN HERE.  TO
HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO TRANSMUTE VITAL CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES
INTO DOCTRINAIRE DOGMA.  WE MUST BE MINDFUL THAT "THE RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES TO CONDUCT THEIR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND TO
COMPETE WITH OTHERS FOR A SHARE IN THE PRODUCTS OF INDUSTRY ARE SUBJECT
TO MODIFICATION OR QUALIFICATION IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SOCIETY IN
WHICH THEY EXIST.  THIS IS BUT AN INSTANCE OF THE POWER OF THE STATE TO
SET THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE CONTEST OPEN TO INDUSTRIAL COMBATANTS." 
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 103-04. 

IT IS NOT FOR US TO ASSESS THE WISDOM OF THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE
LAW OF TEXAS.  OUR DUTY IS AT AN END WHEN WE FIND THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT DENY HER THE POWER TO ENACT THAT POLICY INTO LAW. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE AUTHORITIES ARE COLLECTED IN TELLER, LABOR DISPUTES AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (1940), SEC. 123; HELLERSTEIN, SECONDARY BOYCOTTS
IN LABOR DISPUTES, 47 YALE L.J. 341; FREY, CASES ON LABOR LAW (1941),
PP. 239-73; CF. GALENSON AND SPECTOR, THE NEW YORK LABOR-INJUNCTION
STATUTE AND THE COURTS, 42 COL. L. REV. 51, 68-71. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR. 

THE PETITIONERS SOUGHT TO CONVEY TO THE PUBLIC CERTAIN INFORMATION. 
THE INJUNCTION HERE SUSTAINED IMPOSED TWO RESTRAINTS ON THEIR DOING SO:
(1) IT ENJOINED THEM FROM PICKETING THE RESPONDENT'S CAFE; (2) IT
ENJOINED THEM FROM CARRYING BANNERS IN FRONT OF THE RESPONDENT'S CAFE,
BANNERS WHICH CONTAINED INSCRIPTIONS TELLING THE PUBLIC THAT THE
RESPONDENT HAD AWARDED A BUILDING CONTRACT TO A MAN WHO WAS UNFAIR TO
ORGANIZED LABOR.    ONE MEMBER OF THE PETITIONER UNIONS AT A TIME
PEACEFULLY WALKED IN FRONT OF THE RESPONDENT'S CAFE, CARRYING SUCH A
BANNER.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE INSCRIPTIONS WERE UNTRUTHFUL, NOR
THAT THE LANGUAGE USED WAS IMMODERATE.  THERE WAS NO VIOLENCE
THREATENED OR APPREHENDED.  PASSERS-BY WERE NOT MOLESTED.  IT IS CLEAR
FROM THE OPINION OF THE TEXAS COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS THAT THE
INJUNCTION AGAINST PICKETING WAS GRANTED NOT BECAUSE OF ANY LAW
DIRECTLY AIMED AT PICKETING - TEXAS HAS NO STATUTE AGAINST PICKETING AS
SUCH - NOR TO PREVENT VIOLENCE, DISORDER, BREACH OF THE PEACE, OR
CONGESTION OF THE STREETS.  THE IMMEDIATE PURPOSE OF THE INJUNCTION WAS
TO FRUSTRATE THE UNION'S OBJECTIVE OF CONVEYING INFORMATION TO THAT
PART OF THE PUBLIC WHICH CAME NEAR THE RESPONDENT'S PLACE OF BUSINESS,
AN OBJECTIVE WHICH THE COURT BELOW DECIDED WAS A VIOLATION OF TEXAS
ANTITRUST LAWS.  CONVEYING THIS TRUTHFUL INFORMATION IN THE MANNER
CHOSEN BY THE UNION WAS CALCULATED TO, AND DID, INJURE THE RESPONDENT'S
BUSINESS.  HIS BUSINESS WAS INJURED BECAUSE MANY OF THOSE WHOM THE
INFORMATION REACHED WERE SYMPATHETIC WITH THE UNION SIDE OF THE
CONTROVERSY AND DECLINED TO PATRONIZE THE RESPONDENT'S CAFE OR HAVE ANY
OTHER BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH HIM.  DOES INJURY OF THIS KIND TO THE
RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS JUSTIFY THE TEXAS COURTS IN THUS RESTRICTING
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION? 

I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THE CONTROVERSY WHICH PROMPTED THE UNIONS
TO GIVE PUBLICITY TO THE FACTS WAS NO MORE THAN A PRIVATE QUARREL
BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE NON-UNION CONTRACTOR.  WHETHER MEMBERS OR NON
MEMBERS OF THE BUILDING TRADES UNIONS ARE EMPLOYED IS KNOWN TO DEPEND
TO A LARGE EXTENT UPON THE ATTITUDE OF BUILDING CONTRACTORS.  THEIR
ATTITUDE CAN BE GREATLY INFLUENCED BY THOSE WITH WHOM THEY DO
BUSINESS.  DISPUTES BETWEEN ONE OR TWO UNIONS AND ONE CONTRACTOR OVER
THE MERITS AND JUSTICE OF UNION AS OPPOSED TO NON-UNION SYSTEMS OF
EMPLOYMENT ARE BUT A PART OF THE NATIONWIDE CONTROVERSY OVER THE
SUBJECT.  I CAN SEE NO REASON WHY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE
DEPRIVED OF ANY OPPORTUNITY TO GET INFORMATION WHICH MIGHT ENABLE THEM
TO USE THEIR INFLUENCE TO TIP THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF THE SIDE THEY
THINK IS RIGHT. 

IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY DOUBT BEFORE, I SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT OUR
DECISION IN THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, SETTLED THE QUESTION. 
THERE WE SAID AT PAGES 102-104:  "IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OUR TIMES THE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE
MUST BE REGARDED AS WITHIN THAT AREA OF FREE DISCUSSION THAT IS
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ...  FREE DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE
CONDITIONS IN INDUSTRY AND THE CAUSES OF LABOR DISPUTES APPEARS TO US
INDISPENSABLE TO THE EFFECTIVE AND INTELLIGENT USE OF THE PROCESSES OF
POPULAR GOVERNMENT TO SHAPE THE DESTINY OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY. 
THE ISSUES RAISED BY REGULATIONS, SUCH AS ARE CHALLENGED HERE,
INFRINGING UPON THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVELY TO INFORM THE PUBLIC
OF THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE ARE PART OF THIS LARGER PROBLEM.  ...
IT MAY BE THAT EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE MEANS OF ADVANCING PUBLIC
KNOWLEDGE MAY PERSUADE SOME OF THOSE REACHED TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING
INTO ADVANTAGEOUS RELATIONS WITH THE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT WHICH IS
THE SCENE OF THE DISPUTE.  ...  BUT THE GROUP IN POWER AT ANY MOMENT
MAY NOT IMPOSE PENAL SANCTIONS ON PEACEFUL AND TRUTHFUL DISCUSSION OF
MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST MERELY ON A SHOWING THAT OTHERS MAY THEREBY
BE PERSUADED TO TAKE ACTION INCONSISTENT WITH ITS INTERESTS." 

WHATEVER INJURY THE RESPONDENT SUFFERED HERE RESULTED FROM THE
PEACEFUL AND TRUTHFUL STATEMENTS MADE TO THE PUBLIC THAT HE HAD
EMPLOYED A NON-UNION CONTRACTOR TO ERECT A BUILDING.  THIS INFORMATION,
UNDER THE THORNHILL CASE, THE PETITIONERS WERE PRIVILEGED TO IMPART AND
THE PUBLIC WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.  IT IS ONE THING FOR A STATE TO
REGULATE THE USE OF ITS STREETS AND HIGHWAYS SO AS TO KEEP THEM OPEN
AND AVAILABLE FOR MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND PROPERTY, SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
308 U.S. 147, 160; OR TO PASS GENERAL REGULATIONS AS TO THEIR USE IN
THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY, PEACE, COMFORT, OR CONVENIENCE, CANTWELL
V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 306-307; OR TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM
VIOLENCE AND BREACHES OF THE PEACE BY THOSE WHO ARE UPON THEM,
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 105.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING, HOWEVER,
TO "ABRIDGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY OF ONE RIGHTFULLY UPON THE
STREET TO IMPART INFORMATION THROUGH SPEECH OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF
LITERATURE.  ...  "  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, SUPRA, 160.  THE COURT BELOW
DID NOT REST THE RESTRAINTS IMPOSED ON THESE PETITIONERS UPON THE
STATE'S EXERCISE OF ITS PERMISSIBLE POWERS TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS
STREETS OR THE CONDUCT OF THOSE RIGHTFULLY UPON THEM.  INSTEAD, IT
BARRED THE PETITIONERS FROM USING THE STREETS TO CONVEY INFORMATION TO
THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE OF THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF INFORMATION THEY WISHED
TO CONVEY.  IN SO DOING, IT DIRECTLY RESTRICTED THE PETITIONERS' RIGHTS
TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES PUBLICLY CONCERNING AN ISSUE WHICH WE RECOGNIZED
IN THE THORNHILL CASE TO BE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.  IT IMPOSED THE
RESTRICTION FOR THE REASON THAT THE PUBLIC'S RESPONSE TO SUCH
INFORMATION WOULD RESULT IN INJURY TO A PARTICULAR PERSON'S BUSINESS, A
REASON WHICH WE SAID IN THE THORNHILL CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY
CURTAILMENT OF FREE EXPRESSION. 

THE INJUNCTION IS DEFENDED, HOWEVER, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED FROM PASSING INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
AT ONLY SOME, BUT NOT AT ALL, PLACES.  IT MAY BE THAT THE PETITIONERS
ARE LEFT FREE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AT OTHER PLACES OR IN OTHER WAYS. 
POSSIBLY THEY MIGHT, AT GREATER EXPENSE, REACH THE PUBLIC OVER THE
RADIO OR THROUGH THE NEWSPAPERS, ALTHOUGH, IF THE THEORY OF THE COURT
BELOW BE CORRECT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THEY COULD BE ENJOINED FROM USING
THESE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION, TOO, TO PERSUADE PEOPLE NOT TO PATRONIZE
THE RESPONDENT'S CAFE.  IN ANY EVENT, "ONE IS NOT TO HAVE THE EXERCISE
OF HIS LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION IN APPROPRIATE PLACES ABRIDGED ON THE PLEA
THAT IT MAY BE EXERCISED IN SOME OTHER PLACE."  SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
SUPRA, 163. 

ACCEPTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST ANY LAW "ABRIDGING
THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS" - A PROHIBITION MADE APPLICABLE
TO THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - "AS A COMMAND OF THE
BROADEST SCOPE THAT EXPLICIT LANGUAGE, READ IN THE CONTEXT OF A
LIBERTYLOVING SOCIETY, WILL ALLOW," BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S.
252, 263, I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

THE TEXAS COURT ENJOINED PETITIONERS, A LABOR UNION OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS, ANOTHER UNION OF PAINTERS, AND ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS FROM
PICKETING THE RESTAURANT OF THE RESPONDENT, E. R. RITTER, PLAINTIFF
BELOW, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME OF RITTER'S CAFE, AT 418
BROADWAY, IN HOUSTON, "AND FROM CARRYING BANNERS PEACEFULLY AND IN ANY
OTHER MANNER UPON THE SIDEWALKS IN FRONT" OF THE RESTAURANT.  THERE HAD
BEEN NO VIOLENCE.  ONLY TWO PICKETS, ONE FROM EACH UNION, WALKED BACK
AND FORTH, CARRYING PLACARDS WHICH BEFORE THE INJUNCTION ISSUED WERE
MODIFIED TO READ, "THE OWNER OF THIS CAFE HAS AWARDED A CONTRACT TO
ERECT A BUILDING TO W. A. PLASTER WHO IS UNFAIR TO THE CARPENTERS UNION
213 AND PAINTER UNION 130, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR." 

PLASTER, A BUILDING CONTRACTOR, WAS PUTTING UP A STRUCTURE FOR
RESPONDENT, RITTER, IN THE 2800 BLOCK OF BROADWAY, UNDER A CONTRACT
WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE PLASTER TO EMPLOY UNION LABOR.  THE RECORD DOES
NOT SHOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS NEW BUILDING IS TO BE USED IN THE
RESTAURANT BUSINESS.  HE WAS EMPLOYING NON-UNION WORKERS.  THE
RESTAURANT, HOWEVER, WAS UNIONIZED, ITS EMPLOYEES BEING MEMBERS OF
HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 808.  THEY QUIT ON THE DAY THE
PICKETING BEGAN, UNION DRIVERS REFUSED TO DELIVER SUPPLIES, AND THE
BUSINESS SLUMPED SIXTY PER CENT.  THE COURT FOUND PETITIONERS' CONDUCT
AN INVASION OF RESPONDENTS' RIGHT TO CONDUCT A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS AND
AN ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE ILLEGALLY WITH A CONTRACT WITH THIRD PARTIES. 

THE INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED BY THE TEXAS COURT BECAUSE SUCH INVASION OR
ATTEMPT AT INVASION OF THE RIGHTS OF A BUSINESS MAN WAS HELD "TO CREATE
RESTRICTIONS IN THE FREE PURSUIT" OF BUSINESS, CONTRARY TO THE TEXAS
ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. (VERNON, 1936) ARTS. 7426, 7428;
TEX. PENAL CODE (VERNON, 1936) ARTS. 1632, 1634, 1635.  149 S.W.2D
694.  THE PETITIONERS' CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE INJUNCTION IS
BASED ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, GUARANTEED THEM BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160. 

THIS CHALLENGE INVOLVES TWO PARTICULARLY DELICATE RELATIONSHIPS. 
THESE ARE THAT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND THAT
BETWEEN A STATE AND LABOR UNIONS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  SO FAR AS THE
INJUNCTION DEPENDS UPON THE ACTION OF THE TEXAS COURT IN CONSTRUING ITS
ANTI-TRUST STATUTES TO FORBID SUCH INTERFERENCE WITH THE RESTAURANT
BUSINESS, THE ORDER IS UNASSAILABLE HERE.  BUT IF SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION DENIES TO TEXANS CLAIMED RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO THEM BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE STATE AUTHORITY MUST ACCOMMODATE ITS
ORDERS TO PRESERVE THAT RIGHT.  CF. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 216; LINDSEY V. WASHINGTON, 301 U.S. 397, 400;
MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT, 309 U.S. 270, 273. 

RECENT CASES IN THIS COURT HAVE SOUGHT TO MAKE MORE DEFINITE THE
EXTENT AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH IN LABOR DISPUTES. 
FOR SOME TIME, THERE HAS BEEN GENERAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO PUBLICIZE "THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE IN A PEACEFUL WAY
THROUGH APPROPRIATE MEANS."  ONE OF THE RECOGNIZED MEANS IS BY ORDERLY
PICKETING WITH BANNERS OR PLACARDS.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88,
104.  IN CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106, 113, WE SAID:  "FOR THE
REASONS SET FORTH IN OUR OPINION IN THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA,
PUBLICIZING THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE IN A PEACEFUL WAY THROUGH
APPROPRIATE MEANS, WHETHER BY PAMPHLET, BY WORD OF MOUTH OR BY BANNER,
MUST NOW BE REGARDED AS WITHIN THAT LIBERTY OF COMMUNICATION WHICH IS
SECURED TO EVERY PERSON BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST ABRIDGMENT
BY A STATE."  THE DESIRE OF BOTH SIDES IN LABOR CONTROVERSIES TO GAIN
ADVANTAGES FOR THEMSELVES AND LIMIT SIMILAR OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR
OPPONENTS HAS LED EACH TO SEEK TO EXPAND OR CONTRACT THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AREA FOR PICKETING OPERATIONS AS SUITS THEIR
RESPECTIVE PURPOSES.  RECOGNITION OF THE BASIC RIGHT TO PICKET MADE THE
LOCATION OF LINES BEYOND WHICH PICKETING COULD NOT BE EMPLOYED AN
IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE OF THOSE WHO SUFFER FROM ITS USE. 

IN THE CARLSON AND THORNHILL CASES, LEGISLATION FORBIDDING PICKETING
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH THE BUSINESS OF ANOTHER WAS
INVALIDATED BECAUSE IT WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION OF THE
WORKER'S RIGHT TO PUBLICIZE HIS SITUATION.  IT WAS NOT THOUGHT OF
SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE IN EITHER CASE TO MENTION IN THE OPINION WHETHER
THE PICKET WAS AN INTERESTED DISPUTANT WITH THOSE PICKETED OR AN UTTER
STRANGER TO THE CONTROVERSY AND THE INDUSTRY.  IN THOSE CAREFULLY
PHRASED DECISIONS THE POSSIBILITY OF STATE CONTROL OF SOCIALLY MENACING
EVILS, FLOWING FROM INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES, WAS RECOGNIZED, BUT THOSE
GENERAL EVILS WERE NOT OF THE KIND WHICH WERE CONSIDERED TO WARRANT
INTERFERENCE WITH FREE SPEECH BY PEACEFUL PICKETING.  FN1  WE SAID: 

"IT IS TRUE THAT THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES TO CONDUCT
THEIR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND TO COMPETE WITH OTHERS FOR A SHARE IN THE
PRODUCTS OF INDUSTRY ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR QUALIFICATION IN
THE INTERESTS OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THEY EXIST.  THIS IS BUT AN
INSTANCE OF THE POWER OF THE STATE TO SET THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE
CONTEST OPEN TO INDUSTRIAL COMBATANTS.  SEE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN 254
U.S. AT 488.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE IN DEALING WITH THE
EVILS ARISING FROM INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES MAY IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS FREELY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS WHICH ARE
MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  A CONTRARY CONCLUSION COULD BE USED TO
SUPPORT ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS CONCERNING
ALMOST EVERY MATTER OF IMPORTANCE TO SOCIETY."  FN2 

AN INSTANCE OF STATE CONTROL OVER PEACEFUL PICKETING SOON APPEARED. 
IN DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR CO., 312 U.S. 287, THIS COURT, THOUGH
NOT WITHOUT DISSENT, UPHELD ILLINOIS' RULING THAT, WHERE "ACTS OF
PICKETING IN THEMSELVES PEACEFUL" ARE ENMESHED IN VIOLENCE, IMMEDIATE
FUTURE PEACEFUL PICKETING MAY BE ENJOINED.  THIS DECISION COMPELLED A
LESS EXTREME RESULT IN HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' ALLIANCE V.
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, ANTE, P. 437.  IN THE LATTER
CASE, THE ORDER APPROVED "FORBIDS ONLY VIOLENCE" AND "PERMITS PEACEFUL
PICKETING."  NOTHING MORE THAN THE VALIDITY OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
VIOLENCE WAS DECIDED AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE WISCONSIN
EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT. 

ON THE SAME DAY THAT MEADOWMOOR WAS HANDED DOWN, A.F. OF L. V. SWING,
312 U.S. 321, WAS DECIDED.  IN SWING'S CASE A UNION OF BEAUTY SHOP
WORKERS PICKETED A BEAUTY PARLOR.  THEY WERE NOT AND HAD NOT BEEN
EMPLOYEES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.  WE STATED THE ISSUE THUS: 

"MORE THOROUGH STUDY OF THE RECORD AND FULL ARGUMENT HAVE REDUCED THE
ISSUE TO THIS:  IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF
DISCUSSION INFRINGED BY THE COMMON LAW POLICY OF A STATE FORBIDDING
RESORT TO PEACEFUL PERSUASION THROUGH PICKETING MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS
NO IMMEDIATE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE DISPUTE?"  FN3 

THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE OPINION TO INTIMATE THAT THE ANSWER WOULD
HAVE VARIED, IF THE UNION HAD BEEN A LOCAL OF THE TEAMSTERS OR
PAINTERS.  THE INJUNCTION GRANTED BY ILLINOIS WAS SET ASIDE WITH THESE
WORDS: 

"SUCH A BAN OF FREE COMMUNICATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GUARANTEE
OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  THAT A STATE HAS AMPLE POWER TO REGULATE THE
LOCAL PROBLEMS THROWN UP BY MODERN INDUSTRY AND TO PRESERVE THE PEACE
IS AXIOMATIC.  BUT NOT EVEN THESE ESSENTIAL POWERS ARE UNFETTERED BY
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THE SCOPE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS NOT CONFINED BY THE NOTION OF A PARTICULAR STATE REGARDING
THE WISE LIMITS OF AN INJUNCTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, WHETHER
THOSE LIMITS BE DEFINED BY STATUTE OR BY THE JUDICIAL ORGAN OF THE
STATE.  A STATE CANNOT EXCLUDE WORKINGMEN FROM PEACEFULLY EXERCISING
THE RIGHT OF FREE COMMUNICATION BY DRAWING THE CIRCLE OF ECONOMIC
COMPETITION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS SO SMALL AS TO CONTAIN ONLY
AN EMPLOYER AND THOSE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY HIM.  THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF
ECONOMIC INTEREST OF ALL ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY HAS BECOME A
COMMONPLACE.  AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S.
184, 209.  THE RIGHT OF FREE COMMUNICATION CANNOT THEREFORE BE
MUTILATED BY DENYING IT TO WORKERS, IN A DISPUTE WITH AN EMPLOYER, EVEN
THOUGH THEY ARE NOT IN HIS EMPLOY.  COMMUNICATION BY SUCH EMPLOYEES OF
THE FACTS OF A DISPUTE, DEEMED BY THEM TO BE RELEVANT TO THEIR
INTERESTS, CAN NO MORE BE BARRED BECAUSE OF CONCERN FOR THE ECONOMIC
INTERESTS AGAINST WHICH THEY ARE SEEKING TO ENLIST PUBLIC OPINION THAN
COULD THE UTTERANCE PROTECTED IN THORNHILL'S CASE.  'MEMBERS OF A UNION
MIGHT, WITHOUT SPECIAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION BY A STATE, MAKE KNOWN
THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE, FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS GUARANTEED BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.'  SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468,
478."  FN4 

TODAY THIS COURT DECIDES BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL 802
V. WOHL, POST, P. 769.  IN THIS CASE THE UNION PICKETED MANUFACTURING
BAKERS WHO SOLD TO, AND THREATENED TO PICKET GROCERS AND RETAIL BAKERS
WHO BOUGHT FROM, PEDDLERS.  THE PEDDLERS PURCHASED BAKERY GOODS AND
SOLD THEM TO THE TRADE.  THE LABOR CONTROVERSY WAS THE EFFORT OF THE
UNIONS TO COMPEL THE PEDDLERS TO HIRE A UNION DRIVER ONE DAY A WEEK. 
THE STATE FORBADE THE PICKETING OF THE MANUFACTURERS AND OF THE
RETAILERS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PICKETING PLACARDS WERE DIRECTED
AT THE PRODUCT OR THE GENERAL BUSINESS OF THE RETAILERS.  FN5  ALTHOUGH
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE LABOR RELATION BETWEEN THE PEDDLERS AND THEIR
CUSTOMERS, OR BETWEEN THE GROCERS AND RETAIL BAKERS, AND THE UNION, WE
DECLINE TO PERMIT NEW YORK TO TAKE STEPS TO PROTECT THE PLACES OF
BUSINESS OF THOSE WHO DEALT WITH THE PEDDLERS AGAINST PICKETING.  IT
SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE SELLING OF BAKED PRODUCTS, DISTRIBUTED BY THE
PEDDLERS, IS A MINOR PART OF THE GROCERY BUSINESS.  RECENT CASES
ILLUSTRATE THE PRESENT TENDENCY OF STATE COURTS TO PERMIT WORKERS
OUTSIDE THE INDUSTRY PICKETED TO PUBLICIZE THEIR LABOR DISPUTES WITH
OTHERS.  FN6  TO PERMIT THE WOHL INJUNCTION, WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF
SPECIAL EMBARRASSMENT TO PEACE AND ORDER, WOULD, WE HOLD, GO BEYOND
PERMISSIBLE LIMITATIONS ON FREE SPEECH. 

WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH UPHELD IN THESE
DECISIONS REQUIRES TEXAS TO PERMIT THE PUBLICIZING OF THE
DISSATISFACTION OVER MR. RITTER'S CONTRACT FOR HIS NEW BUILDING.  UNTIL
TODAY, ORDERLY, REGULATED PICKETING HAS BEEN WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SUCH PICKETING WAS OBVIOUSLY DISADVANTAGEOUS
TO THE BUSINESS AFFECTED.  IN BALANCING SOCIAL ADVANTAGES IT HAS BEEN
FELT THAT THE PRESERVATION OF FREE SPEECH IN LABOR DISPUTES WAS MORE
IMPORTANT THAN THE FREEDOM OF ENTERPRISE FROM THE BURDENS OF THE PICKET
LINE.  IT WAS A LIMITATION ON STATE POWER TO DEAL AS IT PLEASED WITH
LABOR DISPUTES; A LIMITATION CONSENTED TO BY THE STATE WHEN IT BECAME A
PART OF THE NATION, AND ONE OF PRECISELY THE SAME QUALITY AS THOSE
ENFORCED IN CARLSON, THORNHILL AND SWING. 

WE ARE NOT HERE FORCED, AS THE COURT ASSUMES, TO SUPPORT A
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION THAT PEACEFUL PICKETING "MUST BE WHOLLY
IMMUNE FROM REGULATION BY THE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE GENERAL
INTEREST."  WE DO NOT DOUBT THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO IMPOSE NOT ONLY
SOME BUT MANY RESTRICTIONS UPON PEACEFUL PICKETING.  REASONABLE
NUMBERS, QUIETNESS, TRUTHFUL PLACARDS, OPEN INGRESS AND EGRESS,
SUITABLE HOURS OR OTHER PROPER LIMITATIONS, NOT DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
RIGHT TO TELL OF LABOR DIFFICULTIES, MAY BE REQUIRED.  THE COURT LIMITS
ITS HOLDING TO THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  ALL DECISIONS
NECESSARILY ARE SO LIMITED, BUT FROM THE DECISIONS RULES ARE DRAWN.  BU
THIS DECISION A STATE RULE IS UPHELD WHICH FORBIDS PEACEFUL PICKETING
OF BUSINESSES BY STRANGERS TO THE BUSINESS AND THE INDUSTRY OF WHICH IT
IS A PART.  THE LEGAL KERNEL OF THE COURT'S PRESENT DECISION IS THAT
THE "SPHERE" OF FREE SPEECH IS CONFINED TO THE "AREA OF THE INDUSTRY
WITHIN WHICH A LABOR DISPUTE ARISES."  THIS RULE IS APPLIED, IN THIS
CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE PICKETERS ARE PUBLICIZING A LABOR DISPUTE ARISING
FROM A CONTRACT TO WHICH THE SOLE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS PICKETED IS A
PARTY.  EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT COVERED AN ATTACHED ADDITION
TO THE RESTAURANT, THE COURT'S OPINION WOULD NOT PERMIT PICKETING
DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESTAURANT.  TO CONSTRUE THIS TEXAS DECISION AS
WITHIN STATE POWERS AND THE WOHL DECISION AS OUTSIDE THEIR BOUNDARIES,
PLAINLY DISCLOSES THE INADEQUACY OF THE TEST PRESUMABLY EMPLOYED, THAT
IS, THE SUPPOSED LACK OF ECONOMIC "INTERDEPENDENCE" BETWEEN THE
PICKETERS AND THE PICKETED. 

THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE GIVES
TO A STATE THE RIGHT TO BAR FROM PICKET LINES WORKERS WHO ARE NOT A
PART OF THE INDUSTRY PICKETED.  WE ARE NOT TOLD WHETHER THE TEST OF
ELIGIBILITY TO PICKET IS TO BE APPLIED BY CRAFTS OR ENTERPRISES, OR HOW
WE ARE TO DETERMINE ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE OR THE BOUNDARIES OF
PARTICULAR INDUSTRIES.  SUCH DIFFERENTIATIONS ARE YET TO BE
CONSIDERED.  THE DECISION WITHDRAWS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
FROM THE FREEDOM OF WORKERS OUTSIDE AN INDUSTRY TO STATE THEIR SIDE OF
A LABOR CONTROVERSY BY PICKETING.  SO LONG AS CIVIL GOVERNMENT IS ABLE
TO FUNCTION NORMALLY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ITS CITIZENS, SUCH A
LIMITATION UPON FREE SPEECH IS UNWARRANTED. 

FN1  EVIDENTLY THE CONCEPTION WAS THAT OF "IMMINENT AND AGGRAVATED
DANGER," A.F. OF L. V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321, 325. 

FN2  310 U.S. 88, 103-104. 

FN3  312 U.S. 321, 323. 

FN4  312 U.S. 321, 325-326. 

FN5  "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,  ...  THAT THE DEFENDANTS,  ...  ARE
PERPETUALLY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED: 

(A)  FROM PICKETING THE PLACES OF BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING BAKERS
WHO SELL TO THE PLAINTIFFS ...  BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT SAID
MANUFACTURING BAKERS SELL TO THESE PLAINTIFFS; AND 

(B)  FROM PICKETING THE PLACES OF BUSINESS OF CUSTOMERS OF THESE
PLAINTIFFS BECAUSE SUCH CUSTOMERS PURCHASE BAKED PRODUCTS FROM THESE
PLAINTIFFS; ...  " 

FN6  PEOPLE V. HARRIS, 104 COLO. 386, 91 P.2D 989(MAY, 1939); BYCK
BROS. & CO. V. MARTIN, 4 C.C.H. LABOR CASES $* 60,430(KY. CIR. CT.,
MARCH, 1941); ELLINGSEN V. MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION, 377 ILL. 76, 35
N.E.2D 349(JUNE, 1941); PEOPLE V. MULLER, 286 N.Y. 281, 36 N.E.2D
206(JULY, 1941); MAYWOOD FARMS CO. V. MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION, 313
ILL. APP. 24, 38 N.E.2D 972(JANUARY, 1942); MASON & DIXON LINES V.
ODOM, 18 S.E.2D 841(GA., FEBRUARY, 1942). 
..END :

















ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S. 740 


NO. 252.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - 237 WIS.
164, 295 N.W. 791, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT, THE WISCONSIN
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND A LABOR UNION, ORDERED THE
UNION, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND MEMBERS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM MASS
PICKETING OF THE EMPLOYER'S FACTORY, THREATENING PERSONAL INJURY OR
PROPERTY DAMAGE TO EMPLOYEES DESIRING TO WORK, OBSTRUCTING ENTRANCE TO
AND EGRESS FROM THE EMPLOYER'S FACTORY, OBSTRUCTING THE STREETS AND
PUBLIC ROADS ABOUT THE FACTORY, AND PICKETING THE HOMES OF EMPLOYEES. 
HELD, THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS CONFLICTING WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  PP. 745-748. 

2.  AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, WHICH CONSTRUCTION IS
CONCLUSIVE HERE, THE WISCONSIN ACT AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO
PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE STATE BOARD ONLY IN THE MANNER AND TO
THE EXTENT PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD'S ORDER.  P. 747. 

3.  AN INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO EXCLUDE STATES FROM EXERTING THEIR
POLICE POWER MUST BE CLEARLY MANIFESTED.  P. 749. 

4.  HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 749. 

ALLEN-BRADLEY LOCAL NO. 1111, UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, ET AL. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF THE
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER AN ORDER OF THE
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, ENTERED UNDER THE WISCONSIN
EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT (L. 1939, CH. 57; WIS. STAT. (1939) CH. 111, PP.
1610-18), IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AS BEING REPUGNANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  49 STAT. 449; 29
U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

SEC. 111.06(2) OF THE STATE ACT PROVIDES IN PART: 

"IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYE INDIVIDUALLY OR
IN CONCERT WITH OTHERS: 

"(A)  TO COERCE OR INTIMIDATE AN EMPLOYE IN THE ENJOYMENT OF HIS
LEGAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THOSE GUARANTEED IN SECTION 111.04,  FN1 OR TO
INTIMIDATE HIS FAMILY, PICKET HIS DOMICILE, OR INJURE THE PERSON OR
PROPERTY OF SUCH EMPLOYE OR HIS FAMILY. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(F)  TO HINDER OR PREVENT, BY MASS PICKETING, THREATS, INTIMIDATION,
FORCE OR COERCION OF ANY KIND THE PURSUIT OF ANY LAWFUL WORK OR
EMPLOYMENT, OR TO OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE WITH ENTRANCE TO OR EGRESS FROM
ANY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, OR TO OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE WITH FREE AND
UNINTERRUPTED USE OF PUBLIC ROADS, STREETS, HIGHWAYS, RAILWAYS,
AIRPORTS, OR OTHER WAYS OF TRAVEL OR CONVEYANCE." 

THE STATE BOARD IS GIVEN AUTHORITY ON THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT TO
CONDUCT HEARINGS, TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT, AND TO ISSUE ORDERS.  FN2
SEC. 111.07.  ORDERS OF THE STATE BOARD ARE ENFORCEABLE BY THE CIRCUIT
COURTS.  ID.  APPELLEE, ALLEN-BRADLEY CO., IS ENGAGED IN THE
MANUFACTURING BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN.  APPELLANT UNION IS A LABOR
ORGANIZATION COMPOSED OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THAT COMPANY.  THE UNION HAD
A CONTRACT WITH THE COMPANY GOVERNING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT.  THE CONTRACT WAS CANCELLED BY THE UNION.  THEREAFTER THE
UNION, BY SECRET BALLOT, ORDERED A STRIKE, WHICH WAS CALLED ON MAY 11,
1939.  THE STRIKE LASTED ABOUT THREE MONTHS, DURING WHICH TIME THE
COMPANY CONTINUED TO OPERATE ITS PLANT.  DIFFERENCES AROSE BETWEEN THE
EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ON STRIKE AND THE COMPANY AND THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO
CONTINUED TO WORK.  THE COMPANY THEREUPON FILED A PETITION WITH THE
STATE BOARD, CHARGING THE UNION AND CERTAIN OF ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS
WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  THE UNION ANSWERED AND OBJECTED, INTER
ALIA, TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE BOARD, ON THE GROUND THAT AS
RESPECTS THE MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY THE COMPANY WAS SUBJECT EXCLUSIVELY
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND TO THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL BOARD.  THE STATE BOARD MADE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ENTERED AN ORDER AGAINST THE UNION AND ITS
OFFICERS AND MEMBERS.  ON A PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE CIRCUIT COURT
SUSTAINED AND ENFORCED THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
WISCONSIN AFFIRMED THAT JUDGMENT.  237 WIS. 164, 295 N.W. 791.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 237(A); 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344(A). 

THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE STATE BOARD AS SUMMARIZED BY THE
SUPREME COURT (237 WIS. PP. 168-170) ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"BRIEFLY, FROM THE FINDINGS THE FOLLOWING FACTS APPEAR: 

"(A)  APPELLANTS ENGAGED IN MASS PICKETING AT ALL ENTRANCES TO THE
PREMISES OF THE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HINDERING AND PREVENTING THE
PURSUIT OF LAWFUL WORK AND EMPLOYMENT BY EMPLOYEES WHO DESIRED TO
WORK. 

"(B)  THEY OBSTRUCTED AND INTERFERED WITH THE ENTRANCE TO AND EGRESS
FROM THE FACTORY AND OBSTRUCTED AND INTERFERED WITH THE FREE AND
UNINTERRUPTED USE OF THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS SURROUNDING THE
FACTORY. 

"(C)  THEY THREATENED BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE TO MANY OF
THE EMPLOYEES WHO DESIRED TO CONTINUE THEIR EMPLOYMENT. 

"(D)  THEY REQUIRED OF PERSONS DESIRING TO ENTER THE FACTORY, TO
FIRST OBTAIN PASSES FROM THE UNION.  PERSONS HOLDING SUCH PASSES WERE
ADMITTED WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. 

"(E)  THEY PICKETED THE HOMES OF EMPLOYEES WHO CONTINUED IN THE
EMPLOYMENT OF THE COMPANY. 

"(F)  THAT THE UNION BY ITS OFFICERS AND MANY OF ITS MEMBERS INJURED
THE PERSONS AND PROPERTY OF EMPLOYEES WHO DESIRED TO CONTINUE THEIR
EMPLOYMENT. 

"(G)  THAT THE FOURTEEN INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WHO WERE STRIKING
EMPLOYEES, HAD ENGAGED IN VARIOUS ACTS OF MISCONDUCT.  THE FACTS
RELATING TO THOSE WERE FOUND SPECIFICALLY.  THE ACTS CONSISTED OF
INTIMIDATING AND PREVENTING EMPLOYEES FROM PURSUING THEIR WORK BY
THREATS, COERCION, AND ASSAULT; BY DAMAGING PROPERTY OF EMPLOYEES WHO
CONTINUED TO WORK; AND AS TO ONE OF THEM BY CARRYING CONCRETE ROCKS
WHICH HE INTENDED TO USE TO INTIMIDATE EMPLOYEES WHO DESIRED TO WORK. 

"BASED UPON THESE FINDINGS THE BOARD FOUND AS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
THAT THE UNION WAS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN THE FOLLOWING
RESPECTS: 

"(A)  MASS PICKETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF HINDERING AND PREVENTING THE
PURSUIT OF LAWFUL WORK. 

"(B)  THREATENING EMPLOYEES DESIRING TO WORK WITH BODILY INJURY AND
INJURY TO THEIR PROPERTY. 

"(C)  OBSTRUCTING AND INTERFERING WITH ENTRANCE TO AND EGRESS FROM
THE FACTORY. 

"(D)  OBSTRUCTING AND INTERFERING WITH THE FREE AND UNINTERRUPTED USE
OF THE STREETS AND PUBLIC ROADS SURROUNDING THE FACTORY. 

"(E)  PICKETING THE HOMES OF EMPLOYEES. 

"AS TO THE FOURTEEN INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS, THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT
EACH OF THEM WAS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY REASON OF THREATS,
ASSAULTS, AND OTHER MISDEMEANORS COMMITTED BY THEM AS SET OUT IN THE
FINDINGS OF FACT. 

"BASED UPON ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THE BOARD
ORDERED THAT THE UNION, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND MEMBERS - 

"(1)  CEASE AND DESIST FROM: 

(A)  MASS PICKETING. 

(B)  THREATENING EMPLOYEES. 

(C)  OBSTRUCTING OR INTERFERING WITH THE FACTORY ENTRANCES. 

(D)  OBSTRUCTING OR INTERFERING WITH THE FREE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS,
ROADS, AND SIDEWALKS. 

(E)  PICKETING THE DOMICILES OF EMPLOYEES. 

"THE ORDER REQUIRED THE UNION TO POST NOTICES AT ITS HEADQUARTERS
THAT IT HAD CEASED AND DESISTED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID AND TO NOTIFY
THE BOARD IN WRITING OF STEPS TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER. 

"AS TO THE FOURTEEN INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS, THE ORDER MADE NO
DETERMINATION BASED UPON THE FINDING THAT THEY WERE INDIVIDUALLY GUILTY
OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES." 

IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE COMPANY WAS SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  THE FEDERAL BOARD, HOWEVER, HAD NOT UNDERTAKEN IN THIS
CASE TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION WHICH THAT ACT CONFERRED ON IT.
ACCORDINGLY, THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE
STATE BOARD, STATING THAT "THERE CAN BE NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ACTS
UNTIL THEY ARE APPLIED TO THE SAME LABOR DISPUTE."  IT WAS URGED BEFORE
THAT COURT, AS IT HAS BEEN HERE, THAT THERE WAS NEVERTHELESS A CONFLICT
BETWEEN THAT PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE STATE BOARD WHICH DEALS WITH
THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE
CONTENTION IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WHO WERE FOUND GUILTY OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN THE STATE ACT, ARE, UNDER THE
TERMS OF THE FEDERAL ACT, STILL EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY,  FN3  WHILE
UNDER THE STATE ACT THAT RELATIONSHIP IS SEVERED.  FN4  AS TO THAT
ALLEGED CONFLICT, THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT MADE TWO ANSWERS:  FIRST,
THE FEDERAL ACT HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED TO THIS LABOR DISPUTE.  SECOND, IT
IS THE ORDER, NOT THE FINDINGS, OF THE STATE BOARD WHICH AFFECTS THE
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  SINCE THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN
THE ORDER WHICH SUSPENDED THE STATUS AS EMPLOYEES OF THE FOURTEEN
INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WHO WERE FOUND GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
THERE WAS NO CONFLICT AS TO THEIR EMPLOYEE STATUS UNDER THE STATE AND
FEDERAL ACTS. 

VARIOUS VIEWS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED HERE.  ON THE ONE HAND, IT IS URGED
THAT, IN THIS SITUATION, AS IN THE CASE OF FEDERAL CONTROL OVER
INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION RATES (SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342, 357;
BOARD OF RAILROAD COMM'RS V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO., 281 U.S. 412, 424,
426-428), STATE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE FORECLOSED IN ABSENCE OF A FINDING
BY THE FEDERAL BOARD UNDER SEC. 10(A) THAT AN EMPLOYER'S LABOR PRACTICE
SO AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE (LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601)
THAT IT SHOULD BE PREVENTED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS EARNESTLY
CONTENDED THAT THE STATE ACT, VIEWED AS A WHOLE, SO UNDERMINES RIGHTS
PROTECTED AND GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL ACT AND IS SO HOSTILE TO THE
POLICY OF THE FEDERAL ACT THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SURVIVE. 
ACCEPTANCE OF THE LATTER THEORY WOULD NECESSITATE A REVERSAL OF THE
JUDGMENT BELOW.  ACCEPTANCE OF THE FORMER WOULD MEAN THAT IN ALL CASES
ORDERS OF THE STATE BOARD WOULD BE UPHELD IF THE FEDERAL BOARD HAD NOT
ASSUMED JURISDICTION. 

WE DEAL, HOWEVER, NOT WITH THE THEORETICAL DISPUTES BUT WITH CONCRETE
AND SPECIFIC ISSUES RAISED BY ACTUAL CASES.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR
BOARD, 301 U.S. 103, 132; UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311
U.S. 377, 423, AND CASES CITED.  "CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE NOT TO
BE DEALT WITH ABSTRACTLY."  BANDINI PETROLEUM CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT,
284 U.S. 8, 22; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 464.  THEY WILL
NOT BE ANTICIPATED BUT WILL BE DEALT WITH ONLY AS THEY ARE
APPROPRIATELY RAISED UPON A RECORD BEFORE US.  TENNESSEE PUBLISHING CO.
V. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 18, 22.  NOR WILL WE ASSUME IN
ADVANCE THAT A STATE WILL SO CONSTRUE ITS LAW AS TO BRING IT INTO
CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  MOUNTAIN
TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219, 246; GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC
TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412, 429-430; WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S.
387.  HENCE WE CONFINE OUR DISCUSSION TO THE PRECISE FACTS OF THIS CASE
AND INTIMATE NO OPINION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF OTHER TYPES OF ORDERS IN
CASES WHERE THE FEDERAL BOARD HAS NOT ASSUMED JURISDICTION. 

WE ARE NOT UNDER THE NECESSITY OF TREATING THE STATE ACT AS AN
INSEPARABLE WHOLE.  CF. WATSON V. BUCK, SUPRA.  RATHER, WE MUST READ
THE STATE ACT, FOR PURPOSES OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS THOUGH IT CONTAINED
ONLY THOSE PROVISIONS WHICH AUTHORIZE THE STATE BOARD TO ENTER ORDERS
OF THE SPECIFIC TYPE HERE INVOLVED.  THAT ACT CONTAINS A BROAD
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.  FN5  THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT SEEMS TO HAVE
BEEN LIBERAL IN INTERPRETING SUCH CLAUSES SO AS TO SEPARATE VALID FROM
VOID PROVISIONS OF STATUTES.  FN6  ASIDE FROM THAT, WISCONSIN IN THIS
CASE HAS IN FACT APPLIED ONLY A FEW OF THE MANY PROVISIONS OF ITS ACT
TO APPELLANTS.  AND WE HAVE THE WORD OF THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT
THAT "THE ACT AFFECTS THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO A CONTROVERSY PENDING
BEFORE THE BOARD ONLY IN THE MANNER AND TO THE EXTENT PRESCRIBED BY THE
ORDER."  237 WIS. P. 183.  THAT CONSTRUCTION IS CONCLUSIVE HERE.  SENN
V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468, 477; MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT,
309 U.S. 270, 273, AND CASES CITED.  HENCE WE NEED NOT SPECULATE AS TO
WHETHER THE PORTIONS OF THE STATUTE ON WHICH THE ORDER RESTS ARE SO
INTERTWINED WITH THE OTHERS THAT THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE STATE
ACT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS INSEPARABLE.  SINCE WISCONSIN HAS ENFORCED AN
ORDER BASED ONLY ON ONE PART OF THE ACT, WE MUST CONSIDER THAT PORTION
EXACTLY AS WISCONSIN HAS TREATED IT - "COMPLETE IN ITSELF AND CAPABLE
OF STANDING ALONE."  WATSON V. BUCK, SUPRA, P. 397.  VIEWED IN THAT
LIGHT, NO CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT EXISTS. 

THE ONLY EMPLOYEE OR UNION CONDUCT AND ACTIVITY FORBIDDEN BY THE
STATE BOARD IN THIS CASE WAS MASS PICKETING, THREATENING EMPLOYEES
DESIRING TO WORK WITH PHYSICAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE, OBSTRUCTING
ENTRANCE TO AND EGRESS FROM THE COMPANY'S FACTORY, OBSTRUCTING THE
STREETS AND PUBLIC ROADS SURROUNDING THE FACTORY, AND PICKETING THE
HOMES OF EMPLOYEES.  SO FAR AS THE FOURTEEN INDIVIDUALS ARE CONCERNED,
THEIR STATUS AS EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY WAS NOT AFFECTED. 

WE AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE
THAT THE FEDERAL ACT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE A STATE FROM ENACTING
LEGISLATION LIMITED TO THE PROHIBITION OR REGULATION OF THIS TYPE OF
EMPLOYEE OR UNION ACTIVITY.  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS  FN7  ON THE FEDERAL
ACT PLAINLY INDICATE THAT IT IS NOT "A MERE POLICE COURT MEASURE" AND
THAT AUTHORITY OF THE SEVERAL STATES MAY BE EXERTED TO CONTROL SUCH
CONDUCT.  FURTHERMORE, THIS COURT HAS LONG INSISTED THAT AN "INTENTION
OF CONGRESS TO EXCLUDE STATES FROM EXERTING THEIR POLICE POWER MUST BE
CLEARLY MANIFESTED."  NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 272 U.S.
605, 611, AND CASES CITED; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10; SOUTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177; H.P. WELCH CO.
V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79, 85; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598,
614; WATSON V. BUCK, SUPRA. CONGRESS HAS NOT MADE SUCH EMPLOYEE AND
UNION CONDUCT AS IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE
FEDERAL BOARD.  NOR ARE WE FACED HERE WITH THE PRECISE PROBLEM WITH
WHICH WE WERE CONFRONTED IN HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52.  IN THE
HINES CASE, A FEDERAL SYSTEM OF ALIEN REGISTRATION WAS HELD TO
SUPERSEDE A STATE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION.  BUT THERE WE WERE DEALING
WITH A PROBLEM WHICH HAD AN IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FIELD OF FOREIGN
RELATIONS.  THE DELICACY OF THE ISSUES WHICH WERE POSED ALONE RAISED
GRAVE QUESTIONS AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF ALLOWING A STATE SYSTEM OF
REGULATION TO FUNCTION ALONGSIDE OF A FEDERAL SYSTEM.  IN THAT FIELD,
ANY "CONCURRENT STATE POWER THAT MAY EXIST IS RESTRICTED TO THE
NARROWEST OF LIMITS."  P. 68.  THEREFORE, WE WERE MORE READY TO
CONCLUDE THAT A FEDERAL ACT IN A FIELD THAT TOUCHED INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS SUPERSEDED STATE REGULATION THAN WE WERE IN THOSE CASES WHERE
A STATE WAS EXERCISING ITS HISTORIC POWERS OVER SUCH TRADITIONALLY
LOCAL MATTERS AS PUBLIC SAFETY AND ORDER AND THE USE OF STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS.  MAURER V. HAMILTON, SUPRA, AND CASES CITED.  HERE, WE ARE
DEALING WITH THE LATTER TYPE OF PROBLEM.  WE WILL NOT LIGHTLY INFER
THAT CONGRESS BY THE MERE PASSAGE OF A FEDERAL ACT HAS IMPAIRED THE
TRADITIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEVERAL STATES IN THAT REGARD. 

FURTHERMORE, IN THE HINES CASE THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF ALIEN
REGISTRATION WAS A "SINGLE INTEGRATED AND ALLEMBRACING" ONE, P. 74. 
HERE, AS WE HAVE SEEN, CONGRESS DESIGNEDLY LEFT OPEN AN AREA FOR STATE
CONTROL.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE CONTROL WHICH CONGRESS HAS ASSERTED
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LABOR DISPUTES IS SO PERVASIVE (CF.
CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V. PATTERSON, ANTE, P. 148) AS TO PREVENT
WISCONSIN, UNDER THE FAMILIAR RULE OF PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, 250 U.S. 566, 569, FROM SUPPLEMENTING FEDERAL
REGULATION IN THE MANNER OF THIS ORDER.  SEC. 7 OF THE FEDERAL ACT
GUARANTEES LABOR ITS "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" (LABOR BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 33) TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  SEC. 8 AFFORDS EMPLOYEES PROTECTION AGAINST
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF EMPLOYERS INCLUDING EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE
WITH THE RIGHTS SECURED BY SEC. 7.  SEC. 9 AFFORDS MACHINERY FOR
PROVIDING APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS.  AND SEC. 10 GRANTS
THE FEDERAL BOARD "EXCLUSIVE" POWER OF ENFORCEMENT.  IT IS NOT
SUFFICIENT, HOWEVER, TO SHOW THAT THE STATE ACT MIGHT BE SO CONSTRUED
AND APPLIED AS TO DILUTE, IMPAIR, OR DEFEAT THOSE RIGHTS.  WATSON V.
BUCK, SUPRA.  NOR IS THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE ACT WHICH UNDERLIE THE PRESENT ORDER ESTABLISHED BY A SHOWING
THAT OTHER PARTS OF THE STATUTE ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH AND HOSTILE TO
THE POLICY EXPRESSED IN THE FEDERAL ACT.  SINCE WISCONSIN HAS APPLIED
TO APPELLANTS ONLY PARTS OF THE STATE ACT, THE CONFLICT WITH THE POLICY
OR MANDATE OF THE FEDERAL ACT MUST BE FOUND IN THOSE PARTS.  BUT, AS WE
HAVE SAID, THE FEDERAL ACT DOES NOT GOVERN EMPLOYEE OR UNION ACTIVITY
OF THE TYPE HERE ENJOINED.  AND WE FAIL TO SEE HOW THE INABILITY TO
UTILIZE MASS PICKETING, THREATS, VIOLENCE, AND THE OTHER DEVICES WHICH
WERE HERE EMPLOYED IMPAIRS, DILUTES, QUALIFIES OR IN ANY RESPECT
SUBTRACTS FROM ANY OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED AND PROTECTED BY THE
FEDERAL ACT.  NOR IS THE FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN SUCH CONDUCT SHOWN TO BE
SO ESSENTIAL OR INTIMATELY RELATED TO A REALIZATION OF THE GUARANTEES
OF THE FEDERAL ACT THAT ITS DENIAL IS AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE FEDERAL
POLICY.  IF THE ORDER OF THE STATE BOARD AFFECTED THE STATUS OF THE
EMPLOYEES, OR IF IT CAUSED A FORFEITURE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
RIGHTS, A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION WOULD ARISE.  BUT SINCE NO SUCH
RIGHT IS AFFECTED, WE CONCLUDE THAT THIS CASE IS NOT BASICALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON SITUATION WHERE A STATE TAKES STEPS TO
PREVENT BREACHES OF THE PEACE IN CONNECTION WITH LABOR DISPUTES.  SINCE
THE STATE SYSTEM OF REGULATION, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED HERE, CAN BE
RECONCILED WITH THE FEDERAL ACT AND SINCE THE TWO AS FOCUSED IN THIS
CASE CAN CONSISTENTLY STAND TOGETHER, THE ORDER OF THE STATE BOARD MUST
BE SUSTAINED UNDER THE RULE WHICH HAS LONG OBTAINED IN THIS COURT.  SEE
SINNOT V. DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227, 243. 

IN SUM, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE MERE ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, WITHOUT MORE, EXCLUDED STATE REGULATION OF THE TYPE
WHICH WISCONSIN HAS EXERCISED IN THIS CASE.  IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT
ANY EMPLOYEE WAS DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS PROTECTED OR GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL
ACT OR THAT THE STATUS OF ANY OF THEM UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT WAS
IMPAIRED.  INDEED, IF THE PORTIONS OF THE STATE ACT HERE INVOKED ARE
INVALID BECAUSE THEY CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ACT, THEN SO LONG AS THE
FEDERAL ACT IS ON THE BOOKS IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW ANY STATE COULD
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REGULATE PICKETING OR DISORDER GROWING OUT OF
LABOR DISPUTES OF COMPANIES WHOSE BUSINESS AFFECTS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

WE REST OUR DECISION ON THE NARROW GROUNDS INDICATED.  WE HAVE HERE
NO QUESTION AS TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON STATE CONTROL OF
PICKETING UNDER THE RULE OF THORNHILL'S CASE, 310 U.S. 88.  NOR ARE ANY
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE WISCONSIN ACT PROPERLY
PRESENTED.  AND IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE WE FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO PASS ON OTHER QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLEES. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1 SEC. 111.04 PROVIDES:  "EMPLOYES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF
SELFORGANIZATION AND THE RIGHT TO FORM, JOIN OR ASSIST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR
OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN LAWFUL, CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION; AND
SUCH EMPLOYES SHALL ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM ANY OR ALL OF
SUCH ACTIVITIES." 

FN2  SEC. 111.07(4) PROVIDES IN PART:  "FINAL ORDERS MAY DISMISS THE
CHARGES OR REQUIRE THE PERSON COMPLAINED OF TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, SUSPEND HIS
RIGHTS, IMMUNITIES, PRIVILEGES OR REMEDIES GRANTED OR AFFORDED BY THIS
CHAPTER FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, AND REQUIRE HIM TO TAKE SUCH
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYES WITH OR WITHOUT
PAY, AS THE BOARD MAY DEEM PROPER.  ANY ORDER MAY FURTHER REQUIRE SUCH
PERSON TO MAKE REPORTS FROM TIME TO TIME SHOWING THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT
HAS COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER." 

FN3  SEE REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 107 F.2D 472, 479(AFF'D
311 U.S. 7); LABOR BOARD V. STACKPOLE CARBON CO., 105 F.2D 167, 176;
HART & PRICHARD, THE FANSTEEL CASE:  EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT AND THE
REMEDIAL POWERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 52 HARV. L. REV.
1275. 

FN4  SEC. 111.02(3) DEFINES THE TERM "EMPLOYE" AS INCLUDING "ANY
INDIVIDUAL WHOSE WORK HAS CEASED SOLELY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE OR BECAUSE OF ANY UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE ON THE PART OF AN EMPLOYER AND  ...  (B) WHO HAS NOT
BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED OR TO HAVE BEEN A PARTY TO ANY UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE HEREUNDER,  ...  " 

FN5  SEC. 111.18 PROVIDES:  "IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER OR THE
APPLICATION OF SUCH PROVISION TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL BE
HELD INVALID THE REMAINDER OF THIS CHAPTER OR THE APPLICATION OF SUCH
PROVISION TO PERSONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN THOSE AS TO WHICH IT
IS HELD INVALID SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED THEREBY." 

FN6  SEE STATE V. TUTTLE, 53 WIS. 45, 9 N.W. 791; STATE V. BALLARD,
158 WIS. 251, 148 N.W. 1090; STATE V. BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, 159
WIS. 216, 150 N.W. 542; STATE V. LANGE CANNING CO., 164 WIS. 228, 157
N.W. 777, 160 N.W. 57; STATE V. MARRIOTT, 237 WIS. 607, 296 N.W. 622. 

FN7  S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 16:  "NOR CAN THE
COMMITTEE SANCTION THE SUGGESTION THAT THE BILL SHOULD PROHIBIT FRAUD
OR VIOLENCE BY EMPLOYEES OR LABOR UNIONS.  THE BILL IS NOT A MERE
POLICE COURT MEASURE.  THE REMEDIES AGAINST SUCH ACTS IN THE STATE AND
FEDERAL COURTS AND BY THE INVOCATION OF LOCAL POLICE AUTHORITIES ARE
NOW ADEQUATE, AS ARRESTS AND LABOR INJUNCTIONS IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY WILL ATTEST.  THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT DOES NOT
DENY TO EMPLOYERS RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST FRAUD, VIOLENCE
OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE.  SEE 29 U.S.C. SEC. 104(E) AND (I)."  AND SEE
H. REP. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 16-17; REPORT OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON S. 1000, S. 1264, S.
1392, S. 1550, S. 1580, AND S. 2123, PART 3, P. 521. 
..END :














JACOB V. NEW YORK, 315 U.S. 752 


NO. 589.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - 119 F.2D
800, REVERSED. 


1.  CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK ARE NOT AVAILABLE
AS DEFENSES TO SUITS UNDER THE JONES ACT; THE ADMIRALTY DOCTRINE OF
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE APPLIES.  P. 755. 

2.  UPON THE EVIDENCE, THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ACTION UNDER THE JONES
ACT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES SUFFERED IN A FALL CAUSED BY HIS USE OF A
DEFECTIVE WRENCH, WHICH HE HAD ASKED HIS SUPERIOR TO REPLACE, WAS
ENTITLED TO HAVE THE CASE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THE ISSUE WHETHER
HIS INJURIES RESULTED FROM DEFECT OR INSUFFICIENCY, DUE TO THE
EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS APPLIANCES; AND THE DISMISSAL OF HIS
COMPLAINT WAS A DENIAL OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT OF JURY TRIAL.  P. 756. 

3.  UNDER THE JONES ACT, IT IS A DUTY OF THE EMPLOYER TO FURNISH
REASONABLY SAFE AND SUITABLE SIMPLE TOOLS WHEN HE IS AWARE THAT THOSE
IN USE ARE DEFECTIVE; THE EMPLOYEE NEED NOT FURNISH HIS OWN SIMPLE
TOOLS WHEN HE FINDS THOSE OF THE EMPLOYER DEFECTIVE.  P. 758. 

4.  THE TRIAL COURT'S EXCLUSION OF OPINION EVIDENCE AS TO THE BEST
TYPE OF TOOL FOR THE WORK, WAS NOT ERROR WARRANTING REVERSAL.  P. 758. 

JACOB V. NEW YORK CITY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 595, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES UNDER THE
JONES ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RIGHT OF JURY TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES AT COMMON LAW IS A BASIC AND
FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF OUR SYSTEM OF FEDERAL JURISPRUDENCE WHICH IS
PROTECTED BY THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT.  A RIGHT SO FUNDAMENTAL AND SACREC
TO THE CITIZEN, WHETHER GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR PROVIDED BY
STATUTE, SHOULD BE JEALOUSLY GUARDED BY THE COURTS.  THE PRESENT CASE
IS A SUIT BY PETITIONER UNDER THE JONES ACT  FN1  FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
SUSTAINED WHEN HE FELL BECAUSE THE WRENCH HE WAS USING TO TIGHTEN A NUT
SLIPPED UNDER THE TORQUE APPLIED TO IT.  WE ARE CALLED UPON TO
DETERMINE WHETHER ON THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PETITIONER, AND IN
CONTRAVENTION OF ACCEPTED JURIDICAL STANDARDS, PETITIONER WAS
WRONGFULLY DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL BY THE ACTION
OF THE TRIAL COURT IN DISMISSING HIS COMPLAINT,  FN2  THEREBY REFUSING
TO SUBMIT THE CASE TO A JURY WHICH HAD BEEN DULY EMPANELLED TO TRY IT.
IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO PROVE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO
WARRANT SUBMITTING THE ISSUE OF RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE TO THE JURY,
THE TRIAL COURT RELIED ON THE SO-CALLED SIMPLE TOOL DOCTRINE.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  119 F.2D 800.  THE NOVEL QUESTIONS
THUS PRESENTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE JONES ACT PROMPTED US TO
GRANT CERTIORARI.  314 U.S. 595. 

PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY  FN3  IS THE COMPLETE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE JURY.  THE GIST OF
THAT TESTIMONY IS AS FOLLOWS:  FOR THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT,
PETITIONER, AN EMPLOYEE WITH TWENTY YEARS' EXPERIENCE, HAD BEEN SERVING
AS WATER-TENDER IN CHARGE OF THE FIRE-ROOM ON THE "DONGAN HILLS," A
FERRYBOAT OPERATED BY RESPONDENT BETWEEN STATEN AND MANHATTAN ISLANDS
IN NEW YORK HARBOR.  ONE OF HIS DUTIES WAS TO CHANGE OIL STRAINERS. 
THIS WAS DONE ABOUT THREE TIMES A WEEK, AND REQUIRED THE REMOVAL AND
REPLACEMENT OF A MANIFOLD HEAD, HOUSING THE STRAINERS, WHICH WAS HELD
IN PLACE BY SIX STUDS AND NUTS.  WHEN THE MANIFOLD WAS REPLACED, THE
NUTS HAD TO BE VERY TIGHT.  THE BEST TOOL TO REMOVE AND TO TIGHTEN THE
NUTS WAS A STRAIGHT END WRENCH FITTING A 1 1/4" NUT.  PETITIONER USED
AN S-SHAPED END WRENCH OF THE PROPER SIZE WHICH WAS "WELL WORN," "HAD
SEEN A LOT OF SERVICE," WAS "A LOOSE FIT," AND "HAD A LOT OF PLAY ON
IT."  THERE WAS ABOUT ONE-SIXTEENTH OF AN INCH "PLAY IN THE JAWS; IT
WAS WORN."  THE WRENCH WAS ABOUT EIGHTEEN INCHES LONG AND THE "PLAY" AT
THE END WAS "ABOUT AN INCH."  PETITIONER ASKED THE CHIEF ENGINEER FOR A
NEW WRENCH THREE TIMES, THE FIRST REQUEST BEING WHEN PETITIONER FIRST
HAD OCCASION TO USE THE WORN WRENCH TO CHANGE AN OIL STRAINER, AND THE
LAST, TWO OR THREE DAYS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT.  IN ANSWER TO THIS LAST
REQUEST, THE CHIEF ENGINEER "SAID FOR ME (PETITIONER) TO LOOK IN THE
TOOL CLOSET AND SEE IF THERE WAS ONE IN THERE; AND I WENT UP THERE AND
COULDN'T FIND ANY AND I BELIEVE HE SAID HE SENT AN ORDER OUT FOR ONE." 
THE REGULAR WAY OF REQUISITIONING NEEDED TOOLS WAS BY A REPORT TO THE
CHIEF ENGINEER.  ALL PETITIONER WAS SUPPOSED TO DO WAS ORDER; HE DID
NOT KNOW WHAT RESPONDENT KEPT IN ITS STOREROOM.  THE "DONGAN HILLS"
DOCKED AT MANHATTAN ISLAND ON THE AVERAGE OF SIX OR SEVEN TIMES EACH
DAY.  ON THE DAY OF THE ACCIDENT, PETITIONER DID NOT RENEW HIS REQUEST,
BUT HE DID LOOK IN THE CHIEF ENGINEER'S TOOL SET.  HE FOUND NO END
WRENCH OF THE PROPER SIZE, DID NOT KNOW IF A STILLSON WRENCH WAS THERE,
BUT BELIEVED THAT A MONKEY WRENCH WAS.  A MONKEY WRENCH COULD
"PROBABLY" BE USED ON ANY NUT.  AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, PETITIONER
WAS USING THE WORN, S-SHAPED, END WRENCH TO TIGHTEN THE NUTS AFTER
CHANGING THE OIL STRAINER.  THERE WAS ABOUT FIVE-EIGHTHS OF AN INCH OF
THREAD ON THE STUDS, AND PETITIONER HAD CHANGED THE WRENCH ON ONE NUT
FOUR TIMES.  AS HE STARTED THE FIFTH TIGHTENING, THE WRENCH SLIPPED,
CAUSING HIM TO FALL FROM THE EIGHTEEN INCH SQUARE PLATFORM ON WHICH HE
WAS STANDING TO THE CATWALK EIGHTEEN INCHES BELOW.  IN THE COURSE OF
THE FALL, PETITIONER SUSTAINED AN INJURY TO HIS RIGHT SIDE, WHICH
STRUCK AN ANGLE IRON ALONGSIDE THE CATWALK. 

THE JONES ACT, IN ADDITION TO GIVING INJURED SEAMEN THE RIGHT TO
TRIAL BY JURY IN ACTIONS ARISING UNDER THE ACT, ALSO INCORPORATES "ALL
STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES MODIFYING OR EXTENDING THE COMMON-LAW
RIGHT OR REMEDY IN CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES." 
AMONG SUCH STATUTES IS 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51, WHICH PROVIDES IN PART THAT A
CARRIER IS LIABLE FOR "INJURY OR DEATH  ...  BY REASON OF ANY DEFECT OR
INSUFFICIENCY, DUE TO ITS (THE CARRIER'S) NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS CARS,
ENGINES, APPLIANCES, MACHINERY, TRACK, ROADBED, WORKS, BOATS, WHARVES,
OR OTHER EQUIPMENT." 

ALTHOUGH PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE IS AN ESSENTIAL TO RECOVERY UNDER THE
JONES ACT, KUNSCHMAN V. UNITED STATES, 54 F.2D 987; CF. BEADLE V.
SPENCER, 298 U.S. 124, 128, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ASSUMPTION OF
RISK ARE NOT AVAILABLE DEFENSES.  THE ADMIRALTY DOCTRINE OF COMPARATIVE
NEGLIGENCE APPLIES.  SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V. SMITH, 305 U.S. 424.  THE
SALIENT POINTS OF PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY, SUMMARIZED ABOVE, MADE A
SUFFICIENT SHOWING TO ALLOW THE JURY TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF
RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE.  THE WRENCH PETITIONER WAS USING HAD BECOME
DEFECTIVE FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED.  AFTER DISCOVERING
THAT DEFECT, PETITIONER MADE THREE REQUESTS TO THE PROPER PERSON, THE
CHIEF ENGINEER, FOR A NEW WRENCH.  THE FIRST OF THOSE REQUESTS WAS
ABOUT THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT, THE LAST BUT TWO OR THREE DAYS
BEFORE IT OCCURRED.  AT THAT TIME, THE CHIEF ENGINEER SAID HE SENT OUT
AN ORDER FOR ONE, BUT IT WAS NOT FORTHCOMING IN THE TWO OR THREE DAYS
INTERVENING BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE "DONGAN
HILLS" DOCKED AT MANHATTAN ISLAND SIX OR SEVEN TIMES A DAY.  WHILE THE
BEST TOOL FOR DOING THE WORK WAS A STRAIGHT END WRENCH OF THE PROPER
SIZE, PETITIONER HAD ACCESS TO A MONKEY WRENCH WHICH "PROBABLY" COULD
BE USED ON ANY NUT.  WE THINK THESE FACTS ENTITLED PETITIONER TO HAVE
THE JURY CONSIDER WHETHER HIS INJURY WAS CAUSED BY ANY "DEFECT OR
INSUFFICIENCY, DUE TO ITS (RESPONDENT'S) NEGLIGENCE, IN ITS
APPLIANCES."  THAT IS TO SAY, IT WAS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER A
MONKEY WRENCH WAS A REASONABLY SAFE AND SUITABLE TOOL FOR PETITIONER'S
WORK, WHETHER RESPONDENT'S FAILURE, ALTHOUGH IT HAD AT LEAST TWO DAYS'
AND POSSIBLY THREE WEEKS' NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, TO SUPPLY PETITIONER
WITH A NEW WRENCH AMOUNTED TO NEGLIGENCE ON ITS PART, AND WHETHER
RESPONDENT, AFTER IT HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFECT, MIGHT NOT HAVE
REASONABLY FORESEEN THE POSSIBILITY OF RESULTING HARM IF IT ALLOWED THE
WORN WRENCH TO REMAIN IN USE.  CF. SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V. SMITH, SUPRA.
WITHOUT DOUBT THE CASE IS CLOSE AND A JURY MIGHT FIND EITHER WAY.  BUT
THAT IS NO REASON FOR A COURT TO USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE JURY.  WE
ARE SATISFIED THAT A DUE RESPECT FOR THE STATUTORY GUARANTY OF THE
RIGHT OF JURY TRIAL, WITH ITS RESULTING BENEFITS, REQUIRES THE
SUBMISSION OF THIS CASE TO THE JURY. 

THE SIMPLE TOOL DOCTRINE, USED BY THE COURTS BELOW TO BOLSTER THEIR
BELIEF THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT, DOES NOT AFFECT OUR
CONCLUSION.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE CONTRARIETY OF OPINION AS TO THE
REASONS FOR AND THE SCOPE OF THE SIMPLE TOOL DOCTRINE, AND THE
UNCERTAINTY OF ITS APPLICATION N4, SUGGEST THAT IT SHOULD NOT APPLY TO
CASES ARISING UNDER LEGISLATION, SUCH AS THE JONES ACT, DESIGNED TO
ENLARGE IN SOME MEASURE THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF INJURED EMPLOYEES
N5.  BUT EVEN ASSUMING ITS APPLICABILITY, THE DOCTRINE DOES NOT JUSTIFY
WITHDRAWING THIS CASE FROM THE JURY.  FOR THE ONLY POSSIBLE BASIS FOR
THE DOCTRINE WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROVISIONS AND POLICY OF THE
JONES ACT IS THAT THE MASTER IS NOT NEGLIGENT IN THE CASE OF DEFECTIVE
SIMPLE TOOLS BECAUSE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY FROM SUCH TOOLS IS SO
SLIGHT AS TO IMPOSE NO DUTY ON HIM TO SEE THAT THEY ARE FREE FROM
DEFECTS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE OR TO INSPECT THEM THEREAFTER,  FN6
NEWBERN V. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO., 68 F.2D 523; CF. HEDICKE
V. HIGHLAND SPRINGS CO., 185 MINN. 79, 239 N.W. 896 - OR TO PUT IT
ANOTHER WAY, THE MASTER IS RELIEVED OF THE DUTY TO INSPECT SIMPLE TOOLS
FOR DEFECTS BECAUSE THE SERVANT'S OPPORTUNITY FOR ASCERTAINING SUCH
DEFECTS IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE MASTER'S.  O'HARA V. BROWN
HOISTING MACH. CO., 171 F. 394; MILLER V. ERIE R. CO., 21 APP. DIV.
(N.Y.)  45, 47 N.Y.S. 285; 2 AGENCY A.L.I. SEC. 503(D).  PETITIONER
INSPECTED THE WRENCH, FOUND IT DEFECTIVE AND THEN ASKED THREE TIMES FOR
A NEW ONE.  THIS SATISFIED THE BURDEN OF INSPECTION PLACED ON HIS
SHOULDERS BY THE DOCTRINE, AND IT WAS THEN FOR THE JURY TO SAY WHETHER
RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE REPEATED REQUESTS WAS
NEGLIGENCE ON ITS PART.  TO DENY PETITIONER THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE JURY
PASS ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE SIMPLE TOOL DOCTRINE IS TO SAY THAT
DOCTRINE RELIEVES THE MASTER OF ANY DUTY TO FURNISH REASONABLY SAFE AND
SUITABLE SIMPLE TOOLS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE KNOWS THEY ARE
DEFECTIVE, AND REQUIRES THE SERVANT NOT ONLY TO INSPECT SIMPLE TOOLS
FOR DEFECTS, BUT ALSO TO SUPPLY HIS OWN SIMPLE TOOLS WHEN HE FINDS
THOSE OF THE MASTER DEFECTIVE.  THIS IS SO OBVIOUS A PERVERSION OF THE
JONES ACT AS TO REQUIRE NO COMMENT.  FN7 

SINCE THERE MUST BE A NEW TRIAL, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO STATE
THAT, IN OUR OPINION, NO REVERSIBLE ERROR WAS COMMITTED WHEN THE TRIAL
COURT REFUSED TO ALLOW OPINION TESTIMONY AS TO THE BEST TYPE OF TOOL
FOR THE WORK.  FN8  RESPONDENT'S DUTY WAS NOT TO SUPPLY THE BEST TOOLS,
BUT ONLY TOOLS WHICH WERE REASONABLY SAFE AND SUITABLE.  CF. THE
TAWMIE, 80 F.2D 792; THE CRICKET, 71 F.2D 61. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  41 STAT. 988, 1007, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688. 

FN2  THE COMPLAINT SET FORTH TWO CAUSES OF ACTION - THE FIRST FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES, AND THE SECOND FOR MAINTENANCE AND CURE.  RESPONDENT
MOVED TO DISMISS ONLY THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.  AT THE SAME TIME, IN
SETTLEMENT OF THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, RESPONDENT OFFERED TO CONSENT
TO JUDGMENT FOR LOSS OF WAGES FROM THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT UNTIL
PETITIONER RETURNED TO WORK.  THIS OFFER WAS REFUSED BY PETITIONER'S
COUNSEL AND THE SECOND CAUSE WAS THEREUPON DISMISSED.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, SUA SPONTE, DIRECTED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ON THE
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PETITIONER, IN THE AMOUNT ADMITTED TO BE DUE
FROM RESPONDENT.  THAT JUDGMENT IS NOT IN ISSUE HERE.  ONLY THE FIRST
CAUSE OF ACTION, THAT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, SURVIVES FOR OUR
CONSIDERATION. 

FN3  PETITIONER WAS THE SOLE WITNESS IN HIS OWN BEHALF.  THE TRIAL
COURT DID NOT ALLOW AN OPINION WITNESS, CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESTABLISHING THE BEST TYPE OF WRENCH FOR THE WORK PETITIONER WAS DOING
AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, TO TESTIFY. 

FN4  SEE 3 LABATT, MASTER AND SERVANT (2D ED.), PP. 2476-2484. 

FN5  COMPARE MCCARTHY V. PALMER, 113 F.2D 721, WITH SPAIN V. POWELL,
90 F.2D 580. 

FN6  IF THE DOCTRINE IS BUT A PHASE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK OR
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED (SEE LABATT, OP. CIT.,
PP. 2479, 2480, 2484), IT IS MANIFESTLY NOT APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS UNDER
THE JONES ACT, FOR THOSE COMMON-LAW AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ARE NOT
AVAILABLE IN SUCH ACTIONS.  SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V. SMITH, 305 U.S. 424. 

AND, IF THE SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE IS THAT A MASTER IS UNDER NO DUTY
TO FURNISH REASONABLY SAFE AND SUITABLE SIMPLE TOOLS (SEE ALLEN GRAVEL
CO. V. YARBROUGH, 133 MISS.  652, 98 SO. 117; MIDDLETON V. NATIONAL BOX
CO., 38 F.2D 89), THE DOCTRINE IS HARDLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCHEME OF
THE JONES ACT FIXING LIABILITY ON A MASTER FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY
DEFECTS AND INSUFFICIENCIES IN HIS APPLIANCES DUE TO HIS NEGLIGENCE. 

FN7  SEE NOTE 6, ANTE. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 3, ANTE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR IN THE
RESULT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, AND MR. JUSTICE REED ARE OF
OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :

















MUNCIE GEAR CO. V. OUTBOARD CO., 315 U.S. 759 


NO. 323.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 30, 1942.  - 119
F.2D 404, REVERSED. 


1.  THE COURT CONSIDERED AS A REASON FOR THE GRANTING OF CERTIORARI TO
REVIEW A DECISION OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINING CLAIMS OF A
PATENT AS TO WHICH THERE WAS NO CONFLICT OF DECISION, THE FACT THAT THE
PATENT DOMINATED A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF AN INDUSTRY SO CONCENTRATED
IN ONE CIRCUIT THAT A CONFLICT OF DECISION WAS UNLIKELY.  P. 765. 

2.  CLAIMS 11, 12, 13 AND 14 OF JOHNSON PATENT NO. 1,716,962, FOR AN
ALLEGED INVENTION TO OVERCOME CAVITATION IN THE OPERATION OF RELATIVELY
LARGE AND FAST OUTBOARD MOTORS, HELD INVALID UNDER R.S. SEC. 4866,
BECAUSE OF PUBLIC USE, OR SALE, OF DEVICES EMBODYING THE ALLEGED
INVENTION, MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE THE FIRST DISCLOSURE THEREOF TO
THE PATENT OFFICE.  P. 768. 

3.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, HELD THAT A DECISION BY THIS COURT
OF THE QUESTION UNDER R.S. SEC. 4866 WAS NOT FORECLOSED BY THE
OBSCURITY OF ITS PRESENTATION IN THE COURTS BELOW.  P. 768. 

MUNCIE GEAR WORKS, INC. ET AL. V. OUTBOARD, MARINE & MANUFACTURING CO.
ET AL 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 594, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND HELD THE CLAIMS OF A PATENT VALID
AND INFRINGED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE REQUIRED IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS
NUMBERED 11, 12, 13 AND 14 OF LETTERS PATENT NO. 1,716,962, GRANTED ON
JUNE 11, 1929, TO HARRY L. JOHNSON FOR INVENTION IN A "WATER PROPULSION
DEVICE."  RESPONDENT JOHNSON BROTHERS ENGINEERING CORPORATION IS THE
OWNER OF THE PATENT, AND RESPONDENT OUTBOARD, MARINE & MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, IS THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE THEREUNDER.  PETITIONER MUNCIE GEAR
WORKS, INC., MANUFACTURED OUTBOARD MOTORS WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO
INFRINGE, AND PETITIONER BRUNS & COLLINS, INC., SOLD THEM. 

RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THIS IS A VALIDLY ISSUED PATENT COVERING AN
INVENTION WHICH SOLVED THE PROBLEMS OF "CAVITATION" BY RELATIVELY LARGE
AND FAST OUTBOARD MOTORS.  "CAVITATION" IS THE DRAWING OF AIR BY THE
PROPELLER FROM ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE WATER TO THE PROPELLER ITSELF. 
AIR SO DRAWN REDUCES THE PROPULSIVE EFFECT OF THE PROPELLER AND CAUSES
"RACING" OF THE MOTOR WITH CONSEQUENT RISK OF ITS DISINTEGRATION AND
DANGER TO THE USER.  INCREASED SPEED OR POWER ENTAILS A GREATER
TENDENCY TO CAVITATE.  CAVITATION MAY BE DIMINISHED BY SETTING THE
PROPELLER DEEPER IN THE WATER, BUT THIS INCREASED PROJECTION INCREASES
RESISTANCE AND RETARDS SPEED. 

LONG BEFORE THE PATENT IN QUESTION, IT WAS KNOWN THAT CAVITATION
COULD BE CONTROLLED, AND IN PRACTICE IT WAS CONTROLLED, IN AT LEAST ALL
BUT RELATIVELY LARGE AND FAST OUTBOARD MOTORS, BY SETTING A FLAT PLATE
HORIZONTALLY ABOVE THE PROPELLER AND BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE WATER,
TO ACT AS A BAFFLE AND PREVENT THE PROPELLER FROM DRAWING AIR.  FN1
RESPONDENTS PRESENTED EXPERT TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT THAT RELATIVELY
LARGE AND FAST WATER-COOLED OUTBOARD MOTORS CANNOT BE SUCCESSFUL UNLESS
THEY EMBODY THE ASSERTED INVENTION WHICH RESPONDENTS SAY IS THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION.  IN GENERAL, THIS MAY BE SAID TO
CONSIST IN THE USE OF AN ANTI-CAVITATION PLATE ON A HOUSING FOR THE
ENGINE AND PROPELLER SHAFTS ENCLOSING THE WATER PASSAGES FOR THE
COOLING SYSTEM, SHAPED BOTH ABOVE AND BELOW THE PLATE SO AS TO REDUCE
WATER DISPLACEMENT AND RESISTANCE, AND THUS TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE EDDY
CURRENTS FORMING VORTEXES THROUGH WHICH AIR CAN BE SUCKED INTO THE
PROPELLER.  THIS PERMITS ADEQUATE CONTROL OF CAVITATION BY MEANS OF A
NOT UNDULY LARGE ANTI-CAVITATION PLATE. 

HARRY L. JOHNSON, AN EXPERIENCED ENGINEER AND MANUFACTURER OF
OUTBOARD MOTORS, FILED HIS APPLICATION FOR THE PATENT ON AUGUST 25,
1926, BUT IN NO WAY SUGGESTED THE COMBINATION NOW ASSERTED AS HIS
INVENTION.  THE SINGLE SHEET OF DRAWING ACCOMPANYING THE APPLICATION
WAS NOT CHANGED DURING THE PROSECUTION OF THE APPLICATION, AND IS THE
SAME AS THE DRAWING OF THE ISSUED PATENT.  THIS DRAWING SHOWED AN
OUTBOARD MOTOR ASSEMBLY COMPRISING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AN ENGINE AT
THE TOP CONNECTED WITH A PROPELLER AT THE BOTTOM, WITH AN ANTI
CAVITATION PLATE LOCATED HORIZONTALLY ABOVE THE PROPELLER,
APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE HOUSING FOR THE
ENGINE AND PROPELLER SHAFTS.  ALL WATER PASSAGES FOR THE COOLING SYSTEM
BENEATH THE NORMAL WATER LEVEL WERE SHOWN TO BE ENCLOSED IN THE
HOUSING.  NO CROSS SECTION OF THIS HOUSING WAS DRAWN OR INDICATED, AND
FOR ALL THAT APPEARS FROM THE DRAWING IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CIRCULAR,
TRIANGULAR OR RECTANGULAR.  THE DRAWING SHOWED AN ARCHED MEMBER
EXTENDING FROM THE HOUSING AND ANTI-CAVITATION PLATE OVER THE TOP AND
TO THE REAR OF THE PROPELLER, CONTAINING OPENINGS AND PASSAGES FOR THE
INTAKE AND DISCHARGE OF WATER, AND ENDING IN A CURVED "DEFLECTION
PLATE" EXTENDING REARWARDLY LIKE A FIXED RUDDER.  FROM THE
SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS, IT APPEARED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
DEFLECTION PLATE WAS TO COMPENSATE FOR THE SIDE AND PIVOTAL FORCE OF
THE MOVING PROPELLER, WHICH TENDED TO DRAW THE BOAT OFF ITS COURSE
UNLESS THE OPERATOR MADE CONSTANT ADJUSTMENT TO OFFSET THE "SIDE
THROW."  THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS BOTH INDICATED AN ANTI
CAVITATION PLATE WHICH THE SPECIFICATIONS SAID "PREVENTS CAVITATION,"
BUT IT WAS IN NO WAY ASSERTED THAT THE CAVITATION PLATE WAS NEW, OR
THAT IT WAS BEING EMPLOYED IN ANY NOVEL COOPERATIVE RELATION TO THE
OTHER ELEMENTS. 

ALL OF THE CLAIMS OF THE APPLICATION AS ORIGINALLY MADE WERE REJECTED
ON DECEMBER 15, 1926.  ON DECEMBER 13, 1927, JOHNSON OFFERED AMENDMENTS
WHICH RETAINED AND AMENDED THE PRIOR CLAIMS AND ADDED OTHERS DIRECTED
TO THE FEATURE OF THE DEFLECTION PLATE.  IN URGING ALLOWANCE, HE SAID,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, "IT IS CONCEDED THAT CAVITATION PLATES ARE OLD IN
THE ART AS SHOWN IN THE PATENT TO JOHNSON CITED," AND HE PROCEEDED TO
URGE AS AN INVENTION THE COMBINATION OF THE CAVITATION PLATE AND THE
ARCHING MEMBER OR DEFLECTION PLATE.  A SIMILAR SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDMENT
WAS FILED ON JANUARY 19, 1928.  SEVERAL OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIMS AS
AMENDED WERE ALLOWED, AND THE REST OF THE CLAIMS REJECTED, ON JUNE 7,
1928. 

ON DECEMBER 8, 1928, JOHNSON CAME FORWARD WITH NEW CLAIMS.  CLAIMS 20
TO 25 OFFERED BY THIS AMENDMENT MADE NO MENTION OF THE DEFLECTION PLATE
OR OF THE ARCHING MEMBERS, BUT DID NOT EVEN SUGGEST THE PRESENTLY
ASSERTED INVENTION.  ON MARCH 30, 1929, JOHNSON CANCELLED THESE CLAIMS
AND OFFERED FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION, TOGETHER
WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL OATH THAT HE HAD INVENTED THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION AS SO AMENDED, PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL
AMENDMENT.  FN2  THE EFFECT OF THOSE CHANGES WAS APTLY DESCRIBED BY THE
PATENT EXAMINER: "THE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN SUCH THAT THE CLAIMS NOW
EMPHASIZE THE ANTI-CAVITATION PLATE RATHER THAN THE ANTI-TORQUE
PLATE."  WITH CHANGES WHICH ARE IMMATERIAL HERE, THE NEW CLAIMS SO
OFFERED BECAME THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE.  IN THEM, JOHNSON, FOR THE FIRST
TIME, MADE CLAIMS RELATING TO THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF THE HOUSING. 
CLAIM 12 DESCRIBED THE HOUSING AS HAVING "UNBROKEN OUTER WALL SURFACES
AT EACH SIDE," AND CLAIM 14, AS HAVING "SMOOTH AND UNBROKEN WALLS." 
CLAIMS 11 AND 13 WERE SILENT ON THE SUBJECT.  THE AMENDMENT ALSO SET
FORTH AN ADDITION TO THE DESCRIPTION WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE PATENT AS ISSUED.  HERE WE FIND THE EXPRESSION
"RELATIVELY SMOOTH AND SUBSTANTIALLY STREAM-LINE SURFACES."  OTHER THAN
THESE, NO INDICATION OF THE NATURE OF THE SURFACE OR CROSS SECTION OF
THE HOUSING WAS GIVEN AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROSECUTION OF THE
APPLICATION. 

THE PETITIONERS INTERPOSED DEFENSES TO ALL OF THE EIGHT PATENTS UPON
WHICH RESPONDENTS SUED THEM IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION,  FN3  WHICH WE TAKE TO HAVE PUT
IN ISSUE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CLAIMS WERE VOID BECAUSE MADE MORE
THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE FIRST PUBLIC USE OF THE DEVICE.  FN4  AT THE
TRIAL, TWO OF THE OFFICERS OF RESPONDENT OUTBOARD, MARINE &
MANUFACTURING COMPANY TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION AS RESPONDENTS'
WITNESSES TO THE EFFECT THAT IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY OF 1926 ONE OF THIS
RESPONDENT'S PREDECESSORS PUT ON THE MARKET LICENSED OUTBOARD MOTORS
EQUIPPED WITH SMOOTH-WALLED HOUSINGS, ANTI-CAVITATION PLATES, AND
INTERNAL WATER PASSAGES AS DESCRIBED IN THE CLAIMS IN SUIT; AND THAT AT
LEAST ONE COMPETITOR (WHICH WAS ALSO A PREDECESSOR) HAD BROUGHT OUT A
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR, BUT UNLICENSED, MOTOR ABOUT A YEAR LATER.  FN5 

IN AN UNREPORTED DECISION THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT TOUCH ON THIS
QUESTION, BUT FOUND AS A MATTER OF FACT AND OF LAW THAT THE CLAIMS IN
QUESTION WERE INVALID BECAUSE MERELY AGGREGATIONAL.  ON APPEAL TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE ISSUE OF SALE OR PUBLIC USE WAS NOT
CLEARLY PRESENTED,  FN6  IF INDEED IT WAS PRESENTED AT ALL; AND THE
OPINION RENDERED BY THAT COURT DID NOT ADVERT TO IT, ALTHOUGH IT HELD
THAT THE CLAIMS HERE INVOLVED WERE VALID AND INFRINGED.  119 F.2D 404. 
WHILE THERE WAS NO CONFLICT OF DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THESE CLAIMS,
FN7  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN VIEW OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND
BECAUSE THE PATENT DOMINATES A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF AN INDUSTRY SO
CONCENTRATED IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT THAT LITIGATION IN OTHER CIRCUITS,
RESULTING IN A CONFLICT OF DECISIONS, IS UNLIKELY.  314 U.S. 594. 
SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO., 305 U.S. 47. 

THE PRESENT CASE, PROVIDED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PATENT TO AN INVENTOR
UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT HIS INVENTION WAS "NOT
IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR
TO HIS APPLICATION."  FN8 

IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION, RESPONDENTS
CONTEND THAT THE QUESTION OF ITS APPLICABILITY WAS NOT RAISED EITHER IN
THE DISTRICT COURT OR IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; THAT THERE WAS
NO OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE ISSUE; AND THAT THE INVENTION AS FINALLY
CLAIMED WAS DISCLOSED BY THE APPLICATION AS ORIGINALLY MADE OR IN ANY
EVENT AS AMENDED ON DECEMBER 8, 1928. 

HOWEVER, THE EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC USE AND SALE, GIVEN, AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, BY RESPONDENTS' OWN OFFICERS AND WITNESSES,  FN9  HAS NOT
BEEN QUESTIONED OR CONTRADICTED, AND IS INTERPRETED BY RESPONDENTS'
COUNSEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR VIEW OF IT.  IN THEIR BRIEF THEY SAY "IT
IS TRUE THAT AFTER JOHNSON MOTOR COMPANY, LICENSEE UNDER THE PATENT IN
SUIT, HAD POPULARIZED DEVICES EMBODYING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
CLAIMS IN SUIT, AT LEAST ONE COMPETITOR COPIED THE COMBINATIONS OF THE
CLAIMS IN SUIT FROM THE JOHNSON MOTOR BEFORE CLAIMS CLOSELY RESEMBLING
THOSE IN SUIT WERE PRESENTED TO THE PATENT OFFICE IN DECEMBER 1928. 
THIS WAS DONE BY LOCKWOOD ASH MOTOR COMPANY, THEN A COMPETITOR, BUT
SUBSEQUENTLY MERGED TO CONSTITUTE A PREDECESSOR OF RESPONDENT,
OUTBOARD, MARINE & MANUFACTURING COMPANY.  ...  LOCKWOOD ASH FIRST
ADOPTED THIS COMBINATION FOR THE 1927 SEASON.  THE MODEL YEAR COMMENCED
IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY.  ...  CONCEDEDLY, THE ORIGINAL CLAIMS WERE
LIMITED ADDITIONALLY EITHER TO THE DEFLECTION PLATE OR TO THE ARCHED
SUPPORT.  BUT CLAIMS WITHOUT THESE LIMITATIONS HAD, CONTRARY TO
PETITIONERS' ASSERTIONS, BEEN FILED DECEMBER 8, 1928.  THE DIFFERENCE
IN DATE IS CRITICAL BECAUSE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ONLY MANUFACTURE
OF DEVICES EMBODYING THE INVENTION WHICH HAD OCCURRED MORE THAN TWO
YEARS PRIOR TO DECEMBER 8, 1928, WAS LICENSED MANUFACTURE BY JOHNSON
MOTOR COMPANY, PREDECESSOR OF RESPONDENT OUTBOARD, MARINE &
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, AND IN 1926, EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE OF RESPONDENT
JOHNSON BROTHERS ENGINEERING CORPORATION, OWNER OF THE APPLICATION FOR
THE PATENT IN SUIT.  ...  THE ONLY CONCERN WHICH PRODUCED OUTBOARD
MOTORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INVENTION OF THE PATENT IN 1926 WAS THE
EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE UNDER THE APPLICATION FOR THE PATENT IN SUIT.  ...
MARCH, 1929, WOULD BE MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE OPENING OF THE 1927
MODEL YEAR; BUT THE ACTUAL DATE IN DECEMBER, 1928, WHEN THE PATENTEE
CLAIMED THE SPECIFIC INVENTION IN CONTROVERSY, WITHOUT REGARD TO
DEFLECTION PLATE OR ARCHED SUPPORT, WAS WELL WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE
FIRST COMPETITIVE USE OF THE INVENTION, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE TWO YEAR
PERIOD IS OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN THE PRESENT CASE.  ...  " 

IT IS CLEAR TO US, HOWEVER, THAT THE AMENDMENTS OF DECEMBER 8, 1928,
LIKE THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, WHOLLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE INVENTION
NOW ASSERTED. 

THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION ARE INVALID IF THERE WAS PUBLIC USE, OR SALE,
OF THE DEVICE WHICH THEY ARE CLAIMED TO COVER, MORE THAN TWO YEARS
BEFORE THE FIRST DISCLOSURE THEREOF TO THE PATENT OFFICE.  CF. RAILWAY
CO. V. SAYLES, 97 U.S. 554, 557, 559, 563-64; SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V.
CLEVELAND TRUST CO., SUPRA, AT 57.  SECTION 4886 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES WOULD IN TERMS PROVIDE FOR THEIR INVALIDITY HAD THEY BEEN
OFFERED BY APPLICATION RATHER THAN BY AMENDMENT; AND WHATEVER MAY BE
THE EFFICACY OF AN AMENDMENT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPLICATION, IT
SURELY CAN EFFECT NO MORE THAN THE APPLICATION ITSELF. 

WE THINK THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT THERE WAS PUBLIC USE, OR
SALE, OF DEVICES EMBODYING THE ASSERTED INVENTION, MORE THAN TWO YEARS
BEFORE IT WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO THE PATENT OFFICE.  WE ARE NOT
FORECLOSED FROM A DECISION UNDER SEC. 4886 ON THE POINT BY THE
OBSCURITY OF ITS PRESENTATION IN THE COURTS BELOW.  THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN
FULLY PRESENTED TO THIS COURT BY THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
AND IN SUBSEQUENT BRIEFS AND ARGUMENT; AND THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST
INDICATION THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED BY SUCH OBSCURITY.  TO
SUSTAIN THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION UPON THE ESTABLISHED AND ADMITTED FACTS
WOULD REQUIRE A PLAIN DISREGARD OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST SOUGHT TO BE
SAFEGUARDED BY THE PATENT STATUTES, AND SO FREQUENTLY PRESENT BUT SO
SELDOM ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED IN PATENT LITIGATION. 

WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION ARE INVALID UNDER SEC.
4886 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, AND ACCORDINGLY HAVE NO OCCASION TO
DECIDE ANY OTHER QUESTION IN THE CASE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SMITH, NO. 1,226,400(1917); JOHNSON, NO. 1,467,641(1923).    FN2
NO QUESTION HAS EVER BEEN RAISED IN THIS CASE RESPECTING THE VERACITY
OF THIS OATH.  CF. ELIZABETH V. PAVEMENT CO., 97 U.S. 126, 130. 

FN3  THE PATENT HERE INVOLVED AND TWO OTHERS WERE LITIGATED IN ONE
SUIT, WITH WHICH WAS CONSOLIDATED ANOTHER SUIT INVOLVING FIVE OTHER
PATENTS.  ONE OF THE PATENTS WAS WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO TRIAL, AND THE
COURTS BELOW DISPOSED OF SIX OF THE SEVEN REMAINING PATENTS ADVERSELY
TO THE RESPONDENTS. 

FN4  THESE READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE DEFENDANTS ARE INFORMED AND BELIEVE AND THEREFORE AVER THAT EACH
OF THE LETTERS PATENT IN SUIT WAS AND IS VOID AND OF NO EFFECT IN LAW
IN THAT THE ALLEGED INVENTIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED THEREIN WERE
INVENTED BY, OR KNOWN TO, OR USED BY OTHERS IN THE UNITED STATES,
BEFORE THE ALLEGED INVENTIONS OF THE SAID PATENTEES OF THE PATENTS IN
SUIT, AND FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE APPLICATIONS
FOR SAID PATENTS; AMONG WHICH PRIOR INVENTORS AND USERS AND THOSE
HAVING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ARE THE PATENTEES AND THEIR ASSIGNS OF THE
SEVERAL LETTERS PATENTS NAMED IN THE ANNEXED SCHEDULE 'A', AT THE
PLACES AND ADDRESSES NAMED IN SAID LETTERS PATENT, AND OTHER PRIOR
INVENTORS, USERS AND THOSE HAVING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE THE NAMES OF WHOM,
AND THE TIMES AND PLACES OF SUCH OTHER PUBLIC USES, BEING AT THE
PRESENT TIME UNKNOWN TO DEFENDANTS, BUT WHICH, WHEN FULLY ASCERTAINED,
DEFENDANTS PRAY LEAVE TO INSERT IN THIS ANSWER BY AMENDMENTS THERETO. 
(NO SUCH AMENDMENT WAS EVER MADE OR ATTEMPTED.) 

"DEFENDANTS ARE INFORMED AND BELIEVE AND THEREFORE AVER THAT EACH OF
THE LETTERS PATENT IN SUIT IS INVALID AND VOID FOR THE REASON THAT THE
ALLEGED INVENTION THEREOF PURPORTED TO BE PATENTED THEREBY ARE NOT THE
SAME AS WERE DISCLOSED IN THE APPLICATION THEREFOR AS ORIGINALLY FILED,
BUT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM ANY INVENTION INDICATED,
DESCRIBED, OR SUGGESTED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS THEREFOR; THAT THE
APPLICATIONS THEREFOR WERE AMENDED IN THE SPECIFICATION AND CLAIMS
DURING THE PROSECUTION THEREOF AND THE ALLEGED PATENTED SUBJECT MATTER
IS NOT SUPPORTED BY OATH AS REQUIRED BY LAW; THAT THE SAID APPLICATIONS
WERE UNLAWFULLY ENLARGED DURING THE PROSECUTION THEREOF; AND THAT THE
CLAIMS OF SAID LETTERS PATENT ARE INVALID AND VOID FOR THE REASON THAT
THEY INCLUDE MATTER NOT SHOWN OR ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED IN THE SAID
PATENTS." 

FN5  TANNER, VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF THE SALES OF THE JOHNSON
MOTORS DIVISION, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TYPE OF LOWER UNIT CONSTRUCTION WHICH
IS SHOWN ON THIS CHART REPRODUCED FROM THE DRAWINGS OF THE JOHNSON
PATENT NO. 1,716,962?  A. I AM. 

"Q.  DO YOU RECALL WHEN SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WAS INTRODUCED TO THE
MARKET, AND BY WHOM?  A. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS FOR THE
MODEL YEAR OF 1926, WHICH WOULD MEAN IT WAS PROBABLY INTRODUCED ABOUT
JANUARY OR FEBRUARY OF 1926. 

"Q.  BY WHOM?  A. BY JOHNSON MOTOR COMPANY. 

"Q.  AT THAT TIME WAS EVINRUDE MOTOR COMPANY A COMPETITOR OF JOHNSON
MOTOR COMPANY?  A. YES, THEY WERE. 

"Q.  AT THAT TIME WAS ELTO MOTOR COMPANY A COMPETITOR OF JOHNSON
MOTOR COMPANY?  A. YES. 

"Q.  AT THAT TIME WAS LOCKWOOD-ASH MOTOR COMPANY A COMPETITOR OF
JOHNSON MOTOR COMPANY?  A. YES. 

"Q.  WHAT WAS THE RESULT OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS MODEL BY JOHNSON
MOTOR COMPANY IN 1926?  A.  AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED, I WAS CONNECTED
WITH THE LOCKWOOD-ASH MOTOR COMPANY THAT WAS MAKING A MOTOR IN 1926 AND
NOT HAVING THAT COMBINATION; AND, NOT HAVING IT, WE DID NOT HAVE THE
SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE THAT THE JOHNSON COMBINATION HAD. 

"Q.  IN WHAT RESPECT DID YOUR MOTOR NOT HAVE AS SATISFACTORY A
PERFORMANCE?  A. IT HAD CAVITATION. 

"Q.  WHAT DID YOUR MOTOR LACK PARTICULARLY OF THE STRUCTURE SHOWN IN
THIS JOHNSON PATENT?  A. WE DID NOT HAVE AN ANTI-CAVITATION PLATE. 

"Q.  WHAT DID YOU DO TO REMEDY THIS DIFFICULTY?  A. IN THE FALL OF
1926, FOR THE 1927 MODEL YEAR, WE PUT ON AN ANTI-CAVITATION PLATE. 

"Q.  DID THAT REMEDY YOUR DIFFICULTY, SO FAR AS CAVITATION WAS
CONCERNED?  A. YES. 

"Q.  DO YOU KNOW WHAT WAS DONE BY EVINRUDE AND ELTO?  A. MY
RECOLLECTION IS THAT POSSIBLY, NOT AT THE SAME MOMENT, I DOUBT EVINRUDE
DID THE SAME YEAR, PUT ON AN ANTI-CAVITATION PLATE ON THE STREAM LINE
HOUSING.  I DON'T REMEMBER CLEARLY WHETHER ELTO DID IT THAT YEAR OR THE
NEXT, BUT THEY SUBSEQUENTLY DID PUT ON THE SAME COMBINATION." 

IRGENS, CHIEF ENGINEER AND PRODUCTION MANAGER OF THE EVINRUDE
DIVISION, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN TRUE THAT ALL OF THE LARGER SIZES OF
OUTBOARD MOTORS HAVE BEEN EQUIPPED WITH SMOOTH WALLED LOWER UNIT
HOUSINGS, ANTI-CAVITATION PLATES INTERMEDIATE THE TOP AND BOTTOM
THEREOF, AND INTERNAL WATER PASSAGES?  A. THEY BECAME POPULAR ABOUT
1926, AND FROM THEN ON PRACTICALLY ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN MADE THAT
WAY." 

FN6  THE BRIEF OF PETITIONERS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH
HAS BEEN CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT BY THE CLERK OF THAT COURT, CONTAINED
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT UNDER THE HEADING OF ANTICIPATION:  "IN
CONSIDERING THESE CLAIMS IT IS APPROPRIATE TO FIRST HAVE IN MIND THEIR
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE THAT PLAINTIFFS PLACE
UPON THEM AS BEING FOR SUBJECT MATTER THAT 'SOLVED A PROBLEM'
PREVIOUSLY 'STALLING' A GREAT INDUSTRY.  IN THE FIRST PLACE THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THESE CLAIMS WAS IN NO WAY CONSIDERED IN OR MADE A PART OF
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION  ...  IT WAS NOT UNTIL MORE THAN TWO YEARS
LATER THAT THE PATENTEE ON DECEMBER 6, 1928, BY HIS AMENDMENT 'C',
ADDED CLAIMS TO HIS APPLICATION COVERING ANY OF THE MATTER THAT IS NOW
DEEMED TO BE OF SUCH GREAT IMPORTANCE.  THEN, FOR THE FIRST TIME THE
PATENTEE CLAIMED, IN CLAIMS ORIGINALLY NUMBERED 17 TO 25, INCLUSIVE,
THE ANTICAVITATION PLATE APART FROM THE LIMITATIONS WHICH CHARACTERIZED
HIS ORIGINALLY FILED DISCLOSURES AND ORIGINALLY FILED CLAIMS." 

FN7  THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUSTAINED BY A DISTRICT COURT IN THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT.  JOHNSON BROTHERS ENGINEERING CORP. V. CAILLE BROS. CO.,
8 F.SUPP.  198.  CAILLE IS NO LONGER IN THE BUSINESS. 

FN8  THE PERIOD IS NOW ONE YEAR.  ACT OF AUGUST 5, 1939, 53 STAT.
1212, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 31. 

FN9  SEE FOOTNOTE 5, SUPRA.
..END :



















BAKERY DRIVERS LOCAL V. WOHL, 315 U.S. 769 


NO. 901, OCTOBER TERM 1940.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH
30, 1942.  - 284 N.Y. 788, 31 N.E.2D 765, REVERSED. 


1.  MEMBERS OF A LABOR UNION OF DRIVERS, ENGAGED IN THE DISTRIBUTION
OF BAKED GOODS, IN AN ENDEAVOR TO INDUCE PEDDLERS TO WORK BUT SIX DAYS
A WEEK AND TO HIRE AN UNEMPLOYED UNION MEMBER ONE DAY A WEEK,
PEACEFULLY PICKETED BAKERIES FROM WHICH THE PEDDLERS OBTAINED THEIR
GOODS, AND PLACES OF BUSINESS OF THE PEDDLERS' CUSTOMERS, CARRYING
PLACARDS WITH THE PEDDLERS' NAMES AND A TRUE STATEMENT OF THE UNION'S
GRIEVANCES.  HELD, THAT A STATE COURT INJUNCTION AGAINST SUCH PICKETING
WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  PP. 772,
775. 

2.  THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH DOES NOT DEPEND IN SUCH A CASE ON
WHETHER OR NOT A "LABOR DISPUTE," AS DEFINED BY THE STATE STATUTES, IS
INVOLVED.  P. 774. 

BAKERY & PASTRY DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL 802 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS ET AL. V. WOHL ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 548, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
SUSTAINING AN INJUNCTION.  A PETITION FOR REHEARING OF THE JUDGMENT OF
REVERSAL, ID., WAS GRANTED, 314 U.S. 701. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS ARE A LABOR UNION AND CERTAIN OF ITS OFFICERS.  THE
UNION MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF TRUCK DRIVERS OCCUPIED IN THE DISTRIBUTION
OF BAKED GOODS.  THE RESPONDENTS WOHL AND PLATZMAN ARE, AND FOR SOME
YEARS HAVE BEEN, PEDDLERS OF BAKED GOODS.  THEY BUY FROM BAKERIES AND
SELL AND DELIVER TO SMALL RETAILERS, AND KEEP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
COST AND SELLING PRICE, WHICH IN THE CASE OF WOHL IS APPROXIMATELY
THIRTY-TWO DOLLARS A WEEK, AND IN THE CASE OF PLATZMAN, ABOUT THIRTY
FIVE DOLLARS A WEEK.  OUT OF THIS EACH MUST ABSORB CREDIT LOSSES AND
MAINTAIN A DELIVERY TRUCK WHICH HE OWNS - BUT HAS REGISTERED IN THE
NAME OF HIS WIFE.  BOTH ARE MEN OF FAMILY.  NEITHER HAS ANY EMPLOYEE OR
ASSISTANT.  BOTH WORK SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, WOHL PUTTING IN SOMETHING OVER
THIRTY-THREE HOURS A WEEK, AND PLATZMAN ABOUT SIXTY-FIVE HOURS A WEEK. 
IT WAS FOUND THAT NEITHER HAS ANY CONTRACT WITH THE BAKERIES FROM WHOM
HE BUYS, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT EITHER HAD A CONTRACT WITH ANY
CUSTOMER. 

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE UNION AND THESE PEDDLERS GROWS OUT OF
CERTAIN BACKGROUND FACTS FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT AND SUMMARIZED HERE. 
THE UNION HAS FOR SOME YEARS BEEN ENGAGED IN OBTAINING COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS PRESCRIBING THE WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING
CONDITIONS OF BAKERY DRIVERS.  FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE TRIAL, THERE WERE
IN NEW YORK CITY COMPARATIVELY FEW PEDDLERS OR SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT
JOBBERS - FIFTY AT MOST, CONSISTING LARGELY OF MEN WHO HAD A LONG
ESTABLISHED RETAIL TRADE.  ABOUT FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE TRIAL, THE
SOCIAL SECURITY AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAWS, BOTH OF WHICH
IMPOSED TAXES ON PAYROLLS, BECAME EFFECTIVE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 
THEREAFTER, THE NUMBER OF PEDDLERS OF BAKERY PRODUCTS INCREASED FROM
YEAR TO YEAR, UNTIL AT THE TIME OF HEARING THEY NUMBERED MORE THAN FIVE
HUNDRED.  IN THE EIGHTEEN MONTHS PRECEDING THE HEARINGS, BAKING
COMPANIES WHICH OPERATED ROUTES THROUGH EMPLOYED DRIVERS HAD NOTIFIED
THE UNION THAT, AT THE EXPIRATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS, THEY WOULD NO
LONGER EMPLOY DRIVERS, BUT WOULD PERMIT THE DRIVERS TO PURCHASE TRUCKS
FOR NOMINAL AMOUNTS, IN SOME INSTANCES FIFTY DOLLARS, AND THEREUPON TO
CONTINUE TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR BAKED GOODS AS PEDDLERS.  WITHIN SUCH
PERIOD, A HUNDRED AND FIFTY DRIVERS, WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND
HAD PREVIOUSLY WORKED UNDER UNION CONTRACTS AND CONDITIONS, WERE
DISCHARGED AND REQUIRED TO LEAVE THE INDUSTRY UNLESS THEY UNDERTOOK TO
ACT AS PEDDLERS. 

THE PEDDLER SYSTEM HAS SERIOUS DISADVANTAGES TO THE PEDDLER HIMSELF. 
THE COURT HAS FOUND THAT HE IS NOT COVERED BY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
INSURANCE, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, OR BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM OF
THE STATE AND NATION.  HIS TRUCK IS USUALLY UNINSURED AGAINST PUBLIC
LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, AND HENCE COMMONLY CARRIED IN THE NAME
OF HIS WIFE OR OTHER NOMINEE.  IF INJURED WHILE WORKING, HE USUALLY
BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARGE, AND HIS FAMILY MUST BE SUPPORTED BY CHARITY OR
PUBLIC RELIEF. 

THE UNION BECAME ALARMED AT THE AGGRESSIVE INROADS OF THIS KIND OF
COMPETITION UPON THE EMPLOYMENT AND LIVING STANDARDS OF ITS MEMBERS. 
THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT IF EMPLOYERS WITH UNION CONTRACTS ARE FORCED
TO ADOPT THE "PEDDLER" SYSTEM, "THE WAGES, HOURS, WORKING CONDITIONS,
SIX-DAY WEEK, ETC., ATTAINED BY THE UNION AFTER LONG YEARS OF STRUGGLE
WILL BE DESTROYED AND LOST."  IN THE SPRING OF 1938, THE UNION MADE AN
EFFORT IN GOOD FAITH TO PERSUADE THE PEDDLERS TO BECOME MEMBERS, AND
THOSE WHO DESIRED WERE ADMITTED TO MEMBERSHIP AND WERE ONLY REQUIRED TO
ABIDE BY THE SAME CONSTITUTION, BY-LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS AS WERE
ALL OTHER MEMBERS.  THAT, HOWEVER, INCLUDED A REQUIREMENT THAT NO UNION
MEMBER SHOULD WORK MORE THAN SIX DAYS PER WEEK. 

THESE PARTICULAR PEDDLERS WERE ASKED TO JOIN THE UNION, AND EACH
SIGNED AN APPLICATION, BUT NEITHER JOINED.  THE UNION THEN DETERMINED
TO SEEK AN UNDERSTANDING WITH PEDDLERS WHO FAILED TO JOIN THE UNION
THAT THEY WORK ONLY SIX DAYS A WEEK AND EMPLOY AN UNEMPLOYED UNION
MEMBER ONE DAY IN A WEEK.  THE UNION DID NOT INSIST THAT THE RELIEF MAN
BE PAID BEYOND THE TIME THAT HE ACTUALLY WORKED, BUT ASKED THAT HE BE
PAID ON THE BASIS OF THE UNION'S DAILY WAGE, WHICH FIXED A SCALE FOR
PART OF A DAY IF BUT PART OF A DAY WAS REQUIRED FOR THE SERVICE OF THE
ROUTE.  FOR SOME TEN WEEKS, WOHL EMPLOYED A RELIEF DRIVER, WHO WAS PAID
$6.00 PER DAY, THE NORMAL DAY'S WAGE FOR A FULL DAY BEING $9.00. 

WHEN WOHL AND PLATZMAN FINALLY REFUSED EITHER TO JOIN THE UNION OR TO
EMPLOY A UNION RELIEF MAN, AND CONTINUED TO WORK SEVEN DAYS EACH WEEK,
THE UNION TOOK THE MEASURES WHICH LED TO THIS LITIGATION.  ON THE
TWENTY-THIRD OF JANUARY, 1939, THE UNION CAUSED TWO PICKETS TO WALK IN
THE VICINITY OF THE BAKERY WHICH SOLD PRODUCTS TO WOHL AND PLATZMAN,
EACH PICKET CARRYING A PLACARD, ONE BEARING THE NAME OF WOHL AND THE
OTHER THAT OF PLATZMAN, AND UNDER EACH NAME APPEARED THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT:  "A BAKERY ROUTE DRIVER WORKS SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.  WE ASK
EMPLOYMENT FOR A UNION RELIEF MAN FOR ONE DAY.  HELP US SPREAD
EMPLOYMENT AND MAINTAIN A UNION WAGE HOUR AND CONDITION.  BAKERY &
PASTRY DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL 802, I.B. OF T. AFFILIATED WITH A.F.L." 
THE PICKETING ON THAT DAY LASTED LESS THAN TWO HOURS.  AGAIN, ON THE
TWENTY-FIFTH OF JANUARY, THE UNION CAUSED TWO PICKETS TO DISPLAY THE
SAME PLACARDS IN THE SAME VICINITY FOR LESS THAN AN HOUR; AND ON THE
SAME DAY A PICKET WITH A PLACARD BEARING THE NAME OF WOHL OVER THE SAME
STATEMENT, PICKETED FOR A VERY SHORT TIME IN THE VICINITY OF ANOTHER
BAKERY FROM WHICH WOHL HAD PURCHASED BAKED PRODUCTS.  IT WAS ALSO FOUND
THAT A MEMBER OF THE UNION FOLLOWED PLATZMAN AS HE WAS DISTRIBUTING HIS
PRODUCTS AND CALLED ON TWO OR THREE OF HIS CUSTOMERS, ADVISING THEM
THAT THE UNION WAS SEEKING TO PERSUADE PLATZMAN TO WORK BUT SIX DAYS
PER WEEK AND EMPLOY A UNION DRIVER AS A RELIEF MAN, AND STATING TO ONE
THAT, IN THE EVENT HE CONTINUED TO PURCHASE FROM PLATZMAN, A PICKET
WOULD BE PLACED IN THE VICINITY ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, WITH A PLACARD
READING AS SET FORTH ABOVE.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS THREAT WAS
CARRIED OUT. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE PLACARDS WERE TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE IN
ALL RESPECTS; THAT THE PICKETING CONSISTED OF NO MORE THAN TWO PICKETS
AT ANY ONE TIME AND WAS DONE IN A PEACEFUL AND ORDERLY MANNER, WITHOUT
VIOLENCE OR THREAT THEREOF; THAT IT CREATED NO DISORDER; THAT IT WAS
NOT PROVED THAT ANY CUSTOMERS TURNED AWAY FROM SUCH BAKERIES BY REASON
OF THE PICKETING; AND IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE RESPONDENTS
SUSTAINED ANY MONETARY LOSS BY REASON THEREOF. 

THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED INJUNCTIONS WHICH RESTRAINED THE UNION AND ITS
OFFICERS AND AGENTS FROM PICKETING EITHER THE PLACES OF BUSINESS OF
MANUFACTURING BAKERS WHO SELL TO THE RESPONDENTS OR THE PLACES OF
BUSINESS OF THEIR CUSTOMERS.  14 N.Y. SUPP.2D 198.  THE JUDGMENT WAS
AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE FIRST
DEPARTMENT, TWO JUSTICES THEREOF DISSENTING WITH OPINION, 259 APP. DIV.
868, 19 N.Y.S.2D 811; AND WAS AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS, 284 N.Y. 788, 31 N. E.2D 765.  THIS COURT DENIED A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT THE FEDERAL
QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION HAD NECESSARILY BEEN DECIDED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  313 U.S. 572.  THE COURT OF APPEALS LATER CERTIFIED
THAT SUCH QUESTION HAD BEEN PASSED UPON, A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS
GRANTED, THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI GRANTED, AND THE JUDGMENT SUMMARILY
REVERSED.  313 U.S. 548.  WE LATER GRANTED ANOTHER PETITION FOR
REHEARING, 314 U.S. 701, AND HAVE SINCE HEARD ARGUMENT. 

THE CONTROVERSY IN THE TRIAL COURT CENTERED ABOUT THE ISSUE AS TO
WHETHER A LABOR DISPUTE WAS INVOLVED WITHIN THE MEANING OF NEW YORK
STATUTES.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND ITSELF CONSTRAINED TO HOLD THAT NO
LABOR DISPUTE WAS INVOLVED, AND SEEMED TO BE OF THE IMPRESSION THAT
THEREFORE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE INVOLVED.  IT CONCLUDED AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT THE RESPONDENTS "ARE THE SOLE PERSONS REQUIRED TO
RUN THEIR BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PICKETING BY A
UNION OR BY THE DEFENDANTS WHO SEEK TO COMPEL THEM TO EMPLOY UNION
LABOR."  THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED THE PETITIONERS' REQUEST FOR A FINDING
THAT "IT WAS LAWFUL FOR THE DEFENDANTS TO TRUTHFULLY ADVISE THE PUBLIC
OF ITS CAUSE, WHETHER IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLACES OF BUSINESS OF
BAKERS WHO SOLD TO THE PLAINTIFFS, OR OTHERWISE."  LIKEWISE, IT REFUSED
A REQUEST TO FIND "THAT IT WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANTS
TO ADVISE THE PUBLIC, ACCURATELY AND TRUTHFULLY AND WITHOUT VIOLENCE OR
BREACH OF THE PEACE, THAT DEFENDANTS WORKED SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, AND THAT
THE DEFENDANTS WERE SEEKING TO SECURE EMPLOYMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFFS
FOR UNEMPLOYED MEMBERS OF THE UNION, ONE DAY A WEEK." 

SO FAR AS WE CAN ASCERTAIN FROM THE OPINIONS DELIVERED BY THE STATE
COURTS IN THIS CASE, THOSE COURTS WERE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE QUESTION
WHETHER THERE WAS INVOLVED A LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
NEW YORK STATUTES, AND ASSUMED THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE INJUNCTION
FOLLOWED FROM A DETERMINATION THAT SUCH A DISPUTE WAS NOT INVOLVED.  OF
COURSE THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW:  ONE NEED NOT BE IN A "LABOR DISPUTE" AS
DEFINED BY STATE LAW TO HAVE A RIGHT UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO
EXPRESS A GRIEVANCE IN A LABOR MATTER BY PUBLICATION UNATTENDED BY
VIOLENCE, COERCION, OR CONDUCT OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL OR OPPRESSIVE. 

THE RESPONDENTS SAY THAT THE BASIS OF THE DECISION BELOW WAS REVEALED
IN A SUBSEQUENT OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHERE IT WAS SAID WITH
REGARD TO THE PRESENT CASE THAT "WE HELD THAT IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL LABOR
OBJECTIVE TO ATTEMPT TO COERCE A PEDDLER EMPLOYING NO EMPLOYEES IN HIS
BUSINESS AND MAKING APPROXIMATELY THIRTY-TWO DOLLARS A WEEK, TO HIRE AN
EMPLOYEE AT NINE DOLLARS A DAY FOR ONE DAY A WEEK."  OPERA-ON-TOUR V.
WEBER, 285 N.Y. 348, 357, 34 N.E.2D 349, CERTIORARI DENIED, 314 U.S.
615.  BUT THIS LACKS THE DELIBERATENESS AND FORMALITY OF A
CERTIFICATION,  FN1  AND WAS UTTERED IN A CASE WHERE THE QUESTION OF
THE EXISTENCE OF A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
WAS NEITHER RAISED NOR CONSIDERED. 

WE OURSELVES CAN PERCEIVE NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIL OF SUCH MAGNITUDE AS TO
MARK A LIMIT TO THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH WHICH THE PETITIONERS SOUGHT
TO EXERCISE.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SLIGHTEST
SUGGESTION OF EMBARRASSMENT IN THE TASK OF GOVERNANCE; THERE ARE NO
FINDINGS AND NO CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH WE CAN DRAW THE INFERENCE THAT
THE PUBLICATION WAS ATTENDED OR LIKELY TO BE ATTENDED BY VIOLENCE,
FORCE OR COERCION, OR CONDUCT OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL OR OPPRESSIVE; AND IT
IS NOT INDICATED THAT THERE WAS AN ACTUAL OR THREATENED ABUSE OF THE
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH THROUGH THE USE OF EXCESSIVE PICKETING.  A STATE
IS NOT REQUIRED TO TOLERATE IN ALL PLACES AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES EVEN
PEACEFUL PICKETING BY AN INDIVIDUAL.  BUT SO FAR AS WE CAN TELL,
RESPONDENTS' MOBILITY AND THEIR INSULATION FROM THE PUBLIC AS MIDDLEMEN
MADE IT PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR PETITIONERS TO MAKE KNOWN THEIR
LEGITIMATE GRIEVANCES TO THE PUBLIC WHOSE PATRONAGE WAS SUSTAINING THE
PEDDLER SYSTEM EXCEPT BY THE MEANS HERE EMPLOYED AND CONTEMPLATED; AND
THOSE MEANS ARE SUCH AS TO HAVE SLIGHT, IF ANY, REPERCUSSIONS UPON THE
INTERESTS OF STRANGERS TO THE ISSUE. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST ACCORDINGLY REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE EX PARTE TEXAS, 315 U.S. 8. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

IF THE OPINION IN THIS CASE MEANS THAT A STATE CAN PROHIBIT PICKETING
WHEN IT IS EFFECTIVE BUT MAY NOT PROHIBIT IT WHEN IT IS INEFFECTIVE,
THEN I THINK WE HAVE MADE A BASIC DEPARTURE FROM THORNHILL V. ALABAMA,
310 U.S. 88.  WE HELD IN THAT CASE THAT "THE DISSEMINATION OF
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE MUST BE REGARDED AS
WITHIN THAT AREA OF FREE DISCUSSION THAT IS GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION."  P. 102.  WHILE WE RECOGNIZED THAT PICKETING COULD BE
REGULATED, WE STATED (P. 104-105):  "ABRIDGMENT OF THE LIBERTY OF SUCH
DISCUSSION CAN BE JUSTIFIED ONLY WHERE THE CLEAR DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE
EVILS ARISES UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES AFFORDING NO OPPORTUNITY TO TEST THE
MERITS OF IDEAS BY COMPETITION FOR ACCEPTANCE IN THE MARKET OF PUBLIC
OPINION."  AND WE ADDED (P. 105):  "BUT NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE OR PROPERTY, OR INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY,
OR BREACH OF THE PEACE CAN BE THOUGHT TO BE INHERENT IN THE ACTIVITIES
OF EVERY PERSON WHO APPROACHES THE PREMISES OF AN EMPLOYER AND
PUBLICIZES THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE INVOLVING THE LATTER."  FOR
THAT REASON WE INVOKED THE TEST, EMPLOYED IN COMPARABLE SITUATIONS
(CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 307; BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314
U.S. 252) THAT THE STATUTE WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF THE RESTRICTION ON
FREE SPEECH MUST BE "NARROWLY DRAWN TO COVER THE PRECISE SITUATION
GIVING RISE TO THE DANGER."  P. 105.    WE RECOGNIZED THAT PICKETING
MIGHT HAVE A COERCIVE EFFECT:  "IT MAY BE THAT EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF
THE MEANS OF ADVANCING PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE MAY PERSUADE SOME OF THOSE
REACHED TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING INTO ADVANTAGEOUS RELATIONS WITH THE
BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT WHICH IS THE SCENE OF THE DISPUTE.  EVERY
EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON MATTERS THAT ARE IMPORTANT HAS THE
POTENTIALITY OF INDUCING ACTION IN THE INTERESTS OF ONE RATHER THAN
ANOTHER GROUP IN SOCIETY."  P. 104.    PICKETING BY AN ORGANIZED GROUP
IS MORE THAN FREE SPEECH, SINCE IT INVOLVES PATROL OF A PARTICULAR
LOCALITY AND SINCE THE VERY PRESENCE OF A PICKET LINE MAY INDUCE ACTION
OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER, QUITE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE IDEAS
WHICH ARE BEING DISSEMINATED.  HENCE THOSE ASPECTS OF PICKETING MAKE IT
THE SUBJECT OF RESTRICTIVE REGULATION. 

BUT SINCE "DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FACTS OF A
LABOR DISPUTE" IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, A STATE IS NOT FREE TO
DEFINE "LABOR DISPUTE" SO NARROWLY AS TO ACCOMPLISH INDIRECTLY WHAT IT
MAY NOT ACCOMPLISH DIRECTLY.  THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE WHAT NEW YORK HAS
DONE HERE.  ITS STATUTE (CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 876A), AS CONSTRUED
AND APPLIED, IN EFFECT ELIMINATES COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS THROUGH
PEACEFUL PICKETING IN CONNECTION WITH A LABOR CONTROVERSY ARISING OUT
OF THE BUSINESS OF A CERTAIN CLASS OF RETAIL BAKERS.  BUT THE STATUTE
IS NOT A REGULATION OF PICKETING PER SE - NARROWLY DRAWN, OF GENERAL
APPLICATION, AND REGULATING THE USE OF THE STREETS BY ALL PICKETEERS. 
IN SUBSTANCE IT MERELY SETS APART A PARTICULAR ENTERPRISE AND FREES IT
FROM ALL PICKETING.  IF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE THORNHILL CASE ARE TO
SURVIVE, I DO NOT SEE HOW NEW YORK CAN BE ALLOWED TO DRAW THAT LINE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




POWER COMM'N V. PIPELINE CO., 315 U.S. 575 


NO. 265.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 11, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1942.  -
120 F.2D 625, REVERSED. 


1.  PROVISIONS OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, FOR REGULATING THE
PRICES AT WHICH NATURAL GAS ORIGINATING IN ONE STATE AND TRANSPORTED TO
ANOTHER SHALL BE SOLD TO DISTRIBUTORS AT WHOLESALE, HELD CONSISTENT
WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND WITHIN THE
COMMERCE POWER.  P. 582. 

2.  UNDER SECS. 5(A) AND 16 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, WHEN UPON DUE HEARING IT HAS FOUND THE
EXISTING RATES OF AN INTERSTATE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY TO BE UNJUST AND
UNREASONABLE, MAY MAKE AN INTERIM ORDER REQUIRING THE UTILITY TO FILE A
NEW SCHEDULE OF RATES WHICH SHALL EFFECT A PRESCRIBED DECREASE IN
OPERATING REVENUES.  P. 583. 

3.  THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938 COMMANDS THAT THE RATES OF NATURAL
GAS COMPANIES SUBJECT TO IT SHALL BE JUST AND REASONABLE; DECLARES THAT
RATES WHICH ARE NOT JUST AND REASONABLE ARE UNLAWFUL; PROVIDES THAT THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATE
TO BE OBSERVED AND FIX THE SAME BY ORDER AND THAT THE COMMISSION MAY
ORDER A DECREASE WHERE EXISTING RATES ARE UNJUST, UNLAWFUL, OR ARE NOT
THE "LOWEST REASONABLE RATES."  SECS. 4(A) AND 5(A).  ON REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AS AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 19(B), THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT, IF SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, "SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  HELD: 

(1)  "LOWEST REASONABLE RATE" IS THE LOWEST RATE WHICH MAY BE FIXED
WITHOUT BEING CONFISCATORY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  P. 585. 

(2)  THE CONGRESSIONAL STANDARD PRESCRIBED BY THIS STATUTE COINCIDES
WITH THAT OF THE CONSTITUTION; AND THE COURTS ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
UNDER THE STATUTE TO SET ASIDE AS TOO LOW ANY "REASONABLE RATE" ADOPTED
BY THE COMMISSION WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS.  P. 586. 

4.  RATE-MAKING BODIES ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO FOLLOW
ANY SINGLE FORMULA OR COMBINATION OF FORMULAS.  ONCE A FULL HEARING HAS
BEEN GIVEN, PROPER FINDINGS MADE AND THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
SATISFIED, THE COURTS CANNOT INTERVENE IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR
SHOWING THAT THE LIMITS OF DUE PROCESS HAVE BEEN OVERSTEPPED.  IF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, AS APPLIED AND VIEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY, PRODUCES NO
ARBITRARY RESULT, THE COURT'S INQUIRY IS AT AN END.  P. 586. 

5.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT GOING-CONCERN VALUE,
EVEN WHEN IT IS AN APPROPRIATE ELEMENT TO BE INCLUDED IN A RATE BASE,
MUST BE SEPARATELY STATED AND APPRAISED AS SUCH.  PP. 586-589. 

6.  WHERE A VALUATION FOR RATE PURPOSES IS OF THE BUSINESS AS A WHOLE
WITHOUT SEPARATE APPRAISAL OF THE GOING-CONCERN ELEMENT, THE BURDEN
RESTS ON THE REGULATED UTILITY TO SHOW THAT THIS ITEM HAS NOT BEEN
INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE, AND THAT IT WAS NOT RECOUPED FROM PRIOR
EARNINGS OF THE BUSINESS.  P. 589. 

7.  THE PROPERTY OF A UTILITY IS NOT CONFISCATED BY DENIAL OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF CAPITALIZING THE MAINTENANCE COST OF EXCESS PLANT CAPACITY
DURING A PERIOD BEFORE THE RATES WERE REGULATED, WHICH WOULD ALLOW IT
TO EARN A RETURN AND AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE UPON SUCH COSTS DURING THE
ENTIRE SUBSEQUENT LIFE OF THE BUSINESS.  P. 590. 

8.  REGULATION DOES NOT INSURE THAT THE BUSINESS SHALL PRODUCE NET
REVENUES, NOR DOES THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRE THAT THE LOSSES OF THE
BUSINESS IN ONE YEAR SHALL BE RESTORED FROM FUTURE EARNINGS BY THE
DEVICE OF CAPITALIZING THE LOSSES AND ADDING THEM TO THE RATE BASE ON
WHICH A FAIR RETURN AND DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE ARE TO BE EARNED.  P.
590. 

9.  DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO EARN FOR THE FUTURE A "FAIR RETURN" AND
AMORTIZATION ON THE COSTS OF MAINTAINING INITIAL EXCESS CAPACITY, AND
OF ADVERTISING AND ACQUIRING NEW BUSINESS, WHICH THEY FAILED TO SHOW
HAD NOT BEEN RECOUPED FROM EARNINGS, DID NOT DEPRIVE THE UTILITIES
CONCERNED IN THIS CASE OF THEIR PROPERTY.  P. 590. 

10.  WHERE THE BUSINESS THE RATES OF WHICH ARE REGULATED COULD EXIST
FOR ONLY A LIMITED PERIOD, AN AMORTIZATION BASE COMPUTED AT COST AND
INCLUDING PROPERTY ALREADY RETIRED, THE ALLOWANCES ON WHICH WOULD
RESTORE THE UNDEPRECIATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT, LESS SALVAGE, AT THE END
OF THAT PERIOD, INVOLVED NO DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH DURING
THE PERIOD THE COST OF REPRODUCING THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE MORE THAN ITS
ACTUAL COST.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER WHO
EMBARKS IN A WASTING-ASSET BUSINESS OF LIMITED LIFE SHALL RECEIVE AT
THE END MORE THAN HE HAS PUT INTO IT.  P. 592. 

11.  IN THE CASE OF A WASTING BUSINESS THE RATES OF WHICH WERE FIRST
REGULATED AFTER IT HAD OPERATED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, HELD PROPER, AND
CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS, IN DETERMINING ITS FAIR RETURN, TO ADOPT
AS THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD THE ENTIRE ESTIMATED LIFE OF THE BUSINESS,
INCLUDING THE PERIOD OF EARLIER OPERATION, AND TO REQUIRE THAT THERE BE
CREDITED IN THE AMORTIZATION ACCOUNT SO MUCH OF THE EARNINGS OF THAT
PERIOD AS WOULD BE APPROPRIATELY ALLOCABLE TO IT.  P. 592. 

12.  A PROVISION FOR ANNUAL AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCES WHICH, IF
ACCUMULATED AT A 6 1/2% COMPOUND INTEREST RATE DURING THE ESTIMATED
LIFE OF THE BUSINESS, WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO RESTORE THE TOTAL
INVESTMENT LESS SALVAGE, AND WHICH LEAVES THE ALLOWANCES IN THE
BUSINESS AS A SINKING FUND RESERVE BUT PERMITS THE UTILITY TO EARN EACH
YEAR IN ADDITION TO THE ALLOWANCE, 6 1/2% ON BOTH THE AMORTIZED AND
UNAMORTIZED PORTIONS OF THE RATE BASE - HELD NOT OBJECTIONABLE UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST USED SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER -
COMPARABLE TO THAT OBTAINABLE IF THE ALLOWANCES WERE TO BE INVESTED IN
SECURITIES IN A SEPARATE SINKING FUND - OR UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
ARRANGEMENT ADOPTED SUBJECTS THE UTILITY TO GREATER BUSINESS RISKS.  P.
595. 

13.  THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT 6 1/2% IS A FAIR
ANNUAL RATE OF RETURN UPON THE RATE BASE ALLOWED IN THIS CASE IS
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 596. 

14.  THE QUESTION OF PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE EXCESS CHARGES
IMPOUNDED UNDER A STAY ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW IS NOT PRESENTED FOR
DETERMINATION UPON THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT.  P. 598. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ET AL. V. NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 268, NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. ET AL. V. FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION ET AL., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 593, TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 593, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT VACATING AN ORDER OF
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, ON A PETITION TO REVIEW, UNDER SEC. 19(B)
OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A RATE CASE INVOLVING NUMEROUS QUESTIONS WHICH ARISE OUT OF
THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION'S REGULATION, UNDER SECS. 5(A) AND 13 OF
THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 821, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717, OF THE
RATES TO BE CHARGED FOR THE SALE OF NATURAL GAS BY CROSS-PETITIONERS,
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND TEXOMA NATURAL GAS
COMPANY. 

THE TWO COMPANIES ARE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AS A SINGLE ENTERPRISE. 
THEY PRODUCE NATURAL GAS FROM THEIR OWN RESERVES IN THE PANHANDLE GAS
FIELDS IN TEXAS, AND PURCHASE GAS PRODUCED THERE BY OTHERS.  THEY
TRANSPORT THE GAS BY THEIR OWN PIPELINE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO
ILLINOIS, WHERE THEY SELL THE BULK OF IT AT WHOLESALE TO UTILITIES,
WHICH DISTRIBUTE AND SELL IT FOR DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
USES. 

THE COMPANIES BEGAN OPERATIONS IN 1932 WITH A CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF
$60,000,000 OF SIX PER CENT BONDS, LATER INCREASED BY $999,000, AND
$3,500,000 OF COMMON STOCK, OF WHICH $500,000 IS STOCK OF THE TEXOMA
COMPANY, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION PAYING NO DIVIDENDS ON ITS STOCK. 
DURING THE FIRST SEVEN YEARS OF OPERATION, BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1932,
AND EXTENDING THROUGH 1938, THE COMPANIES CHARGED AGAINST GROSS INCOME
VARIOUS DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION DEDUCTIONS AGGREGATING $13,077,488,
FN1  AND IN ADDITION CHARGED $6,481,322 FOR "RETIREMENTS" OF PROPERTY. 
IN THAT PERIOD THEY PAID DIVIDENDS AMOUNTING IN ALL TO $9,150,000. 
ALTHOUGH THERE WERE BOOK DEFICITS IN EARNINGS FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS,
THE TOTAL "NET PROFIT" AVAILABLE FOR DIVIDENDS AND SURPLUS AFTER
PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE BONDS WAS $8,224,436,  FN2  OR AN ANNUAL
AVERAGE OF $1,174,919, WHICH IS 33.6% PER ANNUM ON THE $3,500,000
STOCK.  THE EARNINGS AVAILABLE DURING THE PERIOD FOR RETURN ON THE
CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF BOTH STOCKHOLDERS AND BONDHOLDERS - AFTER TAKING
OUT OF INCOME $19,558,810 FOR DEPRECIATION, DEPLETION AND RETIREMENTS -
TOTALLED $34,040,883; THIS MAKES AN AVERAGE OF $4,862,983 ANNUALLY,
WHICH IS ABOUT 8% ON THE BOOK FIGURES FOR INVESTMENT UNDEPRECIATED, OR
8.8% AFTER DEDUCTING FROM INVESTMENT THE AVERAGE DEPRECIATION AND
DEPLETION RESERVES ACTUALLY CHARGED TO EARNINGS BY THE COMPANIES.  FN3
AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, OVER ONE-FOURTH OF THE BONDS ISSUED HAD
BEEN RETIRED OUT OF EARNINGS. 

ON COMPLAINT OF THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND ON ITS OWN
MOTION, THE POWER COMMISSION BEGAN SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE
COMPANIES' RATES.  THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONSOLIDATED AND AFTER
EXTENSIVE HEARINGS THE COMMISSION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING AN
INTERIM ORDER, ACCEPTED THE COMPANIES' STATEMENT THAT THE BOOK COST OF
THEIR PROPERTY EXISTING AT THE END OF 1938 WAS $60,172,843, INCLUDING
WORKING CAPITAL OF $975,000.  LIKEWISE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDER, IT
ACCEPTED THE COMPANIES' ESTIMATE THAT THE VALUE OF ALL PHYSICAL
PROPERTY - CALCULATED AT REPRODUCTION COST NEW (EXCEPT FOR GAS RESERVES
TAKEN ON THE COMPANIES' STATEMENT TO HAVE A PRESENT VALUE OF
$13,334,775) - WAS $74,420,424, WHICH THE COMMISSION ADOPTED AS THE
RATE BASE.  IT TOOK THE COMPANIES' OWN ESTIMATE OF TWENTY-THREE YEARS
ENDING IN 1954 AS THE LIFE OF THE BUSINESS, AND FOR THE AMORTIZATION
BASE USED THEIR COST FIGURE OF $78,284,009 FOR THE TOTAL PAST AND
ESTIMATED FUTURE INVESTMENT AFTER DEDUCTION OF ESTIMATED SALVAGE.  IT
CALCULATED THE "ANNUAL AMORTIZATION EXPENSE" ON THAT AMOUNT FOR THE
TWENTY-THREE YEAR PERIOD, AT A 6 1/2% SINKING FUND INTEREST RATE, AS
$1,557,852, WHICH IT ALLOWED. 

THE COMMISSION ALSO ACCEPTED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS INTERIM ORDER,
THE COMPANIES' ESTIMATE OF PROSPECTIVE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR
AMORTIZATION AND RETURN FOR THE PERIOD 1939 TO 1942 INCLUSIVE, AS
AVERAGING $9,511,454 PER ANNUM.  BUT MAKING ALLOWANCE FOR HIGHER INCOME
TAX RATES UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1940, IT FOUND THAT THE INCOME
AVAILABLE FOR AMORTIZATION AND RETURN WOULD BE DECREASED TO
$9,362,032.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANIES' ESTIMATE OF RETURN, LESS
THE AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE, ($9,362,032 LESS $1,557,852),  - OR
$7,804,180 - EXCEEDED THE FAIR RETURN, $4,837,328(WHICH IS 6 1/2% OF
THE RATE BASE OF $74,420,424), BY $2,966,852, WHICH AMOUNT WAS
AVAILABLE FOR REDUCTION OF NET REVENUES.  TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE
DECREASE OF $783,909 IN FEDERAL INCOME TAXES WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM
SUCH A DECLINE IN REVENUES, THE COMMISSION DECIDED THERE WAS A TOTAL OF
$3,750,000 ANNUALLY AVAILABLE FOR REDUCTION OF RATES.  IT FOUND THE
EXISTING RATES WERE "UNJUST, UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE," AND MADE ITS
INTERIM ORDER DIRECTING THE COMPANIES TO FILE A NEW SCHEDULE OF RATES
AND CHARGES EFFECTIVE AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 1940, WHICH WOULD BRING ABOUT
AN ANNUAL REDUCTION OF $3,750,000 IN OPERATING REVENUES.  THE ORDER
ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE RECORD SHOULD "REMAIN OPEN" FOR SUCH FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS AS THE COMMISSION MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE. 

ON THE COMPANIES' PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO SEC.
19(B) OF THE ACT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, 120
F.2D 625, UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE RATE REGULATION PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT, AND THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER THE STATUTE TO ISSUE THE
INTERIM ORDER DIRECTING REDUCTION OF THE RATES AND REQUIRING
RESPONDENTS TO FILE NEW SCHEDULES REFLECTING THAT REDUCTION.  BUT THE
COURT VACATED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE SOLE GROUNDS THAT "GOING
CONCERN VALUE" TO THE EXTENT OF $8,500,000 SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN
THE RATE BASE, AND THAT THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR THE ENTIRE
PROPERTY, INSTEAD OF THE FULL TWENTY-THREE YEAR ESTIMATED LIFE OF THE
BUSINESS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DATED FROM THE
PASSAGE OF THE ACT OR THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 593, BECAUSE OF THE NOVELTY AND
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED UPON THE COMMISSION'S PETITION
CHALLENGING THE GROUNDS OF REVERSAL BELOW, AND ON THE COMPANIES' CROSS
PETITION ASSAILING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT, THE AUTHORITY OF
THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THE INTERIM ORDER, THE PRESCRIBED 6 1/2% RETURN,
THE COMPUTATION OF THE AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE ON THE SAME RATE OF
INTEREST AS THE FAIR RATE OF RETURN, AND OTHER FEATURES OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER PRESENTLY TO BE DISCUSSED. 

THE NATURAL GAS ACT DECLARES THAT "THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING AND
SELLING NATURAL GAS FOR ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC IS AFFECTED
WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST," AND THAT FEDERAL REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN NATURAL GAS "IS NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  SEC.
1(A).  THE ACT DIRECTS THAT ALL RATES AND CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH
THE TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF NATURAL GAS, SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMISSION, SHALL BE "JUST AND REASONABLE" AND DECLARES TO BE
UNLAWFUL ANY RATE OR CHARGE WHICH IS NOT JUST AND REASONABLE.  SEC.
4(A).  BY SEC. 5 THE COMMISSION, ON ITS OWN MOTION OR THE COMPLAINT OF
A STATE, MUNICIPALITY, STATE COMMISSION OR GAS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, IS
EMPOWERED TO INVESTIGATE THE RATES CHARGED BY ANY NATURAL GAS COMPANY
IN CONNECTION WITH ANY TRANSPORTATION OR SALE OF ANY NATURAL GAS
SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND AFTER A HEARING TO
DETERMINE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE STATUTE APPLIED IN THIS CASE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THEIR FACE IS
WITHOUT MERIT.  THE SALE OF NATURAL GAS ORIGINATING IN ONE STATE AND
ITS TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY TO DISTRIBUTORS IN ANY OTHER STATE
CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY
CONGRESS.  ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE
CO., 314 U.S. 498.  IT IS NO OBJECTION TO THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS THAT IT IS ATTENDED BY THE SAME INCIDENTS WHICH ATTEND THE
EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF A STATE.  THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO
REGULATE THE PRICES OF COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS AT LEAST
AS GREAT UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AS IS THAT OF THE STATES UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH TO REGULATE THE PRICES OF COMMODITIES IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S.
144; UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 569; SUNSHINE
COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 393-97; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312
U.S. 100, WITH NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313
U.S. 236. 

THE PRICE OF GAS DISTRIBUTED THROUGH PIPELINES FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION
HAS BEEN TOO LONG AND CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED AS A PROPER SUBJECT OF
REGULATION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO ADMIT OF DOUBTS CONCERNING
THE PROPRIETY OF LIKE REGULATIONS UNDER THE FIFTH.  WILLCOX V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S. 19; CEDAR RAPIDS GAS CO. V. CEDAR
RAPIDS, 223 U.S. 655; RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PACIFIC GAS CO., 302 U.S.
388.  AND THE FACT THAT THE DISTRIBUTION HERE INVOLVED IS BY WHOLESALE
RATHER THAN RETAIL SALES PRESENTS NO DIFFERENCES OF SIGNIFICANCE TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF PRICE
REGULATION.  CF. ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC
SERVICE CO., SUPRA.  THE BUSINESS OF CROSS-PETITIONERS IS NOT ANY THE
LESS SUBJECT TO REGULATION NOW BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SEEN FIT
TO REGULATE IT IN THE PAST.  CF. NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, 538-39. 

VALIDITY OF THE INTERIM ORDER.  THE COMPANIES CONTEND THAT THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT TO ENTER THE
TYPE OF ORDER NOW UNDER REVIEW, AND THAT THE ORDER IS INVALID BECAUSE
THE COMMISSION DID NOT ITSELF FIX REASONABLE RATES AS REQUIRED BY THE
ACT BUT INSTEAD MERELY DIRECTED THE COMPANIES TO FILE A NEW RATE
SCHEDULE WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE PRESCRIBED REDUCTION IN OPERATING
REVENUES.  SECTION 5(A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES:  "WHENEVER THE COMMISSION,
AFTER A HEARING  ...  , SHALL FIND THAT ANY RATE  ...  IS INJUST,
UNREASONABLE, UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY, OR PREFERENTIAL, THE COMMISSION
SHALL DETERMINE THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATE  ... AND SHALL FIX THE
SAME BY ORDER."  IT ALSO CONTAINS A PROVISO THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL
NOT HAVE POWER TO ORDER AN INCREASE OF RATES ON FILE UNLESS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A NEW SCHEDULE FILED BY THE COMPANY.  BUT WITHOUT
MENTION OF NEW RATE SCHEDULES THE PROVISO ADDS THAT THE COMMISSION "MAY
ORDER A DECREASE WHERE EXISTING RATES ARE UNJUST  ...  OR ARE NOT THE
LOWEST REASONABLE RATES."  AND SEC. 16 GIVES THE COMMISSION "POWER TO
...  ISSUE  ...  SUCH ORDERS  ...  AS IT MAY FIND NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT." 

THE FIRST PREREQUISITE TO AN ORDER BY THE COMMISSION IS THAT IT SHALL
BE PRECEDED BY A HEARING AND FINDINGS.  IN THIS CASE, WHILE THE
PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT ENDED BY THE INTERIM ORDER, THE COMPANIES HAD FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER ALL THEIR EVIDENCE BOTH DIRECT AND IN REBUTTAL,
AND FULL OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE EVERY WITNESS OFFERED BY BOTH THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION AND THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION.  ALL THE
EVIDENCE TENDERED WAS RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION, AND
BEFORE THE INTERIM ORDER WAS ENTERED COUNSEL FOR THE COMPANIES STATED
TO THE COMMISSION THAT THEY HAD CONCLUDED THE DIRECT TESTIMONY IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR CASE.  SO FAR AS THE ORDER IS SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE, THE COMPANIES CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT THEY WERE DENIED A FULL
HEARING BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXAMINE ON REDIRECT THEIR OWN
WITNESSES WHO HAD NOT BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED OR BECAUSE THEY HAD NO
OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE OR REBUT WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT OFFERED BY
THE COMMISSION.  THE RIGHT TO A FULL HEARING BEFORE ANY TRIBUNAL DOES
NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE OR RELY ON EVIDENCE NOT OFFERED OR
CONSIDERED.  SEE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 201. 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RATE FOR A REGULATED INDUSTRY OFTEN INVOLVES
TWO STEPS OF DIFFERENT CHARACTER, ONE OF WHICH MAY APPROPRIATELY
PRECEDE THE OTHER.  THE FIRST IS THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE GENERAL REVENUE
LEVEL TO THE DEMANDS OF A FAIR RETURN.  THE SECOND IS THE ADJUSTMENT OF
A RATE SCHEDULE CONFORMING TO THAT LEVEL SO AS TO ELIMINATE
DISCRIMINATIONS AND UNFAIRNESS FROM ITS DETAILS.  SUCH AN ORDERLY
PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING THE RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT WOULD SEEM
TO BE AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT ITS PROVISIONS.  SECTION 5
OF THE ACT WAS MODELLED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, 49
U.S.C. SECS. 13, 15, WHICH HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED AS GIVING TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A GENERAL LEVEL
OF RATES AND DIVISIONS IN ADVANCE OF A SCHEDULE TO BE FILED BY THE
CARRIERS.  SEE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, SUPRA, 201-202, 203, N. 21. 
CF. SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, VOL. 2, PP. 381-82;
DRISCOLL V. EDISON CO., 307 U.S. 104.    WE THINK THAT THE PROVISO OF
SEC. 5, ALREADY QUOTED, CONTEMPLATES THAT, WHEN EXISTING RATES ARE
FOUND TO BE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE, AN ORDER DECREASING REVENUES MAY
BE FILED WITHOUT ESTABLISHING A SPECIFIC SCHEDULE OF RATES.  SINCE SUCH
AN ORDER MAY BE IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS THE
REGULATED COMPANY, AND IS IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, IT
IS ONE WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS DISCRETION TO MAKE UNDER SEC. 16 AS
APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION. 
THE ULTIMATE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER THE RATE PRESCRIBED
BY THE COMMISSION IS TOO LOW.  THE STATUTE DECLARES, SEC. 4(A), THAT
THE RATES OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES SUBJECT TO THE ACT "SHALL BE JUST
AND REASONABLE, AND ANY SUCH RATE OR CHARGE THAT IS NOT JUST AND
REASONABLE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL."  SECTION 5(A) DIRECTS
THE COMMISSION TO "DETERMINE THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATE" TO BE
OBSERVED, AND REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO "FIX THE SAME BY ORDER."  IT
ALSO PROVIDES THAT "THE COMMISSION MAY ORDER A DECREASE WHERE EXISTING
RATES ARE UNJUST  ...  UNLAWFUL, OR ARE NOT THE LOWEST REASONABLE
RATES."  ON REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 19(B), THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT
"IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE." 

BY LONG STANDING USAGE IN THE FIELD OF RATE REGULATION, THE "LOWEST
REASONABLE RATE" IS ONE WHICH IS NOT CONFISCATORY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SENSE.  LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 287, 305;
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PACIFIC GAS CO., SUPRA, 394, 395; DENVER STOCK
YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 470, 475.  ASSUMING THAT THERE IS A
ZONE OF REASONABLENESS WITHIN WHICH THE COMMISSION IS FREE TO FIX A
RATE VARYING IN AMOUNT AND HIGHER THAN A CONFISCATORY RATE, SEE BANTON
V. BELT LINE RY. CORP., 268 U.S. 413, 422, 423; COLUMBUS GAS CO. V.
COMMISSION, 292 U.S. 398, 414; DENVER STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 483, THE COMMISSION IS ALSO FREE UNDER SEC. 5(A) TO DECREASE ANY
RATE WHICH IS NOT THE "LOWEST REASONABLE RATE."  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
CONGRESSIONAL STANDARD PRESCRIBED BY THIS STATUTE COINCIDES WITH THAT
OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THAT THE COURTS ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY UNDER
THE STATUTE TO SET ASIDE AS TOO LOW ANY "REASONABLE RATE" ADOPTED BY
THE COMMISSION WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT BIND RATE-MAKING BODIES TO THE SERVICE OF
ANY SINGLE FORMULA OR COMBINATION OF FORMULAS.  AGENCIES TO WHOM THIS
LEGISLATIVE POWER HAS BEEN DELEGATED ARE FREE, WITHIN THE AMBIT OF
THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY, TO MAKE THE PRAGMATIC ADJUSTMENTS WHICH MAY
BE CALLED FOR BY PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  ONCE A FAIR HEARING HAS
BEEN GIVEN, PROPER FINDINGS MADE AND OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
SATISFIED, THE COURTS CANNOT INTERVENE IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR
SHOWING THAT THE LIMITS OF DUE PROCESS HAVE BEEN OVERSTEPPED.  IF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS BEFORE IT AND VIEWED IN ITS
ENTIRETY, PRODUCES NO ARBITRARY RESULT, OUR INQUIRY IS AT AN END. 

GOING CONCERN VALUE.  THE COMPANIES INSIST THAT THEIR BUSINESS HAS A
GOING CONCERN VALUE OF $8,500,000, WHICH THE COMMISSION DID NOT INCLUDE
IN THE RATE BASE AND ON WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED TO EARN A RETURN.  IN
ESTABLISHING THE RATE BASE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INTERIM ORDER THE
COMMISSION "RELUCTANTLY" ACCEPTED THE ESTIMATES OF VALUE, PRESENTED BY
THE COMPANIES' OWN WITNESSES, AS FOLLOWS: 

REPRODUCTION COST NEW OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES 

(EXCLUSIVE OF GAS RESERVES)........................ $56,302,250  FN4 

VALUE OF GAS RESERVES AS OF JUNE 1, 1939...  13,334,775 

CAPITAL ADDITIONS FROM JUNE 1, 1939, TO DECEMBER 

31, 1942........................................... $3,808,399  FN5 

WORKING CAPITAL....................................    975,000 

TOTAL RATE BASE....................................$74,420,424 

WHILE NO ITEM FOR GOING CONCERN VALUE IS SEPARATELY STATED IN THE
RATE BASE, THE COMPUTATION OF COST NEW OF PHYSICAL EQUIPMENT INCLUDED -
IN ADDITION TO LABOR AND COST OF MATERIALS - LARGE AMOUNTS FOR
OVERHEAD, INTEREST, TAXES, ADMINISTRATION, LEGAL AND SUPERVISORY
CHARGES, AND EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED IN ASSEMBLING THE PLANT AS THAT
OF A GOING CONCERN. 

THE COMMISSION SPOKE OF THE RATE BASE THUS ARRIVED AT AS "LIBERAL"
AND AS A "GENEROUS ALLOWANCE."  THAT THE ESTIMATE OF REPRODUCTION COSTS
NEW IS LIBERAL IS INDICATED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE COMPANIES'
STRUCTURES OTHER THAN GAS RESERVES WERE BUILT IN 1930-1931 AT A TIME,
AS THE RECORD SHOWS, OF RELATIVELY HIGH PRICES, AND THAT THEIR
REPRODUCTION COST DEPRECIATED IS GREATER THAN ACTUAL COST, WHICH WAS
ABOUT $50,000,000.  AND THE ALLOWED "PRESENT VALUE" OF LEASES AS OF
JUNE 1, 1939, $13,334,775, IS APPROXIMATELY $4,000,000 MORE THAN BOOK
COST, EVEN WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION FOR
DEPLETION RESERVES OF $1,152,854, WHICH THE COMPANIES HAD ACCRUED ON
THEIR OWN BOOKS BY THE END OF 1938.  THE COMMISSION DECLINED TO INCLUDE
GOING CONCERN VALUE AS AN ADDITIONAL ITEM IN THE RATE BASE. 

THE COMPANIES URGE, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THAT THERE ARE
ITEMS OF COST OR EXPENSE INCURRED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE BUSINESS DURING THE SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD PRIOR TO REGULATION, WHICH
WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE COMPANIES' ESTIMATE OF VALUE ACCEPTED BY THE
COMMISSION, AND WHICH, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
BUSINESS, SHOULD BE CAPITALIZED AND ADDED TO THE RATE BASE TO THE
EXTENT OF $8,500,000 FOR GOING CONCERN VALUE.  THEY INCLUDE, IN AMOUNTS
NOT NOW MATERIAL, THE FOLLOWING:  EXPENDITURES FOR SECURING NEW
BUSINESS; INTEREST ON MONEY INVESTED IN NON-PRODUCTIVE PLANT CAPACITY;
TAXES PAID ON NON-PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY; FIXED OPERATING EXPENSES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO NON-PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY, AND DEPRECIATION ON NON
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY.  FN6  THE COMPANIES' CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
ALL THESE ITEMS ARE PREDICATED UPON THE LIMITED LIFE OF THE BUSINESS,
TWENTY-THREE YEARS, AND ON TESTIMONY THAT IN ANTICIPATION OF ITS GROWTH
LARGER GAS MAINS AND FACILITIES WERE CONSTRUCTED THAN WERE REQUIRED
DURING THE EARLIER YEARS OF THE BUSINESS.  THE REPRODUCTION COST NEW OF
THIS EXCESS OF EQUIPMENT IS ADMITTEDLY INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE. 

NONE OF THESE ITEMS APPEARS IN THE COMPANIES' CAPITAL ACCOUNT.  WITH
THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF EXPENDITURES FOR SECURING NEW BUSINESS, THEY
ARE SYNTHETIC FIGURES ARRIVED AT BY ESTIMATING THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CURRENT COST OF MAINTENANCE OF THE EXCESS CAPACITY
OF THE PLANT DURING PERIODS WHEN THE EXCESS CAPACITY WAS NOT USED.  BUT
THE INTEREST CHARGES, TAXES AND OTHER COSTS OF MAINTAINING THIS EXCESS
CAPACITY DURING THE PERIOD WHEN NOT IN USE HAVE NOT BEEN CAPITALIZED BY
THE COMPANIES ON THEIR BOOKS AND SO FAR AS APPEARS WERE PAID FROM
CURRENT EARNINGS.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR ADVERTISING
AND OTHER EXPENSES OF ACQUIRING NEW BUSINESS. 

THE NOVEL QUESTION IS THUS PRESENTED WHETHER CONFISCATION, PROSCRIBED
BY CONGRESS AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTION, RESULTS FROM THE EXCLUSION
FROM THE RATE BASE OF THE PREVIOUS COSTS OF MAINTAINING EXCESS PLANT
CAPACITY AND OF GETTING NEW BUSINESS.  THE COMMISSION GAVE FULL
CONSIDERATION TO THIS CONTENTION.  IT SAID:  "THE COMPANIES' CLAIM FOR
$8,500,000 FOR GOING CONCERN VALUE MUST BE DISALLOWED.  THE AMOUNT
OBVIOUSLY IS AN ARBITRARY CLAIM, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
WARRANTING ITS ALLOWANCE.  ITS ALLOWANCE WOULD MEAN THE ACCEPTANCE OF A
DECEPTIVE FICTION, RESULTING IN AN UNFAIR IMPOSITION UPON CONSUMERS. 
WE ARE CONVINCED THAT WE ARE ALLOWING IN OUR RATE BASE MORE THAN AN
ADEQUATE AMOUNT TO COVER ALL ELEMENTS OF VALUE." 

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT GOING CONCERN VALUE, EVEN
WHEN IT IS AN APPROPRIATE ELEMENT TO BE INCLUDED IN A RATE BASE, MUST
BE SEPARATELY STATED AND APPRAISED AS SUCH.  THIS COURT HAS OFTEN
SUSTAINED VALUATIONS FOR RATE PURPOSES OF A BUSINESS ASSEMBLED AS A
WHOLE, WITHOUT SEPARATE APPRAISAL OF THE GOING CONCERN ELEMENT. 
COLUMBUS GAS CO. V. COMMISSION, 292 U.S. 398, 411; DAYTON P. & L. CO.
V. COMMISSION, 292 U.S. 290, 309; DENVER STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 478-480; DRISCOLL V. EDISON CO., SUPRA, 117.  WHEN THAT
HAS BEEN DONE, THE BURDEN RESTS ON THE REGULATED COMPANY TO SHOW THAT
THIS ITEM HAS NEITHER BEEN ADEQUATELY COVERED IN THE RATE BASE NOR
RECOUPED FROM PRIOR EARNINGS OF THE BUSINESS.  DES MOINES GAS CO. V.
DES MOINES, 238 U.S. 153, 166. 

THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE COMPANIES' PLANT, INCLUDING EQUIPMENT IN
EXCESS OF IMMEDIATE NEEDS WHEN BEGINNING BUSINESS, HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN
THE RATE BASE ADOPTED.  IF RIGHTLY INCLUDED, AS THE COMMISSION HAS
ASSUMED FOR PURPOSES OF THE ORDER, THE COMPANIES WOULD HAVE BEEN
ENTITLED TO EARN A FAIR RETURN UPON ITS VALUE, HAD THE BUSINESS BEEN
REGULATED FROM THE START.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE COMPANIES'
PROPERTY WOULD BE CONFISCATED BY DENYING TO THEM THE PRIVILEGE OF
CAPITALIZING THE MAINTENANCE COST OF EXCESS PLANT CAPACITY, WHICH WOULD
ALLOW THEM TO EARN A RETURN AND AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE UPON SUCH COSTS
DURING THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE BUSINESS.  IT IS ONLY ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT EXCESS CAPACITY IS A PART OF THE UTILITY'S EQUIPMENT USED AND
USEFUL IN THE REGULATED BUSINESS, THAT IT CAN BE INCLUDED AS A PART OF
THE RATE BASE ON WHICH A RETURN MAY BE EARNED.  WHEN SO INCLUDED, THE
UTILITY GETS ITS RETURN NOT FROM CAPITALIZING THE MAINTENANCE COST, BUT
FROM CURRENT EARNINGS BY RATES SUFFICIENT, HAVING IN VIEW THE CHARACTER
OF THE BUSINESS, TO SECURE A FAIR RETURN UPON THE RATE BASE, PROVIDED
THE BUSINESS IS CAPABLE OF EARNING IT.  BUT REGULATION DOES NOT INSURE
THAT THE BUSINESS SHALL PRODUCE NET REVENUES, NOR DOES THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRE THAT THE LOSSES OF THE BUSINESS IN ONE YEAR SHALL BE RESTORED
FROM FUTURE EARNINGS BY THE DEVICE OF CAPITALIZING THE LOSSES AND
ADDING THEM TO THE RATE BASE ON WHICH A FAIR RETURN AND DEPRECIATION
ALLOWANCE IS TO BE EARNED.  GALVESTON ELECTRIC CO. V. GALVESTON, 258
U.S. 388; SAN DIEGO LAND & TOWN CO. V. JASPER, 189 U.S. 439, 446-47. 
THE DEFICIENCY MAY NOT BE THUS ADDED TO THE RATE BASE, FOR THE OBVIOUS
REASON THAT THE HAZARD THAT THE PROPERTY WILL NOT EARN A PROFIT REMAINS
ON THE COMPANY IN THE CASE OF A REGULATED, AS WELL AS AN UNREGULATED,
BUSINESS. 

HERE THE COMPANIES, THOUGH UNREGULATED, ALWAYS TREATED THEIR ENTIRE
ORIGINAL INVESTMENT, TOGETHER WITH SUBSEQUENT ADDITIONS, AS CAPITAL ON
WHICH PROFIT WAS TO BE EARNED.  THEY CHARGED THE OUT-OF-POCKET COST OF
MAINTENANCE OF PLANT, WHETHER USED TO CAPACITY OR NOT, AS OPERATING
EXPENSES DEDUCTIBLE FROM EARNINGS BEFORE ARRIVING AT NET PROFITS.  THEY
HAVE THUS TREATED THE ITEMS NOW SOUGHT TO BE CAPITALIZED IN THE RATE
BASE AS OPERATING EXPENSES TO BE COMPENSATED FROM EARNINGS, AS IN THE
CASE OF REGULATED COMPANIES.  THE HISTORY OF THE FIRST SEVEN YEARS OF
OPERATION BEFORE REGULATION SHOWS AN AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURN,  FN7  AFTER
DEDUCTION OF OPERATING EXPENSES, OF APPROXIMATELY 8% ON THE
UNDEPRECIATED INVESTMENT.  THIS HIGH RETURN WAS EARNED DURING A PERIOD
WHICH INCLUDED THE SEVEREST DEPRESSION IN OUR HISTORY. 

WHETHER THERE IS GOING CONCERN VALUE IN ANY CASE DEPENDS UPON THE
FINANCIAL HISTORY OF THE BUSINESS.  HOUSTON V. SOUTHWESTERN TEL. CO.,
259 U.S. 318, 325.  THIS IS PECULIARLY TRUE OF A BUSINESS WHICH DERIVES
ITS ESTIMATES OF GOING CONCERN VALUE FROM A FINANCIAL HISTORY PRECEDING
REGULATION.  THAT HISTORY HERE DISCLOSES NO BASIS FOR GOING CONCERN
VALUE, BOTH BECAUSE THE ELEMENTS RELIED UPON FOR THAT PURPOSE COULD
RIGHTLY BE REJECTED AS CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE CASE OF A REGULATED
COMPANY, AND BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
ITEMS, WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN TREATED AS CAPITAL INVESTMENT, HAVE NOT
BEEN RECOUPED DURING THE UNREGULATED PERIOD. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMISSION HAS DEPRIVED THE COMPANIES OF THEIR
PROPERTY BY REFUSING TO PERMIT THEM TO EARN FOR THE FUTURE A FAIR
RETURN AND AMORTIZATION ON THE COSTS OF MAINTENANCE OF INITIAL EXCESS
CAPACITY - COSTS WHICH THE COMPANIES FAIL TO SHOW HAVE NOT ALREADY BEEN
RECOUPED FROM EARNINGS BEFORE COMPUTING THE SUBSTANTIAL "NET PROFITS"
EARNED DURING THE FIRST SEVEN YEARS.  THE ITEMS FOR ADVERTISING AND
ACQUIRING NEW BUSINESS HAVE BEEN TREATED IN THE SAME WAY BY THE
COMPANIES, AND DO NOT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, STAND ON ANY
DIFFERENT FOOTING.  CF. WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 63,
72. 

THE AMORTIZATION BASE.  THE COMMISSION TOOK AS THE AMORTIZATION BASE
THE SUM OF $78,284,009.  THIS WAS MADE UP OF THE COMPANIES' TOTAL
INVESTMENT, AT THE END OF 1938, OF $67,173,761(WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF
PROPERTY RETIREMENTS ALREADY MADE), PLUS ESTIMATED FUTURE CAPITAL
ADDITIONS THROUGH 1954, INCLUDING REPLACEMENTS, AMOUNTING TO
$12,159,380,  FN8  LESS ESTIMATED SALVAGE AT THE PREDICTED END OF THE
PROJECT IN 1954.  IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE COMMISSION'S ANNUAL
AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE OF $1,557,852, ACCUMULATED AT THE SINKING FUND
INTEREST RATE OF 6 1/2% ADOPTED BY THE ORDER, WILL BE SUFFICIENT IN
1954 TO RESTORE THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT SO COMPUTED. 

THE COMPANIES ARGUE THAT THE AMORTIZATION BASE, COMPUTED ON A BASIS
OF REPRODUCTION COST, SHOULD BE $84,341,218 N9 RATHER THAN COST PLUS
ESTIMATED FUTURE CAPITAL ADDITIONS.  BUT THE PURPOSE OF THE
AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE AND ITS JUSTIFICATION IS THAT IT IS A MEANS OF
RESTORING FROM CURRENT EARNINGS THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE CAPACITY OF THE
BUSINESS CONSUMED IN EACH YEAR.  LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS TEL. CO., 292
U.S. 151, 167.  WHEN THE PROPERTY IS DEVOTED TO A BUSINESS WHICH CAN
EXIST FOR ONLY A LIMITED TERM, ANY SCHEME OF AMORTIZATION WHICH WILL
RESTORE THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT AT THE END OF THE TERM INVOLVES NO
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY.  EVEN THOUGH THE REPRODUCTION COST OF THE
PROPERTY DURING THE PERIOD MAY BE MORE THAN ITS ACTUAL COST, THIS
THEORETICAL ACCRETION TO VALUE REPRESENTS NO PROFIT TO THE OWNER, SINCE
THE PROPERTY DEDICATED TO THE BUSINESS, SAVE FOR ITS SALVAGE VALUE, IS
DESTINED FOR THE SCRAP-HEAP WHEN THE BUSINESS ENDS.  THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER WHO EMBARKS IN A WASTING-ASSET BUSINESS
OF LIMITED LIFE SHALL RECEIVE AT THE END MORE THAN HE HAS PUT INTO IT.
WE NEED NOT NOW CONSIDER WHETHER, AS THE GOVERNMENT URGES, THERE CAN IN
NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE AMORTIZATION
BASE BE THE REPRODUCTION VALUE RATHER THAN THE ACTUAL COST OF THE
PROPERTY DEVOTED TO A REGULATED BUSINESS.  CF. UNITED RAILWAYS CO. V.
WEST, 280 U.S. 234, 265.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT HERE THE BUSINESS, BY
HYPOTHESIS, WILL END IN 1954, AND THAT THE AMORTIZATION BASE, COMPUTED
AT COST AND INCLUDING PROPERTY ALREADY RETIRED, WILL BE COMPLETELY
RESTORED BY 1954 BY THE ANNUAL AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCES.  AS THE
COMMISSION DECLARED:  "THE AMOUNTS OF AMORTIZATION ARE RECOGNIZED AND
TREATED AS OPERATING EXPENSES.  OPERATING EXPENSES ARE STATED ON THE
BASIS OF COST.  ...  WE REFUSE TO MAKE AN ALLOWANCE OF AMORTIZATION IN
EXCESS OF COST.  TO DO SO WOULD NOT BE THE COMPUTATION OF A PROPER
EXPENSE, BUT INSTEAD THE ALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL PROFIT OVER AND ABOVE
A FAIR RETURN.  MANIFESTLY SUCH AN ADDITIONAL RETURN WOULD UNJUSTLY
PENALIZE CONSUMERS." 

THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD.  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT, SINCE THE
BUSINESS WAS UNREGULATED FOR THE FIRST SEVEN YEARS, THE ADOPTION BY THE
COMMISSION OF THE ESTIMATED TWENTY-THREE YEAR LIFE OF THE BUSINESS AS
THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD INVOLVED A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  IN VIEW OF
THE ESTIMATE BY THE COMMISSION AND THE COMPANIES THAT THE GAS
PROPERTIES WOULD BE EXHAUSTED IN ABOUT SIXTEEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF
THE ACT, THE COURT THOUGHT, AS THE COMPANIES ARGUE, THAT A RATE OF
RETURN WOULD BE CONFISCATORY WHICH WOULD NOT PROVIDE, IN ADDITION TO A
FAIR RETURN, AN ANNUAL AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE SUFFICIENT TO RESTORE THE
TOTAL INVESTMENT OVER THE FINAL SIXTEEN-YEAR PERIOD.  BUT THIS ARGUMENT
OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THE DEPRECIATION OF PHYSICAL PROPERTY
ATTRIBUTED TO USE, AND THE OBSOLESCENCE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY
ATTRIBUTABLE TO LAPSE OF TIME IN THE CASE OF A BUSINESS HAVING A
LIMITED LIFE, HAD BEEN TAKING PLACE DURING THE SEVEN YEARS BEFORE
REGULATION AND THAT THOSE ITEMS MUST BE RECOUPED IF AT ALL FROM
EARNINGS.  CAPITAL INVESTMENT LOSS AT THE END OF THE LIFE OF A BUSINESS
CAN ONLY BE AVOIDED BY RESTORATION OF THE INVESTMENT FROM EARNINGS, AND
IS AVOIDABLE SO FAR AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE ONLY BY AN APPROPRIATE
CHARGE OF AMORTIZATION TO EARNINGS AS THEY ACCRUE. 

HERE, THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ANNUAL
AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE, IF APPLIED OVER THE ENTIRE TWENTY-THREE YEAR
LIFE OF THE BUSINESS, IS SUFFICIENT TO RESTORE THE TOTAL CAPITAL
INVESTMENT AT THE END, OR THAT EARNINGS OF THE PAST AND THOSE ESTIMATED
FOR THE FUTURE TOGETHER ARE SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMORTIZATION
ALLOWANCE AND A FAIR RETURN, GIVEN AN APPROPRIATE RATE BASE AND RATE OF
RETURN.  MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT ADEQUATE PROVISION
HAS NOT BEEN MADE FOR RESTORATION OF THE COMPANIES' INVESTMENT FROM
EARNINGS, AND A FAIR RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT.  EVEN THOUGH THE
COMPANIES WERE UNREGULATED FOR SEVEN YEARS, EARNINGS DURING THAT PERIOD
WERE AVAILABLE AND ADEQUATE FOR AMORTIZATION.  IN FACT, THE COMPANIES'
CHARGES TO EARNINGS, FOR DEPRECIATION, DEPLETION AND RETIREMENTS,
TOTALLED $19,558,810, OR AN AVERAGE OF $2,794,115 PER ANNUM.  THIS WAS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ESTABLISHED BUSINESS PRACTICE, IN THE CASE OF
UNREGULATED AS WELL AS REGULATED BUSINESSES, TO MAKE SUCH A
DEPRECIATION OR AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE CHARGEABLE ANNUALLY TO EARNINGS
AS AN OPERATING EXPENSE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR ANNUAL
CONSUMPTION OF CAPITAL IN THE BUSINESS.  LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS TEL.
CO., SUPRA. 

THE COMPANIES ARE NOT DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY BY A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY
CREDIT IN THE AMORTIZATION ACCOUNT SO MUCH OF THE EARNINGS RECEIVED
DURING THE PRIOR PERIOD AS ARE APPROPRIATELY ALLOCABLE TO IT FOR
AMORTIZATION.  ONLY BY THAT METHOD IS IT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE
AMOUNT OF EARNINGS WHICH MAY JUSTLY BE REQUIRED FOR AMORTIZATION DURING
THE REMAINING LIFE OF THE BUSINESS. 

AMORTIZATION INTEREST RATE.  THE ANNUAL AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCES OF
$1,557,852, IF ACCUMULATED AT A 6 1/2% COMPOUND INTEREST RATE UNTIL THE
ASSUMED EXHAUSTION OF THE GAS RESERVES IN 1954, WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO
RESTORE THE UNDEPRECIATED TOTAL INVESTMENT LESS THE SALVAGE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY.  THE COMPANIES URGE THAT THE INTEREST RATE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN LOWER, SAY 2%, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ONLY SOME SUCH LOWER RATE
WOULD BE EARNED BY A HYPOTHETICAL SINKING FUND TO BE CREATED FROM THE
ANNUAL AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCES.  BUT THE ARGUMENT IGNORES THE FACT THAT
THE AMORTIZATION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION CONTEMPLATES NOT A
SINKING FUND OF SEGREGATED SECURITIES PURCHASED WITH CASH WITHDRAWN
FROM THE BUSINESS, BUT MERELY A SINKING FUND RESERVE CHARGED TO
EARNINGS AND NOT DISTRIBUTABLE AS ORDINARY DIVIDENDS.  UNDER THIS
METHOD THERE IS NO DEDUCTION OF THE AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCES FROM THE
RATE BASE ON WHICH A FAIR RETURN - 6 1/2% UNDER THE CURRENT INTERIM
ORDER - IS TO BE ALLOWED DURING THE LIFE OF THE BUSINESS. 

THE COMPANIES ARE THUS ALLOWED TO EARN IN EACH YEAR, IN ADDITION TO
THE AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCE, 6 1/2% ON BOTH THE AMORTIZED AND THE
UNAMORTIZED PORTIONS OF THE BASE.  IF THE AMORTIZATION INTEREST WERE
COMPUTED AT A 2% RATE WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE AMORTIZED PORTION FROM THE
RATE BASE, THE COMPANIES WOULD CONTINUE TO RECEIVE A 6 1/2% INSTEAD OF
ONLY A 2% RETURN ON THAT PORTION OF THE INVESTMENT.  TRUE, THE METHOD
OF AMORTIZATION ADOPTED MEANS THAT THE COMPANIES LOOK TO THE EARNINGS
OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE HYPOTHETICAL INTEREST ON AMORTIZATION RESERVE. 
THIS, IT IS ARGUED, MAY INVOLVE MORE BUSINESS RISK THAN A METHOD OF
AMORTIZATION CONTEMPLATING THE ACTUAL WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BUSINESS OF
THE AMORTIZATION ALLOWANCES AND THEIR INVESTMENT IN SEGREGATED
SECURITIES BEARING A LOWER RATE OF INTEREST.  BUT HERE THE 6 1/2% RATE
OF RETURN ALLOWED ON THE AMORTIZED PORTION OF THE RATE BASE INCLUDES
COMPENSATION FOR THE BUSINESS RISK, AND THE RISK IS AN INCIDENT OF THE
BUSINESS IN WHICH THE COMPANIES HAVE HAZARDED THEIR CAPITAL AND IN
WHICH THEY PROPOSE TO INVEST ADDITIONAL CAPITAL.  THE COMMISSION
DECLARED IT ADOPTED THIS METHOD TO AVOID THE INEQUITABLE RESULT WHICH
WOULD FOLLOW IF THE COMPANIES WERE PERMITTED TO INCLUDE IN THEIR
CHARGES TO THE PUBLIC 6 1/2% ON THE AMORTIZED PORTION OF THE BASE,
WHILE TREATING IT AS EARNING ONLY 2%. THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT
THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE METHOD IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, AND IN ANY
CASE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT IT HAS DEPRIVED OR WILL DEPRIVE THE
COMPANIES OF PROPERTY. 

FAIR RATE OF RETURN.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT "6 1/2 PER CENT IS A
FAIR ANNUAL RATE OF RETURN UPON THE RATE BASE ALLOWED," WHICH IT HAD
CHARACTERIZED AS "A GENEROUS ALLOWANCE."  THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO
ACCEPT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS IF THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  SEC. 19(B).  WE CANNOT SAY, ON THIS RECORD, THAT THE
COMMISSION WAS BOUND TO ALLOW A HIGHER RATE. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROFITS EARNED BY INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATIONS DECLINED FROM 11.3% ON INVESTED CAPITAL IN 1929 TO 5.1% IN
1938.  THE PROFITS OF UTILITY CORPORATIONS DECLINED DURING THE SAME
PERIOD FROM 7.2% TO 5.1%.  FOR RAILROAD CORPORATIONS, THE DECLINE WAS
FROM 6.4% TO 2.3%. INTEREST RATES WERE AT A LOW LEVEL ON ALL FORMS OF
INVESTMENT, AND AMONG THE LOWEST THAT HAVE EVER EXISTED.  THE
SECURITIES OF NATURAL GAS COMPANIES WERE SOLD AT RATES OF RETURN OF
FROM 3% TO 6%, WITH YIELDS ON MOST OF THEIR BOND ISSUES BETWEEN 3% AND
4%.  THE INTEREST ON LARGE LOANS RANGED FROM 2% TO 3.25%. 

THE REGULATED BUSINESS HERE SEEMS EXCEPTIONALLY FREE FROM HAZARDS
WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE CALL FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE
FAIR RATE OF RETURN.  SUBSTANTIALLY ALL ITS PRODUCT IS DISTRIBUTED IN
THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF CHICAGO, A STABLE AND GROWING MARKET, THROUGH
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES WHICH OWN 26% OF THE INVESTMENT OF THE NATURAL
GAS PIPELINE COMPANY.  NINETY PER CENT OF ITS GAS IS TAKEN UNDER
CONTRACT BY THE CHICAGO DISTRICT PIPELINE COMPANY.  THE CONTRACT RUNS
UNTIL 1946 OR UNTIL 1951, AT THE OPTION OF THE COMPANIES.  UNDER IT THE
DISTRICT COMPANY IS BOUND TO TAKE, OR AT LEAST PAY FOR, 66 2/3% OF THE
COMPANIES' GAS, AND PERFORMANCE IS GUARANTEED BY THE THREE COMPANIES
DISTRIBUTING THE GAS IN CHICAGO. 

THE DANGER OF EARLY EXHAUSTION OF THE GAS FIELD WAS FULLY TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT IN THE ESTIMATE OF ITS LIFE, AND THE COMPANIES' ESTIMATE WAS
ACCEPTED.  PROVISION FOR THE COMPLETE AMORTIZATION OF THE INVESTMENT
WITHIN THAT PERIOD AFFORDS A SECURITY TO THE INVESTMENT WHICH IS
LACKING TO THOSE INDUSTRIES WHOSE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS MUST BE CONTINUED
FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD.  THE COMPANIES' AFFILIATION WITH THE SIX
LARGE CORPORATIONS WHICH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OWN ALL THE STOCK,
PLACES THEM IN A STRONG POSITION FOR THEIR FUTURE FINANCING.  THE
BUSINESS IS IN THE SAME POSITION AS OTHER SIMILAR BUSINESSES WITH
RESPECT TO INCREASED TAXATION, INFLATION AND COSTS OF OPERATION.  OTHER
FACTORS, SUCH AS CREDIT RISKS, RISKS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES, VARYING
DEMANDS FOR PRODUCT, RELATIVELY SMALL LABOR REQUIREMENTS, AND
CONVERSION OF INVENTORY INTO CASH, COMPARE MORE FAVORABLY.  AFTER A
FULL CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THESE FACTORS AND OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESCRIBED REDUCTION IN REVENUES WAS JUST
AND REASONABLE, AND THAT THE 6 1/2% WAS A FAIR RATE OF RETURN. 

DISPOSITION OF EXCESS CHARGES COLLECTED SINCE THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS STAYED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
PENDING APPEAL.  THE COMPANIES STATE THAT, AS A CONDITION OF THE STAY,
THE COURT REQUIRED THEM TO GIVE A BOND IN THE SUM OF $1,000,000,
CONDITIONED UPON THEIR REFUND OF EXCESS CHARGES TO CUSTOMERS, IN THE
EVENT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED.  THE BOND IS NOT
IN THE RECORD AND ITS PRECISE TERMS ARE NOT BEFORE US. 

THE COMPANIES POINT OUT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE GAS AFFECTED BY
THE REDUCTION IN REVENUES IS SOLD TO WHOLESALERS WHO DISTRIBUTE IT FOR
ULTIMATE CONSUMPTION.  THEY ARGUE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE RATE
REGULATION IS THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS, AND THAT THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT WILL NOT BE EFFECTUATED BY THE REFUNDS TO WHOLESALERS.  THEY INSIST
THAT SUCH REFUNDS, BEING THE WHOLESALERS' PROFITS FROM PAST BUSINESS,
CANNOT BE RESORTED TO FOR REDUCING FUTURE RATES TO THE CONSUMERS.  CF.
KNOXVILLE V. KNOXVILLE WATER CO., 212 U.S. 1, 14; GALVESTON ELECTRIC
CO. V. GALVESTON, SUPRA, 258 U.S. AT 395. 

OF THIS CONTENTION IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE QUESTION OF THE
DISPOSITION OF THE EXCESS CHARGES IS NOT BEFORE US FOR DETERMINATION ON
THE PRESENT RECORD.  CF. MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 1, 26. 
AMOUNTS COLLECTED IN EXCESS OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ARE DECLARED TO
BE UNLAWFUL BY SEC. 4(A) OF THE ACT.  IF THERE IS ANY BASIS, EITHER IN
THE BOND OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELIED UPON BY THE COMPANIES, FOR NOT
COMPELLING THE COMPANIES TO SURRENDER THESE ILLEGAL EXACTIONS, IT DOES
NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED BUT FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS OTHER
OBJECTIONS OF LESSER MOMENT TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  WE SUSTAIN THE
VALIDITY OF THE ORDER AND REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THESE CHARGES AGAINST INCOME ARE SLIGHTLY IN EXCESS OF THE
ACCUMULATED RESERVES FOR DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION - $12,557,892 -
SHOWN BY THE BOOKS AT THE END OF 1938.  THE EXCESS OF $519,596 IS
APPARENTLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE PERIOD $7,000,918 OF
PROPERTY, ON THE BASIS OF BOOK COST, WAS RETIRED, WHILE THE ANNUAL
RETIREMENT CHARGES HAD AGGREGATED ONLY $6,481,322.  THE BALANCE OF THE
RETIREMENTS, $519,596, APPARENTLY HAD BEEN CHARGED TO THE DEPRECIATION
AND DEPLETION ACCOUNTS. 

FN2  THIS INCLUDES A NEGLIGIBLE ITEM, "NON-OPERATING INCOME," WHICH
FOR THE SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD CAME TO ONLY $194,600. 

FN3  THE BOOK FIGURES (WHICH ARE ON A COST BASIS) FOR INVESTED
CAPITAL AVERAGE SLIGHTLY UNDER $61,000,000 IF WORKING CAPITAL IS
INCLUDED.  THE DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION RESERVES ARE TAKEN FROM THE
ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH THE AGGREGATE FIGURE, $12,557,892, IS GIVEN IN NOTE
1, SUPRA. 

FN4  THE ESTIMATES SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANIES STATED THAT THERE
SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THIS FIGURE FOR "VIEWED DEPRECIATION"
$2,866,758.  HOWEVER, IN SETTING A RATE BASE FOR THE INTERIM ORDER, THE
COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE THIS CONCEDED DEDUCTION - PERHAPS BECAUSE IT
HELD, CONTRARY TO THE COMPANIES' CONTENTION, THAT THE PROPERTIES SHOULD
BE AMORTIZED OVER THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE BUSINESS. 

FN5  THE COMPANIES ESTIMATED THAT THE COST OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY,
NOT INCLUDING REPLACEMENTS, DURING THE FUTURE LIFE OF THE ENTERPRISE,
SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 1, 1939, WOULD BE $9,145,083.  ON THIS BASIS, THEY
CLAIMED THAT THERE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE $6,046,286,
WHICH THEY SAID WOULD BE THE ESTIMATED AVERAGE INVESTMENT.  THE
COMMISSION INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE ONLY $3,808,399, WHICH WAS THE
COMPANIES' ESTIMATED OUTLAY FOR CAPITAL ADDITIONS THROUGH THE END OF
1942.  THIS REDUCTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CHALLENGED.  IN ANY EVENT,
THE REFUSAL TO INCLUDE IN THE RATE BASE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES NOT YET
MADE CAN NOT INVOLVE CONFISCATION. 

FN6  THE ITEM FOR DEPRECIATION ON NON-PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY, AMOUNTING
TO $382,833, IS OBVIOUSLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE COMMISSION'S ALLOWANCE
FOR DEPRECIATION.  THE VALUE OF THE COMPANIES' ENTIRE PLANT, WHETHER
FULLY PRODUCTIVE OR NOT, IS INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE AND, AS WILL
PRESENTLY APPEAR, PROVISION WAS MADE BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER FOR ITS
AMORTIZATION ON A COST BASIS FROM EARNINGS.    FN7  BESIDES $8,244,435
OF "NET PROFITS," THE COMPANIES PAID OUT OF GROSS INCOME $23,994,030 AS
INTEREST ON THE BONDS. 

FN8  WE DO NOT INTIMATE ANY APPROVAL OF THE INCLUSION IN THE
AMORTIZATION BASE OF ALL THE ESTIMATED FUTURE CAPITAL ADDITIONS. 

FN9  THE COMPANIES' PROPOSED AMORTIZATION BASE WAS MADE UP OF THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS: 

REPRODUCTION COST NEW, EXCLUDING GAS RESERVES.....   $56,302,250 

VIEWED DEPRECIATION (DEDUCT)......................     2,866,758 

VALUE OF GAS RESERVES.............................    13,334,775 
COST OF ADDITIONAL PROPERTY.......................     9,145,083 

GOING CONCERN VALUE...............................     8,500,000 

WORKING CAPITAL...................................       975,000

                                                $85,390,350 

LESS SALVAGE......................................     1,049,132

                                                   $84,341,218 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY,
CONCURRING. 

  I 

WE CONCUR WITH THE COURT'S JUDGMENT THAT THE RATE ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, ISSUED AFTER A FAIR HEARING UPON FINDINGS OF
FACT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY
THE COURT BELOW.  BUT INSOFAR AS THE COURT ASSUMES THAT, REGARDLESS OF
THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
GRANTS IT POWER TO INVALIDATE AN ORDER AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT
FINDS THE CHARGES TO BE UNREASONABLE, WE ARE UNABLE TO JOIN IN THE
OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED. 

RATE MAKING IS A SPECIES OF PRICE FIXING.  IN A RECENT SERIES OF
CASES, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT LEGISLATIVE PRICE FIXING IS NOT
PROHIBITED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  FN1  WE BELIEVE THAT, IN SO
HOLDING, IT HAS RETURNED, IN PART AT LEAST, TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES WHICH PREVAILED FOR THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS OF OUR HISTORY. 
MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113; PEIK V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 94 U.S.
164.  CF. MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 302 U.S. 419, 427-428.  THE
MUNN AND PEIK CASES, DECIDED IN 1877, JUSTICES FIELD AND STRONG
DISSENTING, EMPHATICALLY DECLARED PRICE FIXING TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL
PREROGATIVE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
OR REVISION. 

IN 1886, FOUR OF THE JUSTICES WHO HAD VOTED WITH HIM IN THE MUNN AND
PEIK CASES NO LONGER BEING ON THE COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE EXPRESSED
VIEWS IN AN OPINION OF THE COURT WHICH INDICATED A YIELDING IN PART TO
THE DOCTRINES PREVIOUSLY SET FORTH IN MR. JUSTICE FIELD'S DISSENTING
OPINIONS, ALTHOUGH THE DECISION, UPHOLDING A STATE REGULATORY STATUTE,
DID NOT REQUIRE HIM TO REACH THIS ISSUE.  SEE RAILROAD COMMISSION
CASES, 116 U.S. 307, 331.  FOR AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION OF THE
EVOLUTION OF THIS CHANGE OF POSITION, SEE SWISHER, STEPHEN J. FIELD,
372-392.  BY 1890, SIX JUSTICES OF THE 1877 COURT, INCLUDING CHIEF
JUSTICE WAITE, HAD BEEN REPLACED BY OTHERS.  THE NEW COURT THEN CLEARLY
REPUDIATED THE OPINION EXPRESSED FOR THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE
IN THE MUNN AND PEIK CASES, IN A HOLDING WHICH ACCORDED WITH THE VIEWS
OF MR. JUSTICE FIELD.  CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 134
U.S. 418.  UNDER THOSE VIEWS, FIRST EMBODIED IN A HOLDING OF THIS COURT
IN 1890, "DUE PROCESS" MEANS NO LESS THAN "REASONABLENESS JUDICIALLY
DETERMINED."  FN2 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ELASTIC MEANING WHICH, IN THE
WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, MAKES THE SKY THE LIMIT  FN3  OF JUDICIAL
POWER TO DECLARE LEGISLATIVE ACTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE CONCLUSIONS OF
JUDGES, SUBSTITUTED FOR THOSE OF LEGISLATURES, BECOME A BROAD AND
VARYING STANDARD OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.  FN4  WE SHALL NOT ATTEMPT NOW
TO SET OUT AT LENGTH THE REASONS FOR OUR BELIEF THAT ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH
A MEANING IS HISTORICALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND THAT IT TRANSFERS TO COURTS
POWERS WHICH, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, BELONG TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT.  BUT WE FEEL THAT WE MUST RECORD OUR DISAGREEMENT FROM
AN OPINION WHICH, ALTHOUGH UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION ON
THESE PARTICULAR FACTS, NEVERTHELESS GIVES RENEWED VITALITY TO A
"CONSTITUTIONAL" DOCTRINE WHICH WE ARE CONVINCED HAS NO SUPPORT IN THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE DOCTRINE WHICH MAKES OF "DUE PROCESS" AN UNLIMITED GRANT TO
COURTS TO APPROVE OR REJECT POLICIES SELECTED BY LEGISLATURES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGES' NOTION OF REASONABLENESS HAD ITS ORIGIN IN
CONNECTION WITH LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPTS TO FIX THE PRICES CHARGED BY
PUBLIC UTILITIES.  AND IN NO FIELD HAS IT HAD MORE PARALYZING EFFECTS. 
FN5

                               II 

WE HAVE HERE, TO BE SURE, A STATUTE WHICH EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED IN SEC. 5 OF THE NATURAL GAS
ACT THAT THE RATES FIXED BY THE COMMISSION SHALL BE "JUST AND
REASONABLE."  THE PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW STATES THAT THE
"FINDING OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  SEC. 19(B).  BUT WE ARE NOT SATISFIED
THAT THE OPINION OF THE COURT PROPERLY DELIMITS THE SCOPE OF THAT
REVIEW UNDER THIS ACT.  FURTHERMORE, SINCE THIS CASE STARTS A NEW
CHAPTER IN THE REGULATION OF UTILITY RATES, WE THINK IT IMPORTANT TO
INDICATE MORE EXPLICITLY THAN HAS BEEN DONE THE FREEDOM WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAS BOTH UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THIS NEW STATUTE. 
WHILE THE OPINION OF THE COURT ERASES MUCH WHICH HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN
RATE CASES DURING THE LAST HALF CENTURY, WE THINK THIS IS AN
APPROPRIATE OCCASION TO LAY THE GHOST OF SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466,
WHICH HAS HAUNTED UTILITY REGULATION SINCE 1898.  THAT IS ESPECIALLY
DESIRABLE LEST THE REFERENCE BY THE MAJORITY TO "CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS" AND TO "THE LIMITS OF DUE PROCESS" BE DEEMED TO
PERPETUATE THE FALLACIOUS "FAIR VALUE" THEORY OF RATE MAKING IN THE
LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW PROVIDED BY THE ACT. 

SMYTH V. AMES HELD (PP. 546-547) THAT "THE BASIS OF ALL CALCULATIONS
AS TO THE REASONABLENESS OF RATES TO BE CHARGED BY A CORPORATION
MAINTAINING A HIGHWAY UNDER LEGISLATIVE SANCTION MUST BE THE FAIR VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY BEING USED BY IT FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC. 
AND IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THAT VALUE, THE ORIGINAL COST OF
CONSTRUCTION, THE AMOUNT EXPENDED IN PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS, THE AMOUNT
AND MARKET VALUE OF ITS BONDS AND STOCK, THE PRESENT AS COMPARED WITH
THE ORIGINAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE PROBABLE EARNING CAPACITY OF THE
PROPERTY UNDER PARTICULAR RATES PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, AND THE SUM
REQUIRED TO MEET OPERATING EXPENSES, ARE ALL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION,
AND ARE TO BE GIVEN SUCH WEIGHT AS MAY BE JUST AND RIGHT IN EACH CASE. 
WE DO NOT SAY THAT THERE MAY NOT BE OTHER MATTERS TO BE REGARDED IN
ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  WHAT THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO
ASK IS A FAIR RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF THAT WHICH IT EMPLOYS FOR THE
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO
DEMAND IS THAT NO MORE BE EXACTED FROM IT FOR THE USE OF A PUBLIC
HIGHWAY THAN THE SERVICES RENDERED BY IT ARE REASONABLY WORTH." 

(1)  THIS THEORY DERIVES FROM PRINCIPLES OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  SEE MR.
JUSTICE BREWER, AMES V. UNION PACIFIC RY. CO., 64 F. 165, 177; WEST V.
CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO., 295 U.S. 662, 671; HALE,
CONFLICTING JUDICIAL CRITERIA OF UTILITY RATES, 38 COL. L. REV. 959. 
IN CONDEMNATION CASES THE "VALUE OF PROPERTY, GENERALLY SPEAKING, IS
DETERMINED BY ITS PRODUCTIVENESS - THE PROFITS WHICH ITS USE BRINGS TO
THE OWNER."  MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 312,
328, 329.  CF. CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510,
525-526.  BUT THOSE PRINCIPLES HAVE NO PLACE IN RATE REGULATION.  IN
THE FIRST PLACE, THE VALUE OF A GOING CONCERN IN FACT DEPENDS ON
EARNINGS UNDER WHATEVER RATES MAY BE ANTICIPATED.  THE PRESENT FAIR
VALUE RULE CREATES, BUT OFFERS NO SOLUTION TO, THE DILEMMA THAT VALUE
DEPENDS UPON THE RATES FIXED AND THE RATES UPON VALUE.  SEE MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
262 U.S. 276, 292; HALE, THE FAIR VALUE MERRY-GO-ROUND, 33 ILL. L. REV.
517; 2 BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY, PP. 1094 ET SEQ. IN THE SECOND
PLACE, WHEN PROPERTY IS TAKEN UNDER THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN THE
OWNER IS "ENTITLED TO THE FULL MONEY EQUIVALENT OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN,
AND THEREBY TO BE PUT IN AS GOOD POSITION PECUNIARILY AS IT WOULD HAVE
OCCUPIED IF ITS PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN."  UNITED STATES V. NEW
RIVER COLLIERIES CO., 262 U.S. 341, 343.  BUT IN RATE-MAKING, THE OWNER
DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUCH PROTECTION.  WE KNOW, WITHOUT ATTEMPTING ANY
VALUATION, THAT IF EARNINGS ARE REDUCED THE VALUE WILL BE LESS.  BUT
THAT DOES NOT STAY THE HAND OF THE LEGISLATURE OR ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY IN MAKING RATE REDUCTIONS.  AS WE HAVE SAID, RATE-MAKING IS ONE
SPECIES OF PRICE-FIXING.  PRICE-FIXING, LIKE OTHER FORMS OF SOCIAL
LEGISLATION, MAY WELL DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS
REGULATED.  BUT THAT IS NO OBSTACLE TO ITS VALIDITY.  AS STATED BY MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES IN BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135, 155:  "THE FACT THAT
TANGIBLE PROPERTY IS ALSO VISIBLE TENDS TO GIVE A RIGIDITY TO OUR
CONCEPTION OF OUR RIGHTS IN IT THAT WE DO NOT ATTACH TO OTHERS LESS
CONCRETELY CLOTHED.  BUT THE NOTION THAT THE FORMER ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE MODIFICATION REQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME IN CIVILIZED LIFE
IS CONTRADICTED NOT ONLY BY THE DOCTRINE OF EMINENT DOMAIN, UNDER WHICH
WHAT IS TAKEN IS PAID FOR, BUT BY THAT OF THE POLICE POWER IN ITS
PROPER SENSE, UNDER WHICH PROPERTY RIGHTS MAY BE CUT DOWN, AND TO THAT
EXTENT TAKEN, WITHOUT PAY."  SOMEWHAT THE SAME VIEW WAS EXPRESSED IN
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 532, WHERE THIS COURT SAID:  "THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE MAKES NO MENTION OF SALES OR OF PRICES ANY MORE THAN IT
SPEAKS OF BUSINESS OR CONTRACTS OR BUILDINGS OR OTHER INCIDENTS OF
PROPERTY.  THE THOUGHT SEEMS NEVERTHELESS TO HAVE PERSISTED THAT THERE
IS SOMETHING PECULIARLY SACROSANCT ABOUT THE PRICE ONE MAY CHARGE FOR
WHAT HE MAKES OR SELLS, AND THAT, HOWEVER ABLE TO REGULATE OTHER
ELEMENTS OF MANUFACTURE OR TRADE, WITH INCIDENTAL EFFECT UPON PRICE,
THE STATE IS INCAPABLE OF DIRECTLY CONTROLLING THE PRICE ITSELF.  THIS
VIEW WAS NEGATIVED MANY YEARS AGO.  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113." 
EXPLICIT RECOGNITION OF THESE PRINCIPLES WILL PLACE THE PROBLEMS OF
RATE-MAKING IN THEIR PROPER SETTING UNDER THIS STATUTE. 

(2)  THE RULE OF SMYTH V. AMES, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, DIRECTS THE
RATE-MAKING BODY IN FORMING ITS JUDGMENT AS TO "FAIR VALUE" TO TAKE
INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS ELEMENTS - CAPITALIZATION, BOOK COST, ACTUAL
COST, PRUDENT INVESTMENT, REPRODUCTION COST.  SEE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SUPRA,
PP. 294-295.  BUT AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS:  "OBVIOUSLY
'VALUE' CANNOT BE A COMPOSITE OF ALL THESE ELEMENTS.  NOR CAN IT BE
ARRIVED AT ON ALL THESE BASES.  THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT; AND MUST, WHEN
APPLIED IN A PARTICULAR CASE, LEAD TO WIDELY DIFFERENT RESULTS.  THE
RULE OF SMYTH V. AMES, AS INTERPRETED AND APPLIED, MEANS MERELY THAT
ALL MUST BE CONSIDERED.  WHAT, IF ANY, WEIGHT SHALL BE GIVEN TO ANY
ONE, MUST PRACTICALLY REST IN THE JUDICIAL DISCRETION OF THE TRIBUNAL
WHICH MAKES THE DETERMINATION.  WHETHER A DESIRED RESULT IS REACHED MAY
DEPEND UPON HOW ANY ONE OF MANY ELEMENTS IS TREATED."  ID., PP. 295
296.  THE RISKS OF NOT GIVING WEIGHT TO REPRODUCTION COST HAVE BEEN
GREAT.  SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
SUPRA; ST. LOUIS & O'FALLON RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 461. 
THE HAVOC RAISED BY INSISTENCE ON REPRODUCTION COST IS NOW A MATTER OF
HISTORICAL RECORD.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN THE SOUTHWESTERN BELL
TELEPHONE CASE DEMONSTRATED HOW THE RULE OF SMYTH V. AMES HAS SERIOUSLY
IMPAIRED THE POWER OF RATE-REGULATION AND HOW THE "FAIR VALUE" RULE HAS
PROVED TO BE UNWORKABLE BY REASON OF THE TIME REQUIRED TO MAKE THE
VALUATIONS, THE HEAVY EXPENSE INVOLVED, AND THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE
RESULTS OBTAINED.  FN6  AND SEE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS CONCURRING, ST.
JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 73; DISSENTING
OPINION, MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 302 U.S. 419, 423 ET SEQ.;
MR. JUSTICE STONE DISSENTING, WEST V. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE
CO., SUPRA.  THE RESULT OF THIS COURT'S RULINGS IN RATE CASES SINCE
SMYTH V. AMES HAS RECENTLY BEEN SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:  "UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF THESE PRECEDENTS, COMMISSION REGULATION HAS BECOME SO
CUMBERSOME AND SO INEFFECTIVE THAT IT MAY BE SAID, WITH ONLY SLIGHT
EXAGGERATION, TO HAVE BROKEN DOWN.  EVEN THE INVESTOR N7, ON WHOSE
BEHALF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED, HAS RECEIVED
NO PROTECTION AGAINST THE REBOUNDS FROM THE INFLATED STOCK-MARKET
PRICES THAT ARE STIMULATED BY THE 'FAIR-VALUE' DOCTRINE."  BONBRIGHT,
OP. CIT., P. 1154. 

AS WE READ THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THE COMMISSION IS NOW FREED FROM
THE COMPULSION OF ADMITTING EVIDENCE ON REPRODUCTION COST OR OF GIVING
ANY WEIGHT TO THAT ELEMENT OF "FAIR VALUE."  THE COMMISSION MAY NOW
ADOPT, IF IT CHOOSES, PRUDENT INVESTMENT AS A RATE BASE - THE BASE LONG
ADVOCATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS.  AND FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN THE SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CASE, THERE COULD
BE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION IF THE COMMISSION ADHERED TO THAT
FORMULA AND REJECTED ALL OTHERS. 

YET IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, THAT CONGRESS HAS
MERELY PROVIDED IN SEC. 5 OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT THAT THE RATES FIXED
BY THE COMMISSION SHALL BE "JUST AND REASONABLE."  IT HAS PROVIDED NO
STANDARD BEYOND THAT.  CONGRESS, TO BE SURE, HAS PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  BUT SEC. 19(B) STATES THAT THE "FINDING OF THE COMMISSION AS
TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE."  IN VIEW OF THESE PROVISIONS, WE DO NOT THINK IT IS
PERMISSIBLE FOR THE COURTS TO CONCERN THEMSELVES WITH ANY ISSUES AS TO
THE ECONOMIC MERITS OF A RATE BASE.  THE COMMISSION HAS A BROAD AREA OF
DISCRETION FOR SELECTION OF AN APPROPRIATE RATE BASE.  THE REQUIREMENTS
OF "JUST AND REASONABLE" EMBRACE, AMONG OTHER FACTORS, TWO PHASES OF
THE PUBLIC INTEREST:  (1) THE INVESTOR INTEREST; (2) THE CONSUMER
INTEREST.  THE INVESTOR INTEREST IS ADEQUATELY SERVED IF THE UTILITY IS
ALLOWED THE OPPORTUNITY TO EARN THE COST OF THE SERVICE.  THAT COST HAS
BEEN DEFINED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS AS FOLLOWS:  "COST INCLUDES NOT
ONLY OPERATING EXPENSES, BUT ALSO CAPITAL CHARGES.  CAPITAL CHARGES
COVER THE ALLOWANCE, BY WAY OF INTEREST, FOR THE USE OF THE CAPITAL,
WHATEVER THE NATURE OF THE SECURITY ISSUED THEREFOR; THE ALLOWANCE FOR
RISK INCURRED; AND ENOUGH MORE TO ATTRACT CAPITAL."  SOUTHWESTERN BELL
TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SUPRA, 262 U.S. AT P. 291. 
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE RETURN MAY BE ON "FAIR VALUE," IF THE RATE
PERMITS THE COMPANY TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY AND TO ATTRACT CAPITAL ALL
QUESTIONS AS TO "JUST AND REASONABLE" ARE AT AN END SO FAR AS THE
INVESTOR INTEREST IS CONCERNED.  VARIOUS ROUTES TO THAT END MAY BE
WORKED OUT BY THE EXPERT ADMINISTRATORS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF
REGULATION.  IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURTS TO PRESCRIBE WHAT
FORMULA SHOULD BE USED.  THE FACT THAT ONE MAY BE FAIR TO INVESTORS
DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANOTHER WOULD BE UNFAIR.  THE DECISION IN EACH CASE
MUST TURN ON CONSIDERATIONS OF JUSTNESS AND FAIRNESS WHICH CANNOT BE
CAST INTO A LEGALISTIC FORMULA.  THE RATE OF RETURN TO BE ALLOWED IN
ANY GIVEN CASE CALLS FOR A HIGHLY EXPERT JUDGMENT.  THAT JUDGMENT HAS
BEEN ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION.  THERE IT SHOULD REST. 

ONE CAVEAT, HOWEVER, SHOULD BE ENTERED.  THE CONSUMER INTEREST CANNOT
BE DISREGARDED IN DETERMINING WHAT IS A "JUST AND REASONABLE" RATE. 
CONCEIVABLY, A RETURN TO THE COMPANY OF THE COST OF THE SERVICE MIGHT
NOT BE "JUST AND REASONABLE" TO THE PUBLIC.  THE CORRECT PRINCIPLE WAS
ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT IN COVINGTON & LEXINGTON TURNPIKE CO. V.
SANDFORD, 164 U.S. 578, 596:  "IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A CORPORATION IS
ENTITLED, AS OF RIGHT, AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE
PUBLIC, TO REALIZE A GIVEN PER CENT UPON ITS CAPITAL STOCK.  WHEN THE
QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE HAS EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER IN PRESCRIBING RATES TO BE CHARGED BY A CORPORATION CONTROLLING A
PUBLIC HIGHWAY, STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE RIGHTS OR
INTERESTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED.  THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC ARE NOT TO BE
IGNORED.  IT IS ALLEGED HERE THAT THE RATES PRESCRIBED ARE UNREASONABLE
AND UNJUST TO THE COMPANY AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  BUT THAT INVOLVES AN
INQUIRY AS TO WHAT IS REASONABLE AND JUST FOR THE PUBLIC.  IF THE
ESTABLISHING OF NEW LINES OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD CAUSE A DIMINUTION
IN THE NUMBER OF THOSE WHO NEED TO USE A TURNPIKE ROAD, AND,
CONSEQUENTLY, A DIMINUTION IN THE TOLLS COLLECTED, THAT IS NOT, IN
ITSELF, A SUFFICIENT REASON WHY THE CORPORATION, OPERATING THE ROAD,
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN RATES THAT WOULD BE UNJUST TO THOSE WHO
MUST OR DO USE ITS PROPERTY.  THE PUBLIC CANNOT PROPERLY BE SUBJECTED
TO UNREASONABLE RATES IN ORDER SIMPLY THAT STOCKHOLDERS MAY EARN
DIVIDENDS."  CF. CHICAGO & GRAND TRUNK RY. CO. V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S.
339, 345-346; UNITED GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123, 150-151. 

THIS PROBLEM CARRIES INTO A FIELD NOT NECESSARY TO DEVELOP HERE.  IT
REEMPHASIZES, HOWEVER, THAT THE INVESTOR INTEREST IS NOT THE SOLE
INTEREST FOR PROTECTION.  THE INVESTOR AND CONSUMER INTERESTS MAY SO
COLLIDE AS TO WARRANT THE RATE-MAKING BODY IN CONCLUDING THAT A RETURN
ON HISTORICAL COST OR PRUDENT INVESTMENT, THOUGH FAIR TO INVESTORS,
WOULD BE GROSSLY UNFAIR TO THE CONSUMERS.  THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT
COLLISION REINFORCES THE VIEW THAT THE PROBLEM OF RATE-MAKING IS FOR
THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTS, NOT THE COURTS, AND THAT THE EX POST FACTO
FUNCTION PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED BY THE COURTS SHOULD BE REDUCED TO THE
BAREST MINIMUM WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY MANDATE FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THAT REVIEW SHOULD BE AS CONFINED AND RESTRICTED AS
THE REVIEW, UNDER SIMILAR STATUTES, OF ORDERS OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES. 

FN1  SOME OF THESE CASES AROSE UNDER THE FIFTH, SOME UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH, AMENDMENT.  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502(STATE STATUTE
AUTHORIZING A MILK CONTROL BOARD TO FIX MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RETAIL
PRICES FOR MILK); MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38(FEDERAL STATUTE
IMPOSING PENALTIES ON TOBACCO AUCTION WAREHOUSEMEN FOR MARKETING
TOBACCO IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED QUOTA); UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO
OP., 307 U.S. 533(FEDERAL STATUTE AUTHORIZING SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID PRODUCERS FOR MILK SOLD TO DEALERS);
SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381(FEDERAL STATUTE AUTHORIZING
BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION TO FIX MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRICES FOR
BITUMINOUS COAL); UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100(FEDERAL STATUTE
FIXING MINIMUM WAGES (AND MAXIMUM HOURS) FOR EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE); OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313
U.S. 236(STATE STATUTE FIXING MAXIMUM COMPENSATION TO BE COLLECTED BY
PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES). 

FN2  SEE POLK COMPANY V. GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5, 12-19.  CF. CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 235-238. 

FN3  "AS THE DECISIONS NOW STAND, I SEE HARDLY ANY LIMIT BUT THE SKY
TO THE INVALIDATING OF THOSE RIGHTS IF THEY HAPPEN TO STRIKE A MAJORITY
OF THIS COURT AS FOR ANY REASON UNDESIRABLE."  BALDWIN V. MISSOURI 281
U.S. 586, 595. 

FN4  TO HOLD THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO AND DID
PROVIDE PROTECTION FROM STATE INVASIONS OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND
OTHER CLEARLY DEFINED PROTECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR CO., 312 U.S. 287, 301-302, IS QUITE
DIFFERENT FROM HOLDING THAT "DUE PROCESS," AN HISTORICAL EXPRESSION
RELATING TO PROCEDURE, CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, CONFERS A BROAD
JUDICIAL POWER TO INVALIDATE ALL LEGISLATION WHICH SEEMS "UNREASONABLE"
TO COURTS.  IN THE ONE INSTANCE, COURTS PROCEEDING WITHIN CLEARLY
MARKED CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES SEEK TO EXECUTE POLICIES WRITTEN INTO
THE CONSTITUTION; IN THE OTHER, THEY ROAM AT WILL IN THE LIMITLESS AREA
OF THEIR OWN BELIEFS AS TO REASONABLENESS AND ACTUALLY SELECT POLICIES,
A RESPONSIBILITY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION ENTRUSTS TO THE LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. 

FN5  MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., SUPRA. 

FN6  "THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC UTILITY AND THE COMMUNITY
CANNOT BE EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF A SIMPLE, QUANTITATIVELY ASCERTAINABLE
FACT, FOR THE RELATION INVOLVES NUMEROUS AND COMPLEX FACTORS WHICH
DEPEND ON COMPROMISE AND PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENT RATHER THAN ON DEDUCTIVE
LOGIC.  THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF SMYTH V. AMES RESTS UPON A GIGANTIC
ILLUSION.  THE FACT WHICH FOR TWENTY YEARS THE COURT HAS BEEN VAINLY
TRYING TO FIND DOES NOT EXIST.  'FAIR VALUE' MUST BE SHELVED AMONG THE
GREAT JURISTIC MYTHS OF HISTORY, WITH THE LAW OF NATURE AND THE SOCIAL
CONTRACT.  AS A PRACTICAL CONCEPT, FROM WHICH PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CAN
BE DRAWN, IT IS VALUELESS."  HENDERSON, RAILWAY VALUATION AND THE
COURTS, 33 HARV. L. REV. 1031, 1051. 

FN7  "SUCH VALUATION PROCEEDINGS, AS HERETOFORE CONDUCTED, ARE
EXCESSIVELY COSTLY, REQUIRE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, AFFECT ADVERSELY THE
CORPORATION'S CREDIT, INTERFERE WITH ITS FINANCING UPON FAVORABLE
TERMS, AND FREQUENTLY CAUSE THE POSTPONEMENT OF EXTENSIONS AND
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GREAT DETRIMENT OF THE PUBLIC.  UNLESS AND UNTIL
THERE IS SOME CHANGE IN THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES WHICH MUST BE APPLIED IN
DETERMINING FAIR VALUE, HOWEVER, THE INDUSTRY CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THIS
SITUATION."  REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON VALUATION, AMERICAN ELECTRIC
RAILWAY ASSOC., 1924, P. 20. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

I WHOLLY AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 

CONGRESS HAS IN THE NATURAL GAS ACT SPECIFICALLY CAST UPON COURTS THE
DUTY TO REVIEW ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FIXING "JUST AND
REASONABLE" RATES.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF RATE
ORDERS WHERE CONGRESS HAS DENIED JUDICIAL REVIEW IS THEREFORE NOT IN
ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM IS ACADEMIC, ESPECIALLY
SINCE WE ALL CONCUR IN THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S CONCLUSIONS ON THE RATE
ORDER HERE MADE BY THE COMMISSION.  BUT SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN
STIRRED, I ADD A FEW WORDS BECAUSE LEGAL HISTORY STILL HAS ITS CLAIMS. 

WHILE THE DOCTRINE OF "CONFISCATION," AS A LIMITATION TO BE ENFORCED
BY THE JUDICIARY UPON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO FIX UTILITY RATES, WAS
FIRST APPLIED IN CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 134 U.S.
418, THAT DECISION FOLLOWED PRINCIPLES EXPOUNDED IN STONE V. FARMERS'
LOAN & TRUST CO., 116 U.S. 307, ESPECIALLY AT 331.  SEE 134 U.S. AT 455
56.  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, WHO DELIVERED THE OPINION IN THE STONE
CASE AS WELL AS IN THE EARLIER DECISION IN MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S.
113, WAS THEREFORE THE AUTHOR OF THE DOCTRINE OF "CONFISCATION" AND ITS
COROLLARY, "JUDICIAL REVIEW."  HIS VIEW WAS SHARED BY SUCH STOUT
RESPECTERS OF LEGISLATIVE POWER OVER UTILITIES AS MR. JUSTICE MILLER
(SEE FAIRMAN, MR. JUSTICE MILLER AND THE SUPREME COURT, PASSIM), MR.
JUSTICE BRADLEY (SEE HIS DISSENT IN CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 134 U.S. 418, 461), AND MR. JUSTICE HARLAN.  THE LATTER,
INDEED, AGREED WITH MR. JUSTICE FIELD THAT THE REGULATORY POWER
EXERCISED IN THE RAILROAD COMMISSION CASES, 116 U.S. 307, CONSTITUTED
AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT.  BY NO ONE WAS THE
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW MORE EMPHATICALLY ACCEPTED, AND APPLIED IN
FAVOR OF A PUBLIC UTILITY, THAN BY MR. JUSTICE HARLAN IN THE DECISION
AND OPINION IN COVINGTON & LEXINGTON TURNPIKE CO. V. SANDFORD, 164 U.S.
578, ESPECIALLY AT 591-95. 

BUT WHILE THIS HISTORIC CONTROVERSY OVER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS UPON THE POWER OF COURTS IN RATE CASES IS NOT PRESENTED
HERE, IF IT BE DEEMED THAT COURTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RATE-MAKING
BECAUSE THAT TASK WAS COMMITTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE COMMISSION, SURELY
IT IS A USURPATION OF THE COMMISSION'S FUNCTION TO TELL IT HOW IT
SHOULD DISCHARGE THIS TASK AND HOW IT SHOULD PROTECT THE VARIOUS
INTERESTS THAT ARE DEEMED TO BE IN ITS, AND NOT IN OUR, KEEPING. 
..END :














PUERTO RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., 315 U.S. 610 


NO. 95.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 4, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1942.  - 118
F.2D 225, AFFIRMED. 


IN AID OF THE OPERATION OF AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ON A STREAM IN
PUERTO RICO, THE INSULAR COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERIOR MADE CONTRACTS
WITH A COMPANY OWNING RIGHTS TO DIVERT WATER FROM THE STREAM FOR THE
IRRIGATION OF LANDS NOT EMBRACED IN THE DISTRICT, WHEREBY, IN
CONSIDERATION OF A SUSPENSION OF THE COMPANY'S WATER RIGHTS IN CERTAIN
PARTICULARS, THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT UNDERTOOK TO DELIVER TO IT AT ITS
INTAKES SPECIFIED QUANTITIES OF WATER REGULARLY, AS THE FAIR EQUIVALENT
OF THE RIGHTS SUSPENDED.  HELD, THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAD STATUTORY
AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CONTRACTS AND THAT A LATER STATUTE WHICH SOUGHT
TO RECOUP PART OF THE COST OF MAINTAINING AND OPERATING THE DISTRICT
SYSTEM BY IMPOSING ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS, ERRONEOUSLY CALLED "TAXES," ON
THE COMPANY'S LANDS, IMPAIRED THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACTS IN
VIOLATION OF THE INSULAR ORGANIC ACT.  P. 616. 

PUERTO RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., S. EN C. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 589, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH, REVERSING A
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, 56 P.R. DEC. 343,
REINSTATED A JUDGMENT OF THE INSULAR DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY PUERTO RICO TO RECOVER SUMS CLAIMED
AS TAXES.  FOR EARLIER PHASES SEE, 21 F.2D 1012; 60 F.2D 10; 288 U.S.
476. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER A STATUTE OF PUERTO RICO IMPAIRS
THE OBLIGATION OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE ISLAND'S
ORGANIC LAW.  FN1 

THE RESPONDENT'S PREDECESSOR IN TITLE, FORTUNA ESTATES, AS OWNER OR
LESSEE OF LANDS ADJACENT TO THE JACAGUAS RIVER, ENJOYED UNDER SPANISH
LAW, AND RESPONDENT, AS SUCCESSOR, STILL ENJOYS, RIGHTS APPURTENANT TO
THE LANDS TO DRAW FROM THE RIVER 12,612.1 ACRE-FEET OF WATER PER YEAR
FOR IRRIGATION. 

PUERTO RICO ADOPTED A LAW IN 1908  FN2  WHICH AUTHORIZED AN
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AS PART OF WHICH A DAM WAS TO BE ERECTED IN JACAGUAS
RIVER ABOVE FORTUNA'S INTAKES.  FORTUNA'S LANDS WERE NOT WITHIN OR A
PART OF THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT.  ALTHOUGH THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM
WOULD INTERFERE WITH FORTUNA'S WATER RIGHTS, THEY WERE NOT CONDEMNED,
AS THE STATUTE PERMITTED, NOR WERE THEY VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED. 

BY AN AMENDATORY LAW ADOPTED IN 1913,  FN3  IT WAS PROVIDED:  "IN THE
CASE OF ANY LAND CARRYING A WATER RIGHT OR CONCESSION OF WHICH THE
SOURCE OF SUPPLY IS DESTROYED OR IMPAIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OR
OPERATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, WHICH SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN
RELINQUISHED OR SURRENDERED TO THE PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, SUCH LAND
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AN AMOUNT OF
WATER WHICH IS THE REASONABLE EQUIVALENT IN VALUE OF THE SAID WATER
RIGHT OR CONCESSION."  THIS ACT EMPOWERED THE COMMISSIONER OF THE
INTERIOR TO MAKE AGREEMENTS WITH HOLDERS OF SUCH RIGHTS, FIXING THE
AMOUNT, AND THE TIME, PLACE, AND CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY, OF WATER TO BE
RECEIVED AS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE RIGHTS SUSPENDED. 

IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS AUTHORITY THE COMMISSIONER EXECUTED CONTRACTS
WITH FORTUNA WHICH CALLED FOR THE SUSPENSION OF ITS RIGHTS APPURTENANT
TO TWO LARGE TRACTS DURING THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACTS AND ASSURED
DELIVERY OF A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF WATER AT FORTUNA'S INTAKES AS THE
FAIR EQUIVALENT OF THE RIGHTS SUSPENDED. 

EACH CONTRACT ENUMERATED THE RIGHTS TO TAKE WATER APPURTENANT TO A
DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND WHICH WOULD BE IMPAIRED OR INTERRUPTED BY THE
OPERATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM; RECITED THAT THE AMOUNT OF WATER
TAKEN BY FORTUNA UNDER ITS RIGHTS VARIED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, DUE TO
DIFFERENCES IN RAINFALL, SO THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE IN
ADVANCE THE AMOUNT OF WATER TO WHICH IT WOULD BE ENTITLED IN ANY GIVEN
PERIOD; AND THAT PORTO RICO WAS WILLING TO DELIVER FROM THE JACAGUAS
RIVER THE WATER TO WHICH FORTUNA WAS ENTITLED, BUT, IN ORDER TO MAKE
THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM MORE CERTAIN, DESIRED TO AGREE UPON A FIXED
AND REGULAR AMOUNT WHICH SHOULD BE RECEIVED BY FORTUNA AS THE FAIR
EQUIVALENT IN VALUE FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES OF THE WATER IT WOULD
ORDINARILY TAKE AND USE UNDER ITS EXISTING RIGHTS. 

THE CONTRACT THEN STATED THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AS TO THE
QUANTITIES OF WATER WHICH, DELIVERED IN EQUAL DAILY INSTALMENTS, WERE
TO BE CONSIDERED SUCH FAIR EQUIVALENTS AND THE PETITIONER COVENANTED TO
DELIVER THESE QUANTITIES TO FORTUNA.  IT WAS ALSO AGREED THAT FORTUNA
MIGHT EXERCISE ITS PREEXISTING RIGHTS FOR TEN DAYS IN EACH YEAR TO
PREVENT THEIR LOSS BY NON-USER. 

UNDER THE IRRIGATION LAW, LANDS IN A DISTRICT WERE SUBJECTED TO A
UNIFORM ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PER ACRE TO DISCHARGE THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM.  SALES WERE
ALSO MADE OF SURPLUS WATERS AND THE PROCEEDS USED FOR MAINTENANCE. 

SHORTLY AFTER THE CONTRACTS WERE MADE, A CONTROVERSY AROSE BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO PUERTO RICO'S RIGHT TO SELL
SURPLUS WATERS.  LITIGATION ENSUED WHICH TERMINATED IN A DECREE
RESTRAINING THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT FROM DIVERTING CERTAIN SURPLUS
WATERS TO WHICH THE RESPONDENT WAS HELD TO BE ENTITLED UNDER THE
CONTRACTS.  THE DECISION ALSO UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACTS. 
FN4 

THEREUPON THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED, JULY 8, 1921, "AN ACT FIXING A TAX
ON CERTAIN LANDS USING WATER FROM THE SOUTHERN COAST PUBLIC IRRIGATION
SYSTEM, ON WHICH LANDS NO TAX WHATEVER WAS LEVIED UNDER THE PUBLIC
IRRIGATION LAW, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."  FN5  THIS IS THE STATUTE
ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH IS ASSERTED TO IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THE
CONTRACTS.  BY THIS ACT A SPECIAL TAX IS IMPOSED ON ALL LANDS SUPPLIED
WHICH, UNDER EXISTING LAW, CONTRIBUTE NOTHING TO THE EXPENSE OF THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM.  THE TREASURER OF PUERTO RICO IS DIRECTED TO
COMPUTE THE TAX BY FINDING THE AGGREGATE ACREAGE RECEIVING WATER FROM
THE SYSTEM INCLUDING LANDS, LIKE THOSE OF RESPONDENT, OUTSIDE THE
DISTRICT BUT RECEIVING THE EQUIVALENTS OF THEIR PREEXISTING RIGHTS
UNDER CONTRACTS.  HE IS TO ASSESS A PRORATA SHARE OF THE TOTAL EXPENSE
AGAINST THE LANDS OF RESPONDENT AND OTHERS SIMILARLY CIRCUMSTANCED. 
THE ACT, AS IS ADMITTED, WAS AIMED ONLY AT THOSE WHO, LIKE RESPONDENT,
HAD CONTRACTED FOR THE RECEIPT OF WATER IN LIEU OF THAT TO WHICH THEY
WERE OF RIGHT ENTITLED AND WHOSE LANDS WERE NOT A PART OF THE
IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 

ACTION WAS INSTITUTED BY PETITIONER IN AN INSULAR COURT FOR THE
RECOVERY OF SEVERAL YEARS TAXES SO IMPOSED.  FN6  THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WHERE A MOTION TO REMAND WAS
DENIED AND A JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR THE RESPONDENT ON THE MERITS.  THE
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT,  FN7  BUT WAS REVERSED BY THIS COURT FOR WANT OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP ON WHICH JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS DEPENDED.  FN8 

AFTER REMAND, THE CASE WAS TRIED IN THE INSULAR DISTRICT COURT AND
THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED ON THE MERITS, ON THE GROUND THAT ACT NO.
49, OF 1921, WAS AN INVALID IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE 1914
CONTRACTS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO REVERSED AND RENDERED
JUDGMENT FOR THE PETITIONER.  FN9  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN TURN
REVERSED AND REINSTATED THE JUDGMENT OF THE INSULAR DISTRICT COURT. 
FN10  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, AS THE CASE PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
ARISING UNDER THE INSULAR ORGANIC ACT.  WE HOLD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT. 

BY THE ACT OF 1908,  FN11  THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO UNDERTOOK THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM.  THIS NECESSITATED THE
ERECTION OF A DAM FOR IMPOUNDING AND STORAGE OF PART OF THE WATERS OF
THE JACAGUAS RIVER ABOVE THE RESPONDENT'S INTAKES, AND THE CREATION OF
AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT.  THE STATUTE RECOGNIZED THE NECESSITY OF
PROVIDING A METHOD FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHTS OF RIPARIAN OWNERS
WHOSE LAND LAY BELOW THE DAM.  SECTION 12 AUTHORIZED THE CONDEMNATION
OF EXISTING WATER RIGHTS AND THE PAYMENT OF THEIR FAIR VALUE TO THE
OWNERS.  BY THE AMENDATORY ACT OF 1913, THE OWNERS OF LANDS WHICH FELL
WITHIN THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT COULD RELEASE THEIR PREEXISTING RIGHTS,
HAVE THEM VALUED, AND BE PAID THE VALUE BY CREDITS AGAINST THEIR
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE EXPENSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF
THE SYSTEM.  FN12  BY SEC. 13, OWNERS OF LANDS HAVING WATER RIGHTS,
WHOSE SOURCE OF SUPPLY WOULD BE DESTROYED OR IMPAIRED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM, WHO HAD NOT SURRENDERED OR
RELINQUISHED THEIR RIGHTS, WERE DECLARED ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM THE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM AN AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH WOULD BE THE REASONABLE
EQUIVALENT IN VALUE OF THE RIGHT OR CONCESSION SO DESTROYED OR
IMPAIRED.  THE COMMISSIONER WAS AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS TO
THIS END WITH SUCH OWNERS. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT WAS THOUGHT THAT LANDS SUCH AS THOSE OF THE
RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT.  IT IS
IDLE TO SPECULATE CONCERNING THE REASONS FOR THIS DECISION, THOUGH IT
IS CLEAR THAT IN ORDER TO REALIZE THE GOVERNMENT'S PURPOSE IT WAS
DEEMED NECESSARY TO REACH AN ACCOMMODATION CONCERNING PREEXISTING VALID
WATER RIGHTS OF LAND OWNERS WHOSE LANDS COULD NOT OR SHOULD NOT BE
INCLUDED IN THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT.  IN THE CASE OF SUCH PERSONS THE
PURPOSE WAS TO SUBSTITUTE A FAIR EQUIVALENT FOR THE RIGHTS THERETOFORE
EXERCISED.  SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT OFFERED MUTUAL ADVANTAGES TO PUERTO
RICO AND TO THE OWNERS.  WHEREAS FORTUNA HAD, PRIOR TO THE ERECTION OF
THE DAM, THE RIGHT TO TAKE OVER 12,000 ACREFEET OF WATER PER YEAR FOR
IRRIGATION, A PROPORTION OF SURPLUS WATERS, AND CERTAIN TORRENTIAL
WATERS, THE SUPPLY WAS UNEVEN AND UNCERTAIN DUE TO THE IRREGULARITY OF
RAINFALL.  IT WAS, THEREFORE, AN ADVANTAGE TO THE RESPONDENT'S
PREDECESSOR TO SURRENDER ITS MAXIMUM RIGHTS IN CONSIDERATION OF AN
AGREEMENT THAT THERE SHOULD BE DELIVERED TO IT, EQUALLY AND EVENLY
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, SOMETHING LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM IT WAS ENTITLED TO
TAKE UNDER PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS AN
ADVANTAGE TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGED AT ANY
TIME TO DEPLETE ITS STORAGE WATERS BY FURNISHING THE RESPONDENT THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH, IF THE WATER WERE AVAILABLE, IT WAS ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE. 

THE INSULAR SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE EXACTION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY
THE CONTRACTS, AND WORKS NO IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR OBLIGATION.  IT HELD
THE EXACTION IS A TAX; THAT THE RIGHTS WHICH THE RESPONDENT OWNED PRIOR
TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WERE TAXABLE, AND THAT THE
PRIVILEGES IT ENJOYS UNDER THE CONTRACT ARE EQUALLY SO; THAT THE
CONTRACT CONTAINS NO COVENANT NOT TO TAX THESE RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES
AND, IF IT DID, IT WOULD BE BEYOND THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER.  WE
CANNOT AGREE. 

THE ASSESSMENT CONTEMPLATED BY ACT NO. 49 OF 1921 IS NOT A GENERAL
TAX LAID FOR THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT UPON A PROPERTY RIGHT OR A
FRANCHISE.  THIS IS EXPRESSLY ADMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN BRIEF AND
IN ORAL ARGUMENT.  IN THE BRIEF IT IS SAID:  "THE SPECIAL TAXES OR
ASSESSMENTS HERE IN QUESTION, IF AND WHEN COLLECTED, WILL SIMPLY ACCRUE
TO THE SPECIAL FUND FOR THE CURRENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, AND THUS SERVE ONLY TO LOWER THE ASSESSMENTS UPON
OTHER LANDS NOW TAXED FOR SUCH OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.  THE INSULAR
TREASURY CAN DERIVE NO DIRECT BENEFIT."  AND, IN ORAL ARGUMENT, COUNSEL
FOR PETITIONER FRANKLY CONCEDED THAT THE MONEY TO BE RAISED IS NOT
TAXES IN ANY WAY BUT MERELY AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT'S LAND
FOR THE COST OF DELIVERING THE WATER.  IF PUERTO RICO HAD ESSAYED TO
TAX RESPONDENT'S LANDS OR ITS WATER RIGHTS BY A GENERAL LAW, QUITE
DISTINCT QUESTIONS WOULD ARISE WHICH WE NEED NOT DISCUSS. 

TREATED AS AN ASSESSMENT OF PART OF THE COST OF MAINTENANCE OF THE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, THE PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE EXACTION DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE OBLIGATION OF THE 1914 CONTRACTS.  IT ASSERTS THAT THE
AGREEMENTS WERE ONLY THAT A GIVEN AMOUNT OF WATER WOULD BE RELEASED, OR
MADE AVAILABLE, OR ALLOTTED TO RESPONDENT AND THEREFORE THE PEOPLE OF
PUERTO RICO ARE FREE TO CHARGE TO RESPONDENT THE COST OF DELIVERING THE
WATER; AND, FURTHER, THAT IF THE CONTRACTS, BY THEIR TERMS, PRECLUDED
THE IMPOSITION UPON THE RESPONDENT OF THIS COST THEY ARE BEYOND THE
POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER. 

INTO AGREEMENTS WITH SUCH OWNER OR OWNERS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF WATER AND
THE TIME, PLACE AND CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY THEREOF, WHICH SHALL BE
DELIVERED TO THE LANDS TO WHICH THE SAID WATER RIGHTS OR CONCESSIONS
ARE APPURTENANT AS THE FAIR EQUIVALENT IN VALUE THEREOF,  ...  "  WE
THINK IT EVIDENT FROM THIS LANGUAGE THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS NOT
LIMITED TO AGREEING TO ALLOT TO THE LAND-OWNER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
WATER, BUT WAS EMPOWERED TO STIPULATE THAT AT CERTAIN TIMES HE WOULD
CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED, AT SPECIFIED PLACES, THE WATER WHICH RESPONDENT
WAS TO RECEIVE AS THE EQUIVALENT OF THAT WHICH IT HAD FORMERLY BEEN
ENTITLED TO TAKE AT ITS INTAKES ALONG THE RIVER.  THAT THE COMMISSIONER
SO CONSTRUED HIS AUTHORITY IS PLAIN FROM THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS. 

EACH CONTRACT DESCRIBES THE RIGHTS APPURTENANT TO THE LANDS IN
QUESTION, ACKNOWLEDGES THEIR VALIDITY, STATES THE AMOUNTS OF WATER THE
RESPONDENT'S PREDECESSOR IS ENTITLED TO TAKE, AND, IN CONSIDERATION OF
THE MUTUAL COVENANTS OF THE PARTIES, STIPULATES "THAT THE QUANTITIES OF
WATER SPECIFIED" IN THE AGREEMENT, "DELIVERED UNIFORMLY THROUGH THE
YEAR, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THIS AGREEMENT,
...  ARE THE FAIR EQUIVALENT IN VALUE OF THE WATER WHICH THE SAID
FORTUNA ESTATES TAKES UNDER AND PURSUANT TO THE CONCESSIONS AND WATER
RIGHTS CLAIMED BY IT, AND THE PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO WILL, SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED AND AT THE TIMES,
PLACES AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY HEREINAFTER PROVIDED
FOR, MAKE DELIVERY" OF THE AMOUNTS OF WATER SPECIFIED IN THE
AGREEMENT.  EACH CONTRACT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT "THE PEOPLE OF PORTO
RICO WILL DELIVER THE SAID WATER AS FOLLOWS."  ONE AGREEMENT COVENANTS
THAT THE WATER DELIVERABLE FOR SOME OF THE TRACTS SHALL BE AT THE
INTAKES PROVIDED BY THE OWNER, AND THAT WATER DELIVERABLE TO ANOTHER
TRACT SHALL IN PART BE DELIVERABLE AT SUCH AN INTAKE AND IN PART AT A
PUMPING STATION ON THE BANK OF THE RIVER.  THE RIGHT IS RESERVED, UPON
NOTICE BY THE PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, TO CHANGE THE PLACE OF DELIVERY OF
CERTAIN OF THE WATER.  IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IF DELIVERY AT THE
POINTS DESIGNATED IS TEMPORARILY INTERRUPTED, PORTO RICO WILL DELIVER
AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF WATER AT SOME OTHER POINT.  IT IS AGREED THAT
THE PRESENCE OF WATER IN THE RIVER BED AT THE OPENING OF THE DESCRIBED
INTAKES, SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT THE OWNER TO TAKE THE QUANTITIES
SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT, SHALL BE DEEMED A DELIVERY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONTRACT.  A CLAUSE PROVIDES THAT SHOULD THE OWNER
DESIRE TO TAKE WATER FOR CERTAIN OF THE TRACTS AT PLACES OTHER THAN THE
PRESENT INTAKES, PORTO RICO WILL DELIVER THE WATER AT SUCH OTHER PLACES
BUT THAT "ALL EXTRA EXPENSES OCCASIONED BY SUCH DELIVERY SHALL BE BORNE
BY" THE OWNER. 

THE OBLIGATION OF PORTO RICO TO DELIVER THE NAMED QUANTITIES IS
RECOGNIZED IN MANY CLAUSES OF THE CONTRACTS.  AS APPLIED TO THE
PETITIONER, THE WORD "DELIVER" APPEARS TEN TIMES IN EACH CONTRACT, THE
WORD "DELIVERY" NINE TIMES, AND THE WORD "DELIVERABLE" FOUR TIMES, IN
ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS.  FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE AGREEMENTS IT IS
CLEAR THAT, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE RIGHTS OF
FORTUNA, AND ITS SUCCESSOR, THE RESPONDENT, THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT
AGREED NOT MERELY TO ALLOT, BUT TO DELIVER, AT SPECIFIED PLACES,
CERTAIN QUANTITIES OF WATER.  PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACTS,
FORTUNA WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY IT ANY COST OR
EXPENSE FOR THE BRINGING OF THE WATER TO ITS INTAKES.  THE CONTRACT
CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES THAT IT IS TO BE UNDER NONE WITH RESPECT TO THE
WATER AGREED TO BE DELIVERED TO IT IN LIEU OF THAT WHICH IT FORMERLY
HAD THE RIGHT TO TAKE.  THIS FACT IS EMPHASIZED BY THE PROVISION THAT,
IF IT DESIRES DELIVERY AT OTHER PLACES THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE
CONTRACTS, IT SHALL BEAR THE EXPENSE ENTAILED BY THE CHANGE. 

THE DEFICIT IN THE MAINTENANCE COST OF THE SYSTEM WAS MET, FOR SOME
TIME, BY THE SALE OF SURPLUS WATER.  THE CONTRACT GIVES THE RESPONDENT
THE RIGHT TO A PORTION OF SUCH SURPLUS WATER OVER AND ABOVE THE
SPECIFIED AMOUNTS TO BE DELIVERED BY THE PETITIONER.  THE RESPONDENT
SUED TO ENJOIN THE PETITIONER FROM SELLING THE SURPLUS WATER TO WHICH
IT CLAIMED TO BE ENTITLED.  THE SUIT RESULTED IN AN INJUNCTION.  THE
GOVERNMENT BEING THUS DEPRIVED OF THE REVENUE THERETOFORE USED TOWARDS
THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM, ADOPTED THE ACT OF 1921 WITH THE EVIDENT
PURPOSE OF RECOUPING A PORTION OF THAT EXPENSE FROM THE RESPONDENT AND
OTHERS WITH WHOM IT HAD MADE CONTRACTS IN 1914 FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE
STIPULATED AMOUNT OF WATER TO THEM WITHOUT CHARGE THEREFOR.  THE
HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSED EXACTION WAS NOT A
GENERAL TAX BUT WAS AN EFFORT TO COLLECT FROM PERSONS WHOSE LAND WAS
NOT IN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM A PORTION OF THE EXPENSE OF MAINTAINING
THAT SYSTEM, WHEREAS THE CONTRACTS EXEMPTED THEM FROM CONTRIBUTING TO
SUCH COST AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING THE STIPULATED AMOUNT OF WATER
FROM THE SYSTEM.  THIS WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE
CONTRACTS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "NO LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS SHALL BE
ENACTED."  48 U.S.C. SEC. 737. 

FN2  ACT OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1908, LAWS OF PORTO RICO, 1909, P. 152. 

FN3  ACT OF AUGUST 8, 1913, LAWS OF PORTO RICO, 1914, P. 54, SEC.
13. 

FN4  PORTO RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., 268 F. 723. 

FN5  ACT 49 OF 1921, LAWS OF PORTO RICO, 1921, P. 366. 

FN6  THE PRECEDING LITIGATION AND THE NECESSITY FOR BRINGING ACTION
FOR THE TAX RATHER THAN PROCEEDING SUMMARILY WILL BE FOUND IN GALLARDO
V. HAVEMEYER, 21 F.2D 1012, AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF APRIL 23, 1928,
45 STAT. 447. 

FN7  60 F.2D 10. 

FN8  PUERTO RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., 288 U.S. 476. 

FN9  56 P.R. DEC. 343. 

FN10  118 F.2D 225. 

FN11  SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN12  SUPRA, NOTE 3. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

THERE WAS NO PROVISION WHATSOEVER IN THE GRANT OF THESE WATER RIGHTS
EXEMPTING THEM FROM ANY FORM OF TAXATION.  HENCE IF NO CONTRACT HAD
BEEN MADE AND THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND
RESPONDENT'S LANDS HAD BEEN SERVICED IN PRECISELY THE SAME WAY AS WAS
DONE HERE, I SHOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE NO DOUBT BUT THAT THE
ASSESSMENT WOULD BE VALID.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO RELIED FOR
THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ON SUCH CASES AS KNOWLES V. NEW SWEDEN
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 16 IDA.  217, 235, 101 P. 81, 87, AND BLEAKLEY V.
PRIEST RAPIDS IRRIGATION DIST., 168 WASH. 267, 11 P.2D 597.  THOSE
CASES HOLD THAT, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OWNER OF A WATER
RIGHT MAY BE BROUGHT INTO AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND FORCED TO PAY AN
ASSESSMENT.  AS STATED IN THE KNOWLES CASE (P. 241): 

"UNDER OUR IRRIGATION LAW AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DISTRICT AND THE ASSESSMENTS REFERRED TO WERE
MADE, IF THE LAND OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INCLUDED IN SAID
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, IT WAS SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT FOR BENEFITS,
PROVIDED IT RECEIVED ANY, WHETHER THE OWNER OF SAID LAND OWNED A WATER
RIGHT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH OR NOT; FOR A PERSON IN AN IRRIGATION
DISTRICT MAY RECEIVE CERTAIN BENEFITS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE OWNER
HAS A WATER RIGHT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH OR NOT." 

THE REASONS WHICH PERMIT THE OWNER OF A WATER RIGHT TO BE BROUGHT
INTO AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ARE EQUALLY COGENT HERE.  FOR, THE IMPACT
OF THIS ASSESSMENT IS NOT MORE RIGOROUS THAN THE ASSESSMENT ATTENDANT
ON MEMBERSHIP IN AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT.  IN FACT, IT IS LESS, SINCE
RESPONDENT IS BEING ASSESSED ONLY FOR A PRORATA SHARE OF THE COST OF
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM, NOT ITS CONSTRUCTION. 

IT WAS CLEAR AND UNDISPUTED THAT RESPONDENT OBTAINED SUBSTANTIAL
BENEFITS FROM THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.  (1) THE QUANTITY OF WATER
RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT FROM THE SYSTEM IS 19% LARGER THAN WHAT
PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN AVAILABLE FROM THE EARLIER LIMITED FLOW OF THE
RIVER.  (2) THE STORAGE RESERVOIR IMPOUNDS FLOOD WATERS WHICH WOULD BE
LARGELY LOST TO RESPONDENT.  THE DAM NOT ONLY INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF
WATER AVAILABLE BUT MAKES POSSIBLE REGULAR AND MORE CONTINUOUS
DELIVERIES OF THE WATER.  (3) THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM HAS TAPPED NEW
SOURCES OF WATER WHICH FEED THE RESERVOIR.  NO SEPARATION OF THAT
ADDITIONAL SUPPLY OF WATER FROM THE OLD SUPPLY IS POSSIBLE.  AS A
RESULT, RESPONDENT OBTAINS ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGES, ESPECIALLY IN DRY
YEARS.  (4) BY REASON OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, THE WATER IS AVAILABLE AT SEVERAL DIFFERENT
DISTRIBUTION POINTS THROUGH CANALS RATHER THAN AT THE RIVER BED ALONE. 

IN THAT POSTURE OF THE CASE, WE WOULD BE FACED WITH A DETERMINATION
BY THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO THAT RESPONDENT'S LANDS WERE
BENEFITED AND THAT RESPONDENT SHOULD PAY AN ASSESSMENT.  IT HAS LONG
BEEN HELD THAT SUCH A "DETERMINATION IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE OWNERS AND
THE COURTS."  SPENCER V. MERCHANT, 125 U.S. 345, 356.  AND SEE DAVIDSON
V. NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97; WALSTON V. NEVIN, 128 U.S. 578.  AS STATED
IN FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. BRADLEY, 164 U.S. 112, 176, 177,
"THE FACT OF THE AMOUNT OF BENEFITS IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF THAT ACCURATE
DETERMINATION WHICH APPERTAINS TO A DEMONSTRATION IN GEOMETRY"; THE
CHOICE OF METHODS EMPLOYED "IS ONE OF THOSE MATTERS OF DETAIL IN
ARRIVING AT THE PROPER AND FAIR AMOUNT AND PROPORTION OF THE TAX THAT
IS TO BE LEVIED ON THE LAND WITH REGARD TO THE BENEFITS IT HAS
RECEIVED, WHICH IS OPEN TO THE DISCRETION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND
WITH WHICH THIS COURT OUGHT TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO."  AND SEE FRENCH V.
BARBER ASPHALT PAVING CO., 181 U.S. 324; MILHEIM V. MOFFAT TUNNEL
IMPROVEMENT DIST., 262 U.S. 710, 721; ROBERTS V. RICHLAND IRRIGATION
DIST., 289 U.S. 71; CHESEBRO V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DIST.,
306 U.S. 459. 

THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONTRACTS DOES NOT CALL FOR A DIFFERENT RESULT. 
THE STATUTE IN QUESTION PROVIDED THAT OWNERS OF WATER RIGHTS, SUCH AS
RESPONDENT, "SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FROM THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AN
AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH IS THE REASONABLE EQUIVALENT IN VALUE OF THE SAID
WATER RIGHT OR CONCESSION."  THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERIOR WAS
AUTHORIZED "TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH SUCH OWNER OR OWNERS AS TO
THE AMOUNT OF WATER AND THE TIME, PLACE AND CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY
THEREOF, WHICH SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE LANDS TO WHICH THE SAID WATER
RIGHTS OR CONCESSIONS ARE APPURTENANT AS THE FAIR EQUIVALENT IN VALUE
THEREOF."  ACT NO. 128, SEC. 13, AUGUST 8, 1913, L. 1914, PP. 54-84. 
THE CONTRACTS, AS WELL AS THE STATUTE, SPEAK OF "DELIVERY" OF THE
WATER.  BUT THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO INTERPRETED THE CONTRACTS
AS MEANING THAT RESPONDENT "AGREED TO RECEIVE  FROM THE IRRIGATION
SYSTEM A CERTAIN QUANTITY OF WATER IN EXCHANGE" FOR ITS WATER RIGHTS. 
I DO NOT THINK THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION IS UNWARRANTED. 

(1)  THE CONTRACTS THEMSELVES MAKE PLAIN THAT, AS RESPECTS CERTAIN
INTAKES ON THE RIVER, "THE PRESENCE OF WATER IN THE RIVER BED  ...  IN
QUANTITIES SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT THE TAKING AT THE SAID INTAKES OF THE
AMOUNTS OF WATER SPECIFIED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE DELIVERIES."  THAT
PROVISION ALONE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO WAS
JUSTIFIED IN INTERPRETING "DELIVERY" IN THESE CONTRACTS DIFFERENTLY
THAN MIGHT BE WARRANTED IN CASE OF CONTRACTS FOR THE CARTAGE OF GOODS. 
"THE WORD 'DELIVER' HAS PERHAPS AS MANY DIFFERENT SHADES OF MEANING
ASCERTAINED BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AS ANY OTHER TERM KNOWN TO THE
LAW."  UNITED STATES V. MCCREADY, 11 F. 225, 234.  THE PROBLEMS OF
OPERATION OF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM ARE UNIQUE IN MANY RESPECTS. 
MANIPULATION OF THE GATES AT THE DAM DETERMINES THE FLOW OF WATER
THROUGH THE VARIOUS CHANNELS.  PUERTO RICO'S UNDERTAKING IN EACH
INSTANCE WAS TO "DELIVER" WATER AT SPECIFIED INTAKES PROVIDED BY
RESPONDENT.  THOSE INTAKES WERE IN THE RIVER OR IN DESIGNATED
RESERVOIRS PROVIDED BY RESPONDENT.  IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE
THAT PUERTO RICO'S UNDERTAKING WAS TO MAKE THE SPECIFIED QUANTITIES OF
WATER AVAILABLE SO THAT THEY WOULD BE RECEIVED AT THOSE INTAKES.  TO
ENFORCE THE PRESENT TAX IS NOT TO RENIG ON THAT UNDERTAKING.  THE FACT
THAT RESPONDENT WAS TO BEAR "ALL EXTRA EXPENSES" IN CASE WATER WAS
DELIVERED AT INTAKES OTHER THAN THE DESIGNATED ONES SEEMS TO ME HARDLY
MORE THAN A PROVISION THAT RESPONDENT WAS TO BEAR THE COST IN CASE THE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM HAD TO BE PARTIALLY RELOCATED TO MEET ITS
REQUIREMENTS.  IN ANY EVENT, IT DOES NO MORE THAN RAISE A DOUBT AS TO
THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT - A DOUBT WHICH, AS
SUBSEQUENTLY POINTED OUT, SHOULD NOT BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE POWER OF
PUERTO RICO TO IMPOSE THIS TAX. 

(2)  IT SEEMS TO ME TOLERABLY CLEAR THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CONTRACTS COMPORTS WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ARRANGEMENT.  THE CONTRACTS
STATE THAT PUERTO RICO, "IN ORDER TO FACILITATE AND MAKE MORE CERTAIN
THE OPERATION OF THE SAID DAM AND THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM OF WHICH IT IS
A PART, DESIRES TO DETERMINE AND AGREE UPON AN AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH,
DELIVERED REGULARLY, MAY, UNDER ALL ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES, BE
CONSIDERED TO BE FAIR EQUIVALENT IN VALUE FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES OF
THE AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH THE FORTUNA ESTATES WOULD UNDER ORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES TAKE AND USE UNDER THE SAID WATER RIGHTS AND
CONCESSIONS."  THE AMOUNT OF WATER ACTUALLY OBTAINED BY RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE DAM WAS ERECTED APPARENTLY FELL FAR BELOW THE AMOUNT TO
WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED UNDER THEIR WATER RIGHTS.  THE CONTRACTS WERE
DESIGNED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THAT LATTER THEORETICAL FIGURE ONE WHICH
WOULD REPRESENT A "FAIR EQUIVALENT IN VALUE FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSES" OF
THE AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH RESPONDENT WOULD "UNDER ORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES TAKE AND USE" UNDER ITS WATER RIGHTS.  FROM PUERTO RICO'S
POINT OF VIEW, SUCH A DETERMINATION WAS IMPORTANT SO THAT THE DEMANDS
ON THE DAM COULD BE REDUCED TO KNOWN REQUIREMENTS AND SO THAT THE
ERECTION OF THE DAM WOULD NOT RESULT IN A WINDFALL TO RESPONDENT.  THE
LATTER CERTAINLY WOULD TRANSPIRE IF THE DAM GAVE RESPONDENT AN AMOUNT
OF WATER WHICH IT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN ON ITS OWN WITHOUT THE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM.  THUS THE SPECIFICATION IN THE CONTRACTS OF THE
"FAIR EQUIVALENT" OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH RESPONDENT ORDINARILY
WOULD OBTAIN UNDER ITS WATER RIGHTS WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A
DETERMINATION OF THE THEN WORTH OF THE WATER RIGHTS IN TERMS OF ACRE
FEET OF WATER.  UNDER THAT VIEW, THE CONTRACTS DID NOT RAISE THE WATER
RIGHTS TO A HIGHER CONSTITUTIONAL DIGNITY THAN THEY PREVIOUSLY
ENJOYED. 

(3)  NO EXPRESS EXEMPTION FROM THIS FORM OF TAXATION IS TO BE FOUND
IN THE CONTRACTS.  IF THAT EXEMPTION EXISTS, IT IS IMPLIED.  BUT EVEN
THOUGH IT BE ASSUMED ARGUENDO THAT PUERTO RICO'S REPRESENTATIVE HAD THE
AUTHORITY CONSTITUTIONALLY TO BARGAIN AWAY ITS TAXING POWER, THE
EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT BE INFERRED.  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL STATED IN
PROVIDENCE BANK V. BILLINGS, 4 PET. 514, 561, THAT A RELINQUISHMENT OF
A POWER TO TAX "IS NEVER TO BE PRESUMED"; "ITS ABANDONMENT OUGHT NOT TO
BE PRESUMED, IN A CASE IN WHICH THE DELIBERATE PURPOSE OF THE STATE TO
ABANDON IT DOES NOT APPEAR."  IF THERE ARE DOUBTS, THEY MUST BE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT.  WELLS V. SAVANNAH, 181 U.S. 531;
CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY V. ILLINOIS, 188 U.S. 662; METROPOLITAN
STREET RY. CO. V. NEW YORK, 199 U.S. 1, 35-36.  AS STATED IN WELLS V.
SAVANNAH, SUPRA, PP. 539-540, A CONTRACT OF EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION
MUST "BE CLEARLY PROVED.  IT WILL NOT BE INFERRED FROM FACTS WHICH DO
NOT LEAD IRRESISTIBLY AND NECESSARILY TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE
CONTRACT.  THE FACTS PROVED MUST SHOW EITHER A CONTRACT EXPRESSED IN
TERMS, OR ELSE IT MUST BE IMPLIED FROM FACTS WHICH LEAVE NO ROOM FOR
DOUBT THAT SUCH WAS THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND THAT A VALID
CONSIDERATION EXISTED FOR THE CONTRACT.  IF THERE BE ANY DOUBT ON THESE
MATTERS, THE CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN AND THE EXEMPTION DOES NOT
EXIST."    THAT RULE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THIS SITUATION.  IT IS CLEAR
THAT RESPONDENT IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM,
EVEN THOUGH THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF WATER WHICH THE ERECTION OF THE
DAM ENABLED IT TO OBTAIN BE DISREGARDED.  THE MEANING OF THE WORD
"DELIVERY" AS USED IN THE CONTRACTS IS AT BEST AMBIGUOUS.  HENCE, WE
SHOULD STRICTLY ADHERE TO THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST EXEMPTION FROM
TAXATION.  TO RESOLVE ALL AMBIGUITIES IN THE CONTRACTS IN RESPONDENT'S
FAVOR AND AGAINST PUERTO RICO IS TO FORSAKE A CANON OF CONSTRUCTION
WHICH HAS LONG OBTAINED.   IN CONCLUSION, PUERTO RICO HAS NOT TREATED
RESPONDENT THE SAME AS LANDOWNERS WHO HAVE NO WATER RIGHTS.  THE LATTER
HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS WELL AS
FOR ITS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION.  RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS
MERELY REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE COST OF MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM.  ON THESE FACTS, THAT FAVORED TREATMENT IS
SUFFICIENT RESPECT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY RIGHTS. 
TO FREE IT FROM ALL BURDEN IS TO GIVE IT A WINDFALL.  ONLY UNDER THE
COMPULSION OF PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE SHOULD WE PERMIT A
BENEFICIARY OF SUCH A PROJECT TO ESCAPE HIS FAIR SHARE OF THE COSTS. 
THERE IS NO SUCH COMPULSION HERE.  HENCE WE SHOULD REFUSE TO LET THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE OF PUERTO RICO'S ORGANIC LAW PRODUCE AN INEQUITABLE,
UNFAIR, AND HARSH RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE BYRNES JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






SPRECKELS V. COMMISSIONER, 315 U.S. 626 


NOS. 581 AND 582.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 5, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1942. 
119 F.2D 667, AFFIRMED. 


SALES COMMISSIONS PAID BY A TAXPAYER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUYING
AND SELLING SECURITIES ON HIS OWN ACCOUNT ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS
ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES, UNDER SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1934, BUT ARE TO BE TREATED AS OFFSETS AGAINST SELLING PRICE RELEVANT
ONLY TO THE DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL LOSSES OR GAINS.  P. 627. 

IN ART. 282 OF T.R. 77, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AND ART. 24-2
OF T.R. 86, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, PROVIDING THAT COMMISSIONS
PAID IN SELLING SECURITIES ARE AN OFFSET AGAINST THE SELLING PRICE
"WHEN SUCH COMMISSIONS ARE NOT AN ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS
EXPENSE," THE QUALIFYING CLAUSE IS CONTROLLING ONLY IN THE CASE OF
DEALERS IN SECURITIES. 

SPRECKELS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 600, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A RULING OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 41 B.T.A. 1204. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DURING 1934 AND 1935, THE PETITIONER BOUGHT AND SOLD STOCKS, BONDS,
AND COMMODITIES.  IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALES, HE PAID SELLING
COMMISSIONS TO BROKERS, AND IN HIS BOOKS THESE COMMISSIONS WERE
DEDUCTED FROM SELLING PRICE BEFORE NET PROFIT OR LOSS WAS DETERMINED. 
IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1934 AND 1935, HE TREATED THE COMMISSIONS
SIMILARLY, NOT MAKING DEDUCTIONS FOR THEM AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY
BUSINESS EXPENSES.  IN 1939, HOWEVER, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS,  FN1  THE PETITIONER ASSERTED THAT HE
WAS ENTITLED TO TAX-REFUNDS, FOR THE REASON THAT HIS FAILURE TO MAKE
DEDUCTIONS FOR THE COMMISSIONS HAD RESULTED IN OVERPAYMENT IN BOTH
YEARS.  THE BOARD SUSTAINED HIS CONTENTION IN PART, HOLDING THAT THE
SELLING COMMISSIONS COULD PROPERLY HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AS ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES, THAT THE REFUND CLAIMED FOR 1935 SHOULD BE
ALLOWED, BUT THAT THE REFUND CLAIMED FOR 1934 WAS BARRED BY THE
APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  41 B.T.A. 1204.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS FOR SELLING
COMMISSIONS WERE NOT PERMISSIBLE, AND FINDING IT UNNECESSARY THEREFORE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE REFUND CLAIM FOR 1934 WAS TIMELY.  119 F.2D
667.  BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT IN DECISIONS OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL,
FN2  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION:  ARE SALES
COMMISSIONS, PAID BY A TAXPAYER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND
SELLING SECURITIES,  FN3  DEDUCTIBLE AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES
UNDER SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934,  FN4  OR ARE THEY TO BE
TREATED AS OFFSETS AGAINST SELLING PRICE, RELEVANT ONLY TO THE
DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL LOSSES OR GAINS? 

IN HELVERING V. WINMILL, 305 U.S. 79, WE HELD THAT A TAXPAYER WHO
BOUGHT AND SOLD SECURITIES COULD NOT DEDUCT THE COMMISSIONS PAID ON HIS
PURCHASES AS A BUSINESS EXPENSE.  ALTHOUGH THE WINMILL CASE AROSE UNDER
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS THERE
RELEVANT ARE IDENTICAL WITH THOSE AGAIN IN CONTROVERSY HERE.  AND THE
CONCLUSION WE REACHED THERE - THAT A GENERAL REGULATION  FN5
DESIGNATING "COMMISSIONS" AS ONE OF A LONG LIST OF DEDUCTIBLE BUSINESS
EXPENSES IS NOT CONTROLLING IN THE FACE OF A SPECIFIC REGULATION
PERTAINING TO COMMISSIONS ON SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS - IS EQUALLY
APPLICABLE HERE. 

THE SPECIFIC REGULATION PERTAINING TO SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS
PROVIDES: 

"COMMISSIONS PAID IN PURCHASING SECURITIES ARE A PART OF THE COST
PRICE OF SUCH SECURITIES.  COMMISSIONS PAID IN SELLING SECURITIES, WHEN
SUCH COMMISSIONS ARE NOT AN ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSE,
ARE AN OFFSET AGAINST THE SELLING PRICE.  ..."  FN6 

IF THERE IS ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR TREATING SALES COMMISSIONS
DIFFERENTLY FROM PURCHASE COMMISSIONS, IT MUST DEPEND UPON THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CLAUSE "WHEN SUCH COMMISSIONS ARE NOT AN ORDINARY
AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSE."  THIS CLAUSE FIRST APPEARED IN
TREASURY REGULATIONS 77, ACCOMPANYING THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  IN THE
INCOME TAX REGULATIONS PRIOR TO THAT TIME, IT WAS CONSISTENTLY
PRESCRIBED THAT COMMISSIONS PAID ON PURCHASES AND SALES OF SECURITIES
WERE TO BE TREATED AS PART OF THE COST OR SELLING PRICE AND WERE NOT
OTHERWISE TO BE DEDUCTIBLE.  FN7  AND IN HELVERING V. UNION PACIFIC
CO., 293 U.S. 282, 286, THIS COURT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THAT SUCH
COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN "CONSISTENTLY TREATED  ...  NOT AS ITEMS OF
CURRENT EXPENSE, BUT AS ADDITIONS TO THE COST OF THE PROPERTY OR
DEDUCTIONS FROM THE PROCEEDS OF SALE." 

WHAT, THEN, IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE QUALIFYING CLAUSE FIRST
APPEARING IN THE REGULATIONS OF 1932, AND WHAT EFFECT IS TO BE GIVEN TO
IT?  PRIOR TO THE FORMAL ADOPTION OF THE REGULATIONS OF 1932, THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE PERMITTED ONE EXCEPTION TO WHAT
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN AN OTHERWISE UNIFORM PRACTISE OF TREATING
COMMISSIONS ON THE SALES OF SECURITIES AS MERE OFFSETS AGAINST SELLING
PRICE.  THIS EXCEPTION WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE DEALER IN
SECURITIES, ONE WHO "AS A MERCHANT BUYS SECURITIES AND SELLS THEM TO
CUSTOMERS WITH A VIEW TO THE GAINS AND PROFITS THAT MAY BE DERIVED
THEREFROM."  FN8  IT REFLECTS THE VIEW THAT THERE ARE PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS OF ACCOUNTING CONVENIENCE WHICH MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT FOR
SUCH DEALERS, IN MANY INSTANCES, TO SET COMMISSIONS OFF AGAINST THE
PROCEEDS OF INDIVIDUAL SALES AS IT WOULD BE FOR THE MERCHANT OF OTHER
WARES TO TREAT HIS SELLING EXPENSES ONLY AS A SERIES OF SUBTRACTIONS
FROM THE SELLING PRICE REALIZED ON PARTICULAR ITEMS OF HIS STOCK.  FN9
INCORPORATION OF THE CLAUSE "WHEN SUCH COMMISSIONS ARE NOT AN ORDINARY
AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSE" WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FORMAL
RECOGNITION FOR AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS USAGE, BASED ON THE PECULIAR
NECESSITIES OF SECURITIES DEALERS, A USAGE TO WHICH THE COMMISSIONER
HAD ALREADY GIVEN INFORMAL ACQUIESCENCE.  FN10  FOR THE CASUAL BUYER
AND SELLER OF SECURITIES, OR EVEN FOR THE LARGE SCALE TRADER ON HIS OWN
ACCOUNT, AS HERE, THE PRACTICAL OBSTACLES TO TREATING SALES COMMISSIONS
AS OFFSETS AGAINST SELLING PRICE DO NOT EXIST.  IN THIS VERY CASE, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE TAXPAYER APPARENTLY FOUND IT MORE CONVENIENT TO FOLLOW
THIS METHOD IN KEEPING HIS OWN BUSINESS RECORDS. 

WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE CLAUSE "WHEN SUCH COMMISSIONS ARE NOT
AN ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSE" WAS INTENDED TO BE AND IS
CONTROLLING ONLY IN THE CASE OF SECURITIES DEALERS.  FN11  IN THE CASE
OF A TRADER ON HIS OWN ACCOUNT WHERE THERE ARE NO COMPELLING PRACTICAL
GROUNDS FOR TREATING SALES COMMISSIONS AS SUCH AN EXPENSE, WE FIND NO
PERSUASIVE REASON FOR DISTINGUISHING, UNDER THE STATUTE AND
REGULATIONS, BETWEEN SALES COMMISSIONS LIKE THOSE BEFORE US AND
PURCHASE COMMISSIONS LIKE THOSE OF THE WINMILL CASE.  THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT BELOW IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THESE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER
ISSUES, NOT RELEVANT HERE. 

FN2  WITH THE DECISION BELOW AND COMMISSIONER V. COVINGTON, 120 F.2D
768(C.C.A.5), COMPARE WINMILL V. COMMISSIONER, 93 F.2D 494(C.C.A.2),
AND NEUBERGER V. COMMISSIONER, 104 F.2D 649(C.C.A.2). 

FN3  ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT SOME OF THE COMMISSIONS
WERE PAID ON SALES OF COMMODITIES, IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD
THAT THE PETITIONER ASKED FOR SEPARATE TREATMENT OF THESE COMMISSIONS
BEFORE EITHER THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  NOR WAS SUCH SEPARATE TREATMENT REQUESTED BEFORE THIS COURT. 

FN4  48 STAT. 680, 688.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES: 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

"(A)  EXPENSES.  - ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR
INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS,
INCLUDING A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR SALARIES OR OTHER COMPENSATION FOR
PERSONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED.  ..." 

FN5  "AMONG THE ITEMS INCLUDED IN BUSINESS EXPENSES ARE  ...
COMMISSIONS  ...  ADVERTISING AND OTHER SELLING EXPENSES  ..."  ARTICLE
121 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 77, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932; ARTICLE
23(A)-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934. 

FN6  ARTICLE 282 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 77, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932; ARTICLE 24-2 OF REGULATIONS 86, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934. 

FN7  SEE, E.G., ARTICLE 8, PAR. 10 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 33,
REVISED, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916; ARTICLE 293 OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS 45, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918. 

FN8  SEE ARTICLE 22(C)-5 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1934. 

FN9  SEE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, G.C.M. 15430, XIV-2 CUM. BULL. 
59(1935). 

FN10  IBID. 

FN11  AS THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT IN ITS BRIEF, A DEALER'S TAX
LIABILITY UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1932 AND 1934 WOULD ORDINARILY HAVE
BEEN THE SAME WHETHER THE COMMISSIONS HE PAID ON SALES WERE TREATED AS
DEDUCTIBLE BUSINESS EXPENSES OR OFFSETS AGAINST SELLING PRICE.  FOR IN
GENERAL, HIS GAINS OR LOSSES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CAPITAL GAINS OR
LOSSES AS DEFINED IN THOSE ACTS.  SEE SEC. 101(C)(8) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 192; SEC. 117(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48
STAT. 680, 714. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :








CRANCER V. LOWDEN, 315 U.S. 631 


NO. 505.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 4, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1942.  - 121
F.2D 645, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN AN ACTION BY A CARRIER TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
CHARGES COLLECTED ON A SHIPMENT AND THE CHARGES WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN
COLLECTED UNDER THE TARIFF, WHERE THE QUESTION IS MERELY WHETHER THE
GOODS WERE OF SUCH CHARACTER AS TO COME WITHIN ONE TARIFF CATEGORY,
ALLOWING THE RATE PAID BY THE SHIPPER, OR ANOTHER CATEGORY EXACTING A
HIGHER RATE, AN OPINION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ON THE
SAME QUESTION OF CLASSIFICATION IN ANOTHER CASE MAY PROPERLY BE
ADMITTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS EVIDENCE OF THE MEANING AND
APPLICATION OF THE TARIFF.  P. 634. 

2.  IN SUCH AN ACTION IT IS NOT INCUMBENT UPON THE COURT TO AWAIT THE
OUTCOME OF A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES
PUTTING IN QUESTION THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES CHARGED BUT NOT THE
CLASSIFICATION OF THE GOODS.  P. 635. 

3.  A SHIPPER WHO IS OBLIGED IN AN ACTION BY THE CARRIER TO PAY
CHARGES WHICH CONFORM TO THE TARIFF BUT ARE UNREASONABLE HAS THE REMEDY
OF REPARATION IF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FINDS THE RATE
UNREASONABLE AND REQUIRES THAT THE TARIFF BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY.  P.
636. 

CRANCER ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS VALLEY STEEL PRODUCTS CO. ET AL., V.
LOWDEN ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 595, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED BY THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN AN ACTION BASED
ON UNDERCHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BY A RAILWAY. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RECOVER CERTAIN FREIGHT CHARGES FROM
PETITIONERS.  THE CASE WAS TRIED WITHOUT A JURY AND JUDGMENT RENDERED
IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS IN THE SUM OF $2,263.47.  ON APPEAL, THE
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT.  121 F.2D 645. 

WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE OF THE CLAIM THAT THE COURTS BELOW
SUSTAINED THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT ALTHOUGH THE MATTER
CONCERNED CALLED FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, UNDER THE ESTABLISHED RULE FIRST
ANNOUNCED IN TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204
U.S. 426, AS EXPLAINED IN GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. MERCHANTS ELEVATOR
CO., 259 U.S. 285. 

THE SHIPMENTS, AMOUNTING TO SEVEN CARLOADS, MOVED FROM POINTS IN
SEVERAL STATES, THE CARS BEING BILLED BY PETITIONERS TO THEMSELVES AT
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.  THE PETITIONERS BILLED THE CONTENTS OF THE CARS
AS SCRAP IRON AND PAID THE TARIFF CHARGE APPLICABLE TO THAT
CLASSIFICATION.  WHEN THE CARS ARRIVED AT ST. LOUIS, THE RESPONDENTS
CAUSED THE WESTERN WEIGHING AND INSPECTION BUREAU TO INSPECT THEIR
CONTENTS.  AS A RESULT OF THAT INSPECTION, RESPONDENTS CLAIMED THAT THE
ARTICLES WERE ACTUALLY "PIPE THREAD PROTECTING RINGS" AND THAT THEY
BELONGED IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF "PIPE FITTINGS."  THE TARIFF RATES ON
PIPE FITTINGS BEING HIGHER THAN THE RATE ON SCRAP IRON, DEMAND WAS MADE
UPON PETITIONERS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN FREIGHT CHARGES.  THE DEMAND WAS
REFUSED AND THIS SUIT FOLLOWED. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE ARTICLES IN QUESTION WERE GOVERNED BY
THE TARIFF FOR "PIPE FITTINGS" AND NOT BY THAT FOR "SCRAP IRON."  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THIS FINDING.  IN THE LIGHT OF
CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
AFFECTING THE ARTICLES IN QUESTION AND THEIR RELATION TO THE TARIFFS IN
CONTROVERSY, WE HOLD THAT THE LOWER COURTS WERE RIGHT. 

THE ONLY QUESTIONS OF ANY MOMENT PRESENTED BY THIS CASE ARISE IN
CONNECTION WITH THESE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  IN 1937, PETITIONERS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION A COMPLAINT
AGAINST A NUMBER OF RAILROADS, IN WHICH THEY ASSERTED THAT CERTAIN
SHIPMENTS OF IRON OR STEEL PIPE THREAD PROTECTING RINGS SHOULD HAVE
BEEN CLASSIFIED UNDER THE FREIGHT TARIFFS AS SCRAP IRON OR STEEL AND
NOT AS PIPE FITTINGS.  THEY ALSO URGED, AS AN ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION,
THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SHIPMENTS WERE CLASSED AS PIPE FITTINGS RATHER
THAN SCRAP, THE RATE WAS UNREASONABLY HIGH.  ON AUGUST 6, 1937, THE
COMMISSION DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, HOLDING BOTH THAT THE PIPE THREAD
PROTECTING RINGS FELL WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION OF PIPE FITTINGS AND
THAT THE RATES SO IMPOSED WERE NOT UNREASONABLE.  CRANCER & FLEISCHMAN
V. ABILENE AND SOUTHERN RY. CO., 223 I.C.C. 375. 

IN THEIR ANSWER AND IN A MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS FILED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE, PETITIONERS ASSERTED THAT, ON OR
ABOUT MARCH 16, 1939(THE DATE ON WHICH RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THIS SUIT),
THEY HAD INSTITUTED A SECOND ACTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  IN THEIR
COMPLAINT IN THIS 1939 ACTION, PETITIONERS ALLEGED THAT THE FREIGHT
CHARGES DEMANDED BY THE RESPONDENTS ON THE SHIPMENTS INVOLVED IN THE
SUIT NOW BEFORE US WERE "UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE  ...  TO THE EXTENT
THAT THEY EXCEEDED OR EXCEED RATES APPLICABLE ON SCRAP IRON AND SCRAP
STEEL."  IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THIS LANGUAGE WHETHER PETITIONERS
INTENDED TO RAISE ANEW THE QUESTION OF CLASSIFICATION, OR WHETHER THEY
WERE SIMPLY REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO PASS AGAIN ON THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE RATE.  BUT IN ITS OPINION DATED FEBRUARY 18,
1941, THE COMMISSION STATED:  "WHILE COMPLAINANTS ADMIT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF THIS PROCEEDING THAT THE RATES ON SCRAP IRON ARE NOT APPLICABLE,
THEY CONTEND THAT REASONABLE RATES ON THREAD PROTECTORS SHOULD BEAR
SOME DEFINITE RELATION TO THE SCRAP-IRON RATES."  VALLEY STEEL PRODUCTS
CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 243 I.C.C. 509, 512.  WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE CLASSIFICATION QUESTION IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE 1939 I.C.C.
PROCEEDING.  THIS PROCEEDING IS STILL PENDING.  THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FEBRUARY 18, 1941 OPINION AND ORDER HAS BEEN INDEFINITELY
POSTPONED, A FURTHER HEARING HAS BEEN HELD, BUT NO SUBSEQUENT OPINION
OR ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED.  FN1 

PETITIONERS RAISE TWO CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THESE I.C.C.
PROCEEDINGS AND THEIR BEARING UPON THE PRESENT SUIT.  FIRST, THEY
CONTEND THAT IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO ADMIT IN
EVIDENCE A COPY OF THE 1937 OPINION OF THE COMMISSION.  AT THE TRIAL,
PETITIONERS OBJECTED TO ITS ADMISSION ON THE GROUND THAT THE OPINION
HAS "ABSOLUTELY NO PROBATIVE VALUE IN THIS CASE AT ALL," THAT IT IS NOT
"DETERMINATIVE" OR "CONCLUSIVE" AND "NOT EVEN PERSUASIVE" IN THIS CASE,
AND THAT THERE WAS NO PLEADING THAT "THIS OPINION  ...  IS RES
ADJUDICATA OF THE ISSUES BEFORE YOUR HONOR."  WITH RESPECT TO THIS
POINT, WE CAN ONLY SAY THAT PETITIONERS HAVE MADE A BOLD ATTEMPT TO
TRANSFORM THEIR WEAKNESS INTO STRENGTH.  THE PRESENT CASE TURNS UPON
WHETHER THESE IRON PIPE THREAD PROTECTING RINGS ARE TO BE CLASSIFIED
UNDER THE FREIGHT TARIFFS AS PIPE FITTINGS OR SCRAP.  THAT WAS THE VERY
QUESTION DECIDED BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS 1937 OPINION, AND IT WAS
DECIDED ADVERSELY TO PETITIONERS.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE SHIPMENTS IN THE
TWO CASES ARE NOT THE SAME AND THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED TO PROVE
THAT THEIR CONTENTS WERE IDENTICAL.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE ISSUES IN THE
PRESENT SUIT ARE NOT RES ADJUDICATA.  BUT THE COMMISSION'S 1937 OPINION
COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN MORE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COURT.  AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OBSERVED:  "SINCE THE CASE WAS
TRIED WITHOUT A JURY, WE CAN SEE NO POSSIBLE PREJUDICE TO APPELLANTS BY
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION BY THE COURT AS
EVIDENCE, RATHER THAN BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE SAME OPINION IN HIS
LIBRARY.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE LATTER COURSE WOULD HAVE BEEN
IMPROPER.  THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT TREAT THE OPINION AS BEING RES
ADJUDICATA."  121 F.2D 645, 650.  WE THINK THIS IS THE LEAST THAT COULD
BE SAID, AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ADMITTED AND CONSIDERED
THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF VIRTUALLY THE SAME QUESTION AS THAT
BEFORE IT. 

SECOND, PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING
THEIR MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE PENDING ACTION BY THE
I.C.C. IN THE SECOND PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  AS WE HAVE
SAID, THE CLASSIFICATION QUESTION ALONE WAS INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE
THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE COMMISSION HAD PASSED UPON THAT QUESTION
ALMOST TWO YEARS EARLIER.  IN THEIR NEWLY INSTITUTED PROCEEDING,
PETITIONERS DID NOT RESURRECT THAT DISPUTE BUT CONFINED THEMSELVES TO
THE CONTENTION THAT THE RATES ON PIPE FITTINGS WERE UNREASONABLE AS
APPLIED TO THEIR PIPE THREAD PROTECTING RINGS.  THE ISSUE OF THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES WAS NOT OPEN TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE
MEANING OF THE TARIFF HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.  IT
REMAINED TO THE RAILROAD ONLY TO COLLECT THE RATES FOR WHICH THE TARIFF
CALLED AND FOR THE DISTRICT COURT ONLY TO SEE THAT THE RAILROAD DID
COLLECT THEM.  "UNTIL CHANGED, TARIFFS BIND BOTH CARRIERS AND SHIPPERS
WITH THE FORCE OF LAW.  UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT THE
CARRIER CANNOT DEVIATE FROM THE RATE SPECIFIED IN THE TARIFF FOR ANY
SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY.  THAT
OR FORM.  THIS COURT HAS HAD OCCASION RECENTLY TO SUSTAIN ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION AIMED AT CARRIERS' PRACTICES RESULTING IN COLLECTION OF LESS
THAN THE TARIFF RATE.  IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO AID THE EFFORTS OF A
CARRIER IN COLLECTING PUBLISHED CHARGES IN FULL.  INVOLUNTARY REBATES
FROM TARIFF RATES SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH THE SAME DISAPPROVAL AS
VOLUNTARY REBATES."  LOWDEN V. SIMONDS-SHIELDS-LONSDALE GRAIN CO., 306
U.S. 516, 520, 521.  NOTHING INVOLVED IN THE PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS ESSENTIAL TO
THE DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE IN THIS SUIT.  IF THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD,
IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION, CONTINUED THE TRIAL OF THE CAUSE
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE COMMISSION HAD PASSED UPON THE REASONABLENESS OF
THE RATE, THE DELAY MIGHT HAVE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CARRIER TO
PRODUCE THE WITNESSES WHO HAD MADE THE INSPECTION OF THE SHIPMENTS.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, THE PETITIONERS SUFFERED NO HARDSHIP AS A RESULT OF THE
TRIAL COURT'S INSISTENCE ON PROCEEDING WITH THE TRIAL.  IF PETITIONERS
PAY THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE, AND THE COMMISSION SHOULD, IN THE STILL
PENDING PROCEEDING, DECIDE TO MODIFY THE TARIFFS, PETITIONERS CAN
OBTAIN A COMPLETE REMEDY BY WAY OF REPARATION.  PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V.
INTERNATIONAL COAL MINING CO., 230 U.S. 184, 197.  THE FORM OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT'S JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY PRESERVED PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO
SUCH REPARATION.  WE HOLD THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS NO
ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IN NO. 28215, DATED APRIL 19, 1941;
ORDER IN NO. 28215, DATED MAY 23, 1941; ORDER IN NO. 28215, DATED JUNE
2, 1941; ORDER IN NO. 28215, DATED JUNE 20, 1941; ORDER IN NO. 28215,
DATED JULY 22, 1941. 
..END :





















PUERTO RICO V. RUBERT CO., 315 U.S. 637 


NO. 96.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 9, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 16, 1942.  - 118
F.2D 752, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PRINCIPLE WHICH ACCORDS GREAT WEIGHT TO THE DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO IN MATTERS OF LOCAL LAW APPLIES WHERE THE
QUESTION RESPECTS THE POWER OF THAT COURT TO APPOINT A RECEIVER AND IS
DEPENDENT UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL STATUTES; AND A FORTIORI WHERE
THE QUESTION CONCERNS MERELY THE PROPRIETY OF AN EXERCISE OF THAT
POWER.  P. 646. 

2.  A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO AFFIRMING ITS
POWER TO PLACE A RECEIVER IN CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY OF A CORPORATION
THE DISSOLUTION OF WHICH IT HAD DECREED FOR VIOLATIONS OF A LAW
FORBIDDING CORPORATIONS TO HOLD MORE THAN 500 ACRES OF LAND, IS
ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT AS AN EXPOSITION OF THE LOCAL LAW AND, NOT
BEING PLAINLY INCORRECT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, ALTHOUGH SEC. 182 OF THE LOCAL CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE UPON WHICH THE INSULAR COURT RELIED APPEARS TO CONFLICT WITH
SECS. 27-30 OF THE PRIVATE CORPORATION LAW.  P. 646. 

3.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, HAVING DECREED THE FORFEITURE
OF THE CHARTER, AND THE DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP OF A CORPORATION,
WHICH IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND ITS CHARTER RESTRICTIONS HAD ACQUIRED
MORE THAN 500 ACRES OF LAND, APPOINTED A RECEIVER OF ALL ITS PROPERTY,
WHICH WAS OPERATED AS A UNIT IN THE PRODUCTION OF SUGAR, AND DIRECTED
HIM TO MANAGE THE PROPERTY AS A GOING CONCERN UNTIL PUERTO RICO SHOULD
EXERCISE ITS STATUTORY OPTION EITHER TO CONFISCATE THE REAL ESTATE
UNLAWFULLY HELD OR TO HAVE IT SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE APPOINTMENT WAS DISCRETIONARY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PREVENTING CONFUSION AND NEEDLESS LITIGATION WHICH MIGHT RESULT IF THE
DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION SHOULD ATTEMPT TO CONVEY INTERESTS IN THE
PROPERTY PENDING THE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION.  P. 646. 

(2)  THAT AS THE RECEIVERSHIP WAS TO BE TERMINATED UPON THE EXERCISE
OF THE OPTION, IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE IN TIME; NOR WAS IT TOO
BROAD IN NOT BEING RESTRICTED TO THE LAND IN EXCESS OF THE 500 ACRE
MAXIMUM, SINCE TO SEPARATE THE LAND FROM THE MACHINERY AND OTHER
PERSONALTY PENDING THE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN
ECONOMIC WASTE.  P. 647. 

PUERTO RICO V. RUBERT HERMANOS, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 589, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO APPOINTING A RECEIVER.  FOR EARLIER PHASES
OF THE LITIGATION SEE 106 F.2D 754; 309 U.S. 543. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY 1, 1900, THE CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT "EVERY
CORPORATION HEREAFTER AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN AGRICULTURE (IN PUERTO
RICO) SHALL BY ITS CHARTER BE RESTRICTED TO THE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL
OF NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND."  FN1  THIS LIMITATION WAS
CARRIED OVER INTO THE PRESENT ORGANIC ACT OF PUERTO RICO, ENACTED ON
MARCH 2, 1917.  FN2  IN 1935, THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF PUERTO RICO
ENACTED TWO LAWS TO PROVIDE THE MEANS OF ENFORCING THE CONGRESSIONAL
PROHIBITION.  ACT NO. 33 CONFERRED UPON THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO
RICO EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS
INSTITUTED FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE 500-ACRE LAW.  FN3  ACT NO. 47
AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PUERTO RICO, OR ANY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, TO BRING SUCH QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF PUERTO RICO AGAINST ANY CORPORATION VIOLATING THE ORGANIC ACT, AND
PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHEN ANY CORPORATION IS "UNLAWFULLY HOLDING ...
REAL ESTATE IN PUERTO RICO, THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO MAY, AT ITS
OPTION, THROUGH THE SAME PROCEEDINGS, INSTITUTE IN ITS BEHALF THE
CONFISCATION OF SUCH PROPERTY, OR THE ALIENATION THEREOF AT PUBLIC
AUCTION, WITHIN A TERM OF NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS COUNTING FROM THE
DATE ON WHICH FINAL SENTENCE IS RENDERED."  FN4 

THIS IS A QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN 1937 AGAINST RESPONDENT
CORPORATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PUERTO RICO UNDER THESE
STATUTES.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT CORPORATION WAS
ORGANIZED IN 1927 UNDER THE LAWS OF PUERTO RICO FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ACQUIRING AND WORKING SUGAR CANE FARMS AND PLANTATIONS, THAT ITS
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION RESTRICTED IT TO THE ACQUISITION OF 500
ACRES, THAT IT NEVERTHELESS HAD ACQUIRED, AND THAT IT OWNED AND WAS
WORKING AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, SOME 12,188 ACRES
OF LAND.  THE ANSWER CONCEDED THAT THE 500-ACRE RESTRICTION WAS
CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLES AND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NEVERTHELESS
ACQUIRED THE 12,188 ACRES, BUT INTERPOSED SEVERAL DEFENSES.  ON JULY
30, 1938, THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE
PETITIONER.  IT ORDERED "THE FORFEITURE AND CANCELLATION" OF THE
LICENSE AND ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF RESPONDENT, "THE IMMEDIATE
DISSOLUTION AND WINDING UP OF THE AFFAIRS" OF THE CORPORATION, AND THE
PAYMENT OF A $3000 FINE AND COSTS.  ON THE SAME DAY, PETITIONER MOVED
THAT A RECEIVER BE APPOINTED TO HANDLE THE DISSOLUTION AND DISPOSITION
OF THE RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF SEC.
182 OF THE PUERTO RICO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  FN5 

THE MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE
PENDING AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT.  THAT COURT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO, ON THE GROUND THAT ACTS NOS. 33 AND 47 EXCEEDED THE
AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY UNDER THE ORGANIC ACT.  106 F.2D
754.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, AND ON MARCH 25, 1940 REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND REINSTATED THAT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE ISLAND.  309 U.S. 543. 

THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT REACHED THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO ON MAY 13.  ON THE SAME DAY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ENTERED A
REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON PETITIONER'S PENDING MOTION FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER.  THE RESPONDENT THEN FILED ITS ANSWER, AND
BRIEFS WERE SUBMITTED BY BOTH PARTIES.  IN ITS ANSWER AND BRIEF,
RESPONDENT RAISED NUMEROUS OBJECTIONS TO THE APPOINTMENT OF A
RECEIVER.  CHIEF AMONG THESE OBJECTIONS WERE:  (A) THAT ON MARCH 28,
1940, RESPONDENT CORPORATION HAD BEEN DISSOLVED BY VOTE OF ITS
STOCKHOLDERS, AND ITS PROPERTY CONVEYED TO A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF
ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS, SO THAT NOTHING REMAINED TO BE DONE; AND (B) THAT
THE STATUTES APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE ARE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS LAW FN6  RATHER THAN SEC. 182 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE,  FN7  THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE FORMER "THE DIRECTORS
SHALL BE THE TRUSTEES  ... PENDING THE LIQUIDATION" OF ANY DISSOLVED
CORPORATION, AND THAT THE COURT WAS CONSEQUENTLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION
TO APPOINT A RECEIVER UNDER SEC. 182.  THE INSULAR COURT RESOLVED ALL
THE ISSUES IN PETITIONER'S FAVOR, APPOINTED A RECEIVER OF ALL THE
PROPERTY OF THE RESPONDENT, AND DIRECTED THE RECEIVER TO HANDLE THE
PROPERTY AS A GOING CONCERN UNTIL THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO SHOULD
EXERCISE THE OPTION GRANTED TO THEM BY SEC. 2 OF ACT NO. 47 OF AUGUST
7, 1935 EITHER TO CONFISCATE THE REAL ESTATE UNLAWFULLY HELD BY
RESPONDENT OR TO HAVE IT SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION.  FN8 

FROM THIS ORDER, RESPONDENT TOOK A SECOND APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, MAKING THE TWO CONTENTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTED AS WELL AS
MANY OTHERS WHICH REQUIRE NO DISCUSSION HERE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DISPOSED OF SEVERAL OF THESE CONTENTIONS UNFAVORABLY TO THE
RESPONDENT.  HOWEVER, IT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO, ON THE GOUND THAT THE ORDER APPOINTING THE RECEIVER WAS
"IMPROVIDENTLY ISSUED."  118 F.2D 752.  IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT, SECS. 27, 28 AND 30 OF THE PRIVATE CORPORATION LAW ARE
UNQUESTIONABLY APPLICABLE TO THE DISSOLUTION OF A CORPORATION BY COURT
ORDER AS A RESULT OF A VIOLATION OF ITS CHARTER AND THE LAWS, ALTHOUGH
THE INSULAR COURT HAD DECLARED THEM "APPLICABLE ONLY TO A VOLUNTARY
DISSOLUTION AGREED UPON BY THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION OR BY
EXPIRATION OF THE TERM FIXED FOR ITS DURATION."  WITH RESPECT TO SEC.
182 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, UPON WHICH THE LOWER COURT RELIED,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THAT IT PERMITTED THE
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER ONLY "UPON PROPER SHOWING BY AN INTERESTED
PARTY, AGREEABLY TO THE USAGES OF COURTS OF EQUITY."  IT CONCLUDED THAT
THE OPTION GRANTED BY ACT NO. 47 OF 1935 DID NOT AFFORD THE PEOPLE OF
PUERTO RICO AN INTEREST SUFFICIENT FOR THIS PURPOSE.  IT OBSERVED THAT
THE OPTION RELATES ONLY TO THE EXCESS ACREAGE, WHEREAS THE ORDER HAD
SOUGHT TO PLACE THE RECEIVER IN CHARGE OF ALL THE PROPERTY OF THE
RESPONDENT, BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL.  IF THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO
SHOULD ELECT TO HAVE THE LAND SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION,  FN9  THE CIRCUIT
COURT ASSERTED, A MASTER CAN BE APPOINTED FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND IN THE
MEANTIME A NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS WHICH WAS FILED WITH THE REGISTRY OF
PROPERTY WILL PROVE ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT'S OPINION LEAVES IT UNCERTAIN WHETHER IT MEANT TO
HOLD THAT THE INSULAR COURT WHOLLY LACKED POWER TO APPOINT A RECEIVER
FOR A JUDICIALLY DISSOLVED CORPORATION, OR MERELY THAT IT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN THIS CASE.  IN ANY EVENT, THE QUESTIONS FOR OUR
DETERMINATION SEEM TO BE THESE:  (1) DOES IT LIE WITHIN THE POWER OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO TO APPOINT A RECEIVER FOR THE ASSETS
OF A CORPORATION WHOSE DISSOLUTION HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY ORDERED BECAUSE
IT HAS VIOLATED ITS ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND THE LAWS OF PUERTO
RICO AND THE UNITED STATES; (2) DID THAT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN
APPOINTING A RECEIVER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE; AND (3) DID
THE SCOPE OF THE ORDER EXCEED THE COURT'S AUTHORITY? 

FIRST.  WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO TO PLACE A RECEIVER IN CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY OF A
CORPORATION WHICH HAS BEEN DISSOLVED FOR VIOLATION OF LAW, IS A
QUESTION WHOSE ANSWER MUST BE FOUND IN THE STATUTES OF THE ISLAND.  AS
WE HAVE SAID, SEC. 182 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES:  "A
RECEIVER MAY BE APPOINTED BY THE COURT IN WHICH AN ACTION IS PENDING OR
HAS PASSED TO JUDGMENT, OR BY THE JUDGE THEREOF:  ...  (4) IN THE CASE
WHEN A CORPORATION HAS BEEN DISSOLVED, OR IS INSOLVENT, OR IN IMMEDIATE
DANGER OF INSOLVENCY, OR HAS FORFEITED ITS CORPORATE RIGHTS.  (5) IN
ALL OTHER CASES WHERE RECEIVERS HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN APPOINTED BY THE
USAGES OF COURTS OF EQUITY."  IT SEEMS HARDLY DEBATABLE THAT, IF
NOTHING MORE WERE SHOWN, THESE PROVISIONS WOULD STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
ASSERTION OF POWER BY THE INSULAR COURT TO APPOINT A RECEIVER FOR
RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY.  BUT RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
SECS. 27, 28, 29 AND 30 OF THE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS LAW COMPEL THE
OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.  SECTION 27 PROVIDES THAT "ALL CORPORATIONS,
WHETHER THEY EXPIRE THROUGH THE LIMITATION CONTAINED IN ARTICLES OF
INCORPORATION OR ARE ANNULLED BY THE LEGISLATURE, OR OTHERWISE
DISSOLVED, SHALL BE CONTINUED AS BODIES CORPORATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROSECUTING AND DEFENDING SUITS BY OR AGAINST THEM, AND OF ENABLING
THEM TO SETTLE AND CLOSE THEIR AFFAIRS, TO DISPOSE OF AND CONVEY THEIR
PROPERTY AND TO DIVIDE THEIR CAPITAL; BUT NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONTINUING THE BUSINESS FOR WHICH THEY WERE ESTABLISHED."  SECTION 28
DECLARES THAT "UPON THE DISSOLUTION IN ANY MANNER OF A CORPORATION, THE
DIRECTORS SHALL BE THE TRUSTEES THEREOF PENDING THE LIQUIDATION."  AND
SEC. 30 AUTHORIZES THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF PUERTO RICO, "ON
APPLICATION OF ANY CREDITOR OR STOCKHOLDER,  ...  AT ANY TIME EITHER
(TO) CONTINUE THE DIRECTORS AS TRUSTEES AS AFORESAID, OR (TO) APPOINT
ONE OR MORE PERSONS TO BE LIQUIDATORS OF SUCH CORPORATION TO TAKE
CHARGE OF THE ASSETS AND EFFECTS THEREOF  ...  "  AGAIN, IF NOTHING
MORE THAN THESE SECTIONS WERE BEFORE US, WE THINK IT CLEAR ENOUGH THAT,
UPON THE DISSOLUTION OF A CORPORATION "IN ANY MANNER," THE DIRECTORS
WOULD REMAIN IN CHARGE OF THE ASSETS AS TRUSTEES UNTIL SOME "CREDITOR
OR STOCKHOLDER" MOVED A DISTRICT COURT - NOT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
ISLAND - TO REMOVE THEM. 

A FRANK RECOGNITION THAT THE STATUTES APPEAR ON THEIR FACE TO
CONFLICT AND TO OVERLAP PERMITS US TO AVOID THE LENGTHY AND TECHNICAL
ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY BOTH PARTIES IN THIS COURT AND IN
THE COURTS BELOW.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO RESOLVED THIS
CONFLICT IN FAVOR OF ITS POWER TO APPOINT A RECEIVER, BY HOLDING THAT
THE PERTINENT SECTIONS OF THE PRIVATE CORPORATIONS LAW DO NOT APPLY TO
JUDICIALLY ORDERED DISSOLUTIONS BUT THAT SEC. 182 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE DOES APPLY.  IN RECENT YEARS WE HAVE HAD OCCASION TO ANNOUNCE
THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF PUERTO RICO WITH RESPECT TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE ISLAND'S STATUTES AND TO MATTERS OF LOCAL LAW ARE
TO BE ACCORDED THE GREATEST WEIGHT.  BONET V. YABUCOA SUGAR CO., 306
U.S. 505; BONET V. TEXAS COMPANY, 308 U.S. 463.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT AN
INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO UPON STATUTES
WHOSE MEANING IS SO OPEN TO DOUBT IS PLAINLY INCORRECT.  ACCORDINGLY,
THOUGH THE INTERPRETATION SUGGESTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY
BE EQUALLY PLAUSIBLE, IT ERRED IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE INSULAR
COURT. 

SECOND.  ASSUMING THAT UNDER SEC. 182 THE INSULAR SUPREME COURT HAS
THE POWER TO APPOINT A RECEIVER FOR A JUDICIALLY DISSOLVED CORPORATION,
THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER IT HAS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN APPOINTING
A RECEIVER IN THIS CASE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AFTER
INDICATING ITS BELIEF THAT THE POWER TO APPOINT A RECEIVER IS A DRASTIC
ONE AND THAT IT SHOULD BE SPARINGLY EMPLOYED, CONCLUDED THAT ITS USE
WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  ITS REASONING WAS
THAT THE SOLE INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER WAS ITS OPTION EITHER TO
CONFISCATE THE EXCESS ACREAGE OR TO HAVE IT SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION. 
"THE PEOPLE DO NOT NEED A RECEIVER TO PROTECT THE OPTION.  IF AND WHEN
THE TIME COMES FOR THE COURT TO DECREE A SALE OF THE LAND AT PUBLIC
AUCTION A MASTER CAN BE APPOINTED TO CARRY THROUGH THE SALE.  THE LAND
WILL STILL BE THERE.  MEANWHILE, THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE IS
PROTECTED BY A LIS PENDENS NOTICE WHICH WAS ENTERED IN THE REGISTRY OF
PROPERTY SHORTLY AFTER THE INSTITUTION OF THE QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS,
WHICH NOTICE THE CORPORATION UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO HAVE CANCELLED." 
118 F.2D 752, AT 759-760. 

IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THE PROCEDURE SUGGESTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT WOULD
HAVE BEEN ADEQUATE TO THE NEEDS OF THE CASE.  IT MAY EVEN BE TRUE THAT
AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DIRECTORS OF RESPONDENT FROM DISPOSING OF
THE PROPERTY PENDING THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT. 
BUT THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS THAT COMPEL RESTRAINT ON THE PART OF
APPELLATE COURTS WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE OF POWER, APPLY WITH DOUBLE
FORCE WHERE THE QUESTION MERELY CONCERNS THE PROPRIETY OF ITS
EXERCISE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO WAS IN THE BEST POSITION TO
DETERMINE WHAT THE SITUATION DEMANDED.  THE ATTEMPTED TRANSFER OF THE
CORPORATE ASSETS ON MARCH 28, 1940 MAY HAVE BEEN A BONA FIDE EFFORT TO
COMPLY WITH THE EARLIER DECREE OF DISSOLUTION, AS RESPONDENT INSISTS. 
BUT THE FACT THAT THE TRANSFER WAS MADE TO A PARTNERSHIP WHOSE MEMBERS
HAD BEEN THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE DISSOLVED CORPORATION MIGHT SUGGEST A
DISPOSITION ON THE PART OF THE DIRECTORS TO OBSTRUCT THE EFFECTIVE
EXERCISE OF THE OPTION AFFORDED THE PEOPLE BY ACT NO. 47.  CERTAINLY IT
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNREASONABLE FOR THE INSULAR COURT TO SUSPECT THAT
THIS WAS SO.  NO DOUBT THE LIS PENDENS NOTICE WOULD PREVENT THE
DIRECTORS FROM CONVEYING AN INTEREST IN ANY OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD
BE SUPERIOR TO THAT OF A PURCHASER AT A SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC AUCTION
CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO ACT NO. 47.  BUT THE SALE AND RESALE OF THE
PROPERTY, OR ITS ENCUMBRANCE, COULD ONLY RESULT IN CONFUSION,
MISUNDERSTANDING AND NEEDLESS LITIGATION.  IT WAS CLEARLY WITHIN THE
DISCRETION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ISLAND TO AVERT THESE
DIFFICULTIES.    THIRD:  RESPONDENT INSISTS AND THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD,
FINALLY, THAT THE ORDER WAS TOO BROAD TO BE SUSTAINED.  IT IS ARGUED
THAT IT WAS NOT CONFINED TO THE LAND WHICH WAS ACTUALLY IN EXCESS OF
THE 500-ACRE MAXIMUM BUT INCLUDED ALL THE PROPERTIES OF THE RESPONDENT,
AND THAT IT AUTHORIZED THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS BY THE
RECEIVER FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD.  TO TREAT THE LATTER OBJECTION
FIRST, AN EXAMINATION OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE RECEIVER REVEALS THAT
PARAGRAPH 7 SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATES THE EXERCISE OF ITS OPTION BY THE
PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO.  A FAIR READING OF THE ORDER REQUIRES US TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE PERIOD OF THE RECEIVERSHIP WAS DEFINITE ENOUGH, SINCE
IT WAS CLEARLY REGARDED AS A PRELIMINARY TO THE EXERCISE OF THE
OPTION.  THE RECEIVER WAS EXPRESSLY DIRECTED TO SURRENDER THE
PROPERTIES WHENEVER THE PEOPLE HAD INDICATED ITS CHOICE.  AS TO THE
PROVISION OF THE ORDER CONSIGNING THE WHOLE OF RESPONDENT'S PROPERTIES
TO THE RECEIVER, IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT EVERYONE CONCEDES THAT THE
PROPERTIES CONSTITUTE A WORKING UNIT IN GROWING, CUTTING AND GRINDING
SUGAR.  TO SEPARATE THE LAND FROM THE MACHINERY AND OTHER PERSONALTY
PENDING THE PEOPLE'S ELECTION BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES WOULD HAVE
BEEN INEXCUSABLE ECONOMIC WASTE.  IT WAS ALTOGETHER PROPER FOR THE
SUPREME COURT TO RECOGNIZE THESE REALITIES AND TO PERMIT THE RECEIVER
TO PRESERVE THE ENTERPRISE AS A GOING CONCERN PENDING A FINAL
SETTLEMENT.  NOTHING IN SEC. 182, UPON WHICH IT RELIED FOR AUTHORITY TO
APPOINT THE RECEIVER, REQUIRES THAT IT LIMIT THE RECEIVERSHIP IN THE
MANNER SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENT. 

THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO SHOULD BE SUSTAINED IN
FULL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 3, 31 STAT. 715. 

FN2  SEC. 39, 39 STAT. 951, 964, U.S.C., TITLE 48, SEC. 752. 

FN3  ACT OF JULY 22, 1935, LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, SPECIAL SESSION,
1935, P. 418. 

FN4  ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1935, LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, SPECIAL SESSION,
1935, PP. 530-532. 

FN5  "SECTION 182.  - (564 CAL.)  A RECEIVER MAY BE APPOINTED BY THE
COURT IN WHICH AN ACTION IS PENDING OR HAS PASSED TO JUDGMENT, OR BY
THE JUDGE THEREOF: 

"1.  IN AN ACTION BY A VENDOR TO VACATE A FRAUDULENT PURCHASE OF
PROPERTY, OR BY A CREDITOR TO SUBJECT ANY PROPERTY OR FUND TO HIS
CLAIM, OR BETWEEN PARTNERS OR OTHERS JOINTLY OWNING OR JOINTLY
INTERESTED IN ANY PROPERTY OR FUND, ON THE APPLICATION OF THE
PLAINTIFF, OR OF ANY PARTY WHOSE RIGHT TO OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY
OR FUND, OR THE PROCEEDS THEREOF, IS PROBABLE, AND WHERE IT IS SHOWN
THAT THE PROPERTY OR FUND IS IN DANGER OF BEING LOST, REMOVED, OR
MATERIALLY INJURED. 

"2.  AFTER JUDGMENT, TO CARRY THE JUDGMENT INTO EFFECT. 

"3.  AFTER JUDGMENT, TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE
JUDGMENT, OR TO PRESERVE IT DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN APPEAL, OR IN
PROCEEDINGS IN AID OF EXECUTION, WHEN AN EXECUTION HAS BEEN RETURNED
UNSATISFIED, OR WHEN THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR REFUSES TO APPLY HIS PROPERTY
IN SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT. 

"4.  IN THE CASE WHEN A CORPORATION HAS BEEN DISSOLVED, OR IS
INSOLVENT, OR IN IMMINENT DANGER OF INSOLVENCY, OR HAS FORFEITED ITS
CORPORATE RIGHTS. 

"5.  IN ALL OTHER CASES WHERE RECEIVERS HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN
APPOINTED BY THE USAGES OF COURTS OF EQUITY."  (1933 ED.) 

FN6  "SECTION 27.  - CORPORATE EXISTENCE PENDING DISSOLUTION.  ALL
CORPORATIONS, WHETHER THEY EXPIRE THROUGH THE LIMITATION CONTAINED IN
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OR ARE ANNULLED BY THE LEGISLATURE, OR
OTHERWISE DISSOLVED, SHALL BE CONTINUED AS BODIES CORPORATE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROSECUTING AND DEFENDING SUITS BY OR AGAINST THEM, AND OF
ENABLING THEM TO SETTLE AND CLOSE THEIR AFFAIRS, TO DISPOSE OF AND
CONVEY THEIR PROPERTY AND TO DIVIDE THEIR CAPITAL; BUT NOT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONTINUING THE BUSINESS FOR WHICH THEY WERE ESTABLISHED. 

"SEC. 28(AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 24 OF 1916, P. 68).  - DIRECTORS AS
TRUSTEES PENDING DISSOLUTION.  UPON THE DISSOLUTION IN ANY MANNER OF A
CORPORATION, THE DIRECTORS SHALL BE THE TRUSTEES THEREOF PENDING THE
LIQUIDATION, WITH FULL POWER TO SETTLE THE AFFAIRS, COLLECT THE
OUTSTANDING DEBTS, SELL AND CONVEY THE PROPERTY AND DIVIDE THE MONEYS
AND OTHER PROPERTY AMONG THE STOCKHOLDERS, AFTER PAYING ITS DEBTS, SO
FAR AS SUCH MONEYS AND PROPERTY SHALL SUFFICE.  THEY SHALL HAVE POWER
TO MEET AND TO ACT UNDER THE BYLAWS OF THE CORPORATION, AND, UNDER
REGULATIONS TO BE MADE BY A MAJORITY OF THE SAID TRUSTEES, TO PRESCRIBE
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY, OR MAY SELL ALL
OR ANY PART FOR CASH, OR PARTLY ON CREDIT, OR TAKE MORTGAGES AND BONDS
FOR PART OF THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR ALL OR ANY PART OF THE SAID
PROPERTY.  IN CASE OF A VACANCY OR VACANCIES IN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF SUCH CORPORATION EXISTING AT THE TIME OF DISSOLUTION OR OCCURRING
SUBSEQUENTLY THERETO, THE SURVIVING DIRECTORS OR DIRECTOR SHALL BE THE
TRUSTEES OR TRUSTEE THEREOF, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WITH FULL POWER TO
SETTLE THE AFFAIRS, COLLECT THE OUTSTANDING DEBTS, SELL AND CONVEY THE
PROPERTY AND DIVIDE THE MONEYS AND OTHER PROPERTY AMONG THE
STOCKHOLDERS, AFTER PAYING ITS DEBTS, AS FAR AS SUCH MONEYS AND
PROPERTY SHALL ENABLE THEM, AND TO DO AND PERFORM ALL SUCH OTHER ACTS
AS SHALL BE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT RELATIVE
TO THE WINDING UP OF THE AFFAIRS OF SUCH CORPORATION AND TO THE
DISTRIBUTION OF ITS ASSETS. 

"SEC. 29.  - POWERS AND LIABILITIES OF TRUSTEES IN LIQUIDATION.  THE
DIRECTORS CONSTITUTED TRUSTEES AS AFORESAID SHALL HAVE POWER TO SUE FOR
AND RECOVER THE AFORESAID DEBTS AND PROPERTY BY THE NAME OF THE
CORPORATION AND SHALL BE SUABLE BY THE SAME NAME, OR IN THEIR OWN NAMES
OR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES FOR THE DEBTS OWING BY SUCH CORPORATION, AND
SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH DEBTS TO THE AMOUNT
OF THE MONEY AND PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION WHICH SHALL COME TO THEIR
HANDS OR POSSESSION AS SUCH TRUSTEES. 

"SEC. 30.  - JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT OF LIQUIDATORS.  WHEN ANY
CORPORATION SHALL BE DISSOLVED IN ANY MANNER WHATEVER, THE DISTRICT
COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE PLACE WHERE ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN
THE ISLAND OF PORTO RICO IS SITUATED, ON APPLICATION OF ANY CREDITOR OR
STOCKHOLDER, MAY AT ANY TIME EITHER CONTINUE THE DIRECTORS AS TRUSTEES
AS AFORESAID, OR APPOINT ONE OR MORE PERSONS TO BE LIQUIDATORS OF SUCH
CORPORATION TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE ASSETS AND EFFECTS THEREOF, TO
COLLECT THE DEBTS AND PROPERTY DUE AND BELONGING TO THE CORPORATION,
WITH POWER TO PROSECUTE AND DEFEND IN THE NAME OF THE CORPORATION, OR
OTHERWISE, ALL SUITS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES
AFORESAID, OR TO APPOINT AN AGENT OR AGENTS UNDER THEM, OR TO DO OTHER
ACTS THAT MIGHT BE DONE BY SUCH CORPORATION IF IN BEING THAT MAY BE
NECESSARY FOR THE FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ITS UNFINISHED BUSINESS, AND THE
POWERS OF SUCH TRUSTEES OR RECEIVERS MAY BE CONTINUED SO LONG AS THE
COURTS SHALL THINK NECESSARY FOR SUCH PURPOSE."  (APPENDIX TO CODE OF
COMMERCE OF PUERTO RICO (1932 ED.)  327, AT 355.) 

FN7  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN8  SECTION 2 PROVIDES, IN PART: 

"WHEN ANY CORPORATION BY ITSELF OR THROUGH ANY OTHER SUBSIDIARY OR
AFFILIATED ENTITY OR AGENT IS UNLAWFULLY HOLDING, UNDER ANY TITLE, REAL
ESTATE IN PUERTO RICO, THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO MAY, AT ITS OPTION,
THROUGH THE SAME PROCEEDINGS, INSTITUTE IN ITS BEHALF THE CONFISCATION
OF SUCH PROPERTY, OR THE ALIENATION THEREOF AT PUBLIC AUCTION, WITHIN A
TERM OF NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS COUNTING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH FINAL
SENTENCE IS RENDERED. 

"IN EVERY CASE, ALIENATION OR CONFISCATION SHALL BE THROUGH THE
CORRESPONDING INDEMNITY AS ESTABLISHED IN THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN." 

FN9  ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUIT COURT'S OPINION, ON AUGUST 28, 1940,
AFTER THE ORDER APPOINTING THE RECEIVER HAD BEEN ENTERED, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FILED WITH THE INSULAR COURT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:
"THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO ELECTS TO HAVE ALL THE LANDS IN
THE POSSESSION OF THE RESPONDENT SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION, AND PRAYS THIS
COURT TO ORDER THE SALE AT PUBLIC AUCTION OF THE SAID REAL PROPERTY BY
THE RECEIVER ALREADY APPOINTED BY THIS COURT, AFTER THE SAME IS
ASSESSED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS ACT NOW IN FORCE."  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE RESPONDENT
ARGUED THAT THE OPTION PROVIDED BY ACT NO. 47 COULD NOT BE EXERCISED IN
THIS MANNER BUT ONLY BY AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.  WE SHARE
THE CIRCUIT COURT'S VIEW THAT THIS AND OTHER PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE
ACTUAL EXERCISE OF THE OPTION MUST FIRST BE PASSED UPON BY THE PUERTO
RICAN SUPREME COURT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
COURT BELOW CORRECTLY HELD, FOR REASONS STATED IN DETAIL IN JUDGE
MAGRUDER'S OPINION, 118 F.2D 752, THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER BY
THE INSULAR COURT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WAS AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, AND THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TO SET THE APPOINTMENT
ASIDE. 
..END :




PEARCE V. COMMISSIONER, 315 U.S. 543 


NO. 306.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1942.  - 120 F.2D
228, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A DIVORCED WIFE WHEN TAXED ON PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM AN ANNUITY
PROVIDED BY HER FORMER HUSBAND BY WAY OF SETTLEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH
THEIR DIVORCE CAN REBUT THE PRESUMPTION SUSTAINING THE TAX BY MERELY
RAISING DOUBTS AND UNCERTAINTIES AS TO WHETHER THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE
PURSUANT TO A CONTINUING OBLIGATION OF THE HUSBAND TO SUPPORT HER.  P.
547. 

THE HUSBAND, ON THE OTHER HAND, TO AVOID THE TAX, IF LAID UPON HIM,
BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROVING CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY THAT THE PAYMENTS
WERE NOT MADE PURSUANT TO ANY SUCH CONTINUING OBLIGATION. 

2.  ANTICIPATING DIVORCE, A HUSBAND MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH HIS WIFE
FOR THE TERMINATION OF HIS OBLIGATION TO PAY FOR HER SUPPORT, IN THE
EVENT THAT HE PURCHASED FOR HER A CERTAIN ANNUITY.  AFTER THEIR DIVORCE
(IN TEXAS) THE ANNUITY WAS PURCHASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT
AND THE ANNUITY PAYMENTS WHICH SHE RECEIVED WERE TAXED AS HER INCOME BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  HELD: 

(1)  THE WIFE'S CONTENTION THAT THE TAX ON THE PAYMENTS SHOULD HAVE
BEEN LAID ON THE HUSBAND CAN NOT BE BASED ON A CONTINUING CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO HER SUPPORT, BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT AND ITS
FULFILLMENT TERMINATED HIS PERSONAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE PAYMENTS.  P.
547. 

(2)  ASSUMING THAT THE POWER OF THE TEXAS COURT TO MAKE FUTURE
DIVISIONS OF PROPERTY AS BETWEEN THE HUSBAND AND WIFE IS EQUIVALENT TO
A POWER TO PROVIDE PERMANENT ALIMONY, YET THE WIFE FAILED TO REBUT THE
PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS SUSTAINING THE TAX, NOT HAVING SHOWN THAT IT
WAS AT LEAST DOUBTFUL AND UNCERTAIN WHETHER THAT COURT, AS AN INCIDENT
TO ITS POWER TO REQUIRE THE HUSBAND TO SUPPORT HER, RETAINED CONTROL
OVER THE ANNUITY CONTRACT OR THE INCOME FROM IT. P. 549. 

3.  A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING OR
SUPPORTING A DIVORCED WIFE MAY BE TREATED FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES AS
MERE SECURITY FOR THE HUSBAND'S CONTINUING OBLIGATION, DEPENDENT ON
SUCH CONSIDERATIONS AS WHETHER IT CONTAINS, OR IS INTERRELATED WITH,
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE HUSBAND FOR HER SUPPORT; WHETHER THE
COURT HAS A RESERVED POWER TO ALTER OR MODIFY IT; OR WHETHER THE
HUSBAND RETAINS ANY SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY CONVEYED. 
WHERE THE SETTLEMENT CARRIES SOME OF THE EARMARKS OF A SECURITY DEVICE,
THEN THE POWER OF THE COURT TO ADD TO THE HUSBAND'S PERSONAL
OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT.  P. 552. 

4.  BUT WHERE THE SETTLEMENT APPEARS TO BE ABSOLUTE AND OUTRIGHT, AND
ON ITS FACE VESTS IN THE WIFE THE INDICIA OF COMPLETE OWNERSHIP, IT
WILL BE TREATED AS THAT WHICH IT PURPORTS TO BE, IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
THAT IT WAS ONLY A SECURITY DEVICE FOR THE HUSBAND'S CONTINUING
OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT.  P. 552. 

5.  IN THIS CASE THE WIFE MADE NO SHOWING WHATSOEVER THAT THE TEXAS
COURT RETAINED THE POWER TO REALLOCATE THE INCOME FROM THE ANNUITY
CONTRACT OR TO CONTROL IT IN ANY WAY AS AN INCIDENT OF ITS POWER TO
REQUIRE THE HUSBAND TO SUPPORT THE WIFE; NOR DID SHE SHOW THAT THE
COURT IMPOSED ANY PERSONAL OBLIGATION ON THE HUSBAND IN RESPECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT IN QUESTION.  P. 552. 

6.  PROOF THAT THE TEXAS COURT MIGHT ADD TO THE HUSBAND'S PERSONAL
OBLIGATIONS AS AN INCIDENT TO A FUTURE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT IS NO
SUBSTITUTE FOR PROOF THAT THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO REMAKE THE
PROPERTY SETTLEMENT ACTUALLY CONSUMMATED.  P. 553. 

PEARCE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 593, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT.  42
B.T.A. 91. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER AND HER HUSBAND SEPARATED IN 1913.  THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT
PROVIDING FOR MONTHLY PAYMENTS BY THE HUSBAND FOR HER SUPPORT.  THAT
AGREEMENT WAS AMENDED IN 1916 SO AS TO PROVIDE MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO HER
OF $500 FOR LIFE.  HER HUSBAND, HOWEVER, WAS GIVEN AN OPTION TO
TERMINATE THE ARRANGEMENT BY PURCHASING AN ANNUITY CONTRACT FROM A LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH WOULD PAY PETITIONER $500 A MONTH FOR THE REST
OF HER LIFE.  IN 1917 PETITIONER OBTAINED AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE IN TEXAS,
HER HUSBAND ENTERING A PERSONAL APPEARANCE.  NEITHER ALIMONY NOR A
PROPERTY SETTLEMENT WAS MENTIONED IN THE DIVORCE DECREE.  THERE WERE NO
CHILDREN.  SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE DIVORCE, MR. PEARCE PURCHASED AN
ANNUITY FROM AN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR PETITIONER'S BENEFIT.  THE
ANNUITY PROVIDED FOR A PAYMENT OF $500 PER MONTH DURING HER LIFE. 

NEITHER PETITIONER NOR MR. PEARCE INCLUDED THE $6,000 RECEIVED BY HER
UNDER THE ANNUITY CONTRACT IN THEIR FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1935
AND 1936.  THE COMMISSIONER SENT DEFICIENCY NOTICES TO BOTH OF THEM. 
EACH APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  AT THE HEARING THE
COMMISSIONER CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE INCOME OF PETITIONER. 
THE BOARD UPHELD THAT CONTENTION.  42 B.T.A. 91.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  120
F.2D 228.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE MANNER
IN WHICH THAT COURT APPLIED THE RULE OF HELVERING V. FITCH, 309 U.S.
149, AND HELVERING V. LEONARD, 310 U.S. 80, IN CASE THE EX-WIFE RATHER
THAN THE HUSBAND WAS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED ON ALLEGED ALIMONY PAYMENTS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER
WAS LIABLE BY THE FOLLOWING LINE OF REASONING.  THE DETERMINATION OF
THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS WERE INCOME OF PETITIONER
WAS PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT; THE BURDEN TO SHOW ERROR RESTED ON
PETITIONER.  WELCH V. HELVERING, 290 U.S. 111, 115.  ERROR MIGHT BE
SHOWN BY SUBMITTING "CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF" (HELVERING V. FITCH,
SUPRA, P. 156) THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE PURSUANT TO A CONTINUING
OBLIGATION OF HER FORMER HUSBAND TO PROVIDE FOR HER SUPPORT, SO AS TO
MAKE THE RULE OF DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1, APPLICABLE.  THE
BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING ERROR IS NOT SUSTAINED BY A DIVORCED WIFE MERELY
BY SHOWING THAT AN OBLIGATION OF HER FORMER HUSBAND MIGHT HAVE
CONTINUED DESPITE THE DIVORCE.  SINCE IT IS DOUBTFUL AND UNCERTAIN
UNDER TEXAS LAW WHETHER PETITIONER'S FORMER HUSBAND WAS DISCHARGED OF
HIS MARITAL OBLIGATION BY THE SETTLEMENT IN QUESTION, PETITIONER FAILED
TO SHOW THAT THE PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT DETERMINATION THAT SHE WAS
LIABLE WAS ERRONEOUS. 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT THAT WAS A CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF
THE FITCH AND LEONARD CASES.  THOSE CASES HOLD THAT THE INCOME IS
TAXABLE TO THE FORMER HUSBAND, NOT ONLY WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT PAYMENTS
TO HIS EX-WIFE WERE MADE PURSUANT TO A CONTINUING LIABILITY CREATED BY
HIS CONTRACT OR BY LOCAL LAW, BUT ALSO WHERE HIS UNDERTAKING OR LOCAL
LAW MAKES THAT QUESTION DOUBTFUL OR UNCERTAIN.  THOSE CASES, LIKE
DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, INVOLVED SITUATIONS WHERE THE DIVORCED
HUSBAND WAS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED ON PAYMENTS TO HIS EX-WIFE.  BUT THE
RULE WHICH THEY EXPRESS SUPPLIES THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING, IN
ABSENCE OF A DIFFERENT STATUTORY FORMULA, WHETHER PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY
THE EX-WIFE ARE PROPERLY TAXABLE TO HER OR TO HER DIVORCED HUSBAND.  IF
THE COMMISSIONER PROCEEDS AGAINST THE EX-WIFE, SHE SUSTAINS HER BURDEN
OF REBUTTING HIS PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT DETERMINATION MERELY BY SHOWING
DOUBTS AND UNCERTAINTIES AS TO WHETHER THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE PURSUANT
TO HER FORMER HUSBAND'S CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HER.  IF THE
COMMISSIONER PROCEEDS AGAINST HER FORMER HUSBAND, HE SUSTAINS HIS
BURDEN BY SUBMITTING CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE
NOT MADE PURSUANT TO ANY SUCH CONTINUING OBLIGATION.  HELVERING V.
FULLER, 310 U.S. 69.  THE OTHER COURSE WOULD MAKE THE LIABILITY OF THE
DIVORCED WIFE OR THE DIVORCED HUSBAND WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON THE ELECTION
OF THE COMMISSIONER TO PROCEED AGAINST ONE RATHER THAN THE OTHER WHERE,
FOR EXAMPLE, LOCAL LAW WAS UNCERTAIN.  BUT THE RULE OF DOUGLAS V.
WILLCUTS, SUPRA, RESTS ON A MORE SUBSTANTIAL BASIS.  ITS ROOTS ARE IN
LOCAL LAW AND THE UNDERTAKINGS OF THE HUSBAND.  IT CALLS FOR THE USE OF
THE SAME CRITERIA WHETHER THE HUSBAND OR THE WIFE IS SOUGHT TO BE
TAXED. 

WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT MAINTAINED HER BURDEN IN
THIS CASE.  HER FORMER HUSBAND WAS NOT UNDER A CONTINUING CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO HER SUPPORT.  FOR, THE AGREEMENT MADE IN
1916 PROVIDED FOR THE TERMINATION OF HIS PERSONAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE
PAYMENTS TO HER IN THE EVENT THAT HE PURCHASED THE DESIGNATED ANNUITY. 
AND SO FAR AS TEXAS LAW IS CONCERNED, SHE HAS NOT MAINTAINED HER
BURDEN.  HER SHOWING AS TO TEXAS LAW IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE FOLLOWING. 

BY STATUTE IN TEXAS, ALIMONY MAY BE AWARDED DURING THE PENDENCY OF A
SUIT FOR A DIVORCE "UNTIL A FINAL DECREE SHALL BE MADE IN THE CASE." 
13 VERNON'S CIVIL STATS., ART. 4637.  "THIS STATUTE IS EXCLUSIVE IN ITS
VERY NATURE, AND NO ALIMONY CAN BE DECREED BY ANY COURT IN THIS STATE
EXCEPT UNDER ITS EXPRESS TERMS."  MARTIN V. MARTIN, 17 S.W.2D 789, 791
792.  IT HAS BEEN BROADLY STATED IN PHILLIPS V. PHILLIPS, 203 S.W. 77,
79 THAT, "IN THIS STATE THE LEGAL DUTY OF THE HUSBAND TO SUPPORT HIS
WIFE CEASES UPON THE SEVERANCE OF THE MARITAL BONDS, NOR HAS A COURT
THE POWER TO DECREE THAT A HUSBAND OR HIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECTED TO
SUCH SUPPORT AFTER DIVORCE.  PERMANENT ALIMONY IS NOT PROVIDED FOR BY
TEXAS STATUTE."  AND SEE PAPE V. PAPE, 13 TEX. CIV. APP. 99, 35 S.W.
479; BOYD V. BOYD, 22 TEX. CIV. APP. 200, 54 S.W. 380.  IT IS, HOWEVER,
PROVIDED BY STATUTE THAT THE DIVORCE COURT SHALL ORDER "A DIVISION OF
THE ESTATE OF THE PARTIES IN SUCH A WAY AS THE COURT SHALL DEEM JUST
AND RIGHT, HAVING DUE REGARD TO THE RIGHTS OF EACH PARTY AND THEIR
CHILDREN, IF ANY."  13 VERNON'S CIVIL STATS., ART. 4638.  THAT POWER
EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO COMMUNITY PROPERTY BUT TO THE SEPARATE PROPERTY OF
THE HUSBAND.  EX PARTE SCOTT, 133 TEX. 1, 123 S.W.2D 306; CLARK V.
CLARK, 35 S.W.2D 189; BERG V. BERG, 115 S.W.2D 1171; KETON V. CLARK, 67
S.W.2D 437.  AT TIMES THE DIVORCE COURT HAS MADE SUCH A DIVISION OF THE
ESTATE AS APPARENTLY TO IMPOSE ON THE HUSBAND A PERSONAL OBLIGATION TO
MAKE STATED PAYMENTS TO HIS WIFE.  WILEY V. WILEY, 33 TEX. 358. 
FURTHERMORE, A DIVORCE DECREE WHICH DOES NOT SETTLE THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES TO COMMUNITY PROPERTY MAY NOT PRECLUDE A SUBSEQUENT SUIT BY THE
WIFE TO ESTABLISH HER RIGHTS IN IT.  SEE GRAY V. THOMAS, 83 TEX. 246,
18 S.W. 721.  AND THE DECREE MAY BE CORRECTED TO CONFORM TO THE
INTENTION OF THE PARTIES.  KELLER V. KELLER, 135 TEX. 260, 141 S.W.2D
308.  THE POWER OF THE COURT TO MODIFY A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED, SO AS TO GIVE THE WIFE AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY NOT COVERED BY
THE EARLIER DECREE, HAS BEEN DENIED IN ABSENCE OF FRAUD OR MISTAKE. 
CANNON V. CANNON, 43 S.W.2D 134.  PETITIONER CHALLENGES THE RELIABILITY
OF THE LATTER CASE BECAUSE ON APPEAL THE CASE WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION (121 TEX. 634), WHICH MEANT EITHER DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
REASONING BUT APPROVAL OF THE RESULT, OR LACK OF JURISDICTION.  3
VERNON'S CIVIL STATS., ART. 1728.  AND SEE REPUBLIC INS. CO. V. SCHOOL
DIST., 133 TEX. 545, 125 S.W.2D 270. 

WE NEED NOT, HOWEVER, ENDEAVOR TO RESOLVE THAT DOUBT.  NOR NEED WE
SPECULATE AS TO THE POWER OF THE COURT AT SOME FUTURE TIME TO ORDER A
DIVISION OF PROPERTY IN THIS CASE, AND AS AN INCIDENT THERETO TO IMPOSE
ON PETITIONER'S HUSBAND A PERSONAL OBLIGATION, AS WAS APPARENTLY DONE
BY THE DIVORCE DECREE IN WILEY V. WILEY, SUPRA.  SEE 6 TEX. L. REV. 344
DISCUSSING HELM V. HELM, 291 S.W. 648.  FOR EVEN THOUGH PETITIONER
ESTABLISHED THAT THE DIVORCE COURT RETAINED THAT BROAD POWER, NOT
SPECIFICALLY RESERVED, AND EVEN THOUGH WE ASSUME THAT THE POWER TO MAKE
A DIVISION OF PROPERTY IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A POWER TO PROVIDE
PERMANENT ALIMONY, SHE HAS NOT MAINTAINED HER BURDEN OF REBUTTING THE
PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE INCOME
FROM THIS ANNUITY CONTRACT WAS TAXABLE TO HER.  IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
THAT BURDEN, SHE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS AT LEAST DOUBTFUL AND
UNCERTAIN WHETHER THE TEXAS COURT, AS AN INCIDENT OF ITS POWER TO
REQUIRE THE HUSBAND TO SUPPORT HIS WIFE, RETAINED CONTROL OVER THIS
ANNUITY CONTRACT OR THE INCOME FROM IT.  THAT AT LEAST IS THE RESULT
UNLESS WE ARE TO BROADEN THE BASE ON WHICH THE FITCH, FULLER, AND
LEONARD CASES REST. 

THOSE CASES INVOLVED SO-CALLED ALIMONY TRUSTS.  IN EACH, THE TRUST
WAS IRREVOCABLE.  IN EACH, THE HUSBAND HAD AN OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HIS
WIFE. 

IN THE FITCH CASE, THE TRUST PROVIDED THAT THE WIFE WAS TO RECEIVE,
DURING HER LIFE, $600 A MONTH FROM THE INCOME OF THE TRUST PROPERTY;
THE HUSBAND, THE BALANCE.  WE HELD THAT THE HUSBAND HAD NOT SHOWN BY
"CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF" THAT "IN IOWA DIVORCE LAW THE COURT HAS
LOST ALL JURISDICTION TO ALTER OR REVISE THE AMOUNT OF INCOME PAYABLE
TO THE WIFE FROM AN ENTERPRISE WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN TRUST.  FOR ALL
THAT WE KNOW IT MIGHT RETAIN THE POWER TO REALLOCATE THE INCOME FROM
THAT PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH IT LACKED THE POWER TO ADD TO OR SUBTRACT
FROM THE CORPUS OR TO TAP OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME.  IF IT DID HAVE SUCH
POWER, THEN IT COULD BE SAID THAT A DECREE APPROVING AN ALIMONY TRUST
OF THE KIND HERE INVOLVED MERELY PLACED UPON THE PRE-EXISTING DUTY OF
THE HUSBAND A PARTICULAR AND SPECIFIED SANCTION."  309 U.S. AT P. 156. 
AND IN SPEAKING OF THE ALIMONY TRUST INVOLVED IN DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS,
SUPRA, WE STATED (PP. 151-152): 

"IT IS PLAIN THAT THERE THE ALIMONY TRUST, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE
DIVORCE DECREE, WAS MERELY SECURITY FOR A CONTINUING OBLIGATION OF THE
TAXPAYER TO SUPPORT HIS DIVORCED WIFE.  THAT WAS MADE EVIDENT NOT ONLY
BY HIS AGREEMENT TO MAKE UP ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE $15,000 ANNUAL SUM
TO BE PAID HER UNDER THE TRUST.  IT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE POWER OF
THE MINNESOTA DIVORCE COURT SUBSEQUENTLY TO ALTER AND REVISE ITS DECREE
AND THE PROVISIONS MADE THEREIN FOR THE WIFE'S BENEFIT.  LIKEWISE
CONSISTENT WITH THE USE OF THE ALIMONY TRUST AS A SECURITY DEVICE WAS
THE PROVISION THAT ON DEATH OF THE DIVORCED WIFE THE CORPUS OF THE
TRUST WAS TO BE TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE TAXPAYER." 

IN THE LEONARD CASE, INCOME FROM THE TRUST WAS TO BE PAID TO THE WIFE
FOR HER LIFE, WHICH TOGETHER WITH INCOME FROM OTHER PROPERTY WAS
ESTIMATED AT $30,000 A YEAR.  A SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE
HUSBAND WOULD PAY HIS WIFE AN ADDITIONAL $35,000 EACH YEAR DURING HER
LIFE, SO THAT HER AGGREGATE NET INCOME FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF HERSELF
AND HER CHILDREN WOULD BE $65,000 A YEAR.  THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT
ALSO PROVIDED THAT, IN THE EVENT THE HUSBAND'S ABILITY TO MAKE THE
ANNUAL PAYMENT OF $35,000 BECAME IMPAIRED, HE MIGHT APPLY TO A COURT
FOR A REDUCTION OF HIS OBLIGATION OF NOT LESS THAN $10,000 A YEAR.  WE
HELD THAT THE HUSBAND HAD NOT SUSTAINED HIS BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT
"LOCAL LAW AND THE ALIMONY TRUST" GAVE HIM "A FULL DISCHARGE" FROM HIS
OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HIS WIFE.  310 U.S., P. 86.  THE TRUST AND THE
UNDERTAKING IN THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WERE INTEGRAL PARTS OF AN
ARRANGEMENT BY WHICH THE "MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT" OF THE WIFE "WERE
SECURED."  P. 85.  WE NOTED THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR, UNDER NEW YORK LAW,
WHETHER OR NOT SUCH A SETTLEMENT COULD BE REMADE BY THE COURT, THOUGH
THERE WAS SOME AUTHORITY WHICH INDICATED THAT THE DIVORCE COURT'S
RESERVED POWER MIGHT BE EXERCISED "WHERE THE PROVISION IN THE SEPARATE
AGREEMENT, APPROVED BY THE DECREE, IS FOR SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE." 
PP. 86-87.  IN VIEW OF THAT FACT AND THE NATURE OF THE SETTLEMENT, WE
CONCLUDED THAT THE HUSBAND HAD NOT SHOWN THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT MERE
SECURITY FOR HIS CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HIS WIFE. 

IN THE FULLER CASE, IT WAS CLEAR, UNDER NEVADA LAW, THAT THE COURT
RETAINED NO CONTROL OVER THE DIVORCE DECREE WHICH APPROVED THE TRUST
SETTLEMENT.  SINCE THERE WAS NO SUCH RESERVED POWER, AND SINCE THE
TRUST CONTAINED NO CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKING BY THE HUSBAND FOR SUPPORT
OF THE WIFE, WE CONCLUDED THAT HIS OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HAD BEEN PRO
TANTO DISCHARGED.  WE HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE HUSBAND WAS TAXABLE ON A
$40 WEEKLY PAYMENT WHICH HE HAD AGREED TO MAKE TO HIS WIFE.  BUT THAT
FACT DID NOT MAKE HIM TAXABLE ON INCOME FROM THE TRUST ALSO, SINCE THE
PROVISION FOR WEEKLY PAYMENTS AND THE TRUST "WERE NOT SO INTERRELATED
OR INTERDEPENDENT AS TO MAKE THE TRUST A SECURITY FOR THE WEEKLY
PAYMENTS."  P. 73.  WE ALSO NOTED (P. 76) THAT, THOUGH "THE DIVORCE
DECREE EXTINGUISHES THE HUSBAND'S PREEXISTING DUTY TO SUPPORT THE WIFE,
AND THOUGH NO PROVISION OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT PLACES SUCH OBLIGATION
ON HIM, THAT AGREEMENT MAY NEVERTHELESS LEAVE HIM WITH SUFFICIENT
INTEREST IN OR CONTROL OVER THE TRUST AS TO MAKE HIM THE OWNER OF THE
CORPUS FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX," UNDER THE RULE OF
HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331.    THUS, A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT
MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING OR SUPPORTING THE WIFE MAY BE
TREATED FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES AS MERE SECURITY FOR THE HUSBAND'S
CONTINUING OBLIGATION, DEPENDENT ON SUCH CONSIDERATIONS AS WHETHER IT
CONTAINS, OR IS INTERRELATED WITH, CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE
HUSBAND FOR HER SUPPORT; WHETHER THE COURT HAS A RESERVED POWER TO
ALTER OR MODIFY IT; OR WHETHER THE HUSBAND RETAINS ANY SUBSTANTIAL
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY CONVEYED.  WHERE THE SETTLEMENT CARRIES SOME
OF THE EARMARKS OF A SECURITY DEVICE, THEN THE POWER OF THE COURT TO
ADD TO THE HUSBAND'S PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ESPECIALLY
SIGNIFICANT.  SEE HELVERING V. LEONARD, SUPRA.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE
SETTLEMENT APPEARS TO BE ABSOLUTE AND OUTRIGHT, AND ON ITS FACE VESTS
IN THE WIFE THE INDICIA OF COMPLETE OWNERSHIP, IT WILL BE TREATED AS
THAT WHICH IT PURPORTS TO BE, IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS ONLY A
SECURITY DEVICE FOR THE HUSBAND'S CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT. 
THERE MAY BE DIFFICULTY IN PLACING A PARTICULAR CASE ON ONE SIDE OF THE
LINE RATHER THAN THE OTHER.  BUT AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN
IRWIN V. GAVIT, 268 U.S. 161, 168, "THAT IS THE QUESTION IN PRETTY MUCH
EVERYTHING WORTH ARGUING IN THE LAW."  AND SEE HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER,
312 U.S. 579, 583. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, PETITIONER HAS MADE NO SHOWING WHATSOEVER THAT THE
TEXAS COURT RETAINED THE POWER TO REALLOCATE THE INCOME FROM THIS
ANNUITY CONTRACT OR TO CONTROL IT IN ANY WAY AS AN INCIDENT OF ITS
POWER TO REQUIRE THE HUSBAND TO SUPPORT THE WIFE.  SHE HAS NOT SHOWN
THAT THE DIVORCE COURT IMPOSED ANY PERSONAL OBLIGATION ON THE HUSBAND
IN RESPECT TO THE SETTLEMENT IN QUESTION.  AND SHE IS NOT AIDED BY
THOSE CASES WHICH ENFORCE AGREEMENTS OF THE HUSBAND TO MAKE PERIODIC
PAYMENTS TO THE WIFE.  SEE JOHNSON V. JOHNSON, 14 S.W.2D 805.  THERE IS
NO SUCH AGREEMENT HERE.  PROOF THAT THE TEXAS COURT MIGHT ADD TO THE
HUSBAND'S PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS AS AN INCIDENT TO A FUTURE PROPERTY
SETTLEMENT IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR PROOF THAT THE COURT HAD THE POWER TO
REMAKE THIS PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AFTER IT WAS CONSUMMATED.  HENCE THERE
IS NO GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THIS SETTLEMENT, WHICH IS ABSOLUTE ON
ITS FACE, IS MERE SECURITY FOR AN OBLIGATION OF A HUSBAND TO SUPPORT
HIS WIFE. 

"THE CORRECT GROUND FOR REFUSING TO TAX SUCH INCOME TO THE HUSBAND IS
MERELY THAT IT IS THE LUMP SUM WHICH DISCHARGES HIM AND NOT THE FUTURE
INCOME RECEIVED BY THE WIFE."  PAUL, FIVE YEARS WITH DOUGLAS V.
WILLCUTS, 53 HARV. L. REV. 1, 17, NOTE 44.  WE NOTED IN HELVERING V.
FULLER, SUPRA, P. 74, THAT OUTRIGHT TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY TO THE WIFE,
THOUGH PROVIDING FOR HER MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, WERE NO DIFFERENT
FROM CASES "WHERE ANY DEBTOR, VOLUNTARILY OR UNDER THE COMPULSION OF A
COURT DECREE, TRANSFERS SECURITIES, A FARM, AN OFFICE BUILDING, OR THE
LIKE, TO HIS CREDITOR IN WHOLE OR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF HIS DEBT."  WE DO
NOT THINK THAT IT WOULD BE PROPER TO EXTEND THE RULE OF DOUGLAS V.
WILLCUTS, SUPRA, TO SUCH A SITUATION.  THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE DIVORCE
COURT MIGHT ADD TO THE HUSBAND'S PERSONAL OBLIGATION DOES NOT ALTER THE
RESULT.  AS IN THE FULLER CASE, THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO THE WIFE
MIGHT RESULT ONLY IN A PARTIAL DISCHARGE OF THE HUSBAND'S OBLIGATION. 
IF THE HUSBAND UNDERTOOK, OR WAS DIRECTED, TO MAKE OTHER PAYMENTS, HE
MIGHT BE TAXABLE ON THEM.  BUT THE FACT THAT HE IS TAXABLE ON A PART OF
THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE WIFE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE HIM TAXABLE
ON ALL.  HELVERING V. FULLER, SUPRA, P. 73.  HENCE THE STATEMENT IN
HELVERING V. FITCH, SUPRA, 309 U.S. AT P. 156, THAT IT MUST BE CLEAR
"THAT LOCAL LAW AND THE ALIMONY TRUST HAVE GIVEN THE DIVORCED HUSBAND A
FULL DISCHARGE AND LEAVE NO CONTINUING OBLIGATION HOWEVER CONTINGENT"
IS TO BE READ IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ALIMONY TRUST IN THAT CASE
WAS DEEMED TO BE A MERE SECURITY DEVICE FOR THE HUSBAND'S CONTINUING
OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT.  FOR THE HUSBAND WAS RELIEVED FROM PAYMENT OF
THE TAX ON INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT IN THE FULLER CASE
THOUGH HE HAD A CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO PAY THE WIFE $40 A WEEK. 

IF THE RULE OF DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, IS NOT TO BE EXTENDED TO
THIS TYPE OF CASE, THEN, ON THE SHOWING WHICH HAS BEEN MADE, THE
HUSBAND WOULD HAVE SUSTAINED HIS BURDEN IN CASE THE COMMISSIONER HAD
PROCEEDED AGAINST HIM.  CF. MITCHELL V. COMMISSIONER, 38 B.T.A. 1336. 
CLEARLY, THEN, THE WIFE MAY NOT ESCAPE. 

SUCH CASES AS HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112, HELVERING V. EUBANK,
311 U.S. 122, AND HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, SUPRA, ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS
RESULT.  THOSE CASES DEALT WITH SITUATIONS WHERE THE TAXPAYER HAD MADE
ASSIGNMENTS OF INCOME FROM PROPERTY.  HE WAS HELD TAXABLE ON THE INCOME
ASSIGNED BY REASON OF THE PRINCIPLE "THAT THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF
INCOME IS THE EQUIVALENT OF OWNERSHIP OF IT AND THAT THE EXERCISE OF
THE POWER TO PROCURE ITS PAYMENT TO ANOTHER, WHETHER TO PAY A DEBT OR
TO MAKE A GIFT, IS WITHIN THE REACH" OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAW. 
HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, SUPRA, P. 580.  BUT IN THOSE CASES THE DONOR OR
GRANTOR HAD "PARTED WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN PROPERTY OTHER THAN
THE SPECIFIED PAYMENTS OF INCOME."  ID. P. 583.  HERE HE HAS PARTED
WITH THE CORPUS.  AND "THE TAX IS UPON INCOME AS TO WHICH, IN THE
GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE ACTS, THE TAX LIABILITY ATTACHES TO
OWNERSHIP."  BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 12.  FINALLY, THERE IS
NO BARRIER UNDER THE INCOME TAX LAWS TO TAXING THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY
ON THE INCOME RECEIVED, HOWEVER HIS INTEREST IN THE FUND WHICH PRODUCES
THE INCOME MAY BE DESCRIBED.  CF. IRWIN V. GAVIT, SUPRA.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

THE SOCIAL FACT THAT A HUSBAND IS NORMALLY UNDER A RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROVIDE FOR HIS WIFE EVEN AFTER THEY ARE DIVORCED, IS THE BASIS FOR THE
RULE THAT MONIES RECEIVED BY A WIFE UNDER A DIVORCE SETTLEMENT ARE
PRESUMED TO BE IN DISCHARGE OF A CONTINUING OBLIGATION OF THE HUSBAND. 
I THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
REINFORCES THIS RULE AS A RULE OF POLICY, AND NOT ONE OF CAPRICE
VARYING WITH THE SEX OF THE TAXPAYER AGAINST WHOM THE COMMISSIONER
CHOOSES TO PROCEED.  I AGREE THAT IF THE COMMISSIONER PROCEEDS AGAINST
THE WIFE, "SHE SUSTAINS HER BURDEN OF REBUTTING HIS PRESUMPTIVELY
CORRECT DETERMINATION MERELY BY SHOWING DOUBTS AND UNCERTAINTIES AS TO
WHETHER THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE PURSUANT TO HER FORMER HUSBAND'S
CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HER," AND THAT IF, ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINES THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE TAXABLE TO THE
HUSBAND, THE LATTER SUSTAINS HIS BURDEN ONLY "BY SUBMITTING CLEAR AND
CONVINCING PROOF THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE PURSUANT TO ANY SUCH
CONTINUING OBLIGATION."  BUT I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE PETITIONER HAS
FAILED TO MAKE THE SHOWING WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULE PROFESSED
BY THE COURT. 

LOCAL LAW MAY PROVIDE THAT THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY UNDER A DIVORCE
SETTLEMENT FINALLY AND DEFINITIVELY TERMINATES A HUSBAND'S OBLIGATION
TO SUPPORT HIS WIFE, AND THAT, ONCE SUCH A SETTLEMENT IS MADE, THE WIFE
LOSES HER RIGHT TO APPLY TO A COURT FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE HUSBAND
TO SUPPORT HER.  IF THE LOCAL LAW GIVES THE SETTLEMENT SUCH EFFECT, IT
IS IMMATERIAL WHAT THE NATURE OF THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY IS.  FOR, IN
SUCH A CASE, THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS
CONFERRING ANY BENEFIT UPON THE HUSBAND, AND IT IS THEREFORE TAXABLE TO
THE WIFE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, LOCAL LAW MAY PROVIDE THAT, EVEN THOUGH A
HUSBAND HAS MADE A COMPLETE, IRREVOCABLE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, HE HAS
NEVERTHELESS NOT OBTAINED A FULL DISCHARGE OF HIS MARITAL OBLIGATIONS
TO HIS WIFE, AND THAT, WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FUTURE MAY WARRANT, A
COURT CAN ORDER THE HUSBAND TO MAKE FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO HER
SUPPORT.  IN SUCH A CASE, THE HUSBAND IS STILL UNDER A "CONTINUING
OBLIGATION HOWEVER CONTINGENT," HELVERING V. FITCH, 309 U.S. 149, 156;
HELVERING V. LEONARD, 310 U.S. 80, 84, AND, SINCE THE INCOME RECEIVED
BY THE WIFE FROM THE PROPERTY CONTRIBUTES TO HER SUPPORT AND THUS
SERVES TO DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION WHICH UNDER LOCAL LAW THE HUSBAND
STILL OWES HER, THE INCOME SHOULD BE TAXABLE TO HIM.  "THE DOMINANT
PURPOSE OF THE REVENUE LAWS IS THE TAXATION OF INCOME TO THOSE WHO EARN
OR OTHERWISE CREATE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT AND ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF IT
WHEN PAID."  HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112, 119; AND SEE HARRISON V.
SCHAFFNER, 312 U.S. 579. 

THE FACT THAT THE WIFE MAY, YEARS AFTER THE SETTLEMENT, HAVE TO GO TO
COURT FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE HUSBAND TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS
FOR HER SUPPORT IS OF NO LEGAL CONSEQUENCE IF THE HUSBAND MAY BE
REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENTS.  A LEGAL OBLIGATION MAY CONTINUE, EVEN
THOUGH ITS BURDEN IS CONTINGENT UPON FUTURE JUDICIAL ACTION.  A WIFE'S
RECEIPT OF INCOME FROM PROPERTY SETTLED UPON HER MAY MAKE IT
UNNECESSARY TO HER EVER TO APPLY FOR A COURT ORDER.  BUT IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT, UNLESS AND UNTIL SHE GOES TO COURT FOR SUCH AN ORDER, HER
HUSBAND IS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HER.  IF THE INCOME
FROM THE PROPERTY SHOULD DWINDLE TO THE POINT WHERE THE WIFE CAN NO
LONGER MAINTAIN HERSELF, AND THE LAW HAS CONTINUED ITS HOLD UPON THE
HUSBAND SO THAT HE MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAKE FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO HER
SUPPORT, THEN PLAINLY THE HUSBAND IS STILL UNDER A "CONTINUING
OBLIGATION HOWEVER CONTINGENT."  THE DETERMINATIVE FACT IS THAT THE LAW
HAS CONTINUED ITS HOLD UPON THE HUSBAND, NOT THAT IT HAS RESERVED THE
POWER TO MODIFY THE PARTICULAR SETTLEMENT. 

IT IS UTTERLY IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED WAS AN
IRREVOCABLE TRUST, AS IN THE FITCH AND LEONARD CASES, OR AN ANNUITY
CONTRACT, AS WE HAVE HERE.  FOR THE ANNUITY IS TAXABLE INCOME, IRWIN V.
GAVIT, 268 U.S. 161, AND THE PROCUREMENT, BY THE HUSBAND'S PURCHASE, OF
ITS PAYMENT TO HIS WIFE RENDERS THE ANNUITY TAXABLE INCOME TO HIM IF IT
IS IN DISCHARGE OF HIS OBLIGATION, QUITE AS MUCH AS IF HE HAD PROCURED
THE PAYMENT BY CREATING A TRUST OF HIS PROPERTY.  HARRISON V.
SCHAFFNER, SUPRA. 

IN EVERY CASE, THE DECISIVE INQUIRY IS WHETHER THE HUSBAND'S
OBLIGATION SUBSISTS AFTER THE DIVORCE SETTLEMENT, OR WHETHER, AS A
RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENT, HE IS QUITS OF HIS WIFE, ONCE AND FOR ALL,
FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE.  IF HE IS UNDER A CONTINUING OBLIGATION, THE
PROPERTY TRANSFERRED, WHETHER IT BE AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST OR AN ANNUITY
CONTRACT, IS A SECURITY DEVICE ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT IT OPERATES TO
SECURE THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OBLIGATION.  IF THE FACT THAT THE HUSBAND
HAS DIVESTED HIMSELF OF CONTROL OVER THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY WERE
DETERMINATIVE, CERTAINLY THE FITCH AND LEONARD CASES, AT LEAST, WOULD
HAVE BEEN DECIDED THE OTHER WAY.  FOR IN EACH OF THESE CASES THE
HUSBAND CONVEYED AN ABSOLUTELY IRREVOCABLE TRUST, OVER WHICH HE HAD NO
GREATER CONTROL THAN THE HUSBAND HAS OVER THE ANNUITY IN THE CASE
BEFORE US.  THESE CASES SHOW THAT IF A HUSBAND IS UNDER A CONTINUING
OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HIS WIFE, INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY IS TAXABLE TO
HIM, NOT BECAUSE HE HAS RETAINED ANY INTEREST IN OR CONTROL OVER THE
PROPERTY, BUT BECAUSE THE INCOME DISCHARGES PRO TANTO A LEGAL
OBLIGATION WHICH HE OWES AND THUS CONFERS A TAXABLE BENEFIT UPON HIM. 
THE ULTIMATE CRITERION OF TAXABILITY, THEREFORE, IS NOT WHETHER A STATE
COURT HAS RESERVED POWER TO CONTROL THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY A
HUSBAND UNDER A DIVORCE SETTLEMENT, BUT WHETHER "THE COURT LACKS THE
POWER TO ADD TO HIS PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS."  HELVERING V. LEONARD, 310
U.S. 80, 87. 

IN LAW, AS IN LIFE, LINES HAVE TO BE DRAWN.  BUT THE FACT THAT A LINE
HAS TO BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE DOES NOT JUSTIFY ITS BEING DRAWN ANYWHERE. 
THE LINE MUST FOLLOW SOME DIRECTION OF POLICY, WHETHER ROOTED IN LOGIC
OR EXPERIENCE.  LINES SHOULD NOT BE DRAWN SIMPLY FOR THE SAKE OF
DRAWING LINES. 

THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT DEALING WITH THE QUESTION BEFORE US HAVE
TURNED UPON WHETHER LOCAL LAW WAS UNCERTAIN AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A
CONTINUING OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE HUSBAND TO SUPPORT THE WIFE. 
THE OPINION OF THE COURT NOW INTRODUCES ANOTHER ELEMENT, NAMELY,
WHETHER THE LOCAL LAW IS UNCERTAIN AS TO THE POWER OF THE STATE COURTS
TO REMAKE THE PARTICULAR SETTLEMENT.  THIS, IT SEEMS TO ME, HAS NO
VALID RELATION TO THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF TAX LIABILITY THAT "HE WHO
RECEIVES BENEFITS SHOULD BE TAXED."  WHETHER A HUSBAND IS BENEFITED
FROM THE PAYMENT OF MONIES TO HIS DIVORCED WIFE DEPENDS UPON HIS
OBLIGATION TO HER WHICH THE PAYMENT OF THE MONIES SERVED TO DISCHARGE,
NOT UPON THE NATURE OF THE WIFE'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY HE HAS
TRANSFERRED TO HER.  TO INTRODUCE SUCH AN UNWARRANTED REFINEMENT IS TO
CLOG THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 

BUT, IN ANY EVENT, ALL OF THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WERE AGREED THAT "THE LAW OF TEXAS IS UNCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER THE
TAXPAYER'S HUSBAND DISCHARGED HIMSELF OF HIS MARITAL LIABILITY BY THE
SETTLEMENT AT BAR."  120 F.2D 228, 230.  THIS GENERAL UNCERTAINTY AS TO
TEXAS LAW IS CONTROVERTED NOW, NOT BY CONTROLLING TEXAS AUTHORITY BUT
BY EXTENDED ARGUMENTATION AND SPECULATION.  THE COURT SUGGESTS THAT,
HAD THE COMMISSIONER GONE AGAINST THE HUSBAND, HE WOULD HAVE SUSTAINED
THE BURDEN AS HERETOFORE DEFINED, NAMELY, OF SHOWING, "BY SUBMITTING
CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF," THAT UNDER LOCAL LAW HE WAS UNDER NO
CONTINUING OBLIGATION.  SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSITION IS DRAWN NOT FROM
ANY TEXAS AUTHORITY, WHETHER STATUTE OR DECISION, BUT FROM A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, MITCHELL V. COMMISSIONER, 38 B.T.A. 1336. 
BUT, IN THAT CASE THERE WAS A DIVISION OF PROPERTY BETWEEN HUSBAND AND
WIFE, WHICH INCLUDED PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE WIFE UNDER AN EARLIER
ARRANGEMENT ENTIRELY UNRELATED TO THE HUSBAND'S MARITAL OBLIGATIONS. 
THE BOARD HELD THAT THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY COULD NOT, THEREFORE,
BE TAXED TO THE HUSBAND.  AS ITS OPINION SHOWS, THE DECISION DID NOT
TURN ON THE TEXAS LAW OF DIVORCE:  "WE THINK THAT THE TRUST INCOME
WHICH WAS PAID TO HER (THE WIFE) WAS HER SEPARATE INCOME.  IT WAS NOT
PAID IN SATISFACTION OF ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION OF J. A. MITCHELL (THE
HUSBAND) AND IT IS NOT TAXABLE TO HIM."  38 B.T.A. AT 1342.    THE
COURT'S EXEGESIS OF TEXAS LAW SHOWS IT TO BE NO LESS UNCERTAIN THAN WAS
THE IOWA LAW IN THE FITCH CASE, OR THE NEW YORK LAW IN THE LEONARD
CASE.  THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S RULING THAT THE WIFE, IN ORDER TO
ESCAPE TAX LIABILITY, MUST CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE STATE COURT HAS
RESERVED THE POWER TO MODIFY THE TERMS OF THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY
SETTLEMENT IS TO REJECT THE RULE OF POLICY ENUNCIATED EARLIER IN ITS
OPINION.  FOR THERE IS NO CLEAR TEXAS AUTHORITY, AND UNDER THE RULE OF
THE FITCH AND LEONARD CASES, WHICH THE COURT DOES NOT PURPORT TO
MODIFY, THE HUSBAND WOULD BE UNABLE TO SHOW, "NOT BY MERE INFERENCE AND
CONJECTURE BUT BY 'CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF'" (HELVERING V. LEONARD,
SUPRA, AT 86; SEE HELVERING V. FITCH, SUPRA, AT 156), THAT THE PAYMENTS
MADE TO HIS WIFE DID NOT DISCHARGE A CONTINUING OBLIGATION WHICH HE
OWED HER.  THEREFORE, LIABILITY UNDER THE TAX LAW IS MADE ACTUALLY TO
DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER ELECTS TO GO AGAINST THE HUSBAND
OR THE WIFE.  HAVING CLOSED THE FRONT DOOR TO DETERMINATION OF TAX
LIABILITY BY CAPRICE, THE COURT ALLOWS CAPRICE TO ENTER THROUGH THE
BACK DOOR OF "PRESUMPTION." 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL REVENUE LAWS, NOT TO RE-EXAMINE THE
CORRECTNESS OF THE LOWER COURT'S FINDING REGARDING THE UNCERTAINTY OF
TEXAS LAW AS APPLIED TO THIS CASE.  THE GENERAL UNCERTAINTY OF TEXAS
LAW WITH RESPECT TO CONTROL OVER DIVORCE SETTLEMENTS IS CONCEDED - AND
THAT IS THE DECISIVE FACTOR FOR OUR PURPOSE.  THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC
TEXAS AUTHORITY DEALING WITH SUCH AN ANNUITY SETTLEMENT AS WE HAVE HERE
DOES NOT LESSEN OR REMOVE THAT UNCERTAINTY, OR JUSTIFY US IN MAKING
ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING THE TEXAS LAW AFFECTING SUCH A SETTLEMENT.  WHERE
PROPHECY AS TO A STATE COURT'S RULING ON ITS LOCAL LAW IS NOT
IMPERATIVELY REQUIRED OF US, EXPERIENCE COUNSELS ABSTENTION FROM
PROPHECY.  NO RULING OF OURS CAN MAKE TEXAS LAW. 

I BELIEVE THEREFORE THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED
BECAUSE OF THE RULING ON FEDERAL LAW AS TO WHICH WE ALL AGREE, AND THAT
TEXAS LAW SHOULD BE LEFT WHERE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND IT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




















STONITE CO. V. MELVIN LLOYD CO., 315 U.S. 561 


NO. 321.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1942.  - 119
F.2D 883, REVERSED. 


1.  VENUE IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUITS IS GOVERNED EXCLUSIVELY BY
JUD.  CODE SEC. 48, WHICH PROVIDES THAT, IN SUCH SUITS, THE DISTRICT
COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT
IS AN INHABITANT, OR IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL HAVE
COMMITTED ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT AND HAVE A REGULAR AND ESTABLISHED PLACE
OF BUSINESS.  P. 563. 

IN A SUIT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT BROUGHT IN ONE OF TWO DISTRICTS IN
THE SAME STATE, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NO REGULAR AND ESTABLISHED PLACE
OF BUSINESS IN THAT DISTRICT AND WHO IS AN INHABITANT OF THE OTHER
DISTRICT CAN NOT PROPERLY BE JOINED AS A DEFENDANT. 

2.  THE PROVISION OF JUD.  CODE SEC. 52 PERMITTING SUITS, NOT OF A
LOCAL NATURE, AGAINST TWO OR MORE DEFENDANTS RESIDING IN DIFFERENT
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE SAME STATE TO BE BROUGHT IN EITHER
DISTRICT, IS INAPPLICABLE TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUITS.  P. 566. 

STONITE PRODUCTS CO. V. MELVIN LLOYD CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 594, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH REVERSED THE
ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN DISMISSING, AS TO ONE OF TWO
DEFENDANTS, A BILL ALLEGING INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT.  36 F.SUPP.  29. 
THE OTHER DEFENDANT DEFAULTED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ONLY QUESTION PRESENTED FOR OUR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER SEC. 48
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 109) IS THE SOLE PROVISION
GOVERNING THE VENUE OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION, OR WHETHER THAT
113).  SECTION 48 GIVES JURISDICTION OF SUITS FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH THE
DEFENDANT IS AN INHABITANT, OR IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT
SHALL HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT AND HAVE A REGULAR AND
ESTABLISHED PLACE OF BUSINESS.  SECTION 52 PERMITS SUITS, NOT OF A
LOCAL NATURE, AGAINST TWO OR MORE DEFENDANTS, RESIDING IN DIFFERENT
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE SAME STATE, TO BE BROUGHT IN EITHER
DISTRICT.  FN1 

PETITIONER, STONITE PRODUCTS COMPANY, AN INHABITANT OF THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WITHOUT A REGULAR AND ESTABLISHED PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF THAT STATE, WAS SUED JOINTLY WITH
LOWE SUPPLY COMPANY, AN INHABITANT OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT, IN THE
WESTERN DISTRICT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT NO. 1,777,759 FOR A BOILER
STAND.  PETITIONER WAS SERVED WITH PROCESS IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT,
ENTERED A SPECIAL APPEARANCE IN THE ACTION IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT, AND
MOVED TO DISMISS OR QUASH THE RETURN OF SERVICE BECAUSE VENUE WAS LAID
IN THE WRONG DISTRICT.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND
DISMISSED THE CAUSE AS TO PETITIONER.  FN2 36 F.SUPP.  29.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  119 F.2D 883.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH MOTOSHAVER, INC. V. SCHICK DRY
SHAVER, INC., 100 F.2D 236(C.C.A. 9). 

WE HOLD THAT SEC. 48 IS THE EXCLUSIVE PROVISION CONTROLLING VENUE IN
PATENT INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS. 

695, AND ITS SCOPE CAN BEST BE DETERMINED FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE
REASONS FOR ITS ENACTMENT. 

79, PERMITTED CIVIL SUITS TO BE BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST A
PERSON ONLY IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH HE WAS AN INHABITANT OR IN WHICH
HE WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SERVING THE WRIT.  THAT SECTION APPLIED TO
SUITS FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT.  CHAFFEE V. HAYWARD, 20 HOW.  208, 216;
ALLEN V. BLUNT, 1 BLATCHF.  408, FED. CAS. NO. 215.  THE ACT OF MARCH
3, 1875, C. 137, 18 STAT. 470, RETAINED THE PROVISION ALLOWING SUIT
WHEREVER THE DEFENDANT COULD BE FOUND.  THE ABUSES ENGENDERED BY THIS
EXTENSIVE VENUE PROMPTED THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, C. 373, 24 STAT.
552, WHICH, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1888, C. 866, 25 STAT.
433, PERMITTED CIVIL SUITS TO BE INSTITUTED ONLY IN THE DISTRICT OF
WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS AN INHABITANT, EXCEPT THAT IN DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION CASES SUIT COULD BE STARTED IN THE DISTRICT OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S OR THE DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THOSE
PROVISIONS WAS REENACTED AS SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C.
SEC. 112). 

AFTER THE HOLDING OF IN RE HOHORST, 150 U.S. 653, THAT THE ACT OF
1887 AS AMENDED DID NOT APPLY TO A SUIT AGAINST AN ALIEN OR A FOREIGN
CORPORATION, "ESPECIALLY IN A SUIT FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT
RIGHT," THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS BECAME UNCERTAIN AS TO THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT OF 1887 TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS. 
FN3  IN EXPLANATION OF HOHORST'S CASE, IT WAS SAID IN IN RE KEASBEY &
MATTISON CO., 160 U.S. 221, 230, THAT "IT WAS A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT
OF A PATENT RIGHT, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF WHICH HAD BEEN GRANTED TO
THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ...  ; AND WAS THEREFORE NOT
AFFECTED BY GENERAL PROVISIONS REGULATING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, CONCURRENT WITH THAT OF THE SEVERAL
STATES."  THEREAFTER THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, FOR THE MOST PART, TOOK
THE POSITION THAT THE ACT OF 1887 AS AMENDED DID NOT APPLY TO SUITS FOR
PATENT INFRINGEMENT, AND THAT INFRINGERS COULD BE SUED WHEREVER THEY
COULD BE FOUND.  FN4 

THE ACT OF 1897 WAS ADOPTED TO DEFINE THE EXACT JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS IN ACTIONS TO ENFORCE PATENT RIGHTS, AND THUS ELIMINATE
THE UNCERTAINTY PRODUCED BY THE CONFLICTING DECISIONS ON THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT OF 1887, AS AMENDED, TO SUCH LITIGATION.  FN5
THAT PURPOSE INDICATES THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE ACT OF 1897 TO
DOVETAIL WITH THE GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE VENUE OF CIVIL
SUITS, BUT RATHER THAT IT ALONE SHOULD CONTROL VENUE IN PATENT
INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS. 

THE ACT OF MAY 4, 1858, C. 27, 11 STAT. 272, A GENERAL ACT INTENDED TO
DO AWAY WITH THE INSERTION OF SPECIAL PROVISIONS PRESERVING STATEWIDE
VENUE IN ACTS DIVIDING A STATE INTO TWO OR MORE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS,
FN6  AND THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 24, 1863, C. 54 SEC. 9, 12 STAT. 662. 
RESPONDENTS INSIST THAT SEC. 52 APPLIES TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUITS
BECAUSE IT ANTEDATES SEC. 48, EXCLUDES FROM ITS PURVIEW ONLY SUITS OF A
LOCAL NATURE, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPLEMENTARY TO SEC. 48,
SINCE IT DEALS WITH THE PROBLEM OF VENUE IN THE GEOGRAPHICAL SENSE
RATHER THAN IN TERMS OF SPECIFIED CLASSES OF LITIGATION.  WE CANNOT
AGREE. 

EVEN ASSUMING THAT R.S. SEC. 740 COVERED PATENT LITIGATION PRIOR TO
THE ACT OF 1897, WE DO NOT THINK THAT ITS APPLICATION SURVIVED THAT
ACT, WHICH WAS INTENDED TO DEFINE THE EXACT LIMITS OF VENUE IN PATENT
INFRINGEMENT SUITS.  FN7  FURTHERMORE, THE ACT OF 1897 WAS A
RESTRICTIVE MEASURE, LIMITING A PRIOR, BROADER VENUE.  GENERAL ELECTRIC
CO. V. MARVEL CO., 287 U.S. 430, 434-435; BOWERS V. ATLANTIC, G. & P.
CO., 104 F. 887; CHEATHAM ELECTRIC SWITCHING CO. V. TRANSIT CO., 191 F.
727.  FN8 THUS THERE IS LITTLE REASON TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
TO AUTHORIZE SUITS IN DISTRICTS OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN THAT
ACT. 

THE REENACTMENT OF THE ACT OF 1897 AS SEC. 48, AND OF R.S. SEC. 740
AS SEC. 52 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1911, C. 231,
36 STAT. 1100-1101, IS NOT INDICATIVE OF ANY CONGRESSIONAL
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TWO SECTIONS ARE COMPLEMENTARY.  QUITE THE
CONTRARY, FOR SEC. 52 APPEARS IN THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AN EXCEPTION TO
SEC. 51, THE GENERAL VENUE PROVISION DERIVED FROM THE ACT OF 1887, AS
AMENDED.  SEE CAMP V. GRESS, 250 U.S. 308, 315.  SECTION 51 IS, OF
COURSE, NOT APPLICABLE TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS.  GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO. V. MARVEL CO., SUPRA.  FN9  SINCE SEC. 48 IS WHOLLY
INDEPENDENT OF SEC. 51, THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF INCONGRUITY IN
ATTEMPTING TO SUPPLEMENT SEC. 48 BY RESORT TO SEC. 52, AN EXCEPTION TO
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 51.  CF. CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO. V. LAKE
TRANSFER CORP., 74 F.2D 258.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 48 PROVIDES: 

"IN SUITS BROUGHT FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF LETTERS PATENT THE DISTRICT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION, IN LAW OR IN
EQUITY, IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS AN INHABITANT, OR IN
ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT, WHETHER A PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, OR
CORPORATION, SHALL HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT AND HAVE A
REGULAR AND ESTABLISHED PLACE OF BUSINESS.  IF SUCH SUIT IS BROUGHT IN
A DISTRICT OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS NOT AN INHABITANT, BUT IN WHICH
SUCH DEFENDANT HAS A REGULAR AND ESTABLISHED PLACE OF BUSINESS, SERVICE
OF PROCESS, SUMMONS, OR SUBPOENA UPON THE DEFENDANT MAY BE MADE BY
SERVICE UPON THE AGENT OR AGENTS ENGAGED IN CONDUCTING SUCH BUSINESS IN
THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUIT IS BROUGHT." 


"WHEN A STATE CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE DISTRICT, EVERY SUIT NOT OF A
LOCAL NATURE, IN THE DISTRICT COURT THEREOF, AGAINST A SINGLE
DEFENDANT, INHABITANT OF SUCH STATE, MUST BE BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT
WHERE HE RESIDES; BUT IF THERE ARE TWO OR MORE DEFENDANTS, RESIDING IN
DIFFERENT DISTRICTS OF THE STATE, IT MAY BE BROUGHT IN EITHER DISTRICT,
AND A DUPLICATE WRIT MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, DIRECTED TO
THE MARSHAL OF ANY OTHER DISTRICT IN WHICH ANY DEFENDANT RESIDES.  THE
CLERK ISSUING THE DUPLICATE WRIT SHALL INDORSE THEREON THAT IT IS A
TRUE COPY OF A WRIT SUED OUT OF THE COURT OF THE PROPER DISTRICT; AND
SUCH ORIGINAL AND DUPLICATE WRITS, WHEN EXECUTED AND RETURNED INTO THE
OFFICE FROM WHICH THEY ISSUE, SHALL CONSTITUTE AND BE PROCEEDED ON AS
ONE SUIT; AND UPON ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE RENDERED THEREIN, EXECUTION
MAY BE ISSUED, DIRECTED TO THE MARSHAL OF ANY DISTRICT IN THE SAME
STATE." 

FN2  LOWE SUPPLY COMPANY DEFAULTED AND THE SUIT PROCEEDED TO JUDGMENT
AGAINST IT. 

FN3  PRIOR TO THE HOHORST CASE THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS SEEM TO HAVE
BEEN UNANIMOUS IN ASSUMING THAT THE ACT OF 1887 AS AMENDED GOVERNED
PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION.  SEE REINSTADLER V. REEVES, 33 F. 308;
MILLER-MAGEE CO. V. CARPENTER, 34 F. 433; HALSTEAD V. MANNING, BOWMAN &
CO., 34 F. 565; GORMULLY & JEFFREY MFG. CO. V. POPE MFG. CO., 34 F.
818; PRESTON V. FIRE-EXTINGUISHER MFG. CO., 36 F. 721; ADRIANCE, PLATT
& CO. V. MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO., 55 F. 287; NATIONAL TYPEWRITER
CO. V. POPE MFG. CO., 56 F. 849; BICYCLE STEPLADDER CO. V. GORDON, 57
F. 529; CRAMER V. SINGER MFG. CO., 59 F. 74. 

AFTER THE HOHORST DECISION CONFLICT DEVELOPED.  UNION SWITCH & SIGNAL
CO. V. HALL SIGNAL CO., 65 F. 625, RELYING ON GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY.
CO. V. GONZALES, 151 U.S. 496, INTERPRETED IN RE HOHORST AS LIMITED TO
INFRINGEMENT SUITS AGAINST ALIENS OR FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  ACCORD,
DONNELLY V. UNITED STATES CORDAGE CO., 66 F. 613.  CONTRA, SMITH V.
SARGENT MFG. CO., 67 F. 801. 

FN4  NATIONAL BUTTON WORKS V. WADE, 72 F. 298; NOONAN V. CHESTER PARK
ATHLETIC CLUB CO., 75 F. 334; EARL V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 75 F. 609;
WESTINGHOUSE AIR-BRAKE CO. V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO., 88 F. 258. 
CONTRA, GORHAM MFG. CO. V. WATSON, 74 F. 418. 

FN5  SEE H. REPT. NO. 2905, 54TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

THE REMARKS OF MR. MITCHELL WHO REPORTED THE BILL FOR THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON PATENTS ARE SIGNIFICANT (29 CONG. REC. 1900-1901): 

"MR. SPEAKER, THE NECESSITY FOR THIS LAW GROWS OUT OF THE ACTS OF
1887 AND 1888 WHICH AMENDED THE JUDICIARY ACT.  CONFLICTING DECISIONS
HAVE EVEN ARISEN IN THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS IN THE SAME STATES AS TO
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE ACTS OF 1887 AND 1888, AND THERE IS GREAT
UNCERTAINTY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT OF 1887
AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF 1888 APPLIED TO PATENT CASES AT ALL. 

"THE BILL IS INTENDED TO REMOVE THIS UNCERTAINTY AND TO DEFINE THE
EXACT JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS IN THESE MATTERS. 

"THE COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY CAREFUL IN THE INVESTIGATION OF
THE MATTER BEFORE REPORTING THE BILL. 

"AS THE BILL WAS REFERRED TO ME, I WROTE TO A GREAT MANY PATENT
LAWYERS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, IN ORDER TO GET THEIR VIEWS
AND OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, AND I FIND THAT THEY ARE ALL UNANIMOUSLY IN
FAVOR OF THE BILL AS IT IS NOW REPORTED, AND STATE THAT IT WOULD TEND
NOT ONLY TO DEFINE THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS NOT NOW
DEFINED, BUT ALSO LIMIT THAT JURISDICTION AND SO CLEARLY DEFINE IT THAT
IN THE FUTURE THERE WILL BE NO QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION
OF THE ACTS OF 1887 AND 1888. 

     .         .         .         .   . 

"  ...  THE TROUBLE HAS ARISEN IN THIS MATTER THAT UNDER THE ACT OF
1888 SOME OF THE COURTS WERE UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW DID OR
DID NOT APPLY TO PATENT CASES, AND THEREFORE THIS SPECIAL BILL RELATING
TO PATENTS SOLELY HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BECAUSE OF THE INDEFINITENESS AND
UNCERTAINTY ARISING FROM DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ACT OF 1888 AS
APPLIED TO PATENT CASES." 

FN6  SEE THE REMARKS OF SENATOR PUGH WHO REPORTED THE BILL FOR THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.  36 CONG. GLOBE 936, 35TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN7  AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE WAS SOME UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHETHER
R.S. SEC. 740 SURVIVED THE GENERAL VENUE PROVISIONS OF THE ACTS OF 1875
AND 1887.  SEE GREELEY V. LOWE, 155 U.S. 58, 72; PETRI V. CREELMAN
LUMBER CO., 199 U.S. 487, 497; CAMP V. GRESS, 250 U.S. 308, 315.  IT
WAS HELD THAT IT DID IN EAST TENNESSEE, V. & G.R. CO. V. ATLANTA & F.R.
CO., 49 F. 608; GODDARD V. MAILLER, 80 F. 422; AND DOSCHER V. UNITED
STATES PIPE LINE CO., 185 F. 959.  BUT COMPARE NEW JERSEY STEEL & IRON
CO. V. CHORMANN, 105 F. 532, AND SEYBERT V. SHAMOKIN & MT. C. ELECTRIC
RY. CO., 110 F. 810. 

FN8  ZELL V. ERIE BRONZE CO., 273 F. 833, IS TO THE CONTRARY, BUT
APPARENTLY OVERLOOKS THE TREND OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS AFTER IN RE
KEASBEY & MATTISON, 160 U.S. 221, WAS DECIDED.  SEE NOTE 4, ANTE. 

FN9  THIS IS APPARENT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT OF 1897
FROM WHICH SEC. 48 IS DERIVED.  SEE NOTE 5, ANTE. 

INFRINGEMENT.  LUMIERE V. WILDER, INC., 261 U.S. 174. 
..END :











CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 


NO. 255.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 9, 1942.  - 91 N.H.
310, 18 A.2D 754, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THAT PART OF C. 378, SEC. 2, OF THE PUBLIC LAWS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
WHICH FORBIDS UNDER PENALTY THAT ANY PERSON SHALL ADDRESS "ANY
OFFENSIVE, DERISIVE OR ANNOYING WORD TO ANY OTHER PERSON WHO IS
LAWFULLY IN ANY STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACE," OR "CALL HIM BY ANY
OFFENSIVE OR DERISIVE NAME," WAS CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE, IN THIS CASE AND BEFORE THIS CASE AROSE, AS LIMITED TO THE USE
IN A PUBLIC PLACE OF WORDS DIRECTLY TENDING TO CAUSE A BREACH OF THE
PEACE BY PROVOKING THE PERSON ADDRESSED TO ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT, SO CONSTRUED, IT IS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND SPECIFIC TO
COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 573. 

(2)  THAT AS APPLIED TO A PERSON WHO, ON A PUBLIC STREET, ADDRESSED
ANOTHER AS A "DAMNED FASCIST" AND A "DAMNED RACKETEER," IT DOES NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY OR UNREASONABLY IMPINGE UPON FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  P. 574. 

(3)  THE REFUSAL OF THE STATE COURT TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE
DEFENDANT TENDING TO PROVE PROVOCATION AND EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE
TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE UTTERANCES CHARGED IS OPEN TO NO CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTION.  P. 574. 

2.  THE COURT NOTICES JUDICIALLY THAT THE APPELLATIONS "DAMNED
RACKETEER" AND "DAMNED FASCIST" ARE EPITHETS LIKELY TO PROVOKE THE
AVERAGE PERSON TO RETALIATION, AND THEREBY CAUSE A BREACH OF THE
PEACE.  P. 574. 

CHAPLINSKY V. NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A CONVICTION UNDER A STATE LAW
DENOUNCING THE USE OF OFFENSIVE WORDS WHEN ADDRESSED BY ONE PERSON TO
ANOTHER IN A PUBLIC PLACE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, A MEMBER OF THE SECT KNOWN AS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, WAS
CONVICTED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF ROCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, FOR
VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 378, SEC. 2, OF THE PUBLIC LAWS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE: 

"NO PERSON SHALL ADDRESS ANY OFFENSIVE, DERISIVE OR ANNOYING WORD TO
ANY OTHER PERSON WHO IS LAWFULLY IN ANY STREET OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACE,
NOR CALL HIM BY ANY OFFENSIVE OR DERISIVE NAME, NOR MAKE ANY NOISE OR
EXCLAMATION IN HIS PRESENCE AND HEARING WITH INTENT TO DERIDE, OFFEND
OR ANNOY HIM, OR TO PREVENT HIM FROM PURSUING HIS LAWFUL BUSINESS OR
OCCUPATION." 

THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THAT APPELLANT, "WITH FORCE AND ARMS, IN A
CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACE IN SAID CITY OF ROCHESTER, TO WIT, ON THE PUBLIC
SIDEWALK ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF WAKEFIELD STREET, NEAR UNTO THE
ENTRANCE OF THE CITY HALL, DID UNLAWFULLY REPEAT, THE WORDS FOLLOWING,
ADDRESSED TO THE COMPLAINANT, THAT IS TO SAY, 'YOU ARE A GOD DAMNED
RACKETEER' AND 'A DAMNED FASCIST AND THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT OF ROCHESTER
ARE FASCISTS OR AGENTS OF FASCISTS,' THE SAME BEING OFFENSIVE, DERISIVE
AND ANNOYING WORDS AND NAMES." 

UPON APPEAL THERE WAS A TRIAL DE NOVO OF APPELLANT BEFORE A JURY IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT.  HE WAS FOUND GUILTY AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE.  91 N.H. 310, 18 A.2D
754. 

BY MOTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, APPELLANT RAISED THE QUESTIONS THAT THE
STATUTE WAS INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THAT IT PLACED AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT ON
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, AND
BECAUSE IT WAS VAGUE AND INDEFINITE.  THESE CONTENTIONS WERE OVERRULED
AND THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL. 

THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE OVER THE FACTS.  CHAPLINSKY WAS
DISTRIBUTING THE LITERATURE OF HIS SECT ON THE STREETS OF ROCHESTER ON
A BUSY SATURDAY AFTERNOON.  MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL CITIZENRY COMPLAINED
TO THE CITY MARSHAL, BOWERING, THAT CHAPLINSKY WAS DENOUNCING ALL
RELIGION AS A "RACKET."  BOWERING TOLD THEM THAT CHAPLINSKY WAS
LAWFULLY ENGAGED, AND THEN WARNED CHAPLINSKY THAT THE CROWD WAS GETTING
RESTLESS.  SOME TIME LATER, A DISTURBANCE OCCURRED AND THE TRAFFIC
OFFICER ON DUTY AT THE BUSY INTERSECTION STARTED WITH CHAPLINSKY FOR
THE POLICE STATION, BUT DID NOT INFORM HIM THAT HE WAS UNDER ARREST OR
THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE ARRESTED.  ON THE WAY, THEY ENCOUNTERED MARSHAL
BOWERING, WHO HAD BEEN ADVISED THAT A RIOT WAS UNDER WAY AND WAS
THEREFORE HURRYING TO THE SCENE.  BOWERING REPEATED HIS EARLIER WARNING
TO CHAPLINSKY, WHO THEN ADDRESSED TO BOWERING THE WORDS SET FORTH IN
THE COMPLAINT. 

CHAPLINSKY'S VERSION OF THE AFFAIR WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.  HE
TESTIFIED THAT, WHEN HE MET BOWERING, HE ASKED HIM TO ARREST THE ONES
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISTURBANCE.  IN REPLY, BOWERING CURSED HIM AND
TOLD HIM TO COME ALONG.  APPELLANT ADMITTED THAT HE SAID THE WORDS
CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NAME OF THE DEITY. 

OVER APPELLANT'S OBJECTION THE TRIAL COURT EXCLUDED, AS IMMATERIAL,
TESTIMONY RELATING TO APPELLANT'S MISSION "TO PREACH THE TRUE FACTS OF
THE BIBLE," HIS TREATMENT AT THE HANDS OF THE CROWD, AND THE ALLEGED
NEGLECT OF DUTY ON THE PART OF THE POLICE.  THIS ACTION WAS APPROVED BY
THE COURT BELOW, WHICH HELD THAT NEITHER PROVOCATION NOR THE TRUTH OF
THE UTTERANCE WOULD CONSTITUTE A DEFENSE TO THE CHARGE. 

IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT "FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,
WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM INFRINGEMENT BY
CONGRESS, ARE AMONG THE FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WHICH
ARE PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM INVASION BY STATE
ACTION."  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 450.  FN1  FREEDOM OF
WORSHIP IS SIMILARLY SHELTERED.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296,
303. 

APPELLANT ASSAILS THE STATUTE AS A VIOLATION OF ALL THREE FREEDOMS,
SPEECH, PRESS AND WORSHIP, BUT ONLY AN ATTACK ON THE BASIS OF FREE
SPEECH IS WARRANTED.  THE SPOKEN, NOT THE WRITTEN, WORD IS INVOLVED. 
AND WE CANNOT CONCEIVE THAT CURSING A PUBLIC OFFICER IS THE EXERCISE OF
RELIGION IN ANY SENSE OF THE TERM.  BUT EVEN IF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
APPELLANT WHICH PRECEDED THE INCIDENT COULD BE VIEWED AS RELIGIOUS IN
CHARACTER, AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, THEY WOULD NOT CLOAK HIM WITH IMMUNITY FROM THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES FOR CONCOMITANT ACTS COMMITTED IN VIOLATION OF A VALID
CRIMINAL STATUTE.  WE TURN, THEREFORE, TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE STATUTE
ITSELF. 

ALLOWING THE BROADEST SCOPE TO THE LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT THE RIGHT OF FREE
SPEECH IS NOT ABSOLUTE AT ALL TIMES AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN2
THERE ARE CERTAIN WELL-DEFINED AND NARROWLY LIMITED CLASSES OF SPEECH,
THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO RAISE
ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM.  FN3  THESE INCLUDE THE LEWD AND OBSCENE,
THE PROFANE, THE LIBELOUS, AND THE INSULTING OR "FIGHTING" WORDS -
THOSE WHICH BY THEIR VERY UTTERANCE INFLICT INJURY OR TEND TO INCITE AN
IMMEDIATE BREACH OF THE PEACE.  FN4  IT HAS BEEN WELL OBSERVED THAT
SUCH UTTERANCES ARE NO ESSENTIAL PART OF ANY EXPOSITION OF IDEAS, AND
ARE OF SUCH SLIGHT SOCIAL VALUE AS A STEP TO TRUTH THAT ANY BENEFIT
THAT MAY BE DERIVED FROM THEM IS CLEARLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE SOCIAL
INTEREST IN ORDER AND MORALITY.  FN5  "RESORT TO EPITHETS OR PERSONAL
ABUSE IS NOT IN ANY PROPER SENSE COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION OR
OPINION SAFEGUARDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND ITS PUNISHMENT AS A
CRIMINAL ACT WOULD RAISE NO QUESTION UNDER THAT INSTRUMENT."  CANTWELL
V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 309-310. 

THE STATE STATUTE HERE CHALLENGED COMES TO US AUTHORITATIVELY
CONSTRUED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.  IT HAS TWO PROVISIONS
- THE FIRST RELATES TO WORDS OR NAMES ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER IN A PUBLIC
PLACE; THE SECOND REFERS TO NOISES AND EXCLAMATIONS.  THE COURT SAID:
"THE TWO PROVISIONS ARE DISTINCT.  ONE MAY STAND SEPARATELY FROM THE
OTHER.  ASSUMING, WITHOUT HOLDING, THAT THE SECOND WERE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE FIRST COULD STAND IF CONSTITUTIONAL."  WE ACCEPT
THAT CONSTRUCTION OF SEVERABILITY AND LIMIT OUR CONSIDERATION TO THE
FIRST PROVISION OF THE STATUTE.  FN6 

ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS EARLIER DECISIONS, THE STATE COURT DECLARED
THAT THE STATUTE'S PURPOSE WAS TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC PEACE, NO WORDS
BEING "FORBIDDEN EXCEPT SUCH AS HAVE A DIRECT TENDENCY TO CAUSE ACTS OF
VIOLENCE BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM, INDIVIDUALLY, THE REMARK IS
ADDRESSED."  FN7  IT WAS FURTHER SAID:  "THE WORD 'OFFENSIVE' IS NOT TO
BE DEFINED IN TERMS OF WHAT A PARTICULAR ADDRESSEE THINKS.  ...  THE
TEST IS WHAT MEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE WOULD UNDERSTAND WOULD BE WORDS
LIKELY TO CAUSE AN AVERAGE ADDRESSEE TO FIGHT.  ...  THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE HAS A NUMBER OF WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS WHICH BY GENERAL CONSENT
ARE 'FIGHTING WORDS' WHEN SAID WITHOUT A DISARMING SMILE.  ...  SUCH
WORDS, AS ORDINARY MEN KNOW, ARE LIKELY TO CAUSE A FIGHT.  SO ARE
THREATENING, PROFANE OR OBSCENE REVILINGS.  DERISIVE AND ANNOYING WORDS
CAN BE TAKEN AS COMING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE AS HERETOFORE
INTERPRETED ONLY WHEN THEY HAVE THIS CHARACTERISTIC OF PLAINLY TENDING
TO EXCITE THE ADDRESSEE TO A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  ...  THE STATUTE, AS
CONSTRUED, DOES NO MORE THAN PROHIBIT THE FACE-TO-FACE WORDS PLAINLY
LIKELY TO CAUSE A BREACH OF THE PEACE BY THE ADDRESSEE, WORDS WHOSE
SPEAKING CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF THE PEACE BY THE SPEAKER - INCLUDING
'CLASSICAL FIGHTING WORDS', WORDS IN CURRENT USE LESS 'CLASSICAL' BUT
EQUALLY LIKELY TO CAUSE VIOLENCE, AND OTHER DISORDERLY WORDS, INCLUDING
PROFANITY, OBSCENITY AND THREATS." 

WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE LIMITED SCOPE OF THE STATUTE AS THUS
CONSTRUED CONTRAVENES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION.  IT
IS A STATUTE NARROWLY DRAWN AND LIMITED TO DEFINE AND PUNISH SPECIFIC
CONDUCT LYING WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF STATE POWER, THE USE IN A PUBLIC
PLACE OF WORDS LIKELY TO CAUSE A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  CF. CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 311; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88,
105.  THIS CONCLUSION NECESSARILY DISPOSES OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTION
THAT THE STATUTE IS SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE AS TO RENDER A CONVICTION
THEREUNDER A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.  A STATUTE PUNISHING VERBAL
ACTS, CAREFULLY DRAWN SO AS NOT UNDULY TO IMPAIR LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION,
IS NOT TOO VAGUE FOR A CRIMINAL LAW.  CF. FOX V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S.
273, 277.  FN8 

NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO THE FACTS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD SUBSTANTIALLY OR UNREASONABLY IMPINGES UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OF FREE SPEECH.  ARGUMENT IS UNNECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
THE APPELLATIONS "DAMNED RACKETEER" AND "DAMNED FASCIST" ARE EPITHETS
LIKELY TO PROVOKE THE AVERAGE PERSON TO RETALIATION, AND THEREBY CAUSE
A BREACH OF THE PEACE. 

THE REFUSAL OF THE STATE COURT TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PROVOCATION AND
EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE UTTERANCES, IS OPEN TO
NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.  WHETHER THE FACTS SOUGHT TO BE PROVED BY
SUCH EVIDENCE CONSTITUTE A DEFENSE TO THE CHARGE, OR MAY BE SHOWN IN
MITIGATION, ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE STATE COURT TO DETERMINE.  OUR
FUNCTION IS FULFILLED BY A DETERMINATION THAT THE CHALLENGED STATUTE,
ON ITS FACE AND AS APPLIED, DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE ALSO BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252; CANTWELL V.
CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 303; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 95;
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160; DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S.
353, 364; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 243; NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 707; STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359,
368; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 362, 371, 373; GITLOW V. NEW
YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666. 

APPELLANT HERE PITCHES HIS ARGUMENT ON THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FN2  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA,
274 U.S. 357, 373(BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING); STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA,
283 U.S. 359; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697; DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299
U.S. 353; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296. 

FN3  THE PROTECTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, MIRRORED IN THE
FOURTEENTH, IS NOT LIMITED TO THE BLACKSTONIAN IDEA THAT FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS MEANS ONLY FREEDOM FROM RESTRAINT PRIOR TO PUBLICATION.  NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 714-715. 

FN4  CHAFEE, FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES (1941), 149. 

FN5  CHAFEE, OP. CIT., 150. 

FN6  SINCE THE COMPLAINT CHARGED APPELLANT ONLY WITH VIOLATING THE
FIRST PROVISION OF THE STATUTE, THE PROBLEM OF STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA,
283 U.S. 359, IS NOT PRESENT. 

FN7  STATE V. BROWN, 68 N.H. 200, 38 A. 731; STATE V. MCCONNELL, 70
N.H. 294, 47 A. 267. 

FN8  WE DO NOT HAVE HERE THE PROBLEM OF LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306
U.S. 451.  EVEN IF THE INTERPRETATIVE GLOSS PLACED ON THE STATUTE BY
THE COURT BELOW BE DISREGARDED, THE STATUTE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY
CONSTRUED AS INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC PEACE BY PUNISHING
CONDUCT, THE DIRECT TENDENCY OF WHICH WAS TO PROVOKE THE PERSON AGAINST
WHOM IT WAS DIRECTED TO ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  STATE V. BROWN, 68 N.H. 200,
38 A. 731(1894). 

APPELLANT NEED NOT THEREFORE HAVE BEEN A PROPHET TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
THE STATUTE CONDEMNED.  CF. HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242.  SEE NASH
V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 377. 
..END :





CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HOLLAND, 315 U.S. 357 


NO. 245.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 119 F.2D
209, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE POWER TO SIGN AND ISSUE SUBPOENAS DUCES
TECUM.  PP. 358, 367. 

2.  THE ACT GIVES TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ALL THE POWERS WITH RESPECT TO
SUBPOENAS WHICH ARE CONFERRED UPON THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, AND NO
MORE.  P. 360. 

3.  SECTION 4(C) OF THE ACT, PROVIDING THAT "THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL BE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BUT HE OR HIS
DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY EXERCISE ANY OR ALL OF HIS POWER IN
ANY PLACE," MEANS ONLY THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES
MAY EXERCISE EITHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUCH
POWERS AS THEY RESPECTIVELY POSSESS; AND THIS CONSTRUCTION IS FULLY
SUPPORTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  P. 360. 

4.  AN UNLIMITED AUTHORITY IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, CHARGED WITH
THE DUTY OF GATHERING DATA AND OF MAKING INVESTIGATIONS, TO DELEGATE
THE EXERCISE OF THE SUBPOENA POWER IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED, IN
VIEW OF THE OPPRESSIVE USE WHICH MAY BE MADE OF IT WHEN
INDISCRIMINATELY DELEGATED AND WHEN THE SUBPOENAS ARE NOT RETURNABLE
BEFORE A JUDICIAL OFFICER.  P. 363. 

5.  IT IS FAIR TO INFER THAT IN GRANTING AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE
POWER OF INSPECTION, AND IN OMITTING TO GRANT AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE
SUBPOENA POWER, THE ACT SHOWS A LEGISLATIVE INTENTION TO WITHHOLD THE
LATTER.  P. 364. 

6.  THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION CONTROLLING THE USE OF
SUBPOENAS BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, AND PARTICULARLY THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE NOT TO AUTHORIZE BY IMPLICATION THE DELEGATION OF THE SUBPOENA
POWER.  P. 364. 

7.  THE STRUCTURE OF THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT LENDS NO SUPPORT TO THE
VIEW THAT AS INCORPORATED IN THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IT GIVES TO
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION AN IMPLIED POWER TO
DELEGATE THE SIGNING AND ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS TO PERSONS UNDESIGNATED
BY THE STATUTE, A POWER NOT GRANTED TO OR EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSION
OR ITS MEMBERS.  P. 366. 

CUDAHY PACKING CO., LTD. V. HOLLAND, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 592, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A JUDGMENT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH REQUIRED THE PRESENT PETITIONER TO PRODUCE
BOOKS, PAPERS AND RECORDS RELATING TO WAGES AND HOURS, AS DEMANDED BY A
SUBPOENA ISSUED BY A REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUT WHICH POSTPONED THE QUESTION WHETHER OTHER
BOOKS AND RECORDS, RELATING TO PURCHASES AND SHIPMENTS, WHICH WERE
SPECIFIED IN THE SUBPOENA, SHOULD ALSO BE PRODUCED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OF THE SEVERAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THIS RECORD ONLY ONE REQUIRES OUR
ATTENTION:  WHETHER UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 52 STAT. 1060,
29 U.S.C. SEC. 201, ET SEQ., THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAS AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE HIS
STATUTORY POWER TO SIGN AND ISSUE A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. 

ON APPLICATION OF RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO SEC. 9 OF THE ACT, THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN LOUISIANA ORDERED PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO OBEY A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM.  THE
SUBPOENA, ISSUED BY A REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION,
COMMANDED THE PRODUCTION AT NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, BEFORE A SPECIFIED
OFFICER OF THE DIVISION, OF ALL BOOKS, PAPERS, AND RECORDS SHOWING FOR
A PERIOD OF EIGHTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE WAGE AND
HOUR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE HOURS WORKED BY EMPLOYEES EACH WORKING
DAY AND EACH WORKING WEEK, ALL WAGES PAID, ALL PURCHASES MADE AND
SHIPMENTS RECEIVED, AND ALL GOODS SOLD, SHIPPED, DELIVERED,
TRANSPORTED, OR OFFERED FOR SALE AT PETITIONER'S SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA,
PLANT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE
PROCEEDING FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, AND ORDERED IT TO PRODUCE THE
DEMANDED BOOKS, PAPERS, AND RECORDS RELATING TO WAGES AND HOURS, BUT
LEFT UNDECIDED, UNTIL AGAIN PRESENTED TO THE COURT IN THE COURSE OF
INVESTIGATION, THE FURTHER QUESTION WHETHER THE BOOKS AND RECORDS
RELATING TO PURCHASES AND SHIPMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE SUBPOENA SHOULD BE
PRODUCED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 119
F.2D 209, SPECIFICALLY RULING THAT THE SUBPOENA WAS VALIDLY ISSUED AND
THAT THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE IT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
314 U.S. 592, ON A PETITION WHICH PRESENTED AS A GROUND FOR REVERSAL
THE WANT OF AUTHORITY IN THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR TO ISSUE THE SUBPOENA
AND, AS A REASON FOR ALLOWING THE WRIT, THE CONFLICT ON THIS POINT OF
THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIRST CIRCUIT IN LOWELL SUN CO. V. FLEMING, 120 F.2D 213, CERTIORARI
GRANTED, 314 U.S. 599. 

BY SEC. 11 OF THE ACT THE ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVES ARE AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS WHICH HE MAY
DEEM NECESSARY "TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY PERSON HAS VIOLATED ANY
PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR WHICH MAY AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  THE ACT DOES NOT DEFINE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS OR SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE HIM TO DELEGATE IT
TO OTHERS.  BUT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY HEARING OR INVESTIGATION, SEC.
9 OF THE ACT MAKES APPLICABLE TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR, THE CHIEF OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU,  FN1  AND THE
INDUSTRY COMMITTEES,  FN2  THE SUBPOENA PROVISIONS OF SECS. 9 AND 10 OF
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  15 U.S.C. SECS. 49 AND 50.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS THUS GIVEN ALL THE POWERS WITH RESPECT TO SUBPOENAS
WHICH ARE CONFERRED UPON THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, AND NO MORE. 
UNDER SEC. 9 OF THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE THE
ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY
SUBPOENA; AND ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY SIGN THE SUBPOENAS. 
THE COMMISSION MAY APPLY TO ANY DISTRICT COURT WITHIN WHOSE
JURISDICTION AN INVESTIGATION IS CARRIED ON FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING
COMPLIANCE WITH A SUBPOENA. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR ARGUES THAT HE IS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE TO
REGIONAL DIRECTORS THE SIGNING AND ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS BY SEC. 4(C)
OF THE PRESENT ACT, AND THAT, IN ANY CASE, THIS AUTHORITY IS TO BE
IMPLIED FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE ACT AND THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES
WHICH ARE IMPOSED UPON HIM.  SECTION 4(C) PROVIDES:  "THE PRINCIPAL
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL BE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BUT
HE OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY EXERCISE ANY OR ALL OF HIS
POWERS IN ANY PLACE."  ON ITS FACE THIS SEEMS NO MORE THAN A DEFINITION
OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES.  THE DESIGNATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AS THE LOCATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS QUALIFIED BY
THE PROVISION THAT EITHER THE ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE MAY
EXERCISE "HIS POWERS" IN "ANY PLACE."  ONLY IF SUCH IS ITS MEANING DOES
SEC. 4(C) COMPORT WITH THE STRUCTURE AND RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT. 

IF, AS THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTENDS, THE SECTION IS TO BE READ AS
AUTHORIZING DELEGATION OF THE SUBPOENA POWER, THAT AUTHORITY IS WITHOUT
LIMITATION.  HE MAY CONFER THE POWER ON ANY EMPLOYEE APPOINTED UNDER
SEC. 4(B), WHOM "HE DEEMS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT HIS FUNCTIONS AND
DUTIES," OR EVEN ON THOSE WHO RENDER THE VOLUNTARY AND UNCOMPENSATED
SERVICE WHICH HE MAY ACCEPT UNDER THAT SECTION.  MOREOVER, IF SO READ,
SEC. 4(C) LIKEWISE GIVES THE ADMINISTRATOR UNRESTRICTED AUTHORITY TO
DELEGATE EVERY OTHER POWER WHICH HE POSSESSES, AND WOULD RENDER
MEANINGLESS AND UNNECESSARY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO DELEGATE HIS POWER OF INVESTIGATION TO DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVES. 

IF SUCH IS THE MEANING OF THE ACT, HE COULD DELEGATE AT WILL HIS DUTY
TO REPORT PERIODICALLY TO CONGRESS (SEC. 4(D)), TO APPOINT INDUSTRY
COMMITTEES AND THEIR CHAIRMEN, TO FIX THEIR COMPENSATION AND PRESCRIBE
THEIR PROCEDURE (SEC. 5), TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THEIR REPORTS BY
ORDERS WHOSE FINDINGS OF FACT, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
ARE CONCLUSIVE (SEC. 10), TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS USED IN THE ACT (SEC.
13), TO PROVIDE BY REGULATIONS OR ORDERS FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF LEARNERS
AND HANDICAPPED WORKERS (SEC. 14), AS WELL AS OTHER DUTIES.  A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT WHICH WOULD THUS PERMIT THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
DELEGATE ALL HIS DUTIES, INCLUDING THOSE INVOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE
JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION WHICH THE ACT HAS IN TERMS GIVEN ONLY TO HIM,
CAN HARDLY BE ACCEPTED UNLESS PLAINLY REQUIRED BY ITS WORDS. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR SEEKS TO MEET THIS DIFFICULTY BY CONSTRUING SEC.
4(C) AS AUTHORIZING THE DELEGATION OF SOME BUT NOT ALL OF HIS
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS.  BUT WE CANNOT READ "ANY OR ALL" AS MEANING
"SOME."  AND IN ANY CASE IF ONLY SOME FUNCTIONS CAN BE DELEGATED, WE
ARE AFFORDED NO LEGISLATIVE GUIDE FOR DETERMINING WHICH MAY AND WHICH
MAY NOT BE DELEGATED.  WE THINK THAT THE WORDS OF THE SECTION, READ IN
THEIR STATUTORY SETTING, MAKE IT REASONABLY PLAIN THAT ITS ONLY
FUNCTION IS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES
MAY EXERCISE EITHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUCH
POWERS AS EACH POSSESSES.  THIS CONSTRUCTION IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 4(C).  FN3 

THE ADMINISTRATOR ALSO URGES THAT HIS AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE
SUBPOENA POWER IS TO BE INFERRED FROM THE NATURE OF HIS DUTIES AND FROM
THE FACT THAT UNDER SEC. 11 HE MAY THROUGH DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES
GATHER DATA AND MAKE INVESTIGATIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  HE POINTS
TO THE WIDE RANGE OF DUTIES IMPOSED UPON HIM, THE VAST EXTENT OF HIS
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, AND THE LARGE NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS
REQUIRED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT.  FROM THIS HE ARGUES THAT
CONGRESS MUST HAVE INTENDED THAT HE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO DELEGATE HIS
AUTHORITY TO SIGN AND ISSUE SUBPOENAS.  BUT THIS ARGUMENT LOSES FORCE
WHEN EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND OF THE
ACTUAL COURSE OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION IN THIS FIELD. 

UNLIMITED AUTHORITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO DELEGATE THE
EXERCISE OF THE SUBPOENA POWER IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED.  IT IS A
POWER CAPABLE OF OPPRESSIVE USE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT MAY BE
INDISCRIMINATELY DELEGATED AND THE SUBPOENA IS NOT RETURNABLE BEFORE A
JUDICIAL OFFICER.  UNDER THE PRESENT ACT, THE SUBPOENA MAY, AS IN THIS
CASE, BE USED TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AT A DISTANT PLACE OF PRACTICALLY
ALL OF THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF A MANUFACTURING BUSINESS, COVERING
CONSIDERABLE PERIODS OF TIME.  TRUE, THERE CAN BE NO PENALTY INCURRED
FOR CONTEMPT BEFORE THERE IS A JUDICIAL ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT.  BUT THE
SUBPOENA IS IN FORM AN OFFICIAL COMMAND, AND EVEN THOUGH IMPROVIDENTLY
ISSUED IT HAS SOME COERCIVE TENDENCY, EITHER BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE OF
THEIR RIGHTS ON THE PART OF THOSE WHOM IT PURPORTS TO COMMAND OR THEIR
NATURAL RESPECT FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN OFFICIAL COMMAND, OR BECAUSE
OF THEIR RELUCTANCE TO TEST THE SUBPOENA'S VALIDITY BY LITIGATION.  ALL
THESE ARE COGENT REASONS FOR INFERRING AN INTENTION OF CONGRESS NOT TO
GIVE UNRESTRICTED AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE SUBPOENA POWER WHICH IT HAS
IN TERMS GRANTED ONLY TO THE RESPONSIBLE HEAD OF THE AGENCY. 

THE SUBPOENA POWER DIFFERS MATERIALLY IN THESE RESPECTS FROM THE
POWER TO GATHER DATA AND MAKE INVESTIGATIONS WHICH IS EXPRESSLY MADE
DELEGABLE BY SEC. 11.  WITHOUT THE SUBPOENA THAT POWER IS, IN EFFECT, A
POWER OF INSPECTION AT THE EMPLOYER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS TO BE EXERCISED
ONLY ON HIS CONSENT.  IT IS MUCH LESS BURDENSOME THAN THE REQUIREMENT
OF HIS SELECTION OF GREAT NUMBERS OF BOOKS AND PAPERS AND THEIR
PRODUCTION AT OTHER PLACES.  BECAUSE OF THESE DIFFERENCES, IT SEEMS TO
US FAIRLY INFERABLE THAT THE GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE POWER
OF INSPECTION, AND THE OMISSION OF AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE SUBPOENA
POWER, SHOW A LEGISLATIVE INTENTION TO WITHHOLD THE LATTER.  MOREOVER,
IF A SUBPOENA POWER IN THE REGIONAL DIRECTORS WERE TO BE IMPLIED FROM
THEIR DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE, WE SHOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT
CONGRESS HAD NO OCCASION EXPRESSLY TO GRANT THE SUBPOENA POWER TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR, WHO ALSO HAS THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE, AND THAT THE
GRANT TO HIM WAS SUPERFLUOUS AND WITHOUT MEANING OR PURPOSE. 

THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION CONTROLLING THE USE OF
SUBPOENAS BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE
NOT TO AUTHORIZE BY IMPLICATION THE DELEGATION OF THE SUBPOENA POWER. 
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,  FN4  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
FN5  AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT,  FN6  WHOSE SUBPOENA
PROVISIONS WERE ADOPTED BY THE PRESENT ACT AND BY THE PACKERS AND
STOCKYARDS ACT,  FN7  ALL FAIL TO GRANT AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.  IT APPEARS THAT NONE OF THE AGENCIES
ADMINISTERING THESE ACTS HAS CONSTRUED THE AUTHORITY OF ITS HEAD TO
INCLUDE THE POWER TO DELEGATE THE SIGNING AND ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS. 
FN8 ON THE OTHER HAND, CONGRESS, IN NUMEROUS CASES, HAS SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED DELEGATION OF THE SUBPOENA POWER.  FN9  IN OTHERS IT HAS
GRANTED THE POWER TO PARTICULARLY DESIGNATED SUBORDINATE OFFICERS OR
AGENTS, THUS NEGATIVING ANY IMPLIED POWER IN THE HEAD TO DELEGATE
GENERALLY TO SUBORDINATES.  FN10  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR
IS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE SUBPOENA POWER BECAUSE THE
APPLICABLE TRADE COMMISSION ACT AUTHORIZES INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION ITSELF TO SIGN SUBPOENAS OVERLOOKS
THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR ALONE OCCUPIES A POSITION UNDER THIS
ACT CORRESPONDING TO THAT OF THE COMMISSIONERS UNDER THEIR ACT.  THE
STRUCTURE OF THE TRADE COMMISSION ACT LENDS NO SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT
THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS AN IMPLIED POWER TO DELEGATE THE SIGNING AND
ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS TO PERSONS UNDESIGNATED BY THE STATUTE, A POWER
NOT GRANTED TO OR EXERCISED BY THE COMMISSION OR ITS MEMBERS. 

ALL THIS IS PERSUASIVE OF A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE THAT THE SUBPOENA
POWER SHALL BE DELEGABLE ONLY WHEN AN AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE IS
EXPRESSLY GRANTED.  THAT PURPOSE HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED HERE NOT ONLY BY
THE AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO DELEGATE THE POWER TO CONDUCT
INVESTIGATIONS, AND IN THE ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE SUBPOENA
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, WHICH CONTAIN NO
AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE, BUT BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PRESENT
ACT, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE SUBPOENA POWER WAS
ELIMINATED BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE FROM THE BILLS WHICH EACH HOUSE
HAD ADOPTED.  FN11  SUCH AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY GRANTED IN THE BILL WHICH
PASSED THE SENATE, WAS REJECTED BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.  IT ALSO
DISCARDED THE PROVISIONS OF THE HOUSE BILL WHICH COMMITTED THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, WHO HAS A GENERAL
POWER OF DELEGATION UNDER REV. STAT. SEC. 161, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 22, AND
PLACED IN HIS STEAD THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHO WAS GIVEN ONLY THE SUBPOENA
POWERS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INCORPORATED IN THE HOUSE BILL. 

WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT CONGRESS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PRESENT
AGENCY, WHEN APPROPRIATELY ORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSE, WOULD BE ANY THE
LESS ABLE TO FUNCTION WITHOUT THE POWER IN THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
DELEGATE THE SIGNING AND ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS THAN THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND OTHER AGENCIES
WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN AND DO NOT ASSERT THE POWER.  NOR CAN WE
ASSUME, AS THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES, THAT CONGRESS IS WHOLLY WITHOUT
DESIGN IN WITHHOLDING THE POWER IN THIS CASE AND GRANTING IT IN OTHERS,
OR EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN, THAT IT IS ANY PART OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION TO
RESTORE TO THE ACT WHAT CONGRESS HAS TAKEN OUT OF IT.  EVEN THOUGH
CONGRESS HAS UNDERESTIMATED THE BURDEN WHICH IT HAS PLACED UPON THE
ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH IS BY NO MEANS CLEAR, WE THINK THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT CONGRESS HAS WITHHELD FROM HIM
AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE EXERCISE OF THE SUBPOENA POWER, AND THAT THIS
PRECLUDES OUR RESTORING IT BY CONSTRUCTION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE CHIEF OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU ADMINISTERS THE CHILD LABOR
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

FN2  THE FUNCTION OF THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEES AND THEIR RELATION TO
THE ADMINISTRATOR ARE DISCUSSED IN OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR,
312 U.S. 126. 

FN3  S. 2475, PASSED BY THE SENATE ON JULY 31, 1937(81 CONG. REC.
7957), AND SENT TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, PROVIDED FOR A LABOR
STANDARDS BOARD, AND CONTAINED SEC. 3(E), WHICH READ: "THE PRINCIPAL
OFFICE OF THE BOARD SHALL BE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BUT IT MAY
MEET OR EXERCISE ANY OR ALL OF ITS POWERS AT ANY OTHER PLACE."  SECTION
12(B) OF THIS BILL ALSO SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED THE BOARD TO DELEGATE
ITS SUBPOENA POWER.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, TO WHICH THE SENATE
BILL WAS REFERRED, AMENDED IT TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADMINISTRATOR INSTEAD
OF A BOARD (SEE 82 CONG. REC. 1391), BUT IT INCLUDED A SEC. 3(D)
CORRESPONDING TO SEC. 3(E) OF THE SENATE BILL, SAVE FOR THE
SUBSTITUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE BOARD.  SECTION 11(B) OF THE
BILL SPONSORED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ALSO AUTHORIZED ANY EMPLOYEE
DESIGNATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO SUBPOENA WITNESSES.  THIS BILL,
HOWEVER, WAS RECOMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE HOUSE ON DECEMBER 17,
1937(82 CONG. REC. 1835), AND THE COMMITTEE REPORTED OUT A NEW BILL ON
APRIL 21, 1938(83 CONG. REC. 5680), WHICH PLACED THE ADMINISTRATION IN
CHARGE OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR RATHER THAN AN ADMINISTRATOR,
CONTAINED NO SECTION COMPARABLE TO SEC. 3(E) OF THE SENATE BILL OR SEC.
3(D) OF THE RECOMMITTED HOUSE BILL, AND IN SEC. 7 APPLIED SECS. 9 AND
10 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE
SECRETARY.  THE BILL WITH THESE CHANGES PASSED THE HOUSE ON MAY 24,
1938(83 CONG. REC. 7449) AND WENT TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. 

THE CONFERENCE PUT THE ADMINISTRATOR RATHER THAN THE SECRETARY IN
CHARGE OF ADMINISTERING THE ACT, AND INCLUDED THE PRESENT SEC. 4(C). 
THE CONFERENCE ALSO RETAINED THE HOUSE BILL'S ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF
SECS. 9 AND 10 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, BUT EXTENDED THEIR
OPERATION TO INVESTIGATIONS AS WELL AS HEARINGS, AND MADE THEM
APPLICABLE TO THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE CHIEF OF
THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU, AND THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEES.  83 CONG. REC. 9247
8. 

THE INCLUSION OF SEC. 4(C), CLOSELY RESEMBLING SEC. 3(E) OF THE
SENATE BILL AND SEC. 3(D) OF THE RECOMMITTED HOUSE BILL, BOTH OF WHICH
GAVE SEPARATE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THE SUBPOENA POWER,
INDICATES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE, AND OF CONGRESS IN
ADOPTING THE ACT, WAS NOT TO GRANT A GENERAL SUBSTANTIVE POWER OF
DELEGATION, INCLUDING THAT OVER SUBPOENAS, BUT TO DEFINE THE PLACES
WHERE POWERS OTHERWISE GRANTED SHOULD BE EXERCISED.  THE ADDITION IN
SEC. 4(C) OF THE PHRASE "OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE," THE
EQUIVALENT OF WHICH DID NOT APPEAR IN EITHER THE HOUSE OR SENATE BILLS,
MUST BE TAKEN MERELY AS RECOGNIZING THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS
SUBORDINATES COULD EXERCISE ELSEWHERE THAN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE POWERS WHICH EACH HAD UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

FN4  25 STAT. 859, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 12. 

FN5  49 STAT. 456, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 161(1). 

FN6  38 STAT. 722, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 49. 

FN7  42 STAT. 168, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 222. 

FN8  SEE MONOGRAPH OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, PART 11, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, SEN.
DOC. NO. 10, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 26.  ID., PART 5, NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, PP. 18-19; ID., PART 6, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, SEN.
DOC. NO. 186, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 18; ALSO FINAL REPORT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE (1941),
APPENDIX K, PP. 414, 419.  APPARENTLY THE ACTUAL ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS,
THOUGH NOT THEIR SIGNING, IS DELEGATED TO SUBORDINATES IN SOME OF THESE
AGENCIES.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A
PRACTICE, SINCE BOTH THE SIGNING AND ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS IS DELEGATED
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

FN9  VETERANS ADMINISTRATION ACT, 49 STAT. 2033, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 131;
RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 52 STAT. 1107, AS AMENDED, 45
U.S.C. SEC. 362(A)(M); WALSH-HEALEY (PUBLIC CONTRACTS) ACT, 49 STAT.
2038, 41 U.S.C. SEC. 39; MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 52 STAT. 954, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 1124(A); FEDERAL POWER ACT, 49 STAT. 857, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 825F (B);
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT 85, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77S (B); SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 900, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 78U (B); PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT, 49 STAT. 831, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 79R (C). 

FN10  COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 48 STAT. 1096, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 409; BUREAU
OF MARINE INSPECTION AND NAVIGATION ACT, 49 STAT. 1382, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
239(E); CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1021, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
644; MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 49 STAT. 550, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 305(D);
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMP. ACT, 44 STAT. 1438, 33 U.S.C.
SEC. 927. 

THE GRANT OF THE SUBPOENA POWER BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO
THE CHIEF OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU AND TO THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEES IS
NOT OF THIS CLASS, HOWEVER, SINCE THEY PERFORM FUNCTIONS WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATOR DOES NOT CONTROL AND COULD NOT EXERCISE HIMSELF.  IN
THESE RESPECTS THEY OCCUPY AN INDEPENDENT STATUS UNDER THE ACT. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

WE HAVE HERE THE NARROW BUT IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO THE POWER OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO DELEGATE HIS POWER TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA.  THAT PROBLEM
DOES NOT INVOLVE QUESTIONS AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE SUBPOENA ISSUED OR
THE FACT THAT IT REQUIRED DOCUMENTS IN SHREVEPORT TO BE PRODUCED AT NEW
ORLEANS.  STATEMENTS IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT AS TO THE "OPPRESSIVE
USE" OF THE SUBPOENA INTRODUCE ISSUES WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE SINGLE
QUESTION BEFORE US.  THOSE ISSUES WOULD NOT BE CHANGED ONE IOTA HAD THE
ADMINISTRATOR HIMSELF SIGNED THIS SUBPOENA.  AND IF THE POLICY
UNDERLYING THE OPINION IS A DESIRE TO SEE A MORE RESTRICTIVE AND
DISCRIMINATING USE OF THE SUBPOENA POWER, THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR ALONE EXERCISE THE POWER SEEMS IDLE.  FOR HIS DUTIES
UNDER THIS ACT ARE MANIFOLD AND FAR FLUNG.  THE ACT EXTENDS TO
THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PERSONS AND BUSINESSES.  IT IS ESTIMATED
THAT THE ACT COVERS 15,500,000 PERSONS EMPLOYED BY MORE THAN 360,000
EMPLOYERS IN 48 STATES, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ALASKA, HAWAII,
PUERTO RICO, AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS 13 REGIONAL
DIRECTORS AND ONE TERRITORIAL REPRESENTATIVE.  HE HAS ABOUT 2200
EMPLOYEES.  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1941, THERE WERE 41,399
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED, 48,449 PLANT INSPECTIONS MADE, 1,749 CASES
LITIGATED, 6,000 SUBPOENAS ISSUED. 

THE PROBLEM OF ENFORCEMENT IS INTRICATE AND EXACTING.  IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR MUST ISSUE SUBPOENAS, IT SEEMS HARDLY LIKELY THAT HE CAN
DO ANYTHING BUT SIGN THEM IN BLANK.  IF HE TRIED TO DO ANYTHING BUT
FORMULATE THE GENERAL POLICY TO GOVERN THE EXERCISE OF THE SUBPOENA
POWER, HE COULD PERFORM LITTLE MORE THAN MINISTERIAL ACTS.  CERTAINLY
HE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO RELIEVE HIS REGIONAL OFFICES OF ALL QUESTIONS
AS TO WHERE HEARINGS SHALL BE HELD, WHAT DOCUMENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR A
HEARING, WHAT ASSERTED VIOLATIONS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED, WHICH
EMPLOYER WILL MAKE FULL AND FREE DISCLOSURE, WHICH WILL ACT ONLY UNDER
THE COMPULSION OF A SUBPOENA, AND SIMILAR MINUTIAE OF DAILY
ADMINISTRATION.  THE ADMINISTRATOR IN WASHINGTON CAN HARDLY EXERCISE AN
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT THE RANGE OR COURSE OF A PARTICULAR
INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE IN REMOTE ALASKA OR PUERTO RICO.  AT LEAST, HE
CANNOT DO SO UNLESS THE PROCESSES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE TO COME TO A
STANDSTILL.  YET THOSE MATTERS CONTROL THE NATURE, SCOPE AND CONTENT OF
SUBPOENAS ISSUED.  SUCH FUNCTIONS MUST OF NECESSITY REST LARGELY WITH
THE INVESTIGATING AND ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVES OF THIS KIND OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. 

IT WOULD SEEM THAT HIS FUNCTIONS IN THIS REGARD MUST OF NECESSITY
LARGELY LIE IN THE FORMULATION OF A GENERAL POLICY WHICH IS TO GOVERN
THE EXERCISE OF THE SUBPOENA POWER.  HE HAS FORMULATED THAT POLICY. 
THE INSTRUCTIONS TO HIS SUBORDINATES DIRECT A DISCRIMINATING AND
SPARING USE OF THE SUBPOENA POWER,  FN1  A RESTRICTION OF THE SCOPE
FN2  OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM, AND A REGARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF
THOSE WHOSE RECORDS ARE SOUGHT.  FN3  DELEGATION IS A MATTER OF
DEGREE.  AN AUTHORITY NEED NOT BE DELEGATED COMPLETELY OR NOT AT ALL. 
IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SUPERVISE AND DIRECT
THE EXECUTION OF HIS DUTIES.  SO FAR AS THE SUBPOENA POWER IS
CONCERNED, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS SATISFIED ALL
STATUTORY DEMANDS IN THIS SITUATION BY HIS SELECTION OF THE LIMITED
GROUP WHICH CAN ISSUE SUBPOENAS, BY FORMULATING THE POLICY TO GUIDE
THEM, AND BY RATIFYING A SUBPOENA ISSUED BY HIS SUBORDINATE. 

WE NEED NOT, HOWEVER, REST ON THAT ALONE.  THE SUBPOENA POWER IS THE
CONCOMITANT OF THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE.  CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED THAT THE POWER TO MAKE AND CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS MAY BE
DELEGATED.  SEC. 11(A) PROVIDES IN PART: 

"THE ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY INVESTIGATE
AND GATHER DATA REGARDING THE WAGES, HOURS, AND OTHER CONDITIONS AND
PRACTICES OF EMPLOYMENT IN ANY INDUSTRY SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, AND MAY
ENTER AND INSPECT SUCH PLACES AND SUCH RECORDS (AND MAKE SUCH
TRANSCRIPTIONS THEREOF), QUESTION SUCH EMPLOYEES, AND INVESTIGATE SUCH
FACTS, CONDITIONS, PRACTICES, OR MATTERS AS HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY PERSON HAS VIOLATED ANY PROVISION
OF THIS ACT, OR WHICH MAY AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS ACT." 

BUT NOW WE ARE TOLD THAT THAT POWER WHEN DELEGATED IS ONLY A POWER TO
BE EXERCISED WITH THE EMPLOYER'S CONSENT; THAT IF RESISTANCE IS
ENCOUNTERED, THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SIGN THE SUBPOENA TO OBTAIN THAT DATA
IS THE ADMINISTRATOR.  THE POWER TO DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE
INVESTIGATIONS IS CERTAINLY THE GREATER OF THE TWO POWERS.  IN FACT,
THE DECISION TO MAKE THE INVESTIGATION IS THE SIGNIFICANT AND
CONTROLLING ONE.  ONCE THAT IS MADE, THE DECISION TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA
UNDER THIS ACT MUST REST WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICES IF IT IS TO BE AN
INFORMED ONE.  WITHOUT THE SUBPOENA POWER THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE WILL
OFTEN BE AN EMPTY ONE. 

HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FUNCTIONS AND THE
FACT THAT THE POWER TO MAKE INVESTIGATIONS CAN BE DELEGATED, THE LESSER
BUT COMPANION POWER TO DELEGATE THE ISSUE OF SUBPOENAS SHOULD BE
IMPLIED AS AN INCIDENT OF THE OFFICE. 

A SUBPOENA OF COURSE EXERTS A COERCIVE INFLUENCE.  SO DOES AN
INVESTIGATION.  SO DOES ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  AND ANY POWER, INCLUDING
THE JUDICIAL POWER, MAY BE ABUSED.  BUT AS I HAVE SAID, WE HAVE HERE NO
QUESTION OF ABUSE OF POWER.  WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR
WOULD HAUL A BUSINESS INTO COURT WHERE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR ABUSED THE SUBPOENA POWER.  AT LEAST, WE SHOULD ASSUME
THAT WHERE THE ADMINISTRATOR SEEKS ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENA AND
STANDS BEHIND HIS SUBORDINATE WHO HAS ISSUED THE SUBPOENA, THE SUBPOENA
IS AS MUCH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S AS IF HE HAD SIGNED IT.  CF. NORRIS V.
UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 77, 82. 

THE REASONS FOR HOLDING THAT AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE THIS POWER IS AN
INCIDENT OF THE OFFICE ARE CERTAINLY NO LESS COGENT THAN THOSE
UNDERLYING THE CASES WHICH HOLD THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAY
DELEGATE THE FUNCTION OF HOLDING HEARINGS WITHOUT EXPRESS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY.  AS STATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN MORGAN V. UNITED
STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 481, "ASSISTANTS MAY PROSECUTE INQUIRIES. 
EVIDENCE MAY BE TAKEN BY AN EXAMINER."  SUCH A DELEGATION HAS BEEN
APPROVED UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  SOUTHERN GARMENT MFRS. 
ASSN.  V. FLEMING, 122 F.2D 622.  CAN IT BE THAT THE POWER TO HOLD
HEARINGS AND TAKE EVIDENCE IS SO UNIMPORTANT AS COMPARED WITH THE POWER
TO SIGN SUBPOENAS THAT THE POWER TO DELEGATE THE ONE BUT NOT THE OTHER
CAN BE IMPLIED?  CAN IT BE THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF "PRACTICABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE" (MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 481) ARE
RELEVANT AND CONTROLLING IN THE ONE INSTANCE BUT NOT IN THE OTHER? 
BOTH THE POWER TO CONDUCT HEARINGS AND THE POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS ARE
INTERMEDIATE STEPS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  THE FINDINGS OF THE
EXAMINER ARE ADVISORY ONLY; THIS KIND OF SUBPOENA IS A COMMAND WITHOUT
LEGAL SANCTION UNLESS SUPPORTED BY A COURT DECREE.  BUT THE FUNCTION OF
THE EXAMINER IS NOT SIMPLY MINISTERIAL.  THE ROLE WHICH HE FILLS IS
SIGNIFICANT.  THE VERY ESSENCE OF A FAIR HEARING MAY DEPEND ON HIS
CONDUCT.  IF THAT FUNCTION MAY BE DELEGATED WITHOUT EXPRESS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY, IT SHOULD FOLLOW A FORTIORI THAT THE LESSER SUBPOENA POWER
MAY ALSO BE DELEGATED BY REASON OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF "PRACTICABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE." 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS ACT DOES NOT STAND IN THE WAY.  THERE
IS NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER THAT THE CHOICE OF THE HOUSE BILL AS
AGAINST THE SENATE BILL WAS IN ANY WAY INFLUENCED BY THE PRESENCE IN
THE LATTER OF AN EXPRESS POWER OF THE PROPOSED BOARD TO DELEGATE ITS
SUBPOENA POWER.  THE CONTROVERSY CENTERED ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHERE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT SHOULD BE LODGED.  SEE H. REP. NO. 1452, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.; S. REP. NO.
884, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF WE ARE TO SPECULATE
AS TO THE INTENT OF CONGRESS ON THIS POINT, WE MUST ASSUME THAT ALL
DELEGATION OF THE SUBPOENA POWER WAS NOT PRECLUDED.  THE PROVISIONS OF
SECS. 9 AND 10 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT WERE "MADE
APPLICABLE TO THE JURISDICTION, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR."  SEC. 9.  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT LODGES THE
SUBPOENA POWER IN THE COMMISSION.  SEC. 9.  BUT IT ALSO PROVIDES THAT
ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION MAY SIGN SUBPOENAS.  SEC. 9.  IF THE
COMMISSION HAS A LIMITED POWER OF DELEGATION, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAS NONE.  LOGICAL DIFFICULTIES PREVENT LITERAL
INCORPORATION OF THE WHOLE OF SEC. 9 INTO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT.  BUT IT CERTAINLY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEDUCE THAT A MORE STRINGENT
RULE GOVERNS THE ADMINISTRATOR THAN THE COMMISSION. 

NOR CAN IT BE INFERRED THAT, BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY GRANTED
DELEGATION OF THE SUBPOENA POWER UNDER SOME STATUTES BUT NOT UNDER
OTHERS, THE POWER MAY NOT BE IMPLIED.  THE OMISSION OF THAT POWER IN A
PARTICULAR STATUTE MAY BE AN HISTORICAL ACCIDENT OR A MATTER OF
DESIGN.  WHETHER OR NOT THE POWER CAN FAIRLY BE IMPLIED AS AN INCIDENT
OF A PARTICULAR OFFICE MUST DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THAT OFFICE, THE
OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH GOVERN IT, AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF ITS CREATION.  THE FARTHEST WE NEED GO HERE IS TO SAY THAT WHERE THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS INCONCLUSIVE THE POWER TO DELEGATE IS NOT
NECESSARILY PRECLUDED. 

A REQUIREMENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HIMSELF EXERCISE THE SUBPOENA
POWER AT THIS STAGE OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW MAY WELL RETARD THE
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROGRAM WHICH THE ACT INAUGURATED.  WE SHOULD BE
ALERT TO PREVENT SHEER TECHNICALITIES FROM INTERPOSING DELAY IN A LAW
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM.  IF THE SUBPOENA POWER IS ABUSED, CONGRESS AND THE
COURTS ARE OPEN TO REMEDY IT. MEANWHILE, THE SUBPOENA POWER SHOULD BE
TREATED SYMPATHETICALLY AND REGARDED AS A NECESSARY LEGAL SANCTION TO
OBTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW BY THOSE WHO, HAVING LOST THE BATTLE IN
THE LEGISLATURE, SEEK A DELAYING ACTION IN THE COURTS. 

FN1  THE ADMINISTRATOR'S CONFIDENTIAL MANUAL PROVIDES: 

"THE USE OF SUBPOENAS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED ENTIRELY TO CASES WHERE
DIFFICULTIES HAVE BEEN MET WITH IN THE COURSE OF INSPECTION.  IF THE
EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS SOUGHT HAVE BEEN REFUSED OR IF THE WITNESSES FROM
WHOM INFORMATION IS REQUESTED REFUSE TO BE FRANK OR REQUIRE PROTECTION
FROM COERCION BY THEIR EMPLOYER, THE USE OF SUBPOENAS WILL BE HELPFUL
AND PROPER.  INSPECTORS MUST, HOWEVER, FIRST MAKE AN INSPECTION OF THE
PLANT AND MAKE A REAL ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION IN
THE USUAL WAY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.  THE SUBPOENA POWER
SHOULD BE USED SPARINGLY AND ONLY WHEN ALL OTHER MEANS HAVE FAILED." 

FN2  "THE INSPECTOR MUST LIMIT THE DEMAND IN THE SUBPOENA TO THOSE
RECORDS AND THOSE PERIODS OF TIME WHICH ARE INDISPENSABLE FOR HIS
INSPECTION."  ID. 

FN3  "THE PERSON SUBPOENAED MUST BE GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME TO
PRODUCE THE RECORDS OR TO APPEAR.  THE PLACE AT WHICH HE IS REQUESTED
TO APPEAR SHOULD BE ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AND BE REASONABLY NEARBY.  THE
TIME AT WHICH HE IS TO APPEAR SHOULD BE A REASONABLE HOUR AND ONE FIXED
SO THAT ANY POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL'S BUSINESS WILL
BE REDUCED TO A MINIMUM."  ID. 

I AM AUTHORIZED TO STATE THAT MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE BYRNES,
AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :


















I.C.C. V. RAILWAY LABOR ASSN., 315 U.S. 373 


NO. 223.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 38
F.SUPP.  818, 824, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SEC. 1(18)-(20) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN AUTHORIZING THE ABANDONMENT OF A RAILWAY LINE,
HAS AUTHORITY TO ATTACH TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
EMPLOYEES WHO WILL BE DISPLACED BY THE ABANDONMENT.  P. 376. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES
ASSN. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES SETTING
ASIDE IN PART A REPORT AND ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
242 I.C.C. 9. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT, PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY, OWNS AND OPERATES
ELECTRIC RAILROADS AND MOTOR BUS AND TRUCK LINES IN CALIFORNIA.  IT IS
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
WITH WHOSE LINES IT MAKES CONNECTIONS AT NUMEROUS POINTS.  IT APPLIED
TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR PERMISSION TO CARRY OUT "A
GENERAL PROGRAM OF REARRANGEMENT OF ...  PASSENGER SERVICE, INVOLVING
ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN RAIL LINES AND SUBSTITUTION OF MOTOR COACH
TRANSPORTATION AS A MEANS OF INCREASING OPERATING REVENUES, REDUCING
EXPENSES, AND RENDERING A MORE ADEQUATE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC."  THE
RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
TRAINMEN APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AS REPRESENTATIVES OF PACIFIC'S
EMPLOYEES.  THEY CONTENDED THAT IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO GRANT
PACIFIC'S APPLICATION, IT SHOULD DO SO ONLY UPON CONDITIONS DESIGNED TO
PROTECT EMPLOYEES, AND PROPOSED THAT PACIFIC BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
CERTAIN SPECIFIED BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES WHO WOULD BE DISPLACED OR
OTHERWISE PREJUDICED BY THE ABANDONMENT.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS
CONTENTION, THEY ARGUED THAT MANY OF PACIFIC'S EMPLOYEES HAD DEVOTED A
LARGE PART OF THEIR LIVES TO THE SERVICE OF THE RAILROAD AND HAD
ACQUIRED VALUABLE RIGHTS OF SENIORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR
EMPLOYMENT; THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD CAUSE MANY OF THEM TO LOSE
THEIR JOBS, AS A RESULT OF WHICH THEY WOULD SUFFER GREAT HARDSHIPS AND
SOME WOULD BECOME PUBLIC CHARGES; AND THAT, ALTHOUGH THE ABANDONMENT
AND REARRANGEMENT WOULD GIVE PACIFIC A NET ANNUAL SAVINGS OF
APPROXIMATELY $378,000, ABOUT $302,000 OF THE SAVING WOULD BE DUE TO A
NET WAGE LOSS SUFFERED BY EMPLOYEES.  AFTER A HEARING, DIVISION 4 OF
THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER PERMITTING ABANDONMENT UPON THE GROUND
THAT CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE LINE BY PACIFIC "WOULD IMPOSE AN UNDUE
BURDEN UPON THE APPLICANT AND UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE," BUT HELD THAT
THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ANY CONDITIONS
WHATEVER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.  242
I.C.C. 9.  THE FULL COMMISSION DENIED THE BROTHERHOOD'S REQUEST FOR
REHEARING.  UPON APPLICATION OF THE BROTHERHOODS, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47, HELD THAT THE COMMISSION DID HAVE
AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DISPLACED
EMPLOYEES.  ACCORDINGLY, IT SET ASIDE "THAT PART OF THE COMMISSION'S
REPORT WHICH DENIES CONSIDERATION OF THE EMPLOYEES' PETITION FOR LACK
OF POWER  ...  WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE
PETITION AND TAKE SUCH ACTION THEREON AS IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
COMMISSION IS PROPER."  38 F.SUPP.  818, 824.  WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE
COMMISSION'S POWER IN ABANDONMENT PROCEEDINGS TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS FOR
THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES IS THE SINGLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS
APPEAL. 

CARRIER BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THIS PART SHALL ABANDON ALL OR ANY
PORTION OF A LINE OF RAILROAD, OR THE OPERATION THEREOF, UNLESS AND
UNTIL THERE SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSION A
CERTIFICATE THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
PERMIT OF SUCH ABANDONMENT."  AND SEC. 1(20) EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO
"ATTACH TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
IN ITS JUDGMENT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY MAY REQUIRE."  49
U.S.C. SEC. 1(18)-(20). 

WITH RESPECT TO CONSOLIDATIONS, ANOTHER SECTION OF THE ACT, 5(4), IS
CONTROLLING.  IN UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225, THIS COURT HELD
THAT THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 5(4) TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS
SIMILAR TO THOSE SOUGHT HERE IN ORDER TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY A CONSOLIDATION.  AT THE TIME OF THE LOWDEN CASE, SEC. 5(4)
PROVIDED:  "IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT, SUBJECT TO SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AND SUCH MODIFICATIONS AS IT SHALL FIND TO BE JUST AND
REASONABLE, THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION  ...  WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, IT MAY ENTER AN ORDER APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING SUCH
CONSOLIDATION  ...  UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND WITH THE
MODIFICATIONS SO FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE."  49 U.S.C. SEC.
5(4). 

THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT THE CONDITIONS IT IS AUTHORIZED TO IMPOSE
UNDER THE CONSOLIDATION SECTION - "JUST AND REASONABLE" CONDITIONS,
WHICH "WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST" - ARE OF MUCH BROADER SCOPE
THAN THE CONDITIONS IT IS AUTHORIZED TO IMPOSE UNDER THE ABANDONMENT
REQUIRE."  ALTHOUGH ADMITTING THAT PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF
DISPLACED EMPLOYEES MAY BE A CONDITION THAT "WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST," THE COMMISSION CONCLUDES THAT SUCH PROVISIONS CANNOT BE
REQUIRED BY "THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY."  WE NEED NOT DECIDE
IN WHAT RESPECTS, IF ANY, THE AUTHORIZATION TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS IN
CONSOLIDATIONS IS BROADER THAN THE AUTHORIZATION TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS
IN ABANDONMENTS.  FOR EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ABANDONMENT SECTION IS NARROWER, WE CANNOT AGREE THAT IT EXCLUDES ALL
POWER TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS OF THE KIND SOUGHT HERE. 

THE PHRASE "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" NO LESS THAN THE PHRASE
"PUBLIC INTEREST" MUST BE GIVEN A SCOPE CONSISTENT WITH THE BROAD
PURPOSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920:  TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH
AN EFFICIENT AND NATIONALLY INTEGRATED RAILROAD SYSTEM.  NEW ENGLAND
DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 189-191.  CLEAR RECOGNITION THAT "PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" INCLUDES THE CONSIDERATION OF EFFECTS ON THE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF A PROPOSED ABANDONMENT APPEARS IN THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT IN COLORADO V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 153. 
THERE, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, ALTHOUGH STATING THAT "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY" WAS THE SOLE CRITERION FOR DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT AN
ABANDONMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED, NEVERTHELESS CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF
THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT IN A MUCH BROADER SPHERE THAN THE IMMEDIATE
LOCALITY AND POPULATION SERVED BY THE TRACKAGE TO BE ABANDONED.  SEE
ALSO TRANSIT COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 360.  AND IF
NATIONAL INTERESTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH AN
ABANDONMENT, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT TO INDICATE THAT THE NATIONAL
INTEREST IN PURELY FINANCIAL STABILITY IS TO BE DETERMINATIVE WHILE THE
NATIONAL INTEREST IN THE STABILITY OF THE LABOR SUPPLY AVAILABLE TO THE
RAILROADS IS TO BE DISREGARDED.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE LOWDEN CASE
RECOGNIZES THAT THE UNSTABILIZING EFFECTS OF DISPLACING LABOR WITHOUT
PROTECTION MIGHT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT OPERATION
OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD SYSTEM.  SUCH POSSIBLE UNSTABILIZING EFFECTS
ON THE NATIONAL RAILROAD SYSTEM ARE NO SMALLER IN THE CASE OF AN
ABANDONMENT LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US THAN IN A CONSOLIDATION LIKE THAT
INVOLVED IN THE LOWDEN CASE.  HENCE, IT IS ONLY BY EXCLUDING
CONSIDERATIONS OF NATIONAL POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM FROM THE SCOPE OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY," AN
EXCLUSION INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT AS THIS COURT HAS INTERPRETED IT,
THAT THE DISTINCTION MADE BY THE COMMISSION CAN BE MAINTAINED. 

IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1935, FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER THE PASSAGE OF SEC. 1(20),
THAT THE COMMISSION FIRST DECIDED THAT IT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO IMPOSE
CONDITIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF WORKERS IN AN ABANDONMENT.  CHICAGO
G.W.R. CO. TRACKAGE, 207 I.C.C. 315, 322.  AT THAT TIME, THE COMMISSION
TOOK THE POSITION THAT REQUIRING DISPLACEMENT ALLOWANCES AS A CONDITION
WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF GRANTING A PRIVATE BENEFIT TO A PARTICULAR
GROUP OF WORKERS, AND THEREFORE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY GRANTED
BY CONGRESS.  THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN THE SAME POSITION HERE.  IT MUST
NOT BE FORGOTTEN, HOWEVER, THAT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF PERMITTING THE
ABANDONMENT ITSELF IS A PRIVATE BENEFIT FOR THE RAILROAD IN THE FORM OF
SAVINGS REALIZED BY DISCONTINUING UNECONOMIC SERVICES.  THE
JUSTIFICATION LIES IN THE BENEFIT TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH
THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THE ABANDONMENT WOULD PRODUCE.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE ACT TO PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM TAKING ACTION IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" MERELY BECAUSE
THE TOTAL IMPACT OF THAT ACTION WILL INCLUDE BENEFITS TO PRIVATE
PERSONS, EITHER CARRIERS OR EMPLOYEES.  THE LOWDEN CASE SPECIFICALLY
RECOGNIZED THAT THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE SOUGHT
HERE MIGHT STRENGTHEN THE NATIONAL SYSTEM THROUGH THEIR EFFECT ON THE
MORALE AND STABILITY OF RAILWAY WORKERS GENERALLY.  EXACTLY THE SAME
CONSIDERATIONS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE ARE APPLICABLE AND OPERATIVE
HERE. 

WE MUST ALSO REJECT THE FURTHER ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS HAS RATIFIED
THE COMMISSION'S CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 1(18)-(20).  IT IS TRUE THAT
CONGRESS MADE NO CHANGES IN SEC. 1(18)-(20) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT IN PASSING THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, AND THAT THE ANNUAL
REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONGRESS IN 1935 AND 1936 HAD SPECIFICALLY
ASKED "FOR FURTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS TO PROTECT EMPLOYEES FROM UNDUE
FINANCIAL LOSS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AUTHORIZED RAILWAY ABANDONMENTS OR
UNIFICATIONS."  BUT THE LOWDEN CASE, CLEARLY ESTABLISHING THAT THE
COMMISSION'S 1935 AND 1936 DOUBTS ABOUT ITS POWERS WITH RESPECT TO
UNIFICATIONS WERE ERRONEOUS, WAS DECIDED ON DECEMBER 4, 1939.  CONGRESS
COULD WITH GOOD REASON HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF THE LOWDEN
CASE WAS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO ABANDONMENTS.  IN ANY EVENT, THE
CONTRARY CONCLUSION - THAT ABANDONMENTS WERE NOW TO BE DISTINGUISHED,
ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION HAD MADE NO SUCH DISTINCTION IN PRESENTING THE
PROBLEM TO CONGRESS, AND THAT CONGRESS APPROVED SUCH A DISTINCTION - IS
AT BEST THE PRODUCT OF A SET OF INFERENCES NONE OF WHICH IS FREE FROM
DOUBT.  WE THEREFORE CANNOT IMPUTE TO CONGRESS'S FAILURE TO AMEND SEC.
1(18)-(20) THE SIGNIFICANCE WHICH THE PETITIONERS CONTEND IT SHOULD
HAVE. 

NOR IS THE PETITIONERS' CONTENTION STRENGTHENED BECAUSE CONGRESS DID
MODIFY SEC. 5(4) IN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940.  THE MODIFICATIONS,
SO FAR AS RELEVANT HERE, MERELY MADE MANDATORY WITH RESPECT TO
UNIFICATIONS THE PROTECTIONS FOR WORKERS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN
DISCRETIONARY.  FN1  SEE UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, SUPRA, 239.  TO
REGARD THEM AS A RESTRICTION ON THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE
COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ABANDONMENTS IS NOT MERELY ILLOGICAL.  IT
REQUIRES US TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS A POLICY OF MANDATORY PROTECTION FOR
LABOR IN UNIFICATIONS AND NO PROTECTION AT ALL IN ABANDONMENTS.  IT IS
REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO MAKE SUCH A
DISTINCTION, IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO MORE EXPLICITLY. 

THE PETITIONERS HAVE MADE FURTHER ARGUMENTS BASED ON THE STATUTORY
HISTORY OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, RELYING UPON INCIDENTAL AND
SPORADIC REFERENCES IN COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND REPORTS TO THE PROTECTION
OF LABOR IN CONNECTION WITH ABANDONMENTS.  WE HAVE REVIEWED THOSE
REFERENCES, AND HAVE FOUND THAT THEY RAISE INFERENCES TOO AMBIGUOUS TO
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS HAS RATIFIED THE COMMISSION'S
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 1(18)-(20). 

IT IS ALSO URGED THAT WE SHOULD NOT DISTURB THE COMMISSION'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ABANDONMENT PROVISIONS FOR THE REASON THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS BY THE AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.  BUT AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON SEC. 1(18)-(20) BY THE
COMMISSION IS NOT ONLY HOSTILE TO THE MAJOR OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT AND
INCONSISTENT WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, BUT IRRECONCILABLE WITH ITS
OWN INTERPRETATIONS OF SEC. 5(4).  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE BELIEVE
THE COURT BELOW WAS AMPLY JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE
COMMISSION'S CONSTRUCTION.  CF. MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 80;
CITY BANK CO. V. HELVERING, 313 U.S. 121. 

WE THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO ATTACH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEES DISPLACED BY RAILROAD
ABANDONMENTS.  WHETHER SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOULD BE ATTACHED IN
THIS CASE, AND, IF SO, THEIR NATURE AND EXTENT, ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE
COMMISSION TO DECIDE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT BELOW SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "AS A CONDITION OF ITS APPROVAL, UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH (2), OF
ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING A CARRIER OR CARRIERS BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, THE COMMISSION SHALL REQUIRE A FAIR AND
EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES AFFECTED.  IN ITS ORDER OF APPROVAL THE COMMISSION SHALL
INCLUDE TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDING THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF FOUR
YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SUCH ORDER SUCH TRANSACTION WILL NOT
RESULT IN EMPLOYEES OF THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS BY RAILROAD AFFECTED BY
SUCH ORDER BEING IN A WORSE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT,
EXCEPT THAT THE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO ANY EMPLOYEE PURSUANT TO THIS
SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO CONTINUE FOR A LONGER PERIOD,
FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SUCH ORDER, THAN THE PERIOD DURING
WHICH SUCH EMPLOYEE WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF SUCH CARRIER OR CARRIERS PRIOR
TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SUCH ORDER.  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AN AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE PROTECTION OF
THE INTERESTS OF SAID EMPLOYEES MAY HEREAFTER BE ENTERED INTO BY ANY
CARRIER OR CARRIERS BY RAILROAD AND THE DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
OR REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES."  54 STAT. 906-907. 
..END :















PURCELL V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 381 


NO. 803.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 41
F.SUPP.  309, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE MOST OF A SHORT RAILWAY WAS INCLUDED IN THE LIMITS OF A
GOVERNMENT FLOOD CONTROL RESERVOIR, AND CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE
REMAINING PORTIONS WOULD SERVE NO PRACTICAL PURPOSE, AND THE COST OF
RELOCATING AND REBUILDING THE LINE, AND THE INCREASED EXPENSES OF
OPERATING IT IF RELOCATED, WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 1(18) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO PERMIT ABANDONMENT OF THE
LINE IN ITS ENTIRETY.  P. 383. 

2.  IN SUCH A CASE IT WAS PROPER FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE
COST OF RELOCATION EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE PAID NOT BY THE RAILWAY
COMPANY BUT BY THE GOVERNMENT; FOR, IN DETERMINING SUCH APPLICATIONS,
THE INTERESTS OF THOSE SERVED BY THE EXISTING LINE ARE BALANCED AGAINST
THE INTERESTS OF THE CARRIER AND THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, AND
OPERATION OF THAT SYSTEM WITHOUT WASTE WAS ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920.  P. 384. 

PURCELL ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
MARYLAND, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MARYLAND. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE DISMISSING A BILL TO ANNUL AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PERMITTING ABANDONMENT OF A RAILWAY
LINE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
28 U.S.C. SEC. 47, DISMISSED THE APPELLANTS' BILL, WHICH PRAYED FOR THE
ANNULMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  41
F.SUPP.  309.  THE ORDER PERMITTED THE CONFLUENCE AND OAKLAND RAILROAD
COMPANY, AS OWNER, AND THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, AS
LESSEE, TO ABANDON A RAILROAD LINE APPROXIMATELY 20 MILES LONG AND TO
DISCONTINUE SERVICE ENTIRELY IN THE AREA NOW SERVED:  A SEMI
MOUNTAINOUS SECTION ALONG THE YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER BETWEEN CONFLUENCE AND
OAKLAND JUNCTION, PENNSYLVANIA, AND KENDALL, MARYLAND.  THE APPELLANTS,
WHO ALSO APPEARED AS PROTESTANTS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, ARE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND AND THE
MCCULLOUGH COAL CORPORATION, A COAL MINING COMPANY WHICH ALLEGES IT
WILL BE FORCED OUT OF BUSINESS IF RAILROAD SERVICE IS DISCONTINUED. 

THE APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR ABANDONMENT WAS NOT MADE
BECAUSE THE LINE HAD BEEN OPERATING AT A LOSS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE LINE HAD
THERETOFORE BEEN A BURDEN ON THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO SYSTEM, OF WHICH IT
WAS A PART; OR THAT A PREDICTABLE DECLINE IN THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC
WOULD MAKE IT ONE IN THE FUTURE, IF IT WERE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN
EXISTENCE UNDISTURBED.  244 I.C.C. 451, 458; 247 I.C.C. 399, 401.  BUT
CONTINUED UNDISTURBED EXISTENCE WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY IN VIEW OF A
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT ALREADY BEGUN BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT UNDER
AUTHORITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  52 STAT. 1215-1216.  THIS PROJECT
ENTAILS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM WHICH WILL CREATE A RESERVOIR
COVERING AN AREA IN WHICH TWELVE MILES OF THE LINE ARE NOW LOCATED.  IT
IS CONCEDED THAT UNLESS A NEW CONNECTING SECTION IS BUILT, THE SECTIONS
OF THE LINE NOT TO BE INUNDATED - A DETACHED SIX MILE SEGMENT ABOVE THE
DAM, AND A ONE MILE SEGMENT CONNECTING WITH THE MAIN LINE OF THE
BALTIMORE AND OHIO BELOW IT - WOULD SERVE NO PRACTICAL PURPOSE
JUSTIFYING CONTINUED OPERATION. 

THE APPELLANTS DO NOT CHALLENGE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE WAR
DEPARTMENT TO SUBMERGE THE LINE AS IT PROPOSES TO DO.  NOR DO THEY
SUGGEST THAT THE COMMISSION COULD OR SHOULD TAKE ANY ACTION TO DETER
COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.  NEVERTHELESS, THEY CONTEND THAT SINCE "THE
SOLE REASON FOR THE ABANDONMENT WAS THE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, THE
APPLICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED FORTHWITH BY THE COMMISSION BECAUSE
OF LACK OF JURISDICTION TO GRANT AN ABANDONMENT ON SUCH GROUND."  BUT
UNDER SEC. 1(18) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT THE STANDARD PRESCRIBED
FOR THE COMMISSION IN CASES OF THIS KIND IS WHETHER "THE PRESENT OR
FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY PERMIT OF SUCH ABANDONMENT." 
49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(18).  IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE WHAT CONSIDERATION OF
PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE COULD REASONABLY IMPEL THE
COMMISSION TO DECLINE TO AUTHORIZE ABANDONMENT OF A LINE ADMITTEDLY
DOOMED TO BE RENDERED INOPERABLE REGARDLESS OF WHAT ACTION THE
COMMISSION MIGHT TAKE.  AND THE APPELLANTS SUGGEST NONE.  WE MUST
DISMISS THE APPELLANTS' CONTENTION ON THIS POINT AS WITHOUT MERIT. 
FN1 

THE APPELLANTS MAKE THE FURTHER ARGUMENT THAT, EVEN IF THE COMMISSION
DID NOT ERR IN PERMITTING ABANDONMENT OF THE LINE, ITS ORDER CANNOT
STAND BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO IMPOSE A CONDITION THAT SUBSTITUTE
SERVICE BE PROVIDED BY RELOCATING THE LINE.  FN2  AFTER HEARING
TESTIMONY ON THE PROBABLE COST OF RELOCATION AND THE PROBABLE COST OF
MAINTAINING A RELOCATED LINE, THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT
"CONSIDERING THE EXPENDITURE NECESSARILY INCIDENT TO THAT RELOCATION
AND THE INCREASED COSTS OF OPERATING THE LINE THAT WILL BE CAUSED
THEREBY,  ...  WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY IN TAKING ACTION HEREIN THAT WILL REQUIRE THE RELOCATION OF
THE LINE."  THE APPELLANTS DO NOT CONTEST THE COMMISSION'S FINDING,
AMPLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THAT THE RELOCATED LINE WOULD REQUIRE
INCREASED OPERATING EXPENSES.  IF THE COMMISSION HAD BASED ITS
CONCLUSION ON THIS FINDING ALONE, THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO ADEQUATE
GROUND FOR SETTING ITS ORDER ASIDE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  THE
COMMISSION DID CONSIDER RELOCATION COSTS, HOWEVER, AND THE APPELLANTS
CONTEND THAT THIS WAS AN IMPROPER CONSIDERATION WHICH INVALIDATES ITS
ORDER. 

IN MAKING THIS ATTACK ON THE ORDER, THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT UNDER
THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO CONSTRUCT FLOOD CONTROL
PROJECTS, THE COST OF RELOCATION WOULD HAVE TO BE BORNE BY THE
GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN THE RAILROAD.  COST THUS BORNE WOULD NOT AFFECT
THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE RAILROAD ITSELF, THE APPELLANTS URGE,
AND THEREFORE THERE COULD BE NO SUCH WEAKENING OF THE RAILROAD'S
CAPITAL STRUCTURE AS WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 
HENCE, THE ARGUMENT CONTINUES, IN THAT BALANCING OF THE INTERESTS OF
THOSE NOW SERVED BY THE PRESENT LINE ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE INTERESTS
OF THE CARRIER AND THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ON THE OTHER, WHICH A
PROPER DISPOSITION OF ABANDONMENT APPLICATIONS REQUIRES, COLORADO V.
UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 153, THE FORMER INTERESTS MUST PREVAIL. 

AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, "AN UNECONOMIC OUTLAY OF
FUNDS WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTERESTS OF TRANSPORTATION EVEN THOUGH THE
MONEY BE DERIVED FROM THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT."  THIS COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL RAILWAY SYSTEM WITHOUT WASTE
WAS ONE OF THE PURPOSES THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920 WAS INTENDED TO
FURTHER.  TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 522, 530; TEXAS & PACIFIC
RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266, 277.  AND A STATED
PURPOSE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH
CONGRESS PRESCRIBED THAT THE "ACT SHALL BE ADMINISTERED AND ENFORCED"
IS "TO PROMOTE  ...  ADEQUATE, ECONOMICAL, AND EFFICIENT SERVICE AND
FOSTER SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN TRANSPORTATION AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS."  54 STAT. 899.  WHEN MATERIALS AND LABOR ARE DEVOTED
TO THE BUILDING OF A LINE IN AN AMOUNT THAT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED IN
TERMS OF THE REASONABLY PREDICTABLE REVENUES, THERE IS AMPLE GROUND TO
SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURES ARE WASTEFUL WHOEVER FOOTS
THE BILL.  THE FOSTERING CARE OF THE RAILROAD SYSTEM INTRUSTED TO THE
COMMISSION IS NOT SO CIRCUMSCRIBED AS TO LEAVE IT WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
PASS ON THE ECONOMIC ADVISABILITY OF RELOCATION IN A SITUATION WHERE
SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE CARRIER PROVIDES THE MONEY.  THE WEIGHT TO BE
GIVEN TO COST OF A RELOCATED LINE AS AGAINST THE ADVERSE EFFECTS UPON
THOSE SERVED BY THE ABANDONED LINE IS A MATTER WHICH THE EXPERIENCE OF
THE COMMISSION QUALIFIES IT TO DECIDE.  AND, UNDER THE STATUTE, IT IS
NOT A MATTER FOR JUDICIAL REDECISION.  NOR IS THERE ANY INDICATION IN
THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1938 THAT CONGRESS DESIRES TO TAKE AWAY FROM
THE COMMISSION ANY OF THE POWERS TO MAKE DECISIONS OF THIS KIND WHICH
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT HAD PREVIOUSLY GRANTED IT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  WHERE PROJECTED INUNDATION OF A LINE MADE DISCONTINUATION OF
OPERATIONS OVER IT COMPULSORY, THE COMMISSION HAS CONSISTENTLY GIVEN
ITS AUTHORIZATION FOR ABANDONMENT.  SEE LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO.
ABANDONMENT, 212 I.C.C. 597, 598:  "IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED ABOVE THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT IS
COMPULSORY, AND WILL NOT RESULT IN PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE."  IN SOME SUCH
SITUATIONS THE COMMISSION HAS ATTACHED THE CONDITION OF RELOCATION.  E.
G., ST. LOUIS-S.F. RY. CO. TRUSTEES ABANDONMENT, 244 I.C.C. 485.  IN
OTHERS, IT HAS NOT.  E. G., SOUTHERN RY. CO. ABANDONMENT, 217 I.C.C.
764. 

FN2  THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO ATTACH CONDITIONS BY SEC. 1(20)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WHICH PROVIDES IN PART:  "THE COMMISSION
...  MAY ATTACH  ...  SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS IN ITS JUDGMENT THE
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY MAY REQUIRE."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(20). 
..END :























WILLIAMS V. TERMINAL CO., 315 U.S. 386 


NO. 112.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 118 F.2D
324, 328, AFFIRMED. 


THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 REQUIRES EMPLOYERS TO PAY TO
EVERY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOT LESS THAN THE
PRESCRIBED MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE.  WHEN THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE, THE
RESPONDENT TERMINAL COMPANIES GAVE NOTICE TO REDCAPS IN THEIR EMPLOY OF
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SO-CALLED ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE SYSTEM,
WHEREBY EACH REDCAP WAS REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE TIPS HE RECEIVED
AND WAS GUARANTEED A COMPENSATION WHICH, INCLUDING TIPS, WOULD NOT BE
LESS THAN THE STATUTORY MINIMUM.  HELD: 

1.  THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE REDCAPS, PRIOR TO THE NOTICE, WAS AT WILL. 
THEIR CONTINUING TO WORK, AFTER THE NOTICE, CREATED A NEW CONTRACT.  P.
397. 

2.  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE SYSTEM WAS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT FORBIDDING
(EXCEPT AS PROVIDED) CHANGES OF PAY OR WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES
"AS A CLASS AS EMBODIED IN AGREEMENTS," SINCE THOSE PROVISIONS APPLY
ONLY TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  P. 398. 

3.  REDCAPS WERE NOT EMBRACED IN A CERTAIN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT RELIED ON IN ONE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.  P. 400. 

4.  THERE HAVING BEEN NO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY
IN EFFECT, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE SYSTEM DID
NOT VIOLATE SEC. 2 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY
HAD RECEIVED FROM THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REDCAPS A
REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE SUCH AN AGREEMENT.  P. 402. 

5.  THE ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE SYSTEM, AS APPLIED TO THE SPECIFIC
SITUATIONS HERE INVOLVED, CONSTITUTED COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  P. 403. 

6.  THE WORDS "PAY WAGES" IN SEC. 6 OF THE ACT ARE NOT TO BE
INTERPRETED AS LIMITED TO MONEY PASSING FROM THE TERMINAL COMPANY TO
THE REDCAP.  P. 407. 

7.  THE PETITIONERS HERE ARE WITHOUT STANDING TO ASSERT THAT IN ITS
OPERATION THE ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE SYSTEM VIOLATES SECS. 2 AND 6(7)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 408. 

8.  A TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE OF THE
TERMINAL COMPANY IN ONE OF THESE CASES, DURING WHICH PERIOD REDCAPS
WERE NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT TIPS UNLESS THEY AMOUNTED TO LESS THAN THE
STATUTORY MINIMUM WAGE, DID NOT SHOW THAT THE ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE
SYSTEM HAD BEEN ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF THE FORMER SYSTEM OF
NONACCOUNTABILITY FOR TIPS.  P. 409. 

WILLIAMS ET AL. V. JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 1023, OCTOBER TERM, 1940, PICKETT, GENERAL
CHAIRMAN OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAMSHIP CLERKS, ETC., V.
UNION TERMINAL CO., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 701, TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT,  - ARGUED JANUARY 6, 7,
1942. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

IN NO. 112, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 314 U.S. 590, TO REVIEW THE
AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER (35 F.SUPP.  267) GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A SUIT TO RECOVER WAGES AND LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. 

IN NO. 1023, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 314 U.S. 701, ON PETITION FOR
REHEARING OF AN ORDER DENYING CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 591, TO REVIEW THE
REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN A SUIT TO RECOVER WAGES
AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, 33 F.SUPP. 
244. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY BOTH THESE CASES IS WHETHER A RAILROAD
COMPANY OPERATING A TERMINAL SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 IS REQUIRED BY THOSE STATUTES, IN THE
ABSENCE OF A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT RESPECTING WAGES, TO PAY "REDCAPS" A
FIXED MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIPS FROM PASSENGERS
RECEIVED BY THE REDCAPS, OR WHETHER AN ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE PLAN
WHICH LEAVES ALL TIPS WITH THE REDCAPS AND ASSURES THEM THAT EACH WILL
RECEIVE AT LEAST THE MINIMUM WAGE IS VALID. 

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IS NOT INTENDED TO DO AWAY WITH
TIPPING.  NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE GENERAL
MINIMUM WAGE TO GIVE THE TIPPING EMPLOYMENTS AN EARNINGS-PREFERENCE
OVER THE NON-SERVICE VOCATIONS.  THE PETITIONERS DO NOT DISPUTE THE
RAILROAD'S CONTENTION THAT, DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD, EACH REDCAP
RECEIVED AS EARNINGS - CASH PAY PLUS TIPS - A SUM EQUAL TO THE REQUIRED
MINIMUM WAGE.  NOR IS THERE DENIAL OF INCREASED PAY TO THE REDCAPS ON
ACCOUNT OF THE MINIMUM WAGE GUARANTEE OF THE CHALLENGED PLAN AS
COMPARED WITH THE FORMER TIPPING SYSTEM.  THE GUARANTEE ALSO BETTERS
THE MISCHIEF OF IRREGULAR INCOME FROM TIPS AND INCREASES WAGE
SECURITY.  THE DESIRABILITY OF CONSIDERING TIPS IN SETTING A MINIMUM
WAGE, THAT IS, WHETHER TIPS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF SOCIAL WELFARE SHOULD
BE COUNTED AS PART OF THAT LEGAL WAGE, IS NOT FOR JUDICIAL DECISION. 
FN1  WE DEAL HERE ONLY WITH THE PETITIONERS' ASSERTION THAT THE WAGES
ACT REQUIRES RAILROADS TO PAY THE REDCAPS THE MINIMUM WAGE WITHOUT
REGARD TO THEIR EARNINGS FROM TIPS. 

THE CASES HAVE A COMMON BACKGROUND.  PRIOR TO OCTOBER 24, 1938, THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE REDCAPS AT THE
TERMINALS IN QUESTION PERFORMED THEIR FAMILIAR TASKS WITHOUT REWARD
OTHER THAN THE TIPS OF THE PASSENGERS, AND, ALTHOUGH SUBJECT TO
CONSIDERABLE SUPERVISION BY THE TERMINALS,  FN2  WERE NOT OFFICIALLY
CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES.  ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1938, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, ACTING UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 151, RULED THAT REDCAPS IN CITIES OF OVER 100,000 POPULATION WERE
EMPLOYEES WITHIN THAT ACT.  229 I.C.C. 410. 

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT RULING, THE PARALLEL SERIES OF EVENTS CULMINATING
IN THE TWO CONTROVERSIES NOW BEFORE US, WHILE DIFFERING IN DETAILS,
FOLLOWED THE SAME GENERAL PATTERN.  IN NO. 112, NOTHING FURTHER
OCCURRED UNTIL THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE.  AT THAT
TIME, THE JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL, IN SUPPOSED COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT,
BEGAN PAYING ITS REDCAPS IN CASH THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE STATUTORY
MINIMUM WAGE EXCEEDED EACH REDCAP'S RECEIPTS IN TIPS.  THIS SYSTEM, IN
SOME FORM, WAS USED AT THE TERMINAL UNTIL JULY 1, 1940. 

IN THE BELIEF THAT THE ACT REQUIRED PAYMENT OF THE MINIMUM WAGE
WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TIPS, THE REDCAPS, BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVE,
WILLIAMS, BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE TERMINAL IN UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE RECOVERY OF UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES BETWEEN OCTOBER
24, 1938, AND JULY 1, 1940, AND AN EQUAL ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AS
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  JURISDICTION OF THE ACTION WAS CONFERRED BY SEC.
24(8) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(8), AND BY SEC. 16(B) OF
THE F.L.S.A., 29 U.S.C. SEC. 216(B).  FN3  THE TERMINAL ANSWERED AND
MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE EXHIBITS,
DEPOSITIONS, AND STIPULATED FACTS THE TRIAL JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION,
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  118 F.2D 324.  BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TIPS COULD BE TREATED AS
PAYMENT OF THE STATUTORY WAGE, THE PETITION OF THE REDCAPS'
REPRESENTATIVE FOR CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  314 U.S. 590. 

ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAGES AT THE PRESCRIBED RATES PER HOUR. 
FN4  VIOLATION OF THAT REQUIREMENT RENDERS THE EMPLOYER LIABLE FOR THE
UNPAID WAGES AND FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, RECOVERABLE IN AN ACTION BY
THE EMPLOYEES' DESIGNATED AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE.  FN5  SINCE THE
TERMINAL ADMITTED BY STIPULATION THAT WILLIAMS WAS THE REDCAPS'
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AD LITEM, THAT THE REDCAPS WERE ITS
EMPLOYEES, AND THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE SOLE
ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE PAYMENT REQUIRED BY SEC. 6 OF THE ACT HAD BEEN
MADE. 

THE EVIDENCE, TAKEN MOST FAVORABLY TO THE REDCAPS, DISCLOSES THE
FOLLOWING.  ABOUT OCTOBER 24, 1938, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, THE
TERMINAL ISSUED A WRITTEN NOTICE TO EACH REDCAP:

             "JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA,

                        "OCT.  24TH, 1938. 

"TO RED CAP ...................., 

"JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL COMPANY: 

"IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 24, 1938, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR HEREAFTER
ENGAGING IN THE HANDLING OF HAND BAGGAGE AND TRAVELING EFFECTS OF
PASSENGERS OR OTHERWISE ASSISTING THEM AT OR ABOUT STATIONS OR
DESTINATIONS, IT WILL BE NECESSARY THAT YOU REPORT DAILY TO THE
UNDERSIGNED THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY YOU AS TIPS OR REMUNERATION FOR
SUCH SERVICES. 

"THE CARRIER HEREBY GUARANTEES TO EACH PERSON CONTINUING SUCH SERVICE
AFTER OCTOBER 24, 1938 COMPENSATION WHICH, TOGETHER WITH AND INCLUDING
THE SUMS OF MONEY RECEIVED AS ABOVE PROVIDED, WHICH (SIC) WILL NOT BE
LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE PROVIDED BY LAW. 

"YOU ARE PRIVILEGED TO RETAIN SUBJECT TO THEIR BEING CREDITED ON SUCH
GUARANTEE ALL SUCH TIPS OR REMUNERATION RECEIVED BY YOU EXCEPT SUCH
PORTION THEREOF AS MAY BE REQUIRED OF YOU BY THE UNDERSIGNED FOR TAXES
OF ANY CHARACTER IMPOSED UPON YOU BY LAW AND COLLECTIBLE BY THE
UNDERSIGNED. 

"ALL THE MATTERS ABOVE REFERRED TO ARE SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE
CARRIER TO DETERMINE FROM TIME TO TIME THE NUMBER AND IDENTITY OF
PERSONS TO BE PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN SAID WORK AND THE HOURS TO BE
DEVOTED THERETO, TO ESTABLISH RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE
MANNER, METHOD AND PLACE OF RENDITION OF SUCH SERVICE, AND THE
ACCOUNTING REQUIRED. 

  "JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL COMPANY,

           "BY J. L. WILKES,             "PRESIDENT-GENERAL

           MANAGER." 

ON NOVEMBER 3RD L. L. WOOTEN, THE GENERAL CHAIRMAN OF THE BROTHERHOOD
OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, RECEIVED THE REDCAPS' DESIGNATION OF
THE BROTHERHOOD AS THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  NOVEMBER 4TH HE
SAW A COPY OF THE TERMINAL'S NOTICE.  IN THE MEANTIME HE HAD WRITTEN
WILKES ON OCTOBER 25TH THAT IN VIEW OF THE I.C.C. DECISION HE
CONSIDERED THE REDCAPS COVERED BY THE COLLECTIVE LABOR AGREEMENT OF
FEBRUARY 1, 1937, BETWEEN THE BROTHERHOOD AND THE TERMINAL, AND WITHIN
THE UNION'S JURISDICTION.  AFTER THE DESIGNATION THE BROTHERHOOD,
CONTINUALLY PROTESTING THE INVALIDITY OF THE EXISTING ACCOUNTING AND
GUARANTEE SYSTEM,  FN6  ATTEMPTED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TERMINAL FOR A
REDCAP CONTRACT.  EVENTUALLY, JUNE 16, 1939, A CONTRACT LIMITED TO
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS WAS SIGNED.  MEANWHILE THE
REDCAPS CONTINUED THEIR ACCUSTOMED ACTIVITIES, MADE THE REPORTS, KEPT
THE TIPS, AND ACCEPTED THE SUMS PROFFERED THEM BY THE TERMINAL.  AT
FIRST, NO RECEIPTS FOR WAGE PAYMENTS WERE REQUIRED AT JACKSONVILLE;
LATER, RECEIPTS WERE INTRODUCED EXPRESSLY RESERVING THE REDCAPS' RIGHT
TO SUE FOR ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS UNDER THE ACT.  FN7  ON JULY 1, 1940, THE
TERMINAL INAUGURATED A NEW SYSTEM OF CHARGING PASSENGERS TEN CENTS PER
PARCEL FOR REDCAP SERVICE, AND PAYING THE REDCAPS AN HOURLY WAGE.  AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE BROTHERHOOD REDUCING THIS ARRANGEMENT TO WRITING AND
ENDING THE CONTROVERSIAL ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE SYSTEM WAS SIGNED
AUGUST 9TH. 

NO. 1023 IS A SIMILAR PROCEEDING BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNION TERMINAL
COMPANY BY PICKETT, THE AGENT OF FORTY-FIVE REDCAPS WORKING IN THE
DALLAS TERMINAL.  AT THE TRIAL, THE EVIDENCE, CONSISTING OF AN AGREED
STATEMENT OF FACTS, SOME EXHIBITS, AND SOME UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY,
INDICATED, AND THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND, THAT THE REDCAPS WERE EMPLOYEES
OF THE TERMINAL AND WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HE FURTHER
FOUND THAT PRIOR TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT THE REDCAPS WERE PAID
BY THE TIPS OF THE PUBLIC, THAT NO OTHER CONTRACT WAS MADE ON OR SINCE
OCTOBER 22, 1938, AND THAT THE QUESTION OF TIPS AS WAGES WAS STILL AN
OPEN ONE.  ON THE GROUND THAT TIPS OF THE PUBLIC WERE NOT WAGES PAID BY
THE EMPLOYER, HE GAVE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE REDCAPS.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, 118 F.2D 328, AND CERTIORARI WAS DENIED. 
313 U.S. 591.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED, ON
PETITION FOR REHEARING CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  314 U.S. 701. 

SINCE THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF PICKETT'S CASE ARE NO LONGER IN DISPUTE,
THE CRUCIAL ISSUE AGAIN IS WHETHER THE MINIMUM WAGES WERE PAID.  IT WAS
SHOWN THAT, AFTER THE I.C.C. RULING THAT REDCAPS WERE EMPLOYEES, THE
REDCAPS NOTIFIED THE DALLAS TERMINAL ON OCTOBER 11, 1938, THAT THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS
WAS THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AND
PICKETT, AS GENERAL CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, ASKED FOR A CONFERENCE IN
ORDER TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT.  ON OCTOBER 22D, THE TERMINAL
DELIVERED TO EACH REDCAP A LETTER, SIGNED BY BUCKNER, THE TERMINAL'S
VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, IN THE SAME TERMS AS THE NOTICE
USED AT THE JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL. 

TWO DAYS LATER, ON OCTOBER 24TH, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE WAGE LAW,
PICKETT, ON BEHALF OF THE REDCAPS AND AT THEIR REQUEST, PROTESTED THIS
PROPOSAL IN A LETTER TO BUCKNER,  FN8  CONCLUDING: 

"THIS LETTER IS FORMAL NOTICE TO THE CARRIER, MADE FOR AND ON BEHALF
OF EACH EMPLOYEE CONCERNED AS A PROTEST AGAINST THE METHOD PROPOSED BY
THE CARRIER TO MEET ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE SAID LAW, AND SINCE IT
APPEARS THAT THE CARRIER HAS ACTED IN THE PREMISE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF
LAW OR UPON ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, WE ARE ACCORDINGLY FILING THIS
NOTICE OF PROTEST, FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH HEREIN." 

NO ACTION WAS EVER TAKEN TO RECALL OR REVOKE THE LETTER OF PROTEST
AND THE INDIVIDUAL REDCAPS NEVER TOLD THE COMPANY THAT THEY ACCEPTED
THE TERMS OF ITS LETTER OF OCTOBER 24TH. 

ON DECEMBER 26TH, 1938, PICKETT SUBMITTED TO BUCKNER A PROPOSED
GENERAL AGREEMENT COVERING THE HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS
OF THE REDCAPS, BUT NOT THEIR WAGES.  AFTER PROTRACTED CONSIDERATION OF
THE MATTER BY BOTH THE TERMINAL AND THE UNION, BUCKNER WROTE PICKETT ON
DECEMBER 6, 1939, AS FOLLOWS: 

"AS I TOLD YOU AND AS YOU KNOW, THIS CASE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE
RAILROADS WILL BE ALLOWED CREDIT FOR TIPS RECEIVED UP TO $2.40 PER DAY,
IS IN THE COURT AND AS SOON AS SAME IS DECIDED WE WILL BE GLAD TO
NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CLERKS UNION, OF WHICH YOU ARE THE
GENERAL CHAIRMAN FOR THIS COMPANY."  ON JANUARY 1, 1940, ALTHOUGH THE
WAGE DISPUTE WAS NOT YET SETTLED, A WORKING AGREEMENT OF THE LIMITED
TYPE PICKETT HAD PROPOSED WAS SIGNED.  ON MARCH 6, 1940, THE ACCOUNTING
AND GUARANTEE SYSTEM WAS ABANDONED BY THE TERMINAL, PRESUMABLY FOR THE
TEN CENTS PER PARCEL CHARGE, AND THE FOLLOWING DAY THIS ACTION WAS
COMMENCED.  THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PRECEDING PERIOD THE REDCAPS HAD
PERFORMED THEIR USUAL DUTIES, HAD FILED SLIPS SHOWING THE HOURS WORKED
AND, EXCEPT FOR A BRIEF PERIOD, THE TIPS RECEIVED, HAD KEPT THE TIPS,
AND HAD ACCEPTED THE MONEY PAID BY THE TERMINAL PURSUANT TO ITS
GUARANTEE.  NEVER, HOWEVER, WAS THE DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL PAY
ABANDONED, AND NO REDCAPS WERE DISCHARGED FOR REFUSING TO EXPRESSLY
CONSENT TO THE TERMINAL'S ACTION. 

EFFECT OF TERMINALS' NOTICE.  THE TERMINAL COMPANIES INSTITUTED THE
ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE SYSTEM BY THE WRITTEN NOTICE, QUOTED ABOVE, TO
EACH REDCAP AS THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE.  IT IS ACCEPTED HERE BY ALL
PARTIES THAT, BOTH PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE, THE REDCAPS WERE
EMPLOYEES OF THE RAILROADS  FN9  ENGAGED IN A SERVICE "SO CLOSELY
RELATED TO PHYSICAL TRANSPORTATION" IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO COME
UNDER SEC. 6(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  STOPHER V. CINCINNATI
UNION TERMINAL CO., 246 I.C.C. 41, 45.  AS SUCH EMPLOYEES, BEFORE THE
NOTICE THEY WERE PERMITTED BY AGREEMENT TO COME UPON THE TERMINAL
PROPERTY, RENDER SUPERVISED SERVICE TO THE COMPANIES' CUSTOMERS AND
RECEIVE PAY FOR PERFORMING THIS PORTION OF THE TERMINALS'
TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS BY RETAINING ALL TIPS RECEIVED.  THIS
EMPLOYMENT OF THE REDCAPS WAS AT WILL AND SUBJECT TO THE EMPLOYERS'
CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF CONTINUING THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  IN
BUSINESSES WHERE TIPPING IS CUSTOMARY, THE TIPS, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN
EXPLICIT CONTRARY UNDERSTANDING, BELONG TO THE RECIPIENT.  POLITES V.
BARLIN, 149 KY. 376, 149 S.W. 828; ZAPPAS V. ROUMELIOTE, 156 IOWA 709,
137 N.W. 935; MANUBENS V. LEON, (1919) 1 K.B. 208.  WHERE, HOWEVER, AN
ARRANGEMENT IS MADE BY WHICH THE EMPLOYEE AGREES TO TURN OVER THE TIPS
TO THE EMPLOYER, IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORY INTERFERENCE, NO REASON IS
PERCEIVED FOR ITS INVALIDITY.  FN10  THE EMPLOYER FURNISHES THE
FACILITIES, SUPERVISES THE WORK AND MAY TAKE THE COMPENSATION PAID BY
TRAVELERS FOR THE SERVICE, WHETHER PAID AS A FIXED CHARGE OR AS A TIP. 
A TIP TO A REDCAP IS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE.  IT IS CUSTOMARILY GIVEN
AND ALWAYS EXPECTED WHEN SUCH SERVICE IS RENDERED. 

WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT THE EMPLOYERS BECAME BOUND TO PAY
A MINIMUM WAGE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES, THE REDCAPS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
LATTER WERE NOTIFIED THAT FUTURE EARNINGS FROM TIPS MUST BE ACCOUNTED
FOR AND CONSIDERED AS WAGES.  ALTHOUGH CONTINUOUSLY PROTESTING THE
AUTHORITY OF THE RAILROADS TO TAKE OVER THE TIPS, THE REDCAPS REMAINED
AT WORK SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT.  SUCH PROTESTS WERE UNAVAILING
AGAINST THE EMPLOYERS.  ALTHOUGH THE NEW PLAN WAS NOT SATISFACTORY TO
THE REDCAPS, THE NOTICE TRANSFERRED TO THE RAILROADS' CREDIT SO MUCH OF
THE TIPS AS IT AFFECTED.  BY CONTINUING TO WORK, A NEW CONTRACT WAS
CREATED.  THIS RESULT FOLLOWS BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER, AFTER NOTICE, MAY
KEEP ALL EARNINGS ARISING FROM THE BUSINESS.  LABATT, MASTER & SERVANT,
(2D ED.)  VOL. 5, SEC. 2037; RESTATEMENT, AGENCY, SEC. 388.  IF THE
REDCAP DID NOT ACCEPT THE TERMS OFFERED, HE WOULD BE A VOLUNTEER AND
NOT AN EMPLOYEE.  AS A VOLUNTEER HE COULD PROBABLY KEEP HIS TIPS, BUT
WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO A CONTRACTUAL WAGE.  RESTATEMENT, CONTRACTS,
SEC. 55.  NO SUCH GIFT OF SERVICES TO THE TERMINALS IS HERE CLAIMED. 

RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT, WHATEVER MAY BE THE
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ORDERS FOR THE ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE PLAN, THESE
RAILROADS COULD NOT VALIDLY EXERCISE THE POWER BECAUSE OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT.  48 STAT. 1185.  THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS ARE QUOTED IN THE
NOTE BELOW.  FN11 

THE OBJECT OF THE ACT IS TO AVOID INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE THROUGH
THE PROMOTION OF FREE ASSOCIATION AMONG EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SETTLING DISPUTES BETWEEN THEM AND THE CARRIERS.  SEC. 2.  TO ASSURE
CONTINUED OPERATIONS, CHANGES BY THE CARRIERS IN AGREEMENTS REACHED
THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PENDING NEGOTIATIONS, ARE PROHIBITED. 
INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE ACT.  IT IS TO
BE NOTED THAT SEC. 2, FIRST TO SIXTH, INCLUSIVE, RELIED UPON BY
PETITIONERS, IS LARGELY CONCERNED WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES,
FREEDOM FROM CARRIER INTERFERENCE IN SUCH ORGANIZATION, THE CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND THE MANNER OF ENTERING
INTO AND CARRYING ON SUCH NEGOTIATIONS.  SECTION 2, SEVENTH, NOTE 11,
SUPRA, FORBIDS CHANGES OF PAY OR WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES "AS A
CLASS AS EMBODIED IN AGREEMENTS" EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 6, NOTE 11,
SUPRA.  THE CRUCIAL SEC. 6 IS PHRASED SO AS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT ONLY
AGREEMENTS REACHED AFTER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WERE COVERED.  SECTION
2, SEVENTH, FIRST APPEARED IN THE 1934 AMENDMENTS TO THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT, AND SEC. 6 WAS LIKEWISE THEN AMENDED BY ADDING "IN AGREEMENTS" TO
THAT SECTION'S FORMER REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE OF "AN INTENDED CHANGE
AFFECTING RATES OF PAY, RULES OR WORKING CONDITIONS."  COMPARE SEC. 6,
44 STAT. 582, WITH SEC. 6, 48 STAT. 1197.  THESE ADDITIONS POINT
SQUARELY TO LIMITING THE BARGAINING PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT
TO COLLECTIVE ACTION.  FN12 

IN NO. 112, THE JACKSONVILLE CASE, PETITIONERS FIND SUCH AN AGREEMENT
IN THE CONTRACT OF FEBRUARY 1, 1937, THE "REVISED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL COMPANY AND EMPLOYEES HEREIN NAMED REPRESENTED BY
THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES."  THE SCOPE OF THAT AGREEMENT IS LIMITED
TO THE HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF CERTAIN GROUPS OF
EMPLOYEES, IN NONE OF WHICH DO REDCAPS APPEAR.  FN13 WAGES ARE NOT
COVERED.  WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS NEGOTIATED, THE REDCAPS WERE NOT
THOUGHT OF AS EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  FN14
EVIDENTLY THE REDCAPS ONLY AUTHORIZED THE CONTRACTING BROTHERHOOD TO
REPRESENT THEM AFTER THE NOTICE.  FN15  NEITHER PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT
TOOK ANY STEPS IN REGARD TO THE REDCAPS UNDER THE 1937 AGREEMENT UNTIL
AFTER THE DISPUTED PLAN WAS INSTITUTED.  THEREAFTER, WHEN THE
BROTHERHOOD FIRST CLAIMED THAT THE REDCAPS WERE COVERED BY THE 1937
CLERKS' CONTRACT, THE SUGGESTION WAS PROMPTLY REPUDIATED IN WRITING BY
THE TERMINAL COMPANY.  FINALLY, AFTER THE AUTHORIZATION, THE
BROTHERHOOD DID IMMEDIATELY BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE REDCAPS AND
ULTIMATELY SECURED A COLLECTIVE CONTRACT, JUNE 16, 1939, WHICH COVERED
HOURS OF SERVICE AND WORKING CONDITIONS AND WHICH EMBODIED MUCH THAT
WAS IN THE CLERKS' CONTRACT.  SUBSEQUENTLY A WAGE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST
9, 1940, BECAME A PART OF THIS EARLIER WORKING AGREEMENT.  WHILE NO
FINDING AS TO ITS COVERAGE APPEARS IN THE RECORD, WE ARE CLEAR FROM THE
1937 CONTRACT, ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION BY THE PARTIES AND THE NEW
ARRANGEMENTS ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED, THAT THE REDCAPS WERE NOT WITHIN ITS
TERMS. 

A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM IS MADE BY PETITIONER
IN NO. 1023, THE UNION TERMINAL CASE.  THE DALLAS REDCAPS DO NOT REST
THEIR ARGUMENT UPON ANY COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.  THEIR CONTENTION IS
THAT, SINCE THE BROTHERHOOD OF CLERKS, THEIR THEN ACCREDITED
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, HAD ASKED THE
TERMINAL ON OCTOBER 11, 1938, FOR A CONFERENCE TO NEGOTIATE AN
AGREEMENT FOR WORKING CONDITIONS AND OTHER RELATED SUBJECTS, THE
SUBSEQUENT ACT OF THE TERMINAL IN ESTABLISHING THE ACCOUNTING AND
GUARANTEE PLAN VIOLATED THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND WAS THEREFORE
INEFFECTIVE TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS BY WHICH THE REDCAPS
RETAINED THE TIPS AS THEIR OWN.  THIS, IT IS URGED, WOULD RESULT IN A
RECOVERY OF THE MINIMUM WAGE WITHOUT CREDIT TO THE CARRIER FOR THE
TIPS.  PETITIONER RELIES UPON THE FIRST SIX PARAGRAPHS OF SEC. 2 OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 48 STAT. 1187, AND PARTICULARLY SEC. 2, FIRST, NOTE
11, SUPRA, PLACING THE DUTY ON THE CARRIER TO "MAKE  ...  AGREEMENTS
...  IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY INTERRUPTION  ...  TO THE OPERATION OF ANY
CARRIER." 

THE BROTHERHOOD AND THE TERMINAL DID NEGOTIATE AND FINALLY CONCLUDED,
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1940, THEIR FIRST COLLECTIVE WORKING AGREEMENT
COVERING THE REDCAPS.  BECAUSE THE CARRIER WAS, BY THE ACT, PLACED
UNDER THE DUTY TO EXERT EVERY EFFORT TO MAKE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS, IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT, PENDING THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, WHERE NO COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ARE OR HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT, THE CARRIER CANNOT
EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY TO ARRANGE ITS BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES IN THE MANNER SHOWN IN THIS RECORD.  AS WE HAVE STATED IN
DISCUSSING THE JACKSONVILLE CASE, THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT DEALT WITH
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ONLY, AND NOT WITH THE EMPLOYMENT OF
INDIVIDUALS.  THIS CONCLUSION IS PERTINENT IN CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF
THE DALLAS REQUEST FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.    THE INSTITUTION OF
NEGOTIATIONS FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING DOES NOT CHANGE THE AUTHORITY OF
THE CARRIER.  THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 6 AGAINST CHANGE OF WAGES OR
CONDITIONS PENDING BARGAINING AND THOSE OF SEC. 2, SEVENTH, ARE AIMED
AT PREVENTING CHANGES IN CONDITIONS PREVIOUSLY FIXED BY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.  ARRANGEMENTS MADE AFTER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
OBVIOUSLY ARE ENTITLED TO A HIGHER DEGREE OF PERMANENCY AND CONTINUITY
THAN THOSE MADE BY THE CARRIER FOR ITS OWN CONVENIENCE AND PURPOSE. 

MINIMUM WAGES.  WE STATED IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY
THE TERMINALS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES THAT ITS EFFECT WAS TO TRANSFER THE
TIPS COVERED BY THE NOTICE TO THE CREDIT OF THE TERMINALS.  BUT THIS
TERMINAL CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE REDCAPS, ASSERT PETITIONERS IN BOTH
CASES, CANNOT BE UTILIZED AS CASH PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE BY THE
EMPLOYER.  FN16  IT IS URGED THAT THE TERMINALS HAVE WORKED OUT A
SCHEME TO LARGELY RELIEVE THEMSELVES OF WAGE PAYMENTS TO REDCAPS AND TO
LET TRAVELERS PAY "AMOUNTS WHICH THE LAW REQUIRES SHOULD BE PAID BY THE
EMPLOYER ITSELF," AND THAT THE ACCOUNTING DIFFICULTIES MAKE THE PLAN
NOT ONLY UNDESIRABLE BUT CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE AS
LIKELY TO FOSTER FALSE REPORTS OF TIPS BY REDCAPS IN ORDER TO REACH THE
MINIMUM AND SAVE THE TERMINALS FROM ANY GUARANTEE PAYMENTS. 

EMPLOYEES  ...  WAGES AT THE FOLLOWING RATES.  ..."  WAGES ARE DEFINED
ONLY BY THE DIRECTION TO INCLUDE IN THAT WORD THE "REASONABLE COST  ...
TO THE EMPLOYER OF FURNISHING SUCH EMPLOYEE WITH BOARD, LODGING, OR
OTHER FACILITIES.  ...  "  WHAT THE WORD "WAGES" CONNOTES IN ADDITION
TO THE ITEMS SPECIFIED, WE MUST DEDUCE FROM OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  OBVIOUSLY, "PAY WAGES"
ORDINARILY MEANS FOR THE EMPLOYER TO HAND OVER MONEY OR ORDERS
CONVERTIBLE INTO MONEY AT FACE.  THE ABSENCE OF THE WORD "TIP" FROM THE
STATUTORY EXTENSION OF THE ORDINARY MEANING OF WAGES MAKES IT QUITE
CLEAR THAT NOT EVERY GRATUITY GIVEN A WORKER BY HIS EMPLOYER'S CUSTOMER
IS A PART OF HIS WAGES.  IF CONGRESS HAD HAD IT IN MIND TO INCLUDE IN
WAGES ALL TIPS, THE WORDS WERE READILY AVAILABLE FOR EXPRESSING THE
THOUGHT.  SUCH A CONCLUSION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT FORECLOSE A DECISION
THAT IN CERTAIN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS THE SO-CALLED TIPS MAY BE IN
REALITY THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES, AND THEREFORE
WAGES. 

THE DIVERSE INTERESTS OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES HAVE VARIOUSLY
INFLUENCED LEGISLATORS TO INCLUDE, EXCLUDE, OR IGNORE TIPS IN THE
SPECIFICATION OF WAGE ITEMS IN ENACTMENTS WHERE THE WAGE BASE WAS
IMPORTANT.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT,  FN17 WHICH ALSO APPLIES TO EMPLOYMENT IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,  FN18  SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES TIPS FOR COMPUTATION
OF COMPENSATION.  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS ARE USUALLY CONSTRUED AS
INCLUDING TIPS IN WAGES OR REMUNERATION, WITH A TENDENCY TO MAKE THE
INCLUSION OF TIPS AS WAGES TURN UPON THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE PARTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IN WAGE CONTRACTS.  FN19  STATE MINIMUM WAGE ACTS
ARE GENERALLY SILENT AS TO TIPS.  FN20  UNDER THE N.R.A. THE INCLUSION
OF TIPS IN WAGES ON A PLAN SIMILAR TO THE ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE PLAN
HERE INVOLVED, WAS PROPOSED.  FN21  IN THE APPROVED CODES, TIPS WERE
NOT EXPRESSLY CREDITED TOWARD WAGES, BUT THE RELATIVELY LOWER MINIMUMS
FOR THOSE CUSTOMARILY RECEIVING TIPS MAY INDICATE THAT TIPS WERE GIVEN
WEIGHT ALTHOUGH NOT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED.  FN22  THE FEDERAL SOCIAL
SECURITY LAWS DEFINE WAGES FOR OLD AGE BENEFITS FN23  AND SOCIAL
SECURITY TAXES  FN24  AS "ALL REMUNERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING
THE CASH VALUE OF ALL REMUNERATION PAID IN ANY MEDIUM OTHER THAN
CASH."  THE REGULATIONS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD STATE, "THE
FOLLOWING ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF 'WAGES':  ...  TIPS OR
GRATUITIES PAID DIRECTLY TO AN EMPLOYEE BY A CUSTOMER OF AN EMPLOYER,
AND NOT IN ANY WAY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE EMPLOYEE TO THE EMPLOYER." 
FN25  THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT, SEC. 1(H),  FN26  AND THE RAILROAD
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, SEC. 1(I)  FN27  EXCLUDE TIPS FROM
"COMPENSATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THEIR PROVISIONS.  THE RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT ALL EARNINGS OF THE REDCAPS,
ACCOUNTED FOR TO THE CARRIERS UNDER THE PLAN HERE IN QUESTION, ARE
"MONEY REMUNERATION" AND THEREFORE "COMPENSATION" UNDER THE ACTS AND
NOT FORBIDDEN "TIPS."  FN28  WE CAN THEREFORE EXAMINE THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT WITH THE SAFE ASSUMPTION THAT THE WORD "WAGES" HAS NO
FIXED MEANING EITHER INCLUDING OR EXCLUDING GRATUITIES. 

TO INTERPRET "PAY WAGES" AS LIMITED TO MONEY PASSING FROM THE
TERMINAL TO THE REDCAP WOULD LET CONSTRUCTION OF AN IMPORTANT STATUTE
TURN ON A NARROW TECHNICALITY.  IT, OF COURSE, CAN MAKE NO PRACTICAL
DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE REDCAPS FIRST TURN IN THEIR TIPS AND THEN
RECEIVE THEIR MINIMUM WAGE OR ARE CHARGED WITH THE TIPS RECEIVED UP TO
THE MINIMUM WAGE PER HOUR.  FN29 

CONGRESS APPROACHED THE PROBLEM OF IMPROVING LABOR CONDITIONS BY THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A MINIMUM WAGE IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES.  IT REQUIRED
THAT WORKERS IN THESE INDUSTRIES RECEIVE A COMPENSATION AT LEAST AS
GREAT AS THAT FIXED BY THE ACT.  EXCEPT FOR THAT REQUIREMENT, THE
EMPLOYER WAS LEFT FREE, IN SO FAR AS THE ACT WAS CONCERNED, TO WORK OUT
THE COMPENSATION PROBLEM IN HIS OWN WAY.  OTHER COURTS ARE IN ACCORD
WITH OUR VIEW.  HARRISON V. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO., 36 F.SUPP. 
434; HARRISON V. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS, 4 C.C.H. LABOR
CASES P60,346; RYAN V. DENVER UNION TERMINAL CO., ID., P60,618. 

THE OTHER ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, BUT WE FIND
ONLY TWO THAT REQUIRE MENTION. 

FIRST.  IT IS SAID THAT IF THE CARRIERS TAKE CREDIT FOR THE TIPS AS
COMPENSATION FOR REDCAP SERVICE, IT WOULD BE IN EFFECT A CHARGE BY THE
TERMINALS FOR A TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, AND THEREFORE, SINCE THE
TERMINALS HAVE FILED NO COVERING TARIFF, A VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(7) OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 34 STAT. 587, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(7).  FN30
FURTHERMORE, PETITIONERS ASSERT SEC. 2 OF THE SAME ACT, PROHIBITING
SPECIAL RATES, IS VIOLATED BECAUSE BY THE CARRIER'S REGULATIONS THE
INDIGENT RECEIVE THE REDCAP SERVICE WITHOUT CHARGE.  NEITHER
CONTENTION, IF TRUE, WOULD AVAIL PETITIONERS.  SECTIONS 8, 9 AND 10 OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PROVIDE FOR DAMAGES TO PERSONS INJURED BY
UNLAWFUL ACTS AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CARRIER OR ITS AGENTS.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE SECTIONS TO INDICATE THAT PETITIONERS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT
OF ACTION.  FN31 

SECOND.  IT IS URGED IN THE DALLAS CASE THAT THE TERMINAL FROM MARCH
1, 1939, TO OCTOBER 15, 1939, VOLUNTARILY ABANDONED THE ACCOUNTING AND
GUARANTEE SYSTEM IN FAVOR OF THE OLD SYSTEM OF NON-ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
TIPS.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE MODIFIED ACCOUNTING PRACTICE DURING THAT
PERIOD TO SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION.  RATHER THE TERMINAL SEEMS ONLY TO
HAVE SIMPLIFIED ITS BOOKKEEPING AND PARTIALLY RELIEVED THE REDCAPS OF
CLERICAL DUTIES.  PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1939, AND AFTER OCTOBER 15TH, THE
REDCAPS HAD TO MAKE A DAILY REPORT OF BOTH HOURS WORKED AND TIPS
RECEIVED REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT, ON A PRINTED TIME SLIP FURNISHED BY THE
TERMINAL FOR THE PURPOSE.  BETWEEN MARCH 1ST AND OCTOBER 15TH, THE TIME
SLIPS FURNISHED BY THE COMPANY CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR REPORTING
TIPS, BUT ONLY FOR REPORTING HOURS.  FN32  BUT THE REDCAPS WERE
INSTRUCTED THAT SHOULD ANY OF THEM, DURING ANY WORK PERIOD, RECEIVE IN
TIPS LESS THAN 25 CENTS PER HOUR, THE STATUTORY MINIMUM HOURLY WAGE, HE
SHOULD REPORT IT TO THE TERMINAL AND THE TERMINAL WOULD PAY THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TIPS RECEIVED AND THE MINIMUM WAGE.  THUS THE
ONLY EFFECT OF THE CHANGE WAS TO ELIMINATE THE SUPERFLUOUS REPORTING OF
TIPS EQUALLING OR EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM WAGE - A STEP TOWARD MORE
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION, NOT ELIMINATION, OF THE ACCOUNTING AND
GUARANTEE SYSTEM.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE ANDERSON, TIPS AND LEGAL MINIMUM WAGES, XXXI AMERICAN LABOR
LEGISLATION REVIEW 11; GILSON, TIPS AND SOCIAL INSURANCE, ID. 67;
NEEDLEMAN, TIPPING AS A FACTOR IN WAGES, MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, DECEMBER
1937, P. 1303. 

FN2  FOR EXAMPLE, THE TERMINALS FORBADE THE COLLECTION OF CHARGES FOR
REDCAP SERVICES, ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE MEETING OF SICK OR
DISABLED PASSENGERS, PROVIDED EQUIPMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND REQUIRED
THAT REDCAPS BE UNIFORMED AND SUITABLY DISPERSED ABOUT THE TERMINAL AT
SUCH HOURS AND IN SUCH PLACES AS THEIR SERVICES WOULD BE NEEDED. 

FN3  "(B)  ANY EMPLOYER WHO VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OR
AFFECTED IN THE AMOUNT OF THEIR UNPAID MINIMUM WAGES, OR THEIR UNPAID
OVERTIME COMPENSATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND IN AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.  ACTION TO RECOVER SUCH LIABILITY MAY BE
MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION BY ANY ONE OR MORE
EMPLOYEES FOR AND IN BEHALF OF HIMSELF OR THEMSELVES AND OTHER
EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED, OR SUCH EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES MAY
DESIGNATE AN AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE TO MAINTAIN SUCH ACTION FOR AND IN
BEHALF OF ALL EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE COURT IN SUCH ACTION
SHALL, IN ADDITION TO ANY JUDGMENT AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF OR
PLAINTIFFS, ALLOW A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE TO BE PAID BY THE
DEFENDANT, AND COSTS OF THE ACTION."  JUNE 25, 1938, C. 676, SEC.
16(B), 52 STAT. 1069. 

FN4  "(A)  EVERY EMPLOYER SHALL PAY TO EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES WHO IS
ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE WAGES AT
THE FOLLOWING RATES - 

"(1)  DURING THE FIRST YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION,
NOT LESS THAN 25 CENTS AN HOUR, 

"(2)  DURING THE NEXT SIX YEARS FROM SUCH DATE, NOT LESS THAN 30
CENTS AN HOUR, 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"(B)  THIS SECTION SHALL TAKE EFFECT UPON THE EXPIRATION OF ONE
HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT."  JUNE
25, 1938, C. 676, SEC. 6, 52 STAT. 1062, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 206. 

"AS USED IN THIS ACT  ...  (B) 'COMMERCE' MEANS TRADE, COMMERCE,
TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
OR FROM ANY STATE TO ANY PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF. 

"(E)  'EMPLOYEE' INCLUDES ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY AN EMPLOYER. 

"(M)  'WAGE' PAID TO ANY EMPLOYEE INCLUDES THE REASONABLE COST, AS
DETERMINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, TO THE EMPLOYER OF FURNISHING SUCH
EMPLOYEE WITH BOARD, LODGING, OR OTHER FACILITIES, IF SUCH BOARD,
LODGING, OR OTHER FACILITIES ARE CUSTOMARILY FURNISHED BY SUCH EMPLOYER
TO HIS EMPLOYEES."  JUNE 25, 1938, C. 676, SEC. 3, 52 STAT. 1060, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 203. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN6  THE SYSTEM WAS SO DESCRIBED BECAUSE THE REDCAPS MADE A DAILY
ACCOUNTING OF THE NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED, AND THE AMOUNT OF TIPS
COLLECTED, AND BECAUSE THE TERMINAL GUARANTEED THE OVERALL RECEIPT OF
THE MINIMUM WAGE BY PAYING THE REDCAPS SEMI-MONTHLY ANY SHORTAGE
BETWEEN THE TOTAL TIPS AND THE MINIMUM. 

FN7  THE RECEIPT STATED: 

"IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BY SIGNING THIS RECEIPT I DO NOT FORFEIT
OR RELEASE MY RIGHT TO SUE FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AS MAY BE DUE
UNDER SECTION 16(B) OF THE ACT." 

FN8  THE ENTIRE LETTER IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"I HAVE A COPY OF A CIRCULAR ISSUED BY YOUR COMPANY DATED AT DALLAS,
TEXAS, ON OCTOBER 22, 1938, AND WHICH WAS HANDED TO EACH EMPLOYEE TO
WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED:  I.E., REDCAPS, THE GENERAL TENOR OF WHICH IS TO
REQUIRE THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE TO REPORT TO THE CARRIER THE AMOUNT
THAT HE RECEIVES IN TIPS FROM THE PUBLIC AND WHICH INFORMATION THE
CARRIER INTENDS TO EMPLOY, IN COMPILING ITS RECORDS TO INDICATE THAT IT
HAS COMPLIED WITH SECTION 6 OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: 

"IN OTHER WORDS, THE CARRIER CONTEMPLATES CREDITING TIPS AND OTHER
MONEYS PAID TO ITS EMPLOYEES BY PERSONS OTHER THAN ITSELF TO RELIEVE
ITSELF OF THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE FOLLOWING QUOTED SECTION OF
THE LAW:

                     "'FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: 

"'SECTION 6-(A).  EVERY EMPLOYER SHALL PAY TO EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES
WHO IS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE
WAGES AT THE FOLLOWING RATES - 

"'(1)  DURING THE FIRST YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION,
NOT LESS THAN 25 CENTS AN HOUR.' 

"THE ABOVE SECTION OF THE LAW WHICH IS QUOTED IN PART FOR THE PURPOSE
OF THIS NOTICE, CLEARLY SETS FORTH THAT EVERY EMPLOYER WHO ENGAGES IN
COMMERCE SHALL PAY TO EACH HIS EMPLOYEES DURING THE FIRST YEAR AFTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAW 25 CENTS PER HOUR. 

"AN EXAMINATION OF THE LAW IN ITS ENTIRETY DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE
CARRIER TO DEPEND UPON OTHERS TO DISCHARGE ITS OBLIGATION WITH RESPECT
TO THE LAW, IN PAYMENT OF WAGES IMPOSED THEREBY. 

"THIS LETTER IS FORMAL NOTICE TO THE CARRIER, MADE FOR AND ON BEHALF
OF EACH EMPLOYEE CONCERNED AS A PROTEST AGAINST THE METHOD PROPOSED BY
THE CARRIER TO MEET ITS OBLIGATION UNDER THE SAID LAW, AND SINCE IT
APPEARS THAT THE CARRIER HAS ACTED IN THE PREMISE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF
LAW OR UPON ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, WE ARE ACCORDINGLY FILING THIS
NOTICE OF PROTEST, FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH HEREIN." 

FN9  IN THE MATTER OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING CLASS OF EMPLOYEES AND
SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN TERM "EMPLOYEE" UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, EX PARTE NO. 72(SUB.  -NO. 1), 229 I.C.C. 410; CF.
COLE V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 211 N.C. 591, 191 S.E. 353; BOOKER
V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 82 PA. SUPER.  588.    FN10  ON THE GENERAL
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF A CONTRACT TO TURN OVER TIPS, SEE THE
FOLLOWING CASES:  HARRISON V. KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO., 36 F.SUPP. 
434, 438; GLOYD V. HOTEL LA SALLE CO., 221 ILL. APP. 104; IN RE FARB,
178 CAL. 592, 174 P. 320; SETREE V FALKNER, 5 LABOR CASES P60,779, 2
P.H. LABOR SERVICE P22,547(OHIO APP.). 

FN11  48 STAT. 1187-88, SEC. 2.  "FIRST.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL
CARRIERS, THEIR OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES TO EXERT EVERY
REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF
PAY, RULES, AND WORKING CONDITIONS, AND TO SETTLE ALL DISPUTES, WHETHER
ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICATION OF SUCH AGREEMENTS OR OTHERWISE, IN
ORDER TO AVOID ANY INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE OR TO THE OPERATION OF ANY
CARRIER GROWING OUT OF ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE
EMPLOYEES THEREOF. 

"SECOND.  ALL DISPUTES BETWEEN A CARRIER OR CARRIERS AND ITS OR THEIR
EMPLOYEES SHALL BE CONSIDERED, AND, IF POSSIBLE, DECIDED, WITH ALL
EXPEDITION, IN CONFERENCE BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED AND
AUTHORIZED SO TO CONFER, RESPECTIVELY, BY THE CARRIER OR CARRIERS AND
BY THE EMPLOYEES THEREOF INTERESTED IN THE DISPUTE." 

"SEVENTH.  NO CARRIER, ITS OFFICERS OR AGENTS SHALL CHANGE THE RATES
OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AS A CLASS AS
EMBODIED IN AGREEMENTS EXCEPT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED IN SUCH
AGREEMENTS OR IN SECTION 6 OF THIS ACT."  45 U.S.C. SEC. 152. 

ID., 1197.  "SEC.  6.  CARRIERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES
SHALL GIVE AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN INTENDED CHANGE
IN AGREEMENTS AFFECTING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS, AND
THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE BEGINNING OF CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES INTERESTED IN SUCH INTENDED CHANGES
SHALL BE AGREED UPON WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF SAID NOTICE,
AND SAID TIME SHALL BE WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS PROVIDED IN THE NOTICE. 
IN EVERY CASE WHERE SUCH NOTICE OF INTENDED CHANGE HAS BEEN GIVEN, OR
CONFERENCES ARE BEING HELD WITH REFERENCE THERETO, OR THE SERVICES OF
THE MEDIATION BOARD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY EITHER PARTY, OR SAID BOARD
HAS PROFFERED ITS SERVICES, RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS
SHALL NOT BE ALTERED BY THE CARRIER UNTIL THE CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN
FINALLY ACTED UPON AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 5 OF THIS ACT, BY THE
MEDIATION BOARD, UNLESS A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS HAS ELAPSED AFTER
TERMINATION OF CONFERENCES WITHOUT REQUEST FOR OR PROFFER OF THE
SERVICES OF THE MEDIATION BOARD."  45 U.S.C. SEC. 156. 

FN12  CF. VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 548-549;
LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1, 44-45. 

FN13  THE CLOSEST ARE GROUPS (2) AND (3) DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 

"GROUP (2)  OTHER OFFICE AND STATION EMPLOYEES - SUCH AS OFFICE BOYS,
MESSENGERS, CHORE BOYS, TRAIN ANNOUNCERS, GATEMEN, BAGGAGE AND PARCEL
ROOM EMPLOYEES, TRAIN AND ENGINE CREW CALLERS, TELEPHONE SWITCHBOARD
OPERATORS, ELEVATOR OPERATORS, OFFICE, STATION AND WAREHOUSE WATCHMEN
AND JANITORS. 

"GROUP (3)  LABORERS EMPLOYED IN AND AROUND STATIONS, STOREHOUSE, AND
WAREHOUSES." 

FN14  EX PARTE NO. 72(SUB.  -NO. 1), SUPRA, N. 9; STOPHER V.
CINCINNATI UNION TERMINAL CO., 246 I.C.C. 41. 

FN15  THE GENERAL CHAIRMAN OF THE BROTHERHOOD TESTIFIED: 

"Q. DOES THAT ORGANIZATION HAVE THE AUTHORITY, OR WERE THEY APPOINTED
BY THE REDCAPS, OR THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE, THE REDCAPS EMPLOYED BY
THE JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL COMPANY, TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS AND WAGE
AGREEMENTS FOR THEM WITH A JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL COMPANY? 

"A. IT WAS. 

"Q. AT OR ABOUT WHAT TIME? 

"A. ABOUT NOVEMBER 3RD, WAS WHEN THE OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATIONS WERE
TURNED OVER TO ME. 

"Q. WHAT YEAR? 

"A.  1938." 

FN16  IN NO. 112, PETITIONERS SAY:  "WE ARE DEALING HERE ONLY WITH
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT AND NOT ANY OTHER ACT, STATUTE OR RULING OF
ANY COMMISSION.  IT IS THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT 'THAT THE
EMPLOYER SHALL PAY.'  THE ACT CONTAINS NO WORD, OR WORDS, OR PHRASES
SUGGESTING ANY GUARANTEE OF PAYMENT." 

IN NO. 1023, PETITIONERS SAY:  "WE, OF COURSE, DO NOT WANT TO BE
UNDERSTOOD AS CONTENDING THAT 25 CENTS RECEIVED IN TIPS WILL NOT
PURCHASE AS MUCH AS 25 CENTS RECEIVED IN WAGES, BUT WE DO SAY THAT
CONGRESS HAD THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT MEANS SHOULD BE EMPLOYED TO CARRY
OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, AND THAT CONGRESS HAS SAID, AND FOR VERY
GOOD REASONS, THAT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT CAN BEST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
A DIRECT WAGE PAYMENT FROM THE EMPLOYER TO THE EMPLOYEE." 

FN17  MARCH 4, 1927, C. 509, SEC. 2(13), 44 STAT. 1425; 33 U.S.C.
SEC. 902(13). 

FN18  ACT OF MAY 17, 1928, C. 612, 45 STAT. 600. 

FN19  COMPARE HARTFORD CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 41 CAL.
APP. 543, 183 P. 234; GLADYS GROSS' CASE, 132 ME. 59, 166 A. 55;
POWERS'S CASE, 275 MASS. 515, 176 N.E. 621; SLOAT V. ROCHESTER TAXICAB
CO., 177 APP. DIV. 57, 163 N.Y.S. 904, AFF'D MEM. 221 N.Y. 491, 116
N.E. 1076; BRYANT V. PULLMAN CO., 188 APP. DIV. 311, 177 N.Y.S. 488,
AFF'D MEM. 228 N.Y. 579, 127 N.E. 909; KADISON V. GOTTLIEB, 226 APP.
DIV. 700, 233 N.Y.S. 485; LLOYDS CASUALTY CO. V. MEREDITH, 63 S.W.2D
1051(TEX.  CIV.  APP.); FEDERAL UNDERWRITERS EXCHANGE V. HUSTED, 94
S.W.2D 540(TEX.  CIV.  APP.); PENN V. SPIERS & POND, LTD., (1908) 1
K.B. 766(C.A.); GREAT WESTERN RY. CO. V. HELPS, (1918) A.C. 141(H.L.) 
WITH BEGENDORF V. SWIFT & CO., 193 APP. DIV. 404, 183 N.Y.S. 917;
ANDERSON V. HORLING, 214 APP. DIV. 826, 211 N.Y.S. 487.  BUT CF.
INDUSTRIAL COMM'N V. LINDVAY, 94 COLO. 531, 31 P.2D 495; MAKRIS V. TOP
HAT RESTAURANT, INC., 16 N.J. MISC. 26, 195 A. 857; COATES V. WARREN
HOTEL, 18 N.J. MISC. 363, 13 A.2D 787, WHERE GRATUITIES WERE EXCLUDED
BY STATUTE.  UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION IS APPARENTLY FOLLOWING THE SAME
TREND.  COMPARE MATTER OF FEINBERG, 258 APP. DIV. 834, 15 N.Y.S.2D 766
WITH ALEXANDER HAMILTON HOTEL CORP. V. BOARD OF REVIEW, 127 N.J.L. 184,
21 A.2D 739.  SEE WAGE AND HOUR MANUAL (1941 ED.)  191. 

FN20  SEE 2A C.C.H. LABOR LAW SERV. (3D ED.), 2 P.H. LABOR SERV.,
PASSIM.  PROBABLY THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IN MOST STATES THE
STATUTE DOES NOT FIX THE MINIMUM, BUT MERELY AUTHORIZES SOME BOARD OR
OFFICIAL TO DO SO BY ORDERS, OCCUPATION BY OCCUPATION.  SUCH ORDERS AS
RELATE TO TRADES IN WHICH TIPPING IS COMMON SEEM TO TAKE TIPS INTO
CONSIDERATION IN SETTING THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR THAT TRADE, AND QUITE
NATURALLY, THEREFORE, ARE APT EXPRESSLY TO FORBID CREDITING OF TIPS
AGAINST THE MINIMUM. 

E.G., NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR, MINIMUM WAGE STANDARDS,
DIRECTORY ORDER NO. 5, RESTAURANT INDUSTRY, EFFECTIVE JUNE 3, 1940,
PROVIDES:  "SERVICE EMPLOYEES BASIC RATE.  THE BASIC MINIMUM WAGE FOR
SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN NEW YORK CITY SHALL BE AT THE RATE OF 20 CENTS PER
HOUR.  ... NON-SERVICE EMPLOYEES BASIC RATE.  THE BASIC MINIMUM WAGE
FOR NON-SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN NEW YORK CITY SHALL BE AT THE RATE OF 29
CENTS PER HOUR  ...  FROM JUNE 3, 1940 THROUGH MARCH 2, 1941 AND 30
CENTS THEREAFTER.  ...  GRATUITIES.  IN NO EVENT SHALL GRATUITIES FROM
PATRONS OR OTHERS BE COUNTED AS PART OF THE MINIMUM WAGE.  SERVICE
EMPLOYEE.  'SERVICE EMPLOYEE' MEANS ANY EMPLOYEE WHOSE DUTIES RELATE
SOLELY TO THE SERVING OF FOOD TO PATRONS SEATED AT TABLES AND TO THE
PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES INCIDENTAL THERETO, AND WHO CUSTOMARILY RECEIVE
GRATUITIES FROM SUCH PATRONS."  SEE ALSO, NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF
LABOR, MINIMUM WAGE STANDARDS, DIRECTORY ORDER NO. 6, HOTEL INDUSTRY,
EFFECTIVE NOV. 25, 1940; NEW HAMPSHIRE BUREAU OF LABOR, MINIMUM WAGE
DIVISION, MANDATORY ORDER NO. 3, RESTAURANT OCCUPATION, EFFECTIVE NOV.
1, 1938; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINIMUM WAGE BOARD, ORDER NO. 4, PUBLIC
HOUSEKEEPING OCCUPATION, EFFECTIVE MAY 8, 1938, AND REPRINTED IN THE
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD FOR 1939, PP. 27 FF. 

FN21  PROPOSED CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE HOTEL INDUSTRY,
SUBMITTED SEPT. 6, 1933, BY THE AMERICAN HOTEL ASSOCIATION, ART. III
(C)(E); PROPOSED CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE BARBER SHOP TRADE, AS
REVISED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON JAN. 8, 1934, SUBMITTED BY THE BARBERS'
INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ASSOCIATION, ART. IV (1); RESTAURANT INDUSTRY CODE
OF FAIR COMPETITION, SUBMITTED SEPT. 12, 1933, BY THE NATIONAL
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, ART. IV, SEC. 6. 

FN22  SEE NEEDLEMAN, TIPPING AS A FACTOR IN WAGES, SUPRA, NOTE 1, AT
1319. 

FN23  AUG. 10, 1939, C. 666, SEC. 209(A), 53 STAT. 1373; 42 U.S.C.
SEC. 409(A). 

FN24  I.R.C. SECS. 1426(A), 1607(B), 53 STAT. 1383, 1392; 26 U.S.C.
SECS. 1426(A), 1607(B). 

FN25 REG. 2, ART. 14, SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, 2 F.R. 1280; 20 C.F.R.
SEC. 402.14.  SEE ALSO S.S.T. 301, 1938-1 CUM. BULL.  455. 

FN26  ACT OF JUNE 24, 1937, C. 382, SEC. 1(H), 50 STAT. 309; 45 U.S.C.
SEC. 228A (H). 

FN27  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1938, C. 680, SEC. 1(I), 52 STAT. 1095; 45
U.S.C. SEC. 351(I). 

FN28  OPINION NO. 1941, R.R. 35, U.I. 11, APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON
SEPTEMBER 18, 1941, B.O. 41-397, 3 RAILROAD RETIREMENT LAW BULLETIN -
. 

FN29  THE FORMER PLAN IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE TAG SYSTEM PUT INTO EFFECT
BY AGREEMENT OF THE RED CAPS AND THE CARRIER AT JACKSONVILLE FOLLOWING
THE TERMINATION OF THE ACCOUNTING AND GUARANTEE SYSTEM.  THE IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS ARE: 

"1.  RED CAPS WILL BE PAID THE HOURLY WAGE ESTABLISHED BY THE HOURS
AND THE WAGE LAW, OR ORDERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, AT THE MINIMUM SET IN
SUCH ORDERS OR LAW. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"3.  DAILY RECORDS OF EACH RED CAP'S HOURS, TAGS SOLD, AND MONEY RE
REMITTED, WILL BE KEPT BY THE COMPANY; AT THE END OF EACH 15 DAY PERIOD
OR PAY ROLL PERIOD, ALL MONEY RECEIVED FROM SALE OF CHECKS, ETC., BY
RED CAPS WILL BE TOTALED, WAGES PAID TO RED CAPS, DEDUCTED, AFTER ONE
(1) CENT PER PARCEL OR TAG HAS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR COMPANY EXPENSES, THE
REMAINING NINE (9) CENTS USED TO PAY WAGES OF RED CAPS, AND CAPTAINS,
OTHER THAN THE TEN (10) CENTS PER HOUR FOR CAPTAINS COVERED IN ITEM 2. 

"IF THE SUM TOTAL OF NINE (9) CENTS PER PARCEL HANDLED AND OR TAGS
SOLD IS GREATER THAN THE WAGES PAID TO RED CAPS FOR THAT PERIOD, THE
REMAINING FUNDS WILL BE DIVIDED AMONG ALL RED CAPS ON THE BASIS OF
HOURS WORKED DURING THE PAY ROLL PERIOD, SO THAT ALL RED CAPS WILL
SHARE ALIKE FOR EACH HOURS SERVICE, FROM THIS FUND.  IF THE NINE (9)
CENTS PER PARCEL HANDLED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PAY WAGES OUTLINED IN
ITEM (1) OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE TERMINAL CO. AGREES TO PAY THE WAGES AS
OUTLINED IN ITEM 1." 

FN30  CF. STOPHER V. CINCINNATI UNION TERMINAL CO., 246 I.C.C. 41. 

FN31  BROWNLEE V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 192 I.C.C. 119, 121.  THE
COMMISSION STATED:  "IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A CARRIER IS ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION FOR ANY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE RENDERED, AND THAT WHERE A
SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED FOR WHICH NO TARIFF AUTHORITY EXISTS AND THE
BENEFICIARY OF SUCH SERVICE HAS PAID THE SUM CLAIMED BY THE CARRIER, WE
ARE EMPOWERED TO ORDER THE PAYMENT OF REPARATION ONLY IN THE EVENT THE
SUM PAID BY THE SHIPPER AMOUNTED TO AN UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE EXACTION
FOR THE SERVICE RECEIVED."  SEE ALSO TWIN COACH CORP. V. ERIE R. CO.,
203 I.C.C. 393, 395; CITIES SERVICE OIL CO. V. ERIE R. CO., 237 I.C.C.
387, 389. 

FN32  MR. FLANAGAN: 

"WE NEXT OFFER IN EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 'C', WHICH IS ALSO A
TIME SLIP BUT A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE JUST READ, AND IT READS: 

"'THE UNION TERMINAL COMPANY.  DATE  ...  HOURS ON DUTY FROM  ...  M.
TO  ...  M., SHOWING FOUR OF THOSE LINES.' 

"AND THEN SAYS:  'TOTAL HOURS WORKED'  ...  , AND THEN A BLANK LINE
TO BE SIGNED BY THE RED CAP AND RIGHT UNDER IT THE WORDS, 'RED CAP.' 

"I CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT ON THIS SLIP THERE IS NO PROVISION
FOR REPORTING THE TIPS." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE REVERSED.  IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE
QUESTION IN THESE CASES IS: UPON WHOM DOES THE STATUTE IMPOSE THE DUTY
OF PAYING A MINIMUM WAGE, THE EMPLOYER OR SOMEONE ELSE?  THERE IS NO
AMBIGUITY IN THE CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE THAT "EVERY EMPLOYER SHALL PAY
TO EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES  ...  WAGES  ...  NOT LESS THAN 30 CENTS AN
HOUR."  I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT TIPS GIVEN TO REDCAPS BY TRAVELLERS
ARE "WAGES" PAID TO THE REDCAPS BY THE RAILROAD. 

THE EMPLOYERS HERE COULD HAVE OPENLY CHARGED A FEE FOR THE SERVICES
PERFORMED BY REDCAPS.  IT APPEARS THAT THEY HAVE NOW ADOPTED SUCH A
SYSTEM.  IT IS SAID THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
SYSTEM UNDER WHICH THE RAILROADS OPENLY IMPOSE A CHARGE ON THE PUBLIC
AND ONE UNDER WHICH THE REDCAPS ACCEPT FROM TRAVELLERS SOCALLED TIPS,
TREATED BY THE RAILROAD AS A PART OF THE REDCAPS' WAGES.  GENERALLY,
THE TRAVELLER WHO PAYS A RAILROAD CHARGE KNOWS HE IS PAYING IT TO THE
RAILROAD.  ONE WHO GIVES A REDCAP A TIP DOES NOT NECESSARILY KNOW THAT
HE IS THEREBY HELPING THE RAILROAD TO DISCHARGE ITS STATUTORY DUTY OF
PAYING A MINIMUM WAGE TO ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE TIPPAYING PUBLIC IS
ENTITLED TO KNOW WHOM IT TIPS, THE REDCAP OR THE RAILROAD.  A PLAN LIKE
THAT BEFORE US, WHICH COVERTLY DIVERTS TIPS FROM EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM THE
GIVER INTENDED THEM TO EMPLOYERS FOR WHOM THE GIVER DID NOT INTEND THEM
AND TO WHOM ANY KIND OF TIP DOUBTLESS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VOLUNTARILY
GIVEN, SEEMS TO ME TO CONTAIN AN ELEMENT OF DECEPTION.  AND I THINK AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE F.L.S.A. WHICH PERMITS EMPLOYERS TO BENEFIT FROM
SUCH A PLAN DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE USED BY
CONGRESS. 
..END :





















HYSLER V. FLORIDA, 315 U.S. 411 


NO. 64.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 146 FLA.
593, 1 SO.2D 628, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY FLORIDA, WHEREBY A PERSON UNDER SENTENCE
OF IMPRISONMENT OR DEATH, WHO CLAIMS THAT HIS CONVICTION RESULTED FROM
SOME FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS AMOUNTING TO A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW, MAY APPLY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, EVEN THOUGH THAT
COURT HAS AFFIRMED HIS CONVICTION, FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY TO THE TRIAL
COURT FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, AND WHO THUS IS AFFORDED A FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A JURY PASS UPON HIS CLAIM, PROVIDED THAT HE FIRST
MAKE AN ADEQUATE SHOWING OF ITS SUBSTANTIALITY, IS A PROCEDURE WHICH
MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 415. 

ACCORDING TO DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DEFINING THIS
PROCEDURE, A NAKED ALLEGATION THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS BEEN
INVADED IS NOT SUFFICIENT; A PETITIONER MUST MAKE A FULL DISCLOSURE OF
THE SPECIFIC FACTS RELIED ON, NOT MERELY HIS CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE
NATURE AND EFFECT OF SUCH FACTS; THE PROOF MUST ENABLE THE APPELLATE
COURT TO "ASCERTAIN WHETHER, UNDER SETTLED PRINCIPLES PERTAINING TO
SUCH WRIT, THE FACTS ALLEGED WOULD AFFORD, AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE, JUST
GROUND FOR AN APPLICATION TO THE LOWER COURT FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM
NOBIS"; AND IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION IN MATTERS OF THIS SORT,
THE COURT SHOULD LOOK TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
PETITION AND TO THE PROBABILITY OF THEIR TRUTH. 

2.  A PERSON WHO, WITH OTHERS, HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER IN
FLORIDA, AND WHOSE SENTENCE OF DEATH HAD BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE, PETITIONED THAT COURT FOR LEAVE TO APPLY TO THE
TRIAL COURT FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS, CLAIMING THAT HIS
CONVICTION HAD BEEN SECURED BY MEANS OF FALSE TESTIMONY DELIVERED AT
THE TRIAL BY AN ACCOMPLICE WHO WAS COERCED THERETO BY STATE OFFICIALS
AND WHO, FOUR YEARS LATER, ON THE EVE OF HIS OWN ELECTROCUTION FOR
PARTICIPATION IN THE SAME CRIME, HAD MADE AFFIDAVITS EXONERATING THE
PETITIONER.  THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, ON THE BASIS OF THE PETITION
AND ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVITS AND THE RECORDS OF PRIOR CASES ARISING OUT
OF THE SAME CRIME, CONCLUDED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO MAKE THE
SHOWING OF SUBSTANTIALITY WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LOCAL PROCEDURE WAS
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF FURNISHED BY THE
WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; AND THIS COURT, UPON AN INDEPENDENT
EXAMINATION OF THE AFFIDAVITS ON WHICH THE CLAIM WAS BASED, HAS NO
DOUBT THAT THE FINDING OF INSUBSTANTIALITY WAS JUSTIFIED.  P. 421. 

HYSLER V. FLORIDA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 557, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING A PETITION FOR
LEAVE TO APPLY TO A TRIAL COURT FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS IN A
CASE OF MURDER. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AFTER THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HAD AFFIRMED HIS CONVICTION FOR
MURDER, THE PETITIONER APPLIED TO THAT COURT FOR LEAVE TO ASK THE TRIAL
COURT TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  THE BASIS OF HIS
APPLICATION WAS THE CLAIM THAT THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES
IMPLICATING HIM WAS PERJURED, AND THAT THEY HAD TESTIFIED FALSELY
AGAINST HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE "COERCED, INTIMIDATED, BEATEN, THREATENED
WITH VIOLENCE AND OTHERWISE ABUSED AND MISTREATED" BY THE POLICE AND
WERE "PROMISED IMMUNITY FROM THE ELECTRIC CHAIR" BY THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY.  AFTER TWICE CONSIDERING THE MATTER, THE SUPREME COURT OF
FLORIDA DENIED THE APPLICATION.  146 FLA. 593, 1 SO.2D 628.  WE BROUGHT
THE CASE HERE, 313 U.S. 557, IN VIEW OF OUR SOLICITUDE, ESPECIALLY
WHERE LIFE IS AT STAKE, FOR THOSE LIBERTIES WHICH ARE GUARANTEED BY THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE GUIDES FOR DECISION ARE CLEAR.  IF A STATE, WHETHER BY THE ACTIVE
CONDUCT OR THE CONNIVANCE OF THE PROSECUTION, OBTAINS A CONVICTION
THROUGH THE USE OF PERJURED TESTIMONY, IT VIOLATES CIVILIZED STANDARDS
FOR THE TRIAL OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE AND THEREBY DEPRIVES AN ACCUSED OF
LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103. 
EQUALLY OFFENSIVE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF LIBERTY ARE
CONFESSIONS WRUNG FROM AN ACCUSED BY OVERPOWERING HIS WILL, WHETHER
THROUGH PHYSICAL VIOLENCE OR THE MORE SUBTLE FORMS OF COERCION COMMONLY
KNOWN AS "THE THIRD DEGREE."  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278;
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227; LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S.
219.  IN THIS COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, THE
PETITIONER BASES HIS CLAIM ON THE RECANTATION OF ONE OF THE WITNESSES
AGAINST HIM.  HE CANNOT, OF COURSE, CONTEND THAT MERE RECANTATION OF
TESTIMONY IS IN ITSELF GROUND FOR INVOKING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
AGAINST A CONVICTION.  HOWEVER, IF FLORIDA THROUGH HER RESPONSIBLE
OFFICIALS KNOWINGLY USED FALSE TESTIMONY WHICH WAS EXTORTED FROM A
WITNESS "BY VIOLENCE AND TORTURE," ONE CONVICTED MAY CLAIM THE
PROTECTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AGAINST A CONVICTION BASED UPON
SUCH TESTIMONY. 

AND SO WE COME TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

ON NOVEMBER 25, 1936, AS A RESULT OF AN ATTEMPTED ROBBERY, JOHN H.
SURRENCY AND HIS WIFE, MAYME ELIZABETH, WERE MURDERED.  ON DECEMBER 16,
1936, HYSLER WAS INDICTED FOR THE MURDER OF JOHN SURRENCY; HE WAS TRIED
ON JANUARY 21, 1937, WAS CONVICTED ON FEBRUARY 12, 1937, WITH
RECOMMENDATION OF MERCY, AND WAS THEREAFTER SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT
FOR LIFE.  ON FEBRUARY 3, 1938, HIS SENTENCE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.  132 FLA. 200, 181 SO. 350.  THE RECORD IN THE
CASE WAS MORE THAN 3000 PAGES.  ON JANUARY 15, 1937, HYSLER, TOGETHER
WITH TWO OTHERS, JAMES BAKER AND ALVIN TYLER, WAS INDICTED FOR THE
MURDER OF MRS. SURRENCY.  A SEVERANCE HAVING BEEN GRANTED AS TO TYLER
AND BAKER, HYSLER WAS PLACED ON TRIAL ON MARCH 15, 1937, AND ON APRIL 5
WAS FOUND GUILTY WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION OF MERCY.  ON APRIL 23, 1937,
HE WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH.  ON APRIL 24 HE SUED OUT A WRIT OF ERROR TO
THE STATE SUPREME COURT, WHICH ON FEBRUARY 3, 1938, SUSTAINED THE
SENTENCE, AND ON JUNE 3 DENIED A REHEARING.  THE RECORD ON THIS SECOND
TRIAL WAS SOME 2500 PAGES.  132 FLA. 209, 181 SO. 354. 

SURRENCY KEPT A RESTAURANT NEAR JACKSONVILLE, AND ON THE FATAL DAY
WAS RETURNING FROM ONE OF HIS REGULAR AND WELL-KNOWN TRIPS TO THAT CITY
TO GET CHECKS CASHED.  HYSLER HAD KNOWN BAKER IN CONNECTION WITH
HYSLER'S ILLICIT WHISKEY BUSINESS.  BAKER AND TYLER WERE FRIENDS.  THE
PRINCIPAL EVIDENCE IN BOTH TRIALS AGAINST HYSLER WAS THEIR TESTIMONY. 
THEY TESTIFIED WITH CIRCUMSTANTIALITY THAT HYSLER INDUCED THEM TO HOLD
UP SURRENCY, FURNISHED THEM A CAR, A PISTOL, AND SOME WHISKEY, GAVE
THEM DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS FOR CARRYING OUT THE PLAN, AND BY
PREARRANGEMENT WAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLACE OF ITS EXECUTION. 
WHILE THEIR TESTIMONY DOUBTLESS WAS THE FOUNDATION OF HYSLER'S
CONVICTIONS, THE TESTIMONY BOTH OF NUMEROUS WITNESSES AND HYSLER
HIMSELF SHEDS MUCH CONFIRMING LIGHT ON THE STORY TOLD BY BAKER AND
TYLER.  A CAREFUL CONCURRING OPINION AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION NOW
CHALLENGED CONCLUDED THUS:  "FROM THE EVIDENCE IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE
OR UNDERSTAND HOW THE JURY IN THE COURT BELOW COULD HAVE RENDERED A
VERDICT OTHER THAN GUILTY.  WE HAVE THOROUGHLY CONSIDERED EACH
ASSIGNMENT AND FAILED TO FIND ERROR IN THE TRIAL OF THE CAUSE IN THE
LOWER COURT."  132 FLA. 209, 235, 181 SO. 354, 364. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE DATE FOR THE EXECUTION WAS SET BY THE GOVERNOR OF
FLORIDA FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 20, 1939.  IN THE MEANTIME, HOWEVER,
AN APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY HYSLER WAS MADE TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, PARTLY ON THE GROUND OF INSANITY.  THIS WAS
DENIED BY THAT COURT ON FEBRUARY 20, 1939.  136 FLA. 563, 187 SO. 261. 
TYLER BROKE JAIL AND HAS APPARENTLY REMAINED A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE. 
BAKER WAS TRIED AFTER HYSLER, WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, AND SENTENCED TO DEATH.  HIS CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ON MARCH 14, 1939, AND A REHEARING DENIED ON
APRIL 11, 1939.  137 FLA. 27, 188 SO. 634. 

WE HAVE NOW REACHED THE FINAL CHAPTER OF THIS UNEDIFYING STORY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE.  ON APRIL 10, 1941, MORE THAN FOUR
YEARS AFTER HYSLER'S CONVICTION FOR THE MURDER OF MRS. SURRENCY, HE
PETITIONED THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA (THE COURT BEFORE WHICH HE WAS
ORIGINALLY TRIED), FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS.  THIS COMMON LAW
WRIT, IN ITS LOCAL ADAPTATION, IS FLORIDA'S RESPONSE TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, FOR THE JUDICIAL
CORRECTION OF A WRONG COMMITTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AND RESULTING IN THE DEPRIVATION OF LIFE OR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS.  SEE LAMB V. FLORIDA, 91 FLA. 396, 107 SO. 535; SKIPPER V.
SCHUMACHER, 124 FLA. 384, 169 SO. 58; JONES V. FLORIDA, 130 FLA. 645,
178 SO. 404.  IN BRIEF, A PERSON IN FLORIDA WHO CLAIMS THAT HIS
INCARCERATION IS DUE TO "FAILURE TO OBSERVE THAT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
ESSENTIAL TO THE VERY CONCEPT OF JUSTICE," LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA,
SUPRA, AT P. 236, EVEN AFTER HIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN DULY AFFIRMED BY THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, HAS FULL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A JURY PASS ON
SUCH A CLAIM PROVIDED HE FIRST MAKES AN ADEQUATE SHOWING OF THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF HIS CLAIM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
FLORIDA.  THE DECISIONS OF THAT COURT SHOW THAT A NAKED ALLEGATION THAT
A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HAS BEEN INVADED IS NOT SUFFICIENT.  A
PETITIONER MUST "MAKE A FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE SPECIFIC FACTS RELIED
ON," AND NOT MERELY HIS CONCLUSIONS "AS TO THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF
SUCH FACTS."  THE PROOF MUST ENABLE THE APPELLATE COURT TO "ASCERTAIN
WHETHER, UNDER SETTLED PRINCIPLES PERTAINING TO SUCH WRIT, THE FACTS
ALLEGED WOULD AFFORD, AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE, JUST GROUND FOR AN
APPLICATION TO THE LOWER COURT FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS." 
WASHINGTON V. FLORIDA, 92 FLA. 740, 749, 110 SO. 259, 262; SEE SKIPPER
V. SCHUMACHER, 124 FLA. 384, 405-08, 169 SO. 58; SKIPPER V. FLORIDA,
127 FLA. 553, 554-55, 173 SO. 692.  THE LATEST FORMULATION BY THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF ITS FUNCTION IN CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO APPLY TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS IS
FOUND IN MCCALL V. FLORIDA, 136 FLA. 349, 350, 186 SO. 803(1939):  "IN
THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION IN MATTERS OF THIS SORT THE COURT SHOULD
LOOK TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION AND TO
THE EXISTENCE OF THE PROBABILITY OF THE TRUTH THEREOF.  THIS DUTY WE
HAVE MET AND WE ARE CONVINCED THAT TO GRANT THE PETITION WOULD BE NO
LESS THAN A TRIFLING WITH JUSTICE." 

SUCH A STATE PROCEDURE OF COURSE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  VINDICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT DEMAND UNIFORMITY OF PROCEDURE BY THE FORTY
EIGHT STATES.  EACH STATE IS FREE TO DEVISE ITS OWN WAY OF SECURING
ESSENTIAL JUSTICE IN THESE SITUATIONS.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DID NOT
STEREOTYPE THE MEANS FOR ASCERTAINING THE TRUTH OF A CLAIM THAT THAT
WHICH DULY APPEARS AS THE ADMINISTRATION OF INTRINSIC JUSTICE WAS SUCH
MERELY IN FORM, THAT IN FACT IT WAS A PERVERSION OF JUSTICE BY THE LAW
OFFICERS OF THE STATE.  EACH STATE MAY DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHETHER, AFTER
GUILT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ORDINARY PROCESSES OF TRIAL AND
AFFIRMED ON APPEAL, A LATER CHALLENGE TO ITS ESSENTIAL JUSTICE MUST
COME IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, OR EVEN IN THE LAST INSTANCE, BEFORE A
BENCH OF JUDGES RATHER THAN BEFORE A JURY. 

FLORIDA THEN HAD AMPLE MACHINERY FOR CORRECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
WRONG OF WHICH HYSLER COMPLAINED.  BUT IT REMAINS TO CONSIDER WHETHER
IN REFUSING HIM RELIEF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DENIED A PROPER
APPEAL TO ITS CORRECTIVE PROCESS FOR PROTECTING A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

HYSLER'S CLAIM BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WAS THAT BAKER
REPUDIATED HIS TESTIMONY INSOFAR AS IT IMPLICATED HYSLER AND THAT HE
NOW NAMED ANOTHER MAN AS THE INSTIGATOR OF THE CRIME.  CONSIDERING THE
FACT THAT THIS REPUDIATION CAME FOUR YEARS AFTER LEADEN-FOOTED JUSTICE
HAD REACHED THE END OF THE FAMILIAR TRAIL OF DILATORY PROCEDURE, AND
THAT BAKER NOW POINTED TO AN INSTIGATOR WHO WAS DEAD, THE SUPREME COURT
OF FLORIDA HAD EVERY RIGHT AND THE PLAIN DUTY TO SCRUTINIZE THIS
REPUDIATION WITH A CRITICAL EYE, IN THE LIGHT OF ITS FAMILIARITY WITH
THE FACTS OF THIS CRIME AS THEY HAD BEEN ADDUCED IN THREE TRIALS, THE
VOLUMINOUS RECORDS OF WHICH HAD BEEN BEFORE THAT COURT.  FN1 

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAD BEFORE IT FOUR AFFIDAVITS BY BAKER. 
THE AFFIDAVITS MUST BE CONSIDERED HERE AS THEY WERE BEFORE THAT COURT -
IN THEIR ENTIRETY.  ONE WAS MADE ON APRIL 7, 1941; THE SECOND ON APRIL
8 BETWEEN SIX AND SEVEN IN THE EVENING; ANOTHER BETWEEN EIGHT-THIRTY
AND NINE OF THE SAME NIGHT; THE FOURTH, THE NEXT DAY.  THE MOST
STRIKING FEATURE OF THIS SERIES OF RETRACTIONS IS THAT, IN HIS FIRST
AND SPONTANEOUS NEW ACCOUNT OF THE HAPPENINGS THAT LED TO THE MURDERS
ON NOVEMBER 25, 1936, BAKER DOES NOT ATTRIBUTE TO COERCION OR
INDUCEMENTS MADE BY STATE AUTHORITIES HIS TESTIMONY AT THE TRIALS THAT
HYSLER WAS THE INSTIGATOR OF THE CRIMES.  ON THE CONTRARY, ACCORDING TO
BAKER'S NEW STORY, AFTER THE KILLING OF THE SURRENCYS, TYLER AND HE
"AGREED BETWEEN THEM WHILE THEY WERE IN CRACKER SWAMP IN THE MARIETTA
OF THE ROBBERY OF THE SURRENCYS UPON CLYDE HYSLER BECAUSE THEY HAD HAD
CONSIDERABLE LIQUOR DEALINGS WITH CLYDE HYSLER AND KNEW HIM WELL, AND
FOR THE REASON THAT THE HYSLERS BORE A BAD REPUTATION IN DUVAL COUNTY,
AND FOR THE FURTHER REASON THAT CLYDE HYSLER'S FATHER HAD PLENTY OF
MONEY AND THEY THOUGHT THAT BY LAYING THE PLANNING OF THE ROBBERY OF
THE SURRENCYS ON CLYDE HYSLER THAT HIS FATHER AND HIS OTHER RELATIVES
WOULD PUT UP SUFFICIENT MONEY TO GET CLYDE HYSLER OUT OF THE TROUBLE
AND THAT BY LAYING IT ON TO CLYDE HYSLER, THAT HE, JAMES BAKER, AND
ALVIN TYLER WOULD ESCAPE THE DEATH PENALTY  ...  " 

THERE IS NO SUGGESTION WHATEVER IN THIS EXPLANATION OF WHAT IS NOW
CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN A FALSE ACCUSATION THAT IT WAS INDUCED FROM
WITHOUT.  BAKER GIVES FIVE REASONS FOR HAVING FIXED THE BLAME ON HYSLER
- AN EXPLANATION TO WHICH HE HAD ADHERED FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS - BUT
ALL THESE REASONS MAKE BAKER AND TYLER THE SPONTANEOUS CONCOCTERS OF
THE ALLEGED FALSE CHARGE.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE NEXT DAY, THAT BAKER,
UNDER LEADING QUESTIONS, SUGGESTED THAT HIS ACCOUNT OF THE CRIME,
CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH IT, WAS INDUCED BY THE HOPE OF GETTING "LIFE
INSTEAD OF THE CHAIR."  FN2 EVEN IN THIS SECOND AFFIDAVIT THERE IS NO
HINT THAT THE PROSECUTOR HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE FALSITY OF HIS
IMPLICATION OF HYSLER.  FN3  ONLY AFTER A THIRD SESSION DID BAKER, IN
AN AMBIGUOUS REPLY TO ANOTHER LEADING QUESTION, CONVEY A SUGGESTION OF
THE PROSECUTOR'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE USE OF FORCE PRECEDING BAKER'S
ORIGINAL TESTIMONY.  THIS IS THE ONLY TESTIMONY THAT BEARS ON THE
COMPLICITY OF THE PROSECUTOR IN THE ALLEGED COERCION OF BAKER'S
TESTIMONY: 

"Q.  BAKER DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT MR. HARRELL (THE STATE'S
ATTORNEY) KNEW IF YOU WAS BEAT UP TO MAKE YOU TESTIFY? 

A. YES, SIR, HE KNOWS I COULDN'T SET DOWN, NONE OF THE SHERIFF'S
FORCE KNEW IT AT THE TIME, THEY KNEW IT LATER WHEN I MADE IT IN FRONT
ALL OF THE OFFICERS. 

Q. WHEN YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT YOU COULDN'T SET DOWN? 

A. YES, SIR, AND I CAN'T SET DOWN GOOD, AND I WISH YOU AND THOSE MEN
COULD SEE THAT NOW. 

Q. NO, WE WANT CARE TO SEE - THAT'S ALL YOU WANT TO SAY. 

A. (BAKER NODDING HIS HEAD INDICATING YES.)" 

IN HIS FINAL AFFIDAVIT ON APRIL 9, BAKER RETURNS TO THE ALLEGED
PROMISE OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY THAT HE WOULD NOT "BURN" HIM.  BUT
THERE IS THIS TIME NO SUGGESTION THAT THE PROSECUTOR INDUCED OR KNEW OF
ANY FALSE TESTIMONY BY BAKER.    WE HAVE SEEN THAT, ACCORDING TO
BAKER'S FIRST STATEMENT ON APRIL 7, HIS ATTRIBUTION OF HYSLER'S
RESPONSIBILITY WAS SPONTANEOUS AND UNCOERCED.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE REINFORCE THIS AND CAST A PROPER SCEPTICISM UPON BAKER'S
SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS OF COERCION.  ACCORDING TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE TWO
LAWYERS WHO REPRESENTED HYSLER AT HIS TRIALS, THEY EXAMINED BAKER AND
TYLER "AT GREAT LENGTH" IN THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL FOR THE TWO
ACCOMPLICES AND "SAID WITNESSES WERE PARTICULARLY QUESTIONED AS TO WHO
WAS INVOLVED IN SAID CASE, AND SAID WITNESSES DENIED THAT ANYONE WAS
INVOLVED IN SAID CASE OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANTS NAMED IN THE
INDICTMENT; THAT SAID WITNESSES FURTHER DENIED THAT ANY STATEMENTS
PREVIOUSLY MADE BY THEM TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WERE MADE UNDER
DURESS OR WITH ANY HOPE OR EXPECTATION OF REWARD."  AND THE PRESENT
CHIEF JUSTICE OF FLORIDA, IN HIS SEPARATE OPINION ON BAKER'S APPEAL,
CHARACTERIZED BAKER'S CONFESSION AS "ENTIRELY FREE AND VOLUNTARY."  137
FLA. 27, 29, 188 SO. 634, 635. 

IN ADDITION TO THESE FOUR AFFIDAVITS BY BAKER, THERE WERE FOUR
SUBSIDIARY AFFIDAVITS BY OTHERS.  THEIR WANT OF SIGNIFICANCE IS
SUFFICIENTLY ATTESTED BY THE FACT THAT ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING OF
THIS CAUSE BEFORE THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED
EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE BAKER AFFIDAVITS AND NO REFERENCE WHATEVER WAS
MADE TO THESE SUBSIDIARY AFFIDAVITS.  NOR WAS RELIANCE UPON THEM MADE
HERE. 

THE ESSENCE OF HYSLER'S CLAIM BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WAS
THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS SECURED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS, THAT BAKER
WAS COERCED TO TESTIFY FALSELY BY RESPONSIBLE STATE OFFICIALS.  THE
COURT HAD TO JUDGE THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THIS CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF ALL
THAT WAS BEFORE IT, NAMELY, THE PETITION WITH ITS ACCOMPANYING
AFFIDAVITS AND THE RECORDS OF PRIOR CASES ARISING OUT OF THE SAME
CRIME.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT HYSLER'S PROOF DID NOT MAKE OUT A
PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR ASKING THE TRIAL COURT TO RECONSIDER ITS JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION.  HOWEVER INEPTLY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT MAY HAVE
FORMULATED THE GROUNDS FOR DENYING THE APPLICATION, ITS ACTION LEAVES
NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THE COURT DEEMED THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL FOUNDATION.  WE CONSTRUE ITS FINDING THAT THE "PETITION"
DID NOT SHOW THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE OFFICIALS FOR THE ALLEGED
FALSITY OF BAKER'S ORIGINAL TESTIMONY TO MEAN THAT THE PETITIONER HAD
FAILED TO MAKE THE SHOWING OF SUBSTANTIALITY WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE
LOCAL PROCEDURE OF FLORIDA, WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE
EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF FURNISHED BY THE WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS.  FN4
AND OUR INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE AFFIDAVITS UPON WHICH HIS CLAIM
WAS BASED LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE FINDING OF INSUBSTANTIALITY WAS
JUSTIFIED.  IT CERTAINLY PRECLUDES A HOLDING THAT SUCH A FINDING WAS
NOT JUSTIFIED. 

THE STATE'S SECURITY IN THE JUST ADMINISTRATION OF ITS CRIMINAL LAW
MUST LARGELY REST UPON THE COMPETENCE OF ITS TRIAL COURTS.  BUT THAT
DOES NOT BAR THE STATE SUPREME COURT FROM EXERCISING THE VIGILANCE OF A
HARDHEADED CONSIDERATION OF APPEALS TO IT FOR UPSETTING A CONVICTION. 
THAT IN THE COURSE OF FOUR YEARS WITNESSES DIE OR DISAPPEAR, THAT
MEMORIES FADE, THAT A SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY MAY BECOME ATTENUATED,
THAT REPUDIATIONS AND NEW INCRIMINATIONS LIKE BAKER'S ON THE EVE OF
EXECUTION ARE NOT UNFAMILIAR AS A MEANS OF RELIEVING OTHERS OR AS AN
IRRATIONAL HOPE FOR SELF - THESE OF COURSE ARE NOT VALID CONSIDERATIONS
FOR RELAXING THE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  BUT THEY ARE
RELEVANT IN EXERCISING A HARDY JUDGMENT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER
SUCH A BELATED DISCLOSURE SPRINGS FROM THE IMPULSE FOR TRUTH-TELLING OR
IS THE PRODUCT OF SELF-DELUSION OR ARTIFICE PROMPTED BY THE INSTINCT OF
SELF-PRESERVATION. 

OUR ULTIMATE INQUIRY IS WHETHER THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAS DENIED TO
THE PETITIONER THE PROTECTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  THE RECORD
DOES NOT PERMIT THE CONCLUSION THAT FLORIDA HAS DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

PETITIONER ALSO CLAIMS THAT FLORIDA HAS DENIED HIM THE "EQUAL
PROTECTION" OF ITS LAW.  THIS CONTENTION IS PLAINLY WITHOUT SUBSTANCE. 
IF HYSLER HAD BEEN SINGLED OUT FOR INVIDIOUS TREATMENT BY THE FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT, HE COULD PROPERLY COMPLAIN HERE.  COMPARE YICK WO V.
HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356; MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR CO., 241 U.S. 79. 
BUT IT IS NOT A FACT THAT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAS GRANTED SUCH
APPLICATIONS IN OTHER CASES BUT NOT IN HYSLER'S.  SEE, E.G., SKIPPER V.
FLORIDA, 127 FLA. 553, 173 SO. 692; MCCALL V. FLORIDA, 136 FLA. 349,
186 SO. 803.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN DENYING HYSLER'S APPLICATION, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT IT WAS TAKING JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE OF ITS OWN
RECORDS.  146 FLA. 593, 594-95, 1 SO.2D 628. 

FN2  "Q.  THEN IT WAS A DEFINITE PROMISE FROM MR. HARRELL, THE
STATE'S ATTORNEY TO KEEP YOU FROM BURNING? 

A. HE SAID THAT HE WOULD SEE THAT I WOULD GET LIFE, BUT THAT HE WOULD
SEE THAT I DIDN'T STAY AT THE CHAIN GANG BUT THREE YEARS. 

Q. YOU SAY HE PLAYED OFF SICK TO KEEP FROM PROSECUTING YOU? 

A. YES, SIR, MR. SIMPSON HIS ASSISTANT AND MR. HALLOWS PROSECUTING,
THE JUDGE HAD ORDERED HIM TO HANDLE THE HYSLER CASE STRAIGHT THROUGH,
CAUSE MR. HOLLOWS WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE. 

Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT MR. HARRELL HAD GONE OUT OF OFFICE AND
MR. HALLOWS HAD TAKEN OFFICE? 

A. YES, SIR, I THINK HE HAD AND THAT WAS WHY THE JUDGE WANTED HIM TO
CARRY THIS THING ON THROUGH, BUT I DON'T BE SURE. 

Q. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY ALONG THAT LINE ABOUT THOSE
THREATS OR BEATINGS? 

A. NO, SIR, THAT IS ALL I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW." 

FN3  "Q.  NOW WHAT THREATS OR PROMISES DID THEY MAKE YOU TO TESTIFY
AND IMPLICATE CLYDE HYSLER? 

A. WELL, MR. GRIFFEN AND THEM DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T MAKE NO PROMISES,
MR. HULBERT DID TALK TO ME, THAT HE WOULD GET ME LIFE IMPRISONMENT -
LIFE INSTEAD OF THE CHAIR. 

Q. MR. HUBBERT TALKED TO YOU AND MADE PROMISES THAT YOU WOULD GET
LIFE INSTEAD OF THE CHAIR? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. WHAT POLICE - 

A. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, POLICE OFFICERS AND JOHN HARRELL. 

Q. JOHN W. HARRELL, THE STATE'S ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. DID MR. HARRELL TELL YOU THAT HE WOULD HELP YOU GET A LIFE
SENTENCE IF YOU WOULD TESTIFY AGAINST CLYDE HYSLER? 

A. HE SAID HE WOULDN'T BURN ME, THAT HE, MR. ACOSTA AND MR. CARSON
WOULD GET ME OUT IN THREE YEARS TIME." 

FN4  THE OPINION OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ON PETITIONER'S MOTION
FOR REHEARING STATES, INTER ALIA, THAT:  "THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
PETITION DO NOT SHOW THAT THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY HAD ANY GUILTY
KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED MALTREATMENT OF THE WITNESS (BAKER), OR THAT
THE ALLEGED FALSITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS BAKER WAS KNOWN TO
THE PROSECUTING OFFICER.  THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT ANY ALLEGED
MALTREATMENT OF WITNESS WAS INFLICTED BY ANY OFFICER OF THE TRIAL COURT
OR THAT SAME WAS KNOWN TO ANY OFFICER OF THE TRIAL COURT."  146 FLA.
593, 594, 1 SO.2D 628. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR. 

THE APPLICATION DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ALLEGES THAT
TYLER AND BAKER, THE ACCOMPLICES IN THE MURDER FOR WHICH HYSLER WAS
CONVICTED, CONFESSED AND GAVE FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST HYSLER BECAUSE
THEY WERE "COERCED, INTIMIDATED, BEATEN, THREATENED WITH VIOLENCE AND
OTHERWISE ABUSED AND MISTREATED," AND BECAUSE THEY WERE PROMISED LIFE
SENTENCES INSTEAD OF THE ELECTRIC CHAIR.  SWORN STATEMENTS OF BAKER
MADE IN A STATE PRISON IN THE PRESENCE OF PRISON OFFICIALS WERE
PRESENTED IN SUPPORT OF THESE ALLEGATIONS, AS WERE CORROBORATIVE
AFFIDAVITS OF FOUR OTHERS.  TYLER, A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE, IS
UNAVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER AS AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE OF VERIFICATION. 

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAS STATED THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT
ASSERT THAT "THE ALLEGED FALSITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS BAKER
WAS KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTING OFFICER."  IN MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S.
103, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE USE BY A STATE OF TESTIMONY KNOWN BY ITS
"PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES" TO BE FALSE IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  I DO NOT, HOWEVER, REGARD THIS AS A PROPER OCCASION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE RULE OF MOONEY V. HOLOHAN APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE GUILTY
KNOWLEDGE IS THAT OF "THE PROSECUTING OFFICER" AND NOT ANY OTHER
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL.  FOR EVEN IF EVERY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE
BELIEVED THAT THE CONFESSIONS OF TYLER AND BAKER WERE TRUE IN EVERY
DETAIL, OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITIONER MAKE OUT A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS ON INDEPENDENT GROUNDS, UPON WHICH THE SCOPE OF MOONEY V.
HOLOHAN HAS NO BEARING.  IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT HELD THAT A
CONVICTION BASED ON CONFESSIONS WRUNG FROM THE ACCUSED OR HIS
ACCOMPLICES BY THIRD-DEGREE METHODS WAS OFFENSIVE TO THE GUARANTEES OF
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, THERE ARE NO INDICATIONS THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF
ANY OF THE STATE OFFICIALS INVOLVED AS TO THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF THE
CONFESSIONS WAS DEEMED RELEVANT.  FN1  AND IF THE ALLEGATIONS OF
HYSLER'S PETITION ARE TRUE, THAT IS, IF TYLER AND BAKER WERE HELD
INCOMMUNICADO AND TORTURED INTO SUPPLYING THE CONTROLLING TESTIMONY AT
HYSLER'S TRIAL, HIS CONVICTION IS TAINTED WITH A MEASURE OF BRUTALITY
WHICH I HAD SUPPOSED WAS SUFFICIENT, WITHOUT MORE, TO ESTABLISH A
VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  I AM THEREFORE UNABLE TO AGREE
WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT THAT "IF ALL PETITIONER
ALLEGES IN HIS PETITION HAD BEEN TRUE AND HAD BEEN FULLY MADE KNOWN TO
THE TRIAL COURT AND TO THE JURY WHICH TRIED THE DEFENDANT-PETITIONER,
IT WOULD NOT HAVE PRECLUDED THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT UPON A VERDICT OF
GUILTY OF MURDER  ...  "  NOR DO I GO ALONG WITH THE INTIMATIONS OF
APPROVAL OF THAT STATEMENT TO BE FOUND IN THE OPINION WHICH THIS COURT
HAS JUST HANDED DOWN. 

THE OPINION OF THIS COURT DOES NOT REST SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT
HYSLER'S ALLEGATIONS, IF TRUE, FAIL TO ESTABLISH A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  THE COURT FINDS IN THE OPINION OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT A
DETERMINATION THAT "HYSLER'S PROOF" WAS INSUFFICIENT "TO MAKE THE
SHOWING OF SUBSTANTIALITY WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE LOCAL PROCEDURE OF
FLORIDA, WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
FURNISHED BY THE WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS."  BUT "HYSLER'S PROOF" IS
NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE OPINION BELOW, AND OF THE EIGHT REASONS THERE
GIVEN FOR DENYING HYSLER'S PETITION, THE ONLY ONE WHICH TOUCHES IN ANY
WAY UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS ALLEGATIONS ACCEPTS THEM AS TRUE. 

TO BE CONVINCED THAT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DID NOT PASS ON THE
CREDIBILITY OF HYSLER'S ALLEGATIONS BUT MERELY DECIDED THAT THESE
ALLEGATIONS, HOWEVER FULLY PROVED, WOULD NOT MAKE OUT A VIOLATION OF
DUE PROCESS, I SHOULD NEED TO LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE OPINION BELOW. 
BUT MORE SUPPORT FOR THIS INTERPRETATION OF FLORIDA'S DENIAL OF
HYSLER'S PETITION IS AMPLY AVAILABLE IN OTHER DECISIONS OF ITS HIGHEST
COURT.  IN WASHINGTON V. STATE, 92 FLA. 740, 749, 110 SO. 259, 262, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT SAID THE ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED WHEN
SUCH A PETITION IS BEFORE IT IS "WHETHER  ...  THE FACTS ALLEGED" - NOT
THE PROOF - "WOULD AFFORD, AT LEAST PRIMA FACIE, JUST GROUND FOR AN
APPLICATION TO THE LOWER COURT FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS."  THAT
IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT WILL NOT DENY A PETITION
WHEN THE FACTS ALLEGED ARE SO PATENTLY INCREDIBLE THAT FURTHER PURSUIT
OF THE REMEDY WOULD BE A FRIVOLOUS IMPOSITION UPON THE TRIAL COURT. 
THUS, IN MCCALL V. STATE, 136 FLA. 349, 350, WHERE THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE PETITIONER DENIED HIS GUILT FOR THE FIRST TIME, WERE WITHOUT ANY
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, AND WERE "POSITIVELY AND DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED"
BY HIMSELF AND OTHER WITNESSES AT THE TRIAL, THE COURT DENIED THE
PETITION, STATING THAT TO GRANT IT "WOULD BE NO LESS THAN A TRIFLING
WITH JUSTICE."  EVEN UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, THE COURT
EXPLICITLY POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD LOOKED INTO "THE PROBABILITY OF THE
TRUTH" OF THE ALLEGATIONS.  AND WHERE THERE IS A COLOR OF PLAUSIBILITY
IN THE ALLEGATIONS, THE COURT HAS BEEN METICULOUS TO GIVE THE
PETITIONER AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEM.  IN CHAMBERS V. STATE, FOR
EXAMPLE, MR. JUSTICE BUFORD, WHO SPOKE FOR THE COURT IN ITS OPINION ON
HYSLER'S PETITION SAID:  "THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRIT OF ERROR
CORAM NOBIS PRESENTS ALLEGATIONS WHICH, IF TRUE, WOULD CONSTITUTE
GROUND FOR ISSUING THE WRIT.  IT IS NOT THE PROVINCE OF THIS COURT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE.  THE DETERMINATION
OF SUCH QUESTION MAY BE HAD IN THE CIRCUIT COURT UNDER ISSUES DULY MADE
FOR THAT PURPOSE."  111 FLA. 707, 713, 152 SO. 437. 

IT MUST ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT IF THE PROOF ACCOMPANYING A
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS HAD TO BE
SO FULL AS TO ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS,
PETITIONERS WHO REQUIRED THE AMPLIFYING OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF
INACCESSIBLE OR UNWILLING WITNESSES WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY BARRED FROM
ACCESS TO THIS REMEDY, FOR THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
UTILIZE THE COMPULSORY PROCESS WHICH A TRIAL OF THE FACTS WOULD
AFFORD.  IN THE LIGHT OF FLORIDA'S LIBERAL TREATMENT OF OTHER
PETITIONERS IN OTHER CASES,  FN2  AND THE UNAMBIGUOUS EXPLANATION ITS
COURTS HAVE GIVEN WHERE PETITIONS HAVE BEEN DENIED, I CANNOT IMPUTE TO
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, ON THE BASIS OF ITS OPINION IN THIS CASE, A
DECISION THAT HYSLER'S "PROOF" WAS INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT HIS
ALLEGATIONS. 

ALTHOUGH IT IS AT BEST NOT CLEAR THAT THE COURT BELOW HAS CANVASSED
THE ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY, THIS COURT HAS NOT HESITATED TO DO SO.  IN
THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED, THERE HAS EVEN BEEN A RECITAL OF
CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY
BAKER "SPRINGS FROM THE IMPULSE FOR TRUTH-TELLING OR IS THE PRODUCT OF
SELF-DELUSION OR ARTIFICE PROMPTED BY THE INSTINCT OF SELF
PRESERVATION."  AND THE COURT HAS APPARENTLY CONCLUDED THAT HYSLER'S
ALLEGATIONS ARE SO PATENTLY INCREDIBLE THAT DUE PROCESS DOES NOT
REQUIRE A HEARING.  WHERE, AS HERE, ALLEGATIONS THAT CONTROLLING
TESTIMONY WAS EXTORTED BY THIRD-DEGREE METHODS ARE SUPPORTED BY SWORN
STATEMENTS AND NOT DENIED BY ANYONE, A SUMMARY REJECTION OF THEM
WITHOUT HEARING BY THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE WOULD RAISE SERIOUS
QUESTIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF A FAIR
TRIAL.  FN3  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, I SHOULD SUPPOSE THIS COURT
WOULD BE PARTICULARLY RELUCTANT TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY
DISPOSITION ITSELF OF WHAT IT TREATS AS A MAJOR ISSUE OF THE CASE:  THE
CREDIBILITY OF HYSLER'S ALLEGATIONS.    THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
DECLINED EVEN TO CONSIDER THE CREDIBILITY OF THESE ALLEGATIONS,
PROCEEDING ON THE ASSUMPTION - ERRONEOUS IF TESTED BY PRINCIPLES WHICH
I BELIEVE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE AFFIRMED  FN4  - THAT, IF TRUE,
THEY WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT TO IMPUGN THE CONVICTION.  HAVING CORRECTED
THIS ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION, THIS COURT, IN MY OPINION, SHOULD ALLOW THE
FLORIDA COURTS TO MAKE THEIR OWN DISPOSITION OF THE ISSUE THEY HAVE NOT
CONSIDERED.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A "SOLICITUDE, ESPECIALLY
WHERE LIFE IS AT STAKE, FOR THOSE LIBERTIES WHICH ARE GUARANTEED BY THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  THAT SOLICITUDE WOULD
SEEM TO CALL FOR REMANDING THIS CASE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION BELOW. 
I CANNOT SEE WHY IT SHOULD IMPEL THIS COURT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION
UPON A GRATUITOUS DISPOSITION OF AN ISSUE WHICH THE STATE COURT MIGHT
RESOLVE OTHERWISE. 

IN CASES RAISING NO ISSUE OF LIFE OR DEATH THIS COURT HAS NOT
HESITATED TO REMAND TO THE LOWER COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WHERE
AMBIGUITIES IN THE OPINION BELOW BECLOUDED THE GROUND OF DECISION.  FN5
THE VITAL ISSUES HERE AND THE MANNER OF TREATMENT BELOW COMPEL ME TO
BELIEVE THAT A LIKE PROCEDURE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED NOW.  BECAUSE THE
BASIS FOR MY BELIEF CAN BEST BE SHOWN BY REFERENCE TO THE RECORD, I AM
ADDING EXCERPTS FROM THE PETITION AND ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS AS WELL AS
THE WHOLE OF THE OPINION OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IN AN APPENDIX. 

                              APPENDIX. 

I. EXCERPTS FROM HYSLER'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR A WRIT OF
ERROR CORAM NOBIS: 

"  ...  ALVIN TYLER AND JAMES BAKER WHO WERE CO-DEFENDANTS OF THE
PETITIONER, CLYDE HYSLER, AND UPON WHOSE TESTIMONY THE STATE OF FLORIDA
RELIED UPON FOR A CONVICTION OF PETITIONER WAS COERCED, INTIMIDATED,
BEATEN, THREATENED WITH VIOLENCE AND OTHERWISE ABUSED AND MISTREATED IN
ORDER TO COMPELL THE SAID WITNESSES, TYLER AND BAKER TO GIVE TESTIMONY
AT THE TRIAL OF SAID CAUSE AGAINST PETITIONER AND TO IMPLICATE SAID
PETITIONER IN THE KILLING OF MRS. MAMIE SURRENCY; AND FURTHER THAT THE
SAID WITNESSES, TYLER AND BAKER WERE PROMISED IMMUNITY FROM THE
ELECTRIC CHAIR, BY JOHN W. HARRELL AND FURTHER PROMISED IF THEY WOULD
IMPLICATE CLYDE HYSLER IN SAID MURDER AND TESTIFY AGAINST HIM DURING
THE TRIAL OF SAID CAUSE THAT HE AS STATE'S ATTORNEY OF THE FOURTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA TOGETHER WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCING OFFICERS
OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA WOULD SEE THAT HE DID NOT GET THE CHAIR, AND
THAT THEY WOULD PROCURE A PARDON AND HAVE HIM RELEASED FROM THE STATE
PENITENTIARY AFTER SERVING THREE (3) YEARS OF HIS SENTENCE, ALL OF
WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY REFERENCE TO A STATEMENT AND
AFFIDAVIT MADE BY THE SAID JAMES BAKER ON THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, A.D.
1941, ALSO BY FURTHER AFFIDAVIT AND STATEMENT MADE BY THE SAID JAMES
BAKER ON THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, A.D. 1941, AND ALSO BY STATEMENT AND
AFFIDAVIT MADE BY THE SAID JAMES BAKER ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, A.D.
1941, SAID AFFIDAVIT BEING MARKED 'A-B AND C' RESPECTIVELY AND HEREBY
MADE A PART OF THIS PETITION AS FULLY AS THOUGH SET OUT HEREIN IN HAEC
VERBA.  AND FOR FURTHER REASON THAT SAID AFFIDAVITS SHOW THAT THE SAID
PETITIONER WAS NOT IMPLICATED IN THE MURDER OF THE SAID MRS. MAMIE
SURRENCY BUT THAT ONE JOE PETERSON, SR. WAS THE PERSON IMPLICATED IN
SAID MURDER AND NOT THE PETITIONER, CLYDE HYSLER, ALL OF WHICH IS SET
OUT HEREIN MORE FULLY IN THE AFFIDAVITS HEREIN ABOVE REFERRED TO AND
FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED BY PHOTOSTATIC COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING
AFFIDAVITS, TO-WIT; AFFIDAVIT OF ONE ED. MOSLEY; AFFIDAVIT OF ONE A. J.
MOONEY; AFFIDAVIT OF ONE MRS. RUBY CREWS AND AFFIDAVIT OF ONE RUDOLPH
J. DOWLING, SAID PHOTOSTATIC COPIES BEING MARKED 'D-E-F AND G'
RESPECTIVELY, AND EACH OF SAID AFFIDAVITS BEING HERETO ATTACHED AND
HEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS PETITION AS FULLY AS THOUGH SET OUT HEREIN
IN HAEC VERBA. 

     .         .       .         .         . 

"THAT THE SAID WITNESSES, ALVIN TYLER AND JAMES BAKER IMMEDIATELY
AFTER AND FOLLOWING THEIR ARREST WERE HELD INCOMMUN-CADO FOR A LONG
PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED THE BENEFIT AND ADVICE OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED TO SEE OR CONFER WITH THEIR FRIENDS OR RELATIVES
AND WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED TO CONFER WITH THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE
PETITIONER; THAT SAID WITNESSES, TYLER AND BAKER WERE REMOVED FROM THE
DUVAL COUNTY JAIL AND CONFINED IN THE STATE PENITENTIARY AT RAIFORD,
FLORIDA WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ALLOW NO ONE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM FOR
A LONG PERIOD OF TIME IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THEIR ARREST, AND IT BECAME
NECESSARY FOR THE ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER TO PROCURE AN ORDER OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF DUVAL COUNTY FOR PERMISSION TO CONFER WITH SAID
WITNESSES SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THEIR ARREST, AND THEN ONLY IN COMPANY
WITH, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ATTORNEYS APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO
REPRESENT SAID WITNESSES AND SAID ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS MADE
DILIGENT EFFORT TO ASCERTAIN FROM SAID WITNESSES FACTS ABOUT WHICH THEY
WOULD TESTIFY TO IN TRIAL OF SAID PETITIONER, AND THEREBY USED DILIGENT
EFFORT IN TRYING TO PROCURE THE INFORMATION AS SET OUT HEREIN BY THE
RESPECTIVE AFFIDAVITS BY THE WITNESS, JAMES BAKER, BUT SAID WITNESS
BAKER WAS AFRAID TO DIVULGE THE TRUTH TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE
PETITIONER AS SET OUT HEREIN IN THE SAID AFFIDAVITS, A-B AND C HERETO
ATTACHED, AND THAT SAID PETITIONER WAS DENIED A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
TRIAL BY REASON OF THE COERCION AND INTIMIDATION OF THE WITNESSES,
ALVIN TYLER AND JAMES BAKER AND THE HOPE OF REWARD PROMISED THEM AS
HEREINABOVE SET FORTH, AND HAS BY REASON THEREOF DENIED EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAW AS GUARANTEED TO HIM BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND WAS THEREBY DENIED DUE PROCESS OF THE
LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE 5TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. 

    .         .         .         .         . 

"THAT HAD THE SAID WITNESSES, TYLER AND BAKER NOT BEEN INTIMIDATED,
COERCED AND PROMISED IMMUNITY FROM THE ELECTRIC CHAIR BY THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN DUVAL COUNTY AS DESCRIBED IN AFFIDAVITS 'A-B
AND C' HERETO ATTACHED, AND BY JOHN W. HARRELL AS HEREIN ABOVE
DESCRIBED, AND THE SAID WITNESSES HAD BEEN LEFT FREE TO TESTIFY AND
TELL THE TRUTH AS TO THE SAID JOE PETERSON, SR. BEING THE PERSON
INVOLVED IN THE MURDER OF THE SAID MRS. MAMIE SURRENCY INSTEAD OF THE
PETITIONER, SAID TESTIMONY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE RENDITION OF THE
JUDGMENT, VERDICT AND SENTENCE OF PETITIONER IN THIS CAUSE, AND IF
ANOTHER TRIAL BE HAD OF THIS CAUSE, THIS PETITIONER WOULD BE
ACQUITTED. 

     .         .     .         .         . 

"THAT PETITIONER FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE WITNESS,
JAMES BAKER, BEING AFFIDAVITS HERETO ATTACHED AND MARKED 'A-B AND C'
AND MADE BY THE SAID JAMES BAKER FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY ON HIS PART AND
WITHOUT ANY SUGGESTION OF PROMPTING ON THE PART OF PETITIONER OR ANY
ONE ON HIS BEHALF, AND THAT THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN SAID AFFIDAVITS
WERE MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL PRISON OFFICIALS AT RAIFORD,
FLORIDA AFTER SAID JAMES BAKER MADE A VOLUNTARILY REQUEST TO SEE AND
TALK WITH THE ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER." 

II.  EXCERPTS FROM EXHIBITS ACCOMPANYING HYSLER'S PETITION:  (THESE
ARE FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THREE CONFERENCES HELD IN A FLORIDA PRISON
ON APRIL 7 AND 8, 1941.  BAKER WAS UNDER OATH.  WHERE THE STATEMENTS
ARE NOT IN NARRATIVE FORM, THE QUESTIONER IS HYSLER'S ATTORNEY.) 

"  ...  JAMES BAKER  ...  DEPOSES AND SAYS: 

"THAT AFTER THE KILLING OF MR. AND MRS. SURRANCY NEAR GRAND CROSSING
IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA ON THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 1936, THAT HE AND
ALVIN TYLER, THE MAN WHO WAS WITH HIM AT THE TIME OF THE SAID KILLING
AGREED BETWEEN THEM WHILE THEY WERE IN CRACKER SWAMP IN THE MARIETTA
OF THE ROBBERY OF THE SURRANCYS UPON CLYDE HYSLER BECAUSE THEY HAD HAD
CONSIDERABLE LIQUOR DEALINGS WITH CLYDE HYSLER AND KNEW HIM WELL, AND
FOR THE REASON THAT THE HYSLERS BORE A BAD REPUTATION IN DUVAL COUNTY,
AND FOR THE FURTHER REASON THAT CLYDE HYSLER'S FATHER HAD PLENTY OF
MONEY AND THEY THOUGHT THAT BY LAYING THE PLANNING OF THE ROBBERY OF
THE SURRANCYS ON CLYDE HYSLER THAT HIS FATHER AND HIS OTHER RELATIVES
WOULD PUT UP SUFFICIENT MONEY TO GET CLYDE HYSLER OUT OF THE TROUBLE
AND THAT BY LAYING IT ON TO CLYDE HYSLER THAT HE, JAMES BAKER AND ALVIN
TYLER WOULD ESCAPE THE DEATH PENALTY, THAT IN TRUTH AND FACT, THAT
CLYDE HYSLER WAS NOT IMPLICATED IN THE PLANNING OF THE ROBBERY AND HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE KILLING OF MR. AND MRS. SURRANCY, BUT THAT ONE
JOE PETERSON, SR. WAS THE MAN WHO PLANNED THE ROBBERY AND HIRED THE
SAID JAMES BAKER AND ALVIN TYLER TO PERFORM THE ROBBERY AFTER BEING
ADVISED BY THE SAID JOE PETERSON THAT IT WOULD BE NO TROUBLE, AND THAT
MR. SURRANCY DID NOT CARRY A GUN, AND ALL THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO WOULD
BE TO POINT THE PISTOL AT HIM AND TAKE THE MONEY, THAT AFFIANT FURTHER
DEPOSES AND SAYS: 

"THAT CLYDE HYSLER WAS IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTEMPTED
ROBBERY OF MR. AND MRS. SURRANCY; THAT HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT,
AND THE MAN WHO PLANNED THE ROBBERY AND WAS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT US IN
THE ROBBERY WAS JOE PETERSON AND NOT CLYDE HYSLER; THAT JOE PETERSON
WAS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY WHEN THE ATTEMPTED ROBBERY AND THE
KILLING OF THE SURRANCYS TOOK PLACE, AND HAD IT NOT BEEN THAT JOE
PETERSON PLANNED THE ROBBERY AND HIRED ALVIN TYLER AND MYSELF TO ROB
MR. SURRANCY THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE STILL BEEN LIVING AND WE WOULD
NOT BE IN ANY TROUBLE." 

     .         .       .         .         . 

"Q.  NOW BAKER, I DON'T WANT YOU TO TELL ME ANYTHING EXCEPT THE
TRUTH, I WANT YOU TO TELL ME IF JOE PETERSON WAS THE MAN THAT GOT YOU
INTO ALL OF THIS INSTEAD OF CLYDE HYSLER. 

A. YES, SIR, HE IS THE MAN. 

Q. THEN YOU AND ALVIN TYLER PLANNED TO LAY THIS ALL ON CLYDE HYSLER
IN ORDER TO TRY TO GET OUT OF IT YOURSELF OR TO GET A LIFE SENTENCE
INSTEAD OF THE CHAIR? 

A. YES, SIR. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"Q.  YOU RECALL WHAT OFFICERS BROUGHT YOU OVER HERE? 

A. MR. GENE GRIFFEN AND MR. DICK BARKER AND SOME MORE OFFICERS. 

Q. NOW WHAT THREATS OR PROMISES DID THEY MAKE YOU TO TESTIFY AND
IMPLICATE CLYDE HYSLER? 

A. WELL, MR. GRIFFEN AND THEM DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T MAKE NO PROMISES,
MR. HULBERT DID TALK TO ME, THAT HE WOULD GET ME LIFE IMPRISONMENT -
LIFE INSTEAD OF THE CHAIR. 

Q. MR. HUBBERT TALKED TO YOU AND MADE PROMISES THAT YOU WOULD GET
LIFE INSTEAD OF THE CHAIR? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. WHAT POLICE - 

A. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, POLICE OFFICERS AND JOHN HARRELL. 

Q. JOHN W. HARRELL, THE STATE'S ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. DID MR. HARRELL TELL YOU THAT HE WOULD HELP YOU GET A LIFE SENTENCE
IF YOU WOULD TESTIFY AGAINST CLYDE HYSLER? 

A. HE SAID HE WOULDN'T BURN ME, THAT HE, MR. ACOSTA AND MR. CARSON
WOULD GET ME OUT IN THREE YEARS TIME. 

Q. WAS DETECTIVE CANNON AND - YOU WAS TALKING ABOUT AND INSPECTOR
ACOSTA - 

A. THE TWO MEN THAT ARRESTED ME, YES SIR. 

Q. NOW FROM THE TIME YOU WAS ARRESTED, BAKER, HOW LONG WAS YOU KEPT
TO YOURSELF BEFORE YOU WAS ALLOWED TO TALK TO YOUR LAWYER OR YOUR
FRIENDS? 

A. FROM THE TIME I WAS ARRESTED UNTIL THE 21ST OF JANUARY, TILL WE
WENT BACK AND HAD MY TRIAL SET. 

Q. THE DAY YOU WERE ARRAIGNED IN CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE TRIAL? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. YOU WAS HELD TO YOUR SELF WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED TO COMMUNICATE
WITH ANY OF YOUR FRIENDS OR YOUR LAWYER? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. WHEN WAS YOU ARRESTED? 

A. IT WAS ON THE 23RD - 24 - 26 - WHEN WAS THANKSGIVING DAY - JUST A
FEW DAYS. 

Q. YOU WAS ARRESTED JUST A FEW DAYS AFTER THANKSGIVING? 

A. YES, SIR. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"Q.  DID ANY OF THOSE OFFICERS THREATEN YOU? 

A. THEY CARRIED ME IN A DARK ROOM - 

Q. THAT WAS HERE? 

A. NO, SIR, THAT WAS IN JACKSONVILLE, THEY CARRIED ME OUT TO MARIETTA
AND WHIPPED ME. 

Q. WHAT WAS THAT WITH? 

A. SOMETHING COVERED UP IN CANVAS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS AND A
PIECE OF HOSE AND SOMETHING LOOKED LIKE A PINE LIMB. 

Q. YOU REMEMBER ANY OF THOSE NAMES? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. WHO WERE THEY? 

A. MR. WOODS, R.L. WOODS, AND MR. CARSON SLAPPED ME TWO OR THREE
TIMES AND GAVE THEM THE BLACK JACK TO BEAT ME WITH.  ... 

Q. THAT WAS IN THE PRESENCE OF MR. WOODS, CARSON AND ACOSTA? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. THAT WAS TO TRY TO MAKE YOU IMPLICATE MR. HYSLER IN THE ROBBERY OF
MR. SURRENCY AND MRS. SURRENCY? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. AND IF IT HADN'T BEEN FOR THE BEATINGS AND THREATS AND THE
PROMISES TO GET YOU OUT OF HERE IN THREE YEARS AS YOU HAVE STATED ABOVE
WOULD YOU HAVE IMPLICATED MR. HYSLER IN THE CASE AT ALL? 

A. NO, SIR, CAUSE I TOLD THEM I DIDN'T NO ANYTHING ABOUT IT; AND
ANOTHER THING, BETWEEN MR. HYSLER'S FIRST TRIAL AND LAST ONE, MR.
HARRELL CAME DOWN TO THE COUNTY JAIL AFTER I WAS ALLOWED TO SEE PEOPLE,
I SAID, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU BURN MR. HYSLER YOU WILL HAVE TO
BURN ME TOO, AND HE SAID HE COULD BURN THE WHOLE HYSLER FAMILY AND
DON'T BURN ME CAUSE HE AND MR. SIDNEY HULBERT, MR. CARSON AND MR.
CANNON AND SOME MORE OFFICERS WAS GOING TO RUN THE COUNTY AS LONG AS
THEY WERE RUNNING IT.           .         .         .         .
. 

"Q.  BAKER, HOW MANY TIMES DID THE OFFICERS THREATEN YOU AND BEAT YOU
AFTER YOU WERE ARRESTED? 

A. THEY BEAT ME ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING TO TEN O'CLOCK
BEFORE THEY GOT ME TO SAY ANYTHING. 

Q. IT WAS THE POLICE MADE YOU TELL THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. WAS YOU AFRAID NOT TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY WANTED YOU TO, AFRAID
THEY WOULD BEAT YOU SOME MORE? 

A. YES, SIR, IF THEM - I SAID TWO WORDS THEY WOULD SLAP ME, BEFORE
THE SHERIFF BUNCH GOT THERE THEY HAD SENT OUT AND BOUGHT ME DINNER,
GIVE ME $5.00 OR $6.00 DOLLARS IN MONEY, AND SAID DON'T TELL ANY BODY
ABOUT ME BEING WHIPPED, IF ANYONE ASKED ME, TELL THEM NO. 

Q. THEN IT WAS A DEFINITE PROMISE FROM MR. HARRELL, THE STATE'S
ATTORNEY TO KEEP YOU FROM BURNING? 

A. HE SAID THAT HE WOULD SEE THAT I WOULD GET LIFE, BUT THAT HE WOULD
SEE THAT I DIDN'T STAY AT THE CHAIN GANG BUT THREE YEARS. 

 .         .         .         .         . 

"Q.  BAKER WHAT ABOUT THE REMARKS YOU WANTED TO MAKE? 

A. WHERE THEY KICKED ME. 

Q. THAT AT JACKSONVILLE POLICE STATION? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. WHO WAS THAT? 

A. MR. CARSON, THATS WHO HAD ME AT THAT TIME, HE TAKEN ME DOWN THERE
WHERE A BUNCH OF POLICE WAS SHOOTING POOL. 

Q. WHAT ALL DID THEY DO TO YOU? 

A. THOSE OFFICERS DOWN THERE ASKED HIM IF HE MADE ME TELL HIM WHAT
THEY WANTED TO KNOW, AND MR. CARSON - MR. CARSON SAID NOT YET, AND THEY
SAID, TURN HIM LOOSE WITH US ABOUT 25 MINUTES AND WE WILL MAKE HIM SAY
ANYTHING THEY WANTED ME TO SAY, AND HE TOLD THEM TO TAKE ME AND HOLD ME
UNTIL THEY WENT UP INTO THE OFFICE AND MAKE A CALL, AND WHILE HE WAS
GONE TO MAKE A CALL THEY CARRIED ME BACK INTO A ROOM AND PUT A COAT
OVER MY HEAD AND WENT TO BEATING ME, I GOT SCARS ON ME NOW, I WANT TO
SHOW THEM TO YOU AND ITS WHAT YOU CALL RISONS, YOU CAN GET YOUR DOCTOR
AND HE WILL TELL YOU WHAT WAS CAUSED FROM BLOWS - 

Q. YOU STILL HAVE SCARS ON YOU FROM THAT BEATING? 

A. YES - 

Q. WAS THOSE BEATINGS THAT CAUSED THOSE SCARS ON YOU TO TELL ON CLYDE
HYSLER? 

A. TO MAKE ME TELL ANYTHING. 

Q. DID THEY MENTION CLYDE HYSLER'S NAME TO YOU WHILE THEY WERE
BEATING YOU? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. DO YOU KNOW THE NAMES OF THOSE OFFICERS? 

A. NO, SIR, THOSE WERE NEW OFFICERS TO ME, THEY WERE SPEED COPS, HAD
THOSE THINGS ON THEIR SHOULDERS. 

Q. DID ANY OF THEM TELL YOU THAT CLYDE HYSLER WAS MIXED UP IN THE
KILLING OR SUCH AS THAT? 

A. THEY SAID THEY KNEW HE WAS IN IT - AND AFTER I TOLD HOW IT WAS
THEY MADE ME IMPLICATE HIM. 

Q. IMPLICATE HIM? 

A. YES, SIR. 

Q. AS A MATTER OF FACT, HYSLER WAS NOT MIXED IN IT BUT IT WAS JOE
PETERSON - 

A. THEY HAD ME HAND CUFFED BEHIND MY BACK AND I WAS CHAINED AND BEAT
ME,  ... 

     .    .         .         .         . 

"Q.  BAKER DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT MR. HARRELL KNEW IF YOU WAS
BEAT UP TO MAKE YOU TESTIFY? 

A. YES, SIR, HE KNOWS I COULDN'T SET DOWN, NONE OF THE SHERIFF'S
FORCE KNEW IT AT THE TIME, THEY KNEW IT LATER WHEN I MADE IT IN FRONT
ALL OF THE OFFICERS. 

Q. WHEN YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT YOU COULDN'T SET DOWN. 

A. YES, SIR, AND I CAN'T SET DOWN GOOD, AND I WISH YOU AND THOSE MEN
COULD SEE THAT NOW." 

III.  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ON MOTION FOR
REHEARING:  (NO OPINION ACCOMPANIED THE ORIGINAL DENIAL OF HYSLER'S
PETITION.) 

"BUFORD, J.: 

ON MOTION FOR HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR LEAVE TO APPLY
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DUVAL COUNTY FOR A WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OF PETITIONER OF THE OFFENSE OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE HERETOFORE ENTERED IN THAT COURT, ON GROUNDS
STATED IN THE PETITION, WE HAVE DENIED THE PETITION FOR REASONS AS
FOLLOWS: 

(A)  THIS COURT MAY TAKE JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE OF ITS OWN RECORDS AND
THE RECORD LODGED IN THIS COURT ON THE WRIT OF ERROR TO THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION OF THE PETITIONER SHOWS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WITHOUT THE AID OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN ON THAT
TRIAL BY THE WITNESS JAMES BAKER. 

(B)  WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS WILL NOT LIE BECAUSE OF FALSE
TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE TRIAL BY IMPORTANT WITNESS.  LAMB V. STATE, 91
FLA. 396, 107 SOU.  535. 

(C)  MATTERS PROPERLY PRESENTABLE FOR WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS ARE SUCH AS
WOULD HAVE PREVENTED CONVICTION AND NOT SUCH AS MAY HAVE CAUSED A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  CHESSER V. STATE, 92 FLA. 754, 109 SOU.  906. 

(D)  IF WITNESS BAKER SWORE FALSELY AT DEFENDANT'S TRIAL, THAT FACT
WAS KNOWN TO PETITIONER AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL.  WASHINGTON V. STATE,
95 FLA. 289, 116 SOU.  470; PIKE VS. STATE, 103 FLA. 594, 139 SOU. 
196. 

(E)  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION DO NOT SHOW THAT THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY HAD ANY GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED MALTREATMENT OF THE
WITNESS, OR THAT THE ALLEGED FALSITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS
BAKER WAS KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTING OFFICER. 

(F)  THE PETITION DOES NOT SHOW THAT ANY ALLEGED MALTREATMENT OF
WITNESS WAS INFLICTED BY ANY OFFICER OF THE TRIAL COURT OR THAT SAME
WAS KNOWN TO ANY OFFICER OF THE TRIAL COURT. 

(G)  THE RECORDS OF THIS COURT, OF WHICH WE TAKE JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE,
SHOW THAT PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED ON TRIAL HELD SUBSEQUENT TO THE
TRIAL AND CONFICTION OF THE WITNESS BAKER OF THE OFFENSE OF MURDER IN
THE FIRST DEGREE WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY, AND THAT BOTH TRIALS
WERE CONDUCTED ON BEHALF OF EACH DEFENDANT BY ABLE, DILIGENT AND
FAITHFUL COUNSEL. 

(H)  IF ALL PETITIONER ALLEGES IN HIS PETITION HAD BEEN TRUE AND HAD
BEEN FULLY MADE KNOWN TO THE TRIAL COURT AND TO THE JURY WHICH TRIED
THE DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, IT WOULD NOT HAVE PRECLUDED THE ENTRY OF THE
JUDGMENT UPON A VERDICT OF GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE HAVING
BEEN RETURNED BY THE JURY. 

SO IT IS, THE PETITION IS INSUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE US TO GRANT SAME
AND FOR SUCH REASONS THE SAME WAS DENIED AND THE PETITION FOR REHEARING
IS LIKEWISE DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

TERRELL, J. THOMAS AND CHAPMAN, J. J. CONCUR. 

BROWN, C. J. DISSENTS." 

FN1  E.G., BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA,
309 U.S. 227. 

FN2  SEE NICKELS V. STATE, 86 FLA. 208, 98 SO. 497, 502, 99 SO. 121;
LAMB V. STATE, 91 FLA. 396, 107 SO. 535; WASHINGTON V. STATE, 92 FLA.
740, 110 SO. 259; CHAMBERS V. STATE, 111 FLA. 707, 151 SO. 499; 113
FLA. 786, 152 SO. 437; 117 FLA. 642, 158 SO. 153. 

FN3  CF. MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA; SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329. 

FN4  SEE CASES CITED IN FOOTNOTE 1, SUPRA, AND CANTY V. ALABAMA, 309
U.S. 629; WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530; LOMAX V. TEXAS, 313 U.S. 544;
VERNON V. ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 547. 

FN5  VILLA V. VAN SCHAICK, 299 U.S. 152; STATE TAX COMM'N V. VAN
COTT, 306 U.S. 511; MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551. 
..END :








HOTEL EMPLOYEES' LOCAL V. BOARD, 315 U.S. 437 


NO. 124.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 12, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 236
WIS. 329, 294 N.W. 632, 295 N.W. 634, AFFIRMED. 


A STATE REGULATION WHICH FORBIDS VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF STRIKERS IN
PICKETING THE PREMISES OF THEIR EMPLOYER, BUT WHICH PERMITS PEACEFUL
PICKETING, HELD CONSISTENT WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 441. 

HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE, LOCAL NO. 122,
ET AL. V. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 590, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE WHICH
SUSTAINED AN ORDER OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD OF WISCONSIN
ACTING UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE BROUGHT THIS CASE HERE FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN, 314
U.S. 590, TO CANVASS THE CLAIM THAT WISCONSIN HAS FORBIDDEN THE
PETITIONERS TO ENGAGE IN PEACEFUL PICKETING INSOFAR AS WE HAVE DEEMED
IT AN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88;
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321.  THE SPECIFIC
QUESTION FOR DECISION IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF AN ORDER MADE
BY THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ACTING UNDER THE EMPLOYMENT
PEACE ACT, WISCONSIN LAWS OF 1939, C. 57.  IN DECIDING THIS QUESTION WE
ARE OF COURSE CONTROLLED BY THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF WISCONSIN UPON THE ORDER AND THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT. 

THESE ARE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS.  IN JUNE 1938, THE PETITIONERS,
VARIOUS UNIONS REPRESENTING HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES, MADE A
CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT FOR A YEAR WITH THE RESPONDENT PLANKINTON HOUSE
COMPANY, WHICH OWNED TWO HOTELS IN MILWAUKEE.  AFTER NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT FAILED, THE DISPUTE WAS
SUBMITTED TO ARBITRATION.  ON OCTOBER 30, 1939, THE COMPANY NOTIFIED
THE UNIONS OF ITS WILLINGNESS TO SIGN A CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION.  THREE DAYS LATER THE EMPLOYEES OF BOTH
HOTELS WENT ON STRIKE.  MEMBERS OF THE UNIONS PICKETED THE HOTELS, AND
THE COMPANY CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE HOTELS WITH NEW EMPLOYEES.  UNION
PICKETS FORCIBLY PREVENTED THE DELIVERY OF GOODS TO ONE OF THE HOTELS. 
FOR THIS CONDUCT TWO UNION OFFICIALS WERE ARRESTED AND FINED.  ONE OF
THEM RETURNED TO THE PICKET LINE IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS ARREST,
ASSAULTED ONE OF THE NON-STRIKING EMPLOYEES, AND WAS AGAIN ARRESTED AND
FINED.  NUMEROUS OTHER OUTBREAKS OF VIOLENCE RESULTED IN THE CONVICTION
OF THE OFFENDING PICKETS AND OCCASIONED SPECIAL POLICE MEASURES TO
MAINTAIN THE PEACE. 

THE COMPANY COMPLAINED TO THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD THAT THE
PETITIONERS HAD COMMITTED "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES."  AFTER DUE HEARING,
THE BOARD MADE FINDINGS OF FACT, NOT CHALLENGED THROUGHOUT THESE
PROCEEDINGS.  UPON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS, THE BOARD ISSUED THE
ORDER SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE
PETITIONERS APPLIED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MILWAUKEE COUNTY,
WISCONSIN, TO SET ASIDE THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE BOARD CROSS-PETITIONED
FOR ENFORCEMENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT SUSTAINED THE ORDER, AND AN APPEAL
WAS TAKEN TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN, WHICH AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT AND, AFTER FURTHER ELUCIDATING THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE AND
THE ORDER, DENIED A REHEARING.  236 WIS. 329, 352; 294 N.W. 632, 295
N.W. 634. 

THE WISCONSIN STATUTE UNDERLYING THIS CONTROVERSY WAS ENACTED AS A
COMPREHENSIVE CODE GOVERNING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE.  ONLY A FEW OF ITS MANY PROVISIONS ARE RELEVANT
HERE.  SECTION 111.06 PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE "AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE" TO "COOPERATE IN ENGAGING IN, PROMOTING OR INDUCING
PICKETING, BOYCOTTING OR ANY OTHER OVERT CONCOMITANT OF A STRIKE UNLESS
A MAJORITY IN A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT OF THE EMPLOYEES OF AN
EMPLOYER AGAINST WHOM SUCH ACTS ARE PRIMARILY DIRECTED HAVE VOTED BY
SECRET BALLOT TO CALL A STRIKE," AND TO "HINDER OR PREVENT, BY MASS
PICKETING, THREATS, INTIMIDATION, FORCE OR COERCION OF ANY KIND THE
PURSUIT OF ANY LAWFUL WORK OR EMPLOYMENT, OR TO OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE
WITH ENTRANCE TO OR EGRESS FROM ANY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, OR TO OBSTRUCT
OR INTERFERE WITH FREE AND UNINTERRUPTED USE OF PUBLIC ROADS, STREETS,
HIGHWAYS, RAILWAYS, AIRPORTS, OR OTHER WAYS OF TRAVEL OR CONVEYANCE." 
THE ACT CONTAINS A PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALING WITH ITS CONSTRUCTION:
"EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER, NOTHING THEREIN SHALL
BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH OR IMPEDE OR DIMINISH IN ANY WAY
THE RIGHT TO STRIKE OR THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO WORK; NOR SHALL
ANYTHING IN THIS CHAPTER BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO INVADE UNLAWFULLY THE
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH."  SEC. 111.15. 

THE CENTRAL ATTACK AGAINST THE ORDER IS THAT, AS ENFORCED BY THE
WISCONSIN COURTS, IT ENJOINS PEACEFUL PICKETING.  WHETHER WISCONSIN HAS
DENIED THE PETITIONERS ANY RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS OUR
ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY.  BUT PRECISELY WHAT RESTRAINTS WISCONSIN HAS
IMPOSED UPON THE PETITIONERS IS FOR THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT TO
DETERMINE.  IN ITS OPINION IN THIS CASE, AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN ITS
EXPLANATORY OPINION DENYING A REHEARING, THE COURT CONSTRUED THE
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYMENT PEACE ACT AND CONFINED THE SCOPE
OF THE CHALLENGED ORDER TO THE LIMITS OF THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IT GAVE
THEM.  THAT COURT HAS OF COURSE THE FINAL SAY CONCERNING THE MEANING OF
A WISCONSIN LAW AND THE SCOPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS MADE UNDER IT.
AIKENS V. WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194; SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S.
468.  WHAT IS BEFORE US, THEREFORE, IS NOT THE ORDER AS AN ISOLATED,
SELF-CONTAINED WRITING BUT THE ORDER WITH THE GLOSS OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF WISCONSIN UPON IT.  AND THAT COURT HAS UNAMBIGUOUSLY REJECTED
THE CONSTRUCTION UPON WHICH THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONERS RESTS. 

THAT THE ORDER FORBIDS ONLY VIOLENCE, AND THAT IT PERMITS PEACEFUL
PICKETING BY THESE PETITIONERS, IS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR BY THE
EXPRESSIONS OF THE COURT: 

"THE ACT DOES NOT LIMIT THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYEE TO SPEAK FREELY. 
...  THE TERM 'PICKETING', AS USED IN (THE ACT), DOES NOT INCLUDE ACTS
HELD IN THE THORNHILL CASE, SUPRA, TO BE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  THE EXPRESS
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT FORBIDS SUCH A CONSTRUCTION.  IT CLEARLY REFERS TO
THAT KIND OF PICKETING WHICH THE THORNHILL CASE SAYS THE STATE HAS
POWER TO DEAL WITH 'AS A PART OF ITS POWER TO PRESERVE THE PEACE, AND
PROTECT THE PRIVACY, THE LIVES AND THE PROPERTY OF ITS RESIDENTS'.  ...
IN THIS CASE IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT NUMEROUS ASSAULTS WERE COMMITTED BY
THE PICKETS, THAT THE PICKETS ACTED IN CONCERT; THAT THE FINES OF THESE
PICKETS WERE PAID BY THE UNIONS; THAT INGRESS AND EGRESS TO AND FROM
THE PREMISES OF THE EMPLOYER WERE PREVENTED BY FORCE AND ARMS.  IT WAS
AT CONDUCT OF THAT KIND THAT THE STATUTE WAS AIMED.  IT IS CONDUCT OF
THAT KIND THAT IS DEALT WITH IN THIS CASE.  IT IS CONDUCT OF THAT KIND
THAT IS DECLARED TO BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BY THE STATUTE AND FROM
WHICH THE DEFENDANTS ARE ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST.  ...  "  AND ON
REHEARING:  "UNDER THE STATUTE AND THE ORDER OF THE BOARD AS
INTERPRETED AND CONSTRUED BY THE EXPLICIT LANGUAGE OF THE (PREVIOUS)
OPINION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE RIGHT PEACEFULLY TO PICKET IS IN NO
WAY INTERFERED WITH.  THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT BE ORDERED TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM SOMETHING THEY WERE NOT ENGAGED IN.  ...  THE PICKETING
CARRIED ON IN THIS CASE WAS NOT PEACEFUL AND THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH
IS IN NO WAY INFRINGED BY THE STATUTE OR THE ORDER OF THE BOARD."  236
WIS. 329, PASSIM. 

WHAT PUBLIC POLICY WISCONSIN SHOULD ADOPT IN FURTHERING DESIRABLE
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IS FOR IT TO SAY, SO LONG AS RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY
THE CONSTITUTION ARE RESPECTED.  AIKENS V. WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194;
SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468.  AS THE ORDER AND THE
APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED LEAVE THE
PETITIONERS' FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNIMPAIRED, THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE
AFFIRMED.  PROBLEMS THAT WOULD ARISE HAD THE ORDER AND THE PERTINENT
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BEEN OTHERWISE CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
WISCONSIN NEED NOT THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "IT IS ORDERED THAT THE RESPONDENT UNIONS, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE, LOCAL NO. 122, INTERNATIONAL LAUNDRY
WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 174, BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF AMERICA,
LOCAL NO. 64, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO.
311, AND THE MILWAUKEE BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, THE OFFICERS, MEMBERS,
AGENTS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF EACH SHALL: 

"1.  IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST FROM: 

(A)  ENGAGING IN PROMOTING OR INDUCING PICKETING AT OR NEAR THE
PLANKINTON HOUSE OR THE KILBOURN HOTEL; 

(B)  ATTEMPTING TO HINDER OR PREVENT BY THREATS, INTIMIDATION, FORCE
OR COERCION OF ANY KIND THE PURSUIT OF LAWFUL WORK BY EMPLOYES OF THE
PLANKINTON HOUSE COMPANY; 

(C)  BOYCOTTING IN ANY WAY THE PLANKINTON HOUSE COMPANY. 

"2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, WHICH THE BOARD FINDS
WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT: 

(A)  POST NOTICES TO THEIR MEMBERS IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES AT THE UNION
HEADQUARTERS THAT THE UNION HAS CEASED AND DESISTED IN THE MANNER
AFORESAID, AND THAT ALL OFFICERS, MEMBERS AND AGENTS OF THE UNION ARE
TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN PROMOTING OR INDUCING PICKETING AND
BOYCOTTING OF THE PLANKINTON HOUSE COMPANY, AND ALSO TO REFRAIN FROM
ATTEMPTING TO HINDER OR PREVENT BY THREATS, INTIMIDATION, FORCE OR
COERCION OF ANY KIND THE PURSUIT OF LAWFUL WORK BY EMPLOYES OF THE
PLANKINTON HOUSE COMPANY. 

(B)  NOTIFY THE BOARD IN WRITING FORTHWITH THAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN
BY EACH OF THE RESPONDENT UNIONS TO COMPLY HEREWITH." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




THOMSON V. GASKILL, 315 U.S. 442 


NO. 139.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 8, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 119
F.2D 105, REVERSED. 


1.  THE POLICY OF JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(1), CONFERRING JURISDICTION BY
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, CALLS FOR STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE.  IF A PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FACTS ARE
CHALLENGED BY THE DEFENDANT, THE PLAINTIFF MUST SUPPORT THEM BY
COMPETENT PROOF, OR THE BILL MUST BE DISMISSED.  P. 446. 

2.  OWING TO THE ABSENCE FROM THE RECORD OF AGREEMENTS UPON WHICH
THIS SUIT WAS FOUNDED, IT CAN NOT BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE NATURE OF
THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS IS SUCH THAT THEY MAY BE AGGREGATED IN
DETERMINING THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  P. 446. 

3.  IN COMPUTING JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNTS, CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS CAN NOT
BE AGGREGATED MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE DERIVED FROM A SINGLE INSTRUMENT,
OR BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE A COMMUNITY OF INTERESTS.  P. 447. 

4.  THE VALUE OF THE "MATTER IN CONTROVERSY," IN A SUIT BASED ON
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, IS MEASURED, NOT BY THE MONETARY RESULT OF
DETERMINING THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED, BUT BY ITS PECUNIARY CONSEQUENCE TO
THOSE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION.  P. 447. 

THOMSON, TRUSTEE OF CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO., ET AL. V.
GASKILL ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 590, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING A DECREE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION A SUIT BY
NUMEROUS CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN AGAINST THE ABOVE-NAMED RAILWAY
COMPANY, ITS TRUSTEE IN REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS, AND OTHERS.  THE
PLAINTIFFS CLAIMED SENIORITY RIGHTS TO WORK ON CERTAIN RAILROAD RUNS,
ARISING UNDER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE RAILWAY AND TWO RAILWAY
BROTHERHOODS.  THE BILL SOUGHT AN ACCOUNTING TO SHOW THE LOSS TO EACH
PLAINTIFF FROM FAILURE TO OBSERVE THESE RIGHTS, AND DAMAGES FOR EACH
ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ORDER OF HIS SENIORITY, AND PRAYED FOR FUTURE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE AGREEMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE RECORD SHOWS AN ESSENTIAL
REQUISITE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, NAMELY, THAT THE
"MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS, THE
SUM OR VALUE OF $3,000."  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 24(1), 28 U.S.C. SEC.
41(1).  THERE WERE OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH, IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE
CASE, NEED NOT BE STATED. 

RESPONDENTS, FORTY-ONE CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN EMPLOYED BY THE
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE
RAILROAD AND ONE KIMBALL, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ROAD, IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED
THAT THE PLAINTIFFS "BELONG TO" THE TRACKAGE OF THE RAILROAD CALLED THE
NEBRASKA DIVISION; THAT "THE CONTROVERSY ARISES OVER THE DIVISION OF
SENIORITY RIGHTS BETWEEN THE NEBRASKA DIVISION TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS
BELONG, AND THE SIOUX CITY DIVISION TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT GEORGE
KIMBALL BELONGS, OVER THE NORTHWESTERN ROAD FROM OMAHA, NEBRASKA TO
SIOUX CITY, IOWA"; THAT TRAINS RUNNING BETWEEN THESE POINTS MOVED OVER
31 MILES OF THE NEBRASKA DIVISION AND 70 MILES OF THE SIOUX CITY
DIVISION; THAT PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1930, SENIORITY RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS
WERE GOVERNED BY CERTAIN CONTRACTS "REFERRED TO SOMETIMES AS THE
'SCHEDULE OF WAGES AND RULES OF COMPENSATION FOR CONDUCTORS AND
TRAINMEN,'" WHICH PROVIDED THAT, WHEN TRAINS WERE OPERATED OVER MORE
THAN ONE SENIORITY DISTRICT, THE "PERCENTAGE OF MILES RUN OVER EACH
DIVISION WILL GOVERN IN ASSIGNMENT TO SUCH RUNS"; THAT SINCE MAY 1,
1930, THE RAILROAD HAS ASSIGNED ALL OF THE WORK ON THE OMAHA-SIOUX CITY
RUN TO THE SIOUX CITY DIVISION; THAT, ALTHOUGH THE RAILROAD INSISTS
THAT THE PLAINTIFFS' SENIORITY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ABROGATED "BY AN
ALLEGED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAID DEFENDANT RAILROAD TRAINMEN, AND THE
ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS," THE PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT BOUND BY SUCH
AGREEMENT; AND THAT, ON ACCOUNT OF THE "WRONGFUL DEPRIVATION" OF THEIR
SENIORITY RIGHTS, THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE BEEN DAMAGED IN EXCESS OF
$3,000. 

THE RAILROAD'S ANSWER STATED THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAD ONLY SUCH
SENIORITY RIGHTS AS WERE DERIVED FROM AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE RAILROAD
AND THE ORDER OF RAILROAD CONDUCTORS AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
TRAINMEN; THAT THE AGREEMENTS COULD BE ABROGATED OR MODIFIED BY THE
RAILROAD AND THE UNIONS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFFS; THAT THE
TRACK BETWEEN OMAHA AND BLAIR, LOCATED ON THE OMAHA-SIOUX CITY RUN, WAS
NOT PART OF THE NEBRASKA DIVISION OF THE RAILROAD; THAT THIS TRACKAGE
IS OWNED BY THE CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RAILWAY COMPANY; THAT THE ONLY
PART OF THE NEBRASKA DIVISION ON THE RUN BETWEEN OMAHA AND SIOUX CITY
IS 7.5 MILES LONG; AND THAT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF
THE REQUIRED JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THE
PLAINTIFFS TO PROVE THAT MORE THAN $3,000 WAS INVOLVED, AND TEN OF THEM
SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS.  THE SUBSTANCE OF EACH AFFIDAVIT WAS THAT, SINCE
MAY 1, 1930, THE CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN HAD "OPERATED TRAINS OVER
THIRTY-ONE MILES OF THE NEBRASKA DIVISION IN VIOLATION OF EXISTING
CONTRACTS," AND THAT, "TO THE BEST OF (AFFIANT'S) KNOWLEDGE AND
ABILITY," HIS LOSS EXCEEDED $3,000.  THE DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED
AFFIDAVITS SUPPORTING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THEIR ANSWERS.  BUT NEITHER
THE PLEADINGS NOR THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE PARTIES CONTAIN THE TERMS OF
THE VARIOUS AGREEMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE COMPLAINT AND UPON WHICH THE
PLAINTIFFS' ACTION IS BASED. 

UPON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE CAUSE FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE PLEADINGS AND SUPPORTING
AFFIDAVITS ESTABLISHED THAT "THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY AS TO ANY ONE
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT AMOUNT TO AS MUCH AS $3,000," AND THAT THE NATURE OF
THE SUIT WAS NOT SUCH AS TO PERMIT AGGREGATION OF THE CLAIMS OF ALL THE
PLAINTIFFS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED.  THE FIRST
CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT CHALLENGED EITHER IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR BEFORE US.  THE PLAINTIFFS CONTENDED THAT
THEIR CLAIMS SHOULD BE AGGREGATED BECAUSE "THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS
ARE SO INTERLOCKED AND INTERWOVEN THAT THE RIGHTS OF ONE CANNOT BE
DETERMINED WITHOUT THE OTHERS BEING PARTIES THERETO."  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DISMISSAL, HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFFS'
CLAIMS COULD BE AGGREGATED FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE
MATTER IN CONTROVERSY.  THE COURT STATED THAT, ALTHOUGH IT FOUND THE
COMPLAINT "VERY DIFFICULT OF ANALYSIS," IT HAD CONSTRUED IT "MOST
FAVORABLY TO THE PLEADER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING ON THE SOLE
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION RAISED ON THE APPEAL."  119 F.2D 105, 108.  WE
BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 314 U.S. 590, IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTION
AFFECTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE CONFERRING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION UPON THE
DISTRICT COURTS CALLS FOR ITS STRICT CONSTRUCTION.  HEALY V. RATTA, 292
U.S. 263, 270; AND SEE ELGIN V. MARSHALL, 106 U.S. 578, 580. 
ACCORDINGLY, IF A PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FACTS ARE
CHALLENGED BY THE DEFENDANT, THE PLAINTIFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF
SUPPORTING THE ALLEGATIONS BY COMPETENT PROOF.  MCNUTT V. GENERAL
MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178, 188-89; KVOS, INC. V. ASSOCIATED
PRESS, 299 U.S. 269, 278; GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66, 72.  THE BILL
MUST BE DISMISSED IF THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
ALLEGATIONS AS TO JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  AND OUR REVIEW OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT MUST BE
CONFINED TO THIS RECORD.  HENNEFORD V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 303
U.S. 17, 19; CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583, 589-90. 

SINCE THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN THE VARIOUS AGREEMENTS UPON WHICH
THE PLAINTIFFS' ACTION IS FOUNDED, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DETERMINING
WHETHER THIS IS A SUIT "IN WHICH SEVERAL PLAINTIFFS, HAVING A COMMON
UNDIVIDED INTEREST, UNITE TO ENFORCE A SINGLE TITLE OR RIGHT, AND IN
WHICH IT IS ENOUGH THAT THEIR INTERESTS COLLECTIVELY EQUAL THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT," LION BONDING CO. V. KARATZ, 262 U.S. 77, 86;
SEE SHIELDS V. THOMAS, 17 HOW.  3, 5; TROY BANK V. WHITEHEAD & CO., 222
U.S. 39, 40-41; GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66, 74-75, OR ONE IN WHICH "THE
MATTERS IN DISPUTE ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, AND ARE JOINED IN ONE
SUIT FOR CONVENIENCE OR ECONOMY," DAVIS V. SCHWARTZ, 155 U.S. 631, 647;
SEE CLAY V. FIELD, 138 U.S. 464, 479-80; RUSSELL V. STANSELL, 105 U.S.
303.  AGGREGATION OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM CANNOT BE MADE MERELY BECAUSE
THE CLAIMS ARE DERIVED FROM A SINGLE INSTRUMENT, PINEL V. PINEL, 240
U.S. 594, OR BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST, CLARK
V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583.  IN A DIVERSITY LITIGATION THE VALUE
OF THE "MATTER IN CONTROVERSY" IS MEASURED NOT BY THE MONETARY RESULT
OF DETERMINING THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED, BUT BY ITS PECUNIARY CONSEQUENCE
TO THOSE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION.  WHELESS V. ST. LOUIS, 180 U.S.
379, 382; OLIVER V. ALEXANDER, 6 PET. 143, 147. 

THE RECORD CONTAINS NO SHOWING OF THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNT, AND THE DISTRICT COURT WAS THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  THE
JUDGMENT WILL BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























D'OENCH, DUHME & CO. V. F.D.I.C., 315 U.S. 447 


NO. 206.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 117 F.2D
491, AFFIRMED. 


1.  JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF AN ACTION BY THE FEDERAL
DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION TO COLLECT A NOTE, PART OF THE ASSETS
ACQUIRED BY THE CORPORATION AS COLLATERAL SECURING A LOAN MADE BY IT TO
A STATE BANK, IS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS A FEDERAL
CORPORATION SUING UNDER AN ACT OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZING IT TO SUE AND BE
SUED "IN ANY COURT OF LAW OR EQUITY, STATE OR FEDERAL," AND PROVIDING
THAT "ALL SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE AT COMMON LAW OR IN EQUITY TO WHICH
THE CORPORATION SHALL BE A PARTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO ARISE UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, SEC. 12B.  P. 455. 

2.  WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR ELECTRIC MFG. CO.,
313 U.S. 487, REQUIRING A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO FOLLOW THE CONFLICT
OF-LAW RULES OF THE STATE IN WHICH IT SITS, IS APPLICABLE WHERE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION IS NOT BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, NEED NOT BE
DECIDED WHERE THE ISSUE IS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  P. 456. 

3.  IN VIEW OF THE FEDERAL POLICY EVINCED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT,
SEC. 12B (S) AND FORMER SUBDIVISION (Y), TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION AND THE PUBLIC FUNDS WHICH IT ADMINISTERS AGAINST
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE ASSETS OF BANKS WHICH IT INSURES OR TO WHICH
IT MAKES LOANS, THE MAKER OF A NOTE WHICH WAS PART OF THE ASSETS OF A
STATE BANK WHEN THE CORPORATION INSURED IT AND WAS ACQUIRED LATER BY
THE CORPORATION AS PART OF THE COLLATERAL FURNISHED BY THE BANK FOR A
SUBSEQUENT LOAN, IS ESTOPPED TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CORPORATION UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE NOTE WAS ACCOMMODATION PAPER, GIVEN WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION AND UPON AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE COLLECTED,
IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE BANK TO CARRY IT AS A REAL ASSET IN LIEU OF
DEFAULTED PAPER AND THEREBY DECEIVE THE PUBLIC EXAMINERS.  PP. 459,
461. 

4.  ALTHOUGH THE MAKER OF THE NOTE HERE INVOLVED DID NOT KNOW THAT IT
WAS TO BE USED TO DECEIVE THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
WHICH HAD NOT THEN BEEN CREATED, YET THE PERMISSION WHICH THE MAKER
GAVE THE BANK TO CARRY THE NOTE AS A REAL ASSET WAS A CONTINUING ONE
AND HAD NOT BEEN REVOKED WHEN THE CORPORATION ACQUIRED THE PAPER; AND
THAT PERMISSION MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE INCLUDED AUTHORITY FROM THE
MAKER TO TREAT THE NOTE AS GENUINE FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXAMINATION BY
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS FOR GENERAL BANKING ACTIVITIES.  P. 459. 

5.  INASMUCH AS THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION WAS
AUTHORIZED TO INSURE A STATE BANK ONLY ON A CERTIFICATE FROM STATE
AUTHORITY THAT THE BANK WAS SOLVENT, IT IS PRESUMED THAT IN THIS CASE
SUCH CERTIFICATE WAS GIVEN.  P. 460. 

6.  THE INABILITY OF THE ACCOMMODATION MAKER TO PLEAD THE DEFENSE OF
NO CONSIDERATION DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE COMMISSION OF A PENAL OFFENSE
IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 12B (S) OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, BUT UPON
WHETHER THE NOTE WAS DESIGNED TO DECEIVE THE CREDITORS OR THE PUBLIC
EXAMINING AUTHORITY, OR WOULD TEND TO HAVE THAT EFFECT.  P. 460. 

7.  THE FACT THAT THE NOTE WAS CHARGED OFF BY THE BANK AFTER THE BANK
HAD BEEN INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AND
BEFORE THE LATTER HAD ACQUIRED THE NOTE UNDER THE LOAN, IS IMMATERIAL,
SINCE A NOTE MAY BE NONETHELESS AN ASSET THOUGH IT IS CHARGED OFF, AND
THE SUIT HERE IS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE CORPORATION AS INSURER. 
THE RIGHT TO RECOVER ON THE NOTE IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON PROOF OF LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE FRAUDULENT PRACTICE.  P. 460. 

D'OENCH, DUHME & CO., INC. V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 592, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
HOLDING THE PRESENT PETITIONER LIABLE TO THE RESPONDENT ON A PROMISSORY
NOTE. 

THE RENEWAL NOTE SUED ON SHOWS ON ITS FACE THAT IT WASN'T A
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.  IT IS AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICY OF MISSOURI TO
HOLD A CITIZEN OF MISSOURI LIABLE ON AN ACCOMMODATION NOTE UNDER THE
FACTS IN THIS CASE, PARTICULARLY SO AS THERE WAS A SPECIFIC AGREEMENT
NOT TO SUE WHICH CONSTITUTES A COMPLETE DEFENSE UNDER THE LAW OF THE
FORUM.  TRAUTMAN V. SCHROEDER, 230 MO. APP. 985; WILLIAMS V. KESSLER,
295 S.W. 482; PEOPLES BANK V. RANKIN, 220 MO. APP. 205. 

UNDER THE MISSOURI RULE OF CONFLICT OF LAWS THE RENEWAL NOTE SUED ON
WOULD BE CONSTRUED TO BE A MISSOURI CONTRACT AND SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE
DEFENSES URGED BY PETITIONER.  SEE HANSEN V. DUVALL, 62 S.W.2D 732,
738; FEDERAL CHEMICAL CO. V. HITT, 155 S.W.2D 897, 902. 

EVEN IF THE NOTE HAD BEEN DELIVERED IN ILLINOIS, WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN,
IT WOULD HAVE STILL REMAINED A MISSOURI CONTRACT.  SMOOT V. JUDD, 161
MO. 673. 

R.S. MO. 1929, SEC. 806, CITED BY RESPONDENT, IS SIMPLY A RULE OF
EVIDENCE DISPENSING WITH PROOF OF A FOREIGN LAW ONLY IF IT IS PLEADED. 
CLEARLY IT IS NOT A RULE OF PLEADING. 

THE ACTS CLAIMED TO CONSTITUTE ESTOPPEL OCCURRED BEFORE THE FEDERAL
ACT WAS PASSED AND BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE CORPORATE EXISTENCE OF
THE RESPONDENT.  FURTHERMORE, THE BANK REMAINED SOLVENT FOR MORE THAN
FIVE YEARS AFTER THE NOTE SUED ON WAS GIVEN AND FOR MORE THAN THREE
YEARS AFTER IT WAS CHARGED OFF BY THE BANK.  THE NOTE SHOWED ON ITS
FACE THAT IT WAS NONNEGOTIABLE, AND AT THE TIME THE BANK CLOSED WAS IN
DEFAULT OF TEN SEMI-ANNUAL INTEREST PAYMENTS AND IN DEFAULT AS TO
PRINCIPAL.  THIS, UNDER MISSOURI LAW, CHARGED RESPONDENT WITH NOTICE OF
DEFENSES.  FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH IT WAS EXECUTED BY A DULY LICENSED
BROKERAGE HOUSE, A MEMBER OF THE ST. LOUIS STOCK EXCHANGE, THE BANK,
THREE YEARS PRIOR TO ITS FAILURE AND WHILE STILL SOLVENT, HAD CHARGED
THE NOTE OFF (ALTHOUGH IT WAS APPARENTLY A GOOD AND COLLECTIBLE NOTE
UNLESS IT WAS SUBJECT TO SOME DEFENSE). 

RESPONDENT WAS NOT DAMAGED.  THE ASSERTED ESTOPPEL IS WHOLLY WITHOUT
SUBSTANCE. 

DETERMINATION OF THE PLACE OF CONTRACT BY GENERAL LAW RATHER THAN THE
LAW OF MISSOURI, THE FORUM STATE, WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  KLAXON CO. V.
STENTOR ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 313 U.S. 487; GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313 U.S.
498. 

JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE IS GOVERNED BY U.S.C., TIT. 12, SEC.
264(J)(FOURTH), WHICH PERMITS THE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION TO SUE OR BE
SUED IN ANY STATE OR FEDERAL COURT. 

THE SPIRIT OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AND SUBSEQUENT
CASES, CALLS FOR A UNIFORMITY OF DECISION SO AS NOT TO "DISTURB EQUAL
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN COORDINATE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS
SITTING SIDE BY SIDE." 

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE ERIE CASE IS THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS
DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DECLARE RULES OF DECISION IN THE BROAD FIELD
OF GENERAL LAW. 

CF. KUHN V. FAIRMONT COAL CO., 215 U.S. 349. 

IT IS UNIMPORTANT WHETHER JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT IS
INVOKED BY REASON OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OR ON SOME OTHER BASIS
GIVING THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS COORDINATE JURISDICTION.  CF.
MISHAWAKA RUBBER & WOOLEN MFG. CO. V. S.S. KRESGE CO., 119 F.2D 316. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW IN MISSOURI THAT THE COURTS OF
THAT STATE WILL NOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAW OF ANY FOREIGN
STATE; THAT SUCH LAW MUST BE PLEADED AND PROVED IF A PARTY EXPECTS TO
RELY THEREON, AND THAT A FOREIGN LAW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PLEADED OR
PROVED WILL BE PRESUMED TO BE THE SAME AS THE LAW OF MISSOURI.  SEE
ROSITZKY V. ROSITZKY, 329 MO. 662; MADDEN V. RAILROAD, 192 S.W. 455,
456; KINSLEY BANK V. WOODS, 61 S.W.2D 384; GORDON V. ANDREWS, 2 S.W.2D
809. 

IF THIS CASE HAD BEEN TRIED IN THE STATE COURT IN MISSOURI, EVEN IF
THE MISSOURI COURT HAD REACHED THE CONCLUSION UNDER THE MISSOURI LAW
THAT THIS WAS AN ILLINOIS CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS,
THE MISSOURI COURT WOULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THE ILLINOIS LAW, NOT FROM
THE ILLINOIS DECISIONS AS THE COURT BELOW DID, BUT FROM THE MISSOURI
DECISIONS, FOR THE REASON THAT THE ILLINOIS LAW NOT HAVING BEEN PLEADED
OR PROVED WOULD BE PRESUMED TO BE THE SAME AS THE MISSOURI LAW.  IT
SEEMS SELF-EVIDENT THAT IN THIS CASE THE DOCTRINE OF THE ERIE CASE WAS
NOT PROPERLY APPLIED.  WEST V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., 312
U.S. 223, AND FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO. V. FIELD, 312 U.S. 169. 

THIS COURT, PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN THE ERIE CASE, UNIFORMLY APPLIED
THE VERY RULE FOR WHICH WE ARE CONTENDING TO CASES WHICH CAME HERE ON
WRIT OF ERROR OR CERTIORARI FROM A STATE COURT (SEE HANLEY V. DONOGHUE,
116 U.S. 1; RENAUD V. ABBOTT, 116 U.S. 277), ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT APPLY
THE RULE IN CASES COMING UP THROUGH THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR THE REASON
THAT IT WAS THEN THE ACCEPTED RULE OF GENERAL FEDERAL LAW THAT THE
FEDERAL COURTS TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAWS OF ALL STATES. 
HOWEVER, THE ERIE CASE HELD THERE WAS NO GENERAL FEDERAL LAW. 
THEREFORE, THE RULE OF STATE LAW APPLICABLE IN A PARTICULAR FORUM MUST
BE APPLIED IN ALL CASES WHERE THERE IS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF BOTH
STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, AS HERE.  WAGGAMAN V. GENERAL FINANCE CO.,
AND WARFIELD V. GENERAL FINANCE CO., 116 F.2D 254, 257; A.B. V. C.D.,
36 F.SUPP.  85. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO DETERMINE WHETHER A MISSOURI
COURT WOULD REFUSE TO APPLY THE ILLINOIS LAW BECAUSE OF REPUGNANCY
BETWEEN IT AND THE LAW OF MISSOURI.  GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313 U.S. 498. 

IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN MISSOURI THAT A RENEWAL OF AN ACCOMMODATION
NOTE IN NO WISE ENLARGES THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES WHEN IT IS GIVEN
WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, AND IN NO WAY CHANGES THE RIGHTS UNDER THE
ORIGINAL NOTE.  IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL NOTES WERE EXECUTED IN
MISSOURI AND MADE PAYABLE AT THE OFFICE OF THE MAKER IN MISSOURI.  THE
MISSOURI RULE IS INDISPUTABLE THAT ALL DEFENSES THAT WERE AVAILABLE
AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ACCOMMODATION NOTE ARE AVAILABLE AGAINST RENEWAL
NOTES.  MASSA V. HUEHNERHOFF, 59 S.W.2D 723; FARMERS BANK V. HARRIS,
250 S.W. 946, 950; DAVIES COUNTY BANK V. GRANTHAM, 13 S.W.2D 1079,
1081; PEOPLES BANK V. YAGER, 221 MO. APP. 955; FORD V. FORD ROOFING
CO., 285 S.W. 538, 541. 

WHETHER THE FOREIGN LAW MUST BE PLEADED AND PROVED IS NOT A
PROCEDURAL RULE.  EVEN IF IT WERE, THE SAME RESULT WOULD BE REACHED,
FOR THEN THE MATTER WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE CONFORMITY ACT.  LYON V.
MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSN., 305 U.S. 484. 

THE THREE CASES TO WHICH RESPONDENT REFERS AS INDICATING THAT THE
RULE IN THE ERIE CASE "IS PROBABLY NOT APPLICABLE TO A SUIT TO WHICH
THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY" ARE CLEARLY INAPPLICABLE AND SUGGEST A
CONTRARY INFERENCE.  IN EACH OF THOSE CASES THIS COURT SPECIFICALLY
STATED THAT FEDERAL STATUTES OR TREATIES WERE INVOLVED, AND THAT NO
LOCAL COMMON LAW APPLIED, THUS INDICATING THAT HAD LOCAL COMMON LAW
BEEN APPLICABLE, AS IN THE CASE AT BAR, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED. 
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343; ROYAL INDEMNITY
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 289; DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190. 

THE COURT BELOW WAS CORRECT IN APPLYING THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, ASSUMING
THAT SUCH LAW DID NOT NEED TO BE PLEADED OR PROVED. 

THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE HERETOFORE TAKEN JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAWS
OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  AS A GENERAL RULE, HOWEVER, THE STATE COURTS OF
MISSOURI MAY NOTICE THE LAWS OF A SISTER STATE ONLY IF PLEADED. 

THE DOCTRINE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, DID NOT
PRECLUDE THE COURTS BELOW FROM TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE ILLINOIS
LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH TRADITIONAL FEDERAL PRACTICE. 

A MISSOURI STATUTE ABROGATED THE COMMON LAW REQUIREMENT THAT THE LAWS
OF SISTER STATES MUST BE PROVED BY THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE, AND
LEFT ONLY THE PLEADING REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS INAPPLICABLE IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS. 

EVEN IF THE ABROGATION OF THE MISSOURI COMMON LAW RULE OF PROOF IS
CONDITIONED UPON THE PLEADING OF A SISTER-STATE LAW, THE DOCTRINE OF
THE ERIE CASE DID NOT PRECLUDE THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM TAKING JUDICIAL
NOTICE OF THE ILLINOIS LAW. 

PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED TO DENY LIABILITY ON THE NOTE UNDER FEDERAL
STATUTORY LAW AND ALSO UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, WHICH THE COURTS OF MISSOURI
WOULD BE BOUND TO APPLY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT INSTITUTED THIS SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ON A
DEMAND NOTE FOR $5000, EXECUTED BY PETITIONER IN 1933 AND PAYABLE TO
THE BELLEVILLE BANK & TRUST CO., BELLEVILLE, ILLINOIS.  RESPONDENT
INSURED THAT BANK JANUARY 1, 1934; AND IT ACQUIRED THE NOTE IN 1938 AS
PART OF THE COLLATERAL SECURING A LOAN OF OVER $1,000,000 TO THE BANK,
MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF THE LATTER'S DEPOSIT
LIABILITIES BY ANOTHER BANK.  SINCE 1935 THE NOTE HAD BEEN AMONG THE
CHARGED OFF ASSETS OF THE BANK.  THE NOTE WAS EXECUTED BY PETITIONER IN
RENEWAL OF NOTES WHICH IT HAD EXECUTED IN 1926.  PETITIONER, WHO WAS
ENGAGED IN THE SECURITIES BUSINESS AT ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, HAD SOLD THE
BANK CERTAIN BONDS WHICH LATER DEFAULTED.  THE ORIGINAL NOTES WERE
EXECUTED TO ENABLE THE BANK TO CARRY THE NOTES AND NOT SHOW ANY PAST
DUE BONDS.  PROCEEDS OF THE BONDS WERE TO BE CREDITED ON THE NOTES. 
FN1  THE RECEIPTS FOR THE NOTES CONTAINED THE STATEMENT, "THIS NOTE IS
GIVEN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING IT WILL NOT BE CALLED FOR PAYMENT.  ALL
INTEREST PAYMENTS TO BE REPAID."  RESPONDENT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THE RECEIPTS UNTIL AFTER DEMAND FOR PAYMENT ON THE RENEWAL
NOTE WAS MADE IN 1938.  CERTAIN INTEREST PAYMENTS ON THE NOTES WERE
MADE PRIOR TO RENEWAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING THEM "AS LIVE PAPER." 
PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT, WHO SIGNED THE ORIGINAL NOTES, KNEW THAT THEY
WERE EXECUTED SO THAT THE PAST DUE BONDS WOULD NOT APPEAR AMONG THE
ASSETS OF THE BANK, AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE INTEREST PAYMENTS WAS
"TO KEEP THE NOTES ALIVE."  THE ORIGINAL NOTES WERE SIGNED IN ST.
LOUIS, MISSOURI, WERE PAYABLE AT PETITIONER'S OFFICE THERE, AND WERE
DELIVERED TO THE PAYEE IN ILLINOIS.  THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT DISCLOSE
WHERE THE NOTE SUED UPON WAS SIGNED, THOUGH IT WAS DATED AT BELLEVILLE,
ILLINOIS, AND PAYABLE TO THE BANK THERE. 

THE MAIN POINT OF CONTROVERSY HERE REVOLVES AROUND THE QUESTION AS TO
WHAT LAW IS APPLICABLE.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT ILLINOIS LAW WAS
APPLICABLE AND THAT PETITIONER WAS LIABLE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS APPLIED "GENERAL LAW" TO DETERMINE THAT THE NOTE WAS AN
ILLINOIS RATHER THAN A MISSOURI CONTRACT; AND IT DECIDED THAT, UNDER
ILLINOIS LAW, RESPONDENT WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE
AND ENTITLED TO RECOVER.  117 F.2D 491.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT,
UNDER THE RULE OF KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 313 U.S.
487, A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN MISSOURI MUST APPLY MISSOURI'S CONFLICT
OF LAW RULES; THAT IF, AS WAS THE CASE HERE, ILLINOIS LAW WAS NOT
PLEADED OR PROVED, A MISSOURI COURT WOULD HAVE ASCERTAINED ILLINOIS LAW
FROM MISSOURI DECISIONS, SINCE IN SUCH A CASE ILLINOIS LAW WOULD BE
PRESUMED TO BE THE SAME AS THE MISSOURI LAW; AND THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW THAT SAME COURSE.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION
BELOW AND KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR ELECTRIC MFG. CO., SUPRA. 

WE HELD IN THE LATTER DECISION THAT A FAILURE OF A FEDERAL COURT IN A
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP CASE TO FOLLOW THE FORUM'S CONFLICT OF LAWS
RULES "WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITY WITHIN A STATE"
UPON WHICH ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, WAS BASED.  313 U.S.
AT P. 496.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE,
HOWEVER, IS NOT BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  RESPONDENT, A
FEDERAL CORPORATION, BRINGS THIS SUIT UNDER AN ACT OF CONGRESS
AUTHORIZING IT TO SUE OR BE SUED "IN ANY COURT OF LAW OR EQUITY, STATE
OR FEDERAL."  FN2 SEC. 12B, FEDERAL RESERVE ACT; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 264(J);
48 STAT. 162, 168, 172; 49 STAT. 684, 692.  AND SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 42,
43 STAT. 941.  WHETHER THE RULE OF THE KLAXON CASE APPLIES WHERE
FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS NOT BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, WE NEED
NOT DECIDE.  FOR WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LIABILITY OF PETITIONER ON
THE NOTE INVOLVES DECISION OF A FEDERAL, NOT A STATE, QUESTION UNDER
THE RULE OF DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190. 

PETITIONER IN ITS ANSWER ALLEGED THAT THE NOTE WAS GIVEN WITHOUT ANY
CONSIDERATION WHATEVER AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT NO SUIT WOULD BE
BROUGHT THEREON; AND THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. 
RESPONDENT IN ITS REPLY ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER WAS ESTOPPED TO ASSERT
THOSE DEFENSES ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE NOTE WAS EXECUTED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PERMITTING THE BANK TO AVOID HAVING ITS RECORDS SHOW ANY
PAST DUE BONDS; THAT THIS CONSTITUTED A MISREPRESENTATION WHICH WOULD
DECEIVE THE CREDITORS OF THE BANK, THE STATE BANKING AUTHORITIES AND
RESPONDENT; THAT PETITIONER PARTICIPATED IN THE MISREPRESENTATION NOT
ONLY BY REASON OF ITS KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE PURPOSE WHICH THE NOTE WOULD
SERVE BUT ALSO BY REASON OF ITS PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN ORDER TO MAKE
THE NOTES APPEAR AS A GOOD ASSET.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT
RESPONDENT WAS AN INNOCENT HOLDER OF THE NOTE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR
VALUE AND THAT PETITIONER WAS ESTOPPED TO ASSERT WANT OF CONSIDERATION
AS A DEFENSE.    SEC. 12B (S) OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, 12 U.S.C.
SEC. 264(S), PROVIDES THAT "WHOEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING ANY
LOAN FROM THE CORPORATION  ...  OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING IN
ANY WAY THE ACTION OF THE CORPORATION UNDER THIS SECTION, MAKES ANY
STATEMENT, KNOWING IT TO BE FALSE, OR WILFULLY OVERVALUES ANY SECURITY,
SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT
FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS, OR BOTH."  SUBDIVISION (Y) OF THE SAME
FN3  THAT SUCH A STATE BANK "WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE AUTHORITY HAVING
SUPERVISION" OF THE BANK AND ON "CERTIFICATION" TO RESPONDENT "BY SUCH
AUTHORITY" THAT THE BANK "IS IN SOLVENT CONDITION" SHALL "AFTER
EXAMINATION BY, AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF" THE RESPONDENT BE ENTITLED TO
INSURANCE.  FN4 

THESE PROVISIONS REVEAL A FEDERAL POLICY TO PROTECT RESPONDENT, AND
THE PUBLIC FUNDS WHICH IT ADMINISTERS, AGAINST MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO
THE SECURITIES OR OTHER ASSETS IN THE PORTFOLIOS OF THE BANKS WHICH
RESPONDENT INSURES OR TO WHICH IT MAKES LOANS.  IF PETITIONER AND THE
BANK HAD ARRANGED TO USE THE NOTE FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF DECEIVING
RESPONDENT ON INSURANCE OF THE BANK, OR ON THE MAKING OF THE LOAN, THE
CASE WOULD BE ON ALL FOURS WITH DEITRICK V. GREANEY, SUPRA.  IN THAT
CASE, THE DEFENDANT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING A NATIONAL BANK'S
ACQUISITION OF ITS OWN STOCK, HAD THE SHARES HELD BY A STRAW MAN AND
EXECUTED A NOTE TO THE BANK, IT BEING AGREED THAT THE SHARES WERE TO BE
HELD FOR THE BANK AND THAT HE WAS NOT TO BE LIABLE ON THE NOTE.  WE
HELD AS A MATTER OF FEDERAL LAW, BASED ON THE POLICY OF THE NATIONAL
BANKING ACT TO PREVENT THE IMPAIRMENT OF A BANK'S CAPITAL RESOURCES BY
PROHIBITING SUCH ACQUISITIONS, THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT RELY ON HIS
OWN WRONGFUL ACT TO DEFEAT THE OBLIGATION OF THE NOTE AS AGAINST THE
RECEIVER OF THE BANK.  THE DEFENDANT'S ACT WAS ITSELF A VIOLATION OF
THE STATUTE.  309 U.S. P. 198.  BUT THE REACH OF THE RULE WHICH
PREVENTS AN ACCOMMODATION MAKER OF A NOTE FROM SETTING UP THE DEFENSE
OF NO CONSIDERATION AGAINST A BANK OR ITS RECEIVER OR CREDITORS IS NOT
DELIMITED TO THOSE INSTANCES WHERE HE HAS COMMITTED A STATUTORY
OFFENSE.  AS INDICATED BY THE CASES CITED IN THE DEITRICK CASE (309
U.S. P. 198), AN ACCOMMODATION MAKER IS NOT ALLOWED THAT DEFENSE AS
AGAINST THE RECEIVER OF THE BANK AND ITS CREDITORS, OR AT TIMES EVEN AS
AGAINST THE BANK ITSELF, WHERE HIS ACT CONTRAVENES A GENERAL POLICY TO
PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF BANKING FROM SUCH SECRET AGREEMENTS.  IN
SOME OF THOSE CASES, THE ACCOMMODATION MAKER WAS PARTY TO THE SCHEME OF
DECEPTION, IN THE SENSE THAT HE HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTENDED USE
OF THE PAPER.  PUTNAM V. CHASE, 106 ORE.  440, 212 P. 365; VALLELY V.
DEVANEY, 49 N.D. 1107, 194 N.W. 903; NIBLACK V. FARLEY, 286 ILL. 536,
122 N.E. 160; CEDAR STATE BANK V. OLSON, 116 KAN. 320, 226 P. 995; BAY
PARKWAY NAT. BANK V. SHALOM, 270 N.Y. 172, 200 N.E. 685; GERMAN
AMERICAN FINANCE CORP. V. MERCHANTS & MFRS.  STATE BANK, 177 MINN. 529,
225 N.W. 891.  IN OTHERS HE HAD "NO POSITIVE IDEA OF COMMITTING ANY
FRAUD UPON ANY ONE."  DENNY V. FISHTER, 238 KY. 127, 129, 36 S.W.2D
864, 865; IGLEHART V. TODD, 203 IND. 427, 442, 178 N.E. 685; MOUNT
VERNON TRUST CO. V. BERGOFF, 272 N.Y. 192, 5 N.E.2D 196.  AND SEE PAULY
V. O'BRIEN, 69 F. 460; WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS (REV. ED.)  SEC.  1632.
YET, HE HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO ESCAPE LIABILITY ON THE NOTE AS AGAINST
THE RECEIVER EVEN THOUGH HE WAS "VERY IGNORANT AND ILL-INFORMED OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION."  RINALDI V. YOUNG, 67 APP. D.C. 305,
307, 92 F.2D 229, 231.  INDEED, RECOVERY WAS ALLOWED BY THE BANK ITSELF
IN MOUNT VERNON TRUST CO. V. BERGOFF, SUPRA, WHERE THE COURT SAID (272
N.Y. P. 196, 5 N.E.2D 197):  "THE DEFENDANT MAY NOT HAVE INTENDED TO
DECEIVE ANY PERSON, BUT WHEN SHE EXECUTED AND DELIVERED TO THE
PLAINTIFF BANK AN INSTRUMENT IN THE FORM OF A NOTE, SHE WAS CHARGEABLE
WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT, FOR THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE BANK, SHE WAS AIDING
THE BANK TO CONCEAL THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION.  PUBLIC POLICY REQUIRES
THAT A PERSON WHO, FOR THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE BANK EXECUTES AN
INSTRUMENT WHICH IS IN FORM A BINDING OBLIGATION, SHOULD BE ESTOPPED
FROM THEREAFTER ASSERTING THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY THE PARTIES AGREED THAT
THE INSTRUMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED." 

FURTHERMORE, THE FACT THAT CREDITORS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DECEIVED OR
SPECIFICALLY INJURED IS IRRELEVANT.  AS WE HELD IN THE DEITRICK CASE
(309 U.S. P. 198), IT IS THE "EVIL TENDENCY" OF THE ACTS TO CONTRAVENE
THE POLICY GOVERNING BANKING TRANSACTIONS WHICH LIES AT THE ROOT OF THE
RULE.  SEE 7 ZOLLMAN, BANKS & BANKING (1936) SEC. 4783. 

THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE APPLICABLE HERE, BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL POLICY
EVIDENCED IN THIS ACT TO PROTECT RESPONDENT, A FEDERAL CORPORATION,
FROM MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO INDUCE OR INFLUENCE THE ACTION OF
RESPONDENT, INCLUDING MISSTATEMENTS AS TO THE GENUINENESS OR INTEGRITY
OF SECURITIES IN THE PORTFOLIOS OF BANKS WHICH IT INSURES OR TO WHICH
IT MAKES LOANS.  THOSE PRINCIPLES CALL FOR AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE
JUDGMENT BELOW. 

PETITIONER, AT THE TIME IT EXECUTED THE RENEWAL NOTE IN 1933, DID NOT
KNOW THAT IT WAS TO BE USED TO DECEIVE RESPONDENT, AS THE ACT CREATING
RESPONDENT WAS NOT PASSED UNTIL LATER.  BUT THE PERMISSION WHICH IT
GAVE THE BANK TO CARRY THE NOTE AS A REAL ASSET WAS A CONTINUING ONE
AND NOT REVOKED.  THAT PERMISSION MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE INCLUDED
AUTHORITY FOR THE BANK TO TREAT THE NOTE AS GENUINE FOR PURPOSES OF
EXAMINATION AT THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS FOR ITS
GENERAL BANKING ACTIVITIES. 

RESPONDENT INSURED THE BANK IN 1934.  THE LOAN WAS MADE IN 1938 TO
SATISFY RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY TO THE DEPOSITORS OF THE BANK UNDER THAT
INSURANCE AGREEMENT.  RESPONDENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO INSURE SUCH A BANK
ONLY ON A CERTIFICATE FROM THE STATE AUTHORITY THAT THE BANK WAS
SOLVENT.  WE ASSUME THAT SUCH CERTIFICATE WAS GIVEN, FOR TO ASSUME
OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO INFER THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS
STATUTORY DUTIES.  THE GENUINENESS OF ASSETS OSTENSIBLY HELD BY A BANK
IS CERTAINLY GERMANE TO A DETERMINATION OF SOLVENCY.  CLEARLY
RESPONDENT IS A MEMBER OF THE CREDITOR CLASS WHICH THE BANKING
AUTHORITIES WERE INTENDED TO PROTECT.  PLAINLY ONE WHO GIVES SUCH A
NOTE TO A BANK WITH A SECRET AGREEMENT THAT IT WILL NOT BE ENFORCED
MUST BE PRESUMED TO KNOW THAT IT WILL CONCEAL THE TRUTH FROM THE
VIGILANT EYES OF THE BANK EXAMINERS.  IF THE BANK HAD WILFULLY PADDED
THE BANK'S ASSETS WITH THE SPURIOUS NOTE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN INSURANCE
FROM RESPONDENT, THERE SEEMS NO DOUBT BUT THAT SEC. 12B (S) WOULD HAVE
BEEN VIOLATED.  MOREOVER, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE INABILITY OF AN
ACCOMMODATION MAKER TO PLEAD THE DEFENSE OF NO CONSIDERATION DOES NOT
DEPEND ON HIS COMMISSION OF A PENAL OFFENSE.  THE TEST IS WHETHER THE
NOTE WAS DESIGNED TO DECEIVE THE CREDITORS OR THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY, OR
WOULD TEND TO HAVE THAT EFFECT.  IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT IN THIS TYPE OF
CASE THAT THE MAKER LENT HIMSELF TO A SCHEME OR ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY THE
BANKING AUTHORITY ON WHICH RESPONDENT RELIED IN INSURING THE BANK WAS
OR WAS LIKELY TO BE MISLED.  AS WE HAVE SAID, PETITIONER'S AUTHORITY TO
THE BANK TO USE THIS NOTE WAS A CONTINUING ONE.  THE USE TO WHICH IT
WAS PUT WAS NOT UNUSUAL BUT WITHIN THE NORMAL SCOPE OF BANKING
ACTIVITIES.  THE FACT THAT THE NOTE WAS CHARGED OFF BY THE BANK
SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME WHEN RESPONDENT INSURED THE BANK AND PRIOR TO
THE TIME WHEN IT ACQUIRED THE NOTE UNDER THE LOAN IS IMMATERIAL.  A
NOTE MAY BE NONETHELESS AN ASSET THOUGH IT IS CHARGED OFF.  AND
RESPONDENT IS SUING HERE TO PROTECT ITS RIGHTS AS AN INSURER, A
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BANK WHICH WAS CREATED PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN THE
NOTE WAS CHARGED OFF.  THE FACT THAT SUBSEQUENTLY RESPONDENT LEARNED
THAT THE NOTE HAD BEEN CHARGED OFF CERTAINLY WAS NOT NOTICE THAT THE
NOTE WAS SPURIOUS.  IT IS INDEED CLEAR THAT AT NO TIME PRIOR TO THE
DEMAND FOR PAYMENT DID RESPONDENT KNOW THAT THE NOTE WAS NOT GENUINE. 
IT NEEDS NO ARGUMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INTEGRITY OF OSTENSIBLE
ASSETS HAS A DIRECT RELATION TO SOLVENCY.  AND IT IS NO MORE A DEFENSE
HERE THAN IT WAS IN THE DEITRICK CASE THAT NO DAMAGE WAS SHOWN TO HAVE
RESULTED FROM THE FRAUDULENT OR UNLAWFUL ACT.  THE FEDERAL POLICY
EXPRESSED IN THE ACT, LIKE ITS COUNTERPART IN STATE LAW, IS NOT
DEPENDENT ON PROOF OF LOSS OR DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE FRAUDULENT
PRACTICE. 

THOUGH PETITIONER WAS NOT A PARTICIPANT IN THIS PARTICULAR
TRANSACTION AND, SO FAR AS APPEARS, WAS IGNORANT OF IT, NEVERTHELESS IT
WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF THE FALSE STATUS OF THE NOTE IN THE
HANDS OF THE BANK.  IT THEREFORE CANNOT BE HEARD TO ASSERT THAT THE
FEDERAL POLICY TO PROTECT RESPONDENT AGAINST SUCH FRAUDULENT PRACTICES
SHOULD NOT BAR ITS DEFENSE TO THE NOTE.  CRIMINAL PENALTIES ARE NO MORE
THE SOLE SANCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL POLICY EXPRESSED IN THIS ACT THAN
WERE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES IMPOSED ON THE AGREEMENT IN THE DEITRICK
CASE.  IF THE SECRET AGREEMENT WERE ALLOWED AS A DEFENSE IN THIS CASE
THE MAKER OF THE NOTE WOULD BE ENABLED TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTE BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF AN UNDISCLOSED AND FRAUDULENT
ARRANGEMENT WHICH THE STATUTE CONDEMNS AND WHICH THE MAKER OF THE NOTE
MADE POSSIBLE.  THE FEDERAL POLICY UNDER THIS ACT OF PROTECTING
RESPONDENT IN ITS VARIOUS FUNCTIONS AGAINST SUCH ARRANGEMENTS IS NO
LESS CLEAR OR EMPHATIC THAN THE FEDERAL POLICY OF OUTLAWING PURCHASES
BY A BANK OF ITS OWN STOCK INVOLVED IN THE DEITRICK CASE.  CF. RINALDI
V. YOUNG, SUPRA; FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORP. V. WOODS, 34 F.SUPP.  296. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE BANK SOLD SOME OF THE BONDS IN 1937 FOR $100 AND CREDITED
THIS AMOUNT TO INTEREST DUE ON THE NOTE.  THIS CREDIT PAID INTEREST TO
MAY 1, 1933.  NO LATER PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON THE NOTE. 

FN2  THAT SUBDIVISION OF THE ACT FURTHER PROVIDES:  "ALL SUITS OF A
CIVIL NATURE AT COMMON LAW OR IN EQUITY TO WHICH THE CORPORATION SHALL
BE A PARTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO ARISE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES:  PROVIDED, THAT ANY SUCH SUIT TO WHICH THE CORPORATION IS A
PARTY IN ITS CAPACITY AS RECEIVER OF A STATE BANK AND WHICH INVOLVES
ONLY THE RIGHTS OR OBLIGATIONS OF DEPOSITORS, CREDITORS, STOCKHOLDERS
AND SUCH STATE BANK UNDER STATE LAW SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO ARISE UNDER
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  AND SEE S. REP. NO. 1007, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 5. 

FN3  THESE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION (Y) WERE DROPPED WHEN SEC. 12 B
WAS AMENDED BY THE BANKING ACT OF 1935.  49 STAT. 684.  SEE S. REP. NO.
1007, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 9. 

FN4  SUBDIVISION (Y) ALSO GAVE RESPONDENT POWER TO PRESCRIBE RULES
AND REGULATIONS FOR THE FURTHER EXAMINATION OF SUCH BANK.  THOUGH
SUBDIVISION (Y) WAS REVISED IN 1935, AS INDICATED IN NOTE 3, SUPRA,
SUBDIVISION (K)(2) OF THE AMENDED ACT GAVE RESPONDENT'S EXAMINERS POWER
"TO MAKE A THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF ALL THE AFFAIRS" OF SUCH BANKS AND
IN DOING SO "TO ADMINISTER OATHS AND TO EXAMINE AND TAKE AND PRESERVE
THE TESTIMONY OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS AND AGENTS THEREOF."  THEY WERE
DIRECTED TO MAKE A "FULL AND DETAILED REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF THE
BANK TO THE CORPORATION."  12 U.S.C. SEC. 264(K)(2). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND I CONCUR IN THE RESULT ON THE GROUND THAT IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER,
WHATEVER LAW BE DEEMED CONTROLLING.  IF ILLINOIS LAW GOVERNS,
RESPONDENT IS ADMITTEDLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER AS A HOLDER IN DUE
COURSE.  IF MISSOURI LAW GOVERNS, PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED TO ASSERT THE
DEFENSES ON WHICH IT NOW RELIES.  WHETHER THE CASE IS GOVERNED BY THE
LAW OF ONE STATE OR THE OTHER, OR BY "FEDERAL COMMON LAW" DRAWN HERE
FROM ONE STATE OR THE OTHER, THE RESULT IS THE SAME. 

WHEN THE ORIGINAL ACCOMMODATION NOTES WERE EXECUTED IN 1926,
PETITIONER FULLY KNEW THAT THE WHOLE TRANSACTION WAS AIMED AT GIVING
THE BANK AN APPEARANCE OF ASSETS WHERE THERE WERE NONE.  PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATIVE ADMITTED THAT THE BANK "SUGGESTED THAT WE ISSUE A NOTE
TO THE BANK," WHICH WOULD ENABLE IT "TO CARRY THIS NOTE AND NOT SHOW
ANY PAST DUE PAPER."  HE HAD BEEN IN THE INVESTMENT SECURITY BUSINESS
SINCE 1910; HE "KNEW WHAT THE BANK MEANT," AND THAT IT WAS SUBJECT TO
PERIODIC EXAMINATIONS BY THE STATE BANK EXAMINER, AND HE ASSUMED THE
BANK DID NOT WANT PAST DUE PAPER.  ON THESE FACTS THE TRIAL JUDGE HELD
THAT PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED TO ASSERT ABSENCE OF CONSIDERATION AS A
DEFENSE. 

NOTHING IN MISSOURI STATUTES OR DECISIONS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WOULD
WARRANT US IN SETTING ASIDE THIS RULING.  A CASE DECIDED IN 1901,
CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO. V. BRADY, 165 MO. 197, 65 S.W. 303, MIGHT
HAVE CALLED FOR A DIFFERENT RESULT.  THERE AN ACCOMMODATION MAKER WAS
HELD NOT ESTOPPED TO ASSERT ABSENCE OF CONSIDERATION AS A DEFENSE
AGAINST THE BANK'S RECEIVER, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD KNOWN THAT THE NOTE WAS
PART OF A SCHEME TO DECEIVE THE STATE BANKING AUTHORITIES BY SWELLING
THE APPARENT ASSETS OF THE BANK.  BUT IN 1920 THE MISSOURI SUPREME
COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE BRADY DECISION CAN NO LONGER BE TAKEN TO
REPRESENT THE LAW OF THAT STATE.  SUCH IS THE PURPORT OF BANK OF SLATER
V. UNION STATION BANK, 283 MO. 308, 320, 222 S.W. 993, 996: 

"THE FACTS IN THIS CASE INEVITABLY SUGGEST THE QUESTION (OF ESTOPPEL)
WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THIS PARAGRAPH.  COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, HOWEVER,
HAVE NOT RAISED IT - BEING DETERRED, DOUBTLESS, BY THE DECISION IN
TITLE & TRUST CO. V. BRADY, 165 MO. 197, WHERE A CONTRARY DOCTRINE IS
COUNTENANCED - AND WE THEREFORE REFRAIN FROM RULING UPON THE
PROPOSITION.  WE HAVE TOUCHED UPON IT, FOR THE REASON THAT IF THE BRADY
CASE, SUPRA, IS CONSIDERED AS ANNOUNCING 'THE MISSOURI RULE' UPON THIS
TOPIC, AS SOME COMMENTATORS HAVE SAID, THAT RULE IS APPARENTLY IN
CONFLICT WITH NUMEROUS AND RESPECTABLE AUTHORITIES, AND ITS SOUNDNESS
MAY ADMIT OF QUESTION."  NO SUBSEQUENT DECISION WAS CITED, NOR HAVE WE
FOUND ANY, TO SHOW THAT THE COURT HAS SINCE REVERTED TO THE DOCTRINE OF
THE BRADY CASE.  IT CANNOT BE SAID, THEREFORE, THAT IN HOLDING
PETITIONER ESTOPPED THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPARTED FROM MISSOURI LAW. 
THERE IS NO FEDERAL STATUTE TO OVERRIDE EITHER THE MISSOURI LAW AS TO
ESTOPPEL OR THE ILLINOIS LAW WHICH TREATS RESPONDENT AS A HOLDER IN DUE
COURSE.  WERE THIS COURT, IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION, TO
MAKE ITS OWN CHOICE OF LAW, COMPARE UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST
CO., 293 U.S. 340; O'BRIEN V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 113 F.2D
539; AND HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA CO., 304 U.S. 92, DECIDED THE SAME DAY
AS ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, ILLINOIS OR MISSOURI LAW WOULD
FURNISH THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES.  SEE BOARD OF COMM'RS V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 343; ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S.
289, 296; JUST V. CHAMBERS, 312 U.S. 383, 387. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND AN ESTOPPEL CREATED BY FEDERAL STATUTE. 
RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190.  BUT THAT
CASE RESTED ON A PLAIN VIOLATION OF AN EXPLICIT PROVISION OF A FEDERAL
STATUTE IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF ITS OCCURRENCE.  THIS IS NOT TRUE
HERE.  AN ACCOMMODATION NOTE DEPOSITED IN A BANK BEFORE AN ACT OF
CONGRESS IS ON THE BOOKS CAN HARDLY BECOME A VIOLATION OF THE ACT AFTER
IT IS PASSED MERELY BECAUSE THE NOTE REMAINS IN THE BANK.  ONE CANNOT
VIOLATE A STATUTE BEFORE IT COMES INTO BEING.  INSOFAR AS THE STATUTE
MAY APPLY TO ARRANGEMENTS WHEREBY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISLED TO ITS DETRIMENT INTO INSURING AN
INSOLVENT BANK, THE RECORD IS BARREN OF ANY INDICATION THAT THE $5,000
NOTE IN QUESTION HAD ANY RELATION TO THE BANK'S SOLVENCY OR TO THE
CORPORATION'S UNDERTAKING AS AN INSURER. 

THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION IS BRINGING THIS SUIT AS
PLEDGEE.  AS TO THE NOTE SUED UPON, IT IS IN NO DIFFERENT POSITION THAN
WOULD BE ANY OTHER PLEDGEE.  INDEED, FROM THE BUSINESS POINT OF VIEW,
ITS POSITION IS LESS FAVORABLE.  FOR IT BECAME PLEDGEE ONLY IN 1938,
THREE YEARS AFTER THE NOTE HAD BEEN CHARGED OFF ON THE BOOKS OF THE
BANK.  THE CORPORATION HAD SINCE 1934 BEEN MAKING A REGULAR ANNUAL
EXAMINATION OF THE BANK'S BOOKS, WHICH SHOWED THIS FACT; AND THE
SCHEDULE OF COLLATERAL GIVEN TO RESPONDENT WHEN IT BECAME PLEDGEE MADE
IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THE NOTE HAD BEEN CHARGED OFF. 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH LIABILITY BASED ON ANY DOCTRINE OF
"EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL" EVOLVED AS A PRINCIPLE OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW
HAVING NO STATUTORY ROOTS.  FOR WE HAVE PUT TO ONE SIDE, AS UNNECESSARY
TO THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE, THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO MAKE LAW
"INTERSTITIALLY" (AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES PUT IT IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205, 221) IN CONTROVERSIES ARISING IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS OUTSIDE THEIR DIVERSITY JURISDICTION. 

OF COURSE THE POLICY EXPRESSED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT
MIGHT BE VIOLATED, AS THE NATIONAL BANK ACT WAS VIOLATED IN THE
DEITRICK CASE, WHOLLY APART FROM ANY QUESTION OF ESTOPPEL OR PROOF OF
LOSS TO THE CORPORATION.  OUR DIFFICULTY IS THAT THE STATUTE CANNOT BE
STRETCHED TO FIT THIS CASE.  AND IT SEEMS UNNECESSARY TO FORCE SUCH A
RESULT WHEN A SOLUTION ACCORDING TO SETTLED DOCTRINES IS AVAILABLE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING: 

I THINK WE SHOULD ATTEMPT A MORE EXPLICIT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
WHETHER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW GOVERNS OUR DECISION IN THIS SORT OF CASE
THAN IS FOUND EITHER IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT OR IN THE CONCURRING
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER.  THAT QUESTION, AS OLD AS THE
FEDERAL JUDICIARY, IS MET INESCAPABLY AT THE THRESHOLD OF THIS CASE. 
IT IS THE ONE WHICH MOVED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI, AND WE COULD NOT
RESORT TO THE RULE ANNOUNCED WITHOUT AT LEAST A TACIT ANSWER TO IT.
THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THE DECISIONS IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64, AND KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 313 U.S. 487,
GOVERN THIS CASE.  IF THEY DO, WE WOULD NOT BE FREE TO DISREGARD THE
LAW OF MISSOURI AND ILLINOIS AND TO APPLY A DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL
ACTUALLY - BUT NOT AVOWEDLY - DRAWN FROM COMMON-LAW SOURCES TO
EFFECTUATE THE POLICY WE THINK IMPLICIT IN FEDERAL STATUTES. 

THE RULES OF DECISION ACT  FN1  PROVIDES THAT "THE LAWS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES OR STATUTES OF
THE UNITED STATES SHALL OTHERWISE REQUIRE OR PROVIDE, SHALL BE REGARDED
AS RULES OF DECISION IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW, IN THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN CASES WHERE THEY APPLY."  WHETHER "LAWS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES" AS SO USED INCLUDED NON-STATUTORY LAW EMBODIED IN
JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS WAS LONG A SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY. 
AFTER ACTING FOR HALF A CENTURY ON THE BELIEF THAT IT DID, THE COURT IN
SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1, DECIDED THAT IT DID NOT.  ALMOST A CENTURY
LATER THAT DECISION WITH ITS NUMEROUS AND SORRY PROGENY WAS OVERRULED,
AND THE COURT ANSWERED THAT IT DID.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA.
IT LATER HELD THAT STATE DECISIONS ON CONFLICTS OF LAWS WERE ALSO
BINDING ON THE FEDERAL COURTS.  KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR MFG. CO., SUPRA.
THUS, THE RULES OF DECISION ACT AS NOW INTERPRETED REQUIRES FEDERAL
COURTS TO USE STATE LAW WHETHER DECLARED BY THE LEGISLATURE OR BY THE
COURTS AS RULES OF DECISION "IN CASES WHERE THEY APPLY," EXCEPT WHERE
FEDERAL LAW "SHALL OTHERWISE REQUIRE OR PROVIDE."  THESE RECENT CASES,
LIKE SWIFT V. TYSON WHICH EVOKED THEM, DEALT ONLY WITH THE VERY SPECIAL
PROBLEMS ARISING IN DIVERSITY CASES, WHERE FEDERAL JURISDICTION EXISTS
TO PROVIDE NONRESIDENT PARTIES AN OPTIONAL FORUM OF ASSURED
IMPARTIALITY.  FN2  THE COURT HAS NOT EXTENDED THE DOCTRINE OF ERIE R.
CO. V. TOMPKINS BEYOND DIVERSITY CASES.  FN3 

THIS CASE IS NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS BECAUSE OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  IT IS HERE BECAUSE A FEDERAL AGENCY BRINGS
THE ACTION, AND THE LAW OF ITS BEING PROVIDES, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT
IMPORTANT HERE, THAT:  "ALL SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE AT COMMON LAW OR IN
EQUITY TO WHICH THE CORPORATION SHALL BE A PARTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO
ARISE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES:  ...  "  FN4  THAT THIS
PROVISION IS NOT MERELY JURISDICTIONAL IS SUGGESTED BY THE PRESENCE IN
THE SAME SECTION OF THE ACT OF THE SEPARATE PROVISION THAT THE
CORPORATION MAY SUE AND BE SUED "IN ANY COURT OF LAW OR EQUITY, STATE
OR FEDERAL."  FN5 

ALTHOUGH BY CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND THIS CASE IS TO BE DEEMED ONE
ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, NO FEDERAL STATUTE
PURPORTS TO DEFINE THE CORPORATION'S RIGHTS AS A HOLDER OF THE NOTE IN
SUIT OR THE LIABILITY OF THE MAKER THEREOF.  THERE ARISES, THEREFORE,
THE QUESTION WHETHER IN DECIDING THE CASE WE ARE BOUND TO APPLY THE LAW
OF SOME PARTICULAR STATE OR WHETHER, TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, WE MAY MAKE OUR
OWN LAW FROM MATERIALS FOUND IN COMMON-LAW SOURCES. 

THIS ISSUE HAS A LONG HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF LEGAL AND POLITICAL
CONTROVERSY AS TO THE PLACE OF THE COMMON LAW IN FEDERAL
JURISPRUDENCE.  FN6  AS THE MATTER NOW STANDS, IT SEEMS SETTLED THAT
THE FEDERAL COURTS MAY NOT RESORT TO THE COMMON LAW TO PUNISH CRIMES
NOT MADE PUNISHABLE BY ACT OF CONGRESS,  FN7  AND THAT, APART FROM
SPECIAL STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, THEY ARE NOT BOUND IN
OTHER FIELDS BY ENGLISH PRECEDENTS EXISTING AT ANY PARTICULAR DATE. 
THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NO GENERAL COMMON LAW, AS IN A SENSE THEY HAVE
NO GENERAL OR COMPREHENSIVE JURISPRUDENCE OF ANY KIND, BECAUSE MANY
SUBJECTS OF PRIVATE LAW WHICH BULK LARGE IN THE TRADITIONAL COMMON LAW
ARE ORDINARILY WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE STATES AND NOT OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  BUT THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT WHEREVER WE HAVE OCCASION TO
DECIDE A FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH CANNOT BE ANSWERED FROM FEDERAL
STATUTES ALONE WE MAY NOT RESORT TO ALL OF THE SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE
COMMON LAW, OR THAT WHEN WE HAVE FASHIONED AN ANSWER IT DOES NOT BECOME
A PART OF THE FEDERAL NON-STATUTORY OR COMMON LAW. 

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND JUSTICE BRANDEIS'S STATEMENT IN ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64 AT 78, THAT "THERE IS NO FEDERAL GENERAL COMMON
LAW," TO DENY THAT THE COMMON LAW MAY IN PROPER CASES BE AN AID TO, OR
THE BASIS OF, DECISION OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS.  IN ITS CONTEXT IT MEANS
TO ME ONLY THAT FEDERAL COURTS MAY NOT APPLY THEIR OWN NOTIONS OF THE
COMMON LAW AT VARIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATE DECISIONS EXCEPT "WHERE
THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES (SO)
REQUIRE OR PROVIDE."  FN8  INDEED, IN A CASE DECIDED ON THE SAME DAY AS
ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, JUSTICE BRANDEIS SAID THAT "WHETHER THE WATER
OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM MUST BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE TWO STATES IS A
QUESTION OF 'FEDERAL COMMON LAW' UPON WHICH NEITHER THE STATUTES NOR
THE DECISIONS OF EITHER STATE CAN BE CONCLUSIVE."  HINDERLIDER V. LA
PLATA CO., 304 U.S. 92, 110. 

WERE WE BEREFT OF THE COMMON LAW, OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM WOULD BE
IMPOTENT.  THIS FOLLOWS FROM THE RECOGNIZED FUTILITY OF ATTEMPTING ALL
COMPLETE STATUTORY CODES, AND IS APPARENT FROM THE TERMS OF THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF. 

THE CONTRACT CLAUSE, WHICH PROHIBITS A STATE FROM PASSING ANY "LAW
IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS," IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PART THE
COMMON LAW MUST PLAY IN OUR SYSTEM.  THIS PROVISION IS MEANINGLESS
UNLESS WE KNOW WHAT A CONTRACT IS.  THE CONSTITUTION WISELY REFRAINS
FROM SAYING.  WE HAVE VERY RECENTLY HELD, UPON A LONG LINE OF
AUTHORITY, THAT IN APPLYING THIS CLAUSE WE ARE NOT BOUND BY THE STATE'S
VIEWS AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A CONTRACT.  IRVING TRUST CO. V. DAY, 314
U.S. 556.  TAKE THE CASE WHERE THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A PROMISE MADE
WITHOUT CONSIDERATION COMES WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE.  IS THERE ANY DOUBT AS TO WHERE WE MUST GO FOR THE ANSWER THAT
WE DO NOT FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF?  THIS COURT HAS NOT
HESITATED TO READ THE COMMON-LAW DOCTRINE OF CONSIDERATION INTO THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE, AND TO RESTRICT THE PROTECTION OF THAT CLAUSE TO
PROMISES SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION.  DURKEE V. BOARD OF LIQUIDATION,
103 U.S. 646, 648; PEARSALL V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO., 161 U.S. 646,
667; GRAND LODGE V. NEW ORLEANS, 166 U.S. 143, 146.  COMPARE ALLEGHENY
COLLEGE V. NATIONAL CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY BANK, 246 N.Y. 369, 159 N.E.
173. 

OTHER RECOGNITIONS OF OUR COMMON-LAW POWERS ABOUND IN THE
CONSTITUTION.  FN9 

A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN A NON-DIVERSITY CASE SUCH AS THIS DOES NOT
SIT AS A LOCAL TRIBUNAL.  IN SOME CASES IT MAY SEE FIT FOR SPECIAL
REASONS TO GIVE THE LAW OF A PARTICULAR STATE HIGHLY PERSUASIVE OR EVEN
CONTROLLING EFFECT, BUT IN THE LAST ANALYSIS ITS DECISION TURNS UPON
THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT THAT OF ANY STATE.  FEDERAL LAW IS NO
JURIDICAL CHAMELEON, CHANGING COMPLEXION TO MATCH THAT OF EACH STATE
WHEREIN LAWSUITS HAPPEN TO BE COMMENCED BECAUSE OF THE ACCIDENTS OF
SERVICE OF PROCESS AND OF THE APPLICATION OF THE VENUE STATUTES.  IT IS
FOUND IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, OR COMMON LAW.  FEDERAL
COMMON LAW IMPLEMENTS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES, AND IS
CONDITIONED BY THEM.  FN10  WITHIN THESE LIMITS, FEDERAL COURTS ARE
FREE TO APPLY THE TRADITIONAL COMMON-LAW TECHNIQUE OF DECISION AND TO
DRAW UPON ALL THE SOURCES OF THE COMMON LAW IN CASES SUCH AS THE
PRESENT.  BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343, 350. 

THE LAW WHICH WE APPLY TO THIS CASE CONSISTS OF PRINCIPLES OF
ESTABLISHED CREDIT IN JURISPRUDENCE, SELECTED BY US BECAUSE THEY ARE
APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNING ACT.  THE
CORPORATION WAS CREATED AND FINANCED IN PART BY THE UNITED STATES  FN11
TO BOLSTER THE ENTIRE BANKING AND CREDIT STRUCTURE.  THE CORPORATION
DID NOT SIMPLY STEP INTO THE PRIVATE SHOES OF LOCAL BANKS.  THE
PURPOSES SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY IT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED ONLY IF IT
MAY RELY ON THE INTEGRITY OF BANKING STATEMENTS AND BANKING ASSETS.  IN
THIS CASE THE CORPORATION ATTEMPTED TO REALIZE ON A NOTE THAT WAS A
PART OF THE ASSETS AT THE TIME IT INSURED THE BANK.  IT IS MET BY THE
PLEA THAT THE NOTE WAS A SHAM KNOWINGLY GIVEN TO ENABLE THE BANK TO
CONCEAL THE WORTHLESSNESS OF CERTAIN BONDS WHICH IT HAD BOUGHT FROM THE
MAKER, A BROKER.  THIS DECEPTION WAS NOT FOR THE SINGLE DAY ON WHICH
THE NOTE WAS DELIVERED; ITS PURPOSE AND ITS EFFECT WERE TO OPERATE AS A
CONTINUING INDUCEMENT TO EXISTING CREDITORS, AND TO THOSE WHO MIGHT
BECOME CREDITORS, TO RELY ON THIS NOTE AS A $5,000 ITEM COUNTING
TOWARDS ITS SOLVENCY.  IT MAY NOT HAVE CONTEMPLATED THE THEN UNBORN
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS THE PARTICULAR OBJECT OF ITS
DECEPTION, BUT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO CONCEAL A LOSS FROM THEN UNKNOWN AND
UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE OR BECOME CREDITORS OR BANKING
SUPERVISORS ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC.  UNDER THE ACT, THE CORPORATION
HAS A DUAL RELATION OF CREDITOR OR POTENTIAL CREDITOR AND OF
SUPERVISING AUTHORITY TOWARD INSURED BANKS.  FN12  THE IMMUNITY OF SUCH
A CORPORATION FROM SCHEMES CONCOCTED BY THE COOPERATIVE DECEIT OF BANK
OFFICERS AND CUSTOMERS IS NOT A QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED FROM
CONSIDERATIONS OF GEOGRAPHY.  THAT A PARTICULAR STATE HAPPENED TO HAVE
THE GREATEST CONNECTION, IN THE CONFLICT OF LAWS SENSE, WITH THE MAKING
OF THE NOTE INVOLVED, OR THAT THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT HAPPENED TO BE
CHIEFLY CENTERED THERE, IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE US SUBSERVIENT TO THE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY OR THE JUDICIAL VIEWS OF THAT STATE.  FN13 

I CONCUR IN THE COURT'S HOLDING BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE DEFENSE
ASSERTED IS NOWHERE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE CORPORATION AND THAT WE NEED
NOT GO TO THE LAW OF ANY PARTICULAR STATE AS OUR AUTHORITY FOR SO
HOLDING.    I HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO SET US
COMPLETELY ADRIFT FROM STATE LAW WITH REGARD TO ALL QUESTIONS AS TO
WHICH IT HAS NOT PROVIDED A STATUTORY ANSWER.  AN INTENTION TO GIVE
PERSUASIVE OR BINDING EFFECT TO STATE LAW HAS BEEN FOUND TO EXIST IN A
NUMBER OF CASES SIMILAR IN THAT THEY AROSE UNDER A LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES BUT WERE NOT GOVERNED BY ANY SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION.  FN14
NO DOUBT MANY QUESTIONS AS TO THE LIABILITY OF PARTIES TO COMMERCIAL
PAPER WHICH COMES INTO THE HANDS OF THE CORPORATION WILL BEST BE SOLVED
BY APPLYING THE LOCAL LAW WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE MAKERS AND THE
INSURED BANK PRESUMABLY CONTRACTED.  THE CORPORATION WOULD SUCCEED ONLY
TO THE RIGHTS WHICH THE BANK ITSELF ACQUIRED WHERE ORDINARY AND GOOD
FAITH COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS ARE INVOLVED.  BUT PETITIONERS' CONDUCT
HERE WAS NOT INTENDED TO CONFER ANY RIGHT ON THE BANK ITSELF, FOR AS TO
IT THE NOTE WAS AGREED TO BE A NULLITY.  PETITIONERS' CONDUCT WAS
INTENDED TO AND DID HAVE A DIRECT AND INDEPENDENT EFFECT ON UNKNOWN
THIRD PARTIES, AMONG WHOM THE CORPORATION NOW APPEARS.  FN15  THE
POLICY OF THE FEDERAL ACT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME TO LEAVE DEPENDENT ON
LOCAL LAW THE QUESTION WHETHER ONE MAY PLEAD HIS OWN SCHEME TO DECEIVE
A BANK'S CREDITORS AND SUPERVISING AUTHORITIES AS AGAINST THE
CORPORATION.  EVEN THOUGH FEDERAL CRIMINAL SANCTIONS MIGHT NOT BE
APPLICABLE TO THESE FACTS, AND EVEN THOUGH THE DOCTRINE OF DEITRICK V.
GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190, MAY NOT FULLY COMPREHEND THE PRESENT CASE, I
THINK WE NOW MAY BORROW A DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL FROM THE SAME SOURCE
FROM WHICH THE COURT BORROWED IT IN THAT CASE, AND TO REACH THE SAME
RESULT. 

FN1  SEC. 34 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 725. 

FN2  "HOWEVER TRUE THE FACT MAY BE, THAT THE TRIBUNALS OF THE STATES
WILL ADMINISTER JUSTICE AS IMPARTIALLY AS THOSE OF THE NATION, TO
PARTIES OF EVERY DESCRIPTION, IT IS NOT LESS TRUE, THAT THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF EITHER ENTERTAINS APPREHENSIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, OR
VIEWS WITH SUCH INDULGENCE THE POSSIBLE FEARS AND APPREHENSIONS OF
SUITORS, THAT IT HAS ESTABLISHED NATIONAL TRIBUNALS FOR THE DECISION OF
CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN ALIENS AND A CITIZEN, OR BETWEEN CITIZENS OF
DIFFERENT STATES."  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN BANK OF THE UNITED STATES
V. DEVEAUX, 5 CRANCH 61, 87.  SEE ALSO, DODGE V. WOOLSEY, 18 HOW.  331,
354; BURGESS V. SELIGMAN, 107 U.S. 20, 34; LANKFORD V. PLATTE IRON
WORKS, 235 U.S. 461, 478.  BUT COMPARE FRIENDLY, THE HISTORIC BASIS OF
DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, 41 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 483. 

FN3  ITS EFFECT EVEN IN SUCH CASES SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN DEFINITELY
SETTLED.  IN AN EQUITY CASE IT WAS SAID THAT "THE DOCTRINE APPLIES
THOUGH THE QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION ARISES NOT IN AN ACTION AT LAW, BUT
IN A SUIT IN EQUITY."  RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 202,
205.  THAT CASE WAS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS BY REASON OF DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION.  IN A LATER CASE IN WHICH A SUIT IN EQUITY WAS BROUGHT IN
FEDERAL COURT TO ENFORCE LIABILITY UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE THE COURT
SAID: "THE RULES OF DECISION ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO SUITS IN EQUITY. 
THE 'LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES' 'SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF
DECISION' IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, APPLIES ONLY TO THE RULES
OF DECISION IN 'TRIALS AT COMMON LAW' IN SUCH COURTS, BUT APPLIES AS
WELL TO RULES ESTABLISHED BY JUDICIAL DECISION IN THE STATES AS THOSE
ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE.  ...  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE NO OCCASION
TO CONSIDER THE EXTENT TO WHICH FEDERAL COURTS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THEM BY CONGRESS TO ADMINISTER EQUITABLE
REMEDIES, ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW STATE STATUTES AND DECISIONS AFFECTING
THOSE REMEDIES."  RUSSELL V. TODD, 309 U.S. 280, 287, 294.  IN ANY
EVENT, THE ESTOPPEL HERE INVOLVED SEEMS NO MORE AN EQUITY MATTER THAN
THE ISSUE OF GOOD-FAITH PURCHASE INVOLVED IN CITIES SERVICE OIL CO. V.
DUNLAP, 308 U.S. 208, WHERE STATE LAW WAS HELD TO GOVERN. 

FN4  PARAGRAPH FOURTH OF 12 U.S.C. SEC. 264(J) EMPOWERS THE
CORPORATION "TO SUE AND BE SUED, COMPLAIN AND DEFEND, IN ANY COURT OF
LAW OR EQUITY, STATE OR FEDERAL.  ALL SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE AT COMMON
LAW OR IN EQUITY TO WHICH THE CORPORATION SHALL BE A PARTY SHALL BE
DEEMED TO ARISE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES:  PROVIDED, THAT
ANY SUCH SUIT TO WHICH THE CORPORATION IS A PARTY IN ITS CAPACITY AS
RECEIVER OF A STATE BANK AND WHICH INVOLVES ONLY THE RIGHTS OR
OBLIGATIONS OF DEPOSITORS, CREDITORS, STOCKHOLDERS AND SUCH STATE BANK
UNDER STATE LAW SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO ARISE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES." 

IN A NUMBER OF RESPECTS AND WITH VARYING DEGREES OF EXPLICITNESS THE
ACT ELSEWHERE MAKES REFERENCE TO STATE LAW.  SPECIFIC FEDERAL CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS ARE PROVIDED. 

FN5  A SIMILAR PROVISION WITHOUT MORE IS FOUND IN MANY FEDERAL
STATUTES.  E.G., 15 U.S.C. SEC. 604(RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION); 12 U.S.C. SEC. 24(NATIONAL BANKS); 12 U.S.C. SEC.
341(FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS); 12 U.S.C. SEC. 1432(FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANKS); 12 U.S.C. SEC. 1716(C)(3)(NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATIONS). 
THIS IS NOT TO SUGGEST, HOWEVER, THAT QUESTIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEALT
WITH IN THESE STATUTES CANNOT BE FEDERAL QUESTIONS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF
THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION THAT SUITS "SHALL BE DEEMED TO
ARISE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN6  JUDICIAL OPINIONS DISCUSSING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE QUESTION
INCLUDE:  WHEATON V. PETERS, 8 PET. 591, 658(1834); KENDALL V. UNITED
STATES, 12 PET. 524, 621(1838); SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465,
478(1888); BUCHER V. CHESHIRE R. CO., 125 U.S. 555, 583-584(1888);
JUSTICE FIELD, DISSENTING IN BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BAUGH, 149 U.S.
368, 394-395; JUSTICES HOLMES AND PITNEY, DISSENTING IN SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205, 221-222, 230.  SEE ALSO, GEORGE
WHARTON PEPPER, THE BORDER LAND OF FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS (1889);
FRANKFURTER, DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND
STATE COURTS, 13 CORNELL LAW QUARTERLY 499; WARREN, NEW LIGHT ON THE
HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 37 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 49;
VON MOSCHZISKER, THE COMMON LAW AND OUR FEDERAL JURISPRUDENCE, 74
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 109, 270, 367. 

FN7  THE RESEARCH OF CHARLES WARREN, LEANED ON HEAVILY IN ERIE R. CO.
V. TOMPKINS TO DISCREDIT SWIFT V. TYSON, LED THAT SCHOLAR TO CONCLUDE
THAT UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 7 CRANCH 32, AND UNITED STATES V.
COOLIDGE, 1 WHEAT.  415, ESTABLISHING THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, WERE
PROBABLY WRONGLY DECIDED.  WARREN, HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT
OF 1789, 37 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 49, 73.  THE ERROR, IF IT BE ONE,
COMPORTS, HOWEVER, WITH THE PRESENT TENDENCY TO CONSTRICT THE
JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS, AND I THINK IS LIKELY TO SURVIVE. 

FN8  SIMILARLY, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES'S STATEMENT THAT THERE IS NO
"TRANSCENDENTAL BODY OF LAW OUTSIDE OF ANY PARTICULAR STATE BUT
OBLIGATORY WITHIN IT UNLESS AND UNTIL CHANGED BY STATUTE" WAS MADE WITH
REFERENCE TO "MATTERS THAT ARE NOT GOVERNED BY ANY LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES OR BY ANY STATUTE OF THE STATE."  SEE BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB CO.
V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276 U.S. 518, 533. 

FN9  THUS, THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT "THE JUDICIAL POWER
SHALL EXTEND TO ALL CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY, ARISING UNDER THIS
CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TREATIES" MADE UNDER
THEIR AUTHORITY.  IT DOES NOT GIVE ANY DEFINITION OF WHAT ARE CASES IN
LAW AND EQUITY; IT SIMPLY ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE OF A JURISPRUDENCE FROM
WHICH THE COURTS CAN ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF THOSE TERMS. 

PARTICULARLY IN THE CLAUSES DEALING WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL, THE CONSTITUTION USES WORDS AND PHRASES BORROWED FROM THE
COMMON LAW, MEANINGLESS WITHOUT THAT BACKGROUND, AND OBVIOUSLY MEANT TO
CARRY THEIR COMMON-LAW IMPLICATIONS.  THUS, WE FIND IN IT THE
FOLLOWING:  "CONVICTED"; "INDICTMENT"; "TREASON, FELONY, AND BREACH OF
THE PEACE"; "PIRACIES AND FELONIES"; "PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS"; "BILL OF ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAW"; "BRIBERY"; "ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION"; AND "APPELLATE JURISDICTION BOTH AS TO LAW AND FACT." 
IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS, THE NECESSITY FOR RESORT TO THE
COMMON LAW FOR CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IS EVEN MORE OBVIOUS. 
HERE WE FIND:  "UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES"; "WARRANTS";
"PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY"; "DUE PROCESS OF LAW";
"RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY"; "IN SUITS AT
COMMON LAW"; AND "NO FACT TRIED BY A JURY SHALL BE OTHERWISE REEXAMINED
IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE
COMMON LAW." 

FN10  FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMMON-LAW DOCTRINES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS
WORKED OUT IN A UNITARY SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH CONFLICTS BETWEEN DOMESTIC
AND TRULY FOREIGN LAW MAY NOT APPLY UNMODIFIED IN CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE
LAWS OF STATES WITHIN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM WHICH ARE AFFECTED BY THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT OR OTHER RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

FN11  12 U.S.C. SEC. 264(D). 

FN12  12 U.S.C. SEC. 264(I), (K), (L). 

FN13  COMPARE CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. V. WHITE, 238 U.S. 507;
SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. V. BYERS, 240 U.S. 612; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO.
V. KELLEY, 241 U.S. 485; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. BOEGLI, 251
U.S. 315; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. ESTEVE BROS. & CO., 256 U.S.
566; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. PRIESTER, 276 U.S. 252; CHESAPEAKE
& OHIO RY. CO. V. KUHN, 284 U.S. 44; LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S.
234; JENKINS V. KURN, 313 U.S. 256; ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 313 U.S. 289; O'BRIEN V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 113 F.2D
539. 

FN14  CAMPBELL V. HAVERHILL, 155 U.S. 610; MCCLAINE V. RANKIN, 197
U.S. 154; CHATTANOOGA FOUNDRY V. ATLANTA, 203 U.S. 390; O'SULLIVAN V.
FELIX, 233 U.S. 318; SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261
U.S. 299; BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 78; UNITED STATES V.
GUARANTY TRUST CO., 293 U.S. 340; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 343; RAWLINGS V. RAY, 312 U.S. 96; JUST V. CHAMBERS,
312 U.S. 383. 

FN15  THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER FOR
DECLINING TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SEEM INADEQUATE. 
TO INSIST THAT THE $5,000 NOTE IN QUESTION DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE
RECORD TO HAVE HAD "ANY RELATION TO THE BANK'S INSOLVENCY OR THE
CORPORATION'S UNDERTAKING AS INSURER" IS TO PART COMPANY WITH THE
REALITIES OF THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, WHEN SMALL BANKS - AND LARGE ONES
AS WELL - WERE OPERATING ON PERILOUSLY NARROW MARGINS OF SOLVENCY, IF
ANY.  TO HOLD THAT THE CORPORATION IS TO BE JUDGED AS A MERE PRIVATE
PLEDGEE OF A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PAPER IS TO IGNORE THE COMPREHENSIVE
PUBLIC CHARACTER OF ITS FUNCTION.  AND THE WRONG TO IT WAS SUSTAINED
WHEN IT BECAME COMMITTED TO INSURE THE BANK - NOT LATER WHEN, AS A STEP
TO WORKING ITS WAY OUT OF LOSS, IT TOOK ASSETS ALREADY EQUITABLY ITS
OWN AS A PLEDGE AND PUT UP MONEY FOR A PLAN TO CONTINUE BANKING
FACILITIES TO THE COMMUNITY.  TO SAY THAT THE NOTE HAD BEEN CHARGED OFF
IS TO STRESS THE IRRELEVANT.  THIS WAS, ADMITTEDLY, LONG AFTER THE
CORPORATION HAD BECOME BOUND AS THE BANK'S INSURER.  IT ALSO ATTRIBUTES
TO THE "CHARGE-OFF" AN UNWARRANTED SIGNIFICANCE.  THE CLASSIFICATION OF
THIS PAPER AS INADMISSIBLE FOR A COMMERCIAL BANK WOULD HAVE BEEN
JUSTIFIED BY ITS OBVIOUS "SLOW" CHARACTER, OR MAY HAVE BEEN DUE TO MERE
LACK OF INFORMATION AS TO THE ABILITY OF A NONRESIDENT DEBTOR TO MEET
IT.  IT IS NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR NOTICE OF A LEGAL DEFECT IN THE PAPER. 

..END :














U.S. V. CAROLINA CARRIERS CORP., 315 U.S. 475 


NO. 197.  ARGUED JANUARY 16, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 38
F.SUPP.  549, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935,
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S AUTHORIZATION OF OPERATION AS A
COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE WITHIN A SPECIFIED "TERRITORY" MAY
PERMIT SERVICE TO ALL POINTS IN PART OF THE AREA AND TO DESIGNATED
POINTS IN OTHER PARTS.  P. 480. 

2.  THE PRECISE DELINEATION OF THE AREA OR THE SPECIFICATION OF
LOCALITIES WHICH MAY BE SERVED IS FOR THE COMMISSION; AND ONLY WHERE
ERROR IS PATENT MAY ITS DETERMINATION BE SET ASIDE.  P. 480. 

3.  A HOLDING OUT TO SERVE A SPECIFIED AREA DOES NOT IN ITSELF
CONSTITUTE "BONA FIDE OPERATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT; ACTUAL
AND SUBSTANTIAL SERVICE IS REQUIRED.  P. 480. 

4.  IN THE AUTHORIZATION OF OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER UNDER THE
"GRANDFATHER CLAUSE," THERE IS NO STATUTORY WARRANT FOR APPLYING TO
IRREGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS A DIFFERENT OR STRICTER TEST AS TO COMMODITIES
WHICH MAY BE CARRIED THAN IS APPLIED TO REGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS.  P.
484. 

5.  IN AUTHORIZING OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER UNDER THE
"GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" BY AN IRREGULAR ROUTE CARRIER IN THIS CASE, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT ONLY CERTAIN COMMODITIES
COULD BE CARRIED AND THAT SOME COULD BE TRANSPORTED ONLY BETWEEN
DESIGNATED POINTS IN THE TERRITORY.  HELD, THAT THE BASIC OR ESSENTIAL
FINDINGS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WERE LACKING.  P.
488. 

(A)  IF AN APPLICANT FOR COMMON CARRIER RIGHTS UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE" HAS, DURING THE CRITICAL PERIOD, CARRIED A WIDE VARIETY OF
GENERAL COMMODITIES, HE CAN NOT NECESSARILY BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO
CARRY OTHERS OF THE SAME CLASS MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER CARRIED THEM
BEFORE; NOR CAN HE NECESSARILY BE RESTRICTED TO THOSE COMMODITIES WHICH
HE CARRIED WITH MORE FREQUENCY AND IN GREATER QUANTITIES THAN HE DID
OTHERS.  P. 483. 

(B)  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE ARTICLES WERE CARRIED BEFORE
JUNE 1, 1935, BUT NOT SINCE, NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM THE PERMIT.  P. 484. 

(C)  THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER THE APPLICANT'S SERVICE WITHIN THE
TERRITORY WAS SUFFICIENTLY REGULAR AND WHETHER HIS COVERAGE OF
COMMODITIES WAS SUFFICIENTLY REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT A FINDING THAT
HE WAS IN "BONA FIDE OPERATION" AS A "COMMON CARRIER" OF THE GROUP OF
COMMODITIES OR OF THE CLASS OR CLASSES OF PROPERTY DURING THE CRITICAL
PERIOD.  P. 484. 

(D)  IF THE APPLICANT ESTABLISHES THAT HE WAS A "COMMON CARRIER" OF A
GROUP OF COMMODITIES OR OF AN ENTIRE CLASS OR CLASSES OF PROPERTY AND
WAS IN "BONA FIDE OPERATION" DURING THE CRITICAL PERIOD IN A SPECIFIED
TERRITORY, RESTRICTIONS AS TO COMMODITIES WITHIN SUCH CLASSES WHICH MAY
BE MOVED IN ANY ONE DIRECTION OR BETWEEN DESIGNATED POINTS ARE NOT
JUSTIFIED.  P. 486. 

(E)  ONCE THE APPLICANT HAS ESTABLISHED HIS COMMON CARRIER STATUS AS
RESPECTS PARTICULAR COMMODITIES, SHIPMENTS TO ANY PARTS OF THE
AUTHORIZED TERRITORY, OR TO ANY OF THE AUTHORIZED POINTS THEREIN,
SHOULD BE PERMITTED, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT AS
RESPECTS CARRIAGE BETWEEN SPECIFIED POINTS HAD RESTRICTED ITS
UNDERTAKING.  P. 487. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 210(28 U.S.C. SEC. 47A) AND SEC. 238 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED (28 U.S.C. SEC. 345), TO REVIEW A FINAL
DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES (28 U.S.C. SEC. 47) WHICH
SET ASIDE (38 F.SUPP.  549) AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION (24 M.C.C. 305) GRANTING APPELLEE A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER
THE SO-CALLED "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" (SEC. 206(A)) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT OF 1935(49 STAT. 543, 551, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 306), NOW DESIGNATED AS
PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  54 STAT. 919. 

APPELLEE'S PREDECESSOR APPLIED FOR SUCH A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING
OPERATION AS A "COMMON CARRIER" BY MOTOR VEHICLE OF "GENERAL
COMMODITIES"  FN1  BETWEEN ALL POINTS "IN SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH
CAROLINA, DELAWARE, NEW JERSEY, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND,
MASSACHUSETTS, THOSE IN VIRGINIA EAST OF AND INCLUDING THE SHENANDOAH
VALLEY, THOSE IN MARYLAND AND PENNSYLVANIA ON AND EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY
11, AND THOSE IN NEW YORK EAST OF BINGHAMTON AND SOUTH OF ALBANY; AND
BETWEEN CHERRYVILLE (N.C.)  AND BOSTON, MASS., THROUGH HENDERSON, N.C.,
RICHMOND, VA., BALTIMORE, MD., PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND NEW YORK, OVER
IRREGULAR ROUTES."  THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE ISSUANCE OF A
CERTIFICATE BUT RESTRICTED ITS SCOPE IN THREE WAYS.  (1) IT CUT DOWN
THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA WHICH COULD BE SERVED BY APPELLEE, AND IN PARTS
OF THAT AREA LIMITED THE SERVICE TO DESIGNATED POINTS.  (2) IT ALLOWED
APPELLEE TO HAUL ONLY CERTAIN SPECIFIED COMMODITIES OUT OF A LARGER
LIST PREVIOUSLY HAULED.  (3) IT DID NOT PERMIT APPELLEE TO HAUL ALL OF
THOSE SPECIFIED COMMODITIES BETWEEN ALL OF THE POINTS IN THE AUTHORIZED
TERRITORY, BUT ALLOWED IT TO HAUL ONLY CERTAIN COMMODITIES BETWEEN
GIVEN POINTS.  ITS FINDING CONTAINING THOSE RESTRICTIONS (24 M.C.C., P.
309-310) READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WE FIND THAT APPLICANT'S PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST WAS ON JUNE 1,
1935, AND CONTINUOUSLY SINCE IT AND ITS PREDECESSOR HAVE BEEN, IN BONA
FIDE OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE, IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE (1) OF COTTON YARN FROM ALL POINTS IN GASTON, LINCOLN,
CLEVELAND, RUTHERFORD, MCDOWELL, BURKE, CATAWBA, ALEXANDER, IREDELL,
ROWAN, DAVIDSON, AND DAVIE COUNTIES, N.C., TO HAGERSTOWN, MD., NEW
YORK, N.Y., PAWTUCKET AND PROVIDENCE, R.I., ALL POINTS IN PENNSYLVANIA
ON AND EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 11, AND POINTS IN MIDDLESEX, UNION, ESSEX,
HUDSON, PASSAIC, BERGEN, SOMERSET, AND MORRIS COUNTIES, N.J., (2) OF
ASBESTOS TEXTILE PRODUCTS FROM CHARLOTTE, N.C., TO PHILADELPHIA AND
NORTH WALES, PA., TRENTON, NEWARK, PASSAIC, AND PATERSON, N.J., NEW
YORK, N.Y., MIDDLETOWN, CONN., PROVIDENCE AND PAWTUCKET, R.I., AND
BOSTON AND HUDSON, MASS., (3) OF SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS USED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF ASBESTOS TEXTILE PRODUCTS FROM HARRISON AND PERTH AMBOY,
N.J., TO CHARLOTTE, N.C., AND EMPTY SPOOLS AND BOXES IN THE REVERSE
DIRECTION, (4) OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN CONTAINERS FROM SEWAREN, N.J.,
AND MARCUS HOOK, PA., TO COLUMBIA AND GREENVILLE, S.C., AND TO ALL
POINTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, (5) OF LINOLEUM FROM PAULSBORO, N.J., MARCUS
HOOK, PA., AND EAST WALPOLE, MASS., TO POINTS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND TO
SPARTANBURG AND GREENVILLE, S.C., (6) OF CANNED GOODS FROM BALTIMORE,
MD., TO SHELBY, N.C., (7) OF BEER AND ALE FROM NEWARK, N.J., TO
GASTONIA AND WADESBORO, N.C., AND (8) OF ROOFING AND SCREEN WIRE FROM
YORK, PA., TO ALL POINTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, ALL OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES;
THAT APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING CONTINUATION OF
SUCH OPERATION; AND THAT THE APPLICATION IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS SHOULD
BE DENIED." 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT SUCH RESTRICTIONS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY
THE STATUTE.  IT SAID: 

"IT IS, OF COURSE, REASONABLE TO LIMIT THE CERTIFICATE TO THE TYPE OF
SERVICE RENDERED BY THE CARRIER DURING THE GRANDFATHER PERIOD, AND TO
LIMIT THE TERRITORY TO THAT WITHIN WHICH SUBSTANTIAL SERVICE OF THAT
TYPE HAS BEEN RENDERED; BUT IT IS UNREASONABLE TO LIMIT THE CERTIFICATE
OF ONE WHO HAS FUNCTIONED AS A GENERAL CARRIER TO THE SPECIFIC
COMMODITIES CARRIED AND THE SPECIFIC POINTS SERVED.  THE LAW CANNOT
REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING SUCH LIMITATION." 

IT FURTHER NOTED THAT SUCH RESTRICTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN IMPOSED ON
REGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS AND THAT CONGRESS HAS MADE NO SUCH DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THEM AND IRREGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS LIKE APPELLEE. 

I. WE THINK THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH IT
PLACED ON THE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE OF APPELLEE'S OPERATIONS.  SEC. 206(A)
OF THE ACT AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE WITHOUT A
SHOWING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IF THE CARRIER OR ITS
PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST WAS "IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER
BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE 1, 1935, OVER THE ROUTE OR ROUTES OR WITHIN
THE TERRITORY FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE AND HAS SO OPERATED SINCE
THAT TIME."  SEC. 208(A) REQUIRES THAT THE CERTIFICATE SPECIFY "THE
ROUTES OVER WHICH, THE FIXED TERMINI, IF ANY, BETWEEN WHICH, AND THE
INTERMEDIATE AND OFF-ROUTE POINTS, IF ANY, AT WHICH, AND IN CASE OF
OPERATIONS NOT OVER SPECIFIED ROUTES OR BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI, THE
TERRITORY WITHIN WHICH, THE MOTOR CARRIER IS AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE." 
IT IS CLEAR FROM THESE PROVISIONS THAT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO
AUTHORIZE FUTURE OPERATIONS WITHIN A DESIGNATED "TERRITORY," RATHER
THAN OVER SPECIFIED ROUTES OR BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI, FITS THE PECULIAR
REQUIREMENTS OF IRREGULAR ROUTE OPERATORS SUCH AS APPELLEE.  AUTHORITY
TO OPERATE WITHIN A SPECIFIED "TERRITORY" MAY INCLUDE PERMISSION TO
SERVICE ALL POINTS IN THAT AREA.  ON THE OTHER HAND IT MAY BE
RESTRICTED TO DESIGNATED POINTS THEREIN.  OR AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT
MAY EXTEND TO ALL POINTS IN A PART OF THAT AREA AND TO SELECTED
LOCALITIES IN ANOTHER PART.  THE PRECISE DELINEATION OF THE AREA OR THE
SPECIFICATION OF LOCALITIES WHICH MAY BE SERVICED HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED BY
THE CONGRESS TO THE COMMISSION.  ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE,
P. 15.  THE ACT PROVIDES THE TEST OF "BONA FIDE OPERATION."  THAT
STANDARD CARRIES THE CONNOTATION OF SUBSTANTIALITY.  IT ALSO MAKES
CLEAR THAT A HOLDING OUT TO SERVE A SPECIFIED AREA IS NOT ALONE
SUFFICIENT.  IT IS "ACTUAL RATHER THAN POTENTIAL OR SIMULATED SERVICE"
WHICH IS REQUIRED.  MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 263, 266. 
SUBSTANTIAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM INCIDENTAL, SPORADIC, OR INFREQUENT,
SERVICE IS REQUIRED.  SUBSTANTIAL SERVICE ACTUALLY RENDERED MAY HAVE
BEEN CONFINED TO NARROW LIMITS.  LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 32 F.SUPP. 
464, AFF'D 310 U.S. 609.  ABILITY TO RENDER THE SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE
WIDE REACHES OF THE TERRITORY, WHICH THE APPLICANT PROFESSED TO BE
WILLING TO SERVE, MAY NOT HAVE EXISTED.  FURTHERMORE, THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE RENDERED ARE RELEVANT TO
THE TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF THE OPERATIONS WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY
AUTHORIZE.  ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IN ADDITION, THE
COMMISSION, IN DETERMINING THE PRECISE TERRITORY WHICH MAY BE SERVED BY
A PARTICULAR CARRIER, CANNOT BE UNMINDFUL OF ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO
COORDINATE THE VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES WHICH CONSTITUTE OUR
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  S. REP. NO. 482, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; H. REP. NO. 1645, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THE RIGHT TO THE STATUTORY GRANT MAY BE WITHHELD OR CUT DOWN BECAUSE
THE COMMISSION DISAPPROVES OF THE COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS WHICH MAY BE
CREATED IF THE APPLICATION IS GRANTED.  BUT ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING
GREATER ORDER AND STABILITY TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAN HAD
EARLIER OBTAINED (S. DOC. NO. 152, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.) IS AN
ADDITIONAL REASON FOR ITS INSISTENCE UPON A SHOWING OF SUBSTANTIAL
SERVICE IN THAT TERRITORY WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE COVERED BY A
CERTIFICATE UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE." 

AS WE INDICATED IN ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE PURPOSE
OF THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" WAS TO ASSURE THOSE TO WHOM CONGRESS HAD
EXTENDED ITS BENEFITS A "SUBSTANTIAL PARITY BETWEEN FUTURE OPERATIONS
AND PRIOR BONA FIDE OPERATIONS."  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THAT WAS DENIED IN
THIS CASE, IF THE LIMITATIONS ON THE TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF THE
OPERATIONS ARE ALONE CONSIDERED.  WHILE SERVICE TO AND FROM ALL POINTS
IN THE STATES INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION WAS NOT ALLOWED, THE
REDUCTION WAS DETERMINED BY THE STANDARD OF SUBSTANTIALITY OF SERVICE. 
AND CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF IRREGULAR ROUTE
CARRIERS AND THEIR ROLE IN THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  THAT
INVOLVED A WEIGHING OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IN LIGHT OF THE COMPLEXITIES
OF THIS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  THE JUDGMENT REQUIRED IS HIGHLY
EXPERT.  ONLY WHERE THE ERROR IS PATENT MAY WE SAY THAT THE COMMISSION
TRANSGRESSED.  THAT IS NOT THIS CASE. 

II.  WE HAVE DOUBTS, HOWEVER, AS TO THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAS PLACED ON THE ARTICLES WHICH APPELLEE MAY CARRY.  SEC.
203(A)(14) DEFINED  FN2  THE TERM "COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE" AS
ONE WHO "UNDERTAKES  ...  TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY, OR ANY
CLASS OR CLASSES OF PROPERTY, FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE BY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR COMPENSATION, WHETHER OVER
REGULAR OR IRREGULAR ROUTES."  THE COMMISSION RULED THAT SINCE A
"COMMON CARRIER" MAY TRANSPORT ONLY A "CLASS OR CLASSES OF PROPERTY,"
THE AUTHORITY GRANTED UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF SEC. 206(A)
"SHOULD REFLECT ANY LIMITATION IN THE UNDERTAKING" OF THE COMMON
CARRIER "AS INDICATED BY THE SERVICE ACTUALLY RENDERED ON AND SINCE THE
STATUTORY DATES."  IT ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO ELIMINATE COMMODITIES
WHICH, THOUGH OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS AS THE OTHERS, HAD BEEN CARRIED
BEFORE BUT NOT AFTER JUNE 1, 1935.  IT FURTHER RESTRICTED FUTURE
OPERATIONS TO THOSE COMMODITIES WHICH PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 1,
1935, HAD BEEN CARRIED IN SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS AND WITH A DEGREE OF
REGULARITY.  WE WOULD NOT DISTURB THOSE CONCLUSIONS IF ONLY A QUESTION
AS TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WAS INVOLVED.  BUT WE ARE NOT
SATISFIED THAT THE COMMISSION APPLIED THE PROPER CRITERION IN REACHING
ITS CONCLUSION THAT ONLY SPECIFIED COMMODITIES COULD BE CARRIED IN THE
FUTURE. 

SEC. 206(A) REQUIRES A SHOWING THAT THE APPLICANT, OR ITS
PREDECESSOR, WAS "IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER" ON JUNE
1, 1935, AND "SINCE THAT TIME."  BY SEC. 208(A) THE CERTIFICATE MUST
SPECIFY "THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED" BY THE CARRIER.  AS WE HAVE NOTED,
A "COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE" WAS DEFINED IN SEC. 203(A)(14) AS
ONE WHO "UNDERTAKES" TO TRANSPORT "PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY, OR ANY CLASS
OR CLASSES OF PROPERTY, FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC."  THAT DEFINITION IS
THE SAME FOR IRREGULAR AND REGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS.  IT IS PLAIN THAT A
CARRIER'S HOLDING OUT AND ACTUAL PERFORMANCE MAY BE LIMITED TO A FEW
ARTICLES ONLY.  THAT IS TO SAY, HE MAY BE A COMMON CARRIER ONLY OF A
RESTRICTED NUMBER OF COMMODITIES.  SEE GALVESTON TRUCK LINE CORP., 22
M.C.C. 451, 467.  OR THE SERVICE ACTUALLY RENDERED MAY HAVE BEEN
CONFINED TO SUCH A FEW COMMODITIES THAT HIS HOLDING OUT OR WILLINGNESS
TO CARRY A MUCH LARGER CLASS MAY BE DISREGARDED.  LOVING V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, WAS SUCH A CASE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE APPLICANT
HAS CARRIED A WIDE VARIETY OF GENERAL COMMODITIES, HE CANNOT
NECESSARILY BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO CARRY OTHERS OF THE SAME CLASS
MERELY BECAUSE HE NEVER CARRIED THEM BEFORE.  AND WHERE HE HAS CARRIED
A WIDE VARIETY OF GENERAL COMMODITIES, HE CANNOT NECESSARILY BE
RESTRICTED TO THOSE WHICH HE CARRIED WITH MORE FREQUENCY AND IN GREATER
QUANTITIES THAN THE OTHERS.  SEE H.B. CHURCH TRUCK SERVICE CO., 27
M.C.C. 191, 197; HIGHWAY MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, INC., 23 M.C.C. 621,
636.  THE COMMISSION MAY NOT ATOMIZE HIS PRIOR SERVICE, PRODUCT BY
PRODUCT, SO AS TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE OF HIS OPERATIONS, WHERE THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO HIS HOLDING OUT THAT HE WAS IN
"BONA FIDE OPERATION" AS A "COMMON CARRIER" OF A LARGE GROUP OF
COMMODITIES OR OF A WHOLE CLASS OR CLASSES OF PROPERTY.  THERE MIGHT BE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF SUCH AN UNDERTAKING THOUGH THE EVIDENCE AS TO
ANY ONE ARTICLE WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL.  THE BROAD SWEEP OF HIS PRIOR
SERVICE MAY INDEED HAVE MADE THE CARRIAGE OF ANY ONE COMMODITY
IRREGULAR AND INFREQUENT.  YET, VIEWED AS A WHOLE RATHER THAN AS A
GROUP OF SEPARATE AND UNRELATED ITEMS, HIS PRIOR ACTIVITIES MAY SATISFY
THE TEST OF "BONA FIDE OPERATION" AS A "COMMON CARRIER" WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF HIS HOLDING OUT.  THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE ARTICLES MAY HAVE
BEEN CARRIED BEFORE BUT NOT AFTER JUNE 1, 1935, MAY OF COURSE INDICATE
AN ABANDONMENT OF THE PRIOR UNDERTAKING.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MAHER,
307 U.S. 148.  BUT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD BE
STRICKEN FROM THE CERTIFICATE, SINCE THE NATURAL AND NORMAL COURSE OF
HIS BUSINESS MAY REVEAL A CONTINUOUS UNDERTAKING TO TRANSPORT ANY OR
ALL COMMODITIES EMBRACED WITHIN THE GROUP OR THE CLASS.  THAT IS TO
SAY, HE MAY HAVE BEEN A COMMON CARRIER OF A LARGE GROUP OF GENERAL
COMMODITIES OR OF AN ENTIRE CLASS OF PROPERTY BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
CRITICAL DATE THOUGH THE SPECIFIC COMMODITIES CARRIED VARIED
CONSIDERABLY.  THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER HIS SERVICE WITHIN THE
TERRITORY IN QUESTION WAS SUFFICIENTLY REGULAR, AND WHETHER HIS
COVERAGE OF COMMODITIES WAS SUFFICIENTLY REPRESENTATIVE, TO SUPPORT A
FINDING THAT HE WAS IN "BONA FIDE OPERATION" AS A "COMMON CARRIER" OF
THE GROUP OF COMMODITIES, OR OF THE CLASS OR CLASSES OF PROPERTY,
DURING THE PERIODS IN QUESTION.    THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE
AUTHORIZED THE CARRIAGE OF ABOUT A DOZEN KINDS OF COMMODITIES, THOUGH
IN PRIOR OPERATIONS ABOUT THREE TIMES THAT NUMBER HAD BEEN CARRIED.  IT
IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE.  HENCE WE INTIMATE NO
OPINION AS TO WHETHER MORE COMMODITIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED HAD
THE PROPER CRITERION BEEN EMPLOYED.  BUT WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO
STATUTORY WARRANT FOR APPLYING TO IRREGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS A DIFFERENT
OR STRICTER TEST AS TO COMMODITIES WHICH MAY BE CARRIED THAN IS APPLIED
TO REGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TYPES OF
CARRIERS MAY WELL JUSTIFY A SHARP DELIMITATION OF THE FAR FLUNG
TERRITORY WHICH AN IRREGULAR ROUTE CARRIER MAY PROFESS TO SERVE.  BUT,
ONCE THE TERRITORY HAS BEEN DEFINED, THE STATUTORY TEST OF WHETHER AN
APPLICANT WAS A "COMMON CARRIER" BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN "BONA FIDE
OPERATION" DURING THE CRITICAL PERIODS IS THE SAME FOR THE IRREGULAR
AND THE REGULAR ROUTE CARRIER.  WE ARE NOT CONFIDENT THAT THE
COMMISSION HAS APPROACHED THE PROBLEM IN THAT WAY.  FOR IT HAS
REPEATEDLY STATED, BEGINNING WITH POWELL BROTHERS TRUCK LINES, 9 M.C.C.
785, 791-792, THAT: 

"AUTHORITY TO TRANSPORT GENERAL COMMODITIES THROUGHOUT A WIDE
TERRITORY OVER IRREGULAR AND UNSPECIFIED ROUTES PURSUANT TO THE
'GRANDFATHER' CLAUSE OF THE ACT SHOULD BE GRANTED TO A CARRIER ONLY
WHEN SUCH CARRIER'S RIGHT THERETO HAS BEEN PROVED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD CREATE THE VERY ILLS WHICH REGULATION
IS DESIGNED TO ALLEVIATE, NAMELY, CONGESTION OF HIGHWAYS, DESTRUCTIVE
RATE PRACTICES, AND UNBRIDLED COMPETITION.  COMMON CARRIERS WHICH ARE
EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN REGULAR SERVICE FOR THE MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT IN
WHATEVER QUANTITIES OFFERED TO AND FROM ALL POINTS ON SPECIFIED ROUTES
CANNOT OPERATE ECONOMICALLY AND EFFICIENTLY IF OTHER CARRIERS ARE
PERMITTED TO INVADE SUCH ROUTES FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HANDLING THE
CREAM OF THE TRAFFIC AVAILABLE THEREON IN SO-CALLED IRREGULAR-ROUTE
SERVICE." 

AND SEE MERCHANTS PARCEL DELIVERY CO., 21 M.C.C. 93; LANGER TRANSPORT
CORP., 23 M.C.C. 302; LETT & CO. OF INDIANA, 26 M.C.C. 159. 

INSOFAR AS THAT VIEW ESTABLISHES A DIFFERENT TEST FOR COMMODITIES
WHICH MAY BE CARRIED BY IRREGULAR ROUTE OPERATORS THAN FOR COMMODITIES
WHICH MAY BE CARRIED BY REGULAR ROUTE OPERATORS, IT IS ERRONEOUS AS A
MATTER OF LAW.  FOR FACTS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT A PERSON IS A
"COMMON CARRIER" BY MOTOR VEHICLE IN "BONA FIDE OPERATION" IN THE ONE
CASE ARE SUFFICIENT IN THE OTHER.  THE STATUTORY DIFFERENCES LIE ONLY
IN THE TERRITORIAL SCOPE AND PATTERN OF THE OPERATION. 

III.  IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID THAT A RESTRICTION ON
COMMODITIES WHICH MAY BE CARRIED BETWEEN SPECIFIED POINTS MAY NOT
ALWAYS BE JUSTIFIED.  IF THE APPLICANT HAD ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS A
"COMMON CARRIER" FOR A GROUP OF COMMODITIES OR FOR AN ENTIRE CLASS OR
CLASSES OF PROPERTY AND WAS IN "BONA FIDE OPERATION" DURING THE
CRITICAL PERIODS IN A SPECIFIED TERRITORY, RESTRICTIONS ON COMMODITIES
WHICH COULD BE MOVED IN ANY ONE DIRECTION OR BETWEEN DESIGNATED POINTS
WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED.  THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR COMMODITY HAD NEVER
BEEN TRANSPORTED BETWEEN CERTAIN POINTS IN THAT TERRITORY WOULD NOT
MEAN THAT AUTHORITY TO HAUL IT BETWEEN THEM SHOULD BE WITHHELD. 
LIKEWISE, IF THE APPLICANT COULD ESTABLISH THAT IT WAS A "COMMON
CARRIER" ONLY OF A LIMITED NUMBER OF COMMODITIES, THERE WOULD NORMALLY
BE NO STATUTORY SANCTION FOR LIMITING THE CARRIAGE OF PARTICULAR
COMMODITIES IN THAT GROUP TO SPECIFIED POINTS IN THE AUTHORIZED AREA. 
PRESUMPTIVELY, ONE WHO HAD ESTABLISHED HIS STATUS OF "COMMON CARRIER"
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CARRY ALL OF THE COMMODITIES EMBRACED IN HIS
UNDERTAKING TO ALL POINTS TO WHICH ANY SHIPMENTS OF ANY ARTICLES WERE
AUTHORIZED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, AN APPLICANT'S STATUS MAY VARY FROM ONE
PART OF THE TERRITORY TO ANOTHER OR BE DIFFERENT IN NORTHBOUND
SHIPMENTS THAN IN SOUTHBOUND SHIPMENTS.  THUS IN THIS CASE THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT PRACTICALLY ALL OF APPELLEE'S NORTHBOUND
SHIPMENTS CONSISTED OF COTTON YARN, THOUGH A FEW SHIPMENTS OF OTHER
COMMODITIES SUCH AS TIRES AND TUBES, ASBESTOS TEXTILE PRODUCTS, SPOOLS
AND EMPTY BOXES WERE ALSO MADE NORTHBOUND.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TIRES
AND TUBES, THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE SHIPMENTS OF THOSE PRODUCTS ON
NORTHBOUND TRIPS.  ASSUMING THAT FINDING TO BE JUSTIFIED UNDER THE
TESTS WHICH WE HAVE DESCRIBED, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT THE
NORTHBOUND DESTINATIONS OF THOSE PARTICULAR COMMODITIES SHOULD BE
RESTRICTED TO THE LOCALITIES DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION.  ONCE THE
COMMON CARRIER STATUS OF APPELLEE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AS RESPECTS
THOSE COMMODITIES, SHIPMENTS TO ANY PARTS OF THE AUTHORIZED TERRITORY,
OR TO ANY OF THE AUTHORIZED POINTS THEREIN, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED,
IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLEE AS RESPECTS CARRIAGE BETWEEN
SPECIFIED POINTS HAD RESTRICTED ITS UNDERTAKING TO PARTICULAR
COMMODITIES.  THAT PROBLEM IS CLEARER IN THIS CASE AS RESPECTS
SOUTHBOUND SHIPMENTS.  THE RECORD IS PLAIN THAT APPELLEE HELD ITSELF
OUT AS BEING WILLING AND ABLE TO CARRY A WIDE VARIETY OF COMMODITIES ON
ITS RETURN TRIPS TO ITS HOME BASE IN NORTH CAROLINA.  AND THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT IT CARRIED MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF ARTICLES ON THOSE
SOUTHBOUND JOURNEYS.  BUT THE COMMISSION DRASTICALLY LIMITED ITS RIGHTS
IN THAT REGARD.  THUS IT WAS PERMITTED TO CARRY BEER FROM NEWARK, N.J.
TO TWO POINTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, BUT NOT FROM BALTIMORE, MD.  IN
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT IT HAD THUS LIMITED ITS UNDERTAKING AS
RESPECTS BEER, THE MERE FACT THAT IT PREVIOUSLY HAD NOT CARRIED BEER
FROM BALTIMORE WOULD BE IMMATERIAL.  IF IT HAD ESTABLISHED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS A "COMMON CARRIER" OF BEER ON
SOUTHBOUND TRIPS, IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CARRY IT FROM ANY OF THE
NORTHERN POINTS TO ANY OF THE SOUTHERN DESTINATIONS.  FOR THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT IT HAD RESTRICTED ITS UNDERTAKING AS
RESPECTS BEER TO SHIPMENTS FROM NEWARK, UNLESS THE FACT THAT IT HAD
CARRIED BEER ONLY FROM THAT POINT IS TO BE CONCLUSIVE.  BUT TO SAY THAT
THAT WAS CONCLUSIVE OR CONTROLLING WOULD BE TO DISREGARD THE NATURAL
AND NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS SHOWN BY THIS RECORD.  SO FAR AS
SOUTHBOUND SHIPMENTS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS PLAIN THAT A WIDE VARIETY OF
ARTICLES WAS TRANSPORTED CONSISTENTLY WITH APPELLEE'S HOLDING OUT THAT
IT WOULD CARRY ANY OF THE ARTICLES FROM ANY OF THE POINTS.  APPELLEE'S
"BONA FIDE OPERATION" MAY POSSIBLY BE LIMITED ONLY TO THOSE ARTICLES
ACTUALLY CARRIED.  BUT WHERE IT WAS ACTIVELY SOLICITING WHATEVER IT
COULD GET AT ANY OF THE POINTS, IT DOES VIOLENCE TO ITS COMMON CARRIER
STATUS TO MAKE THE ORIGIN OR DESTINATION OF FUTURE SHIPMENTS CONFORM TO
THE PRECISE PATTERN OF THE OLD.  SUCH A PULVERIZATION OF THE PRIOR
COURSE OF CONDUCT CHANGES ITS BASIC CHARACTERISTICS.  THERE IS NO
STATUTORY SANCTION FOR SUCH A PROCEDURE. 

IV.  TO APPELLEE SUCH MATTERS INVOLVE LIFE OR DEATH.  EMPTY OR
PARTIALLY LOADED TRUCKS ON RETURN TRIPS MAY WELL DRIVE THE ENTERPRISE
TO THE WALL.  A RESTRICTION IN THIS CASE OF THE COMMODITIES WHICH MAY
BE CARRIED FROM ANY ONE POINT ON SOUTHBOUND TRIPS IS A PATENT DENIAL TO
APPELLEE OF THAT "SUBSTANTIAL PARITY BETWEEN FUTURE OPERATIONS AND
PRIOR BONA FIDE OPERATIONS" WHICH THE ACT CONTEMPLATES.  ALTON R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  ITS PRIOR OPPORTUNITY SHOULD NOT BE
RESTRICTED BEYOND THE CLEAR REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE.  FOR THIS ACT
SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO PRESERVE THE POSITION WHICH THOSE LIKE
APPELLEE HAVE STRUGGLED TO OBTAIN IN OUR NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM.  TO FREEZE THEM INTO THE PRECISE PATTERN OF THEIR PRIOR
ACTIVITIES, AS WAS DONE HERE, NOT ONLY MAY ALTER MATERIALLY THE BASIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF THEIR SERVICE, IT ALSO MAY WELL BE TANTAMOUNT TO A
DENIAL OF THEIR STATUTORY RIGHTS. 

THE PRECISE GROUNDS FOR THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT ONLY
CERTAIN COMMODITIES COULD BE CARRIED AND THAT ONLY A FEW COULD BE
TRANSPORTED BETWEEN DESIGNATED POINTS ARE NOT CLEAR.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
TO SAY THAT THE STANDARDS WHICH WE HAVE SET FORTH WERE APPLIED TO THE
FACTS IN THIS RECORD.  HENCE, AS IN FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S.
194, 215, THE DEFECT IS NOT MERELY ONE OF THE ABSENCE OF A "SUITABLY
COMPLETE STATEMENT" OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION; IT IS THE "LACK OF
THE BASIC OR ESSENTIAL FINDINGS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER."  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 293 U.S.
454, 464; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S.
499, 510-511.  CONGRESS HAS MADE A GRANT OF RIGHTS TO CARRIERS SUCH AS
APPELLEE.  CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED STATUTORY STANDARDS PURSUANT TO
WHICH THOSE RIGHTS ARE TO BE DETERMINED.  NEITHER THE COURT NOR THE
COMMISSION IS WARRANTED IN DEPARTING FROM THOSE STANDARDS BECAUSE OF
ANY DOUBTS WHICH MAY EXIST AS TO THE WISDOM OF FOLLOWING THE COURSE
WHICH CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN.  CONGRESS HAS ALSO PROVIDED FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW AS AN ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE THAT ITS POLICIES BE EXECUTED.  THAT
REVIEW CERTAINLY ENTAILS AN INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS
EMPLOYED THOSE STATUTORY STANDARDS.  IF THAT INQUIRY IS HALTED AT THE
THRESHOLD BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY WHETHER OR
NOT THOSE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN APPLIED, THEN THAT REVIEW HAS INDEED
BECOME A PERFUNCTORY PROCESS.  IF, AS SEEMS LIKELY HERE, AN ERRONEOUS
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LIES HIDDEN IN VAGUE FINDINGS, THEN STATUTORY
RIGHTS WILL BE WHITTLED AWAY.  AN INSISTENCE UPON THE FINDINGS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS MADE BASIC AND ESSENTIAL TO THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IS NO
INTRUSION INTO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOMAIN.  IT IS NO MORE AND NO LESS
THAN AN INSISTENCE UPON THE OBSERVANCE OF THOSE STANDARDS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS MADE "PREREQUISITE TO THE OPERATION OF ITS STATUTORY
COMMAND."  OPP COTTON MILLS, INC. V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126, 144. 
HENCE THAT REQUIREMENT IS NOT A MERE FORMAL ONE.  ONLY WHEN THE
STATUTORY STANDARDS HAVE BEEN APPLIED CAN THE QUESTION BE REACHED AS TO
WHETHER THE FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  THAT IS WHY WE CANNOT
SAY THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN PLACING THE SAME
RESTRICTIONS ON THE CERTIFICATE IN THIS CASE HAD A CORRECT CONSTRUCTION
OF THE ACT BEEN TAKEN. 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THE SCOPE OF THE CERTIFICATE WHICH SHOULD BE
GRANTED IN THIS CASE.  THAT ENTAILS NOT ONLY A WEIGHING OF EVIDENCE BUT
THE EXERCISE OF AN EXPERT JUDGMENT ON THE INTRICACIES OF THE
TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS WHICH ARE INVOLVED.  THAT FUNCTION IS RESERVED
EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE COMMISSION.  UNITED STATES V. MAHER, SUPRA; ALTON
R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  OUR TASK ENDS IF THE STATUTORY
STANDARDS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF "COMMODITIES OF UNUSUAL VALUE, THOSE IN
BULK, THOSE REQUIRING SPECIAL EQUIPMENT SUCH AS TANK OR REFRIGERATOR
TRUCKS, THOSE INJURIOUS TO OTHER LADING, LIVE STOCK, AUTOMOBILES AND
HIGH EXPLOSIVES." 

FN2  IN 1940 CONGRESS AMENDED SEC. 203(A)(14) TO READ:  "THE TERM
'COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE' MEANS ANY PERSON WHICH HOLDS ITSELF
OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR
VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY OR
ANY CLASS OR CLASSES THEREOF FOR COMPENSATION, WHETHER OVER REGULAR OR
IRREGULAR ROUTES,  ...  "  ACT OF SEPT. 18, 1940, C. 722, SEC. 18(A),
54 STAT. 920.  THE EARLIER DEFINITION OF "COMMON CARRIER" WAS IN FORCE
AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THIS CASE BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND I ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 

IT OVERTURNS THE EXERCISE OF A DISCRETION WHICH CONGRESS HAS
DELEGATED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UPON GROUNDS WHICH SEEM
TO US SO UNSUBSTANTIAL AS REALLY TO BE A REVERSAL ON SUSPICION.  THE
FUNCTION OF DETERMINING "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS DELEGATED IN THIS CASE IS
NOT UNLIKE THE FUNCTION DEALT WITH IN GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402, IN
WHICH WE SAID THAT CONGRESS COULD HAVE LEGISLATED SPECIFICALLY AS TO
INDIVIDUAL EXEMPTIONS BUT "FOUND IT MORE EFFICIENT TO DELEGATE THAT
FUNCTION TO THOSE WHOSE EXPERIENCE IN A PARTICULAR FIELD GAVE PROMISE
OF A BETTER INFORMED, MORE EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONFLICTING
INTERESTS" (P. 412).  WE HELD THAT THIS DELEGATION WILL BE RESPECTED
AND THAT, UNLESS WE CAN SAY THAT A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES DEEMED BY THE
COMMISSION TO BRING A PARTICULAR APPLICANT WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF THE
STATUTE "IS SO UNRELATED TO THE TASKS ENTRUSTED BY CONGRESS TO THE
COMMISSION AS IN EFFECT TO DENY A SENSIBLE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT, IT IS
THE COURT'S DUTY TO LEAVE THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT UNDISTURBED" (P.
413).  WHILE THE COURT PAYS LIP SERVICE TO THIS PRINCIPLE, THE
COMMISSION'S DECISION IS UPSET BECAUSE, AS THE OPINION STATES, "WE HAVE
DOUBTS"; "WE ARE NOT CONFIDENT"; AND "WE ARE NOT SATISFIED."  THE
OPINION PROCEEDS AS IT MIGHT DO WITH A BURDEN UPON THE COMMISSION,
ALTHOUGH WE SUPPOSED THE BURDEN TO BE UPON THOSE WHO COMPLAIN OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO SATISFY THE COURT THAT THE DECISION IS WRONG
- PARTICULARLY ONE DEALING WITH AN EXEMPTION FROM A GENERAL DUTY. 

WE DO NOT AGREE THAT A REMAND TO THE COMMISSION TO MAKE SPECIFIC
FINDINGS OF THE KIND REQUIRED IN FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S.
194, 215, IS APPROPRIATE.  IN THE FLORIDA CASE, THE COMMISSION
UNDERTOOK TO REVISE INTRASTATE RAILROAD RATES UNDER CONTROL OF THE
STATE AND OVER WHICH, AS CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES SAID, "THE COMMISSION HAS
NO GENERAL AUTHORITY."  282 U.S. AT 212.  IT WAS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT
ITS JURISDICTION TO REVISE RATES NOT WITHIN ITS GENERAL CONTROL BY
SPECIFIC FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER THOSE RATES IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTED A
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COURT HAD EARLIER ESTABLISHED THE
RULE THAT AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE
OVER A STATE RATE STATUTE OTHERWISE VALID "UNLESS, AND EXCEPT SO FAR
AS, IT CONFORMS TO A HIGH STANDARD OF CERTAINTY."  ILLINOIS CENTRAL R.
CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 245 U.S. 493, 510.  AND IN THIS
CONNECTION THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT EVEN AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS NOT TO
BE CONSTRUED TO SUPERSEDE OR SUSPEND THE EXERCISE OF THE RESERVED
POWERS OF THE STATE, EVEN WHERE THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS, "EXCEPT SO
FAR AS ITS PURPOSE TO DO SO IS CLEARLY MANIFESTED."  IT IS ONE THING TO
REQUIRE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO BE EXPLICIT IN FINDING
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS BEFORE IT INVADES CONCEDED STATE POWER.  IT IS A
WHOLLY DIFFERENT THING TO READ WITH A HOSTILE EYE THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS THAT A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FROM CONCEDED FEDERAL REGULATORY
AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN SUSTAINED. 

FURTHERMORE, IF AFTER THIS CASE IS RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION, THE
COMMISSION SHOULD LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT IN MAKING THE CHALLENGED
ORDER IT ACTED UPON CORRECT NOTIONS OF LAW, IT MAY YET BE UPSET BECAUSE
THE COURT SAYS ITS FINDINGS ARE NOT SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE, IT HAD
BETTER BE SAID NOW.  WE HAVE HERE A SMALL RECORD AND SIMPLE FACTS,
WHICH ARE ALL BEFORE US, GIVING ADEQUATE BASIS FOR CONCLUDING WHETHER
THESE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION WARRANTED THE ORDER.  ON THIS
RECORD IT IS PLAIN WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE.  THE ONLY QUESTION IS
CAN IT DO WHAT IT HAS DONE?  TO SEND THE CASE BACK TO THE COMMISSION
TO BE RECONSIDERED OR TO SAY THAT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE LEGAL VIEWS WHICH THE COURT EXPRESSES, AND THEN, PERHAPS,
TO SAY THAT IN ANY EVENT THE ORDER IS NOT WARRANTED ON THE RECORD
BEFORE US, IS REALLY TO INVITE THE COMMISSION TO EXPRESS ABSTRACT VIEWS
ON LAW.  WHAT THIS AMOUNTS TO IS THAT THE COURT REFUSES TO TELL THE
COMMISSION WHAT IT THINKS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE UNTIL THE COMMISSION TELLS
WHAT IT THINKS ABOUT THE LAW.  WE CANNOT REGARD THIS AS THE MOST
HELPFUL USE OF THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

CONGRESS BY THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 CAST UPON THE COMMISSION
THE TASK OF REGULATING THE MOTOR CARRIER INDUSTRY.  BY THE ENACTMENT,
CONGRESS ASSERTED THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MOTOR CARRIER
ENTERPRISE HAD BECOME PARAMOUNT TO PRIVATE INTERESTS.  THE HIGHLY
INDIVIDUALISTIC NATURE OF THE BUSINESS AND THE EASY TERMS UPON WHICH
EQUIPMENT COULD BE OBTAINED HAD PROMOTED A QUICK GROWTH ACCOMPANIED BY
INTENSE AND UNECONOMIC COMPETITION, BOTH WITHIN ITSELF AND WITH OTHER
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.  IT WAS NOT EXPECTED THAT A SPRAWLING, CHAOTIC,
AND CUTTHROAT INDUSTRY THAT HAD DEVELOPED ENTIRELY IN THE PRIVATE
INTEREST WOULD BE REDUCED TO AN ORDERLY AND REGULARIZED SYSTEM OF
TRANSPORTATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITHOUT STEPPING ON A GOOD MANY
INDIVIDUAL TOES.  FN1 

IN TRYING TO LIMIT THE INJURY CAUSED BY TRANSITION FROM A PURELY
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO A REGULATED PUBLIC SERVICE INDUSTRY, THE GENERAL
PLAN WAS TO PRESERVE TO PRIVATE OWNERS THE TRANSPORTATION VALUES
EVIDENCED BY ACTUAL CONDITIONS OF OPERATION ON JUNE 1, 1935, AND TO
EXEMPT THEM FROM MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY" AS TO SUCH OPERATION.  THOSE WHO OBTAINED SUCH "GRANDFATHER"
RIGHTS ARE NOT, HOWEVER, LIMITED TO THEM.  THEY MAY EXPAND THEIR
TERRITORY OR EXTEND THEIR SERVICE BY PROVING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED THEREBY.  THUS, THE SCRAMBLE FOR
"GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS REPRESENTS THE EFFORT TO PRE-EMPT TERRITORY AND
SERVICE PRIVILEGES WITHOUT SUBMITTING TO THE TEST OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  PUBLIC REGULATION WOULD BE DEFEATED AT ITS VERY OUTSET IF
THE COMMISSION PERMITTED THE BULK OF THE INDUSTRY TO ESCAPE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST TEST BY INFLATED CLAIMS UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE.  THE
NATURE OF THE GENERAL TASK OF REDUCING THE CLAIMS OF "GRANDFATHER"
RIGHTS TO DEFINED AND REASONABLE LIMITS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN OF
PUBLIC REGULATION IS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE. 

THE MOTOR CARRIER HERE ASKED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT THAT THE COMMISSION
CERTIFY ITS "GRANDFATHER" PRIVILEGES TO INCLUDE THE CARRIAGE OF GENERAL
COMMODITIES IN A TERRITORY COMPRISING SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATLANTIC
SEABOARD FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TO MASSACHUSETTS.  THAT THERE WAS SOME
DISPARITY BETWEEN ITS HOPES AND ITS EXPERIENCE WAS INDICATED BY THE
FACT THAT ON JUNE 1, 1935, IT WAS OPERATING EIGHT TRUCKS, AND BY 1936,
THE NUMBER OF USABLE VEHICLES HAD FALLEN TO FOUR.  AFTER A CHANGE OF
OWNERSHIP THE NUMBER WAS INCREASED, AND AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE
APPLICANT WAS OPERATING SEVENTEEN CARRYING UNITS. 

THIS CARRIER DID NOT OPERATE AT STATED TIMES OR OVER REGULAR ROUTES,
BUT WAS AN IRREGULAR ROUTE CARRIER.  THE BACKBONE OF ITS BUSINESS
CONSISTED OF CARRIAGE OF COTTON YARN FROM POINTS OF ORIGIN IN THE SOUTH
TO POINTS OF DISTRIBUTION IN THE NORTH.  INCIDENTAL TO THIS CARRIAGE IT
WAS READY TO ACCEPT CARGO OF ALMOST ANY KIND TO COMPLETE ITS LOADS AND
PARTICULARLY TO PROVIDE EARNINGS ON RETURN TRIPS.  IF SATISFACTORY
TERMS COULD BE ARRIVED AT, IT WAS WILLING TO CARRY ALMOST ANYTHING
ALMOST ANY PLACE.  ON THE BASIS OF SUCH GENERAL HOLDINGS-OUT, THIS
CARRIER SOUGHT CERTIFICATES THAT WOULD ENTITLE IT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT
TO CARRY NEARLY EVERYTHING WITHIN THE TERRITORY DESCRIBED. 

THE COMMISSION CUT DOWN THE CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT BY THE USE OF THE
STANDARD WHICH THE ACT PRESCRIBES:  NAMELY, BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A
COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  THE COMMISSION REDUCED THE
TERRITORIAL CLAIM TO THAT WHICH THE CARRIER ACTUALLY SERVED WITH SOME
REGULARITY, AND LOPPED OFF TERRITORY WHICH HAD BEEN SERVED ONLY
OCCASIONALLY OR BY ISOLATED TRIPS.  IT LIMITED THE COMMODITIES TO BE
CARRIED TO THOSE CARRIED IN SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE
AND AFTER JUNE 1, 1935.  WE FIND NO BASIS UPON WHICH WE CAN SAY AS
MATTER OF LAW THAT THESE GENERAL METHODS OF REDUCING NEBULOUS AND
EXTRAVAGANT CLAIMS TO A COMPASS WHICH THE COMMISSION COULD PROPERLY
CERTIFY AS REPRESENTING BONA FIDE OPERATION ARE IMPROPER OR OTHER THAN
THOSE CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE. 

THE COURT IS "NOT CONFIDENT" THAT THE COMMISSION APPLIED TO THIS
IRREGULAR ROUTE CARRIER THE SAME TEST AS TO COMMODITIES THAT IS APPLIED
TO REGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS.  WE CANNOT BE SO CONFIDENTLY UNCONFIDENT. 
THE COMMISSION SEEMS TO HAVE MADE ONLY THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
IRREGULAR AND THE REGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS THAT RESULTS FROM THE
DIFFERENCES INHERENT IN THE TWO TYPES OF ENTERPRISE.  THE COMMISSION
HAS TESTED BOTH BY THE REGULARITY AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THEIR ACTUAL
OPERATIONS.  IT IS A TEST WITH WHICH THEY MAY HAVE UNEQUAL ABILITY TO
COMPLY, BUT TO REACH DIFFERENT RESULTS ON SUCH DIFFERENT FACTS DOES NOT
IMPLY EITHER THE USE OF DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS OR DISCRIMINATORY
ADMINISTRATION. 

THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT MUST BE AWARE, AS THE
FRAMERS OF IT WERE, THAT "THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE AS OF JUNE 1, 1935,
HAS BEEN FIXED IN FAIRNESS TO BONA FIDE MOTOR CARRIERS NOW OPERATING ON
THE HIGHWAY AND LIMITED SO AS TO PREVENT SPECULATION WHICH IS HIGHLY
IMPORTANT."  REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE, H.R. REP. NO. 1645, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4.  WHEN A
CARRIER CLAIMS GRANDFATHER RIGHTS TO SERVE THE ENTIRE ATLANTIC SEABOARD
AS A GENERAL COMMON CARRIER WITH EQUIPMENT CONSISTING ON THE CRITICAL
DATE, OF EIGHT TRUCKS, THE COMMISSION IS OBVIOUSLY FOREWARNED THAT IT
MUST GUARD AGAINST GRANTING FRANCHISE PRIVILEGES THAT WILL RESULT IN
THEIR HAVING A SPECULATIVE VALUE TO THE CARRIER RATHER THAN A SERVICE
VALUE TO THE PUBLIC.  THE COMMISSION WAS QUITE RIGHT TO TAKE THE
MEASURE OF THE TERRITORY AND SERVICE OF SUCH A CLAIMANT AND TO GIVE HIM
A CERTIFICATE COVERING HIS ACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL OPERATIONS.  WE SHOULD
NOT SUBSTITUTE OUR OWN WISDOM OR UNWISDOM FOR THAT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICERS WHO HAVE KEPT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE
POWERS.  A.T. & T. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232, 236. 

FN1  SEE REPORT OF JOSEPH B. EASTMAN, FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF
TRANSPORTATION, ON THE REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES OTHER THAN
RAILROADS.  SEN. DOC. NO. 152, 73RD CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 13 ET SEQ. 

SEE ALSO REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, 1935, SEN. REP. NO. 482, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
..END :










HOWARD HALL CO. V. U.S., 315 U.S. 495 


NO. 210.  ARGUED JANUARY 16, 19, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 38
F.SUPP.  556, REVERSED. 


1.  A GRANT BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER BY
MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT
OF 1935, AUTHORIZING SERVICE ONLY FROM A PARTICULAR CITY AND ALL POINTS
WITHIN A RADIUS OF 10 MILES THEREOF, TO ALL POINTS IN CERTAIN STATES
AND TO DESIGNATED POINTS IN OTHERS, HELD NOT ERRONEOUS.  P. 498.  2. 
IN A GRANT OF COMMON CARRIER RIGHTS UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE,"
THAT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE WHICH LIMITS THE
KINDS OF COMMODITIES WHICH MAY BE CARRIED BETWEEN SPECIFIED POINTS, IS
NOT SUPPORTED BY THE REQUISITE BASIC OR ESSENTIAL FINDINGS.  UNITED
STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS, ANTE, P. 475.  P. 499. 

HOWARD HALL CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, LIKE UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP.,
ANTE, P. 475, IS AN APPEAL FROM A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES (38
F.SUPP.  556) CONVENED TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION (24 M.C.C. 273) GRANTING APPELLANT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER
THE SO-CALLED "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" (SEC. 206(A)) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT OF 1935.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 306. 

APPELLANT MADE APPLICATION AS A COMMON CARRIER OF GENERAL COMMODITIES
OPERATING OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES.  IT SOUGHT AUTHORITY TO OPERATE
BETWEEN ALL POINTS IN A VAST TERRITORY COMPRISING MOST OF THE COUNTRY
EAST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, EXCEPT THE NEW ENGLAND STATES.  THE
COMMISSION AUTHORIZED THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE BUT LIMITED IT IN
TWO RESPECTS.  (1) IT RESTRICTED THE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE OF THE
OPERATIONS BY AUTHORIZING SERVICE ONLY FROM BIRMINGHAM, ALA., AND ALL
POINTS WITHIN A RADIUS OF 10 MILES FROM THAT CITY, TO ALL POINTS IN
CERTAIN STATES AND TO DESIGNATED POINTS IN OTHERS.  (2) THOUGH IT
PERMITTED APPELLANT TO CARRY GENERAL COMMODITIES THROUGHOUT A LARGE
SEGMENT OF THE AUTHORIZED TERRITORY, IT LIMITED THE KINDS OF
COMMODITIES WHICH COULD BE CARRIED BETWEEN SPECIFIED POINTS.  ITS
FINDING CONTAINING THOSE RESTRICTIONS (24 M.C.C., P. 277) READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"WE FIND THAT APPLICANT WAS, ON JUNE 1, 1935, AND CONTINUOUSLY SINCE
THAT TIME HAS BEEN, IN BONA FIDE OPERATION, IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE, OF GENERAL COMMODITIES,
EXCEPT COMMODITIES OF UNUSUAL VALUE, HIGH EXPLOSIVES, COMMODITIES IN
BULK, COMMODITIES REQUIRING SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS,
UNCRATED OR IN LIFT VANS IN CONNECTION WITH SO-CALLED HOUSEHOLD MOVINGS
BETWEEN BIRMINGHAM, ALA., AND ALL POINTS WITHIN 10 MILES THEREOF, ON
THE ONE HAND, AND, ON THE OTHER, ALL POINTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA,
MISSISSIPPI, AND SOUTH CAROLINA, AND THOSE IN FLORIDA ON AND NORTH OF A
LINE CONSISTING OF U.S. HIGHWAY 92 FROM TAMPA TO KISSIMMEE, THENCE U.S.
HIGHWAY 192 TO MELBOURNE, OF PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS FROM BIRMINGHAM
TO NEW ORLEANS, LA., AND CHATTANOOGA AND KNOXVILLE, TENN., AND FROM
KINGSPORT, TENN., TO BIRMINGHAM, OF NAILS, PIPE, PIPE FITTINGS, STEEL,
AND METAL CEILINGS FROM CANTON, OHIO, TO BIRMINGHAM, OF CLOTH FROM
ALABAMA CITY, ALA., TO WHEELING, W. VA., AND OF MATCHES FROM WHEELING
TO CHATTANOOGA AND BIRMINGHAM, ALL OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES; THAT BY
REASON OF SUCH OPERATION IT IS ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING
THE CONTINUANCE THEREOF; AND THAT THE APPLICATION IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS
SHOULD BE DENIED." 

THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER AND
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE ERRORS URGED HERE DO NOT RELATE TO THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDINGS.  THEY
INVOLVE TWO QUESTIONS:  (1) WHETHER THE COMMISSION WAS WARRANTED IN
LIMITING SHIPMENTS TO AND FROM POINTS LOCATED WITHIN A 10 MILE, RATHER
THAN A 100 MILE, RADIUS OF BIRMINGHAM; AND (2) WHETHER THE COMMISSION
ERRED IN LIMITING THE OPERATING RIGHTS OF APPELLANT TO THE
TRANSPORTATION OF ONLY A FEW COMMODITIES BETWEEN CERTAIN POINTS. 

I. WE PERCEIVE NO ERROR IN THE LIMITATION WHICH THE COMMISSION MADE
ON THE TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS. 

APPELLANT ARGUES THAT IF IT MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO SERVE ALL POINTS IN
ONE STATE, SAY GEORGIA, WITHOUT SHOWING THAT EVERY POINT IN GEORGIA HAD
BEEN PREVIOUSLY SERVED BY IT, THEN IT MUST BE GRANTED LIKE AUTHORITY AS
RESPECTS THE 100 MILE RADIUS AROUND BIRMINGHAM.  THAT IS A NON
SEQUITUR.  PRIOR OPERATIONS TO SEVERAL POINTS IN A REGION MAY OR MAY
NOT JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION IN AUTHORIZING SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE
REGION.  THE PRECISE GEOGRAPHICAL PATTERN FOR FUTURE OPERATIONS IS THE
PRODUCT OF AN EXPERT JUDGMENT BASED ON THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE
EVIDENCE AS TO PRIOR OPERATIONS, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PARTICULAR
TYPE OF CARRIER, THE CAPACITY OR ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO RENDER THE
SERVICE, AND THE LIKE.  ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 15;
UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., SUPRA.  THE
COMMISSION EMPLOYED THOSE STANDARDS IN LIMITING THE TERRITORIAL SCOPE
OF APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT ITS REDUCTION OF THE
BIRMINGHAM AREA FROM A RADIUS OF 100 MILES TO A RADIUS OF 10 MILES WAS
UNJUSTIFIED.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT ONLY 55 SHIPMENTS WERE
TRANSPORTED PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1935, TO OR FROM POINTS WITHIN 100 MILES
OF BIRMINGHAM, AS AGAINST 875 TO OR FROM THAT CITY.  ONLY 12 POINTS
WERE SERVED IN THAT LARGE AREA.  AFTER JUNE 1, 1935, 270 SHIPMENTS
MOVED TO OR FROM POINTS WITHIN 100 MILES OF BIRMINGHAM, AS AGAINST
2,030 TO OR FROM THAT CITY.  THE COMMISSION REDUCED THE RADIUS TO 10
MILES IN AN ENDEAVOR TO INCLUDE ONLY THE IMPORTANT INDUSTRIAL AREA
SURROUNDING THAT CITY.  IF WE WERE TO ENLARGE THAT AREA, WE WOULD
CLEARLY USURP A FUNCTION WHICH CONGRESS ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION. 
NOR CAN THAT FINDING BE ASSAILED BECAUSE PERMISSION TO SERVE ALL POINTS
IN OTHER AREAS WAS ALLOWED.  SUCH A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT PLAINLY IS
NOT ERRONEOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW.  AND NOTHING HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR
ATTENTION WHICH WOULD EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE RECORD OF PRIOR OPERATIONS
OR THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS TRANSPORTATION ENTERPRISE PRECLUDED THE
COMMISSION FROM RESTRICTING THE TERRITORY WHERE SHIPMENTS MAINLY
ORIGINATE WHILE BEING MORE LIBERAL AS RESPECTS THE TERRITORY WHERE
DESTINATION POINTS ARE LOCATED. 

II.  WE TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW AS RESPECTS THE LIMITATION ON
COMMODITIES WHICH THE COMMISSION IMPOSED IN CASE OF SHIPMENTS BETWEEN
SPECIFIED POINTS.  WE DO NOT SAY THAT THAT LIMITATION WAS UNJUSTIFIED. 
WE MERELY HOLD THAT IN THIS CASE, AS IN UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA
FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., SUPRA, THE BASIC OR ESSENTIAL FINDINGS TO
SUPPORT THAT PART OF THE ORDER ARE LACKING.  THE COMMISSION'S
CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT WAS AUTHORIZED TO TRANSPORT GENERAL
COMMODITIES BETWEEN BIRMINGHAM AND VICINITY ON THE ONE HAND, AND ALL
POINTS IN DESIGNATED AREAS ON THE OTHER, WAS BASED ON ITS FINDING THAT
PRIOR TO AND SINCE JUNE 1, 1935, APPELLANT "HELD ITSELF OUT TO
TRANSPORT GENERAL COMMODITIES" IN THAT TERRITORY AND "ACTUALLY
CONDUCTED AN OPERATION CONSISTENT WITH SUCH HOLDING OUT."  BUT IN CASE
OF THE LIMITATION WHICH IT IMPOSED ON THE SHIPMENT OF CERTAIN
COMMODITIES IT MERELY FOUND THAT "PRIOR TO AND SINCE JUNE 1, 1935,
APPLICANT TRANSPORTED PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS FROM BIRMINGHAM TO NEW
ORLEANS, LA., AND CHATTANOOGA AND KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, AND FROM
KINGSPORT, TENN., TO BIRMINGHAM; NAILS, PIPE, PIPE FITTINGS, STEEL, AND
METAL CEILINGS FROM CANTON, OHIO, TO BIRMINGHAM; CLOTH FROM ALABAMA
CITY, ALA., TO WHEELING, W. VA., AND MATCHES FROM WHEELING TO
CHATTANOOGA AND BIRMINGHAM." 

AS WE INDICATED IN UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP.,
SUPRA, IF THE APPLICANT HAD ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS A "COMMON CARRIER"
OF GENERAL COMMODITIES DURING THE CRITICAL PERIODS IN A SPECIFIED
TERRITORY, RESTRICTIONS ON COMMODITIES WHICH COULD BE MOVED BETWEEN
SPECIFIED POINTS IN THAT TERRITORY WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED.  THE MERE
FACT THAT PARTICULAR COMMODITIES HAD NEVER BEEN TRANSPORTED BETWEEN
DESIGNATED POINTS IN THAT TERRITORY WOULD NOT MEAN THAT AUTHORITY TO
HAUL THEM BETWEEN SUCH POINTS SHOULD BE WITHHELD.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
AN APPLICANT'S STATUS MAY VARY FROM ONE PART OF THE TERRITORY TO
ANOTHER.  AS RESPECTS CARRIAGE BETWEEN DESIGNATED POINTS, THE APPLICANT
MAY HAVE RESTRICTED ITS UNDERTAKING TO PARTICULAR COMMODITIES.  IT IS
NOT CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSION APPLIED THOSE TESTS IN THIS
CASE.  FROM ALL THAT APPEARS, IT MAY HAVE ALLOWED ONLY PAPER AND PAPER
PRODUCTS TO BE SHIPPED FROM BIRMINGHAM TO NEW ORLEANS MERELY BECAUSE
PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS WERE THE ONLY COMMODITIES PREVIOUSLY CARRIED
BETWEEN THOSE CITIES.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE COMMISSION QUOTED FROM
RELIANCE TRUCKING CO., INC., 4 M.C.C. 594, 595, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN AN OPERATION WITHIN THE CRITICAL
PERIODS CONSISTENT WITH THE HOLDING OUT IN THE NATURAL AND NORMAL
COURSE OF BUSINESS, AND THAT A MERE HOLDING OUT WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF AN
OPERATION CONSISTENT THEREWITH IS NOT ENOUGH.  YET IT ALSO SEEMS TO
HAVE PLACED CONSIDERABLE RELIANCE ON POWELL BROTHERS TRUCK LINES, INC.,
9 M.C.C. 785, 791-792, WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN UNITED STATES V.
CAROLINA FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., SUPRA, AND WHICH APPARENTLY TREATS
IRREGULAR ROUTE CARRIERS DIFFERENTLY IN THIS REGARD FROM REGULAR ROUTE
CARRIERS.  SINCE THE INFLUENCE OF THAT VIEW SEEMS TO HAVE PERMEATED THE
FINDINGS, WE CONCLUDE THAT HERE, AS IN UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA
FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., SUPRA, THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE
COMMISSION SO THAT THE BASIC OR ESSENTIAL FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER THE
RULE OF FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 215, MAY BE MADE. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DISSENT FOR THE
REASONS STATED IN THEIR DISSENTING OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. CAROLINA
FREIGHT CARRIERS CORP., ANTE, P. 475. 
..END :












BUTLER BROS. V. MCCOLGAN, 315 U.S. 501 


NO. 283.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 17
CAL.2D 664, 111 P.2D 334, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE APPLICATION OF A STATE STATUTE IMPOSING ON CORPORATIONS
DOING BUSINESS WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE A FRANCHISE TAX MEASURED BY
A PERCENTAGE OF THE NET INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE,
A FORMULA WHICH IS "FAIRLY CALCULATED" TO ALLOCATE TO THE STATE THAT
PORTION OF THE NET INCOME "REASONABLY ATTRIBUTABLE" TO THE BUSINESS
DONE THERE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P.
506. 

2.  ONE WHO ATTACKS A FORMULA FOR DETERMINING, UNDER A TAXING
STATUTE, THE AMOUNT OF NET INCOME ALLOCABLE TO THE STATE, HAS THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING BY CLEAR AND COGENT EVIDENCE THAT IT RESULTS IN
EXTRATERRITORIAL VALUES BEING TAXED.  P. 507. 

3.  A WHOLESALE MERCHANDISE CORPORATION OPERATED, AS A UNITARY
BUSINESS, STORES IN SEVERAL STATES, INCLUDING ONE IN CALIFORNIA.  IT
MAINTAINED A CENTRAL BUYING DIVISION WHICH SERVED ALL THE STORES.  IN
1935, IT HAD A SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT, ALTHOUGH THE CALIFORNIA STORE, ON A
SEPARATE ACCOUNTING BASIS, SHOWED A LOSS.  THE TAX COMMISSIONER OF
CALIFORNIA ALLOCATED TO THAT STATE A PERCENTAGE OF THE NET INCOME, AND
BASED THEREON A TAX UNDER THE STATE BANK AND CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX
ACT.  THAT PERCENTAGE WAS DETERMINED BY AVERAGING THE PERCENTAGES WHICH
(A) VALUE OF REAL AND TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, (B) WAGES, SALARIES,
COMMISSIONS AND OTHER COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES, AND (C) GROSS SALES,
LESS RETURNS AND ALLOWANCES, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CALIFORNIA STORE BORE
TO THE CORRESPONDING ITEMS OF ALL THE STORES.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE FORMULA OF APPORTIONMENT DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 506. 

(2)  THE FACT THAT THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM OF THE CALIFORNIA BRANCH
ATTRIBUTED NO NET INCOME TO THAT STATE DID NOT PROVE THAT THE TAX WAS
ON EXTRA-TERRITORIAL VALUES, SINCE ACCOUNTING PRACTICES FOR INCOME
STATEMENTS MAY VARY CONSIDERABLY ACCORDING TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND; AND
A PARTICULAR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, THOUGH USEFUL OR NECESSARY AS A
BUSINESS AID, MAY NOT FIT THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS WHEN A STATE SEEKS
TO TAX VALUES CREATED BY BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  P. 507. 

4.  THE RULING IN SAUNDERS V. SHAW, 244 U.S. 317, RELATIVE TO LACK OF
DUE PROCESS WHERE A STATE SUPREME COURT FINALLY DISPOSED OF A CASE ON A
NEW POINT AGAINST WHICH THE DEFEATED PARTY HAD HAD NO OPPORTUNITY OR
OCCASION TO MAKE DEFENSE, HELD INAPPLICABLE TO THE SITUATION IN THE
CASE AT BAR, IN WHICH IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE APPELLATE COURT DEPARTED
FROM PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION OF FACTS UPON WHICH THE CASE WAS
TRIED.  P. 510. 

BUTLER BROTHERS V. MCCOLGAN, FRANCHISE TAX COMMISSIONER OF
CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN A
SUIT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF A STATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL (JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237(A), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A))
FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SUSTAINING THE
VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF CALIFORNIA AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT AS CONSTRUED
AND APPLIED TO APPELLANT IT VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  17
CAL.2D 664, 111 P.2D 334.  THE STATUTE IN QUESTION IS THE BANK AND
CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX ACT.  2 GEN. L., ACT 8488, P. 3851; STAT.
1929, P. 19; AMENDED, STAT. 1931, P. 2226; STAT. 1935, P. 965.  SEC.
4(3) OF THAT ACT PROVIDES FOR AN ANNUAL CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX PAYABLE
BY A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE.  THE TAX IS MEASURED
BY THE CORPORATION'S NET INCOME AND IS AT THE RATE OF FOUR PER CENT
"UPON THE BASIS OF ITS NET INCOME" FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR.  THE MINIMUM
ANNUAL TAX IS $25.  SEC. 10 PRESCRIBES THE METHOD FOR COMPUTING THE NET
INCOME ON WHICH THE TAX IS LAID.  IT PROVIDES IN PART: 

"IF THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OF THE BANK OR CORPORATION IS DONE WITHIN
THIS STATE, THE TAX SHALL BE ACCORDING TO OR MEASURED BY ITS ENTIRE NET
INCOME; AND IF THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OF SUCH BANK OR CORPORATION IS NOT
DONE WITHIN THIS STATE, THE TAX SHALL BE ACCORDING TO OR MEASURED BY
THAT PORTION THEREOF WHICH IS DERIVED FROM BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THIS
STATE.  THE PORTION OF NET INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS DONE WITHIN
THIS STATE, SHALL BE DETERMINED BY AN ALLOCATION UPON THE BASIS OF
SALES, PURCHASES, EXPENSES OF MANUFACTURER, PAY ROLL, VALUE AND SITUS
OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY, OR BY REFERENCE TO THESE OR OTHER FACTORS, OR BY
SUCH OTHER METHOD OF ALLOCATION AS IS FAIRLY CALCULATED TO ASSIGN TO
THE STATE THE PORTION OF NET INCOME REASONABLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THIS STATE AND TO AVOID SUBJECTING THE TAXPAYER TO
DOUBLE TAXATION." 

THE TAX IN DISPUTE IS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1936.  APPELLANT PAID THE
MINIMUM TAX OF $25, ASSERTING THAT IT OPERATED IN CALIFORNIA DURING
1935 AT A LOSS OF $82,851.  THE TAX COMMISSIONER MADE AN ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENT OF $3,798.43 WHICH APPELLANT PAID, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST,
UNDER PROTEST.  THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RECOVER BACK THE AMOUNT SO
PAID ON THE THEORY THAT THE METHOD OF ALLOCATION EMPLOYED BY THE TAX
COMMISSIONER ATTRIBUTED TO CALIFORNIA INCOME DERIVED WHOLLY FROM
BUSINESS DONE WITHOUT THAT STATE. 

THE FACTS ARE STIPULATED AND SHOW THE FOLLOWING.  APPELLANT IS AN
ILLINOIS CORPORATION QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.  ITS HOME
OFFICE IS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.  IT IS ENGAGED IN THE WHOLESALE DRY
GOODS AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE BUSINESS, PURCHASING FROM MANUFACTURERS
AND OTHERS AND SELLING TO RETAILERS ONLY.  IT HAS WHOLESALE
DISTRIBUTING HOUSES IN SEVEN STATES, INCLUDING ONE AT SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA.  EACH OF ITS HOUSES IN THE SEVEN STATES MAINTAINS STOCKS OF
GOODS, SERVES A SEPARATE TERRITORY, HAS ITS OWN SALES FORCE, HANDLES
ITS OWN SALES AND ALL SOLICITATION, CREDIT AND COLLECTION ARRANGEMENTS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND KEEPS ITS OWN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.  FOR THE
PERIOD IN QUESTION, ALL RECEIPTS FROM SALES IN CALIFORNIA WERE CREDITED
TO THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSE.  APPELLANT MAINTAINS A CENTRAL BUYING
DIVISION THROUGH WHICH GOODS FOR RESALE ARE ORDERED, THE GOODS BEING
SHIPPED BY MANUFACTURERS TO THE HOUSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE ORDERED.  ALL
PURCHASES MADE BY APPELLANT FOR SALE AT ITS VARIOUS HOUSES ARE MADE
THROUGH THAT CENTRAL BUYING DIVISION.  THE COST OF THE GOODS AND THE
TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ARE ENTERED ON THE BOOKS OF THE HOUSE WHICH
RECEIVES THE GOODS.  NO CHARGES ARE MADE AGAINST ANY HOUSE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF APPELLANT OR ANY OF ITS OTHER HOUSES BY REASON OF THE
CENTRALIZED PURCHASING.  BUT THE ACTUAL COST OF OPERATING THE
CENTRALIZED BUYING DIVISION IS ALLOCATED AMONG THE HOUSES.  THE GREATER
PART OF APPELLANT'S OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES IS INCURRED DIRECTLY AND
EXCLUSIVELY AT THE RESPECTIVE HOUSES.  CERTAIN ITEMS OF EXPENSE ARE
INCURRED AND PAID BY APPELLANT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE HOUSES AND
ALLOCATED TO THEM.  NO QUESTION EXISTS AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE
AMOUNTS OF SUCH EXPENSE OR THE METHOD OF ALLOCATION.  THE LATTER
ADMITTEDLY FOLLOWED RECOGNIZED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.  FOR THE YEAR
1935 THE AMOUNT OF SUCH ALLOCATED EXPENSE CHARGED TO THE SAN FRANCISCO
HOUSE WAS $100,091.  FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUIT IT WAS AGREED THAT
APPROXIMATELY 75% OF THAT AMOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED EVEN THOUGH
THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSE WAS NOT OPERATED.  THE ACCURACY AND PROPRIETY
OF THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION OF THOSE COMMON EXPENSES FOR 1935 WERE
ADMITTED.  INCLUDED IN SUCH EXPENSES WERE EXECUTIVE SALARIES, CERTAIN
ACCOUNTING EXPENSES, THE COST OF OPERATING A CENTRAL BUYING DIVISION,
AND A CENTRAL ADVERTISING DIVISION.  EXCEPT FOR SUCH COMMON EXPENSES,
EACH HOUSE IS OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER HOUSE.  APPELLANT
COMPUTED ITS INCOME FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSE FOR THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION BY DEDUCTING FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALES IN CALIFORNIA
THE COST OF SUCH MERCHANDISE, THE DIRECT EXPENSE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO
HOUSE, AND THE INDIRECT EXPENSE ALLOCATED TO IT.  BY THAT COMPUTATION A
LOSS OF $82,851 WAS DETERMINED.  IN THE YEAR 1935, THE OPERATIONS OF
ALL HOUSES OF APPELLANT PRODUCED A PROFIT OF $1,149,677.  THE TAX
COMMISSIONER ALLOCATED TO CALIFORNIA 8.1372 PER CENT. OF THAT AMOUNT. 
THAT PERCENTAGE WAS DETERMINED BY AVERAGING THE PERCENTAGES WHICH (A)
VALUE OF REAL AND TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, (B) WAGES, SALARIES,
COMMISSIONS AND OTHER COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES, AND (C) GROSS SALES,
LESS RETURNS AND ALLOWANCES, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSE
BORE TO THE CORRESPONDING ITEMS OF ALL HOUSES OF APPELLANT.  NO OTHER
FACTOR OR METHOD OF ALLOCATION WAS CONSIDERED.  THE PROPRIETY OF THE
USE OF THAT FORMULA IS NOT QUESTIONED IF BY REASON OF THE STIPULATED
FACTS A FORMULA FOR ALLOCATION TO CALIFORNIA OF A PORTION OF
APPELLANT'S INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES IS PROPER. 

THE STIPULATION ALSO STATES THAT, IN THE YEAR 1935, THE TOTAL SALES
MADE BY APPELLANT AT ALL ITS HOUSES AMOUNTED TO $66,326,000, OF WHICH
$5,206,000 WERE MADE BY THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSE.  THE PURCHASES MADE
FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THAT HOUSE WERE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE SAME PROPORTION
TO TOTAL PURCHASES.  BY REASON OF THE VOLUME OF PURCHASES MADE BY
APPELLANT, "MORE FAVORABLE PRICES ARE OBTAINED THAN WOULD BE OBTAINABLE
IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES FOR THE ACCOUNT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL HOUSE."  THE
ADDITION OF PURCHASES "IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PURCHASES MADE FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSE RESULTS IN NO MORE FAVORABLE PRICES
THAN COULD BE OBTAINABLE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
THE PURCHASES WHICH WOULD BE MADE" BY APPELLANT FOR ITS OTHER HOUSES IF
THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSE WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE; AND "A REDUCTION IN THE
VOLUME OF PURCHASES IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PURCHASES MADE FOR THE
SAN FRANCISCO HOUSE WOULD RESULT IN NO LESS FAVORABLE PRICES BEING
OBTAINABLE IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES WHICH WOULD BE MADE FOR THE
REMAINING HOUSES" OF APPELLANT. 

HANS REES' SONS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 283 U.S. 123, CONSTITUTES
APPELLANT'S CHIEF SUPPORT IN ITS ATTACK ON THE FORMULA EMPLOYED AND THE
TAX IMPOSED BY CALIFORNIA.  APPELLANT MAINTAINS THAT THE USE OF THE
FORMULA IN QUESTION RESULTED IN CONVERTING A LOSS OF $82,851 INTO A
PROFIT OF OVER $93,500 AND THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF SOME $175,000 HAS
EITHER BEEN CREATED OUT OF NOTHING OR HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED BY
CALIFORNIA FROM OTHER STATES. 

WE TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW.  WE READ THE STATUTE AS CALLING FOR A
METHOD OF ALLOCATION WHICH IS "FAIRLY CALCULATED" TO ASSIGN TO
CALIFORNIA THAT PORTION OF THE NET INCOME "REASONABLY ATTRIBUTABLE" TO
THE BUSINESS DONE THERE.  THE TEST, NOT HERE CHALLENGED, WHICH HAS BEEN
REFLECTED IN PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, IS CERTAINLY NOT MORE
EXACTING.  BASS, RATCLIFF & GRETTON, LTD. V. TAX COMMISSION, 266 U.S.
271; FORD MOTOR CO. V. BEAUCHAMP, 308 U.S. 331.  HENCE, IF THE FORMULA
WHICH WAS EMPLOYED MEETS THOSE STANDARDS, ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
ARISING UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS AT AN END. 

ONE WHO ATTACKS A FORMULA OF APPORTIONMENT CARRIES A DISTINCT BURDEN
OF SHOWING BY "CLEAR AND COGENT EVIDENCE" THAT IT RESULTS IN
EXTRATERRITORIAL VALUES BEING TAXED.  SEE NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. CO. V.
NORTH CAROLINA, 297 U.S. 682, 688.  THIS COURT HELD IN HANS REES' SONS
V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, P. 135, THAT THAT BURDEN HAD BEEN MAINTAINED
ON A SHOWING BY THE TAXPAYER THAT "IN ANY ASPECT OF THE EVIDENCE" ITS
INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO NORTH CAROLINA WAS "OUT OF ALL APPROPRIATE
PROPORTION TO THE BUSINESS" TRANSACTED BY THE TAXPAYER IN THAT STATE. 
NO SUCH SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE HERE. 

IT IS TRUE THAT APPELLANT'S SEPARATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FOR ITS SAN
FRANCISCO BRANCH ATTRIBUTED NO NET INCOME TO CALIFORNIA.  BUT WE NEED
NOT IMPEACH THE INTEGRITY OF THAT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM TO SAY THAT IT DOES
NOT PROVE APPELLANT'S ASSERTION THAT EXTRATERRITORIAL VALUES ARE BEING
TAXED.  ACCOUNTING PRACTICES FOR INCOME STATEMENTS MAY VARY
CONSIDERABLY ACCORDING TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND.  SANDERS, HATFIELD &
MOORE, A STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (1938), P. 26.  A
PARTICULAR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, THOUGH USEFUL OR NECESSARY AS A BUSINESS
AID, MAY NOT FIT THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS WHEN A STATE SEEKS TO TAX
VALUES CREATED BY BUSINESS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  CF. HAMILTON, COST AS A
STANDARD FOR PRICE, 4 LAW & CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 321.  THAT MAY BE DUE
TO THE FACT, AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER
CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113, 121, THAT A STATE IN ATTEMPTING TO
PLACE UPON A BUSINESS EXTENDING INTO SEVERAL STATES "ITS FAIR SHARE OF
THE BURDEN OF TAXATION" IS "FACED WITH THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ALLOCATING
SPECIFICALLY THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE PROCESSES CONDUCTED WITHIN ITS
BORDERS."  FURTHERMORE, THE PARTICULAR SYSTEM USED MAY NOT REVEAL THE
FACTS BASIC TO THE STATE'S DETERMINATION.  BASS, RATCLIFF & GRETTON,
LTD. V. TAX COMMISSION, SUPRA, P. 283.  IN EITHER ASPECT OF THE MATTER,
THE RESULTS OF THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM EMPLOYED BY APPELLANT DO NOT
IMPEACH THE VALIDITY OR PROPRIETY OF THE FORMULA WHICH CALIFORNIA HAS
APPLIED HERE. 

AT LEAST SINCE ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. OHIO, 165 U.S. 194, THIS COURT
HAS RECOGNIZED THAT UNITY OF USE AND MANAGEMENT OF A BUSINESS WHICH IS
SCATTERED THROUGH SEVERAL STATES MAY BE CONSIDERED WHEN A STATE
ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE A TAX ON AN APPORTIONMENT BASIS.  AS STATED IN HANS
REES' SONS V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA, P. 133, "  ...  THE ENTERPRISE OF
A CORPORATION WHICH MANUFACTURES AND SELLS ITS MANUFACTURED PRODUCT IS
ORDINARILY A UNITARY BUSINESS, AND ALL THE FACTORS IN THAT ENTERPRISE
ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE REALIZATION OF PROFITS."  AND SEE BASS, RATCLIFF &
GRETTON, LTD. V. TAX COMMISSION, SUPRA, P. 282.  BY THE SAME TOKEN,
CALIFORNIA MAY PROPERLY TREAT APPELLANT'S BUSINESS AS A UNITARY ONE. 
CF. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412.  THERE
IS UNITY OF OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT.  AND THE OPERATION OF THE CENTRAL
BUYING DIVISION ALONE DEMONSTRATES THAT FUNCTIONALLY THE VARIOUS
BRANCHES ARE CLOSELY INTEGRATED.  ADMITTEDLY, CENTRALIZED PURCHASING
RESULTS IN MORE FAVORABLE PRICES BEING OBTAINED THAN IF THE PURCHASES
WERE SEPARATELY MADE FOR THE ACCOUNT OF ANY ONE BRANCH.  WHAT THE
SAVINGS WERE AND WHAT PORTION IS FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE VOLUME
CONTRIBUTED BY THE SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH DO NOT APPEAR.  BUT THE
CONCESSION THAT A REDUCTION OR ADDITION OF PURCHASES "IN AN AMOUNT
EQUAL TO THE PURCHASES MADE FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO HOUSE" WOULD NOT
RESULT IN HIGHER OR LOWER PURCHASE PRICES RESPECTIVELY DOES NOT AID
APPELLANT'S CASE.  THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THIS RECORD FOR
SINGLING OUT THE SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH RATHER THAN ANOTHER AND
CONCLUDING THAT IT MADE NO CONTRIBUTION TO THOSE SAVINGS.  AS APTLY
STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, "IF THE OMISSION OF THE
CALIFORNIA SALES WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE PURCHASING POWER, THE
OMISSION OF SALES IN AN EQUAL AMOUNT WHEREVER MADE WOULD LIKEWISE HAVE
NO EFFECT ON THE COMPANY'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE AT A SAVING.  THUS, BY
PROCEEDING IN TURN FROM STATE TO STATE, IT COULD BE SHOWN THAT NONE OF
THE SALES IN ANY OF THE STATES SHOULD BE CREDITED WITH THE INCOME
RESULTING FROM THE PURCHASING OF GOODS IN LARGE QUANTITIES."  NOR ARE
THERE ANY FACTS SHOWN WHICH PERMIT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE OTHER
ADVANTAGES OF CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT (GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.
V. GROSJEAN, SUPRA) ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO OTHER BRANCHES BUT NOT TO THE
ONE IN CALIFORNIA.  THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT
SHOWN THE PRECISE SOURCES OF ITS NET INCOME OF $1,149,677.  IF FACTORS
WHICH ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT NET INCOME ARE PRESENT IN OTHER STATES
BUT NOT PRESENT IN CALIFORNIA, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN REVEALED.  AT LEAST
IN ABSENCE OF THAT PROOF, CALIFORNIA WAS JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING THAT THE
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH CONTRIBUTED ITS ALIQUOT SHARE TO THE ADVANTAGES OF
CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF THIS UNITARY ENTERPRISE AND TO THE NET INCOME
EARNED.    WE CANNOT SAY THAT PROPERTY, PAY ROLL, AND SALES ARE
INAPPROPRIATE INGREDIENTS OF AN APPORTIONMENT FORMULA.  WE AGREE WITH
THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THAT THESE FACTORS MAY PROPERLY BE
DEEMED TO REFLECT "THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ACTIVITIES IN THE
VARIOUS STATES TO THE PRODUCTION OF THE TOTAL UNITARY INCOME," SO AS TO
ALLOCATE TO CALIFORNIA ITS JUST PROPORTION OF THE PROFITS EARNED BY
APPELLANT FROM THIS UNITARY BUSINESS.  AND NO SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE
THAT INCOME UNCONNECTED WITH THE UNITARY BUSINESS HAS BEEN USED IN THE
FORMULA. 

THE STIPULATION OF FACTS STATES THAT, IF "THE COURT DEEMS THAT IT IS
BOUND BY ANY INFERENCE OR PRESUMPTION RESPECTING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY
THE COMMISSIONER, OR THAT THIS STIPULATION FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY FACT
NECESSARY TO A DECISION, THE CASE SHALL BE REOPENED FOR THE TAKING OF
FURTHER PROOFS IN RESPECT THEREOF."  APPELLANT IN ITS PETITION FOR
REHEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA RELIED ON THAT PART OF
THE STIPULATION IN URGING THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED FOR A FURTHER
HEARING SINCE THAT COURT CONCLUDED THAT "APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED
ANY EXPLANATION OF WHY ITS CALIFORNIA BUSINESS DIFFERS SO FROM THE
AVERAGE THAT THE FORMULA PRODUCED AN ERRONEOUS RESULT."  THE PETITION
FOR REHEARING WAS DENIED.  APPELLANT NOW ASSERTS THAT IT HAS BEEN
DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS UNDER THE RULE OF SAUNDERS V. SHAW, 244
U.S. 317.  WE DO NOT AGREE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA CREATED NO
INNOVATION AND SPRUNG NO SURPRISE WHEN IT PLACED ON APPELLANT THE
BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE FORMULA TAXED EXTRATERRITORIAL VALUES. 
AS WE HAVE NOTED, THAT IS SETTLED DOCTRINE.  APPELLANT HAD A FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE ISSUES WHICH IT TENDERED.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK, 315 U.S. 510 


NO. 238.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 118 F.2D
537, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SECS. 801 AND 802 OF TITLE VIII OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT,
AN EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO COLLECT THE TAX LAID ON THE WAGE INCOMES OF
HIS EMPLOYEES, BUT IS LIABLE FOR ITS PAYMENT WHETHER OR NOT HE COLLECTS
IT.  P. 515. 

2.  THIS LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER IS A TAX, AND A CLAIM THEREON IS
ENTITLED TO PRIORITY AS FOR A TAX UNDER SEC. 64(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT.  P. 515. 

3.  A TAX FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 64(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
INCLUDES ANY PECUNIARY BURDEN UPON INDIVIDUALS OR PROPERTY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 515. 

4.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 902 OF TITLE IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
ALLOWING THE EMPLOYER TO CREDIT AGAINST HIS TAX, UNDER SEC. 901, THE
AMOUNT OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUNDS UP TO 90% OF
THE TAX, DOES NOT MAKE THE TAX TO THAT EXTENT A PENALTY, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 57(J) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS APPLIED TO AN EMPLOYER
WHO HAS FAILED TO MAKE SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS.  P. 516. 

5.  IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNTS DISTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNITED STATES ON
ITS TAX CLAIM AND TO THE STATE FOR ITS UNEMPLOYMENT FUND, UNDER SECS.
901 AND 902 OF TITLE IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, FROM A BANKRUPT
ESTATE WHOSE ASSETS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THESE AND OTHER CLAIMS
OF PRIORITY, HELD THAT THE ALLOWANCE TO BE MADE FOR THE STATE FUND
SHOULD BE CREDITED AGAINST THE TOTAL TAX CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES
UNDER SEC. 901, RATHER THAN AGAINST THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY AVAILABLE FOR
SUCH CLAIM.  P. 520. 

UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 251, NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 592, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 592, ON CROSS-PETITIONS, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT
REVERSING PART OF AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 38 F.SUPP.  976, FOR
THE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS OF A BANKRUPT ESTATE. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK SEEK REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSING IN
PART A DISTRICT COURT ORDER FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS OF A
BANKRUPT ESTATE.  THE INDEPENDENT AUTOMOBILE FORWARDING CORPORATION WAS
ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT ON APRIL 26, 1938.  A TOTAL OF $3,053.20
EVENTUALLY BECAME AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION.  THIS AMOUNT WAS
INSUFFICIENT EVEN TO MEET THOSE CLAIMS OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS WHICH WERE ASSERTEDLY ENTITLED TO PRIORITY AS TAXES UNDER
SEC. 64(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN1  THE FEDERAL CLAIMS OF THIS
CHARACTER WERE FOR AMOUNTS DUE UNDER SECS. 801 AND 802 OF TITLE VIII
AND UNDER SEC. 901 OF TITLE IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT,  FN2  AND
FOR CERTAIN TAXES AS TO WHICH NO QUESTION IS RAISED IN THIS CASE.  THE
STATE CLAIMS WERE FOR PAYMENTS DUE ITS UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND, AND
FOR TAXES NOT IN ISSUE HERE. 

THE STATE'S APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S FIRST ORDER OF
DISTRIBUTION WAS DISCONTINUED BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES BECAUSE THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAD BEEN EXTENSIVELY AMENDED WHILE THE APPEAL WAS
PENDING.  FN3  A SECOND ORDER WAS THEREUPON ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE STATE AGAIN APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT
CONTENDED THAT THE SHARE OF THE ASSETS GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WAS EXCESSIVE FOR THREE REASONS:  (1) THE CLAIM BASED ON
SEC. 801 OF TITLE VIII OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT WAS A CLAIM FOR A
DEBT RATHER THAN FOR TAXES AND THUS WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER
SEC. 64(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT; (2) NO MORE THAN 10% OF THE CLAIM
BASED ON SEC. 901 OF TITLE IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT WAS ENTITLED
TO ALLOWANCE BECAUSE THE BALANCE CONSTITUTED A CLAIM FOR A PENALTY
RATHER THAN A TAX AND THUS FELL WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 57(J) OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT; FN4  AND (3) THE CREDIT AGAINST THE TITLE IX CLAIM
PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 902 WAS INCORRECTLY CALCULATED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE STATE'S CONTENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE TITLE
VIII CLAIM AND REVERSED TO THAT EXTENT THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
BUT REJECTED THE STATE'S ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM UNDER
TITLE IX. 

FIRST.  THE CLAIM BASED ON TITLE VIII.  SECTION 801 BEARS THE HEADING
"INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES" AND PROVIDES FOR A TAX "UPON THE INCOME OF
EVERY INDIVIDUAL" EQUAL TO 1 PER CENTUM OF THE WAGES RECEIVED BY HIM
WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT DURING 1937.  FN5  SECTION 802(A) PROVIDES
THAT THIS TAX "SHALL BE COLLECTED BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE TAXPAYER, BY
DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX FROM THE WAGES AS AND WHEN PAID."  THE
EMPLOYER IS MADE LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX.  BY REGULATION,
PURSUANT TO TITLE VIII,  FN6  THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAS EXPLICITLY
RULED THAT THE TAX MAY BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE EMPLOYER, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER HE HAS IN FACT DEDUCTED IT FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S WAGES.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS LIABLE "ONLY AS AN
AGENT BOUND TO PAY WHETHER ITS DUTY TO COLLECT WAS PERFORMED OR NOT"
AND THAT HIS LIABILITY WAS FOR A DEBT RATHER THAN FOR TAXES.  118 F.2D
537. 

AS AUTHORITY FOR THIS VIEW, IT RELIED UPON ITS DECISION OF THE SAME
DATE IN CITY OF NEW YORK V. FEIRING, 118 F.2D 329.  THE CITY SALES TAX
INVOLVED IN THAT CASE WAS LAID UPON RECEIPTS FROM SALES OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY.  THE VENDOR WAS REQUIRED TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX
FROM THE VENDEE SEPARATELY FROM THE SALES PRICE.  HE WAS OBLIGED TO
REPORT PERIODICALLY CONCERNING HIS RECEIPTS FROM SALES AND TO TURN OVER
TO THE CITY COMPTROLLER THE TAXES DUE, WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD ACTUALLY
COLLECTED THEM FROM THE PURCHASERS.  IF THE VENDOR FAILED TO COLLECT
THE TAX, THE VENDEE WAS REQUIRED TO REPORT THE TRANSACTION AND TO PAY
THE TAX DIRECTLY.  THUS, THE PROCEDURE CONTEMPLATED WAS THAT THE
PURCHASER SHOULD BEAR THE BURDEN OF THE TAX, BUT THAT THE SELLER SHOULD
COLLECT AND TRANSMIT IT TO THE COMPTROLLER.  IF THE SELLER DID NOT
OBTAIN IT FROM THE PURCHASER, HOWEVER, THE COMPTROLLER WAS AUTHORIZED
TO PROCEED TO COLLECT IT FROM EITHER OF THEM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE CITY AGAINST A BANKRUPT VENDOR FOR
THE AMOUNT OF THE SALES TAX OUTSTANDING WAS A CLAIM FOR A DEBT AND NOT
FOR TAXES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 64(A)(4).  WE REVERSED THIS
DECISION AND HELD THAT THE BURDEN IMPOSED UPON THE SELLER BY THE CITY
TAXING ACT HAD "ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TAX ENTITLED TO PRIORITY"
UNDER SEC. 64(A)(4).  313 U.S. 283. 

WE THINK THAT OUR DECISION IN THE FEIRING CASE IS CONTROLLING HERE. 
THE NEW YORK CITY SALES TAX INVOLVED IN THAT CASE AND THE OBLIGATION
IMPOSED BY SECS. 801 AND 802 OF TITLE VIII OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT.  IT WAS OBSERVED IN
THE FEIRING CASE THAT, WHILE THE SALES TAX WAS INTENDED TO REST UPON
THE PURCHASER "IN ITS NORMAL OPERATION," "BOTH THE VENDOR AND THE
VENDEE ARE MADE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF THE TAX IN INVITUM  ...  AND THE
TAX MAY BE SUMMARILY COLLECTED BY DISTRAINT OF THE PROPERTY OF EITHER
THE SELLER OR THE BUYER."  313 U.S. 283, AT 287.  THE BURDEN OF THE TAX
PROVIDED FOR BY SECS. 801 AND 802 LIKEWISE WILL NORMALLY REST UPON THE
EMPLOYEE, BUT THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE MAY PROCEED TO
COLLECT IT FROM THE EMPLOYER WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS DEDUCTED IT FROM THE
WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEE. 

TWO DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE CASES ARE URGED BY THE STATE.  ONE IS
THAT SEC. 802(A) OF TITLE VIII PROVIDES THAT THE TAX "SHALL BE
COLLECTED BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE TAXPAYER" AND THUS REVEALS A
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT ONLY A CLAIM AGAINST THE EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE
TREATED AS ONE FOR A TAX.  THE OTHER ASSERTED DISTINCTION IS THAT TITLE
VIII IN ITS ENTIRETY IS DESIGNED TO IMPOSE TWO DISTINCT TAXES; SEC. 801
IMPOSES AN "INCOME TAX" UPON THE EMPLOYEE, WHILE SEC. 804 IMPOSES AN
"EXCISE TAX" UPON THE EMPLOYER.  FN7  BUT A TAX FOR PURPOSES OF SEC.
64(A)(4) INCLUDES ANY "PECUNIARY BURDEN LAID UPON INDIVIDUALS OR
PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT," BY WHATEVER
NAME IT MAY BE CALLED.  NEW JERSEY V. ANDERSON, 203 U.S. 483, 492. 
ALTHOUGH HE MAY NOT BE REFERRED TO IN SECS. 801 AND 802 AS THE
TAXPAYER, AND ALTHOUGH HE MAY ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THE "EXCISE TAX"
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 804, THE PLAIN FACT IS THAT THE EMPLOYER IS LIABLE
FOR THE SEC. 801 TAX WHETHER OR NOT BE HAS COLLECTED IT FROM HIS
EMPLOYEES.  WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE TITLE VIII CLAIM OF THE UNITED
STATES AGAINST THE ESTATE OF THIS BANKRUPT EMPLOYER IS ENTITLED TO THE
PRIORITY AFFORDED BY SEC. 64(A)(4). 

SECOND.  THE CLAIM UNDER TITLE IX.  SECTION 901 IMPOSES UPON THIS
EMPLOYER, IN ADDITION TO THE OBLIGATIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, AN "EXCISE
TAX" EQUAL TO 2 PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL WAGES PAYABLE BY HIM DURING
1937.  SECTION 902, HOWEVER, PERMITS HIM TO CREDIT "AGAINST THE TAX
IMPOSED BY SEC. 901" THE AMOUNT OF HIS 1937 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT FUND, BUT PROVIDES THAT THE TOTAL CREDIT "SHALL NOT EXCEED
90 PER CENTUM OF THE TAX AGAINST WHICH IT IS CREDITED." 

(A)  THE STATE CONTENDS THAT SEC. 902(A) IN EFFECT EXACTS A PENALTY,
EQUAL TO 90% OF THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX LEVIED BY SEC. 901, FROM AN
EMPLOYER WHO FAILS TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS TO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND
REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.  SINCE SEC. 57(J) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PROVIDES
THAT CLAIMS BY THE UNITED STATES FOR PENALTIES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE,  FN8
IT ARGUES, ONLY 10% OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 901 IS ACTUALLY A TAX
FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 64(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THERE IS NO MERIT
TO THIS CONTENTION.  WHILE THE ISSUE HERE IS CAST IN SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
TERMS, IT IS SIMILAR IN OUTLINE TO THAT RAISED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTION TO THE ACT WHICH WAS SET TO REST IN STEWARD MACHINE CO. V.
DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548.  THERE IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE 90% CREDIT
PROVISIONS AMOUNTED TO COERCION OF THE STATES WHICH WAS REPUGNANT TO
THE TENTH AMENDMENT AND TO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.  THE COURT RECOGNIZED
THAT THE EFFECT OF THE SCHEME WAS TO ENCOURAGE THE STATES TO ESTABLISH
AND MAINTAIN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUNDS AND THUS TO COOPERATE WITH
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN MEETING A COMMON PROBLEM.  IT OBSERVED THAT
"EVERY REBATE FROM A TAX WHEN CONDITIONED UPON CONDUCT IS IN SOME
MEASURE A TEMPTATION" BUT IT CONCLUDED THAT "TO HOLD THAT MOTIVE OR
TEMPTATION IS EQUIVALENT TO COERCION IS TO PLUNGE THE LAW IN ENDLESS
DIFFICULTIES," AND TO ACCEPT "A PHILOSOPHICAL DETERMINISM BY WHICH
CHOICE BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE."  301 U.S. AT 589-590.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS
ARE EQUALLY PERTINENT TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE 90% REBATE ARRANGEMENT
CONSTITUTES THE IMPOSITION OF A "PENALTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
57(J) UPON AN EMPLOYER WHO FAILS OR REFUSES TO CONTRIBUTE TO A STATE
FUND.  THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX ASSESSABLE UNDER SEC. 901 IS DEFINITE AND
FIXED, ONCE THE SINGLE VARIABLE, THE TOTAL OF THE WAGES PAID DURING THE
YEAR, IS DETERMINED.  ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER IS FREE TO OBTAIN A CREDIT
AGAINST IT BY CONTRIBUTING TO HIS STATE FUND, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT
IS ANY THE LESS A TAX BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER HAS FAILED, EITHER THROUGH
CHOICE OR LACK OF RESOURCES, TO MAKE SUCH A CONTRIBUTION.  EITHER THE
STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST PROVIDE THE MONEY TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF RELIEF TO THE UNEMPLOYED.  BY HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
STATE, AN EMPLOYER HAS DIMINISHED THE DEMAND UPON THE FINANCIAL
RESOURCES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  BUT BY HIS FAILURE TO CONTRIBUTE,
THE EMPLOYER HAS INCREASED THIS DEMAND AND SHARPENED THE NECESSITY FOR
OBTAINING THE REVENUES REQUIRED TO SATISFY IT.  THE EFFORT BY THE
UNITED STATES TO OBTAIN THE REVENUE BY DENYING THE CREDIT MUST BE
REGARDED AS THE LEVYING OF A TAX AND NOT AS THE EXACTION OF A PENALTY. 
FN9 

(B)  FINALLY THE STATE CONTENDS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT APPLIED AN
INCORRECT FORMULA IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT DEDUCTIBLE
UNDER SEC. 902.  SECTION 902 PROVIDES:  "THE TAXPAYER MAY CREDIT
AGAINST THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 901 OF THIS CHAPTER THE AMOUNT OF
CONTRIBUTIONS, WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, PAID
BY HIM (BEFORE THE DATE OF FILING HIS RETURN FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR)
FN10  INTO AN UNEMPLOYMENT FUND UNDER A STATE LAW.  THE TOTAL CREDIT
ALLOWED TO A TAXPAYER UNDER THIS SECTION FOR ALL CONTRIBUTIONS PAID
INTO UNEMPLOYMENT FUNDS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT DURING SUCH TAXABLE
YEAR SHALL NOT EXCEED 90 PER CENTUM OF THE TAX AGAINST WHICH IT IS
CREDITED  ..."  IN THE CASE OF A BANKRUPT WHO HAS NOT MADE ANY
CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND AT THE TIME OF ADJUDICATION
AND WHOSE ASSETS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE TOTAL OF THE CLAIMS OF
EQUAL PRIORITY, THE CALCULATION OF THE CREDIT IS BESET WITH SOME
DIFFICULTY.  THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR THE STATE'S CLAIM FOR ITS
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND IS CONTINGENT UPON THE SUMS ALLOWED ON THE
OTHER CLAIMS, INCLUDING THAT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER SEC. 901. 
THE AMOUNT TO BE ALLOWED ON THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES IS IN TURN
DEPENDENT UPON THE CREDIT DEDUCTIBLE FROM IT UNDER THE TERMS OF SEC.
902.  AND THIS CREDIT UNDER SEC. 902 IS DETERMINED BY THE SUM GRANTED
ON THE STATE'S UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND CLAIM. 

BECAUSE OF THIS MUTUAL DEPENDENCE, THE COURTS BELOW HAVE ACCEPTED AND
APPROVED AN ALGEBRAIC SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM.  UNDER THIS SOLUTION,
THE CLAIM FOR THE TAX ASSESSED UNDER SEC. 901 IS DIMINISHED BY
SUBTRACTING FROM IT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SUM ALLOWED TO THE STATE FOR
ITS UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.  THE FORMULA BY WHICH THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED IS
REDUCIBLE TO A QUADRATIC EQUATION CAPABLE OF SOLUTION BY THE RECOGNIZED
METHOD. 

AS AGAINST THIS ALGEBRAIC SOLUTION, THE STATE URGES AN ARITHMETICAL
CALCULATION WHICH WOULD AFFORD IT A LARGER SHARE OF THE ASSETS.  IN
BRIEF, THE STATE'S THEORY IS AS FOLLOWS:  THE AMOUNT OF EACH OF THE
SEVERAL CLAIMS OF THE STATE AND OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE DIVIDED
BY THE TOTAL OF SUCH CLAIMS.  THE PERCENTAGE OF THE ASSETS DUE ON EACH
CLAIM IS THUS DETERMINED.  THE TOTAL OF THE ASSETS AVAILABLE IS THEN
MULTIPLIED IN TURN BY THESE PERCENTAGES, AND THE ACTUAL SUM TO BE
ALLOWED ON EACH CLAIM IS FOUND.  HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT ALLOWED ON THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM UNDER SEC. 901 IS THEN MULTIPLIED BY 10%.
THE SUM EQUAL TO THIS 10% IS THEREUPON CONCLUSIVELY GRANTED TO THE
UNITED STATES.  BUT THE REMAINING AMOUNT, EQUAL TO 90%, IS RETURNED TO
THE ESTATE AS A SECOND FUND TO BE DIVIDED AMONG ALL THE CLAIMS IN THE
SAME MANNER.  THE SHARE OF THIS SECOND FUND WHICH BY THIS COMPUTATION
WOULD GO TO THE UNITED STATES ON ITS SEC. 901 CLAIM IS AGAIN MULTIPLIED
BY 10%, WITH THE BALANCE OF 90% RETURNING TO FORM A THIRD FUND.  THE
PROCESS IS REPEATED UNTIL THE STILL UNDISTRIBUTED ASSETS REACH A
VANISHING POINT.    IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT WHILE THE ONE SOLUTION IS
ALGEBRAIC AND THE OTHER ARITHMETIC, THERE IS LITTLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN
THEM IN TERMS OF COMPLEXITY.  THE OBVIOUS FACT IS THAT NEITHER THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT NOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AFFORDS THE COURTS ANY
MEANINGFUL ASSISTANCE IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THIS CASE.  AND
THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS EQUALLY BARREN. 

THE STATE OBJECTS TO THE FORMULA APPLIED BELOW BECAUSE ITS EFFECT IS
TO ACCORD THE UNITED STATES A LARGER SUM IN DOLLARS AND CENTS ON ITS
SEC. 901 CLAIM THAN IT WOULD RECEIVE IF THE AVAILABLE ASSETS WERE
SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE IN FULL ALL OF THE PRIORITY CLAIMS.  THIS IS
TRUE BECAUSE, UNDER SEC. 902, THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE ENTITLED TO NO
MORE THAN 10% OF ITS SEC. 901 CLAIM IF THE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND CLAIM OF
THE STATE WAS PAID IN FULL.  WE AGREE THAT THIS RESULT IS SOMEWHAT
INCONGRUOUS.  HOWEVER, THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION URGED BY THE STATE
EMBODIES SO BASIC AN ERROR THAT WE CANNOT ACCEPT IT.  SECTION 902
PERMITS THE CREDIT "AGAINST THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 901."  UNDER THE
STATE'S FORMULA THE CREDIT IS RECKONED IN TERMS OF A SUM DETERMINED BY
THAT FORMULA TO BE ACTUALLY AVAILABLE TO THE UNITED STATES ON ITS SEC.
901 CLAIM RATHER THAN IN TERMS OF THE WHOLE AMOUNT ACTUALLY DUE UNDER
THAT SECTION.  WE THINK THAT THE WORDS "THE TAX IMPOSED" MUST MEAN "THE
TAX DEMANDED" OR "ASSESSED" OR "DUE."  IT CAN HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO MEAN
"THE TAX PAID" OR "THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF THE TAX."  THE
FORMULA ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AVOIDS THIS ERROR BY CREDITING
THE UNDETERMINED SUM AVAILABLE TO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND AGAINST
THE TOTAL TAX ASSESSED OR CLAIMED UNDER SEC. 901.  WE THEREFORE HOLD
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ERR IN
ADOPTING AND USING THAT FORMULA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED WITH RESPECT
TO THE CLAIM UNDER TITLE VIII, BUT IS OTHERWISE AFFIRMED.  THE CASE IS
REMANDED TO PERMIT THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SECTION 64.  DEBTS WHICH HAVE PRIORITY.  - A. THE DEBTS TO HAVE
PRIORITY, IN ADVANCE OF THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS TO CREDITORS, AND TO
BE PAID IN FULL OUT OF BANKRUPT ESTATES, AND THE ORDER OF PAYMENT,
SHALL BE  ...  (4) TAXES LEGALLY DUE AND OWING BY THE BANKRUPT TO THE
UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE OR ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF  ..."  U.S.C.,
TITLE 11, SEC. 104. 

FN2  C. 531, 49 STAT. 636, 639. 

"SECTION 801.  INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES.  IN ADDITION TO OTHER TAXES,
THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND PAID UPON THE INCOME OF EVERY
INDIVIDUAL A TAX EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE WAGES (AS
DEFINED IN SEC. 811) RECEIVED BY HIM AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1936, WITH
RESPECT TO UNEMPLOYMENT (AS DEFINED IN SEC. 811) AFTER SUCH DATE:  (1)
WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT DURING THE CALENDAR YEARS 1937, 1938, AND
1939, THE RATE SHALL BE 1 PER CENTUM."  U.S.C., TITLE 42, SEC. 1001. 

"SECTION 802.  (A)  THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 801 SHALL BE COLLECTED BY
THE EMPLOYER OF THE TAXPAYER, BY DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX FROM
THE WAGES AS AND WHEN PAID.  EVERY EMPLOYER REQUIRED SO TO DEDUCT THE
TAX IS HEREBY MADE LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX, AND IS HEREBY
INDEMNIFIED AGAINST THE CLAIMS AND DEMANDS OF ANY PERSON FOR THE AMOUNT
OF ANY SUCH PAYMENT MADE BY SUCH EMPLOYER."  U.S.C., TITLE 42, SEC.
1002. 

"SEC. 901.  ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936, EVERY EMPLOYER (AS DEFINED
IN SEC. 907) SHALL PAY FOR EACH CALENDAR YEAR AN EXCISE TAX, WITH
RESPECT TO HAVING INDIVIDUALS IN HIS EMPLOY, EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING
PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL WAGES (AS DEFINED IN SEC. 907) PAYABLE BY HIM
(REGARDLESS OF THE TIME OF PAYMENT) WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT (AS
DEFINED IN SEC. 907) DURING SUCH CALENDAR YEAR:  ...  (2) WITH RESPECT
TO EMPLOYMENT DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1937 THE RATE SHALL BE 2 PER
CENTUM.  ..."  U.S.C., TITLE 42, SEC. 1101. 

FN3  C. 666, 53 STAT. 1360, 1399.  SEE NOTES 9 AND 10, INFRA. 

FN4  "SECTION 57(J).  DEBTS OWING TO THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE
OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF AS A PENALTY OR FORFEITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED,
EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE PECUNIARY LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE ACT,
TRANSACTION, OR PROCEEDING OUT OF WHICH THE PENALTY OR FORFEITURE
AROSE, WITH REASONABLE AND ACTUAL COSTS OCCASIONED THEREBY AND SUCH
INTEREST AS MAY HAVE ACCRUED THEREON ACCORDING TO LAW."  U.S.C., TITLE
11, SEC. 93(J). 

FN5  BOTH THE PERTINENT STATE AND FEDERAL CLAIMS ARE FOR THE YEAR
1937. 

FN6  TREASURY REGULATIONS 91, ARTICLE 505. 

FN7  "SECTION 804.  EXCISE TAX ON EMPLOYERS.  IN ADDITION TO OTHER
TAXES, EVERY EMPLOYER SHALL PAY AN EXCISE TAX, WITH RESPECT TO HAVING
INDIVIDUALS IN HIS EMPLOY, EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE
WAGES (AS DEFINED IN SEC. 811) PAID BY HIM AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1936,
WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT (AS DEFINED IN SEC. 811) AFTER SUCH DATE:
(1)  WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT DURING THE CALENDAR YEARS 1937, 1938,
AND 1939, THE RATE SHALL BE 1 PER CENTUM."  U.S.C., TITLE 42, SEC.
1004. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN9  IN 1939 CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO PUT AN END TO ANY DOUBTS ON THIS
QUESTION BY PROVIDING IN SEC. 902(I) OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT THAT NO PART OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY TITLE IX SHOULD BE
DEEMED A PENALTY OR FORFEITURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 57(J) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  C. 666, 53 STAT. 1360, 1400. 

FN10  THIS CONDITION HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN THE PRESENT CASE. 
HOWEVER, THE 1939 AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, WHICH RESULTED
IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST APPEAL BY STIPULATION, PROVIDED THAT THE
CREDIT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON PAYMENTS TO THE STATE FUND "WITHOUT REGARD
TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT, IF THE ASSETS OF THE TAXPAYER ARE, AT ANY TIME
DURING THE FIFTY-NINE-DAY PERIOD FOLLOWING SUCH DATE OF ENACTMENT, IN
THE CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF A RECEIVER, TRUSTEE, OR OTHER FIDUCIARY
APPOINTED BY, OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF, A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION."  SEC. 901(A)(3).  C. 666, 53 STAT. 1360, 1399.  THIS
BANKRUPT ESTATE QUALIFIED UNDER THIS PROVISION. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. LOCAL 807, 315 U.S. 521 


NO. 131.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1942.  - DECIDED MARCH 2, 1942.  - 118 F.2D
684, REVERSED. 


THAT "ANY PERSON" WHO, IN CONNECTION WITH OR IN RELATION TO ANY ACT
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR ANY ARTICLE OR COMMODITY MOVING IN
SUCH COMMERCE, OBTAINS OR ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN BY USE OR THREAT OF FORCE,
VIOLENCE OR COERCION, THE PAYMENT OF MONEY, "NOT INCLUDING, HOWEVER,
THE PAYMENT OF WAGES BY A BONA FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE,"
SHALL BE GUILTY OF A FELONY.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT IT WAS
INTENDED TO SUPPRESS TERRORISTIC ACTIVITIES OF PROFESSIONAL GANGSTERS,
AND NOT TO INTERFERE WITH TRADITIONAL LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES.  P. 530. 

2.  THE EXCEPTION IS NOT LIMITED TO THOSE WHO HAD ACQUIRED THE STATUS
OF EMPLOYEES PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN THEY OBTAINED, OR ATTEMPTED OR
CONSPIRED TO OBTAIN, THE PAYMENT.  P. 531. 

3.  THE EXCEPTION IS APPLICABLE TO AN AGREEMENT BY MEMBERS OF A CITY
UNION OF TRUCK DRIVERS, WHO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT AT
UNION WAGES IN CONNECTION WITH "OVER-THE-ROAD" TRUCKS ENTERING THE
CITY, AGREE TO TENDER THEIR SERVICES IN GOOD FAITH TO EACH TRUCK OWNER
AND TO DO THE WORK IF HE ACCEPTS THEIR OFFER, BUT AGREE FURTHER THAT,
SHOULD HE REFUSE IT, THEY WILL NEVERTHELESS, FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THEIR UNION INTERESTS, REQUIRE HIM TO PAY THEM THE WAGES, EVEN BY
RESORT TO THREATS AND VIOLENCE.  P. 534. 

THE TEST OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EXCEPTION IN SUCH CASE IS
WHETHER THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CONSPIRATORS WAS TO OBTAIN "THE PAYMENT OF
WAGES BY A BONA FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA FIDE EMPLOYE," AND NOT WHETHER
THE INTENT OF THE TRUCK OWNER IN MAKING PAYMENT WAS TO PAY FOR SERVICES
RATHER THAN FOR PROTECTION.  P. 532. 

4. LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES SUCH AS THOSE DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD IN
THIS CASE ARE NOT BEYOND THE REACH OF FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE CONTROL; AND
THE USE OF VIOLENCE SUCH AS THAT HERE DISCLOSED IS SUBJECT TO THE
ORDINARY CRIMINAL LAW.  P. 536. 

UNITED STATES V. LOCAL 807 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, STABLEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 132, LOCAL 807 OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, STABLEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 596, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CROSS-PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 592, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT
REVERSING CONVICTIONS OF A LABOR UNION, AND INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF IT,
ON CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SEC. 2(A) AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
FEDERAL ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT OF JUNE 8, 1934. 

THE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE EXEMPTING "WAGES PAID BY A BONA-FIDE
EMPLOYEE" CONFERS IMMUNITY WHERE COMPENSATION IS PAID FOR SERVICES
RENDERED PURSUANT TO A GENUINE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, BUT NOT
WHERE PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO SECURE PROTECTION AGAINST UNLAWFUL
INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS, WHATEVER THE GUISE IN WHICH SUCH
PAYMENTS ARE MADE.  IN DETERMINING WHICH OF THESE SITUATIONS EXISTS,
THE TEST IS NOT WHETHER SOME SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED BUT WHETHER,
UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR LABOR OR
FOR PROTECTION. 

A MERE APPLICANT FOR EMPLOYMENT IS NOT AN "EMPLOYEE"; NOR IS MONEY
WHICH IS PAID TO HIM "WAGES."  THE REASON WHICH THE COURT GAVE FOR
ADOPTING THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS THAT IT WOULD BE AN ABSURD RESULT IF THE
STATUTE GAVE IMMUNITY TO WAGE PAYMENTS WHERE THE EMPLOYMENT HAD
ORIGINALLY BEEN PROCURED BY COERCION BUT FAILED TO GIVE IMMUNITY TO
PAYMENTS WHERE COERCION HAD BEEN USED BY PERSONS UNSUCCESSFULLY SEEKING
EMPLOYMENT.  THOSE WHO USE COERCION TO SECURE GENUINE EMPLOYMENT ARE
ENGAGED IN A LEGITIMATE LABOR OBJECTIVE; THEIR ACTIVITIES, ALTHOUGH
PERHAPS CONSTITUTING BREACHES OF THE PEACE, DO NOT PARTAKE OF THE
NATURE OF EXTORTION.  BUT IT IS DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO
CONCEIVE OF A SITUATION IN WHICH A PERSON CAN SUCCEED IN OBTAINING
MONEY FROM A PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER BY A MERE PROFFER OF SERVICES AND
WITHOUT ENTERING UPON A GENUINE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP UNLESS HIS
ACTIVITIES DO PARTAKE OF THE NATURE OF EXTORTION.  FOR AN EMPLOYER WHO,
UNDER THREAT OF VIOLENCE, PAYS A PERSON WHOSE PROFFERED SERVICES HE
REJECTS MUST BE PAYING ONLY FOR PROTECTION AGAINST VIOLENCE. 

THE PROVISO IN SEC. 6 DOES NOT, LIKE THE WAGE EXEMPTION, DIRECTLY
GRANT ANY IMMUNITY.  IT APPLIES ONLY IF "RIGHTS" EXPRESSED IN "EXISTING
STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES" ARE IN SOME MANNER IMPAIRED.  SECTION 6
OF THE CLAYTON ACT IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE RIGHTS IT CONFERS ARE
LIMITED TO CERTAIN RELIEF AGAINST PROHIBITIONS OF THE "ANTITRUST
LAWS."  LIKEWISE, THERE WAS NO INFRINGEMENT IN THIS CASE OF THE RIGHT
TO STRIKE, PICKET, BOYCOTT, OR TO ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY, GIVEN PROTECTION
BY SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  FOR THE SAME REASON, THE PROVISIONS OF
THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT LIMITING THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS
WITH RESPECT TO SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE INAPPOSITE.  THERE WAS ALSO NO
IMPAIRMENT OF THE PUBLIC POLICY DECLARED IN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT,
SINCE THERE WAS NO INTERFERENCE OR COERCION BY EMPLOYERS WITH
DEFENDANTS' RIGHT TO ORGANIZE OR TO SELECT COLLECTIVEBARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES. 

FURTHERMORE, THE PROVISO IN SEC. 6 IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE
DEFENDANTS' ACTIVITIES WERE NOT DIRECTED TOWARD A LEGITIMATE
OBJECTIVE. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE IS NOT OPPOSED TO OUR
CONTENTIONS. 

THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT IS PATENTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.  THE ACT DOES
NOT DEPRIVE THE STATES OF POWER TO PUNISH ACTS OF VIOLENCE WHICH MAY
LIKEWISE CONSTITUTE OFFENSES UNDER THE ACT.  FEDERAL LEGISLATION
ENACTED PURSUANT TO THE COMMERCE POWER OF CONGRESS DOES NOT BAR
COMPLEMENTARY STATE LEGISLATION UNLESS CONGRESS HAS MANIFESTED A
PURPOSE TO PREEMPT THE ENTIRE FIELD; AND THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT IS
OBVIOUSLY NOT A PREEMPTION OF THE ENTIRE FIELD OF REGULATION. 

THE ACT APPLIES TO LOCAL 807.  THE WORD "PERSON" WHEN USED IN FEDERAL
LEGISLATION MAY INCLUDE JURISTIC AS WELL AS NATURAL PERSONS. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS AMBIGUOUS. 
INDEED, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FRAME LANGUAGE MORE CLEARLY CONFINED
TO PAYMENTS MADE AS COMPENSATION FOR LABOR ACTUALLY PERFORMED THAN THE
WORDS "WAGES PAID BY A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYEE." 
THE MENTION OF "WAGES" ALONE WOULD HAVE CONVEYED THE THOUGHT, SINCE THE
WORD "WAGES" IS UNIVERSALLY DEFINED AS THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR
SERVICES. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE COMES HERE ON CROSS-PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING THE CONVICTION OF
LOCAL 807 AND 26 INDIVIDUALS ON CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SECS.
2(A), 2(B) AND 2(C) OF THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934.  FN1
THE GOVERNMENT ASKS THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION BE REINSTATED. 
IN THEIR CROSS-PETITION THE DEFENDANTS SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE
INDICTMENT.  WE DO NOT REGARD THIS AS A CORRECT DISPOSITION OF THE
CASE.  SINCE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE VIEWS CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE ON WHICH THE TRIAL COURT SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY GOES TO
THE ROOT OF THE CONVICTIONS AND THEIR REVERSAL BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, WE SHALL CONFINE OUR CONSIDERATION OF THESE CASES TO THAT
ISSUE.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS
WERE TRIED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPER MEANING AND SCOPE OF
THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDE: 

"ANY PERSON WHO, IN CONNECTION WITH OR IN RELATION TO ANY ACT IN ANY
WAY OR IN ANY DEGREE AFFECTING TRADE OR COMMERCE OR ANY ARTICLE OR
COMMODITY MOVING OR ABOUT TO MOVE IN TRADE OR COMMERCE - 

"(A)  OBTAINS OR ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN, BY THE USE OF OR ATTEMPT TO USE
OR THREAT TO USE FORCE, VIOLENCE, OR COERCION, THE PAYMENT OF MONEY OR
OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS, OR THE PURCHASE OR RENTAL OF PROPERTY OR
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, NOT INCLUDING, HOWEVER, THE PAYMENT OF WAGES BY A
BONAFIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYEE; OR 

"(B)  OBTAINS THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER, WITH HIS CONSENT, INDUCED BY
WRONGFUL USE OF FORCE OR FEAR, OR UNDER COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT; OR 

"(C)  COMMITS OR THREATENS TO COMMIT AN ACT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE OR
PHYSICAL INJURY TO A PERSON OR PROPERTY IN FURTHERANCE OF A PLAN OR
PURPOSE TO VIOLATE SECTIONS (A) OR (B); ...  " 

THE PROOF AT THE TRIAL SHOWED THAT THE DEFENDANT LOCAL 807 INCLUDES
IN ITS MEMBERSHIP NEARLY ALL THE MOTOR TRUCK DRIVERS AND HELPERS IN THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, AND THAT DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE INDICTMENT
DEFENDANTS CAMPBELL AND FUREY HELD OFFICE IN THE LOCAL AS DELEGATES IN
CHARGE OF THE WEST SIDE OF MANHATTAN AND THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WERE
MEMBERS.  LARGE QUANTITIES OF THE MERCHANDISE WHICH GOES INTO THE CITY
FROM NEIGHBORING STATES ARE TRANSPORTED IN "OVER-THE-ROAD" TRUCKS,
WHICH ARE USUALLY MANNED BY DRIVERS AND HELPERS WHO RESIDE IN THE
LOCALITIES FROM WHICH THE SHIPMENTS ARE MADE AND WHO ARE CONSEQUENTLY
NOT MEMBERS OF LOCAL 807.  PRIOR TO THE EVENTS COVERED BY THIS
INDICTMENT, IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CUSTOMARY FOR THESE OUT-OF-STATE
DRIVERS TO MAKE DELIVERIES TO THE WAREHOUSES OF CONSIGNEES IN NEW YORK
AND THEN TO PICK UP OTHER MERCHANDISE FROM NEW YORK SHIPPERS FOR
DELIVERY ON THE RETURN TRIP TO CONSIGNEES IN THE SURROUNDING STATES. 

THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A FINDING THAT THE
DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO USE AND DID USE VIOLENCE AND THREATS TO OBTAIN
FROM THE OWNERS OF THESE "OVER-THE-ROAD" TRUCKS $9.42 FOR EACH LARGE
TRUCK AND $8.41 FOR EACH SMALL TRUCK ENTERING THE CITY.  THESE AMOUNTS
WERE THE REGULAR UNION RATES FOR A DAY'S WORK OF DRIVING AND
UNLOADING.  THERE WAS PROOF THAT IN SOME CASES THE OUT-OF-STATE DRIVER
WAS COMPELLED TO DRIVE THE TRUCK TO A POINT CLOSE TO THE CITY LIMITS
AND THERE TO TURN IT OVER TO ONE OR MORE OF THE DEFENDANTS.  THESE
DEFENDANTS WOULD THEN DRIVE THE TRUCK TO ITS DESTINATION, DO THE
UNLOADING, PICK UP THE MERCHANDISE FOR THE RETURN TRIP AND SURRENDER
THE TRUCK TO THE OUT-OF-STATE DRIVER AT THE POINT WHERE THEY HAD TAKEN
IT OVER.  IN OTHER CASES, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY, THE MONEY WAS
DEMANDED AND OBTAINED, BUT THE OWNERS OR DRIVERS REJECTED THE OFFERS OF
THE DEFENDANTS TO DO OR HELP WITH THE DRIVING OR UNLOADING.  AND IN
SEVERAL CASES THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANTS EITHER
FAILED TO OFFER TO WORK, OR REFUSED TO WORK FOR THE MONEY WHEN ASKED TO
DO SO.  EVENTUALLY MANY OF THE OWNERS SIGNED CONTRACTS WITH LOCAL 807
UNDER WHOSE TERMS THE DEFENDANTS WERE TO DO THE DRIVING AND UNLOADING
WITHIN THE CITY AND TO RECEIVE REGULAR UNION RATES FOR THE WORK.  NO
SERIOUS QUESTION IS RAISED BY THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE ABILITY OF THE
DEFENDANTS TO PERFORM THE LABOR INVOLVED IN THESE OPERATIONS. 

THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT WAS BASED UPON SEC. 2(A) OF THE ACT
AND CHARGED A CONSPIRACY "TO OBTAIN THE PAYMENT OF MONEY  ...  (FROM
THE OWNERS) BY THE USE OF, ATTEMPT TO USE AND THREAT TO USE, FORCE,
VIOLENCE AND COERCION."  THE SECOND COUNT ACCUSED THE DEFENDANTS OF
CONSPIRING TO OBTAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNERS "WITH THEIR CONSENT
INDUCED BY WRONGFUL USE OF FORCE AND OF FEAR," IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
2(B).  THE THIRD AND FOURTH COUNTS ALLEGED A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SEC.
2(C), IN THAT THE DEFENDANTS AGREED "TO COMMIT AND THREATENED TO COMMIT
ACTS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO THE PERSONS AND
PROPERTY" OF THEIR VICTIMS, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE GENERAL SCHEME TO
VIOLATE SECS. 2(A) AND 2(B).  LOCAL 807 AND ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS WERE CONVICTED ON THE FIRST COUNT; THE LOCAL AND 17
INDIVIDUALS ON THE SECOND; AND THE LOCAL AND 11 INDIVIDUALS ON THE
THIRD AND FOURTH. 

THE QUESTION IN THE CASE CONCERNS THAT PORTION OF SEC. 2(A) WHICH
EXCEPTS FROM PUNISHMENT ANY PERSON WHO "OBTAINS OR ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN,
BY THE USE OF OR ATTEMPT TO USE OR THREAT TO USE FORCE, VIOLENCE, OR
COERCION,  ...  THE PAYMENT OF WAGES BY A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA
FIDE EMPLOYEE."  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED BECAUSE IT
BELIEVED THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY PROPERLY
WITH RESPECT TO THIS EXCEPTION. 

TO ASCERTAIN THE LIMITS OF THE EXCEPTION IS A DIFFICULT UNDERTAKING. 
ALWAYS ASSUMING THE PRESENCE OF VIOLENCE AND THREATS, AS WE MUST IN THE
FACE OF THIS RECORD, THREE INTERPRETATIONS OF VARYING RESTRICTIVE FORCE
REQUIRE CONSIDERATION:  (1) THE EXCEPTION APPLIES ONLY TO A DEFENDANT
WHO HAS ENJOYED THE STATUS OF A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE PRIOR TO THE TIME AT
WHICH HE OBTAINS OR ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN THE PAYMENT OF MONEY BY THE
OWNER.  (2) ASSUMING THAT THIS IS INCORRECT AND THAT THE EXCEPTION MAY
AFFECT A DEFENDANT WHO HAS NOT BEEN A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE PRIOR TO THE
TIME IN QUESTION, IT DOES NOT APPLY IF THE OWNER'S INTENTION IN MAKING
THE PAYMENT IS TO BUY "PROTECTION" AND NOT TO BUY SERVICE, EVEN THOUGH
THE DEFENDANT MAY INTEND TO PERFORM THE SERVICE OR MAY ACTUALLY PERFORM
IT.  WE UNDERSTAND THIS TO BE THE POSITION ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN
ITS BRIEF AND ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT.  (3) ASSUMING THAT BOTH (1) AND
(2) ARE INCORRECT, THE EXCEPTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO A DEFENDANT WHO
OBTAINS THE PAYMENT OF MONEY IF THE OWNER REJECTS HIS GENUINE OFFER OF
SERVICE.  WE UNDERSTAND THIS TO BE THE THEORY OF THE DISSENTING JUDGE
BELOW. 

CONFRONTED WITH THESE VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS, WE TURN FOR GUIDANCE
TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE.  PURSUANT TO A SENATE
RESOLUTION OF MAY 8, 1933, FN3  A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH BECAME KNOWN AS THE COPELAND COMMITTEE,
UNDERTOOK AN INVESTIGATION OF "RACKETS" AND "RACKETEERING" IN THE
UNITED STATES.  AFTER CONDUCTING HEARINGS IN SEVERAL LARGE CITIES, THE
COMMITTEE INTRODUCED 13 BILLS, OF WHICH S. 2248 WAS ONE.  FN4  AS
INTRODUCED, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,  FN5  AND AS
PASSED WITHOUT DEBATE BY THE SENATE,  FN6  S. 2248 EMBODIED VERY
GENERAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST VIOLENCE OR COERCION IN CONNECTION WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND CONTAINED NO SPECIFIC MENTION OF WAGES OR
LABOR.  AFTER THE BILL HAD PASSED THE SENATE, HOWEVER, REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR EXPRESSED FEAR THAT THE BILL IN ITS
THEN FORM MIGHT RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY TO LABOR,  FN7  AND THE
MEASURE WAS REDRAFTED BY OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AFTER
CONFERENCES WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION.  IN THE COURSE OF
THIS REVISION, THE BILL ASSUMED SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM IN WHICH IT WAS
EVENTUALLY ENACTED.  IN PARTICULAR, THE EXCEPTION CONCERNING "THE
PAYMENT OF WAGES BY A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYEE" WAS
ADDED, AND A PROVISO PRESERVING "THE RIGHTS OF BONA-FIDE LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS" WAS INCORPORATED IN WHAT BECAME SEC. 6 OF THE ACT AS
FINALLY PASSED.  FN8  IN ITS FAVORABLE REPORTS ON THIS REVISED BILL,
FN9  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SET FORTH WITHOUT COMMENT A
LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE COMMITTEE, DATED MAY 18, 1934. 
IN THIS LETTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INFORMED THE COMMITTEE THAT THE
DRAFT OF THE SUBSTITUTE BILL HAD BEEN "DEFINITELY APPROVED" BY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND HIS COUNSEL.  THE
LETTER CONTINUED:    "WE BELIEVE THAT THE BILL IN THIS FORM WILL
ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF SUCH LEGISLATION AND AT THE SAME TIME MEET
THE OBJECTIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL BILL. 

"THE ORIGINAL BILL WAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE OBJECTION THAT IT MIGHT
INCLUDE WITHIN THE PROHIBITION THE LEGITIMATE AND BONA FIDE ACTIVITIES
OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.  AS THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION IS NOT
TO INTERFERE WITH SUCH LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES BUT RATHER TO SET UP
SEVERE PENALTIES FOR RACKETEERING BY VIOLENCE, EXTORTION, OR COERCION,
WHICH AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT SEEMS ADVISABLE TO DEFINITELY
EXCLUDE SUCH LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES.    "AS THE TYPICAL RACKETEERING
ACTIVITIES AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE THOSE IN CONNECTION WITH
PRICE FIXING AND ECONOMIC EXTORTION DIRECTED BY PROFESSIONAL GANGSTERS,
WE HAVE INSERTED SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B), MAKING SUCH ACTIVITIES
UNLAWFUL WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY VIOLENCE AND AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE." 

THE SUBSTITUTE WAS AGREED TO BY BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE WITHOUT
DEBATE, WHEN ASSURANCES WERE GIVEN THAT THE APPROVAL OF ORGANIZED LABOR
HAD BEEN OBTAINED.  FN10  THEREAFTER, WHILE THE BILL AWAITED THE
SIGNATURE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATOR COPELAND SUBMITTED A REPORT FN11
IN WHICH HE REFERRED TO S. 2248 AS ONE OF ELEVEN BILLS WHICH HAD BEEN
ENACTED "TO CLOSE GAPS IN EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS AND TO RENDER MORE
DIFFICULT THE ACTIVITIES OF PREDATORY CRIMINAL GANGS OF THE KELLY AND
DILLINGER TYPES." 

THIS ACCOUNT OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT
PROVIDE SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF "WAGES," "BONA-FIDE EMPLOYER," OR "BONA
FIDE EMPLOYEE," AS THOSE TERMS ARE USED IN SEC. 2(A).  BUT IT DOES
CONTAIN CLEAR DECLARATIONS BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH DRAFTED
THE SECTION AND BY THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL IN CONGRESS, FIRST, THAT THE
ELIMINATION OF TERRORISTIC ACTIVITIES BY PROFESSIONAL GANGSTERS WAS THE
AIM OF THE STATUTE, AND SECOND, THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH TRADITIONAL
LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES WAS INTENDED. 

IT MAY BE TRUE THAT PROFESSIONAL RACKETS HAVE SOMETIMES ASSUMED THE
GUISE OF LABOR UNIONS, AND, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED,
THAT THEY MAY HAVE "COVERED THEIR PRACTICES BY THE PRETENCE THAT THE
TRIBUTE COLLECTED WAS PAY FOR SERVICES RENDERED."  AND IT MAY ALSO BE
TRUE THAT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OF GOOD REPUTE AND HONEST PURPOSE CAN BE
MISDIRECTED AND BECOME AGENCIES OF BLACKMAIL.  NEVERTHELESS, CONGRESS
PLAINLY ATTEMPTED TO DISTINGUISH MILITANT LABOR ACTIVITY FROM THE OTHER
AND TO AFFORD IT AMPLE PROTECTION.  WITH THIS LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE
UPPERMOST IN MIND, WE RETURN TO TEST THE THREE THEORIES OF
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 2(A) TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED. 

(1)  WE HOLD THAT THE EXEMPTION IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A DEFENDANT WHO
HAS ATTAINED THE STATUS OF AN EMPLOYEE PRIOR TO THE TIME AT WHICH HE
OBTAINS OR ATTEMPTS OR CONSPIRES TO OBTAIN THE MONEY.  IN THE FIRST
PLACE, WE AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE COURT BELOW THAT
"PRACTICALLY ALWAYS THE CRUX OF A LABOR DISPUTE IS WHO SHALL GET THE
JOB, AND WHAT THE TERMS SHALL BE  ...  "  TO EXCLUDE THIS ENTIRE CLASS
OF DISPUTES FROM THE PROTECTION OF THE EXCEPTION WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIABLY
TO THWART THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.  IN THE SECOND
PLACE, THE STRUCTURE AND LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2(A) ITSELF IS PERSUASIVE
AGAINST SO NARROW AN INTERPRETATION.  IT DOES NOT EXCEPT "A BONA FIDE
EMPLOYEE WHO OBTAINS OR ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN THE PAYMENT OF WAGES FROM A
BONA-FIDE EMPLOYER."  RATHER, IT EXCEPTS "ANY PERSON WHO  ...  OBTAINS
OR ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN  ... THE PAYMENT OF WAGES FROM A BONA-FIDE
EMPLOYER TO A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE."  CERTAINLY, AN OUTSIDER WHO
"ATTEMPTS" UNSUCCESSFULLY BY VIOLENT MEANS TO ACHIEVE THE STATUS OF AN
EMPLOYEE AND TO SECURE WAGES FOR SERVICES FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION. 
AND WHERE, AS HERE, THE OFFENSE CHARGED IS CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE
TO BECOME BONA FIDE EMPLOYEES AND TO OBTAIN WAGES IN THAT CAPACITY,
EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY FAIL OF THEIR PURPOSE. 

(2)  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, AS WE HAVE SAID, THAT THE TEST IS
"WHETHER, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE MONEY HAS
BEEN PAID FOR LABOR OR FOR PROTECTION."  IF THE DEFENDANTS DO NOT OFFER
TO WORK, OR IF THEY REFUSE TO WORK, OR IF THEIR OFFER TO WORK IS
REJECTED BY THE OWNERS, THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT ANY PAYMENT MADE TO
THEM MUST BE FOR PROTECTION RATHER THAN FOR SERVICES.  AND EVEN IF THE
DEFENDANTS ACTUALLY PERFORM SOME WORK, IT IS SAID, THIS CIRCUMSTANCE
SHOULD BE REGARDED AS RELEVANT BUT NOT CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING "THE
ONE CRUCIAL ISSUE IN EVERY CASE SUCH AS THIS - NAMELY, WHETHER THE
MONEY WAS PAID FOR LABOR OR FOR PROTECTION." 

WE TAKE THIS TO MEAN THAT THE INTENT OF THE OWNERS IN MAKING THE
PAYMENT IS TO BE REGARDED AS CONTROLLING.  WE CANNOT AGREE.  THE STATE
OF MIND OF THE TRUCK OWNERS CANNOT BE DECISIVE OF THE GUILT OF THESE
DEFENDANTS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THEIR GUILT IS DETERMINED BY WHETHER OR
NOT THEIR PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE WAS TO OBTAIN "THE PAYMENT OF WAGES BY
A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYEE."  AND, OF COURSE, WHERE
THE DEFENDANTS ARE CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY AS THEY WERE HERE, IT IS
PARTICULARLY OBVIOUS THAT THE NATURE OF THEIR PLAN AND AGREEMENT IS THE
CRUX OF THE CASE.  THE MISCHIEF OF A CONTRARY THEORY IS NOWHERE BETTER
ILLUSTRATED THAN IN INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSIES.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE MEMBERS
OF A LABOR UNION MAY DECIDE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE JOBS IN THEIR
TRADE IN A PARTICULAR AREA.  THEY MAY AGREE TO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN
CONTRACTS TO DO THE WORK AT THE UNION WAGE SCALE.  THEY MAY OBTAIN THE
CONTRACTS, DO THE WORK, AND RECEIVE THE MONEY.  CERTAINLY CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT THESE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE EXCEPTED FROM THE PROHIBITIONS
OF THIS PARTICULAR ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE AGREEMENT MAY HAVE CONTEMPLATED
THE USE OF VIOLENCE.  BUT IT IS ALWAYS AN OPEN QUESTION WHETHER THE
EMPLOYERS' CAPITULATION TO THE DEMANDS OF THE UNION IS PROMPTED BY A
DESIRE TO OBTAIN SERVICES OR TO AVOID FURTHER INJURY OR BOTH.  TO MAKE
A FINE OR PRISON SENTENCE FOR THE UNION AND ITS MEMBERS CONTINGENT UPON
A FINDING BY THE JURY THAT ONE MOTIVE OR THE OTHER DOMINATED THE
EMPLOYERS' DECISION WOULD BE A DISTORTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. 

WE ARE TOLD, HOWEVER, THAT UNDER THIS VIEW SUCH A COMMON LAW OFFENSE
AS ROBBERY WOULD BECOME AN INNOCENT PASTIME, INASMUCH AS IT IS AN
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THAT CRIME THAT THE VICTIM BE MOVED BY FEAR OF
VIOLENCE WHEN HE PARTS WITH HIS MONEY OR PROPERTY.  THIS OBJECTION
MISTAKES THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS REQUIREMENT OF PROOF IN THE CASE OF
ROBBERY.  ITS TRUE SIGNIFICANCE IS THAT IT PLACES AN ADDED BURDEN UPON
THE PROSECUTOR RATHER THAN UPON THE ACCUSED.  THAT IS, THE PROSECUTOR
MUST FIRST ESTABLISH A CRIMINAL INTENT UPON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT
AND HE MUST THEN MAKE A FURTHER SHOWING WITH RESPECT TO THE VICTIM'S
STATE OF MIND.  THE EFFECT OF THIS RULE IS TO RENDER CONVICTION OF
ROBBERY MORE, RATHER THAN LESS, DIFFICULT.  THERE IS NO SUCH
RESTRICTIVE EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENT IN PROSECUTIONS UNDER THIS ACT.  IF
THE OBJECTIVE THAT THESE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO ATTAIN BY THE USE OF
FORCE AND THREATS IS NOT THE OBJECTIVE TO WHICH THE EXCEPTION IN SEC.
2(A) AFFORDS IMMUNITY, THEY ARE GUILTY AND NOTHING FURTHER NEED BE
SHOWN CONCERNING THE ACTUAL MOTIVE OF THE OWNERS IN HANDING OVER THE
MONEY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THEIR OBJECTIVE DID ENJOY THE PROTECTION
OF THAT EXCEPTION, THEY ARE INNOCENT AND THEIR INNOCENCE IS NOT
AFFECTED BY THE STATE OF MIND OF THE OWNERS.  WE SHALL CONSIDER IN A
MOMENT, IN POINT (3) BELOW, THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES WHICH FLOW FROM THE
OWNERS' ACTUAL REJECTION OF PROFFERED SERVICES.  BUT IT NEEDS TO BE
EMPHASIZED HERE THAT FOR THE OWNERS TO REJECT AN OFFER OF SERVICES
AMOUNTS TO AN OVERT ACT ON THEIR PART.  IT IS CONDUCT OR BEHAVIOR AS
DISTINCT FROM INTENTION OR STATE OF MIND.  IT IS AN EVENT WHICH ALTERS
THE EXTERNAL SITUATION IN WHICH THE DEFENDANTS FIND THEMSELVES.  THE
LATTER MUST THEN DECIDE WHETHER THEY WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH THEIR
DEMANDS FOR THE MONEY.  WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE
UNDER THIS ACT IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO WE SHALL PRESENTLY DISCUSS.  BUT
THAT DECISION MUST BE MADE IN TERMS OF THEIR MOTIVES AND PURPOSES AND
OBJECTIVES RATHER THAN THOSE OF THE OWNERS. 

WE DO NOT MEAN THAT AN OFFER TO WORK OR EVEN THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
OF SOME SERVICES NECESSARILY ENTITLES ONE TO IMMUNITY UNDER THE
EXCEPTION.  A JURY MIGHT OF COURSE FIND THAT SUCH AN OFFER OR
PERFORMANCE WAS NO MORE THAN A SHAM TO DISGUISE AN ACTUAL INTENTION TO
EXTORT AND TO BLACKMAIL.  BUT THE INQUIRY MUST NEVERTHELESS BE DIRECTED
TO WHETHER THIS WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE ACCUSED OR WHETHER THEY HONESTLY
INTENDED TO OBTAIN A CHANCE TO WORK FOR A WAGE. 

(3)  THERE REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED THE DIFFICULT ISSUE WHICH DIVIDED
THE COURT BELOW.  THE WHOLE COURT AGREED THAT THE PAYMENT OF MONEY TO
ONE WHO REFUSES TO PERFORM THE SERVICES IS NOT "THE PAYMENT OF WAGES BY
A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA-FIDE EMPLOYEE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 2(A); IT ALSO AGREED THAT PAYMENTS TO ONE WHO HAS BEEN PERMITTED
ACTUALLY TO PERFORM THE SERVICES DO FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  BUT IT
DIVIDED OVER THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PAYMENT OF MONEY TO ONE WHOSE
SINCERE OFFER TO WORK IS REJECTED CONSTITUTES THE PAYMENT OF "WAGES" TO
A "BONA-FIDE EMPLOYEE."  SINCE THE OFFENCE CHARGED HERE IS CONSPIRACY,
THESE QUESTIONS MUST BE PUT SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY.  THUS, THERE IS NO
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE ACT IF THE PURPOSE OF THE DEFENDANTS IS
ACTUALLY TO PERFORM THE SERVICES IN RETURN FOR THE MONEY, BUT THERE IS
A PUNISHABLE CONSPIRACY IF THEIR PLAN IS TO OBTAIN MONEY WITHOUT DOING
THE WORK.  THE DOUBTFUL CASE ARISES WHERE THE DEFENDANTS AGREE TO
TENDER THEIR SERVICES IN GOOD FAITH TO AN EMPLOYER AND TO WORK IF HE
ACCEPTS THEIR OFFER, BUT AGREE FURTHER THAT THE PROTECTION OF THEIR
TRADE UNION INTERESTS REQUIRES THAT HE SHOULD PAY AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT
TO THE PREVAILING UNION WAGE EVEN IF HE REJECTS THEIR PROFFERED
SERVICES. 

WE THINK THAT SUCH AN AGREEMENT IS COVERED BY THE EXCEPTION.  THE
TERMS "WAGES," "BONA-FIDE EMPLOYEE" AND "BONA-FIDE EMPLOYER" ARE
SUSCEPTIBLE OF MORE THAN ONE MEANING, AND THE BACKGROUND AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS ACT REQUIRE THAT THEY BE BROADLY DEFINED. 
WE HAVE EXPRESSED OUR BELIEF THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO LEAVE UNAFFECTED
THE ORDINARY ACTIVITIES OF LABOR UNIONS.  THE PROVISO IN SEC. 6
SAFEGUARDING "THE RIGHTS OF BONA-FIDE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN LAWFULLY
CARRYING OUT THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTS THEREOF," ALTHOUGH OBSCURE INDEED,
STRENGTHENS US SOMEWHAT IN THAT OPINION.  FN12  THE TEST MUST THEREFORE
BE WHETHER THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITY WAS AMONG OR IS AKIN TO LABOR UNION
ACTIVITIES WITH WHICH CONGRESS MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WHEN
THIS MEASURE WAS ENACTED.  ACCEPTING PAYMENTS EVEN WHERE SERVICES ARE
REFUSED IS SUCH AN ACTIVITY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT HAS REFERRED TO THE
"STAND-BY" ORCHESTRA DEVICE, BY WHICH A UNION LOCAL REQUIRES THAT ITS
MEMBERS BE SUBSTITUTED FOR VISITING MUSICIANS, OR, IF THE PRODUCER OR
CONDUCTOR INSISTS UPON USING HIS OWN MUSICIANS, THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE
LOCAL BE PAID THE SUMS WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE EARNED HAD THEY
PERFORMED.  THAT SIMILAR DEVICES ARE EMPLOYED IN OTHER TRADES IS WELL
KNOWN.  IT IS ADMITTED HERE THAT THE STAND-BY MUSICIAN HAS A "JOB" EVEN
THOUGH HE RENDERS NO ACTUAL SERVICE.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT HE
DEMANDS THE PAYMENT OF MONEY REGARDLESS OF THE MANAGEMENT'S WILLINGNESS
TO ACCEPT HIS LABOR.  IF, AS IT IS AGREED, THE MUSICIAN WOULD ESCAPE
PUNISHMENT UNDER THIS ACT EVEN THOUGH HE OBTAINED HIS "STAND-BY JOB" BY
FORCE OR THREATS, IT IS CERTAINLY DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW A TEAMSTER COULD
BE PUNISHED FOR ENGAGING IN THE SAME PRACTICE.  IT IS NOT OUR PROVINCE
EITHER TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE SUCH TACTICS.  BUT WE DO BELIEVE THAT
THEY ARE NOT "THE ACTIVITIES OF PREDATORY CRIMINAL GANGS OF THE KELLY
AND DILLINGER TYPES" AT WHICH THE ACT WAS AIMED, AND THAT ON THE
CONTRARY THEY ARE AMONG THOSE PRACTICES OF LABOR UNIONS WHICH WERE
INTENDED TO REMAIN BEYOND ITS BAN. 

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE BEYOND THE REACH OF
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE CONTROL.  NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT THEY NEED GO
UNPUNISHED.  THE POWER OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO PUNISH ACTS OF
VIOLENCE IS BEYOND QUESTION.  IT IS NOT DIMINISHED OR AFFECTED BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE VIOLENCE MAY BE THE OUTGROWTH OF A LABOR
DISPUTE.  THE USE OF VIOLENCE DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD IS PLAINLY
SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY CRIMINAL LAW. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CRUCIAL ISSUES WAS
CONFLICTING.  THUS, THE JURY MIGHT HAVE BELIEVED THAT IN SOME INSTANCES
THE DEFENDANTS REFUSED TO DO ANY DRIVING OR UNLOADING WHEN REQUESTED TO
DO SO, THAT IN OTHER CASES THEY DID NOT OFFER TO WORK, THAT IN OTHER
CASES THEIR OFFERS WERE REJECTED, AND THAT IN STILL OTHER CASES THEY
ACTUALLY DID SOME OR ALL OF THE DRIVING AND UNLOADING.  IN THE EARLY
STAGES, WRITTEN CONTRACTS WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE; LATER, A NUMBER OF THE
OWNERS SIGNED CONTRACTS AND THE DEFENDANTS PERFORMED THE SERVICES FOR
WHICH THEY CALLED. 

THE JURY'S TASK WAS DIFFICULT.  THE TRIAL LASTED SIX WEEKS.  THE JURY
REQUIRED TWO DAYS IN WHICH TO REACH A VERDICT, AND TWICE DURING THAT
PERIOD IT SOUGHT FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE COURT, PARTICULARLY WITH
REFERENCE TO THE LAW RELATING TO LABOR ACTIVITY.  IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE ACTS OF VIOLENCE NATURALLY WOULD INFLUENCE THE
MINDS OF THE JURY, THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE,
ESPECIALLY AS THEY AFFECTED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PAYMENTS WHICH
THE DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO OBTAIN FELL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION CONTAINED
IN SEC. 2(A).  THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS WHICH WERE
RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE, BUT WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT THAT THE
FOLLOWING WERE DECISIVE:    "IF THE JURY FIND THAT THE SUMS OF MONEY
PAID BY THE TRUCK OPERATORS WERE NOT WAGES SO PAID IN RETURN FOR
SERVICES PERFORMED BY SUCH DEFENDANTS, BUT WERE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE
OPERATORS IN ORDER TO INDUCE THE DEFENDANTS TO REFRAIN FROM INTERFERING
UNLAWFULLY WITH THE OPERATION OF THEIR TRUCKS, THEN THE SUMS IN
QUESTION MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS WAGES PAID BY A BONA FIDE EMPLOYER TO A
BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE. 

"THE FACT THAT ANY DEFENDANT MAY HAVE DONE SOME WORK ON A TRUCK OF AN
OPERATOR IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO WHETHER PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY SUCH
DEFENDANTS WERE WAGES; THE JURY MAY CONSIDER THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK BY
A DEFENDANT AS EVIDENCE OF THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
DEFENDANT AND THE OPERATOR AS ESTABLISHING THE STATUS OF A BONA FIDE
EMPLOYER AND A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE.  IF, HOWEVER, WHAT THE OPERATOR WAS
PAYING FOR WAS NOT LABOR PERFORMED BUT MERELY FOR PROTECTION FROM
INTERFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANTS WITH THE OPERATION OF OPERATOR'S TRUCKS,
THE FACT THAT A DEFENDANT MAY HAVE DONE SOME WORK ON AN OPERATOR'S
TRUCK IS NOT CONCLUSIVE." 

THESE INSTRUCTIONS EMBODY THE RULE FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS,
AND WHICH WE THINK IS ERRONEOUS FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE GIVEN.  UNDER
THEM THE JURY WAS FREE TO RETURN A VERDICT OF GUILTY IF IT FOUND THAT
THE MOTIVE OF THE OWNERS IN MAKING THE PAYMENTS WAS TO PREVENT FURTHER
DAMAGE AND INJURY RATHER THAN TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF THE
DEFENDANTS.  WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANTS WERE GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY
THUS BECAME CONTINGENT UPON THE PURPOSES OF OTHERS AND NOT UPON THEIR
OWN AIMS AND OBJECTIVES.  MOREOVER, THE CHARGE FAILED CORRECTLY TO
EXPLAIN THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROOF THAT THE OWNERS HAD REJECTED
BONA FIDE OFFERS BY THE DEFENDANTS TO PERFORM THE SERVICES.  AS WE HAVE
SAID, THE JURY WAS BOUND TO ACQUIT THE DEFENDANTS IF IT FOUND THAT
THEIR OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE WAS TO OBTAIN BY THE USE OR THREAT OF
VIOLENCE THE CHANCE TO WORK FOR THE MONEY BUT TO ACCEPT THE MONEY EVEN
IF THE EMPLOYERS REFUSED TO PERMIT THEM TO WORK.  WHILE THE 48TH, 49TH
AND 58TH INSTRUCTIONS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANTS, ALL OF WHICH WERE
REFUSED, DO NOT CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE EXPOSITION OF THE RULES WHICH WE
REGARD AS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE, THEY COVER A GOOD DEAL OF THE GROUND
AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  THE 48TH STATES THAT "IT IS NOT AN
OFFENSE UNDER THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT FOR ANYONE TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT
BY THE USE OR THREAT OF VIOLENCE IF THE INTENTION IS TO ACTUALLY WORK
FOR THE PAY RECEIVED, AND TO GIVE AN HONEST DAY'S WORK FOR A DAY'S
WAGE."  THE 49TH DECLARED THAT "IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE ANTI
RACKETEERING ACT TO PREVENT LABOR UNIONS FROM ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN
EMPLOYMENT FOR THEIR MEMBERS,  ...  AND THAT THE USE OF VIOLENCE OR THE
THREAT OF VIOLENCE FOR SUCH PURPOSES, WHILE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE LAWS,
IS NOT PUNISHABLE UNDER THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT."  THE 58TH REQUESTED
CHARGE READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"I CHARGE YOU THAT IN ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANTS HEREIN MAY BE
CONVICTED UNDER ANY ONE OF THE FOUR COUNTS OF THE ANTI-RACKETEERING
INDICTMENT, YOU MUST FIND A CONSPIRACY UNDER SUCH COUNTS; AND THAT IN
ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY UNDER ANY ONE OF THE COUNTS
UNDER THE ANTI-RACKETEERING INDICTMENT, THE PROOF MUST SHOW NOT ONLY
THAT INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS OBTAINED MONEY WITHOUT RENDERING ADEQUATE
SERVICE, BUT THAT IT WAS THE AIM AND OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY THAT  ...
(THEY)  FN13  SHOULD OBTAIN MONEY WITHOUT RENDERING ADEQUATE SERVICE
THEREFOR."  SINCE THE INSTRUCTIONS DENIED, AND THE MISLEADING
INSTRUCTIONS ACTUALLY GIVEN, GO TO WHAT IS INDEED THE HEART OF THE
CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE CONVICTIONS CANNOT STAND AND THAT THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 979, U.S.C., TITLE 18, SEC. 420(A).  LOCAL 807 AND THE
26 INDIVIDUALS WERE ALSO CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SEC. 1 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT (26 STAT. 209, U.S.C. TITLE 15, SEC. 1).  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE CONVICTIONS UNDER THIS INDICTMENT AS
WELL, BUT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SEEK REVIEW OF THIS PART OF ITS
JUDGMENT. 

FN2  THIS EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPEAR IN SEC. 2(B).  BUT WE AGREE WITH
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT IT TOO IS SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTION. 
THE TRIAL JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS SHOW THAT HE SHARED THIS VIEW.  AND THE
DEFINITION OF TERMS IN SEC. 3(B) WAS APPARENTLY INTENDED TO ACHIEVE
THIS RESULT. 

FN3  S. RES. 74, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN4  SEE 78 CONG. REC. 457, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN5  S. REP. NO. 532, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.  THE REPORT INCLUDED A
MEMORANDUM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN WHICH IT WAS STATED:  "THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED STATUTE ARE LIMITED SO AS NOT TO INCLUDE THE
USUAL ACTIVITIES OF CAPITALISTIC COMBINATIONS, BONA FIDE LABOR UNIONS,
AND ORDINARY BUSINESS PRACTICES WHICH ARE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY
MANIFESTATIONS OF RACKETEERING." 

FN6  78 CONG. REC. 5735, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN7  78 CONG. REC. 5859, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN8  "PROVIDED, THAT NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL CONSTRUE OR
APPLY ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT IN SUCH MANNER AS TO IMPAIR,
DIMINISH, OR IN ANY MANNER AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF BONA-FIDE LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS IN LAWFULLY CARRYING OUT THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTS THEREOF,
AS SUCH RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSED IN EXISTING STATUTES OF THE UNITED
STATES."  U.S.C., TITLE 18, SEC. 420(D). 

FN9  H. REP. NO. 1833, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN10  78 CONG. REC. 10867, 11402-11403, 11482, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN11  S. REP. NO. 1440, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN13  THE WORDS "ALL OF THE CONSPIRATORS," RATHER THAN "THEY,"
APPEARED IN THE REQUESTED INSTRUCTION AS SUBMITTED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE. 
WE THINK THAT AS SO EXPRESSED THE CHARGE WOULD HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUS, BUT
THAT WITH THIS CHANGE IT STATES THE CORRECT RULE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED, AND THE CONVICTIONS
AFFIRMED, SUBJECT ONLY TO AN EXAMINATION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE AS TO SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS, AND TO A CONSIDERATION OF
WHETHER THE UNION ITSELF IS A "PERSON" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE. 

RESPONDENTS, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF A LABOR UNION, WERE CONVICTED OF
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT.  THEY, OR SOME OF
THEM, LAY IN WAIT FOR TRUCKS PASSING FROM NEW JERSEY TO NEW YORK,
FORCED THEIR WAY ONTO THE TRUCKS, AND BY BEATING OR THREATS OF BEATING
THE DRIVERS PROCURED PAYMENTS TO THEMSELVES FROM THE DRIVERS OR THEIR
EMPLOYERS OF A SUM OF MONEY FOR EACH TRUCK, $9.42 FOR A LARGE TRUCK AND
$8.41 FOR A SMALL ONE, SAID TO BE THE EQUIVALENT OF THE UNION WAGE
SCALE FOR A DAY'S WORK.  IN SOME INSTANCES THEY ASSISTED OR OFFERED TO
ASSIST IN UNLOADING THE TRUCKS; AND IN OTHERS THEY DISAPPEARED AS SOON
AS THE MONEY WAS PAID, WITHOUT RENDERING OR OFFERING TO RENDER ANY
SERVICE. 

THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT CONDEMNS THE OBTAINING OR CONSPIRACY TO
OBTAIN THE PAYMENT OF MONEY OR DELIVERY OF PROPERTY BY "THE USE OF  ...
FORCE, VIOLENCE, OR COERCION  ...  "  TO THIS DEFINITION OF THE
OFFENSE CONGRESS ADDED TWO - AND ONLY TWO - QUALIFICATIONS.  IT DOES
NOT EMBRACE THE "PAYMENT OF WAGES BY A BONA FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA
FIDE EMPLOYEE," AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE NOT TO BE APPLIED SO
AS TO "AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF BONA FIDE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN LAWFULLY
CARRYING OUT THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTS THEREOF, AS SUCH RIGHTS ARE
EXPRESSED IN EXISTING STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES." 

THERE IS ABUNDANT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD
HAVE CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENTS, OR SOME OF THEM, CONSPIRED TO COMPEL
BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE THE TRUCK DRIVERS OR THEIR EMPLOYERS TO PAY THE
SUMS OF MONEY TO RESPONDENTS OR SOME OF THEM; THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE
MADE BY THE DRIVERS OR TRUCK OWNERS TO PURCHASE IMMUNITY FROM THE
VIOLENCE OF RESPONDENTS AND FOR NO OTHER REASON; AND THAT THIS WAS THE
END KNOWINGLY SOUGHT BY RESPONDENTS. 

I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT SUCH CONDUCT ACCOMPANIED BY SUCH A PURPOSE
CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANTS STOOD
READY TO UNLOAD THE TRUCKS IN THE EVENT THAT THEY WERE HIRED TO DO SO.
UNLESS THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS TO BE DISREGARDED, ONE WHO HAS
REJECTED THE PROFFERED SERVICE AND PAYS MONEY ONLY IN ORDER TO PURCHASE
IMMUNITY FROM VIOLENCE IS NOT A BONA FIDE EMPLOYER AND IS NOT PAYING
THE EXTORTED MONEY AS WAGES.  THE CHARACTER OF WHAT THE DRIVERS OR
OWNERS DID AND INTENDED TO DO - PAY MONEY TO AVOID A BEATING - WAS NOT
ALTERED BY THE WILLINGNESS OF THE PAYEE TO ACCEPT AS WAGES FOR SERVICES
RENDERED WHAT HE IN FACT INTENTIONALLY EXACTED FROM THE DRIVER OR OWNER
AS THE PURCHASE PRICE OF IMMUNITY FROM ASSAULT, AND WHAT HE INTENDED SO
TO EXACT WHETHER THE PROFFERED SERVICES WERE ACCEPTED OR NOT.  IT IS NO
ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE GUILT OF A DEFENDANT IS PERSONAL AND CANNOT BE
MADE TO DEPEND UPON THE ACTS AND INTENTION OF ANOTHER.  SUCH AN ANSWER
IF VALID WOULD RENDER COMMON LAW ROBBERY AN INNOCENT PASTIME.  FOR
THERE CAN BE NO ROBBERY UNLESS THE PURPOSE OF THE VICTIM IN HANDING
OVER THE MONEY IS TO AVOID FORCE.  PRECISELY AS UNDER THE PRESENT
STATUTE, THE ROBBER'S USE OF FORCE AND ITS INTENDED EFFECT ON THE
VICTIM ARE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME BOTH OF WHICH THE PROSECUTOR
MUST PROVE.  UNDER THIS STATUTE WHEN BOTH ARE PRESENT THE CRIME IS
COMPLETE, IRRESPECTIVE OF OTHER MOTIVES WHICH MAY ACTUATE THE OFFENDER,
IF HE IS ALSO AWARE, AS WE MUST TAKE IT THE JURY FOUND, THAT THE MONEY
IS NOT IN FACT PAID AS WAGES BY A BONA FIDE EMPLOYER.  IT IS A
CONTRADICTION IN TERMS TO SAY THAT THE PAYMENT OF MONEY FORCIBLY
EXTORTED BY A PAYEE WHO IS IN ANY CASE A LAWBREAKER, AND PAID ONLY TO
SECURE IMMUNITY FROM VIOLENCE, WITHOUT ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP OR THE RENDERING OF SERVICES, IS A GOOD FAITH PAYMENT OR
RECEIPT OF WAGES. 

EVEN THOUGH THE PROCURING OF JOBS BY VIOLENCE IS NOT WITHIN THE ACT,
AND THOUGH THIS INCLUDES THE "STAND-BY" JOB WHERE NO ACTUAL SERVICE IS
RENDERED, THE GRANTED IMMUNITY, UNLESS ITS WORDS BE DISREGARDED, DOES
NOT EXTEND TO THE CASE WHERE THE IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE IS TO FORCE THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY REGARDLESS OF THE VICTIM'S WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT AND
TREAT THE EXTORTIONER AS AN EMPLOYEE.  IT WAS FOR THE JURY TO SAY
WHETHER SUCH WAS THE OBJECTIVE OF RESPONDENTS AND WHETHER THEY WERE
AWARE THAT THE MONEY WAS PAID BECAUSE OF THEIR VIOLENCE AND NOT AS
WAGES. 

WHEN THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY CONGRESS,
NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND NO LABOR LEADER HAD THE TEMERITY TO SUGGEST
THAT SUCH PAYMENTS, MADE ONLY TO SECURE IMMUNITY FROM VIOLENCE AND
INTENTIONALLY COMPELLED BY ASSAULT AND BATTERY, COULD BE REGARDED AS
THE PAYMENT OF "WAGES BY A BONA FIDE EMPLOYER" OR THAT THE COMPULSION
OF SUCH PAYMENTS IS A LEGITIMATE OBJECT OF A LABOR UNION, OR WAS EVER
MADE SO BY ANY STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES.  I AM UNABLE TO CONCUR IN
THAT SUGGESTION NOW.  IT FOLLOWS THAT ALL THE DEFENDANTS WHO CONSPIRED
TO COMPEL SUCH PAYMENTS BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, REGARDLESS OF THE
WILLINGNESS OF THE VICTIMS TO ACCEPT THEM AS EMPLOYEES, WERE RIGHTLY
CONVICTED. 

IF I AM RIGHT IN THIS CONCLUSION, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.  ALL THE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WERE FOR
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE.  THE JURY WAS TOLD THAT TO CONVICT
IT MUST FIND CONSPIRACY OR AGREEMENT BY RESPONDENTS TO VIOLATE THE
STATUTE AND THAT THEY MUST HAVE THE PURPOSE OR INTENTION TO COMMIT THE
CRIME WHICH IT DEFINED.  AS I HAVE SAID, THE INTENTION TO COMMIT THE
OFFENSE INCLUDES THE INTENTION TO USE FORCE AND VIOLENCE ON THE VICTIM
AND THE INTENTION THAT THE VICTIM SHALL PAY BECAUSE OF IT.  THE JURY
WAS THEN INSTRUCTED THAT THE OFFENSE DEFINED BY THE STATUTE WAS THE
OBTAINING OF MONEY OR PROPERTY BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE BUT THAT "THE JURY
MAY NOT FIND THE DEFENDANTS GUILTY ON ANY COUNT OF THE ANTI
RACKETEERING ACT INDICTMENT IF THE MONEY WHICH THEY ARE CHARGED WITH
HAVING OBTAINED FROM TRUCK OWNERS THROUGH THE USE OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE
OR THREATS OF FORCE AND VIOLENCE WAS PAID AS WAGES, AND IF THE
DEFENDANTS WHO RECEIVED THE MONEY WERE BONA FIDE EMPLOYEES AND THE
TRUCK OPERATORS WHO PAID THE MONEY WERE BONA FIDE EMPLOYERS  ...  IF
THE JURY FIND THAT THE SUMS OF MONEY PAID BY THE TRUCK OPERATORS WERE
NOT WAGES SO PAID IN RETURN FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY SUCH DEFENDANTS,
BUT WERE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE OPERATORS IN ORDER TO INDUCE THE
DEFENDANTS TO REFRAIN FROM INTERFERING UNLAWFULLY WITH THE OPERATION OF
THEIR TRUCKS, THEN THE SUMS IN QUESTION MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS WAGES
PAID BY A BONA FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE  ...  IF, HOWEVER,
WHAT THE OPERATOR WAS PAYING FOR WAS NOT LABOR PERFORMED BUT MERELY FOR
PROTECTION FROM INTERFERENCE BY THE DEFENDANTS WITH THE OPERATION OF
THE OPERATOR'S TRUCKS, THE FACT THAT A DEFENDANT MAY HAVE DONE SOME
WORK ON AN OPERATOR'S TRUCK IS NOT CONCLUSIVE." 

RESPONDENTS' 48TH AND 49TH REQUESTS WERE RIGHTLY REFUSED.  SO FAR AS
THEY INVOLVED A RULING THAT THE OBTAINING OF EMPLOYMENT BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE, THE COURT HAD ALREADY RULED
SPECIFICALLY THAT THERE COULD BE NO SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE UNLESS THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY OR PROPERTY HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY FORCE.  BUT, IN ANY
CASE, BOTH REQUESTS WERE ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THEY MADE RESPONDENTS'
WILLINGNESS TO WORK THE TEST OF GUILT, REGARDLESS OF THE INTENDED AND
ACTUAL EFFECT OF THE VIOLENCE ON THE VICTIMS IN COMPELLING THEM TO PAY
THE MONEY NOT AS WAGES BUT IN ORDER TO SECURE IMMUNITY FROM ASSAULT. 
THE FIRST PART OF THE 58TH REQUEST LIKEWISE HAD ALREADY BEEN CHARGED. 
THE REST WAS PLAINLY DEFECTIVE, SINCE IT REQUIRED AN ACQUITTAL UNLESS
IT WAS THE AIM AND OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY THAT "ALL OF THE
CONSPIRATORS SHOULD OBTAIN MONEY WITHOUT RENDERING ADEQUATE SERVICE
THEREFOR."  UPON ANY THEORY OF THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, IT WAS NOT
NECESSARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW THAT IT WAS THE OBJECT OF THE
CONSPIRACY THAT "ALL THE CONSPIRATORS" SHOULD RECEIVE PAYMENTS OF
MONEY.  THEY WOULD BE EQUALLY GUILTY IF THEY HAD CONSPIRED TO PROCURE
THE PAYMENTS TO SOME. 
..END :






MACGREGOR V. STATE MUTUAL CO., 315 U.S. 280 


NO. 179.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 3, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 1942.  -
119 F.2D 148, AFFIRMED. 


IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RELEVANT DECISION BY THE STATE COURTS, THIS
COURT ACCEPTS IN THIS CAUSE AN INTERPRETATION OF LOCAL LAW BY THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN THE STATE AND BY THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES WHOSE
CIRCUIT INCLUDES IT.  P. 281. 

MACGREGOR, EXECUTOR, V. STATE MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 591, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN A SUIT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF A PREMIUM
PAID ON AN ANNUITY CONTRACT. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION TO RECOVER THE PREMIUM OF A LIFE
ANNUITY CONTRACT PURCHASED BY HIS DECEDENT.  THE SUIT WAS BEGUN IN A
STATE COURT OF MICHIGAN, BUT WAS REMOVED, BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP, TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.  PETITIONER'S CLAIM IS FOUNDED ON THE
APPLICABILITY OF MICHIGAN LEGISLATION REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN MICHIGAN.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT "THE
CONTRACT INVOLVED HEREIN HAVING BEEN EXECUTED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN, THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN RELIED UPON BY THE
PLAINTIFF ARE NOT APPLICABLE."  ACCORDINGLY JUDGMENT WENT AGAINST
PETITIONER.  THIS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  119 F.2D 148. 

NO DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, OR OF ANY OTHER COURT
OF THAT STATE, CONSTRUING THE RELEVANT MICHIGAN LAW HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO
OUR ATTENTION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH GUIDANCE, WE SHALL LEAVE
UNDISTURBED THE INTERPRETATION PLACED UPON PURELY LOCAL LAW BY A
MICHIGAN FEDERAL JUDGE OF LONG EXPERIENCE AND BY THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES
WHOSE CIRCUIT INCLUDES MICHIGAN.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :












NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE MACHINERY CO.,
315 U.S. 282 


NO. 188.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 1942.  - 116
F.2D 350, REVERSED. 


FINDINGS OF THE LABOR BOARD SUSTAINED AS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  P. 282. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. AUTOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE MACHINERY
CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 596, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 13 N.L.R.B. 338, ORDERING THE
COMPANY TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; TO CEASE
GIVING EFFECT TO A CONTRACT WITH AN "INSIDE" UNION; TO WITHDRAW
RECOGNITION FROM, AND TO DISESTABLISH, THAT UNION; TO REINSTATE WITH
BACK-PAY THREE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES; AND TO POST NOTICES, ETC.  A
PROVISION OF THE ORDER FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT RELIEF
AGENCIES WAS ABANDONED BY THE BOARD. 

PER CURIAM. 

UPON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE BOARD'S
FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  LABOR BOARD V. LINK
BELT CO., 311 U.S. 584; WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. V. LABOR
BOARD, 312 U.S. 660.  THE JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE REVERSED WITH
DIRECTIONS TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER IN FULL, BUT WITH THE
MODIFICATION PROPOSED BY THE BOARD TO CONFORM TO THE DECISION IN
REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 

7.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
ORDER AS MODIFIED SHOULD BE ENFORCED EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGED
DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES OF WARNER, JR., AND JORDAN, WHICH THEY THINK
ARE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











STEWART V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 315 U.S. 283 


NO. 161.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 1942.  - 119
F.2D 85, REVERSED. 


EVIDENCE, IN A RAILWAY ACCIDENT CASE, HELD INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A
FINDING ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE COUPLING MECHANISM BETWEEN TWO FREIGHT
CARS WAS SUCH AS TO COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT.  P.
286. 

STEWART, ADMINISTRATOR, V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.* 

*ON PETITION FOR REHEARING, IT APPEARING THAT THE PARTIES HAD SETTLED
THE CASE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE WAS VACATED, THAT OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTIONS THAT IT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT, POST, P. 784. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 591, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
RECOVERY BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF A DECEASED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE IN AN
ACTION AGAINST THE RAILWAY COMPANY FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AND DEATH. 
SEE ALSO 115 F.2D 85. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF STEWART'S ESTATE TO
RECOVER FOR HIS DEATH IN CONSEQUENCE OF A VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT.  FN1  THE CREW OF WHICH THE INTESTATE WAS A MEMBER WAS
ENGAGED IN COUPLING FREIGHT CARS.  STEWART WAS ON THE ENGINEER'S SIDE
OF THE TRAIN.  HE GAVE A BACK-UP SIGNAL WITH WHICH THE ENGINEER
COMPLIED AND THEN A STOP SIGNAL WHICH WAS OBEYED.  THE ENGINEER SAW HIM
GO BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE LAST CAR OF THE TRAIN AND THE CAR THAT WAS
TO BE COUPLED TO IT.  WHILE THE TRAIN WAS STATIONARY, THIS CAR DRIFTED
INTO COLLISION WITH THE END CAR OF THE TRAIN.  PERSONS WHO RESPONDED TO
STEWART'S CRIES FOUND HIM WITH HIS ARM CRUSHED BETWEEN THE COUPLERS,
BOTH OF WHICH WERE CLOSED.  HIS ARM WAS AMPUTATED AND A FEW DAYS LATER
HE DIED. 

THE ADMINISTRATRIX, PURSUANT TO LEAVE OF A STATE PROBATE COURT,
EXECUTED A RELEASE IN CONSIDERATION OF $5,000 PAID HER.  SUBSEQUENTLY
SHE ALLEGED IN THAT COURT THAT SHE HAD BEEN FRAUDULENTLY INDUCED TO
SETTLE THE CASE, AND SOUGHT AUTHORITY TO RESCIND THE RELEASE.  THE
COURT DECIDED AGAINST HER AFTER FULL HEARING. 

IN THE PRESENT ACTION THE PLAINTIFF OFFERED TESTIMONY AS TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCIDENT.  THE RESPONDENT RELIED UPON THE RELEASE;
OFFERED EVIDENCE TO PROVE DEATH WAS DUE TO CAUSES OTHER THAN THE
INJURY, BUT INTRODUCED NO TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT OCCURRED AT THE TIME OF
STEWART'S INJURY, OR AS TO THE CONDITION OF THE COUPLERS.  THE TRIAL
COURT RULED THAT THE DECISION OF THE PROBATE COURT ON THE ISSUE OF
FRAUD IN PROCURING THE RELEASE WAS NOT RES JUDICATA, AND SUBMITTED TO
THE JURY ALL ISSUES, INCLUDING THAT OF THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE.  A
VERDICT WAS RENDERED FOR PETITIONER FOR $17,500.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR
WHETHER THIS SUM WAS INTENDED TO BE IN ADDITION TO THE $5,000
THERETOFORE RECEIVED BY THE ADMINISTRATRIX.  THE JUDGMENT ENTERED WAS
FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE VERDICT WITHOUT CREDIT FOR THAT SUM. 

THE RESPONDENT APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE
PETITIONER WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ADMINISTRATRIX, WHO HAD DIED. 
JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO WAS DENIED BUT THE JUDGMENT WAS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL, FOR ERRORS IN THE
CHARGE TO THE JURY.  FN2  ON MOTION OF BOTH PARTIES A REHEARING WAS
ACCORDED.  THE COURT THEN HELD THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
SUSTAIN THE VERDICT, AND REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER
A JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT N3.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE RECORD CONTAINS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE AS TO ANY DEFECT IN THE
COUPLER MECHANISMS OF THE CARS INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT.  EACH WAS
EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC COUPLER HAVING A "PIN LIFTER," WHEREBY THE
PIN IN THE COUPLER CAN BE LIFTED SO AS TO ALLOW THE JAW OF THE COUPLER
TO SWING INTO THE OPEN POSITION.  THE PURPOSE OF THE DEVICE IS TO
PERMIT A SWITCHMAN TO OPEN THE COUPLER INTO THE POSITION WHERE IT WILL
ENGAGE WITH THE COUPLER OF THE OTHER CAR UPON IMPACT WITHOUT THE
OPERATOR GOING BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE CARS.  THE ENGINEER, A WITNESS
FOR PETITIONER, TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE INTESTATE ATTEMPT TO
USE THE PIN LIFTER, BUT DID SEE HIM GO BETWEEN THE CARS.  THE FOREMAN
OF THE CREW, ALSO A WITNESS FOR THE PETITIONER, TESTIFIED THAT WHEN HE
ARRIVED THE JAWS OF BOTH COUPLERS WERE CLOSED AND DECEDENT'S ARM HAD
BEEN CRUSHED BETWEEN THEM.  HE TESTIFIED THAT AFTER THE ACCIDENT HE
COUPLED THE CARS IN QUESTION BY GOING BETWEEN THE CARS AND OPENING THE
JAW OF THE COUPLER BY HAND.  HE STATED THAT HE TRIED TO USE THE PIN
LIFTER ON THE CAR AT THE END OF THE TRAIN, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONE
AVAILABLE ON THE SIDE OF THE TRAIN ON WHICH HE WAS WORKING.  HE ALSO
TESTIFIED THAT IF THE COUPLER WAS IN WORKING ORDER IT COULD BE SET BY
THE USE OF THE PIN LIFTER.  HE WAS NOT ASKED, AND DID NOT STATE, WHAT
EFFORT HE MADE TO OPERATE THE PIN LIFTER.  NEITHER PARTY ASKED HIM ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS AS TO THE WORKING CONDITION OF THE PIN LIFTER OR
COUPLER. 

THE PETITIONER INSISTS THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENT, AS TO THE CONDITION OF THE COUPLER, THE JURY WERE
ENTITLED TO INFER THAT THE PIN LIFTER WAS NOT IN WORKING ORDER,
OTHERWISE THE FOREMAN, AN EXPERIENCED MAN, WOULD NOT HAVE GONE BETWEEN
THE CARS AND OPENED THE COUPLER JAW BY HAND.  THE COURT BELOW HELD THE
JURY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DRAW THIS INFERENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF
TESTIMONY BY THE FOREMAN WITH RESPECT TO HIS EFFORTS TO USE THE PIN
LIFTER AND AS TO ITS CONDITION. 

WE HOLD THAT, ON THIS RECORD, NEITHER PARTY IS ENTITLED TO PREVAIL. 
IF THE ISSUE AS TO THE CONDITION OF THE COUPLER MECHANISM WAS
DETERMINATIVE, A NEW TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED SO THAT THIS ISSUE
MIGHT HAVE BEEN RESOLVED IN THE LIGHT OF A FULL EXAMINATION OF THE
FOREMAN, THE WITNESS WHO COULD HAVE GIVEN FURTHER TESTIMONY ON THE
SUBJECT. 

THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE COURT
BELOW FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON OTHER ERRORS
ASSIGNED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH MAY AFFECT THE
DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE BY THAT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  45 U.S.C. SEC. 2. 

FN2  115 F.2D 317. 

FN3  119 F.2D 85. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

THE JURY FOUND FROM THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT THAT THE RAILROAD HAD,
CONTRARY TO THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, USED CARS "NOT EQUIPPED
WITH COUPLERS COUPLING AUTOMATICALLY BY IMPACT, AND WHICH CAN BE
UNCOUPLED WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF MEN GOING BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE
CARS."  45 U.S.C. SEC. 2.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, WHO ALONE OF THE JUDGES IN
THE SEVERAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE AND HEAR THE
WITNESSES AS WELL AS TO OBSERVE A COUPLING APPARATUS BROUGHT INTO THE
COURT ROOM AS AN EXHIBIT, MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE REGARDED THE EVIDENCE
AS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE JURY'S VERDICT BOTH BY SUBMITTING THE
ISSUES TO IT AND BY DENYING A NEW TRIAL.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
TOOK THE SAME POSITION IN ITS FIRST OPINION.  115 F.2D 317.  SOLICITUDE
FOR THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY ON ISSUES OF FACT PROMPTED THE ADOPTION
OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT AS PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  FN1  RESPECT
FOR THE INSTITUTION OF TRIAL BY JURY SHOULD, IN MY JUDGMENT, PROMPT US
TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED THE JURY'S FINDING IN THIS CASE THAT THE COUPLER
WAS DEFECTIVE. 

BECAUSE IT MUST RELY ON THE WRITTEN PAGE RATHER THAN LIVING WORDS, AN
APPELLATE COURT CAN NEVER FULLY APPRECIATE THE EFFECT OF TESTIMONY
HEARD BY A JURY OF LOCAL CITIZENS.  EVEN IN THE WRITTEN RECORD,
HOWEVER, I CAN FIND SUPPORT FOR THE JURY'S FINDING WHICH CONVINCES ME
THAT IT SHOULD STAND.  THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWS THE FOLLOWING: 

IF A PIN LIFTER FUNCTIONS PROPERLY, THERE WILL BE AUTOMATIC COUPLING
OF THE CARS, MAKING IT UNNECESSARY FOR A WORKMAN TO GO BETWEEN THEM. 
STEWART WAS AN EXPERIENCED WORKMAN.  BESIDES BEING HIS DUTY, IT WAS
CONDUCIVE TO HIS SAFETY FOR HIM TO USE THE PIN LIFTER TO BRING ABOUT
COUPLING.  ON THE DAY HE WAS FOUND WITH HIS ARM CRUSHED BETWEEN THE
COUPLERS, HE HAD SUCCESSFULLY HANDLED THE COUPLING OF OTHER CARS. 

THE CREW FOREMAN WHO SHORTLY AFTER THE ACCIDENT UNDERTOOK THE
COUPLING OF THE PARTICULAR CARS BETWEEN WHICH STEWART WAS CRUSHED
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"Q.  NOW, AFTER THIS ACCIDENT, WHEN YOU COUPLED THE CARS, WHICH I
PRESUME YOU DID, DID YOU COUPLE THE CARS AFTER THE ACCIDENT? 

"A.  I DID. 

"Q.  HOW DID YOU OPEN THE KNUCKLE? 

"A.  I OPENED IT WITH MY HAND. 

"Q. LET ME ASK YOU, MR. STOGNER, IF THE COUPLER IS WORKING
AUTOMATICALLY, OR THE PIN LIFTER, IS IT NECESSARY TO GO IN BETWEEN THE
CARS TO OPEN WITH YOUR HANDS THEN? 

"A.  NO, SIR." 

AND IN THE COURSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE COMPANY'S ATTORNEY,
WHOSE QUESTIONS INDICATED HE ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT STOGNER HAD TRIED
WITHOUT SUCCESS TO USE THE PIN LIFTER, STOGNER WAS ASKED: "NOW, WHICH
KNUCKLE DID YOU TRY TO OPEN, OR WHICH PIN LIFTER DID YOU TRY TO USE?" 
HIS REPLY - "THE ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE" - DESIGNATED THE ONE CONNECTED
WITH THE COUPLER WHICH HAD CAUSED STEWART'S DEATH. 

HAD STOGNER'S ATTEMPTS WITH THE PIN LIFTER BEEN SUCCESSFUL, HE WOULD
NOT HAVE HAD TO GO BETWEEN THE CARS TO COUPLE THEM.  BUT THAT WAS WHAT
HE TESTIFIED HE DID AFTER TRYING TO RAISE THE PIN LIFTER.  TRUE,
STOGNER DID NOT SAY HOW MANY ATTEMPTS HE MADE, NOR HOW MUCH FORCE HE
APPLIED IN THE EFFORT.  BUT THE JURY COULD REASONABLY HAVE INFERRED
THAT THE COMPANY'S FOREMAN, A WORKER OF MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE,
APPLIED SUCH FORCE AS WOULD HAVE RAISED A PIN LIFTER WHICH WAS NOT
DEFECTIVE.  MOREOVER, SINCE THERE WAS A STATUTORY DUTY NOT TO CONTINUE
USING THIS PARTICULAR PIN LIFTER IF IT WAS DEFECTIVE, WE CAN REASONABLY
ASSUME THAT THE RAILROAD'S INSPECTORS MADE SOME EXAMINATION OF IT.  YET
NO INSPECTOR NOR ANYONE ELSE WAS CALLED BY THE RAILROAD TO GIVE
TESTIMONY ON THE CONDITION OF THE PIN LIFTER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
ACCIDENT.  FN2  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, REASONABLE JURORS ARE NOT TO
BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO MAKE INFERENCES WHICH OTHER REASONABLE PEOPLE
WOULD MAKE:  THAT STOGNER TRIED IN THE USUAL WAY TO COUPLE THE CARS;
THAT HIS EFFORTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL; AND THAT HE WAS THEREFORE COMPELLED
TO GO BETWEEN THE CARS TO EFFECT A COUPLING.  AND THEY COULD THEREFORE
HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE PIN LIFTER WAS DEFECTIVE.  THE JURY'S FINDING
OF THIS FACT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED. 

FN1  AMENDMENT VII:  "IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN
CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY
SHALL BE PRESERVED, AND NO FACT TRIED BY A JURY, SHALL BE OTHERWISE RE
EXAMINED IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES
OF THE COMMON LAW." 

FN2  CF. RIDGE V. NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO., 167 N.C. 510, 521, 83 S.E.
762; KIRBY V. TALLMADGE, 160 U.S. 379, 383; INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V.
UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208, 225-226. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




















U.S. V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP., 315 U.S. 289 


NO. 8.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 1942.  - 113
F.2D 301, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CONTRACTS MADE IN THE EMERGENCY OF WAR BETWEEN THE FLEET
CORPORATION AND A SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS
FOR THE UNITED STATES, PROVIDED THAT THE PRICE TO BE PAID THE BUILDER
SHOULD INCLUDE THE ACTUAL COST OF THE SHIPS AND TWO ELEMENTS OF PROFIT,
(1) A FIXED AMOUNT CALCULATED ON AN AGREED ESTIMATE OF COST AND (2) A
"BONUS FOR SAVINGS," OF ONE-HALF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE ACTUAL COST
TURNED OUT LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATE; BUT NO OBLIGATION OF THE BUILDER TO
MAKE SPECIAL EFFORT TO EFFECT SUCH SAVINGS BY INCREASING ITS EFFICIENCY
WAS EXPRESSED IN THE CONTRACTS.  HELD: 

(1)  THERE IS NO GROUND TO IMPLY SUCH AN OBLIGATION.  P. 297. 

(2)  THE SAVINGS CLAUSE WAS A NON-SEVERABLE PART OF THE CONTRACT.  P.
298. 

2.  WHETHER A NUMBER OF PROMISES CONSTITUTE ONE CONTRACT OR MORE THAN
ONE IS TO BE DETERMINED BY INQUIRING WHETHER THE PARTIES ASSENTED TO
ALL THE PROMISES AS A WHOLE, SO THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BARGAIN
WHATEVER IF ANY PROMISE OR SET OF PROMISES WERE STRUCK OUT.  P. 298. 

3.  WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACTS FOR THE BUILDING OF SHIPS, ENTERED INTO
BY THE FLEET CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND A
SHIPBUILDING COMPANY WHILE THE COUNTRY WAS AT WAR, AND WHICH NETTED THE
COMPANY A VERY LARGE PROFIT PARTLY BY REASON OF THE CLAUSE GRANTING IT
THE RIGHT TO ONE-HALF OF THE AMOUNTS BY WHICH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION
SHOULD BE LOWER THAN THE LIBERAL ESTIMATE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTS,
HELD: 

(1)  THE GOVERNMENT'S PRESENT CLAIM THAT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS THE
OFFICIALS ACTING FOR THE FLEET CORPORATION WERE SUBJECTED TO PRESSURE
AMOUNTING TO DURESS BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMPANY, SO THAT THEY
ACCEPTED THE PRICE STIPULATIONS AGAINST THEIR WILL, IS WITHOUT SUPPORT
IN THE EVIDENCE.  P. 300. 

(2)  THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE GOVERNMENT STOOD IN GREAT NEED OF THE
SHIPS AND THAT IT WAS OBLIGED TO RELY UPON THE COMPANY'S CAPACITY TO
PRODUCE THEM, COULD NOT HAVE COERCED THE FLEET CORPORATION'S
REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE THE CONTRACTS, SINCE THE FLEET CORPORATION
COULD HAVE COMPELLED THE SHIPBUILDING COMPANY TO UNDERTAKE THE WORK AT
A PRICE SET BY THE PRESIDENT, WITH THE BURDEN OF GOING TO COURT IF IT
CONSIDERED THE COMPENSATION UNREASONABLY LOW; AND SINCE THE FLEET
CORPORATION HAD THE POWER TO COMMANDEER THE SHIPBUILDING COMPANY'S
PLANTS AND FACILITIES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE
PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO THE ACTS OF CONGRESS; AND IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED
THAT THE COMPANY OR ITS TRAINED ORGANIZATION WOULD HAVE BEEN UNWILLING
TO SERVE THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PLANTS IF THE POWER TO TAKE THEM OVER
WERE EXERCISED.  P. 303. 

(3)  UNDER ITS POWERS TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES, TO PROVIDE AND
MAINTAIN A NAVY, AND TO MAKE ALL LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY
THESE POWERS INTO EXECUTION, CONGRESS HAS AUTHORITY TO DRAFT BUSINESS
ORGANIZATIONS TO SUPPORT THE FIGHTING MEN IN WAR.  P. 305. 

4.  A POLICY OF GRANTING THE MEASURES OF PROFITS COMMON AT THE TIME,
ADOPTED BY THE FLEET CORPORATION WHEN LETTING CONTRACTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS UNDER AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE PRESIDENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS, IS NOT SUBJECT TO BE IN EFFECT
NULLIFIED BY THE COURTS BY REFUSALS TO ENFORCE SUCH CONTRACTS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE PROFITS GRANTED ARE TOO HIGH.  P. 308. 

UNITED STATES V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 9, UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD MERCHANT FLEET
CORPORATION V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, LTD., ALSO ON WRIT
OF CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 632, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 632, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS AFFIRMING TWO JUDGMENTS
OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  SEE 23 F.SUPP.  676; 26 ID. 259. 

NO. 8 WAS A SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION ET AL.,
FOR AN ACCOUNTING AND TO RECOVER SUMS PAID UNDER CONTRACTS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE BILL. 

IN NO. 9, WHICH WAS AN ACTION AT LAW BY THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING
CORPORATION AGAINST THE FLEET CORPORATION, THE FORMER RECOVERED A
BALANCE FOUND DUE UNDER "BONUS FOR SAVINGS" CLAUSES IN THE CONTRACTS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE TWO CASES ARISE FROM A DISPUTE BETWEEN BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING
CORPORATION, LTD., AND THE GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS
CLAIMED BY BETHLEHEM UNDER THIRTEEN WAR-TIME CONTRACTS FOR BUILDING
SHIPS.  THE CONTRACTS WERE NEGOTIATED AND EXECUTED IN 1917 AND 1918,
WHEN GERMANY'S DESTRUCTIVE WARFARE AGAINST OUR OCEAN SHIPPING ESSENTIAL
TO THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE WAR MADE IT NECESSARY FOR THE
UNITED STATES TO BUILD THE GREATEST POSSIBLE NUMBER OF SHIPS IN THE
SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME.  THEY ARE TYPICAL PRODUCTS OF A SYSTEM OF
PROCUREMENT HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD
EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION AND OTHER GOVERNMENT PURCHASING AGENCIES AT
THE TIME. 

ON JUNE 15, 1917, CONGRESS GAVE TO THE PRESIDENT SWEEPING WAR POWERS,
40 STAT. 182, INCLUDING (1) THE POWER TO COMMANDEER SHIPBUILDING PLANTS
AND FACILITIES, (2) THE POWER TO PURCHASE SHIPS AT WHAT HE DEEMED A
REASONABLE PRICE WITH A PROVISION FOR SUBSEQUENT REVISION BY THE COURTS
IN THE EVENT THE SELLER REGARDED THE PRICE SET AS UNFAIR, AND (3) THE
POWER TO PURCHASE OR CONTRACT FOR THE BUILDING OF SHIPS AT PRICES TO BE
ESTABLISHED BY NEGOTIATION.  ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO IT BY
THE PRESIDENT WITH CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, THE FLEET CORPORATION
DECLINED TO SEEK UTILIZATION OF THE FIRST AND SECOND METHODS BUT CHOSE,
UNDER THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE, TO MAKE PURCHASES THROUGH ORDINARY
BUSINESS BARGAINING. 

THE "ACTUAL COST" TO BETHLEHEM OF BUILDING THE SHIPS OVER WHICH THIS
DISPUTE ARISES WAS ABOUT $109,000,000.  THE GENEROUSLY INCLUSIVE
FORMULA  FN1  FOR DETERMINING "ACTUAL COST," NOT CHALLENGED BY THE
GOVERNMENT HERE, WAS NOT PECULIAR TO THESE CONTRACTS.  IT WAS BASED ON
THE STANDARD FORMULA USED BY THE FLEET CORPORATION IN ITS CONTRACTS
WITH OTHER SHIPBUILDERS.  AND, AS IN PRACTICALLY ALL CONTRACTS OF THIS
TYPE, THERE WAS NO RISK OF LOSS.  FN2  THE TOTAL PROFITS CLAIMED UNDER
THE CONTRACTS BY BETHLEHEM, AND ALLOWED BY BOTH COURTS BELOW, WERE
ABOUT $24,000,000 FN3  OR A LITTLE MORE THAN 22% OF THE COMPUTED COST. 
FN4  THIS FIGURE OF $24,000,000 DOES NOT INCLUDE SUCH PROFITS AS MAY
HAVE BEEN MADE BY BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, BETHLEHEM'S PARENT, WHICH
SOLD IT AT THE MAXIMUM PRICES ESTABLISHED BY THE WAR INDUSTRIES BOARD,
43,000 TONS OF STEEL USED IN THESE SHIPS.  FN5  THE PERCENTAGE OF
PROFITS IN RELATION TO THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT AND WORKING CAPITAL
DEVOTED BY BETHLEHEM TO THE BUILDING OF THE SHIPS WAS NOT FOUND BY
EITHER OF THE COURTS BELOW.  FN6 

IN NO. 8, THE GOVERNMENT FILED A BILL IN EQUITY AGAINST BETHLEHEM AND
OTHERS.  THE BILL ALLEGED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER
INTO THE CONTRACTS BY FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS OF BETHLEHEM'S AGENTS;
AND AS AN INDEPENDENT GROUND FOR RELIEF, THAT IT HAD BEEN THE DUTY OF
BETHLEHEM TO PERFORM THE CONTRACTS FAIRLY, HONESTLY, AND ECONOMICALLY
"IN THE SHORTEST PRACTICABLE TIME" FOR NO MORE THAN "A FAIR AND
REASONABLE PROFIT" AND THAT ANY PROVISIONS IN THE CONTRACT FOR PAYMENT
OF MORE ARE "VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE."  THE PRAYER WAS FOR AN ACCOUNTING
AND A DECREE REQUIRING BETHLEHEM TO REFUND ALL AMOUNTS PREVIOUSLY PAID
TO IT BY THE GOVERNMENT IN EXCESS OF WHAT THE COURT SHOULD FIND TO BE
JUST AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR BUILDING THE SHIPS.  BETHLEHEM
FILED AN ANSWER AND A COUNTERCLAIM FOR DAMAGES BASED ON ALLEGED BREACH
OF CONTRACT BY THE FLEET CORPORATION. 

IN NO. 9, BETHLEHEM BROUGHT SUIT AT LAW AGAINST THE FLEET
CORPORATION, CLAIMING DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THE SAME CONTRACTS.  IN AN
AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENSE AND COUNTERCLAIM THE FLEET CORPORATION REPEATED
THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN NO. 8 AND SOUGHT THE SAME
RELIEF. 

THE TWO ACTIONS WERE JOINTLY REFERRED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO A
MASTER WHO HELD HEARINGS AND MADE FINDINGS.  IN NO. 8, THE MASTER
RECOMMENDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S BILL BE DISMISSED, AND ON THE
AUTHORITY OF NASSAU SMELTING WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 101,
FURTHER RECOMMENDED THE BETHLEHEM'S COUNTERCLAIM BE DISMISSED FOR WANT
OF JURISDICTION, THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BEING IN EXCESS OF $10,000.  IN NO.
9, HE RECOMMENDED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED FOR BETHLEHEM FOR $5,272,075
FN7 WITH INTEREST AT 2% FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1922.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE
DECLINED TO ALLOW ANY INTEREST, APPLYING THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA AS HE
THOUGHT OUR DECISION IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64,
REQUIRED.  IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS HE FOLLOWED THE MASTER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND RENDERED JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  23 F.SUPP.  676; 26
ID. 259.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  113 F.2D 301.  ON
APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE FLEET CORPORATION, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  311 U.S. 632. 

AS THE CASE REACHES US, THE CONTROVERSY REVOLVES PRIMARILY AROUND THE
BETHLEHEM.  IN ALL THE CONTRACTS, THAT SECTION CONTAINS SUBSTANTIALLY
THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS: 

"THE PRICE TO BE PAID FOR EACH VESSEL TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND FURNISHED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT  ...  SHALL BE THE ACTUAL
COST, PLUS THE DEFINITE SUM FOR PROFIT HEREINAFTER IN THIS ARTICLE
PROVIDED FOR, BASED UPON AN ESTIMATED ACTUAL COST TO THE CONTRACTOR ...
SHOULD THE ACTUAL COST BE LESS THAN THE ESTIMATED  ...  COST  ...  THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE ALLOWED AS PROFIT ON EACH VESSEL IN ADDITION TO
SAID FIXED SUM FOR PROFIT  ...  ONE-HALF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH SUCH
ACTUAL COST OF EACH VESSEL FALLS SHORT OF THE ESTIMATED COST  ...  " 

THUS, A HIGH ESTIMATED COST WOULD INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF
"SAVINGS" TO BE DIVIDED BETWEEN BETHLEHEM AND THE GOVERNMENT.  AND THE
MORE THE ESTIMATED COST EXCEEDED ACTUAL COST, THE GREATER WOULD BE
BETHLEHEM'S SHARE.  IT CAN BE SEEN, THEREFORE, THAT THE ESTIMATED COST
AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES IS A PIVOTAL FIGURE. 

                                  I 

THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED BETHLEHEM WITH FRAUD IN SUBMITTING ESTIMATED
COST FIGURES WHICH WERE ADOPTED IN THE CONTRACTS.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT
BETHLEHEM'S AGENTS MADE TWO FALSE REPRESENTATIONS: (1) THAT IT WAS
IMPRACTICABLE TO ESTIMATE CLOSELY WHAT THE COST WOULD BE AND (2) THAT
THE ESTIMATES BETHLEHEM SUBMITTED, AND WHICH THE FLEET CORPORATION
ACCEPTED, WERE FAIR AND REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE MASTER
FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CHARGE OF FRAUD.  THE
DISTRICT JUDGE APPROVED THIS FINDING AS DID THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, WHICH SAID THAT IT HAD "CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RECORD IN THE
LIGHT OF THIS CONTENTION (OF FRAUD)" AND CONCLUDED THAT "THE ESTIMATES
SUBMITTED BY BETHLEHEM AND PREPARED FOR IT BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE BROWN
WERE FAIRLY AND HONESTLY MADE AND AS ACCURATE AS COULD BE EXPECTED
UNDER THE UNCERTAIN CONDITIONS THEN PREVAILING."  AND IN THIS COURT THE
PETITIONER ACCEPTS THESE FINDINGS.  THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERING OTHER
ATTACKS UPON BETHLEHEM'S RIGHT TO RECOVER, WE MUST DO SO ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD IN BETHLEHEM'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT. 

               II 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD, BETHLEHEM
IS ENTITLED TO NOTHING BY VIRTUE OF THE HALF-SAVINGS CLAUSES. 

ONE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE CONTRACTS GAVE BETHLEHEM THE BENEFITS OF
PARTICIPATING IN THE SAVINGS ONLY IF BETHLEHEM BY SPECIAL EFFORTS
INCREASED ITS EFFICIENCY AND BROUGHT ACTUAL COSTS BELOW THE ESTIMATES
AGREED TO IN THE CONTRACTS. 

NEITHER THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE HALF-SAVINGS PROVISION NOR ITS
CONTEXT SUPPORTS THIS CONTENTION.  ON ITS FACE, THE PROVISION CONTAINS
AN UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE TO PAY BETHLEHEM ONE-HALF OF THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED COST OF THE SHIPS IN QUESTION.  THAT
SUCH A METHOD OF COMPUTATION WOULD TEND TO DISCOURAGE CARELESS
EXPENDITURES AND ENCOURAGE VIGOROUS ATTEMPTS AT REALIZING ECONOMIES IN
BUILDING THE SHIPS IS HARDLY DEBATABLE.  BUT THE HALF-SAVINGS CLAUSE
DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY POSITIVE OBLIGATIONS UPON THE BUILDER.  THE MASTER
FOUND, UPON CONSIDERATION BOTH OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS AND
TESTIMONY ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES, THAT A SHOWING OF
SAVINGS, WITHOUT MORE, OBLIGATED THE GOVERNMENT TO SHARE THEM WITH
BETHLEHEM.  IT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED THAT THIS FINDING, ACCEPTED BY BOTH
COURTS BELOW, IS WITHOUT AMPLE SUPPORT. 

NOTHING IN THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS REVEALED IN THE
RECORD INDICATES THAT THEY HAD A CONTRARY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
CONTRACTS.  BETHLEHEM HELD OUT AGAINST THE FLEET CORPORATION'S EARLY
INSISTENCE UPON LUMP SUM CONTRACTS.  IT CONTINUALLY ASSERTED THAT
UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT FINAL COST DUE TO RAPIDLY RISING PRICES WOULD
REQUIRE IT TO PROTECT ITSELF BY INSISTING UPON A FIGURE TOO HIGH FOR
THE FLEET CORPORATION'S ACCEPTANCE AND THEREFORE ITSELF PROPOSED THE
COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE-PLUS-HALF-SAVINGS METHOD OF DETERMINING
COMPENSATION.  WHILE THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN RECOGNITION THAT THIS
METHOD MIGHT INDUCE GREATER EFFORTS AT EFFICIENCY, WHICH WOULD BE TO
THE ADVANTAGE OF BOTH PARTIES, THERE IS NOT THE SMALLEST HINT THAT
EITHER BETHLEHEM OR THE GOVERNMENT REGARDED THE SUBSTITUTION OF THIS
METHOD AS IMPOSING ANY POSITIVE OBLIGATIONS UPON BETHLEHEM IN ADDITION
TO THOSE IT WOULD HAVE HAD UNDER LUMP SUM CONTRACTS. 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE HALFSAVINGS CLAUSES
ARE SEVERABLE, AND THAT IF THE CONTRACTS IMPOSED UPON BETHLEHEM NO
OBLIGATION OF SPECIAL EFFORT TO EFFECT SAVINGS, THESE CLAUSES WERE
UNSUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION, AND ARE THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE.  THE
MASTER AND THE COURTS BELOW, HOWEVER, TREATED THESE CLAUSES AS NON
SEVERABLE; TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD CALL FOR DEPARTURE FROM ACCEPTED
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF CONTRACT.  WHETHER A NUMBER OF PROMISES
CONSTITUTE ONE CONTRACT OR MORE THAN ONE IS TO BE DETERMINED BY
INQUIRING "WHETHER THE PARTIES ASSENTED TO ALL THE PROMISES AS A SINGLE
WHOLE, SO THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BARGAIN WHATEVER, IF ANY
PROMISE OR SET OF PROMISES WERE STRUCK OUT."  WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS
(REV. ED.)  SEC.  863 AND CASES THERE CITED.  THE RECORD MAKES IT CLEAR
THAT EACH OF THE CONTRACTS HERE WAS ASSENTED TO AS A SINGLE WHOLE, AND
THAT CONSUMMATION OF A BARGAIN BETWEEN THE PARTIES DEPENDED UPON
INCLUSION OF THE HALF-SAVINGS CLAUSE.  FURTHERMORE, WE KNOW OF NO
FEDERAL OR STATE STATUTE OR ESTABLISHED RULE OF LAW IN ANY JURISDICTION
INCONSISTENT WITH THE ELEMENTARY PROPOSITION THAT A PROMISE TO BUILD
SHIPS IS GOOD CONSIDERATION FOR A PROMISE TO PAY A SUM OF MONEY WHETHER
FIXED IN AMOUNT OR DEPENDING UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACTUAL AND
ESTIMATED COST.  FN8  CF. DAYTON AIRPLANE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 21 F.2D
673, 682-683. 

                 III 

THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER ARGUES THAT IF THE HALF-SAVINGS CLAUSES MUST
BE TAKEN AS PERMITTING BETHLEHEM TO PARTICIPATE IN SAVINGS HOWEVER
CAUSED, THE CONTRACTS ARE INVALID BECAUSE UNCONSCIONABLE.  WITHOUT
SPECIFYING THAT IT RELIES ON THE LAW OF ANY PARTICULAR JURISDICTION,
THE PETITIONER RESTS ITS ARGUMENT ON AN ASSERTED GENERAL DOCTRINE OF
UNCONSCIONABILITY AT COMMON LAW.  SINCE THERE IS NO GOVERNING
CONSTITUTIONAL OR FEDERAL STATUTORY PROVISION, IF THESE WERE CONTRACTS
BETWEEN PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, THE LAW OF SOME LOCALITY WOULD BE
CONTROLLING.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA.  WHETHER THE SAME RULE
WOULD APPLY TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN GENERAL OR TO THE CONTRACTS OF
THE FLEET CORPORATION  FN9  IN PARTICULAR, WE NEED NOT DECIDE.  NOR,
ASSUMING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TOMPKINS CASE TO THE CONTRACTS BEFORE
US, WOULD WE HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LAW OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA OR OF SOME PARTICULAR STATE IS DECISIVE.  FOR, IN INVOKING THE
ASSERTED DOCTRINE OF UNCONSCIONABILITY CLAIMED TO BE APPLICABLE HERE,
THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ENTIRELY UPON THE ALLEGED EXISTENCE OF TWO
ELEMENTS:  DURESS, AND PROFITS GROSSLY IN EXCESS OF CUSTOMARY
STANDARDS.  AND FOR REASONS WE SHALL SET OUT, NEITHER OF THESE TWO
ELEMENTS EXISTS HERE. 

DURESS.  THE WORD DURESS IMPLIES FEEBLENESS ON ONE SIDE, OVERPOWERING
STRENGTH ON THE OTHER.  HERE IT IS SUGGESTED THAT FEEBLENESS IS ON THE
SIDE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OVERPOWERING STRENGTH ON
THE SIDE OF A SINGLE PRIVATE CORPORATION.  ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MANY
CASES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL HAS CLAIMED TO BE A VICTIM OF DURESS IN
DEALINGS WITH GOVERNMENT, E.G., UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 248 U.S. 67, THIS, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, IS THE FIRST INSTANCE IN
WHICH GOVERNMENT HAS CLAIMED TO BE A VICTIM OF DURESS IN DEALINGS WITH
AN INDIVIDUAL.    THE ARGUMENT BY WHICH THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO
ESTABLISH THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE MADE UNDER DURESS IS ESSENTIALLY
THIS:  GERMANY'S SUBMARINE WARFARE MADE IT IMPERATIVE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT SECURE THE GREATEST POSSIBLE NUMBER OF SHIPS IN THE SHORTEST
POSSIBLE TIME; THERE WAS A SCARCITY OF SHIPS AND SHIPBUILDING
FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES; BETHLEHEM, THE LARGEST SHIPBUILDER IN
THE WORLD, NOT ONLY HAD SHIPBUILDING FACILITIES AVAILABLE, BUT ALSO A
TRAINED ORGANIZATION; AT A TIME WHEN BETHLEHEM'S FACILITIES AND TRAINED
ORGANIZATION WERE VITAL TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE WAR, IT DECLINED TO
ACCEPT TERMS PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT, BUT INSISTED UPON PRICES WHICH
SOME OF THE GOVERNMENT'S REPRESENTATIVES THOUGHT TOO HIGH; ALTHOUGH
CONGRESS HAD AUTHORIZED THE EXECUTIVE TO COMMANDEER SHIPBUILDING
FACILITIES IF NECESSARY, BETHLEHEM'S ORGANIZATION WAS ALSO NEEDED AND
THE GOVERNMENT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO COMPEL PERFORMANCE BY AN UNWILLING
ORGANIZATION; THE GOVERNMENT THEREFORE HAD TO ACCEPT CONTRACTS ON
WHATEVER TERMS BETHLEHEM PROPOSED OR, DOING WITHOUT THE SHIPS WHICH
BETHLEHEM COULD PRODUCE, RUN THE RISK OF MILITARY DEFEAT. 

TWO BASIC PROPOSITIONS UNDERLIE THIS ARGUMENT:  (1) THE GOVERNMENT'S
REPRESENTATIVES INVOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED BETHLEHEM'S TERMS.  (2) THE
CIRCUMSTANCES PERMITTED THE GOVERNMENT NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. 

UPON REVIEWING THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BETHLEHEM, WE CANNOT FIND SUPPORT
FOR THE FIRST PROPOSITION.  THE MASTER FOUND, AND THE COURTS BELOW
AGREED, THAT "THE CONTRACTS RESULTED FROM NEGOTIATIONS IN WHICH BOTH
PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED BY INTELLIGENT, WELL INFORMED AND EXPERIENCED
OFFICERS WHOSE SOLE OBJECT WAS TO MAKE THE BEST TRADE POSSIBLE, UNDER
CONDITIONS WHICH INCLUDED THE UNCERTAINTIES OF WAR-TIME CONTINGENCIES,
THE RESULTS FROM WHICH WERE NOT AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN KNOWN AT THE
TIME THE CONTRACTS WERE MADE."  TWO OF THE THREE PRINCIPAL NEGOTIATORS
FOR THE FLEET CORPORATION HAVE TESTIFIED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
MASTER.  IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM THEIR TESTIMONY THAT, DURING THE
COURSE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS, THEY DID NOT CONSIDER THEMSELVES COMPELLED
TO ACCEPT WHATEVER TERMS THE OTHER SIDE PROPOSED.  IN THE DISPOSITION
OF THE TWO MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NEGOTIATORS, THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE OF THAT STATE OF OVERCOME WILL WHICH IS THE MAJOR PREMISE OF
THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT OF DURESS.  CF. FRENCH V. SHOEMAKER, 14
WALL.  314, 332. 

ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES WAS SETTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ABANDONMENT OF
ITS EARLIER INSISTENCE UPON A LUMP SUM ARRANGEMENT TOGETHER WITH A
GUARANTEED DATE OF DELIVERY.  IN VIEW OF THE RISING PRICES AND
UNPREDICTABLE LABOR SUPPLY OF THE TIME, BETHLEHEM'S RELUCTANCE TO ENTER
INTO CONTRACTS ON SUCH TERMS DOES NOT SEEM UNREASONABLE.  FN10  AND IF
THE GOVERNMENT'S ABANDONMENT OF ITS POSITION IS TO BE REGARDED AS
EVIDENCE OF COMPULSION, WE SHOULD HAVE TO FIND COMPULSION IN EVERY
CONTRACT IN WHICH ONE OF THE PARTIES MAKES A CONCESSION TO A DEMAND,
HOWEVER REASONABLE, OF THE OTHER SIDE. 

THE OTHER MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NEGOTIATORS WAS ON THE MATTER
OF PRICE.  THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SOME OF THE FLEET CORPORATION'S
REPRESENTATIVES CONSIDERED BETHLEHEM'S DEMANDS HIGH, BUT WE CANNOT
CONCLUDE THAT THE FIGURE FINALLY ACCEPTED BY THE FLEET CORPORATION WAS
ACCEPTED BECAUSE ITS REPRESENTATIVES FELT THEMSELVES POWERLESS TO
REFUSE.  ON THE CONTRARY, BETHLEHEM BY LETTER VOLUNTARILY OFFERED TO
ACCEPT CONTRACTS ON TERMS TO BE FIXED BY THE FLEET CORPORATION'S
GENERAL MANAGER.  THIS OFFER WAS REJECTED, ONE OF THE FLEET
CORPORATION'S NEGOTIATORS TESTIFYING THAT IT PREFERRED TO MAKE
CONTRACTS RATHER THAN ASSUME THE ATTITUDE OF DICTATING TERMS. 
MOREOVER, THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE FLEET CORPORATION, IN WHOM FINAL
AUTHORITY WAS VESTED AND WHO APPROVED THESE CONTRACTS, WAS OF THE
OPINION THAT HIGH ESTIMATED COST FIGURES WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE
GOVERNMENT BECAUSE "CARE MUST BE EXERCISED THAT THEY BE NOT PLACED AT
TOO LOW A FIGURE, FOR IF THEY ARE, THE PROBABILITIES ARE THAT THE
CONTRACTOR WILL LOSE INTEREST IN KEEPING THE COST DOWN."  AND ONE OF
THE NEGOTIATORS FOR THE FLEET CORPORATION HAS GIVEN TESTIMONY THAT HE
WAS NOT SO MUCH CONCERNED WITH COST AS WITH SPEED OF PRODUCTION, SINCE
"LEGISLATION WAS ALREADY IN THE OFFING IN THE FORM OF WAR PROFIT TAXES
...  TO TAKE CARE OF EXTREME CASES."  WE MUST THEREFORE CONCLUDE THAT
THE NEGOTIATIONS DO NOT SHOW THAT BETHLEHEM FORCED THE GOVERNMENT'S
REPRESENTATIVES TO ACCEPT CONTRACTS AGAINST THEIR WILL. 

IF THE NEGOTIATIONS DO NOT ESTABLISH DURESS, THE GOVERNMENT FINDS IT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEMSELVES.  THE PETITIONER CONCEDES THAT THE
GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE COMMANDEERED BETHLEHEM'S PLANTS, BUT IT CONTENDS
THAT, IF THE PLANTS HAD BEEN COMMANDEERED, BETHLEHEM'S ORGANIZATION
WOULD HAVE BEEN UNWILLING TO SERVE THE GOVERNMENT IN THEM.  HEAVY
RELIANCE IS PLACED ON AN OBSERVATION IN THE MASTER'S REPORT THAT "THE
GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE POWER TO COMPEL PERFORMANCE BY AN UNWILLING
ORGANIZATION."  WE SHALL LATER CONSIDER THE ALLEGED LACK OF POWER.  WE
NOW POINT OUT THAT THE ALLEGED UNWILLINGNESS IS AN ASSUMPTION
UNSUPPORTED BY FINDINGS OR EVIDENCE.  SINCE THE POSSIBILITY OF
COMMANDEERING APPEARS NOT EVEN TO HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED TO BETHLEHEM, WE
HAVE NO BASIS FOR KNOWING WHAT ITS REACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN.  WE CANNOT
ASSUME THAT, IF THE NEGOTIATIONS FAILED TO PRODUCE CONTRACTS ACCEPTABLE
TO BOTH SIDES, BETHLEHEM WOULD HAVE REFUSED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WAR
EFFORT EXCEPT UNDER LEGAL COMPULSION.  WE CANNOT LIGHTLY IMPUTE TO
BETHLEHEM'S WHOLE ORGANIZATION, COMPOSED AS IT WAS OF HUNDREDS OF
PEOPLE, SUCH AN ATTITUDE OF UNPATRIOTIC RECALCITRANCE IN THE FACE OF
NATIONAL PERIL. 

BUT EVEN IF WE WERE TO ASSUME, AS WE DO NOT, AN INITIAL ATTITUDE OF
UNWILLINGNESS, WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTIRELY WITHOUT
MEANS OF OVERCOMING IT.  FOR, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FLEET
CORPORATION, AN AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES, CAME TO BETHLEHEM ARMED
WITH BARGAINING POWERS TO WHICH THOSE OF NO ORDINARY PRIVATE
CORPORATION CAN BE COMPARED.  IF IT CHOSE TO, THE FLEET CORPORATION
COULD HAVE FOREGONE ALL NEGOTIATION OVER PRICE, COMPELLING BETHLEHEM TO
UNDERTAKE THE WORK AT A PRICE SET BY THE PRESIDENT, WITH THE BURDEN OF
GOING TO COURT IF IT CONSIDERED THE COMPENSATION UNREASONABLY LOW.  AND
THE POWER TO COMMANDEER BETHLEHEM'S ENTIRE PLANT AND FACILITIES, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED BY THE PRESIDENT,
PROVIDED THE FLEET CORPORATION WITH AN ALTERNATIVE BARGAINING WEAPON
DIFFICULT FOR ANY COMPANY TO RESIST. 

THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS URGES THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE ARE
ANALOGOUS TO THOSE UNDER WHICH COURTS OF ADMIRALTY HAVE HELD CONTRACTS
TO BE UNENFORCEABLE.  IN PARTICULAR, IT POINTS TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT
COURTS OF ADMIRALTY "WILL NOT TOLERATE THE DOCTRINE THAT A SALVOR CAN
TAKE THE ADVANTAGE OF HIS SITUATION, AND AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE
CALAMITIES OF OTHERS TO DRIVE A BARGAIN; NOR WILL THEY PERMIT THE
PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC DUTY TO BE TURNED INTO A TRAFFIC OF PROFIT." 
POST V. JONES, 19 HOW.  150, 160.  WE THINK THIS PRINCIPLE HAS NO REAL
RELEVANCE TO THE CASE BEFORE US. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF THERE WAS A "TRAFFIC OF PROFIT" HERE, IT WAS
NOT THE UNANTICIPATED RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT AS IN THE SALVAGE CASES. 
WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE PROCUREMENT OF SHIPS THROUGH ORDINARY
COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS, IT MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PURCHASES COULD
NOT BE MADE IN A MARKET OF OPEN COMPETITION, BECAUSE EXISTING
SHIPBUILDING FACILITIES WOULD BE OVERTAXED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT AID TO MERCHANT
SHIPPING (REV. ED. 1923) 433; HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES ON H.R. 10500, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
PASSIM.  AND CONGRESS MUST HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT, IN THE CONTRACTS
AGREED UPON, PROFITS WOULD BE EXPECTED, AND THAT THE SELFINTEREST
INHERENT IN COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS WOULD MAKE ITSELF FELT.  THEREFORE,
IN SEEKING TO ESTABLISH DURESS FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THESE
CONTRACTS WERE MADE, THE GOVERNMENT IS RELYING ON THE IDENTICAL
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME CONGRESS CHOSE THE
POLICY OF AUTHORIZING PROCUREMENT OF SHIPS THROUGH COMMERCIAL
NEGOTIATION.  WE CANNOT NOW INVALIDATE CONTRACTS MADE PURSUANT TO A
CONGRESSIONALLY SELECTED POLICY, ON THE SOLE GROUND OF THE COERCIVE
EFFECT OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CONGRESS CLEARLY CONTEMPLATED.  TO DO SO
WE SHOULD HAVE TO REPUDIATE LEGISLATIVE POWER EXERCISED IN PROPER
CONSTITUTIONAL SPHERE. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE CAPTAIN OF A SHIP IN DISTRESS ON THE HIGH
SEAS WHO IS COMPLETELY AT THE MERCY OF HIS SALVOR CANNOT BE LIKENED TO
A SOVEREIGN POWER DEALING WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTOR.  WE CANNOT
REGARD THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT WAR AS SO POWERLESS THAT
IT MUST SEEK THE ORGANIZATION OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION AS A HELPLESS
SUPPLIANT.  THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS TO CONGRESS POWER "TO RAISE AND
SUPPORT ARMIES," "TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY," AND TO MAKE ALL LAWS
NECESSARY AND PROPER TO CARRY THESE POWERS INTO EXECUTION.  UNDER THIS
AUTHORITY CONGRESS CAN DRAFT MEN FOR BATTLE SERVICE.  SELECTIVE DRAFT
LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366.  ITS POWER TO DRAFT BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS TO
SUPPORT THE FIGHTING MEN WHO RISK THEIR LIVES CAN BE NO LESS. 

PROFITS.  THE GENERAL COMMON LAW RULE OF UNCONSCIONABILITY ON WHICH
THE PETITIONER RELIES IS SAID TO DENY ENFORCEMENT TO CONTRACTS WHEN THE
PROFITS PROVIDED FOR ARE GROSSLY IN EXCESS OF A STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY
COMMON PRACTICE.  WHETHER THERE IS SUCH A RULE, WHAT IS ITS SCOPE, AND
WHETHER IT IS PART OF THE BODY OF LAW GOVERNING THESE CONTRACTS, WE
NEED NOT DECIDE.  FOR, HIGH AS BETHLEHEM'S 22% PROFIT SEEMS TO US, WE
ARE COMPELLED TO ADMIT THAT SO FAR AS THE RECORD OR ANY OTHER SOURCE OF
WHICH WE CAN TAKE NOTICE DISCLOSES, IT IS NOT GROSSLY IN EXCESS OF THE
STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY COMMON PRACTICE IN THE FIELD IN WHICH CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED THE MAKING OF THESE CONTRACTS.  AND IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE
ADDED, THE MASTER FOUND THAT THE SHIPS BUILT BY BETHLEHEM COST THE
GOVERNMENT LESS THAN COMPARABLE SHIPS BUILT BY OTHER SHIPBUILDERS.  THE
GOVERNMENT MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH, NOR IS THERE ANY INDICATION IN
THE RECORD, THAT THE PROFITS REALIZED BY OTHER SHIPBUILDERS WERE ANY
LESS THAN BETHLEHEM'S. 

TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD OF CUSTOMARY PROFITS, THE PETITIONER POINTS
TO THE EXPERIENCE OF THE NAVY AND WAR DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER BRANCHES OF
THE GOVERNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH STRAIGHT COST-PLUS CONTRACTS. 
BECAUSE 10% WAS THE PROFIT SPECIFIED IN MANY SUCH CONTRACTS, THE
GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT IT IS AN APPROPRIATE FIGURE HERE, AND URGES
THAT THE PROFITS ON THESE CONTRACTS, TESTED BY SUCH A STANDARD, CANNOT
BE ALLOWED.  THE RELEVANCE OF EXPERIENCE WITH COST-PLUS CONTRACTS TO
THE CONTRACTS HERE IS NOT CLEAR.  THE SHIPPING BOARD DELIBERATELY CHOSE
TO AVOID COST-PLUS CONTRACTS WHERE POSSIBLE, HAVING FOUND THEM
UNSATISFACTORY IN PRACTICE.  MOREOVER, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE TOTAL
COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF COMPARABLE SHIPS UNDER COST-PLUS CONTRACTS
WAS HIGHER THAN THE TOTAL COST OF THE SHIPS BETHLEHEM BUILT UNDER THE
CONTRACTS HERE IN QUESTION.  AND EXPERIENCE IN MANY FIELDS HAS
DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT ACTUALLY REALIZED UNDER COST
PLUS CONTRACTS IS LIKELY TO BE FAR MORE THAN THE PERCENTAGE SPECIFIED. 
AS STATED IN 1918 BY CHARLES E. HUGHES, LATER CHIEF JUSTICE, IN HIS
REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY, "CONTRACTS OF
THIS SORT LEAD TO WASTE, FOSTER ABUSES, AND IMPOSE AN ALMOST
INTOLERABLE BURDEN OF COST ACCOUNTING, IN ITSELF A HINDRANCE TO RAPID
PRODUCTION."  REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE AIRCRAFT INQUIRY
(1918) 134.  SEE ALSO, EXPENDITURES IN THE WAR DEPARTMENT - CAMPS,
HOUSE REPORT NO. 816, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS., 49-53.  THE 10% WHICH THE
PETITIONER DERIVES BY REFERENCE TO THE COSTPLUS CONTRACTS OF CERTAIN
GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENTS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A STANDARD OF COMMON
PRACTICE.  IT IS AN ILLUSORY FIGURE WITHOUT BASIS IN THE REALITIES OF
BUSINESS EXPERIENCE. 

IF PROFITS EARNED UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN GENERAL ARE TAKEN AS
THE STANDARD OF COMPARISON, THE 22% CLAIMED HERE IS OVERSHADOWED IN TOO
MANY INSTANCES FOR IT TO BE REGARDED AS EXTRAORDINARY.  THE HUGHES
REPORT REFERRED TO ABOVE, FOR EXAMPLE, POINTS OUT (PP. 136-146) THAT
MOST OF THE AIRPLANE PRODUCTION DURING THE LAST WAR WAS UNDER CONTRACTS
PROVIDING FOR MUCH HIGHER PROFITS.  TO TAKE AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROFITS
MADE ON FOOD PRODUCTS, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT, IN
1917, PROFITS ON THE SALES OF SALMON CANNERIES, A MAJOR PORTION OF
WHOSE OUTPUT WAS PURCHASED BY THE GOVERNMENT, RANGED FROM 15 TO 68% OF
COST, AVERAGING 52%.  FN11 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, REPORT ON CANNED
SALMON (1918) 63.  IN THE SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY ITSELF, EVEN IN PEACE
TIMES, PROFITS WERE FOUND BY A SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE, WHICH
INVESTIGATED THE MUNITIONS INDUSTRY, TO HAVE BEEN FROM 25% TO 37% ON
THE CRUISERS BUILT IN 1927, ABOUT 22% IN 1929, AND OF LIKE RANGE FOR
OTHER YEARS.  SENATE REPORT NO. 944, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 4. 

IF THE COMPARISON IS MADE WITH INDUSTRIAL PROFITS, NOT LIMITED TO
PROFITS ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS ALONE, THE 22% ASKED FOR HERE LIKEWISE
LOSES ALL CLAIM TO DISTINCTION.  AN EXHIBIT, THE ACCURACY OF WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT CHALLENGED, INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD OF THIS
CASE, INDICATES THAT IN TERMS OF PROFIT ON GROSS SALES, THE LARGEST
AMERICAN STEEL COMPANY MADE 49, 58, AND 46% DURING THE YEARS 1916,
1917, AND 1918.  AS COMPUTED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, NET
EARNINGS IN 1917 OF THE SAME COMPANY ON ALL ITS BUSINESS WERE 25% OF
TOTAL INVESTMENT, AND THE COMMISSION CITES INSTANCES OF OTHER STEEL
COMPANIES WHOSE EARNINGS THUS MEASURED RANGED FROM 30 TO 320%.  FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION, LETTER ON PROFITEERING (1918) 9.  PROFITS OF LUMBER
PRODUCERS, AGAIN IN TERMS OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT, RANGED AS HIGH AS
121%; AND OF PRODUCERS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AS HIGH AS 122%, OVER
HALF OF THE INDUSTRY EARNING MORE THAN 20%.  ID., 12, 13.  DURING THE
FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1917, ONE OF THE TWO MAJOR SULPHUR PRODUCERS IN THE
COUNTRY SOLD ITS PRODUCT AT AN AVERAGE PRICE OF $18.11 PER TON, MORE
THAN 200% ABOVE COST, WHICH WAS $5.73 PER TON; THE OTHER MAJOR PRODUCER
EARNED 236% ON ITS INVESTMENT DURING THE FIRST ELEVEN MONTHS OF THE
SAME YEAR.  ID. 11.  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S COLLECTION OF DATA
FOR VARIOUS OTHER INDUSTRIES, A COLLECTION WHICH THE COMMISSION STATED
WAS "BY NO MEANS A COMPLETE CATALOG," AFFORDS MANY ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES
OF THE SAME KIND.  BUT FURTHER CONFIRMATION SHOULD BE UNNECESSARY FOR A
CONCLUSION NO BUSINESSMAN WOULD QUESTION:  THAT THE PROFITS CLAIMED
HERE, SEEN IN THEIR COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
EXCEPTIONAL. 

THE PROFITS CLAIMED HERE ARISE UNDER CONTRACTS DELIBERATELY LET BY
THE FLEET CORPORATION UNDER AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE PRESIDENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  NEITHER CONGRESS NOR THE PRESIDENT
RESTRICTED THE FREEDOM OF THE FLEET CORPORATION TO GRANT MEASURES OF
PROFITS COMMON AT THE TIME.  AND THE FLEET CORPORATION'S CHOSEN POLICY
WAS TO OPERATE IN A FIELD WHERE PROFITS FOR SERVICES ARE DEMANDED AND
EXPECTED.  THE FUTILITY OF SUBJECTING THIS CHOICE OF POLICY TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW IS DEMONSTRATED BY THIS CASE, COMING TO THIS COURT AS IT DOES
MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE SHIPS WERE COMPLETED.  IN ANY EVENT,
WE BELIEVE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS POLICY WAS WISE IS
OUTSIDE OUR PROVINCE TO DECIDE.  UNDER OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE DO NOT
HAVE THE POWER TO NULLIFY IT, AS WE BELIEVE WE SHOULD NECESSARILY BE
DOING, WERE WE TO DECLARE THESE CONTRACTS UNENFORCEABLE ON THE GROUND
THAT PROFITS GRANTED UNDER CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY WERE TOO HIGH.  THE
PROFITS MADE IN THESE AND OTHER CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO UNDER THE SAME
SYSTEM MAY JUSTLY AROUSE INDIGNATION.  BUT INDIGNATION BASED ON THE
NOTIONS OF MORALITY OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT CANNOT BE JUDICIALLY
TRANSMUTED INTO A PRINCIPLE OF LAW OF GREATER FORCE THAN THE EXPRESSED
WILL OF CONGRESS.  FN12

                                  IV 

THE PROBLEM OF WAR PROFITS IS NOT NEW.  IN THIS COUNTRY, EVERY WAR WE
HAVE ENGAGED IN HAS PROVIDED OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROFITEERING AND THEY
HAVE BEEN TOO OFTEN SCANDALOUSLY SEIZED.  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS ON H.R. 3 AND H.R. 5293, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., 590-598.  TO MEET THIS RECURRENT EVIL, CONGRESS HAS AT TIMES
TAKEN VARIOUS MEASURES.  IT HAS AUTHORIZED PRICE FIXING.  IT HAS PLACED
A FIXED LIMIT ON PROFITS, OR HAS RECAPTURED HIGH PROFITS THROUGH
TAXATION.  IT HAS EXPRESSLY RESERVED FOR THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO
CANCEL CONTRACTS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN MADE.  PURSUANT TO CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY, THE GOVERNMENT HAS REQUISITIONED EXISTING PRODUCTION
FACILITIES OR ITSELF BUILT AND OPERATED NEW ONES TO PROVIDE NEEDED WAR
MATERIALS.  IT MAY BE THAT ONE OR SOME OR ALL OF THESE MEASURES SHOULD
BE UTILIZED MORE COMPREHENSIVELY, OR THAT STILL OTHER MEASURES MUST BE
DEVISED.  BUT IF THE EXECUTIVE IS IN NEED OF ADDITIONAL LAWS BY WHICH
TO PROTECT THE NATION AGAINST WAR PROFITEERING, THE CONSTITUTION HAS
GIVEN TO CONGRESS, NOT TO THIS COURT, THE POWER TO MAKE THEM. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  INCLUDED IN THE DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE ITEMIZATION OF
"ACTUAL COST" WERE THE FOLLOWING AND "ITEMS SIMILAR THERETO IN
PRINCIPLE": 

"THE NET COSTS  ...  OF LABOR (INCLUDING COMPENSATION OF LABOR BY WAY
OF BONUSES), AND MATERIALS, MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, AND SUPPLIES  ...
AND OTHER DIRECT CHARGES, SUCH AS INSURANCE ON THE VESSELS, ETC. 

"A PROPER PROPORTION OF RUNNING EXPENSES, INCLUDING ORDINARY RENTALS,
...  REPAIRS, AND MAINTENANCE, LIGHT, HEAT, POWER, INSURANCE,
MANAGEMENT, SALARIES (INCLUDING COMPENSATION BY WAY OF BONUSES), AND
OTHER INDIRECT CHARGES  ... 

"A PROPER PROPORTION OF INTEREST ACCRUED  ...  ON BONDS OR OTHER
DEBTS OR LOANS EXISTING OR CONTRACTED FOR PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS
CONTRACT AND THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH SHALL BE USED, OR SHALL HAVE BEEN OR
SHALL BE INVESTED IN PLANT, EQUIPMENT, ETC., THAT SHALL BE USED, IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT. 

"A PROPER PROPORTION OF TAXES OF ALL KINDS ACCRUED DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS OR PROPERTY, EXCEPT ANY FEDERAL
TAXES. 

"A PROPER PROPORTION OF PHYSICAL LOSSES ACTUALLY SUSTAINED WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VESSELS UNDER
THIS CONTRACT, INCLUDING LOSSES FROM FIRE, FLOOD, STORM, RIOT,
VANDALISM, ANY ACTS OF GOD, ACTS OF WAR, OR OTHER CASUALTIES AND NOT
COMPENSATED FOR BY INSURANCE OR OTHERWISE. 

"A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE, ACCORDING TO THE CONDITION, FOR DEPRECIATION
OF VALUES OF THE PROPERTY AND PLANT OF THE CONTRACTOR USED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT." 

NEITHER IN THE CONTRACTS NOR UNDER ANY RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION
WAS THERE ANY RESTRICTION ON SALARIES AND BONUSES TO BE PAID TO
EXECUTIVES OF THE SHIPBUILDER OR ITS AFFILIATES.  CF. SECTIONS 505(C)
AND 805(C) OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1985, 1999,
2013. 

FN2  EVEN IN THE CASE OF LUMP SUM CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT, IT
IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE REAL RISK OF LOSS IS NEGLIGIBLE.  IT
IS USUAL IN THIS KIND OF CONTRACT TO SET PRICES HIGH ENOUGH TO COVER,
OR OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE AGAINST, UNFORESEEN
CONTINGENCIES.  AND WHERE LOSS DOES OCCUR CONTRARY TO THE EXPECTATION
OF BOTH PARTIES, CONGRESS OFTEN PASSES SPECIAL BILLS MAKING THE
CONTRACTORS WHOLE. 

FN3  THESE SHIPS APPARENTLY COST THE GOVERNMENT AT LEAST A LARGE PART
OF STILL ANOTHER $4,825,415.  THE GOVERNMENT PAID THIS AMOUNT TO
BETHLEHEM TO AID IN EXPANSION OF PLANT FACILITIES TO BUILD THE SHIPS -
FACILITIES WHICH WERE TURNED OVER TO BETHLEHEM AFTER THE WAR.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S MONEY WAS CONTRIBUTED UNDER A CONTRACT COMMONLY IN USE
WHEREBY THE CONTRACTOR WAS GIVEN THE OPTION OF PURCHASING THE
ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AT A DEPRECIATED VALUE.  WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT,
UPON CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY, RECEIVED ANY COMPENSATION AT ALL DOES
NOT CLEARLY APPEAR. 

FN4  WHILE PROFITS ON INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS RANGED ABOVE AND BELOW
22%, BOTH IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW AND IN THIS COURT THE WHOLE SERIES
OF CONTRACTS WAS REGARDED AS A UNIT.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS MADE NO
SEPARATE ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS IN WHICH
MORE THAN THE AVERAGE PROFIT WAS REALIZED, NOR HAS BETHLEHEM WITH
RESPECT TO THE CONTRACTS IN WHICH THE AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE HALF-SAVINGS
CLAUSE PROVED TO BE SMALL.  THE ONLY FINDING OF THE MASTER IN WHICH ANY
SEPARATION OF CONTRACTS IS MADE SHOWS THAT THE PROFITS REALIZED ON
CONTRACTS IN WHICH THE ESTIMATED COSTS WERE CHECKED BY THE FLEET
CORPORATION WERE HIGHER THAN THOSE ON CONTRACTS IN WHICH THE FLEET
CORPORATION ACCEPTED BETHLEHEM'S ESTIMATES WITHOUT CHECK. 

FN5  COMPARE THE STATUTORY METHOD OF RESTRICTING PROFITS OF
AFFILIATES EMBODIED IN SEC. 803 OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, 49
STAT. 1985, 2012. 

FN6  THE CONTRACTS CONTAINED A PROVISION, USUAL IN FLEET CORPORATION
CONTRACTS, UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT AGREED "TO PROVIDE THE CASH FUNDS
NECESSARY TO PAY FOR WORK ALREADY DONE AND MATERIALS ALREADY FURNISHED
AND FOR CARRYING ON THE WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT." 

FN7  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES "THAT $1,514,995 OF THE JUDGMENT AWARDED
...  IN THE ACTION AT LAW IS  ...  DUE UNDER CONTRACTS OTHER THAN
THOSE NOW UNDER ATTACK." 

FN8  OF THE CASES CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION BY THE GOVERNMENT, ONLY IN
BURKE & JAMES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 63 CT. CLS. 36, WAS A BONUS FOR
SAVINGS CLAUSE HELD SEVERABLE AND INVALID ALTHOUGH REGARDED AS "PART
AND PARCEL OF THE ORIGINAL  ...  CONTRACT."  WE AGREE, AS DID BOTH
COURTS BELOW, WITH THE MASTER'S STATEMENT THAT THE BURKE CASE IS NOT
APPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE "THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE DECISION OF THAT CASE
WAS BASED ARE SO DIFFERENT." 

FN9  THE DISTRICT COURT TREATED THE CONTRACTS AS GOVERNED BY THE LAW
OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TREATED THEM AS GOVERNED
BY THE LAW EITHER OF PENNSYLVANIA OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BUT DID
NOT DECIDE WHICH.  THE FLEET CORPORATION WAS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  ALTHOUGH WHOLLY OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY
THE GOVERNMENT IT HAS BEEN HELD SUBJECT TO SUIT IN EITHER STATE OR
FEDERAL COURTS.  SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. U.S. FLEET CORP., 258 U.S.
549; U.S. SHIPPING BOARD MERCHANT FLEET CORP. V. HARWOOD, 281 U.S.
519. 

FN10  CF.:  "OBVIOUSLY NO SANE MAN WOULD BID ON A LUMP-SUM CONTRACT
UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS, UNLESS PERCHANCE HE SHOULD TREAT THE MATTER AS A
PURE GAMBLE AND INCLUDE AN EXCESSIVE MARGIN IN HIS PROPOSAL FOR
UNFORESEEN CONTINGENCIES."  REPORT OF CHIEF OF CONSTRUCTION DIVISION,
WAR DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORTS (1919) 4147. 

FN11  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION REPORT DOES NOT GIVE SEPARATE
FIGURES ON SALES TO THE GOVERNMENT, BUT POINTS OUT (P. 7) THAT THE
GOVERNMENT HAD ANNOUNCED ITS INTENTION TO PURCHASE 80% OF THE 1918
PACK. 

FN12  CF.:  "IT WOULD BE VERY DANGEROUS, INDEED, TO THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT  ... IF  ...  THIS (COURT) SHOULD  ...
RENDER DECREES ON THE CRUDE NOTIONS OF THE JUDGES OF WHAT IS OR WOULD
BE MORALLY RIGHT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE INDIVIDUAL."  SMOOT'S
CASE, 15 WALL.  36, 45-46. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, WHO AS FORMER ATTORNEYS
GENERAL ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE PROSECUTION OF THESE CASES, TAKE
NO PART IN THIS DECISION.  MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ALSO TAKES NO PART IN
THE DECISION. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, CONCURRING: 

I CONCUR IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO DURESS
AND COERCION AND THE NON-SEVERABILITY OF THE "BONUS FOR SAVINGS"
CLAUSES, BUT DESIRE TO ADD A BRIEF FURTHER STATEMENT OF MY VIEWS. 

IN VOTING FOR AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT, I DO NOT WISH TO BE
UNDERSTOOD AS EXPRESSING APPROVAL OF AN ARRANGEMENT LIKE THE ONE NOW
UNDER REVIEW, BY WHICH A COMPANY ENGAGED IN DOING WORK FOR THE
GOVERNMENT IN TIME OF GRAVE NATIONAL PERIL - OR ANY OTHER TIME - IS
ENTITLED TO A PROFIT OF 22 PER CENT. UNDER CONTRACTS INVOLVING LITTLE
OR NO RISK AND GROSSING MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.  SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT
NOT ONLY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH SOUND PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT,
BUT IS INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND PUBLIC MORALE.  THE FACT THAT
SUCH CASES WERE COMMON DURING THE LAST WAR, AS EVIDENCED BY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES RECITED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, PROVIDES NO
JUSTIFICATION TO MY MIND FOR SUCH A PRACTICE THEN OR NOW.  NO MAN OR
SET OF MEN SHOULD WANT TO MAKE EXCESSIVE PROFITS OUT OF THE TRAVAIL OF
THE NATION AT WAR, AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ENTRUSTED WITH CONTRACTING
AUTHORITY, AND THE CONGRESS BESTOWING SUCH AUTHORITY, SHOULD BE ALERT
TO PREVENT IT. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT FOR DECISION, HOWEVER, IS NOT WHETHER
AN ARRANGEMENT LIKE THE ONE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ACCORDS WITH OUR
CONCEPTIONS OF BUSINESS MORALITY OR WITH CORRECT ADMINISTRATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS.  HAVING MADE A BARGAIN, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE HELD
TO IT UNLESS THERE ARE VALID AND APPROPRIATE REASONS KNOWN TO THE LAW
FOR RELIEVING IT FROM ITS OBLIGATIONS.  IT IS THE DUTY AND
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURTS, NOT TO RE-WRITE CONTRACTS ACCORDING TO
THEIR OWN VIEWS OF WHAT IS PRACTICAL AND FAIR, BUT TO ENFORCE THEM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE AND RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. 

IN MY OPINION THE ELEMENTS OF DURESS AND COERCION HAVE NOT BEEN
ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE.  THE DOCTRINE THAT "NECESSITOUS MEN ARE NOT
FREE MEN," A DOCTRINE EVOLVED BY THE ENGLISH COURTS OF CHANCERY IN THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY FOR THE PROTECTION OF HARASSED DEBTORS,  FN1  IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ARMED AS IT IS WITH
BOTH AN ACTUAL AND A POTENTIAL ARSENAL OF POWERS ADEQUATE TO PROTECT
ITS INTERESTS IN DEALINGS WITH PRIVATE PERSONS. 

I AM ALSO OF OPINION THAT THE "BONUS FOR SAVINGS" CLAUSES ARE
INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION AND PART OF THE ENTIRE
CONSIDERATION MOVING TO BETHLEHEM IN EXCHANGE FOR ITS PROMISE TO BUILD
SHIPS.  TO CHARACTERIZE THESE CLAUSES AS SEVERABLE AND SUPPORTED BY
CONSIDERATION ONLY IF BETHLEHEM PROMISED TO INCREASE ITS EFFICIENCY IS
INGENIOUS, BUT REQUIRES US TO CLOSE OUR EYES TO THE ACTUALITIES OF THE
RECORD BEFORE US AND TO IGNORE FUNDAMENTAL CONTRACT LAW. 

NOR CAN I ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION THAT THE "BONUS FOR SAVINGS" CLAUSES
ARE PROPERLY INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT BETHLEHEM WAS TO RECEIVE ONE
HALF OF THE "SAVINGS" ONLY INSOFAR AS BETHLEHEM COULD PROVE THAT THE
"SAVINGS" WERE DUE TO ITS INCREASED EFFICIENCY.  SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION, IT IS TRUE, WOULD PREVENT BETHLEHEM FROM BENEFITING BY
REASON OF PURELY FORTUITOUS "SAVINGS."  HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE, AS
HERE, OF FRAUD, MISTAKE, OR THAT OVERREACHING WHICH WE LABEL "DURESS"
AND "COERCION," CONTRACTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS THEY ARE WRITTEN,
NOT AS THEY MIGHT OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE LIGHT OF AFTER
THOUGHT AND SUBSEQUENT EXPERIENCE.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE "SAVINGS"
CLAUSES DOES NOT LIMIT BETHLEHEM'S PARTICIPATION IN "SAVINGS" TO THOSE
ATTRIBUTABLE ONLY TO ITS OWN EFFORTS.  THE MASTER FOUND THAT "BETHLEHEM
WAS TO PARTICIPATE IN SAVINGS HOWEVER EARNED."  THE SUGGESTED
INTERPRETATION, IGNORING THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACTS AND THE
EXPRESSED UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES, GRATUITOUSLY REWRITES THE
CONTRACTS TO ACCORD WITH NOTIONS OF FAIRNESS ACQUIRED IN THE LIGHT OF
SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS. 

IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT ONE MAY BE INDIGNANT AT BETHLEHEM'S CLAIM,
BUT SUCH INDIGNATION DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE DISTORTION OF ESTABLISHED
LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO RELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT OF ITS APPROVAL OF A HARD
BARGAIN.  IT CANNOT BE LEFT OUT OF CONSIDERATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT
ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENTS WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR TERMS. 
SURELY THERE IS MUCH TO BE SAID IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT'S STANDING
BEHIND OBLIGATIONS, EVEN THOUGH QUITE ONEROUS, WHICH IT INCURRED WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE GOVERNMENT
MAY BE RELIEVED OF BARGAINS TWENTY-FOUR YEARS AFTER AGREEING TO THEM IS
NOT CONDUCIVE TO MUTUAL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN CITIZENS AND THEIR
GOVERNMENT.    THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  VERNON V. BETHELL, 2 EDEN 110, 113.  AND SEE WOOD V. ABREY, 3
MADDOCK'S CHAN.  216; UNDERHILL V. HORWOOD, 10 VES.  JR. 209. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING:    THE FOUNDERS DIVIDED OUR
GOVERNMENT INTO THREE BRANCHES, PARTLY TO PREVENT AUTOCRATIC
CONCENTRATION OF POWER AND PARTLY TO ACHIEVE APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF
LABOR IN THE DIFFICULT TASK OF GOVERNMENT.  THE PRESIDENT HAS HIS
DUTIES, THE CONGRESS ITS DUTIES, AND WE OURS.  WHAT POWERS THE CONGRESS
SHOULD GIVE THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE MOST EFFECTIVE
PRODUCTION OF WAR SUPPLIES, HOW THE PRESIDENT SHOULD EXERCISE THOSE
POWERS, WHETHER A SYSTEM OF PRIVATE CONTRACTS FOR WAR MATERIALS IS
CONDUCIVE TO UNJUSTIFIABLE WASTE AND PROFITEERING, OR WHETHER
GOVERNMENT PRODUCTION OF NECESSARY WAR SUPPLIES IS A WISER COURSE -
THESE AND LIKE MATTERS ARE NOT OUR BUSINESS AND UPON THEM WE SHOULD
NEITHER EXPRESS NOR INTIMATE VIEWS.  HOWEVER CIRCUMSCRIBED THE JUDICIAL
AREA MAY BE, WE HAD BEST REMAIN WITHIN IT.  BUT THE FUNCTION OF THE
JUDICIARY IS NOT SO LIMITED THAT IT MUST SANCTION THE USE OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS AS INSTRUMENTS OF INJUSTICE IN DISREGARD OF MORAL AND
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE BEEN PART OF THE LAW FOR CENTURIES.  I
AM COMPELLED, THEREFORE, TO DISSENT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

IN THE SUMMER OF 1917 THE UNITED STATES WAS AT WAR WITH GERMANY.  THE
ENEMY'S SUBMARINE WAS TAKING TERRIFIC TOLL OF OUR SHIPPING.  THE
IMMEDIATE THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY HAD TO BE MET PROMPTLY. 
CONGRESS ENACTED THE EMERGENCY SHIPPING FUND ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, 40
STAT. 182, CONFERRING VAST POWERS UPON THE PRESIDENT.  HE WAS
AUTHORIZED TO PLACE ORDERS FOR SUCH SHIPS OR MATERIAL AS "THE
NECESSITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT" MAY REQUIRE; TO MODIFY, SUSPEND, CANCEL
OR REQUISITION CONTRACTS FOR THE BUILDING, PRODUCTION, OR PURCHASE OF
SHIPS OR MATERIAL; AND TO TAKE OVER ANY PLANTS AND SHIPS CONSTRUCTED OR
IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION.  IF ANY PERSON OWNING ANY SHIP, PLANT,
OR MATERIAL REFUSED TO BUILD OR SELL SHIPS OR MATERIAL ORDERED BY THE
GOVERNMENT "AT SUCH REASONABLE PRICE AS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE
PRESIDENT," HE WAS EMPOWERED TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE SHIPS, MATERIAL,
OR PLANT OF SUCH PERSON. 

ON JULY 11, 1917, THE PRESIDENT DELEGATED ALL THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN
HIM BY THIS ACT TO THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET
CORPORATION.  A STUPENDOUS TASK WAS THEREBY IMPOSED UPON THE FLEET
CORPORATION.  "THE PROGRAM OF CONSTRUCTION, AS WELL AS OPERATION WAS
GIGANTIC.  IT INVOLVED AN EXPENDITURE OF MORE THAN THREE AND A HALF
BILLION DOLLARS, A SUM GREATER THAN ANY EXPENDED BY ANY CORPORATION IN
A SIMILAR PERIOD OF TIME.  MANY OF THE OFFICIALS AND BOARD MEMBERS WERE
WITHOUT EXPERIENCE IN EITHER SHIPBUILDING OR OPERATION.  NO ADEQUATE
ORGANIZATION EXISTED AT THE BEGINNING.  A COMPLETE ORGANIZATION TO
CARRY OUT ITS LARGE PROGRAM HAD TO BE CREATED.  THERE WAS A SHORTAGE OF
SHIPBUILDING SKILL AS WELL AS SHIPBUILDING FACILITIES.  THE NEED FOR
SHIPS WAS IMPERATIVE AND CONSTANTLY INCREASED DURING THE COMBAT
PERIOD."  REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON U.S. SHIPPING BOARD
OPERATIONS, H. REP. NO. 1399, 66TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 24. 

BETHLEHEM WAS THE LARGEST SHIPBUILDING COMPANY IN THE WORLD.  ITS
FIVE SUBSIDIARIES AND THEIR PLANTS WERE EXPERIENCED SHIPBUILDERS, WITH
EFFICIENT AND WELL-EQUIPPED ORGANIZATIONS.  AS THE MASTER IN THIS CASE
FOUND, "IT WAS UNDERSTOOD BY ALL PARTIES CONCERNED THAT THE FLEET
CORPORATION SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM WOULD CALL FOR CAPACITY PRODUCTION AT
EACH OF BETHLEHEM'S SHIPYARDS."  OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT HAD THE POWER
TO TAKE OVER BETHLEHEM'S SHIPYARDS AND PLANTS.  BUT THE UNITED STATES
WAS AT WAR.  IT NEEDED SHIPS - AND IT NEEDED THEM AT ONCE.  THE
SHIPYARDS AND PLANTS OF A RECALCITRANT SHIPBUILDER WOULD NOT PRODUCE
THE NECESSARY TONNAGE, AT LEAST NOT IN THE NEEDED TIME, WITHOUT AN
ORGANIZATION ABLE TO OPERATE THEM AT MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY.  THE MASTER
FOUND THAT "A FAILURE TO INDUCE BETHLEHEM TO UNDERTAKE THE SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAM COVERED BY THESE CONTRACTS, FOLLOWED BY THE TAKING POSSESSION
BY THE FLEET CORPORATION OF THE BETHLEHEM PLANTS, COULD NOT HAVE
ACCOMPLISHED THE DESIRED RESULT.  IT WAS BETHLEHEM'S ORGANIZATION THAT
WAS NECESSARY TO INSURE SUCCESS TO THE SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM OF THE
FLEET CORPORATION AND, AS THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE POWER TO COMPEL
PERFORMANCE BY AN UNWILLING ORGANIZATION, IF BETHLEHEM DEMANDED ITS
PRICE ON THE BASIS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMMERCIAL PROFITS RATHER THAN
CONTRIBUTE SUCH SERVICES ON A PATRIOTIC BASIS, THE GOVERNMENT WAS
OBLIGED TO TAKE THE CONTRACTS ON SUCH BASIS OR NOT AT ALL." 

BETHLEHEM DOES NOT DENY THAT IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS THE GOVERNMENT'S
LEGAL POWER TO REQUISITION ITS SHIPYARDS WAS, FOR PURPOSES OF
BARGAINING, AN EMPTY WEAPON.  "IT IS ALSO TRUE," BETHLEHEM ADMITS,
"THAT, ALTHOUGH THE FLEET CORPORATION HAD THE POWER TO TAKE OVER
BETHLEHEM'S YARDS, WHAT IT REALLY REQUIRED FOR THE CARRYING OUT OF ITS
PROGRAM WAS THE USE OF BETHLEHEM'S ORGANIZATION - ITS KNOWLEDGE OF HOW
TO BUILD SHIPS."  THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH BETHLEHEM AND THE FLEET
CORPORATION KNEW THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT REGARD ITS POWER TO
REQUISITION PLANTS AND SHIPYARDS AS A SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE TO
MAKING CONTRACTS WITH PRIVATE SHIPBUILDERS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SHIPS.  FN1  IT IS NOT FOR US TO SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT
HAVE DETERMINED UPON SUCH A POLICY.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT WHEN THESE
CONTRACTS WERE MADE, NONE OF THE PARTIES BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS OPEN
TO THE GOVERNMENT THE FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE WHICH NOW, TWENTY-FIVE YEARS
LATER, THIS COURT SAYS WAS OPEN TO IT. 

THIS WAS THE SETTING IN WHICH THE CONTRACTS IN SUIT WERE MADE. 
BETHLEHEM WAS REPRESENTED THROUGHOUT THE NEGOTIATIONS BY JOSEPH W.
POWELL, ITS VICE PRESIDENT AND OPERATING MANAGER, AND HARRY BROWN, ITS
TECHNICAL MANAGER, DESCRIBED BY THE MASTER AS "TWO OF THE ABLEST AND
MOST EXPERIENCED SHIPBUILDERS AND ESTIMATORS OF SHIPBUILDING COSTS IN
THE UNITED STATES."  ON BEHALF OF THE FLEET CORPORATION THE ACTIVE
NEGOTIATORS WERE ADMIRAL E. T. BOWLES, MANAGER OF ITS DIVISION OF STEEL
SHIP CONSTRUCTION, AND G. S. RADFORD, MANAGER OF ITS CONTRACT
DIVISION.  THE MASTER CHARACTERIZED BOWLES AND RADFORD AS "EQUALLY
COMPETENT SHIPBUILDING EXPERTS."  HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT EMPOWERED TO
CONCLUDE CONTRACTS ON BEHALF OF THE FLEET CORPORATION.  THAT ULTIMATE
AUTHORITY BELONGED TO CHARLES PIEZ, THE VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
MANAGER OF THE FLEET CORPORATION.  PIEZ WAS A BUSINESS MAN WHO HAD HAD
NO PREVIOUS SHIPBUILDING EXPERIENCE, AND THE MASTER FOUND THAT "AT THE
TIME OF THE NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO THE CONTRACTS IN CONTROVERSY, THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN POWELL AND PIEZ WERE VERY CLOSE.  PIEZ, AS POWELL
KNEW, HAD HAD NO SHIPBUILDING EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER, HAD IMPLICIT
CONFIDENCE IN POWELL'S INTEGRITY AND SHIPBUILDING ABILITY AND
EXPERIENCE, AND WAS ACCUSTOMED TO LOOK TO HIM FOR INFORMATION AND
ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS OF SHIPBUILDING." 

FOLLOWING A CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON ON JUNE 15, 1917, ATTENDED BY
POWELL AND OTHER SHIPBUILDERS, THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE FLEET
CORPORATION REQUESTED BETHLEHEM TO SUBMIT FORMAL PROPOSALS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS.  THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE NEGOTIATIONS WHICH
FOLLOWED, THE FLEET CORPORATION TRIED TO PERSUADE BETHLEHEM TO ENTER
INTO "LUMP-SUM" CONTRACTS.  POWELL REFUSED, INSISTING UPON THE SO
CALLED "HALF-SAVINGS" FORM OF CONTRACT WHICH HE HAD ORIGINATED.  HE SET
FORTH HIS PROPOSALS IN HIS LETTER OF DECEMBER 13, 1917, TO THE FLEET
CORPORATION:  "BECAUSE OF THE UNPRECEDENTED CONDITIONS SURROUNDING THE
LABOR AND MATERIAL MARKET, IT IS IMPRACTICABLE TO ESTIMATE WITHIN A
REASONABLE PERCENTAGE WHAT WILL BE THE ACTUAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION, AND
IT IS THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE TO SUBMIT FIXED PRICES FOR ANY OF THESE
VESSELS, EXCEPT UPON A BASIS SO FAR ABOVE ESTIMATED COST THAT ANY
FIGURE ACCEPTABLE TO THIS COMPANY WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE
EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION.  IT IS PROPOSED, HOWEVER, THAT THEY BE
CONSTRUCTED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL COST PLUS A FEE, WITH AN AGREED UPON
PROBABLE COST, THIS COMPANY TO BE PAID IN ADDITION TO THE FEE ONE-HALF
OF ANY SAVING THAT MAY BE MADE BELOW THIS COST FIGURE, AND WITH THE
FURTHER PROVISION THAT THE ESTIMATED COST FIGURE WILL BE INCREASED DUE
TO ANY INCREASE IN RATES OF WAGES THAT MAY BE APPROVED BY THE EMERGENCY
FLEET CORPORATION." 

AFTER FURTHER CONFERENCES, POWELL SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL, DATED
DECEMBER 19, 1917, SPECIFYING THE ESTIMATED COSTS AND FIXED FEES OF THE
VESSELS TO BE CONSTRUCTED.  ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 3, 1918, BEFORE
THE FLEET CORPORATION HAD EXPRESSED ANY VIEWS ON THE PROPOSAL OF
DECEMBER 19, POWELL HANDED PIEZ A LETTER, DATED JANUARY 3, 1918,
OFFERING TO CONSTRUCT A GREATER NUMBER OF VESSELS THAN WAS SPECIFIED IN
HIS EARLIER PROPOSAL.  THE LETTER CONCLUDED "THAT WHILE THIS COMPANY
CANNOT UNDERTAKE ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AT ITS EXPENSE, IF THE TERMS
IN OUR PROPOSAL DO NOT OTHERWISE MEET WITH THE EMERGENCY FLEET
CORPORATION'S APPROVAL, WE ARE PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT THESE VESSELS ON SUCH TERMS AS MAY BE PERSONALLY DETERMINED
BY MR. CHARLES PIEZ, THE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, AND
STRONGLY URGE THERE BE NO DELAY IN PLACING THIS ORDER, AS WE ARE MAKING
THIS OFFER BECAUSE OF OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE VITAL EMERGENCY NOW
CONFRONTING THIS NATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
ADDITIONAL MERCHANT VESSELS." 

UPON RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER, PIEZ ARRANGED A CONFERENCE BETWEEN
POWELL, BROWN, BOWLES, AND RADFORD, WHICH OCCURRED ON THE AFTERNOON OF
JANUARY 3.  BUT BOWLES AND RADFORD DID NOT KNOW, AND NEITHER WAS
INFORMED, BEFORE OR DURING THE CONFERENCE, OF THE OFFER MADE TO PIEZ IN
POWELL'S LETTER OF JANUARY 3.  IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID, THEREFORE, THAT
THIS LETTER, NEITHER ADDRESSED TO NOR MADE KNOWN TO THE REAL
NEGOTIATORS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, WAS A FACTOR IN THEIR NEGOTIATIONS. 

AT THE CONFERENCE, WHICH LASTED ABOUT FIVE HOURS, BOWLES AGAIN
ATTEMPTED TO PERSUADE POWELL TO UNDERTAKE THE CONSTRUCTION UPON A LUMP
SUM BASIS.  POWELL WAS ADAMANT, HOWEVER, AND BOWLES HAD TO ACQUIESCE IN
THE HALF-SAVINGS FORM OF CONTRACT IN ORDER TO REACH ANY AGREEMENT. 
POWELL INSISTED THAT THE ESTIMATES PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BY BETHLEHEM
WERE FAIR AND REASONABLE.  NEITHER BOWLES NOR RADFORD SUBMITTED ANY
ESTIMATES OR COUNTER-PROPOSALS, "THEIR CRITICISM BEING LIMITED TO THE
OPINION EXPRESSED BY BOWLES THAT THE ORIGINAL AND REDUCED ESTIMATES
SUBMITTED BY POWELL WERE TOO HIGH."  POWELL MADE SEVERAL REDUCTIONS IN
THE ESTIMATES, AND IN RESPONSE TO BOWLES' INQUIRY, BROWN ASSURED HIM
THAT THE ESTIMATES WERE ABOUT AS ACCURATE AS COULD BE MADE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.  BOWLES AND RADFORD THEREUPON AGREED TO THE PRICES,
SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION BY PIEZ.  ON THE SAME DAY THEY HANDED PIEZ THE
FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM: 

"WE HAND YOU HEREWITH THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION'S
PROPOSAL DATED DECEMBER 19, FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION AT THEIR
VARIOUS PLANTS, AMOUNTING IN ALL TO 19 VESSELS, EXCLUSIVE OF TUGS.  IT
MAY BE NOTED THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THREE SHIPS, THE VESSELS IN
QUESTION ARE TROOP SHIPS AND TANKERS - SHIPS OF A TYPE THAT ONLY REAL
SHIPBUILDERS CAN PRODUCE SATISFACTORILY.  AS IS WELL KNOWN, WE HAVE
BEEN HAVING DIFFICULTY IN PLACING SUCH VESSELS. 

"WE WISH TO PLACE ON RECORD THE FACT THAT THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING
CORPORATION'S REPRESENTATIVES HAVE INSISTED ON COMPARATIVELY HIGH
PRICES FOR THESE VESSELS; THAT THEY HAVE ONLY WITH DIFFICULTY BEEN
PERSUADED TO QUOTE US ON THE TYPES OF SHIPS REFERRED TO; AND, THAT
THEIR ATTITUDE HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY AN ARBITRARY REFUSAL TO
GUARANTEE OR STAND BEHIND DELIVERY DATES.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS
DIFFICULT TO PERSUADE THEM TO QUOTE EVEN A TENTATIVE DELIVERY DATE, AND
THEY REFUSED POSITIVELY TO ACCEDE TO A BONUS AND PENALTY CLAUSE FOR
DELIVERY. 

"THE LETTER HEREWITH, ADDRESSED TO THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING
CORPORATION, IN REPLY TO THEIR PROPOSAL, HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR YOUR
SIGNATURE AND IS NOW PRESENTED WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE
SIGNED.  WHILE THE PRICES WE HAVE AGREED TO, WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, ARE NOT SATISFACTORY TO US,
NEVERTHELESS, THEY REPRESENT A MATERIAL REDUCTION FROM THE PRICES
QUOTED BY THAT CORPORATION.  REALIZING THAT THE NATION WILL NEED THESE
VESSELS, WE HAVE BEEN ACTUATED BY THE BELIEF THAT FURTHER DELAY IN
PLACING THE CONTRACTS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE
MADE THE BEST COMPROMISE POSSIBLE UNDER VERY DIFFICULT CONDITIONS." 

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS, THE THIRTEEN CONTRACTS HERE
IN CONTROVERSY WERE EXECUTED, SEVEN ON FEBRUARY 1, 1918, AND SIX
THEREAFTER. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THESE CONTRACTS DEMAND CAREFUL ANALYSIS.  THE
CONTRACT MARKED NO. 183, CALLING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION BY BETHLEHEM OF
THREE STEEL TANK VESSELS EACH WEIGHING ABOUT 9,100 TONS, IS TYPICAL. 

IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE SUMS NECESSARY FOR CARRYING ON THE WORK UNDER
THE CONTRACT, THE FLEET CORPORATION AGREED TO DEPOSIT IN ADVANCE "SUCH
SUMS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE AND TO KEEP CONSTITUTED A FUND
FROM WHICH TO FINANCE THE WORK, TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENTS TO BE MADE FOR
MATERIALS, AND FOR WAGES AND SALARIES OF PERSONS EMPLOYED UPON THE WORK
HEREUNDER."  THE FLEET CORPORATION AGREED ALSO TO ASSIST BETHLEHEM "TO
SECURE WITH THE UTMOST PRACTICABLE EXPEDITION AND AT THE MINIMUM COST
CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE FACILITIES, UTILITIES,
PARTS, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES REQUIRED FOR THE WORK UNDER THIS
CONTRACT."  THE PRICE TO BE PAID FOR EACH VESSEL WAS DEFINED TO INCLUDE
(A) THE "ACTUAL COST," PLUS (B) A FIXED FEE OF $185,000, PLUS (C) ONE
HALF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE ACTUAL COST OF EACH VESSEL SHOULD FALL
SHORT OF AN ESTIMATED COST OF $1,865,000.    IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO
DRAFT A MORE INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF "COST" THAN THAT CONTAINED IN THIS
CONTRACT.  "ACTUAL COST" WAS DEFINED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, AS
WELL AS "ITEMS SIMILAR THERETO IN PRINCIPLE":  (A) THE NET COSTS OF
LABOR (INCLUDING BONUSES), MATERIALS, MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, AND
SUPPLIES FURNISHED BY BETHLEHEM, AND ALL OTHER DIRECT CHARGES, SUCH AS
INSURANCE ON THE VESSELS, ETC.; (B) A "PROPER PROPORTION" OF RUNNING
EXPENSES, INCLUDING RENTALS, COST OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, LIGHT,
HEAT, POWER, INSURANCE, MANAGEMENT, SALARIES (INCLUDING BONUSES), AND
ALL OTHER INDIRECT CHARGES; (C) A "PROPER PROPORTION" OF INTEREST
ACCRUED ON BONDS, LOANS, OR OTHER DEBTS EXISTING OR PREVIOUSLY MADE,
THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH "SHALL BE USED, OR SHALL HAVE BEEN OR SHALL BE
INVESTED IN PLANT, EQUIPMENT, ETC., THAT SHALL BE USED," IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT; (D) A "PROPER PROPORTION" OF TAXES OF ALL
KINDS, EXCEPT FEDERAL TAXES, WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS OR PROPERTY;
(E) A "PROPER PROPORTION" OF PHYSICAL LOSSES SUSTAINED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VESSELS UNDER THE CONTRACT, INCLUDING
LOSSES FROM FIRE, FLOOD, STORM, RIOT, VANDALISM, ACTS OF GOD, ACTS OF
WAR, OR OTHER CASUALTIES; AND (F) A "REASONABLE" ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY AND PLANTS USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE CONTRACT. 

THE MASTER FOUND THAT, UNDER THE "HALF-SAVINGS" CLAUSE, BETHLEHEM WAS
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ONE-HALF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ESTIMATED COST
AND THE ACTUAL COST, REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ACHIEVED. 
BETHLEHEM WAS THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE "SAVINGS" WERE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS EFFORTS TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY. 

SINCE THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACTS
ARE CRUCIAL IN FIXING THE EXTENT OF BETHLEHEM'S PROFITS, IT IS
NECESSARY TO CONSIDER HOW THEY WERE DETERMINED.  ACCORDING TO THE
EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY BETHLEHEM, BROWN PREPARED THE ESTIMATED COSTS
SPECIFIED IN BETHLEHEM'S LETTER OF DECEMBER 19, 1917, AS FOLLOWS:  AS
THE BASIS OF HIS ESTIMATE HE TOOK THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING HULL 253, A
9,100 TON TANKER WHICH HAD RECENTLY BEEN COMPLETED AT THE FORE RIVER
YARD.  THE COST OF THE MATERIAL IN HULL 253 WAS ABOUT $389,000,
CONSISTING OF $150,000 FOR THE STEEL STRUCTURE AND $239,000 FOR THE
REMAINING MATERIAL.  BROWN ESTIMATED THAT THE COST OF THE MATERIAL IN A
SIMILAR TANKER TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN 1918 WOULD BE $817,000, INCLUDING
$399,000 FOR THE STEEL STRUCTURE AND $418,000 FOR THE REMAINDER.  HIS
ESTIMATE ASSUMED AN INCREASE IN FREIGHT RATES AND COSTS OF DELIVERY OF
42%.  THE NEXT ITEM WAS THE COST OF LABOR, WHICH ON HULL 253 AMOUNTED
TO 38.75 CENTS PER HOUR.  BROWN ASSUMED THAT WAGE SCALES WOULD RISE TO
50 CENTS PER HOUR, AN INCREASE OF 29%, AND THAT EFFICIENCY WOULD
DECREASE ABOUT 30%.  THEREFORE, HE ESTIMATED A TOTAL LABOR COST OF
$548,000, AS COMPARED WITH THE ACTUAL LABOR COST UPON HULL 253 OF
$326,000.  SIMILARLY, THE ESTIMATES OF PLANT OPERATING EXPENSES WERE
COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF EQUALLY LARGE ASSUMED INCREASES.  THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST OF MATERIAL, LABOR, OPERATING EXPENSES, AND OVERHEAD
AMOUNTED TO $1,694,000, TO WHICH BROWN ADDED A FLAT 10% ALLOWANCE TO
COVER ITEMS SUCH AS ARMED GUARD EQUIPMENT AND "TO MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR
OTHER CONTINGENCIES," MAKING A TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $1,863,000, OR
APPROXIMATELY $205 PER TON.  TO THIS FIGURE POWELL ADDED AN ADDITIONAL
$10 PER TON BECAUSE, AS HE TESTIFIED, "THERE WAS AN ITEM OF INCREASED
COST OF STEEL, WHICH REPRESENTED A CONTRACT FOR VERY HIGH-PRICED STEEL
THAT WE HAD TO USE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROGRAM, AND WHICH AMOUNTED
TO ABOUT $2.50 A TON SPREAD OVER THE PROGRAM THAT WE EXPECTED TO
UNDERTAKE.  THAT WAS A VERY ROUGH FIGURE.  WHATEVER ELSE I PUT ON I PUT
ON BECAUSE I KNEW I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO TRADE THE FINAL CONTRACT OUT
WITH ADMIRAL BOWLES AND I KNEW I WOULD NOT GET WHAT I ASKED FOR, AND IF
I DID NOT ASK FOR MORE THAN I EXPECTED I WOULD NOT GET OUT WHERE I
WANTED TO BE."  BROWN TESTIFIED THAT "HE (POWELL) TOOK THE FIGURES THAT
I GAVE HIM AND ADDED $10 A TON TO IT" FOR SOME REASON WHICH HE COULD
NOT RECALL. 

THE ESTIMATED COST FINALLY SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE THREE VESSELS WAS $1,865,000; THE ESTIMATED COST OF
SUCH VESSELS PROPOSED IN POWELL'S LETTER OF DECEMBER 19, 1917, WAS
$1,983,800, A DIFFERENCE OF $118,800, OR LESS THAN 6% OF THE PROPOSED
ESTIMATE. 

THE MASTER FOUND THAT, DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS, THE FLEET CORPORATION
WAS UNINFORMED AS TO THE PROBABLE COST OF MATERIALS AND LABOR,
BETHLEHEM'S OVERHEAD AND OPERATING EXPENSES, AND DEPRECIATION AND
SIMILAR CHARGES.  CONSEQUENTLY, AT THE CONFERENCE OF JANUARY 3, 1918,
FROM WHICH EMERGED THE CONTRACTS IN CONTROVERSY, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE FLEET CORPORATION DID NOT SUBMIT ANY COUNTER-OFFERS TO BETHLEHEM;
THEY MERELY INSISTED THAT BETHLEHEM'S ESTIMATES WERE TOO HIGH.  BROWN'S
TESTIMONY IS ILLUMINATING AS TO THE NATURE OF THE BARGAINING AT THE
CONFERENCE: 

"Q.  NOW I AM ASKING YOU WHETHER WITH RESPECT TO THOSE VESSELS
ADMIRAL BOWLES SUBMITTED ANY PRICE OF HIS OWN? 

"A.  NO, SIR. 

"Q.  DID HE ASK YOU HOW YOUR ESTIMATES WERE MADE UP? 

"A.  NO, SIR. 

"Q.  DID HE ASK YOU TO JUSTIFY YOUR ESTIMATES IN ANY WAY? 

"A.  NO, SIR. 

"Q.  HE JUST OBJECTED TO THEM REPEATEDLY AND SAID THEY WERE TOO
HIGH? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  BUT DID NOT ASK YOU TO JUSTIFY THEM? 

"A.  NO, SIR. 

"Q.  UNTIL POWELL FINALLY CAME DOWN TO A FIGURE WHICH BOWLES WAS
WILLING TO ACCEPT? 

"A.  WELL, I SHOULD PUT IT THIS WAY; TO A FIGURE WHICH MR. POWELL
REFUSED TO GO BELOW." 

THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE THIRTEEN CONTRACTS
IN CONTROVERSY AMOUNTED TO $119,750,000.  THE TOTAL ACTUAL COSTS, AS
DEFINED IN THE CONTRACTS, WERE $92,990,521.  THE ESTIMATED COSTS
THEREFORE EXCEEDED THE ACTUAL COSTS BY $26,759,479, OR, TO PUT IT
ANOTHER WAY, THE ESTIMATED COSTS WERE ALMOST 29% GREATER THAN ACTUAL
COSTS.  NOWHERE IN THE LONG RECORD, AS THE MASTER FOUND, IS THERE ANY
EXPLANATION OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TREMENDOUS DISPARITY BETWEEN THE
ESTIMATED COSTS SUBMITTED BY BETHLEHEM, OR THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE
CONTRACTS, AND THE ACTUAL COSTS. 

BETHLEHEM'S PROFITS UNDER THESE CONTRACTS AMOUNT TO APPROXIMATELY
$24,000,000, OR ABOUT 22% OF ACTUAL COSTS INCLUDING EXTRA WORK.  IN TWO
OF THESE CONTRACTS, NOS. 191 AND 226, ITS PROFITS EXCEED 34% AND 32%,
RESPECTIVELY.  MOREOVER THESE FIGURES DO NOT INCLUDE THE PROFITS MADE
BY BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, AN AFFILIATE, ON THE SALES TO BETHLEHEM AT
THE MAXIMUM PRICES PERMITTED BY THE WAR INDUSTRIES BOARD OF 43,000 TONS
OF STEEL USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS UNDER THESE CONTRACTS. 

TO SPEAK OF BETHLEHEM'S PROFITS AS ONLY 22% IS IN ANY EVENT
MISLEADING.  THE PROFITS ARE 22% OF "COST," AND NOT 22% OF WHAT MIGHT
FAIRLY BE DESCRIBED AS BETHLEHEM'S CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THESE
CONTRACTS.  FOR UNDER THESE CONTRACTS BETHLEHEM TOOK ABSOLUTELY NO RISK
OF LOSS; IN ADDITION, THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO ADVANCE ALL SUMS
NECESSARY TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE VESSELS.  EVEN IN USURIOUS
TRANSACTIONS THE LENDER TAKES THE RISK OF THE BORROWER'S INSOLVENCY. 
HERE BETHLEHEM TOOK NO RISKS AT ALL. 

BETHLEHEM HAS ALREADY RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT THE TOTAL COSTS OF
CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING ITEMS FOR WAGE INCREASES AND EXTRA WORK), PLUS
FIXED PROFITS OF $11,962,400(REPRESENTING ABOUT 11% OF THE ACTUAL COSTS
INCLUDING EXTRA CHARGES), PLUS BONUSES OF $8,093,157 UNDER THE HALF
SAVINGS CLAUSE (OVER 7% OF COSTS).  IT HAS THUS RECEIVED TOTAL PROFITS
OF MORE THAN $20,000,000 UNDER THESE CONTRACTS.  IN THE PRESENT SUITS
IT IS SEEKING ADDITIONAL SUMS OF MORE THAN $7,500,000, OF WHICH ABOUT
$3,800,000 REPRESENTS BONUSES UNDER THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION.  IN
SUSTAINING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE LOWER COURTS, THIS COURT IS AWARDING
BETHLEHEM FURTHER PROFITS OF ABOUT 4% ON THESE CONTRACTS. 

THE MASTER EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT IT WAS ESSENTIAL THAT BETHLEHEM
UNDERTAKE TO BUILD THE VESSELS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONTRACTS, AND THAT,
SINCE THE GOVERNMENT NEEDED BETHLEHEM'S ORGANIZATION, IT HAD NO
SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE.  IT HAD TO MAKE THE CONTRACTS ON BETHLEHEM'S
TERMS OR NOT AT ALL.  HE CONCLUDED, NEVERTHELESS, THAT SINCE "THE FLEET
CORPORATION MADE THE CONTRACTS WITH OPEN EYES, ALTHOUGH RESENTING THE
COMMERCIAL ATTITUDE OF BETHLEHEM AND CONDEMNING BETHLEHEM FOR DEMANDING
ITS 'POUND OF FLESH'," THE CONTRACTS WERE ENFORCEABLE BY BETHLEHEM IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF OF FRAUD. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCURRED IN THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ABSENCE OF
FRAUD MADE THE CONTRACTS INVULNERABLE.  BUT ITS CONCLUSION IS
CONTRADICTED BY ITS FINDINGS:  "THE MANAGERS FOR THE CONTRACTOR ADOPTED
THE FAMOUS ROB ROY DISTINCTION WHO ADMITTED HE WAS A ROBBER BUT PROUDLY
PROCLAIMED THAT HE WAS NO THIEF.  THE CONTRACTOR BOLDLY AND OPENLY
FIXED THE FIGURES IN THE ESTIMATED COST SO HIGH AS TO GIVE THEM THE
PROMISE OF LARGE BONUS PROFITS.  THE MANAGERS FOR THE FLEET CORPORATION
KNEW THAT THE ESTIMATE WAS HIGH AND WHY IT WAS MADE HIGH AND SO
PROTESTED IT. THE REPLY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S MANAGERS WAS, 'WE WILL TAKE
THE CONTRACT WITH THIS PROMISE OF BONUS PROFITS INCORPORATED IN IT BUT
NOT OTHERWISE.  YOU TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT'.  WHATEVER WRONG THERE WAS IN
THIS MAY HAVE BEEN THE WRONG IN A DAYLIGHT ROBBERY BUT THERE WAS NO
ELEMENT OF DECEPTION IN IT."  23 F.SUPP.  676, 679. 

SIMILARLY, THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS APPEARS TO
HAVE BEEN BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO
SHOW FRAUD WAS FATAL:  "IT IS OF COURSE OBVIOUS THAT THESE NEGOTIATIONS
TOOK PLACE IN TIME OF WAR WHEN THE NEED OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR SHIPS WAS
EXTREMELY URGENT AND THE NECESSITY OF REACHING AN AGREEMENT WITH
BETHLEHEM, THEREFORE, VITAL.  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT BETHLEHEM
INSISTED UPON ASSURING ITSELF A MARGIN OF PROFIT WHICH IN VIEW OF THE
NECESSITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT WAS SO LARGE AS TO INDICATE AN ATTITUDE
OF COMMERCIAL GREED BUT LITTLE DILUTED WITH PATRIOTIC FEELING.  THERE
IS NO DOUBT THAT THIS ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF BETHLEHEM WAS DEEPLY
RESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES BUT THE LATTER WERE FACED
WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF EITHER AGREEING TO BETHLEHEM'S TERMS OR TAKING
POSSESSION OF ITS SHIPYARDS AND HAVING THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF CONSTRUCT
THE VESSELS.  WE THINK THE RECORD CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVES FELT THAT THE LATTER COURSE COULD NOT HAVE ACCOMPLISHED
THE SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM WITH THE SPEED WHICH WAS ESSENTIAL.  IT WAS
BETHLEHEM'S EXISTING SHIPBUILDING ORGANIZATION THAT WAS NECESSARY TO
INSURE SUCCESS TO THE PROGRAM OF THE FLEET CORPORATION.  CONSEQUENTLY
THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES, FEELING AS THEY DID THAT BETHLEHEM'S
ORGANIZATION WAS NECESSARY TO THEIR PROGRAM, WERE OBLIGED TO ACCEPT THE
TERMS OFFERED BY BETHLEHEM.  THIS THEY DID WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE, AS WE
HAVE SAID, THAT THE ESTIMATED COST FIGURES INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACTS
DID NOT REPRESENT CLOSE APPROXIMATIONS BUT WERE SO PREPARED AS TO
ASSURE TO BETHLEHEM SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL PROFITS BY WAY OF THE BONUS
FOR SAVINGS.  IT FOLLOWS THAT WHILE BETHLEHEM MAY BE CONDEMNED FOR
HAVING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE NATION'S NECESSITIES TO SECURE INORDINATE
PROFITS IT CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH HAVING MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS TO
THE GOVERNMENT'S REPRESENTATIVES."  113 F.2D 301, 305-06. 

THUS, NOT LESS THAN SIX TIMES DID THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
DECLARE THAT THE UNCONSCIONABLE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT WERE FORCED UPON
THE GOVERNMENT BY THE DIRE NECESSITIES OF NATIONAL SELF-PRESERVATION. 
NEVERTHELESS THE COURT FOUND ITSELF IMPOTENT TO RESIST THE DEMAND THAT
THE COURTS THEMSELVES BECOME THE MEANS OF REALIZING THESE "INORDINATE
PROFITS."  BUT LAW DOES NOT SUBJECT COURTS TO SUCH IMPOTENCE.  COURTS
NEED NOT BE THE AGENTS OF A WRONG THAT OFFENDS THEIR CONSCIENCE IF THEY
HEED THE COMMANDS OF LAW. 

IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO 1285(STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER II, 13 EDW.  I, C.
50) SUITORS WERE FREQUENTLY "OBLIGED TO DEPART FROM THE CHANCERY
WITHOUT GETTING WRITS, BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE WHICH WILL EXACTLY FIT
THEIR CASES, ALTHOUGH THESE CASES FALL WITHIN ADMITTED PRINCIPLES." 
MAITLAND, FORMS OF ACTION AT COMMON LAW, LECT.  IV (1936 ED.)  P. 51. 
TODAY IT IS HELD THAT BECAUSE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE CANNOT BE
FITTED INTO A NEATLY CARVED PIGEONHOLE IN THE LAW OF CONTRACTS,
"DAYLIGHT ROBBERY," EXPLOITATION OF THE "NECESSITIES" OF THE COUNTRY AT
WAR, MUST BE CONSUMMATED BY THIS COURT.  IT IS SAID THAT FAMILIAR
PRINCIPLES WOULD BE OUTRAGED IF BETHLEHEM WERE DENIED RECOVERY ON THESE
CONTRACTS.  BUT IS THERE ANY PRINCIPLE WHICH IS MORE FAMILIAR OR MORE
FIRMLY EMBEDDED IN THE HISTORY OF ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW THAN THE BASIC
DOCTRINE THAT THE COURTS WILL NOT PERMIT THEMSELVES TO BE USED AS
INSTRUMENTS OF INEQUITY AND INJUSTICE?  DOES ANY PRINCIPLE IN OUR LAW
HAVE MORE UNIVERSAL APPLICATION THAN THE DOCTRINE THAT COURTS WILL NOT
ENFORCE TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ARE
SUCH THAT ONE HAS UNCONSCIONABLY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE NECESSITIES OF
THE OTHER? 

THESE PRINCIPLES ARE NOT FOREIGN TO THE LAW OF CONTRACTS.  FRAUD AND
PHYSICAL DURESS ARE NOT THE ONLY GROUNDS UPON WHICH COURTS REFUSE TO
ENFORCE CONTRACTS.  THE LAW IS NOT SO PRIMITIVE THAT IT SANCTIONS EVERY
INJUSTICE EXCEPT BRUTE FORCE AND DOWNRIGHT FRAUD.  MORE SPECIFICALLY,
THE COURTS GENERALLY REFUSE TO LEND THEMSELVES TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
"BARGAIN" IN WHICH ONE PARTY HAS UNJUSTLY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE
ECONOMIC NECESSITIES OF THE OTHER.  "AND THERE IS GREAT REASON AND
JUSTICE IN THIS RULE, FOR NECESSITOUS MEN ARE NOT, TRULY SPEAKING, FREE
MEN, BUT, TO ANSWER A PRESENT EXIGENCY, WILL SUBMIT TO ANY TERMS THAT
THE CRAFTY MAY IMPOSE UPON THEM."  VERNON V. BETHELL, 2 EDEN 110, 113. 
SO WROTE LORD CHANCELLOR NORTHINGTON IN 1761.    THE FACT THAT THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACTS "WITH
THEIR EYES WIDE OPEN" DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY WERE NOT ACTING UNDER
COMPULSION.  "IT ALWAYS IS FOR THE INTEREST OF A PARTY UNDER DURESS TO
CHOOSE THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS.  BUT THE FACT THAT A CHOICE WAS MADE
ACCORDING TO INTEREST DOES NOT EXCLUDE DURESS.  IT IS THE
CHARACTERISTIC OF DURESS PROPERLY SO CALLED."  HOLMES, J., IN UNION
PACIFIC R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 248 U.S. 67, 70.  IN THAT CASE
A STATE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXACTED A FEE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY
TO ISSUE RAILROAD BONDS.  A RAILROAD WHICH HAD PAID THE FEE AND
OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE, RATHER THAN RUN THE RISK OF SUBSEQUENT
INVALIDATION OF ITS BONDS AND IMPOSITION OF SERIOUS PENALTIES, WAS HELD
TO HAVE BEEN COERCED INTO MAKING THE PAYMENTS.  IN SWIFT COMPANY V.
UNITED STATES, 111 U.S. 22, 29, THE TAXPAYER'S ONLY ALTERNATIVES WERE
"TO SUBMIT TO AN ILLEGAL EXACTION, OR DISCONTINUE ITS BUSINESS."  THE
PAYMENT OF THE TAX IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS HELD TO BE UNDER DURESS. 
SEE ALSO WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17, 23.  THE COURTS GENERALLY
REGARD THE DILEMMA OF THE TAXPAYER WHO MUST EITHER PAY THE TAXES OR
INCUR SERIOUS BUSINESS LOSSES AS A SPECIES OF DURESS.  E.G., MORGAN V.
PALMER, 2 BARN.  & C. 729; RIPLEY V. GELSTON, 9 JOHNS.  201; SCOTTISH
U. & N. INS. CO. V. HERRIOTT, 109 IOWA 606, 80 N.W. 665; SEE NOTES, 64
A.L.R. 9, 84 A.L.R. 294. 

UNDERLYING ALL THESE CASES IS THE LAW'S RECOGNITION OF A BASIC
PSYCHOLOGICAL TRUTH.  IN ATKINSON V. DENBY, 7 HURLST.  & N. 934, 936,
COCKBURN, C.J., SAID THAT "WHERE THE ONE PERSON CAN DICTATE, AND THE
OTHER HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SUBMIT, IT IS COERCION."  SEE ALSO
ABBOTT, C. J., IN MORGAN V. PALMER, 2 BARN.  & C. 729, 735:  "BUT IF
ONE PARTY HAS THE POWER OF SAYING TO THE OTHER, 'THAT WHICH YOU REQUIRE
SHALL NOT BE DONE EXCEPT UPON THE CONDITIONS WHICH I CHOOSE TO IMPOSE,'
NO PERSON CAN CONTEND THAT THEY STAND UPON ANYTHING LIKE AN EQUAL
FOOTING."  AND THESE WERE DECISIONS IN DAYS WHEN LAW WAS SUPPOSED TO BE
MUCH MORE RIGID AND MORE RESPECTFUL OF FORMS THAN WE NOW ORDINARILY
DEEM JUST. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE COURTS WILL NOT ENFORCE A
BARGAIN WHERE ONE PARTY HAS UNCONSCIONABLY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE
NECESSITIES AND DISTRESS OF THE OTHER HAS FOUND EXPRESSION IN AN ALMOST
INFINITE VARIETY OF CASES.  SEE LONERGAN V. BUFORD, 148 U.S. 581, 589
91; SNYDER V. ROSENBAUM, 215 U.S. 261, 265-66.  PERHAPS THE MOST
FAMILIAR IS THE SITUATION OF THE MORTGAGOR WHO UNDER THE PRESSURE OF
FINANCIAL DISTRESS CONVEYS HIS EQUITY OF REDEMPTION TO THE MORTGAGEE. 
THE COURTS WILL SCRUTINIZE THE TRANSACTION VERY CAREFULLY, VILLA V.
RODRIGUEZ, 12 WALL.  323, 339, AND IF IT APPEARS THAT THE MORTGAGEE HAS
TAKEN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OF THE OTHER'S POSITION, THE CONVEYANCE WILL NOT
BE ENFORCED.  COMPARE VERNON V. BETHELL, 2 EDEN 110; CLOSE V. PHIPPS, 7
M. & G. 586; RICHARDSON V. BARRICK, 16 IOWA 407. 

SIMILARLY, AN HEIR OR REMAINDERMAN WHO IS COMPELLED BY FINANCIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES TO SELL HIS EXPECTANCY FOR A SONG MAY RECOVER IT IF THE
VENDEE HAS UNDULY EXPLOITED THE OTHER'S DISTRESS.  WOOD V. ABREY, 3
MADDOCK'S CHAN.  216, 219(WHERE THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, SIR JOHN LEACH,
SAID:  "IF A MAN WHO MEETS HIS PURCHASER ON EQUAL TERMS, NEGLIGENTLY
SELLS HIS ESTATE AT AN UNDER VALUE, HE HAS NO TITLE TO RELIEF IN
EQUITY.  BUT A COURT OF EQUITY WILL INQUIRE WHETHER THE PARTIES REALLY
DID MEET ON EQUAL TERMS; AND IF IT BE FOUND THAT THE VENDOR WAS IN
DISTRESSED CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THAT ADVANTAGE WAS TAKEN OF THAT
DISTRESS, IT WILL AVOID THE CONTRACT."); UNDERHILL V. HORWOOD, 10 VES. 
JR. 209; M'KINNEY V. PINCKARD, 29 VA. 149; BUTLER V. DUNCAN, 47 MICH.
94, 10 N.W. 123; BROWN V. HALL, 14 R.I. 249.  IN ADMINISTRATORS OF
HOUGH V. HUNT, 2 OHIO 495, 502, A PERSON HEAVILY IN DEBT, IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN A FURTHER LOAN WITH WHICH TO MEET DEBTS FALLING DUE, AGREED TO
BUY LAND AT MORE THAN DOUBLE ITS VALUE.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE
LENDER HAD UNJUSTLY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE BORROWER'S NECESSITIES AND
THEREFORE RESCINDED THE CONTRACT:  "THE RULE IN CHANCERY IS WELL
ESTABLISHED.  WHEN A PERSON IS INCUMBERED WITH DEBTS, AND THAT FACT IS
KNOWN TO A PERSON WITH WHOM HE CONTRACTS, WHO AVAILS HIMSELF OF IT TO
EXACT AN UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN, EQUITY WILL RELIEVE UPON ACCOUNT OF
THE ADVANTAGE AND HARDSHIP."  THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 1826.  TO THE SAME
EFFECT ARE VYNE V. GLENN, 41 MICH. 112, AND BITHER V. PACKARD, 115
MAINE 306, 98 A. 929. 

ANOTHER CLASS OF CASES IN WHICH THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED
ARISES WHERE A CUSTOMER OF A GAS OR ELECTRIC COMPANY PAYS CHARGES WHICH
HE ASSERTS HE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY, RATHER THAN HAVE HIS SERVICE
DISCONNECTED.  PAYMENTS MADE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ARE REGARDED AS
COERCED.  SEE BOSTON V. EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., 242 MASS.
305, 310, 136 N.E. 113; WESTLAKE & BUTTON V. ST. LOUIS, 77 MO. 47;
NOTE, 34 A.L.R. 185. 

COBB V. CHARTER, 32 CONN. 358, ILLUSTRATES ANOTHER TYPE OF
CONTROVERSY IN WHICH THE COURTS HAVE GIVEN EFFECT TO THE HISTORIC
PRINCIPLE OF DURESS WHICH IS NOW SEEMINGLY REJECTED AS AN INNOVATION. 
THE DEFENDANT THERE HAD POSSESSION OF A CHEST OF TOOLS BELONGING TO THE
PLAINTIFF, A MECHANIC.  HE REFUSED TO GIVE UP THE CHEST, WHICH THE
PLAINTIFF NEEDED IN ORDER TO PLY HIS TRADE, UNLESS THE LATTER WOULD PAY
A BILL FOR WHICH HE DENIED RESPONSIBILITY.  THE PLAINTIFF'S PAYMENT OF
THE BILL IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS HELD TO HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER
DURESS.  ACCORD:  LONERGAN V. BUFORD, 148 U.S. 581, 589-91; FENWICK
SHIPPING CO. V. CLARKE BROS., 133 GA. 43, 65 S.E. 140; STENTON V.
JEROME, 54 N.Y. 480; HARMONY V. BINGHAM, 12 N.Y. 99. 

IN STIEFLER V. MCCULLOUGH, 97 IND. APP. 123, 174 N.E. 823, A MERCHANT
WHO HAD TO OBTAIN A LOAN IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN BUSINESS AGREED TO PAY
THE PRESIDENT OF A BANK AN EXORBITANT SUM IN CONSIDERATION FOR HIS
SERVICES IN PROCURING A LOAN.  THE COURT REFUSED TO ENFORCE THIS
AGREEMENT AS UNCONSCIONABLE.  SIMILARLY, IN NIEDERMEYER V. CURATORS OF
STATE UNIVERSITY, 61 MO. APP. 654, A STUDENT PAID TUITION FEES WHICH HE
REGARDED AS EXCESSIVE, AND WHICH HE DID NOT BELIEVE HE WAS REQUIRED TO
PAY UNDER HIS CONTRACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY, ONLY BECAUSE HE FEARED
EXPULSION FOR NON-PAYMENT.  THIS PAYMENT WAS HELD TO HAVE BEEN MADE
UNDER DURESS AND HENCE RECOVERABLE.  CF. BALDWIN V. SULLIVAN TIMBER
CO., 20 N.Y. SUPP. 496; KELLY V. CAPLICE, 23 KAN. 474. 

STRIKINGLY ANALOGOUS TO THE CASE AT BAR ARE THE DECISIONS THAT A
SALVOR WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE HELPLESSNESS OF THE SHIP IN DISTRESS
TO DRIVE AN UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN WILL NOT BE AIDED BY THE COURTS IN
HIS ATTEMPTS TO ENFORCE THE BARGAIN.  POST V. JONES, 19 HOW.  150, 160;
THE TORNADO, 109 U.S. 110, 117; THE ELFRIDA, 172 U.S. 186, 193-94.  IN
POST V. JONES, SUPRA, IT WAS SAID THAT THE COURTS "WILL NOT TOLERATE
THE DOCTRINE THAT A SALVOR CAN TAKE THE ADVANTAGE OF HIS SITUATION, AND
AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE CALAMITIES OF OTHERS TO DRIVE A BARGAIN; NOR WILL
THEY PERMIT THE PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC DUTY TO BE TURNED INTO A
TRAFFIC OF PROFIT."  THESE CASES ARE NOT UNLIKE THE FAMILIAR EXAMPLE OF
THE DROWNING MAN WHO AGREES TO PAY AN EXORBITANT SUM TO A RESCUER WHO
WOULD OTHERWISE PERMIT HIM TO DROWN.  NO COURT WOULD ENFORCE A CONTRACT
MADE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN2 

TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF DURESS IN A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT BY IRONIC
REFERENCE TO THE FEEBLENESS OF THE UNITED STATES AS AGAINST THE
OVERPOWERING STRENGTH OF A SINGLE PRIVATE CORPORATION IS AN INDULGENCE
OF RHETORIC IN DISREGARD OF FACT.  THE UNITED STATES WITH ALL ITS MIGHT
AND MAJESTY NEVER MAKES A CONTRACT.  TO SPEAK OF A CONTRACT BY THE
UNITED STATES IS TO EMPLOY AN ABSTRACTION.  WE MUST NOT ALLOW IT TO
BECOME A BLINDING ABSTRACTION.  CONTRACTS ARE MADE NOT BY 130 MILLION
AMERICANS BUT BY SOME OFFICIAL ON THEIR BEHALF.  BECAUSE THE NATIONAL
INTEREST IS REPRESENTED NOT BY THE POWER OF THE NATION BUT BY AN
INDIVIDUAL PROFESSING TO EXERCISE AUTHORITY OF VAST CONSEQUENCE TO THE
NATION, ACTION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IS OFTEN NOT BINDING AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT IN SITUATIONS WHERE PRIVATE PARTIES WOULD BE BOUND.  FN3
THE CONTRACTS HERE WERE NOT MADE BY AN ABSTRACTION KNOWN AS THE UNITED
STATES OR BY THE MILLIONS OF ITS CITIZENS.  FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES,
THE ARRANGEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY TWO PERSONS, BOWLES AND RADFORD. 
AND IT WAS ENTERED INTO BY THEM AGAINST THEIR BETTER JUDGMENT BECAUSE
THEY HAD ONLY HOBSON'S CHOICE - WHICH IS NO CHOICE.  THEY HAD NO CHOICE
IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SUBORDINATED THEM AND BY WHICH THEY
WERE GOVERNED, NAMELY, THAT SHIPS WERE NEEDED, AND NEEDED QUICKLY, AND
BETHLEHEM WAS NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT THEM QUICKLY.  THE LEGAL ALTERNATIVE
THAT THE GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER BETHLEHEM - WAS NOT AN ACTUAL
ALTERNATIVE, AND BETHLEHEM KNEW THIS AS WELL AS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE GOVERNMENT. 

THE SUGGESTION IS MADE THAT BETHLEHEM'S PROFITS UNDER THESE CONTRACTS
WERE NOT EXCEPTIONAL WHEN COMPARED WITH THE PROFITS MADE UNDER SIMILAR
CONTRACTS, AND THAT THE ENORMOUS PROFITS CLAIMED BY BETHLEHEM UNDER
THESE CONTRACTS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS SUPPORTING THE INFERENCE THAT
BETHLEHEM TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S DISTRESS.  BUT THE ONLY
CONTRACTS BEFORE US ARE THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THIS RECORD WHICH ENABLES US TO SAY THAT ALTHOUGH THESE
CONTRACTS ARE UNCONSCIONABLE, ALL CONTRACTS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT
DURING THE SAME PERIOD WERE NO LESS UNCONSCIONABLE.  AND EVEN IF THIS
WERE SO, IT WOULD BE NO ARGUMENT THAT THIS COURT SHOULD GIVE ITS
SANCTION TO THESE CONTRACTS BY MAKING ITSELF THE INSTRUMENT FOR
REALIZING THE UNCONSCIONABLE PROFITS.  WHAT LITTLE LIGHT THE RECORD
DOES CAST UPON CONTEMPORARY CONTRACTS GIVES NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
REGARDING THESE CONTRACTS AS TYPICAL.  THE POLICY OF CHARLES M. SCHWAB,
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE FLEET CORPORATION, WAS TO MAKE CONTRACTS
PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM PROFIT OF 10%, OUT OF WHICH ALL FEDERAL TAXES
WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID.  SEE LETTER OF OCT. 2, 1918, TO EDWARD N.
HURLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE SHIPPING BOARD, RELATING TO CONTRACTS WITH THE
AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY. 

IF WE ARE TO GO OUTSIDE THE RECORD, THE EVIDENCE IS CONFUSING AND
UNRELIABLE.  IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT BETHLEHEM TOOK NO RISK OF
LOSS, THAT UNDER THE CONTRACTS IT WAS PROTECTED FROM THE RISKS OF
RISING COSTS OF LABOR, MATERIALS, TRANSPORTATION, ETC., THAT UNDER THE
CONTRACTS IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, THAT
THE GOVERNMENT AGREED TO ADVANCE ALL SUMS THAT SHOULD BE NECESSARY FOR
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACTS.  IT IS IDLE TO COMPARE THE PROFITS
MADE BY BETHLEHEM UNDER THESE CONTRACTS WITH PROFITS MADE BY INDUSTRIAL
CONCERNS OF VARIOUS TYPES UNDER DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTRACTS.  SUCH
FIGURES ARE STATISTICAL QUICKSAND UNLESS WE ARE TOLD ALSO THAT IN EACH
CASE THE CONTRACTOR WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY CAPITAL INVESTMENT,
THAT HE WAS INSURED AGAINST NORMAL BUSINESS RISKS, AND THAT HE WAS
GUARANTEED A PROFIT, REGARDLESS OF ANY CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES. 

WE KNOW THAT THE POLICY OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO SO
CALLED STRAIGHT COST-PLUS SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS WAS TO ALLOW PROFITS
OF 10% OF ACTUAL COST.  SEE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
(1917) P. 33; ANNUAL REPORT (1918) P. 685; ANNUAL REPORT (1919) PP. 572
76; ANNUAL REPORT (1920) PP. 147-48.  WE KNOW THAT, SIMILARLY, THE
POLICY OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO COST-PLUS CONTRACTS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF CANTONMENTS WAS TO ALLOW PROFITS NOT EXCEEDING 10%
OF COST.  SEE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR (1917) VOL. 1, P.
28; ANNUAL REPORT (1918) VOL. 1, P. 1319; ANNUAL REPORT (1919) PP. 4138
42.  SEE ALSO CROWELL, GOVERNMENT WAR CONTRACTS, P. 85(IN "EMERGENCY
BUILDING CONTRACTS" A SLIDING SCALE OF PROFITS WAS EMPLOYED, RANGING
FROM COST PLUS 7% ON CONTRACTS LESS THAN $100,000 TO COST PLUS 2 1/2%
ON CONTRACTS MORE THAN $10,000,000).  SIMILARLY, CONTRACTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS TO HOUSE WAR WORKERS WERE LET ON THE BASIS OF
COST PLUS 2 1/2% ON CONTRACTS OVER $1,000,000, AND 3 1/2% ON CONTRACTS
UNDER $1,000,000.  SEE TESTIMONY OF OTTO M. EIDLITZ, PRESIDENT OF THE
U.S. HOUSING CORPORATION, HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS PURSUANT TO S. RES.
371, 65TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 35. 

THESE STATISTICS OBVIOUSLY DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY OF GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS IN THE LAST WAR.  BUT THEY INDICATE PLAINLY ENOUGH THAT THIS
COURT SHOULD NOT ACCEPT, AS A BASIS FOR DECISION IN THIS CASE, THE
PREMISE THAT BETHLEHEM'S PROFITS WERE CONVENTIONAL WHEN COMPARED WITH
PROFITS MADE IN COMPARABLE TRANSACTIONS. 

IT IS SAID, FURTHER, THAT EVEN IF THESE CONTRACTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE
WHEN MEASURED BY STANDARDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY ENFORCED BY THE COURTS
FOR CENTURIES, NEVERTHELESS THIS COURT MUST ENFORCE THE CONTRACTS NOW
BEFORE US BECAUSE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED
SUCH A TRAFFIC IN PROFITS.  THE SUGGESTION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH
HISTORICAL FACT. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE EMERGENCY SHIPPING FUND ACT FURNISHES
NO SUPPORT FOR THE CONTENTION THAT, IN CONFERRING UPON THE PRESIDENT
AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHIPS,
CONGRESS THEREBY COMMANDED THE COURTS TO ENFORCE ALL CONTRACTS THAT
WERE MADE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR PROVISIONS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH THEY WERE NEGOTIATED.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE DEBATES CONTAIN
MANY INDICATIONS THAT CONGRESS EXPECTED THAT THE SHIPBUILDERS OF THE
NATION WOULD PROVIDE THEIR SERVICES FOR A REASONABLE COMPENSATION, AND
THAT THE POWER CONFERRED UPON THE PRESIDENT TO TAKE OVER SHIPYARDS
WOULD NOT BE EXERCISED.  SEE REMARKS OF SENATOR KNOX, 55 CONG. REC.
2518; SENATOR CALDER, 55 ID. 2529; REP. FITZGERALD, 55 ID. 3018. 
INDEED, THE ACT ITSELF SPECIFIED THAT SHIPS SHOULD BE BUILT "AT SUCH
REASONABLE PRICE AS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT."  40 STAT.
182, 183.    THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT, 39 STAT. 166, 213, SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED THAT "THE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO ANY INDIVIDUAL, FIRM,
...  FOR ITS PRODUCTS OR MATERIAL, OR AS RENTAL FOR USE OF ANY
MANUFACTURING PLANT WHILE USED BY THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE FAIR AND
JUST."  THERE CAN BE NO CLEARER INDICATION THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
AUTHORIZE OR APPROVE ANY POLICY OF TRAFFICKING IN PROFITS.  THE FACT
THAT CONGRESS TOOK CARE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE WAR AGENCIES WERE
LETTING CONTRACTS UNDER WHICH EXCESSIVE PROFITS WERE BEING MADE, SEE
HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ON H.R. 3971, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ESPECIALLY PP. 15-17, SHOWS VERY
PLAINLY THAT CONGRESS IN NO WAY COUNTENANCED EXPLOITATION FOR
EXORBITANT PRIVATE PROFIT OF THE NECESSITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

AUTHORITY GIVEN TO MAKE CONTRACTS DOES NOT IMPLY AUTHORITY TO MAKE
UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS.  SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS IN AUTHORIZING THE
CONTRACTS IN QUESTION HAD WRITTEN INTO ITS LEGISLATION: "PROVIDED, THAT
NO AGENCY OF GOVERNMENT SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO
UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS."  CAN IT BE THAT BECAUSE CONGRESS DID NOT
EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT "UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS" ARE UNAUTHORIZED IT
IMPLIEDLY SANCTIONED THE MAKING OF "UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS"?  OR
SUPPOSE THE ESTIMATED COSTS IN THE CONTRACTS WERE SO INFLATED BY
BETHLEHEM THAT ITS PROFITS WERE 200% RATHER THAN 22%.  WOULD THIS COURT
STILL BE BOUND TO ENFORCE THESE CONTRACTS ON THE GROUND THAT CONGRESS
HAD COMMANDED THEIR ENFORCEMENT?  SURELY, CONGRESS DID NOT IMPLIEDLY
REPEAL HISTORIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND PROHIBIT THIS COURT FROM
EXERCISING ITS DUTY TO WITHHOLD RELIEF WHEN THE PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSE AN UNCONSCIONABLE ARRANGEMENT IN THE MAKING OF
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTRACTING OFFICERS HAD NO PRACTICAL CHOICE. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT PRESIDENT WILSON AUTHORIZED A "TRAFFIC IN PROFIT"
IS REFUTED, IF EXPLICIT PROOF BE NEEDED, BY HIS UTTERANCES.  FOR
EXAMPLE, ADDRESSING A MEETING OF MINE OPERATORS AND MANUFACTURERS ON
JULY 12, 1917, HE SPOKE AS FOLLOWS: 

"I HEAR IT INSISTED THAT MORE THAN A JUST PRICE, MORE THAN A PRICE
THAT WILL SUSTAIN OUR INDUSTRIES, MUST BE PAID; THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO
PAY VERY LIBERAL AND UNUSUAL PROFITS IN ORDER TO 'STIMULATE
PRODUCTION'; THAT NOTHING BUT PECUNIARY REWARDS WILL DO IT - REWARDS
PAID IN MONEY, NOT IN THE MERE LIBERATION OF THE WORLD. 

"I TAKE IT FOR GRANTED THAT THOSE WHO ARGUE THUS DO NOT STOP TO THINK
WHAT THAT MEANS.  DO THEY MEAN THAT YOU MUST BE PAID, MUST BE BRIBED,
TO MAKE YOUR CONTRIBUTION, A CONTRIBUTION THAT COSTS YOU NEITHER A DROP
OF BLOOD NOR A TEAR, WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD IS IN TRAVAIL AND MEN
EVERYWHERE DEPEND UPON AND CALL TO YOU TO BRING THEM OUT OF BONDAGE AND
MAKE THE WORLD A FIT PLACE TO LIVE IN AGAIN, AMIDST PEACE AND JUSTICE? 

"DO THEY MEAN THAT YOU WILL EXACT A PRICE, DRIVE A BARGAIN, WITH THE
MEN WHO ARE ENDURING THE AGONY OF THIS WAR ON THE BATTLEFIELD, IN THE
TRENCHES, AMIDST THE LURKING DANGERS OF THE SEA, OR WITH THE BEREAVED
WOMEN AND THE PITIFUL CHILDREN, BEFORE YOU WILL COME FORWARD TO DO YOUR
DUTY AND GIVE SOME PART OF YOUR LIFE, IN EASY, PEACEFUL FASHION, FOR
THE THINGS WE ARE FIGHTING FOR, THE THINGS WE HAVE PLEDGED OUR
FORTUNES, OUR LIVES, OUR SACRED HONOR TO VINDICATE AND DEFEND - LIBERTY
AND JUSTICE AND FAIR DEALING AND THE PEACE OF NATIONS?  OF COURSE YOU
WILL NOT. 

"IT IS INCONCEIVABLE.  YOUR PATRIOTISM IS OF THE SAME SELF-DENYING
STUFF AS THE PATRIOTISM OF THE MEN DEAD OR MAIMED ON THE FIELDS OF
FRANCE, OR ELSE IT IS NO PATRIOTISM AT ALL. 

"LET US NEVER SPEAK, THEN, OF PROFITS AND OF PATRIOTISM IN THE SAME
SENTENCE, BUT FACE FACTS AND MEET THEM. 

"LET US DO SOUND BUSINESS, BUT NOT IN THE MIDST OF A MIST.  MANY A
GRIEVOUS BURDEN OF TAXATION WILL BE LAID ON THIS NATION, IN THIS
GENERATION AND IN THE NEXT, TO PAY FOR THIS WAR.  LET US SEE TO IT THAT
FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT IS TAKEN FROM THE PEOPLE'S POCKETS IT SHALL BE
POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN A DOLLAR'S WORTH OF THE SOUND STUFFS THEY NEED." 
PUBLIC PAPERS OF WOODROW WILSON, VOL. 3, PP. 75-6; 55 CONG. REC. 4995. 

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES HAS SAID THAT "MEN MUST TURN SQUARE CORNERS WHEN
THEY DEAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT."  ROCK ISLAND, A. & L.R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 254 U.S. 141, 143.  HIS ADMONITION HAS PARTICULAR RELEVANCE
WHEN THIS COURT IS CALLED UPON TO ENFORCE AGREEMENTS MADE WITH THE
GOVERNMENT AT WAR FOR THE PRODUCTION OF SUPPLIES ESSENTIAL TO THE
PROSECUTION OF THE WAR.  DURING WARTIME THE BARGAINING POSITION OF
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING OFFICERS IS INHERENTLY WEAK, NO MATTER HOW
CONSCIENTIOUS THEY MAY BE.  IF THEY ARE TO DEAL ON EQUAL TERMS WITH
PRIVATE CONTRACTORS, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONTRACTS
IS SO INTRICATE AND SO SPECIALIZED AS THE BUILDING OF SHIPS, THEY MUST
HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM NOT ONLY DETAILED INFORMATION BUT ALSO THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH TO STUDY THE DATA AND THE FREEDOM TO EXERCISE A REAL
CHOICE.  IN THE LAST WAR, AT LEAST, THIS WAS NOT GENERALLY TRUE.  SEE
SEN. REP. NO. 944, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PT. 4, P. 30.  IT IS NOT
DIFFICULT IN THESE DAYS TO APPRECIATE THE POSITION OF NEGOTIATORS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT IN TIME OF WAR AND TO REALIZE HOW MUCH THE PRESSURES OF
WAR DEPRIVE THEM OF EQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER IN SITUATIONS WHERE
BARGAINING WITH PRIVATE CONTRACTORS IS THE ONLY PRACTICABLE MEANS OF
SECURING NECESSARY WAR SUPPLIES.  BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS IN SUCH A
DEPENDENT POSITION, AND BECAUSE THOSE WHO DEAL WITH IT ON A COST-PLUS
ARRANGEMENT, OR SOME SIMILAR BASIS, ARE ASSURED OF A PROFIT, IT IS
WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH PRACTICALITIES AND MAKES NO UNDULY IDEALISTIC
DEMAND FOR THE LAW TO JUDGE THE ARRANGEMENTS OF SUCH WARTIME
CONTRACTORS BY STANDARDS NOT UNLIKE THOSE BY WHICH A FIDUCIARY'S
CONDUCT IS JUDGED.  THOSE UPON WHOM THE NATION IS DEPENDENT FOR ITS
SUPPLIES IN THE DEFENSE OF ITS LIFE WOULD HARDLY WISH TO BE JUDGED BY
LOWER STANDARDS. 

THE MODES ARE VAST AND VARIED BY WHICH THE NATION OBTAINS ITS WAR
SUPPLIES.  WHAT WILL BEST SUPPLY WAR NEEDS IN AMPLEST MEASURE IN THE
QUICKEST TIME AND LEAST WASTEFULLY - WHETHER BY PRIVATE LETTING AND, IF
SO, UNDER WHAT RESTRICTIONS AND SAFEGUARDS; UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO ITS OWN SUPPLYING EITHER BY TAKING OVER OLD
PLANTS OR BUILDING NEW ONES OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO; TO WHAT EXTENT
AND THROUGH WHAT MEANS PEACETIME HABITS AND TRADITIONS MAY BE DISPLACED
AND DISREGARDED - THESE ARE QUESTIONS OF POLICY FOR THE WISDOM AND
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE.  THE VERY LIMITED
SCOPE OF INQUIRY TO WHICH A LITIGATION ON A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION IS
CONFINED IS HARDLY THE BASIS FOR JUDGMENT ON SUCH FAR-FLUNG ISSUES.  IF
THE HISTORY OF THIS COURT PERMITS ONE GENERALIZATION ABOVE ALL OTHERS,
IT IS THE UNWISDOM OF ENTERING THE DOMAIN OF POLICY OUTSIDE THE VERY
NARROW LEGAL LIMITS PRESENTED BY THE RECORD OF A PARTICULAR
LITIGATION.  SUCH INTRUSION INTO THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE DOMAINS
IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE JUST DISPOSITION OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTROVERSY. 
WE ARE MUCH LESS LIKELY TO GO WRONG IF WE DO NOT DEPART FROM THE WELL
GROOVED PATH OF JUDICIAL COMPETENCE. 

THIS COURT SHOULD NOT PERMIT BETHLEHEM TO RECOVER THESE
UNCONSCIONABLE PROFITS, AND THEREBY "MAKE THE COURT THE INSTRUMENT OF
THIS INJUSTICE."  THOMAS V. BROWNVILLE, FT. K. & P.R. CO., 109 U.S.
522, 526. 

FN1  WHATEVER THE SCOPE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
REQUISITIONING POWER IN OTHER SITUATIONS (COMPARE BARUCH, AMERICAN
INDUSTRY IN WAR, P. 77, WITH SEN. REP. NO. 944, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
PT. 2, PP. 4-5, 111-15), IT WAS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE IN THE FLEET
CORPORATION'S SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM.  THE REPORTS OF THE SHIPPING BOARD
SHOW THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER WAS LIMITED TO THE ACQUISITION OF
VESSELS WHICH HAD BEEN BUILT OR WERE BEING CONSTRUCTED; THE POWER DOES
NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED TO TAKE OVER THE SHIPYARDS OF
RECALCITRANT PRIVATE CONTRACTORS.  INDEED, THE POLICY OF THE
GOVERNMENT, BASED UPON ITS WARTIME NEEDS, WAS TO ENCOURAGE, FINANCIALLY
AND OTHERWISE, THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF SHIPYARDS BY PRIVATE
INTERESTS.  SEE 1ST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE U.S. SHIPPING BOARD (1917) PP.
12-15; 2D ANNUAL REPORT (1918) PP. 33-36, 120-22; REPORT OF DIRECTOR
GENERAL CHARLES PIEZ TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE U.S. SHIPPING
BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION (APRIL 30, 1919) PP. 13-14, 78, 123;
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET
CORPORATION TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES (AUGUST 1, 1919) PP. 25-26. 

FN2  THE BOOKS ARE FULL OF CASES IN WHICH COURTS HAVE REFUSED TO LEND
THEMSELVES AS COLLECTING AGENCIES OF CONTRACTS MADE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
OFFENSIVE TO THE CONSCIENCE.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN ADDITION TO THE
CASES CITED IN THE TEXT, JOHNSON V. FORD, 147 TENN. 63, 245 S.W. 531;
HARRIS V. CARY, 112 VA. 362, 71 S.E. 551; NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS.
CO. V. BARKER, 241 KY. 490, 497, 44 S.W.2D 292; CAIVANO V. BRILL, 171
MISC. 298, 11 N.Y.S.2D 498. 

FN3  E.G., THE RIGHT TO RECOVER MONEY PAID UNDER MISTAKE OF LAW,
WISCONSIN CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 190, 212, AND THE
UNAVAILABILITY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DEFENSES OF LACHES OR
NEGLECT OF DUTY, UNITED STATES V. KIRKPATRICK, 9 WHEAT.  720, 735, AND
ESTOPPEL BASED ON UNAUTHORIZED ACTS OF ITS AGENTS, LEE V. MUNROE, 7
CRANCH 366; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 389, 408
09. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS: 

ON THE POINT OF DURESS AND COERCION I THOROUGHLY AGREE WITH THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND JOIN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 
FOR THE REASONS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, THE CLAIM THAT BETHLEHEM'S
PROFITS WERE UNCONSCIONABLE IN THE LEGAL SENSE WOULD LIKEWISE FAIL. 

THERE IS, HOWEVER, ONE ASPECT OF THE CASE ON WHICH I TAKE A SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT VIEW. 

THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CONTEST HERE THE RIGHT OF BETHLEHEM TO
RETAIN ITS "FIXED FEE" OF APPROXIMATELY $12,000,000 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHIPS.  THE DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND AN ADDITIONAL
SUM OF $12,000,000 WHICH BETHLEHEM CLAIMS UNDER THE SO-CALLED "BONUS
FOR-SAVINGS" PROVISION OF THE CONTRACTS.  THAT PROVISION IN THE SEVERAL
CONTRACTS WAS THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE FIXED FEE.  THUS A
TYPICAL CONTRACT PROVIDED:  "SHOULD THE ACTUAL COST BE LESS THAN THE
ESTIMATED  ...  COST  ...  THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE ALLOWED AS PROFIT ON
EACH VESSEL IN ADDITION TO SAID FIXED SUM FOR PROFIT OF  ...  $210,000
ONE-HALF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH SUCH ACTUAL COST OF EACH VESSEL FALLS
SHORT OF THE ESTIMATED COST  ...  " 

I AGREE THAT THE CONSUMMATION OF THE BARGAIN DEPENDED UPON THE
INCLUSION OF THIS "SAVINGS" CLAUSE AND THAT IN EACH INSTANCE THERE WAS
BUT ONE CONTRACT, NOT SEVERAL.  MY VIEW, HOWEVER, IS THAT EACH CONTRACT
WAS DIVISIBLE OR SEVERABLE.  "  ... THE ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF SUCH A
CONTRACT IS THAT A PORTION OF THE PRICE IS BY THE TERMS OF THE
AGREEMENT SET OFF AGAINST A PORTION OF THE PERFORMANCE AND MADE PAYABLE
FOR THAT PORTION, SO THAT WHEN AN APPORTIONED PART OF THE PERFORMANCE
HAS BEEN RENDERED A DEBT FOR THAT PART IMMEDIATELY ARISES."  WILLISTON
ON CONTRACTS, SEC. 861(REV.  ED.).  IN OTHER WORDS, THE WHOLE
PERFORMANCE OF EACH CONTRACT WAS DIVIDED "INTO TWO SETS OF PARTIAL
PERFORMANCES, EACH PART OF EACH SET BEING THE AGREED EXCHANGE FOR A
CORRESPONDING PART OF THE SET OF PERFORMANCES TO BE RENDERED BY THE
OTHER PROMISOR."  ID., SEC. 860A.  (1) THE PROMISE OF THE FLEET
CORPORATION TO PAY THE ACTUAL COST PLUS THE FIXED FEE WAS EXCHANGED FOR
BETHLEHEM'S UNDERTAKING TO CONSTRUCT THE SHIPS.  (2) THE PROMISE OF THE
FLEET CORPORATION TO PAY ONE-HALF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE ACTUAL COST
FELL SHORT OF THE ESTIMATED COST WAS EXCHANGED FOR BETHLEHEM'S PROMISE
(WHICH IS IMPLIED) TO EFFECT THE SAVINGS BY INCREASING EFFICIENCY. 

ALTHOUGH I AM CLEAR THAT THE CONTRACTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BUT
FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE "SAVINGS" PROVISION, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
THERE IS A "NECESSARY DEPENDENCY" BETWEEN THESE TWO SETS OF PROMISES
WITHIN THE RULE OF PHILADELPHIA, W. & B.R. CO. V. HOWARD, 13 HOW.  307,
339.  AND SEE POLLAK V. BRUSH ELECTRIC ASSN., 128 U.S. 446, 455;
FULLMER V. POUST, 155 PA. 275, 278, 26 A. 543; RESTATEMENT, CONTRACTS,
SEC. 266(3).  PRECEDENTS, TO BE SURE, ARE OF LITTLE AID SINCE EACH CASE
TURNS ON ITS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  BUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
DIVISIBILITY SEEMS WARRANTED BY THE FACTS, THOUGH HERE AS IN OTHER
CASES CONSIDERABLE RELIANCE MUST BE PLACED ON IMPLICATIONS. 

BETHLEHEM'S ARGUMENT AGAINST DIVISIBILITY RESTS ON SUCH TESTIMONY OF
PIEZ, WHO REPRESENTED THE FLEET CORPORATION, AS FOLLOWS:  "THE PRICE
HAD TO BE PLACED FOR ACTUAL COST, IF WE KNEW THE COST, PLUS AN
ALLOWANCE FOR CONTINGENCIES, PLUS AN ALLOWANCE FOR INCENTIVE, PLUS THE
FEE.  SO WE START OUT WITH THE BARE COST; THEN IN ORDER TO MEET ANY
CONTINGENCIES THAT MAY HAPPEN, ADD SOME ALLOWANCE FOR CONTINGENCIES; IN
ORDER TO GIVE A PROPER INCENTIVE, ADD AN INCENTIVE ALLOWANCE; AND THEN
ADD THE FEE."  THAT IS TO SAY THE "SAVINGS" CLAUSE WAS DEEMED TO BE
VALUABLE FROM THE FLEET CORPORATION'S VIEWPOINT AS AN "INCENTIVE" TO
KEEP THE COSTS DOWN AND TO EXPEDITE THE WORK.  AND POWELL, THE AUTHOR
OF THE "SAVINGS" CLAUSE IN THIS CASE AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
BETHLEHEM, TESTIFIED THAT THE SAVINGS TO BE OBTAINED WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT TO "WIPE OUT THE EXCESS PROFITS TAXES," SO THAT THE FIXED
FEE WOULD BE "NET" TO BETHLEHEM. 

BUT POWELL'S TESTIMONY ALSO INDICATED THAT WHILE THE "SAVINGS" CLAUSE
WAS AN "INCENTIVE," BETHLEHEM WAS TO EARN THE "SAVINGS":    "Q.  THEN I
TAKE IT THAT ONE OF YOUR GREAT PROBLEMS, AS THE DRIVING FORCE OF THIS
ORGANIZATION, WAS TO IMPROVE YOUR LABOR CONDITIONS, OR FIRST TO PREVENT
LABOR CONDITIONS FROM GETTING WORSE AND THEN TO TRY TO IMPROVE THEM? 

"A.  YES. 

"Q.  OVER WHAT THEY WERE IN DECEMBER OF 1917? 

"A.  YES. 

"Q.  AND IF YOU WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, THEN THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF
SOME PROFIT IN THESE CONTRACTS UNDER THE HALF SAVINGS CLAUSE?   "A.
YES. 

"Q.  WAS THERE ANY LIKELIHOOD, OR DID YOU AT THAT TIME FORESEE ANY
LIKELIHOOD, OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL SAVING IN YOUR MATERIAL ITEMS? 

"A.  NO, I SHOULD NOT HAVE EXPECTED AT THAT TIME TO MAKE ANY SAVING
OF ANY AMOUNT IN THE MATERIALS. 

"Q.  SO THAT, IF BETHLEHEM WAS TO MAKE ANY MONEY OUT OF THESE
CONTRACTS IN EXCESS OF THE FIXED FEE, IT WAS YOUR JUDGMENT THAT THE
ONLY WAY TO DO IT WAS BY INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE YARDS? 

"A.  EXACTLY." 

POWELL ALSO TESTIFIED: 

"THE ESTIMATE WAS A FIGURE WHICH WE HAD TO SHOOT AT THAT IN MY
JUDGMENT GAVE US A REASONABLE PROFIT OR A CHANCE OF MAKING A
SUBSTANTIAL SAVING.  TO MAKE THAT SAVING, WE HAD TO OPERATE MORE
EFFICIENTLY THAN WHAT WE MIGHT SAY WAS AVERAGE EFFICIENCY UNDER
CONDITIONS THAT THEN EXISTED.  IF WE WERE GOING TO MAKE THAT SAVING, WE
HAD TO OVERCOME ANY INCREASED COST DUE TO DECREASED EFFICIENCY, AND
INCREASE EFFICIENCY BEYOND WHAT IT WAS AT THAT TIME." 

AND PIEZ TESTIFIED THAT THE PROVISION WAS TO GIVE THE SHIPBUILDERS AN
"INCENTIVE" TO "USE THEIR INGENUITY TO MAKE A LARGER PROFIT." 

THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THAT THE ESTIMATES DESIGNATED AS "BASE
PRICES" IN THE CONTRACTS "WOULD AFFORD BETHLEHEM A REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO EFFECT 'SAVINGS' AS A RESULT OF ITS EFFORTS AND ABILITY
TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY OF MANAGEMENT AND LABOR AS COMPARED WITH AVERAGE
EFFICIENCY THEN EXISTING."  HE ALSO FOUND THAT "IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT
PARTICIPATION IN 'SAVINGS' WAS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT A BONUS OR
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO BE EARNED BY BETHLEHEM AS CONSIDERATION FOR
ITS SPECIAL EFFORTS AND ABILITY TO REDUCE COST BY INCREASING EFFICIENCY
OF MANAGEMENT AND LABOR AS COMPARED WITH EFFICIENCY THEN EXISTING." 
YET HE FURTHER FOUND THAT "BETHLEHEM WAS TO PARTICIPATE IN SAVINGS
HOWEVER EARNED, BUT EXPECTED TO PRODUCE SAVINGS BY INCREASED
EFFICIENCY." 

MY DIFFICULTY IS WITH THAT LAST FINDING.  IF BETHLEHEM WAS TO SHARE
HALF OF THE SAVINGS "HOWEVER EARNED," THEN ITS RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE
BONUS MIGHT WELL DEPEND ON A WHOLLY FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE OR IT MIGHT
ACCRUE AS PETITIONER SUGGESTS "SIMPLY AS A REWARD FOR THE INACCURACY OF
ITS ESTIMATE OF ACTUAL COSTS."  UNDER THAT VIEW BETHLEHEM WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO $12,000,000 ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION MERELY BECAUSE THE
WHOLESALE PRICE INDEX FELL.  YET THAT WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO A GIFT BY
PUBLIC OFFICERS OF PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE SAME RESULT
WOULD FOLLOW IF THE CLAUSE BE READ AS CONTAINING MERELY A "BEST
EFFORTS" PROVISION.  THE CONTRACT ALREADY PROVIDED THAT BETHLEHEM "IN
ALL ITS ACTS HEREUNDER, SHALL USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO PROTECT AND
SUBSERVE THE INTEREST OF THE OWNER."  EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A
PROVISION, ONE WOULD BE IMPLIED.  UNITED STATES V. A. BENTLEY & SONS
CO., 293 F. 229, 235; UNITED STATES V. GEORGE A. FULLER CO., 296 F.
178, 180.  HENCE IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO IMPLY THAT THIS ADDITIONAL
$12,000,000 WAS OFFERED AS A REWARD FOR PERFORMING AN OBLIGATION WHICH
THE LAW WOULD IMPOSE ON THE CONTRACTOR IN ANY EVENT.  BURKE & JAMES,
INC. V. UNITED STATES, 63 CT. CLS. 36, 57.  THAT, TOO, WOULD BE A GRANT
OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES WOULD RECEIVE NO QUID PRO
QUO. 

HENCE IT SEEMS MORE REASONABLE TO IMPLY THAT BETHLEHEM WAS TO RENDER
AN ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE FOR THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OF
$12,000,000.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACTS AVOIDS THE
DIFFICULTIES I HAVE MENTIONED, AS IT GIVES THE UNITED STATES A QUID PRO
QUO FOR ITS PROMISE TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL $12,000,000.  CF. DAYTON
AIRPLANE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 21 F.2D 673, 682-683.  AND IT IS
SUPPORTED BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TWO
CONTRACTING PARTIES WHO NEGOTIATED THE CONTRACTS. 

IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, BETHLEHEM WOULD BE PUT TO ITS PROOF THAT
IT EFFECTED THE SAVINGS WHICH IT NOW CLAIMS.  MERE GUESSWORK WOULD NOT
BE ENOUGH.  J.J. PREIS & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 58 CT. CLS. 81, 86. 
PRECISE PROOF OF EACH DOLLAR SAVED MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE.  BUT A
REASONABLE APPROXIMATION OF BETHLEHEM'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE SAVINGS
WOULD BE NECESSARY.  SUCH BURDEN OF PROOF HAS BEEN SUSTAINED IN OTHER
CASES INVOLVING SIMILAR CONTRACTS.  COHEN, ENDEL & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 60 CT. CLS. 513; F. JACOBSON & SONS V. UNITED STATES, 61 CT.
CLS. 420.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS STATED THAT THERE WAS "SOME
EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT SAVINGS RESULTED, IN PART AT LEAST, FROM
INCREASED EFFICIENCY."  113 F.2D 301, 307.  BUT THERE WAS NO CLEAR
SHOWING THAT SPECIAL EFFORTS WERE MADE TO REDUCE COSTS AND THAT THE
SAVINGS WHICH RESULTED WERE TRACEABLE TO SUCH EFFORTS.  THE NECESSARY
FINDINGS ON THAT ISSUE WERE NOT MADE. 
..END :















RILEY V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 315 U.S. 343 


NO. 81.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 16, 1942.  - 16
A.2D 772, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, WHEN A STATE COURT IN PROBATING A WILL AND ISSUING
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY, IN A PROCEEDING TO WHICH ALL DISTRIBUTEES WERE
PARTIES, EXPRESSLY FINDS THAT THE DOMICILE OF THE TESTATOR AT THE TIME
OF HIS DEATH WAS IN THAT STATE, THE ADJUDICATION OF DOMICILE DOES NOT
BIND ONE WHO IS SUBSEQUENTLY APPOINTED AS DOMICILIARY ADMINISTRATOR
C.T.A. IN A SECOND STATE IN WHICH HE WILL BE CALLED UPON TO DEAL WITH
THE CLAIMS OF LOCAL CREDITORS, INCLUDING THE CLAIM OF THE STATE ITSELF
FOR TAXES, AND WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING IN THE FIRST
STATE; AND IN THIS SITUATION, THE COURTS OF A THIRD STATE, WHEN
DISPOSING OF LOCAL ASSETS CLAIMED BY BOTH THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES,
ARE FREE TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF DOMICILE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
OWN LAW.  PP. 348 ET SEQ. 

2.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY RULING BY THE COURTS OF DELAWARE,
HELD THAT, BY THE LAW OF THAT STATE, CASES CITED AND RELIED ON IN AN
OPINION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF ANOTHER STATE - WHICH OPINION IS
PROPERLY IN THE RECORD - MAY BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF THE LAW OF
SUCH OTHER STATE.  P. 351. 

RILEY ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 555, TO REVIEW A DECREE DETERMINING THE
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO AN ESTATE, WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY
EACH OF TWO PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES APPOINTED IN OTHER STATES. 

IN REDETERMINING THE QUESTION OF DECEDENT'S DOMICILE, THE DELAWARE
COURTS FAILED TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT. 
THORMANN V. FRAME, 176 U.S. 350; OVERBY V. GORDON, 177 U.S. 214; TILT
V. KELSEY, 207 U.S. 43; BURBANK V. ERNST, 232 U.S. 162; BAKER V. BAKER,
ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394; S.C. 162 KY. 683; THOMAS V. MORRISETT, 76
GA. 384; IN RE FISCHER'S ESTATE, 118 N.J. EQ. 599; IN RE WILLETT'S
APPEAL, 50 CONN. 330. 

THE GEORGIA COURTS HAD BEFORE THEM ALL POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTEES OF THE
DECEDENT'S ESTATE, AND HENCE IT WAS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A SINGLE
CONTROLLING DECISION UPON THE SUCCESSION.  SEE BAKER V. BAKER, ECCLES &
CO., SUPRA. 

THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT WAS BINDING UPON THE NEW YORK ADMINISTRATOR. 
WHEN DECEDENT'S HUSBAND, HIMSELF A PARTY TO THE GEORGIA LITIGATION, AND
DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE GEORGIA LITIGATION, HAD THE ADMINISTRATOR
APPOINTED IN NEW YORK IN EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS, HE COULD NOT THEREBY IN
EFFECT NULLIFY, IN OTHER STATES, THE DECISION OF THE GEORGIA COURTS
UPON THE FACTUAL QUESTION OF DOMICILE THAT WAS IN ISSUE AND UPON WHICH
THE JURISDICTION OF THE GEORGIA COURTS DEPENDED.  THE ADMINISTRATOR
ACQUIRED NO INTEREST IN THE SUCCESSION ABOVE AND UNRELATED TO THE
INTEREST OF ANY POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTEE.  A CREDITOR OR TAX CLAIMANT IS
NOT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD ON THE PROBATE OF A WILL; AND HENCE, AFTER THE
SUCCESSION HAS BEEN DETERMINED, CAN NOT DISPUTE THE TITLE OR RIGHT OF
POSSESSION OF THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE WHOSE TITLE HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED IN THE PROBATE PROCEEDING.  HOOKS V. BROWN, 125 GA. 122;
DUNSMUIR V. SCOTT, 217 F. 200; TILT V. KELSEY, 207 U.S. 43; SCHOULER ON
WILLS, VOL. 2, P. 846, SEC. 746. 

SINCE THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT IS BINDING UPON ALL POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTEES,
INCLUDING HUNGERFORD, BECAUSE HE WAS A PARTY TO AND PARTICIPATED IN THE
GEORGIA LITIGATION, IT IS ALSO BINDING UPON THE NEW YORK ADMINISTRATOR,
THE SAME PERSON IN LAW AS HUNGERFORD.  SEE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND &
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. SCHENDEL, 270 U.S. 611. 

THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT DETERMINED THAT THE GEORGIA ADMINISTRATION WAS
DOMICILIARY AND GENERAL AND NOT ANCILLARY OR LOCAL.  SUCH A JUDGMENT IS
CONCLUSIVE WHERE ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ESTATE ARE PARTIES.  THORMANN V. FRAME, 176 U.S. 350; OVERBY V. GORDON,
177 U.S. 214; TILT V. KELSEY, 207 U.S. 43; BURBANK V. ERNST, 232 U.S.
162; BAKER V. BAKER, ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394; THOMAS V. MORRISETT,
76 GA. 384; IN RE FISCHER'S ESTATE, 118 N.J.EQ. 599; IN RE WILLETT'S
APPEAL, 50 CONN. 330. 

THE EFFECT OF THE DELAWARE DECISION IS THAT A DISSATISFIED LITIGANT
IN SUCH A PROCEEDING MAY GO INTO ANOTHER STATE, HAVE AN ADMINISTRATOR
APPOINTED IN EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS, AND, IGNORING THE PREVIOUS
ADJUDICATION, HAVE THE QUESTION OF DOMICILE LITIGATED ALL OVER AGAIN IN
A CONTEST BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF REPRESENTATIVES IN A THIRD STATE
WHERE PROPERTY OF THE DECEDENT IS LOCATED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

COCA-COLA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, INCORPORATED IN DELAWARE, FILED
A BILL OF INTERPLEADER IN A DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY AGAINST JULIAN
RILEY AND HUGHES SPALDING, PETITIONERS HERE, THE EXECUTORS OF MRS.
JULIA M. HUNGERFORD, WITH LETTERS TESTAMENTARY ISSUED BY THE COURT OF
ORDINARY OF FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, AND AGAINST THE NEW YORK TRUST
COMPANY, THE RESPONDENT, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AS TEMPORARY
ADMINISTRATOR (AFTERWARD ADMINISTRATOR C.T.A.)  OF THE SAME DECEDENT,
APPOINTED BY THE SURROGATE'S COURT FOR NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK. 

THE GEORGIA EXECUTORS AND THE NEW YORK ADMINISTRATOR EACH CLAIM THE
RIGHT TO HAVE TRANSFERRED TO THEM, IN THEIR REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY,
STOCK IN THE COCA-COLA CORPORATION NOW ON ITS BOOKS IN THE NAME OF THE
DECEDENT.  THE OUTSTANDING CERTIFICATES ARE IN GEORGIA, IN THE HANDS OF
THE GEORGIA EXECUTORS.  THE PARTIES ARE AGREED, AND IT IS THEREFORE
ASSUMED, THAT DELAWARE IS THE SITUS OF THE STOCK.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PRAYER OF THE BILL, THE DELAWARE COURT DIRECTED THE ADVERSARY
CLAIMANTS TO INTERPLEAD BETWEEN THEMSELVES AS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
CLAIMS. 

THE GEORGIA EXECUTORS ASSERT THAT ORIGINAL DOMICILIARY PROBATE OF
MRS. HUNGERFORD'S WILL IN SOLEMN FORM WAS OBTAINED BY THEM IN GEORGIA,
WITH ALL BENEFICIARIES AND HEIRS AT LAW OF TESTATRIX, INCLUDING HER
HUSBAND, ROBERT HUNGERFORD, ACTUAL PARTIES BY PERSONAL SERVICE.  THESE,
IT IS CONCEDED, WERE ALL THE PARTIES UNDER THE LAW OF GEORGIA ENTITLED
TO BE HEARD ON THE PROBATE OF THE WILL.  THE RESPONDENT ADMINISTRATOR
C.T.A. WAS NOT A PARTY.  THE RECORD OF PROBATE INCLUDES A DETERMINATION
BY SPECIAL FINDING, OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE CAVEATOR, THE HUSBAND,
THAT THE TESTATRIX WAS DOMICILED IN GEORGIA.  THE SPECIAL FINDING WAS
SPECIFICALLY APPROVED AS AN ESSENTIAL FACT TO DETERMINE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ORDINARY BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF GEORGIA
IN ITS AFFIRMANCE OF THE PROBATE.  HUNGERFORD V. SPALDING, 183 GA. 547,
189 S.E. 2. 

THESE FACTS WERE ALLEGED BY PETITIONERS IN THEIR STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE STOCK FILED BELOW IN RESPONSE TO THE DECREE OF INTERPLEADER. 
EXEMPLIFIED COPIES OF THE PROBATE RECORD OF THE SEVERAL GEORGIA COURTS
WERE PLEADED AND PROVEN, AS WERE THE APPLICABLE GEORGIA STATUTES
GOVERNING DOMICILIARY PROBATE.  FROM THE FACTS ALLEGED, PETITIONERS
INFERRED THE CONCLUSIVE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLACE FOR DOMICILIARY
DISTRIBUTION AGAINST "ALL PERSONS," AND PRAYED THE ISSUE TO THEM OF NEW
CERTIFICATES.  AN OFFER WAS MADE TO PAY ALL DELAWARE TAXES OR CHARGES
ON THE STOCK.  AT THE TRIAL, PETITIONERS RELIED UPON ARTICLE IV, SEC.
1, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,  FN1  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE,
AS DETERMINATIVE OF THEIR RIGHT TO THE NEW CERTIFICATES.  THE PLEADING
AND TRIAL CONTENTION ADEQUATELY RAISED THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 
TILT V. KELSEY, 207 U.S. 43, 50. 

RESPONDENT ADMITTED THAT ALL PARTIES ENTITLED UNDER THE LAW OF
GEORGIA TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO PROBATE WERE ACTUALLY BEFORE THE
GEORGIA COURTS.  IT DENIED THAT MRS. HUNGERFORD WAS DOMICILED IN
GEORGIA OR THAT THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT OF DOMICILE AND PROBATE WAS
BINDING ON IT, AND AVERRED TESTATRIX'S DOMICILE AT DEATH WAS NEW YORK. 
IT FURTHER AVERRED THAT THERE WERE NEW YORK CREDITORS OF THE ESTATE
INTERESTED IN THE PROPER AND LAWFUL ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, AND
THAT NEW YORK HAD CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR INHERITANCE AND ESTATE TAXES.  ITS
OWN SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENT BY THE SURROGATE'S COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY,
NEW YORK, ON THE SUGGESTION OF TESTATRIX'S HUSBAND AND THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION, WAS PLEADED WITH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF NEW YORK PROBATE
AND ESTATE TAX LAW.  BY STIPULATION IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT PETITIONERS
AND THE HEIRS AND BENEFICIARIES OF TESTATRIX, EXCEPT HER HUSBAND, WHO
WAS AN ACTUAL PARTY, WERE NOTIFIED OF THE NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS FOR
PROBATE ONLY BY PUBLICATION OR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF THE CITATION IN
GEORGIA, AND DID NOT APPEAR.  AS A DOMICILIARY ADMINISTRATOR C.T.A.,
THE RESPONDENT PRAYED THE ISSUE TO IT OF NEW CERTIFICATES FOR THE STOCK
IN CONTROVERSY. 

THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED FROM THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARINGS
THAT THE TESTATRIX WAS DOMICILED IN GEORGIA.  IT WAS THEREFORE, AS THE
COURT STATED, UNNECESSARY FOR IT TO CONSIDER THE BINDING EFFECT OF THE
GEORGIA JUDGMENT.  FN2  THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE REVERSED THIS
FINDING OF FACT, DETERMINED THAT NEW YORK WAS TESTATRIX'S DOMICILE AND
DENIED PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1, OF THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRED THE AWARD OF THE CERTIFICATES OF STOCK TO THE
GEORGIA EXECUTORS.  THE COCA-COLA CORPORATION WAS DIRECTED TO ISSUE ITS
STOCK CERTIFICATE TO THE RESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK ADMINISTRATOR C.T.A.
NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. RILEY, 16 A.2D 772.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
ISSUES PREVIOUSLY UNDECIDED BY THIS COURT, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO
REVIEW THE ALLEGED ERROR, TO WIT, THE ASSERTED DENIAL OF FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT TO THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT.  313 U.S. 555. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECT OF THE GEORGIA DECREE ON A CLAIM IN HIS OWN
NAME IN ANOTHER STATE BY A PARTY TO THE GEORGIA PROCEEDINGS IS NOT HERE
INVOLVED.  FN3  THE QUESTION WE ARE TO DECIDE IS WHETHER THIS GEORGIA
JUDGMENT ON DOMICILE CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHES THE RIGHT OF THE GEORGIA
EXECUTORS TO DEMAND DELIVERY TO THEM OF PERSONAL ASSETS OF THEIR
TESTATRIX WHICH ANOTHER STATE IS WILLING TO SURRENDER TO THE
DOMICILIARY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE,  FN4 WHEN ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE,
APPOINTED BY A THIRD STATE, ASSERTS A SIMILAR DOMICILIARY RIGHT.  FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW, THE CONCLUSION OF DELAWARE THAT THE
TESTATRIX WAS IN FACT DOMICILED IN NEW YORK IS ACCEPTED.  THE ANSWER TO
THE QUESTION LIES IN THE EXTENT TO WHICH ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1, OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AS MADE APPLICABLE BY R.S. SEC. 905,  FN5  NEVERTHELESS
CONTROLS DELAWARE'S ACTION. 

THIS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION BRINGS TO OUR UNION A USEFUL MEANS
FOR ENDING LITIGATION.  MATTERS ONCE DECIDED BETWEEN ADVERSE PARTIES IN
ANY STATE OR TERRITORY ARE AT REST.  WERE IT NOT FOR THIS FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT PROVISION, SO FAR AS THE CONSTITUTION CONTROLS THE MATTER,
ADVERSARIES COULD WAGE AGAIN THEIR LEGAL BATTLES WHENEVER THEY MET IN
OTHER JURISDICTIONS.  EACH STATE COULD CONTROL ITS OWN COURTS BUT
ITSELF COULD NOT PROJECT THE EFFECT OF ITS DECISIONS BEYOND ITS OWN
BOUNDARIES.  CF. PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714, 722.  THAT CLAUSE
COMPELS THAT CONTROVERSIES BE STILLED, SO THAT, WHERE A STATE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES AND SUBJECT MATTER, ITS JUDGMENT CONTROLS
IN OTHER STATES TO THE SAME EXENT AS IT DOES IN THE STATE WHERE
RENDERED.  ROCHE V. MCDONALD, 275 U.S. 449, 451.  THIS IS TRUE EVEN
THOUGH THE CAUSE OF ACTION MERGED IN THE JUDGMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ENFORCED IN THE STATE WHEREIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT IS
SOUGHT.  CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290, 302; FAUNTLEROY V. LUM,
210 U.S. 230, 236.  FN6  BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT, THE LOCAL DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA, SPEAKING GENERALLY,
BECOME A PART OF NATIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, AND THEREFORE FEDERAL
QUESTIONS COGNIZABLE HERE. 

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE, M'ELMOYLE V. COHEN, 13 PETERS 312,
328; MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 276, NOR DOES
DELAWARE PROVIDE, THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF GEORGIA HAVE THE FORCE OF THOSE
OF HER OWN COURTS.  A SUIT IN DELAWARE MUST PRECEDE ANY LOCAL REMEDY ON
THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT.  SUBJECT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS,
DELAWARE'S DECISIONS ARE BASED ON DELAWARE JURISPRUDENCE.  HER
SOVEREIGNTY DETERMINES PERSONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHIN HER
TERRITORY.  SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, IT WAS HER
PREROGATIVE TO DISTRIBUTE THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN DELAWARE OR TO DIRECT
ITS TRANSMISSION TO THE DOMICILIARY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED. 
IOWA V. SLIMMER, 248 U.S. 115, 121.  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
ALLOWS DELAWARE, IN DISPOSING OF LOCAL ASSETS, TO DETERMINE THE
QUESTION OF DOMICILE ANEW FOR ANY INTERESTED PARTY WHO IS NOT BOUND BY
PARTICIPATION IN THE GEORGIA PROCEEDING.  THORMANN V. FRAME, 176 U.S.
350, 356; OVERBY V. GORDON, 177 U.S. 214, 227; BURBANK V. ERNST, 232
U.S. 162; BAKER V. BAKER, ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394, 400.  IT MUST BE
ADMITTED THAT THIS REEXAMINATION MAY RESULT IN CONFLICTING DECISIONS
UPON DOMICILE, BUT THAT IS AN INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE EXISTING
FEDERAL SYSTEM, WHICH ENDOWS ITS CITIZENS WITH THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE
THE STATE OR STATES WITHIN WHICH THEY DESIRE TO CARRY ON BUSINESS,
ENJOY THEIR LEISURE OR ESTABLISH THEIR RESIDENCES.  WORCESTER COUNTY
CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 299.  FN7  BUT, WHILE ALLOWING DELAWARE TO
DETERMINE DOMICILE FOR ITSELF, WHERE ANY INTERESTED PARTY IS NOT BOUND
BY THE GEORGIA PROCEEDINGS, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND R.S.
SEC. 905, NOTE 5, SUPRA, DO REQUIRE THAT DELAWARE SHALL GIVE GEORGIA
JUDGMENTS SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT "AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE" IN
GEORGIA. 

WE NOTE, BUT NEED NOT DISCUSS AT LENGTH, THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION
THAT OUR APPLICATION OF GEORGIA LAW IS LIMITED TO THE STATUTES,
DECISIONS AND USAGES OF THAT STATE PLEADED OR PROVEN IN THE DELAWARE
PROCEEDINGS,  FN8  AND THAT FOR SUCH FURTHER RULES OF LAW, AS MAY BE
NEEDED TO REACH A CONCLUSION HERE, WE MUST NECESSARILY, IN REVIEWING A
DELAWARE JUDGMENT, RELY UPON THE LAW WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF
OTHER GEORGIA LAW, PROPERLY GUIDED THE STATE COURTS, THAT IS, THE
DELAWARE LAW.  FN9  AT ANY RATE, THE CASES RELIED UPON BY PETITIONERS
TO ESTABLISH THE GEORGIA LAW, TANT V. WIGFALL, 65 GA. 412, AND WASH V.
DICKSON, 147 GA. 540, 94 S.E. 1009, ARE CITED IN THE OPINION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA PLEADED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.  WE THINK THEY
MAY BE CONSIDERED BY US UNDER THE DELAWARE LAW.  NO OBJECTION BELOW WAS
MADE BY RESPONDENT TO THE CITATIONS.  THE OPINION OF THE GEORGIA
SUPREME COURT WAS PROPERLY IN THE RECORD AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF A
CONTRARY RULING BY DELAWARE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THEY MAY BE
PROPERLY CONSIDERED HERE.  FN10    WE FIND NOTHING IN EITHER OF THESE
CASES, HOWEVER, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, IN GEORGIA,
THE NEW YORK ADMINISTRATOR C.T.A. WAS IN PRIVITY, SO FAR AS THE
SEQUESTRATION OF ASSETS FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEATH TAXES OR INDEBTEDNESS
OF DECEDENT OR HER ESTATE IS CONCERNED, WITH ANY PARTIES BEFORE THE
GEORGIA COURT, OR THAT THE NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT TAKE STEPS
IN GEORGIA COURTS WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN ITS GETTING POSSESSION OF ANY
ASSETS WHICH UNDER THE GEORGIA LAW OF ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE PROPERLY
DELIVERABLE TO A FOREIGN DOMICILIARY ADMINISTRATOR.  IN THE TANT CASE,
GEORGIA REFUSED TO PERMIT A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A JUDGMENT OF PROBATE
ALLEGEDLY ENTERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.  IT WAS
HELD THAT SUCH ATTACK MUST BE MADE IN THE COURT WHERE JUDGMENT WAS
RENDERED.  THE EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT ENTERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE
PERSONS WHOSE RIGHTS WERE PURPORTEDLY AFFECTED WAS NOT DISCUSSED.  IN
THE WASH CASE, THERE WAS SIMPLY A RULING THAT A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
OF ORDINARY COULD NOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED BY PARTIES OR PRIVIES,
UNLESS THE RECORD NEGATIVED THE EXISTENCE OF NECESSARY "JURISDICTIONAL
FACTS."  WHOM THE COURT WOULD CLASSIFY AS "PRIVIES" TO A JUDGMENT IN
PERSONAM DOES NOT APPEAR, AND THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW MAKES IT
AMPLY PLAIN THAT THERE WAS NO PRIVITY UNDER DELAWARE LAW.  HENCE, IF
THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT IS TO BIND THE NEW YORK ADMINISTRATOR, IT CAN BE
CONSIDERED TO DO SO ONLY IN REM. 

BY SEC. 113-602, GEORGIA CODE OF 1933, SET UP BY PETITIONER AS A
BASIS FOR HIS CONTENTION AS TO THE FINALITY OF THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT IN
DELAWARE, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE COURT OF ORDINARY IS GIVEN EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE PROBATE OF WILLS AND THAT "SUCH PROBATE IS
CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL THE PARTIES NOTIFIED, AND ALL THE LEGATEES UNDER
THE WILL WHO ARE REPRESENTED IN THE EXECUTOR."  ALL THE PARTIES
ENTITLED TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROBATE, INCLUDING MR.
HUNGERFORD, WERE ACTUALLY BEFORE THE COURT OF ORDINARY.  IT MAY BE
ASSUMED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF PROBATE AND DOMICILE IS A JUDGMENT IN REM
AND THEREFORE, AS "AN ACT OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER," "ITS EFFECTS CANNOT
BE DISPUTED" WITHIN THE JURISDICTION.  FN11  BUT THIS DOES NOT BAR
LITIGATION ANEW BY A STRANGER, OF FACTS UPON WHICH THE DECREE IN REM IS
BASED.  FN12  HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID, WE THINK, THAT BECAUSE
RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE NO STANDING IN GEORGIA TO CONTEST THE PROBATE OF
A WILL AND, WE ASSUME, THE PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF DOMICILE, HELD
NECESSARY IN HUNGERFORD V. SPALDING, 183 GA. 547, 550, 189 S.E. 2, 3,
THEREAFTER RESPONDENT COULD NOT FILE A CLAIM IN DELAWARE, DEPENDENT
UPON DOMICILIARY REPRESENTATION OF TESTATRIX, FOR ASSETS IN THE LATTER
STATE.  WHILE THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT IS TO HAVE THE SAME FAITH AND CREDIT
IN DELAWARE AS IT DOES IN GEORGIA, THAT REQUIREMENT DOES NOT GIVE THE
GEORGIA JUDGMENT EXTRA-TERRITORIAL EFFECT UPON ASSETS IN OTHER STATES. 
SO FAR AS THE ASSETS IN GEORGIA ARE CONCERNED, THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT OF
PROBATE IS IN REM; SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS PERSONALTY BEYOND THE STATE, IT
IS IN PERSONAM AND CAN BIND ONLY PARTIES THERETO OR THEIR PRIVIES. 
THIS IS THE RESULT OF THE RULING IN BAKER V. BAKER, ECCLES & CO., 242
U.S. 394, 400.  FN13  PHRASED SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY, IF THE EFFECT OF A
PROBATE DECREE IN GEORGIA IN PERSONAM WAS TO BAR A STRANGER TO THE
DECREE FROM LATER ASSERTING HIS RIGHTS, SUCH A HOLDING WOULD DENY
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. 

IT SEEMS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR C.T.A. APPEARS IN
DELAWARE AS AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND NOT AS THE ALTER
EGO OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE HUNGERFORD ESTATE.  IN ITS ANSWER TO
THE PETITIONERS' STATEMENT OF CLAIM, IT ESTABLISHED ITS STATUS BY
ALLEGING THAT NOT MERELY THE BENEFICIARIES BUT CREDITORS RESIDING IN
NEW YORK AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK WERE INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE, THAT
ITS APPOINTMENT AS TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR HAD BEEN SOUGHT BY THE NEW
YORK TAX COMMISSIONER "TO PROTECT THE CLAIM OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO
INHERITANCE AND SUCCESSION TAXES," THAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK WAS
ASSERTING SUCH CLAIMS IN SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT ON THE THEORY THAT THE
DOMICILE WAS NEW YORK, AND THAT, UNDER NEW YORK LAW, AS EVIDENCED BY
STATUTES LIKEWISE PLEADED, AN ADMINISTRATOR WAS "VESTED BY LAW WITH THE
RIGHT TO POSSESSION AND CONTROL OVER AND TO EXERCISE ALL MANNER OF
DOMINION OVER ALL OF THE GOODS AND CHATTELS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OF
EVERY KIND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ESTATE OF A DECEDENT." 

A STATE IS INTERESTED PRIMARILY NOT IN THE PAYMENT OF PARTICULAR
CREDITORS, NOR IN THE SUCCESSION OF HEIRS OR BENEFICIARIES, AS SUCH,
BUT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY OF ITS CITIZENS, WHEREVER
LOCATED, AND THAT OF STRANGERS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES.  IN A SOCIETY
WHERE INHERITANCE IS AN IMPORTANT SOCIAL CONCEPT, THE MANAGING OF
DECEDENTS' PROPERTY IS A SOVEREIGN RIGHT WHICH MAY NOT BE READILY
FRUSTRATED. 

GEORGIA AND NEW YORK MIGHT EACH ASSERT ITS RIGHT TO ADMINISTER THE
ESTATES OF ITS DOMICILIARIES TO PROTECT ITS SOVEREIGN INTERESTS, AND
DELAWARE WAS FREE TO DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHICH CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE THE PORTION OF MRS. HUNGERFORD'S PERSONALTY WITHIN DELAWARE'S
BORDERS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE
PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE. 
AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH
ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE EFFECT
THEREOF." 

FN2  COCA-COLA INTERNATIONAL CORP. V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 2 A.2D 290,
8 A.2D 511. 

FN3  THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE WAS OF THIS OPINION.  IT SAID:  WE
ARE NOT "CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER THE OPERATION OF A JUDGMENT IN A
PROBATE PROCEEDING IN ONE JURISDICTION AS AN ESTOPPEL AGAINST ONE WHO,
ALTHOUGH A PARTY TO THAT PROCEEDING, UNDERTAKES, IN A PROCEEDING IN
ANOTHER JURISDICTION AFFECTING THE SAME DECEDENT'S ESTATE, TO RAISE
AGAIN THE QUESTION OF THE DECEDENT'S DOMICILE."  16 A.2D 772, 788. 

FN4  CF. PAGE, WILLS (3D ED.)  SEC.  727. 

FN5  "AND THE SAID RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, SO
AUTHENTICATED, SHALL HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY
COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE
COURTS OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN."  28 U.S.C. SEC. 687. 

FN6  THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE GENERALITY OF THE STATEMENT. 
PACIFIC INS. CO. V. COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493, 502, AND CASES THERE
CITED. 

FN7  A COLLECTION OF CASES DEALING WITH THIS TOPIC MAY BE FOUND IN
121 A.L.R. 1200. 

FN8  ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59, 62, 63; GASQUET V. LAPEYRE, 242
U.S. 367; TILT V. KELSEY, 207 U.S. 43, 57; CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD V.
WIGGINS FERRY CO., 119 U.S. 615, 622; HANLEY V. DONOGHUE, 116 U.S. 1,
6. 

DEL. REV. CODE (1935) SEC. 4695 - "STATUTES OF OTHER STATES:   -
PRINTED COPIES OF STATUTES OF ANY OTHER OF THE UNITED STATES, IF
PURPORTING TO BE PUBLISHED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
GOVERNMENTS, OR IF COMMONLY ADMITTED AND READ AS EVIDENCE IN THEIR
COURTS, SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF SUCH LAW." 

DEL. REV. CODE (1935) SEC. 4696 - "COMMON LAW OF OTHER STATES:   -
THE COMMON, OR UNWRITTEN, LAW OF ANY OTHER OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY BE
PROVED AS FACTS BY PAROLE EVIDENCE; AND THE REPORTS OF CASES ADJUDGED
IN THEIR COURTS, AND PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY, MAY ALSO BE ADMITTED AS
EVIDENCE OF SUCH LAW." 

IN 1899 THE SUPERIOR COURT CLEARLY STATED THE RULE:  "IT IS A GENERAL
RULE OF LAW THAT WHENEVER A FOREIGN STATUTE IS RELIED UPON IT MUST BE
PLEADED, AND THIS COURT WILL NOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAWS OF
OUR SISTER STATES OR OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY."  THOMAS V. GRAND TRUNK RY.
CO., 1 PENNEWILL 593, 596, 42 A. 987, 988.  THIS RULE HAS BEEN QUITE
STRICTLY APPLIED IN SUBSEQUENT CASES.  WOLF V. KEAGY, 3 W. W. HARR. 
362, 136 A. 520(SUPER.  CT. 1927); MACKENZIE OIL CO. V. OMAR OIL &
GAS.  CO., 4 W. W. HARR.  435, 154 A. 883(SUPER.  CT. 1929); NYE
ODORLESS INCINERATOR CORP. V. FELTON, 5 W. W. HARR.  236, 162 A.
504(SUPER.  CT. 1931); ROYAL INS. CO. V. SIMON, 20 DEL. CH. 297, 174 A.
444(1934); HOLLAND V. UNIVERSAL LIFE CO., 7 W. W. HARR.  39, 180 A.
328(SUPER.  CT. 1935); SILVERMAN V. NATIONAL ASSETS CORP., 12 A.2D
389(DEL.  CH. 1940). 

FN9  BOUREE V. TRUST FRANCAIS, 14 DEL. CH. 332, 127 A. 56.  OF THIS
LAW, WE TAKE JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE.  OWINGS V. HULL, 9 PET. 607, 624;
BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 23. 

FN10  CF. ELSNER V. UNITED AMERICAN UTILITIES, INC., 21 DEL. CH. 73,
75, 180 A. 589, 590, AFFIRMED 12 A.2D 389, - 

"ON THE BRIEF FILED BY THE SOLICITOR FOR THE CLAIMANT THERE ARE
QUOTATIONS FROM SECTIONS 181, 208 AND 209 OF THE NEW YORK TAX LAW. 
WHETHER THESE SECTIONS ARE A PART OF ARTICLE 9(SECTION 180 ET SEQ.) OR
OF ARTICLE 9-A (SECTION 208 ET SEQ.) OF THE STATUTE REFERRED TO IN THE
NOTICE OF CLAIM, I DO NOT KNOW.  NO POINT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE
SOLICITORS FOR THE RECEIVERS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE NEW YORK STATUTE
HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY PLEADED AND INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE.  I SHALL
ASSUME THEN THAT THE QUOTATIONS IN THE BRIEF FILED IN BEHALF OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK ARE CORRECT EXTRACTS FROM THE NEW YORK STATUTE AND
THAT BY TACIT AGREEMENT THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED AS THOUGH THEY WERE
PROPERLY IN THE RECORD." 

FN11  SEE BRIGHAM V. FAYERWEATHER, 140 MASS. 411, 413, 5 N.E. 265,
266.  THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT INTIMATED IN ONE OF THE OTHER CASES
CITED IN THE HUNGERFORD OPINION, THAT IF A PERSON WAS NOT HEARD IN
PROBATE BECAUSE OF A SUPPOSED LACK OF INTEREST, BUT WAS IN FACT
INTERESTED, HE WOULD NOT BE BOUND BY THE PROBATE DECREE.  WETTER V.
HABERSHAM, 60 GA. 193, 202; CF. YOUNG V. HOLLOWAY, (1895) P. 87; ESTATE
OF SEAMAN, 51 CAL. APP. 409, 196 P. 928. 

FN12  CF. BRIGHAM V. FAYERWEATHER, 140 MASS. 411, 413; TILT V.
KELSEY, 207 U.S. 43, 51-53; LUKE V. HILL, 137 GA. 159, 161-62, 73 S.E.
345, 346. 

FN13  ILLUSTRATIVE STATE CASES. 

A WILL IS ADMITTED TO ORIGINAL DOMICILIARY PROBATE IN STATE A.
THEREAFTER AN ANCILLARY PROCEEDING IS COMMENCED IN STATE B BASED UPON
THE DOMICILIARY DETERMINATION OF A. AT THAT POINT A BENEFICIARY, A
STRANGER TO THE PROCEEDING IN A, APPEARS AND ASSERTS THAT THE DECEDENT
WAS DOMICILED IN B. THE DETERMINATION OF DOMICILE BY STATE A WILL NOT
BE RECOGNIZED BY STATE B, BUT STATE B WILL TAKE EVIDENCE AND
REDETERMINE THE ISSUE OF DOMICILE.  ESTATE OF CLARK, 148 CAL. 108, 82
P. 760; HOLYOKE V. ESTATE OF HOLYOKE, 110 ME. 469, 87 A. 40(SEMBLE); IN
RE MAULDIN'S ESTATE, 69 MONT. 132, 220 P. 1102(SEMBLE); STRATHMANN V.
KINKELAAR, 105 OKLA. 290, 233 P. 215(SEMBLE); RICHARDS V. HUFF, 146
OKLA. 108, 293 P. 1028; CF. ESTATE OF REYNOLDS, 217 CAL. 557, 20 P.2D
323; IN RE COPPOCK'S ESTATE, 72 MONT. 431, 234 P. 258; MATTER OF
GIFFORD, 279 N.Y. 470, 18 N.E.2D 663; MCEWEN V. MCEWEN, 50 N. DAK. 
662, 197 N.W. 862.  CONTRA, CORRIGAN V. JONES, 14 COLO. 311, 23 P. 913;
KURTZ V. STENGER, 169 MD. 554, 182 A. 456. 

IF THE OBJECTOR WAS PRIVY TO THE PROCEEDING IN STATE A, STATE B WILL
NOT REDETERMINE THE ISSUE OF DOMICILE.  WILLETTS' APPEAL, 50 CONN. 330;
TORREY V. BRUNER, 60 FLA. 365, 53 SO. 337; LOEWENTHAL V. MANDELL, 125
FLA. 685, 170 SO. 169; SUCCESSION OF GAINES, 45 LA. ANN. 1237, 14 SO.
233. 

WHERE THE PROCEEDING IN STATE B IS BY A STRANGER TO THE PROCEEDINGS
FOR ORIGINAL DOMICILIARY PROBATE IN STATE A UPON THE THEORY THAT THE
DOMICILE IS ACTUALLY B, STATE B WILL DETERMINE DOMICILE FOR ITSELF. 
SCRIPPS V. WAYNE PROBATE JUDGE, 131 MICH. 265, 90 N.W. 1061; IN RE
CRANE'S ESTATE, 205 MICH. 673, 172 N.W. 584; PUSEY'S ESTATE, 321 PA.
248, 184 A. 844; SEE MATTER OF HORTON, 217 N.Y. 363, 371, 111 N.E.
1066, 1068. 

WHERE THE PERSON SEEKING TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE IN STATE B, AND TO
HAVE ORIGINAL DOMICILIARY PROBATE THERE, WAS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING
IN STATE A, STATE B WILL NOT REDETERMINE DOMICILE.  HOPPER V. NICHOLAS,
106 OHIO 292, 140 N.E. 186; CF. THOMAS V. MORRISETT, 76 GA. 384; IN RE
FISCHER, 118 N.J. EQ. 599, 180 A. 633. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

I CONCUR UPON THE SINGLE GROUND THAT THE NEW YORK ADMINISTRATOR WAS
NOT BOUND BY THE GEORGIA JUDGMENT.  HE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE GEORGIA
PROCEEDINGS, NOR WAS HE REPRESENTED BY ANY OF THOSE WHO WERE PARTIES. 
AS ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED UNDER THE NEW YORK STATUTES, HE WAS CHARGED
WITH THE DUTY OF ADMINISTERING THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT AND PAYING
INHERITANCE TAXES UPON IT.  HIS INTEREST SO FAR AS HE OWES DUTIES TO
THE STATE IS THEREFORE ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE HUSBAND AND THE NEXT OF
KIN, WHO ALONE WERE PARTIES TO THE GEORGIA PROCEEDING.  TO HAVE BOUND
HIM BY REPRESENTATION OF THOSE SO ADVERSE IN INTEREST WOULD HAVE BEEN A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  HANSBERRY V. LEE, 311 U.S. 32.  A JUDGMENT SO
OBTAINED IS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE
NOT PARTIES.  PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201; BAKER V.
BAKER, ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394; BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1,
18.  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD FORECLOSE NEW YORK FROM LITIGATING ITS
RIGHT TO COLLECT TAXES LAWFULLY DUE, BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF A
PROBATE BY THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE WILL OF THE DECEDENT AS THE DOMICILED
RESIDENT OF ANOTHER STATE, WITHOUT NOTICE TO ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF NEW
YORK OR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE OTHER QUESTIONS DISCUSSED BY THE
OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON CONCUR IN THIS
OPINION. 
..END :









U.S. V. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO., 315 U.S. 110 


NO. 744.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  - 123
F.2D 100, REVERSED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL POWER TO REGULATE THE PRICE OF MILK MOVING INTERSTATE
INTO A MARKETING AREA, EXTENDS TO SUCH CONTROL OVER INTRASTATE
TRANSACTIONS THERE AS IS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO MAKE THE
REGULATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE EFFECTIVE; IT INCLUDES AUTHORITY
TO REGULATE THE PRICE OF INTRASTATE MILK, THE SALE OF WHICH, IN
COMPETITION WITH THE INTERSTATE MILK, AFFECTS ADVERSELY THE PRICE
STRUCTURE AND FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE LATTER.  P. 121. 

2.  THE FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS IS NOT
LIMITED TO PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED ALSO IN INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS.  P.
121. 

3.  VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, SEC. 8C (1) OF
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF JUNE 3, 1937, WHICH
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO ISSUE MARKETING ORDERS
FIXING MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID TO PRODUCERS OF MILK, LIMITING THE
REGULATION TO SUCH HANDLING OF THE COMMODITY AS IS IN THE CURRENT OF
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE OR AS "DIRECTLY AFFECTS" SUCH COMMERCE,
WAS INTENDED, BY A FULL EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER, TO CONFER UPON
THE SECRETARY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE HANDLING OF MILK PRODUCED AND
MARKETED INTRASTATE, WHICH BY REASON OF ITS COMPETITION WITH THE
HANDLING OF INTERSTATE MILK SO AFFECTS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS
SUBSTANTIALLY TO INTERFERE WITH ITS REGULATION UNDER THE ACT.  P. 125. 

4.  OPINIONS OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON THE MEANING OF A
BILL, WHICH CONFLICT WITH COMMITTEE REPORTS CONCERNING IT AND
EXPLANATIONS OF IT MADE ON THE FLOOR BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVING IT IN
CHARGE, ARE NOT PERSUASIVE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  P. 125. 

UNITED STATES V. WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 783, WRIGHTWOOD DAIRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 605, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 605, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING A BILL BROUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE AN ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, AND GRANTING AN INJUNCTION TO THE DEFENDANT
AGAINST THE EXECUTION OF THE ORDER. 

THE INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS IN COMPETITION WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION. 

RESPONDENT PURCHASED ITS TOTAL DAILY MILK REQUIREMENTS FROM PRODUCERS
LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN ILLINOIS AND PROCESSED THE MILK IN ITS CHICAGO
PLANT WITHOUT INTERMINGLING IT WITH ANY MILK WHICH HAD CROSSED THE
STATE LINES, AND SOLD AND DISTRIBUTED THE PROCESSED PRODUCT SOLELY
WITHIN ILLINOIS.  RESPONDENT THUS WAS ENGAGED IN AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS
AND WAS NOT IN THE CURRENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT RESPONDENT IS A "HANDLER," ON THE GROUND
THAT THE PRODUCT HANDLED WAS IN COMPETITION WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION, REQUIRES A CONSTRUCTION OF
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
CONTROL EVERY ENTERPRISE, EVERY OCCUPATION AND EVERY ACTIVITY OF THE
PEOPLE MERELY BY SHOWING THAT THE PRODUCT THEREOF IS IN COMPETITION
WITH SIMILAR PRODUCTS WHICH CROSS STATE LINES.  SUCH A RESTRICTION
WOULD REACH ALL ENTERPRISES AND TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE IN COMPETITION
WITH THOSE OF OTHER STATES.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WOULD EMBRACE ALL ACTIVITIES OF THE PEOPLE, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE OVER ITS DOMESTIC AFFAIRS WOULD EXIST ONLY BY SUFFERANCE OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THERE WOULD BE NO LIMIT TO FEDERAL POWER, AND THE
STATES AND THE PEOPLE WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS RESERVED
UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S.
495, 546; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238. 

IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, IT APPEARS FROM
THE OPINION, UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE, THAT THE INTRASTATE MILK REFERRED
TO WAS INEXTRICABLY INTERMINGLED WITH MILK WHICH MOVED ACROSS STATE
LINES.  MOREOVER, THE ORDER THERE PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARY
RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS SOME MILK ENTIRELY IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE
OVER WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO CONTROL AND WHICH WAS
REGULATED UNDER STATE LAWS, AND SUCH INTRASTATE HANDLING OF MILK WAS
EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED FROM THE ORDER. 

CONGRESS MAY NOT UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE REGULATE PURELY INTRASTATE
TRANSACTIONS WHERE THE POINT OF IMPINGEMENT OF THE INTRASTATE
TRANSACTIONS UPON INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS IS ONE OF COMPETITION ONLY. 
DISCUSSING BROWN CHEMICAL CO. V. MEYER, 139 U.S. 540, 544; CITIZENS'
LIGHT CO. V. MONTGOMERY LIGHT CO., 171 F. 553, 560; UNITED STATES V.
BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 68; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495,
546.  DISTINGUISHING THE SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342; CHICAGO BOARD
OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, 41; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495;
CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38; UNITED
STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100. 

COMPETITIVE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE RATES, AS ILLUSTRATED
IN THE SHREVEPORT CASE, BY A RAILROAD ENGAGED BOTH IN INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION, HAS NO APPLICATION WHATSOEVER TO A SITUATION
WHERE A HANDLER OF MILK BUYS ALL OF HIS MILK WITHIN A STATE AND SELLS
IT WITHIN A STATE, AND WHERE NONE OF HIS ACTIVITIES PARTAKE OF AN
INTERSTATE CHARACTER OTHER THAN THAT HIS MILK MIGHT BE IN COMPETITION
WITH MILK WHICH CROSSED STATE LINES.  THERE IS HARDLY AN ARTICLE IN
COMMON USE WHICH CAN BE SAID NOT TO BE IN COMPETITION WITH A SIMILAR
ARTICLE PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED ACROSS STATE LINES. 

THE FACT THAT CONGRESS CAN NOT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION CONTROL PURELY
LOCAL ACTIVITIES, LIKE THAT OF RESPONDENT HEREIN, DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THERE IS A HIATUS WHERE NEITHER STATE NOR NATION COULD EFFECTIVELY
FUNCTION.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533; MILK
CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346. 

CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND IN PASSING THE ACT OF 1937, AND PRIOR ACTS,
TO ASSUME CONTROL OF PURELY INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS, AND THE ACT ITSELF
CONTAINS NO SUCH PROVISION.  THE BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PRIOR ACTS, AND
THEIR CONSTRUCTION BY THE COURTS, CLEARLY SUSTAIN THIS POSITION. 

THE FINDING OF THE SECRETARY THAT ALL MILK WHICH WAS PRODUCED FOR
SALE IN THE MARKETING AREA IS HANDLED IN THE CURRENT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, OR SO AS DIRECTLY TO BURDEN, OBSTRUCT OR AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW, IS CONTRARY TO THE FACT, AND OF NO
LEGAL EFFECT. 

THE INTRASTATE DISTRIBUTION OF MILK IN COMPETITION WITH INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION. 

IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 568, WHICH
INVOLVED THE MARKETING ORDER FOR THE NEW YORK AREA, THIS COURT STATED:
"NOR IS ANY QUESTION RAISED AS TO THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO REGULATE
THE DISTRIBUTION IN THE AREA OF THE WHOLLY INTRASTATE MILK.  IT IS
RECOGNIZED THAT THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY COVERS THE SALES OF THIS MILK, AS
ITS MARKETING IS INEXTRICABLY INTERMINGLED WITH AND DIRECTLY AFFECTS
THE MARKETING IN THE AREA OF THE MILK WHICH MOVES ACROSS STATE LINES." 

IT IS TRUE THAT OTHER EXPRESSIONS IN THE ROCK ROYAL OPINION SHOW THAT
THIS COURT ASSUMED THAT ALL OF THE MILK INVOLVED MOVED THROUGH THE
CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  307 U.S. AT PP. 540, 541, 568.  THE
RECORD IN THE CASE SHOWS, HOWEVER, THAT, ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT
PRESSED IN THIS COURT, ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS DID CHALLENGE THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO REGULATE IT, ON THE GROUND THAT ITS ACTIVITIES WERE
ENTIRELY INTRASTATE AND THAT ITS MILK WAS USUALLY HANDLED ENTIRELY
INTRASTATE. 

WHETHER OR NOT THIS COURT'S REMARK IN THE ROCK ROYAL CASE WAS DICTUM,
IT WAS NOT ERRONEOUS.  UNITED STATES V. ADLER'S CREAMERY, 107 F.2D 987,
110 F.2D 482, CERT. DEN., 311 U.S. 657. 

EVERY DISTRICT COURT WHICH HAS PASSED UPON THE QUESTION, APART FROM
THE INSTANT CASE, HAS HELD THAT INTRASTATE MILK COMPETING WITH
INTERSTATE IS SUBJECT TO MILK ORDERS ISSUED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT.  UNITED STATES V. KRECHTING, 26 F.SUPP.  266;
UNITED STATES V. ANDREWS, 26 F.SUPP.  123; UNITED STATES V. H. P. HOOD
& SONS, 26 F.SUPP.  672; UNITED STATES V. SCHWARZ (N.D. ILL.) DECIDED
JANUARY 30, 1941. 

THE TERM "COMPETITION" AS USED IN THE FINDINGS DESCRIBES A DYNAMIC
AND FREQUENTLY COMPLEX ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP.  THE FINDING THAT THE
MILK PROCESSED BY RESPONDENT COMPETES WITH OTHER MILK, INCLUDING MILK
FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE, MEANS THAT RESPONDENT AND OTHER HANDLERS ARE
STRUGGLING AS "RIVALS FOR THE SAME TRADE."  LIPSON V. SOCONY VACUUM
CORPORATION, 87 F.2D 265, 270; SCHILL V. REMINGTON-PUTNAM BOOK CO., 17
A.2D 175, 178.  WHERE SUCH RIVALRY EXISTS, IT IS INEVITABLE THAT THE
IMPOSITION OF RESTRICTIONS UPON SOME OF THE ANTAGONISTS AND NOT UPON
OTHERS WILL GREATLY INJURE THE BUSINESS OF THOSE WHOSE FREEDOM OF
ACTION IS RESTRICTED. 

ALTHOUGH THE UNCHALLENGED FINDING OF "COMPETITION" NECESSARILY
CARRIES WITH IT THIS CONNOTATION, THE RECORD SHOWS IN MORE DETAIL THAT
BOTH THE HANDLERS OF INTERSTATE MILK AND THE FARMERS WHO PRODUCE IT
WILL BE HARMED IF INTRASTATE MILK IS EXEMPT FROM REGULATION. 

A HANDLER NOT COMPLYING WITH THE MINIMUM PRICE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED
UNDER AN ORDER WILL HAVE ADVANTAGES OVER HIS COMPETITORS.  HE WILL BE
ABLE TO PAY THE PRODUCERS LESS THAN HIS RIVALS ARE REQUIRED TO PAY, AND
THUS WILL BE IN A POSITION TO UNDERSELL THEM ON THE MARKET.  IN ORDER
TO PROTECT THEMSELVES COMPETITORS WILL SEEK TO REDUCE THE AMOUNTS THEY
PAY PRODUCERS, AND INEVITABLY THE ENTIRE PRICE STRUCTURE, INTERSTATE
AND INTRASTATE, WILL COLLAPSE.  A PRICE ORDER APPLICABLE ONLY TO
INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS WOULD THUS EITHER BE UNWORKABLE OR WOULD
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE INTERSTATE DEALINGS OF THOSE SUBJECTED TO IT. 

THE COURT HAS FREQUENTLY HELD THAT THE COMMERCE POWER EXTENDS TO THE
REGULATION OF INTRASTATE ACTS WHEN NECESSARY TO MAKE THE CONTROL OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE EFFECTIVE.  SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342; RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563; CHICAGO BOARD OF
TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S.
495, 544-546; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP.,
301 U.S. 1, 36-38; CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307
U.S. 38; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 121.  THIS PRINCIPLE IS
MERELY AN APPLICATION OF THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, EMBODIED IN
THE "NECESSARY AND PROPER" CLAUSE BUT IMPLIED IN ANY EVENT (MCCULLOCH
V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316), WHICH PERMITS CONGRESS TO CHOOSE THE MEANS
APPROPRIATE TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A PURPOSE WITHIN THE FEDERAL
POWER, EVEN THOUGH THE MEANS ITSELF MIGHT NOT EXPRESSLY FALL WITHIN THE
POWERS GRANTED.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, AT 121, AND
CASES CITED. 

THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY TO REGULATE INTRASTATE
TRANSACTIONS WHICH COMPETE WITH INTERSTATE.  THIS IS SHOWN BY THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT; ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY; THE COMMITTEE REPORTS;
AND THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE WHETHER CERTAIN PRICE
REGULATION BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE OF MILK PRODUCED AND SOLD
INTRASTATE IS AUTHORIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF JUNE 3, 1937, 50 STAT. 246, 7 U.S.C. SEC.
608C, AND IS A PERMISSIBLE REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

ISSUE MARKETING ORDERS FIXING MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID TO PRODUCERS OF
MILK AND CERTAIN OTHER COMMODITIES.  PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE SECTION
PROVIDES THAT ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY "SHALL REGULATE, IN THE MANNER
HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION PROVIDED, ONLY SUCH HANDLING OF SUCH
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY, OR PRODUCT THEREOF, AS IS IN THE CURRENT OF
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR WHICH DIRECTLY BURDENS, OBSTRUCTS,
OR AFFECTS, INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN SUCH COMMODITY OR PRODUCT
THEREOF." 

THE UNITED STATES SOUGHT IN THE PRESENT SUIT A DECREE DIRECTING
RESPONDENT TO COMPLY WITH THE SECRETARY'S ORDER NO. 41, OF AUGUST 28,
1939, REGULATING THE HANDLING OF MILK IN THE "CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
MARKETING AREA."  RESPONDENT IS A HANDLER IN THAT AREA OF MILK WHICH IT
PURCHASES FROM PRODUCERS IN ILLINOIS.  THE ORDER, WHICH IS OF THE TYPE
DESCRIBED IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL
CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533, 551-555, IS BY ITS TERMS APPLICABLE TO
RESPONDENT, AND PURPORTS TO CARRY OUT THE STATUTORY SCHEME FOR
REGULATING THE PRICE OF MILK PAID TO PRODUCERS CONSIDERED IN THE
OPINION IN THAT CASE.  BY THE ORDER THE SECRETARY FOUND THAT ALL MILK
PRODUCED FOR SALE IN THE MARKETING AREA "IS HANDLED IN THE CURRENT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR SO AS DIRECTLY TO BURDEN, OBSTRUCT, OR AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN MILK OR ITS PRODUCTS  ...  ," AND DIRECTED THAT
IT APPLY TO SUCH "HANDLING OF MILK" IN THE MARKETING AREA "AS IS IN THE
CURRENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR WHICH DIRECTLY BURDENS, OBSTRUCTS,
OR AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

THE ORDER, AS PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE, SEC. 8C (5), CLASSIFIES MILK
ACCORDING TO ITS USES, AND ESTABLISHES A FORMULA FOR DETERMINING THE
MINIMUM PRICE TO BE PAID TO PRODUCERS FOR EACH CLASS OF MILK.  IT
PRESCRIBES THE METHOD OF DETERMINING THE VALUE OF MILK RECEIVED FROM
PRODUCERS BY EACH HANDLER DURING EACH MONTH.  IT REQUIRES THE PAYMENT
OF A UNIFORM UNIT PRICE TO PRODUCERS, COMPUTED BY DIVIDING THE TOTAL
VALUE OF MILK REPORTED BY ALL HANDLERS IN THE MARKETING AREA BY THE
TOTAL QUANTITY OF SUCH MILK, WITH DEDUCTIONS OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS TO
PROVIDE A CASH BALANCE IN A "PRODUCER-SETTLEMENT FUND."  THE HANDLER IS
REQUIRED TO PAY PRODUCERS THE UNIFORM PRICE, SUBJECT TO BUTTERFAT AND
LOCATION DIFFERENTIALS.  BUT HE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO PAY INTO THE
SETTLEMENT FUND, OR PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW FROM IT, AS THE CASE MAY BE,
CERTAIN AMOUNTS, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MILK USED
BY HIM IS GREATER, OR LESS, RESPECTIVELY, THAN HIS TOTAL PAYMENTS TO
PRODUCERS AT THE UNIFORM PRICE.  THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN FROM THE
SETTLEMENT FUND BY HANDLERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE USED TO BRING THE PRICE
RECEIVED BY CERTAIN PRODUCERS UP TO THE UNIFORM PRICE SET IN THE ORDER,
WHERE, BECAUSE OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE HANDLER HAS SOLD IT, THE
VALUE OF THEIR MILK IS LESS THAN THE UNIFORM PRICE.  HANDLERS ARE
REQUIRED TO MAKE REPORTS TO THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTAINING INFORMATION
NECESSARY FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE ORDER AND TO BEAR THE EXPENSE OF
ADMINISTERING IT. 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER IN THE DISTRICT COURT SETS UP THAT ITS BUSINESS
IS ENTIRELY INTRASTATE, AND THAT, IN CONSEQUENCE, THE STATUTE DOES NOT,
AND UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE CAN NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY, APPLY TO IT.
THE ANSWER ALSO SETS UP ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WHICH NEED NOT NOW BE
CONSIDERED, FOR RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER IS INVALID, AND
BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM PRAYS THAT THE UNITED STATES AND ITS OFFICERS
AND AGENTS BE ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING THE ORDER.  THE COURT FOUND THAT
RESPONDENT HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER; THAT IN THE COURSE OF ITS
BUSINESS IT PURCHASES MILK FROM PRODUCERS WITHIN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
PROCESSES THE MILK AND SELLS IT IN THE STATE "IN COMPETITION WITH THE
MILK OF OTHER HANDLERS IN THE AREA"; THAT NONE OF RESPONDENT'S MILK IS
PHYSICALLY INTERMINGLED WITH THAT WHICH HAS CROSSED STATE LINES; AND
THAT, PRIOR TO THE ORDER, 60 PER CENT OF THE MILK SOLD IN THE MARKETING
AREA WAS PRODUCED IN ILLINOIS AND 40 PER CENT IN NEIGHBORING STATES,
AND THAT AT THE TIME OF THE FINDINGS "OVER 60 PER CENT" WAS PRODUCED IN
ILLINOIS.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT "APPROXIMATELY 40%" COMES FROM WITHOUT
THE STATE. 

THE COURT HELD THAT "THE ORDER WAS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY IN FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.  ALL CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF SAID ORDER HAVE OCCURRED," BUT THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE DEFENDANT
"WAS NOT IN THE CURRENT OF INTERSTATE  ...  COMMERCE, AND DID NOT
DIRECTLY BURDEN, OBSTRUCT OR AFFECT INTERSTATE  ...  COMMERCE IN MILK
MARKETED WITHIN THE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MARKETING AREA."  IT ACCORDINGLY
DECREED THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED, AND GRANTED THE INJUNCTION
PRAYED BY THE COUNTERCLAIM. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 123 F.2D 100, ON THE SOLE
GROUND THAT CONGRESS IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
REGULATE INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS IN MILK WHICH AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE THROUGH COMPETITION ONLY.  IT RECOGNIZED THAT RESPONDENT'S
MILK IS SOLD IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER MILK MOVING INTERSTATE; THAT THE
"MILK PROBLEM IS A SERIOUS ONE AND APPARENTLY FOR THE MOST EFFECTIVE
CONTROL REQUIRES UNIFIED REGULATIONS," AND THAT IF RESPONDENT IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE PRESENT REGULATIONS IS "MAY WELL BE THAT THE EFFECTIVE
SANCTION OF THE ORDER WILL WITHER BEFORE THE FORCE OF COMPETITION, THE
MORALE OF THE MARKET WILL DISINTEGRATE, AND THIS ATTEMPT AT SOLUTION OF
THE PROBLEM BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WILL FAIL."  BUT IT CONCLUDED
THAT THERE IS A HIATUS BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF STATE AND
NATION WHICH PRECLUDES ANY SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM BY CONGRESSIONAL
LEGISLATION. 

WE THINK THERE IS NO SUCH HIATUS.  CONGRESS PLAINLY HAS POWER TO
REGULATE THE PRICE OF MILK DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, SUPRA, AND IT
POSSESSES EVERY POWER NEEDED TO MAKE THAT REGULATION EFFECTIVE.  THE
COMMERCE POWER IS NOT CONFINED IN ITS EXERCISE TO THE REGULATION OF
COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  IT EXTENDS TO THOSE ACTIVITIES INTRASTATE
WHICH SO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR THE EXERTION OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER IT, AS TO MAKE REGULATION OF THEM APPROPRIATE MEANS TO
THE ATTAINMENT OF A LEGITIMATE END, THE EFFECTIVE EXECUTION OF THE
GRANTED POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 421; UNITED STATES V. FERGER, 250 U.S. 199;
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305 U.S.
197, 221; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 118-19.  THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS PLENARY AND COMPLETE IN ITSELF,
MAY BE EXERCISED TO ITS UTMOST EXTENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGES NO LIMITATIONS
OTHER THAN ARE PRESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9
WHEAT.  1, 196.  IT FOLLOWS THAT NO FORM OF STATE ACTIVITY CAN
CONSTITUTIONALLY THWART THE REGULATORY POWER GRANTED BY THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE TO CONGRESS.  HENCE THE REACH OF THAT POWER EXTENDS TO THOSE
INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES WHICH IN A SUBSTANTIAL WAY INTERFERE WITH OR
OBSTRUCT THE EXERCISE OF THE GRANTED POWER. 

FAMILIAR EXAMPLES ARE THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER COMMODITIES
INEXTRICABLY COMMINGLED, SOME OF WHICH ARE MOVING INTERSTATE AND SOME
INTRASTATE, SEE UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 272 U.S. 457,
464; THE POWER TO REGULATE SAFETY APPLIANCES ON RAILROAD CARS, WHETHER
MOVING INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE, SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 222
U.S. 20; THE POWER TO CONTROL INTRASTATE RATES OF A COMMON CARRIER
WHICH AFFECT ADVERSELY FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS
FUNCTIONS AS AN INTERSTATE CARRIER, SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342;
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S.
563; THE REGULATION BY THE TOBACCO INSPECTION ACT OF TOBACCO PRODUCED
INTRASTATE AND DESTINED TO CONSUMERS WITHIN THE STATE AS WELL AS
WITHOUT, CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; THE REGULATION OF BOTH
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE MARKETING OF TOBACCO UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT, MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38, 47; AND SEE CASES
COLLECTED AND DISCUSSED IN UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 118
125. 

COMPETITIVE PRACTICES WHICH ARE WHOLLY INTRASTATE MAY BE REACHED BY
THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE OF THEIR INJURIOUS EFFECT ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197;
SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375; UNITED STATES V. PATTEN,
226 U.S. 525; CORONADO COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295;
LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293; STEVENS CO. V. FOSTER &
KLEISER CO., 311 U.S. 255.  SO TOO THE MARKETING OF A LOCAL PRODUCT IN
COMPETITION WITH THAT OF A LIKE COMMODITY MOVING INTERSTATE MAY SO
INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR ITS REGULATION AS TO AFFORD A
BASIS FOR CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF THE INTRASTATE ACTIVITY.  IT IS
THE EFFECT UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR ITS REGULATION, REGARDLESS
OF THE PARTICULAR FORM WHICH THE COMPETITION MAY TAKE, WHICH IS THE
TEST OF FEDERAL POWER.  CF. SHREVEPORT CASE, SUPRA; RAILROAD COMMISSION
OF WISCONSIN V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., SUPRA; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 36-43; UNITED STATES V.
DARBY, SUPRA, 122. 

AS THE COURT BELOW RECOGNIZED, AND AS SEEMS NOT TO BE DISPUTED, THE
MARKETING OF INTRASTATE MILK WHICH COMPETES WITH THAT SHIPPED
INTERSTATE WOULD TEND SERIOUSLY TO BREAK DOWN PRICE REGULATION OF THE
LATTER.  UNDER THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN THE MILK INDUSTRY, AS THE
RECORD SHOWS, THE UNREGULATED SALE OF THE INTRASTATE MILK TENDS TO
REDUCE THE SALES PRICE RECEIVED BY HANDLERS AND THE AMOUNT WHICH THEY
IN TURN PAY TO PRODUCERS.  STUDY OF THE ORDER WHICH WE HAVE SUMMARIZED
MAKES CLEAR THAT THE UNREGULATED HANDLER SELLING FLUID MILK CAN PAY
PRODUCERS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE MINIMUM PRICE SET IN THE ORDER
FOR MILK OF THAT CLASS, AND YET PAY AS MUCH AS, OR MORE THAN, THE
"UNIFORM PRICE" PRESCRIBED BY THE REGULATORY SCHEME FOR ALL PRODUCERS,
WHICH IS BASED UPON THE AVERAGE PRICE FOR THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF MILK
COMBINED.  SUCH A HANDLER WOULD HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER OTHERS IN THE
SALE OF THE CLASS OF MILK IN WHICH HE PRINCIPALLY DEALS, AND COULD
FORCE HIS COMPETITORS DEALING IN INTERSTATE MILK TO SURRENDER THE
MARKET OR SEEK TO REDUCE PRICES TO PRODUCERS IN ORDER TO RETAIN IT. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO SUGGEST, AS DOES RESPONDENT, THAT THE FEDERAL
POWER TO REGULATE INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS IS LIMITED TO THOSE WHO ARE
ENGAGED ALSO IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE INJURY, AND HENCE THE POWER,
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE PARTICULAR
PERSON CONDUCTING THE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES IS, OR IS NOT, ALSO ENGAGED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S.
1; STEVENS CO. V. FOSTER & KLEISER CO., SUPRA.  IT IS THE EFFECT UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO REGULATE IT,
NOT THE SOURCE OF THE INJURY WHICH IS THE CRITERION OF CONGRESSIONAL
POWER.  SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 51.  WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE NATIONAL POWER TO REGULATE THE PRICE OF MILK MOVING INTERSTATE
INTO THE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, MARKETING AREA, EXTENDS TO SUCH CONTROL
OVER INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS THERE AS IS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO
MAKE THE REGULATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE EFFECTIVE; AND THAT IT
INCLUDES AUTHORITY TO MAKE LIKE REGULATIONS FOR THE MARKETING OF
INTRASTATE MILK WHOSE SALE AND COMPETITION WITH THE INTERSTATE MILK
AFFECTS ITS PRICE STRUCTURE SO AS IN TURN TO AFFECT ADVERSELY THE
CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION. 

WE TURN TO THE QUESTION WHETHER CONGRESS HAS EXERCISED THAT AUTHORITY
BY SEC. 8C (1).  RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING IT, DID
NOT INTEND TO EXERCISE ITS FULL POWER OVER COMMERCE, AND THAT READ IN
THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THE SECTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE
REGULATION OF COMPETING INTRASTATE MILK.  IN TERMS THE STATUTE SPEAKS
OF THE HANDLING OF PRODUCTS "IN THE CURRENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE" OR
"WHICH DIRECTLY BURDENS, OBSTRUCTS, OR AFFECTS, INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE WORD "DIRECTLY" IN THE STATUTE IS RESTRICTIVE,
EVIDENCING AN INTENTION TO EXERCISE LESS THAN THE FULL AUTHORITY
POSSESSED BY CONGRESS, AND A PURPOSE NOT TO EXTEND THAT AUTHORITY TO
THE REGULATION OF LOCAL PRODUCTS WHICH AFFECT THE INTERSTATE
COMMODITIES AND THEIR REGULATION ONLY BY COMPETING WITH THEM. 

IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION RESPONDENT POINTS TO THE PRECURSOR OF
THE PRESENT STATUTE, THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT.
31, 35, AS AMENDED BY 48 STAT. 528, WHICH CONTAINED PROVISIONS OMITTED
FROM THE PRESENT STATUTE, SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING CERTAIN REGULATION
OF PRODUCTS "IN COMPETITION WITH" THOSE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
ENTER INTO MARKETING AGREEMENTS WITH THOSE "ENGAGED IN THE HANDLING OF
ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY OR PRODUCT THEREOF, IN THE CURRENT OF OR IN
COMPETITION WITH, OR SO AS TO BURDEN, OBSTRUCT, OR IN ANY WAY AFFECT,
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE."  AND SEC. 8(3) PROVIDED FOR THE
ISSUING OF LICENSES TO THOSE ENGAGED "IN THE HANDLING, IN THE CURRENT
OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OF ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY OR
PRODUCT THEREOF, OR ANY COMPETING COMMODITY OR PRODUCT THEREOF."  IN
THE 1935 AMENDMENTS TO THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT THESE PROVISIONS
WERE REPLACED BY THE PHRASEOLOGY WHICH WAS TAKEN OVER WITHOUT CHANGE
INTO SEC. 8C (1) OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937,
ALREADY QUOTED.  HENCE IT IS TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1935
AMENDMENTS THAT WE MUST TURN TO ASCERTAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
PHRASE, "DIRECTLY AFFECTS" INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH THEN APPEARED IN
THE STATUTE FOR THE FIRST TIME. 

THE BILLS PROVIDING FOR THE 1935 AMENDMENTS, AS INTRODUCED, ELIMINATED
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SEC. 8(2) AND SEC. 8(3) OF THE 1933 ACT, AS
AMENDED, AND AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY TO ISSUE LICENSES TO THOSE
"ENGAGED IN THE HANDLING OF ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY OR PRODUCT
THEREOF, OR ANY COMPETING COMMODITY OR PRODUCT THEREOF, IN THE CURRENT
OF OR IN COMPETITION WITH OR SO AS TO BURDEN, OBSTRUCT, OR IN ANY WAY
AFFECT, INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE."  S. 1807, H.R. 7713 AND 8052,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  IN THE REPORTS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE
COMMITTEES ON AGRICULTURE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ALTHOUGH "THE FULL
EXTENT OF THE FEDERAL POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INTENDED TO BE
VESTED IN THE SECRETARY," IT WAS "NOT INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE THE
LICENSING OF PERSONS HANDLING GOODS ONLY IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE EXCEPT
WHERE SUCH HANDLING BURDENS, OBSTRUCTS, OR AFFECTS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  S. REP. NO. 548, P. 6, H. REP. NO. 808, P. 5, H. REP. NO.
952, P. 5, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

THESE BILLS WERE PENDING IN CONGRESS WHEN SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 495, WAS DECIDED ON MAY 27, 1935.  IN CONSEQUENCE OF
THAT DECISION A NEW BILL, H.R. 8492, WAS REPORTED OUT WHICH SUPERSEDED
THE PENDING BILLS AND EVENTUALLY BECAME THE ACT OF 1935.  THE NEW BILL,
IN TERMS, PERMITTED THE SECRETARY TO REGULATE THE HANDLING OF PRODUCTS
WHICH "DIRECTLY AFFECTS" INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AS THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY DEMONSTRATES, THIS PHRASEOLOGY WAS DELIBERATELY CHOSEN TO
CONFORM TO THAT ADOPTED IN THE OPINION IN THE SCHECHTER CASE, AS
SIGNIFYING THE FULL REACH OF THE COMMERCE POWER, AND WITH THE AVOWED
PURPOSE OF CONFERRING ON THE SECRETARY AUTHORITY OVER INTRASTATE
PRODUCTS TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THAT POWER.  SEE 79 CONG. REC. 9478 AND
S. REP. NO. 1011, P. 8, H. REP. NO. 1241, P. 8, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

IN THE SCHECHTER CASE THE COURT WAS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE ALLEGED
INFRINGEMENTS OF THE "CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION" FOR THE LIVE POULTRY
INDUSTRY OF THE NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN AREA, WHICH HAD BEEN ADOPTED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT
OF JUNE 16, 1933, 48 STAT. 195, 196.  THE VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE
CHARGED WERE THAT WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS WHO HAD PURCHASED POULTRY IN
NEW YORK, MOST OF WHICH CAME FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, AND WHO WERE
ENGAGED IN SLAUGHTERING AND RESELLING TO RETAILERS, HAD FAILED TO
MAINTAIN FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES WAGES AND HOURS PRESCRIBED BY THE CODE,
AND HAD FAILED TO ABANDON "SELECTIVE SELLING" TO THEIR CUSTOMERS IN NEW
YORK WHICH THE CODE HAD PROHIBITED. 

THE COURT'S OPINION POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT CHARGED
WITH INJURY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR INTERFERENCE WITH PERSONS ENGAGED
IN THAT COMMERCE, AND THAT THE ACTS CHARGED HAD NO DIFFERENT RELATION
TO OR EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN LIKE ACTS IN ANY OTHER LOCAL
BUSINESS WHICH HANDLES COMMODITIES BROUGHT INTO THE STATE.  SCHECHTER
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 545-6.  IT CHARACTERIZED THEIR EFFECT
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS "INDIRECT," AND DISTINGUISHED THEM FROM
THOSE ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS INTRASTATE WHICH, BECAUSE THEY "DIRECTLY
AFFECT" INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ARE WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL REGULATORY
POWER.  IN EXPLANATION OF THIS DISTINCTION AND AS EXAMPLES OF DIRECT
EFFECTS WHICH ARE WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER IT REFERRED TO THE "FIXING
OF RATES FOR INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION WHICH UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE," CITING THE SHREVEPORT CASE, SUPRA, AND
REFERRED TO INTRASTATE RESTRAINTS UPON COMPETITION INJURIOUSLY
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONDEMNED BY THE SHERMAN ACT, CITING
LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND OTHER CASES.    IN ADOPTING THE
CHANGE IN THE NEW BILL, GIVING TO THE SECRETARY THE AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE THE HANDLING OF PRODUCTS "DIRECTLY AFFECTING" INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND IN DELETING THE PHRASE "IN COMPETITION WITH" INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES ON AGRICULTURE, AFTER
REFERRING TO THE SCHECHTER CASE STATED:  "THIS PHRASE HAS BEEN OMITTED
FROM THE PROPOSED SECTION 8C (1) OF THE BILL WHICH DEALS WITH ORDERS
...  BECAUSE THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE FULL EXTENT
OF THE FEDERAL POWER OVER INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE AND NO MORE
IS INTENDED TO BE VESTED IN THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN CONNECTION
WITH ORDERS."  SEE S. REP. NO. 1011, P. 9; H. REP. NO. 1241, P. 8, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.    THE SAME INTERPRETATION OF THE AMENDMENTS WAS GIVEN
BY THE COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE CHARGED WITH EXPLAINING THEM ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE, WHO DECLARED, 79 CONG. REC. 11139, "THE POSITION
OF THE COMMITTEE IN RESPECT TO THESE AMENDMENTS IS THAT INTRASTATE
COMMERCE MAY BURDEN OR AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY
THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENT UNDER THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN
THE SHREVEPORT CASE."  THE HOUSE DEBATES ALSO DISCLOSE GENERAL
RECOGNITION THAT THE BILL AS AMENDED WAS INTENDED TO BE A FULL EXERCISE
OF THE FEDERAL POWER OVER COMPETING INTRASTATE MILK.  79 CONG. REC.
9479-9480, 9485. 

THE OPINIONS OF SOME MEMBERS OF THE SENATE,  FN1  CONFLICTING WITH
THE EXPLICIT STATEMENTS OF THE MEANING OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE MADE
BY THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEES ON THE FLOOR OF
THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE, ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS PERSUASIVE OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT
ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 318.  MOREOVER, OTHER SENATORS, NOT MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, ACCEPTED ITS VIEWS OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
FEDERAL POWER WAS TO BE EXERTED BY THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.  FN2 

WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT CONGRESS, BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8C (1),
CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE HANDLING OF
INTRASTATE PRODUCTS WHICH BY REASON OF ITS COMPETITION WITH THE
HANDLING OF THE INTERSTATE MILK SO AFFECTS THAT COMMERCE AS
SUBSTANTIALLY TO INTERFERE WITH ITS REGULATION BY CONGRESS; AND THAT
THE STATUTE SO READ IS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE
POWER.  SUCH WAS THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO
OPERATIVE, SUPRA, 307 U.S. AT 568.  WE ADHERE TO THAT OPINION NOW. 

THE JUDGMENT WILL BE REVERSED, BUT, AS ERRORS ASSIGNED BELOW HAVE NOT
BEEN PASSED ON THERE OR ARGUED HERE, THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH
THIS OPINION.  THE MANDATE WILL ISSUE FORTHWITH.  REVERSED. 

FN1  79 CONG. REC., 11135-6. 

FN2  79 CONG. REC., 11134-9. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























EXHIBIT SUPPLY CO. V. ACE CORP., 315 U.S. 126 


NO. 154.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 16, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  -
119 F.2D 349, MODIFIED. 


1.  IN A CASE INVOLVING A PATENT, CONCERNING WHICH THERE WAS NO
CONFLICT OF DECISIONS BY CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED, AND BECAUSE IT
WAS SHOWN THAT THE INDUSTRY AFFECTED BY A DECISION SUSTAINING THE
PATENTEE'S CONTENTIONS WAS LOCATED IN A SINGLE CIRCUIT SO THAT
LITIGATION RESULTING IN SUCH CONFLICTS WOULD NOT BE LIKELY TO OCCUR. 
P. 128. 

2.  CLAIM 4, AS AMENDED, OF THE NELSON PATENT, NO. 2,109,678, RELATES
TO THE STRUCTURE OF A RESILIENT SWITCH OR CIRCUIT CLOSER, SO DISPOSED
ON THE BOARD OF A GAME TABLE AS TO SERVE AS A TARGET WHICH, WHEN STRUCK
BY A FREELY ROLLING BALL, WILL MOMENTARILY CLOSE AN ELECTRICAL
CIRCUIT.  IT CLAIMS AS ELEMENTS OF THE INVENTION A CONDUCTOR STANDARD
ANCHORED TO THE TABLE, A COIL SPRING SURROUNDING THE STANDARD, MEANS
CARRYING THE SPRING PENDANTLY FROM THE UPPER PORTION OF THE STANDARD,
WITH THE COILS OF THE SPRING SPACED FROM THE STANDARD, "AND CONDUCTOR
MEANS IN SAID CIRCUIT AND EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE AT A POINT SPACED FROM
THE STANDARD AND ENGAGEABLE BY A PORTION OF THE SPRING WHEN IT IS
FLEXED TO CLOSE THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUIT."  HELD: 

(1)  THE WORD "EMBEDDED" AS USED IN THE CLAIM EMBRACES ANY CONDUCTOR
MEANS SOLIDLY SET OR FIRMLY FIXED IN THE TABLE, WHETHER OR NOT IT
PROTRUDES ABOVE OR BELOW THE SURFACE.  P. 135. 

(2)  BY AMENDMENT OF THE CLAIM SO AS TO DESCRIBE THE CONDUCTOR MEANS
AS "EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE," INSTEAD OF "CARRIED BY THE TABLE," AS IT
STOOD BEFORE AMENDMENT, DEVICES IN WHICH THE CONDUCTOR MEANS IS A NAIL
OR PIN DRIVEN INTO THE TABLE WERE NOT EXCLUDED.  P. 135. 

(3)  BY SUCH AMENDMENT, HOWEVER, MADE TO MEET OBJECTIONS OF THE
PATENT OFFICE BASED ON THE PRIOR ART, THE PATENTEE RESTRICTED THE CLAIM
TO THOSE COMBINATIONS IN WHICH THE CONDUCTOR MEANS, THOUGH CARRIED ON
THE TABLE, IS ALSO EMBEDDED IN IT; RECOGNIZED AND EMPHASIZED THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PHRASES, AND PROCLAIMED HIS ABANDONMENT OF
ALL THAT IS EMBRACED IN THAT DIFFERENCE.  P. 136. 

(4)  THE AMENDMENT OPERATES AS A DISCLAIMER OF THAT DIFFERENCE AND
MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST HIM.  P. 137. 

(5)  WHAT THE PATENTEE, BY A STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF HIS CLAIM, HAS
LOST BY DISCLAIMER CAN NOT BE REGAINED BY RECOURSE TO THE DOCTRINE OF
EQUIVALENTS.  P. 137. 

EXHIBIT SUPPLY CO. V. ACE PATENTS CORPORATION* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 155, GENCO, INC. V. ACE PATENTS CORPORATION, AND
NO. 156, CHICAGO COIN MACHINE CO. V. ACE PATENTS CORPORATION, ALSO ON
WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 702, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 702, IN THREE CASES, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF
DECREES HOLDING A PATENT CLAIM VALID AND INFRINGED AND ENJOINING THE
ALLEGED INFRINGEMENTS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT BEGAN THE PRESENT LITIGATION AS THREE SEPARATE SUITS
AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE NELSON
PATENT NO. 2,109,678 OF MARCH 1, 1938, FOR A "CONTACT SWITCH FOR BALL
ROLLING GAMES."  THE DEFENSES WERE NON-INVENTION IN VIEW OF THE PRIOR
ART, ANTICIPATION BY PRIOR PUBLICATION, USE AND SALE, NON-INFRINGEMENT
AND A FILE WRAPPER ESTOPPEL.  THE THREE SUITS WERE CONSOLIDATED AND
TRIED TOGETHER.  UPON FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES THE DISTRICT
COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT HELD
CLAIM 4 OF THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED.  119 F.2D 349. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 702, ON A PETITION WHICH CHALLENGED
ONLY THE DECREE OF INFRINGEMENT BELOW, ON THE GROUND THAT IT ENLARGED
THE SCOPE OF THE PATENT AS DEFINED BY THE CLAIM, BY RESORT TO THE
DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, AND THAT NELSON, THE PATENTEE, BY THE
AMENDMENT OF HIS CLAIMS IN THE PATENT OFFICE, HAD SURRENDERED CLAIM 4
SO FAR AS IT WOULD OTHERWISE READ UPON THE ALLEGED INFRINGING DEVICES. 
NEITHER IN THEIR PETITION NOR IN THEIR BRIEF AND ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT
HAVE PETITIONERS CONTENDED THAT THE PATENT IS INVALID FOR WANT OF
INVENTION.  ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF DECISION, WE WERE MOVED TO
GRANT THE PETITION BY THE NATURE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED, TOGETHER
WITH A SHOWING THAT THE INDUSTRY AFFECTED BY THE PATENT IS LOCATED IN
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT SO THAT LITIGATION IN OTHER CIRCUITS RESULTING IN A
CONFLICT OF DECISION WOULD NOT BE LIKELY TO OCCUR. 

THE PATENT RELATES TO THE STRUCTURE OF A RESILIENT SWITCH OR CIRCUIT
CLOSER, SO DISPOSED ON THE BOARD OF A GAME TABLE AS TO SERVE AS A
TARGET WHICH, WHEN STRUCK BY A FREELY ROLLING BALL, WILL MOMENTARILY
CLOSE AN ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT.  SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS DISCLOSE A
TARGET OR SWITCH COMPRISING A CONDUCTOR STANDARD MOUNTED IN THE TABLE
AND CARRYING A COIL SPRING HAVING A LEG PENDANTLY DISPOSED IN A
CONDUCTOR RING LOCATED IN THE TABLE AND SLIGHTLY OFFSET FROM THE
STANDARD.  THE STANDARD AND RING ARE WIRED IN A CIRCUIT WITH A RELAY
COIL AND A SOURCE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY.  WHEN A BALL ROLLING ON THE
TABLE BUMPS THE COIL SPRING FROM ANY DIRECTION, THE LEG OF THE SPRING
IS DEFLECTED MOMENTARILY BRINGING IT INTO CONTACT WITH THE RING, SO AS
TO CLOSE THE CIRCUIT FOR OPERATING THE RELAY COIL AND ANY CONNECTED
AUXILIARY GAME DEVICE.  ANY DESIRED NUMBER OF TARGETS MAY BE PLACED ON
THE BOARD IN A SUITABLY SPACED RELATIONSHIP; IN PIN BALL GAMES A SINGLE
BALL MAY SUCCESSIVELY BUMP AND CLOSE A NUMBER OF THE SWITCH DEVICES. 
IN DESCRIBING HIS INVENTION THE PATENTEE DECLARED IT TO BE HIS
INTENTION "TO COVER ALL CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMPLE OF THE
INVENTION HEREIN CHOSEN FOR PURPOSES OF THE DISCLOSURE, WHICH DO NOT
CONSTITUTE DEPARTURES FROM THE SPIRIT AND SCOPE OF THE INVENTION." 

THE PRIOR ART AS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD SHOWS NO DEVICE IN WHICH THE
COIL SPRING SERVES BOTH AS A TARGET AND A SWITCH.  THE ADVANTAGES OF
THE DEVICE ARE SAID TO BE THAT THE COMBINATION IS PECULIARLY ADAPTED TO
USE IN PIN BALL GAMES; THAT THE COIL SPRING STRUCTURE IS SO ORGANIZED
AS TO FORM BOTH A SWITCH FOR OPERATING AUXILIARY RECORDING OR
SIGNALLING DEVICES AND A TARGET WHICH IS ACCESSIBLE FROM ANY
DIRECTION. 

CLAIM 4  FN1  CLAIMS AS THE ELEMENTS OF THE INVENTION THE CONDUCTOR
STANDARD ANCHORED IN THE TABLE, THE COIL SPRING SURROUNDING THE
STANDARD WHICH CARRIES THE SPRING PENDANTLY FROM ITS TOP, WITH THE
SPRING SPACED FROM THE STANDARD TO ENABLE THE SPRING TO BE RESILIENTLY
FLEXED, "AND CONDUCTOR MEANS IN SAID CIRCUIT AND EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE
AT A POINT SPACED FROM THE STANDARD AND ENGAGEABLE BY A PORTION OF THE
SPRING WHEN IT IS FLEXED TO CLOSE THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUIT."  THE
DRAWINGS OF THE PATENT SHOW THE "CONDUCTOR MEANS" LAST MENTIONED IN THE
FORM OF A RING OR FERRULE SET IN THE TABLE WITH ITS AXIS AT RIGHT
ANGLES TO THE TABLE AND WITH ITS FLANGE PROJECTING SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE
SURFACE OF THE TABLE.  THE LEG PENDING FROM THE COIL SPRING IS SO
DISPOSED AT THE CENTER OF THE ANNULAR FERRULE THAT A BALL STRIKING THE
SPRING IN ANY DIRECTION WILL BRING THE PENDANT LEG INTO CONTACT WITH
THE RING SO AS TO CLOSE THE CIRCUIT. 

THE SIX DEVICES ALLEGED TO INFRINGE THE PATENT DIFFER FROM THE
PARTICULAR CLAIM OF THE INVENTION DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, ONLY
IN THE SPECIFIC FORM AND METHOD OF SUPPORTING THE "CONDUCTOR MEANS"
WHICH IS "ENGAGEABLE BY A PORTION OF THE SPRING WHEN IT IS FLEXED."  IN
TWO OF THE ACCUSED DEVICES, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 5 AND 7, THERE IS
SUBSTITUTED FOR THE RING CONDUCTOR SET IN THE TABLE A NAIL OR PIN
DRIVEN INTO THE TABLE AND SURROUNDED NEAR ITS UPPER END BY A RING
ATTACHED TO THE END OF THE RESILIENT COIL SPRING, OR FORMED THERE OF
THE COIL WIRE.  WHEN THE SPRING IS STRUCK THE CIRCUIT IS CLOSED BY THE
CONTACT OF RING AND NAIL AT A POINT ABOVE THE TABLE.  THIS ARRANGEMENT
CONTRASTS WITH THAT OF THE CONDUCTORS AS SHOWN IN THE PATENT DRAWINGS,
IN WHICH A RING SET IN THE TABLE AND THE PENDANT LEG OF THE COIL FORM
THE CONTACT AT A POINT NEAR OR BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE TABLE.  IN THE
ONE CASE, THE RING CONDUCTOR IS SUPPORTED BY THE TABLE AND THE
COMPLEMENTARY CONDUCTOR IS ATTACHED TO, OR IS FORMED OF, THE WIRE OF
THE SPRING AT ITS END.  IN THE OTHER, THE LOCATIONS OF THE RING AND OF
THE COMPLEMENTARY CONDUCTOR ARE REVERSED. 

TWO OTHERS OF THE ACCUSED DEVICES, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 6 AND 10,
SHOW A FURTHER ALTERATION.  IN EXHIBIT 6, THE NAIL OR PIN, INSTEAD OF
BEING DRIVEN DIRECTLY INTO THE TABLE, IS AFFIXED TO AND SUPPORTED BY A
METAL PLATE RESTING ON THE UPPER SURFACE OF THE TABLE WITH THE COIL
SPRING STANDARD PASSING THROUGH IT AND HOLDING IT FIRMLY ON THE TABLE. 
THE CONDUCTOR EXTENDS TO THE WIRE CONNECTION THROUGH A HOLE IN THE
TABLE UNDERNEATH THE PLATE.  IN EXHIBIT 10 THE CONDUCTOR IS INSULATED
FROM THE PLATE, WHICH IS RIGIDLY ANCHORED TO THE COIL SPRING STANDARD,
WHICH IN TURN IS ANCHORED TO THE TABLE. 

IN THE REMAINING TWO ACCUSED DEVICES, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 8 AND 9, AN
INSULATING CORE OR SLEEVE SURROUNDS THE COIL STANDARD AND SUPPORTS AN
ANNULAR OR ENVELOPING CONDUCTOR WIRED IN THE CIRCUIT, SPACED AND
INSULATED FROM THE COIL STANDARD SO THAT THE CIRCUIT IS CLOSED BY
CONTACT OF THE CONDUCTOR AND THE COIL WHEN IT IS FLEXED.  IN EXHIBIT 8
THE SLEEVE IS ELECTRICALLY CONNECTED WITH A METAL PLATE, HELD IN
POSITION ON THE TOP OF THE TABLE BY THE STANDARD WHICH PASSES THROUGH
THE PLATE.  A WIRE LEADING FROM THE PLATE PASSES THROUGH A HOLE IN THE
TABLE UNDERNEATH THE PLATE.  IN EXHIBIT 9 THE ANNULAR CONDUCTOR IS
LOCATED ABOVE THE TABLE TOP AND A WIRE LEADING FROM IT PASSES THROUGH A
HOLE IN THE TABLE. 

COMPARISON OF THE SEVERAL ACCUSED DEVICES SHOWS THAT IN ALL BUT
EXHIBITS 5 AND 7 THE CONDUCTOR MEANS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE COIL SPRING
IS NOT EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE, BUT IS SUPPORTED BY AN INSULATED PLATE
RESTING ON THE TABLE OR AN INSULATING CORE HELD IN POSITION BY THE
STANDARD.  IN EXHIBITS 6 AND 10 THE CONDUCTOR MEANS PASSES TO ITS WIRE
CONNECTION THROUGH A HOLE IN THE TABLE UNDERNEATH THE PLATE.  IN
EXHIBIT 8 THE CONNECTING WIRE PASSES THROUGH A HOLE IN THE TABLE TO A
METAL PLATE RESTING ON ITS SURFACE, AND IN EXHIBIT 9 TO THE CONDUCTOR
MEANS LOCATED ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE TABLE. 

PETITIONERS INSIST THAT RESPONDENT IS ESTOPPED TO ASSERT INFRINGEMENT
BY THE FILE WRAPPER RECORD IN THE PATENT OFFICE; AND, IN ANY EVENT,
THAT ESTOPPEL CAN BE AVOIDED AND INFRINGEMENT ESTABLISHED ONLY BY
RESORT TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, WHICH THEY ASSERT IS
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRANT OF A PATENT
AND WITH THE DOCTRINE THAT THE PATENT CLAIMS MEASURE THE PATENTED
INVENTION. 

THE FILE WRAPPER HISTORY, SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT, RELATES TO CLAIM 7
WHICH, AFTER AMENDMENT, WAS ALLOWED AS CLAIM 4 NOW IN ISSUE.  THE
ORIGINAL CLAIM 7 WITH ITS AMENDMENTS IS SET FORTH AS FOLLOWS, MATTER
ADDED BY AMENDMENT IN PARENTHESES; MATTER STRICKEN IN ITALICS AND
UNDERSCORED:

(4)  7.  IN A BALL ROLLING GAME HAVING A SUBSTANTIALLY

 HORIZONTAL TABLE OVER WHICH BALLS ARE

      ROLLABLE,

      THE COMBINATION WITH SAID TABLE OF A SUBSTANTIALLY

      VERTICAL STANDARD ANCHORED IN SAID TABLE

      WITH ITS LOWER

      END CARRYING ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE TABLE A

      LEAD FOR AN 

A  FN1  ELECTRIC CIRCUIT AND ITS UPPER END EXTENDING

      A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE ABOVE THE TOP SURFACE

      OF THE TABLE, A

      COIL SPRING SURROUNDING THE STANDARD, MEANS CARYING

      SAID SPRING PENDANTLY FROM THE UPPER PORTION OF

      THE 

PER C   STANDARD (ABOVE THE TABLE) WITH THE

      COILS OF THE SPRING SPACED FROM THE 

"   "   STANDARD AND THE LOWER END OF THE COIL SPRING

      TERMINATING 

"   "   AT A DISTANCE ABOVE THE TOP SURFACE OF THE TABLE

      TO ENABLE THE SPRING TO BE RESILIENTLY FLEXED

      WHEN BUMPED

  BY A BALL ROLLING ON THE TABLE, SAID SPRING BEING

IN THE

      AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUIT AND CONSTITUTING A

      CONDUCTOR, AND 

PER B   OTHER CONDUCTOR MEANS (IN SAID CIRCUIT

      AND EMBEDDED IN) CARRIED BY THE TABLE

      AT A POINT

      SPACED FROM THE STANDARD AND ENGAGEABLE BY A

      PORTION OF

      THE SPRING WHEN IT IS FLEXED TO CLOSE THE AFOREMENTIONED

      CIRCUIT. 

THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION CONTAINED SIX CLAIMS, ALL OF WHICH THE
EXAMINER REJECTED BECAUSE HE THOUGHT NO PATENTABLE SIGNIFICANCE HAD
BEEN SHOWN.  THE INVENTOR SUBMITTED CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, AND TWO NEW
CLAIMS, 7 AND 8, AND INDUCED THE EXAMINER TO RECONSIDER THE
PATENTABILITY OF THE INVENTION.  FOUR OF THE CLAIMS WERE THEN ALLOWED,
BUT THE EXAMINER REJECTED CLAIM 7 AS FAILING TO CLAIM THE INVENTION. 
HE SAID:  "IT IS OLD IN THE ART TO MAKE AN ELECTRICAL CONTACT BY
FLEXING A COIL SPRING AS SHOWN BY THE ART ALREADY CITED IN THE CASE. 
IN ORDER TO DISTINGUISH OVER THE REFERENCES THEREFOR, THE APPLICANT'S
PARTICULAR TYPE OF CONTACT STRUCTURE, COMPRISING AN EXTENSION ON THE
COIL SPRING ADAPTED TO ENGAGE AN ANNULAR CONTACT EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE,
MUST APPEAR IN THE CLAIMS.  ...  "  APPLICANT REJECTED THE EXAMINER'S
SUGGESTION THAT THE "CONTACT STRUCTURE" BE ADAPTED TO ENGAGE "AN
ANNULAR CONTACT EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE."  INSTEAD HE CANCELLED "OTHER"
FROM THE CLAIM AND SUBSTITUTED FOR "CARRIED BY" THE PHRASE "IN SAID
CIRCUIT AND EMBEDDED IN," SAYING CLAIM 7 HAS BEEN "SIGNIFICANTLY
AMENDED" "TO DEFINE THE COMPLEMENTARY CONDUCTOR CONTACT AS BEING
EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE."  HE ADDED THAT "IT IS TOO FAR TO GO TO STATE
THAT THE SPECIFIC LEG 19 MUST BE DEFINED," AND "THE ALLOWED CLAIMS CAN
IT SEEMS, BE VERY SIMPLY AVOIDED BY TAKING THE LEG 19, SEPARATING IT
FROM THE SPRING 18 AND EMBEDDING IT AS A PIN IN THE TABLE SO THAT THE
SPRING WHEN FLEXED WOULD CONTACT THE PIN.  ...  CLAIM 7 COVERS SUCH
ALTERNATIVE FORM AND  ...  IN JUSTICE TO APPLICANT  ...  SHOULD BE
ALLOWED." 

THE EXAMINER IN REPLY RECOGNIZED AS "TRUE" APPLICANT'S SUGGESTION
THAT IF THE LEG PENDANT FROM THE SPRING "WERE REMOVED FROM THE SPRING
AND EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE AN OPERATIVE DEVICE WOULD RESULT," BUT
POINTED OUT THAT THE DEVICE CLAIMED BY THE AMENDMENT "WOULD BE
INOPERATIVE AS THE COIL SPRING COULD NOT BOTH TERMINATE AT A DISTANCE
ABOVE THE TABLE AND EXTEND INTO A FERRULE EMBEDDED THEREIN."  THEREUPON
THE APPLICANT ADDED TO THE CLAIM THE WORDS "ABOVE THE TABLE" AND
CANCELLED THE PHRASE, "AND THE LOWER END OF THE COIL SPRING TERMINATING
AT A DISTANCE ABOVE THE TOP SURFACE OF THE TABLE."  THE CLAIM AS
AMENDED WAS THEN ALLOWED AS CLAIM 4. 

THE CLAIM BEFORE AMENDMENT PLAINLY READ ON PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 5 AND
7 IN WHICH THE NAIL OR PIN CONDUCTOR IS DRIVEN INTO THE TABLE, SINCE
THE NAIL OR PIN IS A "CONDUCTOR MEANS CARRIED BY THE TABLE" "ENGAGEABLE
BY A PORTION OF THE SPRING WHEN FLEXED."  THE CLAIM THUS READ IS FOR AN
OPERATIVE DEVICE, SINCE THE NAIL OR PIN PROJECTS ABOVE THE TABLE AND
MAY BE ENGAGED BY THE COIL SPRING SIMILARLY LOCATED.  THE CLAIM, AS
AMENDED AND ALLOWED AS CLAIM 4, LIKEWISE READS ON PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS
5 AND 7 IF THE NAIL OR PIN CONDUCTOR WHICH IS DRIVEN INTO THE TABLE IS
"EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE." 

PETITIONERS DO NOT SERIOUSLY ASSERT HERE THAT IT IS NOT SO EMBEDDED. 
IN FACT, THEIR BRIEF EXPRESSLY STATES THAT "WE PASS THIS CONTENTION." 
THEY COULD NOT WELL DO OTHERWISE, FOR THE PIN OR NAIL, EVEN THOUGH IT
PROTRUDES ABOVE OR BELOW THE TABLE, NOT ONLY CONFORMS TO THE DICTIONARY
DEFINITION OF "EMBED" - "TO SET SOLIDLY AS IN A BED," WEBSTER; "TO FIX
FIRMLY IN A SURROUNDING MASS OF SOME SOLID MATERIAL," OXFORD DICTIONARY
- BUT EXAMINATION OF THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS INDICATES CLEARLY
ENOUGH THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE LIMITED TO A COMPLEMENTARY
CONDUCTOR LOCATED WHOLLY BETWEEN THE UPPER AND NETHER SURFACES OF THE
TABLE.  THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS EXPRESS NO SUCH LIMITATION, AND
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE USE OF THE WORD "EMBEDDED" IN THE CLAIM AS FINALLY
AMENDED, WHEN READ IN ITS CONTEXT OF CLAIM AND SPECIFICATIONS, DOES NOT
INDICATE SUCH A LIMITATION.    THE PATENT DRAWINGS SHOW THE EMBEDDED
RING CONDUCTOR EXTENDING SLIGHTLY BOTH ABOVE AND BELOW THE TABLE.  THE
EXAMINER, IN HIS SECOND REJECTION OF CLAIM 7, IN SAYING THAT IF THE LEG
PENDANT FROM THE SPRING WERE REMOVED FROM THE SPRING AND "EMBEDDED" IN
THE TABLE AN OPERATIVE DEVICE WOULD RESULT, COULD NOT HAVE REFERRED TO
THE EMBEDDED LEG OR NAIL AS BEING WHOLLY LOCATED BELOW THE SURFACE OF
THE TABLE, SINCE THE PIN SO DISPOSED WOULD NOT BE "ENGAGEABLE" "BY A
PORTION OF THE SPRING WHEN IT IS FLEXED" BY A BALL ROLLING IN ANY
DIRECTION.  THE TERM IS TO BE READ AS USED IN A PERMISSIBLE SENSE WHICH
WOULD CONFORM TO THE DRAWINGS AND THE FUNCTION WHICH THE CONDUCTOR TO
WHICH THE TERM WAS APPLIED WAS OBVIOUSLY INTENDED TO PERFORM. 

WE THINK THAT THE WORD "EMBEDDED," AS APPLIED IN CLAIM 4, MUST BE
TAKEN TO EMBRACE ANY CONDUCTOR MEANS SOLIDLY SET OR FIRMLY FIXED IN THE
TABLE, WHETHER OR NOT IT PROTRUDES ABOVE OR BELOW THE SURFACE.  CLAIM 7
BEFORE AMENDMENT READ ON THE ACCUSED DEVICES, PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 5
AND 7, WHICH EXHIBIT THE NAIL OR PIN EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE BUT
PROTRUDING ABOVE ITS SURFACE.  CONSEQUENTLY THE PATENTEE BY AMENDING
THE CLAIM SO AS TO DEFINE THE CONDUCTOR MEANS AS EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE
DID NOT EXCLUDE FROM THE AMENDED CLAIM DEVICES EXEMPLIFIED BY THESE
EXHIBITS, AND THEY MUST BE DEEMED TO BE INFRINGEMENTS. 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER RESPONDENT MAY RELY UPON THE
DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS TO ESTABLISH INFRINGEMENT BY THE FOUR OTHER
ACCUSED DEVICES.  RESPONDENT CONCEDES THAT THE CONDUCTOR MEANS IN THE
FOUR DEVICES ARE NOT LITERALLY "EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE," BUT INSISTS
THAT THE CHANGES IN STRUCTURE WHICH THEY EXHIBIT OVER THAT OF
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 5 AND 7 ARE BUT THE MECHANICAL EQUIVALENTS OF THE
"CONDUCTOR MEANS EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE" CALLED FOR BY THE AMENDED
CLAIM, AND SO ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE DOCTRINE
OF EQUIVALENTS.  PETITIONERS DO NOT SERIOUSLY URGE THAT THE CONDUCTOR
MEANS IN THE FOUR ACCUSED DEVICES ARE NOT MECHANICAL EQUIVALENTS OF THE
CONDUCTOR MEANS EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE WHICH THE PATENT CLAIMS. 
INSTEAD, THEY ARGUE THAT THE DOCTRINE SHOULD BE DISCARDED BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT SATISFY THE DEMANDS OF THE STATUTE THAT THE PATENT SHALL
DESCRIBE THE INVENTION.  R.S. SEC. 4888; 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33. 

WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THESE CONTENTIONS HERE. 
WHATEVER MAY BE THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE
OF EQUIVALENTS, WHERE A CLAIM IS ALLOWED WITHOUT A RESTRICTIVE
AMENDMENT, IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT RECOURSE MAY NOT BE HAD TO
THAT DOCTRINE TO RECAPTURE CLAIMS WHICH THE PATENTEE HAS SURRENDERED BY
AMENDMENT. 

ASSUMING THAT THE PATENTEE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO EQUIVALENTS
EMBRACING THE ACCUSED DEVICES HAD HE ORIGINALLY CLAIMED A "CONDUCTOR
MEANS EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE," A VERY DIFFERENT ISSUE IS PRESENTED WHEN
THE APPLICANT, IN ORDER TO MEET OBJECTIONS IN THE PATENT OFFICE, BASED
ON REFERENCES TO THE PRIOR ART, ADOPTED THE PHRASE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
THE BROADER ONE "CARRIED BY THE TABLE."  HAD CLAIM 7 BEEN ALLOWED IN
ITS ORIGINAL FORM, IT WOULD HAVE READ UPON ALL THE ACCUSED DEVICES,
SINCE IN ALL THE CONDUCTOR MEANS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE COIL SPRING ARE
"CARRIED BY THE TABLE."  BY STRIKING THAT PHRASE FROM THE CLAIM AND
SUBSTITUTING FOR IT "EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE," THE APPLICANT RESTRICTED
HIS CLAIM TO THOSE COMBINATIONS IN WHICH THE CONDUCTOR MEANS, THOUGH
CARRIED ON THE TABLE, IS ALSO EMBEDDED IN IT.  BY THE AMENDMENT, HE
RECOGNIZED AND EMPHASIZED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PHRASES AND
PROCLAIMED HIS ABANDONMENT OF ALL THAT IS EMBRACED IN THAT DIFFERENCE. 
HUBBELL V. UNITED STATES, 179 U.S. 77, 83; WEBER ELECTRIC CO. V.
FREEMAN ELECTRIC CO., 256 U.S. 668, 677-78; I.T.S. RUBBER CO. V. ESSEX
RUBBER CO., 272 U.S. 429, 440, 444; SMITH V. MAGIC CITY KENNEL CLUB,
282 U.S. 784, 789; SCHRIBER CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO., 311 U.S. 211;
CF. IN CASE OF DISCLAIMER ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S.
477, 492, 493.  THE DIFFERENCE WHICH HE THUS DISCLAIMED MUST BE
REGARDED AS MATERIAL, AND SINCE THE AMENDMENT OPERATES AS A DISCLAIMER
OF THAT DIFFERENCE IT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST HIM.  SMITH V.
MAGIC CITY KENNEL CLUB, SUPRA, 790; SHEPARD V. CARRIGAN, 116 U.S. 593,
598; GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE CO. V. DAVIS, 102 U.S. 222, 228.  AS THE
QUESTION IS ONE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIM, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER
THE EXAMINER WAS RIGHT OR WRONG IN REJECTING THE CLAIM AS FILED. 
HUBBELL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 83; I.T.S. RUBBER CO. V. ESSEX RUBBER
CO., SUPRA, 443.  IT FOLLOWS THAT WHAT THE PATENTEE, BY A STRICT
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIM, HAS DISCLAIMED - CONDUCTORS WHICH ARE
CARRIED BY THE TABLE BUT NOT EMBEDDED IN IT - CANNOT NOW BE REGAINED BY
RECOURSE TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, WHICH AT MOST OPERATES, BY
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION, TO SECURE TO THE INVENTOR THE FULL BENEFITS, NOT
DISCLAIMED, OF THE CLAIMS ALLOWED. 

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS 5 AND 7 DO, AND ITS EXHIBITS 6, 8, 9 AND 10 DO
NOT, INFRINGE.  THE JUDGMENTS WILL BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY.  MODIFIED. 

FN1  "4.  IN A BALL ROLLING GAME HAVING A SUBSTANTIALLY HORIZONTAL
TABLE OVER WHICH BALLS ARE ROLLABLE, THE COMBINATION WITH SAID TABLE OF
A SUBSTANTIALLY VERTICAL STANDARD ANCHORED IN SAID TABLE WITH ITS LOWER
END CARRYING ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE TABLE A LEAD FOR AN ELECTRIC
CIRCUIT AND ITS UPPER END EXTENDING A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE ABOVE THE
TOP SURFACE OF THE TABLE, A COIL SPRING SURROUNDING THE STANDARD, MEANS
CARRYING SAID SPRING PENDANTLY FROM THE UPPER PORTION OF THE STANDARD
ABOVE THE TABLE WITH THE COILS OF THE SPRING SPACED FROM THE STANDARD
TO ENABLE THE SPRING TO BE RESILIENTLY FLEXED WHEN BUMPED BY A BALL
ROLLING ON THE TABLE, SAID SPRING BEING IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUIT
AND CONSTITUTING A CONDUCTOR, AND CONDUCTOR MEANS IN SAID CIRCUIT AND
EMBEDDED IN THE TABLE AT A POINT SPACED FROM THE STANDARD AND
ENGAGEABLE BY A PORTION OF THE SPRING WHEN IT IS FLEXED TO CLOSE THE
AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUIT." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
CONCURS: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENTS BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED IN FULL. 

THERE CAN BE NO INFRINGEMENT OF A VOID PATENT, AND A PATENT WHICH
SHOWS NEITHER INVENTION NOR DISCOVERY IS VOID.  FN1  THE MERE
APPLICATION OF AN OLD MECHANICAL INSTRUMENT TO A NEW USE IS NOT AN
INVENTION AND THEREFORE NOT PATENTABLE.  FN2 

THE COMBINATION PATENTED HERE CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE NEW ELEMENT.  THE
WHOLE DEVICE IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ELECTRIC SWITCH MOUNTED ON A
TABLE, WHICH CLOSES AND OPENS WITH THE FLEXING AND REFLEXING OF AN
ORDINARY COIL SPRING WHEN HIT BY A ROLLING BALL.  THE SPRING, STANDING
UPRIGHT ON THE TABLE, SERVES AS A TARGET IN A PIN BALL GAME, ITS
RESILIENCY BEING UTILIZED NOT ONLY TO MAKE AND BREAK THE CIRCUIT BUT TO
MAKE THE BALL REBOUND. 

THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES THE GRANTING OF PATENT PRIVILEGES ONLY TO
INVENTORS WHO MAKE "DISCOVERIES."  AND THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR THE
GRANTING OF PATENTS ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE "INVENTED OR DISCOVERED"
SOMETHING "NEW."  TO CALL THE DEVICE HERE AN INVENTION OR DISCOVERY
SUCH AS WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR THE STATUTE IS, IN MY
JUDGMENT, TO DEGRADE THE MEANING OF THOSE TERMS. 

PATENTEES HAVE RIGHTS GIVEN THEM BY LAW.  "BUT THE PUBLIC HAS RIGHTS
ALSO.  THE RIGHTS OF BOTH SHOULD BE UPHELD AND ENFORCED BY AN EQUALLY
FIRM HAND, WHENEVER THEY COME UNDER JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION."  FN3  BY
FAILING TO ASSIGN ERROR ON THE ISSUE OF PATENTABILITY, PARTIES TO AN
INFRINGEMENT SUIT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO FORECLOSE A COURT FROM
PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  AND HERE, AS IN OTHER CASES WHERE
THERE IS PLAIN ERROR, WE SHOULD NOTICE IT.  FN4 

FN1  DUNBAR V. MYERS, 94 U.S. 187; THOMPSON V. BOISSELIER, 114 U.S.
1; SARANAC MACHINE CORP. V. WIREBOUNDS CO., 282 U.S. 704. 

FN2  PHILLIPS V. PAGE, 24 HOW.  164; PARAMOUNT PUBLIX CORP. V. TRI
ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 464. 

FN3  DENSMORE V. SCOFIELD, 102 U.S. 375, 378. 

FN4  SIBBACH V. WILSON & CO., 312 U.S. 1, 16. 
..END :












WRIGHT V. LOGAN, 315 U.S. 139 


NO. 229.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  - 119
F.2D 354, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RIGHT OF A FARMER TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT UNDER SEC. 75(S)
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS NOT CONDITIONED UPON THE DILIGENCE WITH WHICH
HE HAS SOUGHT TO OBTAIN A COMPOSITION OR AN EXTENSION UNDER SEC. 75(A)
(R).  P. 141. 

2.  ANY RIGHT TO REDEEM FROM A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE AND SALE WHICH A
FARMER-DEBTOR HAS AT THE TIME OF APPLYING FOR ADJUDICATION UNDER SEC.
75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CONTINUES TO BE PART OF HIS ASSETS AND SUBJECT
TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  P. 142. 

WRIGHT ET AL. V. LOGAN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 592, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A
JUDGMENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DISMISSING BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS BY
FARMER-DEBTORS AND UPHOLDING THE FULL FORCE AND EFFECT OF FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS ARE ILLINOIS FARMERS.  PURSUANT TO A STATE COURT
FORECLOSURE DECREE, FORTY ACRES OF THEIR FARM LAND WERE SOLD TO W. S.
LOGAN, THE MORTGAGEE.  THE STATE COURT MASTER EXECUTED AND DELIVERED TO
LOGAN A CERTIFICATE OF SALE, BUT A DEED WAS NOT GIVEN AT THAT TIME.  BY
ILLINOIS STATUTE, MORTGAGORS ARE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO REDEEM FOR TWELVE
MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF FORECLOSURE SALE; AND IF THIS RIGHT IS NOT
EXERCISED, CREDITORS ARE GIVEN A SIMILAR RIGHT FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE
MONTHS THEREAFTER.  ILL. REV. STAT. (1941) C. 77, SECS. 18, 20.  ON MAY
3, 1934, A DAY BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF FIFTEEN MONTHS FROM THE SALE,
THE PETITIONERS FILED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT A PETITION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO PAY THEIR DEBTS, UNDER SEC. 74 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  11 U.S.C. SEC. 202.  PRIOR TO THAT TIME THERE HAD BEEN
AN ORAL AGREEMENT WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE THIRD DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS SUBSEQUENTLY (JANUARY 15, 1937) HELD TO HAVE THE EFFECT OF
KEEPING THE PETITIONERS' RIGHT OF REDEMPTION ALIVE.  288 ILL. APP. 481,
6 N.E.2D 265.  THE FORTY ACRES WERE INCLUDED IN THE PETITIONERS'
SCHEDULE OF ASSETS SUBMITTED IN THE SEC. 74 PROCEEDINGS, AND LOGAN WAS
LISTED AS A CREDITOR.  THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO GRANT THE PROPOSED
EXTENSION, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  75 F.2D 687. 

THEREAFTER, APRIL 5, 1935, THE PETITIONERS FILED AN AMENDMENT SEEKING
COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF THEIR INDEBTEDNESS AS AUTHORIZED BY SUB
PARAGRAPHS (A) TO (R) OF SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  11 U.S.C. SEC.
203.  FINDING THAT THE PETITION WAS FILED IN GOOD FAITH AND WAS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT, THE JUDGE REFERRED THE
MATTER TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER.  SUBSEQUENT EFFORTS TO EFFECT A
COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION HAVING FAILED, ON MARCH 2, 1940, THE
PETITIONERS FILED AN AMENDMENT ALLEGING THIS FAILURE AND ASKING THAT
THE COURT ADJUDICATE THEM BANKRUPT UNDER 75(S), WHICH PROVIDES:  "ANY
FARMER FAILING TO OBTAIN THE ACCEPTANCE OF A MAJORITY IN NUMBER AND
AMOUNT OF ALL CREDITORS WHOSE CLAIMS ARE AFFECTED BY A COMPOSITION OR
EXTENSION PROPOSAL  ...  MAY AMEND HIS PETITION OR ANSWER ASKING TO BE
ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT." 

ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONERS' ALLEGATIONS BROUGHT THEM SQUARELY WITHIN
THE LANGUAGE OF 75(S), THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THAT THE AMENDED
PETITION BE DENIED; THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BE DISMISSED; THAT THE
MORTGAGEE'S SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST  FN1  BE PERMITTED TO EXERCISE
RIGHTS AS OWNERS UNDER THE FORECLOSURE; THAT THE DEED ISSUED TO THE
MORTGAGEE BY THE STATE MASTER IN CHANCERY AFTER THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS HAD BEGUN BE GIVEN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT; AND THAT
POSSESSION OF THE FORTY ACRES BE SURRENDERED TO THE RESPONDENTS.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 119 F.2D 354, HOLDING THAT 75
IMPOSES UPON FARMER DEBTORS DUTIES CORRESPONDING TO THE PRIVILEGES
CONFERRED; THAT IF A FARMER DEBTOR FAILS TO PROSECUTE HIS COMPOSITION
PROCEEDINGS TO A CONCLUSION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, THE COURT CAN
DENY HIM THE PRIVILEGE OF ADJUDICATION UNDER 75(S); AND THAT, ALTHOUGH
THESE FARMER DEBTORS HAD FILED UNDER OTHER SUBSECTIONS OF 75, THEY HAD
ALREADY ENJOYED ALL THE BENEFITS TO WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED
UNDER 75(S), AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO OBTAIN A REPETITION OF
THOSE BENEFITS BY WHAT THE COURT THOUGHT WAS A MERE FORMAL CHANGE IN
THEIR PETITION.  BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH COHAN V. ELDER,
118 F.2D 850, AND BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN FARMER
DEBTOR CASES, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

ADJUDICATION UPON THE DILIGENCE WITH WHICH HE HAS SOUGHT TO OBTAIN
COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION UNDER SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (R).  IT "APPLIES
EXPLICITLY TO A CASE OF A FARMER WHO HAS FAILED TO OBTAIN THE
ACCEPTANCE OR A MAJORITY IN NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF ALL CREDITORS WHOSE
CLAIMS ARE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSAL FOR A COMPOSITION OF AN EXTENSION OF
TIME TO PAY HIS DEBTS."  JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. BARTELS, 308 U.S.
180, 184.  THAT WAS THE SITUATION OF THE FARMERS HERE.  AND "THE ACT
MUST BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO GIVE THE DEBTOR THE FULL MEASURE OF THE
RELIEF AFFORDED BY CONGRESS  ...  LEST ITS BENEFITS BE FRITTERED AWAY
BY NARROW FORMALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS WHICH DISREGARD THE SPIRIT AND
THE LETTER OF THE ACT."  WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., 311 U.S.
273, 279.  FARMERS CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT
BECAUSE A COURT MAY BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE EQUIVALENT OF
WHAT IT PRESCRIBES.  CF. BORCHARD V. CALIFORNIA BANK, 310 U.S. 311.  WE
THINK THE BARTELS, WRIGHT, AND BORCHARD CASES CONTROL OUR CONCLUSION
HERE, AND THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR IN DISMISSING THE
APPLICATIONS FOR ADJUDICATION UNDER 75(S). 

IN THE MEMORANDUM ACCOMPANYING THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER DIRECTING
THE PETITIONERS TO SURRENDER POSSESSION OF THE DISPUTED FORTY ACRES,
THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF THEIR RIGHT TO REDEEM.  WE THEREFORE TREAT
THE ORDER AS BASED ON THE HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS' LACK OF
DILIGENCE DEPRIVED THEM OF THE BENEFITS OF 75(S) AND THAT THE
EQUIVALENT OF THE BENEFITS OF 75(S) HAD ALREADY BEEN CONFERRED ANYWAY. 
BECAUSE WE CONSIDER SUCH A HOLDING ERRONEOUS, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO
PASS UPON OTHER QUESTIONS DISCUSSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
CONCERNING SURVIVAL OF THE PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO REDEEM.  IT IS
NEVERTHELESS APPROPRIATE TO POINT OUT AT THIS TIME THAT WHATEVER RIGHT
OF REDEMPTION THE PETITIONERS HAD WHEN THEY FIRST APPLIED FOR
ADJUDICATION UNDER 75 CONTINUED TO BE A PART OF THEIR ASSETS, SUBJECT
TO ADMINISTRATION BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  FOR 75(N) SUBJECTS ALL OF
THE FARMER DEBTOR'S ASSETS, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING RIGHTS OF
REDEMPTION, TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND PROVIDES
THAT "THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION SHALL BE EXTENDED  ...  FOR THE PERIOD
NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
49 STAT. 942).  SEE WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., 304 U.S. 502, 513
516. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  W. S. LOGAN, THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGEE, DIED WHILE THE PROCEEDINGS
WERE PENDING.  THE RESPONDENTS HERE ARE DEVISEES UNDER HIS WILL. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










COLUMBIA RIVER CO. V. HINTON, 315 U.S. 143 


NO. 142.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 13, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  -
117 F.2D 310, REVERSED. 


A DISPUTE BETWEEN A PROCESSOR OF FISH ON THE ONE HAND, AND INDEPENDENT
FISHERMEN AND THEIR ASSOCIATION ON THE OTHER, CONCERNING ONLY THE TERMS
UPON WHICH THE FISHERMEN WILL SELL FISH TO THE PROCESSOR, AND IN NO WAY
INVOLVING THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, IS NOT A "LABOR DISPUTE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, WHICH DECLARES THAT NO
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL, EXCEPT UPON CERTAIN SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS, HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION "IN A CASE
INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE."  P. 145. 

COLUMBIA RIVER PACKERS ASSOCIATION, INC. V. HINTON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 600, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH REVERSED A DECREE
OF INJUNCTION GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, 34 F.SUPP.  970, IN A SUIT
BY THE ABOVE-NAMED PACKERS ASSOCIATION TO ENJOIN NUMEROUS FISHERMEN AND
THEIR ASSOCIATION OR UNION, THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN, FROM AN ALLEGED
ATTEMPT TO MONOPOLIZE THE FISH INDUSTRY IN OREGON, WASHINGTON AND
ALASKA, IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER FILED A BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION CHARGING THAT THE
RESPONDENTS ATTEMPTED TO MONOPOLIZE THE FISH INDUSTRY IN OREGON,
WASHINGTON, AND ALASKA, IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  26 STAT.
209.  THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT DECLARES THAT NO FEDERAL COURT SHALL,
EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES, HAVE JURISDICTION TO
ISSUE AN INJUNCTION IN ANY CASE WHICH INVOLVES OR GROWS OUT OF A "LABOR
DISPUTE."  FN1  THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT PRESENT HERE. 
BUT THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT, SINCE THIS CASE DID NOT INVOLVE OR
GROW OUT OF A "LABOR DISPUTE," THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE IRRELEVANT; AND,
FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT TO THE INJURY
OF THE PETITIONER, ISSUED THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT.  34 F.SUPP.  970.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT A "LABOR DISPUTE" WAS
INVOLVED AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION
TO ENJOIN.  117 F.2D 310.  TO REVIEW THIS QUESTION, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  314 U.S. 600. 

THE PETITIONER HAS PLANTS FOR PROCESSING AND CANNING FISH IN OREGON,
WASHINGTON, AND ALASKA.  IT DISTRIBUTES ITS PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  ITS SUPPLY OF FISH CHIEFLY DEPENDS UPON ITS ABILITY
TO PURCHASE FROM INDEPENDENT FISHERMEN.  THE DISPUTE HERE AROSE FROM A
CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE RESPONDENTS
WOULD SELL FISH TO THE PETITIONER. 

THE RESPONDENTS ARE THE PACIFIC COAST FISHERMEN'S UNION, ITS OFFICERS
AND MEMBERS,  FN2  AND TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO, LIKE THE PETITIONER,
PROCESS AND SELL FISH.  ALTHOUGH AFFILIATED WITH THE C.I.O., THE UNION
IS PRIMARILY A FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, COMPOSED OF FISHERMEN WHO
CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN AND NAVIGABLE STREAMS IN
WASHINGTON AND OREGON AND SOME OF THEIR EMPLOYEES.  THE FISHERMEN OWN
OR LEASE FISHING BOATS, RANGING IN VALUE FROM $100 TO $15,000, AND
CARRY ON THEIR BUSINESS AS INDEPENDENT ENTREPRENEURS, UNCONTROLLED BY
THE PETITIONER OR OTHER PROCESSORS. 

THE UNION ACTS AS A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENCY IN THE SALE OF FISH
CAUGHT BY ITS MEMBERS.  ITS CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS PROVIDE THAT
"UNION MEMBERS SHALL NOT DELIVER CATCHES OUTSIDE OF UNION AGREEMENTS,"
AND IN ITS CONTRACTS OF SALE IT REQUIRES AN AGREEMENT BY THE BUYER NOT
TO PURCHASE FISH FROM NONMEMBERS OF THE UNION.  THE UNION'S DEMAND THAT
THE PETITIONER ASSENT TO SUCH AN AGREEMENT PRECIPITATED THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSY.  UPON THE PETITIONER'S REFUSAL, THE UNION INDUCED ITS
MEMBERS TO REFRAIN FROM SELLING FISH TO THE PETITIONER, AND SINCE THE
UNION'S CONTROL OF THE FISH SUPPLY IS EXTENSIVE, THE PETITIONER WAS
UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE FISH IT NEEDED TO CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS. 

WE THINK THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR IN HOLDING THIS
CONTROVERSY A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT.  THAT A DISPUTE AMONG BUSINESSMEN OVER THE TERMS OF A
CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF FISH IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM A
"CONTROVERSY CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR
CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION  ...  OF PERSONS  ...  SEEKING TO ARRANGE
TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" CALLS FOR NO EXTENDED DISCUSSION. 
THIS DEFINITION AND THE STATED PUBLIC POLICY OF THE ACT - AID TO "THE
INDIVIDUAL UNORGANIZED WORKER  ...  COMMONLY HELPLESS  ...  TO OBTAIN
ACCEPTABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" AND PROTECTION OF THE
WORKER "FROM THE INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYERS OF
LABOR"  - MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS WAS FOCUSSED
UPON DISPUTES AFFECTING THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, AND THAT
THE ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO HAVE APPLICATION TO DISPUTES OVER THE SALE
OF COMMODITIES.  FN3 

WE RECOGNIZE THAT BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE THERE MAY BE A "LABOR
DISPUTE" WHERE THE DISPUTANTS DO NOT STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  BUT THE STATUTORY CLASSIFICATION,  FN4  HOWEVER
BROAD, OF PARTIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH A "LABOR DISPUTE" MAY
RELATE DOES NOT EXPAND THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO INCLUDE
CONTROVERSIES UPON WHICH THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP HAS NO
BEARING.  OUR DECISIONS IN NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. GROCERY CO., 303 U.S.
552, AND MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY CO., 311 U.S. 91,
GIVE NO SUPPORT TO THE RESPONDENTS' CONTRARY CONTENTION, FOR IN BOTH
CASES THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP WAS THE MATRIX OF THE
CONTROVERSY. 

THE CONTROVERSY HERE IS ALTOGETHER BETWEEN FISH SELLERS AND FISH
BUYERS.  THE SELLERS ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONERS OR OF ANY
OTHER EMPLOYER, NOR DO THEY SEEK TO BE.  ON THE CONTRARY, THEIR DESIRE
IS TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS INDEPENDENT BUSINESSMEN, FREE FROM SUCH
CONTROLS AS AN EMPLOYER MIGHT EXERCISE.  THAT SOME OF THE FISHERMEN
HAVE A SMALL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OF THEIR OWN, WHO ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF
THE UNION, DOES NOT ALTER THE SITUATION.  FOR, THE DISPUTE HERE,
RELATING SOLELY TO THE SALE OF FISH, DOES NOT PLACE IN CONTROVERSY THE
WAGES OR HOURS, OR OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OF THESE
EMPLOYEES. 

WE ARE ASKED TO CONSIDER OTHER CONTENTIONS PRESSED BY THE
RESPONDENTS, WHICH IT IS SAID WOULD SUPPORT THE REVERSAL BELOW.  BUT
THE CIRCUIT COURT NEITHER CANVASSED NOR PASSED UPON THESE CONTENTIONS. 
IT WILL BE FREE TO DO SO UPON REMAND.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "  ...  NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY RESTRAINING ORDER OR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION IN A CASE INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE,
EXCEPT IN A STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  ...  "
47 STAT. 70. 

FN2  TWO OF THE RESPONDENTS, ALTHOUGH MEMBERS OF THE UNION, ARE NOT
FISHERMEN.  THEY ARE BUYERS FOR PROCESSORS. 

FN3  CF. SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT:  "  ...  THE LABOR OF A HUMAN
BEING IS NOT A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE OF COMMERCE."  38 STAT. 731.  THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, MANIFESTING "THE PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS FURTHER
TO EXTEND THE PROHIBITION OF (SEC. 20 OF) THE CLAYTON ACT," NEW NEGRO
ALLIANCE V. GROCERY CO., 303 U.S. 552, 562, CANNOT BE TAKEN AS HAVING
ERASED THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN AN ASSOCIATION OF COMMODITY SELLERS AND
AN ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYEES.  SPECIFIC RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS OF
ASSOCIATIONS OF FISHERMEN AS SELLERS OF COMMODITIES HAS BEEN GIVEN IN
AN ACT "AUTHORIZING ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS OF AQUATIC PRODUCTS."  48
STAT. 1213. 

FN4  SECTION 13 OF THE ACT PROVIDES: 

"WHEN USED IN THIS ACT, AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT - 

"(A)  A CASE SHALL BE HELD TO INVOLVE OR TO GROW OUT OF A LABOR
DISPUTE WHEN THE CASE INVOLVES PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME
INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION; OR HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT
INTERESTS THEREIN; OR WHO ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME EMPLOYER; OR WHO
ARE MEMBERS OF THE SAME OR AN AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYERS OR
EMPLOYEES; WHETHER SUCH DISPUTE IS (1) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR
ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
EMPLOYEES; (2) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
EMPLOYERS AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS; OR
(3) BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYEES AND ONE
OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYEES; OR WHEN THE CASE
INVOLVES ANY CONFLICTING OR COMPETING INTERESTS IN A 'LABOR DISPUTE'
(AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED) OF 'PERSONS PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED'
THEREIN (AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED). 

"(B)  A PERSON OR ASSOCIATION SHALL BE HELD TO BE A PERSON
PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE IF RELIEF IS SOUGHT
AGAINST HIM OR IT, AND IF HE OR IT IS ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY,
TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION IN WHICH SUCH DISPUTE OCCURS, OR HAS A
DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST THEREIN, OR IS A MEMBER, OFFICER, OR AGENT
OF ANY ASSOCIATION COMPOSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF EMPLOYERS OR
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN SUCH INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION. 

"(C)  THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING
TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION OR
REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING,
CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE
RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE."  47 STAT. 73. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :












CLOVERLEAF CO. V. PATTERSON, 315 U.S. 148 


NO. 28.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 10, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  -
116 F.2D 227, REVERSED. 


1.  ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY OF A STATE STATUTE, STATE OFFICIALS
INSPECTED AND SEIZED PACKING STOCK BUTTER ACQUIRED BY A MANUFACTURER
FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF RENOVATED BUTTER FOR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  HELD THAT SUCH STATE ACTION WAS INCONSISTENT WITH AND
EXCLUDED BY THE FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE
MANUFACTURE OF RENOVATED BUTTER.  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SECS. 2320
2327.  P. 167. 

2.  BY THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SEC. 2325,
THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE OF RENOVATED BUTTER IS SUBJECT TO
FEDERAL SUPERVISION.  P. 154. 

3.  THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION INVOLVED HERE IS NOT SOLELY A REVENUE
MEASURE; IT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 162. 

4.  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1902, PROVIDING THAT IMPORTATIONS
OF RENOVATED BUTTER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE AS THOUGH
PRODUCED THEREIN, IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE.  P. 161. 

5.  THE EFFECT OF SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1902, IS THAT STATE
ACTION IN RESPECT OF RENOVATED BUTTER IS NOT FORECLOSED MERELY BY
FEDERAL TAXATION IN THIS FIELD.  SUCH STATE ACTION MAY, HOWEVER, AS
HERE, BE SUPERSEDED BY THE EXERCISE OF OTHER FEDERAL POWER.  P. 162. 

6.  WHERE CONGRESS EXERCISES ITS POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY
LEGISLATION WITH WHICH A REGULATION BY THE STATE CONFLICTS, EITHER
EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, SUCH STATE REGULATION BECOMES INOPERATIVE AND
THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION EXCLUSIVE IN ITS APPLICATION.  PP. 155-156. 

CLOVERLEAF BUTTER CO. V. PATTERSON, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND
INDUSTRIES OF ALABAMA, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 551, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION. 

THE PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH OF ITS CITIZENS IS AN INHERENT POWER OF
THE STATE.  SO LONG AS THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER DOES NOT CONFLICT
WITH THE FEDERAL LAWS, THE STATE MAY ACT WITHOUT LIMITATION.  MINNESOTA
RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 398-412; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 184 188-191; EICHHOLZ V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 306 U.S. 268, 274. 

THE STATE MAY PROHIBIT WITHIN ITS BORDERS THE MANUFACTURE OF
ADULTERATED FOOD, WHERE PART OF THAT FOOD WILL BE SOLD TO ITS
CITIZENS.  SUCH ACTION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE EVEN THOUGH
ITS EFFECT IS TO IMPOSE A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CLASON V.
INDIANA, 306 U.S. 439; HYGRADE PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 407,
505; CAREY V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 118; CORN PRODUCTS, RFG.  CO. V.
EDDY, 249 U.S. 427; WEIGLE V. CURTICE BROS. CO., 238 U.S. 285; SLIGH V.
KIRKWOOD, 237 U.S. 52; SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501; CROSSMAN V.
LURMAN, 192 U.S. 189; PLUMLEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 155 U.S. 461; POWELL V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 127 U.S. 678.  SEE ALSO:  SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S.
69; CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT EXCLUSIVELY OCCUPIED THE FIELD BY THE RENOVATED
BUTTER ACT; NOR HAS IT, BY SUCH ACT, REGULATED INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO
COMPLETELY AS TO PROHIBIT STATE ACTION.  THE ACT IS NOT INTENDED AS A
REGULATION OF COMMERCE.  IT IS BUT AN EXTENSION OF THE OLEOMARGARINE
ACT, WHICH WAS A TAXING ACT.  IN RE KOLLOCK, 165 U.S. 526, 537. 

THE INCORPORATION OF R.S. SEC. 3243 INTO THE RENOVATED BUTTER ACT IS
A SPECIFIC INDICATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION TO LEAVE THE STATE
UNRESTRICTED IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER.  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT
FURTHER INDICATES THE WILL OF CONGRESS THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE
REGULATION OF RENOVATED BUTTER, INTERSTATE COMMERCE MIGHT BE SUBJECTED
TO RESTRICTIONS BY THE STATES. 

THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 1 WAS TO PERMIT THE STATE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH
OF ITS CITIZENS WITH RESPECT TO UNCLEAN BUTTER, EVEN THOUGH SUCH
BUTTER, RENOVATED OR PACKING STOCK, MIGHT STILL REMAIN IN THE ORIGINAL
PACKAGES IN WHICH IT HAD BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE STATE.  SEE IN RE
RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545; CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY., 242
U.S. 311. 

STATE OFFICERS ENFORCING BY SEIZURE POLICE REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO
FOODS WILL NOT BE ENJOINED MERELY BECAUSE THERE EXIST SIMILAR FEDERAL
LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN RESPECT TO THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER AND THERE
HAS BEEN NO FEDERAL SEIZURE. 

THE DECISION IS CONTROLLED BY MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346; PACIFIC
STATES CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1;
SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177; TOWNSEND
V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441; AND CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, CLOVERLEAF BUTTER COMPANY, IS ENGAGED AT BIRMINGHAM,
ALABAMA, IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER FROM PACKING
STOCK BUTTER.  IT OBTAINS 25% OF ITS SUPPLIES OF PACKING STOCK BUTTER
FROM THE FARMERS AND COUNTRY MERCHANTS OF ALABAMA AND 75% FROM THOSE OF
OTHER STATES, AND IT SHIPS INTERSTATE 90% OF ITS FINISHED PRODUCT.  THE
PRODUCTION OF RENOVATED BUTTER IS TAXED AND REGULATED BY THE UNITED
STATES.  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, C. 16, SECS. 2320 TO 2327 INC.  IT IS
ALSO REGULATED BY ALABAMA.  ALA. CODE 1940, TIT. 2, C. 1. 

THE RESPONDENTS, ALABAMA OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ENFORCING
THE ALABAMA LAWS IN REGARD TO RENOVATED BUTTER, ENTERED PETITIONER'S
FACTORY AND, IN A LITTLE MORE THAN A YEAR, SEIZED ON SIXTEEN SEPARATE
OCCASIONS A TOTAL OF OVER TWENTY THOUSAND POUNDS OF PACKING STOCK
BUTTER, THE MATERIAL FROM WHICH THE FINISHED PRODUCT IS MADE. 
DEFENDANTS ALSO SEIZED SOME BUTTER MOVING TO THE FACTORY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS HAVE
BEEN COMPLETED. 

ALLEGING REPEATED SEIZURES AND DANGER OF THEIR CONTINUANCE, TO THE
DEMORALIZATION AND FINANCIAL IMPAIRMENT OF ITS BUSINESS, PETITIONER
BROUGHT AN ACTION, JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 24(1), IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM ACTING UNDER THE ALABAMA STATUTE, EITHER TO
DETERMINE THE WHOLESOMENESS OF RENOVATED BUTTER MADE FROM THE RAW
MATERIAL IN PETITIONER'S HANDS, TO INSPECT ITS RAW MATERIAL AND PLANT,
OR TO SEIZE AND TO DETAIN PETITIONER'S PACKING STOCK BUTTER.  THE
THEORY OF THE BILL IS THAT THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS
CONCERNING THE MANUFACTURE OF PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER EXCLUDE SUCH
STATE ACTION.  CF. HEBE CO. V. SHAW, 248 U.S. 297; CORN PRODUCTS RFG. 
CO. V. EDDY, 249 U.S. 427.  THERE WAS A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND
THAT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  A STIPULATION
ENTITLED AS ONE OF "FACTS" WAS ENTERED INTO.  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE BILL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 116 F.2D
227, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF
FEDERAL LAW INVOLVED IN PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THESE FEDERAL
STATUTES PROVIDING FOR REGULATION OF PRODUCTION OF A COMMODITY EXCLUDED
STATE ACTION.  313 U.S. 551. 

THE SO-CALLED STIPULATION OF FACTS JUST MENTIONED IS REALLY A
LIMITATION OF ISSUES.  ONE PARAGRAPH OF THE STIPULATION WILL
CRYSTALLIZE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE DISPUTE.  IT READS: "THE
PARTIES TO THIS CAUSE STIPULATE AND AGREE THAT THE LEGAL QUESTIONS IN
DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARE:  ... 2.  DOES THE INSPECTION OF
PACKING STOCK BUTTER, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, USED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN
THE MANUFACTURE OF PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER AS ALLEGED IN THE BILL
OF COMPLAINT, MADE OR DIRECTED TO BE MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL LAWS AND
REGULATIONS RELATING TO RENOVATED OR PROCESS BUTTER, HAVE THE EFFECT IN
CONNECTION WITH SAID FEDERAL LAWS OF EXCLUDING THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS, FROM INSPECTING OR SEIZING OR SUSPENDING THE
PACKING STOCK BUTTER, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OUT OF WHICH RENOVATED
BUTTER TO BE SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT IS
MANUFACTURED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT?"  AS OTHER
PARAGRAPHS STATE VARIATIONS OF THIS CONTROVERSY, OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
NOT CONTROLLING ON THE COURTS, ESTATE OF SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 308
U.S. 39, 51, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THEM FURTHER.  THE CENTRAL QUESTION
PRESENTED IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ACCORDS WITH THE EXCERPT FROM
THE STIPULATION. 

APPARENTLY THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATION OR ADMISSION THAT THE
PACKING STOCK BUTTER WHICH ALABAMA INSPECTED AND SEIZED WAS THE
PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONING MANUFACTURER AT THE TIME.  IT HAS, HOWEVER,
BEEN SO TREATED BY THE COURTS AND PARTIES, AND PROPERLY SO, WE
CONCLUDE, FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL.  FN1  THE REACH OF THIS
DECISION IS THEREFORE LIMITED TO ALABAMA'S INSPECTION AND SEIZURE OF
PACKING STOCK BUTTER, ACTUALLY OWNED BY PETITIONER AND HELD IN ITS OWN
HANDS OR THOSE OF ITS BAILEES, WHETHER IN FACTORY.  WAREHOUSE, OR
COURSE OF CARRIAGE, FOR MANUFACTURE INTO PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER
FOR INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

THE TEST TO BE APPLIED TO THE ACTION OF THE STATE IN SEIZING MATERIAL
INTENDED SOLELY FOR INCORPORATION INTO A PRODUCT PREPARED FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS THE EFFECT OF THAT ACTION UPON THE NATIONAL
REGULATORY POLICY DECLARED BY THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  CF. ILLINOIS
NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498,
505.  NOT ONLY DOES CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE
EXTEND, THE "LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING,"  FN2
TO INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS AND TRANSPORTATION, BUT IT REACHES BACK TO
THE STEPS PRIOR TO TRANSPORTATION AND HAS FORCE TO REGULATE PRODUCTION
"WITH THE PURPOSE OF SO TRANSPORTING" THE PRODUCT.  UNITED STATES V.
DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 117.  IT EXTENDS TO THE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES
WHICH SO AFFECT COMMERCE AS TO MAKE REGULATION OF THEM APPROPRIATE
MEANS TO THE ATTAINMENT OF A LEGITIMATE END, REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  ID., 118 ET SEQ., AND CASES CITED.  BY THE REGULATORY
PROVISIONS OF I.R.C. SEC. 2325, NOTE 10, INFRA, THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF
MANUFACTURE IS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL SUPERVISION.  THUS, SO FAR AS ANY
SITUATION HERE INVOLVED IS CONCERNED, THE SCOPE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER
IS SUCH THAT IT MAY OVERRIDE THE EXERCISE OF STATE POWER AND RENDER
IMPOSSIBLE ITS APPLICATION TO PETITIONER'S MANUFACTURING PROCESSES. 

THIS POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER OPERATIONS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT IN DISPUTE HERE.  FN3  NOR IS THIS POWER
LIMITED TO SITUATIONS WHERE NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IS SO ESSENTIAL THAT,
LACKING CONGRESSIONAL PERMISSION, ALL STATE ACTION IS INADMISSIBLE
NOTWITHSTANDING A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  FN4
EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL REGULATION MAY ARISE, ALSO, FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE
POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHERE, IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, THE STATES MAY THEMSELVES LEGISLATE.  IT HAS LONG
BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT, IN THOSE FIELDS OF COMMERCE WHERE NATIONAL
UNIFORMITY IS NOT ESSENTIAL, EITHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY
ACT.  WILLSON V. BLACK-BIRD CREEK MARSH CO., 2 PET. 245; CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 114.  WHERE THIS POWER TO LEGISLATE EXISTS, IT
OFTEN HAPPENS THAT THERE IS ONLY A PARTIAL EXERCISE OF THAT POWER BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IN SUCH CASES THE STATE MAY LEGISLATE FREELY
UPON THOSE PHASES OF THE COMMERCE WHICH ARE LEFT UNREGULATED BY THE
NATION.  FN5  BUT WHERE THE UNITED STATES EXERCISES ITS POWER OF
LEGISLATION SO AS TO CONFLICT WITH A REGULATION OF THE STATE, EITHER
SPECIFICALLY  FN6 OR BY IMPLICATION,  FN7  THE STATE LEGISLATION
BECOMES INOPERATIVE AND THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION EXCLUSIVE IN ITS
APPLICATION. 

WHEN THE PROHIBITION OF STATE ACTION IS NOT SPECIFIC BUT INFERABLE
FROM THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, IT MUST BE CLEAR
THAT THE FEDERAL PROVISIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF THE STATE TO
JUSTIFY THE THWARTING OF STATE REGULATION.  FN8 

APPARENTLY THERE ARE NO CASES OF THIS COURT DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH
STATE INTERFERENCE WITH FEDERALLY REGULATED MANUFACTURING.  IT IS
EVIDENT, WE THINK, THAT THE SAME PRINCIPLES GOVERN STATE ACTION IN THIS
FIELD AS IN THE INSTANCES CITED UNDER NOTE 7 TO SHOW THE EXCLUSIVE
POWER OF FEDERAL ENACTMENTS IN TRANSPORTATION, EMPLOYERS LIABILITY,
QUARANTINE AND ALIENS.  THE RULE IS CLEAR THAT STATE ACTION MAY BE
EXCLUDED BY CLEAR IMPLICATION OR INCONSISTENCY.  ITS APPLICATION TO
INDIVIDUAL CASES CREATES DIFFICULTIES.  THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN
CASES WHERE THE ASSUMPTION OF FEDERAL POWER IS EXCLUSIVE AND WHERE IT
ADMITS STATE ACTION IS NARROW.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN OREGON-WASHINGTON R.
CO. V. WASHINGTON, 270 U.S. 87, SECTION 8 OF THE PLANT QUARANTINE ACT,
37 STAT. 315, AS AMENDED 39 STAT. 1165, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 161, WAS HELD TO
EXCLUDE A STATE QUARANTINE AGAINST PLANT INFESTATION.  YET, A LITTLE
LATER, IN MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346, A VERY SIMILAR STATUTE, THE
CATTLE CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT, WAS HELD TO PERMIT A STATE QUARANTINE,
BECAUSE THIS LATTER ACT DIFFERED FROM THE FORMER, IN THAT ITS
PROVISIONS, PAGE 352, "BY SPECIFICATION OF THE CASES IN WHICH ACTION
UNDER IT SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE, DISCLOSE THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS THAT,
SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS DEFINED, STATE MEASURES MAY BE ENFORCED. 
THIS DIFFERENCE IS ESSENTIAL AND CONTROLLING."  CF. 21 U.S.C. SEC.
126. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE LATER WELCH, EICHHOLZ AND MAURER CASES, CITED
ABOVE, WHICH ALLOW STATE ACTION WHEN THE FEDERAL STATUTE DOES NOT COVER
THE PARTICULAR POINT REGULATED, SHOW A TREND AWAY FROM THE DOCTRINE OF
THE OREGON-WASHINGTON CO. DECISION.  OTHER SIMILAR INSTANCES MAY BE
FOUND IN NOTES 3 AND 5, SUPRA.  IN ALL OF THESE, HOWEVER, IT WAS THE
RULING OF THIS COURT THAT THE FEDERAL ENACTMENT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE
NARROW REGULATION SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED BY THE STATE, SO THAT THE STATE
ENACTMENT DID NOT STAND "AS AN OBSTACLE TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT AND
EXECUTION OF THE FULL PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF CONGRESS."  HINES V.
DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52, 67.  AS THE PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH THE CASES
REFERRED TO IN THIS PARAGRAPH ARE DECIDED IS CLEAR, A SINGLE COMPARISON
WILL SUFFICIENTLY ILLUSTRATE THE REASONS WHICH LEAD TO A DENIAL OF
STATE POWER.  SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, CONSTRUED AN INDIANA
STATUTE REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF FORMULAS ON FOODS OFFERED FOR SALE IN
INDIANA WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 34
STAT. 768, PROHIBITED, SO FAR AS HERE PERTINENT, INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS
IF MISBRANDED BY BEARING "ANY STATEMENT, DESIGN, OR DEVICE  ...  FALSE
OR MISLEADING."  THIS COURT SAID, P. 532: 

"CONGRESS HAS THUS LIMITED THE SCOPE OF ITS PROHIBITIONS.  IT HAS NOT
INCLUDED THAT AT WHICH THE INDIANA STATUTE AIMS.  CAN IT BE SAID THAT
CONGRESS, NEVERTHELESS, HAS DENIED TO THE STATE, WITH RESPECT TO THE
FEEDING STUFFS COMING FROM ANOTHER STATE AND SOLD IN THE ORIGINAL
PACKAGES, THE POWER THE STATE OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE TO PREVENT
IMPOSITION UPON THE PUBLIC BY MAKING A REASONABLE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY
PROVISION FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF INGREDIENTS, AND FOR INSPECTION AND
ANALYSIS?"    THE INDIANA ACT WAS UPHELD.  ON THE OTHER HAND, MCDERMOTT
V. WISCONSIN, 228 U.S. 115, MAKES PLAIN THE BASIS FOR PROHIBITING
INTERFERENCES WITH FEDERAL POWER.  IN THIS LATTER CASE A WISCONSIN LAW
REQUIRED GLUCOSE MIXTURES OFFERED FOR RETAIL SALE TO BE LABELED
"GLUCOSE FLAVORED WITH" THE FLAVORING MATERIAL.  ANY OTHER "DESIGNATION
OR BRAND" ON THE PACKAGE WAS PROHIBITED.  A GLUCOSE MIXTURE WAS OFFERED
LABELED "KARO CORN SYRUP" "10% CANE SYRUP, 90% CORN SYRUP."  POINTING
OUT THAT FEDERAL AUTHORITY, FOR THE SAKE OF EFFICIENCY IN PROTECTING
THE PUBLIC AGAINST MISBRANDING IN INTERSTATE TRADE, EXTENDED FAR ENOUGH
TO REGULATE LABELING ON PACKAGES WHILE BEING OFFERED TO CONSUMERS, AND
THAT THE PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT TOLERATED THE MORE EUPHEMISTIC LABEL
PROHIBITED BY THE STATE, THIS COURT SAID, P. 133: 

"CONCEDING TO THE STATE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE REGULATIONS CONSISTENT
WITH THE FEDERAL LAW FOR THE FURTHER PROTECTION OF ITS CITIZENS AGAINST
IMPURE AND MISBRANDED FOOD AND DRUGS, WE THINK TO PERMIT SUCH
REGULATION AS IS EMBODIED IN THIS STATUTE IS TO PERMIT A STATE TO
DISCREDIT AND BURDEN LEGITIMATE FEDERAL REGULATIONS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, TO DESTROY RIGHTS ARISING OUT OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH
HAVE ACCRUED BOTH TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SHIPPER, AND TO IMPAIR THE
EFFECT OF A FEDERAL LAW WHICH HAS BEEN ENACTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THE SUBJECT." 

IN THE SAVAGE CASE, THERE WAS NO CONFLICT, INCONSISTENCY OR
INTERFERENCE; IN THE MCDERMOTT CASE, THERE WAS.  MCDERMOTT POINTED OUT
THE DISTINCTION, AND THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE SAVAGE RULE TO THE
WISCONSIN SITUATION.  228 U.S. 115, 131-32. 

TURNING TO THE STATUTES IN QUESTION, WE FIND THAT THE GREATER PART OF
THE LEGISLATION RELATING TO PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER IS IN SEC. 2320
TO SEC. 2327 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE.  FN9 THESE SECTIONS DEFINE
PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER, FIX THE RATE OF POUNDAGE TAX UPON IT, AS
WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF SPECIAL TAX UPON ITS MANUFACTURERS, AND PROVIDE
FOR THEIR COLLECTION.  THEY REQUIRE MANUFACTURERS TO FILE SUCH NOTICES
AND INVENTORIES, KEEP SUCH BOOKS, RENDER SUCH RETURNS, POST SUCH SIGNS,
AFFIX SUCH NUMBER TO HIS FACTORY, AND FURNISH SUCH BOND AS THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIRE.  WHOLESALE DEALERS ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP BOOKS
AND RENDER RETURNS TO THE SAME DEPARTMENT.  PENALTIES ARE PROVIDED. 
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ARE MADE FOR INSPECTION OF THE PLACES OF
MANUFACTURE OR STORAGE OF THE MATERIALS AND THE RENOVATED BUTTER
ITSELF.  POWER IS GIVEN TO CONFISCATE THE FINISHED PRODUCT.  SANITARY
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE FOR SLAUGHTERING, MEAT CANNING OR SIMILAR
ESTABLISHMENTS ARE EXTENDED TO COVER PROCESS AND RENOVATED BUTTER
FACTORIES.  THE SECTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE DISCUSSION ARE SET OUT IN
THE NOTE BELOW.  FN10  THE REFERENCES TO ANIMAL AND MEAT INSPECTION
STATUTES IN SEC. 2327(B) MADE APPLICABLE TO THE BUTTER IN QUESTION THE
POWER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO INSPECT AND CERTIFY AS
WHOLESOME FOR HUMAN FOOD SALT PORK AND BACON INTENDED FOR EXPORTATION,
AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT INSPECTED CARCASSES OF CATTLE, SHEEP AND SWINE
FOUND UNWHOLESOME SHALL NOT BE SUBJECTS OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION. 

THERE ARE TWO PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE TO PROCESS AND RENOVATED
BUTTER PRODUCTION WHICH MAY BE CONVENIENTLY CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF
AT THIS POINT. 

(A)  BY SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1902, IT IS PROVIDED THAT
IMPORTATIONS OF PROCESS AND RENOVATED BUTTER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE
LAWS OF THE STATE AS THOUGH PRODUCED THEREIN.  FN11  THIS IS OBVIOUSLY
AN ADAPTATION OF THE WILSON OR ORIGINAL PACKAGES ACT TO THE PROBLEM OF
BUTTER SUBSTITUTES, PASSED TO OVERCOME THE FORCE OF SOME OF THE CASES
FORBIDDING STATE PROHIBITION OF SALES OF THESE SUBSTITUTES.  FN12  IT
IS CLEARLY INAPPLICABLE TO THE CASE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT
INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE NOT TO HINDER THE FREE EXERCISE OF
STATE POWER, EXCEPTS AS IT MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION.  THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS IMPROPER TO INFER A RESTRICTION
ON CONFISCATION OF MATERIAL WHEN CONFISCATION OF PRODUCT IS PERMITTED
FAILS TO GIVE WEIGHT TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONFISCATION WHICH
INTERFERES WITH PRODUCTION UNDER FEDERAL SUPERVISION AND CONFISCATION
AFTER PRODUCTION BECAUSE OF A HIGHER STANDARD DEMANDED BY A STATE FOR
ITS CONSUMERS.  THE LATTER TYPE IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER ALL THE
AUTHORITIES. 

(B)  BY SEC. 4 OF THE SAME ACT, R.S. SEC. 3243 WAS MADE "TO EXTEND TO
AND INCLUDED AND APPLY TO" MANUFACTURE OF PROCESSED AND RENOVATED
BUTTER.  THAT SECTION, NOW I.R.C. SEC. 2376, PROVIDES THAT THE PAYMENT
OF THE TAX LAID BY THE ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION "SHALL NOT BE HELD TO
EXEMPT ANY PERSON FROM ANY" STATE PENALTY "OR IN ANY MANNER TO
AUTHORIZE THE COMMENCEMENT OR CONTINUANCE OF SUCH TRADE OR BUSINESS
CONTRARY TO THE LAWS OF SUCH STATE."  IT IS URGED BY RESPONDENT THAT
THIS SECTION MAKES IT "CLEAR THAT THE POWER OF THE STATES OVER THE
SUBJECT OF THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PROCESS AND RENOVATED BUTTER
WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE LIMITS WAS TO BE UNRESTRICTED, EVEN THOUGH THE
EFFECT OF SUCH REGULATION MIGHT BE THE IMPOSITION OF AN INDIRECT BURDEN
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THIS SECTION WITHOUT DOUBT MANIFESTS THE
WILL OF CONGRESS THAT FEDERAL TAXATION SHALL NOT, OF ITSELF,
INCAPACITATE THE STATE.  AUSTIN V. TENNESSEE, 179 U.S. 343; PLUMLEY V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 155 U.S. 461, 466.  IN OUR VIEW, HOWEVER, THE SECTION
GOES NOT FARTHER THAN TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT FEDERAL TAXATION SHALL NOT
PARALYZE STATE ACTION.  OTHER REGULATIONS MAY OR MAY NOT SUPERSEDE
STATE LAWS.  CF. MERCHANTS EXCHANGE V. MISSOURI, 248 U.S. 365, 368;
HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V. ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155, 159. 

THERE ARE ALSO TWO OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION WHICH
MAY BE CONSIDERED FROM THE NEGATIVE VIEWPOINT.  THIS IS NOT SOLELY A
REVENUE ACT.  RESPONDENT STRONGLY URGES THAT IT MUST BE TREATED AS
PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING FEDERAL INCOME, AND THAT
THEREFORE THERE SHOULD BE NO JUDICIAL DEDUCTION THAT THE INCIDENTAL
REGULATORY FEATURES ARE EXCLUSIVE.  FOR THIS THERE IS SUPPORT IN THE
PRECEDENTS.  MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27.  FN13  WHILE THERE
HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNITION OF THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO OBTAIN
INCIDENTAL SOCIAL, HEALTH OR ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES FROM THE EXERCISE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS,  FN14  IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT SUCH COLLATERAL
RESULTS MUST BE OBTAINED FROM STATUTORY PROVISIONS REASONABLY ADAPTED
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTS OF THE LEGISLATION.  LINDER V. UNITED
STATES, 268 U.S. 5, 17.  BUT HERE THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION IS
INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS IN CONTROVERSY ARE
AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PITTSBURGH MELTING CO. V. TOTTEN,
248 U.S. 1, 8; SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381;
UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA, 119. 

FURTHER, WE AGREE WITH RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO
AUTHORITY TO CONFISCATE OR DESTROY MATERIALS UNDER THE RENOVATED BUTTER
ACT.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT PACKING STOCK ADULTERATED UNDER THE
DEFINITIONS OF SEC. 402 OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, 52
STAT. 1046, WHEN INTRODUCED INTO OR WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE
CONFISCATED UNDER SEC. 304 WHILE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR AT ANY TIME
THEREAFTER.  CF. UNITED STATES V. NINE BARRELS OF BUTTER, 241 F. 499. 
PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR MEAT INSPECTION, MADE
APPLICABLE TO PROCESS AND RENOVATED BUTTER FACTORIES BY I.R.C. SEC.
2327, NOTE 10, SUPRA, INCLUDE TITLE 21, SEC. 72 OF THE UNITED STATES
CODE.  SECTION 72 DOES AUTHORIZE THE DESTRUCTION OF UNFIT CARCASSES OF
CATTLE, HOGS AND SHEEP INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, AND WE ASSUME,
IF APPLICABLE, WOULD AUTHORIZE A SIMILAR DESTRUCTION OF THE MATERIALS
INTENDED FOR BUTTER MANUFACTURE.  SECTION 72, HOWEVER, IS DERIVED FROM
34 STATUTES AT LARGE 674.  THE PROVISIONS WHICH I.R.C. SEC. 2327 MAKES
APPLICABLE ARE THE SANITARY PROVISIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE ACT OF JUNE
30, 1906, C. 3913, 34 STAT. 676.  FN15  THESE RELATE ONLY TO INSPECTION
AND NOT TO CONDEMNATION OR DESTRUCTION.  FN16 NOR DO WE FIND SUCH POWER
IN THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2325, NOTE 10, SUPRA, OR ANY
INTERPRETATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE LEADING TO THAT
CONCLUSION.  THE REGULATIONS CONTAIN NO DIRECTIONS FOR CONDEMNATION. 
B.D.I. ORDER NO. 1 - REVISED, DECEMBER 24, 1936; 9 C.F.R. 301.  THE
VIEWS OF THE SOLICITORS OF AGRICULTURE HAVE LONG BEEN IN ACCORD WITH
OUR CONCLUSION.  OPINION NO. 2829, OCTOBER 18, 1940.  FN17 

THE STATE ACT, WHICH PETITIONERS SAY CONFLICTS AND INTERFERES WITH
THE FEDERAL, IS THE USUAL TYPE OF GENERAL FOOD AND DRUG REGULATION. 
ALABAMA CODE 1940, TIT. 2, C. 1.  POWER IS CONFERRED ON THE STATE BOARD
OF AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS WITH
THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES AS THE CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.  THE ISSUE ARISES OVER ACTION TAKEN UNDER SEC.
495, QUOTED SO FAR AS PERTINENT BELOW.  FN18 

THE CONTROVERSY COMES TO THIS:  THE FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES, SEC. 2325,
NOTE 10, SUPRA, "A RIGID SANITARY INSPECTION  ...  OF ALL FACTORIES AND
STOREHOUSES WHERE PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER IS MANUFACTURED, PACKED,
OR PREPARED FOR MARKET, AND OF THE PRODUCTS THEREOF AND MATERIALS GOING
INTO THE MANUFACTURE OF THE SAME," I.E., PACKING STOCK BUTTER.  FN19
BUT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES
CANNOT CONDEMN THE PACKING STOCK BUTTER.  THE COMMISSIONER OF
AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRIES OF ALABAMA CLAIMS AUTHORITY UNDER THE STATE
STATUTE TO CONDEMN PACKING STOCK BUTTER HELD FOR RENOVATION.  FN20
DOES THE STATE'S CLAIM INTERFERE OR CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL POWER? 

ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTES A SOLUTION OF THE CONFLICT MIGHT BE
REACHED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE STATUTE AUTHORIZES CONDEMNATION
ONLY WHEN THE PACKING STOCK BUTTER IS HELD FOR SALE "WITHIN THE STATE"
IN ITS THEN CONDITION.  SUCH A SUGGESTION DOES NOT MEET THE ISSUE,
HOWEVER.  THE BILL ALLEGES, AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND STIPULATION
ADMIT, THE SEIZURE OF A KIND OF RAW MATERIAL NONE OF WHICH, EITHER THAT
SEIZED OR USED, HAD EVER BEEN SO HELD OR OFFERED FOR SALE IN PACKING
STOCK CONDITION. 

WE LAY ASIDE ALSO, AS INAPPLICABLE, THE SUGGESTION THAT THE HIGHEST
COURT OF ALABAMA, IN STATE V. CECIL, 216 ALA. 391, 113 SO. 254, HELD
THAT THE AGRICULTURAL CODE OF THAT STATE WAS NOT INTENDED TO COVER
GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THAT, THEREFORE, SINCE THESE
MATERIALS ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THEY ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE
ALABAMA CODE.  THE OPINION IN THE CECIL CASE DEALT WITH A DIFFERENT
THE DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE BUSINESS ONLY.  FOR THAT
CONSIDER THE SECTION HERE UNDER EXAMINATION, AND IN OUR VIEW, WHICH, OF
COURSE, IS NOT CONTROLLING ON ALABAMA COURTS, SEC. 495 IN THE ABSENCE
OF CONFLICT OR INTERFERENCE WITH A SPECIFIC FEDERAL ACT WOULD BE
EFFECTIVE TO CONDEMN GOODS HELD IN ALABAMA UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
WHICH WOULD BE ULTIMATELY EXPORTED FROM THE STATE.  STATE POWER OVER
FOOD SUPPLIES HELD WITHIN ITS BORDERS WOULD EXTEND AT LEAST SO FAR. 
SLIGH V. KIRKWOOD, 237 U.S. 52.  ON THE OTHER HAND, FEDERAL CONTROL
OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD, IF IT IS EXERCISED, EXTEND OVER THAT
PORTION OF THE MATERIAL WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY BE SOLD IN ALABAMA AS
RENOVATED BUTTER.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 399; CURRIN V.
WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 11; UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S.
533, 568; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 122.  BUT, OF COURSE,
IF ANY OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT IS OFFERED FOR SALE IN ALABAMA, SUCH
PRODUCT BECOMES IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PURE
FOOD LAWS OF THAT STATE. 

COMING FINALLY TO THE QUERY WHETHER THE STATE'S CLAIM INTERFERES OR
CONFLICTS WITH THE PURPOSE OR PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, WE
DETERMINE THAT IT DOES.  THE MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION IN INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OF PROCESS AND RENOVATED BUTTER IS A SUBSTANTIAL
INDUSTRY WHICH, BECAUSE OF ITS MULTI-STATE ACTIVITY, CANNOT BE
EFFECTIVELY REGULATED BY ISOLATED COMPETING STATES.  CF. STEWARD
MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 588; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312
U.S. 100, 122.  ITS WHOLESOME AND SUCCESSFUL FUNCTIONING TOUCHES FARM
PRODUCERS AND CITY CONSUMERS.  SCIENCE MADE POSSIBLE THE UTILIZATION OF
LARGE QUANTITIES OF PACKING STOCK BUTTER WHICH FELL BELOW THE STANDARDS
OF PUBLIC DEMAND  FN21  AND CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO REGULATE THE
PRODUCTION IN ORDER THAT THE RESULTING COMMODITY MIGHT BE FREE OF
INGREDIENTS DELETERIOUS TO HEALTH.  IT LEFT THE STATES FREE TO ACT ON
THE PACKING STOCK SUPPLIES PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THEIR DELIVERY INTO THE
HANDS OF THE MANUFACTURER AND TO REGULATE SALES OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT
WITHIN THEIR BORDERS.  BUT, ONCE THE MATERIAL WAS DEFINITELY MARKED FOR
COMMERCE BY ACQUISITION OF THE MANUFACTURER, IT PASSED INTO THE DOMAIN
OF FEDERAL CONTROL. 

INSPECTION OF THE FACTORY AND OF THE MATERIAL WAS PROVIDED FOR
EXPLICITLY.  CONFISCATION OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT WAS AUTHORIZED UPON A
FINDING OF ITS UNSUITABILITY FOR FOOD THROUGH THE USE OF UNHEALTHFUL OR
UNWHOLESOME MATERIALS, A FINDING THAT MIGHT BE BASED UPON VISUAL OR
DELICATE LIBORATORY TESTS, OR UPON OBSERVATION OF THE USE OF SUCH
MATERIALS IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE.  I.R.C. SEC. 2325; 9 C.F.R.
SECS. 301.41-43.  BY THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS,  FN22  THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HAS AUTHORITY TO WATCH THE CONSUMER'S
INTEREST THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION.  IT
SEES TO THE SANITATION OF THE FACTORIES IN SUCH MINUTIAE AS THE CLEAN
HANDS OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THE ELIMINATION OF OBJECTIONABLE ODORS,
INSPECTS THE MATERIALS USED, INCLUDING AIR FOR AERATING THE OILS, AND
CONFISCATES THE FINISHED PRODUCT WHEN MATERIALS WHICH WOULD BE
UNWHOLESOME IF UTILIZED ARE PRESENT AFTER MANUFACTURE.  FN23
CONFISCATION BY THE STATE OF MATERIAL IN PRODUCTION NULLIFIES FEDERAL
DISCRETION OVER INGREDIENTS.    IT IS SAID THAT THE STATE AND THE
UNITED STATES HAVE WORKED COOPERATIVELY IN PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM
VICIOUS PRACTICES IN THE HANDLING OF PROCESSED BUTTER; THAT ANY ACTION
BY THE STATE AIDS THE POLICY OF BOTH IN DISPOSING OF UNFIT FOOD; AND
THAT THEREFORE A HARMONIOUS FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIP SHOULD NOT BE
HAMPERED.  OUR DUTY TO DEAL WITH CONTRADICTORY FUNCTIONS OF STATE AND
NATION, ON ANY OCCASION, AND PARTICULARLY WHEN ONE OR THE OTHER IS
CHALLENGED BY PRIVATE INTERESTS, CALLS FOR THE UTMOST EFFORT TO AVOID
CONCLUSIONS WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS OF
EITHER.  NOTHING COULD BE MORE FERTILE FOR DISCORD, HOWEVER, THAN A
FAILURE TO DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF AUTHORITY.  CLASHES MAY AND SHOULD
BE MINIMIZED BY MUTUAL TOLERANCE; BUT THEY ARE MUCH LESS LIKELY TO
HAPPEN WHEN EACH KNOWS THE LIMITS OF ITS RESPONSIBILITY.  AND, IT IS
ONLY REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE THEORY OF DENYING INCONSISTENT
POWERS TO A STATE IS BASED LARGELY UPON THE BENEFITS TO THE REGULATED
INDUSTRY OF FREEDOM FROM INCONSISTENCIES. 

CONGRESS HARDLY INTENDED THE INTRUSION OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY DURING
THE VERY PREPARATION OF A COMMODITY SUBJECT TO THE SURVEILLANCE AND
COMPREHENSIVE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.  TO
UPHOLD THE POWER OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA TO CONDEMN THE MATERIAL IN THE
FACTORY, WHILE IT WAS UNDER FEDERAL OBSERVATION AND WHILE FEDERAL
ENFORCEMENT DEEMED IT WHOLESOME, WOULD NOT ONLY HAMPER THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT BUT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH ITS
REQUIREMENTS.  WHETHER THE SANCTION USED TO ENFORCE THE REGULATION IS
CONDEMNATION OF THE MATERIAL OR THE PRODUCT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  SINCE
THERE WAS FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE MATERIALS AND COMPOSITION OF THE
MANUFACTURED ARTICLE, THERE COULD NOT BE SIMILAR STATE REGULATION OF
THE SAME SUBJECT.  FN24  REVERSED. 

FN1  PETITIONER, PARAGRAPH 19 OF ITS BILL OF COMPLAINT, AVERS THAT
PACKING STOCK BUTTER IS DELIVERED TO IT FOR PROCESSING WHICH IS
PRODUCED IN ALABAMA AND OTHER STATES; THAT THE ALABAMA OFFICIALS,
PARAGRAPH 20, CLAIM THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE PREMISES WHERE IT RECEIVES
THE BUTTER ACQUIRED BY IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO "SEIZE, SUSPEND
OR OTHERWISE DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF THE RIGHT TO USE SUCH RAW MATERIAL OR
PACKING STOCK BUTTER, AND TO STOP AND SEARCH TRUCKS MOVING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAULING SAID RAW MATERIAL FROM PLACES WITHOUT THE
STATE OF ALABAMA TO PLAINTIFF'S PLACE OF BUSINESS IN BIRMINGHAM,
ALABAMA, AND TO SEIZE, SUSPEND OR OTHERWISE DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT
TO USE THE SAID RAW MATERIAL OR PACKING STOCK BUTTER BEING SO
TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO (STOP AND SEARCH) TRUCKS
TRANSPORTING THE AFORESAID RAW MATERIAL FROM POINTS IN ALABAMA TO
PLAINTIFF'S PLANT IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, TO BE USED IN THE MANUFACTURE
OF PROCESS OF RENOVATED BUTTER AS AFORESAID." 

PETITIONER FURTHER AVERS, AS TO SEIZURES AT ITS PLANT, "BETWEEN,
TOWIT, THE 17TH DAYS OF APRIL, 1939, AND THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 1940,
DEFENDANTS ON 16 SEPARATE OCCASIONS, SEIZED IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, A
TOTAL OF 20924 POUNDS OF PLAINTIFF'S RAW MATERIAL OR PACKING STOCK
BUTTER WHICH ORIGINATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN STATES OF THE UNITED
STATES OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA AND WHICH HAD BEEN SO DELIVERED
TO THE PLAINTIFF'S PLANT IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, AS RAW MATERIAL AND
WHICH WAS NOT BEING SOLD, OFFERED OR EXPOSED FOR SALE, OR ATTEMPTED FOR
SALE IN ITS THEN CONDITION BUT WAS BEING HELD BY THE PLAINTIFF SOLELY
AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF USING THE SAME AS RAW MATERIAL OUT
OF WHICH TO MANUFACTURE PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER IN THE USUAL COURSE
OF PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS.  ...  PLAINTIFF AVERS ON, TO-WIT, THE 21ST DAY
OF JUNE, 1940, IN MAKING THE LAST SEIZURE, ABOVE REFERRED TO, THE
DEFENDANTS STOPPED A TRUCK MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE STATE
OF GEORGIA TO THE STATE OF ALABAMA TRANSPORTING SAID RAW MATERIAL KNOWN
AS PACKING STOCK BUTTER FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA TO THE PLAINTIFF IN
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA.  PLAINTIFF AVERS THAT AS A RESULT OF THE SEIZURE
OF SAID RAW MATERIALS BY DEFENDANTS, IT HAS BEEN DENIED THE USE
THEREOF; THE SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF SAID RAW MATERIAL HAS CAUSED
GREAT FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT PLAINTIFF IS REQUIRED TO
PAY THE STORAGE ON THE SAME AND IS DENIED THE USE OF SUCH RAW MATERIALS
THAT PLAINTIFF SORELY NEEDS IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS, AND HAS
CAUSED PLAINTIFF'S PLANT TO REMAIN IDLE FROM TIME TO TIME FOR THE LACK
OF SUFFICIENT RAW MATERIAL TO KEEP THE SAME OPERATING; THAT SAID ACTION
OF THE DEFENDANTS DEMORALIZES PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYEES WHO ARE EMPLOYED,
TO OPERATE SAID PLANT, AND IS CALCULATED TO AND DOES INTERFERE WITH THE
SALE OF ITS FINISHED PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

FN2  CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI. 

FN3  CASES WHICH SUSTAIN STATE ENACTMENTS AS PERMISSIBLE, WHERE
FEDERAL LEGISLATION GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO THE FIELD EXISTS, RECOGNIZE
THAT FEDERAL ACTION MIGHT FORBID OR EXCLUDE THE STATE STATUTES APPROVED
IN THOSE INSTANCES.  SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 529:  "THE QUESTION
REMAINS WHETHER THE STATUTE OF INDIANA IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE ACT OF
CONGRESS KNOWN AS THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906(34 STAT. 768,
C. 3915).  FOR THE FORMER, SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE
EVEN INDIRECTLY AND INCIDENTALLY, CAN HAVE NO VALIDITY IF REPUGNANT TO
THE FEDERAL REGULATION."  CORN PRODUCTS RFG.  CO. V. EDDY, 249 U.S.
427; MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346, 351; PACIFIC STATES CO. V. WHITE,
296 U.S. 176, 183; HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V. ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155,
158; WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79, 85; EICHHOLZ V. COMM'N,
306 U.S. 268, 274; DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390. 

FN4  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, 319; BOWMAN V. CHICAGO
& NORTHWESTERN RY. CO., 125 U.S. 465, 485; LEISY V. HARDIN, 135 U.S.
100, 119; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 399.  WHERE THE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION AUTHORIZES STATE ACTION, SUCH STATE ACTION IS PERMISSIBLE
EVEN AS TO MATTERS WHICH COULD OTHERWISE BE REGULATED ONLY BY UNIFORM
NATIONAL ENACTMENTS.  IN RE RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545, 561; CLARK DISTILLING
CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 242 U.S. 311, 325, ET SEQ.; WHITFIELD
V. OHIO, 297 U.S. 431; KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL
R. CO., 299 U.S. 334, 350. 

FN5  MERCHANTS EXCHANGE V. MISSOURI, 248 U.S. 365, 368(UNITED STATES
WAREHOUSE ACT PERMITS STATE LAWS FOR INSPECTION AND WEIGHING BY
SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF SEC. 29, 39 STAT. 490; CF. ACT OF MARCH 2, 1931,
C. 366, 46 STAT. 1465); WHIPPLE V. MARTINSON, 256 U.S. 41(STATE
REGULATES PRESCRIPTIONS OF NARCOTICS FURTHER THAN UNITED STATES);
NORTHWESTERN, BELL TEL. CO. V. NEBRASKA COMM'N, 297 U.S. 471,
479(TELEPHONE DEPRECIATION); HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V. ILLINOIS, 298
U.S. 155, 159(SPECIFIC AUTHORITY FOR STATE LAWS TO CONTINUE IN
OPERATION); KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 9(STATE INSPECTION OF
HULLS OMITTED FROM FEDERAL INSPECTION); SOUTH CAROLINA HWY.  DEPT.  V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, NOTE 5(STATE REGULATION OF TRUCK WEIGHT
AND WIDTH OMITTED FROM FEDERAL REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 546); WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S.
79(MAXIMUM HOURS OF EMPLOYEES REGULATED BY STATE PRIOR TO EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FEDERAL REGULATION); EICHHOLZ V. COMM'N, 306 U.S. 268,
274(INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS INFRINGED); MAURER V.
HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598, 606(STATE REGULATION OF SIZE AND WEIGHT
RESERVED FROM FEDERAL REGULATION).  FREQUENTLY THIS COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED THE POWER OF THE STATE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES OVER OTHER
INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 408, AND
CASES CITED; ERIE R. CO. V. WILLIAMS, 233 U.S. 685; ERIE R. CO. V.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMM'RS, 254 U.S. 394, 409; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V.
NORWOOD, 283 U.S. 249. 

FN6  CF. 7 U.S.C. SEC. 269(1940); 29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(A)(1940). 

FN7  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426,
437; ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. CRONINGER, 226 U.S. 491, 505; NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO. V. WINFIELD, 244 U.S. 147, 150; OREGON-WASHINGTON R. CO.
V. WASHINGTON, 270 U.S. 87, 101(CF. AMENDMENT TO MEET DECISION, 44
STAT. 250); NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 272 U.S. 605, 612; MISSOURI
PACIFIC R. CO. V. PORTER, 273 U.S. 341, 345; HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312
U.S. 52, 66; ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILL. PUB. SERV. CO.,
314 U.S. 498, 509. 

FN8  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., SUPRA; SAVAGE
V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533; CORN PRODUCTS RFG.  CO. V. EDDY, 249 U.S.
427, 435; WHIPPLE V. MARTINSON, 256 U.S. 41, 45; MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289
U.S. 346, 350; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10. 

FN9  THESE SECTIONS ARE DERIVED FROM THE ACTS OF AUGUST 2, 1886, C.
840, 24 STAT. 209; MAY 9, 1902, C. 784, 32 STAT. 193; AUGUST 10, 1912,
C. 284, 37 STAT. 273. 

FN10  SEC. 2325.  INSPECTION, MANUFACTURE, STORAGE, AND MARKING OF
PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER.  "THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IS
AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED TO CAUSE A RIGID SANITARY INSPECTION TO BE
MADE, AT SUCH TIMES AS HE MAY DEEM PROPER OR NECESSARY, OF ALL
FACTORIES AND STOREHOUSES WHERE PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER IS
MANUFACTURED, PACKED, OR PREPARED FOR MARKET, AND OF THE PRODUCTS
THEREOF AND MATERIALS GOING INTO THE MANUFACTURE OF THE SAME.  ALL
PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER AND THE PACKAGES CONTAINING THE SAME SHALL
BE MARKED WITH THE WORDS 'RENOVATED BUTTER' OR 'PROCESS BUTTER' AND BY
SUCH OTHER MARKS, LABELS, OR BRANDS AND IN SUCH MANNER AS MAY BE
PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, AND NO PROCESS OR RENOVATED
BUTTER SHALL BE SHIPPED OR TRANSPORTED FROM ITS PLACE OF MANUFACTURE
INTO ANY OTHER STATE OR TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR TO
ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY, UNTIL IT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PROVIDED IN THIS
REGULATIONS FOR CARRYING THIS SECTION AND SECTIONS 2326(C) AND 2327(B)
INTO EFFECT AND SHALL CAUSE TO BE ASCERTAINED AND REPORTED FROM TIME TO
TIME THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER
MANUFACTURED, AND THE CHARACTER AND THE CONDITION OF THE MATERIAL FROM
WHICH IT IS MADE.  AND HE SHALL ALSO HAVE POWER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR
NOT MATERIALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF SAID PROCESS OR RENOVATED
BUTTER ARE DELETERIOUS TO HEALTH OR UNWHOLESOME IN THE FINISHED
PRODUCT, AND IN CASE SUCH DELETERIOUS OR UNWHOLESOME MATERIALS ARE
FOUND TO BE USED IN PRODUCT INTENDED FOR EXPORTATION OR SHIPMENT INTO
OTHER STATES OR IN COURSE OF EXPORTATION OR SHIPMENT HE SHALL HAVE
POWER TO CONFISCATE THE SAME." 

SEC. 2326(C).  FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
MANUFACTURE, STORAGE, AND MARKING OF PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER.  "ANY
PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION VIOLATING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
2325 SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND ON CONVICTION THEREOF
SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $50 NOR MORE THAN $500 OR
BY IMPRISONMENT NOT LESS THAN ONE MONTH NOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BY
BOTH SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT." 

SEC. 2327(B).  INSPECTION OF LIVE CATTLE AND MEAT.  "ALL PARTS OF AN
ACT PROVIDING FOR AN INSPECTION OF MEATS FOR EXPORTATION, APPROVED
AUGUST 30, 1890, C. 839, 26 STAT. 414, AND OF AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE
INSPECTION OF LIVE CATTLE, HOGS, AND THE CARCASSES AND PRODUCTS THEREOF
WHICH ARE THE SUBJECTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, APPROVED MARCH 3, 1891,
C. 555, 26 STAT. 1089, AND OF AMENDMENT THERETO APPROVED MARCH 2, 1895,
C. 169, SEC. 1, 28 STAT. 732, WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECTS AND
PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2325 SHALL APPLY TO PROCESS OR RENOVATED
BUTTER." 

SEC. 2327(C).  SLAUGHTERING AND MEAT CANNING.  "THE SANITARY
PROVISIONS FOR SLAUGHTERING, MEAT CANNING, OR SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS AS
SET FORTH IN THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906, C. 3913, 34 STAT. 676, SHALL BE
EXTENDED TO COVER RENOVATED BUTTER FACTORIES AS DEFINED IN THIS
SUBCHAPTER, UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE MAY
PRESCRIBE." 

FN11  32 STAT. 193, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 25.  "ALL ARTICLES KNOWN AS
OLEOMARGARINE, BUTTERINE, IMITATION, PROCESS, RENOVATED, OR ADULTERATED
BUTTER, OR IMITATION CHEESE, OR ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE SEMBLANCE OF
BUTTER OR CHEESE NOT THE USUAL PRODUCT OF THE DAIRY AND NOT MADE
EXCLUSIVELY OF PURE AND UNADULTERATED MILK OR CREAM, TRANSPORTED INTO
ANY STATE OR TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND REMAINING
THEREIN FOR USE, CONSUMPTION, SALE, OR STORAGE THEREIN, SHALL, UPON THE
ARRIVAL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH STATE OR TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, BE SUBJECT TO THE OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE LAWS OF SUCH
STATE OR TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ENACTED IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS POLICE POWERS TO THE SAME EXTENT AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS
THOUGH SUCH ARTICLES OR SUBSTANCES HAD BEEN PRODUCED IN SUCH STATE OR
TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND SHALL NOT BE EXEMPT
THEREFROM BY REASON OF BEING INTRODUCED THEREIN IN ORIGINAL PACKAGES OR
OTHERWISE." 

FN12  CF. 26 STAT. 313; IN RE RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545; SCHOLLENBERGER V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 171 U.S. 1; COLLINS V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 171 U.S. 30; STATE
V. COLLINS, 70 N.H. 218, 45 A. 1080, AFF. BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT,
187 U.S. 636; PLUMLEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 155 U.S. 461. 

FN13  CF.  IN RE KOLLOCK, 165 U.S. 526; PLUMLEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 155
U.S. 461, 466.  THESE WERE BASED ON THE EARLIER ACT OF 1886, 24 STAT.
209, WHICH DID NOT CARRY THE INSPECTION AND CONDEMNATION PROVISIONS NOW
APPLICABLE TO PROCESS AND RENOVATED BUTTER. 

FN14  VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8 WALL.  533; MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES,
195 U.S. 27, 55; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 115. 

FN15  "THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE SHALL CAUSE TO BE MADE, BY
EXPERTS IN SANITATION OR BY OTHER COMPETENT INSPECTORS, SUCH INSPECTION
OF ALL SLAUGHTERING, MEAT CANNING, SALTING, PACKING, RENDERING, OR
SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS IN WHICH CATTLE, SHEEP, SWINE, AND GOATS ARE
SLAUGHTERED AND THE MEAT AND MEAT FOOD PRODUCTS THEREOF ARE PREPARED
FOR INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO INFORM
HIMSELF CONCERNING THE SANITARY CONDITIONS OF THE SAME, AND TO
PRESCRIBE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF SANITATION UNDER WHICH SUCH
ESTABLISHMENTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED; AND WHERE THE SANITARY CONDITIONS
OF ANY SUCH ESTABLISHMENT ARE SUCH THAT THE MEAT OR MEAT FOOD PRODUCTS
ARE RENDERED UNCLEAN, UNSOUND, UNHEALTHFUL, UNWHOLESOME, OR OTHERWISE
UNFIT FOR HUMAN FOOD, HE SHALL REFUSE TO ALLOW SAID MEAT OR MEAT FOOD
PRODUCTS TO BE LABELED, MARKED, STAMPED, OR TAGGED AS 'INSPECTED AND
PASSED.'" 

FN16  AN ERROR APPEARED IN 26 U.S.C. SEC. 997(C) IN THE CODIFICATION
OF THE PROVISO OF 37 STAT. 273, WHICH EXTENDED THE SANITARY PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1906, 34 STAT. 676, TO RENOVATED BUTTER, SO THAT
THE CODIFICATION READ:  "THE SANITARY PROVISIONS FOR SLAUGHTERING, MEAT
CANNING, OR SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS AS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 71 TO 93 OF
TITLE 21, SHALL BE EXTENDED TO COVER RENOVATED BUTTER FACTORIES AS
DEFINED IN THIS SUBCHAPTER, UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE MAY PRESCRIBE."  THIS ERROR WAS CORRECTED IN I.R.C. SEC.
2327(C).  SEE NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN17  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES THAT A CONTRARY PURPOSE WAS IN
THE MIND OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PROPONENTS OF THE 1912 LEGISLATION.  SEE
48 CONG. REC. 2690-91, 6325; HOUSE REP. NO. 271, 62D CONG., 2D SESS.,
P. 4; SEN. REP. NO. 696, 62D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2; CONFERENCE REPORT,
HOUSE REP. NO. 1150, 62D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1, 10; HEARINGS ON THE
ESTIMATES OF APPROPRIATIONS (AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATION BILL), HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 62D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 325-328; HEARING ON
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL, SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE OF COMMITTEE ON
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, 62D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 14-15. 

FN18  "ANY ARTICLE, SUBSTANCE, MATERIAL, OR PRODUCT, THE POSSESSION
AND SALE OF WHICH IS REGULATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER,
WHICH IS ADULTERATED, MISBRANDED  ...  WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANY
PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER, AND WHICH IS MANUFACTURED FOR SALE, HELD IN
POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, OFFERED OR EXPOSED FOR SALE, OR SOLD OR
DELIVERED WITHIN THIS STATE, SHALL BE LIABLE TO BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY WHERE THE SAME IS FOUND, AND SEIZED FOR
CONFISCATION BY WRIT OF ATTACHMENT FOR CONDEMNATION.  SUCH WRIT SHALL
ISSUE UPON THE SWORN COMPLAINT OF THE COMMISSIONER OR HIS DULY
AUTHORIZED AGENT,  ...  IF A JUDGMENT OF CONDEMNATION AND CONFISCATION
IS RENDERED AGAINST SUCH ARTICLE OR PRODUCT AS BEING ADULTERATED ...
THE SAME SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY DESTRUCTION OR SALE, AS THE COURT MAY
DIRECT  ..." 

FN19  26 U.S.C. SEC. 2325.  "AND HE SHALL ALSO HAVE POWER TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT MATERIALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF SAID
PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER ARE DELETERIOUS TO HEALTH OR UNWHOLESOME IN
THE FINISHED PRODUCT, AND IN CASE SUCH DELETERIOUS OR UNWHOLESOME
MATERIALS ARE FOUND TO BE USED IN PRODUCT INTENDED FOR EXPORTATION OR
SHIPMENT INTO OTHER STATES OR IN COURSE OF EXPORTATION OR SHIPMENT HE
SHALL HAVE POWER TO CONFISCATE THE SAME." 

FN20  "...  WHICH IS MANUFACTURED FOR SALE, HELD IN POSSESSION WITH
INTENT TO SELL, OFFERED OR EXPOSED FOR SALE, OR SOLD OR DELIVERED
WITHIN THIS STATE  ..." 

FN21  THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR
THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1903, SHOWS THAT, DURING THE FIRST FISCAL YEAR
AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE RENOVATED BUTTER ACT, THE PRODUCTION WAS
54,658,790 POUNDS.  HOUSE DOC. NO. 11, 58TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 161. 
IN MORE RECENT YEARS, ACCORDING TO THE REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE
30, 1940, P. 144, TABLE 39, THE PRODUCTION WAS: 

1931..........1,499,041 LBS.      1936..........2,252,920 LBS. 

1932..........1,124,299  "        1937..........2,737,181  " 

1933..........1,002,131  "        1938..........2,435,499  " 

1934..........1,219,166  "        1939..........2,906,117  " 

1935..........1,844,561  "        1940..........2,706,852  " 

FN22  9 C.F.R. SECS. 301.3-21, 301.32-33. 

FN23  ID., "301.33 DELETERIOUS PRODUCTS SEIZABLE.  THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MATERIALS BEING USED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER WILL BE DELETERIOUS TO
HEALTH OR UNWHOLESOME IN THE FINISHED PRODUCT.  IF ANY MATERIALS WHICH
HAVE BEEN SO DETERMINED TO BE DELETERIOUS TO HEALTH OR UNWHOLESOME IN
THE FINISHED PRODUCT ARE FOUND TO BE PRESENT IN ANY PROCESS OR
RENOVATED BUTTER, INTENDED FOR, OR IN COURSE OF, EXPORTATION OR
SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SUCH PROCESS OR RENOVATED BUTTER WILL
BE CONFISCATED, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 301.44." 

FN24  CF.  CHARLESTON & W.C. RY. CO. V. VARNVILLE CO., 237 U.S. 597,
604,  - "WHEN CONGRESS HAS TAKEN THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT-MATTER IN HAND
CONCIDENCE IS AS INEFFECTIVE AS OPPOSITION.  ..."  ERIE R. CO. V. NEW
YORK, 233 U.S. 671, 683, - "IT IS NOT THAT THERE MAY BE DIVISION OF THE
FIELD OF REGULATION, BUT AN EXCLUSIVE OCCUPATION OF IT WHEN CONGRESS
MANIFESTS A PURPOSE TO ENTER IT." 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT APPEARS TO ME TO DEPART RADICALLY FROM THE
SALUTARY PRINCIPLE THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING LEGISLATION WITHIN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE INTENDED TO STRIKE
DOWN A STATE STATUTE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE
PUBLIC UNLESS THE STATE ACT, IN TERMS OR IN ITS PRACTICAL
ADMINISTRATION, CONFLICTS WITH THE ACT OF CONGRESS OR PLAINLY AND
PALPABLY INFRINGES ITS POLICY.  SINNOT V. DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227, 243;
MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. HABER, 169 U.S. 613, 623; REID V.
COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 148; SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533;
MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. HARRIS, 234 U.S. 412, 419; CAREY V. SOUTH
DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 118, 122; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 380, 391; TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, 454;
KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10; CF. MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S.
598, 614. 

WE HAVE HERE NO QUESTION OF AN UNEXERCISED DISCRETIONARY POWER GIVEN
BY CONGRESS TO A FEDERAL OFFICIAL AS THE MEANS OF REGULATING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, WHERE THE FULL EXERCISE OF HIS AUTHORITY WOULD CONFLICT WITH
AN ASSERTION OF THE STATE POWER.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE STATE'S
AUTHORITY TO ACT TURNS UPON THE QUESTION, WHICH THIS COURT HAS OFTEN
BEEN CALLED UPON TO ANSWER, WHETHER THE FAILURE OF THE FEDERAL OFFICIAL
TO EXERCISE HIS FULL POWER IS IN EFFECT A CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE
RULING THAT NO FURTHER REGULATION BY EITHER FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT
IS NEEDFUL.  NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RY. CO., 272 U.S. 605; CF.
MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346; NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V.
RAILWAY COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 471; WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S.
79. 

HERE, CONCEDEDLY, THE SECRETARY IS EXERCISING ALL THE AUTHORITY HE
HAS.  HIS AUTHORITY UNDER 32 STAT. 196, 26 U.S. C. SEC. 2325, TO SEIZE
AND CONDEMN IS RESTRICTED TO THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCT, "RENOVATED
BUTTER."  IT DOES NOT EXTEND TO "PACKING STOCK BUTTER" INTENDED TO BE
USED IN MAKING THE PRODUCT.  BUT AS CONSTRUED BY THE COURT THE ACT HAS
DEPRIVED ALABAMA OF THE POWER WHICH IT WOULD OTHERWISE POSSESS TO SEIZE
SPOILED PACKING STOCK BUTTER, WITHOUT CONFERRING THAT AUTHORITY ON ANY
FEDERAL OFFICER.  THUS BOTH THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE
LEFT POWERLESS TO CONDEMN AN ARTICLE WHICH IS A NOTORIOUS MENACE TO
HEALTH,  FN1  A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF WHICH IS NEVER SHIPPED OUT OF THE
STATE.  A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO IMMUNIZE FROM REGULATION, STATE AND
NATIONAL, A SUBSTANCE SO OBVIOUSLY REQUIRING CONTROL IS NOT LIGHTLY TO
BE INFERRED, ESPECIALLY WHERE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY IS CONCERNED. 
MINTZ V. BALDWIN, SUPRA, 350; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, 14; WELCH CO.
V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA, 85. 

THE SECRETARY IS ALSO GIVEN AUTHORITY BY THE FEDERAL ACT TO INSPECT
THE PLACE AND PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING RENOVATED BUTTER, THE
INGREDIENTS GOING INTO IT, AND THE RENOVATED PRODUCT ITSELF, WHICH HE
MAY CONFISCATE IF HE FINDS IT TO BE DELETERIOUS TO HEALTH.  BUT HIS
AUTHORITY OVER PACKING STOCK BUTTER BEFORE IT IS USED FOR MANUFACTURE
IS RESTRICTED TO ITS INSPECTION.  THE INSPECTION THUS AFFORDS A MEANS
OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCT IN WHICH PACKING STOCK
IS USED, AND WHICH THE SECRETARY MAY SEIZE, CONTAINS A DELETERIOUS
INGREDIENT, THE PRESENCE OF WHICH IN THE PRODUCT CAN OFTEN BE
ASCERTAINED, IF AT ALL, ONLY BY DELICATE CHEMICAL TESTS.  FN2 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL ACT SHOWS, WHAT IS EVIDENT
FROM ITS WORDS, THAT ITS AIM IS TO USE THE FEDERAL POWER TO PREVENT, BY
SEIZURE AND CONDEMNATION, THE INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION OF RENOVATED
BUTTER WHEN FOUND UNFIT FOR FOOD.  35 CONG. REC. 3316, 4586.  THE GRANT
OF AUTHORITY TO THE SECRETARY TO INSPECT THE INGREDIENTS AND SEIZE THE
PRODUCT GIVES NO INDICATION OF A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO HAMPER STATE
CONTROL OVER THE CONTAMINATED MATERIALS BEFORE THEIR MANUFACTURE INTO
THE FINISHED PRODUCT.  INDEED, CONGRESS NOT ONLY CONFINED THE
SECRETARY'S AUTHORITY TO MAKE SEIZURES TO THE RENOVATED PRODUCT, BUT IN
ASSUMING THIS CONTROL IT WAS AT PAINS TO PROVIDE BY 32 STAT. 193, 21
U.S.C. SEC. 25, THAT THE STATES SHOULD BE FREE TO EXERT THEIR POLICE
POWER OVER THE RENOVATED MATERIAL "IN THE SAME MANNER AS THOUGH" IT
"HAD BEEN PRODUCED IN SUCH STATE OR TERRITORY."  THE SPONSOR IN THE
SENATE OF THE BILL CONTAINING THIS PROVISION EMPHASIZED THAT IT WAS NOT
INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE STATES, BUT RATHER TO EXPAND
THEIR AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE ORIGINAL PACKAGES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
35 CONG. REC. 3605.  IN THE FACE OF THESE DISAVOWALS WITH RESPECT TO
THE FINISHED PRODUCT WHICH CONGRESS BROUGHT UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY,
ONE CAN HARDLY INFER A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE STATES'
POWER OVER THE INGREDIENT WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT SEEK TO CONTROL; OR
THAT CONGRESS COULD HAVE HAD ANY OBJECT IN DENYING THE STATES POWER TO
SEIZE THE OFFENSIVE INGREDIENT WHEN IT LEFT THEM FREE TO SEIZE THE
PRODUCT BECAUSE IT CONTAINED THE INGREDIENT. 

MOREOVER, NOT ONLY IS THERE A COMPLETE WANT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
TWO STATUTES AND THEIR ADMINISTRATION, BUT IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT THE
ALABAMA STATUTE, BOTH BY ITS TERMS AND IN ITS PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION,
AIDS AND SUPPLEMENTS THE FEDERAL REGULATION AND POLICY.  CONSEQUENTLY
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY INFERENCE THAT CONGRESS, BY ITS ENACTMENT,
SOUGHT TO STAY THE HANDS OF THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF A POWER WITH
WHICH THE FEDERAL ACT DOES NOT CONFLICT.  THE BASIC AND IDENTICAL
CONCERN OF BOTH GOVERNMENTS IS TO PROTECT THE CONSUMING PUBLIC FROM
CONTAMINATED BUTTER.  IF THE STATE SEIZES UNFIT PACKING STOCK, THE
FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ARE RELIEVED OF THE NECESSITY OF DETECTING IT AND
OF SEIZING THE RENOVATED PRODUCT WHICH IT CONTAMINATES.  FN3 IN
EXERCISING THE POWERS CONFERRED ON HIM BY THE ACT, THE SECRETARY IS NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE QUALITY OF PACKING STOCK SAVE AS IT IS USED IN
MAKING RENOVATED BUTTER.  SEIZURE OF IT BY THE STATE AT THE SAME TIME
REMOVES ALL NECESSITY AND DUTY OF FEDERAL INSPECTION, SINCE, IN ANY
EVENT, IT WILL NEVER BECOME AN INGREDIENT OF RENOVATED BUTTER. 

THE OPINION, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS LONG TAKEN THE
VIEW THAT IT HAS NO POWER TO SEIZE PACKING STOCK BUTTER, DISREGARDS
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTUALITIES IN ASSUMING THAT STATE SEIZURE OF IT WOULD
INVOLVE AN "INTRUSION" INTO THE FEDERAL DOMAIN, WHICH WOULD "HAMPER THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT."  THE RECORD OF ADMINISTRATION IS
NOT ONE OF BELLIGERENCY AND JURISDICTIONAL JEALOUSY, BUT OF ACTIVE AND
SYMPATHETIC COOPERATION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES IN EFFECTING
A COMMON PURPOSE, PREVENTION OF THE CONSUMPTION OF UNFIT BUTTER,
WHETHER THAT OBJECTIVE IS ACCOMPLISHED BY STATE SEIZURE OF THE PACKING
STOCK OR FEDERAL CONDEMNATION OF THE RENOVATED PRODUCT.  FN4  TO FIND
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AN INTENT TO RESTRICT STATE POWER, NOT REQUIRED
BY THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, IS TO CONDEMN A WORKING, HARMONIOUS
FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIP FOR THE SAKE OF A STERILE AND HARMFUL
INSISTENCE ON EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL POWER. 

THE CONTROLLING ELEMENTS IN THIS CASE SEEM IDENTICAL WITH THOSE IN
THE APPLICATION OF THE PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT OF 1906, 34 STAT. 768,
WHICH THIS COURT HAS HELD IMPOSES NO RESTRICTION ON STATE ACTION WHICH
SUPPLEMENTS THE FEDERAL ACT AND DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ITS TERMS OR
PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION.  IN SUSTAINING LOCAL REGULATIONS REQUIRING
THE LABELS PLACED ON ANIMAL FOODSTUFFS TO DISCLOSE THEIR INGREDIENTS,
IN ADDITION TO THE TRUTHFUL DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCT DEMANDED BY THE
FEDERAL ACT, THIS COURT SAID:  "THE REQUIREMENTS, THE ENFORCEMENT OF
WHICH THE BILL SEEKS TO ENJOIN, ARE NOT IN ANY WAY IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  THEY MAY BE SUSTAINED WITHOUT IMPAIRING
IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE ITS OPERATION AND EFFECT.  THERE IS NO QUESTION
HERE OF CONFLICTING STANDARDS OR OF OPPOSITION OF STATE TO FEDERAL
AUTHORITY."  SAVAGE V. JONES, SUPRA, 225 U.S. AT 539.  STATE REGULATION
YIELDS ONLY WHEN IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OR TERMS OF
THE PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.  CF. MCDERMOTT V. WISCONSIN, 228 U.S.
115.  THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN OTHER CASES WHERE STATE AND
FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BY CONCURRENT AND NONCONFLICTING CONTROL OVER
SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE WERE SEEKING TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OR SAFETY OF
THE PUBLIC.  CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V. EDDY, 249 U.S. 427; REID V.
COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. HABER, SUPRA, 169
U.S. 613; CF. WHIPPLE V. MARTINSON, 256 U.S. 41; HARTFORD ACCIDENT &
IND. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, 302
U.S. 1.  SUCH SHOULD BE OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE RENOVATED BUTTER ACT. 
IT SEEMS IRONICAL FOR US TO SAY THAT ALTHOUGH STATE SEIZURES OF
PETITIONER'S PACKING STOCK ARE NOT PRECLUDED BY THE JUDICIAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE  FN5  CONSTRUCTION OF THE PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, WHICH
AUTHORIZES FEDERAL CONFISCATION OF THE FILTHY INGREDIENT, PETITIONER
HAS NEVERTHELESS DISCOVERED AN AVENUE OF ESCAPE BY APPEAL TO THE
RENOVATED BUTTER ACT WHICH DOES NOT AUTHORIZE FEDERAL SEIZURE OF THE
INGREDIENT.    IT IS ONE THING FOR COURTS IN INTERPRETING AN ACT OF
CONGRESS REGULATING MATTERS BEYOND STATE CONTROL TO CONSTRUE ITS
LANGUAGE WITH A VIEW TO CARRYING INTO EFFECT A GENERAL THOUGH
UNEXPRESSED CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO INFER A
PURPOSE, WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSED, TO DEPRIVE THE STATES OF
AUTHORITY WHICH OTHERWISE CONSTITUTIONALLY BELONGS TO THEM, OVER A
SUBJECT WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO CONTROL.  DUE REGARD FOR
THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT DEMANDS THAT THE
COURTS DO NOT DIMINISH STATE POWER BY EXTRAVAGANT INFERENCES REGARDING
WHAT CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE INTENDED IF IT HAD CONSIDERED THE MATTER, OR
BY REFERENCE TO THEIR OWN CONCEPTIONS OF A POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAS
NOT EXPRESSED AND IS NOT PLAINLY TO BE INFERRED FROM THE LEGISLATION
WHICH IT HAS ENACTED.  CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LEAD US NOT TO FAVOR REPEAL
OF STATUTES BY IMPLICATION, UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188,
198-9; UNITED STATES V. JACKSON, 302 U.S. 628, 631; POSADOS V. NATIONAL
CITY BANK, 296 U.S. 497, 503, 505, SHOULD BE AT LEAST AS PERSUASIVE
WHEN THE QUESTION IS ONE OF THE NULLIFICATION OF STATE POWER BY
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION. 

FN1  A REPORT OF AUGUST 25, 1933, P. 3, BY A MEMBER OF THE STAFF OF
THE MICROANALYTICAL LABORATORY OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
INDICATED THE FOLLOWING CONTENTS IN THREE SAMPLES OF 100 GRAMS EACH
FROM CERTAIN LOTS OF PACKING STOCK SEIZED FROM COMPANIES WHICH
MANUFACTURE RENOVATED BUTTER:  (A) 37 FLY MAGGOTS, 7 RODENT HAIRS, 1
FEATHER, CINDERS AND SAND; (B) 4 FLY MAGGOTS, 1 FLY, 2 ANTS, 1 COW
HAIR, 1 HUMAN HAIR, GRASS AND SAWDUST; (C) 1 FLY MAGGOT, 11 BROWN ANTS,
1 HUMAN HAIR, 1 BEETLE LARVA, 1 BEETLE HEAD. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 3, INFRA. 

FN3  THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF DAIRY INDUSTRY, IN A LETTER
TO THE SOLICITOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT, JULY 22, 1941, WHICH ACCOMPANIED A
PROPOSED BILL TO GIVE THE DEPARTMENT AUTHORITY TO CONDEMN FILTHY
INGREDIENTS GOING INTO RENOVATED BUTTER, SAID: 

"IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT DESPITE THE PROCESSES THROUGH WHICH BUTTER OR
BUTTER OIL PASS DURING THE COURSE OF MANUFACTURING RENOVATED BUTTER,
CERTAIN SOLUBLE MATERIALS UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION CANNOT BE REMOVED
AND IT IS DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT THEM IN THE FINISHED
PRODUCT.  FOR EXAMPLE, A LOT OF BUTTER MAY BE INFESTED WITH MAGGOTS AND
SHOULD BE CONDEMNED FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF RENOVATED BUTTER.  IF
NOT, IN THE MELTING PROCESS FAT FROM THESE MAGGOTS WILL BE MIXED WITH
THE BUTTER FAT AND THE ANIMAL FAT MAY BE DETECTED IN THE FINISHED
PRODUCT ONLY BY CHEMICAL LABORATORY TESTS, IF AT ALL." 

A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT, APPEARING AT THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
HEARINGS ON THE AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATION BILL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 1913, NOTED ANOTHER DIFFICULTY IN LOCATING CONTAMINATED
RENOVATED BUTTER: 

"BUT IF 500 POUNDS OF ROTTEN PACKING STOCK IS IN A FACTORY, MAYBE
THERE IS 10,000 POUNDS OF OTHER PACKING STOCK THERE; AND YOU CAN
UNDERSTAND HOW IMPOSSIBLE IT IS FOR US TO FOLLOW THROUGH THAT PACKING
STOCK SO AS TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY IT WHEN IT COMES OUT OF THE FACTORY
AND IS OFFERED FOR SALE." 

HEARINGS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE ON THE AGRICULTURAL
APPROPRIATION BILL, 62D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 328. 

FN4  THE MEMORANDUM OF THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF DAIRY INDUSTRY TO
THE SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OCTOBER 4, 1940, STATES
IN PART:  "THE DEVELOPMENT AND PERFECTION DURING THE PAST FEW YEARS OF
NEW METHODS FOR ANALYZING AND EXAMINING BUTTER HAS RESULTED IN
INCREASED REGULATORY ACTIVITY AND ACTION AGAINST FARM-MADE OR 'PACKING
STOCK' BUTTER INTENDED FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PROCESS OR
RENOVATED BUTTER.  CERTAIN STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES AND THE FEDERAL
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY ACTIVE. 

"THE BUREAU OF DAIRY INDUSTRY, WHICH IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO ENFORCE THE PROCESS OR
RENOVATED BUTTER ACT, IS ENTIRELY SYMPATHETIC WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF
THESE AGENCIES, ALTHOUGH THE APPARENTLY LIMITING PROVISIONS OF SECTION
5 OF THE ACT OF MAY 9, 1902(32 STAT. 196), WITH WHICH THIS BUREAU IS
PRIMARILY CONCERNED, AS CONSTRUED IN OPINIONS OF YOUR OFFICE, HAVE
NECESSARILY GOVERNED AND GUIDED THIS BUREAU IN ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT." 

IN HIS ANNUAL REPORT ON REGULATORY WORK OF THE BUREAU OF DAIRY
INDUSTRY, 1940, THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF DAIRY PRODUCTS INSPECTION
REPORTED, P. 4:  "IN CONDUCTING THE INSPECTION OF ALL PROCESS OR
RENOVATED BUTTER FACTORIES, THIS OFFICE HAS MAINTAINED CLOSE CONTACT
WITH  ...  LOCAL STATE AND CITY REGULATORY AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS AND
WHENEVER POSSIBLE COOPERATIVE ACTION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF CONDITIONS HAVE
BEEN TAKEN."  ID., 1939, P. 4:  "THE RESULT OF STATE REGULATORY
ACTIVITY IN THE SOUTH HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL IN IMPROVING THE PROCUREMENT
METHODS USED IN GETTING PACKING STOCK BUTTER TO THE FACTORIES.  MORE
FREQUENT PICKUPS HAVE BEEN INAUGURATED AND BOTH ATLANTA AND BIRMINGHAM
FACTORIES HAVE EXPENDED HUNDRED OF DOLLARS IN NEW SPECIALLY MADE CANS
WITH TIGHT FITTING COVERS, AND THE PACKING STOCK RECEIVED IS VERY MUCH
CLEANER."  ID., 1938, P. 2:  "MUCH OF THE CREDIT FOR IMPROVEMENT IN
QUALITY OF PACKING STOCK BUTTER BELONGS TO STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY
AGENCIES COOPERATING IN CAMPAIGNS TO IMPROVE PROCUREMENT PRACTICES." 
ID., P. 3:  "IN CONDUCTING THE INSPECTION OF PROCESS OR RENOVATED
BUTTER FACTORIES, THIS OFFICE HAS MAINTAINED CLOSE CONTACT WITH STATE
AND CITY REGULATORY OFFICIALS AND WHEN DEEMED ADVISABLE COOPERATIVE
ACTION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SANITARY CONDITIONS HAS BEEN TAKEN." 

FN5  A REPORT BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE CEREAL AND DAIRY
COMMISSIONER OF FOOD AND DRUGS, ON JANUARY 20, 1942, DISCLOSES THAT
BETWEEN JULY 1, 1933 AND JANUARY 1, 1942, THIRTY-SIX SEIZURES WERE MADE
OF LOTS OF PACKING STOCK BUTTER CONSIGNED TO PROCESS BUTTER PLANTS.  IN
COMMENTING UPON THE EXTENT OF STATE COOPERATION IN SUCH SEIZURES, IT
WAS NOTED THAT IN TWENTY-ONE OF SUCH CASES THE PACKING STOCK WAS
DETAINED BY THE STATE AUTHORITIES PENDING THE FILING BY FEDERAL
OFFICIALS OF A LIBEL FOR CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PURE FOOD
AND DRUGS ACT, 21 U.S.C. SEC. 334.  THESE SEIZURES INCLUDED FOUR LOTS
OF PACKING STOCK TOTALING OVER 5,000 POUNDS SHIPPED TO PETITIONER, AND
DETAINED BY THE ALABAMA AUTHORITIES UNTIL CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS WERE
BEGUN IN THE FEDERAL COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE BYRNES
JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

I AGREE ENTIRELY WITH THE OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.  I SHALL ADD
ONLY A FEW WORDS ON THE GENERAL BEARING OF THE MAJORITY OPINION UPON
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. 

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF OUR GOVERNMENT IN 1789, FEDERAL
LEGISLATION LIKE THAT NOW UNDER REVIEW HAS USUALLY NOT ONLY BEEN
SPONSORED BUT ACTUALLY DRAFTED BY THE APPROPRIATE EXECUTIVE AGENCY. 
THIS WAS TRUE OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 10, 1912, 37 STAT. 273, AMENDING THE
RENOVATED BUTTER ACT.  THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NOT ONLY URGED THE
ENACTMENT OF THE LEGISLATION UPON CONGRESS, IT DRAFTED ITS PROVISIONS. 
IF THE DEPARTMENT WANTED CONGRESS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE STATES THEIR
POWER TO CONDEMN UNSANITARY PACKING STOCK AND TO CONFIDE SUCH POWER IN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IT COULD EASILY HAVE MADE APPROPRIATE PROVISION
IN THE DRAFT SUBMITTED BY IT TO CONGRESS.  HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT DID
NOT DO SO.  IT DID ASK CONGRESS TO MAKE SOME RESTRICTIONS UPON THE
AUTHORITY WHICH HAD BEEN EXERCISED BY THE STATES IN REGULATING THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF BUTTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR CITIZENS. 
BUT THE RESTRICTIONS DID NOT INCLUDE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATES OF THE
POWER TO CONDEMN UNHEALTHFUL PACKING STOCK BUTTER.  THE SPONSORS OF
THIS LEGISLATION, THE EXPERTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COULD
HAVE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT
OF THAT RESULT.  THEY DID NOT DO SO.  THE COURT NOW DOES IT FOR THEM
EVEN THOUGH THE DEPARTMENT HAS NO SUCH DESIRE. 

TO REQUIRE THE VARIOUS AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO ARE THE
EFFECTIVE AUTHORS OF LEGISLATION LIKE THAT NOW BEFORE US TO EXPRESS
CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY THEIR PURPOSE IN DISLODGING CONSTITUTIONAL
POWERS OF STATES - IF SUCH IS THEIR PURPOSE - MAKES FOR CARE IN
DRAFTSMANSHIP AND FOR RESPONSIBILITY IN LEGISLATION.  TO HOLD, AS DO
THE MAJORITY, THAT PARALYSIS OF STATE POWER IS SOMEHOW TO BE FOUND IN
THE VAGUE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL RENOVATED BUTTER ENACTMENTS, IS
TO ENCOURAGE SLIPSHODNESS IN DRAFTSMANSHIP AND IRRESPONSIBILITY IN
LEGISLATION. 

THE MAJORITY OPINION POINTS OUT THAT THE SUCCESSIVE SOLICITORS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HAVE UNIFORMLY BEEN OF THE OPINION THAT THE
DEPARTMENT LACKS THE POWER TO CONDEMN OR DESTROY UNWHOLESOME PACKING
STOCK BUTTER.  IF THE DEPARTMENT WERE NOT CONTENT TO HAVE THE STATES
CONTINUE TO EXERCISE THAT POWER, IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO CONGRESS.  IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS STRANGE TO FIND IN THIS LEGISLATION A DENIAL
TO THE STATES OF POWERS WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS DISCLAIMED AND TO THE
EXERCISE OF WHICH BY THE STATES IT HAS NEVER OBJECTED. 

THE RESULT OF THIS DECISION IS TO DENY ALABAMA THE POWER TO PROTECT
THE HEALTH OF ITS CITIZENS WITHOUT REPLACING SUCH PROTECTION BY THAT OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE DOES WELL TO CALL ATTENTION
TO THE FACT THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE RENOVATED BUTTER ACT
GRATUITOUSLY DESTROYS THE HARMONIOUS COOPERATION BETWEEN THE NATION AND
THE STATES IN SAFEGUARDING THE HEALTH OF OUR PEOPLE.  IF EVER THERE WAS
AN INTRUSION BY THIS COURT INTO A FIELD THAT BELONGS TO CONGRESS, AND
WHICH IT HAS SEEN FIT NOT TO ENTER, THIS IS IT.  AND WHAT IS WORSE, THE
DECISION IS PURELY DESTRUCTIVE LEGISLATION - THE COURT TAKES POWER AWAY
FROM THE STATES BUT IS, OF COURSE, UNABLE TO TRANSFER IT TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. 
..END :














HELVERING V. LIMESTONE CO., 315 U.S. 179 


NO. 328.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  - 119
F.2D 819, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF ITS CREDITORS, AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION WAS
ADJUDGED BANKRUPT; ITS ASSETS WERE SOLD BY THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE, BID
IN BY THE CREDITORS' COMMITTEE, AND ACQUIRED BY A NEW CORPORATION IN
EXCHANGE FOR ITS STOCK, ALL OF WHICH WAS ISSUED TO CREDITORS OF THE OLD
CORPORATION IN SATISFACTION OF THEIR CLAIMS, THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS BEING
ELIMINATED.  NON-ASSENTING MINORITY CREDITORS WERE PAID IN CASH. 
OPERATIONS WERE NOT INTERRUPTED BY THE REORGANIZATION AND WERE CARRIED
ON SUBSEQUENTLY BY SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME PERSONS AS BEFORE.  HELD: 

(1)  A "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 112(I)(1) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928; SO THAT, IN COMPUTING DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION
FOR THE YEAR 1934, THE ASSETS OF THE NEW CORPORATION, SO ACQUIRED, HAD
THE SAME BASIS THAT THEY HAD WHEN OWNED BY THE OLD CORPORATION.  PP.
181, 183. 

(2)  THE CONTINUITY OF INTEREST TEST WAS SATISFIED SINCE THE
CREDITORS HAD EFFECTIVE COMMAND OVER THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY
FROM THE TIME WHEN THEY TOOK STEPS TO ENFORCE THEIR DEMANDS AGAINST
THEIR INSOLVENT DEBTOR BY THE INSTITUTION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. 
AT THAT TIME THEY STEPPED INTO THE SHOES OF THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS.  P.
183. 

(3)  THE TRANSACTION HERE MET THE STATUTORY STANDARD OF A
"REORGANIZATION" EVEN THOUGH AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION BY THE NEW
CORPORATION THE PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE COMMITTEE AND NOT TO THE OLD
CORPORATION, SINCE THE ACQUISITION BY THE COMMITTEE WAS AN INTEGRATED
PART OF A SINGLE REORGANIZATION PLAN.  P. 184. 

2.  THE FULL PRIORITY RULE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. BOYD, 228
U.S. 482, APPLIES TO PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY AS WELL AS TO EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIPS.  P. 183. 

3.  THE FULL PRIORITY RULE GIVES CREDITORS, WHETHER SECURED OR
UNSECURED, THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE STOCKHOLDERS ENTIRELY FROM A
REORGANIZATION PLAN WHEN THE DEBTOR IS INSOLVENT.  P. 183. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC
LIMESTONE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 598, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 41 B.T.A. 324, WHICH OVERRULED A
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, IN 1931, ACQUIRED ALL THE ASSETS OF ALABAMA ROCK ASPHALT,
INC., PURSUANT TO A REORGANIZATION PLAN CONSUMMATED SUMMATED WITH THE
AID OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  IN COMPUTING ITS DEPRECIATION AND
DEPLETION ALLOWANCES FOR THE YEAR 1934, RESPONDENT TREATED ITS ASSETS
AS HAVING THE SAME BASIS WHICH THEY HAD IN THE HANDS OF THE OLD
CORPORATION.  THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY, COMPUTED ON THE
PRICE PAID AT THE BANKRUPTCY SALE.  FN1  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
REJECTED THE POSITION OF THE COMMISSIONER.  41 B.T.A. 324.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  119 F.2D 819.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT DECISION  FN2  AND
COMMISSIONER V. PALM SPRINGS HOLDING CORP., 119 F.2D 846, DECIDED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, AND HELVERING V.
NEW PRESIDENT CORP., 122 F.2D 92, DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION  FN3  TURNS ON THE MEANING OF THAT PART OF
SEC. 112(I)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928(45 STAT. 791, 818) WHICH
PROVIDES:  "THE TERM 'REORGANIZATION' MEANS (A) A MERGER OR
CONSOLIDATION (INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION OF  ...
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE PROPERTIES OF ANOTHER CORPORATION.  ..." 

THE ESSENTIAL FACTS CAN BE STATED BRIEFLY.  THE OLD CORPORATION WAS A
SUBSIDIARY OF A CORPORATION WHICH WAS IN RECEIVERSHIP IN 1929. 
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE PARENT HAD FINANCED THE OLD CORPORATION TAKING
UNSECURED NOTES FOR THEIR ADVANCES.  MATURITY OF THE NOTES WAS
APPROACHING AND NOT ALL OF THE NOTEHOLDERS WOULD AGREE TO TAKE STOCK
FOR THEIR CLAIMS.  ACCORDINGLY, A CREDITORS' COMMITTEE WAS FORMED, LATE
IN 1929, AND A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WAS PROPOSED TO WHICH ALL THE
NOTEHOLDERS, EXCEPT TWO, ASSENTED.  THE PLAN PROVIDED THAT A NEW
CORPORATION WOULD BE FORMED WHICH WOULD ACQUIRE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE
OLD CORPORATION.  THE STOCK OF THE NEW CORPORATION, PREFERRED AND
COMMON, WOULD BE ISSUED TO THE CREDITORS IN SATISFACTION OF THEIR
CLAIMS.  PURSUANT TO THE PLAN, INVOLUNTARY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE
INSTITUTED IN 1930.  THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION'S
ASSETS WAS ABOUT $155,000.  ITS OBLIGATIONS WERE ABOUT $838,000, THE
UNSECURED NOTES WITH ACCRUED INTEREST AGGREGATING SOMEWHAT OVER
$793,000.  THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OFFERED THE ASSETS FOR SALE AT PUBLIC
AUCTION.  THEY WERE BID IN BY THE CREDITORS' COMMITTEE FOR $150,000. 
THE PRICE WAS PAID BY $15,000 IN CASH, BY AGREEMENTS OF CREDITORS TO
ACCEPT STOCK OF A NEW CORPORATION IN FULL DISCHARGE OF THEIR CLAIMS,
AND BY AN OFFER OF THE COMMITTEE TO MEET THE VARIOUS COSTS OF
ADMINISTRATION, ETC.  THEREAFTER, RESPONDENT WAS FORMED AND ACQUIRED
ALL THE ASSETS OF THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER
THE ACQUISITION WAS DIRECTLY FROM THE OLD CORPORATION ON ASSIGNMENT OF
THE BID OR FROM THE COMMITTEE.  PURSUANT TO THE PLAN, RESPONDENT ISSUED
ITS STOCK TO THE CREDITORS OF THE OLD CORPORATION - OVER 95% TO THE
NOTEHOLDERS AND THE BALANCE TO SMALL CREDITORS.  NONASSENTING CREDITORS
WERE PAID IN CASH.  OPERATIONS WERE NOT INTERRUPTED BY THE
REORGANIZATION AND WERE CARRIED ON SUBSEQUENTLY BY SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME PERSONS AS BEFORE. 

FROM THE PINELLAS CASE (287 U.S. 462) TO THE LETULLE CASE (308 U.S.
415) IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT A TRANSACTION MAY NOT QUALIFY AS A
"REORGANIZATION" UNDER THE VARIOUS REVENUE ACTS THOUGH THE LITERAL
LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS SATISFIED.  SEE PAUL, STUDIES IN FEDERAL
TAXATION (3D SERIES), PP. 91 ET SEQ. THE PINELLAS CASE INTRODUCED THE
CONTINUITY OF INTEREST THEORY TO ELIMINATE THOSE TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAD
"NO REAL SEMBLANCE TO A MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION" (287 U.S. P. 470) AND
TO AVOID A CONSTRUCTION WHICH "WOULD MAKE EVASION OF TAXATION VERY
EASY."  ID. P. 469.  IN THAT CASE, THE TRANSFEROR RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE
FOR ITS PROPERTY CASH AND SHORT TERM NOTES.  THIS COURT SAID (ID. P.
470):  "CERTAINLY, WE THINK THAT TO BE WITHIN THE EXEMPTION THE SELLER
MUST ACQUIRE AN INTEREST IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE PURCHASING COMPANY MORE
DEFINITE THAN THAT INCIDENT TO OWNERSHIP OF ITS SHORT-TERM PURCHASE
MONEY NOTES."  IN THE LETULLE CASE, WE HELD THAT THE TERM OF THE
OBLIGATION RECEIVED BY THE SELLER WAS IMMATERIAL.  "WHERE THE
CONSIDERATION IS WHOLLY IN THE TRANSFEREE'S BONDS, OR PART CASH AND
PART SUCH BONDS, WE THINK IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRANSFEROR RETAINS
ANY PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE ENTERPRISE."  308 U.S. PP. 420-421.  ON
THE BASIS OF THE CONTINUITY OF INTEREST THEORY AS EXPLAINED IN THE
LETULLE CASE, IT IS NOW EARNESTLY CONTENDED THAT A SUBSTANTIAL
OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE TRANSFEREE COMPANY MUST BE RETAINED BY THE
HOLDERS OF THE OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE TRANSFEROR.  THAT VIEW HAS
BEEN FOLLOWED BY SOME COURTS.  COMMISSIONER V. PALM SPRINGS HOLDING
CORP., SUPRA; HELVERING V. NEW PRESIDENT CORP., SUPRA.  UNDER THAT
TEST, THERE WAS "NO REORGANIZATION" IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE OLD
STOCKHOLDERS WERE ELIMINATED BY THE PLAN, NO PORTION WHATEVER OF THEIR
PROPRIETARY INTEREST BEING PRESERVED FOR THEM IN THE NEW CORPORATION. 
AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FACT THAT THE CREDITORS WERE FOR THE MOST PART
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE PARENT COMPANY DOES NOT BRIDGE THE GAP.  THE EQUITY
INTEREST IN THE PARENT IS ONE STEP REMOVED FROM THE EQUITY INTEREST IN
THE SUBSIDIARY.  IN ANY EVENT, THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE PARENT WERE NOT
GRANTED PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN QUA STOCKHOLDERS. 

WE CONCLUDE, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE TRANSFER SHIFTED
THE OWNERSHIP OF THE EQUITY IN THE PROPERTY FROM THE STOCKHOLDERS TO
THE CREDITORS OF THE OLD CORPORATION.  PLAINLY, THE OLD CONTINUITY OF
INTEREST WAS BROKEN.  TECHNICALLY THAT DID NOT OCCUR IN THIS PROCEEDING
UNTIL THE JUDICIAL SALE TOOK PLACE.  FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, HOWEVER,
IT TOOK PLACE NOT LATER THAN THE TIME WHEN THE CREDITORS TOOK STEPS TO
ENFORCE THEIR DEMANDS AGAINST THEIR INSOLVENT DEBTOR.  IN THIS CASE,
THAT WAS THE DATE OF THE INSTITUTION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  FROM
THAT TIME ON, THEY HAD EFFECTIVE COMMAND OVER THE DISPOSITION OF THE
PROPERTY.  THE FULL PRIORITY RULE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD,
228 U.S. 482, APPLIES TO PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY AS WELL AS TO EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIPS.  CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308 U.S. 106. 
IT GIVES CREDITORS, WHETHER SECURED OR UNSECURED, THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE
STOCKHOLDERS ENTIRELY FROM THE REORGANIZATION PLAN WHEN THE DEBTOR IS
INSOLVENT.  SEE IN RE 620 CHURCH ST. BLDG. CORP., 299 U.S. 24.  WHEN
THE EQUITY OWNERS ARE EXCLUDED AND THE OLD CREDITORS BECOME THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE NEW CORPORATION, IT CONFORMS TO REALITIES TO DATE
THEIR EQUITY OWNERSHIP FROM THE TIME WHEN THEY INVOKED THE PROCESSES OF
THE LAW TO ENFORCE THEIR RIGHTS OF FULL PRIORITY.  AT THAT TIME THEY
STEPPED INTO THE SHOES OF THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS.  THE SALE "DID NOTHING
BUT RECOGNIZE OFFICIALLY WHAT HAD BEFORE BEEN TRUE IN FACT."  HELVERING
V. NEW HAVEN & S.L.R. CO., 121 F.2D 985, 987. 

THAT CONCLUSION INVOLVES NO CONFLICT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF THE
LETULLE CASE.  A BONDHOLDER INTEREST IN A SOLVENT COMPANY PLAINLY IS
NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A PROPRIETARY INTEREST, EVEN THOUGH UPON DEFAULT
THE BONDHOLDERS COULD RETAKE THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED.  THE MERE
POSSIBILITY OF A PROPRIETARY INTEREST IS, OF COURSE, NOT ITS
EQUIVALENT.  BUT THE DETERMINATIVE AND CONTROLLING FACTORS OF THE
DEBTOR'S INSOLVENCY AND AN EFFECTIVE COMMAND BY THE CREDITORS OVER THE
PROPERTY WERE ABSENT IN THE LETULLE CASE. 

NOR ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHICH PREVENT THIS TRANSACTION
FROM QUALIFYING AS A "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 
THE PINELLAS CASE MAKES PLAIN THAT "MERGER" AND "CONSOLIDATION" AS USED
IN THE ACT INCLUDES TRANSACTIONS WHICH "ARE BEYOND THE ORDINARY AND
COMMONLY ACCEPTED MEANING OF THOSE WORDS."  287 U.S. P. 470. 
INSOLVENCY REORGANIZATIONS ARE WITHIN THE FAMILY OF FINANCIAL
READJUSTMENTS EMBRACED IN THOSE TERMS AS USED IN THIS PARTICULAR
STATUTE.  SOME CONTENTION, HOWEVER, IS MADE THAT THIS TRANSACTION DID
NOT MEET THE STATUTORY STANDARD BECAUSE THE PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY THE
NEW CORPORATION BELONGED AT THAT TIME TO THE COMMITTEE AND NOT TO THE
OLD CORPORATION.  THAT IS TRUE.  YET, THE SEPARATE STEPS WERE
INTEGRATED PARTS OF A SINGLE SCHEME.  TRANSITORY PHASES OF AN
ARRANGEMENT FREQUENTLY ARE DISREGARDED UNDER THESE SECTIONS OF THE
REVENUE ACTS WHERE THEY ADD NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE TO THE COMPLETED
AFFAIR.  GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465; HELVERING V. BASHFORD, 302
U.S. 454.  HERE THEY WERE NO MORE THAN INTERMEDIATE PROCEDURAL DEVICES
UTILIZED TO ENABLE THE NEW CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE
OLD ONE PURSUANT TO A SINGLE REORGANIZATION PLAN.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PETITIONER NOW TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE NEW BASIS SHOULD BE
MEASURED BY THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSETS RATHER THAN THE BID PRICE. 
SEE BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE V. COMMISSIONER, POST, P. 189. 

FN2  AND SEE COMMISSIONER V. KITSELMAN, 89 F.2D 458, AND COMMISSIONER
V. NEWBERRY LUMBER & CHEMICAL CO., 94 F.2D 447, WHICH ARE IN ACCORD
WITH THE DECISION BELOW. 

FN3  IF THERE WAS A "REORGANIZATION," THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO
USE THE ASSET BASIS OF THE OLD CORPORATION AS PROVIDED IN SEC.
113(A)(7). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




PALM SPRINGS CORP. V. COMM'R, 315 U.S. 185 


NO. 503.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  - 119
F.2D 846, REVERSED. 


PURSUANT TO A PLAN MADE BY INDENTURE BONDHOLDERS OF AN INSOLVENT
CORPORATION, A NEW CORPORATION WAS FORMED, WHICH ACQUIRED MORE THAN ONE
HALF OF THE BOND ISSUE IN EXCHANGE FOR SHARES OF ITS STOCK ISSUED TO
BONDHOLDER CREDITORS, BUT NONE OF WHICH WAS ISSUED TO ANY PRESENT OR
FORMER STOCKHOLDER OF THE OLD CORPORATION FOR ANY RIGHT OF HIS QUA
STOCKHOLDER; AND THE PROPERTIES OF THE OLD CORPORATION WERE BOUGHT IN
AND ACQUIRED BY THE NEW CORPORATION AT TRUSTEE'S FORECLOSURE SALE. 
HELD, A "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 112(I)(1)(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  HELVERING V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE CO.,
ANTE, P. 179.  P. 188. 

PALM SPRINGS HOLDING CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 598, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT WHICH HAD BEEN SUSTAINED IN PART BY THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS A COMPANION CASE TO HELVERING V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC
LIMESTONE CO., ANTE, P. 179.  THIS, TOO, WAS AN INSOLVENCY
REORGANIZATION, THOUGH A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE WAS EMPLOYED TO CONSUMMATE
IT.  THE OLD CORPORATION HAD OUTSTANDING ABOUT $300,000 FACE AMOUNT OF
FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS, SECURED BY A LIEN ON ITS REALTY.  THE PROPERTY,
WHICH WAS AN HOTEL, WAS LEASED TO AN OPERATING COMPANY.  IN 1931, AS A
RESULT OF TRANSACTIONS NOT RELEVANT HERE, ONE PINNEY BECAME THE SOLE
STOCKHOLDER OF THE OLD CORPORATION AND OF THE OPERATING COMPANY.  THE
FURNITURE AND FIXTURES IN THE HOTEL WERE OWNED BY THE OPERATING
COMPANY.  THEY WERE COVERED BY A CHATTEL MORTGAGE WHICH, TOGETHER WITH
THE LEASE ON THE HOTEL, WERE ASSIGNED AND PLEDGED AS PART OF THE
SECURITY FOR THE BOND ISSUE.  IN 1931, BOTH COMPANIES WERE IN FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTIES AND INSOLVENT, AT LEAST IN THE EQUITY SENSE.  A
BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE WAS FORMED, WHICH RECEIVED DEPOSITS OF MORE THAN
HALF OF THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE BONDS.  PETITIONER WAS FORMED IN 1932. 
PURSUANT TO THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, SIX SHARES OF PETITIONER'S
PREFERRED STOCK AND FOUR SHARES OF ITS COMMON STOCK WERE ISSUED TO
ASSENTING BONDHOLDERS FOR EACH $1000 BOND.  IN ADDITION, ALL OF
PETITIONER'S REMAINING COMMON STOCK WAS ISSUED TO ONE LACOE, IN RETURN
FOR HIS AGREEMENT TO PAY THE COSTS OF INCORPORATING PETITIONER, UP TO
$1000, AND FOR HIS AGREEMENT TO LEND MONEY TO PETITIONER.  BEFORE THE
ACTUAL ISSUANCE OF ANY OF THE SHARES, LACOE AGREED TO TRANSFER 1,000
SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK TO PINNEY, THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER OF THE TWO
COMPANIES, FOR HIS SERVICES IN THE REORGANIZATION AND AS AN INDUCEMENT
TO HIM TO CONTINUE AS MANAGER OF THE HOTEL.  NONE OF THE STOCK OF
PETITIONER, HOWEVER, WAS ISSUED TO ANY STOCKHOLDER OR FORMER
STOCKHOLDER OF EITHER OF THE COMPANIES FOR ANY RIGHTS ANY OF THEM HAD
AS STOCKHOLDERS.  IN MAY, 1932, THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE DECLARED THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE BONDS DUE AND PAYABLE.  PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE
INDENTURE, THE TRUSTEE SOLD ALL OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE OLD
CORPORATION, INCLUDING THE LEASE AND CHATTEL MORTGAGE, TO PETITIONER,
THE HIGHEST BIDDER.  THE BID PRICE WAS $61,800.  IT WAS SATISFIED BY
THE PAYMENT OF ABOUT $18,700 IN CASH AND BY THE DELIVERY TO THE TRUSTEE
OF BONDS OF A FACE AMOUNT OF $292,000 FOR THE BALANCE.  FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE OLD CORPORATION AND THE OPERATING COMPANY WERE
THEN INSTITUTED.  AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE, THE FURNITURE AND FIXTURES,
COMPRISING ALL OF THE PROPERTY OF THE OPERATING COMPANY, WERE BOUGHT IN
BY PETITIONER. 

THE COMMISSIONER, IN DETERMINING A DEFICIENCY IN PETITIONER'S INCOME
AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 1936,
DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION DEDUCTIONS ON BOTH THE REALTY AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF COST TO THE OLD CORPORATION AND OPERATING
COMPANY.  FN1  HE USED AS THE BASIS THE COST OF THE ASSETS TO
PETITIONER PLUS THE COST OF ADDITIONS.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONAL
PROPERTY BUT REJECTED IT WITH RESPECT TO THE REALTY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER ON BOTH POINTS.  119 F.2D 846. 

THOUGH THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI RAISED THE QUESTION, PETITIONER
NOW CONCEDES THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE FURNITURE AND FIXTURES FROM
THE OPERATING COMPANY WAS NOT A "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 112(I)(1)(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  SO WE DO NOT REACH THAT
ISSUE.  AS RESPECTS THE ASSETS ACQUIRED FROM THE OLD CORPORATION, WE
THINK THERE WAS A "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
112(I)(1)(A) OF THE 1932 ACT.  THAT PROVISION IS THE SAME IN THE 1932
ACT AS IN THE 1928 ACT, WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN HELVERING V. ALABAMA
ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE CO., SUPRA.  THAT CASE IS DETERMINATIVE OF THIS
CONTROVERSY.  THE TRANSACTION FITS THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE.  THE NEW CORPORATION ACQUIRED THE ASSETS DIRECTLY AT THE
TRUSTEE'S AND THE FORECLOSURE SALES.  THE LEGAL PROCEDURE EMPLOYED BY
THE CREDITORS IS NOT MATERIAL.  THE CRITICAL FACTS ARE THAT THE OLD
CORPORATION WAS INSOLVENT AND THAT ITS CREDITORS TOOK STEPS TO OBTAIN
EFFECTIVE COMMAND OVER ITS PROPERTY.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN
HELVERING V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE CO., SUPRA, THE CREDITORS AT
THAT TIME ACQUIRED THE EQUIVALENT OF THE PROPRIETARY INTEREST OF THE
OLD EQUITY OWNER.  ACCORDINGLY, THE CONTINUITY OF INTEREST TEST IS
SATISFIED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 113(A)(7) OF THE 1932 ACT (47 STAT. 169, 198) PROVIDES IN
PART: 

"(A)  BASIS (UNADJUSTED) OF PROPERTY.  - THE BASIS OF PROPERTY SHALL
BE THE COST OF SUCH PROPERTY; EXCEPT THAT - 

     .         .     .         .         . 

"(7)  TRANSFERS TO CORPORATION WHERE CONTROL OF PROPERTY REMAINS IN
SAME PERSONS.  - IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1917,
BY A CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH A REORGANIZATION, AND IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE TRANSFER AN INTEREST OR CONTROL IN SUCH PROPERTY OF 50 PER
CENTUM OR MORE REMAINED IN THE SAME PERSONS OR ANY OF THEM, THEN THE
BASIS SHALL BE THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF THE TRANSFEROR,
INCREASED IN THE AMOUNT OF GAIN OR DECREASED IN THE AMOUNT OF LOSS
RECOGNIZED TO THE TRANSFEROR UPON SUCH TRANSFER UNDER THE LAW
APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER WAS MADE."  THAT PROVISION
IS APPLICABLE HERE.  SEE, SEC. 114(A), SEC. 113(B), SEC. 113(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680.  THE PROPERTY HERE INVOLVED WAS
ACQUIRED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913, IN A TAXABLE YEAR PRIOR TO JANUARY 1,
1934, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 113(A)(12).  RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THIS
TRANSACTION WAS NOT A "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
113(A)(7).  AND HE POINTS OUT THAT "CONTROL" WAS NOT IN THE
PARTICIPATING CREDITORS SINCE THE MAJORITY OF THE NEW COMMON STOCK HAD
BEEN DISTRIBUTED, FOR A CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN AN EXCHANGE OF BONDS,
TO LACOE AND PINNEY.  BUT HE DOES NOT CONTEND THAT, ASSUMING THERE WAS
A "REORGANIZATION," AN "INTEREST" IN THE PROPERTY OF 50 PER CENT OR
MORE DID NOT REMAIN IN THE SAME PERSONS (THE BONDHOLDERS) IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE TRANSFER. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :












BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE V. COMM'R, 315 U.S. 189 


NO. 128.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  - 118
F.2D 511, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE PROPERTY FORMERLY OWNED BY AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION, SUBJECT
TO A DEED OF TRUST SECURING BONDS, BUT WHICH IT HAS CONVEYED TO
ANOTHER, IS ACQUIRED THROUGH ACTION OF ITS BONDHOLDERS BY A NEWLY
FORMED CORPORATION, PARTLY THROUGH FORECLOSURE OF THE MORTGAGE AND
PARTLY BY PURCHASE FOR CASH FROM OTHERS TO WHOM THE LEGAL TITLE HAS
PASSED BY MESNE CONVEYANCES, THERE IS NO "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 112(I)(1)(A) AND (B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AS
BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW CORPORATIONS - ALTHOUGH, PURSUANT TO THE
PLAN, ALL OF THE STOCK OF THE NEW CORPORATION IS ISSUED TO THE
BONDHOLDERS OF THE OLD - SINCE THE PROPERTY HAD CEASED TO BE PROPERTY
OF THE OLD CORPORATION.  P. 192. 

2.  SECTION 113(A)(7) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AUTHORIZES A CARRY
OVER OF THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF THE TRANSFEROR, NOT
THEIR BASIS IN THE HANDS OF ONE WHO MAY HAVE OCCUPIED AN EARLIER
POSITION IN THE CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP.  P. 192. 

3.  THE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS HERE IN QUESTION COVER ONLY
INTERCORPORATE TRANSACTIONS.  P. 193. 

4.  SECTION 112(B)(5) OF THE REVENUE ACT, SUPRA, INCLUDES TRANSFERS
BY INDIVIDUALS, BUT REQUIRES THAT THE TRANSFEROR REMAIN IN CONTROL, IT
BEING INAPPLICABLE WHERE THE TRANSFEROR IS BOUGHT OUT FOR CASH.  P.
193. 

5.  THE COST OF ASSETS BID IN BY A MORTGAGE CREDITOR ON FORECLOSURE
IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  P. 193. 

BONDHOLDERS COMMITTEE, MARLBOROUGH INVESTMENT CO., FIRST MORTGAGE
BONDS, V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 129, MARLBOROUGH HOUSE, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 590, TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 590, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS WHICH REVERSED
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 40 B.T.A. 882, OVERRULING
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRIMARY QUESTION INVOLVED IN THESE CASES IS WHETHER THE
TRANSACTION IN QUESTION QUALIFIED AS A "REORGANIZATION" UNDER THAT
PORTION OF SEC. 112(I)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932(47 STAT. 169, 196)
WHICH PROVIDES:  "THE TERM 'REORGANIZATION' MEANS (A) A MERGER OR
CONSOLIDATION (INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION OF  ...
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE PROPERTIES OF ANOTHER CORPORATION).  ..." 

IN 1927, THE MARLBOROUGH INVESTMENT CO. ISSUED ITS BONDS IN THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $500,000.  THEY WERE SECURED BY ITS APARTMENT
BUILDING IN SEATTLE AND THE PERSONAL PROPERTY THEREIN.  THERE WAS A
DEFAULT IN MAY, 1932.  A BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE WAS FORMED AND THERE
WERE DEPOSITED WITH IT MORE THAN 97% OF THE TOTAL OF OVER $450,000 FACE
AMOUNT OF THE BONDS THEN OUTSTANDING.  IN VIEW OF HELVERING V. ALABAMA
ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE CO., ANTE, P. 179, THE PRECISE MECHANICS WHEREBY
THE REORGANIZATION WAS CONSUMMATED ARE NOT MATERIAL.  SUFFICE IT TO
SAY, THAT PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FORMULATED BY THE
COMMITTEE UNDER THE BROAD POWERS ACCORDED IT IN THE DEPOSIT AGREEMENT,
THERE WAS A FORECLOSURE AND SALE; THE COMMITTEE WAS THE SUCCESSFUL
BIDDER AT THE PRICE OF $340,425, WHICH WAS PAID BY THE SURRENDER OF
DEPOSITED BONDS PLUS CASH; MARLBOROUGH HOUSE, INC. WAS FORMED BY THE
BONDHOLDERS; IT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY FROM THE COMMITTEE AND ISSUED ALL
OF ITS STOCK TO THE DEPOSITING BONDHOLDERS; AND NON-ASSENTING
BONDHOLDERS WERE PAID IN CASH THEIR PRO RATA SHARE OF THE PURCHASE
PRICE.  IN DETERMINING THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY OF THE COMMITTEE  FN1
FOR A PART OF 1933, AND OF THE NEW CORPORATION FOR A PART OF 1933 AND
FOR 1934 AND 1935, THE COMMISSIONER USED AS THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING
DEPRECIATION THE PRICE BID AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS FOUND THAT NEITHER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE DEPOSITED BONDS
PLUS THE CASH EXPENDED IN PARTIAL PAYMENT, NOR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY, WAS IN EXCESS OF $340,425, AT THE DATE OF THE FORECLOSURE
SALE OR WHEN THE COMMITTEE TOOK POSSESSION.  THE BOARD HELD THAT, SINCE
THE NEW CORPORATION HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH A
"REORGANIZATION," IT WAS ENTITLED TO USE THE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE
OLD CORPORATION, LESS DEPRECIATION.  40 B.T.A. 882.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED.  118 F.2D 511. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN HELVERING V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE
CO., SUPRA, THIS TRANSACTION CLEARLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A "REORGANIZATION"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 112(I)(1) BUT FOR ONE FACT.  THAT FACT IS
THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT ACQUIRED BY THE COMMITTEE OR THE NEW
CORPORATION FROM MARLBOROUGH INVESTMENT CO. FN2  IN DECEMBER, 1928,
SEVERAL YEARS PRIOR TO THE INSOLVENCY REORGANIZATION, MARLBOROUGH
INVESTMENT CO., THE ISSUER OF THE BONDS, HAD TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY
TO ANOTHER CORPORATION.  AS A RESULT OF MESNE CONVEYANCES THE PROPERTY
WAS HELD IN MAY, 1932 BY STATE DEVELOPERS, INC. AND ONE COOLEY.  WHILE
THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING, THAT CORPORATION AND COOLEY
EXECUTED AND DELIVERED A QUITCLAIM DEED TO THE PROPERTY, IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CASH SUM OF $10,025, WHICH WAS
FURNISHED BY THE COMMITTEE. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE WAS NO "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 112(I)(1).  THE PARENTHETICAL PART OF CLAUSE A
WHICH IS RELEVANT HERE COVERS "THE ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION" OF
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE PROPERTIES "OF ANOTHER CORPORATION."  CLAUSE B
COVERS CERTAIN TRANSFERS "BY A CORPORATION" OF ALL OR A PART OF ITS
ASSETS "TO ANOTHER CORPORATION" WHERE THE TRANSFEROR OR ITS
STOCKHOLDERS CONTINUE IN CONTROL.  THESE WERE NOT "PROPERTIES" OF
MARLBOROUGH INVESTMENT CO. IT HAD LONG SINCE CEASED TO OWN THEM.  IT
WAS NOT THE "TRANSFEROR."  FURTHERMORE, SEC. 113(A)(7) AUTHORIZES A
CARRY-OVER OF THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTIES FN3  IN THE HANDS OF THE
"TRANSFEROR," NOT THEIR BASIS IN THE HANDS OF ONE WHO MAY HAVE OCCUPIED
AN EARLIER POSITION IN THE CHAIN OF OWNERSHIP.  HENCE IT IS IMMATERIAL
THAT UNDER THE RULE OF HELVERING V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE CO.,
SUPRA, THE BONDHOLDERS HAD SUCCEEDED TO ALL OF THE PROPRIETARY INTEREST
IN MARLBOROUGH INVESTMENT CO. THE PROPERTY WHOSE BASIS IS IN
CONTROVERSY HERE WAS NOT ACQUIRED FROM IT.  NOR WAS THERE A
"REORGANIZATION" AS BETWEEN THE COMMITTEE OR THE NEW CORPORATION ON THE
ONE HAND AND STATE DEVELOPERS, INC. AND COOLEY ON THE OTHER.  COOLEY
WAS AN INDIVIDUAL.  THE "REORGANIZATION" PROVISIONS IN QUESTION COVER
ONLY INTER-CORPORATE TRANSACTIONS.  SEC. 113(A)(8) PROVIDES FOR A CARRY
OVER OF THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF THE "TRANSFEROR" IF
THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY A CORPORATION AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1920, BY
THE ISSUANCE OF ITS STOCK OR SECURITIES "IN CONNECTION WITH A
TRANSACTION" DESCRIBED IN SEC. 112(B)(5).  SEC. 112(B)(5) INCLUDES
TRANSFERS BY INDIVIDUALS; FN4  BUT IT REQUIRES THAT THE TRANSFEROR
REMAIN IN CONTROL.  COOLEY AND STATE DEVELOPERS, INC. WERE BOUGHT OUT
FOR CASH. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT, IF THE COMMITTEE'S ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTIES
IS TO BE TREATED AS A PURCHASE RATHER THAN A "REORGANIZATION," THE COST
TO THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CASH ADVANCED
BY THE COMMITTEE, PLUS THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPOSITED BONDS.  THERE IS
NO FOUNDATION FOR THAT CONTENTION.  THE BASIS OF ASSETS BID IN BY A
MORTGAGE CREDITOR ON FORECLOSURE IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE FAIR MARKET
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  SEE ART. 193, TREASURY REGULATIONS 77;
HELVERING V. NEW PRESIDENT CORP., 122 F.2D 92, 96-97.  ALTHOUGH THE
COMMISSIONER USED THE BID PRICE IN ASCERTAINING THE BASIS, THE BOARD
FOUND THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSETS DID NOT EXCEED THAT AMOUNT. 
RESPONDENT THEREFORE SUGGESTS THAT A REMAND TO THE BOARD TO ASCERTAIN
THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS NOT NECESSARY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT
BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COMMITTEE TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND MANAGED IT FOR
A PART OF THE YEAR 1933, PRIOR TO THE DATE WHEN THE NEW CORPORATION
ACQUIRED IT.  THE BOARD HELD THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS TAXABLE AS A
CORPORATION ON THE INCOME RECEIVED DURING THAT PERIOD BY IT.  THE
COMMITTEE DID NOT PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THAT DETERMINATION BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

FN2  THOUGH RESPONDENT APPARENTLY DID NOT URGE THIS POINT BEFORE THE
BOARD OR THE COURT BELOW, IT MAY, OF COURSE, SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT HERE
BY ANY MATTER APPEARING IN THE RECORD.  LETULLE V. SCOFIELD, 308 U.S.
415, 421, AND CASES CITED. 

FN3  BY SEC. 114(A), THE BASIS UPON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED IS
THE ADJUSTED BASIS PROVIDED IN SEC. 113(B) FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS.  BY SEC. 113(B), SUCH ADJUSTED BASIS IS THE
BASIS DETERMINED UNDER SEC. 113(A).  BY SEC. 113(A), THE BASIS OF
PROPERTY SHALL BE "COST," WITH ENUMERATED EXCEPTIONS.  ONE OF THOSE
EXCEPTIONS IS CONTAINED IN SEC. 113(A)(7), SET FORTH IN PALM SPRINGS
HOLDING CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 185, NOTE 1. 

FN4  SEC. 112(B)(5) PROVIDES IN PART:  "NO GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE
RECOGNIZED IF PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED TO A CORPORATION BY ONE OR MORE
PERSONS SOLELY IN EXCHANGE FOR STOCK OR SECURITIES IN SUCH CORPORATION,
AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXCHANGE SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS ARE IN
CONTROL OF THE CORPORATION." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















HELVERING V. SOUTHWEST CORP., 315 U.S. 194 


NO. 286.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 15, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  -
119 F.2D 561, REVERSED. 


1.  PURSUANT TO A PLAN OF CREDITORS, THE INDENTURE SECURING BONDS OF
AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION WAS FORECLOSED AND ITS PROPERTIES TRANSFERRED
TO A NEW CORPORATION IN EXCHANGE FOR COMMON STOCK AND STOCK PURCHASE
WARRANTS OF THE LATTER, THE COMMON STOCK GOING MOSTLY TO BONDHOLDERS OF
THE OLD CORPORATION, BUT A SMALL PORTION OF IT, TOGETHER WITH PART OF
THE WARRANTS, TO THE OLD CORPORATION'S PARTICIPATING UNSECURED
CREDITORS, THE OTHER WARRANTS GOING TO THE OLD CORPORATION'S PREFERRED
AND COMMON STOCKHOLDERS.  ITS NONPARTICIPATING SECURITY HOLDERS WERE
PAID CASH, WHICH WAS OBTAINED IN THE COURSE OF THE TRANSACTION BY MEANS
OF A LOAN FROM A BANK WHICH THE NEW CORPORATION LATER ASSUMED AND
PAID.  HELD, THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT A "REORGANIZATION" UNDER SEC.
112(G)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  P. 198. 

TO CONSTITUTE A "REORGANIZATION" UNDER CLAUSE B OF THAT SECTION, THE
ASSETS OF THE TRANSFEROR CORPORATION MUST BE ACQUIRED SOLELY FOR VOTING
STOCK OF THE TRANSFEREE.  VOTING STOCK PLUS SOME OTHER CONSIDERATION
DOES NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. 

2.  THE PROVISION OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, SEC. 112(G)(1)(B), AS
AMENDED RETROACTIVELY BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1939, THAT IN DETERMINING
WHETHER AN EXCHANGE IS SOLELY FOR VOTING STOCK "THE ASSUMPTION BY THE
ACQUIRING CORPORATION OF A LIABILITY OF THE OTHER, OR THE FACT THAT
PROPERTY ACQUIRED IS SUBJECT TO A LIABILITY, SHALL BE DISREGARDED," IS
INAPPLICABLE TO AN INDEBTEDNESS ARISING OUT OF THE REORGANIZATION, SUCH
AS THE BANK LOAN DESCRIBED SUPRA, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A DEBT OF THE
TRANSFEROR ANTEDATING THE TRANSACTION.  P. 198. 

3.  WARRANTS ENTITLING THE HOLDER TO BUY VOTING COMMON STOCK AT SO
MUCH PER SHARE ARE NOT "VOTING STOCK" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
112(G)(1)(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  P. 200. 

4.  UNDER CLAUSE C OF SEC. 112(G)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934,
WHICH REQUIRES THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRANSFER THE TRANSFEROR OR
ITS STOCKHOLDERS OR BOTH BE IN CONTROL OF THE TRANSFEREE CORPORATION,
AND SEC. 112(H) WHICH DEFINES "CONTROL," THERE IS NO REORGANIZATION
WHERE AT THE CRITICAL DATE CONTROL IS IN CREDITORS OF THE OLD
CORPORATION BY VIRTUE OF SHARES ISSUED TO THEM BY THE NEW CORPORATION. 
P. 201. 

5.  "RECAPITALIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE D OF SEC. 112(G),
SUPRA, IMPLIES A RESHUFFLING OF A CAPITAL STRUCTURE WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF AN EXISTING CORPORATION, AND A TRANSACTION WHICH SHIFTS
THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE CORPORATION IS NOT "A
MERE CHANGE IN IDENTITY, FORM, OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF CLAUSE E. P. 202. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. SOUTHWEST CONSOLIDATED
CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 598, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS OVERRULING DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRIMARY PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE TRANSACTION IN
QUESTION QUALIFIED AS A "REORGANIZATION" UNDER SEC. 112(G)(1) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  48 STAT. 680, 705.  SEC. 112(G) PROVIDES: 

"AS USED IN THIS SECTION AND SECTION 113 - 

"(1)  THE TERM 'REORGANIZATION' MEANS (A) A STATUTORY MERGER OR
CONSOLIDATION, OR (B) THE ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION IN EXCHANGE
SOLELY FOR ALL OR A PART OF ITS VOTING STOCK:  OF AT LEAST 80 PER
CENTUM OF THE VOTING STOCK AND AT LEAST 80 PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF SHARES OF ALL OTHER CLASSES OF STOCK OF ANOTHER CORPORATION;
OR OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE PROPERTIES OF ANOTHER CORPORATION, OR (C) A
TRANSFER BY A CORPORATION OF ALL OR A PART OF ITS ASSETS TO ANOTHER
CORPORATION IF IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRANSFER THE TRANSFEROR OR ITS
STOCKHOLDERS OR BOTH ARE IN CONTROL OF THE CORPORATION TO WHICH THE
ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED, OR (D) A RECAPITALIZATION, OR (E) A MERE CHANGE
IN IDENTITY, FORM, OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION, HOWEVER EFFECTED." 

RESPONDENT FILED AN INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX RETURN FOR A PART
OF THE YEAR 1934 AND FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR 1935, REPORTING A NET LOSS FOR
EACH YEAR.  PETITIONER, IN DETERMINING DEFICIENCIES, MADE CERTAIN
ADJUSTMENTS ON THE THEORY THAT THE ACQUISITION BY RESPONDENT IN 1934 OF
ALL OF THE ASSETS OF ITS PREDECESSOR, SOUTHWEST GAS UTILITIES CORP.,
WAS NOT A "REORGANIZATION" AS DEFINED IN SEC. 112(G)(1).  THE COST
BASIS OF THE ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF THE OLD CORPORATION HAD BEEN ABOUT
$9,000,000.  THEY WERE PURCHASED AT FORECLOSURE AND RECEIVERSHIP SALES
FOR $752,000.  RESPONDENT USED THE FORMER FIGURE AS THE BASIS IN
COMPUTING GAINS AND LOSSES ON THE ACQUIRED ASSETS.  THUS IT DEDUCTED
SOME $75,000 AS BAD DEBTS.  PETITIONER, IN USING THE LOWER FIGURE AS
THE BASIS, ALLOWED THAT DEDUCTION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF $1.26. 
DEFICIENCIES COMPUTED ON THAT THEORY SHOWED A NET INCOME, RATHER THAN A
NET LOSS, FOR EACH YEAR.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REJECTED THE
COMMISSIONER'S VIEW.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD.  119 F.2D 561. 

THE OLD CORPORATION WAS BURDENED WITH SOME $2,870,000 FACE AMOUNT OF
FIRST LIEN BONDS, CERTAIN UNSECURED CLAIMS, AND ISSUES OF PREFERRED AND
COMMON STOCK.  THERE WAS A DEFAULT IN INTEREST ON THE BONDS IN MAY,
1932.  A BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE WAS FORMED, WHICH OBTAINED THE DEPOSIT
OF ABOUT 85% OF THE BONDS OUTSTANDING.  MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE BECAME
DIRECTORS OF THE OLD CORPORATION AND, BEGINNING IN THE FALL OF 1932,
WERE IN CONTROL OF IT.  IN 1934, EQUITY RECEIVERS WERE APPOINTED BY THE
DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT.  A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WAS FORMULATED,
WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT.  THE PLAN CALLED FOR THE FORMATION OF
A NEW COMPANY WHICH WOULD ACQUIRE THE ASSETS OF THE OLD IN EXCHANGE FOR
VOTING COMMON STOCK AND CLASS A AND CLASS B STOCK PURCHASE WARRANTS. 
MOST OF THE COMMON STOCK, ISSUED UNDER THE PLAN, WAS TO GO TO THE
BONDHOLDERS; A SMALL PORTION, TOGETHER WITH THE CLASS A WARRANTS, WAS
TO BE ISSUED TO THE UNSECURED CREDITORS.  CLASS B WARRANTS WERE TO BE
ISSUED TO THE PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKHOLDERS.  PURSUANT TO THE PLAN
AND A COURT ORDER, THE ASSETS SECURING THE BONDS WERE SOLD BY THE
INDENTURE TRUSTEE AT A FORECLOSURE SALE IN 1934.  THEY WERE BID IN BY
THE BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE FOR $660,000.  THE UNPLEDGED ASSETS ALSO
WERE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION AND WERE BOUGHT IN BY THE COMMITTEE FOR
$92,000.  RESPONDENT WAS THEREUPON FORMED, AND THE COMMITTEE
TRANSFERRED ALL THE ASSETS OF THE OLD CORPORATION TO IT.  THE BOARD
FOUND THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSETS AT THAT TIME WAS
$1,766,694.98.  THE STOCK AND WARRANTS OF RESPONDENT WERE DISTRIBUTED
PURSUANT TO THE PLAN.  NON-PARTICIPATING SECURITY HOLDERS, OWNING
$440,000 FACE AMOUNT OF OBLIGATIONS, RECEIVED ABOUT $106,680 IN CASH. 
THE CASH NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS PAYMENT WAS OBTAINED BY A LOAN FROM A
BANK.  THE LOAN WAS ASSUMED BY THE RESPONDENT AND LATER REPAID BY IT.
ABOUT 49,300 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK AND 2,760 CLASS A WARRANTS WERE
ISSUED TO THE CREDITORS; OVER 18,445 CLASS B WARRANTS WERE ISSUED TO
THE STOCKHOLDERS.  CLASS A WARRANTS CARRIED THE RIGHT TO BUY ONE SHARE
OF COMMON STOCK AT $6 A SHARE DURING 1934, THE PRICE BEING INCREASED $1
PER SHARE EACH YEAR UNTIL EXPIRATION IN 1938.  CLASS B WARRANTS CARRIED
THE SAME RIGHT EXCEPT THAT THE PRICE WAS $10 A SHARE DURING 1934 AND
WAS INCREASED BY $5 PER SHARE EACH YEAR UNTIL EXPIRATION IN 1938. 
THERE WERE 1,760 CLASS A WARRANTS AND 4,623 OF THE CLASS B WARRANTS
EXERCISED.  ON THE BASIS OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSETS AT THE
TIME THEY WERE ACQUIRED IN THE REORGANIZATION, RESPONDENT COMPUTES THAT
THE CLASS A WARRANTS HAD A VALUE OF $29 EACH AND THE CLASS B WARRANTS A
VALUE OF $25 EACH. 

UNDER THE STATUTE INVOLVED IN HELVERING V. ALABAMA ASPHALTIC
LIMESTONE CO., ANTE, P. 179, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A "REORGANIZATION"
HERE.  FOR, THE CREDITORS OF THE OLD COMPANY HAD ACQUIRED SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ENTIRE PROPRIETARY INTEREST OF THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS.  SEE HELVERING
V. MINNESOTA TEA CO., 296 U.S. 378.  BUT CLAUSE B OF SEC. 112(G)(1) OF
THE 1934 ACT EFFECTS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE AS RESPECTS TRANSACTIONS
WHEREBY ONE CORPORATION ACQUIRES SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE ASSETS OF
ANOTHER.  SEE S. REP. NO. 558, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., COMMITTEE REPORTS,
REVENUE ACTS 1913-1938, PP. 598-599.  THE CONTINUITY OF INTEREST TEST
IS MADE MUCH STRICTER.  SEE PAUL, STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION (3D
SERIES), PP. 36-41.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT THE ASSETS OF THE
TRANSFEROR CORPORATION MUST BE ACQUIRED IN EXCHANGE "SOLELY" FOR
"VOTING STOCK" OF THE TRANSFEREE.  "SOLELY" LEAVES NO LEEWAY.  VOTING
STOCK PLUS SOME OTHER CONSIDERATION DOES NOT MEET THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT.  SEE HENDRICKS, DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TAXATION OF
REORGANIZATIONS, 34 COL. L. REV. 1198, 1202-1203.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER,
IN 1939 AMENDED CLAUSE B OF SEC. 112(G)(1) BY ADDING, "BUT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE EXCHANGE IS SOLELY FOR VOTING STOCK THE
ASSUMPTION BY THE ACQUIRING CORPORATION OF A LIABILITY OF THE OTHER, OR
THE FACT THAT PROPERTY ACQUIRED IS SUBJECT TO A LIABILITY, SHALL BE
DISREGARDED."  53 STAT. 871.  THAT AMENDMENT WAS MADE TO AVOID THE
CONSEQUENCES OF UNITED STATES V. HENDLER, 303 U.S. 564.  SEE H. REP.
NO. 855, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 18-20; S. REP. NO. 648, 76TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., P. 3.  AND IT WAS MADE RETROACTIVE SO AS TO INCLUDE THE 1934
ACT.  53 STAT. 872.  BUT, WITH THAT EXCEPTION, THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
112(G)(1)(B) ARE NOT MET IF PROPERTIES ARE ACQUIRED IN EXCHANGE FOR A
CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN, OR IN ADDITION TO, VOTING STOCK.  UNDER THAT
TEST, THIS TRANSACTION FAILS TO QUALIFY AS A "REORGANIZATION" UNDER
CLAUSE B. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE OLD COMPANY OWNING
$440,000 FACE AMOUNT OF OBLIGATIONS WERE PAID OFF IN CASH.  THAT CASH
WAS RAISED, DURING THE REORGANIZATION, ON A LOAN FROM A BANK.  SINCE
THAT LOAN WAS ASSUMED BY RESPONDENT, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE REQUIREMENT
OF CLAUSE B, AS AMENDED IN 1939, WAS SATISFIED.  BUT, IN SUBSTANCE, THE
TRANSACTION WAS PRECISELY THE SAME AS IF RESPONDENT HAD PAID CASH PLUS
VOTING STOCK FOR THE PROPERTIES.  WE SEARCH THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THE 1939 AMENDMENT IN VAIN FOR ANY INDICATION THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO
DO MORE THAN TO ALTER THE RULE OF THE HENDLER CASE.  THAT CASE DEALT
WITH A SITUATION WHERE AN INDEBTEDNESS WHICH ANTEDATED THE TRANSACTION
IN QUESTION WAS ASSUMED BY THE TRANSFEREE.  THERE THE DEBT ASSUMED
CLEARLY WAS A "LIABILITY OF THE OTHER" CORPORATION.  THE SITUATION HERE
IS QUITE DIFFERENT.  THE RIGHTS OF THE SECURITY HOLDERS AGAINST THE OLD
CORPORATION WERE DRASTICALLY ALTERED BY THE SALE MADE PURSUANT TO THE
PLAN.  THE SALE NOT ONLY REMOVED THE LIEN FROM THE PROPERTY AND ALTERED
THE RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS IN IT; IT ALSO LIMITED AND DEFINED THE
RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS IF THEY ELECTED TO TAKE CASH RATHER
THAN PARTICIPATE IN THE PLAN.  SEE WEINER, CONFLICTING FUNCTIONS OF THE
UPSET PRICE, 27 COL. L. REV. 132, 137-138.  IN HELVERING V. ALABAMA
ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE CO., SUPRA, ANTE, P. 179, WE REGARDED THE SEVERAL
STEPS IN A REORGANIZATION AS MERE "INTERMEDIATE PROCEDURAL DEVICES
UTILIZED TO ENABLE THE NEW CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE ALL THE ASSETS OF THE
OLD ONE PURSUANT TO A SINGLE REORGANIZATION PLAN."  UNDER THAT
APPROACH, PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WHICH RESPONDENT PAID FOR THE
PROPERTIES OF ITS PREDECESSOR WAS CASH IN THE AMOUNT OF ABOUT
$106,680.  THE FACT THAT IT WAS PAID TO THE BANK, RATHER THAN TO THE
OLD CORPORATION OR ITS CREDITORS, IS IMMATERIAL.  THE REQUIREMENT TO
PAY CASH AROSE OUT OF THE REORGANIZATION ITSELF.  IT DERIVED, AS DID
THE REQUIREMENT TO PAY STOCK, FROM THE PLAN PURSUANT TO WHICH THE
PROPERTIES WERE ACQUIRED.  IT WAS A NECESSARY INCIDENT OF THE COURT
DECREE WHICH WIPED OUT THE LIABILITY OF THE OLD CORPORATION AND
SUBSTITUTED ANOTHER ONE IN ITS PLACE.  THOUGH THE LIABILITY ASSUMED HAD
ITS ORIGIN IN OBLIGATIONS OF THE TRANSFEROR, ITS NATURE AND AMOUNT WERE
DETERMINED AND FIXED IN THE REORGANIZATION.  IT THEREFORE CANNOT BE
LABELLED AS AN OBLIGATION OF THE "OTHER" OR PREDECESSOR CORPORATION
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE 1939 AMENDMENT.  NOR CAN THE PROPERTY BE SAID
TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED "SUBJECT TO" THAT LIABILITY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF
THAT AMENDMENT.  THE WORDS "SUBJECT TO" NORMALLY CONNOTE, IN LEGAL
PARLANCE, AN ABSENCE OF PERSONAL OBLIGATION.  THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE
HERE, FOR THE PRECEDING CLAUSE OF THE AMENDMENT COVERS THE CASE OF
"ASSUMPTION." 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE WARRANTS WHICH WERE ISSUED WERE NOT "VOTING
STOCK."  WHATEVER RIGHTS A WARRANT HOLDER MAY HAVE "TO REQUIRE THE
OBLIGOR CORPORATION TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE SHARES" COVERED BY
THE WARRANTS (SEE BERLE, STUDIES IN THE LAW OF CORPORATION FINANCE
(1928), PP. 136-142), HE IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER.  GAY V. BURGESS MILLS,
30 R.I. 231, 74 A. 714.  CF. MILES V. SAFE DEPOSIT CO., 259 U.S. 247,
252.  HIS RIGHTS ARE WHOLLY CONTRACTUAL.  AS STATED BY HOLMES, J., IN
PARKINSON V. WEST END STREET RY. CO., 173 MASS. 446, 448, 53 N.E. 891,
892, HE "DOES NOT BECOME A STOCKHOLDER BY HIS CONTRACT IN EQUITY ANY
MORE THAN AT LAW."  AT TIMES, HIS RIGHT MAY EXPIRE ON THE CONSOLIDATION
OF THE OBLIGOR CORPORATION WITH ANOTHER.  ID.  IF, AT THE TIME HE
EXERCISES HIS RIGHT, THERE ARE NO AUTHORIZED AND UNISSUED SHARES TO
SATISFY HIS DEMAND, HE WILL GET DAMAGES, NOT SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 
BRATTEN V. CATAWISSA RAILROAD CO., 211 PA. 21, 60 A. 319.  AND SEE VAN
ALLEN V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 7 BOSW.  515.  THUS, HE DOES NOT
HAVE, AND MAY NEVER ACQUIRE, ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHTS IN SHARES OF
STOCK.  LISMAN V. MILWAUKEE, L.S. & W. RY. CO., 161 F. 472, 480, AFF'D
170 F. 1020.  AND HE CANNOT ASSERT THE RIGHTS OF A SHAREHOLDER.  SEE
HILLS, CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES, 19 CALIF. L. REV. 1, 4.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE ACQUISITION IN THIS CASE WAS NOT MADE "SOLELY" FOR VOTING STOCK. 
FN2  AND IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT, IN THE LONG RUN, THE UNEXERCISED
WARRANTS EXPIRED AND NOTHING BUT VOTING STOCK WAS OUTSTANDING.  THE
CRITICAL TIME IS THE DATE OF THE EXCHANGE.  IN THAT POSTURE OF THE
CASE, IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN IF OTHER CONVERTIBLE SECURITIES HAD BEEN
ISSUED, ALL OF WHICH HAD BEEN CONVERTED WITHIN THE CONVERSION PERIOD. 

NOR CAN THIS TRANSACTION QUALIFY AS A "REORGANIZATION" UNDER CLAUSE C
OF SEC. 112(G)(1).  THAT CLAUSE REQUIRES THAT, "IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
TRANSFER," THE "TRANSFEROR OR ITS STOCKHOLDERS OR BOTH" BE IN "CONTROL"
OF THE TRANSFEREE CORPORATION.  "CONTROL" IS DEFINED IN SEC. 112(H) AS
"THE OWNERSHIP OF AT LEAST 80 PER CENTUM OF THE VOTING STOCK AND AT
LEAST 80 PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OF ALL OTHER CLASSES
OF STOCK OF THE CORPORATION."  HERE, "CONTROL" AT THE CRITICAL DATE WAS
NOT IN THE OLD CORPORATION OR ITS "STOCKHOLDERS."  THE PARTICIPATING
CREDITORS HAD RECEIVED, PURSUANT TO THE PLAN, RIGHTS TO RECEIVE OVER A
MAJORITY OF THE STOCK OF THE NEW COMPANY, EVEN THOUGH ALL OF THE
WARRANTS ALLOCATED TO STOCKHOLDERS HAD BEEN ISSUED AND EXERCISED.  THE
CONTRARY CONCLUSION WAS REACHED IN COMMISSIONER V. CEMENT INVESTORS,
INC., 122 F.2D 380, 384, FN3  ON THE THEORY THAT THE BONDHOLDERS OF THE
INSOLVENT PREDECESSOR COMPANY COULD BE REGARDED AS ITS "STOCKHOLDERS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 112(G)(1)(C), SINCE THEY HAD ACQUIRED AN
EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND WERE EMPOWERED TO SUPPLANT THE
STOCKHOLDERS.  WE HAVE ADOPTED THAT THEORY IN HELVERING V. ALABAMA
ASPHALTIC LIMESTONE CO., SUPRA, IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE BONDHOLDERS
HAD RETAINED A SUFFICIENT CONTINUITY IN INTEREST SO AS TO BRING THE
TRANSACTION WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION
CONTAINED IN THE REVENUE ACTS PRIOR TO 1934.  BUT IT IS ONE THING TO
SAY THAT THE BONDHOLDERS "STEPPED INTO THE SHOES OF THE OLD
STOCKHOLDERS" SO AS TO ACQUIRE THE PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE
INSOLVENT COMPANY.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO SAY THAT THEY WERE THE
"STOCKHOLDERS" OF THE OLD COMPANY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CLAUSE C. IN
THE LATTER, CONGRESS WAS DESCRIBING AN EXISTING, SPECIFIED CLASS OF
SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE TRANSFEROR CORPORATION.  THAT CLASS, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, RECEIVED A PARTICIPATION IN THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  FOR
PURPOSES OF CLAUSE C, THEY MUST BE COUNTED IN DETERMINING WHERE
"CONTROL" OVER THE NEW COMPANY LAY.  THEY CANNOT BE TREATED UNDER
CLAUSE C AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN "STOCKHOLDERS" OF THE OLD COMPANY
MERELY BECAUSE THEY ACQUIRED A MINORITY INTEREST IN THE NEW ONE. 
INDEED, CLAUSE C CONTEMPLATES THAT THE OLD CORPORATION OR ITS
STOCKHOLDERS, RATHER THAN ITS CREDITORS, SHALL BE IN THE DOMINANT
POSITION OF "CONTROL" IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRANSFER, AND NOT EXCLUDED
OR RELEGATED TO A MINORITY POSITION.  PLAINLY, THE NORMAL PATTERN OF
INSOLVENCY REORGANIZATION DOES NOT FIT ITS REQUIREMENTS. 

CLAUSE D IS LIKEWISE INAPPLICABLE.  THERE WAS NOT THAT RESHUFFLING OF
A CAPITAL STRUCTURE, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN EXISTING CORPORATION,
CONTEMPLATED BY THE TERM "RECAPITALIZATION."  AND A TRANSACTION WHICH
SHIFTS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN A CORPORATION IS
HARDLY "A MERE CHANGE IN IDENTITY, FORM, OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE E. REVERSED. 

FN1  THE PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE TAXPAYER CONTENDED THAT THIS
TRANSACTION WAS A "REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC.
112(G)(1), AND THEREFORE THAT THE CARRY-OVER BASIS PROVIDED IN SEC.
113(A)(7) WAS APPLICABLE.  NO OTHER ISSUES WERE RAISED OR CONSIDERED BY
THE BOARD OR THE COURT BELOW.  WE PASS ONLY ON THAT QUESTION, LEAVING
OPEN SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATELY PRESENTED TO THE
BOARD. 

FN2  THE CONTRARY VIEW EXPRESSED IN A LETTER BY THE COMMISSIONER,
DATED JANUARY 27, 1937(1937 C.C.H. VOL. 3, PAR. 6118), DOES NOT HAVE
THE STATUS OF A FORMAL RULING OF THE TREASURY, NOR DOES IT SEEM TO
REFLECT AN ESTABLISHED COURSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION. 

FN3  NO. 644, 316 U.S. 527. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. PINK, 315 U.S. 203 


NO. 42.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  - 284
N.Y. 555, 32 N.E.2D 552, REVERSED. 


1.  THE QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY, UNDER NEW YORK PRACTICE, OF
GROUNDING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE ON THE RECORD IN
MOSCOW FIRE INS. CO. V. BANK OF NEW YORK & TRUST CO., 280 N.Y. 286, IS
ONE OF STATE LAW, UPON WHICH THE DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE IS FINAL.  P. 216. 

2.  THE MOSCOW CASE IS NOT RES JUDICATA HERE, SINCE THE RESPONDENT
WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT SUIT.  P. 216. 

3.  THE AFFIRMANCE HERE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT OF THE JUDGMENT
IN THE MOSCOW CASE, 309 U.S. 624, ALTHOUGH CONCLUSIVE AND BINDING UPON
THE PARTIES TO THAT CONTROVERSY, CAN NOT BE REGARDED AS AN
AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW THERE INVOLVED. 
P. 216. 

4.  JUDICIAL NOTICE MAY HERE BE TAKEN OF THE RECORD IN THIS COURT OF
THE MOSCOW CASE.  P. 216. 

5.  THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES IN THIS CASE, BASED ON THE
LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT - WHEREBY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, INCIDENTLY TO ITS
RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1933, ASSIGNED CERTAIN CLAIMS TO
THE UNITED STATES - RAISES A FEDERAL QUESTION.  P. 217. 

6.  UPON REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, THIS COURT WILL
DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY ALL QUESTIONS ON WHICH A FEDERAL RIGHT IS
NECESSARILY DEPENDENT.  P. 217. 

7.  THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT TITLE THE UNITED STATES OBTAINED TO THE
NEW YORK ASSETS OF A RUSSIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, BY VIRTUE OF THE
LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT AND THE RUSSIAN DECREES OF 1918 AND 1919
NATIONALIZING THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, INVOLVES QUESTIONS OF FOREIGN LAW
UPON WHICH THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  P. 218. 

8.  AN OFFICIAL DECLARATION BY THE COMMISSARIAT FOR JUSTICE OF THE
R.S.F.S.R., AS TO THE INTENDED EFFECT OF A DECREE OF THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT NATIONALIZING INSURANCE COMPANIES, TENDERED TO THE COURT
BELOW PURSUANT TO SEC. 391 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, WAS
PROPERLY BEFORE THAT COURT ON APPEAL, THOUGH NOT A PART OF THE RECORD,
AND MAY BE CONSIDERED HERE.  P. 220. 

9.  THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S DECREE NATIONALIZING THE INSURANCE
BUSINESS WAS INTENDED TO EMBRACE THE PROPERTY OF THE NEW YORK BRANCH OF
THE RUSSIAN INSURANCE COMPANY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  P. 221. 

THE COMMISSARIAT FOR JUSTICE IS EMPOWERED TO INTERPRET EXISTING
RUSSIAN LAW; ITS DECLARATION AS TO THE INTENDED EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT
OF THE NATIONALIZATION DECREE IS CONCLUSIVE. 

10.  CLAIMS OF THE KIND HERE IN QUESTION WERE EMBRACED IN THE
LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT.  P. 224. 

11.  THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT IS BROAD AND INCLUSIVE AS TO THE CLAIMS
EMBRACED.  ITS PURPOSE TO ELIMINATE ALL POSSIBLE SOURCES OF FRICTION
BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES REQUIRES THAT IT BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY.  P.
224. 

12.  INCIDENTLY TO ITS RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES IN 1933, THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, BY THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT, ASSIGNED CERTAIN CLAIMS
TO THE UNITED STATES.  PREVIOUSLY, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT HAD BY DECREE
NATIONALIZED THE INSURANCE BUSINESS.  A BALANCE OF THE ASSETS OF A NEW
YORK BRANCH OF A RUSSIAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, REMAINING AFTER THE
PAYMENT OF DOMESTIC CREDITORS, WAS CLAIMED BY THE UNITED STATES,
SEEKING TO PROTECT CLAIMS WHICH IT HELD, AND CLAIMS OF ITS NATIONALS,
AGAINST RUSSIA OR ITS NATIONALS.  A NEW YORK STATE COURT DIRECTED OTHER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS.  HELD: 

BY THE NATIONALIZATION DECREE, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAME VESTED
IN THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT; THE RIGHT OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PASSED
TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT; AND THE UNITED
STATES IS ENTITLED TO THE PROPERTY AS AGAINST THE CORPORATION AND ITS
FOREIGN CREDITORS.  P. 234. 

13.  ALTHOUGH ALIENS ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, THAT AMENDMENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE GIVING FULL FORCE AND
EFFECT TO THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT.  P. 228. 

14.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT BARRED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FROM
SECURING FOR ITSELF AND ITS NATIONALS PRIORITY OVER CREDITORS WHO ARE
NATIONALS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND WHOSE CLAIMS AROSE ABROAD.  P. 228. 

THE FACT THAT NEW YORK HAS MARSHALED THE CLAIMS OF THE FOREIGN
CREDITORS HERE INVOLVED AND AUTHORIZED THEIR PAYMENT DOES NOT EXCEPT
THEM FROM THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE. 

15.  THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS
INCLUDED THE POWER, WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE SENATE, TO DETERMINE THE
PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE RUSSIAN
NATIONALIZATION DECREES.  P. 229. 

16.  THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT IN RESPECT TO THE RECOGNITION OF A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, INCLUDES THE POWER TO REMOVE SUCH OBSTACLES TO FULL
RECOGNITION AS THE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF OUR NATIONALS.  P. 229. 

RECOGNITION OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT
WERE INTERDEPENDENT. 

17.  THE DECISION OF THE EXECUTIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOGNITION OF
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT ARE
CONCLUSIVE ON THE COURTS.  P. 230. 

18.  STATE LAW MUST YIELD WHEN IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OR IMPAIRS THE
POLICY OR PROVISIONS OF A TREATY OR OF AN INTERNATIONAL COMPACT OR
AGREEMENT.  P. 230. 

19.  ENFORCEMENT IN THIS CASE OF THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL POLICY, WHETHER THE STATE'S POLICY WAS
PREMISED ON THE ABSENCE OF EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT OF THE RUSSIAN
DECREES, THE CONCEPTION OF THE NEW YORK BRANCH AS A DISTINCT JURISTIC
PERSONALITY, OR DISAPPROVAL BY NEW YORK OF THE RUSSIAN PROGRAM OF
NATIONALIZATION.  P. 231. 

20.  POWER OVER EXTERNAL AFFAIRS IS NOT SHARED BY THE STATES; IT IS
VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  P. 233. 

UNITED STATES V. PINK, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 553, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER A
BALANCE OF THE ASSETS OF THE NEW YORK BRANCH OF A RUSSIAN INSURANCE
COMPANY.  SEE 259 APP. DIV. 871, 20 N.Y.S.2D 665. 

THE STATE COURTS ARE WITHOUT POWER TO DENY EFFECT TO THE SOVIET
NATIONALIZATION DECREES UPON GROUNDS OF A STATE POLICY AGAINST
CONFISCATION.  UNITED STATES V. BELMONT, 301 U.S. 324. 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BELMONT CASE IS NOT LIMITED BY GUARANTY TRUST
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 126.  IN THAT CASE, APART FROM THE
HOLDING WITH RESPECT TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, AN ISSUE NOT HERE INVOLVED,
THE DECISION WAS MERELY THAT DEFENSES TO THE MERITS OF AN ASSIGNED
CLAIM WHICH WOULD BE AVAILABLE UNDER LOCAL LAW REGARDLESS OF THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE CLAIM WERE NOT INTENDED TO BE BARRED BY THE LITVINOV
ASSIGNMENT.  THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE STATES HAVE POWER TO DENY
ENFORCEMENT OF A VALID CLAIM SIMPLY BECAUSE THE NATIONALIZATION DECREES
UNDER WHICH OWNERSHIP OF SUCH CLAIM WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE INSURANCE
COMPANY TO THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT ARE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE MORAL
PRINCIPLES OF THE FORUM. 

THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, IN RECOGNIZING THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND
ACCEPTING THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT, HAS ESTABLISHED AS THE POLICY OF THE
NATION THAT, IN ORDER TO SETTLE ALL QUESTIONS OUTSTANDING BETWEEN THE
TWO GOVERNMENTS, AND PARTICULARLY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A METHOD FOR THE
SETTLEMENT OF AMERICAN CLAIMS AGAINST THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, NO
OBJECTION SHOULD BE ASSERTED TO THE SOVIET NATIONALIZATION OF THE
PROPERTY OF RUSSIAN NATIONALS, WHEREVER SITUATED.  THIS EXECUTIVE
POLICY, WHICH THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT HAD CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
ADOPT, IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE LOCAL POLICY ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT
BELOW; AND UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, OR EVEN APART FROM THAT CLAUSE,
THE STATE POLICY MUST YIELD. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE FEDERAL POLICY, IF EMBODIED IN A FORMAL TREATY,
WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO DOUBT, EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE STATES HAVE
CONCURRENT POWER TO REGULATE THE SUBJECT IN THE SILENCE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  SANTOVINCENZO V. EGAN, 284 U.S. 30; HAUENSTEIN V. LYNHAM,
100 U.S. 483; SULLIVAN V. KIDD, 254 U.S. 433; ASAKURA V. SEATTLE, 265
U.S. 332; MISSOURI V. HOLLAND, 252 U.S. 416; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263
U.S. 197, 222-224; FRICK V. WEBB, 263 U.S. 326; HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ,
312 U.S. 52, 69, FN.  THE SOLE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF
THE EXECUTIVE POLICY, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT
IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS INCLUDE THE POWER, WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE SENATE, TO DETERMINE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED
STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE SOVIET NATIONALIZATION DECREES.  THIS
QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

IT IS SETTLED THAT "WHAT GOVERNMENT IS TO BE REGARDED HERE AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN STATE IS A POLITICAL RATHER THAN
A JUDICIAL QUESTION, AND IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE POLITICAL
DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT."  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES,
304 U.S. 126, 137; GELSTON V. HOYT, 3 WHEAT.  246, 323; JONES V. UNITED
STATES, 137 U.S. 202, 212.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
IS NOT LIMITED, HOWEVER, TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO BE
RECOGNIZED.  THE PRESIDENT IS ALSO EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE THE POLICY TO
GOVERN THE QUESTION OF RECOGNITION.  OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT'S
DETERMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT "AS WELL AS TO THE UNDERLYING POLICY"
MUST BE ADDRESSED TO THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT.  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 137-138.  SUCH HAS LONG BEEN THE SETTLED
DOCTRINE OF THIS COURT.  KENNETT V. CHAMBERS, 14 HOW.  38, 50. 

THE POWER TO FORMULATE POLICY MAY ALSO BE RESTED ON THE PRESIDENT'S
POWER TO ENTER RELATED AGREEMENTS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF OUTSTANDING
QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION OF RECOGNITION. 
LIMITED OR CONDITIONAL RECOGNITION IS WELL KNOWN TO INTERNATIONAL LAW
AND IS OFTEN A NECESSARY INSTRUMENT IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN
RELATIONS.  1 MOORE, DIG.  INT.  LAW, SEC. 27, PP. 73-74; 1 HACKWORTH,
DIG.  INT.  LAW, SECS. 34, 48. 

INDEPENDENTLY OF HIS POWERS IN RESPECT OF RECOGNITION, THE PRESIDENT
HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL POLICY UNDER HIS AUTHORITY TO MAKE
AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN POWERS.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO
ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN NATIONS WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE SENATE IS ESTABLISHED.  PRINCIPALITY OF MONACO V.
MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 313, 331; UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP.,
299 U.S. 304, 306, 316; STATE OF RUSSIA V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 69 F.2D
44, 48; CORWIN, THE PRESIDENT:  OFFICE AND POWERS, 228-240; SAYRE, THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT, 39 COL. L. REV. 751;
LEVITAN, EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS:  A STUDY OF THE EXECUTIVE IN THE CONTROL
OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 35 ILL. L. REV. 365;
MOORE, TREATIES AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS, 20 POL.  SCI.  QUAR. 385, 389
392, 399-417.  THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT IS AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF
THE POWER. 

NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST A FUNDAMENTAL FOREIGN LAW ON MORAL GROUNDS
MAY BE MADE UNLESS THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
DETERMINE THAT SUCH DISCRIMINATION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE INTERESTS
OF THE NATION. 

DESPITE THE DISCUSSION OF THE SEPARATE JURISTIC ENTITY OF THE NEW
YORK BRANCH OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE BASIS OF THE MOSCOW OPINION
WAS THE VIEW THAT THE SOVIET DECREES, BECAUSE OF THEIR CONFISCATORY
CHARACTER, ARE CONTRARY TO THE LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY.  UNDER ANY OTHER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE OPINION, THE DECISION WOULD BE SO PALPABLY WITHOUT
BASIS IN NEW YORK LAW AS TO REQUIRE INVOCATION OF THE RULE THAT, WHERE
A FEDERAL RIGHT IS ASSERTED, NEITHER PLAINLY UNTENABLE NON-FEDERAL
GROUNDS (POSTAL TEL. CABLE CO. V. NEWPORT, 247 U.S. 464, 475;
ENTERPRISE IRRIG.  DIST.  V. FARMERS' MUT. CANAL CO., 243 U.S. 157,
164; WARD V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS, 253 U.S. 17, 22; ANCIENT EGYPTIAN
ORDER V. MICHAUX, 279 U.S. 737, 745, 749) NOR ANY CLOAK OR PRETEXT TO
EVADE THE FEDERAL CLAIM (VANDALIA RAILROAD V. INDIANA EX REL. SOUTH
BEND, 207 U.S. 359, 367; LEATHE V. THOMAS, 207 U.S. 93, 99; DAVIS V.
WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22, 24; FOX RIVER PAPER CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION,
274 U.S. 651, 655; MCCOY V. SHAW, 277 U.S. 302, 303-304) CAN PRECLUDE
THIS COURT FROM DECIDING THE FEDERAL QUESTION. 

THE DECISION IN THE MOSCOW CASE WAS CORRECT.  AFTER RECOGNITION OF
THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT THE STATE COURTS WERE BOUND TO RECOGNIZE ITS
DECREES EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE CONFISCATORY.  BUT THEY COULD CONSTRUE
THE DECREES AND DETERMINE THEIR EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY SITUATE
IN NEW YORK. 

THE LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS ARE IN REM.  UNITED STATES V. BELMONT,
301 U.S. 324; UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK & TRUST CO., 296 U.S.
463; BANCO DE ESPANA V. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, 114 F.2D 438, 442;
SULLIVAN V. STATE OF SAO PAULO, 122 F.2D 355.  THE FINAL ORDER IS
BINDING UPON THE WORLD AND FORECLOSES ANY INTEREST OF THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT OR ITS ASSIGNEE, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. 

THE UNITED STATES IS BOUND BY THE PUBLIC POLICY OF NEW YORK IN THE
SAME MANNER AS PRIVATE LITIGANTS.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
267 U.S. 76, 79; UNITED STATES V. THE THEKLA, 266 U.S. 328, 339; FOLK
V. UNITED STATES, 233 F. 177, 192; UNITED STATES V. MIDWAY NORTHERN OIL
CO., 232 U.S. 619. 

THE ENFORCEMENT BY THE COURTS OF NEW YORK OF FOREIGN LAWS AND DECREES
AFFECTING NEW YORK PROPERTY MAY NOT BE DEMANDED AS OF RIGHT.  NOR WILL
COMITY BE EXTENDED IF INTERVENING RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, OR FOREIGN
LITIGANTS, HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY NEW YORK DECISIONS.  EACH STATE HAS
THE POWER TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH PROPERTY
SITUATED WITHIN ITS TERRITORY, BOTH PERSONAL AND REAL, MAY BE ACQUIRED,
ENJOYED AND TRANSFERRED. 

RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED IN NEW YORK IN AND TO PROPERTY
SITUATE IN NEW YORK WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, AND BY
THIS COURT, WHETHER THEY BELONG TO NON-RESIDENTS OR FOREIGNERS, OR TO
ITS OWN CITIZENS.  BARTH V. BACKUS, 140 N.Y. 230; MATTER OF PEOPLE, 242
N.Y. 148; FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION;
RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 481, 491, 492. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER THE ASSETS OF
THE NEW YORK BRANCH OF THE FIRST RUSSIAN INSURANCE CO. WHICH REMAINED
IN THE HANDS OF RESPONDENT AFTER THE PAYMENT OF ALL DOMESTIC
CREDITORS.  THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT WERE, IN BRIEF,
AS FOLLOWS: 

THE FIRST RUSSIAN INSURANCE CO., ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
FORMER EMPIRE OF RUSSIA, ESTABLISHED A NEW YORK BRANCH IN 1907.  IT
DEPOSITED WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE, PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF
NEW YORK, CERTAIN ASSETS TO SECURE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS RESULTING FROM
TRANSACTIONS OF ITS NEW YORK BRANCH.  BY CERTAIN LAWS, DECREES,
ENACTMENTS AND ORDERS, IN 1918 AND 1919, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
NATIONALIZED THE BUSINESS OF INSURANCE AND ALL OF THE PROPERTY,
WHEREVER SITUATED, OF ALL RUSSIAN INSURANCE COMPANIES (INCLUDING THE
FIRST RUSSIAN INSURANCE CO.), AND DISCHARGED AND CANCELLED ALL THE
DEBTS OF SUCH COMPANIES AND THE RIGHTS OF ALL SHAREHOLDERS IN ALL SUCH
PROPERTY.  THE NEW YORK BRANCH OF THE FIRST RUSSIAN INSURANCE CO.
CONTINUED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK UNTIL 1925.  AT THAT TIME,
RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, TOOK
POSSESSION OF ITS ASSETS FOR A DETERMINATION AND REPORT UPON THE CLAIMS
OF THE POLICYHOLDERS AND CREDITORS IN THE UNITED STATES.  THEREAFTER,
ALL CLAIMS OF DOMESTIC CREDITORS, I.E., ALL CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE
BUSINESS OF THE NEW YORK BRANCH, WERE PAID BY RESPONDENT, LEAVING A
BALANCE IN HIS HANDS OF MORE THAN $1,000,000.  IN 1931, THE NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS (255 N.Y. 415, 175 N.E. 114) DIRECTED RESPONDENT TO
DISPOSE OF THAT BALANCE AS FOLLOWS: FIRST, TO PAY CLAIMS OF FOREIGN
CREDITORS WHO HAD FILED ATTACHMENT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
LIQUIDATION PROCEEDING, AND ALSO SUCH CLAIMS AS WERE FILED PRIOR TO THE
ENTRY OF THE ORDER ON REMITTITUR OF THAT COURT; AND SECOND, TO PAY ANY
SURPLUS TO A QUORUM OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY.  PURSUANT
TO THAT MANDATE, RESPONDENT PROCEEDED WITH THE LIQUIDATION OF THE
CLAIMS OF THE FOREIGN CREDITORS.  SOME PAYMENTS WERE MADE THEREON.  THE
MAJOR PORTION OF THE ALLOWED CLAIMS, HOWEVER, WERE NOT PAID, A STAY
HAVING BEEN GRANTED PENDING DISPOSITION OF THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED
STATES.  ON NOVEMBER 16, 1933, THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZED THE UNION
OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AS THE DE JURE GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA AND
AS AN INCIDENT TO THAT RECOGNITION ACCEPTED AN ASSIGNMENT (KNOWN AS THE
LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT) OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.  FN1  THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT
WAS IN THE FORM OF A LETTER, DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1933, TO THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES FROM MAXIM LITVINOV, PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR FOR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, READING AS FOLLOWS: 

"FOLLOWING OUR CONVERSATIONS I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOU THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AGREES THAT,
PREPARATORY TO A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS AND COUNTER CLAIMS
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE CLAIMS OF THEIR NATIONALS, THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS WILL NOT TAKE ANY
STEPS TO ENFORCE ANY DECISIONS OF COURTS OR INITIATE ANY NEW
LITIGATIONS FOR THE AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE OR THAT MAY BE FOUND TO
BE DUE IT, AS THE SUCCESSOR OF PRIOR GOVERNMENTS OF RUSSIA, OR
OTHERWISE, FROM AMERICAN NATIONALS, INCLUDING CORPORATIONS, COMPANIES,
PARTNERSHIPS, OR ASSOCIATIONS, AND ALSO THE CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES OF THE RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET, NOW IN LITIGATION IN THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF CLAIMS, AND WILL NOT OBJECT TO SUCH AMOUNTS BEING
ASSIGNED AND DOES HEREBY RELEASE AND ASSIGN ALL SUCH AMOUNTS TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS TO BE DULY NOTIFIED IN EACH CASE OF ANY AMOUNT
REALIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM SUCH RELEASE AND
ASSIGNMENT. 

"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS FURTHER
AGREES, PREPARATORY TO THE SETTLEMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE NOT TO MAKE ANY
CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO: 

"(A)  JUDGMENTS RENDERED OR THAT MAY BE RENDERED BY AMERICAN COURTS
IN SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO PROPERTY, OR RIGHTS, OR INTERESTS THEREIN,
IN WHICH THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS OR ITS NATIONALS MAY
HAVE HAD OR MAY CLAIM TO HAVE AN INTEREST; OR, 

"(B)  ACTS DONE OR SETTLEMENTS MADE BY OR WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN THE UNITED STATES, OR ITS
NATIONALS, RELATING TO PROPERTY, CREDITS, OR OBLIGATIONS OF ANY
GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA OR NATIONALS THEREOF." 

THIS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE SAME DATE.  THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AFTER SETTING FORTH THE TERMS OF THE ASSIGNMENT,
CONCLUDED: 

"I AM GLAD TO HAVE THESE UNDERTAKINGS BY YOUR GOVERNMENT AND I SHALL
BE PLEASED TO NOTIFY YOUR GOVERNMENT IN EACH CASE OF ANY AMOUNT
REALIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE RELEASE AND
ASSIGNMENT TO IT OF THE AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE, OR THAT MAY BE
FOUND TO BE DUE, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS, AND OF THE AMOUNT THAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE DUE ON THE CLAIM
OF THE RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET."    ON NOVEMBER 14, 1934, THE UNITED
STATES BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, SEEKING TO RECOVER THE ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF
RESPONDENT.  THIS COURT HELD IN UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK &
TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 463, THAT THE WELL SETTLED "PRINCIPLES GOVERNING
THE CONVENIENT AND ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT SHOULD BE RESPECTED" (P. 480); AND
THAT, WHATEVER MIGHT BE "THE EFFECT OF RECOGNITION" OF THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT, IT DID NOT TERMINATE THE STATE PROCEEDINGS.  P. 479.  THE
UNITED STATES WAS REMITTED TO THE STATE COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF ITS
CLAIM, NO OPINION BEING INTIMATED ON THE MERITS.  P. 481.  THE UNITED
STATES THEN MOVED FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN THE LIQUIDATION
PROCEEDINGS.  ITS MOTION WAS DENIED "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
INSTITUTION OF THE TIME-HONORED FORM OF ACTION."  THAT ORDER WAS
AFFIRMED ON APPEAL. 

THEREAFTER, THE PRESENT SUIT WAS INSTITUTED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW YORK.  THE DEFENDANTS, OTHER THAN RESPONDENT, WERE CERTAIN
DESIGNATED POLICYHOLDERS AND OTHER CREDITORS WHO HAD PRESENTED IN THE
LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS CLAIMS AGAINST THE CORPORATION.  THE COMPLAINT
PRAYED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE UNITED STATES BE ADJUDGED TO BE THE SOLE
AND EXCLUSIVE OWNER ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF THE ENTIRE
SURPLUS FUND IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPONDENT. 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT THAT
TITLE TO THE FUNDS IN QUESTION PASSED TO THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THE
RUSSIAN DECREES HAD THE EFFECT CLAIMED.  IT ALSO SET FORTH VARIOUS
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES - THAT THE ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION PURSUANT TO THE
DECREE IN 255 N.Y. 415, 175 N.E. 114, COULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE
LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT; THAT THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT WAS UNENFORCEABLE
BECAUSE IT WAS CONDITIONED UPON A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AND
COUNTERCLAIMS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; THAT UNDER RUSSIAN LAW
THE NATIONALIZATION DECREES IN QUESTION HAD NO EFFECT ON PROPERTY NOT
FACTUALLY TAKEN INTO POSSESSION BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO MAY
22, 1922; THAT THE RUSSIAN DECREES HAD NO EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT,
ACCORDING TO RUSSIAN LAW; THAT IF THE DECREES WERE GIVEN
EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT, THEY WERE CONFISCATORY AND THEIR RECOGNITION
WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; AND THAT THE UNITED STATES,
UNDER THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT, ACTED MERELY AS A COLLECTION AGENCY FOR
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND HENCE WAS FORECLOSED FROM ASSERTING ANY
TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 

THE ANSWER WAS FILED IN MARCH, 1938.  IN APRIL, 1939, THE NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED MOSCOW FIRE INS. CO. V. BANK OF NEW YORK &
TRUST CO., 280 N.Y. 286, 20 N.E.2D 758.  IN MAY, 1939, RESPONDENT (BUT
NOT THE OTHER DEFENDANTS) MOVED, PURSUANT TO RULE 113 OF THE RULES OF
THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT AND SEC. 476 OF THAT ACT, FOR AN ORDER
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AND AWARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
RESPONDENT "ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO MERIT TO THE ACTION AND THAT
IT IS INSUFFICIENT IN LAW."  THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION
STATED THAT THERE WAS "NO DISPUTE AS TO THE FACTS"; THAT THE SEPARATE
DEFENSES TO THE COMPLAINT "NEED NOT NOW BE CONSIDERED FOR THE COMPLAINT
STANDING ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT IN LAW"; THAT THE FACTS IN THE MOSCOW
CASE AND THE INSTANT ONE, SO FAR AS MATERIAL, WERE "PARALLEL" AND THE
RUSSIAN DECREES THE SAME; AND THAT THE MOSCOW CASE AUTHORITATIVELY
SETTLED THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW GOVERNING THE INSTANT ONE.  THE AFFIDAVIT
READ IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION STATED THAT A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
IN THE MOSCOW CASE WAS ABOUT TO BE FILED IN THIS COURT; THAT THE MOTION
WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED, OR DECISION THEREON WITHHELD
PENDING THE FINAL DECISION OF THIS COURT.  ON JUNE 29, 1939, THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK GRANTED THE MOTION AND DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT "ON THE MERITS," CITING ONLY THE MOSCOW CASE IN SUPPORT OF
ITS ACTION.  ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1939, A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THE
MOSCOW CASE WAS FILED IN THIS COURT.  THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE WAS
AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT.  309 U.S. 624. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK
AFFIRMED, WITHOUT OPINION, THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THE INSTANT CASE. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED WITH A PER CURIAM OPINION (284 N.Y. 555,
32 N.E.2D 552) WHICH, AFTER NOTING THAT THE DECISION BELOW WAS "IN
ACCORD WITH THE DECISION" IN THE MOSCOW CASE, STATED: 

"THREE OF THE JUDGES OF THIS COURT CONCURRED IN A FORCEFUL OPINION
DISSENTING FROM THE COURT'S DECISION IN THAT CASE, BUT THE DECISION
LEFT OPEN NO QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN ARGUED UPON THIS APPEAL.  WE ARE
AGREED THAT WITHOUT AGAIN CONSIDERING SUCH QUESTIONS THIS COURT SHOULD,
IN DETERMINING TITLE TO ASSETS OF FIRST RUSSIAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
DEPOSITED IN THIS STATE, APPLY IN THIS CASE THE SAME RULES OF LAW WHICH
THE COURT APPLIED IN THE EARLIER CASE IN DETERMINING TITLE TO THE
ASSETS OF MOSCOW FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY DEPOSITED HERE." 

WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED. 

FIRST. RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THIS ACTION WAS
IDENTICAL IN SUBSTANCE AND SOUGHT THE SAME RELIEF AS THE PETITION OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE MOSCOW CASE, AND THAT HIS ANSWER SET UP THE
SAME DEFENSES AS WERE SUCCESSFULLY SUSTAINED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
BY THE DEFENDANTS IN THAT CASE.  HE ALSO MAINTAINS THAT BOTH PARTIES
AGREED, ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THAT THE DECISION IN THE
MOSCOW CASE GOVERNED THIS CAUSE, LEAVING NO ISSUES TO BE TRIED.  WE
AGREE WITH THOSE CONTENTIONS.  IT IS IN ACCORD NOT ONLY WITH THE MOTION
PAPERS, BUT ALSO WITH THE RULING OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS THAT
THE MOSCOW CASE "LEFT OPEN NO QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN ARGUED UPON THIS
APPEAL."  IN VIEW OF THAT RULING, WE ARE NOT FREE TO INQUIRE, AS
PETITIONER SUGGESTS, INTO THE PROPRIETY UNDER NEW YORK PRACTICE OF
GROUNDING THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RECORD IN THE MOSCOW
CASE.  THAT IS DISTINCTLY A QUESTION OF STATE LAW, ON WHICH NEW YORK
HAS THE LAST WORD. 

BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, AS RESPONDENT URGES, THAT THE WRIT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  THE MOSCOW CASE IS NOT RES
JUDICATA, SINCE RESPONDENT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT SUIT.  STONE V.
FARMERS' BANK OF KENTUCKY, 174 U.S. 409; RUDD V. CORNELL, 171 N.Y. 114,
127-128, 63 N.E.2D 823; ST. JOHN V. FOWLER, 229 N.Y. 270, 274, 128 N.E.
199.  NOR WAS OUR AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE BY AN EQUALLY
DIVIDED COURT AN AUTHORITATIVE PRECEDENT.  WHILE IT WAS CONCLUSIVE AND
BINDING UPON THE PARTIES AS RESPECTS THAT CONTROVERSY (DURANT V. ESSEX
COMPANY, 7 WALL.  107), THE LACK OF AN AGREEMENT BY A MAJORITY OF THE
COURT ON THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW INVOLVED PREVENTS IT FROM BEING AN
AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION FOR OTHER CASES.  HERTZ V. WOODMAN, 218
U.S. 205, 213-214. 

THE UPSHOT OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE NOW REACH THE ISSUES IN THE
MOSCOW CASE INSOFAR AS THEY ARE EMBRACED IN THE PLEADINGS IN THIS
CASE.  AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE
RECORD IN THIS COURT OF THE MOSCOW CASE.  BIENVILLE WATER SUPPLY CO. V.
MOBILE, 186 U.S. 212, 217; DIMMICK V. TOMPKINS, 194 U.S. 540, 548;
FRESHMAN V. ATKINS, 269 U.S. 121, 124. 

SECOND.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HELD IN THE MOSCOW CASE THAT
THE RUSSIAN DECREES  FN2  IN QUESTION HAD NO EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT. 
IF THAT IS TRUE, IT IS DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  FOR THE
UNITED STATES ACQUIRED, UNDER THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT, ONLY SUCH RIGHTS
AS RUSSIA HAD.  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 126,
143.  IF THE RUSSIAN DECREES LEFT THE NEW YORK ASSETS OF THE RUSSIAN
INSURANCE COMPANIES UNAFFECTED, THEN RUSSIA HAD NOTHING HERE TO
ASSIGN.  BUT THAT QUESTION OF FOREIGN LAW IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED
EXCLUSIVELY BY THE STATE COURT.  THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES BASED
ON THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT RAISES A FEDERAL QUESTION.  UNITED STATES V.
BELMONT, 301 U.S. 324.  THIS COURT WILL REVIEW OR INDEPENDENTLY
DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS ON WHICH A FEDERAL RIGHT IS NECESSARILY
DEPENDENT.  UNITED STATES V. ANSONIA BRASS & COPPER CO., 218 U.S. 452,
462-463, 471; ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ORDER V. MICHAUX, 279 U.S. 737, 744-745;
BROAD RIVER POWER CO. V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 281 U.S. 537, 540; PIERRE V.
LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354, 358.  HERE, TITLE OBTAINED UNDER THE LITVINOV
ASSIGNMENT DEPENDS ON A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF RUSSIAN LAW.  AS IN
CASES ARISING UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE (HUNTINGTON V.
ATTRILL, 146 U.S. 657, 684; ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59, 64), THESE
QUESTIONS OF FOREIGN LAW ON WHICH THE ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT IS BASED
ARE NOT PECULIARLY WITHIN THE COGNIZANCE OF THE LOCAL COURTS.  WHILE
DEFERENCE WILL BE GIVEN TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE STATE COURT, ITS
CONCLUSION IS NOT ACCEPTED AS FINAL. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO REVIEW ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE VOLUMINOUS RECORD OF
THE MOSCOW CASE BEARING ON THE QUESTION OF THE EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT
OF THE RUSSIAN DECREES OF NATIONALIZATION, EXCEPT TO NOTE THAT THE
EXPERT TESTIMONY TENDERED BY THE UNITED STATES GAVE GREAT CREDENCE TO
ITS POSITION.  SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE HEARINGS IN THAT CASE, HOWEVER, THE
UNITED STATES, THROUGH DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS, REQUESTED THE COMMISSARIAT
FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN AN OFFICIAL
DECLARATION BY THE COMMISSARIAT FOR JUSTICE OF THE R.S.F.S.R. WHICH
WOULD MAKE CLEAR, AS A MATTER OF RUSSIAN LAW, THE INTENDED EFFECT OF
THE RUSSIAN DECREE  FN3  NATIONALIZING INSURANCE COMPANIES UPON THE
FUNDS OF SUCH COMPANIES OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA.  THE OFFICIAL DECLARATION,
DATED NOVEMBER 28, 1937, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT FOR JUSTICE OF THE R.S.F.S.R. CERTIFIES
THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE LAWS OF THE ORGANS OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT ALL
NATIONALIZED FUNDS AND PROPERTY OF FORMER PRIVATE ENTERPRISES AND
COMPANIES, IN PARTICULAR BY VIRTUE OF THE DECREE OF NOVEMBER 28,
1918(COLLECTION OF LAWS OF THE R.S.F.S.R., 1918, NO. 86, ARTICLE 904),
THE FUNDS AND PROPERTY OF FORMER INSURANCE COMPANIES, CONSTITUTE THE
PROPERTY OF THE STATE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY AND
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT WAS SITUATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS
OF THE R.S.F.S.R. OR ABROAD." 

THE REFEREE IN THE MOSCOW CASE FOUND, AND THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED HIS
FINDING, THAT THE COMMISSARIAT FOR JUSTICE HAS POWER TO INTERPRET
EXISTING RUSSIAN LAW.  THAT BEING TRUE, THIS OFFICIAL DECLARATION IS
CONCLUSIVE SO FAR AS THE INTENDED EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT OF THE
RUSSIAN DECREE IS CONCERNED.  THIS OFFICIAL DECLARATION WAS BEFORE THE
COURT BELOW, THOUGH IT WAS NOT A PART OF THE RECORD.  IT WAS TENDERED
PURSUANT TO SEC. 391 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, AS AMENDED BY
L. 1933, C. 690.  FN4  IN NEW YORK, IT WOULD SEEM THAT FOREIGN LAW MUST
BE FOUND BY THE COURT (OR IN CASE OF A JURY TRIAL, BINDING INSTRUCTIONS
MUST BE GIVEN), THOUGH PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRE IT TO BE
PRESENTED AS A QUESTION OF FACT.  FITZPATRICK V. INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY
CO., 252 N.Y. 127, 169 N.E. 112; PETROGRADSKY M.K. BANK V. NATIONAL
CITY BANK, 253 N.Y. 23, 170 N.E. 479.  AND UNDER SEC. 391, AS AMENDED,
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NEW YORK APPELLATE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER
APPROPRIATE DECISIONS INTERPRETING FOREIGN LAW EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE
RENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE TRIAL.  LOS ANGELES INVESTMENT SECURITIES
CORP. V. JOSLYN, 282 N.Y. 438, 26 N.E.2D 968.  WE CAN TAKE SUCH NOTICE
OF THE FOREIGN LAW AS THE NEW YORK COURT COULD HAVE TAKEN.  FN5  ADAM
V. SAENGER, SUPRA.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THIS OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF
RUSSIAN LAW WAS NOT ONLY PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT ON APPEAL, BUT ALSO
THAT IT WAS EMBRACED WITHIN THOSE "WRITTEN AUTHORITIES" WHICH SEC. 391
AUTHORIZES THE COURT TO CONSIDER, EVEN THOUGH NOT INTRODUCED IN
EVIDENCE ON THE TRIAL.  FOR, WHILE IT WAS NOT "PRINTED," IT WOULD SEEM
TO BE "OTHER WRITTEN LAW" OF UNQUESTIONED AUTHENTICITY AND AUTHORITY,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 391. 

WE HOLD THAT, SO FAR AS ITS INTENDED EFFECT  FN6  IS CONCERNED, THE
RUSSIAN DECREE EMBRACED THE NEW YORK ASSETS OF THE FIRST RUSSIAN
INSURANCE CO. 

THIRD.  THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DECREE SHOULD BE GIVEN
EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT IS, OF COURSE, A DISTINCT MATTER.  ONE PRIMARY
ISSUE RAISED IN THAT CONNECTION IS WHETHER, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM, NEW YORK LAW CAN BE ALLOWED TO STAND IN THE WAY. 

THE DECISION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS IN THE MOSCOW CASE IS
UNEQUIVOCAL.  IT HELD THAT "UNDER THE LAW OF THIS STATE SUCH
CONFISCATORY DECREES DO NOT AFFECT THE PROPERTY CLAIMED HERE" (280 N.Y.
314, 20 N.E.2D 769); THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE NEW YORK BRANCH ACQUIRED
A "CHARACTER OF ITS OWN" WHICH WAS "DEPENDENT" ON THE LAW OF NEW YORK
(P. 310); THAT NO "RULE OF COMITY AND NO ACT OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINS THIS STATE TO ABANDON ANY PART OF ITS CONTROL OR
TO SHARE IT WITH A FOREIGN STATE" (P. 310); THAT, ALTHOUGH THE RUSSIAN
DECREE EFFECTED THE DEATH OF THE PARENT COMPANY, THE SITUS OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE NEW YORK BRANCH WAS IN NEW YORK; AND THAT NO PRINCIPLE
OF LAW FORCES NEW YORK TO FORSAKE THE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION AUTHORIZED
IN THE EARLIER APPEAL (255 N.Y. 415, 175 N.E. 114) AND TO HOLD THAT
"THE METHOD WHICH IN 1931 CONFORMED TO THE EXACTIONS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY MUST BE REJECTED BECAUSE RETROACTIVELY IT HAS BECOME UNLAWFUL"
(P. 312). 

IT IS ONE THING TO HOLD, AS WAS DONE IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 304 U.S. AT P. 142, THAT UNDER THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT ACQUIRE "A RIGHT FREE OF A PREEXISTING
INFIRMITY," SUCH AS THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AGAINST
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, ITS ASSIGNOR.  UNLIKE THE PROBLEM PRESENTED
HERE AND IN THE MOSCOW CASE, THAT HOLDING IN NO WAY SANCTIONS THE
ASSERTED POWER OF NEW YORK TO DENY ENFORCEMENT OF A CLAIM UNDER THE
LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT BECAUSE OF AN OVERRIDING POLICY OF THE STATE WHICH
DENIES VALIDITY IN NEW YORK OF THE RUSSIAN DECREES ON WHICH THE
ASSIGNED CLAIMS REST.  THAT POWER WAS DENIED NEW YORK IN UNITED STATES
V. BELMONT, SUPRA, 301 U.S. 324.  WITH ONE QUALIFICATION, TO BE NOTED,
THE BELMONT CASE IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY.    THAT
CASE INVOLVED THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE LITVINOV
ASSIGNMENT TO RECOVER, FROM A CUSTODIAN OR STAKEHOLDER IN NEW YORK,
FUNDS WHICH HAD BEEN NATIONALIZED AND APPROPRIATED BY THE RUSSIAN
DECREES. 

THIS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, HELD THAT THE
CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS IS COMMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE
POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; THAT THE PROPRIETY OF
THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER IS NOT OPEN TO JUDICIAL INQUIRY; AND THAT
RECOGNITION OF A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN CONCLUSIVELY BINDS THE COURTS AND
"IS RETROACTIVE AND VALIDATES ALL ACTIONS AND CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT
SO RECOGNIZED FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS EXISTENCE."  301 U.S. AT P.
328.  IT FURTHER HELD (P. 330) THAT RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH IT, AND THE
LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT WERE "ALL PARTS OF ONE TRANSACTION, RESULTING IN AN
INTERNATIONAL COMPACT BETWEEN THE TWO GOVERNMENTS."  AFTER STATING
THAT, "IN RESPECT OF WHAT WAS DONE HERE, THE EXECUTIVE HAD AUTHORITY TO
SPEAK AS THE SOLE ORGAN" OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, IT ADDED (P. 330):
"THE ASSIGNMENT AND THE AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH DID NOT, AS
IN THE CASE OF TREATIES, AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE TREATY MAKING
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (ART. II, SEC. 2), REQUIRE THE ADVICE AND
CONSENT OF THE SENATE."  IT HELD (P. 331) THAT THE "EXTERNAL POWERS OF
THE UNITED STATES ARE TO BE EXERCISED WITHOUT REGARD TO STATE LAWS OR
POLICIES.  THE SUPREMACY OF A TREATY IN THIS RESPECT HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED FROM THE BEGINNING."  AND IT ADDED THAT "ALL INTERNATIONAL
COMPACTS AND AGREEMENTS" ARE TO BE TREATED WITH SIMILAR DIGNITY FOR THE
REASON THAT "COMPLETE POWER OVER INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS IS IN THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND IS NOT AND CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY CURTAILMENT
OR INTERFERENCE ON THE PART OF THE SEVERAL STATES."  P. 331.  THIS
COURT DID NOT STOP TO INQUIRE WHETHER IN FACT THERE WAS ANY POLICY OF
NEW YORK WHICH ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT WOULD INFRINGE
SINCE "NO STATE POLICY CAN PREVAIL AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL COMPACT
HERE INVOLVED."  P. 327. 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, IN THE MOSCOW CASE (280 N.Y. 309, 20
N.E.2D 758), DISTINGUISHED THE BELMONT CASE ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS
DECIDED ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADINGS, THE DEMURRER TO THE
COMPLAINT ADMITTING THAT UNDER THE RUSSIAN DECREE THE PROPERTY WAS
CONFISCATED BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THEN TRANSFERRED TO THE
UNITED STATES UNDER THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE
RUSSIAN DECREE IN QUESTION WAS INTENDED TO HAVE AN EXTRATERRITORIAL
EFFECT AND TO EMBRACE FUNDS OF THE KIND WHICH ARE HERE INVOLVED.  NOR
CAN THERE BE ANY SERIOUS DOUBT THAT CLAIMS OF THE KIND HERE IN QUESTION
WERE INCLUDED IN THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT.  FN7  IT IS BROAD AND
INCLUSIVE.  IT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED CONSONANTLY WITH THE PURPOSE OF
THE COMPACT TO ELIMINATE ALL POSSIBLE SOURCES OF FRICTION BETWEEN THESE
TWO GREAT NATIONS.  SEE TUCKER V. ALEXANDROFF, 183 U.S. 424, 437;
JORDAN V. TASHIRO, 278 U.S. 123, 127.  STRICT CONSTRUCTION WOULD RUN
COUNTER TO THAT NATIONAL POLICY.  FOR, AS WE SHALL SEE, THE EXISTENCE
OF UNPAID CLAIMS AGAINST RUSSIA AND ITS NATIONALS, WHICH WERE HELD IN
THIS COUNTRY, AND WHICH THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT WAS INTENDED TO SECURE,
HAD LONG BEEN ONE IMPEDIMENT TO RESUMPTION OF FRIENDLY RELATIONS
BETWEEN THESE TWO GREAT POWERS. 

THE HOLDING IN THE BELMONT CASE IS THEREFORE DETERMINATIVE OF THE
PRESENT CONTROVERSY, UNLESS THE STAKE OF THE FOREIGN CREDITORS IN THIS
LIQUIDATION PROCEEDING AND THE PROVISION WHICH NEW YORK HAS PROVIDED
FOR THEIR PROTECTION CALL FOR A DIFFERENT RESULT. 

FOURTH.  THE BELMONT CASE FORECLOSES ANY RELIEF TO THE RUSSIAN
CORPORATION.  FOR THIS COURT HELD IN THAT CASE (301 U.S. AT P. 332): "
...  OUR CONSTITUTION, LAWS AND POLICIES HAVE NO EXTRATERRITORIAL
OPERATION, UNLESS IN RESPECT OF OUR OWN CITIZENS.  ...  WHAT ANOTHER
COUNTRY HAS DONE IN THE WAY OF TAKING OVER PROPERTY OF ITS NATIONALS,
AND ESPECIALLY OF ITS CORPORATIONS, IS NOT A MATTER FOR JUDICIAL
CONSIDERATION HERE.  SUCH NATIONALS MUST LOOK TO THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT
FOR ANY REDRESS TO WHICH THEY MAY BE ENTITLED." 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS APPLY IN CASE OF THE
FOREIGN CREDITORS  FN8  TO WHOM THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS (255 N.Y.
415, 175 N.E. 114) ORDERED DISTRIBUTION OF THESE FUNDS.  THE ARGUMENT
IS THAT THEIR RIGHTS IN THESE FUNDS HAVE VESTED BY VIRTUE OF THE NEW
YORK DECREE; THAT TO DEPRIVE THEM OF THE PROPERTY WOULD VIOLATE THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT WHICH EXTENDS ITS PROTECTION TO ALIENS AS WELL AS TO
CITIZENS; AND THAT THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT CANNOT DEPRIVE NEW YORK OF
ITS POWER TO ADMINISTER THE BALANCE OF THE FUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS
LAWS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THESE CREDITORS. 

AT THE OUTSET, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT, SO FAR AS APPEARS, ALL
CREDITORS WHOSE CLAIMS AROSE OUT OF DEALINGS WITH THE NEW YORK BRANCH
HAVE BEEN PAID.  THUS WE ARE NOT FACED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER NEW
YORK'S POLICY OF PROTECTING THE SO-CALLED LOCAL CREDITORS BY GIVING
THEM PRIORITY IN THE ASSETS DEPOSITED WITH THE STATE (MATTER OF PEOPLE,
242 N.Y. 148, 158-159, 151 N.E. 159) SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED WITHIN THE
RULE OF CLARK V. WILLIARD, 294 U.S. 211, OR SHOULD YIELD TO THE FEDERAL
POLICY EXPRESSED IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMPACT OR AGREEMENT. 
SANTOVINCENZO V. EGAN, 284 U.S. 30, 40; UNITED STATES V. BELMONT,
SUPRA.  WE INTIMATE NO OPINION ON THAT QUESTION.  THE CONTEST HERE IS
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CREDITORS OF THE RUSSIAN CORPORATION WHO,
WE ASSUME, ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY AND WHOSE CLAIMS DID NOT
ARISE OUT OF TRANSACTIONS WITH THE NEW YORK BRANCH.  THE UNITED STATES
IS SEEKING TO PROTECT NOT ONLY CLAIMS WHICH IT HOLDS BUT ALSO CLAIMS OF
ITS NATIONALS.  H. REP. NO. 865, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS. SUCH CLAIMS DID
NOT ARISE OUT OF TRANSACTIONS WITH THIS RUSSIAN CORPORATION; THEY ARE,
HOWEVER, CLAIMS AGAINST RUSSIA OR ITS NATIONALS.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH
CLAIMS AND THEIR NON-PAYMENT HAD FOR YEARS BEEN ONE OF THE BARRIERS TO
RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET REGIME BY THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.  GRAHAM,
RUSSIAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS, 1917-1933:  AN INTERPRETATION, 28 AM. POL. 
SC. REV. 387; 1 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1940), PP. 302
304.  THE PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSIONS LEADING TO THE POLICY OF
RECOGNITION WAS TO RESOLVE "ALL QUESTIONS OUTSTANDING" BETWEEN THE TWO
NATIONS.  ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE UNION OF
SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, DEPT. OF STATE, EASTERN EUROPEAN SERIES,
NO. 1(1933), P. 1.  SETTLEMENT OF ALL AMERICAN CLAIMS AGAINST RUSSIA
WAS ONE METHOD OF REMOVING SOME OF THE PRIOR OBJECTIONS TO RECOGNITION
BASED ON THE SOVIET POLICY OF NATIONALIZATION.  THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT
WAS NOT ONLY PART AND PARCEL OF THE NEW POLICY OF RECOGNITION (ID., P.
13), IT WAS ALSO THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT FOR
ALLEVIATING IN THIS COUNTRY THE RIGORS OF NATIONALIZATION.  CONGRESS
TACITLY RECOGNIZED THAT POLICY.  ACTING IN ANTICIPATION OF THE
REALIZATION OF FUNDS UNDER THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT (H. REP. NO. 865,
76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.), IT AUTHORIZED THE APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSIONER
TO DETERMINE THE CLAIMS OF AMERICAN NATIONALS AGAINST THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT.  JOINT RESOLUTION OF AUGUST 4, 1939, 53 STAT. 1199. 

IF THE PRESIDENT HAD THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE POLICY WHICH WAS TO
GOVERN THE QUESTION OF RECOGNITION, THEN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
STAND IN THE WAY OF GIVING FULL FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE LITVINOV
ASSIGNMENT.  TO BE SURE, ALIENS AS WELL AS CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET V. UNITED
STATES, 282 U.S. 481.  A STATE IS NOT PRECLUDED, HOWEVER, BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM ACCORDING PRIORITY TO LOCAL CREDITORS AS
AGAINST CREDITORS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND WHOSE
CLAIMS AROSE ABROAD.  DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT V. UMBREIT, 208 U.S. 570. 
BY THE SAME TOKEN, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT BARRED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT FROM SECURING FOR ITSELF AND OUR NATIONALS PRIORITY AGAINST
SUCH CREDITORS.  AND IT MATTERS NOT THAT THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GLOBULAR AND INVOLVES A REGROUPING OF ASSETS. 
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY THIS GOVERNMENT NEED ACT AS THE
COLLECTION AGENT FOR NATIONALS OF OTHER COUNTRIES WHEN IT TAKES STEPS
TO PROTECT ITSELF OR ITS OWN NATIONALS ON EXTERNAL DEBTS.  THERE IS NO
REASON WHY IT MAY NOT, THROUGH SUCH DEVICES AS THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT,
MAKE ITSELF AND ITS NATIONALS WHOLE FROM ASSETS HERE BEFORE IT PERMITS
SUCH ASSETS TO GO ABROAD IN SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS OF ALIENS MADE
ELSEWHERE AND NOT INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN
THIS COUNTRY.  THE FACT THAT NEW YORK HAS MARSHALED THE CLAIMS OF THE
FOREIGN CREDITORS HERE INVOLVED AND AUTHORIZED THEIR PAYMENT DOES NOT
GIVE THEM IMMUNITY FROM THAT GENERAL RULE. 

IF THE PRIORITY HAD BEEN ACCORDED AMERICAN CLAIMS BY TREATY WITH
RUSSIA, THERE WOULD BE NO DOUBT AS TO ITS VALIDITY.  CF. SANTOVINCENZO
V. EGAN, SUPRA.  THE SAME RESULT OBTAINS HERE.  THE POWERS OF THE
PRESIDENT IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS INCLUDED THE POWER,
WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE SENATE, TO DETERMINE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE
UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE RUSSIAN NATIONALIZATION DECREES. 
"WHAT GOVERNMENT IS TO BE REGARDED HERE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN
SOVEREIGN STATE IS A POLITICAL RATHER THAN A JUDICIAL QUESTION, AND IS
TO BE DETERMINED BY THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT." 
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 304 U.S. AT P. 137.  THAT
AUTHORITY IS NOT LIMITED TO A DETERMINATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO BE
RECOGNIZED.  IT INCLUDES THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE POLICY WHICH IS TO
GOVERN THE QUESTION OF RECOGNITION.  OBJECTIONS TO THE UNDERLYING
POLICY AS WELL AS OBJECTIONS TO RECOGNITION ARE TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE
POLITICAL DEPARTMENT AND NOT TO THE COURTS.  SEE GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 138; KENNETT V. CHAMBERS, 14 HOW.  38, 50-51. 
AS WE HAVE NOTED, THIS COURT IN THE BELMONT CASE RECOGNIZED THAT THE
LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT WAS AN INTERNATIONAL COMPACT WHICH DID NOT REQUIRE
THE PARTICIPATION OF THE SENATE.  IT STATED (301 U.S. PP. 330-331):
"THERE ARE MANY SUCH COMPACTS, OF WHICH A PROTOCOL, A MODUS VIVENDI, A
POSTAL CONVENTION, AND AGREEMENTS LIKE THAT NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE
ILLUSTRATIONS."  AND SEE MONACO V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 313, 331;
UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 318.  RECOGNITION
IS NOT ALWAYS ABSOLUTE; IT IS SOMETIMES CONDITIONAL.  1 MOORE,
INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST (1906), PP. 73-74; 1 HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW (1940), PP. 192-195.  POWER TO REMOVE SUCH OBSTACLES
TO FULL RECOGNITION AS SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF OUR NATIONALS (LEVITAN,
EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS, 35 ILL. L. REV. 365, 382-385) CERTAINLY IS A
MODEST IMPLIED POWER OF THE PRESIDENT WHO IS THE "SOLE ORGAN OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS."  UNITED
STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., SUPRA, P. 320.  EFFECTIVENESS IN
HANDLING THE DELICATE PROBLEMS OF FOREIGN RELATIONS REQUIRES NO LESS. 
UNLESS SUCH A POWER EXISTS, THE POWER OF RECOGNITION MIGHT BE THWARTED
OR SERIOUSLY DILUTED.  NO SUCH OBSTACLE CAN BE PLACED IN THE WAY OF
REHABILITATION OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THIS COUNTRY AND ANOTHER NATION,
UNLESS THE HISTORIC CONCEPTION OF THE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THE PRESIDENT IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SEE MOORE, TREATIES
AND EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS, 20 POL.  SC. Q. 385, 403-417) IS TO BE
DRASTICALLY REVISED.  IT WAS THE JUDGMENT OF THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
THAT FULL RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT REQUIRED THE SETTLEMENT
OF ALL OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS INCLUDING THE CLAIMS OF OUR NATIONALS. 
RECOGNITION AND THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT WERE INTERDEPENDENT.  WE WOULD
USURP THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION IF WE HELD THAT THAT DECISION WAS NOT
FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE IN THE COURTS. 

"ALL CONSTITUTIONAL ACTS OF POWER, WHETHER IN THE EXECUTIVE OR IN THE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, HAVE AS MUCH LEGAL VALIDITY AND OBLIGATION AS IF
THEY PROCEEDED FROM THE LEGISLATURE,  ...  "  THE FEDERALIST, NO. 64. 
A TREATY IS A "LAW OF THE LAND" UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE (ART. VI,
CL. 2) OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SUCH INTERNATIONAL COMPACTS AND AGREEMENTS
AS THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT HAVE A SIMILAR DIGNITY.  UNITED STATES V.
BELMONT, SUPRA, 301 U.S. AT P. 331.  SEE CORWIN, THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE
& POWERS (1940), PP. 228-240. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, TRUE THAT EVEN TREATIES WITH FOREIGN NATIONS WILL
BE CAREFULLY CONSTRUED SO AS NOT TO DEROGATE FROM THE AUTHORITY AND
JURISDICTION OF THE STATES OF THIS NATION UNLESS CLEARLY NECESSARY TO
EFFECTUATE THE NATIONAL POLICY.  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, P. 143 AND CASES CITED.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN TODOK V. UNION STATE
BANK, 281 U.S. 449, THIS COURT TOOK PAINS IN ITS CONSTRUCTION OF A
TREATY, RELATING TO THE POWER OF AN ALIEN TO DISPOSE OF PROPERTY IN
THIS COUNTRY, NOT TO INVALIDATE THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW GOVERNING
SUCH DISPOSITIONS.  FREQUENTLY THE OBLIGATION OF A TREATY WILL BE
DEPENDENT ON STATE LAW.  PREVOST V. GRENEAUX, 19 HOW.  1.  BUT STATE
LAW MUST YIELD WHEN IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH, OR IMPAIRS THE POLICY OR
PROVISIONS OF, A TREATY OR OF AN INTERNATIONAL COMPACT OR AGREEMENT. 
SEE NIELSEN V. JOHNSON, 279 U.S. 47.  THEN, THE POWER OF A STATE TO
REFUSE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS BASED ON FOREIGN LAW WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO
THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE FORUM (GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313 U.S. 498, 506)
MUST GIVE WAY BEFORE THE SUPERIOR FEDERAL POLICY EVIDENCED BY A TREATY
OR INTERNATIONAL COMPACT OR AGREEMENT.  SANTOVINCENZO V. EGAN, SUPRA,
284 U.S. 30; UNITED STATES V. BELMONT, SUPRA.    ENFORCEMENT OF NEW
YORK'S POLICY AS FORMULATED BY THE MOSCOW CASE WOULD COLLIDE WITH AND
SUBTRACT FROM THE FEDERAL POLICY, WHETHER IT WAS PREMISED ON THE
ABSENCE OF EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT OF THE RUSSIAN DECREES, THE
CONCEPTION OF THE NEW YORK BRANCH AS A DISTINCT JURISTIC PERSONALITY,
OR DISAPPROVAL BY NEW YORK OF THE RUSSIAN PROGRAM OF NATIONALIZATION. 
FN9  FOR THE MOSCOW CASE REFUSES TO GIVE EFFECT OR RECOGNITION IN NEW
YORK TO ACTS OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT WHICH THE UNITED STATES BY ITS
POLICY OF RECOGNITION AGREED NO LONGER TO QUESTION.  ENFORCEMENT OF
SUCH STATE POLICIES WOULD INDEED TEND TO RESTORE SOME OF THE PRECISE
IMPEDIMENTS TO FRIENDLY RELATIONS WHICH THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO
REMOVE ON INAUGURATION OF THE POLICY OF RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, SUCH ACTION BY NEW YORK, NO MATTER
WHAT GLOSS BE GIVEN IT, AMOUNTS TO OFFICIAL DISAPPROVAL OR NON
RECOGNITION OF THE NATIONALIZATION PROGRAM OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT. 
THAT DISAPPROVAL OR NON-RECOGNITION IS IN THE FACE OF A DISAVOWAL BY
THE UNITED STATES OF ANY OFFICIAL CONCERN WITH THAT PROGRAM.  IT IS IN
THE FACE OF THE UNDERLYING POLICY ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES WHEN IT
RECOGNIZED THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE ACTION OF THE STATE IN REFUSING ENFORCEMENT OF THE LITVINOV
ASSIGNMENT RESULTS IN REDUCTION OR NON-PAYMENT OF CLAIMS OF OUR
NATIONALS, IT HELPS KEEP ALIVE ONE SOURCE OF FRICTION WHICH THE POLICY
OF RECOGNITION INTENDED TO REMOVE.  THUS THE ACTION OF NEW YORK TENDS
TO RESTORE SOME OF THE PRECISE IRRITANTS WHICH HAD LONG AFFECTED THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN THESE TWO GREAT NATIONS AND WHICH THE POLICY OF
RECOGNITION WAS DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE. 

WE RECENTLY STATED IN HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52, 68, THAT THE
FIELD WHICH AFFECTS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS "THE ONE ASPECT OF OUR
GOVERNMENT THAT FROM THE FIRST HAS BEEN MOST GENERALLY CONCEDED
IMPERATIVELY TO DEMAND BROAD NATIONAL AUTHORITY"; AND THAT ANY STATE
POWER WHICH MAY EXIST "IS RESTRICTED TO THE NARROWEST OF LIMITS." 
THERE, WE WERE DEALING WITH THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A STATE STATUTE
REGULATING ALIENS SURVIVED A SIMILAR FEDERAL STATUTE.  WE HELD THAT IT
DID NOT.  HERE, WE ARE DEALING WITH AN EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL FUNCTION.  IF
STATE LAWS AND POLICIES DID NOT YIELD BEFORE THE EXERCISE OF THE
EXTERNAL POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES, THEN OUR FOREIGN POLICY MIGHT BE
THWARTED.  THESE ARE DELICATE MATTERS.  IF STATE ACTION COULD DEFEAT OR
ALTER OUR FOREIGN POLICY, SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES MIGHT ENSUE.  THE NATION
AS A WHOLE WOULD BE HELD TO ANSWER IF A STATE CREATED DIFFICULTIES WITH
A FOREIGN POWER.  CF. CHY LUNG V. FREEMAN, 92 U.S. 275, 279-280. 
CERTAINLY, THE CONDITIONS FOR "ENDURING FRIENDSHIP" BETWEEN THE
NATIONS, WHICH THE POLICY OF RECOGNITION IN THIS INSTANCE WAS DESIGNED
TO EFFECTUATE,  FN10  ARE NOT LIKELY TO FLOURISH WHERE, CONTRARY TO
NATIONAL POLICY, A LINGERING ATMOSPHERE OF HOSTILITY IS CREATED BY
STATE ACTION. 

SUCH CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLIE THE PRINCIPLE OF OETJEN V. CENTRAL
LEATHER CO., 246 U.S. 297, 302-303, THAT WHEN A REVOLUTIONARY
GOVERNMENT IS RECOGNIZED AS A DE JURE GOVERNMENT, "SUCH RECOGNITION IS
RETROACTIVE IN EFFECT AND VALIDATES ALL THE ACTIONS AND CONDUCT OF THE
GOVERNMENT SO RECOGNIZED FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS EXISTENCE."  THEY
ALSO EXPLAIN THE RULE EXPRESSED IN UNDERHILL V. HERNANDEZ, 168 U.S.
250, 252, THAT "THE COURTS OF ONE COUNTRY WILL NOT SIT IN JUDGMENT ON
THE ACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANOTHER DONE WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORY." 

THE ACTION OF NEW YORK IN THIS CASE AMOUNTS IN SUBSTANCE TO A
REJECTION OF A PART OF THE POLICY UNDERLYING RECOGNITION BY THIS NATION
OF SOVIET RUSSIA.  SUCH POWER IS NOT ACCORDED A STATE IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  TO PERMIT IT WOULD BE TO SANCTION A DANGEROUS
INVASION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  FOR IT WOULD "IMPERIL THE AMICABLE
RELATIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS AND VEX THE PEACE OF NATIONS."  OETJEN V.
CENTRAL LEATHER CO., SUPRA, P. 304.  IT WOULD TEND TO DISTURB THAT
EQUILIBRIUM IN OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS WHICH THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF
OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT HAD DILIGENTLY ENDEAVORED TO ESTABLISH. 

WE REPEAT THAT THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
STATES.  NO STATE CAN REWRITE OUR FOREIGN POLICY TO CONFORM TO ITS OWN
DOMESTIC POLICIES.  POWER OVER EXTERNAL AFFAIRS IS NOT SHARED BY THE
STATES; IT IS VESTED IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT EXCLUSIVELY.  IT NEED
NOT BE SO EXERCISED AS TO CONFORM TO STATE LAWS OR STATE POLICIES,
WHETHER THEY BE EXPRESSED IN CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES, OR JUDICIAL
DECREES.  AND THE POLICIES OF THE STATES BECOME WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO
JUDICIAL INQUIRY WHEN THE UNITED STATES, ACTING WITHIN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL SPHERE, SEEKS ENFORCEMENT OF ITS FOREIGN POLICY IN THE
COURTS.  FOR SUCH REASONS, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND STATED IN UNITED
STATES V. BELMONT, SUPRA, 301 U.S. AT P. 331, "IN RESPECT OF ALL
INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS AND COMPACTS, AND IN RESPECT OF OUR FOREIGN
RELATIONS GENERALLY, STATE LINES DISAPPEAR.  AS TO SUCH PURPOSES THE
STATE OF NEW YORK DOES NOT EXIST." 

WE HOLD THAT THE RIGHT TO THE FUNDS OR PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAME
VESTED IN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AS THE SUCCESSOR TO THE FIRST RUSSIAN
INSURANCE CO.; THAT THIS RIGHT HAS PASSED TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT; AND THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO THE
PROPERTY AS AGAINST THE CORPORATION AND THE FOREIGN CREDITORS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEW YORK FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE UNION OF
SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, DEPT. OF STATE, EASTERN EUROPEAN SERIES,
NO. 1(1933) FOR THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO RECOGNITION. 

FN2  THE THREE DECREES ON WHICH THE UNITED STATES PLACED PRIMARY
EMPHASIS (APART FROM THE ONE SET FORTH IN NOTE 3, INFRA) WERE DESCRIBED
IN THE FINDINGS OF THE REFEREE IN THE MOSCOW CASE AS FOLLOWS: 

"88.  THE DECREE OF NOVEMBER 18, 1919 ON THE ANNULMENT OF LIFE
INSURANCE CONTRACTS ABOLISHED INSURANCE OF LIFE IN ALL ITS FORMS IN THE
REPUBLIC AND ANNULLED ALL CONTRACTS WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES AND
SAVINGS BANKS WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE OF LIFE, CAPITAL AND
INCOME. 

"89.  THE DECREE OF THE SOVIET OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS DATED MARCH 4,
1919, ON THE LIQUIDATION OF OBLIGATIONS OF STATE ENTERPRISES, PROVIDED
THAT STOCK CERTIFICATES AND SHARES OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, WHOSE
ENTERPRISES HAVE BEEN EITHER NATIONALIZED OR SEQUESTERED, ARE ANNULLED
AND ALSO PROVIDED THAT SUCH ENTERPRISES ARE FREE FROM THE PAYMENT OF
ALL DEBTS TO PRIVATE PERSONS AND ENTERPRISES WHICH HAVE ARISEN PRIOR TO
THE NATIONALIZATION OF THESE ENTERPRISES, INCLUDING PAYMENTS ON BOND
LOANS WITH THE EXCEPTION ONLY OF WAGES DUE TO WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES. 

"90.  THE DECREE OF THE SOVIET OF PEOPLE'S COMMISSARS DATED JUNE 28,
1918 PROVIDES IN ARTICLE I THAT THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
ENTERPRISES ENUMERATED THEREIN, WHICH ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE SOVIET REPUBLIC, TOGETHER WITH ALL THEIR CAPITAL AND PROPERTY,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LATTER MAY CONSIST, ARE DECLARED THE PROPERTY OF
THE REPUBLIC." 

FN3  RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE INSURANCE DECREE DATED NOVEMBER 28,
1918, TRANSLATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE REFEREE IN THE
MOSCOW CASE, ARE: 

"603.  ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE RUSSIAN
REPUBLIC. 

"(1)  INSURANCE IN ALL ITS FORMS, SUCH AS:  FIRE INSURANCE, INSURANCE
ON SHIPMENTS, LIFE INSURANCE, ACCIDENT INSURANCE, HAIL INSURANCE,
LIVESTOCK INSURANCE, INSURANCE AGAINST FAILURE OF CROPS, ETC. IS HEREBY
PROCLAIMED AS A STATE MONOPOLY. 

"NOTE.  MUTUAL INSURANCE OF MOVABLE GOODS AND MERCHANDISE BY THE
COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS IS CONDUCTED ON A SPECIAL BASIS. 

"(2)  ALL PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS (STOCK AND
SHARE HOLDING, ALSO MUTUAL) UPON ISSUANCE OF THIS DECREE ARE SUBJECT TO
LIQUIDATION; FORMER RURAL* (PEOPLE'S SOVIET) AND MUNICIPAL MUTUAL
INSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RUSSIAN
REPUBLIC ARE HEREBY PROCLAIMED THE PROPERTY OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIALIST
FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC. 

*"ZEMSKIE." 

THE REFEREE IN THE MOSCOW CASE FOUND THAT, UPON PUBLICATION OF THIS
DECREE, ALL RUSSIAN INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE PROHIBITED FROM ENGAGING
IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IN RUSSIA; THAT THEY BECAME SUBJECT TO
LIQUIDATION AND WERE DISSOLVED; THAT ALL OF THEIR ASSETS IN RUSSIA
BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE; THAT, ON PUBLICATION OF THE DECREE,
THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES LOST ALL POWER TO ACT AS DIRECTORS OR
CONSERVATORS OF THE PROPERTY, OR TO REPRESENT THE COMPANIES IN ANY WAY;
AND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BECAME THE STATUTORY SUCCESSOR AND
DOMICILIARY LIQUIDATOR OF COMPANIES WHOSE PROPERTY WAS NATIONALIZED. 

"(3)  FOR THE IMMEDIATE ORGANIZATION OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS AND
FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF PARTS OF INSURANCE INSTITUTIONS, WHICH HAVE
BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC,
A COMMISSION IS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SUPREME SOVIET OF NATIONAL
ECONOMY, CONSISTING OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SUPREME SOVIET OF
NATIONAL ECONOMY, THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIATS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
INTERIOR AFFAIRS, THE COMMISSAR OF INSURANCE AND FIRE PREVENTION,
FINANCES, LABOR, AND STATE CONTROL, AND OF SOVIET INSURANCE
ORGANIZATIONS (PEOPLE'S SOVIET AND MUNICIPAL MUTUAL). 

"NOTE.  THE SAME COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH THE LIQUIDATING OF
PRIVATE INSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS, ALL PROPERTY AND ASSETS OF WHICH,
REMAINING ON HAND AFTER THEIR LIQUIDATION, SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF
THE RUSSIAN SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC. 

"(4)  THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REORGANIZATION AND LIQUIDATION OF EXISTING
INSURANCE ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED NOT
LATER THAN THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL 1919. 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"(8)  THE PRESENT DECREE COMES INTO FORCE ON THE DAY OF ITS
PUBLICATION." 

FN4  THAT SECTION READS: 

"A PRINTED COPY OF A STATUTE, OR OTHER WRITTEN LAW, OF ANOTHER STATE,
OR OF A TERRITORY, OR OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY, OR A PRINTED COPY OF A
PROCLAMATION, EDICT, DECREE OR ORDINANCE, BY THE EXECUTIVE POWER
THEREOF, CONTAINED IN A BOOK OR PUBLICATION PURPORTING OR PROVED TO
HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHORITY THEREOF, OR PROVED TO BE COMMONLY
ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTING LAW IN THE JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS
THEREOF, IS PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF THE STATUTE, LAW, PROCLAMATION,
EDICT, DECREE OR ORDINANCE.  THE UNWRITTEN OR COMMON LAW OF ANOTHER
STATE, OR OF A TERRITORY, OR OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY, MAY BE PROVED AS A
FACT BY ORAL EVIDENCE.  THE BOOKS OF REPORTS OF CASES ADJUDGED IN THE
COURTS THEREOF MUST ALSO BE ADMITTED AS PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF THE
UNWRITTEN OR COMMON LAW THEREOF.  THE LAW OF SUCH STATE OR TERRITORY OR
FOREIGN COUNTRY IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OR REFEREE AND
INCLUDED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OR REFEREE OR CHARGED TO THE
JURY, AS THE CASE MAY BE.  SUCH FINDING OR CHARGE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW
ON APPEAL.  IN DETERMINING SUCH LAW, NEITHER THE TRIAL COURT NOR ANY
APPELLATE COURT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED ON THE TRIAL
BY THE PARTIES, BUT MAY CONSULT ANY OF THE WRITTEN AUTHORITIES ABOVE
NAMED IN THIS SECTION, WITH THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS IF THE SAME
HAD BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE." 

FN5  HENCE, THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO CERTIFY
THE OFFICIAL DECLARATION AS PART OF THE RECORD OF THE MOSCOW CASE IN
THIS COURT (281 N.Y. 818, 24 N.E.2D 487) WOULD SEEM IMMATERIAL TO OUR
RIGHT TO CONSULT IT. 

FN6  SEE ALSO NOTE 7, INFRA. 

FN7  A CLARIFICATION OF THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT WAS MADE IN AN
EXCHANGE OF LETTERS BETWEEN THE AMERICAN CHARGE D'AFFAIRES AND THE
PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON JANUARY 7, 1937.  THE LETTER
OF THE FORMER READ: 

"I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOU THAT IT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF
SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS CONSIDERS THAT BY AND UPON THE FORMATION OF
THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND THE ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF 1923 OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, THE
UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF
THE PROPERTY, RIGHTS, OR INTERESTS THEREIN LOCATED ABROAD OF ALL
CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES WHICH HAD THERETOFORE BEEN NATIONALIZED BY
DECREES OF THE CONSTITUENT REPUBLICS OR THEIR PREDECESSORS. 

"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FURTHER UNDERSTANDS THAT IT WAS
THE PURPOSE AND INTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS TO ASSIGN TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
AMONG OTHER AMOUNTS, ALL THE AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE OR THAT MAY BE
FOUND TO BE DUE NOT ONLY THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS BUT
ALSO THE CONSTITUENT REPUBLICS OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS OR THEIR PREDECESSORS FROM AMERICAN NATIONALS, INCLUDING
CORPORATIONS, COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, OR ASSOCIATIONS, AND ALSO THE
CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF THE RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET, IN
LITIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS, AND THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS DID RELEASE AND
ASSIGN ALL SUCH AMOUNTS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY
VIRTUE OF THE NOTE ADDRESSED BY YOU TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES ON NOVEMBER 16, 1933. 

"WILL YOU BE GOOD ENOUGH TO CONFIRM THE UNDERSTANDING WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS IN THIS MATTER, CONCERNING THE LAW
OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC, THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, AND THE INTENTION
AND PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASSIGNMENT?"    THE REPLY OF THE
PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS WAS: 

"IN REPLY TO YOUR NOTE OF JANUARY 7, 1937, I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM
YOU THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
CONSIDERS THAT BY AND UPON THE FORMATION OF THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS AND THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 1923 OF THE
UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY, RIGHTS, OR
INTERESTS THEREIN LOCATED ABROAD OF ALL CORPORATIONS AND COMPANIES
WHICH HAD THERETOFORE BEEN NATIONALIZED BY DECREES OF THE CONSTITUENT
REPUBLICS OR THEIR PREDECESSORS. 

"YOU ARE FURTHER INFORMED THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE AND INTENTION OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS TO ASSIGN TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AMONG OTHER AMOUNTS, ALL THE
AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE OR THAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE DUE NOT ONLY THE
UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS BUT ALSO THE CONSTITUENT REPUBLICS
OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS OR THEIR PREDECESSORS FROM
AMERICAN NATIONALS, INCLUDING CORPORATIONS, COMPANIES, PARTNERSHIPS, OR
ASSOCIATIONS, AND ALSO THE CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF THE
RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET, IN LITIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
CLAIMS, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS DID RELEASE AND ASSIGN ALL SUCH AMOUNTS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF THE NOTE ADDRESSED BY ME TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON NOVEMBER 16, 1933. 

"I HAVE THE HONOR, THEREFORE, TO CONFIRM THE UNDERSTANDING, AS
EXPRESSED IN YOUR NOTE OF JANUARY 7, 1937, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES HAS IN THIS MATTER, CONCERNING THE LAW OF THE RUSSIAN
SOCIALIST FEDERATED SOVIET REPUBLIC, THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, AND THE INTENTION AND PURPOSE OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS IN THE ABOVE
MENTIONED ASSIGNMENT." 

FN8  IN VIEW OF THE DISPOSITION WHICH WE MAKE OF THIS CASE, WE
EXPRESS NO VIEW ON WHETHER THESE CREDITORS WOULD BE BARRED FROM
ASSERTING THEIR CLAIMS HERE BY VIRTUE OF THE RULING IN CANADA SOUTHERN
RY. CO. V. GEBHARD, 109 U.S. 527, 538, THAT "ANYTHING DONE AT THE LEGAL
HOME OF THE CORPORATION, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SUCH LAWS, WHICH
DISCHARGES IT FROM LIABILITY THERE, DISCHARGES IT EVERYWHERE." 

FN9  IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SEC. 977(B) OF THE
NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT PROVIDES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER
TO LIQUIDATE LOCAL ASSETS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHERE, INTER ALIA,
IT HAS BEEN DISSOLVED, LIQUIDATED, OR NATIONALIZED.  SUBDIVISION 19 OF
THAT SECTION PROVIDES IN PART: 

"...  SUCH LIQUIDATION, DISSOLUTION, NATIONALIZATION, EXPIRATION OF
ITS EXISTENCE, OR REPEAL, SUSPENSION, REVOCATION OR ANNULMENT OF ITS
CHARTER OR ORGANIC LAW IN THE COUNTRY OF ITS DOMICILE, OR ANY
CONFISCATORY LAW OR DECREE THEREOF, SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE ANY
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL EFFECT OR VALIDITY AS TO THE PROPERTY, TANGIBLE OR
INTANGIBLE, DEBTS, DEMANDS OR CHOSES IN ACTION OF SUCH CORPORATION
WITHIN THE STATE OR ANY DEBTS OR OBLIGATIONS OWING TO SUCH CORPORATION
FROM PERSONS, FIRMS OR CORPORATIONS RESIDING, SOJOURNING OR DOING
BUSINESS IN THE STATE." 

FN10  ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, SUPRA NOTE 1, P. 20. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY MAKES IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD A FEW
OBSERVATIONS TO MY BROTHER DOUGLAS' OPINION. 

LEGAL IDEAS, LIKE OTHER ORGANISMS, CANNOT SURVIVE SEVERANCE FROM
THEIR CONGENIAL ENVIRONMENT.  CONCEPTS LIKE "SITUS" AND "JURISDICTION"
AND "COMITY" SUMMARIZE VIEWS EVOLVED BY THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONTROLING LEGISLATION, FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF DOMESTIC
ISSUES.  TO UTILIZE SUCH CONCEPTS FOR THE SOLUTION OF CONTROVERSIES
INTERNATIONAL IN NATURE, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE PRESENTED TO THE COURTS
IN THE FORM OF A PRIVATE LITIGATION, IS TO INVOKE A NARROW AND
INADMISSIBLE FRAME OF REFERENCE. 

THE EXPROPRIATION DECREES OF THE U.S.S.R. GAVE RISE TO EXTENSIVE
LITIGATION AMONG VARIOUS CLASSES OF CLAIMANTS TO FUNDS BELONGING TO
RUSSIAN COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS OR KEEPING ACCOUNTS ABROAD.  ENGLAND
AND NEW YORK WERE THE MOST ACTIVE CENTERS OF THIS LITIGATION.  THE
OPINIONS IN THE MANY CASES BEFORE THEIR COURTS CONSTITUTE A SIZEABLE
LIBRARY.  THEY ALL DERIVE FROM A SINGLE THEME - THE EFFECT OF THE
RUSSIAN EXPROPRIATION DECREES UPON PARTICULAR CLAIMS, IN SOME CASES
BEFORE AND IN SOME CASES AFTER RECOGNITION OF THE U.S.S.R., EITHER DE
JURE OR DE FACTO.  ONE CANNOT READ THIS BODY OF JUDICIAL OPINIONS, IN
THE DIVISIONAL COURT, THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS, IN
THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, THE APPELLATE DIVISION, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS, AND NOT BE LEFT WITH THE CONVICTION THAT THEY ARE THE PRODUCT
LARGELY OF CASUISTRY, CONFUSION, AND INDECISION.  SEE JAFFEE, JUDICIAL
ASPECTS OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, PASSIM.  THE DIFFICULTIES WERE INHERENT
IN THE PROBLEMS THAT CONFRONTED THE COURTS.  THEY WERE DUE TO WHAT
CHIEF JUDGE CARDOZO CALLED "THE HAZARDS AND EMBARRASSMENTS GROWING OUT
OF THE CONFISCATORY DECREES OF THE RUSSIAN SOVIET REPUBLIC," MATTER OF
PEOPLE (RUSSIAN REINSURANCE CO.), 255 N.Y. 415, 420, 175 N.E. 114, 115,
AND TO THE ENDEAVOR TO ADJUST THESE "HAZARDS AND EMBARRASSMENTS" TO
"THE LARGEST CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND JUSTICE," JAMES & CO.
V. SECOND RUSSIAN INSURANCE CO., 239 N.Y. 248, 256, 146 N.E. 369, 370,
WHEN PRIVATE CLAIMS TO FUNDS COVERED BY THE EXPROPRIATION DECREES WERE
BEFORE THE COURTS, PARTICULARLY AT A TIME WHEN NON-RECOGNITION WAS OUR
NATIONAL POLICY. 

THE OPINIONS SHOW BOTH THE ENGLISH AND THE NEW YORK COURTS STRUGGLING
TO DEAL WITH THESE BUSINESS CONSEQUENCES OF MAJOR INTERNATIONAL
COMPLICATIONS THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF TRADITIONAL JUDICIAL
CONCEPTS.  "SITUS," "JURISDICTION," "COMITY," "DOMESTICATION" AND
"DISSOLUTION" OF CORPORATIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL IDEAS THAT OFTEN ENOUGH
IN LITIGATION OF A PURELY DOMESTIC NATURE PROVE THEIR LIMITATIONS AS
INSTRUMENTS FOR SOLUTION OR EVEN AS MEANS FOR ANALYSIS, WERE PRESSED
INTO SERVICE FOR ADJUDICATING CLAIMS WHOSE INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
COULD NOT BE STERILIZED.  THIS ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS
AMONG THE JUDGES AND FOR SUCH CONTRADICTORY AND CONFUSING RULINGS AS
THE SERIES OF NEW YORK CASES, FROM WULFSOHN V. RUSSIAN REPUBLIC, 234
N.Y. 372, 138 N.E. 24, TO THE RULING NOW UNDER REVIEW, MOSCOW FIRE INS.
CO. V. BANK OF NEW YORK & TRUST CO., 280 N.Y. 286, 20 N.E.2D 758,
ACCOUNTS FOR RUSSIAN COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK V. COMPTOIR
D'ESCOMPTE DE MULHOUSE, (1925) A.C. 112, COMPARED WITH LAZARD BROTHERS
& CO. V. MIDLAND BANK, (1933) A.C. 289, AND FOR THE FANTASTIC RESULT OF
THE DECISION IN LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. STATE OF RUSSIA, 21 F.2D 396,
IN WHICH THE KERENSKY REGIME WAS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIPLOMATIC
DETERMINATION, TREATED AS THE EXISTING RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT A DECADE
AFTER ITS EXTINCTION. 

COURTS COULD HARDLY ESCAPE PERPLEXITIES WHEN CITIZENS ASSERTED CLAIMS
TO RUSSIAN FUNDS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE FORUM.  BUT A TOTALLY
DIFFERENT SITUATION WAS PRESENTED WHEN ALL CLAIMS OF LOCAL CREDITORS
WERE SATISFIED AND ONLY THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF RUSSIA AND OF FORMER
RUSSIAN CREDITORS WERE INVOLVED.  IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF
RUSSIAN INSURANCE COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, THE STATE
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE TOOK POSSESSION OF THE ASSETS OF THE
RUSSIAN BRANCHES IN NEW YORK TO CONSERVE THEM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE
ENTITLED TO THEM.  LIQUIDATION FOLLOWED, DOMESTIC CREDITORS AND POLICY
HOLDERS WERE PAID, AND THE SUPERINTENDENT FOUND A LARGE SURPLUS ON HIS
HANDS.  AS STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE TOOK
THE GROUND THAT "IN VIEW OF THE HAZARDS AND UNCERTAINTIES OF THE
RUSSIAN SITUATION, THE SURPLUS SHOULD NOT BE PAID TO ANY ONE, BUT
SHOULD BE LEFT IN HIS HANDS INDEFINITELY, UNTIL A GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED
BY THE UNITED STATES SHALL FUNCTION IN THE TERRITORY OF WHAT WAS ONCE
THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE."  255 N.Y. 415, 421, 175 N.E. 114, 115.  SO THE
APPELLATE DIVISION DECREED.  229 APP. DIV. 637, 243 N.Y.S. 35.  BUT THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND THE SCRAMBLE AMONG THE FOREIGN CLAIMANTS
WAS ALLOWED TO PROCEED.  255 N.Y. 415, 175 N.E. 114.  THE COURT OF
APPELAS HELD THAT THE RETENTION OF THE SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE CUSTODY OF
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE UNTIL THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA HAD BEEN FORMALIZED "DID NOT SOLVE
THE PROBLEM.  IT ADJOURNED IT SINE DIE."  BUT ADJOURNMENT, IT MAY BE
SUGGESTED, IS SOMETIMES A CONSTRUCTIVE INTERIM SOLUTION TO AVOID A
TEMPORIZING AND PREMATURE MEASURE GIVING RISE TO NEW DIFFICULTIES. 
SUCH I BELIEVE TO HAVE BEEN THE MISCHIEF THAT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE
REJECTION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT'S POLICY OF CONSERVATION OF THE SURPLUS
RUSSIAN FUNDS UNTIL RECOGNITION.  THEIR DISPOSITION WAS INESCAPABLY
ENTANGLED IN RECOGNITION. 

IN THE IMMEDIATE CASE THE UNITED STATES SUES, IN EFFECT, AS THE
ASSIGNEE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT FOR CLAIMS BY THAT GOVERNMENT
AGAINST THE RUSSIAN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR MONIES IN DEPOSIT IN NEW YORK
TO WHICH NO AMERICAN CITIZEN MAKES CLAIM.  NO MANNER OF SPEECH CAN
CHANGE THE CENTRAL FACT THAT HERE ARE MONIES WHICH BELONGED TO A
RUSSIAN COMPANY AND FOR WHICH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT HAS DECREED
PAYMENT TO ITSELF. 

AND SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER NEW YORK CAN BAR RUSSIA FROM REALIZING
ON ITS DECREES AGAINST THESE FUNDS IN NEW YORK AFTER FORMAL RECOGNITION
BY THE UNITED STATES OF RUSSIA AND IN LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
LED UP TO RECOGNITION AND THE EXCHANGE OF NOTES THAT ATTENDED IT.  FOR
NEW YORK TO DENY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE RUSSIAN DECREES UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE TO OPPOSE, AT LEAST IN SOME RESPECTS, ITS
NOTIONS AS TO THE EFFECT WHICH SHOULD BE ACCORDED RECOGNITION AS
AGAINST THAT ENTERTAINED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR CONDUCTING OUR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.  AND THE RESULT IS THE SAME WHETHER NEW YORK
ACCOMPLISHES IT BECAUSE ITS COURTS INVOKE JUDICIAL VIEWS REGARDING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN EXPROPRIATION DECREES, OR REGARDING THE SURVIVAL
IN NEW YORK OF A RUSSIAN BUSINESS WHICH ACCORDING TO RUSSIAN LAW HAD
CEASED TO EXIST, OR REGARDING THE POWER OF NEW YORK COURTS OVER FUNDS
OF RUSSIAN COMPANIES OWING FROM NEW YORK CREDITORS.  IF THIS COURT IS
NOT BOUND BY THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
PLACES UPON COMPLICATED TRANSACTIONS IN NEW YORK IN DETERMINING WHETHER
THEY COME WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST IMPAIRING
THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACT, WE CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE BOUND BY THAT
COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSACTIONS SO ENTANGLED IN INTERNATIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE AS THE STATUS OF NEW YORK BRANCHES OF RUSSIAN COMPANIES
AND THE DISPOSITION OF THEIR ASSETS.  COMPARE APPLEBY V. CITY OF NEW
YORK, 271 U.S. 364 AND IRVING TRUST CO. V. DAY, 314 U.S. 556.  WHEN THE
DECISION OF A QUESTION OF FACT OR OF LOCAL LAW IS SO INTERWOVEN WITH
THE DECISION OF A QUESTION OF NATIONAL AUTHORITY THAT THE ONE
NECESSARILY INVOLVES THE OTHER, WE ARE NOT FORECLOSED BY THE STATE
COURT'S DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS OR OF THE LOCAL LAW.  OTHERWISE,
NATIONAL AUTHORITY COULD BE FRUSTRATED BY LOCAL RULINGS.  SEE CRESWILL
V. KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, 225 U.S. 246; DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22. 

IT IS NOT CONSONANT WITH THE STURDY CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS
THAT THE EFFECT OF RUSSIAN DECREES UPON RUSSIAN FUNDS IN THIS COUNTRY
SHOULD DEPEND ON SUCH GOSSAMER DISTINCTIONS AS THOSE BY WHICH COURTS
HAVE DETERMINED THAT RUSSIAN BRANCHES SURVIVE THE DEATH OF THEIR
RUSSIAN ORIGIN.  WHEN COURTS DEAL WITH SUCH ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL
PHENOMENA AS THE TAKING OVER OF RUSSIAN BUSINESSES BY THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT BY RESORTING TO THE FORMS AND PHRASES OF CONVENTIONAL
CORPORATION LAW, THEY INEVITABLY FALL INTO A DIALECTIC QUAGMIRE.  WITH
COMMENDABLE CANDOR, THE HOUSE OF LORDS FRANKLY CONFESSED AS MUCH WHEN
IT PRACTICALLY OVERRULED RUSSIAN COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL BANK V.
COMPTOIR D'ESCOMPTE DE MULHOUSE, SUPRA, SAYING THROUGH LORD WRIGHT,
"THE WHOLE MATTER HAS NOW TO BE RECONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF NEW
EVIDENCE AND OF THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF TEN YEARS."  LAZARD
BROTHERS & CO. V. MIDLAND BANK, (1933) A.C. 289, 300. 

FOR WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH PHYSICAL PROPERTY - WHETHER CHATTELS
OR REALTY.  WE ARE DEALING WITH INTANGIBLE RIGHTS, WITH CHOSES IN
ACTION.  THE FACT THAT THESE CLAIMS WERE REDUCED TO MONEY DOES NOT
CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE CLAIMS, AND CERTAINLY IS TOO TENUOUS A
THREAD ON WHICH TO DETERMINE ISSUES AFFECTING THE RELATION BETWEEN
NATIONS.  CORPOREAL PROPERTY MAY GIVE RISE TO RULES OF LAW WHICH, WE
HAVE HELD, EVEN IN PURELY DOMESTIC CONTROVERSIES OUGHT NOT TO BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE ADJUDICATION OF IMPALPABLE CLAIMS SUCH AS ARE HERE
IN CONTROVERSY.  CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, 363 ET SEQ. 

AS BETWEEN THE STATES, DUE REGARD FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTAL
ACTS IS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE (ART. IV, SEC. 1).  BUT THE SCOPE OF ITS OPERATION - WHEN MAY
THE POLICY OF ONE STATE DENY THE CONSEQUENCES OF A TRANSACTION
AUTHORIZED BY THE LAWS OF ANOTHER - HAS GIVEN RISE TO A LONG HISTORY OF
JUDICIAL SUBTLETIES WHICH HARDLY COMMEND THEMSELVES FOR TRANSFER TO THE
SOLUTION OF ANALOGOUS PROBLEMS BETWEEN FRIENDLY NATIONS.  SEE
HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146 U.S. 657; FINNEY V. GUY, 189 U.S. 335;
MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268; PACIFIC INS. CO. V.
INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 306 U.S. 493, 502; PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS,
314 U.S. 201.    FOR MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS, FORMAL RELATIONS BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA WERE BROKEN BECAUSE OF SERIOUS DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES REGARDING THE CONSEQUENCES TO US OF TWO MAJOR
RUSSIAN POLICIES.  THIS COMPLICATED PROCESS OF FRICTION, ABSTENTION
FROM FRIENDLY RELATIONS, EFFORTS AT ACCOMMODATION, AND NEGOTIATIONS FOR
REMOVING THE CAUSES OF FRICTION, ARE SUMMARIZED BY THE DELUSIVELY
SIMPLE CONCEPT OF "NON-RECOGNITION."  THE HISTORY OF RUSSO-AMERICAN
RELATIONS LEAVES NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THE TWO UNDERLYING SOURCES OF
DIFFICULTY WERE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA AND EXPROPRIATION.  HAD ANY STATE
COURT DURING THIS PERIOD GIVEN COMFORT TO THE RUSSIAN VIEWS IN THIS
CONTEST BETWEEN ITS GOVERNMENT AND OURS, IT WOULD, TO THAT EXTENT, HAVE
INTERFERED WITH THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS BY THE EXECUTIVE,
EVEN IF IT HAD PURPORTED TO DO SO UNDER THE GUISE OF ENFORCING STATE
LAW IN A MATTER OF LOCAL POLICY.  ON THE CONTRARY, DURING THIS PERIOD
OF NON-RECOGNITION NEW YORK DENIED RUSSIA ACCESS TO HER COURTS AND DID
SO ON THE SINGLE AND CONCLUSIVE GROUND:  "WE SHOULD DO NOTHING TO
THWART THE POLICY WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS ADOPTED."  RUSSIAN
REPUBLIC V. CIBRARIO, 235 N.Y. 255, 263, 139 N.E. 259, 262.  SIMILARLY,
NO INVOCATION OF A LOCAL RULE GOVERNING "SITUS" OR THE SURVIVAL OF A
DOMESTICATED CORPORATION, HOWEVER APPLICABLE IN AN ORDINARY CASE, IS
WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF A STATE COURT IF IT WOULD THWART TO ANY EXTENT
"THE POLICY WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS ADOPTED" WHEN THE PRESIDENT
REESTABLISHED FRIENDLY RELATIONS IN 1933. 

AND IT WOULD BE THWARTED IF THE JUDGMENT BELOW WERE ALLOWED TO
STAND. 

THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONTROL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS INCLUDES THE
SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS IS INDISPUTABLE.  THUS, REFERRING TO THE ADHESION
OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE DAWES PLAN, SECRETARY OF STATE HUGHES
REPORTED THAT "THIS AGREEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED UNDER THE LONG-RECOGNIZED
AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT TO ARRANGE FOR THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS IN
FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS NATIONALS.  THE EXERCISE OF THIS
AUTHORITY HAS MANY ILLUSTRATIONS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE AGREEMENT OF 1901
FOR THE SO-CALLED BOXER INDEMNITY."  (SECRETARY HUGHES TO PRESIDENT
COOLIDGE, FEBRUARY 3, 1925, MS., DEPARTMENT OF STATE, QUOTED IN 5
HACKWORTH, DIGEST OF INT. LAW, C. 16, SEC. 514.)  THE PRESIDENT'S POWER
TO NEGOTIATE SUCH A SETTLEMENT IS THE SAME WHETHER IT IS AN ISOLATED
TRANSACTION BETWEEN THIS COUNTRY AND A FRIENDLY NATION, OR IS PART OF A
COMPLICATED NEGOTIATION TO RESTORE NORMAL RELATIONS, AS WAS THE CASE
WITH RUSSIA. 

THAT THE POWER TO ESTABLISH SUCH NORMAL RELATIONS WITH A FOREIGN
COUNTRY BELONGS TO THE PRESIDENT IS EQUALLY INDISPUTABLE.  RECOGNITION
OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY IS NOT A THEORETICAL PROBLEM OR AN EXERCISE IN
ABSTRACT SYMBOLISM.  IT IS THE ASSERTION OF NATIONAL POWER DIRECTED
TOWARDS SAFEGUARDING AND PROMOTING OUR INTERESTS AND THOSE OF
CIVILIZATION.  RECOGNITION OF A REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT NORMALLY
INVOLVES THE REMOVAL OF AREAS OF FRICTION.  AS OFTEN AS NOT, AREAS OF
FRICTION ARE REMOVED BY THE ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIMS PRESSED BY THIS
COUNTRY ON BEHALF OF ITS NATIONALS AGAINST A NEW REGIME. 

SUCH A SETTLEMENT WAS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT WHEN THIS COUNTRY RESUMED
NORMAL RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA.  THE TWO CHIEF BARRIERS TO RENEWED
FRIENDSHIP WITH RUSSIA - INTRUSIVE PROPAGANDA AND THE EFFECTS OF
EXPROPRIATION DECREES UPON OUR NATIONALS - WERE AT THE CORE OF OUR
NEGOTIATIONS IN 1933, AS THEY HAD BEEN FOR A GOOD MANY YEARS.  THE
EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND M. LITVINOV MUST BE READ NOT IN
ISOLATION BUT AS THE CULMINATION OF DIFFICULTIES AND DEALINGS EXTENDING
OVER FIFTEEN YEARS.  AND THEY MUST BE READ NOT AS SELF-CONTAINED
TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS, LIKE A MARINE INSURANCE CONTRACT OR A BILL OF
LADING, BUT AS CHARACTERISTICALLY DELICATE AND ELUSIVE EXPRESSIONS OF
DIPLOMACY.  THE DRAFTSMEN OF SUCH NOTES MUST SAVE SENSIBILITIES AND
AVOID THE EXPLICITNESS ON WHICH DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS SO EASILY
FOUNDER. 

THE CONTROLLING HISTORY OF THE SOVIET REGIME AND OF THIS COUNTRY'S
RELATIONS WITH IT MUST BE READ BETWEEN THE LINES OF THE ROOSEVELT
LITVINOV AGREEMENT.  ONE NEEDS TO BE NO EXPERT IN RUSSIAN LAW TO KNOW
THAT THE EXPROPRIATION DECREES INTENDED TO SWEEP THE ASSETS OF RUSSIAN
COMPANIES TAKEN OVER BY THAT GOVERNMENT INTO RUSSIA'S CONTROL NO MATTER
WHERE THOSE ASSETS WERE CREDITED.  EQUALLY CLEAR IS IT THAT THE
ASSIGNMENT BY RUSSIA MEANT TO GIVE THE UNITED STATES, AS PART OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE SETTLEMENT, EVERYTHING THAT RUSSIA CLAIMED UNDER ITS LAWS
AGAINST RUSSIANS.  IT DOES VIOLENCE TO THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA, AND TO THE SCOPE OF THE FINAL
ADJUSTMENT, TO ASSUME THAT A SETTLEMENT THUS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES - TO SETTLE BOTH MONEY CLAIMS AND TO SOOTHE FEELINGS -
WAS TO BE QUALIFIED BY THE VARIANT NOTIONS OF THE COURTS OF THE FORTY
EIGHT STATES REGARDING "SITUS" OR "JURISDICTION" OVER INTANGIBLES OR
THE SURVIVAL OF EXTINCT RUSSIAN CORPORATIONS.  IN OUR DEALINGS WITH THE
OUTSIDE WORLD, THE UNITED STATES SPEAKS WITH ONE VOICE AND ACTS AS ONE,
UNEMBARRASSED BY THE COMPLICATIONS AS TO DOMESTIC ISSUES WHICH ARE
INHERENT IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF POLITICAL POWER BETWEEN THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE INDIVIDUAL STATES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

AS MY BRETHREN ARE CONTENT TO REST THEIR DECISION ON THE AUTHORITY OF
THE DICTUM IN UNITED STATES V. BELMONT, 301 U.S. 324, WITHOUT THE AID
OF ANY PERTINENT DECISION OF THIS COURT, I THINK A WORD SHOULD BE SAID
OF THE AUTHORITY AND REASONING OF THE BELMONT CASE AND OF THE
PRINCIPLES WHICH I THINK ARE CONTROLLING HERE. 

IN THE BELMONT CASE, THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL
COURT TO RECOVER A DEBT ALLEGED TO BE DUE UPON A DEPOSIT ACCOUNT OF A
RUSSIAN NATIONAL WITH A NEW YORK BANKER.  THE COMPLAINT SET UP THE
CONFISCATION OF THE ACCOUNT BY DECREES OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND THE
TRANSFER OF THE DEBT TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT,
CONCURRENTLY WITH OUR DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION OF THAT GOVERNMENT.  IT
WAS NOT ALLEGED, NOR DID IT APPEAR, THAT THE NEW YORK COURTS HAD,
SUBSEQUENT TO RECOGNITION, REFUSED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SOVIET DECREES
AS OPERATING TO TRANSFER THE TITLE OF RUSSIAN NATIONALS TO PROPERTY
LOCATED IN NEW YORK.  NO SUCH NATIONAL OR ANY ADVERSE CLAIMANT WAS A
PARTY TO THE SUIT.  IN SUSTAINING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DEMURRER, THIS
COURT SAID (P. 332):  "IN SO HOLDING, WE DEAL ONLY WITH THE CASE AS NOW
PRESENTED AND WITH THE PARTIES NOW BEFORE US.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE
STATUS OF ADVERSE CLAIMS, IF THERE BE ANY, OF OTHERS NOT PARTIES TO
THIS ACTION.  AND NOTHING WE HAVE SAID IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS
FORECLOSING THE ASSERTION OF ANY SUCH CLAIM TO THE FUND INVOLVED, BY
INTERVENTION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING.  WE DECIDE ONLY THAT THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGES FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS." 

THE QUESTIONS THUS EXPLICITLY RESERVED ARE PRESENTED BY THE CASE NOW
BEFORE US.  THE COURTS OF NEW YORK, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ORDINARILY POSSESSED BY STATE COURTS TO
DECLARE THE RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THEIR
TERRITORIAL LIMITS, HAVE REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE SOVIET DECREES AS
DEPRIVING CREDITORS AND OTHER CLAIMANTS REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF
THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER NEW YORK LAW.  NUMEROUS
INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS AND OTHER CLAIMANTS, AND THE NEW YORK
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE, WHO REPRESENTS ALL CLAIMANTS, ARE PARTIES
TO THE PRESENT SUIT AND ASSERT THEIR CLAIMS TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT, IN THE BELMONT CASE, INDULGED IN SOME
REMARKS AS TO THE EFFECT ON NEW YORK LAW OF OUR DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION
OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF ALL ITS CLAIMS
AGAINST AMERICAN NATIONALS TO THE UNITED STATES.  UPON THE BASIS OF
THESE OBSERVATIONS IT THOUGHT THAT THE NEW YORK COURTS WERE BOUND TO
RECOGNIZE AND APPLY THE SOVIET DECREES TO PROPERTY WHICH WAS LOCATED IN
NEW YORK WHEN THE DECREES WERE PROMULGATED.  BUT ALL THIS WAS
PREDICATED UPON THE MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION THAT BY DISREGARDING THE
DECREES THE NEW YORK COURTS WOULD BE GIVING AN EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT
TO NEW YORK LAW.  THESE OBSERVATIONS WERE IRRELEVANT TO THE DECISION
THERE ANNOUNCED AND, FOR REASONS SHORTLY TO BE GIVEN, I THINK PLAINLY
INAPPLICABLE HERE.  THEY WERE BUT OBITER DICTA WHICH, SO FAR AS THEY
HAVE NOT BEEN DISCREDITED BY OUR DECISION IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 126, AND SO FAR AS THEY NOW MERIT IT "MAY BE
RESPECTED, BUT OUGHT NOT TO CONTROL THE JUDGMENT IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT,
WHEN THE VERY POINT IS PRESENTED FOR DECISION."  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
IN COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264, 399; MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND IN
WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 553, 568. 

WE HAVE NO CONCERN HERE WITH THE WISDOM OF THE RULES OF LAW WHICH THE
NEW YORK COURTS HAVE ADOPTED IN THIS CASE OR THEIR CONSONANCE WITH THE
MOST ENLIGHTENED PRINCIPLES OF JURISPRUDENCE.  STATE QUESTIONS DO NOT
BECOME FEDERAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFICULT OR BECAUSE WE MAY
THINK THAT THE STATE COURTS HAVE GIVEN WRONG ANSWERS TO THEM.  THE ONLY
QUESTIONS BEFORE US ARE WHETHER NEW YORK HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
TO ADOPT ITS OWN RULES OF LAW DEFINING RIGHTS IN PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE STATE, AND, IF SO, WHETHER THAT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN CURTAILED BY THE
EXERCISE OF A SUPERIOR FEDERAL POWER BY RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF ITS ASSIGNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OF
CLAIMS AGAINST AMERICAN NATIONALS, INCLUDING THE NEW YORK PROPERTY. 

I SHALL STATE MY GROUNDS FOR THINKING THAT THE PRONOUNCEMENTS IN THE
BELMONT CASE, ON WHICH THE COURT RELIES FOR THE ANSWER TO THESE
QUESTIONS, ARE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF REASON OR ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF
LAW.  NO ONE DOUBTS THAT THE SOVIET DECREES ARE THE ACTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN STATE, WHICH IS SOVEREIGN IN ITS OWN
TERRITORY, AND THAT IN CONSEQUENCE OF OUR RECOGNITION OF THAT
GOVERNMENT THEY WILL BE SO TREATED BY OUR STATE DEPARTMENT.  AS SUCH,
WHEN THEY AFFECT PROPERTY WHICH WAS LOCATED IN RUSSIA AT THE TIME OF
THEIR PROMULGATION, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO INQUIRY, IF AT ALL, ONLY
THROUGH OUR STATE DEPARTMENT AND NOT IN OUR COURTS.  UNDERHILL V.
HERNANDEZ, 168 U.S. 250; OETJEN V. CENTRAL LEATHER CO., 246 U.S. 297;
RICAUD V. AMERICAN METAL CO., 246 U.S. 304, 308-10; SALIMOFF & CO. V.
STANDARD OIL CO., 262 N.Y. 220, 186 N.E. 679.  BUT THE PROPERTY TO
WHICH THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT RELATES HAS AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES BEEN IN
NEW YORK IN THE CUSTODY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE AS SECURITY
FOR THE POLICIES OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND IS NOW IN THE
SUPERINTENDENT'S CUSTODY AS LIQUIDATOR ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE NEW YORK COURTS.  UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK CO., 296 U.S.
463, 478-79.  IN ADMINISTERING AND DISTRIBUTING THE PROPERTY THUS
WITHIN THEIR CONTROL, THE NEW YORK COURTS ARE FREE TO APPLY THEIR OWN
RULES OF LAW, INCLUDING THEIR OWN DOCTRINES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEE
ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 78; GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313 U.S.
498; KRYGER V. WILSON, 242 U.S. 171, 176, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THEY ARE
SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE - A
CLAUSE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE JUDGMENTS AND PUBLIC ACTS OF STATES OF
THE UNION AND NOT THOSE OF FOREIGN STATES.  AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V.
TREMBLAY, 223 U.S. 185; CF. BANK OF AUGUSTA V. EARLE, 13 PET. 519, 589
90; BOND V. HUME, 243 U.S. 15, 21-22. 

THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY DECIDED THAT THE EXTENT TO WHICH A STATE
COURT WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF LAW OF A RECOGNIZED FOREIGN COUNTRY IN
PREFERENCE TO ITS OWN IS WHOLLY A MATTER OF COMITY, AND THAT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF RELEVANT TREATY OBLIGATIONS, THE APPLICATION IN THE COURTS
OF A STATE OF ITS OWN RULES OF LAW RATHER THAN THOSE OF A FOREIGN
COUNTRY RAISES NO FEDERAL QUESTION.  ROSE V. HIMELY, 4 CRANCH 241;
HARRISON V. STERRY, 5 CRANCH 289; UNITED STATES V. CROSBY, 7 CRANCH
115; OAKEY V. BENNETT, 11 HOW.  33, 43-46; HILTON V. GUYOT, 159 U.S.
113, 165-66; DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT V. UMBREIT, 208 U.S. 570; CF. BAGLIN
V. CUSENIER CO., 221 U.S. 580, 594-97; UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST
CO., 293 U.S. 340, 345-47.  THIS IS EQUALLY THE CASE WHEN A STATE OF
THE UNION REFUSES TO APPLY THE LAW OF A SISTER STATE, IF THERE IS NO
QUESTION OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT, KRYGER V. WILSON, SUPRA; FINNEY V.
GUY, 189 U.S. 335, 340, 346; ALROPA CORP. V. KIRCHWEHM, 313 U.S. 549;
SEE MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 272-73, OR DUE
PROCESS, HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397.  SO CLEARLY WAS THIS
THOUGHT TO BE AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF A FORUM OVER
PROPERTY WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION THAT THIS COURT, IN
INGENOHL V. OLSEN & CO., 273 U.S. 541, 544-45, ACCEPTED AS BEYOND ALL
DOUBT THE RIGHT OF THE BRITISH COURTS IN HONG KONG TO REFUSE
RECOGNITION TO THE AMERICAN ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN'S TRANSFER OF
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO THE USE OF A TRADEMARK IN HONG KONG, AND THE COURT
GAVE EFFECT HERE TO THE HONG KONG JUDGMENT. 

IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS DOCTRINE, THIS COURT HAS OFTEN HELD THAT A
STATE, FOLLOWING ITS OWN LAW AND POLICY, MAY REFUSE TO GIVE EFFECT TO A
TRANSFER MADE ELSEWHERE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORIAL
LIMITS.  GREEN V. VAN BUSKIRK, 5 WALL.  307, 311-12; HERVEY V. RHODE
ISLAND LOCOMOTIVE WORKS, 93 U.S. 664; SECURITY TRUST CO. V. DODD, MEAD
& CO., 173 U.S. 624; CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112, 122; CLARK V.
WILLIARD, 294 U.S. 211.  SO FAR IS A STATE FREE IN THIS RESPECT THAT
THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE ATTACHMENT BY
LOCAL CREDITORS OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION, ALL OF WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY TRANSFERRED IN
THE STATE OF ITS INCORPORATION TO A STATUTORY SUCCESSOR FOR THE BENEFIT
OF CREDITORS.  CLARK V. WILLIARD, SUPRA; FISCHER V. AMERICAN UNITED
LIFE INS. CO., 314 U.S. 549.  DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT,
THE BENEFITS OF WHICH EXTEND TO ALIEN FRIENDS AS WELL AS TO CITIZENS,
RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 481, DOES NOT CALL
FOR ANY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT V. UMBREIT, SUPRA,
579-80.    AT LEAST SINCE 1797, BARCLAY V. RUSSELL, 3 VESEY, JR., 424,
428, 433, THE ENGLISH COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT FOREIGN
CONFISCATORY DECREES DO NOT OPERATE TO TRANSFER TITLE TO PROPERTY
LOCATED IN ENGLAND, EVEN IF THE DECREES WERE SO INTENDED, WHETHER THE
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HAS OR HAS NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE BRITISH
GOVERNMENT.  LECOUTURIER V. REY, (1910) A.C. 262, 265.  CF. ALSO
FOLLIOTT V. OGDEN, 1 H. BLACK.  123, 135-36, AFFIRMED 3 T.R. 726,
AFFIRMED, 4 BROWN'S CASES IN PARL., 111; AND WOLFF V. OXHOLM, 6 M. & S.
92, BOTH OF WHICH MAY HAVE CARRIED THE DOCTRINE OF NONRECOGNITION OF
FOREIGN CONFISCATORY DECREES EVEN FURTHER.  SEE HOLDSWORTH, THE HISTORY
OF ACTS OF STATE IN ENGLISH LAW, 41 COLUMBIA L. REV. 1313, 1325-26. 
THE ENGLISH COURTS HAVE APPLIED THIS RULE IN LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF
THE RUSSIAN DECREES, HOLDING THAT THEY ARE NOT EFFECTUAL TO TRANSFER
TITLE TO PROPERTY SITUATED IN GREAT BRITAIN.  SEDGWICK COLLINS & CO. V.
ROSSIA INSURANCE CO., (1926) 1 K.B. 1, 15, AFFIRMED, (1927) A.C. 95;
THE JUPITER (NO. 3), (1927) P. 122, 144-46, AFFIRMED, (1927) P. 250,
253-55; IN RE RUSSIAN BANK FOR FOREIGN TRADE, (1933) 1 CH. 745, 767
68.  THE SAME DOCTRINE HAS PREVAILED IN THE CASE OF THE SPANISH
CONFISCATORY DECREES, BANCO DE VIZCAYA V. DON ALFONSO, (1935) 1 K.B.
140, 144-45, AS WELL AS WITH RESPECT TO SEIZURES BY THE AMERICAN ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  SUTHERLAND V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GERMAN PROPERTY,
(1934) 1 K.B. 423; AND SEE THE DECISION OF THE BRITISH COURT FOR HONG
KONG DISCUSSED IN INGENOHL V. OLSEN & CO., SUPRA, AND THE PRIVY
COUNCIL'S DECISION IN INGENOHL V. WING ON & CO., 44 PATENTS JOURNAL
343, 359-60.  IN NO CASE IN WHICH THERE WAS OCCASION TO DECIDE THE
QUESTION HAS RECOGNITION BEEN THOUGHT TO HAVE SUBORDINATED THE LAW OF
THE FORUM, WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION, TO THAT OF THE RECOGNIZED STATE.  NEVER HAS THE FORUM'S
REFUSAL TO FOLLOW FOREIGN TRANSFERS OF TITLE TO SUCH PROPERTY BEEN
CONSIDERED INCONSISTENT WITH THE MOST FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH THE
RECOGNIZED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, OR EVEN WITH AN ACTIVE MILITARY ALLIANCE
AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW THE CLAIMANTS IN THIS CASE, BOTH
CREDITORS AND THOSE ASSERTING RIGHTS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY, HAVE
ENFORCIBLE RIGHTS, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED THERE, WHICH
HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED THOUGH NOT CREATED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF ITS
COURTS.  THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT, HAD THERE BEEN NO
ASSIGNMENT AND THIS SUIT HAD BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT
SUBSEQUENT TO RECOGNITION, OR BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMING UNDER AN
ASSIGNMENT FROM IT, THE DECISION OF THE NEW YORK COURT WOULD HAVE
PRESENTED NO QUESTION REVIEWABLE HERE. 

THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING IS WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE
PRESENT CASE, THAT THE RUSSIAN DECREES PRECEDED RECOGNITION AND THAT
THE ASSIGNMENT WAS TO THE UNITED STATES, WHICH HERE APPEARS IN THE ROLE
OF PLAINTIFF, CALL FOR ANY DIFFERENT RESULT.  IF THEY DO, THEN
RECOGNITION AND THE ASSIGNMENT HAVE OPERATED TO GIVE TO THE UNITED
STATES RIGHTS WHICH ITS ASSIGNOR DID NOT HAVE.  THEY HAVE COMPELLED THE
STATE TO SURRENDER ITS OWN RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO PROPERTY WITHIN
ITS LIMITS, AND TO SUBSTITUTE RULES OF RUSSIAN LAW FOR THEM.  A POTENCY
WOULD THUS BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE RECOGNITION AND ASSIGNMENT WHICH IS
LACKING TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE
CLARK V. WILLIARD, SUPRA; FISCHER V. AMERICAN UNITED LIFE INS. CO.,
SUPRA. 

IN DECIDING ANY FEDERAL QUESTION INVOLVED, IT CAN MAKE NO DIFFERENCE
TO US WHETHER NEW YORK HAS CHOSEN TO EXPRESS ITS PUBLIC POLICY BY
STATUTE OR MERELY BY THE COMMON LAW DETERMINATIONS OF ITS COURTS.  ERIE
R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, 304 U.S. 64; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S.
69, 79; HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316.  THE STATE COURT'S
REPEATED DECLARATION OF A POLICY OF TREATING THE NEW YORK BRANCH OF THE
INSURANCE COMPANY AS A "COMPLETE AND SEPARATE ORGANIZATION" WOULD
PERMIT SATISFACTION OF WHATEVER CLAIMS OF FOREIGN CREDITORS, AS WELL AS
THOSE OF SISTER STATES, THAT NEW YORK DEEMS PROVABLE AGAINST THE LOCAL
FUND.  BUT IF MY BRETHREN ARE CORRECT IN CONCLUDING THAT ALL FOREIGN
CREDITORS MUST BE DEPRIVED OF ACCESS TO THE FUND, IT WOULD SEEM TO
FOLLOW - SINCE THE SOVIET DECREES HAVE EXEMPTED NO CLASS OF CREDITORS -
THAT THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS IN NEW YORK OR IN SISTER STATES, OR ANY
OTHER RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY RECOGNIZED BY NEW YORK LAW, MUST EQUALLY
BE OUSTED BY VIRTUE OF THE EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT GIVEN TO THE DECREES
BY THE PRESENT DECISION.  FOR, STATUTORY PRIORITIES OF NEW YORK
POLICYHOLDERS OR NEW YORK LIENHOLDERS, AND THE COMMON LAW PRIORITIES
AND SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION WHICH THE JUDGMENT BELOW ENDEAVORED TO
EFFECTUATE AND PRESERVE INTACT, MUST ALIKE YIELD TO THE SUPERIOR FORCE
SAID TO HAVE BEEN IMPARTED TO THE SOVIET DECREES BY THE RECOGNITION AND
ASSIGNMENT.  NOTHING IN THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT OR IN THE NEGOTIATIONS
FOR RECOGNITION SUGGESTS AN INTENTION TO IMPOSE UPON THE STATES
DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN NEW YORK AND OTHER CREDITORS WHICH WOULD
SUSTAIN THE FORMER'S LIENS WHILE OBLITERATING THOSE OF THE LATTER.  IF
THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT OVERRIDES STATE POLICIES WHICH PROTECT FOREIGN
CREDITORS, IT CAN HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO DO LESS TO DOMESTIC CREDITORS,
WHETHER OF NEW YORK OR A SISTER STATE. 

I ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THESE SWEEPING ALTERATIONS OF THE
RIGHTS OF STATES AND OF PERSONS COULD BE ACHIEVED BY TREATY OR EVEN
EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH WE ARE REFERRED TO NO AUTHORITY WHICH
WOULD SUSTAIN SUCH AN EXERCISE OF POWER AS IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN EXERTED
HERE BY MERE ASSIGNMENT UNRATIFIED BY THE SENATE.  IT IS TRUE THAT, IN
ACCORDING RECOGNITION AND IN ESTABLISHING FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH A
FOREIGN COUNTRY, THIS GOVERNMENT SPEAKS FOR ALL THE FORTY-EIGHT
STATES.  BUT IT WAS NEVER TRUE THAT RECOGNITION ALTERS THE SUBSTANTIVE
LAW OF ANY STATE OR PRESCRIBES UNIFORM STATE LAW FOR THE NATIONALS OF
THE RECOGNIZED COUNTRY.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT DOES NOT EVEN SECURE FOR
THEM EQUALITY OF TREATMENT IN THE SEVERAL STATES, OR EQUAL TREATMENT
WITH CITIZENS IN ANY STATE, SAVE AS THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS IT.
PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S.
197; CLARKE V. DECKEBACH, 274 U.S. 392 AND CASES CITED.  THOSE ARE ENDS
WHICH CAN BE ACHIEVED ONLY BY THE ASSUMPTION OF SOME FORM OF OBLIGATION
EXPRESSED OR FAIRLY TO BE INFERRED FROM ITS WORDS. 

RECOGNITION, LIKE TREATY MAKING, IS A POLITICAL ACT, AND BOTH MAY BE
UPON TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  BUT THAT FACT NO MORE FORECLOSES THIS
COURT, WHERE IT IS CALLED UPON TO ADJUDICATE PRIVATE RIGHTS, FROM
INQUIRY AS TO WHAT THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE THAN IT PRECLUDES, IN
LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES, A COURT'S ASCERTAINING THE TRUE SCOPE AND MEANING
OF A TREATY.  OF COURSE, THE NATIONAL POWER MAY BY APPROPRIATE
CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS OVERRIDE THE POWER OF STATES AND THE RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS.  BUT, WITHOUT COLLISION BETWEEN THEM, THERE IS NO SUCH
LOSS OF POWER OR IMPAIRMENT OF RIGHTS, AND IT CANNOT BE KNOWN WHETHER
STATE LAW AND PRIVATE RIGHTS COLLIDE WITH POLITICAL ACTS EXPRESSED IN
TREATIES OR EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS UNTIL THEIR RESPECTIVE BOUNDARIES ARE
DEFINED. 

IT WOULD SEEM, THEREFORE, THAT IN DECIDING THIS CASE SOME INQUIRY
SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT PUBLIC POLICY OR BINDING RULE
OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STATE POWER AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS HAS BEEN
PROCLAIMED BY THE RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND THE
ASSIGNMENT OF ITS CLAIMS TO THE UNITED STATES.  THE MERE ACT OF
RECOGNITION AND THE BARE TRANSFER OF THE CLAIMS OF THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CAN, OF THEMSELVES, HARDLY BE TAKEN TO
HAVE ANY SUCH EFFECT, AND THEY CAN BE REGARDED AS INTENDED TO DO SO
ONLY IF THAT PURPOSE IS MADE EVIDENT BY THEIR TERMS, READ IN THE LIGHT
OF DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES AND OF THE
SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES.  EVEN WHEN COURTS DEAL WITH THE LANGUAGE OF
DIPLOMACY, SOME FOUNDATION MUST BE LAID FOR INFERRING AN OBLIGATION
WHERE PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS NONE, AND SOME EXPRESSION MUST BE FOUND IN
THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS WHICH FAIRLY INDICATES AN INTENTION TO
ASSUME IT. OTHERWISE, COURTS, RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE, MAY SHAPE AND
DEFINE FOREIGN POLICY WHICH THE EXECUTIVE HAS NOT ADOPTED. 

WE ARE NOT POINTED TO ANYTHING ON THE FACE OF THE DOCUMENTS OR IN THE
DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE WHICH EVEN SUGGESTS THAT THE UNITED STATES
WAS TO BE PLACED IN A BETTER POSITION, WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM WHICH
IT NOW ASSERTS, THAN WAS THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND NATIONALS.  NOR IS
THERE ANY INTIMATION IN THEM THAT RECOGNITION WAS TO GIVE TO PRIOR
PUBLIC ACTS OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT ANY GREATER EXTRATERRITORIAL
EFFECT THAN ATTACHES TO SUCH ACTS OCCURRING AFTER RECOGNITION - ACTS
WHICH, BY THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN COURTS, ARE
ORDINARILY DEEMED TO BE WITHOUT EXTRATERRITORIAL FORCE, AND WHICH, IN
ANY EVENT, HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN CONSIDERED TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF
THE STATES TO APPLY THEIR OWN RULES OF LAW TO FOREIGN-OWNED PROPERTY
WITHIN THEIR TERRITORY.  AS WE DECIDED IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 304 U.S. AT 143, AND AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT NOW
APPEARS TO CONCEDE, THERE IS NOTHING IN ANY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
"TO SUGGEST THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS TO ACQUIRE OR EXERT ANY GREATER
RIGHTS THAN ITS TRANSFEROR OR THAT THE PRESIDENT BY MERE EXECUTIVE
ACTION PURPORTED OR INTENDED TO ALTER OR DIMINISH THE RIGHTS OF THE
(NEW YORK) DEBTOR WITH RESPECT TO ANY ASSIGNED CLAIMS, OR THAT THE
UNITED STATES, AS ASSIGNEE, IS TO DO MORE THAN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT
COULD HAVE DONE AFTER DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION - THAT IS, COLLECT THE
CLAIMS IN CONFORMITY TO LOCAL LAW." 

RECOGNITION OPENS OUR COURTS TO THE RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENT AND ITS
NATIONALS, SEE GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 140.  IT
ACCEPTS THE ACTS OF THAT GOVERNMENT WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORY AS THE
ACTS OF THE SOVEREIGN, INCLUDING ITS ACTS AS A DE FACTO GOVERNMENT
BEFORE RECOGNITION, SEE UNDERHILL V. HERNANDEZ, SUPRA, 168 U.S. 250;
OETJEN V. CENTRAL LEATHER CO., SUPRA, 246 U.S. 297; RICAUD V. AMERICAN
METAL CO., SUPRA, 246 U.S. 304.  BUT, UNTIL NOW, RECOGNITION OF A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT BY THIS GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO SERVE
AS A FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE COMPELLING OBEDIENCE HERE TO THE LAWS
AND PUBLIC ACTS OF THE RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY
AND TRANSACTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY.  ONE COULD AS WELL ARGUE THAT BY THE
SOVIET GOVERNMENT'S RECOGNITION OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, WHICH
ACCOMPANIED THE TRANSACTIONS NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT HAD UNDERTAKEN
TO APPLY IN RUSSIA THE NEW YORK LAW APPLICABLE TO RUSSIAN PROPERTY IN
NEW YORK.  CF. INGENOHL V. OLSEN & CO., SUPRA, 273 U.S. 541; PACIFIC
INS. CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 306 U.S. 493, 501-02. 

IN GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY
REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT
OPERATED TO CURTAIL OR IMPAIR RIGHTS DERIVED FROM THE APPLICATION OF
STATE LAWS AND POLICY WITHIN THE STATE'S OWN TERRITORY.  IT WAS ARGUED
BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT RECOGNITION OPERATED RETROACTIVELY, FOR THE
PERIOD OF THE DE FACTO GOVERNMENT, TO SET ASIDE RIGHTS ACQUIRED IN THE
UNITED STATES IN CONSEQUENCE OF THIS GOVERNMENT'S PRIOR RECOGNITION OF
THE RUSSIAN PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT.  THIS ARGUMENT, WE SAID, P. 140,
"IGNORES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE EFFECT OF OUR RECOGNITION OF A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO ITS ACTS WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORY
PRIOR TO RECOGNITION, AND THE EFFECT UPON PREVIOUS TRANSACTIONS
CONSUMMATED HERE BETWEEN ITS PREDECESSOR AND OUR OWN NATIONALS.  THE
ONE OPERATES ONLY TO VALIDATE TO A LIMITED EXTENT ACTS OF A DE FACTO
GOVERNMENT WHICH BY VIRTUE OF THE RECOGNITION, HAS BECOME A GOVERNMENT
DE JURE.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT RECOGNITION RENDERS OF NO EFFECT
TRANSACTIONS HERE WITH A PRIOR RECOGNIZED GOVERNMENT IN CONFORMITY TO
THE DECLARED POLICY OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT."  EVEN THOUGH THE TWO
GOVERNMENTS MIGHT HAVE STIPULATED FOR ALTERATION BY THIS GOVERNMENT OF
ITS MUNICIPAL LAW, AND THE CONSEQUENT SURRENDER OF THE RIGHTS OF
INDIVIDUALS, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE COURT'S DECISION WAS THAT SUCH AN
ABDICATION OF DOMESTIC LAW AND POLICY IS NOT A NECESSARY OR CUSTOMARY
INCIDENT OF RECOGNITION OR FAIRLY TO BE INFERRED FROM IT.  NO MORE CAN
RECOGNITION BE SAID TO IMPLY A DEPRIVATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF STATES OF THE UNION, AND OF INDIVIDUALS ARISING OUT OF THEIR LAWS
AND POLICY, WHICH ARE BINDING ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXCEPT AS THE
ACT OF RECOGNITION IS ACCOMPANIED BY SOME AFFIRMATIVE EXERCISE OF
FEDERAL POWER WHICH PURPORTS TO SET THEM ASIDE. 

NOR CAN I FIND IN THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OR IN THE HISTORY OF
THE DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS OF THE TWO COUNTRIES ANY BASIS FOR SAYING THAT
THERE WAS ANY POLICY OF EITHER TO GIVE A DIFFERENT OR LARGER EFFECT TO
RECOGNITION AND THE ASSIGNMENT THAN WOULD ORDINARILY ATTACH TO THEM. 
IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS PUBLISHED BY THE
STATE DEPARTMENT (ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE UNION
OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, EASTERN EUROPEAN SERIES NO. 1), AND THE
REPORT OF SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATIONS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE CLAIMS OF THE
TWO COUNTRIES SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE (H. REP.
NO. 865, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) GIVE NO INTIMATION OF SUCH A POLICY. 
EVEN THE DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES, OF
JANUARY 7, 1937, TO WHICH THE OPINION OF THE COURT REFERS, AND WHICH
OCCURRED LONG AFTER THE UNITED STATES HAD ENTERED THE MOSCOW FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY LITIGATION, MERELY REPEATED THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT SUGGESTING THAT ITS PURPOSE HAD BEEN TO OVERRIDE
APPLICABLE STATE LAW.    THAT THE ASSIGNMENT AFTER RECOGNITION HAD WIDE
SCOPE FOR APPLICATION WITHOUT READING INTO IT ANY ATTEMPT TO SET ASIDE
OUR LOCAL LAWS AND RIGHTS ACCRUING UNDER THEM IS EVIDENT.  IT WAS NOT
LIMITED IN ITS APPLICATION TO PROPERTY ALLEGED TO BE CONFISCATED UNDER
THE SOVIET DECREES.  INCLUDED IN THE ASSIGNMENT, BY ITS TERMS, WERE ALL
"AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE OR THAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE DUE IT (THE
SOVIET GOVERNMENT), AS THE SUCCESSOR OF PRIOR GOVERNMENTS OF RUSSIA, OR
OTHERWISE, FROM AMERICAN NATIONALS."  IT INCLUDED CLAIMS OF THE PRIOR
GOVERNMENTS OF RUSSIA, NOT ARISING OUT OF CONFISCATORY DECREES, AND
ALSO CLAIMS LIKE THAT OF THE RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET, GROWING OUT OF
OUR OWN EXPROPRIATION DURING THE WAR OF THE PROPERTY OF RUSSIAN
NATIONALS.  THE ASSIGNMENT WAS FAR FROM AN IDLE CEREMONY IF TREATED AS
TRANSFERRING ONLY THE RIGHTS WHICH IT PURPORTS TO ASSIGN.  LARGE SUMS
OF MONEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED UNDER IT, AND OTHER AMOUNTS ARE IN
PROCESS OF COLLECTION, WITHOUT OVERTURNING THE LAW OF THE STATES WHERE
THE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN ASSERTED.  FN1 

AT THE TIME OF THE ASSIGNMENT, IT WAS NOT KNOWN WHAT POSITION THE
COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY WOULD TAKE WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY HERE,
CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CONFISCATED BY THE SOVIET DECREES.  BUT IT MUST
HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO THE TWO GOVERNMENTS THAT THE ENGLISH COURTS
NOTWITHSTANDING BRITISH RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, HAD
REFUSED TO APPLY THE SOVIET DECREES AS AFFECTING PROPERTY LOCATED IN
ENGLAND.  SEDGWICK COLLINS & CO. V. ROSSIA INSURANCE CO., SUPRA; THE
JUPITER (NO. 3), SUPRA; IN RE RUSSIAN BANK FOR FOREIGN TRADE, SUPRA.
IT MUST ALSO HAVE BEEN KNOWN THAT THE SIMILAR VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE
NEW YORK COURTS BEFORE RECOGNITION WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY SITUATED IN
NEW YORK RAISED AT LEAST A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT MERE RECOGNITION
WOULD NOT ALTER THE RESULT IN THAT STATE.  SOKOLOFF V. NATIONAL CITY
BANK, 239 N.Y. 158, 167-69, 145 N.E. 917; JAMES & CO. V. SECOND RUSSIAN
INS. CO., 239 N.Y. 248, 257, 146 N.E. 369; JOINT STOCK CO. V. NATIONAL
CITY BANK, 240 N.Y. 368, 148 N.E. 552; PETROGRADSKY M.K. BANK V.
NATIONAL CITY BANK, 253 N.Y. 23, 29, 170 N.E. 479.  THE ASSIGNMENT
PLAINLY CONTEMPLATED THAT THIS, LIKE EVERY OTHER QUESTION AFFECTING
LIABILITY, WAS TO BE LITIGATED IN THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY, SINCE THE
ASSIGNMENT ONLY PURPORTED TO ASSIGN AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE OR "THAT
MAY BE FOUND TO BE DUE."  IT WAS ONLY IN THE COURTS WHERE THE DEBTOR OR
THE PROPERTY WAS LOCATED THAT THE AMOUNTS ASSIGNED WOULD NORMALLY BE
"FOUND TO BE DUE."  CF. UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK CO., SUPRA,
296 U.S. 463. 

BY TRANSFERRING CLAIMS OF EVERY KIND, AGAINST AMERICAN NATIONALS, TO
THE UNITED STATES AND LEAVING TO IT THEIR COLLECTION, THE PARTIES
NECESSARILY REMITTED TO THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY THE DETERMINATION OF
THE AMOUNTS DUE UPON THIS GOVERNMENT'S UNDERTAKING TO REPORT THE
AMOUNTS COLLECTED AS "PREPARATORY TO A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS
AND COUNTERCLAIMS" ASSERTED BY THE TWO GOVERNMENTS.  THEY THUS ENDED
THE NECESSITY OF DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIMS,
AND SO REMOVED A PROBABLE SOURCE OF FRICTION BETWEEN THE TWO
COUNTRIES.  IN ALL THIS, I CAN FIND NO HINT THAT THE RULES OF DECISION
IN AMERICAN COURTS WERE NOT TO BE THOSE AFFORDED BY THE LAW CUSTOMARILY
APPLIED IN THOSE COURTS.  BUT IF IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF EITHER
GOVERNMENT TO OVERRIDE LOCAL LAW AND POLICY OF THE STATES AND TO
PRESCRIBE A DIFFERENT RULE OF DECISION FROM THAT HITHERTO RECOGNIZED BY
ANY COURT, IT WOULD SEEM TO HAVE BEEN BOTH NATURAL AND NEEDFUL TO HAVE
EXPRESSED IT IN SOME FORM OF UNDERTAKING INDICATING SUCH AN INTENTION. 
THE ONLY OBLIGATION TO BE FOUND IN THE ASSIGNMENT AND ITS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE PRESIDENT IS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES, ALREADY
MENTIONED, TO REPORT THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED.  THIS CAN HARDLY BE SAID TO
BE AN UNDERTAKING TO STRIKE DOWN VALID DEFENSES TO THE ASSIGNED
CLAIMS.  TREATIES, TO SAY NOTHING OF EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS AND
ASSIGNMENTS WHICH ARE MERE TRANSFERS OF RIGHTS, HAVE HITHERTO BEEN
CONSTRUED NOT TO OVERRIDE STATE LAW OR POLICY UNLESS IT IS REASONABLY
EVIDENT FROM THEIR LANGUAGE THAT SUCH WAS THE INTENTION.  GUARANTY
TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 304 U.S. AT 143; TODOK V. UNION
STATE BANK, 281 U.S. 449, 454; ROCCA V. THOMPSON, 223 U.S. 317, 329-34;
DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT V. UMBREIT, SUPRA, 208 U.S. AT 582; PEARL
ASSURANCE CO. V. HARRINGTON, 38 F.SUPP.  411, 413-14; AFFIRMED, 313
U.S. 549; PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138, 145-46; CF. LIVERPOOL
INS. CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 10 WALL.  566, 568, 576-77.  THE PRACTICAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THE PRESENT DECISION WOULD SEEM TO BE, IN EVERY CASE OF
RECOGNITION OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, TO FOIST UPON THE EXECUTIVE THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUBORDINATING DOMESTIC TO FOREIGN LAW IN CONFLICTS
CASES, WHETHER INTENDED OR NOT, UNLESS SUCH A PURPOSE IS AFFIRMATIVELY
DISCLAIMED. 

UNDER OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, THERE ARE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN
WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
MAY, BY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EXPRESSING ITS POLICY, ENLARGE THE EXERCISE
OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND THUS DIMINISH THE POWER WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT
BE EXERCISED BY THE STATES.  IT IS INDISPENSABLE TO THE ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM THAT SUCH ALTERATION OF POWERS AND THE
CONSEQUENT IMPAIRMENT OF STATE AND PRIVATE RIGHTS SHOULD NOT TURN ON
CONCEPTIONS OF POLICY WHICH, IF EVER ENTERTAINED BY THE ONLY BRANCH OF
THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT IT, HAS BEEN LEFT UNEXPRESSED.  IT
IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO ADOPT POLICY, THE MAKING OF WHICH HAS BEEN BY
THE CONSTITUTION COMMITTED TO OTHER BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS
NOT ITS FUNCTION TO SUPPLY A POLICY WHERE NONE HAS BEEN DECLARED OR
DEFINED AND NONE CAN BE INFERRED. 

FN1  BY JUNE 30, 1938, THE SUMS COLLECTED BY VIRTUE OF THE LITVINOV
ASSIGNMENT AMOUNTED TO $1,706,443.  REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
1938, P. 122.  OTHER CLAIMS ARE APPARENTLY STILL IN LITIGATION.  SEE
THE REPORT FOR 1939, P. 99; ALSO H. REP. NO. 865, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 2. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :












YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 257 


NO. 86.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  - 119
F.2D 399, REVERSED. 


1.  ON REVIEW OF A CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL CASE, THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONFESSION OF ERROR, THOUGH ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT, DOES NOT RELIEVE
THE COURT OF ITS DUTY TO EXAMINE INDEPENDENTLY THE ERRORS CONFESSED. 
P. 258. 

2.  THE SECOND PROVISO OF SEC. 6 OF THE HARRISON ANTI-NARCOTIC ACT,
AS AMENDED, WHICH REQUIRES "ANY MANUFACTURER, PRODUCER, COMPOUNDER, OR
VENDOR (INCLUDING DISPENSING PHYSICIANS)" TO KEEP A RECORD OF ALL
SALES, EXCHANGES, OR GIFTS OF CERTAIN PREPARATIONS AND REMEDIES, DOES
NOT APPLY TO PHYSICIANS ADMINISTERING TO PATIENTS WHOM THEY PERSONALLY
ATTEND.  P. 259. 

YOUNG V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 595, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR VIOLATION OF THE HARRISON ANTI-NARCOTIC ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A PRACTICING PHYSICIAN, WAS CONVICTED ON EIGHT COUNTS OF
AN INDICTMENT CHARGING VIOLATION OF SEC. 6 OF THE HARRISON ANTI
NARCOTIC ACT, AS AMENDED.  FN1  THAT SECTION, SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL,
PROVIDES: 

"THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO
THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, DISTRIBUTION, GIVING AWAY, DISPENSING, OR
POSSESSION OF PREPARATIONS AND REMEDIES WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN MORE THAN
TWO GRAINS OF OPIUM  ...  IN ONE FLUID OUNCE  ...  :  PROVIDED, THAT
SUCH REMEDIES AND PREPARATIONS ARE MANUFACTURED, SOLD, DISTRIBUTED,
GIVEN AWAY, DISPENSED, OR POSSESSED AS MEDICINES AND NOT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EVADING THE INTENTIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT: PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT ANY MANUFACTURER, PRODUCER, COMPOUNDER, OR VENDOR
(INCLUDING DISPENSING PHYSICIANS) OF THE PREPARATIONS AND REMEDIES
MENTIONED IN THIS SECTION LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO MANUFACTURE, PRODUCE,
COMPOUND, OR VEND SUCH PREPARATIONS AND REMEDIES, SHALL KEEP A RECORD
OF ALL SALES, EXCHANGES, OR GIFTS OF SUCH PREPARATIONS AND REMEDIES
...  " 

THE EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTED THAT PETITIONER GAVE THE PREPARATIONS IN
THE QUANTITIES CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT TO PATIENTS WHOM HE PERSONALLY
ATTENDED.  HE KEPT NO RECORDS.  HIS DEFENSE, THAT THE SECOND PROVISO OF
SEC. 6 IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT AND AFFIRMATIVE REQUIREMENT BUT MERELY A
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE EXEMPTION CREATED BY THAT SECTION, WAS
REJECTED BY THE COURT BELOW, WHICH TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE SECOND
PROVISO IS AN UNCONDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT ALL VENDORS OF EXEMPT
PREPARATIONS KEEP RECORDS.  FN2 

THE GOVERNMENT CONFESSED ERROR AND WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  314
U.S. 595. 

THE PUBLIC TRUST REPOSED IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THAT THEY BE QUICK TO CONFESS ERROR WHEN, IN THEIR
OPINION, A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE MAY RESULT FROM THEIR REMAINING
SILENT.  BUT SUCH A CONFESSION DOES NOT RELIEVE THIS COURT OF THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT REVERSIBLE ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED IS
ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT, BUT OUR JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS COMPEL US TO
EXAMINE INDEPENDENTLY THE ERRORS CONFESSED.  SEE PARLTON V. UNITED
STATES, 75 F.2D 772.  THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT A RESULT BE REACHED
WHICH PROMOTES A WELL-ORDERED SOCIETY IS FOREMOST IN EVERY CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.  THAT INTEREST IS ENTRUSTED TO OUR CONSIDERATION AND
PROTECTION AS WELL AS TO THAT OF THE ENFORCING OFFICERS.  FURTHERMORE,
OUR JUDGMENTS ARE PRECEDENTS, AND THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CRIMINAL LAW CANNOT BE LEFT MERELY TO THE STIPULATION OF PARTIES.  CF.
REX V. WILKES, 4 BURR.  2527, 2551, 98 ENG. REP. 327; STATE V. GREEN,
167 WASH. 266, 9 P.2D 62. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S CONFESSION OF ERROR WAS ORIGINALLY TWO-FOLD:  FIRST,
THAT WHILE THE SECOND PROVISO OF SEC. 6 WAS SUBJECT TO TWO POSSIBLE
CONSTRUCTIONS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN THAT IT WAS NOT
AN INDEPENDENT PENAL PROVISION, AND THEREFORE THE AMBIGUITY SHOULD BE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER; AND, SECONDLY, THAT THE SECOND
PROVISO, EVEN IF IT BE REGARDED AS AN INDEPENDENT PENAL PROVISION, DOES
NOT APPLY TO A PHYSICIAN WHO ADMINISTERS EXEMPT PREPARATIONS SOLELY TO
PATIENTS WHOM HE PERSONALLY ATTENDS.  UPON RECONSIDERATION THE
GOVERNMENT HAS WITHDRAWN ITS FIRST GROUND OF CONFESSION OF ERROR.  WE
PUT TO ONE SIDE THAT QUESTION, SINCE WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THERE MUST
BE A REVERSAL ON THE SECOND GROUND. 

ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE SECOND PROVISO OF SEC. 6 IS AN
INDEPENDENT PENAL PROVISION, IT REQUIRES THAT RECORDS BE KEPT ONLY BY
"ANY MANUFACTURER, PRODUCER, COMPOUNDER, OR VENDOR (INCLUDING
DISPENSING PHYSICIANS)."  WE THINK THAT CONGRESS, BY THE USE OF THE
WORDS "DISPENSING PHYSICIANS," MEANT TO EXCLUDE PHYSICIANS
ADMINISTERING TO PATIENTS WHOM THEY PERSONALLY ATTEND. 

THAT NOT ALL PHYSICIANS ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP RECORDS IS MANIFEST FROM
THE USE OF THE QUALIFYING ADJECTIVE "DISPENSING."  AND, THE PHYSICIAN
MUST BE ONE WHO MANUFACTURES, PRODUCES, COMPOUNDS, OR VENDS, OR
POSSIBLY ONLY ONE WHO VENDS IF THE PARENTHETICAL PHRASE APPLIES ONLY TO
"VENDOR," THE DRUGS.  THESE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE WORDS TO DESCRIBE THE
FUNCTION OF A PHYSICIAN WHO ADMINISTERS EXEMPT PREPARATIONS TO PATIENTS
WHOM HE PERSONALLY ATTENDS. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION IS BORNE OUT BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE ACT AS A
WHOLE.  THE WORD "ADMINISTER" MORE APPROPRIATELY DESCRIBES THE
ACTIVITIES OF A DOCTOR IN PERSONAL ATTENDANCE THAN DOES THE WORD
"DISPENSE."  ADMITTEDLY, THE WORDS "DISPENSE" AND "DISPENSING" ARE USED
IN SEVERAL SENSES IN THE ACT, BUT CONGRESS EVIDENTLY WAS AWARE OF THE
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN "ADMINISTER" AND "DISPENSE," FOR, WHEN IT
WISHED TO INCLUDE ALL POSSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF PHYSICIANS WITH RESPECT TO
DRUG DISTRIBUTION, IT USED BOTH TERMS IN CONJUNCTION.  SECTION 1 OF THE
ACT IN DEFINING THOSE REQUIRED TO PAY A SPECIAL TAX SPEAKS OF
"PHYSICIANS  ... LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTE, DISPENSE, GIVE AWAY,
OR ADMINISTER," AND MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON "TO PURCHASE,
SELL, DISPENSE OR DISTRIBUTE" ANY DRUGS OTHERWISE THAN IN AND FROM THE
ORIGINAL STAMPED PACKAGE, EXCEPTING THE "DISPENSING, OR ADMINISTRATION,
OR GIVING AWAY OF ANY OF THE AFORESAID DRUGS TO A PATIENT" BY A
PRACTITIONER WHERE "DISPENSED OR ADMINISTERED TO THE PATIENT FOR
LEGITIMATE MEDICAL PURPOSES." 

DELIVERIES OF DRUGS BY PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT REGISTERED AND PAID A
SPECIAL TAX DELIVERIES BY "ANY PERSON WHO SHALL DELIVER ANY SUCH DRUG
WHICH HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED OR DISPENSED BY A PHYSICIAN."  THE OMISSION
OF THE WORD "ADMINISTER" INDICATES THAT CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THAT
SHIPMENTS AND DELIVERIES WOULD ORDINARILY NOT BE INVOLVED WHERE THE
PHYSICIAN WAS ADMINISTERING WHILE IN PERSONAL ATTENDANCE. 

IN SEC. 2(A), DEALING WITH TRUE NARCOTICS, CONGRESS UNEQUIVOCALLY
EXEMPTED PHYSICIANS FROM RECORD KEEPING WHERE IN PERSONAL ATTENDANCE
UPON PATIENTS.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE WHY A DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT
SHOULD OBTAIN WHEN A PHYSICIAN, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES,
ADMINISTERS PREPARATIONS CONTAINING ONLY A LIMITED AMOUNT OF NARCOTICS,
SUCH AS THE PAREGORIC, COUGH SYRUP, ETC., INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  THE
WORD "DISPENSE" IS EVIDENTLY USED IN SEC. 2(A) IN A SENSE BROAD ENOUGH
TO INCLUDE PERSONAL ADMINISTRATION OF DRUGS BY AN ATTENDING DOCTOR, BUT
THE EXPRESS EXCEPTION OF THE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE CASES REMOVES ANY
AMBIGUITY AS TO THE SCOPE OF "DISPENSE" IN THIS CONTEXT. 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARENTHETICAL PHRASE "(INCLUDING DISPENSING
PHYSICIANS)" AS ENCOMPASSING ONLY DOCTORS WHO WOULD BE COVERED BY THE
WORD "VENDOR" DOES NOT IMPLY THAT CONGRESS WAS TAUTOLOGIC, BUT RATHER
THAT IT ACTED CAUTIOUSLY TO PRECLUDE ANY CONTENTION THAT PHYSICIANS
SELLING DRUGS WERE NOT "VENDORS" BECAUSE OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL STATUS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECOND PROVISO OF SEC. 6 SUPPORTS THE
VIEW THAT THE WORDS "DISPENSING PHYSICIANS" WERE INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY
TO PHYSICIANS ACTING AS DEALERS IN THE SALE OF DRUGS.  THE PHRASE
"VENDOR (INCLUDING DISPENSING PHYSICIAN)" WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR "THE
DEALER WHO KNOWINGLY SELLS" EXEMPT PREPARATIONS.  FN3 

UPON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, PETITIONER WAS NOT A "DISPENSING
PHYSICIAN" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PROVISO OF SEC. 6.  THE
JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
AS MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE LIGHT OF THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  40 STAT. 1132, 26 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 2551(A) AND (B). 

FN2  119 F.2D 399. 

FN3  SEE 57 CONG. REC. 771 AND H. REPT. NO. 1037, 65TH CONG., 3D
SESS., PP. 37, 87-88. 

IN OFFERING THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT WHICH EMBODIED THE RECORDKEEPING
REQUIREMENT, SENATOR MCCUMBER SAID: 

"BEFORE THE COMMITTEE THERE WAS A PROPOSITION MADE COMPELLING
DRUGGISTS WHO COMPOUNDED ANY OF THESE HABIT-FORMING DRUGS ALSO TO KEEP
A LIST OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THEY FURNISHED THEM, A LIST OF THE GOODS,
AND SO FORTH."  57 CONG. REC. 771. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :











GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. U.S., 315 U.S. 262 


NO. 149.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 14, 1942.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 2, 1942.  -
119 F.2D 821, MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE RIGHT OF WAY ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, GRANTING TO RAILROADS THE
RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES, GRANTS AN
EASEMENT ONLY, NOT A FEE, AND CONFERS NO RIGHT TO OIL AND MINERALS
UNDERLYING THE RIGHT OF WAY.  PP. 271, 279. 

2.  THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT IS SUPPORTED BY ITS LANGUAGE, ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, ITS EARLY ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION, AND THE
CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON IT BY CONGRESS IN SUBSEQUENT ENACTMENTS.  P.
277. 

3.  THE GENERAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT ANY AMBIGUITY IN A GRANT IS
TO BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE SOVEREIGN GRANTOR - NOTHING PASSES BUT
WHAT IS CONVEYED IN CLEAR AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE - IS APPLICABLE IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT.  P. 272. 

4.  THE HISTORY OF THE TIMES IN WHICH A STATUTE WAS ENACTED MAY
PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING ITS MEANING.  P. 273. 

5.  RIO GRANDE RY. V. STRINGHAM, 239 U.S. 44, DISCUSSED AND REGARDED
AS NOT CONTROLLING.  P. 279. 

6.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, AND IN VIEW OF THE STATE OF THE
PLEADINGS, THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ONLY AS TO THE
LIMITED AREAS IN RESPECT OF WHICH IT IS SHOWN BY STIPULATION TO HAVE
HAD TITLE.  P. 280. 

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 596, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE, 32
F.SUPP.  651, ENJOINING THE RAILROAD FROM DRILLING OR REMOVING OIL, GAS
OR MINERALS UNDERLYING ITS RIGHT OF WAY. 

DURING AND PRIOR TO THE PERIOD OF THE GRANTS, THE TERM "RAILROAD
RIGHT OF WAY" HAD ONLY ONE ACCEPTED MEANING IN LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS. 
IT WAS NEVER USED AS DESIGNATING AN EASEMENT, BUT RATHER TO DESCRIBE
THE NARROW STRIP OF LAND OWNED BY A RAILROAD IN FEE, AND UPON WHICH THE
TRACKS WERE CONSTRUCTED. 

JUDICIAL DECISIONS SUPPORT THE SAME USAGE.  IN CHICAGO & M.R. CO. V.
PATCHIN, 16 ILL. 198(1854), THE COURT INDICATED THAT THE ESTATE OF THE
RAILROAD WAS AN ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP IN FEE, AND SIMILAR STATEMENTS WERE
MADE IN PRATHER V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 89 IND. 501(1883);
YATES V. VAN DE BOGERT, 56 N.Y. 526(1874); BUFFALO PIPE LINE CO. V.
N.Y., L.E. & W.R. CO., 10 ABB.  N.C. 107(1882); BALLARD V. L. & N.R.
CO., 9 KY. 523(1887).  THE ONLY CASES PRIOR TO 1875 WHICH DO NOT
SUPPORT THE FEE SIMPLE VIEW ARE QUINBY V. VERMONT CENTRAL R. CO., 23
VT. 387, AND BLAKE V. RICH, 34 N.H. 282, AND THERE THE COURTS IMPLIED
THAT THEY STOOD ALONE AND THAT OTHER CASES SUPPORTED THE FEE SIMPLE
ESTATE. 

THE GRANTS THEMSELVES INDICATE THAT CONGRESS USED THE TERM "RIGHT OF
WAY" IN THE SENSE OF STRIP OF LAND.  SEE LEAVENWORTH CITY R. GRANT, 14
STAT. 212; GREEN BAY & LAKE PEPIN GRANT, 16 STAT. 588; PORTLAND, DALLES
& SALT LAKE GRANT, 17 STAT. 52; CENTRAL PACIFIC GRANT, 18 STAT. 306;
HOT SPRINGS R. GRANT, 19 STAT. 108; WESTERN R. OF MINNESOTA GRANT, 21
STAT. 69. 

THE FACTS THAT THE EARLIER GRANTS WERE TO THE GRANTEE AND ITS
"SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS"; THAT THE GRANT OF RIGHT OF WAY WAS "THROUGH"
THE PUBLIC LANDS AND NOT "OVER" THEM; THAT THERE WERE PROVISIONS TO
EXTINGUISH THE INDIAN TITLE WHERE THE GRANTS PASSED THROUGH INDIAN
LANDS; THAT THE GRANTS RECITE THAT THEY ARE MADE FOR THE "PUBLIC
ADVANTAGE AND WELFARE," AND PROVIDE FOR FREE TRANSPORTATION OF TROOPS
AND MUNITIONS, AND GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT OF "PREFERRED"
TRANSPORTATION, ALL AFFORD ADDITIONAL INDICATIONS THAT CONGRESS HAD NO
INTENTION OF REDUCING THE GRANTED ESTATE TO THE MINIMUM. 

USE OF THE TERM "RIGHT OF WAY" TO DESIGNATE THE STRIP OF LAND ITSELF
IS STILL GENERAL IN STATUTES AND RAILROAD CONVEYANCES, IS COMMON IN
PRIVATE DEEDS, AND IS SUPPORTED BY DICTIONARIES. 

STATUTES REQUIRING FENCING OF THE RIGHT OF WAY STRIP, REMOVING WEEDS
THEREFROM, OR PROVIDING FOR CROSSINGS FOR HIGHWAYS, CANALS, IRRIGATION
DITCHES, ETC., SELDOM, IF EVER, USE THE TERM "STRIP OF LAND OCCUPIED BY
TRACKS," BUT INVARIABLY USE THE TERM "RIGHT OF WAY," ALTHOUGH REFERRING
TO THE LAND ITSELF AND NOT AN EASEMENT.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, REVISED
CODES OF MONTANA, 1935, SECS. 6551, 6552, 7110. 

CONGRESS, AS WELL AS STATE LEGISLATURES, HAS USED IN THE SAME STATUTE
"STRIP OF LAND" AND "RIGHT OF WAY" REFERRING TO THE SAME LAND.  E.G.,
18 STAT. 306; STATUTES OF INDIANA, 1863, P. 33, SEC. 5. 

A DEED TO A RAILROAD OF A STRIP OF LAND DESIGNATED AS A RIGHT OF WAY
HAS OFTEN BEEN REGARDED BY THE COURTS AS A GRANT OF THE LAND IN FEE. 
BALLARD V. L. & N.R. CO., 9 KY. 523(1887); STEVENS V. GALVESTON R. CO.,
212 S.W. 639; RADETSKY V. JORGENSEN, 70 COLO. 423; ARKANSAS IMPROVEMENT
CO. V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY., 189 LA. 921; JOHNSON V. VALDOSTA R.
CO., 169 GA. 559; MIDSTATE OIL CO. V. OCEAN SHORE R. CO., 93 CAL. APP.
704; MARLAND V. GILLESPIE, 168 OKLA. 376. 

TO REGARD THE GRANT AS AN EASEMENT WOULD BENEFIT NO ONE; IF THE
RAILROAD CAN NOT REMOVE MINERALS, NO ONE ELSE CAN.  RIO GRANDE WESTERN
RY. V. STRINGHAM, 239 U.S. 44. 

THE RULE THAT GRATUITOUS PUBLIC GRANTS ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED
AGAINST THE GRANTEE AND IN FAVOR OF THE SOVEREIGN, DOES NOT APPLY TO
GRANTS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.  GREAT NORTHERN RY. V. STEINKE, 261 U.S.
119, 124; NADEAU V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 253 U.S. 442, 444. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE GRANT WAS TO GET RAILROADS BUILT, BY PROVIDING
SITES OR LOCATIONS FOR THEIR CONSTRUCTION ACROSS PUBLIC LANDS.  THIS
PURPOSE COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED AT LEAST AS WELL BY GRANT OF A STRIP IN
FEE AS BY AN EASEMENT. 

IF CONGRESS HAD BEEN SEEKING THAT FORM OF GRANT WHICH WOULD GIVE THE
ABSOLUTE MINIMUM ESTATE TO THE RAILROADS AND STILL MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR
THE ROADS TO BE BUILT, IT MIGHT HAVE SELECTED AN EASEMENT.  BUT FROM
1850 TO 1870, WHILE IT WAS MAKING RIGHT OF WAY GRANTS, IT WAS ALSO
MAKING LAVISH GIFTS OF ADJOINING SECTIONS, INCLUDING COAL AND IRON
LANDS.  NO DISPOSITION WAS SHOWN TO WHITTLE DOWN ANY PART OF THE
GRANT.  THE GENEROUS WIDTH OF 200 FEET, AND 400 FEET IN THE NORTHERN
PACIFIC GRANT, WHEN 50 FEET WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT AT MOST POINTS,
PROVES THIS. 

IT WAS NEVER THE PRACTICE OR POLICY OF CONGRESS TO GRANT SURFACE
RIGHTS AND RESERVE UNDERLYING MINERALS.  THE ONLY PURPOSE OF RESERVING
MINERAL LANDS WAS TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO MINERAL CLAIMANTS, BUT
THERE COULD BE NO SUCH OBJECT IN RESERVING MINERALS UNDER THE RIGHT OF
WAY, BECAUSE MINERAL CLAIMANTS COULD NOT ENTER THE RIGHT OF WAY TO
CONDUCT MINING OPERATIONS. 

DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT REFER TO THE
CHARACTER OF ESTATE GRANTED. 

TWELVE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND EVERY DECISION OF A STATE OR LOWER
FEDERAL COURT CONSTRUING THE RIGHT OF WAY GRANTS, EXCEPT THIS DECISION
BELOW, OVER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 50 YEARS, HAVE HELD THAT THE ESTATE
GRANTED WAS A FEE TITLE, CONDITIONED ONLY UPON CONTINUED RAILROAD
OPERATION.  JOY V. ST. LOUIS, 138 U.S. 1; NEW MEXICO V. UNITED STATES
TRUST CO., 172 U.S. 171; RIO GRANDE WESTERN R. CO. V. STRINGHAM, 239
U.S. 44; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. V. TOWNSEND, 190 U.S. 267; MISSOURI, K. &
T. RY. CO. V. ROBERTS, 152 U.S. 114; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V.
OKLAHOMA, 271 U.S. 303, 308; NOBLE V. OKLAHOMA CITY, 297 U.S. 481, 494;
CLAIRMONT V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 551, 556; BUTTZ V. NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY., 119 U.S. 55, 66; CHOCTAW R. CO. V. MACKEY, 256 U.S. 531,
538; NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R., 147 U.S. 165, 176; JAMESTOWN &
N.R. CO. V. JONES, 177 U.S. 125, 130; UNITED STATES V. MICHIGAN, 190
U.S. 379, 398; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ELY, 197 U.S. 1, 6; STALKER
V. OREGON SHORT LINE, 225 U.S. 142, 146; STATE V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY.
CO., 88 MONT. 529; DENVER & S.L.R. V. PACIFIC LBR.  CO., 86 COLO. 86;
STEPAN V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY., 81 MONT. 361; DUGAN V. MONTOYA, 24 N.M.
102; UNION PACIFIC R. V. DAVENPORT, 102 KAN. 513; CRANDALL V. GOSS, 30
IDA.  661; BOWMAN V. MCGOLDRICK LBR.  CO., 38 IDA.  30; NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY. V. MYERS-PARR MILL CO., 54 WASH. 447; WILKINSON V. NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY., 5 MONT. 538. 

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ALIENATION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY DOES NOT APPLY
TO REMOVAL OF OIL.  GRAND TRUNK R. CO. V. RICHARDSON, 91 U.S. 454, 463;
HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY., 175 U.S. 91, 99;
SIOUX CITY V. MISSOURI VALLEY PIPE LINE CO., 46 F.2D 819; NORTHERN
PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTHERN AMERICAN TELEPHONE CO., 230 F. 347, 349;
HOLLAND CO. V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 214 F. 920.  SEE ALSO,
MISSOURI K. & T. RY. V. OKLAHOMA, 271 U.S. 303; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO.
V. MYERS-PARR MILL CO., 54 WASH. 447. 

SUBSEQUENT RULINGS OF THE LAND DEPARTMENT AND ACTS OF CONGRESS
SUPPORTING THE EASEMENT THEORY ARE SELF-SERVING DECLARATIONS, AND ARE
IN CONFLICT WITH SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, WITH THE INTENT OF THE
GRANTS, AND WITH ADMISSIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE. 

THE OWNER OF A CONDITIONAL FEE ESTATE IS ENTITLED TO THE UNDERLYING
OIL AND MINERALS. 

A GRANT, EVEN THOUGH NOT IN FEE AND LIMITED TO RAILROAD PURPOSES,
WOULD INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO USE MATERIALS OR FUEL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
THE GRANT; AND THE INJUNCTION SHOULD BE DENIED AS TO REMOVAL OF OIL FOR
RAILROAD FUEL. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE 1875 ACT SHOWS THAT ONLY AN EASEMENT WAS
GRANTED.  SECTION 1 REFERS TO "THE" RIGHT OF WAY; SEC. 2 REFERS TO "USE
AND OCCUPANCY"; AND SEC. 4 REQUIRES THE LOCATION OF EACH RIGHT OF WAY
TO BE NOTED ON THE PLATS IN THE LOCAL LAND OFFICE, AND PROVIDES THAT
"THEREAFTER ALL SUCH LANDS OVER WHICH SUCH RIGHT OF WAY SHALL PASS
SHALL BE DISPOSED OF SUBJECT TO SUCH RIGHT OF WAY."  AS THE COURT BELOW
REMARKED, "APTER WORDS TO INDICATE THE INTENT TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT
WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND."  SINCE "NOTHING PASSES BUT WHAT IS
CONVEYED IN CLEAR AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE - INFERENCES BEING RESOLVED NOT
AGAINST BUT FOR THE GOVERNMENT," IT SEEMS PATENT THAT THE 1875 ACT DID
NOT CONVEY TO THE RAILROADS THE UNDERLYING MINERALS FOR FUEL OR OTHER
PURPOSES.  CALDWELL V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 14, 20-21. 

THE POLICY OF GRANTING LAND SUBSIDIES TO THE RAILROADS WAS
DISCONTINUED IN 1871.  THEREAFTER, THE GRANTS WERE RESTRICTED TO A MERE
RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACROSS THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,  - A RIGHT WHICH COULD BE
ACQUIRED IN NO OTHER WAY WHILE LARGE BLOCKS OF LAND WERE HELD BY A
SOVEREIGN IMMUNE FROM SUIT.  THIS SHIFT IN POLICY WAS FORMALLY
CRYSTALLIZED BY CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION IN 1872.  HOUSE RESOLUTION OF
MARCH 11, 1872, CONG. GLOBE, 42D CONG., 2D SESS., 1585.  AND THE
DEBATES PRECEDING THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1875 ACT SHOW CLEARLY THAT THE
GRANT IN THE ACT WAS CONSONANT WITH THE NEW POLICY OF STRICT LIMITATION
AND OF GRANTING EASEMENTS RATHER THAN FEES.  CF., 3 CONG. REC. PT. 1,
P. 407(1875). 

THE SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
1875 ACT REINFORCE THE CONCLUSION THAT ONLY AN EASEMENT WAS GRANTED. 

UNTIL THIS COURT UTTERED A CONTRARY DICTUM IN RIO GRANDE RY. V.
STRINGHAM, 239 U.S. 44(1915), THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT CONSISTENTLY CONSTRUED THE 1875 ACT AS GRANTING AN EASEMENT
RATHER THAN A FEE.  THE CONTEMPORANEOUS DECISIONS OF THE LAND
DEPARTMENT LIKEWISE REFER TO THE 1875 GRANT AS A "MERE EASEMENT" (19
L.D. 588, 590), AS "AN INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENT, AN EASEMENT AND NOT
THE LAND" (20 L.D. 131, 132), AS "IN THE NATURE OF A MERE EASEMENT" (32
L.D. 33, 34).  SUCH CONTEMPORANEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE SHOULD
NOT BE OVERTURNED EXCEPT FOR COGENT REASONS, AND UNLESS CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS.  UNITED STATES V. JOHNSTON, 124 U.S. 236, 253; UNITED STATES
V. MOORE, 95 U.S. 760, 763; BREWSTER V. GAGE, 290 U.S. 327, 336. 

DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS AND REGULATIONS ARE ESPECIALLY PERSUASIVE. 
FAWCUS MACHINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 375, 378; NORWEGIAN
NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 315; SWENDIG V. WASHINGTON
CO., 265 U.S. 322, 331; MCFADDEN V. MOUNTAIN VIEW CO., 97 F. 670, 677;
TAGGART V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO., 208 F. 455, 460, AFF'D 211 F. 288. 

CONGRESS, TOO, HAS CONSTRUED THE 1875 ACT AS GRANTING AN EASEMENT
RATHER THAN A FEE.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE ACTS OF JUNE 26, 1906, C. 3550, 34
STAT. 482, AND FEBRUARY 25, 1909, C. 191, 35 STAT. 647, DECLARING A
FORFEITURE OF UNUSED RIGHTS OF WAY, STATE THAT THE LANDS COVERED
THEREBY SHALL BE "FREED AND DISCHARGED FROM SUCH EASEMENT."  SUCH CLEAR
CUT LEGISLATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE MEANING OF THE 1875 ACT ARE AIDS
TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT ACT.  TIGER V. WESTERN INVESTMENT CO., 221
U.S. 286, 309; UNITED STATES V. FREEMAN, 3 HOW.  556, 564-565; MCFADDEN
V. MOUNTAIN VIEW CO., SUPRA, 677; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. V. SODERBERG,
188 U.S. 526, 533, 534. 

CASES CONSTRUING GRANTS MADE PRIOR TO 1871 AS VESTING A FEE IN THE
RAILROADS ARE THEREFORE WITHOUT FORCE.  THESE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE 1875 ACT AND THE EARLIER LAND GRANT ACTS WERE NOT CALLED TO
THIS COURT'S ATTENTION IN RIO GRANDE RY. V. STRINGHAM, 239 U.S. 44, A
CASE IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE OWNERS WERE NOT REPRESENTED. 
HENCE, THE STATEMENT THERE MADE, BY WAY OF DICTUM, THAT THE RAILROADS
HAVE A "LIMITED FEE" IN RIGHTS OF WAY ACQUIRED UNDER THE 1875 ACT
SHOULD BE REEXAMINED. 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION AFTER 1915 CAN NOT BE DEEMED BINDING UPON
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, SINCE IT WAS IMPELLED BY THE APPARENT
COMPULSION OF THE STRINGHAM CASE.  HARTLEY V. COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S.
216, 220; HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 121.  AND IN ANY EVENT,
EARLIER DECISIONS, BEING MORE NEARLY CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE 1875
STATUTE AND EVIDENCING A LONG-CONTINUED AND UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION UNTIL
1915, ARE A MORE RELIABLE INDEX OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND ARE
ACCORDINGLY MORE PERSUASIVE.  FAWCUS MACHINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282
U.S. 375, 378; NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294,
315. 

A REPUDIATION OF THE DICTUM IN THE STRINGHAM CASE BY A DECISION
HOLDING THAT THE 1875 ACT GRANTS THE RAILROADS AN EASEMENT RATHER THAN
A FEE WILL NOT DISTURB LAND TITLES; IT WILL MERELY RESTORE A RULE OF
PROPERTY WHICH EXISTED BETWEEN 1875 AND 1915, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH
MOST OF THESE RIGHTS OF WAY WERE ACQUIRED. 

BUT EVEN IF IT BE DETERMINED THAT THE RAILROAD HAS A "LIMITED FEE" IN
ITS RIGHT OF WAY, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT SUCH A "FEE"
INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO EXTRACT OIL AND OTHER MINERALS.  THE PURPOSES OF
CONGRESS ARE ACCOMPLISHED IF THE GRANT IS HELD TO BE A "FEE" IN THE
SURFACE AND SO MUCH OF THE SUBSURFACE AS IS NECESSARY FOR SUPPORT - A
"FEE" FOR A RAILROAD THOROUGHFARE EXCLUSIVELY.  CF. WESTERN UNION TEL.
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 195 U.S. 540, 570.  SINCE SUCH AN INTEREST
WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF CONGRESS, THIS IS THE LARGEST INTEREST
WHICH THE APPLICABLE RULES OF CONSTRUCTION WILL PERMIT TO PASS UNDER
THE ACT.  CALDWELL V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 14, 20-21.  UNDER SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION THE RAILROAD IS RESTRICTED IN THE USE OF THE LAND EXCEPT
AS A RAILROAD THOROUGHFARE.  THE RIGHT TO USE AND EXTRACT MINERALS IS A
USE OF THE LAND NOT PERMITTED TO THE RAILROAD.  CF. UNION MISSIONARY
BAPTIST CHURCH V. FYKE, 179 OKLA. 102; JORDAN V. GOLDMAN, 1 OKLA. 406,
453.    MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER PETITIONER HAS ANY RIGHT TO THE OIL
AND MINERALS UNDERLYING ITS RIGHT OF WAY ACQUIRED UNDER THE GENERAL
RIGHT OF WAY STATUTE, ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, C. 152, 18 STAT. 482. 

THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTED THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM
DRILLING FOR OR REMOVING GAS, OIL AND OTHER MINERALS SO SITUATED, AND
ALLEGED IN ITS COMPLAINT SUBSTANTIALLY THAT PETITIONER, IN 1907,
ACQUIRED FROM THE ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS AND MANITOBA RAILWAY ALL OF THE
LATTER'S PROPERTY, INCLUDING RIGHTS OF WAY GRANTED IT UNDER THE ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1875, A PORTION OF WHICH CROSSES GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA; THAT
PETITIONER ACQUIRED NEITHER THE RIGHT TO USE ANY PORTION OF SUCH RIGHT
OF WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRILLING FOR OR REMOVING SUBSURFACE OIL AND
MINERALS, NOR ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN OR TO THE DEPOSITS
UNDERLYING THE RIGHT OF WAY, BUT THAT THE OIL AND MINERALS REMAINED THE
PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES; AND, THAT ALTHOUGH NO LEASE HAD BEEN
ISSUED TO PETITIONER UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 21, 1930, 46 STAT. 373,
PETITIONER CLAIMED OWNERSHIP OF THE OIL AND MINERALS UNDERLYING ITS
RIGHT OF WAY AND THREATENED TO USE THE RIGHT OF WAY TO DRILL FOR AND
REMOVE SUBSURFACE OIL. 

PETITIONER ADMITTED CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS OF FACT, DENIED THE
ALLEGATION THAT TITLE TO THE OIL AND MINERALS WAS IN THE UNITED STATES,
AND ASSERTED THAT IT PROPOSED TO DRILL THREE SEPARATE OIL WELLS - THE
OIL FROM THE FIRST TO BE SOLD COMMERCIALLY, THAT FROM THE SECOND TO BE
REFINED, THE MORE VOLATILE PARTS TO BE SOLD AND THE RESIDUE TO BE USED
ON PETITIONER'S LOCOMOTIVES, AND THAT FROM THE THIRD TO BE USED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY PETITIONER AS FUEL. 

PURSUANT TO A MOTION THEREFOR BY THE UNITED STATES, JUDGMENT WAS
RENDERED ON THE PLEADINGS AND PETITIONER WAS ENJOINED FROM "USING THE
RIGHT OF WAY GRANTED UNDER THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, 18 STAT. 482, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DRILLING FOR OR REMOVING OIL, GAS AND MINERALS
UNDERLYING THE RIGHT OF WAY."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
119 F.2D 821.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION AND AN ASSERTED CONFLICT
WITH RIO GRANDE WESTERN RY. CO. V. STRINGHAM, 239 U.S. 44, MOVED US TO
GRANT CERTIORARI.  314 U.S. 596. 

THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, FROM WHICH PETITIONER'S RIGHTS STEM,
CLEARLY GRANTS ONLY AN EASEMENT, AND NOT A FEE.  SECTION 1 INDICATES
THAT THE RIGHT IS ONE OF PASSAGE SINCE IT GRANTS "THE," NOT A, "RIGHT
OF WAY THROUGH THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES."  SECTION 2 ADDS
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RIGHT GRANTED IS ONE OF USE AND OCCUPANCY
ONLY, RATHER THAN THE LAND ITSELF, FOR IT DECLARES THAT ANY RAILROAD
WHOSE RIGHT OF WAY PASSES THROUGH A CANYON, PASS OR DEFILE "SHALL NOT
PREVENT ANY OTHER RAILROAD COMPANY FROM THE USE AND OCCUPANCY OF THE
SAID CANYON, PASS, OR DEFILE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS ROAD, IN COMMON
WITH THE ROAD FIRST LOCATED." 

RIGHT OF WAY TO BE NOTED ON THE PLATS IN THE LOCAL LAND OFFICE, AND
"THEREAFTER ALL SUCH LANDS OVER WHICH SUCH RIGHT OF WAY SHALL PASS
SHALL BE DISPOSED OF SUBJECT TO SUCH RIGHT OF WAY."  THIS RESERVED
RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE LANDS SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY IS WHOLLY
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GRANT OF A FEE.  AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT,
"APTER WORDS TO INDICATE THE INTENT TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT WOULD BE
DIFFICULT TO FIND."  THAT THIS WAS THE PRECISE INTENT OF SEC. 4 IS
CLEAR FROM ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  FN3  WHILE SEC. 4 PROVIDES A
METHOD FOR SECURING THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION,
FN4  NO ADEQUATE REASON IS ADVANCED FOR BELIEVING THAT IT DOES NOT
ILLUMINE THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT GRANTED.  THE ACT IS TO BE INTERPRETED
AS A HARMONIOUS WHOLE. 

THE ACT IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO CARRY OUT ITS PURPOSES. 
UNITED STATES V. DENVER & R.G. RY. CO., 150 U.S. 1, 14; NADEAU V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., 253 U.S. 442; GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. STEINKE, 261
U.S. 119.  BUT THE ACT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION THAT ANY AMBIGUITY IN A GRANT IS TO BE RESOLVED FAVORABLY
TO A SOVEREIGN GRANTOR - "NOTHING PASSES BUT WHAT IS CONVEYED IN CLEAR
AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE" - CALDWELL V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 14, 20-21,
AND CASES CITED.  CF. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. STEINKE, SUPRA.
PLAINLY, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT WHICH MAY BE CHARACTERIZED AS A
"CLEAR AND EXPLICIT" CONVEYANCE OF THE UNDERLYING OIL AND MINERALS. 
THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAILROADS THROUGH
THE PUBLIC LANDS AND THUS ENHANCE THEIR VALUE AND HASTEN THEIR
SETTLEMENT.  THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THAT PURPOSE DOES NOT COMPEL A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY GRANT AS CONVEYING A FEE TITLE TO THE
LAND AND THE UNDERLYING MINERALS; A RAILROAD MAY BE OPERATED THOUGH ITS
RIGHT OF WAY BE BUT AN EASEMENT.  FN5 

BUT WE ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE LIFELESS WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND
FORMALISTIC CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION IN OUR SEARCH FOR THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS.  THE ACT WAS THE PRODUCT OF A PERIOD, AND, "COURTS, IN
CONSTRUING A STATUTE, MAY WITH PROPRIETY RECUR TO THE HISTORY OF THE
TIMES WHEN IT WAS PASSED."  UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 91
U.S. 72, 79.  AND SEE WINONA & ST. PETER R. CO. V. BARNEY, 113 U.S.
618, 625; SMITH V. TOWNSEND, 148 U.S. 490, 494; UNITED STATES V. DENVER
& R.G. RY. CO., 150 U.S. 1, 14. 

BEGINNING IN 1850, CONGRESS EMBARKED ON A POLICY OF SUBSIDIZING
RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION BY LAVISH GRANTS FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  FN6
THIS POLICY INCURRED GREAT PUBLIC DISFAVOR,  FN7  WHICH WAS
CRYSTALLIZED IN THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ON MARCH 11, 1872: 

"RESOLVED, THAT IN THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HOUSE THE POLICY OF GRANTING
SUBSIDIES IN PUBLIC LANDS TO RAILROADS AND OTHER CORPORATIONS OUGHT TO
BE DISCONTINUED, AND THAT EVERY CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC POLICY AND
EQUAL JUSTICE TO THE WHOLE PEOPLE REQUIRES THAT THE PUBLIC LANDS SHOULD
BE HELD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING HOMESTEADS TO ACTUAL SETTLERS, AND
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW."  CONG. GLOBE, 42D
CONG., 2D SESS., 1585(1872).  AFTER 1871 OUTRIGHT GRANTS OF PUBLIC
LANDS TO PRIVATE RAILROAD COMPANIES SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED. 
FN8  BUT, TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN VASTNESSES, CONGRESS
HAD TO GRANT RIGHTS TO LAY TRACK ACROSS THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, RIGHTS WHICH
COULD NOT BE SECURED AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN BY EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS OR ADVERSE USER.  FOR A TIME SPECIAL ACTS WERE PASSED
GRANTING TO DESIGNATED RAILROADS SIMPLY "THE RIGHT OF WAY" THROUGH THE
PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN9  THAT THOSE ACTS WERE NOT
INTENDED TO CONVEY ANY LAND IS INFERABLE FROM REMARKS IN CONGRESS BY
THOSE SPONSORING THE MEASURES.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN REPORTING A BILL
GRANTING A RIGHT OF WAY TO THE DAKOTA GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY (17 STAT.
202), THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SAID:  "THIS IS MERELY A GRANT OF THE
RIGHT OF WAY."  FN10  LIKEWISE, IN REPORTING A RIGHT OF WAY BILL FOR
THE NEW MEXICO AND GULF RAILWAY COMPANY (17 STAT. 343), MR. TOWNSEND OF
PENNSYLVANIA, THE SAME CONGRESSMAN WHO SPONSORED THE ACT OF 1875,
OBSERVED:  "IT IS NOTHING BUT A GRANT OF THE RIGHT OF WAY."  FN11 

THE BURDEN OF THIS SPECIAL LEGISLATION MOVED CONGRESS TO ADOPT THE
GENERAL RIGHT OF WAY STATUTE NOW BEFORE THIS COURT.  SINCE IT WAS A
PRODUCT OF THE SHARP CHANGE IN CONGRESSIONAL POLICY WITH RESPECT TO
RAILROAD GRANTS AFTER 1871, IT IS IMPROBABLE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY
IT TO GRANT MORE THAN A RIGHT OF PASSAGE, LET ALONE MINERAL RICHES. 
THE PRESENCE IN THE ACT OF SEC. 4, WHICH, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT
ABOVE, IS SO INCONSISTENT WITH THE GRANT OF A FEE, STRONGLY INDICATES
THAT CONGRESS WAS CARRYING INTO EFFECT ITS CHANGED POLICY REGARDING
RAILROAD GRANTS.  FN12 

ALSO PERTINENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT IS THE CONTEMPORANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION PLACED ON IT BY THOSE CHARGED WITH ITS
EXECUTION.  CF. UNITED STATES V. JOHNSTON, 124 U.S. 236, 253; UNITED
STATES V. MOORE, 95 U.S. 760, 763; NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 315.  THE FIRST SUCH INTERPRETATION, THE GENERAL
RIGHT OF WAY CIRCULAR OF JANUARY 13, 1888, WAS THAT THE ACT GRANTED AN
EASEMENT, NOT A FEE.  FN13  THE SAME POSITION WAS TAKEN IN THE
REGULATIONS OF MARCH 21, 1892, 14 L.D. 338, AND THOSE OF NOVEMBER 4,
1898, 27 L.D. 663.  WHILE THE FIRST OF THESE CIRCULARS FOLLOWED THE ACT
BY 13 YEARS, THE WEIGHT TO BE ACCORDED THEM IS NOT DEPENDENT ON STRICT
CONTEMPORANEITY.  CF. SWENDIG V. WASHINGTON CO., 265 U.S. 322.  THIS
EARLY ADMINISTRATIVE GLOSS RECEIVED INDIRECT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL
WHEN CONGRESS REPEATED THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT IN GRANTING CANAL AND
RESERVOIR COMPANIES RIGHTS OF WAY BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, C. 561,
26 STAT. 1101, AND WHEN CONGRESS MADE THE ACT OF 1875 PARTIALLY
APPLICABLE TO THE COLVILLE INDIAN RESERVATION BY ACT OF MARCH 6, 1896,
C. 42, 29 STAT. 44.  CF. NATIONAL LEAD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S.
140, 146. 

THE CIRCULAR OF FEBRUARY 11, 1904, 32 L.D. 481, DESCRIBED THE RIGHT
AS A "BASE OR QUALIFIED FEE."  THIS SHIFT IN INTERPRETATION WAS
PROBABLY DUE TO THE DESCRIPTION IN NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
TOWNSEND, 190 U.S. 267, 271, OF A RIGHT OF WAY CONVEYED IN A LAND-GRANT
ACT (13 STAT. 365) AS A "LIMITED FEE, MADE ON AN IMPLIED CONDITION OF
REVERTER."  N14  BUT THE EARLIER VIEW WAS REASSERTED IN THE
DEPARTMENTAL REGULATIONS OF MAY 21, 1909, 37 L.D. 787.  FN15  AFTER
1915, ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION BOWED TO THE CASE OF RIO GRANDE
WESTERN RY. CO. V. STRINGHAM, 239 U.S. 44, WHICH APPLIED THE LANGUAGE
OF THE TOWNSEND CASE TO A RIGHT OF WAY ACQUIRED UNDER THE ACT OF 1875. 
WE DO NOT REGARD THIS SUBSEQUENT INTERPRETATION AS BINDING ON THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SINCE IT WAS IMPELLED BY WHAT WE REGARD AS
INACCURATE STATEMENTS IN THE STRINGHAM CASE.  CF. HELVERING V. HALLOCK,
309 U.S. 106, 121. 

CONGRESS ITSELF IN LATER LEGISLATION HAS INTERPRETED THE ACT OF 1875
AS CONVEYING BUT AN EASEMENT.  THE ACT OF JUNE 26, 1906, C. 3550, 34
STAT. 482, DECLARING A FORFEITURE OF UNUSED RIGHTS OF WAY, PROVIDES IN
PART THAT:  "THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESUMES THE FULL TITLE TO THE
LANDS COVERED THEREBY (BY THE RIGHT OF WAY) FREED AND DISCHARGED FROM
SUCH EASEMENT."  THIS LANGUAGE IS REPEATED IN THE FORFEITURE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 25, 1909, C. 191, 35 STAT. 647.  ALSO ON JUNE 26, 1906, AN ACT
FN16  WAS PASSED CONFIRMING THE RIGHTS OF WAY WHICH CERTAIN RAILROADS
HAD ACQUIRED UNDER THE 1875 ACT IN THE TERRITORIES OF OKLAHOMA AND
ARIZONA.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THIS BILL SAID:  "THE RIGHT AS
ORIGINALLY CONFERRED AND AS PROPOSED TO BE PROTECTED BY THIS BILL
SIMPLY GRANTS AN EASEMENT OR USE FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES.  UNDER THE
PRESENT LAW WHEREVER THE RAILROAD PASSES THROUGH A TRACT OF PUBLIC LAND
THE ENTIRE TRACT IS PATENTED TO THE SETTLER OR ENTRYMAN, SUBJECT ONLY
TO THIS EASEMENT."  FN17  IT IS SETTLED THAT "SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION
MAY BE CONSIDERED TO ASSIST IN THE INTERPRETATION OF PRIOR LEGISLATION
UPON THE SAME SUBJECT."  TIGER V. WESTERN INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286,
309.  SEE ALSO COPE V. COPE, 137 U.S. 682; UNITED STATES V. FREEMAN, 3
HOW.  556.  THESE STATUTES WERE APPROXIMATELY CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH
PETITIONER'S ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHTS OF WAY OF THE ST. PAUL,
MINNEAPOLIS AND MANITOBA RAILWAY. 

THAT PETITIONER HAS ONLY AN EASEMENT IN ITS RIGHTS OF WAY ACQUIRED
UNDER THE ACT OF 1875 IS THEREFORE CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT,
ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, ITS EARLY ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AND
THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON IT BY CONGRESS IN SUBSEQUENT ENACTMENTS. 

PETITIONER, SEEKING TO OBVIATE THIS RESULT, RELIES ON SEVERAL CASES
IN THIS COURT STATING THAT RAILROADS HAVE A "LIMITED," "BASE," OR
"QUALIFIED" FEE IN THEIR RIGHTS OF WAY.  FN18  ALL OF THOSE CASES,
EXCEPT RIO GRANDE WESTERN RY. CO. V. STRINGHAM, 239 U.S. 44, 47;
CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. MACKEY, 256 U.S. 531; AND NOBLE V. OKLAHOMA
CITY, 297 U.S. 481, DEAL WITH RIGHTS OF WAY CONVEYED BY LAND-GRANT ACTS
BEFORE THE SHIFT IN CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OCCURRED IN 1871.  FOR THAT
REASON THEY ARE NOT CONTROLLING HERE.  FN19  WHEN CONGRESS MADE
OUTRIGHT GRANTS TO A RAILROAD OF ALTERNATE SECTIONS OF PUBLIC LANDS
ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY, THERE IS LITTLE REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT IT
INTENDED TO GIVE ONLY AN EASEMENT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY GRANTED IN THE
SAME ACT.  AND, IN NONE OF THOSE ACTS WAS THERE ANY PROVISION
COMPARABLE TO THAT OF SEC. 4 OF THE 1875 ACT THAT "LANDS OVER WHICH
SUCH RIGHT OF WAY SHALL PASS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF SUBJECT TO SUCH RIGHT
OF WAY."  NONE OF THE CASES INVOLVED THE PROBLEM OF RIGHTS TO
SUBSURFACE OIL AND MINERALS. 

IN THE STRINGHAM CASE, IT WAS SAID THAT A RIGHT OF WAY UNDER THE ACT
OF 1875 IS "NEITHER A MERE EASEMENT, NOR A FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, BUT A
LIMITED FEE, MADE ON AN IMPLIED CONDITION OF REVERTER IN THE EVENT THAT
THE COMPANY CEASES TO USE OR RETAIN THE LAND FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH
IT IS GRANTED, AND CARRIES WITH IT THE INCIDENTS AND REMEDIES USUALLY
ATTENDING THE FEE."  THE RAILROAD HAD BROUGHT SUIT TO QUIET TITLE TO A
PORTION OF ITS RIGHT OF WAY.  STRINGHAM ASSERTED TITLE TO THAT PORTION
BY VIRTUE OF A PURPORTED PURCHASE OF SURFACE RIGHTS FROM A PLACER MINE
CLAIMANT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL
COURT AND REMANDED THE CASE, DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF "A JUDGMENT
AWARDING TO THE PLAINTIFF TITLE TO A RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE LANDS IN
QUESTION."  38 UTAH 113, 110 P. 868.  THE RAILROAD AGAIN APPEALED,
ASSERTING THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDGED "OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE OF THE
RIGHT OF WAY OVER THE PREMISES."  THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH AFFIRMED
THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE RAILROAD'S
PROPER REMEDY WAS BY PETITION FOR REHEARING OF THE FIRST APPEAL.  39
UTAH 236, 115 P. 967.  BOTH JUDGMENTS WERE BROUGHT TO THIS COURT BY
WRIT OF ERROR.  IT WAS HELD THAT THE SECOND JUDGMENT PRESENTED NOTHING
REVIEWABLE.  THE FIRST JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED SINCE IT "DESCRIBES THE
RIGHT OF WAY IN THE EXACT TERMS OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACT, AND EVIDENTLY
USES THOSE TERMS WITH THE SAME MEANING THEY HAVE IN THE ACT."    THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE RAILROAD WAS THE OWNER OF A "LIMITED FEE" WAS BASED
ON CASES ARISING UNDER THE LANDGRANT ACTS PASSED PRIOR TO 1871, AND IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT CONGRESS' CHANGE OF POLICY AFTER 1871 WAS BROUGHT
TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION.  FN20  THAT CONCLUSION IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, ITS EARLY
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED ON IT BY
CONGRESS IN SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION.  WE THEREFORE DO NOT REGARD IT AS
CONTROLLING.  STATEMENTS IN CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. MACKEY, 256 U.S.
531, AND NOBLE V. OKLAHOMA CITY, 297 U.S. 481, THAT THE 1875 ACT
CONVEYED A LIMITED FEE ARE DICTA BASED ON THE STRINGHAM CASE, AND
ENTITLED TO NO MORE WEIGHT THAN THE STATEMENTS IN THAT CASE.  FAR MORE
PERSUASIVE ARE TWO CASES INVOLVING SPECIAL ACTS GRANTING RIGHTS OF WAY,
PASSED AFTER 1871 AND RATHER SIMILAR TO THE GENERAL ACT OF 1875.  FN21
RAILWAY CO. V. ALLING, 99 U.S. 463, CHARACTERIZED THE RIGHT SO GRANTED
AS "A PRESENT BENEFICIAL EASEMENT," AND SMITH V. TOWNSEND, 148 U.S.
490, REFERRED TO IT AS "SIMPLY AS AN EASEMENT, NOT A FEE."  WE THINK
THAT THE ACT OF 1875 IS TO BE SIMILARLY CONSTRUED. 

SINCE PETITIONER'S RIGHT OF WAY IS BUT AN EASEMENT, IT HAS NO RIGHT
TO THE UNDERLYING OIL AND MINERALS.  THIS RESULT DOES NOT FREEZE THE
OIL AND MINERALS IN PLACE.  PETITIONER IS FREE TO DEVELOP THEM UNDER A
LEASE EXECUTED PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF MAY 21, 1930, 46 STAT. 373. 

DURING THE ARGUMENT BEFORE THIS COURT, IT WAS FULLY DEVELOPED THAT
THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED ON THE PLEADINGS, IN WHICH PETITIONER DENIED
THE ALLEGATION OF TITLE IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THERE WAS NO PROOF OR
STIPULATION THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD ANY TITLE.  ON THIS STATE OF THE
RECORD, THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY JUDGMENT BELOW. 
HOWEVER, WE PERMITTED THE PARTIES TO CURE THIS DEFECT BY A STIPULATION
SHOWING THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS RETAINED TITLE TO CERTAIN TRACTS OF
LAND OVER WHICH PETITIONER'S RIGHT OF WAY PASSES, IN A LIMITED AREA,
FN22  AND THAT PETITIONER INTENDED TO DRILL FOR AND REMOVE THE OIL
UNDERLYING ITS RIGHT OF WAY OVER EACH OF THOSE TRACTS.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE JUDGMENT WILL BE MODIFIED AND LIMITED TO THE AREAS DESCRIBED IN THE
STIPULATION.  AS SO MODIFIED, IT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN3  THIS CLAUSE FIRST APPEARED IN A SPECIAL RIGHT OF WAY STATUTE,
PORTLAND, DALLES, AND SALT LAKE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1872, 17 STAT. 52. 
CONGRESSMAN SLATER REPORTED THAT BILL FOR THE PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE,
AND, IN DISCUSSING THE REASON FOR THE CLAUSE, SAID: 

"MR. SLATER.  THE POINT (OF THIS CLAUSE) IS SIMPLY THIS:  THE LAND
OVER WHICH THIS RIGHT OF WAY PASSES IS TO BE SOLD SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT
OF WAY.  IT SIMPLY PROVIDES THAT THIS RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE AN
INCUMBRANCE UPON THE LAND FOR ONE HUNDRED FEET UPON EACH SIDE OF THE
LINE OF THE ROAD; THAT THOSE WHO MAY AFTERWARD MAKE LOCATIONS FOR
SETTLEMENT SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH THIS RIGHT OF WAY. 

"MR. SPEER, OF PENNSYLVANIA.  IT GRANTS NO LAND TO ANY RAILROAD
COMPANY? 

"MR. SLATER.  NO, SIR."  (CONG. GLOBE, 42D CONG., 2D SESS.,
2137(1872).) 

FN4  THE RIGHT OF WAY MAY BE LOCATED BY CONSTRUCTION.  DAKOTA CENTRAL
R. CO. V. DOWNEY, 8 L.D. 115; JAMESTOWN & NORTHERN R. CO. V. JONES, 177
U.S. 125; STALKER V. OREGON SHORT LINE R. CO., 225 U.S. 142. 

FN5  IN RAILWAY CO. V. ALLING, 99 U.S. 463, AND SMITH V. TOWNSEND,
148 U.S. 490, STATUTORY RIGHTS OF WAY WERE HELD TO BE BUT EASEMENTS. 
AND, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT RAILROADS DO NOT HAVE A FEE IN THOSE
PORTIONS OF THEIR RIGHTS OF WAY ACQUIRED BY EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS.  SEE EAST ALABAMA RY. CO. V. DOE, 114 U.S. 340; QUICK V.
TAYLOR, 113 IND. 540, 16 N.E. 588; MISSOURI, K. & N.W.R. CO. V.
SCHMUCK, 69 KAN. 272, 76 P. 836; KEOWN V. BRANDON, 206 KY. 93, 266 S.W.
889; HALL V. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD, 211 MASS. 174, 97 N.W. 914;
ROBERTS V. SIOUX CITY & P.R. CO., 73 NEB. 8, 102 N.W. 60; WASHINGTON
CEMETERY V. PROSPECT PARK & C.I.R. CO., 68 N.Y. 591. 

FN6  TYPICAL WERE THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL GRANT, ACT OF SEPTEMBER 20,
1850, C. 61, 9 STAT. 466; UNION PACIFIC GRANT OF JULY 1, 1862, C. 120,
12 STAT. 489; AMENDED UNION PACIFIC GRANT, ACT OF JULY 2, 1864, C. 216,
13 STAT. 356; AND NORTHERN PACIFIC GRANT, ACT OF JULY 2, 1864, C. 217,
13 STAT. 365.  THIS LAST GRANT WAS THE LARGEST, INVOLVING AN ESTIMATED
40,000,000 ACRES.  IN VIEW OF THIS LAVISH POLICY OF GRANTS FROM THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THE RIGHTS OF WAY CONVEYED IN
SUCH LANDGRANT ACTS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE LIMITED FEES.  NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. TOWNSEND, 190 U.S. 267.  CF. MISSOURI, K. & T. RY.
CO. V. ROBERTS, 152 U.S. 114. 

FN7  SEE "LAND GRANTS," 9 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (1933),
P. 35; "LAND GRANTS TO RAILWAYS," 3 DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN HISTORY
(1940), P. 237. 

FN8  IBID.  AND SEE H. REPT. NO. 10, 43D CONG., 2D SESS. (1874), P.
1(SER.  NO. 1656) RECOMMENDING THAT A BILL TO GRANT LANDS TO AID IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RAILROAD NOT PASS.  SEE ALSO THE REMARKS OF MR.
DUNNELL IN REPORTING A SPECIAL RIGHT OF WAY BILL FOR THE PUBLIC LANDS
COMMITTEE, CONG. GLOBE, 42D CONG., 2D SESS., 2543(1872), AND THOSE OF
MR. TOWNSEND, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF
1875, IN REPORTING TO THE HOUSE THE SENATE BILL AND THE HOUSE
SUBSTITUTE.  CONG. REC., 43D CONG., 2D SESS., VOL. 3, PT. 1,
404(1875). 

FN9  THE FORTY-SECOND AND FORTY-THIRD CONGRESSES (1871-1875) PASSED
AT LEAST FIFTEEN SUCH ACTS. 

FN10  CONG. GLOBE, 42D CONG., 2D SESS., 3913(1872). 

FN11  CONG. GLOBE, 42D CONG., 2D SESS., 4134(1872).  SEE ALSO P.
2543. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 3, ANTE. 

FN13  "THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF A GRANT OF
LANDS; IT DOES NOT CONVEY AN ESTATE IN FEE, EITHER IN THE 'RIGHT OF
WAY' OR THE GROUNDS SELECTED FOR DEPOT PURPOSES.  IT IS A RIGHT OF USE
ONLY, THE TITLE STILL REMAINING IN THE UNITED STATES.  ... 

"ALL PERSONS SETTLING ON PUBLIC LANDS TO WHICH A RAILROAD RIGHT OF
WAY HAS ATTACHED, TAKE THE SAME SUBJECT TO SUCH RIGHT OF WAY AND MUST
PAY FOR THE FULL AREA OF THE SUBDIVISION ENTERED, THERE BEING NO
AUTHORITY TO MAKE DEDUCTIONS IN SUCH CASES."  12 L.D. 423, 428. 

FN14  SEE NOTE 6, ANTE. 

FN15  THE DECISIONS OF THE LANDS DEPARTMENT CONSTRUING THE 1875 ACT
ARE IN ACCORD.  FREMONT, E. & M.V. RY. CO., 19 L.D. 588; MARY G.
ARNETT, 20 L.D. 131; JOHN W. WEHN, 32 L.D. 33; GRAND CANYON RY. CO. V.
CAMERON, 35 L.D. 495. 

FN16  34 STAT. 481. 

FN17  H. REPT. NO. 4777, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2(SER.  NO. 4908);
CF. S. REPT. NO. 1417, 59TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2(SER.  NO. 4904). 

FN18  BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, 119 U.S. 55; CLAIRMONT V.
UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 551; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. ROBERTS, 152
U.S. 114; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 271 U.S. 303; NEW
MEXICO V. UNITED STATES TRUST CO., 172 U.S. 171; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY.
V. TOWNSEND, 190 U.S. 267; UNITED STATES V. MICHIGAN, 190 U.S. 379;
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. V. ELY, 197 U.S. 1; RIO GRANDE WESTERN RY.
CO. V. STRINGHAM, 239 U.S. 44; CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. MACKEY, 256
U.S. 531; NOBLE V. OKLAHOMA CITY, 297 U.S. 481. 

FN19  SEE NOTE 6, ANTE. 

FN20  NO BRIEF WAS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT OR THE UNITED STATES. 

FN21  17 STAT. 339; 23 STAT. 73. 

FN22  LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, SEC. 12; LOTS 1, 4, 5, 9 AND 10, SEC. 13, T.
29 N., R. 15 W., MONTANA MERIDIAN, ALL BEING WITHIN THE EXTERIOR
BOUNDARIES OF THE GLACIER NATIONAL PARK; NW 1/4 SE 1/4 SEC. 28; NW 1/4
SEC. 29; NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SEC. 30; NE 1/4 SEC. 34, T. 32 N., R. 24 E.,
MONTANA MERIDIAN. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















U.S. V. JOLIET & CHICAGO RAILROAD CO., 315 U.S. 44 


NO. 151.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1942.  - 118
F.2D 174, REVERSED. 


1.  SUMS PAID AS DIVIDENDS BY A TRANSFEREE CORPORATION TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF A TRANSFEROR CORPORATION, AND AMOUNTS PAID BY THE
TRANSFEREE CORPORATION AS INCOME TAXES ON THE SUMS SO DISTRIBUTED AS
DIVIDENDS, HELD, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, TAXABLE INCOME OF THE
TRANSFEROR CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH THE TRANSFER WAS OF ALL THE
TRANSFEROR'S PROPERTY, BY A "LEASE" IN PERPETUITY WITHOUT A DEFEASANCE
CLAUSE, AND ALTHOUGH THE DIVIDENDS WERE PAID, PURSUANT TO THE "LEASE,"
BY THE TRANSFEREE DIRECTLY TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE TRANSFEROR.  PP.
46, 49. 

2.  ARTICLE 70 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, PROMULGATED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928, AUTHORIZING SUCH CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT, HELD
VALID.  P. 47. 

UNITED STATES V. JOLIET & CHICAGO RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 591, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DISALLOWING A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY AN INDENTURE DENOMINATED A "LEASE," RESPONDENT IN 1864 GRANTED,
DEMISED AND LEASED TO CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD CO. ALL OF ITS RAILROAD
PROPERTY, REAL AND PERSONAL.  THE "LEASE" WAS IN PERPETUITY UPON
SPECIFIED TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  THE CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD CO.
COVENANTED AND AGREED, INTER ALIA, TO GUARANTEE AND PAY QUARTERLY TO
THE HOLDERS OF THE FIFTEEN THOUSAND SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK OF
RESPONDENT AN ANNUAL DIVIDEND OF SEVEN PER CENT ON THE PAR VALUE OF THE
SHARES; TO DEPOSIT WITH A DESIGNATED DEPOSITORY SPECIFIED MONTHLY SUMS
TO BE PLACED TO THE CREDIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AND TO BE HELD AS A FUND
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE DIVIDENDS; TO PAY THE DIVIDENDS WITHOUT
ANY DEDUCTION FOR ANY FEDERAL TAX WHATSOEVER; TO PAY ALL TAXES WHICH
MAY BE DUE TO THE UNITED STATES "ON ACCOUNT OF SAID DIVIDEND SO PAID
FROM TIME TO TIME"; AND TO PLEDGE TO RESPONDENT THIRTY-SEVEN PARTS OUT
OF TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SEVEN PARTS OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE LINE
BETWEEN THE CITIES OF ALTON AND CHICAGO FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE
PERFORMANCE OF ITS VARIOUS COVENANTS.  THE "LEASE" CONTAINED NO
DEFEASANCE CLAUSE. 

THE ANNUAL DIVIDEND IS $7.00 PER SHARE AND TOTALS $105,000.00.  THIS
AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID DIRECTLY TO RESPONDENT'S STOCKHOLDERS EVERY YEAR
SINCE 1864 - BY CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD CO. UNTIL ACQUISITION OF THE
PROPERTY IN 1931 BY THE ALTON RAILROAD CO., AND SINCE THEN BY THE
LATTER COMPANY.  THE DISPUTE HERE IS OVER FEDERAL INCOME TAXES FOR THE
YEARS 1931, 1932, 1933 AND 1934.  RESPONDENT, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED
AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS, FILED ITS INCOME TAX RETURN
FOR EACH OF THOSE YEARS REPORTING THE $105,000.00 OF DIVIDENDS PAID ITS
SHAREHOLDERS AS ITS INCOME.  THE RESULTING TAX WAS PAID EACH YEAR BY
THE ALTON RAILROAD CO. IN ADDITION THE LATTER PAID EACH YEAR FOR
RESPONDENT AN ADDITIONAL TAX ON THE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX ON
$105,000.00, ON THE THEORY THAT THE LATTER CONSTITUTED ADDITIONAL
TAXABLE INCOME TO RESPONDENT.  RESPONDENT FILED CLAIMS FOR REFUND FOR
THE ADDITIONAL TAX PAID IN 1931, AND FOR ALL THE INCOME TAXES PAID ON
ITS BEHALF FOR THE OTHER YEARS IN QUESTION, ON THE THEORY THAT THE
INCOME ON WHICH THOSE TAXES WERE PAID WAS NOT REALIZED BY IT.  ON
REJECTION OF THOSE CLAIMS BY THE COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENT INSTITUTED
SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THAT COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THE
PETITIONER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING.  118 F.2D 174.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT DECISION AND THE GOVERNING
PRINCIPLES OF GOLD & STOCK TELEGRAPH CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 83 F.2D 465,
UNITED STATES V. NORTHWESTERN TELEGRAPH CO., 83 F.2D 468, AND PACIFIC &
ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 83 F.2D 469, DECIDED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

RESPONDENT URGES, AND THE COURT BELOW HELD, THAT THIS SO-CALLED LEASE
IN PERPETUITY WITHOUT A DEFEASANCE CLAUSE DIVESTED RESPONDENT OF ALL
RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND VESTED A FULL AND
INDEFEASIBLE TITLE IN THE GRANTEE.  SEE HUCK V. CHICAGO & ALTON R. CO.,
86 ILL. 352, 354-355; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. BOYD, 118 ILL. 73, 7
N.E. 487.  RESPONDENT ALSO ARGUES THAT THE INDENTURE OF 1864 VESTED ALL
RIGHTS TO PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS IN ITS STOCKHOLDERS AND DIVESTED IT OF
ANY RIGHT TO, OR CONTROL OVER, SUCH PAYMENTS.  RESPONDENT THEREFORE
CONTENDS THAT A CORPORATION WHICH DOES NOT OWN OR CONTROL PROPERTY AND
HAS NO RIGHT TO, OR CONTROL OVER, ANY INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY CANNOT
BE IN RECEIPT OF INCOME, CONSTRUCTIVELY OR OTHERWISE. 

SUCH CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT DISPOSE OF THIS CONTROVERSY.  IN LUCAS V.
EARL, 281 U.S. 111, THIS COURT HELD THAT A HUSBAND'S SALARY WAS TAXABLE
TO HIM THOUGH BY CONTRACT WITH HIS WIFE HALF OF IT VESTED IN HER WHEN
PAID.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID (PP. 114-115):  "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT
THE STATUTE COULD TAX SALARIES TO THOSE WHO EARNED THEM AND PROVIDE
THAT THE TAX COULD NOT BE ESCAPED BY ANTICIPATORY ARRANGEMENTS AND
CONTRACTS HOWEVER SKILFULLY DEVISED TO PREVENT THE SALARY WHEN PAID
FROM VESTING EVEN FOR A SECOND IN THE MAN WHO EARNED IT.  THAT SEEMS TO
US THE IMPORT OF THE STATUTE BEFORE US AND WE THINK THAT NO DISTINCTION
CAN BE TAKEN ACCORDING TO THE MOTIVES LEADING TO THE ARRANGEMENT BY
WHICH THE FRUITS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO A DIFFERENT TREE FROM THAT ON WHICH
THEY GREW." 

PRECISELY THAT APPROACH WAS TAKEN IN ART. 70 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS
74, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  IT PROVIDES IN PART: 

"WHERE A CORPORATION HAS LEASED ITS PROPERTY IN CONSIDERATION THAT
THE LESSEE SHALL PAY IN LIEU OF OTHER RENTAL AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO A
CERTAIN RATE OF DIVIDEND ON THE LESSOR'S CAPITAL STOCK OR THE INTEREST
ON THE LESSOR'S OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS, TOGETHER WITH TAXES,
INSURANCE, OR OTHER FIXED CHARGES, SUCH PAYMENTS SHALL BE CONSIDERED
RENTAL PAYMENTS AND SHALL BE RETURNED BY THE LESSOR CORPORATION AS
INCOME, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST ARE
PAID BY THE LESSEE DIRECTLY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AND BONDHOLDERS OF THE
LESSOR.  THE FACT THAT A CORPORATION HAS CONVEYED OR LET ITS PROPERTY
AND HAS PARTED WITH ITS MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL, OR HAS CEASED TO ENGAGE
IN THE BUSINESS FOR WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY ORGANIZED, WILL NOT RELIEVE
IT FROM LIABILITY TO THE TAX." 

THAT LONG-STANDING REGULATION  FN1  IS PLAINLY APPLICABLE HERE.  IT
COVERS VARIOUS KINDS OF CONVEYANCES AND LEASES, INCLUDING THOSE WHERE
THE GRANTOR OR LESSOR HAS PARTED WITH ALL RIGHTS OF MANAGEMENT AND
CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY.  IF VALID, IT GOVERNS THIS CASE WHATEVER MAY
BE THE LEGAL INCIDENTS OF THE 1864 INDENTURE UNDER ILLINOIS LAW.  ITS
VALIDITY SEEMS CLEAR.  IT IS A PERMISSIBLE DEFINITION OF ONE ITEM OF
GROSS INCOME  FN2  UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, 45
STAT. 791, 797.  PAYMENTS MADE DIRECTLY TO SHAREHOLDERS BY THE LESSEE
OR TRANSFEREE OF CORPORATE PROPERTY ARE PROPERLY RECOGNIZED AS INCOME
TO THE CORPORATION BY REASON OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF A CORPORATION TO
ITS SHAREHOLDERS.  THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN ANTICIPATORY ARRANGEMENT
WHEREBY THE TAXPAYER IS NOT EVEN A CONDUIT OF THE PAYMENTS IS NO MORE
SIGNIFICANT IN THIS TYPE OF CASE THAN IT WAS IN LUCAS V. EARL, SUPRA. 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND ITS SHAREHOLDERS IS AN
ABIDING ONE.  THEY OBTAIN THE DIVIDEND PAYMENTS BECAUSE OF THEIR STATUS
AS SHAREHOLDERS.  ALL QUESTIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS ASIDE, THERE
CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT A CORPORATION MAY NORMALLY DISTRIBUTE ITS ASSETS
AMONG ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  WHEN IT UNDERTAKES TO DO SO, ITS ACT IS
NONETHELESS A CORPORATE ACT THOUGH ITS SHAREHOLDERS RECEIVE NEW
CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS ENFORCEABLE BY THEM ALONE AGAINST THE TRANSFEREE. 
THAT IS TO SAY, THEIR RIGHTS TO RECEIVE THE PROCEEDS ON THE DISPOSAL OF
CORPORATE ASSETS ARE STRICTLY DERIVATIVE IN ORIGIN.  THE FACT THAT THE
CONSIDERATION IS MADE DISTRIBUTABLE TO THEM DIRECTLY OVER A LONG PERIOD
OF TIME RATHER THAN IN ONE LUMP PAYMENT DOES NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF
THOSE RIGHTS.  IN EACH CASE THEIR CLAIMS TO THE PROCEEDS FLOW FROM THE
CORPORATION AND ARE MEASURED BY THE STAKE WHICH THEY HAVE IN IT.  FOR
THE RENTAL OR PURCHASE PAYMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY CONVEYED BY RESPONDENT
COULD NOT LAWFULLY BE PAID TO ANOTHER WITHOUT ITS AUTHORITY; AND IT
COULD NOT LAWFULLY DISPOSE OF THEM TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ITS
SHAREHOLDERS.  CF. RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 296 U.S.
60.  THE FACT THAT THE CORPORATION MAY REMAIN IN EXISTENCE ONLY TO
MAINTAIN A STOCK TRANSFER BOOK IS IMMATERIAL.  THE UMBILICAL CORD
BETWEEN IT AND ITS SHAREHOLDERS HAS NOT BEEN CUT.  THE DISTRIBUTION
MADE IS IN PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATION OWED BY THE CORPORATION TO
THEM.  FOR THESE REASONS THE REGULATION IN QUESTION MERELY CONFORMS TO
ACCEPTED LEGAL THEORY.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DIVIDEND PAYMENTS MADE
TO RESPONDENT'S STOCKHOLDERS WERE INCOME REALIZED BY IT LIKEWISE MARKS
NO INNOVATION IN INCOME TAX LAW.  THAT IS INDICATED NOT ONLY BY LUCAS
V. EARL, SUPRA, BUT ALSO BY THOSE CASES WHICH HOLD THAT, "INCOME IS NOT
ANY THE LESS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER BECAUSE BY HIS COMMAND IT
IS PAID DIRECTLY TO ANOTHER IN PERFORMANCE OF THE TAXPAYER'S OBLIGATION
TO THAT OTHER."  RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P.
64, AND CASES CITED.  THE REACH OF THE INCOME TAX LAW IS NOT TO BE
DELIMITED BY TECHNICAL REFINEMENTS OR MERE FORMALISM.  HELVERING V.
CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331. 

SINCE THE DIVIDEND PAYMENTS MADE TO RESPONDENT'S STOCKHOLDERS WERE
INCOME REALIZED BY IT, THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON THOSE SUMS WHICH WAS
PAID BY THE ALTON RAILROAD CO. WAS LIKEWISE INCOME TAXABLE TO
RESPONDENT.  OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716; UNITED
STATES V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., 279 U.S. 732. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS REGULATION DATES FROM ART. 80, TREASURY REGULATIONS 33(1914
ED.).  AND SEE ART. 102, TREASURY REGULATIONS 33(1918 ED.).  PROVISIONS
SIMILAR TO THOSE QUOTED IN THE TEXT ARE CONTAINED IN ART. 70, TREASURY
REGULATIONS 77, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AND IN ART.
22(A)-20 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1934. 

FN2  LIKE DEFINITIONS OF GROSS INCOME ARE CONTAINED IN SEC. 22(A) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932(47 STAT. 169, 178) AND IN SEC. 22(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  48 STAT. 680, 686. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :























U.S. V. ROSENBLUM TRUCK LINES, 315 U.S. 50 


NO. 52.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 17, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1942.  -
36 F.SUPP.  467, REVERSED. 


1.  A TRUCKMAN WHO, ON JULY 1, 1935, AND UNTIL FEBRUARY 1936, WAS
ENGAGED IN HAULING EXCLUSIVELY FOR COMMON CARRIERS UNDER AGREEMENTS
WITH THEM, HELPING THEM TO MOVE THEIR OVERFLOW FREIGHT, AND WHO WAS NOT
SERVING THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY BUT ONLY PERFORMING PART OF THE COMPLETE
COMMON CARRIER SERVICE WHICH THOSE COMMON CARRIERS OFFERED TO THE
PUBLIC, IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PERMIT AS A CONTRACT CARRIER UNDER THE
"GRANDFATHER" CLAUSE OF SEC. 209(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935. 
P. 54. 

2.  BY THE ACT, CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO GRANT MULTIPLE
"GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. 
P. 54. 

3.  WHERE THE LITERAL MEANING OF WORDS IN A STATUTE PRODUCES AN
UNREASONABLE RESULT PLAINLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE POLICY OF THE
LEGISLATION, THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE WILL BE FOLLOWED.  P. 55. 

4.  THE FACT THAT "CARRIERS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT NEED NOT
DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE PUBLIC BUT MAY ACT THROUGH BROKERS, DOES NOT
AFFECT THE CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE.  P. 56. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. N.E. ROSENBLUM TRUCK LINES, INC.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 53, UNITED STATES ET AL. V. MARGOLIES, DOING
BUSINESS AS MANHATTAN TRUCK LINES, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEALS FROM DECREES OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH, IN
TWO CASES HEARD AND DECIDED TOGETHER, SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE DIRECT APPEALS BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FROM FINAL DECREES OF A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED THREE
JUDGE DISTRICT COURT,  FN1  WHICH SUSTAINED APPELLEES' SEPARATE
PETITIONS TO ANNUL, SET ASIDE AND ENJOIN AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
ENTERED JULY 1, 1940, DENYING APPELLEES' SEPARATE APPLICATIONS UNDER
THE SO-CALLED "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF SEC. 209(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
ACT OF 1935  FN2  (49 STAT. 543, 552, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 309(A)), FOR A
PERMIT AUTHORIZING OPERATIONS AS A CONTRACT CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE. 

THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS ARE NOT SERIOUSLY DISPUTED.  PRIOR TO THE
CRITICAL DATE, JULY 1, 1935, AND UNTIL FEBRUARY 1936, APPELLEES AND
THEIR PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST  FN3  HAULED ONLY FOR COMMON CARRIERS BY
MOTOR VEHICLE, AND IN EACH CASE PRINCIPALLY FOR A SINGLE COMMON
CARRIER, BETWEEN ST. LOUIS AND CHICAGO, FOR WHICH THEY WERE PAID A LUMP
SUM ON DOCK TO DOCK MOVEMENTS.  APPELLEES PROTECTED THEIR EQUIPMENT BY
CARRYING FIRE, THEFT AND COLLISION INSURANCE IN THEIR OWN NAMES.  THEY
ALSO PAID THE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS.  CARGO, PUBLIC
LIABILITY, PROPERTYDAMAGE, AND SIMILAR TYPES OF INSURANCE FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE GENERAL AND THE SHIPPING PUBLIC, WERE TAKEN OUT BY
THE COMMON CARRIERS AND IN SOME INSTANCES CHARGED TO THE APPELLEES. 
THEY OCCASIONALLY PAID SMALL CARGO DAMAGE CLAIMS NOT COVERED BY
INSURANCE.  THE DRIVERS OF APPELLEES' TRUCKS WERE THEIR EMPLOYEES.  THE
SPECIFICITY WITH WHICH THE COMMON CARRIERS DIRECTED THE ROUTES TO BE
FOLLOWED IS IN SOME DOUBT, BUT THE DRIVERS WERE REQUESTED TO "SIGN IN"
AT CERTAIN REGISTRATION STATIONS EN ROUTE. 

THE GREATER PORTION OF THE TRAFFIC OF THE COMMON CARRIERS WHICH
APPELLEES SERVED WAS CARRIED IN THE CARRIERS' OWN VEHICLES.  APPELLEES'
EQUIPMENT WAS SECURED ON ORAL ARRANGEMENTS TO HANDLE OVERFLOW FREIGHT. 
THE FREIGHT SO HANDLED WAS ALWAYS SOLICITED BY THE COMMON CARRIER,
ACCUMULATED AT ITS TERMINAL, LOADED AND UNLOADED BY ITS EMPLOYEES, AND
MOVED FROM CONSIGNOR TO CONSIGNEE ON THAT CARRIER'S WAY BILLS.  THE
RECORD IS SILENT AS TO WHETHER APPELLEES' TRUCKS BORE THE NAME OF THE
COMMON CARRIER ON WHOSE BEHALF THEY WERE OPERATED. 

AFTER FEBRUARY 1936 APPELLEES CEASED HAULING FOR COMMON CARRIERS BY
MOTOR VEHICLE AND BEGAN HAULING FOR INDIVIDUAL SHIPPERS IN THEIR OWN
RIGHT. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT APPELLEES' EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1936
"WAS OPERATED SOLELY UNDER THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE COMMON
CARRIERS AND UNDER THE LATTER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
AND TO THE SHIPPERS" AND CONCLUDED THAT "AS TO SUCH OPERATIONS
APPLICANTS (APPELLEES) DO NOT QUALIFY AS CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT AND ARE CONSEQUENTLY NOT ENTITLED TO A
CERTIFICATE OR A PERMIT UNDER THE 'GRANDFATHER' CLAUSE OF SECTION
206(A) OR 209(A) THEREOF."  FN4 

THE COURT BELOW SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, CONCLUDING THAT
APPELLEES WERE IN "BONA FIDE OPERATION AS (A) CONTRACT (CARRIERS) IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON JULY 1, 1935" AND "IN SO OPERATING ASSUMED
CONTROL, MANAGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE HAULING OF CARGO" AND
THAT "THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE
ORDER ENTERED."  FN5 

THE POINT OF DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT BELOW
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN WHETHER THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS SUPPORTED THE
COMMISSION'S ULTIMATE CONCLUSION THAT APPELLEES OPERATED SOLELY UNDER
THE CONTROL OF THE COMMON CARRIERS.  BECAUSE OF OUR VIEWS AS TO THE
PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT, WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION.  IN
ANY EVENT THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ON THE CRITICAL DATE, AND
FROM THEN UNTIL FEBRUARY 1936, APPELLEES HELPED THE COMMON CARRIERS
MOVE THEIR OVERFLOW FREIGHT AND, AS TO EACH JOB, WERE AN INTEGRAL PART
OF A SINGLE COMMON CARRIER SERVICE OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC BY THE COMMON
CARRIER FOR WHOM THEY HAULED. 

THE QUESTION HERE, AS IN ANY PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, IS
THE INTENTION OF THE ENACTING BODY.  CONGRESS HAS SET THAT FORTH FOR US
BROADLY IN THE DECLARATION OF POLICY  FN6  - IN ESSENCE IT IS THE
REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR CARRIERS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
SO AS TO ACHIEVE ADEQUATE, EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL SERVICE.  TO
IMPLEMENT THAT POLICY CONGRESS FORBADE COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE
TO OPERATE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHOUT SECURING A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE COMMISSION,  FN7  AND
REQUIRED CONTRACT CARRIERS TO SECURE A PERMIT FROM THAT BODY.  FN8
THOSE CARRIERS ENGAGED IN EITHER OF SUCH OPERATIONS ON THE RESPECTIVE
CRITICAL DATES AND CONTINUOUSLY THEREAFTER WERE TO BE GIVEN THE
REQUISITE CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT AS OF RIGHT UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER"
PROVISOS OF SECS. 206(A) AND 209(A).  WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT CONGRESS
DID NOT INTEND TO GRANT MULTIPLE "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF A
SINGLE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  PRESUMABLY THE COMMON CARRIERS WHICH
APPELLEES SERVED WERE ENTITLED TO COMMON CARRIER "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS
OVER THE ENTIRE LINE.  IT WAS THE COMMON CARRIERS WHO OFFERED THE
COMPLETE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE SHIPPER. 
TO HOLD THAT APPELLEES, WHO PERFORMED PART OF THAT COMPLETE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FOR THOSE COMMON CARRIERS UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH
THEM, ACQUIRED CONTRACT CARRIER "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS OVER THE SAME LINE
ENTITLING THEM ALSO TO SERVE THE PUBLIC IS TO ASCRIBE TO CONGRESS AN
INTENT INCOMPATIBLE WITH ITS PURPOSE OF REGULATION.  THE RESULT WOULD
BE TO CREATE IN THIS CASE TWO SERVICES OFFERING TRANSPORTATION TO THE
PUBLIC WHEN THERE HAD BEEN ONLY ONE ON THE "GRANDFATHER" DATE, WITHOUT
ALLOWING THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE IF THE ADDITIONAL SERVICE WAS IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  AND, INSTANCES CAN READILY BE IMAGINED WHERE A
SINGLE COMMON CARRIER MIGHT UTILIZE THE SERVICES OF SEVERAL OPERATORS
SUCH AS APPELLEES.  AUTOMATICALLY TO GRANT CONTRACT CARRIER RIGHTS TO
SUCH OPERATORS MIGHT RESULT IN SUCH A WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION OF PERMITS
AS WOULD DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF FEDERAL REGULATION. 

ALSO INDICATIVE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT NOT TO CONFER CONTRACT
CARRIER "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS ON OPERATORS, SUCH AS APPELLEES, WHO, ON
THE CRITICAL DATE, WERE NOT SERVING THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY BUT WERE
INSTRUMENTS PERFORMING PART OF A COMMON CARRIER SERVICE, IS THE FACT
THAT THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO REASON TO APPLY TO THEM THE REGULATORY
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO CONTRACT CARRIERS, SUCH
AS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY SHOULD SECURE A PERMIT ONLY AFTER A
SHOWING THAT THEIR OPERATIONS ARE "CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST"
(SEC. 209(B)), OR THAT THEY SHOULD FILE SCHEDULES OF THEIR MINIMUM
RATES (SEC. 218(A)), OR THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD PRESCRIBE THE
MINIMUM RATES (SEC. 218(B)).  THE ACT CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES THAT
CONTRACT AND COMMON CARRIERS WILL OFFER COMPETING TYPES OF SERVICE, FOR
SEC. 210 PROHIBITS ANY PERSON FROM SIMULTANEOUSLY HOLDING A CERTIFICATE
AND A PERMIT FOR THE SAME ROUTE OR TERRITORY UNLESS THE COMMISSION
FINDS THAT SUCH IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND SEC. 218(B) ENJOINS THE
COMMISSION, IN PRESCRIBING MINIMUM RATES FOR CONTRACT CARRIERS, TO
"GIVE NO ADVANTAGE OR PREFERENCE TO ANY SUCH CARRIER IN COMPETITION
WITH ANY COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE SUBJECT TO THIS PART."  THE
DECLARATION OF POLICY IN SEC. 202(A) WHICH STRESSES THE AVOIDANCE OF
DESTRUCTIVE AND UNFAIR COMPETITION IS REFERRED TO IN THE SECTIONS
DEALING WITH CONTRACT CARRIERS.  FN9 

APPELLEES' CONTENTION THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES ON THE CRITICAL DATE FALL
WITHIN THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE DEFINITION OF "CONTRACT CARRIER" IN
FORCE ON THE DATE OF THE ORDER  FN10  AND THAT THEY ARE THEREFORE
ENTITLED TO CONTRACT CARRIER "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS IS WITHOUT MERIT.  A
HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF APPELLEES PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1936 WERE
THOSE OF CONTRACT CARRIERS WOULD NOT ACCORD WITH THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS.  WHERE THE PLAIN MEANING OF WORDS USED IN A STATUTE PRODUCES
AN UNREASONABLE RESULT, "PLAINLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE POLICY OF THE
LEGISLATION AS A WHOLE," WE MAY FOLLOW THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE
RATHER THAN THE LITERAL WORDS.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING
ASSOCIATIONS, 310 U.S. 534, 543, AND CASES CITED.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
COMMISSION RIGHTLY DETERMINED THAT APPELLEES WERE NOT CONTRACT CARRIERS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1936. 

APPELLEES MAKE NO CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE COMMON CARRIERS DURING
THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, AND WE ARE CLEAR THAT THEY WERE NOT, FOR THE
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO AVOID MULTIPLE "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS ON THE
BASIS OF A SINGLE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO
PREVENT APPELLEES FROM BEING CONSIDERED EITHER AS CONTRACT OR AS COMMON
CARRIERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  THE REASONABLENESS OF THIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT IS APPARENT.  SINCE APPELLEES' OPERATIONS,
NAMELY, SERVING THE COMMON CARRIERS, ON THE CRITICAL DATE DID NOT MAKE
THEM "CARRIERS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, AND THUS SUBJECT TO
REGULATION UNDER IT, IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY ARE FREE TO ENGAGE IN SUCH
OPERATIONS WITHOUT SECURING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMISSION.  FN11
BUT THOSE OPERATIONS CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR APPELLEES' AUTOMATICALLY
SECURING PERMITS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, A SERVICE
WHICH THEY WERE NOT PERFORMING ON THE "GRANDFATHER" DATE. 

THE FACT THAT CARRIERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT NEED NOT DEAL
DIRECTLY WITH THE PUBLIC BUT MAY ACT THROUGH BROKERS  FN12  IN NO WISE
AFFECTS OUR CONCLUSION.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO
CONFER MULTIPLE "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF A SINGLE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC.  THAT DIFFICULTY ARISES ONLY WHEN
AN OPERATOR UNDERTAKES TO SERVE A CARRIER WHO IS SERVING THE PUBLIC. 
IT IS NOT PRESENT WHEN A CARRIER DEALS THROUGH A BROKER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CONVENED PURSUANT TO THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913(38
STAT. 220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47 AND 47(A)) AND SEC. 205(H) OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT OF 1935, REARRANGED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54
STAT. 899, AS SEC. 205(G) OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

FN2  THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 IS NOW DESIGNATED AS PART II OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  54 STAT. 919. 

FN3  IN BOTH OF THESE CASES IT WAS THE APPELLEE'S PREDECESSOR IN
INTEREST WHO WAS OPERATING ON JULY 1, 1935.  THE PREDECESSOR OF
APPELLEE IN NO. 52 WAS ROSENBLUM THE INDIVIDUAL, AND THE PREDECESSOR OF
APPELLEE IN NO. 53 WAS AN INDIVIDUAL, BAULOS. 

FN4  24 M.C.C. 121, 125-126. 

FN5  36 F.SUPP.  467. 

FN6  SEC. 202(A), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 302(A). 

FN7 SEC. 206(A), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 306(A). 

FN8  SEC. 209(A), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 309(A). 

FN9  SEC. 209(B), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 309(B).  SEC. 218(B), 49 U.S.C. SEC.
318(B). 

THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT WHILE THERE MAY BE
DESTRUCTIVE OR UNFAIR COMPETITION WITH COMMON CARRIERS WHEN TRUCK
OPERATORS CONTRACT TO DO WORK IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSPORTATION FOR
COMMON CARRIERS WHICH SERVE SHIPPERS DIRECTLY, "IT IS NOT THE TRUCK
OPERATOR WHO CARRIES IT ON.  RATHER IT IS THE CARRIER FOR WHICH HE
WORKS,  ...  "  SCOTT BROS. INC., 4 M.C.C. 551, 559. 

FN10  SEC. 203(A)(15).  THE TERM "CONTRACT CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE"
MEANS ANY PERSON, NOT INCLUDED UNDER PARAGRAPH (14) OF THIS SECTION,
WHO OR WHICH, UNDER SPECIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS, AND
WHETHER DIRECTLY OR BY A LEASE OR ANY OTHER ARRANGEMENT, TRANSPORTS
PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE BY MOTOR
VEHICLE FOR COMPENSATION.  (THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54 STAT.
899, AMENDED THIS DEFINITION.) 

FN11  THE COMMISSION HAS SO HELD.  DIXON, 21 M.C.C. 617; SMYTHE, 22
M.C.C. 726. 

FN12  SECTION 203(18), 49 U.S.C. SEC. 303(18), DEFINES "BROKER"
SUBSTANTIALLY AS ONE WHO SELLS OR OFFERS FOR SALE ANY TRANSPORTATION. 
LICENSED AND THAT THE CARRIERS THEY EMPLOY HAVE EITHER A CERTIFICATE OR
A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THE ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 
..END :



















LUBETICH V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 57 


NO. 322.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1942.  - 39
F.SUPP.  780, AFFIRMED. 


1.  DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES V. ROSENBLUM TRUCK
LINES AND UNITED STATES V. MARGOLIES, ANTE, P. 50.  P. 59. 

2.  THAT THE APPLICATION WAS FOR EITHER A COMMON CARRIER CERTIFICATE
OR A CONTRACT CARRIER PERMIT, RATHER THAN FOR ONLY A CONTRACT CARRIER
PERMIT, DOES NOT DISTINGUISH THIS CASE FROM THE ROSENBLUM AND MARGOLIES
CASES.  P. 59. 

3.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DENYING "GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS TO THE
APPLICANT IN THIS CASE, IS NOT VITIATED BY ABSENCE OF FINDINGS AS TO
WHETHER THE COMMON CARRIER WITH WHOM THE APPLICANT'S ARRANGEMENTS FOR
HAULING WERE MADE WAS ACTING AS A BROKER DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION
AND AS TO WHETHER THE APPLICANT'S NAME WAS CARRIED ON HIS EQUIPMENT. 
FINDINGS ON THESE TWO POINTS WERE NOT "QUASI JURISDICTIONAL."  P. 59. 

LUBETICH, DOING BUSINESS AS PACIFIC REFRIGERATED MOTOR LINE, V. UNITED
STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING A
PETITION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO UNITED STATES V. N.E. ROSENBLUM TRUCK
LINES, INC., AND UNITED STATES V. MARGOLIES, ANTE, P. 50.  IT IS A
DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DECREE OF A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED THREE
JUDGE DISTRICT COURT  FN1  DISMISSING APPELLANT'S PETITION TO SET ASIDE
AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DENYING APPELLANT'S
APPLICATION UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER" CLAUSES OF SECS. 206(A) AND 209(A)
OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935  FN2  FOR OPERATING AUTHORITY AS A
"COMMON" OR "CONTRACT" CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE. 

THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS  FN3  SHOW THAT APPELLANT'S METHOD OF
OPERATIONS WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT OF APPELLEES IN THE
ROSENBLUM AND THE MARGOLIES CASES.  APPELLANT OPERATED BETWEEN LOS
ANGELES AND SEATTLE AND HELD PERMITS FROM THE STATES OF CALIFORNIA,
OREGON, AND WASHINGTON.  BETWEEN JUNE 1935 AND JANUARY 1938 MOST, IF
NOT ALL, OF THE TRAFFIC HANDLED BY APPELLANT WAS SOLICITED AND BILLED
BY OTHER MOTOR CARRIERS AND MOVED IN APPELLANT'S VEHICLES ONLY BETWEEN
THE TERMINALS OF THOSE OTHER CARRIERS.  FROM APRIL 1937 UNTIL JANUARY
1938 APPELLANT HAULED EXCLUSIVELY FOR A SINGLE COMMON CARRIER,
HENDRICKS REFRIGERATED TRUCK LINES, INC. THE GOODS MOVED ON HENDRICKS'
BILLS OF LADING AND ITS TARIFF RATES WERE APPLIED.  APPELLANT REQUESTED
LOADING INSTRUCTIONS FROM, AND REPORTED LOADINGS TO, HENDRICKS. 
APPELLANT RECEIVED THE TOTAL REVENUE LESS TEN PERCENT ON SOUTHBOUND
LOADS AND THE TOTAL REVENUE ON NORTHBOUND LOADS.  ON "EXPRESS" TRAFFIC
HE RECEIVED A FLAT RATE OF EIGHTY CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS.  SHIPPERS'
CLAIMS GENERALLY WERE PAID IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY HENDRICKS AND THEN
CHARGED BACK TO APPELLANT. 

IN JANUARY 1938 APPELLANT ENGAGED A SOLICITOR OF HIS OWN, ESTABLISHED
TERMINALS AND APPARENTLY DISCONTINUED THE OPERATIONS PREVIOUSLY
CONDUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER CARRIERS. 

ON THE BASIS OF ITS FINDINGS THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE
SERVICE PERFORMED "WAS NOT THE FULFILLMENT OF ENGAGEMENTS IN
CONSEQUENCE OF A HOLDING OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC BUT WAS PRIMARILY
THE HAULING OF TRAFFIC FOR MOTOR COMMON CARRIERS."  FN4 

WHILE THE APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE IS FOR A COMMON CARRIER
CERTIFICATE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A CONTRACT CARRIER PERMIT,
RATHER THAN FOR A CONTRACT CARRIER PERMIT AS IN UNITED STATES V. N.E.
ROSENBLUM TRUCK LINES, INC. AND UNITED STATES V. MARGOLIES, THAT
DIFFERENCE IS WITHOUT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.  THE QUESTION IN BOTH
SITUATIONS IS WHETHER THE APPLICANT WAS A CARRIER, EITHER COMMON OR
CONTRACT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO JUNE 1935 AND
CONTINUOUSLY THEREAFTER TO THE DATE OF THE HEARING.  FOR THE REASONS
SET FORTH IN THE ROSENBLUM AND MARGOLIES CASES, THE DECISION BELOW MUST
BE AFFIRMED. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED AND FOUND WITHOUT SUBSTANCE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT
THAT FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER HENDRICKS WAS ACTING AS A BROKER DURING THE
PERIOD IN QUESTION AND AS TO WHETHER APPELLANT'S NAME WAS CARRIED ON
HIS EQUIPMENT WERE "QUASI JURISDICTIONAL" AND THAT THE ABSENCE OF
FINDINGS ON THOSE POINTS RENDERS THE ORDER VOID.  NEITHER FINDING WAS
HERE ESSENTIAL TO THE EXISTENCE OF AUTHORITY TO ENTER THE ORDER, AND
HENCE WAS NOT "QUASI JURISDICTIONAL."  CF. UNITED STATES V. BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO., 293 U.S. 454, 462-463; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S.
194, 214-215.  ONE OF THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH APPELLANT
MAY NOT ATTACK,  FN5  WAS THAT APPELLANT HAULED "FOR HENDRICKS, A
COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE," AND THE COMMISSION WAS SATISFIED FROM
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT THAT HENDRICKS, AND NOT THE APPELLANT, WAS THE
CARRIER IN RESPECT TO THE OPERATIONS IN WHICH APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED. 
IT WAS THEREFORE IMMATERIAL WHETHER HENDRICKS ACTED AS A BROKER IN
CONNECTION WITH SOME OTHER OPERATIONS.  WHETHER APPELLANT'S NAME WAS ON
HIS EQUIPMENT CAN ONLY BE A FACTOR BEARING ON THE ULTIMATE ISSUE.  IT
IS IN NO SENSE "QUASI JURISDICTIONAL."  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CONVENED PURSUANT TO THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913(38
STAT. 220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47 AND 47(A)) AND SEC. 205(H) OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT OF 1935, REARRANGED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1940, 54
STAT. 899, AS SEC. 205(G) OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

FN2  THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 IS NOW DESIGNATED AS PART II OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  54 STAT. 919. 

FN3  SINCE THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THESE FINDINGS WERE MADE IS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE RECORD BEFORE US, APPELLANT MAY NOT HERE ATTACK THEM. 
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 282, 286, AND
CASES CITED. 

FN4  24 M.C.C. 141 AT 147, 150. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 3, ANTE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























GLASSER V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 60 


NO. 30.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 14, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1942.  -
116 F.2D 690, REVERSED IN PART - AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  JUD.  CODE SEC. 275 PROVIDES THAT JURORS IN A FEDERAL COURT SHALL
HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF JURORS IN THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE. 
ACTS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS PROVIDING FOR JURY SERVICE BY WOMEN
BECAME EFFECTIVE BEFORE A GRAND JURY IN A FEDERAL COURT IN THAT STATE
WAS DRAWN FROM A BOX FROM WHICH THE NAMES OF WOMEN HAD BEEN EXCLUDED. 
UNDER THE STATE LEGISLATION, THE MAKING OF STATE LISTS INCLUDING WOMEN
COULD BE DELAYED FOR SOME TIME LATER.  HELD THAT THE JURY WAS NOT
ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED, IN VIEW OF THE SHORT TIME ELAPSED SINCE THE
STATE LAW CAME IN FORCE, AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT WOMEN'S
NAMES HAD APPEARED ON THE STATE JURY LISTS IN THE COUNTIES COMPRISING
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.  P. 64. 

2.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE SHOWS ADEQUATELY, THOUGH INFORMALLY, THAT
THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED BY THE GRAND JURY IN OPEN COURT.  P. 65. 

3.  AN INDICTMENT WHICH IS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO INFORM THE
DEFENDANTS OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM AND SHOWS CERTAINTY TO A COMMON
INTENT, IS GOOD AGAINST DEMURRER.  P. 66. 

4.  DEPRIVING THE UNITED STATES OF LAWFUL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS BY
DISHONEST MEANS IS A "DEFRAUDING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 37 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE.  P. 66. 

5.  A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OF LAWFUL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS BY BRIBERY OF A GOVERNMENT OFFICER IS DISTINCT
FROM A CHARGE OF BRIBERY OR OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BRIBERY.  P. 66. 

6.  ERROR WHICH MIGHT BE OVERLOOKED AS HARMLESS WHERE THE CASE IS
STRONG AGAINST THE ACCUSED MAY BE GROUND FOR REVERSAL WHERE THE
QUESTION OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE IS CLOSE.  P. 67. 

7.  A DEFENDANT IN A CONSPIRACY CASE IS DEPRIVED OF THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL, CONTRARY TO THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, WHERE, OVER HIS OBJECTION,
THE COURT APPOINTS HIS COUNSEL TO REPRESENT ALSO A CODEFENDANT, WHERE
THIS IS DONE WITH NOTICE TO THE JUDGE THAT THEIR INTERESTS MAY BE
INCONSISTENT, AND WHERE THE COUNSEL'S DEFENSE OF THE FIRST DEFENDANT IS
LESS EFFECTIVE THAN IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IF HE HAD REPRESENTED THAT
DEFENDANT ALONE.  P. 76. 

8.  EVERY REASONABLE PRESUMPTION IS INDULGED AGAINST A WAIVER OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SUCH AS THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO HAVE THE FULL
AND UNTRAMMELED ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE. 
P. 70. 

9.  THE FACT THAT A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS AN EXPERIENCED
LAWYER MAY BE A FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; BUT IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  P. 70. 

10.  THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD PROTECT THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO HAVE
THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  P. 71. 

11.  THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS TOO FUNDAMENTAL
TO BE MADE TO DEPEND UPON NICE CALCULATIONS BY COURTS OF THE DEGREE OF
PREJUDICE ARISING FROM ITS DENIAL.  P. 76. 

12.  THE DECLARATIONS OF A CONSPIRATOR ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE AGAINST AN
ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATOR, WHO WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN THEY WERE MADE, UNLESS
THERE IS PROOF ALIUNDE CONNECTING THE LATTER WITH THE CONSPIRACY.  P.
74. 

13.  PERSONS CONVICTED AS CONSPIRATORS CAN NOT HAVE A NEW TRIAL
BECAUSE OF ERROR PREJUDICIAL TO A CO-DEFENDANT BUT NOT TO THEMSELVES. 
P. 76. 

14.  A VERDICT OF CONVICTION MUST BE SUSTAINED IF, TAKING THE VIEW
MOST FAVORABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT, THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT IT.  P. 80. 

15.  PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY MAY BE INFERRED FROM
CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 80. 

16.  DEFENDANTS IN A CRIMINAL CASE CAN NOT COMPLAIN OF ERROR IN THE
INTRODUCTION OF REPORTS AS TO WHICH, WHEN THEY WERE ADMITTED IN
EVIDENCE, THE TRIAL JUDGE INFORMED THE JURY THAT THEY WERE ADMITTED
AGAINST ANOTHER DEFENDANT ONLY.  P. 81. 

17.  A DISTRICT JUDGE CONDUCTING A JURY TRIAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE HAS
A SOUND DISCRETION TO INTERROGATE WITNESSES AND TO LIMIT THEIR
CROSSEXAMINATION.  P. 82. 

18.  ACTS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, COMPLAINED OF AS LACKING IMPARTIALITY,
WERE NOT SUCH AS TO PREJUDICE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS.  P.
83. 

19.  ACTS OF ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY,  - HELD
NOT SUCH AS TO CALL FOR REVERSAL OF CONVICTIONS.  P. 83. 

20.  A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE UPON THE GROUND THAT
THE JURY WAS ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE
INTRODUCTION OR OFFER OF DISTINCT EVIDENCE; A FORMAL AFFIDAVIT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF A STIPULATION THAT IT MAY BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF, IS NOT
ENOUGH, ALTHOUGH IT BE UNCONTROVERTED.  P. 87. 

GLASSER V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 31, KRETSKE V. UNITED STATES, AND NO. 32, ROTH V.
UNITED STATES, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 551, TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 551, IN THREE CASES, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT
SUSTAINING CONVICTIONS FOR CONSPIRACY. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS, TOGETHER WITH ANTHONY HORTON AND LOUIS KAPLAN, WERE
FOUND GUILTY UPON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING THEM WITH A CONSPIRACY TO
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES, UNDER SEC. 37 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE (R.S.
SEC. 5440; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88).  FN1  JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON THE
VERDICT AND GLASSER, KRETSKE AND KAPLAN WERE SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT
FOR A TERM OF 14 MONTHS.  ROTH WAS ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $500, AND
HORTON WAS PLACED ON PROBATION.  ON APPEAL THE CONVICTIONS OF GLASSER,
KRETSKE AND ROTH WERE AFFIRMED.  FN2  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVED.  313 U.S. 551. 

GLASSER WAS THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN CHARGE OF LIQUOR
CASES IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS FROM ABOUT MARCH 1935 TO
APRIL 1939.  KRETSKE WAS AN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN THE
SAME DISTRICT FROM OCTOBER 1934 UNTIL APRIL 1937.  HE ASSISTED GLASSER
IN THE PROSECUTION OF LIQUOR CASES.  AFTER HIS RESIGNATION HE ENTERED
PRIVATE PRACTICE IN CHICAGO.  ROTH WAS AN ATTORNEY IN PRIVATE
PRACTICE.  KAPLAN WAS AN AUTOMOBILE DEALER REPUTED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE
ILLICIT ALCOHOL TRAFFIC AROUND CHICAGO.  HORTON WAS A PROFESSIONAL
BONDSMAN. 

THE INDICTMENT WAS ORIGINALLY IN TWO COUNTS, BUT ONLY THE SECOND
SURVIVES HERE, AS THE GOVERNMENT ELECTED TO PROCEED ON THAT COUNT ALONE
AT THE CLOSE OF ITS CASE.  THAT COUNT, AFTER ALLEGING THAT DURING
CERTAIN PERIODS GLASSER AND KRETSKE WERE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES
ATTORNEYS FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EMPLOYED TO PROSECUTE
ALL DELINQUENTS FOR CRIMES AND OFFENSES COGNIZABLE UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND MORE PARTICULARLY VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS RELATING TO LIQUOR, CHARGED IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE
DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO "DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OF AND CONCERNING
ITS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION TO BE HONESTLY, FAITHFULLY AND DUTIFULLY
REPRESENTED IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES" IN SUCH MATTERS "FREE
FROM CORRUPTION, IMPROPER INFLUENCE, DISHONESTY, OR FRAUD."  THE MEANS
BY WHICH THE CONSPIRACY WAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED WAS ALLEGED TO BE BY THE
DEFENDANTS' SOLICITING CERTAIN PERSONS CHARGED, OR ABOUT TO BE CHARGED,
WITH VIOLATING THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TO PROMISE OR CAUSE TO BE
PROMISED CERTAIN SUMS TO BE PAID OR PLEDGED TO THE DEFENDANTS, TO BE
USED TO CORRUPT AND INFLUENCE THE DEFENDANTS GLASSER AND KRETSKE, AND
THE DEFENDANT GLASSER ALONE, IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR AND HIS
OFFICIAL DUTIES. 

ALL THE DEFENDANTS FILED A MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT ON THE
GROUND (A) THAT THE GRAND JURY WAS ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED BECAUSE WOMEN
WERE EXCLUDED THEREFROM AND (B) THAT THE INDICTMENT WAS NOT PROPERLY
RETURNED IN OPEN COURT.  GLASSER, KRETSKE AND ROTH ALSO FILED DEMURRERS
TO THE INDICTMENT.  THE MOTION TO QUASH AND THE DEMURRERS WERE
OVERRULED, AND PETITIONERS HERE RENEW THEIR OBJECTIONS. 

ON JULY 1, 1939, TWO ACTS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS PROVIDING FOR
WOMEN JURORS BECAME EFFECTIVE.  FN3  SECTION 275 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
(28 U.S.C. SEC. 411) PROVIDES IN SUBSTANCE THAT JURORS IN A FEDERAL
COURT ARE TO HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF JURORS IN THE HIGHEST COURT OF
THE STATE.  PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE GRAND JURY, COMPOSED ENTIRELY
OF MEN, AND SUMMONED ON AUGUST 25, 1939, WAS ILLEGALLY CONSTITUTED
BECAUSE, AT THE TIME IT WAS DRAWN, ILLINOIS LAW REQUIRED STATE JURY
LISTS TO CONTAIN THE NAMES OF WOMEN.  HOWEVER, IN 17 OF THE 18 COUNTIES
COMPRISING THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS THE COUNTY BOARDS COULD
WAIT UNTIL SEPTEMBER, 1939, TO INCLUDE WOMEN ON THEIR JURY LISTS.  FN4
OF COURSE, FOR WOMEN TO SERVE AS FEDERAL JURORS IN ILLINOIS IT IS NOT
NECESSARY THAT THEIR NAMES APPEAR ON A COUNTY LIST, BUT WE ARE OF
OPINION THAT, IN VIEW OF THE SHORT TIME ELAPSING BETWEEN THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ILLINOIS ACTS AND THE SUMMONING OF THE GRAND JURY, IT WAS
NOT ERROR TO OMIT THE NAMES OF WOMEN FROM FEDERAL JURY LISTS, WHERE IT
WAS NOT SHOWN THAT WOMEN'S NAMES HAD YET APPEARED ON THE STATE JURY
LISTS. 

THE RECORD HERE ADEQUATELY DISPOSES OF PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT
THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED IN OPEN COURT BY
THE GRAND JURY.  IT CONTAINS A PLACITUM IN REGULAR FORM WHICH RECITES
THE CONVENING OF A REGULAR TERM OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DIVISION OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, "ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF
SEPTEMBER (1939)(IT BEING THE TWENTY-NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE
INDICTMENT WAS FILED)," AND DISCLOSES THE PRESENCE OF THE JUDGES OF
THAT COURT, THE MARSHAL AND THE CLERK.  THE INDICTMENT BEARS THE
NOTATION:  "A TRUE BILL, GEORGE A. HANCOCK, FOREMAN", AND THE
ENDORSEMENT:  "FILED IN OPEN COURT THIS 29TH DAY OF SEPT., A.D. 1939,
HOYT KING, CLERK."  IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE INDICTMENT IN THE RECORD
IS THE MOTION-SLIP DISCHARGING THE SEPTEMBER GRAND JURY, DATED
SEPTEMBER 29, 1939, INITIALLED BY JUDGE WILKERSON AND CONTAINING:  "THE
GRAND JURY RETURN 4 INDICTMENTS IN OPEN COURT.  ADDED 10/30/39."  THE
PRESENCE OF THIS NOTATION IN THE RECORD IS MEANINGLESS UNLESS THE
INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE IS ONE OF THE FOUR MENTIONED.  THE ADDITION WAS
OBVIOUSLY MADE TO CLARIFY THE INDORSEMENT OF THE CLERK SO AS TO SHOW
CLEARLY THE RETURN BY THE GRAND JURY AND THUS AVERT THE TECHNICAL
ARGUMENT HERE ADVANCED.  WHILE A FORMAL NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER WOULD HAVE
BEEN THE MORE CORRECT PROCEDURE, ESPECIALLY SINCE A NEW TERM OF COURT
HAD BEGUN, WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS INFORMAL CLARIFICATION OF THE
RECORD AMOUNTS TO SUCH ERROR AS REQUIRES REVERSAL.  CF. BREESE V.
UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 1. 

THE DEMURRERS TO THE INDICTMENT WERE PROPERLY OVERRULED.  THE
INDICTMENT IS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO INFORM PETITIONERS OF THE
CHARGES AGAINST THEM.  IT SHOWS "CERTAINTY, TO A COMMON INTENT." 
WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES, 207 U.S. 425, 447.  THE PARTICULARITY OF
TIME, PLACE, CIRCUMSTANCES, CAUSES, ETC., IN STATING THE MANNER AND
MEANS OF EFFECTING THE OBJECT OF A CONSPIRACY, FOR WHICH PETITIONERS
CONTEND, IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO AN INDICTMENT.  CRAWFORD V. UNITED STATES,
212 U.S. 183; DEALY V. UNITED STATES, 152 U.S. 539.  SUCH SPECIFICITY
OF DETAIL FALLS RATHER WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A BILL OF PARTICULARS, WHICH
PETITIONERS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS DEFRAUDED BY
DEPRIVING IT OF ITS LAWFUL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS BY DISHONEST MEANS;
IT IS SETTLED THAT THIS IS A "DEFRAUDING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 37
OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  HAMMERSCHMIDT V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S. 182. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO EXPLORE THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
INDICTMENT IS DEFECTIVE ON THE GROUND THAT IT CHARGES A CONSPIRACY TO
COMMIT A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE REQUIRING CONCERTED ACTION, NAMELY,
BRIBERY, BECAUSE, "THE INDICTMENT DOES NOT CHARGE AS A SUBSTANTIVE
OFFENSE THE GIVING OR RECEIVING OF BRIBES; NOR DOES IT CHARGE A
CONSPIRACY TO GIVE OR ACCEPT BRIBES.  IT CHARGES A CONSPIRACY TO  ...
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES, THE SCHEME OF RESORTING TO BRIBERY BEING
AVERRED ONLY TO BE A WAY OF CONSUMMATING THE CONSPIRACY AND WHICH, LIKE
THE USE OF A GUN TO EFFECT A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER, IS PURELY ANCILLARY
TO THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE."  UNITED STATES V. MANTON, 107 F.2D 834,
839. 

PETITIONERS GLASSER AND ROTH CLAIM THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT.  KRETSKE MAKES NO SUCH ARGUMENT BUT MERELY
CONTENDS THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S TESTIMONY WAS LARGELY THAT OF
ACCOMPLICES "TO EMPHASIZE THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE
AGAINST PETITIONER (KRETSKE) WAS OF A BORDERLINE CHARACTER."  SINCE WE
ARE OF OPINION THAT A NEW TRIAL MUST BE ORDERED AS TO GLASSER, WE DO
NOT AT THIS TIME FEEL THAT IT IS PROPER TO COMMENT ON THE SUFFICIENCY
OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST GLASSER. 

ADMITTEDLY, THE CASE AGAINST GLASSER IS NOT A STRONG ONE.  THE
GOVERNMENT FRANKLY CONCEDES THAT THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO GLASSER
"DEPENDS IN LARGE PART  ...  UPON A DEVELOPMENT AND COLLOCATION OF
CIRCUMSTANCES TENDING TO SUSTAIN THE INFERENCES NECESSARY TO SUPPORT
THE VERDICT."  THIS IS SIGNIFICANT IN RELATION TO GLASSER'S CONTENTION
THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONTRARY TO THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT.  IN ALL CASES THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS ARE TO BE
JEALOUSLY PRESERVED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ACCUSED, BUT ESPECIALLY IS
THIS TRUE WHERE THE SCALES OF JUSTICE MAY BE DELICATELY POISED BETWEEN
GUILT AND INNOCENCE.  THEN ERROR, WHICH UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD
NOT BE GROUND FOR REVERSAL, CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE AS IMMATERIAL,
SINCE THERE IS A REAL CHANCE THAT IT MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED THE SLIGHT
IMPETUS WHICH SWUNG THE SCALES TOWARD GUILT. 

ON NOVEMBER 1, 1939, GEORGE CALLAGHAN ENTERED THE APPEARANCE OF
HIMSELF AND GLASSER AS ATTORNEYS FOR GLASSER.  ON JANUARY 29, 1940,
WILLIAM SCOTT STEWART ENTERED HIS APPEARANCE AS ASSOCIATE COUNSEL FOR
GLASSER.  "HARRINGTON & MCDONNELL" HAD ENTERED AN APPEARANCE FOR
KRETSKE.  ON FEBRUARY 5, 1940, THE DAY SET FOR TRIAL, HARRINGTON ASKED
FOR A CONTINUANCE.  THE MOTION WAS OVERRULED AND MCDONNELL WAS
APPOINTED KRETSKE'S ATTORNEY.  ON FEBRUARY 6, MCDONNELL INFORMED THE
COURT THAT KRETSKE DID NOT WISH TO BE REPRESENTED BY HIM.  THE COURT
THEN ASKED IF STEWART COULD ACT AS KRETSKE'S ATTORNEY.  THE FOLLOWING
DISCUSSION THEN TOOK PLACE: 

"MR. STEWART:  MAY I MAKE THIS STATEMENT ABOUT THAT, JUDGE?  WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT IT - WE WERE ALL TRYING TO GET ALONG TOGETHER.  I FILED
AN AFFIDAVIT, OR I DID ON THE BEHALF OF MR. GLASSER POINTING OUT SOME
LITTLE INCONSISTENCY IN THE DEFENSE, AND THE MAIN PART OF IT IS THIS:
THERE WILL BE CONVERSATIONS HERE WHERE MR. GLASSER WASN'T PRESENT,
WHERE PEOPLE HAVE SEEN MR. KRETSKE AND THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT, THAT
THEY GAVE MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF GLASSER, THAT IS NOT BINDING ON MR.
GLASSER, AND THERE IS A DIVERGENCY THERE, AND MR. GLASSER FEELS THAT IF
I WOULD REPRESENT MR. KRETSKE THE JURY WOULD GET AN IDEA THAT THEY ARE
TOGETHER, AND ALL THE EVIDENCE - 

"THE COURT:  HOW WOULD IT BE IF I APPOINTED YOU AS ATTORNEY FOR
KRETSKE? 

"MR. STEWART:  THAT WOULD BE FOR YOUR HONOR TO DECIDE. 

"THE COURT:  I KNOW YOU ARE LOOKING OUT FOR EVERY POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE
DEFENSE THERE IS.  NOW, IF THE JURY UNDERSTOOD THAT WHILE YOU WERE
RETAINED BY MR. GLASSER THE COURT APPOINTED YOU AT THIS LATE HOUR TO
REPRESENT KRETSKE, WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT OF THE JURY ON THAT? 

"MR. STEWART:  YOUR HONOR COULD JUDGE THAT AS WELL AS I COULD. 

"THE COURT:  I THINK IT WOULD BE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT KRETSKE. 

"MR. GLASSER:  I THINK IT WOULD BE TOO, IF HE HAD MR. STEWART. 
THAT'S THE REASON I GOT MR. STEWART, BUT IF A DEFENDANT WHO HAS A
LAWYER REPRESENTING HIM IS ALLOWED TO ENTER AN OBJECTION, I WOULD LIKE
TO ENTER MY OBJECTION.  I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY OWN LAWYER REPRESENTING
ME. 

"THE COURT:  MR. MCDONNELL, YOU WILL HAVE TO STAY IN IT UNTIL MR.
KRETSKE GETS ANOTHER LAWYER, IF HE ISN'T SATISFIED WITH YOU. 

"(TO MR. KRETSKE) MR. KRETSKE, IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH MR.
MCDONNELL, YOU WILL HAVE TO HIRE ANOTHER LAWYER.  WE WILL PROCEED WITH
THE SELECTION OF THE JURY NOW." 

A COLLOQUY THEN ENSUED BETWEEN THE COURT, MCDONNELL AND KRETSKE WHEN
THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED: 

"MR. KRETSKE:  I CAN END THIS.  I JUST SPOKE TO MR. STEWART AND HE
SAID IF YOUR HONOR WISHES TO APPOINT HIM I THINK WE CAN ACCEPT THE
APPOINTMENT. 

"MR. STEWART:  AS LONG AS THE COURT KNOWS THE SITUATION.  I THINK
THERE IS SOMETHING TO THE FACT THAT THE JURY KNOWS WE CAN'T CONTROL
THAT. 

"MR. MCDONNELL:  THEN THE ORDER IS VACATED? 

"THE COURT:  THE ORDER APPOINTING MR. MCDONNELL IS VACATED AND MR.
STEWART IS APPOINTED ATTORNEY FOR MR. KRETSKE." 

GLASSER REMAINED SILENT.  STEWART THEREAFTER REPRESENTED GLASSER AND
KRETSKE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL AND WAS THE MOST ACTIVE OF THE ARRAY OF
DEFENSE COUNSEL. 

THE GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE THE PROTECTING BULWARKS
AGAINST THE REACH OF ARBITRARY POWER.  AMONG THOSE GUARANTEES IS THE
RIGHT GRANTED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO AN ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING IN A FEDERAL COURT "TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR
HIS DEFENSE."  "THIS IS ONE OF THE SAFEGUARDS DEEMED NECESSARY TO
INSURE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS OF LIFE AND LIBERTY," AND A FEDERAL
COURT CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVE AN ACCUSED, WHOSE LIFE OR LIBERTY
IS AT STAKE, OF THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S.
458, 462, 463.  EVEN AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL IS SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT THE DENIAL BY A STATE COURT OF A
REASONABLE TIME TO ALLOW THE SELECTION OF COUNSEL OF ONE'S OWN
CHOOSING, AND THE FAILURE OF THAT COURT TO MAKE AN EFFECTIVE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, MAY SO OFFEND OUR CONCEPT OF THE BASIC
REQUIREMENTS OF A FAIR HEARING AS TO AMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS
OF LAW CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287
U.S. 45, SO ARE WE CLEAR THAT THE "ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL" GUARANTEED BY
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT CONTEMPLATES THAT SUCH ASSISTANCE BE UNTRAMMELED
AND UNIMPAIRED BY A COURT ORDER REQUIRING THAT ONE LAWYER SHALL
SIMULTANEOUSLY REPRESENT CONFLICTING INTERESTS.  IF THE RIGHT TO THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL MEANS LESS THAN THIS, A VALUED CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARD IS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED.    TO PRESERVE THE PROTECTION OF
THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR HARDPRESSED DEFENDANTS, WE INDULGE EVERY
REASONABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE WAIVER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.  AETNA
INSURANCE CO. V. KENNEDY, 301 U.S. 389; OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 301 U.S. 292.  GLASSER NEVER AFFIRMATIVELY
WAIVED THE OBJECTION WHICH HE INITIALLY ADVANCED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
SUGGESTED THE APPOINTMENT OF STEWART.  WE ARE TOLD THAT, SINCE GLASSER
WAS AN EXPERIENCED ATTORNEY, HE TACITLY ACQUIESCED IN STEWART'S
APPOINTMENT BECAUSE HE FAILED TO RENEW VIGOROUSLY HIS OBJECTION AT THE
INSTANT THE APPOINTMENT WAS MADE.  THE FACT THAT GLASSER IS AN ATTORNEY
IS, OF COURSE, IMMATERIAL TO A CONSIDERATION OF HIS RIGHT TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  HIS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MAY BE
A FACTOR IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE ACTUALLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 464.  BUT IT
IS BY NO MEANS CONCLUSIVE. 

UPON THE TRIAL JUDGE RESTS THE DUTY OF SEEING THAT THE TRIAL IS
CONDUCTED WITH SOLICITUDE FOR THE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. 
SPEAKING OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE TRIAL COURT TO PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO
JURY TRIAL FOR AN ACCUSED, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND SAID THAT SUCH DUTY
"IS NOT TO BE DISCHARGED AS A MATTER OF ROTE, BUT WITH SOUND AND
ADVISED DISCRETION, WITH AN EYE TO AVOID UNREASONABLE OR UNDUE
DEPARTURES FROM THAT MODE OF TRIAL OR FROM ANY OF THE ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS THEREOF, AND WITH A CAUTION INCREASING IN DEGREE AS THE
OFFENSES DEALT WITH INCREASE IN GRAVITY."  PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281
U.S. 276, 312-313.  THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD PROTECT THE RIGHT OF AN
ACCUSED TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  "THIS PROTECTING DUTY
IMPOSES THE SERIOUS AND WEIGHTY RESPONSIBILITY UPON THE TRIAL JUDGE OF
DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS AN INTELLIGENT AND COMPETENT WAIVER BY THE
ACCUSED.  WHILE AN ACCUSED MAY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL, WHETHER
THERE IS A PROPER WAIVER SHOULD BE CLEARLY DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL
COURT, AND IT WOULD BE FITTING AND APPROPRIATE FOR THAT DETERMINATION
TO APPEAR UPON THE RECORD."  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 465. 

NO SUCH CONCERN ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE BASIC RIGHTS
OF GLASSER IS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD BEFORE US.  THE POSSIBILITY OF
THE INCONSISTENT INTERESTS OF GLASSER AND KRETSKE WAS BROUGHT HOME TO
THE COURT, BUT INSTEAD OF JEALOUSLY GUARDING GLASSER'S RIGHTS, THE
COURT MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING A SITUATION
WHICH RESULTED IN THE IMPAIRMENT OF THOSE RIGHTS.  FOR THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE PARTIES ACCEPTED THE APPOINTMENT INDICATES THAT THEY THOUGHT
THEY WERE ACCEDING TO THE WISHES OF THE COURT.  KRETSKE SAID THE
APPOINTMENT COULD BE ACCEPTED "IF YOUR HONOR WISHES TO APPOINT HIM
(STEWART)," AND STEWART IMMEDIATELY REPLIED:  "AS LONG AS THE COURT
KNOWS THE SITUATION.  I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE FACT THAT THE
JURY KNOWS WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT."  THE COURT MADE NO EFFORT TO
REASCERTAIN GLASSER'S ATTITUDE OR WISHES.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
TO HOLD THAT GLASSER FREELY, ALBEIT TACITLY, ACQUIESCED IN THE
APPOINTMENT OF STEWART IS TO DO VIOLENCE TO REALITY AND TO CONDONE A
DANGEROUS LAXITY ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL COURT IN THE DISCHARGE OF ITS
DUTY TO PRESERVE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED. 

GLASSER URGES THAT THE COURT'S APPOINTMENT OF STEWART AS COUNSEL FOR
KRETSKE EMBARRASSED AND INHIBITED STEWART'S CONDUCT OF HIS DEFENSE, IN
THAT IT PREVENTED STEWART FROM ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDING GLASSER'S RIGHT
TO HAVE INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE EXCLUDED AND FROM FULLY CROSS-EXAMINING
THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION. 

ONE BRANTMAN, AN ACCOUNTANT KNOWN TO KRETSKE AND RECOMMENDED
PROFESSIONALLY BY HIM TO A CLIENT, TESTIFIED THAT HE GAVE KRETSKE $3000
ON BEHALF OF ONE ABOSKETES.  HE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT KNOW
GLASSER.  STEWART SECURED A POSTPONEMENT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION FOR "IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT YOUR HONOR APPOINTED ME FOR MR. KRETSKE, I AM NOT
PREPARED TO CROSS-EXAMINE." 

ABOSKETES TOOK THE STAND IMMEDIATELY AFTER BRANTMAN AND TESTIFIED
THAT BRANTMAN TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS ABOUT TO BE INDICTED AND OFFERED TO
"FIX" THE CASE WITH SOMEONE IN THE FEDERAL BUILDING FOR $5000.  ABOUT
THE TIME OF THIS MEETING, GLASSER AND INVESTIGATOR BAILEY WERE
QUESTIONING ONE BROWN, WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED FOR OPERATING A STILL, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER ABOSKETES WAS CONNECTED WITH THAT STILL.  ABOSKETES
REFERRED FREQUENTLY TO GLASSER IN HIS TESTIMONY AND INDICATED THAT
GLASSER AND BRANTMAN WERE LINKED TOGETHER.  THUS HE TESTIFIED THAT
BRANTMAN TOLD HIM "THEY HAVE GOT THE GOODS ON YOU, MR. GLASSER HAS GOT
IT OUT OF BROWN."  WHEN QUESTIONED AS TO HIS KNOWLEDGE OF BRANTMAN'S
CONNECTIONS, ABOSKETES REPLIED:  "THERE WAS MORE THAN A FIX, IF
INDICTMENT WAS STOPPED.  HE (BRANTMAN) KNOWS MR. GLASSER AND THAT WAS
ALL THERE WAS TO IT."  AND, LATER:  "HE HAD CONNECTIONS TO STOP THINGS
LIKE THAT, HE HAD CONNECTIONS IN THE FEDERAL BUILDING."  AND, AGAIN: "I
COULD NOT BE SURE THAT THIS MAN (BRANTMAN) WAS NOT PUTTING A SHAKE ON
ME AND BE HONEST ABOUT IT.  I COULD NOT GO OVER AND ASK MR. GLASSER IF
MR. BRANTMAN WAS ABLE TO FIX HIM.  I THOUGHT BRANTMAN COULD, THOUGH.  I
WAS KIND OF HOPING HE COULD.  IF I DID NOT THINK HE COULD, I WOULD NOT
HAVE GIVEN HIM THE MONEY." 

BRANTMAN WAS RE-CALLED THREE DAYS LATER.  STEWART DECLINED CROSS
EXAMINATION.  THAT THIS DECISION WAS INFLUENCED BY A DESIRE TO PROTECT
KRETSKE CAN REASONABLY BE INFERRED FROM THE COLLOQUY BETWEEN THE COURT
AND STEWART BEFORE SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED.  AT THAT TIME STEWART TOLD THE
COURT THAT, LEST HIS FAILURE TO CROSS-EXAMINE BRANTMAN REFLECT ON
KRETSKE, THE REASON FOR HIS FORBEARANCE WAS THAT HE FEARED THAT
BRANTMAN WOULD TELL WORSE LIES.  BUT, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE INTERVENING
TESTIMONY OF ABOSKETES, A THOROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS INDICATED IN
GLASSER'S INTEREST TO FULLY DEVELOP BRANTMAN'S LACK OF REFERENCE TO, OR
KNOWLEDGE OF GLASSER.  STEWART'S FAILURE TO UNDERTAKE SUCH A CROSS
EXAMINATION LUMINATES THE CROSS-PURPOSES UNDER WHICH HE WAS LABORING. 

GLASSER ALSO ARGUES THAT CERTAIN TESTIMONY, INADMISSIBLE AS TO HIM,
WAS ALLOWED WITHOUT OBJECTION BY STEWART ON HIS BEHALF BECAUSE OF
STEWART'S DESIRE TO AVOID PREJUDICE TO KRETSKE.  THE TESTIMONY
COMPLAINED OF IS THAT OF ELMER SWANSON, FRANK HODOROWICZ, EDWARD DEWES,
AND STANLEY WASIELEWSKI AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY KRETSKE, NOT IN THE
PRESENCE OF GLASSER, AND HEARD BY THEM WHICH IMPLICATED GLASSER. 
GLASSER HAS RED HAIR, AND THE STATEMENTS MADE BY KRETSKE WERE THAT HE
WOULD HAVE TO SEE "RED," OR SEND THE MONEY OVER TO THE "RED-HEAD,"
ETC., IN CONNECTION WITH "FIXING" CASES.  FN5 

GLASSER CONTENDS THAT SUCH STATEMENTS CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE
HEARSAY AS TO HIM AND THAT STEWART FOREWENT THIS OBVIOUS OBJECTION LEST
AN OBJECTION ON BEHALF OF GLASSER ALONE LEAVE WITH THE JURY THE
IMPRESSION THAT THE TESTIMONY WAS TRUE AS TO KRETSKE.  THE GOVERNMENT
ATTACKS THIS ARGUMENT AS UNSOUND, AND, RELYING ON THE DOCTRINE THAT THE
DECLARATIONS OF ONE CONSPIRATOR IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE
CONSPIRACY MADE TO A THIRD PARTY ARE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST HIS CO
CONSPIRATORS, LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263, CONTENDS THAT THE
DECLARATIONS OF KRETSKE WERE ADMISSIBLE AGAINST GLASSER AND HENCE NO
PREJUDICE COULD ARISE FROM STEWART'S FAILURE TO OBJECT.  HOWEVER, SUCH
DECLARATIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE OVER THE OBJECTION OF AN ALLEGED CO
CONSPIRATOR, WHO WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN THEY WERE MADE, ONLY IF THERE IS
PROOF ALIUNDE THAT HE IS CONNECTED WITH THE CONSPIRACY.  MINNER V.
UNITED STATES, 57 F.2D 506; AND SEE NUDD V. BURROWS, 91 U.S. 426. 
OTHERWISE, HEARSAY WOULD LIFT ITSELF BY ITS OWN BOOTSTRAPS TO THE LEVEL
OF COMPETENT EVIDENCE. 

GLASSER URGES THAT, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE STATEMENTS COMPLAINED OF,
THERE IS NO PROOF CONNECTING HIM WITH THE CONSPIRACY.  CLEARLY THE
STATEMENTS WERE DAMAGING.  OTHER EVIDENCE TENDING TO CONNECT GLASSER
WITH THE CONSPIRACY IS RATHER MEAGRE BY COMPARISON.  FRANK HODOROWICZ
TESTIFIED THAT GLASSER APOLOGIZED TO HIM AFTER HIS INDICTMENT BECAUSE
HE, GLASSER, COULD DO NOTHING FOR HODOROWICZ.  HODOROWICZ ALSO
TESTIFIED THAT HE SENT A CASE OF WHISKEY TO GLASSER FOR CHRISTMAS,
1937.  VICTOR RAUBUNAS TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW GLASSER, KRETSKE AND
KAPLAN MEET ON THREE OCCASIONS.  AN ALCOHOL AGENT, DOWD, TESTIFIED THAT
GLASSER EXPELLED HIM FROM THE COURT-ROOM DURING THE TRIAL OF A LIBEL
CASE IN WHICH ROTH REPRESENTED THE SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT.  GLASSER
RELEASED RAUBUNAS AND ONE JOPPEK, WHO WERE PICKED UP ON DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS FOR SUSPECTED LIQUOR VIOLATIONS, WITHOUT EXTENSIVE
QUESTIONING.  WHETHER TESTIMONY SUCH AS THIS WAS SUFFICIENT TO
ESTABLISH THE PARTICIPATION OF GLASSER IN THE CONSPIRACY WE NEED NOT
DECIDE.  THAT IS BESIDE THE POINT.  THE IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT NO
OBJECTION WAS OFFERED BY STEWART ON GLASSER'S BEHALF TO THE STATEMENTS
COMPLAINED OF, AND THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT, WHEN THE COURT BROACHED
THE POSSIBILITY OF STEWART'S APPOINTMENT, STEWART TOLD THE COURT THAT
STATEMENTS OF THIS NATURE WERE NOT BINDING ON GLASSER.  THAT THIS IS
INDICATIVE OF STEWART'S STRUGGLE TO SERVE TWO MASTERS CANNOT SERIOUSLY
BE DOUBTED. 

THERE IS YET ANOTHER CONSIDERATION.  GLASSER WISHED THE BENEFIT OF
THE UNDIVIDED ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL OF HIS OWN CHOICE.  WE THINK THAT
SUCH A DESIRE ON THE PART OF AN ACCUSED SHOULD BE RESPECTED. 
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN OF
REPRESENTING ANOTHER PARTY MAY CONCEIVABLY IMPAIR COUNSEL'S
EFFECTIVENESS. 

TO DETERMINE THE PRECISE DEGREE OF PREJUDICE SUSTAINED BY GLASSER AS
A RESULT OF THE COURT'S APPOINTMENT OF STEWART AS COUNSEL FOR KRETSKE
IS AT ONCE DIFFICULT AND UNNECESSARY.  THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL IS TOO FUNDAMENTAL AND ABSOLUTE TO ALLOW COURTS TO INDULGE
IN NICE CALCULATIONS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF PREJUDICE ARISING FROM ITS
DENIAL.  CF. SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 116; TUMEY V. OHIO,
273 U.S. 510, 535; PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276, 292.  AND SEE
MCCANDLESS V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 342, 347.  OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE
WITH THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO SEE THAT AN ACCUSED HAS THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL IS ITS DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM EMBARRASSING COUNSEL IN THE DEFENSE
OF AN ACCUSED BY INSISTING, OR INDEED, EVEN SUGGESTING, THAT COUNSEL
UNDERTAKE TO CONCURRENTLY REPRESENT INTERESTS WHICH MIGHT DIVERGE FROM
THOSE OF HIS FIRST CLIENT, WHEN THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT DIVERGENCE IS
BROUGHT HOME TO THE COURT.  IN CONSPIRACY CASES, WHERE THE LIBERAL
RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE WIDE LATITUDE ACCORDED THE PROSECUTION MAY,
AND SOMETIMES DO, OPERATE UNFAIRLY AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT, IT
IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT THAT HE BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE UNDIVIDED
ASSISTANCE OF HIS COUNSEL WITHOUT THE COURT'S BECOMING A PARTY TO
ENCUMBERING THAT ASSISTANCE.  HERE THE COURT WAS ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY THAT CONFLICTING INTERESTS MIGHT ARISE WHICH WOULD DIMINISH
STEWART'S USEFULNESS TO GLASSER.  NEVERTHELESS STEWART WAS APPOINTED AS
KRETSKE'S COUNSEL.  OUR EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD LEADS TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT STEWART'S REPRESENTATION OF GLASSER WAS NOT AS
EFFECTIVE AS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IF THE APPOINTMENT HAD NOT BEEN MADE. 
WE HOLD THAT THE COURT THEREBY DENIED GLASSER HIS RIGHT TO HAVE THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. 
THIS ERROR REQUIRES THAT THE VERDICT BE SET ASIDE AND A NEW TRIAL
ORDERED AS TO GLASSER. 

BUT THIS ERROR DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE CONVICTIONS OF THE OTHER
PETITIONERS BE SET ASIDE.  TO SECURE A NEW TRIAL THEY MUST SHOW THAT
THE DENIAL OF GLASSER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS PREJUDICED THEM IN SOME
MANNER, FOR WHERE ERROR AS TO ONE DEFENDANT IN A CONSPIRACY CASE
REQUIRES THAT A NEW TRIAL BE GRANTED HIM, THE RIGHTS OF HIS CO
DEFENDANTS TO A NEW TRIAL DEPEND UPON WHETHER THAT ERROR PREJUDICED
THEM.  AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 20; UNITED STATES V. SOCONY
VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150; ROSSI V. UNITED STATES, 278 F. 349; BELFI
V. UNITED STATES, 259 F. 822; BROWNE V. UNITED STATES, 145 F. 1; DUFOUR
V. UNITED STATES, 37 APP. D.C. 497.  KRETSKE DOES NOT CONTEND THAT HE
WAS PREJUDICED BY THE APPOINTMENT, AND WE ARE CLEAR FROM THE RECORD
THAT NO PREJUDICE IS DISCLOSED AS TO HIM.  ROTH ARGUES THE POINT, BUT
HE WAS REPRESENTED THROUGHOUT THE CASE BY HIS OWN ATTORNEY.  WE FAIL TO
SEE THAT THE DENIAL OF GLASSER'S RIGHT TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL AFFECTED ROTH. 

TURNING NOW TO THE CONTENTIONS OF KRETSKE AND ROTH, WE ARE CLEAR THAT
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE VERDICT AGAINST BOTH.  AS NOTED
BEFORE, KRETSKE DOES NOT RAISE THE POINT OTHER THAN TO MENTION THAT THE
TESTIMONY AGAINST HIM WAS LARGELY THAT OF ACCOMPLICES AND UNSAVORY
CHARACTERS.  THE SHORT ANSWER TO THIS IS THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF A
WITNESS IS A QUESTION FOR THE JURY. 

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST ROTH DISCLOSES THE FOLLOWING SALIENT FACTS. 
ELMER SWANSON, CLEM DOWIAT AND ANTHONY HODOROWICZ WERE ARRESTED IN
CONNECTION WITH A STILL ON STONY ISLAND AVENUE.  FRANK HODOROWICZ, THE
HEAD OF THE HODOROWICZ CROWD, ARRANGED A MEETING WITH KRETSKE AT HIS
HARDWARE STORE TO "TAKE CARE" OF THE CASE.  HORTON WAS PRESENT AND
KRETSKE TOLD THE GROUP THAT THERE "WAS A LOT OF HEAT" ON THE CASE BUT
THAT IT COULD BE ARRANGED SO THAT NOBODY "WOULD GO TO JAIL" FOR $1200,
PART OF WHICH "RED" WAS TO GET.  A DOWN PAYMENT OF $500 WAS MADE.  WHEN
A LAWYER WAS SOUGHT, KRETSKE REFERRED THE PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANTS TO
ROTH.  HE REPRESENTED THEM AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER,
WHICH WAS CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF GLASSER.  AFTER AN INDICTMENT WAS
RETURNED, ROTH APPEARED FOR TRIAL TO FIND THAT THE CASE HAD BEEN
STRICKEN FROM THE DOCKET WITH LEAVE TO REINSTATE IT.  THE DEFENDANTS
WERE NEVER BROUGHT TO TRIAL.  NONE OF THE HODOROWICZES OR THEIR
ASSOCIATES PAID ROTH FOR HIS SERVICES.  ROTH TESTIFIED THAT HE RECEIVED
HIS FEE FROM KRETSKE.    IN JUNE 1938, GLASSER SECURED TWO INDICTMENTS,
ONE AGAINST FRANK, MIKE, AND PETER HODOROWICZ AND CLEM DOWIAT, AND THE
OTHER AGAINST FRANK AND PETER HODOROWICZ AND DOWIAT, FOR THE SALE OF
ILLICIT ALCOHOL.  FRANK PAID KRETSKE $250 AFTER THE INDICTMENTS. 
KRETSKE LATER TOLD HIM THAT NOTHING COULD BE DONE, AS INVESTIGATOR
BAILEY WAS PRESSING GLASSER.  FRANK THEN WENT TO SEE ROTH, WHO WITH
KRETSKE WENT TO SEE GLASSER.  ROTH LATER TOLD FRANK THAT NOTHING COULD
BE DONE AND SUGGESTED THAT HE GET AN ATTORNEY AND PREPARE TO DEFEND
HIMSELF.  ROTH'S EXPLANATION OF THIS WAS THAT HE WENT TO GLASSER TO
LEARN THE LATTER'S ATTITUDE TOWARD CLEMENCY FOR FRANK, AND THAT HE
SUGGESTED THE RETENTION OF TWO LAWYERS, ONE TO DEFEND FRANK, AND THE
OTHER TO REPRESENT THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS.  FRANK DISPENSED WITH
ROTH'S SERVICES AND WAS REPRESENTED AT THE TRIAL BY ONE HESS.  FRANK
PAID ROTH $50, BUT THIS WAS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBSTITUTING SOME
SECURITIES ON HIS BOND. 

EDWARD DEWES HAD BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEFENDANT KAPLAN IN A STILL
AT SPRING GROVE.  THAT CASE WAS TWICE PRESENTED TO A GRAND JURY BY
GLASSER BUT WITHDRAWN ON EACH OCCASION.  TWO DAYS BEFORE IT WAS
PRESENTED A THIRD TIME, THE DEFENDANT HORTON TOLD DEWES THAT KRETSKE
WISHED TO SEE HIM.  DEWES WENT TO KRETSKE'S OFFICE AND PAID HIM $100 SO
THAT HE WOULD NOT BE INDICTED.  DEWES WAS NO-BILLED IN THAT CASE. 
DEWES WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN A STILL ON THE FARM OF ONE BEISNER.  IT WAS
RAIDED AND SEVERAL WERE ARRESTED.  DEWES, VICTOR RAUBUNAS AND EDWARD
FARBER ASKED HORTON TO "FIX" THAT CASE, BUT WHEN HIS PRICE WAS THOUGHT
TOO HIGH, FARBER, WHO HAD KNOWN KRETSKE FOR SOME TIME, TOOK DEWES AND
RAUBUNAS TO KRETSKE'S OFFICE.  KRETSKE OFFERED TO TAKE CARE OF THE CASE
FOR $1200.  RAUBUNAS PAID $300 AND THEY WERE TOLD THEY WOULD NEED NO
LAWYER AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.  EVENTUALLY RAUBUNAS, DEWES AND
BEISNER WERE INDICTED.  DEWES THEREAFTER PAID KRETSKE $275 TO "FIX" HIS
CASE.  KRETSKE REFERRED THE MATTER TO ROTH, WHO REPRESENTED DEWES
THROUGHOUT HIS TRIAL.  DEWES TESTIFIED THAT HE NEITHER RETAINED NOR
PAID ROTH. 

PAUL SVEC, AN ASSOCIATE OF ONE YARRIO, WAS ARRESTED IN 1937 FOR A
LIQUOR VIOLATION.  HORTON ARRANGED HIS BOND.  IN SVEC'S PRESENCE HORTON
PICKED UP KRETSKE AND YARRIO.  THEY TOLD SVEC NOT TO WORRY.  HE WAS
THEREAFTER INDICTED AND CONVICTED.  WHILE AT LIBERTY PENDING AN APPEAL,
HE WAS AGAIN ARRESTED.  THIS TIME HE CALLED GLASSER, AND ACCORDING TO
THE LATTER, OFFERED HIM MONEY.  THE FOLLOWING MORNING GLASSER
INTERROGATED SVEC IN THE HEARING OF A SECRETED AGENT OF THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND SECURED ADMISSIONS THAT SVEC HAD NEVER PAID
GLASSER MONEY OR RECEIVED ANY PROMISES FROM HIM, AND THAT THE CALL HAD
BEEN AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE ARRESTING INVESTIGATORS.  SVEC TESTIFIED
THAT ROTH TOLD HIM THAT HE "STOOD UP O.K."  UNDER GLASSER'S
QUESTIONING.  SVEC WAS DISCHARGED AT THE COMMISSIONER'S HEARING. 

GLASSER PROSECUTED LEO VITALE FOR THE OPERATION OF A STILL.  HE WAS
CONVICTED AND RECEIVED A SENTENCE OF ONE HOUR IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MARSHAL.  VITALE'S WIFE, ROSE, WAS THE CLAIMANT IN A SUBSEQUENT LIBEL
ACTION AGAINST A CAR ALLEGEDLY USED TO TRANSPORT ILLICIT LIQUOR.  THE
CASE WAS REFERRED TO ROTH BY KRETSKE.  ROTH INFORMED THE COURT THAT
VITALE WAS "O.K."  AND THAT THE CAR WAS NOT USED FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES. 
AS WAS THE CUSTOM, THE CASE WAS TRIED ON THE AGENT'S REPORT.  IT WAS
DISMISSED.  INVESTIGATOR DOWD LATER INFORMED GLASSER THAT HE HAD HEARD
THAT VITALE HAD BOASTED THAT "HE GOT OUT OF THIS FOR NINE HUNDRED
DOLLARS." 

IN APRIL 1938, EDWARD AND WILLIAM WROBLEWSKI WERE INDICTED IN THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA.  THEY ENGAGED ROTH AS THEIR COUNSEL. 
THEY DID NOT REMEMBER HOW THEY MET ROTH.  WHEN ASKED BY THE COURT IF
ANYONE RECOMMENDED ROTH TO HIM, EDWARD ANSWERED:  "NO, SIR, I DON'T
REMEMBER WHETHER IT WAS A RUMOR ABOUT HIS NAME."  ACCORDING TO
ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, AN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN THAT
DISTRICT, ROTH APPEARED IN HIS OFFICE IN SEPTEMBER 1938 AND ASKED IF
THE WROBLEWSKIS HAD BEEN INDICTED.  CAMPBELL REPLIED THAT HE DID NOT
KNOW OFF-HAND BUT WOULD CHECK THE FILES.  ROTH THEN ASKED, IF THE FILES
SHOWED NO INDICTMENT, WHETHER SOME ARRANGEMENT COULD BE MADE SO THAT NO
INDICTMENT WOULD BE RETURNED.  HE OFFERED CAMPBELL $500 OR $1000.  WHEN
CAMPBELL REFUSED, ROTH SAID:  "WELL, THAT IS THE WAY WE HANDLE CASES IN
CHICAGO SOMETIMES."  THE WROBLEWSKIS WERE CONVICTED.  SUBSEQUENTLY,
ROTH ASKED CAMPBELL TO USE HIS INFLUENCE TO STOP THE INVESTIGATION IN
CHICAGO BY BAILEY WHICH RESULTED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

IT IS NOT FOR US TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE OR TO DETERMINE THE
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES.  THE VERDICT OF A JURY MUST BE SUSTAINED IF
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, TAKING THE VIEW MOST FAVORABLE TO THE
GOVERNMENT, TO SUPPORT IT.  UNITED STATES V. MANTON, 107 F.2D 834, 839,
AND CASES CITED.  PARTICIPATION IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY NEED NOT BE
PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE; A COMMON PURPOSE AND PLAN MAY BE INFERRED
FROM A "DEVELOPMENT AND A COLLOCATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES."  UNITED STATES
V. MANTON, SUPRA.  WE ARE CLEAR THAT, FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED
ABOVE, THE JURY COULD INFER THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY AND THE
PARTICIPATION OF ROTH IN IT.  ROTH'S STATEMENTS TO CAMPBELL IN THE
WROBLEWSKI MATTER, HIS SUGGESTION TO FRANK HODOROWICZ THAT HE SHOULD
GET A LAWYER AND PREPARE TO DEFEND HIMSELF WHEN THE CASE COULD NOT BE
"FIXED," THE FACT THAT HE RECEIVED NO FEES FROM THE HODOROWICZES WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF $50 IN CONNECTION WITH FRANK'S BOND, DEWES' TESTIMONY
THAT HE NEITHER RETAINED NOR PAID ROTH, ROTH'S COMMENDATION OF SVEC'S
BEARING UNDER GLASSER'S INTERROGATION, ALL FURNISH THE NECESSARY
SUPPORT FOR THE JURY'S VERDICT. 

THE OBJECTIONS OF KRETSKE AND ROTH WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF
CERTAIN EVIDENCE ARE WITHOUT MERIT.  THE REPORTS OF INVESTIGATORS OF
THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT ON STILLS AT WESTERN AVENUE AND AT SPRING GROVE,
OPERATED BY THE DEFENDANT KAPLAN AND HIS ASSOCIATES, WERE ADMITTED AS
GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 81A AND 113.  EACH CONTAINED STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM
PROSPECTIVE WITNESSES BY THE INVESTIGATORS, AND EACH GAVE A DESCRIPTION
OF THE PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANTS.  KAPLAN WAS REFERRED TO AS OF JEWISH
DESCENT, A BOOTLEGGER BY REPUTATION, AND MENTION WAS MADE OF THE ARREST
OF KAPLAN AND EDWARD DEWES IN CONNECTION WITH THE KILLING OF ONE
PINNA.  AT THE TIME EACH REPORT WAS ADMITTED THE TRIAL JUDGE INFORMED
THE JURY THAT IT WAS ADMITTED ONLY AGAINST GLASSER AND CONTINUED:  "AT
SOME FURTHER STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS I MAY ADVISE YOU WITH REFERENCE
TO ITS COMPETENCY AS TO THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, BUT FOR THE TIME BEING IT
WILL BE ADMISSIBLE ONLY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT GLASSER."  THE RECORD
BEFORE US CONTAINS NO INDICATION THAT THE JURY WAS LATER INFORMED THAT
THE EXHIBITS WERE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS OTHER THAN GLASSER. 
THE CLAIM OF KRETSKE AND ROTH, THAT THE ADMISSION OF THESE REPORTS WAS
PREJUDICIAL TO KAPLAN AND THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THAT ERROR, IGNORES THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ADMITTED AGAINST GLASSER
ALONE. 

NO REVERSIBLE ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO THE
TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER CAMPBELL WITH RELATION TO HIS DEALINGS WITH
ROTH.  TRIAL JUDGES HAVE A MEASURE OF DISCRETION IN ALLOWING TESTIMONY
WHICH DISCLOSES THE PURPOSE, KNOWLEDGE, OR DESIGN OF A PARTICULAR
PERSON.  BUTLER V. UNITED STATES, 53 F.2D 800; SIMPKINS V. UNITED
STATES, 78 F.2D 594, 598.  WE DO NOT THINK THE BOUNDS OF THAT
DISCRETION WERE EXCEEDED HERE.  THE STATEMENTS OF ROTH WERE NOT IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY, BUT THEY DID TEND TO CONNECT ROTH WITH
IT BY EXPLAINING HIS STATE OF MIND. 

THE JUDGE CONDUCTING A JURY TRIAL IN A FEDERAL COURT IS "NOT A MERE
MODERATOR, BUT IS THE GOVERNOR OF THE TRIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSURING
ITS PROPER CONDUCT."  QUERCIA V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 466, 469. 
UPON HIM RESTS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STRIVING FOR THAT ATMOSPHERE OF
PERFECT IMPARTIALITY WHICH IS SO MUCH TO BE DESIRED IN A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING.  PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE MADE REMARKS
PREJUDICIAL TO THEM, COMMITTED ACTS OF ADVOCACY, QUESTIONED THEM IN A
HOSTILE MANNER, UNDULY LIMITED CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND IN GENERAL FAILED
TO MAINTAIN AN IMPARTIAL ATTITUDE.  VARIOUS INCIDENTS IN SUPPORT OF
THOSE CONTENTIONS ARE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. 

THE COURT DID INTERROGATE SEVERAL WITNESSES, BUT IN THE MAIN SUCH
INTERROGATION WAS WITHIN ITS POWER TO ELICIT THE TRUTH BY AN
EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESSES.  UNITED STATES V. GROSS, 103 F.2D 11;
UNITED STATES V. BREEN, 96 F.2D 782.  IN ASKING ANTHONY HODOROWICZ
WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A FULL DISCLOSURE OF HIS CONNECTION WITH THE
STONY ISLAND STILL WHEN HE APPEARED BEFORE JUDGE WOODWARD, THE COURT
OBVIOUSLY WAS UNDER A MISAPPREHENSION OF THE NATURE OF THE APPEARANCE. 
IT WAS SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRAIGNMENT, AND OF COURSE NO
TESTIMONY WAS OFFERED.  MUCH IS MADE OF THIS, BUT AT THE TIME NO ONE
ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT THE NATURE OF THE APPEARANCE. 
STEWART LATER BROUGHT OUT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IT WAS ONLY AN
ARRAIGNMENT AND THAT THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR TESTIMONY ON THAT DAY. 

AFTER THE TESTIMONY OF ABOSKETES, THE COURT READ INTO THE RECORD THE
FACT THAT ABOSKETES WAS INDICTED IN WISCONSIN IN 1936 AND 1938, AND
THAT HE PLEADED GUILTY TO ONE INDICTMENT AND THAT THE OTHER WAS
DISMISSED.  IT IS, OF COURSE, IMPROPER FOR A JUDGE TO ASSUME THE ROLE
OF A WITNESS, BUT WE CANNOT HERE CONCLUDE THAT PREJUDICIAL ERROR
RESULTED.  ABOSKETES HAD BRIEFLY REFERRED TO HIS TROUBLES IN WISCONSIN
IN HIS TESTIMONY. 

THE ALLEGED UNDUE LIMITATION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION MERITS SCANT
ATTENTION.  THE EXTENT OF SUCH EXAMINATION RESTS IN THE SOUND
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT.  ALFORD V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 687. 
WE FIND NO ABUSE OF THAT DISCRETION. 

PERHAPS THE COURT DID NOT ATTAIN AT ALL TIMES THAT THOROUGHGOING
IMPARTIALITY WHICH IS THE IDEAL, BUT OUR EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD AS A
WHOLE LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE
PETITIONERS WERE NOT AFFECTED.  THE TRIAL WAS LONG AND THE INCIDENTS
RELIED ON BY PETITIONERS FEW.  WE MUST GUARD AGAINST THE MAGNIFICATION
ON APPEAL OF INSTANCES WHICH WERE OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE IN THEIR
SETTING.  CF. UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150,
240; GOLDSTEIN V. UNITED STATES, 63 F.2D 609; UNITED STATES V. WARREN,
120 F.2D 211. 

SEPARATE CONSIDERATION OF THE NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF ALLEGED
PREJUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WOULD
UNDULY EXTEND THIS OPINION.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THAT AFTER DUE
CONSIDERATION WE CONCLUDE THAT NO ONE INSTANCE, NOR THE COMBINATION OF
THEM ALL, CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

ALL THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THEY WERE DENIED AN IMPARTIAL TRIAL
BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGED EXCLUSION FROM THE PETIT JURY PANEL OF ALL WOMEN
NOT MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS.  IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL, GLASSER AND ROTH FILED AFFIDAVITS WHICH
ARE THE BASIS OF PETITIONERS' PRESENT CONTENTIONS.  KRETSKE DID NOT
FILE AN AFFIDAVIT, BUT HE URGES THE POINT HERE. 

GLASSER SWORE ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF THAT ALL THE NAMES OF WOMEN
PLACED IN THE BOX FROM WHICH THE PANEL WAS DRAWN WERE TAKEN FROM A LIST
FURNISHED THE CLERK OF THE COURT BY THE ILLINOIS LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS, AND PREPARED EXCLUSIVELY FROM ITS MEMBERSHIP, THAT THE WOMEN ON
THAT LIST HAD ATTENDED "JURY CLASSES WHOSE LECTURERS PRESENTED THE
VIEWS OF THE PROSECUTION," AND THAT WOMEN NOT MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE,
BUT OTHERWISE QUALIFIED, WERE SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED, BY REASON OF
WHICH AFFIANT "DID NOT HAVE A TRIAL BY A JURY FREE FROM BIAS,
PREJUDICE, AND PRIOR INSTRUCTIONS, AND AS A RESULT THEREOF THE JURY WAS
DISQUALIFIED AND THIS AFFIANT'S RIGHTS WERE PREJUDICED IN THAT HE WAS
DEPRIVED OF A TRIAL BY JURY GUARANTEED TO HIM BY THE LAWS AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND PARTICULARLY THE 5TH
AND 6TH AMENDMENT, ALL OF WHICH HE OFFERS TO PROVE."  THE SOURCE OF
GLASSER'S INFORMATION WAS STATED TO BE A THEN CURRENT ARTICLE, "WOMEN
AND THE LAW," IN THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL FOR APRIL
1940(VOL.  26, NO. 4).  ROTH'S AFFIDAVIT MERELY GAVE GLASSER AS HIS
SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND MADE NO OFFER OF PROOF.  THE COURT OVERRULED
THE MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE JURY WAS
COMPOSED OF SIX MEN AND SIX WOMEN. 

SINCE IT WAS FIRST RECOGNIZED IN MAGNA CARTA, TRIAL BY JURY HAS BEEN
A PRIZED SHIELD AGAINST OPPRESSION, BUT, WHILE PROCLAIMING TRIAL BY
JURY AS "THE GLORY OF THE ENGLISH LAW," BLACKSTONE WAS CAREFUL TO NOTE
THAT IT WAS BUT A "PRIVILEGE."  COMMENTARIES, BOOK 3, P. 379.  OUR
CONSTITUTION TRANSFORMS THAT PRIVILEGE INTO A RIGHT IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN A FEDERAL COURT.  THIS WAS RECOGNIZED BY JUSTICE STORY:
"WHEN OUR MORE IMMEDIATE ANCESTORS REMOVED TO AMERICA, THEY BROUGHT
THIS GREAT PRIVILEGE (TRIAL BY JURY IN CRIMINAL CASES) WITH THEM, AS
THEIR BIRTHRIGHT AND INHERITANCE, AS A PART OF THAT ADMIRABLE COMMON
LAW WHICH HAD FENCED ROUND AND INTERPOSED BARRIERS ON EVERY SIDE
AGAINST THE APPROACHES OF ARBITRARY POWER.  IT IS NOW INCORPORATED INTO
ALL OUR STATE CONSTITUTIONS AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTLY OBNOXIOUS TO
THE MOST CONCLUSIVE OBJECTION IF IT HAD NOT RECOGNIZED AND CONFIRMED IT
ON THE MOST SOLEMN TERMS."  2 STORY, CONST. SEC. 1779. 

LEST THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY BE NULLIFIED BY THE IMPROPER
CONSTITUTION OF JURIES, THE NOTION OF WHAT A PROPER JURY IS HAS BECOME
INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED WITH THE IDEA OF JURY TRIAL.  WHEN THE
ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION PROVIDED ONLY THAT "THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES,
EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT, SHALL BE BY JURY,"  FN6  THE PEOPLE AND
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, LEAVING NOTHING TO CHANCE, WERE QUICK TO
IMPLEMENT THAT GUARANTEE BY THE ADOPTION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WHICH
PROVIDES THAT THE JURY MUST BE IMPARTIAL.    FOR THE MECHANICS OF TRIAL
BY JURY WE REVERT TO THE COMMON LAW AS IT EXISTED IN THIS COUNTRY AND
IN ENGLAND WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED.  PATTON V. UNITED STATES,
281 U.S. 276.  BUT EVEN AS JURY TRIAL, WHICH WAS A PRIVILEGE AT COMMON
LAW, HAS BECOME A RIGHT WITH US, SO ALSO, WHATEVER LIMITATIONS WERE
INHERENT IN THE HISTORICAL COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF THE JURY AS A BODY OF
ONE'S PEERS DO NOT PREVAIL IN THIS COUNTRY.  OUR NOTIONS OF WHAT A
PROPER JURY IS HAVE DEVELOPED IN HARMONY WITH OUR BASIC CONCEPTS OF A
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND A REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.  FOR "IT IS PART OF
THE ESTABLISHED TRADITION IN THE USE OF JURIES AS INSTRUMENTS OF PUBLIC
JUSTICE THAT THE JURY BE A BODY TRULY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
COMMUNITY."  SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128, 130. 

JURORS IN A FEDERAL COURT ARE TO HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THOSE IN
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, AND THEY ARE TO BE SELECTED BY THE
CLERK OF THE COURT AND A JURY COMMISSIONER.  SECS. 275, 276 JUD.  CODE;
28 U.S.C. SECS. 411, 412.  THIS DUTY OF SELECTION MAY NOT BE
DELEGATED.  UNITED STATES V. MURPHY, 224 F. 554; IN RE PETITION FOR
SPECIAL GRAND JURY, 50 F.2D 973.  AND, ITS EXERCISE MUST ALWAYS ACCORD
WITH THE FACT THAT THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE JURY SYSTEM, AND,
INDEED, OUR DEMOCRACY ITSELF, REQUIRES THAT THE JURY BE A "BODY TRULY
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY," AND NOT THE ORGAN OF ANY SPECIAL
GROUP OR CLASS.  IF THAT REQUIREMENT IS OBSERVED, THE OFFICIALS CHARGED
WITH CHOOSING FEDERAL JURORS MAY EXERCISE SOME DISCRETION TO THE END
THAT COMPETENT JURORS MAY BE CALLED.  BUT THEY MUST NOT ALLOW THE
DESIRE FOR COMPETENT JURORS TO LEAD THEM INTO SELECTIONS WHICH DO NOT
COMPORT WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE JURY AS A CROSS-SECTION OF THE
COMMUNITY.  TENDENCIES, NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT, TOWARD THE SELECTION OF
JURORS BY ANY METHOD OTHER THAN A PROCESS WHICH WILL INSURE A TRIAL BY
A REPRESENTATIVE GROUP ARE UNDERMINING PROCESSES WEAKENING THE
INSTITUTION OF JURY TRIAL, AND SHOULD BE STURDILY RESISTED.  THAT THE
MOTIVES INFLUENCING SUCH TENDENCIES MAY BE OF THE BEST MUST NOT BLIND
US TO THE DANGERS OF ALLOWING ANY ENCROACHMENT WHATSOEVER ON THIS
ESSENTIAL RIGHT.  STEPS INNOCENTLY TAKEN MAY, ONE BY ONE, LEAD TO THE
IRRETRIEVABLE IMPAIRMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL LIBERTIES. 

THE DELIBERATE SELECTION OF JURORS FROM THE MEMBERSHIP OF PARTICULAR
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS DEFINITELY DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE TRADITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF JURY TRIAL.  NO MATTER HOW HIGH-PRINCIPLED AND IMBUED
WITH A DESIRE TO INCULCATE PUBLIC VIRTUE SUCH ORGANIZATIONS MAY BE, THE
DANGERS INHERENT IN SUCH A METHOD OF SELECTION ARE THE MORE REAL WHEN
THE MEMBERS OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS, FROM TRAINING OR OTHERWISE, ACQUIRE
A BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROSECUTION.  THE JURY SELECTED FROM THE
MEMBERSHIP OF SUCH AN ORGANIZATION IS THEN NOT ONLY THE ORGAN OF A
SPECIAL CLASS, BUT, IN ADDITION, IT IS ALSO OPENLY PARTISAN.  IF SUCH
PRACTICES ARE TO BE COUNTENANCED, THE HARD-WON RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY
BECOMES A THING OF DOUBTFUL VALUE, LACKING ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL
CHARACTERISTICS THAT HAVE MADE IT A CHERISHED FEATURE OF OUR
INSTITUTIONS. 

SO, IF THE PICTURE IN THIS CASE ACTUALLY IS AS ALLEGED IN GLASSER'S
AFFIDAVIT, WE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO SET ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL
OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AS A CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AND ORDER
A NEW TRIAL FOR ALL THE PETITIONERS.  BUT FROM THE RECORD BEFORE US WE
MUST CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONERS' SHOWING IS INSUFFICIENT.  THE
GOVERNMENT DID NOT CONTROVERT THE AFFIDAVITS BY COUNTERAFFIDAVITS OR
FORMAL DENIAL, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT ANY ARGUMENT
WAS HEARD ON THEM.  FROM THIS, PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE AFFIDAVITS ARE TO BE TAKEN AS TRUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
MOTION.  HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE PROSECUTION HAS
IMPLIEDLY, NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370, OR ACTUALLY, HALE V.
KENTUCKY, 303 U.S. 613, STIPULATED THAT AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF A
MOTION ALLEGING THE IMPROPER CONSTITUTION OF A JURY MAY BE ACCEPTED AS
PROOF.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A STIPULATION, IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE
MOVING PARTY TO INTRODUCE, OR TO OFFER, DISTINCT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF
THE MOTION; THE FORMAL AFFIDAVIT ALONE, EVEN THOUGH UNCONTROVERTED, IS
NOT ENOUGH.  SMITH V. MISSISSIPPI, 162 U.S. 592; TARRANCE V. FLORIDA,
188 U.S. 519; CF. BROWNFIELD V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 189 U.S. 426.  GLASSER,
IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, OFFERED TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN,
BUT THE RECORD IS BARREN OF ANY ACTUAL TENDER OF PROOF ON HIS PART. 
FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE COURT REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN
SUCH AN OFFER, IF IT WERE IN FACT MADE.  ROTH DID NOT EVEN MAKE AN
OFFER OF PROOF IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, AND KRETSKE DID NOT FILE ONE.  WHILE
IT IS ERROR TO REFUSE TO HEAR EVIDENCE OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF
ALLEGATIONS THAT A JURY WAS IMPROPERLY CONSTITUTED, CARTER V. TEXAS,
177 U.S. 442, THERE IS, AND, ON THE STATE OF THIS RECORD, CAN BE, NO
ASSERTION THAT SUCH ERROR WAS HERE COMMITTED.  THE FAILURE OF
PETITIONERS TO PROVE THEIR CONTENTION IS FATAL. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CONVICTION OF GLASSER MUST BE SET ASIDE AND THE
CAUSE AS TO HIM REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DIVISION
OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THE CONVICTIONS
OF PETITIONERS KRETSKE AND ROTH ARE IN ALL RESPECTS UPHELD.  NO. 30,
REVERSED.  NOS. 31 AND 32, AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE EITHER TO COMMIT ANY OFFENSE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN ANY
MANNER OR FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PARTIES DO ANY ACT
TO EFFECT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH OF THE PARTIES TO SUCH
CONSPIRACY SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE
THAN TWO YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN2  116 F.2D 690. 

FN3  ILL. REV. STAT., 1939, C. 78, SECS. 1 AND 25. 

FN4  SECTION 1 OF CHAPTER 78 OF THE ILLINOIS REVISED STATUTES, 1939,
APPLIES TO COUNTIES NOT HAVING JURY COMMISSIONERS (INTO WHICH CLASS THE
17 COUNTIES FALL) AND PROVIDES: 

"THE COUNTY BOARD OF EACH COUNTY SHALL, AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF ITS
MEETING, IN SEPTEMBER, IN EACH YEAR, OR AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, WHEN
NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT, MAKE A LIST OF SUFFICIENT
NUMBER, NOT LESS THAN ONE-TENTH OF THE LEGAL VOTERS OF EACH SEX OF EACH
TOWN OR PRECINCT OF THE COUNTY, GIVING THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF EACH
NAME ON THE LIST, TO BE KNOWN AS A JURY LIST." 

FN5  ELMER SWANSON TESTIFIED THAT WHEN MONEY WAS PAID TO KRETSKE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE STONY ISLAND STILL CASE KRETSKE SAID THAT PART OF
IT WOULD GO TO "RED OR DAN."  THE WITNESS UNDERSTOOD THIS TO REFER TO
GLASSER. 

FRANK HODOROWICZ TESTIFIED THAT HE GAVE $800 IN CURRENCY TO KRETSKE
TO SECURE FAVORABLE ACTION WITH REGARD TO A STILL AT 124 EAST 118TH
PLACE.  KRETSKE TOLD FRANK HE "HAD TO DELIVER THE MONEY TO RED." 
HODOROWICZ KNEW THIS MEANT GLASSER.  FRANK ATTEMPTED TO "FIX" A CASE
FOR ALBINA ZARRATTINI THROUGH KRETSKE, WHO DECLINED AFTER "HE TALKED TO
RED" BECAUSE ZARRATTINI TALKED TOO MUCH. 

AFTER FRANK HODOROWICZ WAS HIMSELF INDICTED HE WENT TO KRETSKE TO
"FIX" HIS CASE.  KRETSKE TOLD HIM THERE WAS "A LOT OF HEAT" ON THE CASE
AND "THEY GOT GLASSER OVER A BARREL, HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.  HE HAS TO
PUT YOU IN JAIL." 

WHEN EDWARD DEWES GAVE KRETSKE $100 SO THAT HE WOULD NOT BE INDICTED
IN CONNECTION WITH A STILL AT SPRING GROVE, KRETSKE TOLD HIM "HE WOULD
SEND IT OVER TO THE RED-HEAD IN THE FEDERAL BUILDING."  THE WITNESS
KNEW THIS MEANT GLASSER.  DEWES ALSO TESTIFIED THAT KRETSKE TOLD HIM
THAT HE, KRETSKE, HAD RESIGNED FROM THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
UNDER PRESSURE, AND THAT, "FOR HOLDING THE BAG," HE WAS TO RECEIVE
FAVORS FROM THE "RED-HEAD." 

STANLEY WASIELEWSKI TESTIFIED THAT HE HEARD KRETSKE TELL STANLEY
SLESUR THAT "I WILL TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING BETWEEN ME AND THE
REDHEAD."  BOTH WASIELEWSKI AND SLESUR WERE INVOLVED IN A STILL AT
DOWNERS GROVE. 

FN6  CONST., ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 3. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND I ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CONVICTION OF GLASSER,
AS WELL AS THAT OF HIS CO-DEFENDANTS, SHOULD STAND. 

IT IS A COMMONPLACE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE THAT
THE ACTUALITIES OF A LONG TRIAL ARE TOO OFTEN GIVEN A MERETRICIOUS
APPEARANCE ON APPEAL; THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LIVING TRIAL IS LOST IN
THE SEARCH FOR ERROR IN A DEAD RECORD.  TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION OF
GLASSER (A LAWYER WHO SERVED AS AN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR
MORE THAN FOUR YEARS) AFTER A TRIAL LASTING LONGER THAN A MONTH, ON THE
GROUND THAT HE WAS DENIED THE BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT "TO HAVE THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE," IS TO GIVE FRESH POINT TO THIS
REGRETTABLY FAMILIAR PHENOMENON.  FOR GLASSER HIMSELF MADE NO SUCH
CLAIM AT ANY OF THE CRITICAL OCCASIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS. 
NEITHER WHEN THE JUDGE APPOINTED STEWART TO ACT AS COUNSEL FOR BOTH
KRETSKE AND GLASSER, NOR AT ANY TIME DURING THE LONG TRIAL, NOR IN HIS
MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AND TO ARREST JUDGMENT, NOR IN HIS
PLEA TO THE COURT BEFORE SENTENCE WAS PASSED, NOR IN SETTING FORTH HIS
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL, DID GLASSER ASSERT, OR MANIFEST IN ANY WAY A
BELIEF, THAT HE WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  NOT
UNTIL TWENTY WEEKS AFTER STEWART HAD BECOME COUNSEL FOR THE CO
DEFENDANT KRETSKE, AND FIFTEEN WEEKS AFTER THE TRIAL HAD ENDED, DID
GLASSER DISCOVER THAT HE HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  THIS WAS OBVIOUSLY A LAWYER'S AFTERTHOUGHT.  IT DOES NOT
PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO TURN SUCH AN AFTERTHOUGHT
INTO AN IMAGINARY INJURY THAT IS REFLECTED NOWHERE IN THE
CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORD OF THE TRIAL, AND MAKE IT THE BASIS FOR
REVERSAL. 

THE GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSTRACTIONS.  WHETHER
THEIR SAFEGUARDS OF LIBERTY AND DIGNITY HAVE BEEN INFRINGED IN A
PARTICULAR CASE DEPENDS UPON THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE FACT
THAT GLASSER IS AN ATTORNEY, OF COURSE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS NOT
ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION WHICH IS AFFORDED ALL PERSONS BY THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT.  BUT THE FACT THAT HE IS AN ATTORNEY WITH SPECIAL EXPERIENCE
IN CRIMINAL CASES, AND NOT A HELPLESS ILLITERATE, MAY BE - AS WE
BELIEVE IT TO BE HERE - EXTREMELY RELEVANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER HE
WAS DENIED SUCH PROTECTION. 

IN THIS LIGHT, WHAT DOES THE RECORD SHOW?  BEFORE THE TRIAL GOT UNDER
WAY THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS PRESENTED WITH A PROBLEM CREATED BY THE
INABILITY OF ONE OF KRETSKE'S LAWYERS TO TRY THE CASE IN HIS BEHALF. 
KRETSKE WAS DISSATISFIED WITH HIS OTHER LAWYER, WHO PROFESSED TO BE
UNFAMILIAR WITH THE MANY DETAILS OF THE CASE.  UPON KRETSKE'S MOTION
FOR A CONTINUANCE, THE JUDGE WAS FACED WITH THE DIFFICULTY OF AVOIDING
EITHER DELAY OF THE TRIAL OR AN UNDESIRABLE SEVERANCE AS TO KRETSKE. 
ALL THE DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING GLASSER, AND THEIR COUNSEL WERE PRESENT
IN COURT.  THE JUDGE ASKED WHETHER STEWART, WHO HAD BEEN RETAINED BY
GLASSER, WOULD BE PREPARED TO ACT ALSO FOR KRETSKE.  THE RECORD GIVES
NO POSSIBLE GROUND FOR ANY INFERENCE OTHER THAN THAT THIS SUGGESTION
CAME FROM THE JUDGE AS A FAIR AND DISINTERESTED PROPOSAL TO SOLVE A NOT
UNFAMILIAR TRIAL PROBLEM.  IT IS NOT, AND INDEED COULD NOT BE,
CONTENDED THAT THE JUDGE'S SUGGESTION, ADDRESSED TO THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE DEFENDANTS, WAS NOT WHOLLY PROPER.  AND SO, WHEN STEWART RAISED
THE QUESTION OF A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND GLASSER HIMSELF
OBJECTED, SAYING "I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY OWN LAWYER REPRESENTING ME,"
THE JUDGE NEITHER REMONSTRATED NOR ARGUED.  HE PROMPTLY DROPPED HIS
SUGGESTION AND DIRECTED KRETSKE'S OTHER LAWYER, WHO WAS PRESENT BUT
WITH WHOM KRETSKE WAS DISSATISFIED, TO STAY IN THE CASE UNTIL KRETSKE
COULD HIRE SOMEONE TO HIS SATISFACTION.  THE FOOTNOTE SETS FORTH THE
FULL TEXT OF THIS EPISODE.  FN1 

THERE ENSUED A LONG DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE REPRESENTATION OF
KRETSKE.  DURING THIS DISCUSSION THE JUDGE NEVER AGAIN ADVERTED TO HIS
ORIGINAL SUGGESTION THAT STEWART ALSO REPRESENT KRETSKE.  KRETSKE
INTERRUPTED, AND THERE THEN OCCURRED IN GLASSER'S PRESENCE WHAT IS NOW
MADE THE BASIS FOR REVERSAL: 

"MR. KRETSKE:  I CAN END THIS.  I JUST SPOKE TO MR. STEWART AND HE
SAID IF YOUR HONOR WISHES TO APPOINT HIM I THINK WE CAN ACCEPT THE
APPOINTMENT. 

"MR. STEWART:  AS LONG AS THE COURT KNOWS THE SITUATION.  I THINK
THERE IS SOMETHING TO THE FACT THAT THE JURY KNOWS WE CAN'T CONTROL
THAT. 

"MR. MCDONNELL:  THEN THE ORDER IS VACATED? 

"THE COURT:  THE ORDER APPOINTING MR. MCDONNELL IS VACATED AND MR.
STEWART IS APPOINTED ATTORNEY FOR MR. KRETSKE." 

IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED
BY THE PARTIES, AND WAS NOT PRESSED UPON THEM BY THE JUDGE.  GLASSER,
WHO WAS PRESENT, RAISED NO OBJECTION AND MADE NO COMMENT. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT TIMELY OBJECTIONS BE MADE TO PREJUDICIAL RULINGS
OF A TRIAL JUDGE OFTEN HAS THE SEMBLANCE OF TRAPS FOR THE UNWARY AND
UNINFORMED.  BUT GLASSER WAS NEITHER UNWARY NOR UNINFORMED.  HIS
EXPERIENCE IN THE PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL CASES MAKES HIS SILENCE HERE
MOST SIGNIFICANT.  NOR WAS THIS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY HE HAD TO INDICATE
THAT EMBARRASSMENT WAS BEING CAUSED HIM BY STEWART'S REPRESENTATION OF
KRETSKE, LET ALONE THAT HE DEEMED IT A DENIAL OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  IF HE WERE LABORING UNDER A HANDICAP, HE WOULD HAVE MADE IT
KNOWN AT THE TIMES WHEN HE FELT IT MOST - DURING THE LONG COURSE OF THE
TRIAL, IN HIS MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT, IN HIS
EXTENDED PLEA TO THE COURT BEFORE SENTENCE WAS PASSED, AND FINALLY
WHEN, ON APRIL 26, 1940, OVER HIS OWN SIGNATURE HE GAVE TWENTY GROUNDS
FOR APPEAL BUT DID NOT MENTION THIS ONE.  THE LONG PERIOD OF
UNINTERRUPTED SILENCE CONCERNING HIS AFTER-DISCOVERED INJURY NEGATIVES
ITS EXISTENCE.  WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT ACQUIESCENCE IN A
JUDGE'S RULING COULD BE, IF THIS RECORD DOES NOT SHOW IT.  FN2    A
FAIR READING OF THE RECORD THUS PRECLUDES THE INFERENCE THAT THE JUDGE
FORCED UPON GLASSER A SITUATION WHICH HOBBLED HIM IN HIS DEFENSE.  TO
BE SURE, HE DID SAY AT FIRST THAT HE WOULD LIKE HIS LAWYER TO REPRESENT
HIM ALONE.  BUT HE PLAINLY ACQUIESCED IN THE ARRANGEMENT WHICH, AFTER
CONSULTATION AT THE DEFENSE TABLE, WAS PROPOSED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE AND
WHICH THE JUDGE ACCEPTED.  A CONSPIRACY TRIAL PRESENTS COMPLICATED
QUESTIONS OF STRATEGY FOR THE DEFENSE.  THERE ARE ADVANTAGES AND
DISADVANTAGES IN HAVING SEPARATE COUNSEL FOR EACH DEFENDANT OR A SINGLE
COUNSEL FOR MORE THAN ONE.  JOINT REPRESENTATION IS A MEANS OF INSURING
AGAINST RECIPROCAL RECRIMINATION.  A COMMON DEFENSE OFTEN GIVES
STRENGTH AGAINST A COMMON ATTACK.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS COULD NOT HAVE
ESCAPED A LAWYER OF GLASSER'S EXPERIENCE.  HIS THOROUGH ACQUIESCENCE IN
THE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH A DENIAL OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

A BELATED SHOWING THAT GLASSER WAS ACTUALLY PREJUDICED BY THE JUDGE'S
ACTION IS NOW ATTEMPTED.  THIS HAS TWO ASPECTS:  (1) STEWART'S FAILURE
TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS BRANTMAN, AND (2) HIS FAILURE TO MAKE
OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF GLASSER TO THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE. 

(1)  THE BRANTMAN EPISODE EVAPORATES UPON EXAMINATION.  HIS ONLY
TESTIMONY RELATING TO GLASSER WAS THAT HE DID NOT KNOW HIM.  THIS WAS
BROUGHT OUT FULLY AND DISTINCTLY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION.  FN3  THAT IT
HAD BEEN AMPLY ESTABLISHED, GLASSER HIMSELF RECOGNIZED IN HIS ADDRESS
TO THE COURT BEFORE SENTENCE.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW CROSS
EXAMINATION WOULD HAVE BEEN OF ANY FURTHER BENEFIT TO GLASSER.  IN ANY
EVENT, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT STEWART ABSTAINED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING
BRANTMAN NOT BECAUSE HE FELT HIMSELF INHIBITED BY ANY CONFLICT OF
INTEREST BUT BECAUSE, AS HE TOLD THE JUDGE AFTER VERDICT, HE THOUGHT
THAT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION BRANTMAN "WOULD BE TELLING WORSE LIES." 

(2)  IT IS SAID THAT STEWART'S FAILURE TO OBJECT, ON BEHALF OF
GLASSER, TO CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN ITSELF PROVES THAT STEWART FELT HIMSELF
RESTRICTED - WHOLLY REGARDLESS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SUCH EVIDENCE. 
NO EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE AGAINST GLASSER IS AVOUCHED.  INDEED WE ARE
TOLD THAT IT IS "BESIDE THE POINT" THAT THE EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE. 
CAN IT BE THAT A LAWYER WHO FAILS TO MAKE FRIVOLOUS OBJECTIONS TO
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IS THEREBY DENYING HIS CLIENT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL? 

FN1  "MR. STEWART:  MAY I MAKE THIS STATEMENT ABOUT THAT, JUDGE?  WE
WERE TALKING ABOUT IT - WE WERE ALL TRYING TO GET ALONG TOGETHER.  I
FILED AN AFFIDAVIT, OR I DID ON THE BEHALF OF MR. GLASSER, POINTING OUT
SOME LITTLE INCONSISTENCY IN THE DEFENSE, AND THE MAIN PART OF IT IS
THIS:  THERE WILL BE CONVERSATIONS HERE WHERE MR. GLASSER WASN'T
PRESENT, WHERE PEOPLE HAVE SEEN MR. KRETSKE AND THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT,
THAT THEY GAVE MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF GLASSER, THAT IS NOT BINDING ON
MR. GLASSER, AND THERE IS A DIVERGENCY THERE, AND MR. GLASSER FEELS
THAT IF I WOULD REPRESENT MR. KRETSKE THE JURY WOULD GET AN IDEA THAT
THEY ARE TOGETHER, AND ALL THE EVIDENCE - 

THE COURT:  HOW WOULD IT BE IF I APPOINTED YOU AS ATTORNEY FOR MR.
KRETSKE? 

MR. STEWART:  THAT WOULD BE FOR YOUR HONOR TO DECIDE. 

THE COURT:  I KNOW YOU ARE LOOKING OUT FOR EVERY POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE
DEFENSE THERE IS.  NOW, IF THE JURY UNDERSTOOD THAT WHILE YOU WERE
RETAINED BY MR. GLASSER THE COURT APPOINTED YOU AT THIS LATE HOUR TO
REPRESENT KRETSKE, WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT OF THE JURY ON THAT? 

MR. STEWART:  YOUR HONOR COULD JUDGE THAT AS WELL AS I COULD. 

THE COURT:  I THINK IT WOULD BE FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT KRETSKE. 

MR. GLASSER:  I THINK IT WOULD BE TOO, IF HE HAD MR. STEWART.  THAT'S
THE REASON I GOT MR. STEWART, BUT IF A DEFENDANT WHO HAS A LAWYER
REPRESENTING HIM IS ALLOWED TO ENTER AN OBJECTION, I WOULD LIKE TO
ENTER MY OBJECTION.  I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY OWN LAWYER REPRESENTING
ME. 

THE COURT:  MR. MCDONNELL, YOU WILL HAVE TO STAY IN IT UNTIL MR.
KRETSKE GETS ANOTHER LAWYER, IF HE ISN'T SATISFIED WITH YOU.  (TO MR.
KRETSKE) MR. KRETSKE, IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH MR. MCDONNELL, YOU
WILL HAVE TO HIRE ANOTHER LAWYER.  WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE SELECTION
OF THE JURY NOW." 

FN2  STEWART WAS DESIGNATED TO REPRESENT KRETSKE ON FEBRUARY 6, 1940,
WHEN THE TRIAL BEGAN.  THE JURY BROUGHT IN ITS VERDICT ON MARCH 8.  THE
MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL AND IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT WERE DENIED ON APRIL
23, AND ON THE SAME DAY THE DEFENDANTS WERE SENTENCED.  ON APRIL 26,
GLASSER FILED A NOTICE SETTING FORTH TWENTY GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITHOUT
SUGGESTING THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED HIS RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL.  ON JUNE 27, GLASSER AND THE TWO OTHER PETITIONERS FILED A
"JOINT AND SEVERAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS," FOR THE FIRST TIME ASSERTING
THAT:  "THE COURT ERRED IN APPOINTING THE EMPLOYED COUNSEL OF DEFENDANT
DANIEL D. GLASSER TO REPRESENT DEFENDANT NORTON I. KRETSKE, TO THE
PREJUDICE OF THE DEFENDANTS." 

FN3  "Q.  DO YOU KNOW MR. GLASSER? 

A. NO, SIR. 

Q. DID YOU EVER SEE HIM BEFORE THE TIME YOU GOT THIS MONEY? 

A. I HAVE SEEN HIM, I THINK I MIGHT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED TO THE MAN
ONCE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS BEFORE I GOT THAT MONEY. 

Q. YOU NEVER HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH HIM IN ANY EVENT? 

A. NO, SIR. 

Q. WHAT? 

A. NO, SIR." 
..END :















HALLIDAY V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 94 


NO. 101.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1942.  - 116
F.2D 812, REVERSED. 


1.  EVIDENCE HELD SUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE JURY ON THE QUESTION WHETHER
PETITIONER, HOLDER OF A WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY EXPIRING OCTOBER 31,
1920, WAS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED ON OR BEFORE THAT DAY, AND
THEREAFTER.  P. 96. 

2.  IN PROVING THAT THE INSURED BECAME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY
DISABLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF HIS WAR RISK CONTRACT, EVIDENCE OF
HIS CONDUCT AND CONDITION DURING ENSUING YEARS IS RELEVANT.  P. 98. 

3.  IN AN ACTION ON A WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY INFERENCES MAY BE
DRAWN UNFAVORABLE TO A CLAIM OF TOTAL AND PERMANENT INJURY FROM THE
FAILURE OF THE INSURED TO SECURE MEDICAL TREATMENT WHICH HE MIGHT HAVE
HAD.  P. 99. 

4.  IN AN ACTION ON A WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY WHEREIN IT WAS
CLAIMED THAT THE INSURED BECAME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED BEFORE
OCTOBER 31, 1920, THE DATE OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE POLICY, AND
REMAINED SO, IT WAS ERROR FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF
HIS CONDITION SUBSEQUENTLY TO DECEMBER 9, 1935, WHEN HE WAS ADJUDGED
INCOMPETENT BY A COUNTY PROBATE COURT.  REFUSAL TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF
HIS CONDITION AFTER THAT DATE, THOUGH ERRONEOUS, WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO
THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE.  P. 100. 

HALLIDAY V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 588, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF HALLIDAY IN AN
ACTION ON A WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONER, THROUGH HIS COMMITTEE, ON A
$10,000 WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT
PETITIONER HAD BECOME PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED BY APRIL 2,
1919, THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED BY THE ARMY.  THE
INSURANCE CONTRACT WAS IN EFFECT ON THAT DATE AND REMAINED IN EFFECT
UNTIL OCTOBER 31, 1920.  AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, THE
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS DENIED.  THE JURY
RETURNED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER AND FOUND THAT HE HAD BECOME
PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED BY APRIL 2, 1919.  THE GOVERNMENT
MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL, THE MOTION WAS DENIED, AND JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED
ON THE VERDICT.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  116
F.2D 812.  IT HELD THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE
JURY AND IT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO
SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE
GOVERNMENT. 

PETITIONER SOUGHT CERTIORARI ON TWO GROUNDS:  THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
FOR THE JURY; AND THAT, EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT, UNDER
RULE 50(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT A
NEW TRIAL.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, AS WE HAD IN BERRY V. UNITED STATES
FN2  AND CONWAY V. O'BRIEN,  FN3  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION CONCERNING RULE 50(B).  HOWEVER, AS IN THOSE CASES, WE DO NOT
REACH THAT PROBLEM, SINCE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT. 

THE INSURANCE CONTRACT, THE ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH AUTHORIZED IT,  FN4
AND THE REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THAT ACT  FN5  OBLIGED
PETITIONER TO PROVE THAT HE WAS PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED ON OR
BEFORE OCTOBER 31, 1920, THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF THE CONTRACT.  WE
THINK THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH, IF BELIEVED, THE JURY COULD HAVE
DRAWN THIS CONCLUSION. 

PERIOD PRIOR TO OCTOBER 31, 1920.  PETITIONER APPEARED TO HIS FRIENDS
AND NEIGHBORS AS A NORMAL AND HEALTHY YOUNG MAN BEFORE HIS INDUCTION
INTO THE ARMY ON JUNE 23, 1918.  IN AUGUST HE SAILED FOR FRANCE, AND IN
SEPTEMBER HE INJURED HIS BACK AND WAS ADMITTED TO A CAMP HOSPITAL. 
FROM THAT TIME UNTIL HIS DISCHARGE, HE WAS EXAMINED ON SEVERAL
OCCASIONS BY ARMY PHYSICIANS.  THEIR REPORTS REVEAL THAT HE WAS "VERY
NERVOUS" AND THAT HE GAVE "IMPRESSIONS OF NEURASTHENIA." 

WHILE MUCH OF THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT SPECIFIC AS TO TIME, SEVERAL OF
THE WITNESSES DESCRIBED THE APPEARANCE AND BEHAVIOR OF THE PETITIONER
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HIS DISCHARGE IN APRIL, 1919.  THE JURY WAS
CLEARLY WARRANTED IN REGARDING THEIR TESTIMONY AS APPLICABLE TO THE
PERIOD DURING WHICH THE INSURANCE POLICY REMAINED IN FORCE. 

DR. J. N. LAND, A GENERAL PRACTITIONER WHO HAD BEEN "THE FAMILY
PHYSICIAN OF THE HALLIDAY FAMILY" AND WHO HAD KNOWN PETITIONER FROM
INFANCY, TESTIFIED THAT, FROM 1919 ON, PETITIONER WAS THE VICTIM OF
PSYCHONEUROSIS AND HYPOCHONDRIA.  THESE ILLS CAUSED HIM TO TALK ABOUT
HIMSELF CONSTANTLY, TO IMAGINE THE EXISTENCE OF SYMPTOMS, AND TO BECOME
VERY UNFRIENDLY AND SUSPICIOUS.  THE WITNESS "WOULD NOT HAVE ADVISED
HIM TO DO ANY WORK SINCE HE HAS BEEN OUT OF THE ARMY," AND WAS OF THE
OPINION THAT WORK "WOULD HAVE BEEN HARMFUL TO HIM" AND WOULD HAVE
RESULTED IN "A COMPLETE COLLAPSE."  AT THE TIME OF HIS DISCHARGE FROM
THE ARMY, THE DOCTOR "DIDN'T HOLD ANY HOPE FOR HIS RECOVERY."  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED THIS TESTIMONY OF "LITTLE PROBATIVE
FORCE," CHIEFLY BECAUSE OF DR. LAND'S ADMISSION THAT HE HAD NOT
EXAMINED PETITIONER PROFESSIONALLY UNTIL ABOUT 1932.  BUT THE DOCTOR
TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD SEEN PETITIONER "ON THE STREETS OR IN A
DRUGSTORE" "AT LEAST TWO OR THREE TIMES A YEAR, POSSIBLY MORE ...  ALL
THE WAY FROM 1919."  PETITIONER TALKED TO HIM "EVERY CHANCE HE HAS GOT
SINCE 1919."  IN THE COURSE OF THESE CONVERSATIONS PETITIONER WOULD
DESCRIBE HIS CONDITION AT LENGTH AND ASK THE WITNESS TO DO SOMETHING
FOR HIM.  WHILE THE CIRCUIT COURT MAY HAVE REGARDED THE PROBATIVE FORCE
OF THIS EVIDENCE AS "LITTLE," IT WAS CLEARLY PROPER FOR THE JURY TO
CONCLUDE FROM IT AND FROM THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF SMALL TOWN LIFE THAT
THESE ENCOUNTERS AND HIS EARLIER INTIMACY WITH THE HALLIDAY FAMILY
AFFORDED DR. LAND AN OPPORTUNITY TO FORM A RELIABLE ESTIMATE OF
PETITIONER'S CONDITION. 

OTHER WITNESSES, INCLUDING HIS WIFE AND BROTHERS AND NEIGHBORS,
TESTIFIED THAT WHEN HE RETURNED FROM THE WAR PETITIONER "WAS SUSPICIOUS
OF EVERYBODY," "DIDN'T SEEM TO BE THE SAME MAN," "SEEMED TO BE A MAN
THAT DIDN'T HAVE A GRIP ON HIMSELF," "DIDN'T HAVE THE BEST CONTROL OF
HIMSELF."  THEY DESCRIBED HIM AS "A PHYSICAL WRECK," "NERVOUS," "NOT
RIGHT," "A COMPLETE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL WRECK, VERY BADLY TORN UP
PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY."  AND ONE BROTHER TESTIFIED THAT PETITIONER'S
CONDITION UPON HIS RETURN WAS "PRACTICALLY THE SAME AS IT IS TODAY." 

PERIOD FOLLOWING OCTOBER 31, 1920.  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT TOTAL AND
PERMANENT DISABILITY PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT
MUST BE ESTABLISHED, EVIDENCE AS TO PETITIONER'S CONDUCT AND CONDITION
DURING THE ENSUING YEARS IS CERTAINLY RELEVANT.  IT IS A COMMONPLACE
THAT ONE'S STATE OF MIND IS NOT ALWAYS DISCERNIBLE IN IMMEDIATE EVENTS
AND APPEARANCES, AND THAT ITS MEASUREMENT MUST OFTEN AWAIT A SLOW
UNFOLDING.  THIS DIFFICULTY OF DIAGNOSIS AND THE ESSENTIAL CHARITY OF
ORDINARY MEN MAY FREQUENTLY COMBINE TO DELAY THE FRANK RECOGNITION OF A
DISEASED MIND.  MOREOVER, THE TOTALITY AND PARTICULARLY THE PERMANENCE
OF THE DISABILITY AS OF 1920 ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF NO BETTER PROOF THAN
THAT TO BE FOUND IN PETITIONER'S PERSONAL HISTORY FOR THE ENSUING 15
YEARS.  FN6 

PETITIONER'S WIFE TESTIFIED THAT DURING THIS PERIOD HE WAS UNABLE TO
DO A FULL DAY'S WORK, THAT HE THREATENED TO COMMIT SUICIDE AND TO KILL
HER AND THEIR CHILDREN, AND THAT HE FEARED ATTEMPTS TO POISON HIM.  SHE
STATED THAT, ALTHOUGH THEY RENTED ONE FARM AND LATER BOUGHT BUT NEVER
PAID FOR ANOTHER, THEY HADN'T "DONE ANY FARMING MUCH" AND HAD "JUST HAD
LITTLE PATCHES," AND THAT SHE AND HIRED HANDS HAD BEEN RESPONSIBLE EVEN
FOR THIS LIMITED ENTERPRISE.  DR. LAND TESTIFIED THAT THE MENTAL
DISORDER HAD GRADUALLY PROGRESSED SINCE THE WAR. 

THE REPORTS OF GOVERNMENT MEDICAL EXAMINERS AND THE RECORDS OF
GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS REVEAL A DIAGNOSIS OF HYPOCHONDRIA ON FEBRUARY 14,
1921.  AND ON NOVEMBER 24, 1925 PETITIONER WAS FOUND TO BE
PSYCHONEUROTIC AND NEURASTHENIC.  ON THAT DATE, HE INFORMED THE MEDICAL
EXAMINER THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO WORK, THAT HE LACKED CONFIDENCE, AND
THAT HE WAS OFTEN DEPRESSED AND SEIZED BY FEAR.  HE COMPLAINED OF "A
GREAT MANY THINGS WHICH PHYSICAL EXAMINATION FAILS TO REVEAL."  REPORTS
OF SUBSEQUENT EXAMINATIONS UP TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 11, 1935, CONTAIN
SIMILAR INFORMATION AND DIAGNOSES.  FINALLY ON DECEMBER 9, 1935, AT THE
INSTANCE OF DR. LAND, PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED INCOMPETENT BY A COUNTY
PROBATE COURT AND HIS WIFE WAS APPOINTED AS A COMMITTEE TO HANDLE HIS
AFFAIRS. 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED
THAT "INSURED'S FAILURE TO SECURE ADEQUATE HOSPITALIZATION" LEAVES IT
"HIGHLY SPECULATIVE WHETHER INSURED'S AILMENTS, WHATEVER THESE MAY HAVE
BEEN, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURED BY THE MEDICAL TREATMENT WHICH WAS IN
HIS POTENTIAL GRASP."  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT EVIDENCE OF THE
FAILURE OF ATTEMPTED TREATMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHLY PERSUASIVE OF THE
PERMANENCE OF PETITIONER'S DISABILITY.  AND THE JURY WAS ENTITLED TO
DRAW INFERENCES UNFAVORABLE TO HIS CLAIM FROM THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
EVIDENCE.  HOWEVER, THIS WAS BUT ONE OF THE MANY FACTORS WHICH THE JURY
WAS FREE TO CONSIDER IN REACHING ITS VERDICT.  IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE
OF A MENTAL DISORDER OF MORE THAN 15 YEARS DURATION, IT CAN HARDLY BE
SAID THAT THE ABSENCE OF THIS SINGLE ELEMENT OF PROOF WAS FATAL TO
PETITIONER'S CLAIM.  MOREOVER, INFERENCES FROM FAILURE TO SEEK
HOSPITALIZATION AND TREATMENT MUST BE DRAWN WITH THE UTMOST CAUTION IN
CASES OF MENTAL DISORDER, WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT ONE OF THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE VERY SICKNESS ITSELF IS FEAR AND
SUSPICION OF HOSPITALS AND INSTITUTIONS. 

ALTHOUGH IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO ITS DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED AND NOTED ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL TO ADMIT
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER'S CONDITION SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 9, 1935, THE
DATE ON WHICH PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED INCOMPETENT BY THE COUNTY PROBATE
COURT.  FN7  WE THINK THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S RULING WAS ERRONEOUS,
BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT IT WAS SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE
GOVERNMENT.  NEITHER IN THE DISTRICT COURT NOR IN THIS COURT HAS THE
GOVERNMENT SUGGESTED ITS ABILITY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FROM THE PERIOD
SUBSEQUENT TO 1935 WHICH WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER THE STATE OF THE
RECORD. 

THE CASE IS REMANDED TO PERMIT THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "WHENEVER A MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT MADE AT THE CLOSE OF
ALL THE EVIDENCE IS DENIED OR FOR ANY REASON IS NOT GRANTED, THE COURT
IS DEEMED TO HAVE SUBMITTED THE ACTION TO THE JURY SUBJECT TO A LATER
DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE MOTION.  WITHIN 10
DAYS AFTER THE RECEPTION OF A VERDICT, A PARTY WHO HAS MOVED FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT MAY MOVE TO HAVE THE VERDICT AND ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED
THEREON SET ASIDE AND TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS
MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT; OR IF A VERDICT WAS NOT RETURNED SUCH
PARTY, WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE JURY HAS BEEN DISCHARGED, MAY MOVE FOR
JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  A
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE JOINED WITH THIS MOTION, OR A NEW TRIAL
MAY BE PRAYED FOR IN THE ALTERNATIVE.  IF A VERDICT WAS RETURNED THE
COURT MAY ALLOW THE JUDGMENT TO STAND OR MAY REOPEN THE JUDGMENT AND
EITHER ORDER A NEW TRIAL OR DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE
REQUESTED VERDICT HAD BEEN DIRECTED.  IF NO VERDICT WAS RETURNED THE
COURT MAY DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE REQUESTED VERDICT HAD
BEEN DIRECTED OR MAY ORDER A NEW TRIAL." 

FN2  312 U.S. 450. 

FN3  312 U.S. 492. 

FN4  WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, C. 105, SEC. 402, 40
STAT. 409. 

FN5  BULLETIN NO. 1, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, REGULATIONS & PROCEDURE,
UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, VOLUME II, PP. 1233-1237. 

FN6  THE TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY:  "ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AS
TO HIS CONDITION IN LATER YEARS, HOWEVER, IS TO BE CONSIDERED BY YOU
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE INSURED BECAME IN FACT
PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED ON OR BEFORE APRIL 2, 1919, OR BEFORE
AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OR OCTOBER, 1920." 

FN7  THE SAME RULING WAS EMBODIED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :























SOUTHPORT CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 315 U.S. 100 


NO. 67.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - DECIDED JANUARY 19, 1942.  - 117
F.2D 90, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN APPLICATION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, UNDER SEC. 10(E)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD, IS ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE
COURT.  P. 104. 

2.  A LABOR BOARD ORDER REQUIRED A TEXAS CORPORATION, ITS OFFICERS,
AGENTS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, TO DESIST FROM CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES; TO OFFER REINSTATEMENT TO EMPLOYEES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
DISCRIMINATORILY DISCHARGED; TO GRANT THEM BACK PAY; TO POST CERTAIN
NOTICES AT ITS TEXAS REFINERY, ETC.  PENDING A PETITION OF THE BOARD TO
ENFORCE THE ORDER, THE CORPORATION APPLIED TO THE COURT UNDER SEC.
10(E) OF THE ACT FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE
BOARD, AVERRING THAT IT HAD DISTRIBUTED ALL OF ITS ASSETS TO ITS FOUR
STOCKHOLDERS AS A LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND, AND THAT TWO OF THEM, WHO HAD
RECEIVED THE TEXAS REFINERY IN WHICH THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WERE
EMPLOYED, HAD CONVEYED IT TO A NEWLY ORGANIZED DELAWARE CORPORATION
WHOSE STOCKHOLDERS WERE AT NO TIME STOCKHOLDERS OF THE EMPLOYER
CORPORATION; AND LATER, IN ITS ANSWER, IT ALLEGED THAT IT HAD VERY
RECENTLY BEEN DISSOLVED PURSUANT TO THE STATUTES OF TEXAS AND PRAYED A
DISMISSAL OF THE BOARD'S PETITION UPON THAT GROUND.  HELD, UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND OTHERS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD, THAT DENIAL OF THE
APPLICATION TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT ERROR.  P. 104. 

SOUTHPORT PETROLEUM CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 558, TO REVIEW A DECREE DIRECTING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AND
THEREIN DENYING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER, A TEXAS CORPORATION, WAS ORDERED BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN AUGUST OF 1938 TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES; FN1  TO OFFER TO REINSTATE THREE EMPLOYEES FOUND TO
HAVE BEEN DISCRIMINATORILY DISCHARGED, AND TO PAY THEM BACK PAY FOR THE
PERIOD FROM THE TIME OF DISCHARGE TO THE DATE OF THE OFFER OF
REINSTATEMENT, LESS EARNINGS DURING SUCH PERIOD; AND TO POST CERTAIN
NOTICES AT ITS TEXAS CITY REFINERY, WHERE THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
HAD BEEN EMPLOYED. 

THE PETITIONER HAS NEVER OBEYED ANY OF THE AFFIRMATIVE DIRECTIONS OF
THE ORDER.  IN JUNE OF 1939 IT ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN STIPULATION WITH
THE BOARD THAT IT WOULD OBEY THE ORDER EXCEPT AS IT RELATED TO BACK
PAY, AND THE BOARD STIPULATED ON ITS PART THAT IT WOULD ACCEPT THE
PERFORMANCE SO PROMISED AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH ITS ORDER.  BUT
THE PETITIONER NO MORE REGARDED ITS OWN PROMISE THAN IT HAD THE BOARD'S
COMMAND.  IT FINALLY CEASED EVEN TO ANSWER COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE
BOARD, AND THE LATTER, IN APRIL OF 1940, FILED ITS PETITION WITH THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS
ORDER. 

THE PETITIONER THEN BEGAN THE PLEAS TO THAT COURT, DENIAL OF WHICH IT
SAYS ARE ERRORS.  NEARLY FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE BOARD HAD FILED ITS
PETITION, THE PRESENT PETITIONER FILED AN APPLICATION, UNDER SEC. 10(E)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,  FN2  TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE APPLICATION STATED ON THE OATH OF
PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT THAT IN JUNE OF 1939, THREE DAYS AFTER
PETITIONER HAD EXECUTED THE STIPULATION OF OBEDIENCE TO THE BOARD'S
ORDER, IT DISTRIBUTED ALL OF ITS ASSETS TO ITS FOUR STOCKHOLDERS AS A
LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND; AND THAT THE TWO STOCKHOLDERS WHO RECEIVED THE
TEXAS CITY REFINERY CONVEYED IT TO A NEWLY ORGANIZED DELAWARE
CORPORATION WHOSE STOCKHOLDERS WERE AT NO TIME STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
TEXAS CORPORATION.  IT ASKED THAT THE COURT ORDER THAT PROOF OF THESE
FACTS BE TAKEN BEFORE THE BOARD OR ITS AGENT AND ADDED TO THE
TRANSCRIPT, AND THAT THE COURT THEREUPON DISMISS THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCEEDING.  IN NOVEMBER OF 1940, WHILE THIS APPLICATION WAS PENDING,
IT FILED AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT, ATTACKING THE
FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD ON EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS, AND ALSO
PRAYING THAT THE PETITION BE DISMISSED BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD BEEN
FORMALLY DISSOLVED ON OCTOBER 16, 1940, AS EVIDENCED BY AN ATTACHED
COPY OF A CERTIFICATE BY THE TEXAS ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE.  FN3 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE BOARD'S ORDER AND ENTERED
A DECREE DIRECTING THAT IT BE ENFORCED, THUS IN EFFECT DENYING THE
MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.  117 F.2D 90.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE QUESTION
OF THE PROPRIETY OF THE DENIAL OF THE LATTER BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION. 

WE HOLD THAT THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS
ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION OF THE COURT, AND THAT THE
DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY
THE RECORD IN THIS CASE WAS NOT ERROR. 

TO ENSURE THAT THE APPLICABLE PART OF SEC. 10(E) WOULD BE USED ONLY
FOR PROPER PURPOSES, AND NOT ABUSED BY RESORT TO IT AS A MERE
INSTRUMENT OF DELAY, CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT BEFORE THE COURT MIGHT
GRANT RELIEF THEREUNDER IT MUST BE SATISFIED OF THE MATERIALITY OF THE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AND THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR FAILURE
TO ADDUCE IT AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE DECISION BELOW UNDER
SEC. 10(E) APPARENTLY RESULTED SOLELY FROM A BELIEF THAT THE PROFFERED
EVIDENCE WAS NOT "MATERIAL."  ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO
DECIDE WHETHER A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY IN ITS DISCRETION DENY AN
APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 10(E) EVEN THOUGH IT BE SATISFIED THAT THE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS
FOR FAILURE TO ADDUCE IT IN THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD.  FOR THE SAME
REASON WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF THE CREDIBILITY OF
PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS, VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS CONDUCT. 

THE PETITIONER'S CONDUCT DOES, HOWEVER, GIVE POINT TO OMISSIONS OF
PERTINENT FACTS FROM ITS ALLEGATIONS.  THE RECORD MAKES IT CERTAIN THAT
IT WOULD GAIN DELAY BY ALL HONORABLE MEANS AND LEAVES IT DOUBTFUL
WHETHER IT HAS EVEN STOPPED AT THAT.  THE LIQUIDATION RELIED UPON TOOK
PLACE THREE DAYS AFTER IT HAD ENTERED INTO THE STIPULATION OF
OBEDIENCE.  THE PURPOSE TO LIQUIDATE WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE BOARD,
NOR WAS THE BOARD ADVISED OF THE ACTION WHEN TAKEN, NOR UNTIL NEARLY
FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT WAS FILED IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE STATEMENTS THAT THE TEXAS CORPORATION HAS DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
AND THAT THE DELAWARE CORPORATION HAS TAKEN OVER THE REFINERY DID NOT
CALL FOR RECOMMITMENT BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO THE BOARD FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THAT PART OF ITS ORDER WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE THREE
EMPLOYEES BE OFFERED REINSTATEMENT.  THE ALLEGATION IN THE APPLICATION
THAT THE "OWNERS OF THE STOCK OF SOUTHPORT PETROLEUM COMPANY OF
DELAWARE, WERE NEVER THE OWNERS OF ANY OF THE STOCK OF THE RESPONDENT
HEREIN," DOES NOT NEGATIVE EITHER THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE STOCK IN THE
DELAWARE CORPORATION REPRESENTS BUT AN INSUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS TOTAL
CAPITALIZATION, WITH THE BALANCE AND REAL CONTROL BEING HELD BY THE
TEXAS CORPORATION OR ITS STOCKHOLDERS, OR THAT ITS STOCK WAS HELD BY
STRAW MEN.  A SWORN STATEMENT IN THE ANSWER TO THE BOARD'S PETITION
THAT THE DELAWARE CORPORATION "IS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ENTITY AND
THE STOCKHOLDERS IN RESPONDENT HAVE NO INTEREST, AND NEVER HAD ANY
INTEREST, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN THE STOCK OWNERSHIP OF THE SAID
DELAWARE CORPORATION, ALL AS SET OUT IN RESPONDENT'S MOTION HERETOFORE
FILED HEREIN," IF IT ADDS ANYTHING, DOES NOT ADD ENOUGH TO NEGATIVE
THESE POSSIBILITIES, FOR THE COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED
WITH SUCH CONCLUSIONS OF THE PETITIONER. 

IMPLICIT IN THE REINSTATEMENT PROVISION OF THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS A
CONDITION OF THE CONTINUED OPERATION BY THE OFFENDING EMPLOYER OF THE
REFINERY TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF WHICH THE ILLEGALLY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES
WERE TO BE RESTORED.  FN4  SUCH OPERATION MIGHT HAVE CONTINUED UNDER
THE OLD BUSINESS FORM OR UNDER A DISGUISE INTENDED TO EVADE THIS
PROVISION.  IF THERE WAS MERELY A CHANGE IN NAME OR IN APPARENT CONTROL
THERE IS NO REASON TO GRANT THE PETITIONER RELIEF FROM THE BOARD'S
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT; INSTEAD THERE IS ADDED GROUND FOR COMPELLING
OBEDIENCE.  WHETHER THERE WAS A BONA FIDE DISCONTINUANCE AND A TRUE
CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP - WHICH WOULD TERMINATE THE DUTY OF REINSTATEMENT
CREATED BY THE BOARD'S ORDER - OR MERELY A DISGUISED CONTINUANCE OF THE
OLD EMPLOYER, DOES NOT CLEARLY APPEAR, AND ACCORDINGLY IS A QUESTION OF
FACT PROPERLY TO BE RESOLVED BY THE BOARD ON DIRECT RESORT TO IT, OR BY
THE COURT IF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED.  FN5 

THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS IMMATERIAL FOR THE FURTHER REASON THAT
THE BOARD'S ORDER RAN NOT ONLY TO THE PETITIONER, BUT ALSO TO ITS
"OFFICERS, AGENTS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS."  FN6 GRANTING THE TRUTH OF
EVERY ONE OF PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS, IT STILL IS POSSIBLE THAT THE
BOARD'S ORDER MAY YET BE THE BASIS - AND THE INDISPENSABLE BASIS - OF
LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ANY OF THESE PERSONS, REGARDLESS OF ANY
PRESENT INCAPACITY OF PETITIONER TO PERFORM, OR LIABILITY ON ITS PART
FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM, ITS DUTY OF REINSTATEMENT.  OF COURSE, WE DO
NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY SUCH LIABILITY ACTUALLY EXISTS;
ALL WE HOLD IS THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SUFFICIENT SHOWING BY THE
PETITIONER TO NEGATIVE THE POSSIBILITY WHICH WE NOTE. 

THE PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS ARE IMMATERIAL WITH RESPECT TO THE BACK
PAY PROVISION IN THE BOARD'S ORDER FOR LIKE REASONS AND BECAUSE SOME
LIABILITY IN THIS RESPECT UNQUESTIONABLY EXISTS, ALTHOUGH FOR A
DISPUTED PERIOD OF TIME.  AND, FROM WHAT WE HAVE SAID, IT IS APPARENT
THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY CHANGE IN ITS
RELATIONS TO THE REFINERY SUCH AS TO INDICATE ANY ALTERATION OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER IN RESPECT OF ITS REQUIREMENTS THAT PETITIONER POST
NOTICES AT "ITS TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, REFINERY," AND THAT IT DESIST FROM
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 1 OF THE BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRED THAT THE PETITIONER
CEASE AND DESIST FROM: 

"(A)  DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL NO. 227, OR IN ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, BY
DISCHARGING ITS EMPLOYEES OR BY OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING IN REGARD TO
HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT; 

"(B)  IN ANY OTHER MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING
ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, OR TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION, AS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT." 

WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION WHETHER, IN THE RATHER UNUSUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED AS BEING
UNDULY BROAD IN THIS RESPECT, SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426, SINCE THIS QUESTION WAS NOT
CONSIDERED OR RAISED IN THE COURT BELOW OR IN THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  ALICE STATE BANK V. HOUSTON PASTURE CO., 247 U.S. 240,
242; GUNNING V. COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90, 98; ZELLERBACH PAPER CO. V.
HELVERING, 293 U.S. 172, 182. 

FN2  THIS PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:  "IF EITHER PARTY
SHALL APPLY TO THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND
SHALL SHOW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE
FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE IN THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS
MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY, THE COURT MAY ORDER SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY, AND TO BE
MADE A PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT."  49 STAT. 449, 454; 29 U.S.C. (SUPP. V)
SEC. 160(E). 

FN3  TEXAS PROVIDES BY STATUTE THAT: 

"ART. 1388.  LIQUIDATION BY OFFICERS.  - UPON THE DISSOLUTION OF A
CORPORATION, UNLESS A RECEIVER IS APPOINTED BY SOME COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OR MANAGERS OF THE AFFAIRS OF
THE CORPORATION AT THE TIME OF ITS DISSOLUTION SHALL BE TRUSTEES OF THE
CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF SUCH CORPORATION, WITH POWER TO SETTLE
THE AFFAIRS, COLLECT THE OUTSTANDING DEBTS, AND DIVIDE THE MONEYS AND
OTHER PROPERTY AMONG THE STOCKHOLDERS AFTER PAYING THE DEBTS DUE AND
OWING BY SUCH CORPORATION AT THE TIME OF ITS DISSOLUTION, AS FAR AS
SUCH MONEY AND PROPERTY WILL ENABLE THEM AFTER PAYING ALL JUST AND
REASONABLE EXPENSES; AND FOR THIS PURPOSE THEY MAY IN THE NAME OF SUCH
CORPORATION, SELL, CONVEY AND TRANSFER ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
BELONGING TO SUCH COMPANY, COLLECT ALL DEBTS, COMPROMISE CONTROVERSIES,
MAINTAIN OR DEFEND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND EXERCISE FULL POWER AND
AUTHORITY OF SAID COMPANY OVER SUCH ASSETS AND PROPERTY.  SAID TRUSTEES
SHALL BE SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF
SUCH CORPORATION TO THE EXTENT OF ITS PROPERTY AND EFFECTS THAT SHALL
HAVE COME INTO THEIR HANDS. 

"ART. 1389.  EXTENSION OF EXISTENCE.  - THE EXISTENCE OF EVERY
CORPORATION MAY BE CONTINUED FOR THREE YEARS AFTER ITS DISSOLUTION FROM
WHATEVER CAUSE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING THOSE CHARGED WITH THE
DUTY, TO SETTLE UP ITS AFFAIRS.  IN CASE A RECEIVER IS APPOINTED BY A
COURT FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CORPORATION MAY BE
CONTINUED BY THE COURT SO LONG AS IN ITS DISCRETION IT IS NECESSARY TO
SUITABLY SETTLE THE AFFAIRS OF SUCH CORPORATION. 

"ART. 1390.  EFFECT OF DISSOLUTION.  - THE DISSOLUTION OF A
CORPORATION SHALL NOT OPERATE TO ABATE, NOR BE CONSTRUED AS ABATING ANY
PENDING SUIT IN WHICH SUCH CORPORATION IS A DEFENDANT, BUT SUCH SUIT
SHALL CONTINUE AGAINST SUCH CORPORATION AND JUDGMENT SHALL BE RENDERED
AS THOUGH THE SAME WERE NOT DISSOLVED."  3 VERNON'S ANNOTATED TEXAS
STATUTES (CIVIL STATUTES). 

FN4  THE ORDER REQUIRED THAT THE EMPLOYEES BE REINSTATED "TO THEIR
FORMER POSITIONS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEIR SENIORITY AND OTHER RIGHTS
AND PRIVILEGES." 

FN5  SUCH PROCEEDINGS MAY BE INSTITUTED ONLY BY THE BOARD. 
AMALGAMATED UTILITY WORKERS V. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO., 309 U.S. 261. 

FN6  THIS IS THE USUAL FORM OF ORDER, AND HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN
EMPLOYED IN CASES WHERE THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED BOARD ORDERS.  E.G.,
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305 U.S.
197, ENFORCING, AS MODIFIED, 4 N.L.R.B. 71, 108; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO., 308 U.S.
241, ENFORCING 8 N.L.R.B. 866, 877; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
FALK CORPORATION, 308 U.S. 453, ENFORCING 6 N.L.R.B. 654, 666; NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP., 309 U.S. 206,
ENFORCING 7 N.L.R.B. 237, 252; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. LINK
BELT CO., 311 U.S. 584, ENFORCING 12 N.L.R.B. 854, 883; PHELPS DODGE
CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, ENFORCING, AS
MODIFIED, AND REMANDING 19 N.L.R.B. 547, 603.    MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING:    THE RECORD DOES NOT LEAD ME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER HAS TAKEN ANY IMPROPER STEPS TO SECURE LEAVE
TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE MATTER TO WHICH THE CERTIORARI WAS
LIMITED BY OUR GRANT.  IT IS PLAIN THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
DID NOT ACT ON ANY SUCH GROUND.  NEITHER THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE NOR
THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF OR ARGUMENT MAKE ANY SUCH CONTENTION.  ONLY
AFTER EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD WOULD IT SEEM PROPER FOR A COURT TO
FORM ITS OPINION OF THAT QUESTION. 

SO FAR AS WE NOW KNOW, THE PETITIONER SOLD ITS FACILITIES IN GOOD
FAITH, AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER AND PRIOR TO ITS MOTION TO
REMAND, THUS DIVESTING ITSELF OF ALL INTEREST OR CONTROL OVER ITS
FORMER PROPERTIES.  IN THAT SITUATION IT ASKED A REMAND TO THE BOARD TO
PRESENT BEFORE THE BOARD THE CHANGE OF CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF WHICH IT
ASKED A DISMISSAL OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  SEC. 10(E), 49 STAT. 453.  THERE
WERE TWO LITERALLY UNCONDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER WHICH
PETITIONER, IF ITS ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE, COULD NOT MEET, 2(A) AND (C): 

"2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH THE BOARD FINDS WILL
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT: 

(A)  OFFER TO WILLIAM CORNISH, E. D. RICHEY, AND EARL GOOCH IMMEDIATE
AND FULL REINSTATEMENT TO THEIR FORMER POSITIONS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO
THEIR SENIORITY AND OTHER RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES; 

     .         .         .         .    . 

(C)  POST IMMEDIATELY NOTICES IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES AT ITS TEXAS
CITY, TEXAS, REFINERY STATING THAT THE RESPONDENT WILL CEASE AND DESIST
IN THE MANNER AFORESAID, AND MAINTAIN SAID NOTICES FOR A PERIOD OF
THIRTY (30) CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING;" 

IN ITS BRIEF, RESPONDENT, IT SEEMS TO ME, ADMITS THE CORRECTNESS OF
PETITIONER'S VIEW.  IT SAYS: 

"IN ITS APPLICATION TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT BY
REASON OF ITS DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS AND DISCONTINUATION OF BUSINESS IT
COULD NOT REINSTATE ANY EMPLOYEES.  THEREAFTER IN ITS PETITION FOR
REHEARING IN THE COURT BELOW AND PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT,
PETITIONER MAINTAINED THAT IT COULD NOT DO SO UNLESS, AS IT SUGGESTED,
THE ORDER REQUIRED IT TO PURCHASE AND OPERATE ANOTHER REFINERY OR
OTHERWISE RESUME BUSINESS.  PROPERLY CONSTRUED (CF. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. STANDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY, 302 U.S. 112, 117-118), THE
ORDER CONTAINS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT.  ITS PURPOSE WAS TO REMEDY
PETITIONER'S VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT BY RESTORING THE STATUS QUO AS IT
EXISTED PRIOR TO THE VIOLATIONS, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING AT THE TIME OF COMPLIANCE, ASSUMING THAT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT CHANGED THROUGH ANY BAD FAITH ON PETITIONER'S
PART.  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. REMINGTON RAND, INC., 97
F.2D 195, 196-197(C.C.A. 2).  THAT THE MEN WERE TO BE OFFERED
REINSTATEMENT 'TO THEIR FORMER POSITIONS' IS EXPRESS INDICATION THAT
THE REINSTATEMENT PROVISION WAS CONTINGENT UPON CONTINUED OPERATION OF
THE TEXAS CITY REFINERY.  THIS LIKEWISE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TRUE OF
PARAGRAPH 2(C) OF THE ORDER REQUIRING THE POSTING OF NOTICES 'AT ITS
TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, REFINERY.'" 

WE CANNOT TREAT THIS SUGGESTION AS RELIEVING THIS PETITIONER OF THE
THREAT OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  THE STATEMENT DOES NOT CONSENT TO THE
AMENDMENT OF THE ORDER.  BAD FAITH MAY STILL BE CLAIMED TO EXIST.  THIS
SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.  CONSEQUENTLY, I AM OF THE OPINION
THAT THE DECREE BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO SUSTAIN THE
MOTION FOR A REMAND UNLESS THE BOARD AGREES TO ELIMINATE SECS. 2(A) AND
(C) OF THE ORDER, IN LINE WITH THE BOARD'S APPARENT CONCESSION IN ITS
BRIEF. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :







DUNCAN V. THOMPSON, 315 U.S. 1 


NO. 78.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1942.  - 146
S.W.2D 112, REVERSED. 


1.  AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN AN INJURED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE AND THE RAILWAY
EMPLOYER, MADE AFTER THE INJURY, WHEREBY, IN CONSIDERATION OF A PAYMENT
"FOR LIVING AND OTHER EXPENSES PENDING FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AS TO THE
EXTENT AND EFFECT OF SAID INJURIES AND NEGOTIATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT OF
(HIS) CLAIM," THE EMPLOYEE AGREES THAT HE WILL ENDEAVOR, IN GOOD FAITH,
TO ADJUST AND SETTLE ANY CLAIM HE MAY HAVE FOR HIS INJURIES WITHOUT
RESORTING TO LITIGATION, BUT THAT IF HIS CLAIM IS NOT SO ADJUSTED, AND
HE ELECTS TO BRING SUIT, HE WILL FIRST RETURN THE SUM PAID AND SUCH
RETURN SHALL BE A PREREQUISITE TO THE FILING AND MAINTENANCE OF ANY
SUCH SUIT, IS VOID UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY
ACT.  P. 6. 

2.  SUCH AN AGREEMENT IS NOT A COMPROMISE OR CONDITIONAL COMPROMISE. 
P. 7. 

DUNCAN V. THOMPSON, TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SPRINGFIELD COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 589, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE SPRINGFIELD
COURT OF APPEALS WHICH REVERSED A RECOVERY FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
SECURED BY THE PRESENT PETITIONER IN A COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN
MISSOURI.  AN APPLICATION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE FOR A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI WAS DECLINED. 

THE CONTRACT WAS A COVENANT NOT TO SUE.  A COVENANT NOT TO SUE IS IN
THE NATURE OF A CONTRACT OF RELEASE. 

IF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT AN INJURED
CLAIMANT FROM RELEASING HIS CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A CONSIDERATION, BY
PARITY OF REASONING IT OUGHT TO BE HELD THAT THE ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT
HIM FROM COVENANTING, FOR A CONSIDERATION, NOT TO SUE ON HIS CAUSE OF
ACTION. 

EVERY COURT WHICH HAS CONSIDERED THE QUESTION HAS COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE CONGRESS, BY SEC. 5 OF THE ACT, DID NOT INTEND TO
PROHIBIT AN INJURED CLAIMANT FROM COMPROMISING HIS DISPUTED CLAIM AND
FROM RELEASING THE SAME. 

THE COURTS AND TEXT WRITERS ARE UNANIMOUS IN SAYING THAT THE PURPOSE
OF CONGRESS WAS TO PROHIBIT EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, BEFORE INJURY OF THE
LATTER, FROM CONTRACTING TO EXEMPT THE EMPLOYER FROM THE LIABILITY
CREATED BY THE ACT, AND NOT TO PREVENT THE PARTIES FROM CONTRACTING
AFTER INJURY. 

PETITIONER, HAVING ACCEPTED THE SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF $600 IN
CONSIDERATION OF HIS COVENANT NOT TO SUE, CAN NOT DISAFFIRM HIS
COVENANT AND SUE IN VIOLATION OF IT WHILE CLINGING TO THE FRUITS OF THE
CONTRACT WHICH HE AFFECTS TO DISAFFIRM. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APRIL 10, 1936, PETITIONER DUNCAN, WHILE PERFORMING DUTIES AS
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEE, FELL FROM A LOCOMOTIVE AND WAS INJURED.  SINCE
AT THE TIME HE WAS WORKING FOR A "COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD" AND IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE RIGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES IS GOVERNED BY THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  35 STAT. 65.  SIXTEEN MONTHS LATER,
AUGUST 13, 1937, DUNCAN WAS STILL SUFFERING FROM HIS INJURIES, HIS WIFE
WAS IN THE HOSPITAL, AND HE NEEDED MONEY.  ON THAT DAY, UPON DUNCAN'S
SIGNING AN INSTRUMENT PRESENTED TO HIM BY THE COMPANY'S CLAIM AGENT, HE
WAS PAID $600 "FOR LIVING AND OTHER EXPENSES PENDING FURTHER
DEVELOPMENTS AS TO THE EXTENT AND EFFECT OF SAID INJURIES AND
NEGOTIATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT OF (HIS) CLAIM."  THE INSTRUMENT ALSO
STATED THAT: 

"IN CONSIDERATION OF SAID PAYMENT OF $600.00, I AGREE WITH SAID
TRUSTEE THAT I WILL ENDEAVOR, IN GOOD FAITH, TO ADJUST AND SETTLE ANY
CLAIM I MAY HAVE FOR MY INJURIES WITHOUT RESORTING TO LITIGATION, BUT I
AGREE THAT IF MY CLAIM IS NOT SO ADJUSTED, AND I ELECT TO BRING SUIT, I
WILL FIRST RETURN THE SAID SUM OF $600.00 TO SAID TRUSTEE AND SAID
RETURN SHALL BE A PREREQUISITE TO THE FILING AND MAINTENANCE OF ANY
SUCH SUIT." 

ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS LATER, APRIL 4, 1938, NEGOTIATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT
NOT HAVING BEEN SUCCESSFUL, DUNCAN, WITHOUT RETURNING THE $600, SUED
THE RESPONDENT IN A MISSOURI STATE COURT, CHARGING THAT HIS INJURIES
RESULTED FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE RESPONDENT'S SERVANTS OR AGENTS. 
AMONG OTHER PLEADINGS, THE RESPONDENT FILED A PLEA IN ABATEMENT
ALLEGING THAT "THIS SUIT AND ACTION HAVE BEEN BEGUN AND COMMENCED BY
PLAINTIFF WITHOUT THE PRE-REQUISITE RETURN TO DEFENDANT TRUSTEE OF SAID
SUM OF $600,  ...  AND THIS ACTION IS PRE-MATURE AND SHOULD BE
DISMISSED BY THE COURT."  DUNCAN REPLIED THAT THE AGREEMENT, SO FAR AS
IT PURPORTED TO CREATE A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO BRINGING SUIT, WAS VOID
UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, 66,
WHICH IN PART PROVIDES: 

"ANY CONTRACT, RULE, REGULATION, OR DEVICE WHATSOEVER, THE PURPOSE OR
INTENT OF WHICH SHALL BE TO ENABLE ANY COMMON CARRIER TO EXEMPT ITSELF
FROM ANY LIABILITY CREATED BY THIS ACT, SHALL TO THAT EXTENT BE VOID
...  " 

THE TRIAL JUDGE HELD THE AGREEMENT DID NOT BAR DUNCAN'S SUIT, BUT
SUBMITTED THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE TO THE JURY WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT
IF THEIR VERDICT SHOULD BE FOR HIM THE RAILROAD WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A
CREDIT OF $600 AND INTEREST.  THE VERDICT WAS FOR DUNCAN AND, AFTER
APPROPRIATE SUBTRACTION FOR THE PRIOR PAYMENT TO HIM, JUDGMENT FOR
$5,000 WAS ENTERED IN HIS FAVOR.  THE SPRINGFIELD COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE INVALIDATING EFFECT OF SEC. 5 DOES NOT
EXTEND TO CONTRACTS MADE AFTER AN EMPLOYEE IS INJURED, 146 S.W.2D 112,
AND THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW ITS ACTION. 

IN PHILADELPHIA, B. & W.R. CO. V. SCHUBERT, 224 U.S. 603, 611, THIS
COURT REFERRED TO SEC. 5 AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS TO ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE
SPECIFIC, DESCRIPTION.  IT THUS BRINGS WITHIN ITS PURVIEW 'ANY
CONTRACT, RULE, REGULATION, OR DEVICE WHATSOEVER, THE PURPOSE OR INTENT
OF WHICH SHALL BE TO ENABLE ANY COMMON CARRIER TO EXEMPT ITSELF FROM
ANY LIABILITY CREATED BY THIS ACT.'  IT INCLUDES EVERY VARIETY OF
AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT OF THIS NATURE  ...  "  WHILE THIS
INTERPRETATION IS BROAD ENOUGH TO BRING WITHIN SEC. 5 CONTRACTS MADE
AFTER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE INJURY, THE AGREEMENT AT ISSUE IN THE
SCHUBERT CASE WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE INJURY, AND THE ACTUAL DECISION
THEREFORE DOES NOT CONTROL AGREEMENTS WHICH, LIKE THAT NOW BEFORE US,
ARE MADE AFTER THE INJURY HAS OCCURRED.  MOREOVER, SEVERAL STATE COURTS
HAVE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT CONTRACTS MADE AFTER THE INJURY HAS
OCCURRED ARE NOT INVALIDATED BY SEC. 5.  SEE, E.G., BALLENGER V.
SOUTHERN RY. CO., 106 S.C. 200, 203, 90 S.E. 1019; PATTON V. ATCHISON,
T. & S.F. RY. CO., 59 OKLA. 155, 156, 158 P. 576; LINDSAY V. ACME
CEMENT PLASTER CO., 220 MICH. 367, 377, 190 N.W. 275; CARLSON V.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 82 MONT. 559, 568, 268 P. 549. 

BECAUSE OF THIS DIVERGENCE OF JUDICIAL OPINION AS TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 5, AND BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF SEC. 5 IS OF
FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

BY CONGRESS IN 1906, PROVIDED THAT "NO CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT,
INSURANCE, RELIEF BENEFIT, OR INDEMNITY FOR INJURY OR DEATH ENTERED
INTO BY OR ON BEHALF OF ANY EMPLOYEE, NOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY SUCH
INSURANCE, RELIEF BENEFIT, OR INDEMNITY BY THE PERSON ENTITLED THERETO,
SHALL CONSTITUTE ANY BAR OR DEFENSE TO ANY ACTION BROUGHT TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES TO OR DEATH OF SUCH EMPLOYEE.  ... "  THE
COURT BELOW, TAKING THE POSITION THAT THE WORD "CONTRACT" AS USED IN
SEC. 3 REFERRED ONLY TO CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BEFORE THE INJURY
OCCURRED, CONCLUDED THAT SEC. 5 OF THE PRESENT ACT IS NO BROADER IN
THIS RESPECT, BUT MERELY INCLUDES CONTRACTS, RULES, REGULATIONS, OR
DEVICES IN EFFECT BEFORE THE INJURY.  IN OUR OPINION, THE DIFFERENCE IN
THE LANGUAGE OF THE TWO SECTIONS AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
LATER ONE CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THIS CONCLUSION. 

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT NOW IN FORCE, NOT ONLY THAT CLOSE
STUDY WAS MADE OF THE ENTIRE 1906 ACT AND IN PARTICULAR OF SEC. 3, BUT
ALSO THAT CONSIDERABLE ATTENTION WAS GIVEN TO STATE EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACTS AND EXPERIENCE UNDER THEM.  SECTION 3 WAS INCORPORATED
VERBATIM IN ONE OF THE TWO BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE SENATE, BUT IT WAS
THE BILL CONTAINING THE BROADER LANGUAGE OF THE PRESENT SEC. 5 THAT
SURVIVED CONSIDERATION.  SEE HEARINGS ON S. 3080, FEBRUARY 20, 1908, P.
3, AND COMPARE SENATE REPORT NO. 460, 60TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4. 
WITHOUT MORE, THE CHANGE FROM "CONTRACT" TO "ANY CONTRACT, RULE,
REGULATION, OR DEVICE WHATSOEVER" WOULD SEEM TO BE AN ENLARGEMENT AMPLE
TO INCLUDE AGREEMENTS MADE AFTER THE EVENT OF INJURY. 

BUT THERE IS MORE.  UNDER THE STATE ACTS THERE HAD BEEN WIDESPREAD
ATTEMPTS BY EMPLOYERS TO CONTRACT THEMSELVES OUT OF THE LIABILITIES THE
ACTS WERE INTENDED TO IMPOSE.  STATE LEGISLATURES HAD RESPONDED TO THIS
PRACTICE BY ADOPTING PROVISIONS WHICH PROSCRIBED EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
AGREEMENTS INTENDED TO DEPRIVE EMPLOYEES OF THE STATUTORY BENEFITS. 
THESE PROVISIONS VARIED IN SCOPE AND LANGUAGE.  SOME DECLARED
AGREEMENTS ATTEMPTING TO EXEMPT EMPLOYERS FROM LIABILITY VOID ONLY WHEN
THEY WERE PART OF CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT.  ONE STATE, ALTHOUGH NOT
LIMITING THE STATUTORY INVALIDATION TO CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT,
SPECIFICALLY RESTRICTED IT TO AGREEMENTS "ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE
INJURY."  OTHER STATES, PRESUMABLY AFTER EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN THAT
NARROWER LIMITATIONS WERE INADEQUATE TO STAMP OUT INGENIOUS EVASIONS OF
THE STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES, ADOPTED MEASURES INVALIDATING
AGREEMENTS OF ANY TYPE, REGARDLESS OF WHEN MADE, WHICH ATTEMPTED TO
EXEMPT EMPLOYERS FROM LIABILITY.  HOUSE REPORT NO. 1386, 60TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 30-75. 

THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE SECOND FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SET OUT ALL OF THE STATE STATUTES THEN IN
EFFECT.  BECAUSE THE VARIOUS STATE MEASURES DIRECTED AGAINST
CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS INTENDED TO EXEMPT EMPLOYERS FROM LIABILITY
WERE THUS LAID BEFORE CONGRESS, THE REJECTION OF THE RESTRICTIVE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 3 OF THE OLD ACT INDICATES A DELIBERATE ABANDONMENT OF
THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT SECTION.  AND THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 5 OF THE
PRESENT ACT, WITHOUT ADDING ANY OF THE OTHER LIMITATIONS WHICH SOME OF
THE STATE STATUTES HAD EMBODIED, ARGUES PERSUASIVELY THAT CONGRESS
WANTED SEC. 5 TO HAVE THE FULL EFFECT THAT ITS COMPREHENSIVE
PHRASEOLOGY IMPLIES. 

CONCLUDING THAT THE PHRASE "ANY CONTRACT, RULE, REGULATION, OR DEVICE
WHATSOEVER" AS USED IN SEC. 5 COMPREHENDS THE INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY
DUNCAN LONG AFTER HE HAD BEEN INJURED, WE TURN TO THE REMAINING
QUESTION:  WHETHER "THE PURPOSE OR INTENT" OF THE INSTRUMENT WAS TO
ENABLE THE RESPONDENT "TO EXEMPT ITSELF FROM ANY LIABILITY CREATED BY
(THE) ACT."  THE INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR DUNCAN'S
SIGNATURE PURPORTED TO CREATE A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO HIS BRINGING
SUIT, THE REFUNDING OF $600.  BY ITS TERMS, UNLESS THIS CONDITION WERE
SATISFIED - AND IN VIEW OF DUNCAN'S STRAITENED CIRCUMSTANCES THE
PROBABILITY OF SATISFACTION WOULD SEEM NEGLIGIBLE - DUNCAN'S ONLY MEANS
OF ENFORCING SUCH LIABILITIES AS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSUMED BY THE
RESPONDENT WOULD BE TAKEN FROM HIM.  HENCE, THE AGREEMENT, IF VALID,
WOULD EFFECTIVELY EXEMPT THE RESPONDENT FROM LIABILITY UNDER THE ACT,
NO MATTER WHAT THE MERITS OF DUNCAN'S CLAIM. 

THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT SEC. 5 DOES NOT INVALIDATE
COMPROMISES OF DISPUTED CLAIMS, AND THAT THE AGREEMENT HERE IS IN THE
NATURE OF A CONDITIONAL COMPROMISE.  WE NEED NOT HERE DETERMINE WHAT
LIMITATIONS, IF ANY, SEC. 5 PLACES UPON THE VALIDITY OF AGREEMENTS NOT
TO SUE IF MADE IN CONSIDERATION OF A BONA FIDE COMPROMISE AND
SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE ACT, BECAUSE THE VERY LANGUAGE
OF THE AGREEMENT INDICATES IT IS NOT A COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT. 
WHILE THE AGREEMENT DOES CONTEMPLATE THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE
SETTLEMENT, IT EXPRESSLY STATED THAT THE $600 WAS ADVANCED "FOR LIVING
AND OTHER EXPENSES PENDING FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AS TO THE EXTENT AND
EFFECT OF  ...  INJURIES AND NEGOTIATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT OF (THE)
CLAIM."  AND THE CLAIM AGENT OF THE RESPONDENT TESTIFIED THAT THE
AGREEMENT WAS IN A FORM REGULARLY USED BY THE RESPONDENT WHEN ITS
EMPLOYEES "HAD A LONG DISABILITY PERIOD LIKE HE (DUNCAN) HAD HAD  ...
TO TIDE THEM OVER UNTIL THEY HAD THEIR RECOVERY BEFORE WE NEGOTIATE
FINAL SETTLEMENT."  WE ARE UNPERSUADED, THEREFORE, BY ANY ARGUMENT
WHICH DEPENDS UPON TREATING THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY DUNCAN AS A
COMPROMISE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SPRINGFIELD COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  34 STAT. 232.  THIS ACT WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S. 463. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















EX PARTE TEXAS, 315 U.S. 8 


NO. - , ORIGINAL.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 9, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 12,
1942.  - MOTION DENIED. 


1.  IN LONE STAR GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 304 U.S. 224, THIS COURT DECIDED
THAT THE COMPANY, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT GAS RATES FIXED BY THE
TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION WERE CONFISCATORY, WAS ENTITLED TO MAKE PROOF
OF CONFISCATION ON THE BASIS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY AN INTEGRATED
SYSTEM - THE BASIS ON WHICH THE COMMISSION FIXED THE RATES IN QUESTION;
BUT DID NOT DECIDE THAT THE RATES WERE CONFISCATORY OR IN ANYWISE
FORECLOSE A TRIAL OF THAT ISSUE IN THE STATE COURTS.  PP. 12-13. 

2.  LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF A STATE, REQUIRING THEM TO CONFORM THEIR
JUDGMENT TO A DECISION OF THIS COURT DETERMINING FEDERAL QUESTIONS
EARLIER IN THE CASE, WILL NOT BE GRANTED WHERE, BY THEIR RETURN TO THE
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, THEY SHOW THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT WAS
BASED NOT UPON A MISCONCEPTION OF THIS COURT'S DECISION, AS ALLEGED AND
RELIED UPON IN THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS, BUT UPON A CONSTRUCTION AND
APPLICATION OF STATE LAW.  P. 14. 

EX PARTE TEXAS ET AL. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
TEXAS, TO BRING A JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT IN CONFORMITY WITH A
CONTROLLING MANDATE OF THIS COURT.  THE LONE STAR GAS COMPANY WAS HERE
GRANTED LEAVE TO INTERVENE, 314 U.S. 582. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A MOTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND RAILROAD COMMISSION OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AGAINST THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF TEXAS TO BRING A JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE
CONTROLLING MANDATE OF THIS COURT.  THE FOUNDATION OF THE MOTION IS THE
CLAIM THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWING THE REMAND BY THIS COURT TO THE
TEXAS COURTS OF THE LITIGATION IN LONE STAR GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 304 U.S.
224, THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS HAS MISCONCEIVED THE SCOPE OF OUR
DECISION.  THE HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION MUST THEREFORE BE SUMMARIZED. 

IN 1934 THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, UNDER ARTICLE 6059 OF THE REVISED
CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS, TO ENFORCE ITS ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1933,
FIXING THE RATE TO BE CHARGED BY THE LONE STAR GAS COMPANY, A TEXAS
CORPORATION OPERATING PIPE LINES LOCATED IN TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, FOR GAS
DELIVERED TO DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES IN TEXAS.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
TREATED THE COMPANY'S PROPERTIES IN BOTH STATES AS AN "INTEGRATED"
SYSTEM.  IN ITS ANSWER THE COMPANY ATTACKED THE ORDER UNDER THE
COMMERCE AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES.  A TRIAL WAS HELD BEFORE A JURY,
WHICH FOUND, FROM THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
WAS "UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST."  ACCORDINGLY, THE DISTRICT COURT
ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF CIVIL
APPEALS FOLLOWED.  THAT COURT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION IN TREATING THE
COMPANY AS AN INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE AND FOUND AGAINST THE COMPANY UPON
THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION.  THE BURDEN WAS PUT UPON THE COMPANY "TO
SHOW BY CLEAR AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE A PROPER SEGREGATION OF
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS, AND TO SHOW THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN INTRASTATE BUSINESS OR COMMERCE AND
THE COMPENSATION IT WOULD RECEIVE UNDER THE RATE COMPLAINED OF UPON
SUCH VALUATION.  HAVING FAILED TO MAKE A PROPER SEGREGATION OF
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE PROPERTIES, APPELLEE (I.E., THE COMPANY) DID
NOT ADDUCE THE QUANTUM AND CHARACTER OF PROOF NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH
THE INVALIDITY OF THE RATE AS BEING CONFISCATORY, OR UNREASONABLE AND
UNJUST."  86 S.W.2D 484, 502.  THE COURT THEREFORE DISSOLVED THE
INJUNCTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND DECLARED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER TO
BE "JUST, REASONABLE, AND VALID IN EVERY PARTICULAR."  86 S.W.2D 484,
506.  THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS REFUSED A WRIT OF ERROR AND THE CASE
THEN CAME HERE. 

WE REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, AND REMANDED
THE CAUSE "FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT" WITH THE OPINION. 
304 U.S. 224, 242.  IT WAS HELD:  (1) THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DID NOT
OFFEND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE COMPANY'S PRODUCING PROPERTIES IN OKLAHOMA AND ITS
TRANSMISSION LINES TO TEXAS, BECAUSE "THE PROVED MANNER IN WHICH THE
GAS FROM OKLAHOMA WAS TREATED AND HANDLED IN TEXAS MADE IT AN INTEGRAL
PART OF THE GAS SUPPLIED TO THE TEXAS COMMUNITIES IN APPELLANT'S
INTRASTATE BUSINESS."  304 U.S. AT 239.  (2) ON THE ISSUE OF
CONFISCATION THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS HAD ERRED.  THE COMPANY "COULD
NOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE AS TO ITS PROPERTY AND
BUSINESS AS AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM AND TO HAVE THE SUFFICIENCY OF ITS
EVIDENCE ASCERTAINED BY THE CRITERION WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD PROPERLY
USED IN THE SAME MANNER IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE TEXAS
RATE."  304 U.S. AT 241-42. 

WHEN THE CASE CAME BACK TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, IT HELD THAT
"WHEN VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OVER-ALL OR UNSEGREGATED BASIS AND
EVIDENCE THE LEGISLATIVE RATE ORDER IS VALID AS A MATTER OF LAW," AND
THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER WAS ESTABLISHED "FACTUALLY FROM SO
OVERWHELMING A WEIGHT AND PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO REQUIRE A
REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE."  AND SO IT AGAIN DISSOLVED THE
INJUNCTION AND REINSTATED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  129 S.W.2D 1164. 
THIS TIME THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS GRANTED A WRIT OF ERROR AND SENT
THE CASE BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL.  153 S.W.2D 681. 

IN ITS EXTENDED OPINION THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS REVIEWED THESE TWO
RULINGS BY THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS:  (1) SINCE ARTICLE 6059 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES OF TEXAS,  FN1  GOVERNING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS, MAKES THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIVE
IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND SINCE THE FINDINGS WERE
SUPPORTED BY SUCH EVIDENCE, THE ORDER WAS VALID AS A MATTER OF LAW AND
LEFT NO QUESTION FOR THE JURY.  (2) EVEN IF ARTICLE 6059 REQUIRED A
TRIAL DE NOVO OF ALL ISSUES OF FACT, "THE GAS COMPANY FAILED, AS A
MATTER OF LAW, TO OFFER EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY HOLDING THIS GAS
RATE ORDER CONFISCATORY, OR UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST."  153 S.W.2D AT
687. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS HELD THAT ARTICLE 6059 DOES REQUIRE A
TRIAL DE NOVO IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  IT ADDED THAT "THERE IS NO ESCAPE
FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DID CONSIDER
AND DID PASS UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE GAS COMPANY'S EVIDENCE, WHEN
CONSIDERED FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE COMPANY'S ENTIRE PROPERTIES, AND
DID HOLD SUCH EVIDENCE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT OF THE
JURY FINDING THIS RATE ORDER CONFISCATORY."  153 S.W.2D AT 689.  LATER
IN ITS OPINION, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT STATED "THAT SUCH OPINION (OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES) DECIDES THAT THE EVIDENCE
CONTAINED IN THIS RECORD IS SUFFICIENT, IN LAW, TO INVOKE THE FACT
FINDING JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  IT FOLLOWS THAT SUCH
MATTER HAS BEEN FORECLOSED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND IS
NOT OPEN FOR DECISION BY THIS COURT, AND WAS NOT OPEN FOR DECISION BY
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS."  153 S.W.2D AT 695. 

IT AGREED WITH THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS THAT THE TRIAL COURT, TO
THE PREJUDICE OF THE COMMISSION, HAD ERRONEOUSLY PERMITTED THE
TESTIMONY OF A COMPANY WITNESS AND REFUSED TO EXCLUDE VARIOUS COMPANY
EXHIBITS.  IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS PART OF ITS OPINION THE SUPREME
COURT OF TEXAS WROTE:  "IT IS EVIDENT FROM OUR HOLDINGS ABOVE THAT THIS
CASE MUST BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL."  153
S.W.2D AT 699. 

THE PETITIONERS READ THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS TO
MEAN THAT THE CLAIM OF CONFISCATION COULD NO LONGER BE CONTESTED IN THE
TEXAS COURTS BECAUSE THIS COURT ADJUDICATED THAT CLAIM IN THE COMPANY'S
FAVOR.  SUCH WAS NOT THE RULING OF THIS COURT.  THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM
OF CONFISCATION WERE NOT REVIEWED.  ALL THAT WAS DECIDED HERE WAS THAT
THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO MAKE PROOF OF CONFISCATION ON THE SAME
BASIS - NAMELY, THAT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM - AS
THAT ON WHICH THE COMMISSION FIXED THE RATES.  ON THEIR READING OF THE
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, THE PETITIONERS WERE NATURALLY
EAGER FOR A PROMPT CORRECTION OF THE DECISION OF THAT COURT, EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS NOT FINAL, WITHOUT WAITING FOR THIS RATE CONTROVERSY,
ALREADY EIGHT YEARS OLD, AGAIN TO WIND ITS MEASURED WAY THROUGH THE
TEXAS COURTS AND THEN TO BE BROUGHT HERE ON AN INDUBITABLY FEDERAL
QUESTION, TO WIT, THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF A MANDATE OF THIS COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT BUT FOR A MISAPPLICATION OF OUR MANDATE
THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT MIGHT HAVE SUSTAINED THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
AND THE LITIGATION COULD FINALLY HAVE COME TO AN END.  SINCE THE
OPINION OF THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, ON ITS FACE, APPEARED TO BE
SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN IT BY THE PETITIONERS, WE ISSUED
A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE.  314 U.S. 579. 

IN THEIR RETURN, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS STATE THAT THAT COURT "WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE
SAME JUDGMENT IF IT HAD BASED THE SAME SOLELY UPON ITS CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STATE STATUTE AND NOT AT ALL UPON ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE OPINION
OF THIS COURT."  THE RETURN FURTHER SHOWED THAT IN REMANDING THE CAUSE
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ACTED
ENTIRELY PURSUANT TO STATE LAW:  "THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IN THIS
STATE HAS FULL POWER TO SET ASIDE FINDINGS BASED ON CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE AND BELIEVED BY IT TO BE AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT AND
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND TO REMAND THE CASE FOR ANOTHER TRIAL;
BUT IT IS WITHOUT POWER TO SET ASIDE FINDINGS BASED ON CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE AND THEN MAKE ITS OWN FINDINGS AND RENDER JUDGMENT THEREON." 

WE READ THIS RETURN AS A DISCLAIMER BY THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF TEXAS OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THEIR OPINION BY THE
PETITIONERS INSOFAR AS IT TOUCHES THE SCOPE OF THIS COURT'S RULING IN
304 U.S. 224 AND THE EFFECT OF THAT DECISION UPON THE FUTURE COURSE OF
THIS LITIGATION.  SPECIFICALLY, WE READ THE RETURN AS A DISAVOWAL BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS THAT ITS ACTION IN REVERSING THE TEXAS COURT
OF CIVIL APPEALS AND ORDERING A NEW TRIAL IMPLIED THAT OUR DECISION
ADJUDICATED THE CLAIM OF CONFISCATION OR IN ANY WISE FORECLOSES TRIAL
OF THAT ISSUE.  THEREFORE, WHEN THE LITIGATION GOES BACK TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, IT WILL NOT BE IMPRISONED WITHIN AN ADJUDICATION TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THIS COURT WHICH THIS COURT NEVER MADE.  WE MUST ACCEPT
THE RETURN OF THE TEXAS JUDGES REGARDING THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
OF ORDERS OF THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION, AS WELL AS THEIR SHOWING
REGARDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER WITHIN THE TEXAS JUDICIAL
SYSTEM.  THESE ARE MATTERS OF LOCAL LAW. 

THE RULE WILL THEREFORE BE DISCHARGED AND THE MOTION DENIED.  SO
ORDERED. 

FN1  ARTICLE 6059 PROVIDES:  "IF ANY GAS UTILITY OR OTHER PARTY AT
INTEREST BE DISSATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF ANY RATE, CLASSIFICATION,
RULE, CHARGE, ORDER, ACT OR REGULATION ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION, SUCH
DISSATISFIED UTILITY OR PARTY MAY FILE A PETITION SETTING FORTH THE
PARTICULAR CAUSE OF OBJECTION THERETO IN A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION IN TRAVIS COUNTY AGAINST THE COMMISSION AS DEFENDANT. 
SAID ACTION SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER CAUSES ON THE DOCKET
OF A DIFFERENT NATURE AND SHALL BE TRIED AND DETERMINED AS OTHER CIVIL
CAUSES IN SAID COURT.  ... IN ALL TRIALS UNDER THIS ARTICLE THE BURDEN
OF PROOF SHALL REST UPON THE PLAINTIFF, WHO MUST SHOW BY CLEAR AND
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE RATES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS,
CLASSIFICATIONS, ACTS OR CHARGES COMPLAINED OF ARE UNREASONABLE AND
UNJUST TO IT OR THEM." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS HEARD THE ARGUMENT AND AGREED TO THE ABOVE
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE, BUT THROUGH ABSENCE WAS UNABLE TO JOIN IN THE
OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR
IN THE RESULT. 
..END :



















ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 15 


NO. 110.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 22, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1942.  -
36 F.SUPP.  898, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 205(H) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 INCORPORATES BY
REFERENCE THE "PARTY IN INTEREST" PROVISION OF SEC. 1(20) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 19. 

2.  A RAILROAD COMPANY WHICH IS IN COMPETITION WITH AN INDIVIDUAL
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY THE DRIVEAWAY OR
CARAVANING METHOD, IS A "PARTY IN INTEREST" ENTITLED, UNDER SEC.
205(H), TO SUE TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION GRANTING TO SUCH INDIVIDUAL A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  P. 19. 

3.  OPERATIONS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF SEC.
206(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, IN THE TERRITORY TO BE SERVED,
NEED NOT BE RESTRICTED TO SPECIFIED ROUTES OR BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI. 
P. 20. 

4.  IN THE CASE OF A TRANSPORTER OF MOTOR VEHICLES BY THE DRIVEAWAY
OR CARAVANING METHOD, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, UNDER THE
"GRANDFATHER CLAUSE," MAY, CONSIDERING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
PARTICULAR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, AUTHORIZE OPERATION TO ALL POINTS
WITHIN A STATE, ALTHOUGH BUT A FEW POINTS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SERVED. 
SUCH AUTHORIZATION IN THIS CASE WAS NOT INAPPROPRIATE, AND MUST BE
SUSTAINED.  P. 22. 

5.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT A TRANSPORTER OF MOTOR
VEHICLES BY THE DRIVEAWAY OR CARAVANING METHOD WAS IN BONA FIDE
OPERATION IN CERTAIN STATES ON AND SINCE JUNE 1, 1935, AND THE
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION THAT HE WAS, AND THAT HE WAS ENTITLED IN
THOSE STATES TO RIGHTS UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE," MAY NOT BE SET
ASIDE.  P. 23. 

6.  THAT A CARRIER'S STATUS UNDER THE LAW OF A STATE IS THAT OF A
CONTRACT CARRIER, DOES NOT NECESSARILY BAR HIS OBTAINING COMMON CARRIER
RIGHTS THERE UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  P. 23. 

7.  WHETHER A CARRIER'S OPERATION IN A PARTICULAR STATE WAS BONA
FIDE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE," IS A QUESTION OF
FACT FOR THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE.  P. 24. 

8.  VIOLATION OF STATE LAW BY A CARRIER, THOUGH RELEVANT TO
ESTABLISHING AN ABSENCE OF "BONA FIDE OPERATION," DOES NOT NECESSARILY
BAR RIGHTS UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  P. 24. 

9.  THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S
FINDING THAT THE CARRIER'S OPERATION IN A PARTICULAR STATE WAS BONA
FIDE, NOTWITHSTANDING VIOLATION OF THE STATE LAW, AND THE FINDING IS
SUSTAINED.  P. 24. 

10.  WHERE THE CARRIER'S LAST SHIPMENT TO A PARTICULAR STATE WAS ON
MAY 12, 1935, AND MORE THAN A YEAR ELAPSED BETWEEN JUNE 1, 1935, AND
THE TIME OF THE HEARING ON THE APPLICATION, HELD THAT A GRANT OF
"GRANDFATHER" RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 206(A) - WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE
CARRIER SHALL HAVE BEEN IN BONA FIDE OPERATION ON JUNE 1, 1935, AND
"SINCE THAT TIME" - WAS PROPERLY SET ASIDE.  P. 24. 

ALTON RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 267, UNITED STATES ET AL. V. ALTON RAILROAD CO. ET
AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. 

APPEAL AND CROSS APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES IN A SUIT BROUGHT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 8 M.C.C. 469. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES ARE AN APPEAL AND A CROSS APPEAL UNDER SEC. 210(28 U.S.C.
SEC. 47A) AND SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED (28 U.S.C. SEC.
345) TO REVIEW A FINAL DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES (28
U.S.C. SEC. 47) WHICH MODIFIED IN PART AND SUSTAINED AS MODIFIED (36
F.SUPP.  898) AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (8 M.C.C.
469) GRANTING APPELLEE FLEMING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE UNDER THE SO-CALLED
"GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" (SEC. 206(A)) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935. 
FN1  49 STAT. 543, 551, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 306. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION MAY BE BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:
FLEMING, ON AND SINCE JUNE 1, 1935, WAS ENGAGED IN BONA FIDE OPERATION
AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE "IN DRIVEAWAY SERVICE OF NEW
AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLES, FINISHED AND UNFINISHED, AND NEW AUTOMOTIVE
VEHICLE CHASSIS."  THIS DRIVEAWAY OR CARAVANING METHOD OF
TRANSPORTATION IS PERFORMED BY INDIVIDUAL DRIVING OF THE VEHICLE UNDER
ITS OWN POWER, BY DRIVING ONE VEHICLE UNDER ITS OWN POWER AND TOWING A
SECOND VEHICLE ATTACHED TO THE FIRST, OR BY DRIVING UNDER ITS OWN POWER
A VEHICLE UPON WHICH ANOTHER VEHICLE IS PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY MOUNTED. 
SHIPMENTS BY FLEMING ORIGINATED FROM THE FACTORIES OF AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN, AND WERE MADE TO DEALERS AND
DISTRIBUTORS IN VARIOUS STATES.  CERTAIN NEW CARS WERE RETURNED TO
DETROIT IN THE SAME MANNER.  FLEMING COMMENCED OPERATIONS IN 1933, AND
BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1934 AND JUNE 1, 1935 TRANSPORTED SHIPMENTS TO ONE
POINT EACH IN ARKANSAS AND ALABAMA; TO TWO POINTS EACH IN CALIFORNIA,
NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA AND TENNESSEE; TO THREE POINTS EACH IN
WASHINGTON, OREGON, KENTUCKY AND NORTH CAROLINA; TO FOUR POINTS IN
TEXAS; TO FIVE POINTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA; AND TO SEVEN POINTS IN
GEORGIA.  ABOUT 1200 VEHICLES WERE TRANSPORTED IN THIS PERIOD AND MORE
THAN 2100 FROM 1933 TO JULY, 1936, THE TIME OF THE HEARING.  SHIPMENTS
CONSISTED OF FROM ONE TO SIXTEEN VEHICLES, SHIPMENTS OF TWO AND FOUR
BEING THE MOST COMMON.  FLEMING'S SERVICE WAS CONFINED TO DELIVERIES AT
VERY FEW POINTS IN SEVERAL STATES, DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS
FURNISHING A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FROM
MANUFACTURERS TO DEALERS AND DISTRIBUTORS.  SHIPMENTS TO MOST OF THE
STATES NAMED WERE NUMEROUS.  SHIPMENTS TO OTHER STATES WERE FEWER IN
NUMBER.  THUS THE THREE SHIPMENTS TO ARKANSAS AGGREGATED TWENTY-FIVE
VEHICLES, THE FOUR SHIPMENTS EACH TO TEXAS AND OREGON AGGREGATED
FOURTEEN VEHICLES AND TWENTY-FOUR VEHICLES RESPECTIVELY, AND THE FIVE
SHIPMENTS TO WASHINGTON AGGREGATED TWENTY-EIGHT VEHICLES.  OPERATIONS
IN THOSE FOUR STATES STARTED JUST PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1935; BUT THEY WERE
SUFFICIENT IN SCOPE TO ESTABLISH THAT FLEMING WAS IN BONA FIDE
OPERATION IN THEM ON THE STATUTORY DATE.  FLEMING HELD HIS SERVICES OUT
TO THE PUBLIC GENERALLY AS A COMMON CARRIER AND OPERATED AS SUCH; AND
HE HELD HIMSELF OUT TO TRANSPORT BY THE DRIVEAWAY METHOD BETWEEN ANY
POINTS IN THE STATES FOR WHICH APPLICATION WAS MADE. 

THOUGH HIS TRANSPORTATION OF SHIPMENTS WAS RESTRICTED TO A FEW POINTS
IN EACH OF THE ENUMERATED STATES, THE COMMISSION HELD THAT HE WAS
ENTITLED TO TRANSPORT TO ALL POINTS IN ALL OF THE STATES SERVED, WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA, AS RESPECTS WHICH THE
APPLICATION WAS DENIED.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION IN ALL RESPECTS EXCEPT THE OPERATION IN ARKANSAS.  AS TO
THAT IT HELD THAT HIS SERVICE HAD BEEN ABANDONED. 

WE ARE MET AT THE OUTSET WITH THE QUESTION OF THE STANDING OF THE
APPELLANT RAILROAD COMPANIES (SEVENTY-ONE IN NUMBER) TO BRING AND
MAINTAIN THE SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  ALL BUT A FEW INTERVENED IN
THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  EACH IS A COMMON CARRIER AND A
COMPETITOR OF FLEMING IN SOME PORTION OF THE TERRITORY WHICH FLEMING IS
AUTHORIZED TO SERVE.  THEY REST THEIR RIGHT TO SUE ON SEC. 205(H) OF
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT  FN2  (49 U.S.C. SUPP. SEC. 305(H)) WHICH
PROVIDES THAT "ANY FINAL ORDER MADE UNDER THIS PART SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
THE SAME RIGHT OF RELIEF IN COURT BY ANY PARTY IN INTEREST AS IS NOW
PROVIDED IN RESPECT TO ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION MADE UNDER PART I  ...
"  SEC. 1(20) OF PART I (49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(20)) AUTHORIZES "ANY PARTY IN
INTEREST" TO SUE TO ENJOIN ANY CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION OR ABANDONMENT
OF A RAILROAD MADE CONTRARY TO SEC. 1(18) OR (19).  SUCH SUITS MAY BE
MAINTAINED NOT ONLY WHERE THE RAILROAD PROCEEDS WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
OF THE COMMISSION BUT ALSO WHERE IT PROCEEDS UNDER A CERTIFICATE OF THE
COMMISSION WHOSE VALIDITY IS CHALLENGED.  CLAIBORNE-ANNAPOLIS FERRY CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 285 U.S. 382.  HENCE WE CONCLUDE THAT SEC. 205(H) HAS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE THE "PARTY IN INTEREST" PROVISION OF SEC.
1(20).  WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, THE STATUS OF
APPELLANT RAILROAD COMPANIES AS INTERVENORS BEFORE THE COMMISSION HAD
ON THEIR RIGHT TO BRING AND MAINTAIN THIS SUIT.  CF. CHICAGO JUNCTION
CASE, 264 U.S. 258, WITH PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 281 U.S. 479.  THEY CLEARLY HAVE A STAKE AS CARRIERS IN THE
TRANSPORTATION SITUATION WHICH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AFFECTED. 
THEY ARE COMPETITORS OF FLEMING FOR AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC IN TERRITORY
SERVED BY HIM.  THEY ARE TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY
COMPETITION WITH THE MOTOR TRANSPORT INDUSTRY - COMPETITION WHICH PRIOR
TO THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 HAD PROVED DESTRUCTIVE.  S. DOC. NO.
152, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 13-27.  THEY ARE MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH THAT ACT WAS DESIGNED TO COORDINATE.  S.
REP. NO. 482, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 1645, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.  HENCE THEY ARE PARTIES IN INTEREST WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
205(H) UNDER THE TESTS ANNOUNCED IN TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C.
& S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266; WESTERN PACIFIC CALIFORNIA R. CO. V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 284 U.S. 47; AND CLAIBORNE-ANNAPOLIS FERRY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE APPELLANT RAILROAD COMPANIES EARNESTLY CONTEND THAT THE
COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE FLEMING TO SERVE A WHOLE
STATE WHERE, AS HERE, HIS SERVICES HAD BEEN IN FACT LIMITED TO ONLY A
FEW POINTS IN THE STATE.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT ANY RIGHTS OBTAINED
UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" SHOULD BE DELIMITED TO THE ACTUAL AREA
IN WHICH THE APPLICANT WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION.  SEC. 206(A) PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WITHOUT PROOF BEYOND THE FACT THAT THE
APPLICANT OR HIS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST "WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS
A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE 1, 1935, OVER THE ROUTE OR
ROUTES OR WITHIN THE TERRITORY FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE AND HAS SO
OPERATED SINCE THAT TIME."  SEC. 208(A) PROVIDES THAT SUCH CERTIFICATE
"SHALL SPECIFY THE SERVICE TO BE RENDERED AND THE ROUTES OVER WHICH,
THE FIXED TERMINI, IF ANY, BETWEEN WHICH, AND THE INTERMEDIATE AND OFF
ROUTE POINTS, IF ANY, AT WHICH, AND IN CASE OF OPERATIONS NOT OVER
SPECIFIED ROUTES OR BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI, THE TERRITORY WITHIN WHICH,
THE MOTOR CARRIER IS AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE."  THE AUTHORITY GRANTED
FLEMING WAS TO OPERATE IN THE DESIGNATED TERRITORY "OVER IRREGULAR
ROUTES" THROUGH SPECIFIED STATES.  IT IS PLAIN FROM THE STATUTE THAT
OPERATIONS NEED NOT BE RESTRICTED TO SPECIFIED ROUTES OR BETWEEN FIXED
TERMINI.  BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO
AUTHORIZE OPERATION IN AN ENTIRE STATE WHERE ONLY A FEW POINTS IN THAT
STATE HAD BEEN SERVED. 

"TERRITORY" IS NOT A WORD OF ART. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INVOLVED AS WELL AS THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
SERVICED ARE RELEVANT TO THE TERRITORIAL SCOPE OF THE OPERATIONS WHICH
MAY BE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  WHILE THE TEST OF
"BONA FIDE OPERATION" WITHIN A SPECIFIED "TERRITORY" INCLUDES "ACTUAL
RATHER THAN POTENTIAL OR SIMULATED SERVICE" (MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 305
U.S. 263, 266), IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESTRICT FUTURE OPERATIONS TO
THE PRECISE POINTS OR AREAS ALREADY SERVED.  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE RENDERED MAY OF NECESSITY HAVE MADE TRIPS TO ANY
SPECIFIED LOCALITY IRREGULAR OR SPORADIC.  AND THEY MAY LIKEWISE HAVE
RESTRICTED PRIOR OPERATIONS TO BUT A FEW POINTS IN A WIDE AREA WHICH
THE CARRIER HELD ITSELF OUT AS BEING WILLING AND ABLE TO SERVE.  THE
COMMISSION HAS TAKEN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE TERRITORY
COVERED BY CERTIFICATES UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  THUS,
OPERATIONS ON IRREGULAR ROUTES WITHIN A WIDE TERRITORY HAVE BEEN
AUTHORIZED IN CASE OF COMMON CARRIERS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS.  BRUCE
TRANSFER & STORAGE CO., 2 M.C.C. 150; WILLIAM J. WRUCK, 12 M.C.C. 150. 
SIMILAR BROAD AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GRANTED COMMON CARRIERS OF OILFIELD
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES.  CHARLES B. GREER, JR., 3 M.C.C. 483; UNION
CITY TRANSFER, 7 M.C.C. 717; L.C. JONES TRUCKING CO., 9 M.C.C. 740. 
AND A LIKE RESULT HAS BEEN REACHED IN CASE OF AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTERS
SUCH AS THE APPLICANT IN THE INSTANT CASE.  GEORGE CASSENS & SONS, 1
M.C.C. 771.  AND SEE CHARLES E. DANBURY, 17 M.C.C. 243.  THE GENERAL
THEORY UNDERLYING THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS CASES WAS EXPRESSED IN W. J.
WRUCK, SUPRA, PP. 151-152, AS FOLLOWS: 

"CALLS FOR SERVICE BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS ARE SELDOM REPEATED. 
TRAFFIC IS NOT REGULAR IN ANY GIVEN DIRECTION.  WHAT MAY BE INFREQUENT
BUT FAIRLY REGULAR BUSINESS TO OR FROM A CERTAIN STATE FOR A SMALL
CARRIER MAY BE ONLY SPORADIC BUSINESS FOR A LARGE CARRIER;
CONSEQUENTLY, A FREQUENCY OF SERVICE THAT MIGHT AMOUNT TO 'GRANDFATHER'
CLAUSE RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF THE FORMER COULD CONCEIVABLY BE INADEQUATE
IN THE CASE OF THE LATTER.  IT WOULD BE AN IMPRACTICAL SOLUTION TO
CARVE OUT ODDLY SHAPED AREAS FOR SERVICE BASED SOLELY ON THE FREQUENCY
OF SERVICE; CONSIDERATION MUST ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE GENERAL TERRITORY
SERVED UNDER THE HOLDING-OUT, EVEN IF THE BUSINESS IN SOME STATES MAY
NOT EQUAL THAT IN OTHER STATES IN THE TERRITORY." 

THE COMMISSION TOOK A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM
PRESENTED IN THE INSTANT CASE.  IT NOTED THAT FLEMING WAS RESTRICTED TO
SHIPMENTS AT POINTS WHERE THE MANUFACTURERS HAD ESTABLISHED
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES; THAT THOSE FACILITIES WERE LIMITED IN ANY
GIVEN AREA; THAT FLEMING'S OPPORTUNITY FOR SERVICE WAS THEREFORE
CONFINED TO A VERY FEW DISTRIBUTION POINTS AND HIS OPERATIONS WERE
IRREGULAR; THAT LESS THAN AN ESTIMATED SEVEN PER CENT OF ALL NEW
AUTOMOBILES SOLD DURING 1935 IN TWENTY-FOUR WESTERN STATES WERE
TRANSPORTED BY THE DRIVEAWAY METHOD; THAT DISTRIBUTION POINTS IN THE
AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY ARE CONSTANTLY SHIFTED; THAT ALLOWANCE MUST BE MADE
FOR FREQUENT CHANGES IN POINTS SERVED BY A CARRIER WHO DEPENDS FOR HIS
TRAFFIC ENTIRELY UPON THIS ONE INDUSTRY; AND THAT FLEMING'S FUTURE
OPPORTUNITY FOR OBTAINING TRAFFIC WILL DOUBTLESS BE AS LIMITED AS IN
THE PAST.  IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE OF HIS HOLDING OUT AND THE NATURE AND
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HIGHLY SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
RENDERED, THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED CONTINUANCE OF HIS SERVICE TO ALL
POINTS IN THE ENUMERATED STATES.  THAT IS A JUDGMENT WHICH WE SHOULD
RESPECT.  CERTAINLY WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS A WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE
METHOD FOR CREATING THAT SUBSTANTIAL PARITY BETWEEN FUTURE OPERATIONS
AND PRIOR BONA FIDE OPERATIONS WHICH THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES.  THE
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS ROVING TRANSPORTATION SERVICE MAKE
TENABLE THE CONCLUSION THAT FLEMING'S PRIOR LIMITED OPPORTUNITY FOR
SERVICE COULD NOT BE PRESERVED UNLESS STATEWIDE AREAS, WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF HIS HOLDING OUT AND PARTIALLY COVERED BY HIS PREVIOUS OPERATIONS,
WERE KEPT OPEN FOR HIM.  THAT JUDGMENT IS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPERTS, NOT THE COURTS. 

APPELLANT RAILROAD COMPANIES ALSO URGE THAT FLEMING SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN AWARDED ANY RIGHTS UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" IN WASHINGTON,
OREGON, AND CALIFORNIA.  BEFORE JUNE 1, 1935, FLEMING HAD MADE FIVE
DELIVERIES TO THREE DIFFERENT POINTS IN WASHINGTON, FOUR DELIVERIES TO
THREE DIFFERENT POINTS IN OREGON, AND AT LEAST TWO DELIVERIES TO TWO
DIFFERENT POINTS IN CALIFORNIA.  AFTER JUNE 1, 1935, AND PRIOR TO THE
HEARING IN JULY 1936, TWO DELIVERIES WERE MADE IN WASHINGTON, TWO IN
OREGON, AND APPARENTLY SEVERAL IN CALIFORNIA.  THESE SHIPMENTS DID NOT
APPEAR TO BE MERELY NOMINAL.  FN3  THUS THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT ON AND
SINCE JUNE 1, 1935, FLEMING HAD BEEN IN BONA FIDE OPERATION IN THOSE
STATES.  THE WEIGHING OF SUCH EVIDENCE INVOLVES IN PART A JUDGMENT
BASED ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HIGHLY SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE INVOLVED.  THUS, AS WE HAVE SAID, THAT FUNCTION IS PECULIARLY
ONE FOR THE COMMISSION, NOT THE COURTS.    APPELLANT RAILROAD COMPANIES
ALSO INSIST THAT FLEMING WAS NOT IN "BONA FIDE OPERATION" IN OREGON
BECAUSE IN JANUARY, 1936 HE OBTAINED IN THAT STATE A CONTRACT CARRIER
PERMIT.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT HE COULD NOT OBTAIN UNDER THE
"GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" COMMON CARRIER RIGHTS IN OREGON IN THE FACE OF HIS
CONTRACT CARRIER STATUS THERE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. MAHER, 307 U.S.
148.  THEY FURTHER URGE THAT FLEMING'S OPERATIONS IN NEBRASKA (ONE OF
THE STATES THROUGH WHICH HIS IRREGULAR ROUTES WERE AUTHORIZED) WERE
CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW.  IN THAT CONNECTION, RELIANCE IS
PLACED ON HIS TESTIMONY THAT IN NEBRASKA HE CLAIMED TO BE THE OWNER OF
THE VEHICLES IN ORDER TO REDUCE LICENSE FEES.  THE EXPRESSION "IN BONA
FIDE OPERATION" PLAINLY "DOES NOT EXTEND TO ONE OPERATING AS A COMMON
CARRIER ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF A STATE IN DEFIANCE OF ITS LAWS." 
MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, P. 266.  CONGRESS HAS NOT, HOWEVER,
CONDITIONED RIGHTS UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" ON COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE LAWS.  THEIR VIOLATION IS MATERIAL ONLY INSOFAR AS IT MAY BE
RELEVANT TO ESTABLISHING AN ABSENCE OF "BONA FIDE OPERATION." 
INFRACTIONS OF STATE LAW, HOWEVER, MAY BE INNOCENT OR WILFUL, MINOR OR
CONSIDERABLE.  THEY MAY OR MAY NOT CONCERN THE RIGHT TO OPERATE IN THE
STATE.  FURTHERMORE, THE STATUS OF A CARRIER UNDER STATE LAW MAY OR MAY
NOT BE IDENTICAL WITH HIS STATUS AS A COMMON OR CONTRACT CARRIER UNDER
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  THE QUESTION WHETHER HIS OPERATION IN A
PARTICULAR STATE WAS "BONA FIDE" IS A QUESTION OF FACT FOR THE
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE.  SUCH OPERATION MIGHT WELL BE IN GOOD FAITH
THOUGH STATE LAWS WERE INFRACTED.  AND THE FACT THAT AN APPLICANT MAY
HAVE TO MAKE HIS PEACE WITH STATE AUTHORITIES DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN
THAT HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" SHOULD BE DENIED OR
WITHHELD.  SEE EARL W. SLAGLE, 2 M.C.C. 127.  OCCASIONAL NONCOMPLIANCE
WITH STATE LAWS DOES NOT PER SE ESTABLISH A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH IS
PREPONDERANTLY ONE OF EVASION.  CERTAINLY NO SUCH COURSE OF CONDUCT CAN
BE FAIRLY IMPLIED IN THIS CASE.  OUR TASK IS ENDED IF THERE IS EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDING OF BONA FIDES.  THERE IS SUCH
EVIDENCE HERE. 

IT IS URGED ON THE CROSS APPEAL THAT THE COURT BELOW SHOULD NOT HAVE
SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S INCLUSION OF ARKANSAS IN THE CERTIFICATE. 
THE EVIDENCE WAS THAT FLEMING HAD SERVED ONLY ONE LOCALITY IN ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF TEXARKANA.  HE HAD MADE THREE SHIPMENTS THERE AGGREGATING
TWENTY-FIVE VEHICLES.  ALL OF THOSE SHIPMENTS HAD BEEN MADE PRIOR TO
JUNE 1, 1935, THE LATEST BEING MAY 12, 1935.  THOUGH FOURTEEN MONTHS
EXPIRED BETWEEN THAT DATE AND THE DATE OF THE HEARING, THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE THAT ANY SHIPMENTS WERE MADE TO ANY LOCALITY IN ARKANSAS SINCE
JUNE 1, 1935.  NO EXPLANATION OF THAT LONG HIATUS WAS PROFFERED.  BUT
SEC. 206(A) REQUIRES A FINDING OF "BONA FIDE OPERATION  ...  WITHIN THE
TERRITORY" NOT ONLY "ON JUNE 1, 1935" BUT ALSO "SINCE THAT TIME."  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT AN UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO MAKE ANY SHIPMENTS TO
ARKANSAS FOR OVER A YEAR "SINCE THAT TIME" SATISFIES THE STATUTORY
COMMAND, EVEN THOUGH THE NATURE OF THE HIGHLY SPECIALIZED
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INVOLVED BE GIVEN THE GREATEST WEIGHT.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. MAHER, SUPRA.  A MERE HOLDING OUT WILL NOT ALONE
SUFFICE TO BRIDGE THE LONG GAP EXTENDING THROUGH AND BEYOND ONE ENTIRE
AUTOMOBILE PRODUCTION YEAR, SINCE APPLICANT CARRIES THE BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING HIS RIGHT TO THE STATUTORY GRANT. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OTHER POINTS RAISED BY APPELLANT RAILROAD
COMPANIES AND FIND THEM WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 IS NOW DESIGNATED AS PART II OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  54 STAT. 919. 

FN2  NOW SEC. 205(G) OF PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  54
STAT. 922; 49 U.S.C. SEC. 305(G). 

FN3  AS TO CALIFORNIA THE EVIDENCE WAS LESS SPECIFIC THAN IN THE
OTHER STATES.  SHIPPING BILLS SHOWED THREE DELIVERIES TO CALIFORNIA
AGGREGATING FIVE VEHICLES, THE LATEST BEING IN DECEMBER, 1935.  IN
ADDITION, THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT SHORTLY PRIOR TO THE HEARING IN 1936
DELIVERIES OF TAXICABS AND TRUCKS HAD BEEN MADE IN THAT STATE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















TAYLOR V. GEORGIA, 315 U.S. 25 


NO. 70.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 16, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1942.  -
191 GA. 682, 13 S.E.2D 647, REVERSED. 


1.  PEONAGE IS A FORM OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT; AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 2, 1867 IS
AN APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT AMENDMENT.  P. 29. 

2.  A STATE STATUTE MAKING IT A CRIME FOR ANY PERSON TO CONTRACT WITH
ANOTHER TO PERFORM SERVICES OF ANY KIND, AND THEREUPON OBTAIN IN
ADVANCE MONEY OR OTHER THING OF VALUE, WITH INTENT NOT TO PERFORM SUCH
SERVICE; AND PROVIDING FURTHER THAT FAILURE TO PERFORM THE SERVICE OR
TO RETURN THE MONEY, WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE, SHALL BE DEEMED
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF INTENT, AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE CONTRACT, NOT
TO PERFORM SUCH SERVICE, HELD VIOLATIVE OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND
THE ACT OF 1867.  P. 29. 

THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH STATUTE IS THAT ONE WHO HAS
RECEIVED AN ADVANCE ON A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WHICH HE IS UNABLE TO
REPAY IS BOUND BY THE THREAT OF PENAL SANCTION TO REMAIN AT HIS
EMPLOYMENT UNTIL THE DEBT HAS BEEN DISCHARGED.  SUCH COERCED LABOR IS
PEONAGE. 

TAYLOR V. GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF A
STATE STATUTE. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE BYRNES, ANNOUNCED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE. 

APPELLANT WAS INDICTED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WILKINSON COUNTY,
GEORGIA, FOR VIOLATION OF SECS. 7408 AND 7409, OF TITLE 26 OF THE
GEORGIA CODE.  SECTION 7408 PROVIDES: 

"ANY PERSON WHO SHALL CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER TO PERFORM FOR HIM
SERVICES OF ANY KIND, WITH INTENT TO PROCURE MONEY OR OTHER THING OF
VALUE THEREBY, AND NOT TO PERFORM THE SERVICE CONTRACTED FOR, TO THE
LOSS AND DAMAGE OF THE HIRER, OR, AFTER HAVING SO CONTRACTED, SHALL
PROCURE FROM THE HIRER MONEY, OR OTHER THING OF VALUE, WITH INTENT NOT
TO PERFORM SUCH SERVICE, TO THE LOSS AND DAMAGE OF THE HIRER, SHALL BE
DEEMED A COMMON CHEAT AND SWINDLER, AND UPON CONVICTION SHALL BE
PUNISHED AS FOR A MISDEMEANOR."  FN1  AND SECTION 7409 DECLARES: 

"SATISFACTORY PROOF OF THE CONTRACT, THE PROCURING THEREON OF MONEY
OR OTHER THING OF VALUE, THE FAILURE TO PERFORM THE SERVICES SO
CONTRACTED FOR, OR FAILURE TO RETURN THE MONEY SO ADVANCED WITH
INTEREST THEREON AT THE TIME SAID LABOR WAS TO BE PERFORMED, WITHOUT
GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE, AND LOSS OR DAMAGE TO THE HIRER, SHALL BE
DEEMED PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING

THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT
WITH R. L. HARDIE TO PERFORM MANUAL LABOR FOR $1.25 A DAY UNTIL HE HAD
EARNED $19.50 AT THAT RATE, THAT HE HAD DONE SO WITH THE INTENT NOT TO
PERFORM THE SERVICES, THAT HE HAD THUS OBTAINED THE $19.50 AS AN
ADVANCE, THAT HE HAD FAILED WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO DO THE
WORK, THAT HE HAD FAILED AND REFUSED TO REPAY THE $19.50, AND THAT LOSS
AND DAMAGE TO HARDIE HAD RESULTED.  APPELLANT DEMURRED TO THE
INDICTMENT, ASSERTING THAT SECS. 7408 AND 7409, UPON WHICH IT WAS
BASED, WERE REPUGNANT BOTH TO THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE ACT OF
CONGRESS PASSED PURSUANT TO IT,  FN3  AND TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE DEMURRER WAS OVERRULED, EXCEPTION WAS
TAKEN, AND THE CASE WENT TO TRIAL. 

HARDIE WAS THE ONLY WITNESS FOR THE STATE.  HE TESTIFIED THAT THE
AGREEMENT HAD BEEN MADE, THAT HE HAD ADVANCED THE $19.50, THAT
APPELLANT HAD NEITHER DONE THE WORK NOR RETURNED THE MONEY, AND THAT
ALTHOUGH APPELLANT HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT BEING SICK, HE HAD GIVEN NO
VISIBLE SIGN OF IT AND HAD NOT BEEN CONFINED TO BED.  UNDER THE
STATUTES OF GEORGIA,  FN4  APPELLANT COULD NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH, BUT
HE WAS PERMITTED TO MAKE AN UNSWORN STATEMENT IN WHICH HE GENERALLY
DENIED THAT HE AND HARDIE HAD MADE THE AGREEMENT OR THAT HARDIE HAD
PAID HIM THE $19.50.  THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED THE JURY IN THE LANGUAGE
OF SECS. 7408 AND 7409.  HE REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THESE
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS
ENTERED.  APPELLANT MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT SECS. 7408
AND 7409 VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE
CONSTITUTIONS, AND THE MOTION WAS DENIED.  ON APPEAL, THE CONVICTION
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA.  191 GA. 682, 13 S.E.2D
647. 

WE THINK THE CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED.  THERE IS NO MATERIAL
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE GEORGIA STATUTES CHALLENGED HERE AND THE
ALABAMA STATUTE WHICH WAS HELD TO VIOLATE THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT IN
BAILEY V. ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219.  FN5  IT IS ARGUED HERE, JUST AS IT
WAS IN THE BAILEY CASE, THAT THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 7408 IS NOTHING MORE
THAN THE PUNISHMENT OF A SPECIES OF FRAUD, NAMELY, THE OBTAINING OF
MONEY BY A PROMISE TO PERFORM SERVICES WITH INTENT NEVER TO PERFORM
THEM.  AND THE PRESUMPTION CREATED BY SEC. 7409 IS SAID TO BE MERELY A
RULE OF EVIDENCE FOR THE TRIAL OF CASES ARISING UNDER SEC. 7408. 
ACTUALLY, HOWEVER, SEC. 7409 EMBODIES A SUBSTANTIVE PROHIBITION WHICH
SQUARELY CONTRAVENES THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE ACT OF CONGRESS
OF MARCH 2, 1867.  FN6  ITS EFFECT IS TO AUTHORIZE THE JURY TO CONVICT
UPON PROOF THAT AN AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED, THAT MONEY HAS BEEN
ADVANCED ON THE STRENGTH OF IT, THAT THE MONEY HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED,
THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED OR REFUSED TO PERFORM THE SERVICES
"WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE," AND NOTHING MORE.  THE NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE IS THAT ONE WHO HAS RECEIVED AN ADVANCE ON A CONTRACT FOR
SERVICES WHICH HE IS UNABLE TO REPAY IS BOUND BY THE THREAT OF PENAL
SANCTION TO REMAIN AT HIS EMPLOYMENT UNTIL THE DEBT HAS BEEN
DISCHARGED.  SUCH COERCED LABOR IS PEONAGE.  AND IT IS NO LESS SO
BECAUSE A PRESUMED INITIAL FRAUD RATHER THAN A SUBSEQUENT BREACH OF THE
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IS THE ASSERTED TARGET OF THE STATUTE.  IT IS OF
COURSE CLEAR THAT PEONAGE IS A FORM OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THAT THE ACT OF 1867 IS AN
"APPROPRIATE" IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT AMENDMENT.  CLYATT V. UNITED
STATES, 197 U.S. 207. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE SECTIONS HAVE BEEN
INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS OF GEORGIA RESCUES THEM FROM INVALIDITY.  IT
IS URGED THAT THE PHRASE "WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE," WHICH
APPEARS IN SEC. 7409, IN EFFECT REQUIRES PROOF OF FRAUDULENT INTENT AT
THE TIME OF MAKING THE CONTRACT AND OBTAINING THE MONEY.  BUT THIS
ARGUMENT IS WIDE OF THE MARK.  THE WORDS "WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT
CAUSE" PLAINLY REFER TO THE FAILURE TO PERFORM THE SERVICES OR TO
RETURN THE MONEY ADVANCED.  SINCE THE SUBSEQUENT BREACH OF THE CONTRACT
BY THE DEFENDANT, HOWEVER CAPRICIOUS OR REPREHENSIBLE, DOES NOT
ESTABLISH A FRAUDULENT INTENT AT THE INITIAL STAGE OF THE TRANSACTION,
THE CONTENT WHICH HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE PHRASE "WITHOUT GOOD AND
SUFFICIENT CAUSE" BY THE GEORGIA COURTS IS IMMATERIAL.  SEE BAILEY V.
ALABAMA, 219 U.S. AT 233-234. 

MOREOVER, AS THE COURT OBSERVED IN THE BAILEY CASE, "THE CONTROLLING
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IS THE AFFIRMANCE OF THIS JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION."  219 U.S. AT 235.  THE MOST THAT THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND
IN THE EVIDENCE HERE WAS PROOF THAT THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN MADE, THAT
$19.50 HAD BEEN ADVANCED, THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO DO THE WORK
OR TO RETURN THE MONEY, AND PERHAPS THAT THIS FAILURE HAD BEEN "WITHOUT
GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE."  THE PRESUMPTION CREATED BY SEC. 7409 WAS
THUS ESSENTIAL TO THE CONVICTION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF
GEORGIA REGARDED IT AS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT BECAUSE "THE DEFENDANT RELIES SOLELY ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS."  AND IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE
RECORD THAT IN HIS BRIEF IN THAT COURT THE APPELLANT STATED:  "INASMUCH
AS THE DEFENDANT IN SEEKING TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION RELIES SOLELY
ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, THE EVIDENCE SET OUT IN THE RECORD IS
MATERIAL ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THESE GROUNDS."  HOWEVER, THE
ONLY POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS STATEMENT, IN THE LIGHT OF
APPELLANT'S CONSISTENT ATTACK UPON THE PRESUMPTION CREATED BY SEC.
7409, IS THAT APPELLANT AGREED TO WAIVE ANY CONTENTION THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE FACTORS DECLARED BY THAT
CANNOT FAIRLY BE SAID TO HAVE CONCEDED MORE.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE GEORGIA
SUPREME COURT COULD NOT ESCAPE THE NECESSITY OF PASSING UPON THE
VALIDITY OF THE PRESUMPTION RAISED BY SEC. 7409 IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE
CONVICTION. 

WE ARE AWARE THAT IN WILSON V. STATE, 138 GA. 489, 75 S.E. 619, THE
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA HELD THAT BAILEY V. ALABAMA DOES NOT REQUIRE
THE INVALIDATION OF THESE SECTIONS.  ITS ERROR IN SO DOING AROSE FROM A
MISCONCEPTION OF THE SCOPE OF THE BAILEY DECISION.  TO BE SURE, A
JUDICIALLY CREATED RULE IN ALABAMA DENIED TO A DEFENDANT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANY KIND OF STATEMENT AS TO HIS UNCOMMUNICATED
MOTIVES, AND THIS CIRCUMSTANCE DREW THE NOTICE OF THE COURT.  219 U.S.
AT 228, 236.  IN GEORGIA, ON THE OTHER HAND, A DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED
TO MAKE AN UNSWORN STATEMENT IF HE CHOOSES.  BUT THE OPINION IN THE
BAILEY CASE LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THIS FACTOR WAS FAR FROM CONTROLLING
AND THAT ITS EFFECT WAS SIMPLY TO ACCENTUATE THE HARSHNESS OF AN
OTHERWISE INVALID STATUTE. 

WE THINK THAT THE SECTIONS OF THE GEORGIA CODE UPON WHICH THIS
CONVICTION RESTS ARE REPUGNANT TO THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT AND TO THE
ACT OF 1867, AND THAT THE CONVICTION MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 1065 OF THE GEORGIA PENAL CODE (GA. CODE (1933), TITLE
27, SEC. 2506) PROVIDES: "EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE PROVIDED, EVERY CRIME
DECLARED TO BE A MISDEMEANOR SHALL BE PUNISHABLE BY A FINE NOT TO
EXCEED $1,000, IMPRISONMENT NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS, TO WORK IN THE
CHAIN GANG ON THE PUBLIC ROADS, OR ON SUCH OTHER PUBLIC WORKS AS THE
COUNTY OR STATE AUTHORITIES MAY EMPLOY THE CHAIN GANG, NOT TO EXCEED 12
MONTHS, ANY ONE OR MORE OF THESE PUNISHMENTS IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
JUDGE  ...  " 

FN2  THESE TWO SECTIONS WERE ENACTED AS SECTIONS ONE AND TWO OF THE
ACT OF AUGUST 15, 1903.  GA. LAWS (1903) 90. 

FN3  THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT READS:  "SECTION 1.  NEITHER SLAVERY
NOR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE
PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, SHALL EXIST WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES, OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION. 

"SECTION 2.  CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE THIS ARTICLE BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION." 

U.S.C., TITLE 8, SEC. 56, READS:  "THE HOLDING OF ANY PERSON TO
SERVICE OR LABOR UNDER THE SYSTEM KNOWN AS PEONAGE IS ABOLISHED AND
FOREVER PROHIBITED IN ANY TERRITORY OR STATE OF THE UNITED STATES; AND
ALL ACTS, LAWS, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS, REGULATIONS, OR USAGES OF ANY
TERRITORY OR STATE, WHICH HAVE HERETOFORE ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR
ENFORCED, OR BY VIRTUE OF WHICH ANY ATTEMPT SHALL HEREAFTER BE MADE TO
ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, OR ENFORCE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE VOLUNTARY
OR INVOLUNTARY SERVICE OR LABOR OF ANY PERSONS AS PEONS, IN LIQUIDATION
OF ANY DEBT OR OBLIGATION, OR OTHERWISE, ARE DECLARED NULL AND VOID." 

U.S.C., TITLE 18, SEC. 444, READS:  "WHOEVER HOLDS, ARRESTS, RETURNS,
OR CAUSES TO BE HELD, ARRESTED, OR RETURNED, OR IN ANY MANNER AIDS IN
THE ARREST OR RETURN OF ANY PERSON TO A CONDITION OF PEONAGE, SHALL BE
FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR
BOTH." 

FN4  GEORGIA CODE (1933), TITLE 38, SECS. 415, 416. 

FN5  AND CF. STATE V. OLIVA, 144 LA. 51, 80 SO. 195; EX PARTE
HOLLMAN, 79 S.C. 9, 60 S.E. 19. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :









WHITE V. WINCHESTER CLUB, 315 U.S. 32 


NO. 63.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1942.  - 117
F.2D 146, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THE CASE OF A CLUB TO WHICH AMOUNTS PAID AS "DUES OR MEMBERSHIP
FEES" ARE TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 501 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED
BY SEC. 413 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, PAYMENTS MADE TO IT FOR THE
RIGHT TO REPEATED AND GENERAL USE OF A COMMON CLUB FACILITY FOR AN
APPRECIABLE PERIOD OF TIME, AND NOT FIXED BY EACH OCCASION OF ACTUAL
USE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE TAX.  SO HELD OF CHARGES FOR CERTAIN GOLF AND
FAMILY PRIVILEGES.  P. 41. 

2.  A LONE DISTRICT COURT DECISION CONSTRUING AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS
NOT TO BE REGARDED AS A WELL SETTLED INTERPRETATION; AND SUBSEQUENT
REENACTMENTS OF THE PROVISION SO CONSTRUED ARE NOT NECESSARILY TO BE
TAKEN AS A LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF SUCH CONSTRUCTION.  P. 40. 

WHITE ET AL., FORMER COLLECTORS OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. WINCHESTER
COUNTRY CLUB. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 555, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE, UPON A
CONSOLIDATED APPEAL OF JUDGMENTS FOR THE CLUB IN THREE SUITS AGAINST
THREE FORMER COLLECTORS OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO RECOVER TAXES ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY EXACTED.  THE CLUB SUED AS AGENT FOR THE MEMBERS
WHO PAID THE TAXES.  THE CASES WERE TRIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT UPON
WAIVERS OF A JURY.  OPINION OF DISTRICT COURT, 30 F.SUPP.  192. 

"DUES OR MEMBERSHIP FEES" INCLUDE ONLY THOSE PAYMENTS WHICH ARE
REQUISITE TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE CLUB.  THE PAYMENTS FOR GOLF PRIVILEGES
WERE NOT REQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF MEMBERSHIP.  ON THE CONTRARY, THESE
PRIVILEGES WERE ACQUIRED BY MEMBERS ENTIRELY AT THEIR OPTION.  THEY
COULD BE INFORMALLY OBTAINED AND SURRENDERED AT WILL WITHOUT AFFECTING
ONE'S STATUS AS A MEMBER.  IN NO WAY WERE THEY FIXED AND DEFINITE
CHARGES APPLICABLE TO ALL MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR CLASS OF MEMBERSHIP,
NOR DID THEY REPRESENT A RECURRING OBLIGATION EXTENDING OVER AN
INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME.  SEE FORAN V. MCLAUGHLIN, 59 F.2D 158, 160;
OLD COLONY R. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 284 U.S. 552, 560; WELD V. NICHOLS,
9 F.2D 977; BALTIMORE COUNTRY CLUB V. UNITED STATES, 7 F.SUPP.  607;
WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES, 12 F.SUPP.  26; HARDT V. MCLAUGHLIN, 25
F.SUPP.  684; PHILADELPHIA CRICKET CLUB V. UNITED STATES, 30 F.SUPP. 
141; MERION CRICKET CLUB V. UNITED STATES, 119 F.2D 578. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER MEMBERS' PAYMENTS TO THE WINCHESTER CONTRY
CLUB FOR CERTAIN "PRIVILEGES" CONSTITUTED "DUES OR MEMBERSHIP FEES"
SUBJECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 501 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44
STAT. 9, 92, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 413 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, 45
STAT. 791, 864, ON AMOUNTS PAID "AS DUES OR MEMBERSHIP FEES TO ANY
SOCIAL, ATHLETIC, OR SPORTING CLUB OR ORGANIZATION, IF THE DUES OR FEES
OF AN ACTIVE RESIDENT ANNUAL MEMBER ARE IN EXCESS OF $25 PER YEAR." 

SINCE 1929 AND DURING THE PERIOD HERE IN QUESTION THE CLUB'S BY-LAWS
PROVIDED FOR "ANNUAL DUES" OF $50, WHICH ENTITLED A MEMBER TO ALL THE
PRIVILEGES OF THE CLUB EXCEPT GOLF.  BY PAYING $35 MORE, FOR "LIMITED
PRIVILEGES," A MEMBER BECAME ENTITLED TO PLAY GOLF DURING THE YEAR,
EXCEPT ON SPECIFIED DAYS; BY PAYING $50, FOR "FULL PRIVILEGES," HE GOT
THE PRIVILEGE OF PLAYING AT ANY TIME DURING THE YEAR.  ALL BUT A SMALL
PORTION OF THE MEMBERS ACQUIRED GOLF PRIVILEGES OF ONE SORT OR THE
OTHER. 

VARIOUS FORMS OF "FAMILY PRIVILEGES," ENTITLING ONE OR MORE OF A
MEMBER'S FAMILY TO USE THE CLUBHOUSE AND TO PLAY TENNIS AND GOLF, COULD
BE HAD BY A MEMBER UPON PAYMENT OF SPECIFIED ADDITIONAL SUMS, WHICH
WERE LESS IF HE HAD GOLF PRIVILEGES THAN IF HE DID NOT. 

THE CLUB YEAR BEGAN JANUARY FIRST AND, ACCORDING TO THE BY-LAWS,
"DUES AND FEES" WERE PAYABLE ON MARCH FIRST.  THE PRACTICE WAS TO BILL
MEMBERS DURING MARCH FOR "DUES" AND "PRIVILEGES" FOR THE YEAR. 
PRIVILEGES WERE ACQUIRED INFORMALLY, THE PRACTICE BEING TO LET THE
CLUB'S OFFICERS KNOW EITHER ORALLY OR IN WRITING WHAT PRIVILEGES WERE
DESIRED.  A MEMBER WAS BILLED FOR THE PRIVILEGES HE HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD
IF HE HAD NOT INDICATED THAT HE NO LONGER DESIRED THEM, BUT IF HE LATER
GAVE NOTICE THAT HE DID NOT DESIRE A GIVEN PRIVILEGE, NO ATTEMPT WAS
MADE TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT BILLED FOR IT.  IF A MEMBER REQUESTED
PRIVILIGES PRIOR TO AUGUST FIRST, HE WAS BILLED FOR THE FULL YEAR; FOR
PRIVILEGES THEREAFTER REQUESTED HE WAS BILLED FOR ONLY HALF A YEAR. 
SUITABLE ADJUSTMENT WAS ALSO MADE IF PRIVILEGES WERE DROPPED IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE YEAR. 

DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 27, 1931, TO JANUARY 9, 1935, TAXES
IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,211.25 WERE EXACTED ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS TO THE
CLUB FOR THE VARIOUS "PRIVILEGES" MENTIONED ABOVE.  ON NOVEMBER 16,
1935, THE CLUB DULY FILED CLAIMS FOR REFUND ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS,
AND, AFTER THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE HAD REJECTED THEM, IT
INSTITUTED SUITS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MASSACHUSETTS AGAINST THE THREE COLLECTORS OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO
WHOM THE TAXES HAD BEEN PAID.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENTS FOR
THE CLUB, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED THEM UPON CONSOLIDATED APPEAL.  117 F.2D 146.  CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED IN THIS CASE AND IN MERION CRICKET CLUB V. UNITED STATES,
DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, 119 F.2D 578,
BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO DECISIONS.  313 U.S.
555; 314 U.S. 589. 

THE GENERALITY OF "DUES OR MEMBERSHIP FEES," THE WORDS BY WHICH THE
GOVERNING STATUTE DESIGNATES THE PAYMENTS UPON WHICH THE TAX IS LAID,
NECESSITATES CONSIDERATION OF THEIR LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND.  EARLIER
REVENUE ACTS - THOSE OF 1917, 1918, 1921, AND 1924 - HAD LAID A TAX IN
THE SAME TERMS UPON PAYMENTS TO CLUBS SUCH AS THE RESPONDENT.  FN1 

THE TREASURY CONSTRUED THESE WORDS ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS NOT LONG
AFTER THEY WERE FIRST EMPLOYED IN THESE REVENUE ACTS.  TREASURY
REGULATIONS 43(PART 2), ART. 12, ISSUED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918,
AND APPROVED MARCH 28, 1919, GAVE AS EXAMPLES OF THEIR APPLICABILITY
THE FOLLOWING:  "(5)  A CERTAIN GOLF CLUB'S DUES ARE $15 PER YEAR.  OF
THIS AMOUNT $10 IS EXPENDED IN THE PURCHASE FOR THE MEMBER OF A SEASON
TICKET TO A MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE.  THE WHOLE $15 IS, NEVERTHELESS,
TAXABLE AS DUES.  (6)  A CERTAIN GOLF CLUB CHARGES A 'GREEN' FEE OF $1
FOR EACH GUEST THAT USES THE COURSE.  SUCH A FEE IS NOT PAID 'AS DUES
OR MEMBERSHIP FEES,' AND IS, THEREFORE, NOT TAXABLE AS SUCH.  (7) THE
MEMBERS OF A CERTAIN CURLING CLUB PAY ANNUAL DUES OF $20.  BY THE
PAYMENT OF $10 EXTRA PER YEAR THE PRIVILEGE OF SKATING ON THE CLUB'S
RINK CAN BE SECURED FOR THE MEMBER'S FAMILY.  A PAYMENT OF THIS EXTRA
$10 IS TAXABLE AS A MEMBERSHIP FEE."  THE SAME EXAMPLES ARE GIVEN IN
THIS ARTICLE AS REVISED ON DECEMBER 3, 1920, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE
FOLLOWING EXAMPLE:  "(13)  A CERTAIN GOLF CLUB, THE DUES AND FEES OF
WHICH ARE TAXABLE, ISSUES TO WIVES OF MEMBERS CARDS ENTITLING THEM TO
THE USE OF THE COURSE FOR ONE YEAR, MAKING A CHARGE OF $10 THEREFOR. 
THE AMOUNTS PAID FOR SUCH CARDS ARE TAXABLE." 

THESE EXAMPLES WERE RETAINED IN THREE SUBSEQUENT EDITIONS OF THE
REGULATIONS, ISSUED UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1921 AND 1924, WHICH ALSO
ADDED THE GENERALIZED STATEMENTS THAT SUBJECT TO THE TAX "ARE EXTRA
CHARGES WHICH ARE IMPOSED UPON MEMBERS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING
CERTAIN ADDITIONAL FACILITIES FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, AN
ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF $60 PER ANNUM IMPOSED UPON MEMBERS OF A COUNTRY
CLUB FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE GOLF LINKS.  A 'GREENS FEE' CHARGED
TO A GUEST IS NOT TAXABLE, UNLESS THE RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE GRANTED IN
RETURN IS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, SUCH AS A SEASON."  FN2 

FURTHER, ALBEIT SLIGHT, EVIDENCE OF THE TREASURY'S VIEW IS FOUND IN
S.T. 357, CUM. BUL.  I-1, P. 434, AS FOLLOWS:  "WHERE A PAYMENT FOR THE
USE OF GOLF LINKS OR SIMILAR PRIVILEGE AFFORDED BY A CLUB  ...  COVERS
A PERIOD OF TIME, SUCH AS A SEASON, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE TAX ON DUES
...  THIS APPLIES ALIKE TO PAYMENTS MADE BY MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS." 

ON DECEMBER 30, 1925, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS HELD, HOWEVER, THAT A CHARGE TO A MEMBER FOR
THE USE OF A CLUB'S GOLF COURSE FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS WAS NOT
INCLUDED WITHIN THE WORDS "DUES OR MEMBERSHIP FEES," ON THE GROUND THAT
THEY "WERE MEANT TO COVER ONLY FIXED AND DEFINITE CHARGES APPLICABLE TO
ALL MEMBERS OF EACH PARTICULAR CLASS OF MEMBERSHIP."  WELD V. NICHOLS,
9 F.2D 977. 

NO APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION WAS PERFECTED, A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
BEING WITHDRAWN BY THE GOVERNMENT ON MARCH 23, 1926.  THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1926 WHICH, LIKE ITS PREDECESSORS, CONTAINED THE WORDS "DUES OR
MEMBERSHIP FEES" WITHOUT ANY DEFINITION THEREOF, WAS APPROVED ON
FEBRUARY 26, 1926.  THEREAFTER, AND ON MAY 21, 1926, A REVISION OF THE
REGULATIONS WAS PROMULGATED WHICH OMITTED ALL THE MATTER QUOTED ABOVE
EXCEPT EXAMPLES (5) AND (6).  FN3  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, CONTAINING
AN EXPRESS DEFINITION OF "DUES AND MEMBERSHIP FEES" IN A RESPECT NOT
HERE MATERIAL, FN4  WAS ENACTED WHILE THE REGULATION WAS IN THE SAME
FORM,  FN5  AND BEFORE ANY COURT HAD DECIDED ANOTHER CASE LIKE THE WELD
CASE.  SUBSEQUENT EDITIONS OF THE TREASURY REGULATIONS, ISSUED AFTER
THE ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 AND BEFORE ANY FURTHER
STATUTORY TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT, RETAINED EXAMPLE (6), BUT
SUBSTITUTED FOR EXAMPLE (5) THE FOLLOWING:  "A CERTAIN GOLF CLUB HAS
TWO CLASSES OF MEMBERS.  CLASS A MEMBERS PAY $40 PER YEAR DUES AND ARE
ENTITLED TO THE FULL PRIVILEGES OF THE CLUB, INCLUDING THE USE OF THE
GOLF COURSE.  CLASS B MEMBERS PAY $25 PER YEAR DUES AND ARE ENTITLED TO
THE PRIVILEGES OF THE CLUBHOUSE, BUT DO NOT ENJOY THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
GOLF COURSE.  THE TOTAL DUES OF $40 PAID BY CLASS A MEMBERS ARE SUBJECT
TO TAX, AND, SINCE THE DUES OF SUCH MEMBERS ARE IN EXCESS OF $25 PER
YEAR, THE DUES OF $25 PAID BY CLASS B MEMBERS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE
TAX."  FN6 

DURING A PERIOD AFTER THE DECISION OF THE WELD CASE, THE TREASURY
APPARENTLY SOUGHT TO DETERMINE TAXABILITY UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THAT
CASE, RATHER THAN ACCORDING TO ITS OWN PRIOR VIEWS.  IN 1930, AND
BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE PERIOD INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, THERE ISSUED,
HOWEVER, A GENERAL COUNSEL'S MEMORANDUM  FN7  WHICH, WHILE PAYING LIP
SERVICE TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE WELD CASE, CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IT IN
SUCH MANNER AS TO REQUIRE THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX ON FACTS APPARENTLY
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE BEFORE US HERE.  THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE HAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED THIS DECISION SINCE ITS
PROMULGATION.  EFFORTS WERE MADE IN CASES SUBSEQUENTLY LITIGATED IN THE
COURTS TO OBTAIN DECISIONS FIXING THE MEANING OF "DEFINITE AND FIXED
CHARGE" AND "PARTICULAR CLASS OF MEMBERSHIP" AS USED IN THE STATEMENT
OF THE WELD DOCTRINE, RESULTING IN HOLDINGS OF TAXABILITY IN THREE
INSTANCES,  FN8  AND OF NONTAXABILITY IN THREE BESIDES THE PRESENT. 
FN9  FORAN V. MCLAUGHLIN, 59 F.2D 158, CERTIORARI DENIED, 287 U.S. 637,
THE FIRST COURT DECISION RENDERED AFTER THE DECISION OF THE WELD CASE
ITSELF, HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION DID CONSTITUTE DUES OR
MEMBERSHIP FEES.  SINCE THE DECISION OF THIS CASE, THE COMMISSIONER HAS
ALLOWED NO CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS ON THE BASIS OF THE WELD CASE, AS HE HAD
DONE IN SOME PREVIOUS INSTANCES. 

THE FIRST STATUTORY TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT SINCE THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928, EXPLICITLY DEFINED "DUES," AND THEREBY CLEARLY INCLUDED THE TYPES
OF PAYMENTS HERE IN QUESTION.  FN10  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS
REDEFINITION IS INCONCLUSIVE IN RESPECT OF THE EARLIER INTENTION OF
CONGRESS.  FN11  THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN THUS EXPLICITLY DEFINING THE
EXISTING STATUTORY TERM IS AT LEAST AS CONSISTENT WITH DISSATISFACTION
ON ITS PART WITH THE COURSE OF JUDICIAL DECISION AS TO ITS MEANING AS
WITH THE EXISTENCE OF AN INTENTION TO CHANGE THE LAW.  IF ANY INFERENCE
IS TO BE DRAWN FROM THIS SPELLING OUT OF THE MEANING OF "DUES," IT IS
ONE SUPPORTING THE VALIDITY OF THE CONSTRUCTION SET FORTH AND ADHERED
TO BY THE TREASURY BEFORE THE WELD CASE, WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY
ADOPTED BY THE NEWLY ENACTED DEFINITION.  COMPARE MASON V. ROUTZAHN,
275 U.S. 175, 178. 

NOR DO WE FIND THE REENACTMENTS OF THE WORDS "FEES OR MEMBERSHIP
DUES," WHILE THE WELD CASE WAS ON THE BOOKS, TO BE CONTROLLING, OR EVEN
SIGNIFICANT, AS EXPRESSIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  PASSAGE OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926 SO SOON AFTER THE DECISION OF THE WELD CASE, AND
WHILE THE TREASURY REGULATION DEALING IN TERMS WITH THE SAME PROBLEM
WAS STILL IN FORCE ON THE BOOKS, OF COURSE AVAILS THE RESPONDENT
NOTHING. 

SO FAR AS WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ASCERTAIN, THE TREASURY'S REVISION OF
THE REGULATION WAS MADE IN THE BELIEF THAT IT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE
WELD CASE; WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE TREASURY DID MORE THAN BOW TO THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THE REVISION OF THE REGULATION IS OF AMBIGUOUS IMPORT,
BUT IN ANY EVENT IT SIGNIFIES NO VOLUNTARY CHANGE IN THE OPINION OF THE
TREASURY AS TO THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  EVEN IF WE COULD ASSUME
THAT THE TREASURY MADE A COMPLETE AND VOLUNTARY ABOUT FACE AFTER THE
DECISION OF THE WELD CASE AND BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1928 ACT, AND
THAT THE NEW DOCTRINE CAME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CASES APPLYING THE
"REENACTMENT RULE,"  FN12  THIS WOULD BE BOOTLESS TO THE PETITIONER,
WHOSE CLAIM COVERS A PERIOD COMMENCING AFTER THE 1930 DECISION OF THE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, SUPRA, WHICH FAVORS
THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX HERE.  IF THIS DECISION MARKED A DEPARTURE
FROM DOCTRINE ESPOUSED BY THE TREASURY AFTER THE WELD CASE, IT WAS A
DEPARTURE WHICH WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE TREASURY TO MAKE FOR THE
PERIOD IN QUESTION.  FN13 

NOR WAS THE WELD CASE ITSELF IN ANY SENSE ADOPTED BY THE ENACTMENT OF
THE 1928 ACT.  IT STOOD ALONE WHEN THAT ACT WAS PASSED, AND "ONE
DECISION CONSTRUING AN ACT DOES NOT APPROACH THE DIGNITY OF A WELL
SETTLED INTERPRETATION."  FN14  IT WAS PATENTLY INCOMPLETE AS AN
EXPOSITION OF DOCTRINE, AND AS A DISTRICT COURT DECISION IT HAD QUITE
RESTRICTED DIRECT APPLICABILITY.    HAVING TESTED RESPONDENT'S
PROFFERED CONSTRUCTIONAL CRUTCHES AND FOUND THEM UNSOUND, WE MUST
DECIDE THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE WITHOUT THEIR AID.  WE REJECT THE
DOCTRINE OF THE WELD CASE AS BEING INTRINSICALLY UNSOUND, AND AS HAVING
BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY SUBSEQUENT CASES TO BE UNWORKABLE IN PRACTICE.  WE
ALSO REJECT AS AN AID TO DECISION THE INQUIRY MADE IN SEVERAL CASES AS
TO WHETHER THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS IN CONSEQUENCE OF A "RECURRING
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION,"  FN15  SINCE WHETHER SUCH IS THE CASE DEPENDS
MERELY UPON THE MECHANICS OF THE PARTICULAR CLUB'S FINANCES - A
PROPERLY IMMATERIAL FACTOR.    CONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF CLUB
ACTIVITY IS A NECESSARY PRELIMINARY TO THE FORMULATION OF A TEST OF
WHAT CONSTITUTES A "DUE OR MEMBERSHIP FEE."  SO FAR AS FINANCES GO, THE
FUNDAMENTAL NOTION OF CLUB ACTIVITY IS THAT OPERATING EXPENSES ARE
SHARED WITHOUT INSISTENCE UPON EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE PROPORTION OF AN
INDIVIDUAL'S CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE PROPORTION OF THE BENEFITS HE
RECEIVES.  FN16  THUS, ON THE ONE HAND, PAYMENT OF THE PRICE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL DINNER AT THE CLUB DINING ROOM OR OF A SINGLE ROUND OF GOLF
LACKS THE ELEMENT OF MAKING COMMON CAUSE INHERENT IN THE IDEA OF CLUB
ACTIVITY.  BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, PAYMENT FOR THE RIGHT TO REPEATED
AND GENERAL USE OF A COMMON CLUB FACILITY FOR AN APPRECIABLE PERIOD OF
TIME HAS THAT ELEMENT AND AMOUNTS TO A "DUE OR MEMBERSHIP FEE" IF THE
PAYMENT IS NOT FIXED BY EACH OCCASION OF ACTUAL USE.  SUCH WAS THE CASE
HERE, AND WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION WERE SUBJECT
TO THE TAX. 

THESE ARE, IN SUBSTANCE, THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE TREASURY SHORTLY
AFTER "DUES OR MEMBERSHIP FEES" WAS FIRST EMPLOYED IN THE REVENUE ACTS,
AND CONSISTENTLY PRESSED BY THE TREASURY, EXCEPT AS IT THOUGHT JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY DICTATED OTHERWISE.  ITS SUBSTANTIALLY CONTEMPORANEOUS
EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION ARE HIGHLY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF THE
PROBABLE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE TIMES AND OF THE OPINIONS OF MEN
WHO PROBABLY WERE ACTIVE IN THE DRAFTING OF THE STATUTE.  AS SUCH, THEY
ARE ENTITLED TO SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, INDEPENDENTLY ALIKE OF
REENACTMENTS OF THE STATUTE WHILE IT WAS IN FORCE ON THE BOOKS AND OF
ANY TEMPORARY ABANDONMENT IN CONSEQUENCE OF DISREGARD BY JUDICIAL
DECISION.  FN17  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 701 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1917, 40 STAT. 300, 319; SEC. 801
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, 40 STAT. 1057, 1121; SEC. 801 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1921, 42 STAT. 227, 291; SEC. 501 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1924, 43 STAT. 253, 321. 

FN2  TREASURY REGULATIONS 43(PART 2), ART. 9, AS ISSUED JANUARY 11,
1922 UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, AND AS REVISED APRIL 18, 1922;
TREASURY REGULATIONS 43(PART 2), ART. 9, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1924. 

FN3  TREASURY REGULATIONS 43(PART 2), ART. 9, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1926. 

FN4  SECTION 413 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT. 791, 864,
PROVIDED: 

"(D)  AS USED IN THIS SECTION, THE TERM 'DUES' INCLUDES ANY ASSESSMENT
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH MADE; AND THE TERM 'INITIATION
FEES', INCLUDES ANY PAYMENT, CONTRIBUTION, OR LOAN REQUIRED AS A
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO MEMBERSHIP, WHETHER OR NOT ANY SUCH PAYMENT,
CONTRIBUTION, OR LOAN IS EVIDENCED BY A CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST OR
INDEBTEDNESS OR SHARE OF STOCK, AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION TO WHOM PAID, CONTRIBUTED, OR LOANED." 

FN5  TREASURY REGULATIONS 43(PART 2), ART. 9, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1926, AS REVISED MAY 27, 1927. 

FN6  TREASURY REGULATIONS 43, ART. 40(1928 AND 1932 REV.); TREASURY
REGULATIONS 43, SEC. 101.41(1940 ED.). 

FN7  G.C.M. 7505, CUM. BUL.  IX-2, P. 414. 

FN8  FORAN V. MCLAUGHLIN, 59 F.2D 158, CERTIORARI DENIED, 287 U.S.
637; MERION CRICKET CLUB V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; HARDT V. MCLAUGHLIN,
25 F.SUPP.  684. 

FN9  BALTIMORE COUNTRY CLUB V. UNITED STATES, 7 F.SUPP.  607;
WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES, 12 F.SUPP.  26; PHILADELPHIA CRICKET CLUB
V. UNITED STATES, 30 F.SUPP.  141. 

FN10  "THE TERM 'DUES' INCLUDES ANY ASSESSMENT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH MADE, AND ANY CHARGES FOR SOCIAL PRIVILEGES OR
FACILITIES, OR FOR GOLF, TENNIS, POLO, SWIMMING, OR OTHER ATHLETIC OR
SPORTING PRIVILEGES OR FACILITIES, FOR ANY PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX DAYS
..." 

FN11  SEE SEN. REPT. 673, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 48; H.R. REPT.
1040, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 31-32, 54; STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, 87 CONG. REC. 7614. 

FN12  BUT COMPARE UNITED STATES V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 278 U.S.
269, 280; BURNET V. CHICAGO PORTRAIT CO., 285 U.S. 1, 16. 

FN13  MORRISSEY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344; HELVERING V. WILSHIRE
OIL CO., 308 U.S. 90; HELVERING V. REYNOLDS, 313 U.S. 428. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. RAYNOR, 302 U.S. 540, 552; CF. FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. BROADCASTING SYSTEM, 311 U.S. 132;
HELVERING V. REYNOLDS, SUPRA. 

FN15  FORAN V. MCLAUGHLIN, SUPRA; HARDT V. MCLAUGHLIN, SUPRA;
PHILADELPHIA CRICKET CLUB V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

FN16  SEE MERION CRICKET CLUB V. UNITED STATES, 119 F.2D 578-580. 

FN17  COMPARE GRISWOLD, A SUMMARY OF THE REGULATIONS PROBLEM, 54
HARVARD LAW REVIEW 398. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :
















MERION CLUB V. UNITED STATES, 315 U.S. 42 


NO. 83.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 12, 1942.  - 119
F.2D 578, AFFIRMED. 


PAYMENTS TO A CLUB BY MEMBERS FOR GOLF PRIVILEGES, HELD TAXABLE AS
"DUES OR MEMBERSHIP FEES" UNDER SEC. 501 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS
AMENDED BY SEC. 413 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  WHITE V. WINCHESTER
COUNTRY CLUB, ANTE, P. 32.  P. 43. 

MERION CRICKET CLUB V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 589, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE UNITED STATES IN A SUIT FOR A REFUND OF TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE - WHETHER AMOUNTS PAID BY MEMBERS OF THE
MERION CRICKET CLUB DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 1931, TO JUNE 30,
1935, FOR GOLF PRIVILEGES, CONSTITUTED PAYMENTS AS "DUES OR MEMBERSHIP
FEES" SUBJECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 501 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926, 44 STAT. 9, 92, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 413 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928, 45 STAT. 791, 864 - DOES NOT DIFFER IN SUBSTANCE FROM THAT
DECIDED THIS DAY IN WHITE V. WINCHESTER COUNTRY CLUB, ANTE, P. 32. 

WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, A MEMBER OF THE MERION CRICKET CLUB COULD
OBTAIN ANNUAL GOLF PRIVILEGES ONLY BY PAYMENT OF A FEE, WHICH VARIED IN
AMOUNT ACCORDING TO HIS AGE AND STATUS.  THE FEE WAS PAYABLE IN TWO
EQUAL INSTALLMENTS, ONE ON THE FIRST OF JANUARY, AND THE OTHER ON THE
FIRST OF JULY.  A MEMBER ADMITTED TO GOLF PRIVILEGES AFTER THE LATTER
DATE WAS ENTITLED TO REMISSION OF ONE-HALF OF THE ANNUAL FEES, BUT IF
ONE STOPPED USING THE GOLF FACILITIES DURING THE YEAR THERE WAS NO
PROPORTIONATE REFUND.  IF A MEMBER ELECTED TO PLAY GOLF HE CONTINUED TO
BE LIABLE FOR THE SUCCEEDING YEAR UNLESS HE GAVE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL
BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.  MEMBERS WHO PAID THE ANNUAL GOLF FEES WERE
ENTITLED TO USE THE GOLF FACILITIES AS OFTEN AS THEY DESIRED WITHOUT
FURTHER CHARGE, AND COULD ON OCCASION OBTAIN GOLF PRIVILEGES FOR THEIR
WIVES AND GUESTS. 

AFTER A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID AS
TAXES ON THE ANNUAL GOLF FEES HAD BEEN DULY FILED AND REJECTED, THE
CLUB ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS SUED THE UNITED
STATES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA TO RECOVER THEM.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A JUDGMENT
FOR THE UNITED STATES WHICH WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  119 F.2D 578.  CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED IN THIS CASE AND IN WHITE V. WINCHESTER COUNTRY CLUB, ANTE, P.
32, BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISIONS BELOW.  313
U.S. 555; 314 U.S. 589. 

IN THIS CASE, AS IN WHITE V. WINCHESTER COUNTRY CLUB, SUPRA, WE HOLD
THAT AMOUNTS PAID WERE PAID AS "DUES OR MEMBERSHIP FEES," SINCE THEY
WERE FOR RIGHTS TO THE REPEATED AND GENERAL USE OF A COMMON CLUB
FACILITY FOR AN APPRECIABLE PERIOD OF TIME, AND WERE NOT FIXED BY EACH
OCCASION OF ACTUAL USE. 

THE DECISION BELOW IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :












MORTON SALT CO. V. SUPPIGER CO., 314 U.S. 488 


NO. 49.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - 117
F.2D 968, REVERSED. 


1.  A CORPORATION, ENGAGED THROUGH A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY IN THE
BUSINESS OF SELLING SALT TABLETS TO THE CANNING TRADE, AND WHICH ALSO
OWNED A PATENT ON A MACHINE FOR DEPOSITING SUCH TABLETS IN THE PROCESS
OF CANNING, MADE A PRACTICE OF LICENSING CANNERS TO USE ITS MACHINES,
BUT ONLY UPON CONDITION THAT THE TABLETS USED WITH THEM BE BOUGHT FROM
THE SUBSIDIARY.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THIS USE OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN
THE MARKETING OF THE UNPATENTED TABLETS FOR USE WITH THE PATENTED
MACHINES, AND TO AID IN THE CREATION OF A LIMITED MONOPOLY IN THE
TABLETS NOT WITHIN THAT GRANTED BY THE PATENT, IS CONTRARY TO THE
PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES EVINCED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
PATENT LAW.  P. 491. 

(2)  THE PATENTEE WHILE ENGAGED IN SUCH PRACTICE CAN NOT HAVE AN
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE MAKING AND LEASING OF INFRINGING MACHINES. 
P. 492. 

2.  IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL APPLICATION THAT COURTS, AND
ESPECIALLY COURTS OF EQUITY, MAY APPROPRIATELY WITHHOLD THEIR AID WHERE
THE PLAINTIFF IS USING THE RIGHT ASSERTED CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  P. 492. 

MORTON SALT CO. V. G.S. SUPPIGER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 555, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE, 31
F.SUPP.  876, DISMISSING A BILL TO ENJOIN ALLEGED INFRINGEMENTS OF A
PATENT, AND FOR AN ACCOUNTING. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN INJUNCTION
AND AN ACCOUNTING FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ITS PATENT NO. 2,060,645, OF
NOVEMBER 10, 1936, ON A MACHINE FOR DEPOSITING SALT TABLETS, A DEVICE
SAID TO BE USEFUL IN THE CANNING INDUSTRY FOR ADDING PREDETERMINED
AMOUNTS OF SALT IN TABLET FORM TO THE CONTENTS OF THE CANS. 

UPON PETITIONER'S MOTION, PURSUANT TO RULE 56 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, THE TRIAL COURT, WITHOUT PASSING ON THE ISSUES OF VALIDITY
AND INFRINGEMENT, GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT. 
IT TOOK THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS MAKING USE OF THE PATENT TO
RESTRAIN THE SALE OF SALT TABLETS IN COMPETITION WITH ITS OWN SALE OF
UNPATENTED TABLETS, BY REQUIRING LICENSEES TO USE WITH THE PATENTED
MACHINES ONLY TABLETS SOLD BY RESPONDENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, 117 F.2D 968, BECAUSE IT THOUGHT THAT
RESPONDENT'S USE OF THE PATENT WAS NOT SHOWN TO VIOLATE SEC. 3 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 14, AS IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT THE USE OF
ITS PATENT SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED COMPETITION OR TENDED TO CREATE A
MONOPOLY IN SALT TABLETS.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 555, BECAUSE
OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED AND OF AN ALLEGED
CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH B. B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS, 117
F.2D 829, AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE DECISIONS IN CARBICE
CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27, AND LEITCH MFG. CO. V.
BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458. 

THE CLAYTON ACT AUTHORIZES THOSE INJURED BY VIOLATIONS TENDING TO
MONOPOLY TO MAINTAIN SUIT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES AND FOR AN INJUNCTION IN
APPROPRIATE CASES.  15 U.S.C. SECS. 1,2,14,15,26.  BUT THE PRESENT SUIT
IS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT.  THE QUESTION WE MUST DECIDE IS NOT
NECESSARILY WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED THE CLAYTON ACT, BUT
WHETHER A COURT OF EQUITY WILL LEND ITS AID TO PROTECT THE PATENT
MONOPOLY WHEN RESPONDENT IS USING IT AS THE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF
RESTRAINING COMPETITION WITH ITS SALE OF AN UNPATENTED ARTICLE. 

BOTH RESPONDENT'S WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY AND THE PETITIONER
MANUFACTURE AND SELL SALT TABLETS USED AND USEFUL IN THE CANNING
TRADE.  THE TABLETS HAVE A PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION RENDERING THEM
CAPABLE OF CONVENIENT USE IN RESPONDENT'S PATENTED MACHINES. 
PETITIONER MAKES AND LEASES TO CANNERS UNPATENTED SALT DEPOSITING
MACHINES, CHARGED TO INFRINGE RESPONDENT'S PATENT.  FOR REASONS WE
INDICATE LATER, NOTHING TURNS ON THE FACT THAT PETITIONER ALSO COMPETES
WITH RESPONDENT IN THE SALE OF THE TABLETS, AND WE MAY ASSUME FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THAT PETITIONER IS DOING NO MORE THAN MAKING AND
LEASING THE ALLEGED INFRINGING MACHINES.  THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF
RESPONDENT'S SUBSIDIARY, FROM WHICH ITS PROFITS ARE DERIVED, IS THE
SALE OF SALT TABLETS.  IN CONNECTION WITH THIS BUSINESS, AND AS AN
ADJUNCT TO IT, RESPONDENT LEASES ITS PATENTED MACHINES TO COMMERCIAL
CANNERS, SOME TWO HUNDRED IN ALL, UNDER LICENSES TO USE THE MACHINES
UPON CONDITION AND WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE LICENSEES THAT ONLY THE
SUBSIDIARY'S SALT TABLETS BE USED WITH THE LEASED MACHINES. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT RESPONDENT IS MAKING USE OF ITS PATENT MONOPOLY
TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF UNPATENTED ARTICLES, SALT
TABLETS, FOR USE WITH THE PATENTED MACHINES, AND IS AIDING IN THE
CREATION OF A LIMITED MONOPOLY IN THE TABLETS NOT WITHIN THAT GRANTED
BY THE PATENT.  A PATENT OPERATES TO CREATE AND GRANT TO THE PATENTEE
AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND VEND THE PARTICULAR DEVICE
DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN THE PATENT.  BUT A PATENT AFFORDS NO IMMUNITY
FOR A MONOPOLY NOT WITHIN THE GRANT, INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED
STATES, 306 U.S. 208, 228, 230; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES,
309 U.S. 436, 456, AND THE USE OF IT TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION IN THE
SALE OF AN UNPATENTED ARTICLE MAY DEPRIVE THE PATENTEE OF THE AID OF A
COURT OF EQUITY TO RESTRAIN AN ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT BY ONE WHO IS A
COMPETITOR.  IT IS THE ESTABLISHED RULE THAT A PATENTEE WHO HAS GRANTED
A LICENSE ON CONDITION THAT THE PATENTED INVENTION BE USED BY THE
LICENSEE ONLY WITH UNPATENTED MATERIALS FURNISHED BY THE LICENSOR, MAY
NOT RESTRAIN AS A CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGER ONE WHO SELLS TO THE LICENSEE
LIKE MATERIALS FOR LIKE USE.  MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL
FILM MFG. CO., 243 U.S. 502, 510; CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS
CORP., SUPRA; LEITCH MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO., SUPRA; CF. UNITED SHOE
MACHINERY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451, 642; INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 131, 140.  THE GRANT
TO THE INVENTOR OF THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OF A PATENT MONOPOLY CARRIES
OUT A PUBLIC POLICY ADOPTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES, "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS, BY
SECURING FOR LIMITED TIMES TO  ...  INVENTORS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT ...
" TO THEIR "NEW AND USEFUL" INVENTIONS.  UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,
ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 8; 35 U.S.C. SEC. 31.  BUT THE PUBLIC POLICY WHICH
INCLUDES INVENTIONS WITHIN THE GRANTED MONOPOLY EXCLUDES FROM IT ALL
THAT IS NOT EMBRACED IN THE INVENTION.  IT EQUALLY FORBIDS THE USE OF
THE PATENT TO SECURE AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OR LIMITED MONOPOLY NOT GRANTED
BY THE PATENT OFFICE AND WHICH IT IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY TO
GRANT. 

IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL APPLICATION THAT COURTS, AND ESPECIALLY
COURTS OF EQUITY, MAY APPROPRIATELY WITHHOLD THEIR AID WHERE THE
PLAINTIFF IS USING THE RIGHT ASSERTED CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552; CENTRAL KENTUCKY
CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 290 U.S. 264, 270-73; HARRISONVILLE V.
DICKEY CLAY CO., 289 U.S. 334, 337-38; BEASLEY V. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY.
CO., 191 U.S. 492, 497; SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N V. U.S. REALTY
CO., 310 U.S. 434, 455; UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 194. 
RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THIS DOCTRINE IS LIMITED IN ITS APPLICATION TO
THOSE CASES WHERE THE PATENTEE SEEKS TO RESTRAIN CONTRIBUTORY
INFRINGEMENT BY THE SALE TO LICENSEES OF A COMPETING UNPATENTED
ARTICLE, WHILE HERE RESPONDENT SEEKS TO RESTRAIN PETITIONER FROM A
DIRECT INFRINGEMENT, THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF THE SALT TABLET
DEPOSITOR.  IT IS SAID THAT THE EQUITABLE MAXIM THAT A PARTY SEEKING
THE AID OF A COURT OF EQUITY MUST COME INTO COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS
APPLIES ONLY TO THE PLAINTIFF'S WRONGFUL CONDUCT IN THE PARTICULAR ACT
OR TRANSACTION WHICH RAISES THE EQUITY, ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH IS SOUGHT;
THAT WHERE, AS HERE, THE PATENTEE SEEKS TO RESTRAIN THE MANUFACTURE OR
USE OF THE PATENTED DEVICE, HIS CONDUCT IN USING THE PATENT TO RESTRICT
COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF SALT TABLETS DOES NOT FORECLOSE HIM FROM
SEEKING RELIEF LIMITED TO AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURE AND
SALE OF THE INFRINGING MACHINE ALONE. 

UNDOUBTEDLY "EQUITY DOES NOT DEMAND THAT ITS SUITORS SHALL HAVE LED
BLAMELESS LIVES," LOUGHRAN V. LOUGHRAN, 292 U.S. 216, 229; CF. KEYSTONE
DRILLER CO. V. EXCAVATOR CO., 290 U.S. 240, 241-45, BUT ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATIONS MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHERE MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT
CONCERNS THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS THE PRIVATE INTERESTS OF
SUITORS.  WHERE THE PATENT IS USED AS A MEANS OF RESTRAINING
COMPETITION WITH THE PATENTEE'S SALE OF AN UNPATENTED PRODUCT, THE
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT EVEN AGAINST ONE WHO IS
NOT A COMPETITOR IN SUCH SALE IS A POWERFUL AID TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
THE ATTEMPTED MONOPOLY OF THE UNPATENTED ARTICLE, AND IS THUS A
CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN THWARTING THE PUBLIC POLICY UNDERLYING THE GRANT
OF THE PATENT.  MAINTENANCE AND ENLARGEMENT OF THE ATTEMPTED MONOPOLY
OF THE UNPATENTED ARTICLE ARE DEPENDENT TO SOME EXTENT UPON PERSUADING
THE PUBLIC OF THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT, WHICH THE INFRINGEMENT SUIT
IS INTENDED TO ESTABLISH.  EQUITY MAY RIGHTLY WITHHOLD ITS ASSISTANCE
FROM SUCH A USE OF THE PATENT BY DECLINING TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT FOR
INFRINGEMENT, AND SHOULD DO SO AT LEAST UNTIL IT IS MADE TO APPEAR THAT
THE IMPROPER PRACTICE HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THE MISUSE OF THE PATENT HAVE BEEN DISSIPATED.  CF. B. B. CHEMICAL CO.
V. ELLIS, POST, P. 495. 

THE REASONS FOR BARRING THE PROSECUTION OF SUCH A SUIT AGAINST ONE
WHO IS NOT A COMPETITOR WITH THE PATENTEE IN THE SALE OF THE UNPATENTED
PRODUCT ARE FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME AS THOSE WHICH PRECLUDE AN
INFRINGEMENT SUIT AGAINST A LICENSEE WHO HAS VIOLATED A CONDITION OF
THE LICENSE BY USING WITH THE LICENSED MACHINE A COMPETING UNPATENTED
ARTICLE, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO., SUPRA,
OR AGAINST A VENDEE OF A PATENTED OR COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE FOR VIOLATION
OF A CONDITION FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF RESALE PRICES, ADAMS V. BURKE, 17
WALL.  453; BOBBS-MERRILL CO. V. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339; BAUER & CIE V.
O'DONNELL, 229 U.S. 1; STRAUS V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO., 243 U.S.
490; BOSTON STORE V. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO., 246 U.S. 8; CF. UNITED
STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, 485.  IT IS THE ADVERSE
EFFECT UPON THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF A SUCCESSFUL INFRINGEMENT SUIT, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE PATENTEE'S COURSE OF CONDUCT, WHICH DISQUALIFIES
HIM TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PARTICULAR
DEFENDANT HAS SUFFERED FROM THE MISUSE OF THE PATENT.  SIMILARLY EQUITY
WILL DENY RELIEF FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A TRADEMARK WHERE THE PLAINTIFF IS
MISREPRESENTING TO THE PUBLIC THE NATURE OF HIS PRODUCT EITHER BY THE
TRADEMARK ITSELF OR BY HIS LABEL.  MANHATTAN MEDICINE CO. V. WOOD, 108
U.S. 218; WORDEN V. CALIFORNIA FIG SYRUP CO., 187 U.S. 516; LEATHER
CLOTH CO. V. AMERICAN LEATHER CLOTH CO., 11 H.L. 522, 541-45; SEE ALSO,
FOR APPLICATION OF THE LIKE DOCTRINE IN THE CASE OF COPYRIGHT, EDWARD
THOMPSON CO. V. AMERICAN LAW BOOK CO., 122 F. 922, 926; STONE &
M'CARRICK V. DUGAN PIANO CO., 220 F. 837, 841-43.  THE PATENTEE, LIKE
THESE OTHER HOLDERS OF AN EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE GRANTED IN THE
FURTHERANCE OF A PUBLIC POLICY, MAY NOT CLAIM PROTECTION OF HIS GRANT
BY THE COURTS WHERE IT IS BEING USED TO SUBVERT THAT POLICY. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED THE
CLAYTON ACT, FOR WE CONCLUDE THAT IN ANY EVENT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
PRESENT SUIT TO RESTRAIN PETITIONER'S MANUFACTURE OR SALE OF THE
ALLEGED INFRINGING MACHINES IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY AND THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF EQUITY. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




B.B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS, 314 U.S. 495 


NO. 75.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - 117
F.2D 829, AFFIRMED. 


THE OWNER OF A METHOD PATENT WHO AUTHORIZES MANUFACTURERS TO USE IT
ONLY WITH MATERIALS FURNISHED BY HIM MAY NOT ENJOIN INFRINGEMENT BY ONE
WHO SUPPLIES THE MANUFACTURER WITH MATERIALS FOR USE BY THE PATENTED
METHOD AND AIDS IN SUCH USE.  MORTON SALT CO. V. G. S. SUPPIGER CO.,
ANTE, P. 488.  P. 497. 

B. B. CHEMICAL CO. V. ELLIS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 558, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 32 F.SUPP.  690, WHICH DISMISSED THE BILL IN A SUIT TO
ENJOIN INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT, AND FOR AN ACCOUNTING. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO MORTON SALT CO. V. G. S. SUPPIGER CO.,
ANTE, P. 488, AND INVOLVES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE OWNER OF A METHOD
PATENT WHO AUTHORIZES MANUFACTURERS TO USE IT ONLY WITH MATERIALS
FURNISHED BY HIM MAY ENJOIN INFRINGEMENT BY ONE WHO SUPPLIES THE
MANUFACTURER WITH MATERIALS FOR USE BY THE PATENTED METHOD AND AIDS IN
SUCH USE. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION AND AN
ACCOUNTING FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ELLIS PATENT, NO. 1,830,428, OF
NOVEMBER 3, 1931, FOR A METHOD OF REINFORCING INSOLES IN SHOE
MANUFACTURE.  RESPONDENTS DENIED INFRINGEMENT AND SET UP AS A FURTHER
DEFENSE PETITIONER'S MISUSE OF THE PATENT BY PERMITTING ITS USE ONLY
WITH THE UNPATENTED MATERIALS SOLD BY PETITIONER.  THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINED THIS DEFENSE, 32 F.SUPP.  690, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIRST CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  117 F.2D 829.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 313
U.S. 558, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED AND
BECAUSE WE WISHED TO CONSIDER THIS WITH THE MORTON SALT COMPANY CASE. 

CLAIM 4 OF THE PATENT IS FOR A METHOD "OF REINFORCING INSOLES WHICH
COMPRISES APPLYING, AT ROOM TEMPERATURE, TO A STRIP OF REINFORCING
MATERIAL PROVIDED WITH A DRY COATING OF A CEMENT HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL
RUBBER CONTENT, A COATING OF ADHESIVE CONTAINING A RELATIVELY LARGE
AMOUNT OF RUBBER AND OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE EVEN
WHEN FRESHLY APPLIED TO CAUSE QUICK ADHESION OF THE REINFORCING
MATERIAL AND THE MATERIAL OF THE INSOLE, AND APPLYING TO EACH OTHER,
STILL AT ROOM TEMPERATURE, A PORTION OF THE COATED STRIP AND THE INSOLE
TO BE REINFORCED."  BOTH COURTS BELOW SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF CLAIM 4
AND HELD IT WAS INFRINGED BY RESPONDENTS' SELLING TO PURCHASERS OF
PETITIONER'S MATERIALS LIKE MATERIAL FOR USE WITH THE PATENTED
PROCESS.  BUT BOTH HELD THAT PETITIONER WAS DEBARRED FROM ENJOINING THE
INFRINGEMENT BECAUSE OF THE MANNER OF CONDUCTING ITS BUSINESS, WHICH IS
TO SUPPLY SHOE MANUFACTURERS, FOR USE IN REINFORCING INSOLES, PRE
COATED FABRIC WHICH IT HAS SLIT INTO STRIPS OF SUITABLE WIDTH FOR USE
BY THE PATENTED METHOD.  IF THE MANUFACTURER DESIRES, HE PROVIDES THE
FABRIC AND PETITIONER PRE-COATS AND SLITS IT. PETITIONER SUPPLIES
ADHESIVE OF HIGH RUBBER CONTENT TO BE APPLIED TO THE PRE-COATED FABRIC
AT THE FACTORY, JUST BEFORE THE APPLICATION OF THE REINFORCING MATERIAL
TO THE INSOLE.  IT ALSO FURNISHES PATENTED MACHINES SUITABLE FOR
APPLYING THE ADHESIVE TO THE STRIPS, THE MACHINES REMAINING
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. 

AS COMPENSATION, PETITIONER MAKES A SINGLE CHARGE TO THE SHOE
MANUFACTURER AT A RATE PER WEB YARD OF FABRIC USED, AND IF THE
MANUFACTURER DOES NOT FURNISH THE FABRIC THE PRICE OF THAT IS ADDED TO
THE CHARGE.  PETITIONER HAS NOT GRANTED TO SHOE MANUFACTURERS, OR ASKED
THEM TO TAKE, WRITTEN LICENSES.  THE COURTS BELOW HELD THAT
PETITIONER'S SALE TO MANUFACTURERS OF THE UNPATENTED MATERIALS FOR USE
BY THE PATENTED METHOD OPERATED AS A LICENSE TO USE THE PATENT WITH
THAT MATERIAL ALONE AND THUS RESTRAINED COMPETITION WITH PETITIONER IN
THE SALE OF THE UNPATENTED MATERIAL, AS IN CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN
PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27, AND LEITCH MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO., 302 U.S.
458. 

PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT, AS
FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT, WERE NOT LIMITED TO THE SALE OF MATERIAL
FOR USE BY THE PATENTED METHOD, AS IN THE CARBICE AND LEITCH CASES, BUT
AMOUNTED TO ACTIVE INDUCEMENT OF INFRINGEMENT BY THE SHOE MANUFACTURERS
AND TO COOPERATION WITH THEIR INFRINGING ACTS.  PETITIONER ARGUES THAT,
EVEN THOUGH UNDER THE CARBICE AND LEITCH CASES IT HAS "NO RIGHT TO BE
FREE FROM COMPETITION IN THE SALE" OF THE MATERIALS, IT HAS THE RIGHT
UNDER THE PATENT LAW TO RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENT IN ANY MANNER OTHER THAN
BY THE COMPETITIVE SALE OF THE UNPATENTED MATERIALS. 

WE MAY ASSUME, FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION, THAT RESPONDENTS'
INFRINGEMENT DID EXTEND BEYOND THE MERE SALE OF THE MATERIALS TO THE
MANUFACTURERS.  BUT IN VIEW OF PETITIONER'S USE OF THE PATENT AS THE
MEANS OF ESTABLISHING A LIMITED MONOPOLY IN ITS UNPATENTED MATERIALS,
AND FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN OUR OPINION IN THE MORTON SALT COMPANY
CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS SUIT TO RESTRAIN ANY FORM OF
INFRINGEMENT IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY, AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
RIGHTLY DISMISSED IT. 

IT IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE THAT, AS PETITIONER CONTENDS, IT IS NOT
PRACTICABLE TO EXPLOIT THE PATENT RIGHTS BY GRANTING LICENSES BECAUSE
OF THE PREFERENCES OF MANUFACTURERS AND OF THE METHODS BY WHICH
PETITIONER HAS FOUND IT CONVENIENT TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS.  THE PATENT
MONOPOLY IS NOT ENLARGED BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT IT WOULD BE MORE
CONVENIENT TO THE PATENTEE TO HAVE IT SO, OR BECAUSE HE CANNOT AVAIL
HIMSELF OF ITS BENEFITS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE GRANT. 

DESPITE THIS CONTENTION, PETITIONER SUGGESTS THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO
RELIEF BECAUSE IT IS NOW WILLING TO GIVE UNCONDITIONAL LICENSES TO
MANUFACTURERS ON A ROYALTY BASIS, WHICH IT OFFERS TO DO.  IT WILL BE
APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO RELIEF WHEN IT IS ABLE TO
SHOW THAT IT HAS FULLY ABANDONED ITS PRESENT METHOD OF RESTRAINING
COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF UNPATENTED ARTICLES AND THAT THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT PRACTICE HAVE BEEN FULLY DISSIPATED.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :







ILLINOIS GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO., 314 U.S. 498 


NO. 100.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - 375
ILL. 634, 32 N.E.2D 157, REVERSED. 


1.  A CORPORATION, ENGAGED WITHIN A STATE IN THE BUSINESS OF PIPING
NATURAL GAS AND SELLING IT WHOLESALE TO DISTRIBUTORS, WHOSE SUPPLY OF
GAS COMES FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE OF THE STATE AND MOVES IN CONTINUOUS
STREAMS FROM THE PIPELINE OF AN AFFILIATE AT THE STATE BORDER TO POINTS
WHERE THE CORPORATION DELIVERS IT TO ITS CUSTOMERS, IS SUBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION UNDER THE NATURAL GAS ACT
OF JUNE 21, 1938, AND CAN NOT BE REQUIRED BY STATE AUTHORITY TO EXTEND
ITS FACILITIES AND MAKE SALES IN AN AREA ALREADY SERVED BY ANOTHER
NATURAL GAS COMPANY SIMILARLY ENGAGED AND SUBJECT TO THE ACT, WHEN NO
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR SUCH PROPOSED
EXTENSIONS AND SALES HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
UNDER SEC. 7(C) OF THE STATUTE.  P. 508. 

2.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMES TO AN END WHEN THE COMPANY REDUCES THE GAS PRESSURE BEFORE
DELIVERY INTO THE SERVICE PIPES OF DISTRIBUTORS SO THAT THE SALES TO
DISTRIBUTORS ARE INTRASTATE IN CHARACTER, SINCE THE EXTENSION OF THE
COMPANY'S FACILITIES AS PROPOSED IN THIS CASE IS SO RELATED TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO COME WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO
REGULATE NOT ONLY INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF, BUT ALSO THOSE MATTERS
WHICH MATERIALLY AFFECT SUCH COMMERCE.  P. 509. 

ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS CO. V. CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT OF THE ILLINOIS CIRCUIT
COURT WHICH HAD SUSTAINED ON APPEAL AN ORDER OF THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THE ORDER REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO SUPPLY ANOTHER COMPANY
WITH NATURAL GAS AND TO MAKE PIPELINE CONNECTIONS FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

THE SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS BY WHICH NATURAL GAS IS PRODUCED IN ONE
STATE, TRANSPORTED TO A LOCAL COMPANY IN ANOTHER, AND BY IT THERE
RESOLD IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS INDIVISIBLE BUT MUST BE BROKEN DOWN INTO
ITS COMPONENT PARTS AND THE CHARACTER OF SUCH PARTS SEPARATELY
DETERMINED. 

THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF SUCH TRANSMISSION TERMINATES UPON
DELIVERY OF THE GAS TO THE APPELLANT IN ILLINOIS.  APPELLANT'S RESALE
AND DELIVERY TO ITS CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE STATE ARE PURELY LOCAL
ACTIVITIES. 

PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, AND THE BACKGROUND AND EXPRESS
LANGUAGE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT, SUSTAIN THESE VIEWS. 

THE CASES RELIED UPON BY APPELLANT ARE EACH DISTINGUISHABLE UPON
THEIR FACTS.  ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE DICTA GIVE COLOR TO APPELLANT'S
POSITION, THE ACTUAL HOLDINGS AND GENERAL TENOR OF THE CASES SUSTAIN
THE APPELLEES. 

THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, UNDER THE ILLINOIS STATUTE, HAS
JURISDICTION OVER APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES. 

THE ORDER IS NOT REPUGNANT TO OR IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURAL GAS ACT. 

APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT ITS
ACTIVITIES, AFTER RECEIVING THE GAS, ARE INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER. 

THE NATURAL GAS ACT VESTS IN THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION CONTROL
OVER ONLY SUCH COMPANIES AS TRANSPORT NATURAL GAS ACROSS STATE LINES. 
IT PROVIDES THAT THE SEVERAL STATES SHALL CONTINUE TO REGULATE THE
LOCAL RESALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF GAS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BORDERS,
AND SETS UP EXTENSIVE PROVISIONS LOOKING FORWARD TO CONTINUED ACTIVITY
ON THE PART OF BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COMMISSIONS IN THIS FIELD, EACH
VOLUNTARILY COOPERATING WITH THE OTHERS. 

THE INTERESTS OF THE NATION WILL BEST BE SERVED BY FEDERAL CONTROL OF
SUCH INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES AS ARE HERE CARRIED ON BY PANHANDLE, AND
STATE CONTROL OF SUCH LOCAL ACTIVITIES AS THOSE OF THE APPELLANT. 

CASES CITED AND DISCUSSED:  MISSOURI V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO., 265
U.S. 298; EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 465; SOUTHERN
NATURAL GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148, 155; NATURAL GAS PIPE LINE
CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300; BACON & SONS V. MARTIN, 305 U.S. 380;
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. STANDARD OIL CO., 274 U.S. 257; SCHECHTER
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495; PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V.
LANDON, 249 U.S. 236; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V. IOWA, 233 U.S. 334;
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 270 U.S. 552;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. CENTRAL MISSOURI TELEPHONE CO., 115
F.2D 563; UNITED STATES V. ERIE R. CO., 280 U.S. 98; UNITED STATES V.
ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533; CARSON PETROLEUM CO. V. VIAL,
279 U.S. 95; STATE TAX COMM'N V. INTERSTATE GAS CO., 284 U.S. 41;
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELEC.  CO., 273 U.S. 83;
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. FOSTER, 247 U.S. 105; IN RE BILLINGS GAS
CO., 35 P.U.R. (N.S.)  321; HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52; ALABAMA &
VICKSBURG RY. CO. V. JACKSON & EASTERN RY. CO., 271 U.S. 246; O'BRIEN
V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 113 F.2D 539; KENTUCKY NATURAL GAS
CORP. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 28 F.SUPP.  509, AFF'D 119 F.2D 417;
PEOPLE EX REL. N.Y.C.R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 233 N.Y. 113;
ERIE R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 233 U.S. 671; CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V.
HARDWICKE FARMERS ELEV.  CO., 226 U.S. 426; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V.
STROUD, 267 U.S. 404. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON COMPLAINT OF APPELLEE, CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,
WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS TO CONSUMERS IN
VARIOUS CITIES AND TOWNS IN ILLINOIS, APPELLEE, ILLINOIS COMMERCE
COMMISSION, MADE ITS ORDER REQUIRING APPELLANT, ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS
COMPANY, TO SUPPLY THE CENTRAL COMPANY WITH NATURAL GAS AND TO
ESTABLISH THE PIPE LINE CONNECTION NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT ITS ENTIRE
OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS IN ILLINOIS CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
CHALLENGED THE COMMISSION'S EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION AND ITS ORDER,
AS IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT, 52 STAT. 821-833, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 717-717W.  SECTION
7(C), 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717F (C), IT WAS CONTENDED, PROHIBITS SUCH
EXTENSION OF FACILITIES AND SALE OF GAS TO DISTRIBUTORS WITHOUT A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION. 

ON REVIEW, THE ILLINOIS CIRCUIT COURT SUSTAINED THE ORDER AND THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED, 375 ILL. 634, 32 N.E.2D 157, HOLDING
THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF APPELLANT AFFECTED BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
CONSTITUTE INTRASTATE COMMERCE, TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATURAL
GAS ACT DO NOT APPLY, AND THAT THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE, THEREFORE, SUBJECT
TO STATE REGULATION.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

APPELLANT, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF
PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY, WHICH OWNS AND OPERATES A NATURAL
GAS PIPE LINE SYSTEM EXTENDING FROM GAS FIELDS IN TEXAS, KANSAS AND
OKLAHOMA ACROSS ILLINOIS AND INTO INDIANA.  APPELLANT OWNS A PIPE LINE
SYSTEM WHOLLY IN ILLINOIS, WHOSE TRANSMISSION PIPE LINES CONNECT AT
VARIOUS POINTS IN ILLINOIS WITH THE MAIN LINE OF PANHANDLE EASTERN. 
APPELLANT, BY LONG TERM CONTRACT, PURCHASES ITS SUPPLY OF GAS FROM
PANHANDLE EASTERN AND TRANSPORTS IT THROUGH ITS OWN LINES TO LOCAL GAS
DISTRIBUTING UTILITIES IN ILLINOIS, TO WHICH IT SELLS THE GAS FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO CONSUMERS IN ILLINOIS CITIES AND TOWNS.  IT ALSO SELLS
AND DELIVERS GAS TO SEVERAL INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS IN THE STATE.  THE GAS
MOVES CONTINUOUSLY, UNDER PRESSURE APPLIED BY PANHANDLE, FROM THE GAS
FIELDS UNTIL IT ENTERS APPELLANT'S TRANSMISSION LINES, WHERE APPELLANT
REDUCES THE PRESSURE ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS OF ITS SERVICE.  AFTER THE
REDUCTION OF PRESSURE, THE GAS CONTINUES TO MOVE IN APPELLANT'S LINES
UNTIL IT PASSES INTO THE SERVICE PIPES OF THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTORS, OR
INDUSTRIAL USERS, WHERE THE PRESSURE IS AGAIN SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED. 
THE CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY IS DISTRIBUTING NATURAL GAS
TO CONSUMERS IN SEVERAL ILLINOIS TOWNS AND CITIES, WHICH IT PURCHASES
FOR RESALE FROM UNIVERSAL GAS COMPANY, AND TAKES FROM THE PIPE LINE OF
THE LATTER AT THE ILLINOIS STATE LINE.  UNIVERSAL, IN TURN, ACQUIRES
THE GAS IN INDIANA FROM PANHANDLE EASTERN, AND FROM KENTUCKY NATURAL
GAS COMPANY. 

THE ILLINOIS COMMISSION FOUND THAT APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS IN THE SALE
OF THE GAS TO DISTRIBUTORS IN THE STATE ARE WHOLLY INTRASTATE COMMERCE;
THAT THE SUPPLY OF GAS CAPABLE OF PASSING THROUGH CENTRAL'S PIPE LINE
IS INADEQUATE TO SUPPLY THE ILLINOIS COMMUNITIES SERVED BY IT.  THE
COMMISSION THEN ORDERED APPELLANT TO EXTEND ITS PIPE LINE SO AS TO
CONNECT WITH CENTRAL'S PIPE LINE SYSTEM AND TO SUPPLY GAS IN SUFFICIENT
QUANTITIES TO ENABLE IT TO SATISFY THE NEEDS OF ITS CUSTOMERS. 

THAT APPELLANT AND PANHANDLE EASTERN ARE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE NATURAL GAS WHICH MOVES IN A
CONTINUOUS STREAM FROM POINTS WITHOUT THE STATE INTO APPELLANT'S PIPES
WITHIN THE STATE SEEMS NOT TO BE OPEN TO QUESTION.  MISSOURI V. KANSAS
GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298; OZARK PIPE LINE CORP. V. MONIER, 266 U.S. 555;
PEOPLES GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 270 U.S. 550; STATE TAX
COMMISSION V. INTERSTATE GAS CO., 284 U.S. 41.  PURSUANT TO THE MUTUAL
AGREEMENT OF THE TWO COMPANIES, THE GAS IS TRANSPORTED IN CONTINUOUS
MOVEMENT THROUGH THE PIPE LINE INTO THE STATE AND THROUGH APPELLANT'S
PIPES TO THE SERVICE LINES OF THE DISTRIBUTORS, WHERE APPELLANT
DELIVERS IT TO THEM.  IN SUCH A TRANSACTION THE PARTICULAR POINT AT
WHICH THE TITLE AND CUSTODY OF THE GAS PASS TO THE PURCHASER, WITHOUT
ARRESTING ITS MOVEMENT TO THE INTENDED DESTINATION, DOES NOT AFFECT THE
ESSENTIAL INTERSTATE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS.  SEE PEOPLES GAS CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, SUPRA, 554; PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA,
262 U.S. 553, 587; UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. HALLANAN, 257 U.S. 277, 280
281. 

BUT APPELLEE ARGUES, AS THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD, THAT ALTHOUGH
THE SALE OF THE GAS AND ITS MOVEMENT INTO THE STATE IS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THAT COMMERCE COMES TO AN END WHEN APPELLANT REDUCES THE GAS
PRESSURE BEFORE ITS DELIVERY INTO THE SERVICE PIPES OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS.  IN CONSEQUENCE, IT IS ASSERTED, THE SALE OF THE GAS TO
THE DISTRIBUTORS IS INTRASTATE COMMERCE SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION BY
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, AND IS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
NATURAL GAS ACT, WHICH IS SAID TO BE APPLICABLE ONLY TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE RETAIL SALE OF GAS AT THE BURNER TIPS BY
ONE WHO PIPES THE GAS INTO THE STATE, OR BY ONE WHO IS A LOCAL
DISTRIBUTOR ACQUIRING THE GAS FROM ANOTHER WHO HAS SIMILARLY BROUGHT IT
INTO THE STATE, IS A SALE IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, SINCE THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WAS SAID TO END UPON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GAS INTO THE
SERVICE PIPES OF THE DISTRIBUTOR.  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V.
LANDON, 249 U.S. 236; EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 283 U.S.
465.  IN APPLYING THIS MECHANICAL TEST FOR DETERMINING WHEN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ENDS AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE BEGINS, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT
THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND THE SALE OF GAS AT WHOLESALE TO LOCAL
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES IS NOT SUBJECT TO STATE CONTROL OF RATES,
MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO., SUPRA; SEE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V.
LANDON, SUPRA, 245; CF. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO CO.,
273 U.S. 83, 89, OR TO A STATE PRIVILEGE TAX, STATE TAX COMMISSION V.
INTERSTATE GAS CO., SUPRA.  YET, STATE REGULATION OF LOCAL RETAIL RATES
TO ULTIMATE CONSUMERS HAS BEEN SUSTAINED WHERE THE GAS SO DISTRIBUTED
WAS PURCHASED AT WHOLESALE FROM ONE WHO HAD PIPED THE GAS INTO THE
STATE, PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. LANDON, SUPRA, AS HAS A STATE TAX
MEASURED BY RECEIPTS FROM LOCAL RETAIL SALES OF GAS BY ONE WHO HAS
SIMILARLY BROUGHT THE GAS INTO THE STATE.  EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION, SUPRA. 

IN OTHER CASES, THE COURT, IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF STATE
REGULATIONS, HAS BEEN LESS CONCERNED TO FIND A POINT IN TIME AND SPACE
WHERE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN GAS ENDS AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE
BEGINS, AND HAS LOOKED TO THE NATURE OF THE STATE REGULATION INVOLVED,
THE OBJECTIVE OF THE STATE, AND THE EFFECT OF THE REGULATION UPON THE
NATIONAL INTEREST IN THE COMMERCE.  CF. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 185, 187, ET SEQ.; CALIFORNIA V.
THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113, 114; DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, ANTE, P. 390. 
THUS, IN PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 252 U.S.
23, WHERE NATURAL GAS WAS TRANSPORTED BY PIPE LINE FROM ONE STATE INTO
ANOTHER AND THERE SOLD DIRECTLY TO ULTIMATE LOCAL CONSUMERS, IT WAS
HELD THAT, ALTHOUGH THE SALE WAS A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, A STATE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION COULD REGULATE THE RATES FOR SERVICE TO SUCH
CONSUMERS.  WHILE THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THIS LOCAL REGULATION WOULD
TO SOME EXTENT AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN GAS, IT WAS THOUGHT THAT
THE CONTROL OF RATES WAS A MATTER SO PECULIARLY OF LOCAL CONCERN THAT
THE REGULATION SHOULD BE DEEMED WITHIN STATE POWER.  CF. ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA GAS CO. V. DEPT. OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 304 U.S. 61.  AND,
SIMILARLY, THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX ON THE
SALE TO A BUYER WITHIN THE TAXING STATE OF A COMMODITY SHIPPED
INTERSTATE IN PERFORMANCE OF THE SALES CONTRACT, NOT UPON THE GROUND
THAT THE DELIVERY WAS NOT A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SEE EAST OHIO
GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, SUPRA, BUT BECAUSE THE TAX WAS NOT A
PROHIBITED REGULATION OF, OR BURDEN ON, THAT COMMERCE.  WILOIL
CORPORATION V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 169; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE
CO., 309 U.S. 33, 50.  IN SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148,
156-57, ON WHICH THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RELIED, WE HELD ONLY THAT
THE SALE OF GAS TO A LOCAL INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER BY ONE WHO WAS PIPING
THE GAS INTO THE STATE WAS A LOCAL BUSINESS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A
FRANCHISE TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE,
MEASURED BY ALL THE TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY LOCATED THERE, INCLUDING THAT
USED FOR WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TO LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANIES. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTROLLING ACT OF CONGRESS, WE SHOULD NOW BE
FACED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INTEREST OF THE STATE IN THE
PRESENT REGULATION OF THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF GAS TRANSPORTED INTO
THE STATE, BALANCED AGAINST THE EFFECT OF SUCH CONTROL ON THE COMMERCE
IN ITS NATIONAL ASPECT, IS A MORE RELIABLE TOUCHSTONE FOR ASCERTAINING
STATE POWER THAN THE MECHANICAL DISTINCTIONS ON WHICH APPELLEE RELIES. 
BUT WE ARE UNDER NO NECESSITY OF MAKING THAT CHOICE HERE, FOR CONGRESS,
BY THE NATURAL GAS ACT, HAS BROUGHT UNDER NATIONAL CONTROL THE VERY
MATTERS WHICH THE STATE HAS UNDERTAKEN TO REGULATE BY THE ORDER.    AN
AVOWED PURPOSE OF THE NATURAL GAS ACT OF JUNE 21, 1938, WAS TO AFFORD,
THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE NATIONAL POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AN
AGENCY FOR REGULATING THE WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANIES OF NATURAL GAS MOVING INTERSTATE, WHICH THIS COURT HAD
DECLARED TO BE INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN TYPES OF
STATE REGULATION.  H. REP. NO. 709, COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., APRIL 28, 1937.  FN1  BY ITS
ENACTMENT, CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO REGULATE A DEFINED CLASS OF NATURAL
GAS DISTRIBUTION, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY, WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED,
OF DRAWING THE PRECISE LINE BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL POWER BY THE
LITIGATION OF PARTICULAR CASES.  BY SEC. 1(B), 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717(B),
THE ACT IS RESTRICTED IN ITS APPLICATION "TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC,
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE, AND TO NATURALGAS COMPANIES
ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR SALE  ...  "  AND BY SEC. 2(6), 15
U.S.C. SEC. 717A (6) "NATURAL-GAS COMPANY" MEANS A PERSON (INCLUDING A
CORPORATION) ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR THE SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF SUCH GAS FOR RESALE. 
COMMISSION EXTENSIVE CONTROL OVER THE RATES AT WHICH THE GAS IS SOLD
FOR RESALE.  UNDER SEC. 7(A), 15 U.S.C. SEC. 717F (A) THE COMMISSION
HAS AUTHORITY TO ORDER NATURALGAS COMPANIES TO EXTEND THEIR SYSTEMS TO
ESTABLISH PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES WITH
THOSE OF DISTRIBUTORS, AND TO SELL GAS TO THEM.  SECTION 7(B) PROHIBITS
THE ABANDONMENT OF THE FACILITIES OF NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES WITHOUT
APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.  SECTION 7(C), HERE INVOLVED, PROVIDES THAT
"NO NATURAL-GAS COMPANY SHALL UNDERTAKE THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION
OF ANY FACILITIES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS TO A MARKET IN
WHICH NATURAL GAS IS ALREADY BEING SERVED BY ANOTHER NATURAL-GAS
COMPANY, OR ACQUIRE OR OPERATE ANY SUCH FACILITIES OR EXTENSIONS
THEREOF, OR ENGAGE IN ANY TRANSPORTATION BY MEANS OF ANY NEW OR
ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, OR SELL NATURAL GAS IN ANY SUCH MARKET," WITHOUT
THE FEDERAL COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY. 

WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT THESE PROVISIONS, READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, WERE INTENDED TO BRING UNDER FEDERAL REGULATION
WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION, LIKE THAT OF APPELLANT, OF GAS MOVING
INTERSTATE.  APPELLANT ENGAGES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN GAS AND IN ITS
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, AS THOSE TERMS HAD BEEN DEFINED BY THIS
COURT, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT.  AFTER THE GAS IS BROUGHT INTO
THE STATE, APPELLANT MAKES THE FIRST SALE TO DISTRIBUTORS FOR RESALE,
TO WHICH THE ACT IN TERMS APPLIES, AND WHICH THE CASES LAST MENTIONED
DEFINED AS A PART OF THE COMMERCE SUBJECT IN SOME RESPECTS TO THE
EXCLUSIVE REGULATION OF CONGRESS.  CF. PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES,
INC., ANTE, P. 244.  SECTION 7 OF THE ACT COMMITS TO THE FEDERAL
COMMISSION THE CONTROL OF EXTENSIONS AND ABANDONMENT OF THE
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES, THEIR PHYSICAL
CONNECTION WITH THOSE OF DISTRIBUTORS AND SALES TO DISTRIBUTORS, AND
PROHIBITS EXTENSIONS, SUCH AS THE STATE COMMISSION HAS NOW ORDERED,
INTO AN AREA ALREADY SERVED BY ANOTHER NATURAL-GAS COMPANY, UNLESS THE
COMMISSION HAS FIRST GRANTED A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY.  SINCE THE COMMUNITIES HERE ARE SUPPLIED BY THE UNIVERSAL
AND CENTRAL COMPANIES, WHICH TRANSPORT THE GAS INTERSTATE, THEY
CONSTITUTE A MARKET ALREADY SERVED BY A NATURAL-GAS COMPANY WITHIN SEC.
7(C) AND SEC. 2(6) OF THE ACT. 

THE FEDERAL COMMISSION HAS RULED THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER THE
ACT OVER COMPANIES WHICH, LIKE APPELLANT, SELL AT WHOLESALE TO LOCAL
DISTRIBUTORS GAS MOVING INTERSTATE.  RE BILLINGS GAS COMPANY, 35 P.U.R.
(N.S.)  321; RE EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY, 28 P.U.R. (N.S.)  129.  THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 7(C) INDICATE THE MANY
IMPORTANT MATTERS WHICH IT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING
WHETHER AN EXTENSION OF FACILITIES IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS SHOULD BE
PERMITTED.  FN2 

IN DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL POWER OVER THE PROPOSED
EXTENSION OF FACILITIES AND SALE OF GAS, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
SCRUTINIZE WITH METICULOUS CARE THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
APPELLANT'S BUSINESS, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER, AS THE COURT BELOW
HELD, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE INVOLVED IN BRINGING THE GAS INTO THE
STATE ENDS BEFORE DELIVERY TO DISTRIBUTORS.  IN ANY CASE, THE PROPOSED
EXTENSION OF APPELLANT'S FACILITIES IS SO INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED WITH
THE COMMERCE, AND WOULD SO AFFECT ITS VOLUME MOVING INTO THE STATE AND
DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE STATES, AS TO BE WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER
TO REGULATE THOSE MATTERS WHICH MATERIALLY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
AS WELL AS THE COMMERCE ITSELF.  SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 222
U.S. 20; HOUSTON, E. & W.T. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342;
RAILROAD COMM'N OF WISCONSIN V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563;
SEE UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, 119-120. 

AS CONGRESS, BY SEC. 7(A)(C) OF THE ACT, HAS GIVEN PLENARY AUTHORITY
TO THE FEDERAL COMMISSION TO REGULATE EXTENSIONS OF GAS TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES AND THEIR PHYSICAL CONNECTION WITH THOSE OF DISTRIBUTORS, AS
WELL AS THE SALE OF GAS TO THEM, AND SINCE NO CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, REQUIRED BY SEC. 7(C), HAS BEEN GRANTED TO
APPELLANT BY THE FEDERAL COMMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED EXTENSIONS AND
SALE, THE STATE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ORDER THEM.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE COMMITTEE SAID OF THE PROPOSED BILL: 

"IT CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION OVER THE
TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE SALE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF NATURAL GAS FOR RESALE FOR ULTIMATE PUBLIC
CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR ANY OTHER USE. 
THE STATES HAVE, OF COURSE, FOR MANY YEARS REGULATED SALES OF NATURAL
GAS TO CONSUMERS IN INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS.  THE STATES HAVE ALSO BEEN
ABLE TO REGULATE SALES TO CONSUMERS EVEN THOUGH SUCH SALES ARE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SUCH SALES BEING CONSIDERED LOCAL IN CHARACTER AND
IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION SUBJECT TO STATE
REGULATION.  (SEE PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
(1920), 252 U.S. 23.)  THERE IS NO INTENTION IN ENACTING THE PRESENT
LEGISLATION TO DISTURB THE STATES IN THEIR EXERCISE OF SUCH
JURISDICTION.  HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF SALES FOR RESALE, OR SO-CALLED
WHOLESALE SALES, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (FOR EXAMPLE, SALES BY
PRODUCING COMPANIES TO DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES) THE LEGAL SITUATION IS
DIFFERENT.  SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE NOT LOCAL IN
CHARACTER AND, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, NOT SUBJECT
TO STATE REGULATION.  (SEE MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO. (1924), 265 U.S.
298, AND PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM & ELECTRIC CO.
(1927), 273 U.S. 83.)  THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT LEGISLATION IS
TO OCCUPY THIS FIELD IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE
STATES MAY NOT ACT." 

FN2  IN IN RE KANSAS PIPE LINE & GAS CO., NO. G-106 AND IN RE NORTH
DAKOTA CONSUMERS GAS CO., NO. G-119, OCTOBER 24, 1939, IT INQUIRED: 

(1)  WHETHER THE APPLICANT POSSESSED A SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS ADEQUATE
TO MEET THOSE DEMANDS WHICH IT WAS REASONABLE TO ASSUME WOULD BE MADE
UPON IT; (2) WHETHER THERE EXISTED IN THE TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE
SERVED CUSTOMERS WHO COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO USE SUCH GAS
SERVICE; (3) WHETHER THE FACILITIES PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED WOULD BE
ADEQUATE TO MEET THE ESTIMATED DEMANDS FOR GAS IN THE AREA; (4) WHETHER
APPLICANT POSSESSED ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES WITH WHICH TO
CONSTRUCT THE FACILITIES PROPOSED; (5) WHETHER THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION
OF THE FACILITIES PROPOSED WAS ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE; (6) WHETHER
ANTICIPATED FIXED CHARGES WERE REASONABLE; (7) WHETHER THE RATES
PROPOSED TO BE CHARGED WERE REASONABLE, COMPARING IN THAT CONNECTION
THE PROPOSED RATES WITH THOSE OF OTHER NATURAL-GAS COMPANIES ALREADY
SERVING THE TERRITORY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















EX PARTE COLONNA, 314 U.S. 510 


NO. - , ORIGINAL.  DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
DENIED. 


IN VIEW OF SEC. 7(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AND OF THE
STATE OF WAR EXISTING BETWEEN THIS COUNTRY AND ITALY, AN APPLICATION TO
THIS COURT BY THE ITALIAN AMBASSADOR, PRAYING FOR PROCESS LOOKING TO
THE RELEASE OF A VESSEL AND CARGO OWNED BY ITALY FROM A LIBEL
PROCEEDING IN A DISTRICT COURT, WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED.  P. 511. 

EX PARTE DON ASCANIO COLONNA. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND
MANDAMUS. 

PER CURIAM: 

PETITIONER, THE ROYAL ITALIAN AMBASSADOR, SEEKS LEAVE TO FILE IN THIS
COURT A PETITION FOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS, DIRECTED TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.  THE BASIS
OF THIS APPLICATION IS PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION THAT A VESSEL AND ITS
CARGO OF OIL, THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND NOW
IN ITS POSSESSION, ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT AND ARE
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF ITALY'S SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT. 

AFTER THE MOTION WAS FILED, THERE OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 11, 1941, THE
DECLARATION THAT THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR WITH ITALY.  SECTION 2(B)
OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, 40 STAT. 411, DEFINES "ENEMY" TO
INCLUDE THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT
WAR.  SECTION 7(B) CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING PROVISION, 40 STAT. AT 417: 

"NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO AUTHORIZE THE PROSECUTION OF
ANY SUIT OR ACTION AT LAW OR IN EQUITY IN ANY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES BY AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY PRIOR TO THE END OF THE WAR, EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED IN SECTION TEN HEREOF" (WHICH RELATES TO PATENT, TRADEMARK
AND COPYRIGHT SUITS) "  ...  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT AN ENEMY OR
ALLY OF ENEMY MAY DEFEND BY COUNSEL ANY SUIT IN EQUITY OR ACTION AT LAW
WHICH MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST HIM." 

THIS PROVISION WAS INSERTED IN THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLE,
RECOGNIZED BY CONGRESS AND BY THIS COURT, THAT WAR SUSPENDS THE RIGHT
OF ENEMY PLAINTIFFS TO PROSECUTE ACTIONS IN OUR COURTS.  SEE S. REPTS. 
NOS.  111 AND 113, PP. 21, 24, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; CAPERTON V.
BOWYER, 14 WALL.  216, 236; HANGER V. ABBOTT, 6 WALL.  532, 536-37,
539; MASTERSON V. HOWARD, 18 WALL.  99, 105; PORTER V. FREUDENBERG,
(1915) 1 K.B. 857, 866-80.  IN VIEW OF THE STATUTE AND THE OPINIONS IN
THE CASES CITED, THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED.  CF.
ROTHBARTH V. HERZFELD, 179 APP. DIV. 865, 867-69, 167 N.Y.S. 199,
AFFIRMED 223 N.Y. 578, 119 N.E. 1075.  MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS
APPLICATION. 
..END :



















NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. P. LORILLARD CO., 314 U.S. 512 


NO. 71.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 19, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  -
117 F.2D 921, REVERSED. 


WHETHER AN EMPLOYER SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BARGAIN WITH A UNION
PREVIOUSLY SELECTED AS EMPLOYEES' BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OR, IN VIEW
OF LAPSE OF TIME AND CHANGED CONDITIONS, A NEW ELECTION SHOULD BE HELD
IS A QUESTION FOR DECISION BY THE BOARD AND NOT BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  P. 513. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. P. LORILLARD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 557, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENTERED ON A PETITION
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER, 16
N.L.R.B. 684.  THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINED THE ORDER AS MADE BUT INTRODUCED
A MODIFICATION REQUIRING THE BOARD TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION AS PRAYED BY
THE RESPONDENT-EMPLOYER IN A PETITION FOR REHEARING. 

PER CURIAM: 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT, P. LORILLARD COMPANY, HAD
COMMITTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(5) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 453, BY REFUSING TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH PIONEER TOBACCO WORKERS' LOCAL INDUSTRIAL
UNION NO. 55, WHICH WAS AT THE TIME THE DULY SELECTED BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF A MAJORITY OF LORILLARD'S EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD
AFFIRMATIVELY ORDERED LORILLARD TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH LOCAL NO.
55.  ON THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT THE COURT BELOW SUSTAINED
THE BOARD'S FINDING, BUT, EXPRESSING THE BELIEF THAT BECAUSE OF LAPSE
OF TIME AND CHANGED CONDITIONS THE LOCAL MIGHT NO LONGER REPRESENT THE
MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES, MODIFIED THE BOARD'S ORDER SO AS TO REQUIRE IT
TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LOCAL HAD LOST ITS
MAJORITY DUE TO A SHIFT OF EMPLOYEES TO A RIVAL INDEPENDENT
ASSOCIATION.  THE BOARD HAD CONSIDERED THE EFFECT OF A POSSIBLE SHIFT
IN MEMBERSHIP, ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED SUBSEQUENT TO LORILLARD'S
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  BUT IT HAD REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT, IN
ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT, LORILLARD MUST REMEDY THE
EFFECT OF ITS PRIOR UNLAWFUL REFUSAL TO BARGAIN BY BARGAINING WITH THE
UNION SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A MAJORITY ON THE DATE OF LORILLARD'S REFUSAL
TO BARGAIN.  THIS WAS FOR THE BOARD TO DETERMINE, AND THE COURT BELOW
WAS IN ERROR IN MODIFYING THE BOARD'S ORDER IN THIS RESPECT.  LABOR
BOARD V. BRADFORD DYEING ASSN., 310 U.S. 318, 339-340; I.A. OF M. V.
LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 82.  SEE ALSO LABOR BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308
U.S. 453, 458-459.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED WITH
DIRECTIONS TO ENFORCE THE ORDER OF THE BOARD.  REVERSED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. RAGEN, 314 U.S. 513 


NO. 54.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - 118
F.2D 128, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CRIME OF WILLFULLY ATTEMPTING TO EVADE OR DEFEAT INCOME TAXES
(REV. ACTS 1932, 1934, 1936, SEC. 145), IS COMMITTED WHERE THE MEMBERS
OF A CORPORATION, SCHEMING TO REDUCE OR EVADE ITS INCOME TAXES, CAUSE
DISTRIBUTIONS OF ITS FUNDS TO BE MADE TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN THE GUISE
OF COMMISSIONS AND CAUSE THE AMOUNTS SO DISTRIBUTED TO BE DEDUCTED IN
THE CORPORATION'S INCOME TAX REPORTS FROM ITS GROSS INCOME AS
REASONABLE ALLOWANCES FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, KNOWING THAT THE AMOUNTS
ARE IN EXCESS OF REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR ANY SERVICES RENDERED BY
THE RECIPIENTS TO THE CORPORATION.  P. 522. 

2.  THE MERE FACT THAT A PENAL STATUTE IS SO FRAMED AS TO REQUIRE A
JURY UPON OCCASION TO DETERMINE A QUESTION OF REASONABLENESS DOES NOT
MAKE IT TOO VAGUE TO AFFORD A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. 
UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81, AND OTHER CASES,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 523. 

3.  THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO SUPPORT A FINDING
BY THE JURY THAT THE RESPONDENTS WILLFULLY ATTEMPTED TO MAKE
UNREASONABLE ALLOWANCES FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, IN REPORTING THE NET
INCOME OF THE CORPORATION.  P. 524. 

4.  WHERE A COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT ALLEGED THAT MONEYS OF A
CORPORATION, DISTRIBUTED TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS AS "COMMISSIONS" AND
DEDUCTED IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURNS AS REASONABLE EXPENSES FOR SERVICES
TO THE CORPORATION, WERE DIVIDENDS IN THEIR ENTIRETY, BUT THE PROOF
INDICATED THAT SOME SERVICES TO THE CORPORATION WERE PERFORMED BY THE
RECIPIENTS, THE VARIANCE WAS NOT FATAL, SINCE IT RELATED AT MOST TO THE
EXTENT OF THE ALLEGED TAX EVASION AND INVOLVED NO ELEMENT OF SURPRISE
PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENSE.  P. 526. 

UNITED STATES V. RAGEN.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 55, UNITED STATES V. ARNOLD W. KRUSE, AND NO. 56,
UNITED STATES V. LESTER A. KRUSE, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 313 U.S.
557, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 557, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF JUDGMENTS UPON
CONVICTIONS FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE, AND FOR VIOLATIONS OF, A
PROVISION IN SEVERAL REVENUE ACTS MAKING CRIMINAL A WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO
EVADE OR DEFEAT ANY TAX. 

THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A VERDICT OF GUILTY. 

COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES OF NET PROFITS OF A CORPORATION PAID FOR
SERVICES RENDERED ARE DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME. 

THE FIFTH COUNT CHARGES THAT NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED; BUT THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED.  THE CHARGE WAS NOT PROVED
AS ALLEGED, AND A VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED. 

THERE WAS NO SHOWING AS TO THE TOTAL OF ALL SERVICES RENDERED OR AS
TO THEIR REASONABLE VALUE.  EVEN IF THE QUESTION OF COMPENSATION WERE
AN ISSUE IN THE CASE, A VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED, BECAUSE THE
EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE SUBMISSION OF THAT QUESTION TO
A JURY. 

TO BE A PARTY TO A CONSPIRACY, GUILTY KNOWLEDGE IS ESSENTIAL.  THE
DOING OF SOME ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY IS NOT
ENOUGH. 

IN A PROSECUTION FOR A WILFUL ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT AND EVADE TAXES, IT
IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SHOW MERELY THAT A LESSER TAX WAS PAID THAN WAS
DUE.  IT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROVE THAT THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WERE
WILFULLY DONE IN BAD FAITH AND WITH INTENT TO EVADE AND DEFEAT THE
TAX. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS A SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE STANDARD OF
GUILT, IF DEFENDANTS RENDERED ANY SERVICES TO THE CORPORATION, IS
RAISED HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME.  IN THE COURTS BELOW, THE GOVERNMENT
CONTENDED THAT THIS QUESTION WAS IRRELEVANT.  THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT
BE PERMITTED TO SHIFT ITS POSITION. 

TO PERMIT A CONVICTION TO REST UPON THE DETERMINATION BY A JURY OF
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE COMPENSATION PAID FOR SERVICES RENDERED,
WITHOUT A DEFINITE STANDARD FOR DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION,
PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND TO THE PROVISION OF THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT THAT IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS THE ACCUSED SHALL
ENJOY THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE
ACCUSATION.  UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S. 81, 89;
CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391; COLLINS V.
KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 634, 638; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY,
234 U.S. 216, 221; AMERICAN MACHINE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 236 U.S. 660, 661;
UNITED STATES V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 242 U.S. 208, 237; SMITH V.
CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553, 564; SMALL CO. V. AMERICAN REFINING CO., 267 U.S.
233, 238; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, 242;
HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 262-264; LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306
U.S. 451, 453.  DISTINGUISHING GORIN V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 19. 
SEE, ALSO, OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246 U.S. 343, 348; HYGRADE
PROVISIONS CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497, 501.  DISTINGUISHING TINKOFF
V. UNITED STATES, 86 F.2D 868; UNITED STATES V. KELLEY, 105 F.2D 912;
UNITED STATES V. ZIMMERMAN, 108 F.2D 370, AND WAGNER V. UNITED STATES,
118 F.2D 801. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT THE COMMISSIONS WERE PAID
FOR SERVICES RENDERED, AND NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO SHOW THAT THE
PAYMENTS WERE UNREASONABLE. 

THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THE THEORY THAT THE ISSUE WAS
WHETHER THE DEDUCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONS WERE EITHER PROPER OR
IMPROPER IN THEIR ENTIRETY.  THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY INSTRUCTED THE
JURY THAT THEY COULD CONVICT THE DEFENDANTS IF THEY FOUND ONLY THAT A
SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DEDUCTIONS WAS IMPROPER.  THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING OR INSTRUCTION. 

THE FACTUAL AND ULTIMATE LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ARE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE RECORD. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WILLFULLY ATTEMPTS IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR DEFEAT ANY TAX IMPOSED BY
THIS TITLE OR THE PAYMENT THEREOF, SHALL, IN ADDITION TO OTHER
PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW, BE GUILTY OF A FELONY  ...  " 47 STAT. 217. 
(THERE ARE IDENTICAL PROVISIONS IN THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936. 
48 STAT. 725; 49 STAT. 1703.)  PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED, TRIED, AND
CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE, AND FOR
VIOLATION OF, THIS PROVISION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, REVERSED.  UNITED STATES V. MOLASKY, 118 F.2D 128.  BECAUSE
QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CRIMINAL STATUTE AND
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS WERE RAISED, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  313 U.S. 557. 

IN COMPUTING NET CORPORATE INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX, A DEDUCTION IS
PERMITTED FOR "ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS, INCLUDING
A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR SALARIES OR OTHER COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED  ...  " SEC. 23(A), REVENUE ACTS OF 1932,
1934, AND 1936.  47 STAT. 179; 48 STAT. 688; 49 STAT. 1658. 
"DIVIDENDS" DISTRIBUTED FROM NET CORPORATE PROFITS ARE NOT ALLOWABLE
DEDUCTIONS.  BUT "COMMISSIONS," IF INCURRED AS NECESSARY BUSINESS
EXPENSES AND AS A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR PERSONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY
RENDERED, ARE DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME.  THE LARGER THE ALLOWABLE
DEDUCTION THE SMALLER ARE THE NET TAXABLE INCOME AND THE TAX IMPOSED. 
THE FIRST FOUR COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT SET OUT ATTEMPTS BY THE
DEFENDANTS TO EVADE INCOME TAXES OF THE CONSENSUS PUBLISHING COMPANY
FOR THE YEARS 1933 TO 1936, THROUGH A FRAUDULENT SCHEME WHEREBY, UNDER
THE GUISE OF PAYING COMMISSIONS WHICH WERE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME,
THE CORPORATION DISTRIBUTED DIVIDENDS DEDUCTION OF WHICH THE STATUTE
DOES NOT PERMIT.  THE FIFTH COUNT SETS OUT A CONSPIRACY TO ACCOMPLISH
SIMILAR RESULTS FOR THE YEARS 1929 TO 1936. 

AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, INCLUDING
NUMEROUS EXHIBITS, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE JURY COULD JUSTIFIABLY
HAVE FOUND THE FOLLOWING FACTS TO BE TRUE: 

THE CONSENSUS PUBLISHING COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, WAS
ORGANIZED IN 1929 TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF PREPARING "RUN-DOWN"
SHEETS, DAILY BULLETINS CONTAINING INFORMATION ON HORSE RACING, AND
SELLING THEM TO BOOKMAKERS.  THE ORIGINAL STOCK OWNERSHIP WAS
DISTRIBUTED AMONG ARNOLD KRUSE (20 SHARES), JAMES RAGEN, SR. (20
SHARES), WILLIAM MOLASKY (30 SHARES), AND CECELIA INVESTMENT COMPANY
(30 SHARES), A HOLDING COMPANY CONTROLLED BY MOSES ANNENBERG, THE
DOMINANT FIGURE IN SEVERAL OTHER CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE ENGAGED IN
ENTERPRISES CONNECTED WITH BETTING ON HORSE RACES.  KRUSE AND RAGEN
WERE EXECUTIVES IN OTHER ANNENBERG COMPANIES.  MOLASKY ALONE LIVED IN
ST. LOUIS, WHERE CONSENSUS CONDUCTED ITS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OPERATIONS,
BUT HE DELEGATED TO ONE GORDON BROOKS, AN EMPLOYEE OF ANOTHER
CORPORATION OWNED BY MOLASKY, THE JOB OF COLLECTING RECEIPTS, PREPARING
RECORDS AND REPORTS, AND SUPERVISING PRINTING FOR CONSENSUS, - WORK
WHICH TOOK BROOKS AN HOUR-AND-A-HALF A DAY ON THE AVERAGE, EXCEPT FOR
THE ONE DAY EACH WEEK WHEN THE PREPARATION OF OPERATING REPORTS FOR THE
CHICAGO OFFICE REQUIRED ABOUT THREE HOURS. 

FOR SEVERAL YEARS CONSENSUS MADE A WEEKLY DISTRIBUTION OF MONEY TO
ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THEIR HOLDINGS.  IN THE PERIOD
COVERED BY THE INDICTMENT, ONLY THE 30% OF THE DISTRIBUTION GOING TO
CECELIA INVESTMENT COMPANY WAS TREATED AS DIVIDENDS IN CONSENSUS' TAX
RETURNS.  THE REMAINING 70%, ALTHOUGH REFERRED TO IN SOME OF THE
CORPORATION'S CONFIDENTIAL WEEKLY REPORTS TO STOCKHOLDERS DURING THE
PERIOD AS "DIVIDENDS," WAS NEVERTHELESS IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN
DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME AS "COMMISSIONS."  THE DEDUCTIONS THUS
CLAIMED WERE $10,761 IN 1929, $62,961 IN 1930, $64,791 IN 1931, $57,255
IN 1932, $54,538 IN 1933, $60,172 IN 1934, $76,714 IN 1935, AND
$119,756 IN 1936.  THE BOOKKEEPING SYSTEM, UNDER WHICH 70% OF THE FUNDS
REMAINING AFTER PAYMENT OF EXPENSES WAS CHARGED AS COMMISSIONS, WAS SET
UP IN 1929 IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS FROM ARNOLD KRUSE. 

IN 1934, KRUSE, HAVING LEARNED OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS THAT DISTRIBUTIONS OF PROFITS AS COMMISSIONS WOULD NOT BE
ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSE IF MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
STOCKHOLDINGS, SET IN MOTION A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS RETROACTIVELY
MODIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSENSUS AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  HE
DIRECTED AN EMPLOYEE TO DESTROY THE ORIGINAL STOCK BOOK OF THE COMPANY,
ISSUE NEW STOCK CERTIFICATES BEARING THE DATE OF INCORPORATION
(SEPTEMBER 18, 1929), AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TO CANCEL THE NEW
CERTIFICATES AND ISSUE A SINGLE CERTIFICATE FOR ONE HUNDRED SHARES TO
THE CECELIA INVESTMENT COMPANY.  IN 1935 OR 1936, KRUSE ORDERED THE
DRAWING UP OF WRITTEN YEARLY CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE SEVERAL
YEARS FROM 1930 ON BETWEEN CONSENSUS AND THE INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM
"COMMISSION" PAYMENTS HAD SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE COMPANY BEEN
MADE.  IN EACH CONTRACT, THE COMPENSATION WAS TO CORRESPOND IDENTICALLY
WITH THE AMOUNT THAT HAD ALREADY ACTUALLY BEEN PAID. 

EXCEPT FOR DELAYS IN DESTROYING THE ORIGINAL STOCK BOOK AND THE
ORIGINAL STOCK CERTIFICATES, THIS PLAN WAS PROMPTLY CARRIED OUT. 
MOREOVER, CORPORATE MINUTES WERE DRAWN UP, APPROPRIATELY BACK DATED,
WHICH SET OUT THE STOCK "ISSUE" AND THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS AS IF THEY
WERE ACTUAL EVENTS CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE FALSE DATES OF RECORDING. 

AMONG THE BACK-DATED CONTRACTS WERE SEVERAL BETWEEN CONSENSUS AND THE
RESPONDENT LESTER KRUSE, SON OF ARNOLD.  THESE TOGETHER WITH A BACK
DATED ASSIGNMENT BY ARNOLD TO LESTER OF HIS "CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT"
WITH CONSENSUS WERE TO AFFORD OSTENSIBLE DOCUMENTATION OF A SHIFT TO
LESTER, AFTER MARCH, 1933, OF THE SHARE THAT HAD FORMERLY GONE TO
ARNOLD.  FN1  SIMILARLY, AFTER 1931, CONSENSUS PAID THE SHARE THAT HAD
FORMERLY GONE TO RAGEN TO RAGEN'S SON.  HERE, TOO, A SET OF BACK-DATED
PAPERS DOCUMENTING THE SHIFT WAS FABRICATED.  AFTER THEIR SONS BECAME
THE NOMINAL RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSIONS, KRUSE AND RAGEN CONTINUED TO BE
CONNECTED WITH THE AFFAIRS OF CONSENSUS.  KRUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, DIRECTED
THE CREATION OF THE SPURIOUS PAPERS AND RECORDS ALREADY DESCRIBED, AND
RAGEN FROM TIME TO TIME, AT LEAST UNTIL 1935, SIGNED "COMMISSION"
CHECKS OF CONSENSUS WHICH WERE PAID IN REGULAR COURSE.  FN2 

IF, FROM THE FOREGOING AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD,
THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT ANY ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS HAD, WITH THE
INTENTIONAL COOPERATION OF THE OTHERS, RECEIVED "COMMISSIONS" WITHOUT
RENDERING ANY SERVICES WHATSOEVER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE
TRIAL JUDGE TO HAVE SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY WITHOUT CALLING UPON
IT TO DECIDE ANY QUESTIONS OF REASONABLENESS OF COMPENSATION FOR
SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED.  IF, HOWEVER, EACH DEFENDANT HAD PERFORMED
SOME SERVICE FOR THE CORPORATION, THE JURY WOULD HAVE HAD TO CONSIDER
WHETHER OR NOT THE "COMMISSIONS" HAD INTENTIONALLY BEEN MADE EXCESSIVE
SO THAT A PORTION OF PAYMENTS MADE IN THE GUISE OF MEETING EXPENSES
ACTUALLY CONSTITUTED A DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE
WHICH, IF BELIEVED, TENDED TO ESTABLISH THAT EACH DEFENDANT HAD
PERFORMED SOME SERVICE, ALTHOUGH OF AN IRREGULAR AND UNDEFINED NATURE. 
HENCE, IT SEEMS TO US ENTIRELY PROPER FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE TO HAVE
SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY WITH A CHARGE NOT NECESSARILY CALLING
FOR A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ALL OR NONE OF THE "COMMISSIONS" PAID TO
EACH DEFENDANT WERE DIVIDENDS, BUT PERMITTING A DETERMINATION OF
WHETHER THE "COMMISSIONS" WERE INTENTIONALLY MADE TO INCLUDE
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS DIVIDENDS.  UPON
SUCH A CHARGE,  FN3  THE JURY FOUND ARNOLD KRUSE AND RAGEN GUILTY ON
ALL FIVE COUNTS, AND LESTER KRUSE GUILTY ON COUNTS FOUR AND FIVEN4. 

IN THE CHARGE AS GIVEN, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND REVERSIBLE
ERROR.  THE GIST OF THE COURT'S ARGUMENT IS CONTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING
EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION: 

"WE HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT WHERE A STATUTE PERMITS A
REASONABLE DEDUCTION FOR SERVICES, A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION CAN NOT BE
MAINTAINED BY PROOF OTHER THAN THAT SUCH SERVICES WERE NOT RENDERED. 
IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLEGE OR PROVE THAT A DEDUCTION CLAIMED FOR
SERVICES IS UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THE AMOUNT CHARGED IS UNREASONABLE.  SUCH
A CHARGE WOULD LEAVE TO THE TRIER OF THE FACTS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
FIXING THE STANDARD BY WHICH A DEFENDANT'S GUILT WOULD BE DETERMINED. 
THE STANDARD WOULD VARY ACCORDING TO THE VIEWS OF DIFFERENT COURTS AND
JURIES.  SUCH A THEORY WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF THE DEFENDANT'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND VOID.  UNITED STATES V. L. COHEN GROCERY
CO., 255 U.S. 81  ...  ; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234
U.S. 216, 221  ... ; COLLINS V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 634, 638  ...  "
FN5 

DETERMINATION OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS BY REFERENCE TO A STANDARD OF
"REASONABLENESS" IS NOT UNUSUAL UNDER FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS. FOR
EXAMPLE, THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED FOR DEPRECIATION AND OBSOLESCENCE, FOR
BAD DEBTS, AND FOR ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES (OTHER THAN
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES) ARE DESIGNATED IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
AS "REASONABLE."  53 STAT. 1, SECS. 23(1), 23(K)(1), 23(A)(1).  IF, AS
THE OPINION BELOW SUGGESTS, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT CAN PROPERLY BE
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION IS FABRICATED, AN
UNCONSCIONABLE TAXPAYER CAN IMMUNIZE HIMSELF FROM THE CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS FOR TAX EVASION BY THE SIMPLEST OF EXPEDIENTS.  HE NEED ONLY
FIND A LEGITIMATE ITEM OF DEDUCTION AND THEN PAD IT AS MUCH AS HIS
PURPOSE REQUIRES.  BY TRANSFORMING THE QUESTION "SHOULD ANY DEDUCTION
HAVE BEEN MADE?"  INTO "WAS THE DEDUCTION MADE IN EXCESS OF A
REASONABLE ALLOWANCE?"  HE CAN, IF THE THEORY ACCEPTED BELOW BE
CORRECT, LARGELY DESTROY THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF A PENAL STATUTE PASSED
BY CONGRESS. 

WE HAVE CONCLUDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE GROUND OF DECISION BELOW IS
UNTENABLE.  THE MERE FACT THAT A PENAL STATUTE IS SO FRAMED AS TO
REQUIRE A JURY UPON OCCASION TO DETERMINE A QUESTION OF REASONABLENESS
IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE IT TOO VAGUE TO AFFORD A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO
PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT.  CF. NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373.  THE
CASES CITED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRM NO SUCH PROPOSITION.  IN THE
COHEN GROCERY CASE, THIS COURT HELD A CONVICTION UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE
LEVER ACT, 41 STAT. 297, 298, UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE STATUTE LEFT
OPEN "THE WIDEST CONCEIVABLE INQUIRY, THE SCOPE OF WHICH NO ONE CAN
FORESEE AND THE RESULT OF WHICH NO ONE CAN FORESHADOW OR ADEQUATELY
GUARD AGAINST," AND BECAUSE AN "ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THE SECTION WOULD BE
THE EXACT EQUIVALENT OF AN EFFORT TO CARRY OUT A STATUTE WHICH IN TERMS
MERELY PENALIZED AND PUNISHED ALL ACTS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WHEN UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE IN THE ESTIMATION OF THE COURT
AND JURY."  UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., SUPRA, 89.  IN THE
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CASE, THIS COURT EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT
ASSURANCE THAT THE STATE STATUTE THERE IN ISSUE WAS COMPLIED WITH
CALLED FOR "GIFTS THAT MANKIND DOES NOT POSSESS."  INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, 224.  AND IN THE COLLINS CASE, THE
SAME STATUTE WAS SAID TO CALL FOR A DETERMINATION OF CONDUCT "NOT
ACCORDING TO THE ACTUALITIES OF LIFE, OR BY REFERENCE TO KNOWABLE
CRITERIA, BUT BY SPECULATING UPON IMAGINARY CONDITIONS."  COLLINS V.
KENTUCKY, SUPRA, 638. 

NO SUCH UNWORKABLE STANDARDS ARE INVOLVED HERE.  SECTION 145 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, STANDING ALONE, IS NOT VAGUE NOR DOES IT DELEGATE
POLICY-MAKING POWERS TO EITHER COURT OR JURY.  IT DECLARES THAT "ANY
PERSON WHO WILLFULLY ATTEMPTS IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR DEFEAT ANY TAX
IMPOSED" BY THE ACT "SHALL  ...  BE GUILTY OF A FELONY" AND SPECIFIES
PENALTIES IN ADDITION TO THOSE OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.  THAT SUCH
ACTS OF BAD FAITH ARE NOT BEYOND THE READY COMPREHENSION EITHER OF
PERSONS AFFECTED BY THE ACT OR OF JURIES CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE
VIOLATIONS NEED NOT BE ELABORATED.  NOR DOES THE PARTICULAR MODE OF
EVASION HERE ALLEGED, INTENTIONAL DEDUCTION OF DIVIDENDS IN THE GUISE
OF COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, SO TRANSFORM THE NATURE OF THE
OFFENSE AS TO MAKE THE ACTORS LESS AWARE THAT THEY ARE COMMITTING IT OR
JURIES LESS COMPETENT TO DETECT IT.  THE STATUTORY SPECIFICATION OF
PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION HERE IN QUESTION IS OF LONG STANDING.  FOR YEARS,
THOUSANDS OF CORPORATIONS HAVE FILED INCOME TAX RETURNS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE DIRECTION TO DEDUCT "A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR SALARIES OR
OTHER COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE ACTUALLY RENDERED," AND THERE
HAS NOT BEEN ANY APPARENT GENERAL CONFUSION BESPEAKING INADEQUATE
STATUTORY GUIDANCE.  A FINDING OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNCERTAINTY IN THIS
AND COMMON SENSE. 

ON NO CONSTRUCTION CAN THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS HERE INVOLVED BECOME
A TRAP FOR THOSE WHO ACT IN GOOD FAITH.  A MIND INTENT UPON WILLFUL
EVASION IS INCONSISTENT WITH SURPRISED INNOCENCE.  CF. GORIN V. UNITED
STATES, 312 U.S. 19; HYGRADE PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497;
OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246 U.S. 343.  AND THE CHARGE GIVEN BY THE
TRIAL COURT AMPLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT SCIENTER IS AN ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS NOT ERROR TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENTS ATTEMPTED TO MAKE UNREASONABLE
ALLOWANCES FOR PERSONAL SERVICES.  THE RESPONDENTS, HOWEVER, RAISE A
FURTHER OBJECTION GOING NOT TO THE PROPRIETY OF SUCH A SUBMISSION AS A
MATTER OF LAW, BUT TO THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
JURY COULD HAVE FOUND AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED.  THEY
CONTEND THAT THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE RECIPIENTS OF COMMISSIONS
PERFORMED SOME SERVICES; THAT THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE
SERVICES DISCLOSED WERE THE ONLY SERVICES RENDERED; THAT THERE WAS NO
DIRECT TESTIMONY AS TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SERVICES RENDERED OR THE
REASONABLE VALUE THEREOF; AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE JURY HAD NO RATIONAL
BASIS UPON WHICH TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SUMS DEDUCTED AS "COMMISSIONS"
WERE MORE THAN A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE SERVICES
RENDERED.  WE MUST REJECT THIS CONTENTION. 

THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY CONSENSUS, A BUSINESS WHICH, ACCORDING TO
THE TESTIMONY OF A PERSON WHO WAS IN IMMEDIATE CHARGE OF ITS MAJOR
OPERATIONS, NORMALLY REQUIRED ONLY AN HOUR AND A HALF DAILY OF
MANAGERIAL SUPERVISION, WOULD HARDLY SEEM TO CALL FOR ADDITIONAL
EXECUTIVE SERVICES WORTH WHAT CONSENSUS PAID IN "COMMISSIONS."  THE
SAME WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NEVER SEEN SOME OF THE RECIPIENTS OF
"COMMISSIONS," AND THAT HIS ONLY CONTACT WITH ONE OF THEM WAS TWO
TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS.  THIS TESTIMONY, TOO, BELIES PARTICIPATION BY
THE RESPONDENTS IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF CONSENSUS TO A DEGREE
JUSTIFYING PAYMENT OF THE HIGH "COMMISSIONS" - EQUAL ON THE AVERAGE TO
ABOUT HALF OF GROSS REVENUES AND AMOUNTING EACH YEAR TO SEVERAL TIMES
ALL OTHER WAGES AND SALARIES  FN6  - AS A QUID PRO QUO FOR THEIR
SERVICES.  MOREOVER, THERE IS THE ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE, DAMAGING TO
THE RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION THAT, YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT, 30% OF EARNINGS
AFTER DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES WAS PAID TO THE CECELIA INVESTMENT COMPANY
AS DIVIDENDS, AND 70% TO THE RESPONDENTS OR OTHER INDIVIDUALS AS
"COMMISSIONS."  THIS UNIFORMITY IN THE COMPUTATION OF "COMPENSATION" IS
DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE WITH THE VARIATIONS IN EXTENT AND KIND OF
PERSONAL SERVICES WHICH ONE WOULD EXPECT TO FIND IN ACCOUNTS REFLECTING
BONA FIDE ALLOWANCES FOR PERSONAL SERVICES.  FURTHER, THERE IS THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE "COMMISSION" PAYMENTS WERE ALWAYS IN PROPORTION
TO ORIGINAL STOCK HOLDINGS.  AND DARKENING THE WHOLE PICTURE IS THE
ATMOSPHERE OF PURPOSEFUL CONCEALMENT EVINCED BY THE DESTRUCTION OF SOME
IMPORTANT CORPORATE PAPERS AND THE FABRICATION OF OTHERS.  WE ARE
CONVINCED THAT ALL OF THIS IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY THE
JURY THAT THE RESPONDENTS WILLFULLY ATTEMPTED TO MAKE UNREASONABLE
ALLOWANCES FOR PERSONAL SERVICES. 

THE RESPONDENTS ALSO URGE THAT THERE WAS A FATAL VARIANCE BETWEEN THE
INDICTMENT AND THE PROOF, IN THAT THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT THE
COMMISSION PAYMENTS WERE ACTUALLY DIVIDENDS IN THEIR ENTIRETY, WHEREAS
THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT SOME SERVICES WERE PERFORMED.  THE FIFTH
COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT DOES REFER TO "ALL OF THE MONEYS  ...  PAID
...  BY VIRTUE OF THE  ...  SO-CALLED 'EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS'" AS "IN
TRUTH AND IN FACT, DISTRIBUTIONS OF PROFITS AND DIVIDENDS."  BUT THE
GRAVAMEN OF THE CHARGE IS DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS IN THE GUISE OF
COMMISSIONS, AND THE RESPONDENTS CANNOT FAIRLY CLAIM THAT THEY WERE NOT
ADEQUATELY APPRISED OF THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE.  ANY VARIANCE WHICH
EXISTED, AT MOST A MATTER OF THE EXTENT OF THE ALLEGED TAX EVASION,
INVOLVES NO ELEMENTS OF SURPRISE PREJUDICIAL TO THE RESPONDENTS'
EFFORTS TO PREPARE THEIR DEFENSE.  CF. BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 78; BENNETT V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 333. 

THE RESPONDENTS HAVE MADE FURTHER CONTENTIONS WHICH WE CONCLUDE,
AFTER CONSIDERATION, ARE WITHOUT MERIT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  OR TO HIS WIFE.  FROM AUGUST, 1932, TO MARCH, 1933, CONSENSUS
DISTRIBUTED 20% OF ITS EARNINGS TO MRS. ARNOLD KRUSE.  NO EXPLANATION
IS APPARENT IN THE RECORD. 

FN2  BECAUSE OF THIS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING RAGEN'S
CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE AFFAIRS OF CONSENSUS, WE CONCLUDE THAT
THE ARGUMENT, SEPARATELY MADE ON HIS BEHALF, THAT THERE WAS
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH HIS CONNECTION WITH ANY SCHEME TO
EVADE TAXES, IS WITHOUT MERIT. 

FN3  THE CRUCIAL PORTIONS OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S CHARGE TO THE JURY
ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF THESE SUMS DISTRIBUTED WERE DISTRIBUTED AS A PART OF THE PROFITS
OF THE CORPORATION, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE
INCOME TAX REPORT OF THE CONSENSUS COMPANY AS PROFITS AND UPON THAT THE
CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE PAID A TAX, WHICH IT DID NOT. 

"IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY WERE INTENDED TO AND REPRESENTED ACTUAL
BONA FIDE COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYES OF THIS CORPORATION IN THE ORDINARY
OPERATION OF ITS BUSINESS; IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY WERE ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY EXPENSES OF THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS, THEN THEY WERE
PROPERLY DEDUCTIBLE AS THEY WERE DEDUCTED AND NO TAX WAS DUE UPON
THEM. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THESE MEN HAVE
ENTERED INTO A CONSPIRACY, INTO A SCHEME WHEREBY AS A RESULT THIS
CORPORATION, THE CONSENSUS COMPANY, UNDER THE GUISE OF COMMISSIONS,
DISTRIBUTED TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS SUMS THAT ACTUALLY REPRESENTED A
DIVISION OF PROFITS. 

"IF THESE DEFENDANTS HAD THAT KIND OF PLAN AND CARRIED IT OUT, IF
THEY WILFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY ENTERED INTO SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT, THERE
WOULDN'T BE ANY QUESTION OF THEIR GUILT. 

     .         .         . .         . 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THIS INDICTMENT TO PROVE
THAT ALL OF THE SUMS SO DISTRIBUTED TO THESE DEFENDANTS WERE PROFITS. 
IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVE ALL OF THE FIGURES
PRECISELY AS THEY ARE CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  IT IS SUFFICIENT IF
YOU FIND BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANTS INTENTIONALLY
DIVERTED PROFITS OF THIS CONCERN, IN THE AMOUNTS CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT OR SUBSTANTIAL PARTS THEREOF, DIVERTED THEM FROM THE FORM OF
PROFITS AND RECEIVED THEM IN THE FORM OF COMMISSIONS." 

FN4  MOLASKY, JAMES RAGEN, JR., AND THE CONSENSUS PUBLISHING COMPANY
WERE ALSO FOUND GUILTY.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION OF MOLASKY AND
JAMES RAGEN, JR., WHICH INVOLVED ADDITIONAL ISSUES OF NO RELEVANCE TO
THE RESPONDENTS HERE.  THE CORPORATION DID NOT TAKE AN APPEAL FROM THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. MOLASKY, SUPRA, 118 F.2D AT 139. 

FN6  IN 1936, FOR EXAMPLE, "COMMISSIONS" AMOUNTED TO $119,756 AS
COMPARED WITH $8,816 PAID OUT FOR OTHER WAGES AND SALARIES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :











CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. V. U.S., 314 U.S. 527 


NO. 39.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 19, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942. 


1.  REVISED STATUTES, SEC. 1020, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 601, PROVIDES THAT
WHEN ANY RECOGNIZANCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE RETURNABLE TO ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES IS FORFEITED BY A BREACH OF THE CONDITIONS THEREOF, SUCH
COURT MAY REMIT THE WHOLE OR A PART OF THE PENALTY WHENEVER IT APPEARS
THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO "WILLFUL DEFAULT OF THE PARTY, AND THAT A TRIAL
CAN, NOTWITHSTANDING, BE HAD IN THE CAUSE, AND THAT PUBLIC JUSTICE DOES
NOT OTHERWISE REQUIRE THE SAME PENALTY TO BE ENFORCED."  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THIS STATUTE IS THE EXCLUSIVE SOURCE OF THE POWER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AT ANY TIME TO REMIT THE FORFEITURE OF A RECOGNIZANCE IN
A CRIMINAL CAUSE.  P. 533. 

(2)  THE WORD "PARTY" APPEARING IN THE PHRASE "WILLFUL DEFAULT OF THE
PARTY," MEANS ONLY THE PRINCIPAL IN THE RECOGNIZANCE; IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE SURETY.  P. 530. 

2.  WHERE THE WORDS OF THE REVISED STATUTES ARE CLEAR, THEIR MEANING
MAY NOT BE CHANGED BY RESORT TO THE PRIOR LAW.  P. 530. 

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CERTIFIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON A
REVIEW BY THAT COURT OF A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 34 F.SUPP. 
1007, WHICH DISMISSED A PETITION PRAYING THAT FORFEITURE OF A
RECOGNIZANCE BE REMITTED.  THE PETITIONERS WERE THE SURETY AND ITS
INDEMNITOR. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIFICATE BRINGS TO THIS COURT FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE POWER OF A DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO RELIEVE AN INNOCENT SURETY FROM THE PENALTY OF A
FORFEITED RECOGNIZANCE. 

THE PRINCIPAL IN THE RECOGNIZANCE, "HERBERT R. SHORT, WAS CONVICTED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ON JUNE 20, 1940,
UPON TWO COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT CHARGING CONSPIRACY AND WAS ON THAT
DAY DIRECTED TO APPEAR IN THE COURT ON JULY 19, 1940, FOR SENTENCE.  ON
JULY 19, 1940, SHORT DID NOT APPEAR IN THE SAID COURT.  THE COURT
THEREUPON ORDERED A BENCH WARRANT TO ISSUE AND ORDERED THE RECOGNIZANCE
TO BE FORFEITED.  SHORT WAS APPREHENDED ON AUGUST 29, 1940.  ON
SEPTEMBER 12, 1940, HE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AND
SENTENCE WAS THEN IMPOSED UPON HIM." 

THE SURETY, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, AND ITS INDEMNITOR, MARIE
M. SHORT, THE WIFE OF THE PRINCIPAL, THE CONVICTED DEFENDANT, FILED A
JOINT PETITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN THE TERM AT WHICH THE ORDER
OF FORFEITURE HAD BEEN ENTERED, PRAYING FOR REMISSION OF THE
FORFEITURE.  "THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE DEFAULT OF
HERBERT R. SHORT, THE PRINCIPAL IN THE RECOGNIZANCE, WAS WILLFUL, AND
DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR REMISSION OF THE FORFEITURE UPON THE GROUND
THAT IT WAS WITHOUT POWER UNDER SECTION 1020 OF THE REVISED STATUTES,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 601, TO GRANT THE PETITION IN VIEW OF THE WILLFUL
DEFAULT OF THE PRINCIPAL, AND THAT IT HAD NO POWER INDEPENDENTLY OF THE
STATUTE TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITION." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, BEING IN DOUBT AS TO THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, CERTIFIED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO THIS COURT FOR
INSTRUCTIONS: 

"1.  IS SECTION 1020 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (18 U.S.C. SEC. 601) THE
EXCLUSIVE SOURCE OF THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES AT ANY TIME TO REMIT THE FORFEITURE OF THE PENALTY OF A
RECOGNIZANCE TAKEN IN A CRIMINAL CAUSE? 

"2.  IS THE WORD 'PARTY' APPEARING IN THE PHRASE 'WILLFUL DEFAULT OF
THE PARTY' IN SECTION 1020 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (18 U.S.C. SEC. 601)
INTENDED TO DESCRIBE 

(A)  THE PERSON WHO MAKES APPLICATION TO THE COURT FOR THE REMISSION
OF THE FORFEITURE OF THE PENALTY, WHETHER THAT PERSON IS THE PRINCIPAL
OR THE SURETY IN THE RECOGNIZANCE, 

(B)  ONLY THE PRINCIPAL IN THE RECOGNIZANCE? 

"3.  IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 IS 'NO' DOES THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES HAVE COMMON LAW POWER TO REMIT THE FORFEITURE OF THE
PENALTY OF A RECOGNIZANCE TAKEN IN A CRIMINAL CAUSE, WHERE THE DEFAULT
OF THE PRINCIPAL IN THE RECOGNIZANCE WAS WILLFUL? 

"4.  IF QUESTION 3 IS ANSWERED AND THE ANSWER THERETO IS 'YES' IS THE
COMMON LAW POWER TO REMIT THE FORFEITURE LIMITED TO EXERCISE UPON AN
APPLICATION MADE WITHIN THE TERM OF COURT AT WHICH THE ORDER OF
FORFEITURE WAS ENTERED?" 

THE ANSWERS DEPEND UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 601 OF TITLE 18 OF
THE U.S.C.  SET OUT BELOW.  FN1  THIS SECTION ASSUMED ITS PRESENT FORM
IN THE REVISED STATUTES SEC. 1020, APPROVED JUNE 22, 1874.  R.S. TITLE
LXXIV, SEC. 5596, REPEALED ALL ACTS MENTIONED IN THE REVISION PASSED
PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1, 1873.  THE REVISION SUBSTITUTED THE WORD "PARTY"
FOR THE WORD "PARTIES" WHICH WAS IN THE EARLIER ACT, AND BY REENACTMENT
THUS RAISED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE WILLFUL DEFAULT MENTIONED IN
BOTH THE REVISION AND THE FORMER ACT MAY BE THAT EITHER OF THE
PRINCIPAL OR HIS BAIL, OR WHETHER IT IS RESTRICTED, ON ACCOUNT OF THE
REVISION, TO THE PRINCIPAL ONLY.  THE PROVISION FOR REMISSION OF
FORFEITURES WAS FIRST ENACTED IN 1839 AS SEC. 6 OF AN "ACT IN AMENDMENT
OF THE ACTS RESPECTING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN2
THE ACT INCLUDED VARIOUS PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO FIX PRACTICE
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE CHANGE TO THE SINGULAR IN THE REVISED
STATUTES WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION OF ITS PURPOSE AND INDEED
WITHOUT THE BRACKETS OR ITALICS USED TO INDICATE A REPEAL OR
AMENDMENT.  SEE PREFACE, R.S. (2D ED., 1878), P.V.  THE REVISED FORM,
HOWEVER, IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT, NOTWITHSTANDING A POSSIBLE
DISCREPANCY.  R.S. SEC. 5596; UNITED STATES V. BOWEN, 100 U.S. 508,
513; BATE REFRIGERATING CO. V. SULZBERGER, 157 U.S. 1, 45.  CF. U.S.C.,
(1940 ED.)  P. LVII, SEC. 2(A). 

IT APPEARS TO US THAT THERE CAN BE BUT ONE PERSON WHO CAN WILLFULLY
DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION.  THIS IS THE PRINCIPAL IN
THE RECOGNIZANCE.  BY ITS TERMS HE AGREES TO "APPEAR FOR JUDGMENT." 
WHEN, WITHOUT EXCUSE, HE FAILS TO APPEAR, THERE IS A WILLFUL DEFAULT. 
THE SURETY ONLY GUARANTEES THAT THE PRINCIPAL WILL NOT DEFAULT.  IN A
CERTAIN SENSE THE SURETY MAY DEFAULT BY FAILURE TO PAY ITS OBLIGATION,
BUT THIS IS PLAINLY NOT THE KIND OF DEFAULT TO WHICH THE STATUTE
REFERS.  NOR WILL THE POSSIBILITY OF COLLUSION OF THE SURETY WITH THE
ABSCONDING PRINCIPAL PERMIT AN INTERPRETATION THAT MISCONDUCT ON THE
PART OF THE APPLICANT FOR RELIEF FROM FORFEITURE IS THE "DEFAULT" MEANT
BY THE STATUTE.  THE CONDITION OF THE BOND IS THE APPEARANCE OF THE
PRINCIPAL AT THE TIME SET.  NOTHING LESS SATISFIES THE CONDITION. 

THE APPELLANTS URGE AGAINST THIS CONCLUSION THAT, SINCE THE OBJECT OF
"A RECOGNIZANCE IS NOT TO ENRICH THE TREASURY" BUT TO PROMOTE
CONVENIENCE OF CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES V. FEELY, FED.
CAS. NO. 15,082, AND TO REMEDY HARDSHIPS CAUSED BY DEFAULTS, THE WORD
"PARTY" SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO COVER NOT ONLY PRINCIPALS BUT
SURETIES, WITHOUT WILLFUL DEFAULT, EVEN THOUGH THE PRINCIPAL MAY HAVE
DELIBERATELY VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE RECOGNIZANCE.  THEY FURTHER
POINT OUT THAT JUSTICE SUFFERS NO AFFRONT, SINCE SURRENDER OF THE
FUGITIVE IN TIME FOR TRIAL IS ANOTHER AND AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF THE
REMISSION OF THE PENALTY. 

BUT THE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY ARE TOO CONFUSED TO AFFORD A CLEAR
TEST OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  PAID SURETIES ARE OFTEN, AS HERE,
INDEMNIFIED.  REMISSION OF PENALTY WOULD INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF
DEFENDANTS, WHO HAD VIOLATED THEIR UNDERTAKINGS OF APPEARANCE WITH
CONSEQUENT DISORGANIZATION OF CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION.  A BAIL CHARGED
WITH CUSTODY OF A DEFENDANT, TAYLOR V. TAINTOR, 16 WALL.  366, 371, MAY
EXERCISE TO THE SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT OF CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION A HIGH
DEGREE OF CARE TO PREVENT DEFAULT, IF HE KNOWS THE LATER FORTUITOUS
APPREHENSION OF THE PRINCIPAL WILL NOT RELIEVE HIM OF THE FORFEIT.  IT
IS NOT FOR COURTS TO SAY WHETHER STRICT FORFEITURE ON WILLFUL DEFAULT
OR A GENEROUS ATTITUDE TOWARD INNOCENT BAIL WILL BE MOST CONDUCIVE TO
THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  HENCE, NOT FOR REASONS OF POLICY, BUT BECAUSE OF
THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, WE CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN THE
FORMER. 

AFTER THE CHANGE TO "PARTY," WITH EXCEPTIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS,
FN3  ALL THE CIRCUITS EXCEPT THE FIRST  FN4  AND TENTH HAVE REACHED OUR
CONCLUSION, TO WIT, THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES AS A CONDITION TO THE
REMISSION OF THE PENALTY A DETERMINATION THAT THE PRINCIPAL IN THE
RECOGNIZANCE IS FREE OF WILLFUL DEFAULT.  FN5  NO CIRCUIT HAS DECIDED
TO THE CONTRARY. 

SINCE THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO THE WILLFUL DEFAULT OF THE PRINCIPAL,
UNDER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE JUST REACHED, RELIEF, IF ANY
THERE IS FOR THE BAIL, MUST BE IN OTHER SOURCES OF JUDICIAL POWER AS
SUGGESTED IN QUESTIONS 1 AND 3 OF THE CERTIFICATE.  THAT IS TO SAY,
THAT IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTORY POWER THE COURTS HAVE A COMMON LAW
POWER TO REMIT FORFEITURES IN THEIR DISCRETION.  UNITED STATES V.
FEELY, 1 BROCK.  255, FED. CAS. NO. 15082(1813 C.C.), IS RELIED UPON AS
AUTHORITY.  IN THAT CASE, DECIDED BEFORE THE STATUTE, CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL EXERCISED THE POWER AND STAYED PROCEEDINGS.  APPELLANT URGES
THAT FORFEITURE IS A JUDGMENT WITHIN THE POWER OF COURTS TO MODIFY ON
APPLICATION MADE, AS HERE, DURING THE TERM, AND THAT THIS POWER IS NOT
AFFECTED BY THE STATUTE, WHICH WAS INTENDED TO EXTEND THE POWER TO
REMISSION AFTER THE TERM IN WHICH FORFEITURE WAS ENTERED. 

NO AUTHORITY, HISTORICAL OR JUDICIAL, IS CITED BY APPELLANT TO
SUPPORT ITS VIEW THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1839, WAS
TO CONFER POWER UPON THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ACT AFTER THE
TERM IN WHICH THE FORFEITURE WAS ENTERED, IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO POWER
ALREADY EXISTING TO RELIEVE FROM FORFEITURES DURING THE TERM.  WE SEE
NOTHING IN THE ACT ITSELF TO PERSUADE US THAT THE GENERALITY OF THE
WORDS "WHENEVER IT APPEARS TO THE COURT" MEANS AFTER THE TERM IN WHICH
THE FORFEITURE WAS ENTERED.  SUCH A DESIRE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO
EXTEND THE POWER OF THE COURTS WOULD BE MANIFESTED BY THE LANGUAGE OF
EXTENSION RATHER THAN DIFFERENTIATION.  IF THE REASON WAS AS APPELLANT
CONTENDS, WHY QUALIFY THE DISCRETION AFTER THE TERM BY THE CONDITIONS
OF THE STATUTE AND LEAVE THE DISCRETION DURING THE TERM UNQUALIFIED? 

WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE POWERS OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE THE STATUTE, THOSE POWERS ARE NOW REGULATED BY STATUTE.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. MACK, 295 U.S. 480, 488.  THESE STATUTORY POWERS ARE
EXCLUSIVE.  BEFORE REMISSION MAY BE ALLOWED THERE MUST BE A
DETERMINATION OF LACK OF WILLFULNESS IN THE DEFAULT, THAT A TRIAL CAN
BE HAD, AND THAT PUBLIC JUSTICE DOES NOT OTHERWISE REQUIRE THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PENALTY.  THE STATEMENT OF THE CONDITIONS NEGATIVES
ACTION WITHOUT THE SATISFACTION OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.  GENERALLY
SPEAKING, A "LEGISLATIVE AFFIRMATIVE DESCRIPTION" IMPLIES DENIAL OF THE
NON-DESCRIBED POWERS.  DUROUSSEAU V. UNITED STATES, 6 CRANCH 307, 314. 
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS INQUIRY CARRY US BEYOND THE RULE OF EXPRESSIO
UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS, CF. FORD V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 593,
611, AND INTO THE DOMAIN OF INCONSISTENCY OF PURPOSE.  CF. TEXAS &
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426, 436 ET SEQ.
THERE CANNOT LOGICALLY BE TWO SERIES OF TESTS TO DETERMINE THE POWER OF
A FEDERAL COURT TO RELIEVE OF FORFEITURE UNDER A RECOGNIZANCE.  THE
CONDITIONS FOR ACTION MAKE ACTION WITHOUT MEETING THE CONDITIONS, WE
THINK, CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, AS EXPRESSED IN THE STATUTE. 
SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE ORIGINAL STATUTE ON REMISSION OF FORFEITURES,
THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE, IN GENERAL, HELD THE SAME VIEW
THAT THE STATUTORY POWER WAS EXCLUSIVE.  FN6 

OUR ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 IS "YES."  OUR ANSWER TO QUESTION 2(A) IS
"NO".  OUR ANSWER TO QUESTION 2(B) IS "YES."  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS 3 AND 4.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  "WHEN ANY RECOGNIZANCE IN A CRIMINAL CAUSE, TAKEN FOR, OR IN, OR
RETURNABLE TO, ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IS FORFEITED BY A BREACH
OF THE CONDITION THEREOF, SUCH COURT MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, REMIT THE
WHOLE OR A PART OF THE PENALTY, WHENEVER IT APPEARS TO THE COURT THAT
THERE HAS BEEN NO WILLFUL DEFAULT OF THE PARTY, AND THAT A TRIAL CAN,
NOTWITHSTANDING, BE HAD IN THE CAUSE, AND THAT PUBLIC JUSTICE DOES NOT
OTHERWISE REQUIRE THE SAME PENALTY TO BE ENFORCED." 

FN2  5 STAT. 322. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. TRAYNOR, 173 F. 114, 116; UNITED STATES V.
O'LEARY, 275 F. 202; UNITED STATES V. SLAIMEN, 6 F.2D 464; UNITED
STATES V. BARGER, 20 F. 500; GRIFFIN V. UNITED STATES, 270 F. 263; CF.
UNITED STATES V. JACOBSON, 257 F. 760. 

FN4  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. SLAIMEN, 6 F.2D 464(D.R.I.), WITH
UNITED STATES V. VINCENT, 10 F.SUPP.  489(D. MASS.), AND DICTA IN
UNITED STATES V. VENDETTI, 33 F.SUPP.  34. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. KELLEHER, 57 F.2D 684(C.C.A.2D); SUN INDEMNITY
CO. OF NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 91 F.2D 120(C.C.A. 3D); UNITED STATES
V. ROBINSON, 158 F. 410(C.C.A.4TH); UNITED STATES V. NORDENHOLZ, 95
F.2D 756(C.C.A.4TH); ISGRIG V. UNITED STATES, 109 F.2D 131,
134(C.C.A.4TH); FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 293 F.
575(C.C.A.5TH); UNITED STATES V. REED, 117 F.2D 808(C.C.A.5TH); UNITED
STATES V. COSTELLO, 47 F.2D 684(C.C.A.6TH); HENRY V. UNITED STATES, 288
F. 843(C.C.A.7TH); SKOLNIK V. UNITED STATES, 4 F.2D 797,
799(C.C.A.7TH); UNITED STATES V. CAPUA, 94 F.2D 292(C.C.A.7TH); CF.
UNITED STATES V. LIBICHIAN, 113 F.2D 368, 371, 372(C.C.A.7TH); WEBER V.
UNITED STATES, 32 F.2D 110(C.C.A.8TH); LA GROTTA V. UNITED STATES, 77
F.2D 673, 675(C.C.A.8TH); UNITED STATES V. ROSENFELD, 109 F.2D
908(C.C.A.8TH); UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN BONDING CO., 39 F.2D
428(C.C.A.9TH); FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND V. UNITED STATES, 47
F.2D 222(C.C.A.9TH); UNITED STATES V. VON JENNY, 39 APP. D.C. 377, 381;
UNITED STATES V. ALLEN, 39 APP. D.C. 383; UNITED STATES V. WALTER, 43
APP. D.C. 468. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. MACK, 295 U.S. 480, 488; UNITED STATES V.
WALTER, 43 APP. D.C. 468; SUN INDEMNITY CO. OF NEW YORK V. UNITED
STATES, 91 F.2D 120; UNITED STATES V. ROBINSON, 158 F. 410, 412; UNITED
STATES V. NORDENHOLZ, 95 F.2D 756; UNITED STATES V. REED, 117 F.2D 808;
UNITED STATES V. COSTELLO, 47 F.2D 684; HENRY V. UNITED STATES, 288 F.
843; UNITED STATES V. LIBICHIAN, 113 F.2D 368; UNITED STATES V.
ROSENFELD, 109 F.2D 908.    MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :













BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 534 


NO. 143.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - 36
F.SUPP.  865, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE GRAIN RATE STRUCTURE IN THE
WESTERN DISTRICT, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PRESCRIBED RATE
BREAK COMBINATIONS AS THE EXCLUSIVE BASIS OF TRANSIT PRIVILEGES AT
PRIMARY MARKETS.  HOWEVER, TRANSIT PRIVILEGES AT INTERIOR POINTS ON
ROUTES PASSING THROUGH A PRIMARY MARKET WERE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF
LOWER RATES IN EFFECT OVER COMPETING ROUTES BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS. 
HELD THAT, CONSIDERING THE WHOLE HISTORY OF GRAIN RATE REGULATION, THE
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN PRIMARY MARKETS AND INTERIOR POINTS THUS MADE
BY THE COMMISSION WAS NOT AN UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION
FORBIDDEN BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 544. 

2.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ARE INVALID
BECAUSE THEY DEPRIVE THE PRIMARY MARKETS OF NATURAL COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGES IS REJECTED.  P. 548. 

3.  WHETHER A DISCRIMINATION IS UNREASONABLE UNDER THE ACT IS A
QUESTION OF FACT THAT HAS BEEN CONFIDED BY CONGRESS TO THE JUDGMENT AND
DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION, AND UPON WHICH ITS DECISIONS, MADE THE
BASIS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS OPERATING IN FUTURO, ARE NOT TO BE
DISTURBED BY THE COURTS EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING THAT THEY ARE UNSUPPORTED
BY EVIDENCE, WERE MADE WITHOUT A HEARING, EXCEED CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS,
OR FOR SOME OTHER REASON AMOUNT TO AN ABUSE OF POWER.  P. 546.  HE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

BOARD OF TRADE OF KANSAS CITY ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE HAVE BEFORE US ON THIS APPEAL ORDERS EMBODYING A SERIES OF
DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AFTER
INQUIRIES INTO THE GRAIN RATE STRUCTURE STRETCHING OVER A PERIOD OF
TWELVE YEARS.  THE PLAINTIFFS ARE MILLERS, ELEVATOR COMPANIES, BOARDS
OF TRADE, GRAIN EXCHANGES, AND OTHER BUSINESS INTERESTS IN KANSAS CITY,
ST. LOUIS, OMAHA, ST. JOSEPH, ATCHISON, LEAVENWORTH, AND MINNEAPOLIS,
THE GREAT GRAIN CENTERS KNOWN IN THE TRADE AS "PRIMARY MARKETS."  THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS, THEY COMPLAIN, CREATE AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION
UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SECS. 1(5), 2, 3(1), BY PROHIBITING
THE INTERRUPTION OF SHIPMENTS OF GRAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING STORED,
MARKETED, OR PROCESSED - TECHNICALLY CHARACTERIZED AS TRANSIT
PRIVILEGES - AT THESE PRIMARY MARKETS ON THE LOWER RATES UNDER WHICH
THESE PRIVILEGES ARE AVAILABLE AT COMPETING INTERIOR POINTS (I. E.,
GRAIN CENTERS OTHER THAN PRIMARY MARKETS).  THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, 36 F.SUPP.  865, AND THE CASE IS HERE ON
APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 210; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47(A). 

AS ONE PHASE OF THE EFFORT TO RELIEVE AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS, CONGRESS
IN 1925 BY THE HOCH-SMITH RESOLUTION DIRECTED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION TO MAKE A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE RATE STRUCTURE OF
COMMON CARRIERS "IN ORDER TO DETERMINE TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT
MANNER EXISTING RATES AND CHARGES MAY BE UNJUST  ...  OR UNDULY
PREFERENTIAL, THEREBY IMPOSING UNDUE BURDENS, OR GIVING UNDUE ADVANTAGE
AS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS LOCALITIES AND PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, THE VARIOUS
CLASSES OF TRAFFIC, AND THE VARIOUS CLASSES AND KINDS OF COMMODITIES,
AND TO MAKE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, SUCH CHANGES, ADJUSTMENTS, AND
REDISTRIBUTION OF RATES AND CHARGES AS MAY BE FOUND NECESSARY TO
CORRECT ANY DEFECTS SO FOUND TO EXIST."  43 STAT. 801; 49 U.S.C. SEC.
55. 

ACCORDINGLY, ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1926, THE COMMISSION INSTITUTED A
COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THE RATES AND PRACTICES AFFECTING
GRAIN AND GRAIN PRODUCTS IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT.  FN1  THE COMMISSION
CALLED ITS PROCEEDING "UNUSUAL," INVOLVING AS IT DID "THREE SCORE AND
MORE OF MAJOR ISSUES, AFFECTING EVERY PART OF A VAST TERRITORIAL
DOMAIN, EACH OF WHICH WOULD ORDINARILY PRESENT A CASE OF MORE THAN
AVERAGE IMPORTANCE."  164 I.C.C. 619, 697.  EXTENSIVE HEARINGS WERE
HELD, AND ON THE BASIS OF A HUGE RECORD OF SOME 53,000 PAGES OF
TESTIMONY, INCLUDING 2,100 EXHIBITS, 20,000 PAGES OF MEMORANDA,
EXCEPTIONS, AND ORAL ARGUMENTS, THE COMMISSION ON JULY 1, 1930, ISSUED
A REPORT AND ORDER PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM RATES FOR GRAIN AND GRAIN
PRODUCTS.  164 I.C.C. 619.  A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND ORDER WERE ISSUED
ON APRIL 13, 1931.  173 I.C.C. 511.  BECAUSE THE COMMISSION DID NOT
TAKE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE DRASTIC CHANGES IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
DUE TO THE DEPRESSION OCCURRING BETWEEN THE CLOSE OF ITS HEARINGS AND
THE DATE OF ITS ORDERS, THIS COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDERS.  ATCHISON, T.
& S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 248.  NEW AND EXTENSIVE
HEARINGS WERE THEREUPON  HELD, AND ON OCTOBER 22, 1934, THE COMMISSION
IN AN ELABORATE REPORT AFFIRMED SOME OF ITS EARLIER FINDINGS AND
MODIFIED OTHERS.  205 I.C.C. 301.  UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE
RECORD, THE COMMISSION ISSUED A SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO REMOVE
DISCRIMINATIONS BETWEEN INTERIOR POINTS.  215 I.C.C. 83.  DEALERS AT
THE PRIMARY MARKETS THEREUPON FILED FORMAL COMPLAINTS SEEKING
MODIFICATION OF THAT PART OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS WHICH
DIFFERENTIATED BETWEEN TRANSIT PRIVILEGES AT PRIMARY MARKETS AND THOSE
AT INTERIOR POINTS.  HEARINGS UPON THESE COMPLAINTS PRODUCED MORE THAN
7,000 PAGES OF NEW TESTIMONY AND OVER 250 EXHIBITS.  ON JULY 27, 1937,
THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED, BUT DID NOT REQUIRE, THE CARRIERS TO MEET
THE REQUESTS OF THE PRIMARY MARKETS.  223 I.C.C. 235.  THE CARRIERS
HAVING DECLINED TO ACT ON THIS AUTHORIZATION, THE COMMISSION WAS
PETITIONED TO ENTER A MANDATORY ORDER.  PROCEEDINGS WERE REOPENED, NEW
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD, AND ON JULY 12, 1938, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
THE PRESCRIBED RATES DID NOT SUBJECT THE PRIMARY MARKETS TO ANY "UNDUE
PREJUDICE AND DISADVANTAGE."  229 I.C.C. 9, 16.  UPON RECONSIDERATION
THIS CONCLUSION WAS AFFIRMED ON MARCH 13, 1939.  231 I.C.C. 793.  TO
UPSET THESE FINDINGS AND TO STRIKE DOWN THE ORDERS BASED UPON THEM THE
PRESENT SUIT WAS FILED. 

SINCE THE TRANSIT PRIVILEGE IS AT THE CORE OF THIS LITIGATION, A
BRIEF EXPOSITION OF ITS MECHANICS AND MANIPULATIONS BECOMES NECESSARY. 
THE PRIVILEGE OF TRANSIT ENABLES GRAIN TO BE SHIPPED FROM POINT A TO
POINT B, THERE TO BE STORED, MARKETED, OR PROCESSED, AND LATER
RESHIPPED TO POINT C AT A RATE LESS THAN THE COMBINATION OF THE
SEPARATE RATES FROM A TO B AND B TO C. SEE TRANSIT CASE, 24 I.C.C. 340;
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768, 777-79;
LOCKLIN, ECONOMICS OF TRANSPORTATION (1935) 122-23, 629-31.  THE
SHIPPER PAYS THE LOCAL RATE ON THE INBOUND SHIPMENT TO THE TRANSIT
POINT, B IN OUR ILLUSTRATION.  A RECEIPTED FREIGHT BILL SPECIFYING THE
POINT OF ORIGIN, THE RATE PAID, AND OTHER PERTINENT DATA, IS RECORDED
WITH THE TRANSIT BUREAU AS EVIDENCE OF INTENTION OF FURTHER
TRANSPORTATION OF THE INBOUND GRAIN OR ITS EQUIVALENT.  WHEN THE
OUTBOUND SHIPMENT IS TENDERED TO THE CARRIER, THE FREIGHT BILL IS
SURRENDERED IN ORDER THAT THE SHIPPER MAY OBTAIN AN OUTBOUND RATE LOWER
THAN THAT WHICH HE WOULD OTHERWISE BE COMPELLED TO PAY.  THE PRIVILEGE
BELONGS, AS IT WERE, TO BOTH THE GRAIN AND ITS SHIPPER.  "THE BENEFIT
ATTACHING TO GRAIN SHIPPED INTO THE PRIMARY MARKET IS COMMONLY SO BROAD
THAT IT IS TRANSFERABLE NOT ONLY TO ANOTHER OWNER OF THE SAME GRAIN,
BUT TO LIKE GRAIN COMING FROM THE SAME COUNTRY POINT."  ATCHISON, T. &
S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 768, 778. 

THIS PRIVILEGE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE PRIMARY MARKETS UNDER TWO
DIFFERENT RATE SCHEMES:  (1) THE "OVERHEAD THROUGH RATE" AND (2) THE
"RATE-BREAK COMBINATION." 

(1)  AN OVERHEAD THROUGH RATE IS THE RATE FROM AN ORIGINATING POINT
TO THE FINAL DESTINATION, OR TO A GATEWAY LIKE CHICAGO, VIA A
PARTICULAR POINT.  THUS, ON A SHIPMENT OF GRAIN FROM ENID, OKLAHOMA, TO
CHICAGO VIA KANSAS CITY, THE OVERHEAD THROUGH RATE WAS 38.5 CENTS PER
HUNDRED POUNDS.  UNDER THIS RATE, GRAIN REACHING KANSAS CITY COULD
RECEIVE THE VARIOUS PRIVILEGES OF TRANSIT UPON PAYMENT OF 23.5 CENTS
(THE LOCAL RATE FROM ENID TO KANSAS CITY) UPON THE INBOUND SHIPMENT,
AND THE DIFFERENCE (KNOWN AS THE "TRANSIT BALANCE") BETWEEN THE
OVERHEAD THROUGH RATE, 38.5 CENTS AND THE 23.5 CENTS INBOUND RATE, UPON
THE OUTBOUND SHIPMENT. 

(2)  ON A "RATE-BREAK" BASIS, HOWEVER, GRAIN MOVED ON A COMBINATION
OF THE LOCAL OR FLAT RATE FROM THE ORIGINATING POINT TO THE PRIMARY
MARKET AND THE "PROPORTIONAL" RATE FROM THAT MARKET TO A GATEWAY OR THE
FINAL DESTINATION.  THE PRIMARY MARKETS THEREFORE CAME TO BE KNOWN AS
"RATE-BREAK" POINTS.  THE "PROPORTIONAL" RATE, REPRESENTING AN AVERAGE
OF TRANSIT BALANCES UNDER OVERHEAD THROUGH RATES, WAS DESIGNED TO
OFFSET THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF LINES GOING THROUGH RATE-BREAK
POINTS AS AGAINST LINES STARTING THERE.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RATE
BREAK COMBINATION LAY IN THE FACT THAT FOR MANY POINTS OF ORIGIN THERE
WERE NO OVERHEAD THROUGH RATES.  IN THE ABOVE EXAMPLE, THE PROPORTIONAL
RATE ON OUTBOUND GRAIN SHIPMENTS FROM KANSAS CITY TO CHICAGO WAS 17.5
CENTS.  THE APPLICABLE RATE ON A SHIPMENT OF GRAIN FROM AN ORIGINATING
POINT HAVING NO THROUGH RATE TO CHICAGO VIA KANSAS CITY, WITH OR
WITHOUT TRANSIT AT KANSAS CITY, WAS A COMBINATION OF THE LOCAL RATE TO
KANSAS CITY AND THE PROPORTIONAL RATE FROM KANSAS CITY TO CHICAGO. 

THUS, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS PERMITTING TRANSIT AT
PRIMARY MARKETS WAS THE RATE AT WHICH THE OUTBOUND TRAFFIC MOVED. 
UNDER THE RATE-BREAK COMBINATION THE OUTBOUND SHIPMENT MOVED AT THE
PROPORTIONAL RATE; UNDER THE OVERHEAD THROUGH RATE, IT MOVED AT THE
TRANSIT BALANCE.  THE AVAILABILITY OF THESE TWO RATE BASES, THE
COMMISSION FOUND, GAVE RISE TO SERIOUS DISCRIMINATIONS: "WHETHER
OUTBOUND SHIPMENTS ARE AT PROPORTIONAL RATES OR TRANSIT BALANCES
DEPENDS UPON THE SELECTION OF THE INBOUND FREIGHT BILL.  IF THE INBOUND
FREIGHT BILL COVERS A SHIPMENT FROM AN ORIGIN POINT FROM WHICH THERE IS
NO OVERHEAD ROUTE WITH TRANSIT TO FINAL DESTINATION, THE OUTBOUND
SHIPMENT IS AT THE PROPORTIONAL RATE.  BUT GRAIN FROM A POINT FROM
WHICH THERE IS NO OVERHEAD RATE WITH TRANSIT CAN, UNDER PRESENT
PRACTICE, BE SUBSTITUTED FOR GRAIN FROM A POINT FROM WHICH THERE IS
SUCH AN OVERHEAD RATE WITH TRANSIT, AND CAN BE FORWARDED, UPON
PRESENTATION OF THE INBOUND EXPENSE BILL COVERING INBOUND
TRANSPORTATION FROM THE LATTER POINT, AT THE TRANSIT BALANCE DUE THAT
EXPENSE BILL."  164 I.C.C. 619, 634. 

"THE UNCERTAINTY IN ADVANCE AS TO THE OUTBOUND BASIS OF CHARGE ARISES
FROM THE DEPENDENCE OF THAT CHARGE UPON A CHECK OF THE INDIVIDUAL
SHIPPER'S RANGE OF INBOUND BILLING.  THE OUTBOUND CHARGE WILL BE A
TRANSIT BALANCE IF THE INBOUND FREIGHT BILL SURRENDERED COVERS A
SHIPMENT FROM AN ORIGIN FROM WHICH THERE IS A ONE-FACTOR THROUGH RATE
LESS THAN THE RATE-BREAK COMBINATION, AND WILL BE THE HIGHER
PROPORTIONAL RATE IF THE INBOUND FREIGHT BILL SURRENDERED COVERS A
SHIPMENT FROM AN ORIGIN FROM WHICH THERE IS NO SUCH ONE-FACTOR THROUGH
RATE.  TRANSIT BALANCES WILL VARY WITH THE MEASURE BOTH OF THE THROUGH
RATES AND OF THE INBOUND RATES TO THE TRANSIT POINT. 

"THE ADVANTAGE TO THE USER OF THE TRANSIT BALANCE OVER THE USER OF
THE HIGHER PROPORTIONAL RATE IS EVIDENT, AND INCREASES IN THE RATIO OF
THE INCREASE IN THE STORAGE CAPACITY OF THE RESPECTIVE CASH-GRAIN
DEALERS AT THE RATE-BREAK MARKETS.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE GREATER THE
STORAGE CAPACITY THE WIDER THE SELECTION OF INBOUND BILLING AND
PROPORTIONATELY MORE TRANSIT BALANCES."  205 I.C.C. 301, 335. 

IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION THESE PRACTICES "TENDED TO DISRUPT
THE RATE-BREAK COMBINATIONS, DISORGANIZE THE GENERAL RATE STRUCTURE,
MAKE UNCERTAIN IN ADVANCE THE OUTBOUND BASIS OF CHARGE, GIVE AN UNDUE
PREFERENCE TO THE USERS OF TRANSIT BALANCES OVER THE USERS OF
PROPORTIONAL RATES, DEPRESS THE PRICE OF GRAIN AT THE RATE-BREAK
MARKETS AND, BY DIRECT REFLECTION, AT THE COUNTRY POINTS, AND REDUCE
THE REVENUES OF THE CARRIERS."  205 I.C.C. 301, 334. 

THUS, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS "WHETHER THE RATES THROUGH
THE PRIMARY MARKETS SHALL BE MADE ON THE COMBINATION OF FLAT RATES TO
AND PROPORTIONAL RATES FROM THE MARKETS EXCLUSIVELY, OR IN PART, OR AT
ALL."  PUTTING IN THE BALANCE ALL THE COMPLEX AND CONFLICTING
INTERESTS, THE COMMISSION REACHED THESE CONCLUSIONS:  "JUST SO LONG AS
TRANSIT BALANCES REMAIN A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF RATES
FROM THE PRIMARY MARKETS, JUST SO LONG WILL THERE BE UNDUE PREFERENCES
BETWEEN OUTBOUND SHIPPERS, AS WELL AS GENERAL INSTABILITY IN RATES
RESULTING FROM SHIPPERS SEEKING THE TRANSLATION OF TRANSIT BALANCES
INTO PROPORTIONAL RATES.  ...  THE BEST INTERESTS NOT ONLY OF THE
PRIMARY MARKETS, BUT OF THE PRODUCER, CONSUMER, AND CARRIER WILL BE
SERVED BY THE FULLEST POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF THE RATE-BREAK
COMBINATIONS THROUGH PRIMARY MARKETS."  164 I.C.C. 619, 644-45.  FN2 

ACCORDINGLY, IT PRESCRIBED NEW RATE-BREAK COMBINATIONS  FN3  AND MADE
THEM APPLICABLE TO TRANSIT BOTH AT PRIMARY MARKETS AND AT INTERIOR
POINTS ON ROUTES PASSING THROUGH SUCH MARKETS.  FN4  THE EXCLUSIVE RATE
BREAK COMBINATIONS WERE NOT MADE APPLICABLE TO INTERIOR POINTS NOT ON
ROUTES PASSING THROUGH RATE-BREAK MARKETS BECAUSE THE RATE-BREAK
COMBINATIONS HAD NO RELEVANCE TO THESE POINTS.  164 I.C.C. 619, 645;
173 I.C.C. 511, 516-17. 

A CONCRETE ILLUSTRATION WILL ROB THIS RAILROAD JARGON OF ITS
MYSTERY.  THE THROUGH RATE OVER NUMEROUS ROUTES FROM KANSAS CITY TO
CHICAGO WAS 16 CENTS.  SOME OF THESE ROUTES PASS THROUGH OMAHA, FROM
WHICH THE PROPORTIONAL RATE WAS ALSO 16 CENTS.  OTHER ROUTES FROM
KANSAS CITY TO CHICAGO DO NOT PASS THROUGH OMAHA.  INTERIOR POINTS LIKE
FALLS CITY AND NEBRASKA CITY, WHICH ARE ON ROUTES THROUGH OMAHA, HAD TO
PAY 6 1/2 CENTS, THE LOCAL RATE TO OMAHA, PLUS 16 CENTS, THE
PROPORTIONAL RATE FROM OMAHA TO CHICAGO.  BUT OTHER INTERIOR POINTS
LYING BETWEEN KANSAS CITY AND CHICAGO ON ROUTES NOT PASSING THROUGH
OMAHA WERE REQUIRED TO PAY ONLY THE 16 CENTS THROUGH RATE.  THE NET
RESULT WAS THAT INTERIOR POINTS ON ROUTES PASSING THROUGH RATE-BREAK
MARKETS WERE PLACED AT A SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE WITH
INTERIOR POINTS NOT ON SUCH ROUTES. 

DEALERS AT THE INTERIOR POINTS ON ROUTES PASSING THROUGH RATE-BREAK
MARKETS LIKE OMAHA PETITIONED THE COMMISSION TO MODIFY ITS ORDERS SO AS
TO REMOVE THIS DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN INTERIOR POINTS.  THEY URGED ON
THE COMMISSION THAT, INASMUCH AS THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF THE RATE
BREAK COMBINATIONS WAS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIFORM PROPORTIONAL RATES
ON OUTBOUND SHIPMENTS FROM PRIMARY MARKETS, THIS PURPOSE WOULD NOT BE
FRUSTRATED IF, IN ORDER TO MEET THE LOWER THROUGH RATE OVER COMPETITIVE
ROUTES, TRANSIT ON THE THROUGH RATE WERE PERMITTED AT INTERIOR POINTS
ON ROUTES THROUGH RATE-BREAK MARKETS.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE
REQUESTED MODIFICATION WOULD REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN INTERIOR
POINTS WITHOUT SUBJECTING THE PRIMARY MARKETS TO ANY NEW SUBSTANTIAL
COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGES.  215 I.C.C. 83, 92-3.  IT FOUND THAT UNDER
TRANSIT ON AN OVERHEAD THROUGH RATE, DEALERS AT INTERIOR POINTS
OPERATED UNDER IMPORTANT COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGES.  THE THROUGH RATES
WERE APPLICABLE ONLY ON "REASONABLY DIRECT," NOT "MARKEDLY CIRCUITOUS"
ROUTES, AND OUTBOUND SHIPMENTS FROM THE TRANSIT POINT WERE USUALLY
LIMITED TO THE RAILS OF EITHER THE INBOUND CARRIER OR A CARRIER
PARTICIPATING WITH IT IN A JOINT RATE VIA THE TRANSIT POINT.  DEALERS
AT RATE-BREAK MARKETS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WERE FREE FROM SUCH
RESTRICTIONS AS TO CIRCUITY OF ROUTES AND CHOICE OF OUTBOUND CARRIER. 
THE PROPORTIONAL RATE WAS APPLICABLE TO ALL LINES FROM PRIMARY MARKET
TO DESTINATION, REGARDLESS OF THE INBOUND SHIPMENT'S POINT OF ORIGIN. 
THE COMMISSION FOUND THIS TO BE A "SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGE TO THE TRANSIT
OPERATORS AT THE RATE-BREAK MARKETS OVER THE TRANSIT OPERATORS AT THE
INTERIOR TRANSIT POINTS."  215 I.C.C. 83, 91.  ACCORDINGLY, IT MODIFIED
ITS PREVIOUS ORDERS SO AS TO PERMIT TRANSIT AT INTERIOR POINTS ON
ROUTES PASSING THROUGH A PRIMARY MARKET "ON THE BASIS OF A LOWER RATE
IN EFFECT OVER A COMPETING ROUTE BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS."  215 I.C.C.
83, 93. 

TO GIVE THIS ORDER PRACTICAL APPLICATION:  AT ALL INTERIOR POINTS
LYING ON ROUTES FROM KANSAS CITY TO CHICAGO, TRANSIT PRIVILEGES WERE
AVAILABLE AT THE 16 CENTS RATE, WHILE SHIPMENTS STOPPING FOR TRANSIT AT
PRIMARY MARKETS ALONG SUCH ROUTES, E.G., OMAHA, ATCHISON, LEAVENWORTH,
AND ST. JOSEPH, COULD MOVE ONLY AT THE RATE-BREAK COMBINATION OF THE 6
1/2 CENTS INBOUND RATE AND THE 16 CENTS OUTBOUND PROPORTIONAL RATE. 

THE CRUX OF THIS LITIGATION IS THE VALIDITY OF THE DIFFERENTIATION
BETWEEN PRIMARY MARKETS AND INTERIOR POINTS THUS MADE BY THE COMMISSION
IN THE SETTING OF THE WHOLE HISTORY OF GRAIN RATE REGULATION. 

DEALERS AT THE PRIMARY MARKETS COMPLAINED AGAINST THIS
DIFFERENTIATION.  THE COMMISSION AGAIN CANVASSED THE PERPLEXING FACTORS
OF THE TANGLED PROBLEM BEFORE IT.  AFTER POINTING OUT THAT AT THE
EARLIER STAGES OF THE GRAIN RATE INQUIRY "ESPECIALLY THE MARKETS" HAD
SUPPORTED THE SYSTEM OF "RATE-BREAKS AT MARKET POINTS AND OVERHEAD
RATES WITH TRANSIT AT LOCAL POINTS," THE COMMISSION OBSERVED:  "NO
EXTENSIVE RATE STRUCTURE CAN BE MADE PERFECT NOR CAN ANY RATE STRUCTURE
BE MADE PERMANENT IN ANY REAL SENSE IN A CHANGING WORLD.  ...  THE TWO
GRAIN CASES TOGETHER HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE IMPOSSIBILITY, EVEN ON THE
PART OF THOSE MOST EXPERIENCED, MOST COMPETENT, AND MOST EXPERT, OF
SEEING IN ADVANCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARTICULAR CHANGES IN RATES
AND PRACTICES HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION.  APPARENTLY NOTHING BUT
EXPERIENCE CAN FURNISH A DEMONSTRATION, AND EVEN THE DEMONSTRATION OF
EXPERIENCE MAY NOT PROVE TO BE CONCLUSIVE UNLESS IT CAN BE HAD ON A
SCALE SUFFICIENTLY LARGE AND AT INTERVALS OF TIME SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE,
AND UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CONDITIONS."  223 I.C.C. 235, 245-46. 
IT TOOK OCCASION TO RECALL THESE GUIDING CONSIDERATIONS FROM ITS FIRST
REPORT:  "IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE ANY COMPREHENSIVE ACTION
WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING CERTAIN OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS UPON
THIS RECORD.  NOTHING BUT EXPERIENCE CAN DEMONSTRATE WHAT THE EFFECT
WILL BE REGARDING CERTAIN OF THESE ISSUES.  ... ALL PARTIES SHOULD
COOPERATE TO MAKE CAREFUL NOTE OF THE EFFECT UPON THEIR INTERESTS, WITH
THE VIEW TO BRINGING TO OUR ATTENTION FROM TIME TO TIME, AFTER A
REASONABLE TRIAL, THOSE SITUATIONS WHICH MAY REQUIRE FURTHER
CONSIDERATION."  164 I.C.C. 619, 698.  TO YIELD TO THE WISH OF THE
DEALERS OF THE PRIMARY MARKETS WOULD, THE COMMISSION FOUND, WORK "A
HARDSHIP UPON THE MILLING INDUSTRY AT MANY INTERMEDIATE POINTS, WITH
LITTLE OR NO BENEFIT TO THE MARKETS, WHICH WOULD STILL BE AT A
DISADVANTAGE IN COMPETING WITH OTHER RATE-BREAK MARKETS AND INTERIOR
POINTS ON LOWER-RATED ROUTES."  223 I.C.C. 235, 245.  IT CONCLUDED,
THEREFORE, THAT THE RECORD DID NOT JUSTIFY THE MANDATORY ORDER SOUGHT
BY THE MARKETS.  INSTEAD IT AUTHORIZED THE CARRIERS BY APPROPRIATE
TARIFFS TO MAKE "RESTRICTED DEPARTURES FROM THE EXCLUSIVE APPLICATION
OF PROPORTIONAL RATES AT RATE-BREAK POINTS FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF
TIME" UPON CONDITION THAT SUCH DEPARTURES "SHOULD BE SURROUNDED BY SUCH
EFFECTIVE SAFEGUARDS AS WILL MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO REESTABLISH" THE
DISCRIMINATIONS INCIDENT TO THE DOUBLE SYSTEM OF RATES AT PRIMARY
MARKETS.  223 I.C.C. 235, 246. 

THE CARRIERS HAVING DECLINED TO ACT ON THIS AUTHORIZATION, THE
MARKETS AGAIN SOUGHT A COMPULSORY ORDER.  UPON REARGUMENT, THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT "THE GRANTING OF THE TRANSIT REQUESTED WOULD
BREAK DOWN THE RATE-BREAK ADJUSTMENT PRESCRIBED IN THE GRAIN CASE; THAT
SAID ADJUSTMENT SHOULD BE ABANDONED, IF AT ALL, ONLY UPON DEMONSTRATION
OF ITS FAILURE AS A WORKABLE ADJUSTMENT, OVER AN ADEQUATE PERIOD OF
NORMAL CONDITIONS IN THE GRAIN TRADE; THAT SUCH A TEST HAS NOT BEEN
GIVEN THE ADJUSTMENT."  229 I.C.C. 9, 16.  FN5  ACCORDINGLY, THE
COMMISSION DISMISSED THE COMPLAINTS AND WITHDREW ITS PREVIOUS
PERMISSION TO THE CARRIERS VOLUNTARILY TO ESTABLISH THE RATES REQUESTED
BY THE PRIMARY MARKETS.  AFTER A SECOND REARGUMENT THE COMMISSION
ADHERED TO THIS CONCLUSION.  231 I.C.C. 793. 

THE APPELLANTS DO NOT CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ARE DEVOID
OF PROOF OR THAT THEY WERE REACHED WITHOUT OBSERVANCE OF APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURES.  THEIR CLAIM, IN SUBSTANCE, IS THAT WHATEVER BENEFITS THE
DOUBLE SYSTEM AFFORDS THE PRIMARY MARKETS ARE NATURAL ADVANTAGES, AND
THAT TO DEPRIVE THEM OF THESE ADVANTAGES WORKS AN UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION. 

THE ACT FORBIDS THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A RATE STRUCTURE WHICH
WOULD GIVE ONE TRANSIT POINT AN "UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR
ADVANTAGE" AND WOULD SUBJECT ANOTHER POINT TO AN "UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE."  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LAW
COMPELS IDENTITY OF TREATMENT FOR LIKE SERVICES AT DIFFERENT PLACES. 
IT PROHIBITS ONLY "UNDUE" OR "UNREASONABLE" DISCRIMINATIONS.  "WHETHER
A PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE OR DISCRIMINATION IS UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE OR
UNJUST IS ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS OF FACT THAT HAVE BEEN CONFIDED BY
CONGRESS TO THE JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION  ...  , AND
UPON WHICH ITS DECISIONS, MADE THE BASIS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
OPERATING IN FUTURO, ARE NOT TO BE DISTURBED BY THE COURTS EXCEPT UPON
A SHOWING THAT THEY ARE UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, WERE MADE WITHOUT A
HEARING, EXCEED CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, OR FOR SOME OTHER REASON AMOUNT
TO AN ABUSE OF POWER."  MANUFACTURERS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246
U.S. 457, 481; SEE NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. TENNESSEE, 262 U.S.
318, 322; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344,
352-53. 

THE PROCESS OF RATE MAKING IS ESSENTIALLY EMPIRIC.  THE STUFF OF THE
PROCESS IS FLUID AND CHANGING - THE RESULTANT OF FACTORS THAT MUST BE
VALUED AS WELL AS WEIGHED.  CONGRESS HAS THEREFORE DELEGATED THE
ENFORCEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO A PERMANENT EXPERT BODY AND HAS
CHARGED IT WITH THE DUTY OF BEING RESPONSIVE TO THE DYNAMIC CHARACTER
OF TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS.  CF. RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS
OIL CO., 310 U.S. 573, 581-82. 

THE WISDOM OF THE NARROW SCOPE WITHIN WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONFINED
JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION IN THE RATE-MAKING PROCESS IS STRIKINGLY
VINDICATED BY THE HISTORY OF THIS CONTROVERSY.  THE COMMISSION'S
LABORIOUS INVESTIGATION INTO THE GRAIN RATE STRUCTURE DISCLOSED THAT
DISCRIMINATIONS WERE INSEPARABLE FROM THE OPERATION, SIDE BY SIDE, OF
TWO SYSTEMS OF RATES ALLOWING TRANSIT OF GRAIN AT PRIMARY MARKETS. 
THIS BASIC FINDING IS NOT CHALLENGED.  AND IT IS THIS FACT WHICH
CREATED THE PROBLEM FOR SOLUTION BY THE COMMISSION.  THERE WAS NO READY
ANSWER EITHER IN LAW REPORTS OR IN ECONOMIC EXPERIENCE.  ANY SOLUTION
HAD TO REST ON INFORMED JUDGMENT.  AND JUDGMENT IN A SITUATION LIKE
THIS IMPLIES, ULTIMATELY, PROPHECY BASED ON THE FACTS IN THE RECORD AS
ILLUMINED BY THE SEASONED WISDOM OF THE EXPERT BODY.  IN THIS
PERSPECTIVE, THE COMMISSION HAD SEVERAL CHOICES BEFORE IT - BUT ALL
INEVITABLY RESTED UPON TRIAL AND ERROR.  IT MIGHT HAVE ESTABLISHED THE
OVERHEAD THROUGH RATE AS THE EXCLUSIVE BASIS OF TRANSIT AT PRIMARY
MARKETS.  IT MIGHT HAVE BANKED ON THE EXCLUSIVE RATE-BREAK
COMBINATION.  IT MIGHT HAVE ABOLISHED THE PRIVILEGE OF FREE TRANSIT
ENTIRELY.  OF ONLY ONE THING COULD THE COMMISSION BE COMPLETELY
CERTAIN:  NO ACTION COULD BE TAKEN WITHOUT "ADVERSELY AFFECTING CERTAIN
OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS."  164 I.C.C. 619, 698.  WEIGHING THE
PROSPECTIVE GAINS AND HURTS WHICH WERE PART OF ALL OF THE PROPOSED
REMEDIES, THE COMMISSION DECIDED UPON THE EXCLUSIVE RATE-BREAK
COMBINATION.  IT DID SO, HOWEVER, WITH FULL RECOGNITION THAT THE WISDOM
OF ITS ACTION HAD TO MEET THE TEST OF EXPERIENCE.  THEREFORE, IT
TREATED ITS CONCLUSION AS PART OF A CONTINUING PROCESS, AND REQUESTED
THE PARTIES TO GIVE THE SYSTEM WHICH IT ADOPTED A "REASONABLE TRIAL,"
CONTEMPLATING SUCH FURTHER CONSIDERATION AS THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF
THE SYSTEM WOULD REQUIRE.  THE COMMISSION REFUSED THE MODIFICATIONS
ASKED BY THE APPELLANTS BECAUSE THE RATE-BREAK ADJUSTMENT WAS "ENTITLED
TO A THOROUGH TEST OVER AN ADEQUATE PERIOD OF NORMAL CONDITIONS IN THE
GRAIN TRADE" AND IT HAD "RECEIVED NO SUCH FAIR TEST UP TO THE PRESENT
TIME."  TO GRANT THE REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS WOULD "BREAK DOWN THE RATE
BREAK ADJUSTMENT."  229 I.C.C. 9, 15-16.  THESE FINDINGS ARE
INCONTESTABLE. 

THAT THE COMMISSION ITSELF WAS OF DIVIDED MIND IN THE SUCCESSIVE
STAGES OF THIS CONTROVERSY EMPHASIZES THAT THE PROBLEM IS ENMESHED IN
DIFFICULT JUDGMENTS OF ECONOMIC AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY.  NEITHER
RULE OF THUMB, NOR FORMULA, NOR GENERAL PRINCIPLES PROVIDE A READY
ANSWER.  WE CERTAINLY HAVE NEITHER TECHNICAL COMPETENCE NOR LEGAL
AUTHORITY TO PRONOUNCE UPON THE WISDOM OF THE COURSE TAKEN BY THE
COMMISSION.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO TINKER WITH SO SENSITIVE AN ORGANISM
AS THE GRAIN RATE STRUCTURE, ONLY A MINOR PHASE OF WHICH IS CAUGHT IN
THE RECORD BEFORE US.  IF WE WERE TO GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE
APPELLANTS, WE WOULD BE RESTORING EVILS WHICH THE EXCLUSIVE RATE-BREAK
ADJUSTMENT WAS DESIGNED TO REMOVE - EVILS WHICH, FOR ALL WE KNOW, WOULD
BE FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN THOSE COMPLAINED OF BY THE APPELLANTS. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID SUFFICIENTLY DISPOSES OF THE SUGGESTION THAT THE
ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION MUST BE STRICKEN DOWN BECAUSE THEY WIPE OUT
NATURAL COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF THE PRIMARY MARKETS.  A RATE
STRUCTURE FOUND TO INVOLVE SERIOUS DISCRIMINATIONS AMONG SHIPPERS,
CARRIERS, AND TRANSIT POINTS ALIKE, IS HARDLY A MANIFESTATION OF NATURE
BEYOND THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO REPAIR.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE WESTERN DISTRICT IS DEFINED AS THE AREA "ON AND WEST OF THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, WEST OF LAKES SUPERIOR AND MICHIGAN, AND WEST OF AND
INCLUDING ILLINOIS." 

FN2  THE COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE
EXCLUSIVE RATE-BREAK COMBINATION AT THE PRIMARY MARKETS WOULD GIVE THE
MARKETS SUBSTANTIAL COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OVER INTERIOR TRANSIT
POINTS:  "THE PROPORTIONAL RATE IS APPLICABLE OVER ALL OUTBOUND LINES
UPON SURRENDER OF AN INBOUND FREIGHT BILL COVERING AN INBOUND SHIPMENT
BY RAIL, WHETHER THE TRANSPORTATION THROUGH THE RATE-BREAK MARKET IS
OVER A REASONABLY DIRECT ROUTE OR NOT.  IT IS THE EQUIVALENT IN ALL
RESPECTS, AND MORE, OF A LOCAL RATE.  ...  IT IS DESIGNED FOR THE FINAL
GATHERING IN BY THE RATE-BREAK MARKET, FOR THROUGH TRANSPORTATION AT
LESS THAN THE COMBINATIONS OF LOCAL RATES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE APPLY,
OF GRAIN NOT PROCURABLE UNDER ONE-FACTOR THROUGH RATES LESS THAN THE
RATE-BREAK COMBINATIONS (AND RESULTING TRANSIT BALANCES LESS THAN THE
PROPORTIONAL), BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS ON OUT-OF-LINE AND BACK-HAUL
MOVEMENT INCIDENT TO THE USUAL APPLICATION OF THE ONE-FACTOR THROUGH
RATES ONLY OVER REASONABLY DIRECT ROUTES, AND BECAUSE OF THE FURTHER
USUAL REQUIREMENT OF OUTBOUND SHIPMENT FROM THE TRANSIT POINT OVER THE
RAILS OF THE INBOUND CARRIER.  THE PROPORTIONAL RATES THEREFORE OPEN UP
TO THE RATE-BREAK MARKETS THE WIDEST POSSIBLE RANGE OF ORIGINATING AND
DISTRIBUTING TERRITORY AND AFFORD, TOGETHER WITH THE LARGER NUMBER OF
CARRIERS USUALLY FOUND CONVERGING INBOUND TO AND RADIATING OUTBOUND
FROM THE RATE-BREAK MARKET, IN THE DIRECTION OF THE NORMAL FLOW OF THE
GRAIN TRAFFIC, A DECIDED ADVANTAGE TO THAT MARKET OVER THE INTERIOR
TRANSIT POINT."  205 I.C.C. 301, 340-41. 

FN3  THE COMMISSION REVISED EXISTING RATE-BREAK COMBINATIONS,
REDUCING BOTH THE INBOUND FLAT RATES AND THE OUTBOUND PROPORTIONALS,
AND ORDERED THAT THE PRESCRIBED RATE-BREAK COMBINATIONS BE MADE THE
EXCLUSIVE BASIS OF CHARGE UPON GRAIN SHIPMENTS MOVING THROUGH OR
STOPPING FOR TRANSIT AT PRIMARY MARKETS, AND THAT OVERHEAD THROUGH
RATES LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED RATE-BREAK COMBINATIONS BE CANCELLED. 
164 I.C.C. 619, 645. 

FN4  "THE RESTRICTION IS LAID ON THE INTERMEDIATE POINTS OTHER THAN
THE MARKET, AS WELL AS UPON THE MARKET, IN ORDER NOT TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST THE MARKET IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER INTERMEDIATE POINTS."  173
I.C.C. 511, 516. 

FN5  TO RESCIND THE PREVIOUS MODIFICATIONS, THE COMMISSION FOUND,
"WOULD DEPRIVE THESE INTERIOR TRANSIT POINTS OF THE SAME KIND OF
TRANSIT ACCORDED INTERIOR TRANSIT POINTS ON OTHER ROUTES AND ...  WOULD
NOT MATERIALLY BENEFIT COMPLAINANTS, WHO WOULD STILL BE CONFRONTED WITH
THEIR MAJOR COMPETITION."  229 I.C.C. 9, 14. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT T
..END :





















FISCHER V. AMER. UNITED INS. CO., 314 U.S. 549 


NO. 91.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - 117
F.2D 811, REVERSED. 


1.  A SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN IOWA, BROUGHT BY AN IOWA
RECEIVER OF A MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN IOWA
COURT, AGAINST THE MICHIGAN AND TEXAS RECEIVERS OF THE COMPANY, FOR AN
ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS IN ASSETS OF THE COMPANY WHICH WERE IN HIS
POSSESSION AND WHICH HAD BEEN DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO STATUTES OF IOWA
FOR THE PROTECTION OF A SPECIAL CLASS OF POLICYHOLDERS, HELD (DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP AND JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT BEING PRESENT) WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNDER SEC. 57 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 555. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT PREVENTED FROM EXERCISING JURISDICTION
IN SUCH CASE BY ANY RULE OF DEFERENCE TO STATE COURTS.  P. 553. 

FISCHER, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF IOWA, RECEIVER, V. AMERICAN
UNITED LIFE INSURANCE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 589, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING THE DISTRICT
COURT AND DIRECTING THAT THE BILL OF COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION. 

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF AN INSOLVENT LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT APPOINTING
THE DOMICILIARY RECEIVER. 

UNDER MICHIGAN LAW TITLE TO ALL ASSETS WAS IN THE MICHIGAN RECEIVER. 

SEE RELF V. RUNDLE, 103 U.S. 222; BOLEN-DARNELL COAL CO. V. KIRK, 25
OKLA. 279; CHESAPEAKE RY. CO. V. MCCABE, 213 U.S. 218; RUNDLE V. LIFE
ASSN., 10 F. 720; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KOONTZ, 104 U.S. 5;
AUGUSTA V. KIMBALL, 91 ME. 608; BERNHEIMER V. CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516;
FISH V. SMITH, 73 CONN. 281; BARLEY V. GITTINGS, 15 APP. D.C. 438;
MACMURRAY V. SIDWELL, 155 IND. 566; JOY V. MIDLAND STATE BANK, 26 S.D.
254; HARDEE V. WILSON, 129 TENN. 513; AVERY V. BOSTON SAFE DEPOSIT CO.,
72 F. 701; HALE V. HARDON, 95 F. 747; AMERICAN WATER-WORKS CO. V.
FARMERS' LOAN CO., 20 COLO. 211; GILMAN V. KETCHAM, 84 WIS. 69; LIFE
ASSN. OF AMERICA V. GOODE, 71 TEX. 95; CHILDS V. CLEAVES, 95 ME. 514;
NASHUA SAVINGS BANK V. ANGLO-AMERICAN LAND CO., 189 U.S. 221; LEWIS V.
CLARK, 129 F. 570; CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112. 

THE LAWS OF MICHIGAN ARE PART OF THE CHARTER OF A MICHIGAN INSURANCE
COMPANY. 

ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPOSITED ASSETS WAS SOLELY IN THE MICHIGAN
RECEIVER.  THE FEDERAL COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION.  FRY V. CHARTER OAK
LIFE INS. CO., 31 F. 197; PARSONS V. CHARTER OAK LIFE INS. CO., 31 F.
305; SMITH V. TAGGART, 87 F. 94; BLAKE V. OLD COLONY LIFE INS. CO., 209
F. 309; ILLINOIS LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. TULLY, 174 F. 355; MOTLOW V.
SOUTHERN HOLDING & SECURITIES CORP., 95 F.2D 721, CERT. DEN.  305 U.S.
609; INTERNATIONAL CO. V. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INS. CO., 98 F.2D 138, CERT.
DEN.  305 U.S. 639; HOLLOWAY V. FEDERAL RESERVE LIFE INS. CO., 21
F.SUPP.  516; HOLLEY V. GENERAL AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO., 101 F.2D 172,
CERT. DEN.  307 U.S. 615; HUTCHINS V. PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 97
F. 58; HOBBS V. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INS. CO., 87 F.2D 380, CERT. DEN.  305
U.S. 603; KANSAS V. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INS. CO., 95 F.2D 935, CERT. DEN. 
305 U.S. 603; PHIPPS V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 284 F. 945; WILSON
V. KEELS, 54 S.C. 545; PEOPLE V. STATE LIFE OF ILLINOIS, 296 ILL. APP.
337. 

THE REINSURANCE TREATIES CREATED A NOVATION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA HAD JURISDICTION TO
DETERMINE A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE IOWA RECEIVER OF AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE CO., ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE MICHIGAN AND TEXAS RECEIVERS,
ON THE OTHER,  FN1  AS RESPECTS THE TITLE TO, AND THE RIGHT TO
ADMINISTER, CERTAIN ASSETS OF THE COMPANY IN THE POSSESSION OF THE IOWA
RECEIVER.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE
CONTROVERSY; AND IT MADE A DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES ON THE MERITS. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED, 117 F.2D
811, HOLDING THAT, IN LIGHT OF SUCH CASES AS LION BONDING & SURETY CO.
V. KARATZ, 262 U.S. 77, THE SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT BE
MAINTAINED AND THAT THE BILL SHOULD BE DISMISSED "FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION."  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE AN
APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 303
U.S. 276, AND COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. BRADFORD, 297 U.S. 613, WHICH
WERE DISREGARDED BY THE COURT BELOW, WOULD PROBABLY LEAD TO A DIFFERENT
RESULT. 

THE IOWA RECEIVER BROUGHT THE SUIT PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY AND
DIRECTION OF THE IOWA COURT.  IT IS BASED UPON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
(JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 24, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41) AND SEEKS TO ENFORCE
AGAINST NONRESIDENT DEFENDANTS, AS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 57 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 118, A "LEGAL OR EQUITABLE LIEN UPON OR
CLAIM TO" PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE SUIT IS
BROUGHT AND TO REMOVE AN "INCUMBRANCE OR LIEN OR CLOUD UPON THE TITLE"
TO SUCH PROPERTY.  THE BILL IN SUBSTANCE ALLEGED AND THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND THAT THE IOWA RECEIVER WAS IN POSSESSION OF SECURITIES OF A FACE
AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $3,000,000; THAT THOSE SECURITIES HAD BEEN
DEPOSITED WITH THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF IOWA, PURSUANT TO STATUTES
OF IOWA AND CERTAIN REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE CO. AND ITS IOWA PREDECESSOR, FOR PROTECTION OF THE POLICY
HOLDERS OF THE LATTER COMPANY ON ITS INSOLVENCY; THAT IOWA HAD TITLE TO
THOSE FUNDS AND THE IOWA RECEIVER HAD THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
ADMINISTER THEM.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THE ACTION WAS
IN REM IT HAD NOT ONLY JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER BUT ALSO
OVER THE DEFENDANTS, SINCE THEY ALL ANSWERED, AND SINCE TWO OF THEM
FILED COUNTERCLAIMS ASKING THAT THE SECURITIES IN POSSESSION OF THE
IOWA RECEIVER BE DELIVERED TO THEM, AND SINCE THE OTHER ASKED FOR
GENERAL EQUITABLE RELIEF.  ACCORDINGLY, IT ORDERED, INTER ALIA, THAT
THE MICHIGAN AND TEXAS RECEIVERS ACCOUNT FOR CERTAIN COLLECTIONS  FN2
WHICH THEY HAD MADE ON THE SECURITIES IN THE IOWA FUND; THAT THEY
DELIVER TO THE IOWA RECEIVER CERTAIN RECORDS PERTAINING TO THOSE
SECURITIES; THAT THE MICHIGAN RECEIVER DELIVER TO THE IOWA RECEIVER
CERTAIN RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE POLICIES PROTECTED BY THAT FUND; AND
THAT THE MICHIGAN AND TEXAS RECEIVERS BE ENJOINED FROM MAKING
COLLECTIONS ON THOSE SECURITIES AND FROM INTERFERING IN ANY WAY WITH
THE IOWA RECEIVER'S ADMINISTRATION OF THEM. 

WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY.  NOR DO WE
PASS ON THE CONTENTION THAT LADEW V. TENNESSEE COPPER CO., 218 U.S.
357, PREVENTS THE ENTRY OF AN IN PERSONAM JUDGMENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE.  FOR THE SOLE QUESTION PASSED UPON BY THE COURT BELOW WAS
THE POWER AND PROPRIETY OF THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN TAKING
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE UNDER SEC. 57 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

IT IS IMMATERIAL TO THIS INQUIRY WHETHER THE MICHIGAN RECEIVER
ACQUIRED NO INTEREST IN OR POWER OVER ASSETS OUTSIDE OF MICHIGAN (BOOTH
V. CLARK, 17 HOW.  322), OR, AS HELD BY THE COURT BELOW, WAS THE
STATUTORY SUCCESSOR UNDER MICHIGAN LAW OF AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.
AND AS SUCH HAD TITLE TO ALL OF ITS ASSETS WHEREVER SITUATED.  RELFE V.
RUNDLE, 103 U.S. 222, 225; CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112, 120.  CF.
CONVERSE V. HAMILTON, 224 U.S. 243.  EVEN THOUGH THE LATTER WERE TRUE,
CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE FUND IN IOWA MIGHT PURSUE
THEIR SUITS AND REMEDIES AGAINST IT IN DEROGATION OF THE CLAIM OF THE
MICHIGAN RECEIVER, IF THAT WERE IOWA'S POLICY.  CLARK V. WILLIARD, 294
U.S. 211.  THAT IS THE ASSERTED IOWA POLICY HERE.  THE IOWA RECEIVER IS
IN POSSESSION OF THE SECURITIES IN QUESTION.  HE SEEKS, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE IOWA COURT, AN AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION BY THE
FEDERAL COURT OF THE QUESTION WHETHER UNDER IOWA LAW THOSE SECURITIES
AND THE COLLECTIONS THEREON SHOULD NOT BE HELD FOR THE SPECIAL CLASS OF
CLAIMANTS FOR WHOM THE FUND WAS ALLEGEDLY ESTABLISHED.  THE FEDERAL
COURT HAS THE POWER TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY.  AND THERE IS NO
CONSIDERATION OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, BASED ON APPROPRIATE
DEFERENCE TO THE STATE COURTS, WHY IT SHOULD NOT EXERCISE IT. 

LION BONDING & SURETY CO. V. KARATZ, SUPRA, DOES NOT STAND IN THE
WAY.  THERE THE FEDERAL COURT, THROUGH ITS RECEIVERS, ASSUMED COMMAND
OVER PROPERTY WHICH WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE STATE COURT.  THAT
ACTION WAS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF THE WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE (PP. 88-89)
THAT "WHERE A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION HAS, BY APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS, TAKEN PROPERTY INTO ITS POSSESSION THROUGH ITS OFFICERS,
THE PROPERTY IS THEREBY WITHDRAWN FROM THE JURISDICTION OF ALL OTHER
COURTS."  SUCH POSSESSION OF THE RES BY THE STATE COURT DISENABLED THE
FEDERAL COURT FROM EXERCISING ANY CONTROL OVER IT.  BUT A DETERMINATION
OF THE ISSUES IN THIS CONTROVERSY DOES NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVE A
DISTURBANCE OF THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THE MICHIGAN AND TEXAS
COURTS OVER THE PROPERTY IN THEIR POSSESSION.  IT WOULD INDEED HAVE NO
SUCH NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE EVEN THOUGH THE SECURITIES IN QUESTION WERE
IN THEIR POSSESSION.  AS HELD IN UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, SUPRA, P. 281,
A STATE COURT MAY PROPERLY ADJUDICATE RIGHTS IN PROPERTY IN POSSESSION
OF A FEDERAL COURT  FN3  AND RENDER ANY JUDGMENT "NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
THAT COURT'S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE QUESTIONS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION AND
TO MAKE EFFECTIVE SUCH DECISIONS BY ITS CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY."  AND
SEE RIEHLE V. MARGOLIES, 279 U.S. 218, 224-226.  THE SAME PROCEDURE MAY
BE FOLLOWED BY A FEDERAL COURT WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY IN THE
POSSESSION OF A STATE COURT.  GENERAL BAKING CO. V. HARR, 300 U.S. 433;
COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. BRADFORD, SUPRA, 297 U.S. 613; WATERMAN V.
CANAL-LOUISIANA BANK & TRUST CO., 215 U.S. 33; INGERSOLL V. CORAM, 211
U.S. 335; BYERS V. MCAULEY, 149 U.S. 608, 620.  THE APPROPRIATE
EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION OF A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY MAY REQUIRE IT
TO REFUSE EVEN TO ADJUDICATE RIGHTS IN SPECIFIC PROPERTY IF THE STATE
COURT HAS ALREADY UNDERTAKEN SUCH A DETERMINATION.  KELLEAM V. MARYLAND
CASUALTY CO., 312 U.S. 377, 382.  FURTHERMORE, THE FEDERAL COURT MAY
NOT "SEIZE AND CONTROL THE PROPERTY WHICH IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE
STATE COURT" NOR INTERFERE WITH THE STATE COURT OR ITS FUNCTIONS. 
WATERMAN V. CANAL-LOUISIANA BANK & TRUST CO., SUPRA, PP. 44, 45;
PRINCESS LIDA V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 456.  SHORT OF THAT, HOWEVER, THE
FEDERAL COURT MAY GO.  CF. OAKES V. LAKE, 290 U.S. 59. 

TESTED BY THOSE STANDARDS, ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE FEDERAL
COURT WAS WHOLLY PROPER.  A DETERMINATION BY IT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES IN THE RES COULD BE HAD "WITH PROPER REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL
INDEPENDENCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS IN CARRYING OUT THEIR DOMESTIC
POLICY" (PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185) AND IN FULL
RECOGNITION OF THE NECESSITY FOR "HARMONIOUS COOPERATION OF FEDERAL AND
STATE TRIBUNALS."  PRINCESS LIDA V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, P. 466.  WE REPEAT
THAT NEITHER MICHIGAN NOR TEXAS IS ENTITLED TO THE SECURITIES IF SUCH A
DISPOSITION OF THEM WOULD CONTRAVENE IOWA LAW.  A DETERMINATION OF THE
NATURE AND THE EXTENT OF THE RIGHTS OF IOWA, AND ITS RECEIVER, IN THE
SECURITIES CLEARLY WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
JURISDICTION OF THE MICHIGAN AND TEXAS COURTS.  FOR EVEN IF THOSE
COURTS WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE FUND, THEIR JURISDICTION WOULD NOT BE
SO EXCLUSIVE AS TO BAR AN ADJUDICATION BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE
RIGHTS OF A CLAIMANT TO THE RES OR THE QUANTUM OF HIS INTEREST IN IT.
UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, SUPRA.  IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT WHERE, AS
HERE, THEY ARE NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE RES, SUCH A DECREE OF THE
FEDERAL COURT IS PROPER.  THOUGH BINDING ON THE PARTIES, BOTH AS
RESPECTS THEIR RIGHTS TO THE FUND AND THE COLLECTIONS THEREON, IT IS
NOT DISRUPTIVE OF ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION BY THE STATE COURTS NOR
CONDUCIVE TO UNSEEMLY COLLISIONS BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES.  FOR, UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN KELLEAM V. MARYLAND CASUALTY
CO., SUPRA, THE STATE COURT WHICH HAS COMMAND OVER THE RES HAS NOT ONLY
NOT UNDERTAKEN AN ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY; IT HAS REFERRED THE
MATTER TO THE FEDERAL COURT. 

WHETHER THE SCOPE OF THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
PROPER WE DO NOT DECIDE.  WE ONLY HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY UNDER SEC. 57 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE DECIDED WHAT RIGHTS,
UNDER IOWA LAW, IOWA AND ITS RECEIVER HAD TO THE SECURITIES AND THE
COLLECTIONS THEREON, AND WHETHER THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS KEPT WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE LIMITS.  SINCE THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS DID NOT DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS, WE REVERSE ITS JUDGMENT AND
REMAND THE CAUSE TO IT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE IOWA RECEIVER ALSO SOUGHT RELIEF AGAINST RESPONDENT AMERICAN
UNITED LIFE INSURANCE CO. WHICH, AFTER INSTITUTION OF THE RECEIVERSHIP
PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVERS FOR AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE CO., ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR THE REINSURANCE OF
THE BUSINESS OF AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. AND ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF
ASSUMPTION FOR ALL INSURANCE POLICIES OUTSTANDING OF AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE CO. WE MENTION THE FACT WITHOUT MORE, BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OF
THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT MATERIAL TO THE JURISDICTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE
CASE WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE SOLELY CONCERNED. 

FN2  THE MICHIGAN RECEIVER HAD BEEN COLLECTING IN MICHIGAN, AND THE
TEXAS RECEIVER IN TEXAS, PRINCIPAL AND INCOME ON THE SECURITIES
DEPOSITED IN IOWA, FROM OBLIGORS RESIDING IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES. 
CERTAIN REMITTANCES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE MICHIGAN RECEIVER TO THE IOWA
RECEIVER PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM.  THE TEXAS RECEIVER
HOLDS THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED IN TEXAS. 

FN3  AS TO BANKRUPTCY, SEE ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & TIMBER CO., 282 U.S.
734; STRATON V. NEW, 283 U.S. 318.    MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT
PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















IRVING TRUST CO. V. DAY, 314 U.S. 556 


NO. 51.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  - 284
N.Y. 527, 32 N.E.2D 539, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE A STATE STATUTE IS CHALLENGED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONTRACT AND
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF ITS OBLIGATIONS ARE FEDERAL QUESTIONS, AND THE
RULINGS OF THE STATE COURT THEREON ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE HERE.  P. 561. 

2.  A STATE IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT,
CONDITION, OR EVEN ABOLISH THE POWER OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OVER
PROPERTY WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.  P. 562. 

3.  SECTION 18 OF THE NEW YORK DECEDENT ESTATE LAW, WHICH, IN THE
CASE OF WILLS THEREAFTER EXECUTED, GIVES TO A SURVIVING SPOUSE A RIGHT
OF ELECTION TO TAKE AS IN INTESTACY, HELD NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF A PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED WAIVER BY THE
SURVIVING SPOUSE OF ANY RIGHT IN THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, AND NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WHERE, SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE SECTION, THE DECEDENT EXECUTED A CODICIL TO HIS WILL
AND THEREBY MADE THE SECTION OPERATIVE.  P. 562. 

IRVING TRUST CO. ET AL., EXECUTORS, ET AL. V. DAY, EXECUTOR. 

APPEAL FROM THE SURROGATE'S COURT, KINGS COUNTY, NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE, ENTERED ON REMITTITUR, SUSTAINING THE RIGHT OF
APPELLEE'S DECEDENT TO ELECT UNDER SEC. 18 OF THE NEW YORK DECEDENT
ESTATE LAW TO TAKE AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF A WILL.  SEE ALSO 171
MISC. 612, 13 N.Y. S.2D 76; 258 APP. DIV. 596, 17 N.Y. S.2D 316. 

BY PRESCRIBING A FORMALITY OF EXECUTION MORE EXACTING THAN THAT
REQUIRED BY PRE-EXISTING STATUTES, SEC. 18 VIOLATED VESTED CONTRACT
RIGHTS UNDER AGREEMENTS MADE BEFORE ITS EFFECTIVE DATE. 

AT THE TIME OF THE AGREEMENT IN THIS CASE, A CONTRACT BETWEEN A MAN
AND WOMAN, IN CONTEMPLATION OF MARRIAGE, BY WHICH EITHER ONE
RELINQUISHED ALL RIGHTS IN THE ESTATE OF THE OTHER, WAS FULLY
RECOGNIZED AND ENFORCED AND WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED. 

UNDER THE INSTRUMENT OF FEBRUARY 2, 1922, WHICH WAS ACTED UPON BY
MCGLONE AT THE TIME OF THE MARRIAGE ON FEBRUARY 4, 1922, HE ACQUIRED A
VESTED RIGHT TO EXCLUDE MRS. MCGLONE FROM CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN HIS
ESTATE. 

THE RIGHTS CREATED BY THE AGREEMENT ARE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTY AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACT AND TAKING
OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE AGREEMENT CONSTITUTED A DELIBERATE AND INFORMED ABANDONMENT OF
KNOWN RIGHTS.  MCGLONE ALTERED HIS POSITION RELYING THEREON.  MRS.
MCGLONE WAS ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE RIGHT TO ELECT TO TAKE AGAINST
HIS LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL QUESTION PRESENTED UPON THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER SEC. 18 OF
THE NEW YORK DECEDENT ESTATE LAW WORKS AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATION
OF CONTRACT, FORBIDDEN BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION, OR A
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, FORBIDDEN BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE INSTRUMENT WHICH APPELLANTS CLAIM EMBODIES A CONTRACT WHICH HAS
BEEN IMPAIRED, AND UNDER WHICH THEY CLAIM PROPERTY RIGHTS, READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"I, HELENA DAY SNYDER, BEING OF SOUND MIND AND IN POSSESSION OF ALL
MY FACULTIES, ON THE EVE OF MY MARRIAGE TO JOHN J. MCGLONE, IN LONDON,
ENGLAND, ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 1922, WISH TO RECORD, OF MY FREE WILL, THAT,
AS I ALREADY POSSESS, IN MY OWN RIGHT, AMPLE OF THIS WORLD'S GOODS IN
THE WAY OF A FORTUNE OF MY OWN, AS A COMPLIMENT TO MY AFORESAID
HUSBAND, AND FOR OTHER GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS, I HEREBY,
VOLUNTARILY AND IRREVOCABLY RENOUNCE ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST I
MIGHT, LEGALLY OR OTHERWISE, HAVE IN ANY ESTATE, REAL OR PERSONAL, OF
WHICH MY SAID HUSBAND TO BE, JOHN J. MCGLONE, MIGHT DIE SEIZED." 

APPELLEE'S DECEDENT, HELENA DAY SNYDER, WHO DIED IN THE COURSE OF
THIS LITIGATION, EXECUTED THIS INSTRUMENT IN LONDON TWO DAYS BEFORE HER
MARRIAGE TO JOHN J. MCGLONE, APPELLANTS' DECEDENT.  THE LAWS OF NEW
YORK AT THE TIME GAVE TO A WIDOW DOWER RIGHTS IN HER HUSBAND'S REAL
ESTATE, BUT, EXCEPT FOR RESTRICTIONS ON CHARITABLE GIFTS NOT INVOLVED
HERE, LEFT HIM OTHERWISE FREE TO MAKE TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF ALL
HIS PROPERTY TO STRANGERS. 

ON AUGUST 21, 1930, MCGLONE EXECUTED A WILL, ONE CLAUSE OF WHICH
RECITED HELENA'S WAIVER BUT "NEVERTHELESS" MADE A BEQUEST OF $2,000 TO
HER AS A "SLIGHT TOKEN" OF HIS AFFECTION AND ADMIRATION.  THE
LEGISLATION COMPLAINED OF, GIVING A TESTATOR'S SURVIVING SPOUSE A RIGHT
OF ELECTION TO TAKE AGAINST THE WILL, HAD BEEN ENACTED AS SEC. 18 OF
THE DECEDENT ESTATE LAW ON MARCH 29, 1929, BUT IT DID NOT BECOME
EFFECTIVE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1, 1930, A FEW DAYS AFTER MCGLONE EXECUTED
HIS WILL.  FN1  IT PERMITTED WAIVER BY A SPOUSE OR PROSPECTIVE SPOUSE
OF THE PROTECTION THUS AFFORDED, BUT IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE THE
WAIVER WAS REQUIRED TO BE "BY AN INSTRUMENT SUBSCRIBED AND DULY
ACKNOWLEDGED."  FN2  THE INSTRUMENT SIGNED BY HELENA WAS NOT
ACKNOWLEDGED, AND THE NEW LEGISLATION WAS LIMITED IN OPERATION TO WILLS
EXECUTED AFTER ITS EFFECTIVE DATE. 

MCGLONE SO ACTED AS TO BRING HIS ESTATE UNDER THIS NEW LEGISLATION. 
ON JULY 6, 1934, HE EXECUTED A CODICIL TO HIS WILL WHICH, ALTHOUGH IT
DID NOT DISTURB THE PROVISION MADE FOR HIS WIFE IN HIS EARLIER WILL,
HAD THE EFFECT OF BRINGING THE ENTIRE WILL, MODIFIED AND REPUBLISHED,
WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW LAW  FN3  AND THUS, ACCORDING TO THE
TERMS OF SEC. 18, OF GIVING HER A RIGHT OF ELECTION TO TAKE UNDER THE
STATUTE AND AGAINST THE WILL. 

HELENA SOUGHT TO EXERCISE THIS RIGHT, AND THUS PRECIPITATED THE
PRESENT LITIGATION, IN WHICH THE QUOTED INSTRUMENT WAS PLEADED AS A BAR
TO THE RIGHT.  THE SURROGATE HELD THAT THE INSTRUMENT WAS NOT A
CONTRACT, 171 MISC. 612, 13 N.Y.S.2D 76; THE APPELLATE DIVISION HELD
THAT IT WAS, 258 APP. DIV. 596, 17 N.Y.S.2D 316; AND THE NEW YORK COURT
OF APPEALS ASSUMED, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT, APART FROM THE EFFECT OF
SEC. 18 OF THE DECEDENT ESTATE LAW, IT WAS A BINDING CONTRACT, VALIDLY
EXECUTED, AND ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS HERE INVOKED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, HOWEVER, THAT "A
WIFE CANNOT BY AGREEMENT MAKE THE HUSBAND'S RIGHT CREATED BY LAW IMMUNE
FROM THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO CHANGE THE LAW WHICH CREATED THE RIGHT
NOR WAIVE IN ADVANCE A RIGHT CREATED FOR HER BENEFIT IF THE LAW DOES
NOT PERMIT SUCH A WAIVER."  SECTION 18 WAS HELD TO CONFER A RIGHT OF
ELECTION UPON HELENA, AND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CONTRACT AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  MATTER
OF MCGLONE, 284 N.Y. 527, 533; 32 N.E.2D 539, 542. 

THE RELUCTANCE OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS TO DECIDE THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE INSTRUMENT IN QUESTION DID CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT
IS QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD MADE UP IN
THIS CASE.  IT APPEARS FROM THE FACE OF THE INSTRUMENT THAT IT WAS
PENNED ON STATIONERY OF THE SAVOY HOTEL, LONDON, BY AN UNIDENTIFIED
SCRIBE, AND THAT THE ONLY SIGNATURE WAS HELENA'S.  THE INSTRUMENT DOES
NOT RECITE MUTUALITY OF AGREEMENT.  IT RECITES NO CONSIDERATION, AND
NONE IS PROVED.  IT RATHER NEGATIVES THE RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION, AND
THE LIKELIHOOD THAT MARRIAGE WAS SUCH, BY INDICATING THAT THE PARTIES
HAD ALREADY EXCHANGED PROMISES TO MARRY.  NOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN TEXT
OR CONTEXT TO HELP IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHTS SAID TO BE
WAIVED.  NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ADDUCED TO SHOW THAT EITHER OF THE
PARTIES, ABOUT TO MARRY IN A FOREIGN LAND, THEN HAD NEW YORK AS A
DOMICILE OR WAS CONTRACTING WITH REFERENCE TO ITS LAWS, EITHER PRESENT
OR FUTURE.  THE MARRIAGE RECORD IN EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT HIS "RESIDENCE
AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE" WAS "SAVOY HOTEL, LONDON" AND HERS WAS "THE
BEVERLEYS, THORNBURY ROAD, ISLEWORTH."  IF EITHER WAS DOMICILED
ELSEWHERE, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE IT.  THERE IS NOT EVEN ANY
SHOWING THAT, AT THE TIME, EITHER OF THE PARTIES OWNED OR HAD ANY
EXPECTATION OF OWNING PROPERTY IN NEW YORK.  NO APPARENT HEED HAS BEEN
GIVEN TO THE USUAL RULE THAT THE LAW OF THE PLACE OF CONTRACTING
DETERMINES QUESTIONS OF FORM, CAPACITY TO CONTRACT, NECESSITY OF
CONSIDERATION, AND SOME ASPECTS OF THE DUTY OF PERFORMANCE.  BOTH SIDES
SEEM TO HAVE ASSUMED, BUT FOR REASONS THAT ARE NOT REVEALED, THAT THE
LAW OF NEW YORK GOVERNS THESE QUESTIONS.  THE NIGGARDLINESS OF THE
RECORD MAY BE DUE IN SOME PART TO THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED ON THE RIGHT
OF A SURVIVOR TO TESTIFY BY SEC. 347 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE
ACT, BUT THIS DOES NOT WARRANT AN ILL-INFORMED GUESS BY THIS COURT AS
TO THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT OR ITS MEANING UNDER PROPERLY APPLICABLE
RULES OF LAW. 

WHEN THIS COURT IS ASKED TO INVALIDATE A STATE STATUTE UPON THE
GROUND THAT IT IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT, THE EXISTENCE OF
THE CONTRACT AND THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF ITS OBLIGATION BECOME FEDERAL
QUESTIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHETHER THEY ARE WITHIN THE
SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES
FINALITY CANNOT BE ACCORDED TO THE VIEWS OF A STATE COURT.  DOUGLAS V.
KENTUCKY, 168 U.S. 488, 502; RAILROAD COMMISSION V. EASTERN TEXAS R.
CO., 264 U.S. 79, 86-87; COOLIDGE V. LONG, 282 U.S. 582, 597; U.S.
MORTGAGE CO. V. MATTHEWS, 293 U.S. 232, 236; HIGGINBOTHAM V. BATON
ROUGE, 306 U.S. 535, 538.  IN ANY VIEW WE MIGHT TAKE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS URGED HERE, WE SHOULD NOT REGARD THIS RECORD
AS AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR INVALIDATING A STATE STATUTE.  BUT, LEST A
DECISION ON THIS GROUND BE TAKEN AS AN INVITATION TO FURTHER LITIGATION
IN THE NEW YORK COURTS AND IN THIS COURT, WE SHALL EMULATE THE
GENEROSITY SHOWN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS TO THE APPELLANTS AND ADOPT
ITS ASSUMPTION AS TO THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DISPOSING OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS URGED. 

RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION TO THE PROPERTY OF A DECEASED, WHETHER BY WILL
OR BY INTESTACY, ARE OF STATUTORY CREATION, AND THE DEAD HAND RULES
SUCCESSION ONLY BY SUFFERANCE.  NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
FORBIDS THE LEGISLATURE OF A STATE TO LIMIT, CONDITION, OR EVEN ABOLISH
THE POWER OF TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OVER PROPERTY WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION.  MAGER V. GRIMA, 8 HOW.  490; UNITED STATES V. FOX, 94
U.S. 315; UNITED STATES V. PERKINS, 163 U.S. 625; CF. RANDALL V.
KREIGER, 23 WALL.  137, 148.  EXPECTATIONS OR HOPES OF SUCCESSION,
WHETHER TESTATE OR INTESTATE, TO THE PROPERTY OF A LIVING PERSON, DO
NOT VEST UNTIL THE DEATH OF THAT PERSON.  APPELLANTS CANNOT
SUCCESSFULLY ATTACK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NEW LEGISLATION WHICH
WENT INTO EFFECT BEFORE MCGLONE'S DEATH, AND BECAME OPERATIVE ONLY AS
THE RESULT OF HIS OWN VOLUNTARY ACT. 

MCGLONE WAS FREE TO CONSENT TO A CANCELLATION OR REVOCATION OF
HELENA'S WAIVER, OR TO MAKE A VALID BEQUEST TO HER OF ALL OR ANY OF HIS
PROPERTY DESPITE IT.  FURTHER, HE COULD FREE HER OF THE RESTRAINTS OF
HER WAIVER BY VOLUNTARILY COMMITTING AN ACT TO WHICH THE APPLICABLE LAW
ATTACHED THAT CONSEQUENCE.  THIS IS WHAT HE DID BY EXECUTING THE
CODICIL OF JULY 6, 1934, VOLUNTARILY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE PRIVILEGE
OF FURTHER TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OFFERED BY THE LAWS OF NEW YORK. 
SO LONG AS MCGLONE STOOD ON THE WILL MADE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE LEGISLATION, THE LAW ALLOWED HIM TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE FULL FORCE
AND EFFECT OF THE WAIVER.  GIVEN HIS CHOICE BETWEEN ADHERING TO ANY
WILL MADE BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 1930, OR OF BRINGING HIS ESTATE UNDER THE
NEW LAW, MCGLONE SAW FIT TO EXECUTE A FURTHER TESTAMENTARY DOCUMENT
AFTER THAT DATE AND THUS TO BRING THE NEW LEGISLATION INTO OPERATION AS
TO HIMSELF, HIS ESTATE AND SURVIVORS.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING
THE APPLICATION OF THE CONTRACT AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, THE CASE IS AS IF HE HAD MADE A VOLUNTARY LEGACY TO HIS
WIFE DESPITE HER WAIVER.  IF THE OBLIGATION OF THE WAIVER SUFFERED
IMPAIRMENT, IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE HE EXERCISED FURTHER TESTAMENTARY
PRIVILEGES WITH A CONDITION ATTACHED, AND THEREBY BROUGHT THOSE
CONSEQUENCES UNWITTINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY UPON HIMSELF AND HIS ESTATE. 

THE CONDITION CLEARLY WAS SUCH AS NEW YORK MIGHT, WITHOUT RESTRAINT
FROM THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, ANNEX TO THE PRIVILEGE OF MAKING A WILL
UNDER ITS LAW.  ITS EFFECT WAS TO CONTINUE AS OBLIGATIONS OF HIS ESTATE
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH HE HAD ASSUMED DURING LIFE,  FN4 UNLESS
THEY HAD BEEN WAIVED WITH REQUIRED FORMALITY.  THE STATE COULD HAVE
CONDITIONED ANY FURTHER EXERCISE OF TESTAMENTARY POWER UPON GIVING A
RIGHT OF ELECTION TO THE SURVIVING SPOUSE REGARDLESS OF ANY WAIVER,
HOWEVER FORMALLY EXECUTED; AND HAVING RECOGNIZED THE BINDING EFFECT OF
A WAIVER, IT COULD CONDITION THAT RECOGNITION UPON ACKNOWLEDGMENT,
WHICH WAS NO DOUBT CONSIDERED A DESIRABLE SAFEGUARD AGAINST CASUAL,
INFORMAL, OR ILL-CONSIDERED ABANDONMENT OF STATUTORY PROTECTION, AS
WELL AS AGAINST OVERREACHING OR FRAUD.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 18-1 OF THE DECEDENT ESTATE LAW, ENACTED BY N.Y. LAWS OF
1929, C. 229, SEC. 4, PROVIDED: 

"WHERE A TESTATOR DIES AFTER AUGUST THIRTY-FIRST, NINETEEN HUNDRED
AND THIRTY, AND LEAVES A WILL THEREAFTER EXECUTED AND LEAVES SURVIVING
A HUSBAND OR WIFE, A PERSONAL RIGHT OF ELECTION IS GIVEN TO THE
SURVIVING SPOUSE TO TAKE HIS OR HER SHARE OF THE ESTATE AS IN
INTESTACY, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION." 


"WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER THE WILL FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE SURVIVING SPOUSE INCLUDING THE PRINCIPAL OF A TRUST, OR A LEGACY
OR DEVISE, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF TESTAMENTARY PROVISION, IS LESS THAN
THE INTESTATE SHARE, THE SURVIVING SPOUSE SHALL HAVE THE LIMITED RIGHT
TO ELECT TO TAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUCH AGGREGATE AND THE AMOUNT
OF THE INTESTATE SHARE, AND THE TERMS OF THE WILL SHALL OTHERWISE
REMAIN EFFECTIVE." 

FN2  SECTION 18-9 READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE HUSBAND OR WIFE DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE OTHER MAY WAIVE THE
RIGHT OF ELECTION TO TAKE AGAINST A PARTICULAR LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT
BY AN INSTRUMENT SUBSCRIBED AND DULY ACKNOWLEDGED, OR MAY WAIVE SUCH
RIGHT OF ELECTION TO TAKE AGAINST ANY LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE
OTHER WHATSOEVER IN AN AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT SO EXECUTED, MADE BEFORE
OR AFTER MARRIAGE." 

IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE WORDS "OF SETTLEMENT" WERE DELETED FROM
THIS PROVISION, AND THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE WAS ADDED:  "AN AGREEMENT SO
EXECUTED MADE BEFORE THE TAKING EFFECT OF THIS SECTION WHEREIN A SPOUSE
HAS WAIVED OR RELEASED ALL RIGHTS IN THE ESTATE OF THE OTHER SPOUSE
SHALL BE DEEMED TO RELEASE THE RIGHT OF ELECTION GRANTED IN THIS
LAW, SEC. 2. 

FN4  THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SAID OF THIS LEGISLATION: 

"AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 1930, THE ABSENCE OF PROTECTION TO THE WIDOW
UNDER PRIOR LAWS GAVE WAY TO THE WIDOW'S RIGHT OF ELECTION TO TAKE A
SPECIFIC PART OF THE ESTATE AGAINST THE WILL.  THE INCONSISTENCY IN OUR
OLD LAW WHICH COMPELLED A MAN TO SUPPORT HIS WIFE DURING HIS LIFETIME
AND PERMITTED HIM TO CUT HER OFF WITH A DOLLAR AT HIS DEATH, HAS GIVEN
WAY TO A NEW PUBLIC POLICY WHICH NO LONGER PERMITS A TESTATOR TO
DISPOSE OF HIS PROPERTY AS HE PLEASES."  MATTER OF GREENBERG, 261 N.Y.
474, 478; 185 N.E. 704, 705. 

WHEN IT ENACTED SEC. 18 OF THE DECEDENT ESTATE LAW, NEW YORK AT THE
SAME TIME ABOLISHED FOR THE FUTURE THE ANCIENT ESTATES AND RIGHTS OF
DOWER AND CURTESY, AND MADE IMPORTANT CHANGES IN THE RULES AS TO
DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















MEILINK V. UNEMPLOYMENT COMM'N, 314 U.S. 564 


NO. 61.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 18, 1941.  - DECIDED JANUARY 5, 1942.  -
116 F.2D 330, AFFIRMED. 


THAT AN EMPLOYER WHO FAILS TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS REQUIRED OF HIM BY THE
ACT "SHALL BECOME ADDITIONALLY LIABLE FOR INTEREST ON SUCH PAYMENTS AT
THE RATE OF TWELVE PER CENT PER ANNUM."  HELD, THAT THE EXACTION OF
TWELVE PER CENT PER ANNUM IS NOT A "PENALTY" BUT IS "INTEREST" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 57J OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND A CLAIM FOR THE FULL
AMOUNT THEREOF IS ALLOWABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.  P. 569. 

MEILINK, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVES COMMISSION OF
CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 588, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE DENYING
IN PART A CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY. 

ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN EXCESS OF 7% PER ANNUM WOULD PERMIT
RESPONDENT TO SHARE IN THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE TO AN EXTENT NOT
REPRESENTED BY A PECUNIARY LOSS. 

MERELY CALLING THE CHARGE "INTEREST" CAN NOT CHANGE ITS CHARACTER IF
IT BE IN FACT A PENALTY.  UNITED STATES V. LAFRANCA, 282 U.S. 568, 572;
IN RE J. MENIST & CO., 290 F. 947, 949; IN RE DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO., 27
F.SUPP.  983; IN RE ASHLAND EMERY & CORUNDUM CO., 229 F. 829, 832. 

INTEREST ON DELINQUENT TAX PAYMENTS DUE TO A STATE OR ANY SUBDIVISION
THEREOF WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING IN EXCESS OF THE
GENERAL RATE OF INTEREST PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW.  NEW
YORK V. JERSAWIT, 263 U.S. 493; IN RE PRESSED STEEL CAR CO., 100 F.2D
147, 153; IN RE DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO., 27 F.SUPP.  983; IN RE 168 ADAMS
BUILDING CORP., 27 F.SUPP.  247, AFF'D 105 F.2D 704, CERT. DEN., 308
U.S. 632; IN RE A.E. FOUNTAIN, INC., 295 F. 873; IN RE WELLS, 4
F.SUPP.  329.  DISTINGUISHING BEARDSLEY & WOLCOTT MFG. CO., 82 F.2D
239; HORN V. BOONE CO., 44 F.2D 920; MARTIN CASE, 75 F.2D 618; UNITED
STATES V. CHILDS, 266 U.S. 304. 

FEDERAL AND OTHER CALIFORNIA STATE TAXING AUTHORITIES DEMAND ONLY SIX
PER CENT PER ANNUM INTEREST ON BANKRUPTCY PROOFS OF CLAIM. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA HAS HIMSELF CHARACTERIZED SEC. 45
OF THE CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVES ACT AS A PENALTY SECTION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER IS THE TRUSTEE OF A BANKRUPT WHICH WAS INDEBTED TO THE
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVES COMMISSION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS WHICH HAD
ACCRUED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVES ACT.  SECTION 45 OF
THAT ACT PROVIDED THAT, IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF
CONTRIBUTIONS DUE, THE EMPLOYER "SHALL BECOME ADDITIONALLY LIABLE FOR
INTEREST ON SUCH PAYMENTS AT THE RATE OF TWELVE PER CENT PER ANNUM FROM
THE DATE SUCH PAYMENT BECOMES DUE, BOTH PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST BEING
PAYABLE IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE CONTRIBUTIONS."  DEERING'S GEN. LAWS,
1937, ACT 8780D, SEC. 45.  THE COMMISSION FILED PROOF OF A PRIORITY
CLAIM IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING FOR THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE
ACCRUED CONTRIBUTIONS AND INTEREST THEREON AT THE RATE OF TWELVE PER
CENT. 

THE TRUSTEE PAID THE PRINCIPAL SUM WITH INTEREST AT SIX PER CENT, BUT
REFUSED TO PAY MORE, RELYING ON SEC. 57J OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11
U.S.C. SEC. 93J, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "DEBTS OWING TO THE UNITED STATES,
A STATE, A COUNTY, A DISTRICT, OR A MUNICIPALITY AS A PENALTY OR
FORFEITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED, EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE PECUNIARY
LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE ACT, TRANSACTION, OR PROCEEDING OUT OF WHICH THE
PENALTY OR FORFEITURE AROSE, WITH REASONABLE AND ACTUAL COSTS
OCCASIONED THEREBY AND SUCH INTEREST AS MAY HAVE ACCRUED THEREON
ACCORDING TO LAW."  THE TRUSTEE ASSERTED THAT ANY EXACTION IN EXCESS OF
SIX PER CENT, WHICH HE CLAIMED WAS THE "REASONABLE AND CUSTOMARY RATE
OF INTEREST," WAS A PENALTY; THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DECREED THAT ALL
ABOVE SEVEN PER CENT (A COMMON, THOUGH NOT AN INVARIABLE, LEGAL RATE IN
CALIFORNIA) WAS A PENALTY AND REFUSED TO ALLOW SO MUCH OF THE CLAIM;
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSED ON THE
GROUND THAT NO PART OF THE TWELVE PER CENT WAS A PENALTY.  116 F.2D
330.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS
DECISION AND THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
IN IN RE PRESSED STEEL CAR CO. OF NEW JERSEY.  FN1 

PETITIONER SEEKS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TWELVE PER CENT EXACTION HERE
IN QUESTION IS NOT "INTEREST" BY POINTING TO ARTICLE XX, SEC. 22 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROVIDES THAT, EXCEPT FOR SPECIFIED
INSTITUTIONS, THE RATE OF INTEREST ON LOANS, AND ON ACCOUNTS AFTER
DEMAND OR JUDGMENT, SHALL BE SEVEN PER CENT, AND LEAVES THE PARTIES
FREE TO CONTRACT IN WRITING FOR A RATE NOT EXCEEDING TEN PER CENT.  FN2
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT AS A MATTER OF STATE LAW THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE WAS THEREBY FORBIDDEN TO PRESCRIBE THE HIGHER RATE HERE
INVOLVED.  AND THE MERE DIFFERENCE IN RATES DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE
TWELVE PER CENT RATE IS NOT "INTEREST" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 57J
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT INTEREST RATES VARY NOT ONLY ACCORDING TO
THE GENERAL USE VALUE OF MONEY BUT ALSO ACCORDING TO THE HAZARD OF
PARTICULAR CLASSES OF LOANS.  DELINQUENT TAXPAYERS AS A CLASS ARE A
POOR CREDIT RISK; TAX DEFAULT, UNLESS AN INCIDENT OF LEGITIMATE TAX
LITIGATION, IS, TO THE EYE SENSITIVE TO CREDIT INDICATIONS, A SIGNAL OF
DISTRESS.  A RATE OF INTEREST ON TAX DELINQUENCIES WHICH IS LOW IN
COMPARISON TO THE TAXPAYER'S BORROWING RATE - IF HE CAN BORROW AT ALL -
IS A TEMPTATION TO USE THE STATE AS A CONVENIENT, IF INVOLUNTARY,
BANKER BY THE SIMPLE PRACTICE OF DEFERRING THE PAYMENT OF TAXES. 

ANOTHER VARIABLE IS THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE
TROUBLE OF HANDLING THE ITEM.  THE LEGISLATURE MAY INCLUDE COMPENSATION
TO THE STATE FOR THE INCREASED COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION IN THE EXACTION
FOR DELAY IN PAYING TAXES WITHOUT THEREBY CHANGING IT FROM INTEREST TO
PENALTY. 

THESE FACTORS - RISK, AND THE EXPENSES OF HANDLING - ARE REFLECTED IN
THE INTEREST RATES PERMITTED BY CALIFORNIA TO CERTAIN TYPES OF
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS:  FOR EXAMPLE, CREDIT UNIONS MAY CHARGE INTEREST
AT THE RATE OF ONE PER CENT PER MONTH; FN3  PAWNBROKERS, AT TWO PER
CENT PER MONTH ON THE FIRST ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF INDEBTEDNESS; FN4
AND PERSONAL PROPERTY BROKERS, TWO AND ONE-HALF PER CENT PER MONTH ON
THE FIRST THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS.  FN5  A DIFFERENTIATION OF TREATMENT
FOR PARTICULAR TYPES OF LOANS SIMILAR IN PRINCIPLE IS COMMONLY MADE BY
OTHER STATES.  FN6 

NEW YORK V. JERSAWIT, 263 U.S. 493, IS THOUGHT BY PETITIONER TO
REQUIRE A DECISION IN HIS FAVOR.  THAT CASE INVOLVED A NEW YORK STATUTE
VISITING TAX DELINQUENTS WITH AN ADDITIONAL LIABILITY OF TEN PER CENT
OF THE TAX, AND ADDING THERETO A FURTHER LIABILITY OF ONE PER CENT PER
MONTH, WHICH WAS NOT DENOMINATED INTEREST.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HAD HELD THAT SUCH PROVISION WAS PENAL, BUT HAD ALLOWED
INTEREST AT THE USUAL LEGAL RATE ON THE THEORY THAT IT REPRESENTED
ACTUAL DAMAGE.  IN RE AJAX DRESS CO., 290 F. 950.  THIS COURT, SPEAKING
THROUGH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SAID: 

"THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE ADDITIONAL TEN PER CENTUM CHARGED FOR
FAILURE TO PAY BY JANUARY 1 IS A PENALTY, DISALLOWED BY THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT, SEC. 57J, BUT IT IS URGED THAT THE ONE PER CENTUM FOR EACH MONTH
OF DEFAULT IS STATUTORY INTEREST AND THAT THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO THAT
AND OTHERWISE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO NONE.  AS THE ONE PER CENTUM IS MORE
THAN THE VALUE OF THE USE OF THE MONEY AND IS ADDED BY THE STATUTE TO
THE TEN TO MAKE A SINGLE SUM IT MUST BE TREATED AS PART OF ONE CORPUS
AND MUST FALL WITH THAT.  WE PRESUME THAT IN THIS EVENT THE STATE DOES
NOT OBJECT TO RECEIVING THE SIMPLE INTEREST ALLOWED.  THAT PART OF THE
ORDER WILL STAND."  263 U.S. AT 496. 

HERE THE EXACTION COMPUTED ACCORDING TO LAPSE OF TIME IS NOT LUMPED
TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER PERCENTAGE COMPUTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO LAPSE OF
TIME; HERE THE EXACTION IS DENOMINATED INTEREST BY THE STATUTE, AND
THERE IT WAS NOT; AND WE CANNOT BE SO CONFIDENT HERE THAT TWELVE PER
CENT "IS MORE THAN THE VALUE OF THE USE OF THE MONEY," OR OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE IMPLIED MAJOR PREMISE THAT AN EXACTION IN EXCESS OF
SUCH VALUE CANNOT BE MERELY AN INTEREST CHARGE.  FN7 

THE DECISION WHICH CONTROLS HERE IS THE MORE RECENT ONE OF UNITED
STATES V. CHILDS, 266 U.S. 304, WHERE THE STATUTE SEPARATELY
DENOMINATED A FLAT FIVE PER CENT EXACTION AS A PENALTY, AND AN
ADDITIONAL ONE OF ONE PER CENT A MONTH AS INTEREST.  THE LATTER WAS
HELD TO BE "INTEREST" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 57J OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT.  THE DISTINCTION FROM THE FACT THAT THE EXACTION IN THAT CASE WAS
BY THE UNITED STATES AND IN THIS CASE BY A STATE CALLS FOR NO
DIFFERENCE IN RESULT.  WE MUST GIVE CREDIT TO A STATE LEGISLATURE
ACTING WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL SPHERE LIKE THAT ACCORDED TO CONGRESS
ACTING IN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL SPHERE.  AND THE DISTINCTION WHICH
CONGRESS MADE IN THE LEGISLATION CONSIDERED IN THE CHILDS CASE, AND IN
OTHER REVENUE LEGISLATION, BETWEEN PENALTY AS A FIXED AD VALOREM AMOUNT
TAKING NO ACCOUNT OF TIME, AND INTEREST WHICH DOES DEPEND ON TIME, IS
PERSUASIVE THAT ITS USE OF THE WORD "PENALTY" IN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
WILL BEAR A LIKE DIFFERENTIATION FROM INTEREST. 

FINALLY, IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT CONGRESS ITSELF HAS PROVIDED IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT THAT, IN THE EVENT
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NOT PAID WHEN DUE, "THERE SHALL BE ADDED, AS PART OF
THE CONTRIBUTIONS, INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 1 PER CENTUM PER MONTH." 
D.C. CODE (SUPP. V. 1939) TIT. 8, SEC. 314(C).  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  100 F.2D 147, CERTIORARI DENIED SUB NOM. WICK V. NEW JERSEY, 306
U.S. 648. 

FN2  THIS READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE RATE OF INTEREST UPON THE LOAN OR FORBEARANCE OF ANY MONEY,
GOODS OR THINGS IN ACTION, OR ON ACCOUNTS AFTER DEMAND OR JUDGMENT
RENDERED IN ANY COURT OF THE STATE, SHALL BE SEVEN PER CENT PER ANNUM
BUT IT SHALL BE COMPETENT FOR THE PARTIES TO ANY LOAN OR FORBEARANCE OF
ANY MONEY, GOODS OR THINGS IN ACTION TO CONTRACT IN WRITING FOR A RATE
OF INTEREST NOT EXCEEDING TEN PER CENT PER ANNUM." 

EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED ARE BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, INDUSTRIAL
LOAN COMPANIES, CREDIT UNIONS, PAWNBROKERS, PERSONAL PROPERTY BROKERS,
STATE AND NATIONAL BANKS, AND COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS. 

FN3  DEERING'S GEN. LAWS, 1939 SUPP., ACT 1887, SEC. 3(5). 

FN4  DEERING'S GEN. LAWS, 1939 SUPP., ACT 5826, SEC. 2. 

FN5  DEERING'S GEN. LAWS, 1939 SUPP., ACT 5825 (2D), SEC. 17. 

FN6  CLARK, FINANCING THE CONSUMER (1933), APPENDIX I. 

FN7  COMPARE THE FOLLOWING EXACTIONS, PROVIDED BY THE VARIOUS
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACTS FOR NON-PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS DUE: 

"INTEREST" AT 6% PER ANNUM OR ITS EQUIVALENT ON A MONTHLY BASIS:
UNITED STATES, DELAWARE, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW
YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OREGON, UTAH, WISCONSIN; AT 8%:  OHIO; AT 81/100%
PER MONTH:  KANSAS; AT 9%:  CONNECTICUT, MICHIGAN; AT 12%:  DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, ILLINOIS, IOWA,
LOUISIANA, MAINE, MARYLAND, MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA,
NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA,
OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA,
TENNESSEE, VERMONT, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, WYOMING. 

"PENALTY" AT 12%:  KENTUCKY, TAXES; AT 2% TO 25% PER MONTH:  IDAHO. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :

















SCAIFE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 314 U.S. 459 


NO. 57.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1941.  - 117
F.2D 572, AFFIRMED. 


1.  BY THE TERMS OF THE CAPITAL STOCK TAX PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1935, AN ERRONEOUS VALUATION OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK MADE BY A
CORPORATION IN ITS "FIRST RETURN" CAN NOT BE CORRECTED BY AN AMENDED
RETURN FILED MORE THAN 30 DAYS AFTER THE STATUTORY DUE DATE AND WITHIN
THE 60 DAYS PERIOD FOR WHICH AN EXTENSION MIGHT HAVE BEEN HAD UNDER THE
STATUTE AND THE TREASURY REGULATIONS, BUT WHERE NO SUCH EXTENSION WAS
APPLIED FOR OR GRANTED.  P. 461. 

2.  IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS COMMAND OF THE STATUTE, RELIEF AGAINST
SUCH A MISTAKE CAN NOT BE GRANTED BY A COURT OF EQUITY.  P. 462. 

SCAIFE COMPANY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 557, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 41 B.T.A. 278, DECLINING TO REDETERMINE AN
EXCESS PROFITS TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON JULY 29, 1936, PETITIONER FILED ITS CAPITAL STOCK TAX  FN1  RETURN
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1936.  THIS RETURN WAS PREPARED BY
PETITIONER'S TREASURER AND SIGNED BY PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT.  THE
TREASURER HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED BY PETITIONER'S VICE-PRESIDENT TO PLACE
UPON THE CAPITAL STOCK A VALUE OF $1,000,000.  BY MISTAKE THE VALUE WAS
DECLARED AT $600,000.  THIS ERROR WAS NOT NOTED BY PETITIONER'S
PRESIDENT WHEN HE SIGNED THE RETURN.  WHEN THE ERROR WAS LATER
DISCOVERED, A NEW RETURN WAS PREPARED DECLARING THE VALUE OF THE STOCK
TO BE $1,000,000.  THIS RETURN WAS LODGED WITH THE COLLECTOR ON
SEPTEMBER 3, 1936, AND A REMITTANCE OF $400.00 TO COVER THE ADDITIONAL
CAPITAL STOCK TAX COMPUTED ON THE HIGHER VALUATION WAS TENDERED.  THE
COLLECTOR REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED RETURN  FN2  AND THE REMITTANCE
OF THE ADDITIONAL $400.00.  PETITIONER THEN FILED A PETITION WITH THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR A REDETERMINATION OF ITS EXCESS PROFITS TAX
FN3  FOR 1936, CLAIMING THAT THAT TAX SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS
OF A DECLARED VALUE FOR ITS CAPITAL STOCK OF $1,000,000.  THE BOARD
SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER.  41 B.T.A. 278.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  117 F.2D 572.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT HOLDING AND THE DECISION
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN LERNER STORES
CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 118 F.2D 455. 

SEC. 105(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1935(49 STAT. 1014, 1018) PROVIDES
THAT THE ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE OF THE TAXPAYER'S CAPITAL STOCK SHALL
BE THE VALUE AS DECLARED IN THE "FIRST RETURN."  THE VALUE SO DECLARED
"CANNOT BE AMENDED."  SEC. 105(F).  THE RETURN MUST BE MADE WITHIN ONE
MONTH AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE TAX IS
IMPOSED.  SEC. 105(D).  WHILE THE COMMISSIONER BY RULES AND REGULATIONS
"MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR MAKING" THE RETURN, NO EXTENSION SHALL BE FOR
MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS.  SEC. 105(D).  UNDER ART. 37(B) OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS 64(1936 ED.)  AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING THE RETURN
AND PAYING THE TAX SHALL BE GRANTED ONLY UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION UNDER
OATH FILED ON OR BEFORE THE STATUTORY DUE DATE AND ON A SHOWING OF
REASONABLE CAUSE FOR AN EXTENSION.  PETITIONER SOUGHT NO SUCH
EXTENSION.  IT DID, HOWEVER, FILE THE AMENDED RETURN WITHIN THE SIXTY
DAY PERIOD. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE AMENDED RETURN WAS PROPERLY
DISALLOWED.  A "FIRST RETURN" MEANS A RETURN "FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN
WHICH THE TAXPAYER EXERCISES THE PRIVILEGE OF FIXING ITS CAPITAL STOCK
VALUE FOR TAX PURPOSES, AND INCLUDES A TIMELY AMENDED RETURN FOR THAT
YEAR."  HAGGAR CO. V. HELVERING, 308 U.S. 389, 395.  THE RETURN FILED
ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1936 WAS NOT TIMELY.  THE STATUTE IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. 
ONCE THE PERIOD FOR FILING THE "FIRST RETURN" HAS EXPIRED, THE VALUE
DECLARED "CANNOT BE AMENDED."  UNLESS AN EXTENSION HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN
OBTAINED, THE PERIOD FOR FILING ENDED ONE MONTH AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS JUNE 30, 1936.  UNLIKE THE
SITUATION IN HAGGAR CO. V. HELVERING, SUPRA, THE DUE DATE OF THE RETURN
HAD NOT BEEN EXTENDED.  NOR DID THE STATUTE MAKE MANDATORY OR AUTOMATIC
AN EXTENSION FOR SIXTY DAYS.  IT MERELY GAVE THE COMMISSIONER THE POWER
TO EXTEND THE DUE DATE UNDER APPROPRIATE RULES AND REGULATIONS.  AND
THE LATTER MADE NO PROVISION FOR AN EXTENSION AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE STATUTORY PERIOD.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT DIFFERENT RULES AND
REGULATIONS MIGHT HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED UNDER WHICH AN EXTENSION MIGHT
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  THE IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATION IS THAT THIS AMENDED RETURN WAS FILED AFTER THE
UNEXTENDED OR STATUTORY DUE DATE HAD EXPIRED.  IN ABSENCE OF AN
EXTENSION A LATER DUE DATE WOULD HAVE NO STATUTORY SANCTION.  SEE J. E.
RILEY INVESTMENT CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 55.  FURTHERMORE, THE
MANDATE OF THE STATUTE THAT THE DECLARATION OF VALUE CONTAINED IN THE
FIRST RETURN CANNOT BE AMENDED MUST BE TAKEN TO PRECLUDE AN AMENDMENT
AFTER THE DUE DATE, IF THAT PROHIBITION IS TO HAVE REAL VITALITY. 

BUT PETITIONER ARGUES THAT A COURT OF EQUITY HAS POWER TO RELIEVE
AGAINST SUCH MISTAKES.  CF. MOFFETT, HODGKINS & CLARKE CO. V.
ROCHESTER, 178 U.S. 373.  ITS CONTENTION IS THAT THE AMENDED RETURN
REFLECTS ITS ORIGINAL INTENT RATHER THAN A SHIFT IN POSITION.  BUT WE
CANNOT TREAT THIS CASE LIKE A CASE FOR REFORMATION OF A CONTRACT.  WE
ARE DEALING HERE WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH NOT ONLY PRESCRIBES THE
FORMULA FOR DETERMINING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A RETURN MAY BE FILED BUT
WHICH ALSO EXPLICITLY STATES THAT A DECLARATION OF VALUE CONTAINED IN
THE ORIGINAL RETURN MAY NOT BE AMENDED.  HENCE, NO EXTENSION OF THE DUE
DATE MAY BE HAD EXCEPT PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURE WHICH HAS CLEAR
STATUTORY SANCTION.  IF WE WERE TO GRANT PETITIONER THE EXTENSION WHICH
IT ASKS, WE WOULD BE PERFORMING A LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE,  FN4
NOT A JUDICIAL, FUNCTION.  THE RESULT IN INDIVIDUAL CASES MAY BE
HARSH.  BUT THAT MAY BE TRUE IN CASE OF ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  AS
WE INDICATED IN J. E. RILEY INVESTMENT CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, SUCH
CONSIDERATIONS, THOUGH A BASIS FOR AN APPEAL TO CONGRESS FOR RELIEF IN
INDIVIDUAL CASES, FN5  ARE NOT APPROPRIATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF BY THE
COURTS FROM THE STRICTNESS OF THE STATUTORY DEMAND.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 105(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 1014, 1017, AS
AMENDED BY SEC. 401 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1648, 1733,
PROVIDES: 

"FOR EACH YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, BEGINNING WITH THE YEAR ENDING JUNE
30, 1936, THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON EVERY DOMESTIC CORPORATION WITH
RESPECT TO CARRYING ON OR DOING BUSINESS FOR ANY PART OF SUCH YEAR AN
EXCISE TAX OF $1 FOR EACH $1,000 OF THE ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE OF ITS
CAPITAL STOCK." 

FN2  PETITIONER SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTOR FROM REFUSING TO
ACCEPT THE AMENDED RETURN.  THE BILL WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  WM. B. SCAIFE & SONS CO. V. DRISCOLL, 18 F.SUPP.  748.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  94 F.2D 664.  THIS COURT DENIED
CERTIORARI.  305 U.S. 603. 

FN3  SEC. 106(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 1014, 1019,
PROVIDES: 

"THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY CORPORATION FOR
EACH INCOME-TAX TAXABLE YEAR ENDING AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST YEAR
IN RESPECT OF WHICH IT IS TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 105, AN EXCESS-PROFITS
TAX EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE FOLLOWING: 

"6 PER CENTUM OF SUCH PORTION OF ITS NET INCOME FOR SUCH INCOME-TAX
TAXABLE YEAR AS IS IN EXCESS OF 10 PER CENTUM AND NOT IN EXCESS OF 15
PER CENTUM OF THE ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE; 

"12 PER CENTUM OF SUCH PORTION OF ITS NET INCOME FOR SUCH INCOME-TAX
TAXABLE YEAR AS IS IN EXCESS OF 15 PER CENTUM OF THE ADJUSTED DECLARED
VALUE." 

SEC. 106(B) PROVIDES THAT THE "ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE SHALL BE
DETERMINED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 105 AS OF THE CLOSE OF THE PRECEDING
INCOME-TAX TAXABLE YEAR (OR AS OF THE DATE OF ORGANIZATION IF IT HAD NO
PRECEDING INCOME-TAX TAXABLE YEAR)." 

FN4  THERE ARE TO BE DISTINGUISHED THOSE CASES ADVERTED TO IN J. E.
RILEY INVESTMENT CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, P. 58, WHERE THE TREASURY
HAS PROVIDED FOR CORRECTION OF CERTAIN ERRORS OR MISCALCULATIONS IN THE
ORIGINAL RETURNS.  SUCH AN EXAMPLE IS ART. 43-2 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS
86 PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF AMENDED RETURNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DEDUCTING LOSSES WHICH WERE SUSTAINED DURING A PRIOR TAXABLE YEAR. 

FN5  THUS PRIVATE ACT NO. 199, C. 440, 50 STAT. 1014, PROVIDES THAT
THE ORIGINAL DECLARED VALUE OF THE JACKSON CASKET & MANUFACTURING CO.,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE DECLARATION IN ITS RETURN FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE
30, 1936, SHOULD BE A VALUE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF $125 PER SHARE OF
ITS CAPITAL STOCK.  FROM THE COMMITTEE REPORTS IT APPEARS THAT, DUE TO
A MISTAKE BY WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. IN TRANSMITTING A MESSAGE FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY TO ITS CASHIER, THE LATTER FILED A RETURN
IN WHICH THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL STOCK WAS DECLARED TO BE $175 PER
SHARE, RATHER THAN $125 PER SHARE AS THE PRESIDENT HAD DIRECTED.  H.
REP. NO. 777, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REP. NO. 730, 75TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.
..END :




















HELVERING V. LERNER STORES CO., 314 U.S. 463 


NO. 248.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1941.  - 118
F.2D 455, REVERSED. 


1.  AN AMENDED CAPITAL STOCK TAX RETURN, TO CORRECT AN UNDERVALUATION
OF THE TAXPAYER'S CAPITAL STOCK DECLARED BY MISTAKE IN ITS "FIRST
RETURN," CAN NOT BE FILED AFTER THE LAPSE OF 30 DAYS FROM THE STATUTORY
DUE DATE AND AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD FOR WHICH AN EXTENSION
MIGHT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER IF APPLICATION FOR IT HAD
BEEN MADE.  SCAIFE COMPANY V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 459.  P. 466. 

2.  IN ALLOWING THE TAXPAYER TO FIX ITS OWN VALUATION OF ITS CAPITAL
STOCK, THEREBY AFFECTING ITS TAX LIABILITY UNDER THE CLOSELY RELATED
CAPITAL STOCK AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX PROVISIONS, THE REVENUE ACT OF
1935 DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE LEGISLATIVE POWER.  P. 468. 

3.  A CLAIM OF UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION OR INEQUALITY IN THE
INCIDENCE OR APPLICATION OF A TAX RAISES NO QUESTION UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, WHICH CONTAINS NO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  P. 468. 

4.  THE PROPRIETY OR WISDOM OF A TAX ON PROFITS, COMPUTED WITH
REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIED CRITERION OF VALUE OF CAPITAL STOCK, IS NOT
OPEN TO CHALLENGE IN THE COURTS.  P. 468. 

5.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY CONGRESS MAY NOT AVOID
LITIGIOUS VALUATION PROBLEMS BY RELYING ON THE SELF-INTEREST OF
TAXPAYERS TO PLACE A FAIR VALUATION ON THEIR CAPITAL STOCK.  P. 468. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. LERNER STORES CORP.
(MD.) 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 598, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING AN EXCESS PROFITS TAX. 

THE TAXPAYER IS NOT BOUND BY THE CLERICAL ERROR RESULTING IN THE
STATEMENT OF AN ERRONEOUS VALUE. 

THE TAXPAYER MAY ELECT TO DECLARE ANY VALUE IT SEES FIT IN A TIMELY
AMENDED RETURN; AND A RETURN BEFORE THE END OF ITS FIRST INCOME TAX
YEAR ENDING AFTER THE DECLARATION YEAR IS TIMELY. 

THE CAPITAL STOCK TAX UNDER SEC. 105 WAS AN EXCISE TAX.  THE EXCESS
PROFITS TAX UNDER SEC. 106 WAS AN INCOME TAX.  SINCE, UNDER THESE
THE OPTION OF IMPOSING ON THEMSELVES A DIRECT TAX OR AN INDIRECT TAX AS
THEY DESIRED.  A TAXPAYER MIGHT DECLARE NO VALUE FOR CAPITAL STOCK AND
THUS ELECT THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX; OR IT MIGHT DECLARE A LARGE CAPITAL
STOCK VALUE AND AVOID IMPOSITION OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX; OR IT MIGHT BY
A MEDIUM DECLARATION ELECT TO PAY BOTH CAPITAL STOCK AND EXCESS PROFITS
TAXES.  CONGRESS MAY NOT THUS DELEGATE ITS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.  SEE
BLACK, AMERICAN CONST. LAW, 3D ED. PP. 373 ET SEQ.; FIELD V. CLARK, 143
U.S. 649, 692; PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388; UNITED STATES
V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506. 

CAPRICIOUS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE EXCESS PROFITS
TAX, CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH ITS RELATED CAPITAL STOCK TAX, PLACES A
PREMIUM ON THE GOOD LUCK OR ABILITY OF THE TAXPAYER TO PREDICT THE
AMOUNT OF NET INCOME IT WILL EARN IN THE FUTURE.  THE TAXPAYER WITH
LESS ABILITY AS A GUESSER, OR IN SOME INSTANCES, WITH LESS BUSINESS
ACUMEN OR OPPORTUNITY, IS HEAVILY PENALIZED AND MUST BEAR A HEAVIER
BURDEN THAN ITS MORE FORTUNATE OR ABLE RIVAL.  BRUSHABER V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1, 24-25; TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S.
497, 504. 

THE STATUTE LIKEWISE PRODUCES GROSS INEQUALITY IN ITS EFFECT ON THOSE
BUSINESSES WHICH INVOLVE MORE RISKS, AND WIDER FLUCTUATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF INCOME. 

MOREOVER, THE TAX OPERATES UNFAIRLY AGAINST MANY TAXPAYERS BECAUSE OF
THE ENDING DATES OF THEIR FISCAL YEARS.  SOLELY BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER
HEREIN HAS A FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31ST, IT MUST BEAR A GREATER TAX
BURDEN THAN ONE ON THE CALENDAR YEAR BASIS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO SCAIFE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P.
459.  THE TAX IN DISPUTE IS RESPONDENT'S EXCESS PROFITS TAX FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 1937.  RESPONDENT FILED A TIMELY CAPITAL STOCK TAX RETURN
FOR THE FIRST YEAR, ENDED JUNE 30, 1936, IN WHICH THE DECLARED VALUE OF
ITS CAPITAL STOCK WAS STATED TO BE $25,000.  THIS RETURN WAS FILED
SEPTEMBER 27, 1936, AN EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL SEPTEMBER 29, 1936
HAVING BEEN OBTAINED.  THE FIGURE OF $25,000 WAS ERRONEOUS DUE TO A
MISTAKE MADE BY AN EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENT.  WHEN THE ERROR WAS
DISCOVERED, AN AMENDED RETURN WAS TENDERED IN WHICH THE DECLARED VALUE
OF THE CAPITAL STOCK WAS GIVEN AS $2,500,000.  THIS WAS ON JANUARY 27,
1937, MORE THAN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE STATUTORY DUE DATE.  THE AMOUNT OF
THE TAX, PENALTY AND INTEREST ON THE HIGHER AMOUNT WAS TENDERED.  THE
AMENDED RETURN WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE AMOUNT OF THE REMITTANCE WAS
REFUNDED.  PETITIONER, IN DETERMINING RESPONDENT'S NET INCOME SUBJECT
TO THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1937,
USED THE DECLARED VALUE OF $25,000 APPEARING IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. 
THE ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING THE COMMISSIONER WAS
REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  118 F.2D 455. 

ON THE ISSUE OF TIMELINESS OF THE AMENDED RETURN THE DECISION IN THE
SCAIFE CASE IS DETERMINATIVE.  THE CASE FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE
AMENDMENT IS EVEN STRONGER HERE, FOR THE AMENDED RETURN WAS FILED
BEYOND THE PERIOD FOR WHICH ANY EXTENSION COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY
THE COMMISSIONER.  THE HARDSHIP RESULTING FROM THE MISPLACED DECIMAL
POINT IS PLAIN.  BUT CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS, IS THE SOURCE OF
RELIEF. 

RESPONDENT IN ITS BRIEF TENDERS ANOTHER ISSUE.  IT CONTENDS HERE, AS
IT DID BEFORE THE BOARD AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THAT SECS.
105 AND 106 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1935 CONSTITUTE AN UNLAWFUL
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, CONTRARY TO ART. 1, SEC. 8 OF THE
CONSTITUTION; THAT THEY VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; AND THAT THE
CAPITAL STOCK AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES, BEING "BASED ON GUESSES AND
WAGERS," ARE BEYOND THE DELEGATED POWERS OF CONGRESS.  THE BOARD AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED ADVERSELY TO RESPONDENT ON THESE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.  RESPONDENT FILED NO CROSS-PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  YET A RESPONDENT, WITHOUT FILING A CROSS-PETITION, MAY
URGE IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW GROUNDS REJECTED BY THE
COURT BELOW.  LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, 538-539; PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION V. HAVEMEYER, 296 U.S. 506, 509; MCGOLDRICK V. COMPAGNIE
GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 309 U.S. 430, 434. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, HOWEVER, ARE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  AS WE
NOTED IN HAGGAR CO. V. HELVERING, 308 U.S. 389, 391-392, 394, THE
CAPITAL STOCK TAX AND THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX ARE CLOSELY INTERRELATED. 
THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE CAPITAL STOCK IS THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF
BOTH TAXES.  THE DECLARED VALUE FOR THE FIRST YEAR IS THE VALUE
DECLARED BY THE CORPORATION IN ITS FIRST RETURN; THE DECLARED VALUE FOR
SUBSEQUENT YEARS  FN1  IS THE ORIGINAL DECLARED VALUE AS CHANGED BY
CERTAIN SPECIFIED CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS.  SEC. 105(F), REVENUE ACT OF
1935, 49 STAT. 1014, 1018.  THE TAXPAYER IS FREE TO DECLARE ANY VALUE
OF THE CAPITAL STOCK FOR THE FIRST YEAR WHICH IT MAY CHOOSE.  WHILE A
LOW DECLARATION OF VALUE DECREASES THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL STOCK TAX,
IT INCREASES THE RISK OF A HIGH EXCESS PROFITS TAX.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
A HIGH DECLARATION OF VALUE, WHILE DECREASING THE TAX ON EXCESS
PROFITS, INCREASES THE CAPITAL STOCK TAX.  BY ALLOWING THE TAXPAYER "TO
FIX FOR ITSELF THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXABLE BASE" FOR PURPOSES OF
COMPUTATION OF THESE TAXES, CONGRESS "AVOIDED THE NECESSITY OF
PRESCRIBING A FORMULA FOR ARRIVING AT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF CAPITAL" - A
PROBLEM "WHICH HAD BEEN FOUND PRODUCTIVE OF MUCH LITIGATION UNDER
EARLIER TAXING ACTS."  HAGGAR CO. V. HELVERING, SUPRA, P. 394.  SEE 1
BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY, PP. 577-594.  "AT THE SAME TIME IT
GUARDED AGAINST LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH
UNDERSTATEMENTS OF CAPITAL" BY PROVIDING A FORMULA WHICH WOULD IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE EXCESS PROFITS TAX.  HAGGAR
CO. V. HELVERING, SUPRA, P. 394. 

THERE IS PRESENT NO UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF POWER.  CONGRESS HAS
PRESCRIBED THE METHOD BY WHICH THE TAXES ARE TO BE COMPUTED.  THE
TAXPAYER HERE IS GIVEN A CHOICE AS TO VALUE.  WHILE THE DECISION WHICH
IT MAKES HAS A PRONOUNCED EFFECT UPON ITS TAX LIABILITY, THAT IS NOT
UNCOMMON IN THE TAX FIELD.  CONGRESS HAS FIXED THE CRITERIA IN LIGHT OF
WHICH THE CHOICE IS TO BE MADE.  THE ELECTION WHICH THE TAXPAYER MAKES
CANNOT AFFECT ANYONE BUT ITSELF. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THESE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT RUN AFOUL OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT IS LIKEWISE WITHOUT MERIT.  A CLAIM OF UNREASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION OR INEQUALITY IN THE INCIDENCE OR APPLICATION OF A TAX
RAISES NO QUESTION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, WHICH CONTAINS NO EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE.  LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 377;
SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 401.  THE
PROPRIETY OR WISDOM OF A TAX ON PROFITS, COMPUTED IN REFERENCE TO A
SPECIFIED CRITERION OF VALUE OF CAPITAL STOCK, IS NOT OPEN TO CHALLENGE
IN THE COURTS.  LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 393. 
THAT BEING TRUE, THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY CONGRESS MAY
NOT, BECAUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE ALONE (CARMICHAEL V.
SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495, 511 AND CASES CITED), AVOID
LITIGIOUS VALUATION PROBLEMS AND RELY ON THE SELF-INTEREST OF TAXPAYERS
TO PLACE A FAIR VALUATION ON THEIR CAPITAL STOCK.  AS WAS STATED IN
ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. V. MCGOWAN, 115 F.2D 953, 955, "TO SAY
THAT CONGRESS COULD NOT CHOOSE A SCHEME IMPLEMENTED BY SUCH MILD
SANCTIONS, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ACTUALLY COMPUTING AN 'EXCESS PROFITS
TAX' WITH ALL THE UNCERTAINTY AND LITIGATION WHICH THAT HAD INVOLVED,
WOULD BE MOST UNREASONABLY TO CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS POWERS TO ESTABLISH A
CONVENIENT AND FLEXIBLE FISCAL SYSTEM." 

NOR DO WE HAVE HERE ANY LACK OF THAT TERRITORIAL UNIFORMITY WHICH IS
REQUIRED BY ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  LABELLE IRON WORKS V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 392.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THERE IS NO LIMITATION OF TIME ON THE USE OF THE ORIGINAL
DECLARED VALUE UNDER THE 1935 ACT.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT
SEC. 1202 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (SEE SEC. 601(F) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 447, 566) PROVIDES THAT THE "ADJUSTED DECLARED
VALUE SHALL BE DETERMINED WITH RESPECT TO THREE-YEAR PERIODS BEGINNING
WITH THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1938, AND EACH THIRD YEAR THEREAFTER." 
THAT ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE ENTERS INTO THE COMPUTATION OF THE EXCESS
PROFITS TAX UNDER SECS. 600 AND 601 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. 
..END :


















LABOR BOARD V. VIRGINIA POWER CO., 314 U.S. 469 


NO. 25.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1941.  - 115
F.2D 414, REVERSED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT FORBID OR PENALIZE
EXPRESSION BY AN EMPLOYER TO HIS EMPLOYEES OF HIS VIEWS ON LABOR
POLICIES.  P. 476. 

2.  CONDUCT, THOUGH EVIDENCED IN PART BY SPEECH, MAY AMOUNT IN
CONNECTION WITH OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES TO COERCION WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN EMPLOYER ACTUALLY INTERFERED WITH,
RESTRAINED, AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD MAY LOOK AT WHAT IT
SAID AS WELL AS WHAT IT DID.  P. 477. 

3.  WHERE THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT CERTAIN SPOKEN AND POSTED
UTTERANCES BY THE EMPLOYER WERE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, THE ADEQUACY OF
WHICH FINDING WAS DOUBTFUL IF THE UTTERANCES WERE SEPARATED FROM THEIR
BACKGROUND, AND IT WAS NOT CERTAIN FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION THAT ITS
CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON THE WHOLE COURSE OF CONDUCT DURING THE PERIOD
IN QUESTION, OF WHICH THE UTTERANCES WERE A PART, HELD, THAT THE CASE
MUST BE RETURNED TO THE BOARD FOR A REDETERMINATION.  P. 479. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 26, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. INDEPENDENT
ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO., ALSO ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 677, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 677, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 20 N.L.R.B. 911, REQUIRING THE
ABOVE-NAMED POWER COMPANY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION
OF, AND DISESTABLISH, A UNION WITH WHICH IT HAD CONTRACTED.  THE
COMPANY AND THE INDEPENDENT UNION FILED SEPARATE PETITIONS IN THE COURT
BELOW TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER.  THE BOARD ANSWERED AND PRAYED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UPON THE USUAL PROCEEDINGS  FN1  HAD PURSUANT TO SEC. 10 OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, FN2  THE BOARD MADE SUBSTANTIALLY THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 

FOR YEARS PRIOR TO THE EVENTS IN THIS CASE THE VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND
POWER COMPANY (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE COMPANY) WAS HOSTILE TO LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS.  FROM 1922, WHEN A STRIKE WAS UNSUCCESSFUL BY A
NATIONALLY AFFILIATED UNION,  FN3  UNTIL THE FORMATION OF THE
INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
INDEPENDENT) IN 1937, THERE WAS NO LABOR ORGANIZATION AMONG ITS
EMPLOYEES.  SHORTLY AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT IN 1933, HOLTZCLAW, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY, SPOKE TO
THE EMPLOYEES AND STATED THAT ANY ORGANIZATION AMONG THEM WAS "ENTIRELY
UNNECESSARY."  UNTIL HIS DEATH, IN MAY 1937, THE COMPANY UTILIZED THE
SERVICES OF ONE WALTERS, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE RAILWAY AUDIT AND
INSPECTION COMPANY, WHO, PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT,
ADMITTEDLY FURNISHED A REPORT ON THE LABOR ACTIVITY OF THE EMPLOYEES TO
THE COMPANY.  IN 1936, BISHOP, SUPERINTENDENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN
NORFOLK, INTERROGATED EMPLOYEES CONCERNING UNION ACTIVITIES.  ON APRIL
26, 1937, SHORTLY AFTER THE ACT WAS UPHELD,  FN4  AND AN A.F. OF L.
ORGANIZER HAD APPEARED, THE COMPANY POSTED A BULLETIN  FN5 THROUGHOUT
ITS OPERATIONS, APPEALING TO THE EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN WITH THE COMPANY
DIRECTLY, WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF AN "OUTSIDE" UNION, AND THEREBY
COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES.  IN RESPONSE TO THIS BULLETIN SEVERAL REQUESTS
FOR INCREASED WAGES AND BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS WERE RECEIVED.  FN6
THE COMPANY DECIDED TO WITHHOLD ACTION ON THOSE REQUESTS, AND DIRECTED
ITS EMPLOYEES TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND MEETINGS AT WHICH
COMPANY OFFICIALS WOULD SPEAK ON THE WAGNER ACT.  THESE REPRESENTATIVES
MET IN NORFOLK AND RICHMOND ON MAY 24, AND WERE ADDRESSED BY HIGH
COMPANY OFFICIALS, WHO READ IDENTICAL SPEECHES  FN7  STRESSING THE
DESIRABILITY OF FORMING A BARGAINING AGENCY.  AT THE RICHMOND MEETING
IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT ANY WAGE INCREASE GRANTED WOULD BE RETROACTIVE TO
JUNE 1.  BY THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SPEECHES AND THE MECHANICS OF THE
MEETINGS, THE COMPANY GAVE IMPETUS TO, AND ASSURED THE CREATION OF, AN
"INSIDE" ORGANIZATION, AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT.  MEETINGS, ARRANGED WITH
THE COOPERATION OF COMPANY SUPERVISORS, ON COMPANY PROPERTY, AND, IN
SOME INSTANCES, ON COMPANY TIME, FOLLOWED, AT WHICH THE MAY 24 SPEECHES
WERE REPORTED TO THE MEN WHO VOTED TO FORM AN "INSIDE" ORGANIZATION AND
SELECTED COMMITTEES FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THESE COMMITTEES MET ON COMPANY
PROPERTY UNTIL JUNE 15, WHEN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDEPENDENT WAS
ADOPTED. 

WHILE THE INDEPENDENT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION, EDWARDS, A
SUPERVISOR, KEPT MEETINGS OF A RIVAL C.I.O. UNION UNDER SURVEILLANCE
AND WARNED EMPLOYEES THAT THEY WOULD BE DISCHARGED FOR "MESSING WITH
THE C.I.O."  ON JUNE 1, MANN, A MEMBER OF THE C.I.O. WHO HAD OPENLY
PROTESTED AGAINST AN "INSIDE" UNION AT ONE OF THE MAY 11 MEETINGS (SEE
NOTE 6 ANTE) ATTENDED BY SUPERINTENDENT BISHOP'S SON, WARREN, WAS
DISCHARGED FOR UNION ACTIVITIES. 

ON JUNE 17, APPLICATION CARDS FOR THE INDEPENDENT WERE DISTRIBUTED
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF THE COMPANY, AND MANY WERE SIGNED ON
COMPANY PROPERTY AND TIME.  WITHIN THREE WEEKS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDEPENDENT, A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES FILLED
OUT APPLICATION CARDS.  BY JULY 13, THE ORGANIZATION WAS COMPLETE, AND
PERMANENT COMMITTEEMEN HAD BEEN ELECTED.  A MAJORITY OF THOSE
COMMITTEEMEN HAD BEEN PRESENT AT THE MAY 24 MEETINGS.  ON JULY 19, THE
INDEPENDENT NOTIFIED THE COMPANY THAT IT REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES, AND SUBMITTED A PROPOSED CONTRACT.  NEGOTIATIONS WERE BEGUN
ON JULY 30, AND AGREEMENT WAS REACHED BY MIDNIGHT OF THE FOLLOWING
DAY.  THE CONTRACT WAS FORMALLY EXECUTED ON AUGUST 5, AND PROVIDED,
INTER ALIA, FOR A CLOSED SHOP, A CHECK-OFF, AND A WAGE INCREASE.  ON
AUGUST 20, THE COMPANY PAID $3,784.50 TO THE INDEPENDENT, ALTHOUGH IT
HAD NOT YET DEDUCTED THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT FROM THE EMPLOYEES' WAGES.  ON
NOVEMBER 4, THE DATE UPON WHICH THE CLOSED SHOP PROVISION BECAME
EFFECTIVE, THE COMPANY DISCHARGED TWO EMPLOYEES, STAUNTON AND ELLIOTT,
BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO JOIN THE INDEPENDENT.  IN MARCH, 1938, IT
DISCHARGED ANOTHER EMPLOYEE, HARRELL, FOR HIS MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITY
IN AN OUTSIDE UNION. 

UPON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE CASE,
THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANY HAD COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(1), (2) AND (3) OF THE ACT.  ITS
ORDER DIRECTED THE COMPANY TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM ITS UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES AND FROM GIVING EFFECT TO ITS CONTRACT WITH THE INDEPENDENT,
TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM AND DISESTABLISH THAT ORGANIZATION, TO
REINSTATE WITH BACK PAY THE FOUR WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES, TO
REIMBURSE EACH OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHO WAS A MEMBER OF THE INDEPENDENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF THE DUES AND ASSESSMENTS CHECKED OFF HIS WAGES BY THE
COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE INDEPENDENT, AND TO POST APPROPRIATE NOTICES. 

THE COMPANY AND THE INDEPENDENT FILED SEPARATE PETITIONS IN THE COURT
BELOW TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE BOARD ANSWERED
AND REQUESTED ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER AGAINST THE COMPANY.  THE COURT
BELOW DENIED ENFORCEMENT TO ANY PART OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, COMPLETELY
SETTING IT ASIDE.  FN8  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI
BECAUSE THE CASE WAS THOUGHT TO PRESENT IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  312 U.S. 677. 

THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERATING AND DISTRIBUTING
ELECTRICAL ENERGY IN EASTERN VIRGINIA AND NORTH-EASTERN NORTH
CAROLINA.  IT ALSO FURNISHES ILLUMINATING GAS TO CUSTOMERS IN THE
VICINITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, AND OPERATES TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN
RICHMOND, NORFOLK, PORTSMOUTH AND PETERSBURG.  IT DOES NOT HERE RENEW
THE CONTENTION, CORRECTLY DECIDED AGAINST IT BY THE COURT BELOW,  FN9
THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD DOES NOT EXTEND TO ITS EMPLOYEES IN
THE GAS AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS. 

DOMINATION OF THE INDEPENDENT 

THE COMMAND OF SEC. 10(E) OF THE ACT THAT "THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD
AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE,"
PRECLUDES AN INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS.  BEARING THIS IN
MIND, WE MUST EVER GUARD AGAINST ALLOWING OUR VIEWS TO BE SUBSTITUTED
FOR THOSE OF THE AGENCY WHICH CONGRESS HAS CREATED TO ADMINISTER THE
ACT.  BUT HERE THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT THE INDEPENDENT WAS A
COMPANY-DOMINATED UNION SEEMS BASED HEAVILY UPON FINDINGS WHICH ARE NOT
FREE FROM AMBIGUITY AND DOUBT.  WE BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD, AND NOT THIS
COURT, SHOULD UNDERTAKE THE TASK OF CLARIFICATION. 

THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT THE BULLETIN OF APRIL 26 AND THE
SPEECHES OF MAY 24 "INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED AND COERCED" THE
COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC.
7 OF THE ACT.  THE COMPANY STRONGLY URGES THAT SUCH A FINDING IS
REPUGNANT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  NEITHER THE ACT NOR THE BOARD'S
ORDER HERE ENJOINS THE EMPLOYER FROM EXPRESSING ITS VIEW ON LABOR
POLICIES OR PROBLEMS, NOR IS A PENALTY IMPOSED UPON IT BECAUSE OF ANY
UTTERANCES WHICH IT HAS MADE.  THE SANCTIONS OF THE ACT ARE IMPOSED NOT
IN PUNISHMENT OF THE EMPLOYER BUT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES. 
THE EMPLOYER IN THIS CASE IS AS FREE NOW AS EVER TO TAKE ANY SIDE IT
MAY CHOOSE ON THIS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE.  BUT, CERTAINLY, CONDUCT,
THOUGH EVIDENCED IN PART BY SPEECH, MAY AMOUNT, IN CONNECTION WITH
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, TO COERCION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  IF THE
TOTAL ACTIVITIES OF AN EMPLOYER RESTRAIN OR COERCE HIS EMPLOYEES IN
THEIR FREE CHOICE, THEN THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION
OF THE ACT.  AND IN DETERMINING WHETHER A COURSE OF CONDUCT AMOUNTS TO
RESTRAINT OR COERCION, PRESSURE EXERTED VOCALLY BY THE EMPLOYER MAY NO
MORE BE DISREGARDED THAN PRESSURE EXERTED IN OTHER WAYS.  FOR "SLIGHT
SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE EMPLOYER'S CHOICE BETWEEN UNIONS MAY HAVE TELLING
EFFECT AMONG MEN WHO KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF INCURRING THAT EMPLOYER'S
STRONG DISPLEASURE."  INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 78. 

IF THE BOARD'S ORDER HERE MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE BASED ON THE
TOTALITY OF THE COMPANY'S ACTIVITIES DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, WE
MAY NOT CONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE COERCIVE EFFECT OF
THE BULLETIN AND THE SPEECHES IN ISOLATION FROM THE FINDINGS AS
RESPECTS THE OTHER CONDUCT OF THE COMPANY.  IF THE BOARD'S ULTIMATE
CONCLUSION IS BASED UPON A COMPLEX OF ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS THE ANTI
UNION BACKGROUND OF THE COMPANY, THE ACTIVITIES OF BISHOP, EDWARDS'
WARNING TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT THEY WOULD BE DISCHARGED FOR "MESSING
WITH THE C.I.O.," THE DISCHARGE OF MANN, THE QUICK FORMATION OF THE
INDEPENDENT, AND THE PART WHICH THE MANAGEMENT MAY HAVE PLAYED IN THAT
FORMATION, THAT CONCLUSION WOULD NOT BE VITIATED BY THE FACT THAT THE
BOARD CONSIDERED WHAT THE COMPANY SAID IN CONJUNCTION WITH WHAT IT
DID.  THE MERE FACT THAT LANGUAGE MERGES INTO A COURSE OF CONDUCT DOES
NOT PUT THAT WHOLE COURSE WITHOUT THE RANGE OF OTHERWISE APPLICABLE
ADMINISTRATIVE POWER.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE COMPANY ACTUALLY
INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD HAS A
RIGHT TO LOOK AT WHAT THE COMPANY HAS SAID, AS WELL AS WHAT IT HAS
DONE. 

BUT, FROM THE BOARD'S DECISION, WE ARE FAR FROM CLEAR THAT THE BOARD
HERE CONSIDERED THE WHOLE COMPLEX OF ACTIVITIES, OF WHICH THE BULLETIN
AND THE SPEECHES ARE BUT PARTS, IN REACHING ITS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION
WITH REGARD TO THE INDEPENDENT.  THE BOARD REGARDED THE BULLETIN, ON
ITS FACE, AS SHOWING A MARKED BIAS AGAINST NATIONAL UNIONS BY IMPLYING
THAT STRIKES AND UNREST ARE CAUSED BY THE ORGANIZATIONAL CAMPAIGNS OF
SUCH BODIES, BY STRESSING THE "HAPPY RELATIONSHIP OF MUTUAL CONFIDENCE
AND UNDERSTANDING" PREVAILING IN THE ABSENCE OF ORGANIZATION SINCE THE
DEFEAT OF THE AMALGAMATED IN 1922, AND BY EMPHASIZING THE NEGATIVE
"RIGHT" OF THE EMPLOYEES TO REFRAIN FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS
GUARANTEED UNDER THE ACT, AFTER PAYING "LIP SERVICE" TO THOSE RIGHTS. 
SUMMING UP ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE BOARD SAID:  "WE INTERPRET THE BULLETIN
AS AN APPEAL TO THE EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN WITH THE RESPONDENT DIRECTLY,
WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF ANY 'OUTSIDE' UNION.  WE FIND THAT BY
POSTING THE BULLETIN THE RESPONDENT INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND
COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN

THE BOARD WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SPEECHES DELIVERED IN THE MEETINGS
OF MAY 24 PROVIDED THE IMPETUS FOR THE FORMATION OF A SYSTEM-WIDE
ORGANIZATION, THAT THEY REEMPHASIZED THE COMPANY'S DISTASTE FOR
"OUTSIDE" ORGANIZATIONS BY REFERRING TO THE BULLETIN, AND THAT, AFTER
QUOTING THE PROVISION OF THE ACT FORBIDDING EMPLOYER DOMINATION OF
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, THEY SUGGESTED THAT THE EMPLOYEES SELECT THEIR
"OWN" OFFICERS, AND ADOPT THEIR "OWN" BY-LAWS AND RULES.  THE BOARD'S
FINDING WAS:  "WE FIND THAT AT THE MAY 24 MEETINGS THE RESPONDENT URGED
ITS EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE AND TO DO SO INDEPENDENTLY OF 'OUTSIDE'
ASSISTANCE, AND THAT IT THEREBY INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND
COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT THOSE UTTERANCES
WERE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE BOARD
RAISED THEM TO THE STATURE OF COERCION BY RELIANCE ON THE SURROUNDING
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IF THE UTTERANCES ARE THUS TO BE SEPARATED FROM THEIR
BACKGROUND, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF COERCION WITH
RESPECT TO THEM ALONE.  THE BULLETIN AND THE SPEECHES SET FORTH THE
RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEES TO DO AS THEY PLEASE WITHOUT FEAR OF RETALIATION
BY THE COMPANY.  PERHAPS THE PURPORT OF THESE UTTERANCES MAY BE ALTERED
BY IMPONDERABLE SUBTLETIES AT WORK, WHICH IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO
APPRAISE.  WHETHER THERE ARE SUFFICIENT FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE OF
INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION, AND DOMINATION, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
THE BULLETIN AND THE SPEECHES, OR WHETHER THE WHOLE COURSE OF CONDUCT,
EVIDENCED IN PART BY THE UTTERANCES, WAS AIMED AT ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES
FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT, ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD TO DECIDE UPON THE
EVIDENCE.    HERE, WE ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY CERTAIN FROM THE FINDINGS
THAT THE BOARD BASED ITS CONCLUSION WITH REGARD TO THE INDEPENDENT UPON
THE WHOLE COURSE OF CONDUCT REVEALED BY THIS RECORD.  RATHER, IT
APPEARS THAT THE BOARD RESTED HEAVILY UPON FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE
BULLETIN AND THE SPEECHES, THE ADEQUACY OF WHICH WE REGARD AS
DOUBTFUL.  WE THEREFORE REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND IT TO THE BOARD FOR A REDETERMINATION
OF THE ISSUES IN THE LIGHT OF THIS OPINION.  WE DO NOT MEAN TO INTIMATE
ANY VIEWS OF OUR OWN AS TO WHETHER THE INDEPENDENT WAS DOMINATED, OR
SUGGEST TO THE BOARD WHAT ITS CONCLUSION SHOULD BE WHEN IT RECONSIDERS
THE CASE.  SINCE THE BOARD RESTED THE REMAINDER OF ITS ORDER IN LARGE
PART ON ITS FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE DOMINATION OF THE INDEPENDENT,
WE DO NOT AT THIS TIME REACH THE OTHER PARTS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER,
INCLUDING THE COMMAND THAT THE CHECKED-OFF DUES AND ASSESSMENTS SHOULD
BE REFUNDED.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED ON CHARGES AND AMENDED CHARGES
FILED IN 1937 AND 1938 BY THE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, BY THE
AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRICAL RAILWAY, AND MOTOR COACH
EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, AND BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, THE LATTER TWO BEING AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR.  THE COMPLAINT, AS AMENDED, CHARGED THAT THE
EMPLOYER, RESPONDENT IN NO. 25, HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(1), (2), AND (3) OF THE ACT; 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 158(1), (2), AND (3).  THE INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES
OF THE VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, RESPONDENT IN NO. 26, WAS
ALLOWED TO INTERVENE WITH RESPECT TO THE 8(2) CHARGE, WAS REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL AND PARTICIPATED THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS. 

FN2  49 STAT. 449; 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. 

FN3  AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRICAL RAILWAY, AND MOTOR
COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA. 

FN4  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.,
301 U.S. 1, AND COMPANION CASES. 

FN5  THE BULLETIN READ AS FOLLOWS:

    "APRIL 26, 1937. 

TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY: 

AS A RESULT OF RECENT NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTIVITIES AND THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE WAGNER LABOR ACT BY THE SUPREME COURT, EMPLOYEES
OF COMPANIES SUCH AS OURS MAY BE APPROACHED IN THE NEAR FUTURE BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF ONE OR MORE SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO SOLICIT
THEIR MEMBERSHIP.  SUCH CAMPAIGNS ARE NOW BEING PRESSED IN VARIOUS
INDUSTRIES AND IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AND STRIKES AND UNREST
HAVE DEVELOPED IN MANY LOCALITIES.  FOR THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS THIS
COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES HAVE ENJOYED A HAPPY RELATIONSHIP OF MUTUAL
CONFIDENCE AND UNDERSTANDING WITH EACH OTHER, AND DURING THIS PERIOD
THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION AMONG OUR EMPLOYEES IN ANY
DEPARTMENT, SO FAR AS THE MANAGEMENT IS AWARE.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL THAT OUR EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW CERTAIN
FACTS AND HAVE A STATEMENT AS TO THE COMPANY'S ATTITUDE WITH REFERENCE
TO THIS MATTER. 

THE COMPANY RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT OF EVERY EMPLOYEE TO JOIN ANY UNION
THAT HE MAY WISH TO JOIN, AND SUCH MEMBERSHIP WILL NOT AFFECT HIS
POSITION WITH THE COMPANY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WE FEEL THAT IT SHOULD
BE MADE EQUALLY CLEAR TO EACH EMPLOYEE THAT IT IS NOT AT ALL NECESSARY
FOR HIM TO JOIN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION, DESPITE ANYTHING HE MAY BE TOLD
TO THE CONTRARY.  CERTAINLY, THERE IS NO LAW WHICH REQUIRES OR IS
INTENDED TO COMPEL YOU TO PAY DUES TO, OR TO JOIN ANY ORGANIZATION. 

THIS COMPANY HAS ALWAYS DEALT WITH ITS EMPLOYEES IN FULL RECOGNITION
OF THE RIGHT OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE, OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES, TO
DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS AFFECTING THEIR
INTERESTS.  IF ANY OF YOU, INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A GROUP, AT ANY TIME,
HAVE ANY MATTER WHICH YOU WISH TO DISCUSS WITH US, ANY OFFICER OR
DEPARTMENT HEAD WILL BE GLAD, AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, TO MEET WITH
YOU AND DISCUSS THEM FRANKLY AND FULLY.  IT IS OUR EARNEST DESIRE TO
STRAIGHTEN OUT IN A FRIENDLY MANNER, AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST,
WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE IN MIND.  IT IS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE
THAT OUR INTERESTS ARE MUTUAL AND CAN BEST BE PROMOTED THROUGH
CONFIDENCE AND COOPERATION. 

     (SIGNED) J. G. HOLTZCLAW,

                               PRESIDENT." 

FN6  INCLUDED IN THOSE REQUESTS WAS A PETITION FROM A MAJORITY OF THE
NORFOLK TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES WHICH WAS THE RESULT OF TWO MEETINGS
ON COMPANY PROPERTY DURING WORKING HOURS ON MAY 11, 1937, IN RESPONSE
TO UNSIGNED NOTICES PLACED IN THE DISPATCHER'S OFFICE BY A. R. RUETT, A
CAR OPERATOR.  BOTH RUETT, AND R. E. ELLIOTT, WHO ASSUMED THE
LEADERSHIP IN THOSE METTINGS, TESTIFIED THAT SUPERINTENDENT BISHOP HAD
URGED THEM TO FORM AN INSIDE ORGANIZATION AFTER WARNING THEM AGAINST
THE C.I.O.  BISHOP DENIED THIS, AND THE BOARD MADE NO FINDING. 

FN7  "A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF ITS EMPLOYEES REPRESENTING VARIOUS
DEPARTMENTS AND VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS HAVE APPROACHED THE COMPANY WITH
THE REQUEST THAT THE COMPANY CONSIDER WITH THEM THE MATTER OF THEIR
WORKING CONDITIONS AND WAGES.  IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE REQUESTED
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE COMPANY'S POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THIS WAS
RECENTLY STATED IN A POSTED BULLETIN. 

"IN A COMPANY SUCH AS OURS, IF AN INDIVIDUAL OPERATOR, FOR EXAMPLE,
SHOULD ASK FOR HIMSELF BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS OR WAGES, THIS COMPANY
COULD NOT COMPLY WITH HIS REQUEST WITHOUT ALSO MAKING THE SAME
CONCESSIONS TO OTHER SIMILAR OPERATORS.  IN SUCH A CASE THE OPERATOR
WHO APPEALED INDIVIDUALLY WOULD, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, BE BARGAINING
COLLECTIVELY FOR ALL OF HIS GROUP, WHICH IS NOT THE LOGICAL PROCEDURE. 

"THIS COMPANY IS WILLING TO CONSIDER THE REQUESTS MENTIONED ABOVE BUT
FEELS THAT, IN FAIRNESS TO ALL OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND TO ITSELF, IT
SHOULD AT THE SAME TIME CONSIDER OTHER GROUPS WHO HAVE NOT YET COME TO
IT.  IF THE APPROACHING NEGOTIATIONS ARE TO BE INTELLIGENT AND FAIR TO
ALL PROPERLY CONCERNED, THEY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IN AN ORDERLY WAY, AND
ALL INTERESTED GROUPS SHOULD BE REPRESENTED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AS PROVIDED IN THE WAGNER
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"'SEC. 7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION.' 

"THE WAGNER ACT APPLIES ONLY TO EMPLOYEES WHOSE WORK IS IN OR
DIRECTLY AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO COMPANIES ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  COUNSEL FOR THIS COMPANY ADVISE US THAT IN THEIR
OPINION THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DO NOT APPLY TO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
EMPLOYEES, TO GAS EMPLOYEES IN NORFOLK, OR TO CERTAIN STRICTLY LOCAL
EMPLOYEES OF THE LIGHT AND POWER DEPARTMENT.  IN SPITE OF THIS, THE
COMPANY WANTS TO MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT ITS POLICY IS ONE OF
WILLINGNESS TO BARGAIN WITH ITS EMPLOYEES IN ANY MANNER SATISFACTORY TO
THE MAJORITY OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND THAT NO EMPLOYEE WILL BE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF ANY LABOR AFFILIATIONS HE DESIRES TO
MAKE. 

"THE PETITIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS ALREADY RECEIVED INDICATE A DESIRE
ON THE PART OF THESE EMPLOYEES AT LEAST TO DO THEIR OWN BARGAINING, AND
WE ARE TAKING THIS MEANS OF LETTING YOU KNOW OUR WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED
WITH SUCH BARGAINING IN AN ORDERLY MANNER.  IN ORDER TO PROGRESS, IT
WOULD SEEM THAT THE FIRST STEP NECESSARY TO BE TAKEN BY YOU IS THE
FORMATION OF A BARGAINING AGENCY AND THE SELECTION OF AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES TO CONDUCT THIS BARGAINING IN SUCH AN ORDERLY MANNER. 

"THE WAGNER LABOR ACT PROHIBITS A COMPANY FROM 'DOMINATING OR
INTERFERING WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION OR CONTRIBUTING FINANCIAL OR OTHER SUPPORT TO IT.' 

"IN VIEW OF YOUR REQUEST TO BARGAIN DIRECTLY WITH THE COMPANY AND, IN
VIEW OF YOUR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AS PROVIDED IN THE LAW, IT WILL
FACILITATE NEGOTIATIONS IF YOU WILL PROCEED TO SET UP YOUR
ORGANIZATION, SELECT YOUR OWN OFFICERS AND ADVISERS, ADOPT YOUR OWN BY
LAWS AND RULES, AND SELECT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO MEET WITH THE
COMPANY OFFICIALS WHENEVER YOU DESIRE." 

FN8  VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
115 F.2D 414. 

FN9  IBID., 415-416. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 314 U.S. 480 


NO. 44.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 21, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 1941.  -
138 S.W.2D 924, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466, IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS OF AN
INSOLVENT DEBTOR THROUGH A GENERAL RECEIVERSHIP, AN UNSECURED TAX CLAIM
OF THE UNITED STATES TAKES PRIORITY OVER THE LIKE CLAIM OF A STATE.  P.
483. 

2.  THE PRIORITY OF UNSECURED CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER R.S.
SEC. 3466 ATTACHES UPON THE TAKING OVER OF THE INSOLVENT DEBTOR'S
PROPERTY BY A GENERAL RECEIVERSHIP AND CAN NOT BE DIVESTED BY
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PERFECTION OF LIENS CLAIMED BY A STATE. 
P. 486. 

3.  ARTICLE 7065A-7 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES DECLARES THAT ALL
GASOLINE TAXES DUE BY ANY DISTRIBUTOR TO THE STATE "SHALL BE A
PREFERRED LIEN, FIRST AND PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL OTHER EXISTING LIENS,
UPON ALL THE PROPERTY OF ANY DISTRIBUTOR, DEVOTED TO OR USED IN HIS
BUSINESS AS A DISTRIBUTOR  ...  "  HELD, THAT THE LIEN THUS CREATED IS
NOT A SPECIFIC AND PERFECT LIEN ENTITLED TO PRIORITY, DESPITE R.S. SEC.
3466, OVER A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT IS AN INCHOATE AND GENERAL
LIEN REQUIRING FURTHER PROCEDURE TO DEFINE AND ENFORCE IT.  P. 484. 

UNITED STATES V. TEXAS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
OF TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 554, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ANSWERS MADE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS TO QUESTIONS CERTIFIED
TO IT BY THE COURT BELOW.  THE JUDGMENT, REVERSING A DECISION OF THE
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE STATE TO PRIORITY OVER
A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE LIQUIDATION OF THE ASSETS OF AN
INSOLVENT DEBTOR. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

W. L. NIX WAS A MANUFACTURER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF MOTOR FUEL, DOING
BUSINESS IN TEXAS UNDER THE NAME OF TEXAS REFINERY.  ON NOVEMBER 20,
1933, M. R. INGRAHAM, WHO HELD A DEMAND NOTE SECURED BY A CHATTEL
MORTGAGE ON CERTAIN TANKS BELONGING TO NIX, BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS.  HE ALLEGED THAT DEMAND HAD BEEN
MADE ON THE NOTE, THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN PAID, THAT NIX OWNED NO PROPERTY
IN TEXAS OTHER THAN THAT OF TEXAS REFINERY, THAT THE VALUE OF THE
MORTGAGED TANKS WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE NOTE, THAT THE TANKS
WERE NOT USED "FOR A SEPARATE PURPOSE" BUT IN THE "OPERATION OF THE
SAID REFINERY AS A UNIT," AND THAT NIX WAS INSOLVENT.  HE ASKED THAT
JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN HIS FAVOR FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE NOTE, THAT THE
MORTGAGE BE FORECLOSED, AND THAT IN THE MEANTIME A RECEIVER BE PLACED
IN CHARGE OF "THE WHOLE OF THE PROPERTY" OF TEXAS REFINERY.  ON THE
SAME DAY A RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED, AND HE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AUTHORIZED
TO SELL ALL OF THE REFINERY PROPERTY. 

ON NOVEMBER 21, R. P. ASH INTERVENED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AS THE HOLDER
OF AN OVERDUE NOTE SECURED BY A MORTGAGE ON THE PHYSICAL PLANT OF THE
REFINERY NOT SUBJECT TO THE INGRAHAM MORTGAGE.  BOTH THE STATE OF TEXAS
AND THE UNITED STATES THEN INTERVENED WITH THE CLAIMS FOR STATE AND
FEDERAL GASOLINE TAXES, WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT DISPUTE. 
LATER, BOTH THE INGRAHAM AND ASH MORTGAGE NOTES WERE ASSIGNED TO HOWARD
DAILEY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT NIX WAS INSOLVENT ON NOVEMBER 20, 1933,
AND CONTINUED TO BE INSOLVENT THEREAFTER.  THE SUM AVAILABLE FOR
DISTRIBUTION AFTER SALE OF THE REFINERY PROPERTY BY THE RECEIVER WAS
$7466.92.  THE COURT FOUND THAT, OF THESE PROCEEDS, $1294.80 WAS
ALLOCABLE TO THOSE ASSETS WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGES HELD BY
DAILEY, AND IT ORDERED THAT HIS CLAIM TO THAT AMOUNT BE FIRST
SATISFIED.  IT DETERMINED THAT NIX WAS LIABLE TO THE UNITED STATES FOR
$19,343.91 IN FEDERAL GASOLINE TAXES, AND TO TEXAS FOR $40,312.51 IN
STATE GASOLINE TAXES.  AS BETWEEN THE STATE AND FEDERAL CLAIMS, IT
DECIDED THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY, AND CONCLUDED
THAT NOTHING WOULD BE LEFT TO APPLY TO THE TEXAS CLAIM. 

FROM THIS ORDER TEXAS APPEALED TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND DISTRICT.  THAT COURT CERTIFIED THE CONTROLLING QUESTIONS TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.  THE SUPREME COURT, ON THE AUTHORITY OF STATE
V. WYNNE, 134 TEX. 455, 133 S.W.2D 951, A COMPANION CASE DECIDED THE
SAME DAY, ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO REQUIRE THAT THE
CLAIM OF TEXAS BE FIRST SATISFIED, THAT OF DAILEY SECOND, AND THAT OF
THE UNITED STATES THIRD.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS THEREUPON SO
RULED, NOTING THAT THE ASSETS AVAILABLE WOULD NOT COMPLETELY SATISFY
EVEN THE CLAIM OF TEXAS AND THAT DAILEY AND THE UNITED STATES WOULD
RECEIVE NOTHING.  A MOTION BY THE UNITED STATES FOR A REHEARING WAS
DENIED, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS REFUSED TO REVIEW THE DECISION
OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE FISCAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS WHICH IS INVOLVED. 

NO QUESTION AS TO THE RIGHTS OF DAILEY, THE MORTGAGEE, IS RAISED BY
THIS APPEAL.  WE CONFINE OURSELVES, THEREFORE, TO THE ONLY QUESTION
PRESENTLY OPEN TO DECISION:  THE RELATIVE PRIORITY OF THE CLAIMS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND TEXAS. 

THE UNITED STATES RESTS ITS ASSERTION OF PRIORITY UPON SEC. 3466 OF
THE REVISED STATUTES.  FN1 DESPITE THE CONTENTION OF TEXAS TO THE
CONTRARY, THAT SECTION CLEARLY APPLIES TO THIS PROCEEDING.  AS WE
RECENTLY REMARKED IN UNITED STATES V. EMORY,  FN2  SEC. 3466 COVERS IN
TERMS THE CASE OF AN INSOLVENT DEBTOR WHO HAS COMMITTED AN ACT OF
BANKRUPTCY, AND THERE ARE FEW MORE FAMILIAR EXAMPLES OF AN ACT OF
BANKRUPTCY THAN THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER BECAUSE OF THE DEBTOR'S
INSOLVENCY.  CF. SEC. 3(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, U.S.C., TITLE 11,
SEC. 21(A)(4).  HERE THE DISTRICT COURT EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT NIX WAS
INSOLVENT, AND IT APPOINTED A RECEIVER.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE ORIGINAL
PETITION WAS FILED BY A MORTGAGEE RATHER THAN BY A GENERAL CREDITOR. 
BUT, IF ANY LIMITATIONS UPON THE OPERATION OF SEC. 3466 MIGHT OTHERWISE
HAVE FLOWED FROM THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THEY WERE REMOVED BY THE SUBSEQUENT
CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDING.  THE RECEIVER WAS PLACED IN CONTROL OF ALL
OF NIX'S ASSETS, RATHER THAN ONLY THOSE SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE, AND
ALL OF THE ASSETS WERE EVENTUALLY LIQUIDATED.  PARTIES OTHER THAN THE
MORTGAGEE, INCLUDING TEXAS ITSELF, INTERVENED AND WERE HEARD.  WE THINK
THAT REALITIES REQUIRE US TO TREAT THE PROCEEDING AS A GENERAL EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIP WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 3466. 

WE ARE THUS BROUGHT TO THE IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE CASE.  ARTICLE
7065A-7 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES DECLARED THAT ALL GASOLINE TAXES
DUE BY ANY DISTRIBUTOR TO THE STATE "SHALL BE A PREFERRED LIEN, FIRST
AND PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL OTHER EXISTING LIENS, UPON ALL OF THE PROPERTY
OF ANY DISTRIBUTOR, DEVOTED TO OR USED IN HIS BUSINESS AS A DISTRIBUTOR
...  "  FN3  IT IS THE STATE'S POSITION THAT UNDER THIS SECTION IT
HELD A SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED LIEN UPON THE REFINERY PROPERTY WHICH
ENTITLED IT TO PRIORITY DESPITE SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES. 

DUE TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE FIRST SATISFIED."  IT IS NEVERTHELESS
TRUE THAT IN SEVERAL EARLY DECISIONS THIS COURT READ AN EXCEPTION INTO
THE SECTION IN THE CASE OF PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED MORTGAGES.  THELUSSON V.
SMITH, 2 WHEAT.  396, 426; CONARD V. ATLANTIC INSURANCE CO., 1 PET.
386; BRENT V. BANK OF WASHINGTON, 10 PET. 596, 611, 612.  THIS DOCTRINE
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE THEORY THAT MORTGAGED PROPERTY PASSES
TO THE MORTGAGEE AND IS NO LONGER A PART OF THE ESTATE OF THE
MORTGAGOR.  SEE CONARD V. ATLANTIC INSURANCE CO., SUPRA, AT 441-442. 
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC.
3466 WOULD ALSO BE DEFEATED BY A SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED LIEN UPON
PROPERTY, WHOSE TITLE REMAINED IN THE DEBTOR WAS RESERVED IN THOSE
CASES.  IBID.; BRENT V. BANK OF WASHINGTON, SUPRA, AT 611-612. 
HOWEVER, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A GENERAL JUDGMENT LIEN UPON THE LANDS
OF AN INSOLVENT DEBTOR DOES NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER CLAIMS OF THE
UNITED STATES UNLESS EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT HAS PROCEEDED FAR ENOUGH
TO TAKE THE LAND OUT OF THE POSSESSION OF THE DEBTOR.  THELUSSON V.
SMITH, SUPRA, AT 425-426. 

IN MORE RECENT YEARS THE COURT HAS HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE
ARGUMENT THAT LIENS CREATED IN FAVOR OF STATES OR COUNTIES BY STATE
STATUTES ENTITLED THEM TO PRIORITY OVER THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC.
3466.  IN SPOKANE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 80, THE PRIORITY OF
THE UNITED STATES WAS UPHELD.  THE STATE STATUTES INVOLVED PROVIDED
THAT IF A CERTAIN PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX WAS NOT PAID, AND IF THE
PERSONAL PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH IT HAD BEEN ASSESSED WAS NO LONGER IN
THE HANDS OF THE DELINQUENT TAXPAYER, THE AMOUNT OF THE UNPAID TAX
SHOULD BECOME A LIEN UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE
TAXPAYER.  THEY WENT ON TO PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE LIEN
WAS TO BE ENFORCED.  THE COURT DETERMINED THAT THE STATUTORY LIEN DID
NOT BECOME SPECIFIC UNTIL THIS PROCEDURE HAD BEEN FOLLOWED.  SINCE
THESE PROCEDURAL CONDITIONS HAD NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THE CASE BEFORE
IT, THE COURT REFUSED PRIORITY TO THE TAX CLAIMS OF THE COUNTY.  IT
SPECIFICALLY DECLINED TO CONSIDER WHAT "THE EFFECT OF MORE COMPLETED
PROCEDURE IN THE PERFECTING OF THE LIENS UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE"
WOULD HAVE BEEN.  279 U.S. AT 95. 

THE NEW YORK STATUTE IN NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S. 290, DECLARED
THAT THE CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX THERE INVOLVED SHOULD "BE A LIEN AND
BINDING UPON THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION  ...
UNTIL THE SAME IS PAID IN FULL."  288 U.S. AT 292.  ALTHOUGH THE
FRANCHISE TAXES IN QUESTION WERE OVERDUE, THE STATE HAD TAKEN NO STEPS
TO PERFECT AND LIQUIDATE ITS LIEN AT THE TIME THE RECEIVER WAS
APPOINTED FOR THE INSOLVENT CORPORATION.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TAX CLAIM OF THE STATE DID NOT
DEPRIVE THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES OF ITS PRIORITY UNDER SEC.
3466.  IT WAS AT PAINS TO MAKE CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT IT INTENDED BY ITS
DECISION TO LEND NO SUPPORT TO THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE
MORTGAGE CASES, WHATEVER ITS CURRENT VITALITY, WOULD REQUIRE THE
SUBORDINATION OF UNSECURED CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES TO A SPECIFIC
AND PERFECTED LIEN.  288 U.S. AT 293-294.  FN4 

WE THINK THAT IT IS EQUALLY UNNECESSARY TO TEST THAT ASSUMPTION
HERE.  PRIOR TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER ON NOVEMBER 20, 1933,
THE STATE OF TEXAS HAD MADE NO MOVE TO ASSERT THE LIEN PROCLAIMED IN
ARTICLE 7065A-7.  AND THE PRIORITY WHICH ATTACHED TO THE CLAIM OF THE
UNITED STATES ON THAT DAY (UNITED STATES V. OKLAHOMA, 261 U.S. 253,
260) COULD NOT BE DIVESTED BY ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE STATE'S LIEN.  NEW YORK V. MACLAY, SUPRA, AT 293. 

IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT ARTICLE 7065A-7 BY ITS OWN FORCE CREATES A
SPECIFIC AND PERFECTED LIEN.  SUPPORT FOR THIS CONTENTION IS SAID TO
LIE IN THE FACT THAT THE STATUTORY LIEN PURPORTS TO AFFECT ONLY THE
PROPERTY OF THE DISTRIBUTOR WHICH IS "DEVOTED TO OR USED IN HIS
BUSINESS AS A DISTRIBUTOR," RATHER THAN HIS PROPERTY IN GENERAL.  THIS
IS THOUGHT TO MAKE THE LIEN SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC.  MOREOVER, THE STATE
ARGUES, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS HAS DECLARED,  FN5  THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES WHICH GOVERN THE LEVY, SEIZURE
AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY OF DELINQUENT TAXPAYERS GENERALLY  FN6  ARE
INAPPLICABLE TO THE GASOLINE TAX.  WE ARE OF COURSE BOUND BY THIS
AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 

WITH RESPECT TO THIS CONTENTION IT MAY FIRST BE SAID THAT THE
"PROPERTY DEVOTED TO OR USED IN HIS BUSINESS AS A DISTRIBUTOR" IS
NEITHER SPECIFIC NOR CONSTANT.  BUT A MORE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IS
THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM SECURED BY THE LIEN IS UNLIQUIDATED AND
UNCERTAIN.  AS WE SAID IN NEW YORK V. MACLAY:  "IF THE STATE WERE TO
...  OMIT TO ASCERTAIN THE DEBT, IT WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO SELL
ANYTHING, FOR IT WOULD NOT KNOW HOW MUCH TO SELL."  288 U.S. AT 293. 
THAT THE LEGISLATURE OF TEXAS RECOGNIZED THIS IS REVEALED BY ANOTHER
OF DEFAULT, WHEN IT MIGHT BECOME NECESSARY FOR THE STATE "TO BRING SUIT
OR TO INTERVENE  ...  FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OR COLLECTION" OF ITS
CLAIMS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, THE TAX REPORTS REQUIRED OF THE
DISTRIBUTOR BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE  FN7  SHOULD BE "PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE CONTENTS THEREOF," BUT "THE INCORRECTNESS OF SAID
REPORT OR AUDIT MAY BE SHOWN."  THUS, IT WAS CLEARLY ENVISAGED THAT THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAXES DUE, FOR WHICH THE LIEN WAS SECURITY, SHOULD BE
LEFT TO DETERMINATION BY THE COURTS. 

AS TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR LEVY, SEIZURE, AND SALE,
IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT SOME PROCEDURE IS ESSENTIAL.  AS WE HAVE
INDICATED, THE STATUTORY SCHEME REVEALS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
CONTEMPLATED RESORT TO THE COURTS.  IN ADDITION TO THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, ARTICLE 7065A-8(E) REGULATES THE
PLEADINGS IN SUITS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COLLECT THE TAX, AND
ARTICLE 7065A-9 DETERMINES THE VENUE OF SUCH SUITS.  CONSEQUENTLY,
WHILE IT WAS CLEARLY INTENDED BY ARTICLE 7065A-7 TO CREATE A LIEN IN
FAVOR OF THE STATE, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT OF NECESSITY IT WAS NOTHING
MORE THAN AN INCHOATE AND GENERAL LIEN.  CERTAINLY IT DID NOT OF ITS
OWN FORCE DIVEST THE TAXPAYER OF EITHER TITLE OR POSSESSION.  IT COULD
NOT BECOME SPECIFIC UNTIL THE EXACT AMOUNT OF THE TAXES DUE HAD BEEN
DETERMINED, AND IT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
COURTS.  LIKE THE TAX LIEN IN NEW YORK V. MACLAY, SUPRA, IT SERVED
"MERELY AS A CAVEAT OF A MORE PERFECT LIEN TO COME."  288 U.S. AT 294. 

WE ARE NOT NOW CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER THE CHATTEL MORTGAGES
HELD BY DAILEY ARE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED
STATES.  FN8  WE HOLD ONLY THAT THE TAX CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES IS
ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER THE TAX CLAIM OF TEXAS.  THE CASE IS REMANDED
TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  U.S. REV. STAT. SEC. 3466(U.S.C., TITLE 31, SEC. 191) PROVIDES:
"WHENEVER ANY PERSON INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IS INSOLVENT, OR
WHENEVER THE ESTATE OF ANY DECEASED DEBTOR, IN THE HANDS OF THE
EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS, IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL THE DEBTS DUE
FROM THE DECEASED, THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE FIRST
SATISFIED; AND THE PRIORITY ESTABLISHED SHALL EXTEND AS WELL TO CASES
IN WHICH A DEBTOR, NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT PROPERTY TO PAY ALL HIS DEBTS,
MAKES A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT THEREOF, OR IN WHICH THE ESTATE AND
EFFECTS OF AN ABSCONDING, CONCEALED, OR ABSENT DEBTOR ARE ATTACHED BY
PROCESS OF LAW, AS TO CASES IN WHICH AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY IS
COMMITTED."    FN2  ANTE, P. 423. 

FN3  THE FULL TEXT OF THE PARAGRAPH, AS OF NOV. 20, 1933, WHEN THE
RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED READ: "ALL TAXES, FINES, PENALTIES AND INTEREST
DUE BY ANY DISTRIBUTOR TO THE STATE SHALL BE A PREFERRED LIEN, FIRST
AND PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL OTHER EXISTING LIENS, UPON ALL OF THE PROPERTY
OF ANY DISTRIBUTOR, DEVOTED TO OR USED IN HIS BUSINESS AS A
DISTRIBUTOR, WHICH PROPERTY SHALL INCLUDE REFINERY, BLENDING PLANTS,
STORAGE TANKS, WAREHOUSES, OFFICE BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT, TANK TRUCKS
OR OTHER MOTOR VEHICLES, OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY DEVOTED TO SUCH USE, AND
EACH TRACT OF LAND ON WHICH SUCH REFINERY, BLENDING PLANT, TANKS OR
OTHER PROPERTY IS LOCATED, OR WHICH IS USED IN CARRYING ON SUCH
BUSINESS."  THIS SECTION WAS REPEALED ON MAY 1, 1941 BY ARTICLE XVII,
SEC. 28 OF THE ACTS OF THE 47TH LEGISLATURE, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY
REPLACED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGE BY A NEW ARTICLE 7065B-8. 

FN4  IN UNITED STATES V. OKLAHOMA, 261 U.S. 253, THE QUESTION WAS NOT
REACHED BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE "INSOLVENCY" UPON WHICH THE
OPERATION OF SEC. 3466 IS CONDITIONED WAS ABSENT.  THE COURT SUSTAINED
THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 3466 IN UNITED STATES V.
KNOTT, 298 U.S. 544.  THE FLORIDA STATUTES THERE INVOLVED REQUIRED
FOREIGN SURETY CORPORATIONS TO DEPOSIT CERTAIN BONDS WITH THE STATE
TREASURER FOR THE PROTECTION OF FLORIDA RESIDENTS.  THIS ARRANGEMENT
WAS HELD TO CREATE NO MORE THAN "AN INCHOATE GENERAL LIEN" FOR THE
BENEFIT OF UNKNOWN PERSONS WHO MIGHT BECOME ENTITLED TO THE FUND, AND
NOT TO LIMIT THE EFFECT OF SEC. 3466. 

FN5  STATE V. WYNNE, 134 TEX. 455, AT 473. 

FN6  SEE, ESP., ARTICLES 7266, 7272, AND 7275 OF THE TEXAS CIVIL
STATUTES. 

FN7  ARTICLE 7065A, SECS. 2(B), 2(D), 8(A), AND 8(B). 

FN8  THE TEXTS OF THE MORTGAGES ARE NOT CONTAINED IN THE RECORD:  AND
DAILEY DID NOT APPEAR IN THIS COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS, 314 U.S. 390 


NO. 43.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 18, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 15, 1941.  -
201 ARK. 1123, 148 S.W.2D 656, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF ARKANSAS, REQUIRING A PERMIT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
INTOXICATING LIQUOR THROUGH THE STATE, WHICH MAY BE OBTAINED UPON
APPLICATION, FOR A NOMINAL FEE - THE OBJECT OF THE REGULATION BEING
MERELY TO IDENTIFY THOSE WHO ENGAGE IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION, THEIR
ROUTES AND POINTS OF DESTINATION, THUS ENABLING LOCAL OFFICIALS TO
INSURE TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT DIVERSION, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PERMIT
IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
P. 396. 

DUCKWORTH V. ARKANSAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR WITHOUT A PERMIT IN VIOLATION OF A STATE LAW. 

THE ACTS OF CONGRESS DEALING WITH INTERESTATE COMMERCE IN
INTOXICATING LIQUORS DO NOT CONFER UPON THE STATE ANY POWER WHATSOEVER
TO REGULATE A SHIPMENT OF INTOXICANTS WHICH IS MERELY PASSING THROUGH
THE STATE.  THESE ACTS USE THE WORD "INTO" AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
"THROUGH," AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A REGULATION SUCH AS THAT HERE
INVOLVED. 

EACH STATE HAS POWER TO PROHIBIT THE MANUFACTURE OF LIQUORS WITHIN
ITS BORDERS AND TO PROHIBIT OR CONDITION THEIR EXPORT FROM THE STATE,
ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132; ALSO THE POWER TO CONDITION OR
ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION INTO IT OF ALL INTOXICANTS. 
CONST., 21ST AMENDMENT; STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION V. YOUNG'S MARKET
CO., 299 U.S. 59.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR
STATUTES, NOR IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, WHICH SANCTIONS THE
ARKANSAS REGULATION. 

IF THE STATE MAY DEMAND A PERMIT FROM ONE CLASS OF TRANSPORTER, IT
MAY DEMAND IT FROM ALL.  EVERY AUTOMOBILE, TRUCK, TRAIN, WAGON, OR
BOAT, AND INDEED EVERY PERSON, IS SUBJECT TO SEARCH AND POSSIBLE ARREST
UPON ENTERING THE STATE.  THIS IS WHAT ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 3, OF THE
CONSTITUTION WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT. 

ARKANSAS HAS BUILT THROUGH ROADS ACROSS THE STATE AND HAS PROVIDED
FOR POLICE PROTECTION, INSPECTION, ETC., THEREON.  THE STATUTE REQUIRES
PERSONS TRANSPORTING LIQUOR INTO THE STATE AND ACROSS IT, ON THESE
THROUGH ROADS, TO TAKE OUT A PERMIT FROM THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF
REVENUES.  ONE OF THE PURPOSES IN REQUIRING SUCH A PERMIT IS TO ENABLE
THE STATE TO CHECK UP ON BOOTLEGGERS USING THE HIGHWAYS, TO SEE THAT
THEY DO NOT DUMP THEIR STOCKS INTO THE STATE.  WHEN A PERMIT IS
OBTAINED, A STATE POLICEMAN CAN BE ASSIGNED TO EACH SHIPMENT OF LIQUOR
AS IT COMES INTO AND ACROSS THE STATE, AND THERE IS NO CHANCE FOR
ANYTHING TO GO WRONG.  IT IS OTHERWISE IF THOSE TRANSPORTING LIQUOR MAY
CROSS THE STATE WITHOUT SUPERVISION. 

THE REGULATION APPLIES TO INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE TRAFFIC WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION.  CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED IN THIS PARTICULAR MATTER;
THEREFORE, THE STATE HAD THE RIGHT TO DO SO, EVEN THOUGH INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WAS BURDENED TO SOME EXTENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED AND FINED BY AN ARKANSAS COURT FOR
TRANSPORTING INTOXICATING LIQUOR THROUGH THE STATE WITHOUT A PERMIT AS
REQUIRED BY AN ARKANSAS STATUTE.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER
THIS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AND ITS PENAL SANCTION UNDULY ENCROACH UPON
THE POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE DELEGATED TO CONGRESS.  THE ARKANSAS
SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PERMIT AS A LOCAL POLICE
REGULATION PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  201 ARK. 1123, 148
S.W.2D 656.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A), SEC. 861(A)(B). 

109 OF 1935, UNDER WHICH APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED, MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR
ANY PERSON TO SHIP INTO THE STATE ANY DISTILLED SPIRITS WITHOUT FIRST
HAVING OBTAINED A PERMIT FROM THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE.  THE
STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE FORM OF PERMIT AND THE SHIPMENTS INTO THE
STATE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE
COMMISSIONER.  APPELLANT WAS TRIED UPON A STIPULATION OF FACTS WHICH
TENDED TO SHOW THAT, WHEN ARRESTED IN ARKANSAS, HE WAS ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTING BY MOTOR TRUCK, WITHOUT A PERMIT, A LOAD OF DISTILLED
SPIRITS FROM A POINT IN ILLINOIS TO A POINT IN MISSISSIPPI.  THE STATE
COURT HELD THAT THIS VIOLATED SEC. 14177.  AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE,
THERE WERE NO REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION
PASSING THROUGH THE STATE, THE REGULATIONS THEN IN FORCE BEING ADAPTED
TO TRANSPORTATION FOR DELIVERY WITHIN THE STATE OR FROM POINT TO POINT
WITHIN THE STATE. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ARKANSAS STATUTE, WHEN
APPLIED TO TRANSPORTATION PASSING THROUGH THAT STATE FOR DELIVERY OR
USE IN ANOTHER, DERIVES SUPPORT FROM THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH
PROHIBITS THE "TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION" OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS
"INTO ANY STATE  ...  FOR DELIVERY OR USE THEREIN" IN VIOLATION OF ITS
LAWS, CF. UNITED STATES V. GUDGER, 249 U.S. 373.  NOR NEED WE DECIDE
WHETHER APPELLANT'S ADMISSION THAT THE TRANSPORTED LIQUOR WAS INTENDED
FOR IMPORTATION INTO MISSISSIPPI FOR ILLEGAL USE THERE ESTABLISHES A
VIOLATION OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT WHILE HE WAS IN ARKANSAS, SO AS
TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THE RIGHT TO SEEK PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
ON HIS JOURNEY THROUGH ARKANSAS, CF. MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR RFG. 
CO., 241 U.S. 79, 84-5.  WE MAY ALSO ASSUME THAT APPELLANT'S ADMISSION
NO MORE DEPRIVES HIM OF THE RIGHT TO INVOKE THE PROTECTION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AGAINST THE ARKANSAS STATUTE THAN DID INTENDED
VIOLATION BY THE IMPORTER OF THE LIQUOR LAWS OF THE STATE OF
DESTINATION BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE WEBB-KENYON ACT, 37 STAT. 699,
AND THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT.  SEE BOWMAN V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO.,
125 U.S. 465; LEISY V. HARDIN, 135 U.S. 100.  FOR WE ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT, UPON PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION CONSISTENTLY
ACCEPTED AND FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT EVER SINCE THE DECISIONS IN WILLSON
V. BLACK BIRD CREEK MARSH CO., 2 PET. 245, AND COOLEY V. BOARD OF
WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT FORECLOSE THE
ARKANSAS REGULATION WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED. 

THE COMMERCE HERE IS TRANSPORTATION ALONE, THERE BEING NO QUESTION OF
SALE OR USE WITHIN THE STATE OF REGULATION.  WE MAY THEREFORE PUT TO
ONE SIDE THE CASES IN WHICH LOCAL RESTRICTIONS OR PROHIBITIONS ON SALE
OR USE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR OTHER ARTICLES OF COMMERCE, UNAIDED BY
ACTS OF CONGRESS, HAVE BEEN DEEMED A PROHIBITED BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SEE BOWMAN V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., SUPRA; LEISY V. HARDIN,
SUPRA.  THE PRESENT SCHEME OF REGULATION IS NARROWER IN OPERATION AND
HAS A LESS RESTRICTIVE EFFECT UPON THE COMMERCE.  IT DOES NOT FORBID
THE TRAFFIC IN LIQUOR, NOR DOES IT IMPEDE IT MORE THAN IS REASONABLY
NECESSARY TO INFORM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES WHO IS TO EFFECT THE
TRANSPORTATION THROUGH THE STATE, AND TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO
POLICE IT. 

THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE HAS DECLARED THAT UNDER THE
STATUTE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO A PERMIT ON APPLICATION, WHICH HE
DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE MADE; THAT THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT IS IN ITS
NATURE AN INSPECTION MEASURE FOR WHICH ONLY A NOMINAL FEE, NECESSARY TO
DEFRAY THE COST OF ISSUING IT AND OF POLICE INSPECTION AND OF NECESSARY
REPORTS, IS CHARGED.  FN1 IT ALSO SAID THAT ANY FAILURE BY THE STATE
COMMISSIONER TO ACT REASONABLY AND PROMPTLY IN ADMINISTERING THE LAW
WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE COURTS THROUGH MANDAMUS.  IN A LATER CASE,
HARDIN V. SPIERS, 152 S.W.2D 1010, ARISING UNDER REGULATIONS NOT IN
FORCE AT THE TIME OF APPELLANT'S CONVICTION, THE SAME COURT DECLARED
THAT THE COMMISSIONER MUST EXERCISE THIS POWER IN A REASONABLE, NOT AN
ARBITRARY, MANNER. 

WHILE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS RESERVING TO
CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN MATTERS OF
NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DEEMED TO EXCLUDE THE STATES
FROM REGULATING MATTERS PRIMARILY OF LOCAL CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO
WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERCISED ITS POWER, EVEN THOUGH THE REGULATION
HAS SOME EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AS WE HAD OCCASION TO POINT
OUT AT THE LAST TERM OF COURT, THERE ARE MANY MATTERS WHICH ARE
APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS OF REGULATION IN THE INTEREST OF THE SAFETY,
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES WHICH, BECAUSE OF THEIR
LOCAL CHARACTER AND THEIR NUMBER AND DIVERSITY, AND BECAUSE OF THE
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED, MAY NEVER BE ADEQUATELY DEALT WITH BY
CONGRESS.  BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCAL CHARACTER, ALSO, THERE IS WIDE SCOPE
FOR LOCAL REGULATION WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE UNIFORMITY OF CONTROL OVER
THE COMMERCE IN MATTERS OF NATIONAL CONCERN AND WITHOUT MATERIALLY
OBSTRUCTING THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, WHICH WERE THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTS
SOUGHT TO BE SECURED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SUCH REGULATIONS, IN THE
ABSENCE OF SUPERVENING CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, HAVE FOR THE MOST PART
BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SEE
CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113, ET SEQ., AND CASES CITED. 
SEE ALSO CASES COLLECTED IN DISANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, 39,
40, AND IN SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S.
177, 188, NOTE 5, AND 191. 

IN THE CASES REFERRED TO, THE COURT HAS SUSTAINED A VARIETY OF LOCAL
REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO SAFEGUARD THE STATES FROM INJURIOUS LOCAL
EFFECTS THAT MAY ATTEND INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  FAMILIAR EXAMPLES
ARE INSPECTION AND QUARANTINE LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOCAL HEALTH
AND SAFETY, APPLICABLE TO PERSONS, ANIMALS, AND MERCHANDISE MOVING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AGAIN, A STATE MAY INSURE THE SAFE AND CONVENIENT
USE OF ITS HARBORS AND NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS BY CONTROLLING THE MOVEMENT
OF VESSELS IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE; IN THE INTERESTS OF
SAFETY IT MAY CONTROL THE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE TRAINS AND OF THEIR
EMPLOYEES AND APPLIANCES. 

OF RECENT YEARS, THE COURT HAS SUSTAINED STATE REGULATIONS OF THE
SIZE AND WEIGHT OF MOTOR CARS MOVING INTERSTATE, DESIGNED TO INSURE THE
SAFE AND ECONOMICAL USE OF THE STATES' HIGHWAYS.  SOUTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, AND CASES CITED.  A STATE MAY
POLICE "CARAVANS" OF MOTOR VEHICLES MOVING OVER ITS HIGHWAYS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND CHARGE A COMPENSATORY LICENSE FEE FOR DOING IT.
MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407; CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S.
583.  IT MAY, IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE,
RESTRICT PARTICULAR TYPES OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOVING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, TO PARTICULAR AREAS.  SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 393
5; CF. CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., SUPRA, 598.  AND A STATE MAY UNDERTAKE
TO INSURE THE FITNESS AND INTEGRITY OF THOSE NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS FOR
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, BY LICENSING THEM AND REQUIRING A BOND TO
INSURE THEIR GOOD BEHAVIOR.  CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, SUPRA. 

WHILE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT REGULATION, TRANSPORTATION OF
LIQUOR, WITH ITS ATTENDANT DANGERS TO THE COMMUNITIES THROUGH WHICH IT
PASSES, DIFFERS IN MANY RESPECTS FROM THOSE WHICH WE HAVE MENTIONED,
ALL ARE ALIKE IN THEIR TENDENCY, IF UNREGULATED, TO AFFECT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST ADVERSELY IN VARYING WAYS DEPENDING ON LOCAL CONDITIONS.  THE
EFFORTS AT EFFECTIVE REGULATION, STATE AND NATIONAL, OF INTOXICATING
LIQUOR, EVIDENCED BY THE LONG COURSE OF LITIGATION IN THIS COURT, HAVE
NOT LEFT US UNAWARE OF THE PECULIAR DIFFICULTIES OF CONTROLLING IT OR
OF ITS TENDENCY TO GET OUT OF LEGAL BOUNDS.  THE PRESENT REQUIREMENT OF
A PERMIT IS NOT SHOWN TO BE MORE THAN A MEANS OF ESTABLISHING THE
IDENTITY OF THOSE WHO ARE TO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION, THEIR ROUTE
AND POINT OF DESTINATION, AND AFFORDS OPPORTUNITY FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS
TO TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO INSURE THAT THE LIQUOR IS TRANSPORTED
WITHOUT DIVERSION, IN CONFORMITY TO THE PERMIT.  THE PERMIT DEVICE IS
NOT UNLIKE STATE REQUIREMENTS OF HEALTH CERTIFICATES FOR ANIMALS OR
CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION FOR GOODS, WHICH HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED HERE
BOTH AS TO TRANSPORTATION INTO A STATE, SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501,
528; MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346; AND THROUGH IT, REID V. COLORADO,
187 U.S. 137; CF. MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA.  WHERE THE POWER TO REGULATE
COMMERCE FOR LOCAL PROTECTION EXISTS, THE STATES MAY ADOPT EFFECTIVE
MEASURES TO ACCOMPLISH THE PERMITTED END.  THE ARKANSAS STATUTE DOES
NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY ACT OF CONGRESS.  IT DOES NOT FORBID OR PRECLUDE
THE TRANSPORTATION, OR INTERFERE WITH THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE AMONG
THE STATES BEYOND WHAT IS REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE LOCAL
PUBLIC INTEREST IN PREVENTING UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF LIQUOR
WITHIN THE STATE.  IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  CF.
ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS RESTRICTED TO THE STATUTE AS APPLIED UNDER THE
REGULATIONS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF PETITIONER'S ALLEGED OFFENSE.  IT
WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH ABUSES OF THE PERMIT SYSTEM IF AND
WHEN THEY ARISE.  NOR HAVE WE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE STATE'S
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE OTHER ARTICLES OF COMMERCE LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO
USES INJURIOUS TO THE COMMUNITIES THROUGH WHICH THEY PASS.  CF. CLARK
DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 242 U.S. 311, 332; ZIFFRIN,
INC. V. REEVES, SUPRA, 138.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON FEBRUARY 3,
1941, AFTER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION, PROVIDED FOR THE PAYMENT OF A
LICENSE FEE FOR THE PERMIT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE WAS ANY
PRESCRIBED FEE AT THE TIME OF APPELLANT'S OFFENSE.  MOREOVER, HIS SOLE
CONTENTION IS THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PRECLUDES THE STATE FROM
EXACTING ANY FORM OF PERMIT, EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT A FEE, FOR THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR THROUGH THE STATE.    MR. JUSTICE
JACKSON, CONCURRING IN RESULT: 

I AGREE THAT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT RELIEVE DUCKWORTH OF HIS
CONVICTION, BUT I WOULD REST THE DECISION ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR, AND REFRAIN
FROM WHAT I REGARD AS AN UNWISE EXTENSION OF STATE POWER OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

                                  I 

APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED FOR TRANSPORTING A LOAD OF INTOXICATING
LIQUOR THROUGH ARKANSAS, WITHOUT PERMIT FROM THAT STATE, ON THE WAY
FROM ILLINOIS TO MISSISSIPPI.  THE OWNER OF THE LIQUOR TESTIFIED, AND
HIS TESTIMONY WAS TREATED AS A STIPULATION OF FACT, "THAT THE LIQUOR
WAS INTENDED TO BE SOLD IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IN VIOLATION OF THE
STATE LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI." 

THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT PROVIDES: 

"THE TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION INTO ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR DELIVERY OR USE THEREIN OF
INTOXICATING LIQUORS, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS THEREOF, IS HEREBY
PROHIBITED." 

DUCKWORTH NOW CONTENDS THAT IT IS OUR DUTY TO ASSURE HIM SAFE CONDUCT
AS AGAINST THE ACTION OF ARKANSAS, ALTHOUGH HIS GOAL IS TO VIOLATE BOTH
THE LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  HE ASKS US TO
HOLD THAT ONE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES HIM AN
OPPORTUNITY TO VIOLATE ANOTHER.  THE LAW IS NOT THAT TRICKY. 

WHETHER ONE TRANSPORTING LIQUOR ACROSS ARKANSAS TO A LEGAL
DESTINATION MIGHT NOT HAVE SOME CLAIM TO FEDERAL PROTECTION, WE DO NOT
NEED TO CONSIDER.  ONE WHO ASSAILS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE
MUST STAND ON HIS OWN RIGHT TO RELIEF.  FN1  SINCE THIS APPELLANT HAD
NO RIGHTFUL CLAIM TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR HIS TRIP, THE WHOLE
PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION WHICH HE INVOKES, WE
SHOULD LEAVE HIM WHERE WE FIND HIM, AND FOR THIS REASON I CONCUR IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION. 

                 II 

IF WE YIELD TO AN URGE TO GO BEYOND THIS RATHER NARROW BUT ADEQUATE
GROUND OF DECISION, WE SHOULD THEN CONSIDER WHETHER THIS LIQUOR
CONTROVERSY CANNOT PROPERLY BE DETERMINED BY GUIDANCE FROM THE LIQUOR
CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THESE CLAUSES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT CREATE AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN STATE POWER OVER THE
LIQUOR TRAFFIC AND STATE POWER OVER COMMERCE IN GENERAL.  THE PEOPLE OF
THE UNITED STATES KNEW THAT LIQUOR IS A LAWLESSNESS UNTO ITSELF.  THEY
DETERMINED THAT IT SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY A SPECIFIC AND PARTICULAR
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  THEY DID NOT LEAVE IT TO THE COURTS TO
DEVISE SPECIAL DISTORTIONS OF THE GENERAL RULES AS TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO CURB LIQUOR'S "TENDENCY TO GET OUT OF LEGAL BOUNDS."  IT
WAS THEIR UNSATISFACTORY EXPERIENCE WITH THAT METHOD THAT RESULTED IN
GIVING LIQUOR AN EXCLUSIVE PLACE IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS A COMMODITY
WHOSE TRANSPORTATION IS GOVERNED BY A SPECIAL, CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION. 

TRANSPORTATION ITSELF PRESENTED NO SPECIAL DANGERS OR HAZARDS, BUT IT
MIGHT BE A STEP IN EVADING AND UNDERMINING A POLICY AS TO USE AND SALE
OF LIQUOR WHICH THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE FOR ITSELF. 
REGULATED TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR IS A NECESSARY INCIDENT OF REGULATED
CONSUMPTION AND DISTRIBUTION.  SO THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT MADE THE
LAWS AS TO DELIVERY AND USE IN THE STATE OF DESTINATION THE TEST OF
LEGALITY OF INTERSTATE MOVEMENT.  THIS OBVIOUSLY GIVES TO STATE LAW A
MUCH GREATER CONTROL OVER INTERSTATE LIQUOR TRAFFIC THAN OVER COMMERCE
IN ANY OTHER COMMODITY. 

IF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT IS NOT TO BE RESORTED TO FOR THE
DECISION OF LIQUOR CASES, IT IS ON THE WAY TO BECOMING ANOTHER "ALMOST
FORGOTTEN" CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  COMPARE EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA,
ANTE, P. 183.  IT CERTAINLY APPLIES TO NOTHING ELSE.  WE SHOULD DECIDE
WHETHER THIS ARKANSAS STATUTE IS SUSTAINABLE UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT.  DOES IT AUTHORIZE A STATE TO EXACT SOME ASSURANCE THAT ALL
LIQUOR ENTERING ITS TERRITORY EITHER IS IMPORTED FOR LAWFUL DELIVERY
UNDER ITS OWN LAWS OR WILL PASS THROUGH WITHOUT DIVERSION?  THE
AMENDMENT MIGHT BEAR A CONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD ALLOW A STATE TO
PROHIBIT LIQUOR FROM ENTERING ITS BORDERS AT ALL UNLESS BY RESPONSIBLE
CARRIER UNDER CONSIGNMENT TO SOME LAWFUL DESTINATION WITHIN OR BEYOND
THE STATE.  I SHOULD NOT AT ALL OBJECT TO CONSIDERING ALL OF THE
POTENTIAL EVILS WHICH THE COURT'S OPINION ASSOCIATES WITH THE LIQUOR
TRAFFIC, AND SOME MORE THAT I COULD SUPPLY, TO BE SUFFICIENT REASONS
FOR GIVING A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION TO THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT AS TO
STATE POWER OVER LIQUOR.  BUT THE COURT BRUSHES ASIDE THE LIQUOR
PROVISIONS OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT. 

                                 III 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT SOLVES THE PRESENT CASE THROUGH A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE POWER.  IT REGARDS THIS LIQUOR
AS A LEGITIMATE SUBJECT OF A LAWFUL COMMERCE, AND THEN, BECAUSE OF ITS
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS, APPROVES THIS ADMITTEDLY NOVEL PERMIT SYSTEM
AND THUS EXPANDS THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE SUCH LAWFUL
COMMERCE BEYOND ANYTHING THIS COURT HAS YET APPROVED. 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH STATE LEGISLATION MAY BE ALLOWED TO AFFECT THE
CONDUCT OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
ON THE SUBJECT HAS LONG BEEN A VEXATIOUS PROBLEM.  RECENTLY THE
TENDENCY HAS BEEN TO ABANDON THE EARLIER LIMITATIONS AND TO SUSTAIN
MORE FREELY SUCH STATE LAWS ON THE GROUND THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER TO
SUPERSEDE THEM WITH REGULATION OF ITS OWN.  IT IS A TEMPTING ESCAPE
FROM A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO PASS TO CONGRESS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF LOCAL RESTRAINTS AND OBSTRUCTIONS TO NATIONAL
COMMERCE.  BUT THESE RESTRAINTS ARE INDIVIDUALLY TOO PETTY, TOO
DIVERSIFIED, AND TOO LOCAL TO GET THE ATTENTION OF A CONGRESS HARD
PRESSED WITH MORE URGENT MATTERS.  THE PRACTICAL RESULT IS THAT IN
DEFAULT OF ACTION BY US THEY WILL GO ON SUFFOCATING AND RETARDING AND
BALKANIZING AMERICAN COMMERCE, TRADE AND INDUSTRY. 

I DIFFER BASICALLY WITH MY BRETHREN AS TO WHETHER THE INERTIA OF
GOVERNMENT SHALL BE ON THE SIDE OF RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE OR ON THE SIDE
OF FREEDOM OF COMMERCE.  THE SLUGGISHNESS OF GOVERNMENT, THE MULTITUDE
OF MATTERS THAT CLAMOR FOR ATTENTION, AND THE RELATIVE EASE WITH WHICH
MEN ARE PERSUADED TO POSTPONE TROUBLESOME DECISIONS, ALL MAKE INERTIA
ONE OF THE MOST DECISIVE POWERS IN DETERMINING THE COURSE OF OUR
AFFAIRS AND FREQUENTLY GIVES TO THE ESTABLISHED ORDER OF THINGS A
LONGEVITY AND VITALITY MUCH BEYOND ITS MERITS.  BECAUSE THAT IS SO, I
AM RELUCTANT TO SEE ANY NEW LOCAL SYSTEMS FOR RESTRAINING OUR NATIONAL
COMMERCE GET THE PRESTIGE AND POWER OF ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONS.  THE
COURT'S PRESENT OPINION AND TENDENCY WOULD ALLOW THE STATES TO
ESTABLISH THE RESTRAINTS AND LET COMMERCE STRUGGLE FOR CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION TO MAKE IT FREE.  THIS TREND I AM UNWILLING TO FURTHER IN ANY
EVENT BEYOND THE PLAIN REQUIREMENTS OF EXISTING CASES. 

IF THE REACTION OF THIS COURT AGAINST WHAT MANY OF US HAVE REGARDED
AS AN EXCESSIVE JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH LEGISLATIVE ACTION IS TO
YIELD WHOLESOME RESULTS, WE MUST BE CAUTIOUS LEST WE MERELY RUSH TO
OTHER EXTREMES.  THE EXCESSIVE USE FOR INSUFFICIENT REASON OF A
JUDICIALLY INFLATED DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO STRIKE DOWN STATES' LAWS
REGULATING THEIR OWN INTERNAL AFFAIRS, SUCH AS HOURS OF LABOR IN
INDUSTRY, MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS, AND STANDARDS FOR WORKING
CONDITIONS, IS ONE THING.  TO INVOKE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
KEEP THE MANY STATES FROM FASTENING THEIR SEVERAL CONCEPTS OF LOCAL
"WELL-BEING" ONTO THE NATIONAL COMMERCE IS A WHOLLY DIFFERENT THING. 

OUR NATIONAL FREE INTERCOURSE IS NEVER IN DANGER OF BEING SUDDENLY
STIFLED BY DRAMATIC AND SWEEPING ACTS OF RESTRAINT.  THAT WOULD PRODUCE
ITS OWN ANTIDOTE.  OUR DANGER, AS THE FOREFATHERS WELL KNEW, IS FROM
THE AGGREGATE STRANGLING EFFECT OF A MULTIPLICITY OF INDIVIDUALLY PETTY
AND DIVERSE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.  EACH MAY SERVE SOME LOCAL PURPOSE
WORTHY ENOUGH BY ITSELF.  CONGRESS MAY VERY PROPERLY TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION LOCAL POLICIES AND DANGERS WHEN IT EXERCISES ITS POWER
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BUT TO LET EACH LOCALITY CONJURE UP ITS OWN
DANGERS AND BE THE JUDGE OF THE REMEDIAL RESTRAINTS TO BE CLAMPED ONTO
INTERSTATE TRADE INEVITABLY RETARDS OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
DISINTEGRATES OUR NATIONAL SOCIETY.  IT IS THE MOVEMENT AND EXCHANGE OF
GOODS THAT SUSTAIN LIVING STANDARDS, BOTH OF HIM WHO PRODUCES AND OF
HIM WHO CONSUMES.  THIS VITAL NATIONAL INTEREST IN FREE COMMERCE AMONG
THE STATES MUST NOT BE JEOPARDIZED. 

I DO NOT SUPPOSE THE SKIES WILL FALL IF THE COURT DOES ALLOW ARKANSAS
TO RIG UP THIS HANDY DEVICE FOR POLICING LIQUOR ON THE GROUND THAT IT
IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, BUT IN DOING SO IT ADDS
ANOTHER TO THE ALREADY TOO NUMEROUS AND BURDENSOME STATE RESTRAINTS OF
NATIONAL COMMERCE AND PURSUES A TREND WITH WHICH I WOULD HAVE NO PART. 

FN1  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, LAID DOWN
THE RULE AS TO TAX CASES, EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THIS, IF, INDEED, THIS
IS NOT ITSELF SOMETHING OF A TAX CASE.  HE POINTED OUT THAT THE COURT
DOES NOT CONSIDER ARGUMENTS ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS "UNLESS THE PARTY
SETTING UP THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE LAW BELONGS TO THE
CLASS FOR WHOSE SAKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IS GIVEN, OR THE
CLASS PRIMARILY PROTECTED  ...  "  HATCH V. REARDON, 204 U.S. 152,
160. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO HAS STATED FOR THE COURT THAT THOSE WHO ATTACK
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTES "ARE NOT THE CHAMPIONS OF ANY
RIGHTS EXCEPT THEIR OWN."  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577,
583. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS HAS GIVEN EXPRESSION TO THE SAME VIEW FOR THE
COURT IN THESE TERMS: 

"WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, BECAUSE
IT APPEARS THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS WITHOUT STANDING TO PRESENT IT.  ONE
WHO WOULD STRIKE DOWN A STATE STATUTE AS OBNOXIOUS TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION MUST SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEATURE
INJURES HIM."  PREMIER-PABST CO. V. GROSSCUP, 298 U.S. 226, 227. 
..END :

















GRAY V. POWELL, 314 U.S. 402 


NO. 18.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 22, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 15, 1941.  -
114 F.2D 752, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, A DETERMINATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF
THE BITUMINOUS COAL DIVISION THAT A RAILROAD COMPANY WAS NOT THE
"PRODUCER" OF CERTAIN COAL CONSUMED BY IT, AND THEREFORE THAT THE COAL
WAS NOT EXEMPT, UNDER SECS. 4-II (1), AND 4-A, FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED ON REVIEW
UNDER SEC. 6(B).  P. 411. 

2.  ON REVIEW UNDER SEC. 6(B) OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, OF
AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE CONSUMER OF CERTAIN COAL WAS
NOT THE "PRODUCER" THEREOF AND THAT THEREFORE THE COAL WAS NOT EXEMPT
UNDER SECS. 4-II (1) AND 4-A OF THE ACT, THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT IS
FULLY PERFORMED WHEN IT DETERMINES THAT THERE HAS BEEN A FAIR HEARING,
WITH NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNTIY TO PRESENT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND
ARGUMENTS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, AND AN APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
IN A JUST AND REASONED MANNER.  P. 411. 

3.  IN ORDER THAT THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, SEC. 4-II, MAY
APPLY TO PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS IN COAL, IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT
THERE BE A SALE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF TITLE BY THE PRODUCER.  P. 414. 

4.  IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF WHO ARE "PRODUCERS" UNDER THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF
1937.  P. 417. 

GRAY, DIRECTOR OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, ET AL. V. POWELL ET AL., RECEIVERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 644, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING AN ORDER OF
THE DIRECTOR OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL DIVISION DENYING A CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION UNDER THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937.  THE DECREE BELOW WAS
AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 312 U.S. 666; SUBSEQUENTLY,
A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS GRANTED, 313 U.S. 596. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, RECEIVERS OF THE SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, SEEK
FROM THE BITUMINOUS COAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AN
EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN COAL FROM THE BITUMINOUS COAL CODE ON THE GROUND
THAT THEY WERE BOTH THE PRODUCER AND CONSUMER OF THE COAL.  IF SEABOARD
IS HELD TO BE A PRODUCER-CONSUMER, IT IS ENTITLED TO AN EXEMPTION BY
VIRTUE OF SEC. 4-II (1) AND SEC. 4-A.  THESE SECTIONS, TOGETHER WITH
OTHERS PERTINENT TO THE DISCUSSION, ARE SET OUT IN A NOTE BELOW.  FN1 

THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION WAS FILED BEFORE THE NATIONAL
BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 1937.  THE FIRST HEARING WAS IN
SEPTEMBER, 1937, BEFORE THE EXAMINERS FOR THE COMMISSION.  AFTER THE
PASSAGE OF THE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1939, 53 STAT. 561, AND THE
ACQUIESCENCE OF CONGRESS IN REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. II, 53 STAT. 1433,
A DIVISION HEADED BY A DIRECTOR WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, KNOWN AS THE BITUMINOUS COAL DIVISION.  ORDER NO. 1394, AS
AMENDED BY ORDER NO. 1399 OF JULY 5, 1939, 4 F.R. 2947.  THEREAFTER,
THE HEARINGS PROCEEDED BEFORE THE DIVISION, AND THE ORDER DENYING THE
EXEMPTION WAS PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR, JUNE 14, 1940.  BETTER PRACTICE
MIGHT HAVE SUGGESTED A DISMISSAL, SINCE THE DIRECTOR FOUND SEABOARD WAS
NOT A PRODUCER.  SUBSEQUENTLY, SEABOARD SOUGHT REVIEW UNDER SEC. 6(B)
AND OBTAINED THE DECREE, NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION, REVERSING THE
DIRECTOR'S ORDER.  THE OPINION ACCOMPANYING THE DECREE HELD THAT THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE BROUGHT THE SEABOARD UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION OF
PRODUCER.  114 F.2D 752.  AS THE QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW WAS IMPORTANT
FN2  AND UNSETTLED BY ANY DECISION OF THIS COURT, CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED, J.C. SEC. 240(A), 311 U.S. 644, AND THE DECREE BELOW AFFIRMED
BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 312 U.S. 666.  THE PRESENT CONSIDERATION
IS UPON A PETITION FOR REHEARING.  313 U.S. 596. 

SEABOARD, A COAL-BURNING RAILROAD, IS A LARGE CONSUMER OF BITUMINOUS
COAL.  THE ARRANGEMENTS HERE IN QUESTION ARE WITH THREE MINES; BUT AS
THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE PLANS BY WHICH THE COAL IS
EXTRACTED, WE SHALL DESCRIBE THE CONTRACTS RELATING TO ONE ONLY, THE
WILLIAM-ANN MINE, OWNED BY THE UNITED THACKER COAL COMPANY AND THE COLE
AND CRANE REAL ESTATE TRUST. 

THIS WAS THE EARLIEST ARRANGEMENT.  IT ORIGINATED IN MAY, 1934, WHEN
THE COAL CODE OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT WAS IN EFFECT. 
FN3  THE FIRST STEP WAS A LEASE OF COAL LANDS BY THE SEABOARD FROM THE
LANDOWNERS WHICH GRANTED TO SEABOARD THE RIGHT TO MINE COAL FOR
FOURTEEN MONTHS, WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF YEARLY RENEWALS, WHICH
ORIGINALLY WERE NOT TO RUN BEYOND JUNE 30, 1939.  SUCCESSIVE EXTENSIONS
HAVE CONTINUED ITS EFFECT SINCE THAT TIME.  DURING THE SPRING OF 1936,
TWO EXTENSIONS OF SIX WEEKS EACH WERE AGREED UPON, SPECIFICALLY IN VIEW
OF THE CASE OF CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, DECIDED MAY 18,
1936.  THE CARTER CASE INVOLVED THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1935, THE
PREDECESSOR OF THE PRESENT ACT.  A PER-TON ROYALTY, AS RENT, WAS
RESERVED TO THE LANDOWNERS WITH AN ANNUAL MINIMUM OF $16,200 PAYABLE
QUARTERLY.  THE LEASE WAS TERMINABLE ON FIFTEEN DAYS NOTICE, IF THE
LANDOWNERS TERMINATED THE CONTRACTOR'S LEASE, ABOUT TO BE REFERRED TO,
FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S DEFAULT. 

THE SECOND STEP IN THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS FOR THE LANDOWNER LESSORS OF
THE LEASE JUST DESCRIBED TO LEASE SIMULTANEOUSLY TO A CONTRACTOR
SELECTED BY SEABOARD THE MINING EQUIPMENT ON THE DEMISED PREMISES,
CONSISTING OF BUILDINGS, TIPPLES, MACHINERY AND OTHER APPURTENANCES
NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT FOR EXTRACTING THE COAL.  THIS EQUIPMENT WAS
SUFFICIENT FOR REASONABLY ECONOMICAL MINING.  IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED
IN THE COAL LEASE THAT THE TERM AND THE RENEWAL PRIVILEGES OF THE
EQUIPMENT LEASE SHOULD BE COEXTENSIVE WITH THOSE OF THE COAL LEASE. 

THE FINAL STEP WAS AN OPERATING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR,
DANIEL H. PRITCHARD, REFERRED TO IN THE LAND LEASE AS THE LESSEE OF THE
FACILITIES FOR MINING, AND SEABOARD FOR THE EXTRACTION OF THE COAL BY
THE CONTRACTOR OR SUPPLIER AND THE DELIVERY OF IT TO SEABOARD FOR
CONSUMPTION.  THIS CONTRACT ALSO WAS MADE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COAL
LEASE.  IT CONTAINED A PROVISION REQUIRING THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN A
LEASE OF THE MINING EQUIPMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT SEGMENT OF THE
ENTIRE PLAN REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.  FOR A FLAT PER-TON
COST ON A SLIDING SCALE DEPENDENT UPON VOLUME, THE SUPPLIER AGREED TO
MINE THE COAL.  HIS COMPENSATION WAS SUBJECT TO VARIATION BY
FLUCTUATIONS IN COSTS BEYOND HIS CONTROL, SUCH AS TAXES, WAGES,
MACHINERY AND EXPLOSIVES.  ALTERNATIVELY, PAYMENT COULD BE MADE ON A
COST BASIS PLUS TEN CENTS PER TON FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S COMPENSATION. 
THIS OPERATING CONTRACT RAN FOR THE SAME TERM AND HAD THE SAME RENEWAL
PRIVILEGES AS THE COAL LEASE CONTRACT HERETOFORE DESCRIBED AND HAS BEEN
CONTINUED IN EFFECT BY EXTENSIONS MADE FOR THE SAME TERMS AS THE
EXTENSIONS OF THE COAL LEASE.  THE SUPPLIER WAS CALLED AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR IN THE DOCUMENT.  THIS HE WAS, AT LEAST IN THE SENSE THAT HE
MANAGED THE MINING IN HIS OWN WAY WITHOUT A RIGHT OF DIRECTION IN
SEABOARD.  HE AGREED THAT THE COAL SUPPLIED WOULD BE CLEAN, I.E., FREE
OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE MATTER, AND WOULD PASS INSPECTION OF SEABOARD FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS SPECIFICATIONS.  THE SUPPLIER PAID AND ASSUMED ALL
OBLIGATIONS TO THE LANDOWNER EXCEPT THE ROYALTY, INCLUDING TAXES.  HE
CARRIED EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE, AND AGREED TO BEAR
THE COST OF ALL REPAIRS, ADDITIONS OR BETTERMENTS, EVEN UNDER THE
ALTERNATE COST-PLUS PLAN, AS WELL AS THOSE DESCRIBED AS COMMISSARY OR
WELFARE EXPENSES.  SEABOARD, IN AN EXTENSION AGREEMENT, OBTAINED THE
PRIVILEGE OF TERMINATION ON SIXTY DAYS' NOTICE, IF THE SUPPLIER
DEFAULTED BY NOT LOWERING HIS CONTRACT PRICE TO MEET THE MARKET PRICE
OF SIMILAR COAL. 

THE LANDOWNER, THE CONTRACTOR AND SEABOARD, BY THIS SERIES OF
COORDINATED AND SYNCHRONIZED CONTRACTS, CAUSED THE ENTIRE OUTPUT OF THE
MINE TO BE DELIVERED TO SEABOARD FOR ITS CONSUMPTION, AT A FIXED PRICE,
SUBJECT TO VARIATIONS FOR FACTORS BEYOND THE SUPPLIER CONTRACTOR'S
CONTROL.  THE ALTERNATIVE COST-PLUS PLAN WAS NOT EMPLOYED.  UNDER THE
CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT, THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMED ALL RISKS OF OPERATION,
AS HERETOFORE EXPLAINED, AND ALL OBLIGATIONS OF SEABOARD TO THE
LANDOWNER, EXCEPT THE ROYALTY PAYMENTS.  THIS MADE A FIXED COST TO
SEABOARD, FOR COAL, OF SUPPLIER'S CONTRACT PRICE PLUS THE ROYALTY PER
TON AS RENT.  IT WAS A SHORT TERM, ONE YEAR, CONTRACT WITH THE PRICE
CONTROLLED BY THE MARKET IN VIEW OF THE COMPETITIVE PRICE PROVISION. 
SEABOARD FURNISHED NO FACILITIES OR EQUIPMENT FOR MINING OR LOADING. 

THE OTHER TWO ARRANGEMENTS, ONE WITH THE GLAMORGAN COAL LANDS
CORPORATION, LANDOWNER, AND GLAMORGAN COALS, INC., THE OPERATOR, FOR
WHICH LATTER CORPORATION PEERLESS COAL CORPORATION IS SUBSTITUTED BY
CONSENT, AND THE OTHER WITH CHILTON BLOCK COAL COMPANY AND THE DINGESS
RUM COAL COMPANY, LANDOWNERS BY LEASE AND IN FEE, AND DANIEL H.
PRITCHARD, OPERATOR, VARY ONLY IN DETAILS FROM THE WILLIAM-ANN
CONTRACTS SET OUT ABOVE. 

FROM THE SEVERAL ARRANGEMENTS THE SEABOARD OBTAINED ABOUT HALF OF ITS
ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS, ESTIMATED FOR 1936 AT ONE MILLION TONS.  THERE IS
NO QUESTION AS TO THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCE INVOLVED. 
THE COAL IS MINED IN VIRGINIA AND WEST VIRGINIA, AND CONSUMED IN A
NUMBER OF OTHER SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES. 

THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937 FOLLOWED THE INVALIDATION OF THE
BITUMINOUS COAL CONSERVATION ACT OF 1935 BY CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.,
298 U.S. 238, AND THE ABANDONMENT OF THE N.R.A. CODE OF FAIR
COMPETITION AFTER THE DECISION IN SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 495.  THESE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS SOUGHT A SOLUTION OF THE
ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES OF THE SOFT COAL INDUSTRY, WHICH WERE BRINGING
BANKRUPTCY TO OPERATORS AND AN EVEN WORSE CONDITION, UNEMPLOYMENT, TO
THE MINERS.  EACH TIME LEGISLATION WAS ATTEMPTED, THE CONCLUSION WAS
REACHED THAT PRICE STABILIZATION OFFERED THE BEST REMEDY.  THE INDUSTRY
FOUND THE SAME ANSWER.  APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 288
U.S. 344.  THIS COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PRESENT 1937 ACT IS
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF CONGRESS.  SUNSHINE COAL CO. V.
ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381. 

THIS PURPOSE OF STABILIZATION OF CONDITIONS THROUGH A FIXED PRICE
SCHEME MET A DIFFICULT PROBLEM IN THE CAPTIVE COAL MINES.  THE 1935 ACT
TAXED THE VALUE OF SUCH COAL AT THE MINE.  IT DEFINED CAPTIVE COAL AS
INCLUDING "ALL COAL PRODUCED AT A MINE FOR CONSUMPTION BY THE PRODUCER
OR BY A SUBSIDIARY OR AFFILIATE THEREOF."  49 STAT. 1008.  AS THE COAL
CONSUMED BY A PRODUCER APPARENTLY WAS DEEMED BY CONGRESS, WHEN
CONSIDERING THE PRESENT ACT, NOT TO OFFER THE SAME DISTURBING EFFECT TO
PRICES AS NON-CODE, OPEN MARKET COAL,  FN4  A METHOD OF EXEMPTION WAS
PROVIDED.  SECS. 4-II (L) AND 4-A, NOTE 1, SUPRA.  CONGRESS, HOWEVER,
DID NOT DEFINE EXEMPT COAL AS IT HAD CAPTIVE COAL IN THE 1935 ACT. 
WHILE A DEFINITION WAS INSERTED IN THE SENATE,  FN5  IT WAS ELIMINATED
IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT.  FN6  AS A RESULT, THE DETERMINATION OF
EXEMPT COAL WAS LEFT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.  SEC. 4-A, NOTE 1,
SUPRA. 

DETERMINATION OF PRODUCER.  - WE ARE THUS BROUGHT SQUARELY TO DECIDE
WHETHER THE DIRECTOR'S FINDING THAT SEABOARD IS NOT THE PRODUCER OF
THIS COAL IS TO BE SUSTAINED.  BY SEC. 4-A, NOTE 1, SUPRA, THE
DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE RESTS WITH THE DIRECTOR, SUBJECT TO THE
REVIEW, AS OBTAINED HEREIN, BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, PROVIDED BY
SEC. 6(B).  SECTION 4-A STATES:  "ANY PRODUCER BELIEVING THAT ANY
COMMERCE IN COAL IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4  ...
MAY FILE WITH THE COMMISSION AN APPLICATION, VERIFIED BY OATH OR
AFFIRMATION FOR EXEMPTION, SETTING FORTH THE FACTS UPON WHICH SUCH
CLAIM IS BASED.  ...  WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE RECEIPT OF ANY
APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION THE COMMISSION SHALL ENTER AN ORDER GRANTING,
OR, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, DENYING OR OTHERWISE
DISPOSING OF SUCH APPLICATION."  IN A MATTER LEFT SPECIFICALLY BY
CONGRESS TO THE DETERMINATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, AS THE
QUESTION OF EXEMPTION WAS HERE BY SECS. 4-II (L) AND 4-A, THE FUNCTION
OF REVIEW PLACED UPON THE COURTS BY SEC. 6(B) IS FULLY PERFORMED WHEN
THEY DETERMINE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A FAIR HEARING, WITH NOTICE AND AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARGUMENTS TO THE DECISIVE
BODY, AND AN APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IN A JUST AND REASONED MANNER. 
SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO R. CO., 305 U.S. 177, 180, 181, 184, 185, 187. 

SUCH A DETERMINATION AS IS HERE INVOLVED BELONGS TO THE USUAL
ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTINE.  CONGRESS, WHICH COULD HAVE LEGISLATED
SPECIFICALLY AS TO THE INDIVIDUAL EXEMPTIONS FROM THE CODE, FOUND IT
MORE EFFICIENT TO DELEGATE THAT FUNCTION TO THOSE WHOSE EXPERIENCE IN A
PARTICULAR FIELD GAVE PROMISE OF A BETTER INFORMED, MORE EQUITABLE,
ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF PRICE STABILIZATION UPON THE
ONE HAND AND PRODUCER CONSUMPTION UPON THE OTHER.  BY THUS COMMITTING
THE EXECUTION OF ITS POLICIES TO THE SPECIALIZED PERSONNEL OF THE
BITUMINOUS COAL DIVISION, THE CONGRESS FOLLOWED A FAMILIAR PRACTICE. 
FN7  OF COURSE, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SKILL OF EMPLOYEES
IN A DIVISION OF A DEPARTMENT AND THOSE IN A BOARD, COMMISSION OR
ADMINISTRATION. 

WHERE, AS HERE, A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN LEFT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
BODY, THIS DELEGATION WILL BE RESPECTED AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONCLUSION LEFT UNTOUCHED.  CERTAINLY, A FINDING ON CONGRESSIONAL
REFERENCE THAT AN ADMITTEDLY CONSTITUTIONAL ACT IS APPLICABLE TO A
PARTICULAR SITUATION DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH FURTHER SCRUTINY.  ALTHOUGH
WE HAVE HERE NO DISPUTE AS TO THE EVIDENTIARY FACTS, THAT DOES NOT
PERMIT A COURT TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE DIRECTOR. 
UNITED STATES V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 235 U.S. 314, 320;
SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 304; HELVERING V.
CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 336.  IT IS NOT THE PROVINCE OF A COURT TO
ABSORB THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE
EXECUTIVE OR LEGISLATIVE AGENCIES BECOME MERE FACT-FINDING BODIES
DEPRIVED OF THE ADVANTAGES OF PROMPT AND DEFINITE ACTION. 

CONGRESS COULD NOT "DEFINE THE WHOLE GAMUT OF REMEDIES TO EFFECTUATE
THESE POLICIES IN AN INFINITE VARIETY OF SPECIFIC SITUATIONS."  PHELPS
DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 194.  JUST AS IN THE ADKINS
CASE (310 U.S. 381) THE DETERMINATION OF THE SWEEP OF THE TERM
"BITUMINOUS COAL" WAS FOR THIS SAME ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, SO HERE
THERE MUST BE LEFT TO IT, SUBJECT TO THE BASIC PREREQUISITES OF LAWFUL
ADJUDICATION, THE DETERMINATION OF "PRODUCER."  THE SEPARATION OF
PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION IS COMPLETE WHEN A BUYER OBTAINS SUPPLIES
FROM A SELLER TOTALLY FREE FROM BUYER CONNECTION.  THEIR IDENTITY IS
UNDOUBTED WHEN THE CONSUMER EXTRACTS COAL FROM ITS OWN LAND WITH ITS
OWN EMPLOYEES.  BETWEEN THE TWO EXTREMES ARE THE INNUMERABLE VARIATIONS
THAT BRING THE ARRANGEMENTS CLOSER TO ONE POLE OR THE OTHER OF THE
RANGE BETWEEN EXEMPTION AND INCLUSION.  TO DETERMINE UPON WHICH SIDE OF
THE MEDIAN LINE THE PARTICULAR INSTANCE FALLS CALLS FOR THE EXPERT,
EXPERIENCED JUDGMENT OF THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE INDUSTRY.  UNLESS WE
CAN SAY THAT A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES DEEMED BY THE COMMISSION TO BRING
THEM WITHIN THE CONCEPT "PRODUCER" IS SO UNRELATED TO THE TASKS
ENTRUSTED BY CONGRESS TO THE COMMISSION AS IN EFFECT TO DENY A SENSIBLE
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT, IT IS THE COURT'S DUTY TO LEAVE THE COMMISSION'S
JUDGMENT UNDISTURBED. 

CONSUMERS OF BITUMINOUS COAL ARE NATURALLY DESIROUS OF OBTAINING
SUPPLIES FREE OF THE TAX AND FREE OF THE RISK AND INVESTMENT TYPICAL OF
PRODUCTION.  IF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS ARE EMPLOYED FOR EXTRACTION,
THERE IS AN OBVIOUS BREACH IN THE FULL CONSUMER-PRODUCER IDENTITY. 
THIS MAY CREATE CONSEQUENCES WHICH WOULD NOT FOLLOW IF THE ENTERPRISE
ITSELF, THROUGH ITS OWN EMPLOYEES, ACCOMPLISHED THE SAME ULTIMATE
RESULT.  OFTEN IN THE LAW, THE SELECTION OF A PARTICULAR BUSINESS FORM
AS, FOR INSTANCE, CARRYING ON A COMMON BUSINESS THROUGH TWO
CORPORATIONS, MAY CREATE LEGAL LIABILITY, EDWARDS V. CHILE COPPER CO.,
270 U.S. 452, 456, ALTHOUGH SUCH RELATION TO OTHER CONNECTIONS MAY
RESULT IN DIVERSITY OF LEGAL TREATMENT.  COMPARE, FOR INSTANCE, UNITED
STATES V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366, AND UNITED STATES V.
DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 238 U.S. 516. 

THE SHORTNESS OF THE LEASES, THE FREEDOM FROM INVESTMENT IN COAL
LANDS OR MINING FACILITIES, THE IMPROBABILITY OF PROFIT OR LOSS FROM
THE MINING OPERATIONS, THE RIGHT TO CANCEL WHEN CHEAPER COAL MAY BE
OBTAINED IN THE OPEN MARKET, ALL DENY THE POSITION OF PRODUCER TO THE
RAILROAD. 

WE VIEW IT AS IMMATERIAL THAT THE COMPANY MIGHT HAVE ITSELF OPERATED
A CAPTIVE MINE AND SO ESCAPED THE PRICE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BY VIRTUE
OF THE EXCEPTION OF SEC. 4-II (L), NOTE 1, SUPRA.  IT CHOSE TO EMPLOY
THE SCHEME IN QUESTION HERE.  IT CONSIDERED IT ADVANTAGEOUS TO AVOID
THE RISKS OF PRODUCTION AND NOW MUST BEAR THE BURDENS OF A
DETERMINATION THAT OTHER ENTITIES THAN ITSELF ARE THE PRODUCERS.  CF.
SUPERIOR COAL CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, 377 ILL. 282, 36 N.E.2D
354, 358, 360.  THE CHOICE OF DISREGARDING A DELIBERATELY CHOSEN
ARRANGEMENT FOR CONDUCTING BUSINESS AFFAIRS DOES NOT LIE WITH THE
CREATOR OF THE PLAN.  HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473, 477. 

CODE COVERAGE.  - SEABOARD CONTENDS THAT THE COAL HERE INVOLVED IS
NOT AFFECTED BY THE CODE SEC. 4-II BECAUSE THERE IS NO SALE OR OTHER
TRANSFER OF THE TITLE TO THE COAL BY THE PRODUCER.  AS TO THIS POINT,
IN SEABOARD'S VIEW, SINCE IT AS LESSEE OF THE MINERAL RIGHTS IS THE
OWNER OF THE COAL WHEN IT IS EXTRACTED AND UNTIL IT IS CONSUMED AND
THEREFORE NO TITLE EVER PASSES, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER OR NOT IT OR
ITS SUPPLIERS OF THE COAL ARE DETERMINED TO BE THE PRODUCER.  SUPPORT
FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE MUST BE A TRANSFER OF TITLE TO BRING THE
COAL UNDER THE CODE, SEC. 4-II, IS FOUND BY SEABOARD IN THE
PREOCCUPATION OF CONGRESS IN SALES, WHICH ATTITUDE IT FEELS IS SHOWN BY
THE CONTINUOUS REFERENCE IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO SALES OR OTHER
TRANSFERS OF TITLE.  FURTHER SUPPORT IS DRAWN FOR THE POSITION BY
REFERENCE TO SEC. 3(A), WHERE "DISPOSAL" IS DECLARED TO INCLUDE
CONSUMPTION BY A PRODUCER OR ANY TRANSFER OF TITLE OTHER THAN BY SALE. 
RELIANCE IS PLACED ALSO ON SEC. 3(B), WHICH BY A TAX OF 19 1/2 PER CENT
OF THE SELLING PRICE IMPELS ADHERENCE TO THE CODE WHEN COAL "WHICH
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
THE CODE PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 4, OR OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4
A" IS SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY THE PRODUCER. 

HAD WE HELD THAT SEABOARD WAS THE PRODUCER, THE PERTINENCY OF THIS
ARGUMENT WOULD DISAPPEAR BECAUSE SEABOARD WOULD BE BOTH PRODUCER AND
CONSUMER, AND THEREFORE THIS COAL WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER
SECS. 4-II (L) AND 4-A.  AS WE DETERMINE OTHERWISE, HOWEVER, IT IS
ESSENTIAL TO EXAMINE THE SOUNDNESS OF THE POSITION ASSERTED BY
SEABOARD, TO WIT, THAT COAL PRODUCED BY THE INSTRUMENTALITIES IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4-II FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS NOT
SOLD NOR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY THE PRODUCERS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT COAL
EXTRACTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE CODE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4-II. 

EXAMINATION OF THE CODE DISCLOSES THAT MINIMUM PRICES FOR CODE COAL
ARE FIXED BY JOINT ACTION OF THE DISTRICT BOARDS AND THE DIRECTOR. 
SEC. 4-I (A), II (A).  THEREAFTER NO CODE COAL MAY BE SOLD AT PRICES
LESS THAN THE FIXED MINIMUM EXCEPT AT THE RISK OF SEVERE PENALTIES. 
CODE COAL IS THAT PRODUCED BY CODE MEMBERS, I.E., COAL PRODUCERS WHO
ACCEPT MEMBERSHIP IN THE CODE.  SEC. 5(A).  ALL PRODUCERS OF BITUMINOUS
COAL WITHIN THE STATUTORY DISTRICTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP, AND
THEREFORE ALL COAL PRODUCED BY ANY OF THESE PRODUCERS IS POTENTIALLY
CODE COAL.  THE CODE REGULATES THE COAL AND NOT THE PRODUCER.  IN ORDER
TO FORCE THE ELIGIBLE COAL WITHIN THE CODE, AN EXCISE TAX OF 19 1/2% OF
THE SALE PRICE IS PLACED UPON ALL BITUMINOUS COAL "SOLD OR OTHERWISE
DISPOSED OF BY THE PRODUCER THEREOF, WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CODE," WITH A
BLANKET EXEMPTION FROM THIS TAX OF SALES OR OTHER DISPOSAL BY CODE
MEMBERS. 

THE CORE OF THE ACT IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT COAL BE PUT UNDER THE
CODE OR PAY THE 19 1/2 PER CENT EXCISE.  WE SAID IN SUNSHINE COAL CO.
V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 392, THAT THE SANCTION TAX APPLIED TO NON-CODE
MEMBERS.  SINCE THEY WERE NOT MEMBERS, IT WAS THERE CONTENDED THAT
THEIR COAL WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE CODE, BUT IT WAS EXPLAINED IN
THE ADKINS CASE THAT THE CODE WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO SALES "IN OR
DIRECTLY AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN BITUMINOUS COAL," SEC. 4, 3RD
PARAGRAPH, AND THAT NON-CODE COAL "WOULD BE" SUBJECT TO THE CODE WHEN
IT WAS INTERSTATE COAL OR COAL AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY POWER OF CONGRESS.  SO HERE, THE
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS, WHICH WAS TO STABILIZE THE INDUSTRY THROUGH PRICE
REGULATION, WOULD BE HAMPERED BY AN INTERPRETATION THAT REQUIRED A
TRANSFER OF TITLE, IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE, TO BRING A PRODUCER'S COAL,
CONSUMED BY ANOTHER PARTY WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE COAL CODE.  WE FIND
NO NECESSITY TO SO INTERPRET THE ACT.  THIS CONCLUSION SEEMS TO US IN
ACCORD WITH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SEC. 3(A) AND (B) PROVIDING FOR A TAX
ON "OTHER DISPOSAL" AS WELL AS SALE.  THE DEFINITION OF DISPOSAL AS
INCLUDING "CONSUMPTION OR USE BY A PRODUCER, AND ANY TRANSFER OF TITLE
BY THE PRODUCER OTHER THAN BY SALE" CANNOT BE SAID TO PUT A MEANING ON
DISPOSAL LIMITED TO THE INCLUSION.  CF. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF ST. PAUL
V. BISMARCK LUMBER CO., ANTE, P. 95, AND CASES CITED AT 99-100.  IT IS
TRUE THAT SEC. 4-II (E) SPEAKS OF A VIOLATION OF THE PRICE PROVISIONS
BY "SALE OR DELIVERY OR OFFER FOR SALE OF COAL AT A PRICE BELOW" THE
MINIMUM, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO "OTHER DISPOSITION," THE PHRASE GENERALLY
USED; BUT THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THOSE WORDS AT THAT POINT DOES NOT, WE
THINK, JUSTIFY AN INTERPRETATION THAT COAL COVERED BY THE CODE MAY BE
DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE THAN BY A TRANSFER OF TITLE WITHOUT PENALTY.  WE
THINK THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 5(B) RELATING TO FINDINGS ON ORDERS
PUNISHING FOR VIOLATION OF THE CODE SHOWS THIS TO BE TRUE.  IT READS,
SO FAR AS PERTINENT, AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  THE COMMISSION SHALL SPECIFICALLY FIND  ...  THE QUANTITY OF
COAL SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE  ...  ; THE
SALES PRICE AT THE MINE OR THE MARKET VALUE AT THE MINE IF DISPOSED OF
OTHERWISE THAN BY SALE AT THE MINE, OR IF SOLD OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH
AN ARMS' LENGTH TRANSACTION, OF THE COAL SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF
BY SUCH CODE MEMBER IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OR REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER."  50 STAT. 84.  THIS CONCLUSION IS FORTIFIED BY AN
EXAMINATION OF THE TAX SECTION OF THE 1935 ACT FROM WHICH THE PRESENT
SEC. 3 IS OBVIOUSLY DERIVED.  IN THE FIRST OR 1935 ACT, CAPTIVE COAL
WAS TAXED ALONG WITH OTHER COAL.  THE TAX WAS LAID UPON THE "SALE OR
OTHER DISPOSAL OF ALL BITUMINOUS COAL PRODUCED WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES."  IT WAS "15 PER CENTUM ON THE SALE PRICE AT THE MINE, OR IN
THE CASE OF CAPTIVE COAL THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH COAL AT THE
MINE."  49 STAT. 993, SEC. 3.  EVIDENTLY THE DRAFTSMAN THOUGHT OF THE
SALE OF FREE COAL AND OF THE "OTHER DISPOSAL" OF CAPTIVE COAL.  SEE
FURTHER, ON THE QUESTION OF THE MEANING OF A SALE, IN RE BUSH TERMINAL
CO., 93 F.2D 661, 663. 

FINALLY, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT, IF THE ACT IS CONSTRUED TO APPLY
TO THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS JUST CONSIDERED, IT IS BEYOND THE POWER
OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THIS IS SAID TO BE SO BECAUSE THERE IS NO POWER IN
CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE PRICE PAID FOR THE SERVICE OF MINING COAL OR
THE CONSIDERATION FOR MINING RIGHTS, AND TO DO SO WOULD VIOLATE THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WE ARE, IN THIS REVIEW BY CERTIORARI, DETERMINING
ONLY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SEABOARD IS A PRODUCER UNDER THE ACT. 
CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER THAT PROBLEM IS BEYOND DISPUTE.  CURRIN V.
WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; SUNSHINE
COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381.  REVERSED. 

FN1  BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 72, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 828 ET.
SEQ. (1940).  "SEC.  3.  (A) THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON THE SALE OR
OTHER DISPOSAL OF BITUMINOUS COAL PRODUCED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
WHEN SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY THE PRODUCER THEREOF AN EXCISE
TAX OF 1 CENT PER TON OF TWO THOUSAND POUNDS. 

"THE TERM 'DISPOSAL' AS USED IN THIS SECTION INCLUDES CONSUMPTION OR
USE (WHETHER IN THE PRODUCTION OF COKE OR FUEL, OR OTHERWISE) BY A
PRODUCER, AND ANY TRANSFER OF TITLE BY THE PRODUCER OTHER THAN BY
SALE. 

"(B)  IN ADDITION TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS
BITUMINOUS COAL PRODUCED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, WHEN SOLD OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY THE PRODUCER THEREOF, WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT
TO THE APPLICATION OF THE CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CODE
PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 4, OR OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4-A, AN
EXCISE TAX IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 19 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE SALE PRICE AT
THE MINE IN THE CASE OF COAL DISPOSED OF BY SALE AT THE MINE, OR IN THE
CASE OF COAL DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE THAN BY SALE AT THE MINE, AND COAL
SOLD OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH AN ARMS' LENGTH TRANSACTION, 19 1/2 PER
CENTUM OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH COAL AT THE TIME OF SUCH
DISPOSAL OR SALE.  IN THE CASE OF ANY PRODUCER WHO IS A CODE MEMBER AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 4 AND IS SO CERTIFIED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE BY THE COMMISSION, THE SALE OR DISPOSAL BY SUCH
PRODUCER DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE CODE OF COAL
PRODUCED BY HIM SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS
SUBSECTION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 4.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE PROMULGATED BY THE
COMMISSION AS THE 'BITUMINOUS COAL CODE', AND ARE HEREIN REFERRED TO AS
THE CODE. 

"PRODUCERS ACCEPTING MEMBERSHIP IN THE CODE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION
5(A) SHALL BE, AND ARE HEREIN REFERRED TO AS, CODE MEMBERS, AND THE
PROVISIONS OF SUCH CODE SHALL APPLY ONLY TO SUCH CODE MEMBERS, EXCEPT
AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY SUBSECTION (H) OF PART II OF THIS SECTION. 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE DECLARED POLICY OF THIS ACT, THE
CODE SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE
INTENDED TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN BITUMINOUS COAL AND WHICH
SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY TO MATTERS AND TRANSACTIONS IN OR DIRECTLY
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN BITUMINOUS COAL: 

     .         .         .         .         .

                     PART II - MARKETING. 

     .    .         .         .         . 

"(E)  NO COAL SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE SOLD
OR DELIVERED OR OFFERED FOR SALE AT A PRICE BELOW THE MINIMUM OR ABOVE
THE MAXIMUM THEREFOR ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION, AND THE SALE OR
DELIVERY OR OFFER FOR SALE OF COAL AT A PRICE BELOW SUCH MINIMUM OR
ABOVE SUCH MAXIMUM SHALL CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE CODE: PROVIDED,
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT APPLY TO A LAWFUL AND
BONA FIDE WRITTEN CONTRACT ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO JUNE 16, 1933. 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"(L)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO COAL CONSUMED
BY THE PRODUCER OR TO COAL TRANSPORTED BY THE PRODUCER TO HIMSELF FOR
CONSUMPTION BY HIM. 

"SEC. 4-A.  WHENEVER THE COMMISSION UPON INVESTIGATION INSTITUTED
UPON ITS OWN MOTION OR UPON PETITION OF ANY CODE MEMBER, DISTRICT
BOARD, STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR THE CONSUMERS'
COUNSEL, AFTER HEARING FINDS THAT TRANSACTIONS IN COAL IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE BY ANY PERSON OR IN ANY LOCALITY CAUSE ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, OR PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN PERSONS AND
LOCALITIES IN SUCH COMMERCE ON THE ONE HAND AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
COAL ON THE OTHER HAND, OR ANY UNDUE, UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN COAL, OR IN ANY MANNER
DIRECTLY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN COAL, THE COMMISSION SHALL BY
ORDER SO DECLARE AND THEREAFTER COAL SOLD, DELIVERED OR OFFERED FOR
SALE IN SUCH INTRASTATE COMMERCE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF

"ANY PRODUCER BELIEVING THAT ANY COMMERCE IN COAL IS NOT SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 ...  MAY FILE WITH THE COMMISSION AN
APPLICATION, VERIFIED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION FOR EXEMPTION, SETTING
FORTH THE FACTS UPON WHICH SUCH CLAIM IS BASED.  ...  WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE RECEIPT OF ANY APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION THE
COMMISSION SHALL ENTER AN ORDER GRANTING, OR, AFTER NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, DENYING OR OTHERWISE DISPOSING OF SUCH
APPLICATION.  ...  ANY APPLICANT AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER DENYING OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSING OF AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION BY THE COMMISSION
MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION
(B) OF SECTION 6.           .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 6.  ...  (B)  ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE
COMMISSION IN A PROCEEDING TO WHICH SUCH PERSON IS A PARTY MAY OBTAIN A
REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED
STATES, WITHIN ANY CIRCUIT WHEREIN SUCH PERSON RESIDES OR HAS HIS
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY FILING IN SUCH COURT, WITHIN SIXTY
DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF SUCH ORDER, A WRITTEN PETITION PRAYING THAT THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION BE MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 
A COPY OF SUCH PETITION SHALL BE FORTHWITH SERVED UPON ANY MEMBER OF
THE COMMISSION AND THEREUPON THE COMMISSION SHALL CERTIFY AND FILE IN
THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF
WAS ENTERED.  UPON THE FILING OF SUCH TRANSCRIPT SUCH COURT SHALL HAVE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM, MODIFY, AND ENFORCE OR SET ASIDE SUCH
ORDER, IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  NO OBJECTION TO THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT UNLESS SUCH OBJECTION SHALL
HAVE BEEN URGED BELOW.  THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS,
IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE... 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 17.  AS USED IN THIS ACT - 

   .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  THE TERM 'PRODUCER' INCLUDES ALL INDIVIDUALS, FIRMS,
ASSOCIATIONS, CORPORATIONS, TRUSTEES, AND RECEIVERS ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF MINING COAL." 

THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 72, HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO
APRIL 26, 1943.  ACT OF APRIL 11, 1941, C. 64, 55 STAT. 134. 

FN2  CF. CONSOLIDATED INDIANA COAL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL
COMMISSION, 103 F.2D 124; KEYSTONE MINING CO. V. GRAY, 120 F.2D 1,
DECIDED AFTER ALLOWANCE OF CERTIORARI. 

FN3  NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION, REGISTRY NO. 702-45, APPROVED
CODE NO. 24, CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY,
PROMULGATED SEPTEMBER 18, 1933.  ARTICLE VI LISTED SELLING BELOW CODE
PRICE AS AN UNFAIR PRACTICE. 

FN4  TESTIMONY OF CHAIRMAN HOSFORD OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION,
HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, U.S. SENATE, 74TH
CONG., 2ND SESS., ON S. 4668, PP. 32 AND 33. 

FN5  81 CONG. REC. 3136, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

"IT IS PROPOSED, ON PAGE 30, LINE 17, TO STRIKE OUT THE PERIOD AFTER
THE WORD 'HIM', AND TO INSERT A COMMA AND THE WORDS 'AND FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THIS SUBSECTION THE TERM 'PRODUCER' ALSO INCLUDES ALL
INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE FOUND BY THE
COMMISSION, UPON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, BONA FIDE AND NOT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF EVADING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, TO BE OWNED BY, OR
TO BE UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITH, A PRODUCER, PROVIDED SUCH A PRODUCER
DOES NOT SELL ANY PART OF HIS PRODUCTION ON THE COMMERCIAL MARKET.' 
...  THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS SIMPLY TO EXTEND THE EXCEPTION
CARRIED BY SUBSECTION (L), ON PAGE 30, SO AS TO INCLUDE UNDER THE
DEFINITION OF THE WORD 'PRODUCER' A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OR OTHER
LEGAL ENTITY HAVING IDENTICAL OWNERSHIP.  THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE. 

"THE QUESTION IS ON AGREEING TO THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE SENATOR
FROM OHIO. 

"THE AMENDMENT WAS AGREED TO." 

FN6  H. REP. NO. 578, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1, 8. 

FN7  TREASURY - UNITED STATES V. JOHNSTON, 124 U.S. 236, 249;
INTERIOR - SWAMP LANDS - NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. MCCOMAS, 250 U.S.
387, 392; CUSTOMS APPRAISERS - PASSAVANT V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S.
214, 219; POST OFFICE - BATES & GUILD CO. V. PAYNE, 194 U.S. 106. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHICH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS AND COURTS MAY APPROPRIATELY GO IN
RECONSTRUCTING A STATUTE SO AS TO ACCOMPLISH AIMS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE
MIGHT HAVE HAD BUT WHICH THE STATUTE ITSELF, AND ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, DO NOT DISCLOSE.  THE PRESENT DECISION, IT SEEMS TO ME, PASSES
THAT LIMITATION. 

THE CASE INVOLVES AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH, IN IMPLEMENTING ITS
DECLARED PURPOSE AND INTENT, CAREFULLY DELIMITS BY INCLUSIVE AND
EXCLUSIVE DEFINITION THOSE WHO SHALL AND THOSE WHO SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT
TO ITS REGULATORY PROVISIONS.  UPON A RECORD IN WHICH THERE IS NOT A
SINGLE DISPUTED FACT, THE BARE QUESTION IS PRESENTED WHETHER THE WORDS
THE CONGRESS USED BRING THE RESPONDENTS WITHIN THE BITUMINOUS COAL CODE
OR EXCLUDE THEM FROM ITS OPERATION.  IN ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, THE
DIRECTOR MADE NO CONTROVERTED FINDING OF FACT, EXERCISED NO JUDGMENT AS
TO WHAT THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES WERE, BUT MERELY DECIDED THAT THE
MEANING OF THE STATUTE WAS THAT THE RESPONDENTS' TRANSACTIONS REQUIRED
THAT THEY BECOME MEMBERS OF THE CODE OR SUFFER THE PENALTY OF THE 19
1/2% TAX FOR FAILING TO JOIN THE CODE.  IF THE DIRECTOR WAS IN ERROR,
HIS ERROR WAS A MISCONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT WHICH CREATED HIS OFFICE;
AND THAT ERROR, UNDER ALL RELEVANT AUTHORITIES, IS SUBJECT TO COURT
REVIEW.  IT IS SPECIFICALLY MADE SO SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE STATUTE IN
QUESTION.  FN1 

THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT, AS ITS PREAMBLE DECLARES, IS AIMED AT THE
REGULATION OF PRICES AND UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING
OF BITUMINOUS COAL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,  FN2  AS THE MEANS OF
PROMOTING THAT COMMERCE AND RELIEVING IT FROM PRACTICES AND METHODS
WHICH BURDEN AND OBSTRUCT IT.  THE BODY OF THE ACT IS CONFINED TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THESE PURPOSES AND NONE OTHER. 

TO ACCOMPLISH THE DECLARED END, THE STATUTE ADOPTS A COMPREHENSIVE
SCHEME FOR THE REGULATION OF PRICES AND TRADE PRACTICES IN THE
MARKETING OF BITUMINOUS COAL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT CREATES A
COMMISSION AND, BY SEC. 4, DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO PROMULGATE A
BITUMINOUS COAL CODE, TO WHICH COAL PRODUCERS WHO ARE "CODE MEMBERS"
ARE MADE SUBJECT.  BY PART II OF SEC. 4, THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN
AUTHORITY TO FIX MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PRICES FOR CODE MEMBERS IN
CONFORMITY TO SPECIFIED STANDARDS.  SUBDIVISION (I) OF SEC. 4, PART II,
SPECIFIES METHODS OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF COAL WHICH ARE
DECLARED TO BE UNFAIR AND VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE. 

OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY THE PRODUCER" AND DEFINES DISPOSAL, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION ALONE, AS INCLUDING "CONSUMPTION OR USE" BY A
PRODUCER AND ANY TRANSFER OF TITLE BY A PRODUCER OTHER THAN BY SALE. 
THE ACKNOWLEDGED PURPOSE OF THIS SUBSECTION IS THE LEVY ON ALL COAL
TAKEN OUT OF THE GROUND, AND USED BY WHOMSOEVER, OF A SMALL TAX TO PAY
THE EXPENSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  THE RESPONDENTS ADMIT
THEIR LIABILITY FOR THIS EXACTION.  THEY HAVE PAID THIS TAX AND NO
QUESTION ARISES IN RESPECT OF IT. 

PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4, IMPOSES A PENAL TAX OF 19 1/2% OF THE SALE PRICE
OF THE COAL, OR OF ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE WHEN DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE
THAN BY A SALE, ON ALL THE COAL SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF BY A
PRODUCER TO WHOM THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS AS TO PRICE AND UNFAIR
METHODS OF COMPETITION INCLUDED IN SEC. 4 ARE APPLICABLE.  ONLY THOSE
WHO ARE PRODUCERS OF COAL AND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CODE ARE LIABLE TO THE PENALTY TAX AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO JOINING THE
CODE AND THUS COMING WITHIN THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO
SUCH CODE MEMBERS.  SUCH REGULATORY PROVISIONS ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH
THOSE WHO SELL OR MARKET COAL. 

SUBDIVISION (L) OF PART II OF SEC. 4 DECLARES:  "THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO COAL CONSUMED BY THE PRODUCER OR TO
COAL TRANSPORTED BY THE PRODUCER TO HIMSELF FOR CONSUMPTION BY HIM." 
THE RESPONDENTS INSIST THAT THIS SUBSECTION PLAINLY EXEMPTS THEM FROM
BECOMING MEMBERS OF THE CODE AND THAT, IN PURSUANCE OF THE SUBSECTION,
THE DIRECTOR SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THEIR APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION. 

SOME STRESS IS LAID BY THE PETITIONERS ON SEC. 17(C) WHICH DECLARES
THAT: 

"AS USED IN THIS ACT, 

    .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  THE TERM 'PRODUCER' INCLUDES ALL INDIVIDUALS, FIRMS,
ASSOCIATIONS, CORPORATIONS, TRUSTEES, AND RECEIVERS ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF MINING COAL." 

IT SEEMS PLAIN ENOUGH THAT THIS PROVISION WAS NOT INTENDED TO NULLIFY
SUBSECTION (L) OF SEC. 4, PART II. THE EVIDENT PURPOSE WAS TO MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT, UNDER WHATEVER FORM THE BUSINESS WAS DONE, THE OPERATOR
SHOULD COME UNDER THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.  THIS
SUBSECTION HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS CASE. 

THE TERM "PRODUCER" IS NOT A TECHNICAL TERM OR A TERM OF ART, BUT THE
STATUTE HAS NOT LEFT THE DIRECTOR OR THE COURTS WITHOUT GUIDES
RESPECTING THE MEANING OF THE WORD AS USED IN THE STATUTE.  IT IS THE
DIRECTOR'S DUTY TO OBSERVE THOSE GUIDES IN APPLYING THE STATUTE AND, IF
HE FAILS SO TO DO, IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE COURTS TO OBSERVE THEM
IN PERFORMING THEIR STATUTORY DUTY TO REVIEW HIS DETERMINATION.  THE
CONTEXT, THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, AND THE MEANS ADOPTED TO CARRY THEM
INTO EFFECT, MAKE CLEAR THE MEANING OF THE WORD "PRODUCER" AS USED IN
THE STATUTE.  THIS COURT OBVIOUSLY FAILS IN PERFORMING ITS DUTY AND
ABDICATES ITS FUNCTION AS A COURT OF REVIEW IF IT ACCEPTS, AS THE
OPINION SEEMS TO DO, THE DIRECTOR'S DEFINITION OF "PRODUCER" AND THEN
PROCEEDS TO ACCOMMODATE THE MEANING OF RELATED PROVISIONS TO THE
PREDETERMINED DEFINITION.  SO TO DO IS A COMPLETE REVERSAL OF THE
NORMAL AND USUAL METHOD OF CONSTRUING A STATUTE. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY  FN3  DEMONSTRATES, AND THE OPINION OF THE
COURT CONCEDES, THAT THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 4(PT. II (L)) WAS TO EXCLUDE
FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT REGULATING PRICES AND OTHER MATTERS OF
COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE MARKETING, COAL PRODUCED FROM "CAPTIVE
MINES"; THAT IS, COAL PRODUCED BY THE OWNER OF A MINE AND CONSUMED BY
HIM WITHOUT PLACING IT ON THE MARKET.  IT IS, AS IT MUST BE, ALSO
CONCEDED THAT SUBDIVISION (L) EXCLUDES FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT
ONE WHO MINES COAL BY HIS OWN EMPLOYES, UPON LAND OWNED OR LEASED BY
HIM, AND CONSUMES IT IN HIS BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY.  THE ONLY POSSIBLE
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS' METHOD OF CONDUCTING THE
BUSINESS AND THAT OF THE USUAL CAPTIVE MINE LIES IN THE FACT THAT THE
RESPONDENTS' COAL IS MINED BY AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR INSTEAD OF BY
EMPLOYES.  THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, HOWEVER, WILL NOT JUSTIFY THE STATEMENT
THAT RESPONDENTS DO NOT PRODUCE THE COAL, ANY MORE THAN IT WOULD
JUSTIFY THE STATEMENT THAT THEY WOULD NOT TRANSPORT COAL TO THEMSELVES,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, IF THEY SHIPPED IT BY A COMMON CARRIER
WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE COAL IS
MINED BY A CONTRACTOR INSTEAD OF AN EMPLOYE, OR TRANSPORTED BY A COMMON
CARRIER, CANNOT HAVE ANY MORE, OR ANY DIFFERENT, EFFECT UPON THE
SUBJECTS OF REGULATION - PRICES AND UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION - IN
THE ONE CASE THAN IN THE OTHER.  IN BOTH CASES, THE OWNER WOULD CONSUME
COAL WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE COME ON THE MARKET.  IN NEITHER CASE WOULD
THE COAL BE BROUGHT INTO COMPETITION WITH MARKETED COAL.  IN EACH CASE,
THE OWNER WOULD REMAIN FREE TO BUY COAL ON THE MARKET WHENEVER THE
MARKET PRICE FELL BELOW THE COST OF PRODUCTION AT HIS OWN MINE. 

SUBDIVISION (L) CANNOT APPROPRIATELY BE CONSTRUED TO DENY RESPONDENTS
THE RIGHT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT UPON THEIR
APPLICATION AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 4-A WHEN THERE ARE PLAINLY NO
AFFIRMATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SUBJECTING THEM TO ITS REGULATION. 
IT WILL HARDLY BE DENIED THAT, BY RESPONDENTS' TOTAL OPERATION, COAL IS
PRODUCED.  IF THEY ARE NOT THE PRODUCERS, BECAUSE THEY PAY A CONTRACT
PRICE INSTEAD OF WAGES FOR ITS PRODUCTION, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
19 1/2% TAX WHICH APPLIES ONLY TO PRODUCERS; AND THEY ARE THUS EXEMPT
FROM THE ONLY SANCTION WHICH WOULD COMPEL THEM TO BECOME CODE MEMBERS
SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  SINCE THEY MARKET NO
COAL, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4 RELATING TO PRICES AND METHODS OF
COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF COAL ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THEM.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, IF THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WHOM RESPONDENTS EMPLOY
TO MINE THE COAL IS DEEMED THE PRODUCER OF THE COAL, HE LIKEWISE IS
EXEMPT FROM THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS AND ALSO EXEMPT FROM THE 19 1/2%
PENAL TAX.  FOR, EVEN IF HE BE CALLED A PRODUCER, HE NEITHER MARKETS
NOR SELLS THE COAL AND HE CANNOT BE SAID TO DISPOSE OF COAL WHICH HE
DOES NOT OWN.  DISPOSAL MUST MEAN SOMETHING MORE THAN PHYSICAL
PRODUCTION, DELIVERY, OR TRANSPORTATION OF THE COAL OF ANOTHER.  IF IT
WERE OTHERWISE, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF A CAPTIVE MINE WOULD BE SUBJECT
TO THE TAX BECAUSE HE IS ENGAGED IN MINING COAL AND DELIVERING IT TO
THE OWNER WHO CONSUMES IT.  IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT, IN MANY COAL FIELDS,
COAL IS GOTTEN OUT BY EMPLOYING A MINER WHO IN TURN EMPLOYS HIS OWN
GANG TO ASSIST HIM IN THE MINE.  IF THE DIRECTOR'S POSITION IS CORRECT,
THIS METHOD OF OPERATION WOULD SUBJECT THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF A
CAPTIVE MINE TO REGULATION UNDER THE ACT.  THAT VIEW WOULD BE PLAINLY
UNTENABLE. 

THE VICE IN THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE COURT NOW ADOPTS, APPARENTLY
ONLY BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR HAS ADOPTED IT, LIES IN THE FACT THAT THIS
CONSTRUCTION IS OF PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE ONLY AS IT IS PRELIMINARY TO
REGULATION OF FEATURES OF THE COAL INDUSTRY OTHER THAN PRICES AND
METHODS OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF COAL.  CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN
FIT TO PRESCRIBE SUCH REGULATION.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ATTEMPTED
SUBJECTION OF RESPONDENTS TO THE CONTROL OF THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.    FN1  SECTION 6(B) AND (D). 

FN2  SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 388, 393. 

FN3  HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE
SENATE, 2D SESS., 74TH CONG., ON S. 4668, PP. 32, 33. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BYRNES JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :

















UNITED STATES V. EMORY, 314 U.S. 423 


NO. 33.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 15, 1941.  - 143
S.W.2D 318, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PRIORITY ESTABLISHED BY R.S. SEC. 3466 FOR DEBTS DUE TO THE
UNITED STATES IN CASES IN WHICH "AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY IS COMMITTED," IS
APPLICABLE WHERE, UPON A CREDITOR'S PETITION, A RECEIVER HAS BEEN
APPOINTED TO LIQUIDATE THE ASSETS OF AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION.  P.
426. 

2.  THE PURPOSE OF R.S. SEC. 3466 IS TO SECURE ADEQUATE PUBLIC
REVENUES TO SUSTAIN THE PUBLIC BURDEN, AND IT IS TO BE CONSTRUED
LIBERALLY IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THAT PURPOSE.  P. 426. 

3.  IN AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT, A CLAIM OF
THE UNITED STATES ARISING UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT IS ENTITLED,
UNDER R.S. SEC. 3466, TO PRIORITY OVER CLAIMS FOR WAGES.  P. 426. 

4.  THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PRIORITY IN SUCH CASE IS NOT
AFFECTED BY STATE LAW NOR BY SEC. 64A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT; NOR IS IT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT.  PP. 427, 429. 

UNITED STATES V. EMORY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SPRINGFIELD COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 552, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING A CLAIM OF THE
UNITED STATES TO PRIORITY.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SPRINGFIELD COURT OF APPEALS AND THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI DENIED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES TO A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
IN AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT. 

THE ST. JAMES DISTILLERY, A CORPORATION, EXECUTED A NOTE TO THE
INDUSTRIAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1935. 
ON JULY 14, 1936, THE BANK ENDORSED THE NOTE AND DELIVERED IT TO THE
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES,
UNDER A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE AND GUARANTY PROVIDED FOR IN TITLE I OF
THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT.  THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE FEDERAL
HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, ON THAT DATE REIMBURSED THE BANK IN THE AMOUNT
OF $5988.88, THE BALANCE DUE ON THE NOTE.  EMORY, CLAIMING WAGES DUE
HIM, FILED A PETITION ON AUGUST 27, 1936 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PHELPS
COUNTY, MISSOURI, ALLEGING THAT THE ST. JAMES DISTILLERY WAS HOPELESSLY
INSOLVENT AND PRAYING THAT A RECEIVER BE APPOINTED.  ON SEPTEMBER 9,
THE CIRCUIT COURT FOUND ALL THE ISSUES IN EMORY'S FAVOR AND APPOINTED A
RECEIVER WHO TOOK POSSESSION OF THE CORPORATE ASSETS. 

AFTER DEDUCTIONS FOR THE COSTS OF THE RECEIVERSHIP, THE ASSETS
AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION TOTALED $678.  AGAINST THIS AMOUNT THE WAGE
CLAIMS OF "ABOUT TWELVE INDIVIDUALS" WERE FILED.  THE SEPARATE AMOUNTS
OF THESE CLAIMS WERE NEITHER STIPULATED NOR DETERMINED BY THE COURTS
BELOW; THEIR AGGREGATE WAS "ABOUT $900."  THE UNITED STATES, ON BEHALF
OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, FILED A CLAIM FOR THE $5988.88
DUE ON THE NOTE.  THE WAGE CLAIMANTS ASSERTED PRIORITY UNDER SEC. 1168
OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF MISSOURI; FN1  THE UNITED STATES ASSERTED
PRIORITY UNDER SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
FN2 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PHELPS COUNTY DECIDED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE
UNITED STATES SHOULD BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY CLAIM AGAINST THE
ESTATE, AND THAT THE WAGE CLAIMS SHOULD BE PAID FIRST.  ON APPEAL, THE
SPRINGFIELD COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES
ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION WAS ACCORDED PREFERENCE
OVER ORDINARY CLAIMS BY SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED
STATES.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD
ERRED IN TREATING THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES AS AN ORDINARY CLAIM. 
HOWEVER, IT HELD FURTHER THAT THE ERROR WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE, SINCE
THE MISSOURI STATUTE GRANTED PRIORITY TO WAGE CLAIMS EVEN OVER OTHER
PREFERRED CLAIMS AND NO ASSETS WOULD REMAIN AFTER THEY HAD BEEN
SATISFIED.  REHEARING WAS DENIED, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
DENIED A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION AND BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT OF
DECISIONS. 

THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 3466 TO THIS CASE IS CLEAR.  THE SECTION
APPLIES IN TERMS TO CASES "(1) IN WHICH A DEBTOR, NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT
PROPERTY TO PAY ALL HIS DEBTS, MAKES A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT THEREOF, OR
(2) IN WHICH THE ESTATE AND EFFECTS OF AN ABSCONDING, CONCEALED, OR
ABSENT DEBTOR ARE ATTACHED BY PROCESS OF LAW,  ...  (OR)(3) IN WHICH AN
ACT OF BANKRUPTCY IS COMMITTED."  THIS CASE FALLS WITHIN THE THIRD
CATEGORY.  IT IS AGREED THAT THE ST. JAMES DISTILLERY WAS INSOLVENT "ON
OR BEFORE AUGUST 1936" AND THAT IN RESPONSE TO A CREDITOR'S PETITION A
RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED TO LIQUIDATE THE CORPORATE ASSETS.  THE
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS AMONG THE MOST
COMMON EXAMPLES OF AN "ACT OF BANKRUPTCY."  CF. SEC. 3(A)(4) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, U.S.C., TITLE 11, SEC. 21(A)(4). 

JUST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AS THIS, THEREFORE, ARE GOVERNED BY THE PLAIN
COMMAND OF SEC. 3466 THAT "DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE
FIRST SATISFIED."  THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION IS "TO SECURE ADEQUATE
PUBLIC REVENUES TO SUSTAIN THE PUBLIC BURDEN" (UNITED STATES V. STATE
BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, 6 PET. 29, 35), AND IT IS TO BE CONSTRUED
LIBERALLY IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THAT PURPOSE (BRAMWELL V. U.S.
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 269 U.S. 483, 487).  IN VIEW OF THIS LANGUAGE,
PURPOSE, AND RULE OF CONSTRUCTION, THE PRIORITY ASSERTED HERE BY THE
UNITED STATES APPEARS TO BE SECURELY ESTABLISHED. 

THE COURT BELOW, HOWEVER, HELD OTHERWISE.  IN GRANTING PRIORITY TO
THE WAGE CLAIMS OVER THAT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT RELIED UPON MISSOURI
LAW.  IT RECOGNIZED, AS THE AUTHORITIES OBLIGED IT TO RECOGNIZE,  FN3
THAT THE STATE STATUTE COULD NOT PREVAIL IF IT WAS IN CONFLICT WITH
SEC. 3466.  BUT IT DECIDED THAT NO SUCH CONFLICT AROSE, FOR THE REASON
THAT SEC. 3466 HAD BEEN IMPLIEDLY MODIFIED BY SEC. 64A OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT,  FN4  WHICH, LIKE THE MISSOURI STATUTE, REQUIRES THAT
WAGE CLAIMS BE SATISFIED BEFORE THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST HAVE RESTED UPON EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING
THEORIES:  THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY SEC. 64A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT TO
SUBORDINATE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES TO WAGE CLAIMS IN NON
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY; OR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY SEC. 64A
TO MODIFY SEC. 3466 ONLY SO FAR AS TO GRANT PRIORITY OVER THE UNITED
STATES TO WAGE CLAIMANTS IN STATE NON-BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WHEN THEY
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SUCH PRIORITY BY OTHERWISE APPLICABLE STATE LAW. 

THERE IS A DIFFICULTY COMMON TO BOTH THEORIES WHICH WE REGARD AS
INSURMOUNTABLE.  NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 64A NOR THE CONGRESSIONAL
HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION HERE INVOLVED SUPPORTS THE PROPOSITION THAT
SEC. 64A WAS INTENDED TO ELIMINATE, EITHER PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY, THE
PRIORITY OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES IN NON-BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. 

THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3466 HAVE BEEN IN FORCE SINCE 1797, WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS.  1 STAT. 515.  THE FIRST THREE FEDERAL
BANKRUPTCY ACTS  FN5  SPECIFICALLY PRESERVED THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES OVER ALL OTHER CLAIMANTS IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  SECTION 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898,  FN6
HOWEVER, DISTURBED THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS.  IT PROVIDED AN ORDER OF
DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS OF BANKRUPT ESTATES IN WHICH CERTAIN WAGE
CLAIMS PRECEDED NON-TAX CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES.  WHILE SEC. 64 HAS
BEEN ALTERED SINCE 1898 IN SEVERAL PARTICULARS, THE PRIORITY OF WAGE
CLAIMS OVER NON-TAX CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES HAS CONTINUED. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WE MUST LOOK TO THE ACT OF 1898 FOR EVIDENCE THAT THE
PRIORITY ACCORDED TO WAGE CLAIMS BY SEC. 64 WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO
MORE THAN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

WE FIND NO SUCH EVIDENCE.  THE ENTIRE ACT OF 1898, AS SEC. 2 IN
PARTICULAR PLAINLY REVEALS, WAS DESIGNED TO CREATE FEDERAL COURTS OF
BANKRUPTCY AND TO DEFINE THEIR FUNCTIONS.  INDEED, SEC. 64 ITSELF, IN
SUBDIVISION (A), REFERS TO THE "COURT"; SEC. 1 PROVIDES THAT, AS USED
IN THE ACT, "COURT" MEANS "THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IN WHICH THE
PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING"; AND SEC. 1 ALSO PROVIDES THAT "COURTS OF
BANKRUPTCY," AS USED IN THE ACT, MEAN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS AND A
FEW OTHER FEDERAL COURTS.  THERE IS NO INTERNAL SIGN THAT ANY PART OF
SEC. 64 WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO STATE COURTS OR TO NON-BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  WE HAVE LOOKED IN VAIN IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS AND THE DEBATE UPON THE BILL FOR ANY EXTERNAL HINT OF
SUCH AN INTENTION. 

IT IS NOT STRANGE, THEREFORE, THAT BOTH COURTS AND COMMENTATORS HAVE
ASSUMED THAT THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 64 OF THE ACT OF 1898 WAS LIMITED
TO FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT THE PRIORITY OF CLAIMS OF
THE UNITED STATES IN NON-BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS REMAINED UNAFFECTED. 
BRAMWELL V. U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 269 U.S. 483; PRICE V. UNITED
STATES, 269 U.S. 492; STRIPE V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 503; UNITED
STATES V. BUTTERWORTH-JUDSON, 269 U.S. 504; MELLON V. MICHIGAN TRUST
CO., 271 U.S. 236, 238-239; SPOKANE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
80; NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S. 290.  SEE ROGGE, THE DIFFERENCES IN
PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IN BANKRUPTCY AND IN EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIPS, 43 HARV. L. REV. 251; BLAIR, THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS, 39 HARV. L. REV. 1.  WE ARE AWARE OF
BUT A SINGLE CASE IN WHICH AN APPELLATE COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY PASSED
UPON THE CONTENTION THAT THE PRIORITY GRANTED TO THE UNITED STATES IN
NON-BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS BY SEC. 3466 HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY SEC. 64 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  AND IN THAT CASE, THE CONTENTION WAS REJECTED. 
MATTER OF KUPSHIRE COATS, INC., 272 N.Y. 221, 5 N.E.2D 715.  FN7 

WHILE THE POINT WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN THE COURTS BELOW, IT IS NOW
URGED THAT THE OBJECTIVES AND PROVISIONS OF THE.  NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
REQUIRE US TO HOLD THAT CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES ARISING UNDER IT
ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRIORITY AWARDED BY SEC. 3466.  WE ARE AWARE OF
NO CANON OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION COMPELLING US TO HOLD THAT THE WORD
"FIRST" IN A 150 YEAR OLD STATUTE MEANS "SECOND" OR "THIRD," UNLESS
CONGRESS LATER HAS SAID SO OR IMPLIED IT UNMISTAKABLY. 

CERTAINLY, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
EXPRESSLY RELINQUISHING THE PRIORITY OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT
TO CLAIMS ARISING UNDER IT.  AT BEST, THEREFORE, SUCH AN INTENTION ON
THE PART OF CONGRESS MUST BE FOUND IN SOME PATENT INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN
THE PURPOSES OF THE HOUSING ACT AND SEC. 3466.  THE PLAIN OBJECTIVE OF
THE HOUSING ACT WAS TO STIMULATE THE BUILDING TRADES AND TO INCREASE
EMPLOYMENT.  IN ORDER TO INDUCE BANKS AND OTHER LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO
GET THE PROGRAM UNDER WAY, CONGRESS PROMISED THAT THE UNITED STATES
WOULD MAKE GOOD UP TO 20% ON THE LOSSES THEY MIGHT INCUR ON SUCH
LOANS.  FN8  AS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LENDING INSTITUTIONS, IT
WAS CLEARLY INTENDED THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BEAR THE LOSSES
RESULTING FROM DEFAULTS.  BUT BEYOND THIS WE MAY NOT GO.  THERE IS
NOTHING TO SHOW A FURTHER INTENTION THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD
RELINQUISH ITS PRIORITY AS TO CLAIMS AGAINST DEFAULTING AND INSOLVENT
BORROWERS WHOSE NOTES IT TAKES UP FROM THE LENDING INSTITUTION PURSUANT
TO THE INSURANCE CONTRACT.  THAT IS, THE ULTIMATE COLLECTION OF BAD
LOANS WAS CONSIGNED TO THE UNITED STATES RATHER THAN TO THE LENDING
INSTITUTIONS, BUT THE COLLECTING POWER OF THE UNITED STATES WAS NEITHER
ABRIDGED NOR QUALIFIED.  FN9 

WE ARE TOLD, HOWEVER, THAT THE BROAD PURPOSES OF THE ACT WOULD BE
THWARTED IF WE FAILED TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO SURRENDER
THIS PRIORITY.  THE REASON ADVANCED IS THAT SUPPLIERS OF GOODS AND
SERVICES WOULD REFUSE TO EXTEND CREDIT TO THOSE DESIRING TO MAKE
PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS IF THEY KNEW THAT IN THE EVENT OF INSOLVENCY
THEIR CLAIMS WOULD BE SUBORDINATED TO THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
FATAL WEAKNESS OF THIS CONTENTION IS THAT THE FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION IMPOSES AN IRONCLAD REQUIREMENT THAT THE PROCEEDS OF
INSURED LOANS BE USED FOR NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE IMPROVEMENTS
DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE LOAN.  FN10  INDEED, LENDING
INSTITUTIONS FREQUENTLY PAY THE PROCEEDS OF THE LOAN DIRECTLY TO THE
SUPPLIERS OF GOODS AND SERVICES RATHER THAN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND
THE PRACTICE HAS MET WITH THE ENTHUSIASTIC APPROVAL OF THE
ADMINISTRATION.  FN11 

CONSEQUENTLY, THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 3466 IS
REDUCED TO THIS:  PRIVATE PERSONS IN GENERAL ARE RELUCTANT TO EXTEND
CREDIT WHEN THEY KNOW THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE BORROWER'S INSOLVENCY
THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES WILL RECEIVE PRIORITY, AND THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE IS PARTICULARLY UNDESIRABLE IN TIMES OF ECONOMIC STRESS. 
IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHATEVER MAY BE THE MERITS OF THE CONTENTION, IT
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO CONGRESS AND NOT TO THIS COURT.  IN THE SECOND
PLACE, THE ARGUMENT PROVES TOO MUCH.  IF IT IS SOUND AS APPLIED TO THIS
KIND OF A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES, IT IS EQUALLY SOUND AS APPLIED TO
ALL CLAIMS AS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES ASSERTS PRIORITY UNDER SEC.
3466. 

NEITHER COOK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445, NOR
UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478, REQUIRES A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION.  IN THE FORMER CASE, THE UNITED STATES WAS DENIED ITS SEC.
3466 PRIORITY IN CONNECTION WITH A CLAIM AGAINST A NATIONAL BANK FOR
THE AMOUNT OF CERTAIN FUNDS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPOSITED WITH IT.
THE DECISION WAS BASED ON TWO GROUNDS.  FIRST, THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT
UNDERTOOK TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE SYSTEM FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
GOVERNMENT OF BANKS, AND IT INCLUDED SPECIFIC PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASSETS OF INSOLVENT BANKS WHICH WERE PLAINLY
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GRANTING OF PRIORITY TO GENERAL CLAIMS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  SECOND, THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO REQUIRE NATIONAL BANKS ACCEPTING
DEPOSITS OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO GIVE SATISFACTORY SECURITY; IT WAS HELD TO
BE FAIRLY INFERABLE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE UNITED STATES TO LOOK TO
THIS PROVISION RATHER THAN TO SEC. 3466 FOR PROTECTION.    THE CLAIMS
WHICH WERE DENIED PRIORITY IN THE GUARANTY TRUST CASE AROSE UNDER TITLE
II OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920.  THAT ACT PROVIDED FOR THE
FUNDING OF DEBTS TO THE UNITED STATES WHICH THE RAILROADS HAD
CONTRACTED DURING THE PERIOD OF WARTIME CONTROL, AND ALSO PROVIDED FOR
NEW LOANS TO THE RAILROADS.  IN HOLDING SEC. 3466 INAPPLICABLE TO THE
COLLECTION OF THESE LOANS THE COURT EMPHASIZED THAT THE BASIC PURPOSE
OF THE ACT WAS TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL CREDIT STATUS OF THE RAILROADS,
THAT THE RAILROADS WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH ADEQUATE SECURITY FOR THE
PAYMENT OF BOTH THE OLD AND NEW LOANS, AND THAT THE INTEREST RATE OF 6%
ON ONE CLASS OF LOANS WAS "MUCH GREATER THAN THAT WHICH ORDINARILY
ACCOMPANIES EVEN A BUSINESS LOAN CARRYING SUCH ASSURANCE OF REPAYMENT
AS WOULD HAVE RESULTED FROM AN APPLICATION OF THE PRIORITY RULE."  280
U.S. AT 486.  THESE FACTORS PERSUADED THE COURT THAT CONGRESS HAD
INTENDED TO EXCLUDE THESE LOANS FROM THE SCOPE OF SEC. 3466. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, NONE OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS PRESENT.  THE
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT CONTAINS NO REFERENCE TO THE LIQUIDATION OF
ESTATES OF INSOLVENT BORROWERS, AND CONSEQUENTLY NO DIRECT
INCONSISTENCY WITH SEC. 3466 IS POSSIBLE.  THE PURPOSE OF TITLE I WAS
NOT THE STRENGTHENING OF THE GENERAL CREDIT OF PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THE
STIMULATION OF THE BUILDING TRADES BY AFFORDING ASSURANCES TO LENDING
INSTITUTIONS IN ORDER TO INDUCE THEM TO MAKE LOANS FOR PROPERTY
IMPROVEMENTS.  NO SECURITY WAS REQUIRED OF THE BORROWERS, AND THE
INTEREST CHARGE WAS LOW.  FN12 ONLY THE PLAINEST INCONSISTENCY WOULD
WARRANT OUR FINDING AN IMPLIED EXCEPTION TO THE OPERATION OF SO CLEAR A
COMMAND AS THAT OF SEC. 3466.  WE THINK SUCH INCONSISTENCY IS WHOLLY
WANTING HERE. 

THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES BE FIRST SATISFIED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  MO. REV. STAT. (1929) SEC. 1168, SO FAR AS PERTINENT, PROVIDES:
"HEREAFTER WHEN THE PROPERTY OF ANY COMPANY, CORPORATION, FIRM OR
PERSON SHALL BE SEIZED UPON BY ANY PROCESS OF ANY COURT OF THIS STATE,
OR WHEN THEIR BUSINESS SHALL BE  ...  PUT INTO THE HANDS OF A RECEIVER
OR TRUSTEE, THEN IN ALL SUCH CASES THE DEBTS OWING TO LABORERS OR
SERVANTS, WHICH HAVE ACCRUED BY REASON OF THEIR LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT, TO
AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO EACH EMPLOYEE, FOR WORK
OR LABOR PERFORMED WITHIN SIX MONTHS NEXT PRECEDING THE SEIZURE OR
TRANSFER OF SUCH PROPERTY,  ...  SHALL BE FIRST PAID IN FULL; AND IF
THERE BE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THEM IN FULL, THEN THE SAME SHALL BE
PAID TO THEM PRO RATA, AFTER PAYING THE COSTS." 

FN2  U.S. REV. STAT. SEC. 3466(U.S.C., TITLE 31, SEC. 191) PROVIDES:
"WHENEVER ANY PERSON INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES IS INSOLVENT, OR
WHENEVER THE ESTATE OF ANY DECEASED DEBTOR, IN THE HANDS OF THE
EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS, IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL THE DEBTS DUE
FROM THE DECEASED, THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE FIRST
SATISFIED; AND THE PRIORITY HEREBY ESTABLISHED SHALL EXTEND AS WELL TO
CASES IN WHICH A DEBTOR, NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT PROPERTY TO PAY ALL HIS
DEBTS, MAKES A VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENT THEREOF, OR IN WHICH THE ESTATE AND
EFFECTS OF AN ABSCONDING, CONCEALED, OR ABSENT DEBTOR ARE ATTACHED BY
PROCESS OF LAW, AS TO CASES IN WHICH AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY IS
COMMITTED." 

FN3  FIELD V. UNITED STATES, 9 PET. 182, 200; UNITED STATES V.
OKLAHOMA, 261 U.S. 253; BARNETT V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 77 F.2D 225; IN
RE DICKSON'S ESTATE, 197 WASH. 145, 154-155, 84 P.2D 661.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. SUMMERLIN, 310 U.S. 414. 

FN4  SECTION 64A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, SO FAR AS PERTINENT,
PROVIDES:  "THE DEBTS TO HAVE PRIORITY, IN ADVANCE OF THE PAYMENT OF
DIVIDENDS TO CREDITORS, AND TO BE PAID IN FULL OUT OF BANKRUPT ESTATES,
AND THE ORDER OF PAYMENT, SHALL BE (1)  ...  (COSTS OF PRESERVING THE
ESTATE, ETC.); (2) WAGES, NOT TO EXCEED $600 TO EACH CLAIMANT, WHICH
HAVE BEEN EARNED WITHIN THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE DATE OF THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROCEEDING, DUE TO WORKMEN, SERVANTS, CLERKS, OR
TRAVELING OR CITY SALESMEN ON SALARY OR COMMISSION BASIS, WHOLE OR PART
TIME, WHETHER OR NOT SELLING EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BANKRUPT; (3)  ...
(CERTAIN EXPENSES OF CREDITORS CONNECTED WITH THE LIQUIDATION OF THE
ESTATE); (4) TAXES LEGALLY DUE AND OWING BY THE BANKRUPT TO THE UNITED
STATES OR ANY STATE OR ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF  ...  ; AND (5) DEBTS
OWING TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, WHO BY THE LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY  ...  " 

FN5  ACT OF 1800, C. 19, SEC. 62, 2 STAT. 19; ACT OF 1841, C. 9, SEC.
5, 5 STAT. 441; ACT OF 1867, C. 176, SEC. 28, 14 STAT. 517. 

FN6  SECTION 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898(30 STAT. 544)
PROVIDED: 

"(A)  THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE TRUSTEE TO PAY ALL TAXES LEGALLY DUE
AND OWING BY THE BANKRUPT TO THE UNITED STATES, STATE, COUNTY,
DISTRICT, OR MUNICIPALITY IN ADVANCE OF THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS TO
CREDITORS, AND UPON FILING THE RECEIPTS OF THE PROPER PUBLIC OFFICERS
FOR SUCH PAYMENT HE SHALL BE CREDITED WITH THE AMOUNT THEREOF  ... 

"(B)  THE DEBTS TO HAVE PRIORITY, EXCEPT AS HEREIN PROVIDED, AND TO
BE PAID IN FULL OUT OF BANKRUPT ESTATES, AND THE ORDER OF PAYMENT SHALL
BE (1) THE ACTUAL AND NECESSARY COST OF PRESERVING THE ESTATE
SUBSEQUENT TO FILING THE PETITION; (2) THE FILING FEES PAID BY
CREDITORS IN INVOLUNTARY CASES; (3)  ...  (THE COSTS OF
ADMINISTRATION); (4) WAGES DUE TO WORKMEN, CLERKS, OR SERVANTS WHICH
HAVE BEEN EARNED WITHIN THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE DATE OF THE
COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS, NOT TO EXCEED THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS TO
EACH CLAIMANT; AND (5) DEBTS OWING TO ANY PERSON WHO BY THE LAWS OF THE
STATES OR THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY." 

FN7  A SIMILAR CONTENTION WITH RESPECT TO SEC. 57J OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT WAS REJECTED IN MATTER OF SIMPSON, INC., 258 APP. DIV. 148, 15
N.Y.S.2D 1021. 

FN8  48 STAT. 1246, C. 847, SEC. 2. 

FN9  THE PRIORITY GRANTED BY SEC. 3466 IS, OF COURSE, NO GUARANTY
THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL BE SAVED FROM LOSS.  IN THE INSTANT CASE,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION ARE SO SMALL THAT
THE UNITED STATES WILL LOSE HEAVILY EVEN IF ITS CLAIM IS FIRST
SATISFIED. 

FN10  "MODERNIZATION CREDIT PLAN," BULLETIN NO. 1(AUG.  10, 1934) PP.
15, 16-17; ID. (SEPT. 12, 1934 REVISION) P. 22; ID. (JULY 15, 1935,
REVISION) P. 19; ID. (JULY 20, 1936 REVISION) PP. 6-7; "PROPERTY
IMPROVEMENT LOANS UNDER TITLE I" (FEB. 4, 1938) PP. 4, 23; ID. (JULY 1,
1939 REVISION) P. 15; ID. (MARCH 15, 1940 REVISION) P. 10. 

FN11  "MODERNIZATION CREDIT PLAN," BULLETIN NO. 1(SEPT.  12, 1934
REVISION) P. 29; ID. (JULY 15, 1935 REVISION) P. 15; "PROPERTY
IMPROVEMENT LOANS UNDER TITLE I" (FEB. 4, 1938) P. 33; ID. (JULY 1,
1939 REVISION) P. 30; ID. (MARCH 15, 1940 REVISION) REGULATION NO.
VIII. 

FN12  NOT UNTIL 1939, FOUR YEARS AFTER THE NOTE IN THIS CASE WAS
EXECUTED, DID THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION EVEN REQUIRE THE
LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO PAY PREMIUMS FOR THE INSURANCE OF TITLE I
LOANS.  53 STAT. 805, C. 175, SEC. 2.  THE INCOME FROM THESE PREMIUMS
WAS TO BE USED PRIMARILY TO MEET OPERATING EXPENSES UNDER TITLE I AND
SECONDARILY TO MEET LOSSES RESULTING FROM DEFAULTS.  IN HIS REPORT
DATED APRIL 1, 1941, THE ADMINISTRATOR ESTIMATED THAT FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1941, THIS INCOME FROM PREMIUMS WOULD PROVE
SUFFICIENT TO REIMBURSE THE UNITED STATES FOR LESS THAN HALF ITS LOSSES
UNDER TITLE I, AND THAT $4,000,000 OF PUBLIC FUNDS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
MEET THE BALANCE.  REPORT OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FOR THE
YEAR ENDING DEC. 31, 1940, P. 11. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

THE PURPOSE AND PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT  FN1  LEAD ME
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES IS
INAPPLICABLE TO THE CLAIM OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IN THIS CASE.  FN2 

A STATUTE IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED BY ITS TEXT ALONE, AS THOUGH IT
WERE A SPECIMEN UNDER LABORATORY CONTROL.  IT TAKES MEANING FROM OTHER
ENACTMENTS FORMING THE WHOLE BODY OF LAW BEARING UPON ITS SUBJECT.  FN3
IF, LIKE SEC. 3466, IT HAS BEEN UPON THE BOOKS FOR YEARS, THE
PRECEDENTS INTERPRETING ITS MEANING MUST BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION
WITH IT, PARTICULARLY WHEN, AS HERE, NEW LEGISLATION IS PASSED WHICH
MAY BE INCONSISTENT WITH ITS APPLICATION.  FN4 

FROM PAST INTERPRETATION WE LEARN THAT THE TRADITIONAL FUNCTION OF
SEC. 3466 IS THE ASSURANCE OF THE PUBLIC REVENUE,  FN5  WHATEVER MAY BE
THE EXPENSE TO THE COMPETING CREDITORS.  THEIR INTERESTS ARE
SUBORDINATED TO THE GENERAL ADVANTAGE.  FN6  TITLE I OF THE NATIONAL
HOUSING ACT, HOWEVER, IS NOT A REVENUE MEASURE - IT WAS INTENDED TO
STIMULATE RECOVERY AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES AND TO
ENABLE PROPERTY-OWNERS TO OBTAIN FUNDS FOR SORELY NEEDED REPAIRS BY
INSURING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AGAINST LOSS ON LOANS FOR SUCH WORK. 
FN7  THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY WHAT IS, IN EFFECT, A GUARANTEE THAT ALL
LOSSES ON REHABILITATION LOANS, UP TO A PREDETERMINED PERCENTAGE (20%
HERE) OF THE TOTAL MADE BY THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, WOULD BE BORNE BY
THE UNITED STATES, EITHER BY TAKING OVER LOANS IN DEFAULT OR PAYING THE
DEFICIT.  FN8  THAT LOSS CONGRESS INTENDED THE GOVERNMENT TO BEAR.  FN9
IN ESTIMATING THE LOSS, IT RELIED UPON THE EXPERIENCE OF PRIVATE
COMPANIES WHICH WERE UNAIDED BY ANY SUCH PRIORITY AS SEC. 3466.  FN10
LOANS COULD NOT BE MADE FOR A LONGER TERM THAN FIVE YEARS, AND MANY
WOULD BE FOR LESS.  STABLE ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENT WAS HARDLY TO BE
EXPECTED WITHIN THAT TIME, AND YET, MANY OF THOSE WHO BORROWED WOULD
DIE, OR DEFAULT, AND UNDERGO SOME SORT OF FINANCIAL LIQUIDATION.  THE
ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 3466 UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SHIFT THE LOSS
FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPETING CREDITORS, THUS HAMPERING THE EFFORTS
OF PRIVATE BUSINESS AND CAPITAL TO ACHIEVE THAT ECONOMIC RECOVERY WHICH
WAS THE AIM OF THE LEGISLATION.  FN11 

NOTHING IN THE HEARINGS, THE DEBATES OR THE ACT SHOW DEFINITIVELY
THAT CONGRESS CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 3466 TO GOVERNMENT
CLAIMS UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT.  IF THE TWO ACTS ALONE WERE TO
BE APPRAISED, IT MIGHT WELL BE CONCLUDED THAT, AS THEY ARE NOT
NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT, BOTH SHOULD BE ENFORCED.  BUT THE
DETERMINATION OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IS NOT SO SIMPLE AS THAT.  UPON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 3466 NEVER CAME TO THE
ATTENTION OF CONGRESS, WE MUST FIND LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE NOT FROM THE
LANGUAGE OF THE TWO ACTS ALONE BUT FROM GENERALIZATIONS AS TO THE
OBJECT OF THE NEW STATUTE AND FROM JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
MEANING OF THE OLD.  TO REACH A SOUND CONCLUSION AS TO THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE PRIORITY STATUTE AND THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS
DEDUCED MERELY FROM THE STATE OF THE LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT
OF THE HOUSING ACT, WE NEED TO WEIGH THE PRECEDENTS UNDER SEC. 3466
QUITE AS CAREFULLY AS THE ACTS THEMSELVES, IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE
LEGAL SITUATION INTO WHICH THE HOUSING ACT WAS INJECTED.  WHEN THIS IS
DONE, IT IS APPARENT THAT, EACH TIME THIS COURT HAS CONSIDERED
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AS TO SEC. 3466 IN RELATION TO GOVERNMENT CLAIMS
UNDER PUBLIC FINANCIAL LEGISLATION AFFECTING CREDITORS COMPETING WITH
THE GOVERNMENT, IT HAS DETERMINED SEC. 3466 DID NOT APPLY.  FN12 

THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT WAS "ONE OF THE LATEST OF A SERIES OF
ENACTMENTS, EXTENDING OVER MORE THAN A CENTURY, THROUGH WHICH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS RECOGNIZED AND FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATION TO
PROVIDE A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.  ...  "  FN13
SIGNIFICANT THAT IN THE CASE OF COOK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK THE DEBTOR
BANK AGAINST WHICH PRIORITY WAS DENIED WAS IN THE FEDERAL FINANCIAL
SYSTEM, WHILE HERE THE DEBTOR IS A PRIVATE CORPORATION WHICH HAS
PARTICIPATED IN A FEDERAL FINANCING PLAN.  THE INTRUSION OF A NOVEL
PRIORITY, UNCERTAIN IN AMOUNT BECAUSE UNRECORDED, INTO THE INTRICATE
CREDIT SYSTEM OF THE NATION AT A TIME OF STRAIN, WOULD BE A DRAG ON
RECOVERY, RATHER THAN A STIMULUS.  SUPPLIERS OF GOODS OR SERVICES IN
ALL FIELDS OF CREDIT ACTIVITY WOULD BE MOVED TO CONSTRICT THEIR
ADVANCES TO A BORROWER KNOWN TO HAVE CREATED A SECRET BUT VALID LIEN
UPON HIS ASSETS SUPERIOR TO ALL GENERAL CREDITORS.  THE FULL REACH OF
THE IMPLICATION OF CREDIT DISLOCATION MAY BE READILY GAUGED BY THE FACT
THAT, AT THE END OF 1936, 1,326,102 SEPARATE REHABILITATION LOANS HAD
BEEN MADE UNDER TITLE I FOR AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $500,220,642.  FN15
POSSIBLE PRIORITIES WILL NOW EXIST FOR EVERY OUTSTANDING DOLLAR. 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE SHOW HOW GOVERNMENT AID TO A DEBTOR MAY BE A
SNARE FOR HIS OTHER CREDITORS IF THE PRIORITY STATUTE OPERATES IN THIS
CLASS OF CLAIMS.  ABOUT A DOZEN CLAIMANTS BECAME CREDITORS IN THE
AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SOME NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR LABOR.  SUCH LABOR
CLAIMS WERE ENTITLED TO THE PREFERENCE UNDER MISSOURI LAW COMMON TO
LABOR CLAIMS.  BUT FOR THE PRIORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM, THEY
WOULD RECEIVE ALL OF THE REALIZATION FROM THE ASSETS - ABOUT TWO-THIRDS
OF THEIR CLAIMS.  BUT A MONTH BEFORE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER,
THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION TOOK OVER FROM A BANK A NOTE OF
ABOUT $6000.  FROM A DEFERRED POSITION IN THE HANDS OF THE BANK, THIS
DEBT IS SAID TO HAVE STEPPED INTO A PREFERRED POSITION BY TRANSFER TO
THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY.  AS SUCH, IT ABSORBS ALL OF THE ASSETS, AND THE
LABORERS WHO TRUSTED THEIR EMPLOYER'S CREDIT GET NOTHING.  SUCH A
PREFERENCE OF CREDITORS, BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE DEBTOR, WOULD BE AN ACT
OF BANKRUPTCY. 

IN 1920, WHEN THE RAILROADS NEEDED FUNDS BUT LACKED CREDIT FOR
PRIVATE BORROWING, GOVERNMENT LOANS WERE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS, BASED
UPON SUCH PROSPECTIVE EARNING POWER AND SECURITY AS WOULD FURNISH
REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF REPAYMENT.  FN16  IN UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY
TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478, WE HELD THAT THE REHABILITATING FUNCTIONS AND
THE SECURITY PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920 WERE SO
INCONSISTENT WITH SEC. 3466 AS TO PRECLUDE ITS APPLICATION IN THE
RECEIVERSHIP OF A DEBTOR RAILROAD.  EVEN MORE INCONSISTENT
CONSIDERATIONS EXIST IN THIS CASE.  CONGRESS WAS CONFRONTED WITH
WIDESPREAD NEED OF REPAIRS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY PERSONS WITHOUT THE
CASH OR CREDIT TO SECURE THEM.  FN17  MOREOVER, NOT ONLY HOMEOWNERS
BUT, LIKE THE RAILROADS, HARD PRESSED BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS, SUCH AS
THE DISTILLERY IN THIS CASE, WERE TO BE ASSISTED IN SECURING
MODERNIZATION LOANS.  FN18  INSTEAD OF LENDING THESE PEOPLE FEDERAL
FUNDS, CONGRESS LENT THEM FEDERAL CREDIT ON WHICH TO BORROW PRIVATE
FUNDS, WITH THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF KEEPING THE PROGRAM AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE A MATTER OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE HANDLED IN THE COURSE OF
PRIVATE AFFAIRS.  ASSURANCE OF REPAYMENT WAS RESTED NOT ON A
COMBINATION OF SECURITY AND EARNING POWER BUT DELIBERATELY UPON EARNING
POWER ALONE.  FN19  WHEREAS, WITH THE RAILROADS, INTEREST CORRESPONDING
TO THE RISK WAS CHARGED, NO PREMIUM WAS CHARGED FOR THE INSURANCE OF
LOANS UNDER TITLE I,  - WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD
PAY THE LOSS AS ITS CONTRIBUTION TO RECOVERY.  FN20  THE DECLARED
PURPOSE OF THE UNITED STATES TO ABSORB THE LOSSES OF THE LENDERS IS
CLEARLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRIORITY OVER OTHER CREDITORS GIVEN BY
SEC. 3466.  IT SEEMS BEYOND DOUBT, TO ME, THAT CONGRESS DID NOT EXPECT
A PRIORITY UNDER TITLE I WHICH THE GUARANTY TRUST CASE CERTAINLY DENIED
IT UNDER TITLE II RELATING TO INSURED MORTGAGES.  FN21 

EVEN IN THE MECHANICS OF ITS OPERATION, TITLE I REPUDIATED THE
BENEFITS OF SEC. 3466.  COLLECTION WAS LEFT TO THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION AFTER DEFAULT, SO LONG AS THERE WAS HOPE OF PARTIAL
LIQUIDATION.  FN22  THE LENDER, OF COURSE, HAD NO PRIORITY. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT NO PRIORITY EXISTS
BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 3466. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 27, 1934, C. 847, TIT. I, SEC. 2, 48 STAT. 1246, AS
AMENDED 49 STAT. 299, 49 STAT. 722, 49 STAT. 1187, 49 STAT. 1234.  THE
STATUTE AS THEREAFTER AMENDED SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE EVENTS OF THIS CASE
MAY BE FOUND AS 12 U.S.C. SEC. 1703(1940). 

FN2  PREVIOUS DECISIONS IN OTHER COURTS CONCEDEDLY ARE TO THE
CONTRARY.  IN RE LONG ISLAND SASH & DOOR CORP., 259 APP. DIV. 688, 20
N.Y.S.2D 573, AFF'D MEM. 284 N.Y. 713, 31 N.E.2D 48, CERT. DEN.  312
U.S. 696; IN RE DICKSON'S ESTATE, 197 WASH. 145, 84 P.2D 661.  ACCORD,
KORMAN V. FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR, 113 F.2D 743(APP.  D.C.);
WAGNER V. MCDONALD, 96 F.2D 273(C.C.A.8TH); IN RE WEIL, 39 F.SUPP. 
618(M.D. PA.); IN RE WILSON, 23 F.SUPP.  236(N.D. TEX.); CF. FEDERAL
RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS V. SMYLIE, 134 S.W.2D 838(TEX.  CIV.  APP.)(FARM
CREDIT ADMINISTRATION); SEE 52 HARV. L. REV. 320.  UNITED STATES V.
SUMMERLIN, 310 U.S. 414, HELD ONLY THAT THE CLAIM ASSIGNED TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR BECAME A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES NOT SUBJECT TO A
STATE STATUTE OF "NON-CLAIM."  IT DID NOT PASS UPON THE RIGHT TO
PRIORITY UNDER SEC. 3466 IN THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE.  COMPARE DUPONT DE
NEMOURS & CO. V. DAVIS, 264 U.S. 456, WHERE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE
RAILROADS WAS HELD FREE FROM LIMITATION, WITH MELLON V. MICHIGAN TRUST
CO., 271 U.S. 236, WHERE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL WAS DENIED PRIORITY UNDER
SEC. 3466.  UNITED STATES V. MARXEN, 307 U.S. 200, 203, EXPRESSLY DID
NOT DECIDE THE POINT. 

FN3  KEIFER & KEIFER V. R.F.C., 306 U.S. 381, 389. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. MARXEN, 307 U.S. 200, 206; UNITED STATES V.
KNOTT, 298 U.S. 544, 547-48; MELLON V. MICHIGAN TRUST CO., 271 U.S.
236, 240. 

FN5  SPOKANE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 80, 92; PRICE V.
UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 492, 500; BRAMWELL V. U.S. FIDELITY CO., 269
U.S. 483, 487. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. FISHER, 2 CRANCH 358, 389. 

FN7  MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT, MAY 14, 1934, 78 CONG. REC. 8739
40(SENATE), ID. AT 8773-74(HOUSE).  CONCERNING THE DOLDRUMS OF THE
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, SEE 78 CONG. REC. 11194, 11198, 11210, 11211;
HEARINGS ON SEN. 3603, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., MAY 16-24, 1934, PP. 166 FF.  CONCERNING THE NEED FOR REPAIRS,
SEE 78 CONG. REC. 11194, 11214; HEARINGS ON SEN. 3603, SUPRA, AT PP.
36, 48, 288, 290. 

FN8  REGULATION NO. 18 - MODERNIZATION CREDIT PLAN - TITLE I,
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, PROVIDED: "THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
WILL REIMBURSE ANY INSURED INSTITUTION ON LOSSES UP TO A TOTAL
AGGREGATE AMOUNT EQUAL TO 20% OF THE TOTAL FACE AMOUNT OF ALL QUALIFIED
NOTES TAKEN OR CURRENT FACE VALUE OF NOTES PURCHASED BY THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION, DURING THE TIME THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS IN FORCE, AND
HELD BY IT OR ON WHICH IT CONTINUES LIABLE.  ...  " MODERNIZATION
CREDIT PLAN, BULLETIN NO. 1, P. 30(REVISED REISSUE, DEC. 10, 1934). 

FN9  SENATOR BULKLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE (78 CONG. REC.
11974) STATED TO THE SENATE: "IT IS CONTEMPLATED THAT THERE WILL BE A
LOSS TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THIS TITLE, BUT THAT PROBABLY THE LOSS
WILL NOT BE VERY GREAT.  ...  THE REASON WE JUSTIFY THIS PROVISION IS
THAT IT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE A CONSIDERABLE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY ON
NEEDED REPAIRS AND RENOVATION AND THEREBY STIMULATE BUSINESS IN TRADES
WHICH VERY MUCH NEED STIMULATION AT THIS TIME."  78 CONG. REC. 11981,
73D CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN10  78 CONG. REC. 11195-11196, 11981, 11982, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.
SEE HEARINGS ON SEN. 3603, SUPRA, AT PP. 293-94. 

FN11  THESE LOANS WERE TO BE SO-CALLED "CHARACTER" LOANS, IN RELIANCE
ON THE CHARACTER AND STABLE EARNINGS OF THE BORROWER.  78 CONG. REC.
11194, 11195, 11981.  IT WAS EXPECTED THAT WHILE MANY PERSONS AT THE
TIME HAD NO STABLE INCOME, THE ACT WOULD TEMPORARILY PROMOTE NEW
EMPLOYMENT WHICH ONCE UNDER WAY WAS HOPED WOULD CONTINUE LONG ENOUGH OF
ITS OWN FORCE TO CULMINATE IN PERMANENT BUSINESS RECOVERY AND REPAYMENT
OF THE BORROWED MONEY.  HEARINGS ON SEN. 3603, SUPRA, AT PP. 46, 173. 

FN12  COOK COUNTY NAT. BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445; UNITED
STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478; CF. SLOAN SHIPYARDS V. U.S.
FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549; MELLON V. MICHIGAN TRUST CO., 271 U.S. 236. 

FN13  VALIDITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, 38
OPS.  ATTY.  GEN. 258, 262. 

FN14  COOK COUNTY NAT. BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445. 

FN15  THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION,
HOUSE DOC. NO. 48, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 7. 

FN16  TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, SEC. 210, 41 STAT. 468. 

FN17  78 CONG. REC. 11199, 11388, 11981, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.;
HEARINGS ON SEN. 3603, SUPRA, AT PP. 30, 172, 174, 179. 

FN18  THE LOAN LIMIT OF TITLE I WAS SOON INCREASED TO MEET BUSINESS
NEEDS.  AMENDMENT OF MAY 28, 1935, 49 STAT. 299. 

FN19  78 CONG. REC. 11194, 11195, 11981, 11982, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.;
HEARINGS ON SEN. 3603, SUPRA, AT PP. 37, 39, 293. 

FN20  SENATOR BULKLEY STATED:  "THE LENDER RECEIVES 20-PERCENT
INSURANCE AUTOMATICALLY AS AN INDUCEMENT TO MAKE LOANS OF THIS
PARTICULAR CHARACTER.  FRANKLY IT IS CONTEMPLATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT
WILL LOSE SOME MONEY."  78 CONG. REC. 11982, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.  SEE
ALSO 78 CONG. REC. 11195; HEARINGS ON SEN. 3603, SUPRA, AT PP. 34-35. 

FN21  MOREOVER, SINCE JULY 1, 1939, THERE IS A .75% INSURANCE CHARGE
UNDER TITLE I, SO THAT IN THE FUTURE, WHATEVER THE DECISION HERE, EVEN
TITLE I WOULD SEEM TO BE GOVERNED BY THE GUARANTY TRUST CASE.  24
C.F.R. SEC. 501.18(SUPP.  1939.) 

FN22  MODERNIZATION CREDIT PLAN, BULLETIN NO. 1, SUPRA, AT P. 8
STATES:  "IT IS TO THE INTEREST OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO CARRY
THE COLLECTION PROCESS ON A DEFAULTED NOTE AS FAR AS THERE IS
REASONABLE PROSPECT OF ULTIMATE PAYMENT INASMUCH AS COMPLETE
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY EXPENSES INCURRED IS PROVIDED AS SPECIFIED
HEREINAFTER.  THIS POLICY WILL TEND TO CONSERVE THE INSURANCE RESERVE
OF 20% FOR POSSIBLE LATER LOSSES AND ALSO WILL MAINTAIN THE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY THAT THESE NOTES REQUIRE THE SAME
PROMPT HANDLING BY MAKERS AS ANY OTHER CREDIT OBLIGATION.  ...  IT IS
THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION TO PERMIT FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS EVERY POSSIBLE LATITUDE IN MAKING COLLECTIONS ON
DELINQUENT ITEMS.  IT IS ONLY AFTER IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT FURTHER
COLLECTION EFFORTS WILL BE FRUITLESS THAT THE FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION WILL INSIST THAT CLAIM BE MADE.  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
ARE, THEREFORE, GIVEN A FULL YEAR AFTER DEFAULT ON THE NOTE TO EFFECT
COLLECTION.  ...  IF 10% OF THE AMOUNT DUE ON THE NOTE IS COLLECTED
WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR AFTER DEFAULT ON THE NOTE AND SO LONG THEREAFTER
AS 5% AT LEAST IS COLLECTED IN EACH SIX-MONTH PERIOD, THE FEDERAL
HOUSING ADMINISTRATION WILL NOT REQUIRE THAT CLAIM BE MADE, BUT WILL
PERMIT THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TO PROCEED WITH ITS COLLECTION
EFFORTS.  CLAIMS MAY INCLUDE:  (1) NET UNPAID PRINCIPAL; (2)
UNCOLLECTED EARNED INTEREST (AFTER MATURITY INTEREST IS NOT TO BE
CLAIMED AT A RATE EXCEEDING 6% PER ANNUM); (3) UNCOLLECTED 'LATE
CHARGES'; (4) UNCOLLECTED COURT COSTS, INCLUDING FEES PAID FOR ISSUING,
SERVING AND FILING SUMMONS; (5) ATTORNEY'S FEES NOT EXCEEDING 15% OF
THE AMOUNT COLLECTED ON THE DEFAULTED NOTE; (6) HANDLING FEE OF $5 FOR
EACH NOTE, IF JUDGMENT IS SECURED, PLUS 5% OF AMOUNT COLLECTED
SUBSEQUENT TO RETURN OF UNSATISFIED PROPERTY EXECUTION." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
CONCUR IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






















DIST. OF COLUMBIA V. MURPHY, 314 U.S. 441 


NO. 58.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 15, 1941.  - 73
APP. D.C. 345, 347, 119 F.2D 449, 451, REVERSED. 


1.  ONE DOES NOT ACQUIRE A DOMICILE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INCOME TAX ACT, MERELY
BY COMING TO THE DISTRICT TO LIVE FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD WHILE IN THE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE.  P. 453. 

2.  THE ACT DOES NOT INTEND THAT ONE LIVING IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA INDEFINITELY, WHILE IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE, SHALL BE HELD
DOMICILED THERE SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT MAINTAIN A DOMESTIC
ESTABLISHMENT AT THE PLACE FROM WHICH HE CAME.  P. 454. 

3.  PERSONS ARE DOMICILED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT, WHO LIVE THERE AND HAVE NO FIXED AND DEFINITE
INTENT TO RETURN TO THEIR FORMER DOMICILES AND MAKE THEIR HOMES THERE. 
P. 454. 

4.  THE PLACE WHERE A MAN LIVES IS, PRIMA FACIE, HIS DOMICILE.  P.
455. 

5.  THE TAXING AUTHORITY IS WARRANTED IN TREATING AS PRIMA FACIE
TAXABLE ANY PERSON QUARTERED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON TAX DAY
WHOSE STATUS IT DEEMS DOUBTFUL.  P. 455. 

6.  IN APPLYING THIS ACT, THE TAXING AUTHORITY NEED NOT FIND THE
EXACT TIME WHEN THE ATTITUDE AND RELATIONSHIP OF PERSON TO PLACE WHICH
CONSTITUTE DOMICILE WERE FORMED.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THEY WERE FORMED
BEFORE THE TAX DAY.  P. 455. 

7.  IF ONE HAS AT ANY TIME BECOME DOMICILED IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, IT IS HIS BURDEN TO ESTABLISH ANY CHANGE OF STATUS UPON WHICH
HE RELIES TO ESCAPE THE TAX.  P. 456. 

8.  IN ORDER TO RETAIN HIS FORMER DOMICILE, ONE WHO COMES TO THE
DISTRICT TO PERFORM GOVERNMENT SERVICE MUST ALWAYS HAVE A FIXED AND
DEFINITE INTENT TO RETURN AND TO TAKE UP HIS HOME THERE WHEN SEPARATED
FROM THE SERVICE.  A MERE SENTIMENTAL ATTACHMENT WILL NOT HOLD THE OLD
DOMICILE.  P. 456. 

9.  WHETHER OR NOT ONE VOTES WHERE HE CLAIMS DOMICILE IS HIGHLY
RELEVANT BUT NOT CONTROLLING.  P. 456. 

10.  OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE TO THE QUESTION OF DOMICILE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS THE NATURE OF THE POSITION WHICH BRINGS ONE TO
OR KEEPS HIM IN THE SERVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 457. 

11.  MANNER OF LIVING IN THE DISTRICT AND MANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
TOUCHING RELATIONSHIPS, SOCIAL CONNECTIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PERSON
CONCERNED, ARE SUGGESTED IN THE OPINION AS AMONG THE CONSIDERATIONS
WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION OF DOMICILE.  P.
457. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. MURPHY.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 59, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. DEHART, ALSO ON WRIT
OF CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 556, TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 556, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS SUSTAINING, ON
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW, DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOLDING THAT COLLECTIONS OF INCOME TAXES FROM TWO
INDIVIDUALS BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WERE ERRONEOUS. 

RESPONDENTS CAME TO RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT IN 1914 AND 1935.  SINCE
THAT TIME THEY HAVE HAD NO OTHER HOMES OR DWELLING PLACES.  WHEN A
PERSON HAS ONLY ONE HOME, THAT IS HIS DOMICILE.  RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT
OF LAWS, C. 2, SEC. 12, P. 24; BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 19.2; 9
R.C.L. 538; TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398; JACOBS, LAW OF DOMICILE,
SEC. 70, P. 113, SEC. 72, P. 120; KENNAN ON RESIDENCE AND DOMICILE,
SEC. 16, P. 37; GOODRICH ON CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 25. 

WHERE ONE LIVES IS PRIMA FACIE HIS DOMICILE, AND THE BURDEN OF
DISPROVING THIS IS ON HIM WHO DENIES IT.  ANDERSON V. WATT, 138 U.S.
694; ENNIS V. SMITH, 14 HOW.  400, 423; NEWMAN V. U.S. EX REL.
FRIZZELL, 43 APP. D.C. 53; BRADSTREET V. BRADSTREET, 18 D.C. REP. (7
MACKEY) 229; GALLAGHER V. GALLAGHER, 214 S.W. 516; DODD V. DODD, 15
S.W.2D 686; HARRISON V. HARRISON, 117 MD. 607; 9 R.C.L. 541, 557;
RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, C. 2, SEC. 12, P. 24; STORY, CONFLICT OF
LAWS, 8TH ED., SEC. 46; KENNAN, SEC. 172, P. 327; DICEY, LAW OF
DOMICILE, P. 9. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND AS A FACT THAT RESPONDENTS INTENDED TO
REMAIN AND MAKE THEIR HOMES IN THE DISTRICT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD. 
THE FINDINGS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND DOMICILE IN THE
DISTRICT FOLLOWS AS A MATTER OF LAW.  STORY, SEC. 46; GILBERT V. DAVID,
235 U.S. 561; MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 21 WALL.  350; ROSENBERG V.
COMMISSIONER, 59 APP. D.C. 178; NEWMAN V. U.S. EX REL. FRIZZELL, SUPRA;
RINGGOLD V. BARLEY, 5 MD. 186; KLUTTS V. JONES, 21 N.M. 720; FELKER V.
HENDERSON, 102 A. 623; BEALE, SEC. 19.1; KENNAN, SEC. 127, P. 257. 

THE INTENTION TO RETURN TO THE DOMICILE OF NATIVITY, OR ONE ACQUIRED,
MUST BE FIXED, ABSOLUTE, AND UNCONDITIONAL.  A MERE FLOATING INTENTION
TO RETURN AT SOME FUTURE PERIOD OR UPON THE HAPPENING OF SOME UNCERTAIN
EVENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT.  THE INTENT TO RETURN MUST NOT DEPEND UPON
INCLINATION OR BE CONTROLLED BY FUTURE EVENTS.  SPARKS V. SPARKS, 114
TENN. 666; STORY, CONFLICT OF LAWS, 8TH ED., SEC. 46; CF., BEALE,
CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 18.1. 

THE INTENTION REQUIRED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A DOMICILE OF CHOICE IS
AN INTENTION TO MAKE A HOME IN FACT, AND NOT AN INTENTION TO ACQUIRE A
DOMICILE.  RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, C. 2, SEC. 19, P. 38.  SEE,
ALSO, MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 21 WALL.  350; TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306
U.S. 398; FEEHAN V. TREFRY, 237 MASS. 169; BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS,
SEC. 19.2; DICKINSON V. INHABITANTS OF BROOKLINE, 181 MASS. 195.  SEE
JACOBS, SEC. 148, PP. 213-215. 

THE EXERCISE OF THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE MAY BE OUTWEIGHED BY OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES.  19 C.J. 436, 437; GADDIE V. MANN, 147 F. 955;
BRADSTREET V. BRADSTREET, SUPRA; IN RE SEDGWICK, 223 F. 655; IN RE
TROWBRIDGE'S ESTATE, 266 N.Y. 283; FEEHAN V. TREFRY, SUPRA; DICKINSON
V. INHABITANTS OF BROOKLINE, SUPRA; WAGNER V. SCURLOCK, 166 MD. 284;
KENNAN, SEC. 78, PP. 158-161; WHARTON, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 63. 

EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE IS OF MUCH GREATER WEIGHT IN THE
CASE OF REMOVAL FROM STATE TO STATE THAN IN THE CASE OF REMOVAL FROM A
STATE TO THE DISTRICT. 

THE DOMICILE OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR PURPOSES OF
TAXATION SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE RULES APPLICABLE TO PERSONS IN
PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT.  CF., SWEENEY V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 72 APP. D.C.
30, 310 U.S. 631. 

INDIVIDUALS ARE UNDER NO COMPULSION TO ACCEPT FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT OR
RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES RESIDING IN
THE DISTRICT ARE NOT TAXABLE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES OF FORMER
RESIDENCE UPON INCOME EARNED IN THE DISTRICT.  DOMICILE IN THE DISTRICT
IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH POLITICAL STATUS IN ONE OF THE STATES.  MOST
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES REMAIN IN THE DISTRICT AFTER RETIREMENT. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT REVEALS CONGRESSIONAL INTENT
CONSISTENT WITH THESE VIEWS. 

THE ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE
DISTRICT UNLESS THEY HAD ABANDONED THEIR DOMICILES IN THE STATES. 

THE DOMICILE OF A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IN THE DISTRICT IS NOT TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE RULES APPLICABLE TO PERSONS IN PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT. 
SWEENEY V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 72 APP. D.C. 30, CERT. DENIED, 310
U.S. 631. 

AN INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE BUT ONE DOMICILE.  WILLIAMSON V. OSENTON, 232
U.S. 619, 625. 

THE RULE THAT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO RETAIN HIS STATE
DOMICILE (SWEENEY CASE, SUPRA) IS SUPPORTED BY THE CLEAR WEIGHT OF
JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, BY MANY INSTANCES OF CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION IN
PRINCIPLE, AND BY THE LONG-ESTABLISHED CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF OTHER
OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENTS.  SEE CITATIONS AND FOOTNOTES IN SWEENEY V.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 72 APP. D.C. 30, 37.  THE RULE IS OF ANCIENT
ORIGIN.  BRUCE V. BRUCE, 2 BOSANQUET & PULLER 229, AND ATHERTON V.
THORNTON, 8 N.H. 178. 

PRACTICALLY ALL STATES HAVE PROVISIONS, IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS OR
LAWS, REQUIRING DOMICILE AS A CONDITION TO EXERCISE OF THE FRANCHISE,
AND PROVIDING THAT ABSENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE DOES NOT PREVENT
LOSS OF "RESIDENCE." 

IF THIS COURT CONFIRMS THE COMMON-LAW DOCTRINE THAT DOMICILE IS
INDIVISIBLE, AND AT THE SAME TIME RULES THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ARE
DOMICILED IN THE DISTRICT, IT WILL DEPRIVE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES OF THEIR
FRANCHISE IN THE STATES. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW WAS EQUITABLE BECAUSE IT AVOIDED
DOUBLE TAXATION.  A REVERSAL OF IT WOULD DEPRIVE AT LEAST 24 STATES OF
THE RIGHT TO TAX FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IN THE DISTRICT DOMICILED IN THOSE
STATES, AND WOULD SUBJECT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FROM THE STATES TO DOUBLE
TAXATION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES, WHICH HAVE BEEN ARGUED TOGETHER, DIFFER SOMEWHAT IN
FACTS, BUT EACH INVOLVES A CONTROVERSY AS TO WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS
DOMICILED WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON DECEMBER 31, 1939, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(A) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INCOME TAX ACT,
FN1  WHICH LAYS A TAX ON "THE TAXABLE INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL
DOMICILED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON THE LAST DAY OF THE TAXABLE
YEAR."  THE FOLLOWING FACTS APPEAR FROM PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 

THE RESPONDENT IN NO. 58, A SINGLE MAN, FIRST CAME TO THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA IN 1935 TO WORK AS AN ECONOMIST IN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
AND WAS BLANKETED INTO CIVIL SERVICE IN THAT POSITION IN JULY, 1938. 
HE CAME HERE FROM DETROIT, MICHIGAN, AND HAS EVER SINCE CONTINUED TO BE
A REGISTERED VOTER AND HAS VOTED IN THE ELECTIONS AND PRIMARIES IN
WAYNE COUNTY, MICHIGAN.  HE WAS BORN IN NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, IN
1905, AND WHEN FIVE YEARS OLD MOVED WITH HIS PARENTS TO LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA, WHERE HE RESIDED UNTIL 1926, WHEN HE REMOVED TO BERKELEY,
CALIFORNIA.  HIS PARENTS LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.  IN 1929 HE COMPLETED HIS
STUDIES AT BROWN UNIVERSITY AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER ACCEPTED
EMPLOYMENT IN A TRUST COMPANY IN DETROIT, MICHIGAN, OF WHICH ONE OF HIS
FORMER PROFESSORS AT BROWN WAS VICE PRESIDENT.  WHILE IN DETROIT,
RESPONDENT LIVED FIRST IN A ROOMING HOUSE AND LATER IN AN APARTMENT. 
HE OWNS NO PROPERTY THERE.  IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HE LIVES IN AN
APARTMENT, WHICH HE HAS FURNISHED HIMSELF.  HIS PRESENT EMPLOYMENT PAYS
HIM $6,500 A YEAR, WHILE THAT WHICH HE LEFT IN DETROIT PAID BUT
$6,000.  HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT HE DOES NOT
THINK HE WOULD IMPROVE HIS CONDITION BY RETURNING TO DETROIT, BUT THAT
"IT IS THE PLACE TO WHICH I WILL RETURN IF I EVER BECOME DISEMPLOYED BY
THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH I HOPE WILL NOT HAPPEN  ...  "  ALTHOUGH HE HAS
NO PRESENT CONNECTION WITH THE TRUST COMPANY, HE BELIEVES THAT HE COULD
GO BACK WITH IT IF HE SHOULD RETURN TO DETROIT.  IF A BETTER POSITION
THAN HE NOW HAS SHOULD BE OFFERED IN A CITY OTHER THAN DETROIT, HE
"VERY LIKELY WOULD" ACCEPT IT, DESPITE A "PREFERENCE FOR DETROIT" BASED
ON A BELIEF THAT HE "WOULD FIT IN MORE EASILY" THERE. 

RESPONDENT CLAIMED THAT DETROIT WAS HIS "LEGAL RESIDENCE" AND THAT HE
WAS NOT DOMICILED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOUND "AS A FACT" THAT WHEN HE
CAME TO WASHINGTON IN 1935 HE "HAD AN INTENTION TO REMAIN AND MAKE HIS
HOME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME; AND
THAT SUCH INTENTION HAS EVER SINCE, AND STILL DOES REMAIN WITH HIM; AND
THAT IF HE HAS ANY INTENTION TO RETURN AND MAKE HIS HOME IN DETROIT, IT
IS A FLOATING INTENTION."  THE BOARD HELD, HOWEVER, "AS MATTER OF LAW,"
THAT ON DECEMBER 31, 1939, THE LAST DAY OF THE TAXABLE YEAR, PETITIONER
WAS NOT DOMICILED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BELIEVING THAT IT WAS
COMPELLED TO DO SO BY THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN SWEENEY V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 72 APP. D.C. 30, 113 F.2D 25, CERTIORARI DENIED, 310 U.S.
631. 

THE RESPONDENT IN NO. 59 LIVED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR TWENTY
SIX YEARS AFTER COMING HERE FROM PENNSYLVANIA IN 1914 TO ACCEPT A
CLERICAL POSITION OF INDEFINITE TENURE UNDER CIVIL SERVICE IN THE
PATENT OFFICE.  HE WAS THEN ON A YEAR'S LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM A
RAILROAD BY WHICH HE WAS EMPLOYED, BUT CONTINUED IN THE CIVIL SERVICE
TO THE TIME OF HEARING, BECOMING CHIEF CLERK OF THE PERSONNEL AND
ORGANIZATION DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, WAR DEPARTMENT,
WITH OFFICES IN WASHINGTON.  SINGLE WHEN HE CAME, IN 1917 HE MARRIED A
NATIVE OF WASHINGTON, WHO DIED IN 1935 WITHOUT CHILDREN.  SHORTLY AFTER
THEIR MARRIAGE THE COUPLE PURCHASED AS A HOME, PREMISES AT 1426
MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, S.E., IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IN WHICH
RESPONDENT STILL LIVES.  IN ABOUT 1925, HE PURCHASED A LOT AT "SELBY ON
THE BAY" IN NEARBY MARYLAND, AND BEFORE HIS WIFE'S DEATH HE BOUGHT A
BUILDING LOT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACTING ON HIS WIFE'S PLEAS
FOR A SUMMER PLACE AND A BETTER RESIDENCE.  HE AGREED WITH HIS WIFE
THAT, ON HIS RETIREMENT, SIX MONTHS WOULD BE SPENT AT SELBY.  HE
TESTIFIED THAT HE NEVER DESIRED TO PURCHASE THE LOT IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, BUT DID SO AT THE INSISTENCE OF HIS WIFE.  HE PUT A "FOR
SALE" SIGN ON IT WHEN SHE DIED, AND BOTH LOTS, WHICH HE STILL OWNS, ARE
UP FOR SALE.  HE HAS DEPOSITS IN THREE WASHINGTON FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS AND OWNS FIRST TRUST NOTES ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN MARYLAND
AND VIRGINIA. 

IN 1915, RESPONDENT BECAME A MEMBER OF A LUTHERAN CHURCH IN
WASHINGTON, AND HAS EVER SINCE BEEN AN ACTIVE MEMBER, AT ONE TIME
SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF ITS CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOR SOCIETY.  HE IS A
CONTRIBUTOR TO WASHINGTON CHARITIES, A MEMBER OF THE MOTOR CLUB OF
WASHINGTON, AND OF THE WASHINGTON UNITS OF "TALL CEDARS OF LEBANON" AND
THE "MYSTIC SHRINE," BOTH IDENTIFIED WITH FREEMASONRY.  HE HAS FILED
HIS FEDERAL INCOME-TAX RETURNS WITH THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
AT BALTIMORE, AND ALWAYS PAID TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AN INTANGIBLE
PROPERTY TAX WHILE THAT TAX WAS IN EFFECT. 

RESPONDENT HAD RESIDED IN PENNSYLVANIA FROM BIRTH UNTIL HE LEFT FOR
WASHINGTON.  HE CLAIMED AS HIS "LEGAL RESIDENCE" THE RESIDENCE OF HIS
PARENTS IN HARRISBURG, WHERE THEY STILL KEEP INTACT HIS ROOM IN WHICH
ARE KEPT SOME OF HIS CLOTHES AND CHILDHOOD TOYS.  THOUGH PAYING NOTHING
AS RENT OR FOR LODGING, HE HAS FROM TIME TO TIME MADE PRESENTS OF MONEY
TO HIS PARENTS.  HE HAS VISITED HIS PARENTS' HOME IN HARRISBURG OVER
WEEK ENDS AT LEAST EIGHT TIMES A YEAR, AND HAS BEEN THERE ANNUALLY
BETWEEN CHRISTMAS AND THE NEW YEAR.  A REGISTERED VOTER IN
PENNSYLVANIA, HE HAS VOTED IN ALL ITS GENERAL ELECTIONS SINCE HE BECAME
OF AGE.  HE PAID THE PENNSYLVANIA POLL TAX UNTIL IT WAS SUPERSEDED BY
AN OCCUPATIONAL TAX, WHICH HE HAS ALSO PAID.  PAYMENT OF SUCH TAXES WAS
A PREREQUISITE TO VOTING. 

IN 1912, RESPONDENT BECAME A LIFE MEMBER OF THE ROBERT BURNS LODGE
NO. 464, FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, AND OF THE HARRISBURG CONSISTORY,
SCOTTISH RITE, BOTH MASONIC BODIES.  WHILE HE RESIDED IN HARRISBURG HE
WAS A MEMBER OF THE BIBLE CLASS OF THE PINE STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,
WHICH HE STILL ATTENDS ON VISITS THERE, AND TO WHICH HE MADE
SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN 1939.  HE OWNS JOINTLY WITH HIS FATHER A
NOTE SECURED BY A MORTGAGE ON PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE.  RESPONDENT
TESTIFIED THAT HE EXPECTED TO RETIRE FROM CIVIL SERVICE IN FOUR YEARS
AND INTENDED THEN TO SELL HIS HOUSE AND "LEAVE WASHINGTON." 

THE BOARD FOUND "AS A FACT" THAT, AT THE END OF ONE YEAR AFTER HE
CAME TO THE DISTRICT IN 1914, RESPONDENT "HAD AN INTENTION TO REMAIN
AND MAKE HIS HOME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD
OF TIME AND THAT INTENTION REMAINED WITH HIM, AT LEAST UNTIL THE DEATH
OF HIS WIFE."  AS IN NO. 58, IT CONSIDERED ITSELF BOUND BY THE SWEENEY
CASE, SUPRA, AND ACCORDINGLY HELD "AS A MATTER OF LAW" THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS NOT DOMICILED IN THE DISTRICT ON DECEMBER 31, 1939, AND
NEVER HAD BEEN.    THE DECISIONS IN BOTH CASES WERE AFFIRMED ON REVIEW
BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  73
APP. D.C. 345, 347, 119 F.2D 449, 451.  THE CASES WERE BROUGHT HERE ON
WRITS OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVED.  313 U.S. 556. 

ALTHOUGH THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INCOME TAX ACT MADE "DOMICILE" THE
FULCRUM OF THE INCOME TAX, THE FIRST EVER IMPOSED IN THE DISTRICT, IT
SET FORTH NO DEFINITION OF THAT WORD.  TO ASCERTAIN ITS MEANING WE
THEREFORE CONSIDER THE CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY OF THE ACT, THE SITUATION
WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH IT WAS ENACTED, AND THE EXISTING JUDICIAL
PRECEDENTS, WITH WHICH CONGRESS MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR IN
AT LEAST A GENERAL WAY.  UNITED STATES V. DICKERSON, 310 U.S. 554,
562. 

AS INTRODUCED INTO AND PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE
BILL WHICH, WITH AMENDMENTS, BECAME THE ACT, LAID A TAX UPON INCOME OF
RESIDENTS FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, AND UPON INCOME OF NONRESIDENTS
FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE DISTRICT, WITH A PROVISION FOR CREDIT FOR THE
PAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES ELSEWHERE.  H.R. 6577, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
SECS. 2(A), 4(A), 9(A), (B).  THE BILL WAS AMENDED ON THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE TO EXCEPT "SENATORS, REPRESENTATIVES, DELEGATES, RESIDENT
COMMISSIONERS, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES."  84 CONG. REC. 7036.  IT WAS
UNACCEPTABLE TO THE SENATE IN THIS FORM, AND IT WAS AGREED IN
CONFERENCE THAT THE TAX SHOULD BE LEVIED UPON "EVERY INDIVIDUAL
DOMICILED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON THE LAST DAY OF THE TAXABLE
YEAR," WITH NO PROVISION FOR CREDIT FOR INCOME TAXES PAID ELSEWHERE. 
H.R. REP. NOS. 1093, 1206, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3; SEN. DOC. NO.
92, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3.  THIS WAS AGREED TO BY THE SENATE AND
BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND BECAME PART OF THE ACT UNDER
CONSIDERATION. 

THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT WAS PRESENTED TO THE SENATE BY SENATOR
OVERTON, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE CONFEREES, WITH THE FOLLOWING
EXPLANATION:  "MR. PRESIDENT, I NOW CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX IS IMPOSED ONLY ON THOSE DOMICILED IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IT, THEREFORE, NECESSARILY EXCLUDES FROM ITS
IMPOSITION ALL SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ALL CABINET OFFICERS, AND FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT INTO THE DISTRICT FROM THE VARIOUS
STATES OF THE UNION TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL,
PROVIDED SUCH EMPLOYEES HAVE NOT OF THEIR VOLITION SURRENDERED THEIR
DOMICILES IN THE STATES AND HAVE VOLUNTARILY ACQUIRED DOMICILES WITHIN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  84 CONG. REC. 8824.  SENATOR OVERTON ALSO
STATED:  "I TOOK THE POSITION BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMITTEE
AND IN CONFERENCE THAT I WOULD NOT SUPPORT ANY LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD
EXEMPT SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR
OFFICIAL FORCE FROM AN INCOME TAX IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUT WOULD
IMPOSE IT ON ALL OTHERS.  I THEN TOOK THE POSITION IN CONFERENCE THAT
IF WE IMPOSED AN INCOME TAX ONLY ON THOSE DOMICILED WITHIN THE
DISTRICT, THEN WE WOULD BE IMPOSING IT ONLY ON THOSE WHO OF THEIR OWN
VOLITION HAD ABANDONED THEIR DOMICILES IN THE STATES OF THEIR ORIGIN
AND HAD ELECTED TO MAKE THEIR PERMANENT HOME OR DOMICILE HERE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  SUCH PERSONS, IT MAY BE JUSTLY CONTENDED, HAVE
NO CAUSE TO COMPLAIN AGAINST AN INCOME TAX THAT IS IMPOSED UPON THEM
ONLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO ESTABLISH WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA THEIR PERMANENT  FN2  PLACES OF ABODE AND TO ABANDON THEIR
DOMICILES WITHIN THE STATES."  84 CONG. REC. 8825. 

IN THE HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLS, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE
CONFEREES, AND ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE IN CHARGE
OF FISCAL AFFAIRS, SUBMITTED THE CONFERENCE REPORT AND STATED: "SINCE
THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF THE WORD 'DOMICILE' IN THIS ACT HAS BEEN
RAISED, I THINK THE HOUSE WOULD PROBABLY LIKE TO HAVE THE LEGAL
DEFINITION READ:  'DOMICILE IS THE PLACE WHERE ONE HAS HIS TRUE, FIXED,
PERMANENT HOME AND PRINCIPAL ESTABLISHMENT AND TO WHICH, WHENEVER HE IS
ABSENT, HE HAS THE INTENTION OF RETURNING, AND WHERE HE EXERCISES HIS
POLITICAL RIGHTS.  FN3  ...  THERE MUST EXIST IN COMBINATION THE FACT
OF RESIDENCE AND ANIMUS MANENDI - ' WHICH MEANS RESIDENCE AND HIS
INTENTION TO RETURN; SO THAT UNDER THIS DEFINITION HE COULD CERTAINLY
LIVE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND HAVE HIS LEGAL DOMICILE IN ANY
OTHER STATE IN THE UNITED STATES."  84 CONG. REC. 8974. 

REPRESENTATIVE BATES, ANOTHER OF THE HOUSE CONFEREES, STATED IN
RESPONSE TO A QUESTION REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF TRIPLE TAXATION,
"WE RAISED THAT PARTICULAR POINT (IN CONFERENCE) BECAUSE WE ARE MUCH
CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THOSE WHO COME FROM OUR STATES WOULD BE AFFECTED BY
THE INCOME-TAX PROVISIONS OF THE NEW LAW, AND IT WAS DISTINCTLY
UNDERSTOOD THAT IN THIS BILL THERE SHOULD BE NO TRIPLE TAXATION  ...  "
84 CONG. REC. 8973. 

THE UNUSUAL CHARACTER OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL, MAKING THE INCOME TAX
A "VERY EXPLOSIVE AND CONTROVERSIAL ITEM,"  FN4  WAS VIVIDLY BEFORE THE
CONGRESS, AND MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED IN CONSTRUING THE STATUTE
IMPOSING THE TAX. 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS AN EXCEPTIONAL COMMUNITY.  IT IS NOT A
LOCAL MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, BUT WAS ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
AS THE SEAT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  THOSE IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
HERE ARE NOT ENGAGED IN LOCAL ENTERPRISE, ALTHOUGH THEIR SERVICE MAY BE
LOCALIZED.  THEIR WORK IS THAT OF THE NATION, AND THEIR PAY COMES NOT
FROM LOCAL SOURCES BUT FROM THE WHOLE COUNTRY.  BECAUSE OF ITS
CHARACTER AS A FEDERAL CITY, THERE IS NO LOCAL POLITICAL CONSTITUENCY
WITH WHOSE ACTIVITIES THOSE LIVING IN IT MAY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS A
SYMBOL OF THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF A LOCAL DOMICILE. 

NOT ALL WHO FLOCK HERE ARE BIRDS OF A FEATHER.  SOME ENTER THE CIVIL
SERVICE, FINDING TENURE AND PAY THERE MORE SECURE THAN IN PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE.  POLITICAL TIES ARE OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN OBTAINING OR
MAINTAINING THEIR POSITIONS.  AT THE OTHER EXTREME ARE THOSE WHO HOLD
APPOINTIVE OFFICE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE APPOINTING OFFICER.  THESE
LATTER, AS WELL AS APPOINTIVE OFFICERS WITH DEFINITE BUT UNPROTECTED
TENURE, AND ALL ELECTIVE OFFICERS, USUALLY OWE THEIR PRESENCE HERE TO
THE INTIMATE AND INFLUENTIAL PART THEY HAVE PLAYED IN COMMUNITY LIFE IN
ONE OF THE STATES. 

RELATIVELY FEW PERSONS HERE IN ANY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE
CAN TRUTHFULLY AND ACCURATELY LAY CLAIM TO AN INTENTION TO SEVER
THEMSELVES FROM THE SERVICE ON ANY EXACT DATE.  PERSONS IN ALL BRANCHES
USUALLY DESIRE, QUITE NATURALLY AND PROPERLY, TO CONTINUE FAMILY LIFE
AND TO HAVE THE COMFORTS OF A DOMESTIC ESTABLISHMENT FOR WHATEVER MAY
BE THE TERM OF THEIR STAY HERE.  THIS IS TRUE OF MANY SENATORS AND
CONGRESSMEN, CITED BY SENATOR OVERTON AS TYPICAL OF THOSE WHOM THE
LIMITATION OF THE STATUTE TO PERSONS "DOMICILED" HERE "NECESSARILY
EXCLUDES." 

TURNING TO THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE IN CONSTRUING
"DOMICILE" AS USED IN THE STATUTE, WE FIND IT GENERALLY RECOGNIZED THAT
ONE WHO COMES TO WASHINGTON TO ENTER THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND TO LIVE
HERE FOR ITS DURATION DOES NOT THEREBY ACQUIRE A NEW DOMICILE.  MORE
THAN A CENTURY AGO, JUSTICE PARKER OF NEW HAMPSHIRE OBSERVED THAT "IT
HAS GENERALLY BEEN CONSIDERED THAT PERSONS APPOINTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TAKING UP THEIR RESIDENCE
IN WASHINGTON FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXECUTING THE DUTIES OF SUCH OFFICE,
DO NOT THEREBY, WHILE ENGAGED IN THE SERVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT, LOSE
THEIR DOMICILE IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY BEFORE RESIDED, UNLESS THEY
INTEND ON REMOVING THERE TO MAKE WASHINGTON THEIR PERMANENT  FN5
RESIDENCE."  SEE ATHERTON V. THORNTON, 8 N.H. 178, 180.  BY AND LARGE,
SUBSEQUENT CASES HAVE TAKEN A LIKE VIEW.  FN6  IT SHOULD ALSO BE
OBSERVED THAT A POLICY AGAINST LOSS OF DOMICILE BY SOJOURN IN
WASHINGTON IS EXPRESSED IN THE CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES OF MANY
STATES.  FN7  OF COURSE, NO INDIVIDUAL CASE, CONSTITUTION, OR STATUTE
IS CONTROLLING, BUT THE GENERAL TREND OF THESE AUTHORITIES IS A
SIGNIFICANT RECOGNITION THAT THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OF WASHINGTON
HABITATION FOR FEDERAL SERVICE IS MEANINGFUL TO THOSE WHO ARE SERVED AS
WELL AS TO THOSE IN THE SERVICE. 

FROM THESE VARIOUS DATA ON CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, IT IS APPARENT THAT
THE PRESENT CASES ARE NOT GOVERNED BY THE TESTS USUALLY EMPLOYED IN
CASES WHERE THE ELEMENT OF FEDERAL SERVICE IN THE FEDERAL CITY IS NOT
PRESENT.  FN8  WE HOLD THAT A MAN DOES NOT ACQUIRE A DOMICILE IN THE
DISTRICT SIMPLY BY COMING HERE TO LIVE FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME
WHILE IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE.  A CONTRARY DECISION WOULD DISREGARD
THE STATEMENTS MADE ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS AS TO THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE, FAIL TO GIVE PROPER WEIGHT TO THE TREND OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS,
WITH WHICH CONGRESS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN COGNIZANT, AND RESULT
IN A WHOLESALE FINDING OF DOMICILE ON THE PART OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS
QUITE OBVIOUSLY AT VARIANCE WITH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  FURTHER,
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT ONE LIVING HERE INDEFINITELY WHILE IN THE
GOVERNMENT SERVICE BE HELD DOMICILED HERE SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT
MAINTAIN A DOMESTIC ESTABLISHMENT AT THE PLACE HE HAILS FROM.  SUCH A
RULE WOULD RESULT IN TAXING THOSE UNABLE TO MAINTAIN TWO
ESTABLISHMENTS, AND EXEMPTING THOSE ABLE TO MEET SUCH A BURDEN - THUS
REVERSING THE USUAL PHILOSOPHY OF INCOME TAX AS ONE BASED ON ABILITY TO
PAY. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HOLD THAT PERSONS ARE DOMICILED HERE WHO LIVE
HERE AND HAVE NO FIXED AND DEFINITE INTENT TO RETURN AND MAKE THEIR
HOMES WHERE THEY WERE FORMERLY DOMICILED.  FN9  A DECISION THAT THE
STATUTE LAYS A TAX ONLY ON THOSE WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE INTENT TO REMAIN
HERE THE REST OF THEIR DAYS WOULD BE AT ODDS WITH THE PREVAILING
CONCEPT OF DOMICILE, AND WOULD GIVE THE STATUTE SCOPE FAR NARROWER THAN
CONGRESS MUST HAVE INTENDED. 

CASES FALLING CLEARLY WITHIN SUCH BROAD RULES ASIDE, THE QUESTION OF
DOMICILE IS A DIFFICULT ONE OF FACT TO BE SETTLED ONLY BY A REALISTIC
AND CONSCIENTIOUS REVIEW OF THE MANY RELEVANT (AND FREQUENTLY
CONFLICTING) INDICIA OF WHERE A MAN'S HOME  FN10  IS AND ACCORDING TO
THE ESTABLISHED MODES OF PROOF. 

THE PLACE WHERE A MAN LIVES IS PROPERLY TAKEN TO BE HIS DOMICILE
UNTIL FACTS ADDUCED ESTABLISH THE CONTRARY.  ENNIS V. SMITH, 14 HOW. 
400, 423; ANDERSON V. WATT, 138 U.S. 694, 706.  THE TAXING AUTHORITY IS
WARRANTED IN TREATING AS PRIMA FACIE TAXABLE ANY PERSON QUARTERED IN
THE DISTRICT ON TAX DAY WHOSE STATUS IT DEEMS DOUBTFUL.  IT IS NOT AN
UNREASONABLE BURDEN UPON THE INDIVIDUAL, WHO KNOWS BEST WHENCE HE CAME,
WHAT HE LEFT BEHIND, AND HIS OWN ATTITUDES, TO REQUIRE HIM TO ESTABLISH
DOMICILE ELSEWHERE IF HE IS TO ESCAPE THE TAX. 

TO HOLD TAXABLE ONE WHO CONTENDS THAT HE IS NOT DOMICILED HERE, THE
BOARD NEED NOT FIND THE EXACT TIME WHEN THE "ATTITUDE AND RELATIONSHIP
OF PERSON TO PLACE" WHICH CONSTITUTE DOMICILE, TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306
U.S. 398, 411, WERE FORMED, SO LONG AS IT FINDS THEY WERE FORMED BEFORE
THE TAX DAY.  WHAT WAS AT FIRST A FIRM INTENT TO RETURN MAY HAVE
WITHERED GRADUALLY IN CONSEQUENCE OF DISSOLVING ASSOCIATIONS ELSEWHERE
AND GROWING INTERESTS IN THE DISTRICT.  IT IS COMMON EXPERIENCE THAT
THIS PROCESS USUALLY IS UNMARKED BY ANY DRAMATIC OR EVEN SHARPLY
DEFINED EPISODE.  THE TAXING AUTHORITY NEED NOT FIND JUST WHEN THE
INTENT WAS FINALLY DISSIPATED; IT IS ENOUGH THAT IT FINDS THAT THIS HAS
HAPPENED BEFORE THE TAX DAY. 

IF ONE HAS AT ANY TIME BECOME DOMICILED HERE, IT IS HIS BURDEN TO
ESTABLISH ANY CHANGE OF STATUS UPON WHICH HE RELIES TO ESCAPE THE TAX. 
ANDERSON V. WATT, SUPRA, AT P. 706. 

IN ORDER TO RETAIN HIS FORMER DOMICILE, ONE WHO COMES TO THE DISTRICT
TO ENTER GOVERNMENT SERVICE MUST ALWAYS HAVE A FIXED AND DEFINITE
INTENT TO RETURN AND TAKE UP HIS HOME THERE WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE
SERVICE.  A MERE SENTIMENTAL ATTACHMENT WILL NOT HOLD THE OLD
DOMICILE.  AND RESIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT WITH A NEARLY EQUAL READINESS
TO GO BACK WHERE ONE CAME FROM, OR TO ANY OTHER COMMUNITY OFFERING
ADVANTAGES UPON THE TERMINATION OF SERVICE, IS NOT ENOUGH. 

ONE'S TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO HIS INTENTION IS, OF COURSE, TO BE
GIVEN FULL AND FAIR CONSIDERATION, BUT IS SUBJECT TO THE INFIRMITY OF
ANY SELF-SERVING DECLARATION, AND MAY FREQUENTLY LACK PERSUASIVENESS OR
EVEN BE CONTRADICTED OR NEGATIVED BY OTHER DECLARATIONS AND
INCONSISTENT ACTS. 

WHETHER OR NOT ONE VOTES WHERE HE CLAIMS DOMICILE IS HIGHLY RELEVANT
BUT BY NO MEANS CONTROLLING.  FN11  EACH STATE PRESCRIBES FOR ITSELF
THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS VOTERS, AND EACH HAS ITS OWN MACHINERY FOR
DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH QUALIFICATIONS.  A VOTE CAST WITHOUT
CHALLENGE AND ADJUDICATION MAY INDICATE ONLY LAXITY OF THE STATE
OFFICIALS, AND EVEN AN ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE CANNOT
PRECLUDE THE LEVY OF A TAX BY AN ARM OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, FAILURE TO VOTE ELSEWHERE IS, OF COURSE, NOT CONCLUSIVE
THAT DOMICILE IS HERE. 

ALSO OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE IS THE NATURE OF THE POSITION WHICH BRINGS
ONE TO OR KEEPS HIM IN THE SERVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT:  WHETHER
CONTINUOUS OR EMERGENCY, SPECIAL OR WAR-TIME IN CHARACTER; WHETHER
REQUIRING FIXED RESIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT OR ONLY INTERMITTENT STAYS;
WHETHER ENTAILING MONETARY SACRIFICES OR BETTERMENT; AND WHETHER
POLITICAL OR NON-POLITICAL.  THOSE DEPENDENT UPON THE ACTION OF A LOCAL
CONSTITUENCY ON THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER
ARE, OF COURSE, LOATH TO LEAVE THEIR LOCAL IDENTIFICATIONS BEHIND WHEN
TAKING UP GOVERNMENT DUTIES IN WASHINGTON. 

OF COURSE, THE MANNER OF LIVING HERE, TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH ONE'S
STATION IN LIFE, IS RELEVANT.  DID HE HIRE A FURNISHED ROOM OR
ESTABLISH HIMSELF BY THE PURCHASE OF A HOUSE?  OR DID HE RENT A HOUSE
OR APARTMENT?  HAS HE BROUGHT HIS FAMILY AND DEPENDENTS HERE?  HAS HE
BROUGHT HIS GOODS?  WHAT RELATIONS HAS HE TO CHURCHES, CLUBS, LODGES,
AND INVESTMENTS THAT IDENTIFY HIM WITH THE DISTRICT?    ALL FACTS WHICH
GO TO SHOW THE RELATIONS RETAINED TO ONE'S FORMER PLACE OF ABODE ARE
RELEVANT IN DETERMINING DOMICILE.  WHAT BRIDGES HAVE BEEN KEPT AND WHAT
HAVE BEEN BURNED?  DOES HE RETAIN A PLACE OF ABODE THERE, OR IS THERE A
FAMILY HOME WITH WHICH HE RETAINS IDENTITY?  DOES HE HAVE INVESTMENTS
IN LOCAL PROPERTY OR ENTERPRISE WHICH ATTACH HIM TO THE COMMUNITY? 
WHAT ARE HIS AFFILIATIONS WITH THE PROFESSIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND
FRATERNAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WHAT OTHER ASSOCIATIONS DOES HE
CLING TO?  HOW PERMANENT WAS HIS DOMICILE IN THE COMMUNITY FROM WHICH
HE CAME?  HAD IT LONG BEEN A FAMILY SEAT, OR WAS HE THERE A BIRD OF
PASSAGE?  WOULD A RETURN TO THE OLD COMMUNITY PICK UP THREADS OF CLOSE
ASSOCIATION?  OR HAS HE SO SEVERED HIS RELATIONS THAT HIS OLD COMMUNITY
IS AS STRANGE AS ANOTHER?  DID HE PAY TAXES IN THE OLD COMMUNITY
BECAUSE OF HIS RETENTION OF DOMICILE WHICH HE COULD HAVE AVOIDED BY
GIVING IT UP?  WERE THEY NOMINAL OR SUBSTANTIAL?  IN VIEW OF THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWING THAT CONGRESS WAS CONCERNED LEST THERE BE
"TRIPLE TAXATION" - FEDERAL, STATE AND DISTRICT - THE BOARD SHOULD
CONSIDER WHETHER TAXES SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO THOSE LAID BY THIS ACT
HAVE BEEN PAID ELSEWHERE.  SEE STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BATES,
QUOTED SUPRA, P. 451. 

OUR MENTION OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS AS BEING RELEVANT MUST NOT BE
TAKEN AS AN INDICATION OF THE RELATIVE WEIGHTS TO BE ATTACHED TO THEM,
AS AN IMPLIED NEGATION OF THE RELEVANCE OF OTHERS, OR AS AN EFFORT TO
SUGGEST A FORMULA TO HANDLE ALL CASES THAT MAY ARISE, OR THE
POSSIBILITY OF DEVISING ONE. 

IN VIEW OF WHAT WE HAVE SAID, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESENT CASES DID
NOT CALL FOR RULINGS OF NON-TAXABILITY "AS A MATTER OF LAW."  ON THE
OTHER HAND, WE DO NOT CONSIDER WHETHER TAXABILITY FOLLOWS AS A MATTER
OF LAW, AS PETITIONER CONTENDS IT DOES, FOR THE FACTUAL INQUIRIES AND
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD, MADE UNDER A VIEW OF THE LAW NOT OUR OWN, ARE
QUITE LIKELY NOT IN ALL RESPECTS THOSE WHICH THE BOARD WOULD HAVE MADE
HAD IT PROCEEDED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF OUR OPINION, AND ARE IN SOME
RESPECTS AMBIGUOUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH IT.
ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE DECISIONS BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND REMAND THESE CASES TO THAT
COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  53 STAT. 1087; 20 D.C. CODE (SUPP. V, 1939) SEC. 980(A). 

FN2  WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND "PERMANENT" TO HAVE BEEN USED IN A LITERAL
SENSE.  OF COURSE IT CANNOT BE KNOWN WITHOUT THE GIFT OF PROPHECY
WHETHER A GIVEN ABODE IS "PERMANENT" IN THE STRICTEST SENSE.  BUT
BEYOND THIS, IT IS FREQUENTLY USED IN THE AUTHORITIES ON DOMICILE TO
DESCRIBE THAT WHICH IS NOT MERELY "TEMPORARY," OR TO DESCRIBE A
DWELLING FOR THE TIME BEING WHICH THERE IS NO PRESENTLY EXISTING INTENT
TO GIVE UP.  AND FURTHER, COMPARE A STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE DIRKSEN
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, 84 CONG. REC. 8973. 

FN3  EXERCISE OF POLITICAL RIGHTS ELSEWHERE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS
MEANT TO BE CONCLUSIVE ON THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY IN THE DISTRICT.  SEE
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE DIRKSEN ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE.  IBID. 

FN4  84 CONG. REC. 8972. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  WALDEN V. CANFIELD, 2 ROB.  (LA.)  466; LESH V. LESH, 13 PA.
DIST. CT. 537; SEE WOODWORTH V. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO., 18 F. 282,
284; COMMONWEALTH V. JONES, 12 PA. ST. 365, 371; CF. NEWMAN V. UNITED
STATES, 43 APP. D.C. 53, 70; REVERSED ON ANOTHER GROUND, 238 U.S. 537;
DEMING V. UNITED STATES, 59 APP. D.C. 188, 37 F.2D 818; CAMPBELL V.
RAMSEY, 150 KAN. 368, 388, 92 P.2D 819; HANNON V. GRIZZARD, 89 N.C.
129.  BUT CF. BRADSTREET V. BRADSTREET, 18 D.C. 229, 7 MACKEY 229;
SPARKS V. SPARKS, 114 TENN. 666, 88 S.W. 173. 

PROFESSOR BEALE HAS SUMMARIZED THE CASES AS FOLLOWS:  "PRESENCE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF A CIVIL OFFICE WILL NOT OF
ITSELF EFFECT A CHANGE OF DOMICIL; THERE IS NO INFERENCE OF ANIMUS
MANENDI FROM THE FACT OF THE NEW RESIDENCE, SINCE IT IS EXPLAINED BY
THE FACT OF OFFICE HOLDING.  IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE OFFICE
IS ELECTIVE OR APPOINTIVE; NOR IS IT MATERIAL WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT
IS IN ITS NATURE MERELY TEMPORARY OR HAS A DEGREE OF PERMANENCE, THOUGH
THE PERMANENCE OF THE APPOINTMENT IS AN ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING THE DOMICIL."  1 BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS SEC. 22.6.  SEE
ALSO, RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, PP. 42-43. 

FN7  1 BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, P. 172, NOTE 2. 

FN8  CF. WILLIAMSON V. OSENTON, 232 U.S. 619, 624; GILBERT V. DAVID,
235 U.S. 561. 

FN9  THIS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OUR HOLDING THAT DOMICILE HERE
DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM MERE INDEFINITENESS OF THE PERIOD OF ONE'S STAY. 
WHILE THE INTENTION TO RETURN MUST BE FIXED, THE DATE NEED NOT BE;
WHILE THE INTENTION TO RETURN MUST BE UNCONDITIONAL, THE TIME MAY BE,
AND IN MOST CASES OF NECESSITY IS, CONTINGENT.  THE INTENTION MUST NOT
WAVER BEFORE THE UNCERTAINTIES OF TIME, BUT ONE MAY NOT BE VISITED WITH
UNWELCOME DOMICILE FOR LACKING THE GIFT OF PROPHECY. 

FN10  OF COURSE, THIS TERM DOES NOT HAVE THE MAGIC QUALITIES OF A
DIVINING ROD IN LOCATING DOMICILE.  IN FACT, THE SEARCH FOR THE
DOMICILE OF ANY PERSON CAPABLE OF ACQUIRING A DOMICILE OF CHOICE IS BUT
A SEARCH FOR HIS "HOME."  SEE BEALE, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND BUSINESS COSTS,
49 HARV. L. REV. 593, 596; 1 BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 19.1. 

FN11 SEE STATEMENTS OF REPRESENTATIVE DIRKSEN, 84 CONG. REC. 8973. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. KALES, 314 U.S. 186 


NO. 35.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  - 115
F.2D 497, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A TAXPAYER WHO HAD PAID A 1919 INCOME TAX ON THE PROFITS OF A SALE
OF STOCK COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF A MARCH 1, 1913, VALUATION OF THE
STOCK SOLD, AND WHO LATER HAD BEEN SUBJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE TO A JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL TAX ON THE
PROFITS OF THE SAME TRANSACTION COMPUTED UPON A LOWER 1913 VALUATION,
PAID THE ADDITIONAL TAX AND ACCOMPANIED THE PAYMENT WITH A LETTER
PROTESTING AGAINST IT UPON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAD NO
AUTHORITY TO REOPEN AND SET ASIDE THE 1913 VALUATION AS MADE BY HIS
PREDECESSOR, BUT ALSO ASSERTING THAT THE FIRST 1913 VALUATION WAS
ITSELF TOO LOW, AND THAT IF IT WERE TO BE SET ASIDE BY ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION, OR IN THE COURTS, THE TAXPAYER WOULD INSIST THAT THE EARLIER
TAX WAS THEREFORE EXCESSIVE AND WOULD CLAIM A REFUND OF THE EXCESS
PAID.  HELD, THAT THE LETTER SUFFICED AS A CLAIM TO STAY THE RUNNING OF
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THE TAXPAYER'S RIGHT TO A REFUND OF AN
EXCESS IN THE EARLIER TAX.  P. 193. 

2. A NOTICE FAIRLY ADVISING THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NATURE OF THE
TAXPAYER'S CLAIM, WHICH THE COMMISSIONER COULD REJECT BECAUSE TOO
GENERAL OR BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE AND REGULATIONS, WILL NEVERTHELESS BE TREATED AS A CLAIM WHERE
FORMAL DEFECTS AND LACK OF SPECIFICITY HAVE BEEN REMEDIED BY AMENDMENT
FILED AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY THE
CASE WHERE SUCH A CLAIM HAS NOT MISLED THE COMMISSIONER AND HE HAS
ACCEPTED AND TREATED IT AS SUCH.  P. 194. 

3.  TREATMENT BY THE TAXING AUTHORITIES OF THE INFORMAL CLAIM AND ITS
LATER AMENDMENT AS A CLAIM FOR REFUND OPERATED AS A WAIVER OF
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBING THE FORMALITY AND PARTICULARITY WITH WHICH
GROUNDS FOR A REFUND ARE REQUIRED TO BE STATED.  P. 196. 

4.  A JUDGMENT AGAINST A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE REFUNDING 1919
INCOME TAXES COLLECTED BY HIM IN 1925 DOES NOT BAR A LATER SUIT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER AN EXCESS OF TAX ON INCOME FOR THE SAME
YEAR, PAID TO A DIFFERENT COLLECTOR IN 1920.  P. 197. 

UNITED STATES V. KALES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 553, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A DISMISSAL
BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR REFUND OF
OVERPAID 1919 INCOME TAXES.  THE COLLECTOR TO WHOM THE PAYMENT WAS MADE
HAD RETIRED FROM OFFICE AND HAD DIED BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BEGUN. 

THE 1925 LETTER WAS NOT A CLAIM FOR REFUND, BUT EVEN IF IT WERE IT
WAS MERGED WITH AND EXTINGUISHED BY THE JUDGMENT IN THE PRIOR
LITIGATION.  WOODWORTH V. KALES, 26 F.2D 178.  SEE ALSO BURNET V.
PORTER, 283 U.S. 230; COMMISSIONER V. NEWPORT INDUSTRIES, 121 F.2D 655,
657. 

INCOME-TAX LIABILITY FOR ANY ONE YEAR CONSTITUTES A SINGLE CAUSE OF
ACTION.  LEWIS V. REYNOLDS, 284 U.S. 281.  A JUDGMENT IN A FORMER SUIT
FOR REFUND IS A BAR TO A SUBSEQUENT SUIT FOR REFUND OF TAXES FOR THE
SAME YEAR, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE GROUND FOR RECOVERY URGED
IN THE SECOND SUIT HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED IN THE FIRST.  CHICAGO
JUNCTION RYS.  V. UNITED STATES, 10 F.SUPP.  156; BOWE-BURKE MINING CO.
V. WILLCUTS, 45 F.2D 394; WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 23
F.SUPP.  554; BERTELSEN V. WHITE, 58 F.2D 792, AFF'D 65 F.2D 719;
AMERICAN WOOLEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 18 F.SUPP.  783, 21 ID. 125,
CERT. DEN.  304 U.S. 581. 

THE SUIT IS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.  THE EARLIER
LITIGATION DEALT WITH THE BASIS OF THE FORD STOCK, AND THE REFUND
SOUGHT HEREIN TURNS UPON THE BASIS FOR THE IDENTICAL SHARES. 

THE FORMER SUIT IN THIS CASE AGAINST THE COLLECTOR WAS IN SUBSTANCE A
SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  SEE ELLIOTT V. SWARTWOUT, 10 PET. 137;
BARNEY V. WATSON, 92 U.S. 449, 452; MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN LAND
CO., 18 HOW.  272, 275; CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236; CURTIS'S
ADMINISTRATRIX V. FIEDLER, 2 BLACK 461, 478; ARNSON V. MURPHY, 109 U.S.
238, 240. 

TO THE EXTENT THAT SAGE V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 33, SEEMS TO REACH
A DIFFERENT RESULT, IT IS PLAINLY OUT OF LINE WITH MOORE ICE CREAM CO.
V. ROSE, 289 U.S. 373.  IN ANY EVENT, THE SAGE CASE IS
DISTINGUISHABLE.  THERE, THE RIGHTS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
THE SECOND SUIT HAD NOT BEEN THE SUBJECT OF PRIOR LITIGATION.  THE CASE
HAS BEEN REGARDED AS RESTING UPON THE PARTICULAR LEGISLATION INVOLVED. 
SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF SAGINAW V. WOODWORTH, 54 F.2D 672, 673, AFF'D
66 F.2D 170; CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HARRISON, 18 F.SUPP.  250, 254,
APPEAL DISMISSED, 102 F.2D 981.  SEE, ALSO, GRISWOLD, RES JUDICATA IN
FEDERAL TAX CASES, 46 YALE L.J. 1320, 1341-1342. 

THE 1925 LETTER CONSTITUTED AN INFORMAL CLAIM FOR REFUND OF TAXES
OVERPAID IN 1920. 

THE WORD "CLAIM" IS INTERPRETED LIBERALLY IN DETERMINING THE
APPLICATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATION.  FACTORS & FINANCE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 56 F.2D 902, 905, AFFIRMED 288 U.S. 89; UNITED STATES V.
MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288 U.S. 62, 67; JONES V. UNITED STATES, 5
F.SUPP.  146. 

BY RETAINING AND TREATING THE 1925 LETTER AS A CLAIM FOR REFUND FOR A
PERIOD OF OVER TEN YEARS, THE COMMISSIONER WAIVED ANY AND ALL DEFECTS
OF FORM CONTAINED THEREIN.  UNITED STATES V. GARBUTT OIL CO., 302 U.S.
528; GEORGIA, F. & A. RY. CO. V. BLISH MILLING CO., 241 U.S. 190;
TUCKER V. ALEXANDER, 275 U.S. 228.  SEE, ALSO, UNITED STATES V. ELGIN
NATIONAL WATCH CO., 66 F.2D 344; UNITED STATES V. HUMBLE OIL P REFINING
CO., 69 F.2D 214; REYNOLDS V. MCMURRAY, 77 F.2D 740. 

THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT SPLIT A CAUSE OF ACTION.  OLD COLONY RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 27 F.2D 994; CAMBRIDGE LOAN & BUILDING CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 57 F.2D 936. 

THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA CAN BE APPLIED ONLY WHEN THE TWO SUITS IN
QUESTION ARE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES OR THEIR PRIVIES.  THEN THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SECOND SUIT IS ON THE SAME DEMAND AS WAS THE
FIRST.  IF THE SECOND SUIT IS ON A DIFFERENT DEMAND, THEN THE FIRST
JUDGMENT IS CONCLUSIVE ON THE PARTIES ONLY AS TO THE POINT THERE
ACTUALLY LITIGATED AND DETERMINED.  HERE THE SECOND SUIT IS NOT ON THE
SAME DEMAND.  SAGE V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 33. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE SAGE CASE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THIS
COURT.  IT HAS BEEN RELIED ON TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS, OR FURTHER THE
INTERESTS, OF THE GOVERNMENT.  SMIETANKA V. INDIANA STEEL CO., 257 U.S.
1; GRAHAM & FOSTER V. GOODCELL, 282 U.S. 409, 430; BANKERS COAL CO. V.
BURNET, 287 U.S. 308, 312; TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 289 U.S.
620; GEORGE MOORE ICE CREAM CO. V. ROSE, 289 U.S. 373. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TWO QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED FOR DECISION BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE. 
FIRST, WAS A LETTER, WRITTEN TO THE TAX COLLECTOR BY RESPONDENT
TAXPAYER AND LODGED WITH THE COMMISSIONER, A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF
OVERPAID TAXES SO AS TO STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
AGAINST THE CLAIM?  SECOND, DID A JUDGMENT, REFUNDING TAXES PAID TO THE
COLLECTOR IN 1925 UPON PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF CERTAIN SHARES OF STOCK
IN 1919, BAR A LATER SUIT FOR A FURTHER RECOVERY OF 1919 TAXES,
OVERPAID IN 1920 TO A DIFFERENT COLLECTOR UPON PROFITS FROM THE SAME
TRANSACTION? 

IN 1919, RESPONDENT WAS THE OWNER OF 525 SHARES OF THE STOCK OF THE
FORD MOTOR COMPANY WHICH SHE HAD ACQUIRED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913.  IN
ANTICIPATION OF THE SALE OF THE STOCK, SHE REQUESTED AND OBTAINED, IN
1919, FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, A RULING THAT THE
MARCH 1ST, 1913, VALUE OF THE STOCK WAS $9,489 PER SHARE.  SHE THEN
SOLD THE STOCK FOR $12,500 A SHARE, AND REPORTED IN HER INCOME TAX
RETURN FOR 1919 THE PROFIT OVER THE MARCH 1, 1913 VALUE THUS
ESTABLISHED.  IN 1920, SHE PAID THE TAX SO COMPUTED, AMOUNTING TO
$1,216,086, TO COLLECTOR GROGAN, SINCE DECEASED. 

IN MARCH, 1925, THE COMMISSIONER MADE A JEOPARDY DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT FOR AN INCREASE OF PROFIT ON THE SALE OF
THE STOCK IN 1919, ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD OVERSTATED THE
1913 VALUE OF THE STOCK IN HER 1919 TAX RETURN.  RESPONDENT PAID THE
ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT, AMOUNTING TO $2,627,309, TO COLLECTOR WOODWORTH
ON MARCH 24, 1925.  AT THE SAME TIME, SHE LODGED WITH THE COLLECTOR AND
THE COMMISSIONER A WRITTEN PROTEST, DATED MARCH 23, 1925, AGAINST THE
JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE COMMISSIONER
WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN LAW TO REOPEN AND SET ASIDE THE 1913 VALUATION
OF THE STOCK AS DETERMINED IN 1919 BY THE THEN COMMISSIONER, ON THE
BASIS OF WHICH RESPONDENT HAD SOLD HER STOCK.  BY PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE
PROTEST, RESPONDENT ALSO ADVISED THE COLLECTOR, THE COMMISSIONER AND
THE GOVERNMENT THAT, WHILE IT WAS RESPONDENT'S POSITION THAT THE
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT WAS ILLEGAL AND VOID FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS
STATED, IF THE INTERNAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS OR
ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION SHOULD HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF MARCH
1, 1913 VALUE OF HER STOCK, MADE IN 1919, SHOULD BE VACATED, SET ASIDE,
REOPENED OR REVERSED, THEN RESPONDENT WOULD INSIST THAT THE VALUATION
FIXED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN 1919 WAS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE
AS OF MARCH 1, 1913, THAT THE 1919 TAX WHICH SHE HAD PAID IN 1920 WAS
CORRESPONDINGLY EXCESSIVE, AND THAT SHE SHOULD RECOVER THE TAX TO THE
EXTENT OF SUCH EXCESS WHEN THE FAIR VALUE HAD BEEN DETERMINED.  SHE
ADDED IN PARAGRAPH 10 THAT "IF FOR ANY REASON A REVALUATION SHALL BE
HAD," SHE "WILL INSIST" THAT THE STOCK WAS GREATLY UNDERVALUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT AND "WILL CLAIM THE RIGHT TO A REFUND" OF THE EXCESS TAX
COLLECTED. 

AFTER A CLAIM DULY FILED FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNT OF THE JEOPARDY
ASSESSMENT, PAID IN 1925, RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AGAINST COLLECTOR WOODWORTH, WHICH RESULTED IN A JUDGMENT FOR THE
TAXPAYER FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT WITH INTEREST.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT,
WOODWORTH V. KALES, 26 F.2D 178, WHICH WAS SATISFIED IN NOVEMBER,
1928. 

SEPTEMBER 24, 1928, RESPONDENT FILED A FORMAL CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE
TAXES PAID IN 1919, STATED TO BE AN AMENDMENT OF THE CLAIM FOR REFUND
CONTAINED IN HER LETTER OF PROTEST OF MARCH 23, 1925.  BY THE
AMENDMENT, RESPONDENT SOUGHT AN ADDITIONAL REFUND OF INCOME TAXES, PAID
FOR THE YEAR 1919, IN THE AMOUNT OF $195,710 WITH INTEREST, UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE FORD STOCK, AS THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAD THEN
DETERMINED IN JAMES COUZENS, 11 B.T.A. 1040, HAD A MARCH 1, 1913 VALUE
OF $10,000 PER SHARE, AND THAT SHE SHOULD ACCORDINGLY HAVE THE BENEFIT
OF THIS HIGHER BASIS IN COMPUTING HER PROFIT.  AT A HEARING GRANTED BY
THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE ON JUNE 13,
1929, THE AMENDED CLAIM WAS CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS.  AGAIN, IN
JANUARY, 1933, A MEMBER OF HIS STAFF, AT A CONFERENCE WITH RESPONDENT'S
ATTORNEY, ADVISED THE LATTER THAT THE INFORMAL CLAIM WAS FILED IN TIME
AND WAS GOOD AS AN INFORMAL CLAIM. 

BY LETTER OF JUNE 4, 1935, HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER DECLINED TO ACT
UPON IT, ON THE SINGLE GROUND THAT BECAUSE RESPONDENT'S JUDGMENT FOR
REFUND OF THE JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT FOR 1919 TAXES HAD BEEN SATISFIED
"THE BUREAU IS PRECLUDED FROM GIVING FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN ANY
RESPECT TO THE MATTER OF YOUR INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR
1919."  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S LETTER OF AUGUST
20, 1935, TO RESPONDENT, STATING THAT "THE REFUND CLAIM FILED IN 1925
WAS MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT  ...  AND YOU WERE, THEREFORE, PRECLUDED
FROM FILING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EARLIER CLAIM WHICH HAD BEEN FINALLY
ADJUDICATED."  THE LETTER ADDED "THE ADJUDICATION BY THE COURT REMOVED
THIS MATTER FROM THE REALM OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OTHER THAN TO MAKE
REFUND AS DIRECTED BY THE JUDGMENT." 

COLLECTOR GROGAN HAVING RETIRED FROM OFFICE AND HAVING DIED, THE
PRESENT SUIT FOR REFUND OF THE OVERPAYMENT OF THE TAX CLAIMED WAS
BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1122(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  THIS SECTION
AUTHORIZES SUITS IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE REFUND OF OVERPAYMENT OF
REVENUE TAXES, EVEN IF IN EXCESS OF $10,000, TO BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES, WHERE THE COLLECTOR TO WHOM THE OVERPAYMENT WAS MADE IS
DEAD OR IS NOT IN OFFICE WHEN THE SUIT IS BROUGHT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE SUIT ON MOTION WAS REVERSED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 115 F.2D 497, WHICH HELD THAT THE LETTER OF
MARCH 23, 1925, WAS A TIMELY INFORMAL CLAIM FOR REFUND WHICH HAD BEEN
PERFECTED BY THE FORMAL AMENDED CLAIM FILED IN SEPTEMBER, 1928, THAT
CONSEQUENTLY THE RESPONDENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT BARRED BY
LIMITATION AND THAT RECOVERY WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE PREVIOUS JUDGMENT
FOR RECOVERY OF THE JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT FOR 1919.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 553, UPON PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH URGED
THAT ANY FURTHER RECOVERY FOR OVERPAYMENT OF THE 1919 TAX WAS BARRED BY
THE JUDGMENT IN THE RESPONDENT'S SUIT AND RECOVERY OF THE JEOPARDY
ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR, A QUESTION OF IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS.  THE GOVERNMENT URGES AS GROUNDS
FOR REVERSAL THAT, IF RESPONDENT'S LETTER OF MARCH 23, 1925 BE
CONSIDERED A CLAIM FOR REFUND, ANY RECOVERY IS BARRED BY THE 1928
JUDGMENT, AND THAT IN ANY EVENT THE LETTER WAS NOT A CLAIM FOR REFUND
AND DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PRESENT SUIT. 

FIRST.  CONCEDEDLY, RECOVERY OF THE 1919 TAX, PAID IN 1920, IS NOT
BARRED BY LIMITATION IF RESPONDENT'S LETTER OF MARCH 23, 1925, BE
TREATED AS A CLAIM FOR REFUND.  THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
EXTENDED THE RESPONDENT'S TIME TO MAKE RETURN OF HER 1919 INCOME TAXES
FOR THIRTY DAYS FROM MARCH 15, 1920, AND HER LETTER WAS PLACED WITH THE
COMMISSIONER WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE EXTENDED TIME. 
CLAIM FOR REFUND OF 1919 TAXES SHALL NOT BE BARRED BY A LAPSE OF TIME
IF FILED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE WHEN THE RETURN WAS DUE. 
REVISED STATUTES SEC. 3226, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1672, MAKES THE FILING OF A
CLAIM FOR REFUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND TREASURY REGULATIONS A
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT TO RECOVER IT.  ARTICLE 1306 OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS 65, PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1924 REVENUE ACT AND APPLICABLE
HERE, PROVIDES THAT CLAIMS FOR REFUND SHALL BE MADE UPON FORM 843,
SETTING FORTH ALL THE FACTS RELIED ON UNDER OATH.  BUT TREASURY
DECISION 4266, PROMULGATED MARCH 27, 1929, AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSIONER
TO MAKE A REFUND AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF
LIMITATION, EVEN THOUGH NO FORMAL CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THAT
TIME, IN ANY CASE IN WHICH AN INFORMAL OR DEFECTIVE CLAIM, DULY FILED
PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND STATING
SPECIFICALLY THE GROUNDS FOR THE REFUND, IS PERFECTED BY THE FILING OF
A CLAIM PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1929. 

THIS COURT, APPLYING THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS, HAS OFTEN HELD THAT
A NOTICE FAIRLY ADVISING THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NATURE OF TTHE
TAXPAYER'S CLAIM, WHICH THE COMMISSIONER COULD REJECT BECAUSE TOO
GENERAL OR BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE AND REGULATIONS, WILL NEVERTHELESS BE TREATED AS A CLAIM, WHERE
FORMAL DEFECTS AND LACK OF SPECIFICITY HAVE BEEN REMEDIED BY AMENDMENT
FILED AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD.  UNITED STATES V.
MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288 U.S. 62; UNITED STATES V. FACTORS & FINANCE
CO., 288 U.S. 89; BEMIS BRO. BAG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 28;
MOORE ICE CREAM CO. V. ROSE, 289 U.S. 373, 384.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY THE
CASE WHERE SUCH A CLAIM HAS NOT MISLED THE COMMISSIONER AND HE HAS
ACCEPTED AND TREATED IT AS SUCH.  BONWIT TELLER & CO. V. UNITED STATES,
283 U.S. 258; UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., SUPRA, 70.    IN
APPLYING THESE GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO THE CASE IN HAND, IT IS NECESSARY
TO READ THE LETTER OF MARCH 23, 1925, IN THE LIGHT OF THE PECULIAR
CIRCUMSTANCES THEN WELL KNOWN TO THE COMMISSIONER AND REFERRED TO IN
THE LETTER.  THE LETTER DEALT WITH TWO DISTINCT SUBJECTS.  ONE WAS THE
JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT WHICH THE TAXPAYER WAS ABOUT TO PAY AND DID IN FACT
PAY TO THE COLLECTOR ON THE FOLLOWING DAY WHEN THE LETTER IN DUPLICATE
WAS GIVEN TO THE COLLECTOR AND THE COMMISSIONER.  THE OTHER, STATED IN
PARAGRAPHS 9 AND 10 OF THE LETTER, RELATED TO THE LIABILITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT FOR OVERPAYMENTS OF 1919 TAXES MADE TO COLLECTOR GROGAN IN
1920, IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S 1919 ASSESSMENT OF THE FORD
STOCK SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BY THE COURTS OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  IN
THAT EVENT, THE LETTER RECITES THAT THE 1919 VALUATION WAS TOO LOW, THE
TAX PAID IN 1920 WAS TOO HIGH, AND ASSERTS THE TAXPAYER'S CONSEQUENT
"RIGHT TO A REFUND OF SAID TAX TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH EXCESS." 

THE LETTER STATES CORRELATIVE ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS ON WHICH THE
TAXPAYER RELIED.  ONE WAS THE CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE 1925
JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPRAISAL IN 1919 OF THE
THEN COMMISSIONER WAS UNALTERABLE.  THE OTHER WAS RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO
A REFUND OF TAXES PAID IN 1920 IN THE EVENT THAT THE 1919 APPRAISEMENT
OF THE STOCK SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BY THE BUREAU OR BE DETERMINED TO BE
ERRONEOUS.  WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER WOULD INSIST UPON CHANGING THE
1919 APPRAISAL OF HER STOCK, AND WHETHER IN ANY CASE THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS WOULD FIND A DIFFERENT 1913 VALUE FOR THE STOCK, WERE MATTERS
FOR FUTURE DETERMINATION.  WHEN RESPONDENT FILED HER LETTER, THE TIME
WITHIN WHICH A CLAIM FOR REFUND COULD BE FILED WAS ABOUT TO EXPIRE, AND
THE OCCURRENCE OF THE CONTINGENCIES ON WHICH A RECOVERY COULD BE HAD BY
RESPONDENT REMAINED UNCERTAIN.  BUT THE COMMISSIONER COULD HAVE BEEN
LEFT IN NO DOUBT THAT SHE WAS SETTING FORTH HER RIGHT TO A REFUND IN
THE EVENT OF A DEPARTMENTAL REVISION OF ITS 1919 VALUATION OF HER
STOCK.  HER LETTER WAS PRESENT NOTICE THAT, IF THE DEPARTMENT INSISTED
UPON CHANGING ITS ORIGINAL DECISION AS TO THE 1913 VALUE, SHE ASSERTED
THAT THE STOCK HAD BEEN UNDERVALUED AND IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE
UNDERVALUATION SHE HAD A "RIGHT TO A REFUND OF SAID (1919) TAX TO THE
EXTENT OF SUCH EXCESS."  HER CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH MADE THE LIKE
ASSERTION "IF FOR ANY REASON A REVALUATION SHALL BE HAD" OF THE FORD
STOCK.  AT THAT TIME, THE COMMISSIONER HAD ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES
AGGREGATING $31,000,000 AGAINST FORMER FORD STOCKHOLDERS WHO HAD SOLD
STOCK WHICH THEY HAD ACQUIRED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913.  SEE JAMES COUZENS,
11 B.T.A. 1043-4.  RESPONDENT'S AMENDED FORMAL CLAIM OF SEPTEMBER 11,
1928, ONLY MADE MORE SPECIFIC THE ALLEGATIONS OF HER EARLIER INFORMAL
CLAIM BY STATING THAT THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAD FOUND THE 1913 VALUE
OF THE STOCK TO BE $10,000 PER SHARE, AND BY COMPUTING THE EXCESS TAX,
THE RIGHT TO WHICH HAD BEEN ASSERTED IN THE EARLIER CLAIM. 

THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT HAD ORIGINALLY STATED HER CLAIM IN THE
FUTURE TENSE, SAYING THAT IN THE EVENT OF DEPARTMENTAL REVISION OF THE
VALUATION OF THE STOCK SHE "WILL INSIST" ON A HIGHER VALUATION AND
"WILL CLAIM THE RIGHT TO A REFUND," DOES NOT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE, LEND EVEN GRAMMATICAL SUPPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION.  SUCH A USE OF THE FUTURE TENSE IN STATING A CLAIM MAY,
WITH DUE REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF MAKING IT, RIGHTLY BE TAKEN AS
AN ASSERTION OF A PRESENT RIGHT.  SEE GEORGIA, F. & A. RY. CO. V. BLISH
MILLING CO., 241 U.S. 190, 197-8; CF. MOORE ICE CREAM CO. V. ROSE,
SUPRA, 384, REVERSING 61 F.2D 605.  HERE THE CLAIM IS ALTERNATIVE AND
CONTINGENT UPON FUTURE EVENTS.  THE STATEMENT THAT UPON THE HAPPENING
OF THE CONTINGENCY THE CLAIM WILL BE PROSECUTED IS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PRESENT ASSERTION OF IT.  IT IS INDEED AN APPROPRIATE, IF NOT
THE NECESSARY, PHRASEOLOGY FOR THE PRESENT ASSERTION OF AN ALTERNATIVE
CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO WHICH A TAXPAYER, IN HIS PRESENTATION OF AN
INFORMAL TAX REFUND CLAIM, SHOULD BE IN NO LESS FAVORABLE POSITION THAN
THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT AT LAW WHO IS PERMITTED TO PLEAD HIS CAUSE OF
ACTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE.  SEE RULE 8(E) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE; UNITED STATES V. RICHARDS, 79 F.2D 797. 

IF THE POINT WERE MORE DOUBTFUL THAN WE THINK IT IS, IT WOULD BE
RESOLVED BY THE CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE TREATMENT OF RESPONDENT'S
LETTER OF MARCH 23, 1925, AND THE LATER AMENDMENT AS A CLAIM FOR
REFUND.  NEITHER THE ORIGINAL NOR THE AMENDED CLAIM HAS EVER BEEN
REJECTED AS INADEQUATE BY THE COMMISSIONER OR THE BUREAU.  THERE HAS
BEEN NO OBJECTION TO THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS INFORMAL,
DEFICIENT IN ITS CONTENT, OR UNTIMELY.  ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE LETTER OF
MARCH 23, 1925, BY THE COMMISSIONER REFERRED TO THE JEOPARDY
ASSESSMENT, BUT MADE NO MENTION OF THE ASSERTED RIGHT TO REFUND OF
TAXES PAID IN 1920.  AFTER THE AMENDMENT WAS FILED IN SEPTEMBER, 1928,
THE CLAIM WAS HELD UNDER ADVISEMENT BY THE BUREAU FOR NEARLY SEVEN
YEARS.  AS WE HAVE SAID, IT WAS CONSISTENTLY TREATED IN CORRESPONDENCE
BY THE BUREAU AND AT HEARINGS DURING THIS PERIOD AS A CLAIM FOR
REFUND.  THE COMMISSIONER FINALLY, BY HIS LETTERS OF JUNE 4, 1935 AND
AUGUST 25, 1935, DECLINED TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT
IT WAS NO LONGER A SUBJECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BECAUSE "THE REFUND
CLAIM FILED IN 1925 WAS MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT" FOR REFUND OF THE TAX
PAID ON THE JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT.  NOT ONLY DO WE THINK THAT THIS ENTIRE
COURSE OF DEPARTMENTAL ACTION WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
RESPONDENT'S LETTER OF MARCH 23, 1925, CONFORMING TO OUR OWN
INTERPRETATION OF ITS WORDS, BUT WE THINK IT WAS A WAIVER OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE REGULATIONS AS TO THE FORMALITY AND PARTICULARITY
WITH WHICH THE GROUNDS FOR REFUND ARE REQUIRED TO BE STATED.  BONWIT
TELLER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 264; UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS
COTTON OIL CO., SUPRA, 288 U.S. AT P. 70; CF. TUCKER V. ALEXANDER, 275
U.S. 228, 231; UNITED STATES V. GARBUTT OIL CO., 302 U.S. 528, 533. 

SECOND.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR
OVERPAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES IN ANY TAX YEAR CONSTITUTES A SINGLE CAUSE
OF ACTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT THE PRESENT SUIT BY THE
RESPONDENT, SEEKING RECOVERY OF 1919 TAXES, AFTER HAVING RECOVERED THE
AMOUNT OF THE JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT FOR THE SAME YEAR, INVOLVED AN
INADMISSIBLE SPLITTING OF HER CAUSE OF ACTION.  IN ANY EVENT, IT
INSISTS THAT NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT OF 1919
TAXES COULD SURVIVE THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT OF THE JEOPARDY
ASSESSMENT, SINCE THE JUDGMENT FOR THAT RECOVERY MERGED ALL CLAIMS FOR
OVERPAYMENT OF 1919 TAXES AND SO FORECLOSED THE PRESENT SUIT FOR
ADDITIONAL OVERPAYMENTS OF TAXES GROWING OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION. 

BUT WE THINK THESE CONTENTIONS DISREGARD THE STATUTORY SCHEME WHICH
HAS BEEN SET UP FOR THE RECOVERY FROM AN INTERNAL REVENUE COLLECTOR, OF
TAXES WHICH HE HAD UNLAWFULLY COLLECTED.  SEE SAGE V. UNITED STATES,
250 U.S. 33.  ORIGINALLY, PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST TO AN INTERNAL REVENUE
COLLECTOR OF ILLEGALLY EXACTED TAXES GAVE RISE TO A COMMON LAW CAUSE OF
ACTION AGAINST THE COLLECTOR FOR RESTITUTION OF THE OVERPAYMENT. 
ELLIOTT V. SWARTWOUT, 10 PET. 137, 153, 156; MOORE ICE CREAM CO. V.
ROSE, SUPRA, 375, AND CASES CITED.  BY THE PROTEST THE COLLECTOR WAS
INFORMED OF THE CONTENTION OF THE TAXPAYER AND WAS THUS PRECLUDED FROM
RELIEVING HIMSELF, BY PAYMENT INTO THE TREASURY OF THE MONEYS
COLLECTED, FROM LIABILITY TO MAKE RESTITUTION.  ELLIOTT V. SWARTWOUT,
SUPRA; SMIETANKA V. INDIANA STEEL CO., 257 U.S. 1, 4.  BY A SERIES OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTS IT WAS MADE THE DUTY OF THE COLLECTOR TO PAY TO THE
GOVERNMENT THE MONEYS COLLECTED, REGARDLESS OF A PROTEST.  12 STAT.
442; 13 STAT. 483; R.S. SEC. 3210; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1761.  BUT WITH
IMPOSITION OF THIS DUTY ON THE COLLECTOR TO PAY OVER, THE GOVERNMENT
UNDERTOOK TO INDEMNIFY HIM UPON CERTIFICATION BY THE COURT, EITHER THAT
THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ACT DONE BY THE COLLECTOR, OR THAT HE
ACTED UNDER DIRECTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OR OTHER PROPER
OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  12 STAT. 741, SEC. 12.  IN THAT EVENT, NO
EXECUTION WAS TO ISSUE AGAINST HIM, BUT THE AMOUNT OF RECOVERY WAS TO
BE PAID OUT OF THE TREASURY.  THESE PROVISIONS, CARRIED INTO REVISED
STATUTES SEC. 989, ARE CONTINUED AS 28 U.S.C. SEC. 842.  BY SEC. 1014
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 253, 343, AMENDING REVISED
STATUTES SEC. 3226, THE REQUIREMENT FOR PROTEST OF THE PAYMENT WAS
ABOLISHED. 

WHILE THE EFFECT OF THE CERTIFICATE IN INDEMNIFYING THE COLLECTOR HAS
BEEN SAID TO CONVERT THE SUIT AGAINST HIM INTO A SUIT AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, AT LEAST SO FAR AS THE ULTIMATE INCIDENCE OF THE LIABILITY
IS CONCERNED, UNITED STATES V. SHERMAN, 98 U.S. 565, 567; MOORE ICE
CREAM CO. V. ROSE, SUPRA, 289 U.S. AT P. 381, THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
HAVE NOT ALTERED THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE CLAIMS WHICH THE TAXPAYER
IS AUTHORIZED TO PROSECUTE IN SUITS AGAINST THE COLLECTOR.  ORIGINALLY
IT WAS THE PAYMENT OF THE ILLEGALLY EXACTED TAX WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE
CAUSE OF ACTION.  IT WAS THE PAYMENT WHICH DESIGNATED THE PERSON
AGAINST WHOM THE SUIT MIGHT BE BROUGHT AND WHICH MEASURED THE RIGHT OF
RECOVERY.  PAYMENTS MADE TO ONE COLLECTOR COULD NOT BE RECOVERED FROM
ANOTHER, AND, SINCE THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE TWO COLLECTORS
WERE DIFFERENT, RECOVERY UPON ONE COULD NOT BAR RECOVERY UPON THE
OTHER. 

AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION REQUIRING COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS TO
PAY OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT DUTIES COLLECTED UNDER PROTEST, 5 STAT. 348;
R.S. SEC. 3010, DOUBTS AROSE WHETHER SUIT COULD, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES,
BE MAINTAINED AGAINST THEM, SINCE IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE STATUTORY
COMMAND HAD RELIEVED THE COLLECTORS FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY.  SEE CARY
V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  235.  BUT THOSE DOUBTS WERE PUT AT REST BY LATER
ACTS OF CONGRESS ESTABLISHING THE CONTINUED RIGHT OF THE TAXPAYER TO
MAINTAIN A SUIT AGAINST SUCH A COLLECTOR NOTWITHSTANDING PAYMENT OVER
OF HIS COLLECTIONS TO THE TREASURY.  5 STAT. 727; R.S. SEC. 3011;
CURTIS'S ADMINISTRATRIX V. FIEDLER, 2 BLACK 461, 479; ARNSON V. MURPHY,
109 U.S. 238, 241.  A LIKE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTES
REQUIRING INTERNAL REVENUE COLLECTORS TO PAY MONEYS COLLECTED TO THE
GOVERNMENT WAS RESOLVED BY THIS COURT'S DECISIONS IN PHILADELPHIA V.
COLLECTOR, 5 WALL.  720, 731; COLLECTOR V. HUBBARD, 12 WALL.  1, 13. 
AS CONGRESS HAD ENACTED PROVISIONS FOR INDEMNIFICATION OF THE COLLECTOR
BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE IMPLICATION NECESSARILY AROSE THAT THE TAXPAYER
COULD MAINTAIN AN ACTION AGAINST HIM.  SEE 12 STAT. 434, 729, 741; 13
STAT. 239. 

THE RIGHT OF ACTION THUS CONTINUED IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT WHICH
EXISTED BEFORE CONGRESS HAD ACTED.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISION FOR
INDEMNIFYING THE COLLECTOR AND PROTECTING HIM FROM EXECUTION, THE
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE RIGHT ASSERTED AND THE MEASURE OF THE RECOVERY
REMAIN THE SAME.  IT WAS PAYMENT TO THE COLLECTOR WHICH GAVE RISE TO
THE SUIT AGAINST HIM AND LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF THE RECOVERY.  THE
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR IS A PERSONAL JUDGMENT, TO WHICH THE
UNITED STATES IS A STRANGER EXCEPT AS IT HAS OBLIGATED ITSELF TO PAY
IT.  SEE SAGE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; SMIETANKA V. INDIANA STEEL CO.,
SUPRA, 4, 5. 

WHILE THE STATUTES HAVE FOR MOST PRACTICAL PURPOSES REDUCED THE
PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE COLLECTOR TO A FICTION, THE COURSE OF THE
LEGISLATION INDICATES CLEARLY ENOUGH THAT IT IS A FICTION INTENDED TO
BE ACTED UPON TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT AND ITS
INCIDENTS, UNTIL JUDGMENT RENDERED, ARE TO BE LEFT UNDISTURBED.  AMONG
ITS INCIDENTS IS THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL, WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE IN
SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20). 

BY NO POSSIBILITY COULD THE RESPONDENT IN THE SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST
COLLECTOR WOODWORTH IN 1925 RECOVER TAXES PAID TO COLLECTOR GROGAN IN
1920, WHICH SHE DEMANDS HERE.  RECOVERY FROM ONE COLLECTOR OF THE
PAYMENT TO HIM DOES NOT BAR RECOVERY ON THE DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION
ARISING UPON PAYMENT TO THE OTHER, EVEN THOUGH THE TWO COLLECTIONS ARE
FOR TAXES ARISING OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION.  SAGE V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; BANKERS POCAHONTAS COAL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 308; CF. GRAHAM
& FOSTER V. GOODCELL, 282 U.S. 409, 430; SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS,
310 U.S. 381, 403.  THE RIGHT TO PURSUE THE COMMON LAW ACTION AGAINST
THE COLLECTOR IS TOO DEEPLY IMBEDDED IN THE STATUTES AND JUDICIAL
DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ADMIT OF SO RADICAL A DEPARTURE FROM
ITS TRADITIONAL USE AND CONSEQUENCES AS THE GOVERNMENT NOW URGES,
WITHOUT FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















PINK V. A.A.A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, 314 U.S. 201 


NO. 48.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  - 191
GA. 520, 13 S.E.2D 337, AFFIRMED. 


ALTHOUGH, BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION, POLICYHOLDERS OF A
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY BE "MEMBERS" OF THE COMPANY AND AS SUCH LIABLE
TO PAY ASSESSMENTS MADE AND ADJUDGED AGAINST THEM IN THAT STATE IN
LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS, THE COURTS OF ANOTHER STATE ARE NOT REQUIRED
BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO ENFORCE SUCH LIABILITY AGAINST
LOCAL RESIDENTS WHOSE POLICIES ARE LOCAL CONTRACTS AND ON THEIR FACE
ARE MERE CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE WITHOUT MENTION OF MEMBERSHIP OR
ASSESSMENTS; BUT ARE FREE TO DECIDE ACCORDING TO THE LOCAL LAW AND
POLICY THE QUESTION WHETHER BY ENTERING INTO SUCH CONTRACTS THE
RESIDENTS BECAME MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY.  P. 208. 

SO HELD, WHERE THE POLICYHOLDERS HAD NOT APPEARED OR BEEN PERSONALLY
SERVED, IN THE FOREIGN LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS. 

PINK, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, V. A. A.
A. HIGHWAY EXPRESS, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 555, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A
JUDGMENT DISMISSING ON DEMURRER A SUIT BROUGHT BY A NEW YORK
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE AGAINST NUMEROUS RESIDENTS OF GEORGIA,
POLICYHOLDERS IN A NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, TO RECOVER
ASSESSMENTS MADE AGAINST THEM IN PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK FOR
THE LIQUIDATION OF THE COMPANY. 

THE LAWS OF THE STATE WHERE THE CORPORATION WAS CHARTERED CONTROL THE
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AND MEMBERS.  SUPREME
COUNCIL V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531; SOVEREIGN CAMP V. BOLIN, 305 U.S. 65;
CHANDLER V. PEKETZ, 297 U.S. 609; HARTFORD STEAM BOILER CO. V.
HARRISON, 301 U.S. 459, 464; TAGGART V. WACHTER, HOSKINS & RUSSELL,
INC., 21 A.2D 141; PINK V. AARON, 13 S.E.2D 489; PINK V. TOWN TAXI CO.,
21 A.2D 656. 

THE LAWS OF NEW YORK IMPOSE ON ALL POLICYHOLDERS A CONTINGENT
LIABILITY, FACTORY MUTUAL LIABILITY INS. CO. V. BEHAN, 253 N.Y.S. 562,
564; BEHA V. WEINSTOCK, 247 N.Y. 221, IN WHICH CREDITORS HAVE A VESTED
RIGHT.  CORNING V. MCCULLOUGH, 1 COMSTOCK 47; COOMBES V. GETZ, 285 U.S.
434, 448. 

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE READ INTO THE POLICIES.  BAKKER V. AETNA
LIFE INS. CO., 264 N.Y. 150; NEWTON V. EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE
CORP., 107 F.2D 164; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. V. WANBERG, 260 U.S.
71; MERCHANTS MUTUAL INS. CO. V. SMART, 267 U.S. 129; FIRE ASSOCIATION
OF PHILADELPHIA V. NEW YORK, 119 U.S. 110; COGLIANO V. FERGUSON, 139
N.E. 527; SOUTHERN SURETY CO. V. CHAMBERS, 115 OHIO ST. 434. 

RESIDENTS OF GEORGIA RECEIVED NOTICE OF AND WERE BOUND BY THE NEW
YORK PROCEEDINGS.  MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S. 457; BERNHEIMER V.
CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516; TAGGART V. WACHTER, HOSKINS & RUSSELL, INC., 21
A.2D 141; MARIN V. AUGEDAHL, 247 U.S. 142. 

THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURT BECAME RES JUDICATA
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS.  BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629; CHANDLER V.
PEKETZ, 297 U.S. 609; MARIN V. AUGEDAHL, 247 U.S. 142; HANCOCK NATIONAL
BANK V. FARNUM, 176 U.S. 640. 

APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF GEORGIA DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  SOVEREIGN CAMP V. BOLIN, 305 U.S. 65. 

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WAS NOT DENIED PETITIONER.  IN RE AUTO MUTUAL
INDEMNITY CO., 14 N.Y.S.2D 601; PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 733;
WISCONSIN V. PELICAN INS. CO., 127 U.S. 471; BAGLEY V. GENERAL FIRE
EXTINGUISHER CO., 212 U.S. 477; COMMERCIAL PUBLISHING CO. V. BECKWITH,
188 U.S. 567; OLD WAYNE MUTUAL LIFE ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8;
WETMORE V. KARRICK, 205 U.S. 141; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS' INS. CO. V.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 306 U.S. 493. 

THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS BECOME MEMBERS OF THE
COMPANY.  CRAIG V. WESTERN LIFE INS. CO., 116 S.W. 1113; BEHA V.
WEINSTOCK, 160 N.E. 17; 23 HARV. L.REV.  38.  THE POLICY WAS BUT AN
ORDINARY STANDARD COMMERCIAL OLD-LINE POLICY WITH A FLAT PREMIUM. 
THERE ARE MANY MUTUAL COMPANIES WHOSE POLICIES ARE NOT ASSESSABLE. 

THE POLICY HAVING BEEN ISSUED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF NEW YORK,
THE POLICYHOLDER IS NOT LIABLE FOR ASSESSMENT.  SEC. 346 NEW YORK
INSURANCE LAWS. 

RESPONDENTS ARE BOUND ONLY BY PROVISIONS ON THE FACE OF THE POLICY. 
NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INS. CO. V. SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE CO., 20 GA.
APP. 605; ELECTRIC LUMBER CO. V. NEW YORK UNDERWRITERS INS. CO., 43 GA.
APP. 355; DWINDELL V. KRAMER, 92 N.W. 227; BAKER V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, 116
S.W. 513. 

RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA CONSTRUING A CONTRACT MADE IN
GEORGIA ARE BINDING AND FINAL.  WILHELM V. SECURITY BENEFIT ASSN., 104
S.W.2D 1042; PINK V. GEORGIA STAGES, INC., 35 F.SUPP.  437. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
IS THE STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR OF AUTO MUTUAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, AN
INSOLVENT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW
YORK.  HE BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GEORGIA AGAINST
RESPONDENTS, WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF GEORGIA AND POLICYHOLDERS IN THE
COMPANY, TO RECOVER ASSESSMENTS ALLEGED TO BE DUE BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
MEMBERSHIP IN IT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT, DISMISSING THE PETITION ON DEMURRERS OF THE SEVERAL
RESPONDENTS.  191 GA. 502, 13 S.E.2D 337.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 313
U.S. 555, BECAUSE OF THE ASSERTED DENIAL BY GEORGIA OF FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT TO CERTAIN STATUTES AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK, UNDER
WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS LEVIED. 

THE RELEVANT FACTS SET OUT IN THE AMENDED PETITION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
THE INDEMNITY COMPANY, ORGANIZED IN 1932 UNDER ARTICLE 10-B OF THE NEW
YORK INSURANCE LAW, WAS, ON APPLICATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
INSURANCE, PLACED IN LIQUIDATION BY ORDER OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT
ON NOVEMBER 24, 1937.  UPON FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, PURSUANT TO SEC. 422
OF THE NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW, THE COURT ORDERED, AUGUST 12, 1938, THAT
EACH MEMBER OF THE INDEMNITY COMPANY, DURING THE YEAR PRIOR TO NOVEMBER
10, 1937, SHOULD PAY ASSESSMENTS IN SPECIFIED AMOUNTS AGGREGATING 40%
OF PREMIUMS EARNED BY THE COMPANY DURING THAT YEAR.  THE ORDER DIRECTED
THAT THE MEMBERS SHOW CAUSE ON A SPECIFIED DATE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE
HELD LIABLE TO PAY AND WHY THE SUPERINTENDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE JUDGMENT
FOR SUCH ASSESSMENTS.  PURSUANT TO SEC. 422 AND THE ORDER, THE
SUPERINTENDENT MAILED NOTICE OF THE ORDER TO EACH POLICYHOLDER,
INCLUDING RESPONDENTS.  NONE OF RESPONDENTS ENTERED AN APPEARANCE.  IT
IS ALLEGED THAT ALL "WERE POLICYHOLDERS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY"
DURING THE YEAR MENTIONED; THAT AT THE TIME WHEN EACH PURCHASED HIS
POLICY AND BECAME A MEMBER THERE WAS IN FORCE SEC. 346 OF THE NEW YORK
INSURANCE LAW, WHICH UNDER NEW YORK STATUTES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS
BECAME A PART OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT, BINDING UPON EACH
POLICYHOLDER.  SECTION 346 PROVIDES THAT EVERY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
"SHALL IN ITS BY-LAWS AND POLICIES FIX THE CONTINGENT MUTUAL LIABILITY
OF THE MEMBERS FOR THE PAYMENT OF LOSSES AND EXPENSES NOT PROVIDED FOR
BY ITS ADMITTED ASSETS" TO A SPECIFIED EXTENT, AND THAT "ALL
ASSESSMENTS, WHETHER LEVIED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE IN THE LIQUIDATION OF THE CORPORATION, OR
OTHERWISE, SHALL BE FOR NO GREATER AMOUNT THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN THE
POLICY AND BY-LAWS."  IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE
AGAINST RESPONDENTS WAS FOR THEIR PRO RATA SHARE OF THE 40% ASSESSMENT
LEVIED BY ORDER OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE STATUTES OF NEW YORK AND
THE BY-LAWS OF THE COMPANY, AND WAS CONFIRMED AS TO MEMBERS, INCLUDING
RESPONDENTS, BY THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 17, 1938.  THE FORM OF POLICY
ACQUIRED BY RESPONDENTS IS BY REFERENCE MADE A PART OF THE PETITION. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, CONSTRUING THE AMENDED PETITION AS A
WHOLE, TOOK ITS AVERMENT THAT RESPONDENTS "WERE POLICYHOLDERS AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY" TO MEAN THAT THEY WERE MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY
WERE POLICYHOLDERS.  THAT CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED AND WE
ADOPT IT HERE.  THE COURT ACCEPTED THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE MEANING AND
EFFECT OF THE NEW YORK STATUTES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS AS CORRECT, BUT
HELD THAT RESPONDENTS, NONE OF WHOM WAS MADE A PARTY TO THE NEW YORK
PROCEEDINGS BY SERVICE OF PROCESS, WERE NOT CONCLUDED BY THE NEW YORK
ORDERS AND STATUTES ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THEIR RELATION AS
POLICYHOLDERS TO THE COMPANY WAS SUCH AS TO SUBJECT THEM TO LIABILITY. 

EXAMINING THE CONTRACT EMBODIED IN THE POLICIES, THE COURT FOUND THAT
ALTHOUGH THE NAME OF THE COMPANY CONTAINED THE WORD "MUTUAL" THE
CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE WERE WITHOUT ANY TERM OR PROVISION PURPORTING TO
MAKE THE POLICYHOLDER A MEMBER OF A MUTUAL COMPANY OR TO SUBJECT HIM TO
ASSESSMENT.  EACH POLICY PROVIDED THAT THE INSURED AGREES THAT IT
"EMBODIES ALL AGREEMENTS EXISTING BETWEEN HIMSELF AND THE COMPANY OR
ANY OF ITS AGENTS RELATING TO THIS INSURANCE."  PRINTED ON THE BACK OF
EACH POLICY BUT NOT REFERRED TO IN THE CONTRACT WAS A "NOTICE TO
POLICYHOLDERS" THAT "THE INSURED IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT BY VIRTUE OF
THIS POLICY HE IS A MEMBER OF THE AUTO MUTUAL INDEMNITY COMPANY," AND
THAT "THE CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF THE NAMED INSURED UNDER THIS POLICY
SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE YEAR FROM THE EXPIRATION OR CANCELLATION HEREOF
AND SHALL NOT EXCEED THE LIMITS PROVIDED BY THE INSURANCE LAW OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK," THERE BEING ON THE FACE OF THE POLICY NO REFERENCE
TO ANY CONTINGENT LIABILITY OR ASSESSMENT OR TO ANY LAW PROVIDING FOR
SUCH.  THE PETITION DOES NOT MAKE IT CLEAR WHERE THE POLICIES WERE
DELIVERED TO RESPONDENTS, AND THE COURT HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A
SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY THEY WERE GOVERNED BY GEORGIA LAW. 

APPLYING TO THIS STATE OF FACTS THE LAW AND POLICY OF GEORGIA DERIVED
FROM ITS STATUTES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS, THE COURT HELD THAT THE
RELATION BETWEEN THE INSURED AND THE COMPANY WAS THAT OF CONTRACT, THAT
THE WHOLE CONTRACT WAS EMBODIED IN THE STIPULATIONS APPEARING ON THE
FACE OF THE POLICY, AND THAT IT DID NOT BY ITS PROVISIONS MAKE
RESPONDENTS MEMBERS OF THE COMPANY OR SUBJECT THEM TO ASSESSMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF NEW YORK OR OTHERWISE.  PETITIONER
CHALLENGES THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILS TO ACCORD TO THE
NEW YORK ORDERS AND STATUTES THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO WHICH THEY
ARE ENTITLED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

WHILE URGING IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT THAT ALL THOSE WHO ARE SHOWN TO BE
MEMBERS OF THE INDEMNITY COMPANY ARE BOUND BY THE NEW YORK ADJUDICATION
AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR AND AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT, PETITIONER DOES
NOT SPECIFICALLY URGE THAT THE NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS HAVE ESTABLISHED
THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF RESPONDENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH HAVE
BEEN ORDERED.  HE COULD NOT WELL DO SO, FOR THE PROCEEDING IN THE NEW
YORK COURTS TO DETERMINE WHAT JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE ENTERED AGAINST THE
POLICYHOLDERS, INCLUDING NONRESIDENTS, AND THE JUDGMENTS ACTUALLY
ENTERED, DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN MADE A PART OF THE PRESENT RECORD. 
SEE IN RE AUTO MUTUAL INDEMNITY CO., 14 N.Y.S.2D 601.  IN ANY CASE, IT
SUFFICES FOR PRESENT PURPOSES TO SAY THAT NEW YORK DOES NOT ATTRIBUTE
ANY SUCH EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENTS OF HER COURTS RENDERED AGAINST ABSENT
NONRESIDENT DEFENDANTS.  SEE KITTREDGE V. GRANNIS, 244 N.Y. 182, 192
96, 155 N.E. 93; GEARY V. GEARY, 272 N.Y. 390, 398, 6 N.E.2D 67; CF.
POPE V. HECKSCHER, 266 N.Y. 114, 194 N.E. 53; HOOD V. GUARANTY TRUST
CO., 270 N.Y. 17, 200 N.E. 55.  SUCH WAS THE RULING IN THE NEW YORK
PROCEEDING FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF THE INDEMNITY COMPANY WITH WHICH WE
ARE HERE CONCERNED.  SEE IN RE AUTO MUTUAL INDEMNITY CO., SUPRA, 611,
WHERE THE REFEREE'S OPINION STATES:  "  ...  NO PERSONAL JUDGMENT WILL
BE ORDERED AGAINST NON-RESIDENT MEMBERS OR POLICYHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT
APPEARED GENERALLY OR BEEN SERVED PERSONALLY WITH PROCESS WITHIN THE
STATE, ALTHOUGH, AS HEREINABOVE SET FORTH, THEY ARE BOUND BY THE
FINDING OF THE NECESSITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND THE AMOUNT THEREOF." 

IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE THAT THOSE WHO BECOME STOCKHOLDERS IN A
CORPORATION SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENT WHEN MADE IN
CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF ITS ORGANIZATION, ALTHOUGH
THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING FOR LEVYING IT.  HAWKINS V.
GLENN, 131 U.S. 319; HANCOCK NATIONAL BANK V. FARNUM, 176 U.S. 640;
BERNHEIMER V. CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516; CONVERSE V. HAMILTON, 224 U.S.
243, 260; SELIG V. HAMILTON, 234 U.S. 652; MARIN V. AUGEDAHL, 247 U.S.
142; BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629; CHANDLER V. PEKETZ, 297 U.S.
609.  WHETHER WE SUPPORT THESE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES BY REFERENCE TO
CONSENT OF THE STOCKHOLDER OR TO HIS ASSUMPTION OF A CORPORATE
RELATIONSHIP SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE STATE OF
INCORPORATION, IN EITHER CASE THE PROCEDURE CONFORMS TO ACCEPTED
PRINCIPLES, INVOLVES NO WANT OF DUE PROCESS, AND IS ENTITLED TO FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT SO FAR AS THE NECESSITY AND AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT
ARE CONCERNED.  SEE CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302 U.S. 500, AND CASES
CITED.  THE LIKE PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED TO MUTUAL
INSURANCE ASSOCIATIONS, WHERE THE FACT THAT THE POLICYHOLDERS WERE
MEMBERS WAS NOT CONTESTED.  ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531;
MODERN WOODMEN V. MIXER, 267 U.S. 544.  THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THESE AUTHORITIES
TO THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE IT DECIDED THAT RESPONDENTS, BY ACQUIRING
THE PARTICULAR FORM OF POLICY ISSUED BY THE INDEMNITY COMPANY, DID NOT
BECOME MEMBERS OF IT. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE INDEMNITY
COMPANY TO STAND IN JUDGMENT FOR ITS ABSENT MEMBERS TURNS ON THEIR
CONSENT OR THEIR ASSUMPTION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS,
WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS, MAY DEFEND ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY NEVER BECAME MEMBERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE NO ACT
SIGNIFYING SUCH CONSENT OR ASSUMPTION.  AFTER AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN
LAWFULLY LEVIED ON THE MEMBERS OF A CORPORATION, IT IS STILL OPEN TO
ANY WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TO DEFEND ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY NEVER BECAME STOCKHOLDERS.  GREAT WESTERN TELEGRAPH
CO. V. PURDY, 162 U.S. 329, 336-37; COE V. ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, 237
U.S. 413, 423; ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531, 544; CHANDLER V.
PEKETZ, 297 U.S. 609, 611; CF. HAWKINS V. GLENN, 131 U.S. 319, 335. 
ORDINARILY THIS MEANS NO MORE THAN THAT THEY HAVE NOT ACQUIRED OR OWNED
STOCK IN THE CORPORATION DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD.  FOR A NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE OF BECOMING A STOCKHOLDER IS THE ASSUMPTION OF THOSE
OBLIGATIONS WHICH, BY THE LAWS GOVERNING THE ORGANIZATION AND
MANAGEMENT OF THE CORPORATION, ATTACH TO STOCK OWNERSHIP.    OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS MAY BE SIGNIFICANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER A MEMBERSHIP
IN A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY HAS BEEN EFFECTED THROUGH ACQUISITION OF
A POLICY.  A MERE CONTRACT IS NOT A SHARE OF STOCK AND WHEN MADE WITH A
CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONNOTE MEMBERSHIP IN
IT.  A POLICY OF INSURANCE MAY BE A CONTRACT WHOSE TERMS PURPORT TO
DEFINE COMPLETELY THE RELATIONSHIP AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES. 
HERE THE POLICY, WHICH WAS ON ITS FACE A CONTRACT AND NOTHING MORE,
STIPULATED ONLY FOR OBLIGATIONS TO BE PERFORMED BY THE INSURER UPON
PAYMENT OF THE PRESCRIBED PREMIUM.  THE POLICY'S STIPULATIONS CONTAINED
NO PROVISION MAKING THE INSURED A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION OR
SUBJECTING HIM TO LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENT AS SUCH.  ALTHOUGH THE
COMPANY WAS DENOMINATED "MUTUAL," THAT TERM DOES NOT NECESSARILY
SIGNIFY THAT POLICYHOLDERS ARE MEMBERS OR SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT. 

WITHOUT THE COMMAND OF SOME CONSTITUTIONALLY CONTROLLING STATUTE, THE
GEORGIA COURT WAS FREE TO INTERPRET THE OBLIGATION OF THE POLICY AS
LIMITED TO THOSE STIPULATIONS EXPRESSED ON ITS FACE AND AS EXCLUDING
ANY STIPULATION FOR MEMBERSHIP OR FOR LIABILITY TO ASSESSMENT WHICH THE
CONTRACT DID NOT MENTION.  PETITIONER FINDS SUCH A COMMAND IN THE NEW
YORK STATUTES, WHICH, HE ASSERTS, MAKE ALL POLICYHOLDERS LIABLE TO
ASSESSMENT WITHOUT THE AID OF ANY STIPULATION TO THAT EFFECT IN THE
POLICY.  HE RELIES ON THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO EXACT
OBEDIENCE TO THE STATUTES. 

EVERY STATE HAS AUTHORITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH LAWS,
THROUGH BOTH ITS JUDICIAL AND ITS LEGISLATIVE ARMS, WHICH ARE
CONTROLLING UPON ITS INHABITANTS AND DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.  WHEN IT IS
DEMANDED IN THE DOMESTIC FORUM THAT THE OPERATION OF THOSE LAWS BE
SUPPLANTED BY THE STATUTE OF ANOTHER STATE, THAT FORUM IS NOT BOUND,
APART FROM THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, TO YIELD TO THE DEMAND,
AND THE LAW OF NEITHER CAN, BY ITS OWN FORCE, DETERMINE THE CHOICE OF
LAW FOR THE OTHER.  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 272;
PACIFIC INS. CO. V. COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493, 500; KRYGER V. WILSON,
242 U.S. 171, 176; UNION TRUST CO. V. GROSMAN, 245 U.S. 412; GRIFFIN V.
MCCOACH, 313 U.S. 498. 

TO THE EXTENT THAT GEORGIA MUST GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE NEW
YORK STATUTES AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, IT MUST BE DENIED AUTHORITY TO
ADJUDICATE THE MEANING AND DOMESTIC EFFECT UNDER ITS OWN LAWS OF A
CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY ITS OWN INHABITANTS AND CONTAINING NO
STIPULATION THAT THEY SHOULD BE BOUND BY OBLIGATIONS EXTRINSICALLY
IMPOSED BY NEW YORK LAW.  BUT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE IS NOT
AN INEXORABLE AND UNQUALIFIED COMMAND.  IT LEAVES SOME SCOPE FOR STATE
CONTROL WITHIN ITS BORDERS OF AFFAIRS WHICH ARE PECULIARLY ITS OWN. 
THIS COURT HAS OFTEN RECOGNIZED THAT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE APPROPRIATE
APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, THERE ARE LIMITS TO
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE LAWS AND POLICY OF ONE STATE MAY BE
SUBORDINATED TO THOSE OF ANOTHER.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMMISSION,
294 U.S. 532; PACIFIC INS. CO. V. COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493; KLAXON CO.
V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487, 497-98; SEE MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE
CO., 296 U.S. 268, 273. 

IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROVISION TO PRESERVE RIGHTS ACQUIRED OR
CONFIRMED UNDER THE PUBLIC ACTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF ONE STATE
BY REQUIRING RECOGNITION OF THEIR VALIDITY IN OTHERS.  BUT THE VERY
NATURE OF THE FEDERAL UNION OF STATES, TO EACH OF WHICH IS RESERVED THE
SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO MAKE ITS OWN LAWS, PRECLUDES RESORT TO THE
CONSTITUTION AS THE MEANS FOR COMPELLING ONE STATE WHOLLY TO
SUBORDINATE ITS OWN LAWS AND POLICY CONCERNING ITS PECULIARLY DOMESTIC
AFFAIRS TO THE LAWS AND POLICY OF OTHERS.  WHEN SUCH CONFLICT OF
INTEREST ARISES, IT IS FOR THIS COURT TO RESOLVE IT BY DETERMINING HOW
FAR THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DEMANDS THE QUALIFICATION OR
DENIAL OF RIGHTS ASSERTED UNDER THE LAWS OF ONE STATE, THAT OF THE
FORUM, BY THE PUBLIC ACTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF ANOTHER.  SEE
ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 532, 547; PACIFIC INS. CO.
V. COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 493. 

WHERE A RESIDENT OF ONE STATE HAS BY STIPULATION OR STOCK OWNERSHIP
BECOME A MEMBER OF A CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION OF ANOTHER, THE STATE
OF HIS RESIDENCE MAY HAVE NO SUCH DOMESTIC INTEREST IN PREVENTING HIM
FROM FULFILLING THE OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP AS WOULD ADMIT OF A
RESTRICTED APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  BUT IT
DOES HAVE A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN DETERMINING WHETHER ITS RESIDENTS
HAVE ASSENTED TO MEMBERSHIP OBLIGATIONS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED ON THEM BY
EXTRASTATE LAW TO WHICH THEY ARE NOT OTHERWISE SUBJECT. 

WITHOUT THE AID OF AGREEMENT OR CONSENT, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
ORGANIZATION CAN BE IMPOSED ON GEORGIA COURTS AND POLICYHOLDERS ONLY SO
FAR AS THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE COMPELS IT.  THE UNDUE
EXTENSION OF THE STATUTES AND AUTHORITY OF A STATE BEYOND ITS OWN
BORDERS, BY THE EXPEDIENT OF RENDERING A JUDGMENT AGAINST NON-CITIZENS
OVER WHOSE PERSONS OR PROPERTY THE STATE HAS ACQUIRED JURISDICTION, MAY
INFRINGE DUE PROCESS.  HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397.  LIKE, BUT
MORE COGENT, REASONS MAY CALL FOR THE RESTRICTION OF THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE AS THE INSTRUMENT FOR CONTROLLING THE LAW AND POLICY OF
ONE STATE, WITH RESPECT TO ITS DOMESTIC AFFAIRS, BY THE STATUTORY
COMMAND OF ANOTHER. 

THE INTERPRETATION AND LEGAL EFFECT OF POLICIES OF INSURANCE ENTERED
INTO BY THE INHABITANTS OF GEORGIA, WHO ARE SUED UPON THEM IN ITS
COURTS, ARE PECULIARLY MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN.  GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH,
313 U.S. 498.  WERE IT NOT FOR THE NEW YORK STATUTE, THERE COULD BE NO
QUESTION OF GEORGIA'S AUTHORITY TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS ARISING UNDER THE POLICIES.  AND AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE ONLY
BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION BY NEW YORK OF ITS COMMAND ON THE GEORGIA
COURT AND POLICYHOLDERS IS THE ASSUMPTION BY THE LATTER OF MEMBERSHIP
IN THE NEW YORK COMPANY.  BUT THIS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
DEPENDS UPON THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF ALL THE PROVISIONS APPEARING ON
THE POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSUMPTION OF MEMBERSHIP, WHICH IS FOR
GEORGIA TO DETERMINE.  THERE BEING NO QUESTION OF EVASION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION, WE ACCEPT THAT DETERMINATION AS ONE OF
DOMESTIC LAW AND POLICY WHICH THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT
OVERRIDE.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :









U.S. V. KANSAS FLOUR CORP., 314 U.S. 212 


NO. 45.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 21, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  - 92
CT.CLS.  390, REVERSED. 


CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF FLOUR BY THE GOVERNMENT INCLUDED AS PART
OF THE PRICE ANY FEDERAL TAX THERETOFORE IMPOSED BY CONGRESS APPLICABLE
TO THE MATERIAL PURCHASED, AND PROVIDED THAT IF ANY PROCESSING OR OTHER
TAX WERE IMPOSED OR "CHANGED BY CONGRESS" AFTER THE DATE SET FOR
OPENING OF BIDS AND WERE PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE CONTRACTOR ON
THE SUPPLIES CONTRACTED FOR, THEN THE PRICE WOULD BE "INCREASED OR
DECREASED" ACCORDINGLY.  HELD, THAT THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION IN UNITED
STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, ADJUDGING THE PROCESSING TAX VOID, AND
THE RECOGNITION OF THAT HOLDING THROUGH PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1936, AMOUNTED TO A "CHANGE" OF THE VENDOR'S TAX LIABILITY MADE "BY
CONGRESS," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT, AND THAT AMOUNTS PAID BY
THE GOVERNMENT AS PART OF THE CONTRACT PRICE TO OFFSET PROCESSING TAXES
PRESUMPTIVELY PAYABLE BY THE VENDOR BUT WHICH BECAUSE OF THAT DECISION
THE VENDOR ESCAPED, WERE RECOVERABLE BY THE UNITED STATES.  P. 217. 

UNITED STATES V. KANSAS FLOUR MILLS CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 554, TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS
AWARDING DAMAGES TO THE FLOUR MILLS COMPANY ON A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE
OF FLOUR AND BRAN, AND DENYING THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO OFFSET
PAYMENTS MADE BY IT ON EARLIER CONTRACTS TO COVER PROCESSING TAXES
WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY HELD TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL SO THAT THE VENDOR
WAS NOT OBLIGED TO PAY THEM. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BETWEEN MAY, 1935, AND JANUARY 6, 1936, THE RESPONDENT ENTERED INTO
EIGHT CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF FLOUR TO THE UNITED STATES.  DELIVERIES
WERE DULY MADE AND THE CONTRACT PRICE WAS PAID. 

EACH OF THE EIGHT CONTRACTS PROVIDED: 

"PRICES SET FORTH HEREIN INCLUDE ANY FEDERAL TAX HERETOFORE IMPOSED
BY THE CONGRESS WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL PURCHASED UNDER
THIS CONTRACT.  IF ANY SALES TAX, PROCESSING TAX, ADJUSTMENT CHARGE OR
OTHER TAXES OR CHARGES ARE IMPOSED OR CHANGED BY THE CONGRESS AFTER THE
DATE SET FOR THE OPENING OF THE BID UPON WHICH THIS CONTRACT IS BASED
AND MADE APPLICABLE DIRECTLY UPON THE PRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, OR SALE
OF THE SUPPLIES COVERED BY THIS CONTRACT, AND ARE PAID TO THE
GOVERNMENT BY THE CONTRACTOR ON THE ARTICLES OR SUPPLIES HEREIN
CONTRACTED FOR, THEN THE PRICES NAMED IN THIS CONTRACT WILL BE
INCREASED OR DECREASED ACCORDINGLY, AND ANY AMOUNT DUE THE CONTRACTOR
AS A RESULT OF SUCH CHANGE WILL BE CHARGED TO THE GOVERNMENT AND
ENTERED ON VOUCHERS (OR INVOICES) AS SEPARATE ITEMS." 

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT,  FN1  PROCESSING
TAXES WERE DUE, IN RESPECT OF THE FLOUR SOLD, AGGREGATING $28,419.20. 

IN 1936, THE RESPONDENT ENTERED INTO FOUR CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF
FLOUR AND BRAN TO THE UNITED STATES FOR A TOTAL PRICE OF $23,288.11. 
THE COMMODITIES WERE DELIVERED AND VOUCHERS FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE
TENDERED TO THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.  PAYMENT WAS WITHHELD BY THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL, WHO NOTIFIED THE RESPONDENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT
HAD OVERPAID IT IN THE SUM OF $28,419.20. 

THE RESPONDENT HAD OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE COLLECTION OF
ANY PROCESSING TAXES FROM IT AND, AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION IN UNITED
STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, PAID NO PROCESSING TAXES ON THE WHEAT
USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF FLOUR COVERED BY THE 1935 CONTRACTS. 

THE RESPONDENT SUED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER THE PURCHASE
PRICE UNDER THE FOUR 1936 CONTRACTS, AND CONTESTED THE OFFSETS CLAIMED
BY THE GOVERNMENT ARISING OUT OF THE EIGHT 1935 CONTRACTS.  JUDGMENT
WAS RENDERED IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT FOR $23,288.11.  92 CT. CLS.
390.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION
FN2  AND OF THE NUMBER OF PENDING CASES INVOLVING THE SAME QUESTION. 
WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER. 

THE CONTRACTS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THEY WERE EXECUTED.  THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT DID NOT EXEMPT A VENDOR TO THE UNITED STATES FROM THE
PROCESSING TAX; AND A TREASURY REGULATION REQUIRED THAT HE PAY THE
TAX.  FN3  THE QUOTED CLAUSE SHOWS THAT THIS TAX WAS SPECIFICALLY IN
THE MINDS OF THE PARTIES, FOR IT WAS STIPULATED THAT IT WAS INCLUDED IN
THE PRICE BID.  THE GOVERNMENT STOOD IN A DUAL RELATION TO THE
RESPONDENT.  IT BECAME, AT THE SAME TIME, A PURCHASER AT THE NAMED
PRICE AND ALSO A CLAIMANT OF THE PROCESSING TAX UPON THE MATERIAL
PURCHASED.  THE STIPULATION WAS EVIDENTLY MADE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS
THAT THE PURCHASING OFFICER COULD NOT BUY THE GOODS TAX-FREE AND THAT
THE GOVERNMENT DESIRED THAT THE PRICE TO IT SHOULD BE EX-TAX.  TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS THE SALE PRICE WAS PRO TANTO OFFSET BY THE AMOUNT OF
THE TAX.  PLAINLY, IF THE UNITED STATES HAD NOT BEEN THOUGHT ENTITLED
TO COLLECT THE TAX, THE BID PRICE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE. 
PLAINLY, ALSO, IF THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT BEEN THOUGHT LIABLE FOR THE
TAX, THE BID PRICE WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS.  FN4  AS DISCLOSED BY THE
CONTRACTS, THE UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE PRICE WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS BY
THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX.  THE RESPONDENT DISPUTES THIS, CONTENDING THAT
WE CANNOT SAY HOW MUCH OF THE TAX IT WAS WILLING TO ABSORB IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN THE CONTRACTS; THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN MAKING THE SALES AT AN
ACTUAL LOSS.  BUT THIS IS NOT THE THEORY OF THE CONTRACTS.  THEY
PROVIDE THAT IF, IN FUTURE, ANY EXISTING TAX DESCRIBED THEREIN IS
CHANGED BY CONGRESS, THE PRICE NAMED IN EACH CONTRACT "WILL BE
INCREASED OR DECREASED ACCORDINGLY."  THIS DOES NOT MEAN, AS CONTENDED
BY RESPONDENT, THAT THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE OR DECREASE IS AN UNKNOWN
QUANTITY TO BE MADE DEFINITE AND CERTAIN BY PROOF.  IT MEANS THAT THE
AMOUNT OF ANY INCREASE IN TAX SHALL BE ADDED TO, AND THE AMOUNT OF ANY
DECREASE SUBTRACTED FROM, THE CONTRACT PRICE.  THIS VIEW IS
STRENGTHENED BY THE PROVISION FOR SEPARATE BILLING OF THE INCREASE, IF
ANY. 

THE RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, ARGUES THAT, UNDER ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE
GOVERNMENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN ITS SET-OFF, FIRST, BECAUSE THE
CONTRACTS CONTAIN NO UNDERTAKING BY RESPONDENT THAT IT WILL PAY THE
TAX, AND, SECONDLY, THAT, EVEN IF THEY DO, THE STIPULATION FOR
REDUCTION OF PRICE APPLIES ONLY TO CHANGES BY CONGRESS AND EXCLUDES
RELIEF FROM THE TAX BY AN ADJUDICATION THAT THE EXACTION IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE FIRST PROPOSITION, THE RESPONDENT RELIES ON
NUMEROUS DECISIONS HOLDING TAX CLAUSES IN PRIVATE CONTRACTS NOT TO
REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION IN
THE BUTLER CASE, SUPRA.  FN5  THESE GO ON THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS
PROVISION RESPECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY AND UPON THE OMISSION
OF THE PARTIES TO BILL THE TAX SEPARATELY FROM THE PURCHASE PRICE.  WE
THINK THEY ARE INAPPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE TAX CLAUSE
HERE HAD A PURPOSE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE IN PRIVATE CONTRACTS.  AS WE
HAVE SAID, THE PURPOSE HERE WAS TO DEPRIVE EITHER PARTY OF THE
ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE RESULTING FROM THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX; AND,
THEREFORE, IT WAS SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE THE EFFECT OF THE EXACTION ON THE
CONTRACT PRICE. 

IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE CONTRACTS, THE VENDEES PURCHASE FOR RESALE AND
THE TAX BURDEN ASSUMED IS PASSED ON TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.  THE FACT THAT
THE PROCESSOR - THE VENDOR - IS PROTECTED FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX
BY INJUNCTION DOES NOT REDUCE THE PRICE TO THE VENDEE OR TO PURCHASERS
FROM HIM.  THE COURTS WILL NOT PERMIT THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT INVOLVED IN
RECOVERY BY THE VENDEE OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX WHICH HE HAS PASSED ON TO
HIS CUSTOMERS.  FN6  IN THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION, THE GOVERNMENT DID
NOT BUY FOR RESALE.  UNLESS IT RECEIVED THE TAX IT SUFFERED A DEFINITE
DISADVANTAGE.  FN7  ITS PURPOSE, AS SHOWN BY THE CONTRACTS, WAS TO
BALANCE THE TAX ELEMENT IN THE PRICE PAID WITH THE TAX COLLECTED.  FN8
THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH COULD NOT PASS ON THE TAX ON RESALE, WAS THUS
PROTECTED, NOT AGAINST A FALL IN THE MARKET PRICE BUT AGAINST A LOSS IN
ITS TAX REVENUES.  IN CASES OF PRIVATE SALES, THE PROCESSOR'S
INJUNCTION AGAINST COLLECTION OF THE TAX, AS HELD BY THE CASES CITED,
WORKED NO HARM TO HIS VENDEE.  A SIMILAR INJUNCTION, IN THE CASE OF
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, WOULD LEAVE THE PRICE TO THE GOVERNMENT AT THE
HIGHER LEVEL REFLECTING THE TAX AND DEPRIVE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
RECIPROCAL BENEFIT FLOWING FROM COLLECTION OF THE TAX. 

IN ITS SECOND POSITION, THE RESPONDENT ATTEMPTS TO MEET WHAT HAS BEEN
SAID AS TO THE INEQUITY OF ITS RETAINING THE FULL PRICE, WHEN IT
ESCAPES PAYING THE TAX, WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT THE RESULT IS INEVITABLE
UNDER THE CONTRACTS.  IT REFERS TO THE FACT THAT IT HAD ALREADY
OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE COLLECTION OF THE PROCESSING TAX
WHEN SOME OF THE 1935 CONTRACTS WERE MADE, AND ASSERTS THAT, IF THE
GOVERNMENT DESIRED TO PROVIDE AGAINST A DECISION THAT THE TAXING ACT
WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THIS COULD READILY HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ADDITION
OF A SINGLE PHRASE. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THERE IS RESPECTABLE AUTHORITY FOR THE POSITION THAT
TAX CLAUSES IN PRIVATE CONTRACTS DO NOT REACH A JUDICIAL DECISION OF
INVALIDITY OF THE STATUTE.  WE THINK, HOWEVER, THESE DECISIONS HAVE NO
APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE.  HERE, LEGISLATION RECOGNIZING THE
DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, SUPRA, AND IMPOSING TAXES ON THE
ENRICHMENT OF THOSE WHO PASSED ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX WITHOUT HAVING
TO PAY IT, MAY PROPERLY BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN A CHANGE OF THE TAX BY
CONGRESS WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS. 

THE DECISION IN THE BUTLER CASE WAS RENDERED JANUARY 6, 1936.  IT IS
TRUE THAT AFTER THAT DECISION A TAXPAYER'S RIGHT TO AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX WAS CLEAR.  FN9 BUT, BY THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1936,  FN10  WHICH BECAME A LAW JUNE 22, 1936, CONGRESS NOT ONLY
RECOGNIZED THE EFFECT OF THAT DECISION AS DOING AWAY WITH THE TAX IN
QUESTION BUT LEGISLATED WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSEQUENT RIGHTS AND
REMEDIES OF THOSE WHO HAD PAID THE TAX AND THE LIABILITY OF THOSE WHO
HAD PASSED ON ITS BURDEN AND ESCAPED PAYMENT. 

BY TITLE III A TAX IS LAID ON THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CONSEQUENT UPON
THE PASSING ON TO CUSTOMERS THE BURDEN OF UNPAID PROCESSING TAXES.  IN
SEC. 501(B)(I)(2) AND (J)(2), CONGRESS DEFINES THE DATE OF TERMINATION
OF THE TAX AS "IN THE CASE OF A FEDERAL EXCISE TAX HELD INVALID BY A
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE DATE OF SUCH DECISION."  IN TITLE IV
THERE IS A PROVISION RELATIVE TO FLOOR STOCK TAXES WHICH RECOGNIZES THE
INVALIDITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT BY REENACTING THE REFUND
PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS PRIOR TO JANUARY 6,
1936, THE DATE OF THE BUTLER DECISION.  SEC. 601(A).  THE TITLE DEFINES
A TAXABLE COMMODITY AS ONE ON WHICH A PROCESSING TAX WAS PROVIDED FOR
AS OF JANUARY 5, 1936, THE DAY BEFORE THE BUTLER DECISION.  SEC.
602(C)(1). 

TITLE VII MAKES PROVISION FOR THE REFUND OF PROCESSING TAXES
COLLECTED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT AND IS A RECOGNITION BY
CONGRESS THAT THE TAXES WERE INVALID. 

THUS, A CHANGE IN RESPONDENT'S TAX LIABILITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AND
CONFIRMED BY CONGRESS.  EVEN THOUGH THIS LEGISLATIVE ACTION WAS A
CONFIRMATION OF OR ACQUIESCENCE IN THE BUTLER DECISION, AND ALTHOUGH
ITS EFFECT MAY HAVE BEEN MERELY CUMULATIVE, IT AMOUNTED TO A CHANGE
MADE BY CONGRESS IN RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY FOR THE TAX, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONTRACTS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  U.S.C. SUPP. V, TIT. 7, SEC. 609. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. HAGAN & CUSHING CO., 115 F.2D 849; ISMERTHINCKE
MILLING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 90 CT. CLS. 27; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN
PACKING & PROVISION CO., 122 F.2D 445. 

FN3  REGULATIONS 81, ART. 9, UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT. 

FN4  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. GLENN L. MARTIN CO., 308 U.S. 62. 

FN5  MOUNDRIDGE MILLING CO. V. CREAM OF WHEAT CORP., 105 F.2D 366;
CONSOLIDATED FLOUR MILLS V. PH. ORTH CO., 114 F.2D 898; UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN PACKING & PROVISION CO., 122 F.2D 445; CITY BAKING CO. V.
CASCADE MILLING & ELEVATOR CO., 24 F.SUPP.  950; G. S. JOHNSON CO. V.
N. SAUER MILLING CO., 148 KAN. 861(1938), 84 P.2D 934; SPARKS MILLING
CO. V. POWELL, 283 KY. 669(1940), 143 S.W.2D 75; CRETE MILLS V. SMITH
BAKING CO., 136 NEB. 448(1939), 286 N.W. 333. 

FN6  SEE THE CASES CITED NOTE 5.  THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE
UNJUST ENRICHMENT TAX IMPOSED BY TITLE III OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1936(49 STAT. 1734) DESTROYS THE EQUITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE, BUT
IF RESPONDENT IS REQUIRED TO REDUCE ITS PRICE BY THE AMOUNT OF ITS
UNPAID PROCESSING TAX IT WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT
TAX ON THESE TRANSACTIONS.  SEE SECS. 501(B)(2) AND 501(J)(4). 

FN7  IN UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN PACKING & PROVISION CO., 122 F.2D
445, THE GOVERNMENT WAS HELD ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN A SET-OFF ASSERTED
UNDER CONDITIONS LIKE THOSE HERE INVOLVED ON THE GROUND THAT THE VENDOR
HAD RECEIVED MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IN EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE IT SHOULD REPAY. 

FN8  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. COWDEN MFG. CO., 312 U.S. 34, 36-37. 

FN9  RICKERT RICE MILLS, INC. V. FONTENOT, 297 U.S. 110. 

FN10  49 STAT. 1648. 
..END :












LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 219 


NOS. 4 AND 5.  REARGUED OCTOBER 14, 15, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8,
1941.  - 89 P.2D 39 - 14 CAL.2D 403, 94 P.2D 569, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE CLAIM THAT DISCRIMINATION BY POLICE OFFICERS IN TREATING SOME
PERSONS ILLEGALLY AND OTHERS LEGALLY VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, HELD UNSUPPORTED.  P. 226. 

2.  IN THE SENTENCING OF ACCOMPLICES, THE PRACTICE OF TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION THEIR AID TO THE STATE AS WITNESSES INVOLVES NO DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS TO A CONVICTED CONFEDERATE.  P. 227. 

3.  WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE IN THIS CASE WAS
CORROBORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE LAW WAS A QUESTION FOR DECISION
BY THE COURTS OF THE STATE.  P. 227. 

4.  WHERE IT WAS ALLEGED AS A BASIS OF RELEASE BY HABEAS CORPUS IN A
STATE COURT THAT TESTIMONY OF AN ACCOMPLICE LEADING TO THE CONVICTION
OF THE PETITIONER WAS KNOWN BY THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS TO BE FALSE AND
WAS INDUCED BY THEIR PROMISES AND THREATS; AND AFFIDAVITS OF THE
ACCOMPLICE, MADE SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THE TRIAL, WERE PRODUCED TO
SUBSTANTIATE THE ALLEGATION, THE APPRAISAL OF THE AFFIDAVITS WITH
OTHER, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD WAS A MATTER FOR THE STATE
COURTS.  P. 226. 

5.  THE ADMISSIBILITY IN A MURDER TRIAL OF EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER
SIMILAR CRIME, TO ESTABLISH INTENT, DESIGN AND SYSTEM ON THE PART OF
THE ACCUSED, IS LEFT BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO BE DETERMINED BY
THE STATE LAW AND THE STATE COURTS.  P. 227. 

6.  ACTION OF STATE COURTS IN DENYING A CONTINUANCE TO AN ACCUSED IN
A CRIMINAL TRIAL - HELD NOT REVIEWABLE BY THIS COURT UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 228. 

7.  WHERE IT WAS PART OF THE STATE'S CASE THAT LIVE RATTLESNAKES WERE
TO BE USED IN PURSUANCE OF A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER, AND TWO SUCH SNAKES
WERE BROUGHT TO THE COURT ROOM TO BE IDENTIFIED BY A WITNESS WHO SOLD
THEM TO ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS, THE PROPRIETY OF ADMITTING SUCH
EVIDENCE WAS FOR THE STATE COURTS TO DECIDE; THE CLAIM THAT ITS
INTRODUCTION MADE THE TRIAL SO UNFAIR AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IS
UNSOUND.  P. 228. 

8.  THE FACT THAT A PERSON ACCUSED OF A STATE OFFENSE WAS, SOME TIME
BEFORE MAKING A CONFESSION, SUBJECTED TO RESTRAINTS AND OTHER ACTS OF
STATE OFFICERS WHICH WERE IN THEMSELVES BREACHES OF THE STATE LAW AND
POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS, MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE USE OF THE CONFESSION AT HIS TRIAL WAS A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS BUT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE OF THAT ISSUE.  P. 235. 

9.  THE FACT THAT A CONFESSION HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY ADJUDGED BY THE
STATE COURTS TO BE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE UNDER THE STATE LAW DOES NOT
ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT
WAS MADE, ITS USE AT THE TRIAL WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 236. 

10.  THE STATE RULE AGAINST ADMITTING A CONFESSION WHICH WAS NOT
VOLUNTARILY MADE SEEKS TO EXCLUDE FALSE EVIDENCE.  THE AIM OF DUE
PROCESS IN FORBIDDING ITS USE IS TO PREVENT FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS OF
USING SUCH EVIDENCE, WHETHER TRUE OR FALSE.  THE CRITERIA FOR DECISION
IN THE ONE CASE OR THE OTHER MAY, OR MAY NOT, BE THE SAME, ACCORDING TO
THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 236. 

11.  TO DETERMINE A CLAIM THAT DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED BY THE USE IN
EVIDENCE IN A STATE COURT OF A CONFESSION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
BY COERCION OR PROMISES, THIS COURT MUST MAKE AN INDEPENDENT
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD.  P. 237. 

12.  THE COURT IS UNABLE TO FIND THAT THE CONFESSIONS IN THIS CASE
WERE INDUCED BY COERCION OR PROMISES, AND THAT THEIR USE IN EVIDENCE
THEREFORE VITIATED THE TRIAL, THE EVIDENCE BEING CONFLICTING AND THE
STATE TRIBUNALS HAVING FOUND THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE FREE AND
VOLUNTARY AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE STATE LAW, AND THE
STATE SUPREME COURT HAVING ALSO FOUND THAT THEIR USE CONFORMED TO DUE
PROCESS.  P. 238. 

13.  WHERE A PRISONER HELD INCOMMUNICADO IS SUBJECTED TO QUESTIONING
BY OFFICERS FOR LONG PERIODS, AND DEPRIVED OF THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL,
THE COURT WILL SCRUTINIZE THE RECORD WITH CARE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
USE OF HIS CONFESSION WAS CONTRARY TO DUE PROCESS.  P. 240. 

14.  ON THE FACTS, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS IN THE STATE
COURTS, THIS COURT CAN NOT HOLD THAT THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT IN WHICH THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF CALIFORNIA INDULGED BY THE PROLONGED
QUESTIONING OF THE PRISONER BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF
COUNSEL, OR THEIR LATER QUESTIONING, COERCED THE CONFESSIONS, THE USE
OF WHICH IS COMPLAINED OF AS AN INFRINGEMENT OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 240. 

LISENBA V. CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

89 P.2D 39; 14 CAL.2D 403, 94 P.2D 569, AFFIRMED. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF OF HABEAS
CORPUS.  THE CASES WERE ARGUED TOGETHER AT THE LAST TERM AND THE
JUDGMENTS WERE AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 313 U.S. 537.  A
PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE A FULL COURT WAS GRANTED; THE AFFIRMANCES
WERE SET ASIDE, AND THE CASES WERE RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR
REARGUMENT, 313 U.S. 597. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER, AND SENTENCED TO DEATH, IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT MARCH 21, 1939, TWO JUDGES
DISSENTING.  FN1  A REHEARING WAS GRANTED, THE CASE WAS REARGUED AND,
OCTOBER 5, 1939, THE DECISION WAS REAFFIRMED AND THE FORMER OPINION
ADOPTED AND AMPLIFIED, TWO JUSTICES DISSENTING.  FN2  NO QUESTION
ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN RAISED OR
DECIDED.  IN A SECOND PETITION FOR REHEARING, THE PETITIONER, FOR THE
FIRST TIME, ASSERTED THAT HIS CONVICTION VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  NOVEMBER 3, 1939, THE COURT RULED:  "THE PETITION FOR A
REHEARING HEREIN IS DENIED." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE STATE ALLOWED AN APPEAL, NOVEMBER 6, 1939,
AND, NOVEMBER 8, 1939, EXECUTED A CERTIFICATE IN WHICH HE ENUMERATED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE SECOND PETITION FOR
REHEARING; STATED THAT THE COURT ENTERTAINED THE PETITION, AND
EXPLICITLY OVERRULED EACH OF THE CONTENTIONS MADE THEREIN; CERTIFIED
THAT THE DECISION DENYING REHEARING "IS TO BE INTERPRETED AND
CONSIDERED AS HOLDING AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT HIS
RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES  ...  WERE VIOLATED"; AND CONCLUDED: "IT IS ORDERED THAT THIS
CERTIFICATE BE FILED IN THIS COURT AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD ON
APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  ON THE RECORD SO
MADE, THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT.  FN3 

THE APPELLANT DID NOT DRAW IN QUESTION THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
ANY STATUTE OF CALIFORNIA.  WE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL  FN4
BUT, TREATING THE PAPERS AS A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,  FN5  WE GRANTED
THE WRIT.  THIS CASE IS NO. 4. 

OCTOBER 31, 1939, THE PETITIONER PRAYED THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ON THE THEORY THAT HIS TRIAL AND
CONVICTION HAD DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  HE
SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS OF ONE HOPE, WHO HAD TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIM.  IN THESE, HOPE ASSERTED THAT HIS TESTIMONY WAS FALSE, HAD
BEEN COERCED BY THREATS, AND INDUCED BY PROMISES OF LENIENCY AND BY
FRAUD. 

NOVEMBER 9, 1939, HABEAS CORPUS WAS DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIA ALLOWED AN APPEAL AND MADE, AND ORDERED
FILED OF RECORD, A CERTIFICATE RESPECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
PRESENTED AND DECIDED BY THE COURT, SIMILAR TO THAT ENTERED IN NO. 4. 
WE FOLLOWED THE SAME COURSE AS IN NO. 4, AND THE CASE IS HERE AS NO.
5. 

THE APPEALS WERE PRESENTED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  THE TYPEWRITTEN RECORD
IS OF GREAT LENGTH.  IN THE BELIEF THAT ONLY BY BRIEFS AND ORAL
ARGUMENT, AND ON A RECORD PRINTED BY THE COURT, COULD PROPER
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION BE HAD OF CERTAIN APPARENTLY IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS PRESENTED, WE ISSUED THE WRITS.  THE CASES WERE ARGUED AT THE
OCTOBER 1940 TERM, AND THE JUDGMENTS WERE AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED COURT. 
A PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE A FULL COURT WAS GRANTED, THE
AFFIRMANCES SET ASIDE, AND THE CAUSES SET FOR REHEARING AT THIS TERM. 
FN6 

THE PETITIONER, WHO USED, AND WAS COMMONLY KNOWN BY, THE NAME OF
ROBERT S. JAMES (AND WILL BE SO CALLED), AND ONE HOPE WERE INDICTED,
MAY 6, 1936, FOR THE MURDER OF JAMES' WIFE ON AUGUST 5, 1935.  HOPE
PLEADED GUILTY AND WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  JAMES PLEADED
NOT GUILTY, WAS TRIED, CONVICTED, AND SENTENCED TO DEATH.  THE TRIAL
WAS A LONG ONE IN WHICH THE PETITIONER MADE OBJECTIONS TO RULINGS AND
TO THE CHARGE, WHICH RAISE QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW DECIDED BY THE
OPINION BELOW, WITH WHICH WE HAVE NO CONCERN.  WE SHALL REFER ONLY TO
SO MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE AS BEARS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS OPEN
HERE. 

THE STATE'S THEORY IS THAT THE PETITIONER CONCEIVED THE PLAN OF
MARRYING, INSURING HIS WIFE'S LIFE BY POLICIES PROVIDING DOUBLE
INDEMNITY FOR ACCIDENTAL DEATH, KILLING HER IN A MANNER TO GIVE THE
APPEARANCE OF ACCIDENT, AND COLLECTING DOUBLE INDEMNITY. 

JAMES EMPLOYED MARY E. BUSCH AS A MANICURIST IN HIS BARBER SHOP IN
MARCH, 1935, AND, ABOUT A MONTH LATER, WENT THROUGH A MARRIAGE CEREMONY
WITH HER, WHICH WAS NOT LEGAL, AS HE THEN HAD A LIVING WIFE.  WHILE
THEY WERE AFFIANCED, INSURANCE WAS NEGOTIATED ON HER LIFE, WITH JAMES
AS BENEFICIARY.  UPON THE ANNULMENT OF THE EARLIER MARRIAGE, A LAWFUL
CEREMONY WAS PERFORMED.  THE PETITIONER MADE SURE THAT THE POLICIES
WERE NOT ANNULLED BY THE FACT THAT, WHEN THEY WERE ISSUED, MARY HAD NOT
BEEN HIS LAWFUL WIFE. 

THE ALLEGATION IS THAT JAMES ENLISTED ONE HOPE IN A CONSPIRACY TO DO
AWAY WITH MARY AND COLLECT AND DIVIDE THE INSURANCE ON HER LIFE.  HOPE
TESTIFIED THAT, AT JAMES' INSTIGATION, HE PROCURED RATTLESNAKES WHICH
WERE TO BITE AND KILL MARY; THAT THEY APPEARED NOT TO BE SUFFICIENTLY
VENOMOUS FOR THE PURPOSE, BUT HE ULTIMATELY PURCHASED OTHERS AND
DELIVERED THEM TO JAMES; THAT JAMES, ON AUGUST 4, 1935, BLINDFOLDED HIS
WIFE'S EYES, TIED HER TO A TABLE, HAD HOPE BRING ONE OF THE SNAKES INTO
THE ROOM, AND CAUSED THE REPTILE TO BITE HER FOOT; THAT, DURING THE
NIGHT, JAMES TOLD HOPE THE BITE DID NOT HAVE THE DESIRED EFFECT; AND,
IN THE EARLY MORNING OF AUGUST 5, HE TOLD HOPE THAT HE WAS GOING TO
DROWN HIS WIFE; THAT LATER HE SAID TO HOPE, "THAT IS THAT"; AND STILL
LATER, AT HIS REQUEST, HOPE AIDED HIM IN CARRYING THE BODY TO THE YARD,
AND JAMES PLACED THE BODY FACE DOWN AT THE EDGE OF A FISH POND WITH THE
HEAD AND SHOULDERS IN THE WATER. 

JAMES WAS AT HIS BARBER SHOP ON AUGUST 5.  ON THAT EVENING HE TOOK
TWO FRIENDS HOME FOR DINNER.  WHEN THEY ARRIVED THE HOUSE WAS DARK AND
EMPTY, AND, UPON A SEARCH OF THE GROUNDS, HIS WIFE'S BODY WAS FOUND IN
THE POSITION INDICATED.  AN AUTOPSY SHOWED THE LUNGS WERE ALMOST FILLED
WITH WATER.  THE LEFT GREAT TOE SHOWED A PUNCTURE AND THE LEFT LEG WAS
GREATLY SWOLLEN AND ALMOST BLACK.  NOTHING CAME OF THE INVESTIGATION OF
THE DEATH. 

JAMES ATTEMPTED TO COLLECT DOUBLE INDEMNITY; THE INSURERS REFUSED TO
PAY; SUITS WERE INSTITUTED AND ONE OF THEM SETTLED.  AS A RESULT OF
THIS ACTIVITY, A FRESH INVESTIGATION OF MARY JAMES' DEATH WAS
INSTITUTED.  ON APRIL 19, 1936, OFFICERS ARRESTED JAMES FOR THE CRIME
OF INCEST.  HE WAS BOOKED ON THIS CHARGE ON THE MORNING OF APRIL 21,
WAS GIVEN A HEARING AND REMANDED TO JAIL.  ON MAY 2 AND 3 HE MADE
STATEMENTS RESPECTING HIS WIFE'S DEATH TO THE PROSECUTING OFFICIALS. 

AT THE TRIAL, IN ADDITION TO THAT OF HOPE, TESTIMONY WAS ADDUCED AS
TO THE FINDING AND CONDITION OF THE BODY, OTHER EVIDENCE TO CONNECT
JAMES WITH THE DEATH, AND EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT THE CONDITION OF THE
LEFT LEG COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO RATTLESNAKE BITES.  THE PURCHASE OF
SNAKES BY HOPE WAS PROVED BY HIM AND SEVERAL OTHER WITNESSES, ONE OF
WHOM SAID HE SOLD THE TWO SNAKES TO HOPE, ONE OF WHICH, HOPE CLAIMED,
HAD BITTEN MARY JAMES.  TWO SNAKES WERE BROUGHT INTO COURT, WHICH THE
WITNESS IDENTIFIED AS THOSE SOLD TO HOPE AND BY HOPE RESOLD TO THE
WITNESS. 

JAMES' STATEMENTS WERE OFFERED IN EVIDENCE.  OBJECTION WAS MADE THAT
THEY WERE NOT VOLUNTARY.  BEFORE THEY WERE ADMITTED THE TRIAL JUDGE
HEARD TESTIMONY OFFERED BY THE STATE AND THE DEFENDANT ON THAT ISSUE. 
HE RULED THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE ADMISSIBLE, AND THEY WERE RECEIVED
IN EVIDENCE. 

THE STATE OFFERED EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE DEATH OF A FORMER WIFE
OF JAMES, IN 1932.  THIS TENDED TO PROVE THAT, WHILE DRIVING DOWN
PIKE'S PEAK, THEIR AUTOMOBILE WENT OFF THE ROAD.  JAMES WENT FOR AID. 
WHEN THE PERSONS CALLED UPON REACHED THE AUTOMOBILE THEY FOUND JAMES'
WIFE LYING PARTLY OUTSIDE THE CAR WITH HER HEAD BADLY CRUSHED AND A
BLOODY HAMMER IN THE BACK OF THE CAR.  JAMES APPEARED UNHURT.  THE
WOMAN RECOVERED FROM HER INJURIES, BUT, SHORTLY AFTERWARDS, WAS
DISCOVERED, BY JAMES AND ANOTHER MAN, DROWNED IN THE BATHTUB IN A HOUSE
JAMES HAD TEMPORARILY LEASED AT COLORADO SPRINGS.  JAMES COLLECTED
DOUBLE INDEMNITY FROM INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR HER DEATH, THE INSURANCE
HAVING BEEN PLACED AT ABOUT THE TIME HE MARRIED HER AND HER DEATH
HAVING OCCURRED WITHIN A FEW MONTHS THEREAFTER.  THIS EVIDENCE WAS
ADMITTED OVER OBJECTION AND, AT THE CLOSE OF THE STATE'S CASE,
DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL MOVED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SO THAT THEY MIGHT TAKE
DEPOSITIONS OF WITNESSES IN COLORADO.  THE COURT REFUSED THE
APPLICATION FOR WANT OF A SUFFICIENT SHOWING. 

THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS, BASED UPON THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
ARE:  THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE PROSECUTING OFFICIALS AND POLICE OFFICERS
DENIED HIM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; THAT HIS CONVICTION
DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY OF
HOPE, AN ACCOMPLICE, WAS NOT CORROBORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE PENAL CODE
OF CALIFORNIA, AND WAS, THEREFORE, INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A
CONVICTION; BECAUSE HOPE'S AFFIDAVITS FILED SINCE THE TRIAL SHOWED THAT
HIS TESTIMONY WAS OBTAINED BY DECEIT, FRAUD, COLLUSION, AND COERCION,
AND WAS KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTOR TO BE FALSE, AND HENCE THE TRIAL WAS A
MERE PRETENSE; BECAUSE THE ALLEGED OCCURRENCES IN COLORADO WERE WHOLLY
DISCONNECTED FROM THE CRIME CHARGED, AND PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED NO
OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE STATE'S EVIDENCE RESPECTING THEM; BECAUSE THE
PRODUCTION OF THE RATTLESNAKES IN THE COURT WAS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF INFLAMING THE JURY; AND BECAUSE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, THREATS, AND
OTHER COERCIVE MEANS PRODUCED THE CONFESSIONS, AND DENIAL OF REQUESTED
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT COUNSEL PRECEDED AND ACCOMPANIED THEIR
PROCUREMENT. 

FIRST.  THE CONTENTION THAT ILLEGAL CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE
STATE'S OFFICERS DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS HARDLY NEEDS NOTICE.  THE CLAIM IS THAT WHERE OFFICERS VIOLATE THE
LAW SO THAT SOME DEFENDANTS ARE TREATED AS WAS PETITIONER, AND OTHERS
ARE TREATED AS THE LAW REQUIRES, INEQUALITY AND DISCRIMINATION RESULTS
WHICH DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION.  THE CONTENTION IS FRIVOLOUS.  THE
RECORD IS BARE OF ANY PROOF TO SUPPORT IT. 

SECOND.  THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT HOPE'S TESTIMONY WAS NOT
CORROBORATED.  UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THE UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF AN
ACCOMPLICE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION.  FN7 PETITIONER
CONTENDS THAT, IN CONSIDERATION OF HOPE'S CONFESSING AND TURNING
STATE'S EVIDENCE, LENIENCY WAS EXTENDED HIM BY THE COURT.  PETITIONER
SAYS THAT HOPE'S AFFIDAVITS SHOW THAT THE PROSECUTING OFFICIALS WELL
KNEW THAT HOPE'S TESTIMONY WAS A FABRICATION; THAT HE WAS PERSUADED SO
TO TESTIFY BY FRAUD, PROMISES OF LENIENCY, AND THREATS, AND THE TRIAL
WAS A MERE SHAM.  FN8 

THESE CONTENTIONS NEED BUT BRIEF NOTICE.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
DOES NOT FORBID A STATE COURT TO CONSTRUE AND APPLY ITS LAWS WITH
RESPECT TO THE EVIDENCE OF AN ACCOMPLICE.  THERE IS NO ADEQUATE SHOWING
THAT THERE WAS A CORRUPT BARGAIN WITH HOPE, AND THE PRACTICE OF TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION, IN SENTENCING AN ACCOMPLICE, HIS AID TO THE STATE
IN TURNING STATE'S EVIDENCE CAN BE NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TO A
CONVICTED CONFEDERATE.  HOPE'S AFFIDAVITS NOT ONLY WERE PREPARED AFTER
THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAD PASSED UPON THE CASE AND ITS OPINION HAD
BEEN PUBLISHED BUT AFTER THE LAPSE OF NEARLY THREE YEARS FROM THE
TRIAL.  THEY COULD, THEREFORE, BE CONSIDERED ONLY IN THE HABEAS CORPUS
CASE.  THE STATE CONTENDS THAT IT HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THEM. 
THIS IS CONTESTED BY THE PETITIONER.  IN ANY EVENT, IT WAS STIPULATED
THAT THE RECORD ON APPEAL IN THE OTHER CASE SHOULD BE PART OF THE
RECORD ON THE HABEAS CORPUS HEARING; AND COMPARISON OF THE TESTIMONY AT
THE TRIAL WITH THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE AFFIDAVITS RAISES SERIOUS DOUBTS
AS TO THEIR TRUTHFULNESS.  THE APPRAISAL OF THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE
WAS FOR THE COURT BELOW.  EVEN IF ITS REFUSAL TO BELIEVE HOPE'S
DEPOSITIONS WERE ERRONEOUS, THE ERROR WOULD BE NO MORE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS THAN WAS ITS APPROVAL, ON APPEAL, OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S REFUSAL
TO DIRECT A VERDICT ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. 

THIRD.  TESTIMONY WAS ADMITTED CONCERNING THE DEATH OF JAMES' FORMER
WIFE, ON THE WIDELY RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE THAT SIMILAR BUT DISCONNECTED
ACTS MAY BE SHOWN TO ESTABLISH INTENT, DESIGN, AND SYSTEM.  FN9  THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT LEAVES CALIFORNIA FREE TO ADOPT A RULE OF
RELEVANCE WHICH THE COURT BELOW HOLDS WAS APPLIED HERE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STATE'S LAW. 

THE INSISTENCE THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE'S REFUSAL TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE,
SO THAT PETITIONER COULD TAKE ANSWERING DEPOSITIONS, WAS A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS GOES EVEN FARTHER AFIELD.  COUNSEL HAD NOTICE AT THE
OPENING OF THE TRIAL, OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THAT THE STATE INTENDED TO
INTRODUCE EVIDENCE ON THIS SUBJECT,  - BUT WAITED UNTIL THE STATE HAD
RESTED BEFORE ASKING THE CONTINUANCE.  EVEN THEN THE SHOWING WAS
INADEQUATE AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE WITNESSES AND THE NATURE OF THE
EXPECTED EVIDENCE.  THE JUDGE, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION,
DENIED THE MOTION.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GIVES THIS COURT NO
MANDATE TO REVIEW HIS ACTION OR INQUIRE WHETHER HE ABUSED HIS
DISCRETION IN SUCH A FIELD.    FOURTH.  A PART OF THE STATE'S CASE WAS
THAT HOPE HAD PURCHASED SNAKES AND BROUGHT THEM TO THE PETITIONER IN
PURSUANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY.  TWO SNAKES WERE BROUGHT INTO THE
COURTROOM TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE WITNESS WHO SAID HE SOLD THEM TO
HOPE.  THE PETITIONER SAYS THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE PRODUCTION OF
THE SNAKES WAS TO PREJUDICE THE JURY AGAINST HIM AND THAT THOSE IN THE
COURTROOM, INCLUDING THE JURY, WERE IN A PANIC AS A RESULT OF THE
INCIDENT.  FOR THIS HE CITES CURRENT NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS AND AFFIDAVITS
OF HIS COUNSEL.  THE STATE DENIES ANY IMPROPER PURPOSE AND, TO REBUT
THE ASSERTIONS OF PETITIONER, RELIES ON A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT AND A
STATEMENT BY THE TRIAL JUDGE.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT AT A
SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THE TRIAL THE SNAKES WERE BROUGHT INTO COURT AT THE
DEFENDANT'S REQUEST. 

WE DO NOT SIT TO REVIEW STATE COURT ACTION ON QUESTIONS OF THE
PROPRIETY OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S ACTION IN THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.  WE
CANNOT HOLD, AS PETITIONER URGES, THAT THE INTRODUCTION AND
IDENTIFICATION OF THE SNAKES SO INFUSED THE TRIAL WITH UNFAIRNESS AS TO
DENY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE FACT THAT EVIDENCE ADMITTED AS RELEVANT
BY A COURT IS SHOCKING TO THE SENSIBILITIES OF THOSE IN THE COURTROOM
CANNOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, RENDER ITS RECEPTION A VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS. 

FIFTH.  THE IMPORTANT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE USE OF THE CONFESSIONS
RENDERED PETITIONER'S CONVICTION A DEPRIVATION OF HIS LIFE WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  RECITAL OF THE RELEVANT FACTS IS ESSENTIAL TO A
DECISION. 

THE PETITIONER, WHILE HAVING ALMOST NO FORMAL EDUCATION, IS A MAN OF
INTELLIGENCE AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE.  AFTER HIS ARREST, ON THE CHARGE
OF INCEST, ON THE MORNING OF SUNDAY, APRIL 19, 1936, HE WAS TAKEN FOR A
SHORT TIME TO THE ADJOINING HOUSE AND SHOWN A DICTAPHONE THERE
INSTALLED.  HE WAS BROUGHT TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICES, WHERE HE
WAS LODGED IN THE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.  HE SAYS THAT DURING THE TWO
OR THREE HOURS HE STAYED THERE HE WAS NOT QUESTIONED.  HE WAS TAKEN
INTO AN OFFICE WHERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOWED HIM A STATEMENT MADE
BY A MISS WRIGHT RESPECTING THE INCEST CHARGE AND ASKED HIM WHAT HE
CARED TO SAY ABOUT IT.  HE REPLIED THAT HE WOULD NOT TALK ABOUT IT.  HE
WAS QUESTIONED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR.  HE SAYS HE WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS
WIFE'S DEATH; OTHERS WHO WERE PRESENT DENY THIS. 

HE WAS HELD IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S SUITE UNTIL 5 OR 6 O'CLOCK,
WAS GIVEN SUPPER AT A CAFE, AND THEN CONDUCTED TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR
TO HIS HOME, WHERE HE ARRIVED ABOUT 7 OR 7:30.  VARIOUS OFFICERS
QUESTIONED HIM THERE, IN RELAYS THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT, CONCERNING HIS
WIFE'S DEATH.  HE SAT IN A CHAIR FULLY DRESSED AND HAD NO SLEEP. 
MONDAY MORNING HE WAS TAKEN OUT FOR BREAKFAST AND WENT WITH THE
OFFICERS TO POINT OUT TO THEM A HOUSE AT 9TH AND ALVARADO STREETS,
AFTER WHICH HE WAS TAKEN TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICES.  HE WAS
BROUGHT BACK TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO HIS HOME, AND THE QUESTIONING
WAS RESUMED, AND CONTINUED UNTIL ABOUT 3 O'CLOCK TUESDAY MORNING, WHEN,
HE SAYS, HE FAINTED; AND OTHERS PRESENT SAY HE FELL ASLEEP AND SLEPT
UNTIL 7 OR 8 O'CLOCK.  AFTER HE HAD BREAKFASTED HE WAS BOOKED AT THE
JAIL, ARRAIGNED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE, AND COMMITTED ON THE INCEST
CHARGE. 

JAMES TESTIFIED THAT ABOUT 10 P.M. MONDAY, APRIL 20, THE OFFICERS
BEGAN TO BEAT HIM; THAT HIS BODY WAS MADE BLACK AND BLUE; THAT THE
BEATING IMPAIRED HIS HEARING, AND CAUSED A HERNIA; THAT LATER THAT
NIGHT AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY QUESTIONED HIM AND THAT, AFTER
THIS ORDEAL, HE COLLAPSED.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT AN OFFICER SLAPPED HIS
FACE THAT NIGHT.  THIS IS SAID TO HAVE OCCURRED AS THE RESULT OF AN
OFFENSIVE REMARK JAMES MADE CONCERNING HIS WIFE; HE DENIES HAVING MADE
THE REMARK.  IN CORROBORATION OF JAMES' TESTIMONY TWO WITNESSES SAID
THEY NOTICED THAT ONE OR BOTH OF HIS EARS WERE BRUISED AND SWOLLEN WHEN
HE WAS LODGED IN THE JAIL.  ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY IS CONTRADICTED BY
NUMEROUS WITNESSES FOR THE STATE, SAVE ONLY THAT IT IS ADMITTED JAMES
WAS REPEATEDLY AND PERSISTENTLY QUESTIONED AT INTERVALS DURING THE
PERIOD FROM SUNDAY NIGHT UNTIL TUESDAY MORNING.  IT IS TESTIFIED THAT,
EXCEPT FOR THE ONE SLAP, NO ONE LAID A HAND ON JAMES; THAT NO
INDUCEMENT WAS HELD OUT TO HIM; THAT NO THREATS WERE MADE; THAT HE
ANSWERED QUESTIONS FREELY AND INTELLIGENTLY; AND THAT HE WAS AT EASE,
COOL, AND COLLECTED.  HE ADMITS THAT NO PROMISES OR THREATS WERE MADE
OR MALTREATMENT ADMINISTERED ON THE OCCASIONS WHEN HE WAS IN THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT JAMES STATED TO ONE
OF THE OTHER OFFICERS THAT OFFICER SOUTHARD HAD SLAPPED HIM AND THAT
WHEN, MAY 2, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ASKED HOW HE HAD BEEN TREATED, HE
AGAIN REFERRED TO THE SLAP.  IN NEITHER CASE DID HE SAY ANYTHING OF ANY
OTHER MISTREATMENT.  DURING THE PERIOD APRIL 19-21 JAMES MADE NO
INCRIMINATING ADMISSION OR CONFESSION. 

JAMES SAYS THAT SHORTLY AFTER HIS ARREST ON SUNDAY MORNING, HE ASKED,
AND WAS REFUSED, PERMISSION TO GET INTO TOUCH WITH MR. SILVERMAN, WHO
HAD BEEN HIS ATTORNEY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.  THIS IS DENIED.  THERE IS
EVIDENCE THAT HE SAW MR. SILVERMAN ON MONDAY, APRIL 20, AT THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.  MR. SILVERMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW THE PETITIONER
IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS FORMAL ARREST; THAT HE WAS WITH THE PETITIONER AT
THE ARRAIGNMENT ON TUESDAY, APRIL 21ST; AND AGAIN ON APRIL 25TH IN THE
JAIL.  IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT JAMES WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SEE HIS
ATTORNEY AS OFTEN AS HE DESIRED OR THAT ANY OBSTACLE WAS INTERPOSED TO
THE ATTORNEY'S INTERVIEWING HIM BETWEEN APRIL 21 AND MAY 2. 

THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT FROM APRIL 21, WHEN HE WAS LODGED IN THE JAIL,
UNTIL MAY 2, HE WAS INTERVIEWED, QUESTIONED, THREATENED, OR MISTREATED
BY ANYONE.  DURING THIS PERIOD HIS ATTORNEY TOLD HIM THAT HE WOULD BE
INDICTED FOR HIS WIFE'S MURDER AND SHOULD NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
UNLESS HIS ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT. 

MAY 1, HOPE WAS ARRESTED AND MADE A STATEMENT.  ON THE MORNING OF MAY
2, JAMES WAS BROUGHT FROM HIS CELL TO THE CHAPLAIN'S ROOM IN THE PRISON
AND CONFRONTED WITH HOPE.  AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY OUTLINED
HOPE'S STORY AND ASKED JAMES WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING TO SAY, TO WHICH
HE REPLIED:  "NOTHING." 

HE WENT BACK TO HIS CELL AND, ABOUT NOON, AN ORDER OF COURT WAS
OBTAINED TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE PRISON.  HE WAS TAKEN TO HIS FORMER
HOME BY TWO DEPUTY SHERIFFS.  THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLEARLY
EITHER THE PURPOSE OR THE INCIDENTS OF THIS TRIP.  HE WAS THEN BROUGHT
TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THAT OFFICIAL BEGAN TO QUESTION
HIM.  HE REQUESTED THAT HIS ATTORNEY BE SENT FOR.  IN HIS PRESENCE A
TELEPHONE CALL WAS MADE WHICH DISCLOSED THAT MR. SILVERMAN WAS NOT IN
LOS ANGELES.  HE ASKED THAT ANOTHER ATTORNEY BE SUMMONED.  HE STATES
THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAID IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO ACQUAINT ANY
OTHER ATTORNEY WITH THE FACTS; OTHERS SAY THAT JAMES DID NOT GIVE THE
NAME OF THE OTHER ATTORNEY HE WANTED AND IT TOOK SOME TIME TO DISCOVER
WHOM HE HAD IN MIND.  THE ATTORNEY WAS NOT SUMMONED. 

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND, AT TIMES, OTHERS QUESTIONED JAMES UNTIL
SUPPER TIME.  SANDWICHES AND COFFEE WERE PROCURED.  JAMES SAYS HE HAD
COFFEE BUT SOMEONE TOOK HIS SANDWICHES.  THERE IS TESTIMONY THAT HE HAD
THEM.  THE QUESTIONING, BASED ON HOPE'S CONFESSION, WAS CONTINUED INTO
THE NIGHT WITHOUT JAMES HAVING REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR HAVING
MADE ANY INCRIMINATING ANSWERS. 

THERE IS A SHARP CONFLICT AS TO HOW THE SESSION TERMINATED.  JAMES
SAYS THAT OFFICER SOUTHARD, WHO HAD STRUCK HIM ON APRIL 20, OCCUPIED
THE ROOM ALONE WITH HIM, ALL OTHERS HAVING LEFT; THAT THE OFFICER TOLD
HIM HE HAD BEEN LYING ALL EVENING AND THAT IF HE DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH
THE OFFICER WOULD TAKE HIM BACK TO THE HOUSE AND BEAT HIM; THAT THIS SO
FRIGHTENED HIM THAT HE AGREED TO DO HIS BEST TO RECITE TO THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY THE SAME STORY HOPE HAD TOLD.  THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE THAT NO
SUCH INCIDENT OCCURRED.  DEPUTY SHERIFF KILLION SAYS THAT SOMETIME
BEFORE MIDNIGHT THE OTHERS HAD LEFT PETITIONER ALONE WITH HIM, AND THAT
PETITIONER TURNED TO HIM AND SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT:  "WHY CAN'T
WE GO OUT AND GET SOMETHING TO EAT; IF WE DO I'LL TELL YOU THE STORY." 
TO THIS KILLION REPLIED THAT THEY COULD GO OUT.  KILLION AND ANOTHER
DEPUTY SHERIFF, GRAY, A LADY FRIEND, AND ANOTHER PERSON ACCOMPANIED
PETITIONER TO A PUBLIC CAFE, WHERE THEY HAD A SUPPER AND AFTERWARDS HAD
CIGARS.  JAMES TESTIFIED THAT NEITHER KILLION NOR GRAY NOR THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY EVER LAID HAND ON HIM, THREATENED HIM OR OFFERED HIM ANY
INDUCEMENT TO CONFESS. 

THE STATE'S EVIDENCE IS THAT, AFTER THEY STARTED TO SMOKE, JAMES TOLD
A STORY, OF WHICH KILLION TOOK NOTES.  KILLION NARRATED AT THE TRIAL
WHAT JAMES HAD TOLD HIM.  THE PARTY RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE AND THERE, RESPONDING TO A QUESTION BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
JAMES SAID HE HAD TOLD KILLION THE STORY, AND, IN ANSWER TO QUESTIONS,
HE REPEATED THAT STORY.  THE INTERVIEW WAS STENOGRAPHICALLY RECORDED. 
MOST OF THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SOME FEW BY
KILLION AND ONE OR TWO OTHER OFFICERS WHO WERE PRESENT.  THE GROUP
SEEMS TO HAVE CONSISTED OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, TWO OFFICERS, THE TWO DEPUTY SHERIFFS, AND THE STENOGRAPHER. 

HOPE'S STATEMENT LAID ON JAMES THE INITIATION OF THE MURDER PLOT, THE
ATTEMPT TO CONSUMMATE IT WITH SNAKE POISON, THE DROWNING AND THE
DISPOSITION OF HER BODY.  THE ACCOUNT JAMES GAVE KILLION AND THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH HE NOW SAYS WAS AN ATTEMPT TO RETELL THE TALE
HOPE HAD TOLD, WHICH HAD BEEN CONSTANTLY DINNED INTO HIS EARS, IS BY NO
MEANS A REITERATION OF HOPE'S STORY.  ON THE CONTRARY, JAMES INSISTED
THAT HOPE SUGGESTED THE DESTRUCTION OF MARY JAMES, AND THE RATTLESNAKE
EXPEDIENT, WHICH HOPE CARRIED OUT; THAT WHEN THIS FAILED HOPE SUGGESTED
THAT HE, HOPE, BURN DOWN THE HOUSE TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT MRS. JAMES
DIED BY ACCIDENT; AND THAT HOPE ALSO VOLUNTEERED TO COMMIT AN ABORTION
ON MRS. JAMES AND ALSO TO DO AWAY WITH HER.  JAMES ASSERTED THAT, WHILE
HE WAS ABSENT FROM HIS HOME ON THE MORNING OF AUGUST 5, 1935, HOPE
DROWNED HIS WIFE IN THE BATHTUB AND TOLD JAMES THAT HE HAD DONE SO. 

IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT JAMES' STATEMENT PRESENTS A LURID PICTURE
OF THE HEAVY DRINKING AND INTOXICATION OF HOPE, JAMES, AND MARY JAMES
DURING THE THREE DAYS ANTERIOR TO THE DEATH OF THE LATTER.  THE EFFORT
EVIDENTLY WAS TO SUGGEST THAT ALL WERE MORE OR LESS IRRESPONSIBLE FOR
THEIR ACTIONS. 

IF HOPE'S STORY IS TRUE, JAMES PLANNED AND ACCOMPLISHED THE MURDER OF
HIS WIFE TO OBTAIN THE INSURANCE ON HER LIFE.  IF JAMES' STATEMENT IS
TRUE, HOPE PLANNED THE MURDER, JAMES DESIRED TO ABANDON THE SCHEME AND
THOUGHT THAT ALL HOPE ULTIMATELY INTENDED TO DO WAS TO COMMIT AN
ABORTION ON JAMES' WIFE, AND WAS SHOCKED AND SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT
HOPE HAD MURDERED HER. 

JAMES SAID DURING SUPPER AT THE CAFE, AND STATED ON ANOTHER OCCASION,
THAT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH MEN IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO
MAKE HIM TALK, AND IF HOPE HAD NOT TALKED HE WOULD NEVER HAVE TOLD THE
STORY. 

SCRUTINY OF THE TWO STATEMENTS INDICATES THAT JAMES CAREFULLY
CONSIDERED WHAT HOPE HAD SAID, AND MADE UP HIS MIND TO TELL A STORY
CONSISTENT WITH HIS INTIMACY WITH HOPE, AND WITH VARIOUS INCIDENTS
JAMES COULD NOT DENY, AND THEN DEPICT A DRUNKEN ORGY AS A RESULT OF
WHICH HIS WILL POWER WAS SO ENFEEBLED THAT HE COULD NOT RESIST HOPE'S
DETERMINATION TO MAKE AWAY WITH MRS. JAMES. 

AT THE TRIAL, JAMES CONTRADICTED THE ESSENTIAL PARTICULARS OF HOPE'S
TESTIMONY AND MOST OF HIS OWN CONFESSION, INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE
RESPECTING THE SNAKES.  HE SWORE ALL HOPE WAS TO DO WAS TO ATTEMPT AN
ABORTION; HE BELIEVED HOPE DID NOT ACCOMPLISH THIS, AND THAT HIS WIFE
DIED AS A RESULT OF FALLING INTO THE POND IN A FAINTING FIT DUE TO HER
PREGNANCY. 

THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE TREATMENT OF JAMES AND THE CONDUCT OF
OFFICIALS AND OFFICERS, FROM THE MOMENT OF HIS ARREST UNTIL THE CLOSE
OF HIS STATEMENT TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WAS HEARD PRELIMINARILY BY
THE TRIAL JUDGE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATE HAD, AS
REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA LAW, CARRIED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THE
CONFESSIONS VOLUNTARY.  THE RULING WAS THAT IT HAD; AND THE CONFESSIONS
WERE ADMITTED.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, AT DEFENDANT'S REQUEST, CHARGED THE
JURY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE LAW, THAT THE CONFESSIONS MUST BE
UTTERLY DISREGARDED UNLESS THEY WERE VOLUNTARY, THAT IS, NOT THE RESULT
OF INDUCEMENTS, PROMISES, THREATS, VIOLENCE, OR ANY FORM OF COERCION. 

THE FAILURE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS PROMPTLY TO PRODUCE THE
PETITIONER BEFORE AN EXAMINING MAGISTRATE, THEIR DETENTION OF HIM IN
THEIR CUSTODY FROM SUNDAY MORNING TO TUESDAY MORNING, AND ANY ASSAULT
COMMITTED UPON HIM, WERE VIOLATIONS OF STATE STATUTES  FN10  AND
CRIMINAL OFFENSES.  FN11 

WE FIND NO AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE COURT ORDER UNDER WHICH THE
SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES TOOK THE ACCUSED FROM JAIL TO HIS FORMER HOME, AND
TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR QUESTIONING.  FN12  THE DENIAL OF
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT COUNSEL, REQUESTED ON MAY 2ND, WAS A
MISDEMEANOR.  FN13 IT MAY BE ASSUMED THIS TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONER
ALSO DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AND THAT THE
PETITIONER WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED PREVENTIVE RELIEF IF HE COULD HAVE
GAINED ACCESS TO A COURT TO SEEK IT. 

BUT ILLEGAL ACTS, AS SUCH, COMMITTED IN THE COURSE OF OBTAINING A
CONFESSION, WHATEVER THEIR EFFECT ON ITS ADMISSIBILITY UNDER LOCAL LAW,
DO NOT FURNISH AN ANSWER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WE MUST
DECIDE.  THE EFFECT OF THE OFFICERS' CONDUCT MUST BE APPRAISED BY OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE USE OF THE CONFESSIONS WAS A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  MOREOVER, PETITIONER DOES NOT, AND CANNOT, ASK
REDRESS IN THIS PROCEEDING FOR ANY DISREGARD OF DUE PROCESS PRIOR TO
HIS TRIAL.  THE GRAVAMEN OF HIS COMPLAINT IS THE UNFAIRNESS OF THE USE
OF HIS CONFESSIONS, AND WHAT OCCURRED IN THEIR PROCUREMENT IS RELEVANT
ONLY AS IT BEARS ON THAT ISSUE.    ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FACT THAT THE
CONFESSIONS HAVE BEEN CONCLUSIVELY ADJUDGED BY THE DECISION BELOW TO BE
ADMISSIBLE UNDER STATE LAW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH THEY WERE MADE, DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER DUE PROCESS
WAS LACKING.  THE AIM OF THE RULE THAT A CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE
UNLESS IT WAS VOLUNTARILY MADE IS TO EXCLUDE FALSE EVIDENCE.  TESTS ARE
INVOKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INDUCEMENT TO SPEAK WAS SUCH THAT
THERE IS A FAIR RISK THE CONFESSION IS FALSE.  FN14  THESE VARY IN THE
SEVERAL STATES.  FN15  THIS COURT HAS FORMULATED THOSE WHICH ARE TO
GOVERN IN TRIALS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  FN16  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
LEAVES CALIFORNIA FREE TO ADOPT, BY STATUTE OR DECISION, AND TO
ENFORCE, SUCH RULE AS SHE ELECTS, WHETHER IT CONFORM TO THAT APPLIED IN
THE FEDERAL OR IN OTHER STATE COURTS.  BUT THE ADOPTION OF THE RULE OF
HER CHOICE CANNOT FORECLOSE INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER, IN A GIVEN CASE, THE
APPLICATION OF THAT RULE WORKS A DEPRIVATION OF THE PRISONER'S LIFE OR
LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE AIM OF THE REQUIREMENT OF DUE
PROCESS IS NOT TO EXCLUDE PRESUMPTIVELY FALSE EVIDENCE, BUT TO PREVENT
FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS IN THE USE OF EVIDENCE, WHETHER TRUE OR FALSE. 
THE CRITERIA FOR DECISION OF THAT QUESTION MAY DIFFER FROM THOSE
APPERTAINING TO THE STATE'S RULE AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A
CONFESSION. 

AS APPLIED TO A CRIMINAL TRIAL, DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IS THE FAILURE
TO OBSERVE THAT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS ESSENTIAL TO THE VERY CONCEPT OF
JUSTICE.  IN ORDER TO DECLARE A DENIAL OF IT WE MUST FIND THAT THE
ABSENCE OF THAT FAIRNESS FATALLY INFECTED THE TRIAL; THE ACTS
COMPLAINED OF MUST BE OF SUCH QUALITY AS NECESSARILY PREVENTS A FAIR
TRIAL.  SUCH UNFAIRNESS EXISTS WHEN A COERCED CONFESSION IS USED AS A
MEANS OF OBTAINING A VERDICT OF GUILT.  WE HAVE SO HELD IN EVERY
INSTANCE IN WHICH WE HAVE SET ASIDE FOR WANT OF DUE PROCESS A
CONVICTION BASED ON A CONFESSION. 

TO EXTORT TESTIMONY FROM A DEFENDANT BY PHYSICAL TORTURE IN THE VERY
PRESENCE OF THE TRIAL TRIBUNAL IS NOT DUE PROCESS.  THE CASE STANDS NO
BETTER IF TORTURE INDUCES AN EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION WHICH IS USED AS
EVIDENCE IN THE COURTROOM.  FN17 

A TRIAL DOMINATED BY MOB VIOLENCE IN THE COURTROOM IS NOT SUCH AS DUE
PROCESS DEMANDS.  FN18 THE CASE CAN STAND NO BETTER IF MOB VIOLENCE
ANTERIOR TO THE TRIAL IS THE INDUCING CAUSE OF THE DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED
CONFESSION. 

IF, BY FRAUD, COLLUSION, TRICKERY, AND SUBORNATION OF PERJURY, ON THE
PART OF THOSE REPRESENTING THE STATE, THE TRIAL OF AN ACCUSED PERSON
RESULTS IN HIS CONVICTION, HE HAS BEEN DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  FN19
THE CASE CAN STAND NO BETTER IF, BY THE SAME DEVICES, A CONFESSION IS
PROCURED, AND USED IN THE TRIAL. 

THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS WOULD VOID A TRIAL IN WHICH, BY THREATS OR
PROMISES IN THE PRESENCE OF COURT AND JURY, A DEFENDANT WAS INDUCED TO
TESTIFY AGAINST HIMSELF.  THE CASE CAN STAND NO BETTER IF, BY RESORT TO
THE SAME MEANS, THE DEFENDANT IS INDUCED TO CONFESS AND HIS CONFESSION
IS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE.  AS WE HAVE SAID, "DUE PROCESS OF LAW  ...
COMMANDS THAT NO SUCH PRACTICE ...  SHALL SEND ANY ACCUSED TO HIS
DEATH."  FN20 

WHERE THE CLAIM IS THAT THE PRISONER'S STATEMENT HAS BEEN PROCURED BY
SUCH MEANS, WE ARE BOUND TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE
RECORD TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIM.  THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS
DUTY CANNOT BE FORECLOSED BY THE FINDING OF A COURT, OR THE VERDICT OF
A JURY, OR BOTH.  FN21  IF THE EVIDENCE BEARING UPON THE QUESTION IS
UNCONTRADICTED, THE APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS
UNEMBARRASSED BY A FINDING OR A VERDICT IN A STATE COURT; EVEN THOUGH,
IN RULING THAT THE CONFESSION WAS ADMISSIBLE, THE VERY TESTS WERE
APPLIED IN THE STATE COURT TO WHICH WE RESORT TO ANSWER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  FN22 

THERE ARE CASES, SUCH AS THIS ONE, WHERE THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE
METHODS EMPLOYED TO OBTAIN A CONFESSION IS CONFLICTING, AND IN WHICH,
ALTHOUGH DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS WAS NOT AN ISSUE IN THE TRIAL, AN ISSUE
HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY COURT AND JURY, WHICH INVOLVES AN ANSWER TO THE
DUE PROCESS QUESTION.  IN SUCH A CASE, WE ACCEPT THE DETERMINATION OF
THE TRIERS OF FACT, UNLESS IT IS SO LACKING IN SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE
THAT TO GIVE IT EFFECT WOULD WORK THAT FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS WHICH IS
AT WAR WITH DUE PROCESS. 

HERE, JUDGE AND JURY PASSED ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PETITIONER'S
CONFESSIONS WERE FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE, AND THE TESTS APPLIED IN
ANSWERING THAT QUESTION RENDERED THE DECISION ONE THAT ALSO ANSWERED
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE USE OF THE CONFESSIONS INVOLVED A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS; THIS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE SUBMITTED WAS NOT EO NOMINE
ONE CONCERNING DUE PROCESS.  FURTHERMORE, IN PASSING ON THE
PETITIONER'S CLAIM, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE FOUND NO VIOLATION
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  OUR DUTY, THEN, IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE EVIDENCE REQUIRES THAT WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF TWO COURTS AND A
JURY, AND ADJUDGE THE ADMISSION OF THE CONFESSIONS SO FUNDAMENTALLY
UNFAIR, SO CONTRARY TO THE COMMON CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY, AS TO
AMOUNT TO A TAKING OF LIFE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY, WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE
FINDING BELOW WAS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE PETITIONER'S CLAIMS
OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, THREATS, OR IMPLIED PROMISES OF LENIENCY.  THERE
REMAINS THE UNCONTRADICTED FACT THAT ON TWO OCCASIONS, SEPARATED BY AN
INTERVAL OF ELEVEN DAYS, THE PETITIONER WAS QUESTIONED FOR PROTRACTED
PERIODS.  HE MADE NO ADMISSION IMPLICATING HIM IN HIS WIFE'S DEATH
DURING, OR SOON AFTER, THE INTERROGATIONS OF APRIL 19, 20, AND 21.  IF,
WITHOUT MORE, ELEVEN DAYS LATER, CONFESSIONS HAD BEEN FORTHCOMING, WE
SHOULD HAVE NO HESITATION IN OVERRULING HIS CONTENTION RESPECTING THE
ADMISSION OF HIS CONFESSIONS. 

DOES THE QUESTIONING ON MAY 2ND, IN AND OF ITSELF, OR IN THE LIGHT OF
HIS EARLIER EXPERIENCE, RENDER THE USE OF THE CONFESSIONS A VIOLATION
OF DUE PROCESS?  IF WE ARE SO TO HOLD, IT MUST BE UPON THE GROUND THAT
SUCH A PRACTICE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RESULT UPON THE PETITIONER, SO
TAINTED HIS STATEMENTS THAT, WITHOUT CONSIDERING OTHER FACTS DISCLOSED
BY THE EVIDENCE, AND WITHOUT GIVING WEIGHT TO ACCREDITED FINDINGS BELOW
THAT HIS STATEMENTS WERE FREE AND VOLUNTARY, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THEY
WERE INADMISSIBLE IN HIS TRIAL.  THIS WOULD BE TO IMPOSE UPON THE STATE
COURTS A STRICTER RULE THAN WE HAVE ENFORCED IN FEDERAL TRIALS.  FN23
THERE IS LESS REASON FOR SUCH A HOLDING WHEN WE REFLECT THAT WE ARE
DEALING WITH THE SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION OF CALIFORNIA, A
QUASI-SOVEREIGN; THAT IF FEDERAL POWER IS INVOKED TO SET ASIDE WHAT
CALIFORNIA REGARDS AS A FAIR TRIAL, IT MUST BE PLAIN THAT A FEDERAL
RIGHT HAS BEEN INVADED. 

WE HAVE NOT HESITATED TO SET ASIDE CONVICTIONS BASED IN WHOLE, OR IN
SUBSTANTIAL PART, UPON CONFESSIONS EXTORTED IN GRAVER CIRCUMSTANCES. 
THESE WERE SECURED BY PROTRACTED AND REPEATED QUESTIONING OF IGNORANT
AND UNTUTORED PERSONS, IN WHOSE MINDS THE POWER OF OFFICERS WAS GREATLY
MAGNIFIED; WHO SENSED THE ADVERSE SENTIMENT OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE
DANGER OF MOB VIOLENCE; WHO HAD BEEN HELD INCOMMUNICADO, WITHOUT THE
ADVICE OF FRIENDS OR OF COUNSEL; SOME OF WHOM HAD BEEN TAKEN BY
OFFICERS AT NIGHT FROM THE PRISON INTO DARK AND LONELY PLACES FOR
QUESTIONING.  FN24 THIS CASE IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THOSE DECISIONS. 

LIKE THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, WE DISAPPROVE THE VIOLATIONS OF
LAW INVOLVED IN THE TREATMENT OF THE PETITIONER, AND WE THINK IT RIGHT
TO ADD THAT WHERE A PRISONER, HELD INCOMMUNICADO, IS SUBJECTED TO
QUESTIONING BY OFFICERS FOR LONG PERIODS, AND DEPRIVED OF THE ADVICE OF
COUNSEL, WE SHALL SCRUTINIZE THE RECORD WITH CARE TO DETERMINE WHETHER,
BY THE USE OF HIS CONFESSION, HE IS DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY OR LIFE THROUGH
TYRANNICAL OR OPPRESSIVE MEANS.  OFFICERS OF THE LAW MUST REALIZE THAT
IF THEY INDULGE IN SUCH PRACTICES THEY MAY, IN THE END, DEFEAT RATHER
THAN FURTHER THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  THEIR LAWLESS PRACTICES HERE TOOK
THEM CLOSE TO THE LINE.  BUT ON THE FACTS AS WE HAVE ENDEAVORED FAIRLY
TO SET THEM FORTH, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS IN THE STATE
COURTS, WE CANNOT HOLD THAT THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT IN WHICH THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF CALIFORNIA INDULGED, BY THE PROLONGED
QUESTIONING OF THE PRISONER BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF
COUNSEL, OR THEIR QUESTIONING ON MAY 2, COERCED THE CONFESSIONS, THE
INTRODUCTION OF WHICH IS THE INFRINGEMENT OF DUE PROCESS OF WHICH THE
PETITIONER COMPLAINS.  THE PETITIONER HAS SAID THAT THE INTERROGATION
WOULD NEVER HAVE DRAWN AN ADMISSION FROM HIM HAD HIS CONFEDERATE NOT
MADE A STATEMENT; HE ADMITS THAT NO THREATS, PROMISES, OR ACTS OF
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE WERE OFFERED HIM DURING THIS QUESTIONING OR FOR
ELEVEN DAYS PRECEDING IT. COUNSEL HAD BEEN AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
SEE HIM AND HAD ADVISED HIM.  HE EXHIBITED A SELF-POSSESSION, A
COOLNESS, AND AN ACUMEN THROUGHOUT HIS QUESTIONING, AND AT HIS TRIAL,
WHICH NEGATIVES THE VIEW THAT HE HAD SO LOST HIS FREEDOM OF ACTION THAT
THE STATEMENTS MADE WERE NOT HIS BUT WERE THE RESULT OF THE DEPRIVATION
OF HIS FREE CHOICE TO ADMIT, TO DENY, OR TO REFUSE TO ANSWER. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  89 P.2D 39. 

FN2  14 CAL.2D 403, 94 P.2D 569. 

FN3  ROBY V. COLEHOUR, 146 U.S. 153; GULF & SHIP ISLAND R. CO. V.
HEWES, 183 U.S. 66; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357; HONEYMAN V.
HANAN, 300 U.S. 14. 

FN4  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237, AS AMENDED; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

FN5  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 237, AS AMENDED; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(C). 

FN6  313 U.S. 537, 597. 

FN7  PENAL CODE SEC. 1111. 

FN8  CF. MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103. 

FN9  SEE WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3RD ED.)  VOL.  II, SEC. 363. 

FN10  CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECS. 849, 4004. 

FN11  ID. SECS. 145, 146, 149. 

FN12  THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE WHETHER THE APPLICATION FOR THE
ORDER WAS IN THE FORM OF A PETITION; WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS APPRISED OF
THE MOTION FOR THE ORDER; WHETHER HE CONSENTED TO ITS ISSUE, OR WHAT
REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE TO THE COURT WHICH GRANTED THE ORDER. 
PRISONER COMMITTED BY A MAGISTRATE TO BE CONFINED IN A JAIL UNTIL
LEGALLY DISCHARGED, AND DECLARES THAT IF HE IS PERMITTED TO GO AT LARGE
OUT OF THE JAIL, EXCEPT BY VIRTUE OF A LEGAL ORDER OR PROCESS, THIS
SHALL CONSTITUTE AN ESCAPE.  THE ONLY STATUTES WE ARE ABLE TO FIND
AUTHORIZING AN ORDER FOR THE REMOVAL OF A PRISONER FROM JAIL ARE SECS.
4011 AND 4012 OF THE PENAL CODE, 1941, (SECS. 1607 AND 1608 OF THE 1935
CODE) WHICH PROVIDE FOR CASES OF INDIVIDUAL ILLNESS OR A GENERAL
OUTBREAK OF PESTILENCE OR DISEASE IN A PRISON.  SECTION 4011 PERMITS A
REMOVAL WITHOUT COURT ORDER IN CASE OF FIRE. 

FN13  PENAL CODE, SEC. 825. 

FN14  WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SECS.  823, 824. 

FN15  ID. SEC. 824. 

FN16  SPARF AND HANSEN V. UNITED STATES, 156 U.S. 51, 55; WILSON V.
UNITED STATES, 162 U.S. 613, 622; BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532;
WAN V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1, 14. 

FN17  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278. 

FN18  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86. 

FN19  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103. 

FN20  CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 241. 

FN21  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, SUPRA, 278; CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA;
CANTY V. ALABAMA, 309 U.S. 629; WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530; VERNON V.
ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 547; LOMAX V. TEXAS, 313 U.S. 544. 

FN22  CASES SUPRA, NOTE 21. 

FN23  WAN V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1, 14, AND CASES CITED. 

FN24  SEE CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA; CANTY V. ALABAMA; WHITE V. TEXAS;
VERNON V. ALABAMA; LOMAX V. TEXAS, SUPRA, NOTE 21. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING, WITH WHOM MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
CONCURS: 

I BELIEVE THE CONFESSION USED TO CONVICT JAMES WAS THE RESULT OF
COERCION AND COMPULSION, AND THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR
THAT REASON.  THE TESTIMONY OF THE OFFICERS TO WHOM THE CONFESSION WAS
GIVEN IS ENOUGH, STANDING ALONE, TO CONVINCE ME THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN FREE AND VOLUNTARY.  CF. BRAM V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 532.  IN
BRIEF, THOSE OFFICERS ADMITTED THE FOLLOWING: 

SUSPECTING THE DEFENDANT OF MURDER, THEY ENTERED HIS HOME ON SUNDAY,
APRIL 19, 1936, AT 9 A.M. HE WAS TAKEN TO A FURNISHED HOUSE NEXT DOOR,
IN WHICH THE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAD INSTALLED A DICTAPHONE.  FOR
THE NEXT FORTY-EIGHT HOURS, OR A LITTLE LONGER, THE STATE'S ATTORNEY,
HIS ASSISTANTS, AND INVESTIGATORS HELD JAMES AS THEIR PRISONER.  HE WAS
SO HELD, NOT UNDER INDICTMENT OR WARRANT OF ARREST, BUT BY FORCE.  AT
ABOUT 4 A.M. MONDAY, ONE SOUTHARD, AN INVESTIGATOR, "SLAPPED" THE
DEFENDANT, WHOSE LEFT EAR WAS THEREAFTER RED AND SWOLLEN.  JAMES WAS
APPARENTLY KEPT AT THE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DURING THE DAYLIGHT
HOURS; THE FULL EXTENT TO WHICH HE WAS QUESTIONED THERE IS NOT CLEAR. 
BUT ON MONDAY AND TUESDAY NIGHTS, AT THE FURNISHED HOUSE, WITH NO ONE
PRESENT BUT JAMES AND THE OFFICERS, HE WAS SUBJECTED TO CONSTANT
INTERROGATION.  THE QUESTIONING OFFICERS DIVIDED THEMSELVES INTO
SQUADS, SO THAT SOME COULD SLEEP WHILE THE OTHERS CONTINUED THE
QUESTIONING.  THE DEFENDANT GOT NO SLEEP DURING THE FIRST FORTY-TWO
HOURS AFTER THE OFFICERS SEIZED HIM.  AND ABOUT 3:30 OR 4 A.M. TUESDAY
MORNING, WHILE SITTING IN THE CHAIR HE OCCUPIED WHILE BEING
INTERROGATED, AT THE VERY MOMENT A QUESTION WAS BEING ASKED HIM, THE
DEFENDANT FELL ASLEEP.  THERE HE REMAINED ASLEEP UNTIL ABOUT 7 OR 8
A.M.  AT ABOUT 11 A.M. THE OFFICERS TOOK HIM TO JAIL AND BOOKED HIM ON
A CHARGE OF INCEST.  DURING THE ENTIRE FORTY-TWO HOURS DEFENDANT WAS
HELD, HE REPEATEDLY DENIED ANY COMPLICITY IN OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE MURDER
OF HIS WIFE.    THE SECOND EPISODE DURING WHICH THE OFFICERS HELD
DEFENDANT INCOMMUNICADO, AND WHICH PRODUCED THE CONFESSION, WAS ON MAY
2 AND IN THE EARLY HOURS OF MAY 3.  ABOUT 11 A.M. ON MAY 2, AN
INVESTIGATOR FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TOOK JAMES FROM HIS CELL TO THE
CHAPLAIN'S ROOM OF THE JAIL.  IN THE PRESENCE OF AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY HE WAS CONFRONTED BY HOPE AND TOLD THAT HOPE HAD MADE A
CONFESSION IMPLICATING JAMES IN HIS WIFE'S MURDER.  JAMES REFUSED TO
TALK AND WAS THEN CARRIED BACK TO HIS CELL.  A SHORT TIME LATER, UNDER
A PURPORTED ORDER OF COURT, THE NATURE OR AUTHORITY OF WHICH DOES NOT
APPEAR, JAMES WAS TAKEN FROM THE JAIL TO HIS HOME, AND THEN, SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN 1 AND 4 P.M., TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.  THE DOORS
WERE LOCKED.  FROM THEN UNTIL ABOUT MIDNIGHT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HIS
ASSISTANTS, AND INVESTIGATORS, SUBJECTED JAMES TO CONSTANT
INTERROGATION.  UPON ASKING FOR HIS ATTORNEY, JAMES WAS TOLD HE WAS OUT
OF THE CITY.  HE THEN ASKED FOR ANOTHER, BUT WHATEVER EFFORTS THE
OFFICERS MADE TO SATISFY THIS REQUEST WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.  HE WAS AGAIN
CONFRONTED WITH HOPE, BUT NEITHER THIS NOR THE QUESTIONING HAD ELICITED
AN ADMISSION OF ANY NATURE, BY MIDNIGHT.  AT THAT TIME, ACCORDING TO
THE INVESTIGATORS, JAMES SAID TO ONE OF THEM, "CAN'T WE GO OUT AND GET
SOMETHING TO EAT - IF YOU FELLOWS WILL TAKE ME OUT TO EAT NOW, I WILL
TELL YOU THE STORY."  FN1  HE WAS TAKEN OUT TO EAT BY SOME OF THE
OFFICERS; REMAINED ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF; WHILE AT THE RESTAURANT
MADE DAMAGING ADMISSIONS, AND UPON HIS RETURN TO THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MADE THE FULL STATEMENT WHICH WAS USED TO BRING ABOUT
HIS CONVICTION, COMPLETING IT AT ABOUT 3 A.M. SOUTHARD, THE
INVESTIGATOR WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY "SLAPPED" HIM, WAS ONE OF THE SIGNED
WITNESSES OF THE CONFESSION.  FN2 

I THINK THE FACTS SET OUT ARE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE APPLICABLE THE
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, AND THE
CONCLUSION THERE ANNOUNCED THAT:  "DUE PROCESS OF LAW, PRESERVED FOR
ALL BY OUR CONSTITUTION, COMMANDS THAT NO SUCH PRACTICE AS THAT
DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD SHALL SEND ANY ACCUSED TO HIS DEATH."  WHITE
V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530, 533; CANTY V. ALABAMA, 309 U.S. 629; VERNON V.
ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 547.  CF. BRAM V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

FN1  THIS IS RATHER CLOSE TO A PART OF JAMES' OWN TESTIMONY, TO WIT:
"HE CONTINUED TO QUESTION ME UNTIL LATER ON IN THE EVENING.  I WAS VERY
SICK.  I WAS HUNGRY; I WAS TIRED, AND I TOLD HIM A THOUSAND TIMES THAT
I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HOPE'S STORY." 

FN2  JAMES' TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT WAS THAT SOUTHARD, LEFT ALONE
WITH HIM SHORTLY BEFORE MIDNIGHT, SAID JAMES HAD BEEN LYING TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY LONG ENOUGH AND THREATENED TO TAKE HIM BACK ONCE
AGAIN TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO HIS HOME WHERE JAMES HAD BEEN
QUESTIONED APRIL 19 TO 21.  IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY WHETHER HE WAS
TOLD HIS CONFESSION MIGHT BE USED AGAINST HIM, JAMES REPLIED:  "I
DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THE STATEMENT WOULD BE USED AGAINST ME, OR NOT.  I
WOULD RATHER DIE THAN TO HAVE GONE BACK TO THAT HOUSE AND WENT THROUGH
TORTURE LIKE THE THREE DAYS I WAS OUT THERE.  I DIDN'T CARE WHETHER THE
STATEMENT WAS TAKEN, OR NOT." 
..END :






PARKER V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, 314 U.S. 244 


NO. 46.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  - 116
F.2D 789, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS PROCEEDING UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
ACT FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE, THE EVIDENCE WAS
CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S FINDING THAT
THE DECEASED, AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, WAS ACTING IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT; AND THEREFORE THE FINDING WAS CONCLUSIVE.  P. 246. 

2.  THE APPLICATION OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT TO
A CASE WHERE THE EMPLOYEE, AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, WAS ACTING IN THE
COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND WAS RIDING IN A BOAT ON A NAVIGABLE RIVER,
IS EXCLUSIVE, EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEE USUALLY WAS ENGAGED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF NON-MARITIME DUTIES.  P. 246. 

THE CASE IS NOT WITHIN THE PROVISION OF SEC. 3(A) EXCEPTING FROM THE
COVERAGE OF THE ACT CASES IN WHICH RECOVERY MAY VALIDLY BE PROVIDED BY
STATE LAW. 

3.  A CONTENTION THAT AN AWARD UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' ACT WAS VOID UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE ACT, BECAUSE THE CLAIM FOR
COMPENSATION WAS MADE BY THE WIDOW RATHER THAN BY THE "LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE" OF THE DECEASED, COMES TOO LATE WHEN RAISED FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 251. 

PARKER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, V. MOTOR BOAT SALES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 554, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE
SUSTAINING AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AUGUST 18, 1938, GEORGE ARMISTEAD WAS DROWNED WHEN A MOTOR BOAT IN
WHICH HE WAS RIDING CAPSIZED ON THE JAMES RIVER OFF RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA.  THE BOAT WAS NAVIGATED BY ONE JOHNNIE COOPER.  BOTH
ARMISTEAD AND COOPER WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT, MOTOR BOAT
SALES, INCORPORATED, WHICH SOLD SMALL BOATS, MARITIME SUPPLIES, AND
OUTBOARD MOTORS.  THE OBJECT OF THE ILL-FATED BOAT TRIP WAS TO TEST ONE
OF THE RESPONDENT'S OUTBOARD MOTORS, WHICH IT DESIRED TO SELL, AND
LATER DID SELL, TO THE OWNER OF THE BOAT.  THE PETITIONER, DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION,
UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 19 OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
ACT, 44 STAT. 1424, AFTER COMPLAINT, INVESTIGATION, AND HEARINGS,
ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO PAY COMPENSATION TO ARMISTEAD'S WIDOW FOR THE
BENEFIT OF HERSELF AND THREE MINOR CHILDREN.  AMONG THE FINDINGS ON
WHICH THE DEPUTY BASED HIS ORDER WERE THESE:  THAT ARMISTEAD'S DEATH BY
DROWNING, "AROSE OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT; THAT HIS
DEATH OCCURRED UPON NAVIGABLE WATERS; AND THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH
HE WAS ENGAGED IN MARITIME EMPLOYMENT."  SECTION 21(B) OF THE ACT
PROVIDES THAT IF A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S AWARD IS NOT MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS MAY ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF
IT UPON PETITION OF ANY PARTY IN INTEREST.  IN PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY
THE RESPONDENT UNDER THIS SECTION, THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE
AWARD, DISMISSING THE BILL ON THE GROUND THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT WERE
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND WERE THEREFORE CONCLUSIVE, AND THAT THE
COMMISSIONER'S CONCLUSIONS AND AWARD WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ADVANCING TWO REASONS FOR ITS
CONCLUSION:  (1) ARMISTEAD WAS NOT ACTING IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; AND (2) EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN,
RECOVERY WAS BARRED BY SEC. 3(A) OF THE ACT MAKING COMPENSATION PAYABLE
"ONLY IF ...  RECOVERY FOR THE DISABILITY OR DEATH THROUGH WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT VALIDLY BE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW." 

(1)  THE CIRCUIT COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT ARMISTEAD WAS NOT ACTING IN
THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT RESTS UPON A REVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE RESPONDENT'S
PRESIDENT TESTIFIED THAT "GEORGE WAS CAUTIONED NEVER TO GO INTO A BOAT
OR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A BOAT OR MOTOR," BUT THIS RULE WAS LAID
DOWN "PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1937" AND THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN AUGUST,
1938.  AGAINST WHATEVER INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM TESTIMONY REGARDING
THIS GENERAL AND RATHER REMOTELY ANNOUNCED RULE, ARE THE INFERENCES TO
BE DRAWN FROM TESTIMONY THAT ON THE MORNING OF THE ACCIDENT ARMISTEAD
WAS SENT TO THE RIVER WITH SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS TO HELP COOPER IN
PLACING THE OUTBOARD MOTORS ON THE BOAT; THAT THERE WERE NO SPECIFIC
INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ARMISTEAD WAS TO STAY OUT OF THE
BOAT; THAT EITHER ARMISTEAD OR COOPER WAS TOLD THAT ARMISTEAD WAS "TO
GO AND HELP" COOPER; THAT COOPER, THE SUPERIOR OF THE TWO EMPLOYEES, AT
LEAST ACQUIESCED IN ARMISTEAD'S REMAINING IN THE BOAT TO "KEEP A
LOOKOUT" FOR HIDDEN OBJECTS IN THE MUDDY WATER; THAT COOPER REGARDED
ARMISTEAD'S ACTING AS LOOKOUT AS "HELPFUL"; THAT EMPLOYEES OF THE
RESPONDENT WOULD SOMETIMES MAKE TRIPS IN BOATS FOR TESTING PURPOSES, IN
FURTHERANCE OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS; AND THAT IN ONE SUCH INSTANCE AN
EMPLOYEE HAD TAKEN A BOAT ON A TRIP OF AT LEAST FIFTY MILES IN
RESPONDENT'S BEHALF.  GRANTING THAT MORE THAN ONE POSSIBLE CONCLUSION
COULD HAVE BEEN REACHED UPON THE EVIDENCE, WE THINK IT WAS CLEARLY
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S FINDING THAT ARMISTEAD
WAS ACTING IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE ACCEPTED IT AS FINAL.  VOEHL V. INDEMNITY
INS. CO., 288 U.S. 162. 

(2)  THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EVEN IF ARMISTEAD HAD
ACTED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' ACT WOULD NOT APPLY BECAUSE HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS "SO LOCAL IN
CHARACTER" THAT VIRGINIA COULD VALIDLY HAVE INCLUDED IT UNDER A STATE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.  116 F.2D 789.  THIS PROPOSITION CANNOT BE
RESTED ON THE GROUND THAT ARMISTEAD, HIRED PRIMARILY AS A JANITOR AND
PORTER, WAS PREDOMINANTLY A NON-MARITIME EMPLOYEE.  FOR, HABITUAL
PERFORMANCE OF OTHER AND DIFFERENT DUTIES ON LAND CANNOT ALTER THE FACT
THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT HE WAS RIDING IN A BOAT ON A NAVIGABLE
RIVER, AND IT IS IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CLEARLY MARITIME ACTIVITY  FN1
THAT THE AWARD WAS HERE MADE.  CF. NORTHERN COAL CO. V. STRAND, 278
U.S. 142, 144; LIABILITY ASSURANCE CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S. 233, 236. 
MOREOVER, SEC. 2(4) OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR ITS APPLICATION
TO "EMPLOYEES (WHO) ARE EMPLOYED  ...  IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON THE
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES." 

IF THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT CAN BE SUPPORTED AT ALL, IT
MUST BE ON THE BASIS THAT THE EMPLOYMENT, EVEN THOUGH MARITIME AND
THEREFORE WITHIN AN AREA IN WHICH CONGRESS COULD HAVE ESTABLISHED
EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION, IS NEVERTHELESS SUBJECT TO STATE
REGULATION UNTIL CONGRESS HAS EXERCISED ITS PARAMOUNT POWER.  CF.
LIABILITY ASSURANCE CO. V. COOK, SUPRA, 237.  CONGRESS HAVING EXPRESSLY
KEPT OUT OF THE AREA IN WHICH "RECOVERY  ...  MAY  ...  VALIDLY BE
PROVIDED BY STATE LAW," THE ARGUMENT MAY BE MADE THAT VIRGINIA WOULD
HAVE BEEN UNHAMPERED IN PROVIDING FOR COMPENSATION HERE. 

THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244
U.S. 205, HOWEVER, SEVERS A LINK IN THIS CHAIN OF REASONING.  FOR UNDER
THE HOLDING OF THAT CASE, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION,  FN2  FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS EXCLUSIVE AND STATE ACTION
FORBIDDEN IN AN AREA WHICH, ALTHOUGH OF SHADOWY LIMITS,  FN3  DOUBTLESS
EMBRACES THE CASE BEFORE US.  THE BASIS OF THE DECISION, THAT ARTICLE
III, SEC. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION, EXTENDING THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE
UNITED STATES "TO ALL CASES OF ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION," IS
TANTAMOUNT TO A COMMAND THAT NO STATE MAY INTERFERE WITH THE HARMONY
AND UNIFORMITY OF ADMIRALTY LAW, AND THAT ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE
RECOVERY UNDER A STATE STATUTE WOULD WORK SUCH AN INTERFERENCE, WAS
REJECTED BY FOUR DISSENTING MEMBERS OF THE COURT.  AND WHEN THE
DOCTRINE OF THE JENSEN CASE WAS REAFFIRMED IN KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO. V.
STEWART, 253 U.S. 149, AND WASHINGTON V. DAWSON & CO., 264 U.S. 219,
SHARP DISAGREEMENT WAS AGAIN EXPRESSED IN DISSENTING OPINIONS.  WE HAVE
NOT BEEN CALLED UPON HERE, HOWEVER, TO RECONSIDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THOSE CASES, AND WE ARE CONVINCED THAT SUCH A
RECONSIDERATION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE BEFORE
US. 

WHAT WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE IS NOT OF CONSTITUTIONAL
MAGNITUDE.  FOR, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE LIMITATION ON THE
POWER OF STATES SET OUT IN THE JENSEN CASE IS TO BE ACCEPTED, IT IS NOT
DOUBTED THAT CONGRESS COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY HAVE PROVIDED FOR RECOVERY
UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER CONGRESS HAS SO PROVIDED IN THIS STATUTE.  THE PROVISO OF SEC.
3(A) ASIDE, THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFICULTY WHATEVER IN CONCLUDING IT
HAS.  FOR THE ACT EXPRESSLY INCLUDES WITHIN ITS AMBIT ACCIDENTS
"ARISING OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT" IN THE CASE OF
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED "IN MARITIME EMPLOYMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, UPON
THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES," AND ARMISTEAD'S DEATH WAS
THE RESULT OF SUCH AN ACCIDENT.  WHILE THE PROVISO OF SEC. 3(A) APPEARS
TO BE A SUBTRACTION FROM THE SCOPE OF THE ACT THUS OUTLINED BY
CONGRESS, WE BELIEVE THAT, PROPERLY INTERPRETED, IT IS NOT A LARGE
ENOUGH SUBTRACTION TO PLACE THIS CASE OUTSIDE THE COVERAGE WHICH
CONGRESS INTENDED TO PROVIDE. 

IN THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ACCOMPANYING
THE BILL WHICH WAS ENACTED AS THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT, S.R. 973, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 16, THIS AVOWAL OF
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE APPEARS: 

"IF LONGSHOREMEN COULD AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE BENEFITS OF STATE
COMPENSATION LAWS, THERE WOULD BE NO OCCASION FOR THIS LEGISLATION;
BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE LAWS BY REASON OF THE
CHARACTER OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT; AND THEY ARE NOT ONLY EXCLUDED BUT THE
SUPREME COURT HAS MORE THAN ONCE HELD THAT FEDERAL LEGISLATION CAN NOT,
CONSTITUTIONALLY, BE ENACTED THAT WILL APPLY STATE LAWS TO THIS
OCCUPATION.  (SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205;
KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO. V. STEWART, 253 U.S. 149; WASHINGTON V. DAWSON &
CO., 264 U.S. 219.) 

"IT THUS APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO WAY OF GIVING TO THESE HARD-WORKING
MEN, ENGAGED IN A SOMEWHAT HAZARDOUS EMPLOYMENT, THE JUSTICE INVOLVED
IN THE MODERN PRINCIPLE OF COMPENSATION WITHOUT ENACTING A UNIFORM
COMPENSATION STATUTE." 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO PROVIDE FOR
FEDERAL COMPENSATION IN THE AREA WHICH THE SPECIFIC DECISIONS REFERRED
TO PLACED BEYOND THE REACH OF THE STATES.  THE PROVISO PERMITTING
RECOVERY ONLY WHERE COMPENSATION "MAY NOT VALIDLY BE PROVIDED BY STATE
LAW" CANNOT BE READ IN A MANNER THAT WOULD DEFEAT THIS PURPOSE.  AN
INTERPRETATION WHICH WOULD ENLARGE OR CONTRACT THE EFFECT OF THE
PROVISO IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHETHER THIS COURT REJECTED OR REAFFIRMED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE JENSEN AND ITS COMPANION CASES CANNOT
BE ACCEPTABLE.  THE RESULT OF SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD BE TO
SUBJECT THE SCOPE OF PROTECTION THAT CONGRESS WISHED TO PROVIDE, TO
UNCERTAINTIES THAT CONGRESS WISHED TO AVOID. 

THE MAIN IMPETUS FOR THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT WAS THE NEED TO CORRECT A GAP MADE PLAIN BY DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT.  WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE INTERPRETATION OF THE
PROVISO IN SEC. 3(A) WHICH WOULD ACCORD WITH THE AIM OF CONGRESS; THE
FIELD IN WHICH A STATE MAY NOT VALIDLY PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION MUST BE
TAKEN, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, AS THE SAME FIELD WHICH THE JENSEN
LINE OF DECISION EXCLUDED FROM STATE COMPENSATION LAWS.  WITHOUT
AFFIRMING OR REJECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE CASES,
WE ACCEPT THEM AS THE MEASURE BY WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO MARK THE
SCOPE OF THE ACT THEY BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE. 

(3)  THE RESPONDENT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE AWARD WAS VOID UNDER
SEC. 5 OF THE ACT.  THIS SECTION, SET OUT IN FULL IN THE MARGIN BELOW,
FN4  STATES THAT "AN INJURED EMPLOYEE, OR HIS LEGAL REPESENTATIVE IN
CASE DEATH RESULTS FROM THE INJURY, MAY ELECT TO CLAIM COMPENSATION
UNDER THIS ACT  ...  "  THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT A "LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE" OF ARMISTEAD WAS EVER APPOINTED.  HERE THE CLAIM WAS
FILED BY HIS WIDOW.  SINCE THE RESPONDENT DID NOT CONTEST THE WIDOW'S
CAPACITY TO FILE A CLAIM, EITHER BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OR IN
THE DISTRICT COURT, THE OBJECTION, EVEN IF OTHERWISE MERITORIOUS, WAS
MADE TOO LATE.  CF. MCCANDLESS V. FURLAUD, 293 U.S. 67.  WE MAY
NEVERTHELESS POINT OUT THAT THE WIDOW'S ASSERTED INCAPACITY TO SUE IN
HER OWN NAME CAN BE DERIVED ONLY INFERENTIALLY FROM THE TERMS OF SEC.
5, AND THAT OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT ARE NOT IN HARMONY WITH THIS
INFERENCE.  SECTION 12 PROVIDES THAT NOTICE OF DEATH MAY BE GIVEN "BY
ANY PERSON CLAIMING TO BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR SUCH DEATH OR BY
A PERSON ON HIS BEHALF."  SECTION 19(A) PROVIDES THAT "SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13 A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION MAY BE FILED  ...  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION," AND THERE IS
NOTHING IN SEC. 13 WHICH MAKES FILING BY A "PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE"
MANDATORY.  MOREOVER, ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE APPARENTLY COUNTENANCES
THE FILING OF CLAIMS BY WIDOWS, SINCE THE COMMISSION HAS PRESCRIBED
PRINTED FORMS BEARING THE CAPTION:  "CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION IN DEATH
CASE BY WIDOW AND FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN."  FORM US
262. 

WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND AFFIRM
THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CF. THE MOSES TAYLOR, 4 WALL.  411, 427; ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO.
V. IMBROVEK, 234 U.S. 52, 58-63; INDUSTRIAL COMM'N V. NORDENHOLT CO.,
259 U.S. 263, 272-273; SMITH & SON V. TAYLOR, 276 U.S. 179, 181; LONDON
GUARANTEE CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 279 U.S. 109, 123, 125. 

FN2  WHILE REFERENCE WAS MADE IN THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THE JENSEN
CASE TO SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT. 76, 77, THERE IS
NO IMPLICATION THAT THE COURT REGARDED THIS STATUTE AS AN "OCCUPATION"
BY CONGRESS OF A FIELD OTHERWISE OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.  AND IN
KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO. V. STEWART, 253 U.S. 149, 157-158, THE COURT
EXPLAINED THE JENSEN CASE ENTIRELY IN TERMS OF THE EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION CREATED BY ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, AND ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  REFERENCE TO SEC. 9 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 WAS
MADE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF POINTING OUT THAT A CLAUSE EMBODIED IN IT,
WHICH SAVED CERTAIN COMMON LAW REMEDIES, "HAD NO APPLICATION."    FN3
CF.:  "IN VIEW OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND THE FEDERAL ACT
IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO DEFINE WITH EXACTNESS JUST
HOW FAR THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW MAY BE CHANGED, MODIFIED, OR AFFECTED
BY STATE LEGISLATION.  THAT THIS MAY BE DONE TO SOME EXTENT CANNOT BE
DENIED."  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, SUPRA, 216. 

FN4  "SEC.  5.  THE LIABILITY OF AN EMPLOYER PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 4
SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND IN PLACE OF ALL OTHER LIABILITY OF SUCH EMPLOYER
TO THE EMPLOYEE, HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, HUSBAND OR WIFE, PARENTS,
DEPENDENTS, NEXT OF KIN, AND ANYONE OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FROM SUCH EMPLOYER AT LAW OR IN ADMIRALTY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH
INJURY OR DEATH, EXCEPT THAT IF AN EMPLOYER FAILS TO SECURE PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED BY THIS ACT, AN INJURED EMPLOYEE, OR HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE IN CASE DEATH RESULTS FROM THE INJURY, MAY ELECT TO
CLAIM COMPENSATION UNDER THIS ACT, OR TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION AT LAW OR
IN ADMIRALTY FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INJURY OR DEATH.  IN SUCH
ACTION THE DEFENDANT MAY NOT PLEAD AS A DEFENSE THAT THE INJURY WAS
CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF A FELLOW SERVANT, NOR THAT THE EMPLOYEE
ASSUMED THE RISK OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, NOR THAT THE INJURY WAS DUE TO THE
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE EMPLOYEE." 
..END :






BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 252 


NO. 1.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 21, 1940(NO. 19, 1940 TERM).  -  REARGUED
OCTOBER 13, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  - 14 CAL.2D 464, 94
P.2D 983 - 15 CAL.2D 99, 98 P.2D 1029, REVERSED. 


1.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER PUNISHMENT FOR AN OUT-OF-COURT PUBLICATION
CONCERNING A PENDING CASE, AS A CONTEMPT, IS CONSISTENT WITH GUARANTIES
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE PROBLEM IN THE CASE OF A JUDGMENT
BASED UPON A PARTICULARIZED STATUTORY DECLARATION OF THE POLICY OF A
STATE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS BASED UPON A COMMON
LAW CONCEPT OF A GENERAL NATURE.  P. 260. 

2.  THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" CASES, DECIDED BY THIS COURT,
INDICATE THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL LIKELY TO RESULT MUST BE EXTREMELY
SERIOUS AND THE DEGREE OF IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH BEFORE UTTERANCES
CAN BE PUNISHED.  P. 263. 

3.  THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" CASES DO NOT MARK THE FARTHEST
CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF PROTECTED EXPRESSION; NOR DO THEY MORE
THAN RECOGNIZE A MINIMUM COMPULSION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  P. 263. 

4.  THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS SECURED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE UNITED STATES IS SIMILARLY SECURED
TO ALL PERSONS BY THE FOURTEENTH AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY A STATE.  P.
263, N. 6. 

5.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION OF "ANY LAW ABRIDGING THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS" MUST BE GIVEN THE BROADEST SCOPE
THAT CAN BE COUNTENANCED IN AN ORDERLY SOCIETY.  P. 265. 

6.  THE FIRST AMENDMENT CAN NOT BE TAKEN AS APPROVING ALL PRACTICES
IN RESPECT TO PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT WHICH PREVAILED IN ENGLAND AT THE
TIME OF ITS RATIFICATION.  P. 265. 

7.  THE "INHERENT TENDENCY" OR "REASONABLE TENDENCY" OF AN OUT-OF
COURT PUBLICATION TO CAUSE DISRESPECT FOR THE JUDICIARY OR INTERFERE
WITH THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A PENDING CASE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PUNISHABLE CONTEMPT.  P. 272. 

8.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HELD THAT CONVICTIONS OF A NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR FOR CONTEMPT, BASED ON THE PUBLICATION OF
EDITORIALS COMMENTING UPON CASES PENDING IN A STATE COURT, WERE
VIOLATIVE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE
PRESS.  P. 271. 

9.  THE CONVICTION OF A LABOR LEADER FOR CONTEMPT OF A STATE COURT,
BASED UPON HIS PUBLICATION IN THE PRESS OF A TELEGRAM WHICH HE HAD SENT
TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, IN WHICH HE CRITICIZED THE DECISION OF A
JUDGE IN A CASE INVOLVING A LABOR DISPUTE AND INDICATED THAT
ENFORCEMENT OF THE DECREE WOULD RESULT IN A STRIKE, HELD VIOLATIVE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS.  P. 275. 

BRIDGES V. CALIFORNIA.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 3, TIMES-MIRROR CO. ET AL. V. SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ALSO ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 623, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  ARGUED
OCTOBER 21, 1940(NO. 64, 1940 TERM); REARGUED OCTOBER 13, 14, 1941. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 649, 310 U.S. 623, TO REVIEW, IN TWO CASES, THE
AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. 

THE POWER OF STATE JUDGES TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT IS RESTRICTED BY THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IS
THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES.  BRINKERHOFF-FARIS
CO. V. HILL, 281 U.S. 673, 680. 

THERE ARE SPECIAL REASONS WHY JUDICIAL ACTION IN PUNISHING FOR
CONTEMPT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. 
WHERE LEGISLATIVE ACTION OR EXECUTIVE ACTION IS IN QUESTION, REVIEW IS
BY A DIFFERENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.  NOT SO IN CONTEMPT CASES.  HERE
THE JUDICIARY REVIEWS THE ACTS OF ITS OWN MEMBERS.  MOREOVER, IN MANY
CASES, ALTHOUGH NOT HERE, THE ACTION UNDER REVIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE VERY
JUDGE CRITICIZED IN THE PUBLICATION COMPLAINED OF.  AND IN ALL CASES
THE PROCEDURE IS SUMMARY, WITHOUT THE SAFEGUARD OF TRIAL BY JURY. 

WHERE, AS HERE, THE ACT COMPLAINED OF IS AN EXPRESSION OF OPINION
CONCERNING JUDICIAL ACTION AND THE EXPRESSION TAKES PLACE OUTSIDE OF
THE COURTROOM, THERE CAN BE NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS THE EXPRESSION
ACTUALLY OBSTRUCTED JUDICIAL ACTION, OR WAS INTENDED IMPROPERLY TO
INFLUENCE JUDICIAL ACTION, OR WHERE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH INTENT,
THERE WAS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT JUDICIAL ACTION WOULD BE
IMPROPERLY INFLUENCED. 

THE LINE SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN IN THE CASE AT BAR BETWEEN CASES PENDING
AND CASES DETERMINED HAS NO SUBSTANTIAL MEANING.  TO HOLD THAT
PUBLICATIONS MAY BE PUNISHED MERELY BECAUSE THE TIME FOR REHEARING HAS
NOT EXPIRED EXALTS FORM ABOVE SUBSTANCE, ESTABLISHES A CRITERION
LACKING IN REASON AND SETS A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY.  THE LAYMAN SELDOM
KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT WHEN REHEARINGS ARE AVAILABLE.  EXPERIENCE HAS
TAUGHT HIM, MOREOVER, THAT JUDGES CHANGE THEIR MINDS IN A NEGLIGIBLE
PROPORTION OF CASES, SO THAT HE CONSIDERS THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR A
REHEARING ILLUSORY. 

THE "REASONABLE TENDENCY" TEST WILL ENMESH ANYONE WHO CRITICIZES A
JUDICIAL DECISION IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT IS RENDERED, IF A JUDGE CAN BE
PERSUADED THAT THE CRITIC OUGHT TO HAVE FORESEEN THAT HIS WORDS MIGHT
HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE JUDGE CRITICIZED OR ON THE PUBLIC REACTION TO
COURTS IN GENERAL. 

IF THE STATE MAY NOT PUNISH ONE CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTING TO OVERTHROW
IT ON A SHOWING ONLY OF REASONABLE TENDENCY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT UNLAWFUL
END, IT SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO PUNISH ON A SHOWING OF LIKE CHARACTER
FOR THE MUCH LESS SERIOUS OFFENSE OF CONTEMPT. 

THERE WERE HERE NO SPECIAL FACTS TO JUSTIFY THE INFERENCE THAT THERE
WAS ANY CLEAR DANGER THAT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WOULD RESULT FROM THE
PUBLICATION OF THE TELEGRAM.  THE STATEMENTS IN THE TELEGRAM WERE
EXPRESSED, NOT WITH THE PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE, BUT WITH THE HOPE THAT THE SECRETARY OF LABOR WOULD FIND A
MEANS OF SOLVING THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE TWO COMPETING UNIONS IN A
FORUM OTHER THAN THE JUDICIAL ONE. 

IN ANY EVENT, THE SENDING AND PUBLICATION OF THE TELEGRAM WERE THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT.  CALIFORNIA HAD NO
POWER TO RESTRICT THIS RIGHT BY PUNISHING ITS EXERCISE AS A CONTEMPT. 
THE RIGHT OF PETITION IS PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AND WHEN THE PETITION IS ADDRESSED TO THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ON AN ISSUE OF NATIONAL CONCERN, IT IS ALSO
PROTECTED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK,
92 U.S. 542. 

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER DOCTRINE SHOULD BE APPLIED. 

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER DOCTRINE REQUIRES A WEIGHING OF THE
EVIDENCE AND A DETERMINATION "WHETHER THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER THAT THEY WILL BRING ABOUT" A SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S.
47, 52; SCHAEFER V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 466, 482; GITLOW V. NEW
YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 672; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 256; THORNHILL
V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 105; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296,
311. 

THE REASONABLE TENDENCY TEST IS SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE THAT IT "IS
REPUGNANT TO THE GUARANTEE OF LIBERTY CONTAINED IN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT."  HERNDON V. LOWRY, SUPRA, 259. 

THIS COURT HAS NOT SUBORDINATED CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES TO
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO RECONCILE THE TWO. 
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 374; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S.
242, 258; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 164; THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 95-96; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296,
304, 307, 308; MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DIST. V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586, 593
594, 596; MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, 312 U.S. 287,
298-299; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321, 325-326. 

IN SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION, ADOPTION OF THE
ACTUAL INTERFERENCE TEST OR THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER DOCTRINE WILL
CONFORM TO DEJONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 364-365, WHICH DECLARED
THAT "LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION CAN FIND CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATION
ONLY BY DEALING WITH THE ABUSE.  THE RIGHTS THEMSELVES MUST NOT BE
CURTAILED."  PROSCRIBING ALL COMMENT ON JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS UNTIL
FINALLY TERMINATED WOULD ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  HOWEVER,
THE RIGHT WOULD NOT BE ABRIDGED, BUT ITS ABUSE WOULD BE DEALT WITH, IF
COMMENT UPON PENDING JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IS PROSCRIBED ONLY WHEN IT IS
OF SUCH A NATURE AND PUBLISHED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO BRING
ABOUT AN ACTUAL INTERFERENCE, OR CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT
IT WILL BRING ABOUT A SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE, WITH THE JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS ABOUT WHICH COMMENT IS MADE. 

THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT OF A STATE COURT, AND
THE CHARACTER OF PUNISHMENT THEREFOR, ARE MATTERS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN
THE CONTROL OF THE STATE.  PATTERSON V. COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454. 

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF DUE PROCESS, ANTIQUITY OF THE PROCESS IS THE
HALLMARK OF ACCEPTABILITY, WHETHER THE MATTER BE VIEWED ADJECTIVELY OR
SUBSTANTIVELY.  IF INHERENT OR REASONABLE TENDENCY TO INFLUENCE OR
OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH THE DELIBERATIONS OF A COURT IN A PENDING
MATTER WAS AN ESTABLISHED CRITERION OF CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT AT THE
TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, ITS APPLICATION TODAY
CAN NOT CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  THE INHERENT OR REASONABLE
TENDENCY CRITERION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT FOR A
PERIOD OF TWO HUNDRED YEARS OR MORE. 

WHEREAS THE FEDERAL STATUTE MADE "OBSTRUCTION" THE TEST, THE
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE MADE "DIRECT TENDENCY" THE TEST.  THE CODIFIERS
INCORPORATED NOT ONLY "TENDENCY" AS A CRITERION FOR ACTS WHICH MUST BE
ACTUALLY OBSTRUCTIVE UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE, BUT ALSO ADOPTED THE
COMMON LAW AS TO CONTEMPTS GENERALLY.  THE CALIFORNIA DECISIONS HAVE
UNIFORMLY HELD THIS TO BE THE PROPER CRITERION, SOMETIMES REFERRING TO
THE STATUTE AND SOMETIMES TO THE INHERENT POWER OF THE COURT.  MATTER
OF TYLER, 64 CAL. 434, 438; EX PARTE BARRY, 85 CAL. 603, 607; IN RE
SHORTRIDGE, 99 CAL. 526, 532, 533; IN RE SHULER, 210 CAL. 402; IN RE
LINDSLEY, 75 CAL. APP. 124; LINDSLEY V. SUPERIOR COURT, 76 CAL. APP.
428; IN RE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 1 CAL.2D 637. 

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER DOCTRINE HAS NEVER FOUND ITS WAY INTO
THE LAW OF CONTEMPT. 

NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33, DEALT ONLY WITH THE EFFECT OF THE
FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH DEFINES THE METHOD OF PROCEDURE FOR PUNISHMENT OF
VARIOUS TYPES OF CONTEMPT AND LIMITS THOSE WHICH MAY BE SUMMARILY DEALT
WITH. 

COMMON-LAW DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE TENDENCY INTO THE STATUTES OF
CALIFORNIA.  IF THE STATUTORY TEST BE ADEQUATE FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDPOINT, THE EVIDENCE WILL NOT BE REVIEWED EXCEPT FOR THE LIMITED
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER, AS EXPRESSED IN THE MILK WAGON DRIVERS
UNION CASE, 312 U.S. 287, THE CONVICTION RESTS UPON "INSUBSTANTIAL
FINDINGS OF FACT" AMOUNTING TO "A PALPABLE EVASION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY." 

BUT IF THE REASONABLE TENDENCY CRITERION BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTES, IT POSSESSES, ASIDE FROM ITS ANCIENT
LINEAGE, ADEQUATE CERTAINTY TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS.  CF.
HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242. 

REASONABLE TENDENCY MAY BE MADE A NEW STATUTORY STANDARD OF GUILT. 
WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. V. TEXAS, 212 U.S. 86. 

A STATUTORY OR OTHER DEFINITION OF CRIME IS NOT VAGUE FOR UNCERTAINTY
"MERELY BECAUSE IT THROWS UPON MEN THE RISK OF RIGHTLY ESTIMATING A
MATTER OF DEGREE."  THERE MUST BE AN UNCERTAINTY IN THE STANDARD
ITSELF, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE MATTER OF DIFFICULTY IN APPLYING
THE STANDARD TO THE GIVEN FACTS.  "'DRAWING THE LINE' IS A RECURRENT
DIFFICULTY IN THOSE FIELDS OF THE LAW WHERE DIFFERENCES IN DEGREE
PRODUCE ULTIMATE DIFFERENCES IN KIND."  HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, 312 U.S.
AT 583; GORIN V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 19. 

DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN INHERENT TENDENCY AND CLEAR PRESENT DANGER AS
APPLIED TO CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPTS IS FUTILE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE TWO CASES, WHILE GROWING OUT OF DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CONCERNING DIFFERENT PARTIES, BOTH RELATE TO THE SCOPE OF OUR NATIONAL
CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY SAFEGUARDING FREE SPEECH AND A FREE PRESS.  ALL
OF THE PETITIONERS WERE ADJUDGED GUILTY AND FINED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY.  THEIR CONVICTION RESTED
UPON COMMENTS PERTAINING TO PENDING LITIGATION WHICH WERE PUBLISHED IN
NEWSPAPERS.  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, AND LATER IN THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT, PETITIONERS CHALLENGED THE STATE'S ACTION AS AN ABRIDGMENT,
PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE
PRESS; BUT THE SUPERIOR COURT OVERRULED THIS CONTENTION, AND THE
SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  FN1  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION PROMPTED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  309 U.S. 649; 310 U.S. 623. 

IN BRIEF, THE STATE COURTS ASSERTED AND EXERCISED A POWER TO PUNISH
PETITIONERS FOR PUBLISHING THEIR VIEWS CONCERNING CASES NOT IN ALL
RESPECTS FINALLY DETERMINED, UPON THE FOLLOWING CHAIN OF REASONING:
CALIFORNIA IS INVESTED WITH THE POWER AND DUTY TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE; BY VIRTUE OF THIS POWER AND DUTY, IT CAN
TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES FOR PROVIDING FAIR JUDICIAL TRIALS FREE FROM
COERCION OR INTIMIDATION; INCLUDED AMONG SUCH APPROPRIATE MEASURES IS
THE COMMON LAW PROCEDURE OF PUNISHING CERTAIN INTERFERENCES AND
OBSTRUCTIONS THROUGH CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS; THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE,
DEVOLVING UPON THE COURTS OF CALIFORNIA BY REASON OF THEIR CREATION AS
COURTS, INCLUDES THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR PUBLICATIONS MADE OUTSIDE THE
COURT ROOM IF THEY TEND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FAIR AND ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A PENDING CASE; THE TRIAL COURT HAVING
FOUND THAT THE PUBLICATIONS HAD SUCH A TENDENCY, AND THERE BEING
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING, THE PUNISHMENTS HERE
IMPOSED WERE AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POWER; IN SO FAR AS
THESE PUNISHMENTS CONSTITUTE A RESTRICTION ON LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION,
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT LIBERTY WAS PROPERLY SUBORDINATED TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IN JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM.  FN2 

IF THE INFERENCE OF CONFLICT RAISED BY THE LAST CLAUSE BE CORRECT,
THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS OF THE VERY GRAVEST MOMENT.  FOR FREE SPEECH AND
FAIR TRIALS ARE TWO OF THE MOST CHERISHED POLICIES OF OUR CIVILIZATION,
AND IT WOULD BE A TRYING TASK TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM.  BUT EVEN IF SUCH
A CONFLICT IS NOT ACTUALLY RAISED BY THE QUESTION BEFORE US, WE ARE
STILL CONFRONTED WITH THE DELICATE PROBLEMS ENTAILED IN PASSING UPON
THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE.  THIS IS NOT,
HOWEVER, SOLELY AN ISSUE BETWEEN STATE AND NATION, AS IT WOULD BE IF WE
WERE CALLED UPON TO MEDIATE IN ONE OF THOSE TROUBLOUS SITUATIONS WHERE
EACH CLAIMS TO BE THE REPOSITORY OF A PARTICULAR SOVEREIGN POWER.  TO
BE SURE, THE EXERCISE OF POWER HERE IN QUESTION WAS BY A STATE JUDGE. 
BUT IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THE SWEEPING CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
AGAINST ANY LAW "ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS"
FORBIDS IT, WE ARE NECESSARILY MEASURING A POWER OF ALL AMERICAN
COURTS, BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL, INCLUDING THIS ONE. 

                                   I 

IT IS TO BE NOTED AT ONCE THAT WE HAVE NO DIRECTION BY THE
LEGISLATURE OF CALIFORNIA THAT PUBLICATIONS OUTSIDE THE COURT ROOM
WHICH COMMENT UPON A PENDING CASE IN A SPECIFIED MANNER SHOULD BE
PUNISHABLE.  AS WE SAID IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 307
308, SUCH A "DECLARATION OF THE STATE'S POLICY WOULD WEIGH HEAVILY IN
ANY CHALLENGE OF THE LAW AS INFRINGING CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS." 
BUT AS WE ALSO SAID THERE, THE PROBLEM IS DIFFERENT WHERE "THE JUDGMENT
IS BASED ON A COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF THE MOST GENERAL AND UNDEFINED
NATURE."  ID. 308.  CF. HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 261-264.  FOR
HERE THE LEGISLATURE OF CALIFORNIA HAS NOT APPRAISED A PARTICULAR KIND
OF SITUATION AND FOUND A SPECIFIC DANGER  FN3  SUFFICIENTLY IMMINENT TO
JUSTIFY A RESTRICTION ON A PARTICULAR KIND OF UTTERANCE.  THE JUDGMENTS
BELOW, THEREFORE, DO NOT COME TO US ENCASED IN THE ARMOR WROUGHT BY
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE DELIBERATION.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS COURT
HAS SAID THAT "IT MUST NECESSARILY BE FOUND, AS AN ORIGINAL QUESTION,"
THAT THE SPECIFIED PUBLICATIONS INVOLVED CREATED "SUCH LIKELIHOOD OF
BRINGING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL AS TO DEPRIVE (THEM) OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION."  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 671. 
HOW MUCH "LIKELIHOOD" IS ANOTHER QUESTION, "A QUESTION OF PROXIMITY AND
DEGREE"  FN4  THAT CANNOT BE COMPLETELY CAPTURED IN A FORMULA.  IN
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, THIS COURT SAID THAT THERE MUST BE A
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT "THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER THAT THEY WILL BRING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS."  WE RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS STATEMENT, HOWEVER HELPFUL, DOES NOT COMPREHEND THE WHOLE
PROBLEM.  AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS SAID IN HIS CONCURRING OPINION IN
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 374:  "THIS COURT HAS NOT YET
FIXED THE STANDARD BY WHICH TO DETERMINE WHEN A DANGER SHALL BE DEEMED
CLEAR; HOW REMOTE THE DANGER MAY BE AND YET BE DEEMED PRESENT." 

NEVERTHELESS, THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" LANGUAGE  FN5  OF THE
SCHENCK CASE HAS AFFORDED PRACTICAL GUIDANCE IN A GREAT VARIETY OF
CASES IN WHICH THE SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION WAS IN ISSUE.  IT HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY EITHER A MAJORITY OR
MINORITY OF THIS COURT IN PASSING UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
CONVICTIONS UNDER ESPIONAGE ACTS, SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616; UNDER A CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM
ACT, WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; UNDER AN "ANTIINSURRECTION" ACT,
HERNDON V. LOWRY, SUPRA; AND FOR BREACH OF THE PEACE AT COMMON LAW,
CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA.  AND VERY RECENTLY WE HAVE ALSO
SUGGESTED THAT "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" IS AN APPROPRIATE GUIDE IN
DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RESTRICTIONS UPON EXPRESSION WHERE
THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE PREVENTED BY THE RESTRICTION IS
"DESTRUCTION OF LIFE OR PROPERTY, OR INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF
PRIVACY."  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 105. 

MOREOVER, THE LIKELIHOOD, HOWEVER GREAT, THAT A SUBSTANTIVE EVIL WILL
RESULT CANNOT ALONE JUSTIFY A RESTRICTION UPON FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR THE
PRESS.  THE EVIL ITSELF MUST BE "SUBSTANTIAL," BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING
IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 374; IT MUST BE "SERIOUS," ID. 376. 
AND EVEN THE EXPRESSION OF "LEGISLATIVE PREFERENCES OR BELIEFS" CANNOT
TRANSFORM MINOR MATTERS OF PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE OR ANNOYANCE INTO
SUBSTANTIVE EVILS OF SUFFICIENT WEIGHT TO WARRANT THE CURTAILMENT OF
LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161. 

WHAT FINALLY EMERGES FROM THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" CASES IS A
WORKING PRINCIPLE THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL MUST BE EXTREMELY SERIOUS
AND THE DEGREE OF IMMINENCE EXTREMELY HIGH BEFORE UTTERANCES CAN BE
PUNISHED.  THOSE CASES DO NOT PURPORT TO MARK THE FURTHERMOST
CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF PROTECTED EXPRESSION, NOR DO WE HERE. 
THEY DO NO MORE THAN RECOGNIZE A MINIMUM COMPULSION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS.  FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT  FN6  DOES NOT SPEAK EQUIVOCALLY.  IT
PROHIBITS ANY LAW "ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS." 
IT MUST BE TAKEN AS A COMMAND OF THE BROADEST SCOPE THAT EXPLICIT
LANGUAGE, READ IN THE CONTEXT OF A LIBERTY-LOVING SOCIETY, WILL ALLOW. 

                             II 

BEFORE ANALYZING THE PUNISHED UTTERANCES AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THEIR PUBLICATION, WE MUST CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT WHICH, IF
VALID, WOULD DESTROY THE RELEVANCE OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION TO THIS
CASE.  IN BRIEF, THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PUBLICATIONS HERE IN
QUESTION BELONG TO A SPECIAL CATEGORY MARKED OFF BY HISTORY,  - A
CATEGORY TO WHICH THE CRITERIA OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM
PUNISHMENT USED WHERE OTHER TYPES OF UTTERANCES ARE CONCERNED ARE NOT
APPLICABLE.  FOR, THE ARGUMENT RUNS, THE POWER OF JUDGES TO PUNISH BY
CONTEMPT OUT-OF-COURT PUBLICATIONS TENDING TO OBSTRUCT THE ORDERLY AND
FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A PENDING CASE WAS DEEPLY ROOTED IN
ENGLISH COMMON LAW AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED.  THAT THIS
HISTORICAL CONTENTION IS DUBIOUS HAS BEEN PERSUASIVELY ARGUED
ELSEWHERE.  FOX, CONTEMPT OF COURT, PASSIM, E.G., 207.  SEE ALSO
STANSBURY, TRIAL OF JAMES H. PECK, 430.  IN ANY EVENT IT NEED NOT
DETAIN US, FOR TO ASSUME THAT ENGLISH COMMON LAW IN THIS FIELD BECAME
OURS IS TO DENY THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED HISTORICAL BELIEF THAT "ONE OF
THE OBJECTS OF THE REVOLUTION WAS TO GET RID OF THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW
ON LIBERTY OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS."N7  SCHOFIELD, FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS IN THE UNITED STATES, 9 PUBLICATIONS AMER.  SOCIOL.  SOC., 67,
76. 

MORE SPECIFICALLY, IT IS TO FORGET THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE FIRST
AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED.  IN PRESENTING THE PROPOSALS WHICH WERE LATER
EMBODIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, JAMES MADISON, THE LEADER IN THE
PREPARATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, SAID:  "ALTHOUGH I KNOW WHENEVER
THE GREAT RIGHTS, THE TRIAL BY JURY, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, OR LIBERTY
OF CONSCIENCE, COME IN QUESTION IN THAT BODY (PARLIAMENT), THE INVASION
OF THEM IS RESISTED BY ABLE ADVOCATES, YET THEIR MAGNA CHARTA DOES NOT
CONTAIN ANY ONE PROVISION FOR THE SECURITY OF THOSE RIGHTS, RESPECTING
WHICH THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ARE MOST ALARMED.  THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
AND RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE, THOSE CHOICEST PRIVILEGES OF THE PEOPLE, ARE
UNGUARDED IN THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION."  1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 1789
1790, 434.  AND MADISON ELSEWHERE WROTE THAT "THE STATE OF THE PRESS
...  UNDER THE COMMON LAW, CANNOT  ...  BE THE STANDARD OF ITS FREEDOM
IN THE UNITED STATES."  VI WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 1790-1802, 387. 

THERE ARE NO CONTRARY IMPLICATIONS IN ANY PART OF THE HISTORY OF THE
PERIOD IN WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS FRAMED AND ADOPTED.  NO PURPOSE
IN RATIFYING THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS CLEARER THAN THAT OF SECURING FOR
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES MUCH GREATER FREEDOM OF RELIGION,
EXPRESSION, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION THAN THE PEOPLE OF GREAT BRITAIN HAD
EVER ENJOYED.  IT CANNOT BE DENIED, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE RELIGIOUS
TEST OATH  FN8  OR THE RESTRICTIONS UPON ASSEMBLY  FN9  THEN PREVALENT
IN ENGLAND WOULD HAVE BEEN REGARDED AS MEASURES WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
PROHIBITED THE AMERICAN CONGRESS FROM PASSING.  AND SINCE THE SAME
UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE IS USED WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, IT
SIGNIFIES A SIMILAR ENLARGEMENT OF THAT CONCEPT AS WELL.  FN10
RATIFIED AS IT WAS WHILE THE MEMORY OF MANY OPPRESSIVE ENGLISH
RESTRICTIONS ON THE ENUMERATED LIBERTIES WAS STILL FRESH, THE FIRST
AMENDMENT CANNOT REASONABLY BE TAKEN AS APPROVING PREVALENT ENGLISH
PRACTICES.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE ONLY CONCLUSION SUPPORTED BY HISTORY
IS THAT THE UNQUALIFIED PROHIBITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE FRAMERS WERE
INTENDED TO GIVE TO LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, AS TO THE OTHER LIBERTIES,
THE BROADEST SCOPE THAT COULD BE COUNTENANCED IN AN ORDERLY SOCIETY. 

THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUBSEQUENT AMERICAN HISTORY CONFIRM SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  TO BE SURE, IT OCCURRED NO MORE
TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THE DECADES FOLLOWING RATIFICATION THAN IT
WOULD TO US NOW THAT THE POWER OF COURTS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM
DISTURBANCES AND DISORDER IN THE COURT ROOM BY USE OF CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS COULD SERIOUSLY BE CHALLENGED AS CONFLICTING WITH
CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED GUARANTEES OF LIBERTY.  IN BOTH STATE AND
FEDERAL COURTS, THIS POWER HAS BEEN UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED.  SEE
ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6 WHEAT.  204, 227.  BUT ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND IT IN THE
POST - RATIFICATION YEARS EVOKED POPULAR REACTIONS THAT BESPEAK A
FEELING OF JEALOUS SOLICITUDE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  IN
PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK, FOR EXAMPLE, HEATED CONTROVERSIES AROSE OVER
ALLEGED ABUSES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE CONTEMPT POWER, WHICH IN BOTH
PLACES CULMINATED IN LEGISLATION PRACTICALLY  FN11  FORBIDDING SUMMARY
PUNISHMENT FOR PUBLICATIONS.  SEE NELLES AND KING, CONTEMPT BY
PUBLICATION, 28 COL. L. REV. 401, 409-422. 

IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, THERE WAS THE CELEBRATED CASE OF JUDGE PECK,
RECENTLY REFERRED TO BY THIS COURT IN NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S.
33, 45.  THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IT SHOULD BE NOTED,
AND THE STRONG FEELINGS THEY ENGENDERED, WERE SET IN MOTION BY HIS
SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF A LAWYER FOR PUBLISHING COMMENT ON A CASE WHICH
WAS ON APPEAL AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION AND WHICH RAISED THE IDENTICAL
ISSUE OF SEVERAL OTHER CASES THEN PENDING BEFORE HIM.  HERE AGAIN
LEGISLATION WAS THE OUTCOME, CONGRESS PROCLAIMING IN A STATUTE
EXPRESSLY CAPTIONED "AN ACT DECLARATORY OF THE LAW CONCERNING CONTEMPTS
OF COURT,"  FN12  THAT THE POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS TO INFLICT SUMMARY
PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT "SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXTEND TO ANY CASES
EXCEPT THE MISBEHAVIOUR OF  ...  PERSONS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SAID
COURTS, OR SO NEAR THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
...  "  WHEN RECENTLY CALLED UPON TO INTERPRET THIS STATUTE, WE
OVERRULED THE EARLIER DECISION OF THIS COURT IN TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402, IN THE BELIEF THAT IT IMPROPERLY ENLARGED
THE STATED AREA OF SUMMARY PUNISHMENT.  NYE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
HERE, AS IN THE NYE CASE, WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATUTE WAS
INTENDED TO DEMARCATE THE FULL POWER PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
TO PUNISH BY CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.  BUT WE DO FIND IN THE ENACTMENT
VIEWED IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT, A RESPECT FOR THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, NOT AS MERE GUIDES TO THE FORMULATION OF POLICY, BUT
AS COMMANDS THE BREACH OF WHICH CANNOT BE TOLERATED. 

WE ARE AWARE THAT ALTHOUGH SOME STATES HAVE BY STATUTE OR DECISION
EXPRESSLY REPUDIATED THE POWER OF JUDGES TO PUNISH PUBLICATIONS AS
CONTEMPTS ON A FINDING OF MERE TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A PENDING CASE, OTHER STATES HAVE
SANCTIONED THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A POWER.  (SEE NELLES AND KING, LOC. 
CIT.  SUPRA, 536-562, FOR A COLLECTION AND DISCUSSION OF STATE CASES.) 
BUT STATE POWER IN THIS FIELD WAS NOT TESTED IN THIS COURT FOR MORE
THAN A CENTURY.  FN13  NOT UNTIL 1925, WITH THE DECISION IN GITLOW V.
NEW YORK, SUPRA, 268 U.S. 652, DID THIS COURT RECOGNIZE IN THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THE APPLICATION TO THE STATES OF THE SAME
STANDARDS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AS, UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, ARE
APPLICABLE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SINCE
1925 THAT WE HAVE BEEN CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF A STATE'S EXERCISE OF THE CONTEMPT POWER IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION. 
NOW THAT SUCH A CASE IS BEFORE US, WE CANNOT ALLOW THE MERE EXISTENCE
OF OTHER UNTESTED STATE DECISIONS TO DESTROY THE HISTORIC
CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS. 

HISTORY AFFORDS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CONTENTION THAT THE CRITERIA
APPLICABLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO OTHER TYPES OF UTTERANCES ARE NOT
APPLICABLE, IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, TO OUT-OF-COURT PUBLICATIONS
PERTAINING TO A PENDING CASE. 

                                  III 

WE MAY APPROPRIATELY BEGIN OUR DISCUSSION OF THE JUDGMENTS BELOW BY
CONSIDERING HOW MUCH, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THEY WOULD AFFECT LIBERTY
OF EXPRESSION.  IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT PUBLIC INTEREST IS MUCH MORE
LIKELY TO BE KINDLED BY A CONTROVERSIAL EVENT OF THE DAY THAN BY A
GENERALIZATION, HOWEVER PENETRATING, OF THE HISTORIAN OR SCIENTIST. 
SINCE THEY PUNISH UTTERANCES MADE DURING THE PENDENCY OF A CASE, THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW THEREFORE PRODUCE THEIR RESTRICTIVE RESULTS AT THE
PRECISE TIME WHEN PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MATTERS DISCUSSED WOULD
NATURALLY BE AT ITS HEIGHT.  MOREOVER, THE BAN IS LIKELY TO FALL NOT
ONLY AT A CRUCIAL TIME BUT UPON THE MOST IMPORTANT TOPICS OF
DISCUSSION.  HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, LABOR CONTROVERSIES WERE THE TOPICS OF
SOME OF THE PUBLICATIONS.  EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT THE MORE ACUTE LABOR
CONTROVERSIES ARE, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT IN SOME ASPECT THEY WILL
GET INTO COURT.  IT IS THEREFORE THE CONTROVERSIES THAT COMMAND MOST
INTEREST THAT THE DECISIONS BELOW WOULD REMOVE FROM THE ARENA OF PUBLIC
DISCUSSION. 

NO SUGGESTION CAN BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE FREEDOM THERE
GUARANTEED FOR SPEECH AND THE PRESS BEARS AN INVERSE RATIO TO THE
TIMELINESS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE IDEAS SEEKING EXPRESSION.  YET, IT
WOULD FOLLOW AS A PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE DECISIONS BELOW THAT ANYONE
WHO MIGHT WISH TO GIVE PUBLIC EXPRESSION TO HIS VIEWS ON A PENDING CASE
INVOLVING NO MATTER WHAT PROBLEM OF PUBLIC INTEREST, JUST AT THE TIME
HIS AUDIENCE WOULD BE MOST RECEPTIVE, WOULD BE AS EFFECTIVELY
DISCOURAGED AS IF A DELIBERATE STATUTORY SCHEME OF CENSORSHIP HAD BEEN
ADOPTED.  INDEED, PERHAPS MORE SO, BECAUSE UNDER A LEGISLATIVE
SPECIFICATION OF THE PARTICULAR KINDS OF EXPRESSIONS PROHIBITED AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE PROHIBITIONS ARE TO OPERATE, THE SPEAKER
OR PUBLISHER MIGHT AT LEAST HAVE AN AUTHORITATIVE GUIDE TO THE
PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF COMMENT, INSTEAD OF BEING COMPELLED TO ACT AT THE
PERIL THAT JUDGES MIGHT FIND IN THE UTTERANCE A "REASONABLE TENDENCY"
TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN A PENDING CASE. 

THIS UNFOCUSSED THREAT IS, TO BE SURE, LIMITED IN TIME, TERMINATING
AS IT DOES UPON FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE.  BUT THIS DOES NOT
CHANGE ITS CENSORIAL QUALITY.  AN ENDLESS SERIES OF MORATORIA ON PUBLIC
DISCUSSION, EVEN IF EACH WERE VERY SHORT, COULD HARDLY BE DISMISSED AS
AN INSIGNIFICANT ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  AND TO ASSUME
THAT EACH WOULD BE SHORT IS TO OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THE "PENDENCY" OF
A CASE IS FREQUENTLY A MATTER OF MONTHS OR EVEN YEARS RATHER THAN DAYS
OR WEEKS.  FN14    FOR THESE REASONS WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW RESULT IN A CURTAILMENT OF EXPRESSION THAT CANNOT BE
DISMISSED AS INSIGNIFICANT.  IF THEY CAN BE JUSTIFIED AT ALL, IT MUST
BE IN TERMS OF SOME SERIOUS SUBSTANTIVE EVIL WHICH THEY ARE DESIGNED TO
AVERT.  THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL HERE SOUGHT TO BE AVERTED HAS BEEN
VARIOUSLY DESCRIBED BELOW.  FN15  IT APPEARS TO BE DOUBLE: DISRESPECT
FOR THE JUDICIARY; AND DISORDERLY AND UNFAIR ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  THE ASSUMPTION THAT RESPECT FOR THE JUDICIARY CAN BE WON BY
SHIELDING JUDGES FROM PUBLISHED CRITICISM WRONGLY APPRAISES THE
CHARACTER OF AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION.  FOR IT IS A PRIZED AMERICAN
PRIVILEGE TO SPEAK ONE'S MIND, ALTHOUGH NOT ALWAYS WITH PERFECT GOOD
TASTE,  FN16  ON ALL PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.  AND AN ENFORCED SILENCE,
HOWEVER LIMITED, SOLELY IN THE NAME OF PRESERVING THE DIGNITY OF THE
BENCH, WOULD PROBABLY ENGENDER RESENTMENT, SUSPICION, AND CONTEMPT MUCH
MORE THAN IT WOULD ENHANCE RESPECT. 

THE OTHER EVIL FEARED, DISORDERLY AND UNFAIR ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE, IS MORE PLAUSIBLY ASSOCIATED WITH RESTRICTING PUBLICATIONS
WHICH TOUCH UPON PENDING LITIGATION.  THE VERY WORD "TRIAL" CONNOTES
DECISIONS ON THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS PROPERLY ADVANCED IN OPEN
COURT.  LEGAL TRIALS ARE NOT LIKE ELECTIONS, TO BE WON THROUGH THE USE
OF THE MEETING-HALL, THE RADIO, AND THE NEWSPAPER.  BUT WE CANNOT START
WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT PUBLICATIONS OF THE KIND HERE INVOLVED
ACTUALLY DO THREATEN TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF LEGAL TRIALS, AND THAT TO
PRESERVE JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY, IT IS NECESSARY FOR JUDGES TO HAVE A
CONTEMPT POWER BY WHICH THEY CAN CLOSE ALL CHANNELS OF PUBLIC
EXPRESSION TO ALL MATTERS WHICH TOUCH UPON PENDING CASES.  WE MUST
THEREFORE TURN TO THE PARTICULAR UTTERANCES HERE IN QUESTION AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR PUBLICATION TO DETERMINE TO WHAT EXTENT THE
SUBSTANTIVE EVIL OF UNFAIR ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WAS A LIKELY
CONSEQUENCE, AND WHETHER THE DEGREE OF LIKELIHOOD WAS SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY SUMMARY PUNISHMENT. 

THE LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIALS.  THE TIMES-MIRROR COMPANY,
PUBLISHER OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, AND L.D. HOTCHKISS, ITS MANAGING
EDITOR, WERE CITED FOR CONTEMPT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THREE
EDITORIALS.  BOTH FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE OF
THE EDITORIALS, THE COMPANY AND HOTCHKISS WERE EACH FINED $100.  THE
COMPANY ALONE WAS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OTHER TWO, AND WAS FINED
$100 MORE ON ACCOUNT OF ONE, AND $300 MORE ON ACCOUNT OF THE OTHER. 

THE $300 FINE PRESUMABLY MARKS THE MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE.  THE
EDITORIAL THUS DISTINGUISHED WAS ENTITLED "PROBATION FOR GORILLAS?" 
AFTER VIGOROUSLY DENOUNCING TWO MEMBERS OF A LABOR UNION WHO HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ASSAULTING NONUNION TRUCK DRIVERS, IT
CLOSES WITH THE OBSERVATION:  "JUDGE A. A. SCOTT WILL MAKE A SERIOUS
MISTAKE IF HE GRANTS PROBATION TO MATTHEW SHANNON AND KENNAN HOLMES. 
THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS THE EXAMPLE OF THEIR ASSIGNMENT TO THE JUTE
MILL."  FN17  JUDGE SCOTT HAD PREVIOUSLY SET A DAY (ABOUT A MONTH AFTER
THE PUBLICATION) FOR PASSING UPON THE APPLICATION OF SHANNON AND HOLMES
FOR PROBATION AND FOR PRONOUNCING SENTENCE. 

THE BASIS FOR PUNISHING THE PUBLICATION AS CONTEMPT WAS BY THE TRIAL
COURT SAID TO BE ITS "INHERENT TENDENCY" AND BY THE SUPREME COURT ITS
"REASONABLE TENDENCY" TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE IN AN ACTION THEN BEFORE A COURT FOR CONSIDERATION.  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT WE HAVE SAID ON THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER"
CASES, NEITHER "INHERENT TENDENCY" NOR "REASONABLE TENDENCY" IS ENOUGH
TO JUSTIFY A RESTRICTION OF FREE EXPRESSION.  BUT EVEN IF THEY WERE
APPROPRIATE MEASURES, WE SHOULD FIND EXAGGERATION IN THE USE OF THOSE
PHRASES TO DESCRIBE THE FACTS HERE. 

FROM THE INDICATIONS IN THE RECORD OF THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE LOS
ANGELES TIMES ON LABOR CONTROVERSIES IN THE PAST, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN
LITTLE DOUBT OF ITS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PROBATION OF SHANNON AND
HOLMES.  IN VIEW OF THE PAPER'S LONG-CONTINUED MILITANCY IN THIS FIELD,
IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT ANY JUDGE IN LOS ANGELES WOULD EXPECT ANYTHING
BUT ADVERSE CRITICISM FROM IT IN THE EVENT PROBATION WERE GRANTED.  YET
SUCH CRITICISM AFTER FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD CLEARLY
HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED.  HENCE, THIS EDITORIAL, GIVEN THE MOST
INTIMIDATING CONSTRUCTION IT WILL BEAR, DID NO MORE THAN THREATEN
FUTURE ADVERSE CRITICISM WHICH WAS REASONABLY TO BE EXPECTED ANYWAY IN
THE EVENT OF A LENIENT DISPOSITION OF THE PENDING CASE.  FN18  TO
REGARD IT, THEREFORE, AS IN ITSELF OF SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE UPON THE
COURSE OF JUSTICE WOULD BE TO IMPUTE TO JUDGES A LACK OF FIRMNESS,
WISDOM, OR HONOR,  - WHICH WE CANNOT ACCEPT AS A MAJOR PREMISE.  CF.
HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247
U.S. 402, 424. 

THE OTHER TWO EDITORIALS, PUBLICATION OF WHICH WAS FINED BELOW, ARE
SET OUT IN THE LOWER MARGIN.  FN19  WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO
EDITORIALS, THERE IS NO DIVERGENCE OF CONCLUSIONS AMONG THE MEMBERS OF
THIS COURT.  WE ARE ALL OF THE OPINION THAT, UPON ANY FAIR
CONSTRUCTION, THEIR POSSIBLE INFLUENCE ON THE COURSE OF JUSTICE CAN BE
DISMISSED AS NEGLIGIBLE, AND THAT THE CONSTITUTION COMPELS US TO SET
ASIDE THE CONVICTIONS AS UNPERMISSIBLE EXERCISES OF THE STATE'S POWER. 
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION OF "PROBATION FOR GORILLAS?",
ANALYSIS OF THESE EDITORIALS AND THEIR SETTING IS DEEMED UNNECESSARY. 

THE BRIDGES TELEGRAM.  WHILE A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WAS PENDING IN
A CASE INVOLVING A DISPUTE BETWEEN AN A.F. OF L. UNION AND A C.I.O.
UNION OF WHICH BRIDGES WAS AN OFFICER, HE EITHER CAUSED TO BE PUBLISHED
OR ACQUIESCED IN THE PUBLICATION OF A TELEGRAM WHICH HE HAD SENT TO THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR.  THE TELEGRAM REFERRED TO THE JUDGE'S DECISION AS
"OUTRAGEOUS"; SAID THAT ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT OF IT WOULD TIE UP THE
PORT OF LOS ANGELES AND INVOLVE THE ENTIRE PACIFIC COAST; AND CONCLUDED
WITH THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE C.I.O. UNION, REPRESENTING SOME TWELVE
THOUSAND MEMBERS, DID "NOT INTEND TO ALLOW STATE COURTS TO OVERRIDE THE
MAJORITY VOTE OF MEMBERS IN CHOOSING ITS OFFICERS AND REPRESENTATIVES
AND TO OVERRIDE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."  FN20 

APPARENTLY BRIDGES' CONVICTION IS NOT RESTED AT ALL UPON HIS USE OF
THE WORD "OUTRAGEOUS."  THE REMAINDER OF THE TELEGRAM FAIRLY CONSTRUED
APPEARS TO BE A STATEMENT THAT IF THE COURT'S DECREE SHOULD BE ENFORCED
THERE WOULD BE A STRIKE.  IT IS NOT CLAIMED THAT SUCH A STRIKE WOULD
HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THE DECREE, NOR THAT IN ANY
OTHER WAY IT WOULD HAVE RUN AFOUL OF THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA.  ON NO
CONSTRUCTION, THEREFORE, CAN THE TELEGRAM BE TAKEN AS A THREAT EITHER
BY BRIDGES OR THE UNION TO FOLLOW AN ILLEGAL COURSE OF ACTION. 

MOREOVER, THIS STATEMENT OF BRIDGES WAS MADE TO THE SECRETARY OF
LABOR, WHO IS CHARGED WITH OFFICIAL DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PREVENTION OF STRIKES.  WHATEVER THE CAUSE MIGHT BE IF A STRIKE WAS
THREATENED OR POSSIBLE THE SECRETARY WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ALL
AVAILABLE INFORMATION.  INDEED, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
RECOGNIZED THAT, PUBLICATION IN THE NEWSPAPERS ASIDE, IN SENDING THE
MESSAGE TO THE SECRETARY, BRIDGES WAS EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF PETITION
TO A DULY ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, A
RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  FN21 

IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT BRIDGES WAS A PROMINENT LABOR LEADER
SPEAKING AT A TIME WHEN PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PARTICULAR LABOR
CONTROVERSY WAS AT ITS HEIGHT.  THE OBSERVATIONS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY
MADE HERE UPON THE TIMELINESS AND IMPORTANCE OF UTTERANCES AS
EMPHASIZING RATHER THAN DIMINISHING THE VALUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION, AND UPON THE BREADTH AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE CENSORIAL
EFFECTS OF PUNISHING PUBLICATIONS IN THE MANNER FOLLOWED BELOW, ARE
CERTAINLY NO LESS APPLICABLE TO A LEADING SPOKESMAN FOR LABOR THAN TO A
POWERFUL NEWSPAPER TAKING ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW. 

IN LOOKING AT THE REASON ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT OF
CONTEMPT, WE FIND THAT HERE, TOO, THE POSSIBILITY OF CAUSING UNFAIR
DISPOSITION OF A PENDING CASE IS THE MAJOR JUSTIFICATION ASSERTED.  AND
HERE AGAIN THE GIST OF THE OFFENSE, ACCORDING TO THE COURT BELOW, IS
INTIMIDATION. 

LET US ASSUME THAT THE TELEGRAM COULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN ANNOUNCEMENT
OF BRIDGES' INTENTION TO CALL A STRIKE, SOMETHING WHICH, IT IS
ADMITTED, NEITHER THE GENERAL LAW OF CALIFORNIA NOR THE COURT'S DECREE
PROHIBITED.  WITH AN EYE ON THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION, WE CANNOT
ASSUME THAT JUDGE SCHMIDT WAS UNAWARE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A STRIKE AS
A CONSEQUENCE OF HIS DECISION.  IF HE WAS NOT INTIMIDATED BY THE FACTS
THEMSELVES, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE MOST EXPLICIT STATEMENT OF THEM
COULD HAVE SIDETRACKED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.  AGAIN, WE FIND
EXAGGERATION IN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UTTERANCE EVEN "TENDED" TO
INTERFERE WITH JUSTICE.  IF THERE WAS ELECTRICITY IN THE ATMOSPHERE, IT
WAS GENERATED BY THE FACTS; THE CHARGE ADDED BY THE BRIDGES TELEGRAM
CAN BE DISMISSED AS NEGLIGIBLE.  THE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES,
SPOKEN IN REFERENCE TO VERY DIFFERENT FACTS, SEEM ENTIRELY APPLICABLE
HERE:  "I CONFESS THAT I CANNOT FIND IN ALL THIS OR IN THE EVIDENCE IN
THE CASE ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE AFFECTED A MIND OF REASONABLE
FORTITUDE, AND STILL LESS CAN I FIND THERE ANYTHING THAT OBSTRUCTED THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN ANY SENSE THAT I POSSIBLY CAN GIVE TO
THOSE WORDS."  TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 247 U.S.
AT 425.  REVERSED. 

FN1  BRIDGES V. SUPERIOR COURT, 14 CAL.2D 464, 94 P.2D 983; TIMES
MIRROR CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 15 CAL.2D 99, 98 P.2D 1029.  IN THE TIMES
MIRROR CASE, THE AFFIDAVITS OF COMPLAINT CONTAINED SEVEN COUNTS, EACH
BASED UPON THE PUBLICATION OF A DIFFERENT EDITORIAL.  THE SUPERIOR
COURT FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO TWO OF THE COUNTS,
AND OF THE FIVE REMAINING COUNTS ON WHICH CONVICTION RESTED, THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED AS TO THREE, REVERSED AS TO TWO. 

FN2  SEE TIMES-MIRROR CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, SUPRA, 118, WHERE THE
FOLLOWING IS QUOTED WITH APPROVAL:  "LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IS
SUBORDINATE TO THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.  ...  " 

FN3  INDEED, THE ONLY EVIDENCE WE HAVE OF THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE'S APPRAISAL INDICATES APPROVAL OF A POLICY DIRECTLY
CONTRARY TO THAT HERE FOLLOWED BY THE CALIFORNIA COURTS.  FOR SEC.
1209, SUBSECTION 13, OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (1937
ED.)  PROVIDES:  "  ... NO SPEECH OR PUBLICATION REFLECTING UPON OR
CONCERNING ANY COURT OR ANY OFFICER THEREOF SHALL BE TREATED OR
PUNISHED AS A CONTEMPT OF SUCH COURT UNLESS MADE IN THE IMMEDIATE
PRESENCE OF SUCH COURT WHILE IN SESSION AND IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO
ACTUALLY INTERFERE WITH ITS PROCEEDINGS."  THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION THAT THE STATUTE IS INVALID UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION IS AN AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION OF THAT POINT.  BUT THE
INFERENCES AS TO THE LEGISLATURE'S APPRAISAL OF THE DANGER ARISE FROM
THE ENACTMENT, AND ARE THEREFORE UNCHANGED BY THE SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL
TREATMENT OF THE STATUTE. 

FN4  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52. 

FN5  RESTATEMENT OF THE PHRASE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" IN OTHER
TERMS HAS BEEN INFREQUENT.  COMPARE, HOWEVER:  "  ...  THE TEST TO BE
APPLIED  ... IS NOT THE REMOTE OR POSSIBLE EFFECT."  BRANDEIS, J.,
DISSENTING IN SCHAEFER V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 466, 486.  "  ...  WE
SHOULD BE ETERNALLY VIGILANT AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO CHECK THE EXPRESSION
OF OPINIONS THAT WE LOATHE AND BELIEVE TO BE FRAUGHT WITH DEATH, UNLESS
THEY SO IMMINENTLY THREATEN IMMEDIATE INTERFERENCE WITH THE LAWFUL AND
PRESSING PURPOSES OF THE LAW THAT AN IMMEDIATE CHECK IS REQUIRED TO
SAVE THE COUNTRY."  HOLMES, J., DISSENTING IN ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES,
250 U.S. 616, 630; "TO JUSTIFY SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH THERE MUST BE
REASONABLE GROUND TO FEAR THAT SERIOUS EVIL WILL RESULT IF FREE SPEECH
IS PRACTICED.  THERE MUST BE REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT THE
DANGER APPREHENDED IS IMMINENT."  BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING IN WHITNEY
V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 376.  THE ITALICS ARE OURS. 

FN6  "THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS SECURED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE UNITED STATES IS SIMILARLY SECURED
TO ALL PERSONS BY THE FOURTEENTH AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY A STATE." 
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160. 

FN7  COMPARE JAMES BUCHANAN, QUOTED IN STANSBURY, TRIAL OF JAMES H.
PECK, 434:  "AT THE REVOLUTION WE SEPARATED OURSELVES FROM THE MOTHER
COUNTRY, AND WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT,
SECURING TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY OTHER AND GREATER PERSONAL
RIGHTS, THAN THOSE ENJOYED UNDER THE BRITISH MONARCHY." 

FN8  16 GEO. II, C. 30.  THIS WAS NOT REPEALED UNTIL 1828.  9 GEO.
IV, C. 17. 

FN9  1 GEO. I, STAT. 2, C. 5.  CF. ALSO 36 GEO. III, C. 8, AND
DISCUSSION IN BUCKLE, HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND, VOL. I, 351. 

FN10  COMPARE VI WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, 1790-1802, 389:  "TO
THESE OBSERVATIONS ONE FACT WILL BE ADDED, WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT THE
COMMON LAW CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS THE UNIVERSAL EXPOSITOR OF AMERICAN
TERMS,  ...  THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND OF RELIGION ARE FOUND IN THE
SAME INSTRUMENTS WHICH ASSERT THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  IT WILL NEVER
BE ADMITTED THAT THE MEANING OF THE FORMER, IN THE COMMON LAW OF
ENGLAND, IS TO LIMIT THEIR MEANING IN THE UNITED STATES."  SEE ALSO
NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 716-717; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA,
310 U.S. 102. 

FN11  THE NEW YORK STATUTE SPECIFICALLY MADE "THE PUBLICATION OF A
FALSE, OR GROSSLY INACCURATE REPORT" OF COURT PROCEEDINGS PUNISHABLE BY
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER.  NEW YORK REV. STAT. 1829, PART III, C.
III, TIT. 2, ART. 1, SEC. 10(6).  THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE CONTAINED NO
SUCH PROVISO.  IT EXPLICITLY STATED THAT "ALL PUBLICATIONS OUT OF COURT
...  CONCERNING ANY CAUSE PENDING BEFORE ANY COURT OF THIS
COMMONWEALTH, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED INTO A CONTEMPT OF THE SAID COURT,
SO AS TO RENDER THE AUTHOR, PRINTER, PUBLISHER, OR EITHER OF THEM,
LIABLE TO ATTACHMENT AND SUMMARY PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME."  PA. ACTS
1808-1809, C. 78, P. 146.   FN12  4 STAT. 487(1831). 

FN13  PATTERSON V. COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454, THE ONLY CASE BEFORE THIS
COURT DURING THAT PERIOD IN WHICH A STATE COURT'S POWER TO PUNISH OUT
OF-COURT PUBLICATIONS BY CONTEMPT WAS IN ISSUE, CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A
DECISION SQUARELY ON THIS POINT.  CF.:  "WE LEAVE UNDECIDED THE
QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS TO BE FOUND IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A
PROHIBITION SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE FIRST."  ID. 462. 

FN14  COMPARE NELLES AND KING, LOC.  CIT.  SUPRA, 549:  "WHILE THE
SACCO-VANZETTI CASE WAS IN THE COURTS (SIX YEARS), IT WAS NOT, WE
BELIEVE, SUGGESTED AS DESIRABLE THAT PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS ON EITHER SIDE
BE DEALT WITH AS CONTEMPTS."  IN PUBLIC UTILITY RATE REGULATION, TO
TAKE ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES THAT MIGHT BE GIVEN OF A FIELD IN WHICH
PUBLIC INTEREST IS STRONG AND PUBLIC OPINION DIVIDED, CASES COMMONLY
REMAIN "PENDING" FOR SEVERAL YEARS.  SEE ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 88-92; MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO.,
302 U.S. 419, 435. 

FN15  CF.:  "  ...  SAID TELEGRAM  ...  HAD AN INHERENT TENDENCY  ...
TO EMBARRASS AND INFLUENCE THE ACTIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE JUDGE
BEFORE WHOM SAID ACTION WAS PENDING."  BRIDGES V. SUPERIOR COURT,
SUPRA, 14 CAL.2D AT P. 471; "THE PUBLISHED STATEMENT WAS NOT ONLY A
CRITICISM OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN AN ACTION THEN PENDING BEFORE
SAID COURT, BUT WAS A THREAT THAT IF AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ENFORCE THE
DECISION, THE PORTS OF THE ENTIRE PACIFIC COAST WOULD BE TIED UP."  ID.
488; "  ...  THE TEST  ...  IS WHETHER IT HAD A REASONABLE TENDENCY TO
INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE  ...  "  TIMES
MIRROR CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, SUPRA, 15 CAL.2D AT 103-104; "  ...  THE
EDITORIAL (HAD A)  ...  REASONABLE TENDENCY  ...  TO INTERFERE WITH THE
ORDINARY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE."  ID. 110.  THE ITALICS ARE OURS. 

FN16  COMPARE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FROM LETTERS OF THOMAS
JEFFERSON AS SET OUT IN PADOVER, DEMOCRACY, 150-151:  "I DEPLORE  ...
THE PUTRID STATE INTO WHICH OUR NEWSPAPERS HAVE PASSED, AND THE
MALIGNITY, THE VULGARITY, AND MENDACIOUS SPIRIT OF THOSE WHO WRITE
THEM.  ...  THESE ORDURES ARE RAPIDLY DEPRAVING THE PUBLIC TASTE. 

"IT IS HOWEVER AN EVIL FOR WHICH THERE IS NO REMEDY, OUR LIBERTY
DEPENDS ON THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND THAT CANNOT BE LIMITED WITHOUT
BEING LOST." 

FN17  THE WHOLE EDITORIAL, PUBLISHED IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES OF MAY
5, 1938, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"TWO MEMBERS OF DAVE BECK'S WRECKING CREW, ENTERTAINMENT COMMITTEE,
GOON SQUAD OR GORILLAS, HAVING BEEN CONVICTED IN SUPERIOR COURT OF
ASSAULTING NONUNION TRUCK DRIVERS, HAVE ASKED FOR PROBATION. 
PRESUMABLY THEY WILL SAY THEY ARE 'FIRST OFFENDERS,' OR PLEAD THAT THEY
WERE MERELY INDULGING A PLAYFUL EXUBERANCE WHEN, WITH SLINGSHOTS, THEY
FIRED STEEL MISSILES AT MEN WHOSE ONLY OFFENSE WAS WISHING TO WORK FOR
A LIVING WITHOUT PAYING TRIBUTE TO THE ERSTWHILE BOSS OF SEATTLE. 

"SLUGGERS FOR PAY, LIKE MURDERERS FOR PROFIT, ARE IN A SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT CATEGORY FROM ORDINARY CRIMINALS.  MEN WHO COMMIT MAYHEM FOR
WAGES ARE NOT MERELY VIOLATORS OF THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE;
THEY ARE ALSO CONSPIRATORS AGAINST IT.  THE MAN WHO BURGLES BECAUSE HIS
CHILDREN ARE HUNGRY MAY HAVE SOME CLAIM ON PUBLIC SYMPATHY.  HE WHOSE
CRIME IS ONE OF IMPULSE MAY BE ENTITLED TO LENITY.  BUT HE WHO HIRES
OUT HIS MUSCLES FOR THE CREATION OF DISORDER AND IN AID OF A RACKET IS
A DELIBERATE FOE OF ORGANIZED SOCIETY AND SHOULD BE PENALIZED
ACCORDINGLY. 

"IT WILL TEACH NO LESSON TO OTHER THUGS TO PUT THESE MEN ON GOOD
BEHAVIOR FOR A LIMITED TIME.  THEIR 'DUTY' WOULD SIMPLY BE TAKEN OVER
BY OTHERS LIKE THEM.  IF BECK'S THUGS, HOWEVER, ARE MADE TO REALIZE
THAT THEY FACE SAN QUENTIN WHEN THEY ARE CAUGHT, IT WILL TEND TO MAKE
THEIR DISREPUTABLE OCCUPATION UNPOPULAR.  JUDGE A. A. SCOTT WILL MAKE A
SERIOUS MISTAKE IF HE GRANTS PROBATION TO MATTHEW SHANNON AND KENNAN
HOLMES.  THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS THE EXAMPLE OF THEIR ASSIGNMENT TO THE
JUTE MILL." 

FN18  CF. TIMES-MIRROR CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, SUPRA, 15 CAL.2D 109
110:  "THE EDITORIAL MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED, BUT IT IS CAPABLE OF
BEING CONSTRUED, AS A NOTICE TO THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT NO LENIENCY SHOULD
BE EXTENDED TO THE CONVICTED MEN, AND, FURTHERMORE, THAT SHOULD THE
COURT ACT CONTRARY TO THE SUGGESTIONS CONTAINED IN THE EDITORIAL, IT
MIGHT WELL EXPECT ADVERSE CRITICISM IN THE COLUMNS OF THE TIMES." 
ALTHOUGH THE FOREGOING STATEMENT WAS MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANOTHER OF
THE EDITORIALS, THE OPINION OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT LATER SAID
IT WAS APPLICABLE TO "PROBATION FOR GORILLAS?"  ID. 114-115. 

FN19  THE FIRST OF THESE EDITORIALS, ENTITLED "SIT-STRIKERS
CONVICTED," WAS PUBLISHED IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES OF DECEMBER 21,
1937, THE DAY AFTER THE JURY HAD RETURNED A VERDICT THAT THE "SIT
STRIKERS" IN QUESTION WERE GUILTY, AND THE DAY BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE
WAS TO HOLD COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRONOUNCING SENTENCE, HEARING
MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND PASSING UPON APPLICATIONS FOR PROBATION. 
THE EDITORIAL FOLLOWS IN ITS ENTIRETY: 

"THE VERDICT OF A JURY FINDING GUILTY THE TWENTY-TWO SIT-STRIKERS WHO
LED THE ASSAULT ON THE DOUGLAS PLANT LAST FEBRUARY, WILL HAVE
REVERBERATIONS UP AND DOWN THE PACIFIC COAST AND IN POINTS FARTHER
EAST. 

"THE VERDICT MEANS THAT LOS ANGELES IS STILL LOS ANGELES, THAT THE
CITY IS AROUSED TO THE DANGER OF DAVEBECKISM, AND THAT NO KIND OF UNION
TERRORISM WILL BE PERMITTED HERE. 

"THE VERDICT MAY HAVE A GOOD DEAL TO DO WITH SENDING DAVE BECK BACK
TO SEATTLE.  FOR, WHILE THE UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS HAVE NO
CONNECTION WITH BECK, THEIR TACTICS AND HIS ARE IDENTICAL IN MOTIVE;
AND IF BECK CAN BE CONVINCED THAT THIS KIND OF WARFARE IS NOT PERMITTED
IN THIS AREA HE WILL NECESSARILY ABANDON HIS DREAMS OF CONQUEST. 

"ALREADY THE UNITED FARMERS AND RANCHERS HAVE GIVEN BECK A SEVERE
SETBACK.  THE HYNES HAY MARKET IS STILL FREE AND IT HAS BEEN MADE PLAIN
THAT INTERFERENCE WITH MILK DELIVERIES TO LOS ANGELES WILL NOT BE
TOLERATED. 

"DIST. ATTY. FITTS PLEDGED HIS BEST EFFORTS TO PREVENT AND PUNISH
UNION TERRORISM AND RACKETEERING IN A STRONG RADIO ADDRESS, AND
FOLLOWED IT UP YESTERDAY WITH A STATEMENT CONGRATULATING THE JURY THAT
CONVICTED THE SIT-DOWNERS AND THE COMMUNITY ON ONE OF THE 'MOST
FARREACHING VERDICTS IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY.' 

"IN THIS HE IS CORRECT.  IT IS AN IMPORTANT VERDICT.  FOR THE FIRST
TIME SINCE THE PRESENT CYCLE OF LABOR DISTURBANCES BEGAN, UNION
LAWLESSNESS HAS BEEN TREATED AS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS, AN OFFENSE AGAINST
THE PUBLIC PEACE PUNISHABLE LIKE ANY OTHER CRIME. 

"THE SEIZURE OF PROPERTY BY A MILITANT MINORITY, WHICH ARROGATED TO
ITSELF THE RIGHT OF DICTATING NOT ONLY TO EMPLOYERS, BUT TO OTHER
WORKERS NOT IN SYMPATHY WITH IT, WHAT SHOULD BE THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF WORKING, HAS PROVED TO BE WITHIN THE CONTROL OF LOCAL
PEACE OFFICERS AND AUTHORITIES. 

"NOBODY RAN OFF TO WASHINGTON TO GET THIS AFFAIR HANDLED.  IT WAS
ATTENDED TO RIGHT HERE. 

"GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE BROKEN DOWN IN OTHER LOCALITIES; WHOLE STATES
MAY HAVE YIELDED TO ANARCHY.  BUT LOS ANGELES COUNTY STANDS FIRM; IT
HAS OFFICERS WHO CAN DO THEIR DUTY AND COURTS AND JURIES WHICH CAN
FUNCTION. 

"SO LONG AS THAT IS THE CASE, DAVEBECKISM CANNOT AND WILL NOT GET
CONTROL HERE; NOR JOHNLEWISISM EITHER." 

THE SECOND OF THESE EDITORIALS, ENTITLED "THE FALL OF AN EX-QUEEN,"
WAS PUBLISHED IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES OF APRIL 14, 1938.  HERE, TOO,
PUBLICATION TOOK PLACE AFTER A JURY HAD FOUND THE SUBJECT OF THE
EDITORIAL GUILTY, BUT BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD PRONOUNCED SENTENCE. 
THE EDITORIAL FOLLOWS IN ITS ENTIRETY: 

"POLITICS AS WE KNOW IT IS AN ESSENTIALLY SELFISH BUSINESS, CONDUCTED
IN THE MAIN FOR PERSONAL PROFIT OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER.  WHEN IT IS OF
THE BOSS TYPE, IT IS APT TO BE PRETTY SORDID AS WELL.  SUCCESS IN BOSS
SHIP, WHICH IS A DENIAL OF PUBLIC RIGHTS, NECESSARILY IMPLIES A KIND OF
MORAL OBLIQUITY IF NOT AN ACTUALLY ILLEGAL ONE. 

"SO THAT IT IS SOMETHING OF A CONTRADICTION OF SENSE IF NOT OF TERMS
TO EXPRESS REGRET THAT THE POLITICAL TALENTS OF MRS. HELEN WERNER WERE
NOT DIRECTED TO OTHER OBJECTIVES THAN THOSE WHICH, IN THE TWILIGHT OF
HER ACTIVE LIFE, HAVE BROUGHT HER AND HER HUSBAND TO DISGRACE.  IF THEY
HAD BEEN, SHE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN POLITICS AT ALL AND PROBABLY WOULD
NEVER HAVE BEEN HEARD OF IN A PUBLIC WAY.  HER NATURAL FLAIR WAS PURELY
POLITICAL; SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN MISCAST IN ANY OTHER SPHERE OF
ACTIVITY. 

"MRS. WERNER'S PRIMARY MISTAKE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN IN FAILING TO
RECOGNIZE THAT HER POLITICAL DAY WAS PAST.  FOR YEARS SHE ENJOYED THE
UNIQUE DISTINCTION OF BEING THE COUNTRY'S ONLY WOMAN BOSS - AND DID SHE
ENJOY IT.  IN HER HEYDAY SHE HAD A FINGER IN EVERY POLITICAL PIE AND
MANY WERE THE PLUMS SHE WAS ABLE TO EXTRACT THEREFROM FOR THOSE WHO
PLAYED BALL WITH HER.  FROM SMALL BEGINNINGS SHE UTILIZED EVERY
OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND HER INFLUENCE AND TO PUT OFFICEHOLDERS AND
PROMISING POLITICAL MATERIAL UNDER OBLIGATIONS TO HER.  SHE BECAME A
POWER IN THE BACKSTAGE COUNCILS OF CITY AND COUNTY AFFAIRS AND FROM
THAT PLACE OF STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE REACHED OUT TO PULL THE STRINGS ON
STATE AND LEGISLATIVE OFFICES AS WELL. 

"THOSE WERE THE DAYS WHEN MRS. WERNER WAS 'QUEEN HELEN' AND IT IS
ONLY FAIR TO SAY THAT TO HER THE POWER WAS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE
PERQUISITES.  WHEN THE INEVITABLE TURNING OF THE POLITICAL WHEEL
BROUGHT NEW FIGURES TO THE FRONT AND NEW BOSSES TO THE BACK, SHE FOUND
HER GRIP SLIPPING AND IT WAS HARD TO TAKE.  THE SEVERAL CASES WHICH IN
RECENT YEARS HAVE BROUGHT HER BEFORE THE COURTS TO DEFEND HER
ACTIVITIES SEEM ALL EXAMPLES OF AN ENERGETIC EFFORT TO REGAIN AND
REASSERT HER ONETIME INFLUENCE IN HIGH PLACES.  THAT IT SHOULD
ULTIMATELY HAVE LANDED HER BEHIND THE BARS AS A CONVICTED BRIBE-SEEKER
IS NOT ILLOGICAL.  BUT IF THERE IS LOGIC IN IT, THE MONEY MEANT LESS TO
MRS. WERNER THAN THE NAME OF STILL BEING A POLITICAL POWER, ONE WHO
COULD DO THINGS WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS THAT OTHERS COULD NOT DO.  TO
HERSELF AT LEAST SHE WAS STILL QUEEN HELEN." 

FN20  THE PORTIONS OF THE TELEGRAM PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS OF GENERAL
CIRCULATION IN SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES ON JANUARY 24 AND 25,
1938, WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

"THIS DECISION IS OUTRAGEOUS CONSIDERING I.L.A. HAS 15 MEMBERS (IN
SAN PEDRO) AND THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN-WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION HAS
3000.  INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN-WAREHOUSEMEN UNION HAS PETITIONED THE
LABOR BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION TO REPRESENT SAN PEDRO LONGSHOREMEN WITH
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN ASSOCIATION DENIED REPRESENTATION BECAUSE IT
REPRESENTS ONLY 15 MEN.  BOARD HEARING HELD; DECISION NOW PENDING. 
ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT OF SCHMIDT DECISION WILL TIE UP PORT OF LOS
ANGELES AND INVOLVE ENTIRE PACIFIC COAST.  INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN
WAREHOUSEMEN UNION, REPRESENTING OVER 11,000 OF THE 12,000 LONGSHOREMEN
ON THE PACIFIC COAST, DOES NOT INTEND TO ALLOW STATE COURTS TO OVERRIDE
THE MAJORITY VOTE OF MEMBERS IN CHOOSING ITS OFFICERS AND
REPRESENTATIVES AND TO OVERRIDE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD." 

FN21  SEE BRIDGES V. SUPERIOR COURT, SUPRA, 14 CAL.2D AT 493.  CF.
WHITE V. NICHOLLS, 3 HOW.  266. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WITH WHOM CONCURRED THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE BYRNES, DISSENTING. 

OUR WHOLE HISTORY REPELS THE VIEW THAT IT IS AN EXERCISE OF ONE OF
THE CIVIL LIBERTIES SECURED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR A LEADER OF A
LARGE FOLLOWING OR FOR A POWERFUL METROPOLITAN NEWSPAPER TO ATTEMPT TO
OVERAWE A JUDGE IN A MATTER IMMEDIATELY PENDING BEFORE HIM.  THE VIEW
OF THE MAJORITY DEPRIVES CALIFORNIA OF MEANS FOR SECURING TO ITS
CITIZENS JUSTICE ACCORDING TO LAW - MEANS WHICH, SINCE THE UNION WAS
FOUNDED, HAVE BEEN THE POSSESSION, HITHERTO UNCHALLENGED, OF ALL THE
STATES.  THIS SUDDEN BREAK WITH THE UNINTERRUPTED COURSE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL WARRANT.  TO FIND
JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH DEPRIVATION OF THE HISTORIC POWERS OF THE STATES
IS TO MISCONCEIVE THE IDEA OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH AS
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

DEEMING IT MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER BEFORE TO ENFORCE CIVIL LIBERTIES
WITH A GENEROUS OUTLOOK, BUT DEEMING IT NO LESS ESSENTIAL FOR THE
ASSURANCE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES THAT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM FOUNDED UPON THE
CONSTITUTION BE MAINTAINED, WE BELIEVE THAT THE CAREFUL AMBIGUITIES AND
SILENCES OF THE MAJORITY OPINION CALL FOR A FULL EXPOSITION OF THE
ISSUES IN THESE CASES. 

WHILE THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION IS THAT OF DETERMINING THE POWER OF THE
COURTS OF CALIFORNIA TO DEAL WITH ATTEMPTS TO COERCE THEIR JUDGMENTS IN
LITIGATION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEM, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE COURT'S
RULING TODAY IS A DENIAL TO THE PEOPLE OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES OF A
RIGHT WHICH THEY HAVE ALWAYS REGARDED AS ESSENTIAL FOR THE EFFECTIVE
EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AS WELL AS A DENIAL TO THE CONGRESS
OF POWERS WHICH WERE EXERCISED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING EVEN BY THE
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION THEMSELVES.  TO BE SURE, THE MAJORITY DO
NOT IN SO MANY WORDS HOLD THAT TRIAL BY NEWSPAPERS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL
SANCTITY.  BUT THE ATMOSPHERE OF THEIR OPINION AND SEVERAL OF ITS
PHRASES MEAN THAT OR THEY MEAN NOTHING.  CERTAINLY, THE OPINION IS
DEVOID OF ANY FRANK RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT OF COURTS TO DEAL WITH
UTTERANCES CALCULATED TO INTIMIDATE THE FAIR COURSE OF JUSTICE - A
RIGHT WHICH HITHERTO ALL THE STATES HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME SEEN FIT TO
CONFER UPON THEIR COURTS AND WHICH CONGRESS CONFERRED UPON THE FEDERAL
COURTS IN THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789.  IF ALL THAT IS DECIDED TODAY IS
THAT THE MAJORITY DEEM THE SPECIFIC INTERFERENCES WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA SO TENUOUSLY RELATED TO THE
RIGHT OF CALIFORNIA TO KEEP ITS COURTS FREE FROM COERCION AS TO
CONSTITUTE A CHECK UPON FREE SPEECH RATHER THAN UPON IMPARTIAL JUSTICE,
IT WOULD BE WELL TO SAY SO.  MATTERS THAT INVOLVE SO DEEPLY THE POWERS
OF THE STATES, AND THAT PUT TO THE TEST THE PROFESSIONS BY THIS COURT
OF SELF-RESTRAINT IN NULLIFYING THE POLITICAL POWERS OF STATE AND
NATION, SHOULD NOT BE LEFT CLOUDED.    WE ARE NOT EVEN VOUCHSAFED
REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH RENDERS
STATES POWERLESS TO INSIST UPON TRIAL BY COURTS RATHER THAN TRIAL BY
NEWSPAPERS.  SO FAR AS THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED,
WE ARE REFERRED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THAT IS SPECIFIC.  BUT WE ARE
HERE DEALING WITH LIMITATIONS UPON CALIFORNIA - WITH RESTRAINTS UPON
THE STATES.  TO SAY THAT THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT IS ABSORBED BY THE FOURTEENTH DOES NOT SAY ENOUGH. 
WHICH ONE OF THE VARIOUS LIMITATIONS UPON STATE POWER INTRODUCED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ABSORBS THE FIRST?  SOME PROVISIONS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT APPLY ONLY TO CITIZENS AND ONE OF THE PETITIONERS
HERE IS AN ALIEN; SOME OF ITS PROVISIONS APPLY ONLY TO NATURAL PERSONS,
AND ANOTHER PETITIONER HERE IS A CORPORATION.  SEE HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307
U.S. 496, 514, AND CASES CITED.  ONLY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ASSURES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES TO ALIENS AND
CORPORATIONS.  CORPORATIONS CANNOT CLAIM FOR THEMSELVES THE "LIBERTY"
WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE GUARANTEES.  THAT CLAUSE PROTECTS ONLY
THEIR PROPERTY.  PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, 535.  THE
MAJORITY OPINION IS STRANGELY SILENT IN FAILING TO AVOW THE SPECIFIC
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION UPON WHICH ITS DECISION RESTS. 

THESE ARE NOT ACADEMIC DEBATING POINTS OR TECHNICAL NICETIES.  THOSE
WHO HAVE GONE BEFORE US HAVE ADMONISHED US "THAT IN A FREE
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT NOTHING IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN THE RIGHT OF
THE PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR APPOINTED SERVANTS TO GOVERN THEMSELVES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN WILL, EXCEPT SO FAR AS THEY HAVE RESTRAINED
THEMSELVES BY CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS SPECIFICALLY ESTABLISHED, AND THAT
IN OUR PECULIAR DUAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT NOTHING IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL
THAN THE FULL POWER OF THE STATE TO ORDER ITS OWN AFFAIRS AND GOVERN
ITS OWN PEOPLE, EXCEPT SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY OR
BY FAIR IMPLICATION HAS WITHDRAWN THAT POWER.  THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATES TO MAKE AND ALTER THEIR LAWS AT PLEASURE IS THE GREATEST
SECURITY FOR LIBERTY AND JUSTICE  ...  WE ARE NOT INVESTED WITH THE
JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE EXPEDIENCY, WISDOM OR JUSTICE OF THE LAWS
OF THE STATES AS DECLARED BY THEIR COURTS, BUT ONLY TO DETERMINE THEIR
CONFORMITY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE PARAMOUNT LAWS ENACTED
PURSUANT TO IT.  UNDER THE GUISE OF INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION WE
MUST TAKE CARE THAT WE DO NOT IMPORT INTO THE DISCUSSION OUR OWN
PERSONAL VIEWS OF WHAT WOULD BE WISE, JUST AND FITTING RULES OF
GOVERNMENT TO BE ADOPTED BY A FREE PEOPLE AND CONFOUND THEM WITH
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS."  TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 106
07. 

IN A SERIES OF OPINIONS AS UNCOMPROMISING AS ANY IN ITS HISTORY, THIS
COURT HAS SETTLED THAT THE FULLEST OPPORTUNITIES FOR FREE DISCUSSION
ARE "IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY, AND THUS, THROUGH THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT," PROTECTED AGAINST ATTEMPTED INVASION BY THE
STATES.  PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 324-25.  THE CHANNELS OF
INQUIRY AND THOUGHT MUST BE KEPT OPEN TO NEW CONQUESTS OF REASON,
HOWEVER ODIOUS THEIR EXPRESSION MAY BE TO THE PREVAILING CLIMATE OF
OPINION.  BUT LIBERTY, "IN EACH OF ITS PHASES, HAS ITS HISTORY AND
CONNOTATION."  WHETHER A PARTICULAR STATE ACTION VIOLATES "THE
ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF THAT LIBERTY" MUST BE JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF
THE LIBERTY THAT IS INVOKED AND THE CURTAILMENT THAT IS CHALLENGED. 
NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 708.  FOR "THE RECOGNITION OF A
PRIVILEGE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS WITHOUT CONDITIONS OR EXCEPTIONS. 
THE SOCIAL POLICY THAT WILL PREVAIL IN MANY SITUATIONS MAY RUN FOUL IN
OTHERS OF A DIFFERENT SOCIAL POLICY, COMPETING FOR SUPREMACY.  IT IS
THEN THE FUNCTION OF A COURT TO MEDIATE BETWEEN THEM, ASSIGNING, SO FAR
AS POSSIBLE, A PROPER VALUE TO EACH, AND SUMMONING TO ITS AID ALL THE
DISTINCTIONS AND ANALOGIES THAT ARE THE TOOLS OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS."  CLARK V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 1, 13. 

FREE SPEECH IS NOT SO ABSOLUTE OR IRRATIONAL A CONCEPTION AS TO IMPLY
PARALYSIS OF THE MEANS FOR EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF ALL THE FREEDOMS
SECURED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  COMPARE LINCOLN'S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS
IN SPECIAL SESSION, JULY 4, 1861, 7 RICHARDSON, MESSAGES AND PAPERS OF
THE PRESIDENTS, PP. 3221-3232.  IN THE CASES BEFORE US, THE CLAIMS ON
BEHALF OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS ENCOUNTER CLAIMS ON BEHALF
OF LIBERTIES NO LESS PRECIOUS.  CALIFORNIA ASSERTS HER RIGHT TO DO WHAT
SHE HAS DONE AS A MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING HER SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. 

THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY AN IMPARTIAL JUDICIARY HAS BEEN
BASIC TO OUR CONCEPTION OF FREEDOM EVER SINCE MAGNA CARTA.  IT IS THE
CONCERN NOT MERELY OF THE IMMEDIATE LITIGANTS.  ITS ASSURANCE IS
EVERYONE'S CONCERN, AND IT IS PROTECTED BY THE LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THAT IS WHY THIS COURT HAS OUTLAWED MOB
DOMINATION OF A COURTROOM, MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86, MENTAL
COERCION OF A DEFENDANT, CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, A JUDICIAL
SYSTEM WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE DISINTERESTED JUDGES, TUMEY V. OHIO, 273
U.S. 510, AND DISCRIMINATORY SELECTION OF JURORS, PIERRE V. LOUISIANA,
306 U.S. 354; SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128. 

A TRIAL IS NOT A "FREE TRADE IN IDEAS," NOR IS THE BEST TEST OF TRUTH
IN A COURTROOM "THE POWER OF THE THOUGHT TO GET ITSELF ACCEPTED IN THE
COMPETITION OF THE MARKET."  COMPARE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN ABRAMS V.
UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 630.  A COURT IS A FORUM WITH STRICTLY
DEFINED LIMITS FOR DISCUSSION.  IT IS CIRCUMSCRIBED IN THE RANGE OF ITS
INQUIRY AND IN ITS METHODS BY THE CONSTITUTION, BY LAWS, AND BY AGE-OLD
TRADITIONS.  ITS JUDGES ARE RESTRAINED IN THEIR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
BY HISTORIC COMPULSIONS RESTING ON NO OTHER OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT. 
THEY ARE SO CIRCUMSCRIBED PRECISELY BECAUSE JUDGES HAVE IN THEIR
KEEPING THE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS AND THE PROTECTION OF LIBERTIES
WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE WISDOM OF THE AGES, CAN ONLY BE ENFORCED AND
PROTECTED BY OBSERVING SUCH METHODS AND TRADITIONS. 

THE DEPENDENCE OF SOCIETY UPON AN UNSWERVED JUDICIARY IS SUCH A
COMMONPLACE IN THE HISTORY OF FREEDOM THAT THE MEANS BY WHICH IT IS
MAINTAINED ARE TOO FREQUENTLY TAKEN FOR GRANTED WITHOUT HEED TO THE
CONDITIONS WHICH ALONE MAKE IT POSSIBLE.  THE ROLE OF COURTS OF JUSTICE
IN OUR SOCIETY HAS BEEN THE THEME OF STATESMEN AND HISTORIANS AND
CONSTITUTION MAKERS.  IT IS PERHAPS BEST EXPRESSED IN THE MASSACHUSETTS
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS: 

"IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE RIGHTS OF EVERY
INDIVIDUAL, HIS LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND CHARACTER, THAT THERE BE
AN IMPARTIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS, AND ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  IT IS THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO BE TRIED BY JUDGES AS
FREE, IMPARTIAL AND INDEPENDENT AS THE LOT OF HUMANITY WILL ADMIT." 

THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT CONCEIVED AS A DOCTRINAIRE DOCUMENT, NOR WAS
THE BILL OF RIGHTS INTENDED AS A COLLECTION OF POPULAR SLOGANS.  WE ARE
DEALING WITH INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT.  WE CANNOT READ INTO THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS PROTECTED
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND AT THE SAME TIME READ OUT AGE-OLD MEANS
EMPLOYED BY STATES FOR SECURING THE CALM COURSE OF JUSTICE.  THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID A STATE TO CONTINUE THE HISTORIC
PROCESS OF PROHIBITING EXPRESSIONS CALCULATED TO SUBVERT A SPECIFIC
EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER.  SO TO ASSURE THE IMPARTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENT
OF JUSTICE IS NOT AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS, AS THESE PHASES OF LIBERTY HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN CONCEIVED EVEN
BY THE STOUTEST LIBERTARIANS.  IN FACT, THESE LIBERTIES THEMSELVES
DEPEND UPON AN UNTRAMMELED JUDICIARY WHOSE PASSIONS ARE NOT EVEN
UNCONSCIOUSLY AROUSED AND WHOSE MINDS ARE NOT DISTORTED BY EXTRA
JUDICIAL CONSIDERATIONS. 

OF COURSE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE
ENLIGHTENMENT OF A FREE PEOPLE AND IN RESTRAINING THOSE WHO WIELD
POWER.  PARTICULARLY SHOULD THIS FREEDOM BE EMPLOYED IN COMMENT UPON
THE WORK OF COURTS, WHO ARE WITHOUT MANY INFLUENCES ORDINARILY MAKING
FOR HUMOR AND HUMILITY, TWIN ANTIDOTES TO THE CORROSION OF POWER.  BUT
THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.  FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION CAN
HARDLY CARRY IMPLICATIONS THAT NULLIFY THE GUARANTEES OF IMPARTIAL
TRIALS.  AND SINCE COURTS ARE THE ULTIMATE RESORTS FOR VINDICATING THE
BILL OF RIGHTS, A STATE MAY SURELY AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATE HISTORIC MEANS
TO ASSURE THAT THE PROCESS FOR SUCH VINDICATION BE NOT WRENCHED FROM
ITS RATIONAL TRACKS INTO THE MORE PRIMITIVE MELEE OF PASSION AND
PRESSURE.  THE NEED IS GREAT THAT COURTS BE CRITICIZED, BUT JUST AS
GREAT THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO DO THEIR DUTY. 

THE "LIBERTY" SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUMMARIZES THE
EXPERIENCE OF HISTORY.  AND THE POWER EXERTED BY THE COURTS OF
CALIFORNIA IS DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE SYSTEM OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE
EVOLVED BY LIBERTY-LOVING ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES.  FROM THE EARLIEST
DAYS OF THE ENGLISH COURTS, THEY HAVE ENCOUNTERED OBSTRUCTIONS TO DOING
THAT FOR WHICH THEY EXIST, NAMELY, TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE IMPARTIALLY
AND SOLELY WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT COMES BEFORE THEM.  THESE
INTERFERENCES WERE OF DIVERSE KINDS.  BUT THEY WERE ALL COVERED BY THE
INFELICITOUS PHRASE "CONTEMPT OF COURT," AND THE MEANS FOR DEALING WITH
THEM IS HISTORICALLY KNOWN AS THE POWER OF COURTS TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPT.  AS IS TRUE OF MANY ASPECTS OF OUR LEGAL INSTITUTIONS, THE
SETTLED DOCTRINES CONCERNING THE MODE OF PROCEDURE FOR EXERCISING THE
POWER OF CONTEMPT BECAME ESTABLISHED ON DUBIOUS HISTORICAL AUTHORITY. 
EXACT LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP HAS CONTROVERTED MUCH PERTAINING TO THE ORIGIN
OF SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT.  SEE SIR JOHN FOX, THE HISTORY OF
CONTEMPT OF COURT, PASSIM.  BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT, SINCE THE EARLY
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY, THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT FOR INTRUSIONS
INTO THE LIVING PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION HAS BEEN AN UNQUESTIONED
CHARACTERISTIC OF ENGLISH COURTS AND OF THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY. 

THE JUDICATURES OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD, INCLUDING THE COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES, HAVE FROM TIME TO
TIME RECOGNIZED AND EXERCISED THE POWER NOW CHALLENGED.  (FOR PARTIAL
LISTS OF CASES, SEE NELLES AND KING, CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION IN THE
UNITED STATES, 28 COL. L. REV. 401, 525, 554; SULLIVAN, CONTEMPTS BY
PUBLICATION, PP. 185 ET SEQ.) A DECLARATORY FORMULATION OF THE COMMON
LAW WAS WRITTEN INTO THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789(SEC.  17, 1 STAT. 73,
83) BY OLIVER ELLSWORTH, ONE OF THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, LATER
TO BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE; THE POWER WAS EARLY RECOGNIZED AS INCIDENTAL
TO THE VERY EXISTENCE OF COURTS IN A SUCCESSION OF OPINIONS IN THIS
COURT (UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 7 CRANCH 32; ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6
WHEAT.  204, 227; EX PARTE KEARNEY, 7 WHEAT.  38); IT WAS EXPOUNDED AND
SUPPORTED BY THE GREAT COMMENTARIES THAT SO LARGELY INFLUENCED THE
SHAPING OF OUR LAW IN THE LATE EIGHTEENTH AND EARLY NINETEENTH
CENTURIES, THOSE OF BLACKSTONE, KENT AND STORY; ITS HISTORIC CONTINUITY
WITHSTOOD ATTACK AGAINST STATE ACTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, NOW
AGAIN INVOKED, EILENBECKER V. PLYMOUTH COUNTY, 134 U.S. 31; AND SEE EX
PARTE ROBINSON, 19 WALL.  505; EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289; SAVIN,
PETITIONER, 131 U.S. 267.  FN1 

AS IN THE EXERCISE OF ALL POWER, IT WAS ABUSED.  SOME ENGLISH JUDGES
EXTENDED THEIR AUTHORITY FOR CHECKING INTERFERENCES WITH JUDICIAL
BUSINESS ACTUALLY IN HAND, TO "LAY BY THE HEEL" THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR
"SCANDALIZING THE COURT," THAT IS, BRINGING IT INTO GENERAL DISREPUTE. 
SUCH FOOLISHNESS HAS LONG SINCE BEEN DISAVOWED IN ENGLAND AND HAS NEVER
FOUND LODGMENT HERE.  BUT EVEN THE TECHNICAL POWER OF PUNISHING
INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURT'S BUSINESS IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF ABUSE.  AS
EARLY AS 1809, PENNSYLVANIA RESTRICTED THE POWER TO INFLICT SUMMARY
PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPTS TO A CLOSELY DEFINED CLASS OF MISCONDUCT, AND
PROVIDED THE ORDINARY CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR OTHER FORMS OF
INTERFERENCES WITH A PENDING CAUSE.  1808-09 PA. ACTS, C. 78, P. 146. 
FN2  THE FLAGRANT CASE OF JUDGE PECK  FN3  LED CONGRESS TO PASS THE ACT
OF MARCH 2, 1831, 4 STAT. 487, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 385, THE SCOPE OF WHICH
WE RECENTLY CONSIDERED.  NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33.  A NUMBER
OF STATES COPIED THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  IT WOULD BE PEDANTIC TO TRACE
THE COURSE OF LEGISLATION AND OF ADJUDICATION ON THIS SUBJECT IN OUR
HALF-HUNDRED JURISDICTIONS.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE HITHERTO
UNCHALLENGED POWER OF AMERICAN STATES TO CLOTHE THEIR COURTS WITH
AUTHORITY TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT WAS THUS SUMMARIZED ONLY RECENTLY BY
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES IN THE LEADING CASE VINDICATING THE LIBERTY OF
THE PRESS AGAINST STATE ACTION:  "THERE IS ALSO THE CONCEDED AUTHORITY
OF COURTS TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT WHEN PUBLICATIONS DIRECTLY TEND TO
PREVENT THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS."  NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 715.  FN4 

IT IS TRIFLING WITH GREAT ISSUES TO SUGGEST THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE
US IS WHETHER EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY RESTRAINTS UPON THE FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS SHOULD NOW BE REVIVED.  THE QUESTION IS RATHER WHETHER NINETEENTH
AND TWENTIETH-CENTURY AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS SHOULD BE ABROGATED BY
JUDICIAL FIAT. 

THAT A STATE MAY, UNDER APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, PREVENT
INTERFERENCE WITH SPECIFIC EXERCISES OF THE PROCESS OF IMPARTIAL
ADJUDICATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT ITS PEOPLE LOSE THE RIGHT TO CONDEMN
DECISIONS OR THE JUDGES WHO RENDER THEM.  JUDGES AS PERSONS, OR COURTS
AS INSTITUTIONS, ARE ENTITLED TO NO GREATER IMMUNITY FROM CRITICISM
THAN OTHER PERSONS OR INSTITUTIONS.  JUST BECAUSE THE HOLDERS OF
JUDICIAL OFFICE ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE THEY MAY
FORGET THEIR COMMON HUMAN FRAILTIES AND FALLIBILITIES.  THERE HAVE
SOMETIMES BEEN MARTINETS UPON THE BENCH AS THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN POMPOUS
WIELDERS OF AUTHORITY WHO HAVE USED THE PARAPHERNALIA OF POWER IN
SUPPORT OF WHAT THEY CALLED THEIR DIGNITY.  THEREFORE JUDGES MUST BE
KEPT MINDFUL OF THEIR LIMITATIONS AND OF THEIR ULTIMATE PUBLIC
RESPONSIBILITY BY A VIGOROUS STREAM OF CRITICISM EXPRESSED WITH CANDOR
HOWEVER BLUNT.  FN5  "A MAN CANNOT BE SUMMARILY LAID BY THE HEELS
BECAUSE HIS WORDS MAY MAKE PUBLIC FEELING MORE UNFAVORABLE IN CASE THE
JUDGE SHOULD BE ASKED TO ACT AT SOME LATER DATE, ANY MORE THAN HE CAN
FOR EXCITING PUBLIC FEELING AGAINST THE JUDGE FOR WHAT HE ALREADY HAS
DONE."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255, 281-82. 
BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT BAR A STATE FROM ACTING ON THE THEORY OF
OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, THAT THE "CONCLUSIONS TO BE REACHED IN A CASE
WILL BE INDUCED ONLY BY EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT IN OPEN COURT, AND NOT BY
ANY OUTSIDE INFLUENCE, WHETHER OF PRIVATE TALK OR PUBLIC PRINT." 
PATTERSON V. COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454, 462.  THE THEORY OF OUR SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE AS THUS STATED FOR THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES HAS NEVER
BEEN QUESTIONED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE COURT.  IT WAS QUESTIONED NEITHER
BY MR. JUSTICE HARLAN NOR BY MR. JUSTICE BREWER IN THEIR DISSENTS IN
THE PATTERSON CASE.  THE DIFFERENCES IN THAT CASE CONCERNED THE
QUESTION WHETHER "THERE IS TO BE FOUND IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A
PROHIBITION  ...  SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE FIRST," AND, IF SO, WHAT THE
SCOPE OF THAT PROTECTION IS.  THE FIRST QUESTION WAS SETTLED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE BY A SERIES OF CASES BEGINNING WITH GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268
U.S. 652.  AND THAT THE SCOPE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS BROADER THAN
WAS INTIMATED IN THE OPINION IN THE PATTERSON CASE, WAS LATER
RECOGNIZED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, IN SCHENCK V.
UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47.  BUT THAT THE CONVENTIONAL POWER TO PUNISH
FOR CONTEMPT IS NOT A CENSORSHIP IN ADVANCE BUT A PUNISHMENT FOR PAST
CONDUCT AND, AS SUCH, LIKE PROSECUTION FOR A CRIMINAL LIBEL, IS NOT
OFFENSIVE EITHER TO THE FIRST OR TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, HAS
NEVER BEEN DOUBTED THROUGHOUT THIS COURT'S HISTORY. 

THIS CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE, THE PRODUCT OF A LONG AND ARDUOUS EFFORT
IN THE HISTORY OF FREEDOM, IS ONE OF THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS OF
CIVILIZATION, AND IS NOT LESS TO BE CHERISHED AT A TIME WHEN IT IS
REPUDIATED AND DERIDED BY POWERFUL REGIMES.  "THE RIGHT TO SUE AND
DEFEND IN THE COURTS IS THE ALTERNATIVE OF FORCE.  IN AN ORGANIZED
SOCIETY IT IS THE RIGHT CONSERVATIVE OF ALL OTHER RIGHTS, AND LIES AT
THE FOUNDATION OF ORDERLY GOVERNMENT."  CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO., 207 U.S. 142, 148.  THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CURTAILING
EXPRESSION OF OPINION, BE IT POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, OR RELIGIOUS, THAT
MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO ORTHODOX VIEWS.  IT HAS TO DO WITH THE POWER OF THE
STATE TO DISCHARGE AN INDISPENSABLE FUNCTION OF CIVILIZED SOCIETY, THAT
OF ADJUDICATING CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN ITS CITIZENS AND BETWEEN CITIZENS
AND THE STATE THROUGH LEGAL TRIBUNALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR HISTORIC
PROCEDURES.  COURTS AND JUDGES MUST TAKE THEIR SHARE OF THE GAINS AND
PAINS OF DISCUSSION WHICH IS UNFETTERED EXCEPT BY LAWS OF LIBEL, BY
SELF - RESTRAINT, AND BY GOOD TASTE.  WINDS OF DOCTRINE SHOULD FREELY
BLOW FOR THE PROMOTION OF GOOD AND THE CORRECTION OF EVIL.  NOR SHOULD
RESTRICTIONS BE PERMITTED THAT CRAMP THE FEELING OF FREEDOM IN THE USE
OF TONGUE OR PEN REGARDLESS OF THE TEMPER OR THE TRUTH OF WHAT MAY BE
UTTERED. 

COMMENT HOWEVER FORTHRIGHT IS ONE THING.  INTIMIDATION WITH RESPECT
TO SPECIFIC MATTERS STILL IN JUDICIAL SUSPENSE, QUITE ANOTHER.  SEE
LASKI, PROCEDURE FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT IN ENGLAND, 41 HARV. L. REV.
1031, 1034; GOODHART, NEWSPAPERS AND CONTEMPT IN ENGLISH LAW, 48 HARV.
L. REV. 885.  A PUBLICATION INTENDED TO TEACH THE JUDGE A LESSON, OR TO
VENT SPLEEN, OR TO DISCREDIT HIM, OR TO INFLUENCE HIM IN HIS FUTURE
CONDUCT, WOULD NOT JUSTIFY EXERCISE OF THE CONTEMPT POWER.  COMPARE
JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN EX PARTE CRAIG, 282 F. 138, 160-61.  IT MUST
REFER TO A MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CONSTITUTE IN EFFECT A THREAT
TO ITS IMPARTIAL DISPOSITION.  IT MUST BE CALCULATED TO CREATE AN
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE INCOMPATIBLE WITH RATIONAL, IMPARTIAL
ADJUDICATION.  BUT TO INTERFERE WITH JUSTICE IT NEED NOT SUCCEED.  AS
WITH OTHER OFFENSES, THE STATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROSCRIBE ATTEMPTS
THAT FAIL BECAUSE OF THE DANGER THAT ATTEMPTS MAY SUCCEED.  THE
PURPOSE, IT WILL DO NO HARM TO REPEAT, IS NOT TO PROTECT THE COURT AS A
MYSTICAL ENTITY OR THE JUDGES AS INDIVIDUALS OR AS ANOINTED PRIESTS SET
APART FROM THE COMMUNITY AND SPARED THE CRITICISM TO WHICH IN A
DEMOCRACY OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE EXPOSED.  THE PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT
IMMEDIATE LITIGANTS AND THE PUBLIC FROM THE MISCHIEVOUS DANGER OF AN
UNFREE OR COERCED TRIBUNAL.  THE POWER SHOULD BE INVOKED ONLY WHERE THE
ADJUDICATORY PROCESS MAY BE HAMPERED OR HINDERED IN ITS CALM, DETACHED,
AND FEARLESS DISCHARGE OF ITS DUTY ON THE BASIS OF WHAT HAS BEEN
SUBMITTED IN COURT.  THE BELIEF THAT DECISIONS ARE SO REACHED IS THE
SOURCE OF THE CONFIDENCE ON WHICH LAW ULTIMATELY RESTS. 

IT WILL NOT DO TO ARGUE THAT A STATE CANNOT PERMIT ITS JUDGES TO
RESIST COERCIVE INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR WORK IN HAND BECAUSE OTHER
OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT MUST ENDURE SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS.  IN SUCH MATTERS
"A PAGE OF HISTORY IS WORTH A VOLUME OF LOGIC."  NEW YORK TRUST CO. V.
EISNER, 256 U.S. 345, 349.  PRESIDENTS AND GOVERNORS AND LEGISLATORS
ARE POLITICAL OFFICIALS TRADITIONALLY SUBJECT TO POLITICAL INFLUENCE
AND THE ROUGH AND TUMBLE OF THE HUSTINGS, WHO HAVE OPEN TO THEM
TRADITIONAL MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE.  IN A VERY IMMEDIATE SENSE,
LEGISLATORS AND EXECUTIVES EXPRESS THE POPULAR WILL.  BUT JUDGES DO NOT
EXPRESS THE POPULAR WILL IN ANY ORDINARY MEANING OF THE TERM.  THE
LIMITED POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT WHICH IS HERE INVOLVED WHOLLY
REJECTS ANY ASSUMPTION THAT JUDGES ARE SUPERIOR TO OTHER OFFICIALS. 
THEY MERELY EXERCISE A FUNCTION HISTORICALLY AND INTRINSICALLY
DIFFERENT.  FROM THAT DIFFERENCE IS DRAWN THE POWER WHICH HAS BEHIND IT
THE AUTHORITY AND THE WISDOM OF OUR WHOLE HISTORY.  BECAUSE THE
FUNCTION OF JUDGES AND THAT OF OTHER OFFICIALS IN SPECIAL SITUATIONS
MAY APPROACH SIMILARITY, HARD CASES CAN BE PUT WHICH LOGICALLY MAY
CONTRADICT THE SPECIAL QUALITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  "BUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE NOT MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS HAVING
THEIR ESSENCE IN THEIR FORM; THEY ARE ORGANIC LIVING INSTITUTIONS
TRANSPLANTED FROM ENGLISH SOIL.  THEIR SIGNIFICANCE IS VITAL NOT
FORMAL; IT IS TO BE GATHERED NOT SIMPLY BY TAKING THE WORDS AND A
DICTIONARY, BUT BY CONSIDERING THEIR ORIGIN AND THE LINE OF THEIR
GROWTH."  GOMPERS V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 604, 610. 

WE ARE CHARGED HERE WITH THE DUTY, ALWAYS DELICATE, OF SITTING IN
JUDGMENT ON STATE POWER.  WE MUST BE FASTIDIOUSLY CAREFUL NOT TO MAKE
OUR PRIVATE VIEWS THE MEASURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.  TO BE SURE,
WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH AN APPEAL TO THE GREAT LIBERTIES WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION ASSURES TO ALL OUR PEOPLE, EVEN AGAINST STATE DENIAL. 
WHEN A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM OF AN ABRIDGMENT OF THESE LIBERTIES IS
ADVANCED, THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY THAT BELONGS TO AN EXERCISE OF
STATE POWER MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO IMPAIR SUCH A LIBERTY OR TO CHECK
OUR CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY.  BUT THE UTMOST
PROTECTION TO BE ACCORDED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS CANNOT
DISPLACE OUR DUTY TO GIVE DUE REGARD ALSO TO THE STATE'S POWER TO DEAL
WITH WHAT MAY ESSENTIALLY BE LOCAL SITUATIONS. 

BECAUSE FREEDOM OF PUBLIC EXPRESSION ALONE ASSURES THE UNFOLDING OF
TRUTH, IT IS INDISPENSABLE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.  BUT EVEN THAT
FREEDOM IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE AND IS NOT PREDETERMINED.  BY A DOCTRINAIRE
OVERSTATEMENT OF ITS SCOPE AND BY GIVING IT AN ILLUSORY ABSOLUTE
APPEARANCE, THERE IS DANGER OF THWARTING THE FREE CHOICE AND THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF EXERCISING IT WHICH ARE BASIC TO A DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY.  WHILE WE ARE REVIEWING A JUDGMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
COURT AND NOT AN ACT OF ITS LEGISLATURE OR THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA FORMALLY EXPRESSED IN ITS CONSTITUTION, WE ARE IN FACT
PASSING JUDGMENT ON "THE POWER OF THE STATE AS A WHOLE."  RIPPEY V.
TEXAS, 193 U.S. 504, 509; SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69, 79; UNITED
GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123, 142; MISSOURI V. DOCKERY, 191 U.S. 165,
171; IOWA-DES MOINES BANK V. BENNETT, 284 U.S. 239, 244. 

BY THE CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA, AS AUTHORITATIVELY CONSTRUED BY
ITS SUPREME COURT AND THEREFORE AS BINDING UPON THIS COURT AS THOUGH
RATIFIED BY ALL THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA, THE CITIZENS OF THAT STATE
HAVE CHOSEN TO PLACE IN ITS COURTS THE POWER, AS WE HAVE DEFINED IT, TO
INSURE IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.  IF THE CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA HAVE OTHER
DESIRES, IF THEY WANT TO PERMIT THE FREE PLAY OF MODERN PUBLICITY IN
CONNECTION WITH PENDING LITIGATION, IT IS WITHIN THEIR EASY POWER TO
SAY SO AND TO HAVE THEIR WAY.  THEY HAVE READY MEANS OF AMENDING THEIR
CONSTITUTION AND THEY HAVE FREQUENTLY MADE USE OF THEM.  WE ARE, AFTER
ALL, SITTING OVER THREE THOUSAND MILES AWAY FROM A GREAT STATE, WITHOUT
INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS HABITS AND ITS NEEDS, IN A MATTER WHICH DOES
NOT CUT ACROSS THE AFFIRMATIVE POWERS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  SOME
PLAY OF POLICY MUST BE LEFT TO THE STATES IN THE TASK OF ACCOMMODATING
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND THE OVERRIDING PUBLIC WELL-BEING WHICH MAKES
THOSE RIGHTS POSSIBLE.  HOW ARE WE TO KNOW WHETHER AN EASY-GOING OR
STIFFER VIEW OF WHAT AFFECTS THE ACTUAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS
APPROPRIATE TO LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES?  HOW ARE WE TO SAY THAT CALIFORNIA
HAS NO RIGHT TO MODEL ITS JUDICIARY UPON THE QUALITIES AND STANDARDS
ATTAINED BY THE ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND TO USE MEANS
DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO THAT END BY ENGLISH COURTS.  FN6  IT IS SURELY AN
ARBITRARY JUDGMENT TO SAY THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DENIES CALIFORNIA
THAT RIGHT.  FOR RESPECT FOR "THE LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT," THOUGH NOT
EXPLICITLY WRITTEN INTO A CONSTITUTION, IS SO DEEPLY EMBEDDED IN THE
VERY TEXTURE OF ENGLISH FEELING AND CONSCIENCE  FN7  THAT IT SURVIVES,
AS THE PAGES OF HANSARD ABUNDANTLY PROVE, THE EXIGENCIES OF THE LIFE
AND DEATH STRUGGLE OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE.  SEE, E.G., CARR, CONCERNING
ENGLISH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, C. 3("CRISIS LEGISLATION"). 

THE RULE OF LAW APPLIED IN THESE CASES BY THE CALIFORNIA COURT
FORBADE PUBLICATIONS HAVING "A REASONABLE TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH
THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN PENDING ACTIONS."  TO DENY
THAT THIS AGE-OLD FORMULATION OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST INTERFERENCE
WITH DISPASSIONATE ADJUDICATION IS PROPERLY CONFINED TO THE SUBSTANTIVE
EVIL IS NOT ONLY TO TURN ONE'S BACK ON HISTORY BUT ALSO TO INDULGE IN
AN IDLE PLAY ON WORDS, UNWORTHY OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION.  IT WAS
URGED BEFORE US THAT THE WORDS "REASONABLE TENDENCY" HAD A FATAL
PERVASIVENESS, AND THAT THEIR REPLACEMENT BY "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER"
WAS REQUIRED TO STATE A CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE RULE OF LAW.  THE
CONSTITUTION, AS WE HAVE RECENTLY HAD OCCASION TO REMARK, IS NOT A
FORMULARY.  WISCONSIN V. J. C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435, 444.  NOR DOES
IT REQUIRE DISPLACEMENT OF AN HISTORIC TEST BY A PHRASE WHICH FIRST
GAINED CURRENCY ON MARCH 3, 1919.  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S.
47.  OUR DUTY IS NOT ENDED WITH THE RECITATION OF PHRASES THAT ARE THE
SHORT-HAND OF A COMPLICATED HISTORIC PROCESS.  THE PHRASE "CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER" IS MERELY A JUSTIFICATION FOR CURBING UTTERANCE WHERE
THAT IS WARRANTED BY THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL TO BE PREVENTED.  THE PHRASE
ITSELF IS AN EXPRESSION OF TENDENCY AND NOT OF ACCOMPLISHMENT, AND THE
LITERARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT AND "REASONABLE TENDENCY" IS NOT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION. 

HERE THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL TO BE ELIMINATED IS INTERFERENCE WITH
IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATION.  TO DETERMINE WHAT INTERFERENCES MAY BE MADE
THE BASIS FOR CONTEMPT TENDERS PRECISELY THE SAME KIND OF ISSUES AS
THAT TO WHICH THE "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" TEST GIVES RISE.  "IT IS A
QUESTION OF PROXIMITY AND DEGREE."  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA AT
52.  AND THIS, ACCORDING TO MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS "IS A RULE OF REASON
...  LIKE MANY OTHER RULES FOR HUMAN CONDUCT, IT CAN BE APPLIED
CORRECTLY ONLY BY THE EXERCISE OF GOOD JUDGMENT."  SCHAEFER V. UNITED
STATES, 251 U.S. 466, 482-83.  HAS CALIFORNIA'S JUDGMENT HERE
UNDERMINED LIBERTIES PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION?  IN COMMON WITH
OTHER QUESTIONS OF DEGREE, THIS IS TO BE SOLVED NOT BY SHORTHAND
PHRASES BUT BY CONSIDERATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR
CASE.  ONE CANNOT YELL "FIRE" IN A CROWDED THEATER; POLICE OFFICERS
CANNOT TURN THEIR QUESTIONING INTO AN INSTRUMENT OF MENTAL OPPRESSION. 
CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227. 

IF A RULE OF STATE LAW IS NOT CONFINED TO THE EVIL WHICH MAY BE DEALT
WITH BUT PLACES AN INDISCRIMINATE BAN ON PUBLIC EXPRESSION THAT
OPERATES AS AN OVERHANGING THREAT TO FREE DISCUSSION, IT MUST FALL
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE.  THIS IS TRUE
WHETHER THE RULE OF LAW BE DECLARED IN A STATUTE OR IN A DECISION OF A
COURT.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296.  IN THE CASES BEFORE US THERE WAS NO BLANKET OR DRAGNET
PROHIBITION OF UTTERANCE AFFECTING COURTS.  FREEDOM TO CRITICIZE THEIR
WORK, TO ASSAIL GENERALLY THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS, TO REPORT AND
COMMENT ON MATTERS IN LITIGATION BUT NOT TO SUBVERT THE PROCESS OF
DECIDING - ALL THIS FREEDOM WAS RESPECTED.  ONLY THE STATE'S INTEREST
IN CALM AND ORDERLY DECISIONS, WHICH REPRESENTED ALSO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PARTIES, LED IT TO CONDEMN COERCIVE
UTTERANCES DIRECTED TOWARDS A PENDING PROCEEDING.  CALIFORNIA, SPEAKING
THROUGH ITS COURTS, ACTED BECAUSE OF THEIR CONCLUSION THAT SUCH
UTTERANCES UNDERMINED THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR FAIR ADJUDICATION. 
IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THREATS, BY DISCUSSION, TO UNTRAMMELED DECISIONS
BY COURTS ARE THE MOST NATURAL EXPRESSIONS WHEN PUBLIC FEELING RUNS
HIGHEST.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT STATES ARE LEFT POWERLESS TO
PREVENT THEIR COURTS FROM BEING SUBVERTED BY OUTSIDE PRESSURE WHEN THE
NEED FOR IMPARTIALITY AND FAIR PROCEEDING IS GREATEST.  TO SAY THAT THE
FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION SANCTIFIED VEILED VIOLENCE THROUGH COERCIVE
SPEECH DIRECTED AGAINST THOSE CHARGED WITH ADJUDICATION IS NOT MERELY
TO MAKE VIOLENCE AN INGREDIENT OF JUSTICE; IT MOCKS THE VERY IDEAL OF
JUSTICE BY RESPECTING ITS FORMS WHILE STULTIFYING ITS UNCONTAMINATED
EXERCISE. 

WE TURN TO THE SPECIFIC CASES BEFORE US: 

THE EARLIEST EDITORIAL INVOLVED IN NO. 3, "SIT-STRIKERS CONVICTED,"
COMMENTED UPON A CASE THE DAY AFTER A JURY HAD RETURNED A VERDICT AND
THE DAY BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS TO PRONOUNCE SENTENCE AND HEAR
MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL AND APPLICATIONS FOR PROBATION.  ON ITS FACE
THE EDITORIAL MERELY EXPRESSED EXULTING APPROVAL OF THE VERDICT, A
COMPLETED ACTION OF THE COURT, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO
GIVE IT ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.  THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE SECOND
EDITORIAL, "FALL OF AN EX-QUEEN," WHICH LURIDLY DRAWS A MORAL FROM A
VERDICT OF GUILTY IN A SORDID TRIAL AND WHICH WAS PUBLISHED EIGHT DAYS
PRIOR TO THE DAY SET FOR IMPOSING SENTENCE.  IN BOTH INSTANCES
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCES WAS IMMEDIATELY PENDING AT THE TIME OF
PUBLICATION, BUT IN NEITHER CASE WAS THERE ANY DECLARATION, DIRECT OR
SLY, IN REGARD TO THIS.  AS THE SPECIAL GUARDIAN OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
THIS COURT IS UNDER THE HEAVIEST RESPONSIBILITY TO SAFEGUARD THE
LIBERTIES GUARANTEED FROM ANY ENCROACHMENT, HOWEVER ASTUTELY
DISGUISED.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS
THE RIGHT TO COMMENT ON A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, SO LONG AS THIS IS NOT
DONE IN A MANNER INTERFERING WITH THE IMPARTIAL DISPOSITION OF A
LITIGATION.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT MORE WAS DONE IN THESE
EDITORIALS; THEY WERE NOT CLOSE THREATS TO THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION WHICH
A STATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO RESTRAIN.  WE AGREE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
STATE COURT IN THIS REGARD SHOULD NOT STAND. 

"PROBATION FOR GORILLAS?", THE THIRD EDITORIAL, IS A DIFFERENT
MATTER.  ON APRIL 22, 1938, A LOS ANGELES JURY FOUND TWO DEFENDANTS
GUILTY OF ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND OF A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
ANOTHER SECTION OF THE PENAL CODE.  ON MAY 2ND, THE DEFENDANTS APPLIED
FOR PROBATION AND THE TRIAL JUDGE ON THE SAME DAY SET JUNE 7TH AS THE
DAY FOR DISPOSING OF THIS APPLICATION AND FOR SENTENCING THE
DEFENDANTS.  IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES FOR MAY 5TH APPEARED THE
FOLLOWING EDITORIAL ENTITLED "PROBATION FOR GORILLAS?": 

"TWO MEMBERS OF DAVE BECK'S WRECKING CREW, ENTERTAINMENT COMMITTEE,
GOON SQUAD OR GORILLAS, HAVING BEEN CONVICTED IN SUPERIOR COURT OF
ASSAULTING NONUNION TRUCK DRIVERS, HAVE ASKED FOR PROBATION. 
PRESUMABLY THEY WILL SAY THEY ARE 'FIRST OFFENDERS,' OR PLEAD THAT THEY
WERE MERELY INDULGING A PLAYFUL EXUBERANCE WHEN, WITH SLINGSHOTS, THEY
FIRED STEEL MISSILES AT MEN WHOSE ONLY OFFENSE WAS WISHING TO WORK FOR
A LIVING WITHOUT PAYING TRIBUTE TO THE ERSTWHILE BOSS OF SEATTLE. 

"SLUGGERS FOR PAY, LIKE MURDERERS FOR PROFIT, ARE IN A SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT CATEGORY FROM ORDINARY CRIMINALS.  MEN WHO COMMIT MAYHEM FOR
WAGES ARE NOT MERELY VIOLATORS OF THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE;
THEY ARE ALSO CONSPIRATORS AGAINST IT.  THE MAN WHO BURGLES BECAUSE HIS
CHILDREN ARE HUNGRY MAY HAVE SOME CLAIM ON PUBLIC SYMPATHY.  HE WHOSE
CRIME IS ONE OF IMPULSE MAY BE ENTITLED TO LENITY.  BUT HE WHO HIRES
OUT HIS MUSCLES FOR THE CREATION OF DISORDER AND IN AID OF A RACKET IS
A DELIBERATE FOE OF ORGANIZED SOCIETY AND SHOULD BE PENALIZED
ACCORDINGLY. 

"IT WILL TEACH NO LESSON TO OTHER THUGS TO PUT THESE MEN ON GOOD
BEHAVIOR FOR A LIMITED TIME.  THEIR 'DUTY' WOULD SIMPLY BE TAKEN OVER
BY OTHERS LIKE THEM.  IF BECK'S THUGS, HOWEVER, ARE MADE TO REALIZE
THAT THEY FACE SAN QUENTIN WHEN THEY ARE CAUGHT, IT WILL TEND TO MAKE
THEIR DISREPUTABLE OCCUPATION UNPOPULAR.  JUDGE A. A. SCOTT WILL MAKE A
SERIOUS MISTAKE IF HE GRANTS PROBATION TO MATTHEW SHANNON AND KENNAN
HOLMES.  THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS THE EXAMPLE OF THEIR ASSIGNMENT TO THE
JUTE MILL." 

THIS EDITORIAL WAS PUBLISHED THREE DAYS AFTER THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD
FIXED THE TIME FOR SENTENCING AND FOR PASSING ON AN APPLICATION FOR
PROBATION, AND A MONTH PRIOR TO THE DATE SET.  IT CONSISTED OF A
SUSTAINED ATTACK ON THE DEFENDANTS, WITH AN EXPLICIT DEMAND OF THE
JUDGE THAT THEY BE DENIED PROBATION AND BE SENT "TO THE JUTE MILL." 
THIS MEANT, IN CALIFORNIA IDIOM, THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION
THE JUDGE SHOULD TREAT THE OFFENSE AS A FELONY, WITH ALL ITS DIRE
CONSEQUENCES, AND NOT AS A MISDEMEANOR.  UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PENAL
CODE THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD WIDE DISCRETION IN SENTENCING THE DEFENDANTS:
HE COULD SENTENCE THEM TO THE COUNTY JAIL FOR ONE YEAR OR LESS, OR TO
THE STATE PENITENTIARY FOR TWO YEARS.  THE EDITORIAL DEMANDED THAT HE
TAKE THE LATTER ALTERNATIVE AND SEND THE DEFENDANTS TO THE "JUTE MILL"
OF THE STATE PENITENTIARY.  A POWERFUL NEWSPAPER ADMONISHED A JUDGE,
WHO WITHIN A YEAR WOULD HAVE TO SECURE POPULAR APPROVAL IF HE DESIRED
CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE, THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITS DEMANDS WOULD BE
"A SERIOUS MISTAKE."  CLEARLY, THE STATE COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN
TREATING THIS AS A THREAT TO IMPARTIAL ADJUDICATION.  IT IS TOO NAIVE
TO SUGGEST THAT THE EDITORIAL WAS WRITTEN WITH A FEELING OF IMPOTENCE
AND AN INTENTION TO UTTER IDLE WORDS.  THE PUBLICATION OF THE EDITORIAL
WAS HARDLY AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.  IF IT IS TRUE OF JURIES IT IS NOT
WHOLLY UNTRUE OF JUDGES THAT THEY TOO MAY BE "IMPREGNATED BY THE
ENVIRONING ATMOSPHERE."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN FRANK V. MANGUM, 237
U.S. 309, 349.  CALIFORNIA SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO FREE ITS
COURTS FROM SUCH COERCIVE, EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCES; IT CAN THUS ASSURE
ITS CITIZENS OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF A FAIR TRIAL.  HERE THERE
WAS A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL MANIFESTATION OF AN ENDEAVOR TO EXERT
OUTSIDE INFLUENCE.  A POWERFUL NEWSPAPER BROUGHT ITS FULL COERCIVE
POWER TO BEAR IN DEMANDING A PARTICULAR SENTENCE.  IF SUCH SENTENCE HAD
BEEN IMPOSED, READERS MIGHT ASSUME THAT THE COURT HAD BEEN INFLUENCED
IN ITS ACTION; IF LESSER PUNISHMENT HAD BEEN IMPOSED, AT LEAST A
PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY MIGHT BE STIRRED TO RESENTMENT.  IT CANNOT BE
DENIED THAT EVEN A JUDGE MAY BE AFFECTED BY SUCH A QUANDARY.  WE CANNOT
SAY THAT THE STATE COURT WAS OUT OF BOUNDS IN CONCLUDING THAT SUCH
CONDUCT OFFENDS THE FREE COURSE OF JUSTICE.  COMMENT AFTER THE
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE - CRITICISM, HOWEVER UNRESTRAINED, OF ITS
SEVERITY OR LENIENCE OR DISPARITY, CF. AMBARD V. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, (1936) A.C. 322,  - IS AN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF
FREE DISCUSSION.  BUT TO DENY THE STATES POWER TO CHECK A SERIOUS
ATTEMPT AT DICTATING, FROM WITHOUT, THE SENTENCE TO BE IMPOSED IN A
PENDING CASE, IS TO DENY THE RIGHT TO IMPARTIAL JUSTICE AS IT WAS
CHERISHED BY THE FOUNDERS OF THE REPUBLIC AND BY THE FRAMERS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT WOULD ERECT INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT,
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ABUSE OF UTTERANCE INTERFERING WITH THE DISPASSIONATE
EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  SEE REX V. DAILY MAIL, (1921) 2
K.B. 733, 749; ATTORNEY GENERAL V. TONKS, (1939) N.Z.L.R. 533. 

IN NO. 1, HARRY R. BRIDGES CHALLENGES A JUDGMENT BY THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF CALIFORNIA FINING HIM $125 FOR CONTEMPT.  HE WAS PRESIDENT OF
THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, AN AFFILIATE
OF THE COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, AND ALSO WEST COAST
DIRECTOR FOR THE C.I.O.  THE I.L.W.U. WAS LARGELY COMPOSED OF MEN WHO
HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AN
AFFILIATE OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.  IN THE FALL OF 1937 THE
RIVAL LONGSHOREMEN'S UNIONS WERE STRUGGLING FOR CONTROL OF A LOCAL IN
SAN PEDRO HARBOR.  THE OFFICERS OF THIS LOCAL, CARRYING MOST OF ITS
MEMBERS WITH THEM, SOUGHT TO TRANSFER THE ALLEGIANCE OF THE LOCAL TO
I.L.W.U.  THEREUPON, LONGSHOREMEN REMAINING IN I.L.A. BROUGHT SUIT IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AGAINST THE LOCAL AND ITS
OFFICERS.  ON JANUARY 21, 1938, JUDGE SCHMIDT, SITTING IN THE SUPERIOR
COURT, ENJOINED THE OFFICERS FROM WORKING ON BEHALF OF I.L.W.U. AND
APPOINTED A RECEIVER TO CONDUCT THE AFFAIRS OF THE LOCAL AS AN
AFFILIATE OF THE A.F. OF L., BY TAKING CHARGE OF THE OUTSTANDING
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS OF THE LOCAL AND OF ITS HIRING HALL, WHICH IS THE
PHYSICAL MAINSTAY OF SUCH A UNION.  JUDGE SCHMIDT PROMPTLY STAYED
ENFORCEMENT OF HIS DECREE, AND ON JANUARY 24TH THE DEFENDANTS IN THE
INJUNCTION SUIT MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL AND FOR VACATION OF THE
JUDGMENT.  IN VIEW OF ITS LOCAL SETTING, THE CASE AROUSED GREAT PUBLIC
INTEREST.  THE WATERFRONT SITUATION ON THE PACIFIC COAST WAS ALSO
WATCHED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND BRIDGES HAD BEEN
IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF LABOR CONCERNING THE
DIFFICULTIES.  ON THE SAME DAY THAT THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS FILED,
BRIDGES SENT THE SECRETARY THE FOLLOWING WIRE CONCERNING JUDGE
SCHMIDT'S DECREE: 

"THIS DECISION IS OUTRAGEOUS CONSIDERING I.L.A. HAS 15 MEMBERS (IN
SAN PEDRO) AND THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN-WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION HAS
3,000.  INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN-WAREHOUSEMEN UNION HAS PETITIONED
THE LABOR BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION TO REPRESENT SAN PEDRO LONGSHOREMEN
WITH INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN ASSOCIATION DENIED REPRESENTATION
BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS ONLY 15 MEN.  BOARD HEARING HELD; DECISION NOW
PENDING.  ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT OF SCHMIDT DECISION WILL TIE UP PORT OF
LOS ANGELES AND INVOLVE ENTIRE PACIFIC COAST.  INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN-WAREHOUSEMEN UNION, REPRESENTING OVER 11,000 OF THE 12,000
LONGSHOREMEN ON THE PACIFIC COAST, DOES NOT INTEND TO ALLOW STATE
COURTS TO OVERRIDE THE MAJORITY VOTE OF MEMBERS IN CHOOSING ITS
OFFICERS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND TO OVERRIDE THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD." 

THIS TELEGRAM DULY FOUND ITS WAY INTO THE METROPOLITAN NEWSPAPERS OF
CALIFORNIA.  BRIDGES' RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS PUBLICATION IS CLEAR.  HIS
PUBLICATION OF THE TELEGRAN IN THE LOS ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO PAPERS
IS THE BASIS OF BRIDGES' CONVICTION FOR CONTEMPT. 

THE PUBLICATION OF THE TELEGRAM WAS REGARDED BY THE STATE SUPREME
COURT AS "A THREAT THAT IF AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ENFORCE THE DECISION,
THE PORTS OF THE ENTIRE PACIFIC COAST WOULD BE TIED UP" AND "A DIRECT
CHALLENGE TO THE COURT THAT 11,000 LONGSHOREMEN ON THE PACIFIC COAST
WOULD NOT ABIDE BY ITS DECISION."  THIS OCCURRED IMMEDIATELY AFTER
COUNSEL HAD MOVED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT WHICH WAS CRITICIZED, SO
UNQUESTIONABLY THERE WAS A THREAT TO LITIGATION OBVIOUSLY ALIVE.  IT
WOULD BE INADMISSIBLE DOGMATISM FOR US TO SAY THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE IMMEDIATE CASE - THE ISSUES AT STAKE, THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE
JUDGE, THE PETITIONER AND THE COMMUNITY WERE MOVING, THE PUBLICATION
HERE MADE, AT THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER IT WAS MADE - THIS COULD NOT
HAVE DOMINATED THE MIND OF THE JUDGE BEFORE WHOM THE MATTER WAS
PENDING.  HERE TOO THE STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE
OVERTURNED. 

THE FACT THAT THE COMMUNICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR MAY HAVE
BEEN PRIVILEGED DOES NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECT WHATEVER EXTRANEOUS
USE MAY HAVE BEEN MADE OF THE COMMUNICATION.  IT IS SAID THAT THE
POSSIBILITY OF A STRIKE, IN CASE OF AN ADVERSE RULING, MUST IN ANY
EVENT HAVE SUGGESTED ITSELF TO THE PRIVATE THOUGHTS OF A SOPHISTICATED
JUDGE.  THEREFORE THE PUBLICATION OF THE BRIDGES TELEGRAM, WE ARE TOLD,
MERELY GAVE THAT POSSIBILITY PUBLIC EXPRESSION.  TO AFFORD
CONSTITUTIONAL SHELTER FOR A DEFINITE ATTEMPT AT COERCING A COURT INTO
A FAVORABLE DECISION BECAUSE OF THE CONTINGENCIES OF FRUSTRATION TO
WHICH ALL JUDICIAL ACTION IS SUBJECT, IS TO HOLD, IN EFFECT, THAT THE
CONSTITUTION SUBORDINATES THE JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF CONFLICTS TO THE
UNFETTERED INDULGENCE OF VIOLENT SPEECH.  THE MERE FACT THAT AFTER AN
UNFAVORABLE DECISION MEN MAY, UPON FULL CONSIDERATION OF THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES AS WELL AS THEIR RIGHTS, ENGAGE IN A STRIKE OR A
LOCKOUT, IS A POOR REASON FOR DENYING A STATE THE POWER TO PROTECT ITS
COURTS FROM BEING BLUDGEONED BY SERIOUS THREATS WHILE A DECISION IS
HANGING IN THE JUDICIAL BALANCE.  A VAGUE, UNDETERMINED POSSIBILITY
THAT A DECISION OF A COURT MAY LEAD TO A SERIOUS MANIFESTATION OF
PROTEST IS ONE THING.  THE IMPACT OF A DEFINITE THREAT OF ACTION TO
PREVENT A DECISION IS A WHOLLY DIFFERENT MATTER.  TO DENY SUCH
REALITIES IS TO STULTIFY LAW.  RIGHTS MUST BE JUDGED IN THEIR CONTEXT
AND NOT IN VACUO.  COMPARE AIKENS V. WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194, 205;
BADDERS V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 391, 393-94; AMERICAN BANK & TRUST
CO. V. FEDERAL BANK, 256 U.S. 350, 358.  "ALL RIGHTS ARE DERIVED FROM
THE PURPOSES OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THEY EXIST; ABOVE ALL RIGHTS RISES
DUTY TO THE COMMUNITY."  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN DUPLEX CO. V. DEERING,
254 U.S. 443, 488. 

THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE NARROW POWER WE RECOGNIZE ALWAYS IS - WAS
THERE A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO THE IMPARTIAL DECISION BY A
COURT OF A CASE ACTIVELY PENDING BEFORE IT?  THE THREAT MUST BE CLOSE
AND DIRECT; IT MUST BE DIRECTED TOWARDS A PARTICULAR LITIGATION.  THE
LITIGATION MUST BE IMMEDIATELY PENDING.  WHEN A CASE IS PENDING IS NOT
A TECHNICAL, LAWYER'S PROBLEM, BUT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
SUBSTANTIAL REALITIES OF THE SPECIFIC SITUATION.  FN8 DANGER OF
UNBRIDLED EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER BECAUSE OF IMMUNITY FROM SPEECH
WHICH IS COERCING IS A FIGMENT OF GROUNDLESS FEARS.  IN ADDITION TO THE
INTERNAL CENSOR OF CONSCIENCE, PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, THE JUDGMENT OF
FELLOW JUDGES AND THE BAR, THE POPULAR JUDGMENT EXERCISED IN ELECTIONS,
THE POWER OF APPELLATE COURTS, INCLUDING THIS COURT, THERE IS THE
CORRECTIVE POWER OF THE PRESS AND OF PUBLIC COMMENT FREE TO ASSERT
ITSELF FULLY IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. BECAUSE
COURTS, LIKE OTHER AGENCIES, MAY AT TIMES EXERCISE POWER ARBITRARILY
AND HAVE DONE SO, RESORT TO THIS COURT IS OPEN TO DETERMINE WHETHER,
UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING IMPARTIALITY IN SPECIFIC LITIGATION,
ENCROACHMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE UPON THE LIBERTIES OF SPEECH AND PRESS. 
BUT INSTANCES OF PAST ARBITRARINESS AFFORD NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
REVERSING THE COURSE OF HISTORY AND DENYING THE STATES POWER TO
CONTINUE TO USE TIME-HONORED SAFEGUARDS TO ASSURE UNBULLIED
ADJUDICATIONS.  ALL EXPERIENCE JUSTIFIES THE STATES IN ACTING UPON THE
CONVICTION THAT A WRONG DECISION IN A PARTICULAR CASE MAY BEST BE
FORESTALLED OR CORRECTED BY MORE RATIONAL MEANS THAN COERCIVE INTRUSION
FROM OUTSIDE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. 

SINCE COURTS, ALTHOUGH REPRESENTING THE LAW, UNITED STATES V. SHIPP,
203 U.S. 563, 574, ARE ALSO SITTING IN JUDGMENT, AS IT WERE, ON THEIR
OWN FUNCTION IN EXERCISING THEIR POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT, IT
SHOULD BE USED ONLY IN FLAGRANT CASES AND WITH THE UTMOST FORBEARANCE. 
IT IS ALWAYS BETTER TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF TOLERANCE AND EVEN OF
DISDAINFUL INDIFFERENCE. 

NO OBJECTIONS WERE MADE BEFORE US TO THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE
CHARGES OF CONTEMPT WERE TRIED.  BUT IT IS PROPER TO POINT OUT THAT
NEITHER CASE WAS TRIED BY A JUDGE WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE TRIALS TO
WHICH THE PUBLICATIONS REFERRED.  COMPARE COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 267
U.S. 517, 539.  SO IT IS CLEAR THAT A DISINTERESTED TRIBUNAL WAS
FURNISHED, AND SINCE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A STATE TO
FURNISH JURY TRIALS, MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581; PALKO V.
CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 324, AND STATES HAVE DISCRETION IN
FASHIONING CRIMINAL REMEDIES, TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141, THE
SITUATION HERE IS THE SAME AS THOUGH A STATE HAD MADE IT A CRIME TO
PUBLISH UTTERANCE HAVING A "REASONABLE TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH THE
ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN PENDING ACTIONS," AND NOT
DISSIMILAR FROM WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS DONE IN SEC. 135 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE.  FN9 

FN1  "CERTAIN IMPLIED POWERS MUST NECESSARILY RESULT TO OUR COURTS OF
JUSTICE FROM THE NATURE OF THEIR INSTITUTION.  ...  TO FINE FOR
CONTEMPT - IMPRISON FOR CONTUMACY - INFORCE THE OBSERVANCE OF ORDER,
&C. ARE POWERS WHICH CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH IN A COURT, BECAUSE THEY
ARE NECESSARY TO THE EXERCISE OF ALL OTHERS."  UNITED STATES V. HUDSON,
7 CRANCH 32, 34(1812). 

"THAT 'THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE IS THE SUPREME LAW,' NOT ONLY
COMPORTS WITH, BUT IS INDISPENSABLE TO, THE EXERCISE OF THOSE POWERS IN
THEIR PUBLIC FUNCTIONARIES, WITHOUT WHICH THAT SAFETY CANNOT BE
GUARDED.  ON THIS PRINCIPLE IT IS, THAT COURTS OF JUSTICE ARE
UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE VESTED, BY THEIR VERY CREATION, WITH
POWER TO IMPOSE SILENCE, RESPECT, AND DECORUM, IN THEIR PRESENCE, AND
SUBMISSION TO THEIR LAWFUL MANDATES, AND, AS A COROLLARY TO THIS
PROPOSITION, TO PRESERVE THEMSELVES AND THEIR OFFICERS FROM THE
APPROACH AND INSULTS OF POLLUTION. 

"IT IS TRUE, THAT THE COURTS OF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
VESTED, BY EXPRESS STATUTE PROVISION, WITH POWER TO FINE AND IMPRISON
FOR CONTEMPTS; BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, FROM THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THAT
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED THAT POWER WITHOUT THE AID OF THE
STATUTE, OR NOT, IN CASES, IF SUCH SHOULD OCCUR, TO WHICH SUCH STATUTE
PROVISION MAY NOT EXTEND; ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS A LEGISLATIVE
ASSERTION OF THIS RIGHT, AS INCIDENTAL TO A GRANT OF JUDICIAL POWER,
AND CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED EITHER AS AN INSTANCE OF ABUNDANT CAUTION,
OR A LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION, THAT THE POWER OF PUNISHING FOR CONTEMPT
SHALL NOT EXTEND BEYOND ITS KNOWN AND ACKNOWLEDGED LIMITS OF FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT."  ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6 WHEAT.  204, 227-28(1821). 

"THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPTS IS INHERENT IN ALL COURTS; ITS
EXISTENCE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF ORDER IN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, AND TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, AND WRITS
OF THE COURTS, AND CONSEQUENTLY TO THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 
THE MOMENT THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES WERE CALLED INTO EXISTENCE
AND INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY SUBJECT, THEY BECAME POSSESSED
OF THIS POWER."  EX PARTE ROBINSON, 19 WALL.  505, 510(1874). 

"THE ACT OF 1789 DID NOT DEFINE WHAT WERE CONTEMPTS OF THE AUTHORITY
OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ANY CAUSE OR HEARING BEFORE
THEM, NOR DID IT PRESCRIBE ANY SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING A
MATTER OF CONTEMPT.  UNDER THAT STATUTE THE QUESTION WHETHER PARTICULAR
ACTS CONSTITUTED A CONTEMPT, AS WELL AS THE MODE OF PROCEEDING AGAINST
THE OFFENDER, WAS LEFT TO BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO SUCH ESTABLISHED
RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW AS WERE APPLICABLE TO OUR
SITUATION."  SAVIN, PETITIONER, 131 U.S. 267, 275-76(1889). 

FN2  FOR THE HISTORY LEADING UP TO THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATION, SEE
RESPUBLICA V. OSWALD, 1 DALL.  319(1788), PARTICULARLY NOTE BEGINNING
AT P. 329; RESPUBLICA V. PASSMORE, 3 YEATES (PA.)  441; HAMILTON,
REPORT OF THE TRIAL AND ACQUITTAL OF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA (1805).  CF. HOLLINGSWORTH V. DUANE, WALL.  SR. 77, FED.
CAS. NO. 6616; UNITED STATES V. DUANE, WALL.  SR. 102, FED. CAS. NO.
14997. 

FN3  THE CHARGE AGAINST JUDGE PECK WAS THAT HE PUNISHED COUNSEL FOR
CONTEMPT AFTER THE FINAL DECREE OF THE PARTICULAR LITIGATION HAD BEEN
RENDERED AND THE NECESSARY STEPS FOR AN APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN, AND
AFTER THE JUDGE HAD PUBLISHED HIS OPINION IN A NEWSPAPER AND PLAINTIFF
IN REPLY HAD SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC "A CONCISE STATEMENT OF SOME OF
THE PRINCIPAL ERRORS INTO WHICH YOUR PETITIONER (THE ACCUSED COUNSEL)
HAD FALLEN."  STANSBURY, REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF JAMES H. PECK (1833). 
IN VIEW OF THEIR IMMEDIATE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, THE EMINENT
LAWYERS WHO HAD CHARGE OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JUDGE
PECK WOULD NATURALLY TAKE THE LEAST TOLERANT VIEW OF THE POWER OF
COURTS TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT.  YET ALL THE MANAGERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES (JAMES BUCHANAN OF PENNSYLVANIA, GEORGE E. MCDUFFIE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, AMBROSE SPENCER AND HENRY STORRS OF NEW YORK, CHARLES
E. WICKLIFFE OF KENTUCKY) ACKNOWLEDGED THE HISTORIC POWER TO PUNISH
INTERFERENCES CALCULATED TO OBSTRUCT THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION IN A PENDING CAUSE.  THEY DID SO SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE TERMS
NOW HERE CHALLENGED.  IBID., PP. 91, 291, 293, 382, 400.  THE FOLLOWING
FROM MR. STORRS' ARGUMENT IS A FAIR SAMPLE: 

"THE LAW OF CONTEMPTS, WHEN CONFINED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE COURTS
IN THEIR PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION AND DUTIES, AND TO THE PUNISHMENT
OF EVERY DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
POWERS AND THE PROTECTION OF THOSE WHO ARE CONCERNED IN THEM AS
PARTIES, JURORS, WITNESSES AND OFFICERS OF JUSTICE IN AID OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR FUNCTIONS, WAS TOO WELL ESTABLISHED AND TOO
WELL SUSTAINED BY PRINCIPLE AS WELL AS POSITIVE LAW, TO BE DOUBTED OR
DISTURBED; AND, CONFINED TO ITS PROPER LIMITS, ADMITTED OF ALL
REASONABLE CERTAINTY IN ITS DEFINITIONS OF CRIME.  BUT IF EXTENDED TO
THE CASE OF GENERAL LIBEL, THERE WAS NO SECURITY FOR PERSONAL LIBERTY
BUT THE DISCRETION OR FEELING OF A JUDGE."  IBID., P. 400. 

FN4  IT IS RELEVANT TO ADD THAT THIS EXPRESSED THE VIEW OF MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS WHOSE OPINIONS HAVE HAD SUCH A
POWERFUL INFLUENCE IN PRESSING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO THE SERVICE OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS.  IN TWO EARLIER CASES OF SUMMARY
PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT THEY STRONGLY DISSENTED BECAUSE THEY FOUND THAT
THE LIMITS SET BY THE ACT OF 1831 HAD BEEN EXCEEDED.  TOLEDO NEWSPAPER
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402, AND CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255. 
BUT IN NEITHER CASE DID THEY SUGGEST ANY CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFICULTY IN
THE EXERCISE OF THE CONTEMPT POWER ARISING FROM THE PROHIBITION OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. 

FN5  SEE THE LINCOLN DAY, 1898, ADDRESS OF MR. JUSTICE BREWER,
GOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION, 15 NAT. CORP. REP. 848, 849:  "IT IS A
MISTAKE TO SUPPOSE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS EITHER HONORED OR HELPED
BY BEING SPOKEN OF AS BEYOND CRITICISM.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE LIFE AND
CHARACTER OF ITS JUSTICES SHOULD BE THE OBJECTS OF CONSTANT
WATCHFULNESS BY ALL, AND ITS JUDGMENTS SUBJECT TO THE FREEST
CRITICISM.  THE TIME IS PAST IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD WHEN ANY
LIVING MAN OR BODY OF MEN CAN BE SET ON A PEDESTAL AND DECORATED WITH A
HALO.  TRUE, MANY CRITICISMS MAY BE, LIKE THEIR AUTHORS, DEVOID OF GOOD
TASTE, BUT BETTER ALL SORTS OF CRITICISM THAN NO CRITICISM AT ALL.  THE
MOVING WATERS ARE FULL OF LIFE AND HEALTH; ONLY IN THE STILL WATERS IS
STAGNATION AND DEATH." 

FN6  "IT IS MOST IMPORTANT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THIS
COUNTRY SHOULD NOT BE HAMPERED AS IT IS HAMPERED IN SOME OTHER
COUNTRIES, AND IT IS NOT ENLARGING THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT - IT
IS REFUSING TO NARROW THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT - WHEN WE SAY THAT
WE ARE DETERMINED WHILE WE ARE HERE TO DO NOTHING TO SUBSTITUTE IN THIS
COUNTRY TRIAL BY NEWSPAPER FOR TRIAL BY JURY; AND THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO
INTRODUCE THAT SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY, EVEN IN ITS FIRST BEGINNINGS,
MUST BE PREPARED TO SUFFER FOR IT.  PROBABLY THE PROPER PUNISHMENT -
AND IT IS ONE WHICH THIS COURT MAY YET HAVE TO AWARD IF THE PUNISHMENT
WE ARE ABOUT TO AWARD PROVES INSUFFICIENT - WILL BE IMPRISONMENT IN
CASES OF THIS KIND.  THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE WE CANNOT
SHUT OUR EYES TO THE FACT THAT NEWSPAPERS ARE OWNED BY WEALTHY PEOPLE,
AND IT MAY EVEN HAPPEN THAT THEY WILL TAKE THE CHANCES OF THE FINE AND
PAY IT CHEERFULLY AND WILL NOT FEEL THAT THEY HAVE THEN PAID TOO MUCH
FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT."  REX V. CLARKE, 103 L.T.R. (N.S.)  636, 640. 

FN7  THUS, IN ENGLAND, THE "THIRD DEGREE" NEVER GAINED A FOOTHOLD,
AND ITS EMERGENCE WAS IMPRESSIVELY RESISTED LONG BEFORE IT WAS OUTLAWED
HERE.  SEE 217 PARL.  DEB.  (COMMONS) COLS.  1303 ET SEQ.  (MAY 17,
1928); INQUIRY IN REGARD TO THE INTERROGATION BY THE POLICE OF MISS
SAVIDGE, CMD.  3147(1928); REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON POLICE
POWERS AND PROCEDURE, CMD.  3297(1929). 

FN8  THE PRESENT CASES ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE SITUATION THAT
EVOKED DISSENT IN CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255, 281:  "IT IS NOT ENOUGH
THAT SOMEBODY MAY HEREAFTER MOVE TO HAVE SOMETHING DONE.  THERE WAS
NOTHING THEN AWAITING DECISION WHEN THE PETITIONER'S LETTER WAS
PUBLISHED."  AND SEE GLASGOW CORPORATION V. HEDDERWICK & SONS (1918)
SESS. CAS. 639.  COMPARE STATE EX REL. PULITZER PUB. CO. V. COLEMAN,
152 S.W.2D 640(MO. 1941). 

FN9  35 STAT. 1113, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 241.  "WHOEVER CORRUPTLY, OR BY
THREATS OR FORCE, OR BY ANY THREATENING LETTER OR COMMUNICATION, SHALL
ENDEAVOR TO INFLUENCE, INTIMIDATE, OR IMPEDE ANY WITNESS, IN ANY COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES OR BEFORE ANY UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR
OFFICER ACTING AS SUCH COMMISSIONER, OR ANY GRAND OR PETIT JUROR, OR
OFFICER IN OR OF ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OFFICER WHO MAY BE
SERVING AT ANY EXAMINATION OR OTHER PROCEEDING BEFORE ANY UNITED STATES
COMMISSIONER OR OFFICER ACTING AS SUCH COMMISSIONER, IN THE DISCHARGE
OF HIS DUTY, OR WHO CORRUPTLY OR BY THREATS OR FORCE, OR BY ANY
THREATENING LETTER OR COMMUNICATION, SHALL INFLUENCE, OBSTRUCT, OR
IMPEDE, OR ENDEAVOR TO INFLUENCE, OBSTRUCT, OR IMPEDE, THE DUE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THEREIN, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN ONE
THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 
..END :


















PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 306 


NO. 36.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 17, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  -
115 F.2D 399, REVERSED. 


FRAUDULENTLY IMPERSONATING AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF A CORPORATION
OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC.
32 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY
28, 1938.  P. 310. 

PIERCE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 552, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
UNDER AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 32 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED UNDER AN INDICTMENT CHARGING VIOLATION OF
SEC. 32 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE IT
READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHOEVER, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD EITHER THE UNITED STATES OR ANY
PERSON, SHALL FALSELY ASSUME OR PRETEND TO BE AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT, OR
ANY OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT THEREOF, AND SHALL TAKE UPON HIMSELF TO
ACT AS SUCH, OR SHALL IN SUCH PRETENDED CHARACTER DEMAND OR OBTAIN FROM
ANY PERSON OR FROM THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT, OR ANY OFFICER
OF THE GOVERNMENT THEREOF, ANY MONEY, PAPER, DOCUMENT, OR OTHER
VALUABLE THING, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN THREE YEARS, OR BOTH."  35 STAT. 1095; 18
U.S.C. SEC. 76. 

THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED, 115 F.2D 399, AND CERTIORARI GRANTED,
313 U.S. 552, ON ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER'S HERETOFORE UNDECIDED
CONTENTION OF MANIFEST ERROR IN THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL OF AN
INSTRUCTION THAT THE STATUTE DID NOT INCLUDE WITHIN ITS SCOPE FALSE
PERSONATION OF OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF A GOVERNMENT CORPORATION, I.E.,
THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA). 

THE SECTION HAS BEEN UPON THE STATUTE BOOKS SINCE APRIL 18, 1884.  23
STAT. 11.  IT WAS PASSED BECAUSE OF REPORTS TO CONGRESS, BY THE PENSION
OFFICE, OF FRAUDULENT PRACTICES AFFECTING PENSION CLAIMANTS.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH THROWS ANY LIGHT ON THE
PROBLEM POSED.  FN1  NOR DO WE FIND ANY FRUITFUL COMMENTS IN THE
VARIOUS REPORTS PRELIMINARY TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE CRIMINAL CODE,
WHICH ADOPTED THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.  FN2
SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE ACTS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTS OF
THE INDICTMENT, THE SECTION WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE PRETENDING TO BE AN
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE "OF ANY CORPORATION OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE
UNITED STATES."  ACT OF FEB. 28, 1938, C. 37, 52 STAT. 82. 

THE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY CHARGED
THE DEFENDANT WITH FALSELY PRETENDING TO BE AN OFFICER "OF THE UNITED
STATES, TO WIT, (A REPRESENTATIVE) OF THE GOVERNMENT SELLING T.V.A
UNITS" THEN AND THERE TAKING UPON HIMSELF TO ACT AS SUCH OFFICER WITH
INTENT TO DEFRAUD SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS NAMED IN THE COUNTS OR WITH
OBTAINING FROM THE NAMED INDIVIDUALS STATED SUMS OF MONEY WITH INTENT
TO DEFRAUD.  THE INDICTMENT STATES CRIMES UNDER THE STATUTE. 

ON THE TRIAL IT WAS STIPULATED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT AT ANY TIME AN
AGENT, EMPLOYEE OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY DEPARTMENT
THEREOF, OR OF THE TVA.  IT WAS SHOWN THAT TVA WAS A GOVERNMENT
CORPORATION AND THAT IT ISSUED NO STOCK OR UNITS FOR SALE.  THE
EVIDENCE FURTHER SHOWED PETITIONER WAS EDITOR AND VICE PRESIDENT OF A
NEWSPAPER, THE HUNTSVILLE (ALABAMA) DAILY REGISTER, AND THAT THE
REPRESENTATIONS OCCURRED DURING "A COMMUNITY PUBLICITY ADVERTISING"
CAMPAIGN.  HE CARRIED A LETTER FROM HIS PAPER INTRODUCING AND
IDENTIFYING HIM AS ENGAGED IN GETTING OUT "THE MUSCLE SHOALS SERIES OF
PAGE NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS," AND CARRIED A BUNDLE OF THE OLD ISSUES
OF THE PAPER AS DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE PUBLICITY ASSISTANCE TO BE GIVEN
THE TVA.  THE TVA UNITS WERE PARTICIPATIONS IN THE COST OF THE PAGE
ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE DAILY REGISTER, TELLING OF THE TVA BENEFITS TO
THE COMMUNITY, WHICH COST THE VICTIMS OF THE ALLEGED SWINDLE $10 EACH. 
THOSE WHO PURCHASED BY CASH OR CHECK RECEIVED ON THE SPOT RECEIPTS OF
THE DAILY REGISTER, SIGNED BY PETITIONER, FOR THE ADVERTISING COST
PAID.  THE WIDE PUBLICITY OBTAINED FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TVA
FLOOD AND POWER PROJECT HAD PREPARED THE WAY FOR EASY ACCEPTANCE OF THE
SCHEME BY THE CREDULOUS.  SOME SUBSCRIBERS TO THE UNITS, WHO FELT THEY
HAD BEEN DUPED BY THE SALESMAN, TESTIFIED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR
FLEECING ON THE OCCASIONS SPECIFIED IN THE INDICTMENT.  THEIR EVIDENCE
SHOWED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE JURY THAT PIERCE, TAKING UPON HIMSELF
TO ACT AS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, SAID OR GAVE THEM THE IMPRESSION THAT
HE REPRESENTED THE GOVERNMENT, THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS CONTRIBUTING TO
THE COST OF THE ADVERTISING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TVA, AND THAT, AS
ONE WITNESS PHRASED IT, THE PURPOSE WAS "JUST THE ADVANCEMENT OF TVA IN
OUR COUNTRY."  ANOTHER WITNESS TESTIFIED "IT NEVER DAWNED ON ME THAT IT
WAS A PERSONALLY OWNED NEWSPAPER." 

ALL THE COUNTS INCLUDED A CHARGE OF IMPERSONATION OF A REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE UNITED STATES "SELLING TVA UNITS."  THE EVIDENCE, AS TO SOME,
WAS THAT PIERCE SAID HE REPRESENTED TVA; AS TO OTHERS, IT WAS THAT HE
REPRESENTED THE GOVERNMENT SELLING TVA OR TVA UNITS.  IN NO INSTANCE IS
THERE TESTIMONY THAT PIERCE REPRESENTED HIMSELF AS AN EMPLOYEE OR
OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES UNCONNECTED WITH THE PUBLIC ENTERPRISE OF
THE TVA AT MUSCLE SHOALS.  THE INSTRUCTIONS FOLLOWED THE CHARGES AND
EVIDENCE.  THEY MADE CLEAR THAT THE CHARGES AGAINST PIERCE WERE FOR
FALSE IMPERSONATION BY ASSUMING TO ACT AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE
UNITED STATES WITH FRAUDULENT INTENT, AND NOT SIMPLY FOR OBTAINING
MONEY BY FALSE PRETENSES OR FALSE CLAIM OF STIMULATING THE TENNESSEE
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT.  THE INSTRUCTIONS REPEATED, WITH MANY VARIATIONS,
THE THOUGHT THAT PIERCE MUST HAVE ACTUALLY AND INTENTIONALLY
REPRESENTED HIMSELF OR ASSUMED TO BE AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES,
ACTING UNDER ITS AUTHORITY.  REFERENCES WERE MADE TO TVA.  IT WAS SAID
DEFENDANT WAS SELLING OR ATTEMPTING TO SELL TVA UNITS.  IT WAS FURTHER
POINTED OUT THAT THE MENTION OF TVA IN THE COPIES OF THE DAILY REGISTER
WHICH WERE EXHIBITED "BY THE DEFENDANT TO ANY PERSON, FROM WHOM FUNDS
WERE SOLICITED, AND IN THE SALES TALKS MADE BY HIM TO SUCH PERSON
SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY YOU AS EVIDENCE OF A FALSE CLAIM OR
PRETENSE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT, PIERCE,
UNLESS YOU FURTHER FIND AND ARE SATISFIED FROM THE PROOF, BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT SUCH REFERENCE TO TVA, IN EITHER THE NEWSPAPERS
OR SALES TALKS, WERE MADE BY THE DEFENDANT WITH THE INTENT OF PRODUCING
A BELIEF ON THE PART OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM FUNDS WERE SOLICITED THAT
HE, THE DEFENDANT PIERCE, WAS ACTING AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT." 

THERE WAS A REFUSAL BY THE TRIAL COURT, HOWEVER, TO GIVE THE
FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION: 

"AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENDANT, THE COURT FURTHER INSTRUCTS THE
JURY THAT THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, COMMONLY DESIGNATED AS TVA,
ALTHOUGH AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IS A CORPORATE
ENTITY, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF, AND
THE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THAT CORPORATION ARE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THE STATUTE ON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE IS BASED. 
CONSEQUENTLY, ANY CLAIM OR REPRESENTATION BY THE DEFENDANT, IF YOU FIND
THAT SUCH CLAIM OR REPRESENTATION WAS MADE, THAT HE WAS REPRESENTING
THE TVA, OR WAS CONNECTED WITH THE TVA AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, WOULD
NOT CONSTITUTE THE FALSE IMPERSONATION OF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY DEPARTMENT THEREOF, TVA OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES NOT BEING OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR
SOME DEPARTMENT THEREOF, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE WHICH THE
DEFENDANT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED, IN THE SEVERAL COUNTS OF THE
INDICTMENT." 

NOR DO WE FIND ANY COMPARABLE STATEMENT WHICH WAS GIVEN.  IN THIS
REFUSAL, WE FIND MATERIAL ERROR. 

SO CLOSELY ENTWINED WERE THE TVA AND THE GOVERNMENT (THE UNITED
STATES) IN THE INSTRUCTIONS AND THE EVIDENCE ON THE VARIOUS COUNTS THAT
ANY JURY MIGHT WELL HAVE THOUGHT A PRETENSE THAT PIERCE WAS AN EMPLOYEE
OR OFFICER OF THE TVA VIOLATED THE STATUTE, AND HAVE VOTED FOR
CONVICTION FOR THAT REASON.  THIS, HOWEVER, IN OUR VIEW, IS INCORRECT,
AND CONSTITUTES PREJUDICIAL ERROR.  CF. WARSZOWER V. UNITED STATES, 312
U.S. 342; STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; NASH V. UNITED STATES,
229 U.S. 373.  THE STATUTE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF
THE ALLEGED OFFENSES DID NOT SPEAK OF PRETENSES OF ACTING UNDER
AUTHORITY OF CORPORATIONS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED STATES.  IT
WAS PASSED IN 1884 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS OPERATING HOTELS, BOAT LINES, OR GENERATING PLANTS.  THE
AMENDMENTS, SUBSEQUENT TO THE OCCASIONS FIXED BY THE INDICTMENT,
EXTENDED ITS SCOPE FIRST TO THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, 49 STAT.
298, AND LATER TO ALL CORPORATIONS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED
STATES, 52 STAT. 82.  FN3  THESE LEGISLATIVE EXTENSIONS OF THE SCOPE OF
THE ACT WERE IN ACCORD WITH THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CORPORATION, BUT A COMPARABLE JUDICIAL ENLARGEMENT OF A
CRIMINAL ACT BY INTERPRETATION IS AT WAR WITH A FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF
THE COMMON LAW THAT CRIMES MUST BE DEFINED WITH APPROPRIATE
DEFINITENESS.  CF. LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451, AND CASES
CITED.  WHILE THE ACT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED "SO AS  ...  TO GIVE FULL
EFFECT TO ITS PLAIN TERMS," LAMAR V. UNITED STATES, 241 U.S. 103, 112;
UNITED STATES V. BARNOW, 239 U.S. 74, WE SHOULD NOT DEPART FROM ITS
WORDS AND CONTEXT.  ANOTHER SECTION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE (SEC. 35) WAS
AMENDED TO MEET THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 23, 1918, 40
STAT. 1015.  CF. UNITED STATES V. STRANG, 254 U.S. 491.  THE TVA ACT
MADE CERTAIN FEDERAL PENAL STATUTES APPLICABLE TO THE AUTHORITY BUT
POINTEDLY OMITTED SEC. 32.  FN4  THIS POINTED OMISSION IS INDICATIVE OF
INTENTION. 

PREVIOUS CASES AS TO IDENTITY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS
CORPORATIONS TURNED ON CONSIDERATIONS NOT HERE APPLICABLE.  IN
EMERGENCY FLEET CORP. V. WESTERN UNION, 275 U.S. 415, 426, THE
CORPORATION WAS HELD A DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE POST ROADS ACT AND SO ENTITLED TO LOWER TELEGRAPH RATES THAN
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.  AN INDICTMENT UNDER CRIMINAL CODE SEC. 37 FOR A
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES "IN ANY MANNER" WAS HELD TO
STATE A CRIME WHEN THE CONTEMPLATED FRAUD WAS UPON THE UNITED STATES
EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION.  UNITED STATES V. WALTER, 263 U.S. 15,
17.  BUT THIS DECISION IS BOTTOMED ON THE BROAD GROUND THAT FRAUD WHICH
INTERFERES WITH THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IS WITHIN
THE STATUTE.  HAAS V. HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462, 479, 480.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, IN UNITED STATES V. STRANG, SUPRA, IN CONSTRUING CRIMINAL CODE
SEC. 41  FN5  THIS COURT HELD AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FLEET CORPORATION WAS
NOT AN AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE TRUE INTENDMENT OF THE
DECIDING THE WALTER CASE.  THE STATUTE IN THE STRANG CASE POINTS
DIRECTLY AT A PARTICULAR CLASS OF PERSONS AS THE OBJECT OF THE
SANCTION.  IT LEAVES, AS DOES THE STATUTE HERE, NO ROOM FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF ITS MEANING.  REVERSED. 

FN1  15 CONG. REC. 1285, 2256, 2627, 2676, 48TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN2  REPORT OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE LAWS,
SEN. REP. NO. 10, 60TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PART 1, P. 40; FINAL REPORT OF
THE COMMISSION TO REVISE AND CODIFY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, VOL.
1, P. 101, VOL. 2, P. 1776(1906); REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO REVISE
AND CODIFY THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, SEN. DOC. NO. 68,
57TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PART 2, PP. IX AND 12, SEC. 37. 

FN3  THE REPORTS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BEAR UPON THEIR VIEW OF THE PROPER
INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM.  THE REPORTS
INCORPORATED THE FOLLOWING LETTER:

                           "OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                        WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 7,
1937. 

HON. WILLIAM B. BANKHEAD,

 THE SPEAKER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

    WASHINGTON, D.C. 

MY DEAR MR. SPEAKER:  THE EXISTING LAW MAKES IT A CRIME TO
IMPERSONATE ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES WITH INTENT TO
DEFRAUD (CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 32; U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SEC. 76).  IT
SEEMS DESIRABLE TO EXTEND THE SCOPE OF THE ACT SO AS TO PENALIZE
IMPERSONATION OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND
GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS. 

THE MAXIMUM PENALTY THAT MAY NOW BE IMPOSED FOR THE OFFENSE OF
IMPERSONATION IS IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF 3 YEARS AND A FINE OF
$1,000.  IN AGGRAVATED CASES A GREATER PUNISHMENT MAY PROVE SUITABLE,
AND I SUGGEST INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY TO IMPRISONMENT FOR 5
YEARS AND A FINE OF $5,000. 

A BILL TO EFFECTUATE THIS PURPOSE IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. 

SINCERELY YOURS,

  JOSEPH B. KEENAN,

     ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL." 

H. REP. NO. 1763, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.; S. REP. NO. 823, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS. 

FN4 MAY 18, 1933, C. 32, SEC. 21, 48 STAT. 68: 

"(A)  ALL GENERAL PENAL STATUTES RELATING TO THE LARCENY,
EMBEZZLEMENT, CONVERSION, OR TO THE IMPROPER HANDLING, RETENTION, USE,
OR DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC MONEYS OR PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL
APPLY TO THE MONEYS AND PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION AND TO MONEYS AND
PROPERTIES OF THE UNITED STATES INTRUSTED TO THE CORPORATION.    "(B)
ANY PERSON WHO, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE CORPORATION, OR TO DECEIVE
ANY DIRECTOR, OFFICER, OR EMPLOYEE OF THE CORPORATION OR ANY OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES (1) MAKES ANY FALSE ENTRY IN ANY BOOK OF
THE CORPORATION, OR (2) MAKES ANY FALSE REPORT OR STATEMENT FOR THE
CORPORATION, SHALL, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN
$10,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH. 

"(C)  ANY PERSON WHO SHALL RECEIVE ANY COMPENSATION, REBATE, OR
REWARD, OR SHALL ENTER INTO ANY CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, OR AGREEMENT,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE CORPORATION OR
WRONGFULLY AND UNLAWFULLY TO DEFEAT ITS PURPOSES, SHALL, ON CONVICTION
THEREOF, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE
YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN5  "SEC.  41.  NO OFFICER OR AGENT OF ANY CORPORATION, JOINT STOCK
COMPANY, OR ASSOCIATION, AND NO MEMBER OR AGENT OF ANY FIRM, OR PERSON
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INTERESTED IN THE PECUNIARY PROFITS OR CONTRACTS
OF SUCH CORPORATION, JOINT STOCK COMPANY, ASSOCIATION, OR FIRM, SHALL
BE EMPLOYED OR SHALL ACT AS AN OFFICER OR AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS WITH SUCH CORPORATION, JOINT STOCK
COMPANY, ASSOCIATION, OR FIRM.  WHOEVER SHALL VIOLATE THE PROVISION OF
THIS SECTION SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS AND
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS."  35 STAT. 1097; 18 U.S.C. SEC.
93. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DISSENTS ON THE GROUND THAT A FALSE
REPRESENTATION BY THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WAS ACTING FOR THE TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED A FALSE PRETENSE THAT HE WAS AN OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES OR A
DEPARTMENT THEREOF, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 32 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :











AMER. SURETY CO. V. BETHLEHEM BANK, 314 U.S. 314 


NO. 29.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  - 116
F.2D 75, REVERSED. 


1.  IN MAKING THE "RATABLE" DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS OF AN INSOLVENT
NATIONAL BANK REQUIRED BY R.S. 5236, DIVIDENDS MUST BE DECLARED
PROPORTIONATELY UPON THE AMOUNTS OF ALL CLAIMS AS THEY STOOD ON THE
DATE OF INSOLVENCY.  P. 317. 

2.  WHERE A CLAIM AGAINST AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK SECURED BY A
SURETY BOND IS PAID IN PART BY COLLATERAL AND BY DIVIDENDS FROM THE
ESTATE AND THE REMAINDER BY THE SURETY COMPANY, THE SURETY IS
SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHT OF THE CREDITOR IN FUTURE DIVIDENDS, AND ITS
PROPORTION OF FUTURE DIVIDENDS IS TO BE CALCULATED, NOT UPON THE BASIS
OF WHAT IT PAID, BUT UPON THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.  P. 318. 

AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY OF  NEW YORK V. BETHLEHEM NATIONAL BANK ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 677, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT FIXING DIVIDENDS IN THE WINDING UP OF AN INSOLVENT
NATIONAL BANK. 

THE CLAIM OF THE SURETY FOR REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE PRINCIPAL, OR FROM
THE ESTATE OF THE PRINCIPAL, MUST BE MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE
SURETY UNDER THE BOND, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER REIMBURSEMENT IS SOUGHT
UPON A CLAIM OF INDEMNITY OR A CLAIM OF SUBROGATION. 

THE AMOUNT OF THE PROVABLE CLAIM FOR DIVIDEND PURPOSES IS THE AMOUNT
OWING TO THE CLAIMANT BY THE BANK AS OF THE DATE OF CLOSING.  MERRILL
V. NATIONAL BANK, 173 U.S. 131, 146; WHITE V. KNOX, 111 U.S. 784, 786;
SCOTT V. ARMSTRONG, 146 U.S. 499, 511; FORT WORTH V. MCCAMEY, 93 F.2D
964, 969, CERTIORARI DENIED, 304 U.S. 571; STEELE V. RANDALL, 19 F.2D
40, 42; MCDONALD V. CHEMICAL NATIONAL BANK, 174 U.S. 610, 619;
MCCANDLESS V. DYAR, 34 F.2D 989, 991; ROSS V. LEE, 15 F.SUPP.  972,
973. 

IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE TO THE GENERAL CREDITORS OF THE BANK TO ALLOW
THE SURETY, BY SUBROGATION OR OTHERWISE, A CLAIM, AS THE BASIS OF
DIVIDENDS, IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT OF THE COMMONWEALTH AT THE
TIME OF THE SUSPENSION OR CLOSING OF THE BANK. 

THE DEPOSIT BALANCE TO THE CREDIT OF THE COMMONWEALTH ON THE DATE OF
THE BANK'S CLOSING WAS MORE THAN DOUBLE THE AMOUNT PERMITTED BY THE
STATE STATUTE, AND TO THE EXTENT OF THAT EXCESS WAS ILLEGAL.  A
CLAIMANT SEEKING SUBROGATION MUST ACT FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY AND BE FREE
FROM FAULT IN THE TRANSACTION IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH HE CLAIMS
SUBROGATION. 

IN BALANCING THE EQUITIES, THE GENERAL DEPOSITORS AND CREDITORS OF
THE BANK ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE BENEFITS OF THE SURETY BOND, RATHER
THAN TO HAVE IT WEIGHED IN THE BALANCE AGAINST THEM. 

THE SURETY BOND MUST BE CONSIDERED AS AN ASSET OF THE BANK IN
RECEIVERSHIP. 

MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK, 173 U.S. 131, TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE
HERE, SUPPORTS THE POSITION OF RESPONDENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SIMPLE.  THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
HAD $135,000 ON DEPOSIT IN THE BETHLEHEM NATIONAL BANK.  THIS DEPOSIT
WAS SECURED BY A $125,000 BOND, UPON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF WAS SURETY,
AND BY A PLEDGE OF GOVERNMENT BONDS HAVING A PAR VALUE OF $12,000.  THE
BANK BECAME INSOLVENT, AND A RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED.  THEREAFTER, THE
COMMONWEALTH OBTAINED, IN ROUND FIGURES, $12,500 FROM THE SALE OF THE
COLLATERAL AND $54,000 AS A 40% DIVIDEND ON ITS CLAIM, A TOTAL OF
$66,500.  THE REMAINING $68,500 WAS PAID BY THE SURETY, THEREBY FULLY
SATISFYING THE COMMONWEALTH'S CLAIM.  THE PRESENT SUIT AROSE OUT OF
THREE FURTHER DIVIDENDS, OF 20%, 10%, AND 5%, RESPECTIVELY, DECLARED BY
THE RECEIVER.  THE SURETY SOUGHT DIVIDEND PAYMENTS ON THE BASIS OF THE
ORIGINAL INDEBTEDNESS, THAT IS, $135,000.  THE RECEIVER INSISTED THAT
THE EXTENT OF THE SURETY'S PARTICIPATION MUST BE MEASURED BY THE SUM
ACTUALLY EXPENDED TO DISCHARGE ITS PRINCIPAL'S OBLIGATION, TO WIT,
$68,500.  REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 33 F.SUPP. 
722, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT UPHELD THE
RECEIVER'S CONTENTION.  116 F.2D 75.  IN VIEW OF CONFLICTING
EXPRESSIONS BY THE LOWER COURTS UPON A QUESTION SO IMPORTANT IN THE
LIQUIDATION OF NATIONAL BANKS, CF. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. COX, 104
F.2D 354; WARD V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 76 F.2D 256; FOUTS V. MARYLAND
CASUALTY CO., 30 F.2D 357, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  312 U.S. 677. 

THE NATIONAL BANK ACT PROVIDES FOR THE "RATABLE" DISTRIBUTION OF
ASSETS OF INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANKS.  R.S. SEC. 5236; 12 U.S.C. SEC.
194.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS THEREFORE ONE OF FEDERAL LAW. 
DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190, 200-01; MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF
JACKSONVILLE, 173 U.S. 131; DAVIS V. ELMIRA SAVINGS BANK, 161 U.S. 275;
COOK COUNTY NAT. BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445, 448.  CONGRESS
HAS SEEN FIT NOT TO ANTICIPATE BY SPECIFIC RULES SOLUTION OF PROBLEMS
THAT INEVITABLY ARISE IN NATIONAL BANK LIQUIDATIONS.  INSTEAD, IT CHOSE
ACHIEVEMENT OF A "JUST AND EQUAL DISTRIBUTION" OF AN INSOLVENT BANK'S
ASSETS THROUGH THE OPERATION OF FAMILIAR EQUITABLE DOCTRINES EVOLVED BY
THE COURTS.  DAVIS V. ELMIRA SAVINGS BANK, 161 U.S. 275, 284; JENKINS
V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 277 U.S. 258, 267.  AMONG THE OLDEST OF THESE
DOCTRINES IS THE RULE OF SUBROGATION WHEREBY "ONE WHO HAS BEEN
COMPELLED TO PAY A DEBT WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY ANOTHER IS
ENTITLED TO EXERCISE ALL THE REMEDIES WHICH THE CREDITOR POSSESSED
AGAINST THAT OTHER."  SHELDON, SUBROGATION (2D ED.)  SEC.  11; SEE
HAMPTON V. PHIPPS, 108 U.S. 260, 263; HODGSON V. SHAW, 3 MYL.  & K.
183, 191; HAYES V. WARD, 4 JOHNS.  CH. 123, 130. 

HERE THE SURETY WAS COMPELLED TO PAY TO THE COMMONWEALTH $68,500
WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE BANK.  OF COURSE, IT SUCCEEDS TO
THE COMMONWEALTH'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYMENT OF $68,500 FROM THE BANK -
AND IN NO EVENT CAN THE SURETY RECEIVE MORE.  BUT AS A MEANS OF
ENFORCING THIS RIGHT THE COMMONWEALTH WAS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN ALL
FUTURE DIVIDENDS ON THE BASIS OF ITS ORIGINAL CLAIM OF $135,000. 
MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, 173 U.S. 131.  SUCCEEDING TO
THE CREDITOR'S RIGHT, THE SURETY ALSO SUCCEEDS TO THE CREDITOR'S MEANS
FOR ENFORCING IT.  THE SURETY IS A SPECIAL KIND OF SECURED CREDITOR. 
FOR ITS CLAIM AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL IS SECURED BY ITS RIGHT OF
SUBROGATION TO THE REMEDIES OF THE CREDITOR WHICH IT HAS BEEN COMPELLED
TO PAY.  OF COURSE, THIS RIGHT CAN BE AVAILED OF ONLY BY A SURETY ALERT
IN DISCHARGING ITS DUTY, JENKINS V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 277 U.S. 258,
267, AND ONE NOT GUILTY OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, UNITED STATES V. RYDER,
110 U.S. 729, 737.  IN OTHER RESPECTS, A RIGHT OF SUBROGATION IS AS
MUCH IN THE NATURE OF A SECURITY AS IS A MORTGAGE. 

A "RATABLE" DISTRIBUTION REQUIRES THAT DIVIDENDS BE DECLARED
PROPORTIONATELY UPON THE AMOUNT OF ALL CLAIMS AS THEY STAND ON THE DATE
OF THE INSOLVENCY.  THIS IS SETTLED LAW.  WHITE V. KNOX, 111 U.S. 784,
787; MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, SUPRA, AT 143; TICONIC
BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S. 406, 411.  "THE DISTRIBUTION IS TO BE
'RATABLE' ON THE CLAIMS AS PROVED OR ADJUDICATED, THAT IS, ON ONE RULE
OF PROPORTION APPLICABLE TO ALL ALIKE.  IN ORDER TO BE 'RATABLE' THE
CLAIMS MUST MANIFESTLY BE ESTIMATED AS OF THE SAME POINT OF TIME, AND
THAT DATE HAS BEEN ADJUDGED TO BE THE DATE OF THE DECLARATION OF
INSOLVENCY."  MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, SUPRA, AT 143. 
THE BASIS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE BANK'S ASSETS BY THE COMMONWEALTH WAS
$135,000, THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM ON THE DATE OF INSOLVENCY.  THE
AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM HAVING BEEN THUS FIXED ON THE DATE OF INSOLVENCY,
IT DID NOT SHRINK BECAUSE OF THE EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE
CREDITOR'S FORETHOUGHT IN SECURING PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF ITS LOSS BY
GOING AGAINST THE COLLATERAL AND THE SURETY. 

TO PERMIT THE SURETY TO STAND IN THE SHOES OF THE SECURED CREDITOR
WHOSE CLAIM IT HAS PAID DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF THE GENERAL
CREDITORS.  THE EXTENT OF THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF
THE BANK'S ASSETS WAS FIXED ON THE DAY IT BECAME INSOLVENT.  THE SURETY
WILL RECEIVE NO GREATER SHARE THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE
COMMONWEALTH HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT ITS CLAIM WAS
SECURED BY A SURETY'S BOND.  IF, FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, THE SURETY
HAD WITHHELD PAYMENT TO THE COMMONWEALTH, THE LATTER WOULD HAVE
CONTINUED TO RECEIVE DIVIDENDS ON THE FULL AMOUNT OF ITS CLAIM, OR IF,
ON A NICE CALCULATION, THE SURETY HAD AT THE OUTSET SATISFIED ITS
PRINCIPAL'S OBLIGATION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO SHARE ON THE
BASIS OF THE FULL AMOUNT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE SURETY'S
PARTICIPATION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT NOW URGED BY THE
RECEIVER, THE OTHER CREDITORS WOULD PROFIT SOLELY BECAUSE OF FORTUITOUS
CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHOUT ANY RELATION TO REASONS OF INTRINSIC
FAIRNESS.  THE EXTENT OF THE PARTICIPATION OF THE SURETY, AND THEREFORE
THAT OF THE OTHER CREDITORS, WOULD DEPEND ON HOW, WHEN, AND AGAINST
WHOM THE SECURED CREDITOR PRESSES ITS CLAIM.  CF. IN RE THOMPSON, 300
F. 215, 217-18; PACE V. PACE, 95 VA. 792, 799, 30 S.E. 361.  SUCH A
RESULT LEAVES TOO MUCH TO CAPRICE OR ACCIDENT AND IS WHOLLY AT VARIANCE
WITH THE GUIDING CRITERION OF "RATABLE" DISTRIBUTION.  FN1 

A FINAL CONSIDERATION NEEDS MENTION.  THE RECEIVER CITES SEVERAL
INSTANCES IN WHICH THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY HAS STATED THAT THE
BASIS OF A SURETY'S CLAIM IS TO BE MEASURED BY THE AMOUNTS IT HAS
EXPENDED.  BUT THERE IS WANTING HERE ANY LONG-CONTINUED PRACTICE WHICH
ESTABLISHES ITS OWN LAW WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE AREA OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION.  CF. INLAND WATERWAYS CORP. V. YOUNG, 309 U.S. 517, 524-25. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  REFLECTING THE SPECIAL POLICY OF BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION FAVORING
THE GENERAL CREDITOR AGAINST THE SECURED CREDITOR, THE RULE PREVAILS IN
BANKRUPTCY THAT DIVIDENDS UPON THE CLAIMS OF SECURED CREDITORS "SHALL
BE PAID ONLY ON THE UNPAID BALANCE."  SEC. 57(H), 30 STAT. 544, 560, 11
U.S.C. SEC. 93(H); 14 STAT. 517, 526.  IT IS SETTLED, HOWEVER, THAT THE
"BANKRUPTCY" RULE IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS OF
INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANKS.  MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE,
173 U.S. 131.  THERE IS NO OCCASION TO REEXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF
THAT DECISION, THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED HERE
AND WAS AGAIN RECOGNIZED VERY RECENTLY.  TICONIC BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303
U.S. 406, 412.  ALTHOUGH THE NATIONAL BANK ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED MANY
TIMES SINCE ITS ORIGINAL ENACTMENT IN 1864, 13 STAT. 114, THE PROVISION
GOVERNING DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS HAS REMAINED SUBSTANTIALLY INTACT. 
THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE PROVISION IN THE MERRILL CASE HAS BEEN LEFT
UNCHANGED BY CONGRESS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

THE ONLY VIRTUE POSSESSED BY MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF
JACKSONVILLE, 173 U.S. 131, IS THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS
FOR OVER FORTY YEARS.  IT HELD THAT A SECURED CREDITOR COULD RECEIVE
DIVIDENDS ON THE FACE AMOUNT OF HIS CLAIM EVEN THOUGH THAT CLAIM HAD
BEEN REDUCED BY THE VALUE OF THE COLLATERAL BETWEEN THE DATE OF
INSOLVENCY AND THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION.  THAT RULE OF DISTRIBUTION IS
INEQUITABLE AND UNFAIR TO THE RUN OF DEPOSITORS.  IT GIVES AN ADVANTAGE
TO THE SECURED CREDITOR UNWARRANTED BY ANY PROVISION OF HIS CONTRACT. 
FOR IT TREATS THE CLAIM AS WHOLLY UNPAID EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN
PARTIALLY DISCHARGED BY LIQUIDATION OF THE COLLATERAL.  THE IMPACT ON
OTHER CREDITORS IS OPPRESSIVE.  UNDER THE RULE OF THE MERRILL CASE, A
DEPOSITOR WITH A $10,000 CLAIM, SECURED BY $5,000 WORTH OF COLLATERAL,
WILL BE WHOLLY PAID IF THE INSOLVENT BANK PAYS A 50% DIVIDEND.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, AN UNSECURED DEPOSITOR WITH A $10,000 CLAIM SALVAGES UNDER
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY $5,000.  A RULE OF DISTRIBUTION WHICH
SANCTIONS SUCH A DISCRIMINATORY RESULT VIOLATES THE REQUIREMENT FOR
"RATABLE" DIVIDENDS PRESCRIBED BY THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT.  R.S. SEC.
5236, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 194.  THIS IS NO OCCASION, HOWEVER, TO ELABORATE
ON THE POINT.  IT WAS FULLY COVERED IN ITS HISTORICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS
BY THE DISSENTING OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE WHITE AND MR. JUSTICE GRAY IN
THE MERRILL CASE. 

THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE
POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE
ADOPTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY RULE  FN2  IN EQUITY WOULD BE AN INVASION OF
"PRIOR" CONTRACT RIGHTS (173 U.S. AT P. 146) - AN IMPAIRMENT OF
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT.  AND THE REASON FOR THAT CONCLUSION WAS BASED
ON THE THEORY THAT SINCE "THE CREDITOR'S RIGHTS IN THE TRUST FUND ARE
ESTABLISHED WHEN THE FUND IS CREATED, COLLECTIONS SUBSEQUENTLY MADE
FROM, OR PAYMENTS SUBSEQUENTLY MADE ON, COLLATERAL, CANNOT OPERATE TO
CHANGE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CREDITOR AND HIS CO-CREDITORS IN
RESPECT OF THEIR RIGHTS IN THE FUND."  (P. 140.)  FOR THAT REASON IT
WAS HELD THAT THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS ARE TO BE "DETERMINED AS OF THE
DATE OF THE DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY."  (P. 147.)  THERE IS SERIOUS
QUESTION WHETHER THAT FOUNDATION HAS NOT BEEN SWEPT AWAY BY WILLIAM
FILENE'S SONS CO. V. WEED, 245 U.S. 597. 

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES STATED IN THE WEED CASE (P. 602):  "BUT WHEN THE
COURTS WITHOUT STATUTE TAKE POSSESSION OF ALL THE ASSETS OF A
CORPORATION UNDER A BILL LIKE THE PRESENT AND SO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
COLLECT DEBTS EXCEPT FROM THE COURT'S HANDS, THEY HAVE NO WARRANT FOR
EXCLUDING CREDITORS, OR FOR INTRODUCING SUPPOSED EQUITIES OTHER THAN
THOSE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTS THAT THE DEBTOR WAS CONTENT TO MAKE
AND THE CREDITORS TO ACCEPT.  IN ORDER TO MAKE A DISTRIBUTION POSSIBLE
THEY MUST OF NECESSITY LIMIT THE TIME FOR THE PROOF OF CLAIMS.  BUT
THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE TO THE FILING OF THE BILL THE EFFECT OF
THE FILING OF A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY SO AS TO EXCLUDE ANY PREVIOUSLY
MADE AND LAWFUL CLAIM THAT MATURES WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME BEFORE
DISTRIBUTION CAN BE MADE." 

THAT THEORY RUNS COUNTER TO THE ASSUMPTION IN THE MERRILL CASE (173
U.S. AT P. 136) THAT A CREDITOR ACQUIRES A "VESTED INTEREST IN THE
TRUST FUND" ANTEDATING DISTRIBUTION.  FOR IF THAT ASSUMPTION WERE
VALID, THE CLAIM IN THE WEED CASE, WHICH HAD MATURED AFTER THE
PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INSTITUTED, WOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED.  SUCH AN
ASSUMPTION WOULD LIKEWISE FAIL TO TAKE HEED OF THE ADMONITION OF MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES THAT "SUPPOSED EQUITIES OTHER THAN THOSE DETERMINED BY
THE CONTRACTS THAT THE DEBTOR WAS CONTENT TO MAKE AND THE CREDITORS TO
ACCEPT" ARE NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED.    YET, ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE
PREMISE OF THE MERRILL CASE HAS SURVIVED, THE ANSWER TO THE PROPOSITION
THAT APPLICATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY RULE WOULD RESULT IN IMPAIRMENT OF
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT WAS COMPLETELY ANSWERED BY MR. JUSTICE WHITE
(173 U.S. AT P. 152):  "  ...  THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHT ARISING FROM THE
CONTRACT OF PLEDGE IS IN NOWISE IMPAIRED BY COMPELLING THE CREDITOR TO
FIRST EXERCISE HIS PREFERENCE AGAINST THE SECURITY RECEIVED FROM THE
DEBTOR, AND THUS CONFINE HIM TO THE SPECIFIC ADVANTAGE DERIVED FROM HIS
CONTRACT.  FURTHER, HOWEVER, AS THE CONTRACT, CONSTRUED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE LAW GOVERNING IT, RESTRICTS THE SECURED AS WELL AS THE
UNSECURED CREDITOR TO A RATABLE DIVIDEND FROM THE GENERAL ASSETS, THE
SECURED CREDITOR IS PREVENTED FROM ENHANCING THE ADVANTAGE OBTAINED AS
A RESULT OF THE CONTRACT FOR SECURITY, BY PROVING HIS CLAIM AS IF NO
SECURITY EXISTED, SINCE TO ALLOW HIM TO SO DO WOULD DESTROY THE RULE OF
RATABLE DIVISION, SUBJECT AND SUBORDINATE TO WHICH THE CONTRACT WAS
MADE."  AND SEE GLENN, LIQUIDATION (1935) SEC. 530. 

THIS ANALYSIS OF THE MERRILL CASE IS GERMANE TO THE PRESENT PROBLEM
NOT MERELY TO FOCUS THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE RULE WHICH WE ARE
ASKED TO ENFORCE.  IT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE ARE NOW ASKED
TO EXTEND THAT RULE TO A SPECIAL TYPE OF UNSECURED CREDITOR. 

THE SURETY WHO SEEKS ITS PROTECTION HAS AN UNSECURED CLAIM FOR
$68,500.  IT SEEKS TO GAIN THE ADVANTAGES WHICH A SECURED CREDITOR WITH
A CLAIM OF $135,000 WOULD HAVE, I. E. THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE DIVIDENDS ON
THAT BASIS.  TO DENY THE SURETY THAT PREFERENCE WOULD BE NO INVASION OF
"PRIOR CONTRACT RIGHTS," NO IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT, UNDER
THE THEORY OF THE MAJORITY IN THE MERRILL CASE.  THIS SURETY NEITHER
HAS NOR HAD ANY CLAIM WHICH WAS SECURED.  NOR DID IT HAVE ANY FIXED AND
LIQUIDATED CLAIM AT THE DATE OF THE DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY.  ITS
CLAIM WAS ALWAYS UNSECURED AND IT MATURED, AS IN THE WEED CASE, AFTER
THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER.  NEVERTHELESS, THIS SURETY, THOUGH IT
WOULD FAIL TO GAIN THE PREFERRED POSITION OF A SECURED CREDITOR UNDER
THE TEST OF THE MERRILL CASE, IS ALLOWED TO REACH THAT POSITION THROUGH
THE BACK DOOR OF SUBROGATION. 

IT IS ORDINARILY TRUE THAT A SURETY SUCCEEDS TO ALL OF THE RIGHTS AND
REMEDIES OF THE CREDITOR, INCLUDING THE LATTER'S PRIORITY. 
LIDDERDALE'S EXECUTORS V. EXECUTOR OF ROBINSON, 12 WHEAT.  594.  BUT
THAT IS NO INEXORABLE RULE.  AS THIS COURT STATED IN MEMPHIS & LITTLE
ROCK R. V. DOW, 120 U.S. 287, 301-302, "THE RIGHT OF SUBROGATION IS NOT
FOUNDED ON CONTRACT.  IT IS A CREATURE OF EQUITY; IS ENFORCED SOLELY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMPLISHING THE ENDS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE."  IN
DETERMINING WHETHER IT WOULD BE FAIR OR EQUITABLE TO ALLOW THE
SUBROGATION TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE CREDITOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES,
CONSIDERATION WILL, OF COURSE, BE GIVEN TO THE PREJUDICE, IF ANY,
SUFFERED BY OTHER CREDITORS.  BUT THE MERE FACT THAT THE OTHER
CREDITORS WILL NOT BE WORSE OFF THAN IF THE SURETY'S PRINCIPAL HAD
PRESSED THE CLAIM IS NOT THE SOLE SOLVENT OF THE PROBLEM.  WE ARE NOT
DEALING WITH A MECHANICAL RULE.  THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER JUSTICE
REQUIRES, OR POLICY PERMITS, THE SURETY TO SUCCEED TO HIS PRINCIPAL'S
PRIVILEGED POSITION. 

SUCH CONSIDERATIONS FREQUENTLY ARE A BARRIER TO ANY SUBROGATION; AT
OTHER TIMES THEY MAY CUT DOWN THE RIGHTS OF THE SURETY AND GIVE HIM
LESS THAN HIS PRINCIPAL COULD EXACT.  ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE FORMER ARE
GERMAN BANK V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 573, WHERE SUBROGATION WAS
DENIED BECAUSE IT AROSE FROM CONDUCT WHICH WAS TORTIOUS; AND UNITED
STATES V. RYDER, 110 U.S. 729, WHERE A SURETY ON RECOGNIZANCE BAIL WAS
DENIED SUBROGATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN THE RYDER
CASE, SUBROGATION WAS DENIED BECAUSE, INTER ALIA, ITS ALLOWANCE "WOULD
BE TO AID THE BAIL TO GET RID OF THEIR OBLIGATION, AND TO RELIEVE THEM
FROM THE MOTIVES TO EXERT THEMSELVES IN SECURING THE APPEARANCE OF THE
PRINCIPAL.  SUBROGATION TO THE LATTER REMEDIES WOULD CLEARLY BE AGAINST
PUBLIC POLICY BY SUBVERTING, AS FAR AS IT MIGHT PROVE EFFECTUAL, THE
VERY OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE RECOGNIZANCE."  ID., P. 737. 

CLOSER IN POINT, HOWEVER, ARE THOSE CASES WHICH AWARD THE SURETY LESS
RIGHTS THAN HIS PRINCIPAL HAD.  THUS, SOUTH PHILADELPHIA STATE BANK'S
INSOLVENCY, 295 PA. 433, 145 A. 520, HELD THAT WHILE A SURETY WAS
ENTITLED TO BE SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHTS OF A STATE AGAINST AN INSOLVENT
BANK, THE SURETY DID NOT, IN ABSENCE OF STATUTE,  FN3  ACQUIRE THE
STATE'S PRIORITY.  SEE ARNOLD, AN INEQUITABLE PREFERENCE IN FAVOR OF
SURETY COMPANIES, 36 W. VA. L.Q. 278; (NOTE) 81 U. PA. L. REV. 441. 
THE THEORY OF THAT CASE IS THAT "THE STATE'S RIGHT TO A PREFERENCE OVER
OTHER CREDITORS, BEING A SOVEREIGN RIGHT ENJOYED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL
THE PEOPLE, CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO INDIVIDUALS EXCEPT BY EXPRESS
LEGISLATIVE SANCTION."  (295 PA. AT P. 440.)  THOUGH THAT CASE
REPRESENTS THE MINORITY VIEW IN THE STATE COURTS,  FN4  IT IS
RECOGNITION OF THE HEALTHY PRINCIPLE THAT APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF
SUBROGATION SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED TO A CONCEPTUALISTIC FORMULA. 

THE SWEEP OF THAT PRINCIPLE IS ILLUSTRATED BY MEMPHIS & LITTLE ROCK
R. CO. V. DOW, SUPRA.  IN THAT CASE THE PRIOR LIEN CREDITOR HAD A CLAIM
WITH INTEREST AT 8%.  TO ALLOW THE SURETY THE SAME RATE OF INTEREST
WOULD NOT HAVE PUT THE JUNIOR LIENOR IN A WORSE PLIGHT.  BUT THIS COURT
DISALLOWED THAT RATE, POINTING OUT (120 U.S. AT P. 302) THAT THE SURETY
WAS ENTITLED ONLY TO REIMBURSEMENT.  A SIMILAR APPROACH IN THIS CASE
WOULD BE TO ASCERTAIN THE EQUITIES OF THE SURETY'S CLAIM, NOT BY
LOOKING FOR THE PRINCIPAL'S RIGHTS UNDER ITS CONTRACT BUT FOR REASONS
WHY THIS SURETY SHOULD BE ACCORDED PRIORITY OVER OTHER UNSECURED
CREDITORS.  EQUITY HAS REGARD NOT ONLY FOR THE RIGHTS OF OTHER
CREDITORS (JENKINS V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 277 U.S. 258) BUT ALSO FOR
THE STAKE WHICH THE SURETY HAS AND WHICH IT IS ASKING A COURT OF EQUITY
TO PROTECT.  A COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD NEITHER "COME TO THE AID OF ONE"
WHOSE EQUITY IS "SUBORDINATE UNTIL CLAIMS SUPERIOR IN EQUITY" HAVE BEEN
SATISFIED (AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC MFG. CO., 296
U.S. 133, 136), NOR CREATE SUPERIOR EQUITIES ON BEHALF OF ONE WHO CAN
SHOW NO MORE COMPELLING REASONS FOR PREFERRED TREATMENT THAN CAN THOSE
WITH WHOM HE COMPETES.  UNDER SUCH AN APPROACH, THIS SURETY WOULD BE
DENIED A SUPERIOR EQUITY. 

HERE, THE SURETY HAS ONLY AN UNSECURED CLAIM OF $68,500.  ANY REASON
FOR CONTINUATION OF THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE GENERAL DEPOSITORS
OF THIS BANK DISAPPEARED WHEN THE SURETY'S CREDITOR WAS PAID.  NO
EQUITY HAS BEEN SUGGESTED FOR ALLOWING THIS SURETY PREFERRED
TREATMENT.  IT WAS PAID TO ASSUME THE RISK OF INSOLVENCY OF THE BANK. 
IT WAS PAID BY THE BANK ITSELF.  AND IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT IT
CHARGED A LOWER RATE BECAUSE OF THE RULE OF THE MERRILL CASE.  IN VIEW
OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED THE LION'S SHARE.  IT
IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT BUT CERTAINLY IN NO GREATER AN AMOUNT THAN
THE RUN OF DEPOSITORS.  IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT SUCH A RESULT WOULD
GIVE THE GENERAL DEPOSITORS A WINDFALL.  UNLESS SUBROGATION IS TO BE A
MECHANICAL FORMULA, THIS SURETY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH ITS
SPECIAL EQUITY TO PREFERRED TREATMENT - REASONS WHY IT, UNLIKE ANY
OTHER UNSECURED CREDITOR, SHOULD ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF THE
DISCRIMINATORY RULE OF THE MERRILL CASE. 

FINALLY, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IF THE SURETY IS NOT ALLOWED THIS
PREFERENCE, MUCH WILL BE LEFT TO "CAPRICE OR ACCIDENT," SINCE THE
SURETY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO SHARE ON THE BASIS OF THE FULL
AMOUNT IF IT HAD SATISFIED THE CREDITOR'S OBLIGATION AT THE VERY
OUTSET.  THE ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE MERRILL CASE HAS SURVIVED THE WEED CASE (SEE CLARK, PROOF
BY SECURED CREDITORS IN INSOLVENCY AND RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS, 15
ILL. L. REV. 171), AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE OVERRULED.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT AT THIS TIME TO SAY THAT, IN VIEW OF THE FLIMSY BASIS ON
WHICH THE MERRILL CASE RESTS, AND THE OPPRESSIVE NATURE OF THE RULE IT
FASHIONED, IT SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED. 

FN1  IT SHOULD BE NOTICED THAT THE BANKRUPTCY RULE, NOW CODIFIED
(BANKRUPTCY ACT SEC. 57(H), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 93(H)), WHICH ALLOWS THE
SECURED CREDITOR TO RECEIVE DIVIDENDS ONLY ON THE BALANCE REMAINING
AFTER THE VALUE OF THE SECURITY HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE CLAIM, DID
NOT DERIVE FROM A SPECIAL STATUTORY PROVISION.  AS POINTED OUT BY MR.
JUSTICE GRAY IN HIS DISSENT IN THE MERRILL CASE (173 U.S. AT PP. 174
175) THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1841(5 STAT. 440) HAD NO SUCH PROVISION. 
YET ITS REQUIREMENT FOR "PRO RATA" DISTRIBUTION (SEC. 5) WAS RECOGNIZED
BY MR. JUSTICE STORY, ITS DRAFTSMAN, AS PERMITTING A SECURED CREDITOR
TO PROVE ONLY FOR THE BALANCE OF HIS CLAIM AS REMAINED AFTER CREDITING
THE VALUE OF THE SECURITY.  EX PARTE CITY BANK OF NEW ORLEANS, 3 HOW. 
292, 315.  THAT RULE OF CONSTRUCTION FOLLOWED THE LONG ESTABLISHED
ENGLISH BANKRUPTCY RULE.  SEE MR. JUSTICE WHITE, DISSENTING, 173 U.S.
AT PP. 153-155.  AS STATED BY LORD ELDON IN EX PARTE SMITH, 2 ROSE
BANK.  REP. 63, 64, UNTIL THE SECURED CREDITOR'S CLAIM HAS BEEN REDUCED
BY DEDUCTING THE VALUE OF THE SECURITY "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE CORRECTLY TO
SAY WHAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF IT IS." 

FN2  BY STATUTE A SURETY OF THE UNITED STATES SUCCEEDS TO THE
LATTER'S PRIORITY.  R.S. SEC. 3468, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 193.  IT SHOULD BE
NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THOUGH THE UNITED STATES HAS PRIORITY AGAINST AN
INSOLVENT (R.S. SEC. 3466, 31 U.S.C. SEC. 191) THAT PRIORITY HAS BEEN
HELD NOT TO EXTEND TO AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK.  COOK COUNTY NAT'L
BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445. 

FN3  SEE ARANT, SURETYSHIP (1931), P. 363. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






















TEXTILE MILLS CORP. V. COMM'R, 314 U.S. 326 


NO. 34.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  - 117
F.2D 62, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY BE COMPOSED OF ALL THE CIRCUIT
JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT IN ACTIVE SERVICE, MORE THAN THREE IN NUMBER,
SITTING EN BANC.  P. 333. 

2.  THE EXPENSES OF LOBBYING AND PROPAGANDA PAID BY AN AGENT EMPLOYED
TO SECURE LEGISLATION FROM CONGRESS AUTHORIZING THE RECOVERY OF GERMAN
PROPERTIES SEIZED DURING THE WORLD WAR UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT, ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES" OF THE
AGENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928,
CONSTRUED BY ART. 262 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 74.  P. 335. 

TEXTILE MILLS SECURITIES CORP. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 677, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 38 B.T.A. 623, WHICH HAD OVERRULED A
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS TWO PROBLEMS:  (1) WHETHER A CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS MAY BE COMPOSED OF ALL THE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT IN
ACTIVE SERVICE, MORE THAN THREE IN NUMBER, SITTING EN BANC; (2) WHETHER
PETITIONER MAY DEDUCT UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928(45 STAT. 791)
CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT UNDER CONTRACTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS TO CONGRESS ON BEHALF OF FORMER ENEMY ALIENS FOR
THE PROCUREMENT AND ENACTMENT OF AMENDATORY LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING THE
PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMS.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE FIRST PROBLEM AND THE CONTRARIETY OF
THE VIEWS OF THE COURT BELOW (117 F.2D 62) AND JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (LANG'S ESTATE V. COMMISSIONER,
97 F.2D 867) AS RESPECTS ITS SOLUTION. 

FIRST:  THERE ARE FIVE CIRCUIT JUDGES,  FN1  IN ACTIVE SERVICE,  FN2
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  ALL FIVE HEARD
AND DECIDED THIS CASE.  THOUGH THEY DIVIDED THREE TO TWO ON THE
DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION, THEY WERE UNANIMOUS IN THE
CONCLUSION THAT FIVE WERE AUTHORIZED TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE CASE.  FN3 

THE PROBLEM ARISES BECAUSE SEC. 117 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C.
SEC. 212; 36 STAT. 1131) PROVIDES THAT "THERE SHALL BE IN EACH CIRCUIT
A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF THREE JUDGES, OF
WHOM TWO SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM, WHICH SHALL BE A COURT OF RECORD,
WITH APPELLATE JURISDICTION, AS HEREINAFTER LIMITED AND ESTABLISHED." 
THAT PROVISION DERIVES FROM SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, 26
STAT. 826, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN4  THOUGH
CONGRESS BY THAT ACT CREATED THESE NEW COURTS, IT DID NOT MAKE
PROVISION FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO THEM OF A NEW GROUP OF JUDGES.  IT
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, BY SEC. 3 OF THAT ACT THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT ASSIGNED TO EACH CIRCUIT AND
THE CIRCUIT JUDGES AND DISTRICT JUDGES WITHIN EACH CIRCUIT "SHALL BE
COMPETENT TO SIT AS JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE CIRCUITS."  THUS IT IS APPARENT THAT THE NEWLY CREATED
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS TO BE COMPOSED OF ONLY THREE JUDGES  FN5
WHO WERE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE THREE EXISTING GROUPS OF JUDGES - THE
CIRCUIT JUSTICE, THE CIRCUIT JUDGES, AND THE DISTRICT JUDGES. 

THAT ARRANGEMENT CONTINUED UNTIL ENACTMENT OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1911, C. 231, 36 STAT. 1087.  THE JUDICIAL CODE ABOLISHED
THE EXISTING CIRCUIT COURTS.  SEC. 297.  IT CARRIED OVER INTO SEC. 117
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE THE PROVISION OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH
3, 1891 THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN EACH CIRCUIT
"WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF THREE JUDGES."  THOUGH THIS SECTION WAS SAID
MERELY TO REPRESENT EXISTING LAW,  FN6  SEC. 118 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
PROVIDED FOR FOUR CIRCUIT JUDGES IN THE SECOND, SEVENTH, AND EIGHTH
CIRCUITS, TWO IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, AND THREE IN EACH OF THE OTHERS. 
AN ANOMALOUS SITUATION WAS PRESENTED IF SEC. 117 WERE TO BE TAKEN AT
THAT JUNCTURE AS MEANING THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WOULD
CONTINUE TO BE COMPOSED OF ONLY THREE, IN FACE OF THE FACT THAT THERE
WERE MORE THAN THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES IN SOME CIRCUITS.  THOUGH SEC. 3 OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, MADE THE CIRCUIT JUDGES "COMPETENT TO SIT AS
JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
CIRCUITS," SEC. 120 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE INTO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 3 WERE CARRIED ELIMINATED THE CIRCUIT JUDGES FROM THE GROUPS OF
JUDGES "COMPETENT TO SIT."  YET IT RETAINED THE PROVISION THAT THE
CIRCUIT JUSTICES AND THE DISTRICT JUDGES WERE SO QUALIFIED.  WE AGREE,
HOWEVER, WITH THE VIEW OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE CIRCUIT JUDGES
BECAME EX OFFICIO JUDGES OF THE RESPECTIVE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
WHEN THE CIRCUIT COURTS WERE ABOLISHED.  THOUGH SEC. 120 DID NOT
DESIGNATE THEM AS "COMPETENT TO SIT," ITS OTHER PROVISIONS MADE CLEAR
THAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO SIT.  THUS, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE
DISTRICT JUDGES SHOULD BE DRAWN UPON ONLY IN CASE THE COURT COULD NOT
BE MADE UP BY THE CIRCUIT JUSTICES AND THE CIRCUIT JUDGES.  FN7  YET,
IF SEC. 117 WERE TO BE READY LITERALLY, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WAS TO "CONSIST" OF ONLY THREE JUDGES IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS HAD ALREADY PROVIDED IN SOME CIRCUITS FOR MORE THAN THREE
CIRCUIT JUDGES.  CLEARLY, WHERE THERE WERE FOUR, ALL COULD NOT BE
MEMBERS OF A COURT OF THREE.  YET THERE WAS PLAINLY INFERABLE A
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO CONSTITUTE IN SOME CIRCUITS A CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OF FOUR JUDGES.  FN8 

ANY DOUBTS ON THAT SCORE  FN9  WERE RESOLVED BY THE ACT OF JANUARY
13, 1912, C. 9, 37 STAT. 52, WHICH AMENDED SEC. 118 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE BY THE ADDITION OF THE PROVISION THAT "THE CIRCUIT JUDGES IN EACH
CIRCUIT SHALL BE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THAT
CIRCUIT, AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF EACH CIRCUIT JUDGE IN EACH CIRCUIT
TO SIT AS ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THAT
CIRCUIT FROM TIME TO TIME ACCORDING TO LAW."  SENATOR SUTHERLAND WHO
HAD CHARGE OF THE BILL IN THE SENATE STATED ON THE FLOOR:  "IT MAKES NO
CHANGE WHATEVER IN THE EXISTING LAW EXCEPT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE
CIRCUIT JUDGES IN THE VARIOUS CIRCUITS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL
CONSTITUTE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN10  "  THE PURPOSE SEEMS
PLAIN:  THE SIZE OF EACH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT TO BE LESS
THAN THE NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES AUTHORIZED BY LAW.  FN11 

AND SO WE REACH THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF SEC.
118 WAS DEFEATED BY SEC. 117.  WE DO NOT THINK IT WAS. 

THAT PURPOSE WAS NOT THWARTED BY THE PROVISION IN THE 1912 AMENDMENT
TO SEC. 118 THAT "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF EACH CIRCUIT JUDGE IN EACH
CIRCUIT TO SIT AS ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
THAT CIRCUIT FROM TIME TO TIME ACCORDING TO LAW."  IT HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED THAT "ACCORDING TO LAW" REFERS TO SEC. 117.  IN OUR VIEW,
HOWEVER, IT IS THE TIME OF THE SITTING WHICH IS TO BE "ACCORDING TO
LAW."  HENCE, THE REFERENCE MUST BE TO SEC. 126 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
(28 U.S.C. SEC. 223) WHICH REGULATES THE TIMES WHEN THE CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS SHALL SIT. 

IF SEC. 117 COULD REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED TO PROVIDE THAT THE COURT,
WHEN SITTING, SHOULD CONSIST OF THREE JUDGES DRAWN FROM A PANEL OF SUCH
LARGER NUMBER AS MIGHT FROM TIME TO TIME BE AUTHORIZED, RECONCILIATION
WITH SEC. 118 WOULD BE OBVIOUS.  SEC. 117, HOWEVER, CONTAINS NO SUCH
QUALIFICATION.  AND SINCE IT ESTABLISHES THE COURT AS A "COURT OF
RECORD, WITH APPELLATE JURISDICTION," IT CANNOT READILY BE INFERRED
THAT THE PROVISION FOR THREE JUDGES IS A LIMITATION ONLY ON THE NUMBER
WHO MAY HEAR AND DECIDE A CASE.  THERE ARE NUMEROUS FUNCTIONS OF THE
COURT, AS A "COURT OF RECORD, WITH APPELLATE JURISDICTION," OTHER THAN
HEARING AND DECIDING APPEALS.  UNDER THE JUDICIAL CODE THESE EMBRACE
PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF WRITS AND OTHER PROCESS AND THE FORM AND STYLE
OF ITS SEAL (SEC. 122); THE MAKING OF RULES AND REGULATIONS (SEC. 122);
THE APPOINTMENT OF A CLERK (SEC. 124) AND THE APPROVAL OF THE
APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF DEPUTY CLERKS (SEC. 125); AND THE FIXING OF
THE "TIMES" WHEN COURT SHALL BE HELD.  SEC. 126.  FURTHERMORE, THOSE
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CODE PROVIDE THAT EACH OF THESE
FUNCTIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE "COURT."  IN THAT CONNECTION IT
SHOULD BE NOTED THAT MOST OF THEM DERIVE, AS DOES SEC. 117, FROM SEC. 2
OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891.  THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SEC. 2 PROVIDED
THAT THE COURT "SHALL CONSIST OF THREE JUDGES."  THE NEXT SENTENCE
STATED THAT "SUCH COURT SHALL PRESCRIBE THE FORM AND STYLE OF ITS SEAL
AND THE FORM OF WRITS AND OTHER PROCESS AND PROCEDURE," ETC.  IN THAT
SETTING IT IS DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE HOW THE WORD "COURT" IN THE SECOND
SENTENCE WAS USED IN A DIFFERENT SENSE THAN IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE. 
AND WE LOOK IN VAIN FOR ANY INDICATION  FN12  THAT WHEN THOSE SEPARATE
SENTENCES WERE SECTIONALIZED IN THE CODE, THEY ACQUIRED A MEANING WHICH
THEY DID NOT HAVE IN SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891. 

WE CANNOT CONCLUDE, HOWEVER, THAT THE WORD "COURT" AS USED IN THOSE
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CODE MEANS ONLY THREE JUDGES.  THAT
WOULD NOT ONLY PRODUCE A MOST AWKWARD SITUATION; IT WOULD ON ALL
MATTERS DISENFRANCHISE SOME CIRCUIT JUDGES AGAINST THE CLEAR INTENDMENT
OF SEC. 118.  NOR CAN WE CONCLUDE THAT THE WORD "COURT" MEANS ONLY
THREE JUDGES WHEN THE COURT IS SITTING, BUT ALL THE JUDGES WHEN OTHER
FUNCTIONS ARE PERFORMED.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NO SPECIFIC AUTHORITY FOR
THAT CONSTRUCTION.  AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION BY
INFERENCE.  FOR TO DO SO WOULD BE TO IMPLY THAT CONGRESS PROHIBITED
SOME CIRCUIT JUDGES FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION
OF THE "COURT" (THE HEARING AND THE DECISION OF APPEALS), THOUGH
ALLOWING ALL OF THEM TO PERFORM THE OTHER FUNCTIONS.  SUCH A
PROHIBITION AS RESPECTS THE ORDINARY RESPONSIBILITIES OF A JUDICIAL
OFFICE SHOULD BE INFERRED ONLY UNDER COMPELLING NECESSITY, SINCE A
COURT USUALLY WILL CONSIST OF ALL THE JUDGES APPOINTED TO IT.  THAT
NECESSITY IS NOT PRESENT HERE.  THE AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTE IS
DOUBTLESS THE PRODUCT OF INADVERTENCE.  THOUGH THE PROBLEM OF
CONSTRUCTION IS BESET WITH DIFFICULTIES, THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 117
PROVIDES MERELY THE PERMISSIBLE COMPLEMENT OF JUDGES FOR A CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS RESULTS IN GREATER HARMONY IN THE STATUTORY SCHEME
FN13 THAN IF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 117 IS TAKEN TOO LITERALLY.  AND ANY
SACRIFICE OF LITERALNESS FOR COMMON SENSE DOES NO VIOLENCE TO THE
HISTORY OF SEC. 117.  THAT HISTORY IS LARGELY NEGATIVE IN THE SENSE
THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR STATEMENT BY SPONSORS OF THIS LEGISLATION THAT
SEC. 118, READ IN LIGHT OF SEC. 117, PREVENTS THE CONCLUSION WHICH WE
HAVE REACHED.  FN14  CERTAINLY, THE RESULT REACHED MAKES FOR MORE
EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.  FN15  CONFLICTS WITHIN A CIRCUIT
WILL BE AVOIDED.  FINALITY OF DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL
WILL BE PROMOTED.  THOSE CONSIDERATIONS ARE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN OUR FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM THESE COURTS ARE
THE COURTS OF LAST RESORT IN THE RUN OF ORDINARY CASES.  SUCH
CONSIDERATIONS ARE, OF COURSE, NOT FOR US TO WEIGH IN CASE CONGRESS HAS
DEVISED A SYSTEM WHERE THE JUDGES OF A COURT ARE PROHIBITED FROM
SITTING EN BANC.  BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE CASE ON THE STATUTE IS NOT
FORECLOSED, THEY AID IN TIPPING THE SCALES IN FAVOR OF THE MORE
PRACTICABLE INTERPRETATION. 

SECOND: THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION ARE SOUGHT TO BE DEDUCTED AS
"ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  PETITIONER, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, WAS
EMPLOYED TO REPRESENT CERTAIN GERMAN TEXTILE INTERESTS, WHOSE
PROPERTIES IN THIS COUNTRY HAD BEEN SEIZED DURING THE WORLD WAR UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  40 STAT. 411. 
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT WAS MADE WITH A VIEW TOWARDS PROCURING
LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD PERMIT ULTIMATE RECOVERY OF THE PROPERTIES. 
THE ESTIMATED AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES WAS $60,000,000. 
PETITIONER WAS TO BE COMPENSATED ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS IN CASE IT WAS
SUCCESSFUL.  IT, HOWEVER, WAS TO BEAR ALL THE COSTS AND EXPENSES. 
PETITIONER LAUNCHED ITS CAMPAIGN.  A PUBLICIST WAS RETAINED TO ARRANGE
FOR SPEECHES, NEWS ITEMS, AND EDITORIAL COMMENT.  TWO LEGAL EXPERTS
WERE RETAINED TO PREPARE PROPAGANDA CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,
TREATY RIGHTS AND THE POLICY OF THIS NATION AS RESPECTS ALIEN PROPERTY
IN TIME OF WAR.  THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CAMPAIGN WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE
PASSAGE OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT. 254. 
DEDUCTIONS FOR THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE PUBLICIST AND THE TWO LAWYERS
WERE TAKEN IN 1929 AND 1930, THEREBY PRODUCING A NET LOSS IN EACH OF
THOSE YEARS.  PURSUANT TO SEC. 117 OF THE 1928 ACT, THE NET LOSS WAS
CARRIED FORWARD TWO YEARS AND APPLIED AGAINST INCOME FOR 1931.  THE
COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTIONS AND DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY. 
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DISAGREED, HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO
DEFICIENCY.  38 B.T.A. 623.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE
BOARD. 

WE AGREE THAT THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE.  ART. 262
OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1928 ACT, WAS
ENTITLED "DONATIONS BY CORPORATIONS" AND PROVIDED: 

"CORPORATIONS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCT FROM GROSS INCOME
CONTRIBUTIONS OR GIFTS WHICH INDIVIDUALS MAY DEDUCT UNDER SECTION
23(N).  DONATIONS MADE BY A CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH THE
OPERATION OF ITS BUSINESS, HOWEVER, WHEN LIMITED TO CHARITABLE
INSTITUTIONS, HOSPITALS, OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS CONDUCTED FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ITS EMPLOYEES OR THEIR DEPENDENTS ARE A PROPER DEDUCTION AS
ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES.  DONATIONS WHICH LEGITIMATELY
REPRESENT A CONSIDERATION FOR A BENEFIT FLOWING DIRECTLY TO THE
CORPORATION AS AN INCIDENT OF ITS BUSINESS ARE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS
FROM GROSS INCOME.  FOR EXAMPLE, A STREET RAILWAY CORPORATION MAY
DONATE A SUM OF MONEY TO AN ORGANIZATION INTENDING TO HOLD A CONVENTION
IN THE CITY IN WHICH IT OPERATES, WITH THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT
THE HOLDING OF SUCH CONVENTION WILL AUGMENT ITS INCOME THROUGH A
GREATER NUMBER OF PEOPLE USING THE CARS.  SUMS OF MONEY EXPENDED FOR
LOBBYING PURPOSES, THE PROMOTION OR DEFEAT OF LEGISLATION, THE
EXPLOITATION OF PROPAGANDA, INCLUDING ADVERTISING OTHER THAN TRADE
ADVERTISING, AND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CAMPAIGN EXPENSES, ARE NOT
DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME."    IF THIS IS A VALID AND APPLICABLE
REGULATION, THE SUMS IN QUESTION WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS "ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY EXPENSES" UNDER SEC. 23(A), SINCE THEY CLEARLY RUN AFOUL OF
THE PROHIBITION IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE REGULATION. 

PLAINLY, THE REGULATION WAS APPLICABLE.  THE BAN AGAINST DEDUCTIONS
OF AMOUNTS SPENT FOR "LOBBYING" AS "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" EXPENSES OF
A CORPORATION DERIVED FROM A TREASURY DECISION IN 1915.  T.D. 2137, 17
TREAS. DEC., INT. REV., PP. 48, 57-58.  THAT PROHIBITION WAS CARRIED
INTO ART. 143 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 33(REVISED, 1918) UNDER THE
HEADING OF "EXPENSES" IN THE SECTION ON "DEDUCTIONS."  N16  BEGINNING
IN 1921 THE REGULATION WAS ENTITLED "DONATIONS."  (ART. 562, TREASURY
REGULATIONS 45.)  AND IN THE REGULATIONS HERE IN QUESTION ART. 262
APPEARED UNDER SEC. 23(N), WHICH COVERED "CHARITABLE AND OTHER
CONTRIBUTIONS" BY INDIVIDUALS.  IT ASSUMED THAT FORM AND CONTENT IN
1921 AND APPEARED SINCE THEN WITHOUT CHANGE IN ALL SUCCESSIVE
REGULATIONS.  FN17  SEC. 23(N) AND SEC. 23(A) BOTH DEAL WITH
DEDUCTIONS; AND A "DONATION" BY A CORPORATION THOUGH NOT DEDUCTIBLE
UNDER THE FORMER MIGHT BE UNDER THE LATTER.  ART. 262 PURPORTS TO
SPECIFY WHEN A CERTAIN TYPE OF EXPENDITURE OR DONATION BY A CORPORATION
MAY OR MAY NOT BE DEDUCTED AS AN "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" EXPENSE.  THE
ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY
INCORPORATED UNDER SEC. 23(A) IS FRIVOLOUS. 

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT THE REGULATION IS INVALID LIKEWISE LACKS
SUBSTANCE.  THE WORDS "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" ARE NOT SO CLEAR AND
UNAMBIGUOUS IN THEIR MEANING AND APPLICATION AS TO LEAVE NO ROOM FOR AN
INTERPRETATIVE REGULATION.  THE NUMEROUS CASES WHICH HAVE COME TO THIS
COURT ON THAT ISSUE BEAR WITNESS TO THAT.  WELCH V. HELVERING, 290 U.S.
111; DEPUTY V. DU PONT, 308 U.S. 488, AND CASES CITED.  NOR HAS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY USURPED THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY CARVING OUT
THIS SPECIAL GROUP OF EXPENSES AND MAKING THEM NON-DEDUCTIBLE.  WE FAIL
TO FIND ANY INDICATION THAT SUCH A COURSE CONTRAVENED ANY CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY.  FN18  CONTRACTS TO SPREAD SUCH INSIDIOUS INFLUENCES THROUGH
LEGISLATIVE HALLS HAVE LONG BEEN CONDEMNED.  TRIST V. CHILD, 21 WALL. 
441; HAZELTON V. SHECKELLS, 202 U.S. 71.  WHETHER THE PRECISE
ARRANGEMENT HERE IN QUESTION WOULD VIOLATE THE RULE OF THOSE CASES IS
NOT MATERIAL.  THE POINT IS THAT THE GENERAL POLICY INDICATED BY THOSE
CASES NEED NOT BE DISREGARDED BY THE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY IN ITS
SEGREGATION OF NON-DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES.  THERE IS NO REASON WHY, IN
ABSENCE OF CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO THE CONTRARY, THE RULE-MAKING
AUTHORITY CANNOT EMPLOY THAT GENERAL POLICY IN DRAWING A LINE BETWEEN
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPENSES AND THOSE ARISING FROM THAT FAMILY OF
CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE LAW HAS GIVEN NO SANCTION.  THE EXCLUSION OF THE
LATTER FROM "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" EXPENSES CERTAINLY DOES NO
VIOLENCE TO THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  THE GENERAL POLICY BEING CLEAR IT
IS NOT FOR US TO SAY THAT THE LINE WAS TOO STRICTLY DRAWN.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 118, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 213; ACT OF JUNE 10,
1930, C. 438, 46 STAT. 538, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 213D; ACT OF JUNE 24, 1936,
C. 753, 49 STAT. 1903, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 213D-1. 

FN2  AS DISTINGUISHED FROM JUDGES RETIRED UNDER THE PROVISION OF SEC.
260 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 375. 

FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT HAS
PROMULGATED RULES IN ACCORD WITH THAT VIEW.  RULE 4(1) PROVIDES:  "THE
COURT CONSISTS OF THE CIRCUIT JUSTICE, WHEN IN ATTENDANCE, AND OF THE
CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT WHO ARE IN ACTIVE SERVICE.  DISTRICT
JUDGES AND RETIRED CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT SIT IN THE COURT WHEN
SPECIALLY DESIGNATED OR ASSIGNED AS PROVIDED BY LAW.  THREE JUDGES
SHALL SIT IN THE COURT TO HEAR ALL MATTERS, EXCEPT THOSE WHICH THE
COURT BY SPECIAL ORDER DIRECTS TO BE HEARD BY THE COURT EN BANC." 

FN4  SEC. 2 PROVIDED IN PART:  "THAT THERE IS HEREBY CREATED IN EACH
CIRCUIT A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF THREE
JUDGES, OF WHOM TWO SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM, AND WHICH SHALL BE A
COURT OF RECORD WITH APPELLATE JURISDICTION, AS IS HEREAFTER LIMITED
AND ESTABLISHED." 

FN5  SEC. 3 OF THAT ACT PROVIDED:  "IN CASE THE FULL COURT AT ANY
TIME SHALL NOT BE MADE UP BY THE ATTENDANCE OF THE CHIEF-JUSTICE OR AN
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT AND CIRCUIT JUDGES, ONE OR MORE
DISTRICT JUDGES WITHIN THE CIRCUIT SHALL BE COMPETENT TO SIT IN THE
COURT ACCORDING TO SUCH ORDER OR PROVISION AMONG THE DISTRICT JUDGES AS
EITHER BY GENERAL OR PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE
COURT  ...  "  AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1891, THERE WERE THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT
AND TWO IN EACH OF THE OTHERS.  ACT OF APRIL 10, 1869, C. 22, SEC. 2,
16 STAT. 44; ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, C. 347, 24 STAT. 492; ACT OF MARCH
3, 1891, C. 517, SEC. 1, 26 STAT. 826. 

FN6  S. REP. NO. 388, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., PT. 1, P. 49, PT. 2, P.
310. 

FN7 "IN CASE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OR AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT SHALL ATTEND AT ANY SESSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HE
SHALL PRESIDE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH CHIEF JUSTICE, OR ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE, THE CIRCUIT JUDGES IN ATTENDANCE UPON THE COURT SHALL PRESIDE
IN THE ORDER OF THE SENIORITY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COMMISSIONS.  IN CASE
THE FULL COURT AT ANY TIME SHALL NOT BE MADE UP BY THE ATTENDANCE OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OR THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, AND THE CIRCUIT JUDGES, ONE
OR MORE DISTRICT JUDGES WITHIN THE CIRCUIT SHALL SIT IN THE COURT
ACCORDING TO SUCH ORDER OR PROVISION AMONG THE DISTRICT JUDGES AS
EITHER BY GENERAL OR PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE
COURT  ...  " 

FN8  THUS THE SENATE REPORT, SUPRA NOTE 6, IN SPEAKING OF SEC.
118(SEC.  116 IN THE BILL) STATED, P. 50:  "  ...  THE SECTION STATES
IN CONCISE LANGUAGE THE NUMBER OF JUDGES NOW PROVIDED BY LAW FOR THE
SEVERAL JUDICIAL CIRCUITS." 

FN9  SEE THE LETTER BY ALBERT H. WALKER IN 74 CENTRAL L.J. 12. 

FN10  47 CONG. REC., PT. 3, P. 2736.  SENATOR SUTHERLAND ALSO SAID:
"IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT, AS I SAID, THAT THE EXISTING LAW DID NOT MAKE IT
QUITE CLEAR THAT THE CIRCUIT JUDGES SHALL BE THE CONSTITUTENT MEMBERS
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND IT IS TO REMOVE THAT DOUBT, AND
THAT ONLY, THAT THIS BILL HAS BEEN REPORTED FROM THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE."  ID., P. 2736.  H. REP. NO. 199, 62D CONG., 2D SESS.,
STATED, "THIS BILL DEALS WITH A DEFECT IN EXISTING LAW.  IT MAKES IT
CLEAR THAT THE CIRCUIT JUDGES SHALL CONSTITUTE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS."  AND SEE THE STATEMENTS ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE BY
REPRESENTATIVE CLAYTON, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE (48
CONG. REC., PT. 1, P. 667) AND REPRESENTATIVE MOON, CHAIRMAN OF THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE REVISIONS OF THE LAWS, WHO HAD BEEN IN CHARGE OF
THE HOUSE BILL PROVIDING FOR THE JUDICIAL CODE.  ID., P. 668. 

POSSIBLE INFERENCES LOOKING THE OTHER WAY ARE SUCH STATEMENTS BY
REPRESENTATIVE MANN THAT "IN THOSE CIRCUITS WHERE THERE WERE FOUR
CIRCUIT JUDGES, ONE OF THEM MIGHT BE PUT AT WORK IN THE DISTRICT
COURT."  48 CONG. REC., PT. 1, P. 667.  AND SEE 48 CONG. REC., PT. 2,
P. 1272.  YET SUCH STATEMENTS ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCLUSION
THAT WHILE THE ORDINARY COMPLEMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES WOULD BE THREE,
ALL MIGHT SIT. 

FN11  IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SEC. 120 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE MAKES THE "CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF
THE SUPREME COURT ASSIGNED TO EACH CIRCUIT  ...  COMPETENT TO SIT AS
JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
CIRCUITS."  THUS WHILE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS COMPOSED
PRIMARILY OF CIRCUIT JUDGES, THE CIRCUIT JUSTICE IS MADE A "COMPONENT
PART" OF THAT COURT.  SEE STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE MOON, OP. CIT.,
SUPRA, NOTE 10, P. 668. 

FN12  SEC. 122 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (SEC. 120 IN THE BILL) GIVING THE
COURT POWER TO PRESCRIBE THE FORM OF WRITS AND OTHER PROCESS AND THE
FORM AND STYLE OF ITS SEAL, AND THE POWER TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS
WAS STATED IN S. REP. NO. 388, SUPRA, NOTE 6, P. 51, TO REPRESENT
"EXISTING LAW." 

FN13  IT IS SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENT THAT IF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS MAY SIT EN BANC, DIFFICULTIES ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT
PROVISION OF SEC. 120 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE WHICH READS: "IN CASE THE
FULL COURT AT ANY TIME SHALL NOT BE MADE UP BY THE ATTENDANCE OF THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OR THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, AND THE CIRCUIT JUDGES, ONE OR
MORE DISTRICT JUDGES WITHIN THE CIRCUIT SHALL SIT IN THE COURT
ACCORDING TO SUCH ORDER OR PROVISION AMONG THE DISTRICT JUDGES AS
EITHER BY GENERAL OR PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE
COURT  ...  "  THE DIFFICULTY SUGGESTED IS THAT SEC. 120 WOULD IMPLY
THAT, IF ALL THE CIRCUIT JUDGES COMPOSE THE "COURT," THEN DISTRICT
JUDGES SHOULD BE CALLED IN WHENEVER THE COURT WAS COMPOSED OF LESS THAN
THAT NUMBER.  AND THE ARGUMENT GOES FURTHER AND SUGGESTS THAT SINCE THE
CIRCUIT JUSTICE IS "COMPETENT TO SIT" (SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA) THEN A
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE COULD BE BROUGHT IN, WHEN THE CIRCUIT JUSTICE IS
ABSENT, TO MAKE UP THE "FULL COURT" EVEN THOUGH ALL CIRCUIT JUDGES
SAT.  THE ANSWER, HOWEVER, IS THAT "FULL COURT" AS USED IN SEC. 120
REFERS TO THE COURT WHICH CONTAINS THE PERMISSIBLE COMPLEMENT OF JUDGES
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A QUORUM OF TWO.  UNDER OUR INTERPRETATION, A
BENCH OF THREE JUDGES IS THE PERMISSIBLE COMPLEMENT UNDER SEC. 117. 

FN14  BEGINNING IN 1938 THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT
JUDGES RECOMMENDED AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE WHICH WOULD ENABLE A
MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES IN CIRCUITS WHERE THERE WERE MORE THAN
THREE TO PROVIDE FOR A COURT OF MORE THAN THREE JUDGES.  REPORT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL (1938) P. 23; ID. (1939) PP. 15-16; REPORT OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGES (1940) P. 7.  A BILL WAS
INTRODUCED DURING THE PRESENT SESSION OF CONGRESS IN BOTH THE HOUSE
(H.R. 3390) AND THE SENATE (S. 1053) TO AMEND SEC. 117 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE BY ADDING THERETO THE FOLLOWING:  "PROVIDED, THAT, IN A CIRCUIT
WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES, THE MAJORITY OF THE
CIRCUIT JUDGES MAY PROVIDE FOR A COURT OF ALL THE ACTIVE AND AVAILABLE
CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT TO SIT IN BANC FOR THE HEARING OF
PARTICULAR CASES, WHEN IN THEIR OPINION SUCH ACTION IS ADVISABLE." 

THIS BILL HAS PASSED THE HOUSE.  87 CONG. REC. 8328.  IN THE HOUSE,
THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY REPORTED THE BILL FAVORABLY (H.REP.  NO.
1246, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) STATING: 

"UNDER EXISTING LAW PROVISION IS MADE THAT THERE SHALL BE IN EACH
CIRCUIT A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF THREE JUDGES,
OF WHOM TWO SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM.  THE BILL ADDS A PROVISION THAT
IN A CIRCUIT WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN THREE CIRCUIT JUDGES, THE
MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES MAY PROVIDE FOR A COURT OF ALL THE
ACTIVE AND AVAILABLE CIRCUIT JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT TO SIT IN BANC FOR
THE HEARING OF PARTICULAR CASES, WHEN IN THEIR OPINION SUCH ACTION IS
ADVISABLE. 

"IF THE COURT CAN SIT IN BANC THE SITUATION WHERE TWO THREE-JUDGE
COURTS MAY REACH CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS IS OBVIATED.  IT ALSO WILL
OBVIATE THE SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE COURT AND AS
SOMETIMES HAPPENS A DECISION OF TWO JUDGES (THERE HAVING BEEN A
DISSENT) SETS THE PRECEDENT FOR THE REMAINING JUDGES.  A SIMILAR RESULT
WOULD BE AVOIDED WITH A COURT OF FIVE JUDGES. 

"IT SEEMS DESIRABLE THAT WHERE THE JUDGES FEEL IT ADVISABLE THEY
MIGHT SIT IN BANC FOR HEARING PARTICULAR CASES.  LEGISLATION TO THIS
EFFECT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF SENIOR
CIRCUIT JUDGES SINCE 1938, AND AT ITS JANUARY 1941 SESSION THE
CONFERENCE APPROVED THE FORM OF THE PRESENT BILL." 

BUT WE DO NOT DEDUCE THAT THIS EFFORT AT CLARIFICATION WAS OR
PURPORTED TO BE ANY DEFINITIVE INTERPRETATION THAT SEC. 117 AS IT
STANDS PROHIBITS A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF MORE THAN THREE JUDGES
FROM SITTING EN BANC. 

FN15  SEE H. REP. NO. 1246, SUPRA, NOTE 14; 69 CENTRAL L.J. 217.  AND
SEE THE TESTIMONY OF CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT AND MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER,
HEARINGS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 70TH
CONG., 2D SESS., SERIAL 23, PT. 2, ON H.R. 5690, 13567, 13757, PP. 69,
72. 

FN16  ART. 143 PROVIDED:  "LOBBYING EXPENSES.   - SUMS OF MONEY
EXPENDED FOR LOBBYING PURPOSES, THE PROMOTION OR DEFEAT OF LEGISLATION,
THE EXPLOITATION OF PROPAGANDA, AND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CAMPAIGN EXPENSES
ARE HELD NOT TO BE AN ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSE IN THE OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BUSINESS OF A CORPORATION, AND ARE THEREFORE NOT
DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME IN ARRIVING AT THE NET INCOME UPON WHICH
THE INCOME TAX IS COMPUTED." 

FN17  ART. 562, REGULATIONS 62, REVENUE ACT OF 1921; ART. 562,
REGULATIONS 65, REVENUE ACT OF 1924; ART. 562, REGULATIONS 69, REVENUE
ACT OF 1926; ART. 262, REGULATIONS 74, REVENUE ACT OF 1928. 

FN18  IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936(26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(Q), 49 STAT. 1648)
CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR DEDUCTIONS OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS
BY CORPORATIONS TO SPECIFIED CORPORATIONS, TRUSTS, FUNDS, OR
FOUNDATIONS, "NO SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE ACTIVITIES OF WHICH IS
CARRYING ON PROPAGANDA, OR OTHERWISE ATTEMPTING, TO INFLUENCE
LEGISLATION."  AND SEE THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(Q),
52 STAT. 447.    MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION
OR DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :























U.S. V. SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO., 314 U.S. 339 


NO. 23.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 13, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  -
114 F.2D 420, AFFIRMED, WITH A MODIFICATION. 


1.  LANDS INCLUDED IN THE GRANT MADE TO THE ATLANTIC & PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY BY THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1866, WERE SUBJECT TO ANY
EXISTING INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY UNTIL SUCH RIGHT WAS EXTINGUISHED BY
THE UNITED STATES THROUGH A VOLUNTARY CESSION OF THE INDIANS, AS
PROVIDED BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT.  P. 344. 

2.  INDIAN OCCUPANCY NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH ABORIGINAL POSSESSION IS
A QUESTION OF FACT.  P. 345. 

3.  "INDIAN TITLE" EXISTS WHERE IT IS ESTABLISHED AS A FACT THAT THE
LANDS IN QUESTION WERE INCLUDED IN THE ANCESTRAL HOME OF A TRIBE OF
INDIANS, IN THE SENSE THAT THEY CONSTITUTED DEFINABLE TERRITORY
OCCUPIED EXCLUSIVELY BY THAT TRIBE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM BEING WANDERED
OVER BY MANY TRIBES.  P. 345. 

4.  BY THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY IS
AS SACRED AS THE FEE AND CAN BE INTERFERED WITH OR TERMINATED ONLY BY
THE UNITED STATES.  P. 345. 

5.  LANDS WITHIN THE MEXICAN CESSION WERE NOT EXCEPTED FROM THIS
POLICY.  P. 345. 

6.  A TRIBAL CLAIM TO ANY PARTICULAR LANDS NEED NOT BE BASED UPON
TREATY, STATUTE, OR OTHER FORMAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTION.  P. 347. 

7.  IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF INDIAN TITLE BASED UPON
ABORIGINAL OCCUPANCY, THE POWER OF CONGRESS IS SUPREME AND ITS EXERCISE
IS NOT OPEN TO INQUIRY BY THE COURTS.  P. 347. 

8.  IF THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY OF THE WALAPAI INDIANS TO LANDS WITHIN
THE AREA GRANTED TO THE ATLANTIC & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY IN ARIZONA
WAS NOT EXTINGUISHED PRIOR TO THE DEFINITE LOCATION OF THE RAILROAD IN
1872, THEN THE GRANTEE TOOK THE FEE SUBJECT TO THE ENCUMBRANCE OF
INDIAN TITLE.  ON THAT DATE THE TITLE OF THE RAILROAD ATTACHED AS OF
JULY 27, 1866, THE DATE OF THE ACT.  P. 347. 

9. THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 27, 1851, BY EXTENDING THE INDIAN TRADE AND
INTERCOURSE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1834, OVER THE INDIAN TRIBES IN THE
TERRITORIES OF NEW MEXICO (THEN INCLUDING ARIZONA) AND UTAH, EXHIBITED
THE DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO CONTINUE IN THOSE TERRITORIES THE GENERAL
POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY,
BUT DID NOT CREATE SUCH RIGHTS WHERE THEY DID NOT PREVIOUSLY EXIST.  P.
347. 

10.  THE ACT OF JULY 22, 1854, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE OFFICE OF
SURVEYOR GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO, ETC., AND THE ACT OF JULY 15, 1870,
WHICH DIRECTED THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ARIZONA (THEN SEPARATED AS A
TERRITORY FROM NEW MEXICO) TO ASCERTAIN AND REPORT UPON LAND CLAIMS
UNDER THE LAWS, USAGES AND CUSTOMS OF SPAIN AND MEXICO FOR THE
INFORMATION OF CONGRESS, DID NOT EXTINGUISH ANY INDIAN TITLE BASED UPON
ABORIGINAL OCCUPANCY, SUCH AS MAY HAVE BEEN HAD BY THE WALAPAI
INDIANS.  P. 348. 

11.  THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1865, WHICH PROVIDED FOR SETTING ASIDE A
TRACT OF LAND IN ARIZONA AS A RESERVATION FOR CERTAIN TRIBES ON THE
COLORADO RIVER, INCLUDING THE WALAPAIS, WAS NOT INTENDED, IN DEFAULT OF
THEIR VOLUNTARY ACCEPTANCE, TO EXTINGUISH THEIR RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY OF
OTHER LANDS.  P. 351. 

FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF THE WALAPAIS TO THIS RESERVATION IN 1874 WAS NOT
SANCTIONED BY CONGRESS AND COULD NOT AFFECT THEIR RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY
OVER LANDS OUTSIDE THE RESERVATION. 

12.  THE CREATION OF THE WALAPAI INDIAN RESERVATION IN ARIZONA BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER, JANUARY 4, 1883, AT THE REQUEST OF THE WALAPAIS, AND
ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THEM, AMOUNTED TO A RELINQUISHMENT OF ANY TRIBAL
CLAIMS WHICH THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD TO LANDS OUTSIDE THAT RESERVATION, AND
THAT RELINQUISHMENT WAS TANTAMOUNT TO AN EXTINGUISHMENT BY "VOLUNTARY
CESSION," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1866,
SUPRA.  P. 357. 

13.  THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO AN ACCOUNTING FROM THE RAILROAD
COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE WALAPAIS FOR ANY RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS
DERIVED FROM LEASING OR USE OF LANDS IN THEIR RESERVATION WHICH CAN BE
PROVED TO HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE WALAPAIS FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL.  P.
359. 

UNITED STATES, AS GUARDIAN OF THE HUALPAI INDIANS OF ARIZONA, V. SANTA
FE PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 675, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING A DECREE WHICH
DISMISSED A BILL, BY THE GOVERNMENT, SEEKING TO ESTABLISH THE RIGHT OF
THE WALAPAI INDIANS TO LANDS CLAIMED BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY INSIDE AND
OUTSIDE OF THE INDIANS' RESERVATION, AND FOR AN ACCOUNTING. 

THE TERM "INDIAN TITLE" USED IN SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1866, HAD A WELL
UNDERSTOOD MEANING.  IT CONNOTED THE INDIAN POSSESSORY RIGHT BASED ON
ABORIGINAL OCCUPANCY, WHETHER OR NOT THAT OCCUPANCY HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED
BY TREATY, STATUTE, OR OTHERWISE.  JOHNSON V. MCINTOSH, 8 WHEAT.  543;
UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304 U.S. 111.  THE ACT APPLIED WITHIN
A ROUGHLY LOCATED AREA FROM MISSOURI TO THE PACIFIC COAST, AND THE TERM
"INDIAN TITLE" APPLIED EQUALLY TO ALL LANDS WITHIN THAT AREA AND HENCE
TO ALL INDIAN RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY WHICH THEN EXISTED WITHIN THAT AREA. 
THE PROVISION HAD THE SAME MEANING AND APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO
LANDS IN THE MEXICAN CESSION AREA AS WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER LANDS. 
UNITED STATES V. CANDELARIA, 271 U.S. 432.  THE RIGHT WAS PRESERVED AND
SAFEGUARDED UNTIL EXTINGUISHED BY THE UNITED STATES IN CONFORMITY WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, 119
U.S. 55. 

THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS
LANGUAGE TO THE CONTRARY, A FEDERAL GRANT OF PUBLIC LANDS DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE AN EXTINGUISHMENT OF INDIAN OCCUPANCY RIGHTS.  JOHNSON V.
MCINTOSH, SUPRA, 574. 

THIS COURT HAS CONTINUOUSLY RECOGNIZED THAT ABORIGINAL POSSESSION
CREATES A POSSESSORY RIGHT LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE AGAINST EVERYONE EXCEPT
THE UNITED STATES.  WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515; MITCHEL V. UNITED
STATES, 9 PET. 711; CHOTEAU V. MOLONY, 16 HOW.  203; HOLDEN V. JOY, 17
WALL.  211, 244; BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, 119 U.S. 55;
CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 219. 

THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY REJECTED ATTEMPTS TO EXCLUDE INDIANS OF
THE MEXICAN CESSION AREA FROM THE BENEFIT OF RULES GENERALLY APPLICABLE
OUTSIDE THAT AREA FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIAN RIGHTS.  UNITED STATES
V. JOSEPH, 94 U.S. 614; UNITED STATES V. CHAVEZ, 290 U.S. 357; UNITED
STATES V. SANDOVAL, 231 U.S. 28; UNITED STATES V. CANDELARIA, 271 U.S.
432; UNITED STATES V. KAGAMA, 118 U.S. 375; CRAMER V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; LANE V. PUEBLO OF SANTA ROSA, 249 U.S. 110; PUEBLO OF SANTA ROSA
V. FALL, 273 U.S. 315, 321. 

FEDERAL LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO THE WALAPAI TRIBE AS WELL AS TO
OTHER TRIBES PROTECTS THE INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY BASED ON ABORIGINAL
POSSESSION.  (REFERRING TO NUMEROUS STATUTES.) 

EXCEPT IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO CONSIDERED DECISION HAS EVER BEEN MADE
BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT AS TO THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF
THE WALAPAI TRIBE AND THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD. 

SPANISH AND MEXICAN LAW WAS AT LEAST AS GENEROUS IN ITS RECOGNITION
OF THE LEGALITY OF INDIAN ABORIGINAL OCCUPANCY AS THE LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES.  INDEED, EXPERTS ON THIS SUBJECT HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE LAW OF
THE UNITED STATES, RECOGNIZING THE OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF INDIAN TRIBES,
WAS DERIVED FROM SPANISH SOURCES.  SEE JOHNSON V. MCINTOSH, 8 WHEAT. 
543, 573; WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, 546; CHOTEAU V. MOLONY, 16
HOW.  203, 229; MITCHEL V. UNITED STATES, 9 PET. 711, 759; CARINO V.
INSULAR GOVERNMENT, 212 U.S. 449. 

SUCH RIGHTS OF THE WALAPAI TRIBE AS EXISTED ON JULY 27, 1866, HAVE
NOT BEEN EXTINGUISHED OR ABANDONED.  (REFERRING TO THE 1870 ACT
APPOINTING A SURVEYOR GENERAL FOR ARIZONA; THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL IN
1874 OF PART OF THE TRIBE TO THE COLORADO RIVER RESERVATION; THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATION OF THE WALAPAI INDIANS
IN 1883; THE 1925 EXCHANGE ACT.) 

THE UNITED STATES AND THE WALAPAI TRIBE HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF A RIGHT
TO TRIAL UPON ISSUES OF FACT, THROUGH A MISAPPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE
OF JUDICIAL NOTICE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES, IN ITS OWN RIGHT AND AS
GUARDIAN OF THE INDIANS OF THE WALAPAI (HUALPAI) TRIBE IN ARIZONA (28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), SEC. 24 JUDICIAL CODE) TO ENJOIN RESPONDENT FROM
INTERFERING WITH THE POSSESSION AND OCCUPANCY BY THE INDIANS OF CERTAIN
LAND IN NORTHWESTERN ARIZONA.  RESPONDENT CLAIMS FULL TITLE TO THE
LANDS IN QUESTION UNDER THE GRANT TO ITS PREDECESSOR, THE ATLANTIC AND
PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., PROVIDED FOR IN THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1866, 14
STAT. 292.  THE BILL SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH THAT RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS UNDER
THE GRANT OF 1866 ARE SUBJECT TO THE INDIANS' RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY BOTH
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THEIR PRESENT RESERVATION WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF PRESIDENT ARTHUR, JANUARY 4, 1883.  THE BILL
CONSISTS OF TWO CAUSES OF ACTION - THE FIRST RELATING TO LANDS INSIDE,
AND THE SECOND, TO LANDS OUTSIDE, THAT RESERVATION.  THE BILL PRAYED,
INTER ALIA, THAT TITLE BE QUIETED AND THAT RESPONDENT "ACCOUNT FOR ALL
RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE LEASING, RENTING OR USE OF
THE LANDS SUBJECT TO SAID RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY" BY THE INDIANS. 
RESPONDENT MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE
"INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY."  THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THAT MOTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  114 F.2D 420.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE INDIAN LAWS AND THE LAND GRANTS. 

SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1866, THE ACT UNDER WHICH RESPONDENT'S
TITLE TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION DERIVED,  FN1  PROVIDED:  "THE UNITED
STATES SHALL EXTINGUISH, AS RAPIDLY AS MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC
POLICY AND THE WELFARE OF THE INDIANS, AND ONLY BY THEIR VOLUNTARY
CESSION, THE INDIAN TITLE TO ALL LANDS FALLING UNDER THE OPERATION OF
THIS ACT AND ACQUIRED IN THE DONATION TO THE ROAD NAMED IN THE ACT." 

BASIC TO THE PRESENT CAUSES OF ACTION IS THE THEORY THAT THE LANDS IN
QUESTION WERE THE ANCESTRAL HOME OF THE WALAPAIS, THAT SUCH OCCUPANCY
CONSTITUTED "INDIAN TITLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE 1866
ACT, WHICH THE UNITED STATES AGREED TO EXTINGUISH, AND THAT IN ABSENCE
OF SUCH EXTINGUISHMENT THE GRANT TO THE RAILROAD "CONVEYED THE FEE
SUBJECT TO THIS RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY."  BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD, 119 U.S. 55, 66.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT
THE UNITED STATES HAD NEVER RECOGNIZED SUCH POSSESSORY RIGHTS OF
INDIANS WITHIN THE MEXICAN CESSION  FN2  AND THAT IN ABSENCE OF SUCH
RECOGNITION THE WALAPAIS HAD NO SUCH RIGHT GOOD AGAINST GRANTEES OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

OCCUPANCY NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH ABORIGINAL POSSESSION IS A QUESTION
OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED AS ANY OTHER QUESTION OF FACT.  IF IT WERE
ESTABLISHED AS A FACT THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE, OR WERE INCLUDED
IN, THE ANCESTRAL HOME OF THE WALAPAIS IN THE SENSE THAT THEY
CONSTITUTED DEFINABLE TERRITORY OCCUPIED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE WALAPAIS
(AS DISTINGUISHED FROM LANDS WANDERED OVER BY MANY TRIBES), THEN THE
WALAPAIS HAD "INDIAN TITLE" WHICH, UNLESS EXTINGUISHED, SURVIVED THE
RAILROAD GRANT OF 1866.  BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, SUPRA. 

"UNQUESTIONABLY IT HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM
THE BEGINNING TO RESPECT THE INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY, WHICH COULD
ONLY BE INTERFERED WITH OR DETERMINED BY THE UNITED STATES."  CRAMER V.
UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 219, 227.  THIS POLICY WAS FIRST RECOGNIZED IN
JOHNSON V. M'INTOSH, 8 WHEAT.  543, AND HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
REAFFIRMED.  WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515; MITCHEL V. UNITED
STATES, 9 PET. 711; CHOUTEAU V. MOLONY, 16 HOW.  203; HOLDEN V. JOY, 17
WALL.  211; BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V.
SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304 U.S. 111.  AS STATED IN MITCHEL V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, P. 746, INDIAN "RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY IS CONSIDERED AS SACRED AS
THE FEE SIMPLE OF THE WHITES."  WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE RIGHTS OF
THE WALAPAIS UNDER SPANISH LAW, THE CRAMER CASE ASSUMED THAT LANDS
WITHIN THE MEXICAN CESSION WERE NOT EXCEPTED FROM THE POLICY TO RESPECT
INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY.  THOUGH THE CRAMER CASE INVOLVED THE PROBLEM
OF INDIVIDUAL INDIAN OCCUPANCY, THIS COURT STATED THAT SUCH OCCUPANCY
WAS NOT TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM "THE ORIGINAL NOMADIC TRIBAL
OCCUPANCY."  (P. 227.)  PERHAPS THE ASSUMPTION THAT ABORIGINAL
POSSESSION WOULD BE RESPECTED IN THE MEXICAN CESSION WAS, LIKE THE
GENERALIZATIONS IN JOHNSON V. M'INTOSH, SUPRA, NOT NECESSARY FOR THE
NARROW HOLDING OF THE CASE.  BUT SUCH GENERALIZATIONS HAVE BEEN SO
OFTEN AND SO LONG REPEATED AS RESPECTS LAND UNDER THE PRIOR SOVEREIGNTY
OF THE VARIOUS EUROPEAN NATIONS, INCLUDING SPAIN,  FN3  THAT, LIKE
OTHER RULES GOVERNING TITLES TO PROPERTY (UNITED STATES V. TITLE
INSURANCE & TRUST CO., 265 U.S. 472, 486-487) THEY SHOULD NOW BE
CONSIDERED NO LONGER OPEN.  FURTHERMORE, TREATIES  FN4  NEGOTIATED WITH
INDIAN TRIBES, WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE MEXICAN CESSION, FOR
DELIMITATION OF THEIR OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OR FOR THE SETTLEMENT AND
ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR BOUNDARIES, CONSTITUTE CLEAR RECOGNITION THAT NO
DIFFERENT POLICY AS RESPECTS ABORIGINAL POSSESSION OBTAINED IN THIS
AREA THAN IN OTHER AREAS.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. KAGAMA, 118 U.S.
375, 381.  CERTAINLY IT WOULD TAKE PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS ACTION TO
DEPRIVE THE WALAPAIS OF THE BENEFITS OF THAT POLICY.  FOR IT WAS
FOUNDED ON THE DESIRE TO MAINTAIN JUST AND PEACEABLE RELATIONS WITH
INDIANS.  THE REASONS FOR ITS APPLICATION TO OTHER TRIBES ARE NO LESS
APPARENT IN CASE OF THE WALAPAIS, A SAVAGE TRIBE WHICH IN EARLY DAYS
CAUSED THE MILITARY NO END OF TROUBLE. 

NOR IS IT TRUE, AS RESPONDENT URGES, THAT A TRIBAL CLAIM TO ANY
PARTICULAR LANDS MUST BE BASED UPON A TREATY, STATUTE, OR OTHER FORMAL
GOVERNMENT ACTION.  AS STATED IN THE CRAMER CASE, "THE FACT THAT SUCH
RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY FINDS NO RECOGNITION IN ANY STATUTE OR OTHER FORMAL
GOVERNMENTAL ACTION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE."  261 U.S. AT 229. 

EXTINGUISHMENT OF INDIAN TITLE BASED ON ABORIGINAL POSSESSION IS OF
COURSE A DIFFERENT MATTER.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS IN THAT REGARD IS
SUPREME.  THE MANNER, METHOD AND TIME OF SUCH EXTINGUISHMENT RAISE
POLITICAL, NOT JUSTICIABLE, ISSUES.  BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD, SUPRA, P. 66.  AS STATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN JOHNSON
V. M'INTOSH, SUPRA, P. 586, "THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO EXTINGUISH" INDIAN TITLE HAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED.  AND WHETHER IT BE
DONE BY TREATY, BY THE SWORD, BY PURCHASE, BY THE EXERCISE OF COMPLETE
DOMINION ADVERSE TO THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY, OR OTHERWISE, ITS JUSTNESS
IS NOT OPEN TO INQUIRY IN THE COURTS.  BEECHER V. WETHERBY, 95 U.S.
517, 525. 

IF THE RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY OF THE WALAPAIS WAS NOT EXTINGUISHED PRIOR
TO THE DATE OF DEFINITE LOCATION OF THE RAILROAD IN 1872, THEN THE
RESPONDENT'S PREDECESSOR TOOK THE FEE SUBJECT TO THE ENCUMBRANCE OF
INDIAN TITLE.  BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, SUPRA.  FOR ON THAT
DATE THE TITLE OF RESPONDENT'S PREDECESSOR ATTACHED AS OF JULY 27,
1866.  UNITED STATES V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 146 U.S. 570; NELSON
V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 188 U.S. 108. 

CERTAINLY, PRIOR TO 1865 ANY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY OF THE WALAPAIS TO
THE LANDS IN QUESTION WAS NOT EXTINGUISHED; NOR WAS THE POLICY OF
RESPECTING SUCH INDIAN TITLE CHANGED.  THE INDIAN TRADE AND INTERCOURSE
ACT OF JUNE 30, 1834, 4 STAT. 729, WAS EXTENDED OVER "THE INDIAN TRIBES
IN THE TERRITORIES OF NEW MEXICO AND UTAH" BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 27, 1851, 9 STAT. 574, 587.  THE 1834 ACT, WHICH DERIVED FROM
THE ACT OF JULY 22, 1790, 1 STAT. 137, MADE IT AN OFFENSE TO DRIVE
STOCK TO RANGE OR FEED "ON ANY LAND BELONGING TO ANY INDIAN OR INDIAN
TRIBE, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF SUCH TRIBE" (SEC. 9); GAVE THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AUTHORITY "TO REMOVE FROM THE INDIAN
COUNTRY ALL PERSONS FOUND THEREIN CONTRARY TO LAW" (SEC. 10); MADE IT
UNLAWFUL TO SETTLE ON "ANY LANDS BELONGING, SECURED, OR GRANTED BY
TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES TO ANY INDIAN TRIBE" (SEC. 11); AND MADE
INVALID ANY CONVEYANCE OF LANDS "FROM ANY INDIAN NATION OR TRIBE OF
INDIANS."  SEC. 12.  THE ACT OF 1851 OBVIOUSLY DID NOT CREATE ANY
INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY WHICH DID NOT PREVIOUSLY EXIST.  BUT IT
PLAINLY INDICATES THAT IN 1851 CONGRESS DESIRED TO CONTINUE IN THESE
TERRITORIES THE UNQUESTIONED GENERAL POLICY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO RECOGNIZE SUCH RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY.  AS STATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL IN WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, SUPRA, 6 PET. P. 557, THE INDIAN
TRADE AND INTERCOURSE ACTS "MANIFESTLY CONSIDER THE SEVERAL INDIAN
NATIONS AS DISTINCT POLITICAL COMMUNITIES, HAVING TERRITORIAL
BOUNDARIES, WITHIN WHICH THEIR AUTHORITY IS EXCLUSIVE, AND HAVING A
RIGHT TO ALL THE LANDS WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES, WHICH IS NOT ONLY
ACKNOWLEDGED, BUT GUARANTIED BY THE UNITED STATES." 

THE COURT BELOW LAID CONSIDERABLE STRESS UPON THE ACT OF JULY 22,
1854, 10 STAT. 308, AS INDICATING THAT CONGRESS RECOGNIZED NO RIGHTS OF
THE INDIANS IN ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO OTHER THAN THOSE EXISTING UNDER
MEXICAN LAW OR CREATED BY RESERVATIONS AFTER THE MEXICAN CESSION.  BUT
WE DO NOT AGREE THAT, SO FAR AS THE RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS ARE CONCERNED,
THAT ACT INSTITUTED A POLICY OF NON-RECOGNITION OF INDIAN TITLE.  NOR
DO WE THINK THAT IT EFFECTED ANY EXTINGUISHMENT OF THAT TITLE.    THE
ACT OF 1854 ESTABLISHED THE OFFICE OF SURVEYOR GENERAL OF NEW MEXICO. 
IT DONATED LAND TO CERTAIN QUALIFIED CITIZENS (SEC. 2) WITH THE
EXCEPTION, INTER ALIA, OF "MILITARY OR OTHER RESERVATIONS."  SEC. 4. 
UNLIKE THE PRE-EMPTION ACT OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1841, SEC. 10, 5 STAT. 453,
THE 1854 ACT DID NOT EXTEND ONLY TO "THE PUBLIC LANDS TO WHICH THE
INDIAN TITLE HAD BEEN AT THE TIME OF SUCH SETTLEMENT EXTINGUISHED."  IT
DID PROVIDE, HOWEVER, THAT "ANY OF THE LANDS NOT TAKEN" UNDER IT SHOULD
"BE SUBJECT TO THE OPERATION" OF THE PRE-EMPTION ACT.  SEC. 7. 
MOREOVER, THE 1854 ACT PROVIDED AS RESPECTS THE TERRITORIES OF NEBRASKA
AND KANSAS THAT THE GRANTS SHOULD EXTEND ONLY TO LANDS "TO WHICH THE
INDIAN TITLE HAS BEEN OR SHALL BE EXTINGUISHED."  SEC. 12. 

FROM THAT IT IS ARGUED THAT SINCE CONGRESS RECOGNIZED INDIAN TITLE IN
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS AND UNDER THE PRE-EMPTION ACT BUT DID NOT RECOGNIZE
IT AS RESPECTS THE LANDS IN THIS AREA, A SHIFT OF POLICY IN THE MEXICAN
CESSION WAS INDICATED.  THE ISSUE HERE, HOWEVER, IS NOT BETWEEN A
SETTLER CLAIMING UNDER THE 1854 ACT AND THE WALAPAIS.  WHETHER IN SUCH
A CASE THE 1854 ACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS EXTINGUISHING ANY INDIAN
TITLE TO LAND TAKEN UNDER IT WE NEED NOT DECIDE.  FN5 RESPONDENT DOES
NOT CLAIM UNDER THAT ACT AND HENCE CAN DERIVE NO RIGHTS FROM IT. 

SOME STRESS IS LIKEWISE PLACED ON SEC. 8 OF THE ACT OF JULY 22, 1854,
AND ON THE ACT OF JULY 15, 1870, 16 STAT. 291, 304.  THE FORMER
REQUIRED THE SURVEYOR GENERAL FOR NEW MEXICO "TO ASCERTAIN THE ORIGIN,
NATURE, CHARACTER, AND EXTENT OF ALL CLAIMS TO LANDS UNDER THE LAWS,
USAGES, AND CUSTOMS OF SPAIN AND MEXICO"; AND TO MAKE A REPORT "ON ALL
SUCH CLAIMS AS ORIGINATED BEFORE THE CESSION OF THE TERRITORY TO THE
UNITED STATES BY THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO  ...  DENOTING THE
VARIOUS GRADES OF TITLE, WITH HIS DECISION AS TO THE VALIDITY OR
INVALIDITY OF EACH OF THE SAME UNDER THE LAWS, USAGES, AND CUSTOMS OF
THE COUNTRY BEFORE ITS CESSION TO THE UNITED STATES."  SUCH REPORT WAS
TO BE "LAID BEFORE CONGRESS FOR SUCH ACTION THEREON AS MAY BE DEEMED
JUST AND PROPER, WITH A VIEW TO CONFIRM BONA FIDE GRANTS, AND GIVE FULL
EFFECT" TO THE TREATY.  IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT "UNTIL THE FINAL
ACTION OF CONGRESS ON SUCH CLAIMS, ALL LANDS COVERED THEREBY SHALL BE
RESERVED FROM SALE OR OTHER DISPOSAL BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND SHALL NOT
BE SUBJECT TO THE DONATIONS GRANTED BY THE PREVIOUS PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT."  THE 1870 ACT DIRECTED THE SURVEYOR GENERAL FOR ARIZONA (WHICH
WAS SEPARATED AS A TERRITORY FROM NEW MEXICO IN 1863, 12 STAT. 664) "TO
ASCERTAIN AND REPORT UPON THE ORIGIN, NATURE, CHARACTER, AND EXTENT OF
THE CLAIMS TO LANDS IN SAID TERRITORY UNDER THE LAWS, USAGES, AND
CUSTOMS OF SPAIN AND MEXICO."  HIS REPORT WAS TO BE "LAID BEFORE
CONGRESS FOR SUCH ACTION THEREON AS SHALL BE DEEMED JUST AND PROPER." 

THESE ACTS DID NOT EXTINGUISH ANY INDIAN TITLE BASED ON ABORIGINAL
OCCUPANCY WHICH THE WALAPAIS MAY HAVE HAD.  IN THAT RESPECT THEY WERE
QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1851, 9 STAT. 631, PASSED TO
ASCERTAIN AND SETTLE CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS IN CALIFORNIA.  UNDER SEC. 13
OF THAT ACT "ALL LANDS THE CLAIMS TO WHICH SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED" TO THE COMMISSIONERS, APPOINTED TO RECEIVE AND ACT UPON ALL
PETITIONS FOR CONFIRMATION OF LAND CLAIMS, "WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE
DATE OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE DEEMED, HELD, AND CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE UNITED STATES."  THIS COURT PASSED ON THAT ACT IN
BARKER V. HARVEY, 181 U.S. 481.  THE PLAINTIFF THERE CLAIMED UNDER TWO
MEXICAN GRANTS.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE INDIANS WHO CLAIMED A RIGHT OF
PERMANENT OCCUPANCY; BUT THEY HAD NOT PRESENTED THEIR CLAIMS TO THE
COMMISSIONERS WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED BY SEC. 13.  THIS COURT HELD
THAT AS A RESULT OF THAT FAILURE THEIR CLAIMS WERE BARRED.  AND SEE
UNITED STATES V. TITLE INSURANCE & TRUST CO., SUPRA, 265 U.S. 472. 
THAT IS TO SAY, THE ACT OF 1851 WAS INTERPRETED AS CONTAINING MACHINERY
FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS, INCLUDING THOSE BASED ON INDIAN RIGHT OF
OCCUPANCY.  SINCE CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED A METHOD FOR EXTINGUISHMENT,
ITS APPROPRIATENESS RAISED ONLY A POLITICAL, NOT A JUSTICIABLE, ISSUE. 
THE ACTS OF 1854 AND 1870, UNLIKE THE ACT OF 1851, MERELY CALLED FOR A
REPORT TO CONGRESS ON CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS.  IF THERE WAS AN
EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE WALAPAIS, IT RESULTED NOT FROM
ACTION OF THE SURVEYOR GENERAL BUT FROM ACTION OF CONGRESS BASED ON HIS
REPORTS.  FN6  WE ARE NOT ADVISED THAT CONGRESS TOOK ANY SUCH ACTION. 
IN ITS ABSENCE WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THESE ACTS WERE CONCERNED NOT WITH
THE PROBLEM OF ASCERTAINING THE BOUNDARIES OF INDIAN COUNTRY BUT WITH
THE PROBLEM OF QUIETING TITLES ORIGINATING UNDER SPANISH OR MEXICAN
GRANTS.  FOR IT SHOULD BE NOTICED THAT SEC. 8 OF THE 1854 ACT
CONTEMPLATED CONFIRMATION BY CONGRESS OF "BONA FIDE GRANTS." 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1865, 13 STAT. 541, 559, WHICH
PROVIDED:  "ALL THAT PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE TERRITORY OF
ARIZONA, LYING WEST OF A DIRECT LINE FROM HALF-WAY BEND TO CORNER ROCK
ON THE COLORADO RIVER, CONTAINING ABOUT SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND ACRES OF
LAND, SHALL BE SET APART FOR AN INDIAN RESERVATION FOR THE INDIANS OF
SAID RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES."  IT IS PLAIN THAT THE INDIANS REFERRED
TO INCLUDED THE WALAPAIS.  THE SUGGESTION FOR REMOVING VARIOUS INDIAN
TRIBES IN THIS AREA TO A RESERVATION APPARENTLY ORIGINATED WITH A
FORMER INDIAN AGENT, SUPERINTENDENT POSTON, WHO WAS A TERRITORIAL
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS IN 1865.  HIS EXPLANATION FN7  ON THE FLOOR
OF THE HOUSE OF THE BILL, WHICH RESULTED IN THE CREATION OF THE 1865
RESERVATION, INDICATES THAT HE HAD CALLED A COUNCIL OF THE CONFEDERATED
TRIBES OF THE COLORADO, INCLUDING THE WALAPAIS, AND HAD TOLD THEM THAT
"THEY SHOULD ABANDON" THEIR LANDS AND CONFINE THEMSELVES TO THE PLACE
ON THE COLORADO RIVER WHICH WAS LATER PROPOSED FOR A RESERVATION.  HE
ENTERED INTO NO AGREEMENT WITH THEM NOR DID HE PROPOSE A TREATY.  HE
MERELY STATED THAT IF ELECTED TO CONGRESS HE WOULD TRY TO GET CONGRESS
TO PROVIDE FOR THEM.  AS STATED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
IN 1864, "ASSUMING THAT THE INDIANS HAVE A RIGHT OF SOME KIND TO THE
SOIL, MR. POSTON'S ARRANGEMENT PROPOSES A COMPROMISE WITH THESE
INDIANS, BY WHICH ON THEIR CONFINING THEMSELVES TO THEIR RESERVATION,
AND YIELDING ALL CLAIMS TO LANDS BEYOND IT, THEY SHALL, IN LIEU OF AN
ANNUITY IN MONEY OR SUPPLIES, BE FURNISHED BY GOVERNMENT WITH AN
IRRIGATING CANAL, AT A COST ESTIMATED AT SOMETHING NEAR $100,000,
WHICH, BY INSURING THEM THEIR ANNUAL CROPS, WILL ENABLE THEM TO SUPPORT
THEMSELVES, INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER AID BY THE GOVERNMENT."  FN8 

WE SEARCH THE PUBLIC RECORDS IN VAIN FOR ANY CLEAR AND PLAIN
INDICATION THAT CONGRESS IN CREATING THE COLORADO RIVER RESERVATION WAS
DOING MORE THAN MAKING AN OFFER TO THE INDIANS, INCLUDING THE WALAPAIS,
WHICH IT WAS HOPED WOULD BE ACCEPTED AS A COMPROMISE OF A TROUBLESOME
QUESTION.  WE FIND NO INDICATION THAT CONGRESS BY CREATING THAT
RESERVATION INTENDED TO EXTINGUISH ALL OF THE RIGHTS WHICH THE WALAPAIS
HAD IN THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME.  FN9  THAT CONGRESS COULD HAVE EFFECTED
SUCH AN EXTINGUISHMENT IS NOT DOUBTED.  BUT AN EXTINGUISHMENT CANNOT BE
LIGHTLY IMPLIED IN VIEW OF THE AVOWED SOLICITUDE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR THE WELFARE OF ITS INDIAN WARDS.  AS STATED IN CHOATE V.
TRAPP, 224 U.S. 665, 675, THE RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RECOGNIZED WITHOUT
EXCEPTION FOR OVER A CENTURY HAS BEEN THAT "DOUBTFUL EXPRESSIONS,
INSTEAD OF BEING RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE TO BE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF A WEAK AND DEFENSELESS PEOPLE, WHO ARE WARDS OF
THE NATION, AND DEPENDENT WHOLLY UPON ITS PROTECTION AND GOOD FAITH." 
AND SEE MINNESOTA V. HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373, 395-396.  NOR WAS THERE
ANY PLAIN INTENT OR AGREEMENT ON THE PART OF THE WALAPAIS TO ABANDON
THEIR ANCESTRAL LANDS IF CONGRESS WOULD CREATE A RESERVATION. 
FURTHERMORE, THE WALAPAIS DID NOT ACCEPT THE OFFER WHICH CONGRESS HAD
TENDERED.  IN 1874 THEY WERE, HOWEVER, FORCIBLY REMOVED TO THE COLORADO
RIVER RESERVATION ON ORDER FROM THE INDIAN DEPARTMENT.  FN10  BUT THEY
LEFT IT IN A BODY THE NEXT YEAR.  FN11 AND IT WAS DECIDED "TO ALLOW
THEM TO REMAIN IN THEIR OLD RANGE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR."  FN12  THEY
DID THEREAFTER REMAIN IN THEIR OLD COUNTRY AND ENGAGED IN NO
HOSTILITIES AGAINST THE WHITES.  NO FURTHER ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO FORCE
THEM ONTO THE COLORADO RIVER RESERVATION, EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS HAD MADE
VARIOUS APPROPRIATIONS TO DEFRAY THE COSTS OF LOCATING THE ARIZONA
INDIANS IN PERMANENT ABODES (ACT OF MARCH 3, 1865, 13 STAT. 541, 559;
ACT OF JULY 27, 1868, 15 STAT. 198, 219; ACT OF JULY 15, 1870, 16 STAT.
335, 357), INCLUDING THE COLORADO RIVER RESERVATION.  ACT OF MARCH 2,
1867, 14 STAT. 492, 515; ACT OF MAY 29, 1872, 17 STAT. 165, 188.  ON
THESE FACTS WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CREATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER
RESERVATION WAS, SO FAR AS THE WALAPAIS WERE CONCERNED, NOTHING MORE
THAN AN ABORTIVE ATTEMPT TO SOLVE A PERPLEXING PROBLEM.  THEIR FORCIBLE
REMOVAL IN 1874 WAS NOT PURSUANT TO ANY MANDATE OF CONGRESS.  IT WAS A
HIGH-HANDED ENDEAVOR TO WREST FROM THESE INDIANS LANDS WHICH CONGRESS
HAD NEVER DECLARED FORFEITED.  FN13  NO FORFEITURE CAN BE PREDICATED ON
AN UNAUTHORIZED ATTEMPT TO EFFECT A FORCIBLE SETTLEMENT ON THE
RESERVATION, UNLESS WE ARE TO BE INSENSITIVE TO THE HIGH STANDARDS FOR
FAIR DEALING IN LIGHT OF WHICH LAWS DEALING WITH INDIAN RIGHTS HAVE
LONG BEEN READ.  CERTAINLY, A FORCED ABANDONMENT OF THEIR ANCESTRAL
HOME WAS NOT A "VOLUNTARY CESSION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE
ACT OF JULY 27, 1866.  ATLANTIC & PACIFIC R. CO. V. MINGUS, 165 U.S.
413, 438-439. 

THE SITUATION WAS, HOWEVER, QUITE DIFFERENT IN 1881.  BETWEEN 1875
AND THAT DATE THERE WERE RATHER CONTINUOUS SUGGESTIONS FOR SETTLING THE
WALAPAIS ON SOME RESERVATION.  FN14  IN 1881 THE MATTER CAME TO A
HEAD.  A MAJORITY OF THE TRIBE, "IN COUNCIL ASSEMBLED," ASKED AN
OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY IN THAT REGION "TO AID THEM AND
REPRESENT TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES" THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL:  FN15
"THEY SAY THAT IN THE COUNTRY, OVER WHICH THEY USED TO ROAM SO FREE,
THE WHITE MEN HAVE APPROPRIATED ALL THE WATER; THAT LARGE NUMBERS OF
CATTLE HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED AND HAVE RAPIDLY INCREASED DURING THE PAST
YEAR OR TWO; THAT IN MANY PLACES THE WATER IS FENCED IN AND LOCKED UP;
AND THEY ARE DRIVEN FROM ALL WATERS.  THEY SAY THAT THE RAILROAD IS NOW
COMING, WHICH WILL REQUIRE MORE WATER, AND WILL BRING MORE MEN WHO WILL
TAKE UP ALL THE SMALL SPRINGS REMAINING.  THEY URGE THAT THE FOLLOWING
RESERVATION BE SET ASIDE FOR THEM WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME; THAT THE
LAND CAN NEVER BE OF ANY GREAT USE TO THE WHITES; THAT THERE ARE NO
MINERAL DEPOSITS UPON IT, AS IT HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY PROSPECTED; THAT
THERE IS LITTLE OR NO ARABLE LAND; THAT THE WATER IS IN SUCH SMALL
QUANTITIES, AND THE COUNTRY IS SO ROCKY AND VOID OF GRASS, THAT IT
WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR STOCK RAISING.  I AM CREDIBLY INFORMED, AND
FROM MY OBSERVATIONS BELIEVE, THE ABOVE FACTS TO BE TRUE.  I,
THEREFORE, EARNESTLY RECOMMEND THAT THE HEREAFTER DESCRIBED RESERVATION
BE, AT AS EARLY A DATE AS PRACTICABLE, SET ASIDE FOR THEM." 

PURSUANT TO THAT RECOMMENDATION, THE MILITARY RESERVATION WAS
CONSTITUTED ON JULY 8, 1881, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT. 
FN16  THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CREATING THE WALAPAI INDIAN RESERVATION WAS
SIGNED BY PRESIDENT ARTHUR ON JANUARY 4, 1883.  FN17  THERE WAS AN
INDICATION THAT THE INDIANS WERE SATISFIED WITH THE PROPOSED
RESERVATION.  FN18  A FEW OF THEM THEREAFTER LIVED ON THE RESERVATION;
MANY OF THEM DID NOT.  FN19  WHILE SUGGESTIONS RECURRED FOR THE
CREATION OF A NEW AND DIFFERENT RESERVATION,  FN20  THIS ONE WAS NOT
ABANDONED.  FOR A LONG TIME IT REMAINED UNSURVEYED.  FN21  CATTLEMEN
USED IT FOR GRAZING, AND FOR SOME YEARS THE WALAPAIS RECEIVED LITTLE
BENEFIT FROM IT.  FN22  BUT IN VIEW OF ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE
CONCLUDE THAT ITS CREATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE WALAPAIS AND ITS
ACCEPTANCE BY THEM AMOUNTED TO A RELINQUISHMENT OF ANY TRIBAL CLAIMS TO
LANDS  FN23  WHICH THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD OUTSIDE THAT RESERVATION AND
THAT THAT RELINQUISHMENT WAS TANTAMOUNT TO AN EXTINGUISHMENT BY
"VOLUNTARY CESSION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF JULY 27,
1866.  THE LANDS WERE FAST BEING POPULATED.  THE WALAPAIS SAW THEIR OLD
DOMAIN BEING PREEMPTED.  THEY WANTED A RESERVATION WHILE THERE WAS
STILL TIME TO GET ONE.  THAT SOLUTION HAD LONG SEEMED DESIRABLE IN VIEW
OF RECURRING TENSIONS BETWEEN THE SETTLERS AND THE WALAPAIS.  IN VIEW
OF THE LONG STANDING ATTEMPT TO SETTLE THE WALAPAIS' PROBLEM BY PLACING
THEM ON A RESERVATION, THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS RESERVATION MUST BE
REGARDED IN LAW AS THE EQUIVALENT OF A RELEASE OF ANY TRIBAL RIGHTS
WHICH THEY MAY HAVE HAD IN LANDS OUTSIDE THE RESERVATION.  THEY WERE IN
SUBSTANCE ACQUIESCING IN THE PENETRATION OF WHITE SETTLERS ON CONDITION
THAT PERMANENT PROVISION WAS MADE FOR THEM TOO.  IN VIEW OF THIS
HISTORICAL SETTING, IT CANNOT NOW BE FAIRLY IMPLIED THAT TRIBAL RIGHTS
OF THE WALAPAIS IN LANDS OUTSIDE THE RESERVATION WERE PRESERVED.  THAT
WOULD MAKE THE CREATION OF THE 1883 RESERVATION, AS AN ATTEMPTED
SOLUTION OF THE VIOLENT PROBLEMS CREATED WHEN TWO CIVILIZATIONS MET IN
THIS AREA, ILLUSORY INDEED.  WE MUST GIVE IT THE DEFINITIVENESS WHICH
THE EXIGENCIES OF THAT SITUATION SEEM TO DEMAND.  HENCE, ACQUIESCENCE
IN THAT ARRANGEMENT MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN A RELINQUISHMENT OF
TRIBAL RIGHTS IN LANDS OUTSIDE THE RESERVATION AND NOTORIOUSLY CLAIMED
BY OTHERS.  CF. MARSH V. BROOKS, 14 HOW.  513; SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED
STATES, 299 U.S. 476. 

ON JANUARY 23, 1941, THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THIS PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, RESPONDENT QUITCLAIMED TO THE UNITED STATES, UNDER SEC.
321(B), PT. III OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1940, 54 STAT. 929, 954), ALL LANDS CLAIMED BY IT UNDER THE ACT OF JULY
27, 1866, WITHIN THE WALAPAI INDIAN RESERVATION.  SINCE THE DECREE
BELOW MUST STAND AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AND SINCE BY VIRTUE
OF THE QUITCLAIM DEEDS THE UNITED STATES HAS RECEIVED ALL THE LANDS TO
WHICH THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION RELATES, THE DECREE WILL NOT BE
REVERSED.  IT IS APPARENT, HOWEVER, THAT IT MUST BE MODIFIED SO AS TO
PERMIT THE ACCOUNTING AS RESPECTS LANDS IN THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION. 
IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THOSE LANDS WERE INCLUDED IN THE ANCESTRAL
HOME OF THE WALAPAIS IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE IN WHOLE OR IN PART
OCCUPIED EXCLUSIVELY BY THEM OR WHETHER THEY WERE LANDS WANDERED OVER
BY MANY TRIBES.  AS WE HAVE SAID, OCCUPANCY NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH
ABORIGINAL POSSESSION IS A QUESTION OF FACT.  THE UNITED STATES IS
ENTITLED TO AN ACCOUNTING AS RESPECTS ANY OR ALL OF THE LANDS IN THE
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH THE WALAPAIS DID IN FACT OCCUPY EXCLUSIVELY
FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL.  FN24  SUCH AN ACCOUNTING IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1925, 43 STAT. 954, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR "TO ACCEPT RECONVEYANCES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PRIVATELY
OWNED AND STATE SCHOOL LANDS AND RELINQUISHMENTS OF ANY VALID FILINGS,
UNDER THE HOMESTEAD LAWS, OR OF OTHER VALID CLAIMS WITHIN THE WALAPAI
INDIAN RESERVATION."  THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THERE MAY BE SOME LAND
WITHIN THE RESERVATION THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO INDIAN OCCUPANCY.  BUT
THAT ACT CERTAINLY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY AND ALL
INDIAN TITLE THAT DID EXIST OR AS A REPEAL BY IMPLICATION OF SEC. 2 OF
THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1866, REQUIRING SUCH EXTINGUISHMENT BY "VOLUNTARY
CESSION."  IT WAS PASSED SO THAT LANDS "RETAINED FOR INDIAN PURPOSES
MAY BE CONSOLIDATED AND HELD IN A SOLID AREA SO FAR AS MAY BE
POSSIBLE."  FN25 SUCH STATEMENTS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AS
THAT "TITLE TO THE ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS" WAS IN THE RESPONDENT  FN26
DO NOT ESTOP THE UNITED STATES FROM MAINTAINING THIS SUIT.  FOR THEY
COULD NOT DEPRIVE THE INDIANS OF THEIR RIGHTS ANY MORE THAN COULD THE
UNAUTHORIZED LEASES IN CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

HENCE, AN ACCOUNTING AS RESPECTS SUCH LANDS IN THE RESERVATION WHICH
CAN BE PROVED TO HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE WALAPAIS FROM TIME
IMMEMORIAL CAN BE HAD.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DECREE BELOW PRECLUDES
SUCH PROOF AND ACCOUNTING, IT WILL BE MODIFIED.  AND AS SO MODIFIED, IT
IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  EARLIER CASES INVOLVING THIS GRANT ARE UNITED STATES V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC R. CO., 146 U.S. 570; ATLANTIC & PACIFIC R. CO. V. MINGUS, 165
U.S. 413; SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO. V. LANE, 244 U.S. 492; SANTA FE
PACIFIC R. CO. V. FALL, 259 U.S. 197; SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO. V. WORK,
267 U.S. 511. 

FN2  SEE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO, 9 STAT. 922. 

FN3  CHOUTEAU V. MOLONY, SUPRA; BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD,
SUPRA; CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE,
SUPRA.  SEE ROYCE, INDIAN LAND CESSIONS IN THE UNITED STATES, 18
PUBLICATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY, SMITHSONIAN
INSTITUTION, PT. 2(1899) PP. 539-561, 639-643. 

FN4  TREATY OF JULY 1, 1852, 10 STAT. 979(APACHE NATION); TREATY OF
OCTOBER 7, 1863, 13 STAT. 673, 674(TABEGUACHE BAND OF UTAH INDIANS);
TREATY OF MARCH 2, 1868, 15 STAT. 619, ACT OF APRIL 29, 1874, 18 STAT.
36, ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880, 21 STAT. 199(UTE INDIANS); TREATY OF JUNE 1,
1868, 15 STAT. 667(NAVAJO TRIBE).  FOR A SCHEDULE OF INDIAN LAND
CESSIONS SEE ROYCE, OP. CIT., SUPRA NOTE 3, PP. 648 ET SEQ. 

FN5  THE ACT OF 1854 IS CITED IN COHEN, HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN
LAW (1941) P. 308, FOR THE STATEMENT THAT, "ONLY WHERE IT WAS NECESSARY
TO GIVE EMIGRANTS POSSESSORY RIGHTS TO PARTS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, HAS
CONGRESS EVER GRANTED TRIBAL LANDS IN DISREGARD OF TRIBAL POSSESSORY
RIGHTS." 

FN6  THE VARIOUS REPORTS OF THE SURVEYOR GENERAL ARE FOUND IN THE
ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FROM 1855 THROUGH 1890,
WHEN THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS WAS CONSTITUTED.  ACT OF MARCH 3,
1891, 26 STAT. 854.  SEC. 15 OF THAT ACT REPEALED SEC. 8 OF THE ACT OF
1854.  UNDER SEC. 13 OF THE 1891 ACT IT WAS PROVIDED:  "NO CLAIM SHALL
BE ALLOWED THAT SHALL INTERFERE WITH OR OVERTHROW ANY JUST AND
UNEXTINGUISHED INDIAN TITLE OR RIGHT TO ANY LAND OR PLACE." 

FN7  CONG. GLOBE, 38TH CONG., 2D SESS., MARCH 2, 1865, P. 1320:  "AS
SUPERINTENDENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, I CALLED THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF
THE COLORADO IN COUNCIL TOGETHER.  THE COUNCIL WAS ATTENDED BY THE
PRINCIPAL CHIEFS AND HEADMEN OF THE YUMAS, MOJAVES, YAPAPAIS,
HUALAPAIS, AND CHEMIHUEVIS.  THESE TRIBES HAVE AN AGGREGATE OF TEN
THOUSAND SOULS LIVING NEAR THE BANKS OF THE COLORADO, FROM FORT YUMA TO
FORT MOJAVE.  ... 

"BUT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT
THAT TIME, I DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO MAKE A WRITTEN TREATY WITH THESE
INDIANS, BECAUSE I CONSIDERED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ABLE AND WILLING
TO TREAT THEM FAIRLY AND HONESTLY WITHOUT ENTERING INTO THE FORM OF A
WRITTEN TREATY, WHICH HAS BEEN HERETOFORE SO SEVERELY CRITICISED IN
BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, AND WITH SOME REASON.  THESE INDIANS THERE
ASSEMBLED WERE WILLING, FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF BEEF AND FLOUR, TO HAVE
SIGNED ANY TREATY WHICH IT HAD BEEN MY PLEASURE TO WRITE.  I SIMPLY
PROPOSED TO THEM THAT FOR ALL THE ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THOUSAND
SQUARE MILES, FULL OF MINES AND RICH ENOUGH TO PAY THE PUBLIC DEBT OF
THE UNITED STATES, THEY SHOULD ABANDON THAT TERRITORY AND CONFINE
THEMSELVES TO THE ELBOW IN THE COLORADO RIVER, NOT MORE THAN SEVENTY
FIVE THOUSAND ACRES.  BUT I DID NOT ENTER INTO ANY OBLIGATION ON
ACCOUNT OF THE UNITED STATES TO FURNISH THEM WITH SEEDS AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.  I SIMPLY TOLD THEM THAT IF I WAS ELECTED TO
REPRESENT THAT TERRITORY IN THIS CONGRESS, I WOULD ENDEAVOR TO LAY
THEIR CLAIMS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH THEY UNDERSTOOD TO BE
MAGNANIMOUS, AND THAT I HOPED THAT THIS CONGRESS WOULD HAVE THE
GENEROSITY AND THE JUSTICE TO PROVIDE FOR THESE INDIANS, WHO HAVE BEEN
ROBBED OF THEIR LANDS AND THEIR MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE, AND THAT THEY MAY
BE ALLOWED TO LIVE THERE WHERE THEY HAVE ALWAYS MADE THEIR HOMES.  THEY
DESIRE TO LIVE AS DO THE PUEBLO INDIANS OF NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. 
THOSE PUEBLO INDIANS LIVE IN SETTLEMENTS, IN TOWNS, IN RESERVATIONS,
ACCORDING TO THE WISE POLICY OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT, WHICH COLONIZED
THE INDIANS IN RESERVATIONS AND MADE THEIR LABOR VALUABLE IN BUILDING
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THEIR OWN SUSTENANCE, FOR CHURCHES, AND PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS, AND IN THAT MANNER MADE THEM PEACEABLE INDIANS, INSTEAD
OF HAVING EVERLASTING AND ETERNAL WAR WITH THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY HAD
ROBBED OF THEIR LAND. 

"THESE PEOPLE HAVING BEEN CITIZENS OF THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT, ARE
NOT, ACCORDING TO OUR THEORY, ENTITLED TO ANY RIGHT IN THE SOIL; AND
THEREFORE NO TREATY WITH THESE INDIANS FOR THE EXTINCTION OF THEIR
TITLE TO THE SOIL WOULD BE RECOGNIZED BY THIS GOVERNMENT.  IT IS A
FICTION OF LAW WHICH THESE INDIANS, IN THEIR IGNORANCE, ARE NOT ABLE TO
UNDERSTAND.  THEY CANNOT SEE WHY THE INDIANS OF THE NORTHEAST HAVE BEEN
PAID ANNUITIES SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THIS GOVERNMENT FOR THE
EXTINCTION OF THEIR TITLE, WHILE THE INDIANS WHO WERE FORMERLY SUBJECT
TO THE SPANISH AND MEXICAN GOVERNMENTS ARE DRIVEN FROM THEIR LANDS
WITHOUT A DOLLAR.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THESE SIMPLE-MINDED PEOPLE TO
UNDERSTAND THIS SOPHISTRY.  THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES JUST AS MUCH
ENTITLED TO THE LAND WHICH THEIR ANCESTORS INHABITED BEFORE OURS LANDED
ON PLYMOUTH ROCK AS THE INDIANS OF THE NORTHEAST.  THEY HAVE NEVER
SIGNED ANY TREATY RELINQUISHING THEIR RIGHT TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN." 

FN8  REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, DEC. 5, 1864, P. 165. 

FN9 RESPONDENT ALSO PLACES SOME STRESS ON THE ACT OF APRIL 20, 1871,
17 STAT. 19, IN WHICH CONGRESS PERMITTED RESPONDENT'S PREDECESSOR TO
MORTGAGE ITS PROPERTY.  BUT AS STATED IN LEAVENWORTH, L. & G.R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 733, 753, "  ...  TITLE TO LANDS IS NOT
STRENGTHENED BY GIVING A MORTGAGE UPON THEM; NOR CAN THE FACT THAT IT
HAS BEEN GIVEN THROW ANY LIGHT UPON THE PRIOR ESTATE OF THE
MORTGAGOR."  AND SEE ATLANTIC & PACIFIC R. CO. V. MINGUS, 165 U.S. 413,
430, WHERE THIS COURT IN SPEAKING OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF APRIL
20, 1871, SAID: "THE ORIGINAL ACT BEING SILENT UPON THE SUBJECT OF
MORTGAGING THE GRANT, THERE IS REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS PASSED
THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESOLVING ANY DOUBTS THAT CAPITALISTS MAY
HAVE ENTERTAINED WITH RESPECT TO SUCH POWER.  THE MORTGAGEES, STANDING
IN THE PLACE OF THE MORTGAGOR, HAD NO GREATER RIGHTS THAN IT HAD, AND
MUST BE HELD TO HAVE KNOWN THAT THEY WERE TAKING AN ESTATE WHICH WAS
DEFEASIBLE UPON CONDITION BROKEN." 

FN10  WALAPAI PAPERS, S. DOC. NO. 273, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 96
98.  THOUGH THE WALAPAIS WERE AT PEACE WITH THE WHITES PRIOR TO
1866(ID. P. 92) THE KILLING OF THEIR HEAD CHIEF BY A WHITE LED TO
HOSTILITIES WHICH CONTINUED FOR A FEW YEARS.  ID. PP. 37-94. 

FN11  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., P. 104. 

FN12  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., P. 104. 

FN13  SEE WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., P. 108.  GENERAL SCHOFIELD
REPORTED ON MAY 24, 1875, TO THE ADJUTANT GENERAL AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE HUALPAI INDIANS HAVE BEEN OUR FIRM FRIENDS FOR MANY YEARS, AND
OUR ACTIVE ALLIES WHENEVER THEIR SERVICES HAVE BEEN REQUIRED AGAINST
THE HOSTILE APACHES.  IN RETURN FOR THEIR FIDELITY THEY HAVE BEEN
TREATED WITH GREAT INJUSTICE AND CRUELTY.  THEY WERE FORCED TO LEAVE
THEIR HOMES IN THE MOUNTAINS AND GO UPON A RESERVATION IN THE COLORADO
DESERT, WHERE THEY HAVE SUFFERED FROM THE EXTREME HEAT, TO WHICH THEY
WERE UNACCUSTOMED, FROM DISEASE, AND FROM HUNGER. 

"THIS WAS DONE IN SPITE OF THE PROTEST OF THE MILITARY COMMANDERS WHO
WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE WANTS OF THESE INDIANS AND WERE ANXIOUS TO REPAY
BY KIND TREATMENT THE FAITHFUL SERVICES THEY HAD RENDERED.  THE INDIANS
WERE BITTERLY OPPOSED TO THIS CHANGE, AND IT WAS ONLY THE GREAT
INFLUENCE WHICH GEN'L. CROOK AND CAPTAIN BYRNE HAD ACQUIRED OVER THEM
THAT ENABLED THE REMOVAL TO BE MADE WITHOUT WAR. 

"THE INDIAN AGENT, HAVING SEEN FIT TO RELINQUISH THE AID OF THIS
POWERFUL INFLUENCE, THE EFFECT WAS AT ONCE MANIFEST IN THE RETURN OF
THE HUALPAIS TO THEIR FORMER HOMES. 

"I AM DECIDEDLY OPPOSED TO THE USE OF ANY COERCIVE MEASURES TO FORCE
THEM BACK UPON THE COLORADO RESERVATION. 

"THE INJUSTICE AND BAD FAITH SHOWN BY THE GOVERNMENT TOWARD THE
HUALPAIS AND THE INDIANS WHICH GEN'L. CROOK HAD COLLECTED UPON THE
VERDE RESERVATION ARE CALCULATED TO UNDO AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE GOOD
WORK WHICH GEN'L. CROOK AND HIS TROOPS HAD ACCOMPLISHED WITH SO MUCH
WISDOM AND GALLANTRY.  IT IS USELESS TO ATTEMPT TO DISGUISE THE FACT
THAT SUCH TREATMENT OF THE INDIANS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE JUST AND
HUMANE POLICY PRESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT AND A DISGRACE TO ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY." 

FN14  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., PP. 113-131. 

FN15  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., PP. 134-135.  FOR A STRIKINGLY CLOSE
VERSION OF THIS EPISODE AS RELATED IN 1931 BY A MEMBER OF THE WALAPAI
TRIBE WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE CONFERENCE IN 1881 BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF
THE TRIBE AND THE UNITED STATES ARMY OFFICER, SEE WALAPAI PAPERS, PP.
247-249. 

FN16  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., PP. 135-136. 

FN17  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., P. 146.  AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A
RESERVATION ESTABLISHED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, SEE UNITED STATES V.
MIDWEST OIL CO., 236 U.S. 459.  SPALDING V. CHANDLER, 160 U.S. 394. 
GENERAL INDIAN ALLOTMENT ACT OF FEBRUARY 8, 1887, 24 STAT. 388, SEC. 1;
34 OP. A.G. 181, 186-189. 

FN18  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., P. 136. 

FN19  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., PP. 163, 165-168, 178, 198. 

FN20  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., PP. 151, 161-165. 

FN21  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., PP. 192, 196. 

FN22  WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., PP. 179, 183. 

FN23  AS DISTINGUISHED FROM INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF OCCUPANCY, IF ANY,
AS WERE INVOLVED IN CRAMER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 261 U.S. 219, BUT
WHICH, NOT BEING IN ISSUE HERE, ARE NOT FORECLOSED OR AFFECTED BY THE
JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE. 

FN24  IN CASE OF ANY LANDS IN THE RESERVATION WHICH WERE NOT PART OF
THE ANCESTRAL HOME OF THE WALAPAIS AND WHICH HAD PASSED TO THE RAILROAD
UNDER THE 1866 ACT, THE RAILROAD'S TITLE WOULD ANTEDATE THE CREATION OF
THE RESERVATION IN 1883 AND HENCE NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE INCUMBRANCE OF
INDIAN TITLE. 

FN25  H. REP. NO. 1446, 68TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 1.  SO FAR AS
APPEARS THERE WERE NO RECONVEYANCES UNDER THAT ACT.  IT APPARENTLY WAS,
HOWEVER, THE OCCASION FOR PRECIPITATING THE PRESENT LITIGATION. 

FN26  ID.  AND SEE WALAPAI PAPERS, OP. CIT., PP. 320-321. 
..END :












NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. FRANK, 314 U.S. 360 


NO. 15.  REARGUED OCTOBER 16, 17, 1941.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 8, 1941.  -
24 N.Y.S.2D 854, AFFIRMED. 


THE ATTEMPT OF A CONSOLIDATED INTERSTATE CARRIER TO ESCAPE LIABILITY
FOR DEBTS OF A CONSTITUENT, UPON THE GROUND THAT PERMISSION TO ASSUME
SUCH LIABILITY WAS NEVER APPLIED FOR OR OBTAINED UNDER SEC. 20A OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, ALTHOUGH ACCORDING TO THE STATE LAW UNDER
WHICH THE CONSOLIDATION TOOK PLACE THE LIABILITY WAS ONE WHICH ATTACHED
TO THE CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION UPON ITS CREATION, CAN NOT BE UPHELD IN
THIS CASE IN VIEW OF A CONSISTENT AND LONG-STANDING INTERPRETATION
PLACED UPON SEC. 20A BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN RELATION
TO THIS PARTICULAR CARRIER SYSTEM, AND WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF ITS
AFFAIRS, AS NOT REQUIRING SUCH PERMISSION, AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT
TO REJECT THAT INTERPRETATION NOW WOULD RESULT IN THE ENRICHMENT OF A
STOCKHOLDER EQUITY WHICH ITSELF WAS CAPITALIZED, WITH NO THOROUGH
SCRUTINY BY THE COMMISSION, BY VIRTUE OF THAT INTERPRETATION.  P. 372. 

NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD CO. V. FRANK. 

APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF
THE CITY OF NEW YORK IN FAVOR OF THE ABOVE-NAMED APPELLEE, IN AN ACTION
AGAINST THE APPELLANT TO RECOVER INTEREST DUE ON BONDS ISSUED BY THE
NORTHERN OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY WHICH WERE GUARANTEED BY THE LAKE ERIE &
WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.  175 MISC. 902, 24 N.Y.S.2D 846.  THE LATTER
COMPANY WAS A CONSTITUENT OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE, A CONSOLIDATED
RAILROAD CORPORATION EMBRACING A NUMBER OF RAILROAD SYSTEMS.  THE CASE
WAS FIRST ARGUED AT THE 1940 TERM AND THE JUDGMENT BELOW WAS AFFIRMED
BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 313 U.S. 538.  REHEARING WAS GRANTED, 313
U.S. 596. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE NICKEL PLATE ROAD, WAS ORGANIZED
IN 1923 AS A CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF FIVE STATES:
NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, INDIANA, AND ILLINOIS.  THE AGREEMENTS
AND ARTICLES OF CONSOLIDATION PROVIDED THAT IT SHOULD SUCCEED TO ALL OF
THE PROPERTIES AND FRANCHISES, CONTRACTS, AND OBLIGATIONS OWNED BY ITS
CONSTITUENT COMPANIES.  SECTION 143 OF THE NEW YORK RAILROAD LAW, UNDER
WHICH THE NEW CORPORATION CAME INTO BEING, PROVIDED THAT "ALL DEBTS AND
LIABILITIES INCURRED BY EITHER OF SUCH CORPORATIONS SHALL THENCEFORTH
ATTACH TO SUCH NEW CORPORATION, AND BE ENFORCED AGAINST IT AND ITS
PROPERTY TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF INCURRED OR CONTRACTED BY IT."  FN1
AMONG THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES WAS THE LAKE ERIE & WESTERN RAILROAD. 
IN CONNECTION WITH A LEASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM THE NORTHERN OHIO
RAILWAY IT HAD GUARANTEED PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST UPON THE
LATTER'S BONDS SECURED BY MORTGAGE ON THE LEASED PROPERTY.  BECAUSE OF
THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE LAW "ATTACHED" THE OBLIGATIONS OF THIS
GUARANTY TO THE NICKEL PLATE, IT HAS NOW BEEN HELD LIABLE UPON
DEFAULTED COUPONS BY A MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 

THE APPELLANT DEFENDED ON TWO GROUNDS:  FIRST, THAT THE ORIGINAL
GUARANTY BY THE LAKE ERIE WAS ULTRA VIRES.  THIS DEFENSE WAS OVERRULED
BY THE STATE COURT AND NOTHING OF THAT ISSUE SURVIVES FOR OUR
CONSIDERATION.  SECOND, THAT APPROVAL BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION WAS NECESSARY UNDER SEC. 20A OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT
BEFORE APPELLANT LEGALLY COULD "ASSUME" THE OBLIGATION,  FN2  AND THAT
SUCH APPROVAL HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN.  THIS DEFENSE, TOO, WAS OVERRULED BY
THE STATE COURT, AND THIS FEDERAL QUESTION COMES HERE BY APPEAL. 

IN SUPPORT OF THIS DEFENSE THE APPELLANT SET FORTH A LETTER, DATED
NOVEMBER 25, 1939, FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, WHICH ADVISED "THAT THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS
RAILROAD COMPANY HAS NEVER APPLIED FOR, NOR RECEIVED AUTHORIZATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 20(A) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO ASSUME ANY
OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY AS LESSOR, LESSEE, GUARANTOR, ENDORSER, SURETY,
OR OTHERWISE IN RESPECT OF BONDS OF THE NORTHERN OHIO RAILWAY
COMPANY."  BUT IT ADDED THAT "FOR FURTHER INFORMATION I WOULD REFER" TO
A REPORTED CASE IN WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD SAID:  "THAT THE
CONSOLIDATION HAD THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING THE GUARANTY OF THE LAKE
ERIE TO THE NICKEL PLATE APPEARS TO BE GENERALLY ASSUMED BY THE PARTIES
TO THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING  ...  "  FN3 

THIS REFERENCE SUGGESTS AN EXAMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY
OF THE NICKEL PLATE CONSOLIDATION AND FINANCING TO LEARN WHAT
ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE OF THE STATUTES IN QUESTION TO
THE DEBT STRUCTURE OF THIS PARTICULAR APPELLANT. 

SHORTLY AFTER ITS CONSOLIDATION THE APPELLANT ASKED THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION TO CERTIFY UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRED THE ACQUISITION AND
OPERATION BY IT OF THE RAILROAD LINES OWNED BY THE CONSTITUENT
COMPANIES.  IT ALSO ASKED AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 20A TO ISSUE PREFERRED
AND COMMON CAPITAL STOCKS IN THE AMOUNTS FIXED BY THE AGREEMENTS AND
ARTICLES OF CONSOLIDATION.  IT DID NOT, HOWEVER, ASK UNDER SEC. 5 OF
THE ACT FOR APPROVAL OF ITS CONSOLIDATION.  ACQUISITION AND STOCK ISSUE
BY N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO., 79 I.C.C. 581. 

THIS APPLICATION REQUIRED THE COMMISSION TO CONSTRUE THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, WHICH HAD RECENTLY INTRODUCED A WIDE RANGE
OF INNOVATIONS INTO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  SECTION 5 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920,
DIRECTED THE COMMISSION TO FORMULATE "AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE" A
COMPLETE PLAN FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE RAILWAYS INTO A LIMITED
NUMBER OF SYSTEMS.  AS SO AMENDED, SEC. 5 ALSO SUBJECTED VOLUNTARY
CONSOLIDATIONS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION AND REQUIRED THAT THEY
BE APPROVED IF FOUND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE IN HARMONY WITH SUCH
COMPLETE PLAN FOR GENERAL CONSOLIDATION AND IF IT APPEARED THAT THE
BONDS OF THE CONSOLIDATED CORPORATIONS AT PAR TOGETHER WITH THE
OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK AT PAR WOULD NOT EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE
CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.  BY ADDING
SEC. 20A, THE TRANSPORTATION ACT PLACED THE ISSUE OF NEW SECURITIES AND
THE ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE COMMISSION.  THE
ACT DID NOT, HOWEVER, PROVIDE FOR FEDERAL INCORPORATION OR FOR FEDERAL
CONSOLIDATION OF CARRIERS, BUT LEFT THE CREATION OF NEW OR CONSOLIDATED
CORPORATIONS TO STATE LAWS. 

AT THE TIME OF THE NICKEL PLATE'S APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITS
ACQUISITION AND OPERATION OF PROPERTIES AND THE ISSUE OF ITS STOCK, THE
COMMISSION HAD NOT COMPLETED ITS VALUATION OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES
NOR ADOPTED A COMPLETE PLAN OF CONSOLIDATION.  THE QUESTION AROSE,
THEREFORE, WHETHER UNDER THE PECULIARITIES OF THE STATUTE THE
COMMISSION WAS YET AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OVER VOLUNTARY
CONSOLIDATIONS AND THE LEGAL INCIDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF.  ON
THIS QUESTION THE COMMISSION WAS DIVIDED IN OPINION.  COMMISSIONER
EASTMAN, SUPPORTED BY COMMISSIONERS ESCH AND HALL, THOUGHT THE
AMENDMENT TO SEC. 5 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED
AS BEING IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE TO MAKE ANY CONSOLIDATION NOT APPROVED
BY THE COMMISSION UNLAWFUL.  HAD SUCH A VIEW PREVAILED, THE TERMS OF
THE NICKEL PLATE CONSOLIDATION WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY AT
THAT TIME.  EACH ITEM OF ITS DEBT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND APPROVED
OR REJECTED, AND ITS CAPITAL STRUCTURE, INCLUDING STOCK ISSUE AS WELL
AS DEBTS, WOULD HAVE BEEN TESTED BY THE VALUATION OF ITS PROPERTIES. 
THE MAJORITY OPINION, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL
UNDER SEC. 5 WAS UNNECESSARY.  IT STATED:  "APPLICABLE STATE LAWS
AFFORD MEANS TO EFFECT THE CONSOLIDATION.  SUCH LAWS ARE IN FORCE. 
THEY ARE, IN FACT, THE LAWS TO WHICH RESORT MUST BE HAD TO EFFECTUATE
CONSOLIDATIONS WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IS DESIGNED TO
FACILITATE.  WE CAN NOT CONCLUDE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN NULLIFIED OR
SUPERSEDED.  AS VALID EXISTING LAWS WE HAVE NO POWER TO SUSPEND THEM. 
WHETHER STATE CORPORATIONS IN MATTERS REGARDING THEIR STATUS AS LEGAL
ENTITIES AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THEIR PARTICIPATION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE MAY AVAIL THEMSELVES OF SUCH LAWS DOES NOT DEPEND UPON OUR
ELECTION OR ANYTHING WE DO.  AUTHORITY IN US TO WITHHOLD APPROVAL IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF SECURITY ISSUES WHEN STATE LAWS PERMIT
CONSOLIDATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE MAY NOT GRANT APPROVAL WHEN PUBLIC
INTEREST REQUIRES THAT WE DO SO.  FURTHERMORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF
MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF A FEDERAL STATUTE WE SHOULD GIVE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT TO THE ACTS OF SOVEREIGN STATES, ESPECIALLY WHEN, AS IN THIS
CASE, THEIR ACTION IS UNANIMOUS."  79 I.C.C. AT PP. 585-586.  THE
MAJORITY OPINION ADDED THAT THE ACT DID NOT PROVIDE FOR "COMPULSORY
CONSOLIDATION," THAT SUCH A PROVISION HAD BEEN "CONSIDERED BY THE
CONGRESS AND REJECTED," AND THAT ACCORDINGLY "IT DOES NOT SEEM WE
SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED TO PREVENT VOLUNTARY
CONSOLIDATIONS UNDER AVAILABLE STATE LAWS IN ORDER THEREBY TO FORCE
CONSOLIDATION UNDER SUCH GENERAL PLAN AS WE MAY ULTIMATELY ADOPT." 
ID., P. 586.  IT SAID THAT "IF THE CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO SUSPEND
STATE LAWS UNTIL WE SHOULD AT SOME LATER TIME ELECT TO PERMIT THEIR
USE, SUCH INTENT WOULD HAVE BEEN MANIFESTED IN PLAIN TERMS."  IBID.
THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE STATE
PROCEEDINGS AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE LACK OF APPROVAL BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION "ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO THE COMPLETION AND
CONSUMMATION OF THE CONSOLIDATION HAVE BEEN EFFECTED."  79 I.C.C. AT P.
583. 

THE COMMISSION THEREUPON ENTERED AN ORDER GIVING APPELLANT ITS FORMAL
APPROVAL TO THE ISSUE OF NEW STOCK, INCLUDING THAT TO BE EXCHANGED
SHARE FOR SHARE FOR UPWARDS OF $23,000,000 PAR VALUE OF THE SHARES IN
THE OLD LAKE ERIE COMPANY, SUBJECT TO AN AGREEMENT TO CONTRIBUTE A
RELATIVELY SMALL PART OF IT TO THE TREASURY OF THE NEW COMPANY, ALL AS
PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENTS AND ARTICLES OF CONSOLIDATION. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT, IN AUTHORIZING THIS STOCK ISSUE, MAKE ANY
FINDING THAT SUCH STOCK AT PAR TOGETHER WITH BONDS AT PAR DID NOT
EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES.  IT MADE NO ORDER
APPROVING ASSUMPTION OF ANY INDEBTEDNESS OF ANY KIND.  IT APPEARS THAT
THE APPELLANT AT THAT TIME SOUGHT NO SUCH AUTHORITY.  APPROACHING
MATURITY OF SOME ISSUES OF BONDS EVENTUALLY FORCED IT TO TAKE SOME
CORPORATE ACTION, AND UPON SUCH LATER OCCASIONS IT SOUGHT AND OBTAINED
AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND MATURITY DATES AND IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH
EXTENSIONS TO MAKE AN EXPRESS ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY AS PRIMARY
OBLIGOR. 

ONE OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES - THE OLD NICKEL PLATE - HAD
OUTSTANDING AT CONSOLIDATION $16,381,000 OF A BOND ISSUE DATED OCTOBER
1, 1887, MATURING OCTOBER 1, 1937.  THE ASSUMPTION OF THIS OBLIGATION
WAS NOT APPROVED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 17, 1937, AT WHICH TIME THE COMMISSION
APPROVED A PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE MATURITY DATE FOR TEN YEARS AND TO
ASSUME OBLIGATION AS PRIMARY OBLIGOR IN RESPECT OF THE EXTENDED BONDS. 
N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO. BONDS AND ASSUMPTION, 221 I.C.C. 772.  THE
PUBLISHED REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION DISCLOSE TWO INSTANCES OF SIMILAR
APPROVAL OF EXTENSION AND ASSUMPTION OF PRIMARY LIABILITY WITH RESPECT
TO BONDS OF THE LAKE ERIE & WESTERN OUTSTANDING AT THE DATE OF
CONSOLIDATION, ONE AS RECENT AS JUNE 7, 1941.  N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO.
ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION, 217 I.C.C. 598; N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO.
ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION, 247 I.C.C. 71. 

IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT EITHER THE NICKEL PLATE OR THE COMMISSION
QUESTIONED THE NICKEL PLATE'S OBLIGATION TO PAY EITHER INTEREST OR
PRINCIPAL OF THE DEBTS OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES, ALTHOUGH FOR LONG
PERIODS AFTER THE CONSOLIDATION THEY WERE WITHOUT THE COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL.  INSTEAD, THE COMMISSION HAS INDICATED THAT IT REGARDED THE
STATE LAW AS ADEQUATE TO ATTACH LIABILITY TO THE NEW COMPANY FOR SUCH
DEBTS.  IN 1923, SHORTLY AFTER THE CONSOLIDATION, THE NICKEL PLATE
APPLIED UNDER SEC. 20A OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO ENDORSE ITS
GUARANTY OF PAYMENT UPON CERTAIN BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY A CONSTITUENT
COMPANY, AND THE PREMISE UPON WHICH RELIEF WAS GRANTED WAS STATED BY
THE COMMISSION:  "IT APPEARS THAT THE CONSOLIDATION WAS COMPLETED ON
APRIL 11, 1923, AND THAT THE NEW COMPANY IS NOW VESTED WITH THE
PROPERTY, RIGHTS, AND FRANCHISES OF THE NICKEL PLATE AND OTHER
CONSTITUENT COMPANIES, SUBJECT TO ALL THEIR DEBTS, OBLIGATIONS, AND
LIABILITIES."  N.Y., C. & ST. L.R.R. BONDS, 82 I.C.C. 365, 366.  THE
FOLLOWING YEAR, IN DEALING WITH ANOTHER CONSTITUENT COMPANY, THE
COMMISSION DEFINED THE STATUS OF THIS APPELLANT AS FOLLOWS:  "THE
APPLICANT IS THE SUCCESSOR, BY CONSOLIDATION, OF THE TOLEDO, ST. LOUIS
& WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY AND OTHER COMPANIES, AND BY VIRTUE OF SUCH
CONSOLIDATION HAS ACQUIRED ALL PROPERTY, RIGHTS, AND POWERS, AND HAS
ASSUMED ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE TOLEDO, ST. LOUIS & WESTERN RAILROAD
COMPANY."  PLEDGE OF BONDS BY N.Y., C. & ST. L.R.R., 86 I.C.C. 465. 

THE COMMISSION, AS WELL AS APPELLANT, AS RECENTLY AS 1938 GAVE
UNMISTAKABLE RECOGNITION TO THE VALIDITY OF THE GUARANTY ON WHICH
APPELLEE HAS RECOVERED.  THIS APPEARS FROM THE REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT INVOLVING THE
PROPERTIES OF THE NORTHERN OHIO, THE ORIGINAL OBLIGOR WHOSE PAYMENTS
WERE GUARANTEED BY APPELLANT'S CONSTITUENT COMPANY, THE LAKE ERIE &
WESTERN.  THE COMMISSION STATED THAT:  "FROM THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE
LAKE ERIE & WESTERN WITH THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS, RESULTING
LIABILITY OF THE LATTER ON THE LAKE ERIE'S GUARANTY OF THE NORTHERN'S
BONDS THUS IS APPARENTLY ADMITTED."  FN4  UPON THAT PREMISE THE
COMMISSION MADE ALLOWANCE IN THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR THE
INDEMNIFICATION OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE, IF REQUIRED TO MAKE GOOD ON
THE GUARANTY, IT WOULD BECOME SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHTS OF THE NORTHERN
OHIO BONDHOLDERS AS A MORTGAGE CREDITOR AND WOULD BECOME A GENERAL
CREDITOR IN THE AMOUNT OF ANY DEFICIENCY. 

WE DRAW THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS HISTORY OF THE NICKEL
PLATE'S EXPERIENCE BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION:    BY ITS
DECISION IN ACQUISITION AND STOCK ISSUE BY N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO., 79
I.C.C. 581, THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT WHICH THE NICKEL PLATE URGED UPON IT AND HELD ITSELF
PRECLUDED FROM SUPERVISION OF THE CONSOLIDATION UNDER SEC. 5.  THIS
COURT SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED THAT CONSTRUCTION IN SNYDER V. N.Y., C. &
ST. L.R. CO., 118 OHIO ST. 72, 160 N.E. 615, 278 U.S. 578, HOLDING THAT
THE NICKEL PLATE HAD THE RIGHTS OF A DE JURE CORPORATION
NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO HAVE ITS CREATION BY CONSOLIDATION
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONSOLIDATION TOOK
PLACE AT A TIME WHEN SEC. 5 HAD "NOT AS YET BECOME APPLICABLE."    IT
SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION APPLIED A LIKE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS
POWERS UNDER SEC. 20A OVER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE DEBTS AND LIABILITIES
OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES.  THAT IT DELIBERATELY DEFERRED TO A LATER
DAY CONSIDERATION OF ALL DEBTS SEEMS THE CORRECT INFERENCE FROM ITS
EXPRESS CAVEAT THAT "NOTHING IN THIS REPORT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS
RESTRICTING THE COMMISSION IN ITS ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROMULGATION OF A COMPLETE CONSOLIDATION PLAN OR UPON THE SUBJECT OF
VALUATION."  79 I.C.C. AT P. 585.  EVEN APART FROM THIS CAVEAT, IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE AT THIS TIME TO MAKE EITHER ORDER
OR INVESTIGATION WITH REFERENCE TO ANY DEBTS OR LIABILITIES WAS DUE TO
NO DELUSION THAT THE NICKEL PLATE WAS BEING LAUNCHED AS A DEBT-FREE
RAILROAD.  IT WAS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE CONSTITUENT
COMPANIES WERE HEAVILY IN DEBT FOR WHICH NO PROVISION HAD BEEN MADE
OTHER THAN BY ATTACHMENT TO THE NEW CORPORATION UNDER STATE LAW.  THIS
AND THE RESULTING BURDEN OF FIXED CHARGES ON THE REVENUES OF THE NEW
COMPANY WERE WELL KNOWN TO THE COMMISSION.  FN5  THE DISAPPEARANCE OF
ALL DEBT FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR
EXCEPT ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION HELD ITSELF WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH IT UNTIL THE COMPANY SHOULD PROPOSE SOME
ACTION OF ITS OWN, SUCH AS EXTENSION, ENDORSEMENT, OR ISSUE OF
SUBSTITUTE SECURITIES - AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EFFECT OF THE LAW OF
CONSOLIDATION ON THE FACT OF PRE-EXISTING DEBTS.  THAT SUCH WAS THE
HOLDING IS FURTHER INDICATED BY THE COMMISSION'S SUBSEQUENT HANDLING OF
THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES. 

WHETHER WE WOULD AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION OF THE
ACT AS AN ORIGINAL MATTER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE. 
CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE WEIGHED HEAVILY
IN FAVOR OF THE COMMISSION, HAD IT ASSERTED POWER TO REVIEW THE DEBTS
OF THE NEW COMPANY BEFORE GIVING EVEN TENTATIVE AND FORMAL APPROVAL TO
CAPITALIZATION OF ITS EQUITY.  WHAT WE MUST NOW DECIDE IS THE PRESENT
EFFECT OF THE COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION OF ITS POWERS AS TO THE
INDEBTEDNESS OF THIS PARTICULAR APPELLANT, WOVEN, AS IT HAS BEEN, BY A
SERIES OF ACTIONS BY THE COMMISSION, INTO THE WHOLE FINANCIAL FABRIC OF
THIS IMPORTANT CARRIER SYSTEM.  WE ARE NOW ASKED BLINDLY TO UNRAVEL WE
KNOW NOT WHAT, BY REVERSING A CONSISTENT AND LONGSTANDING
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 20A BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY TO WHICH ITS
ENFORCEMENT WAS COMMITTED.  FN6  WE ARE ASKED TO DO THIS TO THE
ENRICHMENT OF A STOCKHOLDER EQUITY WHICH ITSELF WAS CAPITALIZED WITH NO
THOROUGH SCRUTINY BY VIRTUE OF THE SAME INTERPRETATION.  WE ARE ASKED
TO DO THIS ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLAIM OF
ILLEGALITY, HAS SET ASIDE SECURITIES IN THE AKRON REORGANIZATION TO
COMPENSATE IT IN SOME MEASURE AND HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO ENJOIN THE
NICKEL PLATE FROM USING ITS REVENUES TO SATISFY, IN PART AT LEAST, THE
CLAIMS OF THESE BONDHOLDERS. 

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION ON WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS ACTED IN ITS LONG COURSE OF
DEALING WITH NICKEL PLATE AFFAIRS SHOULD NOT BE UPSET.  UNITED STATES
V. CHICAGO NORTH SHORE R. CO., 288 U.S. 1. 

THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COMPLETE TEXT OF SEC. 143 OF THE NEW YORK RAILROAD LAW WAS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE RIGHTS OF ALL CREDITORS OF, AND ALL LIENS UPON THE PROPERTY OF,
EITHER OF SUCH CORPORATIONS, PARTIES TO SUCH AGREEMENT AND ACT, SHALL
BE PRESERVED UNIMPAIRED, AND THE RESPECTIVE CORPORATIONS SHALL BE
DEEMED TO CONTINUE IN EXISTENCE TO PRESERVE THE SAME, AND ALL DEBTS AND
LIABILITIES INCURRED BY EITHER OF SUCH CORPORATIONS SHALL THENCEFORTH
ATTACH TO SUCH NEW CORPORATION, AND BE ENFORCED AGAINST IT AND ITS
PROPERTY TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF INCURRED OR CONTRACTED BY IT.  NO
ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH EITHER OF SUCH CORPORATIONS IS A PARTY
SHALL ABATE OR BE DISCONTINUED BY SUCH AGREEMENT AND ACT OF
CONSOLIDATION, BUT MAY BE CONDUCTED TO FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE NAMES OF
SUCH CORPORATIONS, OR SUCH NEW CORPORATION MAY BE, BY ORDER OF THE
COURT, ON MOTION SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY." 

FN2  SEC. 20A (2) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PROVIDED THAT: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CARRIER TO ISSUE ANY SHARE OF CAPITAL
STOCK OR ANY BOND OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF INTEREST IN OR INDEBTEDNESS OF
THE CARRIER (HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION COLLECTIVELY TERMED
'SECURITIES') OR TO ASSUME ANY OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY AS LESSOR,
LESSEE, GUARANTOR, INDORSER, SURETY, OR OTHERWISE, IN RESPECT OF THE
SECURITIES OF ANY OTHER PERSON, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL, EVEN THOUGH
PERMITTED BY THE AUTHORITY CREATING THE CARRIER CORPORATION, UNLESS AND
UNTIL, AND THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT, UPON APPLICATION BY THE
CARRIER, AND AFTER INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE PURPOSES AND
USES OF THE PROPOSED ISSUE AND THE PROCEEDS THEREOF, OR OF THE PROPOSED
ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE SECURITIES OF
ANY OTHER PERSON, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL, THE COMMISSION BY ORDER
AUTHORIZES SUCH ISSUE OR ASSUMPTION.  THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE SUCH
ORDER ONLY IF IT FINDS THAT SUCH ISSUE OR ASSUMPTION:  (A) IS FOR SOME
LAWFUL OBJECT WITHIN ITS CORPORATE PURPOSES, AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR OR CONSISTENT
WITH THE PROPER PERFORMANCE BY THE CARRIER OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AS
A COMMON CARRIER, AND WHICH WILL NOT IMPAIR ITS ABILITY TO PERFORM THAT
SERVICE, AND (B) IS REASONABLY NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH
PURPOSE." 

FN3  AKRON, C. & Y. RY. CO. & NORTHERN O. RY. CO. REORGANIZATION, 236
I.C.C. 214, 216-217. 

COMPARE THE FOLLOWING, FROM A LETTER WRITTEN BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE
COMMISSION TO ONE ZINMAN, DATED MARCH 19, 1940, REFERRING TO THE NICKEL
PLATE GUARANTY ON THE NORTHERN OHIO BONDS, AND APPEARING IN THE
COMMISSION'S FILE IN ACQUISITION AND STOCK ISSUE BY N.Y., C. & ST. L.R.
CO., 79 I.C.C. 581: 

"AS TO THE MATTER OF ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION AND LIABILITY IN
RESPECT OF THE SECURITIES OF OTHERS, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT NO
AUTHORITY WAS SOUGHT NOR GRANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICATION
RECORDED UNDER THE ABOVE FINANCE DOCKET NUMBER.  IT IS OUR FURTHER
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CONSOLIDATED COMPANY TOOK THE PROPERTIES,
RIGHTS, AND FRANCHISES OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES, SUBJECT TO ALL
THEIR DEBTS, OBLIGATIONS, AND LIABILITIES, SUCH AS MIGHT BE IMPOSED BY
THE CONSOLIDATION STATUTES OF THE STATES OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES. 
SEE 82 I.C.C. 365(366)." 

FN4  AKRON, C. & Y. RY. CO. AND NORTHERN O. RY. CO. REORGANIZATION,
228 I.C.C. 645, 647. 

THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION PROVIDED: 

"APPROPRIATE SECURITIES OF THE NEW COMPANY AS HEREINAFTER NOTED,
CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN, WITH WHICH TO
RECOMPENSE THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD COMPANY FOR THE
DEBTOR'S AND THE INTERVENING DEBTOR'S LIABILITY TO IT FOR AMOUNTS
EXPENDED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS GUARANTY OF THE FIRST-MORTGAGE BONDS
OF THE INTERVENING DEBTOR, SHALL BE ISSUED AND HELD IN TREASURY."  ID.,
PP. 679-680.  ALSO, "THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD
COMPANY, UPON PRESENTATION TO THE TREASURER OF THE NEW COMPANY OF
APPROPRIATE PROOF OF LOSS SUSTAINED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS CONTRACT
OF GUARANTY OF BONDS OF THE INTERVENING DEBTOR, SHALL RECEIVE OF THE
NEW COMPANY STOCK ISSUED IN REORGANIZATION AND HELD IN TREASURY, FOR
EACH $100 OF LOSS SO PROVED, $22.79, PAR VALUE, OF NEW COMMON STOCK;
AND SHALL PARTICIPATE EQUALLY AND RATABLY WITH THE HOLDERS OF CLASS A
WARRANTS IN ANY DISTRIBUTION OF STOCK PURSUANT THERETO, EACH $100 OF
PROVED LOSS ENTITLING THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS RAILROAD
COMPANY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISTRIBUTION TO THE SAME EXTENT AS ONE
CLASS A WARRANT."  ID., PP. 681-682. 

THE TRUE INWARDNESS OF THESE PROVISIONS OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN
APPEARS FROM THE OPINION: 

"THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS SHOULD BE TREATED AS THOUGH HAVING
A CLAIM EQUAL TO THE LOSSES IT WILL SUSTAIN IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS
GUARANTY.  THE MATHEMATICAL MAXIMUM OF THIS CLAIM WOULD BE EQUAL TO THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE OUTSTANDING NORTHERN BONDS PLUS THE FOUR YEARS OF
OVERDUE INTEREST THEREON, OR $3,000,000.  THE PROBABLE MAXIMUM WOULD BE
VERY MUCH LESS, BUT CANNOT BE DETERMINED ON ANY DEFINITE BASIS. 
SECURITIES SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE RESERVED PENDING PERFORMANCE OF THE
NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS GUARANTY ON THE BASIS OF ITS HAVING A
$3,000,000 CLAIM."  ID., P. 673. 

THE SECURITIES, HOWEVER, THUS SET ASIDE TO THE NICKEL PLATE WERE TO
COME BACK TO OTHERS "AS MAY BE MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE NEW YORK,
CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS SETTLING WITH THE NORTHERN BONDHOLDERS, OR
OTHERWISE DISCHARGING ITS LIABILITIES, FOR LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM.  ...
"  ID., PP. 673-674. 

AN EFFORT WAS APPARENTLY MADE TO GET RID OF THIS OBLIGATION, IN PART
AT LEAST, IN THE REORGANIZATION; BUT THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THIS
GUARANTY RAN TO EACH NORTHERN BONDHOLDER INDIVIDUALLY, AND THAT THE
NICKEL PLATE COULD NOT DEAL WITH THE BONDHOLDERS AS A CLASS, ON THE
GROUND THAT THERE APPEARED TO BE NO PROVISION IN SEC. 77 "FOR ENFORCING
ON ALL IN LIEU OF THE GUARANTY A COMPROMISE THAT MAY BE AGREEABLE TO A
MAJORITY BUT NOT ACCEPTABLE TO A MINORITY, AND NO PROVISION FOR
DISCHARGING IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO & ST. LOUIS, A
SOLVENT OBLIGOR ABLE TO MEET ITS DEBTS AS THEY MATURE, FROM ANY OF ITS
OBLIGATIONS.  IT FOLLOWS THAT A PROVISION IN A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
OF THE DEBTORS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 77, RELEASING THE GUARANTY, WOULD
BE OF SUCH DOUBTFUL VALIDITY AS TO REQUIRE OUR DISAPPROVAL, AND THAT
SETTLEMENTS FOR THIS GUARANTY SHOULD BE MADE SEPARATELY FROM THE PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION.  ...  "  ID., P. 667. 

FN5  THE APPLICATION OF THE NICKEL PLATE ASKED AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
327,200 SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK AND 462,479 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK TO
BE EXCHANGED SHARE FOR SHARE FOR THE STOCKS OF THE CONSTITUENT
COMPANIES.  IT INCLUDED A GENERAL BALANCE SHEET OF EACH CONSTITUENT
COMPANY AND A CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET SHOWING LONG-TERM DEBTS OF THE
CONSTITUENT COMPANIES AGGREGATING $78,897,000, WHICH ITEMS AND EXACT
AMOUNTS WERE CARRIED INTO THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET. 

THE LAKE ERIE & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY WAS SHOWN TO HAVE
OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCKS WITH A PAR VALUE OF $23,680,000, $13,895,600
OF LONG-TERM DEBT, AND $4,996,944 OF "DEFERRED LIABILITIES."  THE STOCK
WAS REPLACED WITH A LIKE AMOUNT OF STOCK IN THE NEW COMPANY, AND THE
DEBT AND "DEFERRED LIABILITIES" WERE CARRIED IN FULL INTO THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE SAME HEADINGS.  THE OBLIGATION IN
SUIT WAS NOT SPECIFIED; PERHAPS IT WAS INCLUDED IN "DEFERRED
LIABILITIES." 

A STOCKHOLDERS' PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE OLD NICKEL PLATE FILED
OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN OF CONSOLIDATION, ONE OF THE GROUNDS OF WHICH
WAS THE ALLEGED ASSUMPTION OF A HEAVY BOND INDEBTEDNESS AHEAD OF THE
STOCK, AND COMPLAINT WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE OF THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE
LAKE ERIE & WESTERN. 

FN6  THIS INTERPRETATION IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION'S
PRACTICE IN OTHER CASES.  ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION BY HUDSON RIVER
CONNECTING R.R., 72 I.C.C. 595, DEALT WITH ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY ON A
MORTGAGE WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD AGREED TO ASSUME AS PART OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE OF A PIECE OF LAND.  IT HAD NO CONNECTION WITH ANY
CONSOLIDATION PROCEEDING.  ROCK ISLAND SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION, 193 I.C.C.
395, WAS DECIDED AFTER AMENDMENT OF SEC. 5 BY THE EMERGENCY RAILROAD
TRANSPORTATION ACT APPROVED JUNE 16, 1933.  THE COMMISSION HAD BY THE
TIME OF THAT DECISION PROMULGATED A PLAN OF CONSOLIDATION, AND IT FOUND
THAT THE ROCK ISLAND CONSOLIDATION WOULD BE "IN HARMONY WITH AND IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN."  ID., P. 403.  IT WAS THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A
PLAN THAT DEFEATED JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE NICKEL
PLATE CONSOLIDATION.  SNYDER V. N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO., SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS: 

WHILE I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT, I THINK AN ELABORATION
OF THE POINT, WHICH IS THE NUB OF THE CASE, IS DESIRABLE IN VIEW OF
CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS IN THE DISSENTING OPINION. 

APPELLANT IS A CORPORATION FORMED UNDER SEC. 141 OF NEW YORK RAILROAD
LAW, WHICH PROVIDES FOR CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROAD CORPORATIONS.  ON THE
FILING OF THE ARTICLES OR AGREEMENT OF CONSOLIDATION, THE SEVERAL
CONSTITUENT COMPANIES "SHALL BE ONE CORPORATION BY THE NAME PROVIDED IN
SUCH AGREEMENT."  AND SEC. 141 ALSO PROVIDES THAT "SUCH ACT OF
CONSOLIDATION SHALL NOT RELEASE SUCH NEW CORPORATION FROM ANY OF THE
RESTRICTIONS, LIABILITIES OR DUTIES OF THE SEVERAL CORPORATIONS SO
CONSOLIDATED."  BY SEC. 143 ALL DEBTS OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES
"SHALL THENCEFORTH ATTACH TO SUCH NEW CORPORATION, AND BE ENFORCED
AGAINST IT AND ITS PROPERTY TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF INCURRED OR
CONTRACTED BY IT."  WE ARE POINTED TO NO PROVISION OF THE NEW YORK LAW
WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE CREATION OF THE NEW CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION
WITHOUT THE ATTACHMENT OF THE DEBTS OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES. 

SNYDER V. NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO., 118 OH. ST. 72, 160 N.E. 615,
AFF'D 278 U.S. 578, HELD THAT AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMISSION WAS NOT
NECESSARY TO CREATE THIS CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION.  A NECESSARY AND
INHERENT INCIDENT OF ITS CREATION WAS THE ATTACHMENT OF THESE
OBLIGATIONS.  HENCE, I DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN SAY THAT, ALTHOUGH
AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMISSION WAS NOT NECESSARY TO CREATE APPELLANT,
SUCH AUTHORITY WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THIS CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION
TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH THE NEW YORK LAW EXACTED AS CONDITIONS
TO ITS CREATION.  BUT IF WE HELD THAT AN ATTACHMENT OF LIABILITY UNDER
THE NEW YORK CONSOLIDATION ACT WAS AN "ASSUMPTION" OF LIABILITY WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 20(A), WE WOULD BE DOING JUST THAT.  HENCE, I FEEL
FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT, IN CASE OF THIS TYPE OF CONSOLIDATION,
"ASSUMPTION" IN SEC. 20(A) DOES NOT INCLUDE ATTACHMENT OF LIABILITY BY
VIRTUE OF THE FILING OF ARTICLES OF CONSOLIDATION UNDER A STATE
STATUTE, THOUGH IT WOULD, OF COURSE, INCLUDE THE ISSUANCE OF ANY
SECURITY OR THE INCURRENCE OR EXTENSION OF ANY OBLIGATION SUBSEQUENT TO
CONSOLIDATION.  SUCH IS ONE CONSEQUENCE OF THE FAILURE TO FOLLOW
COMMISSIONER EASTMAN'S VIEWS IN ACQUISITION AND STOCK ISSUE OF N.Y., C.
& ST. L.R. CO., 79 I.C.C. 581.  BUT I DO NOT SEE HOW, IN ALL FAIRNESS,
WE CAN REOPEN AT THIS LATE STAGE THE UNFORTUNATE DECISION IN THE SNYDER
CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED, BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY
RIGHT OF APPELLEE TO RECOVER UNDER SEC. 20(A)(11) OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT. 

I AM NOT NOW PREPARED TO SAY THAT APPELLEE COULD NOT HAVE RECOVERED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 20(A)(11) HAD COUNSEL SEEN FIT TO PRESENT
THE QUESTION FOR DECISION.  FN1  BUT THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH THEY HAVE
BRIEFED AND ARGUED HERE IS WHETHER SEC. 20(A)(2) PRECLUDES THE
IMPOSITION OF THE ASSERTED LIABILITY UPON APPELLANT WHERE, AS IS THE
CASE HERE, ITS ASSUMPTION BY APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION AS REQUIRED BY THAT SECTION.  THE COURT AVOIDS
DECISION OF THIS QUESTION BY DECLARING THAT THE COMMISSION HAS DECLINED
TO GIVE ITS APPROVAL BECAUSE IT HAS CONSTRUED SEC. 20(A)(2) AS
INAPPLICABLE AND THAT WE ARE BOUND BY THAT CONSTRUCTION. 

EXAMINATION OF THE COMMISSION'S OPINIONS AND ORDERS FROM WHICH THE
COURT DRAWS ITS CRYPTIC ANSWER TO THE QUESTION BEFORE US MAKES IT PLAIN
THAT THE COMMISSION HAS PLACED NO SUCH CONSTRUCTION ON THE STATUTE IN
ANY CASE, AND THAT, IN THE CASES CITED RELATING TO THE NICKEL PLATE
CONSOLIDATION, IT HAS NEVER HAD ANY OCCASION TO CONSTRUE SEC.
20(A)(2).  ON THE CONTRARY, IN SEVERAL CASES, THE COMMISSION HAS
CONSTRUED SEC. 20(A)(2) AS APPLICABLE TO OBLIGATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT,
WHICH "ATTACH" BY OPERATION OF STATE LAW TO THE ACQUISITION BY THE
CARRIER OF THE PROPERTY OF OTHER ROADS, AND IN CONFORMITY TO THAT
CARRIER. 

IN THE CASES BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON WHICH THE COURT RELIES, IT
APPEARS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ASKED TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION NOW
BEFORE US AND DID NOT PURPORT TO PASS UPON IT.  THE OPINION OF THE
COURT THUS RESTS ON NO MORE SUBSTANTIAL BASIS THAN THE CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT THE COMMISSION HAS ACTED FAVORABLY ON AN APPLICATION OF APPELLANT
TO BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE THE CONSOLIDATED LINES AND TO ISSUE
SECURITIES IN CONFORMITY TO THE PLAN OF CONSOLIDATION, IN A PROCEEDING
IN WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS NEITHER ASKED TO TAKE, NOR TOOK, ANY ACTION
WITH RESPECT TO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES; AND THIS UNDER A STATUTORY
SCHEME OF CONTROL WHICH PLAINLY CONTEMPLATES THAT A CONSOLIDATION MAY
GO INTO EFFECT WITHOUT ADOPTION OF ITS ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY FEATURE,
WHICH IN ANY CASE CAN BECOME OPERATIVE ONLY BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
APPROVING IT UPON APPLICATION AND ON FINDINGS THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST
WILL BE SERVED.  ROCK ISLAND SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION, 193 I.C.C. 395, 403
04; ACQUISITION AND STOCK ISSUE BY P., O. & D.R.R., 105 I.C.C. 189,
193.  THE COURT INFERS THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO APPROVE THE
ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION FROM THE SILENCE AND
INACTION OF THE COMMISSION WHEN IT WAS NOT CALLED UPON TO SPEAK OR TO
ACT, EITHER BY THE STATUTE OR BY ANY APPLICATION PENDING BEFORE IT. 

PROHIBITIONS.  ONE IS IMPOSED ON THE ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES BY
RAILROADS WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.  THE OTHER MAKES IT
UNLAWFUL FOR SUCH A CARRIER TO ASSUME ANY OBLIGATION IN RESPECT OF
SECURITIES ISSUED BY OTHERS, "EVEN THOUGH PERMITTED BY THE AUTHORITY
CREATING THE CARRIER CORPORATION, UNLESS AND UNTIL, AND THEN ONLY TO
THE EXTENT THAT, UPON APPLICATION BY THE CARRIER, AND AFTER
INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE PURPOSES AND USES OF  ...  THE
PROPOSED ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION  ...  THE COMMISSION BY ORDER
AUTHORIZES SUCH ISSUE OR ASSUMPTION."  THE STATUTE COMMANDS WITH
PARTICULARITY THAT "THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE SUCH ORDER ONLY IF IT
FINDS THAT SUCH ISSUE OR ASSUMPTION:  (A) IS FOR SOME LAWFUL OBJECT
WITHIN ITS CORPORATE PURPOSES, AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
WHICH IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR OR CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPER
PERFORMANCE BY THE CARRIER OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AS A COMMON
CARRIER, AND WHICH WILL NOT IMPAIR ITS ABILITY TO PERFORM THAT SERVICE,
AND (B) IS REASONABLY NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSE." 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE THAT
APPLICATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF OTHER ROADS OR FOR THE APPROVAL OF
SECURITY ISSUES, AND APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF THE ASSUMPTION OF
GUARANTEE OBLIGATIONS, SHALL BE UNITED IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING.  INDEED,
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE STATUTE LEAVES THE COMMISSION FREE TO APPROVE THE
ONE AND REJECT AN APPLICATION FOR THE OTHER.  AND IT APPEARS THAT THE
UNIFORM PRACTICE OF THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN, AS THE STATUTE DIRECTS, TO
ENTERTAIN NEITHER, EXCEPT ON AN APPLICATION ASKING THE DESIRED
APPROVAL.  AND WHERE MORE THAN ONE IS ASKED, THE COMMISSION HAS BY ITS
ORDER SEPARATELY DEALT WITH THOSE UPON WHICH IT INTENDED TO ACT.  E.G.,
ACQUISITION OF C. & O. NORTHERN RY. CO. BY C. & O. RY., 70 I.C.C. 550;
GAINESVILLE MIDLAND REORGANIZATION, 131 I.C.C. 355; CONTROL OF
GREENBRIER, CHEAT & ELK R.R., 131 I.C.C. 525; CHICAGO, M., ST.P. & P.R.
CO. ACQUISITION, 158 I.C.C. 770; ELMIRA & L.O.R. CO. ACQUISITION, 170
I.C.C. 127. 

THE COMMISSION HAS POINTED OUT THAT ITS ACTION IN PASSING ON
APPLICATIONS UNDER EACH OF THE PARAGRAPHS 18 TO 20 INCLUSIVE, OF SEC.
1, OR UNDER SEC. 5(2), OF THE ACT, IS LIMITED TO THE PARTICULAR
PROVISION OF THE ACT ON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS FOUNDED, AND IS NOT TO
BE CONSTRUED AS A DECISION ON ANY OTHER PROVISION.  SEE ACQUISITION OF
LINE BY O.C.S.I. RY., 86 I.C.C. 273, 274; ACQUISITION BY A., T. & S.F.
RY., 138 I.C.C. 787, 789; ACQUISITION BY ST. L.-S.F. RY., 145 I.C.C.
110, 114; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. REORGANIZATION, 131 I.C.C. 673, 691-92;
NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. ASSUMPTION, 158 I.C.C. 317, 320-23; PACIFIC
COAST R. CO. ACQUISITION, 187 I.C.C. 563 AND 189 I.C.C. 79.  CF.
KEESHIN TRANSCON.  FREIGHT LINES, INC. - DEBENTURES, 5 M.C.C. 349,
351.  IN FACT, THE COMMISSION HAS SAID THAT SEC. 20(A)(2) "CONFERS UPON
US POWER TO GRANT OR DENY AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SECURITIES OR TO ASSUME
OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY  ...  ONLY UPON APPLICATION BY THE CARRIER FOR
SUCH AUTHORITY."  NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. ASSUMPTION, 158 I.C.C. 317,
322. 

IN THE COMMISSION'S VIEW, AUTHORITY TO CONSOLIDATE INCLUDES THE
AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE AND OPERATE PROPERTIES OF OTHER ROADS, BUT NEITHER
THAT AUTHORITY NOR THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SECURITIES UPON CONSOLIDATION
INCLUDES AUTHORITY TO ASSUME LIABILITIES OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES. 
ROCK ISLAND SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION, 193 I.C.C. 395, 403-04; SANTA FE
TRAIL TRANSP.  CO. - MERGER, 5 M.C.C. 324, 328; CF. ILLINOIS TERMINAL
R. CO. CONSOLIDATION AND SECURITIES, 221 I.C.C. 676.  THE COURT'S
SUGGESTION THAT THIS WAS NOT SO BEFORE THE COMMISSION PROMULGATED ITS
GENERAL PLAN OF CONSOLIDATION UNDER SEC. 5, IS CONTRARY TO THE RULING
IN ACQUISITION & STOCK ISSUE BY P., O. & D.R.R., 105 I.C.C. 189.  IN
THAT CASE, BEFORE THE PROMULGATION OF THE PLAN, THE COMMISSION WAS AT
PAINS TO WARN (P. 193) THAT ITS APPROVAL OF AN ISSUE OF SECURITIES TO
CARRY OUT A CONSOLIDATION UNDER STATE LAW DID NOT INVOLVE ANY DECISION
ON ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSOLIDATED
COMPANY'S CONSTITUENTS.  ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION BY L.S. & I.R.R., 86
I.C.C. 640, AND GRAND TRUNK W.R. CO. UNIFICATION AND SECURITIES, 158
I.C.C. 117, 138, 142-43, BOTH DECIDED BEFORE THE PROMULGATION OF THE
PLAN, GRANTED PERMISSION TO ASSUME THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONSTITUENTS
AND THUS GIVES FURTHER PROOF THAT THE COMMISSION, WHEN IT INTENDED TO
TAKE ANY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH A CONSOLIDATION, DID SO BY ACTION AFFIRMATIVELY
EXPRESSED RATHER THAN BY SILENCE. 

THE COMMISSION HAS ENTERTAINED APPLICATIONS FOR THE APPROVAL, UNDER
SEC. 1 OF THE ACT, OF THE OPERATION OF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES, OR FOR
APPROVAL OF SECURITY ISSUES UPON CONSOLIDATION, WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE LIABILITIES INVOLVED.  SEE
ACQUISITION AND STOCK ISSUE BY N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO., 79 I.C.C. 581;
PACIFIC COAST R. CO. ACQUISITION, 187 I.C.C. 563; CF. ROCK ISLAND
SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION, 193 I.C.C. 395, 403-04.  AND IN THE CASE OF THIS
APPELLANT, AS OF OTHER ROADS, IT HAS LATER ENTERTAINED AND DISPOSED OF
SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE
OBLIGATIONS INVOLVED.  N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO. ASSUMPTION OF
OBLIGATION, 217 I.C.C. 598; N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO. BONDS AND
ASSUMPTION, 221 I.C.C. 772; N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO. ASSUMPTION OF
OBLIGATION AND LIABILITY, 247 I.C.C. 71; ST. LOUIS-S. F. READJUSTMENT,
145 I.C.C. 218; PACIFIC COAST R. CO. SECURITIES, 189 I.C.C. 79;
CINCINNATI UNION TERM.  CO. SECURITIES, 166 I.C.C. 419 AND 499, AND 184
I.C.C. 619; WEST JERSEY & S.R. CO. BONDS, 217 I.C.C. 125; CF.
ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION BY N.O., T. & M. RY., 94 I.C.C. 218. 

SUCH ACTION BY THE COMMISSION PLAINLY PRECLUDES ANY INFERENCE THAT,
IN APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED LINES
OR AN ISSUE OF SECURITIES UNDER A CONSOLIDATION, IT WAS DOING MORE THAN
RESPONDING TO THE PETITION PRESENTED TO IT OR THAT IT WAS UNDERTAKING
TO PASS ON THE LEGALITY OR PROPRIETY OF THE ASSUMPTION BY THE
CONSOLIDATED ROAD OF GUARANTEE OBLIGATIONS OF ITS CONSTITUENT
COMPANIES.  WE ARE POINTED TO NOTHING SUGGESTING THAT THE COMMISSION
HAS EVER REGARDED SUCH APPROVALS AS INVOLVING AN UNASKED DETERMINATION
WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSUMPTION BY THE CONSOLIDATED CARRIER OF THE
OBLIGATION OF ITS CONSTITUENT COMPANIES. 

THERE IS THUS NO PLAUSIBLE GROUND FOR SAYING THAT THERE WAS LURKING
IN THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IN 79 I.C.C. 581 SOME IMPLIED RULING AS TO
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 20(A)(2) AND SOME IMPLIED REFUSAL TO ACT
BECAUSE OF THAT CONSTRUCTION, IN A SITUATION IN WHICH IT WAS NOT ASKED
OR EXPECTED TO ACT AND IN WHICH, FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED, IT WAS
UNDER NO DUTY TO ACT.  IN NONE OF THE CASES CITED IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT AS HINTING AT A POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION BY THE COMMISSION OF SEC.
20(A)(2) WAS IT ASKED TO MAKE ANY FINDING OR ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THE
ASSUMPTION BY APPELLANT OF OBLIGATIONS OF ITS CONSTITUENT COMPANIES. 
IN NONE DID IT MAKE OR DECLINE TO MAKE ANY OF THE FINDINGS OR THE ORDER
REQUIRED BY SEC. 20(A)(2) WITH RESPECT TO SUCH OBLIGATIONS.  IN NONE
DID IT EXPRESS ANY OPINION WHETHER OBLIGATIONS ATTACHING TO A
CONSOLIDATED CARRIER ARE WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE, OR AS
TO ITS DUTY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THEIR ASSUMPTION. 

IN OPERATION OF LINES AND ISSUE OF CAPITAL STOCK BY THE N.Y., C. &
ST. L.R. CO., 79 I.C.C. 581, THE COMMISSION WAS ASKED TO, AND DID,
SPECIFICALLY APPROVE THE OPERATION BY APPELLANT OF THE CONSOLIDATED
LINE AND THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN STOCK BY APPELLANT, PURSUANT TO THE
CONSOLIDATION PLAN, AND NOTHING MORE.  IT MADE NO MENTION OF ANY
ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION BY APPELLANT OR OF THE ASSUMPTION PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 20(A)(2).  IT NEITHER TOOK NOR DECLINED TO TAKE ACTION
AFFECTING SUCH ASSUMPTION.  FOR ALL THAT APPEARS, THE COMMISSION, IN
ITS EXAMINATION OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND THE BALANCE SHEET OF
APPELLANT, MAY HAVE DISREGARDED THE GUARANTEE OBLIGATION AS ONE NOT
AFFECTING THE CONSOLIDATED COMPANY BECAUSE ITS ASSUMPTION HAD NOT BEEN
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. 

IT CONSTRUED THE CONSOLIDATION PROVISIONS IN SEC. 5 OF THE ACT AS
PERMITTING CARRIERS TO CONSOLIDATE UNDER STATE LAW WITHOUT FIRST
SECURING THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CONSOLIDATION ITSELF. 
WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS THE NECESSARY INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSOLIDATION PROVISIONS, CF. SNYDER V. NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO.,
278 U.S. 578, NOTHING IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION
SUGGESTS THAT IF IT WAS ESSENTIAL, IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE
CONSOLIDATION UNDER STATE LAW, THAT OBLIGATIONS BE "ASSUMED," THEN THE
ASSUMPTION COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH SEC.
20(A)(2).  ITS DECISION IS IN FACT INCONSISTENT WITH ANY SUCH THEORY,
AND AFFORDS AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMISSION THOUGHT SEC.
20(A)(2) WAS OPERATIVE NOTWITHSTANDING THE NARROW INTERPRETATION WHICH
IT GAVE TO SEC. 5. 

THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED APPELLANT TO ISSUE, UNDER SEC. 20(A)(2),
CERTAIN PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK, TO BE EXCHANGED FOR THE STOCK OF
ITS FIVE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES IN CARRYING OUT THE CONSOLIDATION.  IF
CONSOLIDATIONS UNDER STATE LAW COULD, IN THE COMMISSION'S VIEW, BE
EFFECTED AT THAT TIME WHOLLY WITHOUT REGARD TO SEC. 20(A)(2), THEN THE
GRANTING OF AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE STOCK WOULD HAVE BEEN SUPERFLUOUS. 
THAT THE COMMISSION DEEMED SUCH AUTHORITY NECESSARY IS PERSUASIVE THAT
IT REGARDED SEC. 20(A)(2) AS APPLICABLE TO ALL ISSUES OF SECURITIES, OR
ASSUMPTIONS OF OBLIGATIONS, WHICH OCCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH A
CONSOLIDATION.  FREEDOM TO CONSOLIDATE, IN THE COMMISSION'S VIEW,
PLAINLY DID NOT INCLUDE FREEDOM TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN CAPITAL
STRUCTURE WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION REQUIRED BY SEC. 20(A)(2).  HENCE,
THE ONLY REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER AN OBLIGATION ASSUMED OR ATTACHING
MERELY BY OPERATION OF LAW IS AN "ASSUMPTION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 20(A)(2) - A QUESTION WHICH, AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR, THE
COMMISSION HAS CONSISTENTLY ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, WHENEVER IT
HAS BEEN CALLED UPON TO GIVE AN ANSWER.    SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AFFECTING APPELLANT, IN THE CASES ON WHICH THE
COURT RELIES, PRESENTED NO QUESTION OF ITS LIABILITY UPON THE GUARANTEE
OBLIGATIONS OF ITS CONSTITUENT COMPANIES, AND ARE EQUALLY BARREN OF ANY
INDICATION THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE MEANING AND APPLICATION
OF THE ASSUMPTION PROVISIONS OF SEC. 20(A)(2) OR THAT IT HAD ANY
OCCASION TO DO SO.  IN N.Y., C. & ST. L.R.R. BONDS, 82 I.C.C. 365, AND
IN PLEDGE OF BONDS BY N.Y., C. & ST. L.R.R., 86 I.C.C. 465, NEXT CITED
BY THE COURT AS SUSTAINING ITS DECISION, THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THE
COMMISSION HAD NOT EVEN A REMOTE RELATION TO ANY ASSUMPTION BY
APPELLANT OF GUARANTEE OBLIGATIONS, RESULTING FROM THE CONSOLIDATION,
WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD NOT BY ITS ORDER APPROVED.  IN THE ONE CASE
THE APPLICATION WAS FOR AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEW BOND ISSUE; IN THE
OTHER FOR PERMISSION TO PLEDGE SOME OF ITS OWN ASSETS TO SECURE A NEW
NOTE ISSUE.  PASSING REFERENCES BY THE COMMISSION, IN RECOUNTING THE
HISTORY OF THE CONSOLIDATION, TO THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD ACQUIRED
THE PROPERTIES OF CONSTITUENT COMPANIES "SUBJECT TO ALL THEIR DEBTS,
OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES," AND THAT IT "HAS ASSUMED ALL OBLIGATIONS"
OF A DIFFERENT CONSTITUENT COMPANY FROM THAT HERE INVOLVED, CAN HARDLY
BE ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE OF AN UNASKED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF A
PROVISION OF A STATUTE WHICH IT WAS NOT ADMINISTERING AND WITH RESPECT
TO WHICH IT EXPRESSED NO OPINION. 

THE COURT GAINS NO SUPPORT FOR ITS CONCLUSION FROM THE SUPPOSED
RECOGNITION BY THE COMMISSION, IN THE AKRON CASE, THAT THE "RESULTING
LIABILITY" FROM APPELLANT'S CONSOLIDATION HAD BEEN "APPARENTLY
ADMITTED."  AKRON, C. & Y. RY. CO. & NORTHERN O. RY. CO.
REORGANIZATION, 228 I.C.C. 645, 647.  THE BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION,
WHOSE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION WAS THERE SOUGHT, WAS THAT OF THE
NORTHERN OHIO RAILWAY, THE GUARANTEE OF WHOSE BONDS IS PRESENTLY
INVOLVED.  WHAT HAD "APPARENTLY" BEEN "ADMITTED" BY THE PROPOSED
REORGANIZATION WAS THAT, SO FAR AS APPELLANT SHOULD PERFORM OR BE
COMPELLED TO PERFORM THE GUARANTEE, IT WOULD BECOME A CREDITOR OF THE
NEW COMPANY, ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEW SECURITIES TO BE ISSUED
TO CREDITORS UNDER THE REORGANIZATION.  THE ONLY ACTION TAKEN BY THE
COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE OBLIGATION WAS TO APPROVE (P. 673) THE
PROVISION OF THE PLAN, WHICH RESERVED NEW SECURITIES OF THE REORGANIZED
COMPANY FOR THE SATISFACTION OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM "PENDING
PERFORMANCE," IF ANY, OF THE GUARANTEE, BY APPELLANT, AND TO ORDER (P.
684) THE REORGANIZED COMPANY TO ISSUE TO APPELLANT ITS PROPORTION OF
THE NEW SECURITIES UPON "APPROPRIATE PROOF" BY APPELLANT "OF LOSS
SUSTAINED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS CONTRACT OF GUARANTEE."  THE
COMMISSION THUS HAD NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION WHICH
APPELLANT ASKS TO HAVE DETERMINED HERE, AND POINTEDLY LEFT IT
UNDECIDED.  OBVIOUSLY, THE APPROVED PLAN GAVE APPELLANT A POWERFUL
INCENTIVE TO RESIST PERFORMANCE OF THE GUARANTEE AND MANIFESTLY DID NOT
PURPORT TO FORECLOSE APPELLANT FROM SECURING THE ADJUDICATION OF THE
LIABILITY WHICH IT SEEKS HERE. 

NOT ONLY DO THESE CASES FAIL TO DISCLOSE ANY SELF-DENYING
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 20(A)(2) BY THE COMMISSION, BUT IN OTHERS, WHERE
THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN CALLED ON TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION, IT HAS
TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE WORD "ASSUMPTION" IN SEC. 20(A)(2) INCLUDES
AN OBLIGATION PLACED UPON THE CARRIER MERELY BY OPERATION OF THE STATE
LAW UNDER WHICH IT HAD ACQUIRED PROPERTY. 

THREE TIMES SINCE ITS DECISION IN 79 I.C.C., THE COMMISSION HAS
GRANTED THE APPLICATION OF APPELLANT TO BE PERMITTED TO EXTEND AND ALSO
TO ASSUME OBLIGATIONS OF ITS CONSTITUENT COMPANIES.  N.Y., C. & ST.
L.R. CO. ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION, 217 I.C.C. 598; N.Y., C. & ST. L.R.
CO. BONDS AND ASSUMPTION, 221 I.C.C. 772; N.Y., C. & ST. L.R. CO.
ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION AND LIABILITY, 247 I.C.C. 71.  IN TWO OF THESE
CASES, THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZED APPELLANT TO ASSUME OBLIGATIONS OF THE
LAKE ERIE & WESTERN - THE SAME CONSTITUENT COMPANY WHOSE OBLIGATION IS
NOW SAID TO HAVE BEEN ASSUMED WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF THE COMMISSION'S
AUTHORIZATION.  IF APPELLANT WAS ALREADY PERSONALLY LIABLE ON THE
OBLIGATIONS, PERMISSION TO ASSUME THEM WAS UNNECESSARY.  AND SINCE THE
COMMISSION DOES NOT ENTERTAIN APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORITY TO ASSUME
OBLIGATIONS WHERE IT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE OBLIGATION IS NOT ONE
TO WHICH SEC. 20(A)(2) APPLIES, SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. ASSUMPTION OF
OBLIGATION, 189 I.C.C. 212, 213; BONDS OF A. & M. RAILWAY BRIDGE &
TERM.  CO., 94 I.C.C. 79, 81; MISSOURI-K.-T. R. CO. ASSUMPTION OF
OBLIGATION, 212 I.C.C. 217; PITTSBURGH & SHAWMUT R. CO. SECURITIES, 166
I.C.C. 503, 505, ITS ACTION IN AUTHORIZING THE ASSUMPTIONS, IN ADDITION
TO THE EXTENSIONS, IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY INFERENCE ON OUR PART THAT
IT HAD PREVIOUSLY RULED THAT THE OBLIGATIONS ASSUMED WERE NOT REQUIRED
TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 20(A)(2). 

ON THE CONTRARY, THE COMMISSION APPLIED THAT SECTION TO OBLIGATIONS
LIKE THE PRESENT SOON AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1920.  IN ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION BY HUDSON RIVER CONNECTING R.R., 72
I.C.C. 595, DECIDED NINE MONTHS BEFORE ITS DECISION IN 79 I.C.C., THE
COMMISSION TOOK JURISDICTION OF AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN
ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION RESULTING BY OPERATION OF NEW YORK LAW FROM A
CARRIER'S ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.  IN GRANTING THE APPLICATION AND IN
AUTHORIZING THE CARRIER TO "ASSUME" THE ATTACHED OBLIGATION THE
COMMISSION STATED, PAGE 596: 

"WHILE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT PROPOSE TO MAKE ANY INDORSEMENT ON THE
BONDS, OR EXECUTE ANY AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF THEM, IT
APPEARS THAT, UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW YORK, THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DEED
CONVEYING LAND SUBJECT TO A MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS, WHICH THE GRANTEE
AGREES TO ASSUME, HAS THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE LAND THE PRIMARY FUND
FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS, SO THAT THE GRANTEE
BECOMES THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR AND THE GRANTOR A SURETY." 

THE COMMISSION MADE THE FINDINGS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 20(A)(2) AND
ORDERED THAT THE APPLICANT BE "AUTHORIZED TO ASSUME OBLIGATION AND
LIABILITY" IN RESPECT OF THE MORTGAGED BONDS, "SAID ASSUMPTION OF
OBLIGATION AND LIABILITY  ...  TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ACCEPTANCE BY
THE APPLICANT OF A DEED OF SAID LANDS." 

MORE RECENTLY, IN PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT - ASSUMPTION
OF OBLIGATION, 15 M.C.C. 406, A MOTOR CARRIER CASE UNDER SEC. 214 OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHICH INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE SEC.
20(A)(2), THE COMMISSION REAFFIRMED ITS EARLIER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC.
20(A)(2) AS APPLYING TO OBLIGATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT, SAYING (P. 408): 

"PRIOR TO CONSUMMATION OF THE MERGER, APPLICANT'S LIABILITY IN
RESPECT OF THE BONDS OF SAID COMPANIES WAS OF A CONTINGENT NATURE. 
UNDER THE STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY ALL DEBTS AND LIABILITIES OF MERGED OR
CONSOLIDATED CORPORATIONS SHALL THENCEFORTH ATTACH TO THE CONSOLIDATED
CORPORATION AND MAY BE ENFORCED AGAINST IT TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF
SAID DEBTS AND LIABILITIES HAD BEEN INCURRED OR CONTRACTED BY IT.
THUS, THROUGH COMPLETION OF SAID MERGER, APPLICANT HAS, BY OPERATION OF
LAW, BECOME THE PRINCIPAL OBLIGOR IN RESPECT OF THESE BONDS, AND, AS
SUCH, HAS OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES IN RESPECT THEREOF WHICH DIFFER
FROM THE CONTINGENT LIABILITY PREVIOUSLY EXISTENT.  IN OUR OPINION
ASSUMPTION OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS AND LIABILITIES AS SUCCESSOR IN TITLE IS
A MATTER OVER WHICH WE HAVE JURISDICTION."  FN2 

WHILE COURTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY BOUND BY THE COMMISSION'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES,
313 U.S. 80; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 282 U.S.
311, THEY RIGHTLY PAY DEFERENCE TO THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERED
CONSTRUCTION OF IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS OF LONG STANDING AND HAS
NEVER BEEN DEPARTED FROM.  BUT IT IS NOVEL DOCTRINE THAT A PROVISION OF
AN ACT OF CONGRESS MAY BE NULLIFIED BY A CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH CAN BE INFERRED ONLY FROM THE FACT THAT THE
COMMISSION IGNORED THE PROVISION IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH, BY ITS
SETTLED PRACTICE, IT WAS NOT CALLED UPON TO CONSTRUE OR APPLY IT.
CERTAINLY, THE COMMISSION DOES NOT APPEAR EVER TO HAVE ACTED UPON ANY
SUCH VIEW, NOR HAS IT COME BEFORE US TO ADVOCATE IT.  IT SEEMS PLAIN
THAT THE RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION THAT SEC. 20(A)(2) IS APPLICABLE TO
THOSE OBLIGATIONS WHICH STATE LAW ATTACHES TO THE CARRIER IN
CONSEQUENCE OF ITS PARTICIPATION IN A CONSOLIDATION, AS WELL AS TO
THOSE WHICH ATTACH TO IT BY REASON OF ITS EXPRESSED PROMISE, CARRY OUT
THE PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH ITS LANGUAGE. 
OF THE COUNTRY, THROUGH CONSOLIDATION OR OTHERWISE, PERSONAL LIABILITY
FOR THE OBLIGATIONS OF OTHER ROADS, SUCH AS HAD OCCURRED IN CERTAIN
WELL KNOWN CONSOLIDATIONS NOTORIOUS FOR THEIR DISREGARD OF THE
INTERESTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC.  SEE 58 CONG. REC. 8317
18.  AS THE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF PREVENTION IT PRESCRIBED THAT ALL SUCH
OBLIGATIONS SHOULD BE VOID, UNLESS THE COMMISSION ORDERS THEIR APPROVAL
AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

BUT EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THE SILENCE OF THE COMMISSION IN 79 I.C.C.
CAN BE TAKEN TO INTIMATE A VIEW OF THE MEANING OF SEC. 20(A)(2), WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH IT TOOK NO ACTION AND MADE NO ORDER, IT SEEMS STILL
MORE NOVEL TO SAY THAT SUCH AN INFERENCE MUST CONTROL OUR DECISION
HERE, IN THE FACE OF ITS EXPLICIT CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IN OTHER
CASES AS APPLICABLE TO SITUATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT.  EVEN SPORADIC AND
INCONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS, WHERE THE PARTIES HAVE RELIED
UPON THEM, MAY SOMETIMES BOTH BE FOLLOWED BY COURTS WHEN APPLIED TO
THOSE PARTIES.  BUT THE UNARTICULATED INTIMATIONS OF OPINION OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, UNACTED UPON, ARE TOO INCONCLUSIVE TO CONTROL
JUDICIAL DECISION.  COURTS ARE NOT LIKE WEATHERCOCKS, CHANGING WITH
EVERY ADMINISTRATIVE WIND THAT BLOWS.  THEY CANNOT ON THE SAME DAY
RIGHTLY DECIDE THAT THE SAME STATUTE MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS IN
DIFFERENT CASES, MERELY BECAUSE THE COMMISSION MAY ON DIFFERENT DAYS
HAVE HAD SHIFTING IMPRESSIONS WHICH IT HAS NOT THOUGHT SUFFICIENTLY
IMPORTANT TO EXPRESS IN ANY RULING, OPINION, DECISION OR ORDER. 

UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO NORTH SHORE R. CO., 288 U.S. 1, UPON WHICH
THE COURT RELIES, HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE HERE.  IT IS ONE THING TO ACCEPT
JUDICIALLY THE COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT A PARTICULAR CARRIER IS AN
"INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY," A DETERMINATION UNQUESTIONABLY WITHIN
ITS POWER AND PECULIARLY WITHIN ITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCE.  IT IS
QUITE ANOTHER TO BIND THE COURTS BY A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH
THE COMMISSION HAS NEVER VOICED, BUT WHICH, ON THE CONTRARY, IT HAS
CONSISTENTLY DENIED, NAMELY, THAT OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ASSUMED WITHOUT
CONSCIOUS AND EXPRESS PERMISSION OF THE COMMISSION AND IN DEFIANCE OF
THE DECLARED WILL OF CONGRESS. 

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THE ALL-INCLUSIVE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
20(A)(2), PASSED IN RESPONSE TO A GENERAL AND LONG-FELT NEED FOR THE
FEDERAL REGULATION OF RAILROAD CAPITALIZATION, WERE INTENDED TO EXCLUDE
ASSUMPTIONS OF OBLIGATIONS WHICH ATTACH BY VIRTUE OF STATE LAW.  THE
STATUTE MAKES SEC. 20(A)(2) SUBJECT ONLY TO ONE EXCEPTION - SHORT-TERM
NOTES MATURING IN NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS, SEC. 20(A)(9) - AND EVEN IN
THAT INSTANCE THE CARRIER IS REQUIRED TO FILE WITH THE COMMISSION A
CERTIFICATE OF NOTIFICATION.  NO OTHER EXCEPTION WAS PROVIDED, AND IT
IS APPARENT THAT NONE WAS INTENDED.  FN3 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH DOUBTS WHETHER APPELLANT IS VALIDLY
ORGANIZED UNDER NEW YORK LAW.  NO SUCH ISSUE IS PRESENTED BY THE
RECORD.  THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER PERSONAL LIABILITY CAN
BE ASSUMED BY APPELLANT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTE, WHICH MAKES
SUCH AN ASSUMPTION VOID "EVEN THOUGH PERMITTED BY THE AUTHORITY
CREATING THE CARRIER CORPORATION" "UNLESS AND UNTIL, AND THEN ONLY TO
THE EXTENT THAT" THE COMMISSION HAS APPROVED THE ASSUMPTION AFTER
MAKING THE PRESCRIBED FINDINGS. 

THE STATUTE DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE HOLDERS OF OBLIGATIONS OF THE
CONSTITUENT COMPANIES OF ANY RIGHTS AGAINST THEM OR THEIR PROPERTY.  IT
ONLY PREVENTS THE ACQUISITION BY SUCH HOLDERS, CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, OF NEW RIGHTS AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED CARRIER WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION, AND BY SEC. 20(A)(11) THE STATUTE GIVES A
REMEDY TO THOSE WHO, LIKE APPELLEE, BECOME INNOCENT PURCHASERS OF SUCH
SECURITIES, AFTER CONSOLIDATION, FOR THE LOSS OF SUCH RIGHTS THROUGH
THE OPERATION OF SEC. 20(A)(2).  THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IN THIS
CASE NO MORE INVOLVES ENRICHING STOCKHOLDER EQUITIES THAN IN ANY
OTHER.  THE QUESTION IN EVERY CASE IS WHETHER THE PUBLIC, AND RAILROAD
SECURITY HOLDERS, SHALL BE BURDENED, THROUGH REPEATED REORGANIZATIONS
OF RAILROADS, WITH EXCESSIVE INDEBTEDNESS WHICH IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF
THE STATUTE TO PROHIBIT.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE STATUTE WOULD FAIL OF
ITS PROCLAIMED PURPOSE UNLESS, AS THE COMMISSION HAS RULED, ITS
PROHIBITIONS EXTEND TO THOSE OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE CONSOLIDATED CARRIER
ASSUMES BY VIRTUE OF ITS ENTERING INTO A CONSOLIDATION UNDER STATE LAW,
AS WELL AS THOSE WHICH IT ASSUMES BY ITS EXPRESSED PROMISE.  THE WORDS
OF THE STATUTE NEITHER COMPEL NOR PERSUADE TO THE DECISION NOW GIVEN,
WHICH SEEMS TO REST ON NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN A FAR-FETCHED
SURMISE.  IT DEFEATS THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND CONFLICTS WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 
FN1  49 U.S.C. SEC. 20(A)(11), AFTER PROVIDING THAT ASSUMPTIONS OF
OBLIGATIONS NOT APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ARE VOID, DECLARES: 

"IF  ...  ANY SECURITY IN RESPECT TO WHICH THE ASSUMPTION OF
OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY IS SO MADE VOID, IS ACQUIRED BY ANY PERSON FOR
VALUE AND IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT NOTICE THAT THE  ... ASSUMPTION IS
VOID, SUCH PERSON MAY IN A SUIT OR ACTION IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, HOLD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF
THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY HIM IN RESPECT THEREOF, THE CARRIER WHICH  ...
ASSUMED THE OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY SO MADE VOID, AND ITS DIRECTORS,
OFFICERS, ATTORNEYS, AND OTHER AGENTS, WHO PARTICIPATED IN ANY WAY  ...
IN THE AUTHORIZING OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY SO
MADE VOID." 

IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD, IN AN AFFIDAVIT UPON WHICH SUMMARY
JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED, THAT IN 1936, AFTER THE CONSOLIDATION, APPELLEE
PURCHASED THE BONDS FROM A BROKER FOR VALUE "WITHOUT NOTICE OF ANY
DEFENSE THERETO OR TO THE GUARANTEE THEREOF." 

FN2  SEE ALSO ELMIRA & L.O.R. CO. ACQUISITION, 170 I.C.C. 127, WHERE
THE COMMISSION APPROVED AN "ASSUMPTION" OF LIABILITY WHICH WAS
APPARENTLY TO ATTACH (SEE P. 128) SOLELY BY OPERATION OF THE NEW YORK
STOCK CORPORATION LAWS.  CF. ASSUMPTION OF OBLIGATION BY L.S. & I.R.R.,
86 I.C.C. 640, WHERE IN AUTHORIZING AN "ASSUMPTION" THE COMMISSION
STATED:  "UNDER THE AGREEMENT AND THE LAWS OF MICHIGAN THE DEBTS,
LIABILITIES, AND DUTIES OF THE LAST TWO COMPANIES NAMED ATTACH TO THE
APPLICANT AND ARE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST IT TO THE SAME EXTENT AND IN THE
SAME MANNER AS IF ORIGINALLY INCURRED BY IT.  THE APPLICANT ACCORDINGLY
SEEKS AUTHORITY TO ASSUME OBLIGATION AND LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE
SECURITIES OF THESE COMPANIES."  CF. ALSO UNION R. CO. ASSUMPTION OF
OBLIGATION AND LIABILITY, 217 I.C.C. 635, WHERE, IN AUTHORIZING AN
ASSUMPTION THE COMMISSION STATED:  "PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE JOINT
AGREEMENT OF MERGER DATED OCTOBER 1, 1936, AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE APPLICANT WILL ASSUME ALL
THE DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE" CONSTITUENT CORPORATIONS. 

FN3  EXAMINATION OF THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SEC. 20(A) CAN LEAVE
NO GENUINE DOUBT THAT THE FINANCIAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 20(A)(2) WERE
MEANT TO BE ALL-INCLUSIVE.  ABUSES IN RAILROAD FINANCING HAD BEEN A
CONTINUOUS SUBJECT OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  SEE THE REPORT OF THE WINDOM
COMMITTEE IN 1874, S. REP. NO. 307, 43RD CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. I, PP.
71-76; THE REPORT OF THE CULLOM COMMITTEE IN 1886, S. REP. NO. 46, 49TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PART I, PP. 51-52.  IN 1907 THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, REPORTING UPON ITS INVESTIGATION OF THE UNION PACIFIC AND
THE CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROADS, RECOMMENDED FEDERAL REGULATION OF
SECURITY ISSUES.  IN RE CONSOLIDATIONS AND COMBINATIONS OF CARRIERS, 12
I.C.C. 277; AND SEE ALSO THE COMMISSION'S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1907, P.
24.  IN 1910 PRESIDENT TAFT URGED UPON CONGRESS FEDERAL REGULATION OF
RAILROAD SECURITIES, 45 CONG. REC. 380, BUT THE SENATE'S OPPOSITION
PREVENTED THE PROPOSAL FROM BEING INCLUDED IN THE MANN-ELKINS ACT.  IN
1913 THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED ITS NEW ENGLAND INVESTIGATION, 27 I.C.C.
560, 616, WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT "NO INTERSTATE RAILROAD SHOULD
BE PERMITTED TO LEASE OR PURCHASE ANY OTHER RAILROAD, NOR TO ACQUIRE
THE STOCKS OR SECURITIES OF ANY OTHER RAILROAD, NOR TO GUARANTEE THE
SAME, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT."  SENATE OPPOSITION AGAIN PROVED TOO STRONG IN 1914, AS
WELL AS IN 1916, BUT BY THE END OF THE WAR OPPOSITION TO THE REGULATION
OF RAILROAD CAPITALIZATION PRACTICALLY DISAPPEARED.  SEE LOCKLIN,
REGULATION OF SECURITY ISSUES BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
PP. 12-22; SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, VOL. I, PP. 86
94, 189-93; AND THE COMMISSION'S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1919, PP. 4-5. 

LONG CONSIDERED AND AT LAST VIRTUALLY UNOPPOSED, DESIGNED TO VEST IN
THE COMMISSION "EXCLUSIVE AND PLENARY" JURISDICTION, SEC. 20(A)(7),
OVER CHANGES IN THE CAPITAL STRUCTURES OF THE RAILROADS.  ITS
ENACTMENT, SEE SHARFMAN, OP. CIT., SUPRA, VOL. I, P. 190, "WAS NOT ONLY
A FULFILMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S REPEATED RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT GREW OUT
OF A PRACTICAL UNANIMITY OF OPINION AMONG THE NUMEROUS AND DIVERSE
INTERESTS THAT SOUGHT TO INFLUENCE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEW
LEGISLATION.  WHILE THIS EXTENSION OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY WAS
DESIGNED, INDIRECTLY, TO PROTECT THE INVESTING PUBLIC AGAINST THE
DISSIPATION OF RAILROAD RESOURCES THROUGH FAULTY OR DISHONEST
FINANCING, ITS DOMINANT PURPOSE WAS TO MAINTAIN A SOUND STRUCTURE FOR
THE REHABILITATION AND SUPPORT OF RAILROAD CREDIT, AND FOR THE
CONSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  IT AIMED TO
RENDER IMPOSSIBLE THE RECURRENCE OF THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL SCANDALS,
WITH THEIR DESTRUCTION OF CONFIDENCE IN RAILROAD INVESTMENT, WHICH HAD
BECOME NOTORIOUS, AND TO PREVENT THE SUBORDINATION OF THE CARRIERS'
STAKE AS TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES TO THE FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE OF ALIEN
INTERESTS." 

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE BYRNES JOIN
IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 


NO. 17.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 29, 1941.  REARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1941.  -
DECIDED NOVEMBER 24, 1941.  - REVERSED. 


1.  TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS FROM ONE STATE INTO ANOTHER IS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 172. 

2.  A STATUTE OF CALIFORNIA MAKING IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANYONE
KNOWINGLY TO BRING OR ASSIST IN BRINGING INTO THE STATE A NONRESIDENT
"INDIGENT PERSON," HELD INVALID AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 174. 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE TERM "INDIGENT
PERSON," THOUGH NOT CONFINED TO THE PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY
INCAPACITATED, INCLUDES ONLY PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENTLY DESTITUTE OF
PROPERTY AND WITHOUT RESOURCES TO OBTAIN THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE, AND
WHO HAVE NO RELATIVES OR FRIENDS ABLE AND WILLING TO SUPPORT THEM.  P.
172. 

HOW FAR THE REGULATORY POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS OVER SUCH
TRANSPORTATION, AND WHETHER THE ATTEMPTED STATE REGULATION IS ALSO
PROHIBITED BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, ARE QUESTIONS NOT
DECIDED IN THIS CASE AND UPON WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT EXPRESSES
NO OPINION.  PP. 176, 177. 

3.  REMARKS IN NEW YORK V. MILN, 11 PET. 102, AND OTHER CASES,
CONCERNING THE POWER OF A STATE TO EXCLUDE "PAUPERS" ARE CONSIDERED AND
THE MEANING OF THAT TERM DISCUSSED.  P. 176. 

EDWARDS V. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
YUBA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA WHICH
AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION OF EDWARDS UNDER A CALIFORNIA STATUTE DECLARING
IT TO BE A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY PERSON TO BRING, OR ASSIST IN BRINGING,
INTO THE STATE ANY NONRESIDENT OF THE STATE, KNOWING HIM TO BE AN
INDIGENT PERSON.  THE COURT BELOW WAS THE HIGHEST COURT TO WHICH AN
APPEAL COULD BE TAKEN UNDER THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA.  THE CASE WAS
ARGUED HERE, AND REARGUMENT WAS ORDERED, AT THE 1940 TERM, 313 U.S.
545. 

THE TRANSIENT UNEMPLOYED COMPRISE MOST OF THE NON-RESIDENTS WHO COME
INTO CALIFORNIA.  THE ACT OF BRINGING OR ASSISTING IN BRINGING ALMOST
ANY OF THESE PEOPLE INTO THE STATE HAS BEEN MADE A CRIME, FOR IT IS
CLEAR THAT PRACTICALLY ALL MIGRATORY-CASUAL LABOR AND TRANSIENT
UNEMPLOYED FALL WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION OF "INDIGENT PERSONS." 

THE PASSAGE OF PERSONS FROM STATE TO STATE CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1; HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227
U.S. 308; GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124; UNITED STATES V.
MILLER, 17 F.SUPP.  65; COVINGTON & CINCINNATI BRIDGE CO. V. KENTUCKY,
154 U.S. 204, WHETHER THEY BE MOVED BY COMMON CARRIER OR OTHERWISE. 
CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470; UNITED STATES V. BURCH, 226
F. 974. 

THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE IS TO BAR THE MOVEMENT OF INDIGENT PERSONS
INTO CALIFORNIA, AND TO COMPEL THEIR REMOVAL THEREFROM AT THE PLEASURE
OF THE AUTHORITIES. 

A NATURAL TENDENCY OF THE STATUTE IS TO INTIMIDATE, UNDER THREAT OF
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, NOT ONLY ONE WHO WOULD TRANSPORT AN INDIGENT
MIGRANT, BUT ALSO THE MIGRANTS THEMSELVES.  ITS CONSEQUENCE OFTEN WILL
BE TO LEAVE THE LATTER SUBSTANTIALLY HELPLESS TO MOVE, COMPELLING THEM
TO REMAIN AT THEIR PLACE OF ORIGIN WHERE EMPLOYMENT IS WANTING AND
OPPORTUNITY LACKING. 

IF THE MOVEMENT OF INDIGENT MIGRANTS INTO A STATE MAY BE BARRED OR
IMPEDED BECAUSE OF FEAR OF THE CREATION OF A BURDEN WHICH MAY
SUBSEQUENTLY FALL ON THE RESIDENTS OF THAT STATE, THEN MIGRATION OUT OF
A STATE MIGHT ALSO BE RESTRAINED WHERE DEPOPULATION WOULD INCREASE THE
BURDEN OF GOVERNMENTAL INDEBTEDNESS ON THOSE REMAINING.  IF THE
PRINCIPLE OF FREEZING POPULATION IN AREAS OF ORIGIN IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
SOUND, THERE IS LEGAL SANCTION FOR THE GROWTH OF AN ECONOMIC CONDITION
OF VIRTUAL PEONAGE, CHAINING PEOPLE TO THAT PART OF THE LAND WHERE
ACCIDENT OF BIRTH HAS FIRST PLACED THEM. 

BY IMPEDING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF EMPLOYABLES ACROSS STATE LINES, THE
STATUTE INTERPOSES A BARRIER AGAINST THE COMPETITION OF THE LABOR OF
NONRESIDENTS WITH THAT OF RESIDENTS.  CF. BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311
U.S. 454, 457.  THE ABSENCE OF CAPITAL CANNOT SERVE TO FETTER THE
MERCHANT OR DENY HIM A REGIONAL OR NATIONAL MARKET.  BALDWIN V. SEELIG,
294 U.S. 511, 527. 

POVERTY IS NOT A "MORAL PESTILENCE."  NEW YORK V. MILN, 11 PET. 102,
142.  MIGRANTS ARE NOT IMPROPER SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE.  ASBELL V.
KANSAS, 209 U.S. 251; BALDWIN V. SEELIG, SUPRA, 525. 

INTERSTATE TRADE, THE REDISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION FROM MARGINAL AND
SUB-MARGINAL AREAS, THE RIGHT TO MIGRATE IN PURSUIT OF LIVELIHOOD,
FREEDOM OF OPPORTUNITY, FREEDOM OF PASSAGE FROM STATE TO STATE, THE
NEEDS OF NATIONAL INDUSTRY, THE REQUIREMENTS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE -
THESE ARE NOT MERELY LOCAL, INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND MATTERS ON WHICH THE
STATE MAY HAVE SOME POWER TO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THEY ARE
MATTERS AFFECTED WITH A VITAL NATIONAL INTEREST; THEY ARE THE VERY
FABRIC OF NATIONAL UNITY.  WHETHER BY THE STATUTE IN QUESTION
CALIFORNIA SEEKS TO BAR THE PASSAGE OF INDIGENTS DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, HER ACTION IN EITHER EVENT INVADES THE POWER OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE STATUTE IS VOID ON ITS FACE AND OPERATES TO DEPRIVE THE APPELLANT
OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND TO DENY HIM THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

IT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE STATE TO MAKE A CRIME OF ASSISTING
ANOTHER IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  DE JONGE V.
OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 357, 362 ET SEQ. COULD DUNCAN HAVE BEEN BARRED
FROM CALIFORNIA, SOLELY BECAUSE OF HIS INDIGENCY, WITHOUT BEING
DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS?  CF. SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON,
308 U.S. 147, 161.  THE RIGHT TO WORK FOR A LIVING IN THE COMMON
OCCUPATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY IS OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE PERSONAL
FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO SECURE.  TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, 41.  IMPLICIT
THEREIN IS THE RIGHT TO GO TO ANY PLACE WHERE THOSE OCCUPATIONS MAY
REQUIRE. 

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND OF RESIDENCE MUST BE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN A
DEMOCRATIC STATE.  WHETHER WITHIN THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR WITHIN THE TERM LIBERTY IN THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE, IT IS A BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THE MORE VALUABLE
TO THOSE WHO MIGRATE BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC COMPULSIONS. 

THE PROTECTION OF OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE MINIFIED BY
REASONS OF TEMPORARY ECONOMIC EXPEDIENCY.  "THOSE WHO WOULD ENJOY THE
BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY MUST, LIKE MEN, UNDERGO THE FATIGUES OF SUPPORTING
IT."  THOMAS PAINE, COMPLETE WORKS, VOL. 2, 135.  THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS NO FAIR WEATHER PROTECTION OF THE LIBERTIES OF PERSONS. 
ITS OPERATION IS NOT LIMITED TO TIMES OF ECONOMIC SECURITY WHEN THERE
IS NO PRESSURE UPON STATES TO CURTAIL LIBERTY.  IT FURNISHES A
"GUARANTY AGAINST ANY ENCROACHMENT BY THE STATES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS WHICH BELONG TO EVERY CITIZEN AS A MEMBER OF SOCIETY."  UNITED
STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 554. 

THE STATUTE CONTRAVENES THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSES OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  ART. IV, SEC. 2; FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

ART. IV, SEC. 2, LIKE ART. IV OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, WAS
INTENDED TO INSURE TO EACH OF THE CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL STATES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MOVE ABOUT FREELY AND EASILY FROM STATE TO STATE
IN SEARCH OF OPPORTUNITY.  EXPRESSIONS OF THE COURTS CONFIRM THIS
CONCLUSION.  SEE CORFIELD V. CORYELL, 6 FED. CAS. 546, 551; PASSENGER
CASES, 7 HOW.  283, 492; CRANDALL V. NEVADA, 6 WALL.  35, 49; PAUL V.
VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, 180; WARD V. MARYLAND, 12 WALL.  418, 430;
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 76; UNITED STATES V. WHEELER, 254
U.S. 281, 290, 297; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33.  DISTINGUISHING CASES
DEALING WITH QUARANTINES OF PERSONS AND PRODUCTS. 

THE PROPOSITION THAT A STATE, UNDER ITS POLICE POWERS, MAY EXCLUDE
"PAUPERS," IS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE CASES THAT HAVE BEEN CITED FOR IT.
DISTINGUISHING NEW YORK V. MILN, 11 PET. 102, AND OTHER CASES IN THIS
COURT. 

THE MILN CASE WAS DIRECTLY OR IMPLIEDLY OVERRULED BY HENDERSON V.
WICKHAM, 92 U.S. 259. 

THIS COURT HAS NEVER SQUARELY PASSED UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER A
STATE MAY, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER, EXCLUDE PAUPERS FROM
ITS LIMITS.  THERE IS, HOWEVER, AMPLE AUTHORITY IN THE STATE COURTS TO
THE EFFECT THAT A STATE MAY PREVENT PERSONS WHO ARE LUNATICS, IDIOTS,
VAGRANTS, AGED, OR INFIRM, AND WHO ARE WITHOUT ANY VISIBLE MEANS OF
SUPPORT, FROM COMING WITHIN ITS LIMITS.  BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, IN MOST OF
THESE CASES, THE DECISIONS DO NOT TURN ON WHETHER THESE PERSONS ARE
PAUPERS OR INDIGENTS, BUT RATHER ON THE QUESTION OF A PARTICULAR
LOCALITY'S SUPPORT OR NONSUPPORT OF THESE PEOPLE. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES, EXCLUSION IS NARROWLY LIMITED TO THOSE WHO
ARE PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY HANDICAPPED AND WITHOUT SOME MEANS OF
SUPPORT; AND, IN NO CASE HAS THIS DOCTRINE BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE
PERSONS WHO ARE NOT IMBECILES, WHO ARE NOT DRUNKARDS, WHO ARE NOT
VAGRANTS OR TRAMPS, WHO ARE NOT DISEASED, WHO ARE NOT AGED OR INFIRM,
NOR AS TO PERSONS WHO HAVE ALWAYS WORKED, PERSONS WHO ARE WILLING TO
WORK, PERSONS WHO ARE ABLE TO WORK AND WHO ARE COMPETENT IN EVERY OTHER
RESPECT, EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE TEMPORARILY WITHOUT WORK AND WITHOUT
FUNDS. 

THIS STATE STATUTE, APPLYING TO ALL MODES OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS INTO CALIFORNIA, IMPOSES THE BURDEN UPON
EVERY CARRIER INTO THAT STATE, IF IT WOULD AVOID CRIMINAL LIABILITY, OF
DETERMINING FOR ITSELF WHETHER IT HAS ABOARD ANY PERSONS WHO MAY BE
DEEMED "INDIGENT"; YET THE CONTENT OF THAT TERM IS WHOLLY UNDEFINED. 

THE STATUTE IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLICIT.  IT FAILS TO INFORM THOSE
SUBJECT TO ITS PENALTIES OF WHAT CONDUCT WILL RENDER THEM LIABLE.  IT
IS THEREFORE VOID FOR UNCERTAINTY.  EX PARTE LEACH, 215 CAL. 536; HEWIT
V. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, 148 CAL. 590; STATE V. PARTLOW, 91
N.C. 550. 

THE ACT OBLIGES THE CARRIER TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION OF ITS OWN
INTO THE HEALTH, MORALS, PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL POSITION, OF THOSE
ABOARD, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHO IS "INDIGENT."  IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE
DO NOT EXCUSE.  THE STATUTE MAKES NO PROVISION FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION,
OR FOR A HEARING, OR FOR AN APPEAL, AS TO WHETHER THE CARRIER HAS
COMPLIED WITH ITS PROVISIONS.  UPON ARRIVAL AT THE STATE BORDER, THE
CARRIER WILL BE SUBJECTED TO AN EQUALLY RIGOROUS INSPECTION BY STATE
OFFICIALS, OR WILL BE REQUIRED TO STOP AT A QUARANTINE STATION, OR AT
SOME PORT OF ENTRY.  THIS DOUBLE INVESTIGATION WILL INVOLVE THE
EXPENDITURE OF ENORMOUS SUMS BY THE CARRIERS, AND WILL EXCLUDE FROM
INTERSTATE PASSAGE ON PUBLIC CONVEYANCES THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS WHOM THE
CARRIERS MAY REGARD AS "POOR RISKS." 

THE CONTROLLING FACTOR IS NOT WHETHER SUCH A LAW OR REGULATION
AFFECTS INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, BUT WHETHER THE TYPE OF
COMMERCE IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS. 

NO ONE CAN DENY THAT THIS ACT IMPOSES A DEFINITE, ARBITRARY
INTERFERENCE AND BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. 

THE QUESTION OF INTERSTATE MIGRATION IS NOT FOR EACH STATE TO
REGULATE INDIVIDUALLY AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE REGULATIONS ENACTED BY
THE OTHER STATES.  NOR IS IT A PROBLEM WHICH EACH STATE IN INTERCOURSE
WITH ALL OTHERS CAN SETTLE FOR ITSELF, WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE
POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE DELEGATED TO CONGRESS BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE STATUTE MUST ALSO FALL FOR THE REASON THAT IT VIOLATES THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BARBIER V. CONNOLLY, 113
U.S. 27, 31.  IT DECLARES, IN EFFECT, THAT A PERSON, COMPETENT AND ABLE
AND WILLING TO WORK AND WHO CAN AFFORD TO PAY FOR HIS TRANSPORTATION ON
A PUBLIC CARRIER, IS NOT AN INDIGENT; WHILE A PERSON WHO POSSESSES LIKE
QUALIFICATIONS, BUT WHO CAN NOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR HIS TRANSPORTATION,
IS AN INDIGENT.  SEE TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33. 

THE STATUTE IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 

IN NEW YORK V. MILN, 11 PET. 102, THIS COURT RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF
A STATE TO EXCLUDE PAUPERS FROM ITS BOUNDARIES.  SEE ALSO, HANNIBAL &
ST. JOSEPH R. CO. V. HUSEN, 95 U.S. 465; IN RE AH FONG, 3 SAW.  144, 1
FED. CAS. 213; HENDERSON V. WICKHAM, 92 U.S. 259; CHY LUNG V. FREEMAN,
92 U.S. 275; PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOW.  283; PLUMLEY V. MASSACHUSETTS,
155 U.S. 461; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. V. HABER, 169 U.S. 613. 

IN KAORU YAMATAYA V. FISHER (THE "JAPANESE IMMIGRANT CASE"), 189 U.S.
86, THE COURT HELD THAT THE EXCLUSION OF PAUPERS WAS A POLICE MEASURE
PROPERLY TO BE EXERCISED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  SIMILARLY,
EXCLUSION BY THE STATES IS BUT THE STATES' EXERCISE OF THE SAME KIND OF
POWER, AND IS VALID UNDER THE RESERVATION OF SUCH POWER BY THE SEVERAL
STATES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 

MANY OTHER STATES HAVE STATUTES SIMILAR TO THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE. 
STATE V. CORNISH, 66 N.H. 329; PITKIN COUNTY V. LAW, 3 COLO. APP. 328;
SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE POOR V. NELSON, 75 MICH. 154; COE V. SMITH, 24
WEND.  341. 

ALTHOUGH IN 1901, WHEN THE STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ORIGINALLY
ENACTED, THERE WAS NO ACUTE PAUPER IMMIGRATION TO CALIFORNIA, THE LAST
DECADE HAS DEVELOPED FROM THIS SOURCE A PROBLEM STAGGERING IN ITS
PROPORTIONS. 

A SOCIAL PROBLEM IN THE SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY,
THE "POOR WHITE" TENANTS AND SHARE CROPPERS, FOLLOWING REDUCTION OF
COTTON PLANTING, DROUGHTS AND ADVERSE CONDITIONS FOR SMALL-SCALE
FARMING, SWARMED INTO CALIFORNIA.  THESE UNFORTUNATE PEOPLE WERE
USUALLY DESTITUTE WHEN THEY ARRIVED.  THEIR ORDINARY ROUTINE UPON
COMING TO CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN, FIRST TO GO ON FEDERAL RELIEF FOR ONE
YEAR, AND THEN ON TO STATE AND COUNTY RELIEF ROLLS INDEFINITELY.  AFTER
THEY EARN A LITTLE MONEY IN THE HARVESTS, THEY SEND BACK HOME
TRANSPORTATION FOR THEIR RELATIVES, GENERALLY THE AGED AND INFIRM, AND
THESE IMMEDIATELY BECOME AND CONTINUE TO BE PUBLIC CHARGES. 

THEY AVOID OUR CITIES AND EVEN OUR TOWNS BY CROWDING TOGETHER, IN THE
OPEN COUNTRY AND IN CAMPS, UNDER LIVING CONDITIONS SHOCKING BOTH AS TO
SANITATION AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.  UNDERFED FOR MANY GENERATIONS, THEY
BRING WITH THEM THE VARIOUS NUTRITIONAL DISEASES OF THE SOUTH.  THEIR
PRESENCE HERE UPON PUBLIC RELIEF, WITH THEIR HABITUAL UNBALANCED DIET
AND CONSEQUENTLY LOWERED BODY RESISTANCE, MEANS A CONSTANT THREAT OF
EPIDEMICS.  VENEREAL DISEASES AND TUBERCULOSIS ARE COMMON WITH THEM,
AND ARE ON THE INCREASE.  THE INCREASE OF RAPE AND INCEST ARE READILY
TRACEABLE TO THE CROWDED CONDITIONS IN WHICH THESE PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO
LIVE.  PETTY CRIME AMONG THEM HAS FEATURED THE CRIMINAL CALENDARS OF
EVERY COMMUNITY INTO WHICH THEY HAVE MOVED.    AS PROVEN BY EXPERIENCE
IN AGRICULTURAL STRIKES, THEY ARE READILY LED INTO RIOTS BY AGITATORS;
ALTHOUGH, IT MUST BE SAID, THEY STUBBORNLY RESIST ALL SUBVERSIVE
INFLUENCES, BEING LOYAL AMERICANS WHOSE ONLY WISH IS FOR A BETTER
CHANCE IN LIFE. 

THEIR COMING HERE HAS ALARMINGLY INCREASED OUR TAXES AND THE COST OF
WELFARE OUTLAYS, OLD AGE PENSIONS, AND THE CARE OF THE CRIMINAL, THE
INDIGENT SICK, THE BLIND AND THE INSANE. 

SHOULD THE STATES THAT HAVE SO LONG TOLERATED, AND EVEN FOSTERED, THE
SOCIAL CONDITIONS THAT HAVE REDUCED THESE PEOPLE TO THEIR STATE OF
POVERTY AND WRETCHEDNESS, BE ABLE TO GET RID OF THEM BY LOW RELIEF AND
INSIGNIFICANT WELFARE ALLOWANCES AND DRIVE THEM INTO CALIFORNIA TO
BECOME OUR PUBLIC CHARGES, UPON OUR IMMEASURABLY HIGHER STANDARD OF
SOCIAL SERVICES?  NATURALLY, WHEN THESE PEOPLE CAN LIVE ON RELIEF IN
CALIFORNIA BETTER THAN THEY CAN BY WORKING IN MISSISSIPPI, ARKANSAS,
TEXAS OR OKLAHOMA, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO COME TO THIS STATE. 

IF A STATUTE BE A PROPER POLICE MEASURE, IT IS VALID EVEN THOUGH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE INCIDENTALLY AFFECTED.  BAYSIDE FISH FLOUR
CO. V. GENTRY, 297 U.S. 442; GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. V. WASHINGTON, 300
U.S. 154; DENVER & R.G.R. CO. V. DENVER, 250 U.S. 241.  A STATE
REGULATION DECLARING THAT PAUPERS, INDIGENTS, AND VAGABONDS ARE NOT
LEGITIMATE SUBJECTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  LICENSE CASES, 5 HOW.  504; PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOW. 
283. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF
PERSONS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT THIS PROTECTION
IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE POLICE REGULATION BY THE STATES.  NEBBIA V.
NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; LACOSTE V. DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, 263 U.S.
545; KELLER V. UNITED STATES, 213 U.S. 138. 

IT IN EFFECT EXCLUDE ANY INDIGENT FAMILY.  IT APPLIES ONLY TO OTHER
PERSONS, WHETHER CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA OR NOT, WHO, AS VOLUNTEERS AND
WITHOUT ANY TIE OF LEGAL SUPPORT TO THE INDIGENT, KNOWINGLY BRING, OR
ASSIST IN BRINGING, INDIGENT PERSONS INTO THE STATE. 

SUCH ACT OF STIMULATING, PROMOTING OR ASSISTING AN INFLUX OF
DESTITUTE PERSONS, OVER AND ABOVE A NORMAL ENTRY OF INDIGENTS
THEMSELVES, IS, IN ITSELF, RELATED TO A LOCAL PROBLEM AFFECTING THE
HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF THE STATE. 

THE STATUTE, IN ITS REFERENCE TO INDIGENT PERSONS, CONTEMPLATES ONLY
A LIMITED CLASS OF PERSONS, I.E., PERSONS SO DESTITUTE OF MEANS FOR THE
SUPPORT OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES AS TO BE DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC
AID. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED IN THE FIELD OF REGULATING THE MOVEMENT OF
SUCH PERSONS BETWEEN STATES BUT HAS MERELY MADE AVAILABLE SOME FUNDS TO
ASSIST IN THEIR CARE AFTER ARRIVAL, AND EVEN IN THIS RESPECT THE AID
CONSISTS MERELY IN THE PERMISSIVE USE BY CERTAIN FEDERAL AGENCIES OF
SUCH APPROPRIATIONS AS MAY BE AVAILABLE, THERE BEING NO PERMANENT OR
COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL PLAN FOR THE PURPOSE. 

CONGRESS HAS ACTED TO EXCLUDE ALIEN "PAUPERS," "PROFESSIONAL
BEGGARS," "VAGRANTS," "PERSONS LIKELY TO BECOME A PUBLIC CHARGE" AND
"PERSONS WHOSE TICKET OR PASSAGE IS PAID FOR BY THE MONEY OF ANOTHER,
OR WHO ARE ASSISTED BY OTHERS TO COME  ...  " (U.S.C. TIT. 8, SEC. 3),
BUT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY SIMILAR LEGISLATION FOR INTERSTATE MIGRATION. 

OF ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE ARTICLES OF
CONFEDERATION EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED "PAUPPERS, VAGABONDS, AND FUGITIVES
FROM JUSTICE" FROM THOSE INHABITANTS OF EACH STATE ENTITLED TO ALL
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL STATES; AND
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS DRAWN WITH REFERENCE TO THE
CORRESPONDING CLAUSE OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND WAS INTENDED
TO PERPETUATE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE FORMER.  UNITED STATES V. WHEELER,
254 U.S. 281, 296. 

THE RIGHT OF PERSONS TO MOVE ACROSS STATE BOUNDARIES IS NOT REFERABLE
TO THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
EVEN IF THAT CLAUSE COVERS THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS BETWEEN
STATES, IT DOES NOT, WHEN READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXCEPTION IMPLIED IN
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2, IN RESPECT TO PAUPERS, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE
REITERATED PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THIS COURT WITH RESPECT TO PAUPERS, APPLY
TO INGRESS AND EGRESS OF PAUPERS, PERSONS SO DESTITUTE AS TO BE
DEPENDENT ON PUBLIC AID. 

IN ANY EVENT, APPELLANT IS IN NO POSITION TO ASSERT THE INVALIDITY OF
SEC. 2615 UNDER THESE PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, BECAUSE HE
HAS NOT BEEN DEPRIVED OF ANY PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY THEREBY SECURED,
EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT AN INDIGENT NONRESIDENT COULD RELY UPON THEM
IN A PROPER CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BYRNES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE SIMPLE AND ARE NOT DISPUTED.  APPELLANT IS
A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA.  IN
DECEMBER, 1939, HE LEFT HIS HOME IN MARYSVILLE, CALIFORNIA, FOR SPUR,
TEXAS, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING BACK TO MARYSVILLE HIS WIFE'S
BROTHER, FRANK DUNCAN, A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND A RESIDENT OF
TEXAS.  WHEN HE ARRIVED IN TEXAS, APPELLANT LEARNED THAT DUNCAN HAD
LAST BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION.  APPELLANT
THUS BECAME AWARE OF THE FACT THAT DUNCAN WAS AN INDIGENT PERSON AND HE
CONTINUED TO BE AWARE OF IT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD INVOLVED IN THIS
CASE.  THE TWO MEN AGREED THAT APPELLANT SHOULD TRANSPORT DUNCAN FROM
TEXAS TO MARYSVILLE IN APPELLANT'S AUTOMOBILE.  ACCORDINGLY, THEY LEFT
SPUR ON JANUARY 1, 1940, ENTERED CALIFORNIA BY WAY OF ARIZONA ON
JANUARY 3, AND REACHED MARYSVILLE ON JANUARY 5.  WHEN HE LEFT TEXAS,
DUNCAN HAD ABOUT $20.  IT HAD ALL BEEN SPENT BY THE TIME HE REACHED
MARYSVILLE.  HE LIVED WITH APPELLANT FOR ABOUT TEN DAYS UNTIL HE
OBTAINED FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE FARM SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. 
DURING THE TEN DAY INTERVAL, HE HAD NO EMPLOYMENT. 

IN JUSTICE COURT A COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST APPELLANT UNDER SEC.
2615 OF THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH
PROVIDES:  "EVERY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION OR OFFICER OR AGENT
THEREOF THAT BRINGS OR ASSISTS IN BRINGING INTO THE STATE ANY INDIGENT
PERSON WHO IS NOT A RESIDENT OF THE STATE, KNOWING HIM TO BE AN
INDIGENT PERSON, IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR."  ON DEMURRER TO THE
COMPLAINT, APPELLANT URGED THAT THE SECTION VIOLATED SEVERAL PROVISIONS
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE DEMURRER WAS OVERRULED, THE CAUSE WAS
TRIED, APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT
IN THE COUNTY JAIL, AND SENTENCE WAS SUSPENDED. 

ON APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF YUBA COUNTY, THE FACTS AS STATED
ABOVE WERE STIPULATED.  THE SUPERIOR COURT, ALTHOUGH REGARDING AS
"CLOSE" THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SECTION, FELT "CONSTRAINED
TO UPHOLD THE STATUTE AS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA."  CONSEQUENTLY, THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED.  NO
APPEAL TO A HIGHER STATE COURT WAS OPEN TO APPELLANT.  WE NOTED
PROBABLE JURISDICTION EARLY LAST TERM, AND LATER ORDERED REARGUMENT
(313 U.S. 545) WHICH HAS BEEN HELD. 

AT THE THRESHOLD OF OUR INQUIRY A QUESTION ARISES WITH RESPECT TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 2615.  ON REARGUMENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
CALIFORNIA HAS SUBMITTED AN EXPOSITION OF THE HISTORY OF THE SECTION,
WHICH REVEALS THAT STATUTES SIMILAR, THOUGH NOT IDENTICAL, TO IT HAVE
BEEN IN EFFECT IN CALIFORNIA SINCE 1860.  (SEE CAL. STAT. (1860) 213;
CAL. STAT. (1901) 636; CAL. STAT. (1933) 2005).  NEITHER UNDER THESE
FORERUNNERS NOR UNDER SEC. 2615 ITSELF DOES THE TERM "INDIGENT PERSON"
SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ACCORDED AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION BY THE
CALIFORNIA COURTS.  THE APPELLEE CLAIMS FOR THE SECTION A VERY LIMITED
SCOPE.  IT URGES THAT THE TERM "INDIGENT PERSON" MUST BE TAKEN TO
INCLUDE ONLY PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENTLY DESTITUTE OF PROPERTY AND
WITHOUT RESOURCES TO OBTAIN THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE, AND WHO HAVE NO
RELATIVES OR FRIENDS ABLE AND WILLING TO SUPPORT THEM.  IT IS CONCEDED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE TERM IS NOT CONFINED TO THOSE WHO ARE PHYSICALLY OR
MENTALLY INCAPACITATED.  WHILE THE GENERALITY OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE
TO THE TERM THIS NARROW MEANING. 

ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION DELEGATES TO THE CONGRESS THE
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AND IT IS SETTLED BEYOND
QUESTION THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS IS "COMMERCE," WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THAT PROVISION.  FN1 IT IS NEVERTHELESS TRUE, THAT THE
STATES ARE NOT WHOLLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISING THEIR POLICE POWER IN
MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY THEREBY AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109, 113.  THE ISSUE
PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE PROHIBITION EMBODIED
IN SEC. 2615 AGAINST THE "BRINGING" OR TRANSPORTATION OF INDIGENT
PERSONS INTO CALIFORNIA IS WITHIN THE POLICE POWER OF THAT STATE.  WE
THINK THAT IT IS NOT, AND HOLD THAT IT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE GRAVE AND PERPLEXING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DISLOCATION WHICH THIS
STATUTE REFLECTS IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE AND CONCERN.  WE ARE
NOT UNMINDFUL OF IT.  WE APPRECIATE THAT THE SPECTACLE OF LARGE
SEGMENTS OF OUR POPULATION CONSTANTLY ON THE MOVE HAS GIVEN RISE TO
URGENT DEMANDS UPON THE INGENUITY OF GOVERNMENT.  BOTH THE BRIEF OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA AND THAT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECT
COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, AS
AMICUS CURIAE, HAVE SHARPENED THIS APPRECIATION.  THE STATE ASSERTS
THAT THE HUGE INFLUX OF MIGRANTS INTO CALIFORNIA IN RECENT YEARS HAS
RESULTED IN PROBLEMS OF HEALTH, MORALS, AND ESPECIALLY FINANCE, THE
PROPORTIONS OF WHICH ARE STAGGERING.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO SAY THAT THIS
IS NOT TRUE.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY AND RECENTLY AFFIRMED, AND WE NOW
REAFFIRM, THAT WE DO NOT CONCEIVE IT OUR FUNCTION TO PASS UPON "THE
WISDOM, NEED, OR APPROPRIATENESS" OF THE LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS OF THE
STATES TO SOLVE SUCH DIFFICULTIES.  SEE OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313 U.S.
236, 246. 

BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE ARE NO BOUNDARIES TO THE
PERMISSIBLE AREA OF STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY.  THERE ARE.  AND NONE
IS MORE CERTAIN THAN THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ATTEMPTS ON THE PART OF
ANY SINGLE STATE TO ISOLATE ITSELF FROM DIFFICULTIES COMMON TO ALL OF
THEM BY RESTRAINING THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACROSS
ITS BORDERS.  IT IS FREQUENTLY THE CASE THAT A STATE MIGHT GAIN A
MOMENTARY RESPITE FROM THE PRESSURE OF EVENTS BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT
OF SHUTTING ITS GATES TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD.  BUT, IN THE WORDS OF MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO:  "THE CONSTITUTION WAS FRAMED UNDER THE DOMINION OF A
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY LESS PAROCHIAL IN RANGE.  IT WAS FRAMED UPON THE
THEORY THAT THE PEOPLES OF THE SEVERAL STATES MUST SINK OR SWIM
TOGETHER, AND THAT IN THE LONG RUN PROSPERITY AND SALVATION ARE IN
UNION AND NOT DIVISION."  BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 523. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF A STATUTE MORE SQUARELY IN CONFLICT
WITH THIS THEORY THAN THE SECTION CHALLENGED HERE.  ITS EXPRESS PURPOSE
AND INEVITABLE EFFECT IS TO PROHIBIT THE TRANSPORTATION OF INDIGENT
PERSONS ACROSS THE CALIFORNIA BORDER.  THE BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS INTENDED AND IMMEDIATE; IT IS THE PLAIN AND SOLE FUNCTION
OF THE STATUTE.  MOREOVER, THE INDIGENT NON-RESIDENTS WHO ARE THE REAL
VICTIMS OF THE STATUTE ARE DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXERT
POLITICAL PRESSURE UPON THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A
CHANGE IN POLICY.  SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303
U.S. 177, 185, N. 2.  WE THINK THIS STATUTE MUST FAIL UNDER ANY KNOWN
TEST OF THE VALIDITY OF STATE INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT THE CONCEPT WHICH UNDERLIES SEC. 2615
ENJOYS A FIRM BASIS IN ENGLISH AND AMERICAN HISTORY.  FN2  THIS IS THE
NOTION THAT EACH COMMUNITY SHOULD CARE FOR ITS OWN INDIGENT, THAT
RELIEF IS SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.  OF THIS IT
MUST FIRST BE SAID THAT WE ARE NOT NOW CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PROPRIETY OF AN ATTEMPT BY A STATE TO PROHIBIT
THE TRANSPORTATION OF INDIGENT NON-RESIDENTS INTO ITS TERRITORY.  THE
NATURE AND EXTENT OF ITS OBLIGATION TO AFFORD RELIEF TO NEWCOMERS IS
NOT HERE INVOLVED.  WE DO, HOWEVER, SUGGEST THAT THE THEORY OF THE
ELIZABETHAN POOR LAWS NO LONGER FITS THE FACTS.  RECENT YEARS, AND
PARTICULARLY THE PAST DECADE, HAVE BEEN MARKED BY A GROWING RECOGNITION
THAT IN AN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY THE TASK OF PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO THE
NEEDY HAS CEASED TO BE LOCAL IN CHARACTER.  THE DUTY TO SHARE THE
BURDEN, IF NOT WHOLLY TO ASSUME IT, HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED NOT ONLY BY
STATE GOVERNMENTS, BUT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL.  THE CHANGED
ATTITUDE IS REFLECTED IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS UNDER WHICH THE
FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS COOPERATE FOR THE CARE OF THE AGED, THE
BLIND AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN.  U.S.C., TITLE 42, SECS. 301-1307, ESP. 
SECS.  301, 501, 601, 701, 721, 801, 1201.  IT IS REFLECTED IN THE
WORKS PROGRAMS UNDER WHICH WORK IS FURNISHED THE UNEMPLOYED, WITH THE
STATES SUPPLYING APPROXIMATELY 25% AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
APPROXIMATELY 75% OF THE COST.  SEE, E.G., JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 26,
1940, C. 432, SEC. 1(D), 54 STAT. 611, 613.  IT IS FURTHER REFLECTED IN
THE FARM SECURITY LAWS, UNDER WHICH THE ENTIRE COST OF THE RELIEF
PROVISIONS IS BORNE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  ID., AT SECS. 2(A),
2(B), 2(D). 

INDEED, THE RECORD IN THIS VERY CASE ILLUSTRATES THE INADEQUATE BASIS
IN FACT FOR THE THEORY THAT RELIEF IS PRESENTLY A LOCAL MATTER.  BEFORE
LEAVING TEXAS, DUNCAN HAD RECEIVED ASSISTANCE FROM THE WORKS PROGRESS
ADMINISTRATION.  AFTER ARRIVING IN CALIFORNIA HE WAS AIDED BY THE FARM
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, WHICH, AS WE HAVE SAID, IS WHOLLY FINANCED BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT OUR JUDGMENT WOULD BE
DIFFERENT IF DUNCAN HAD RECEIVED RELIEF FROM LOCAL AGENCIES IN TEXAS
AND CALIFORNIA.  NOR IS IT TO SUGGEST THAT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF
ASSISTANCE TO INDIGENT PERSONS DOES NOT CONTINUE TO FALL HEAVILY UPON
LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS.  IT IS ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THAT IN NOT
INCONSIDERABLE MEASURE THE RELIEF OF THE NEEDY HAS BECOME THE COMMON
RESPONSIBILITY AND CONCERN OF THE WHOLE NATION.    WHAT HAS BEEN SAID
WITH RESPECT TO FINANCING RELIEF IS NOT WITHOUT ITS BEARING UPON THE
REGULATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF INDIGENT PERSONS.  FOR THE SOCIAL
PHENOMENON OF LARGE-SCALE INTERSTATE MIGRATION IS AS CERTAINLY A MATTER
OF NATIONAL CONCERN AS THE PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE TO THOSE WHO HAVE
FOUND A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY ABODE.  MOREOVER, AND UNLIKE THE RELIEF
PROBLEM, THIS PHENOMENON DOES NOT ADMIT OF DIVERSE TREATMENT BY THE
SEVERAL STATES.  THE PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSPORTING INDIGENT NON
RESIDENTS INTO ONE STATE IS AN OPEN INVITATION TO RETALIATORY MEASURES,
AND THE BURDENS UPON THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH PERSONS BECOME
CUMULATIVE.  MOREOVER, IT WOULD BE A VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY FOR MIGRANTS
AND THOSE WHO TRANSPORT THEM TO ACQUAINT THEMSELVES WITH THE PECULIAR
RULES OF ADMISSION OF MANY STATES.  "THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY DECLARED
THAT THE GRANT (THE COMMERCE CLAUSE) ESTABLISHED THE IMMUNITY OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE CONTROL OF THE STATES RESPECTING ALL THOSE
SUBJECTS EMBRACED WITHIN THE GRANT WHICH ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO
DEMAND THAT, IF REGULATED AT ALL, THEIR REGULATION MUST BE PRESCRIBED
BY A SINGLE AUTHORITY."  MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS,
306 U.S. 346, 351.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OF
INDIGENT PERSONS FROM STATE TO STATE CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THIS CLASS OF
SUBJECTS.  THE SCOPE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM
WE ARE NOT NOW CALLED UPON TO DECIDE. 

THERE REMAINS TO BE NOTICED ONLY THE CONTENTION THAT THE LIMITATION
UPON STATE POWER TO INTERFERE WITH THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF
PERSONS IS SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION IN THE CASE OF "PAUPERS."  IT IS
TRUE THAT SUPPORT FOR THIS CONTENTION MAY BE FOUND IN EARLY DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT.  IN CITY OF NEW YORK V. MILN, 11 PET. 102, AT 143, IT
WAS SAID THAT IT IS "AS COMPETENT AND AS NECESSARY FOR A STATE TO
PROVIDE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AGAINST THE MORAL PESTILENCE OF PAUPERS,
VAGABONDS, AND POSSIBLY CONVICTS, AS IT IS TO GUARD AGAINST THE
PHYSICAL PESTILENCE, WHICH MAY ARISE FROM UNSOUND AND INFECTIOUS
ARTICLES IMPORTED,  ...  "  THIS LANGUAGE HAS BEEN CASUALLY REPEATED IN
NUMEROUS LATER CASES UP TO THE TURN OF THE CENTURY.  SEE, E.G.,
PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOW.  283, 426 AND 466-467; RAILWAY COMPANY V.
HUSEN, 95 U.S. 465, 471; PLUMLEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 155 U.S. 461, 478;
MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. HABER, 169 U.S. 613, 629.  IN NONE OF
THESE CASES, HOWEVER, WAS THE POWER OF A STATE TO EXCLUDE "PAUPERS"
ACTUALLY INVOLVED. 

WHETHER AN ABLE-BODIED BUT UNEMPLOYED PERSON LIKE DUNCAN IS A
"PAUPER" WITHIN THE HISTORICAL MEANING OF THE TERM IS OPEN TO
CONSIDERABLE DOUBT.  SEE 53 HARVARD L. REV. 1031, 1032.  BUT ASSUMING
THAT THE TERM IS APPLICABLE TO HIM AND TO PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
WE DO NOT CONSIDER OURSELVES BOUND BY THE LANGUAGE REFERRED TO.  CITY
OF NEW YORK V. MILN WAS DECIDED IN 1837.  WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE
NOTION THEN PREVAILING, WE DO NOT THINK THAT IT WILL NOW BE SERIOUSLY
CONTENDED THAT BECAUSE A PERSON IS WITHOUT EMPLOYMENT AND WITHOUT FUNDS
HE CONSTITUTES A "MORAL PESTILENCE."  POVERTY AND IMMORALITY ARE NOT
SYNONYMOUS. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SEC. 2615 IS NOT A VALID EXERCISE OF THE
POLICE POWER OF CALIFORNIA; THAT IT IMPOSES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THAT THE CONVICTION UNDER IT CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED.  IN THE VIEW WE HAVE TAKEN IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE
WHETHER THE SECTION IS REPUGNANT TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  GLOUCESTER FERRY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 114 U.S. 196, 203; LEISY
V. HARDIN, 135 U.S. 100, 112; COVINGTON BRIDGE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 154
U.S. 204, 218; HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 308, 320; CAMINETTI V.
UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470, 491; UNITED STATES V. HILL, 248 U.S. 420,
423; MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 80.  CF.  THE FEDERAL
KIDNAPING ACT OF 1932, U.S.C., TITLE 18, SECS. 408A-408C.  IT IS
IMMATERIAL WHETHER OR NOT THE TRANSPORTATION IS COMMERCIAL IN
CHARACTER.  SEE CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

FN2  SEE HIRSCH, H. M., OUR SETTLEMENT LAWS (N.Y. DEPT. OF SOCIAL
WELFARE, 1933), PASSIM. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

I EXPRESS NO VIEW ON WHETHER OR NOT THE STATUTE HERE IN QUESTION RUNS
AFOUL OF ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION GRANTING TO CONGRESS THE
POWER "TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, AND AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES."  BUT I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE RIGHT OF PERSONS TO MOVE
FREELY FROM STATE TO STATE OCCUPIES A MORE PROTECTED POSITION IN OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM THAN DOES THE MOVEMENT OF CATTLE, FRUIT, STEEL
AND COAL ACROSS STATE LINES.  WHILE THE OPINION OF THE COURT EXPRESSES
NO VIEW ON THAT ISSUE, THE RIGHT INVOLVED IS SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT I DEEM
IT APPROPRIATE TO INDICATE THE REACH OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
WHICH IS PRESENT. 

THE RIGHT TO MOVE FREELY FROM STATE TO STATE IS AN INCIDENT OF
NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP PROTECTED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST STATE INTERFERENCE.  MR. JUSTICE
MOODY IN TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 97, STATED, "PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  ARE ONLY SUCH AS
ARISE OUT OF THE NATURE AND ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, OR ARE SPECIFICALLY GRANTED OR SECURED TO ALL CITIZENS OR
PERSONS BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  AND HE WENT ON TO
STATE THAT ONE OF THOSE RIGHTS OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WAS "THE RIGHT
TO PASS FREELY FROM STATE TO STATE."  ID., P. 97.  NOW IT IS APPARENT
THAT THIS RIGHT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  YET
BEFORE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IT WAS RECOGNIZED AS A RIGHT
FUNDAMENTAL TO THE NATIONAL CHARACTER OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IT
WAS SO DECIDED IN 1867 BY CRANDALL V. NEVADA, 6 WALL.  35.  IN THAT
CASE THIS COURT STRUCK DOWN A NEVADA TAX "UPON EVERY PERSON LEAVING THE
STATE" BY COMMON CARRIER.  MR. JUSTICE MILLER WRITING FOR THE COURT
HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO MOVE FREELY THROUGHOUT THE NATION WAS A RIGHT OF
NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP.  THAT THE RIGHT WAS IMPLIED DID NOT MAKE IT ANY
THE LESS "GUARANTEED" BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ID., P. 47.  TO BE SURE, HE
EMPHASIZED THAT THE NEVADA STATUTE WOULD OBSTRUCT THE RIGHT OF A
CITIZEN TO TRAVEL TO THE SEAT OF HIS NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS OFFICES
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V. WHEELER, 254 U.S.
281, 299.  BUT THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF THE
CRANDALL CASE THAT THE PERSONS THERE INVOLVED WERE EN ROUTE ON ANY SUCH
MISSION ANY MORE THAN IT APPEARS IN THIS CASE THAT DUNCAN ENTERED
CALIFORNIA TO INTERVIEW SOME FEDERAL AGENCY.  THE POINT WHICH MR.
JUSTICE MILLER MADE WAS MERELY IN ILLUSTRATION OF THE DAMAGE AND HAVOC
WHICH WOULD ENSUE IF THE STATES HAD THE POWER TO PREVENT THE FREE
MOVEMENT OF CITIZENS FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER.  THIS IS EMPHASIZED BY
HIS QUOTATION FROM CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S DISSENTING OPINION IN THE
PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOW.  283, 492:  "WE ARE ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES; AND, AS MEMBERS OF THE SAME COMMUNITY, MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO
PASS AND REPASS THROUGH EVERY PART OF IT WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, AS
FREELY AS IN OUR OWN STATES."  HENCE THE DICTUM IN UNITED STATES V.
WHEELER, SUPRA, P. 299, WHICH ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT THE CRANDALL CASE TO A
HOLDING THAT THE STATUTE IN QUESTION DIRECTLY BURDENED "THE PERFORMANCE
BY THE UNITED STATES OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS" AND LIMITED THE
"RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS GROWING OUT OF SUCH FUNCTIONS," DOES NOT BEAR
ANALYSIS. 

SO, WHEN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868, IT HAD BEEN
SQUARELY AND AUTHORITATIVELY SETTLED THAT THE RIGHT TO MOVE FREELY FROM
STATE TO STATE WAS A RIGHT OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP.  AS SUCH IT WAS
PROTECTED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AGAINST STATE INTERFERENCE.  SLAUGHTER HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL. 
36, 74, 79.  IN THE LATTER CASE MR. JUSTICE MILLER RECOGNIZED THAT IT
WAS SO "PROTECTED BY IMPLIED GUARANTEES" OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ID., P.
79.  THAT WAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED IN TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA.  AND
CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER IN WILLIAMS V. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, 274, STATED:
"UNDOUBTEDLY THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION, THE RIGHT TO REMOVE FROM ONE
PLACE TO ANOTHER ACCORDING TO INCLINATION, IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF PERSONAL
LIBERTY, AND THE RIGHT, ORDINARILY, OF FREE TRANSIT FROM OR THROUGH THE
TERRITORY OF ANY STATE IS A RIGHT SECURED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION." 

IN THE FACE OF THIS HISTORY I CANNOT ACCEDE TO THE SUGGESTION (HELSON
& RANDOLPH V. KENTUCKY, 279 U.S. 245, 251; COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S.
404, 444) THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS THE APPROPRIATE EXPLANATION OF
CRANDALL V. NEVADA, SUPRA.  TWO OF THE JUSTICES IN THAT CASE EXPRESSLY
PUT THE DECISION ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE; THE OTHERS PUT IT ON THE
BROADER GROUND OF RIGHTS OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP, MR. JUSTICE MILLER
STATING THAT "WE DO NOT CONCEDE THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS TO BE
DETERMINED" BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  ID., P. 43.  ON THAT BROADER
GROUND IT SHOULD CONTINUE TO REST. 

TO BE SURE, THERE ARE EXPRESSIONS IN THE CASES THAT THIS RIGHT OF
FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS IS AN INCIDENT OF STATE CITIZENSHIP PROTECTED
AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY STATE ACTION BY ART. IV, SEC. 2 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  CORFIELD V. CORYELL, 4 WASH. C.C. 371, 381; PAUL V.
VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168, 180; WARD V. MARYLAND, 12 WALL.  418, 430;
UNITED STATES V. WHEELER, SUPRA, PP. 298-299.  UNDER THE DICTA OF THOSE
CASES THE STATUTE IN THE INSTANT CASE WOULD NOT SURVIVE, SINCE
CALIFORNIA IS CURTAILING ONLY THE FREE MOVEMENT OF INDIGENTS WHO ARE
NON-RESIDENTS OF THAT STATE.  BUT THE THRUST OF THE CRANDALL CASE IS
DEEPER.  MR. JUSTICE MILLER ADVERTED TO CORFIELD V. CORYELL, PAUL V.
VIRGINIA, AND WARD V. MARYLAND, WHEN HE STATED IN THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE
CASES THAT THE RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE CRANDALL CASE WAS A RIGHT OF
NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP ARISING FROM THE "IMPLIED GUARANTEES" OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  16 WALL.  AT PP. 75-79.  BUT HIS FAILURE TO CLASSIFY
THAT RIGHT AS ONE OF STATE CITIZENSHIP PROTECTED SOLELY BY ART. IV,
SEC. 2, UNDERSCORES HIS VIEW THAT THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS
THROUGHOUT THIS NATION WAS A RIGHT OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP.  IT
LIKEWISE EMPHASIZES THAT ART. IV, SEC. 2, WHATEVER ITS REACH, IS
PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE INCIDENTS OF RESIDENCE (THE MATTER
INVOLVED IN UNITED STATES V. WHEELER, SUPRA) AND THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS
WITHIN A STATE, SO THAT A CITIZEN OF ONE STATE IS NOT IN A "CONDITION
OF ALIENAGE WHEN HE IS WITHIN OR WHEN HE REMOVES TO ANOTHER STATE." 
BLAKE V. MCCLUNG, 172 U.S. 239, 256.  FURTHERMORE, ART. IV, SEC. 2,
CANNOT EXPLAIN THE CRANDALL DECISION.  THE STATUTE IN THAT CASE APPLIED
TO CITIZENS OF NEVADA AS WELL AS TO CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES.  THAT IS
TO SAY, NEVADA WAS NOT "DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES
IN FAVOR OF ITS OWN."  HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION,
307 U.S. 496, 511 AND CASES CITED.  THUS IT IS PLAIN THAT THE RIGHT OF
FREE INGRESS AND EGRESS RISES TO A HIGHER CONSTITUTIONAL DIGNITY THAN
THAT AFFORDED BY STATE CITIZENSHIP. 

THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT IS A RIGHT OF NATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP STANDS ON FIRM HISTORICAL GROUND.  IF A STATE TAX ON THAT
MOVEMENT, AS IN THE CRANDALL CASE, IS INVALID, A FORTIORI A STATE
STATUTE WHICH OBSTRUCTS OR IN SUBSTANCE PREVENTS THAT MOVEMENT MUST
FALL.  THAT RESULT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS UNLESS PERCHANCE A STATE CAN
CURTAIL THE RIGHT OF FREE MOVEMENT OF THOSE WHO ARE POOR OR DESTITUTE. 
BUT TO ALLOW SUCH AN EXCEPTION TO BE ENGRAFTED ON THE RIGHTS OF
NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WOULD BE TO CONTRAVENE EVERY CONCEPTION OF
NATIONAL UNITY.  IT WOULD ALSO INTRODUCE A CASTE SYSTEM UTTERLY
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  IT WOULD
PERMIT THOSE WHO WERE STIGMATIZED BY A STATE AS INDIGENTS, PAUPERS, OR
VAGABONDS TO BE RELEGATED TO AN INFERIOR CLASS OF CITIZENSHIP.  IT
WOULD PREVENT A CITIZEN BECAUSE HE WAS POOR FROM SEEKING NEW HORIZONS
IN OTHER STATES.  IT MIGHT THUS WITHHOLD FROM LARGE SEGMENTS OF OUR
PEOPLE THAT MOBILITY WHICH IS BASIC TO ANY GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF
OPPORTUNITY.  THE RESULT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL DILUTION OF THE RIGHTS
OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP, A SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
EQUALITY.  SINCE THE STATE STATUTE HERE CHALLENGED INVOLVES SUCH
CONSEQUENCES, IT RUNS AFOUL OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, CONCURRING: 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT, AND I AGREE THAT THE
GROUNDS OF ITS DECISION ARE PERMISSIBLE ONES UNDER APPLICABLE
AUTHORITIES.  BUT THE MIGRATIONS OF A HUMAN BEING, OF WHOM IT IS
CHARGED THAT HE POSSESSES NOTHING THAT CAN BE SOLD AND HAS NO
WHEREWITHAL TO BUY, DO NOT FIT EASILY INTO MY NOTIONS AS TO WHAT IS
COMMERCE.  TO HOLD THAT THE MEASURE OF HIS RIGHTS IS THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE IS LIKELY TO RESULT EVENTUALLY EITHER IN DISTORTING THE
COMMERCIAL LAW OR IN DENATURING HUMAN RIGHTS.  I TURN, THEREFORE, AWAY
FROM PRINCIPLES BY WHICH COMMERCE IS REGULATED TO THAT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION BY VIRTUE OF WHICH DUNCAN IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WHICH FORBIDS ANY STATE TO ABRIDGE HIS PRIVILEGES OR
IMMUNITIES AS SUCH. 

THIS CLAUSE WAS ADOPTED TO MAKE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP THE
DOMINANT AND PARAMOUNT ALLEGIANCE AMONG US.  THE RETURN WHICH THE LAW
HAD LONG ASSOCIATED WITH ALLEGIANCE WAS PROTECTION.  THE POWER OF
CITIZENSHIP AS A SHIELD AGAINST OPPRESSION WAS WIDELY KNOWN FROM THE
EXAMPLE OF PAUL'S ROMAN CITIZENSHIP, WHICH SENT THE CENTURION SCURRYING
TO HIS HIGHER-UPS WITH THE MESSAGE:  "TAKE HEED WHAT THOU DOEST:  FOR
THIS MAN IS A ROMAN."  I SUPPOSE NONE OF US DOUBTS THAT THE HOPE OF
IMPARTING TO AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP SOME OF THIS VITALITY WAS THE PURPOSE
OF DECLARING IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT:  "ALL PERSONS BORN OR
NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE WHEREIN
THEY RESIDE.  NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL
ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
...  "    BUT THE HOPE PROCLAIMED IN SUCH GENERALITY SOON SHRIVELED IN
THE PROCESS OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION.  FOR NEARLY THREE-QUARTERS OF A
CENTURY THIS COURT REJECTED EVERY PLEA TO THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE.  THE JUDICIAL HISTORY OF THIS CLAUSE AND THE VERY REAL
DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION TO SPECIFIC CASES
HAVE BEEN TOO WELL AND RECENTLY REVIEWED TO WARRANT REPETITION.  FN1 

WHILE INSTANCES OF VALID "PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES" MUST BE BUT FEW,
I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS IS ONE.  I DO NOT IGNORE OR BELITTLE THE
DIFFICULTIES OF WHAT HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY THIS COURT AS AN "ALMOST
FORGOTTEN" CLAUSE.  BUT THE DIFFICULTY OF THE TASK DOES NOT EXCUSE US
FROM GIVING THESE GENERAL AND ABSTRACT WORDS WHATEVER OF SPECIFIC
CONTENT AND CONCRETENESS THEY WILL BEAR AS WE MARK OUT THEIR
APPLICATION, CASE BY CASE.  THAT IS THE METHOD OF THE COMMON LAW, AND
IT HAS BEEN THE METHOD OF THIS COURT WITH OTHER NO LESS GENERAL
STATEMENTS IN OUR FUNDAMENTAL LAW.  THIS COURT HAS NOT BEEN TIMOROUS
ABOUT GIVING CONCRETE MEANING TO SUCH OBSCURE AND VAGRANT PHRASES AS
"DUE PROCESS," "GENERAL WELFARE," "EQUAL PROTECTION," OR EVEN "COMMERCE
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES."  BUT IT HAS ALWAYS HESITATED TO GIVE ANY
REAL MEANING TO THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE LEST IT
IMPROVIDENTLY GIVE TOO MUCH. 

THIS COURT SHOULD, HOWEVER, HOLD SQUARELY THAT IT IS A PRIVILEGE OF
CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, PROTECTED FROM STATE ABRIDGMENT, TO
ENTER ANY STATE OF THE UNION, EITHER FOR TEMPORARY SOJOURN OR FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE THEREIN AND FOR GAINING RESULTANT
CITIZENSHIP THEREOF.  IF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP MEANS LESS THAN THIS, IT
MEANS NOTHING. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DECLARING TWO KINDS OF
CITIZENSHIP IS DISCRIMINATING.  IT IS:  "ALL PERSONS BORN OR
NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE WHEREIN
THEY RESIDE."  WHILE IT THUS ESTABLISHES NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP FROM THE
MERE CIRCUMSTANCE OF BIRTH WITHIN THE TERRITORY AND JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, BIRTH WITHIN A STATE DOES NOT ESTABLISH CITIZENSHIP
THEREOF.  STATE CITIZENSHIP IS EPHEMERAL.  IT RESULTS ONLY FROM
RESIDENCE AND IS GAINED OR LOST THEREWITH.  THAT CHOICE OF RESIDENCE
WAS SUBJECT TO LOCAL APPROVAL IS CONTRARY TO THE INESCAPABLE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE WESTWARD MOVEMENT OF OUR CIVILIZATION. 

EVEN AS TO AN ALIEN WHO HAD "BEEN ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE FEDERAL LAW," THIS COURT, THROUGH MR. JUSTICE HUGHES, DECLARED THAT
"HE WAS THUS ADMITTED WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF ENTERING AND ABIDING IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND HENCE OF ENTERING AND ABIDING IN ANY STATE IN THE
UNION."  TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, 39.  WHY WE SHOULD HESITATE TO
HOLD THAT FEDERAL CITIZENSHIP IMPLIES RIGHTS TO ENTER AND ABIDE IN ANY
STATE OF THE UNION AT LEAST EQUAL TO THOSE POSSESSED BY ALIENS PASSES
MY UNDERSTANDING.  THE WORLD IS EVEN MORE UPSIDE DOWN THAN I HAD
SUPPOSED IT TO BE, IF CALIFORNIA MUST ACCEPT ALIENS IN DEFERENCE TO
THEIR FEDERAL PRIVILEGES BUT IS FREE TO TURN BACK CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES UNLESS WE TREAT THEM AS SUBJECTS OF COMMERCE. 

THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZEN TO MIGRATE FROM STATE TO STATE WHICH, I
AGREE WITH MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, IS SHOWN BY OUR PRECEDENTS TO BE ONE OF
NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP, IS NOT, HOWEVER, AN UNLIMITED ONE.  IN ADDITION
TO BEING SUBJECT TO ALL CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH CITIZEN IS SUBJECT TO SOME CONTROL BY STATE
GOVERNMENTS.  HE MAY NOT, IF A FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE, CLAIM FREEDOM TO
MIGRATE UNMOLESTED, NOR MAY HE ENDANGER OTHERS BY CARRYING CONTAGION
ABOUT.  THESE CAUSES, AND PERHAPS OTHERS THAT DO NOT OCCUR TO ME NOW,
WARRANT ANY PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN STOPPING A MAN WHERE IT FINDS HIM AND
ARRESTING HIS PROGRESS ACROSS A STATE LINE QUITE AS MUCH AS FROM PLACE
TO PLACE WITHIN THE STATE. 

IT IS HERE THAT WE MEET THE REAL CRUX OF THIS CASE.  DOES "INDIGENCE"
AS DEFINED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE CONSTITUTE A
BASIS FOR RESTRICTING THE FREEDOM OF A CITIZEN, AS CRIME OR CONTAGION
WARRANTS ITS RESTRICTION?  WE SHOULD SAY NOW, AND IN NO UNCERTAIN
TERMS, THAT A MAN'S MERE PROPERTY STATUS, WITHOUT MORE, CANNOT BE USED
BY A STATE TO TEST, QUALIFY, OR LIMIT HIS RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES.  "INDIGENCE" IN ITSELF IS NEITHER A SOURCE OF RIGHTS NOR
A BASIS FOR DENYING THEM.  THE MERE STATE OF BEING WITHOUT FUNDS IS A
NEUTRAL FACT - CONSTITUTIONALLY AN IRRELEVANCE, LIKE RACE, CREED, OR
COLOR.  I AGREE WITH WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE THE HOLDING OF THE COURT
THAT CASES WHICH MAY INDICATE THE CONTRARY ARE OVERRULED. 

ANY MEASURE WHICH WOULD DIVIDE OUR CITIZENRY ON THE BASIS OF PROPERTY
INTO ONE CLASS FREE TO MOVE FROM STATE TO STATE AND ANOTHER CLASS THAT
IS POVERTY-BOUND TO THE PLACE WHERE IT HAS SUFFERED MISFORTUNE IS NOT
ONLY AT WAR WITH THE HABIT AND CUSTOM BY WHICH OUR COUNTRY HAS
EXPANDED, BUT IS ALSO A SHORT-SIGHTED BLOW AT THE SECURITY OF PROPERTY
ITSELF.  PROPERTY CAN HAVE NO MORE DANGEROUS, EVEN IF UNWITTING, ENEMY
THAN ONE WHO WOULD MAKE ITS POSSESSION A PRETEXT FOR UNEQUAL OR
EXCLUSIVE CIVIL RIGHTS.  WHERE THOSE RIGHTS ARE DERIVED FROM NATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP NO STATE MAY IMPOSE SUCH A TEST, AND WHETHER THE CONGRESS
COULD DO SO WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO INQUIRE. 

I THINK CALIFORNIA HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE THE CONDITION OF DUNCAN'S
PURSE, WITH NO EVIDENCE OF VIOLATION BY HIM OF ANY LAW OR SOCIAL POLICY
WHICH CAUSED IT, THE BASIS OF EXCLUDING HIM OR OF PUNISHING ONE WHO
EXTENDED HIM AID. 

IF I DOUBTED WHETHER HIS FEDERAL CITIZENSHIP ALONE WERE ENOUGH TO
OPEN THE GATES OF CALIFORNIA TO DUNCAN, MY DOUBT WOULD DISAPPEAR ON
CONSIDERATION OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF SUCH CITIZENSHIP.  DUNCAN OWES A
DUTY TO RENDER MILITARY SERVICE, AND THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT THIS DUTY
IS THE RESULT OF HIS CITIZENSHIP.  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE DECLARED IN
THE SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366, 378:  "IT MAY NOT BE
DOUBTED THAT THE VERY CONCEPTION OF A JUST GOVERNMENT AND ITS DUTY TO
THE CITIZEN INCLUDES THE RECIPROCAL OBLIGATION OF THE CITIZEN TO RENDER
MILITARY SERVICE IN CASE OF NEED AND THE RIGHT TO COMPEL IT."  A
CONTENTION THAT A CITIZEN'S DUTY TO RENDER MILITARY SERVICE IS
SUSPENDED BY "INDIGENCE" WOULD MEET WITH LITTLE FAVOR.  RICH OR
PENNILESS, DUNCAN'S CITIZENSHIP UNDER THE CONSTITUTION PLEDGES HIS
STRENGTH TO THE DEFENSE OF CALIFORNIA AS A PART OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND HIS RIGHT TO MIGRATE TO ANY PART OF THE LAND HE MUST DEFEND IS
SOMETHING SHE MUST RESPECT UNDER THE SAME INSTRUMENT.  UNLESS THIS
COURT IS WILLING TO SAY THAT CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES MEANS AT
LEAST THIS MUCH TO THE CITIZEN, THEN OUR HERITAGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES IS ONLY A PROMISE TO THE EAR TO BE BROKEN TO
THE HOPE, A TEASING ILLUSION LIKE A MUNIFICENT BEQUEST IN A PAUPER'S
WILL. 

FN1  SEE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE STONE IN COLGATE V.
HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, 436, ET SEQ.
..END :







COMMERCIAL CORP. V. N.Y. BARGE CORP., 314 U.S. 104 


NO. 14.  REARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 17, 1941.  - 114
F.2D 248, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE CASE OF AN UNEXPLAINED SINKING OF A VESSEL UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY GIVE RISE TO AN INFERENCE OF UNSEAWORTHINESS,
THE PARTY ON WHOM THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS MUST DO MORE THAN MAKE A
CASE UPON THE WHOLE EVIDENCE SO EVENLY BALANCED THAT THE TRIER OF FACT
IS UNABLE TO RESOLVE DOUBTS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE INFERENCE.  PP.
105, 114. 

2.  WHERE THE OWNER OF A VESSEL HAS NOT ASSUMED THE COMMON CARRIER'S
SPECIAL UNDERTAKING TO DELIVER THE CARGO SAFELY, THE BURDEN OF PROVING
A BREACH OF THE SHIPOWNER'S DUTY TO FURNISH A SEAWORTHY VESSEL RESTS
UPON THE BAILOR.  P. 110. 

3.  THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN SUCH A CASE DOES NOT SHIFT WITH THE
EVIDENCE, BUT REMAINS WITH THE BAILOR, WHO MUST PROVE HIS CASE BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE.  P. 110. 

COMMERCIAL MOLASSES CORP. V. NEW YORK TANK BARGE CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

THIS CASE CAME HERE ON CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW THE
AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT DISMISSING PETITIONER'S CLAIM IN A PROCEEDING
IN ADMIRALTY BROUGHT ORIGINALLY BY THE RESPONDENT FOR A LIMITATION OF
LIABILITY.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT,
313 U.S. 541; SUBSEQUENTLY, A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS GRANTED, THE
JUDGMENT WAS VACATED, AND THE CASE WAS RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR
REARGUMENT, 313 U.S. 596. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY ORIGINATING IN THE DISTRICT COURT
UPON A PETITION BY RESPONDENT, AS CHARTERED OWNER OF THE TANK BARGE
"T.N. NO. 73," FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO PETITIONER'S
SHIPMENT OF MOLASSES RESULTING FROM THE SINKING OF THE BARGE IN NEW
YORK HARBOR. 

PETITIONER, THE SOLE CLAIMANT IN THE LIMITATION PROCEEDING, FILED, IN
BEHALF OF THE INSURER, ITS CLAIM FOR LOSS OF THE MOLASSES ON THE BARGE,
WHICH SANK ON OCT. 23, 1937, WHILE TAKING ON THE SHIPMENT FROM THE S.S.
"ALTHELSULTAN."  THE BARGE SANK IN SMOOTH WATER, WITHOUT CONTACT WITH
ANY OTHER VESSEL OR EXTERNAL OBJECT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE SINKING.  BY THE
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT WITH PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST,
EXTENDED TO COVER THE YEAR 1937, RESPONDENT UNDERTOOK TO TRANSPORT THE
MOLASSES BY BARGES IN NEW YORK HARBOR FROM VESSELS OR TIDEWATER
REFINERIES TO THE SHIPPER'S CUSTOMERS; AND AGREED THAT THE BARGES ARE
"TIGHT, STAUNCH, STRONG AND IN EVERY WAY FITTED FOR THE CARRIAGE OF
MOLASSES WITHIN THE LIMITS ABOVE MENTIONED AND (RESPONDENT) WILL
MAINTAIN THE BARGES IN SUCH CONDITION DURING THE LIFE OF THIS
CONTRACT."  THE CONTRACT ALSO CONTAINED AN UNDERTAKING ON THE PART OF
THE SHIPPER OF THE MOLASSES TO EFFECT INSURANCE ON CARGOES FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF RESPONDENT, THE BREACH OF WHICH, IT IS CONTENDED, OPERATED
TO RELIEVE RESPONDENT FROM LIABILITY FOR ANY UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE
BARGE. 

THE "T.N. NO. 73" WAS A STEEL TANK BARGE WITH FOUR CARGO TANKS, TWO
FORWARD AND TWO AFT, SEPARATED BY BULKHEADS, ONE EXTENDING FORE AND AFT
AND THE OTHER ATHWARTSHIP.  IT HAD A RAKE FORE AND AFT BEGINNING 23
INCHES BELOW THE DECK, AFFORDING SPACE FOR FORE AND AFT PEAK TANKS. 
THE CUSTOMARY METHOD OF STOWING THE BARGE WAS TO PUMP THE MOLASSES INTO
THE FORWARD TANKS UNTIL THE BARGE HAD A SPECIFIED FREEBOARD, THEN INTO
THE STERN TANKS UNTIL THE STERN HAD ANOTHER SPECIFIED FREEBOARD, THEN
BACK INTO THE FORWARD TANKS UNTIL THE BARGE WAS TRIMMED FORE AND AFT. 

IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT SHIPMENT, THE CUSTOMARY PROCEDURE WAS
FOLLOWED AND THE MOLASSES WAS FIRST PUMPED INTO THE FORWARD AND THEN
INTO THE AFTER TANKS AT A RATE OF FROM 3 TO 3 1/2 TONS A MINUTE.  WHEN
THE STERN HAD APPROXIMATELY THE DESIRED FREEBOARD THE MATE OF THE BARGE
WENT FORWARD TO OPEN THE VALVES OF THE DISCHARGE PIPES CONNECTING WITH
THE FORWARD TANKS SO AS TO FILL THEM SUFFICIENTLY TO TRIM THE BARGE
FORE AND AFT.  ON HIS WAY HE STOPPED FOR A SHORT TIME, THE LENGTH OF
WHICH WAS NOT PRECISELY FIXED, TO CARRY ON A CONVERSATION WITH SOME OF
THE MEN ON THE VESSEL LYING ALONGSIDE.  WHEN HE REACHED THE VALVES FOR
THE FORWARD TANKS AND BEFORE THE VALVES FOR THE AFTER TANKS HAD BEEN
CLOSED, THE BARGE SANK BY THE STERN.  ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE MOLASSES
WAS SAVED, AND THE VALUE OF THAT LOST LARGELY EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF THE
BARGE AFTER SALVAGE OPERATIONS. 

RESPONDENT ATTRIBUTED THE SINKING TO OVERLOADING OF THE AFTER TANKS
RESULTING FROM THE MATE'S DELAY IN SHIFTING THE FLOW OF THE MOLASSES
FROM THE STERN TO THE FORWARD TANKS.  IF, AS ALLEGED, OVER-FILLING OF
THE STERN TANKS CAUSED THE LOSS WITHOUT THE PRIVITY OR KNOWLEDGE OF
RESPONDENT, IT COULD LIMIT LIABILITY.  R.S. SEC. 4283, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
183; LA BOURGOGNE, 210 U.S. 95, 122; THE GEORGE W. PRATT, 76 F.2D 902. 
BUT IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE ANY QUESTION OF LIMITING LIABILITY
UNLESS PETITIONER, THE SOLE CLAIMANT, SUCCEEDED IN ESTABLISHING ITS
CLAIM. 

ON THE ISSUES THUS PRESENTED THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD A GREAT DEAL OF
TESTIMONY BY WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED TO ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING
THE LOADING AND SINKING OF THE BARGE, AND BY EXPERTS AS TO ITS
THEORETICAL LOAD CAPACITY AND THE PROBABLE DISPOSITION OF ITS LOAD AT
THE TIME THE BARGE SANK.  THERE WAS ALSO MUCH EVIDENCE BEARING ON THE
SEAWORTHINESS OF THE VESSEL.  THIS INCLUDED THE TESTIMONY OF A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CARGO INTERESTS WHO HAD INSPECTED THE BARGE JUST
BEFORE SHE BEGAN TO RECEIVE THE MOLASSES AND HAD FOUND THE TANKS DRY
AND CLEAN, AND WHO ADMITTED HE HAD FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF LEAKAGE.  THERE
WAS ALSO TESTIMONY BY A DIVER WHO HAD EXAMINED THE BARGE WHILE SHE WAS
ON THE BOTTOM, AND OF OTHERS WHO HAD EXAMINED HER CONDITION AFTER SHE
HAD BEEN RAISED AND PLACED IN DRY DOCK. 

AFTER A CAREFUL REVIEW OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, THE TRIAL JUDGE FOUND
THAT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE SINKING WAS
CAUSED BY OVERLOADING THE AFTER TANKS.  HE ALSO FOUND AS A FACT THAT
UPON ALL THE EVIDENCE "THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT HAS BEEN LEFT IN
DOUBT."  FROM ALL THIS HE CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT WAS CHARGEABLE UPON
ITS WARRANTY OF SEAWORTHINESS BY REASON OF THE "PRESUMPTION" OF
UNSEAWORTHINESS ARISING FROM THE UNEXPLAINED SINKING OF THE BARGE,
WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF THE RIGHT TO LIMIT LIABILITY.  BUT, AS
HE THOUGHT THE INSURANCE CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT
REQUIRED PETITIONER TO EFFECT CARGO INSURANCE FOR ACCOUNT OF
RESPONDENT, WHICH IT HAD FAILED TO DO, HE DISMISSED PETITIONER'S
CLAIM.  1939 A.M.C. 673. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 114 F.2D 248, BUT FOR A DIFFERENT
REASON THAN THAT ASSIGNED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE FOR HIS DECISION.  IT HELD
THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON PETITIONER TO PROVE THAT RESPONDENT HAD
FURNISHED AN UNSEAWORTHY BARGE.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE TRIAL COURT'S
FINDING, WHICH IT INTERPRETED AS MEANING "THAT THE EVIDENCE AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE BARGE SANK BECAUSE OF UNSEAWORTHINESS WAS SO EVENLY
MATCHED THAT THE JUDGE COULD COME TO NO CONCLUSION UPON THE ISSUE." 
BUT IT HELD THAT THE "PRESUMPTION OF UNSEAWORTHINESS," WHICH WOULD
ARISE FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE SINKING OF THE BARGE IN SMOOTH WATER
WITHOUT ANY OTHER APPARENT OR PROBABLE CAUSE, DID NOT SURVIVE THE
FURTHER PROOF WHICH LEFT IN DOUBT THE ISSUE OF THE CAUSE OF THE LOSS. 
THE COURT ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT SUSTAINED ITS
BURDEN.  IT THUS BECAME UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHAT BURDEN WOULD REST
ON THE BARGE OWNER IF HE WERE SEEKING TO LIMIT LIABILITY ON AN
ADMITTEDLY VALID CLAIM.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 643, TO
RESOLVE AN ALLEGED CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH THOSE OF OTHER
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  PACIFIC COAST S.S. CO. V. BANCROFT-WHITNEY
CO., 94 F. 180; THE JOHN TWOHY, 279 F. 343; LOVELAND CO. V. BETHLEHEM
STEEL CO., 33 F.2D 655; GARDNER V. DANTZLER LUMBER & EXPORT CO., 98
F.2D 478; CF. THE EDWIN I. MORRISON, 153 U.S. 199, AND BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE IN THE MARITIME LAW OF THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF, THIS CASE IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED
FROM THOSE IN WHICH THE BURDEN OF PROVING SEAWORTHINESS RESTS UPON THE
VESSEL WHEN IT IS A COMMON CARRIER OR HAS ASSUMED THE OBLIGATION OF A
COMMON CARRIER.  THE PRESENT CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT WAS FOR PRIVATE
CARRIAGE IN NEW YORK HARBOR:  THE FRI, 154 F. 333; THE G. R. CROWE, 294
F. 506; THE WILDENFELS, 161 F. 864; THE C. R. SHEFFER, 249 F. 600; THE
LYRA, 255 F. 667; THE NORDHVALEN, 6 F.2D 883, AND THUS GAVE TO
RESPONDENT THE STATUS OF A BAILEE FOR HIRE OF THE MOLASSES.  SOUTHERN
RY. CO. V. PRESCOTT, 240 U.S. 632, 640; KOHLSAAT V. PARKERSBURG & M.
SAND CO., 266 F. 283; ALPINE FORWARDING CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD
CO., 60 F.2D 734; GERHARD & HEY, INC. V. CATTARAUGUS T. CO., 241 N.Y.
413, 150 N.E. 500.  CF. THE NORDHVALEN, SUPRA, 887.  HENCE, WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED WITH THE RULE THAT ONE WHO HAS ASSUMED THE OBLIGATION OF A
COMMON CARRIER CAN RELIEVE HIMSELF OF LIABILITY FOR FAILING TO CARRY
SAFELY ONLY BY SHOWING THAT THE CAUSE OF LOSS WAS WITHIN ONE OF THE
NARROWLY RESTRICTED EXCEPTIONS WHICH THE LAW ITSELF ANNEXES TO HIS
UNDERTAKING, OR FOR WHICH IT PERMITS HIM TO STIPULATE.  THE BURDEN
RESTS UPON HIM TO SHOW THAT THE LOSS WAS DUE TO AN EXCEPTED CAUSE AND
THAT HE HAS EXERCISED DUE CARE TO AVOID IT, NOT IN CONSEQUENCE OF HIS
BEING AN ORDINARY "BAILEE" BUT BECAUSE HE IS A SPECIAL TYPE OF BAILEE
WHO HAS ASSUMED THE OBLIGATION OF AN INSURER.  SCHNELL V. THE
VALLESCURA, 293 U.S. 296, 304, AND CASES CITED.  SEE COGGS V. BERNARD,
2 LD. RAYM.  909, 918. 

FOR THIS REASON, THE SHIPOWNER, IN ORDER TO BRING HIMSELF WITHIN A
PERMITTED EXCEPTION TO THE OBLIGATION TO CARRY SAFELY, WHETHER IMPOSED
BY STATUTE OR BECAUSE HE IS A COMMON CARRIER OR BECAUSE HE HAS ASSUMED
IT BY CONTRACT, MUST SHOW THAT THE LOSS WAS DUE TO AN EXCEPTED CAUSE
AND NOT TO BREACH OF HIS DUTY TO FURNISH A SEAWORTHY VESSEL.  THE EDWIN
I. MORRISON, SUPRA, 211; THE MAJESTIC, 166 U.S. 375; SCHNELL V. THE
VALLESCURA, SUPRA; THE BEECHE DENE, 55 F. 525.  CF. 39 STAT. 539, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 88; UNIFORM BILL OF LADING ACT, SEC. 12.  SEE IX WIGMORE ON
EVIDENCE (3RD ED.)  SEC.  2508 AND CASES CITED.  AND IN THAT CASE,
SINCE THE BURDEN IS ON THE SHIPOWNER, HE DOES NOT SUSTAIN IT, AND THE
SHIPPER MUST PREVAIL IF, UPON THE WHOLE EVIDENCE, IT REMAINS DOUBTFUL
WHETHER THE LOSS IS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  THE FOLMINA, 212 U.S. 354,
363; SCHNELL V. THE VALLESCURA, SUPRA, 306, 307.  A SIMILAR RULE IS
APPLIED UNDER THE HARTER ACT, WHICH GIVES TO THE OWNER AN EXCUSE FOR
UNSEAWORTHINESS, IF HE HAS EXERCISED DUE CARE TO MAKE HIS VESSEL
SEAWORTHY, FOR THERE THE BURDEN RESTS UPON HIM TO SHOW THAT HE HAS
EXERCISED SUCH CARE.  THE WILDCROFT, 201 U.S. 378; THE SOUTHWARK, 191
U.S. 1, 12; MAY V. HAMBURG-AMERIKANISCHE GESELLSCHAFT, 290 U.S. 333,
346. 

BUT, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, THE BAILEE OF GOODS WHO HAS NOT ASSUMED
A COMMON CARRIER'S OBLIGATION IS NOT AN INSURER.  HIS UNDERTAKING IS TO
EXERCISE DUE CARE IN THE PROTECTION OF THE GOODS COMMITTED TO HIS CARE
AND TO PERFORM THE OBLIGATION OF HIS CONTRACT INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF
SEAWORTHINESS WHEN HE IS A SHIPOWNER.  IN SUCH A CASE THE BURDEN OF
PROVING THE BREACH OF DUTY OR OBLIGATION RESTS UPON HIM WHO MUST ASSERT
IT AS THE GROUND OF THE RECOVERY WHICH HE SEEKS, SOUTHERN RY. CO. V.
PRESCOTT, SUPRA; KOHLSAAT V. PARKERSBURG & M. SAND CO., SUPRA; THE
TRANSIT, 250 F. 71, 72, 75; THE NORDHVALEN, SUPRA; DELAWARE DREDGING
CO. V. GRAHAM, 43 F.2D 852, 854; ALPINE FORWARDING CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA
R. CO., SUPRA, 736; GERHARD & HEY, INC. V. CATTARAUGUS & CO., SUPRA;
STORY ON BAILMENTS (8TH ED.)  SECS.  501, 504, 410, 410A; WIGMORE, OP.
CIT., SUPRA, SEC. 2508 AND CASED CITED, AS IT DID UPON PETITIONER HERE
WHEN IT ALLEGED THE BREACH OF WARRANTY AS THE BASIS OF ITS CLAIM. 
PETITIONER APPARENTLY DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE DISTINCTION WHICH FOR MORE
THAN TWO CENTURIES, SINCE COGGS V. BERNARD, SUPRA, HAS BEEN TAKEN
BETWEEN COMMON CARRIERS AND THOSE WHOM THE LAW LEAVES FREE TO REGULATE
THEIR MUTUAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BY PRIVATE ARRANGEMENTS SUITED TO
THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASES LIKE THE PRESENT.  NOR DO WE SEE ANY
ADEQUATE GROUNDS FOR DEPARTING FROM IT NOW OR FOR DRAWING DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN A PRIVATE BAILMENT OF MERCHANDISE ON A BARGE IN NEW YORK HARBOR
AND OF GOODS STORED IN A PRIVATE WAREHOUSE ON THE DOCKS.  NEITHER
BAILEE IS AN INSURER OF DELIVERY OF THE MERCHANDISE; BOTH ARE FREE TO
STIPULATE FOR SUCH INSURANCE OR FOR ANY LESSER OBLIGATION, IN WHICH
CASE THE BAILOR CANNOT RECOVER WITHOUT PROOF OF ITS BREACH. 

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A LITIGATION, WHEREVER THE LAW HAS PLACED IT,
DOES NOT SHIFT WITH THE EVIDENCE, AND IN DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER
HAS SUSTAINED THE BURDEN THE QUESTION OFTEN IS, AS IN THIS CASE, WHAT
INFERENCES OF FACT HE MAY SUMMON TO HIS AID.  IN ANSWERING IT IN THIS,
AS IN OTHERS WHERE BREACH OF DUTY IS THE ISSUE, THE LAW TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT THE RELATIVE OPPORTUNITY OF THE PARTIES TO KNOW THE FACT IN
ISSUE AND TO ACCOUNT FOR THE LOSS WHICH IT IS ALLEGED IS DUE TO THE
BREACH.  SINCE THE BAILEE IN GENERAL IS IN A BETTER POSITION THAN THE
BAILOR TO KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE LOSS AND TO SHOW THAT IT WAS ONE NOT
INVOLVING THE BAILEE'S LIABILITY, THE LAW LAYS ON HIM THE DUTY TO COME
FORWARD WITH THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO HIM.  THE NORTHERN BELLE, 9
WALL.  526, 529; GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO. V. ELLIS, 54 F. 481, 483;
PACIFIC COAST S.S. CO. V. BANCROFT-WHITNEY CO., 94 F. 180; THE
NORDHVALEN, SUPRA, 886.  IF THE BAILEE FAILS, IT LEAVES THE TRIER OF
FACT FREE TO DRAW AN INFERENCE UNFAVORABLE TO HIM UPON THE BAILOR'S
ESTABLISHING THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO DELIVER THE GOODS SAFELY. 
SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. PRESCOTT, SUPRA; CF. THE AMERICA, 174 F. 724. 

WHETHER WE LABEL THIS PERMISSIBLE INFERENCE WITH THE EQUIVOCAL TERM
"PRESUMPTION" OR CONSIDER MERELY THAT IT IS A RATIONAL INFERENCE FROM
THE FACTS PROVEN, IT DOES NO MORE THAN REQUIRE THE BAILEE, IF HE WOULD
AVOID THE INFERENCE, TO GO FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PERSUADE
THAT THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE FACT, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE INFERRED,
IS AS PROBABLE AS ITS EXISTENCE.  IT DOES NOT CAUSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF
TO SHIFT, AND IF THE BAILEE DOES GO FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE ENOUGH TO
RAISE DOUBTS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE INFERENCE, WHICH THE TRIER OF
FACT IS UNABLE TO RESOLVE, THE BAILOR DOES NOT SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF
PERSUASION WHICH UPON THE WHOLE EVIDENCE REMAINS UPON HIM, WHERE IT
RESTED AT THE START.  SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. PRESCOTT, SUPRA; KOHLSAAT V.
PARKERSBURG & M. SAND CO., SUPRA; TOMKINS COVE STONE CO. V. BLEAKLEY
CO., 40 F.2D 249; PICKUP V. THAMES INSURANCE CO., 3 Q.B.D. 594.  CF.
DEL VECCHIO V. BOWERS, 296 U.S. 280; WIGMORE, OP. CIT., SUPRA, SECS.
2485, 2490, 2491, AND CASES CITED.    PROOF OF THE BREACH OF WARRANTY
OF SEAWORTHINESS STANDS ON NO DIFFERENT FOOTING.  THE TRIER OF FACT MAY
IN MANY SITUATIONS INFER THE BREACH FROM THE UNEXPLAINED CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT THE VESSEL, WHETHER A COMMON OR PRIVATE CARRIER, SANK IN SMOOTH
WATER.  SEE THE EDWIN I. MORRISON, SUPRA; WORK V. LEATHERS, 97 U.S.
379, 380; THE HARPER NO. 145, 42 F.2D 161; THE JUNGSHOVED, 290 F. 733;
BARNEWALL V. CHURCH, 1 CAINES 217, 234; WALSH V. WASHINGTON MARINE
INSURANCE CO., 32 N.Y. 427, 436; ZILLAH TRANSPORTATION CO. V. AETNA
INS. CO., 175 MINN. 398, 221 N.W. 529; AND CASES CITED BELOW, 114 F.2D
248, 251; SCRUTTON ON CHARTER PARTIES AND BILLS OF LADING (14TH ED.) 
105.  WHETHER IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE VESSEL HAS THE STATUS OF A
PRIVATE BAILEE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE ONLY IN DETERMINING WHOSE IS THE
BURDEN OF PERSUASION.  WHEREVER THE BURDEN RESTS, HE WHO UNDERTAKES TO
CARRY IT MUST DO MORE THAN CREATE A DOUBT WHICH THE TRIER OF FACT IS
UNABLE TO RESOLVE.  THE EDWIN I. MORRISON, SUPRA, 212; THE FOLMINA,
SUPRA, 363; SCHNELL V. THE VALLESCURA, SUPRA.  THE ENGLISH COURTS,
AFTER SOME OBSCURITY OF TREATMENT, SEE WATSON V. CLARK, 1 DOW 336, HAVE
REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION.  PICKUP V. THAMES INSURANCE CO., 3 Q.B.D.
594; AJUM GOOLAM HOSSEN & CO. V. UNION MARINE INSURANCE CO., (1901)
A.C. 362, 366; LINDSAY V. KLEIN, (1911) A.C. 194, 203, 205; SEE
CONSTANTINE S.S. LINE V. IMPERIAL SMELTING CORP., (1941) 2 ALL ENG.
165, 191-92. 

PROOF OF THE SINKING OF THE BARGE AIDED PETITIONER, BUT DID NOT
RELIEVE IT FROM SUSTAINING THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION WHEN ALL THE
EVIDENCE WAS IN.  THIS COURT, IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE BAILMENTS, HAS
GIVEN LIKE EFFECT TO THE RULE THAT THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE OF THE
BAILEE TO RETURN THE BAILED GOODS IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF HIS BREACH
OF DUTY, SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. PRESCOTT, SUPRA, 640, AND CASES CITED; SEE
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. THOMPSON MFG. CO., 270 U.S. 416, 422; AND
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE APPLIED, CORRECTLY WE THINK, THE SAME
RULE WITH RESPECT TO PROOF OF UNSEAWORTHINESS BY THE SHIPPER WHERE THE
VESSEL HAS NOT ASSUMED THE OBLIGATION OF A COMMON CARRIER.  KOHLSAAT V.
PARKERSBURG & M. SAND CO., SUPRA, 285; ROBERT A. MUNROE CO. V.
CHESAPEAKE LIGHTERAGE CO., 283 F. 526; THE NORDHVALEN, SUPRA; TOMKINS
COVE STONE CO. V. BLEAKLEY CO., SUPRA; DELAWARE DREDGING CO. V. GRAHAM,
SUPRA, 854.  THIS IS BUT A PARTICULAR APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
RES IPSA LOQUITUR, WHICH SIMILARLY IS AN AID TO THE PLAINTIFF IN
SUSTAINING THE BURDEN OF PROVING BREACH OF THE DUTY OF DUE CARE BUT
DOES NOT AVOID THE REQUIREMENT THAT UPON THE WHOLE CASE HE MUST PROVE
THE BREACH BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.  SWEENEY V. ERVING, 228
U.S. 233. 

THE EDWIN I. MORRISON, 153 U.S. 199, CALLS FOR NO DIFFERENT RESULT. 
THERE THIS COURT REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT ON THE GROUND
THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR DAMAGE TO THE CARGO BY SEAWATER TAKEN
IN THROUGH A DEFECTIVE BILGE PUMP HOLE, WAS ONLY A CONJECTURE SUPPORTED
BY NO DIRECT TESTIMONY AND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF
THE SHIPOWNER TO PROVE THAT THE VESSEL WAS SEAWORTHY, SAYING (P. 212):
"IF THE DETERMINATION OF THIS QUESTION IS LEFT IN DOUBT, THAT DOUBT
MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST" THE SHIPOWNER.  SEE THE DUNBRITTON, 73 F.
352, 358; THE ALVENA, 74 F. 252, 255.  THE COURT BELOW HAD FOUND THAT
THE BILL OF LADING SIGNED BY THE MASTER-OWNER UNDERTOOK TO DELIVER THE
SHIPMENT IN "GOOD ORDER AND CONDITION," THE "DANGERS OF THE SEA
EXCEPTED."  NO EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN TO THIS FINDING, AND IN THIS COURT
THE SHIPPER'S CONTENTION THAT SUCH WAS THE CONTRACT WAS NOT CHALLENGED
BY THE OWNER.  THE OPINION MUST BE TAKEN AS PROCEEDING, AS IN THE
FOLMINA AND SCHNELL V. THE VALLESCURA, SUPRA, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
CASE WAS ONE IN WHICH THE OBLIGATION ASSUMED WAS THAT OF A COMMON
CARRIER ON WHOM THE BURDEN RESTS OF PROVING THAT THE CARGO LOSS IS NOT
DUE TO UNSEAWORTHINESS.  THE EXPRESSIONS IN THE OPINION, AS TO THE
BURDEN OF PROOF WHICH THE SHIPOWNER MUST CARRY IN ORDER TO BRING HIM
WITHIN THE EXCEPTION OF PERILS OF THE SEA, HAVE BEEN CITED, IN THE ONLY
INSTANCES WHEN APPROVED BY THIS COURT, AS RELATING TO THE BURDEN OF
PROOF ON THOSE WHO HAVE ASSUMED THE OBLIGATIONS OF COMMON CARRIERS. 
SEE THE MAJESTIC, SUPRA, 386; THE FOLMINA, SUPRA, 363; SCHNELL V. THE
VALLESCURA, SUPRA, 305. 

HERE PETITIONER RELIED ON THE INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM THE
UNEXPLAINED SINKING OF THE BARGE TO SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN OF PROVING
UNSEAWORTHINESS.  BUT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT STOP THERE.  TO REBUT THE
INFERENCE, RESPONDENT CAME FORWARD WITH EVIDENCE FULLY DISCLOSING THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE SINKING.  INSPECTION OF THE BARGE BEFORE
THE LOADING BEGAN AND AFTER SHE SANK, AND AGAIN AFTER SHE WAS RAISED,
FAILED TO DISCLOSE ANY PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE OF UNSEAWORTHINESS.  THE
METHOD AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF HER LOADING AT LEAST TENDED TO WEAKEN THE
INFERENCE WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN DRAWN THAT THE SINKING WAS
DUE TO UNSEAWORTHINESS RATHER THAN FAULT IN STOWING THE CARGO.  UPON AN
EXAMINATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE OF WHICH THE SINKING, WITHOUT ANY
PROVEN SPECIFIC CAUSE, WAS A PART, THE TWO COURTS BELOW HAVE FOUND THAT
NO INFERENCE AS TO THE CAUSE OF SINKING CAN BE DRAWN.  PETITIONER HAS
THUS FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN RESTING ON IT.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT "COURTS OF ADMIRALTY ARE NOT
GOVERNED BY THE STRICT RULES OF THE COMMON LAW, BUT ACT UPON ENLARGED
PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY."  O'BRIEN V. MILLER, 168 U.S. 287, 297.  WHERE,
AS HERE, THE RESULT OF A CASE IN ADMIRALTY IS MADE TO TURN UPON THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN A COMMON AND PRIVATE CARRIER, ONE MAY WELL ASK
WHETHER MORE RESPECT HAS BEEN PAID TO TECHNICAL NICETIES OF THE COMMON
LAW THAN BEFITS THE ADMIRALTY TRADITION.  CF. THE CONFISCATION CASES,
20 WALL.  92, 105-106, 107.  I DO NOT DENY THAT IN MANY SITUATIONS THE
DISTINCTION MAY BE IMPORTANT NOR THAT LEGISLATURES AND COURTS MAY BE
COMPELLED FROM TIME TO TIME TO RESURVEY THE CHANGING LINE OF
SEPARATION.  BUT HERE, I AM CONVINCED, THE DISTINCTION IS IRRELEVANT TO
A JUST DISPOSITION OF THE CASE BEFORE US. 

IN THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED, THE BURDEN OF PROVING SEAWORTHINESS IS
TIED UP WITH A COMMON CARRIER'S OBLIGATIONS AS AN INSURER.  BUT IN
SCHNELL V. THE VALLESCURA, 293 U.S. 296, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS A
COMMON CARRIER ON WHOM IT WAS HELD SUCH A BURDEN LIES, NO SUGGESTION
THAT THE COURT RESTED ITS RESULT UPON THE PECULIAR OBLIGATION OF THE
DEFENDANT AS AN INSURER CAN BE FOUND IN THE OPINION.  AND SO FAR AS
APPEARS FROM THE BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL AS WELL AS THE
MAJORITY OPINION HERE, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THIS COURT HAS NEVER BEFORE
GIVEN THE INSURER'S LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS AS THE REASON FOR THE
HEAVY BURDEN OF PROOF THEY BEAR IN ADMIRALTY CASES OF THIS TYPE.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THE BASIS USUALLY GIVEN FOR THE RULE IS THE ONE
EXPLICITLY STATED IN SCHNELL V. THE VALLESCURA, SUPRA, AT PAGE 304: 

"THE REASON FOR THE RULE IS APPARENT.  HE IS A BAILEE ENTRUSTED WITH
THE SHIPPER'S GOODS, WITH RESPECT TO THE CARE AND SAFE DELIVERY OF
WHICH THE LAW IMPOSES UPON HIM AN EXTRAORDINARY DUTY.  DISCHARGE OF THE
DUTY IS PECULIARLY WITHIN HIS CONTROL.  ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
UPON WHICH HE MAY RELY TO RELIEVE HIM OF THAT DUTY ARE PECULIARLY
WITHIN HIS KNOWLEDGE AND USUALLY UNKNOWN TO THE SHIPPER.  IN
CONSEQUENCE, THE LAW CASTS UPON HIM THE BURDEN OF THE LOSS WHICH HE
CANNOT EXPLAIN OR, EXPLAINING, BRING WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE IN
WHICH HE IS RELIEVED FROM LIABILITY." 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE ANY PERSUASIVE REASON FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE
RULE AS THUS EXPLAINED IS ANY LESS APPROPRIATELY APPLIED TO PRIVATE
CARRIERS THAN TO COMMON CARRIERS.  IN BOTH CASES THE SHIPPER NORMALLY
HAS NO REPRESENTATIVE ON BOARD THE SHIP, THE MASTER AND CREW BEING
EMPLOYEES OF THE CARRIER, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE DIFFICULTIES
ENCOUNTERED BY THE SHIPPER IN SEEKING TO FIND OUT HOW THE LOSS OCCURRED
ARE EQUALLY GREAT.  SEE CARVER, CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA (8TH ED.)  9. 

I HAVE FOUND NO LANGUAGE IN THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT, IN CASES
HOLDING THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF SEAWORTHINESS RESTS ON A COMMON CARRIER,
THAT EVEN SUGGESTS, NOT TO SAY COMPELS, THE INFERENCE THAT A DIFFERENT
RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN REACHED IF THE CARRIER HAD BEEN A PRIVATE ONE. 
HENCE, IF THE QUESTION OF THIS CASE WERE ONE OF ORIGINAL IMPRESSION, I
SHOULD SEE NO OBSTACLE TO A HOLDING THAT WOULD GIVE TO THE SHIPPER
HERE, WHO CLEARLY HAD NO EASIER ACCESS TO EVIDENCE THAN DID THE SHIPPER
IN THE VALLESCURA CASE, THE BENEFITS OF A SIMILAR ALLOCATION OF THE
BURDEN OF PROOF. 

BUT THE QUESTION IS NOT ONE OF ORIGINAL IMPRESSION.  IN THE EDWIN I.
MORRISON, 153 U.S. 199, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON A
PRIVATE CARRIER TO PROVE SEAWORTHINESS IN A CONTROVERSY DISTINGUISHABLE
IN NO SIGNIFICANT RESPECT FROM THAT NOW BEFORE US.  THE OPINION OF THE
COURT HERE HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE FINDING BY THE CIRCUIT COURT IN THE
MORRISON CASE THAT THE BILL OF LADING STATED THAT THE CARRIER WOULD
DELIVER THE SHIPMENT "IN GOOD ORDER AND CONDITION" AMOUNTED TO A
FINDING THAT THE CARRIER HAD BY CONTRACT ASSUMED ADDITIONAL
OBLIGATIONS, I.E., THOSE OF A COMMON CARRIER.  HENCE, THE COURT SEES IN
THAT DECISION NOTHING MORE THAN THE REITERATION OF THE PROPOSITION THAT
A COMMON CARRIER HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING SEAWORTHINESS AND FINDS IN
IT NO INDICATION OF WHAT THE BURDEN OF A PRIVATE CARRIER SHOULD BE. 

IT MAY SERIOUSLY BE QUESTIONED WHETHER THE FINDING THAT THE BILL OF
LADING CONTAINED THE CASUAL PHRASE JUST QUOTED CAN PROPERLY BE
INTERPRETED AS A FINDING OF A CONTRACT TO ASSUME THE PECULIAR
LIABILITIES (WHATEVER THEY MAY HAVE BEEN) OF A COMMON CARRIER.  BUT
EVEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDING
IS CORRECT, ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE BASIS OF DECISION IN THE MORRISON
CASE SEEMS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  NOWHERE IN THAT OPINION IS THERE THE
SMALLEST SUGGESTION THAT THE CARRIER WAS REGARDED AS HAVING BARGAINED
ITSELF INTO A POSITION OF SPECIAL LIABILITY.  IF THE COURT HAD BELIEVED
A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN PRIVATE AND COMMON CARRIERS, I
SHOULD SUPPOSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPLICIT IN STATING THAT THIS
CARRIER, ALTHOUGH A PRIVATE CARRIER, HAD ASSUMED THE OBLIGATIONS OF A
COMMON CARRIER BY CONTRACT.  I THINK IT INCONCEIVABLE THAT IT WOULD
HAVE LEFT A FACT OF SUCH SIGNIFICANCE TO BE DEDUCED FROM AN
INCONSPICUOUS PHRASE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT SET OUT IN A
FOOTNOTE TO THE "STATEMENT OF THE CASE" SEVEN PAGES BEFORE THE OPINION
ITSELF BEGINS.  THE EDWIN I. MORRISON, SUPRA, 203, N. 1. 

IN THE LOTTAWANNA, 21 WALL.  558, 571, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY STATED:
"IF  ...  WITH THE NEW LIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN THROWN UPON THE WHOLE
SUBJECT OF MARITIME LAW AND ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION, A MORE RATIONAL
VIEW OF THE QUESTION DEMANDS AN ADVERSE RULING IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
HARMONY AND LOGICAL CONSISTENCY IN THE GENERAL SYSTEM, THE COURT MIGHT,
PERHAPS, IF NO EVIL CONSEQUENCES OF A GLARING CHARACTER WERE LIKELY TO
ENSUE, FEEL CONSTRAINED TO ADOPT IT.  BUT IF NO SUCH NECESSITY EXISTS,
WE OUGHT NOT TO PERMIT ANY CONSIDERATION OF MERE EXPEDIENCY OR LOVE OF
SCIENTIFIC COMPLETENESS, TO DRAW US INTO A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF THE
RECEIVED LAW."  IN THE "RECEIVED LAW" OF THIS COURT, AT LEAST SINCE
1894, WHEN THE MORRISON CASE WAS DECIDED, NO DISTINCTION HAS BEEN DRAWN
BETWEEN PRIVATE AND COMMON CARRIERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE BURDEN OF
PROVING SEAWORTHINESS.  IF SUCH A DISTINCTION HAD EXISTED, THE "NEW
LIGHTS" SHED BY THE AWARENESS OF EVER INCREASING COMPLEXITY IN MODERN
SHIPPING, A COMPLEXITY EQUALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO THE SHIPPER WHETHER
HE DEALS WITH A PRIVATE OR COMMON CARRIER, COULD, PERHAPS NOT WITHOUT
PROPRIETY, HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THIS COURT AS A REASON FOR ERASING IT.
BUT THE CONTRARY PROCEDURE, OF ESTABLISHING A DISTINCTION WHICH NEITHER
WAS PRESENT IN OUR RECEIVED LAW NOR IS DEMANDED "TO PRESERVE HARMONY
AND LOGICAL CONSISTENCY," SEEMS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIABLE. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, AND MR. JUSTICE BYRNES
CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :









TOUCEY V. N.Y. LIFE INS. CO., 314 U.S. 118 


NO. 16.  REARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 17, 1941.  - 112
F.2D 927 AND 115 F.2D 1, REVERSED. 


PROCEEDING IN PERSONAM IN A STATE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM IN
CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED BY THE FEDERAL COURT.  P.
129. 

TOUCEY V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 19, PHOENIX FINANCE CORP. V. IOWA-WISCONSIN BRIDGE
CO., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 670, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT - ARGUED MARCH 13, 1941, REARGUED
OCTOBER 17, 20, 1941. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

NO. 16 CAME HERE ON CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW THE
AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF INJUNCTION, 112 F.2D 927.  THE DECISION BELOW
WAS AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 313 U.S. 538;
SUBSEQUENTLY, A REHEARING WAS GRANTED, 313 U.S. 596. 

NO. 19 IS HERE ON CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 670, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE
OF A DECREE OF INJUNCTION, 115 F.2D 1. 

THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN ENJOINING THE PROSECUTION OF THE
STATE COURT ACTION, PURSUANT TO RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BILL, WAS
PROPER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELL-RECOGNIZED POWER OF FEDERAL
COURTS OF EQUITY TO EFFECTUATE AND PERFECT THEIR OWN FINAL DECREES. 

THE REMEDY BY SUPPLEMENTAL BILL IS OF ANCIENT ORIGIN.  STORY'S EQ.
JUR., C. 23, SEC. 874; EDEN, TREATISE ON THE LAW OF INJUNCTIONS, 1839;
KERSHAW V. THOMPSON, 4 JOHNS.  CH. 609; DOVE V. DOVE, DICKENS 617, 1
BRO. 375, 1 COX 101; STORY'S EQ. JUR.  SEC.  1291; 4 KENT COMM. LECT. 
58, PP. 191-192 (3RD ED.); SCHENCK V. CONOVER, 13 N.J. EQ. 220. 

THE REMEDY BY SUPPLEMENTAL BILL HAS NOT BEEN CONFINED TO ACTIONS
INVOLVING THE POSSESSION OF REAL ESTATE OR OTHER PROPERTY.  SHEPHERD V.
TOWGOOD, TUR.  & RUS.  379; BUFFUM'S CASE, 13 N.H. 14; LUDLOW V.
LANSING, 4 JOHNS.  CH. 613. 

THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT WHERE A FEDERAL COURT HAS MADE A
FINAL DECREE IN EQUITY AND WHERE ONE OF THE PARTIES, OR ONE IN PRIVITY
WITH HIM, ATTEMPTS OR THREATENS A COURSE OF ACTION WHICH WILL NULLIFY
THE DECREE OR LESSEN OR IMPAIR ITS EFFECT, THE FEDERAL COURT WILL, UPON
THE FILING OF A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL, AWARD ITS INJUNCTION.  ROOT V.
WOOLWORTH, 150 U.S. 401; JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 193 U.S. 93;
RIVERDALE COTTON MILLS V. ALABAMA & GEORGIA MFG. CO., 198 U.S. 188;
FRENCH V. HAY, 22 WALL.  250; GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S.
273; LOONEY V. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO., 247 U.S. 214; SUPREME TRIBE OF BEN
HUR V. CAUBLE, 255 U.S. 356; INDEPENDENT COAL & COKE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 274 U.S. 640; LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S. 234; DUGAS V.
AMERICAN SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 414. 

THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE FOLLOWED THESE DECISIONS IN A VARIETY
OF CASES. 

THE PRESENT CASE, PREVENT A FEDERAL COURT FROM STAYING PROCEEDINGS IN
AN ACTION IN PERSONAM PENDING IN A STATE COURT, WHERE THE PURPOSE AND
EFFECT OF THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING ARE TO RELITIGATE ISSUES FINALLY
ADJUDICATED BY A PRIOR FEDERAL COURT DECREE. 

THIS SECTION MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF SEC. 262 WHICH
AUTHORIZES THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF
THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND
PRINCIPLES OF LAW. 

THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 265 IS TO PREVENT NEEDLESS FRICTION AND UNSEEMLY
CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.  OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V.
OKLAHOMA GAS CO., 309 U.S. 4; HALE V. BIMCO TRADING CO., 306 U.S. 375;
ESSANAY FILM CO. V. KANE, 258 U.S. 358. 

THERE ARE SEVERAL WELL-DEFINED CLASSES OF CASES WHICH THIS COURT HAS
HELD DO NOT COME WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE AND IN WHICH THE
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE ENJOINED PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS.  SOME OF
THESE ARE: 

1.  SUITS TO ENJOIN THE INSTITUTION OR PROSECUTION IN THE STATE COURT
OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE A LOCAL STATUTE WHICH IS REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSTITUTION.  EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S.
33; MISSOURI V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 241 U.S. 533. 

2.  SUITS TO ENJOIN THE INSTITUTION OR PROSECUTION OF A STATE COURT
ACTION, THE RESULT OF WHICH WOULD BE TO CAST AN UNDUE BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. WELLS, 265 U.S.
101; RIEHLE V. MARGOLIES, 279 U.S. 218; HILL V. MARTIN, 296 U.S. 393. 

3.  SUITS TO ENJOIN THE INSTITUTION OR PROSECUTION OF A STATE COURT
ACTION WHERE THE LATTER WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE CUSTODY OF A RES
PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL COURT, OR WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT
HAS THE PRIOR CUSTODY OF PROPERTY, IN WHATEVER FORM, BY RECEIVERSHIP,
EQUITABLE FORECLOSURE OR OTHER APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS.  COVELL V.
HEYMAN, 111 U.S. 176; JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 193 U.S. 93;
RIVERDALE COTTON MILLS V. ALABAMA & GEORGIA MFG. CO., 198 U.S. 188;
KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226. 

4.  SUITS TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN THE
STATE COURT BY FRAUD, WITHOUT SERVICE OF LEGAL PROCESS, AND WITHOUT
NOTICE.  ARROWSMITH V. GLEASON, 129 U.S. 86; SIMON V. SOUTHERN RY. CO.,
236 U.S. 115. 

5.  SUITS TO ENJOIN FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS IN CASES
WHICH HAVE BEEN REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURTS.  FRENCH V. HAY, 22 WALL. 
250; DIETZSCH V. HUIDEKOPER, 103 U.S. 494; MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V.
ST. BERNARD MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239. 

6.  SUITS UPON SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS TO ENJOIN THE INSTITUTION OR
PROSECUTION OF STATE COURT ACTIONS, THE OBJECT OR EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO
RELITIGATE AND READJUDICATE ISSUES SETTLED BY THE FINAL DECREES OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS, OR WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE TEND TO NULLIFY THOSE DECREES
OR LESSEN OR IMPAIR THEIR EFFECT.  ROOT V. WOOLWORTH, 150 U.S. 401;
JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 193 U.S. 93; RIVERDALE COTTON MILLS V.
ALABAMA & GEORGIA MFG. CO., 198 U.S. 188; GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST
LINE, 200 U.S. 273; LOONEY V. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO., 247 U.S. 214;
SUPREME TRIBE OF BEN-HUR V. CAUBLE, 255 U.S. 356; INDEPENDENT COAL &
COKE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 640; LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292
U.S. 234; DUGAS V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 414. 

THE PRESENT CASE FALLS PERFECTLY WITHIN THE SIXTH CLASSIFICATION. 
SEE WELLS FARGO & CO. V. TAYLOR, 254 U.S. 175. 

THE NECESSITY FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 265 IS
ILLUSTRATED IN:  DIETZSCH V. HUIDEKOPER, 103 U.S. 494; FRENCH V. HAY,
22 WALL.  250; ARROWSMITH V. GLEASON, 129 U.S. 86; JULIAN V. CENTRAL
TRUST CO., 193 U.S. 93; LOONEY V. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO., 247 U.S. 214. 

THESE CASES EMPHASIZE THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH THIS
COURT HAS RECOGNIZED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE ARE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AVOIDING CONFLICT RATHER THAN OF CREATING IT.  SEE GUNTER V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S. 273, 292; LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292
U.S. 234; DUGAS V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 414, 428. 

THE EXISTENCE OF THESE WELL DEFINED EXCEPTIONS TO THE OPERATION OF
THE STATUTE WAS PARTICULARLY NOTED BY JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN RIEHLE V.
MARGOLIES, 279 U.S. 218, 223, AND HILL V. MARTIN, 296 U.S. 393.  SEE
OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V. OKLAHOMA GAS CO., 309 U.S. 4, 8. 

IF IT WERE HELD THAT INJUNCTIONS COULD NOT ISSUE IN SUPPLEMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF PRIOR DECREES IN EQUITY OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS, IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT THESE COURTS WOULD ALSO BE
POWERLESS TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF VOID LOCAL STATUTES, TO ENJOIN
PROCEEDINGS WHICH CAST AN UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND TO
ENJOIN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE FEDERAL
COURT'S POSSESSION OF A RES OR OF PROPERTY HELD IN RECEIVERSHIP OR
UNDER EQUITABLE FORECLOSURE.  THE FEDERAL COURTS COULD NO LONGER
PROTECT ACTIONS WHICH HAD BEEN VALIDLY REMOVED TO THEM FROM THE STATE
COURTS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE STATE TRIBUNALS COULD PROCEED WITH SUCH
CASES, THUS, IN EFFECT, NULLIFYING THE REMOVAL STATUTE, SINCE THERE IS
NO ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZES INJUNCTIONS WHERE CASES
HAVE BEEN REMOVED.  HENCE, THE EFFECT, IF THE SALUTARY EXCEPTION TO THE
RULE EXEMPLIFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE ABROGATED, IS INCALCULABLE,
AND WOULD NOT ONLY CRIPPLE THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS,
DESTROY A GREAT BODY OF LAW WHICH THE UNANIMOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
HAVE BUILT UP OVER A PERIOD OF MANY YEARS, BUT WOULD LEAD TO THAT VERY
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS WHICH THE STATUTE UNDER
CONSIDERATION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE.  THE EXCEPTIONS
TO THE STATUTE WHICH WE HAVE MENTIONED, AS THIS COURT HAS SAID, ARE
DESIGNED NOT TO FRUSTRATE THE STATUTE BUT TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH IT WAS ENACTED. 

TO CONSTRUE SEC. 265 TO PROHIBIT THE INJUNCTION ISSUED IN THIS CASE
WOULD CREATE GRAVE DOUBTS RESPECTING ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY UNDER SEC. 2
OF ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SECTION 265 SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED
AS TO AVOID THESE DOUBTS, IN HARMONY WITH THE UNIFORM AND UNANIMOUS
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

SEE TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66; HILL V. MARTIN, 296
U.S. 393; SMITH V. APPLE, 264 U.S. 274. 

IT IS ENTIRELY CONCEIVABLE THAT CONGRESS MIGHT PROPERLY DEPRIVE THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF THOSE POWERS EQUITABLE IN
NATURE WHICH THEY HAVE HERETOFORE EXERCISED, INCLUDING THE POWER TO
ISSUE INJUNCTIONS PROVIDED FOR BY SEC. 277 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (SEC.
263, TITLE 28, U.S.C.), PROVIDED CONGRESS AT THE SAME TIME CONSTITUTED
OTHER INFERIOR COURTS HAVING THOSE EQUITY POWERS, AS THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES.  IT IS NOT CONCEIVABLE, HOWEVER, THAT, WITHOUT CREATING OTHER
COURTS INVESTED WITH THOSE POWERS, CONGRESS COULD, IN THE FACE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE, ENTIRELY DEPRIVE A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF
ITS POWERS AS A COURT OF EQUITY.  THIS POWER IS OF ANCIENT ORIGIN AND
INHERED IN COURTS OF EQUITY LONG BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED. 
IRVINE V. MARSHALL, 20 HOW.  558, 564; MICHAELSON V. UNITED STATES, 266
U.S. 42, 64, 65; CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22. 

IT MAY BE THAT CONGRESS CAN LIMIT THE POWER OF INJUNCTION BY
ELIMINATING A PARTICULAR TYPE OF CONTROVERSY FROM ITS EFFECT, AS THIS
COURT HAS HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE NORRISLAGUARDIA ACT RESTRICTING THE
RIGHT OF INJUNCTION IN LABOR DISPUTES.  LAUF V. SHINNER & CO., 303 U.S.
323.  BUT THE PRESENT SITUATION IS OF A DIFFERENT KIND.  SECTION 265
LITERALLY CONSTRUED DOES NOT LIMIT THE USE OF THE INJUNCTION TO A
PARTICULAR CLASS OF CONTROVERSIES BUT PURPORTS TO ABOLISH ITS USE IN
EVERY CLASS OF CONTROVERSIES WHERE TO USE IT WILL EFFECT A STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT.  IF A COURT OF EQUITY IS DEPRIVED OF THE
POWER TO CARRY OUT AND EFFECTUATE ITS OWN DECREES, IT IN EFFECT CEASES
TO BE A COURT OF EQUITY. 

THAT SEC. 265 CAN READILY BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO EFFECTUATE ITS
PURPOSE WITHOUT CREATING A DOUBT RESPECTING ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY IS
OBVIOUS FROM THE MANY CASES IN WHICH EXCEPTIONS TO ITS EFFECT HAVE BEEN
RECOGNIZED.  THAT SUCH AN INTERPRETATION AS THIS COURT AND INFERIOR
COURTS HAVE HERETOFORE GIVEN THE STATUTE OUGHT TO BE RESPECTED IS CLEAR
FROM THE RECENT PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THIS COURT UPON THE SUBJECT OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310
U.S. 534; WISCONSIN V. J. C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435. 

THE DECREES AND ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS IN THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE CONSTITUTE ADJUDICATIONS AGAINST
PHOENIX OF THE SEVERAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL AND
ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS. 

THE DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT ERRED IN UNDERTAKING TO REVIEW THE
FINDINGS OF THE FEDERAL COURT AND ITS CONCLUSIONS WERE ERRONEOUS. 

THE INJUNCTION ORDERS AGAINST PHOENIX DO NOT VIOLATE PRINCIPLES OF
EQUITY JURISDICTION.  THE FACT THAT THE DEFENSE OF RES JUDICATA CAN BE
URGED IN THE DELAWARE COURT DOES NOT FURNISH ANY REASON WHY INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.  STORY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE (14TH ED.),
SECS. 1194, 1209, 1227. 

THE PERMANENT PROHIBITORY AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION AGAINST PHOENIX
DID NOT VIOLATE SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

THE FEDERAL COURT FIRST ACQUIRED JURISDICTION.  THE FEDERAL COURT HAD
APPOINTED A RECEIVER AND TAKEN INTO LEGAL CUSTODY ALL OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE BRIDGE COMPANY OF EVERY DESCRIPTION; IT HAD RENDERED ITS
OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECREE,
RESERVING JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH ALL MATTERS ARISING UNDER THE
RECEIVERSHIP AND IN CONNECTION WITH ADJUSTMENT AND PAYMENT OF TAXES AND
COUNSEL'S FEES BEFORE ANY OF THE DELAWARE ACTIONS WERE COMMENCED.  THIS
ACTION IS STILL PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA, WITH THE RECEIVER IN CHARGE OF ALL OF THE
BRIDGE COMPANY'S PROPERTY. 

JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 265 IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE, BUT A MERE
LIMITATION UPON THE GENERAL EQUITY POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS,
PREVENTING RELIEF BY INJUNCTION IN THE CASES COVERED BY IT. SMITH V.
APPLE, 264 U.S. 274; PATTON V. MARSHALL, 173 F. 350. 

SEC. 262, AND IF A FEDERAL COURT HAS FIRST OBTAINED JURISDICTION OF A
CASE IT CAN TAKE SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ITS
AUTHORITY AND ENFORCE ITS DECREES.  LANNING V. OSBORNE, 79 F. 657, 662;
JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 193 U.S. 93; FRENCH V. HAY, 22 WALL.  250
253; DIETZSCH V. HUIDEKOPER, 103 U.S. 494. 

OTHERWISE CONFERRED BY THE FEDERAL STATUTES, BUT MERELY GOES TO THE
QUESTION OF EQUITY IN THE PARTICULAR BILL, MAKING IT THE DUTY OF THE
COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
SPECIFIC CASE PRESENTED IS ONE IN WHICH THE RELIEF BY INJUNCTION IS
PROHIBITED BY THIS SECTION OR MAY NEVERTHELESS BE GRANTED.  SOVEREIGN
CAMP V. O'NEILL, 266 U.S. 292; SMITH V. APPLE, 264 U.S. 274.    SECTION
265 APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE FIRST COMMENCED IN STATE
COURTS.  HAMILTON V. WALSH, 23 F. 420; LANNING V. OSBORNE, 79 F. 657;
JEWEL TEA CO. V. LEE'S SUMMIT, 198 F. 532, AFFIRMED 217 F. 965; KANSAS
CITY GAS CO. V. KANSAS CITY, 198 F. 500; LOONEY V. EASTERN TEXAS R.
CO., 247 U.S. 214; BETHKE V. GRAYBURG OIL CO., 89 F.2D 527, CERT.
DENIED 302 U.S. 730; LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S. 234; GARNER V.
SECOND NATIONAL BANK, 67 F. 833; ST. LOUIS MINING & MILLING CO. V.
MONTANA MINING CO., 148 F. 450. 

THE FEDERAL COURT HAS UNQUESTIONED POWER TO EFFECTUATE ITS DECREES
AND TO PREVENT RELITIGATION OF THE SAME MATTER.  ROOT V. WOOLWORTH, 150
U.S. 401; SARSON V. MACCIA, 108 A. 109, 111; FRENCH V. HAY, 22 WALL. 
250.  SEE ALSO:  HICKEY V. JOHNSON, 9 F.2D 498; STERLING V. GREDIG, 5
F.SUPP.  329; HESSELBERG V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO., 102 F.2D 23; TOUCEY V.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 102 F.2D 16, 33; SWIFT V. BLACK PANTHER, 244 F.
20; WILSON V. ALEXANDER, 276 F. 875; JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 193
U.S. 93; RIVERDALE COTTON MILLS V. ALABAMA-GEORGIA MFG. CO., 198 U.S.
189; WELLS FARGO & CO. V. TAYLOR, 254 U.S. 175; KERN V. HUIDEKOPER, 103
U.S. 494; MUNRO V. RAPHAEL, 288 U.S. 485; GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE
R. CO., 200 U.S. 273; SLAUGHTER V. SLAUGHTER, 48 F.2D 210; ST. LOUIS
SAN FRANCISCO R. CO. V. MCELVAIN, 253 F. 123. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES WERE ARGUED IN SUCCESSION AND ARE DEALT WITH IN A SINGLE
OPINION BECAUSE THE CONTROLLING QUESTION IN BOTH IS THE SAME:  DOES A
FEDERAL COURT HAVE POWER TO STAY A PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT SIMPLY
BECAUSE THE CLAIM IN CONTROVERSY HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED IN THE
FEDERAL COURT? 

NO. 16.  IN 1935, TOUCEY BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY IN A MISSOURI STATE COURT.  HE ALLEGED THAT IN 1924
THE COMPANY ISSUED HIM A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDING FOR MONTHLY
DISABILITY BENEFITS AND FOR THE WAIVER OF PREMIUMS DURING DISABILITY;
THAT HE BECAME DISABLED IN APRIL, 1933, AND THAT THE DEFENDANT
FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED THE DISABILITY PROVISIONS FROM HIM; THAT THE
DEFENDANT UNLAWFULLY CANCELLED THE POLICY FOR NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS;
THAT IN SEPTEMBER, 1935, HE DISCOVERED THE EXISTENCE OF THE DISABILITY
PROVISIONS; THAT HE THEN APPLIED TO THE COMPANY FOR REINSTATEMENT OF
THE POLICY AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF DISABILITY BENEFITS, AND THAT THE
COMPANY REFUSED. 

THE SUIT WAS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, THE PLAINTIFF BEING A CITIZEN OF MISSOURI, THE
DEFENDANT A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
EXCEEDING $3,000.  ALL OF THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL WERE
DENIED.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE BILL, FINDING THAT THERE WAS
NO FRAUD ON THE DEFENDANT'S PART AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT
DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE POLICY.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN. 

IN 1937, AN ACTION AT LAW WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY
IN THE MISSOURI STATE COURT BY ONE SHAY, A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  HE ALLEGED THAT HE WAS TOUCEY'S ASSIGNEE AND THAT TOUCEY'S
DISABILITY ENTITLED HIM TO JUDGMENT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
INSURANCE COMPANY FILED AN ANSWER OR ANY OTHER PLEADING.  INSTEAD, A
"SUPPLEMENTAL BILL" WAS FILED IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI,
SETTING FORTH THE HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES,
ALLEGING THAT THE ASSIGNMENT TO SHAY WAS MADE IN ORDER TO AVOID FEDERAL
JURISDICTION, AND PRAYING THAT TOUCEY BE ENJOINED FROM BRINGING ANY
SUIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF READJUDICATING THE ISSUES SETTLED BY THE
FEDERAL DECREE AND FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING THE SHAY SUIT. 

A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED, AND AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.  102 F.2D 16.  THE COURT HELD
THAT TOUCEY'S CLAIM IN THE PRIOR SUIT RESTED UPON PROOF OF HIS
DISABILITY, AND THAT THIS ISSUE, NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN THE SHAY
PROCEEDING, HAD BEEN CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED IN THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S
FAVOR.  SECTION 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 36 STAT. 1162, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
379, WAS CONSTRUED NOT TO DEPRIVE A FEDERAL COURT OF THE POWER TO
ENJOIN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS WHERE AN INJUNCTION IS "NECESSARY TO
PRESERVE TO LITIGANTS THE FRUITS OF, OR TO EFFECTUATE THE LAWFUL
DECREES OF THE FEDERAL COURTS."  CERTIORARI WAS DENIED, 307 U.S. 638,
AND THE INJUNCTION WAS MADE PERMANENT.  TOUCEY APPEALED AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AGAIN AFFIRMED, 112 F.2D 927.  IN VIEW OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  311 U.S.
643.  THE DECISION BELOW WAS AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 313
U.S. 538, AND THE CASE IS NOW BEFORE US ON REHEARING, 313 U.S. 596. 

NO. 19.  THE IOWA-WISCONSIN BRIDGE COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
IN 1932 EXECUTED A DEED OF TRUST CONVEYING ALL OF ITS PROPERTY,
PRINCIPALLY A BRIDGE ACROSS THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN IOWA AND
WISCONSIN, TO SECURE A $200,000 BOND ISSUE.  IN 1933, THE TRUSTEES, AN
IOWA CORPORATION AND A WISCONSIN CITIZEN, FILED A BILL OF FORECLOSURE
IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA.  ONE
OF THE BRIDGE COMPANY'S STOCKHOLDERS INTERVENED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT,
ALLEGING THAT THE BONDS AND MORTGAGE WERE FRAUDULENT AND WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION.  UPON HIS MOTION, THE PHOENIX FINANCE CORPORATION, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION WHICH HELD ALMOST 90% OF THE BONDS, WAS JOINED AS
A PLAINTIFF.  THE BRIDGE COMPANY'S ANSWER CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF
THE INDENTURE AND ALLEGED THAT THE BONDS WERE ISSUED WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION.  PHOENIX DENIED ALL ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED BEFORE A MASTER, WHOSE MODIFIED CONCLUSIONS WERE
ADOPTED BY THE COURT.  FINDING THAT THE MORTGAGE AND BONDS WERE
FRAUDULENTLY ISSUED AND THAT ALMOST ALL THE BONDS WERE WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION, THE COURT DENIED FORECLOSURE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 98 F.2D 416, AND CERTIORARI
WAS DENIED, 305 U.S. 650. 

PHOENIX THEREAFTER INSTITUTED FIVE SEPARATE SUITS AGAINST THE BRIDGE
COMPANY IN THE DELAWARE STATE COURTS, SEEKING RECOVERY ON VARIOUS NOTES
AND CONTRACTS CLAIMED TO HAVE CONSTITUTED THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE
BONDS.  THE BRIDGE COMPANY THEREUPON FILED A "SUPPLEMENTAL BILL" IN THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA, ASSERTING THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE
STATE COURT SUITS HAD BEEN MADE RES JUDICATA BY THE FEDERAL DECREE, AND
PRAYING, INTER ALIA, THAT PHOENIX BE ENJOINED FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING
THE STATE SUITS.  (IN ONE OF THE SUITS, THE STATE COURT REJECTED THE
RES JUDICATA PLEA, PHOENIX FINANCE CORP. V. IOWAWISCONSIN BRIDGE CO.,
40 DEL. 500, 14 A.2D 386, AND AN APPEAL IS NOW PENDING IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF DELAWARE.)  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT PHOENIX WAS BOUND BY
THE FORMER DECREE, AND THAT THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 265 WAS NO BAR TO
AN INJUNCTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 115 F.2D 1, AND
BECAUSE OF THE RELATION OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO THOSE IN NO. 16,
WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  312 U.S. 670. 

THE COURTS BELOW HAVE THUS DECIDED THAT THE PREVIOUS FEDERAL JUDGMENTS
ARE RES JUDICATA IN THE STATE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT THEREFORE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROHIBITORY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 265, THE FEDERAL
COURTS MAY USE THEIR INJUNCTIVE POWERS TO SAVE THE DEFENDANTS IN THE
STATE PROCEEDINGS THE INCONVENIENCE OF PLEADING AND PROVING RES
JUDICATA.  FN1 

FIRST.  SECTION 265 - "A LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS DATING ALMOST FROM THE BEGINNING OF OUR HISTORY AND EXPRESSING
AN IMPORTANT CONGRESSIONAL POLICY - TO PREVENT NEEDLESS FRICTION
BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS," OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V. GAS CO., 309
U.S. 4, 8-9 - IS DERIVED FROM SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1793, 1
STAT. 335:  "  ...  NOR SHALL A WRIT OF INJUNCTION BE GRANTED (BY ANY
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES) TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF A STATE
...  "  IN ITS PRESENT FORM, 36 STAT. 1162, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 379, THE
PROVISION READS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION SHALL NOT BE
GRANTED BY ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY
COURT OF A STATE, EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE SUCH INJUNCTION MAY BE
AUTHORIZED BY ANY LAW RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY."  FN2 

THE HISTORY OF THIS PROVISION IN THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1793 IS NOT
FULLY KNOWN.  WE KNOW THAT ON DECEMBER 31, 1790, ATTORNEY GENERAL
EDMUND RANDOLPH REPORTED TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON DESIRABLE
CHANGES IN THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789.  AM. STATE PAPERS, MISC., VOL. 1,
NO. 17, PP. 21-36.  THE MOST SERIOUS QUESTION RAISED BY RANDOLPH
CONCERNED THE ARDUOUSNESS OF THE CIRCUIT DUTIES IMPOSED ON THE SUPREME
COURT JUSTICES.  BUT THE REPORT ALSO SUGGESTED A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS
DEALING WITH PROCEDURAL MATTERS.  A SECTION OF THE PROPOSED BILL
SUBMITTED BY HIM PROVIDED THAT "NO INJUNCTION IN EQUITY SHALL BE
GRANTED BY A DISTRICT COURT TO A JUDGMENT AT LAW OF A STATE COURT." 
ID., P. 26.  RANDOLPH EXPLAINED THAT THIS CLAUSE "WILL DEBAR THE
DISTRICT COURT FROM INTERFERING WITH THE JUDGMENTS AT LAW IN THE STATE
COURTS; FOR IF THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT RELY UPON THE STATE COURTS,
AS FAR AS THE JUDGMENT, THEY OUGHT TO CONTINUE THERE AS THEY HAVE
BEGUN.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SPLIT THE SAME SUIT INTO ONE AT LAW, AND
ANOTHER IN EQUITY, WITHOUT ADDING A FURTHER SEPARATION, BY THROWING THE
COMMON LAW SIDE OF THE QUESTION INTO THE STATE COURTS, AND THE EQUITY
SIDE INTO THE FEDERAL COURTS."  ID., P. 34.  THE REPORT WAS CONSIDERED
BY THE HOUSE SITTING AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, AND THEN WAS REFERRED
TO SUCCESSIVE SPECIAL COMMITTEES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  NO ACTION
WAS TAKEN UNTIL AFTER CHIEF JUSTICE JAY AND HIS ASSOCIATES WROTE THE
PRESIDENT THAT THEIR CIRCUIT-RIDING DUTIES WERE TOO BURDENSOME. 
AMERICAN STATE PAPERS, MISC., VOL. 1, NO. 32, P. 51.  IN RESPONSE TO
THIS COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS, THE ACT OF MARCH 2,
1793, WAS PASSED, CONTAINING IN SEC. 5, INTER ALIA, THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST STAYING STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS. 

CHARLES WARREN IN HIS ARTICLE FEDERAL AND STATE COURT INTERFERENCE,
43 HARV. L. REV. 345, 347, SUGGESTS THAT THIS PROVISION WAS THE DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE OF RANDOLPH'S REPORT.  THIS SEEMS DOUBTFUL, IN VIEW OF THE
VERY NARROW PURPOSE OF RANDOLPH'S PROPOSAL, NAMELY, THAT FEDERAL COURTS
OF EQUITY SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS AT LAW
RENDERED IN THE STATE COURTS.  SEE TAYLOR AND WILLIS, THE POWER OF
FEDERAL COURTS TO ENJOIN PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS, 42 YALE L.J.
1169, 1171, N. 14. 

THERE IS NO RECORD OF ANY DEBATES OVER THE STATUTE.  SEE 3 ANNALS OF
CONGRESS (1791-93).  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE PROVISION REFLECTED
THE THEN STRONG FEELING AGAINST THE UNWARRANTED INTRUSION OF FEDERAL
COURTS UPON STATE SOVEREIGNTY.  CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA, 2 DALL.  419, WAS
DECIDED ON FEBRUARY 18, 1793, LESS THAN TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE PROVISION
WAS ENACTED INTO LAW.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROXIMITY IS DOUBTFUL. 
COMPARE WARREN, FEDERAL AND STATE COURT INTERFERENCE, 43 HARV. L. REV.
345, 347-48, WITH GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S. 273, 291-92. 
MUCH MORE PROBABLE IS THE SUGGESTION THAT THE PROVISION REFLECTED THE
PREVAILING PREJUDICES AGAINST EQUITY JURISDICTION.  THE JOURNAL OF
WILLIAM MACLAY (1927 ED.), CHRONICLING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE
WHILE HE WAS ONE OF ITS MEMBERS (1789-1791), CONTAINS ABUNDANT EVIDENCE
OF A WIDESPREAD HOSTILITY TO CHANCERY PRACTICE.  SEE ESPECIALLY, PP. 92
94, 101-06(DEBATE ON THE BILL THAT BECAME JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789). 
MOREOVER, SENATOR ELLSWORTH (SOON TO BECOME CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED
STATES), THE PRINCIPAL DRAFTSMAN OF BOTH THE 1789 AND 1793 JUDICIARY
ACTS, OFTEN INDICATED A DISLIKE FOR EQUITY JURISDICTION.  SEE BROWN,
LIFE OF OLIVER ELLSWORTH (1905 ED.)  194; JOURNAL OF WILLIAM MACLAY
(1927 ED.)  103-04; WARREN, NEW LIGHT ON THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 37 HARV. L. REV. 49, 96-100.  FN3 

REGARDLESS OF THE VARIOUS INFLUENCES WHICH SHAPED THE ENACTMENT OF
SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1793, THE PURPOSE AND DIRECTION
UNDERLYING THE PROVISION ARE MANIFEST FROM ITS TERMS:  PROCEEDINGS IN
THE STATE COURTS SHOULD BE FREE FROM INTERFERENCE BY FEDERAL
INJUNCTION.  THE PROVISION EXPRESSES ON ITS FACE THE DUTY OF "HANDS
OFF" BY THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE USE OF THE INJUNCTION TO STAY
LITIGATION IN A STATE COURT.  FN4 

SECOND.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT OF 1793 WAS UNQUALIFIED:  "  ...
NOR SHALL A WRIT OF INJUNCTION BE GRANTED TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY
COURT OF A STATE  ...  " 1 STAT. 335.  IN THE COURSE OF ONE HUNDRED AND
FIFTY YEARS, CONGRESS HAS MADE FEW WITHDRAWALS FROM THIS SWEEPING
PROHIBITION: 

(1)  BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  THIS IS THE ONLY LEGISLATIVE EXCEPTION
WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED DIRECTLY INTO SEC. 265:  "  ...  EXCEPT IN
CASES WHERE SUCH INJUNCTION MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY ANY LAW RELATING TO
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY."  36 STAT. 1162.  THIS PROVISION, BASED UPON
SEC. 21 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1867, 14 STAT. 526, WAS INSERTED IN
THE ACT OF 1793 BY THE REVISERS.  R.S. SEC. 720; SEE PROPOSED DRAFT OF
REVISION OF U.S. STATUTES (1872), VOL. 1, PP. 418. 

(2)  REMOVAL OF ACTIONS.  THE REMOVAL ACTS, EVER SINCE THE ACT OF
SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, 1 STAT. 73, 79, HAVE PROVIDED THAT WHENEVER ANY
PARTY ENTITLED TO REMOVE A SUIT SHALL FILE WITH THE STATE COURT A
PROPER PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND A BOND WITH GOOD AND SUFFICIENT SURETY,
IT SHALL THEN BE THE DUTY OF THE STATE COURT TO ACCEPT SUCH PETITION
AND BOND "AND PROCEED NO FURTHER IN THE CAUSE."  SECTION 265 HAS ALWAYS
BEEN DEEMED INAPPLICABLE TO REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.  DIETZSCH V.
HUIDEKOPER, 103 U.S. 494; MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V. MINING CO., 196
U.S. 239.  THE TRUE RATIONALE OF THESE DECISIONS IS THAT THE REMOVAL
ACTS QUALIFY PRO TANTO THE ACT OF 1793.  SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS HAVE
CLARIFIED THE LOOSE GROUND ADVANCED IN FRENCH V. HAY, 22 WALL.  250,
253.  SEE KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226; TAYLOR AND
WILLIS, THE POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS TO ENJOIN PROCEEDINGS IN STATE
COURTS, 42 YALE L.J. 1169, 1174-75; COMPARE BRYANT V. ATLANTIC COAST
LINE R. CO., 92 F.2D 569, 571.    (3)  LIMITATION OF SHIPOWNERS'
LIABILITY.  THE ACT OF 1851 LIMITING THE LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS
PROVIDES THAT AFTER A SHIPOWNER TRANSFERS HIS INTEREST IN THE VESSEL TO
A TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CLAIMANTS, "ALL CLAIMS AND PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE OWNER OR OWNERS SHALL CEASE."  9 STAT. 635, 636.  BEING A
"SUBSEQUENT STATUTE" TO THE ACT OF 1793, THIS PROVISION OPERATES AS AN
IMPLIED LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT TO IT.  PROVIDENCE & N.Y.S.S. CO. V. HILL
MFG. CO., 109 U.S. 578, 599; SEE ADMIRALTY RULE 51, 254 U.S., APPENDIX,
P. 26. 

(4)  INTERPLEADER.  THE INTERPLEADER ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 416,
AMENDED THE 1917 INTERPLEADER ACT, 39 STAT. 929, TO PROVIDE AS FOLLOWS:
"NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO THE CONTRARY,
SAID (DISTRICT) COURT SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE ITS PROCESS FOR ALL
SUCH CLAIMANTS AND TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION AGAINST EACH OF
THEM, ENJOINING THEM FROM INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING ANY SUIT OR
PROCEEDING IN ANY STATE COURT OR IN ANY OTHER FEDERAL COURT  ...  "
SEE DUGAS V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 414, 428; TREINIES V.
SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66, 74. 

(5)  FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT.  THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER
THIS ACT SUBJECTS THE FARMER AND HIS PROPERTY, WHEREVER LOCATED, TO THE
"EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" OF THE FEDERAL COURT.  AND EXCEPT WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE COURT, SPECIFIED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FARMER OR HIS
PROPERTY "SHALL NOT BE INSTITUTED, OR IF INSTITUTED AT ANY TIME PRIOR
TO THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER THIS SECTION, SHALL NOT BE
MAINTAINED, IN ANY COURT  ...  " 47 STAT. 1473.  SEE KALB V.
FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433. 

THIRD.  THIS BRINGS US TO APPLICATIONS OF SEC. 265 APART FROM THESE
STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS.  THE EARLY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT APPLIED
THE ACT OF 1793 AS A MATTER OF COURSE.  FN5  HOWEVER, A LINE OF CASES
BEGINNING WITH HAGAN V. LUCAS, 10 PET. 400, HOLDS THAT THE COURT,
WHETHER FEDERAL OR STATE, WHICH FIRST TAKES POSSESSION OF A RES
WITHDRAWS THE PROPERTY FROM THE REACH OF THE OTHER.  TAYLOR V. CARRYL,
20 HOW.  583, 597; FREEMAN V. HOWE, 24 HOW.  450.  SEE KLINE V. BURKE
CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 235:  "THE RANK AND AUTHORITY OF THE
(FEDERAL AND STATE) COURTS ARE EQUAL BUT BOTH COURTS CANNOT POSSESS OR
CONTROL THE SAME THING AT THE SAME TIME, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO DO SO WOULD
RESULT IN UNSEEMLY CONFLICT.  THE RULE, THEREFORE, THAT THE COURT FIRST
ACQUIRING JURISDICTION SHALL PROCEED WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM A COURT
OF THE OTHER JURISDICTION IS A RULE OF RIGHT AND OF LAW BASED UPON
NECESSITY, AND WHERE THE NECESSITY, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL, DOES NOT
EXIST, THE RULE DOES NOT APPLY.  SINCE THAT NECESSITY DOES EXIST IN
ACTIONS IN REM AND DOES NOT EXIST IN ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, INVOLVING A
QUESTION OF PERSONAL LIABILITY ONLY, THE RULE APPLIES IN THE FORMER BUT
DOES NOT APPLY IN THE LATTER." 

THE ACT OF 1793 EXPRESSES THE DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO AVOID FRICTION
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES RESULTING FROM THE
INTRUSION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY INTO THE ORDERLY FUNCTIONING OF A
STATE'S JUDICIAL PROCESS.  THE RECIPROCAL DOCTRINE OF THE RES CASES IS
BUT AN APPLICATION OF THE REASON UNDERLYING THE ACT.  CONTEST BETWEEN
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF TWO DISTINCT JUDICIAL SYSTEMS OVER THE SAME
PHYSICAL PROPERTY WOULD GIVE RISE TO ACTUAL PHYSICAL FRICTION.  THE
RULE HAS BECOME WELL SETTLED, THEREFORE, THAT SEC. 265 DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE USE OF THE INJUNCTION BY A FEDERAL COURT TO RESTRAIN STATE
PROCEEDINGS SEEKING TO INTERFERE WITH PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
COURT.  FN6  FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. V. LAKE STREET R. CO., 177 U.S.
51, 61; KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 229, 235; LION
BONDING CO. V. KARATZ, 262 U.S. 77, 88-89; SEE WARREN, FEDERAL AND
STATE COURT INTERFERENCE, 43 HARV. L. REV. 345, 359-66.  AND WHERE A
STATE COURT FIRST ACQUIRES CONTROL OF THE RES, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE
DISABLED FROM EXERCISING ANY POWER OVER IT, BY INJUNCTION OR
OTHERWISE.  PALMER V. TEXAS, 212 U.S. 118. 

ANOTHER GROUP OF CASES IS SAID TO CONSTITUTE AN EXCEPTION TO SEC.
265, NAMELY, WHERE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE ENJOINED LITIGANTS FROM
ENFORCING JUDGMENTS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED IN THE STATE COURTS. 
MARSHALL V. HOLMES, 141 U.S. 589; SIMON V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., 236
U.S. 115; ESSANAY FILM CO. V. KANE, 258 U.S. 358; ATCHISON, T. & S.F.
RY. CO. V. WELLS, 265 U.S. 101; WELLS FARGO & CO. V. TAYLOR, 254 U.S.
175.  IN THE SIMON CASE, MR. JUSTICE LAMAR UNDERTOOK TO RATIONALIZE
THIS CLASS OF CASES BY REGARDING A STATE COURT "PROCEEDING" AS
COMPLETED ONCE JUDGMENT IS SECURED, WITH THE RESULT THAT AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST LEVYING EXECUTION DOES NOT STAY A JUDICIAL "PROCEEDING."  236
U.S. AT 124.  BUT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 265 WAS REJECTED IN HILL V.
MARTIN, 296 U.S. 393, 403:  "THAT TERM (PROCEEDINGS) IS COMPREHENSIVE. 
IT INCLUDES ALL STEPS TAKEN OR WHICH MAY BE TAKEN IN THE STATE COURT OR
BY ITS OFFICERS FROM THE INSTITUTION TO THE CLOSE OF THE FINAL
PROCESS.  IT APPLIES TO APPELLATE AS WELL AS TO ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS;
AND IS INDEPENDENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.  IT APPLIES ALIKE
TO ACTION BY THE COURT AND BY ITS MINISTERIAL OFFICERS; APPLIES NOT
ONLY TO AN EXECUTION ISSUED ON A JUDGMENT, BUT TO ANY PROCEEDING
SUPPLEMENTAL OR ANCILLARY TAKEN WITH A VIEW TO MAKING THE SUIT OR
JUDGMENT EFFECTIVE."  HOWEVER, THE OPINION CITES THE WELLS FARGO AND
ESSANAY FILM CASES IN A FOOTNOTE DEALING WITH "THE RECOGNIZED
EXCEPTIONS TO SEC. 265."  296 U.S. 403, N. 19.  THE FOUNDATION OF THESE
CASES IS THUS VERY DOUBTFUL.  HOWEVER, WE NEED NOT UNDERTAKE TO
REEXAMINE THEM HERE SINCE, IN ANY EVENT, THEY DO NOT GOVERN THE CASES
AT BAR.  FN7 

FOURTH.  WE COME, THEN, TO THE SO-CALLED "RELITIGATION" CASES, THE
FIRST OF WHICH IS DIAL V. REYNOLDS, 96 U.S. 340.  THE FACTS OF THE CASE
ARE SIMPLE:  COOPER WAS INDEBTED TO STAATSMAN.  TO SECURE THESE DEBTS
HE EXECUTED A MORTGAGE DEED OF TRUST UNDER WHICH DIAL WAS TRUSTEE. 
ASSERTING TITLE IN HIMSELF TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE MORTGAGE,
REYNOLDS BROUGHT EJECTMENT AGAINST COOPER IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  ON
WRIT OF ERROR THIS COURT SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT IN REYNOLDS' FAVOR AND
HELD TITLE TO BE IN COOPER.  COOPER V. REYNOLDS, 10 WALL.  308, 321. 
REYNOLDS THEREAFTER DISMISSED HIS EJECTMENT ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT
AND BROUGHT A NEW ACTION AGAINST COOPER IN A TENNESSEE STATE COURT
BASED UPON THE CLAIM THUS PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED.  DIAL AND STAATSMAN,
JOINING COOPER AS A PARTY DEFENDANT, FILED SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO
FORECLOSE THE MORTGAGE AND TO ENJOIN REYNOLDS FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING
HIS ACTION IN THE STATE COURT.  THE LOWER COURT SUSTAINED REYNOLDS'
DEMURRER, AND THIS COURT AFFIRMED.  IT HELD THAT THE "GRAVAMEN" OF THE
BILLS WAS AN INJUNCTION TO PREVENT REYNOLDS FROM PROCEEDING IN THE
STATE COURT.  "SUCH AN INJUNCTION, EXCEPT UNDER THE BANKRUPT ACT, NO
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN GRANT.  WITH THIS EXCEPTION, IT IS
EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY LAW."  96 U.S. AT 341.  FN8 

LOONEY V. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO., 247 U.S. 214, WAS NOT A
"RELITIGATION" CASE.  THE TEXAS FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, IN A SUIT
BROUGHT BY VARIOUS CARRIERS, GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM PROCEEDING TO ASSESS FINES
AND PENALTIES UPON THEM FOR COMPLYING WITH AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NEVERTHELESS INSTITUTED
PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT TO ENJOIN THE CARRIERS FROM COMPLYING WITH
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, AND A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL WAS FILED IN THE
FEDERAL COURT TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED THE
INJUNCTION, AND THIS COURT DISMISSED AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 266, HOLDING
THAT THE INJUNCTION BELOW WAS NOT BASED UPON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE TEXAS STATE STATUTES, BUT WAS GRANTED MERELY TO PROTECT ITS
JURISDICTION UNTIL THE SUIT BROUGHT BY THE CARRIERS WAS FINALLY
SETTLED.  THE CASE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT RULE OURS.  SUPREME TRIBE OF BEN
HUR V. CAUBLE, 255 U.S. 356, HELD THAT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, HAVING
RENDERED A DECREE IN A CLASS SUIT BROUGHT IN BEHALF OF ALL THE MEMBERS
OF A CERTAIN CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES IN A FRATERNAL ASSOCIATION, MAY
ENJOIN MEMBERS OF THE CLASS, FOUND TO BE BOUND BY THE DECREE, FROM
PROSECUTING SUITS IN THE STATE COURTS WHICH WOULD RELITIGATE QUESTIONS
SETTLED BY SUCH DECREE.  THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE DAY CONTAINS NO
REFERENCE TO EITHER THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1793, OR TO DIAL V. REYNOLDS. 
THE OPINION IS DEVOTED ALMOST ENTIRELY TO A DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THE
FORMER DECREE IS RES JUDICATA IN THE STATE SUITS.  HAVING DETERMINED
THIS QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THE COURT DISPOSED OF THE REMAINING -
SEC. 265 - QUESTION IN ONE SENTENCE, CITING ONLY ONE CASE IN SUPPORT OF
ITS CONCLUSION, LOONEY V. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO., SUPRA, WHICH, AS WE
HAVE SEEN, WAS NOT A RELITIGATION CASE.  FN9  255 U.S. AT 367. 

FIFTH.  WE FIND, THEREFORE, THAT APART FROM CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORIZATION, ONLY ONE "EXCEPTION" HAS BEEN IMBEDDED IN SEC. 265 BY
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, TO WIT, THE RES CASES.  THE FACT THAT ONE
EXCEPTION HAS FOUND ITS WAY INTO SEC. 265 IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
MAKING ANOTHER.  FURTHERMORE, THE RES EXCEPTION, HAVING ITS ROOTS IN
THE SAME POLICY FROM WHICH SPRANG SEC. 265, HAS HAD AN UNINTERRUPTED
AND FIRMLY ESTABLISHED ACCEPTANCE IN THE DECISIONS.  THE RULE OF THE
RES CASES WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY ON THE BOOKS WHEN CONGRESS REENACTED THE
ORIGINAL SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF 1793, FIRST BY THE REVISED STATUTES OF
1874 AND LATER BY THE JUDICIAL CODE IN 1911. 

IN STRIKING CONTRAST ARE THE "RELITIGATION CASES."  LOOSE LANGUAGE
AND A SPORADIC, ILL-CONSIDERED DECISION CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE IMBEDDED
IN OUR LAW A DOCTRINE WHICH SO PATENTLY VIOLATES THE EXPRESSED
PROHIBITION OF CONGRESS.  FN10  WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH A SETTLED
COURSE OF DECISIONS, ERRONEOUS IN ORIGIN BUT AROUND WHICH SUBSTANTIAL
INTERESTS HAVE CLUSTERED.  ONLY A FEW RECENT AND EPISODIC UTTERANCES
FURNISH A TENUOUS BASIS FOR THE EXCEPTION WHICH WE ARE NOW ASKED
EXPLICITLY TO SANCTION.  WHATEVER JUSTIFICATION THERE MAY BE FOR
TURNING PAST ERROR INTO LAW WHEN REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS WOULD THEREBY
BE DEFEATED, NO SUCH JUSTIFICATION CAN BE URGED ON BEHALF OF A
PROCEDURAL DOCTRINE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER BETWEEN
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.  IT DENIES REALITY TO SUGGEST THAT LITIGANTS
HAVE SHAPED THEIR CONDUCT IN RELIANCE UPON SOME LOOSE TALK IN PAST
DECISIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 265 OR, MORE CONCRETELY, UPON
ERRONEOUS IMPLICATIONS DRAWN FROM LOONEY V. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO.,
SUPRA, AND SUPREME TRIBE OF BEN-HUR V. CAUBLE, SUPRA.  COMPARE
HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, 119-20. 

IT IS INDULGING IN THE MEREST FICTION TO SUGGEST THAT THE DOCTRINE
WHICH FOR THE FIRST TIME WE ARE ASKED TO PRONOUNCE WITH OUR EYES OPEN
AND IN THE LIGHT OF FULL CONSIDERATION, WAS SO OBVIOUSLY AND FIRMLY
PART OF THE TEXTURE OF OUR LAW THAT CONGRESS IN EFFECT ENACTED IT
THROUGH ITS SILENCE.  THERE IS NO OCCASION HERE TO REGARD THE SILENCE
OF CONGRESS AS MORE COMMANDING THAN ITS OWN PLAINLY AND UNMISTAKABLY
SPOKEN WORDS.  THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE CONGRESS HAS FAILED TO ACT
AFTER HAVING BEEN REQUESTED TO ACT OR WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH
THAT CONGRESS WOULD ORDINARILY BE EXPECTED TO ACT.  THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 265 HAVE NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF COMPREHENSIVE LEGISLATIVE
REEXAMINATION.  EVEN THE EXCEPTIONS REFERABLE TO LEGISLATION HAVE BEEN
INCIDENTAL FEATURES OF OTHER STATUTORY SCHEMES, SUCH AS THE REMOVAL AND
INTERPLEADER ACTS.  THE EXPLICIT AND COMPREHENSIVE POLICY OF THE ACT OF
1793 HAS BEEN LEFT INTACT.  TO FIND SIGNIFICANCE IN CONGRESSIONAL
NONACTION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO FIND SIGNIFICANCE WHERE THERE
IS NONE. 

FEDERAL COURTS EQUITY POWERS POSSESSED BY ANGLO-AMERICAN COURTS.  AS
PART OF THE DELICATE ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED BY OUR FEDERALISM, CONGRESS
HAS RIGOROUSLY CONTROLLED THE "INFERIOR COURTS" IN THEIR RELATION TO
THE COURTS OF THE STATES.  THE UNITARY SYSTEM OF THE COURTS OF ENGLAND
IS SAVED THESE PROBLEMS. 

THE GUIDING CONSIDERATION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY WAS EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL, FOR THE COURT, IN TAYLOR
V. CARRYL, 20 HOW.  583, 597: 

"THE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS, IN ORGANIZING THE JUDICIAL POWERS OF
THE UNITED STATES, EXHIBITS MUCH CIRCUMSPECTION IN AVOIDING OCCASIONS
FOR PLACING THE TRIBUNALS OF THE STATES AND OF THE UNION IN ANY
COLLISION." 

WE MUST BE SCRUPULOUS IN OUR REGARD FOR THE LIMITS WITHIN WHICH
CONGRESS HAS CONFINED THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS OF ITS OWN CREATION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  PLEADING A FEDERAL DECREE AS RES JUDICATA IN A STATE SUIT RAISES
A FEDERAL QUESTION REVIEWABLE IN THIS COURT UNDER SEC. 237(B) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 43 STAT. 937, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(B).  DUPASSEUR V.
ROCHEREAU, 21 WALL.  130; DEPOSIT BANK V. FRANKFORT, 191 U.S. 499;
VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO. V. KIRVEN, 215 U.S. 252; STOLL V.
GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165, 167. 

FN2  FORMULATED AS A CONTRACTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS' EQUITY
JURISDICTION, THE ACT OF 1793 "LIMITS THEIR GENERAL EQUITY POWERS IN
RESPECT TO THE GRANTING OF A PARTICULAR FORM OF EQUITABLE RELIEF; THAT
IS, IT PREVENTS THEM FROM GRANTING RELIEF BY WAY OF INJUNCTION IN THE
CASES INCLUDED WITHIN ITS INHIBITIONS."  SMITH V. APPLE, 264 U.S. 274,
279.  SEE TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66, 74. 

FN3  THE LAST CLAUSE OF SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF 1793, OUTLAWING THE
FAMILIAR EX PARTE INJUNCTION, AFFORDS ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF HOSTILITY
TO CHANCERY PRACTICE:  "NOR SHALL SUCH WRIT (OF INJUNCTION) BE GRANTED
IN ANY CASE WITHOUT REASONABLE PREVIOUS NOTICE TO THE ADVERSE PARTY, OR
HIS ATTORNEY, OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF MOVING FOR THE SAME."  1 STAT.
335.    FN4  SECTION 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 36 STAT. 1162, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 377, IS DERIVED FROM SEC. 14 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 1 STAT.
81, WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE "COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE
POWER TO ISSUE WRITS OF SCIRE FACIAS, HABEAS CORPUS, AND ALL OTHER
WRITS NOT SPECIALLY PROVIDED FOR BY THE STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY
FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO
THE PRINCIPLES AND USAGES OF LAW."  THE GENERAL POWERS THUS GIVEN TO
THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE OBVIOUSLY LIMITED BY THE SUBSEQUENT ENACTMENT
OF THE SPECIFIC PROHIBITORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1793.    FN5  THE
FIRST CASE ARISING UNDER THE PROVISION WAS DIGGS & KEITH V. WOLCOTT, 4
CRANCH 179(1807), WHERE THE APPELLANTS BROUGHT AN ACTION AT LAW ON
VARIOUS PROMISSORY NOTES IN A STATE COURT.  WHILE THIS ACTION WAS STILL
PENDING, THE DEFENDANT FILED A BILL IN THE STATE CHANCERY COURT FOR
CANCELLATION OF THE NOTES.  THE LATTER SUIT WAS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT COURT WHICH CANCELLED THE NOTES AND ENJOINED THE FURTHER
PROSECUTION OF THE STATE ACTION AT LAW.  THE REPORT OF THE PROCEEDING
IN THIS COURT STATES MERELY THAT "THE COURT BEING OF OPINION THAT A
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAD NOT JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN
PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT, REVERSED THE DECREE."  IN HIS
COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826) VOL. 1, P. 386, CHANCELLOR KENT,
STATING THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE "IS NOT TO BE CONTESTED," REFERS
TO IT AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF A SITUATION "IN WHICH ANY CONTROL BY THE
FEDERAL OVER THE STATE COURTS, OTHER THAN BY MEANS OF THE ESTABLISHED
APPELLATE JURISDICTION, HAS EQUALLY BEEN PREVENTED."  PECK V. JENNESS,
7 HOW.  612, 625, HOLDING THAT A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN BANKRUPTCY
COULD NOT DISCHARGE THE LIEN OF A PRIOR ATTACHMENT MADE UNDER STATE
LAW, WAS THE FIRST CASE WHICH EXPRESSLY RELIED UPON THE ACT OF 1793. 
IN ORTON V. SMITH, 18 HOW.  263, 266, THE COURT HELD IT ERROR TO ENJOIN
A STATE ACTION TO ESTABLISH TITLE TO CERTAIN LAND.  "THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES HAVE NO SUCH POWER OVER SUITORS IN A STATE COURT." 

FN6  THE EXTENT TO WHICH A FEDERAL COURT'S EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE
RES MAY REQUIRE USE OF THE INJUNCTION TO EFFECTUATE ITS DECREES IN REM
IS ILLUSTRATED BY RIVERDALE MILLS V. MANUFACTURING CO., 198 U.S. 188;
JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 193 U.S. 93; AND LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT,
292 U.S. 234, 241.  CF. EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610, 615. 

FN7  FOR SIMILAR REASONS WE NEED NOT HERE CONSIDER CASES LIKE EX
PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, AND GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S.
273, WITH WHICH COMPARE HALE V. BIMCO TRADING CO., 306 U.S. 375, 378. 

FN8  THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING THE
COMPLAINANT CANNOT JOIN A THIRD PERSON WHO CLAIMS ADVERSELY TO THE
MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS A MISJOINDER
OF PARTIES.  96 U.S. AT 341.  THESE GROUNDS FOR DECISION WERE, OF
COURSE, ALTERNATIVE, AND EITHER ALONE WAS SUFFICIENT TO DISPOSE OF THE
CASE.  HOWEVER, THEY WERE ENTIRELY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT, AND THERE IS
NO BASIS FOR ANY INFERENCE THAT THE COURT MIGHT HAVE UPHELD AN
INJUNCTION IF REYNOLDS HAD BEEN PROPERLY JOINED.  NOR NEED WE CONSIDER
COMMON-LAW REFINEMENTS IN ACTIONS FOR EJECTMENT, FOR THE COURT WENT
EXPLICITLY ON ITS DUTY TO OBEY THE ACT OF 1793. 

FN9  ROOT V. WOOLWORTH, 150 U.S. 401, IS ERRONEOUSLY REGARDED AS
ILLUSTRATING A "RELITIGATION" EXCEPTION TO SEC. 265.  THE CASE HOLDS
MERELY THAT COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE JURISDICTION TO "EFFECTUATE THEIR OWN
DECREES BY INJUNCTIONS OR WRITS OF ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO AVOID THE
RELITIGATION OF QUESTIONS ONCE SETTLED BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES."  150
U.S. AT 411-12.  THE COURT DID NOT UPHOLD A FEDERAL INJUNCTION AGAINST
A STATE SUIT TO RELITIGATE A CLAIM ALREADY SETTLED BY A PREVIOUS
FEDERAL DECREE - NO SUCH STATE SUIT HAD BEEN BROUGHT.  CONSEQUENTLY,
THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 265.  THE
"FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED" RATIONALE OF CASES LIKE PROUT V. STARR, 188
U.S. 537, WAS DISCARDED IN KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S.
226, 235.  CF. HAINES V. CARPENTER, 91 U.S. 254, 257. 

FN10  THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT, IN THE PROPOSALS
FOR THE JUDICIAL CODE OF 1911, CONGRESS HAD BEFORE IT THE
"RELITIGATION" EXCEPTION AS SETTLED DOCTRINE, AND THAT BY SEC. 265 GAVE
IT LEGISLATIVE CONFIRMATION.  THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE
ON REVISION AND CONDIFICATION OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
ANNOTATED THE ACT OF 1793 WITH CITATIONS TO TWENTY-SIX DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT.  SEN. REPT. NO. 388, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 470.  YET NO
REFERENCE WAS MADE TO FOUR OF THE FIVE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT PRIOR TO
THE JUDICIAL CODE WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO JUSTIFY THE "RELITIGATION"
DOCTRINE: ROOT V. WOOLWORTH, 150 U.S. 401; PROUT V. STARR, 188 U.S.
537; RIVERDALE MILLS V. MANUFACTURING CO., 198 U.S. 188; GUNTER V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S. 273.  (AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, "REMOVAL"
CASES LIKE FRENCH V. HAY, 22 WALL.  250, AND DIETZSCH V. HUIDEKOPER,
103 U.S. 494, REST UPON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FOOTING.)  NONE OF THE
REPORTS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS CONTAINS ANY DISCUSSION OF SEC. 5 OF THE
ACT OF 1793 AND THE DECISIONS CONSTRUING IT.  SEE H. REPT. NO. 818,
61ST CONG., 2D SESS., REFERRING TO H. DOC. NO. 783, 61ST CONG., 2D
SESS.; SEN. REPT. NO. 388, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS.; FINAL REPORT OF THE
COMMISSION TO REVISE AND CODIFY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES (1906),
PP. 29, 244.  NOR DO THE DEBATES DISCLOSE ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE
QUESTION.  SEE 45 CONG. REC., PTS.  III AND IV, AND 46 CONG. REC.,
PTS.  I-V, PASSIM. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
NO. 19. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

THE CONTROLLING ISSUE IN BOTH THE TOUCEY AND THE PHOENIX FINANCE
CASES IS THE POWER OF A FEDERAL COURT TO PROTECT THOSE WHO HAVE
OBTAINED ITS DECREES AGAINST AN EFFORT TO FORCE RELITIGATION OF THE
SAME CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE STATE COURTS.  QUESTIONS OF RES JUDICATA
SEEM INAPPOSITE FOR THE CONCLUSION.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN EITHER
CASE WITH THE EFFECT OF THE DECREES IF AND WHEN THEY MIGHT BE PLEADED
IN THE STATE ACTIONS.  SINCE FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN EACH CASE DEPENDED
UPON DIVERSITY, THEIR EFFECT AS A PLEADED BAR TO RECOVERY IN THE STATE
SUITS WOULD DEPEND UPON THE FAITH AND CREDIT BY LAW OR USAGE GIVEN LIKE
JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF THE STATE CONTAINING THE FEDERAL DISTRICT.  FN1
BUT WHEN THE PRELIMINARY QUESTION IS THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE
FEDERAL DECREE AS A BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE
DECREE SHALL BE ENFORCED BY FURTHER STEPS, IT IS ENTIRELY A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  IT IS IMMATERIAL FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW WHETHER THE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION WAS BOTTOMED ORIGINALLY ON DIVERSITY, OR THE CONSTITUTION
OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE POWER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
JUDGMENTS OF FEDERAL COURTS RESTS WITH CONGRESS.  FN2  IT HAS EXERCISED
THAT POWER FOR GENERAL PURPOSES BY JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 262.  FN3 

AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED, SEC. 265 WAS A SINGLE LINE IN A TWO PAGE ACT
CONCERNING PRACTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, ACT OF MARCH 2, 1793, C. 22,
SEC. 5, 1 STAT. 334.  THE ACT'S DISCONNECTED PROVISIONS WERE AMENDMENTS
TO THE STATUTE ESTABLISHING JUDICIAL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
SHORT SECTION IN WHICH SEC. 265 APPEARED ON THE ONE HAND ENLARGED
EQUITY POWERS OF JUDGES OF THIS COURT BY AUTHORIZING THEM TO ISSUE
WRITS OF NE EXEAT AND INJUNCTION, AND ON THE OTHER RESTRICTED THE USE
OF RESTRAINING ORDERS WITHOUT NOTICE.  LEFT TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE
ACT, FOR LACK OF LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS, FOR DEDUCTIONS AS TO THE
PURPOSE AND INTENTION OF THE ENACTING CONGRESS, AND FACED WITH THE
ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF ITS WORDS, IT MIGHT WELL BE CONCLUDED THAT THE
INTENTION WAS TO BAR AN INJUNCTION RUNNING AGAINST THE COURT ITSELF AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PARTIES.  FN4  THE FACT THAT COURTS OF EQUITY
HAD LONG EXERCISED THE POWER TO ENTERTAIN BILLS TO CARRY THEIR DECREES
INTO EXECUTION BY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE PARTIES ADDS STRENGTH TO SUCH
A SUPPOSITION.  FN5  SUCH NEEDED POWERS WOULD NOT BE LIGHTLY
WITHDRAWN. 

WE ARE NOT RELEGATED TO SUCH SPECULATIONS, HOWEVER.  THIS PROVISION
IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER HAS BEEN EMBODIED IN OUR STATUTE LAW SINCE
1793.  IT WAS CONTINUED BY THE ADOPTION OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF 1878
AND THE JUDICIAL CODE OF 1911.  IT AND THE CASES INTERPRETING IT HAVE
BEEN WOVEN INTO THE FABRIC OF OUR LAW THROUGH THE DECADES.  WHAT
CHANGES WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN ITS FORM TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR
EXPANDING JURISPRUDENCE, WERE IT NOT FOR THE FLEXIBILITY SUPPLIED BY
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, WE CAN ONLY CONJECTURE.  CERTAINLY WHEN THE
CODE OF 1911 RESTATED ITS TERMS, THE CONGRESS TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION
WHAT HAD BY THAT TIME COME TO BE ITS ACCEPTED INTERPRETATION.  GRANTED
THAT SEC. 265 IS NOT A SENTENCE OR SECTION OF A LEGISLATIVE SCHEME
WHOSE MEANING IS TO BE SOUGHT IN THE PURPOSE OF THE ENTIRE ENACTMENT OR
SERIES OF ENACTMENTS,  FN6  WE ARE NEVERTHELESS LED BY THE JUDICIAL
HISTORY INTERVENING SINCE ITS PASSAGE TO LOOK BEYOND THE LITERAL
LANGUAGE AND GIVE WEIGHT TO THOSE DECISIONS WHICH HAD ADDED TO ITS
CONTENT BEFORE THE REENACTMENT IN THE JUDICIAL CODE.  IN THE SENATE
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON REVISION AND CODIFICATION NO
CHANGE IN LANGUAGE WAS SUGGESTED.  YET THE COMMITTEE, AS INDICATIVE OF
THE THEN STATE OF THE LAW, CITED NUMEROUS CASES WHICH ARE RELITIGATION
CASES AND ARE ANALYZED OR REFERRED TO LATER IN THIS OPINION.  FN7  WE
ARE ALL THE MORE PERSUADED TO BELIEVE THAT THE CODE OF 1911 INTENDED TO
ACCEPT THIS EARLY LEGISLATION WITH ITS JUDICIAL GLOSS BECAUSE OF THE
ALTERNATIVE OFFERED.  THIS ALTERNATIVE IS THAT A FEDERAL JUDGMENT
ENTERED PERHAPS AFTER YEARS OF EXPENSE IN MONEY AND ENERGY AND AFTER
THE PRODUCTION OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF EVIDENCE COMES TO NOTHING THAT
IS FINAL.  IT IS TO BE ONLY THE BASIS FOR A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA WHICH
IS TO BE EXAMINED BY ANOTHER COURT, UNFAMILIAR WITH THE RECORD ALREADY
MADE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ISSUES WERE OR WERE NOT SETTLED BY THE
FORMER ADJUDICATION.  FN8  WE, TOO, DESIRE THAT THE DIFFICULTIES INNATE
IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT MAY BE SMOOTHED AWAY WITHOUT A
CLASH OF SOVEREIGNTIES, BUT WE FIND NO CAUSE FOR ALARM IN AFFIRMING A
COURT WHICH FORBIDS PARTIES BOUND BY ITS DECREE TO FIGHT THE BATTLE
OVER ON ANOTHER DAY AND FIELD.  FN9  WE SHOULD NOT, IN REACHING FOR
THEORETICAL SYMMETRY, HAMPER THE EFFICIENCY AND NEEDLESSLY BREAK THE
CONTINUITY OF OUR JUDICIAL METHODOLOGY.  A DECREE FORBIDDING A DEFEATED
PARTY FROM SETTING UP ANY RIGHT, ANYWHERE, BASED UPON CLAIMS ADJUDGED,
IS THE USUAL FORM WHERE INJUNCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR DETERMINING
CONTROVERSIES.  FN10 

THE COURTS PROPERLY ARE HESITANT TO DEPART FROM LITERALISM IN
INTERPRETING A STATUTE.  FN11 STRONG EQUITIES DO INDUCE DEPARTURE FROM
THE ORDINARY COURSE WHERE THE PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS APPEARS PLAIN. 
FN12  IT IS HARD TO CONCEIVE OF A STATUTE, NEW OR OLD, WHICH HAS A
MEANING TOTALLY DISASSOCIATED FROM SUPPORTING LEGISLATION OR THE BODY
OF ADJUDICATIONS WITHIN ITS AMBIT.  THIS STATUTE IS IN A POSTURE MUCH
MORE FAVORABLE FOR THE INTERPRETATION THAT IT AUTHORIZES INJUNCTIONS
AGAINST RELITIGATION IN STATE COURTS THAN WERE THE STATUTES CONSTRUED
IN ANY OF THE CASES CITED IN THE PRECEDING NOTE FOR THE INTERPRETATION
GIVEN THEM.  IN FACT, WE CONCLUDE THAT ITS RESTATEMENT IN THE CODE OF
1911, WITH THE DECISIONS NOW TO BE EXAMINED IN EXISTENCE, NECESSITATES
THE INTERPRETATION HERE ADVOCATED.  ADDITIONAL DECISIONS SINCE 1911 AND
THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO REPUDIATE THIS INTERPRETATION ADD SOMETHING
OF SUBSTANCE TO THIS ARGUMENT. 

THERE EXISTS NO DIVERGENCE OF VIEW IN REGARD TO THE POWER OF FEDERAL
COURTS TO ENJOIN PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS WHERE THE STATE ACTION MAY
EMBARRASS OR INTERFERE WITH THE FEDERAL COURT'S PRIOR CONTROL OVER A
RES WHICH IS IN ITS POSSESSION.  FN13  THAT IS AN EXCEPTION TO SEC.
265.  EQUALLY FIRMLY EMBEDDED IS THE POWER, LONG EXERCISED AS
COMPATIBLE WITH SEC. 265, OF CARRYING INTO EXECUTION BY INJUNCTION
AGAINST STATE ACTIONS THE EQUITABLE DECREES WHICH HAVE SETTLED RIGHTS
OR CLAIMS BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE FEDERAL LITIGATION.  THIS MIGHT BE
SAID TO BE AUXILIARY TO THE PROTECTIVE JURISDICTION OVER PROPERTY IN
THE POSSESSION OF A COURT.  INASMUCH, HOWEVER, AS THE CASES HEREAFTER
CITED CONCERN RIGHTS ARISING FROM CLAIMS ALREADY ADJUDICATED, AND
SINCE, IN THE CASES WHERE A RES WAS AT ONE TIME INVOLVED, THE PROPERTY
WAS NO LONGER IN THE POSSESSION OF THE COURT ISSUING THE INJUNCTION,
THE THEORY OF PREVENTING AN UNSEEMLY CLASH OVER PHYSICAL POSSESSION HAS
NO BASIS.  THE PRINCIPLE FOR WHICH THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES STAND IS
THAT A COURT HAS THE RIGHT TO EXECUTE ITS DECREES TO AVOID RELITIGATION
AND FORCED RELIANCE ON RES JUDICATA.  THE PROCEEDINGS, AS WILL BE MADE
TO APPEAR LATER, WHICH WERE SUPPLEMENTED BY THE ORDERS PROHIBITING
STATE SUITS HERE UNDER REVIEW, FALL WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIS
HITHERTO WELL RECOGNIZED CONCEPTION. 

AS EARLY AS 1893 THIS COURT DECLARED, IN ROOT V. WOOLWORTH, 150 U.S.
401, 411, THAT THE "JURISDICTION OF COURTS OF EQUITY TO INTERFERE AND
EFFECTUATE THEIR OWN DECREES BY INJUNCTIONS OR WRITS OF ASSISTANCE IN
ORDER TO AVOID THE RELITIGATION OF QUESTIONS ONCE SETTLED BETWEEN THE
SAME PARTIES, IS WELL SETTLED."  ROOT, THE PARTY ENJOINED BY THE
ORIGINAL DECREE, ASSERTED RIGHTS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE RELITIGATION OF
SETTLED ISSUES.  ACCORDINGLY HE WAS ENJOINED ON SUPPLEMENTAL BILL,
INTER ALIA, "FROM BRINGING ANY ACTION OR ACTIONS TOUCHING THE TITLE TO
OR POSSESSION OF THE SAID PREMISES  ...  "  UNTIL DISSOLVED, THAT
INJUNCTION FORBADE PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS ALIKE. 
ALTHOUGH SEC. 265 WAS NOT DISCUSSED, THE CASE IS CITED AS A CONVENIENT
SUMMARY OF THE THEN LAW, AND BECAUSE IT PROMPTLY BECAME A PRECEDENT FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF DECREES EVEN WHEN THE PROBLEM OF SEC. 265 WAS RAISED. 
THE AUTHORITY OF THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED UNTIL NOW.    PROUT V.
STARR, 188 U.S. 537, 544, FORBADE A STATE SUIT IN VIOLATION OF A
FEDERAL COURT STIPULATION FOR A DECREE, TREATED THE STIPULATION AS A
DECREE, AND ENJOINED AN ACTION IN PERSONAM IN THE STATE COURT FOR THE
COLLECTION OF PENALTIES UNDER AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE.  THE STATE
ACTION WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE ORIGINAL FEDERAL DECREE.  THIS COURT
SAID:  "THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT COULD NOT BE DEFEATED OR
IMPAIRED BY THE INSTITUTION, BY ONE OF THE PARTIES, OF SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS, WHETHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, INVOLVING THE SAME LEGAL
QUESTIONS, IN THE STATE COURT."    IN 193 U.S. APPEARED THE CASE OF
JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY.  A RAILROAD PROPERTY IN NORTH CAROLINA
HAD BEEN SOLD UNDER FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
COURT.  THE DECREE WAS THAT THE PROPERTY BE SOLD FREE OF ALL CLAIMS OF
PARTIES AND THE JUDICIAL SALE WAS CONFIRMED TO THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY
COMPANY.  SOME YEARS LATER A CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE WHICH WAS PROSECUTED
TO JUDGMENT IN A STATE COURT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGOR WITHOUT
NOTICE TO OR CLAIM AGAINST THE PURCHASER, THE SOUTHERN.  IN THE FACE OF
A THREAT TO SELL THE PROPERTY FORMERLY CONVEYED BY THE FEDERAL DECREE,
THE CIRCUIT COURT ENJOINED THE STATE PROCEEDINGS.  THIS COURT SAID, PP.
112, 114: "IN SUCH CASE WE ARE OF OPINION THAT A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL MAY
BE FILED IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT WITH A VIEW TO PROTECTING THE PRIOR
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT AND TO RENDER EFFECTUAL ITS DECREE. 
...  IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE FEDERAL COURT ACTS IN AID OF ITS OWN
JURISDICTION AND TO RENDER ITS DECREE EFFECTUAL, IT MAY,
NOTWITHSTANDING SEC. 720, REV. STAT., (SEC. 265 J.C.)  RESTRAIN ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT WHICH WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEFEATING
OR IMPAIRING ITS JURISDICTION.  ...  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE FEDERAL
RIGHT COULD BE SET UP IN THE STATE COURT FROM WHICH THE EXECUTION
ISSUED, AND, IF DENIED, THE ULTIMATE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES CAN BE
DETERMINED UPON WRIT OF ERROR TO THIS COURT.  IN THE VIEW WE HAVE TAKEN
OF THIS CASE THE FEDERAL COURT HAD NOT LOST ITS JURISDICTION TO PROTECT
THE PURCHASER AT ITS SALE UPON DIRECT PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS ARE NOW
BEFORE US."  FN14 

RIVERDALE MILLS V. MANUFACTURING CO., 198 U.S. 189, FOLLOWED THE
ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE.  THE RIVERDALE MILLS ACQUIRED PROPERTY BY
JUDICIAL SALE IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  A STATE PROCEEDING LATER WAS BEGUN
BY PARTIES TO THE FEDERAL FORECLOSURE ALLEGING THE INVALIDITY OF THE
SALE AND SEEKING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.  RIVERDALE THEN FILED AN
ANCILLARY BILL IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST PROSECUTION OF THE STATE SUIT.  AGAINST THE CLAIMED PROTECTION
OF R.S. SEC. 720(SEC.  265 J.C.), P. 193, IT WAS HELD HERE THAT A
FEDERAL COURT MAY "PROTECT THE TITLE WHICH IT HAS DECREED AS AGAINST
EVERY ONE A PARTY TO THE ORIGINAL SUIT AND PREVENT THAT PARTY FROM
RELITIGATING THE QUESTIONS OF RIGHT WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN
DETERMINED."  P. 195. 

IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE COURT IN BOTH THE JULIAN AND THE RIVERDALE
CASES WAS INTENT NOT ON PROTECTING A RES, SINCE THAT HAD LONG PASSED
FROM ITS HANDS, BUT ON AVOIDING RELITIGATION BY EXECUTING ITS DECREES. 
THIS APPEARS PARTICULARLY FROM THEIR RELIANCE UPON FRENCH V. HAY, 22
WALL.  250; DIETZSCH V. HUIDEKOPER, 103 U.S. 494; AND SHARON V. TERRY,
36 F. 337.  IN THE FRENCH CASE NO RES WAS INVOLVED.  IT WAS A FEDERAL
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT
OBTAINED IN A STATE ACTION AFTER REMOVAL OF A RELATED BUT SEPARATE
STATE SUIT.  THE REASONING PROCEEDED UPON THE PROTECTION OF FEDERAL
JUDGMENTS, NOT ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE REMOVAL STATUTE.  THE SAME IS
TRUE OF DIETZSCH.  THERE A STATE SUIT ON A REPLEVIN BOND WAS ENJOINED
BY THE FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE IT GREW OUT OF A FAILURE TO RETURN
PROPERTY AWARDED IN REPLEVIN IN A STATE COURT AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THE
ORIGINAL REPLEVIN SUIT TO THE FEDERAL COURT WHICH ISSUED THE
INJUNCTION.  IT WAS THERE SAID, P. 497:  "A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IS NOT PREVENTED FROM ENFORCING ITS OWN JUDGMENTS BY THE STATUTE WHICH
FORBIDS IT TO GRANT A WRIT OF INJUNCTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE
COURT." 

THE COURT TODAY LAYS ASIDE GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 200 U.S.
273(1906), AS INAPPLICABLE.  THE CASE IN OUR VIEW MAY BE PROPERLY CITED
AS A RELITIGATION DECISION.  IT FORCEFULLY DECLARES, ALBEIT BY
ALTERNATIVE RULING, FOR THE POSITION HERE TAKEN.  A FEDERAL COURT HAD
ENJOINED A STATE TAX ON THE GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  THE STATE
WAS A PARTY.  YEARS LATER THE STATE BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE STATE
COURT FOR THE TAX WHICH THE DECREE PROHIBITED.  AN ANCILLARY BILL
SOUGHT AND OBTAINED AN INJUNCTION FROM THE FEDERAL COURT.  THIS COURT
SAID, P. 292, "INDEED, THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT, OR
STATES IN ADMINISTERING RELIEF, ALTHOUGH THE COURT WAS ACTING IN A
MATTER ANCILLARY TO A DECREE RENDERED IN A CAUSE OVER WHICH IT HAD
JURISDICTION, IS NOT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.  DIETZSCH V. HUIDEKOPER, 103
U.S. 494; PROUT V. STARR, 188 U.S. 537; JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST CO.,
193 U.S. 93, 112."  IT CANNOT FAIRLY BE SAID, WE THINK, THAT THIS WAS
NOT A HOLDING THAT A FEDERAL COURT HAS THE DUTY TO PROTECT ITS PARTIES
AGAINST RELITIGATION.  THIS SEEMS QUITE CERTAIN WHEN WE EXAMINE THE
CASES CITED WHICH ARE DISCUSSED HERETOFORE IN THIS OPINION. 

THE TERRY CASE, CITED UNDER THE RIVERDALE MILLS CASE, SUPRA, IS A
GOOD ILLUSTRATION OF THE PERMEATION OF OUR LAW BY THE PRINCIPLE OF
PROTECTION OF FEDERAL DECREES BY INJUNCTIONS AGAINST PROSECUTING STATE
SUITS WHICH RELITIGATE SETTLED ISSUES.  IN SHARON V. TERRY, A FORMER
DECREE HAD DETERMINED THE FRAUDULENT CHARACTER OF A MARRIAGE CONTRACT,
AND HAD ENJOINED ALL EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH RIGHTS UNDER ANY OF ITS
PROVISIONS.  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS DECREE, A PARTY THEREAFTER SOUGHT AND
OBTAINED A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE DETERMINING THE
MARRIAGE CONTRACT VALID.  THERE WAS NO PLEA OF RES JUDICATA IN THE
STATE PROCEEDINGS.  AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE STATE JUDGMENT, THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WINNING PARTY IN THE FEDERAL SUIT REVIVED THAT
PROCEEDING AND OBTAINED A RENEWAL OF THE INJUNCTION OVER THE SPECIFIC
OBJECTION THAT R.S. SEC. 720(SEC.  265 J.C.)  BARRED THE ORDER.  36 F.
337, 365. 

THE OPINION WAS BY JUSTICE FIELD OF THIS COURT, ON CIRCUIT, AND
STATED:  "THE DECREE OF THE FEDERAL COURT, WHEN REVIVED, MAY BE USED TO
STAY ANY ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT."  P.
364.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE OPINION SHOWS THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS OF
THE VIEW THAT PRIOR JURISDICTION OF AN IN PERSONAM CAUSE GAVE THE
FEDERAL COURT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE
PROCEEDINGS.  P. 366.  BUT THE DECISION WAS DIRECTLY ON THE POINT OF
ENFORCEMENT OF A DECREE.  WHEN THE CASE CAME TO THIS COURT IT WAS
AFFIRMED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF SEC. 265 ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PROPRIETY OF THE REVIVOR WAS THE ONLY MATTER FOR DECISION, 131 U.S.
40. 

IN THE LATER CASE OF MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. JONES, 170 F.
124(1909), A FEDERAL COURT HAD DECIDED THAT A STATE STATUTE FIXING
RAILROAD RATES WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND HAD ENTERED DECREES FOR THE
RAILROADS ACCORDINGLY.  THEREAFTER, A COUNTY ATTORNEY COMMENCED A SUIT
IN THE STATE COURT AGAINST THE COMPANIES TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION OF ANY
BUT THE STATUTORY RATE.  ON SUPPLEMENTAL BILL BY THE RAILROADS THE
FEDERAL COURT ENJOINED HIM FROM PROSECUTING THAT SUIT, AND RELITIGATING
THE RATE CONTROVERSY.  SIMILARLY, IN ST. LOUIS MINING & MILLING CO. V.
MONTANA MINING CO., 148 F. 450(1906), THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IN THE
FEDERAL SUIT WAS ENJOINED FROM PROCEEDING FURTHER IN THE STATE COURT TO
RELITIGATE MATTERS ALREADY DECIDED.  FN15  THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL
PROCEEDING WAS ANCILLARY TO AN ACTION TO TRY TITLE SEEMS TO HAVE HAD NO
PART IN THE DECISION.  FN16 

THESE CASES WERE ALL HANDED DOWN BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE IN 1911.  THEY ARE CATALOGUED TO SHOW THAT THE POWER OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS TO MAKE THEIR DECREES EFFECTIVE WAS ACCEPTED AS
CONSONANT WITH THE GENERAL PROHIBITION OF SEC. 265.  POMEROY TAUGHT
THAT THIS WAS THE LAW IN 1905.  FN17  THE RULE WAS APPLIED AFTER 1911
WHEN OCCASION AROSE.  BY SUPREME TRIBE OF BEN-HUR V. CAUBLE, 255 U.S.
356, 367, IT WAS DECIDED IN 1921 ALMOST WITHOUT DISCUSSION THAT A
FEDERAL COURT WHICH HAD ENTERED A DECREE AS TO RIGHTS IN A FRATERNAL
BENEFIT ASSOCIATION IN A CLASS SUIT MIGHT ENJOIN BY ANCILLARY BILL
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CLASS FROM RELITIGATING THE ISSUES IN A STATE
SUIT.  LOONEY V. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO., 247 U.S. 214, CITED AS A
CONTROLLING PRECEDENT, WAS SUGGESTED THERE BY APPELLANT, THE SUPREME
TRIBE OF BEN-HUR, UPON THE VERY POINT HERE UNDER DISCUSSION.  ID., 65
LAW.  ED. 675.  THIS COURT NOW LAYS THE LOONEY CASE ASIDE AS NOT BEING
A "RELITIGATION" CASE.  WHILE THE INJUNCTION IN THE LOONEY CASE WAS NOT
IN AID OF A DECREE, IT WAS IN AID OF JURISDICTION TAKEN TO DETERMINE A
TEXAS RATE CONTROVERSY.  A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HAD BEEN ENTERED TO
MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO UNTIL A REVIEW BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION MAY WELL BE LIKENED TO A DECREE AND
ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROTECTION AGAINST RELITIGATION.  SUCH WAS
EVIDENTLY THIS COURT'S VIEW.  IT SAID, PAGE 221:  "SO IMPORTANT IS IT
THAT UNSEEMLY CONFLICT OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS
SHOULD BE AVOIDED BY MAINTAINING THE JURISDICTION OF EACH FREE FROM THE
ENCROACHMENTS OF THE OTHER, THAT SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, REV.
STATS., SEC. 720, ACT OF MARCH 2, 1793, C. 22, 1 STAT. 334, HAS
REPEATEDLY BEEN HELD NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH AN INJUNCTION." 

THE LAST CASE IN THIS COURT, LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S. 234,
UPHELD BY A UNANIMOUS COURT AN INJUNCTION, UPON AN ANCILLARY BILL IN A
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, FORBIDDING THE PROSECUTION IN A STATE COURT OF A
CLAIM DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY.  THIS COURT PLACED ITS DECISION
SQUARELY ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO EXECUTE ITS
DECREES "NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE."  QUITE PROPERLY NO MENTION IS MADE OF THE EXCEPTION IN SEC. 265
"EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE SUCH INJUNCTION MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY ANY LAW
RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY."  THE ONLY AUTHORIZATION FOR
INJUNCTIONS IS IN BANKRUPTCY ACT SEC. 11, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 29, WHICH
PROVIDES FOR A STAY OF PENDING SUITS DURING ADJUDICATION IN
BANKRUPTCY.  THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 21 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1867, 14 STAT. 526, WHICH CAUSED THE INSERTION OF THE
EXCEPTION IN THE REVISED STATUTES, AS IS SHOWN BY THE CROSS-REFERENCE
UNDER R.S. SEC. 720.  THE SPECIFIC EXCEPTION OF SEC. 265 WAS
INAPPLICABLE TO THE LOCAL LOAN COMPANY SITUATION.  FURTHERMORE, THIS
CASE INVOLVED A RES ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT EVERY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING
INVOLVES A RES, I.E., THE ESTATE. 

OTHER FEDERAL COURTS, SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, HAVE
CONTINUED TO ENJOIN RELITIGATION OF SETTLED ISSUES.  FN18 

WE THINK IT MAY BE ACCURATELY STATED THAT FOR MORE THAN HALF A
CENTURY THERE HAS BEEN A WIDELY ACCEPTED RULE SUPPORTING THE POWER OF
FEDERAL COURTS TO PREVENT RELITIGATION.  THERE ARE ADEQUATE PRECEDENTS
DIRECTLY IN POINT AND OTHERS WHICH RECOGNIZE THAT THE RULE EXISTS AND
IS SOUND.  SOME AT ONE TIME INVOLVED A RES.  A NUMBER APPLIED THE SAME
RULE WHEN A RES WAS NEVER IN THE HANDS OF THE COURT.  NOT A CASE NOR A
TEXT BOOK IS CITED TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S PRESENT POSITION.  NO
ARTICLES IN PERIODICALS SUGGEST THE PROPRIETY OR DESIRABILITY OF SO
POSITIVE A CHANGE, EXCEPT A SINGLE QUERY AS TO THE LOGIC OF THE
RELITIGATION DEVELOPMENT.  FN19  THOUGH THE JUDICIAL CODE RECEIVED
CAREFUL ANALYSIS BEFORE ADOPTION,  FN20  NO LANGUAGE WAS INSERTED TO
DISAVOW THE SETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF THE REENACTED SECTION.  DIAL V.
REYNOLDS, 96 U.S. 340, SAID BY THE COURT TO BE A "RELITIGATION" CASE,
DID NOT INVOLVE A DECREE.  IN A FEDERAL SUIT TO QUIET TITLE AN
INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT TO FORBID A STATE ACTION IN EJECTMENT.  IT IS IN
LINE WITH KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, BUT NOT EVEN
PERSUASIVE ON THE QUESTION OF RELITIGATION OR EXECUTION OF DECREES. 

WE TURN NOW BRIEFLY TO THE ORIGINAL AND AUXILIARY DECREES IN THE TWO
CASES UNDER CONSIDERATION.  IN THE TOUCEY CASE, HIS SUIT IN EQUITY
AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR RESTORATION OF AN INSURANCE POLICY
AND PAYMENTS FOR BENEFITS UNDER IT ON THE GROUND OF THE FRAUD OF THE
COMPANY WAS DECIDED AGAINST TOUCEY.  AN ASSIGNEE OF TOUCEY'S IN PRIVITY
WITH HIM SOUGHT TO RELITIGATE THE SAME ISSUES IN A STATE COURT.  THE
FEDERAL COURT WHICH ENTERED THE ORIGINAL DECREE ENJOINED ON
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL "RETRIAL, RECONSIDERATION OR READJUDICATION" OF THE
SETTLED ISSUES AND THE PROSECUTION OF THE STATE ACTION.  FN21 

IN THE IOWA-WISCONSIN BRIDGE CO. CASE, A DECREE, INVALIDATING A
CERTAIN MORTGAGE AND BONDS ISSUED IN CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMED
INDEBTEDNESS AFTER PROTRACTED LITIGATION, WAS ENTERED DECEMBER 1, 1936,
IN A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE SUIT BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT BY THE
BONDHOLDERS.  THIS DECREE BECAME FINAL.  FN22  THEREAFTER PARTIES TO
THE PROCEEDINGS SOUGHT TO LITIGATE, IN THE STATE COURTS OF DELAWARE,
THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN ITEMS OF THE INDEBTEDNESS WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO
FORM THE BASIS FOR THE BOND ISSUE AND TO HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED BY THE
FORMER FEDERAL DECREE.  A SUPPLEMENTAL AND ANCILLARY BILL WAS FILED BY
THE BRIDGE COMPANY IN THE ORIGINAL FEDERAL COURT SUIT SEEKING AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RELITIGATION OF THE ALREADY ADJUDICATED CAUSES
OF ACTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE INJUNCTION ON A FINDING THAT
THE CAUSES DECLARED UPON IN DELAWARE HAD BEEN SETTLED BY THE FEDERAL
LITIGATION.  FN23 

THESE SUMMARY STATEMENTS SHOW PLAINLY, IT SEEMS TO US, THAT THE
INJUNCTIONS NOW SET ASIDE BY THIS COURT WERE ISSUED WITHIN THE
RECOGNIZED RULE THAT FEDERAL COURTS MAY PROTECT THEIR DECREES BY
PROHIBITING RELITIGATION, WITHOUT VIOLATION OF SEC. 265 AS HERETOFORE
UNDERSTOOD AND INTERPRETED.  BOTH DECREES SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  FN24 
FN1  R.S. SEC. 905; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687; HANCOCK NATIONAL BANK V.
FARNUM, 176 U.S. 640. 

FN2  EMBRY V. PALMER, 107 U.S. 3, 9; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V.
SOWERS, 213 U.S. 55, 64. 

FN3  "THE  SUPREME COURT AND THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO
ISSUE WRITS OF SCIRE FACIAS.  THE SUPREME COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS, AND THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE ALL WRITS
NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO THE
USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  (R.S. SEC. 716; ACT OF MAR. 3, 1911, C.
231, SEC. 262, 36 STAT. 1162.) 

FN4  CF. STEELMAN V. ALL CONTINENT CORP., 301 U.S. 278, 290; WARREN,
FEDERAL AND STATE COURT INTERFERENCE, (1930) 43 HARV. L. REV. 345,
372. 

FN5  STORY, EQUITY PLEADINGS (10TH ED.)  SEC.  429; MITFORD,
PLEADINGS IN CHANCERY (1780) P. 38; COOPER, EQUITY PLEADING, (1809) PP.
98, 99; BOOTH V. LEYCESTER, 1 KEEN 579(1837); KERSHAW V. THOMPSON, 4
JOHNS.  CH. 609(N.Y. 1820). 

FN6  CF. UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534,
543. 

FN7  FRENCH V. HAY, 22 WALL.  250; DIETZSCH V. HUIDEKOPER, 103 U.S.
494; JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 193 U.S. 112; SHARON V. TERRY, 36 F.
337; GARNER V. SECOND NATIONAL BANK, 67 F. 833; CENTRAL TRUST CO. V.
WESTERN N.C.R. CO., 89 F. 24; JAMES V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 98 F. 489;
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. ST. JOSEPH UNION DEPOT CO., 92 F. 22;
STATE TRUST CO. V. KANSAS CITY, P. & G.R. CO., 110 F. 10. 

FN8  DIETZSCH V. HUIDEKOPER, 103 U.S. 494, 498. 

FN9  CF. PRINCESS LIDA V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 456, 466. 

FN10  E.G., IN RE CHILES, 22 WALL.  157, 166; SHARON V. TERRY, 36 F.
337, 345. 

FN11  CF. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. PAINTER, POST, P. 155. 

FN12  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSNS., 310 U.S. 534; UNITED
STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478; MILLER V. NUT MARGARINE
CO., 284 U.S. 498; ALLEN V. REGENTS, 304 U.S. 439. 

FN13  KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 229. 

FN14  THE DOCTRINE OF THE JULIAN CASE FINDS ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THOSE COURTS WERE
ENFORCING FORECLOSURE, THAT PURPOSE HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AND THE
ENJOINED STATE SUITS SOUGHT RELITIGATION OF CLOSED ISSUES.  JAMES V.
CENTRAL TRUST CO., 98 F. 489(1899), MODIFYING CENTRAL TRUST CO. V.
WESTERN N.C.R. CO., 89 F. 24(1898); STATE TRUST CO. V. KANSAS CITY, P.
& G.R. CO., 110 F. 10(1901); CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. WESTERN NORTH
CAROLINA R. CO., 112 F. 471(1901); ALTON WATER CO. V. BROWN, 166 F.
840(1908). 

FN15  CF. GARNER V. SECOND NATIONAL BANK, 67 F. 833(1895). 

FN16  THERE ARE INSTANCES OF THE RECOGNITION OF THE POWER TO PREVENT
RELITIGATION DESPITE R.S. SEC. 720 THOUGH THE POWER WAS NOT ACTUALLY
EXERCISED.  CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. V. ST. JOSEPH UNION DEPOT CO., 92 F.
22, 25(1898); GUARDIAN TRUST CO. V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO., 146
F. 337, 340(1906).  CRAFT V. LATHROP, FED. CAS. NO. 3318(1851),
PRESENTS THE CONVERSE SITUATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTEMPORARY EQUIVALENT OF SEC. 265. 

FN17  II POMEROY'S EQUITABLE REMEDIES (1905) SEC. 640, P. 1079. 
AFTER DISCUSSING SEC. 265 - "ACCORDINGLY, A FEDERAL COURT MAY GRANT AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST A PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT WHEN NECESSARY TO
RENDER EFFECTIVE ITS OWN DECREE." 

FN18  ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. V. MCELVAIN, 253 F.
123(1918)(VALIDITY OF MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE); WILSON V. ALEXANDER, 276
F. 875(1921)(DEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE TO LAND); HICKEY V. JOHNSON, 9 F.2D
498(1925)(VALIDITY OF DEEDS TO INDIAN LAND); AMERICAN SURETY CO. V.
BALDWIN, 2 F.SUPP.  679(1933)(LIABILITY OF SURETY ON APPEAL BOND);
STERLING V. GREDIG, 5 F.SUPP.  329(1932)(VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS IN A
WILL); HESSELBERG V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO., 102 F.2D 23(1939)(VALIDITY OF
INSURANCE POLICY). 

FN19  SEE TAYLOR AND WILLIS, THE POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS TO ENJOIN
PROCEEDINGS IN STATE COURTS, (1933) 42 YALE L.J. 1169, 1176.  CF.
WARREN, FEDERAL AND STATE COURT INTERFERENCE, (1930) 43 HARV. L. REV.
345, 378. 

FN20  SENATE REPORT NO. 388, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., (1910), P. 2. 

FN21  CF. TOUCEY V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 102 F.2D 16, 20;
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR.  SOC.  V. WERT, 102 F.2D 10. 

FN22  98 F.2D 416, CERT. DENIED, 305 U.S. 650. 

FN23  SEE, FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE ISSUES
ALREADY SETTLED:  BECHTEL TRUST CO. V. IOWA-WISCONSIN BRIDGE CO., 19
F.SUPP.  127; FIRST TRUST & SAVINGS BANK V. IOWA-WISCONSIN BRIDGE CO.,
98 F.2D 416; PHOENIX FINANCE CORP. V. IOWA-WISCONSIN BRIDGE CO., 115
F.2D 1. 

FN24  IT MIGHT BE NOTED THAT SEC. 265 IS RECOGNIZED AS MERELY A
LIMITATION ON GENERAL EQUITY POWERS, SMITH V. APPLE, 264 U.S. 274,
WHILE THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70, IS A DENIAL OF
JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN.  "NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL
HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY ...  INJUNCTION IN A CASE INVOLVING OR
GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE, EXCEPT  ...  " 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCUR IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. PAINTER, 314 U.S. 155 


NO. 24.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 21, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 17, 1941.  -
117 F.2D 100, REVERSED. 


PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT THOUGH SUCH INJUNCTION BE IN SUPPORT OF A
SUIT, UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, BEGUN EARLIER AND
THEN PENDING IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  P. 159. 

SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. PAINTER, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 556, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF
INJUNCTION. 

THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION, AS TO BOTH SUBJECT
MATTER AND PARTIES, OVER THE ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT. 

THAT THE PLAINTIFF UNDER SEC. 6, AS AMENDED, HAD AN UNQUALIFIED RIGHT
TO BRING THE ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN MISSOURI, IS PLAIN FROM THE
LANGUAGE AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THAT SECTION. 

THIS RIGHT TO SELECT THE FORUM IS AN ABSOLUTE FEDERAL RIGHT.  SECOND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 58; HOFFMAN V. MISSOURI EX REL.
FORAKER, 274 U.S. 21; MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO., 292 U.S. 230;
SEE, ALSO, MISSOURI EX REL. ST. LOUIS, B. & M.R. CO. V. TAYLOR, 255
U.S. 200. 

THE TENNESSEE CHANCERY COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE RAILWAY'S COMPLAINT.  ITS INJUNCTION WAS UNAUTHORIZED AND
VOID. 

WHERE THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, THE
PLAINTIFF HAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ELECT THE FORUM IN WHICH HE WILL
BRING HIS ACTION. 

WHEN A FEDERAL COURT IS PROPERLY APPEALED TO IN A CASE OVER WHICH IT
HAS BY LAW JURISDICTION, IT IS NOT ONLY THE RIGHT, BUT THE DUTY, OF
THAT COURT TO TAKE AND EXERCISE JURISDICTION.  DIST'G CANADA MALTING
CO. V. PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, LTD., 285 U.S. 413; PENN GENERAL CASUALTY
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 189; PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S.
176; AND HARKIN V. BRUNDAGE, 276 U.S. 36. 

THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IS ONE WHICH IS APPLICABLE ONLY
BY A COURT TO A CASE PENDING BEFORE IT, AS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY
PETITIONER RAILWAY WELL ILLUSTRATE; IT CANNOT BE APPLIED BY ONE COURT
TO A CASE PENDING BEFORE A COURT IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION - AND
PETITIONER RAILWAY MADE NO ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
BELOW APPLY THAT DOCTRINE TO THIS RESPONDENT'S CASE, BUT, ON THE
CONTRARY, SOUGHT A "BACK-HANDED" APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE BY THE
STATE COURT OF TENNESSEE.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM
NON CONVENIENS IS NOT TO BE APPLIED MERELY UPON CONSIDERATIONS OF
CONVENIENCE OR EXPENSE, BUT IS TO BE APPLIED ONLY WHERE THE TRIAL OF
THE CAUSE IN THE FORUM IN WHICH IT IS PENDING WILL PRODUCE AN
INJUSTICE.  IN THE THIRD PLACE, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IS
NEVER TO BE APPLIED WHERE IT WILL RESULT IN AN INJUSTICE TO THE
PLAINTIFF. 

THE COURTS OF A STATE HAVE NO AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN
OR ENJOIN PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

A COURT OF EQUITY, IN A PROPER CASE AND TO PREVENT HARASSING,
VEXATIOUS AND INEQUITABLE CONSEQUENCES, MAY RESTRAIN AND ENJOIN PARTIES
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION FROM INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING PROCEEDINGS IN
THE COURTS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS.  COLE V. CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107. 
BUT THAT DOCTRINE IS SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPTION, BASED UPON NECESSITY,
THAT STATE COURTS CANNOT ENJOIN PARTIES FROM PROCEEDING IN FEDERAL
COURTS.  THE DOCTRINE APPLIES ONLY IN CASES WHERE BOTH PARTIES TO THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE FOREIGN COURT ARE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT OF EQUITY WHEREIN RELIEF IS SOUGHT FROM THE PROSECUTION OF
THE PROCEEDING IN THE FOREIGN COURT. 

FURTHERMORE, THE EFFECT OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IS TO SUPERSEDE THE LAW OF THE STATES, COMMON
LAW AS WELL AS STATUTORY. 

THE INJUNCTION BY THE TENNESSEE CHANCERY COURT, WITHOUT AUTHORITY,
UNDERTOOK (1) TO DEPRIVE RESPONDENT ENTIRELY OF HER RIGHT TO BRING HER
ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT AT THE PLACE FIRST PROVIDED FOR BY THE ACT,
VIZ., IN THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF PETITIONER RAILWAY AT
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA; (2) TO IMPAIR AND LIMIT THE RIGHT OF RESPONDENT TO
BRING HER ACTION IN A FEDERAL COURT IN THE PLACES LAST PROVIDED FOR BY
THE ACT, VIZ., THE VARIOUS FEDERAL DISTRICTS IN WHICH THE PETITIONER
RAILWAY WAS DOING BUSINESS; AND (3) TO DIRECT RESPONDENT TO BRING HER
ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT AT A PLACE NOT PROVIDED FOR BY THE ACT,
VIZ., THE DISTRICT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESIDENCE, WHERE THE RAILWAY MIGHT
NOT BE DOING BUSINESS. 

THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S ELECTION OF A VENUE MAY CAUSE, INCIDENTALLY, A
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CANNOT AFFECT HIS RIGHT TO MAKE IT,
PURSUANT TO THE ACT. 

THE GENERAL RULE THAT, ORDINARILY, AN ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR
CANNOT SUE OR BE SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY IN THE COURTS OF A
JURISDICTION FOREIGN TO THAT FROM WHICH HE DERIVES HIS AUTHORITY, IS
WITHOUT APPLICATION TO AN ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR WHO BRINGS AN
ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT. 

RESPONDENT DID NOT BRING HER ACTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN
MISSOURI BY VIRTUE OF HER INHERENT RIGHT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF HER DECEDENT, BUT BY VIRTUE OF HER DESIGNATION BY THE FEDERAL
STATUTE AS TRUSTEE FOR DESIGNATED DEPENDENT SURVIVORS OF THE DECEDENT
AND FOR THEM ALONE. 

THE INJUNCTION OF THE CHANCERY COURT IS NOT ENTITLED TO "FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT."  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD OCCASION AND POWER AND AUTHORITY
TO GRANT THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE RAILWAY. 

NO STATE OR FEDERAL COURT, OTHER THAN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
BELOW IN MISSOURI, IS OPEN OR AVAILABLE TO RESPONDENT FOR THE
PROSECUTION OF HER CAUSE OF ACTION, FOR THE INJURY TO AND DEATH OF HER
DECEDENT, BECAUSE THE TWO-YEAR TIME LIMITATION OF THE ACT (BEFORE THE
AMENDMENT OF SEC. 6) APPLIES, AND THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON AUGUST 31, 1939, RESPONDENT BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER
IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI TO
RECOVER DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT.
65; 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51 ET SEQ., FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF HER HUSBAND
WHILE EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER AS A FIREMAN ON AN INTERSTATE TRAIN
OPERATED BETWEEN POINTS IN TENNESSEE AND NORTH CAROLINA.  WHILE THIS
ACTION WAS PENDING, PETITIONER FILED A BILL IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF
KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE, ALLEGING THAT RESPONDENT AND THE DECEASED WERE
CITIZENS OF TENNESSEE; THAT PETITIONER, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION HAVING
ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, DOES NO BUSINESS IN
MISSOURI OTHER THAN OF AN INTERSTATE CHARACTER; THAT THE ACCIDENT
OCCURRED IN MADISON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, "JUST BEYOND THE NORTH
CAROLINA-TENNESSEE LINE"; THAT THE MISSOURI FEDERAL COURT IS MORE THAN
500 MILES DISTANT FROM RESPONDENT'S RESIDENCE, THE RESIDENCE OF
PETITIONER'S WITNESSES, AND THE PLACE WHERE THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED; THAT
PETITIONER COULD NOT TRANSPORT ITS WITNESSES TO MISSOURI EXCEPT AT
"ENORMOUS EXPENSE"; THAT RESPONDENT'S PURPOSE IN BRINGING SUIT IN
MISSOURI WAS TO EVADE THE LAW OF TENNESSEE AND NORTH CAROLINA; AND THAT
PETITIONER MAINTAINS AGENTS IN TENNESSEE AND NORTH CAROLINA UPON WHOM
PROCESS CAN BE SERVED.  THE CHANCELLOR THEREUPON ENJOINED RESPONDENT
FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING HER ACTION IN THE MISSOURI FEDERAL COURT AND
FROM INSTITUTING ANY SIMILAR SUITS AGAINST PETITIONER EXCEPT IN THE
STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS IN TENNESSEE AND NORTH CAROLINA.  RESPONDENT
DID NOT APPEAL FROM THIS DECREE.  INSTEAD, SHE FILED A "SUPPLEMENTAL
BILL" IN THE MISSOURI FEDERAL COURT TO ENJOIN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
TENNESSEE STATE COURT.  HOLDING THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF RESPONDENT'S
ACTION FOR DAMAGES GAVE THE FEDERAL COURT "SPECIFIC, COMPLETE, SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" WHICH COULD NOT BE "INTRENCHED UPON" BY
PROCEEDINGS IN ANOTHER COURT, THE DISTRICT COURT, BY AN APPROPRIATE
INTERLOCUTORY DECREE, FORBADE PETITIONER FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING ITS
SUIT IN THE TENNESSEE STATE COURT AND ORDERED IT TO DISMISS THE STATE
SUIT.  THIS DECREE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT, 117 F.2D 100.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE, 313 U.S. 556,
IN VIEW OF THE RELATION OF ITS JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS TO THOSE IN
TOUCEY V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. AND PHOENIX FINANCE CORP. V. IOWA
WISCONSIN BRIDGE CO., ANTE, P. 118. 

THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED ON THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS BY SEC.
265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS WE HAVE APPLIED THEM THIS DAY IN THE
TOUCEY AND PHOENIX CASES, SUPRA, GOVERN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 
THE RESTRICTIONS OF SEC. 265 UPON THE USE OF THE INJUNCTION TO STAY A
LITIGATION IN A STATE COURT CONFINE THE DISTRICT COURTS EVEN THOUGH
SUCH AN INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT IN SUPPORT OF AN EARLIER SUIT IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  CONGRESS HAS ENDOWED THE FEDERAL COURTS WITH SUCH
PROTECTIVE JURISDICTION NEITHER GENERALLY NOR IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE
OF CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  EVER
SINCE THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1793, 1 STAT. 334, SEC. 5, CONGRESS HAS DONE
PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE.  BECAUSE OF ITS VIEWS OF APPROPRIATE POLICY IN
THE INTERPLAY OF STATE AND FEDERAL JUDICIARIES, CONGRESS HAS FORBIDDEN
THE EXCLUSIVE ABSORPTION OF SUCH LITIGATION BY THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IF
A STATE COURT PROCEEDS AS THE CHANCERY COURT OF TENNESSEE ACTED, THE
ULTIMATE VINDICATION OF ANY FEDERAL RIGHT LIES WITH THIS COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS HERE WITHOUT POWER TO ENJOIN PETITIONER FROM
FURTHER PROSECUTING ITS SUIT IN THE TENNESSEE STATE COURT.  REVERSED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED,
CONCURRING: 

THE REASONS WHICH LED TO DISSENT IN TOUCEY V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE
CO., AND PHOENIX FINANCE CORP. V. IOWA-WISCONSIN BRIDGE CO., ANTE, P.
118, DO NOT EXIST IN THIS CASE.  THERE IS NO FEDERAL DECREE AND
THEREFORE NO NEED OF AN INJUNCTION TO PROTECT THE DECREE OR PREVENT
RELITIGATION. 
..END :






















ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, 314 U.S. 1 


NO. 602.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 24, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  -
241 ALA. 557, 3 SO.2D 572, REVERSED. 


1.  NO CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM STATE
TAXATION PREVENTS A STATE FROM APPLYING ITS SALES TAX TO A PURCHASE OF
BUILDING MATERIALS BY ONE WHO BUYS THEM FOR USE, AND USES THEM, IN
PERFORMING A "COST-PLUS" BUILDING CONTRACT FOR THE GOVERNMENT, ALTHOUGH
THE CONTRACT PROVIDES THAT THE TITLE TO SUCH MATERIALS SHALL VEST IN
THE UNITED STATES UPON THEIR DELIVERY, INSPECTION, AND ACCEPTANCE BY A
GOVERNMENT OFFICER, AT THE BUILDING SITE, AND THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
BE REIMBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE COST OF THE MATERIALS,
INCLUDING THE TAX.  P. 8. 

(1)  THE FACT THAT THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX IS PASSED ON TO THE
UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE IT A TAX UPON THE UNITED STATES.  PANHANDLE
OIL CO. V. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218, AND GRAVES V. TEXAS CO., 298 U.S. 393,
OVERRULED.  P. 9. 

(2) IN THIS CASE, THE LEGAL INCIDENCE OF THE TAX WAS ON THE
CONTRACTOR, NOT ON THE UNITED STATES; THE CONTRACTOR, IN BUYING THE
MATERIALS, WAS NOT THE AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT; AND
THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT SUCH AS TO PLACE THE GOVERNMENT IN THE ROLE OF
PURCHASER.  P. 9. 

NO QUESTION WAS HERE RAISED OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO FREE FROM
STATE TAXATION TRANSACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS WHERE THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF
THE TAX IS PASSED ON TO THE UNITED STATES.  P. 8. 

2.  UNDER THE ALABAMA STATUTE HERE INVOLVED (IT IS CONCEDED AND
ASSUMED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE) THE PURCHASER OF TANGIBLE GOODS,
WHO IS SUBJECTED TO THE TAX MEASURED BY THE SALES PRICE, IS THE PERSON
WHO ORDERS AND PAYS FOR THEM WHEN THE SALE IS FOR CASH OR WHO IS
LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PAY FOR THEM IF THE SALE IS ON CREDIT; AND UNDER
THE CONTRACT HERE INVOLVED THE CONTRACTORS WERE TO PURCHASE IN THEIR
OWN NAMES AND ON THEIR OWN CREDIT ALL THE MATERIALS REQUIRED, UNLESS
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ELECT TO FURNISH THEM, AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT
BOUND BY THEIR PURCHASE CONTRACTS, BUT WAS OBLIGATED ONLY TO REIMBURSE
THE CONTRACTORS WHEN THE MATERIALS PURCHASED SHOULD BE DELIVERED,
INSPECTED AND ACCEPTED AT THE SITE.  P. 10. 

ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, A PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 599, TO REVIEW A DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA WHICH REVERSED A DECISION OF A STATE CIRCUIT COURT SUSTAINING A
SALES TAX.  THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS RENDERED UPON AN
APPEAL FROM THE ASSESSMENT.  THE UNITED STATES WAS PERMITTED TO
INTERVENE. 

THE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON THE PURCHASER. 

THE UNITED STATES IN ITS PURCHASES IS IMMUNE FROM A SALES TAX UPON
THE BUYER. 

CONGRESS HAS POWER TO WAIVE THE IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION WHICH
WOULD OTHERWISE ATTACH TO FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES AND TRANSACTIONS,
AND HAS ALSO POWER TO EXEMPT FROM STATE TAXATION TRANSACTIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE
TAXABLE. 

ANY TAX UPON A TRANSACTION WILL AFFECT BOTH PARTIES.  RECOGNITION OF
THIS HAS, AT LEAST UNTIL RECENT YEARS, FORCED THE COURT TO ATTEMPT A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN VARIOUS TRANSACTION TAXES ACCORDING TO THE
IMMEDIACY OF THEIR EFFECT UPON THE GOVERNMENT.  THAT TASK HAS BEEN
NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT.  WE THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE ABANDONED, AND THAT,
IN THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS, IMMUNITY SHOULD TURN UPON THE SIMPLER AND
MORE SATISFACTORY TEST OF WHETHER THE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON THE
GOVERNMENT OR UPON A PRIVATE PERSON. 

THE COURT HAS IN THE LARGE ADHERED TO SOME SIX GENERAL TESTS BY WHICH
TO DISTINGUISH THE GOOD TAX FROM THE BAD TAX AS APPLIED TO THE
TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND A PRIVATE PERSON.  THESE MAY BE
CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS:  (1) PRESENCE OF BURDEN UPON THE GOVERNMENT. 
(2) INTERFERENCE WITH GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS.  (3) IS THE TAX UPON THE
GOVERNMENTAL SOURCE OF THE PAYMENT TAXED?  (4) IS THE ECONOMIC BURDEN
BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT?  (5) IS THE TAX NONDISCRIMINATORY?  (6) IS THE
TAX, IN LAW, IMPOSED UPON THE GOVERNMENT OR THE PRIVATE PERSON?  WE
THINK THE FIRST FOUR CRITERIA ARE UNSOUND AND HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE
COURT AND THAT ACCEPTANCE OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH IS REQUIRED BOTH BY
PRINCIPLE AND BY EXISTING AUTHORITY. 

TAX-ON-THE-SOURCE TEST, EXEMPLIFIED IN POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN &
TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601, HAS BEEN REJECTED, BOTH IN TERMS
AND IN PRACTICAL RESULTS.  SEE GRAVES V. N.Y. EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S.
466, 480-481.  THE FORMULA WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE INVALIDATION OF THE
TAXES SUSTAINED IN THE O'KEEFE CASE, SUPRA, AND OTHER CASES. 

IT IS VERY HARD TO TELL WHAT IS MEANT BY THE STATEMENT THAT A TAX
INTERFERES WITH OR BURDENS THE GOVERNMENT'S TRANSACTION.  ORDINARILY,
THE ONLY PRACTICAL INTERFERENCE WOULD SEEM TO BE THE DISCOURAGEMENT
FOUND IN THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX. 

ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX:  A SIMPLE AND INTELLIGIBLE REASON FOR
INVALIDATING A TAX LAID UPON A PRIVATE PERSON IS THAT, AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, IT WILL INCREASE THE COSTS OR REDUCE THE REVENUES OF THE
GOVERNMENT WITH WHICH HE DEALS.  BUT THIS REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED IN
ONLY THREE OF THE OPINIONS DECLARING AN IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION. 
INDEED, THE COURT HAS FIRMLY STATED THAT "THE QUESTION HERE IS ONE OF
POWER AND NOT OF ECONOMICS."  HOME SAVINGS BANK V. DES MOINES, 205 U.S.
503, 519. 

ONE SUPPOSES THAT AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OR INTUITION LIES BACK OF
EVERY DECISION THAT A PRIVATE PERSON IS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION BECAUSE HE
DEALS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  SEE GRAVES V. TEXAS CO., 298 U.S. 393,
395.  YET THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE ANALYSIS IS THAT IT INEVITABLY PROVES
TOO MUCH.  WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BUYS AN ARTICLE, OR RECEIVES GOODS AND
SERVICES UNDER CONTRACT, IT MUST IN THE NORMAL COURSE PAY ALL OF THE
COSTS REQUIRED FOR THE FINISHED PRODUCT.  THESE COSTS INCLUDE TAXES OF
ALL FORMS.  THERE IS NO ECONOMIC REASON WHY THESE TAXES SHOULD BE VALID
AND THE TAX UPON THE FINAL TRANSACTION, SALE OR DELIVERY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, INVALID.  TRUE, IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE FINAL TAX WOULD
SOMEWHAT MORE CERTAINLY BE SHIFTED TO THE GOVERNMENT THAN THOSE
ANTERIOR IN POINT OF TIME.  BUT EVEN THE FINAL TAX IS BY NO MEANS
CERTAIN TO BE SHIFTED.  SEE MR. JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING IN INDIAN
MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570, 581.  AND THE EARLIER
TAXES COULD EASILY BE ISOLATED THROUGH ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES AND BY
CONTRACT BE MADE SPECIFICALLY REIMBURSABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT; YET NONE
WOULD SUPPOSE THAT THE RESULTING CERTAINTY OF TAX INCIDENCE UPON THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD INVALIDATE TAXES OTHERWISE UNOBJECTIONABLE. 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE ECONOMIC TEST IS ILLUSORY AND INCAPABLE OF
CONSISTENT APPLICATION. 

THE COURT IN ITS RECENT OPINIONS SEEMS TO HAVE REJECTED THE ECONOMIC
BURDEN AS A CRITERION OF VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY.  THAT REJECTION HAS
TAKEN TWO FORMS:  (A) AN OUTRIGHT REFUSAL TO ACCEPT INCREASED COST AS A
REASON FOR INVALIDATION AND (B) AN ANALYSIS WHICH INDICATES THAT THE
ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE CHALLENGED TAX ON THE GOVERNMENT IS SPECULATIVE,
AND SO INDICATES THAT THE ECONOMIC INCIDENCE OF ANY TAX MUST ALWAYS BE
SPECULATIVE.  EACH OF THE RECENT OPINIONS DEALING WITH THE QUESTION HAS
ADOPTED BOTH APPROACHES.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134,
160; HELVERING V. PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376; HELVERING V. GERHARDT,
304 U.S. 405, 418-419, 422; GRAVES V. N.Y. EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S.
466, 483, 484, 487. 

THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF AN ECONOMIC BURDEN UPON THE
GOVERNMENT CAN NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED AS THE TOUCHSTONE OF VALIDITY OR
INVALIDITY OF A TAX IMPOSED UPON A PRIVATE PERSON. 

A DISCRIMINATORY TAX, SINGLING OUT A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION TO BEAR
ABNORMAL AND UNFRIENDLY BURDENS, DOES IN TRUTH INVOLVE THE POWER TO
DESTROY.  CF., MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316; VEAZIE BANK V.
FENNO, 8 WALL.  533.  ACCORDINGLY, THE PRINCIPLE THAT A TAX, SO LONG AS
IT HAS ANY EFFECT UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S OPERATIONS, MUST BE
NONDISCRIMINATORY TO BE UPHELD, IS ONE OF PERVADING APPLICATION AND
IMPORTANCE. 

THE RULES OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX IMMUNITY, SO FAR AS THEY HAVE BEEN
DEVELOPED AND APPLIED TO PRIVATE PERSONS WHO DEAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT,
EXHIBIT A GREAT DIVERSITY OF DECISION AND REASONING.  A NUMBER OF CASES
HAVE EXPRESSLY BEEN OVERRULED; MANY MORE HAVE BEEN DISTINGUISHED ON THE
NARROWEST OF GROUNDS; AND IN STILL OTHER DECISIONS TECHNICAL RULES HAVE
BEEN DEVISED TO REACH RESULTS IN PRACTICAL CONTRADICTION OF EARLIER
CASES.  IN SHORT, THERE IS NO SINGLE DECISION EXEMPTING A PRIVATE
TAXPAYER FROM A NONDISCRIMINATORY TAX WHICH CAN WITH CONFIDENCE BE SAID
TO BE GOOD LAW TODAY. 

THE DECISIONS RELATING TO A TAX ON THE UNITED STATES ITSELF SHOW AN
UNQUALIFIED UNIFORMITY.  NO DECISION OF THIS COURT HAS EVER HELD, IN
THE ABSENCE OF LEGISLATIVE CONSENT, THAT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT COULD
BE TAXED BY A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. 

THE VALIDITY OF TAXES CHALLENGED AS INVADING THE IMMUNITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE DECIDED, WE THEREFORE SUBMIT, IN TERMS OF THE
LEGAL INCIDENCE OF THE TAX.  IN TERMS OF THE PRESENT ISSUE, WE URGE
THAT PURCHASES WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAKES THROUGH THE COST-PLUS-A
FIXED-FEE CONTRACTOR ARE IN REALITY THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT
THOSE OF THE CONTRACTOR.  IN ADVANCING A TEST BASED UPON THE LEGAL
INCIDENCE OF THE TAX UPON THE GOVERNMENT OR A PRIVATE PERSON, WE DO NOT
SPEAK IN TERMS OF TECHNICALITIES BUT IN TERMS OF THE REALITIES OF THE
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS WITH WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IS
CONCERNED. 

THE IMMUNITY INCLUDES A VENDEE SALES TAX COLLECTED THROUGH A PRIVATE
PERSON.  THE ALABAMA SALES TAX IS IMPOSED UPON THE VENDEE AND THE
IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT LOST BECAUSE IT MAKES ITS
PURCHASES THROUGH A COST-PLUS-A-FIXED-FEE CONTRACTOR.  THE PROBLEM IS
SIMPLY WHETHER THE IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM A STATE TAX
IMPOSED UPON IT INCLUDES A SALES TAX THE LEGAL INCIDENCE OF WHICH IS
UPON THE PURCHASER BUT WHICH IS COLLECTED THROUGH THE SELLER.  WHETHER,
IN OTHER WORDS, THE GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY VANISHES IF THE TAX IS
COLLECTED FROM THE GOVERNMENT BY THE VENDOR INSTEAD OF BY A DIRECT
PAYMENT TO THE TAX COLLECTOR OF THE STATE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS KING AND BOOZER SOLD LUMBER ON THE ORDER OF "COST-PLUS-A
FIXED-FEE" CONTRACTORS FOR USE BY THE LATTER IN CONSTRUCTING AN ARMY
CAMP FOR THE UNITED STATES.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE
ALABAMA SALES TAX WITH WHICH THE SELLER IS CHARGEABLE, BUT WHICH HE IS
REQUIRED TO COLLECT FROM THE BUYER, INFRINGES ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM STATE TAXATION. 

THE ALABAMA STATUTE, ACT NO. 18, GENERAL ACTS OF ALABAMA, 1939,
EXPRESSLY MADE APPLICABLE TO SALES OF BUILDING MATERIALS TO
CONTRACTORS, SEC. I (J), LAYS A TAX OF 2 PER CENT ON THE GROSS RETAIL
SALES PRICE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY.  WHILE IN TERMS, SEC. II,
THE TAX IS LAID ON THE SELLER, WHO IS DENOMINATED THE "TAXPAYER," BY
SEC. XXVI IT IS MADE THE DUTY OF THE SELLER "TO ADD TO THE SALES PRICE
AND COLLECT FROM THE PURCHASER THE AMOUNT DUE BY THE TAXPAYER ON
ACCOUNT OF SAID TAX." 

PAYABLE AS AND WHEN THE COLLECTION OF THE PURCHASE PRICE IS MADE.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HAS CONSTRUED THESE PROVISIONS AS IMPOSING A
LEGAL OBLIGATION ON THE PURCHASER TO PAY THE TAX, WHICH THE SELLER IS
REQUIRED TO ADD TO HIS SALES PRICE AND TO COLLECT FROM THE PURCHASER
UPON COLLECTION OF THE PRICE, WHETHER THE SALE IS FOR CASH OR ON
CREDIT.  SEE LONE STAR CEMENT CORP. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 234 ALA.
465, 175 SO. 399; LONG V. ROBERTS & SON, 234 ALA. 570, 176 SO. 213;
NATIONAL LINEN SERVICE CORP. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 237 ALA. 360, 186
SO. 478; WOOD PRESERVING CORP. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 235 ALA. 438,
179 SO. 254.  SECTION V EXCLUDES FROM THE TAX THE PROCEEDS OF SALES
WHICH THE STATE IS PROHIBITED FROM TAXING BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES. 

RESPONDENTS KING AND BOOZER, WHO FURNISHED THE LUMBER IN QUESTION ON
THE ORDER OF THE CONTRACTORS, APPEALED TO THE STATE CIRCUIT COURT FROM
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE TAX IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE LAID UPON
THE UNITED STATES, AND IS EXCLUDED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE TAXING
STATUTE BY ITS TERMS.  THE UNITED STATES WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AND
JOINED IN THESE CONTENTIONS. 

THE TRIAL, UPON A STIPULATION OF FACTS EMBODYING THE RELEVANT
DOCUMENTS, RESULTED IN A DECREE SUSTAINING THE TAX, WHICH THE SUPREME
COURT OF ALABAMA REVERSED, 3 SO.2D 572.  APART FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RESTRICTION, IT FOUND NO WANT OF AUTHORITY IN THE TAXING STATUTE FOR
THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX FROM THE CONTRACTORS.  BUT IT CONCLUDED THAT
ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACTORS WERE INDEBTED TO THE SELLER FOR THE PURCHASE
PRICE OF THE LUMBER, THEY WERE SO RELATED BY THEIR CONTRACT TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S UNDERTAKING TO BUILD A CAMP, AND WERE SO FAR ACTING FOR
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE, THAT
THE TAX WAS IN EFFECT "LAID ON A TRANSACTION BY WHICH THE UNITED STATES
SECURES THE THINGS DESIRED FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES," SO AS TO
INFRINGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, CITING PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. KNOX,
277 U.S. 218; GRAVES V. TEXAS CO., 298 U.S. 393.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 599, THE QUESTION BEING ONE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

CONGRESS HAS DECLINED TO PASS LEGISLATION IMMUNIZING FROM STATE
TAXATION CONTRACTORS UNDER "COST-PLUS" CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF GOVERNMENTAL PROJECTS.  FN1  CONSEQUENTLY, THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE
PRESENT TRANSACTION ENJOY ONLY SUCH TAX IMMUNITY AS IS AFFORDED BY THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF, AND WE ARE NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH THE EXTENT AND
THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO FREE SUCH
TRANSACTIONS FROM STATE TAXATION OF INDIVIDUALS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX IS PASSED ON TO THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT, RIGHTLY WE THINK, DISCLAIMS ANY CONTENTION
THAT THE CONSTITUTION, UNAIDED BY CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, PROHIBITS
A TAX EXACTED FROM THE CONTRACTORS MERELY BECAUSE IT IS PASSED ON
ECONOMICALLY, BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE, AS A PART OF
THE CONSTRUCTION COST TO THE GOVERNMENT.  SO FAR AS SUCH A NON
DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAX UPON THE CONTRACTOR ENTERS INTO THE COST OF
THE MATERIALS TO THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IS BUT A NORMAL INCIDENT OF THE
ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY OF TWO INDEPENDENT TAXING
SOVEREIGNTIES.  THE ASSERTED RIGHT OF THE ONE TO BE FREE OF TAXATION BY
THE OTHER DOES NOT SPELL IMMUNITY FROM PAYING THE ADDED COSTS,
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TAXATION OF THOSE WHO FURNISH SUPPLIES TO THE
GOVERNMENT AND WHO HAVE BEEN GRANTED NO TAX IMMUNITY.  SO FAR AS A
DIFFERENT VIEW HAS PREVAILED, SEE PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. KNOX, SUPRA;
GRAVES V. TEXAS CO., SUPRA, WE THINK IT NO LONGER TENABLE.  SEE METCALF
& EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514; TRINITYFARM CO. V. GROSJEAN, 291 U.S.
466; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 160; HELVERING V.
GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 416; GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306
U.S. 466. 

THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT IS THAT THE TAX IS INVALID BECAUSE
IT IS LAID IN SUCH MANNER THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, ITS
LEGAL INCIDENCE IS ON THE GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN ON THE CONTRACTORS,
WHO ORDERED THE LUMBER AND PAID FOR IT BUT WHO, AS THE GOVERNMENT
INSISTS, HAVE SO ACTED FOR THE GOVERNMENT AS TO PLACE IT IN THE ROLE OF
A PURCHASER OF THE LUMBER.  THE ARGUMENT RUNS:  THE GOVERNMENT WAS A
PURCHASER OF THE LUMBER, AND BUT FOR ITS IMMUNITY FROM SUIT AND FROM
TAXATION, THE STATE APPLYING ITS TAXING STATUTE COULD DEMAND THE TAX
FROM THE GOVERNMENT JUST AS FROM A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD EMPLOYED
A CONTRACTOR TO DO CONSTRUCTION WORK UPON A LIKE COST-PLUS CONTRACT. 
THE SOUNDNESS OF THIS CONCLUSION TURNS ON THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND
THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES UNDER IT.  THE TAXING
STATUTE, AS THE ALABAMA COURTS HAVE HELD, MAKES THE "PURCHASER" LIABLE
FOR THE TAX TO THE SELLER, WHO IS REQUIRED "TO ADD TO THE SALES PRICE"
THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX AND COLLECT IT WHEN THE SALES PRICE IS COLLECTED,
WHETHER THE SALE IS FOR CASH OR ON CREDIT.  WHO, IN ANY PARTICULAR
TRANSACTION LIKE THE PRESENT, IS A "PURCHASER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE STATUTE, IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW ON WHICH ONLY THE SUPREME COURT
OF ALABAMA CAN SPEAK WITH FINAL AUTHORITY.  BUT IT SEEMS PLAIN, AS THE
GOVERNMENT CONCEDES AND AS WE ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THAT UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE THE PURCHASER OF TANGIBLE GOODS WHO IS
SUBJECTED TO THE TAX MEASURED BY THE SALES PRICE, IS THE PERSON WHO
ORDERS AND PAYS FOR THEM WHEN THE SALE IS FOR CASH OR WHO IS LEGALLY
OBLIGATED TO PAY FOR THEM IF THE SALE IS ON CREDIT.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION IS THAT IT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION
ON ITS PURCHASES AND THAT THIS WAS SUFFICIENTLY A GOVERNMENT PURCHASE
TO COME WITHIN THE ASSERTED IMMUNITY. 

AS THE SALE OF THE LUMBER BY KING AND BOOZER WAS NOT FOR CASH, THE
PRECISE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT BECAME OBLIGATED TO PAY FOR
THE LUMBER AND SO WAS THE PURCHASER WHOM THE STATUTE TAXES, BUT FOR THE
CLAIMED IMMUNITY.  BY THE COST-PLUS CONTRACT THE CONTRACTORS UNDERTOOK
TO "FURNISH THE LABOR, MATERIALS, TOOLS, MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT,
FACILITIES, SUPPLIES NOT FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND SERVICES, AND
TO DO ALL THINGS NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF" THE SPECIFIED WORK. 
IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS THE GOVERNMENT UNDERTOOK TO PAY A FIXED FEE TO
THE CONTRACTORS AND TO REIMBURSE THEM FOR SPECIFIED EXPENSES INCLUDING
THEIR EXPENDITURES FOR ALL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS AND "STATE OR LOCAL
TAXES  ...  WHICH THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS
CONTRACT TO PAY."  THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE TITLE TO ALL
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES FOR WHICH THE CONTRACTORS WERE "ENTITLED TO BE
REIMBURSED" SHOULD VEST IN THE GOVERNMENT "UPON DELIVERY AT THE SITE OF
THE WORK OR AT AN APPROVED STORAGE SITE AND UPON INSPECTION AND
ACCEPTANCE IN WRITING BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER."  THE GOVERNMENT
RESERVED THE RIGHT TO FURNISH ANY AND ALL MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR
COMPLETION OF THE WORK, TO PAY FREIGHT CHARGES DIRECTLY TO COMMON
CARRIERS, AND "TO PAY DIRECTLY TO THE PERSONS CONCERNED ALL SUMS DUE
FROM THE CONTRACTOR FOR LABOR, MATERIALS OR OTHER CHARGES."  UPON
TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT BY THE GOVERNMENT, IT UNDERTOOK TO "ASSUME
AND BECOME LIABLE FOR ALL OBLIGATIONS  ... THAT THE CONTRACTOR MAY HAVE
THERETOFORE IN GOOD FAITH UNDERTAKEN OR INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH
SAID WORK AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONTRACT." 

A SECTION OF THE CONTRACT, DESIGNATED AS ONE OF SEVERAL "SPECIAL
REQUIREMENTS," STIPULATED THAT CONTRACTORS SHOULD "REDUCE TO WRITING
EVERY CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000) MADE BY HIM
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE WORK HEREUNDER FOR SERVICES, MATERIALS, SUPPLIES
...  ; INSERT THEREIN A PROVISION THAT SUCH CONTRACT IS ASSIGNABLE TO
THE GOVERNMENT; MAKE ALL SUCH CONTRACTS IN HIS OWN NAME, AND NOT BIND
OR PURPORT TO BIND THE GOVERNMENT OR THE CONTRACTING OFFICER
THEREUNDER."  WHILE THIS SECTION REFERS TO CONTRACTS IN EXCESS OF
$2,000, WE THINK ALL THE PROVISIONS WHICH WE HAVE MENTIONED, READ
TOGETHER, PLAINLY CONTEMPLATE THAT THE CONTRACTORS WERE TO PURCHASE IN
THEIR OWN NAMES AND ON THEIR OWN CREDIT ALL THE MATERIALS REQUIRED,
UNLESS THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD ELECT TO FURNISH THEM; THAT THE GOVERNMENT
WAS NOT TO BE BOUND BY THEIR PURCHASE CONTRACTS, BUT WAS OBLIGATED ONLY
TO REIMBURSE THE CONTRACTORS WHEN THE MATERIALS PURCHASED SHOULD BE
DELIVERED, INSPECTED AND ACCEPTED AT THE SITE. 

THE COURSE OF BUSINESS FOLLOWED IN THE PURCHASE OF THE LUMBER
CONFORMED IN EVERY MATERIAL RESPECT TO THE CONTRACT.  KING AND BOOZER
SUBMITTED TO THE CONTRACTORS IN ADVANCE A PROPOSAL IN WRITING TO SUPPLY
AS ORDERED, AT SPECIFIED PRICES, ALL THE LUMBER OF CERTAIN DESCRIPTION
REQUIRED FOR USE IN PERFORMING THEIR CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  THE
CONTRACTORS, AFTER PROCURING APPROVAL BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER OF THE
PARTICULAR WRITTEN ORDER FOR LUMBER WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY
CONCERNED, PLACED IT WITH KING AND BOOZER ON JANUARY 17, 1941.  IT
DIRECTED SHIPMENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION QUARTERMASTER AT THE SITE "FOR
ACCOUNT OF" THE CONTRACTORS AND STATED "THIS PURCHASE ORDER DOES NOT
BIND, NOR PURPORT TO BIND, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT
OFFICERS."  KING AND BOOZER THEREUPON SHIPPED THE LUMBER ORDERED BY THE
CONTRACTORS BY CONTRACT TRUCKS TO THE SITE AS DIRECTED, WHERE IT WAS
USED IN PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT.  THE SELLERS DELIVERED TO THE
CONTRACTORS THE INVOICE OF THE LUMBER, STATING THAT IT WAS "SOLD TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTRUCTION QUARTERMASTER %" (FOR ACCOUNT OF) THE
CONTRACTORS.  FN2  THE INVOICE WAS THEN APPROVED BY THE CONSTRUCTION
QUARTERMASTER FOR PAYMENT; THE CONTRACTORS PAID KING AND BOOZER BY
THEIR CHECK THE AMOUNT OF THE INVOICE AND WERE LATER REIMBURSED BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR THE COST OF THE LUMBER. 

WE THINK, AS THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HELD, THAT THE LEGAL EFFECT
OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH WE HAVE DETAILED WAS TO OBLIGATE THE
CONTRACTORS TO PAY FOR THE LUMBER.  THE LUMBER WAS SOLD AND DELIVERED
ON THE ORDER OF THE CONTRACTORS, WHICH STIPULATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD NOT BE BOUND TO PAY FOR IT.  IT WAS IN FACT PAID FOR BY THE
CONTRACTORS, WHO WERE REIMBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO THEIR
CONTRACT WITH IT.  THE CONTRACTORS WERE THUS PURCHASERS OF THE LUMBER,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TAXING STATUTE, AND AS SUCH WERE SUBJECT TO
THE TAX.  THEY WERE NOT RELIEVED OF THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE TAX EITHER
BECAUSE THE CONTRACTORS, IN A LOOSE AND GENERAL SENSE, WERE ACTING FOR
THE GOVERNMENT IN PURCHASING THE LUMBER OR, AS THE ALABAMA SUPREME
COURT SEEMS TO HAVE THOUGHT, BECAUSE THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX
IMPOSED UPON THE PURCHASER WOULD BE SHIFTED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY REASON
OF ITS CONTRACT TO REIMBURSE THE CONTRACTORS. 

THE GOVERNMENT, TO SUPPORT ITS THESIS THAT IT WAS THE PURCHASER,
INSISTS THAT TITLE TO THE LUMBER PASSED TO THE GOVERNMENT ON SHIPMENT
BY THE SELLER, AND POINTS TO THE VERY EXTENSIVE CONTROL BY THE
GOVERNMENT OVER ALL PURCHASES MADE BY THE CONTRACTORS.  IT EMPHASIZES
THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT RESERVES TO GOVERNMENT OFFICERS THE DECISION
OF WHETHER TO BUY AND WHAT TO BUY; THAT PURCHASES OF MATERIALS OF $500
OR OVER COULD BE MADE BY THE CONTRACTORS ONLY WHEN APPROVED IN ADVANCE
BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER; THAT THE GOVERNMENT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO
APPROVE THE PRICE, TO FURNISH THE MATERIALS ITSELF, IF IT SO ELECTED;
AND THAT IN THE CASE OF THE LUMBER PRESENTLY INVOLVED, THE GOVERNMENT
INSPECTED AND APPROVED THE LUMBER BEFORE SHIPMENT.  FROM THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES IT CONCLUDES THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS THE PURCHASER.  THE
NECESSARY COROLLARY OF ITS POSITION IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT, IF A
PURCHASER WITHIN THE TAXING STATUTE, BECAME OBLIGATED TO PAY THE
PURCHASE PRICE. 

BUT HOWEVER EXTENSIVELY THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE RESERVED THE RIGHT TO
RESTRICT OR CONTROL THE ACTION OF THE CONTRACTORS IN OTHER RESPECTS,
NEITHER THE RESERVATION NOR THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER GAVE TO THE
CONTRACTORS THE STATUS OF AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ENTER INTO
CONTRACTS OR TO PLEDGE ITS CREDIT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. ALGOMA LUMBER
CO., 305 U.S. 415, 421; UNITED STATES V. DRISCOLL, 96 U.S. 421.  IT CAN
HARDLY BE SAID THAT THE CONTRACTORS WERE NOT FREE TO OBLIGATE
THEMSELVES FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIAL ORDERED.  THE CONTRACT
CONTEMPLATED THAT THEY SHOULD DO SO AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD
REIMBURSE THEM FOR THEIR EXPENDITURES.  IT IS EQUALLY PLAIN THAT THEY
DID NOT ASSUME TO BIND THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR THE LUMBER BY THEIR
ORDER, APPROVED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, WHICH STIPULATED THAT IT
DID NOT BIND OR PURPORT TO BIND THE GOVERNMENT.  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT
THE TITLE TO THE LUMBER PASSED TO THE GOVERNMENT ON DELIVERY DOES NOT
OBLIGATE IT TO THE CONTRACTOR'S VENDOR UNDER A COST-PLUS CONTRACT MORE
THAN UNDER A LUMP SUM CONTRACT.  CF. JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO.,
SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. DRISCOLL, SUPRA. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE CONTRACTORS WERE NOT, OR THAT THE GOVERNMENT
WAS, BOUND TO PAY THE PURCHASE PRICE, OR THAT THE CONTRACTORS WERE NOT
THE PURCHASERS ON WHOM THE STATUTE LAYS THE TAX.  THE ADDED
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THEY WERE BOUND BY THEIR CONTRACT TO FURNISH THE
PURCHASED MATERIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT AND ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED BY
IT FOR THE COST, INCLUDING THE TAX, NO MORE RESULTS IN AN INFRINGEMENT
OF THE GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY THAN DID THE TAX LAID UPON THE CONTRACTOR'S
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO.,
SUPRA.  SEE METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, SUPRA, 523, 524; TRINITYFARM
CO. V. GROSJEAN, SUPRA, 472; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, SUPRA, 416; GRAVES
V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, SUPRA, 483.   REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE PROPOSED SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 120, TO H.R. 8438, WHICH
BECAME THE ACT OF JUNE 11, 1940, 54 STAT. 265; CONG. REC., 76TH CONG.,
3RD SESS., VOL. 86, PART 7, PP. 7518-19, 7527-7535, 7648. 

FN2  THE STATEMENT THAT THE LUMBER WAS "SOLD" TO THE CONSTRUCTION
QUARTERMASTER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INADVERTENT.  ON THE ARGUMENT THE
GOVERNMENT CONCEDED THAT THIS WAS NOT THE USUAL PRACTICE.  THE INVOICES
APPEARING OF RECORD IN CURRY V. UNITED STATES, POST, P. 14, ISSUED TO
THE SAME CONTRACTORS FOR SUPPLIES ORDERED BY THEM AND DELIVERED AT THE
SAME SITE STATED THAT THE SUPPLIES WERE SOLD TO THE CONTRACTORS. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :














CURRY V. UNITED STATES, 314 U.S. 14 


NO. 603.  ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  - 241
ALA. 569, 3 SO.2D 582, REVERSED. 


A STATE USE-TAX IMPOSED ON A CONTRACTOR IN RESPECT OF MATERIALS WHICH
HE PURCHASED OUTSIDE OF, AND USED WITHIN, THE STATE IN PERFORMANCE OF A
"COST-PLUS" CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT BE ADJUDGED INVALID AS
A TAX ON THE UNITED STATES, EITHER UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
CONTRACTOR IS THE GOVERNMENT'S AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE IN THE MATTER,
WHICH IS NOT CORRECT, OR BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ECONOMIC BURDEN
OF THE TAX IS SHIFTED TO THE UNITED STATES WHEN THE GOVERNMENT,
PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT, REIMBURSES THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE COST OF THE
MATERIALS, TAX INCLUDED.  ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, ANTE, P. 1.  P.
18. 

CURRY, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF ALABAMA, V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 599, TO REVIEW A DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA WHICH REVERSED A DECREE OF THE ALABAMA CIRCUIT COURT SUSTAINING
A USE TAX LAID ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE
LATTER COURT BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONTRACTORS AGAINST THE STATE
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE TO DETERMINE THE TAX LIABILITY AND FOR A REFUND
OF PAYMENT MADE. 

THE ALABAMA USE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON THE USER. 

THE UNITED STATES IN STORING AND USING TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IS
IMMUNE FROM USE TAX.  HERE, AS IN THE KING & BOOZER CASE, ANTE, P. 1,
THE PROBLEM ADMITS OF READY SOLUTION UNDER THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE THAT
THE UNITED STATES IS IMMUNE FROM ANY TAX IMPOSED UPON AND PAID BY THE
GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  AS THAT IMMUNITY INCLUDES A SALES TAX, IT INCLUDES,
A FORTIORI, A USE TAX COLLECTED DIRECTLY FROM THE CONSUMER OF THE
GOODS. 

THE IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT LOST WHEN IT STORES OR USES
GOODS THROUGH A COST-PLUS CONTRACTOR. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO ALABAMA V. KING & BOOZER, ANTE, P. 1.  IT
PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER, BY THE COST-PLUS CONTRACT INVOLVED IN
THE KING & BOOZER CASE, THE CONTRACTORS, WHO ARE RESPONDENTS HERE, ARE
IMMUNE FROM THE USE TAX IMPOSED BY THE ALABAMA STATUTE, ACT NO. 67,
GENERAL ACTS OF ALABAMA, 1939, BECAUSE THE MATERIALS, WITH RESPECT TO
THE USE OF WHICH THE TAX WAS LAID, WERE ORDERED BY THE CONTRACTORS AND
USED BY THEM IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT. 

IMPOSED ON THE STORAGE, USE OR OTHER CONSUMPTION IN THIS STATE OF
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY PURCHASED AT RETAIL  ...  FOR STORAGE, USE
OR OTHER CONSUMPTION IN THIS STATE AT THE RATE OF TWO PER CENT (2%) OF
THE SALES PRICE OF SUCH PROPERTY,  ...  (B)  ...  EVERY PERSON STORING,
USING OR OTHERWISE CONSUMING IN THIS STATE TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
PURCHASED AT RETAIL SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS ACT
...  "  SECTION III EXEMPTS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE THE
STORAGE, USE OR OTHER CONSUMPTION OF PROPERTY, THE SALE OF WHICH IS
TAXED BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES, AND THE STORAGE, USE OR
CONSUMPTION OF PROPERTY, TAXATION OF WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

PETITIONER, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE FOR THE STATE, ASSESSED AND
COLLECTED FROM THE CONTRACTORS A TAX ON THEIR USE OR CONSUMPTION,
WITHIN THE STATE, OF A QUANTITY OF ROOFING WHICH THEY PURCHASED OUTSIDE
THE STATE AND CAUSED TO BE SHIPPED TO THE CAMP-SITE WITHIN THE STATE,
WHERE THEY USED IT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES
AND THE CONTRACTORS IN THE STATE CIRCUIT COURT AGAINST PETITIONER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COMMISSIONER, FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
DETERMINING THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTORS AND FOR A DECREE
ORDERING REFUND OF THE TAX PAID BY THE CONTRACTORS.  THE LAWFULNESS OF
THE TAX WAS CHALLENGED SPECIFICALLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLAINTIFFS,
RESPONDENTS HERE, ARE EXEMPT FROM THE TAX BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE STATUTE, AND ARE IMMUNE FROM IT, BECAUSE THE USE AND CONSUMPTION
OF THE ROOFING BY THE CONTRACTORS AS AGENTS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE
UNITED STATES IS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM TAXATION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT SUSTAINED THE TAX, DECLARING THAT IT WAS LAID UPON
THE CONTRACTORS BY THE STATUTE AND THAT THEY WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
IMMUNE FROM THE TAX BECAUSE OF THEIR USE OF THE PURCHASED PROPERTY IN
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF ALABAMA REVERSED, 3 SO.2D 582, HOLDING THAT THE TAX INFRINGED
THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR REASONS STATED IN
ITS OPINION IN KING & BOOZER V. ALABAMA, 241 ALA. 557, 3 SO.2D 572.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 314 U.S. 599, SO THAT WE MIGHT CONSIDER THIS WITH
THE KING & BOOZER CASE. 

SINCE THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA RESTED ITS DECISION ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND AND NOT UPON THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE TAXING
STATUTE TO THE CONTRACTORS, WE ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, AS WE TAKE
IT THE STATE COURT ASSUMED, THAT THE CONTRACTORS ARE SUBJECT TO THE TAX
BUT FOR THE ASSERTED GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY, AND THAT UPON THE CORRECT
INTERPRETATION OF THE ALABAMA STATUTE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO
THE TAX IF THEIR COST-PLUS CONTRACT HAD BEEN WITH A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL.  CF. FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62; SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167; DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V. WOOD
CORP., 313 U.S. 62. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED AT LENGTH IN OUR OPINION IN THE KING & BOOZER
CASE, WE THINK THAT THE CONTRACTORS, IN PURCHASING AND BRINGING THE
BUILDING MATERIAL INTO THE STATE AND IN APPROPRIATING IT TO THEIR
CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT, WERE NOT AGENTS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
THE GOVERNMENT; AND THEY ARE NOT RELIEVED OF THE TAX, TO WHICH THEY
WOULD OTHERWISE BE SUBJECT, BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS.  IF THE STATE LAW LAYS THE TAX UPON THEM RATHER
THAN THE INDIVIDUAL WITH WHOM THEY ENTER INTO A COST-PLUS CONTRACT LIKE
THE PRESENT ONE, THEN IT AFFECTS THE GOVERNMENT, LIKE THE INDIVIDUAL,
ONLY AS THE ECONOMIC BURDEN IS SHIFTED TO IT THROUGH OPERATION OF THE
CONTRACT.  AS POINTED OUT IN THE OPINION IN THE KING & BOOZER CASE, BY
CONCESSION OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ON AUTHORITY, THE CONSTITUTION,
WITHOUT IMPLEMENTATION BY CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, DOES NOT PROHIBIT
A TAX UPON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS BECAUSE ITS BURDEN IS PASSED ON
ECONOMICALLY BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE AS A PART OF THE
CONSTRUCTION COST TO THE GOVERNMENT. 

UPON THE RECORD AS IT COMES TO US, WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE TAXING STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO TRANSACTIONS OF
THE CONTRACTORS ON THE CAMP-SITE, A GOVERNMENT RESERVATION.  WE DECIDE
ONLY THE QUESTION PASSED UPON BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, THAT IF
THE STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO, AND TAXES, THE CONTRACTORS UPON A COST
PLUS CONTRACT LIKE THE PRESENT, IF ENTERED INTO WITH A PRIVATE PERSON,
THEY ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM THE TAX WHEN, AS HERE, THE CONTRACT IS WITH
THE GOVERNMENT.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











BERNARDS V. JOHNSON, 314 U.S. 19 


NO. 2.  REARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  - 103
F.2D 567, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, TO AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF A
PETITION TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI, STAYS THE ISSUE OF ITS MANDATE,
BUT ISSUES THE MANDATE AT A SUBSEQUENT TERM WHEN THE CERTIORARI IS
DENIED, IT HAS JURISDICTION AT THAT LATER TERM TO RECALL THE MANDATE
AND RECONSIDER THE APPEAL.  P. 29. 

2.  AN ORDER OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY DISMISSING AN UNTIMELY
PETITION FOR REHEARING OR REVIEW DOES NOT EXTEND THE TIME FOR APPEAL
FROM THE ORIGINAL ORDER.  P. 31. 

3.  FARMER-BANKRUPTS, CLAIMING THAT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS IN A
STATE COURT, WHEREBY MORTGAGE-CREDITORS HAD OBTAINED DEEDS TO LAND
PENDING THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, WERE VOID BECAUSE OF PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, SOUGHT TO REOPEN FINAL ORDERS OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT SUSTAINING THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE TIME FOR APPEAL
HAVING EXPIRED, THAT COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION BECAUSE OF ITS
UNTIMELINESS, WITHOUT RE-EXAMINING THE ADJUDICATED MERITS.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM WERE NOT OPEN UPON THE BANKRUPTS'
APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 32. 

(2)  ALTHOUGH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, ACTING ON PRAYERS FOR AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF IN THE ANSWERS OF THE MORTGAGEE-RESPONDENTS AND THE TRUSTEE,
MADE CERTAIN FINDINGS BASED UPON ADMISSIONS OF THE BANKRUPTS, AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE MORTGAGE TITLES, AND QUIETED THEM, AND MADE OTHER
FINDINGS, AND GAVE ITS APPROVALS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRUSTEES,
TOUCHING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE, THIS WAS NOT A REVIEW OF THE
BANKRUPTS' CLAIM AGAINST THE MORTGAGEES.  P. 31. 

(3)  OTHER FINDINGS, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BANKRUPTS HAD MADE NO
ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH SEC. 75(S) OF THE ACT AND THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO
HOPE OR POSSIBILITY OF THEIR FINANCIAL REHABILITATION, WERE NOT
NECESSARY TO THE DECISION OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND DID NOT RENDER
THEIR DISPOSITION ERRONEOUS.  P. 31. 

4.  THE REMEDY FOR CORRECTING ERRONEOUS ORDERS AND DECREES OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT SUSTAINING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT
AND TITLES EMANATING THEREFROM, OVER THE BANKRUPT'S CLAIM THAT BECAUSE
OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT THE PROCEEDINGS AND
TITLES ARE VOID, IS BY TIMELY APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OR BY TIMELY
APPEAL.  P. 32. 

BERNARDS ET AL. V. JOHNSON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 616, TO REVIEW A DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMING ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE
ORDERS REFUSED TO REOPEN CERTAIN EARLIER ORDERS SUSTAINING FORECLOSURES
IN A STATE COURT, UPON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE FINAL ADJUDICATIONS
AND THAT THE TIME ALLOWED FOR REVIEWING THEM HAD EXPIRED.  THEY ALSO
RATIFIED ORDERS OF A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, AND IN EFFECT DIRECTED
THAT THE CAUSE PROCEED AS AN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY AND NOT UNDER SEC.
75(S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS DENIED, 308
U.S. 595.  A SECOND PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 310 U.S. 616,
UPON WHICH, AFTER ARGUMENT, THERE WAS AN AFFIRMANCE BY AN EQUAL
DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUSTICES, 313 U.S. 537.  A REHEARING WAS
ORDERED, 313 U.S. 597. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE TOOK THIS CASE BECAUSE IT PRESENTS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF
APPELLATE PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 75 FN1  OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

THE PETITIONERS, WHO ARE ADJUDICATED BANKRUPTS, ATTACK AN ORDER AND A
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH WERE AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  FN2  THE RESPONDENTS ARE MORTGAGEES WHO PURCHASED PROPERTY
OF THE BANKRUPTS AT FORECLOSURE SALES, AND THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY. 

THE PETITIONERS WERE OWNERS OF LAND IN OREGON.  APRIL 12, 1933, THE
RESPONDENT, COLLINS, BROUGHT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS ON A MORTGAGE
WHICH WAS A FIRST LIEN ON A PORTION OF THE LAND.  APRIL 6, 1934, TWO OF
THE RESPONDENTS, JOHNSON AND UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK (HEREIN, FOR
THE SAKE OF BREVITY, REFERRED TO AS JOHNSON) INSTITUTED A FORECLOSURE
SUIT UNDER A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS SECURED BY A PLEDGE OF PERSONALTY AND
WAS ALSO A FIRST LIEN ON ALL THE LAND NOT COVERED BY THE COLLINS
MORTGAGE, AND A SECOND LIEN ON THE TRACT MORTGAGED TO COLLINS.  JULY
11, 1934, A STATE COURT ENTERED A DECREE OF FORECLOSURE IN THE LATTER
SUIT. 

AUGUST 10, 1934, THE PETITIONERS JOINTLY APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT, AS FARMERS, FOR COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF THEIR INDEBTEDNESS. 
ON THE SAME DAY THE COURT RESTRAINED, UNTIL FURTHER ORDER, ANY SALE
UNDER THE JOHNSON MORTGAGE, AND REFERRED THE CAUSE TO A CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER.  THAT OFFICER HAVING REPORTED, ON THE REFERENCE AND ON A
RE-REFERENCE, FAILURE TO AGREE ON A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION, THE
PETITIONERS, DECEMBER 19, 1934, RECITING THE FAILURE AND THEIR DESIRE
TO HAVE THE BENEFITS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND PARTICULARLY OF SUB
EACH OF THEM BE ADJUDGED BY THIS COURT TO BE BANKRUPTS, WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF SAID ACTS OF CONGRESS."  AN ADJUDICATION AS TO EACH
PETITIONER WAS ENTERED, AND, DECEMBER 20, 1934, THE CASE WAS REFERRED
TO A REFEREE. 

FEBRUARY 8, 1935, THE BANKRUPTS PETITIONED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF
APPRAISERS AND TO BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN POSSESSION OF THEIR PROPERTY, AS
PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (S). 

FEBRUARY 18, 1935, THE RESTRAINING ORDER OF AUGUST 10, 1934, WAS
VACATED AS SUPERFLUOUS, INASMUCH AS SUB-DIVISIONS (A) TO (R) OF SEC. 75
ARE SELF-EXECUTING.  FN4  MAY 21, 1935, APPRAISERS WERE APPOINTED.  MAY
27, 1935, THIS COURT HELD SUB-SECTION (S) UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FN5 

JUNE 28, 1935, THE PETITIONERS APPLIED FOR A RE-REFERENCE OF THEIR
ORIGINAL PETITION FOR COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION TO A CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER.  THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED BY THE COURT ON THE GROUND
THAT THEY HAD BEEN ADJUDGED BANKRUPTS AND THAT THEIR BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING WAS THEN PENDING BEFORE A REFEREE.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN. 

JUNE 29, 1935, JOHNSON PURCHASED THE MORTGAGED REALTY AND THE PLEDGED
PERSONALTY AT A SALE IN THE JOHNSON FORECLOSURE SUIT, HELD PURSUANT TO
ORDER OF THE STATE COURT, AND THE SALE WAS CONFIRMED JULY 20, 1935. 
THE PETITIONERS APPEARED AND OPPOSED CONFIRMATION, BUT DID NOT APPEAL
FROM THE DECREE. 

AUGUST 26, 1935, A SALE WAS MADE TO COLLINS PURSUANT TO A FORECLOSURE
DECREE ENTERED BY THE STATE COURT, JULY 9, 1935, UNDER THE COLLINS
MORTGAGE, AND THE SALE WAS CONFIRMED SEPTEMBER 16, 1935. 

A NEW SUB-SECTION (S), TO REPLACE THAT HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL, HAVING
BEEN ADOPTED AUGUST 28, 1935,  FN6  THE PETITIONERS, SEPTEMBER 30,
1935, RECITING THEIR ADJUDICATION AS BANKRUPTS AND THE REFERENCE OF THE
CASE TO A REFEREE, AND, RELYING ON THE NEWLY ADOPTED SUB-SECTION (S),
WHICH AUTHORIZES CONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS TO ACT AS REFEREES IN SEC.
75 CASES SUBSEQUENT TO ADJUDICATION, MOVED THE COURT TO RECALL THE
PROCEEDINGS FROM THE REFEREE.  BY ORDER OF EVEN DATE THE PRIOR
REFERENCE WAS RECALLED, AND THE REFEREE WAS DIRECTED TO REMIT THE
RECORD TO THE COURT. 

ALTHOUGH, UNDER THE OREGON LAW, A PURCHASER AT FORECLOSURE SALE IS
ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF THE LAND FROM THE DAY OF SALE,  FN7  THE
DEBTORS REMAINED IN POSSESSION.  TO OUST THEM, JOHNSON APPLIED TO THE
STATE COURT FOR A WRIT OF ASSISTANCE.  OCTOBER 3, 1935, THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT, AT PETITIONERS' INSTANCE, TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED THE SHERIFF
FROM EXECUTING ANY SUCH WRIT. 

BY ORDER OF OCTOBER 15, 1935, THE COURT, RECITING THE ADJUDICATION OF
DECEMBER 19, 1934, REFERRED THE BANKRUPTCY CASE TO A CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER. 

DECEMBER 18, 1935, THE COURT DISSOLVED THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AGAINST THE SHERIFF, FOR THE REASONS THAT THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN
SOLD PURSUANT TO AN EXECUTION IN THE JOHNSON FORECLOSURE AND THE SALE
DULY CONFIRMED; THAT, WHEN THESE STEPS WERE TAKEN, THE STATE COURT HAD
JURISDICTION ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 75; AND THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE WRIT OF ASSISTANCE WOULD
NOT, THEREFORE, INTERFERE WITH ANY PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT.  NO APPEAL
WAS TAKEN FROM THE ORDER, THE WRIT OF ASSISTANCE ISSUED, AND THE
PETITIONERS WERE DISPOSSESSED JANUARY 25, 1936. 

THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION FROM THE SALE IN THE JOHNSON FORECLOSURE
EXPIRED JUNE 29, 1936, AND, ON JULY 1, A SHERIFF'S DEED WAS DELIVERED. 

JULY 15, 1936, THE BANKRUPTS FILED WITH THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER
A PETITION RECITING THE INSTITUTION OF THE EXTENSION PROCEEDING, ITS
FUTILITY, THE CONSEQUENT ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY, THE SHERIFF'S SALE
UNDER THE JOHNSON MORTGAGE, AND ITS CONFIRMATION.  THEY ALLEGED THAT
THEY WERE FARMERS WITHIN SEC. 75 AS AMENDED AUGUST 28, 1935, AND WERE,
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, ENTITLED TO THE POSSESSION OF THE
MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND ITS PROCEEDS; THAT JOHNSON WAS ENDEAVORING TO
EXERCISE CONTROL OF, AND EXCLUDE THEM FROM, THE PROPERTY.  THEY PRAYED
AN ORDER GRANTING THEM IMMEDIATE POSSESSION, CONTROL, AND MANAGEMENT OF
THE REAL ESTATE, AND RESTRAINING THE SHERIFF, JOHNSON, AND COLLINS
"FROM TRANSFERRING WITHOUT PURCHASE OF SAID PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE FRAZER-LEMKE ACT AS AMENDED"; AND FOR A FURTHER ORDER "SPECIFICALLY
EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION AS PROVIDED" IN THE ACT. 

JOHNSON FILED AN ANSWER AND CROSS-PETITION, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN
THE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD CERTIFIED TO THIS COURT.  THE DEBTORS REPLIED,
ASKING THAT THE ANSWER BE DISMISSED; THAT THEY BE ACCORDED THE FULL
BENEFITS OF THE ACT; THAT THE SHERIFF'S DEED BE CANCELLED; AND THAT
JOHNSON BE REQUIRED TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL CROPS HARVESTED AND PROPERTY
REMOVED FROM THE LAND. 

AUGUST 8, 1936, THE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE BANKRUPTS HAD NEVER
PETITIONED UNDER THE NEW SUB-SECTION (S) FOR APPRAISAL, THE SETTING
ASIDE OF THEIR EXEMPT PROPERTY, AND FOR POSSESSION OF THEIR PROPERTY
UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE COURT; THAT APPRAISERS HAD NEVER BEEN
APPOINTED OR THE PROPERTY APPRAISED; THAT NO ORDER IN RESPECT OF
EXEMPTIONS OR FOR POSSESSION BY THE BANKRUPTS HAD EVER BEEN MADE; THAT
NO STAY ORDER HAD BEEN ENTERED; THAT NO RENTAL HAD EVER BEEN FIXED;
THAT NO ORDER OF ANY SORT HAD BEEN MADE UNDER THE AMENDED SUB-SECTION
EXCEPT THE ORDERS RECALLING THE PROCEEDINGS FROM THE REFEREE AND
REFERRING THEM TO THE COMMISSIONER; THAT THE BANKRUPTS ARE NOT FARMERS
WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE ACT; THAT ON AUGUST 28, 1935, WHEN THE NEW
SUB-SECTION (S) TOOK EFFECT, THEY HAD ONLY AN EQUITY OF REDEMPTION IN
THE LANDS, EXCEPT FOR THE TRACT COVERED BY THE COLLINS MORTGAGE; AND
THAT THE NEW SUB-SECTION (S) WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  HE ENTERED A DECREE
TO THE EFFECT THAT SINCE JUNE 29, 1935, THE DATE OF THE FORECLOSURE
SALE, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAD HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THE LAND THEN
SOLD; THAT THE NEW SUB-SECTION (S) HAD NO APPLICATION TO ANY OF THE
LAND SOLD IN FORECLOSURE; THAT THE BANKRUPTS WERE NOT FARMERS WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE ACT, AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE
ACT; THAT THEIR PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED; AND THAT A TRUSTEE SHOULD BE
APPOINTED TO LIQUIDATE THE ESTATE. 

THE TIME FIXED BY STANDING RULE OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PETITIONING
FOR A REVIEW OF A REFEREE'S ORDER IN BANKRUPTCY IS TWENTY DAYS.  NO
APPLICATION WAS MADE WITHIN THAT TIME TO HAVE THE ORDER REVIEWED. 

AUGUST 29, 1936, THE CREDITORS ELECTED, AND THE COMMISSIONER
THEREUPON APPOINTED, THE RESPONDENT LOOMIS TRUSTEE; AND, SEPTEMBER 3,
THE COMMISSIONER ENTERED AN ORDER APPROVING HIS BOND. 

SEPTEMBER 10, 1936, THE YEAR FOR REDEMPTION FROM THE SALE IN THE
COLLINS FORECLOSURE HAVING EXPIRED, THE SHERIFF DELIVERED HIS DEED TO
COLLINS AS PURCHASER. 

SEPTEMBER 19, 1936, THE BANKRUPTS FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER A
"NOTICE OF APPEAL" FROM THE ORDERS OF AUGUST 29 AND SEPTEMBER 3. 
TREATING THE NOTICE AS A PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE COMMISSIONER FILED
HIS CERTIFICATE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT. 

MEANTIME, ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE PROCEEDED AS IN ORDINARY
BANKRUPTCY, AND APPRAISERS WERE APPOINTED, SEPTEMBER 25, 1936.  OCTOBER
23, THEY FILED AN APPRAISEMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPTS, NOT
INCLUDING THAT WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD IN FORECLOSURE. 

DECEMBER 15, 1936, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A DECREE CONFIRMING THE
COMMISSIONER'S ORDERS OF AUGUST 29 AND SEPTEMBER 3.  NO APPEAL WAS
TAKEN. 

JANUARY 4, 1937, THE BANKRUPTS FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER A PETITION
RECITING THEIR ADJUDICATION AS BANKRUPTS, AND PRAYING THAT THE
COMMISSIONER PROCEED WITH THE APPRAISAL OF THEIR PROPERTY; THAT HE
RESCIND THE ORDER OF AUGUST 8, 1936; THAT HE REMOVE THE TRUSTEE BECAUSE
THE LATTER WAS NOT ELECTED BY THE REQUISITE MAJORITY IN AMOUNT OF
UNSECURED CREDITORS, AND WAS AN IMPROPER PERSON; THAT THE TRUSTEE BE
ORDERED TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL PROPERTY COMING INTO HIS POSSESSION; AND
THAT THE BANKRUPT'S EXEMPTIONS BE SET ASIDE TO THEM.  THEY ASKED FOR
OTHER SPECIFIC RELIEF, NOT NECESSARY TO DETAIL, AND FOR GENERAL
RELIEF.  JANUARY 11, 1937, THE COMMISSIONER ORDERED THE PETITION
DISMISSED, "FOR THE REASON THAT ALL MATTERS AND THINGS IN SAID PETITION
ALLEGED HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN CONSIDERED UPON PETITION FILED BY SAID
BANKRUPTS AND DECIDED ADVERSELY TO SAID BANKRUPTS, AND SAID ORDERS HAVE
ALL BECOME FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE." 

JANUARY 13, 1937, THE BANKRUPTS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A
PETITION FOR AN ORDER RESTRAINING THE TRUSTEE FROM SELLING THE PERSONAL
PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE.  THE PETITION WAS DENIED TWO DAYS LATER.  NO
APPEAL WAS TAKEN. 

JANUARY 15, 1937, THEY FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A PETITION
WHEREIN, AFTER PRAYING THAT ALL THE FILES IN THE CASE BE INCORPORATED
BY REFERENCE, THEY SET OUT IN SUMMARY A HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDING FROM
THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FOR EXTENSION OR COMPOSITION,
ATTACKED MANY OF THE ORDERS THERETOFORE MADE, PRAYED THAT THEIR FAILURE
TO SEEK A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AUGUST 8, 1936,
WITHIN THE TIME LIMITED FOR THAT PURPOSE BE EXCUSED; THAT THE COURT
REVIEW THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING, REVERSE ALL PREVIOUS ORDERS OF THE
COMMISSIONER, AND HOLD THE PETITIONERS FARMERS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS
OF THE ACT; THAT THE COURT TREAT THE PETITION "AS EXCEPTIONS TO SAID
DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER," AND GRANT THE PETITIONERS APPROPRIATE
RELIEF, AND, MEANTIME, RESTRAIN THE TRUSTEE FROM SELLING ANY PERSONAL
PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE. 

JANUARY 29, 1937, THEY FILED WITH THE COURT A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER OF JANUARY 11, 1937, DISMISSING THEIR PETITION
OF JANUARY 4, 1937. 

TO THE PETITION OF JANUARY 15, 1937, JOHNSON AND COLLINS FILED
ANSWERS RECITING THE VARIOUS STEPS IN THE PROCEEDING, AND THE ORDERS
MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE COURT, AS TO WHICH THERE HAD BEEN NO
REVIEW OR APPEAL; AND ALLEGING THAT ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE
PETITION HAD CONSEQUENTLY BEEN FINALLY ADJUDICATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS. 

IN ADDITION, EACH ANSWER RECITED THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT
AS THEY ARE ABOVE OUTLINED, AND ASSERTED THAT AS A RESULT OF THOSE
PROCEEDINGS EACH RESPONDENT HAD ACQUIRED TITLE AND POSSESSION, AND THAT
THE BANKRUPT, BERNARDS, WAS INTERFERING WITH THAT POSSESSION, AND
PRAYED THAT THEIR TITLE MIGHT BE QUIETED.  THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
ALSO FILED AN ANSWER SETTING UP THE FINALITY OF THE UNAPPEALED AND
UNREVIEWED ORDERS IN THE CAUSE AND PRAYING CERTAIN RELIEF. 

APRIL 13, 1938, THE BANKRUPTS FILED IN THE COURT A MOTION TO VACATE
AND SET ASIDE "ALL ORDERS OF THIS COURT, AND OF ALL THE REFEREES AND
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS WHERE IT WAS SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE OR DELAY
THE CARRYING OUT OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPT ACT" AND TO
REINSTATE THE CAUSE.  THE GROUNDS ASSIGNED WERE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
COURT, THE REFEREE AND CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER HAD FAILED TO COMPLY
WITH THE ACT.    THE DISTRICT COURT HELD A SINGLE HEARING UPON THE
PETITION OF JANUARY 15, 1937, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF JANUARY 29,
1937, AND THE MOTION OF APRIL 13, 1938.  THE BANKRUPTS ADMITTED THE
TRUTH OF THE FACTS SET UP BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR CROSS-PETITIONS,
BUT NOT THEIR LEGAL EFFECT.  AS ALL THE FACTS WERE OF RECORD OR
ADMITTED NO TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN. 

MAY 10, 1938, THE COURT AFFIRMED THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER OF JANUARY
11, 1937.  UPON THE PETITION OF JANUARY 15, 1937, AND THE MOTION OF
APRIL 13, 1938, THE COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATED CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW WHICH WERE EMBODIED IN THE ORDER AND DECREE ENTERED.  THIS
DISMISSED THE PETITION AND DENIED THE MOTION, QUIETED THE TITLE OF THE
MORTGAGE-CREDITOR RESPONDENTS AS AGAINST THE BANKRUPTS TO THE LANDS
PURCHASED BY THEM AT FORECLOSURE SALE, RATIFIED AND APPROVED THE ORDERS
OF THE COMMISSIONER, AND IN EFFECT DIRECTED THAT THE CAUSE PROCEED AS
AN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY AND NOT UNDER SEC. 75(S). 

IN ITS FINDINGS THE COURT DETAILS THE HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDING AND
RECITES THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF DECEMBER 18, 1935, THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF AUGUST 8, 1936, THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF DECEMBER 15,
1936, AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDERS OF AUGUST 29 AND SEPTEMBER 3,
1936, AND FINDS WITH RESPECT TO EACH THAT NO REVIEW WAS PRAYED OR
APPEAL TAKEN WITHIN THE TIME LIMITED BY RULE OR BY LAW AND THAT EACH OF
THEM HAD BECOME FINAL. 

THE BANKRUPTS TOOK ONE APPEAL FROM THE ORDER AFFIRMING ON REVIEW THE
COMMISSIONER'S ORDER OF JANUARY 11, 1937, AND THE ORDER AND DECREE
DISMISSING THEIR PETITION OF JANUARY 13, 1937, AND THEIR MOTION OF
APRIL 13, 1938, AND GRANTING THE RELIEF ASKED BY THE RESPONDENTS. 

MAY 2, 1939, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED BOTH ORDERS.  MAY
25, 1939, THAT COURT STAYED ITS MANDATE UNTIL JULY 15, AND, DIRECTED
THAT IF A PETITION TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DOCKETED BY
THAT DATE, THE MANDATE SHOULD BE STAYED UNTIL AFTER WE HAD PASSED UPON
THE PETITION. 

A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS DOCKETED JULY 10, 1939, AND WAS DENIED
OCTOBER 23.  THE MANDATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED OCTOBER
28.  A MOTION MADE NOVEMBER 4, TO RECALL THE MANDATE AND HOLD IT
PENDING OUR DECISION IN JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V.
BARTELS, 308 U.S. 180, WAS DENIED NOVEMBER 6.  THE BARTELS CASE WAS
DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  JANUARY 2, 1940, THE PETITIONERS PRESENTED
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS A MOTION "FOR RECALL AND CORRECTION,
AMENDMENT, REVISION OR OPENING AND VACATING MANDATE AND JUDGMENT
ENTERED THEREON," UPON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT'S DECISION WAS
CONTRARY TO OURS IN THE BARTELS CASE. 

JANUARY 2, 1940, THIS COURT DECIDED KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433,
AND, JANUARY 18, THE BANKRUPTS SUPPLEMENTED THEIR PENDING MOTION,
ALLEGING THAT OUR DECISION WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THAT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

MARCH 22, 1940, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED THE MOTION, AND,
APRIL 12, THE BANKRUPTS AGAIN PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI, ASSERTING THAT
THE COURT HAD DISREGARDED OUR TWO DECISIONS IN HOLDING THAT THE
BANKRUPTS' INABILITY TO REHABILITATE THEMSELVES WAS A RELEVANT FACTOR
IN APPRAISING THEIR RIGHT TO RESORT TO SEC. 75(S), AND IN HOLDING
FURTHER THAT THE AUTOMATIC STAY CREATED BY SUB-SECTION (O) DID NOT
SURVIVE ADJUDICATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (S), AND HAD REFUSED, ALTHOUGH
IT HAD THE POWER, TO RECALL ITS MANDATE SO AS TO CORRECT ITS ERRONEOUS
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI APRIL 29, 1940. 

THREE QUESTIONS EMERGE FROM THIS LONG AND COMPLICATED RECORD.  THEY
ARE: 

1.  ASSUMING THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
ERRONEOUS, HAD IT POWER TO RECALL ITS MANDATE AND RECONSIDER THE
APPEAL?  WE HOLD THAT IT HAD. 

2.  ASSUMING THE CHALLENGED ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE COURT
WERE ERRONEOUS, WERE THEY FINAL, BINDING, AND IMPREGNABLE TO SUBSEQUENT
ATTACK, SINCE REVIEW OR APPEAL WAS NOT SOUGHT OR TAKEN WITHIN THE TIME
LIMITED BY COURT RULE OR BY LAW?  WE HOLD THAT THEY WERE. 

3.  HAD THE STATE COURT JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITH FORECLOSURE AND
TO INVEST THE MORTGAGE CREDITORS, AS PURCHASERS AT THE EXECUTION SALES,
WITH VALID TITLE TO THE MORTGAGED LANDS?  WE HOLD THAT IT HAD. 

FIRST.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS RENDERED IN
ITS OCTOBER 1938 TERM.  THE STAY OF THE MANDATE DID NOT END, AND THE
MANDATE WAS NOT ISSUED, UNTIL THAT TERM HAD EXPIRED.  THE APPLICATION
FOR RECALL OF THE MANDATE WAS PRESENTED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING TERM,
DURING WHICH THE MANDATE HAD GONE DOWN.  THE RESPONDENTS ASSERT THAT
THE COURT LACKED AUTHORITY, AFTER THE TERM IN WHICH ITS JUDGMENT WAS
RENDERED, TO RECALL ITS MANDATE AND TO AMEND ITS JUDGMENT IN MATTER OF
SUBSTANCE. 

IN GRANTING THE STAY, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MIGHT HAVE
EXTENDED THE TERM SO THAT IT COULD FURTHER CONSIDER THE CASE AFTER THIS
COURT HAD ACTED ON THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  WE THINK THAT, BY
STAYING THE ISSUE OF THE MANDATE AND RETAINING THE CAUSE UNTIL AFTER
THE SUBSEQUENT TERM HAD OPENED, THE COURT, IN EFFECT, DID EXTEND THE
TERM AS RESPECTS THE INSTANT CASE AND THAT, UPON DISPOSITION OF THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, IT HAD POWER TO TAKE FURTHER STEPS IN THE
CAUSE DURING THE TERM IN WHICH THE STAY EXPIRED AND THE MANDATE
ISSUED. 

SECOND.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISPOSED OF THREE DISTINCT MATTERS IN THE
ORDERS UNDER REVIEW:  THE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE COMMISSIONER'S
ORDERS OF JANUARY 11, 1937, THE PETITION OF JANUARY 15, 1937, AND THE
MOTION OF APRIL 13, 1938. 

THE COURT DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR REVIEW.  THE COMMISSIONER HAD
DENIED THE PETITION OF JANUARY 4, 1937, ON THE SOLE GROUND "THAT ALL
THE MATTERS AND THINGS SET OUT IN SAID PETITION HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY
ADJUDICATED AND NO REVIEW THEREOF HAS BEEN HAD, OR IF REVIEW WAS TAKEN,
SUCH ACTIONS OF THE REFEREE HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON REVIEW," AND THAT
"ALL MATTERS AND THINGS IN SAID PETITION ALLEGED HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN
CONSIDERED UPON PETITION FILED BY SAID BANKRUPTS AND DECIDED ADVERSELY
TO SAID BANKRUPTS, AND SAID ORDERS HAVE ALL BECOME FINAL AND
CONCLUSIVE."  THE ORDER AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER DID
NOT DEAL WITH THE MERITS.  THE COURT CLEARLY AFFIRMED THE
COMMISSIONER'S REFUSAL TO CONSIDER THE PETITION FOR THE REASON STATED
BY HIM. 

IN DISMISSING THE PETITION OF JANUARY 15, 1937, AND THE MOTION OF
APRIL 13, 1938, THE COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATED CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW COVERING BOTH.  IT ENTERED WHAT IT DENOMINATED AN "ORDER AND
DECREE" WITH RESPECT TO BOTH, AND, AS ABOVE NOTED, DISMISSED BOTH THE
PETITION AND THE MOTION, ON THE STATED GROUND THAT ALL ISSUES THEREIN
RAISED HAD BEEN FINALLY ADJUDICATED AND NO REVIEW OR APPEAL HAD BEEN
TIMELY SOUGHT OR TAKEN. 

IF THE RESPONDENTS HAD NOT CROSS-PETITIONED FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF,
THE DISTRICT COURT NEED HAVE TAKEN NO FURTHER ACTION THAN IT DID IN
DISMISSING THE BANKRUPTS' PETITION AND MOTION.  AN ORDER DENYING A
PETITION FOR REHEARING OR REVIEW, WHICH IS DISMISSED BECAUSE THE
PETITION WAS FILED OUT OF TIME, WITHOUT RECONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS,
DOES NOT EXTEND THE TIME FOR APPEAL FROM THE ORIGINAL ORDER.  FN8  BUT
THERE REMAINED FOR DISPOSITION THE PRAYERS OF THE RESPONDENTS FOR
AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF.  THE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE WERE IN
ANSWER TO THESE PRAYERS.  AS THOSE PROVISIONS WERE ASSIGNED AS ERROR,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THEM. 

UPON THE ADMISSION OF COUNSEL FOR THE BANKRUPTS, THE DISTRICT COURT
FOUND THE FACTS AS TO THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS AND FOUND THAT THEY
WERE BEFORE A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION; THAT THE TITLES ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE EXECUTION SALES WERE GOOD AS AGAINST THE BANKRUPTS, AND
QUIETED THE TITLES OF THE MORTGAGEES AS PURCHASERS.  WITH RESPECT TO
THE RELIEF AND THE INSTRUCTIONS PRAYED BY THE TRUSTEE, THE COURT MADE
CERTAIN FINDINGS AS TO WHAT HAD BEEN DONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ESTATE, CONFIRMED THAT ACTION, AND INSTRUCTED THE TRUSTEE AS TO HIS
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  THESE FINDINGS AND THESE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE
OBVIOUSLY WERE MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE CROSS-PETITIONS OF THE
RESPONDENTS.  THEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A REVIEW OF THE MERITS
REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONERS. 

THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE BANKRUPTS HAD MADE NO ATTEMPT TO COMPLY
WITH THE NEW SUB-SECTION (S) OF SEC. 75; THAT THEY HAD, EVER SINCE THE
FILING OF THEIR PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION ON DECEMBER 19, 1934, BEEN
BEYOND ALL HOPE OF FINANCIAL REHABILITATION; THAT THERE WAS NO
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH REHABILITATION.  SUCH FINDINGS CONSTITUTE NO BASIS
EITHER FOR A REFUSAL TO ADJUDICATE THE FARMER-PETITIONER A BANKRUPT
UNDER SEC. 75(S) OR FOR DISMISSING THE CAUSE INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THE
PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN THE SUB-SECTION.  FN9  IN THE INSTANT CASE,
HOWEVER, THESE FINDINGS, THOUGH EVIDENTLY DIRECTED TO THE RELIEF PRAYED
BY THE RESPONDENTS, WERE NOT NECESSARY TO THE DECISION OF ANY OF THE
QUESTIONS THEY SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AND DO NOT RENDER ERRONEOUS THE
PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE ISSUES SUBMITTED. 

THIRD.  THE PETITIONERS URGE THAT THE AUTOMATIC STAY IMPOSED BY SUB
SUB-SECTION (N), CONTINUED THROUGHOUT THE CASE; AND THAT ALL ACTION
TAKEN IN THE STATE COURT WAS, THEREFORE, VOID UNDER THE DOCTRINE
ANNOUNCED IN KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, SUPRA.  THE RESPONDENTS INSIST THAT,
IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE EXTENSION AND HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE STAY
AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS AND THE
ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY, TIMELY APPLICATION TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
TO THAT END HAD TO BE MADE BY THE PETITIONERS.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY
TO DISCUSS OR DECIDE THE IMPORTANT QUESTION THUS MOOTED, FOR THE REASON
THAT THE ORDERS AND DECREES ENTERED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IF VALID,
RELIEVED THE RESPONDENTS, AS MORTGAGEES, OF ANY DISABILITY TO PURSUE
THEIR FORECLOSURE SUITS ARISING OUT OF THE PENDENCY OF THE BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDING AND LEFT THEM FREE TO PROSECUTE THE FORECLOSURES IN THE
STATE COURTS.  HOWEVER ERRONEOUS THE CHALLENGED ORDERS, THE REMEDY FOR
THEIR CORRECTION WAS BY TIMELY APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OR TIMELY
APPEAL.  FN10  SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO REVIEW THESE ORDERS
AND DECREES OUT OF TIME, THE PETITIONERS COULD NOT ATTACK THEM IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  11 U.S.C. SEC. 203. 

FN2  103 F.2D 567. 

FN3  THE SUB-SECTION WAS ADDED TO SEC. 75 BY THE ACT OF JUNE 28,
1934, 48 STAT. 1289. 

FN4  IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THIS ORDER WAS ENTERED NUNC PRO
TUNC ON AUGUST 31, 1938, THE COURT RECITING THAT, THROUGH INADVERTENCE,
THE ORDER WAS NOT ENTERED WHEN MADE, ALTHOUGH SHOWN ON THE CLERK'S
NOTES, AND WITHIN THE RECOLLECTION OF THE JUDGE.  THE PETITIONERS DO
NOT CHALLENGE THE VERITY OF THE RECITAL. 

FN5  LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555. 

FN6  ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935, 49 STAT. 942, 943. 

FN7  OREGON CODE, 1930, SEC. 3-510.  SALES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY ARE
WITHOUT REDEMPTION; DIXIE MEADOWS CO. V. KIGHT, 150 ORE.  395, 405, 45
P.2D 909. 

FN8  BOWMAN V. LOPERENA, 311 U.S. 262, 266. 

FN9  JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL INS. CO. V. BARTELS, 308 U.S. 180, 184-185. 

FN10  UNION JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. BYERLY, 310 U.S. 1, 10. 
..END :



















REITZ V. MEALEY, 314 U.S. 33 


NO. 21.  REARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  - 34
F.SUPP.  532, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 94-B OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW OF NEW YORK, AS
ORIGINALLY ENACTED, PROVIDES THAT ONE AGAINST WHOM A JUDGMENT IS
RENDERED FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR CAR AND WHO
FAILS TO PAY IT WITHIN A TIME DESIGNATED, SHALL HAVE HIS LICENSE AND
REGISTRATION SUSPENDED FOR THREE YEARS, UNLESS IN THE MEANTIME THE
JUDGMENT IS SATISFIED OR DISCHARGED, EXCEPT BY DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY;
AND THAT THE SUSPENSION SHALL PERSIST, AFTER THE THREE YEARS OR THE
SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT, AND UNTIL THE LICENSEE GIVES PROOF OF HIS
ABILITY TO RESPOND IN DAMAGES BY THE PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE, THE
GIVING OF A BOND OR THE POSTING OF A DEPOSIT.  HELD CONSISTENT WITH DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND NOT IN DEROGATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 36. 

2.  THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 94-B, SUPRA, BY THE ACT OF MAY 4, 1936,
N.Y. LAWS, C. 448, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "IF THE CREDITOR CONSENTS IN
WRITING, THE DEBTOR MAY BE ALLOWED A LICENSE AND REGISTRATION FOR SIX
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH CONSENT AND THEREAFTER UNTIL THE CONSENT
IS REVOKED IN WRITING, IF PROOF OF ABILITY TO RESPOND TO DAMAGES IS
FURNISHED," IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 37. 

3.  ASSUMING THAT AMENDMENTS OF SEC. 94-B, SUPRA, BY N.Y. LAWS, 1936,
C. 448, ID. 1939, C. 618, ARE CONTRARY TO THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BECAUSE OF
THE POWER THEY PURPORT TO GIVE THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR OVER THE LICENSE
OF THE DEBTOR WHO HAS BEEN DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY, THE AMENDMENTS ARE
SEVERABLE AND THEIR INVALIDITY WOULD NOT AFFECT PROCEEDINGS BASED
ENTIRELY ON THE ORIGINAL STATUTE.  P. 38. 

4.  UNDER THE LAW OF NEW YORK, A STATUTE, IN ITSELF CONSTITUTIONAL,
IS NOT AFFECTED BY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.  P. 38. 

5.  WHETHER AN AMENDMENT STANDS BY ITSELF AS AN INDEPENDENT
ENACTMENT, OR IS INCORPORATED IN THE SETTING OF THE ACT WHICH IT
AMENDS, BY A PROVISION THAT THE ACT "SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS:"  IS A
MATTER OF DRAFTSMANSHIP OR LEGISLATIVE MECHANICS.  IT DOES NOT TOUCH
THE SUBSTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.  P. 39. 

REITZ V. MEALEY, COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
A BILL TO ENJOIN THE ABOVE-NAMED COMMISSIONER FROM SUSPENDING THE
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S AUTOMOBILE DRIVING LICENSE.  THE HEARING BELOW
WAS ON BILL AND ANSWER.  THE DECREE WAS AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY
DIVIDED COURT, 313 U.S. 542; SUBSEQUENTLY, A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS
GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT WAS VACATED, AND THE CASE WAS RESTORED TO THE
DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT, 313 U.S. 597. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE APPELLEE FROM ENFORCING A SUSPENSION
OF THE APPELLANT'S DRIVER'S LICENSE.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE
ORDER SUSPENDING THE LICENSE WAS ISSUED MAY 29, 1940, PURSUANT TO SEC.
94-B OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW OF NEW YORK,  FN1  UPON RECEIPT BY
THE APPELLEE, FROM THE CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBANY COUNTY, OF
A TRANSCRIPT OF A JUDGMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY EVIDENCE OF ITS FINALITY AND
NONPAYMENT, RENDERED AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE SUM OF $5,138.25, IN
AN ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY
APPELLANT'S OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT ON JUNE 21,
1940, THE APPELLANT WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT AND HIS CAUSE REFERRED
TO A REFEREE; THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS SCHEDULED AS A DEBT; AND, ALTHOUGH
NO DISCHARGE HAD BEEN GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT IS A DISCHARGEABLE DEBT. 
THE COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT SEC. 94-B VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND IS RENDERED VOID BY SEC. 17 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT.  FN2  A TEMPORARY AND A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ARE PRAYED.  A
RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED.  THE ANSWER OF THE APPELLEE ADMITS ALL OF THE
RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS EXCEPT THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS DISCHARGEABLE IN
BANKRUPTCY.  UPON THE HEARING OF A MOTION FOR INJUNCTION, BASED UPON
THE BILL AND ANSWER, A COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENIED THE INJUNCTION AND
DISMISSED THE BILL.  FN3  AT THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US IT WAS ADMITTED
THAT A DISCHARGE HAS BEEN GRANTED AND THAT THE JUDGMENT DEBT IS THEREBY
DISCHARGED. 

REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF ANY PERSON IF A JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM, FOR
INJURY TO PERSON OR PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR
CAR, BE NOT PAID WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS, UPON CERTIFICATION OF THE
JUDGMENT, ITS FINALITY, AND NONPAYMENT, TO THE COMMISSIONER BY THE
COUNTY CLERK.  IT DIRECTS THE COMMISSIONER TO SUSPEND THE LICENSE FOR
THREE YEARS UNLESS, IN THE MEANTIME, THE JUDGMENT IS SATISFIED OR
DISCHARGED, EXCEPT BY A DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE SUSPENSION
PERSISTS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE THREE YEARS OR SATISFACTION OF THE
JUDGMENT, UNTIL THE LICENSEE GIVES PROOF OF HIS ABILITY TO RESPOND IN
DAMAGES BY THE PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE, THE GIVING OF A BOND, OR THE
POSTING OF A DEPOSIT.  FN4  THE COUNTY CLERK IS REQUIRED TO CERTIFY TO
THE COMMISSIONER ANY SUCH JUDGMENT UNAPPEALED AND UNSATISFIED FOR
FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER ENTRY. 

SO THE STATUTE STOOD UNTIL MAY 4, 1936, WHEN, BY AN AMENDATORY ACT,
FN5  A PROVISO WAS ADDED THAT, IF THE CREDITOR CONSENTS IN WRITING, THE
DEBTOR MAY BE ALLOWED A LICENSE AND REGISTRATION FOR SIX MONTHS FROM
THE DATE OF SUCH CONSENT AND THEREAFTER UNTIL THE CONSENT IS REVOKED IN
WRITING, IF PROOF OF ABILITY TO RESPOND TO DAMAGES IS FURNISHED.  A
FURTHER AMENDMENT, OF MAY 31, 1939,  FN6  MADE IT THE DUTY OF THE
COUNTY CLERK TO CERTIFY THE JUDGMENT ONLY UPON WRITTEN DEMAND OF THE
CREDITOR OR HIS ATTORNEY. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS CLEAR.  IT IS NOT A CONDITION OF THE
GRANT OF LICENSE THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE INSURANCE.  INSTEAD, THE
POLICY OF THE STATE IS THAT, IF A DRIVER HAS AN ACCIDENT IN RESPECT OF
WHICH A JUDGMENT CONVICTS HIM OF NEGLIGENCE, HIS LICENSE WILL BE
SUSPENDED AND SO REMAIN UNLESS HE FURNISHES PROOF OF HIS ABILITY TO
RESPOND FOR DAMAGE THEREAFTER CAUSED; AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, IT WILL
BE SUSPENDED FOR THREE YEARS UNLESS, IN THE MEANTIME, THE JUDGMENT IS
SATISFIED OR THE CREDITOR CONSENTS THAT THE LICENSE BE REINSTATED AND
REMAIN IN FORCE. 

FIRST.  THE STATUTE, LEAVING OUT OF CONSIDERATION THE AMENDMENTS, IS
NOT OBNOXIOUS TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT.  THE USE
OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS BY MOTOR VEHICLES, WITH ITS CONSEQUENT DANGERS,
RENDERS THE REASONABLENESS AND NECESSITY OF REGULATION APPARENT.  THE
UNIVERSAL PRACTICE IS TO REGISTER OWNERSHIP OF AUTOMOBILES AND TO
LICENSE THEIR DRIVERS.  ANY APPROPRIATE MEANS ADOPTED BY THE STATES TO
INSURE COMPETENCE AND CARE ON THE PART OF ITS LICENSEES AND TO PROTECT
OTHERS USING THE HIGHWAY IS CONSONANT WITH DUE PROCESS.  SOME STATES
REQUIRE INSURANCE, OR ITS EQUIVALENT, AS A CONDITION OF THE ISSUE OF A
LICENSE.  NEW YORK CHOSE TO OBTAIN THE SAME END BY PROVIDING FOR THE
REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF A LICENSE IF THE HOLDER IS ADJUDGED GUILTY
OF NEGLIGENT DRIVING.  SECTION 94-B PERMITS THE RESTORATION OF THE
LICENSE UPON PAYMENT OR SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT.  AS THE COURT
BELOW HAS HELD, THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE
AMENDMENT OF 1936 WAS TO MAKE THE LICENSE PRIVILEGE A FORM OF
PROTECTION AGAINST DAMAGE TO THE PUBLIC INFLICTED THROUGH THE
LICENSEE'S CARELESSNESS.  FN7 

SECOND.  PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF 1936, THE LICENSE COULD NOT BE
RESTORED UNTIL THREE YEARS HAD EXPIRED FROM ITS SUSPENSION, UNLESS THE
JUDGMENT WERE PAID OR DISCHARGED, EXCEPT BY A DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY,
AND UNLESS, ALSO, THE LICENSEE FURNISHED PROOF OF HIS ABILITY TO
RESPOND IN DAMAGES FOR ANY FUTURE ACCIDENT. 

IF THE STATUTE WENT NO FURTHER, WE ARE CLEAR THAT IT WOULD CONSTITUTE
A VALID EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POLICE POWER NOT INCONSISTENT WITH SEC.
17 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE PENALTY WHICH SEC. 94-B IMPOSES FOR
INJURY DUE TO CARELESS DRIVING IS NOT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
CREDITOR MERELY, BUT TO ENFORCE A PUBLIC POLICY THAT IRRESPONSIBLE
DRIVERS SHALL NOT, WITH IMPUNITY, BE ALLOWED TO INJURE THEIR FELLOWS. 
THE SCHEME OF THE LEGISLATION WOULD BE FRUSTRATED IF THE RECKLESS
DRIVER WERE PERMITTED TO ESCAPE ITS PROVISIONS BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT
OF VOLUNTARY BANKRUPTCY, AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE LEGISLATURE DECLARED
THAT A DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION
OF THE STATUTE.  SUCH LEGISLATION IS NOT IN DEROGATION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  RATHER IT IS AN ENFORCEMENT OF PERMISSIBLE STATE
POLICY TOUCHING HIGHWAY SAFETY. 

THIRD.  THE APPELLANT INSISTS THAT THE SECTION AS AMENDED, AND AS IT
WAS AT THE TIME THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED AGAINST HIM, VIOLATES THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE AND RUNS AFOUL OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IN VIRTUE OF THE
POWER GIVEN THE CREDITOR TO HAVE THE JUDGMENT CERTIFIED TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES, THAT IS, THE POWER TO BRING SEC. 94-B
INTO OPERATION, AND THE FURTHER POWER TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF THE

THE CLAIM OF DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS
FRIVOLOUS.  THE STATE HAS SEEN FIT TO GIVE THE PLAINTIFF AN ADDITIONAL
MEANS OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF A JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES INFLICTED IN
THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE BY DEALING WITH THE REGISTRATION AND
LICENSE OF THE DRIVER.  THE GRANT OF THIS ADDITIONAL REMEDY IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS. 

A MORE SERIOUS QUESTION ARISES IN CONNECTION WITH SEC. 17 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE DISCHARGE OF THE DEBTOR IS A DEFENSE AVAILABLE
AGAINST A SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT AND AGAINST EXECUTION PROCESS ISSUED
UPON IT.  AND THERE IS FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT THAT SEC. 94-B, AS
AMENDED, IN TRUTH DEPRIVES THE DEBTOR OF THE IMMUNITY AFFORDED BY HIS
DISCHARGE, LEAVES OUT OF VIEW THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OR MAKES
THAT PUBLIC POLICY SUBSERVIENT TO THE PRIVATE INTEREST OF THE CREDITOR
BY AFFORDING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO INITIATE, REMOVE AND REVIVE THE
SUSPENSION OF THE LICENSE UPON TERMS AS TO PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF HIS
CLAIM. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT IT NEED NOT CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE
AMENDMENT OF 1939, WHICH REQUIRES THE COUNTY CLERK TO CERTIFY THE
JUDGMENT ONLY UPON THE REQUEST OF THE CREDITOR.  UNDER THE OLD LAW IT
WAS THE DUTY OF THE COUNTY CLERK TO CERTIFY EVERY SUCH JUDGMENT WHICH
HAD BECOME FINAL AND REMAINED UNSATISFIED FOR FIFTEEN DAYS.  IT IS TRUE
THAT THE BILL ALLEGES THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE WAS CERTIFIED AT THE
REQUEST OF THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY.  BUT IF THE AMENDMENT IS VOID,
BECAUSE IT CONFERS A POWER ON THE CREDITOR INCONSISTENT WITH THE EFFECT
OF THE DEBTOR'S DISCHARGE, AND IS ELIMINATED FROM THE STATUTE FOR THAT
REASON, IT STILL REMAINS THAT UNDER THE OLD LAW THE COUNTY CLERK'S DUTY
TO CERTIFY WAS MANDATORY, AND THIS JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED
IF HE HAD PERFORMED HIS OFFICIAL DUTY. 

THE COURT ALSO FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE
1936 AMENDMENT.  THE POWER OF THE CREDITOR TO LIFT THE SUSPENSION AND
RESTORE IT DURING THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE
BEEN INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE.  IF THE CREDITOR ATTEMPTS TO EXERCISE
THAT POWER, THE COMMISSIONER WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
AMENDMENT GIVING THE CREDITOR SUCH POWER IS VALID. 

THE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE AMENDMENTS ARE INVALID, AS
INCONSISTENT WITH SEC. 17 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THEY ARE SEVERABLE,
AND THAT THE STATUTE MAY STAND AS A COMPLETE ACT WITHOUT THEM, SINCE,
UNDER THE LAW OF NEW YORK, A STATUTE, IN ITSELF CONSTITUTIONAL, IS NOT
AFFECTED BY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT; - THE AMENDMENT DROPPING OUT
AND THE ORIGINAL ACT REMAINING IN FORCE.  DECISIONS OF THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE ARE CITED TO THIS EFFECT.  FN8 

THESE DECISIONS HOLD THAT, WHERE THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDING ACTS WERE
ENACTED BY DIFFERENT LEGISLATURES, IT CANNOT BE THOUGHT THAT THE
ORIGINAL ACT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RETAINED EXCEPT FOR THE AMENDMENTS,
AND THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED WHERE THE AMENDING ACT DECLARES, AS
IT DOES IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT THE ORIGINAL ACT IS "AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS" AND THEN CONTAINS A REDRAFT OF THE ENTIRE ACT WITH THE
AMENDMENT INSERTED.  WHETHER AN AMENDMENT STANDS BY ITSELF AS AN
INDEPENDENT ENACTMENT, OR IS INCORPORATED IN THE SETTING OF THE ACT
WHICH IT AMENDS, BY A PROVISION THAT THE ACT "SHALL READ AS FOLLOWS:"
IS A MATTER OF DRAFTSMANSHIP OR LEGISLATIVE MECHANICS.  IT DOES NOT
TOUCH THE SUBSTANCE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF INTENT THAT IF THE AMENDMENTS COULD NOT STAND
THE LEGISLATION AS A WHOLE SHOULD FAIL.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DISCLOSES A PERSISTENT PURPOSE THAT SUCH A SCHEME
FOR THE CONTROL OF MOTOR DRIVERS SHOULD REMAIN.  SUCCESSIVE AND
FREQUENT AMENDMENTS HAVE DEALT WITH DETAILS BUT HAVE LEFT INTACT THE
MAJOR FEATURES OF THE LEGISLATION.  FN9  IN ANY CASE, WE SHOULD ACCORD
GREAT WEIGHT TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S VIEW OF NEW YORK LAW.  BUT AN
EXAMINATION OF THE AUTHORITIES CONVINCES THAT IN THIS CASE ANY CONTRARY
VIEW IS UNTENABLE.  SINCE THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE WOULD OR SHOULD
HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF 1939, AND SINCE THE
CREDITOR HAS NOT SOUGHT TO INVOKE THE AMENDMENT OF 1936 WHICH GIVES HIM
A CONTROL OVER THE RESTORATION OF APPELLANT'S LICENSE AND ITS CONTINUED
FORCE DURING THE THREE YEAR SUSPENSION PERIOD, WE THINK THE COURT WAS
RIGHT IN ABSTAINING FROM DECIDING WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS ARE ANNULLED
BY SEC. 17 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CONSOLIDATED LAWS, C. 71. 

FN2  11 U.S.C. SEC. 35. 

FN3  34 F.SUPP.  532. 

FN4  SEE SEC. 94-C. 

FN5  NEW YORK LAWS, 1936, C. 448. 

FN6  NEW YORK LAWS, 1939, C. 618. 

FN7  SEE ALSO MUNZ V. HARNETT, 6 F.SUPP.  158. 

FN8  E.G., PEOPLE V. MENSCHING, 187 N.Y. 8, 23, 79 N.E. 884; MARKLAND
V. SCULLY, 203 N.Y. 158, 96 N.E. 427; PEOPLE V. KLINCK PACKING CO., 214
N.Y. 121, 108 N.E. 278; PEOPLE V. KNAPP, 230 N.Y. 48, 63, 129 N.E.
202. 

FN9  SEE LAWS 1930, C. 398; LAWS 1931, C. 669; LAWS 1934, C. 438;
LAWS 1936, C. 293; LAWS 1936, C. 771; LAWS 1937, C. 114; LAWS 1937, C.
463; LAWS 1939, C. 618. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

UNDER THE STATUTE IN QUESTION, IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO SUSPEND THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE OF ONE
AGAINST WHOM THE UNSATISFIED JUDGMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED (MATTER OF
JONES V. HARNETT, 247 APP. DIV. 7, 286 N.Y.S. 220; AFF'D 271 N.Y. 626,
3 N.E.2D 455), "UPON RECEIVING A CERTIFIED COPY" OF SUCH FINAL JUDGMENT
FROM THE COURT.  MCKINNEY'S CONS.  L. BK. 62-A, SEC. 94-B.  THE STATUTE
FURTHER PROVIDES THAT "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT,
OR OF THE COURT, WHERE IT HAS NO CLERK, IN WHICH ANY SUCH JUDGMENT IS
RENDERED, TO FORWARD IMMEDIATELY, UPON WRITTEN DEMAND OF THE JUDGMENT
CREDITOR OR HIS ATTORNEY ...  TO SUCH COMMISSIONER A CERTIFIED COPY OF
SUCH JUDGMENT OR A TRANSCRIPT THEREOF."  ID. 

IN THIS CASE THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR INVOKED THE POWER WHICH THE NEW
YORK LEGISLATURE PLACED IN HIS HANDS.  AT THE REQUEST OF HIS ATTORNEY,
THE CLERK OF THE COURT FORWARDED A TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT TO THE
COMMISSIONER, WHO THEREUPON ISSUED THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION. 

THE POWER THUS GRANTED THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR CONTRAVENES SEC. 17 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  JUDGMENTS ON CLAIMS OF THE KIND INVOLVED HERE  FN1
ARE PROVABLE (LEWIS V. ROBERTS, 267 U.S. 467) AND DO NOT FALL WITHIN
ANY OF THE CATEGORIES OF DEBTS EXCEPTED FROM DISCHARGE BY SEC. 17. 
SINCE THEY ARE DISCHARGEABLE, A STATE CANNOT SUPPLY A DEVICE FOR THEIR
COLLECTION WHICH SURVIVES A DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE BANKRUPTCY
POWER IS "UNRESTRICTED AND PARAMOUNT"; THE STATES "MAY NOT PASS OR
ENFORCE LAWS TO INTERFERE WITH OR COMPLEMENT THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OR TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OR AUXILIARY REGULATIONS."  INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO.
V. PINKUS, 278 U.S. 261, 265.  THE POWER WHICH NEW YORK HAS PLACED IN
THE HANDS OF THIS JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS SUCH AN INTERFERENCE, THOUGH THE
DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY BE DEEMED TO DESTROY ONLY THE REMEDY (ZAVELO V.
REEVES, 227 U.S. 625) NOT THE DEBT. 

UNDER THE NEW YORK SCHEME A CREDITOR WHOSE CLAIM HAS BEEN DISCHARGED
STILL HOLDS A CLUB OVER HIS DEBTOR'S HEAD.  THE STATE HAS GIVEN HIM A
REMEDY WHICH SURVIVES BANKRUPTCY.  IF THE BANKRUPT REFUSES TO PAY HIS
DISCHARGED DEBT, THE CREDITOR WILL SEE TO IT THAT HIS DRIVER'S LICENSE
IS SUSPENDED.  IF, HOWEVER, THE BANKRUPT WILL PAY UP, THE CREDITOR WILL
REFRAIN. 

THE PRACTICAL PRESSURES OF THIS COLLECTION DEVICE ARE APPARENT. 
WHERE RETENTION OF THE OPERATOR'S LICENSE IS ESSENTIAL TO LIVELIHOOD,
AS HERE ALLEGED, THE BANKRUPT IS AT THE CREDITOR'S MERCY.  BANKRUPTCY
IS NOT THEN THE SANCTUARY FOR HAPLESS DEBTORS WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED. 
THE BANKRUPT, INSTEAD OF RECEIVING BY VIRTUE OF HIS DISCHARGE "A NEW
OPPORTUNITY IN LIFE AND A CLEAR FIELD FOR FUTURE EFFORT, UNHAMPERED BY
THE PRESSURE AND DISCOURAGEMENT OF PREEXISTING DEBT" (LOCAL LOAN CO. V.
HUNT, 292 U.S. 234, 244) FINDS HIMSELF STILL ENTANGLED WITH A FORMER
CREDITOR. 

IN PRACTICAL EFFECT THE BANKRUPT MAY BE IN AS BAD, OR EVEN WORSE, A
POSITION THAN IF THE STATE HAD MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR A CREDITOR TO
ATTACH HIS FUTURE WAGES.  SUCH A DEVICE WOULD CLEARLY CONTRAVENE THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, SUPRA.  THE PRESENT ONE
LIKEWISE RUNS AFOUL OF THE ACT. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT IF THIS PROVISION OF THE STATUTE FALLS OUT, THE
OLD ONE FALLS IN; AND UNDER THE OLD ONE IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE CLERK TO
CERTIFY THE UNSATISFIED JUDGMENT TO THE COMMISSIONER.  THE DIFFICULTY
WITH THAT VIEW IS THAT THIS IS NOT THAT CASE.  THIS BANKRUPT'S LICENSE
WAS SUSPENDED AS A RESULT OF LEGAL COMPULSION BY THE CREDITOR.  WHETHER
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED HAD THE COMMISSIONER BEEN ADVISED THAT THE
AMENDMENT GIVING THE CREDITOR THAT POWER CONTRAVENED THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
IS WHOLLY CONJECTURAL.  THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A PROVISION OF A STATE
STATUTE SURVIVES AN INVALID AMENDMENT IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW.  SEE
OKLAHOMA V. WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298.  WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE
RULING OF THE NEW YORK COURTS WOULD BE UNDER THIS STATUTE.  NOR DO WE
KNOW WHETHER AS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY THE CLERK AND THE
COMMISSIONER WOULD HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF THE OLD STATUTE OR
WOULD HAVE AWAITED LEGISLATIVE CLARIFICATION.  BUT, SINCE WE DO KNOW
THAT THE BANKRUPT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS LICENSE BY REASON OF A STATUTE
WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WE SHOULD STRIKE DOWN THE
STATUTORY PROVISION WHICH IN FACT WAS INVOKED. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO THIS STATUTE, HOWEVER, PERSISTS EVEN
THOUGH WE ASSUME THAT THE BANKRUPT'S LICENSE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED
WITHOUT THE CREDITOR'S INITIATIVE.  THE ACT ALSO PROVIDES THAT "IF THE
JUDGMENT CREDITOR CONSENTS IN WRITING THAT THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR BE
ALLOWED LICENSE AND REGISTRATION, THE SAME MAY BE ALLOWED FOR SIX
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH CONSENT BY THE COMMISSIONER AND
THEREAFTER.  ..."  I DO NOT THINK WE CAN PASS OVER THAT PROVISION ON
THE THEORY THAT THE POWER OF THE CREDITOR TO LIFT THE SUSPENSION DOES
NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN INVOKED IN THIS CASE AND THAT IF THE CREDITOR
ATTEMPTS TO EXERCISE SUCH POWER THE COMMISSIONER WILL HAVE TO PASS ON
THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  MEANWHILE, THE PROVISION IN QUESTION WILL
GIVE TO THE CREDITOR ENORMOUS LEVERAGE.  HIS BARGAINING POSITION WILL
BE GREATLY FORTIFIED.  THE BANKRUPT IS AT HIS MERCY WHERE THE MEANS OF
LIVELIHOOD ARE AT STAKE.  IF THE BANKRUPT AGREES TO A SETTLEMENT, MAKES
ARRANGEMENTS FOR INSTALMENT PAYMENTS, OR THE LIKE, THE CREDITOR WILL
SEE TO IT THAT THE LICENSE IS RESTORED.  IF THE BANKRUPT RESTS ON HIS
RIGHTS, THE CREDITOR WILL SHOW NO MERCY.  IN THE INTERIM, THERE IS NO
WAY BY WHICH THE BANKRUPT CAN RID HIMSELF OF THAT PRESSURE, UNLESS HE
MAKES PEACE WITH THE CREDITOR; HE CANNOT FORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN THE PRESENT SUIT.  IF THE CREDITOR AGREES TO LIFT
THE SUSPENSION, THE BANKRUPT WOULD BE THE LAST TO OBJECT.  IN ANY
EVENT, THE PROVISION BY THAT TIME WOULD HAVE SPENT MUCH OF ITS FORCE. 
IN SHORT, THIS POWER WHICH NEW YORK HAS GIVEN THE CREDITOR IS A
POWERFUL COLLECTION DEVICE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SURVIVE
BANKRUPTCY. 

I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD NOT MEET A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE UNLESS IT IS
UNAVOIDABLE.  BUT THAT ISSUE CANNOT BE ESCAPED HERE, UNLESS WE ARE TO
OVERLOOK THE REALITIES OF COLLECTION METHODS. 

FN1  THE APPEARANCE OF JUDGMENTS, ARISING OUT OF AUTOMOBILE
ACCIDENTS, AMONG INDIVIDUAL BANKRUPTS' SCHEDULES OF LIABILITIES HAS
BEEN COMMON.  CAUSES OF BUSINESS FAILURES AND BANKRUPTCIES OF
INDIVIDUALS IN NEW JERSEY IN 1929-30, U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCE, DON. 
COMM.  SERIES NO. 54, PP. 25-26(1931); CAUSES OF COMMERCIAL
BANKRUPTCIES, ID., NO. 69, PP. 14-16(1932); CAUSES OF BANKRUPTCIES
AMONG CONSUMERS, ID., NO. 82, PP. 14-15(1933). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE BYRNES AND MR. JUSTICE JACKSON JOIN IN
THIS DISSENT. 
..END :









BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER, 314 U.S. 44 


NO. 20.  REARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  - 137
OHIO ST. 409 - 30 N.E.2D 982, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT, AS AMENDED,
THE INJURED EMPLOYEE HAS THE FEDERAL PRIVILEGE OF BRINGING HIS ACTION
IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH THE RAILROAD IS DOING BUSINESS, THOUGH THE
DISTRICT CHOSEN BE FAR FROM THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HE RESIDES, OR IN
WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, AND IN ANOTHER STATE.  P. 52. 

2.  A STATE COURT MAY NOT VALIDLY EXERCISE ITS EQUITABLE JURISDICTION
TO ENJOIN A RESIDENT OF THE STATE FROM PROSECUTING A CAUSE OF ACTION
ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT IN A FEDERAL COURT OF
ANOTHER STATE WHERE THE ACT GAVE VENUE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PROSECUTION IN THAT DISTRICT IS INEQUITABLE, VEXATIOUS AND HARASSING TO
THE CARRIER.  P. 53. 

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. V. KEPNER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 671, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL
ON DEMURRER OF A BILL BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY TO ENJOIN KEPNER FROM
FURTHER PROSECUTION OF A SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SEEKING RECOVERY OF DAMAGES UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM AN ACCIDENT IN
OHIO.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, 313
U.S. 542; SUBSEQUENTLY, A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS GRANTED, THE
JUDGMENT WAS VACATED, AND THE CASE WAS RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR
REARGUMENT, 313 U.S. 597. 

COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE INHERENT POWER TO RESTRAIN THE PROSECUTION OF
VEXATIOUS AND HARASSING LITIGATION, AND IT IS THE LAW OF OHIO THAT ITS
CITIZENS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER BY ITS COURTS. 
POMEROY'S EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, 3RD ED., VOL. 4, SEC. 1360; VOL. 6,
SEC. 670; SNOOK V. SNETZER, 25 OHIO ST. 516; NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R.
CO. V. MATZINGER, 136 OHIO ST. 271; COLE V. CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107;
DEHON V. FOSTER, 4 ALLEN 545(MASS.); STEELMAN V. ALL CONTINENT CORP.,
301 U.S. 278, 291; BOSTON & M.R. CO. V. WHITEHEAD, 29 N.E.2D 916, AND
CASES CITED. 

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DOES NOT FORBID, EITHER
EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION, THIS EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE COURTS, NOR
DOES IT SO COMPLETELY COVER THE FIELD AS TO PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION OF
STATE LAW.  DOUGLAS V. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377; MAURER V.
HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598; REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 148; FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349; UNITED STATES V. DARBY,
312 U.S. 100; HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52; KELLY V. WASHINGTON,
302 U.S. 1; MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO. V. MIX, 278 U.S. 492. 

THE HISTORY OF THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 6 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT DEMONSTRATES THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO BAR THIS
EQUITABLE POWER, AND THAT THE EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER WOULD BE IN
HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT.  PALMER V. WEBSTER & ATLAS BANK,
312 U.S. 156; THORNTON'S FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 3RD ED.,
APPENDIX B, PP. 576, 580; CONG. REC., VOL. 45, PT. 4, P. 4040. 

THE RESTRAINT OF A PARTY TO A SUIT IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO THE RESTRAINT
OF THE COURT ITSELF.  STEELMAN V. ALL CONTINENT CORP., 301 U.S. 278,
290; BRYANT V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 92 F.2D 569. 

THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE THE EQUITABLE
POWERS OF A COURT.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KEPNER, 137 OHIO ST.
409; DAVIS V. FARMERS' COOPERATIVE CO., 262 U.S. 312; MICHIGAN CENTRAL
R. CO. V. MIX, 278 U.S. 492; DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO. V. TERTE, 284 U.S.
284; NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. MATZINGER, 136 OHIO ST. 271; ERIE
R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY SUPPORTS THE RIGHT TO INJUNCTION.  REED'S
ADMINISTRATRIX V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 182 KY. 455; EX PARTE
CRANDALL, 53 F.2D 969, CERT. DEN., 285 U.S. 540; BRYANT V. ATLANTIC
COAST LINE R. CO., 92 F.2D 569. 

WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF AN OHIO CITIZEN IS EQUITABLE IS A QUESTION OF
STATE LAW, WHICH AN OHIO COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE CITIZEN IS TO
DETERMINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT LAW, UNLESS CONGRESS WITHIN ITS
DELEGATED POWERS HAS MADE AN ENACTMENT INCONSISTENT WITH THE OHIO LAW. 
MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S. 457. 

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DREW TO ITSELF THE RIGHT OF
ACTION FOR INJURIES OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE WITHIN ITS PURVIEW.  THE
ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT AS PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT.  MOORE V. C. & O. RY.
CO., 291 U.S. 205; BREISCH V. CENTRAL RAILROAD, 312 U.S. 484; SEABOARD
AIR LINE RY. CO. V. KENNEY, 240 U.S. 489. 

THE RIGHT OF RESPONDENT TO SUE IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN THE
DISTRICT WHERE PETITIONER IS DOING BUSINESS IS CLEAR AND UNQUALIFIED,
AND COMPELS SUCH COURT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION.  MOORE V. C. & O. RY.
CO., SUPRA; SOUTHERN RY. V. COCHRAN, 56 F.2D 1019; RADER V. B. & O.R.
CO., 108 F.2D 980; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. SCHENDEL, 292 F.
326; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. SOWERS, 213 U.S. 55. 

NOTHING IN EITHER THE LANGUAGE OR THE HISTORY OF SEC. 6 OF THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT SUSTAINS THE CONTENTION THAT THE RIGHT
TO INVOKE A FEDERAL COURT'S JURISDICTION THEREIN PROVIDED IS SUBJECT TO
THE EQUITY POWERS OF A STATE COURT. 

THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR, AND ITS OBVIOUS MEANING CONTROLS.  RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 588, 589; KUEHNER
V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 445, 449. 

THE OHIO COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTION AFTER
DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION ATTACHED. 

THE GRANT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION GIVES PLAINTIFF A CHOICE OF THE
COURT.  AS AN INCIDENT HE IS ENTITLED TO WHATEVER REMEDIAL ADVANTAGE
INHERES IN THE PARTICULAR FORUM.  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V.
BOMBOLIS, 241 U.S. 211; MISSOURI V. TAYLOR, 266 U.S. 200. 

A STATE COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO ARREST JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
COURT.  SHARON V. TERRY, 36 F. 337, 355; WALLACE V. MCCONNELL, 13 PET.
138, 151; TERRAL V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 257 U.S. 532; PENNSYLVANIA
CASUALTY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 189, 197; RIGGS V. JOHNSON
COUNTY, 6 WALL.  166. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE HAVE FOR DECISION IN THIS CASE THE QUESTION WHETHER A STATE COURT
MAY VALIDLY EXERCISE ITS EQUITABLE JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN A RESIDENT OF
THE STATE FROM PROSECUTING A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IN A FEDERAL COURT OF ANOTHER STATE WHERE THAT
ACT GAVE VENUE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROSECUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT
IS INEQUITABLE, VEXATIOUS AND HARASSING TO THE CARRIER. 

AS THE ISSUE WAS DEEMED A FEDERAL QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE,  FN1
UNDECIDED BY THIS COURT, AND CONCERNING WHICH THERE WAS LACK OF
UNIFORMITY IN THE STATE COURT DECISIONS,  FN2  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED,
312 U.S. 671, THE DECREE BELOW AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED
COURT, 313 U.S. 542, AND THE PETITION FOR REHEARING ALLOWED, 313 U.S.
597. 

THIS PROCEEDING ORIGINALLY WAS BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONER, AN
INTERSTATE RAILROAD, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HAMILTON COUNTY,
OHIO, AGAINST THE RESPONDENT KEPNER, AN INJURED RESIDENT EMPLOYEE, TO
ENJOIN HIS CONTINUED PROSECUTION OF A SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT FOR HIS INJURIES.  THE ACCIDENT, ACCORDING TO
THE PETITION, OCCURRED IN BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO, A COUNTY ADJACENT TO
THAT OF RESPONDENT'S RESIDENCE, THROUGH BOTH OF WHICH COUNTIES
PETITIONER'S RAILROAD RAN.  THE PETITION FURTHER SHOWED THAT SUITABLE
COURTS, STATE AND FEDERAL, WERE CONSTANTLY OPEN AND THAT PETITIONER AND
THE WITNESSES WERE AVAILABLE FOR PROCESS THEREIN.  IT WAS STATED THE
FEDERAL COURT CHOSEN WAS SEVEN HUNDRED MILES FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE
RESPONDENT AND NUMEROUS WITNESSES; THAT TO PRESENT THE CASE PROPERLY
REQUIRED THE PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-FIVE LOCALLY
AVAILABLE WITNESSES - THE CREW, INSPECTORS AND THE MEDICAL ATTENDANTS -
AT A COST ESTIMATED TO EXCEED THE COST OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE
AT A CONVENIENT POINT BY $4,000, WITH NO RESULTING BENEFIT TO THE
INJURED EMPLOYEE.  PETITIONER ASSERTED THESE FACTS ESTABLISHED THAT THE
CONTINUED PROSECUTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT ACTION WOULD BE AN UNDUE
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND AN UNREASONABLE, IMPROPER AND
INEQUITABLE BURDEN UPON PETITIONER ITSELF. 

THE DEFENDANT RAILROAD WAS DOING BUSINESS IN THE NEW YORK DISTRICT
WHERE THE DAMAGE SUIT WAS FILED, AS APPEARS FROM A COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT IN THE FEDERAL CASE MADE A PART OF THE PETITION. 

RESPONDENT DEMURRED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND LACK
OF JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTION.  THE TRIAL COURT
SUSTAINED THE DEMURRER AND DISMISSED THE ACTION, BY AN ORDER WHICH WAS
SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND, ON REHEARING, BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF OHIO.  FN3  THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION BELOW WAS THAT THE
RESPONDENT EMPLOYEE WAS PRIVILEGED TO ENJOY, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM
A STATE COURT, THE VENUE ALLOWED BY THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT.  FN4 

THE STATUTORY PROVISION IN REGARD TO VENUE IS IN SEC. 6, WHICH SO FAR
AS PERTINENT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"UNDER THIS CHAPTER AN ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES, IN THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT,
OR IN WHICH THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, OR IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL
BE DOING BUSINESS AT THE TIME OF COMMENCING SUCH ACTION."  (APR. 5,
1910, C. 143, SEC. 1, 36 STAT. 291, AS AMENDED MARCH 3, 1911, C. 231,
SEC. 291, 36 STAT. 1167; 45 U.S.C. SEC. 56. 

WHEN THE SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WAS ENACTED, VENUE OF
ACTIONS UNDER IT WAS LEFT TO THE GENERAL VENUE STATUTE, 35 STAT. 65,
WHICH FIXED THE VENUE OF SUITS IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS, BASED IN
WHOLE OR IN PART UPON THE ACT, IN DISTRICTS OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS
AN INHABITANT.  FN5  LITIGATION PROMPTLY DISCLOSED WHAT CONGRESS
CONSIDERED DEFICIENCIES IN SUCH A LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT OF RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES TO BRING PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS,  FN6  WITH THE RESULT THAT
THE PRESENT LANGUAGE WAS ADDED.  FN7 

THE REASON FOR THE ADDITION WAS SAID TO BE THE INJUSTICE TO AN
INJURED EMPLOYEE OF COMPELLING HIM TO GO TO THE POSSIBLY FAR DISTANT
PLACE OF HABITATION OF THE DEFENDANT CARRIER, WITH CONSEQUENT INCREASED
EXPENSE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF WITNESSES, LAWYERS
AND PARTIES, AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES.  FN8  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
THROWS LITTLE LIGHT ON THE REASON FOR THE CHOICE OF THE THREE STANDARDS
FOR DETERMINING VENUE:  THE RESIDENCE OF THE CARRIER, THE PLACE WHERE
IT IS DOING BUSINESS, OR THE PLACE WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE.  AT
ONE TIME, THE AMENDATORY BILL FIXED VENUE AS "THE DISTRICT OF THE
RESIDENCE OF EITHER THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT, OR IN WHICH THE
CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, OR IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE FOUND AT THE
TIME OF COMMENCING SUCH ACTION."  FN9  FEARS WERE EXPRESSED THAT SO
WIDE A CHOICE MIGHT RESULT IN INJUSTICE TO THE CARRIER, P. 2257.  NO
DOUBT THIS LANGUAGE WAS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE GENERAL VENUE STATUTE FOR
WHICH THE COMMITTEE WAS PROVIDING AN EXCEPTION.  SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS
CALLED IN THE SENATE REPORT TO THE MACON GROCERY CASE, INTERPRETING THE
GENERAL VENUE STATUTE.  THAT STATUTE PLACED VENUE IN THE RESIDENCE OF
EITHER PARTY, WHERE THE JURISDICTION WAS FOUNDED ON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP ALONE.  THE LANGUAGE FINALLY ADOPTED MUST HAVE BEEN
DELIBERATELY CHOSEN TO ENABLE THE PLAINTIFF, IN THE WORDS OF SENATOR
BORAH, WHO SUBMITTED THE REPORT ON THE BILL, "TO FIND THE CORPORATION
AT ANY POINT OR PLACE OR STATE WHERE IT IS ACTUALLY CARRYING ON
BUSINESS, AND THERE LODGE HIS ACTION, IF HE CHOOSES TO DO SO."  FN10 

WHEN PETITIONER SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION IN THE OHIO COURT AGAINST THE
FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT ACTION IN NEW YORK, THE
PETITION ALLEGED THAT PROSECUTION OF THE NEW YORK ACTION WOULD ENTAIL
"AN UNDUE BURDEN" ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NO OBJECTION TO THE DECREE
BELOW, UPON THAT EXPLICIT GROUND, APPEARS IN THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, EITHER IN THE SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS OR REASONS FOR
GRANTING THE WRIT.  IN PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS, IT IS POINTED
OUT THAT THIS COURT HELD IN DENVER & R.G.W.R. CO. V. TERTE, 284 U.S.
284, THAT THE DISADVANTAGES OF LITIGATION FAR FROM THE SCENE OF THE
ACCIDENT ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY A STATE COURT IN
FORBIDDING THE CONTINUATION OF THE LITIGATION IN A DISTRICT WHERE THE
LINES OF THE CARRIER RUN.  THIS ACCORDS WITH HOFFMAN V. MISSOURI EX
REL. FORAKER, 274 U.S. 21, WHERE IT WAS SAID THE CARRIER MUST "SUBMIT,
IF THERE IS JURISDICTION, TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDERLY, EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, ALTHOUGH THEREBY INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
INCIDENTALLY BURDENED."  FN11 SINCE THE CARRIER'S EXHIBIT OF
RESPONDENT'S NEW YORK PETITION SHOWS AN ALLEGATION THAT IT IS DOING
BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, WE ASSUME THAT BUSINESS TO BE SUCH AS IS
CONTEMPLATED BY THE VENUE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 6.  THERE IS THEREFORE NO
OCCASION TO CONSIDER FURTHER THE SUGGESTION THAT THE SUIT IN NEW YORK
CREATES AN INADMISSIBLE BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE REAL CONTENTION OF PETITIONER IS THAT, DESPITE THE ADMITTED
VENUE, RESPONDENT IS ACTING IN A VEXATIOUS AND INEQUITABLE MANNER IN
MAINTAINING THE FEDERAL COURT SUIT IN A DISTANT JURISDICTION WHEN A
CONVENIENT AND SUITABLE FORUM IS AT RESPONDENT'S DOORSTEP.  UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, PETITIONER ASSERTS POWER, ABSTRACTLY SPEAKING, IN THE
OHIO COURT TO PREVENT A RESIDENT UNDER ITS JURISDICTION FROM DOING
INEQUITY.  SUCH POWER DOES EXIST.  FN12  IN THE MATZINGER CASE, THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO EXERCISED THIS POWER TO PREVENT THE CONTINUATION
OF A PERSONAL INJURY SUIT IN ILLINOIS, BY A RESIDENT UNDER ITS
JURISDICTION, ON AN OHIO CAUSE OF ACTION.  SUCH POWER HAS OCCASIONALLY
BEEN EXERCISED BY ONE STATE OVER ITS CITIZENS, SEEKING TO ENFORCE IN
OTHER STATES REMEDIES UNDER THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AGAINST
DEFENDANTS LOCALLY AVAILABLE FOR THE LITIGATION.  FN13  AT TIMES THE
INJUNCTION HAS BEEN REFUSED.  FN14    WE READ THE OPINION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO TO EXPRESS THE VIEW THAT, IF IT WERE NOT FOR SEC.
6 OF THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE REQUESTED INJUNCTION WOULD BE
GRANTED, ON THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE PETITION.  SECTION 6
ESTABLISHES VENUE FOR AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  AS SUCH VENUE
IS A PRIVILEGE CREATED BY FEDERAL STATUTE  FN15  AND CLAIMED BY
RESPONDENT, THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO FELT CONSTRAINED BY THE SUPREMACY
CLAUSE TO TREAT SEC. 6 AS DECISIVE OF THE ISSUE.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
ALLOWANCE OR DENIAL OF THIS FEDERAL PRIVILEGE IS A MATTER OF FEDERAL
LAW, NOT A MATTER OF STATE LAW UNDER ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304
U.S. 64, 72.  FN16 ITS CORRECT DECISION DEPENDS UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF
A FEDERAL ACT.  FN17  CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACTION OF A STATE COURT MUST BE
IN ACCORD WITH THE FEDERAL STATUTE AND THE FEDERAL RULE AS TO ITS
APPLICATION, RATHER THAN STATE STATUTE, RULE OR POLICY.  FN18 

PETITIONER PRESSES UPON US THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ACTION OF CONGRESS
GAVE AN INJURED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE THE PRIVILEGE OF EXTENDED VENUE,
SUBJECT TO THE USUAL POWERS OF THE STATE TO ENJOIN WHAT IN THE JUDGMENT
OF THE STATE COURTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN IMPROPER USE OF THAT
PRIVILEGE.  THIS RESULTS, SAYS PETITIONER, BECAUSE THE ACT DOES NOT IN
TERMS EXCLUDE THIS STATE POWER.  FN19  AS COURTS OF EQUITY ADMITTEDLY
POSSESSED THIS POWER BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 6, THE ARGUMENT
CONTINUES, IT IS NOT TO BE LIGHTLY INFERRED THAT THE VENUE PRIVILEGE
WAS IN DISREGARD OF THIS POLICY.  BUT THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE FELT THEY
COULD NOT INTERFERE WITH SUITS IN FAR FEDERAL DISTRICTS WHERE THE
INEQUITY ALLEGED WAS BASED ONLY ON INCONVENIENCE.  FN20  THERE IS NO
OCCASION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE POWER AND THE PROPRIETY OF ITS
EXERCISE IN THIS INSTANCE, SINCE THE LIMITS OF THE TWO ARE HERE CO
EXTENSIVE.  THE PRIVILEGE WAS GRANTED BECAUSE THE GENERAL VENUE
PROVISIONS WORKED INJUSTICES TO EMPLOYEES.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NO STATE
STATUTE COULD VARY THE VENUE; FN21  AND, WE THINK, EQUALLY TRUE THAT NO
STATE COURT MAY INTERFERE WITH THE PRIVILEGE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CARRIER OR THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, ON THE GROUND OF
INEQUITY BASED ON COST, INCONVENIENCE OR HARASSMENT.  WHEN THE SECTION
WAS ENACTED IT FILLED THE ENTIRE FIELD OF VENUE IN FEDERAL COURTS. 
FN22  A PRIVILEGE OF VENUE, GRANTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WHICH
CREATED THIS RIGHT OF ACTION, CANNOT BE FRUSTRATED FOR REASONS OF
CONVENIENCE OR EXPENSE.  IF IT IS DEEMED UNJUST, THE REMEDY IS
LEGISLATIVE - A COURSE FOLLOWED IN SECURING THE AMENDMENT OF APRIL 5,
1910, FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEES.  THIS COURT HELD IN HOFFMAN V.
MISSOURI EX REL. FORAKER, 274 U.S. 21, THAT THE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WOULD BE DISREGARDED WHERE THE CARRIER HAD LINES IN THE
DISTANT STATE.  THE IMPORTANCE OF UNHAMPERED COMMERCE IS AT LEAST AS
GREAT AS THAT OF A CARRIER'S FREEDOM FROM HARASSING INCIDENTS OF
LITIGATION.  WHATEVER BURDEN THERE IS HERE UPON THE RAILROAD, BECAUSE
OF INCONVENIENCE OR COST, DOES NOT OUTWEIGH THE PLAIN GRANT OF
PRIVILEGE FOR SUIT IN NEW YORK.  FN23  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 237B. 

FN2  MCCONNELL V. THOMSON, 213 IND. 16, 8 N.E.2D 986, 11 N.E.2D 183;
REED'S ADMRX.  V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 182 KY. 455, 206 S.W. 794. 

FN3  137 OHIO ST. 206, 28 N.E.2D 586 AND 137 OHIO ST. 409, 30 N.E.2D
982. 

FN4  137 OHIO ST. 409, 416, 30 N.E.2D 982. 

FN5  FIRST SECTION OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, 18 STAT. 470, AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, 24 STAT. 552, AND ACT OF AUGUST
13, 1888, 25 STAT. 433. 

FN6  COUND V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 173 F. 527; MACON GROCERY
CO. V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 215 U.S. 501, 506.  SENATE REPORT
NO. 432, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4. 

FN7  APRIL 5, 1910, C. 143, 36 STAT. 291. 

FN8  SENATE REPORT NO. 432, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4. 

FN9  CONG. REC., 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., VOL. 45, PT. 3, P. 2253. 

FN10  ID., PT. 4, P. 4034. 

FN11  CF. INTERNATIONAL MILLING CO. V. COLUMBIA CO., 292 U.S. 511,
517-21; ST. LOUIS, B. & M. RY. CO. V. TAYLOR, 266 U.S. 200, 207.  DAVIS
V. FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE CO., 262 U.S. 312, IS LIMITED TO ITS PARTICULAR
FACTS, 292 U.S. 511 AT 517; MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO. V. MIX, 278 U.S.
492, AND ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. WELLS, 265 U.S. 101, TURN ON
THE ABSENCE OR INCONSEQUENTIAL CHARACTER OF BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE
STATES WHERE THE RAILROADS WERE SUED.  THE MIX CASE IS DIFFERENTIATED
FROM THE FORAKER AND TAYLOR CASES BECAUSE THE CARRIER'S LINES OR
CONTRACTS DID NOT RUN OR CALL FOR PERFORMANCE IN THE TERRITORY OVER
WHICH THE COURT WHERE THE OBJECTIONABLE ACTION WAS FILED HAD
JURISDICTION. 

FN12  NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. MATZINGER, 136 OHIO ST. 271, 25
N.E.2D 349; COLE V. CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107; SIMON V. SOUTHERN RY.
CO., 236 U.S. 115, 123. 

FN13  KERN V. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 204 IND. 595, 185
N.E. 446; REED'S ADMRX.  V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 182 KY. 455, 206
S.W. 794; EX PARTE CRANDALL, 53 F.2D 969. 

FN14  MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. V. BALL, 126 KAN. 745, 271 P. 313;
MOBILE & OHIO R. CO. V. PARRENT, 260 ILL. APP. 284; LANCASTER V. DUNN,
153 LA. 15, 95 SO. 385. 

FN15  NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 308 U.S. 165. 

FN16  A CONTRARY VIEW AS TO INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ACTIONS IN STATE
COURTS HAS BEEN EXPRESSED.  ROBERTS:  FEDERAL LIABILITIES OF CARRIERS
(2D ED.)  VOL.  2, SEC. 962. 

FN17  COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT, 264, 379. 

FN18  CALHOUN GOLD MINING CO. V. AJAX GOLD MINING CO., 182 U.S. 499,
505; TULLOCK V. MULVANE, 184 U.S. 497, 505, 512-13; CINCINNATI, N.O. &
T.P. RY. CO. V. RANKIN, 241 U.S. 319, 326-27; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO.
V. MARTIN, 283 U.S. 209, 213; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. KUHN, 284
U.S. 44, 47; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229, 231; CF.
ROBERTS, OP. CIT., SUPRA. 

FN19  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349; UNITED
STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100; HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52; KELLY
V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1. 

FN20  CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. VIGOR, 90 F.2D 7; BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO. V. CLEM, 36 F.SUPP.  703, OVERRULING BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
BOLE, 31 F.SUPP.  221. 

FN21  IT WAS HELD IN CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. SCHENDEL, 292 F.
326, 327-32, THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE A STATE STATUTE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHICH FORBADE THE DOING OF ANY ACT TO FURTHER
LITIGATION IN ANOTHER STATE, BY TESTIMONY OR OTHERWISE, ON A PERSONAL
INJURY CLAIM ARISING LOCALLY. 

FN22  CF. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. WINFIELD, 244 U.S. 147, 151. 

FN23  WE DO NOT THINK PETITIONER'S ATTEMPTED DISTINCTION BETWEEN A
PROHIBITED INJUNCTION DIRECTED AT THE COURT AND A PERMITTED ONE
DIRECTED AT THE PARTIES IS VALID.  AN ORDER TO THE PARTIES FORBIDDING
PROSECUTION WOULD DESTROY VENUE EFFECTUALLY.  OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V.
GAS CO., 309 U.S. 4, 9.  CF. HILL V. MARTIN, 296 U.S. 393, 403. 
STEELMAN V. ALL CONTINENT CORP., 301 U.S. 278, RELIED UPON BY
PETITIONER, WOULD BE PERTINENT ONLY IF THERE WERE OCCASION FOR THE
STATE COURT TO CONTROL FEDERAL VENUE.  IT WOULD THEN BE EXERCISED
AGAINST THE PARTIES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

DISAGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
VENUE PROVISION DOES NOT ORDINARILY CALL FOR EXPRESSION.  BUT INASMUCH
AS THE DECISION IN THIS CASE UNJUSTIFIABLY LIMITS LONG-SETTLED POWERS
OF THE STATE COURTS AND THEREBY BRINGS INTO DISEQUILIBRIUM THE
RELATIONSHIP OF FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, I THINK IT PROPER TO EXPRESS
MY VIEWS. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT SEEMS TO BE EPITOMIZED IN THIS SENTENCE:
"A PRIVILEGE OF VENUE, GRANTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WHICH CREATED
THIS RIGHT OF ACTION, CANNOT BE FRUSTRATED FOR REASONS OF CONVENIENCE
OR EXPENSE."  AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, THE SUGGESTION THAT A PRIVILEGE
OF VENUE GRANTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WHICH CREATES THE RIGHT OF
ACTION "CANNOT BE FRUSTRATED FOR REASONS OF CONVENIENCE OR EXPENSE"
WOULD BE AS NOVEL AS IT IS UNTENABLE.  TO GIVE UNIQUE SCOPE TO THIS
VENUE PROVISION DIFFERENT FROM THE SIGNIFICANCE ACCORDED ALL OTHER
PROVISIONS OF VENUE "GRANTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WHICH CREATED" THE
RIGHT IS NO LESS NOVEL DOCTRINE.  FOR THIS DEPARTURE FROM THE EFFECT
CUSTOMARILY GIVEN TO VENUE PROVISIONS, NO WARRANT IS AVOUCHED IN THE
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, THE
GENERAL PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATION DEFINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN THE DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT, OR SETTLED DOCTRINES OF EQUITY JURISDICTION.  NONE IS
AVOUCHED BECAUSE NONE IS AVAILABLE. 

THE OPINION DOES NOT DENY THE HISTORIC POWER OF COURTS OF EQUITY TO
PREVENT A MISUSE OF LITIGATION BY ENJOINING RESORT TO VEXATIOUS AND
OPPRESSIVE FOREIGN SUITS.  SEE E.G., COLE V. CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107,
118-20; PERE MARQUETTE RY. CO. V. SLUTZ, 268 MICH. 388, 256 N.W. 458;
MASON V. HARLOW, 84 KAN. 277, 114 P. 218; WILSER V. WILSER, 132 MINN.
167, 156 N.W. 271; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. RICHEY & GILBERT CO.,
132 WASH. 526, 232 P. 355; O'HAIRE V. BURNS, 45 COLO. 432, 101 P. 755;
MILLER V. GITTINGS, 85 MD. 601, 37 A. 372.  NOR DOES IT QUESTION THE
FAMILIAR DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, UNDER WHICH A COURT HAVING
STATUTORY JURISDICTION MAY DECLINE ITS FACILITIES TO A SUIT THAT IN
JUSTICE SHOULD BE TRIED ELSEWHERE.  SEE CANADA MALTING CO. V. PATERSON
CO., 285 U.S. 413, 422-23; MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, 308 U.S. 1, 19;
ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 123, 130-31.  THESE
MANIFESTATIONS OF A CIVILIZED JUDICIAL SYSTEM ARE FIRMLY IMBEDDED IN
OUR LAW.  SEE FOSTER, PLACE OF TRIAL IN CIVIL ACTIONS, 43 HARV. L. REV.
1217; BLAIR, THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS IN ANGLO-AMERICAN
LAW, 29 COL. L. REV. 1.  NOR DOES THE DECISION GIVE NEW CURRENCY TO THE
DISCREDITED NOTION THAT THERE IS A GENERAL LACK OF POWER IN THE STATE
COURTS TO ENJOIN PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL COURTS.  CF. PRINCESS LIDA V.
THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 456, 466; WARREN, FEDERAL AND STATE COURT
INTERFERENCE, 43 HARV. L. REV. 345.  NOTHING IN ARTICLE III OF THE
CONSTITUTION OR IN THE LEGISLATION BY WHICH CONGRESS HAS VESTED
JUDICIAL POWER IN THE FEDERAL COURTS JUSTIFIES SUCH A DOCTRINE. 

AND SO THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT MUST BE FOUND, IF
ANYWHERE, IN THE TERMS OF THE VENUE PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT.  THE SECTION PROVIDES, SIMPLY, THAT AN ACTION UNDER THE
ACT "MAY BE BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE
DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, OR IN WHICH THE CAUSE OF
ACTION AROSE, OR IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE DOING BUSINESS AT THE
TIME OF COMMENCING SUCH ACTION," THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS SHALL BE "CONCURRENT" WITH THAT OF THE STATE COURTS, AND THAT NO
ACTION BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SHALL BE
REMOVED TO A FEDERAL COURT.  36 STAT. 291; 45 U.S.C. SEC. 56.  THE
PHRASING OF THE SECTION IS NOT UNIQUE:  IT FOLLOWS THE FAMILIAR PATTERN
GENERALLY EMPLOYED BY CONGRESS IN FRAMING VENUE PROVISIONS.  E.G., 28
U.S.C. SEC. 112(SUITS BASED UPON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP); 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 53(SUITS BY OR AGAINST CHINA TRADE ACT CORPORATIONS); 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 104(SUITS FOR PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES); 28 U.S.C. SEC. 105(SUITS
FOR RECOVERY OF TAXES); 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(26)(B)(INTERPLEADER).  THE
DECISION CANNOT REST, THEREFORE, UPON ANY PECULIARITIES OF THE LANGUAGE
OF THE PROVISION. 

NOR CAN JUSTIFICATION FOR THE COURT'S CONCLUSION BE FOUND IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION OR THE CLEARLY EXPRESSED REASONS OF
POLICY UNDERLYING ITS ENACTMENT.  AS THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE
REPORTS SHOW, H. REPT. NO. 513, PP. 6-7, S. REPT. NO. 432, PP. 3-4,
61ST CONG., 2D SESS., CONGRESS WAS AWARE OF THE HARDSHIP BY WHICH,
UNDER THE ORIGINAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT OF APRIL 22, 1908, 35 STAT.
65, THE PLAINTIFF COULD BRING HIS ACTION ONLY AT THE RAILROAD'S
"RESIDENCE."  COUND V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 173 F. 527.  THE
AMENDMENT OF 1910 GREATLY ENLARGED THE RANGE OF A PLAINTIFF'S
CONVENIENCE IN BRINGING SUIT.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE AMENDMENT
WAS INTENDED TO OPEN TO A PLAINTIFF COURTS FROM WHICH HE PREVIOUSLY WAS
BARRED.  BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION BEFORE US.  THE PROBLEM IS
WHETHER THE ACT WAS INTENDED TO GIVE A PLAINTIFF AN ABSOLUTE AND
UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO COMPEL TRIAL OF HIS ACTION IN ANY OF THE SPECIFIED
PLACES HE CHOOSES, THEREBY NOT ONLY DEPRIVING STATE COURTS OF THEIR OLD
POWER TO PROTECT AGAINST UNJUSTLY OPPRESSIVE FOREIGN SUITS, BUT ALSO
FORBIDDING FEDERAL COURTS TO DECLINE JURISDICTION "IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE" ON FAMILIAR GROUNDS OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  SEE CANADA
MALTING CO. V. PATERSON CO., 285 U.S. 413, 422-23.  NOTHING IN THE
HISTORY OF THE 1910 AMENDMENT INDICATES THAT ITS FRAMERS CONTEMPLATED
ANY SUCH VAST TRANSFORMATION IN THE ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS AND IN THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO
DECLINE JURISDICTION "IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE."  ON THE CONTRARY,
THE EXPRESSED CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY UNDERLYING THE AMENDMENT WERE
FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME AS THOSE UNDERLYING THE EQUITABLE POWER TO
RESTRAIN OPPRESSIVE SUITS AND THE RECIPROCAL DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
CONVENIENS:  IT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH EQUITY AND JUSTICE TO ALLOW A
SUIT TO BE LITIGATED IN A FORUM WHERE, ON THE BALANCE, UNNECESSARY
HARDSHIP AND INCONVENIENCE WOULD BE CAST UPON ONE PARTY WITHOUT ANY
COMPENSATINGLY FAIR CONVENIENCE TO THE OTHER PARTY, BUT WHERE, ON THE
CONTRARY, THE SUIT MIGHT MORE CONVENIENTLY BE LITIGATED IN ANOTHER
FORUM AVAILABLE EQUALLY TO BOTH PARTIES. 

THIS DOCTRINE OF JUSTICE APPLIES WITH ESPECIALLY COMPELLING FORCE
WHERE THE CONVENIENCES TO BE BALANCED ARE NOT MERELY CONVENIENCES OF
CONFLICTING PRIVATE INTERESTS BUT WHERE THERE IS ADDED THE CONTROLLING
FACTOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE SO-CALLED "CONVENIENCE" OF A RAILROAD
CONCERNS THE IMPORTANT NATIONAL FUNCTION OF WHICH THE RAILROADS ARE THE
AGENCY.  AS IN OTHER PHASES OF FEDERAL RAILROAD REGULATION, THE
INTERESTS OF CARRIERS, EMPLOYEES, AND THE PUBLIC MUST BE BALANCED. 
BECAUSE OF THE "DIRECT CONCERN OF THE PUBLIC" IN MAINTAINING AN
ECONOMIC AND EFFICIENT RAILROAD SYSTEM, A UNANIMOUS COURT, SPEAKING
THROUGH MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, HELD THAT A CARRIER MAY NOT BE SUED BY A
PLAINTIFF WHERE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS, SUCH
SUIT WOULD IMPOSE AN UNFAIR BURDEN UPON RAILROADS AND THEREBY UPON THE
NATION.  DAVIS V. FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE CO., 262 U.S. 312.  THE
DECLARATION BY CONGRESS THAT A COURT HAS JURISDICTION AND VENUE IS NOT
A COMMAND THAT IT MUST EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN SUCH A CASE TO THE
UNNECESSARY INJURY OF A DEFENDANT AND THE PUBLIC.  THIS DOCTRINE HAS
BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED IN A SERIES OF UNANIMOUS DECISIONS. 
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. WELLS, 265 U.S. 101; MICHIGAN CENTRAL R.
CO. V. MIX, 278 U.S. 492; HOFFMAN V. FORAKER, 274 U.S. 21; DENVER &
R.G.W.R. CO. V. TERTE, 284 U.S. 284.  FN1 OF COURSE, CONGRESS, IF IT
CHOSE, COULD SUBJECT INTERSTATE CARRIERS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
STATE COURTS, EVEN IN THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THIS COURT FOUND THAT
ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WOULD BE AN INJUSTICE TO THE PUBLIC.  BUT
CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSED A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE GOVERNING PUBLIC
INTEREST - AND THESE CASES STAND AS UNCHALLENGED AUTHORITIES THAT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
CONFERRING UNQUALIFIED "CONCURRENT JURISDICTION" UPON THE STATE COURTS,
A PLAINTIFF MAY IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES BE BARRED FROM BRINGING HIS SUIT
IN ONE OF THE PLACES SPECIFIED BY THE ACT.  IN THIS RESPECT, AT LEAST,
A PLAINTIFF'S "PRIVILEGE OF VENUE, GRANTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY
WHICH CREATED THIS RIGHT OF ACTION," CAN "BE FRUSTRATED FOR REASONS OF
CONVENIENCE OR EXPENSE." 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT ATTACHES IMPORTANCE TO A PHRASE TAKEN FROM
SENATOR BORAH'S REMARKS ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE IN SUBMITTING THE
BILL TO AMEND THE ACT:  "THE BILL ENABLES THE PLAINTIFF TO FIND THE
CORPORATION AT ANY POINT OR PLACE OR STATE WHERE IT IS ACTUALLY
CARRYING ON BUSINESS, AND THERE LODGE HIS ACTION, IF HE CHOOSES TO DO
SO."  45 CONG. REC. 4034.  THE CONTEXT OF THIS STATEMENT IS SET OUT IN
THE FOOTNOTE.  FN2 

THE INTRINSIC DIFFICULTIES OF LANGUAGE AND THE EMERGENCE, AFTER
ENACTMENT, OF SITUATIONS NOT ANTICIPATED BY EVEN THE MOST GIFTED
LEGISLATIVE IMAGINATION REVEAL THE DOUBTS AND AMBIGUITIES IN STATUTES
THAT SO OFTEN COMPEL JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.  TO ILLUMINE THESE DARK
PLACES IN LEGISLATIVE COMPOSITION ALL THE SOURCES OF LIGHT MUST BE
DRAWN UPON.  BUT THE VARIOUS AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION ARE GUIDES OF
EXPERIENCE, NOT TECHNICAL RULES OF LAW.  SEE BOSTON SAND CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 278 U.S. 41, 48.  ONE OF THE SOURCES WHICH MAY BE USED FOR
EXTRACTING MEANING FROM LEGISLATION IS THE DELIBERATIVE COMMENTARY OF
THE LEGISLATORS IMMEDIATELY IN CHARGE OF A MEASURE.  CONTEMPORARY
ANSWERS BY THOSE AUTHORIZED TO GIVE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT
THE MEANING OF PENDING LEGISLATION OBVIOUSLY GO A LONG WAY TO
ELUCIDATING DOUBTFUL LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  BUT THIS RULE OF GOOD SENSE
DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY LOOSE PHRASE, EVEN OF THE PROPONENT OF A
MEASURE, IS TO BE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OF AN ENCYCLICAL.  THE LANGUAGE
OF A CHAIRMAN OF A COMMITTEE, LIKE THE LANGUAGE OF ALL PEOPLE, IS
MERELY A SYMBOL OF THOUGHT.  A SPEAKER'S CASUAL, ISOLATED GENERAL
OBSERVATION SHOULD NOT BE TORTURED INTO AN EXPRESSION OF DISREGARD FOR
AN ESTABLISHED, FAR-REACHING POLICY OF THE LAW.  ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE
OF SENATOR BORAH, SUCH IMPUTATION SHOULD NOT BE MADE.  AS IS WELL
KNOWN, HE EYED MOST JEALOUSLY THE ABSORPTION OF STATE AUTHORITY BY
EXTENSION OF FEDERAL POWER.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO VEST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ENTIRELY IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  INSTEAD, NOT ONLY WAS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION GIVEN TO
THE STATE COURTS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS FEDERAL RIGHT, BUT REMOVAL
OF A STATE ACTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS WAS PROHIBITED.  INSTEAD OF
BEING DEEMED HOSTILE TO THE PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT AND NOT TO BE ENTRUSTED WITH ITS ADMINISTRATION, THE
STATE COURTS WERE ACCEPTED AS THE MOST ACTIVE AGENCIES FOR ITS
ENFORCEMENT.  AND YET, ALTHOUGH NOWHERE IN THE COURSE OF THE WHOLE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT IN QUESTION - THE HEARINGS, THE REPORTS
IN BOTH HOUSES, THE DEBATES ON THE FLOOR - IS THERE THE SLIGHTEST
INTIMATION THAT THE PROBLEM BEFORE US ENTERED THE MIND OF ANY
LEGISLATOR, WE ARE ASKED TO ATTRIBUTE TO SENATOR BORAH THE UPROOTING OF
A DOCTRINE WHICH IS AN OLD AND FRUITFUL PART OF THE FABRIC OF THE LAW
OF THE STATES AS WELL AS THE LAW OF THE LAND, BY A GENERAL OBSERVATION
WHICH HAS NO RELATION TO THIS DOCTRINE AND TO WHICH RESPECTFUL MEANING
CAN BE GIVEN WITHOUT SUCH DISTORTION. 

TO READ THE VENUE PROVISION OF THE ACT AS DO THE MAJORITY OF THE
COURT, IS TO TRANSLATE THE PERMISSION GIVEN A PLAINTIFF TO ENTER COURTS
PREVIOUSLY CLOSED TO HIM INTO A WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATE COURTS OF
POWER HISTORICALLY EXERCISED BY THEM, AND INTO AN ABSOLUTE DIRECTION TO
THE SPECIFIED FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS TO TAKE JURISDICTION.  THE
IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A CONSTRUCTION EXTEND FAR BEYOND THE SITUATION WE
NOW HAVE HERE, OF AN ATTEMPT BY A STATE COURT TO ENJOIN AN ACTION
BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN ANOTHER STATE.  IT SEEMS TO BE
GENERALLY HELD THAT THE GRANT TO THE STATE COURTS OF JURISDICTION
CONCURRENT WITH THE FEDERAL COURTS DOES NOT DEPRIVE ONE STATE COURT OF
THE POWER TO ENJOIN AN OPPRESSIVE SUIT UNDER THE ACT IN A FOREIGN STATE
COURT.  FN3  MOREOVER, THIS COURT HAS EXPRESSLY HELD THAT THE VENUE
PROVISION OF THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT DOES NOT PREVENT A STATE
COURT FROM DECLINING JURISDICTION AS A FORUM NON CONVENIENS.  DOUGLAS
V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377.  TO BE SURE, UNDER THE
GUISE OF APPLYING LOCAL DOCTRINES OF EQUITY JURISDICTION, A STATE COURT
CANNOT DEFEAT THE PROPER ASSERTION OF A FEDERAL RIGHT.  RESORT TO THIS
COURT MAY ALWAYS BE HAD TO LAY BARE SUCH AN UNWARRANTED FRUSTRATION. 
AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. LEVEE, 263 U.S. 19; DAVIS V. WECHSLER,
263 U.S. 22.  BUT SUCH SUPERVISORY POWER BY THIS COURT OVER THE
DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS BY STATE COURTS DOES NOT IMPLY THE
DENIAL OF POWER IN THE STATE COURTS TO MAKE SUCH DETERMINATIONS IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE.  SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 56-57;
CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 136-37; ROBB V. CONNOLLY, 111 U.S.
624, 637; CF. WARREN, FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS AND STATE COURTS, 38 HARV.
L. REV. 545, 596-97.  THE LONG HISTORY OF LEAVING THE EFFECTIVE
ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS TO STATE COURTS HAS PROCEEDED ON
RECOGNITION OF THE POWER OF THE STATE COURTS TO EXERCISE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE THEIR SETTLED DOCTRINES OF LAW AND EQUITY.  THE OPINION OF THE
COURT IGNORES THESE SETTLED PRINCIPLES.  IN AN AREA DEMANDING THE
UTMOST JUDICIAL CIRCUMSPECTION, DISLOCATING UNCERTAINTY IS THEREBY
INTRODUCED. 

IF THE PRIVILEGE AFFORDED A PLAINTIFF TO BRING SUIT UNDER THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT IN ONE PLACE RATHER THAN IN ANOTHER IS TO BE
REGARDED AS AN ABSOLUTE COMMAND TO THE FEDERAL COURTS TO TAKE
JURISDICTION REGARDLESS OF ANY CONSIDERATIONS OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS,
WHY IS NOT THE SAME EFFECT TO BE GIVEN THE COMPARABLE GENERAL VENUE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 112? 
NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OR THE HISTORY OF THE VENUE PROVISION OF THE
ACT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE NUMEROUS OTHER VENUE PROVISIONS OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  IS THE SETTLED DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS TO BE
DEEMED IMPLIEDLY REPEALED BY EVERY SUCH VENUE PROVISION?  SURELY, IT IS
MUCH MORE CONSONANT WITH REASON AND RIGHT TO READ VENUE PROVISIONS IN
THE FAMILIAR CONTEXT OF ESTABLISHED LAW RATHER THAN TO IMPUTE TO
CONGRESS AN UNCONSIDERED, PROFOUND ALTERATION IN THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE COURTS AND IN THE RELATIONS OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS INTER SE.  CF. GAY V. RUFF, 292 U.S. 25. 

FN1  INTERNATIONAL MILLING CO. V. COLUMBIA CO., 292 U.S. 511, DID NOT
RESTRICT BUT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THE DOCTRINE OF THE DAVIS CASE.  IN
FINDING THE SCOPE OF THE DAVIS DOCTRINE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH GAVE
RISE TO IT, THE OPINION IN THE MILLING CO. CASE ONLY FOLLOWED
TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUE IN THE USE OF PRECEDENTS.  IT MADE PRECISELY THE
SAME DIFFERENTIATION THAT MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, WHO ARTICULATED THE
DOCTRINE IN THE DAVIS CASE, MADE IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CASE
TO SUBSEQUENT SITUATIONS.  SEE ST. LOUIS, B. & M. RY. CO. V. TAYLOR,
266 U.S. 200, AND HOFFMAN V. FORAKER, 274 U.S. 21.  THE DOCTRINE ITSELF
STANDS UNCHALLENGED.  THE PRESENT DECISION DOES NOT CHALLENGE IT. 

FN2  "MR. PRESIDENT, I WISH TO DISCUSS VERY BRIEFLY THE BILL.  THE
BILL AS IT IS NOW PENDING PROVIDES FOR THREE AMENDMENTS TO THE
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LAW WHICH IS NOW UPON THE STATUTE BOOKS.  THE
FIRST HAS REFERENCE TO THE VENUE  ...  THE OBJECTION WHICH HAS BEEN
MADE TO THE EXISTING LAW, AND THIS OBJECTION ARISES BY REASON OF THE
DECISION OF SOME OF THE COURTS, IS THAT THE PLAINTIFF MAY SOMETIMES BE
COMPELLED TO GO A GREAT DISTANCE IN ORDER TO HAVE HIS CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT NOW THE ACTION MUST BE
BROUGHT IN CERTAIN INSTANCES IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS
AN INHABITANT.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE CORPORATION BEING AN INHABITANT OF
THE STATE WHICH CREATES IT, IT MIGHT FOLLOW THAT THE PLAINTIFF WOULD
HAVE TO TRAVEL A LONG DISTANCE IN ORDER, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, TO
BRING HIS ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND COME WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE
LAW.  SO, IF THIS BILL SHOULD BE PASSED THE LAW WILL BE REMEDIED IN
THAT RESPECT, IN ENABLING THE PLAINTIFF TO BRING HIS ACTION WHERE THE
CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE OR WHERE THE DEFENDANT MAY BE DOING BUSINESS. 
THE BILL ENABLES THE PLAINTIFF TO FIND THE CORPORATION AT ANY POINT OR
PLACE OR STATE WHERE IT IS ACTUALLY CARRYING ON BUSINESS, AND THERE
LODGE HIS ACTION, IF HE CHOOSES TO DO SO."  45 CONG. REC. 4034. 

FN3  SEE REED'S ADMRX.  V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 182 KY. 455, 206
S.W. 794; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MCGINLEY, 175 WIS. 565, 185
N.W. 218; STATE EX REL. NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. NORTONI, 331 MO.
764, 55 S.W.2D 272; KERN V. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L.R. CO., 204 IND.
595, 185 N.E. 446, WITH WHICH COMPARE MCCONNELL V. THOMSON, 213 IND.
16, 8 N.E.2D 986, 11 N.E.2D 183; CF. EX PARTE CRANDALL, 53 F.2D 969. 
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE USUALLY DECLINED TO ENJOIN SUITS UNDER
THE ACT BROUGHT IN OTHER FEDERAL COURTS.  SEE RADER V. BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO., 108 F.2D 980, 985-86; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. VIGOR, 90
F.2D 7; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. COCHRAN, 56 F.2D 1019, 1020. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :








INDIANAPOLIS V. CHASE NATIONAL BANK, 314 U.S. 63 


NOS. 10 AND 11.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 7, 1941.  REARGUED OCTOBER 15, 16,
1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  - 113 F.2D 217, REVERSED. 


1.  TO SUSTAIN FEDERAL JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP, THERE MUST EXIST AN ACTUAL, SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, ON
ONE SIDE OF WHICH THE PARTIES MUST ALL BE CITIZENS OF STATES DIFFERENT
FROM THOSE OF WHICH THE PARTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE CITIZENS.  P.
69. 

2.  DIVERSITY JURISDICTION CAN NOT BE CONFERRED UPON THE FEDERAL
COURTS BY THE PARTIES' OWN DETERMINATION OF WHO ARE PLAINTIFFS AND WHO
ARE DEFENDANTS; AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT, AS WELL AS OF THE
LOWER COURTS, TO LOOK BEYOND THE PLEADINGS AND ARRANGE THE PARTIES
ACCORDING TO THEIR SIDES IN THE DISPUTE.  P. 69. 

3.  WHETHER THERE EXISTS THE NECESSARY COLLISION OF INTERESTS TO
SUSTAIN DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, MUST BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE PRINCIPAL
PURPOSE OF THE SUIT AND THE PRIMARY AND CONTROLLING MATTER IN DISPUTE. 
P. 69. 

4.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WHICH WAS A SUIT BROUGHT, IN A
FEDERAL COURT OF INDIANA, BY A NEW YORK BANK AGAINST TWO INDIANA GAS
COMPANIES AND AN INDIANA CITY, THIS COURT HOLDS THAT THE "PRIMARY AND
CONTROLLING MATTER IN DISPUTE" IS WHETHER A LEASE, WHEREBY ONE OF THE
GAS COMPANIES CONVEYED ALL OF ITS GAS PLANT PROPERTY TO THE OTHER, WAS
BINDING UPON THE CITY, TO WHICH THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN AFTERWARDS
CONVEYED BY THE LESSEE CORPORATION PURSUANT TO ITS FRANCHISE; THAT,
WITH RESPECT TO THAT DISPUTE, ONE OF THE GAS COMPANIES AND THE CITY
("CITIZENS" OF THE SAME STATE) ARE ON OPPOSITE SIDES; AND THAT,
THEREFORE, FEDERAL JURISDICTION, WHICH DEPENDS ON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP, IS LACKING.  PP. 70, 74. 

5.  THIS COURT'S EARLIER DENIAL OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
WHICH DISMISSED THIS SUIT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, COULD NOT CONFER ON
THE FEDERAL COURTS A JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS DENIED.  P. 75. 

6.  THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE CONFERRING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION UPON
THE DISTRICT COURTS CALLS FOR ITS STRICT CONSTRUCTION.  P. 76. 

INDIANAPOLIS ET AL. V. CHASE NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE, ET AL* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 12, CHASE NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE, V. CITIZENS GAS
CO. ET AL.; AND NO. 13, CHASE NATIONAL BANK, TRUSTEE, V. INDIANAPOLIS
GAS CO. ET AL., ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 636, 637, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
WHICH HELD A LEASE INVALID.  A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE
CASE IN AN EARLIER PHASE, 96 F.2D 363, WAS DENIED, 305 U.S. 600. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY REFUSED TO REALIGN INDIANAPOLIS
GAS WITH CHASE AS A PARTY PLAINTIFF. 

IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT A PARTY AGAINST WHOM PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED
TO RECOVER A JUDGMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY $1,700,000 CAN BE ALIGNED WITH
THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE CITY'S ARGUMENT IS BASED ENTIRELY ON THE FACT THAT THE CITY, AS
SUCCESSOR LESSEE, HAS BEEN HELD PRIMARILY LIABLE AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS
SECONDARILY LIABLE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT, AND THAT THE CITY IS
WELL ABLE TO PAY THE JUDGMENT OUT OF THE FUNDS OF THE PUBLIC CHARITABLE
TRUST.  A PARITY OF REASONING WOULD REQUIRE A REALIGNMENT WHENEVER A
CREDITOR SUES A PRINCIPAL AND SURETY ON A DEBT. 

THE SITUATION HERE IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS WHEN A MORTGAGOR
SELLS THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY TO A THIRD PERSON, WHO AGREES TO PAY THE
MORTGAGE DEBT.  THE MORTGAGOR BECOMES THE SURETY AND THE GRANTEE OF THE
MORTGAGED PROPERTY BECOMES THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR.  UNION MUTUAL LIFE
INS. CO. V. HANFORD, 143 U.S. 187; BIRKE V. ABBOTT, 103 IND. 1; TODD V.
OGLEBAY, 158 IND. 595. 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL AND SURETY IS SIMILARLY INVOLVED WHERE,
AS HERE, THE MORTGAGOR MERELY LEASES THE PROPERTY TO A THIRD PERSON,
WHO IN TURN AGREES TO PAY THE INTEREST ON THE MORTGAGE AS RENT. 
CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL CO., 95 F. 391. 

WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN ASSUMPTION OF THE MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS, EITHER
BY A VENDEE OR A LESSEE, AND THE MORTGAGEE SUES TO RECOVER THE DEBT, HE
ORDINARILY JOINS AS DEFENDANTS BOTH THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGOR AND THE
VENDEE OR LESSEE WHO HAS ASSUMED THE MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS.  THE
MORTGAGOR MAY BE VITALLY INTERESTED IN HAVING AN ADJUDICATION THAT HIS
VENDEE OR LESSEE DID ASSUME THE MORTGAGE AND THAT HE, THE MORTGAGOR, IS
MERELY A SURETY ON THE OBLIGATION; BUT THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A
REALIGNMENT OF THE MORTGAGOR WITH THE MORTGAGEE.  THE MORTGAGEE HAS A
BONA FIDE CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS AND IT IS WHOLLY
IMMATERIAL THAT ONE OF THEM IS LIABLE ONLY AS SURETY. 

THE PLAINTIFF HERE HAS A BONA FIDE CLAIM FOR UNPAID INTEREST AGAINST
INDIANAPOLIS GAS, CITIZENS GAS, AND THE CITY, AND THEY ARE ALL PROPERLY
ALIGNED AS DEFENDANTS, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM MAY BE PRIMARILY AND
OTHERS ONLY SECONDARILY LIABLE. 

THE CITY HAS NOT CITED A SINGLE CASE IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF HAD EVEN
ONE SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY WITH A DEFENDANT AND SUCH DEFENDANT WAS
REALIGNED WITH THE PLAINTIFF FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES.  THE FACT
THAT PLAINTIFF AND SUCH DEFENDANT MAY BE IN ACCORD AS TO SOME OF THE
OTHER ISSUES IN THE CASE IS WHOLLY IMMATERIAL.  TO BE SURE, REALIGNMENT
IS REQUIRED WHERE THERE IS NO BONA FIDE PRAYER FOR RELIEF AGAINST A
PARTICULAR DEFENDANT, AS IN CITY OF DAWSON V. COLUMBIA TRUST CO., 197
U.S. 178, BUT THAT IS NOT THE SITUATION IN THE CASE AT BAR. 

SUTTON V. ENGLISH, 246 U.S. 199, SUPPORTS FEDERAL JURISDICTION OF
THIS CASE.  SEE ALSO REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. V.
MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INS. CO., 68 F.2D 445, 447; DETROIT TILE &
MOSAIC CO. V. MASON CONTRACTORS' ASSN., 48 F.2D 729, 731; FRANZ V.
FRANZ, 15 F.2D 797, 799; FEIDLER V. BARTLESON, 161 F. 30, 35. 

IN EACH OF THOSE CASES THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE
PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO BE REALIGNED, AND THIS SINGLE
CONTROVERSY PREVENTED SUCH REALIGNMENT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF
AND SUCH DEFENDANT WERE IN ACCORD AS TO SOME OF THE OTHER
CONTROVERSIES.  THE RULE OF LAW APPLIED IN THESE CASES AND IN THE CASE
AT BAR ON THE FIRST APPEAL - THAT A DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM PLAINTIFF
ASKS RELIEF AND WITH WHOM PLAINTIFF HAS DISTINCT CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
CANNOT BE REALIGNED WITH THE PLAINTIFF IN DETERMINING FEDERAL
JURISDICTION - HAS BEEN UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED.  THE FEDERAL COURTS
HAVE CONTINUED TO APPLY THIS RULE SINCE THE DECISION OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE IN 1938.  SEE REX CO. V.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., 107 F.2D 767, 768, CITING SUTTON V.
ENGLISH AND THE FIRST DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE CASE AT
BAR IN SUPPORT. 

THE CITY'S CONTENTION THAT THE QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
LEASE IS THE DOMINANT CONTROVERSY IN THIS CASE AND MUST GOVERN THE
QUESTION OF REALIGNMENT, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY OTHER CONTROVERSIES, IS
BASED ON THE PROPOSITION THAT PLAINTIFF AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS ARE ON THE
SAME SIDE OF THAT CONTROVERSY.  THE FACT IS THAT PLAINTIFF ASKS
PRECISELY THE SAME RELIEF AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS GAS ON THIS ISSUE THAT
IT ASKS AGAINST THE CITY AND CITIZENS GAS, NAMELY, THAT THE LEASE BE
HELD BINDING ON EACH.  THE FALLACY IN THE CITY'S ARGUMENT IS ITS
ASSUMPTION THAT A DEFENDANT CAN DESTROY THE CONTROVERSY UPON WHICH
FEDERAL JURISDICTION DEPENDS BY ADMITTING ITS LIABILITY, OR EVEN BY
CONSENTING TO HAVE ITS LIABILITY ENFORCED.  THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED TO
THE CONTRARY.  RE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY RECEIVERSHIP, 208 U.S. 90. 

THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY CHASE AS MORTGAGEE, I.E., TRUSTEE, UNDER A
DEED OF TRUST SECURING AN ISSUE OF BONDS OF INDIANAPOLIS GAS.  CHASE
SOUGHT A DECREE DECLARING THAT THE NINETY-NINE YEAR LEASE BETWEEN
INDIANAPOLIS GAS, LESSOR, AND CITIZENS GAS, LESSEE, WAS BINDING UPON
AND ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE CITY. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT INDIANAPOLIS GAS WAS
AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. CITIZENS GAS CO., 96
F.2D 363. 

THE CONTROLLING CONTROVERSY IS WHETHER THE PLEADED LEASE HAS BECOME
ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE CITY.  NO OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION IS ALLEGED
AGAINST THE CITY EXCEPT CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES WHICH ARE DEPENDENT UPON THE
DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE LEASE. 

THE CITY CONTENDS THAT THE LEASE IS INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE AGAINST
IT; CHASE MAINTAINS THAT THE LEASE IS VALID AND BINDING AGAINST THE
CITY; INDIANAPOLIS GAS MAINTAINS THAT THE LEASE IS VALID AND BINDING
AGAINST THE CITY.  CHASE AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS THUS HAVE A SIMILAR AND
IDENTICAL INTEREST AGAINST THE CITY ON THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE LEASE. 

THE CITY HAS BEEN HELD BOUND BY THE LEASE AND REQUIRED TO PAY THE
OBLIGATIONS OF INDIANAPOLIS GAS UNDER THE MORTGAGE.  NO MATTER WHAT THE
FORM OF THE JUDGMENT MAY BE, NO ONE CAN REALISTICALLY SUPPOSE THAT
INDIANAPOLIS GAS HAS BEEN HARMED BY THE ENTRY OF THIS JUDGMENT OR THAT
IT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY A SINGLE PENNY AS A RESULT OF IT.  ON THE
CONTRARY, IT WILL HAVE OBTAINED EXACTLY WHAT IT SOUGHT FROM THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION:  A DECREE REQUIRING THE CITY TO MAKE
THE PAYMENTS UNDER THE LEASE. 

THE OTHER SUBSIDIARY RELIEF ASKED AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS GAS BY CHASE
HAS EITHER NOT BEEN PROSECUTED BEYOND THE ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT
AND PRAYERS, IS DEPENDENT UPON A DECISION RESPECTING THE VALIDITY OF
THE LEASE, OR IS RELIEF AGAINST WHICH INDIANAPOLIS GAS IS COMPLETELY
INSULATED. 

IF THE INTERESTS OF CHASE AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS WERE NOT IN ACCORD,
INDIANAPOLIS GAS WOULD NOT HAVE OPPOSED REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF A
JUDGMENT AGAINST IT FOR MORE THAN $1,000,000. 

BY ARRANGING THE PARTIES ACCORDING TO THEIR REAL INTEREST IN THE CASE
- VIZ., THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE 99 YEAR LEASE AGAINST THE CITY - IT
IS CLEAR THAT THE INTERESTS OF INDIANAPOLIS GAS AND OF CHASE ARE
IDENTICAL.  THEY SHOULD BE REALIGNED AS PARTIES PLAINTIFF.  DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP WOULD THUS BE DESTROYED, AND THE SOLE GROUND OF
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WOULD BE LOST.  COMPARE CITY
OF DAWSON V. COLUMBIA TRUST CO., 197 U.S. 178, 181; NILES-BEMENT-POND
CO. V. IRON MOULDERS UNION, 254 U.S. 77, 81. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT INSTITUTED BY THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK, A NEW YORK
CORPORATION, IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
INDIANA, NAMING AS DEFENDANTS THE INDIANAPOLIS GAS COMPANY, THE
CITIZENS GAS COMPANY OF INDIANAPOLIS (INDIANA CORPORATIONS), AND THE
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS.  (FOR BREVITY'S SAKE THE PARTIES WILL BE REFERRED
TO AS CHASE, INDIANAPOLIS GAS, CITIZENS GAS, AND THE CITY,
RESPECTIVELY.)  THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN THIS
LITIGATION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE CONFERRING
UPON THE DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION "OF ALL SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE
...  WHERE THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS  ...  THREE THOUSAND
DOLLARS, AND  ... IS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES  ...  " 36
STAT. 1091; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1).  THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS
JURISDICTIONAL RULING MUST BE DETERMINED BEFORE THE MERITS OF CHASE'S
CLAIMS CAN BE CONSIDERED.  THE SPECIFIC QUESTION IS THIS:  DOES AN
ALIGNMENT OF THE PARTIES IN RELATION TO THEIR REAL INTERESTS IN THE
"MATTER IN CONTROVERSY" SATISFY THE SETTLED REQUIREMENTS OF DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION? 

AS IS TRUE OF MANY PROBLEMS IN THE LAW, THE ANSWER IS TO BE FOUND NOT
IN LEGAL LEARNING BUT IN THE REALITIES OF THE RECORD.  THOUGH VARIOUSLY
EXPRESSED IN THE DECISIONS, THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES ARE CLEAR.  TO
SUSTAIN DIVERSITY JURISDICTION THERE MUST EXIST AN "ACTUAL," HELM V.
ZARECOR, 222 U.S. 32, 36, "SUBSTANTIAL," NILES-BEMENT-POND CO. V. IRON
MOULDERS UNION, 254 U.S. 77, 81, CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF
DIFFERENT STATES, ALL OF WHOM ON ONE SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY ARE
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES FROM ALL PARTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE. 
STRAWBRIDGE V. CURTISS, 3 CRANCH 267.  DIVERSITY JURISDICTION CANNOT BE
CONFERRED UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS BY THE PARTIES' OWN DETERMINATION OF
WHO ARE PLAINTIFFS AND WHO DEFENDANTS.  IT IS OUR DUTY, AS IT IS THAT
OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, TO "LOOK BEYOND THE PLEADINGS AND ARRANGE
THE PARTIES ACCORDING TO THEIR SIDES IN THE DISPUTE."  DAWSON V.
COLUMBIA TRUST CO., 197 U.S. 178, 180.  LITIGATION IS THE PURSUIT OF
PRACTICAL ENDS, NOT A GAME OF CHESS.  WHETHER THE NECESSARY "COLLISION
OF INTERESTS," DAWSON V. COLUMBIA TRUST CO., SUPRA, AT 181, EXISTS, IS
THEREFORE NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY MECHANICAL RULES.  IT MUST BE
ASCERTAINED FROM THE "PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF THE SUIT," EAST TENNESSEE,
V. & G.R. V. GRAYSON, 119 U.S. 240, 244, AND THE "PRIMARY AND
CONTROLLING MATTER IN DISPUTE," MERCHANTS' COTTON PRESS CO. V.
INSURANCE CO., 151 U.S. 368, 385.  THESE FAMILIAR DOCTRINES GOVERNING
THE ALIGNMENT OF PARTIES FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP HAVE CONSISTENTLY GUIDED THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS  FN1  AND
THIS COURT.  FN2 

AND SO WE TURN TO THE ACTUALITIES OF THIS LITIGATION. 

CHASE IS THE TRUSTEE UNDER A MORTGAGE DEED, TO SECURE A BOND ISSUE,
EXECUTED BY INDIANAPOLIS GAS IN 1902.  IN 1906 CITIZENS GAS WAS FORMED
TO COMPETE WITH INDIANAPOLIS GAS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF LIGHT, HEAT,
AND POWER TO THE PEOPLE OF INDIANAPOLIS.  ITS FRANCHISE PROVIDED THAT
AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF
CERTAIN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS, THE COMPANY SHOULD BE WOUND UP AND ITS
PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE CITY SUBJECT TO THE COMPANY'S "OUTSTANDING
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS."  THE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO GAS COMPANIES
CONTINUED UNTIL 1913, WHEN INDIANAPOLIS GAS LEASED ALL OF ITS GAS PLANT
PROPERTY TO CITIZENS GAS FOR A TERM OF NINETY-NINE YEARS.  CITIZENS GAS
AGREED TO PAY AS RENTAL (A) THE INTEREST ON THE LESSOR'S OUTSTANDING
BONDED INDEBTEDNESS, AND (B) ANNUAL SUMS EQUAL TO A SIX PER CENT RETURN
ON INDIANAPOLIS GAS'S COMMON STOCK.  FOR TWENTY-TWO YEARS THEREAFTER
CITIZENS GAS OPERATED THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND PAID THE INTEREST ON
THE BONDS.  IN 1935, PURSUANT TO ITS FRANCHISE, CITIZENS GAS CONVEYED
ITS ENTIRE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THAT COVERED BY ITS LEASE FROM
INDIANAPOLIS GAS, TO THE CITY.  BUT THE CITY REFUSED TO REGARD ITSELF
BOUND BY THIS LEASE.  ON MARCH 2, 1936, THE CITY AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS
AGREED THAT, PENDING THE SETTLEMENT OF THE "PRESENTLY EXISTING
CONTROVERSY" BETWEEN THEM AS TO WHETHER THE LEASE WAS VALID AND BINDING
UPON THE CITY, THE LATTER WOULD DEPOSIT IN ESCROW SUMS EQUAL TO THE
INTEREST AND DIVIDEND PAYMENTS FALLING DUE.  THE AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED THAT IT WAS MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EITHER PARTY'S "POSITION
OR RIGHTS." 

CHASE THEREUPON FILED A BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
NAMING AS DEFENDANTS INDIANAPOLIS GAS, CITIZENS GAS, AND THE CITY.  IT
PRAYED THAT THE LEASE FROM INDIANAPOLIS GAS TO CITIZENS GAS BE DECLARED
VALID AND BINDING UPON THE DEFENDANTS, AND AS SUCH BE DEEMED PART OF
THE SECURITY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS; THAT THE
CITY BE ORDERED TO PERFORM ALL OF THE LESSEE'S OBLIGATIONS IN THE LEASE
AND TO PAY DIRECTLY TO THE PLAINTIFF ALL OF THE INTEREST PAYMENTS AS
THEY SHALL BECOME DUE; THAT JUDGMENT FOR OVERDUE INTEREST BE ENTERED
AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS "LIABLE THEREFOR"; AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE
AWARDED COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES.  THE CITY AND CITIZENS GAS
SPECIFICALLY DENIED THAT THE LEASE WAS VALID AND BINDING UPON THEM;
THEY ALLEGED, FURTHER, THAT THE CONTROVERSY EXISTED SOLELY BETWEEN
INDIANAPOLIS GAS AND THE CITY, "CITIZENS" OF THE SAME STATE.  IN ITS
ANSWER, INDIANAPOLIS GAS DENIED THAT IT HAD "EVER CONTENDED OR ADMITTED
THAT THE SAID NINETY-NINE YEAR LEASE WAS NOT AND IS NOT A VALID AND
BINDING OBLIGATION" UPON THE DEFENDANTS.    FINDING "NO COLLISION
BETWEEN THE INTERESTS OF THE PLAINTIFF AND THE INTERESTS OF THE
INDIANAPOLIS GAS COMPANY," THE DISTRICT COURT REALIGNED THE LATTER AS A
PARTY PLAINTIFF, AND FINDING IDENTITY OF CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN SOME OF
THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS, DISMISSED THE SUIT FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, 96 F.2D 363, AND CERTIORARI WAS DENIED, 305 U.S. 600. 

ON REMAND TO THE DISTRICT COURT, CHASE FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL
ALLEGING DEFAULT AS TO INTEREST PAYMENTS FALLING DUE AND PRAYING
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE UNPAID COUPONS. 
IT ALLEGED THAT "NEITHER THE INDIANAPOLIS GAS COMPANY NOR CITIZENS GAS
COMPANY, NOR BOTH OF THEM, HAVE PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE INTEREST
IN DEFAULT ON THE BONDS, OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY NOW IN THE POSSESSION
AND UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS."  THIS WAS ADMITTED
BY INDIANAPOLIS GAS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD ON THE MERITS THAT THE
LEASE WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE AGAINST EITHER CITIZENS GAS OR THE CITY; THAT
THE FORMER HAD NO POWER UNDER ITS FRANCHISE TO BIND THE LATTER TO THE
LEASE, AND THAT BY CONVEYING THE LEASED PROPERTY TO THE CITY, CITIZENS
GAS THEREBY DISCHARGED ITSELF OF ITS LESSEE OBLIGATIONS.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE COURT ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ONLY AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS
GAS FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE UNPAID INTEREST. 

ASSERTING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE LEASE
VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, BOTH CHASE AND
INDIANAPOLIS GAS APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED
THEIR POSITION AND AGAIN REVERSED, 113 F.2D 217.  THE COURT HELD,
FURTHER, THAT CHASE WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT FOR UNPAID INTEREST
AGAINST THE PARTIES IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF LIABILITY:  THE CITY,
CITIZENS GAS, AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S.
636, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE
LITIGATION. 

THE FACTS LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT ON THE MERITS ONLY ONE
QUESTION PERMEATES THIS LITIGATION:  IS THE LEASE WHEREBY INDIANAPOLIS
GAS IN 1913 CONVEYED ALL ITS GAS PLANT PROPERTY TO CITIZENS GAS VALID
AND BINDING UPON THE CITY?  THIS IS THE "PRIMARY AND CONTROLLING MATTER
IN DISPUTE."  THE REST IS WINDOW-DRESSING DESIGNED TO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION.  EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CASE IS
INCIDENTAL TO THIS DOMINATING CONTROVERSY, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH
INDIANAPOLIS GAS AND THE CITY, "CITIZENS" OF THE SAME STATE, ARE ON
OPPOSITE SIDES.  FN3  THAT THE CASE PRESENTS "ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUE" AND THAT THAT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE CITY UNDER THE LEASE,
CHASE ADMITS AND INDEED INSISTS UPON IN ITS BRIEF ON THE MERITS.  CHASE
AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN UNITED ON THIS ISSUE:  BOTH HAVE
ALWAYS CONTENDED FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE LEASE AND THE CITY'S
OBLIGATION UNDER IT.  THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT LAYS BARE THE
HEART OF THIS CONTROVERSY: 

"THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT, THE
INDIANAPOLIS GAS COMPANY, HAVE AT ALL TIMES ASSERTED THAT THE LEASE IN
QUESTION IS VALID AND IS BINDING UPON THE CITY, AS TRUSTEE.  NEITHER IS
THERE ANY DOUBT AS TO THEIR INTEREST IN SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF SUCH
LEASE AT THE TIME OF THE INSTITUTION OF THIS ACTION, PRIOR HERETO, AND
AT ALL TIMES SUBSEQUENT THERETO, AND THAT MANY CONFERENCES HAVE BEEN
HELD BY AND BETWEEN THEM, THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEYS, AND MANY LETTERS
HAVE PASSED BETWEEN THEM RELATING TO THIS SUBJECT.  ...  LATER, WHEN
THE PARTIES (I. E., INDIANAPOLIS GAS AND THE CITY) WERE UNABLE TO
ADJUST THEIR DIFFERENCES AND ARRIVE AT AN AGREEMENT, IT WAS DECIDED BY
THE INDIANAPOLIS GAS COMPANY AND THE PLAINTIFF THAT A SUIT SHOULD BE
INSTITUTED.  THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS OF THAT COMPANY, OF COURSE, HAD A
VITAL INTEREST IN THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE LEASE BECAUSE, IF
THE LEASE IS VALID, THEY ARE ASSURED OF A SIX PER CENT RETURN UPON
THEIR STOCK FOR MANY YEARS.  IF, HOWEVER, A FORECLOSURE SUIT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN BEGUN, OR IF THE LEASE IS INVALID, NO SUCH RETURN IS
ASSURED.  IT WAS NATURAL, THEREFORE, THAT THE GAS COMPANY SHOULD TAKE
AN ACTIVE INTEREST IN THE LITIGATION AND ATTEMPT TO GUIDE IT ALONG THE
COURSE THAT WOULD BE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO IT AND TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS." 

PLAINLY, THEREFORE, CHASE AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS ARE, COLLOQUIALLY
SPEAKING, PARTNERS IN LITIGATION.  THE PROPERTY COVERED BY THE LEASE IS
NOW IN THE CITY'S POSSESSION; CHASE IS SIMPLY ACTING TO PROTECT THE
BONDHOLDERS' SECURITY.  AS TO INDIANAPOLIS GAS, IF THE LEASE IS UPHELD,
IT WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE A SIX PER CENT RETURN ON ITS CAPITAL, AND
THE BURDEN OF PAYING THE INTEREST ON ITS BONDED INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE
NOT UPON IT BUT UPON THE CITY.  WHAT CHASE WANTS, INDIANAPOLIS GAS
WANTS, AND THE CITY DOES NOT WANT.  YET, THE CITY AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS
WERE MADE TO HAVE A COMMON INTEREST AGAINST CHASE WHEN, AS A MATTER OF
FACT, THE INTERESTS OF THE CITY AND OF INDIANAPOLIS GAS ARE OPPOSED TO
ONE ANOTHER.  THEREFORE, IF REGARD BE HAD TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
JURISDICTIONAL INTEGRITY, INDIANAPOLIS GAS AND CHASE ARE ON THE SAME
SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY NOT ONLY FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES BUT ALSO FOR
PURPOSES OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION.  BUT SUCH REALIGNMENT PLACES
INDIANA "CITIZENS" ON BOTH SIDES OF THE LITIGATION AND PRECLUDES
ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BASED UPON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  WE ARE
THUS COMPELLED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION.  FN4  AND, OF COURSE, THIS COURT, BY ITS DENIAL OF
CERTIORARI WHEN THE CASE WAS HERE THE FIRST TIME, COULD NOT CONFER THE
JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS DENIED. 

THIS IS NOT A SACRIFICE OF JUSTICE TO TECHNICALITY.  FOR THE QUESTION
HERE IS NOT WHETHER CHASE AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS MAY PURSUE WHAT THEY
CONCEIVE TO BE JUST CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY, BUT WHETHER THEY MAY
PURSUE THEM IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IN INDIANA, RATHER THAN IN ITS STATE
COURTS.  THE FACT THAT CHASE PREFERS THE ADJUDICATION OF ITS CLAIMS BY
THE FEDERAL COURT IS CERTAINLY NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD DENY THE PLAIN
FACTS OF THE CONTROVERSY AND YIELD TO ILLUSIVE ARTIFICES.  SETTLED
RESTRICTIONS AGAINST BRINGING LOCAL DISPUTES INTO THE FEDERAL COURTS
CANNOT THUS BE CIRCUMVENTED. 

THESE REQUIREMENTS, HOWEVER TECHNICAL SEEMING, MUST BE VIEWED IN THE
PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS UPON THE JUDICIAL POWER
OF THE FEDERAL COURTS,  FN5  AND OF THE JUDICIARY ACTS IN DEFINING THE
AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WHEN THEY SIT, IN EFFECT, AS STATE
COURTS.  SEE MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V. MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239,
255, AND EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369, 377.  THE DOMINANT NOTE
IN THE SUCCESSIVE ENACTMENTS OF CONGRESS RELATING TO DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION, IS ONE OF JEALOUS RESTRICTION, OF AVOIDING OFFENSE TO
STATE SENSITIVENESS, AND OF RELIEVING THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THE
OVERWHELMING BURDEN OF "BUSINESS THAT INTRINSICALLY BELONGS TO THE
STATE COURTS," IN ORDER TO KEEP THEM FREE FOR THEIR DISTINCTIVE FEDERAL
BUSINESS.  SEE FRIENDLY, THE HISTORIC BASIS OF DIVERSITY JURISDICTION,
41 HARV. L. REV. 483, 510; SHAMROCK OIL CORP. V. SHEETS, 313 U.S. 100,
108-09; HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263, 270.  "THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE
(CONFERRING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION UPON THE DISTRICT COURTS) CALLS FOR
ITS STRICT CONSTRUCTION.  THE POWER RESERVED TO THE STATES, UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, TO PROVIDE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSIES IN
THEIR COURTS MAY BE RESTRICTED ONLY BY THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN
CONFORMITY TO THE JUDICIARY SECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ... DUE
REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, WHICH SHOULD
ACTUATE FEDERAL COURTS, REQUIRES THAT THEY SCRUPULOUSLY CONFINE THEIR
OWN JURISDICTION TO THE PRECISE LIMITS WHICH THE STATUTE HAS DEFINED." 
HEALY V. RATTA, SUPRA, AT 270.  IN DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION, THIS COURT MUST BE MINDFUL OF THIS GUIDING CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY.  SEE HEPBURN & DUNDAS V. ELLZEY, 2 CRANCH 445; NEW ORLEANS V.
WINTER, 1 WHEAT.  91; MORRIS V. GILMER, 129 U.S. 315, 328-29; COAL
COMPANY V. BLATCHFORD, 11 WALL.  172; SHAMROCK OIL CORP. V. SHEETS, 313
U.S. 100; AND COMPARE OLD GRANT V. M'KEE, 1 PET. 248; ELGIN V.
MARSHALL, 106 U.S. 578; HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263; MCNUTT V. GENERAL
MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178.  REVERSED. 

FN1  E.G., PITTSBURGH, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO., 61 F. 705; CILLEY V. PATTEN, 62 F. 498; BOARD OF TRUSTEES V.
BLAIR, 70 F. 414; ALLEN-WEST COMMISSION CO. V. BRASHEAR, 176 F. 119;
LINDAUER V. COMPANIA PALOMAS, 247 F. 428; DEGRAFFENREID V. YOUNT-LEE
OIL CO., 30 F.2D 574. 

FN2  IN ADDITION TO THE CASES CITED IN THE TEXT, SEE REMOVAL CASES,
100 U.S. 457, 468-70; PACIFIC R. CO. V. KETCHUM, 101 U.S. 289, 298-99;
CORBIN V. VAN BRUNT, 105 U.S. 576; EVERS V. WATSON, 156 U.S. 527, 532;
DOCTOR V. HARRINGTON, 196 U.S. 579; VENNER V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.,
209 U.S. 24; STEELE V. CULVER, 211 U.S. 26, 29; LEE V. LEHIGH VALLEY
COAL CO., 267 U.S. 542; SUTTON V. ENGLISH, 246 U.S. 199. 

FN3  IT IS CONTENDED THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR INDISSOLUBLE BOND ON
THE CONTROLLING ISSUE, THERE ARE "SUFFICIENT MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY"
BETWEEN CHASE AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS TO PRECLUDE THEIR ALIGNMENT ON THE
SAME SIDE.  CHASE, OF COURSE, DID NOT BRING THIS SUIT IN ORDER TO
OBTAIN A DECLARATION THAT, REGARDLESS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE LEASE,
INDIANAPOLIS GAS IS STILL ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTEREST
PAYMENTS ON ITS BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.  THAT WAS NOT REALLY IN ISSUE, AND
BY ITS ANSWER, INDIANAPOLIS GAS TOOK IT OUT OF THE CASE.  THE FURTHER
ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT, BY ENTERING INTO THE ESCROW AGREEMENT WITH THE
CITY, INDIANAPOLIS GAS HAS ASSERTED A CLAIM TO THE INTEREST PAYMENTS
ADVERSE TO THAT OF CHASE AND THE BONDHOLDERS.  BUT THE FACTS ARE
AGAINST THIS CONTENTION.  THE AGREEMENT DEALS MERELY WITH THE
DISPOSITION OF THE INTEREST FALLING DUE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE
LITIGATION.  MOREOVER, THE LEASE BETWEEN INDIANAPOLIS GAS AND CITIZENS
GAS CONTAINS NO PROVISIONS REQUIRING PAYMENT OF THE INTEREST DIRECT TO
CHASE OR THE BONDHOLDERS.  NOR CAN DIVERSITY JURISDICTION BE RESTED
UPON SO FLIMSY A BASIS AS CHASE'S PRAYER FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS AND
ATTORNEYS' FEES.  THE TAIL FLIES WITH THE KITE. 

FN4  COMPARE DAWSON V. COLUMBIA TRUST CO., 197 U.S. 178, A SUIT BY A
PENNSYLVANIA MORTGAGEE OF A GEORGIA WATERWORKS COMPANY TO RESTRAIN A
GEORGIA CITY FROM BUILDING A NEW WATERWORKS AND TO COMPEL SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF THE CITY'S CONTRACT WITH THE WATERWORKS COMPANY.  THE
LATTER WAS JOINED AS A DEFENDANT, ON THE THEORY THAT IT WAS A PARTY TO
THE CONTRACT SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE BILL
SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION:  "  ...  THE COURT WILL
LOOK BEYOND THE PLEADINGS AND ARRANGE THE PARTIES ACCORDING TO THEIR
SIDES IN THE DISPUTE.  WHEN THAT IS DONE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE WATER
WORKS COMPANY IS ON THE PLAINTIFF'S SIDE."  197 U.S. AT 180.  AYRES V.
WISWALL, 112 U.S. 187, AND CONEY V. WINCHELL, 116 U.S. 227, ARE NOT
APPLICABLE HERE.  THEY HOLD MERELY THAT IN A FORECLOSURE SUIT THE
MORTGAGEE MAY JOIN THE MORTGAGOR AND HIS ASSIGNEE AS DEFENDANTS; THEY
DID NOT INVOLVE ANY CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE MORTGAGOR AND THE
"ASSIGNEE" AS TO WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT IS BINDING UPON THE LATTER. 

SUTTON V. ENGLISH, 246 U.S. 199, CLEARLY HOLDS THAT THE PARTIES MUST
BE ALIGNED ACCORDING TO THEIR "ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ACTUAL AND
SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY."  246 U.S. AT 204.  THE PLAINTIFFS, WHO
INCLUDED ALL OF THE HEIRS OF MARY JANE EXCEPT CORA, SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH
THEIR RIGHT TO CERTAIN PROPERTY CLAIMED TO HAVE BELONGED TO MARY JANE. 
THE CLAIMANTS COULD NOT RECOVER UNLESS THEY PROVED THAT A RESIDUARY
BEQUEST TO CORA WAS INVALID - AND, WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE, THEIR
POSITION WAS COMPLETELY ADVERSE TO CORA'S.  "BUT, AS ALREADY POINTED
OUT, EVEN COULD COMPLAINANTS SUCCEED IN SHOWING THAT MARY JANE HUBBARD
AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH WAS ENTITLED TO THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY, HER
WILL GIVING ALL THE RESIDUE OF HER PROPERTY TO CORA D. SPENCER STILL
STANDS IN THE WAY OF THEIR SUCCEEDING TO IT AS HEIRS-AT-LAW, AND HENCE
THEIR PRAYER TO HAVE THAT WILL ANNULLED WITH RESPECT TO THE RESIDUARY
CLAUSE IS ESSENTIAL TO THEIR RIGHT TO ANY RELIEF IN THE SUIT."  246
U.S. AT 207.  IF THE PLAINTIFFS PREVAILED ON THIS ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY
OF THE RESIDUARY GIFT TO CORA, THEIR INTERESTS AND HERS WOULD THEN BE
THE SAME WITH RESPECT TO THE REMAINING ISSUES IN THE CASE.  BUT THE
COURT HELD THAT IN RELATION TO THE "ACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIAL
CONTROVERSY," CORA AND THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ON OPPOSITE SIDES, THEREBY
SUSTAINING DIVERSITY JURISDICTION.  IN SUTTON V. ENGLISH, ALIGNMENT OF
THE PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR REAL INTERESTS SUSTAINED DIVERSITY;
SUCH ALIGNMENT HERE PRECLUDES JURISDICTION.  THAT CASE AND THIS ARE
APPLICATIONS OF THE SAME PRINCIPLE. 

FN5  CF. STRAWBRIDGE V. CURTISS, 3 CRANCH 267; CALIFORNIA V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO., 157 U.S. 229, 261; TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308
U.S. 66, 71. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED AND I ARE
UNABLE TO CONCUR IN THIS DISPOSITION OF THESE WRITS, IN VIEW OF WHAT WE
CONSIDER TO BE THE CONTROLLING FACTS OF THIS CONTROVERSY. 

CHASE IS TRUSTEE UNDER A MORTGAGE EXECUTED IN 1902 BY INDIANAPOLIS
GAS TO SECURE A BOND ISSUE.  THE MORTGAGE COVERED A PUBLIC UTILITY GAS
PLANT AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, TOGETHER WITH AFTER-ACQUIRED PROPERTY,
INCLUDING INTANGIBLES.    IN 1913, INDIANAPOLIS GAS TURNED THE
MORTGAGED UTILITY SYSTEM OVER TO CITIZENS GAS, A COMPETITOR, UNDER A
LEASE FOR A TERM OF NINETY-NINE YEARS.  CITIZENS GAS UNDERTOOK, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, TO PAY THE INTEREST "AS THE SAME SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME
FALL DUE" ON THE BONDS SECURED BY THE MORTGAGE, AND ALSO TO PAY CERTAIN
SUMS, SUBJECT TO SOME VARIATION BY REFERENCE TO THE PRICE RECEIVED FOR
GAS, TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF INDIANAPOLIS GAS.  CITIZENS GAS UNIFIED
THIS LEASED PLANT WITH ITS OWN, AND IN 1935 CONVEYED TO THE CITY THE
ENTIRE PROPERTY IN CONFORMITY TO STATUTE WHICH IT IS CONTENDED
OBLIGATES THE CITY TO ASSUME THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE LEASE.  THE CITY
TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY BUT REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE OBLIGATIONS
OF THE LEASE.  THE CITY AND INDIANAPOLIS GAS THEN AGREED THAT, PENDING
SETTLEMENT OF THE CONTROVERSY THUS PRECIPITATED, SUMS PAYABLE UNDER THE
LEASE AS INTEREST SHOULD BE DEPOSITED IN ESCROW, INSTEAD OF BEING PAID
TO CHASE.  ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT TO THE TRUSTEE
OF INTEREST ON THE BONDS. 

FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES, INDIANAPOLIS GAS, THE MORTGAGE DEBTOR,
AND THE CITY, WHOSE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WAS ALLEGED TO RESULT IN AN ASSUMPTION OF THE DEBT, AS WELL AS CITIZENS
GAS, THE INTERMEDIATE OWNER (WHICH SEEMS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE
ISSUES UNDER DISCUSSION), WERE ALL CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA,
WHILE CHASE, THE TRUSTEE, WAS A CITIZEN OF NEW YORK.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, CHASE BEGAN AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, JOINING INDIANAPOLIS GAS, CITIZENS
GAS, AND THE CITY AS DEFENDANTS.  IT ASKED THAT THE INTEREST OF
INDIANAPOLIS GAS IN THE LEASE BE ADJUDGED A PART OF ITS SECURITY FOR
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS; THAT THE LEASE BE DECLARED
VALID AND BINDING UPON ALL THE DEFENDANTS; THAT THE CITY BE ORDERED TO
PAY DIRECTLY TO THE TRUSTEE ALL OF THE INTEREST PAYMENTS AS THEY FELL
DUE; THAT JUDGMENT FOR OVERDUE INTEREST BE ENTERED AGAINST THE
DEFENDANTS LIABLE THEREFOR, INCLUDING INDIANAPOLIS GAS; AND THAT
PLAINTIFF BE AWARDED COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. 

THIS COURT NOW DESTROYS FEDERAL JURISDICTION OF THE CASE BY A
TRANSPOSITION OF PARTIES, THE RADICAL NATURE OF WHICH APPEARS MOST
CLEARLY FROM THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED BELOW.  IT FORCES INTO THE POSITION
OF CO-PLAINTIFF ONE PARTY WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT ADJUDGED ENTITLED TO
RECOVER OVER A MILLION DOLLARS, AND ANOTHER WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT
ADJUDGED SOLELY LIABLE TO PAY THAT SUM.  THIS SAME ADVERSITY WAS FOUND
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH HELD THE ONE ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE, AND THE OTHER OBLIGATED TO PAY, THIS SUM WITH INCREASE DUE TO
THE LAPSE OF TIME.  IT MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT ONLY BY INCLUDING TWO
ADDITIONAL JUDGMENT DEBTORS ON WHOM IT FIXED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
LIABILITY, BUT CONTINUED THE JUDGMENT AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS GAS WITH A
TERTIARY LIABILITY FOR ITS SATISFACTION.  THE SUBTLETY BY WHICH A
JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS TRANSFIGURED INTO A CREDITOR FOR JURISDICTIONAL
PURPOSES DESERVES ANALYSIS, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN BECAUSE OF ITS
NOVELTY. 

THE COURT CANNOT RESORT TO A DECISION OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE, OVER
WHICH IT HOLDS ITSELF TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION, IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY
ITS CHARACTERIZATION OF SOME OF THE TRUSTEE'S CLAIMS AS "WINDOW
DRESSING" AND "ARTIFICE."  THE MEASURE OF JURISDICTION SHOULD BE TAKEN
FROM THE PLEADINGS, UNLESS THE CLAIMS ARE FRIVOLOUS ON THEIR FACE. 
THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE.  IN ULTIMATE EFFECT, CHASE ALLEGED A CAUSE
OF ACTION AND SOUGHT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CITY UPON ITS PERSONAL
UNDERTAKING TO ASSUME AND PAY THE INDEBTEDNESS UPON THE MORTGAGE GIVEN
BY INDIANAPOLIS GAS TO THE PLAINTIFF.  IT ALSO ALLEGED A CAUSE OF
ACTION AND SOUGHT JUDGMENT AGAINST INDIANAPOLIS GAS FOR THE AMOUNT OF
THE COUPON INTEREST.  BOTH DEMANDS WERE IN EXCESS OF $3,000.  IF THE
PLAINTIFF HAD ASSERTED THESE DEMANDS IN TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS, NO ONE
WOULD DOUBT THAT BOTH WERE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  IN EACH, THERE IS AN ADEQUATE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND
EACH INVOLVES THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, AND EACH IS "ACTUAL"
AND "SUBSTANTIAL" ENOUGH TO SUPPORT THE JURISDICTION, IF THIS MEANS
ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT A DEMAND EXCEEDING $3,000 MUST BE INVOLVED.  A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IS NOT WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO RENDER A
JUDGMENT EXCEEDING $3,000 ON CONFESSION IF THERE IS THE REQUISITE
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  RE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY RECEIVERSHIP, 208
U.S. 90 AT 108.  THE TRUSTEE'S RIGHT TO JUDGMENT AGAINST THE MORTGAGOR,
EVEN THOUGH UNCONTESTED, IS A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE, FOR THE JUDGMENT IS
THE IMPORTANT - INDEED INDISPENSABLE - MEANS OF PURSUING THE MORTGAGED
PROPERTY INTO THE HANDS OF THE CITY, IN THE EVENT THAT IT SHOULD TURN
OUT IN THE SUIT AGAINST THE CITY THAT IT HAD NOT BECOME PERSONALLY
LIABLE FOR ANY PART OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT. 

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IS INDEED A VARIABLE AND ILLUSORY
THING, IF THE JURISDICTION WHICH A DISTRICT COURT ADMITTEDLY HAS OF TWO
SEPARATE CAUSES OF ACTION IS LOST WHEN THEY ARE UNITED IN ONE,
AGREEABLY TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE, BECAUSE THE ONE DEFENDANT
AS A SURETY SEEKS TO ENFORCE ITS EQUITABLE RIGHT TO BE EXONERATED BY
THE OTHER, WHO IS ALLEGED TO BE THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR. 

THE DOCTRINE OF REALIGNMENT PERMITS AND REQUIRES A NOMINAL DEFENDANT
TO BE TREATED AS A PLAINTIFF FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING THE REAL
CONTROVERSY, WHERE NO REAL CAUSE OF ACTION IS ASSERTED AGAINST HIM BY
THE PLAINTIFF; BUT IT DOES NOT ADMIT OF SUCH TREATMENT OF A DEFENDANT
AGAINST WHOM THE PLAINTIFF ASSERTS A CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT RIGHTLY BE DEPRIVED OF
THE BENEFIT OF THAT JURISDICTION, CONFERRED UPON HIM BY LAWS ENACTED
PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE THE COURT
MAY THINK THAT SUCH A CAUSE OF ACTION IS RELATIVELY LESS IMPORTANT THAN
THAT ASSERTED AGAINST ANOTHER DEFENDANT, OR BECAUSE ONE ACTION
"DOMINATES" THE OTHER, OR BECAUSE ONE IS MORE "ACTUAL" OR "SUBSTANTIAL"
THAN THE OTHER.  THE STATUTE ITSELF SETS UP THE CRITERION OF
SUBSTANTIALITY BY FIXING THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT AT $3,000. 
MOREOVER, IN THIS CASE, WHETHER EITHER OF THE RIGHTS ASSERTED IS MORE
SUBSTANTIAL THAN THE OTHER DEPENDS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION,
WHICH CAN HARDLY BE USED TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION WHICH MUST EXIST AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE LITIGATION. 

IF WE EXAMINE THIS CONTROVERSY IN DETAIL, IT APPEARS THAT THE
CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE TRUSTEE AND ITS MORTGAGOR WERE NOT FEIGNED OR
MERELY FORMAL.  WHILE THE MORTGAGE AND THE DEBT, WHICH CREATED THE
OPPOSITION INHERENT IN THE RELATION OF MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE OR
BETWEEN DEBTOR AND CREDITOR, WERE UNDENIED, CHASE WAS ASKING THAT ITS
LIEN BE JUDICIALLY CONSTRUED TO COVER NOT MERELY THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY
DESCRIBED THEREIN BUT ALSO THE ENTIRE INTEREST OF INDIANAPOLIS GAS IN
THE LEASE, WHICH REQUIRED PAYMENTS TO STOCKHOLDERS OVER AND ABOVE THE
INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR THE BONDHOLDERS.  FURTHERMORE, CHASE ASKED THE
COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ESCROW AGREEMENT BY WHICH INDIANAPOLIS AND THE
CITY HAD ASSUMED TO EXCLUDE CHASE FROM DOMINION OVER THE ESCROW FUNDS. 
CHASE DEMANDED THAT INDIANAPOLIS GAS BE DENIED FUTURE CONTROL OVER SUCH
FUNDS AND THAT THEY BE PAID DIRECTLY TO ITSELF.  THESE WERE CONFLICTS
AS TO THE EXTENT OF ITS INTEREST IN, AND CONTROL OVER, ANY CAUSE OF
ACTION AGAINST THE CITY.  THEY EXISTED BETWEEN CHASE AND THE DEFENDANT
INDIANAPOLIS GAS, AND CONCERNED THEM ALONE. 

THERE WAS ALSO AN ISSUE AS TO THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE TRUSTEE'S
CLAIM, WHICH ALL DEFENDANTS HAD A COMMON INTEREST IN MINIMIZING.  THE
TRUSTEE CLAIMED TO BE ENTITLED TO INTEREST AT 6%, AFTER DEFAULT, ON
COUPONS WHICH BORE A 5% INTEREST RATE, AND IT ALSO CLAIMED INTEREST ON
OVERDUE INTEREST.  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ONLY ISSUE
CONCERNS THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT, AS TO WHICH A MORTGAGOR AGREES WITH
THE PLAINTIFF, BUT THE ISSUE IS CONTESTED ONLY BY ANOTHER MORTGAGOR WHO
HAS ASSUMED THE ENTIRE MORTGAGE DEBT, THE MORTGAGE AND THE DEBT ARE THE
REAL SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONTROVERSY; THAT THE DECREE WHEN THE AMOUNT
IS ASCERTAINED MUST RUN AGAINST ALL DEBTORS; AND THAT THE UNCONTESTING
MORTGAGOR IS A NECESSARY PARTY ON THE SIDE OPPOSITE THE MORTGAGEE. 
AYRES V. WISWALL, 112 U.S. 187. 

THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES ON WHICH THE DEFENDANTS WERE IN SHARP
CONFLICT BETWEEN THEMSELVES.  INDIANAPOLIS GAS AND CHASE BOTH SERVED
THEIR RESPECTIVE INTERESTS BY CONTENDING AGAINST THE CITY THAT ITS ACTS
HAD THE LEGAL EFFECT OF BINDING IT TO THE TERMS OF THE LEASE.  BUT
THEIR COMMON ATTITUDE IN RELATION TO THIS ISSUE SPRANG FROM DIFFERENT
LEGAL ORIGINS.  THE RIGHTS OF CHASE HAD THEIR SOURCE AND THEIR MEASURE
IN THE MORTGAGE.  THE MORTGAGE MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT, DEPENDING UPON THE
OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION, BE CONSTRUED TO GIVE CHASE A RIGHT TO
ENFORCE FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT THE LEASE TERMS AS AGAINST THE CITY. 
INDIANAPOLIS GAS, ON THE OTHER HAND, DERIVED NO RIGHTS AGAINST THE CITY
FROM THAT INSTRUMENT AND WAS NOT, LIKE CHASE, LIMITED BY IT.
INDIANAPOLIS GAS'S RIGHTS HAD NO OTHER MEASURE THAN THAT FOUND IN THE
TERMS OF THE LEASE ITSELF. 

WE WOULD BE DILIGENT, NO LESS THAN THE MAJORITY, TO PREVENT
IMPOSITION ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS BY MEANS OF
"WINDOW DRESSING" OR "ARTIFICE."  WE FIND IN THIS CASE NOTHING THAT
WARRANTS EITHER CHARACTERIZATION, AND WE THINK THAT THE PRECEDENTS
INVOKED TO SUPPORT TODAY'S ACTION REVEAL THE GAP WHICH DIVIDES THE
DOCTRINE OF REALIGNMENT, AS HERETOFORE APPLIED BY THIS COURT, FROM THE
APPLICATION MADE OF IT TODAY. 

THE MAJORITY OPINION LEANS HEAVILY ON DAWSON V. COLUMBIA TRUST CO.,
197 U.S. 178.  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN THAT CASE SAID:  "  ...  IT IS
OBVIOUS THAT THE WATER WORKS COMPANY IS ON THE PLAINTIFF'S SIDE AND WAS
MADE A DEFENDANT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING IN THE UNITED
STATES COURT A CONTROVERSY WHICH HAD BEEN DECIDED AGAINST IT IN THE
COURTS OF THE STATE."  AND HE SAID AGAIN:  "  ...  WHEN THE ARRANGEMENT
OF THE PARTIES IS MERELY A CONTRIVANCE BETWEEN FRIENDS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF FOUNDING A JURISDICTION WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT EXIST, THE DEVICE
CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SUCCEED."  AND SO SAY WE.  BUT THERE IS NOT THE
SLIGHTEST INDICATION OF THIS KIND OF CONNIVANCE IN THE CASE BEFORE US. 

IN HELM V. ZARECOR, 222 U.S. 32, THIS COURT REFUSED TO ALIGN WITH THE
PLAINTIFFS A CORPORATION ALTHOUGH ITS BOARD AND OFFICERS WERE IN ENTIRE
AGREEMENT WITH THE POSITION OF COMPLAINANTS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 
ANOTHER OF THE CASES INVOKED IS NILES-BEMENT CO. V. IRON MOULDERS
UNION, 254 U.S. 77.  HERE A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION SOUGHT TO BREAK A
STRIKE BY FILING A BILL IN AN OHIO DISTRICT COURT AGAINST LABOR UNIONS,
INDIVIDUAL STRIKERS, AND AN OHIO CORPORATION, ALL CITIZENS OF OHIO. 
THE NEW JERSEY PLAINTIFF OWNED A CONTROLLING INTEREST IN THE OHIO
DEFENDANT, THE TWO HAD COMMON OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, AND NO RELIEF
WHATEVER WAS ASKED AGAINST THE OHIO COMPANY, WHICH THE BILL ALLEGED WAS
BEING DELAYED IN DELIVERY OF GOODS BECAUSE OF THE STRIKE.  THE COURT
REFUSED TO ALLOW SUCH AN IMPOSITION ON ITS JURISDICTION.  IN SUTTON V.
ENGLISH, 246 U.S. 199, THIS COURT HELD IT TO BE ERROR TO ALIGN ONE OF
THE DEFENDANTS WITH THE PLAINTIFF FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES WHERE HER
INTEREST WAS ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF ON ONE OUT OF FOUR ISSUES, ALTHOUGH
WITH PLAINTIFF AS TO THREE OF THE FOUR. 

WE TAKE THE STATEMENT IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, THAT ITS BASIS IS
"NOT IN LEGAL LEARNING BUT IN THE REALITIES OF THE RECORD," TO BE
ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT IT DISAGREES WITH THE LOWER COURT'S VIEW OF
THE FACTS RATHER THAN WITH ITS VIEW OF THE LAW.  REVIEW OF FACTS IS NOT
THE CONVENTIONAL FUNCTION OF THIS COURT, AND RESORT TO IT AT THIS STAGE
OF THIS LITIGATION IS SOMEWHAT LESS THAN FAIR TO THE COURTS BELOW AS
WELL AS TO THE LITIGANTS. 

THREE YEARS AGO THIS COURT REFUSED TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THIS CONTROVERSY WAS WITHIN THE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION.  INDIANAPOLIS V. CHASE NATIONAL BANK, 305 U.S. 600.  OF
COURSE, A DENIAL OF CERTIORARI IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A RULING ON THE
MERITS OF ANY QUESTION PRESENTED.  HOWEVER, WHERE THE CASE IS AGAIN
BROUGHT HERE AFTER SOME YEARS OF LITIGATION, JURISDICTION OUGHT NOT TO
BE OVERTURNED ON LIGHT OR INCONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS, OR ON DISAGREEMENTS
WITH THE COURT BELOW ON MATTERS OF FACT.  TO DO SO HERE IS LIKELY TO
RESULT IN FURTHER AND, AS WE SEE IT, NEEDLESS DELAY IN SETTLING THE
STATUS OF AN IMPORTANT UTILITY AND THE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF A
POPULOUS MUNICIPALITY.  WE THINK IT THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO END THIS
CONTROVERSY BY PROCEEDING TO JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS, AND THAT NOTHING
IN THIS RECORD JUSTIFIES OUSTING THESE PARTIES FROM THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  IF, AS THE OPINION INTIMATES, THE FOREFATHERS ARE THOUGHT TO
HAVE BEEN UNWISE IN CREATING A FEDERAL JURISDICTION BASED ON DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP, WE SHOULD THINK THE REMEDY OF THOSE SO MINDED WOULD BE
FOUND IN CONGRESSIONAL WITHDRAWAL OF SUCH JURISDICTION, RATHER THAN IN
THE CONFUSING PROCESS OF JUDICIAL CONSTRICTION. 

WE WOULD FOLLOW THE WORDS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE WHEN IT IS
SOUGHT TO RESTRICT ITS APPLICATION, QUITE AS FAITHFULLY AS WHEN THE
EFFORT IS TO ENLARGE IT BY RECOURSE TO DOCTRINES WHICH CONFLICT WITH
ITS WORDS.  COMPARE HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263, 270. 
..END :




CUNO CORP. V. AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., 314 U.S. 84 


NO. 37.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 23, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  -
117 F.2D 361, REVERSED. 


1.  CLAIMS 2, 3, AND 11 OF THE MEAD PATENT, NO. 1,736,544, FOR
IMPROVEMENTS IN LIGHTERS (COMMONLY USED IN AUTOMOBILES) FOR CIGARS,
CIGARETTES, AND PIPES, HELD INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  P. 88. 

2.  MEAD'S ADDITION TO THE SO-CALLED WIRELESS OR CORDLESS LIGHTER OF
A THERMOSTATIC CONTROL - WHICH, AFTER THE PLUG WAS SET "ON" AND THE
HEATING COIL HAD REACHED THE PROPER TEMPERATURE, AUTOMATICALLY RETURNED
THE PLUG TO ITS "OFF" POSITION - WAS NOT INVENTION BUT A MERE EXERCISE
OF THE SKILL OF THE CALLING, AND AN ADVANCE PLAINLY INDICATED BY THE
PRIOR ART. P. 89. 

3.  THAT MEAD'S COMBINATION PERFORMED A NEW AND USEFUL FUNCTION DID
NOT MAKE IT PATENTABLE.  THE NEW DEVICE, HOWEVER USEFUL, MUST REVEAL
THE FLASH OF CREATIVE GENIUS, NOT MERELY THE SKILL OF THE CALLING.  P.
90. 

CUNO ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 553, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER CLAIMS 2,
3, AND 11 OF THE MEAD PATENT NO. 1,736,544 ARE VALID.  IN A SUIT FOR
INFRINGEMENT, THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE CLAIMS WERE
NOT INFRINGED, 34 F.SUPP.  146, WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, WHICH HELD THEM VALID AND INFRINGED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT FOR INFRINGEMENT,
INTER ALIA, UPON CLAIMS 2, 3, AND 11 OF PATENT NO. 1,736,544, GRANTED
NOVEMBER 19, 1929, ON THE APPLICATION OF H.E. MEAD, FILED AUGUST 24,
1927, FOR A CIGAR LIGHTER.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THESE CLAIMS NOT
INFRINGED.  34 F.SUPP.  146.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,
HOLDING THEM VALID AND INFRINGED.  117 F.2D 361.  WE GRANTED THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER CLAIMS 2, 3,
AND 11 OF THE MEAD PATENT ARE VALID, BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
DECISION BELOW AND AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP. V. SINKO TOOL &
MANUFACTURING CO., 112 F.2D 335, DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION  FN1  ARE FOR IMPROVEMENTS IN LIGHTERS,
COMMONLY FOUND IN AUTOMOBILES, FOR CIGARS, CIGARETTES AND PIPES.  THERE
WERE EARLIER LIGHTERS OF THE "REEL TYPE."  THE IGNITER UNIT WAS
CONNECTED WITH A SOURCE OF CURRENT BY A CABLE WHICH WAS WOUND ON A
SPRING DRUM SO THAT THE IGNITER UNIT AND CABLE COULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM
THE SOCKET AND BE USED FOR LIGHTING A CIGAR OR CIGARETTE.  AS THE
REMOVABLE PLUG WAS RETURNED TO THE SOCKET, THE WIRES WERE REELED BACK
INTO IT. THE CIRCUIT WAS CLOSED EITHER BY MANUAL OPERATION OF A BUTTON
OR BY WITHDRAWAL OF THE IGNITER FROM ITS SOCKET.  IN 1921, THE MORRIS
PATENT (NO. 1,376,154) WAS ISSUED FOR A SO-CALLED "WIRELESS" OR
"CORDLESS" LIGHTER.  THIS LIGHTER ELIMINATED THE CABLES AND THE
MECHANISM FOR WINDING AND UNWINDING THEM, IT PROVIDED FOR HEATING THE
IGNITED UNIT WITHOUT REMOVING IT FROM ITS SOCKET, AND IT ELIMINATED ALL
ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL CONNECTION OF THE IGNITER UNIT WITH THE
SOCKET ONCE IT WAS REMOVED THEREFROM FOR USE.  SEVERAL TYPES OF THE
"WIRELESS" OR "CORDLESS" LIGHTER APPEARED.  FN2  MORRIS REPRESENTED A
TYPE IN WHICH THE CIRCUIT WAS OPEN WHEN THE PLUG RESTED IN THE SOCKET
AND CLOSED WHEN THE PLUG WAS PUSHED FARTHER INTO THE SOCKET AGAINST THE
RESISTANCE OF A SPRING.  IN ZECCHINI (NO. 1,437,701) THE OPERATOR
PRESSED AND HELD DOWN A PUSH-BUTTON TO CLOSE THE CIRCUIT.  IN METZGER
(NO. 1,622,334) THE OPERATOR CLOSED THE CIRCUIT BY DEPRESSING AND
ROTATING THE PLUG.  IN EACH THE OPERATOR WAS OBLIGED TO HOLD THE PLUG,
OR THE CIRCUIT-CLOSING PART, IN PLACE UNTIL THE HEATING COIL BECAME HOT
ENOUGH FOR USE.  AFTER HE CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD BECOME HOT ENOUGH (BY
OBSERVATION OR GUESSWORK), HE REMOVED THE PLUG, USING IT LIKE A MATCH
OR HOT COAL, AND THEN REPLACED IT IN THE SOCKET.  THUS, THESE LIGHTERS
WERE SAID TO REQUIRE RATHER CONTINUAL ATTENTION ON THE PART OF THE
PERSON USING THEM, SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO OVER-HEATING OR BURNING
OUT OF THE HEATING COIL. 

THIS INCONVENIENCE AND HAZARD WERE ELIMINATED, ACCORDING TO
RESPONDENT,  FN3  BY THE AUTOMATIC FEATURE OF THE MEAD PATENT.  MEAD
ADDED TO THE SO-CALLED "WIRELESS" OR "CORDLESS" LIGHTER A THERMOSTATIC
CONTROL RESPONSIVE TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE HEATING COIL.  IN
OPERATION IT AUTOMATICALLY RETURNED THE PLUG TO ITS "OFF" POSITION
AFTER THE HEATING COIL HAD REACHED THE PROPER TEMPERATURE.  TO OPERATE
MEAD'S DEVICE, THE KNOB ON THE IGNITER PLUG WAS TURNED TO A POINT WHERE
AN ELECTRICAL CONNECTION WAS ESTABLISHED FROM THE BATTERY THROUGH THE
HEATING COIL.  THERE THE PLUG REMAINED TEMPORARILY LATCHED.  WHEN THE
HEATING COIL WAS SUFFICIENTLY HOT FOR USE, THE BIMETALLIC ELEMENTS IN
THE THERMOSTAT, RESPONSIVE TO THE TEMPERATURE CONDITION OF THE HEATING
COIL, CAUSED THE IGNITER PLUG TO BE RELEASED AND TO BE MOVED BY
OPERATION OF A SPRING TO OPEN-CIRCUIT POSITION.  THE PLUG MIGHT THEN BE
MANUALLY REMOVED FOR USE IN THE MANNER OF A MATCH, TORCH, OR EMBER. 
WHEN REPLACED IN THE SOCKET AFTER USE, IT WAS HELD IN OPEN-CIRCUIT
POSITION UNTIL NEXT NEEDED. 

PETITIONER MAKES SEVERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIMS:
THAT THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FOR FULL, CLEAR AND CONCISE
DESCRIPTION PRESCRIBED BY 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33, R.S. SEC. 4888; THAT THEY
ARE INDEFINITE AND BROADER THAN ANY DISCLOSED INVENTION; AND THAT THEY
ARE FOR A DEVICE SO IMPERFECT AND UNSUCCESSFUL THAT A CONSTRUCTION OF
THE CLAIMS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.  SEE DEERING
V. WINONA HARVESTER WORKS, 155 U.S. 286, 295.  WE DO NOT, HOWEVER, STOP
TO CONSIDER THESE OBJECTIONS.  FOR IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE MEAD
DEVICE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF INVENTION BUT A "MERE EXERCISE OF THE
SKILL OF THE CALLING," AN ADVANCE "PLAINLY INDICATED BY THE PRIOR ART."
ALTOONA PUBLIX THEATRES V. AMERICAN TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477,
486. 

THERMOSTATIC CONTROLS OF A HEATING UNIT, OPERATING TO CUT OFF AN
ELECTRIC CURRENT ENERGIZING THE UNIT WHEN ITS TEMPERATURE HAD REACHED
THE DESIRED POINT, WERE WELL KNOWN TO THE ART WHEN MEAD MADE HIS
DEVICE.  THEY HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN A WIDE VARIETY OF ELECTRICAL DESIGNS
SINCE HAMMARSTROM, IN 1893(NO. 493,380), SHOWED A BIMETALLIC THERMOSTAT
TO BREAK A CIRCUIT WHEN IT GOT OVERCHARGED.  A FEW EXAMPLES WILL
SUFFICE.  HARLEY, IN 1907(NO. 852,326), INCLUDED SUCH A THERMOSTAT IN
AN ELECTRIC HEATER FOR VULCANIZING, SO AS TO LIMIT AUTOMATICALLY THE
TEMPERATURE ATTAINABLE.  ANDREWS, IN 1912(NO. 1,025,852), SHOWED A
BIMETALLIC THERMOSTAT IN AN ELECTRICAL FLAT IRON, DESIGNED TO OPEN THE
CIRCUIT AT A PREDETERMINED TEMPERATURE.  IN 1919, NEWSOM (NO.
1,318,168), SHOWED AN ELECTRIC COFFEE COOKER IN WHICH A THERMOSTAT,
ACTUATED BY THE TEMPERATURE WITHIN THE RECEPTACLE, OPERATED TO OPEN AND
CLOSE THE CIRCUIT INTERMITTENTLY.  STAHL, IN 1921(NO. 1,372,207),
SHOWED AN ELECTRIC SWITCH AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED BY OPERATION OF A
THERMOSTAT.  HURXTHAL, IN 1925(NO. 1,540,628), SHOWED AN ELECTRIC BREAD
TOASTER WITH A THERMOSTAT FOR STOPPING THE TOASTING WHEN THE BREAD
REACHED A GIVEN DEGREE OF TEMPERATURE.  COPELAND (NO. 1,844,206), FILED
APRIL 18, 1927, BEFORE MEAD, SHOWED AN ELECTRIC LIGHTER FOR CIGARS AND
CIGARETTES WITH THERMOSTATIC CONTROL.  IT DIFFERED FROM MEAD IN SEVERAL
RESPECTS.  THUS, IN COPELAND'S DEVICE A CIGAR WAS INSERTED IN A TUBE AT
THE END OF WHICH WAS A HEATING COIL.  BY PRESSING THE CIGAR AGAINST THE
HEATING COIL (OR IN ANOTHER FORM, BY PRESSING A PUSH-BUTTON) A SPRING
WAS OVERSET AND THE CIRCUIT CLOSED.  WHEN THE DESIRED TEMPERATURE OF
THE HEATING UNIT WAS REACHED, A THERMOSTATIC BAR PUSHED BACK THE SPRING
AND OPENED THE CIRCUIT.  THUS, IN THE COPELAND DEVICE THE CIGAR (OR THE
PUSH-BUTTON) WAS THE "MEANS FOR MOVING" THE "HEATING MEMBER" OF THE
MEAD CLAIMS SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE ENERGIZING ELECTRIC HEATING
CIRCUIT.  THE ADVANCE OF MEAD OVER COPELAND WAS THE USE OF THE
REMOVABLE PLUG BEARING THE HEATING UNIT, AS IN MORRIS, TO ESTABLISH THE
AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED CIRCUIT OF COPELAND. 

AND SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT WAS INVENTION FOR ONE SKILLED IN
THE ART AND FAMILIAR WITH MORRIS AND COPELAND, AND WITH THE EXTENSIVE
USE OF THE AUTOMATIC THERMOSTATIC CONTROL OF AN ELECTRIC HEATING
CIRCUIT, TO APPLY THE COPELAND AUTOMATIC CIRCUIT TO THE MORRIS
REMOVABLE HEATING UNIT IN SUBSTITUTION FOR A CIRCUIT MANUALLY
CONTROLLED. 

TO INCORPORATE SUCH A THERMOSTATIC CONTROL IN A SO-CALLED "WIRELESS"
OR "CORDLESS" LIGHTER WAS NOT TO MAKE AN "INVENTION" OR "DISCOVERY"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PATENT LAWS.  AS WE HAVE SHOWN, BOTH THE
THERMOSTATICALLY CONTROLLED HEATING UNIT AND THE LIGHTER WITH A
REMOVABLE PLUG BEARING THE HEATING UNIT WERE DISCLOSED BY THE PRIOR
ART. MORE MUST BE DONE THAN TO UTILIZE THE SKILL OF THE ART IN BRINGING
OLD TOOLS INTO NEW COMBINATIONS.  HAILES V. VAN WORMER, 20 WALL.  353,
368; PICKERING V. MCCULLOUGH, 104 U.S. 310, 318; THATCHER HEATING CO.
V. BURTIS, 121 U.S. 286, 294; CONCRETE APPLIANCES CO. V. GOMERY, 269
U.S. 177, 184-185; POWERS-KENNEDY CONTRACTING CORP. V. CONCRETE MIXING
& CONVEYING CO., 282 U.S. 175, 186; CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS
DEV.  CO., 283 U.S. 420.  RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, CONTENDS THAT WHOLLY NEW
FUNCTIONS WERE INVOLVED IN MEAD'S CONCEPTION, VIZ., RELIEVING THE
OPERATOR OF THE NECESSITY OF MANUALLY HOLDING THE PLUG IN CLOSED
CIRCUIT POSITION, AND AUTOMATICALLY AND PERMANENTLY OPENING THE CIRCUIT
WHEN THE HEATING COIL WAS AT THE TEMPERATURE PREDETERMINED FOR ITS
PROPER USE.  AND RESPONDENT ARGUES, MEAD'S NEW COMBINATION HAD AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MODE OF OPERATION FROM ANY "WIRELESS" LIGHTER THEN
IN EXISTENCE AND FROM ANY THERMOSTATICALLY CONTROLLED ELECTRIC DEVICE. 
FN4 

WE MAY CONCEDE THAT THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY MEAD'S COMBINATION
WERE NEW AND USEFUL.  BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE THE DEVICE
PATENTABLE.  UNDER THE STATUTE (35 U.S.C. SEC. 31; R.S. SEC. 4886) THE
DEVICE MUST NOT ONLY BE "NEW AND USEFUL," IT MUST ALSO BE AN
"INVENTION" OR "DISCOVERY."  THOMPSON V. BOISSELIER, 114 U.S. 1, 11. 
SINCE HOTCHKISS V. GREENWOOD, 11 HOW.  248, 267, DECIDED IN 1851, IT
HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT IF AN IMPROVEMENT IS TO OBTAIN THE PRIVILEGED
POSITION OF A PATENT MORE INGENUITY MUST BE INVOLVED THAN THE WORK OF A
MECHANIC SKILLED IN THE ART.  HICKS V. KELSEY, 18 WALL.  670; SLAWSON
V. GRAND STREET R. CO., 107 U.S. 649; PHILLIPS V. DETROIT, 111 U.S.
604; MORRIS V. MCMILLIN, 112 U.S. 244; SARANAC AUTOMATIC MACHINE CORP.
V. WIREBOUNDS PATENTS CO., 282 U.S. 704; HONOLULU OIL CORP. V.
HALLIBURTON, 306 U.S. 550.  "PERFECTION OF WORKMANSHIP, HOWEVER MUCH IT
MAY INCREASE THE CONVENIENCE, EXTEND THE USE, OR DIMINISH EXPENSE, IS
NOT PATENTABLE."  RECKENDORFER V. FABER, 92 U.S. 347, 356-357.  THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE HOTCHKISS CASE APPLIES TO THE ADAPTATION OR
COMBINATION OF OLD OR WELL KNOWN DEVICES FOR NEW USES.  PHILLIPS V.
DETROIT, SUPRA; CONCRETE APPLIANCES CO. V. GOMERY, SUPRA; POWERS
KENNEDY CONTRACTING CORP. V. CONCRETE MIXING & CONVEYING CO., SUPRA;
ELECTRIC CABLE JOINT CO. V. BROOKLYN EDISON CO., 292 U.S. 69; ALTOONA
PUBLIX THEATRES V. AMERICAN TRI-ERGON CORP., SUPRA; TEXTILE MACHINE
WORKS V. LOUIS HIRSCH TEXTILE MACHINES, INC., 302 U.S. 490; TOLEDO
PRESSED STEEL CO. V. STANDARD PARTS, INC., 307 U.S. 350.  THAT IS TO
SAY, THE NEW DEVICE, HOWEVER USEFUL IT MAY BE, MUST REVEAL THE FLASH OF
CREATIVE GENIUS, NOT MERELY THE SKILL OF THE CALLING.  IF IT FAILS, IT
HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ITS RIGHT TO A PRIVATE GRANT ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 

TESTED BY THAT PRINCIPLE, MEAD'S DEVICE WAS NOT PATENTABLE.  WE
CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT HIS SKILL IN MAKING THIS CONTRIBUTION REACHED THE
LEVEL OF INVENTIVE GENIUS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION (ART. I, SEC. 8)
AUTHORIZES CONGRESS TO REWARD.  HE MERELY INCORPORATED THE WELL-KNOWN
THERMOSTAT INTO THE OLD "WIRELESS" LIGHTER TO PRODUCE A MORE EFFICIENT,
USEFUL, AND CONVENIENT ARTICLE.  CF. ELECTRIC CABLE JOINT CO. V.
BROOKLYN EDISON CO., SUPRA.  A NEW APPLICATION OF AN OLD DEVICE MAY NOT
BE PATENTED IF THE "RESULT CLAIMED AS NEW IS THE SAME IN CHARACTER AS
THE ORIGINAL RESULT" (BLAKE V. SAN FRANCISCO, 113 U.S. 679, 683), EVEN
THOUGH THE NEW RESULT HAD NOT BEFORE BEEN CONTEMPLATED.  PENNSYLVANIA
R. CO. V. LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE SAFETY TRUCK CO., 110 U.S. 490, 494, AND
CASES CITED.  CERTAINLY, THE USE OF A THERMOSTAT TO BREAK A CIRCUIT IN
A "WIRELESS" CIGAR LIGHTER IS ANALOGOUS TO, OR THE SAME IN CHARACTER
AS, THE USE OF SUCH A DEVICE IN ELECTRIC HEATERS, TOASTERS, OR IRONS,
WHATEVER MAY BE THE DIFFERENCE IN DETAIL OF DESIGN.  INGENUITY WAS
REQUIRED TO EFFECT THE ADAPTATION, BUT NO MORE THAN THAT TO BE EXPECTED
OF A MECHANIC SKILLED IN THE ART. 

STRICT APPLICATION OF THAT TEST IS NECESSARY LEST IN THE CONSTANT
DEMAND FOR NEW APPLIANCES THE HEAVY HAND OF TRIBUTE BE LAID ON EACH
SLIGHT TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE IN AN ART. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
ALTERNATIVE COURSE WERE FORCEFULLY POINTED OUT BY MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY
IN ATLANTIC WORKS V. BRADY, 107 U.S. 192, 200:  "SUCH AN INDISCRIMINATE
CREATION OF EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES TENDS RATHER TO OBSTRUCT THAN TO
STIMULATE INVENTION.  IT CREATES A CLASS OF SPECULATIVE SCHEMERS WHO
MAKE IT THEIR BUSINESS TO WATCH THE ADVANCING WAVE OF IMPROVEMENT, AND
GATHER ITS FOAM IN THE FORM OF PATENTED MONOPOLIES, WHICH ENABLE THEM
TO LAY A HEAVY TAX UPON THE INDUSTRY OF THE COUNTRY, WITHOUT
CONTRIBUTING ANYTHING TO THE REAL ADVANCEMENT OF THE ARTS.  IT
EMBARRASSES THE HONEST PURSUIT OF BUSINESS WITH FEARS AND APPREHENSIONS
OF CONCEALED LIENS AND UNKNOWN LIABILITIES TO LAWSUITS AND VEXATIOUS
ACCOUNTINGS FOR PROFITS MADE IN GOOD FAITH."  CF. MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL
DISSENTING IN WINANS V. DENMEAD, 15 HOW.  330, 344, 345, 347; HAMILTON,
PATENTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE, MON.  NO. 31; INVESTIGATION OF
CONCENTRATION, OF ECONOMIC POWER, TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., CH. VIII (1941). 

SUCH CONSIDERATIONS PREVENT ANY RELAXATION OF THE RULE OF THE
HOTCHKISS CASE AS RESPONDENT WOULD SEEM TO DESIRE.  REVERSED.    FN1
"2.  IN A DEVICE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED, A REMOVABLE HEATING MEMBER
HAVING AN ELECTRICAL HEATING UNIT, A SOCKET FOR RECEIVING AND HOLDING
SAID HEATING MEMBER, ELECTRICAL CURRENT SUPPLY TERMINALS, MEANS FOR
MOVING SAID HEATING MEMBER TO A POSITION FOR ESTABLISHING AN ENERGIZING
CIRCUIT TO SAID HEATING UNIT, AND MEANS RESPONSIVE TO THE TEMPERATURE
OF SAID HEATING UNIT FOR INTERRUPTING SAID ENERGIZING CIRCUIT. 

"3.  IN A LIGHTING DEVICE FOR CIGARS AND THE LIKE, A REMOVABLE
HEATING MEMBER HAVING AN ELECTRIC HEATER, A SUPPORT FOR RECEIVING AND
HOLDING SAID HEATING MEMBER, CURRENT SUPPLY TERMINALS ON SAID SUPPORT,
SAID HEATING MEMBER BEING MOVABLE ON SAID SUPPORT TO A POSITION WHERE
SAID HEATING UNIT IS ENERGIZED FROM SAID TERMINALS AND MEANS RESPONSIVE
TO THE TEMPERATURE OF SAID HEATING UNIT FOR CONTROLLING THE HEATING
THEREOF. 

"11.  IN AN ELECTRIC LIGHTER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED, A BASE MEMBER, A
HEATER MEMBER MOVABLY MOUNTED ON SAID BASE MEMBER, AN ELECTRIC HEATER
ON SAID HEATER MEMBER, ELECTRICAL SUPPLY TERMINALS ON SAID BASE MEMBER,
SAID HEATER MEMBER BEING MOVABLE BETWEEN AN ENERGIZED POSITION WHERE A
CIRCUIT IS ESTABLISHED FROM SAID TERMINALS TO SAID HEATER, AND AN OFF
POSITION WHERE SAID CIRCUIT IS INTERRUPTED, AND AUTOMATIC MEANS FOR
WITHDRAWING SAID HEATER MEMBER FROM THE ON POSITION TO THE OFF POSITION
UPON HEATING OF SAID HEATER." 

FN2  SOME OF THESE ARE REVIEWED IN CASCO PRODUCTS CORP. V. SINKO TOOL
& MFG. CO., 116 F.2D 119. 

FN3  A PATENT HOLDING COMPANY WHICH HOLDS THE MEAD PATENT UNDER MESNE
ASSIGNMENTS.  NO ISSUE, HOWEVER, IS RAISED UNDER THE ASSIGNMENT
STATUTE. 

FN4  RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT MEAD'S COMBINATION WAS DIFFERENT FROM ANY
PRIOR THERMOSTATIC DEVICE BECAUSE, IN THE LATTER, THE OPERATION OF THE
THERMOSTAT WAS PLACED EITHER UNDER THE CONTROL OF SOME OTHER THING,
SUCH AS THE SOLE PLATE OF AN ELECTRIC IRON, OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF AN
AUXILIARY RESISTANCE.  THE POINT IS THAT IN MEAD'S COMBINATION THE
EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF THE THERMOSTAT WAS PLACED UNDER THE SOLE CONTROL
OF THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WORKING RESISTANCE.  WE AGREE, HOWEVER, WITH
THE COURT BELOW THAT ANY SUCH DIFFERENCE WAS MERELY ONE OF DETAIL OF
DESIGN, ON WHICH MEAD'S INVENTION CANNOT REST.  IN ANY CASE, IT IS THE
TEMPERATURE CREATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE THERMOSTAT THAT IS
EFFECTIVE.  THE MANNER IN WHICH IT IS TRANSMITTED TO THE THERMOSTAT
DOES NOT RISE TO THE DIGNITY OF A PATENTABLE DEVICE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE: 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

I AGREE THAT THE USE OF THE WELL KNOWN THERMOSTATICALLY CONTROLLED
HEATING CIRCUIT EXEMPLIFIED BY COPELAND, WITH THE REMOVABLE WIRELESS
HEATING UNIT PLUG OF MORRIS, IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE MANUALLY
CONTROLLED CIRCUIT WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED WITH THE PLUG,
EXHIBITED NO MORE THAN THE SKILL OF THE ART. THE DOUBT WHICH THE COURT
BELOW RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF PATENTABILITY BECAUSE COPELAND'S INVENTION
WAS "STILL-BORN" SHOULD, I THINK, HAVE BEEN RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONERS, BECAUSE MEAD WAS LIKEWISE STILL-BORN SO FAR AS ITS
SUBSTANTIAL COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS CONCERNED. 

THE COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL STRUCTURE FOR WHICH RESPONDENT CLAIMS THE
PROTECTION OF THE MEAD PATENT, AND WHICH THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT
SATISFIED A FELT NEED, IS NOT THE STRUCTURE DESCRIBED BY MEAD.  BOTH
EMBODY THE COMBINATION OF A THERMOSTATICALLY CONTROLLED HEATING CIRCUIT
WITH A HEATING UNIT BORNE ON A REMOVABLE WIRELESS PLUG AND USED AS A
MEANS TO CLOSE THE CIRCUIT.  BUT THEY DIFFER STRUCTURALLY IN A NUMBER
OF PARTICULARS. 

TO MENTION ONLY THE MORE IMPORTANT, MEAD SHOWED A ROTATABLE SOCKET
WHICH IS TURNED BY MANUALLY ROTATING THE PLUG WHEN PLACED IN THE
SOCKET, SO AS TO CLOSE THE HEATING CIRCUIT.  A LATERALLY EXTENDING PIN
PROJECTING FROM THE SIDE OF THE PLUG, IN THE MEAD STRUCTURE, ENGAGES
WITH A SPRING LATCH OUTSIDE THE SOCKET TO HOLD THE PLUG AND SOCKET IN
THE CIRCUIT-CLOSING POSITION TO WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN ROTATED, UNTIL THE
LATCH IS RELEASED BY THE THERMOSTATIC CONTROL, THUS PERMITTING THE PLUG
AND THE SOCKET, WHICH IS ACTIVATED BY A SPRING, TO ROTATE BACK TO THE
OPEN CIRCUIT POSITION.  THE BASE REQUIRED FOR THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE
ROTATING SOCKET AND ITS EXTERNALLY OPERATED MECHANISM WAS LARGE AND
CUMBERSOME.  RESPONDENT'S COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, LIKE THE ALLEGED
INFRINGING DEVICE, UTILIZES A FIXED SOCKET WITHIN WHICH THE
THERMOSTATIC CIRCUIT CONTROL IS LOCATED AND INTO WHICH THE HEAT-UNIT
CARRYING PLUG MAY BE INSERTED WITHOUT NECESSITY OF ROTATING IT AS IN
THE CASE OF THE ROTATING PLUG WITH THE PROJECTING PIN SHOWN BY MEAD. 
THE THERMOSTATICALLY CONTROLLED CIRCUIT IS CLOSED BY PRESSING THE PLUG
FURTHER INTO THE SOCKET, THE PLUG BEING RESTORED TO AN OPEN CIRCUIT
POSITION BY A SPRING CARRIED ON THE PLUG, WHEN THE LATCH MAINTAINING
THE CLOSED CIRCUIT IS THERMOSTATICALLY RELEASED. 

THE COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITED DEVICE, BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN ITS
STRUCTURE FROM THAT SHOWN BY MEAD, IS THE MORE COMPACT AND EASILY
OPERATED.  ITS UTILITY AS A LIGHTER TO BE LOCATED ON THE DASH OF AN
AUTOMOBILE, WHICH IS SAID TO BE THE MERIT OF THE MEAD INVENTION, IS
OBVIOUS.  IF THE IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING IN SUCH UTILITY INVOLVED
INVENTION, IT IS NOT THE INVENTION OF MEAD.  IF THEY EXHIBITED ONLY THE
SKILL OF THE ART, THEIR SUCCESS CANNOT BE RELIED ON TO ESTABLISH
INVENTION BY MEAD, WHO DID NOT SHOW OR MAKE THEM.  THE CASE IS
THEREFORE NOT ONE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE THAT COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS OR THE MANIFEST SATISFACTION OF A FELT NEED WILL TURN THE SCALE
IN FAVOR OF INVENTION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP. V. SINKO TOOL & MANUFACTURING CO., 314 U.S. 94 


NO. 6.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  - 112
F.2D 335, AFFIRMED. 


DECIDED ON THE AUTHORITY OF CUNO ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC
DEVICES CORP., ANTE, P. 84. 

AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP. V. SINKO TOOL & MANUFACTURING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 711, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER CLAIMS 2,
3, AND 11 OF THE MEAD PATENT NO. 1,736,544 ARE VALID.  IN A SUIT FOR
INFRINGEMENT, A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT HOLDING THE CLAIMS VALID
AND INFRINGED WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH HELD
THEM INVALID AND NOT INFRINGED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO CUNO ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC
DEVICES CORP., ANTE, P. 84.  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT CLAIMS 2, 3, AND
11 OF THE MEAD PATENT (NO. 1,736,544) WERE INVALID AND NOT INFRINGED. 
112 F.2D 335.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE
QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF THOSE CLAIMS.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN CUNO
ENGINEERING CORP. V. AUTOMATIC DEVICES CORP., SUPRA, THE JUDGMENT IS
AFFIRMED. 
..END :
























FED. LAND BANK V. BISMARCK CO., 314 U.S. 95 


NO. 76.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1941.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 10, 1941.  - 70
N.D. 607 - 297 N.W. 42, REVERSED. 


1.  AS CONSTRUED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, THE PURCHASER IS
LIABLE FOR THE SALES TAX IMPOSED BY NORTH DAKOTA LAWS OF 1937, C. 249,
AND THIS CONSTRUCTION IS CONTROLLING.  P. 99. 

2.  SECTION 26 OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT OF 1916 EXEMPTS A FEDERAL
LAND BANK FROM THE TAX IMPOSED BY NORTH DAKOTA LAWS OF 1937, C. 249, IN
RESPECT OF PURCHASES, MADE BY THE BANK FROM A RETAIL DEALER, OF
MATERIALS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY THERETOFORE ACQUIRED BY THE
BANK IN THE COURSE OF ITS OPERATIONS.  P. 99. 

3.  IN THE PROVISION OF SEC. 26 THAT EVERY FEDERAL LAND BANK,
"INCLUDING THE CAPITAL AND RESERVE OR SURPLUS THEREIN AND THE INCOME
DERIVED THEREFROM," SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM STATE TAXATION, THE WORDS
QUOTED DO NOT DELIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION.  P. 99. 

4.  NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 26, NOR OF SIMILAR
EXEMPTION CLAUSES IN OTHER STATUTES, REQUIRES A RESULT CONTRARY TO THAT
HERE REACHED.  P. 100. 

5.  A TAX UPON THE SALE OF MATERIALS TO BE USED IN IMPROVING REAL
ESTATE IS NOT A TAX UPON THE REAL ESTATE; AND THEREFORE THE TAX HERE
INVOLVED IS NOT WITHIN THE EXCEPTION FROM THE EXEMPTION.  P. 101. 

6.  THE EXERCISE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF A POWER DELEGATED TO IT
BY THE CONSTITUTION IS GOVERNMENTAL; AND WHEN CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY
CREATES A CORPORATION THROUGH WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LAWFULLY
ACTS, THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH CORPORATION ARE GOVERNMENTAL.  P. 102. 

7.  FEDERAL LAND BANKS ARE CREATED CONSTITUTIONALLY; THEY ARE FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN IMPORTANT
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.  P. 102. 

8.  CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY IMMUNIZE FROM STATE TAXATION THE
LENDING FUNCTIONS (OR ACTIVITIES INCIDENTAL THERETO) OF FEDERAL LAND
BANKS.  P. 103. 

9.  IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER IMMUNITY FROM ONE TYPE OF
TAX, RATHER THAN ANOTHER, IS WISE.  P. 104. 

FEDERAL LAND BANK OF ST. PAUL V. BISMARCK LUMBER CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA. 

CERTIORARI, 313 U.S. 556, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE BANK FOR THE AMOUNT OF A STATE SALES TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER, IN VIEW OF SEC. 26 OF THE FEDERAL
FARM LOAN ACT OF JULY 17, 1916(C. 245, 39 STAT. 360, 380; 12 U.S.C.
SECS. 931-933),  FN1  PETITIONER IS SUBJECT TO THE SALES TAX ACT OF
NORTH DAKOTA,  FN2  THE PERTINENT SECTIONS OF WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN
THE MARGIN.  FN3 

PETITIONER, THE FEDERAL LAND BANK OF ST. PAUL, WAS CREATED PURSUANT
TO THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, SUPRA.  IN THE COURSE OF ITS OPERATIONS
IT ACQUIRED BY FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS CERTAIN FARM PROPERTIES IN
BURLEIGH COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA.  FN4  TO EFFECT NECESSARY REPAIRS AND
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDINGS AND FENCES ON THESE PROPERTIES,
PETITIONER PURCHASED LUMBER AND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS OF AN
AGGREGATE VALUE OF $408.26 FROM THE BISMARCK LUMBER COMPANY, A RETAIL
DEALER.  THE LUMBER COMPANY DEMANDED THE SUM OF $8.02 FROM PETITIONER,
REPRESENTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE STATE SALES TAX ON THE VARIOUS
PURCHASES.  THIS, PETITIONER REFUSED TO PAY.  ON MARCH 9, 1938,
PETITIONER FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURLEIGH COUNTY
AGAINST THE LUMBER COMPANY AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSIONER,  FN5
ALLEGING THE FOREGOING FACTS AND PRAYING FOR AN ADJUDICATION OF NON
LIABILITY FOR THE SALES TAX ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER IS EXEMPT
UNDER SEC. 26 OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, SUPRA, AND THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  TO THIS COMPLAINT RESPONDENTS DEMURRED.  IN SUSTAINING
THE DEMURRER THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT THE SALES TO PETITIONER WERE
SUBJECT TO THE TAX, THAT THE LUMBER COMPANY WAS REQUIRED TO COLLECT THE
TAX, AND THAT PETITIONER WAS UNDER A LEGAL DUTY TO PAY IT.
ACCORDINGLY, JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED AGAINST PETITIONER IN THE AMOUNT OF
THE TAX.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF
THE TRIAL COURT.  FEDERAL LAND BANK V. BISMARCK LUMBER CO., 70 N.D.
607, 297 N.W. 42.  THE CASE IS HERE BECAUSE IT PRESENTS A QUESTION OF
IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT. 

WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH TWO QUESTIONS: 

FIRST.  DOES SEC. 26 INCLUDE WITHIN ITS BAN A STATE SALES TAX SUCH AS
THIS?  WE HOLD THAT IT DOES. 

SECOND.  CAN CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNIZE FROM STATE TAXATION
ACTIVITIES IN FURTHERANCE OF THE LENDING FUNCTIONS OF FEDERAL LAND
BANKS?  WE HOLD THAT IT CAN. 

I. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NORTH DAKOTA STATUTE MAKES THE PURCHASER,
PETITIONER HERE, LIABLE FOR THE SALES TAX.  SECTION 6 OF THE ACT
REQUIRES THE RETAILER TO ADD THE TAX TO THE SALES PRICE AND DECLARES
THE TAX TO BE A DEBT FROM THE CONSUMER TO THE RETAILER.  SECTION 7
MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR THE RETAILER TO HOLD OUT THAT HE WILL ABSORB OR
REFUND THE TAX IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA
HAS HELD THAT THE SALES TAX IS LAID UPON THE PURCHASER.  JEWEL TEA CO.
V. STATE TAX COMMISSIONER, 70 N.D. 229, 293 N.W. 386.  THIS HOLDING WAS
REAFFIRMED IN THE DECISION BELOW.  THESE DETERMINATIONS OF THE
INCIDENCE OF THE TAX BY THE STATE COURT ARE CONTROLLING, AND
RESPONDENTS CONCEDE THE POINT. 

THE UNQUALIFIED TERM "TAXATION" USED IN SEC. 26 CLEARLY ENCOMPASSES
WITHIN ITS SCOPE A SALES TAX SUCH AS THE INSTANT ONE, AND THIS
CONCLUSION IS CONFIRMED BY THE STRUCTURE OF THE SECTION.  IN REACHING
AN OPPOSITE CONCLUSION THE COURT BELOW IGNORED THE PLAIN LANGUAGE,
"THAT EVERY FEDERAL LAND BANK  ...  SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL,
STATE, MUNICIPAL, AND LOCAL TAXATION," AND SEIZED UPON THE PHRASE,
"INCLUDING THE CAPITAL AND RESERVE OR SURPLUS THEREIN AND THE INCOME
DERIVED THEREFROM," AS DELIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION.  THE
PROTECTION OF SEC. 26 CANNOT THUS BE FRITTERED AWAY.  WE RECENTLY HAD
OCCASION, UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, TO POINT OUT THAT THE TERM
"INCLUDING" IS NOT ONE OF ALL-EMBRACING DEFINITION, BUT CONNOTES SIMPLY
AN ILLUSTRATIVE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE.  PHELPS DODGE
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177, 189; SEE ALSO HELVERING V.
MORGAN'S, INC., 293 U.S. 121, 125.  IF THE BROAD EXEMPTION ACCORDED TO
"EVERY FEDERAL LAND BANK" WERE LIMITED TO THE SPECIFIC ILLUSTRATIONS
MENTIONED IN THE PARTICIPIAL PHRASE INTRODUCED BY "INCLUDING," THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NECESSITY TO EXCEPT FROM THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 26 THE
REAL ESTATE HELD BY THE LAND BANKS. 

THE ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS GRANTED TO FARM LOAN BONDS AND FIRST
MORTGAGES EXECUTED TO THE LAND BANKS ARE PROPER ADDITIONS TO THE
GENERAL EXEMPTION OF SEC. 26.  THE BONDS MAY BE HELD BY PRIVATE
PERSONS, AND, OF COURSE, THE GENERAL EXEMPTION OF SEC. 26 WOULD NOT
EXTEND TO THEM.  LIKEWISE, THE GENERAL EXEMPTION WOULD PROTECT
MORTGAGES EXECUTED TO THE LAND BANKS AND HELD BY THEM, BUT IT WOULD NOT
SURVIVE A TRANSFER. 

NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 26 COMMANDS A CONTRARY
RESULT; FN6  AND A BROAD CONSTRUCTION IS INDICATED BY CONGRESS'S
INTENTION TO ADVANCE CREDIT TO FARM BORROWERS AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE
INTEREST RATE.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SIMILAR EXEMPTION CLAUSES IN
OTHER STATUTES SUPPORTS OUR INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 26.  FN7 

IT CANNOT BE SERIOUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE TAX FALLS WITHIN THE REAL
ESTATE EXCEPTION TO SEC. 26.  OBVIOUSLY, A TAX UPON THE SALE OF
BUILDING MATERIALS TO BE USED ON THE REAL ESTATE OF A FEDERAL LAND BANK
IS NOT A TAX UPON THAT REAL ESTATE. 

II.  THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENTS, AND THE MAJOR GROUND OF
THE DECISION BELOW, IS THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNIZE
THE LENDING FUNCTIONS, OR THE ACTIVITIES INCIDENTAL THERETO, OF FEDERAL
LAND BANKS, FROM STATE TAXATION.  IT RUNS IN THIS FASHION:  CONGRESS
HAS AUTHORITY TO EXTEND IMMUNITY ONLY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF
THE FEDERAL LAND BANKS; THE ONLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF THE LAND
BANKS ARE THOSE PERFORMED BY ACTING AS DEPOSITARIES AND FISCAL AGENTS
FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT N8 AND PROVIDING A MARKET FOR GOVERNMENT
BONDS; FN9  ALL OTHER FUNCTIONS OF THE LAND BANKS ARE PRIVATE;
PETITIONER HERE WAS ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY INCIDENTAL TO ITS BUSINESS
OF LENDING MONEY, AN ESSENTIALLY PRIVATE FUNCTION; THEREFORE SEC. 26
CANNOT OPERATE TO STRIKE DOWN A SALES TAX UPON PURCHASES MADE IN
FURTHERANCE OF PETITIONER'S LENDING FUNCTIONS. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE LENDING FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL LAND BANKS ARE
PROPRIETARY RATHER THAN GOVERNMENTAL MISCONCEIVES THE NATURE OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO EVERY FUNCTION WHICH IT PERFORMS. 
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ONE OF DELEGATED POWERS, AND FROM THAT IT
NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT ANY CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF ITS DELEGATED
POWERS IS GOVERNMENTAL.  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S.
466, 477.  IT ALSO FOLLOWS THAT, WHEN CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY CREATES
A CORPORATION THROUGH WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LAWFULLY ACTS, THE
ACTIVITIES OF SUCH CORPORATION ARE GOVERNMENTAL.  PITTMAN V. HOME
OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21, 32; GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL.
O'KEEFE, SUPRA, 477. 

THE FEDERAL LAND BANKS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED, SMITH V. KANSAS
CITY TITLE & TRUST CO., 255 U.S. 180, AND RESPONDENTS DO NOT URGE
OTHERWISE.  THROUGH THE LAND BANKS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES
POSSIBLE THE EXTENSION OF CREDIT ON LIBERAL TERMS TO FARM BORROWERS. 
AS PART OF THEIR GENERAL LENDING FUNCTIONS, THE LAND BANKS ARE
AUTHORIZED TO FORECLOSE THEIR MORTGAGES AND TO PURCHASE THE REAL ESTATE
AT THE RESULTING SALE.  FN10  THEY ARE "INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN IMPORTANT
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION."  FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229,
231; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. GAINES, 290 U.S. 247, 254.  THE NATIONAL FARM
LOAN ASSOCIATIONS,  FN11  THE LOCAL CO-OPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS OF
BORROWERS THROUGH WHICH THE LAND BANKS MAKE LOANS TO INDIVIDUALS, ARE
ALSO FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES.  KNOX NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSN. V.
PHILLIPS, 300 U.S. 194, 202; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. GAINES, SUPRA, 254. 

CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO PROTECT THE INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH IT HAS
CONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED.  THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS NATURALLY FROM THE
EXPRESS GRANT OF POWER TO CONGRESS "TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE
NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION ALL POWERS VESTED BY
THE CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  CONST. ART.
I, SEC. 8, PAR. 18."  PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21,
33, AND CASES CITED.  WE HAVE HELD ON THREE OCCASIONS THAT CONGRESS HAS
AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE TAX IMMUNITY FOR ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH, OR
IN FURTHERANCE OF, THE LENDING FUNCTIONS OF FEDERAL CREDIT AGENCIES. 
SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE & TRUST CO., SUPRA; FEDERAL LAND BANK V.
CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374; PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., SUPRA.
FN12  THE FIRST TWO OF THESE CASES DEALT WITH THE VERY SEC. 26 NOW IN
ISSUE.  THEY ARE CONCLUSIVE HERE. 

IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ARGUMENT RESPONDENTS RELY ON SMITH V. KANSAS CITY
TITLE & TRUST CO., SUPRA, AND FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, SUPRA.  IN
THE SMITH CASE WE HELD THAT FARM LOAN BONDS, WHICH MIGHT BE SECURED BY
FIRST MORTGAGES ACCUMULATED IN THE COURSE OF THE LAND BANKS' LENDING
ACTIVITIES,  FN13  COULD BE EXEMPTED FROM STATE TAXATION.  IN THE
PRIDDY CASE, MERELY AS AN AID TO THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 4 OF
THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, GIVING THE LAND BANKS THE RIGHT TO SUE AND
BE SUED "AS FULLY AS NATURAL PERSONS," WE NOTED THAT THE LAND BANKS
POSSESSED SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIVATE BUSINESS
CORPORATIONS.  FN14  THEIR CHARACTER AS FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES WAS
SPECIFICALLY AFFIRMED AND THE BROAD TAX IMMUNITY GRANTED TO THEM WAS
NOT QUESTIONED.  MANIFESTLY, THESE CASES DO NOT SUPPORT RESPONDENTS'
CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES. 

WE CANNOT ACCEDE TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE SMITH AND CROSLAND CASES
CAN BE DISTINGUISHED, AS THEY WERE BY THE STATE COURT, ON THE GROUND
THAT A SALES TAX UPON PURCHASES MADE BY PETITIONER IN FURTHERANCE OF
ITS LENDING FUNCTIONS, UNLIKE THE TAXES IN THOSE CASES, BEARS SO
REMOTELY UPON PETITIONER'S FUNCTIONS AS TO BE BEYOND THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT.  WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE INSTANT TAX IS WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF SEC. 26; AND THAT SECTION IS A VALID ENACTMENT.  IT IS NOT OUR
FUNCTION TO SPECULATE WHETHER THE IMMUNITY FROM ONE TYPE OF TAX, AS
CONTRASTED WITH ANOTHER, IS WISE.  THAT IS A QUESTION SOLELY FOR
CONGRESS, ACTING WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL SPHERE, TO DETERMINE. 
PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., SUPRA, 33; SMITH V. KANSAS CITY
TITLE & TRUST CO., SUPRA, 213.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  26.  THAT EVERY FEDERAL LAND BANK AND EVERY NATIONAL FARM
LOAN ASSOCIATION, INCLUDING THE CAPITAL AND RESERVE OR SURPLUS THEREIN
AND THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL, STATE,
MUNICIPAL, AND LOCAL TAXATION, EXCEPT TAXES UPON REAL ESTATE HELD,
PURCHASED, OR TAKEN BY SAID BANK OR ASSOCIATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
EXECUTED TO FEDERAL LAND BANKS, OR TO JOINT STOCK LAND BANKS, AND FARM
LOAN BONDS ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE DEEMED AND
HELD TO BE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND AS SUCH THEY AND THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
FEDERAL, STATE, MUNICIPAL, AND LOCAL TAXATION. 

"NOTHING HEREIN SHALL PREVENT THE SHARES IN ANY JOINT STOCK LAND BANK
FROM BEING INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE
OWNER OR HOLDER OF SUCH SHARES, IN ASSESSING TAXES IMPOSED BY AUTHORITY
OF THE STATE WITHIN WHICH THE BANK IS LOCATED; BUT SUCH ASSESSMENT AND
TAXATION SHALL BE IN MANNER AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND
LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION FIFTY-TWO HUNDRED AND NINETEEN OF THE
REVISED STATUTES WITH REFERENCE TO THE SHARES OF NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATIONS. 

"NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO EXEMPT THE REAL PROPERTY OF
FEDERAL AND JOINT STOCK LAND BANKS AND NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATIONS
FROM EITHER STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPAL TAXES, TO THE SAME EXTENT,
ACCORDING TO ITS VALUE, AS OTHER REAL PROPERTY IS TAXED." 

FN2  NORTH DAKOTA LAWS OF 1937, C. 249. 

FN3  "SEC.  2.  TAX IMPOSED.  THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED, BEGINNING THE
FIRST DAY OF MAY, 1937, AND ENDING JUNE 30TH, 1939, A TAX OF TWO PER
CENT (2%) UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM ALL SALES OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE, EXCEPT AS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, SOLD AT RETAIL IN THE STATE OF NORTH
DAKOTA TO CONSUMERS OR USERS; ...  " (LAWS OF 1939, C. 234, SEC. 1,
EXTENDS THE PERIOD OF THE TAX THROUGH JUNE 30, 1941, AND S.B. NO. 40,
APPROVED MARCH 14, 1941, EXTENDS THE TAX THROUGH JUNE 30, 1943.) 

"SEC. 3.  EXEMPTIONS.  THERE ARE HEREBY SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND FROM COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX
IMPOSED BY IT, THE FOLLOWING: 

"(A)  THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALES OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
WHICH THIS STATE IS PROHIBITED FROM TAXING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE. 
... 

"SEC. 6.  RETAILERS SHALL ADD THE TAX IMPOSED UNDER THIS ACT, OR THE
AVERAGE EQUIVALENT THEREOF, TO THE SALES PRICE OR CHARGE AND WHEN ADDED
SUCH TAXES SHALL CONSTITUTE A PART OF SUCH PRICE OR CHARGE, SHALL BE A
DEBT FROM CONSUMER OR USER TO RETAILER UNTIL PAID, AND SHALL BE
RECOVERABLE AT LAW IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER DEBTS.  ...    "SEC. 7. 
UNLAWFULACTS.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY RETAILER TO ADVERTISE OR
HOLD OUT OR STATE TO THE PUBLIC OR TO ANY CONSUMER, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, THAT THE TAX OR ANY PART THEREOF IMPOSED BY THIS ACT WILL
BE ASSUMED OR ABSORBED BY THE RETAILER OR THAT IT WILL NOT BE
CONSIDERED AS AN ELEMENT IN THE PRICE TO THE CONSUMER, OR IF ADDED,
THAT IT OR ANY PART THEREOF WILL BE REFUNDED." 

FN4  SECTION 13 OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT (39 STAT. 360, 372)
GIVES FEDERAL LAND BANKS THE POWER "TO ACQUIRE AND DISPOSE OF  ...
PARCELS OF LAND ACQUIRED IN SATISFACTION OF DEBTS OR PURCHASED AT SALES
UNDER JUDGMENTS, DECREES, OR MORTGAGES HELD BY IT." 

FN5  OWEN T. OWEN WAS NAMED AS THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT.  HE RESIGNED
THE OFFICE OF TAX COMMISSIONER ON DECEMBER 26, 1938.  HIS SUCCESSOR,
RESPONDENT GRAY, WHO TOOK OFFICE ON MAY 18, 1939, WAS SUBSTITUTED BY
ORDER OF THIS COURT ON MAY 26, 1941. 

FN6  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS EMPHASIZE THE TAX EXEMPT CHARACTER OF THE
FARM LOAN BONDS.  S. RPT.  NO. 144, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 7; H.
RPT.  NO. 630, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 8; H.R. DOC. NO. 494, 64TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11.  THE LENGTHY DEBATES IN THE SENATE OVER THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 26 MAY BE EXPLAINABLE IN PART ON THE GROUND
THAT THE BROAD EXEMPTION THEREBY CREATED WOULD DEPRIVE THE STATES OF A
LARGE SOURCE OF POTENTIAL REVENUE.  SEE 53 CONG. REC. 6851-6854, 6961
6970, 7245-7247, 7305-7318, 7372-7378. 

FN7  MOST ENLIGHTENING IS THE RECENT AMENDMENT (ACT OF JUNE 10, 1941,
C. 190, 55 STAT. 248) TO SEC. 10 OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION ACT (47 STAT. 5, 9), WHICH DECLARES THAT EXEMPTION INCLUDES
SALES TAXES.  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT
ONLY TO CONFIRM ITS ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCOPE OF THE
EXEMPTION BY THIS AMENDMENT.  H. RPT.  NO. 514, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 2; S. RPT.  NO. 292, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.  SEE ALSO 87 CONG.
REC. 4255-4256, 4616, 4626-4629(PAMPH.). 

WHEN CONGRESS MOVED TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF OUR DECISION IN BALTIMORE
NATIONAL BANK V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 209, THAT THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION WAS TAXABLE ON ITS NATIONAL BANK
SHARES, THE COMMITTEE REPORTS EXPLAIN THAT SEC. 10 "WAS INTENDED TO
GIVE AS WIDE IMMUNITY AS POSSIBLE TO THE FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF
THE CORPORATION."  H. RPT.  NO. 1995, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1-2; H.
RPT.  NO. 2199, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.; S. RPT.  NO. 1545, 74TH CONG., 2D
SESS. 

SEE ALSO THE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, IN WHICH
THE STANDARD EXEMPTION CLAUSE FIRST APPEARED, H. RPT.  NO. 69, 63D
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 39, AND THE REPORT ON THE BILL CREATING THE
FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION.  H. RPT.  NO. 1922, 73D
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4. 

FN8  SEC. 6, 39 STAT. 360, 365. 

FN9  SEC. 5, 39 STAT. 360, 364.  SEC. 13, 39 STAT. 360, 372. 

FN10  SEC. 13, 39 STAT. 360, 372. 

FN11  SEC. 7, 39 STAT. 360, 365. 

FN12  SEE ALSO OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173 U.S. 664,
667, 668; COLORADO NATIONAL BANK V. BEDFORD, 310 U.S. 41, 50, 51. 

FN13  SEC. 18, 39 STAT. 360, 375. 

FN14  SEE ALSO R.F.C. V. MENIHAN CORP., 312 U.S. 81, 83. 

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. U.S., 313 U.S. 450 


NO. 594.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 10, 1941.  - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1941.  - 32
F.SUPP.  917, AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS CONDEMN FAVORITISM AMONG SHIPPERS,
HOWEVER BROUGHT ABOUT.  P. 462. 

2.  UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE ELKINS ACT, WHICH FORBIDS "ANY PERSON,
PERSONS OR CORPORATION" TO GIVE OR RECEIVE ANY CONCESSION "IN RESPECT
TO TRANSPORTATION" IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND WHICH PROVIDES THAT ANY
PERSON, "WHETHER CARRIER OR SHIPPER," WHO GIVES OR RECEIVES SUCH A
CONCESSION, IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, PAYMENT OF A BONUS TO A
PROSPECTIVE SHIPPER TO INDUCE HIM TO LOCATE ON A CARRIER'S LINE IS
UNLAWFUL, THOUGH MADE BY A PERSON WHO IS NEITHER A CARRIER NOR A
SHIPPER, IF IT BE A PAYMENT "IN RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION."  P. 462. 

THE WORDS "WHETHER CARRIER OR SHIPPER" WERE ADDED TO SEC. 1 OF THE
ELKINS ACT BY THE HEPBURN ACT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE PHRASE "ANY
PERSON, PERSONS, OR CORPORATION" INCLUDES SHIPPERS AS WELL AS CARRIERS;
THEY DID NOT RESTRICT THE ORDINARY MEANING OF THE WORDS "ANY PERSON." 

3.  ACTION BY ANY PERSON TO BRING ABOUT DISCRIMINATION IN RESPECT TO
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BY A CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACTS, IS UNLAWFUL UNDER THE ELKINS ACT.  P. 463. 

4.  A CITY, UNDER THE DOMINATING INFLUENCE AND WITH THE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER SEEKING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES,
ESTABLISHED A NEW TERMINAL MARKET FOR FOODSTUFFS, ON LAND OWNED BY THE
CITY ON THE CARRIER'S LINE.  IN ORDER TO SECURE TENANTS FOR THIS
MARKET, CARRIER AND CITY SOUGHT TO OBTAIN, AND OBTAINED, AGREEMENTS
WITH DEALERS (INTERSTATE SHIPPERS) WHO MARKETED SUCH PRODUCE IN A
NEARBY MUNICIPALITY TO MOVE TO THE NEW MARKET, UNDER THE STIMULUS OF
CONCESSIONS OFFERED TO THEM BY THE CITY ALONE, IN THE WAY OF RENTAL
REDUCTIONS AND CASH PAYMENTS, WHICH WERE CHARACTERIZED AS COMPENSATION
FOR THEIR LOSSES IN MOVING, BUT WHICH IN SOME CASES WERE EXCESSIVE. 
THE UNITED STATES, AT THE REQUEST OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, FILED A BILL TO ENJOIN.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE CONCESSIONS WERE "IN RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION" AND
CONTRARY TO SEC. 1 OF THE ELKINS ACT.  P. 464. 

(2)  WHILE IT IS THE RESULT AND NOT THE PURPOSE WHICH DETERMINES THE
ILLEGAL CHARACTER OF ADVANTAGES GRANTED SHIPPERS, WHEN THERE IS A
PURPOSE OR PLAN FOR SECURING TRAFFIC, DEVELOPED COOPERATIVELY BY A
CARRIER AND OTHERS, THE PURPOSE MAKES CLEAR THAT THE CONCESSIONS
OFFERED ARE IN RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION.  P. 467. 

(3)  THE INJUNCTION SHOULD REQUIRE THAT RATES TO DEALERS FOR SPACE IN
THE NEW MARKET SHALL BE THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE FACILITIES
LEASED.  P. 471. 

5.  CRITERIA OF "FAIR RENTAL VALUE."  P. 473. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING VIOLATION OF
PROHIBITIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS IN RESPECT OF
DISCRIMINATORY CONCESSIONS TO SHIPPERS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL INVOLVES THE LEGALITY, UNDER THE ELKINS ACT, OF
APPELLANTS' ACTIVITIES AND COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW
FOOD TERMINAL AT KANSAS CITY, KANSAS.  THAT CITY AND KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI, ARE BOTH PART OF A DISTRICT KNOWN AS GREATER KANSAS CITY,
WHICH FOR OVER THREE-QUARTERS OF A CENTURY HAD BEEN SERVED BY A PRODUCE
MARKET LOCATED IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.  IN 1937 THE UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD, ACTING UPON THE SUGGESTION OF TWO PROMOTERS, DEOREO AND FEAN,
FORMULATED A PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MARKET IN KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS.  THE UNION PACIFIC IN TURN INDUCED THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS, TO UNDERTAKE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A MARKET, WHICH THE CITY
WAS TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND OWN.  UNION PACIFIC BECAME INTERESTED IN
THE DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE VOLUME OF ITS TRAFFIC; FOR,
UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN THE MISSOURI MARKET, IT WAS, WITH A MINOR
EXCEPTION, THE ONLY RAILROAD WITH TRACKS SERVING THE PROPOSED KANSAS
SITE.  BECAUSE BUSINESS IN THE GREATER KANSAS CITY AREA WAS BELIEVED
INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A SPLIT MARKET, PARTLY IN KANSAS AND PARTLY IN
MISSOURI, THE PLAN INCLUDED TAKING STEPS TO PERSUADE DEALERS ON THE
MISSOURI SIDE TO MOVE TO KANSAS.  THESE NEGOTIATIONS WILL APPEAR MORE
FULLY BELOW, BUT IN GENERAL THEY CONTEMPLATED CERTAIN CONCESSIONS AND
FREE RENTS BY THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, TO THOSE DEALERS WHO
DECIDED TO MAKE THE TRANSFER.  OSTENSIBLY THIS WAS TO COMPENSATE THE
DEALERS FOR THEIR COSTS OF REMOVAL, BUT ACTUALLY, AT LEAST IN SOME
INSTANCES, IT WENT SOMEWHAT BEYOND.  THROUGHOUT THE PROMOTION,
FINANCING AND LEASING OF THE NEW MARKET FACILITIES, UNION PACIFIC TOOK
A LEADING AND DOMINANT PART.  THE MARKET OPENED FOR OPERATION ON
DECEMBER 4, 1939. 

ON DECEMBER 29, 1939, AT THE REQUEST OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, THE GOVERNMENT FILED A BILL TO ENJOIN THE UNION PACIFIC,
THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, CERTAIN OF THEIR OFFICERS AND AGENTS,
AND THIRTY-THREE PRODUCE DEALERS, FROM VIOLATING THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ., AND THE ELKINS ACT, 49 U.S.C.
SECS. 41-45, WHICH PROHIBIT REBATES, CONCESSIONS AND DISCRIMINATIONS IN
RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY RAILROAD IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN1  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE ELKINS ACT,  FN2
FOUR OTHER RAILROADS AND THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, WERE
PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS PARTIES PLAINTIFF.  THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED
A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, HELD HEARINGS, AND ON APRIL 10, 1940,
GRANTED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.  AFTER FURTHER HEARINGS A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION WAS ENTERED ON JULY 13.  THE APPEAL COMES DIRECT TO THIS
COURT BY VIRTUE OF THE EXPEDITING ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 45, UNDER SEC.
238(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  FN3 

THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE FINDINGS AND OPINION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, 32 F.SUPP.  917, TOGETHER WITH THE SUPPORTING RECORD REFERENCES
SPECIFIED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, GIVE A CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE ORIGIN
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, PROJECT: 

APPELLANTS DEOREO AND FEAN, BEFORE 1937, HAD PROMOTED VARIOUS
METROPOLITAN TERMINALS WITH WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKET AND RAIL
FACILITIES.  IN DECEMBER, 1936, THEY SUGGESTED TO UNION PACIFIC THE
FEASIBILITY OF SUCH A TERMINAL TO BE SERVED BY ITS LINE AT GREATER
KANSAS CITY, AND A PLAN WAS SOON FORMULATED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
FACILITIES ON THE PUBLIC LEVEE, PROPERTY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS; UNION
PACIFIC'S AIM WAS TO INCREASE ITS TRAFFIC AND REVENUES FROM PERISHABLE
FOOD PRODUCTS.  THE PLAN CONTEMPLATED THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE TERMINAL BE
VESTED IN THE CITY, WHICH WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR A PWA GRANT FROM THE
UNITED STATES TO COVER PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS.  A FURTHER
CONSIDERATION WAS THAT A CITY-OWNED MARKET WOULD BE TAX-FREE, AND THUS
ABLE TO OFFER DEALERS THE INDUCEMENT OF ESPECIALLY LOW RENTALS.  UNION
PACIFIC PRESENTED ENGINEERING AND COST ESTIMATES TO OFFICIALS OF THE
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, WHO BECAME INTERESTED IN THE PROJECT AND
DETERMINED THAT PLANS SHOULD GO FORWARD.  THEREAFTER, UNION PACIFIC AND
THE CITY PARTICIPATED JOINTLY IN THE PROMOTION AND FINANCING OF THE
TERMINAL; AND THE COURT BELOW FOUND AFTER A CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE
EVIDENCE THAT UNION PACIFIC TOOK "A LEADING AND DOMINANT PART."  UNION
PACIFIC SUGGESTED THE PLAN THAT FINANCING BE ACCOMPLISHED BY A PWA
GRANT AND BY REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY, SECURED ONLY BY REVENUE FROM
THE TERMINAL AND OTHER LEVEE PROPERTY.  UNION PACIFIC SUGGESTED THAT
THE CITY MAKE DEOREO AND FEAN EXCLUSIVE LEASING AGENTS OF THE TERMINAL
FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS; WHEN THIS CONTRACT WAS DISAPPROVED BY PWA
OFFICIALS, THE TWO PROMOTERS WERE PERSUADED TO CONSENT TO ITS
CANCELLATION, AND UNION PACIFIC LATER CAUSED SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS TO BE
MADE TO THEM BY ITS SUBSIDIARY, THE KANSAS CITY INDUSTRIAL LAND
COMPANY.  THE CITY'S FIRST APPLICATION FOR A PWA GRANT, WHICH IT
PREPARED WITH UNION PACIFIC'S ASSISTANCE, WAS DENIED, BUT A LATER
APPLICATION FOR $1,710,000 WON APPROVAL IN OCTOBER, 1938.  THIS
SUPPLIED 45% OF THE COST OF STRUCTURES THE CITY WAS TO BUILD; THE
REMAINING 55% WAS TO BE OBTAINED BY SELLING REVENUE BONDS TO INVESTMENT
BANKERS.  UNION PACIFIC HELPED THE CITY SECURE STATE LEGISLATION
AUTHORIZING THE BONDS; THE BANKERS, HOWEVER, DECLINED TO PURCHASE THEM
WHEN UNION PACIFIC REFUSED TO GUARANTEE INCOME SUFFICIENT TO MEET FIXED
CHARGES.  UNION PACIFIC THEN DECIDED TO BUY THE BONDS FOR ITSELF,
PAYING $3,000,000 PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST; $1,033,000 OF THIS WAS USED TO
RETIRE OUTSTANDING REVENUE BONDS, AND THE REMAINDER MADE AVAILABLE FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERMINAL.  THE BONDS, WHICH WERE HELD VALID IN
STATE EX REL. BECK V. KANSAS CITY, 149 KAN. 252; 86 P.2D 476, ARE
SECURED SOLELY BY THE REVENUES ACCRUING FROM THE TERMINAL AND OTHER
PROPERTY ON THE PUBLIC LEVEE; THEY CONSTITUTE NO CLAIM AGAINST THE
CITY'S GENERAL REVENUES, AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THEY "WERE
AND ARE SPECULATIVE AND WERE NOT THEN SALABLE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
THE COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT BUSINESS." 

UNION PACIFIC ALSO CAUSED ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, AND
THOSE OF ITS SUBSIDIARY, THE KANSAS CITY INDUSTRIAL LAND COMPANY, AND
ITS AFFILIATE, THE PACIFIC FRUIT EXPRESS COMPANY, TO RENDER VARIOUS
SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROMOTIONAL, LEASING AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES;
IT ADVANCED MONEY FOR FINANCING PRELIMINARY EXPENSES; AND TOGETHER WITH
THE CITY IT SUPERVISED THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION.  THE TERMINAL AS
COMPLETED CONSISTS OF RAILROAD FACILITIES, OWNED BY UNION PACIFIC, FOR
WHICH IT SPENT $603,000; AND THE CITY'S WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKET, WITH
A COLD STORAGE PLANT, PRODUCE DEALERS' BUILDINGS, A FARMERS' MARKET,
AND SOME TERMINAL TRACKAGE, ALL CONSTRUCTED WITH FUNDS DERIVED FROM THE
PWA GRANT AND THE REVENUE BONDS SOLD TO UNION PACIFIC.  FN4  THE FOOD
TERMINAL IS A UNITARY ENTERPRISE, WITH THE MARKET AND THE RAILROAD
FACILITIES INTEGRAL PARTS OF A UNIFIED WHOLE.  UNION PACIFIC HAS THE
ONLY TRACKS REACHING THE TERMINAL, EXCEPT THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
JOINTLY SERVES THE COLD-STORAGE PLANT. 

ACTIVE SOLICITATION OF THE MISSOURI DEALERS TO MOVE TO KANSAS BEGAN
IN JUNE, 1937.  AS EARLY AS AUGUST, 1937, UNION PACIFIC CONTEMPLATED
THE NECESSITY OF GIVING INDUCEMENTS TO DEALERS, EITHER BY MAKING DIRECT
PAYMENTS OR BY BUYING FROM THEM "UNWANTED PROPERTIES."  IN THE SUMMER
AND FALL OF THAT YEAR, DEOREO AND FEAN INDUCED FIVE OF THE MISSOURI
DEALERS TO SERVE ON A COMMITTEE FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE KANSAS
TERMINAL, AGREEING TO PAY EACH OF THEM $5000 "IN CONSIDERATION OF THE
SERVICES RENDERED  ...  AND THE OCCUPANCY OF THE FOOD TERMINAL" AS
TENANT.  BY AUGUST, 1938, UNION PACIFIC'S EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS HAD
NEGOTIATED WITH OTHER DEALERS WITH RESPECT TO CASH PAYMENTS AND OTHER
INDUCEMENTS.  AS OPPOSITION DEVELOPED ON THE MISSOURI SIDE, THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE CAMPAIGN FOR ENLISTMENT OF THE MISSOURI
DEALERS BECAME "OPEN AND INTENSE."  UNION PACIFIC, HOWEVER, WAS ANXIOUS
TO AVOID VIOLATING THE ELKINS ACT, AND SOUGHT THE ADVICE OF ITS LEGAL
DEPARTMENT, WHICH RENDERED AN OPINION THAT PAYMENTS MADE BY THE CITY TO
DEALERS WOULD BE LAWFUL.  WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A COMMITTEE OF
PROMINENT CITIZENS, THE CITY WAS PERSUADED TO UNDERTAKE SUCH PAYMENTS;
IN DECEMBER, 1939, IT PASSED RESOLUTION 11275 AUTHORIZING USE OF THE
PUBLIC LEVEE REVENUE FUND FOR SETTLEMENTS EITHER WITH CASH OR CREDITS
ON RENTAL, OR BOTH, TO COVER COSTS INCURRED BY PROSPECTIVE TENANTS,
"DUE TO RENTAL OBLIGATIONS ON PRESENT PLACES OF BUSINESS AND COSTS DUE
TO ABANDONMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES NOW LOCATED IN, AND THE GOOD
WILL OF SAID ESTABLISHED PLACES OF BUSINESS."  THE LEGALITY UNDER STATE
LAW OF SUCH PAYMENTS BY THE CITY WAS PROMPTLY ESTABLISHED IN A TEST
SUIT AT LEAST PARTIALLY DIRECTED BY UNION PACIFIC.  STATE EX REL.
PARKER V. KANSAS CITY, 151 KAN. 1 AND 2; 97 P.2D 104; 98 P.2D 101. 

THE CITY, ALTHOUGH NOW WILLING TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO PROSPECTIVE
TENANTS WHERE NECESSARY, WAS LACKING FUNDS.  IN ARRANGING FOR
REFRIGERATOR SERVICE AT THE MARKET, UNION PACIFIC CONTRACTED TO BUY ITS
ENTIRE KANSAS CITY AND OMAHA ICE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CITY ICE & FUEL
COMPANY.  THIS COMPANY LEASED THE MARKET'S COLD-STORAGE UNIT FOR
FIFTEEN YEARS AT $37,500 PER YEAR; UNION PACIFIC NOW URGED THE COMPANY
TO PAY THE CITY $80,000 AS ADVANCE RENT.  THE CITY ICE & FUEL COMPANY
DID THIS AND ALSO, AT UNION PACIFIC'S AND THE CITY'S SUGGESTION,
DEPOSITED $25,000 WITH A BANK AS COLLATERAL FOR PROPOSED UNSECURED AND
INADEQUATELY SECURED LOANS TO MISSOURI PRODUCE DEALERS, ALTHOUGH SUCH
LOANS, WHILE OFFERED, WERE NEVER ACTUALLY MADE. 

IN THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MISSOURI DEALERS, UNION PACIFIC'S
REPRESENTATIVES TOOK AN ACTIVE PART.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT IT
AND THE CITY ACTED TOGETHER TO INDUCE PROSPECTIVE TENANTS "BY MEANS OF
OFFERS, AGREEMENTS, PAYMENTS, AND GIFTS TO SUCH DEFENDANT PRODUCE
DEALERS AND OTHER PRODUCE DEALERS OF FREE RENTS, REDUCED RENTS, FREE
REFRIGERATION, CASH PAYMENTS AND RENTAL CREDITS PURPORTING TO BE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PAYING SUCH PRODUCE DEALERS' COST OF REMOVAL FROM KANSAS
CITY, MISSOURI  ...  AND THE VALUE OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURES IN THEIR
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, PLACES OF BUSINESS AND THE LIABILITY ON
UNEXPIRED LEASES IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, BUT IN SOME CASES IN EXCESS
OF ANY SUCH COSTS, VALUES OR LIABILITIES."  THE OPINION ADDS THAT "THE
TESTIMONY OF SEVERAL DEALERS WITH WHOM NEGOTIATIONS WERE CONDUCTED
WARRANTS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF THOSE WHO
CONDUCTED OR TOOK PART IN THE NEGOTIATIONS WAS NOT THE ASCERTAINMENT OF
THE LOSS OR EXPENSE TO THE DEALER OF MOVING, BUT WAS THE ASCERTAINMENT
OF THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO BE PAID TO BRING ABOUT THE MOVE." 

THE RECORD FULLY SUPPORTS THE TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE
CONCESSIONS OFFERED WERE NOT CONFINED TO FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THE
COSTS OF REMOVAL, AS A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE INSTANCES SPECIFIED BY THE
JUDGE WILL SHOW.  MALLIN PRODUCE COMPANY, THE LARGEST APPLE CONCERN IN
THE MARKET, CLAIMED $17,300 AS ITS COSTS OF REMOVAL, $7,300 FOR MOVING
ITS APPLES, AND $10,000 AS THE "VALUE OF EXISTING LEASE TO BE
ABANDONED."  HOWEVER, MALLIN MADE NO CLAIM THAT HE HAD ANY OBLIGATIONS
UNDER HIS MISSOURI LEASE; FN5  HE MERELY SAID THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSURED
BY HIS LANDLORD THAT HE COULD CONTINUE THE LEASE AS LONG AS HE LIVED,
AND THAT HE WOULD CONTINUE TO LEASE THE PROPERTY "IN ORDER TO KEEP A
COMPETITOR FROM SECURING IT."  UNION PACIFIC'S REPRESENTATIVE
NEVERTHELESS OFFERED HIM $15,000 FROM THE CITY, AND THEN RAISED THE
OFFER TO $20,000 WHEN MALLIN AGREED TO TAKE TWO UNITS INSTEAD OF ONE AT
THE TERMINAL.  THE O.C. EVANS COMPANY, WHICH MADE NO STATEMENT OF THE
AMOUNT OF ITS MISSOURI INVESTMENT, WAS OFFERED $5,000; WHEN IT DEMANDED
$10,000, THE OFFER WAS INCREASED TO $7,000.  THE NEGOTIATORS INCREASED
CHERRITO'S CLAIM FROM $900 TO $1,450 BY RAISING THE COST FIGURES FOR
HIS MISSOURI FIXTURES ABOVE THE AMOUNTS HE HAD SPECIFIED.  GARRETT
HOLMES & COMPANY, WHICH HAD CLAIMED ONLY ABOUT $20,000 IN THE SUMMER OF
1939 WITHOUT PRESENTING DEFINITE FIGURES, IN DECEMBER DEMANDED AN
ADJUSTMENT OF $35,000, AND ACCEPTED $30,500 IN CASH AND ONE YEAR'S FREE
REFRIGERATION.  SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED ON A CLAIM FOR UNEXPIRED RENTALS
OF $15,000 AND COST OF IRREMOVABLE BUSINESS FIXTURES, $20,000.  LITMAN
PRODUCE COMPANY WAS GIVEN $15,000 IN CASH AND ADVANCE RENT AFTER
ASSERTING AN OBLIGATION TO PAY SIX YEARS' RENT ON AN UNEXPIRED MISSOURI
LEASE, WHEN IN FACT THE LEASE WAS TO EXPIRE IN A FEW MONTHS AND MERELY
CONTAINED AN OPTION TO RENEW FOR FOUR YEARS; LITMAN HAD NOT EXERCISED
THE OPTION, THOUGH AFTER THE INJUNCTION HE ENTERED INTO A NEW LEASE
WITH HIS MISSOURI LESSOR.  ROBINSON WAS ALLOWED TO PUT IN A CLAIM FOR
$600 FOR SEVERAL UNEXPIRED MONTHS OF AN ASSERTED SIX MONTHS' LEASE,
WHEN THE TENANCY WAS IN FACT ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS.  WINNICK
BROTHERS, A BANANA FIRM, WAS ALLOWED MORE THAN $7,000 AS THE
UNAMORTIZED COST OF FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT THAT HAD APPARENTLY COST
THEM LESS THAN A THOUSAND DOLLARS.    THE PROPOSED CASH PAYMENTS TO
DEALERS TOTALLED $111,000, AND THE PROPOSED CREDITS ON RENT MORE THAN
$30,000.  WHEN NEGOTIATIONS WITH A DEALER RESULTED IN A TENTATIVE
UNDERSTANDING OR AGREEMENT, HE WOULD BE TOLD THAT UNION PACIFIC COULD
NOT PAY HIM BUT THAT THE MATTER WOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.  THE
DISTRICT COURT'S INJUNCTION INTERVENED BEFORE MORE THAN ONE OF THE
ADJUSTMENTS HAD BEEN FORMALLY AGREED TO BY THE CITY BOARD AND NONE OF
THESE PAYMENTS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MADE. 

IN ADDITION TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE STANDARD FORM LEASE CONTAINED
EXPRESS PROVISIONS FOR FREE RENTS AND REDUCED RENTS.  THE STANDARD
RENTAL ADOPTED WAS $150 PER MONTH PER UNIT, BUT FOR THE FIRST THREE
MONTHS AFTER THE OFFICIAL COMPLETION DATE ONLY $50 WAS CHARGED. 
MOREOVER, THE TERMINAL OPENED FOR BUSINESS ON DECEMBER 4, 1939; DEALERS
BEGAN MOVING IN THEN AND ENJOYED RENT-FREE OCCUPATION UNTIL FEBRUARY 1,
1940, WHICH WAS ANNOUNCED AS THE OFFICIAL COMPLETION DATE. 

UNION PACIFIC ALSO MADE AVAILABLE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FREE
ADVERTISING BY INTERVIEWING THE TERMINAL'S TENANTS ON ITS RADIO PROGRAM
AND ALLOWING THEM TO DESCRIBE THE KIND AND QUALITY OF THEIR PRODUCE. 

THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF THESE ACTIVITIES, UNION PACIFIC'S PRINCIPAL
AND COMPELLING MOTIVE HAS BEEN TO DIVERT PRODUCE TRAFFIC FROM OTHER
RAILROADS TO ITS OWN.  BY TARIFFS FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, CHARGES FOR HANDLING ARE COLLECTED BY THE UNION PACIFIC FOR
CARS ORIGINATING ON OR DESTINED TO OTHER LINES.  IF THE MARKET SHIFTS
FROM MISSOURI TO KANSAS, IT IS ESTIMATED THAT UNION PACIFIC STANDS TO
GAIN TRAFFIC REVENUES OF SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ANNUALLY FROM
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARKET, DUE LARGELY TO THE FACT THAT A RAILROAD
ON WHOSE LINE A SHIPPER IS LOCATED ENJOYS A SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGE IN
SOLICITING COMPETITIVE TRAFFIC, AND COMPARABLE LOSSES MAY BE REASONABLY
EXPECTED BY THE RAILROADS NOW SERVING THE MISSOURI MARKET. 

THE APPLICABLE STATUTES.  THE ELKINS ACT IS A PART OF THE FEDERAL
STATUTORY SYSTEM FOR THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS OF
COMMERCE.  AS WITH OTHER PORTIONS OF THAT SYSTEM A CHIEF PURPOSE FOR
ITS ENACTMENT WAS TO ELIMINATE REBATES, CONCESSIONS OR DISCRIMINATIONS
FROM THE HANDLING OF COMMERCE, TO THE END THAT PERSONS AND PLACES MIGHT
CARRY ON THEIR ACTIVITIES ON AN EQUAL BASIS.  WITH THE ADOPTION OF
PROHIBITION AGAINST OPEN RATE-CUTTING, VARIOUS DEVICES WERE RESORTED
TO.  FN6  THE RAILROADS SOUGHT CONTROL OVER COMPETITORS TO ESCAPE RATE
WARS AND, DESPITE ABHORRENCE OF MONOPOLIES EVEN IN THE UTILITY FIELD,
STRONG IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THIS CENTURY, SUCH CONCENTRATIONS OF
CARRIER CONTROL WERE THOUGHT TO HAVE ONE ADVANTAGE AT LEAST, THE
REDUCTION OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES.  FN7  CONCEALMENT OF THE RECEIPT
OR PAYMENT OF REBATES WAS MADE MANIFEST.  STRENGTHENING OF THE
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS WAS SOUGHT.  THIS EFFORT FINALLY CULMINATED IN
THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION OF THE INJUNCTION AS THE SIMPLEST AND
MOST SUMMARY LEGAL INSTRUMENT TO DESTROY DISCRIMINATION.  FN8  THE
COURTS HAVE FOUND THE STATUTES EFFECTIVE TO ACCOMPLISH THE DESTRUCTION
OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES, WHATEVER THEIR FORM.  VIOLATION OF THE
COMMERCE ACTS THROUGH RECEIPT OF ADVANTAGES IS TO BE TESTED BY ACTUAL
RESULTS, NOT BY INTENTION.  FN9  ANY AND ALL MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THE
PROHIBITED END ARE BANNED.  FN10  WE RECENTLY SAID THAT UNDER
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS EXISTING IN THE NEW YORK AREA THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION IN ATTACKING DISCRIMINATION BY AN ORDER AGAINST FURNISHING
NON-TRANSPORTATION SERVICES BELOW COST TO THE CARRIER WAS VALID,
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE CHARGES WERE BELOW FAIR VALUE. 
FN11 CONTRIBUTION TO A SHIPPER'S CONSTRUCTION COST IS FORBIDDEN.  FN12
IN FACT, FAVORITISM WHICH DESTROYS EQUALITY BETWEEN SHIPPERS, HOWEVER
BROUGHT ABOUT, IS NOT TOLERATED.  OF COURSE, NO PARTY TO THIS APPEAL
DISPUTES THIS BROAD PRINCIPLE. 

DIFFICULTIES IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ARISE UPON FURTHER ANALYSIS OF
THE STATUTE.  SECTION 1, QUOTED IN NOTE 1, HAS A PROVISION MAKING IT
UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO GIVE OR RECEIVE ANY CONCESSION IN RESPECT TO
TRANSPORTATION.  A SUBSEQUENT CLAUSE MAKES THE ACT OF GIVING OR
RECEIVING A CONCESSION A MISDEMEANOR AND PUNISHES ITS VIOLATION BY
"EVERY PERSON OR CORPORATION, WHETHER CARRIER OR SHIPPER."  OBVIOUSLY A
BONUS PAID BY A RAILWAY TO INDUCE A PROSPECTIVE SHIPPER TO LOCATE ALONG
ITS LINE WOULD BE AS MUCH A CONCESSION UNDER THE STATUTE AS A REDUCTION
IN TARIFF APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FAVORED SHIPPER.  WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT SUCH A PAYMENT BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT A CARRIER, IF IT IS
A PAYMENT "IN RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION," WOULD BE EQUALLY VIOLATIVE OF
THE SECTION IN QUESTION. 

THE FIRST PROHIBITION MAKES IT UNLAWFUL "FOR ANY PERSON OR
CORPORATION" TO GIVE OR RECEIVE THE CONCESSION.  THE APPELLANTS'
ARGUMENT THAT ONLY CARRIERS OR SHIPPERS ARE COVERED IS BASED ON THE
CLAUSE STATING THE PUNISHMENT TO BE APPLICABLE WHETHER THE ALLEGED
VIOLATOR IS "CARRIER OR SHIPPER."  SUCH AN ARGUMENT ASSUMES THAT THE
CARRIER AND SHIPPER CLAUSE RESTRICTS THE ORDINARY MEANING OF "ANY
PERSON."  NO REASON IS ADVANCED FOR SUCH A RESTRICTION.  AS HAS BEEN
SET OUT, THERE HAS BEEN A WELL-DEFINED AND CONTINUOUS PURPOSE TO
ELIMINATE PREFERENCES TO SHIPPERS FROM OUR SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
REASONS OF FAIRNESS AND TO AVOID RATE WARS, DETRIMENTAL TO THE
EFFICIENCY OF THE CARRIERS.  THE WORDS STRESSED BY APPELLANTS AS
RESTRICTIVE WERE ADDED BY THE HEPBURN ACT AS AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 1 OF
THE ELKINS ACT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE EARLIER PHRASE "ANY PERSON,
PERSONS OR CORPORATION" INCLUDED SHIPPERS AS WELL AS CARRIERS.  FN13
IN OUR VIEW, ACTION BY ANY PERSON TO BRING ABOUT DISCRIMINATIONS IN
RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY IS RENDERED UNLAWFUL BY THE
ELKINS ACT.  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO A DOMINANT
PURPOSE OF CARRIER LEGISLATION. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS BUTTRESSED BY OTHER LANGUAGE IN THE ELKINS ACT AND
BY DECISIONS IN OTHER COURTS WHICH HAVE DEALT WITH THE QUESTION. 
OTHER PERSONS "AS THE COURT MAY DEEM NECESSARY" WHEN A CARRIER IS
"COMMITTING ANY DISCRIMINATIONS," AND THE COURT MAY ENFORCE ITS ORDERS
"AS WELL AGAINST THE PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE TRAFFIC" AS AGAINST THE
CARRIER.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN SPENCER KELLOGG & SONS V. UNITED STATES, 20
F.2D 459, A GRAIN ELEVATOR OWNER, WITHOUT CARRIER AFFILIATION OR
COOPERATION, WAS CONVICTED FOR SHARING ITS ALLOWANCE FOR ELEVATION
SERVICE WITH A SHIPPER.  FN14 

THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THAT THE CONCESSION GIVEN OR
RECEIVED SHALL BE "IN RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF ANY PROPERTY IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE BY ANY COMMON CARRIER."  AS THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SECTION COVERS INDISPUTABLY THE CARRIER AND THE FREIGHT INVOLVED
IN MOVEMENT INTO AND OUT OF A METROPOLITAN TERMINAL MARKET,  FN15  ONLY
THE PHRASE "IN RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION" REQUIRES ANALYSIS.  WHAT
HAS BEEN SAID SHOWS ITS MEANING CONNOTES MORE THAN DISCRIMINATION IN
PAYMENT OF TARIFFS.  OFFERING OR SOLICITING THE CONCESSIONS EXPLICITLY
VIOLATES THE SECTION.  SO DOES A BUILDING BONUS GRANTED ON CONDITION
THAT THE FAVORED INDUSTRY USE THE CARRIER'S FACILITIES.  FN16  THE
CONCESSIONS ARE NONE THE LESS ILLEGAL, IF MADE FOR NON-TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES,  FN17  AS LONG AS THEY RESULT IN LOWERING DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY TRANSPORTATION COSTS TO A SHIPPER.  THAT OTHER INDUCEMENTS
MAY ALSO HAVE INFLUENCED THE CONCESSIONS IS NOT IMPORTANT WHEN A
MATERIALLY EFFECTIVE PURPOSE IS THE SECURING OF TRAFFIC FOR AN
INTERSTATE CARRIER.  WHERE TRAFFIC IS AN OBJECT, AND DISCRIMINATORY
ADVANTAGE THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN OR ACTUALLY
OBTAINING IT, THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE SECTION IN RESPECT TO
TRANSPORTATION. 

VALIDITY OF THE PLAN.  APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE CITY'S ACTION IN
MAKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR PAYMENTS TO DEALERS LOCATED IN THE MISSOURI
CITY WAS TAKEN SOLELY IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS MUNICIPAL INTERESTS AND
WITHOUT INTENTION TO INFLUENCE TRAFFIC AND CONSEQUENTLY NOT "IN RESPECT
TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY."  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IT IS QUITE
PERMISSIBLE AND INDEED DESIRABLE FOR A RAILROAD, LARGELY DEPENDENT AS
ITS PROSPERITY IS UPON THE PROSPERITY OF THE COMMUNITIES REACHED BY ITS
TRACKS, TO TAKE PART IN FURTHERING CIVIC DEVELOPMENT.  CERTAINLY THERE
CAN BE NO OBJECTION ON THE SCORE OF ILLEGALITY UNDER FEDERAL
TRANSPORTATION ACTS FOR A CITY, ANXIOUS TO MAKE ITS MARKET HOUSE
PROFITABLE, TO ADOPT BUSINESS PRACTICES, NORMAL FOR REAL ESTATE
OPERATORS, IF THE PRACTICES DO NOT INVOLVE DISCRIMINATIONS "IN RESPECT
TO TRANSPORTATION" BY INTERSTATE CARRIERS.  THUS IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE
THAT CITY AND RAILROAD MIGHT INDIVIDUALLY AND EVEN COOPERATIVELY WORK
HAND IN HAND TO PROMOTE THE CITY'S ECONOMIC WELFARE WITHOUT VIOLATING
THE ELKINS ACT.  BUT THE PROMOTION OF CIVIC ADVANCEMENT MAY NOT BE USED
AS A CLOAK TO SCREEN THE GRANTING OF DISCRIMINATORY ADVANTAGES TO
SHIPPERS.  CONSEQUENTLY IN THE PRESENT CASE THE THINGS DONE ARE TO BE
APPRAISED BY THE STANDARDS OF THE STATUTES, HERETOFORE EXAMINED.  FOR
THIS PURPOSE WE MAY LAY ASIDE AS OF SMALL IMPORTANCE THE ACTION OF THE
UNION PACIFIC IN ADVANCING FUNDS FOR THE EXPENSES OF AN INSPECTION TOUR
TO OTHER CITIES BY THE MISSOURI MERCHANTS, WHO WERE THUS MADE FAMILIAR
WITH MARKETS SIMILAR TO THE PROPOSED MARKET ON THE KANSAS SIDE OF THE
MISSOURI RIVER.  THE USE OF THE RAILROAD'S RADIO TIME TO ADVERTISE
SHIPPERS' AVAILABLE STOCK IN TRADE, WHILE UNLAWFUL, SEEMS TOO MINOR FOR
FURTHER COMMENT IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN DISCRIMINATIONS THROUGH CASH
BONUSES AND FREE RENT.  FURTHER, WHILE IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE
ELKINS ACT FOR A CARRIER TO OFFER A SHIPPER A CONCESSION TO BE PAID TO
THE SHIPPER BY A NON-CARRIER, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO REST THE
DECISION HERE UPON THE CARRIER'S ALLEGED ACTION IN OFFERING PAYMENTS TO
SHIPPERS BY THE CITY.  FOR IN THIS CASE INVALIDITY OF THE CARRIER'S
ACTION WOULD FOLLOW A FORTIORI FROM THE INVALIDITY OF THE CITY'S
ACTION.  THEREFORE WE EXAMINE THE CITY'S SITUATION. 

ENOUGH HAS HERETOFORE BEEN STATED TO SUPPORT FULLY THE CONCLUSION
THAT SOME SHIPPERS OBTAINED AGREEMENTS FROM THE CITY COMMITTEE ON
NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONCESSIONS IN RETURN FOR MOVING INTO THE NEW MARKET. 
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONCESSIONS WERE IN RESPECT TO
TRANSPORTATION, THE COOPERATIVE FUNCTIONING OF RAILWAY AND CITY,
TRANSPORTATION AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS, BECOMES SIGNIFICANT.  THE PHRASE
"IN RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION" HAS NOT A TECHNICAL CONNOTATION.  IT
DIFFERS FROM INTENT OR PURPOSE TO AFFECT TRANSPORTATION.  IT IS BROADER
THAN "IN REDUCTION OF TARIFFS" THOUGH, AS APPEARS FROM THE ACT, IT IS
SUCH A DISCRIMINATION AS RESULTS IN TRANSPORTATION "AT A LESS RATE THAN
THAT NAMED IN THE TARIFFS  ...  OR WHEREBY ANY OTHER ADVANTAGE IS GIVEN
... "  OUR ATTENTION IS NOT CALLED TO ANY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS TO
THE PURPOSE OF THE INCLUSION OF THE WORDS IN THE ELKINS ACT OR AS TO
THEIR MEANING.  WE HAVE FOUND NONE.  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PHRASE
LIMITS THE "REBATE, CONCESSION OR DISCRIMINATION" TO ADVANTAGES OR
DISADVANTAGES IN TRANSPORTATION BUT HAS NO FURTHER EFFECT.  AS THE
DISCRIMINATION IS LIMITED TO TRANSPORTATION MATTERS, NORMALLY ONE WOULD
FIND INVOLVED IN THE DISCRIMINATION NOT ONLY A USER OR PROSPECTIVE USER
OF THE FACILITIES OF THE CARRIER BUT ALSO THE CARRIER ITSELF.  THIS IS
TRUE IN THIS INSTANCE.  CARRIER AND CITY, THROUGH A COMMITTEE OF
EMPLOYEES OF EACH AND THROUGH DEOREO AND FEAN AND THEIR AIDES, WORKED
TOGETHER TO BRING INTO THE TERMINAL TENANTS WHOSE BUSINESS AS FOUND
BELOW WAS "SHIPPING INTO AND OUT OF THE FOOD TERMINAL PRODUCTS
TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE UPON WHICH THE DEALERS PAY THE
FREIGHT."  WHERE CONCESSIONS ARE OFFERED TO SUCH DEALERS BY THE CITY IN
A PLAN WORKED OUT COOPERATIVELY BY THE CITY AND CARRIER, AS HERE, THESE
CONCESSIONS ARE NECESSARILY IN RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION.  THE UNION
PACIFIC IS CHARGED WITH THE PUBLIC DUTY OF AND IS INTERESTED IN
TRANSPORTATION.  THE PROMOTERS BROUGHT THE SCHEME FOR THE MARKET FIRST
TO THE RAILWAY COMPANY.  IT WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE POSSIBILITIES AND
WORKED EARNESTLY TO CONVINCE FIRST A FEW CITY OFFICIALS, AND THEN THE
BOARD, OF THE DESIRABILITY OF ACTION BY THE CITY.  MONEY FOR THE
PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WAS ADVANCED BY THE UNION PACIFIC.  NO OBJECTION
WAS MADE TO THE USE BY THE CITY OF PREPAID RENTS FROM THE CITY ICE &
FUEL COMPANY TO FURTHER THE REMOVAL OF THE DEALERS IN THE MANNER
"CONCEIVED AND DEVISED," IN THE WORDS OF A FINDING, BY THE UNION
PACIFIC.  THE RAILROAD WAS THE "LEADING AND DOMINANT" INFLUENCE IN THE
ENTIRE TRANSACTION.  IF THE CITY WAS NOT COMPLETELY "SUBSERVIENT TO THE
COMPETITIVE NEEDS" OF THE CARRIER, AS WE SAID OF THE WAREHOUSING
CORPORATIONS IN BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507,
516-17, AT LEAST THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND COOPERATION GIVEN BY THE
RAILROAD WAS OF A KIND TO MAKE IT PLAIN THAT THE CITY'S ACTION LOOKED
SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS GAINING TRAFFIC FOR THE ROAD.  WHILE, AS HAS BEEN
STATED, IT IS THE RESULT AND NOT THE PURPOSE WHICH DETERMINES THE
ILLEGAL CHARACTER OF ADVANTAGES GRANTED SHIPPERS, WHEN THERE IS A
PURPOSE OR PLAN FOR SECURING TRAFFIC, DEVELOPED COOPERATIVELY BY A
CARRIER AND OTHERS, THE PURPOSE MAKES CLEAR THAT THE CONCESSIONS
OFFERED ARE IN RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION. 

THE POWER OF THE CITY TO MAKE THE CONCESSIONS AND THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER ANY MONEY TO BE USED BY THE CITY WAS CONTRIBUTED DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY BY THE UNION PACIFIC DO NOT AFFECT THIS CONCLUSION.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS IN STATE EX REL. PARKER V.
KANSAS CITY, FN18  THAT THE CITY, IN ITS PROPRIETARY CAPACITY, UNDER
KANSAS LAW HAS "AUTHORITY TO PAY SUCH SUMS AS ARE NECESSARY  ...  TO
CARRY OUT  ...  SUCH POLICIES AND TRANSACTIONS AS MAY BE TO THE BEST
INTEREST OF SAID CITY IN SECURING TENANTS  ...  FOR SAID TERMINAL" IS
NOT REVIEWABLE HERE.  BUT THE OPINIONS IN THESE KANSAS CASES DO NOT
CONSIDER OR DECIDE WHETHER THE PROPOSED PAYMENTS ARE A PART OF A PLAN
TO GRANT ADVANTAGES TO SHIPPERS CONTRARY TO THE ELKINS ACT.  EVEN IF
THE CITY'S ACTION HAD BEEN DISCUSSED FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THE RESULT
WOULD NOT CONCLUDE THIS COURT.  IT IS OUR DUTY TO DETERMINE FINALLY THE
EFFECT OF ACTS OR PLANS PLAINLY UNDER THAT FEDERAL STATUTE.  FN19  IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE, AND IN OUR VIEW IMMATERIAL, TO DETERMINE FROM THE
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS WHETHER THE UNION PACIFIC CONTRIBUTED INDIRECTLY
TO THE FUND FOR MAKING PAYMENTS TO SHIPPERS.  THE RAILROAD OWNED A
THREE MILLION DOLLAR BOND ISSUE WHICH CARRIES A COVENANT TO APPLY ALL
REVENUES OF THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED, AFTER OPERATING EXPENSES, TO THE
BOND LIQUIDATION.  BY ACQUIESCING IN THE APPLICATION OF THE REVENUES TO
SECURE TENANTS, THE RAILWAY DID CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY, IF THERE WAS A
FAILURE TO EARN ENOUGH TO MEET EXPENSES.  THE ESTIMATES AS TO EARNINGS
ARE NECESSARILY UNCERTAIN.  FROM ITS FINDING THAT THE PROJECTED NET
RETURN WAS COMPENSATORY, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS APPARENTLY OF THE VIEW
THAT THE TERMINAL WOULD PAY OUT.  FN20 

INJUNCTION.  ONE PROVISION OF THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED THE UNION PACIFIC AND KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, AND
THEIR OFFICERS OR AGENTS FROM GIVING CASH OR RENTAL CREDITS TO PRODUCE
DEALERS TO MOVE INTO OR REMAIN IN QUARTERS IN THE KANSAS CITY FOOD
TERMINAL.  FN21  THE APPELLANTS ASSIGN AS ERROR THE ACTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN ENTERING ANY PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENTS "IN SUCH
AMOUNTS AS ITS (THE CITY'S) GOVERNING BODY MAY DETERMINE" AND "AGAINST
USE OF ITS PUBLIC LEVEE REVENUES" FOR THE PAYMENT OF "DAMAGES SUSTAINED
BY PRODUCE DEALERS MOVING" TO THE TERMINAL. 

RESOLUTION 11275 WAS CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS TO
AUTHORIZE DISBURSEMENTS OF AVAILABLE MARKET FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSES "AS
IN THE JUDGMENT OF SAID GOVERNING BODY WILL BE TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE CITY."  FN22  BY THE RESOLUTION THESE EXPENDITURES WERE LIMITED TO
THE DEALERS' ACTUAL COSTS OF REMOVAL, INCLUDING LOSS OF GOOD WILL. 

IN PRIOR SECTIONS OF THIS OPINION, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT ANY
CONCESSION BY ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION IN RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION IS
FORBIDDEN BY THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION STATUTES.  THE PARAGRAPH OF THE
INJUNCTION NOW UNDER EXAMINATION UNDERTAKES TO APPLY THIS RULE SO THAT
NO CASH PAYMENTS OR RENTAL CREDITS MAY BE GIVEN.  IT IS CLEAR THAT IN
SO FAR AS SUCH CASH OR CREDIT IS A "REBATE, CONCESSION OR
DISCRIMINATION" SUCH AN INJUNCTION IS PROPER, BUT DO ALL PAYMENTS TO
INDUCE DEALERS TO RENT SPACE IN THE TERMINAL FALL IN THESE
CLASSIFICATIONS?  THE TRIAL COURT SAID, 

"THE PROPOSED PAYMENTS TO MISSOURI DEALERS TO INDUCE THEM TO MOVE TO
THE NEW MARKET NOT BEING MADE TO ALL TENANTS AT THE NEW MARKET AND
BEING IN THE NATURE OF BONUSES THE AMOUNT OF WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON
ACTUAL LOSS OR EXPENSE, FALL WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION OF
DISCRIMINATIONS PROHIBITED BY THE ELKINS ACT."  THE WORDS OF THE
INJUNCTION, HOWEVER, GO FARTHER AND FORBID PAYMENTS EVEN THOUGH THE
PAYMENTS ARE IN ALL FAIRNESS AND STRICTNESS LIMITED TO ACTUAL AND
NECESSARY EXPENSES AND LOSSES IN MOVING AN ESTABLISHMENT. 
CONSEQUENTLY, IN DECIDING THE FORM OF THE INJUNCTION, WE NEED TO
DETERMINE THE BREADTH OF LANGUAGE NECESSARY "TO SUPPRESS THE UNLAWFUL
PRACTICES" AND PRECLUDE THEIR REVIVAL.  FN23  THE DISTRICT COURT
SUMMARIZED IN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THE CONSTANT
ACTIVITY OF THE UNION PACIFIC IN PRESSING FORWARD THE IDEA OF THE
TERMINAL.  IT HAD BEFORE IT THE TESTIMONY THAT THE ROAD SOUGHT,
METICULOUSLY, TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH THE ELKINS ACT AND YET GAIN THE
INSTALLATION OF THE MARKET; THAT THE RAILWAY REPRESENTATIVES ACTED WITH
THE CITY COMMITTEES AND TALKED WITH PROSPECTIVE TENANTS.  RAILROAD
INFLUENCE PERVADED EACH CITY ACTION AND, IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
DECREE MUST BE MOLDED TO MEET THE DANGER OF SUBTLE MOVES AGAINST THE
EQUALITY BETWEEN SHIPPERS GUARANTEED BY THE ELKINS ACT. 

WHERE, AS HERE, THE ACTION OF THE CITY IN GIVING CASH AND RENTAL
CREDITS IS, AS WE HAVE DECIDED, A PART OF A PLAN IN RESPECT TO
TRANSPORTATION RESULTING IN AN ADVANTAGE TO SHIPPERS, WE CONCLUDE THAT
THE GIVING OF ANY CASH, RENTAL CREDIT, FREE OR REDUCED RENTS, TO INDUCE
LEASING OF SPACE IN THE TERMINAL IS CONTRARY TO THE ELKINS ACT.  EVEN
IF WE ASSUME THAT NOTHING WILL BE GIVEN EXCEPT THE ACTUAL COSTS OF
REMOVAL, THE RECEIPT OF THOSE COSTS WOULD PUT THE SHIPPER IN A
PREFERRED POSITION TO ALL OTHER SHIPPERS USING THE FACILITIES OF AN
INTERSTATE CARRIER WHO DID NOT RECEIVE SUCH CONCESSIONS.  THE ACT
CONDEMNS ANY DEVICE "WHEREBY ANY OTHER ADVANTAGE (THAN LOWER TARIFFS)
IS GIVEN.  ...  "  THE WORDING OF PARAGRAPH (1) IS APPROVED. 

ANOTHER PROHIBITION OF THE INJUNCTION DETERMINES THAT THE RATES FOR
SPACE SHALL BE SUCH "WHICH WILL YIELD A PROPER RATE OF RETURN UPON THE
FULL VALUE OF THE MARKET FACILITIES AS A WHOLE, AFTER MAKING PROVISION
FOR ALL EXPENSES OF OPERATION, INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND
DEPRECIATION."  FN24 IDENTICAL LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH THIRD (2) OF THE
INJUNCTION FORBIDS PRODUCE DEALERS, OF WHOM MANY WERE PARTIES TO THIS
PROCEEDING, AND THEIR AGENTS FROM BEING TENANTS OF THE TERMINAL AT
RENTAL RATES WHICH ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO YIELD THE REQUIRED AMOUNT.  THE
INCLUSION OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS IN OUR OPINION ERRONEOUS.  THE WORDS
QUOTED IN THE TEXT SHOULD BE STRICKEN AND THE INJUNCTION AMENDED BY
INSERTING IN LIEU OF THE STRICKEN WORDS THE FOLLOWING:  "WHICH IS A
FAIR RENTAL VALUE FOR THE FACILITIES OCCUPIED."  THE REASONS FOR THE
DELETION FOLLOW. 

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REFERRED TO IN THE EXCERPT FROM THE FINAL
INJUNCTION QUOTED IN NOTE 24 SET THE RENTALS AT NOT LESS THAN CERTAIN
DEFINITE AMOUNTS PER MONTH AND PER ANNUM FOR OPERATING UNITS AND OFFICE
SPACE.  THERE WERE ALLOWANCES FOR UNCOMPLETED FACILITIES NOT NOW
IMPORTANT.  NO ISSUE IS RAISED HERE AS TO WHETHER THE SUMS FIXED WERE
OR WERE NOT A FAIR RENTAL VALUE.  ADEQUATE FINDINGS DETERMINED THE
VALUES OF THE FACILITIES, THE ESTIMATED GROSS AND NET REVENUES AND
RATES OF RETURN.  WITH THESE FINDINGS BEFORE IT, THE DISTRICT COURT
FURTHER FOUND IN ITS FINAL ORDER THAT THE RATES FIXED IN THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WERE COMPENSATORY AND DID NOT AMOUNT "TO A GIFT
OF ANY PART OF THE VALUE OF THE USE OF THE FOOD TERMINAL TO THE TENANT
SHIPPERS."  FN25  THIS RESULT IS NOT QUESTIONED.  IT MAY THEREFORE BE
CONCLUDED THAT THIS SCALE OF CHARGES MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DECREE FOR AGGREGATE RATES WHICH DO NOT AMOUNT TO CONCESSIONS.  SINCE
THE ADEQUACY OF THESE RATES WAS REACHED IN CONSIDERING THE FULL VALUE
OF THE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE LAND FURNISHED BY THE CITY AND THE
GRANT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION, IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THEY
ARE NOT LESS THAN A FAIR RENTAL VALUE.  THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER
PROVIDES A METHOD FOR MODIFICATION BY APPLICATION TO THE COURT SHOULD
EITHER SIDE BE OF OPINION THAT THIS ASSUMPTION IS INCORRECT.  AS WILL
IMMEDIATELY APPEAR FROM THIS OPINION, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO GIVE
CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ADDING
THE VALUE OF THE CITY'S LAND AND THE AMOUNT OF THE GRANT TO THE COST OF
THE FACILITIES.  IF THE CORRECT TEST IS FAIR RENTAL VALUE, COST OF
FACILITY IS ONLY PERSUASIVE, NOT DETERMINATIVE.  CONSEQUENTLY IT MAY BE
SHOWN AS A MATERIAL FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE
PROPERTIES BUT THE RATES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE UPON A LEVEL WHICH WILL
GIVE A RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT AS A WHOLE. 

FAIR RENTAL VALUE RATHER THAN A COMPENSATORY RETURN UPON FULL VALUE
OF THE MARKET FACILITIES IS THE STANDARD BY WHICH THE CITY'S SCHEDULE
OF RATES IS TO BE JUDGED.  TO DETERMINE FAIR RENTAL VALUE, THE GOING
RATES OF RENTAL FOR SIMILAR FACILITIES IN THE COMMUNITY ARE
SIGNIFICANT, AS ARE THE RENTALS PROSPECTIVE TENANTS ARE WILLING TO
PAY.  LIKEWISE, EVIDENCE OF THE OVER-ALL COST AND THE OVER-ALL VALUE OF
THE PROPERTIES WOULD BE MATERIAL.  THE COST OF FURNISHING THE
FACILITIES, INCLUDING THE NORMAL RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN LIKE
ENTERPRISES WOULD HAVE WEIGHT.  OTHER PERTINENT FACTORS WOULD DOUBTLESS
EMERGE IN A CONTROVERSY TO HAVE DETERMINED JUDICIALLY WHETHER CERTAIN
RENTALS RECEIVED ARE OR ARE NOT FAIR.  WHEN ENOUGH EVIDENCE IS OFFERED
TO JUSTIFY A CONCLUSION BASED UPON JUDGMENT AND NOT GUESSWORK, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ARE MET.  FN26 

THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR A RIGID RULE THAT AGGREGATE RENTALS ARE TO
EQUAL COSTS, SUCH AS WAS APPLIED IN BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 305 U.S. 507, 523-524, WHERE THIS COURT APPROVED AN ORDER OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DESIGNED TO ROOT OUT COMPETITIVE
EVILS IN DISCRIMINATORY WAREHOUSING INDULGED IN BY CARRIERS IN AN
EFFORT TO ACQUIRE TRAFFIC.  THE CITY IS ENTITLED TO DEVELOP ITS
PROPERTIES AND LOCATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF KANSAS FOR CIVIC
ADVANTAGE, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT UTILIZE ITS FACILITIES IN FURTHERANCE
OF A SCHEME TO OBTAIN CUSTOMERS FOR A CARRIER BY THE OFFERING OF
CONCESSIONS, CONTRARY TO THE ELKINS ACT.  IT WAS RECOGNIZED IN
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES THAT A CHARGE OF FAIR RENTAL
VALUE FOR SERVICES ACCESSORIAL TO TRANSPORTATION WOULD ADEQUATELY
PROTECT EVEN A CARRIER UNDER PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES.  WE ARE OF THE VIEW
THAT RENTAL CHARGES FIXED UPON THAT CONCEPT WILL AVOID THE
DISCRIMINATORY EVILS PROSCRIBED BY THE ELKINS ACT. 

WITH THE MODIFICATIONS DIRECTED IN THIS OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 1(1) OF THE ELKINS ACT (32 STAT. 847; 34 STAT. 587; 49
U.S.C. SEC. 41(1)), SO FAR AS PERTINENT HERE, PROVIDES: 

"ANYTHING DONE OR OMITTED TO BE DONE BY A CORPORATION COMMON CARRIER,
SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 1 OF THIS TITLE, WHICH, IF DONE OR OMITTED TO BE
DONE BY ANY DIRECTOR OR OFFICER THEREOF, OR ANY RECEIVER, TRUSTEE,
LESSEE, AGENT, OR PERSON ACTING FOR OR EMPLOYED BY SUCH CORPORATION,
WOULD CONSTITUTE A MISDEMEANOR UNDER SAID CHAPTER OR UNDER SECTIONS 41,
42, OR 43 OF THIS TITLE, SHALL ALSO BE HELD TO BE A MISDEMEANOR
COMMITTED BY SUCH CORPORATION, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF IT SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO LIKE PENALTIES AS ARE PRESCRIBED IN SAID CHAPTER OR BY
EXCEPT AS SUCH PENALTIES ARE HEREIN CHANGED.  THE WILLFUL FAILURE UPON
THE PART OF ANY CARRIER SUBJECT TO SAID CHAPTER TO FILE AND PUBLISH THE
TARIFFS OR RATES AND CHARGES AS REQUIRED BY SAID CHAPTER, OR STRICTLY
TO OBSERVE SUCH TARIFFS UNTIL CHANGED ACCORDING TO LAW, SHALL BE A
MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF THE CORPORATION OFFENDING
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $1,000 NOR MORE THAN
$20,000 FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON,
PERSONS, OR CORPORATION TO OFFER, GRANT, OR GIVE, OR TO SOLICIT,
ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE ANY REBATE, CONCESSION, OR DISCRIMINATION IN RESPECT
TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF ANY PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE
BY ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO SAID CHAPTER WHEREBY ANY SUCH PROPERTY
SHALL BY ANY DEVICE WHATEVER BE TRANSPORTED AT A LESS RATE THAN THAT
NAMED IN THE TARIFFS PUBLISHED AND FILED BY SUCH CARRIER, AS IS
REQUIRED BY SAID CHAPTER, OR WHEREBY ANY OTHER ADVANTAGE IS GIVEN OR
DISCRIMINATION IS PRACTICED.  EVERY PERSON OR CORPORATION, WHETHER
CARRIER OR SHIPPER, WHO SHALL, KNOWINGLY, OFFER, GRANT, OR GIVE, OR
SOLICIT, ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE ANY SUCH REBATES, CONCESSION, OR
DISCRIMINATION SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND ON
CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $1,000
NOR MORE THAN $20,000:  PROVIDED, THAT ANY PERSON, OR ANY OFFICER OR
DIRECTOR OF ANY CORPORATION SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 41,
42, OR 43 OF THIS TITLE OR OF CHAPTER 1 OF THIS TITLE, OR ANY RECEIVER,
TRUSTEE, LESSEE, AGENT, OR PERSON ACTING FOR OR EMPLOYED BY ANY SUCH
CORPORATION, WHO SHALL BE CONVICTED AS AFORESAID, SHALL, IN ADDITION TO
THE FINE HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, BE LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT IN THE
PENITENTIARY FOR A TERM OF NOT EXCEEDING TWO YEARS, OR BOTH SUCH FINE
AND IMPRISONMENT, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  ...  " 

FN2  32 STAT. 848; 36 STAT. 1167; 49 U.S.C. SEC. 43: 

"WHENEVER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE REASONABLE
GROUND FOR BELIEF THAT ANY COMMON CARRIER IS ENGAGED IN THE CARRIAGE OF
PASSENGERS OR FREIGHT TRAFFIC BETWEEN GIVEN POINTS AT LESS THAN THE
PUBLISHED RATES ON FILE, OR IS COMMITTING ANY DISCRIMINATIONS FORBIDDEN
BY LAW, A PETITION MAY BE PRESENTED ALLEGING SUCH FACTS TO THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SITTING IN EQUITY HAVING JURISDICTION; AND
WHEN THE ACT COMPLAINED OF IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED OR AS
BEING COMMITTED IN PART IN MORE THAN ONE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OR STATE, IT
MAY BE DEALT WITH, INQUIRED OF, TRIED, AND DETERMINED IN EITHER SUCH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OR STATE, WHEREUPON IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COURT
SUMMARILY TO INQUIRE INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, UPON SUCH NOTICE AND IN
SUCH MANNER AS THE COURT SHALL DIRECT AND WITHOUT THE FORMAL PLEADINGS
AND PROCEEDINGS APPLICABLE TO ORDINARY SUITS IN EQUITY, AND TO MAKE
SUCH OTHER PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS PARTIES THERETO AS THE COURT MAY
DEEM NECESSARY, AND UPON BEING SATISFIED OF THE TRUTH OF THE
ALLEGATIONS OF SAID PETITION SAID COURT SHALL ENFORCE AN OBSERVANCE OF
THE PUBLISHED TARIFFS OR DIRECT AND REQUIRE A DISCONTINUANCE OF SUCH
DISCRIMINATION BY PROPER ORDERS, WRITS, AND PROCESS, WHICH SAID ORDERS,
WRITS, AND PROCESS MAY BE ENFORCEABLE AS WELL AGAINST THE PARTIES
INTERESTED IN THE TRAFFIC AS AGAINST THE CARRIER, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT
OF APPEAL AS NOW PROVIDED BY LAW.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SEVERAL
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHENEVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SHALL DIRECT, EITHER OF HIS OWN MOTION OR UPON THE REQUEST OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, TO INSTITUTE AND PROSECUTE SUCH
PROCEEDINGS, AND THE PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED FOR BY SECTIONS 41, 42, OR 43
OF THIS TITLE SHALL NOT PRECLUDE THE BRINGING OF SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY
OF DAMAGES BY ANY PARTY INJURED, OR ANY OTHER ACTION PROVIDED BY
CHAPTER 1 OF THIS TITLE.  ...  PROVIDED, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE NAME OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION."    FN3  CF. UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO
NORTH SHORE R. CO., 288 U.S. 1, AN APPEAL FROM A ONE-JUDGE COURT FROM
DECREE ON A PETITION UNDER SEC. 12(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS
AMENDED, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 12(1); ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES,
309 U.S. 436, 446. 

FN4  THE CITY SPENT AN ADDITIONAL $149,000 FROM ITS GENERAL REVENUES
FOR STREET AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE TERMINAL AREA. 

FN5  FURTHER, MALLIN HAD SUBLET PART OF THE PROPERTY, AND AT THE TIME
HAD A NET RENTAL EXPENSE OF NO MORE THAN $25 PER MONTH. 

FN6  1897 ANNUAL REPORT, I.C.C., 47. 

FN7  1900 ANNUAL REPORT, I.C.C., 13. 

FN8  1902 ANNUAL REPORT, I.C.C., 8-10; 32 STAT. 848. 

FN9  NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 200
U.S. 361, 398. 

FN10  ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56, 72. 

FN11  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507, 524. 

FN12  UNITED STATES V. UNION STOCK YARD CO., 226 U.S. 286. 

FN13  34 STAT. 584, 588; 40 CONG. REC. 7022. 

FN14  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. REICHMANN, 145 F. 235,
240, REBATE BY NON-CARRIER PRIVATE CAR COMPANY TO SHIPPER, DECIDED
PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF THE CLAUSE "WHETHER CARRIER OR SHIPPER" BY THE
ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906; UNITED STATES V. MILWAUKEE REFRIGERATOR CO., 145
F. 1007, 1012, LIKEWISE DECIDED BEFORE THE AMENDMENT; DYE V. UNITED
STATES, 262 F. 6; UNITED STATES V. KOENIG COAL CO., 270 U.S. 512, 520. 

FN15  SOUTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, 219 U.S. 498. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. UNION STOCK YARD CO., 226 U.S. 286, 308. 

FN17  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507. 

FN18  151 KAN. 1 AND 2, 8; 97 P.2D 104, 105; 98 P.2D 101. 

FN19  HOUSTON & TEXAS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342, 351;
UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175; PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308
U.S. 79, 84; NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 591, 600-01; UNITED
STATES V. HOLT BANK, 270 U.S. 49, 55-56; MORGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 309
U.S. 78, 80-81; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 1, 10; CITY
OF NEW YORK V. FEIRING, ANTE, P. 283. 

FN20  THE DIFFICULTY IS SHOWN BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S LANGUAGE IN
FINDING 34: 

"THE CITY'S FORECAST OF ITS ABILITY TO PAY OFF THE BONDS IN TWENTY
TWO YEARS IS BASED UPON A NINETY PERCENT OCCUPANCY OF THE MARKET
FACILITIES AS COMPARED WITH AN ACTUAL PERCENTAGE OF OCCUPANCY OF LESS
THAN THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT AT THE PRESENT TIME, AND THERE IS ASSUMED AN
ABILITY TO EXACT THE SAME LEVEL OF RENTALS WHEN THE MARKET BUILDINGS
BECOME TWENTY-FIVE OR THIRTY YEARS OLD AS AT THE PRESENT TIME WHEN THEY
ARE NEW.  THE CITY'S ESTIMATE OF OPERATING EXPENSES IS UNDULY LOW BY
REASON OF THE OMISSION OF ANY SUMS TO COVER THE ANNUAL LOSS DUE TO
DEPRECIATION AND OBSOLESCENCE NOT MADE GOOD BY CURRENT MAINTENANCE. 

"THE DEFENDANT CITY WILL DERIVE NO IMMEDIATE DIRECT FINANCIAL BENEFIT
FROM THE OPERATION OF THE KANSAS CITY FOOD TERMINAL.  THE UNION
PACIFIC, BY REASON OF THE ANTICIPATED IMPROVEMENT OF THE VOLUME OF ITS
TRAFFIC IN PERISHABLE PRODUCE AND CONSEQUENT INCREASE IN ITS REVENUES,
WILL RECEIVE AN IMMEDIATE AND CONTINUING BENEFIT FROM THE PROJECT." 

FN21  THIS PROVISION READS:  "(1)  FROM OFFERING, GRANTING, OR
GIVING, OR ASSISTING, JOINING, OR CO-OPERATING IN OFFERING, GRANTING,
OR GIVING CASH PAYMENTS OR RENTAL CREDITS, FREE RENTS, AND REDUCED
RENTS, UNSECURED OR INADEQUATELY SECURED LOANS CONSTITUTING
CONCESSIONS, OR OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS TO DEFENDANT PRODUCE
DEALERS OR OTHER PRODUCE DEALERS, OR PRODUCE BROKERS OR OTHER PERSONS,
FIRMS, OR CORPORATIONS SHIPPING PRODUCE BY RAILROAD IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO MOVE OR FOR MOVING TO THE KANSAS CITY FOOD TERMINAL OR FOR
LEASING SPACE OR REMAINING AS TENANTS IN SAID FOOD TERMINAL." 

FN22  STATE EX REL. PARKER V. KANSAS CITY, 151 KAN. 2, 8; 98 P.2D
101, 105. 

FN23  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 461.  CF.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO., 312 U.S. 426,
435. 

FN24  THE FULL PARAGRAPH ENJOINS THE UNION PACIFIC AND THE CITY OF
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, AND THEIR OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, 

"(2)  FROM PERMITTING DEFENDANT PRODUCE DEALERS OR OTHER PRODUCE
DEALERS, OR PRODUCE BROKERS OR OTHER PERSONS, FIRMS, OR CORPORATIONS
SHIPPING OR RECEIVING TRAFFIC BY RAILROAD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO
OCCUPY OR REMAIN AS TENANTS OF THE WHOLESALE PRODUCE BUILDINGS OR OF
OTHER FACILITIES AT THE KANSAS CITY FOOD TERMINAL UNLESS SAID PRODUCE
DEALERS, PRODUCE BROKERS, OR OTHER PERSONS, FIRMS, OR CORPORATIONS -
(A) SHALL PAY RENTAL FOR PAST OCCUPANCY OF SUCH FACILITIES UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION HERETOFORE ENTERED IN THIS CAUSE, AND (B) SHALL PAY RENTAL
HEREAFTER FOR SUCH FACILITIES AT THE SAME RATE CHARGED ALL OTHER
SHIPPERS OCCUPYING SIMILAR FACILITIES AT SAID TERMINAL, WHICH DOES NOT
AMOUNT TO A REBATE OR CONCESSION TO ANY TENANT, AND WHICH WILL YIELD A
PROPER RATE OF RETURN UPON THE FULL VALUE OF THE MARKET FACILITIES AS A
WHOLE, AFTER MAKING PROVISION FOR ALL EXPENSES OF OPERATION, INCLUDING
MAINTENANCE AND DEPRECIATION.  PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NOTHING CONTAINED
IN THIS DECREE SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE CITY IN THE RENTING OF
SAID FACILITIES TO A UNIT BASIS; BUT IN NO EVENT SHALL THE RATES OF
RENTAL AND CHARGES PRESCRIBED FOR SUCH FACILITIES AGGREGATE LESS THAN
IS HEREINABOVE PROVIDED." 

FN25  THESE ULTIMATE FINDINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"41.  THE UNIFORM OR STANDARD RATES OF RENTAL ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, FOR LEASE OF WAREHOUSE SPACE AND OFFICE SPACE AT
THE KANSAS CITY FOOD TERMINAL ARE $150.00 PER MONTH PER UNIT AND $1.10
PER SQUARE FOOT PER ANNUM, RESPECTIVELY, AND THE AVERAGE RATE OF RENTAL
ADOPTED OR APPROVED BY KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, FOR LEASE OF THE COLD
STORAGE PLANT AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES AT SAID FOOD TERMINAL IS
$38,497 PER ANNUM.  SUCH RENTALS ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
FUNDS TO AMORTIZE THE PRINCIPAL AND PAY THE INTEREST ON THE PUBLIC
LEVEE REVENUE BONDS PURCHASED BY THE DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, REPRESENTING 55 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SAID FOOD TERMINAL, AND TO COMPENSATE THE CITY FOR THE USE OF THE
FACILITIES FOR THE PURPOSE TO WHICH THEY ARE DEDICATED. 

"42.  THE NET RETURN, WHILE LOW AS COMPARED TO THE FAIR RETURN OF
MANY PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES DEVOTED TO THE SERVICE OF THE PUBLIC, IS
COMPENSATORY AND, IN VIEW OF THE PURPOSE OF THE CITY TO BRING ABOUT
INDUSTRIAL IMPROVEMENT AND THE INCIDENTAL ADVANTAGE TO THE CITY FOR
THAT PURPOSE AND THE RETURN GENERALLY OBTAINED FROM INVESTMENTS IN
UTILITIES OF LIKE OR SIMILAR NATURE, THE PRESENT RENTAL RATES AND THE
CONSEQUENT RETURN TO THE CITY ARE NOT SO LOW THAT THE USE OF THE FOOD
TERMINAL BY TENANTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT THOSE RENTALS WILL AMOUNT
TO A GIFT OF ANY PART OF THE VALUE OF THE USE OF THE FOOD TERMINAL TO
THE TENANT SHIPPERS." 

FN26  CF. PALMER V. CONNECTICUT RY. & LIGHTING CO., 311 U.S. 544,
559, AND CASES CITED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE.  IN LAST ANALYSIS THE
QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE ELKINS ACT PROSCRIBES FINANCIAL
TRANSACTIONS BY A CITY WITH PROPOSED OCCUPANTS OF A CITY-OWNED BUILDING
BECAUSE THOSE OCCUPANTS WILL BE SHIPPERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM
SUCH BUILDING, WHERE THE CITY IS TO FURNISH NO FACILITIES OR SERVICES
OF TRANSPORTATION, WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVE NO PAYMENTS,
CONCESSIONS OR DISCRIMINATIONS ON THE PART OF ANY INTERSTATE CARRIER,
ARE AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW AND ARE FOR THE CITY'S BENEFIT.  A
SUBSIDIARY QUESTION IS WHETHER IN FACT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTIONS AMOUNT
TO DISCRIMINATIONS IN FAVOR OF SUCH OCCUPANTS.  A FURTHER QUESTION IS
PRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE DECREE TO BE ENTERED. 

I FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE IN DETAIL, OR NARROWLY
TO EXAMINE THE FINDINGS.  I SHALL ENDEAVOR, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REACHING
THE LEGAL QUESTIONS, TO CONSIDER THE CASE IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE
TO THE APPELLEES. 

THE DEFENDANTS DEOREO AND FEAN ARE NOT PHILANTHROPISTS BUT PROMOTERS
WHO HAD MORE OR LESS SUCCESSFULLY PROMOTED PRODUCE TERMINALS IN VARIOUS
CITIES.  THEY CONCEIVED THE PLAN OF ESTABLISHING ONE IN KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS.  THEY EXPECTED A PROFIT OUT OF THE VENTURE.  THEIR ORIGINAL
IDEA WAS THAT THEY SHOULD BECOME LESSEES OF THE TERMINAL AND MAKE THEIR
PROFIT BY SUB-RENTING SPACE IN IT.  WHEN THIS PURPOSE WAS ABANDONED
THEY SOUGHT TO BE MADE EXCLUSIVE RENTAL AGENTS.  OBJECTION BY THE
P.W.A. RENDERED THIS PROPOSAL IMPRACTICABLE.  THEY HAVE RECEIVED
CONSIDERABLE PAYMENTS FROM UNION PACIFIC FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TERMINAL. 

DEOREO AND FEAN PRESENTED THEIR PLAN TO UNION PACIFIC.  THAT COMPANY
TOOK AN INTEREST, NOT ELEEMOSYNARY BUT PRACTICAL, IN THE PROJECT. 
INASMUCH AS ITS TRACKS WOULD SERVE THE PROPOSED TERMINAL, THE RAILROAD
NATURALLY DESIRED THAT THE PLAN GO THROUGH SO THAT IT MIGHT GET
INCREASED BUSINESS AND OBTAIN A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER
RAILROADS SERVING THE AREA KNOWN AS GREATER KANSAS CITY AND
PARTICULARLY THE FOOD TERMINAL AT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.  BUT THE
RAILROAD DID NOT DESIRE TO ERECT THE TERMINAL.  IT SOUGHT TO INTEREST
THE OFFICIALS OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, IN THE SCHEME, AND SUCCEEDED IN
DOING SO. 

SOME YEARS AGO KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, HAD BEEN GIVEN A LARGE TRACT OF
WATER-FRONT LAND WHICH, UNTIL RECENTLY, HAD BEEN UNUSED.  THROUGH A
P.W.A. GRANT AND A LOAN FROM RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, THE
CITY HAD MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS AND HAD ERECTED A GRAIN ELEVATOR AND
DOCKS ON THE TRACT WHICH WERE SERVED BY THE LINES OF UNION PACIFIC AND
MISSOURI PACIFIC.  THE BALANCE OF THE TRACT WAS AVAILABLE FOR A PRODUCE
TERMINAL.  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH AN INSTRUMENTALITY WOULD OBVIOUSLY
BE OF GREAT BENEFIT TO THE CITY IN BOTH FINANCIAL AND CIVIC ASPECTS. 
THE PLAN EVOLVED WAS THAT THE CITY SHOULD ERECT SUCH A TERMINAL; THAT
UNION PACIFIC WOULD CONSTRUCT A LARGE TEAM TRACK AND SWITCHING YARD ON
THE GROUND ADJACENT TO THE TERMINAL TO BE LEASED BY UNION PACIFIC FROM
THE CITY AND THAT THE TERMINAL SHOULD BE FINANCED BY THE CITY THROUGH A
P.W.A. GRANT AND INCOME BONDS. 

DEOREO AND FEAN, UNION PACIFIC, AND THE CITY OFFICIALS ALL STRUGGLED
EARNESTLY TO OBTAIN A GRANT FROM P.W.A.  AN INVESTIGATION BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DISCLOSED THAT THE TERMINAL WOULD BE HIGHLY
BENEFICIAL TO THE PRODUCERS TRIBUTARY TO THE KANSAS CITY MARKET. 
INVESTIGATION BY THE P.W.A. DISCLOSED THAT THE SCHEME WAS DESIRABLE AND
PRACTICABLE.  A GRANT OF NOT TO EXCEED $1,700,000 WAS MADE, CONDITIONED
ON THE FINANCING OF THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT. 

UNION PACIFIC AND THE CITY OFFICIALS NEGOTIATED WITH AN UNDERWRITING
HOUSE FOR THE SALE, BY THE CITY, OF $3,000,000 OF INCOME BONDS,
$1,033,000 OF WHICH WERE TO BE USED TO PAY OFF THE OUTSTANDING BONDS,
AND THE BALANCE FOR THE ERECTION OF THE TERMINAL.  ALTHOUGH A FIRM
COMMITMENT HAD BEEN OBTAINED, THE BOND HOUSE, AT THE LAST MOMENT,
RECEDED FROM THE PROPOSITION, THUS LEAVING THE WHOLE PROJECT IN
JEOPARDY.  IN THIS SITUATION UNION PACIFIC ASSERTED ITS WILLINGNESS TO
BUY THE BONDS.  A BIDDING WAS HELD AND UNION PACIFIC WAS THE SUCCESSFUL
BIDDER.  NO QUESTION IS MADE OF THE LEGALITY OF THIS INVESTMENT BY THE
RAILROAD, AND ITS INTENTION TO TAKE THE BOND ISSUE WAS APPROVED BY
P.W.A. AND WAS CERTIFIED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE
CITY HAD NO POWER TO PLEDGE ITS PROPERTY AND ITS GENERAL REVENUES AS
SECURITY FOR THE BONDS.  IT HAD FULL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE INCOME BONDS,
INTEREST, AND PRINCIPAL TO BE PAID FROM THE RECEIPTS OF THE TERMINAL. 
FN1 

THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE P.W.A. GRANT HAVING BEEN FULFILLED,
THE CITY PROCEEDED WITH THE ERECTION OF THE TERMINAL WITH THE FULLEST
AID AND COOPERATION OF UNION PACIFIC.  THAT COMPANY HAD ADVANCED SOME
$22,000 FOR PRELIMINARY EXPENSES, WHICH THE CITY PROPOSED TO REPAY IT.
UNDER A RULING OF P.W.A. THE CITY COULD NOT DO SO WITH FUNDS PROCURED
FOR CONSTRUCTION, AND IF THE SUM IS REPAID THE FUNDS MUST COME OUT OF
INCOME.  THE RAILROAD, NOT UNNATURALLY, RETAINED AN ARCHITECT TO
COLLABORATE WITH THE CITY'S ARCHITECT RESPECTING THE CONSTRUCTION AND
EXERTED EVERY EFFORT TO BRING THE PLAN TO FRUITION. 

IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, THERE WAS AN EXISTING WHOLESALE PRODUCE
MARKET.  THIS NEEDED EXTENSIVE ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS AND THE
EXPECTATION WAS THAT MANY OF THE TENANTS WOULD MOVE TO THE NEW AND MORE
CONVENIENT TERMINAL IN KANSAS CITY, KANSAS.  ALL WHO WERE INTERESTED IN
THE LATTER REALIZED THAT TENANTS OF THE OLD ONE IN MISSOURI MIGHT INCUR
EXPENSE IN GIVING UP THEIR QUARTERS AND MOVING TO THE NEW.  THEY
REALIZED ALSO THAT, IN ORDER PROMPTLY TO FILL THE NEW BUILDING, SOME
CONCESSIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF EARLY-ACCRUING RENTALS MIGHT HAVE TO BE
MADE.  AN ICE MANUFACTURING AND COLD STORAGE PLANT WAS PART OF THE
PROJECT.  A TENANT WAS OBTAINED FOR THIS UNIT AT A SUBSTANTIAL RENTAL. 
THE CITY AUTHORITIES NEGOTIATED AN ARRANGEMENT WITH THE TENANT FOR
PAYMENT OF SOME $80,000 IN ADVANCE RENTAL.  WITH THIS MONEY, AND OTHER
ADVANCE RENTS IT MIGHT OBTAIN, THE CITY FELT THAT IT COULD ARRANGE TO
REIMBURSE PERSONS WHO MIGHT BECOME TENANTS FOR LOSSES INCIDENT TO THEIR
REMOVAL.  THE QUESTION AROSE, HOWEVER, AS TO THE CITY'S AUTHORITY SO TO
DO.  THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO A COMMITTEE OF LAWYERS AND ULTIMATELY
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KANSAS.  THAT OFFICER THOUGHT THE MATTER
SHOULD BE SETTLED BY COURT DECISION.  ACCORDINGLY A PROCEEDING WAS
INSTITUTED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS AND THAT COURT HELD THE CITY
HAD POWER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO USE ADVANCE RENTS IN THE MANNER
PROPOSED.  FN2    AS WAS EXPECTED, TENANTS OF THE OLD MARKET IN
MISSOURI, WHEN SOLICITED TO MOVE TO THE NEW, RAISED QUESTIONS OF LOSSES
DUE TO UNEXPIRED LEASES, ABANDONMENT OF FIXTURES, ETC.  EVERYBODY
INTERESTED IN THE NEW TERMINAL, INCLUDING DEOREO AND FEAN, EMPLOYES OF
UNION PACIFIC, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY, NEGOTIATED WITH THESE
PROSPECTIVE TENANTS IN RESPECT OF WHAT WOULD BE A FAIR RECOMPENSE FOR
THEIR LOSSES DUE TO REMOVAL AND REESTABLISHMENT.  NONE OF THESE
NEGOTIATORS HAD AUTHORITY TO DO MORE THAN ASCERTAIN THE CLAIMS OF SUCH
PROPOSED TENANTS, WHICH WERE TO BE SUBMITTED TO, AND ADJUSTED BY, A
COMMITTEE REPRESENTING AND ACTING FOR KANSAS CITY, KANSAS.  THE
EVIDENCE IS UNCONTRADICTED AND OVERWHELMING THAT UNION PACIFIC'S
EMPLOYES, AND EVERYONE ELSE CONCERNED, MADE IT CLEAR THAT ANY
ADJUSTMENT OF THESE LOSSES WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE BY THE CITY, AND BY
THE CITY ONLY; THAT THE RAILROAD COULD NOT, AND WOULD NOT, PAY A CENT
TOWARDS ANY SUCH EXPENSE. 

WHEN THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT NOTHING HAD BEEN PAID TO ANY CLAIMANT. 
ONE CLAIM HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE.  IT TURNS OUT THAT
ALTHOUGH THAT CLAIM WAS SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT IT WAS IN AN
UNJUSTIFIABLY LARGE AMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO THE CANCELLATION OF AN
EXISTING LEASE, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CITY OFFICIALS, IN
APPROVING THE CLAIM, KNEW THIS OR WOULD HAVE APPROVED THE CLAIM HAD
THEY KNOWN IT, AND THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE CLAIM WAS MADE IN BAD
FAITH.  MOREOVER, NEITHER WITH RESPECT TO THIS CLAIM NOR TO ANY OTHER
WHICH WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME SUIT WAS INSTITUTED, IS THERE
EVIDENCE, AND THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE COURT BELOW OR BY THIS COURT,
EXCEPT BY INNUENDO, THAT IF THE CLAIMS MADE WERE PAID ANY PAYEE WOULD
HAVE EVEN BEEN MADE WHOLE FOR LOSSES CONSEQUENT ON MOVING AND
ESTABLISHING HIMSELF IN THE NEW LOCATION, OR THAT HE WOULD THEREBY HAVE
HAD ANY PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER TENANTS TO WHOM NO SUCH
PAYMENTS WERE MADE. 

AT AN EARLY DAY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, UNION PACIFIC
EXPRESSED ITS WILLINGNESS TO SWITCH ALL CONSIGNMENTS IN AND OUT OF THE
TERMINAL TO AND FROM OTHER RAILROADS AT A UNIFORM AND FAIR CHARGE.  IT
FILED A SWITCHING TARIFF WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH
HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND IS CONCURRED IN BY THE OTHER RAILROADS.  THE
TARIFF IS THE SAME AS THAT WHICH HAS BEEN IN FORCE FOR SIMILAR SERVICE
IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.  THUS, ALL RAILROADS AND SHIPPERS ARE TO BE
SERVED INDIFFERENTLY AND AT A UNIFORM AND FAIR RATE FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INVOLVED. 

ON THESE FACTS THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE RAILROAD,
THOSE OF THE CITY, OR THOSE OF THE TWO JOINTLY, CONSTITUTE A REBATE OR
A DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ELKINS ACT.  FN3 

1.  IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAW WAS TO PREVENT A CARRIER FROM GIVING, AND A
SHIPPER FROM RECEIVING, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AT LESS THAN THE
PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES, AND TO PRECLUDE WHAT IS EQUIVALENT, NAMELY, THE
FURNISHING OF A SERVICE AT TARIFF RATES TO ONE SHIPPER WHICH IS
WITHHELD FROM OTHERS.  THE SECTIONS OF THE ELKINS ACT HERE RELIED UPON
WERE MERELY INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT THIS CONGRESSIONAL AIM AND MORE
EFFICIENTLY TO PROVIDE AGAINST EVASION.  THUS IT IS MADE UNLAWFUL FOR
ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION TO OFFER, TO GRANT, TO GIVE, OR TO SOLICIT,
TO ACCEPT, OR TO RECEIVE, ANY REBATE, CONCESSION OR DISCRIMINATION IN
RESPECT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF ANY PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY
ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHEREBY ANY
SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BY ANY DEVICE WHATEVER BE TRANSPORTED AT A LESS
RATE THAN THE PUBLISHED TARIFF RATE, OR WHEREBY ANY OTHER ADVANTAGE IS
GIVEN OR DISCRIMINATION IS PRACTICED.  THE LANGUAGE SEEMS TOO CLEAR TO
BE MISUNDERSTOOD.  IT IS ONLY THE CARRIER, OR SOMEONE ACTING IN ITS
BEHALF, WHO CAN GIVE OR GRANT A CONCESSION.  IT IS ONLY THE SHIPPER, OR
SOMEONE ACTING IN HIS BEHALF, WHO CAN RECEIVE OR SOLICIT ONE.  THE
CORPORATION WHO SHALL KNOWINGLY OFFER, GRANT, OR GIVE, OR SOLICIT,
ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE ANY SUCH REBATE, CONCESSION OR DISCRIMINATION" SHALL
BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND PUNISHED BY FINE.  AS AMENDED, IT
IMPOSES A FURTHER PUNISHMENT BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT UPON ANY OFFICER
OF A CORPORATION OR ANY PERSON "ACTING FOR OR EMPLOYED BY" ANY
CORPORATION, WHO IS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 
UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME NO ONE HAS SUPPOSED THAT A THIRD PARTY WHO IS
NEITHER CARRIER NOR SHIPPER AND NEITHER FURNISHES NOR RECEIVES
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, IN MAKING A BUSINESS DEAL WITH A MAN WHO
HAPPENS TO BE A SHIPPER OVER AN INTERSTATE CARRIER'S LINE, MAY RENDER
HIMSELF LIABLE CRIMINALLY IF, AND MERELY BECAUSE, THE RESULT OF HIS
TRANSACTION WILL BE BENEFICIAL WHEN RECKONED UP IN THE YEAR'S PROFIT
AND LOSS STATEMENT OF THE OTHER PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION. 

THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SOME QUESTION, ALTHOUGH IT IS HARD TO
UNDERSTAND WHY, WHETHER THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT APPLIED TO A
SHIPPER OR HIS AGENTS.  WHEN THE ACT WAS AMENDED BY THE HEPBURN ACT THE
PHRASE "EVERY PERSON OR CORPORATION" WAS SUPPLEMENTED BY AN
EPEXEGETICAL CLAUSE "WHETHER CARRIER OR SHIPPER."  THE LEGISLATIVE
RECORD SHOWS THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO MAKE SURE THAT SHIPPERS
WHO RECEIVED REBATES SHOULD BE GUILTY EQUALLY WITH CARRIERS WHO GAVE
THEM.  IT HAD NO OTHER PURPOSE. 

EVERY DECISION APPLYING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AND THE ELKINS ACT HAS TURNED UPON THE FACT THAT SOMEONE
FURNISHING A SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION COVERED BY A TARIFF HAS REMITTED
A PART OF THE TARIFF CHARGE, OR HAS RENDERED A FREE SERVICE, OR A
SERVICE BELOW COST TO SOME SHIPPERS WHICH OTHERS DID NOT ENJOY; AND
WHERE ONE NOT A CARRIER HAS BEEN HELD GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF THE ACT
IT HAS BEEN BECAUSE HE RETURNED TO THE SHIPPER, THROUGH ONE PERFORMING
A PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE COVERED BY THE CARRIER'S TARIFF,
PART OF THE PUBLISHED RATE, OR HAS INDUCED THE CARRIER TO PERFORM A
SERVICE FOR THE SHIPPER COVERED BY THE TARIFF AT LESS THAN THE
PUBLISHED RATE, OR HAS INDUCED THE CARRIER TO PERFORM A TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE FOR A SHIPPER TO WHICH THE SHIPPER WAS NOT ENTITLED UNDER THE
PUBLISHED TARIFF AND WHICH, THEREFORE, THE CARRIER FAILED TO PERFORM
FOR OTHERS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, SENSIBLE OF THIS UNBROKEN LINE OF AUTHORITY,
THOUGHT IT NECESSARY TO ATTRIBUTE THE PROPOSED PAYMENTS IN SOME WAY TO
UNION PACIFIC.  TO REACH THIS RESULT, IT HELD THAT IN THE TERMINAL
ENTERPRISE UNION PACIFIC AND KANSAS CITY WERE JOINT ADVENTURERS. 
OBVIOUSLY THE CONCLUSION IS INCORRECT.  UNION PACIFIC WAS IN NO SENSE A
PARTNER AND DID NOT STAND TO MAKE A PROFIT FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE
ENTERPRISE.  IT WAS A LESSEE OF A PART OF THE PROPERTY FOR ITS FREIGHT
YARD AT AN ADEQUATE RENTAL.  IT WAS THE OWNER OF BONDS LAWFULLY
ACQUIRED, AND, AS SUCH, DEALT AT ARM'S LENGTH WITH THE CITY.  ALTHOUGH
THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO SUSTAIN THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
THIS COURT APPARENTLY DISCARDS IT AS UNJUSTIFIABLE. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT UNION PACIFIC AND
THE CITY WERE IN A CONSPIRACY TO GRANT COMPENSATION TO PROSPECTIVE
TENANTS.  BUT THIS IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO FINDING THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
CONSPIRACY WAS TO GRANT TRANSPORTATION TO THESE TENANTS AT LESS THAN
THE TARIFF RATES OF UNION PACIFIC.  INASMUCH AS IT IS CONCEDED THAT
THERE WAS NO PURPOSE TO GRANT ANY SHIPPER ANY SERVICE NOT GRANTED TO
OTHERS, OR TO GIVE ANY SHIPPER A REBATE FROM THE PUBLISHED TARIFF
RATES, IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT THE LATTER SORT OF CONSPIRACY IS NOT MADE
OUT. 

FINALLY, THE DISTRICT COURT SOUGHT TO SPELL OUT A FINANCIAL
CONTRIBUTION BY UNION PACIFIC FOR THE BENEFIT OF PROPOSED TENANTS BY
WHAT IT DENOMINATED THE WAIVER OF THE LIEN OF THE BONDS HELD BY THE
RAILROAD ON THE TERMINAL PROPERTY.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS  FN4  MAKES IT CLEAR THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF
THAT STATE, THE RAILROAD HAD NO LIEN, IN ANY PROPER SENSE OF THE TERM. 
THE STATE COURT HELD THAT THE OBLIGATION OF THE CITY UNDER THE BONDS
WAS TO DEVOTE THE NET PROFITS OF THE ENTERPRISE TO THE PAYMENT OF THE
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, BUT THAT IT WAS AT LIBERTY TO PAY ALL NECESSARY
OPERATING EXPENSES, INCLUDING THE EXPENSES OF OBTAINING TENANTS.  I DO
NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE OPINION OF THIS COURT APPROVES THE FINDING AND
CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS RESPECT. 

THE RULING HERE IS MUCH BROADER, AND DOES NOT CONDITION VIOLATION OF
THE LAW ON ANY PAYMENT OR CONCESSION BY UNION PACIFIC.  IT IS THAT IF
THE CITY, WHICH IS NOT A SHIPPER, NOR A CARRIER, AND NOT A FURNISHER OF
ANY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, IN DEALING WITH ITS OWN PROPERTY NOT
DEVOTED TO ANY SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION, SEES FIT TO MAKE AN
ADVANTAGEOUS FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT WITH A PROPOSED TENANT OF ITS
PROPERTY, THAT TRANSACTION, OTHERWISE LEGAL, AT ONCE BECOMES ILLEGAL
AND SUBJECTS THE CITY, OR ITS OFFICERS, TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND TO AN
INJUNCTION IF IT HAPPENS THAT THE PARTY WITH WHOM IT DEALS BECOMES, IN
VIRTUE OF THE TRANSACTION, A SHIPPER OVER THE LINES OF AN INTERSTATE
CARRIER, AND IS BENEFITED BY THE TRANSACTION.  THE DISTINCTION SOUGHT
TO BE MADE BETWEEN BENEFITS APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION AND BENEFITS
GENERALLY SEEMS TO ME ILLUSORY.  THE COURT EXPRESSLY HOLDS THAT INTENT
IS IMMATERIAL; THAT IF THE RESULT IS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE SHIPPER, A
REBATE, CONCESSION, OR DISCRIMINATION FROM THE TARIFFS OF THE CARRIER
HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ELKINS ACT. 

I VENTURE TO THINK THAT NO ONE WILL BE MORE SURPRISED THAN THE
MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS AT THE ATTRIBUTION OF THE STATUTORY PHRASE
"EVERY PERSON" WHO GIVES OR RECEIVES, GRANTS OR SOLICITS REBATES OR
DISCRIMINATORY SERVICE, TO STATES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND THEIR
OFFICERS WHO, IN PROMOTING LAWFUL MUNICIPAL PURPOSES, INCIDENTALLY
BRING ADDITIONAL BUSINESS TO AN INTERSTATE CARRIER.  WE KNOW THAT IT IS
A COMMON PRACTICE FOR CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND CITY AUTHORITIES TO
OFFER TO MANUFACTURING AND BUSINESS CONCERNS LANDS AND SITES ON
FAVORABLE TERMS, SUCH AS LOW PURCHASE PRICE, REDUCED RENTALS, EXEMPTION
FROM TAXATION FOR A GIVEN PERIOD, IN AN EFFORT TO INDUCE SUCH CONCERNS
TO LOCATE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A MUNICIPALITY. 

WE KNOW THAT, IN ORDER TO INDUCE MEN TO MOVE THEIR PLANTS FROM ONE
LOCATION TO ANOTHER, IT IS A PRACTICAL NECESSITY TO OFFER THEM SOME
RECOMPENSE FOR THE EXPENSE INVOLVED AND FOR THE LOSS WHICH MAY RESULT
FROM DOING BUSINESS IN A NEW LOCATION.  UNDER THE DECISION NOW
ANNOUNCED, CITIZENS OR CITY OFFICIALS CONNECTED WITH SUCH A
TRANSACTION, THOUGH THEIR PURPOSE BE WHOLLY REMOTE FROM ANY BENEFIT TO
A RAILROAD, ARE GUILTY OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. 

WE ALSO KNOW THAT IN THE COMPETITIVE EFFORT OF RAILROADS TO OBTAIN
BUSINESS THEY HAVE ASSISTED MUNICIPALITIES TO ESTABLISH INDUSTRIES
ALONG THEIR LINES.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT THAT SUCH ACTIVITY ON THE
PART OF THE RAILROAD, WHERE IT GAVE NOTHING IN MONEY AND REBATED
NOTHING FROM ITS PUBLISHED TARIFFS IN SERVICE OR RATES, CONSTITUTED A
VIOLATION OF THE ELKINS ACT.  TO HOLD THAT, BY THIS STATUTE, CONGRESS
INTENDED TO PARALYZE LAWFUL EFFORT, WELL WITHIN THE POWERS CONFERRED BY
THE STATES ON THEIR MUNICIPALITIES, IN THE VIEW THAT SUCH EFFORT
CONSTITUTES A REBATE FROM A CARRIER'S TARIFF RATE, SEEMS TO ME TO PLACE
A FORCED AND UNREASONABLE CONSTRUCTION UPON THE WORDS OF THE ACT. 

THE OPINIONS OF THE COURT BELOW AND OF THIS COURT POINT OUT THAT, AS
A RESULT OF THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN FOR A TERMINAL, UNION PACIFIC
EXPECTED TO CARRY GREATLY INCREASED TRAFFIC INTO AND OUT OF KANSAS CITY
AND THAT THIS INCREASE NECESSARILY WOULD INFLICT LOSSES UPON ITS
COMPETITORS.  BUT THE ELKINS ACT AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WERE
AIMED AT SPECIFIC ABUSES, AND WERE NOT GENERAL PROHIBITIONS OF ALL
FORMS OF COMPETITION BETWEEN CARRIERS OR LIMITATIONS ON THE INCREASE OF
A CARRIER'S TRAFFIC BY ANY SORT OF COMPETITION.  IN FACT, THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY IS TO FOSTER AND ENCOURAGE COMPETITION BETWEEN
RAILROADS, AND TO PROHIBIT AGREEMENTS OR CONSPIRACIES TO SUPPRESS IT.
FN5  IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT CARRIERS CUSTOMARILY ADVERTISE THE
ADVANTAGES OF SITES LYING ALONG THEIR LINES IN THE HOPE OF ENCOURAGING
SHIPPERS TO LOCATE THEREON.  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE SO
POINTEDLY NOTICED IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 
OF COURSE, UNION PACIFIC WAS ACTUATED BY THE LEGITIMATE DESIRE OF
INCREASED TRAFFIC IN ALL ITS EFFORTS TOWARDS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
TERMINAL.  THAT AVOWED MOTIVE WAS, IN MY JUDGMENT, INNOCENT AND
LAWFUL.  MOREOVER, IN TRUTH, THIS CONTROVERSY HAS ITS ROOTS IN THE
COMPETITION OF TWO CITIES, RATHER THAN THAT OF RAILROADS. 

2.  ASSUMING, AS THE OPINION DOES, THAT THE CITY AND ITS OFFICERS
WERE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, PERSONS "ACTING FOR" UNION
PACIFIC, THE PROOF FAILS TO DISCLOSE THAT THE SUM PROPOSED TO BE PAID
TO ANY PRODUCE MERCHANT IN CONNECTION WITH HIS MOVING TO THE NEW
TERMINAL WAS IN FACT MORE THAN FAIR COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OR WAS A
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY OTHER TENANT.  THERE IS NO PROOF, AND INDEED
IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FURNISH ANY, THAT AT THE END OF ONE, TWO,
OR THREE YEARS OF BUSINESS AT THE NEW TERMINAL,  - CONSIDERING THE
ATTENDANT EXPENSE OF MOVING AND REESTABLISHING THE BUSINESS AT THE NEW
LOCATION, THE INCIDENT LOSS OF GOOD WILL AND CUSTOM, AND THE NECESSITY
OF FINDING NEW CUSTOM TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THAT LOST,  - THE BALANCE
SHEET OF ANY OF THE TENANTS WOULD DISCLOSE THAT HE WAS BETTER OFF THAN
IF HE HAD STAYED IN HIS OLD LOCATION.  AND IT WOULD BE EVEN MORE
DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE THAT A SUM PAID HIM TO COVER SUCH LOSS AND
DAMAGE IS REFLECTED UPON HIS BOOKS IN THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID
BY HIM, RATHER THAN IN THE OTHER ITEMS OF EXPENSE CONNECTED WITH HIS
BUSINESS.  HOW SHALL ANY SUCH ALLOCATION BE MADE?  NONE SUCH IS
NECESSARY WHERE THE CARRIER ITSELF, OR SOMEONE REPRESENTING IT, GRANTS
A CONCESSION FROM THE PUBLISHED RATE OR RENDERS A SERVICE NOT
COMPREHENDED IN ITS TARIFF.  IN SUCH CASE THE FACT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 
IN THIS CASE THE COURT ASSUMES THE FACT AND, BY A BLANKET AND SWEEPING
DECREE, BANS ANY COMPENSATION, HOWEVER JUST, TO ANYONE FOR REMOVING
FROM AN OLD LOCATION TO THE NEW TERMINAL ON THE SUSPICION THAT THE
PAYEE MAY HAVE SOME ADVANTAGE OVER ANOTHER TENANT WHO DID NOT INCUR ANY
SUCH EXPENSE.  THUS THE DECREE WILL RENDER IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR KANSAS
CITY TO MAKE WHAT IT DEEMS LEGITIMATE AND PROPER ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE
PROSECUTION OF A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IN NO SENSE CONSISTING OF THE
SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION.  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS NEVER HAD ANY
SUCH INTENT IN ADOPTING THE ELKINS ACT.  THIS IS TO REACH INTO THE
PECULIARLY LOCAL AFFAIRS OF THE STATES AND TO LAY THE DEAD HAND UPON
THE OTHERWISE LAWFUL ACTIVITIES OF STATES AND THEIR SUBDIVISIONS. 
CERTAINLY A FAR MORE SPECIFIC MANDATE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PERSUADE US
THAT CONGRESS HAD ANY SUCH PURPOSE. 

3.  ANOTHER FEATURE OF THE DECREE SEEMS TO ME TO BE EQUALLY
UNJUSTIFIED.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE CITY ADOPTED A STANDARD
FORM OF LEASE WHICH FIXED A UNIFORM RENTAL PER UNIT OF SPACE.  IN ORDER
TO FILL THE BUILDING PROMPTLY, THIS LEASE PROVIDED THAT FOR THE FIRST
THREE MONTHS THE MONTHLY RENTAL SHOULD BE ONE-THIRD OF THE STANDARD
MONTHLY RENTAL.  THUS A TENANT WHO, AFTER THE THREE MONTHS, WOULD PAY
$150 A UNIT WOULD GET THE USE OF THAT UNIT FOR THE FIRST THREE MONTHS
FOR $50.  IT IS AGAIN COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT, IN A COMPETITIVE
SITUATION, THE OWNER OFTEN HAS TO MAKE RENTAL CONCESSIONS FOR A BRIEF
TIME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LEASE TERM.  THERE IS NOTHING UNLAWFUL
ABOUT THIS AND THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS SANCTIONS
IT.  THE COURT BELOW SWEPT ASIDE ALL THESE ARRANGEMENTS AND, ALTHOUGH
IT FOUND "THE PRESENT RENTAL RATES AND THE CONSEQUENT RETURN TO THE
CITY ARE NOT SO LOW THAT THE USE OF THE FOOD TERMINAL BY TENANTS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT THOSE RENTALS WILL AMOUNT TO A GIFT OF ANY PART
OF THE VALUE OF THE USE OF THE FOOD TERMINAL TO THE TENANT SHIPPERS,"
IT NEVERTHELESS REQUIRED THAT THE RENTALS MUST BE SUCH AS TO ALLOW A
FAIR RETURN TO THE CITY ON THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE PREMISES INCLUDING
THE PRODUCT OF THE MONEY GRANTED BY P.W.A. AND THE LAND ACQUIRED BY
FREE GIFT.  UNDER THE LAW, THE CITY WAS AT LIBERTY TO TURN THIS LAND TO
ACCOUNT IN SUCH MANNER AND AT SUCH RATE OF RETURN AS IT MIGHT SEE FIT. 
WHILE THE OPINION OF THE COURT HOLDS THIS PROVISION OF THE DECREE
ERRONEOUS, IT SUBSTITUTES WHAT I THINK AN EQUALLY IMPROPER RULE.  THE
CITY IS TO BE PROHIBITED FROM LEASING ITS OWN PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY,
IN THE PROSECUTION OF AN ENTERPRISE WHICH IT DEEMS BENEFICIAL TO THE
COMMUNITY, AT RATES IT DEEMS PROPER AND RATES WHICH ARE OTHERWISE
WITHIN ITS LAWFUL POWER.  IT IS TOLD THAT IT MUST GET A FAIR RENTAL
VALUE, AND VARIOUS CRITERIA OF FAIRNESS ARE SUGGESTED.  THUS, THE COURT
HOLDS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED IN SUCH A SITUATION TO SHACKLE THE
MUNICIPAL ARM OF A SOVEREIGN STATE, FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE, AND
COMPEL IT TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LAW OF ITS OWN
STATE PERMITS.  THIS RESULT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED IN THE GUISE OF
PREVENTING AN ALLEGED REBATE OF TARIFF RATES BY A CARRIER, UNCONNECTED
WITH AND NEITHER CONTROLLED BY THE CITY NOR EXERTING ANY LEGAL CONTROL
OVER THE CITY, WHOSE ONLY FUNCTION IS THAT OF SERVING THOSE WHO USE THE
CITY'S FACILITIES. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE BILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 

FN1  STATE ES REL. BECK V. KANSAS CITY, 149 KAN. 252; 86 P.2D 476. 

FN2  STATE EX REL. PARKER V. KANSAS CITY, 151 KAN. 2; 98 P.2D 101. 

FN3  49 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1). 

FN4  NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSOCIATION, 166 U.S.
290, 312, 325. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :













KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR CO., 313 U.S. 487 


NO. 741.  ARGUED MAY 1, 2, 1941.  - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1941.  - 115 F.2D
268, REVERSED. 


1.  IN DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP CASES, THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHEN
DECIDING QUESTIONS OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, MUST FOLLOW THE RULES
PREVAILING IN THE STATES IN WHICH THEY SIT.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64.  P. 496. 

2.  IN AN ACTION IN A FEDERAL COURT IN DELAWARE, FOR BREACH OF A NEW
YORK CONTRACT, THE APPLICABILITY OF A NEW YORK STATUTE DIRECTING THAT
INTEREST BE ADDED TO THE RECOVERY IN CONTRACT CASES IS A QUESTION OF
CONFLICT OF LAWS, WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT MUST DETERMINE BY THE LAW OF
DELAWARE.  P. 496. 

3.  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A STATE,
CONTRARY TO ITS OWN POLICY, SHALL GIVE EFFECT IN ACTIONS BROUGHT
LOCALLY ON CONTRACTS MADE IN OTHER STATES, TO LAWS OF THOSE STATES
RELATING, NOT TO THE VALIDITY OF SUCH CONTRACTS, BUT TO THE RIGHT TO
ADD INTEREST TO THE RECOVERY AS AN INCIDENTAL ITEM OF DAMAGES.  SEC.
480 N.Y. CIV. PRAC.  ACT.  JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. YATES,
299 U.S. 178, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 497. 

KLAXON COMPANY V. STENTOR ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 674, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED FOR BREACH OF A CONTRACT, 30 F.SUPP.  425.  THE REVIEW IN
THIS COURT WAS LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER SEC. 480 OF THE NEW YORK
CIVIL PRACTICE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN
DELAWARE. 

AND REMEDY RATHER THAN TO SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT.  FUNKHOUSER V. J.B.
PRESTON CO., 290 U.S. 163; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 107 F.2D
402, 418. 

THIS COURT'S DECISION IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AND
THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, MAKE IT OF
PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND
PROCEDURE BE KEPT CLEAR. 

THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE REGARDED SEC. 480 AS A REGULATION OF ITS OWN
ADJECTIVE LAW AND NOT AS A GRANT OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT ENTITLED TO
ENFORCEMENT IN FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS.  SEE MATTER OF 1610 P, INC., 168
MISC. 918; CF., FIDELITY-PHENIX FIRE INS. CO. V. CORTEZ CIGAR CO., 92
F.2D 882; KLINE BROS. V. ROYAL INS. CO., 192 F. 378. 

THERE APPEARS TO BE NO DELAWARE DECISION AS TO WHETHER INTEREST IS
SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL.  IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER SUCH A DECISION
WOULD BE OF BINDING FORCE ON A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN DELAWARE.  CF.,
RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 202; E.E. CHEATHAM, SOURCES
OF RULES FOR CONFLICT OF LAWS (1941), 89 U. OF PA. L.R. 430, 446-7;
NOTE (1939), 52 HARV. L.R. 1002. 

BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF AUTHORITY THE MATTER OF INTEREST IS DEEMED
PROCEDURAL AND GOVERNED BY THE LEX FORI.  BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343, 349, 350; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 107 F.2D 402; GODDARD V. FOSTER, 17 WALL.  123; MATHER V.
STOKELY, 218 F. 764; GEORGE M. JONES CO. V. CANADIAN NAT. RY. CO., 14
F.2D 852; MITCHELL V. REOLDS FARMS CO., 256 N.W. 445, 449; BUTTE, A. &
P. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 61 F.2D 587; MASSACHUSETTS BENEFIT ASSN.
V. MILES, 137 U.S. 689. 

INCONVENIENCE AND DELAY IN THE TRIAL OF CASES INVOLVING CONFLICT OF
LAWS WILL RESULT FROM A DETERMINATION THAT INTEREST IS SUBSTANTIVE;
CONTROLLING CONSIDERATIONS OF CONVENIENCE AND FLEXIBILITY IN JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION REQUIRE THAT INTEREST BE CLASSIFIED AS PROCEDURAL. 
CLARK, PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE NEW STATE INDEPENDENCE (1940), 8 GEO.
WASH. L. REV. 1230, 1234; "THE TOMPKINS CASE AND THE FEDERAL RULES"
(1941), 24 J. AM. JURID.  SOC.  158, 160. 

IN EVERY SUCH CASE IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON A CAUSE OF ACTION
ARISING ELSEWHERE THAN AT THE FORUM THE COURT MUST DETERMINE THE LEX
LOCI AS A STEP PRELIMINARY TO THE AWARD OR DENIAL OF INTEREST AS WELL
AS THE RATE THEREOF AND THE PERIOD COVERED THEREBY.  THIS MUST BE DONE
EVEN THOUGH THE LOCUS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE UNIMPORTANT FOR ANY
OTHER PURPOSE IN THE CASE. 

THE CONCLUSION OF LAW AS TO THE CONTROLLING LOCUS MUST BE BASED ON
PROOF OF FACTS FREQUENTLY DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN, E.G., IN A CONTRACT
ACTION, THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES AS TO WHERE PERFORMANCE OF THE
OBLIGATION INVOLVED SHOULD TAKE PLACE. 

IT WOULD BE INTOLERABLE TO HAVE THE LEX LOCI DETERMINED AS IT WAS IN
THE CASE AT BAR.  HERE THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED AN
ISSUE IN THE CASE UNTIL AFTER THE VERDICT WAS RENDERED.  THE DISTRICT
COURT CONSIDERED THAT INTEREST WAS GOVERNED BY THE LEX LOCI
CONTRACTUS.  IT REMAINED FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT TO FIND THAT THE LAW OF
THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE CONTROLLED THE QUESTION.  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, NATURALLY, NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED BY PETITIONER TO SHOW
THAT NEW YORK WAS NOT THE INTENDED PLACE OF PERFORMANCE.  THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COURTS BELOW THAT NEW YORK WAS THE PLACE OF
PERFORMANCE OF PETITIONER'S OBLIGATION TO USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO
EXPLOIT THE PATENTS RESTS ON NO FACTUAL SUPPORT OTHER THAN COLLATERAL
EVIDENCE OFFERED ON OTHER ISSUES. 

THE LOCUS WILL OFTEN BE A DISTANT STATE.  ITS STATUTE BOOKS MAY BE
UNAVAILABLE AT THE FORUM, ESPECIALLY IF, AS HERE, THE RELEVANT
PROVISION IS FOUND IN A CODE OF PROCEDURE.  OR THERE MAY BE NO
STATUTORY PROVISION WHATEVER, IN WHICH EVENT THE COURT MUST EXAMINE THE
STATE DECISIONS INCLUDING THOSE OF THE INFERIOR COURTS IF THE MATTER
HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  SEE WEST V. AMERICAN
TEL. & TEL. CO., 311 U.S. 223. 

DELAY WILL BE THE CONCOMITANT OF THE RESEARCH AND INQUIRY THUS
NECESSITATED.  MOREOVER, AS THE LAW OF INTEREST IN MANY STATES IS
OBSCURE AND CONFUSED, FREQUENT APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO THE DENIAL OR
AWARD OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO STATE LAW MUST BE EXPECTED. 

A COLLATERAL EFFECT OF A DETERMINATION THAT INTEREST IS "SUBSTANTIVE"
IS TO CAST DOUBT UPON THE VALIDITY OF CERTAIN OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE.  CLARK, "THE TOMPKINS CASE AND THE FEDERAL RULES," 24
J. AM. JURID.  SOC.  158, 161. 

AN INDEPENDENT FEDERAL RULE REGARDING THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MAY
BE PROMULGATED EITHER BY CONGRESS, OR BY THIS COURT, OR BY THE DISTRICT
COURTS. 

PENDING THE ADOPTION OF SUCH A RULE OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE THERETO, THE
DISTRICT COURTS ARE GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES AS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF
INTEREST WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS THEMSELVES HAVE FORMULATED.  SEE
JONES V. FOSTER, 70 F.2D 200; COMPANHIA DE NAVAGACAO LLOYD BRASILEIRO
V. C.G. BLAKE CO., 34 F.2D 616. 

NO MATTER BY WHAT LAW THE QUESTION IS TESTED, THE COURTS BELOW WERE
RIGHT TO APPLY THE NEW YORK STATUTE IN ADDING INTEREST TO THE AMOUNT OF
THE VERDICT.  UNDER ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, THE DELAWARE
CONFLICTS RULE GOVERNS.  THE RULE IS (RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS,
SEC. 584; ACCORD, 3 BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 584.2, P. 1601) THAT
"THE COURT AT THE FORUM DETERMINES ACCORDING TO ITS OWN CONFLICT OF
LAWS RULE WHETHER A GIVEN QUESTION IS ONE OF SUBSTANCE OR PROCEDURE." 
THE DOCTRINE OF CONFLICTS, HOWEVER, IS "PURELY A QUESTION OF LOCAL
COMMON LAW."  KRYGER V. WILSON, 242 U.S. 171, 176; CF., 1 BEALE,
CONFLICT OF LAWS, X, AND SEC. 5.1, P. 51.  WHEN THIS CONFLICT QUESTION
IS PRESENTED, THE FEDERAL COURT IS BOUND TO DECIDE IT ACCORDING TO THE
LAW OF CONFLICTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH IT IS SITTING.  SAMPSON V.
CHANNELL, 110 F.2D 754, 760-2, CERT. DEN., 310 U.S. 650; WAGGAMAN V.
GENERAL FINANCE CO., 36 F.SUPP.  85, 87; GOODRICH, CONFLICT OF LAWS, 2D
ED., P. 24; COMMENT, 4 FEDERAL RULES SERVICE CASES 1.3, CASE 1. 

THE DELAWARE CONFLICTS RULE IS THAT DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
AND THE MEASURE THEREOF ARE GOVERNED BY THE LEX LOCI - IN OUR CASE THE
LAW OF NEW YORK.  MACKENZIE V. OMAR, 4 HARR.  (DEL.)  435, 457;
CANADIAN INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL CO. V. NELSON, 8 HARR.  (DEL.)  26, 58. 

MOREOVER, IT HAS BEEN HELD IN DELAWARE THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST IS
GOVERNED BY THE LEX LOCI.  BARSTOW V. THATCHER, 3 HOUST.  (DEL.)  32;
MACKENZIE V. OMAR, 4 HARR.  (DEL.)  435, 458-9. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RIGHT TO INTEREST AS AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES IS
SIMILARLY GOVERNED.  CF., CURTIS V. CAMPBELL, 76 F.2D 84, CERT. DEN.,
295 U.S. 737. 

THE SAME RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN REACHED IF THE COURTS BELOW HAD GONE
DIRECTLY TO THE NEW YORK LAW, SINCE THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES AND THE
RIGHT TO INTEREST ARE SUBSTANTIVE UNDER NEW YORK LAW.  DYKE V. ERIE R.
CO., 45 N.Y. 113, 118; KEIFER V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 12 APP. DIV. 28;
LOUCKS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 224 N.Y. 99, 109; PRESTON CO. V.
FUNKHOUSER, 261 N.Y. 140, 145. 

THE CLASSIC DISTINCTION IS BETWEEN THE NATURE, THE OBLIGATION, AND
THE INTERPRETATION OF A CONTRACT, ALL OF WHICH ARE THE SUBSTANCE
(LIVERPOOL & GREAT WESTERN STEAM CO. V. PHENIX INS. CO., 129 U.S. 397,
458), AND "PROCEDURAL" MATTERS - SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FORM OF THE
ACTION, AS TO WHETHER IT SHALL BE ASSUMPSIT, COVENANT, OR DEBT; ALL
PROCESS, BOTH MESNE AND FINAL; PLEADINGS; AND RULES OF EVIDENCE. 
PRITCHARD V. NORTON, 106 U.S. 124, 133-5. 

THE DELAWARE CONFLICTS RULE, THAT THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES AND INTEREST
ARE SUBSTANTIVE AND REFERABLE TO THE LEX LOCI, IS SUPPORTED BY THE
WEIGHT OF FEDERAL AND OTHER AUTHORITY.  RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS,
SEC. 413; 2 BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 412.1, P. 1332; CHESAPEAKE &
OHIO RY. V. KELLY, 241 U.S. 485; ROBERTSON, CHARACTERIZATION IN THE
CONFLICT OF LAWS (HARV. UNIV.  PRESS, 1940) 270. 

ON THE RIGHT TO INTEREST AS PART OF THE DAMAGES THE FOLLOWING FEDERAL
DECISIONS HOLD THAT THE LEX LOCI GOVERNS.  FREYGANG V. VERA CRUZ & P.R.
CO., 154 F. 640; WYNNE V. MCCARTHY, 97 F.2D 964, 970; U.S. V. GARLAND,
271 F. 14; CF., CURTIS V. CAMPBELL, 76 F.2D 84; BELL V. LAMBORN, 2 F.2D
205. 

THE PREVAILING RULE IS THAT THE LEX LOCI GOVERNS.  SCUDDER V. UNION
NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, 91 U.S. 406; PANA V. BOWLER, 107 U.S. 529,
546; SCOTLAND COUNTY V. HILL, 132 U.S. 107, 117; SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL
& IRON CO. V. TACONY IRON CO., 183 F. 645, AFF'D 188 F. 896; 91
AMERICAN STATE REPORTS 741; RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 418; 2
BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 418.1, P. 1335; 16 AM. & ENG. ENCYC.  OF
LAW (2D ED.), 1090; NOTE, CONFLICT OF LAWS - INTEREST AS DAMAGES - WHAT
LAW GOVERNS, 25 MICH. L. REV. 537, 538; NOTE, LAW GOVERNING THE MEASURE
OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, 78 U. OF PA. L. REV. 640, 644. 

SOUND REASON AND POLICY SUPPORT THE RULE THAT THE RIGHT TO INTEREST
IS GOVERNED BY THE LEX LOCI.  WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. BROWN, 234 U.S.
542, 547; CF., SLATER V. MEXICAN NAT. RY., 194 U.S. 120; CURTIS V.
CAMPBELL, 76 F.2D 84, 85; RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, P. 699. 

SINCE THE NEW YORK STATUTE IS HELD SUBSTANTIVE BY CONTROLLING NEW
YORK DECISIONS, THE COURTS BELOW WOULD, IN ANY EVENT, HAVE BEEN BOUND
TO APPLY THAT STATUTE AND ADD INTEREST TO THE AMOUNT OF THE VERDICT,
UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

BRADFORD ELEC.  CO. V. CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, 155; JOHN HANCOCK INS.
CO. V. YATES, 299 U.S. 178, 183. 

EVEN BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 480, N.Y. CIV. PR. ACT, IT HAD BEEN
HELD THAT THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES AND THE RIGHT TO INTEREST WERE OF
SUBSTANCE.  THE AMENDMENT ACTED UPON A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT - THE
OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT; IT ACCOMPLISHED ITS PURPOSE BY MAKING
MANDATORY THE ADDITION OF INTEREST TO DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT,
WHETHER THERETOFORE LIQUIDATED OR UNLIQUIDATED.  STENTOR ELECTRIC MFG.
CO. V. KLAXON CO., 30 F.SUPP.  432; PRESTON CO. V. FUNKHOUSER, 261 N.Y.
140; FUNKHOUSER V. J.B. PRESTON CO., 290 U.S. 163. 

THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON SEC. 480 BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, AND THE
NEW YORK RULE THAT THE RIGHT TO INTEREST FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT IS A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, ARE PART OF THE STATUTE, AS MUCH SO AS THOUGH THEY
WERE FOUND IN APPROPRIATE WORDS IN ITS TEXT.  GEORGIA RY. & ELEC.  CO.
V. DECATUR, 295 U.S. 165, 170; WEST V. AMERICAN TEL. & TEL. CO., 311
U.S. 223. 

THE STATUTE AS THUS CONSTRUED IS A SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION OF EVERY NEW
YORK CONTRACT TO WHICH IT IS APPLICABLE, SUCH AS THE CONTRACT IN THE
CASE AT BAR.  THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS ESTABLISHED THEREBY ARE RIGHTS OF
PROPERTY, ENFORCEABLE WHEREVER THE CONTRACT IS SUED UPON.  LOUCKS V.
STANDARD OIL CO., 224 N.Y. 99; CURTIS V. CAMPBELL, 76 F.2D 84. 

TO DEPRIVE A PARTY OF THE BENEFIT OF SUCH PROPERTY RIGHT BY REFUSING
TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE STATUTE, WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF SUCH PARTY.  BRADFORD ELEC.  CO. V.
CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145; JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. YATES, 299 U.S. 178;
BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629; CF. SAMPSON V. CHANNELL, 110 F.2D
754, 759. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER IN DIVERSITY CASES THE
FEDERAL COURTS MUST FOLLOW CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES PREVAILING IN THE
STATES IN WHICH THEY SIT.  WE LEFT THIS OPEN IN RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE CO., 304 U.S. 202, 208, N. 2.  THE FREQUENT RECURRENCE OF THE
PROBLEM, AS WELL AS THE CONFLICT OF APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM BETWEEN THE
THIRD CIRCUIT'S OPINION HERE AND THAT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT IN SAMPSON
V. CHANNELL, 110 F.2D 754, 759-62, LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

IN 1918, RESPONDENT, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, TRANSFERRED ITS ENTIRE
BUSINESS TO PETITIONER, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.  PETITIONER CONTRACTED
TO USE ITS BEST EFFORTS TO FURTHER THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF CERTAIN
PATENTED DEVICES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT, AND RESPONDENT WAS TO HAVE A
SHARE OF PETITIONER'S PROFITS.  THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED IN NEW YORK,
THE ASSETS WERE TRANSFERRED THERE, AND PETITIONER BEGAN PERFORMANCE
THERE ALTHOUGH LATER IT MOVED ITS OPERATIONS TO OTHER STATES. 
RESPONDENT WAS VOLUNTARILY DISSOLVED UNDER NEW YORK LAW IN 1919.  TEN
YEARS LATER IT INSTITUTED THIS ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, ALLEGING THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED
TO PERFORM ITS AGREEMENT TO USE ITS BEST EFFORTS.  JURISDICTION RESTED
ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  IN 1939 RESPONDENT RECOVERED A JURY
VERDICT OF $100,000, UPON WHICH JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.  RESPONDENT THEN
MOVED TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT BY ADDING INTEREST AT THE RATE OF SIX
PERCENT FROM JUNE 1, 1929, THE DATE THE ACTION HAD BEEN BROUGHT.  THE
BASIS OF THE MOTION WAS THE PROVISION IN SEC. 480 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL
PRACTICE ACT DIRECTING THAT IN CONTRACT ACTIONS INTEREST BE ADDED TO
THE PRINCIPAL SUM "WHETHER THERETOFORE LIQUIDATED OR UNLIQUIDATED." 
FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTION, TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES WERE GOVERNED BY NEW YORK LAW AND THAT UNDER NEW
YORK LAW THE ADDITION OF SUCH INTEREST WAS MANDATORY.  30 F.SUPP.  425,
431.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, 115 F.2D 268, AND WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER SEC. 480 OF THE NEW
YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT
IN DELAWARE.  312 U.S. 674.    THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE
VIEW THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW THE RIGHT TO INTEREST BEFORE VERDICT UNDER
SEC. 480 WENT TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE OBLIGATION, AND THAT PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT IN SUIT FIXED NEW YORK AS THE PLACE OF
PERFORMANCE.  IT THEN CONCLUDED THAT SEC. 480 WAS APPLICABLE TO THE
CASE BECAUSE "IT IS CLEAR BY WHAT WE THINK IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE BETTER
VIEW OF THE LAW THAT THE RULES FOR ASCERTAINING THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES
ARE NOT A MATTER OF PROCEDURE AT ALL, BUT ARE MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE
WHICH SHOULD BE SETTLED BY REFERENCE TO THE LAW OF THE APPROPRIATE
STATE ACCORDING TO THE TYPE OF CASE BEING TRIED IN THE FORUM.  THE
MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A CONTRACT IS DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF
THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE; RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS SEC. 413."  THE
COURT REFERRED ALSO TO SEC. 418 OF THE RESTATEMENT, WHICH MAKES
INTEREST PART OF THE DAMAGES TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE PLACE
OF PERFORMANCE.  APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK STATUTE APPARENTLY
FOLLOWED FROM THE COURT'S INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE "BETTER
VIEW" WITHOUT REGARD TO DELAWARE LAW, FOR NO DELAWARE DECISION OR
STATUTE WAS CITED OR DISCUSSED. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE PROHIBITION DECLARED IN ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AGAINST SUCH INDEPENDENT DETERMINATIONS BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS, EXTENDS TO THE FIELD OF CONFLICT OF LAWS.  THE CONFLICT
OF LAWS RULES TO BE APPLIED BY THE FEDERAL COURT IN DELAWARE MUST
CONFORM TO THOSE PREVAILING IN DELAWARE'S STATE COURTS.  FN2
OTHERWISE, THE ACCIDENT OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP WOULD CONSTANTLY
DISTURB EQUAL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN COORDINATE STATE AND FEDERAL
COURTS SITTING SIDE BY SIDE.  SEE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, AT 74
77.  ANY OTHER RULING WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITY
WITHIN A STATE, UPON WHICH THE TOMPKINS DECISION IS BASED.  WHATEVER
LACK OF UNIFORMITY THIS MAY PRODUCE BETWEEN FEDERAL COURTS IN DIFFERENT
STATES IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM, WHICH LEAVES TO A STATE,
WITHIN THE LIMITS PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE RIGHT TO PURSUE
LOCAL POLICIES DIVERGING FROM THOSE OF ITS NEIGHBORS.  IT IS NOT FOR
THE FEDERAL COURTS TO THWART SUCH LOCAL POLICIES BY ENFORCING AN
INDEPENDENT "GENERAL LAW" OF CONFLICT OF LAWS.  SUBJECT ONLY TO REVIEW
BY THIS COURT ON ANY FEDERAL QUESTION THAT MAY ARISE, DELAWARE IS FREE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GIVEN MATTER IS TO BE GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE
FORUM OR SOME OTHER LAW.  CF. MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S.
268, 272.  THIS COURT'S VIEWS ARE NOT THE DECISIVE FACTOR IN
DETERMINING THE APPLICABLE CONFLICTS RULE.  CF. FUNKHOUSER V. J.B.
PRESTON CO., 290 U.S. 163.  AND THE PROPER FUNCTION OF THE DELAWARE
FEDERAL COURT IS TO ASCERTAIN WHAT THE STATE LAW IS, NOT WHAT IT OUGHT
TO BE. 

BESIDES THESE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS, THE TRADITIONAL TREATMENT OF
INTEREST IN DIVERSITY CASES BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS POINTS TO THE
SAME CONCLUSION.  SECTION 966 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
811, RELATING TO INTEREST ON JUDGMENTS, PROVIDES THAT IT BE CALCULATED
FROM THE DATE OF JUDGMENT AT SUCH RATE AS IS ALLOWED BY LAW ON
JUDGMENTS RECOVERED IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE COURT IS
HELD.  IN MASSACHUSETTS BENEFIT ASSOCIATION V. MILES, 137 U.S. 689,
THIS COURT HELD THAT SEC. 966 DID NOT EXCLUDE THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST
ON VERDICTS AS WELL AS JUDGMENTS, AND THE OPINION OBSERVED THAT "THE
COURTS OF THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL COURTS SITTING WITHIN THE STATE
SHOULD BE IN HARMONY UPON THIS POINT" (P. 691). 

LOOKING THEN TO THE DELAWARE CASES, PETITIONER RELIES ON ONE GROUP TO
SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT THE DELAWARE STATE COURTS WOULD REFUSE TO
APPLY SEC. 480 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, AND RESPONDENT ON
ANOTHER TO PROVE THE CONTRARY.  WE MAKE NO ANALYSIS OF THESE DELAWARE
DECISIONS, BUT LEAVE THIS FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHEN THE
CASE IS REMANDED. 

RESPONDENT MAKES THE FURTHER ARGUMENT THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST BE
AFFIRMED BECAUSE, UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE STATE COURTS OF DELAWARE WOULD BE OBLIGED TO GIVE
EFFECT TO THE NEW YORK STATUTE.  THE ARGUMENT RESTS MAINLY ON THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT IN JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. YATES,
299 U.S. 178, WHERE A NEW YORK STATUTE WAS HELD SUCH AN INTEGRAL PART
OF A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE, THAT GEORGIA WAS COMPELLED TO SUSTAIN THE
CONTRACT UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  HERE, HOWEVER, SEC.
480 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT IS IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT IN SUIT, BUT MERELY TO AN INCIDENTAL ITEM OF
DAMAGES, INTEREST, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH COURTS AT THE FORUM HAVE
COMMONLY BEEN FREE TO APPLY THEIR OWN OR SOME OTHER LAW AS THEY SEE
FIT.  NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION ENSURES UNLIMITED EXTRATERRITORIAL
RECOGNITION OF ALL STATUTES OR OF ANY STATUTE UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. 
PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 306 U.S.
493; KRYGER V. WILSON, 242 U.S. 171.  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO COMPEL DELAWARE TO APPLY SEC. 480 IF SUCH
APPLICATION WOULD INTERFERE WITH ITS LOCAL POLICY. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR DECISION IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW OF
DELAWARE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 480, NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT: 

"INTEREST TO BE INCLUDED IN RECOVERY.  WHERE IN ANY ACTION, EXCEPT AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-A, FINAL JUDGMENT IS RENDERED
FOR A SUM OF MONEY AWARDED BY A VERDICT, REPORT OR DECISION, INTEREST
UPON THE TOTAL AMOUNT AWARDED, FROM THE TIME WHEN THE VERDICT WAS
RENDERED OR THE REPORT OR DECISION WAS MADE TO THE TIME OF ENTERING
JUDGMENT, MUST BE COMPUTED BY THE CLERK, ADDED TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT
AWARDED, AND INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT.  IN EVERY ACTION
WHEREIN ANY SUM OF MONEY SHALL BE AWARDED BY VERDICT, REPORT OR
DECISION UPON A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF OR BASED UPON
BREACH OF PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INTEREST SHALL
BE RECOVERED UPON THE PRINCIPAL SUM WHETHER THERETOFORE LIQUIDATED OR
UNLIQUIDATED AND SHALL BE ADDED TO AND BE A PART OF THE TOTAL SUM
AWARDED." 

FN2  AN OPINION IN SAMPSON V. CHANNELL, 110 F.2D 754, 759-62, REACHES
THE SAME CONCLUSION, AS DOES AN OPINION OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT HANDED
DOWN SUBSEQUENT TO THE CASE AT BAR, WAGGAMAN V. GENERAL FINANCE CO.,
116 F.2D 254, 257.  SEE ALSO GOODRICH, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 12. 
..END :





GRIFFIN V. MCCOACH, 313 U.S. 498 


NO. 755.  ARGUED MAY 2, 1941.  - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1941.  - 116 F.2D 261,
REVERSED. 


1.  THE RULES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS WHICH GOVERN A FEDERAL COURT IN
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP CASES ARE THOSE OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE
FEDERAL COURT SITS.  KLAXON CO. V. STENTOR MFG. CO., ANTE, P. 487.  P.
503. 

2.  A STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY DECLINE TO ENFORCE IN ITS COURTS, AS
CONTRARY TO ITS POLICY, A CONTRACT INSURING THE LIFE OF ITS CITIZEN IN
FAVOR OF BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE NO INSURABLE INTEREST, THOUGH MADE IN
ANOTHER STATE AND VALID WHERE MADE; AND SUCH RULE OR POLICY BINDS THE
FEDERAL COURT EXERCISING DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION IN THE STATE
ADOPTING IT.  P. 506. 

3.  IN AN ACTION IN A FEDERAL COURT IN TEXAS TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF
A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WHICH HAD BEEN MADE IN NEW YORK AND LATER
CHANGED BY INSTRUMENTS ASSIGNING BENEFICIAL INTERESTS, HELD:  THAT THE
QUESTIONS (1) WHETHER THE CONTRACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CHANGES,
REMAINED A CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF NEW YORK WITH RESPECT TO THE
RIGHTS OF ASSIGNEES, RATHER THAN BY THE LAW OF TEXAS; AND (2) WHETHER
THE PUBLIC POLICY OF TEXAS PERMITS OF RECOVERY BY ONE NAMED AS
BENEFICIARY WHO HAS NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE LIFE OF THE INSURED;
AND (3) WHETHER LACK OF INSURABLE INTEREST BECOMES IMMATERIAL WHEN THE
INSURER ACKNOWLEDGES LIABILITY AND PAYS THE MONEY INTO COURT - WERE
QUESTIONS OF TEXAS LAW, TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO TEXAS DECISIONS. 
PP. 504 ET SEQ. 

GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR, V. MCCOACH, TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 676, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH AFFIRMED A
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROCEEDS OF A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AMONG SEVERAL
CONTENDING CLAIMANTS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION, BEGUN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, BY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES SUBSTITUTED
FOR THE HEIRS AT LAW OF COLONEL ROBERT D. GORDON, WHO DIED A CITIZEN
AND RESIDENT OF TEXAS, AGAINST THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA TO COLLECT AN INSURANCE POLICY ON THE LIFE OF THE DECEDENT. 
THE COMPANY FILED A BILL OF INTERPLEADER (49 STAT. 1096; 28 U.S.C. SEC.
41(26)) MAKING THE RESPONDENT JOHN D. MCCOACH, TRUSTEE, AND OTHER
ALLEGED CLAIMANTS PARTIES, AND TENDERING THE NET AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE
POLICY.  THE INTERPLEADER WAS ALLOWED, THE COMPANY DISCHARGED FROM THE
LITIGATION, AND THE INTERESTS OF ALL PARTIES TO THE SUIT, OTHER THAN
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT, DISPOSED OF BY THE DECREE IN A MANNER TO
WHICH NO ONE OBJECTS HERE.  THE CONTROVERSY STILL TO BE DECIDED IS AS
TO WHETHER THE ESTATE OR THE TRUSTEE IS ENTITLED TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF
THE INSURANCE.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE ISSUE FOLLOW. 

COLONEL GORDON, THE INSURED, INTERESTED SEVEN PERSONS IN TEXAS OIL
DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING MCCOACH, THE TRUSTEE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY.  THEY OPERATED AS A NEW YORK COMMON LAW ASSOCIATION CALLED
THE MIDDLETON TEX OIL SYNDICATE.  THE RECORD HERE SHOWS THAT "PRIOR TO
THE ISSUING OF THE POLICY AND THEREAFTER, THE MEMBERS ADVANCED
CONSIDERABLE MONEY TO GORDON, AND THE PREMIUMS ON THE POLICY WERE PAID
BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SYNDICATE AT GORDON'S REQUEST, UPON HIS AGREEMENT
TO REPAY THE SYNDICATE.  PREMIUMS WERE PAID ON THE POLICY BY THE
SYNDICATE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGREEMENT AND WERE NEVER REPAID BY
GORDON."  A TERM INSURANCE POLICY WAS TAKEN OUT BY GORDON WITH THE
SYNDICATE NAMED AS BENEFICIARY.  WHEN THE POLICY WAS ISSUED, AND AT ALL
TIMES SUBSEQUENT UNTIL HIS DEATH, GORDON WAS A CITIZEN OF TEXAS.  THE
SYNDICATE ORIGINALLY HAD PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE POLICY.  TWO YEARS
AFTER ITS ISSUANCE THE SYNDICATE CEASED OPERATIONS.  IN 1924, DUE TO
FINANCIAL REVERSES, IT CEASED TO DO BUSINESS AND THE MEMBERS FORMED A
NEW ASSOCIATION CALLED THE PROTECTION SYNDICATE.  MCCOACH BECAME AND
CONTINUES AS TRUSTEE OF THE SYNDICATE.  IT WAS ORGANIZED "FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE" OF PAYING THE PREMIUMS ON THE POLICY AND RECEIVING AND
DISTRIBUTING THE PROCEEDS AMONG THE MEMBERS.  THIS IT DID UNTIL THE
INSURED'S DEATH.  THE BENEFICIARY IN THE POLICY WAS CHANGED TO MAKE THE
MEMBERS OF THE PROTECTION SYNDICATE THE BENEFICIARIES.  BY ARRANGEMENT
BETWEEN THE DECEDENT AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PROTECTION SYNDICATE IN
1934 A FURTHER CHANGE OF BENEFICARIES WAS MADE BY WHICH, IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE INSURED'S RELEASE OF THE RIGHT TO CHANGE
BENEFICIARIES ON PRESENTATION OF THE POLICY FOR ENDORSEMENT, HITHERTO
RETAINED, ONE-EIGHTH OF THE DISABILITY PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY WERE TO
BE PAID THE INSURED, AND ONE-EIGHTH OF THE DEATH PROCEEDS TO HIS WIFE,
AND THE REMAINING SEVEN-EIGHTHS TO THE TRUSTEE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE
PROTECTION SYNDICATE. 

"THE APPLICATION FOR THE POLICY WAS SIGNED BY GORDON IN THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, AND FORWARDED TO THE HOME OFFICE OF THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND THERE ACTED UPON, AND THE
POLICY WAS DELIVERED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK."  THE LATER ARRANGEMENT,
BY WHICH GORDON AND HIS WIFE BECAME BENEFICIARIES OF ONE-EIGHTH OF THE
PROCEEDS, WAS CONSUMMATED BY CERTAIN FORMS FURNISHED BY THE PRUDENTIAL
AND "TRANSMITTED  ...  FROM MIDDLETOWN, N.Y., TO TYLER, TEXAS, FOR
COLONEL GORDON'S SIGNATURE.  THEY WERE THERE EXECUTED BY COLONEL GORDON
BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC IN TYLER, TEXAS, AND RETURNED TO MIDDLETOWN,
N.Y., WHERE THEY WERE EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES RESIDING THERE, FROM
WHENCE THEY WERE SENT BY SCHWEIGER (AN AGENT OF THE PRUDENTIAL AND A
MEMBER OF THE SYNDICATE), WITH THE POLICY, TO THE HOME OFFICE AT
NEWARK, N.J., AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE FORMS WERE INDORSED ON THE POLICY
AND IT WAS RETURNED DIRECTLY FROM NEW JERSEY TO THE BENEFICIARIES IN
NEW YORK." 

THEREAFTER, THREE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PROTECTION SYNDICATE
SEPARATELY ASSIGNED THEIR INTERESTS IN THE POLICY TO THREE INDIVIDUALS
NOT PREVIOUSLY INTERESTED IN THE TRANSACTION.  THESE ASSIGNEES PAID
THEIR PROPORTION OF THE PREMIUMS AFTER THE RESPECTIVE ASSIGNMENTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DECREED THAT MRS. GORDON SHOULD RECEIVE HER ONE
EIGHTH AND THAT THE BALANCE OF THE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE PAID THE TRUSTEE
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CROSS-DEFENDANTS, MEMBERS OF THE PROTECTION
SYNDICATE.  THE DECREE WAS BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE POLICY WAS A NEW
YORK CONTRACT AND THAT THE SUBSEQUENT CHANGES WERE MADE IN NEW JERSEY
AND DELIVERED IN NEW YORK.  FURTHER, THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT
THE RELATION OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR EXISTED BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF THE
SYNDICATE AND THEIR ASSIGNEES UPON THE ONE HAND AND THE INSURED UPON
THE OTHER, AND THAT THEREFORE ALL THE CESTUIS QUE TRUSTENT HAD AN
INSURABLE INTEREST IN COLONEL GORDON'S LIFE. 

AN APPEAL LIMITED TO THE "CORRECTNESS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL
COURT CONCERNING THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE ASSIGNED
INTERESTS" WAS PROSECUTED ON AN AGREED STATEMENT OF THE RECORD UNDER
RULE 76 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  IN THE STATEMENT, PETITIONER
SETS OUT TWO POINTS NOW RELIED UPON FOR REVERSAL.  FIRST:  THAT THE
ASSIGNMENT AND CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY WAS GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF TEXAS;
THAT THE TRUSTEE CLAIMED ONLY UNDER THE ASSIGNMENT; THAT BENEFICIARIES
MUST HAVE AN INSURABLE INTEREST UNDER TEXAS LAW AND THAT THE ASSIGNEES
HAD NONE.  HENCE, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER
THEIR PORTIONS OF THE POLICY FOR THE ESTATE.  WILKE V. FINN, 39 S.W.2D
836.  SECOND:  THAT IF THE WHOLE TRANSACTION WAS GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF
ANOTHER STATE THAN TEXAS, IN WHICH OTHER STATE AN INSURABLE INTEREST
WAS NOT REQUIRED, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN TEXAS WAS
BOUND BY THE PUBLIC POLICY OF TEXAS WHICH FORBIDS PERSONS WITHOUT AN
INSURABLE INTEREST TO COLLECT IN TEXAS, AS BENEFICIARIES, THE PROCEEDS
OF INSURANCE POLICIES. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  116 F.2D 261.  IT HELD TOO
THAT THE POLICY WAS A NEW YORK POLICY, GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THAT
STATE, AND THAT, AS THE SUBSEQUENT CHANGES WERE MADE PURSUANT TO
AGREEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE ORIGINAL POLICY, THEY DID NOT AMOUNT TO NEW
CONTRACTS OR CHANGE THE GOVERNING LAW.  CF. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V.
DUNKEN, 266 U.S. 389.  THE COURT SAID: 

"UNDER THE TERMS OF THE POLICY, A NEW YORK CONTRACT, NO RESTRICTIONS
WERE PLACED UPON ASSIGNMENTS RELATING TO INSURABLE INTEREST.  NONE WAS
CREATED BY THE LAWS OF NEW YORK.  EACH OF THE ASSIGNMENTS WAS EXECUTED
AND DELIVERED IN NEW YORK BY RESIDENTS OF THAT STATE TO OTHER
RESIDENTS.  THEY WERE NEW YORK CONTRACTS AND VALID UNDER ITS LAWS.  TO
APPLY THE LAWS OF TEXAS TO THE NEW YORK CONTRACTS WOULD CONSTITUTE AN
UNWARRANTED EXTRA-TERRITORIAL CONTROL OF CONTRACTS AND REGULATION OF
BUSINESS OUTSIDE OF TEXAS IN DISREGARD OF THE LAWS OF NEW YORK; THIS IS
NOT CHANGED BY THE TRIAL OF THE SUIT IN A COURT SITTING IN TEXAS." 

AS TO THE VIOLATION OF THE CLAIMED PUBLIC POLICY OF TEXAS AGAINST
BENEFICIARIES WITH NON-INSURABLE INTERESTS, THE COURT OF APPEALS
DECIDED THAT THE RULE COULD NOT BE APPLIED WHERE, AS HERE, A "FAIR AND
PROPER INSURABLE INTEREST" EXISTED WHEN THE POLICY WAS ISSUED.  116
F.2D 261, 264.  CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT AND ALLOWED, 312 U.S. 676, ON THE
GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE INSTANT CASE AND
SAMPSON V. CHANNELL, 110 F.2D 754, 759-62, WHERE THE FIRST CIRCUIT HELD
THAT A UNITED STATES COURT MUST APPLY THE CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES OF THE
STATE WHERE IT SITS. 

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN KLAXON COMPANY V. STENTOR ELECTRIC
MANUFACTURING CO., ANTE, P. 487, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FEDERAL
COURTS IN DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP CASES ARE GOVERNED BY THE CONFLICT
OF LAWS RULES OF THE COURTS OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY SIT.  IN
DECIDING THAT THE CHANGES MADE IN THE INSURANCE CONTRACT LEFT ITS
GOVERNING LAW UNAFFECTED N1 AND THAT THE LAWS OF TEXAS COULD NOT BE
APPLIED TO A FOREIGN CONTRACT IN TEXAS COURTS,  FN2  THE FEDERAL COURTS
WERE APPLYING RULES OF LAW IN A WAY WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
CONSISTENT WITH TEXAS DECISIONS.  LIKEWISE IT IS FOR TEXAS TO SAY
WHETHER ITS PUBLIC POLICY PERMITS A BENEFICIARY OF AN INSURANCE POLICY
ON THE LIFE OF A TEXAS CITIZEN TO RECOVER WHERE NO INSURABLE INTEREST
IN THE DECEDENT EXISTS IN THE BENEFICIARY.  THE OPINION DOES NOT REST
ITS CONCLUSIONS UPON ITS APPRAISAL OF TEXAS LAW OR TEXAS DECISIONS, BUT
UPON DECISIONS OF THIS COURT INAPPLICABLE TO THIS SITUATION IN THE
LIGHT OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AND RUHLIN V. NEW YORK
LIFE INSURANCE CO., 304 U.S. 202, 205.  FN3  THE STATEMENT IN THE
OPINION "THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL, IN SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THIS CASE
IS CONCERNED, WHETHER THE LAW OF TEXAS OR THE LAW OF NEW YORK BE
APPLIED," WE UNDERSTAND, FROM A READING OF THE WHOLE OPINION, TO MEAN
THAT, WHILE AN INSURABLE INTEREST IS REQUIRED IN TEXAS AND NOT IN NEW
YORK, THE LACK OF INSURABLE INTEREST IS IMMATERIAL IN THIS CASE EVEN IN
TEXAS BECAUSE "THE INSURER ACKNOWLEDGED LIABILITY AND PAID THE MONEY
INTO COURT.  THIS BEING SO, NOT ONLY DOES THE OBJECTION OF WAGERS
DISAPPEAR, BUT ALSO THE CLAIMED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC POLICY."  BUT THIS
IS SOMETHING TO BE DECIDED ACCORDING TO TEXAS DECISIONS, TO NONE OF
WHICH THE OPINION REFERS.  CF. WILKE V. FINN, 39 S.W.2D 836; CHEEVES V.
ANDERS, 87 TEXAS 287; 28 S.W. 274.  THE DECISION MUST BE REVERSED AND
REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR DETERMINATION OF THE LAW
OF TEXAS AS APPLIED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

IN VIEW OF THE HOLDING QUOTED FROM THE OPINION BELOW, ANTE, P. 502,
THAT TO APPLY THE LAWS OF TEXAS TO NEW YORK CONTRACTS WHEN TEXAS
CITIZENS WERE PARTIES WOULD CONSTITUTE AN UNWARRANTED EXTRATERRITORIAL
CONTROL OF CONTRACTS AND REGULATION OF BUSINESS, IT SEEMS NECESSARY TO
EXAMINE THAT POSITION, AS IT MAY BE DETERMINED UPON REMAND THAT THESE
ARE FOREIGN CONTRACTS AND UNDER TEXAS LAW UNENFORCEABLE AS CONTRARY TO
THE PUBLIC POLICY OF TEXAS, BECAUSE THE ASSIGNEES HAVE NO INSURABLE
INTEREST.  IT WOULD THEN BE NECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER THE COURTS OF
TEXAS COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLY TEXAS LAW TO A FOREIGN CONTRACT,
VALID WHERE MADE, BECAUSE SUCH CONTRACT IS CONTRARY TO THE STATE'S
PUBLIC POLICY.  FN4  IF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS CORRECT IN ITS
VIEW THAT THE CONSTITUTION FORECLOSED APPLICATION OF SUCH A TEXAS
PUBLIC POLICY TO THIS CASE, THE ONLY QUESTION OPEN ON REMAND WOULD BE
WHETHER THE CONTRACT SUED UPON WAS A TEXAS CONTRACT. 

BUT THE CASES RELIED UPON IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TO SUPPORT ITS
HOLDING  FN5  DO NOT IN OUR OPINION DECIDE THIS QUESTION.  OVERBY V.
GORDON HOLDS THAT THE ADJUDICATION OF A PROBATE COURT OF GEORGIA THAT
THE DECEDENT WAS A RESIDENT OF THAT STATE WAS A PROCEEDING IN REM AND
DID NOT BIND THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN A SUIT TO
DETERMINE ANEW DECEDENT'S DOMICILE.  NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. V.
HEAD PASSED UPON THE APPLICATION, BY MISSOURI COURTS, OF MISSOURI
STATUTES, PROVIDING FOR AN EXTENSION OF INSURANCE ON DEFAULT OF
PREMIUM, TO AN INSURANCE CONTRACT ASSUMED AS OF MISSOURI, THOUGH THE
INSURED AT THE TIME OF ISSUE AND THEREAFTER WAS A CITIZEN OF NEW
MEXICO.  A NEW YORK LOAN AGREEMENT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
POLICY BETWEEN THE INSURED AND THE COMPANY, A CITIZEN OF NEW YORK,
PROVIDED FOR EXTENSION AFTER DEFAULT, WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THE
MISSOURI STATUTES.  THIS COURT HELD THE MISSOURI STATUTES WERE
INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE THE NEW YORK LOAN AGREEMENT WAS BEYOND MISSOURI'S
JURISDICTION.  THE POINT THAT MISSOURI MIGHT REFUSE ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE
THE AGREEMENT, VALID IN NEW YORK, WAS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
THE FORMER, WAS NOT DISCUSSED.  IN BOND V. HUME, A FEW YEARS LATER,
THIS COURT RESERVED THE PRINCIPLE HERE IN QUESTION.  FN6  THE AETNA
CASE DENIED THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE TEXAS COURTS TO APPLY A
TEXAS STATUTE ALLOWING A PENALTY AND ATTORNEYS' FEES AGAINST THE
COMPANY IN A SUIT ON AN INSURANCE CONTRACT MADE IN A FOREIGN
JURISDICTION WITH A PERSON THEN A CITIZEN OF TENNESSEE, BECAUSE THE
"EFFECT OF SUCH APPLICATION WOULD BE TO REGULATE BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE
STATE OF TEXAS AND CONTROL CONTRACTS MADE BY CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES
IN DISREGARD OF THEIR LAWS UNDER WHICH PENALTIES AND ATTORNEY'S FEES
ARE NOT RECOVERABLE."  266 U.S. AT 399.  THE FREEDOM FROM PENALTY AND
FEE WAS DEEMED A PART OF THE FOREIGN CONTRACT AND ITS EFFECT ON THE
PUBLIC POLICY OF TEXAS WAS NOT APPRAISED.  FN7 

IF UPON EXAMINATION OF THE TEXAS LAW IT APPEARS THAT THE COURTS OF
TEXAS WOULD REFUSE ENFORCEMENT OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT WHERE THE
BENEFICIARIES HAVE NO INSURABLE INTEREST, ON THE GROUND OF ITS
INTERFERENCE WITH LOCAL LAW, SUCH REFUSAL WOULD BE, IN OUR OPINION,
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE TEXAS COURTS.  RIGHTS ACQUIRED
BY CONTRACT OUTSIDE A STATE ARE ENFORCED WITHIN A STATE, CERTAINLY
WHERE ITS OWN CITIZENS ARE CONCERNED; BUT THAT PRINCIPLE EXCEPTS
CLAIMED RIGHTS SO CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE FORUM AS TO SUBVERT THE
FORUM'S VIEW OF PUBLIC POLICY.  CF. LOUCKS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 224
N.Y. 99, 110; 120 N.E. 198.  IT IS "RUDIMENTARY" THAT A STATE "WILL NOT
LEND THE AID OF ITS COURTS TO ENFORCE A CONTRACT FOUNDED UPON A FOREIGN
LAW WHERE TO DO SO WOULD BE REPUGNANT TO GOOD MORALS, WOULD LEAD TO
DISTURBANCE AND DISORGANIZATION OF THE LOCAL MUNICIPAL LAW, OR IN OTHER
WORDS, VIOLATE THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE WHERE THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE FOREIGN CONTRACT IS SOUGHT."  BOND V. HUME, 243 U.S. 15, 21. 
APPLYING THAT REASONING, THIS COURT AFFIRMED THE FEDERAL COURT IN
FOLLOWING TEXAS' DECISIONS WHICH REFUSED TO ENFORCE A VALID FOREIGN
CONTRACT OF GUARANTYSHIP AGAINST A MARRIED WOMAN.  UNION TRUST CO. V.
GROSMAN, 245 U.S. 412.  LIKEWISE, STATE COURTS HAVE BEEN UPHELD IN
REFUSING TO LEND THEIR AID TO ENFORCE VALID FOREIGN CONTRACTS WHICH
REQUIRED THE DOING OF PROHIBITED ACTS WITHIN THE STATE OF THE FORUM. 
BOTHWELL V. BUCKBEE, MEARS CO., 275 U.S. 274, 278.  WHERE THIS COURT
HAS REQUIRED THE STATE OF THE FORUM TO APPLY THE FOREIGN LAW UNDER THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OR UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT A STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE A LAW OBNOXIOUS TO
ITS PUBLIC POLICY.  BRADFORD ELECTRIC CO. V. CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145,
160, 161; HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V. DELTA CO., 292 U.S. 143, 150.  THE
RULE WAS NOT APPLIED WHERE THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT ACQUIRED RIGHTS
BEYOND THE STATE'S BORDERS WITH NO RELATION TO ANYTHING DONE OR TO BE
DONE WITHIN THE BORDERS.  HOME INSURANCE CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397,
410. 

IN THE HEAD CASE THE FOREIGN AND LOCAL LAW DIFFERED AS TO THE MANNER
OF EXTENDING INSURANCE; IN THE AETNA CASE THE DIFFERENCE AROSE FROM A
LOCAL PROVISION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND PENALTY; IN THE DELTA CASE THE
TIME FOR NOTICE VARIED IN THE TWO JURISDICTIONS.  IN NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE CO. V. DODGE, 246 U.S. 357, IT WAS SAID THAT A STATUTE OF THE
STATE OF THE FORUM, REGULATING THE APPLICATION OF INSURANCE RESERVES IN
CASE OF DEFAULT OF PREMIUM, WAS NOT EFFECTIVE, EVEN THOUGH THE
INSURANCE CONTRACT WAS A LOCAL CONTRACT AND THE INSURED A CITIZEN OF
THE STATE, TO GOVERN RIGHTS UNDER A LOAN AGREEMENT MADE IN A FOREIGN
JURISDICTION.  BUT THESE FALL SHORT OF A PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROTECTS
CITIZENS AGAINST THE ASSUMED DANGERS OF INSURANCE ON THEIR LIVES HELD
BY STRANGERS.  IT IS FOR THE STATE TO SAY WHETHER A CONTRACT CONTRARY
TO SUCH A STATUTE OR RULE OF LAW IS SO OFFENSIVE TO ITS VIEW OF PUBLIC
WELFARE AS TO REQUIRE ITS COURTS TO CLOSE THEIR DOORS TO ITS
ENFORCEMENT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CF. MILLER V. CAMPBELL, 140 N.Y. 457; 35 N.E. 651. 

FN2  CF. UNION TRUST CO. V. GROSMAN, 245 U.S. 412. 

FN3  COMPARE GRIGSBY V. RUSSELL, 222 U.S. 149; CONNECTICUT MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO. V. SCHAEFER, 94 U.S. 457, RELIED UPON BELOW. 

FN4  CF. SAMPSON V. CHANNELL, 110 F.2D 754, 759. 

FN5  OVERBY V. GORDON, 177 U.S. 214, 222; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO.
V. HEAD, 234 U.S. 149; BOND V. HUME, 243 U.S. 15; AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
CO. V. DUNKEN, 266 U.S. 389, 399. 

FN6  243 U.S. AT 25:  "AND OF COURSE WE MUST NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS
DECIDING WHETHER THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A STATE STATUTE PUNISHING ONE
WHO IN BAD FAITH, AND BECAUSE OF SUCH BAD FAITH, HAD MADE AN AGREEMENT
TO DELIVER IN A CONTRACT OF SALE WHICH WOULD BE OTHERWISE VALID, COULD
BECOME THE BASIS OF A PUBLIC POLICY PREVENTING THE ENFORCEMENT IN TEXAS
OF CONTRACTS FOR SALE AND DELIVERY MADE IN ANOTHER STATE WHICH WERE
THERE VALID ALTHOUGH ONE OF THE PARTIES MIGHT HAVE MADE THE AGREEMENT
TO DELIVER IN BAD FAITH." 

FN7  BEFORE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, THIS COURT DECIDED
AS A MATTER OF GENERAL LAW THAT WHERE TIME OF NOTICE IS IMPORTANT THE
FOREIGN LAW GOVERNS.  BOSEMAN V. INSURANCE CO., 301 U.S. 196, 202. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :




OKLAHOMA V. ATKINSON CO., 313 U.S. 508 


NO. 832.  ARGUED MAY 6, 7, 1941.  - DECIDED JUNE 2, 1941.  - 37 F.SUPP. 
93, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE DENISON DAM AND RESERVOIR PROJECT ON THE RED RIVER IN OKLAHOMA
AND TEXAS, AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1938, IS A VALID EXERCISE
OF THE COMMERCE POWER BY CONGRESS.  P. 516. 

THIS IS A MULTI-PURPOSE PROJECT - PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR
CONTROLLING FLOODS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER THROUGH RESERVOIR CONTROL
OF ITS TRIBUTARIES, OF WHICH THE RED RIVER IS ONE OF THE MORE
IMPORTANT.  IT AIMS ALSO TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE NAVIGATION OF THE RED
RIVER ITSELF ON ITS NAVIGABLE STRETCHES (WHICH LIE BELOW THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA) BY AVERTING DAMAGING FLOODS AND BY REGULATING STREAM-FLOW;
AND IT PROVIDES MEANS FOR CREATING HYDROELECTRIC POWER, THE DISPOSITION
OF WHICH WILL OFFSET SOME OF THE COSTS OF THE FLOOD-CONTROL AND OF THE
STREAM-FLOW REGULATION. 

2.  THE FACT THAT PORTIONS OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM ARE NO LONGER USED
FOR COMMERCE DOES NOT DILUTE THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THEM.  P. 523. 

3.  CONGRESS MAY CONTROL NON-NAVIGABLE PARTS OF A RIVER IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE AND PROMOTE COMMERCE ON THE NAVIGABLE PARTS.  P. 523. 

4.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS, UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, TO PROTECT A
NAVIGABLE RIVER FROM FLOODS EXTENDS TO THE CONTROL OF WATERS OF ITS
TRIBUTARIES.  P. 525. 

5.  THE EXERCISE OF THE GRANTED POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
MAY BE AIDED BY APPROPRIATE AND NEEDFUL CONTROL OF ACTIVITIES AND
AGENCIES WHICH, THOUGH INTRASTATE, AFFECT THAT COMMERCE.  P. 526. 

6.  IT IS FOR CONGRESS ALONE TO DECIDE WHETHER A PARTICULAR PROJECT,
BY ITSELF OR AS PART OF A MORE COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME, WILL HAVE SUCH A
BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ARTERIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO WARRANT
IT.  P. 527. 

IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESULTING BENEFITS
TO COMMERCE WILL OUTWEIGH THE COSTS OF THE PROJECT.  NOR MAY THE COURT
INQUIRE INTO THE CONSIDERATIONS OR OBJECTIVES WHICH MOVED MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS TO VOTE FOR THE PROJECT. 

7.  INCLUSION OF THE WATER-POWER FEATURE IN THE DENISON PROJECT,
THEREBY INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THE DAM AND THE AREA OF LAND TO BE
TAKEN FOR THE RESERVOIR, DID NOT EXCEED THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS.  THE
PROJECT IS BASICALLY ONE OF FLOOD-CONTROL INCLUDING RIVER-FLOW, AND
THOSE FUNCTIONS ARE INTERRELATED WITH THE POWER FUNCTION.  P. 529. 

8.  WHETHER THE WORK OF FLOOD-CONTROL WOULD BE BETTER DONE BY A DAM
OF ONE DESIGN OR ANOTHER, WAS FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE.  P. 533. 

9.  AS RESPECTS THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO ADOPT A PLAN FOR FLOOD
CONTROL, IT IS NOT AN OBJECTION THAT IT WILL ALSO SERVE OTHER ENDS
WHICH MAY BE RELATIVELY MORE IMPORTANT.  P. 534. 

10.  THE TENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF
AUTHORITY TO RESORT TO ALL MEANS FOR THE EXERCISE OF A GRANTED POWER
WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE AND PLAINLY ADAPTED TO THE PERMITTED END.  P.
534. 

11.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE DENISON DAM AND RESERVOIR DOES NOT INTERFERE
WITH THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OKLAHOMA.  P. 534. 

12. THE FACTS THAT LAND INCLUDED IN A FEDERAL RESERVOIR PROJECT IS
OWNED BY A STATE, OR THAT ITS TAKING MAY IMPAIR THE TAX REVENUE OF THE
STATE, AND THAT THE RESERVOIR WILL OBLITERATE PART OF THE STATE'S
BOUNDARY, AND THAT THE STATE'S OWN PROJECT FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSERVATION WILL BE INTERFERED WITH - CONSTITUTE NO BARRIER TO
CONDEMNATION OF THE LAND BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER ITS SUPERIOR POWER
OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  P. 534. 

OKLAHOMA EX REL. PHILLIPS, GOVERNOR, V. GUY F. ATKINSON CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE DISMISSING ON MOTION A BILL THROUGH WHICH THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE CONSTRUCTION, PURSUANT TO AN ACT
OF CONGRESS, OF A DAM AND RESERVOIR, UPON THE GROUND THAT THE ACT AND
THE PROJECT EXCEEDED THE POWER OF CONGRESS AND WERE CONTRARY TO THE
SOVEREIGN AND PROPRIETARY RIGHTS OF THE STATE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES PRIMARILY THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT OF JUNE
28, 1938(52 STAT. 1215) INSOFAR AS IT AUTHORIZES THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE DENISON RESERVOIR ON RED RIVER IN TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA.  FN1 

THE BILL IN EQUITY WAS FILED BY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA SEEKING TO
ENJOIN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY DAM ACROSS RED RIVER WITHIN THE DOMAIN
OF OKLAHOMA WHICH WOULD IMPOUND THE WATERS OF THE RED RIVER (OR ITS
TRIBUTARY, WASHITA RIVER) SO AS TO INUNDATE AND DESTROY ANY OF THE
LANDS, HIGHWAYS OR BRIDGES BELONGING TO OR UNDER THE JURISDICTION AND
CONTROL OF THE STATE, OR WHICH WOULD OBLITERATE OR INTERFERE WITH ITS
BOUNDARIES.  THE BILL ALSO SEEKS TO RESTRAIN THE INSTITUTION OR CONDUCT
IN ANY COURT IN OKLAHOMA OF PROCEEDINGS TO CONDEMN LANDS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE DAM OR RESERVOIR.  FN2 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT OKLAHOMA WILL BE INJURED IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER BY CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT:  THE GREATER PART OF THE DAM
WILL REST ON OKLAHOMA SOIL AND WILL FORM A RESERVOIR INUNDATING ABOUT
150,000 ACRES OF LAND, OF WHICH 100,000 ACRES ARE LOCATED IN OKLAHOMA. 
OF THOSE ACRES ABOUT 3,800 ARE OWNED BY THE STATE.  THE UNITED STATES
WILL ACQUIRE TITLE TO THE INUNDATED LAND.  THE LAND OWNED BY THE STATE
IS USED FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES, FOR A PRISON FARM, FOR HIGHWAYS, RIGHTS OF
WAY, AND BRIDGES.  THE BASIN TO BE INUNDATED IS INHABITED BY ABOUT
8,000 OKLAHOMA CITIZENS.  MUCH OF THE LAND IS RICH SOIL IN A HIGH STATE
OF CULTIVATION.  MUCH OF IT HAS LARGE POTENTIAL OIL RESERVES.  ON SOME
OF IT THERE ARE LARGE PRODUCING OIL WELLS AND ON OTHER PARTS THERE ARE
DRILLING OPERATIONS AND EXPLORATION FOR OIL AND GAS.  AT LEAST 15,000
ACRES WILL BE HIGHLY PRODUCTIVE OIL LANDS AND AT LEAST 50,000 ACRES ARE
UNDERLAID WITH OIL AND GAS.  THERE ARE THIRTY-NINE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND
TOWNSHIPS IN THE FOUR COUNTIES IN WHICH THE AFFECTED AREA IS LOCATED. 
THOSE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS ARE LARGELY SUPPORTED BY AD VALOREM TAXES. 
THE TAKING OF THE 100,000 ACRES WILL DECREASE THE TAXABLE PROPERTY IN
EACH OF THE COUNTIES AND TAKE VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE TAXABLE PROPERTY IN
MANY OF THE TOWNSHIPS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.  EACH OF THESE GOVERNMENTAL
UNITS HAS A LARGE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PAYABLE FROM AN ANNUAL LEVY OF
TAXES.  INUNDATION OF THE LAND WILL DEPRIVE THOSE UNITS OF MUCH OF THE
TAX REVENUE, SO THAT MANY WILL BE PRACTICALLY DESTROYED AND THE
REMAINDER SERIOUSLY HAMPERED.  SINCE THE STATE DERIVES MUCH OF ITS
REVENUE FROM A GROSS PRODUCTION TAX ON OIL AND GAS, IT WILL SUFFER
GREAT LOSSES IN TAX REVENUES FROM THE INUNDATION OF THE OIL AND GAS
LANDS.  THE "ANNUAL WEALTH PRODUCTION" TO THE CITIZENS OF OKLAHOMA FROM
THE LANDS IN THE RESERVOIR BASIN IS ABOUT $1,500,000.  ASIDE FROM SUCH
LOSSES AND LOSSES FROM OIL REVENUES AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION, THE
NET TAXABLE LOSS TO THE COUNTIES, TOWNSHIPS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS WILL
BE ABOUT $40,000 ANNUALLY. 

IT IS ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM WILL BE A "DIRECT
INVASION AND DESTRUCTION" OF THE SOVEREIGN AND PROPRIETARY RIGHTS OF
OKLAHOMA IN THAT:  THE BOUNDARY OF OKLAHOMA WILL BE OBLITERATED FOR
APPROXIMATELY 40 MILES (SEE OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 260 U.S. 606); THERE
WILL BE A "FORCIBLE REDUCTION OF THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF AS ONE OF THE
UNITED STATES"; LANDS OWNED BY IT WILL BE TAKEN; ITS HIGHWAYS AND
BRIDGES WILL BE DESTROYED CAUSING AN INTERRUPTION IN COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE STATE; THE WATERS TO BE IMPOUNDED BELONG
TO OKLAHOMA BUT WILL BE TAKEN FROM IT WITHOUT PAYMENT OF JUST
COMPENSATION; THOSE WATERS WILL BE DIVERTED FROM OKLAHOMA AND WILL BE
RUN THROUGH TURBINES LOCATED IN TEXAS FOR THE GENERATION OF POWER FOR
SALE PRINCIPALLY IN TEXAS; THE REMOVAL OF CITIZENS FROM THE 100,000
ACRES OF LAND WILL CREATE A "SERIOUS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEM," THE
BURDEN OF WHICH WILL FALL ON OKLAHOMA FOR WHICH NO COMPENSATION IS
AFFORDED. 

THE BILL INCORPORATES H. DOC. NO. 541, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE REPORT), WHICH CONTAINS THE WAR DEPARTMENT'S
SURVEY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DENISON RESERVOIR AND WHICH SERVED AS
THE BROAD DEFINITION OF THE PROJECT WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF
JUNE 28, 1938.  THE BILL ALLEGES THAT UNDER THE STATUTORY SCHEME FLOOD
CONTROL AND POWER PURPOSES ARE "INEXTRICABLY AND INSEVERABLY
INVOLVED."  IT ALLEGES THAT, AS DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT, THE FIRST 110
FEET OF THE DAM ARE TO BE USED "SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF WATER-POWER," WHILE 40 FEET "SUPERIMPOSED" ON THE POWER
RESERVOIR ARE TO BE USED "SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY" FOR FLOOD CONTROL. 
THAT IS TO SAY, FROM ELEVATION 510 FEET (SEA LEVEL) TO 590 FEET THERE
IS TO BE A DEAD STORAGE POOL FOR WATER-POWER HEAD, FROM 595 FEET TO 620
FEET THERE IS TO BE A WATER POWER RESERVOIR, AND FROM 620 FEET TO 660
FEET THERE IS TO BE A FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIR.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT
THOSE PURPOSES ARE "FUNCTIONALLY SEPARATE AND NEITHER IS THE INCIDENTAL
OR NECESSARY RESULT OF THE OTHER"; THAT THE SAME PART OF THE RESERVOIR
WILL NOT AND CANNOT BE USED FOR BOTH FLOOD CONTROL AND WATERPOWER
PURPOSES; AND THAT THE POWER PORTION OF THE DAM IS CREATED AT THE
EXPENSE OF ITS UTILIZATION FOR FLOOD CONTROL.  THE BILL FURTHER ALLEGES
THAT AS A RESULT OF THE MODIFICATION OF THE STATUTORY PLAN SET FORTH IN
THE REPORT THE DAM IS BEING CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO PROVIDE DEAD STORAGE
FOR WATER HEAD FROM 510 FEET TO 567 FEET, A POWER POOL RESERVOIR FROM
587 FEET TO 617 FEET, AND A FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIR FROM 617 FEET TO
640 FEET.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT BY REASON OF THAT MODIFICATION THE
RESERVOIR WILL INUNDATE 3,080,000 ACRE FEET FOR POWER AND 2,745,000
ACRE FEET FOR FLOOD CONTROL, AS CONTRASTED TO 3,400,000 ACRE FEET FOR
POWER AND 5,900,000 ACRE FEET FOR FLOOD CONTROL UNDER THE ORIGINAL
PLAN; FN3  AND THAT, AS A RESULT, THE STATUTORY SCHEME HAS BEEN CHANGED
FROM ONE PREPONDERANTLY FOR FLOOD CONTROL TO ONE PREPONDERANTLY FOR
WATER POWER.  IT IS ALSO ALLEGED THAT NO PART OF THE RED RIVER IN
OKLAHOMA IS NAVIGABLE. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT THE ACT UNDER WHICH APPELLEES ARE PROCEEDING IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT IT VIOLATES THE TENTH AMENDMENT, THAT IT IS
NOT WITHIN THE POWERS OF CONGRESS CONFERRED BY ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND THAT SINCE APPELLEES ARE ACTING UNDER A VOID
AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE THEY SHOULD BE ENJOINED.  BY AN AMENDMENT
TO ITS BILL, THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ALSO CHALLENGES THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 17, 1940, C. 895, 54
STAT. 1198.  FN4  THE AMENDED BILL ALLEGES THAT THE PROJECT "DOES NOT
IN ANY WAY PROTECT OR IMPROVE THE NAVIGABLE PORTIONS OF THE LOWER
REACHES OF RED RIVER OR OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER EITHER BY ENRICHING
THE LOWER WATER FLOW  ...  AS THE INCIDENTAL RESULT OF THE OPERATION OF
SAID FLOOD CONTROL AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT, EXCEPT IN THE
INTANGIBLE, INDIRECT, INCONSEQUENTIAL AND UNSUBSTANTIAL WAY" SET FORTH
IN THE REPORT; AND THAT SUCH INCONSEQUENTIAL AND INTANGIBLE BENEFITS TO
NAVIGATION AS MAY RESULT WILL FLOW FROM THE FLOOD CONTROL, NOT THE
POWER FEATURE, OF THE PROJECT. 

BY MOTIONS TO DISMISS, THE APPELLEES ASSERTED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE
ACTS OF CONGRESS SO CHALLENGED WERE CONSTITUTIONAL AND VALID.  THE CASE
WAS HEARD BY A THREE-JUDGE COURT (ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, C. 754, SEC.
3, 50 STAT. 751, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A) WHICH SUSTAINED THE ACT
AUTHORIZING THE PROJECT.  37 F.SUPP.  93.  FROM A JUDGMENT DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT AND DENYING THE INJUNCTION, A DIRECT APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO
THIS COURT. 

WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DENISON DAM AND RESERVOIR PROJECT IS A
VALID EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER BY CONGRESS. 

THIS PROJECT IS A PART OF A RATHER RECENT CHAPTER IN THE LONG HISTORY
OF FLOOD CONTROL ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.  FN5  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAD CONCERNED ITSELF WITH THE PROBLEMS OF NAVIGATION AND FLOOD CONTROL
ON THAT RIVER LONG BEFORE  FN6  THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER COMMISSION (21 STAT. 37) IN 1879.  EARLIER EFFORTS TOWARDS A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD-CONTROL PROGRAM ON A NATIONAL SCALE  FN7  WERE
ACCELERATED BY THE DISASTROUS MISSISSIPPI FLOOD IN 1927.  THE AGITATION
AND CONCERN OVER THAT DISASTER  FN8  LED TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE FLOOD
CONTROL ACT OF MAY 15, 1928(45 STAT. 534), SEC. 10 OF WHICH PROVIDED
THAT THE SECRETARY OF WAR SHOULD SUBMIT TO CONGRESS "AT THE EARLIEST
PRACTICABLE DATE PROJECTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL ON ALL TRIBUTARY STREAMS OF
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM SUBJECT TO DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS WHICH
PROJECTS SHALL INCLUDE:  THE RED RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES  ...  "  THAT
CONTROL OF THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI TO BE ATTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF A
RESERVOIR SYSTEM, THE "BENEFITS THAT WILL ACCRUE TO NAVIGATION AND
AGRICULTURE" FROM THE PREVENTION OF SILTAGE AND EROSION, THE
"PROSPECTIVE INCOME FROM THE DISPOSAL OF RESERVOIRED WATERS," AND
"INQUIRY AS TO THE RETURN FLOW OF WATERS PLACED IN THE SOILS FROM
RESERVOIRS, AND AS TO THEIR STABILIZING EFFECT ON STREAM FLOW AS A
MEANS OF PREVENTING EROSION, SILTAGE, AND IMPROVING NAVIGATION." 
PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORIZATION AND DIRECTION, A REPORT (H. DOC. NO.
378, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.) WAS SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 2, 1935, DEALING
AT GREAT LENGTH WITH THE PROBLEMS OF THE RED RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES,
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MISSISSIPPI. 

ON JUNE 22, 1936, THERE WAS ENACTED  FN9  THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF
1936(49 STAT. 1570).  SEC. 1 OF THAT ACT SET FORTH A BROAD
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY, STATING, INTER ALIA, THAT "THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SHOULD IMPROVE OR PARTICIPATE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OR
THEIR TRIBUTARIES, INCLUDING WATERSHEDS THEREOF, FOR FLOOD-CONTROL
PURPOSES IF THE BENEFITS TO WHOMSOEVER THEY MAY ACCRUE ARE IN EXCESS OF
THE ESTIMATED COSTS, AND IF THE LIVES AND SOCIAL SECURITY OF PEOPLE ARE
OTHERWISE ADVERSELY AFFECTED" AND THAT "DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS UPON THE
RIVERS OF THE UNITED STATES, UPSETTING ORDERLY PROCESSES AND CAUSING
LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE EROSION OF LANDS, AND
IMPAIRING AND OBSTRUCTING NAVIGATION, HIGHWAYS, RAILROADS, AND OTHER
CHANNELS OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES, CONSTITUTE A MENACE TO
NATIONAL WELFARE."  THAT ACT AUTHORIZED THE CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS
FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS.  BY SEC. 7 OF THAT ACT THE SECRETARY OF WAR WAS
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION OF OTHER
PROJECTS, INCLUDING THE DENISON RESERVOIR, WHERE "OPPORTUNITIES APPEAR
TO EXIST FOR USEFUL FLOOD-CONTROL OPERATIONS WITH ECONOMICAL
DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER WHENEVER SUFFICIENT MARKETS TO
ABSORB SUCH POWER BECOME AVAILABLE." 

FOLLOWING THE DISASTROUS OHIO RIVER FLOOD IN JANUARY, 1937, THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL REQUESTED  FN10  THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS TO
SUBMIT "COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR PROTECTIVE WORKS AGAINST FLOODS IN THE
OHIO VALLEY" AND PLANS "TO FURTHER INSURE PROTECTION IN THE MISSISSIPPI
VALLEY."  HE SUBMITTED A REPORT PURSUANT TO THAT DIRECTION, AND
RECOMMENDED THE CONSTRUCTION OF 45 FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS ON THE
TRIBUTARIES OF THE OHIO AND 24 ON OTHER TRIBUTARIES OF THE MISSISSIPPI,
INCLUDING THE RED RIVER.  FN11  AS TO THE PROPOSED DENISON RESERVOIR,
HE STATED THAT IT "WOULD REMOVE THE THREAT OF THE COINCIDENCE OF A
LARGE FLOOD FROM THE RED WITH A FLOOD IN THE MISSISSIPPI, AND WOULD
ALSO AFFORD HIGHLY DESIRABLE PROTECTION TO THE FERTILE BOTTOM LANDS IN
THE LOWER RED RIVER VALLEY.  BESIDES ITS FLOOD-CONTROL BENEFITS, IT HAS
VALUABLE POTENTIALITY FOR POWER PURPOSES."  FN12  AND HE ADDED:  "ON
THE RED RIVER  ...  INVESTIGATIONS INDICATE THAT A FLOOD FAR EXCEEDING
ANY OF RECORD IS DISTINCTLY POSSIBLE.  THE DENISON RESERVOIR WOULD
PREVENT SUCH A FLOOD FROM REACHING DISASTROUS PROPORTIONS IN THE VALLEY
BELOW IT."  FN13 

ON MARCH 12, 1938, THE ACTING SECRETARY OF WAR TRANSMITTED TO
CONGRESS A REPORT FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY,
PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION CONTAINED IN SEC. 7 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT
OF 1936.  THAT REPORT, BEING THE ONE HERE INVOLVED, (H. DOC. NO. 541,
75TH CONG., 3D SESS.) RECOMMENDED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM NEAR
DENISON, TEXAS, FOR THE COMBINED PURPOSE OF FLOOD CONTROL AND
DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER.  AFTER HEARINGS,  FN14  CONGRESS
PASSED THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1938, HERE CHALLENGED, WHICH
AUTHORIZED,  FN15  INTER ALIA, THE DENISON PROJECT ON THE BASIS OF THE
REPORT AND AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $54,000,000.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORK  FN16  AND BY THE ACT OF
OCTOBER 17, 1940, ALSO CHALLENGED BY APPELLANT, DECLARING THE DENISON
RESERVOIR TO BE "FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING NAVIGATION, REGULATING
THE FLOW OF THE RED RIVER, CONTROLLING FLOODS, AND FOR OTHER BENEFICIAL
USES."  FN17  THUS, WHILE THE REPORT SPOKE OF THE DAM AS A "DUAL
PURPOSE" PROJECT, CONGRESS DID NOT SO LIMIT IT BUT AUTHORIZED IT FOR
MULTIPLE PURPOSES.    FROM THIS HISTORY IT IS PLAIN THAT THIS PROJECT,
WHICH IS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD-CONTROL PLAN, IS DESIGNED TO
CONTROL THE WATERSHED OF ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES OF THE
MISSISSIPPI IN ALLEVIATION OF FLOODS IN THE LOWER RED RIVER AND
MISSISSIPPI VALLEYS.  THE RED RIVER, SIXTH IN LENGTH AMONG RIVERS IN
THE UNITED STATES, HAS ONE OF THE LARGEST WATERSHEDS IN THE COUNTRY,
DRAINING AN AREA ABOUT 50 PER CENT LARGER THAN NEW ENGLAND - AN AREA OF
91,430 SQUARE MILES, OF WHICH 38,291 SQUARE MILES ARE ABOVE THE DAM
SITE.  FN18  IT RISES NEAR THE EAST EDGE OF NEW MEXICO, FLOWS EASTERLY
ABOUT 850 MILES ACROSS THE TEXAS PANHANDLE AND BETWEEN THE STATES OF
OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS TO FULTON, ARKANSAS.  FROM THERE IT FLOWS SOUTH AND
SOUTHEAST SOME 460 MILES AND ENTERS THE MISSISSIPPI AT RED RIVER
LANDING.  THE SITE OF THE DENISON DAM IS 228 MILES UP THE RIVER FROM
FULTON.  THE CONTRIBUTION WHICH THE RED RIVER MAKES TO DISASTROUS
FLOODS IN ITS BASIN AND IN THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI HAS LONG BEEN
RECOGNIZED.  HUGE CROP DAMAGE, THE LOSS OF BUILDINGS, BRIDGES AND
LIVESTOCK, POLLUTION OF FERTILE FIELDS, THE EROSION OF RICH FARM LANDS,
BANK CAVINGS, INTERRUPTION OF NAVIGATION, INJURY OF PORT FACILITIES,
THE CREATION OF SAND BARS IN THE CHANNELS, INTERRUPTION OR STOPPAGE OF
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL, TRUCK AND MOTORCAR, DISEASE,
PESTILENCE AND DEATH, RELIEF OF THE HOMELESS AND DESTITUTE - ALL THESE
ARE NOW FAMILIAR COSTS OF THE FLOODS ON THE MISSISSIPPI.  FN19  AND THE
HISTORY OF THE RED RIVER VALLEY SHOWS THAT IT HAS LONG BEEN PLAGUED BY
SUCH DISASTERS AND BURDENED BY THEIR COSTS.  FN20 

FLOODS PAY NO RESPECT TO STATE LINES.  FN21  THEIR EFFECTIVE CONTROL
IN THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY A SUBJECT OF NATIONAL
CONCERN,  FN22  IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT SINGLE STATES ARE
IMPOTENT TO COPE WITH THEM EFFECTIVELY.  THE METHODS OF DEALING WITH
THEM HAVE ELICITED A CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS..  FN23 

THE IDEA OF RESERVOIR CONTROL ON THE TRIBUTARIES OF THE MISSISSIPPI
IS NOT NEW.  THE ELLET REPORT  FN24  TO THE WAR DEPARTMENT IN 1852
URGED THE MAKING OF SURVEYS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF RESERVOIRS ON THE
RED RIVER AND OTHER TRIBUTARIES WHICH WOULD SERVE THE "DOUBLE PURPOSE"
OF "KEEPING BACK THE FLOODS" AND RELIEVING "SUMMER NAVIGATION FROM
OBSTRUCTION, BY ALLOWING THE SURPLUS SO RETAINED, TO PASS DOWN IN THE
SEASON OF LOW WATER."  FN25  THE EMERGENCE IN RECENT YEARS OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR RESERVOIRS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN  FN26
MARKS THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM DESIGNED NOT ONLY TO
ALLEVIATE, ULTIMATELY, FLOOD CONDITIONS ON THE MISSISSIPPI ITSELF, BUT
ALSO TO AVOID OR REDUCE LOCAL FLOOD DISASTERS.  A PART OF THE LOCAL
BENEFITS OF FLOOD CONTROL IS FREQUENTLY PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION IN THE
TRIBUTARY ITSELF.  THAT IS PRESENT HERE TO A DEGREE.  IT IS TRUE THAT
"NO PART OF THE (RED) RIVER WITHIN OKLAHOMA IS NAVIGABLE."  OKLAHOMA V.
TEXAS, 258 U.S. 574, 591.  THOUGH APPELLANT ALLEGED THAT THE STREAM IS
NOT NOW A NAVIGABLE RIVER OF THE UNITED STATES, IT HAS HERETOFORE BEEN
AUTHORITATIVELY DETERMINED THAT IN YEARS PAST "THE USUAL HEAD OF
NAVIGATION" WAS LANESPORT, ARKANSAS, NEAR THE OKLAHOMA BOUNDARY.  ID.,
P. 589.  AT THE PRESENT TIME, COMMERCE ON THE RED RIVER IS LIMITED TO
THE SECTION BELOW ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA, 122 MILES ABOVE ITS MOUTH. 
FN27  THE FACT THAT PORTIONS OF A RIVER ARE NO LONGER USED FOR COMMERCE
DOES NOT DILUTE THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THEM.  ECONOMY LIGHT & POWER
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 113, 123; UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN
POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377, 409-410.  AND IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS MAY
EXERCISE ITS CONTROL OVER THE NON-NAVIGABLE STRETCHES OF A RIVER IN
ORDER TO PRESERVE OR PROMOTE COMMERCE ON THE NAVIGABLE PORTIONS. 
UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE DAM & IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690, 703,
706, 708; UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 90.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT,
AT LEAST INCIDENTALLY, CONGRESS HAS DONE PRECISELY THAT IN THIS CASE. 
CONGRESS WAS NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE EFFECT OF THIS PROJECT ON THE
NAVIGABLE CAPACITY OF THE RIVER.  IN AUTHORIZING IT, CONGRESS EXERCISED
ALL THE POWER IT POSSESSED TO CONTROL NAVIGABLE WATERS.  THE ACTS IN
QUESTION CONTAIN A DECLARATION THAT ONE OF THEIR PURPOSES IS TO IMPROVE
NAVIGATION.  AND THE REPORT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE DENISON RESERVOIR
WILL HAVE AT LEAST AN INCIDENTAL EFFECT IN PROTECTING OR IMPROVING THE
NAVIGABILITY OF PORTIONS OF THE RED RIVER.  THE DISTRICT ENGINEER
REPORTED THAT "INASMUCH AS ANY NEW NAVIGATION SYSTEM FOR THE RED RIVER
WOULD REQUIRE FLOW REGULATION TO FURNISH A DEPENDABLE NAVIGABLE
IMPROVEMENT, THE DENISON RESERVOIR WOULD BE OF CONSIDERABLE BENEFIT." 
FN28  IN HIS VIEW, IT WOULD DECREASE BANK CAVING AND SILT CARRIAGE,
SUBSTITUTE "MODERATELY HIGH STAGES OF LONG DURATIONS FOR HIGH-FLOOD
STAGES OF SHORT DURATION," "FURNISH MORE DEPENDABLE NAVIGABLE STAGES
ESPECIALLY IN THE UPPER PORTIONS OF THE NAVIGATION POOLS,"  FN29  AND
HAVE A "FAVORABLE EFFECT ON OPEN-CHANNEL NAVIGATION BY REDUCING FLOOD
STAGES AND INCREASING LOW-WATER FLOWS."  FN30  THE DIVISION ENGINEER
EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT A "DEPENDABLE LOW-WATER FLOW OF 2,200 TO 3,000
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF THE POWER PROJECT AT DENISON WOULD BE OF DISTINCT BENEFIT
TO THE SMALL COMMERCE NOW DEVELOPED UPON THOSE REACHES OF THE LOWER RED
RIVER WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN APPROVED NAVIGATION PROJECTS, AND MIGHT
HAVE A MATERIAL BEARING UPON FUTURE STUDIES OF THE RED RIVER WITH A
VIEW TO ITS FURTHER IMPROVEMENT.  IN THE PRESENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
UPON THIS POINT, IT IS NECESSARY TO CLASSIFY THESE BENEFITS AMONG THE
INTANGIBLES.  BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT A DEPENDABLE LOW WATER SUPPLY
WOULD SIMPLIFY, PERHAPS MATERIALLY, SUCH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
RIVER AS MAY BE UNDERTAKEN."  FN31  THUS THE EFFECT ON THE RIVER IS
TANGIBLE, THOUGH THE VALUE MAY BE UNCERTAIN  FN32  SINCE IT DEPENDS IN
PART ON FUTURE ACTION OF CONGRESS.  BUT THAT IS NOT OUR CONCERN. 

WE WOULD, HOWEVER, BE LESS THAN FRANK IF WE FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THIS
PROJECT AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD-CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE
MISSISSIPPI ITSELF.  BUT THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY CONGRESS
OR THE COURTS SHOULD BE BLIND TO THE ENGINEERING PROSPECTS OF
PROTECTING THE NATION'S ARTERIES OF COMMERCE THROUGH CONTROL OF THE
WATERSHEDS.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY CONGRESS CANNOT,
UNDER THE COMMERCE POWER, TREAT THE WATERSHEDS AS A KEY TO FLOOD
CONTROL ON NAVIGABLE STREAMS AND THEIR TRIBUTARIES.  NOR IS THERE A
CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY FOR VIEWING EACH RESERVOIR PROJECT IN
ISOLATION FROM A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COVERING THE ENTIRE BASIN OF A
PARTICULAR RIVER.  WE NEED NO SURVEY TO KNOW THAT THE MISSISSIPPI IS A
NAVIGABLE RIVER.  WE NEED NO SURVEY TO KNOW THAT THE TRIBUTARIES ARE
GENEROUS CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FLOODS OF THE MISSISSIPPI.  AND IT IS
COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MISSISSIPPI FLOODS HAVE PARALYZED COMMERCE  FN33
IN THE AFFECTED AREAS AND HAVE IMPAIRED NAVIGATION ITSELF.  WE HAVE
RECENTLY RECOGNIZED THAT "FLOOD PROTECTION, WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT,
RECOVERY OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH UTILIZATION OF POWER ARE
...  PARTS OF COMMERCE CONTROL."  UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER
CO., SUPRA, P. 426.  AND WE NOW ADD THAT THE POWER OF FLOOD CONTROL
EXTENDS TO THE TRIBUTARIES OF NAVIGABLE STREAMS.  FOR, JUST AS CONTROL
OVER THE NON-NAVIGABLE PARTS OF A RIVER MAY BE ESSENTIAL OR DESIRABLE
IN THE INTERESTS OF THE NAVIGABLE PORTIONS, SO MAY THE KEY TO FLOOD
CONTROL ON A NAVIGABLE STREAM BE FOUND IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN FLOOD
CONTROL ON ITS TRIBUTARIES.  AS REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT
FROM M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, TO UNITED STATES V. DARBY,
312 U.S. 100, THE EXERCISE OF THE GRANTED POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE AIDED BY APPROPRIATE AND NEEDFUL CONTROL OF
ACTIVITIES AND AGENCIES WHICH, THOUGH INTRASTATE, AFFECT THAT
COMMERCE. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, TRUE THAT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THIS PROJECT WILL
ALLEVIATE FLOOD CONDITIONS IN THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI IS SOMEWHAT
CONJECTURAL.  THE DISTRICT ENGINEER ESTIMATED THAT THE DENISON PROJECT
WOULD CAUSE A REDUCTION OF 35,000 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND IN THE LOWER
MISSISSIPPI IN CASE THE MAY, 1908, FLOOD WERE REPEATED; 8,000 CUBIC
FEET PER SECOND, IN CASE OF THE MAY, 1935, FLOOD; AND 100,000 CUBIC
FEET PER SECOND, IN CASE OF THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PROBABLE FLOOD.  FN34
BUT THE DIVISION ENGINEER POINTED OUT THAT "THE MAGNITUDE OF THE
EFFECT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE SIZE AND ORIGIN OF THE CONCURRENT FLOOD IN
RED RIVER, AND UPON THE BASIS OF RESERVOIR OPERATION."  FN35  IN HIS
VIEW, A REDUCTION IN FLOW OF 35,000 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND IN CASE OF
SUCH A FLOOD AS 1908 "IF LONG ENOUGH SUSTAINED, WOULD IMPLY A REDUCTION
IN STAGE AVERAGING 1.3 FEET BETWEEN ALEXANDRIA AND MONCLA, AND A
REDUCTION OF 0.15 FOOT IN THE FLOW LINES OF THE ATCHAFALAYA BASIN AND
THE MAIN RIVER BELOW OLD RIVER, PROVIDED THEY WERE AT PEAK STAGE.  AT
LOWER STAGES THE EFFECT WOULD BE GREATER, BUT LESS NECESSARY."  FN36
THIS MATTER WAS AGAIN REVIEWED IN THE DEFINITE PROJECT AND THE
FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE:  FN37  "FLOODS IN THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER USUALLY OCCUR IN THE SPRING AS A RESULT OF FLOOD FLOWS OUT OF THE
OHIO RIVER.  THE COINCIDENCE OF FLOOD FLOWS OUT OF THE RED RIVER WITH
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER SPRING FLOODS IS RARE.  HOWEVER, THE EARLY SUMMER
FLOODS OUT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER OCCASIONALLY COINCIDE IN THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER WITH THE SUMMER FLOODS OUT OF THE RED RIVER.  THE
CONTROL PROVIDED BY THE PROPOSED DENISON DAM AND RESERVOIR ON THE RED
RIVER SUMMER FLOODS HAS BEEN ESTIMATED TO PRODUCE A REDUCTION OF
APPROXIMATELY 0.6 FOOT AT THE MOUTH OF OLD RIVER ON THE MISSISSIPPI. 
THIS REDUCTION, WHILE NOT SUBSTANTIAL WITH RESPECT TO MISSISSIPPI FLOOD
STAGES, IS IMPORTANT WHEN FLOOD CRESTS SERIOUSLY TAX THE MISSISSIPPI
LEVEE SYSTEM." 

SUCH MATTERS RAISE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES BUT QUESTIONS OF
POLICY.  THEY RELATE TO THE WISDOM, NEED, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF A
PARTICULAR PROJECT.  THEY ARE THEREFORE QUESTIONS FOR THE CONGRESS, NOT
THE COURTS.  FOR US TO INQUIRE WHETHER THIS RESERVOIR WILL EFFECT A
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI FLOODS WOULD BE TO
EXERCISE A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT BASED ON A COMPLEXITY OF ENGINEERING
DATA.  IT IS FOR CONGRESS ALONE TO DECIDE WHETHER A PARTICULAR PROJECT,
BY ITSELF OR AS PART OF A MORE COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME, WILL HAVE SUCH A
BENEFICIAL EFFECT ON THE ARTERIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO WARRANT
IT.  THAT DETERMINATION IS LEGISLATIVE IN CHARACTER.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., SUPRA, P. 424.  THE NATURE OF THE JUDGMENT
INVOLVED IS REEMPHASIZED IF THIS PROJECT IS VIEWED NOT IN ISOLATION BUT
AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED RESERVOIR SYSTEM IN THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN.  A WAR DEPARTMENT SURVEY IN 1935 REVEALS
PROMISING ENGINEERING PROSPECTS IN A SYSTEM OF 157 RESERVOIRS N38
THROUGHOUT THE TRIBUTARIES OF THE MISSISSIPPI.  TO SAY THAT NO ONE OF
THOSE PROJECTS COULD BE CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED BECAUSE ITS
SEPARATE EFFECT ON FLOODS IN THE MISSISSIPPI WOULD BE TOO CONJECTURAL
WOULD BE TO DENY THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL AGGREGATE BENEFITS OF THE
INTEGRATED SYSTEM AS A WHOLE.  THAT REVEALS THE NECESSITY, FROM THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VIEWPOINT, OF LEAVING TO CONGRESS THE DECISION AS TO
WHAT WATERSHEDS SHOULD BE CONTROLLED (AND WHAT METHODS SHOULD BE
EMPLOYED) IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE VARIOUS ARTERIES OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FROM THE DISASTERS OF FLOODS. 

NOR IS IT FOR US TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RESULTING BENEFITS TO
COMMERCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PARTICULAR EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF THE
COMMERCE POWER OUTWEIGH THE COSTS OF THE UNDERTAKING.  ARIZONA V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 456-457; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 329-330.  NOR MAY WE INQUIRE INTO THE MOTIVES
OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO VOTED FOR THIS PROJECT, IN AN ENDEAVOR TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER THEIR CONCERN OVER THE GREAT NATIONAL LOSS FROM SOIL
EROSION, THE ENORMOUS CROP DAMAGES, THE DESTRUCTION OF HOMES, THE LOSS
OF LIFE AND OTHER LIKE RAVAGES OF FLOODS, OVERSHADOWED IN THEIR MINDS
THE DESIRABILITY OF PROTECTING THE MISSISSIPPI AND OTHER ARTERIES OF
COMMERCE.  ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, P. 455, AND CASES CITED.  IT
IS SUFFICIENT FOR US THAT CONGRESS HAS EXERCISED ITS COMMERCE POWER,
THOUGH OTHER PURPOSES WILL ALSO BE SERVED.  ID., P. 456. 

BUT OKLAHOMA POINTS OUT THAT THE DENISON RESERVOIR IS A MULTIPLE
PURPOSE PROJECT,  FN39 COMBINING FUNCTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY SEPARATE
AND UNRELATED PURPOSES.  IT SAYS THAT ONLY THE TOP 40 FEET OF THE DAM
IS SET APART FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND THAT THE LOWER PORTIONS OF THE DAM
ARE DESIGNED FOR THE POWER PROJECT AND ARE NEITHER USEFUL NOR NECESSARY
FOR FLOOD CONTROL.  IT POINTS OUT FROM THE REPORT N40 THAT A RESERVOIR
FOR FLOOD CONTROL ONLY WOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 165 FEET, WHILE A
RESERVOIR FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND POWER DEVELOPMENT WOULD REQUIRE A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 185 FEET.  IT THEREFORE EARNESTLY CONTENDS THAT THE
ADDITIONAL 20 FEET IN HEIGHT OF THE DAM REQUIRES A VERY MUCH GREATER
ACREAGE OF APPELLANT'S DOMAIN THAN WOULD A PROJECT FOR FLOOD CONTROL
ONLY.  AND IT INSISTS THAT CONGRESS IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE A
TAKING OF OKLAHOMA'S DOMAIN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER POWER
FEATURE OF THE PROJECT. 

THERE ARE SEVERAL ANSWERS TO THESE CONTENTIONS.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED
HERE WITH THE QUESTION AS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
ESTABLISH ON A NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM A POWER PROJECT WHICH HAS NO
RELATION TO, OR IS NOT A PART OF, A FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECT.  WHILE THIS
RESERVOIR IS A MULTIPLE-PURPOSE PROJECT, IT IS BASICALLY ONE FOR FLOOD
CONTROL.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT BUT FOR FLOOD CONTROL IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN PROJECTED.  IT ORIGINATED AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM
FOR FLOOD CONTROL.  AND THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE REPORT THAT A DUAL
PURPOSE DAM BE CONSTRUCTED WAS BASED "ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE FLOOD
CONTROL PROJECT IS TO BE BUILT IN ANY EVENT."  FN41 SEE UNITED STATES
V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 73.  FURTHERMORE, IT IS PLAIN FROM
THE REPORT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT SO AS TO ACCOMMODATE
POWER WILL INCREASE OR AUGMENT SOME OF THE FLOOD-CONTROL BENEFITS,
INCLUDING RIVER FLOW, WHICH WOULD ACCRUE WERE THE DAM TO BE ERECTED FOR
FLOOD CONTROL ONLY.  THUS, THE DISTRICT ENGINEER STATED:  "IF IT WERE
CONSTRUCTED SOLELY FOR FLOOD CONTROL IT WOULD HAVE BENEFICIAL EFFECTS
IN REDUCING FLOODS, DECREASING BANK CAVING AND SILT CARRIAGE, AND IN
SUBSTITUTING MODERATELY HIGH STAGES OF LONG DURATIONS FOR HIGH-FLOOD
STAGES OF SHORT DURATION.  IF THE DENISON RESERVOIR WERE CONSTRUCTED
FOR THE DUAL PURPOSES OF FLOOD CONTROL AND POWER DEVELOPMENT, THESE
BENEFICENT EFFECTS WOULD BE AUGMENTED BY THOSE RESULTING FROM THE
REGULATED POWER DISCHARGE WHICH WOULD INCREASE LOW-WATER FLOWS AND
FURNISH MORE DEPENDABLE NAVIGABLE STAGES ESPECIALLY IN THE UPPER
PORTIONS OF THE NAVIGATION POOLS."  FN42 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE POWER PHASE OF THIS PROJECT IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT
WILL CARRY SOME OF THE COSTS OF FLOOD CONTROL.  THE DIVISION ENGINEER
ESTIMATED THAT THE ANNUAL DEFICIT OF $287,000 FROM FLOOD CONTROL WOULD
BE OFFSET BY AN ANNUAL PROFIT OF $404,310 FROM POWER, LEAVING AN ANNUAL
NET PROFIT OF $117,000.  FN43  BUT THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS
INTRODUCED POWER DEVELOPMENT INTO THIS PROJECT AS A PAYING PARTNER
FN44  DOES NOT DEROGATE FROM THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO CONSTRUCT THE
DAM FOR FLOOD CONTROL, INCLUDING RIVER FLOW.  THE POWER PROJECT IS NOT
UNRELATED TO THOSE PURPOSES.  FN45  THE ALLOCATIONS OF COST  FN46  AND
STORAGE BETWEEN POWER AND FLOOD CONTROL, HOWEVER SIGNIFICANT FOR SOME
PURPOSES, CANNOT CONCEAL THE FLOOD-CONTROL REALITIES OF THIS TOTAL
PROJECT.  COST OF THE POWER PROJECT, ROUGHLY SPEAKING, WAS DETERMINED
BY THE COST OF THE MULTIPLE-PURPOSE DAM LESS THE COST OF A DAM FOR
FLOOD CONTROL ONLY.  FN47  ON THAT BASIS THE REPORT POINTS OUT THAT THE
COST OF STORAGE FOR FLOOD CONTROL ONLY (5,800,000 ACRE-FEET) IS ABOUT
$6.60 PER ACRE-FOOT, WHILE THE COST OF THE 3,500,000 ACRE-FEET IN THE
SO-CALLED POWER POOL IS AROUND $2 PER ACRE-FOOT, EXCLUSIVE OF THE COST
OF THE POWERHOUSE AND APPURTENANT CONSTRUCTION.  FN48  IN THIS
CONNECTION, THE DEFINITE PROJECT STATES THAT THE "AMOUNT OF STORAGE
WHICH CAN BE ECONOMICALLY ALLOCATED TO THE PRODUCTION OF POWER DEPENDS
ON THE ABILITY OF THE POWER MARKET TO ABSORB THE POWER DURING THE
USEFUL LIFE OF THE PROJECT."  FN49  BUT THE DIVISION ENGINEER OBSERVED
THAT "IN ACTUAL OPERATION OF THE DUAL-PURPOSE PROJECT THIS CHEAP
STORAGE WOULD BE DEDICATED TO FLOOD CONTROL, WHEREAS IN THE FINANCIAL
SET-UP IT IS CREDITED TO POWER."  FN50  IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REPORT
FN51  AND THE DEFINITE PROJECT, THAT THE BOTTOM POOL OF DEAD STORAGE IS
DESIGNED TO TAKE CARE OF THE DEPOSIT OF SILT "WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE
REDUCE THE EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMIC WORTH OF THE FLOOD CONTROL
STORAGE."  FN52  AT THE SAME TIME, IT WILL EFFECTIVELY PROVIDE
WATERPOWER HEAD.  AND SO FAR AS THE POWER STORAGE IS CONCERNED, THE
DEFINITE PROJECT MAKES PLAIN THAT IT IS FUNCTIONALLY RELATED TO THE
BROAD OBJECTIVES OF FLOOD CONTROL.  THE OPERATION OF THE RESERVOIR WILL
INVOLVE A CONSIDERATION OF ITS MULTIPLE PURPOSES.  FN53  ITS OPERATION
IN PERIODS OF DROUGHT SO AS TO REGULARIZE THE FLOW BELOW THE DAM; FN54
THE REDUCTION IN RESERVOIR OUTFLOW IN CASE OF FLOODS DOWN THE VALLEY;
THE INCREASE OF THE OUTFLOW, IN CASE OF IMPENDING FLOODS FROM ABOVE THE
DAM, TO THE MAXIMUM "BANK FULL CAPACITY DOWNSTREAM OF THE DAM, SO THAT
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FLOOD CONTROL STORAGE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHEN THE
PEAK OF THE FLOOD REACHES THE RESERVOIR, THEREBY REDUCING THE PEAK
OUTFLOW OF THE RESERVOIR TO A MINIMUM"  FN55  - THESE ARE AMPLE
EVIDENCE THAT THE POWER FEATURES AND THE FLOOD-CONTROL FEATURES OF THE
DAM, INCLUDING RIVER FLOW, ARE NOT UNRELATED.  THEY DEMONSTRATE THAT,
IN OPERATION OF THE DAM, THE SEVERAL FUNCTIONS WILL BE INTERDEPENDENT,
AND THAT THE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE REQUIREMENTS OF FLOOD
CONTROL AND POWER DEVELOPMENT ARE HERE MORE APPARENT THAN REAL.  FN56
THEY SHOW THAT THIS IS NONETHELESS A FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECT WHICH WILL
"FULLY CONTROL THE MAXIMUM FLOOD OF RECORD,"  FN57  THOUGH POWER, IT IS
HOPED, WILL PAY THE WAY.  WHETHER THE WORK OF FLOOD-CONTROL, INCLUDING
RIVER FLOW, WOULD BE BETTER DONE BY A DAM OF ONE DESIGN OR ANOTHER IS
FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE.  AND, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE FACT THAT ENDS
OTHER THAN FLOOD CONTROL WILL ALSO BE SERVED, OR THAT FLOOD CONTROL MAY
BE RELATIVELY OF LESSER IMPORTANCE, DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE EXERCISE OF
THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON CONGRESS.  KAUKAUNA WATER POWER CO. V. GREEN
BAY & MISSISSIPPI CANAL CO., 142 U.S. 254, 275, 276; SEE IN RE KOLLOCK,
165 U.S. 526, 536; WEBER V. FREED, 239 U.S. 325, 329-330; ARIZONA V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, P. 456. 

THE TENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT DEPRIVE "THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF
AUTHORITY TO RESORT TO ALL MEANS FOR THE EXERCISE OF A GRANTED POWER
WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE AND PLAINLY ADAPTED TO THE PERMITTED END." 
UNITED STATES V. DARBY, SUPRA, P. 124, AND CASES CITED.  SINCE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS DAM AND RESERVOIR IS A VALID EXERCISE BY CONGRESS
OF ITS COMMERCE POWER, THERE IS NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
THE STATE.  FN58  UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., SUPRA, P.
428.  THE FACT THAT LAND IS OWNED BY A STATE IS NO BARRIER TO ITS
CONDEMNATION BY THE UNITED STATES.  WAYNE COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 53
CT. CLS. 417, AFF'D 252 U.S. 574.  THERE IS NO COMPLAINT THAT ANY
PROPERTY OWNER WILL NOT RECEIVE JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND TAKEN. 
THE POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE TAX REVENUES OF OKLAHOMA AS A RESULT
OF THE EXERCISE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF ITS POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN IS NO BARRIER TO THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER.  "WHENEVER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THOSE OF THE STATE
COME INTO CONFLICT, THE LATTER MUST YIELD."  FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273
U.S. 12, 17.  NOR CAN A STATE CALL A HALT TO THE EXERCISE OF THE
EMINENT DOMAIN POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THE SUBSEQUENT
FLOODING OF THE LAND TAKEN WILL OBLITERATE ITS BOUNDARY.  AND THE
SUGGESTION THAT THIS PROJECT INTERFERES WITH THE STATE'S OWN PROGRAM
FOR WATER DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION IS LIKEWISE OF NO AVAIL.  THAT
PROGRAM MUST BOW BEFORE THE "SUPERIOR POWER" OF CONGRESS.  UNITED
STATES V. RIO GRANDE DAM & IRRIGATION CO., SUPRA, P. 703; NEW JERSEY V.
SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328, 337; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 298 U.S. 558, 569;
UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., SUPRA.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ACT PROVIDES IN PART: 

"SEC. 4.  THAT THE FOLLOWING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
NAVIGATION AND THE CONTROL OF DESTRUCTIVE FLOODWATERS AND OTHER
PURPOSES ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AND AUTHORIZED TO BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND SUPERVISION OF THE CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS IN THE RESPECTIVE REPORTS
HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED:  PROVIDED, THAT PENSTOCKS OR OTHER SIMILAR
FACILITIES ADAPTED TO POSSIBLE FUTURE USE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
HYDROELECTRIC POWER SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ANY DAM HEREIN AUTHORIZED
WHEN APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS AND OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE DENISON RESERVOIR ON RED RIVER IN TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA FOR FLOOD
CONTROL AND OTHER PURPOSES AS DESCRIBED IN HOUSE DOCUMENT NUMBERED 541,
SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION, WITH SUCH MODIFICATIONS THEREOF
AS IN THE DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
MAY BE ADVISABLE, IS ADOPTED AND AUTHORIZED AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF
$54,000,000.  ... 

   .         .         .         .         . 

"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ACKNOWLEDGES THE RIGHT OF THE
STATES OF OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS TO CONTINUE TO EXERCISE ALL EXISTING
PROPRIETARY OR OTHER RIGHTS OF SUPERVISION OF AND JURISDICTION OVER THE
WATERS OF ALL TRIBUTARIES OF RED RIVER WITHIN THEIR BORDERS ABOVE
DENISON DAM SITE AND ABOVE SAID DAM, IF AND WHEN CONSTRUCTED, IN THE
SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IS NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER BE
PROVIDED BY THE LAWS OF SAID STATES, RESPECTIVELY, AND ALL OF SAID LAWS
AS THEY NOW EXIST OR AS SAME MAY BE HEREAFTER AMENDED OR ENACTED AND
ALL RIGHTS THEREUNDER, INCLUDING THE RIGHTS TO IMPOUND OR AUTHORIZE THE
RETARDATION OR IMPOUNDING THEREOF FOR FLOOD CONTROL ABOVE THE SAID
DENISON DAM AND TO DIVERT THE SAME FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES, DOMESTIC
USES, AND FOR IRRIGATION, POWER GENERATION, AND OTHER BENEFICIAL USES,
SHALL BE AND REMAIN UNAFFECTED BY OR AS A RESULT HEREOF.  ALL SUCH
RIGHTS ARE HEREBY SAVED AND RESERVED FOR AND TO THE SAID STATES AND THE
PEOPLE AND THE MUNICIPALITIES THEREOF, AND THE IMPOUNDING OF ANY SUCH
WATERS FOR ANY AND ALL BENEFICIAL USES BY SAID STATES OR UNDER THEIR
AUTHORITY MAY BE AS FREELY DONE AFTER THE PASSAGE HEREOF AS THE SAME
MAY NOW BE DONE." 

IN OCTOBER, 1939, THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED WITH THIS COURT A
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BILL OF COMPLAINT SEEKING AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE THEN SECRETARY OF WAR FROM PROCEEDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THIS PROJECT.  THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WAS DENIED BY AN EQUALLY
DIVIDED COURT.  OKLAHOMA V. WOODRING, 309 U.S. 623. 

FN2  APPELLEES ARE GUY F. ATKINSON CO., ALLEGED TO BE CONSTRUCTING
THE DAM UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE WAR DEPARTMENT; AND CLEON A. SUMMERS
AND CURTIS P. HARRIS, WHO AS ATTORNEYS FOR THE GOVERNMENT ARE ALLEGED
TO HAVE INSTITUTED NUMEROUS CONDEMNATION SUITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
PROPOSED RESERVOIR. 

FN3  IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS ALLEGED THAT UNDER THE STATUTORY SCHEME
75% OF THE HEIGHT OF THE DAM IS FOR POWER AND 25% FOR FLOOD CONTROL,
AND 37% OF THE ACRE FEET INUNDATED IS FOR WATER STORAGE FOR POWER AND
63% FOR FLOOD CONTROL, WHILE UNDER THE MODIFIED PLAN 82% OF THE HEIGHT
OF THE DAM IS FOR POWER AND 18% FOR FLOOD CONTROL, AND 53% OF THE ACRE
FEET INUNDATED IS FOR WATER STORAGE FOR POWER AND 47% FOR FLOOD
CONTROL. 

THE ORIGINAL PLAN OR STATUTORY SCHEME AS SET FORTH IN THE REPORT (H.
DOC. NO. 541, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 45) WAS DESCRIBED THEREIN AS
FOLLOWS: 

"THE PROJECT PLAN AS DESIGNED FOR THE COMBINED FLOOD CONTROL AND POWER
DEVELOPMENT SCHEME WITH TOP OF DAM AT ELEVATION 695 IS BASED UPON THE
FOLLOWING ALLOCATION OF RESERVOIR CAPACITY, THE VOLUMES BEING GIVEN IN
ROUND FIGURES. 

"(A)  DEAD STORAGE.  - STREAM BED ELEVATION 505 TO LOWER POWER POOL
ELEVATION 595, 1,400,000 ACRE FEET. 

"(B)  POWER POOL STORAGE.  - ELEVATION 595 TO ELEVATION 620,
2,000,000 ACRE-FEET. 

"(C)  FLOOD POOL STORAGE.  - ELEVATION 620 TO CREST OF SPILLWAY,
ELEVATION 660, 5,900,000 ACRE FEET. 

"(D)  DETENTION FLOOD STORAGE.  - STORAGE ABOVE THE SPILLWAY CREST,
ELEVATION 660, TO THE MAXIMUM RESERVOIR SURFACE REACHED BY THE
IMPOUNDED FLOODWATERS, WHICH IN THE CASE OF THE PROJECT FLOOD WOULD BE
6,400,000 ACRE-FEET FOR ELEVATION 687." 

UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1938, THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND
THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS WERE AUTHORIZED TO MODIFY THE PROJECT AS IT WAS
DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT.  A MODIFICATION HAS BEEN MADE.  DEFINITE
PROJECT FOR DENISON DAM & RESERVOIR, RED RIVER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
U.S. ARMY (NOT PRINTED).  THOSE CHANGES WERE REPORTED TO A COMMITTEE OF
CONGRESS.  HEARINGS, S. SUBCOM.  ON APPROPRIATIONS, H.R. 6260, 76TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 25-26, 201.  UNDER THE DEFINITE PROJECT (PP. 10
14) THE FOLLOWING ALLOCATION OF RESERVOIR CAPACITY HAS BEEN MADE: 

(A)  DEAD STORAGE.  STREAM BED ELEVATION 505 TO LOWER POWER POOL
ELEVATION 587, 1,020,000 ACRE FEET. 

(B)  POWER POOL STORAGE.  ELEVATION 587 TO ELEVATION 617, 2,060,000
ACRE FEET. 

(C)  FLOOD POOL STORAGE.  ELEVATION 617 TO SPILLWAY CREST, ELEVATION
640, 2,745,000 ACRE FEET. 

(D)  DETENTION FLOOD STORAGE.  ELEVATION SPILLWAY CREST, 640, TO
CREST OF DAM, 670.  APPELLEES ON THE BASIS OF DEFINITE PROJECT,
APPENDIX A, PLATE A-23, PLACE THE ACRE FEET AT APPROXIMATELY 3,300,000
FOR ELEVATION 662 - THE CONDITION WHICH, IT IS ASSERTED, WILL EXIST IN
CASE OF THE MAXIMUM PROBABLE FLOOD. 

FN4  THAT SECTION PROVIDES:  "THE PROJECT FOR THE DENISON RESERVOIR
ON RED RIVER IN TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, AUTHORIZED BY THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT
APPROVED JUNE 28, 1938, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPROVING NAVIGATION, REGULATING THE FLOW OF THE RED RIVER, CONTROLLING
FLOODS, AND FOR OTHER BENEFICIAL USES." 

FN5  FOR A SUMMARY OF VARIOUS FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS ON THE LOWER
MISSISSIPPI, SEE REPORT OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMMITTEE OF THE
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION (1934), PP. 207 ET SEQ.; ELLIOTT, THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER FOR FLOOD CONTROL &
NAVIGATION (1932), PP. 1-21; FRANK, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL
PROGRAM OF FLOOD CONTROL ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (1930); BEMAN, FLOOD
CONTROL (1928). 

AND SEE H. DOC. NO. 541, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 3; FLY, THE ROLE OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION OF WATER
RESOURCES, 86 U. PA. L. REV. 274; KERWIN, FEDERAL WATER-POWER
LEGISLATION (1926). 

FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY, SEE H. COM. DOC. NO. 4, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN6  SEE ELLIOTT, OP. CIT., PP. 1-21; S. EX. DOC. NO. 20, 32D CONG.,
1ST SESS.; S. EX. DOC. NO. 8, 40TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. EX. DOC. NO.
127, 43 CONG., 2D SESS.  FOR THE HISTORY AND WORK OF THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER COMMISSION, SEE H. REP. NO. 1072, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 334
354. 

FN7  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SO-CALLED FIRST FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF MARCH
1, 1917, C. 144, 39 STAT. 948. 

FN8  H. REP. NO. 1072, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. DOC. NO. 90, 70TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; HEARINGS, H. COMM. ON FLOOD CONTROL, 70TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES; HEARINGS, S. COMM.
ON COMMERCE, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON FLOOD CONTROL OF THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER.    AND SEE HOOVER, THE IMPROVEMENT OF OUR MID-WEST WATERWAYS,
135 ANNALS, NO. 224, P. 15. 

FN9  SEE HEARINGS, S. SUBCOM.  ON COMMERCE, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON
S. 3531; HEARINGS, H. COMM. ON FLOOD CONTROL, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON
S. 3531; HEARINGS, S. COMM. ON COMMERCE, EX. SESS. 74TH CONG., 2D
SESS., ON H.R. 8455; S. REP. NO. 1963, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H. REP.
NO. 2918, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H. REP. NO. 2583, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.;
S. REP. NO. 1662, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN10  THE RESOLUTION IS SET FORTH IN COM. DOC. NO. 1, H. COMM. ON
FLOOD CONTROL, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1.    FN11  COM. DOC. NO. 1,
OP. CIT., P. 11. 

FN12  COM. DOC. NO. 1, OP. CIT., PP. 7-8. 

FN13  COM. DOC. NO. 1, OP. CIT., P. 8.  THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
UNITED STATES ARMY, ON FEBRUARY 12, 1935, HAD SUBMITTED A SPECIAL
REPORT TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL, ENTITLED FLOOD-CONTROL
WORKS IN THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, COM. DOC. NO. 1,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  AND SEE THE MESSAGE BY PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT TO
CONGRESS JUNE 3, 1937, 81 CONG. REC., PT. 5, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
5280. 

FN14  HEARINGS, HOUSE COMM. ON FLOOD CONTROL ON H.R. 10618, 75TH
CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 605-686. 

FN15  SEC. 4 OF THAT ACT IS SET FORTH IN PART IN NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN16  ACT OF JUNE 28, 1939, C. 246, 53 STAT. 856; ACT OF JUNE 24,
1940, C. 415, 54 STAT. 505.  SEE H. REP. NO. 604, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 4; HEARINGS, S. SUBCOM.  ON APPROPRIATIONS ON H.R. 6260, 76TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 13. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN18  REPORT, P. 17. 

FN19  AS RESPECTS THE JANUARY, 1937 OHIO RIVER FLOOD, THE CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS REPORTED IN APRIL, 1937:  "THE RIVER ROSE TO A HEIGHT OF 80
FEET ABOVE LOW WATER AT CINCINNATI, BEING NEARLY 9 FEET ABOVE ANY FLOOD
HERETOFORE OF RECORD.  THE RESULTING DAMAGE WAS ENORMOUS.  PRACTICALLY
EVERY COMMUNITY ALONG THE ENTIRE RIVER SUFFERED HEAVY LOSS.  WATER,
ELECTRICITY, AND GAS SERVICES WERE DISCONTINUED IN MANY CITIES.  MORE
THAN 500,000 PERSONS WERE DRIVEN FROM THEIR HOMES AND SUFFERED GREAT
DISCOMFORT AND DISTRESS.  HIGHWAY AND RAILWAY COMMUNICATIONS WERE
SEVERED AND BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES WERE COMPLETELY
DISRUPTED FOR SEVERAL WEEKS.  RELIEF AGENCIES WERE TAXED TO THE UTMOST
TO PROVIDE FOR THE FLOOD REFUGEES.  ALTHOUGH THE DIRECT DAMAGES HAVE
NOT YET BEEN FULLY ASCERTAINED, THEY MAY CONSERVATIVELY BE ESTIMATED AT
MORE THAN $400,000,000.  THE WAR DEPARTMENT EXPENDED MORE THAN
$5,000,000 IN RELIEF WORK AND IN PROVIDING SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS FOR
THE FLOOD AREAS, AND APPROXIMATELY $5,000,000 FOR EMERGENCY WORK TO
PROTECT EXISTING STRUCTURES.  THE WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
PROVIDED LABOR AND SERVICES.  THE RELIEF ACTIVITIES OF THE AMERICAN RED
CROSS AGGREGATED MORE THAN $7,500,000.  THE EXPENDITURES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND OF THE RED CROSS FOR REHABILITATION WILL ADD GREATLY TO
THE EXPENDITURES ALREADY MADE."  COM. DOC. NO. 1, H. COMM. ON FLOOD
CONTROL, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3.  AND SEE H. DOC. NO. 90, 70TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2; H. REP. NO. 1072, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.
DOC. NO. 455, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. DOC. NO. 91, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS.; H. REP. NO. 616, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; THOMAS, HUNGRY WATERS
(1937). 

FN20  SEE H. DOC. NO. 378, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 372 ET SEQ.;
REPORT, PP. 29, 70-71, 84-87, 88, 94. 

FN21 THE FLOOD PROTECTION AFFORDED BY DENISON RESERVOIR WILL ACCRUE
TO FOUR STATES:  TWO-FIFTHS TO LOUISIANA, AND ONE-FIFTH EACH TO
OKLAHOMA, TEXAS, AND ARKANSAS.  REPORT, P. 11.  AND SEE REPORT OF THE
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMMITTEE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
(1934). 

FN22  NATIONAL RESOURCES BOARD, REPORT 1934, PP. 26-30, 325-329;
NATIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, DRAINAGE BASIN PROBLEMS AND PROGRAMS
(1936), PP. 73-77; H. DOC. NO. 306, OHIO RIVER, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.;
S. REP. NO. 891, 64TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

ON FOREST AND FLOOD RELATIONSHIPS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED,
SEE H. DOC. NO. 573, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 57 ET SEQ. S. DOC. NO.
12, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 299 ET SEQ.; PP. 1509 ET SEQ. 

FN23  H. REP. NO. 1072, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 5-16.  AND SEE
UNITED STATES V. SPONENBARGER, 308 U.S. 256; H. DOC. NO. 90, 70TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. DOC. NO. 1094, 62D CONG., 3D SESS.; S. REP. NO.
1662, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H. REP. NO. 2583, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN24  S. EX. DOC. NO. 20, 32D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 13, 99, ET SEQ.
AND SEE THE REVIEW OF THE IDEAS FOR RESERVOIRS CONTAINED IN FINAL
REPORT, NATIONAL WATERWAYS COMMISSION, S. DOC. NO. 469, 62D CONG., 2D
SESS., APP. II; NATIONAL WATERWAYS COMM., DOC. NO. 14, JAN. 1910; H.
DOC. NO. 1289, 62D CONG., 3D SESS. 

FN25  S. EX. DOC. NO. 20, 32D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 102. 

FN26  SEE H. DOC. NO. 259, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; NAT. RES. COM.,
DRAINAGE BASIN PROBLEMS AND PROGRAMS (1938); H. DOC. NO. 798, 71ST
CONG., 3D SESS., VOL. 2; H. REP. NO. 1072, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP.
101-109; H. DOC. NO. 395, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PT. 5; H. REP. NO. 1100,
70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 14; H. REP. NO. 1120, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN27  REPORT, PP. 2-3; AND SEE P. 65. 

FN28  REPORT, P. 67.  AND SEE P. 72. 

FN29  ID., P. 67. 

FN30  ID., P. 68. 

FN31  REPORT, PP. 79-80.  THE INITIAL PROJECT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF
NAVIGATION ON THE RED RIVER WAS AUTHORIZED IN 1828.  FEDERAL
EXPENDITURES TO JUNE 30, 1936, EXCEEDED $4,000,000.  ID., P. 3. 

FN32  AS TO THE INTANGIBLE BENEFITS FROM FLOOD CONTROL SEE H. DOC.
NO. 455, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ENTITLED VALUE OF FLOOD HEIGHT
REDUCTION FROM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESERVOIRS TO THE ALLUVIAL
VALLEY OF THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER; H. DOC. NO. 91, 76TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 22 ET SEQ., ENTITLED THE CHATTANOOGA FLOOD CONTROL PROBLEM;
COOKE, ON THE RELATIONS OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE TO FLOOD CONTROL, 84
SCIENCE (SUPP.) 40. 

FN33  AS RESPECTS BENEFITS FROM FLOOD HEIGHT REDUCTION TO RAILROADS
AND HIGHWAYS, SEE H. DOC. NO. 455, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 21-27;
REPORT, APP. H. (NOT PRINTED) SECS. 8-10, 16; H. DOC. NO. 378, 74TH
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 35-36, 264-265, 372-373; H. REP. NO. 1072, 70TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 224-228, 246-248; HEARINGS, S. COMM. ON COMMERCE,
EX. SESS., 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R. 8455, PP. 71-72, 307.  FOR A
FULL ACCOUNT OF FLOOD DAMAGE TO RAILROADS SEE:  BULL., AMER.  RY. ENG.
ASSN. (1928) VOL. 29, NO. 303, PT. 2. 

FN34  REPORT, P. 74.  CF. H. DOC. NO. 798, 71ST CONG., 3D SESS., VOL.
2, ANNEX 18, PP. 1496-1498. 

FN35  REPORT, P. 86. 

FN36  ID., P. 86. 

FN37  DEFINITE PROJECT, APP. D., P. 7.  AS RESPECTS THE RELATION OF
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AS A COMMERCE CARRIER TO FLOOD CONTROL, SEE H.
REP. NO. 1072, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 359. 

FN38  H. DOC. NO. 259, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN39  ON FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS OF MULTIPLE-PURPOSE DAMS, SEE NOTE 45,
INFRA. 

FN40  P. 42.  IN THIS CONNECTION, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE
DISTRICT ENGINEER RECOMMENDED THAT A DAM FOR FLOOD CONTROL ONLY WOULD
BE AT ELEVATION 675, WHILE THE MULTIPLE-PURPOSE DAM WOULD BE AT
ELEVATION 695.  REPORT, P. 42.  THE DIVISION ENGINEER, HOWEVER, STATED
THAT A RESTUDY INDICATED "THAT IN THE CASE OF THE FLOOD-CONTROL-ONLY
PROJECT GREATER ECONOMY WOULD RESULT FROM NARROWING THE SPILLWAY TO
1500 FEET AND RAISING THE CREST OF THE DAM TO ELEVATION 681 FEET." 
ID., P. 80. 

FN41  P. 94. 

FN42  REPORT, P. 67. 

FN43  ID., P. 94. 

FN44  AS STATED IN REPORT OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMMITTEE OF THE
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION (1934), P. 23: 

"NAVIGATION IS PARTICULARLY BENEFITED BY REDUCTION OF FLOOD CRESTS,
AND ALL OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF WATER USE ARE IMPROVED BY INCREASES IN
FLOW AT EXTREME LOW STAGES.  UNDER CERTAIN FAVORABLE CIRCUMSTANCES IT
MAY BE POSSIBLE TO RELEASE WATER FROM FLOOD-CONTROL RESERVOIRS TO
SATISFY REQUIREMENTS FOR HYDROELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT AT THE DAM, OR
TO REGULATE THE FLOW DOWN STREAM TO THE ADVANTAGE OF A VARIETY OF WATER
USES.  IN SUCH CASES EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS AMONG THE SEVERAL
PURPOSES SERVED MAY EVEN SUFFICIENTLY REDUCE THE COSTS CHARGEABLE TO
FLOOD PROTECTION TO WARRANT THE CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD-CONTROL
RESERVOIRS WHICH COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED FOR FLOOD PROTECTION ALONE." 

AND SEE FLY, THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL G3VERNMENT IN THE CONSERVATION
AND UTILIZATION OF WATER RESOURCES, 86 U. PA. L. REV. 274, 286 ET SEQ.;
MESSAGE BY PRESIDENT TAFT, AUGUST 24, 1912, 48 CONG. REC., PT. 11, 62D
CONG., 2D SESS., P. 11796, VETOING A BILL AUTHORIZING THE BUILDING OF A
DAM ACROSS COOSA RIVER, ALABAMA, BY A PRIVATE COMPANY; S. DOC. NO. 246,
64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN45  ON THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MULTIPLE PURPOSES OF WATER
CONTROL SEE REPORT OF THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY COMMITTEE OF THE PUBLIC
WORKS ADMINISTRATION (1934), PP. 20-24; ALVORD & BURDICK, RELIEF FROM
FLOODS (1918), PP. 28-36; CLEMENS, THE RESERVOIR AS A FLOOD-CONTROL
STRUCTURE (1935), 100 AM. SOC. OF CIV. ENGS.  879; H. DOC. NO. 1792,
64TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 5. 

AND SEE NAT. RES. COM., WATER PLANNING (1938); NAT. RES. COM., ENERGY
RESOURCES & NATIONAL POLICY (1939), P. 306. 

FN46  CF. HAMILTON, COST AS A STANDARD FOR PRICE, 4 LAW & CONT. 
PROBLEMS (1937), 321, 325. 

FN47  REPORT, PP. 60, 64. 

FN48  REPORT, P. 82. 

FN49  DEFINITE PROJECT, P. 11.  THE DISTRICT ENGINEER STATED IN THE
REPORT, P. 32:  "A HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ALONE AT THE DENISON
RESERVOIR SITE COULD NOT ABSORB ALL OF THE RESERVOIR COSTS AND PRODUCE
POWER IN COMPETITION WITH THAT FROM FUEL-CONSUMING PLANTS.  HOWEVER,
THE COMBINATION OF FLOOD CONTROL AND POWER DEVELOPMENT IN THE DENISON
RESERVOIR PRESENTS CERTAIN PROMISE OF FAVORABLE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY. 
ALTHOUGH THIS RESERVOIR WOULD APPROACH ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION IF
CONSTRUCTED EXCLUSIVELY FOR FLOOD CONTROL, THE INCOME FROM POWER
DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH FLOOD CONTROL WOULD IN PART ABSORB THIS
DEFICIENCY SINCE THE VALUE OF THE AVAILABLE POWER WOULD BE SOMEWHAT IN
EXCESS OF ITS COST.  IT IS APPARENT THAT THE RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF ANNUAL
RETURN, FLOOD BENEFITS, OR POWER REVENUES, FROM EACH OF THE TWO
FUNCTIONS OF A DUAL-PURPOSE DEVELOPMENT ARE QUANTITIVELY DEPENDENT UPON
THE MANNER IN WHICH STORAGE POTENTIALITIES OF THE SITE ARE APPORTIONED
BETWEEN THESE TWO FUNCTIONS.  IT IS BELIEVED, HOWEVER, THAT AN
INCREASED ALLOCATION OF SUCH STORAGE TO FLOOD CONTROL AT THE EXPENSE OF
POWER WOULD NOT MATERIALLY ALTER THE ABOVE CONCLUSION EXCEPT PERHAPS TO
SHOW ECONOMIC DEFICIENCIES FOR BOTH PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT." 

FN50  REPORT, P. 82. 

FN51  ID., PP. 45-46. 

FN52  DEFINITE PROJECT, PP. 10-11, APP. F., P. 5.  AND SEE HEARINGS,
H. COMM. ON FLOOD CONTROL, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 641. 

FN53  DEFINITE PROJECT, P. 26. 

FN54  ID., APP. F., P. 7; REPORT, P. 67. 

FN55  DEFINITE PROJECT, PP. 26, 12. 

FN56  IT WAS NOTED IN NAT. RES. COM., ENERGY RESOURCES & NATIONAL
POLICY (1939), P. 276, THAT: 

"THE MOST OBVIOUS AND MOST DISCUSSED CONFLICT OF PURPOSE IN USE OF
WATER RESOURCES RELATES TO FLOOD CONTROL AND POWER.  SINCE FLOOD
CONTROL IS OF GREAT URGENCY IN SO MANY BASINS, ONE MAY APPEAR TO
DEMOLISH ALL CONCEPT OF WISDOM IN PRODUCTION OF WATER POWER BY THE PAT
OBSERVATION THAT AN EMPTY RESERVOIR WILL NOT RUN TURBINES AND A FULL
RESERVOIR WILL NOT CATCH FLOODS.  WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR
RESERVOIR, THE OBSERVATION IS IN POINT, BUT IT IS NOT THEREBY
CONCLUSIVE.  THAT ONE RESERVOIR MIGHT BE RESERVED FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND
ANOTHER ON THE SAME STREAM USED FOR POWER PROBABLY STUMPS NO ONE. 
NEITHER SHOULD IT STUMP ANYONE THAT PART OF A SINGLE RESERVOIR BE
RESERVED FOR FLOOD AND PART BE USED FOR POWER.  INDEED, IT WOULD OFTEN
COST LESS TO PROVIDE FLOOD-CONTROL SPACE IN THE SAME RESERVOIR WITH
POWER SPACE THAN TO BUILD A SEPARATE RESERVOIR.  AND IT SHOULD NOT BE
FORGOTTEN THAT STORAGE TO PREVENT THE ORDINARILY LOW FLOW OF DRY
SEASONS IS ITSELF FLOOD PREVENTION IN THAT BETTER SUSTAINED ORDINARY
FLOW TENDS TO MAINTAIN CLEAR CHANNELS.  IF THE CONFLICT REALLY WERE
IRRECONCILABLE, WE SHOULD BE FORCED TO ABOLISH PRIVATE WATER-POWER
PLANTS ON EVERY STREAM SYSTEM REQUIRING FLOOD CONTROL.  IF PRIVATE
POWER AND PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL MAY HARMONIZE, ONE MAY BELIEVE THE SAME
OF PUBLIC POWER AND PUBLIC FLOOD CONTROL." 

AND SEE THE NORRIS PROJECT (1940), CH. 8. 

FN57  REPORT, P. 88. 

FN58  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THERE WILL BE NO LOSS OF POLITICAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE LANDS TAKEN EXCEPT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
STATE.  ART. 1, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. ALABAMA, 313 U.S. 274 


NO. 12, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941. 


1.  THE LAW OF ALABAMA FIXES OCTOBER 1ST OF EACH YEAR AS THE TAX DAY
AS OF WHICH REAL PROPERTY SHALL BE ASSESSED FOR THE TAXES OF THE
SUCCEEDING TAX YEAR, AND PROVIDES A STATUTORY PROCESS WHEREBY, IN DUE
COURSE, VALUATIONS OF PROPERTIES AND AMOUNTS OF TAX ARE DETERMINED. 
TAXES ARE MADE LIENS ON THE PROPERTIES TAXED, RELATING BACK TO THE TAX
DAY AND CONTINUING UNTIL THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID.  THE LIEN IS
EFFECTIVE NOT ONLY AGAINST THE OWNER ON THE TAX DAY BUT ALSO AGAINST
SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE TAX LIEN IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AS APPLIED TO A PURCHASER WHO BOUGHT ON OR AFTER THE TAX
DAY AND BEFORE THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX HAD BEEN FIXED BY LEVY AND
ASSESSMENT.  P. 279. 

(2)  THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASER, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS THE
UNITED STATES DID NOT INVALIDATE THE LIEN.  P. 281. 

(3)  SUCH A LIEN CAN NOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  P. 281. 

2.  A PROCEEDING AGAINST PROPERTY IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS AN
INTEREST IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  P. 282. 

UNITED STATES V. ALABAMA. 

THIS WAS A SUIT BROUGHT IN THIS COURT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST
THE STATE OF ALABAMA IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO HAVE REMOVED, AS
CLOUDS ON ITS TITLE, TAX LIENS IMPOSED UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE UPON
LANDS PURCHASED BY THE PLAINTIFF. 

THE COURT DECREES THAT TAX SALES AND CERTIFICATES OF PURCHASE,
RESULTING FROM PROCEEDINGS IN AN ALABAMA COUNTY COURT FOR ENFORCEMENT
OF THE LIENS, SHALL BE SET ASIDE, BUT IN OTHER RESPECTS THE BILL IS
DISMISSED. 

THE LANDS WERE ACQUIRED BEFORE THE TIME WHEN, BY COMPLETION OF LEVY
AND ASSESSMENT, THE AMOUNTS OF STATE TAXES HAD BEEN ASCERTAINED.  THEY
ARE THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO LIENS FOR THE TAXES. 

TWO THINGS ARE REQUISITE FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF AN AD VALOREM TAX:
THE TAX RATE MUST BE FIXED AND THE PROPERTY MUST BE VALUED.  ON OCTOBER
1, 1936, ONLY THE STATE TAX RATE WAS FIXED.  THE LANDS HAD NOT BEEN
VALUED AND THE COUNTY AND SCHOOL TAX RATES HAD NOT BEEN FIXED.  AND
WHEN THE THREE TRACTS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES, THE TAXES
WERE STILL UNASCERTAINED.  IF THE ASSESSMENTS HAD NOT BEEN THEREAFTER
DETERMINED AND THE ADDITIONAL LEVIES MADE, THE TAXES WOULD NEVER HAVE
BEEN IMPOSED.  SEE BANNON V. BURNES, 39 F. 892, 898; PORTLAND V.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, 135 ORE.  469, 473. 

THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE TAXES AFTER ACQUISITION OF THE LANDS BY THE
UNITED STATES, COULD NOT IMPOSE ANY LIABILITY UPON THE LANDS.  THE
STATE COULD STILL LEVY AND ASSESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSING A
PERSONAL LIABILITY ON THE FORMER OWNERS.  BUT THE PROPERTY OF THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION.  VAN BROCKLIN V.
TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151, 179-180; CLALLAM COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 263
U.S. 341, 345; LEE V. OSCEOLA IMP.  DIST., 268 U.S. 643, 645; MULLEN
BENEVOLENT CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 89, 94-95. 

THE ALABAMA LIEN STATUTE DID NOT PER SE MAKE THE LANDS LIABLE FOR
TAXES.  IT NEITHER FIXES RATES OF TAXATION NOR ENUMERATES SUBJECTS OF
TAXATION.  IT DOES NOT IMPOSE TAXES BUT SECURES THEIR PAYMENT.  UNLESS
TAXES ARE IMPOSED, SEC. 372 ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING.  CF., HEINE V. LEVEE
COMMISSIONERS, 19 WALL.  655, 659.  IN RE OPINIONS OF THE JUSTICES, 234
ALA. 358.  THE DECLARATION THAT THE LIEN ATTACHES AS OF OCTOBER 1, WHEN
THE PROCEDURE OF IMPOSING THE TAX COMMENCES, DOES NOT DO AWAY WITH THE
NECESSITY OF COMPLETING THAT PROCEDURE.  NOR WILL IT CURE ANY DEFECT OF
PROCEDURE.  SEE GASTON V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, 237 ALA.
111, 112; LEWIS V. BURCH, 215 ALA. 20, 21; LANEY V. PROCTOR, 236 ALA.
318, 320. 

THE STATUTORY DECLARATION OF A LIEN FOR TAXES IMPOSES NO LIABILITY
UPON PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE UNITED STATES BEFORE, BY COMPLETION OF
LEVY AND ASSESSMENT, THE TAXES HAVE BEEN ASCERTAINED.  BANNON V.
BURNES, 39 F. 892, 897, 898; UNITED STATES V. PIERCE COUNTY, 193 F.
529, 532-533; TERRITORY V. PERRIN, 9 ARIZ. 316, 320; SEE, ALSO, UNITED
STATES V. CITY OF BUFFALO, 54 F.2D 471, 474; CERT. DEN.  285 U.S. 550;
UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN LANDS IN CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO., 29 F.SUPP. 
92, 96; 3 COOLEY, TAXATION (4TH ED. 1924), SEC. 1232, N. 13, PP. 2454
2455; BERG, THE STATUS OF TAXES RELATIVE TO LAND ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED
STATES, 16 ORE.  L. REV. 340-356; 48 L.R.A. (N.S.)  708-712.  SEE ALSO,
NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S. 290, 294. 

NOR DOES A DECLARATION OF LIEN LIKE THAT OF THE ALABAMA STATUTE
IMPOSE LIABILITY UPON PROPERTY WHEN, BEFORE ASCERTAINMENT OF TAXES, THE
POWER TO TAX IS LOST BY REASON OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY BY A
STATE OR ONE OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, STATE V. SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
71 WASH. 320, 322-326; PORTLAND V. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, 135 ORE.  469,
473; CITY OF LAUREL V. WEEMS, 100 MISS.  335, 340-341, OR IS LOST
BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS DISCONNECTED FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE TAXING
POWER, GILLMOR V. DALE, 27 UTAH 372, 377; STATE EX REL. HINSON V.
NICKERSON, 99 NEB. 517, 520, OR BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE DIVESTS THE
TAXING BODY OF POWER TO TAX.  DENVER V. RESEARCH BUREAU, 101 COLO. 140,
144 ET SEQ. SEE, ALSO, UNITED STATES V. PIERCE COUNTY, 193 F. 529,
533. 

THE PROBATE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DECREE THAT THE LANDS
OF THE UNITED STATES BE SOLD TO PAY THE TAXES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO QUIET ITS TITLE TO LAND IN
MACON COUNTY, ALABAMA.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE STATE OF ALABAMA
IS ASSERTING LIENS AS ATTACHING TO THE LAND ON OCTOBER 1, 1936, FOR
STATE AND COUNTY TAXES FOR THE TAX YEAR 1937; AND FURTHER THAT THE
STATE CLAIMS AN INTEREST IN THE LAND BY REASON OF TAX SALES AND THE
ISSUE TO THE STATE OF CERTIFICATES OF PURCHASE.  THE GOVERNMENT ASKS A
DECREE DECLARING THE LIENS, TAX SALES AND CERTIFICATES OF PURCHASE TO
BE INVALID AND ENJOINING THE STATE FROM ASSERTING ITS CLAIMS.  THE CASE
WAS HEARD ON BILL AND ANSWER. 

THERE ARE THREE TRACTS INVOLVED, WHICH WERE CONVEYED BY THE OWNERS TO
THE UNITED STATES ON OCTOBER 1, 1936, DECEMBER 10, 1936, AND MARCH 10,
1937, RESPECTIVELY. 

THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF ALABAMA  FN1  PROVIDES THAT "FROM AND AFTER
THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER OF EACH YEAR, WHEN PROPERTY BECOMES ASSESSABLE
THE STATE SHALL HAVE A LIEN UPON EACH AND EVERY PIECE OR PARCEL OF
PROPERTY OWNED BY ANY TAXPAYER FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES WHICH MAY
BE ASSESSED AGAINST HIM  ...  WHICH LIEN SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL SUCH
TAXES ARE PAID."  THE COUNTY IS TO HAVE A LIKE LIEN FOR TAXES ASSESSED
BY IT.  THESE LIENS ARE MADE SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER LIENS AND MAY BE
ENFORCED BY SALE AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT. 

UNDER THE STATUTE, THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE TAX YEAR 1937
BEGAN ON OCTOBER 1, 1936.  THE GRANTORS IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED
CONVEYANCES, AS THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS ON THAT DATE, MADE THEIR RETURNS
AND IN DUE COURSE THE TAX ASSESSOR LISTED AND VALUED THE SEVERAL
TRACTS.  FN2  HIS VALUATIONS WERE CERTIFIED AS PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE
TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW, WHICH BY VIRTUE OF ITS AUTHORITY TO FIX
VALUATIONS, MADE THE DEFINITIVE ASSESSMENTS.  FN3  IT APPEARS THAT THE
BOARD OF REVIEW MET ON MARCH 8, 1937, AND ADJOURNED ON MARCH 20, 1937. 
IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE RATE FOR STATE TAXES HAD BEEN FIXED BY THE
STATUTE N4, AND THE RATE FOR COUNTY TAXES WAS SET ON FEBRUARY 8, 1937,
UNDER THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE COURT OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER.  FN5
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX WAS APPROVED BY THE ELECTORS OF THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT AT AN ELECTION HELD ON JUNE 14, 1937.  THE TAXES FOR THE YEAR
1937 BECAME PAYABLE ON OCTOBER 1, 1937, AND BECAME DELINQUENT ON
JANUARY 1, 1938.  FN6  PROCEEDINGS WERE THEN INSTITUTED IN THE COUNTY
COURT FOR THE SALE OF THE LANDS, AND UNDER ITS DECREES THE SALES TOOK
PLACE ON JUNE 12, 1939.  THE LANDS WERE SOLD TO THE STATE AND
CERTIFICATES OF PURCHASE WERE ISSUED ACCORDINGLY. 

FIRST.  THE GOVERNMENT, INVOKING THE PRINCIPLE THAT LANDS OWNED BY
THE UNITED STATES CANNOT BE TAXED BY A STATE (VAN BROCKLIN V.
TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151), CONTENDS THAT THE ASSERTED LIENS ARE WITHOUT
VALIDITY BECAUSE AT THE TIME THE TRACTS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED
STATES THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES HAD NOT BEEN ASCERTAINED, AS THE VALUES
HAD NOT THEN BEEN ASSESSED AND THE RATES OF TAXATION HAD NOT BEEN
FIXED.  THEREFORE IT IS SAID THAT THE TAXES HAD NOT THEN BEEN IMPOSED. 
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ALABAMA TAX STATUTE DOES NOT "IMPOSE TAXES"
BUT "SECURES THEIR PAYMENT" AND THAT UNLESS TAXES ARE IMPOSED THE
STATUTE HAS NO EFFECT.  THE LIEN, IT IS URGED, BECOMES "FIXED AND
FINAL" ONLY WHEN THE TAXES HAVE BEEN ASCERTAINED "BY COMPLETION OF LEVY
AND ASSESSMENT." 

THERE IS NO QUESTION HOWEVER, AS THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES, THAT THE
STATE STATUTE PURPORTS TO IMPOSE A LIEN AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1936, FOR THE
TAXES WHICH BY THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT WERE TO BECOME PAYABLE FOR THE
TAX YEAR 1937.  OCTOBER FIRST IS FIXED AS THE TAX DAY, AND AS OF THAT
DAY OWNERS ARE TO MAKE THEIR RETURNS, VALUES ARE TO BE FIXED AND THE
TAXES LAID.  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE STATE THUS UNDERTAKES TO
CREATE AN INCHOATE LIEN UPON THE LANDS AS OF THE TAX DAY, A LIEN WHICH
IS TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES FOR THE ENSUING YEAR AS
THESE ARE FIXED BY THE DEFINED STATUTORY METHOD.  THIS LIEN BY THE
STATE LAW IS MADE EFFECTIVE NOT ONLY AS AGAINST THE OWNERS ON THE TAX
DAY BUT ALSO AS AGAINST SUBSEQUENT MORTGAGEES AND PURCHASERS.  "IT
FOLLOWS THE LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE VENDEE, ALL PERSONS BEING
CHARGEABLE WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF ITS EXISTENCE."  DRIGGERS V. CASSADAY,
71 ALA. 529, 534.  SEE, ALSO, SWANN V. STATE, 77 ALA. 545; STATE V.
ALABAMA EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, 231 ALA. 11, 16; 163 SO. 527.  WE FIND
NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHICH INVALIDATES SUCH A STATUTORY
SCHEME.  SUBSEQUENT LIENORS AND PURCHASERS HAVE DUE NOTICE OF THE TAX
LIABILITY IMPOSED AS OF THE TAX DAY AND OF THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT,
AND THAT LIABILITY, WHEN ITS AMOUNT IS DEFINITELY ASCERTAINED, RELATES
BACK TO THE DAY SPECIFIED.  WE RECOGNIZED THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A
PROVISION IN NEW YORK V. MACLAY, 288 U.S. 290, 292, WHERE WE OBSERVED
THAT A TAX LIEN CREATED IN A SIMILAR MANNER UNDER A STATUTE OF NEW YORK
"IS EFFECTIVE FOR MANY PURPOSES THOUGH ITS AMOUNT IS UNDETERMINED.  IT
IS NOTICE TO MORTGAGEES OR PURCHASERS, WHO ARE HELD TO LOAN OR PURCHASE
AT THEIR OWN RISK IF THEY TAKE THEIR MORTGAGES OR DEEDS BEFORE THE TAX
HAS BEEN ASSESSED OR PAID."  THE PRECISE DECISION IN THAT CASE ALLOWING
PRIORITY TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER R.S. 3466 FOR DEBTS DUE BY AN
INSOLVENT CORPORATION OVER CLAIMS OF THE STATE FOR FRANCHISE TAXES DUE
BUT NOT ASSESSED OR LIQUIDATED UNTIL AFTER A RECEIVERSHIP, IN NO WAY
DETRACTED FROM THE RECOGNITION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STATE LAW
CREATING A LIEN AS AGAINST MORTGAGEES AND PURCHASERS.  AS THE COURT
SAID, "AGAINST MORTGAGEES AND PURCHASERS A LIEN PERFECTED AFTERWARDS
MAY TAKE EFFECT BY RELATION AS OF THE DATE OF THE INCHOATE LIEN THROUGH
WHICH MORTGAGEES AND PURCHASERS BECOME CHARGEABLE WITH NOTICE."  ID.,
P. 293.  SEE ALSO, OSTERBERG V. UNION TRUST CO., 93 U.S. 424, 425, 428;
PEOPLE V. COMMISSIONERS, 104 U.S. 466, 468.  COMPARE SHOTWELL V. MOORE,
129 U.S. 590, 598.  THE LIEN IN SUCH A CASE, THOUGH INCHOATE ON THE DAY
SPECIFIED, AND MATURING WHEN THE EXTENT OF LIABILITY IS ASCERTAINED BY
THE STATUTORY PROCESS, IS SIMILAR IN THAT RESPECT, AS THE COURT SAID IN
THE MACLAY CASE, TO THE LIEN OF A TRANSFER TAX OR DUTY UPON THE ESTATE
OF A DECEDENT WHICH IS EFFECTIVE ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT IS ASCERTAINED
AFTER DEATH. 

OUR PRESENT INQUIRY IS WHETHER, ASSUMING THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE
STATUTE CREATING A LIEN AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1936, AS AGAINST OTHER
SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS, IT SHOULD BE DEEMED INVALID AS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES.  THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER SUCH A LIEN COULD BE
ENFORCED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES
HAD TAKEN TITLE AND THAT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES WITHOUT ITS CONSENT WOULD PROTECT IT AGAINST SUCH
ENFORCEMENT.  BUT THAT IMMUNITY WOULD NOT BE PREDICATED UPON THE
INVALIDITY OF THE LIEN.  IF IN THIS INSTANCE TITLE HAD BEEN TAKEN BY
THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUMMER OF 1937 AFTER THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES
HAD BEEN ASCERTAINED AND THE RESPECTIVE LIENS WERE CONCEDEDLY VALID,
STILL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED
WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. 

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CONTENT WITH THAT MEASURE OF PROTECTION.  THE
GOVERNMENT BRINGS THIS SUIT IN THE VIEW THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO HAVE A
MARKETABLE TITLE AND IT SEEKS TO REMOVE THE LIENS IN QUESTION AS CLOUDS
UPON THAT TITLE WHICH WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE DISPOSITION OF THE LANDS
IN THE FUTURE.  FROM THAT STANDPOINT THE GOVERNMENT ASKS A DECREE
DECLARING THE INVALIDITY OF THE LIENS AND ENJOINING THE STATE FROM
ASSERTING ANY CLAIM IN THE LANDS EITHER ADVERSE TO THE UNITED STATES OR
TO ITS SUCCESSORS IN TITLE.  WE THINK THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT
ENTITLED TO THAT RELIEF.  THE UNITED STATES TOOK THE CONVEYANCES WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE STATE LAW FIXING THE LIEN AS OF OCTOBER 1ST.  THAT LAW
IN CREATING SUCH LIENS FOR THE TAXES SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSED IN DUE
COURSE AND MAKING THEM EFFECTIVE AS AGAINST SUBSEQUENT PURCHASERS DID
NOT CONTRAVENE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND WE PERCEIVE NO
REASON WHY THE UNITED STATES, ALBEIT PROTECTED WITH RESPECT TO
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IT WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, SHOULD STAND, SO FAR AS THE
EXISTENCE OF THE LIENS IS CONCERNED, IN ANY DIFFERENT POSITION FROM
THAT OF OTHER PURCHASERS OF LANDS IN ALABAMA WHO TAKE CONVEYANCES ON
AND AFTER THE SPECIFIED TAX DATE.  IT IS FAMILIAR PRACTICE FOR GRANTEES
WHO TAKE TITLE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES TO SEE THAT PROVISION IS MADE FOR
THE PAYMENT OF TAXES AND THE GOVERNMENT COULD EASILY HAVE PROTECTED
ITSELF IN LIKE MANNER.  FINDING NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IN THE
STATE LEGISLATION, WE THINK THAT THE LIENS SHOULD BE HELD VALID. 

WE MAKE NO EXCEPTION OF THE TRACT CONVEYED TO THE UNITED STATES ON
THE TAX DAY, OCTOBER 1, 1936, AS WE THINK THE STATE STATUTE, AS
CONTENDED BY THE STATE, IS TO BE DEEMED EFFECTIVE FROM THE MOMENT THE
TAX DAY BEGAN.  SEE BECK V. JOHNSON, 235 ALA. 323, 324; 179 SO. 225. 

SECOND.  WITH RESPECT TO THE TAX SALES THE CASE HAS A DIFFERENT
ASPECT.  THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE SALE OF THE LANDS
WERE TAKEN AND THE DECREES WERE RENDERED AFTER THE UNITED STATES HAD
BECOME THE OWNER OF THE TRACTS.  A PROCEEDING AGAINST PROPERTY IN WHICH
THE UNITED STATES HAS AN INTEREST IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 
THE SIREN, 7 WALL.  152, 154.  THE UNITED STATES WAS AN INDISPENSABLE
PARTY TO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SALE OF THE LANDS, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF
ITS CONSENT TO THE PROSECUTION OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, THE COUNTY COURT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ITS DECREES, THE TAX SALES AND THE
CERTIFICATES OF PURCHASE ISSUED TO THE STATE WERE VOID.  MINNESOTA V.
UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 386.  WHILE PLEADING TO THE CONTRARY IN
ITS ANSWER, THE INVALIDITY OF THE TAX SALES IS NOW CONCEDED BY THE
STATE.    THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE SETTING ASIDE THE
TAX SALES AND THE CERTIFICATES OF PURCHASE, AND IN OTHER RESPECTS THE
COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  SECTION 372, ACT NO. 194, GENERAL ACTS ALABAMA, 1935, P. 566, IS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"FROM AND AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER OF EACH YEAR, WHEN PROPERTY
BECOMES ASSESSABLE THE STATE SHALL HAVE A LIEN UPON EACH AND EVERY
PIECE OR PARCEL OF PROPERTY OWNED BY ANY TAXPAYER FOR THE PAYMENT OF
ALL TAXES WHICH MAY BE ASSESSED AGAINST HIM AND UPON EACH PIECE AND
PARCEL OF PROPERTY REAL OR PERSONAL ASSESSED TO OWNER UNKNOWN WHICH
LIEN SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL SUCH TAXES ARE PAID, AND THE COUNTY SHALL
HAVE A LIKE LIEN THEREON FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES WHICH MAY BE
ASSESSED BY IT; AND IF SUCH PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SUCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SHALL HAVE A LIKE LIEN
THEREON FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES WHICH MAY BE ASSESSED BY IT.
THESE LIENS SHALL BE SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER LIENS AND SHALL EXIST IN THE
ORDER NAMED AND EACH OF SUCH LIENS MAY BE ENFORCED AND FORECLOSED BY
SALE FOR TAXES AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, OR AS OTHER LIENS UPON PROPERTY
ARE ENFORCED." 

THE STATE ALSO CITES SEC. 8874 OF ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 314, OF THE CODE
OF ALABAMA, 1923, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"FROM AND AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER OF EACH YEAR, THE STATE
SHALL HAVE A PRIOR LIEN UPON EACH AND EVERY PIECE OR PARCEL OF
PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY AND ALL TAXES WHICH
MAY BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE OWNER, OR UPON SUCH PROPERTY, DURING THAT
YEAR, FOR THE USE OF THE STATE; AND THE COUNTY SHALL HAVE A LIKE LIEN
THEREON FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES WHICH MAY BE ASSESSED AGAINST SUCH
OWNER, OR UPON SUCH PROPERTY, DURING THAT YEAR, FOR THE USE OF THE
COUNTY; AND THESE LIENS SHALL EXIST AS TO ALL LANDS BID IN BY THE STATE
AT TAX SALES FOR THE ANNUAL TAXES THEREAFTER ASSESSED ON THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY SO PURCHASED, IN THE EVENT OF THE TAX TITLE FAILING." 

FN2  ACT NO. 194, GENERAL ACTS ALABAMA, 1935, SEC. 29, P. 274. 

FN3  ID., SECS. 50, 72, PP. 284, 292. 

FN4  ID., SEC. 7, P. 263. 

FN5  ID., SEC. 64, P. 288. 

FN6  ID., SEC. 11, P. 267. 
..END :














NEW YORK V. FEIRING, 313 U.S. 283 


NO. 863.  ARGUED MAY 7, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 118 F.2D 329,
REVERSED. 


1.  THE QUESTION WHETHER AN OBLIGATION TO A STATE IS A TAX ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY UNDER SEC. 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  P.
285. 

2.  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS OF NATIONWIDE APPLICATION AND SEC. 64
THEREOF IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR VARIED BY THE PARTICULAR
CHARACTERIZATION BY LOCAL LAW OF THE STATE'S DEMAND.  P. 285. 

PROVISIONS OF THE STATE LAW CREATING THE OBLIGATION AND DECISIONS OF
THE STATE COURTS INTERPRETING THEM ARE RESORTED TO NOT TO LEARN WHETHER
THEY HAVE DENOMINATED THE OBLIGATION A "TAX" BUT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
ITS INCIDENTS ARE SUCH AS TO CONSTITUTE A TAX WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 64. 

3.  THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE NEW YORK CITY SALES TAX LAW IS A TAX ON
THE SELLER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS WELL
AS ON THE BUYER, SINCE BOTH ARE MADE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT IN INVITUM AND
SUBJECT TO DISTRAINT OF THEIR PROPERTY FOR ITS COLLECTION.  P. 287. 

IT IS NOT ANY THE LESS A TAX LAID ON THE SELLER BECAUSE THE STATUTE
PLACES A LIKE BURDEN IN THE ALTERNATIVE ON THE PURCHASER OR BECAUSE IT
AFFORDS TO THE SELLER FACILITIES OF WHICH HE DID NOT AVAIL HIMSELF TO
PASS THE TAX ON TO THE BUYER. 

CITY OF NEW YORK V. FEIRING, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 552, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT REFUSING PRIORITY OF PAYMENT TO A TAX CLAIM ASSERTED BY
THE CITY OF NEW YORK UNDER SEC. 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED UPON SELLERS BY A NEW
YORK CITY SALES TAX (NO. 20, LOCAL LAWS OF NEW YORK CITY, 1934, AS
AMENDED, NO. 24, LOCAL LAWS OF NEW YORK CITY, 1934), TO PAY A TAX LAID
UPON RECEIPTS FROM SALES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND COLLECTIBLE
ALTERNATIVELY FROM THE BUYER OR THE SELLER IS A "TAX" ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY OF PAYMENT IN BANKRUPTCY UNDER SEC. 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

PETITIONER, NEW YORK CITY, FILED ITS CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE OF THE
BANKRUPT FOR TAXES ON SALES OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY BY THE BANKRUPT DURING
THE FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING JANUARY 10, 1934.  IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE
THE REFEREE IT APPEARED THAT THE BANKRUPT HAD FAILED TO COLLECT MOST OF
THE TAXES FROM ITS BUYERS AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE LAW, AND THAT
THE SOLE ISSUE WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE CITY TO PRIORITY OF
PAYMENT OF THE CITY'S CLAIM OVER THOSE OF GENERAL CREDITORS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE THE REFEREE'S ORDER ALLOWING THE PRIORITY AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 118 F.2D 329,
HOLDING THAT THE SUM CLAIMED WAS NOT A TAX, BUT THAT THE "BANKRUPT WAS
LIABLE TO THE CITY AS A TAX COLLECTOR WHO OWES AS A DEBT THE AMOUNT OF
TAXES COLLECTED OR TO BE COLLECTED."  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI APRIL 14,
1941, BECAUSE OF THE SUGGESTED FAILURE OF THE COURT BELOW TO FOLLOW OUR
DECISION IN NEW YORK CITY V. GOLDSTEIN, 299 U.S. 522, REVERSING IN RE
LAZAROFF, 84 F.2D 982, AND OF THE ASSERTED CONFLICT IN PRINCIPLE OF THE
DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
IN BARBEE V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, 103 F.2D 114. 

840, 874, AWARDS PRIORITY OF PAYMENT, IN BANKRUPTCY, TO "TAXES LEGALLY
DUE AND OWING BY THE BANKRUPT TO THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE OR ANY
SUBDIVISION THEREOF  ...  "  WHETHER THE PRESENT OBLIGATION IS A "TAX"
ENTITLED TO PRIORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE IS A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  NEW JERSEY V. ANDERSON, 203 U.S. 483, 491; CF. BURNET V.
HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110; PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 555; CF.
UNITED STATES V. PELZER, 312 U.S. 399.  INTENDED TO BE NATION-WIDE IN
ITS APPLICATION, NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 64 OR ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY SUGGESTS THAT ITS INCIDENCE IS TO BE CONTROLLED OR VARIED BY
THE PARTICULAR CHARACTERIZATION BY LOCAL LAW OR THE STATE'S DEMAND. 
HENCE WE LOOK TO THE TERMS AND PURPOSES OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS
ESTABLISHING THE CRITERIA UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PRIORITY IS TO BE
ALLOWED. 

AS WAS POINTED OUT IN NEW JERSEY V. ANDERSON, SUPRA, 491, THE
PRIORITY COMMANDED BY SEC. 64 EXTENDS TO THOSE PECUNIARY BURDENS LAID
UPON INDIVIDUALS OR THEIR PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONSENT, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE EXPENSES OF GOVERNMENT OR OF UNDERTAKINGS
AUTHORIZED BY IT.  THE PARTICULAR DEMAND FOR WHICH THE CITY NOW CLAIMS
PRIORITY OF PAYMENT AS A TAX IS CREATED AND DEFINED BY STATE
ENACTMENT.  WE TURN TO ITS PROVISIONS AND TO THE DECISIONS OF THE STATE
COURTS IN INTERPRETING THEM, NOT TO LEARN WHETHER THEY HAVE DENOMINATED
THE OBLIGATION A "TAX" BUT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ITS INCIDENTS ARE SUCH
AS TO CONSTITUTE A TAX WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 64.  CF. MORGAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78, 80, 81 AND CASES CITED; UNITED STATES V.
PELZER, SUPRA; RYERSON V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 405. 

THE PRESENT EXACTION IS THAT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED, AND ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY SUSTAINED, IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309
U.S. 33.  THE DISCUSSION OF IT THERE WILL BE SUPPLEMENTED HERE ONLY SO
FAR AS IS NEEDFUL FOR THE DISPOSITION OF THE ISSUE NOW BEFORE US.  IT
WAS ENACTED BY THE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY OF NEW YORK CITY AS AN EMERGENCY
REVENUE MEASURE TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, PURSUANT
TO AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE.  CH. 815, NEW YORK
LAWS 1933; CH. 873, NEW YORK LAWS 1934.  ORIGINALLY NO. 24 OF NEW YORK
LOCAL LAWS, 1934, IT HAS SINCE BEEN ANNUALLY RENEWED WITH MINOR
AMENDMENTS NOT NOW MATERIAL.  SECTION 2 LAYS A TAX UPON RECEIPTS FROM
RETAIL SALES IN NEW YORK CITY OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND
REQUIRES THE SELLER, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, TO CHARGE THE
BUYER WITH THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX, SEPARATELY FROM THE SALES PRICE AND
TO COLLECT THE TAX FROM HIM.  PENALTIES ARE IMPOSED BY SEC. 15 FOR THE
SELLER'S WILLFUL FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS.  SECTION 2
ALSO COMMANDS THAT THE TAX "SHALL BE PAID BY THE PURCHASER TO THE
VENDOR, FOR AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK."  SECTION 5
REQUIRES THE SELLER TO FILE WITH THE CITY COMPTROLLER A "RETURN OF HIS
RECEIPTS AND OF THE TAXES PAYABLE THEREON" FOR PRESCRIBED PERIODS. 
THE COMPTROLLER THE TAXES UPON ALL RECEIPTS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN
HIS RETURN AND ALSO PROVIDES THAT "ALL TAXES FOR THE PERIOD FOR WHICH A
RETURN IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED SHALL BE DUE FROM THE VENDOR AND PAYABLE
TO THE COMPTROLLER ON THE DATE LIMITED FOR THE FILING OF THE RETURN FOR
SUCH PERIOD, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER A RETURN IS FILED OR WHETHER THE
RETURN WHICH IS FILED CORRECTLY SHOWS THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS AND THE
TAXES DUE THEREON."  BUT IF THE SELLER FAILS TO COLLECT THE TAX SEC. 2
ALSO MAKES IT THE DUTY OF THE PURCHASER TO FILE A RETURN WITH THE
COMPTROLLER AND COMMANDS THAT "SUCH TAX SHALL BE PAYABLE BY THE
PURCHASER DIRECTLY TO THE COMPTROLLER." 

BY SEC. 8, WHENEVER EITHER THE SELLER OR PURCHASER "SHALL FAIL TO
COLLECT OR PAY OVER ANY TAX AND/OR TO PAY ANY TAX" IMPOSED BY THE LAW,
THE CITY IS AUTHORIZED TO BRING AN ACTION FOR ITS RECOVERY OR, AS AN
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY, THE COMPTROLLER IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE A WARRANT
DIRECTED TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY, COMMANDING HIM TO LEVY UPON AND
SELL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE SELLER OR THE PURCHASER AND
APPLY THE PROCEEDS TO THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX.  IN CONSTRUING THESE
PROVISIONS THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD THAT WHILE THE
COMPTROLLER MAY PROCEED UNDER SEC. 2 TO COLLECT THE TAX FROM THE
PURCHASER IF HE HAS NOT PAID IT TO THE SELLER, SEE MATTER OF KESBEC,
INC. V. MCGOLDRICK, 278 N.Y. 293; 16 N.E.2D 288, THE DUTY TO PAY THE
TAX IS ALSO LAID UPON THE SELLER WHETHER HE HAS IN FACT COLLECTED IT
AND REGARDLESS OF HIS ABILITY TO COLLECT IT FROM THE BUYER.  MATTER OF
ATLAS TELEVISION CO., 273 N.Y. 51; 6 N.E.2D 94; MATTER OF BROWN
PRINTING CO., 285 N.Y. 47; 32 N.E.2D 787. 

THE STATUTE THUS CONTAINS PROVISIONS WHICH IN ITS NORMAL OPERATION
ARE CALCULATED TO ENABLE THE SELLER TO SHIFT THE TAX BURDEN TO THE
PURCHASER, SEE MATTER OF KESBEC, INC. V. MCGOLDRICK, SUPRA, 297; MATTER
OF MERCHANTS REFRIGERATING CORP. V. TAYLOR, 275 N.Y. 113, 124; 9 N.E.2D
799; CF. MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., SUPRA, 43, 44.  BUT IT IS
PLAIN THAT BOTH THE VENDOR AND THE VENDEE ARE MADE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT
OF THE TAX IN INVITUM WITHOUT REGARD TO THOSE PROVISIONS BY WHICH THE
SELLER MAY SHIFT THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX TO THE BUYER AND THE TAX MAY
BE SUMMARILY COLLECTED BY DISTRAINT OF THE PROPERTY OF EITHER THE
SELLER OR THE BUYER.  A PECUNIARY BURDEN SO LAID UPON THE BANKRUPT
SELLER FOR THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT, AND WITHOUT HIS CONSENT, THUS HAS
ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TAX ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OF PAYMENT IN
BANKRUPTCY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  NEW
JERSEY V. ANDERSON, SUPRA.  CF. UNITED STATES V. UPDIKE, 281 U.S. 489,
494.  IT IS NOT ANY THE LESS A TAX LAID ON THE SELLER BECAUSE THE
STATUTE PLACES A LIKE BURDEN IN THE ALTERNATIVE ON THE PURCHASER OR
BECAUSE IT AFFORDS TO THE SELLER FACILITIES OF WHICH HE DID NOT AVAIL
HIMSELF TO PASS THE TAX ON TO THE BUYER.  WHILE AN ACTION IN DEBT MAY
BE RESORTED TO FOR THE RECOVERY OF A TAX, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THIS
CASE THE BANKRUPT IS LIABLE TO THE STATE ONLY BECAUSE IT OWES A TAX. 
PRICE V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 492, 500; MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE
CO., 296 U.S. 268, 271. 

IN NEW YORK CITY V. GOLDSTEIN, SUPRA, WE REVERSED PER CURIAM, CITING
MATTER OF ATLAS TELEVISION CO., SUPRA, A DECISION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT THAT A CLAIM OF THE CITY FOR PAYMENT OF
TAX BY THE SELLER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER SEC. 64 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE COURT BELOW ATTRIBUTED OUR REVERSAL TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AT THAT TIME, THOUGH NOT NOW, SEC. 64 ALLOWED
PRIORITY TO DEBTS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER STATE LAW, AND TO THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT IN THE ATLAS CASE, THAT UPON A GENERAL
ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS MADE UNDER STATE LAW A CLAIM
AGAINST THE SELLER FOR THE SALES TAX WAS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY.  BUT IN
PLACING THIS INTERPRETATION UPON OUR DECISION IN THE GOLDSTEIN CASE THE
COURT BELOW OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED IN THE
ATLAS CASE THAT AN ORDINARY DEBT DUE THE STATE IS NOT ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY BY STATE LAW, AND IT SUSTAINED THE PRIORITY IN THAT CASE ONLY
ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEMAND WAS FOR A TAX, THE UNQUALIFIED DUTY TO
PAY WHICH WAS PLACED BY THE STATUTE ON THE SELLER.  THIS INTERPRETATION
OF THE STATE STATUTE WAS REAFFIRMED BY THAT COURT IN THE MATTER OF
BROWN PRINTING CO., SUPRA.  FOR REASONS ALREADY GIVEN, THE DUTY IMPOSED
UPON THE SELLER BY THE TAXING ACT THUS CONSTRUED IS ALSO A TAX WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS THINKS THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR THE
REASONS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
..END :




















ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. U.S., 313 U.S. 289 


NO. 817.  ARGUED MAY 7, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 116 F.2D 247,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  COLLECTORS OF INTERNAL REVENUE ARE SUBORDINATE OFFICERS CHARGED
WITH THE MINISTERIAL DUTY OF COLLECTING TAXES; AND IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY STATUTE GRANTING THE AUTHORITY, THEY CAN NOT RELEASE A BOND TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SECURING PAYMENT OF A TAX.  ONLY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY, IS AUTHORIZED TO COMPROMISE A TAX DEFICIENCY FOR A SUM
LESS THAN THE AMOUNT LAWFULLY DUE.  P. 294. 

2.  THE RULE AGAINST ALLOWING INTEREST AS DAMAGES FOR DELAY IN PAYING
INTEREST ALONE, IS INAPPLICABLE TO AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A SURETY'S
AGREEMENT TO PAY A TAX WITH INTEREST FOUND DUE TO THE GOVERNMENT UNDER
THE REVENUE LAWS.  P. 295. 

3.  A SUIT UPON A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY MONEY AT A FIXED OR
ASCERTAINABLE TIME IS A SUIT TO RECOVER DAMAGE FOR ITS BREACH,
INCLUDING BOTH THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT AND INTEREST BY WAY OF DAMAGE FOR
DELAY IN PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL, AFTER THE DUE DATE.  AND, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY CONTROLLING STATUTORY REGULATION, THE TRIAL COURT IS AS
COMPETENT TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FOR DELAY AS ANY OTHER
ITEM OF DAMAGE.  P. 295. 

4.  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE, IT IS FOR THE
FEDERAL COURTS TO DETERMINE, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN CRITERIA, THE
APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF DAMAGE, EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF INTEREST, FOR
DELAYED PAYMENT OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES.  P.
296. 

5.  IN AN ACTION AT LAW BY THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER AN AMOUNT DUE
AND OWING FROM A TAXPAYER'S SURETY, EQUITABLE RULES GOVERNING INTEREST
RECOVERABLE IN SUITS FOR AN ACCOUNTING OR FOR RECOVERY ON QUASI
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ARE INAPPLICABLE, AND INTEREST UPON THE
PRINCIPAL SUM FROM THE DATE OF DEFAULT, AT A FAIR RATE, IS AN
APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF DAMAGE FOR THE DELAY IN PAYMENT.  P. 296. 

6. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, A SUITABLE RATE OF INTEREST IS
THAT PREVAILING IN NEW YORK, THE STATE WHERE THE OBLIGATION WAS
CONTRACTED AND TO BE PERFORMED.  P. 297. 

ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 552, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING WITH
MODIFICATION A RECOVERY BY THE UNITED STATES IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE
SURETY ON A TAXPAYER'S BOND. 

THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE WAS VESTED WITH IMPLIED POWER TO
CANCEL THE SURETY BOND AND TO DISCHARGE FROM LIABILITY THEREON.  26
U.S.C. SEC. 1541(A); R.S. 3183; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1549(B).  SEE UNITED
STATES V. WOLPER, 86 F.2D 715; UNITED STATES V. ROYAL INDEMNITY CO.,
116 F.2D 247, 248; UNITED STATES V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 80 F.2D 24,
CERT. DEN.  298 U.S. 665. 

THIS IMPLIED POWER DERIVES FROM HIS EXPRESS POWERS IN THE COLLECTION
OF TAXES.  HEINEMANN CHEMICAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 92 F.2D 302, 303,
304; BREWERTON V. UNITED STATES, 9 F.SUPP.  503, 507.  CF., UNITED
STATES V. ALEXANDER, 110 U.S. 325, 328.  THE GOVERNMENT'S ACQUIESCENCE
IN THE PRACTICE POINTS PERSUASIVELY TO THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH IMPLIED
POWER. 

IN THE COLLECTION OF TAXES, THE COLLECTOR IS NOT A SUBORDINATE
OFFICIAL OF THE GOVERNMENT.  26 U.S.C. SEC. 1541(A).  HE HAS NO
SUPERIOR VESTED WITH POWER OR AUTHORITY TO DIRECT AND CONTROL HIM IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.  STATE EX REL. LANDIS V. BLAKE, 110 FLA.
178, 181; PEOPLE EX REL. JACOBUS V. VAN WYCK, 157 N.Y. 495, 506; KANE
V. ERIE R. CO., 142 F. 682, 685; IN RE WEAVER, 131 N.Y.S. 144, 145. 

THE COLLECTOR IS VESTED WITH POWER TO COLLECT TAXES WITHOUT DIRECTION
AS TO HOW IT IS TO BE EXERCISED.  HE THEREFORE HAS DISCRETION IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER.  STATE V. SUPERIOR COURT, 98 P.2D 985, 900;
STATE V. HILDEBRANT, 93 OH. 1, 11, 12; THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 9 CT.
CLS. 187, 197, 198; AMERICAN STORES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 68 CT. CLS.
128; LEVY V. UNITED STATES, 63 CT. CLS. 126; UNITED STATES V. WEST
POINT GROCERY CO., 30 F.2D 941; UNITED STATES V. CORLISS STEAM ENGINE
CO., 91 U.S. 321, 322, 323. 

TO THE SAME POINT, SEE GREAT FALLS MFG. CO. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 124
U.S. 581, 596, 597; MARYLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 235 U.S. 451,
459; UNITED STATES V. MASON & HANGAR CO., 260 U.S. 323, 325; WELLS V.
NICKLES, 104 U.S. 444; BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 39 CT. CLS. 494, 505;
HAYNES V. BUTLER, 30 ARK. 69; RELIANCE MFG. CO. V. BOARD OF PRISON
COMMISSIONERS, 161 KY. 135, 142; STATE V. YOUNKIN, 108 KAN. 634, 638;
STATE EX REL. BYBEE V. HACKMANN, 276 MO. 110, 116; STATE V. DISTRICT
COURT, 19 N.D. 819; KASIK V. JANSSEN, 158 WIS. 606, 609, 610; CITY OF
WILBURTON V. KING, 18 P.2D 1075, 1076; MAYOR V. SANDS, 105 N.Y. 210,
217-220. 

THE INTEREST CLAIMED BY RESPONDENT IS THAT PROVIDED BY NEW YORK
GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, CONSOL.  LAWS, C. 20, SEC. 370, AS DAMAGES FOR
BREACH OF CONTRACT.  THIS INTEREST IS NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE BOND; AND
IS THEREFORE NOT A PART OF THE CONTRACT AND CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS
SUCH.  IF RECOVERABLE AT ALL, IT IS BY WAY OF DAMAGES FOR THE DETENTION
OF MONEY AFTER IT IS DUE. 

INTEREST IS THE COMPENSATION ALLOWED BY LAW, OR FIXED BY THE PARTIES,
FOR THE USE OR FORBEARANCE OF MONEY, OR AS DAMAGES FOR ITS DETENTION. 
LOUDON V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 104 U.S. 771, 774; NEW ORLEANS
INS. ASSN. V. PIAGGIO, 16 WALL.  378, 386; HIATT V. BROWN, 15 WALL. 
177, 185, 186. 

THE LAW ALLOWS INTEREST ONLY ON THE GROUND OF A CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, FOR ITS PAYMENT, OR AS DAMAGES FOR THE DETENTION OF MONEY, OR
FOR THE BREACH OF SOME CONTRACT, OR THE VIOLATION OF SOME DUTY.  MORLEY
V. LAKE SHORE R. CO., 146 U.S. 162, 168; NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. DETROIT
R. CO., 251 F. 514; HERMAN H. HETTLER LUMBER CO. V. OLDS, 242 F. 456,
459. 

INTEREST WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY REASONABLE AND DILIGENT
EFFORTS ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT IN PROMPTLY ASSERTING AND PROSECUTING
ITS CLAIM IS NOT RECOVERABLE.  WARREN V. STODDARD, 105 U.S. 224, 229;
WICKER V. HOPPOCK, 6 WALL.  94; WESTERN REAL ESTATES TRUSTEES V.
HUGHES, 172 F. 206 211; LILLARD V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERS & WAREHOUSE CO.,
134 F. 168, 178. 

WHERE SUCH INTEREST IS CLAIMED, LACHES IS A BAR TO RECOVERY.  UNITED
STATES V. SANBORN, 135 U.S. 271, 281, 282; REDFIELD V. YSTALYFERA IRON
CO., 110 U.S. 174; REDFIELD V. BARTELS, 139 U.S. 694; MASON V.
WALKOWICH, 150 F. 699, 700, 706; JOURALMON V. EWING, 80 F. 604, 607,
608; STEWART V. SCHELL, 31 F. 65, 66; MITCHELL V. KELSEY, FED. CAS. NO.
9,664.  THE SAME RULE HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT TO APPLY TO THE
UNITED STATES.  UNITED STATES V. SANBORN, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WHO HAD ACCEPTED A SURETY BOND FILED
WITH HIM BY A TAXPAYER TO ACCOMPANY HIS CLAIM FOR ABATEMENT OF INCOME
TAX, CONSENTED TO TERMINATION OF ALL LIABILITY UPON THE BOND AND
SURRENDERED IT BEFORE ITS OBLIGATION WAS FULLY SATISFIED.  THE
QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE WHETHER THE COLLECTOR HAD POWER TO RELEASE
THE OBLIGATION OF THE BOND AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE UNITED STATES IS
ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF ITS CLAIM AGAINST THE SURETY. 

UPON THE COMMISSIONER'S ASSESSMENT IN 1920 OF ADDITIONAL INCOME TAXES
IN THE SUM OF $29,128, ASSERTED TO BE DUE FROM THE TAXPAYER FOR 1917,
THE TAXPAYER FILED A CLAIM FOR ABATEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT, AND TO
SECURE SUSPENSION OF COLLECTION OF THE TAX, EXECUTED A BOND TO THE
COLLECTOR IN THE SUM OF $38,000 WITH PETITIONER AS SURETY, CONDITIONED
UPON PAYMENT ON MAY 2, 1923, OF THE TAX WITH INTEREST.  THE
COMMISSIONER ALLOWED THE CLAIM IN ABATEMENT IN PART BUT REJECTED IT TO
THE EXTENT OF $8,223.38, ON WHICH INTEREST HAD THEN ACCRUED IN THE SUM
OF $4,169.07.  ON DEMAND OF THE COMMISSIONER ON AUGUST 5, 1926, FOR THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE TAX WITH INTEREST TO THE DATE OF DEMAND,
PETITIONER PAID ONLY THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE TAX TO THE COLLECTOR
BY DRAFT OF DECEMBER 17, 1926, BEARING THE NOTATION ON ITS FACE THAT IT
WAS IN FULL PAYMENT OF THE TAX AND OF ALL LIABILITY ON THE BOND.  THE
COLLECTOR COLLECTED THE DRAFT AND SURRENDERED THE BOND TO PETITIONER
WITH THE STATEMENT THAT ALL LIABILITY ON IT HAD TERMINATED. 

IN THE PRESENT SUIT ON THE BOND THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE
COLLECTOR WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO RELEASE THE BOND AND GAVE JUDGMENT
FOR THE SUM OF $4,169.07, FOUND BY THE COMMISSIONER TO BE THE INTEREST
ON THE UNPAID TAX TO THE DATE OF THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM FOR ITS
ABATEMENT, BUT REFUSED TO ALLOW INTEREST ACCRUING SUBSEQUENT TO THAT
DATE.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT, UNDER SEC.
370 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, INTEREST AT SIX PER CENT.
SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE UNPAID BALANCE FOUND TO BE DUE ON THE BOND, AND
MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  116 F.2D 247.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI APRIL 7, 1941, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED, AND OF A CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN HEINEMANN CHEMICAL
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 92 F.2D 302. 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE COLLECTOR HAD AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT THE BOND,
THAT IT CREATED A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION DISTINCT FROM THAT ON THE
TAXPAYER'S OBLIGATION, AND THAT, IF IT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED, THE
UNITED STATES HAS AUTHORITY TO SUE UPON IT, SEE UNITED STATES V. JOHN
BARTH CO., 279 U.S. 370; GULF STATES STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 287
U.S. 32; UNITED STATES V. WOLPER, 86 F.2D 715; UNITED STATES V. OSWEGO
FALLS CORP., 113 F.2D 322.  AND IT IS CONCEDED THAT, AS THE BOND WAS
CONDITIONED ON THE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES WITH INTEREST, PETITIONER IS
INDEBTED TO THE GOVERNMENT UPON IT FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST WHICH
HAD ACCRUED AT THE TIME OF THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM IN ABATEMENT. 
SEE BOTANY WORSTED MILLS V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 282; HUGHSON V.
UNITED STATES, 59 F.2D 17, 19; UNITED STATES V. STEINBERG, 100 F.2D
124, 126.  RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS ARE THAT THE BALANCE OF INTEREST
THEN DUE WAS RELEASED BY THE COLLECTOR AND THAT IN ANY CASE IT WAS NOT
BOUND TO PAY INTEREST ON THAT BALANCE. 

POWER TO RELEASE OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF THE RIGHTS AND PROPERTY OF
THE UNITED STATES IS LODGED IN THE CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ART.
IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2.  SUBORDINATE OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
WITHOUT THAT POWER, SAVE ONLY AS IT HAS BEEN CONFERRED UPON THEM BY ACT
OF CONGRESS OR IS TO BE IMPLIED FROM OTHER POWERS SO GRANTED. 
WHITESIDE V. UNITED STATES, 93 U.S. 247, 256-257; HART V. UNITED
STATES, 95 U.S. 316, 318; HAWKINS V. UNITED STATES, 96 U.S. 689, 691;
UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 389, 409; WILBER
NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 120, 123-124; CF. UNITED
STATES V. SHAW, 309 U.S. 495, 501; RITTER V. UNITED STATES, 28 F.2D
265; UNITED STATES V. GLOBE INDEMNITY CO., 94 F.2D 576.  COLLECTORS OF
INTERNAL REVENUE ARE SUBORDINATE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE MINISTERIAL
DUTY OF COLLECTING THE TAXES.  R.S. SEC. 3183, ERSKINE V. HOHNBACH, 14
WALL.  613, 616; HARDING V. WOODCOCK, 137 U.S. 43, 46; MOORE ICE CREAM
CO. V. ROSE, 289 U.S. 373, 380, 381.  THERE IS NO STATUTE IN TERMS
AUTHORIZING THEM TO REMIT TAXES, TO PASS UPON THE CLAIMS FOR ABATEMENT
OF TAXES, OR TO RELEASE ANY OBLIGATION FOR THEIR PAYMENT.  ONLY THE
COMMISSIONER, WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, IS
AUTHORIZED TO COMPROMISE A TAX DEFICIENCY FOR A SUM LESS THAN THE
AMOUNT LAWFULLY DUE.  R.S. SECS. 3220, 3229, 26 U.S.C. 1661; 45 T.R.,
ART. 1011(1918 ACT); BOTANY WORSTED MILLS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 288;
LOEWY & SON V. COMMISSIONER, 31 F.2D 652, 654. 

THERE IS THUS NO BASIS IN THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
IMPLYING AN AUTHORITY IN A COLLECTOR TO RELEASE A BOND FOR THE PAYMENT
OF THE TAX WHICH THE COMMISSIONER ALONE IS PERMITTED TO REDUCE BY WAY
OF COMPROMISE WHEN THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY CONSENTS.  HEINEMANN
CHEMICAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND BREWERTON V. UNITED STATES, 9
F.SUPP.  503, TO THE CONTRARY, PLAINLY REST UPON A MISAPPLICATION OF
THE RULING IN UNITED STATES V. ALEXANDER, 110 U.S. 325, WHICH SUSTAINED
THE RELEASE OF A BOND FOR TAXES BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY WHICH
HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM FOR INTEREST UPON
THE BALANCE FOUND DUE UPON THE BOND AS A DEMAND FOR INTEREST ON
INTEREST, WHICH HAS GENERALLY BEEN HELD NOT TO BE AN APPROPRIATE
MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF INTEREST ALONE.  SEE
CHEROKEE NATION V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 476, 490.  IN ANY CASE, IT
THOUGHT THAT THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WOULD BE INEQUITABLE BECAUSE OF
THE COLLECTOR'S RETURN OF THE BOND TO PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT'S
DELAY IN BRINGING THE SUIT.  BUT, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THE
OBLIGATION OF PETITIONER TO PAY THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF TAX UNDER THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT WAS
NOT DAMAGE ASSESSED AGAINST PETITIONER FOR ITS NONPAYMENT OF INTEREST. 
PETITIONER'S OBLIGATION WAS CONTRACTUAL TO PAY AN AMOUNT FOUND TO BE
DUE FROM THE TAXPAYER, AND THE SUIT AGAINST IT IS FOR A DEBT EX
CONTRACTU, DUE AND OWING IN CONFORMITY TO THE TERMS OF THE BOND.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. JOHN BARTH CO., SUPRA; GULF STATES STEEL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA. 

A SUIT UPON A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY MONEY AT A FIXED OR
ASCERTAINABLE TIME IS A SUIT TO RECOVER DAMAGE FOR ITS BREACH,
INCLUDING BOTH THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT AND INTEREST BY WAY OF DAMAGE FOR
DELAY IN PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL, AFTER THE DUE DATE.  AND IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY CONTROLLING STATUTORY REGULATION THE TRIAL COURT IS AS
COMPETENT TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FOR DELAY AS ANY OTHER
ITEM OF DAMAGE.  UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY CO., 236 U.S.
512, 528; YOUNG V. GODBE, 15 WALL.  562, 565; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 76 F.2D 626; UNITED STATES V. WAGNER, 93 F.2D 77; UNITED
STATES V. HAMILTON, 96 F.2D 878; MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INS. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 97 F.2D 879, 881. 

BUT THE RULE GOVERNING THE INTEREST TO BE RECOVERED AS DAMAGES FOR
DELAYED PAYMENT OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO THE UNITED STATES IS NOT
CONTROLLED BY STATE STATUTE OR LOCAL COMMON LAW.  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN
APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE, IT IS FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DETERMINE,
ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN CRITERIA, THE APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF DAMAGE,
EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF INTEREST, FOR NON-PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT FOUND TO
BE DUE.  BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343,
350, 352; YOUNG V. GODBE, SUPRA, 565; CF. BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES,
232 U.S. 261, 284, ET SEQ. 

THE PRESENT SUIT IS AT LAW FOR THE RECOVERY OF AN AMOUNT DUE AND
OWING, WHICH PETITIONER HAS CONTRACTED TO PAY.  TO SUCH A CASE,
EQUITABLE RULES RELATING TO INTEREST RECOVERABLE IN SUITS FOR AN
ACCOUNTING, OR FOR RECOVERY ON QUASI-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS ARISING
FROM PAYMENT OF MONEY BY MISTAKE, ARE INAPPLICABLE.  UNITED STATES V.
UNITED STATES FIDELITY CO., SUPRA, 528; CF. REDFIELD V. YSTALYFERA IRON
CO., 110 U.S. 174, 176; UNITED STATES V. SANBORN, 135 U.S. 271, 281;
REDFIELD V. BARTELS, 139 U.S. 694, 702.  HERE, RESPONSIBILITY FOR DELAY
IN PAYMENT RESTS QUITE AS MUCH UPON THE DEBTOR, WHO IS CHARGEABLE WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF ITS OWN OBLIGATION AND THE BREACH OF IT, AS UPON THE
CREDITOR.  AND IN THE MEANTIME THE DEBTOR HAS HAD THE USE OF THE MONEY,
OF WHICH ITS DEFAULT HAS DEPRIVED THE CREDITOR.  INTEREST UPON THE
PRINCIPAL SUM FROM THE DATE OF DEFAULT, AT A FAIR RATE, IS THEREFORE AN
APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF DAMAGE FOR THE DELAY IN PAYMENT.  UNITED STATES
V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY CO., SUPRA, 528; MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INS.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  UNITED STATES V. WAGNER, SUPRA; MARYLAND
CASUALTY CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  WHILE THE NEW YORK STATUTE
FIXING THE RATE OF INTEREST IS NOT CONTROLLING, THE ALLOWANCE OF
INTEREST DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY STATE OR FEDERAL POLICY, AND WE
THINK THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, A SUITABLE RATE IS THAT
PREVAILING IN THE STATE WHERE THE OBLIGATION WAS GIVEN AND TO BE
PERFORMED.  SEE YOUNG V. GODBE, SUPRA, 565; BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 352.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S JUDGMENT THAT THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE DID NOT HAVE POWER TO RELEASE A TAXPAYER FROM HIS OBLIGATION TO
PAY, BUT I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS ON THE
QUESTION OF INTEREST.  THE CONTRACT ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT'S SUIT
RESTS CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR INTEREST.  THE STATE'S INTEREST LAW,
ACCORDING TO THE HOLDING OF THE COURT, IS NOT CONTROLLING.  CONGRESS
HAS ENACTED NO LAW REQUIRING PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND FIXING AN INTEREST
RATE ON CONTRACTS GUARANTEEING TAX PAYMENTS.  NEVERTHELESS, THIS COURT
NOW REQUIRES THAT INTEREST BE PAID - A JUDICIAL REQUIREMENT WHICH UNDER
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN FRANKLY DESCRIBED AS "JUDICIAL LAW
MAKING."  BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343,
350. 

WERE THE QUESTION AN OPEN ONE, I WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO ACQUIESCE IN
HOLDING THAT FEDERAL COURTS, IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTES, COULD OR
SHOULD ASSUME THE POWER TO FIX INTEREST IN SUCH A CASE.  BUT, GRANTING
THAT WE HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE THIS STEP, THE RATE OF INTEREST TO BE
CHARGED IS FROM NECESSITY AN ELEMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY
POWER THUS EXERCISED, AND THAT RATE MUST THEREFORE BE DETERMINED BY THE
COURT.  THE RATE FIXED IN THIS CASE IS 6%.  RESOLUTION AS TO THE AMOUNT
IS RESTED IN PART AT LEAST ON NEW YORK'S LEGISLATIVE RATE.  THE
INFERENCE IS THAT A DIFFERENT RATE MIGHT APPLY TO CONTRACTS
GUARANTEEING TAX PAYMENTS MADE IN OTHER STATES.  FOR IT IS WELL KNOWN
THAT INTEREST RATES FIXED BY STATE LEGISLATURES ARE NOT UNIFORM BUT
VARY IN AMOUNT. 

SINCE IN PRESCRIBING INTEREST AND FIXING AN INTEREST RATE WE ARE
PASSING UPON QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY, NOT MARKED AT ALL BY DEFINITE
LEGISLATIVE BOUNDARIES, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO AGREE TO THE RESULT HERE
FOR TWO REASONS:  (1)  UNLESS THE RATE FIXED IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE
NATURE OF A PENALTY, 6% SEEMS VERY HIGH.  A SMALLER RATE WOULD APPEAR
TO COME NEARER TO HARMONIZING WITH FAIR AND EQUITABLE INTEREST
EXACTIONS.  (2)  I AM OF OPINION THAT SINCE OUR "JUDICIAL LAW-MAKING"
IS AND MUST BE NATIONAL IN ITS SCOPE, THE LAW WHICH WE ADOPT FIXING A
RATE OF INTEREST FOR TRANSACTIONS SUCH AS THAT HERE INVOLVED SHOULD
OPERATE WITH UNIFORMITY THROUGHOUT THE NATION.  FEDERAL TAXPAYERS OR
THEIR SURETIES SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY 6% IN ONE STATE, 4% IN A
SECOND, AND 10% IN A THIRD.  SUCH VARYING RATES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
CRITICISM BY FEDERAL COURTS IF THEY GOVERN LOCAL INTRASTATE
TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO STATE LAW.  BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT FEDERAL
TAXPAYERS AND THEIR SURETIES SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME INTEREST
RATE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE STATE RATES GOVERNING PURELY LOCAL
TRANSACTIONS WITHIN A PARTICULAR AREA IN WHICH FEDERAL TAXPAYERS HAPPEN
TO RESIDE.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT'S OPINION INDICATES THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A VARIANCE AMONG THE STATES, I AM COMPELLED TO
DISAGREE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC, 313 U.S. 299 


NO. 618.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 35 F.SUPP. 
66, REVERSED. 


1.  REVIEW UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT OF A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT IS CONFINED TO THE QUESTIONS OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDITY DECIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 309. 

2.  IN LOUISIANA, A PRIMARY ELECTION TO NOMINATE A PARTY CANDIDATE
FOR THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS IS CONDUCTED AT THE PUBLIC
EXPENSE AND REGULATED BY STATUTE.  CANDIDATES WHO MAY BE VOTED FOR AT
GENERAL ELECTIONS ARE RESTRICTED TO PRIMARY NOMINEES; TO PERSONS, NOT
CANDIDATES IN THE PRIMARY, WHO FILE NOMINATION PAPERS WITH THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES; AND TO PERSONS WHOSE NAMES MAY BE
LAWFULLY WRITTEN INTO THE BALLOTS BY THE ELECTORS.  THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT IS TO IMPOSE SERIOUS RESTRICTIONS UPON THE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES
BY THE VOTERS SAVE BY VOTING AT THE PRIMARY ELECTION.  THE PRIMARY
ELECTION IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROCEDURE FOR CHOOSING
REPRESENTATIVES; AND IN THIS CASE, AS ALLEGED BY THE INDICTMENT, ITS
PRACTICAL OPERATION, IN THE PARTICULAR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT INVOLVED,
IS TO SECURE THE ELECTION OF THE PRIMARY NOMINEE OF A PARTICULAR
POLITICAL PARTY.  P. 311 ET SEQ. 

3.  THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS IS
A RIGHT ESTABLISHED AND GUARANTEED BY ART. I, SEC. 2 OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND HENCE IS ONE SECURED BY IT TO THOSE CITIZENS AND
INHABITANTS OF THE STATE WHO ARE ENTITLED TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT.  P.
314. 

THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS IS A RIGHT "DERIVED
FROM THE STATES," ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THE STATES ARE AUTHORIZED BY
THE CONSTITUTION TO LEGISLATE ON THE SUBJECT, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 2 OF
ART. I, TO THE EXTENT THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT RESTRICTED STATE ACTION BY
THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS TO REGULATE ELECTIONS UNDER SEC. 4, AND ITS
MORE GENERAL POWER, UNDER ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 18, "TO MAKE ALL LAWS
WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE
FOREGOING POWERS." 

4.  INCLUDED WITHIN THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE, SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
IS THE RIGHT OF QUALIFIED VOTERS WITHIN A STATE TO CAST THEIR BALLOTS
AND HAVE THEM COUNTED AT CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS.  P. 315. 

SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND IS WITHOUT RESTRICTION OR
LIMITATION, THIS RIGHT, UNLIKE THOSE GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AND
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS, IS SECURED AGAINST THE ACTION OF INDIVIDUALS AS
WELL AS OF STATES. 

5.  WHERE THE STATE LAW HAS MADE THE PRIMARY ELECTION AN INTEGRAL
PART OF THE PROCEDURE OF CHOOSING REPRESENTATIVES, OR WHERE IN FACT THE
PRIMARY EFFECTIVELY CONTROLS THE CHOICE, THE RIGHT OF THE QUALIFIED
ELECTOR TO VOTE AND HAVE HIS BALLOT COUNTED AT THE PRIMARY, IS PART OF
THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES SECURED BY ART. I, SEC. 2.  P.
316. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO A
NEW SUBJECT MATTER, IT IS OF LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE THAT IT IS ONE WITH
WHICH THE FRAMERS WERE NOT FAMILIAR.  FOR IN SETTING UP AN ENDURING
FRAMEWORK OF GOVERNMENT THEY UNDERTOOK TO CARRY OUT FOR THE INDEFINITE
FUTURE AND IN ALL THE VICISSITUDES OF THE CHANGING AFFAIRS OF MEN,
THOSE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES WHICH THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF DISCLOSES. 
HENCE WE READ ITS WORDS, NOT AS WE READ LEGISLATIVE CODES WHICH ARE
SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS REVISION WITH THE CHANGING COURSE OF EVENTS, BUT
AS THE REVELATION OF THE GREAT PURPOSES WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE
ACHIEVED BY THE CONSTITUTION AS A CONTINUING INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT. 

6.  A PRIMARY ELECTION WHICH IS A NECESSARY STEP IN THE CHOICE OF
CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION AS REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS, AND WHICH IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CONTROLS THAT CHOICE, IS AN ELECTION
WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART. I, SECS. 2 AND 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND IS
SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION AS TO THE MANNER OF HOLDING IT.  P.
317. 

7.  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 18 OF THE CONSTITUTION EMPOWERS CONGRESS TO
SAFEGUARD BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION THE RIGHT OF CHOICE BY THE PEOPLE
OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS SECURED BY SEC. 2 OF ART. I. P. 320. 

8.  SECTION 19 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, MAKING IT A CRIME TO CONSPIRE TO
"INJURE" OR "OPPRESS" ANY CITIZEN "IN THE FREE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT OR
PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION," EMBRACES A CONSPIRACY TO
PREVENT QUALIFIED VOTERS FROM EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF
VOTING, AND HAVING THEIR VOTES COUNTED, IN A PRIMARY ELECTION
PREREQUISITE TO THE CHOICE OF PARTY CANDIDATES FOR A CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTION.  P. 321. 

9.  SECTION 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE PROVIDES THAT WHOEVER, "UNDER
COLOR OF ANY LAW," WILLFULLY SUBJECTS ANY INHABITANT OF ANY STATE TO
THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR
PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES "OR TO
DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS, PAINS, OR PENALTIES, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH
INHABITANT BEING AN ALIEN, OR BY REASON OF HIS COLOR, OR RACE, THAN ARE
PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF CITIZENS," SHALL BE PUNISHED AS
PRESCRIBED.  HELD: 

(1)  THE ACTS OF ELECTION OFFICIALS WHO CONDUCTED A PRIMARY ELECTION
TO NOMINATE A PARTY CANDIDATE FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS IN
WILLFULLY ALTERING AND FALSELY COUNTING AND CERTIFYING THE BALLOTS,
WERE ACTS UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW DEPRIVING THE VOTER OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION.  P. 325. 

(2)  THE SECTION AUTHORIZES PUNISHMENT FOR TWO DIFFERENT OFFENSES:
THE OFFENSE OF WILLFULLY SUBJECTING ANY INHABITANT TO THE DEPRIVATION
OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE OFFENSE OF WILLFULLY
SUBJECTING ANY INHABITANT TO DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF HIS
ALIENAGE, COLOR OR RACE, THAN ARE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF
CITIZENS.  P. 327. 

10.  THE COURT DECLINES TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 20 TO
DEPRIVATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, A POINT APPARENTLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME
BY THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF IN THIS COURT AND NOT ASSIGNED AS ERROR. 
SINCE THE INDICTMENT ON ITS FACE DOES NOT PURPORT TO CHARGE A
DEPRIVATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION TO VOTERS OR CANDIDATES, THE COURT IS
NOT CALLED UPON TO CONSTRUE THE INDICTMENT IN ORDER TO RAISE A QUESTION
OF STATUTORY VALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION.  P. 329. 

UNITED STATES V. CLASSIC ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO
TWO COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT. 

THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IS SECURED AND PROTECTED BY
SEC. 2 OF ART. I OF THE CONSTITUTION, AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS, AS WELL AS AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY ACTION OF THE STATES. 
CONGRESS MAY PROTECT THE RIGHTS BY PROVIDING FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF BOTH
TYPES OF INTERFERENCE AND HAS DONE SO BY SECS. 19 AND 20 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE. 

AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE LOUISIANA PRIMARY ELECTIONS DETERMINE THE
CANDIDATES AT THE GENERAL ELECTION.  AS A MATTER OF UNBROKEN PRACTICE,
THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY ELECTION DETERMINES THE VICTOR AT THE GENERAL
ELECTION.  EITHER OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS DEMONSTRATES THAT THE RIGHT
TO CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES, SECURED BY SEC. 2 OF ART. I, REACHES TO THE
LOUISIANA PRIMARY. 

IF THE MACHINERY OF CHOICE INVOLVES TWO ELECTIONS, PRIMARY AND
GENERAL, RATHER THAN ONE, THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CHOICE MUST
INCLUDE BOTH STEPS. 

ART. I, SEC. 2 APPLIES TO THE DECISIVE PHASE OF THE PROCESS BY WHICH
REPRESENTATIVES ARE CHOSEN.  CF., UNITED STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 123,
143.  THE FRAMERS MAY NOT HAVE ANTICIPATED THE PRIMARY, BUT THEY GAVE
TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE STATES THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS. 

THE CHIEF SOURCE OF SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION, SO FAR AS THE SUFFRAGE WAS CONCERNED, HAD TO DO WITH THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS.  UNITED STATES DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE
UNION OF THE AMERICAN STATES (1927) 487, 488, 489, 492.  IT WAS TO
AVOID ANY OBSTACLES TO RATIFICATION WHICH MIGHT HAVE ARISEN FROM THIS
CONTROVERSY THAT THE CONVENTION ACCEPTED THE COMPROMISE EMBODIED IN
ARTICLE I, SEC. 2.  STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES (BIGELOW, 5TH ED. 1891), SEC. 584.  IN THE STATE
RATIFYING CONVENTIONS THE DEBATE SHIFTED TO THE GRANT OF CONGRESSIONAL
POWER TO REGULATE NATIONAL ELECTIONS WHICH IS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE I,
SEC. 4.  IT IS TRUE THAT SIX STATES INCLUDED IN THEIR RESOLUTIONS OF
RATIFICATION THE RECOMMENDATION THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BE
ADOPTED TO DENY CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ELECTIONS UNLESS
THE STATES SHOULD REFUSE TO PROVIDE FOR THEM OR SHOULD BE UNABLE TO DO
SO BECAUSE OF INVASION OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON.  BUT NO SUCH AMENDMENT
WAS EVER ADOPTED, AND ANY LINGERING DOUBT AS TO THE UNCONDITIONAL POWER
OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF NATIONAL ELECTIONS WAS REMOVED
IN EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S. 371.  CLEARLY NEITHER OF THESE DISPUTES
IS RELEVANT TO THE NATURE AND BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED
RIGHT TO CHOOSE.  INDEED, THE WORD "ELECTED" IN A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSAL
WHICH BECAME ART. I, SEC. 2, WAS ELIMINATED BY THE COMMITTEE OF DETAIL
IN FAVOR OF THE SEEMINGLY BROADER WORD "CHOSEN."  DISTINGUISHING UNITED
STATES V. GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476; NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S.
232; AND GROVEY V. TOWNSEND, 295 U.S. 45. 

CONGRESSIONAL PRACTICE HAS WEIGHT IN DETERMINING THE MEANING OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  BUT IT IS ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT WHERE THE
PRACTICE INVOLVES A CONGRESSIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION IN
A FIELD IN WHICH CONGRESS HAS AN AUTONOMOUS POWER.  CF., SMILEY V.
HOLM, 285 U.S. 355, 369. 

VOTERS IN A PRIMARY ELECTION ARE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS BY STATE OFFICERS WHO REFUSE TO COUNT THEIR VOTES AS CAST AND
COUNT THEM IN FAVOR OF AN OPPOSING CANDIDATE.  IT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE
THAT THE INDICTMENT DOES NOT COUNT IN TERMS UPON THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF THE VOTERS TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 
THE CHARGE IS LAID IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND SPECIFIES AS THE
RIGHT "SECURED" AND "PROTECTED" BY THE CONSTITUTION THE RIGHT OF THE
VOTERS WHOSE BALLOTS WERE ALTERED TO HAVE THEIR VOTES COUNTED AS CAST. 
IF THE INFRINGEMENT OF THAT RIGHT BY THE ALLEGED ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS
CONSTITUTES A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION, THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT IS NOT "SECURED" AND "PROTECTED" BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE ACTS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT. 

IT IS NO MORE MATERIAL THAT PRIMARY ELECTIONS WERE UNKNOWN WHEN THE
STATUTE WAS PASSED THAN IT WOULD BE THAT A CITY ORDINANCE WHICH WORKED
A DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS WAS ENACTED AFTER 1870 OR, INDEED, THAT
THE CITY WHICH ENACTED THE ORDINANCE WAS NOT ESTABLISHED UNTIL AFTER
THAT TIME.  NOR IS THERE SIGNIFICANCE IN THE FACT THAT IN 1894 CONGRESS
REPEALED THE COMPANION PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE DEALING WITH SPECIFIC
IRREGULARITIES IN ELECTIONS.  UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383. 

NOTHING IN THE ENABLING CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUGGESTS
THAT LEGISLATION IS NOT "APPROPRIATE" TO ENFORCE THE AMENDMENT IF IT
DEALS NOT ONLY WITH RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE AMENDMENT AGAINST STATE
ACTION BUT ALSO WITH RIGHTS PROTECTED BY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL ACTION AS WELL.  KAREM V. UNITED STATES,
121 F. 250; CF., UNITED STATES V. REESE, 92 U.S. 214; FLACK, THE
ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 1908, 219 ET SEQ.; GUINN V.
UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347, 368. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE CORRECTLY SUSTAINED THE DEMURRER.  SECTION 19 DOES
NOT APPLY TO THE AFFAIRS OF A POLITICAL PARTY IN CONDUCTING A PARTY
PRIMARY.  NOR COULD IT APPLY TO THE PURELY PRIVATE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF
A CANDIDATE TO A VOTE CAST BY A CITIZEN.  THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND TO HAVE
THE VOTE COUNTED AS CAST BELONGS TO THE CITIZEN, NOT TO THE CANDIDATE. 
UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383. 

THE COMMISSIONERS ARE NOT OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE.  THEY
ARE OFFICERS OF A POLITICAL PARTY.  THEY ACT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
POLITICAL PARTY, AND NOT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE, AND THEREFORE
DO NOT ACT UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW OF THE STATE.  THE CANDIDATES ALONE
HAVE THE RIGHT TO NAME THEM. 

THE FACT THAT A POLITICAL PARTY, AND ITS NOMINATING PRIMARY, IS
REGULATED BY STATE LAW, DOES NOT MAKE IT A CREATURE OF THE STATE, NOR
DOES IT MAKE THE PARTY'S OFFICIALS, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE
STATE. 

PRIMARIES ARE IN NO SENSE ELECTIONS FOR AN OFFICE, BUT MERELY METHODS
BY WHICH PARTY ADHERENTS AGREE UPON CANDIDATES WHOM THEY INTEND TO
OFFER TO SUPPORT FOR ULTIMATE CHOICE BY ALL QUALIFIED ELECTORS. 
GENERAL PROVISIONS AFFECTING ELECTIONS IN CONSTITUTIONS OR STATUTES ARE
NOT NECESSARILY APPLICABLE TO PRIMARIES,  - THE TWO THINGS BEING
RADICALLY DIFFERENT.  NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 232; UNITED
STATES V. GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476; GROVEY V. TOWNSEND, 295 U.S. 45;
NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536; NIXON V. CONDON, 286 U.S. 73; UNITED
STATES V. O'TOOLE, 236 F. 993. 

THE STATE COURTS DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A NOMINATING PRIMARY AND AN
ELECTION.  THEY HAVE HELD THAT PRIMARY ELECTIONS TO CHOOSE DELEGATES TO
CONVENTIONS ARE NOT WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IN
REGARD TO ELECTIONS; THAT PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE NOT A PART OF THE
GENERAL ELECTION BECAUSE HELD AT THE SAME TIME AS THE LATTER, WITH THE
SAME MACHINERY, MERELY FOR CONVENIENCE AND ECONOMY; THAT PRIMARIES ARE
NOT ELECTIONS WITHIN THE COMMON LAW MEANING OF THE TERM; THAT LAWS
PROVIDING FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CONTESTED ELECTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO
PRIMARY ELECTIONS; THAT A STATUTE MAKING IT A MISDEMEANOR TO PLACE ANY
BET OR WAGER ON ANY ELECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIMARIES; THAT A
STATUTE DISQUALIFYING A PERSON FROM HOLDING OFFICE WHEN HE SHALL HAVE
GIVEN A BRIBE, THREAT OR REWARD TO SECURE HIS ELECTION DOES NOT APPLY
TO PRIMARIES; AND THAT IT IS NOT AN OFFENSE FOR OFFICIALS AT PRIMARIES
TO ELECTIONEER, WHEN THE GENERAL ELECTION LAWS FORBID IT. 

IF THE WORD "ELECTIONS" IS HELD TO INCLUDE THE MANNER BY WHICH A
VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION OR POLITICAL PARTY SELECTS ITS CANDIDATES BY
DIRECT PRIMARY (A CONCEPT UNKNOWN BY THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION),
THEN CONGRESS MAY PASS LAWS TO REGULATE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF
POLITICAL PARTIES, AND DICTATE THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF THEIR
SELECTION OR NOMINATION OF THE CANDIDATE THEY WILL SUPPORT IN THE
ENSUING GENERAL ELECTION, OR MAY PROHIBIT THE HOLDING OF PRIMARIES
ALTOGETHER.  STATE V. SIMMONS, 117 ARK. 159. 

IN NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536, THE COURT DID NOT ADOPT THE THEORY
THAT EXCLUSION FROM A PRIMARY BY SPECIFIC STATE LAW WOULD CONSTITUTE A
DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT, BUT FOUND THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SO IN NIXON V. CONDON,
286 U.S. 73. 

THE POWER CONFERRED UPON CONGRESS IN SEC. 4 OF ART. I IS A LIMITED
POWER.  IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES OF
THEIR FREEDOM WITH RESPECT TO THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. 

SINCE CONGRESS ASSERTED ITS POWER TO THE FULLEST EXTENT, IN THE
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1870, THE LIMITATION UPON ITS POWER IS ILLUSTRATED
BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE HISTORY OF THOSE BILLS IN UNITED STATES V.
GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476, 482-484. 

THE CONSTITUTION GIVES TO CONGRESS NO POWER TO REGULATE THE PROCESS
OF NOMINATION.  UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476, 487-489;
UNITED STATES V. BLAIR, 250 U.S. 273, 278-279; UNITED STATES V.
O'TOOLE, 236 F. 993, 996. 

A NOMINATING PRIMARY IS NOT AN ELECTION ANY MORE THAN THE NOMINATING
CONVENTION, OR ITS PREDECESSOR THE CAUCUS, IS AN "ELECTION." 

WHAT THE TERM "ELECTIONS" MEANT AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
ARTICLE IT MEANS NOW.  HAWKE V. SMITH, 253 U.S. 221. 

THE POWER EXERCISED MUST BE FOUND WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE POWER
CONFERRED.  SEE IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564, 591. 

THE WORD "ELECTION" SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE WELL-DEFINED MEANING
THAT IT HAD WHEN INCORPORATED INTO THE CONSTITUTION.  CF. THE HAWKE
CASE, SUPRA, CONCERNING THE WORD "LEGISLATURES." 

OTHER ARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION SHOW THAT THE TERM "ELECTIONS" HAS
EXCLUSIVE REFERENCE TO ELECTIONS FOR THE OFFICE ITSELF. 

THE OPPONENTS OF SEC. 4 OF ART. I WERE IN A MEASURE APPEASED BY THE
ASSURANCE GIVEN THEM TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CLAUSE WAS CONFINED TO THE
REGULATION OF THE TIMES, PLACES, AND MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS. 
STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION, SECS. 815-828; THE FEDERALIST, LX. 

ALEXANDER HAMILTON COULD NEVER HAVE DEFENDED THE THEORY THAT THE
PEOPLE WERE SURRENDERING SUCH RIGHTS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WOULD
AUTHORIZE SUPERVISING THE METHODS THAT SHOULD BE EMPLOYED TO ENLIST
SUPPORT OF A CANDIDACY. 

IF CONGRESS HAS THE POWER WHICH APPELLANT SEEKS TO ATTRIBUTE TO IT,
THEN IT HAS THE POWER TO ABOLISH ALL PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR SENATORS AND
REPRESENTATIVES IN EVERY STATE IN THE UNION; THE POWER TO ESTABLISH
CONVENTIONS, TO OVERTHROW CONVENTIONS, TO PROVIDE ANY SORT OF A PRIMARY
THAT IT MAY DESIRE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TWO COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT FOUND IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CHARGED
THAT APPELLEES, COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTIONS, CONDUCTING A PRIMARY
ELECTION UNDER LOUISIANA LAW, TO NOMINATE A CANDIDATE OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, WILLFULLY ALTERED AND FALSELY
COUNTED AND CERTIFIED THE BALLOTS OF VOTERS CAST IN THE PRIMARY
ELECTION.  THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE WHETHER THE RIGHT OF
QUALIFIED VOTERS TO VOTE IN THE LOUISIANA PRIMARY AND TO HAVE THEIR
BALLOTS COUNTED IS A RIGHT "SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SECS. 19 AND 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, AND WHETHER THE ACTS
OF APPELLEES CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT VIOLATE THOSE SECTIONS. 

ON SEPTEMBER 25, 1940, APPELLEES WERE INDICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR EASTERN LOUISIANA FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 19 AND 20 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, 18 U.S.C. SECS. 51, 52.  THE FIRST COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT
ALLEGED THAT A PRIMARY ELECTION WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1940, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF NOMINATING A CANDIDATE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR THE
OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FOR THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, TO BE CHOSEN AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 10TH; THAT IN THAT DISTRICT NOMINATION AS A CANDIDATE OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN EQUIVALENT TO AN ELECTION; THAT
APPELLEES WERE COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTION, SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LOUISIANA LAW TO CONDUCT THE PRIMARY IN THE SECOND PRECINCT OF THE
TENTH WARD OF NEW ORLEANS, IN WHICH THERE WERE FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY
SEVEN CITIZENS AND QUALIFIED VOTERS. 

THE CHARGE, BASED ON THESE ALLEGATIONS, WAS THAT THE APPELLEES
CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER, AND WITH OTHERS UNKNOWN, TO INJURE AND
OPPRESS CITIZENS IN THE FREE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES SECURED TO THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES, NAMELY, (1) THE RIGHT OF QUALIFIED VOTERS WHO CAST THEIR
BALLOTS IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION TO HAVE THEIR BALLOTS COUNTED AS CAST
FOR THE CANDIDATE OF THEIR CHOICE, AND (2) THE RIGHT OF THE CANDIDATES
TO RUN FOR THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSMAN AND TO HAVE THE VOTES IN FAVOR OF
THEIR NOMINATION COUNTED AS CAST.  THE OVERT ACTS ALLEGED WERE THAT THE
APPELLEES ALTERED EIGHTY-THREE BALLOTS CAST FOR ONE CANDIDATE AND
FOURTEEN CAST FOR ANOTHER, MARKING AND COUNTING THEM AS VOTES FOR A
THIRD CANDIDATE, AND THAT THEY FALSELY CERTIFIED THE NUMBER OF VOTES
CAST FOR THE RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SECOND
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT COMMITTEE.    THE SECOND COUNT, REPEATING THE
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT ALREADY DETAILED, CHARGED THAT THE APPELLEES, AS
COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTION, WILLFULLY AND UNDER COLOR OF LAW SUBJECTED
REGISTERED VOTERS AT THE PRIMARY WHO WERE INHABITANTS OF LOUISIANA TO
THE DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED AND
PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, NAMELY
THEIR RIGHT TO CAST THEIR VOTES FOR THE CANDIDATES OF THEIR CHOICE AND
TO HAVE THEIR VOTES COUNTED AS CAST.  IT FURTHER CHARGED THAT THIS
DEPRIVATION WAS EFFECTED BY THE WILLFUL FAILURE AND REFUSAL OF
DEFENDANTS TO COUNT THE VOTES AS CAST, BY THEIR ALTERATION OF THE
BALLOTS, AND BY THEIR FALSE CERTIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF VOTES CAST
FOR THE RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES IN THE MANNER ALREADY INDICATED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO COUNTS 1 AND 2 ON THE
GROUND THAT SECS. 19 AND 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, UNDER WHICH THE
INDICTMENT WAS DRAWN, DO NOT APPLY TO THE STATE OF FACTS DISCLOSED BY
THE INDICTMENT, AND THAT, IF APPLIED TO THOSE FACTS, SECS. 19 AND 20
ARE WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION, CITING UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL,
243 U.S. 476, 488, 489; NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 232.  THE
CASE COMES HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 238, 18
U.S.C. SEC. 682; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345, WHICH AUTHORIZE AN APPEAL BY THE
UNITED STATES FROM A DECISION OR JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO AN
INDICTMENT WHERE THE DECISION OR JUDGMENT IS "BASED UPON THE INVALIDITY
OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED." 

UPON SUCH AN APPEAL OUR REVIEW IS CONFINED TO THE QUESTIONS OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDITY DECIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 
UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525; UNITED STATES V. BIRDSALL, 233
U.S. 223, 230; UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 192-193. 
HENCE, WE DO NOT PASS UPON VARIOUS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLEES AS
TO THE SUFFICIENCY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICTMENT. 

CONSPIRACY TO INJURE A CITIZEN IN THE EXERCISE "OF ANY RIGHT OR
PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES."  SECTION 20 MAKES IT A PENAL OFFENSE FOR ANYONE WHO, ACTING
"UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW," "WILLFULLY SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE
SUBJECTED, ANY INHABITANT OF ANY STATE  ...  TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES SECURED AND PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES
THAT THE RIGHT OF A QUALIFIED VOTER IN A LOUISIANA CONGRESSIONAL
PRIMARY ELECTION TO HAVE HIS VOTE COUNTED AS CAST IS A RIGHT SECURED BY
ARTICLE I, SECS. 2 AND 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THAT A CONSPIRACY TO
DEPRIVE THE CITIZEN OF THAT RIGHT IS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 19, AND ALSO
THAT THE WILLFUL ACTION OF APPELLEES AS STATE OFFICIALS, IN FALSELY
COUNTING THE BALLOTS AT THE PRIMARY ELECTION AND IN FALSELY CERTIFYING
THE COUNT, DEPRIVED QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THAT RIGHT AND OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ALL IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. 

ARTICLE I, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, COMMANDS THAT "THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE COMPOSED OF MEMBERS CHOSEN EVERY SECOND YEAR
BY THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL STATES AND THE ELECTORS IN EACH STATE
SHALL HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUISITE FOR ELECTORS OF THE MOST
NUMEROUS BRANCH OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE."  BY SEC. 4 OF THE SAME
ARTICLE "THE TIMES, PLACES AND MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS FOR SENATORS
AND REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN EACH STATE BY THE
LEGISLATURE THEREOF; BUT THE CONGRESS MAY AT ANY TIME BY LAW MAKE OR
ALTER SUCH REGULATIONS, EXCEPT AS TO THE PLACES OF CHUSING SENATORS." 
SUCH RIGHT AS IS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO QUALIFIED VOTERS TO
CHOOSE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS THUS TO BE EXERCISED
IN CONFORMITY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW SUBJECT TO THE
RESTRICTIONS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 2 AND TO THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON
CONGRESS BY SEC. 4, TO REGULATE THE TIMES, PLACES AND MANNER OF HOLDING
ELECTIONS FOR REPRESENTATIVES. 

WE LOOK THEN TO THE STATUTES OF LOUISIANA HERE INVOLVED TO ASCERTAIN
THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT WHICH UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE THEY
DEFINE AND CONFER ON THE VOTER, AND THE EFFECT UPON ITS EXERCISE OF THE
ACTS WITH WHICH APPELLEES ARE CHARGED, ALL WITH THE VIEW TO
DETERMINING, FIRST, WHETHER THE RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE IS ONE SECURED BY
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, SECOND, WHETHER THE EFFECT UNDER
THE STATE STATUTE OF APPELLEES' ALLEGED ACTS IS SUCH THAT THEY OPERATE
TO INJURE OR OPPRESS CITIZENS IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 19 AND TO DEPRIVE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF THAT
RIGHT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 20, AND FINALLY, WHETHER SECS. 19 AND
20 RESPECTIVELY ARE IN OTHER RESPECTS APPLICABLE TO THE ALLEGED ACTS OF
APPELLEES. 

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GIVEN BY SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE I OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER
SEC. 4 OF ARTICLE I, AND OTHER PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE STATES ARE GIVEN, AND IN FACT EXERCISE, A WIDE
DISCRETION IN THE FORMULATION OF A SYSTEM FOR THE CHOICE BY THE PEOPLE
OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS.  IN COMMON WITH MANY OTHER STATES,
LOUISIANA HAS EXERCISED THAT DISCRETION BY SETTING UP MACHINERY FOR THE
EFFECTIVE CHOICE OF PARTY CANDIDATES FOR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS BY
PRIMARY ELECTIONS, AND BY ITS LAWS IT ELIMINATES OR SERIOUSLY RESTRICTS
THE CANDIDACY AT THE GENERAL ELECTION OF ALL THOSE WHO ARE DEFEATED AT
THE PRIMARY.  ALL POLITICAL PARTIES, WHICH ARE DEFINED AS THOSE THAT
HAVE CAST AT LEAST 5 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL VOTE AT SPECIFIED PRECEDING
ELECTIONS, ARE REQUIRED TO NOMINATE THEIR CANDIDATES FOR REPRESENTATIVE
BY DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTIONS.  LOUISIANA ACT NO. 46, REGULAR SESSION,
1940, SECS. 1 AND 3. 

THE PRIMARY IS CONDUCTED BY THE STATE AT PUBLIC EXPENSE.  ACT NO. 46,
SUPRA, SEC. 35.  THE PRIMARY, AS IS THE GENERAL ELECTION, IS SUBJECT TO
NUMEROUS STATUTORY REGULATIONS AS TO THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF
CONDUCTING THE ELECTION, INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO INSURE THAT THE
BALLOTS CAST AT THE PRIMARY ARE CORRECTLY COUNTED, AND THE RESULTS OF
THE COUNT CORRECTLY RECORDED AND CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
WHOSE DUTY IT IS TO PLACE THE NAMES OF THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES OF
EACH PARTY ON THE OFFICIAL BALLOT.  FN1  THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS
PROHIBITED FROM PLACING ON THE OFFICIAL BALLOT THE NAME OF ANY PERSON
AS A CANDIDATE FOR ANY POLITICAL PARTY NOT NOMINATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  ACT 46, SEC. 1. 

ONE WHOSE NAME DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT, IF OTHERWISE
ELIGIBLE TO BECOME A CANDIDATE AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, MAY DO SO IN
EITHER OF TWO WAYS:  BY FILING NOMINATION PAPERS WITH THE REQUISITE
NUMBER OF SIGNATURES OR BY HAVING HIS NAME "WRITTEN IN" ON THE BALLOT
ON THE FINAL ELECTION.  LOUISIANA ACT NO. 224, REGULAR SESSION 1940,
SECS. 50, 73.  SECTION 87 OF ACT NO. 46 PROVIDES "NO ONE WHO
PARTICIPATES IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY SHALL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A PRIMARY ELECTION OF ANY OTHER POLITICAL
PARTY, WITH THE VIEW OF NOMINATING OPPOSING CANDIDATES, NOR SHALL HE BE
PERMITTED TO SIGN ANY NOMINATION FOR ANY OPPOSING CANDIDATE OR
CANDIDATES; NOR SHALL HE BE PERMITTED TO BE HIMSELF A CANDIDATE IN
OPPOSITION TO ANYONE NOMINATED AT OR THROUGH A PRIMARY ELECTION IN
WHICH HE TOOK PART." 

AMENDED BY ACT 80 OF 1934, PROVIDES THAT "NO PERSON WHOSE NAME IS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO BE PRINTED ON THE OFFICIAL BALLOT, AS THE NOMINEE OF A
POLITICAL PARTY OR AS AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE, SHALL BE CONSIDERED A
CANDIDATE" UNLESS HE SHALL FILE IN THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE AT LEAST TEN
DAYS BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION A STATEMENT CONTAINING THE CORRECT
NAME UNDER WHICH HE IS TO BE VOTED FOR, AND CONTAINING THE FURTHER
STATEMENT THAT HE IS WILLING AND CONSENTS TO BE VOTED FOR FOR THAT
OFFICE.  THE ARTICLE ALSO PROVIDES THAT "NO COMMISSIONERS OF ELECTION
SHALL COUNT A BALLOT AS CAST FOR ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME IS NOT PRINTED
ON THE BALLOT OR WHO DOES NOT BECOME A CANDIDATE IN THE FOREGOING
MANNER."  APPLYING THESE PROVISIONS, THE LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE PARISH OF ORLEANS HAS HELD, IN SERPAS V. TREBUCQ, DECIDED APRIL 7,
1941, 1 SO.2D 346, REHEARING DENIED WITH OPINION APRIL 21, 1941, 1
SO.2D 705, THAT AN UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE AT THE PRIMARY MAY NOT OFFER
HIMSELF AS A CANDIDATE AT A GENERAL ELECTION, AND THAT VOTES FOR HIM
MAY NOT LAWFULLY BE WRITTEN INTO THE BALLOT OR COUNTED AT SUCH AN
ELECTION. 

THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS AT THE GENERAL
ELECTION IS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THUS RESTRICTED TO THE SUCCESSFUL
PARTY CANDIDATE AT THE PRIMARY, TO THOSE NOT CANDIDATES AT THE PRIMARY
WHO FILE NOMINATION PAPERS, AND THOSE WHOSE NAMES MAY BE LAWFULLY
WRITTEN INTO THE BALLOT BY THE ELECTORS.  EVEN IF, AS APPELLEES ARGUE,
CONTRARY TO THE DECISION IN SERPAS V. TREBUCQ, SUPRA, VOTERS MAY
LAWFULLY WRITE INTO THEIR BALLOTS, CAST AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, THE
NAME OF A CANDIDATE REJECTED AT THE PRIMARY AND HAVE THEIR BALLOTS
COUNTED, THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE PRIMARY LAW IN OTHERWISE
EXCLUDING FROM THE BALLOT ON THE GENERAL ELECTION THE NAMES OF
CANDIDATES REJECTED AT THE PRIMARY IS SUCH AS TO IMPOSE SERIOUS
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES BY THE VOTERS SAVE BY VOTING
AT THE PRIMARY ELECTION.  IN FACT, AS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT, THE
PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE PRIMARY IN LOUISIANA IS, AND HAS BEEN SINCE
THE PRIMARY ELECTION WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1900, TO SECURE THE ELECTION OF
THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY NOMINEE FOR THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF
LOUISIANA N2. 

INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY IN
THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT FOR THE CHOICE OF DEMOCRATIC
CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS IS THUS, AS A MATTER OF LAW AND IN FACT, AN
INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE CHOICE OF THE VOTERS AT THE ONLY STAGE
OF THE ELECTION PROCEDURE WHEN THEIR CHOICE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE, SINCE
IT IS AT THE ONLY STAGE WHEN SUCH INTERFERENCE COULD HAVE ANY PRACTICAL
EFFECT ON THE ULTIMATE RESULT, THE CHOICE OF THE CONGRESSMAN TO
REPRESENT THE DISTRICT.  THE PRIMARY IN LOUISIANA IS AN INTEGRAL PART
OF THE PROCEDURE FOR THE POPULAR CHOICE OF CONGRESSMAN.  THE RIGHT OF
QUALIFIED VOTERS TO VOTE AT THE CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY IN LOUISIANA AND
TO HAVE THEIR BALLOTS COUNTED IS THUS THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT
CHOICE. 

WE COME THEN TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT RIGHT IS ONE SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  SECTION 2 OF ARTICLE I COMMANDS THAT CONGRESSMEN SHALL
BE CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL STATES BY ELECTORS, THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF WHICH IT PRESCRIBES.  THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO
CHOOSE, WHATEVER ITS APPROPRIATE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, WHERE IN
OTHER RESPECTS IT IS DEFINED, AND THE MODE OF ITS EXERCISE IS
PRESCRIBED BY STATE ACTION IN CONFORMITY TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS A
RIGHT ESTABLISHED AND GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND HENCE IS ONE
SECURED BY IT TO THOSE CITIZENS AND INHABITANTS OF THE STATE ENTITLED
TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT.  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651; UNITED STATES
V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383.  AND SEE HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 508,
513, 526, 527, 529, GIVING THE SAME INTERPRETATION TO THE LIKE PHRASE
"RIGHTS" "SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION" APPEARING IN SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1871, 17 STAT. 13.  WHILE, IN A LOOSE SENSE, THE RIGHT TO
VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS IS SOMETIMES SPOKEN OF AS A RIGHT
DERIVED FROM THE STATES, SEE MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 21 WALL.  162, 170;
UNITED STATES V. REESE, 92 U.S. 214, 217-218; MCPHERSON V. BLACKER, 146
U.S. 1, 38-39; BREEDLOVE V. SUTTLES, 302 U.S. 277, 283, THIS STATEMENT
IS TRUE ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THE STATES ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, TO LEGISLATE ON THE SUBJECT AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 2 OF ART.
I, TO THE EXTENT THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT RESTRICTED STATE ACTION BY THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS TO REGULATE ELECTIONS UNDER SEC. 4 AND ITS MORE
GENERAL POWER UNDER ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 18 OF THE CONSTITUTION
"TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO
EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS."  SEE EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S. 371;
EX PARTE YARBROUGH, SUPRA, 663, 664; SWAFFORD V. TEMPLETON, 185 U.S.
487; WILEY V. SINKLER, 179 U.S. 58, 64. 

OBVIOUSLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE, SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, IS THE RIGHT OF QUALIFIED VOTERS WITHIN A STATE TO CAST
THEIR BALLOTS AND HAVE THEM COUNTED AT CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS.  THIS
COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THIS IS A RIGHT SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, SUPRA; WILEY V. SINKLER, SUPRA;
SWAFFORD V. TEMPLETON, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, SUPRA; SEE EX
PARTE SIEBOLD, SUPRA; IN RE COY, 127 U.S. 731; LOGAN V. UNITED STATES,
144 U.S. 263.  AND SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND IS WITHOUT
RESTRICTION OR LIMITATION, THE RIGHT, UNLIKE THOSE GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS, IS SECURED AGAINST THE ACTION OF
INDIVIDUALS AS WELL AS OF STATES.  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, SUPRA; LOGAN V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

BUT WE ARE NOW CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RIGHT TO
CHOOSE AT A PRIMARY ELECTION, A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION AS
REPRESENTATIVE, IS EMBRACED IN THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES
SECURED BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 2.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN ADOPTING THAT SECTION, DID NOT HAVE SPECIFICALLY IN
MIND THE SELECTION AND ELIMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS BY THE
DIRECT PRIMARY ANY MORE THAN THEY CONTEMPLATED THE APPLICATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE TO INTERSTATE TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH AND WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION, WHICH ARE CONCEDEDLY WITHIN IT.  BUT IN DETERMINING
WHETHER A PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO A NEW SUBJECT
MATTER, IT IS OF LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE THAT IT IS ONE WITH WHICH THE
FRAMERS WERE NOT FAMILIAR.  FOR IN SETTING UP AN ENDURING FRAMEWORK OF
GOVERNMENT THEY UNDERTOOK TO CARRY OUT FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE AND IN
ALL THE VICISSITUDES OF THE CHANGING AFFAIRS OF MEN, THOSE FUNDAMENTAL
PURPOSES WHICH THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF DISCLOSES.  HENCE WE READ ITS
WORDS, NOT AS WE READ LEGISLATIVE CODES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS
REVISION WITH THE CHANGING COURSE OF EVENTS, BUT AS THE REVELATION OF
THE GREAT PURPOSES WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AS A CONTINUING INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT.  CF. DAVIDSON V.
NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97; BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591, 595; ROBERTSON
V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282.  IF WE REMEMBER THAT "IT IS A
CONSTITUTION WE ARE EXPOUNDING," WE CANNOT RIGHTLY PREFER, OF THE
POSSIBLE MEANINGS OF ITS WORDS, THAT WHICH WILL DEFEAT RATHER THAN
EFFECTUATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE. 

THAT THE FREE CHOICE BY THE PEOPLE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS,
SUBJECT ONLY TO THE RESTRICTIONS TO BE FOUND IN SECS. 2 AND 4 OF
ARTICLE I AND ELSEWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, WAS ONE OF THE GREAT
PURPOSES OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 
WE CANNOT REGARD IT AS ANY THE LESS THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE, OR ITS
WORDS AS ANY THE LESS GUARANTYING THE INTEGRITY OF THAT CHOICE, WHEN A
STATE, EXERCISING ITS PRIVILEGE IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION,
CHANGES THE MODE OF CHOICE FROM A SINGLE STEP, A GENERAL ELECTION, TO
TWO, OF WHICH THE FIRST IS THE CHOICE AT A PRIMARY OF THOSE CANDIDATES
FROM WHOM, AS A SECOND STEP, THE REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS IS TO BE
CHOSEN AT THE ELECTION. 

NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THAT CHOICE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS IS
RESTRICTED TO THE SECOND STEP BECAUSE SEC. 4 OF ARTICLE I, AS A MEANS
OF SECURING A FREE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE PEOPLE, HAS
AUTHORIZED CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE MANNER OF ELECTIONS, WITHOUT MAKING
ANY MENTION OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS.  FOR WE THINK THAT THE AUTHORITY OF
CONGRESS, GIVEN BY SEC. 4, INCLUDES THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE PRIMARY
ELECTIONS WHEN, AS IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE A STEP IN THE EXERCISE BY THE
PEOPLE OF THEIR CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS.  THE POINT
WHETHER THE POWER CONFERRED BY SEC. 4 INCLUDES IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THE
POWER TO REGULATE PRIMARY ELECTIONS WAS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES V.
GRADWELL, SUPRA, 487.  IN NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, FOUR
JUSTICES OF THIS COURT WERE OF OPINION THAT THE TERM "ELECTIONS" IN
SEC. 4 OF ARTICLE I DID NOT EMBRACE A PRIMARY ELECTION, SINCE THAT
PROCEDURE WAS UNKNOWN TO THE FRAMERS.  A FIFTH JUSTICE, WHO WITH THEM
PRONOUNCED THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, WAS OF OPINION THAT A PRIMARY,
HELD UNDER A LAW ENACTED BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE SEVENTEENTH
AMENDMENT, FOR THE NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR SENATOR, WAS NOT AN
ELECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 4 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION,
PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THE CHOICE OF THE PRIMARY IMPOSED NO LEGAL
RESTRICTIONS ON THE ELECTION OF SENATORS BY THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO
WHICH THEIR ELECTION HAD BEEN COMMITTED BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 3.  THE
REMAINING FOUR JUSTICES WERE OF THE OPINION THAT A PRIMARY ELECTION FOR
THE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES FOR SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE WERE ELECTIONS
SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY CONGRESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 4 OF
ARTICLE I. THE QUESTION THEN HAS NOT BEEN PREJUDGED BY ANY DECISION OF
THIS COURT. 

TO DECIDE IT WE TURN TO THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION READ IN THEIR
HISTORICAL SETTING AS REVEALING THE PURPOSE OF ITS FRAMERS, AND SEARCH
FOR ADMISSIBLE MEANINGS OF ITS WORDS WHICH, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THEIR APPLICATION, WILL EFFECTUATE THOSE PURPOSES.  AS WE HAVE SAID, A
DOMINANT PURPOSE OF SEC. 2, SO FAR AS THE SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IN CONGRESS IS CONCERNED, WAS TO SECURE TO THE PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO
CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES BY THE DESIGNATED ELECTORS, THAT IS TO SAY, BY
SOME FORM OF ELECTION.  CF. THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT AS TO POPULAR
"ELECTION" OF SENATORS.  FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL AN ELECTION TO PUBLIC
OFFICE HAS BEEN IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE NO MORE AND NO LESS THAN THE
EXPRESSION BY QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THEIR CHOICE OF CANDIDATES. 

LONG BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION THE FORM AND MODE OF
THAT EXPRESSION HAD CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME.  THERE IS NO HISTORICAL
WARRANT FOR SUPPOSING THAT THE FRAMERS WERE UNDER THE ILLUSION THAT THE
METHOD OF EFFECTING THE CHOICE OF THE ELECTORS WOULD NEVER CHANGE OR
THAT, IF IT DID, THE CHANGE WAS FOR THAT REASON TO BE PERMITTED TO
DEFEAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES FOR CONGRESS
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAD GUARANTEED.  THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CONGRESS INCLUDES, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE
RIGHT TO CAST A BALLOT AND TO HAVE IT COUNTED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION,
WHETHER FOR THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE OR NOT.  WHERE THE STATE LAW HAS
MADE THE PRIMARY AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROCEDURE OF CHOICE, OR WHERE
IN FACT THE PRIMARY EFFECTIVELY CONTROLS THE CHOICE, THE RIGHT OF THE
ELECTOR TO HAVE HIS BALLOT COUNTED AT THE PRIMARY IS LIKEWISE INCLUDED
IN THE RIGHT PROTECTED BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 2.  AND THIS RIGHT OF
PARTICIPATION IS PROTECTED JUST AS IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE AT THE
ELECTION, WHERE THE PRIMARY IS BY LAW MADE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
ELECTION MACHINERY, WHETHER THE VOTER EXERCISES HIS RIGHT IN A PARTY
PRIMARY WHICH INVARIABLY, SOMETIMES OR NEVER DETERMINES THE ULTIMATE
CHOICE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE.  HERE, EVEN APART FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT THE LOUISIANA PRIMARY IS MADE BY LAW AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
PROCEDURE OF CHOICE, THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE A REPRESENTATIVE IS IN FACT
CONTROLLED BY THE PRIMARY BECAUSE, AS IS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT, THE
CHOICE OF CANDIDATES AT THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY DETERMINES THE CHOICE OF
THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE.  MOREOVER, WE CANNOT CLOSE OUR EYES TO THE
FACT, ALREADY MENTIONED, THAT THE PRACTICAL INFLUENCE OF THE CHOICE OF
CANDIDATES AT THE PRIMARY MAY BE SO GREAT AS TO AFFECT PROFOUNDLY THE
CHOICE AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO EFFECTIVE LEGAL
PROHIBITION UPON THE REJECTION AT THE ELECTION OF THE CHOICE MADE AT
THE PRIMARY, AND MAY THUS OPERATE TO DEPRIVE THE VOTER OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF CHOICE.  THIS WAS NOTED AND EXTENSIVELY
COMMENTED UPON BY THE CONCURRING JUSTICES IN NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 263-269, 285, 287. 

UNLESS THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE INTEGRITY OF "ELECTIONS"
EXTENDS TO PRIMARY ELECTIONS, CONGRESS IS LEFT POWERLESS TO EFFECT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE, AND THE POPULAR CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS
STRIPPED OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION SAVE ONLY AS CONGRESS, BY
TAKING OVER THE CONTROL OF STATE ELECTIONS, MAY EXCLUDE FROM THEM THE
INFLUENCE OF THE STATE PRIMARIES.  FN3  SUCH AN EXPEDIENT WOULD END
THAT STATE AUTONOMY WITH RESPECT TO ELECTIONS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
CONTEMPLATED THAT CONGRESS SHOULD BE FREE TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED, SUBJECT
ONLY TO SUCH MINIMUM REGULATION AS IT SHOULD FIND NECESSARY TO INSURE
THE FREEDOM AND INTEGRITY OF THE CHOICE.  WORDS, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF A
CONSTITUTION, ARE NOT TO BE READ WITH SUCH STULTIFYING NARROWNESS.  THE
WORDS OF SECS. 2 AND 4 OF ARTICLE I, READ IN THE SENSE WHICH IS PLAINLY
PERMISSIBLE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE, REQUIRE US
TO HOLD THAT A PRIMARY ELECTION WHICH INVOLVES A NECESSARY STEP IN THE
CHOICE OF CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION AS REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS, AND
WHICH IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE CONTROLS THAT CHOICE, IS AN
ELECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND IS
SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION AS TO THE MANNER OF HOLDING IT. 

NOT ONLY DOES SEC. 4 OF ARTICLE I AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE
MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS, BUT BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 18,
CONGRESS IS GIVEN AUTHORITY "TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY
AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS AND ALL
OTHER POWERS VESTED BY THIS CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OR IN ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER THEREOF."  THIS PROVISION
LEAVES TO THE CONGRESS THE CHOICE OF MEANS BY WHICH ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWERS ARE TO BE CARRIED INTO EXECUTION.  "LET THE END BE LEGITIMATE;
LET IT BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND ALL MEANS WHICH ARE
APPROPRIATE, WHICH ARE PLAINLY ADAPTED TO THAT END, WHICH ARE NOT
PROHIBITED, BUT CONSIST WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION,
ARE CONSTITUTIONAL."  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 421.  THAT
PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO AND LIBERALLY APPLIED, AND
EXTENDS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER BY APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION TO
SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT OF CHOICE BY THE PEOPLE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN
CONGRESS, SECURED BY SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE I. EX PARTE YARBROUGH, SUPRA,
657, 658; CF. SECOND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 49; HOUSTON
& TEXAS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342, 350, 355; WILSON V.
NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 346, 347; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. UNION TRUST CO.,
244 U.S. 416, 419; SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366, 381; UNITED
STATES V. FERGER, 250 U.S. 199, 205; HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES
CO., 251 U.S. 146, 155, 163; JACOB RUPPERT V. CAFFEY, 251 U.S. 264;
SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE & TRUST CO., 255 U.S. 180; UNITED STATES V.
DARBY, 312 U.S. 100, AND CASES CITED. 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER SECS. 19 AND 20 ARE AN EXERCISE OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY APPLICABLE TO THE ACTS WITH WHICH APPELLEES
ARE CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT.  SECTION 19 MAKES IT A CRIME TO CONSPIRE
TO "INJURE" OR "OPPRESS" ANY CITIZEN "IN THE FREE EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT
OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION."  N4  IN
EX PARTE YARBROUGH, SUPRA, AND IN UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, SUPRA, AS WE
HAVE SEEN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN A CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTION IS A RIGHT SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND THAT A CONSPIRACY
TO PREVENT THE CITIZEN FROM VOTING, OR TO PREVENT THE OFFICIAL COUNT OF
HIS BALLOT WHEN CAST, IS A CONSPIRACY TO INJURE AND OPPRESS THE CITIZEN
IN THE FREE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 19.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION THE COURT FOUND NO
UNCERTAINTY OR AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE, OBVIOUSLY DEVISED
TO PROTECT THE CITIZEN "IN THE FREE EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT
OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION," AND CONCERNED ITSELF
WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN CHOOSING A
REPRESENTATIVE IS SO SECURED.  FN5  SUCH IS OUR FUNCTION HERE. 
CONSPIRACY TO PREVENT THE OFFICIAL COUNT OF A CITIZEN'S BALLOT, HELD IN
UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, SUPRA, TO BE A VIOLATION OF SEC. 19 IN THE
CASE OF A CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION, IS EQUALLY A CONSPIRACY TO INJURE AND
OPPRESS THE CITIZEN WHEN THE BALLOTS ARE CAST IN A PRIMARY ELECTION
PREREQUISITE TO THE CHOICE OF PARTY CANDIDATES FOR A CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTION.  IN BOTH CASES THE RIGHT INFRINGED IS ONE SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  THE INJURY SUFFERED BY THE CITIZEN IN THE EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHT IS AN INJURY WHICH THE STATUTE DESCRIBES AND TO WHICH IT
APPLIES IN THE ONE CASE AS IN THE OTHER. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT SEC. 19, CONCEDEDLY APPLICABLE TO CONSPIRACIES TO
DEPRIVE ELECTORS OF THEIR VOTES AT CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, IS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO BE DEEMED APPLICABLE TO PRIMARY ELECTIONS,
WILL HARDLY BEAR EXAMINATION.  SECTION 19 SPEAKS NEITHER OF ELECTIONS
NOR OF PRIMARIES.  IN UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE IT PROTECTS "ANY RIGHT OR
PRIVILEGE SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION," A PHRASE WHICH, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, EXTENDS TO THE RIGHT OF THE VOTER TO HAVE HIS VOTE COUNTED IN
BOTH THE GENERAL ELECTION AND IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION, WHERE THE LATTER
IS A PART OF THE ELECTION MACHINERY, AS WELL AS TO NUMEROUS OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHICH ARE WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE CHOICE OF A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES V. WADDELL, 112 U.S. 76;
LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263; IN RE QUARLES, 158 U.S. 532;
MOTES V. UNITED STATES, 178 U.S. 458; GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S.
347. 

IN THE FACE OF THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, WE ARE POINTED TO
NO PRINCIPLE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND TO NO SIGNIFICANT
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH COULD BE THOUGHT TO SANCTION OUR SAYING THAT
THE STATUTE APPLIES ANY THE LESS TO PRIMARIES THAN TO ELECTIONS, WHERE
IN ONE AS IN THE OTHER IT IS THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WHICH IS
INFRINGED.  IT DOES NOT AVAIL TO ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THE PROTECTION
AFFORDED BY SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871,  FN6  TO THE RIGHT
TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY AS WELL AS GENERAL ELECTIONS SECURED TO ALL
CITIZENS BY THE CONSTITUTION, SEE GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347;
NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536; NIXON V. CONDON, 286 U.S. 73; LANE V.
WILSON, 307 U.S. 268, ON THE GROUND THAT IN THOSE CASES THE INJURED
CITIZENS WERE NEGROES WHOSE RIGHTS WERE CLEARLY PROTECTED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AT LEAST SINCE EX PARTE YARBROUGH, SUPRA, AND NO
MEMBER OF THE COURT SEEMS EVER TO HAVE QUESTIONED IT, THE RIGHT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED AS A RIGHT PROTECTED BY ART. I, SECS. 2 AND 4 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  FN7  DIFFERENCES OF OPINION HAVE ARISEN AS TO THE EFFECT
OF THE PRIMARY IN PARTICULAR CASES ON THE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
BUT WE ARE TROUBLED BY NO SUCH DOUBT HERE.  HENCE, THE RIGHT TO
PARTICIPATE THROUGH THE PRIMARY IN THE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN
CONGRESS - A RIGHT CLEARLY SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION - IS WITHIN THE
WORDS AND PURPOSE OF SEC. 19 IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT
AS THE RIGHT TO VOTE AT THE GENERAL ELECTION.  UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY,
SUPRA.  IT IS NO EXTENSION OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE, AS IT WAS NOT OF
THE CIVIL STATUTE IN NIXON V. HERNDON, SUPRA, TO FIND A VIOLATION OF IT
IN A NEW METHOD OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT WHICH ITS WORDS
PROTECT.  FOR IT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD
OF INTERFERENCE, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE STATUTE AND WHICH IN
PRECISE TERMS IT PROTECTS FROM INJURY AND OPPRESSION.    IT IS HARDLY
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION TO CONSTRUE A STATUTE, WHICH
IN TERMS PROTECTS A RIGHT SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, HERE THE RIGHT
TO CHOOSE A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, AS APPLYING TO AN ELECTION
WHOSE ONLY FUNCTION IS TO RATIFY A CHOICE ALREADY MADE AT THE PRIMARY,
BUT AS HAVING NO APPLICATION TO THE PRIMARY WHICH IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF CHOICE.  TO WITHDRAW FROM THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE AN
EFFECTIVE INTERFERENCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF CHOICE, BECAUSE
OTHER WHOLLY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS NOT NOW BEFORE US MAY NOT BE FOUND TO
INVOLVE SUCH AN INTERFERENCE, CF. UNITED STATES V. BATHGATE, 246 U.S.
220; UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476, IS TO SAY THAT ACTS
PLAINLY WITHIN THE STATUTE SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE WITHOUT IT BECAUSE
OTHER HYPOTHETICAL CASES MAY LATER BE FOUND NOT TO INFRINGE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WITH WHICH ALONE THE STATUTE IS CONCERNED. 

IF A RIGHT SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION MAY BE INFRINGED BY THE
CORRUPT FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE VOTE AT A PRIMARY IN THE OFFICIAL COUNT,
IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT THAT THE PRIMARY, LIKE THE VOTING MACHINE, WAS
UNKNOWN WHEN SEC. 19 WAS ADOPTED.  FN8  ABUSE OF EITHER MAY INFRINGE
THE RIGHT AND THEREFORE VIOLATE SEC. 19.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PLEVA,
66 F.2D 529, 530; CF. BROWDER V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 335.  NOR DOES
THE FACT THAT IN CIRCUMSTANCES NOT HERE PRESENT THERE MAY BE DIFFICULTY
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PRIMARY SO AFFECTS THE RIGHT OF THE CHOICE
AS TO BRING IT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, AFFORD ANY GROUND
FOR DOUBTING THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE ONCE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS RESOLVED.  THAT DIFFICULTY IS INHERENT IN
THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION OF EVERY FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATUTE, FOR
NONE, WHATEVER ITS TERMS, CAN BE APPLIED BEYOND THE REACH OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL POWER WHICH THE CONSTITUTION CONFERS.  STANDARD SANITARY
MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20; HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S.
308; NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373; UNITED STATES V. FREEMAN, 239
U.S. 117; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100. 

THE RIGHT OF THE VOTERS AT THE PRIMARY TO HAVE THEIR VOTES COUNTED
IS, AS WE HAVE STATED, A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, AND TO THIS SEC. 20 ALSO GIVES PROTECTION.  FN9 THE
ALLEGED ACTS OF APPELLEES WERE COMMITTED IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES UNDER THE LOUISIANA STATUTE REQUIRING THEM TO
COUNT THE BALLOTS, TO RECORD THE RESULT OF THE COUNT, AND TO CERTIFY
THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION.  MISUSE OF POWER, POSSESSED BY VIRTUE OF
STATE LAW AND MADE POSSIBLE ONLY BECAUSE THE WRONGDOER IS CLOTHED WITH
THE AUTHORITY OF STATE LAW, IS ACTION TAKEN "UNDER COLOR OF" STATE
LAW.  EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, 346; HOME TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH
CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S. 278, 287, ET SEQ.; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307
U.S. 496, 507, 519; CF. 101 F.2D 774, 790.  HERE THE ACTS OF APPELLEES
INFRINGED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND DEPRIVED THE VOTERS OF THE
BENEFIT OF IT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 20, UNLESS BY ITS TERMS ITS
APPLICATION IS RESTRICTED TO DEPRIVATIONS "ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH
INHABITANT BEING AN ALIEN OR BY REASON OF HIS COLOR, OR RACE." 

THE LAST CLAUSE OF SEC. 20 PROTECTS INHABITANTS OF A STATE FROM BEING
SUBJECTED TO DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS, PAINS OR PENALTIES, BY REASON OF
ALIENAGE, COLOR OR RACE, THAN ARE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF
CITIZENS.  THAT THE QUALIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ALIENAGE, COLOR AND
RACE, REFERS ONLY TO DIFFERENCES IN PUNISHMENT AND NOT TO DEPRIVATIONS
OF ANY RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IS EVIDENCED
BY THE STRUCTURE OF THE SECTION AND THE NECESSITIES OF THE PRACTICAL
APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS.  THE QUALIFICATION AS TO ALIENAGE, COLOR
AND RACE, IS A PARENTHETICAL PHRASE IN THE CLAUSE PENALIZING DIFFERENT
PUNISHMENTS "THAN ARE PRESCRIBED FOR CITIZENS," AND IN THE COMMON USE
OF LANGUAGE COULD REFER ONLY TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CLAUSE AND
NOT TO THAT OF THE EARLIER ONE RELATING TO THE DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS TO
WHICH IT MAKES NO REFERENCE IN TERMS. 

MOREOVER, THE PROHIBITED DIFFERENCES OF PUNISHMENT ON ACCOUNT OF
ALIENAGE, COLOR OR RACE, ARE THOSE REFERABLE TO PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENTS
WHICH ARE TO BE COMPARED WITH THOSE PRESCRIBED FOR CITIZENS.  A
STANDARD IS THUS SET UP APPLICABLE TO DIFFERENCES IN PRESCRIBED
PUNISHMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ALIENAGE, COLOR OR RACE, WHICH IT WOULD BE
DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO APPLY TO THE WILLFUL DEPRIVATIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY
ARE ON ACCOUNT OF ALIENAGE, COLOR OR RACE.  WE THINK THAT SEC. 20
AUTHORIZES THE PUNISHMENT OF TWO DIFFERENT OFFENSES.  THE ONE IS
WILLFULLY SUBJECTING ANY INHABITANT TO THE DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION; THE OTHER IS WILLFULLY SUBJECTING ANY
INHABITANT TO DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ALIENAGE, COLOR
OR RACE, THAN ARE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF CITIZENS.  THE
MEAGER LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION. 
FN10 

SO INTERPRETED, SEC. 20 APPLIES TO DEPRIVATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF QUALIFIED VOTERS TO CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS.  THE
GENERALITY OF THE SECTION, MADE APPLICABLE AS IT IS TO DEPRIVATIONS OF
ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, DOES NOT OBSCURE ITS MEANING OR IMPAIR ITS
FORCE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS APPLICATION, WHICH IS RESTRICTED BY ITS
TERMS TO DEPRIVATIONS WHICH ARE WILLFULLY INFLICTED BY THOSE ACTING
UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE AND THE LIKE. 

WE DO NOT DISCUSS THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 20 TO DEPRIVATIONS OF THE
RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, A POINT APPARENTLY RAISED AND DISCUSSED FOR THE FIRST TIME
IN THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF IN THIS COURT.  THE POINT WAS NOT SPECIALLY
CONSIDERED OR DECIDED BY THE COURT BELOW, AND HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED AS
ERROR BY THE GOVERNMENT.  SINCE THE INDICTMENT ON ITS FACE DOES NOT
PURPORT TO CHARGE A DEPRIVATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION TO VOTERS OR
CANDIDATES, WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO CONSTRUE THE INDICTMENT IN ORDER
TO RAISE A QUESTION OF STATUTORY VALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE ARE
ALONE AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW UPON THIS APPEAL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE BALLOTS ARE PRINTED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE, SEC. 35 OF ACT NO.
46, REGULAR SESSION, 1940, ARE FURNISHED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
SEC. 36 IN A FORM PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, SEC. 37.  CLOSE SUPERVISION OF
THE DELIVERY OF THE BALLOTS TO THE ELECTION COMMISSIONERS IS
PRESCRIBED, SECS. 43-46.  THE POLLING PLACES ARE REQUIRED TO BE
EQUIPPED TO SECURE SECRECY, SECS. 48-50; SECS. 54-57.  THE SELECTION OF
ELECTION COMMISSIONERS IS PRESCRIBED, SEC. 61 AND THEIR DUTIES
DETAILED.  THE COMMISSIONERS MUST SWEAR TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION
IMPARTIALLY, SEC. 64 AND ARE SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT FOR DELIBERATELY
FALSIFYING THE RETURNS OR DESTROYING THE LISTS AND BALLOTS, SECS. 98,
99.  THEY MUST IDENTIFY BY CERTIFICATE THE BALLOT BOXES USED, SEC. 67,
KEEP A TRIPLICATE LIST OF VOTERS, SEC. 68, PUBLICLY CANVASS THE RETURN,
SEC. 74 AND CERTIFY THE SAME TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, SEC. 75. 

FN2  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE PRIMARY IN
CONTROLLING OR RESTRICTING ELECTION OF CANDIDATES AT GENERAL ELECTIONS,
SEE, HASBROUCK, PARTY GOVERNMENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (1927)
172, 176, 177; MERRIAM AND OVERACKER, PRIMARY ELECTIONS (1928) 267-269;
STONEY, SUFFRAGE IN THE SOUTH; 29 SURVEY GRAPHIC, 163, 164. 

FN3  CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THE EFFECT OF PRIMARIES ON THE FREE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE REPRESENTATIVES, FOR IT HAS
INQUIRED INTO FRAUDS AT PRIMARIES AS WELL AS AT THE GENERAL ELECTIONS
IN JUDGING THE "ELECTIONS RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ITS OWN
MEMBERS," ART. I, SEC. 5.  SEE GRACE V. WHALEY, H. REPT. NO. 158, 63D
CONG., 2D SESS.; PEDDY V. MAYFIELD, S. REPT. NO. 973, 68TH CONG., 2D
SESS.; WILSON V. VARE, S. REPT. NO. 1858, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS., S.
REPT. NO. 47, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS., AND S. RES. 111, 71ST CONG., 2D
SESS. 

SEE ALSO INVESTIGATION OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES IN THE 1940 CAMPAIGN,
S. REPT. NO. 47, 77TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 48 ET SEQ. 

FN4  SECTION 19 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE (U.S.C., TITLE 18, SEC. 51): 

"IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE TO INJURE, OPPRESS, THREATEN, OR
INTIMIDATE ANY CITIZEN IN THE FREE EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT
OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR BECAUSE OF HIS HAVING SO EXERCISED THE SAME, OR IF TWO OR
MORE PERSONS GO IN DISGUISE ON THE HIGHWAY, OR ON THE PREMISES OF
ANOTHER, WITH INTENT TO PREVENT OR HINDER HIS FREE EXERCISE OR
ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SO SECURED, THEY SHALL BE FINED NOT
MORE THAN $5,000 AND IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS, AND SHALL,
MOREOVER, BE THEREAFTER INELIGIBLE TO ANY OFFICE, OR PLACE OF HONOR,
PROFIT, OR TRUST CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES."  (R.S. SEC. 5508; MAR. 4, 1909, C. 321, SEC. 19, 35 STAT.
1092.) 

FN5  IN UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383, 386, THE COURT THOUGHT
THAT "MANIFESTLY THE WORDS ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER THE CASE," IT
CANVASSED AT LENGTH THE OBJECTIONS THAT SEC. 19 WAS NEVER INTENDED TO
APPLY TO CRIMES AGAINST THE FRANCHISE, AND THE OTHER CONTENTION, WHICH
IT ALSO REJECTED, THAT SEC. 19 HAD BEEN REPEALED OR SO RESTRICTED AS
NOT TO APPLY TO OFFENSES OF THAT CLASS.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REPEAT
THAT DISCUSSION HERE. 

FN6  SECTION 1 NOW READS, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43:  "EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER
COLOR OF ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM OR USAGE, OF ANY
STATE OR TERRITORY, SUBJECTS OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO
THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN
ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR
REDRESS." 

FN7  SEE E.G. GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347; UNITED STATES V.
O'TOOLE, 236 F. 993, AFF'D UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476;
ACZEL V. UNITED STATES, 232 F. 652; FELIX V. UNITED STATES, 186 F. 685;
KAREM V. UNITED STATES, 121 F. 250; WALKER V. UNITED STATES, 93 F.2D
383; LUTERAN V. UNITED STATES, 93 F.2D 395. 

FN8  NO CONCLUSION IS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE FAILURE OF THE HATCH ACT,
53 STAT. 1147, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 61, TO ENLARGE SEC. 19 BY PROVISIONS
SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO PRIMARIES.  ITS FAILURE TO DEAL WITH THE
SUBJECT SEEMS TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBTS, STIMULATED
BY NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 232, WHICH ARE HERE RESOLVED. 
SEE 84 CONG. REC., 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4191; CF. INVESTIGATION OF
CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES IN THE 1940 CAMPAIGN, S. REPT. NO. 47, 77TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 48. 

FN9  SECTION 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE (U.S.C., TITLE 18 SEC. 52): 

"WHOEVER, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR
CUSTOM, WILLFULLY SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY INHABITANT
OF ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR DISTRICT TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS, PAINS, OR
PENALTIES, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INHABITANT BEING AN ALIEN, OR BY REASON
OF HIS COLOR, OR RACE, THAN ARE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF
CITIZENS, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE
THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH."  (R.S. SEC. 5510; MAR. 4, 1909, C. 321, SEC.
20, 35 STAT. 1092.) 

FN10  THE PRECURSOR OF SEC. 20 WAS SEC. 2 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
APRIL 9, 1866, 14 STAT. 27, WHICH READS: 

"THAT ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, OR CUSTOM, SHALL SUBJECT, OR CAUSE TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY
INHABITANT OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHT
SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THIS ACT, OR TO DIFFERENT PUNISHMENT, PAINS, OR
PENALTIES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PERSON HAVING AT ANY TIME BEEN HELD IN A
CONDITION OF SLAVERY OR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT
FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, OR BY
REASON OF HIS COLOR OR RACE, THAN IS PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF
WHITE PERSONS, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON
CONVICTION SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE.  ...  " 

THIS SECTION, SO FAR AS NOW MATERIAL, WAS IN SUBSTANCE THE SAME AS
SEC. 20 EXCEPT THAT THE QUALIFYING REFERENCE TO DIFFERENCES IN
PUNISHMENT MADE NO MENTION OF ALIENAGE, THE REFERENCE BEING TO
"DIFFERENT PUNISHMENT  ... ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PERSON HAVING AT ANY TIME
BEEN HELD IN A CONDITION OF SLAVERY OR INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE." 

SENATOR TRUMBULL, THE PUTATIVE AUTHOR OF S. 61, 39TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL OF 1866, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED THE BILL, IN EXPLAINING IT STATED
THAT THE BILL WAS "TO PROTECT ALL PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES IN THEIR
CIVIL RIGHTS, AND FURNISH THE MEANS OF THEIR VINDICATION.  ...  "
CONG.  GLOBE, 39TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 211.  HE ALSO DECLARED, "THE
BILL APPLIES TO WHITE MEN AS WELL AS BLACK MEN."  CONG. GLOBE, 39TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 599.  OPPONENTS OF THE BILL AGREED WITH THIS
CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE SECTION, DECLARING THAT IT
REFERRED TO THE DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL INHABITANTS
OF THE STATES OF EVERY RACE AND COLOR.  PP. 598, 601. 

ON FEBRUARY 24, 1870, SENATOR STEWART OF NEVADA, INTRODUCED S. 365,
41ST CONG., 2D SESS., SEC. 2 OF WHICH READ: 

"THAT ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, OR CUSTOM SHALL SUBJECT, OR CAUSE TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY
INHABITANT OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHT
SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THIS ACT, OR TO DIFFERENT PUNISHMENT, PAINS, OR
PENALTIES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PERSON BEING AN ALIEN, OR BY REASON OF HIS
COLOR OR RACE, THAN IS PRESCRIBED FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF WHITE PERSONS,
SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR.  ...  "    IN EXPLAINING THE
BILL HE DECLARED, CONG. GLOBE, 41ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 1536, THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS TO EXTEND ITS BENEFITS TO ALIENS, SAYING, "IT
EXTENDS THE OPERATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL, WHICH IS WELL KNOWN IN
THE SENATE AND TO THE COUNTRY, TO ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE COMMITTEE REPORTED OUT A SUBSTITUTE BILL TO
H.R. 1293, TO WHICH S. 365 WAS ADDED AS AN AMENDMENT.  AS SO AMENDED
THE BILL WHEN ADOPTED BECAME THE PRESENT SEC. 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
WHICH READ EXACTLY AS DID SEC. 2 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, EXCEPT THAT
THE WORD "ALIENS" WAS ADDED AND THE WORD "CITIZENS" WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR
THE PHRASE "WHITE PERSONS."    WHILE THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES
THAT THE IMMEDIATE OCCASION FOR THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 20, LIKE THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ITSELF, WAS THE MORE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF THE
COLORED RACE AND THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS, IT SHOWS THAT NEITHER WAS
RESTRICTED TO THE PURPOSE AND THAT THE FIRST CLAUSE OF SEC. 20 WAS
INTENDED TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL INHABITANTS OF THE
STATES.  H.R. 1293, 41ST CONG., 2D SESS., WHICH WAS LATER AMENDED IN
THE SENATE TO INCLUDE SEC. 2 OF S. 365 AS SEC. 17 OF THE BILL AS IT
PASSED, NOW SEC. 20 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, WAS ORIGINALLY ENTITLED "A
BILL TO ENFORCE THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE IN
THE SEVERAL STATES OF THIS UNION, WHO HAVE HITHERTO BEEN DENIED THAT
RIGHT ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE." 
WHEN THE BILL CAME TO THE SENATE ITS TITLE WAS AMENDED AND ADOPTED TO
READ, "A BILL TO ENFORCE THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
VOTE IN THE SEVERAL STATES OF THIS UNION AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

FREE AND HONEST ELECTIONS ARE THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR REPUBLICAN
FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  HENCE ANY ATTEMPT TO DEFILE THE SANCTITY OF THE
BALLOT CANNOT BE VIEWED WITH EQUANIMITY.  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE
MILLER IN EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651, 666, "THE TEMPTATIONS TO
CONTROL THESE ELECTIONS BY VIOLENCE AND CORRUPTION" HAVE BEEN A
CONSTANT SOURCE OF DANGER IN THE HISTORY OF ALL REPUBLICS.  THE ACTS
HERE CHARGED, IF PROVEN, ARE OF A KIND WHICH CARRIES THAT THREAT AND
ARE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE.  SINCE THEY CORRUPT THE PROCESS OF CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTIONS, THEY TRANSCEND MERE LOCAL CONCERN AND EXTEND A CONTAMINATING
INFLUENCE INTO THE NATIONAL DOMAIN. 

I THINK CONGRESS HAS AMPLE POWER TO DEAL WITH THEM.  THAT IS TO SAY,
I DISAGREE WITH NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 232, TO THE EXTENT
THAT IT HOLDS THAT CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO CONTROL PRIMARY ELECTIONS. 
ART. I, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE COMPOSED OF MEMBERS CHOSEN EVERY SECOND YEAR
BY THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL STATES."  ART. I, SEC. 4 PROVIDES THAT
"THE TIMES, PLACES AND MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS FOR SENATORS AND
REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL BE PRESCRIBED IN EACH STATE BY THE LEGISLATURE
THEREOF; BUT THE CONGRESS MAY AT ANY TIME BY LAW MAKE OR ALTER SUCH
REGULATIONS, EXCEPT AS TO THE PLACES OF CHUSING SENATORS."  AND ART. I,
SEC. 8, CLAUSE 18 GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER "TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH
SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING
POWERS, AND ALL OTHER POWERS VESTED BY THIS CONSTITUTION IN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR IN ANY DEPARTMENT OR OFFICER
THEREOF."  THOSE SECTIONS ARE AN ARSENAL OF POWER AMPLE TO PROTECT
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS FROM ANY AND ALL FORMS OF POLLUTION.  THE FACT
THAT A PARTICULAR FORM OF POLLUTION HAS ONLY AN INDIRECT EFFECT ON THE
FINAL ELECTION IS IMMATERIAL.  THE FACT THAT IT OCCURS IN A PRIMARY
ELECTION OR NOMINATING CONVENTION IS LIKEWISE IRRELEVANT.  THE
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE INTERPRETED
BROADLY SO AS TO GIVE TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF A FREE PEOPLE ABUNDANT
POWER TO DEAL WITH ALL THE EXIGENCIES OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.  IT
MEANS THAT THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE READ SO AS TO GIVE CONGRESS AN
EXPANSIVE IMPLIED POWER TO PLACE BEYOND THE PALE ACTS WHICH, IN THEIR
DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECT, IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF CONGRESSIONAL
ELECTIONS.  FOR WHEN CORRUPTION ENTERS, THE ELECTION IS NO LONGER FREE,
THE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE IS AFFECTED.  TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS IS
POWERLESS TO CONTROL THESE PRIMARIES WOULD INDEED BE A NARROW
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, INCONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW THAT THAT
INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT WAS DESIGNED NOT ONLY FOR CONTEMPORARY NEEDS
BUT FOR THE VICISSITUDES OF TIME. 

SO I AGREE WITH MOST OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT.  AND IT IS WITH DIFFIDENCE THAT I DISSENT FROM THE RESULT THERE
REACHED. 

THE DISAGREEMENT CENTERS ON THE MEANING OF SEC. 19 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, WHICH PROTECTS EVERY RIGHT SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
RIGHT TO VOTE AT A FINAL CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION AND THE RIGHT TO HAVE
ONE'S VOTE COUNTED IN SUCH AN ELECTION HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE PROTECTED
BY SEC. 19.  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238
U.S. 383.  YET I DO NOT THINK THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF THOSE CASES SHOULD
BE, OR PROPERLY CAN BE, EXTENDED TO PRIMARY ELECTIONS.  TO SUSTAIN THIS
INDICTMENT WE MUST SO EXTEND THEM.  BUT WHEN WE DO, WE ENTER PERILOUS
TERRITORY. 

WE ENTER PERILOUS TERRITORY BECAUSE, AS STATED IN UNITED STATES V.
GRADWELL, 243 U.S. 476, 485, THERE IS NO COMMON LAW OFFENSE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES; "THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE UNION MUST MAKE AN ACT
A CRIME, AFFIX A PUNISHMENT TO IT, AND DECLARE THE COURT THAT SHALL
HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE OFFENCE."  UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 7 CRANCH
32, 34.  IF A PERSON IS TO BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME, THE OFFENSE MUST BE
CLEARLY AND PLAINLY EMBRACED WITHIN THE STATUTE.  AS STATED BY CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL IN UNITED STATES V. WILTBERGER, 5 WHEAT.  76, 105,
"PROBABILITY IS NOT A GUIDE WHICH A COURT, IN CONSTRUING A PENAL
STATUTE, CAN SAFELY TAKE."  IT IS ONE THING TO ALLOW WIDE AND GENEROUS
SCOPE TO THE EXPRESS AND IMPLIED POWERS OF CONGRESS; IT IS DISTINCTLY
ANOTHER TO READ INTO THE VAGUE AND GENERAL LANGUAGE OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS SPECIFICATIONS OF CRIMES.  WE SHOULD EVER BE MINDFUL THAT
"BEFORE A MAN CAN BE PUNISHED, HIS CASE MUST BE PLAINLY AND
UNMISTAKABLY WITHIN THE STATUTE."  UNITED STATES V. LACHER, 134 U.S.
624, 628.  THAT ADMONITION IS REEMPHASIZED HERE BY THE FACT THAT SEC.
19 IMPOSES NOT ONLY A FINE OF $5,000 AND TEN YEARS IN PRISON, BUT ALSO
MAKES HIM WHO IS CONVICTED "INELIGIBLE TO ANY OFFICE, OR PLACE OF
HONOR, PROFIT, OR TRUST CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES."  IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR US TO FIND IN THE VAGUE PENUMBRA
OF A STATUTE SOME OFFENSE ABOUT WHICH CONGRESS COULD HAVE LEGISLATED,
AND THEN TO PARTICULARIZE IT AS A CRIME BECAUSE IT IS HIGHLY
OFFENSIVE.  CF. JAMES V. BOWMAN, 190 U.S. 127.  CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE TOO
DEAR TO PERMIT CONVICTION FOR CRIMES WHICH ARE ONLY IMPLIED AND WHICH
CAN BE SPELLED OUT ONLY BY ADDING INFERENCE TO INFERENCE. 

SEC. 19 DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE AN EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS POWER
TO REGULATE PRIMARIES.  IT MERELY PENALIZES CONSPIRACIES "TO INJURE,
OPPRESS, THREATEN, OR INTIMIDATE ANY CITIZEN IN THE FREE EXERCISE OR
ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE SECURED TO HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION
OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  THUS, IT DOES NO MORE THAN REFER US TO
THE CONSTITUTION  FN1  FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT
THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN A PRIMARY IS THERE SECURED.  HENCE WE MUST DO MORE
THAN FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO AFFORD THAT
PROTECTION.  WE MUST FIND THAT PROTECTION ON THE FACE OF THE
CONSTITUTION ITSELF.  THAT IS TO SAY, WE MUST IN VIEW OF THE WORDING OF
SEC. 19 READ THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THROUGH THE WINDOW OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE. 

THERE CAN BE PUT TO ONE SIDE CASES WHERE STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS
DEPRIVE NEGRO CITIZENS OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE AT A GENERAL ELECTION
(GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347), OR AT A PRIMARY.  NIXON V.
HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536; NIXON V. CONDON, 286 U.S. 73.  DISCRIMINATION ON
THE BASIS OF RACE OR COLOR IS PLAINLY OUTLAWED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE IS PLAIN, THERE IS NO
REASON WHY SEC. 19 OR SEC. 20 SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE.  BUT THE
SITUATION HERE IS QUITE DIFFERENT.  WHEN WE TURN TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE WE FIND NO SUCH UNAMBIGUOUS MANDATE. 

ART. I, SEC. 4 SPECIFIES THE MACHINERY WHEREBY THE TIMES, PLACES AND
MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AND CONTROLLED.  ART.
I, SEC. 2 PROVIDES THAT REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE "CHOSEN" BY THE
PEOPLE.  BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AS CONTRASTED TO THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE SOURCE OF THE IMPLIED POWER
OF CONGRESS, I DO NOT THINK THAT THOSE PROVISIONS IN ABSENCE OF
SPECIFIC LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS PROTECT THE PRIMARY ELECTION OR THE
NOMINATING CONVENTION.  WHILE THEY PROTECT THE RIGHT TO VOTE, AND THE
RIGHT TO HAVE ONE'S VOTE COUNTED, AT THE FINAL ELECTION, AS HELD IN THE
YARBROUGH AND MOSLEY CASES, THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT PER SE EXTEND TO ALL
ACTS WHICH IN THEIR INDIRECT OR INCIDENTAL EFFECT RESTRAIN, RESTRICT,
OR INTERFERE WITH THAT CHOICE.  BRIBERY OF VOTERS AT A GENERAL ELECTION
CERTAINLY IS AN INTERFERENCE WITH THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE.  IT IS A
CORRUPTIVE INFLUENCE WHICH FOR ITS IMPACT ON THE ELECTION PROCESS IS AS
INTIMATE AND DIRECT AS THE ACTS CHARGED IN THIS INDICTMENT.  AND
CONGRESS HAS AMPLE POWER TO DEAL WITH IT.  BUT THIS COURT IN UNITED
STATES V. BATHGATE, 246 U.S. 220, BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE, HELD THAT
CONSPIRACIES TO BRIBE VOTERS AT A GENERAL ELECTION WERE NOT COVERED BY
SEC. 19.  WHILE THE CONCLUSION IN THAT CASE MAY BE RECONCILED WITH THE
RESULTS IN THE YARBROUGH AND MOSLEY CASES ON THE GROUND THAT THE RIGHT
TO VOTE AT A GENERAL ELECTION IS PERSONAL WHILE THE BRIBERY OF VOTERS
ONLY INDIRECTLY AFFECTS THAT PERSONAL RIGHT, THAT DISTINCTION IS NOT OF
AID HERE.  FOR THE FAILURE TO COUNT VOTES CAST AT A PRIMARY HAS BY THE
SAME TOKEN ONLY AN INDIRECT EFFECT ON THE VOTING AT THE GENERAL
ELECTION.  IN TERMS OF CAUSAL EFFECT, TAMPERING WITH THE PRIMARY VOTE
MAY BE AS IMPORTANT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION AS BRIBERY
OF VOTERS AT THE GENERAL ELECTION ITSELF.  CERTAINLY FROM THE VIEWPOINT
OF THE INDIVIDUAL VOTER THERE IS AS MUCH A DILUTION OF HIS VOTE IN THE
ONE CASE AS IN THE OTHER.  SO, IN LIGHT OF THE MOSLEY AND BATHGATE
CASES, THE TEST UNDER SEC. 19 IS NOT WHETHER THE ACTS IN QUESTION
CONSTITUTE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE CHOICE OF THE VOTERS.  IT
IS WHETHER THE VOTERS ARE DEPRIVED OF THEIR VOTES IN THE GENERAL
ELECTION.  SUCH A TEST COMPORTS WITH THE STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
A CRIMINAL LAW, SINCE IT RESTRICTS SEC. 19 TO PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS
PLAINLY AND DIRECTLY GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ANY OTHER TEST
ENTAILS AN INQUIRY INTO THE INDIRECT OR INCIDENTAL EFFECT ON THE
GENERAL ELECTION OF THE ACTS DONE.  BUT IN VIEW OF THE GENERALITY OF
THE WORDS EMPLOYED, SUCH A TEST WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CRITERIA
APPROPRIATE FOR A CRIMINAL CASE. 

THE MOSLEY CASE, IN MY VIEW, WENT TO THE VERGE WHEN IT HELD THAT SEC.
19 AND THE RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS MADE IT A CRIME TO FAIL
TO COUNT VOTES CAST AT A GENERAL ELECTION.  THAT CONGRESS INTENDED SEC.
19 TO HAVE THAT EFFECT WAS NONE TOO CLEAR.  THE DISSENTING OPINION OF
MR. JUSTICE LAMAR IN THAT CASE POINTS OUT THAT SEC. 19 WAS ORIGINALLY
PART OF THE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, C. 114, SEC. 6, 16 STAT.
140.  UNDER ANOTHER SECTION OF THAT ACT (SEC. 4), WHICH WAS REPEALED BY
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 8, 1894(28 STAT. 36), THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE
MOSLEY CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $500
AND IMPRISONMENT FOR 12 MONTHS.  FN2 UNDER SEC. 19 IT CARRIED, AS IT
STILL DOES, A PENALTY OF $5000 AND TEN YEARS IN PRISON.  THE COMMITTEE
REPORT (H. REP. NO. 18, 53D CONG., 1ST SESS.), WHICH RECOMMENDED THE
REPEAL OF OTHER SECTIONS, CLEARLY INDICATED AN INTENT TO REMOVE THE
HAND OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM SUCH ELECTIONS AND TO RESTORE THEIR
CONDUCT AND POLICING TO THE STATES.  AS THE REPORT STATED (P. 7): "LET
EVERY TRACE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION MEASURES BE WIPED FROM THE STATUTE
BOOKS; LET THE STATES OF THIS GREAT UNION UNDERSTAND THAT THE ELECTIONS
ARE IN THEIR OWN HANDS, AND IF THERE BE FRAUD, COERCION, OR FORCE USED
THEY WILL BE THE FIRST TO FEEL IT.  RESPONDING TO A UNIVERSAL SENTIMENT
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY FOR GREATER PURITY IN ELECTIONS MANY OF OUR
STATES HAVE ENACTED LAWS TO PROTECT THE VOTER AND TO PURIFY THE
BALLOT.  THESE, UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF STATE OFFICERS, HAVE WORKED
EFFICIENTLY, SATISFACTORILY, AND BENEFICENTLY; AND IF THESE FEDERAL
STATUTES ARE REPEALED THAT SENTIMENT WILL RECEIVE AN IMPETUS WHICH, IF
THE CAUSE STILL EXISTS, WILL CARRY SUCH ENACTMENTS IN EVERY STATE IN
THE UNION."  IN VIEW OF THIS BROAD, COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF REPEAL, IT
IS NOT EASY TO CONCLUDE THAT THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 19, WHICH WAS
NOT REPEALED, NOT ONLY CONTINUED IN EFFECT MUCH WHICH HAD BEEN REPEALED
BUT ALSO UPPED THE PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES WHICH HAD BEEN
EXPLICITLY COVERED BY ONE OF THE REPEALED SECTIONS.  MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES, WRITING FOR THE MAJORITY IN THE MOSLEY CASE, FOUND IN THE
LEGISLATIVE AND HISTORICAL SETTING OF SEC. 19 AND IN ITS REVISED FORM A
CONGRESSIONAL INTERPRETATION WHICH, IF SEC. 19 WERE TAKEN AT ITS FACE
VALUE, WAS THOUGHT TO AFFORD VOTERS IN FINAL CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS
GENERAL PROTECTION.  AND THAT VIEW IS A TENABLE ONE, SINCE SEC. 19
ORIGINALLY WAS PART OF AN ACT REGULATING GENERAL ELECTIONS, AND SINCE
THE ACTS CHARGED HAD A DIRECT RATHER THAN AN INDIRECT EFFECT ON THE
RIGHT TO VOTE AT A GENERAL ELECTION.    BUT AS STATED BY A UNANIMOUS
COURT IN UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL, SUPRA, P. 486, THE MOSLEY CASE
"FALLS FAR SHORT" OF MAKING SEC. 19 "APPLICABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF A
STATE NOMINATING PRIMARY."  INDEED, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, THE AUTHOR OF
THE MOSLEY OPINION, JOINED WITH MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IN THE NEWBERRY
CASE IN HIS VIEW THAT CONGRESS HAD NO AUTHORITY UNDER ART. I, SEC. 4 OF
THE CONSTITUTION TO LEGISLATE ON PRIMARIES.  WHEN SEC. 19 WAS PART OF
THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, IT CERTAINLY WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CONTENDED
THAT IT EMBRACED PRIMARIES, FOR THEY WERE HARDLY KNOWN AT THAT TIME. 
FN3  IT IS TRUE THAT "EVEN A CRIMINAL STATUTE EMBRACES EVERYTHING WHICH
SUBSEQUENTLY FALLS WITHIN ITS SCOPE."  BROWDER V. UNITED STATES, 312
U.S. 335, 340.  YET THE ATTEMPT TO BRING UNDER SEC. 19 OFFENSES
"COMMITTED IN THE CONDUCT OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS OR NOMINATING CAUCUSES
OR CONVENTIONS" WAS REJECTED IN THE GRADWELL CASE, WHERE THIS COURT
SAID THAT IN ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS ON THE SUBJECT OF
PRIMARIES IT IS NOT FOR THE COURTS "TO ATTEMPT TO SUPPLY IT BY
STRETCHING OLD STATUTES TO NEW USES, TO WHICH THEY ARE NOT ADAPTED AND
FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOT INTENDED.  ...  THE SECTION OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE RELIED UPON, ORIGINALLY ENACTED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS OF THE THEN LATELY ENFRANCHISED NEGRO, CANNOT BE EXTENDED SO AS
TO MAKE IT AN AGENCY FOR ENFORCING A STATE PRIMARY LAW."  243 U.S. PP.
488-489.  THE FACT THAT PRIMARIES WERE HARDLY KNOWN WHEN SEC. 19 WAS
ENACTED, THE FACT THAT IT WAS PART OF A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM GOVERNING
GENERAL ELECTIONS, NOT PRIMARY ELECTIONS, THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN IN
NOWISE IMPLEMENTED BY LEGISLATION DIRECTED AT PRIMARIES, GIVE CREDENCE
TO THE UNANIMOUS VIEW IN THE GRADWELL CASE THAT SEC. 19 HAS NOT BY THE
MERE PASSAGE OF TIME TAKEN ON A NEW AND BROADENED MEANING.  AT LEAST IT
SEEMS PLAIN THAT THE DIFFICULTIES OF APPLYING THE HISTORICAL REASON
ADDUCED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN THE MOSLEY CASE TO BRING GENERAL
ELECTIONS WITHIN SEC. 19 ARE SO GREAT IN CASE OF PRIMARIES THAT WE HAVE
LEFT THE SAFETY ZONE OF INTERPRETATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES WHEN WE
SUSTAIN THIS INDICTMENT.  IT IS ONE THING TO SAY, AS IN THE MOSLEY
CASE, THAT CONGRESS WAS LEGISLATING AS RESPECTS GENERAL ELECTIONS WHEN
IT PASSED SEC. 19.  THAT WAS THE FACT.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO
SAY THAT CONGRESS BY LEAVING SEC. 19 UNMOLESTED FOR SOME SEVENTY YEARS
HAS LEGISLATED UNWITTINGLY ON PRIMARIES.  SEC. 19 WAS NEVER PART OF AN
ACT OF CONGRESS DIRECTED TOWARDS PRIMARIES.  THAT WAS NOT ITS ORIGINAL
FRAME OF REFERENCE.  THEREFORE, UNLIKE THE MOSLEY CASE, IT CANNOT BE
SAID HERE THAT SEC. 19 STILL COVERS PRIMARIES BECAUSE IT WAS ONCE AN
INTEGRAL PART OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION. 

FURTHERMORE, THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS LEGISLATED ONLY SPARINGLY AND
AT INFREQUENT INTERVALS EVEN ON THE SUBJECT OF GENERAL ELECTIONS
(UNITED STATES V. GRADWELL, SUPRA) SHOULD MAKE US HESITATE TO CONCLUDE
THAT BY MERE INACTION CONGRESS HAS TAKEN THE GREATER STEP, ENTERED THE
FIELD OF PRIMARIES, AND GONE FURTHER THAN ANY ANNOUNCED LEGISLATIVE
PROGRAM HAS INDICATED.  THE ACTS HERE CHARGED CONSTITUTE CRIMES UNDER
THE LOUISIANA STATUTE.  LA. ACT NO. 46, REG. SESS. 1940, SEC. 89.  IN
ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL ACTION WE SHOULD ASSUME THAT CONGRESS
HAS LEFT THE CONTROL OF PRIMARIES AND NOMINATING CONVENTIONS TO THE
STATES - AN ASSUMPTION PLAINLY IN LINE WITH THE COMMITTEE REPORT,
QUOTED ABOVE, RECOMMENDING THE REPEAL OF PORTIONS OF THE ENFORCEMENT
ACT OF MAY 31, 1870 SO AS TO PLACE THE DETAILS OF ELECTIONS IN STATE
HANDS.  THERE IS NO GROUND FOR INFERENCE IN SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY THAT CONGRESS HAS DEPARTED FROM THAT POLICY BY SUPERIMPOSING
ITS OWN PRIMARY PENAL LAW ON THE PRIMARY PENAL LAWS OF THE STATES. 
RATHER, CONGRESS HAS BEEN FAIRLY CONSISTENT IN RECOGNIZING STATE
AUTONOMY IN THE FIELD OF ELECTIONS.  TO BE SURE, IT HAS OCCASIONALLY
LEGISLATED ON PRIMARIES.  FN4  BUT EVEN WHEN DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH
THE NOMINATING PROCESS, IT HAS NEVER MADE ACTS OF THE KIND HERE IN
QUESTION A CRIME.  IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE BILL
WHICH BECAME THE HATCH ACT (53 STAT. 1147; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 61) CONTAINED
A SECTION WHICH MADE IT UNLAWFUL "FOR ANY PERSON TO INTIMIDATE,
THREATEN, OR COERCE, OR TO ATTEMPT TO INTIMIDATE, THREATEN, OR COERCE,
ANY OTHER PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHT OF SUCH
OTHER PERSON TO VOTE OR TO VOTE AS HE MAY CHOOSE, OR OF CAUSING SUCH
OTHER PERSON TO VOTE FOR, OR NOT TO VOTE FOR, ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE
NOMINATION OF ANY PARTY AS ITS CANDIDATE" FOR VARIOUS FEDERAL OFFICES,
INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVES, "AT ANY PRIMARY OR NOMINATING CONVENTION
HELD SOLELY OR IN PART" FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THIS WAS STRICKEN IN THE
SENATE.  84 CONG. REC., PT. 4, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4191.  THAT
NOMINATING CONVENTION AS SEC. 1 OF THE HATCH ACT FN5  EXTENDS TO THE
GENERAL ELECTION.  THE SENATE, HOWEVER, REFUSED TO DO SO.  YET THIS
COURT NOW HOLDS THAT SEC. 19 HAS PROTECTED THE PRIMARY VOTE ALL ALONG
AND THAT IT COVERS CONSPIRACIES TO DO THE PRECISE THING ON WHICH
CONGRESS REFUSED TO LEGISLATE IN 1939.  THE HESITATION ON THE PART OF
CONGRESS THROUGH THE YEARS TO ENTER THE PRIMARY FIELD, ITS REFUSAL TO
DO SO  FN6  IN 1939, AND THE RESTRICTED SCOPE OF SUCH PRIMARY LAWS AS
IT HAS PASSED, SHOULD BE AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT THIS COURT IS LEGISLATING
WHEN IT TAKES THE INITIATIVE IN EXTENDING SEC. 19 TO PRIMARIES. 

WE SHOULD ADHERE TO THE STRICT CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO SEC. 19 BY A
UNANIMOUS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. BATHGATE, 246 U.S. 220, 226, WHERE
IT WAS SAID:  "SECTION 19, CRIMINAL CODE, OF COURSE, NOW HAS THE SAME
MEANING AS WHEN FIRST ENACTED  ...  AND CONSIDERING THE POLICY OF
CONGRESS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH ELECTIONS WITHIN A STATE EXCEPT BY CLEAR
AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS, TOGETHER WITH THE RULE RESPECTING CONSTRUCTION
OF CRIMINAL STATUTES, WE CANNOT THINK IT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO
CONSPIRACIES TO BRIBE VOTERS."  THAT LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC.
19 AND THE RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS SHOULD BE READ SO AS TO
EXCLUDE ALL ACTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE THE DIRECT EFFECT OF DEPRIVING
VOTERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE AT GENERAL ELECTIONS.  THAT VIEW HAS
RECEIVED TACIT RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS.  FOR THE HISTORY OF LEGISLATION
GOVERNING FEDERAL ELECTIONS SHOWS THAT THE OCCASIONAL ACTS OF CONGRESS
FN7  ON THE SUBJECT HAVE BEEN PRIMARILY DIRECTED TOWARDS SUPPLYING
DETAILED REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE AGAINST POLLUTION AND CORRUPTION.  THOSE
LAWS, THE LATEST OF WHICH IS SEC. 1 OF THE HATCH ACT, ARE AMPLE
RECOGNITION BY CONGRESS ITSELF THAT SPECIFIC LEGISLATION IS NECESSARY
IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS AGAINST THE WIDE VARIETY OF
ACTS WHICH IN THEIR INDIRECT OR INCIDENTAL EFFECT INTERFERE WITH THE
VOTER'S FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND CORRUPT THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.  THEY ARE
EVIDENCE THAT DETAILED REGULATIONS ARE ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO REACH ACTS
WHICH DO NOT DIRECTLY INTERFERE WITH THE VOTING PRIVILEGE.  THEY ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE NOTIONS IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT THAT THE
CONSTITUTION, UNAIDED BY DEFINITE SUPPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION, PROTECTS
THE METHODS BY WHICH PARTY CANDIDATES ARE NOMINATED. 

THAT SEC. 19 LACKS THE REQUISITE SPECIFICITY NECESSARY FOR INCLUSION
OF ACTS WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE NOMINATION OF PARTY CANDIDATES IS
REEMPHASIZED BY THE TEST HERE EMPLOYED.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT
STRESSES, AS DOES THE INDICTMENT, THAT THE WINNER OF THE DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARY IN LOUISIANA INVARIABLY CARRIES THE GENERAL ELECTION.  IT IS
ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT A CANDIDATE DEFEATED IN THE LOUISIANA PRIMARIES
CANNOT BE A CANDIDATE AT THE GENERAL ELECTION.  HENCE, IT IS ARGUED
THAT INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN SUCH A PRIMARY IS "AS A
MATTER OF LAW AND IN FACT AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE CHOICE OF
THE VOTERS AT THE ONLY STAGE OF THE ELECTION PROCEDURE WHEN THEIR
CHOICE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE," AND THAT THE "PRIMARY IN LOUISIANA IS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROCEDURE FOR THE POPULAR CHOICE" OF
REPRESENTATIVES.  BY THAT MEANS, THE GRADWELL CASE IS APPARENTLY
DISTINGUISHED.  BUT I DO NOT THINK IT IS A VALID DISTINCTION FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS CASE. 

ONE OF THE INDICTMENTS IN THE GRADWELL CASE CHARGED THAT THE
DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO PROCURE ONE THOUSAND UNQUALIFIED PERSONS TO
VOTE IN A WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY FOR THE NOMINATION OF A UNITED STATES
SENATOR.  THIS COURT, BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT WHICH
SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THAT INDICTMENT.  THE COURT SPECIFICALLY
RESERVED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A "PRIMARY SHOULD BE TREATED AS AN
ELECTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION."  BUT IT WENT ON TO
SAY THAT, EVEN ASSUMING IT WERE, CERTAIN "STRIKINGLY UNUSUAL FEATURES"
OF THE PARTICULAR PRIMARY PRECLUDED SUCH A HOLDING IN THAT CASE.  IT
NOTED THAT CANDIDATES OF CERTAIN PARTIES WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE
PRIMARY, AND THAT EVEN CANDIDATES WHO WERE DEFEATED AT THE PRIMARY
COULD ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS BE NOMINATED FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION.  IT
THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT WHATEVER POWER CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE TO CONTROL
SUCH PRIMARIES, IT HAD NOT DONE SO BY SEC. 19. 

IF THE GRADWELL CASE IS TO SURVIVE, AS I THINK IT SHOULD, WE HAVE
THEREFORE THIS RATHER CURIOUS SITUATION.  PRIMARIES IN STATES WHERE THE
WINNER INVARIABLY CARRIES THE GENERAL ELECTION ARE PROTECTED BY SEC. 19
AND THE CONSTITUTION, EVEN THOUGH SUCH PRIMARIES ARE NOT BY LAW AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE ELECTION PROCESS.  PRIMARIES IN STATES WHERE THE
SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE NEVER WINS, SELDOM WINS, OR MAY NOT WIN IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION ARE NOT SO PROTECTED, UNLESS PERCHANCE STATE LAW MAKES
SUCH PRIMARIES AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ELECTION PROCESS.  CONGRESS,
HAVING A BROAD CONTROL OVER PRIMARIES, MIGHT CONCEIVABLY DRAW SUCH
DISTINCTIONS IN A PENAL CODE.  BUT FOR US TO DRAW THEM UNDER SEC. 19 IS
QUITE ANOTHER MATTER.  FOR WE MUST GO OUTSIDE THE STATUTE, EXAMINE
LOCAL LAW AND LOCAL CUSTOMS, AND THEN, ON THE BASIS OF THE LEGAL OR
PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF A PARTICULAR PRIMARY, INTERPRET THE VAGUE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 19 IN THE LIGHT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ACTS DONE. 
THE RESULT IS TO MAKE REFINED AND NICE DISTINCTIONS WHICH CONGRESS
CERTAINLY HAS NOT MADE, TO CREATE UNEVENNESS IN THE APPLICATION OF SEC.
19 AMONG THE VARIOUS STATES, AND TO MAKE THE EXISTENCE OF A CRIME
DEPEND, NOT ON THE PLAIN MEANING OF WORDS EMPLOYED INTERPRETED IN LIGHT
OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE, BUT ON THE RESULT OF
RESEARCH INTO LOCAL LAW OR LOCAL PRACTICES.  UNLESS CONGRESS HAS
EXPLICITLY MADE A CRIME DEPENDENT ON SUCH FACTS, WE SHOULD NOT
UNDERTAKE TO DO SO.  SUCH PROCEDURE DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE STRICT
STANDARDS ESSENTIAL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF A CRIMINAL LAW.  THE
NECESSITY OF RESORTING TO SUCH A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE IS SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO ME THAT WE ARE PERFORMING A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION IN FINDING
HERE A DEFINITION OF A CRIME WHICH WILL SUSTAIN THIS INDICTMENT.  A
CRIME, NO MATTER HOW OFFENSIVE, SHOULD NOT BE SPELLED OUT FROM SUCH
VAGUE INFERENCES. 

FN1  WHILE SEC. 19 ALSO REFERS TO "LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES," SEC.
19 AND SEC. 20 ARE THE ONLY STATUTES DIRECTLY IN POINT. 

FN2  SEC. 5506, REV. STAT.:  "EVERY PERSON WHO, BY ANY UNLAWFUL
MEANS, HINDERS, DELAYS, PREVENTS, OR OBSTRUCTS, OR COMBINES AND
CONFEDERATES WITH OTHERS TO HINDER, DELAY, PREVENT, OR OBSTRUCT, ANY
CITIZEN FROM DOING ANY ACT REQUIRED TO BE DONE TO QUALIFY HIM TO VOTE,
OR FROM VOTING AT ANY ELECTION  ...  SHALL BE FINED NOT LESS THAN FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR BE IMPRISONED NOT LESS THAN ONE MONTH NOR MORE THAN
ONE YEAR, OR BE PUNISHED BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT."  SEC.
5511 PROVIDED:  "IF, AT ANY ELECTION FOR REPRESENTATIVE OR DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS, ANY PERSON  ... KNOWINGLY RECEIVES THE VOTE OF ANY PERSON NOT
ENTITLED TO VOTE, OR REFUSES TO RECEIVE THE VOTE OF ANY PERSON ENTITLED
TO VOTE  ...  HE SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT MORE THAN THREE YEARS, OR BY
BOTH  ... " 

FN3  MERRIAM & OVERACKER, PRIMARY ELECTIONS (1928) CHS.  I-III, V;
SAIT, AMERICAN PARTIES & ELECTIONS (1927) CH. X; BROOKS, POLITICAL
PARTIES & ELECTORAL PROBLEMS (1933) CH. X. 

FN4  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, C. 392, 36 STAT. 822, AS AMENDED BY THE
ACT OF AUGUST 19, 1911, C. 33, 37 STAT. 25; ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, C.
187, 40 STAT. 1013. 

FN5  "THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO INTIMIDATE,
THREATEN, OR COERCE, OR TO ATTEMPT TO INTIMIDATE, THREATEN, OR COERCE,
ANY OTHER PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHT OF SUCH
OTHER PERSON TO VOTE OR TO VOTE AS HE MAY CHOOSE, OR OF CAUSING SUCH
OTHER PERSON TO VOTE FOR, OR NOT TO VOTE FOR, ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE
OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR, MEMBER OF
THE SENATE, OR MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT ANY ELECTION
HELD SOLELY OR IN PART FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELECTING A PRESIDENT, A VICE
PRESIDENT, A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR, OR ANY MEMBER OF THE SENATE OR ANY
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DELEGATES OR COMMISSIONERS FROM
THE TERRITORIES AND INSULAR POSSESSIONS."    FN6  SEC. 2 OF THE HATCH
ACT, HOWEVER, DOES MAKE UNLAWFUL CERTAIN ACTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
EMPLOYEES EVEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE NOMINATIONS FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL
OFFICES.  AND SEE 54 STAT. 767, NO. 753, CH. 640, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.
AS TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS CVER EMPLOYEES OR OFFICERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT, SEE UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH, 280 U.S. 396. 

FN7  SEE FOR EXAMPLE, ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, 16 STAT. 140; ACT OF JULY
14, 1870, 16 STAT. 254, 255-256; ACT OF FEB. 28, 1871, 16 STAT. 433;
ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, 36 STAT. 822; ACT OF AUGUST 19, 1911, 37 STAT.
25; ACT OF AUGUST 23, 1912, 37 STAT. 360; ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, 40
STAT. 1013; FEDERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, 1925, 43 STAT. 1070; HATCH
ACT, AUGUST 2, 1939, 53 STAT. 1147.    MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :























HOLIDAY V. JOHNSTON, 313 U.S. 342 


NO. 14, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED MAY 5, 6, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  THE ERRONEOUS IMPOSITION OF TWO SENTENCES FOR A SINGLE OFFENSE OF
WHICH THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN CONVICTED, OR AS TO WHICH HE HAS PLEADED
GUILTY, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  P. 349. 

2.  A PRISONER WHILE SERVING A VALID SENTENCE CAN NOT BY HABEAS
CORPUS ATTACK A SECOND SENTENCE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE TIMED TO BEGIN AT
THE END OF THE FIRST, ALTHOUGH THE SECOND MUST BE VACATED BEFORE HE CAN
APPLY FOR PAROLE UNDER THE FIRST.  P. 349. 

HIS REMEDY IS TO APPLY FOR VACATION OF THE SENTENCE AND FOR A RE
SENTENCE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH HE WAS ADJUDGED
GUILTY. 

3.  PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED METICULOUSLY;
AND, EVEN IF INSUFFICIENT IN SUBSTANCE, MAY BE AMENDED IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.  P. 350. 

IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, THE DISTRICT JUDGE, BY REGARDING THE
PETITION, TRAVERSE, AND RETURN AS MAKING ISSUES OF FACT JUSTIFYING THE
TAKING OF EVIDENCE, DID NOT ABUSE HIS DISCRETION. 

4.  UNDER THE HABEAS CORPUS STATUTE, THE DISTRICT JUDGE MUST HIMSELF
HEAR THE PRISONER'S TESTIMONY AND IN THE LIGHT OF IT AND OTHER
TESTIMONY MUST FIND THE FACTS AND BASE HIS DISPOSITION OF THE CASE UPON
HIS FINDINGS.  P. 351. 

A PRACTICE OF COMMANDING THAT THE PRISONER BE TAKEN BEFORE A
COMMISSIONER TO TAKE EVIDENCE AND REPORT AND OF DISPOSING OF THE CASE
UPON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED
BECAUSE OF ITS CONVENIENCE OR BECAUSE IT IS A PRACTICE OF LONG STANDING
WHICH HAS FOUND ITS PLACE IN A RULE OF COURT. 

5.  RULE 53 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DEALING WITH REFERENCES
TO MASTERS, HAS NO APPLICATION TO HABEAS CORPUS CASES.  P. 353. 

HOLIDAY V. JOHNSTON, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 673, TO REVIEW AN ORDER REFUSING A PETITION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
DISCHARGING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION (IN RE 620 CHURCH STREET CORP., 299 U.S.
24, 26), AND ALSO THE POWER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  28 U.S.C.
832.  EVEN THOUGH THE TECHNICAL ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT MAY BE ONLY
WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING
AN APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS, NEVERTHELESS, FOR MANY REASONS, THE COURT
SHOULD NOW PASS ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED. 

THE WRIT WAS NOT VALID.  IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF THE PETITIONER "BEFORE THE JUDGE
WHO GRANTED THE WRIT," R.S. SEC. 758, NOR WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
JUDGE SHALL DETERMINE THE FACTS BY HEARING THE TESTIMONY.  R.S. SEC.
761. 

A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER HAS NOT A JUDGE'S AUTHORITY.  GRIN V.
SHINE, 187 U.S. 181, DISTINGUISHED. 

THE PROCEDURE OF A COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IS COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT
WITH THE POLICY EXPRESSED IN RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

RULE 53 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IS NOT APPLICABLE. 

EVEN IF THE REFERENCE TO A SPECIAL MASTER IN HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS IS PROPER, THE COURT SHOULD NOT SANCTION THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE DEVICE WAS UTILIZED HERE.  THE HEARING WAS HELD IN PRISON -
CERTAINLY NOT "JUDICIAL" PROCEDURE.  THE COMMISSIONER BASED HIS
DECISION ON PLAIN ERRORS OF LAW, WHICH ARE DEMONSTRABLY PREJUDICIAL AND
NOT CURED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE NO FINDINGS
OF FACT.  THE HEARING ON THE "APPROVAL" OF THE REPORT WAS APPARENTLY EX
PARTE. 

ON THE FACTS STATED, THERE IS PLAINLY A DENIAL OF THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL GUARANTEED IN THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE CASE IS CONTROLLED BY WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275, AND
JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458. 

THAT THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES PUNISH PETITIONER TWICE FOR THE SAME
OFFENSE IS ADMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THE QUESTION OF WHICH SENTENCE
IS VALID IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT, INASMUCH AS IT MUST BE
DETERMINED IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PETITION IS IN THIS RESPECT
PREMATURE.  THAT QUESTION MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE
FIFTEEN-YEAR SENTENCE ON THE SECOND COUNT. 

THE PETITION AND TRAVERSE STATED NO CASE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE
WRIT.  THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT ATTACKED THE LEGALITY OF THE DETENTION
ON TWO GROUNDS:  (1) THAT THE CUMULATIVE SENTENCES ON THE TWO COUNTS
CONSTITUTED DOUBLE JEOPARDY; AND (2) THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS IN CONFLICT
WITH THE SIXTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS DENIED.  THE
TRAVERSE ALLEGES NO NEW FACTS AND MAKES NO ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS.  THE
PETITION WAS PREMATURE ON THE FIRST GROUND; AND, ON THE SECOND, THE
FACTS ALLEGED ARE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE THE PETITIONER TO
RELIEF.  HENCE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275) AND THE APPLICATION WAS PROPERLY
DISMISSED. 

THE PROCEDURE WAS EQUIVALENT TO A REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER TO
HEAR AND REPORT THE TESTIMONY, WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW. 

THE PROCEDURE WAS IN KEEPING WITH THE HISTORIC PRACTICE OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS FOR CALIFORNIA.  THE REFERENCE OF ISSUES OF FACT ARISING
IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS TO A UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER TO HEAR
THE EVIDENCE AND REPORT FINDINGS ORIGINATED LONG AGO AS A RESPONSE TO
THE TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF PETITIONS FILED IN CHINESE EXCLUSION CASES. 
DECISIONS OF THE PERIOD REFER TO SUCH REFERENCES AS "THE ESTABLISHED
PRACTICE" OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE ARE NOT AWARE THAT IT WAS EVER
QUESTIONED, THOUGH IT WAS FOLLOWED IN AT LEAST TWO CASES WHICH REACHED
THIS COURT.  CF., NISHIMURA EKIU V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 651, 652,
656; UNITED STATES V. JU TOY, 198 U.S. 253, 264. 

THE FEDERAL COURTS IN CALIFORNIA HAVE REFERRED ISSUES OF FACT TO
COMMISSIONERS IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES FOR MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS AND THE
ISSUANCE OF A WRIT RETURNABLE BEFORE A COMMISSIONER IS A TRADITIONAL
EQUIVALENT OF SUCH AN ORDER OF REFERENCE. 

THE STATUTORY COMMAND THAT THE COURT "SHALL PROCEED IN A SUMMARY WAY
TO DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BY HEARING THE TESTIMONY AND
ARGUMENTS" DOES NOT PRECLUDE A REFERENCE TO A MASTER TO HEAR AND REPORT
THE TESTIMONY WITH HIS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - SO
LONG AS THE ACTUAL ADJUDICATION IS MADE BY THE COURT. 

THE EQUITY PRACTICE IS PECULIARLY PERSUASIVE IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT
BECAUSE IN ENGLAND - AT LEAST SINCE THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT (31 CAR.  II,
C. 2) - THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED OUT OF CHANCERY AS WELL AS THE
LAW COURTS.  CF. PEOPLE EX REL. WOODBURY V. HENDRICK, 215 N.Y. 339,
346.  THE ANALOGY OF EQUITY HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THIS COURT.  STORTI V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 183 U.S. 138, 143; SEE ALSO EX PARTE ROYALL, 117 U.S.
241, 251.  IF A REFERENCE WERE IMPOSSIBLE UNDER THE STATUTE, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THIS COURT COULD EVER PRACTICALLY EXERCISE ITS
POWER TO ISSUE AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IF ISSUES OF FACT WERE
INVOLVED.  THE MANDATE OF THE STATUTE "IS APPLICABLE TO THIS COURT
WHETHER IT IS EXERCISING ITS ORIGINAL OR APPELLATE JURISDICTION." 
STORTI V. MASSACHUSETTS, SUPRA. 

THERE IS ENGLISH PRECEDENT, AND PRIOR TO THE FEDERAL STATUTE, FOR
ORDERING A REFERENCE (THE CASE OF THE HOTTENTOT VENUS, 13 EAST 194);
THE PRACTICE OF TAKING THE VERDICT OF A JURY APPEARS TO BE MORE
COMMON.  IN THE MATTER OF ANDREWS, 8 Q.B. 153, 160; RE GUERIN, 60 L.T.
538, 542N.; RE GIBSON, 15 ONT.  L.R. 245, 247; SEE IN RE HAKEWILL, 12
C.B. 223, 228.  BOTH PRACTICES HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE STATE COURTS,
ESPECIALLY, THOUGH NOT EXCLUSIVELY, IN INFANT CUSTODY CASES.  NEITHER
HAS BEEN REGARDED AS DETRACTING FROM A JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO THE FACTS
OR THE FUNCTION OF A HABEAS CORPUS HEARING. 

THE USE OF A MASTER OR COMMISSIONER IS NOT PRECLUDED IN OTHER
PROCEEDINGS WHICH MAY TERMINATE IN PUNISHMENT, NOTABLY IN THE CASE OF
CONTEMPT.  CF., UNITED STATES V. SHIPP, 214 U.S. 386; CHIN BAK KAN V.
UNITED STATES, 186 U.S. 193, 200; NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276,
279. 

IF A REFERENCE IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE HABEAS CORPUS STATUTE,
THE POWER TO REFER EXISTS IN THE INHERENT POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS "TO
PROVIDE THEMSELVES WITH APPROPRIATE INSTRUMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES" (EX PARTE PETERSON, 253 U.S. 300, 312), A
POWER BROADLY ARTICULATED IN RULE 53(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE. 

THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER EITHER AT
THE HEARING OR IN COURT.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CERTAINLY
TOO LATE TO CHALLENGE THE ACTION OF THE COURT ON A MATTER PECULIARLY
WITHIN ITS DISCRETION. 

MOREOVER, THERE IS AN "EXCEPTIONAL CONDITION" WELL KNOWN TO THE
DISTRICT COURT.  FROM JUNE 1, 1938 TO APRIL 1, 1941, THERE WERE 131
PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA BY PRISONERS IN ALCATRAZ PENITENTIARY, 75 BASED UPON THE
DECISION IN JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, AND 3 UPON THE DECISION IN
WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275.  PRISONERS ARE SENT TO ALCATRAZ ONLY
IF THEY ARE REGARDED AS CUSTODIAL PROBLEMS, REQUIRING MAXIMUM
SECURITY.  THE HAZARDS OF ESCAPE ARE GREAT AND REQUIRE UNUSUAL
PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFE CUSTODY.  SEE FEDERAL OFFENDERS (1938) P. 95;
IBID. (1939) P. 30; ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1935) P.
151.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS CONSTITUTE AN "EXCEPTIONAL CONDITION" AND
WOULD, IN OUR VIEW, JUSTIFY AN ORDER OF REFERENCE.  NOTHING IN RULE
53(B) INDICATES THAT THE "EXCEPTIONAL CONDITION" MUST APPEAR OF RECORD
WHEN IT IS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COURT. 

THE PROCEDURE DID NOT OTHERWISE DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF ANY
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  HIS PETITION
ALLEGED THAT HE WAS UNLAWFULLY DETAINED BY THE RESPONDENT IN ALCATRAZ
PENITENTIARY; THAT HE HAD BEEN INDICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTH
DAKOTA UNDER AN ACT OF MAY 18, 1934, SEC. 2,  FN1  THE INDICTMENT BEING
IN TWO COUNTS, ONE FOR ROBBERY OF AN INSURED BANK AND THE OTHER FOR
JEOPARDIZING THE LIVES OF OFFICIALS OF THE BANK IN THE COURSE OF THE
ROBBERY; THAT HE PLEADED GUILTY TO BOTH COUNTS AND WAS SENTENCED TO TEN
YEARS UNDER THE FIRST AND TO FIFTEEN YEARS UNDER THE SECOND,
"COMMENCING AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UNDER COUNT
ONE."  THE PETITION CHARGED THAT HE WAS UNLAWFULLY DETAINED BECAUSE HE
WAS TRIED WITHOUT THE ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WAS IGNORANT OF
HIS RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL ALTHOUGH UNABLE TO PAY FOR AN ATTORNEY, WAS
NOT ADVISED BY THE COURT THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL, AND WAS
UNABLE TO, AND DID NOT, INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
HAVE COUNSEL.  THE PETITION ALLEGED THAT THE TWO COUNTS OF THE
INDICTMENT CHARGED BUT ONE OFFENSE AND THAT THE PETITIONER WAS PLACED
IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY BY THE IMPOSITION OF THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. 

THE COURT ISSUED A RULE ON THE RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A WRIT
SHOULD NOT ISSUE.  THE RESPONDENT MADE RETURN SHOWING THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS HELD UNDER A COMMITMENT ISSUED PURSUANT TO HIS
CONVICTION UPON THE INDICTMENT IN QUESTION.  HE ATTACHED A CERTIFICATE
OF THE JUDGE WHO IMPOSED THE SENTENCE, ATTESTING TO HIS UNIFORM
PRACTICE OF INQUIRING OF PRISONERS CHARGED WITH FELONY WHETHER THEY
WANTED COUNSEL AND HIS FIRM BELIEF THAT HE SO INQUIRED OF THE
PETITIONER, AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF A DEPUTY MARSHAL TO THE EFFECT THAT
PETITIONER SAID HE DID NOT DESIRE COUNSEL. 

PETITIONER FILED A TRAVERSE IN WHICH HE DENIED THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE
HAD INTERROGATED HIM AS STATED AND DENIED THAT HE HAD MADE THE ALLEGED
STATEMENT TO THE DEPUTY MARSHAL.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE ISSUED A WRIT
COMMANDING THE RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE THE PETITIONER BEFORE A
COMMISSIONER OF THE DISTRICT COURT AT THE ALCATRAZ PRISON ON A DAY
NAMED.  THIS WAS DONE AND THE COMMISSIONER THERE TOOK THE PETITIONER'S
TESTIMONY AND LATER RECEIVED THE DEPOSITIONS OF TWO WITNESSES ON BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENT.  THE COMMISSIONER SUBMITTED A REPORT IN WHICH HE
RECITED HIS PROCEEDINGS, SUMMARIZED THE ASSERTED GROUNDS FOR RELIEF,
MADE FINDINGS OF FACT, STATED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDED THAT
THE APPLICATION BE DENIED.  AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT ON THE REPORT THE
JUDGE ENTERED AN ORDER DISCHARGING THE WRIT. 

THE PETITIONER APPLIED FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  THIS
WAS DENIED BY AN ORDER WHICH RECITED THAT, SO FAR AS THE PETITION WAS
BASED ON THE ALLEGED INVALIDITY OF THE SENTENCE ON THE SECOND COUNT OF
THE INDICTMENT IT WAS PREMATURE AND, SO FAR AS IT WAS GROUNDED ON THE
DEPRIVATION OF THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE EVIDENCE SUSTAINED THE
FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE PETITIONER HAD COMPETENTLY AND
INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SUCH ASSISTANCE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
JUDGE DENIED AN APPEAL FOR WANT OF MERIT IN THE APPLICATION. 

THE PETITIONER MOVED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
IN FORMA PAUPERIS, WHICH WAS DENIED.  HE THEN PETITIONED THIS COURT FOR
CERTIORARI  FN2  AND FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.  BOTH
PETITIONS WERE GRANTED AND COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT HIM IN
THIS COURT. 

THE BURDEN OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT IS THAT THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT - THAT OF A HEARING BEFORE A COMMISSIONER AND THE
DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE ON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE HIM - IS A PLAIN
VIOLATION OF THE ACTS OF CONGRESS REGULATING THE PRACTICE IN HABEAS
CORPUS CASES.  IN ADDITION, HE SEEKS A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT ON THE
GROUND THAT THE SENTENCE ON THE SECOND COUNT IS VOID.  HE INSISTS THAT
HE IS ENTITLED TO A DECISION TO THIS EFFECT SO THAT HE MAY APPLY FOR
PAROLE UNDER THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON THE FIRST COUNT. 

THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF THE
REGULARITY OF THE HEARING IN HABEAS CORPUS, SINCE THE PETITION SHOULD
HAVE BEEN DENIED AS PREMATURE SO FAR AS IT RESTED ON THE ASSERTED
ILLEGALITY OF THE SENTENCE, AND SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE
DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING
THE DENIAL OF ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

1.  THE RESPONDENT ADMITS THAT SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1934,
SUPRA, DOES NOT CREATE TWO SEPARATE CRIMES BUT PRESCRIBES ALTERNATIVE
SENTENCES FOR THE SAME CRIME DEPENDING UPON THE MANNER OF ITS
PERPETRATION.  THIS CONCESSION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT AID THE PETITIONER. 
THE ERRONEOUS IMPOSITION OF TWO SENTENCES FOR A SINGLE OFFENSE OF WHICH
THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN CONVICTED, OR AS TO WHICH HE HAS PLEADED GUILTY,
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  AND IF, AS THE PETITIONER
CONTENDS, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF TEN YEARS IS VALID AND THE SECOND VOID,
HE IS NO BETTER OFF.  CONCEDING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT HE IS RIGHT IN
SAYING THE FIRST SENTENCE IS THE ONLY VALID ONE, HE HAS NOT SERVED THAT
SENTENCE AND IS NOT ENTITLED NOW TO BE DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY UNDER
IT. HE URGES THAT IF THE SECOND SENTENCE IS ADJUDGED VOID HE WILL NOW
BE ENTITLED TO APPLY FOR PAROLE UNDER THE FIRST.  BUT WE HAVE RECENTLY
DECIDED THAT HABEAS CORPUS CANNOT BE AWARDED TO AFFORD A PRISONER SUCH
AN OPPORTUNITY.  FN3  HIS REMEDY IS TO APPLY FOR VACATION OF THE
SENTENCE AND A RESENTENCE IN CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH HE
WAS ADJUDGED GUILTY.    2.  THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT WE SHOULD
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT INSUFFICIENTLY
ALLEGES A DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND FAILS TO REBUT THE
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY WHICH ATTACHES TO THE RECORD OF PETITIONER'S
TRIAL AND CONVICTION MAY BE SHORTLY ANSWERED.  A PETITION FOR HABEAS
CORPUS OUGHT NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED WITH TECHNICAL NICETY.  EVEN IF IT
IS INSUFFICIENT IN SUBSTANCE IT MAY BE AMENDED IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.  IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, MOREOVER, THE JUDGE, BY CALLING ON
THE RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE, ADJUDGED THAT, IN HIS VIEW, THE PETITION
WAS SUFFICIENT AND, BY REFERRING THE CAUSE TO A MASTER, EVINCED A
JUDGMENT THAT THE PETITION, THE RETURN, AND THE TRAVERSE MADE ISSUES OF
FACT JUSTIFYING THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE.  THESE DECISIONS DID NOT
CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND WE WILL NOT REVIEW THEM. 

3.  THE RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE PETITION WAS PREMATURE IF THE
PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT HE WAS DENIED THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS
WITHOUT MERIT, BUT THE CONTENTION IS PRESSED ONLY IF WE FIND THAT NO
QUESTION AS TO SUCH DENIAL IS PRESENTED. 

4.  WE COME THEN TO THE SERIOUS QUESTION IN THE CASE.  WAS THE METHOD
OF TRIAL OF THE FACT ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PLEADINGS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW? 

REVISED STATUTES SECS. 757, 758, AND 761  FN4  PRESCRIBE THE
PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED.  THE FIRST REQUIRES THAT "THE PERSON TO WHOM
THE WRIT IS DIRECTED SHALL CERTIFY TO THE COURT, OR JUSTICE, OR JUDGE
BEFORE WHOM IT IS RETURNABLE THE TRUE CAUSE OF THE DETENTION OF SUCH
PARTY"; AND THE SECOND THAT:  "THE PERSON MAKING THE RETURN SHALL AT
THE SAME TIME BRING THE BODY OF THE PARTY BEFORE THE JUDGE WHO GRANTED
THE WRIT."  FN5  THE THIRD PROVIDES THAT:  "THE COURT, OR JUSTICE, OR
JUDGE SHALL PROCEED IN A SUMMARY WAY TO DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THE
CASE, BY HEARING THE TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENTS, AND THEREUPON TO DISPOSE
OF THE PARTY AS LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRE." 

IT IS PLAIN, AS THE RESPONDENT CONCEDES, THAT A COMMISSIONER IS NOT A
JUDGE AND THAT THE COMMAND OF THE COURT'S WRIT THAT THE PETITIONER
APPEAR BEFORE THAT OFFICER WAS NOT A LITERAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STATUTE.  THE RESPONDENT ARGUES, HOWEVER, THAT THE WRIT IN EFFECT
REFERRED THE CAUSE TO THE COMMISSIONER AS A MASTER WHOSE FUNCTION WAS
TO TAKE THE TESTIMONY AND SUBMIT IT, TOGETHER WITH HIS FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS, FOR SUCH ACTION AS THE COURT MIGHT TAKE UPON SUCH
SUBMISSION.  THE ARGUMENT RUNS THAT THIS PRACTICE IS IN SUBSTANCE
EQUIVALENT TO A HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE IN HIS PROPER PERSON, HAS LONG
BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS IN CALIFORNIA, HAS NOT INCURRED
THE CRITICISM OF THIS COURT IN CASES BROUGHT HERE WHERE IT WAS
FOLLOWED, IS A CONVENIENT PROCEDURE, TENDS TO EXPEDITE THE DISPOSITION
OF SUCH CASES, IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LONG STANDING EQUITY PRACTICE AND
IS COUNTENANCED BY RULE 53(A)(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  FN6 

WE CANNOT SANCTION A DEPARTURE FROM THE PLAIN MANDATE OF THE STATUTE
ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS ADVANCED.  WE HAVE RECENTLY EMPHASIZED THE BROAD
AND LIBERAL POLICY ADOPTED BY CONGRESS RESPECTING THE OFFICE AND USE OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PROTECTION OF
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM TO THE END THAT THE VERY TRUTH AND SUBSTANCE OF THE
CAUSE OF A PERSON'S DETENTION MAY BE DISCLOSED AND JUSTICE BE DONE. 
FN7  THE CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO LODGE IN THE JUDGE THE DUTY OF
INVESTIGATION.  ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE DETERMINATION OF
THE CRUCIAL FACTS IS THE WEIGHING AND APPRAISING OF THE TESTIMONY. 
PLAINLY IT WAS INTENDED THAT THE PRISONER MIGHT INVOKE THE EXERCISE OF
THIS APPRAISAL BY THE JUDGE HIMSELF.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT AN APPRAISAL
OF THE TRUTH OF THE PRISONER'S ORAL TESTIMONY BY A MASTER OR
COMMISSIONER IS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THE
PROCEEDING, THE EQUIVALENT OF THE JUDGE'S OWN EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTION
OF THE TRIER OF THE FACTS. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE PRACTICE HAS GROWN UP OF REFERRING SUCH
CAUSES TO A COMMISSIONER, HAS LONG BEEN INDULGED IN IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS OF CALIFORNIA, AND HAS FOUND A PLACE IN A RULE OF COURT, CANNOT
OVERCOME THE PLAIN COMMAND OF THE STATUTE.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE
PRACTICE WAS FOLLOWED IN CERTAIN DEPORTATION CASES WHICH WERE REVIEWED
BY THIS COURT, BUT, SO FAR AS APPEARS, NO POINT WAS MADE AS TO THE
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN THOSE CASES AND THE MATTER WAS PASSED WITHOUT
NOTICE. 

IT MAY BE THAT THE PRACTICE IS A CONVENIENT ONE, BUT, IF SO, THAT
CONSIDERATION IS FOR CONGRESS.  IN VIEW OF THE PLAIN TERMS IN WHICH THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY IS EVIDENCED IN THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT, THE COURTS
MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE ANOTHER MORE CONVENIENT MODE OF TRIAL. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE PROCEDURE TENDS TO EXPEDITE THE DISPOSITION OF
HABEAS CORPUS CASES.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE WOULD SEEM TO CONTRADICT
THE ARGUMENT.  FN8  AND WHEN IT IS REMEMBERED THAT R.S. 756  FN9
REQUIRED THAT THE RETURN IN THIS CASE BE MADE WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE
ISSUE OF THE WRIT, AND THAT R.S. 758, SUPRA, REQUIRED THE RESPONDENT TO
PRODUCE THE BODY AT THE SAME TIME HE MADE THE RETURN; THAT R.S. 759
FN10  COMMANDS THAT THE HEARING SHALL BE SET NOT MORE THAN FIVE DAYS
AFTER THE RETURN; AND THAT R.S. 761, SUPRA, ENJOINS THE JUDGE TO
PROCEED IN A SUMMARY WAY TO HEAR THE CAUSE AND DISPOSE OF THE
PETITIONER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE COMPARATIVELY CUMBERSOME AND
TIME-CONSUMING PROCEDURE OF REFERENCE, REPORT, AND HEARING UPON THE
REPORT, CAN BE THOUGHT A MORE EXPEDITIOUS METHOD THAN THAT PRESCRIBED
BY THE STATUTE. 

THE PRACTICE OF REFERRING EQUITY CAUSES TO MASTERS PRESENTS NO
PERSUASIVE ANALOGY.  THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE TWO PROCEEDINGS ARE
OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT.  MOREOVER, WHEN CONGRESS PRESCRIBED THE PROCEDURE
IN HABEAS CORPUS THE PRACTICE OF REFERENCE TO MASTERS IN CHANCERY WAS
WELL KNOWN TO IT.  THE LEGISLATURE, NEVERTHELESS, SAW FIT TO REQUIRE A
DIFFERENT PROCEDURE IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES. 

FINALLY, THE SANCTION BY RULE 53 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF
REFERENCES TO MASTERS DOES NOT AID IN THE DECISION OF THE QUESTION
PRESENTED.  RULE 81(A)(2) PROVIDES THAT APPEALS IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES
ARE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE RULES, BUT THAT THE RULES ARE NOT APPLICABLE
"OTHERWISE THAN ON APPEAL" IN HABEAS CORPUS CASES "EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE PRACTICE IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS IS NOT SET FORTH IN STATUTES OF
THE UNITED STATES AND HAS HERETOFORE CONFORMED TO THE PRACTICE IN
ACTIONS AT LAW OR SUITS IN EQUITY  ...  "  SINCE THE PRACTICE IN HABEAS
CORPUS IS SET FORTH IN PLAIN TERMS IN THE REVISED STATUTES, TO WHICH
REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE, RULE 53 HAS NO APPLICATION. 

IN SUMMARY, WE HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT, AS
EMBODIED IN THE REVISED STATUTES, ARE TOO PLAIN TO BE DISREGARDED FOR
ANY OF THE REASONS ADVANCED.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE SHOULD HIMSELF HAVE
HEARD THE PRISONER'S TESTIMONY AND, IN THE LIGHT OF IT AND THE OTHER
TESTIMONY, HIMSELF HAVE FOUND THE FACTS AND BASED HIS DISPOSITION OF
THE CAUSE UPON HIS FINDINGS.  THE PETITIONER HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED THE
RIGHT OF TESTIFYING BEFORE THE JUDGE, WHICH THE STATUTE PLAINLY ACCORDS
HIM.  IN ORDER THAT HE MAY HAVE THAT RIGHT WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND
REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO THE WEIGHT OR
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE HERETOFORE ADDUCED.  THE ISSUES OF FACT
WILL BE FOR SOLUTION BY THE DISTRICT COURT UPON A FURTHER HEARING. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 783, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 588B. 

FN2  WE HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 377; IN RE 620 CHURCH STREET CORPORATION, 299 U.S. 24. 

FN3  MCNALLY V. HILL, 293 U.S. 131. 

FN4 28 U.S.C. SECS. 457, 458, 461. 

FN5  BOTH THESE SECTIONS ARE DERIVED FROM THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT OF
FEBRUARY 5, 1867, C. 28, 14 STAT. 385.  IN THE CODIFICATION THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL STATUTE WAS ALTERED TO INDICATE THAT THE
RETURN MIGHT BE MADE TO THE COURT, JUSTICE, OR JUDGE, WHEREAS, IN THE
ORIGINAL STATUTE, THE PROVISION IS THAT THE RESPONDENT "SHALL MAKE
RETURN OF SAID WRIT AND BRING THE PARTY BEFORE THE JUDGE WHO GRANTED
THE WRIT, AND CERTIFY THE TRUE CAUSE OF THE DETENTION OF SUCH PERSON
...  "  14 STAT. 386.  NOTHING IN THIS CASE TURNS ON THE DIVERSITY
BETWEEN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN THE STATUTE AND THAT FOUND IN THE
REVISION. 

FN6  28 U.S.C. FOLLOWING SEC. 723C. 

FN7  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458; WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S.
275. 

FN8  THE PETITION WAS FILED MAY 8, 1939.  THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ISSUED JUNE 29, 1939.  THE RETURN WAS PRESENTED JULY 10, 1939; THE
TRAVERSE JULY 31, 1939.  THE WRIT ISSUED DECEMBER 14, 1939.  THE
COMMISSIONER HELD HEARINGS ON DECEMBER 16, 1939, AND APRIL 30, 1940. 
HE FILED HIS REPORT MAY 23, 1940, AND THE JUDGE ENTERED AN ORDER
CONFIRMING THE REPORT AND DISCHARGING THE WRIT JULY 1, 1940.  NO
EXPLANATION IS VOUCHSAFED FOR WHAT SEEMS, IN VIEW OF THE PEREMPTORY
TERMS OF THE STATUTE, AN INORDINATE PROTRACTION OF THE PROCEEDING. 

FN9  28 U.S.C. SEC. 456. 

FN10  28 U.S.C. SEC. 459. 
..END :





BROOKS V. DEWAR, 313 U.S. 354 


NO. 718.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 60 NEV. 219 -
106 P.2D 755, REVERSED. 


1.  THE JUDGMENT BEING ERRONEOUS ON THE MERITS, THE COURT ABSTAINS
FROM INQUIRING WHETHER THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN A SUBORDINATE FEDERAL
OFFICER FROM ALLEGED INVASION OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF A
FEDERAL STATUTE BUT WITHOUT AUTHORITY, IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES, OR WHETHER THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN
JOINED AS A NECESSARY PARTY DEFENDANT, OR WHETHER THE STATE COURT WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO ENJOIN A FEDERAL OFFICER.  P. 359. 

2.  IN ADMINISTERING THE TAYLOR GRAZING ACT OF JUNE 28, 1934, THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, RELYING ON THE BROAD POWERS CONFERRED BY
SEC. 2, ISSUED TEMPORARY LICENSES TO STOCKOWNERS, FOR THE GRAZING OF
THEIR LIVESTOCK UPON THE PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN GRAZING DISTRICTS, AND
CHARGED A UNIFORM PRICE PER HEAD, RATHER THAN HAVE THE GRAZING LANDS GO
UNREGULATED PENDING THE LENGTHY PERIOD REQUIRED FOR INSTITUTING THE
PLAN, CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 3, OF RENEWABLE TERM PERMITS AT REASONABLE
FEES ADJUSTED TO EACH CASE, ETC.  WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS, CONGRESS
REPEATEDLY APPROPRIATED PART OF THE MONEY THUS BROUGHT INTO THE
TREASURY FOR EXPENDITURE BY THE SECRETARY IN IMPROVEMENT OF THE
RANGES.  HELD, THAT THE SECRETARY'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WAS
THEREBY CONFIRMED AND HIS ACTION AS AGENT OF CONGRESS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT WAS THEREBY RATIFIED.  P. 360. 

BROOKS V. DEWAR ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 674, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF
INJUNCTION, ENTERED UPON THE OVERRULING OF A DEMURRER TO THE BILL. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENTS BROUGHT SUIT IN A NEVADA DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE
PETITIONER FROM BARRING, OR THREATENING TO BAR, THEM FROM GRAZING THEIR
LIVESTOCK WITHIN NEVADA GRAZING DISTRICT NO. 1 IN DEFAULT OF THE
PAYMENT OF CERTAIN GRAZING FEES AND IN DEFAULT OF THEIR HOLDING A
LICENSE PERMITTING SUCH USE OF THE PUBLIC LANDS BY THEM.  THE BILL
ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENTS WERE, AND FOR YEARS HAD BEEN, IN THE
BUSINESS OF BREEDING, RAISING, GRAZING, AND SELLING LIVESTOCK WITHIN
NEVADA AND WITHIN THE DISTRICT; THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO OWN
OR LEASE ALL THE LAND NEEDED FOR THEIR BUSINESS AND THEY OWNED OR
LEASED A SMALL PORTION OF THE REQUIRED LAND AND USED VACANT
UNAPPROPRIATED AND UNRESERVED PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
SATISFY THE REMAINDER OF THEIR GRAZING REQUIREMENTS; THAT THEIR
FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS NECESSITIES MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTINUE TO
OPERATE IF THEIR ABILITY TO GRAZE THEIR LIVESTOCK ON THE PUBLIC RANGE
WERE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED OR INTERFERED WITH.  THEY AVERRED THAT, UNTIL
MAY 31, 1935, THEY HAD BEEN IMPLIEDLY LICENSED BY THE UNITED STATES TO
GRAZE LIVESTOCK ON PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC RANGE IN NEVADA.  FN1 THEY
RECITED THE PASSAGE BY CONGRESS OF AN ACT OF JUNE 28, 1934,  FN2  AND
ALLEGED THAT, ON APRIL 8, 1935, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, ESTABLISHED A GRAZING
DISTRICT KNOWN AS NEVADA GRAZING DISTRICT NO. 1, WHICH INCLUDED
PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC RANGE UPON WHICH THE RESPONDENTS HAD THERETOFORE
GRAZED THEIR LIVESTOCK AND THAT, ON MAY 31, 1935, THE DIRECTOR OF
GRAZING, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, HAD PROMULGATED RULES
WHICH REQUIRED ALL PERSONS GRAZING WITHIN THE DISTRICT TO OBTAIN
TEMPORARY LICENSES SO TO DO, FOR WHICH NO FEES WERE TO BE PAID; THAT,
PURSUANT TO THE RULES, THE RESPONDENTS OBTAINED TEMPORARY LICENSES;
THAT, ON MARCH 2, 1936, AFTER AN INVESTIGATION BY THE SECRETARY, THE
DIRECTOR OF GRAZING, WITH THE APPROVAL OF HIS SUPERIOR, PURPORTING TO
ACT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1934,
PROMULGATED RULES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF GRAZING DISTRICTS, WHICH
PROVIDED FOR THE ISSUE OF TEMPORARY LICENSES TO EXPIRE ON A DATE NAMED
IN 1937 OR UPON THE ISSUE OF PERMITS PROVIDED FOR BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT,
FOR WHICH LICENSES GRAZIERS WERE TO PAY A FEE OF FIVE CENTS PER MONTH
FOR EACH HEAD OF CATTLE AND A FEE OF ONE CENT PER MONTH FOR EACH HEAD
OF SHEEP FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF GRAZING; THAT THE RULES FURTHER PROVIDED
THAT, AFTER ISSUE OF THE TEMPORARY LICENSES, NO STOCKMAN SHOULD GRAZE
LIVESTOCK UPON, NOR DRIVE THEM ACROSS, THE PUBLIC RANGE WITHIN A
GRAZING DISTRICT WITHOUT A LICENSE.  THE COMPLAINT RECITED THAT, ABOUT
MAY 1, 1936, THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOTIFIED BY THE REGISTER OF THE
DISTRICT LAND OFFICE THAT LICENSES WOULD BE GRANTED THEM UPON PAYMENT
OF THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE GRAZING FEES, AND THAT SHORTLY
THEREAFTER THE DEFENDANT, BROOKS, WHO WAS ACTING AS REGIONAL GRAZIER OF
THE UNITED STATES, NOTIFIED THE RESPONDENTS THAT UNLESS THEY PAID THE
INSTALLMENTS AND OBTAINED LICENSES BY JUNE 15TH THEY WOULD BE
CONSIDERED IN TRESPASS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT OF 1934 AND WOULD BE
PUNISHED BY FINE AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT.  THE RESPONDENTS ALLEGED WITH
PARTICULARITY THE URGENT NECESSITY IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR BUSINESS
THAT THEY BE PERMITTED TO GRAZE THEIR CATTLE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND THAT,
UNLESS THEY CAN DO SO, THEY WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE AND SERIOUS DAMAGE
DUE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR BUSINESSES.  THE BILL CHARGES THAT
ALTHOUGH THE SECRETARY IN PROMULGATING THE RULES WITH RESPECT TO
TEMPORARY LICENSES PURPORTED TO ACT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SEC. 2 OF
THE ACT OF 1934, THAT SECTION CONFERS UPON HIM NO POWER SO TO DO AND
THAT GRAZING FEES SPECIFIED BY THE RULES WERE FIXED WITHOUT ANY ATTEMPT
TO DETERMINE THEIR AMOUNTS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT AND IN
VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 3. 

THE PETITIONER DEMURRED AND ASSIGNED AS REASONS THAT THE COMPLAINT
FAILED TO STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST HIM; THAT THERE WAS A DEFECT OF PARTIES DEFENDANT FOR FAILURE
TO JOIN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; THAT AS THE UNITED STATES, AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY, HAD NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED, THE COURT WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION; AND THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT WAS
EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES AND NOT
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.  THE COURT OVERRULED THE DEMURRER, WITH
LEAVE TO ANSWER.  THE PETITIONER ELECTED TO STAND UPON HIS DEMURRER,
AND THE COURT THEREUPON ENTERED A DECREE IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENTS,
WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA AFFIRMED.  FN3  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED. 

BY SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF 1934, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS
AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH GRAZING DISTRICTS NOT EXCEEDING IN THE
AGGREGATE AN AREA OF 80,000,000 ACRES OUT OF CERTAIN UNAPPROPRIATED AND
UNRESERVED PUBLIC LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES  FN4  IF THE LANDS, IN HIS
OPINION, ARE CHIEFLY VALUABLE FOR GRAZING AND RAISING FORAGE CROPS. 
BEFORE ANY DISTRICT IS CREATED A HEARING IS TO BE HELD AFTER NOTICE AT
WHICH OFFICIALS AND PERSONS INTERESTED ARE TO BE HEARD.  SECTION 2
PROVIDES: 

"THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SHALL MAKE PROVISION FOR THE
PROTECTION, ADMINISTRATION, REGULATION, AND IMPROVEMENT OF SUCH GRAZING
DISTRICTS AS MAY BE CREATED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE FOREGOING
SUCH SERVICE, ENTER INTO SUCH COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, AND DO ANY AND
ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT AND TO
INSURE THE OBJECTS OF SUCH GRAZING DISTRICTS, NAMELY, TO REGULATE THEIR
OCCUPANCY AND USE, TO PRESERVE THE LAND AND ITS RESOURCES FROM
DESTRUCTION OR UNNECESSARY INJURY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY USE,
IMPROVEMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE RANGE; ...  AND ANY WILLFUL
VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT OR OF SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS THEREUNDER AFTER ACTUAL NOTICE THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHABLE
BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500." 

LIVESTOCK IN GRAZING DISTRICTS "UPON THE PAYMENT ANNUALLY OF REASONABLE
FEES IN EACH CASE TO BE FIXED OR DETERMINED FROM TIME TO TIME."  IT
COMMANDS THAT PREFERENCE BE GIVEN, IN THE ISSUE OF PERMITS, TO CERTAIN
PERSONS DESCRIBED IN THE SECTION AND THAT NO PERMITTEE WHO COMPLIES
WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY SHALL BE DENIED THE
RENEWAL OF HIS PERMIT IF SUCH DENIAL WILL IMPAIR THE VALUE OF THE
PERMITTEE'S GRAZING UNIT WHEN SUCH UNIT IS PLEDGED AS SECURITY FOR ANY
BONA FIDE LOAN.  THE PERMITS ARE TO BE FOR A PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN
TEN YEARS, SUBJECT TO THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHT OF THE PERMITTEE TO
RENEWAL IN THE DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY.  THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS
FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF GRAZING TO BE PERMITTED UNDER THE
PERMITS, AND A CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT OF THE GRAZING FEES IN THE CASE
OF THE OCCURRENCE OF RANGE DEPLETION DUE TO NATURAL CAUSES. 

BY SEC. 10 IT IS PROVIDED THAT ALL MONEYS RECEIVED UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE ACT ARE TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT. OF SUCH MONEYS RECEIVED FROM ANY
DISTRICT IN A FISCAL YEAR IS MADE AVAILABLE, WHEN APPROPRIATED BY THE
CONGRESS, FOR EXPENDITURE BY THE SECRETARY FOR RANGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND
FIFTY PER CENT. OF SUCH MONEY RECEIVED FROM A DISTRICT IN ANY FISCAL
YEAR IS TO BE PAID, AT THE END OF THE YEAR, BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY, TO THE STATE IN WHICH THE GRAZING DISTRICT IS SITUATED, TO BE
EXPENDED BY THE STATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTIES IN WHICH THE
DISTRICT LIES.  FN5 

THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED
BECAUSE THE SUIT IS ONE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES; BECAUSE THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY, AND BECAUSE THE
STATE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ENJOIN A FEDERAL OFFICER.  HE ADMITS
THAT EARLIER CASES IN THIS COURT ARE AGAINST HIS CONTENTION BUT RELIES
ON OTHERS WHICH HE SAYS SUSTAIN HIS VIEW.  AS THIS COURT REMARKED
NEARLY SIXTY YEARS AGO RESPECTING QUESTIONS OF THIS KIND, THEY "HAVE
RARELY BEEN FREE FROM DIFFICULTY" AND IT IS NOT "AN EASY MATTER TO
RECONCILE ALL THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT IN THIS CLASS OF CASES."  FN6
THE STATEMENT APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE AT THIS DAY.  WE ARE NOT
DISPOSED TO ATTEMPT A CRITIQUE OF THE AUTHORITIES.  SINCE THE
JURISDICTION AND THE PROCEDURE OF THE COURT BELOW ARE SUSTAINED BY
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, WE ARE UNWILLING TO BASE OUR JUDGMENT UPON A
RESOLUTION OF ASSERTED CONFLICT TOUCHING ISSUES OF SO GRAVE
CONSEQUENCE, WHERE, AS HERE, THE BILL FAILS TO MAKE A CASE UPON THE
MERITS. 

THE RESPONDENTS SAY THAT, UNDER THE ACT OF 1934, THE SECRETARY IS
POWERLESS TO GRANT TEMPORARY LICENSES AND CHARGE FEES THEREFOR; THAT
HIS SOLE AUTHORITY IS TO ISSUE PERMANENT PERMITS FOR SPECIFIED PERIODS
NOT TO EXCEED TEN YEARS, AT FEES ADJUSTED TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
INDIVIDUAL PERMITTEES, AND WITH PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS OF RENEWAL.  IF
THIS VIEW BE CORRECT, IT MIGHT WELL BE YEARS BEFORE THE SECRETARY COULD
PLACE THE USERS OF LANDS IN ANY DISTRICT UNDER PERMITS.  THE PETITIONER
ASSERTS THAT IT WAS NOT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS THAT THE GRAZING LANDS
SHOULD GO UNREGULATED AND WITHOUT LICENSE FOR ANY SUCH EXTENSIVE PERIOD
AS WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUE OF PERMITS UNDER SEC. 3.  HE RELIES
ON THE BROAD POWERS CONFERRED BY SEC. 2, AND POINTS OUT THAT THE
GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506, AND THERE HELD TO AUTHORIZE SIMILAR RULES AND
REGULATIONS. 

WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WAS ISSUING
TEMPORARY LICENSES INSTEAD OF TERM PERMITS AND THAT UNIFORM FEES WERE
BEING CHARGED AND COLLECTED FOR THE ISSUE OF TEMPORARY LICENSES,
CONGRESS REPEATEDLY APPROPRIATED TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT. OF THE MONEY
THUS COMING INTO THE TREASURY FOR EXPENDITURE BY THE SECRETARY IN
IMPROVEMENTS UPON THE RANGES.  FN7  THE INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION
OF CONGRESS WAS PLENTIFUL AND FROM VARIOUS SOURCES.  IT KNEW FROM THE
ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR THAT A SYSTEM OF
TEMPORARY LICENSING WAS IN FORCE.  FN8 THE SAME INFORMATION WAS
FURNISHED THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AT ITS HEARINGS.  FN9  NOT ONLY
WAS IT DISCLOSED BY THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT NO PERMITS
WERE ISSUED IN 1936, 1937, AND 1938, AND THAT PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN
ONLY ONE DISTRICT IN 1939, BUT IT WAS ALSO DISCLOSED IN THE HEARINGS
THAT UNIFORM FEES WERE BEING CHARGED AND COLLECTED FOR THE ISSUE OF
TEMPORARY LICENSES.  AND MEMBERS FROM THE FLOOR INFORMED THE CONGRESS
THAT THE TEMPORARY LICENSING SYSTEM WAS IN FORCE AND THAT AS MUCH AS
$1,000,000 HAD BEEN OR WOULD BE COLLECTED IN FEES FOR SUCH LICENSES. 
FN10  THE REPEATED APPROPRIATIONS OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE FEES THUS
COVERED, AND TO BE COVERED, INTO THE TREASURY, NOT ONLY CONFIRMS THE
DEPARTMENTAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE,  FN11 BUT CONSTITUTES A
RATIFICATION OF THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY AS THE AGENT OF CONGRESS IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  FN12 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE BUFORD V. HOUTZ, 133 U.S. 320; OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246
U.S. 343. 

FN2  C. 865, 48 STAT. 1269, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF JUNE 26, 1936, C.
842, 49 STAT. 1976, 43 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 315 ET SEQ. 

FN3  60 NEV. 219; 106 P.2D 755. 

FN4  INCREASED TO AN AGGREGATE OF 142,000,000 ACRES BY THE AMENDATORY
ACT OF JUNE 26, 1936, SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN5  BY SEC. 11 PROVISION IS MADE FOR DISPOSITION OF MONEYS RECEIVED
FROM DISTRICTS LOCATED ON INDIAN LANDS.  TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT. IS MADE
AVAILABLE, WHEN APPROPRIATED, FOR EXPENDITURE BY THE SECRETARY FOR
RANGE IMPROVEMENT. 

FN6  CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK R. CO., 109 U.S. 446, 451. 

FN7  ACT OF JUNE 22, 1936, C. 691, 49 STAT. 1757, 1758; ACT OF AUGUST
9, 1937, C. 570, 50 STAT. 564, 565; ACT OF MAY 9, 1938, C. 187, 52
STAT. 291, 292; ACT OF MAY 10, 1939, C. 119, 53 STAT. 685, 687; ACT OF
JUNE 18, 1940, C. 395, 54 STAT. 406.  THE FORM OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
ACT OF JUNE 22, 1936, IS TYPICAL.  IT IS:  "FOR CONSTRUCTION, PURCHASE,
AND MAINTENANCE OF RANGE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN GRAZING DISTRICTS,
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 10 AND 11 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 28,
1934(48 STAT., P. 1269), AND NOT INCLUDING CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER SECTION
9 OF SAID ACT, $250,000:  PROVIDED, THAT EXPENDITURES HEREUNDER IN ANY
GRAZING DISTRICT SHALL NOT EXCEED 25 PER CENTUM OF ALL MONEYS RECEIVED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SAID ACT FROM SUCH DISTRICT DURING THE FISCAL
YEARS 1936 AND 1937." 

FN8  ANNUAL REPORT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 1936, PP. 16-17.  ID.,
1937, PP. XII, 102, 105-107.  ID., 1938, PP. XV, 107. 

FN9  HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ON
H.R. 10,630, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 13-15; HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE OF
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ON H.R. 6958, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
PP. 80, 83, 89; HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS ON H.R. 9621, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 65, 70, 71;
HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ON H.R.
9621, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., PP. 3, 28, 29.    FN10  81 CONG. REC., PART
4, PP. 4570-4571; 83 CONG. REC., PART 11, P. 2376; 84 CONG. REC., PART
13, PP. 2931, 2932, 2933. 

FN11  WELLS V. NICKLES, 104 U.S. 444, 447. 

FN12  ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 139, 147. 
..END :










WOOD V. LOVETT, 313 U.S. 362 


NO. 709.  SUBMITTED APRIL 2, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 201 ARK.
129 - 143 S.W.2D 880, REVERSED. 


WHERE A STATE HAS SOLD LAND UNDER A TAX TITLE WHICH IS VALID WITH THE
HELP OF A STATUTE CURING IRREGULARITIES IN THE TAX PROCEEDING, BUT
INVALID WITHOUT IT, A REPEAL OF THE CURATIVE STATUTE IMPAIRS THE
OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATE AND ITS VENDEE, IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 371. 

WOOD ET AL. V. LOVETT. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE AFFIRMING A DECREE QUIETING TITLE IN LOVETT,
RELYING ON A DEED FROM A FORMER OWNER, AGAINST WOOD ET AL., RELYING ON
A TAX TITLE. 

THE EFFECT OF ACT 142 WAS TO CURE ALL DEFECTS IN THE TAX SALE AND
VEST A VALID TITLE IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 

APPELLANTS ACQUIRED VESTED RIGHTS BY THEIR DEEDS FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS.  HOLLAND V. ROGERS, 33 ARK. 251; CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115 U.S.
620; PEARSALL V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO., 161 U.S. 644; ST. LOUIS, I.M.
& S. RY. CO. V. ALEXANDER, 49 ARK. 190; 4 S.W. 753; WALKER V. FERGUSON,
176 ARK. 625; 3 S.W.2D 694; SMITH V. SPILLMAN, 135 ARK. 279; 205 S.W.
107; MASSA V. NASTRI, 125 CONN. 144; 3 A.2D 839; KOSEK V. WALKER, 196
ARK. 656; 118 S.W.2D 575. 

THE REPEAL OF THE ACT IMPAIRED THE OBLIGATION OF APPELLANTS'
CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE, IN VIOLATION OF ART. I, SEC. 10, OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

ACT 264 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1937, VOL. 1, PAGE 933, APPROVED
MARCH 17, 1937; BERRY V. DAVIDSON, 199 ARK. 96; 133 S.W.2D 442;
FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87; PACIFIC MAIL STEAMSHIP CO. V. JOLIFFE, 2
WALL.  450; POINDEXTER V. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 270; W.B. WORTHEN CO. V.
KAVANAUGH, 295 U.S. 56; BARNITZ V. BEVERLY, 163 U.S. 118; HANS V.
LOUISIANA, 134 U.S. 1; OSBORN V. NICHOLSON, 13 WALL.  654; NEW JERSEY
V. WILSON, 7 CRANCH 164; DAVIS V. GRAY, 16 WALL.  203; TERRETT V.
TAYLOR, 9 CRANCH 41; ETTOR V. TACOMA, 228 U.S. 148; PENNOYER V.
MCCONNAUGHY, 140 U.S. 1; REID V. FEDERAL LAND BANK OF NEW ORLEANS, 166
MISS.  39; 148 SO. 392; STATE V. OSTEN, 91 MONT.  76; 5 P.2D 562; STATE
V. GETHER CO., 203 WIS. 311; 234 N.W. 331. 

THE REPEAL DEPRIVED APPELLANTS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW, AND DENIED THEM EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BLAIR V. CHICAGO, 201 U.S. 400, 484; BEAVERS
V. MYAR, 68 ARK. 333; 58 S.W. 40; MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. NEBRASKA,
164 U.S. 403; NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R. CO., 147 U.S. 165; ETTOR
V. TACOMA, 228 U.S. 148; CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115 U.S. 620; RHODES V.
CANNON, 112 ARK. 6; 164 S.W. 752; CARLE V. GEHL, 193 ARK. 1061; 104
S.W.2D 445. 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF ACT 142 PRESENTS A QUESTION EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN
THE POWER AND JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.  FIDELITY
UNION TRUST CO. V. FIELD, 311 U.S. 169; ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304
U.S. 64. 

WE MAY CONCEDE FOR THE ARGUMENT THAT APPELLANTS PURCHASED FROM THE
STATE IN THE BELIEF THAT THE EFFECT OF ACT 142 WAS TO MAKE IMPERVIOUS
TO ATTACK A TAX TITLE CONVEYED BY THE STATE AND TO VEST SUCH TITLE IN
THE STATE'S GRANTEES.  BUT EVEN SO, APPELLANTS PURCHASED AT THEIR PERIL
AND UNDER THE RISK THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS MIGHT DISAGREE
WITH THEM AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE ACT UPON WHICH THEY RELIED, AND MIGHT
PLACE UPON IT ANOTHER AND ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION.  THIS IS
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE, AND ALL THAT HAS BEEN DONE, IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

IN CARLE V. GEHL, 193 ARK. 1061, THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HELD
THAT ACT 142 WAS NOT A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  IN KOSEK V. WALKER, 196
ARK. 656, THE COURT HELD THAT THE ACT WAS OF NO AVAIL TO PURCHASERS
FROM THE STATE IN LITIGATION OVER SUCH TITLES ARISING AFTER THE REPEAL
OF THE ACT BY ACT 264 OF 1937. 

IN UNION TRUST CO. V. WATTS, 75 ARK. L.R. 30, THE COURT AGAIN HELD
THAT ACT 142 WAS NOT A CONFIRMATION ACT AND THAT IT WAS NOT EFFECTIVE
TO CURE DEFECTIVE TAX TITLES NOR TO VEST TITLE DURING THE TIME IT WAS
IN FORCE. 

BEFORE THIS LITIGATION WAS INSTITUTED, THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
HAD AUTHORITATIVELY DETERMINED THE MEANING OF THE ACT IN QUESTION.  THE
FACT THAT THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE AFTER APPELLANTS HAD BOUGHT FROM
THE STATE, RELYING UPON ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, IS
UNIMPORTANT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER AN ARKANSAS ACT OF MARCH
17, 1937, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, VIOLATES ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

MARCH 20, 1935, AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ARKANSAS  FN1  TOOK
EFFECT WHICH PROVIDED: 

"WHENEVER THE STATE AND COUNTY TAXES HAVE NOT BEEN PAID UPON ANY REAL
OR PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY LAW, AND PUBLICATION
OF THE NOTICE OF THE SALE HAS BEEN GIVEN UNDER A VALID AND PROPER
DESCRIPTION, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, THE SALE OF ANY REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF SAID TAXES SHALL NOT HEREAFTER BE SET
ASIDE BY ANY PROCEEDINGS AT LAW OR IN EQUITY BECAUSE OF ANY
IRREGULARITY, INFORMALITY OR OMISSION BY ANY OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT
OF SAID PROPERTY, THE LEVYING OF SAID TAXES, THE MAKING OF THE
ASSESSOR'S OR TAX BOOK, THE MAKING OR FILING OF THE DELINQUENT LIST,
THE RECORDING THEREOF, OR THE RECORDING OF THE LIST AND NOTICE OF SALE,
OR THE CERTIFICATE AS TO THE PUBLICATION OF SAID NOTICE OF SALE;
PROVIDED, THAT THIS ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SUIT NOW PENDING SEEKING
TO SET ASIDE ANY SUCH SALE, OR TO ANY SUIT BROUGHT WITHIN SIX MONTHS
FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING ASIDE
ANY SUCH SALE." 

CERTAIN LAND IN DESHA COUNTY, ARKANSAS, WAS SOLD TO THE STATE IN 1933
FOR NON-PAYMENT OF 1932 TAXES.  THE LAND WAS NOT REDEEMED AND WAS
CERTIFIED TO THE STATE, AS OWNER.  IN 1936 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE
LANDS, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE, BY DEEDS RECITING HIS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY SO TO DO, CONVEYED TO THE APPELLANTS ALL THE RIGHT, TITLE,
AND INTEREST OF THE STATE IN TWO PARCELS OF THE LAND. 

BY AN ACT OF MARCH 17, 1937, THE ACT OF MARCH 20, 1935, WAS
REPEALED.  FN2 

JANUARY 10, 1939, THE CORPORATION WHICH OWNED THE LAND WHEN SOLD FOR
NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES CONVEYED TO THE APPELLEE, AND, ON JANUARY 21, HE
BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS TO CANCEL THE STATE'S DEEDS, TO
QUIET HIS TITLE, AND FOR MESNE PROFITS OR RENTS.  HE ALLEGED THAT THERE
WERE IRREGULARITIES IN THE PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO THE SALE TO THE STATE
WHICH RENDERED IT VOID.  THE APPELLANTS ADMITTED THE IRREGULARITIES. 
IT WAS AGREED ON ALL HANDS THAT THOUGH THESE IRREGULARITIES WOULD HAVE
CONSTITUTED GROUNDS FOR AVOIDING THE SALE BUT FOR THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT OF 1935, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLEE IF THE
ACT WERE STILL IN FORCE.  THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED A DECREE IN FAVOR OF
THE APPELLEE WHICH THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  FN3 

THE APPELLANTS CONTENDED IN THE COURTS BELOW, AND CONTEND HERE, THAT
IF THE ACT OF 1937 BE GIVEN THE EFFECT OF DIVESTING THEM OF TITLE
CONFIRMED IN THEM BY THE ACT OF 1935 THE LATER ACT IMPAIRS THE
OBLIGATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS HELD THAT "THE ACT (OF 1935) DOES NOT PROFESS TO CURE TAX
SALES, BUT ONLY (PROVIDES) THAT TAX SALES SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE BY THE
COURTS BECAUSE OF CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES AND INFORMALITIES, NAMING
THEM."  IT SAID THAT THE APPELLANTS ACQUIRED NO GREATER VESTED INTEREST
OR TITLE THAN THE STATE HAD AND THE REPEAL OF THE ACT OF 1935 "VIOLATED
NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THEIRS TO A DEFENSE" THEREUNDER.  WE ARE OF
OPINION THAT THE DECISION WAS ERRONEOUS. 

FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IT IS UNNECESSARY TO RECITE THE STATUTORY
PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT, LEVY, AND COLLECTION OF REAL ESTATE TAXES IN
ARKANSAS.  IF THE TAXES LEVIED BECOME DELINQUENT, A SALE BY THE
COLLECTOR IS AUTHORIZED.  IF NO PERSON BIDS THE AMOUNT OF THE
DELINQUENT TAXES, PENALTY, AND COSTS, THE COLLECTOR IS TO BID IN THE
PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE STATE.  FN4  THE STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO
PAY THE AMOUNT BID IN ITS NAME.  FN5  THE CLERK OF THE COUNTY COURT IS
REQUIRED TO MAKE A RECORD OF THE SALE TO THE STATE AND SEND A
CERTIFICATE THEREOF TO THE AUDITOR OF STATE.  FN6  LANDS THUS SOLD TO
THE STATE MAY BE REDEEMED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE SALE.  FN7  AFTER
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION, THE COUNTY CLERK EXECUTES A
CERTIFICATE OF SALE AND CAUSES THE SAME TO BE RECORDED IN THE COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE.  THEREUPON THE LANDS VEST IN THE STATE.  THE
CERTIFICATE, AFTER RECORDATION, IS SENT BY THE CLERK TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS AND THEREUPON THE LANDS ARE SUBJECT TO
DISPOSAL ACCORDING TO LAW.  FN8  THE COMMISSIONER IS AUTHORIZED TO SELL
THEM AND TO MAKE DEEDS TO PURCHASERS.  FN9 

AS THE SUPREME COURT HAS INDICATED IN THIS CASE, ACT 142 OF 1935 WAS
ONE OF A SERIES OF STATUTES ADOPTED TO PREVENT THE SETTING ASIDE OF TAX
SALES AND TITLES BASED UPON THEM, FOR INFORMALITIES AND IRREGULARITIES
IN THE ASSESSMENT AND LEVY OF TAXES AND THE SALE OF PROPERTY FOR
DELINQUENT TAXES, WHICH HAD SERIOUSLY IMPEDED THE EFFECTIVE COLLECTION
OF TAXES AND DIMINISHED THE STATE'S REVENUE. 

IN BERRY V. DAVIDSON, 199 ARK. 276, 280; 133 S.W.2D 442, THE COURT,
AFTER REFERRING TO SEVERAL SIMILAR ACTS, SAID: 

"  ...  WE NOW THINK IT APPARENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS ENDEAVORING
TO FIND AND PUT INTO EFFECT A REMEDY OR MEANS TO CORRECT THE EVILS
GROWING OUT OF NONPAYMENT OF TAXES, TO PREVENT TAX EVASION.  FOR MANY
YEARS IT WAS A RECOGNIZED PROPOSITION THAT TAX FORFEITURES AND SALES OF
LAND ON ACCOUNT THEREOF WERE WELL NIGH UNIVERSALLY HELD INEFFECTUAL TO
CONVEY TITLE, AND THERE IS PERHAPS AT THIS TIME, NO DOUBT, THAT THERE
WAS A GENERAL RECOGNITION OF THE FUTILITY OF TAXING LAWS; THAT IT WAS
THOUGHT BY MANY THAT PEOPLE NEED NOT PAY TAXES IF THEY WERE WILLING TO
MEET THE WORRY AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION IN REGARD THERETO." 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"ACT 142, ABOVE MENTIONED, WHILE IT WAS STILL IN FORCE, WAS ANOTHER
EVIDENCE OF THE LEGISLATURE'S EFFORT AND STRUGGLE TO CORRECT OR CURE
THESE WELL GROUNDED AND LONG ESTABLISHED PRACTICES ILLUSTRATING THE
FUTILITY OF THE LAW REQUIRING PAYMENT OF TAXES.  OUT OF ALL THIS HAS
COME ACT 119 OF THE ACTS OF 1935 CONSTRUED AND UPHELD IN THE LAST CITED
CASE.  (FULLER V. WILKINSON, 198 ARK. 102, 128 S.W.2D 251.)  ACCORDING
TO THE TERMS OF THAT STATUTE, WHEN IT SHALL HAVE BEEN INVOKED IN REGARD
TO SUCH TAX SALES, WE MUST, AND DO, HOLD THAT THE DECREE OF
CONFIRMATION OF A SALE TO THE STATE 'OPERATES AS A COMPLETE BAR AGAINST
ANY AND ALL PERSONS, FIRMS, CORPORATIONS, QUASI-CORPORATIONS,
ASSOCIATIONS WHO MAY CLAIM SAID PROPERTY' SOLD FOR TAXES SUBJECT ONLY
TO THE EXCEPTIONS SET FORTH AND STATED IN THE ACT, NONE OF WHICH IS
APPLICABLE TO AID THE APPELLANT." 

IT IS EVIDENT FROM THESE STATEMENTS THAT THE PURPOSE OF ACT 142 WAS
DEFINITELY TO ASSURE PURCHASERS FROM THE STATE THAT THE LAND BOUGHT BY
THEM COULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM ON GROUNDS THERETOFORE AVAILABLE
TO THE DELINQUENT TAXPAYER. 

IN ITS OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COURT LAYS STRESS ON THE FACT
THAT ACT 142 WAS NOT A CURATIVE ACT, ALTHOUGH IN EARLIER DECISIONS IT
HAD REPEATEDLY SO DESIGNATED IT.  FN10  BUT WE DO NOT DEEM THE NAME OR
LABEL OF THE LEGISLATION IMPORTANT.  THE FACT IS, AS THE COURT BELOW
HOLDS, THAT THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE STATUTE WERE TO RENDER
UNAVAILING TO THE OWNER WHOSE PROPERTY HAD BEEN SOLD FOR TAXES, AS
GROUNDS OF ATTACK ON THE TITLE OF THE PURCHASER FROM THE STATE,
IRREGULARITIES AND INFORMALITIES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ACTS BY STATE
OFFICERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSMENT, LEVY, AND SALE WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE COULD, IN ITS DISCRETION, HAVE OMITTED TO PRESCRIBE AS
ESSENTIALS TO THE PASSING OF A VALID TITLE. 

THE ACT OF 1935 MUST BE VIEWED IN THE SETTING OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME
OF TAXATION, SALE OF FORFEITED LANDS TO THE STATE, AND SALE IN TURN BY
THE STATE.  ITS PURPOSE WAS TO ASSURE ONE WILLING TO PURCHASE FROM THE
STATE A TITLE IMMUNE FROM ATTACK ON GROUNDS THERETOFORE AVAILABLE.  BY
ITS LEGISLATION THE STATE SAID, IN EFFECT, TO THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER
OF LANDS ACQUIRED FOR DELINQUENT TAXES, THAT IF HE WOULD PURCHASE HE
SHOULD HAVE THE IMMUNITY.  UNDER THE SETTLED RULE OF DECISION IN THIS
COURT, THE EXECUTION OF THE STATE'S DEEDS TO THE APPELLANTS CONSTITUTED
THE EXECUTION OR CONSUMMATION OF A CONTRACT, THE RIGHTS ARISING FROM
WHICH ARE PROTECTED FROM IMPAIRMENT BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF THE
CONSTITUTION; AND THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATE ARISING OUT OF SUCH A
GRANT IS AS MUCH PROTECTED BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, AS THAT OF AN
AGREEMENT BY AN INDIVIDUAL.  FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87, 136, 137,
139.  THE ACT OF 1935, TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE OTHER STATUTES
REGULATING THE ACQUIREMENT BY THE STATE, AND THE DISPOSITION BY IT, OF
LANDS SOLD FOR DELINQUENT TAXES, CONSTITUTED, IN EFFECT, AN OFFER BY
THE STATE TO THOSE WHO MIGHT BECOME PURCHASERS OF SUCH LANDS, AND THE
PROTECTION IT AFFORDED TO THE TITLE ACQUIRED BY SUCH PURCHASERS
NECESSARILY INURED TO EVERY PURCHASER ACTING UNDER IT AND CONSTITUTED A
CONTRACT WITH HIM.  FN11 

THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS HAVE HELD, WITH PRACTICAL UNANIMITY,
THAT ANY SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION BY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION OF THE RIGHTS
OF A PURCHASER AT TAX SALE, ACCRUING TO HIM UNDER LAWS IN FORCE AT THE
TIME OF HIS PURCHASE, IS VOID AS IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT. 
FN12 

APPELLEE RELIES UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE STATE'S DEED IS A
QUITCLAIM.  FROM THIS IT IS INFERRED THAT NO CONTRACT WAS MADE THAT THE
TERMS OF THE ACT OF 1935 WERE TO BIND THE STATE WITH RESPECT TO THE
TITLE CONVEYED.  BUT "THE LAWS WHICH SUBSIST AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF
THE MAKING OF A CONTRACT, AND WHERE IT IS TO BE PERFORMED, ENTER INTO
AND FORM A PART OF IT, AS IF THEY WERE EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO OR
INCORPORATED IN ITS TERMS."  FN13  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE TERMS
OF A STATUTE ACCORDING RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES TO A VENDEE OF THE STATE
ARE A PART OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE DEED MADE PURSUANT TO IT.  THE
GRANT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA INVOLVED IN FLETCHER V. PECK, SUPRA, WAS
A PATENT OF THE PUBLIC LANDS OF THE STATE AND, OF COURSE, CONTAINED NO
WARRANTY OF TITLE SAVE SUCH AS IS IMPLIED FROM THE FACT THAT THE STATE
PURPORTS TO GRANT ITS OWN LANDS.  IN PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY, 140 U.S.
1, THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF HELD TO BE PROTECTED BY ART. 1, SEC. 10,
AROSE OUT OF HIS APPLICATION FOR A PATENT FILED PURSUANT TO A STATE
STATUTE.  THE IMPAIRMENT WAS WORKED OUT BY A SUBSEQUENT STATUTE SEEKING
TO DESTROY THE RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFF TO THE PATENT PURSUANT TO HIS
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EARLIER ACT.  NO WARRANTY WAS INVOLVED.  IN APPLEBY
V. NEW YORK CITY, 271 U.S. 364, IT APPEARED THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD
FIXED THE SHORE LINE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ALONG THE HUDSON RIVER AND
THAT THE LAND INSIDE THAT LINE HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE CITY WITH THE
CONSEQUENT RIGHT TO CONVEY IT.  THE CITY HAD CONVEYED LAND UNDER WATER,
ON THE LANDWARD SIDE OF THE LINE, TO APPLEBY BY A QUITCLAIM DEED.  FN14
BY SUBSEQUENT STATUTES THE STATE GRANTED THE CITY AUTHORITY TO USE THE
LAND IN QUESTION FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AND THE CITY PROCEEDED TO
IMPROVE IT.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE CITY'S GRANT, MADE WITH FULL
LEGISLATIVE SANCTION, COULD NOT BE IMPAIRED BY THE SUBSEQUENT
LEGISLATION. 

AS IN THE CASES CITED, SO HERE, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE
GRANTED A VALUABLE RIGHT WHICH IT SUBSEQUENTLY ESSAYED TO TAKE AWAY. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
ACT 142 OF 1935 ON THE OBVIOUS GROUND THAT A TAXPAYER HAS NO VESTED
RIGHT IN ANY GIVEN FORM OF PROCEDURE FOR FORFEITURE OF LANDS FOR NON
PAYMENT OF TAXES.  AS THAT COURT HAS HELD, THE EXTENT OF HIS RIGHT IS
THAT HE SHALL HAVE NOTICE OF THE SALE AND A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT
FORFEITURE FOR DEFAULT.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE ACT OF THE STATE IN
DEPRIVING THE TAXPAYER OF THE RIGHT TO SET ASIDE A SALE FOR TECHNICAL
PROCEDURAL DEFECTS IS OF LIKE QUALITY WITH THE STATE'S ATTEMPT TO
RESTORE THE TAXPAYER'S RIGHTS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS WHO PURCHASED FROM
THE STATE.  BUT OBVIOUSLY THE TWO ACTS ARE NOT OF THE SAME QUALITY. 
THE TAXPAYER HAD NEITHER A CONTRACT NOR ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
AS AGAINST THE STATE TO INSIST UPON ANY GIVEN FORM OF PROCEDURE, SO
LONG AS WHAT WAS DONE IN FORFEITING HIS LANDS WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR
UNFAIR.  BUT THE APPELLANTS, AS PURCHASERS FROM THE STATE, WERE GIVEN,
BY THE ACT OF 1935, AN IMPORTANT ASSURANCE THAT THE STATE WOULD NOT
ITSELF TAKE AWAY OR AUTHORIZE OTHERS TO DESTROY THE ESTATE WHICH IT HAD
GRANTED, BY REASON OF TECHNICAL DEFECTS IN PROCEDURE CURED BY THE ACT
OF 1935. 

THE APPELLEE SUGGESTS THAT IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE STATE WAS NOT A
PARTY TO THIS SUIT, AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, SEEKING TO TAKE BACK WHAT
IT HAD GRANTED.  BUT, AS FLETCHER V. PECK, SUPRA, SHOWS, THIS IS NOT
IMPORTANT; FOR THAT SUIT WAS BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE PARTIES, AS IS THIS,
ONE CLAIMING RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE EARLIER STATE ACTION AND THE OTHER
CLAIMING SUPERSEDING RIGHTS UNDER LATER LEGISLATION. 

IT BEGS THE QUESTION TO SAY THAT THE STATE MAY NOT ABDICATE ITS
POLICE POWER.  IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICY COMMITTED TO THE
LEGISLATURE IT IS COMPETENT FOR THE STATE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT
WHICH IT INTENDS AS AN ASSURANCE OF PROTECTION TO ITS GRANTEE.  FN15
THIS WE THINK THE STATE HAS PLAINLY DONE IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE.  THE
JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT 142 OF 1935. 

FN2  ACT 264 OF 1937. 

THE WORDS OF THE ACT ARE:  "THAT ACT 142 OF THE ACTS OF 1935 BE AND
THE SAME IS HEREBY REPEALED." 

FN3  201 ARK. 129; 143 S.W.2D 880. 

FN4  POPE'S DIGEST 1937, SEC. 13849. 

FN5  ID., SEC. 13853. 

FN6  ID., SEC. 13855. 

FN7  ID., SEC. 13868. 

FN8  ID., SEC. 13876. 

FN9  ID., SECS. 8610, 8620. 

FN10  CARLE V. GEHL, 193 ARK. 1061; 104 S.W.2D 445; DEANER V.
GWALTNEY, 194 ARK. 332; 108 S.W.2D 600; LAMBERT V. REEVES, 194 ARK.
1109; 110 S.W.2D 503; 112 S.W.2D 33; GILLEY V. SOUTHERN CORPORATION,
194 ARK. 1134; 110 S.W.2D 509; FOSTER V. REYNOLDS, 195 ARK. 5; 110
S.W.2D 689; WALLACE V. TODD, 195 ARK. 134; 111 S.W.2D 472; BURBRIDGE V.
CRAWFORD, 195 ARK. 191; 112 S.W.2D 423; KANSAS CITY LIFE INS. CO. V.
MOSS, 196 ARK. 553; 118 S.W.2D 873; SANDERSON V. WALLS, 200 ARK. 534;
140 S.W.2D 117. 

FN11  WOODRUFF V. TRAPNALL, 10 HOW.  190, 205. 

FN12  CORBIN V. COMMISSIONERS, 3 F. 356; MARX V. HANTHORN, 30 F.
579(SEE 148 U.S. 172, 182); TRACY V. REED, 38 F. 69; WALKER V.
FERGUSON, 176 ARK. 625, 3 S.W.2D 694; CHAPMAN V. JOCELYN, 182 CAL. 294,
187 P. 962; HULL V. FLORIDA, 29 FLA. 79, 11 SO. 97; STATE ADJUSTMENT
CO. V. WINSLOW, 114 FLA. 609, 154 SO. 325; MORRIS V. INTERSTATE BOND
CO., 180 GA. 689, 180 S.E. 819; BRUCE V. SCHUYLER, 9 ILL. 221; SOLIS V.
WILLIAMS, 205 MASS. 350, 91 N.E. 148; CURRY V. BACKUS, 156 MICH. 342,
120 N.W. 796; ROTT V. STEFFENS, 229 MICH. 241, 201 N.W. 227; STATE V.
MCDONALD, 26 MINN. 145, 1 N.W. 832; BLAKELEY V. L.M. MANN LAND CO., 153
MINN. 415, 190 N.W. 797; PRICE V. HARLEY, 142 MISS.  584, 107 SO. 673;
STATE V. OSTEN, 91 MONT. 76, 5 P.2D 562; PACE V. WIGHT, 25 N.M. 276,
181 P. 430; DIKEMAN V. DIKEMAN, 11 PAIGE (N.Y.)  484; STATE V.
STEPHENS, 182 WASH. 444, 47 P.2D 837; MILKINT V. MCNEELEY, 113 W. VA.
804, 169 S.E.790; STATE V. GETHER CO., 203 WIS. 311, 234 N.W. 331. 
COMPARE MCNEE V. WALL, 4 F.SUPP.  496; MOORE V. BRANCH, 5 F.SUPP. 
1011. 

FN13  HOME BUILDING & L. ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398,429. 

FN14  THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE DEED IS:  "AND IT IS HEREBY FURTHER
AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THESE PRESENTS, AND THE TRUE
INTENT AND MEANING HEREOF, IS THAT THIS PRESENT GRANT AND EVERY WORD OR
THING IN THE SAME CONTAINED SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED OR TAKEN TO BE A
COVENANT OR COVENANTS OF WARRANTY OR OF SEIZIN, OF SAID PARTIES OF THE
FIRST PART OR THEIR SUCCESSORS OR TO OPERATE FURTHER THAN TO PASS THE
ESTATE RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST THEY MAY HAVE OR MAY LAWFULLY CLAIM IN
THE PREMISES HEREBY CONVEYED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR SEVERAL CHARTERS AND
THE VARIOUS ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK." 

FN15  INDIANA EX REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, 303 U.S. 95. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING: 

THERE IS FAR MORE INVOLVED HERE THAN A MERE LITIGATION BETWEEN RIVAL
CLAIMANTS TO A FEW HUNDRED ACRES OF ARKANSAS LAND.  IN MY VIEW, THE
STATUTE HERE STRICKEN DOWN IS BUT ONE OF MANY ACTS ADOPTED BOTH BY
CONGRESS AND BY STATE LEGISLATURES IN AN EFFORT TO MEET THE BAFFLING
ECONOMIC AND SOCIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS GROWING OUT OF A NATION-WIDE
DEPRESSION.  THESE PROBLEMS - AMONG THEM THE OWNERS' LOSS OF HOMES AND
FARMS, CHIEFLY THROUGH MORTGAGE SALES AND TAX FORFEITURES AND THE
STATES' CONCOMITANT LOSS OF TAX REVENUES - CHALLENGED THE WISDOM AND
CAPACITY OF THE NATION'S LEGISLATORS. 

AMONG THE EFFORTS OF ARKANSAS' LEGISLATORS TO MEET THESE PROBLEMS WAS
THE LEGISLATION ADOPTED BY ACT 142 OF 1935 AND REPEALED BY ACT 264 OF
1937 - THE REPEALING ACT BEING THE STATUTE HERE HELD INVALID.  IT IS
QUITE APPARENT THAT CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY INDUCED THE
ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE TO PASS THE 1935 ACT WHEREBY ARKANSAS COURTS WERE
PROHIBITED FROM SETTING ASIDE CERTAIN TYPES OF DEFECTIVE TAX SALES "BY
ANY PROCEEDINGS AT LAW OR IN EQUITY."  AT THE TIME THAT ACT WAS PASSED,
MORE THAN 25% OF THE REAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE WAS TAX DELINQUENT. 
FN1  LOSS OF REVENUE FROM SO SUBSTANTIAL A PORTION OF THE STATE'S TOTAL
ACREAGE WAS A SERIOUS MATTER.  IN THE EYES OF SOME PEOPLE, THE LAND
COULD BE SOLD AND THE LOST REVENUES RECOUPED IF SOME OF THE FORMAL
GROUNDS ON WHICH TAX TITLES COULD BE INVALIDATED WERE RENDERED
UNAVAILING.  FN2  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE 1935 LEGISLATURE WAS
PERSUADED OF THE WISDOM OF SUCH A STEP.  BUT IT ALSO SEEMS CLEAR THAT
THE 1935 ACT WAS REPEALED IN 1937 BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE BECAME
CONVINCED THAT THE LAW HAD WORKED DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE STATE'S
POLICY OF OBTAINING THE BENEFITS BELIEVED TO FLOW FROM CONTINUITY OF
POSSESSION BY HOME OWNERS AND FARMERS,  FN3  THAT IT HAD ACCOMPLISHED
INEQUITABLE RESULTS, THAT IT HAD THEREBY "OPERATED INJURIOUSLY TO THE
INTERESTS OF THE STATE, AND THAT SOUND POLICY DICTATED ITS REPEAL." 
FN4  THIS IS APPARENT FROM READING THAT PART OF SEC. 2 OF THE REPEALING
ACT OF 1937 WHICH DECLARED THAT "SAID ACT 142, ACTS 1935, IGNORES
JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITES TO EFFECT VALID SALES OF TAX DELINQUENT
LANDS, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, AND HAS BROUGHT THE LAWS OF THE STATE
INCIDENT THERETO INTO DOUBT AND CONFUSION  ...  " 

BOTH THE 1935 ACT AND THE 1937 ACT REPEALING IT TOUCH ON ARKANSAS'
POLICY AS TO TAXATION, TAX FORFEITURE, AND LAND OWNERSHIP - MATTERS OF
PUBLIC POLICY WHICH ARE OF VITAL INTEREST TO THE STATE AND ALL ITS
CITIZENS.  IT WAS A MATTER OF SERIOUS MOMENT TO ARKANSAS THAT 25% OF
THE STATE'S PRIVATELY OWNED LAND - HOMES, FARMS, AND OTHER PROPERTY -
WAS IN JEOPARDY OF BEING TAKEN FROM ITS OWNERS BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO
PAY TAXES.  IF ONLY 50% OF THE FORFEITURES WERE HOMES AND FARMS,
SIMULTANEOUS OUSTER OF SO MANY CITIZENS COULD RESULT IN FORCED
MIGRATIONS AND DISCONTENTS DISASTROUS IN THEIR CONSEQUENCES.  THE
MANIFESTATIONS OF FINANCIAL DISTRESS REVEALED BY THE WIDESPREAD
DELINQUENCY SPOTLIGHTED CONDITIONS WHICH CALLED FOR THE BEST IN
LEGISLATIVE STATESMANSHIP.  TO SEEK A RATIONAL AND FAIR SOLUTION TO THE
PROBLEM WAS NOT ONLY WITHIN THE POWER OF ARKANSAS' LAWMAKERS, BUT WAS
ALSO THEIR IMPERATIVE DUTY.  WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO JUDGE THE WISDOM OR
EQUITIES OF EITHER ACT, IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT BOTH THE 1935 AND THE
1937 ACT REPRESENTED RATIONAL AND UNDERSTANDABLE ATTEMPTS TO ACHIEVE
SUCH A SOLUTION.  TO HOLD THAT THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IS A BARRIER TO THE 1937 ATTEMPT TO RESTORE TO THE
DISTRESSED LANDOWNERS THE REMEDY PARTLY TAKEN AWAY BY THE 1935 ACT IS,
IN MY VIEW, WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT AND THE LANGUAGE OF
THAT CONSTITUTION. 

AS ALREADY STATED, ARKANSAS WAS NOT FACED WITH A PROBLEM PECULIAR TO
THAT STATE ALONE.  AT THE DEPTH OF THE DEPRESSION, OVER 20% OF ALL REAL
PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES WAS TAX DELINQUENT.  FN5  NOR WAS
ARKANSAS ALONE IN SEEKING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SITUATION.  "SINCE
1928 NEARLY EVERY STATE IN THE UNION HAS ENACTED LEGISLATION DEALING
WITH THE PROBLEM OF DELINQUENT TAXES AND A NUMBER OF STATES HAVE
COMPLETELY REMODELED THEIR SYSTEMS OF TAX DELINQUENCY LAWS.  THIS
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CALLED FORTH BY THE UNPRECEDENTED
INCREASE JUST BEFORE AND DURING THE DEPRESSION IN THE AMOUNT OF UNPAID
PROPERTY TAXES AND BY THE CONSEQUENT THREAT BOTH TO THE FINANCIAL
STABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TO THE SECURITY OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY."  FN6 BY ACTS PASSED IN THE SINGLE YEAR OF 1933, TWELVE
STATES EXTENDED THE TIME FOR PAYING TAXES ALREADY DUE, ELEVEN STATES
POSTPONED SALES FOR TAXES, TWENTY-SIX STATES (AMONG THEM ARKANSAS)
WAIVED OR REDUCED PENALTIES AND INTEREST ON TAXES ALREADY DELINQUENT OR
FOR WHICH PROPERTY HAD ALREADY BEEN SOLD, NINE STATES (AMONG THEM
ARKANSAS) LENGTHENED THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION ON PROPERTY ALREADY SOLD,
AND SIXTEEN STATES PERMITTED PAYMENT OF ALREADY DELINQUENT TAXES IN
INSTALLMENTS SPREAD OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.  FN7 

THE STATES, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALSO, WERE FACED WITH A
"FINANCIAL CRISIS (WHICH HAD) THE SAME RESULTS AS IF IT WERE CAUSED BY
FLOOD, EARTHQUAKE, OR DISTURBANCE IN NATURE."  FN8  THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT GREATLY EXPANDED FACILITIES FOR FARM LOANS; SET UP THE HOME
OWNERS LOAN CORPORATION; PRACTICALLY UNDERWROTE THE NATION'S BANKING
SYSTEM; PASSED THE FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT; WIDENED THE SCOPE OF BANKRUPTCY
JURISDICTION; AND EMBARKED ON A SYSTEM OF NATIONWIDE RELIEF.  IN THE
STATES, PART OF THE EFFORT TO MEET THE CRISIS TOOK THE FORM OF MORTGAGE
AND TAX MORATORIA; PART TOOK OTHER FORMS, INCLUDING THAT OF THE
LEGISLATION NOW BEFORE US.  ALL MAY WELL BE CONSIDERED PARTS OF THE
LARGER AND OVER-ALL EFFORT TO AVERT CATACLYSMIC CHANGES WHICH WERE
THOUGHT TO THREATEN THE EQUILIBRIUM AND TRANQUILITY OF OUR SOCIETY. 
THIS COURT, IN ITS NOTABLE DECISION IN HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V.
BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, UPHELD THAT PHASE OF THE MINNESOTA EFFORT
WHICH TOOK THE FORM OF A MORTGAGE MORATORIUM.  IN THE COURSE OF THE
OPINION, THE COURT QUOTED THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO IN HIS
ARGUMENT HERE HAD STATED:  "'TAX DELINQUENCIES WERE ALARMINGLY GREAT,
RISING AS HIGH AS 78% IN ONE COUNTY OF THE STATE.  IN SEVEN COUNTIES OF
THE STATE THE TAX DELINQUENCY WAS OVER 50%.  BECAUSE OF THESE
DELINQUENCIES MANY TOWNS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, VILLAGES AND CITIES WERE
PRACTICALLY BANKRUPT'  ...  (AND) SERIOUS BREACHES OF THE PEACE HAD
OCCURRED."  FN9  THE POLICY BEHIND MORTGAGE MORATORIA AND THE POLICY
BEHIND TAX LENIENCY TO LANDOWNERS ARE INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED.  FN10
THE BASIC PHILOSOPHY OF THE TWO TYPES OF LEGISLATION IS IDENTICAL.  FOR
ENCOURAGEMENT OF HOME AND FARM OWNERSHIP HAS ALWAYS BEEN TREATED AS A
MAJOR OBJECTIVE OF OUR SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL POLICY.  AND THEREFORE
WHAT WAS SAID IN THE BLAISDELL CASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE:  "NOT ONLY IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION QUALIFIED BY THE MEASURE OF CONTROL WHICH THE STATE RETAINS
OVER REMEDIAL PROCESSES, BUT THE STATE ALSO CONTINUES TO POSSESS
AUTHORITY TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL INTERESTS OF ITS PEOPLE.  IT DOES NOT
MATTER THAT LEGISLATION APPROPRIATE TO THAT END 'HAS THE RESULT OF
MODIFYING OR ABROGATING CONTRACTS ALREADY IN EFFECT.'  STEPHENSON V.
BINFORD, 287 U.S. 251, 276.  NOT ONLY ARE EXISTING LAWS READ INTO
CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO FIX OBLIGATIONS AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BUT THE
RESERVATION OF ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGN POWER IS ALSO READ
INTO CONTRACTS AS A POSTULATE OF THE LEGAL ORDER."  FN11    SO MUCH FOR
THE GENERAL SETTING WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE LAW HERE HELD INVALID.  IN
ORDER BETTER TO UNDERSTAND THE EFFECT THAT LAW HAD ON THE APPELLANTS
AND THE APPELLEE, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF
ARKANSAS LAW. 

AT THE TIME APPELLANTS SECURED FROM THE STATE A QUITCLAIM DEED TO THE
LANDS HERE IN QUESTION, THE LAW PROVIDED TWO ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF
ASSURING PURCHASERS OF TAX FORFEITED LANDS AGAINST LOSS: 

(1)  SUCH PURCHASERS, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, COULD HOLD ON TO
THE LAND THROUGH THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE REMEDIAL PROCESSES OF
THE COURTS; FN12 

(2)  IN CASE THEY COULD NOT HOLD ON TO THE LAND, SUCH PURCHASERS WERE
AFFORDED THE PROTECTION OF A JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHT TO BE
REIMBURSED BY THE LANDOWNER FOR THE AMOUNT PAID OUT FOR PURCHASE PRICE
AND SUBSEQUENT TAXES, WITH INTEREST, AS WELL AS FOR IMPROVEMENTS - ALL
IN THE EVENT THAT THE FORMER OWNERS OF THE LAND SHOULD FOR ANY REASON
BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE LANDS HAD NEVER BEEN VALIDLY FORFEITED.  ARK.
DIG.  STATS.  (POPE, 1937) SECS. 4663-4665, 13881. 

THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE, BY ACT 264 OF 1937, NARROWED THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PURCHASERS MIGHT HOLD ON TO THE LAND.  BUT
THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE ASSURANCE REMAINED INTACT. 

FROM MY STUDY OF THE CASE I AM OF OPINION THAT: 

(1)  THE 1937 ARKANSAS STATUTE HERE ATTACKED NEITHER IMPAIRED NOR
SOUGHT TO REPUDIATE ANY CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT OR OBLIGATION EXPRESSLY
OR IMPLIEDLY ASSUMED BY THE STATE; 

(2)  THE 1937 ARKANSAS STATUTE WAS ENACTED WELL WITHIN THE STATE'S
GENERAL LEGISLATIVE POWERS AND IS IN NO WAY INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRUE
INTENT AND FAIR INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITION WHICH COMMANDS THAT "NO STATE SHALL  ...  PASS ANY  ...
LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS  ...  " 

FIRST.  THE STATE, BY QUITCLAIM DEEDS, WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS WARRANTY
WHATEVER, CONVEYED THE LANDS IN QUESTION TO APPELLANTS.  IT IS
APPELLANTS' CLAIM THAT AN "OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT CREATED BY THE
GRANT OF THE STATE" HAS BEEN IMPAIRED BY THE ARKANSAS STATUTE. 
STRIPPED OF SURPLUS VERBIAGE, APPELLANTS' NAKED CONTENTION IS THAT
ARKANSAS, BY ITS QUITCLAIM SALE AND CONVEYANCE, OBLIGATED ITSELF TO
REFRAIN FROM THEREAFTER PASSING A GENERAL LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT IF SUCH
ENACTMENT WOULD AFFECT IN ANY MANNER ANY OF THE LEGAL MEANS PROVIDED TO
PROTECT TAX SALE PURCHASERS AGAINST LOSS.  WE NEED NOT HERE CONSIDER
WHETHER UNDER THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION THE LEGISLATURE COULD HAVE THUS
BARGAINED AWAY THE STATE'S LEGISLATIVE POWER IN SETTING UP A SCHEME FOR
THE SALE OF TAX FORFEITED LAND.  FOR THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT ON THE PART
OF THE STATE OFFICIALS WHO MADE THE SALE TO EXERCISE ANY SUCH
EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITY. 

A DEED TO PROPERTY WITHOUT WARRANTY IS AN AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER
WHATEVER TITLE THE GRANTOR HAS.  AND EVEN WITHOUT EXPRESS LANGUAGE TO
THAT EFFECT IN THE CONVEYANCE, IT IS REASONABLE TO SAY THAT A VALID
QUITCLAIM CONVEYANCE CARRIES ALONG WITH IT AN IMPLIED OBLIGATION THAT
THE GRANTOR WILL NOT REPUDIATE THE GRANT AND ATTEMPT TO REASSERT TITLE
IN HIMSELF, FOR SUCH A REASSERTION OF TITLE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE
EXPRESS PURPOSE WHICH ACTUATED THE PARTIES IN REACHING THE AGREEMENT
WHICH ENDED IN THE CONVEYANCE.  THE IMPLIED OBLIGATION NOT TO REASSERT
TITLE WAS THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IN FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87, A
DECISION WHICH THIS COURT RELIES ON IN THE CASE AT BAR.  CF. SATTERLEE
V. MATTHEWSON, 2 PET. 380, 414-415.  IN FLETCHER V. PECK, THE COURT
SAID:  "A CONTRACT EXECUTED, AS WELL AS ONE WHICH IS EXECUTORY,
CONTAINS OBLIGATIONS BINDING ON THE PARTIES.  A GRANT, IN ITS OWN
NATURE, AMOUNTS TO AN EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE RIGHT OF THE GRANTOR, AND
IMPLIES A CONTRACT, NOT TO REASSERT THAT RIGHT.  A PARTY IS, THEREFORE,
ALWAYS ESTOPPED BY HIS OWN GRANT."  FN13  WHAT THE STATE OF GEORGIA DID
IN THAT CASE WAS TO SEEK TO REASSERT TITLE TO LAND WHICH THE COURT
FOUND IT HAD CONVEYED FOR A CONSIDERATION UNDER WHAT THE COURT DEEMED
TO BE A VALID CONTRACT.  TRUE, GEORGIA WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE ACTUAL
LITIGATION, BUT BY PURPORTING TO CONVEY TO ONE PURCHASER LAND WHICH HAD
ALREADY BEEN CONVEYED BY IT TO ANOTHER PURCHASER THE STATE CLEARLY
ATTEMPTED TO ASSERT THAT IT STILL HAD TITLE TO THE LAND.  HERE THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS HAS NOT REPUDIATED ANY IMPLIED OBLIGATION BY
ATTEMPTING TO REASSERT TITLE IN THE LANDS WHOSE OWNERSHIP IS NOW IN
ISSUE.  THERE IS NO LITIGATION HERE BETWEEN THE STATE AND ITS GRANTEES,
AND NONE, AS IN FLETCHER V. PECK, BETWEEN RIVAL GRANTEES OF THE STATE. 
APPELLEE CLAIMS TITLE THROUGH AN OWNER WHOSE ESTATE ARKANSAS HAD
PURPORTEDLY FORFEITED FOR UNPAID TAXES.  NEITHER IN THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE NOR IN THE LEGISLATION ATTACKED IS THERE ANY KIND OF CHALLENGE TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE'S CONVEYANCE OF ALL THE TITLE THE STATE
POSSESSED.  AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, FLETCHER V. PECK RESTED UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS A CONTINUING OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE
STATE, AS ON THE PART OF ANY OTHER GRANTOR, NOT TO REPUDIATE A VALID
CONVEYANCE AND ATTEMPT TO REASSERT A CLAIM TO PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN
SOLD.  SUCH A RULING OFFERS NO SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTION THAT ARKANSAS,
IN QUITCLAIMING ALL ITS INTEREST TO APPELLANTS, THEREBY ASSUMED A
CONTINUING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION THAT ITS LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT WOULD
IN NO WAY ALTER THE PROCEDURAL RULES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE ARKANSAS
COURTS IN ADJUDICATING CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE STATE'S GRANTEES AND
THE ORIGINAL OWNERS WHOM THE STATE HAD ATTEMPTED TO DIVEST OF THEIR
PROPERTY BY THE DRASTIC METHOD OF FORFEITURE.  "THE TROUBLE AT THE
BOTTOM OF THE  ...  CASE IS THAT THE SUPPOSED PROMISE  ...  ON WHICH IT
IS FOUNDED DOES NOT EXIST.  IF SUCH A PROMISE HAD BEEN INTENDED IT WAS
FAR TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO IMPLICATION."  KNOXVILLE WATER CO. V.
KNOXVILLE, 189 U.S. 434, 436.  "THE PATENT (HERE, THE QUITCLAIM DEED)
CONTAINS NO COVENANT TO DO OR NOT TO DO ANY FURTHER ACT IN RELATION TO
THE LAND; AND WE DO NOT, IN THIS CASE, FEEL AT LIBERTY TO CREATE ONE BY
IMPLICATION."  JACKSON V. LAMPHIRE, 3 PET. 280, 289.  "A CONTRACT
BINDING THE STATE IS ONLY CREATED BY CLEAR LANGUAGE, AND IS NOT TO BE
EXTENDED BY IMPLICATION BEYOND THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE.  ...  IN THE
CASE AT BAR  ...  THE ACT ...  OPERATED IN NO MANNER AS A RESTRAINT ON
THE LEGISLATURE OR AS A CONTRACT UPON ITS PART THAT THE STATE WOULD NOT
ACT WHENEVER IN ITS JUDGMENT IT PERCEIVED THE NECESSITY FOR AN
ADDITIONAL FERRY.  ...  NO PROMISE MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE BY THE FIRST
ACT IS BROKEN BY THE SECOND."  WILLIAMS V. WINGO, 177 U.S. 601, 603,
604.  "THERE IS NO UNDERTAKING ON THE PART OF THE STATE WITH THE
PURCHASER THAT THE REMEDY PRESCRIBED IN THIS STATUTE, AND NO OTHER,
SHALL BE PURSUED, UNLESS IT IS TO BE IMPLIED FROM THE MERE PRESENCE OF
THE PROVISION IN THE STATUTE, AND WE THINK IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NO
SUCH IMPLICATION ARISES."  WILSON V. STANDEFER, 184 U.S. 399, 410. 

IN THIS CASE ARKANSAS HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE EXPRESS TERMS OF
ITS CONTRACT.  FOR THERE WAS CERTAINLY NO EXPRESS OBLIGATION ON THE
PART OF ARKANSAS THAT ITS GENERAL LAWS CONCERNING FORFEITURE OF
PROPERTY AND SALE OF LAND SHOULD REMAIN STATIC.  NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT
ANY SUCH OBLIGATION CAN PROPERLY BE IMPLIED.  ARKANSAS DID NOT AGREE
WITH THE APPELLANTS THAT IT WOULD KEEP ON ITS STATUTE BOOKS LEGISLATION
WHICH IN EFFECT FORFEITED ITS CITIZENS' LANDS IN A WAY AND MANNER WHICH
WAS DIRECTLY IN THE TEETH OF WHAT HAD BEEN THE ARKANSAS LAW AT THE TIME
THE ALLEGED FORFEITURES OCCURRED.  AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD
COMPEL THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SUCH A RESULT BY WHAT I CONCEIVE TO BE A
STRETCHING OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

SECOND.  MEASURED EITHER BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ITSELF OR BY
THAT PROVISION AS CONSTRUED BY PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, I AM OF
OPINION THAT THE ARKANSAS STATUTE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS REFERRED
TO IN HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 438-439,
AS THE TRUE INTENT AND FAIR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE. 

WRITING IN 1817, JUDGE LIVINGSTON, OF THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF
NEW YORK, HAD THIS TO SAY OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE:  "THERE IS NOT,
PERHAPS, IN THE CONSTITUTION ANY ARTICLE OF MORE AMBIGUOUS IMPORT, OR
WHICH HAS OCCASIONED, AND WILL CONTINUE TO OCCASION, MORE DISCUSSION
AND DISAGREEMENT, ...  OR THE APPLICATION OF WHICH TO THE CASES WHICH
OCCUR WILL BE ATTENDED WITH MORE PERPLEXITY AND EMBARRASSMENT.  ...
AND IT WILL NOT BE SURPRISING IF, IN THE DISCHARGE OF IT, GREAT
DIVERSITY OF OPINION SHOULD ARISE."  ADAM V. STOREY, FED. CAS. NO. 66;
1 PAINE'S REP. 79, 88-89.  IN HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL,
SUPRA, WRITTEN IN 1933, APPEARS A RESUME OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS WHICH
SUBSTANTIATE THE ACCURACY OF JUDGE LIVINGSTON'S PROPHECY.  AND IN THE
BLAISDELL CASE THIS COURT QUOTED A STATEMENT ORIGINALLY MADE BY JUSTICE
JOHNSON IN OGDEN V. SAUNDERS, 12 WHEAT.  213, 286:  "BUT TO ASSIGN TO
CONTRACTS, UNIVERSALLY, A LITERAL PURPORT, AND TO EXACT FOR THEM A
RIGID LITERAL FULFILMENT, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE INTENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  IT IS REPELLED BY A HUNDRED EXAMPLES.  SOCIETIES
EXERCISE A POSITIVE CONTROL AS WELL OVER THE INCEPTION, CONSTRUCTION,
AND FULFILMENT OF CONTRACTS AS OVER THE FORM AND MEASURE OF THE REMEDY
TO ENFORCE THEM."  THE ACCURACY OF THIS STATEMENT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED
BY ONE WHO REFLECTS UPON THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS
ARE A PART OF THE DAILY ACTIVITIES OF OUR SOCIETY.  FOR, SO NEARLY
UNIVERSAL ARE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS THAT IT IS DIFFICULT IF NOT
IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE OF LAWS WHICH DO NOT HAVE EITHER DIRECT OR
INDIRECT BEARING UPON CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.  THEREFORE, IT WOULD GO
FAR TOWARDS PARALYZING THE LEGISLATIVE ARM OF STATE GOVERNMENTS TO SAY
THAT NO LEGISLATIVE BODY COULD EVER PASS A LAW WHICH WOULD IMPAIR IN
ANY MANNER ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OF ANY KIND.  UPON A RECOGNITION
OF THIS BASIC TRUTH RESTS THE DECISION IN THE BLAISDELL CASE.  SUCH
RECOGNITION WAS MADE CLEAR BY THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING EXPRESSIONS,
EITHER QUOTED AND IMPLICITLY APPROVED, OR USED FOR THE FIRST TIME:
"THE PROHIBITION IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ONE AND IS NOT TO BE READ WITH
LITERAL EXACTNESS LIKE A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA"; "NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN
MADE TO FIX DEFINITELY THE LINE BETWEEN ALTERATIONS OF THE REMEDY,
WHICH ARE TO BE DEEMED LEGITIMATE, AND THOSE WHICH, UNDER THE FORM OF
MODIFYING THE REMEDY, IMPAIR SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.  EVERY CASE MUST BE
DETERMINED UPON ITS OWN CIRCUMSTANCES"; "IN ALL SUCH CASES THE QUESTION
BECOMES, THEREFORE, ONE OF REASONABLENESS, AND OF THAT THE LEGISLATURE
IS PRIMARILY THE JUDGE"; "THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE
ACTION AFFECTS CONTRACTS INCIDENTALLY, OR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BUT
WHETHER THE LEGISLATION IS ADDRESSED TO A LEGITIMATE END AND THE
MEASURES TAKEN ARE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO THAT END"; "IF IT BE
DETERMINED, AS IT MUST BE, THAT THE CONTRACT CLAUSE IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE
AND UTTERLY UNQUALIFIED RESTRICTION OF THE STATE'S PROTECTIVE POWER,
THIS LEGISLATION IS CLEARLY SO REASONABLE AS TO BE WITHIN THE
LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCY."  290 U.S. 398, 430, 438, 447. 

THE BLAISDELL DECISION REPRESENTED A REALISTIC APPRECIATION OF THE
FACT THAT OURS IS AN EVOLVING SOCIETY AND THAT THE GENERAL WORDS OF THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE WERE NOT INTENDED TO REDUCE THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT TO HELPLESS IMPOTENCY.  SEE VEIX V. SIXTH WARD BUILDING &
LOAN ASSN., 310 U.S. 32, 38.  WHETHER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE HAD BEEN
GIVEN TOO BROAD A CONSTRUCTION IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS PRIOR TO THE
BLAISDELL DECISION IS NOT NOW MATERIAL.  AND WHETHER I BELIEVE THAT THE
LANGUAGE QUOTED FROM THE BLAISDELL OPINION CONSTITUTES THE ULTIMATE
CRITERIA UPON WHICH LEGISLATION SHOULD BE MEASURED I NEED NOT NOW
DISCUSS.  FOR I AM OF OPINION THAT THE ARKANSAS STATUTE, PASSED IN
PURSUANCE OF A GENERAL PUBLIC POLICY OF THAT STATE, COMES WELL WITHIN
THE PERMISSIBLE AREA OF STATE LEGISLATION AS THAT AREA IS DEFINED BY
THE BLAISDELL CASE AND THE DECISIONS UPON WHICH THAT CASE RESTS.  FN14 

AS HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT, THE FORFEITURE IN THE CASE AT BAR
WAS WHOLLY INVALID UNDER WHAT WAS THE GOVERNING LAW AT THE TIME OF SUCH
FORFEITURE.  THAT INVALIDITY WAS RENDERED UNAVAILING TO THE LAND'S
FORMER OWNERS - AND TO ALL OTHER OWNERS SIMILARLY SITUATED - BY THE
1935 ACT.  AS HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT, EXPERIENCE EVIDENTLY
DEMONSTRATED TO THE LEGISLATURE THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE WAS NOT SERVED BY THE CHANGE EFFECTED BY THE 1935
ACT; HENCE ITS REPEAL IN 1937.  IN ARKANSAS, AS APPELLANTS ARGUE HERE,
"THESE ACTIONS TO CANCEL TAX DEEDS ARE IN THEIR ESSENTIAL NATURE
NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN SUITS TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY  ...  "  AND IT
HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS THE LAW IN ARKANSAS THAT "THE RIGHT TO
REDEEM LANDS FROM A TAX SALE DEPENDS UPON THE STATUTE IN FORCE AT THE
DATE OF THE SALE."  THOMPSON V. SHERRILL, 51 ARK. 453, 458; 11 S.W.
689; GROVES V. KEENE, 105 ARK. 40, 43; 150 S.W. 575.  AT THE TIME OF
THE FORFEITURE AND SALE TO THE STATE, ARKANSAS LAW PROTECTED THE
PURCHASER BY PROVIDING THAT HE SHOULD BE REIMBURSED AND MADE WHOLE IN
CASE HIS TAX PURCHASE WAS SET ASIDE FOR IRREGULARITY.  THAT PROTECTION
IS TODAY AFFORDED TO THE FULL EXTENT THAT IT WAS WHEN APPELLANTS BOUGHT
THE LAND; THE REPEALING ACT OF WHICH APPELLANTS COMPLAIN DID NOT TAKE
AWAY ANY PART OF THAT RIGHT.  FROM ALL OF THIS IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE
ENTIRE PLAN OF THE STATE IN CONNECTION WITH TAX SALES, BOTH BEFORE AND
AFTER THE REPEALING ACT OF 1937, SHOWS A SCRUPULOUS DESIRE TO PROVIDE
COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASER IN ORDER THAT HE MAY NOT SUFFER
PECUNIARY LOSS, WHATEVER MAY BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A SUIT FOR THE
LAND.  AND THE WHOLE COURSE OF LEGISLATION IN ARKANSAS SHOWS A DESIRE
TO BE FAIR BOTH TO THE PURCHASER OF TAX FORFEITED LAND AND TO THE
FORMER OWNERS WHOSE LAND IS ABOUT TO BE LOST BY REASON OF THE DRASTIC
DEVICE OF FORFEITURE.  CF. CURTIS V. WHITNEY, 13 WALL.  68, 71.  I
CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE TRUE INTENT AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE PROHIBITS ARKANSAS FROM MAKING SUCH AN EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE
RIGHTS OF BOTH THE LANDOWNER AND THE ONE WHO CLAIMS THE LANDOWNER'S
FORFEITED PROPERTY.  ARKANSAS HAS NOT HERE TAKEN AWAY
APPELLANTS'"ENTIRE REMEDY" BUT HAS DONE SO "IN PART ONLY."  MASON V.
HAILE, 12 WHEAT.  370, 378.  I AM WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT THERE MAY BE
A "VAST DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE LAND AND THE SUM FOR
WHICH IT IS USUALLY BID OFF AT SUCH SALES."  CURTIS V. WHITNEY, SUPRA,
AT 70.  BUT ASSUMING THAT THE TAX FORFEITED LAND HERE WAS OBTAINED AT
SUCH A BARGAIN, I AM STILL OF THE OPINION THAT THESE APPELLANTS - WHO
HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR MONEY, WITH INTEREST - HAVE BEEN DENIED NO
RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACT CLAUSE.  AND IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS
NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN THAT APPELLANTS COULD HAVE OBTAINED A PERFECT TITLE
BY OPENLY AND ADVERSELY HOLDING POSSESSION OF THE LAND FOR TWO YEARS -
A PRIVILEGE WHICH THE STATE COURTS FINALLY AND AUTHORITATIVELY FOUND
HAD NOT BEEN EXERCISED.  TAX SOLD PROPERTIES ARE UNDOUBTEDLY BOUGHT
WITH THE KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THOSE WHO SPECULATE  FN15  IN THEM
THAT STATES ORDINARILY ADOPT A LIBERAL POLICY IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY OWNERS FROM TAX FORFEITURE.  AND EVEN GRANTING THAT WE COULD
ENTER INTO QUESTIONS OF POLICY, I WOULD BE UNABLE TO REACH THE
CONCLUSION THAT ARKANSAS, BY REPEALING ITS 1935 STATUTE, ACTED "WITHOUT
...  REASON OR IN A SPIRIT OF OPPRESSION."  W.B. WORTHEN CO. V.
KAVANAUGH, 295 U.S. 56, 60.  IT WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE DIFFICULT TO
SUPPORT AN ARGUMENT THAT ARKANSAS WAS ACTING EITHER UNREASONABLY,
UNJUSTLY, OPPRESSIVELY, OR COUNTER TO SOUND PUBLIC POLICY IN ADOPTING A
LAW WHICH, WITHOUT DEPRIVING PURCHASERS OF THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THEIR
MONEY OUTLAY, WITH INTEREST, SOUGHT TO MAKE THE WAY EASY FOR FORMER
HOME OWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF ALL TYPES TO REACQUIRE POSSESSION
AND OWNERSHIP OF FORFEITED PROPERTY.  IF UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE IT
IS JUSTIFIABLE TO SEEK TO FIND "A RATIONAL COMPROMISE BETWEEN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC WELFARE," HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V.
BLAISDELL, SUPRA, AT 442, THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS A CASE FOR
THE APPLICATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE ARKANSAS
LEGISLATURE IS PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FROM ADOPTING THE
PUBLIC POLICY WHICH THE DECISION OF THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT HAS
UPHELD IN THIS CASE.  "ESPECIAL RESPECT SHOULD BE HAD TO SUCH DECISIONS
WHEN THE DISPUTE ARISES OUT OF GENERAL LAWS OF A STATE, REGULATING ITS
EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER, OR RELATING TO THE STATE'S DISPOSITION OF
ITS PUBLIC LANDS."  FN16 

FN1  ARK. ACTS 1935, NO. 119, SEC. 12.  IN DESHA COUNTY, WHERE THE
LANDS HERE INVOLVED ARE LOCATED, TAX DELINQUENCY AS OF DECEMBER 31,
1933, AMOUNTED TO 57.5%.  THIS WAS THE HIGHEST FIGURE REPORTED FOR ANY
COUNTY IN THE STATE.  REALTY TAX DELINQUENCY (BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,
1934) VOL. I, PART II, ARKANSAS, PP. 3-4.  AND SEE BRANNEN, TAX
DELINQUENT RURAL LANDS IN ARKANSAS (UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE, BULLETIN NO. 311, 1934) PASSIM. 

FN2  BRANNEN, TAX DELINQUENCY IN ARKANSAS, 15 SOUTHWESTERN SOCIAL
SCIENCE QUARTERLY 201, 206-207(1934); BRANNEN, TAX DELINQUENT RURAL
LANDS IN ARKANSAS, SUPRA, P. 35.  AND SEE BERRY V. DAVIDSON, 199 ARK.
276, 280; 133 S.W.2D 442. 

FN3  ARKANSAS HAS EXPRESSED ITS CONTINUING SOLICITUDE IN THIS REGARD
BY NUMEROUS ACTS OF ITS LEGISLATURE.  FOR EXAMPLE, BY SUCH AN ACT
ARKANSAS TAXPAYERS WERE PERMITTED TO RETAIN TITLE TO THEIR REAL
PROPERTY FOR THREE YEARS BY PAYING TAXES FOR ONLY ONE YEAR.  SEE THIRD
BIENNIAL REPORT, ARKANSAS STATE TAX COMMISSION (1931-32) P. 6. 

FN4  OCHILTREE V. RAILROAD CO., 21 WALL.  249, 251. 

FN5  REALTY TAX DELINQUENCY (BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1934) VOL. 1, PP.
6-7.  BY STATES, TAX DELINQUENCY VARIED FROM A LOW OF 6% IN
MASSACHUSETTS TO A HIGH OF 40.5% IN MICHIGAN.  NORTH DAKOTA (37.5%),
ILLINOIS (37%) AND FLORIDA (36%) FOLLOWED CLOSE AFTER MICHIGAN. 

FN6  PUTNEY, TAX DELINQUENCY IN THE UNITED STATES, IN EDITORIAL
RESEARCH REPORTS (VOL. II, 1935) 327.  AND SEE FAIRCHILD, THE PROBLEM
OF TAX DELINQUENCY (1934) 24 AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 140, 144. 

FN7  PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL TAX ASSOCIATION (1933) 28-30; CF.
ID. (1934) 30-31.  FOR A COMPLETE LIST OF CHANGES IN TAX COLLECTION
PROCEDURE MADE DURING THE 1930-1934 PERIOD, SEE REALTY TAX DELINQUENCY
(BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1934) VOL. 1, PP. IA-III. 

FN8  JUSTICE OLSEN OF THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT, AS QUOTED IN HOME
BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 423. 

FN9  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, SUPRA, AT 424. 

FN10  CF.  THE FARM DEBT PROBLEM, LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE (73RD CONG., 1ST SESS., HOUSE DOC. NO. 9) PP. 26-29. 

FN11  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, SUPRA, AT 434-435. 

FN12  THERE WERE THREE PRINCIPAL WAYS BY WHICH PURCHASERS OF TAX
TITLES COULD HOLD ON TO THE LAND: 

(1)  BY ACQUIRING A VALID TAX DEED.  (THE TAX DEEDS HERE WERE
ADMITTEDLY INVALID UNDER THE LAWS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF FORFEITURE.) 

(2)  BY TWO YEARS OPEN AND ADVERSE POSSESSION.  (THOUGH OVER TWO
YEARS HAD ELAPSED BETWEEN THE DATE OF PURCHASE AND THE BEGINNING OF
THIS LITIGATION, THE COURTS BELOW FOUND THAT THE PURCHASERS HAD NOT
AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THIS REMEDY.) 

(3)  BY FAILURE OF THE FORMER LANDOWNER TO COMPENSATE THE PURCHASER
FOR HIS EXPENDITURES.  (THE ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW PROVIDED THAT SUCH
COMPENSATION BE PAID.) 

FN13  6 CRANCH 87, 137.  IN THAT CASE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON DENIED THAT
THE IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT CLAUSE WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO CONTRACTS
ALREADY FULLY EXECUTED.  ID., AT 145.  THAT QUESTION, HOWEVER, IS NOT
MATERIAL TO THE POINT HERE UNDER DISCUSSION. 

FN14  THE ONLY PART OF THE BLAISDELL DECISION MENTIONED BY THE COURT
IN THE CASE AT BAR IS A PASSAGE QUOTING A STATEMENT WHICH IN BLAISDELL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE QUOTED FROM VON HOFFMAN V. CITY OF QUINCY, 4 WALL. 
535, 550, 552:  "THE LAWS WHICH SUBSIST AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE
MAKING OF A CONTRACT, AND WHERE IT IS TO BE PERFORMED, ENTER INTO AND
FORM A PART OF IT, AS IF THEY WERE EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO OR
INCORPORATED IN ITS TERMS."  THE COURT NOW QUOTES THIS LANGUAGE AS THE
GOVERNING LAW.  IN THE BLAISDELL CASE, HOWEVER, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
FOLLOWED THE QUOTATION WITH THIS STATEMENT:  "BUT THIS BROAD LANGUAGE
CANNOT BE TAKEN WITHOUT QUALIFICATION.  CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL POINTED
OUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN OBLIGATION AND REMEDY.  STURGES V.
CROWNINSHIELD, SUPRA (4 WHEAT.  122), P. 200.  SAID HE:  'THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT, AND THE REMEDY GIVEN
BY THE LEGISLATURE TO ENFORCE THAT OBLIGATION, HAS BEEN TAKEN AT THE
BAR, AND EXISTS IN THE NATURE OF THINGS.  WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE
OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT, THE REMEDY MAY CERTAINLY BE MODIFIED AS THE
WISDOM OF THE NATION SHALL DIRECT.'"  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V.
BLAISDELL, SUPRA, AT 430.  AND CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, ELABORATING HIS
VIEWS OF THIS SAME SUBJECT IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION IN OGDEN V.
SAUNDERS, 12 WHEAT.  213, 343, 353, SAID:  "WE HAVE, THEN, NO
HESITATION IN SAYING THAT, HOWEVER LAW MAY ACT UPON CONTRACTS, IT DOES
NOT ENTER INTO THEM, AND BECOME A PART OF THE AGREEMENT.  THE EFFECT OF
SUCH A PRINCIPLE WOULD BE A MISCHIEVOUS ABRIDGMENT OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
OVER SUBJECTS WITHIN THE PROPER JURISDICTION OF STATES, BY ARRESTING
THEIR POWER TO REPEAL OR MODIFY SUCH LAWS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING
CONTRACTS."  "WE THINK, THAT OBLIGATION AND REMEDY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE
FROM EACH OTHER.  THAT THE FIRST IS CREATED BY THE ACT OF THE PARTIES,
THE LAST IS AFFORDED BY GOVERNMENT." 

FN15  TREAT V. ORONO, 26 ME. 217; LISSO & BRO. V. NATCHITOCHES, 127
LA. 283; 53 SO. 566; LYNDE V. MELROSE, 10 ALLEN (MASS.) 49.  AND SEE
UPSON, LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE IN THE DEPRESSION, 24 NATIONAL
MUNICIPAL REVIEW 503, 506.  ("ORDINARILY, IN IMPORTANT COMMUNITIES TAX
TITLE BUYING HAS BEEN IN THE HANDS OF PROFESSIONAL BUYERS INTERESTED IN
SECURING A QUICK TURNOVER OF INVESTMENTS AND BY NO MEANS DESIRING TO
GET INTO THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS THROUGH THE ACTUAL ACQUISITION OF
PROPERTIES.") 

FN16  WILSON V. STANDEFER, 184 U.S. 399, 412. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :












WATSON V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 387 


NO. 610.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 30, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 34
F.SUPP.  510, REVERSED IN PART - AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  A FEDERAL COURT, UPON FINDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOME PARTS OF A
STATE STATUTE EMBRACING MANY PROVISIONS, IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECLARING
IT VOID IN TOTO, UPON THE GROUND THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO FORM
A HARMONIOUS WHOLE, WHERE PARTS WHOSE VALIDITY STANDING ALONE WAS NOT
PASSED UPON ARE COMPLETE IN THEMSELVES AND WHERE THE STATUTE DECLARES
THAT THE INVALIDITY OF ANY PART SHALL NOT AFFECT THE OTHERS.  P. 395. 

2.  CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE A STATE STATUTE, EVEN THOUGH IT
BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ARE NOT TO BE ENJOINED BY A FEDERAL COURT IN THE
ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE THREAT OF PROSECUTION AND OF A CLEAR SHOWING OF
GREAT AND IMMEDIATE DANGER OF IRREPARABLE LOSS.  P. 400. 

3.  AS A RULE, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTES CONTAINING
MANY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PROVISIONS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PASSED UPON
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, SHOULD BE DETERMINED AS CASES ARISE
FROM SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS OF THE STATUTE, AND PREFERABLY BY THE STATE
COURTS.  P. 401. 

4.  THE COPYRIGHT LAWS DO NOT GRANT TO COPYRIGHT OWNERS THE PRIVILEGE
OF COMBINING IN VIOLATION OF OTHERWISE VALID STATE LAWS.  P. 404. 

5.  SECTION 1 OF THE FLORIDA LAWS OF 1937, C. 17807, WHICH DEFINES AS
AN UNLAWFUL COMBINATION AN AGGREGATION OF AUTHORS, COMPOSERS,
PUBLISHERS, AND OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED VOCAL OR INSTRUMENTAL MUSICAL
COMPOSITIONS WHO FORM ANY SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION, OR THE LIKE, AND THE
MEMBERS OF WHICH CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE PERSONS, FIRMS
OR CORPORATIONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WHO OWN OR CONTROL SUCH
MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS, "WHEN ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF SUCH COMBINATION IS
THE DETERMINATION AND FIXATION OF LICENSE FEES OR OTHER EXACTIONS
REQUIRED BY SUCH COMBINATION FOR ITSELF OR ITS MEMBERS OR OTHER
INTERESTED PARTIES," AND WHICH MAKES IT AN OFFENSE FOR SUCH
COMBINATIONS TO ACT WITHIN THE STATE IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THE
STATUTE, DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OR THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 404. 

WATSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, ET AL. V. BUCK ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 611, BUCK ET AL. V. WATSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
FLORIDA, ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
CONSTITUTED OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH ENJOINED THE PROSECUTING OFFICERS OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA FROM ENFORCING A FLORIDA STATUTE OF 1937 DEFINING
AND FORBIDDING UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS OF AUTHORS, COMPOSERS, PUBLISHERS,
AND OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED VOCAL OR INSTRUMENTAL MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS,
ETC., AND WHICH GRANTED THE INJUNCTION ALSO, BUT ONLY AS TO CERTAIN
1939.  THE CASE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN EARLIER ASPECTS IN
GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66.  ATTORNEY GENERAL WATSON WAS SUBSTITUTED
FOR HIS PREDECESSOR MR. GIBBS. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE SOCIETY WAS NECESSARY TO MEET THE EVIL OF
WHOLESALE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL WORKS BY UNAUTHORIZED
PUBLIC PERFORMANCES FOR PROFIT.  THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT OF "PUBLIC
PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT" REQUIRES COLLECTIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF
CREATORS AND PUBLISHERS. 

COOPERATIVE LICENSING IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF DIVIDED AND DIVERSE
OWNERSHIP OF PERFORMING RIGHTS.  THE BLANKET LICENSE IS THE ONLY
FEASIBLE METHOD OF LICENSING THE "SMALL RIGHT."  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
ASSIGN IN ADVANCE A SEPARATE PRICE FOR EACH PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIED
COMPOSITIONS; NOR IS IT POSSIBLE TO BARGAIN SEPARATELY FOR EACH USE. 
THE BLANKET LICENSE OVERCOMES THESE OBSTACLES.  IT ENABLES THE SOCIETY
TO ISSUE LICENSES AT A VERY LOW COST TO THE USER. 

THE SOCIETY CONTROLS ONLY A SMALL PART OF AVAILABLE MUSIC. 

THE STATUTES VIOLATE THE COPYRIGHT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  (1) THEY INVADE A FIELD DELEGATED TO CONGRESS,
NULLIFYING THE MOST VITAL PROVISIONS OF THE 1909 REVISION OF THE
COPYRIGHT LAWS, AND CONFISCATING PLAINTIFFS' RIGHT OF PUBLIC
PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT BY BARRING THEM FROM LICENSING THEIR COPYRIGHTED
MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS IN THE ONLY MANNER THAT IS COMMERCIALLY FEASIBLE;
AND (2) THEY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS. 

THE 1937 ACT CONTAINS NO LEGISLATIVE FINDING AS TO ANY EXISTING EVIL
REQUIRING ITS PASSAGE.  NOR WAS ANY ESTABLISHED AT THE TRIAL.  THE
COURT BELOW FOUND THAT THE ACT WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF THE
POLICE POWER OF THE STATE AND THAT ITS TRUE PURPOSE WAS TO DEPRIVE
PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR COPYRIGHTED COMPOSITIONS FOR THE PRIVATE BENEFIT OF
410 COMMERCIAL USERS IN FLORIDA. 

THE 1939 ACT DOES NOT PURPORT TO REGULATE OR PENALIZE COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  IT REQUIRES VIRTUAL DUPLICATION OF ALL DATA FILED
WITH THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS UNDER THE ACT OF 1909 FOR THE ALLEGED
PURPOSE OF ENABLING FLORIDA USERS TO AVOID INNOCENT INFRINGEMENT.  IT
BARS TWO OR MORE COPYRIGHT OWNERS FROM ISSUING BLANKET LICENSES IN
FLORIDA UNLESS THEY GIVE ALL USERS IN THE STATE AN OPTION TO HAVE A
LICENSE TO PERFORM EACH SEPARATE COMPOSITION AT A PRICE FIXED
INDEPENDENTLY IN ADVANCE BY EACH OWNER FOR EACH USER IN THE STATE, AND
STATED IN A SCHEDULE FILED AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF
THE LICENSE IF THE PRICE CHARGED IS TO DIFFER FROM ANY PRICE PREVIOUSLY
SCHEDULED.  WHETHER A BLANKET LICENSE OR ANY OTHER FORM OF LICENSE IS
ISSUED BY A SINGLE PERSON OR BY MANY, THE LICENSE FEE MUST NOT BE BASED
IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON A PROGRAM NOT USING SUCH COMPOSITION.  IN
OTHER WORDS, THE LICENSE FEE MUST BE COMPUTED SOLELY UPON THE VALUE OF
THE COMPOSITION IN THE PARTICULAR PROGRAM EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE
ESTABLISHED THAT THE USE OF THE COMPOSITION IN THE PARTICULAR PROGRAM
ENHANCES THE VALUE OF THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING PROGRAMS WHICH DO
NOT ACTUALLY EMPLOY THE LICENSED COMPOSITION.  A TAX OF THREE PER CENT.
IS IMPOSED ON GROSS LICENSE FEES COLLECTED. 

THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN FULLY COVERING THE FIELD IN THE 1909
REVISION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT BARS THE STATES FROM MAKING ANY
REGULATIONS IN THAT FIELD.  H.R. REPT. NO. 2222, 60TH CONG., 2D SESS.,
1909; NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RY. CO., 272 U.S. 605; JENNINGS V.
U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 294 U.S. 216, 226. 

ALL RIGHTS GRANTED UNDER THE 1909 COPYRIGHT LAW WERE EXPRESSLY MADE
EXCLUSIVE (SEC. 1).  THIS COURT HAD MANY TIMES PREVIOUSLY PASSED UPON
THE EXCLUSIVE NATURE OF THOSE RIGHTS.  BURROWS-GILES LITHOGRAPH CO. V.
SARONY, 111 U.S. 53, 56, 59; AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V. WERCKMEISTER, 207
U.S. 284, 291; CALIGA V. INTER OCEAN NEWSPAPER CO., 215 U.S. 182, 188. 

NOT EVEN THE UNITED STATES MAY INVADE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF OWNERS
OF COPYRIGHTS OR PATENTS.  UNITED STATES V. DUBILIER CONDENSER CORP.,
289 U.S. 178, 186, 189; JAMES V. CAMPBELL, 104 U.S. 356, 358; UNITED
STATES V. BELL TELEPHONE CO., 167 U.S. 224, 249-50. 

COPYRIGHT OWNERS CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO GRANT LICENSES EXCEPT UPON
THEIR OWN TERMS AND AT PRICES FIXED BY SUCH OWNERS.  F.A.D. ANDREA,
INC. V. RADIO CORP., 88 F.2D 474; BUCK V. HILLSGROVE COUNTRY CLUB,
INC., 17 F.SUPP.  643.  THE SEVERAL STATES MAY NOT PASS LAWS TO THE
CONTRARY.  HENRY BILL PUB. CO. V. SMYTHE, 27 F. 914, 917. 

THE EXCLUSIVE PERFORMING RIGHTS (SEC. 1(E) OF THE ACT) INCLUDE
PERFORMANCES BY LIVE MUSICIANS IN HOTELS, RESTAURANTS AND NIGHT CLUBS
(HERBERT V. SHANLEY, 242 U.S. 591); PERFORMANCES BY MEANS OF RADIO
BROADCASTING OR REBROADCASTING (BUCK V. JEWELL-LASALLE REALTY CO., 283
U.S. 191); AND BY MEANS OF RADIO RECEIVING SETS IN HOTEL ROOMS OPERATED
FROM A MASTER-CONTROLLED SET.  SOCIETY OF EUROPEAN AUTHORS V. NEW YORK
STATLER HOTEL, INC., 19 F.SUPP.  1. 

THE COPYRIGHT LAW PERMITS A PURCHASER OF A PHONOGRAPH RECORD OR
ELECTRICAL TRANSCRIPTION TO PERFORM IT PRIVATELY, BUT HE MAY NOT
PERFORM IT PUBLICLY FOR PROFIT WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE
COPYRIGHT OWNER.  IRVING BERLIN, INC. V. DAIGLE, 31 F.2D 832; LUTZ V.
BUCK, 40 F.2D 501. 

THE STATE STATUTES CONFISCATE PLAINTIFFS' RIGHT OF PUBLIC PERFORMANCE
FOR PROFIT; ABRIDGE AND REGULATE RIGHTS GRANTED THEM UNDER THE
COPYRIGHT ACT AND BAR THEM FROM SEPARATELY LICENSING THE SEVERAL RIGHTS
GRANTED TO THEM BY CONGRESS; DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED
MUSICAL WORKS BY FAILING TO INCLUDE, AND THEREBY EXEMPTING, OWNERS OF
MUSICAL WORKS PROTECTED UNDER THE COMMON LAW. 

THE PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES IMPOSED FOR VIOLATION ARE FAR MORE
SEVERE THAN THOSE IMPOSED UNDER OTHER FLORIDA LAWS ON COMBINATIONS
ACTUALLY MONOPOLIZING OR RESTRAINING TRADE. 

THE STATE STATUTES DISCRIMINATE AGAINST COPYRIGHT OWNERS BY DENYING
THEM THE RIGHT TO SHOW THE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR ASSOCIATION AND THE
FACT THAT THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY MONOPOLIZE OR RESTRAIN TRADE. 

THE STATUTES FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE CONDEMNATION OF MCFARLAND V.
AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO., 241 U.S. 79, BY CREATING ARBITRARY
PRESUMPTIONS MAKING PLAINTIFFS PRIMA FACIE GUILTY.  MORRISON V.
CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 82, 90. 

BOTH THE 1937 AND 1939 ACTS DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF THOSE WHO HAVE
NOT COPYRIGHTED THEIR COMPOSITIONS PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE OF 1909, BUT
RELY UPON THEIR COMMON LAW RIGHT, AS AGAINST THOSE WHO HAVE AVAILED
THEMSELVES OF THE 1909 ACT. 

THE 1937 ACT DISCRIMINATES IN FAVOR OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS RESIDING
OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, AS AGAINST THOSE WHO RESIDE WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES. 

THE STATUTES DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL
COMPOSITIONS AND OTHER COPYRIGHT OWNERS. 

THE LEGISLATURE MAY NOT, UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC
INTERESTS, ARBITRARILY INTERFERE WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS, OR IMPOSE
UNUSUAL AND UNNECESSARY RESTRICTIONS UPON LAWFUL OCCUPATIONS.  LAWTON
V. STEELE, 152 U.S. 133, 137. 

NATIONAL AND STATE ANTI-TRUST LAWS ARE DESIGNED TO REGULATE
MARKETING, AND MAY NOT BE USED AS A SCREEN TO DESTROY IT.  SUCH LAWS
ARE NECESSARILY BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS A RIGHT WAY AND
A WRONG WAY OF MARKETING PROPERTY.  THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY BY WHICH THE
OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS MAY OBTAIN REVENUE FOR THE
PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT OF SUCH COMPOSITIONS, AND THAT WAY IS BY
COLLECTIVE ACTION.  WITHOUT SUCH COLLECTIVE ACTION THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
OF PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT BECOMES UNENFORCEABLE. 

THE STATUTES IMPAIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXISTING CONTRACTS. 

THE STATUTES VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY INTERFERING WITH
PLAINTIFFS' RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE, AND INTERFERE
WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY REQUIRING PRICES TO BE FIXED ON SHEETS OF
MUSIC AND PHONOGRAPH RECORDS COMING FROM OUTSIDE OF THE STATE AND
PRESCRIBING THE USES THAT CAN BE MADE OF SUCH COMPOSITIONS AND RECORDS,
AS WELL AS BY THE PROVISIONS RESPECTING BROADCASTING. 

THE SOCIETY IS NOT AN UNLAWFUL COMBINATION IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE; BUT
EVEN IF IT WERE, THE STATE MAY NOT DEPRIVE THE MEMBERS OF THE RIGHTS
SECURED TO THEM BY THEIR COPYRIGHTS, AND A COURT OF EQUITY MAY NOT DENY
THEM THE MEANS OF PROTECTING THOSE RIGHTS. 

THE STATUTES MUST FALL AS A WHOLE, AND THEIR VARIOUS SECTIONS CAN NOT
BE SEPARATED.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 316; WILLIAMS
V. STANDARD OIL CO., 278 U.S. 235, 243; RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V.
ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, 362; MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING
CO., 241 U.S. 79, 87. 

THE PLAINTIFFS CAME INTO COURT WITH "UNCLEAN HANDS," SEEKING AID IN
PERPETUATING THEIR MONOPOLISTIC ACTIVITIES.  INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1937 ACT WERE SEVERABLE, AND THE COURT SHOULD
NOT HAVE STRUCK DOWN THE WHOLE MERELY BECAUSE IT FOUND CERTAIN SECTIONS
VOID. 

THE 1937 STATUTE IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE
IN THE PREVENTION OF MONOPOLY AND RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

NEITHER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION NOR CONGRESS HAS BESTOWED UPON THE
HOLDERS OF COPYRIGHTS ANY RIGHT TO COMBINE FOR PRICE-FIXING PURPOSES. 

WHERE CONGRESS, IN EXERCISING A CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, HAS NOT SHOWN
AN INTENTION TO COVER THE FIELD COMPLETELY, A STATE IS FREE TO ACT. 
CAREY V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 118, 122; SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S.
501, 533; M., K. & T. RY. CO. V. HABER, 169 U.S. 613, 623. 

A STATE MAY ENACT REASONABLE REGULATIONS AFFECTING COMMERCIAL
DEALINGS IN PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS WITHIN ITS BORDERS.  ALLEN V. RILEY,
203 U.S. 347; ALBRIGHT V. TEAS, 106 U.S. 613; PATTERSON V. KENTUCKY, 97
U.S. 501; JOHN WOODS & SONS V. CARL, 203 U.S. 358; OZAN LUMBER CO. V.
UNION COUNTY NAT. BANK, 207 U.S. 251; CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS
CORP., 283 U.S. 27; FOX FILM CORP. V. DOYAL, 286 U.S. 123. 

PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS ARE NO MORE IMMUNE FROM ANTI-MONOPOLY
LEGISLATION THAN OTHER KINDS OF PROPERTY.  STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 49; STRAUS V. AMERICAN PUBLISHERS ASSN.,
231 U.S. 222, 234, 235; VIRTUE V. CREAMERY PACKAGE MFG. CO., 227 U.S.
8, 32; UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 174; INTERSTATE
CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208; NATIONAL HARROW CO. V. HENCH,
83 F. 36, 38. 

FIXING COMBINATIONS. 

LICENSING THE USE OF MUSICAL COPYRIGHTS TO PROGRAMS ACTUALLY USING THE
LICENSED MUSIC. 

THE PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS IS AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC
INTEREST.  MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 243 U.S.
502, 517. 

THE RIGHT TO CHARGE FOR USE OF A COPYRIGHT OR PATENT DOES NOT EMBRACE
A RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF OTHER THAN THE PROTECTED WORK OR
INVENTION.  ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 456. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN BROAD OUTLINE, THESE CASES INVOLVE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
FLORIDA STATUTES REGULATING THE BUSINESS OF PERSONS HOLDING MUSIC
COPYRIGHTS AND DECLARING PRICE-FIXING COMBINATIONS OF "AUTHORS,
COMPOSERS, PUBLISHERS, (AND) OWNERS" OF SUCH COPYRIGHTS TO BE ILLEGAL
AND IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS (ASCAP),
ONE OF THE APPELLANTS IN NO. 611 AND ONE OF THE APPELLEES IN NO. 610,
IS A COMBINATION WHICH CONTROLS THE PERFORMANCE RIGHTS OF A MAJOR PART
OF THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY OF COPYRIGHTED POPULAR MUSIC.  THE OTHER
APPELLANTS IN NO. 611(APPELLEES IN NO. 610) ARE INDIVIDUAL COMPOSERS,
AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS OF MUSIC CONTROLLED BY ASCAP.  THE APPELLEES IN
NO. 611(APPELLANTS IN NO. 610) ARE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ALL THE
STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS OF FLORIDA, WHO ARE CHARGED WITH THE DUTY
OF ENFORCING CERTAIN PARTS OF THE STATUTES IN QUESTION. 

THESE TWO CASES WERE ORIGINALLY A SINGLE ACTION, IN WHICH ASCAP AND
ITS CO-PARTIES SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE STATE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING A
1937 FLORIDA STATUTE.  FN1  A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, COMPOSED OF THREE
JUDGES UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, GRANTED A TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION, AND THIS COURT AFFIRMED WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE MERITS OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66.  A
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF COMPLAINT WAS THEN FILED, ASKING THAT THE THREE
JUDGE COURT ENJOIN A 1939 FLORIDA STATUTE RELATING TO THE SAME
SUBJECT.  FN2  ON FINAL HEARING, THE THREE-JUDGE COURT AGAIN ENJOINED
THE STATE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING ANY PART OF THE 1937 STATUTE, BUT
GRANTED THE INJUNCTION ONLY AS TO CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE 1939 ACT.  34
F.SUPP.  510.  NO. 611 IS AN APPEAL BY ASCAP AND ITS CO-COMPLAINANTS
FROM THE REFUSAL TO ENJOIN THE STATE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING THE
REMAINDER OF THE 1939 ACT.  NO. 610 IS AN APPEAL BY THE STATE OFFICIALS
FROM THE ORDER GRANTING THE INJUNCTION AS TO THE 1937 ACT AND AS TO
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE 1939 ACT.    THE COURT BELOW, WITHOUT PASSING
AT ALL UPON THE VALIDITY OF THIRTEEN OUT OF THE TWENTY-ONE SECTIONS AND
SUBSECTIONS OF THE 1937 ACT, HELD THAT THE REMAINING EIGHT SECTIONS
DEPRIVED COPYRIGHT OWNERS OF RIGHTS GRANTED THEM BY THE FEDERAL
COPYRIGHT LAWS, AND THAT THE STATUTE MUST FALL IN ITS ENTIRETY.  THIS
IT DID UPON THE PREMISE THAT THE SECTIONS HELD INVALID AND THE OTHER
PARTS OF THE BILL WERE INTENDED BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO FORM "A
HARMONIOUS WHOLE" AND TO "STAND OR FALL TOGETHER."  THE ULTIMATE
QUESTIONS INVOLVED ARE SUCH THAT WE MUST FIRST DETERMINE WHETHER THIS
RULING WAS CORRECT.  WE HOLD THAT IT WAS NOT, FOR THE FOLLOWING
REASONS. 

THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE EXPRESSED A PURPOSE DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE
DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING.  FOR WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED IN THIS
REGARD WAS SPELLED OUT IN SEC. 12 OF THE ACT IN THE CLEAR AND EMPHATIC
LANGUAGE OF THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF.  THAT SECTION READS: 

"IF ANY SECTION, SUB-SECTION, SENTENCE, CLAUSE OR ANY PART OF THIS
ACT, IS FOR ANY REASON, HELD OR DECLARED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
IMPERATIVE OR VOID, SUCH HOLDING OR INVALIDITY SHALL NOT AFFECT THE
REMAINING PORTIONS OF THIS ACT; AND IT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO HAVE BEEN
THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO PASS THIS ACT WITHOUT SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
INOPERATIVE OR INVALID PART THEREIN; AND, THE REMAINDER OF THIS ACT,
AFTER THE EXCLUSION OF SUCH PART OR PARTS, SHALL BE HELD AND DEEMED TO
BE VALID AS IF SUCH EXCLUDED PARTS HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED HEREIN." 

THIS IS A FLAT STATEMENT THAT THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE INTENDED THAT
THE ACT SHOULD STAND AND BE ENFORCED "AFTER THE EXCLUSION OF SUCH PART
OR PARTS" AS MIGHT BE HELD INVALID.  UNLESS A CONTROLLING DECISION BY
FLORIDA'S COURTS COMPELS A DIFFERENT COURSE, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT
JUSTIFIED IN SPECULATING THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE MEANT EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT DECLARED "TO HAVE BEEN THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT." 
BUT THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RECOGNIZES AND SEEKS TO CARRY OUT THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT THUS EXPRESSED.  SPEAKING OF A SIMILAR SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE OF ANOTHER STATUTE, THAT COURT SAID:  "THE ACT AS A WHOLE
EVINCES A PURPOSE ON THE PART OF THE LEGISLATURE TO IMPOSE A LICENSE
TAX ON CHAIN STORES AND SECTION FIFTEEN PROVIDES THAT IF ANY SECTION,
PROVISION OR CLAUSE THEREOF, OR IF THE ACT AS APPLIED TO ANY
CIRCUMSTANCE, SHALL BE DECLARED INVALID OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUCH
INVALIDITY SHALL NOT AFFECT OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ACT HELD VALID NOR
SHALL IT EXTEND TO OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT HELD TO BE INVALID.  UNDER
THE LIBERAL TERMS OF SECTION FIFTEEN IT MAY BE REASONABLY DISCERNED
THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED THAT THE ACT UNDER REVIEW SHOULD BE HELD
GOOD UNDER ANY EVENTUALITY THAT DID NOT PRODUCE AN UNREASONABLE,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR AN ABSURD RESULT.  ...  THE TEST TO DETERMINE
WORKABILITY AFTER SEVERANCE AND WHETHER THE REMAINDER OF THE ACT SHOULD
BE UPHELD RESTS ON THE FACT OF WHETHER OR NOT THE INVALID PORTION IS OF
SUCH IMPORT THAT THE VALID PART WOULD BE INCOMPLETE OR WOULD CAUSE
RESULTS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE LEGISLATURE."  LOUIS K. LIGGETT CO. V.
LEE, 109 FLA. 477, 481; 147 SO. 463; 149 SO. 8.  MEASURED BY THIS TEST
THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR, FOR THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT SEC. 1 AND
THE OTHER SECTIONS UPON WHICH THE COURT FAILED TO PASS ARE COMPLETE IN
THEMSELVES; THEY ARE NOT ONLY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE'S PURPOSE BUT
ARE IN REALITY THE VERY HEART OF THE ACT, COMPRISING A DISTINCT
LEGISLATIVE PLAN FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF COMBINATIONS DECLARED TO BE
UNLAWFUL.  FOR, AS POINTED OUT BY THE COURT BELOW, THE SECTIONS THAT
WERE NOT PASSED ON ARE THOSE WHICH OUTLAW COMBINATIONS TO FIX FEES AND
PRESCRIBE THE MEANS WHEREBY THE LEGISLATIVE PROSCRIPTION AGAINST THEM
CAN BE MADE EFFECTIVE.  FN3  SINCE, THEREFORE, THAT PHASE OF THE ACT
WHICH AIMED AT UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS IS COMPLETE IN ITSELF AND CAPABLE
OF STANDING ALONE, WE MUST CONSIDER IT AS A SEPARABLE PHASE OF THE
STATUTE IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE INJUNCTION WAS PROPERLY ISSUED
AGAINST THE STATE OFFICIALS. 

AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS THE RECORD STANDS, THE RIGHT OF ASCAP AND ITS
CO-COMPLAINANTS TO AN INJUNCTION DEPENDS UPON THIS PHASE OF THE STATUTE
AND IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED AT ALL BY THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THE
PARTICULAR SECTIONS WHICH THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE COPYRIGHT LAWS PASSED PURSUANT TO IT.  THE
ULTIMATE DETERMINATIVE QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER FLORIDA HAS THE
POWER IT EXERCISED TO OUTLAW ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE OF PRICE
FIXING COMBINATIONS COMPOSED OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.  BUT BEFORE
CONSIDERING THAT QUESTION, IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE EXPLAIN WHY WE DO
NOT DISCUSS, AND WHY AN INJUNCTION COULD NOT REST UPON, ANY OTHER PHASE
OF FLORIDA'S STATUTORY PLAN. 

DEFENDANTS IN THE INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS ARE THE STATE'S ATTORNEY
GENERAL, WHO IS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ENFORCING THE
STATE'S CRIMINAL LAWS, AND ALL OF THE STATE'S PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS,
WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.  FN4  UNDER THE STATUTES BEFORE US, IT IS
MADE THE DUTY OF THE STATE'S PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, ACTING UNDER THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DIRECTION, TO INSTITUTE IN THE STATE COURTS CRIMINAL
OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.  THE ORIGINAL BILL ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS
HAD THREATENED TO - AND WOULD, UNLESS RESTRAINED - ENFORCE THE 1937
STATUTE "IN EACH AND ALL OF ITS TERMS AND THE WHOLE THEREOF, AND
PARTICULARLY AGAINST THESE COMPLAINANTS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
...  ," AND THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE COMPLAINANTS WOULD SUFFER IRREPARABLE
INJURY AND DAMAGES.  THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL CONTAINED SIMILAR
ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE 1939 ACT.  BOTH BILLS WERE DRAWN UPON THE PREMISE
THAT COMPLAINANTS WERE ENTITLED TO AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING ALL THE
STATE'S PROSECUTING OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING ANY SINGLE PART OF EITHER
OF THE LENGTHY STATUTES, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COULD ARISE AND
IN RESPECT TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE MULTITUDINOUS REGULATIONS AND
PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN THOSE LAWS.  IN THEIR ANSWERS, THE STATE'S
REPRESENTATIVES SPECIFICALLY DENIED THAT THEY HAD MADE ANY THREATS
WHATEVER TO ENFORCE THE ACTS AGAINST COMPLAINANTS OR ANY ONE ELSE.  IN
THEIR ANSWER TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL, HOWEVER, THEY SAID THAT THEY
WOULD PERFORM ALL DUTIES IMPOSED UPON THEM BY THE 1939 ACT.  THE
FINDINGS OF THE COURT ON THIS SUBJECT WERE GENERAL, AND WERE TO THE
EFFECT THAT "DEFENDANTS HAVE THREATENED TO AND WILL ENFORCE SUCH STATE
STATUTES AGAINST THESE COMPLAINANTS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED IN
THE EVENT THAT SUCH COMPLAINANTS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED REFUSE
TO COMPLY WITH SAID STATE STATUTES OR DO ANY OF THE ACTS MADE UNLAWFUL
BY SAID STATE STATUTES."  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE COURT DID NOT FIND
ANY THREAT TO ENFORCE ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION OF EITHER LAW.  AND THERE
IS A COMPLETE LACK OF RECORD EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION OF ANY OTHER SORT
TO SHOW ANY THREAT TO PROSECUTE THE COMPLAINANTS OR ANY ONE ELSE IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY SPECIFIC CLAUSE OR PARAGRAPH OF THE NUMEROUS
PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACTS, SUBJECT TO A POSSIBLE EXCEPTION TO BE
DISCUSSED LATER.  THE MOST THAT CAN POSSIBLY BE GATHERED FROM THE
MEAGER RECORD REFERENCES TO THIS VITAL ALLEGATION OF COMPLAINANTS' BILL
IS THAT THOUGH NO SUITS HAD BEEN THREATENED, AND NO CRIMINAL OR CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED, AND NO PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS CONTEMPLATED, THE
STATE OFFICIALS STOOD READY TO PERFORM THEIR DUTIES UNDER THEIR OATH OF
OFFICE SHOULD THEY ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE OF VIOLATIONS.  AND AS TO THE 1937
ACT, THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL TOOK THE POSITION FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING, BOTH BELOW AND IN THIS COURT, THAT UNDER HIS CONSTRUCTION OF
THE EARLIER ACT NO DUTIES OF ANY KIND WERE IMPOSED UPON HIM AND HIS
SUBORDINATES EXCEPT WITH RELATIONSHIP TO PROHIBITED COMBINATIONS OF THE
TYPE DEFINED IN SEC. 1. 

FEDERAL INJUNCTIONS AGAINST STATE CRIMINAL STATUTES, EITHER IN THEIR
ENTIRETY OR WITH RESPECT TO THEIR SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PROHIBITIONS,
ARE NOT TO BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF COURSE, EVEN IF SUCH STATUTES ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  "NO CITIZEN OR MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY IS IMMUNE
FROM PROSECUTION, IN GOOD FAITH, FOR HIS ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACTS.  THE
IMMINENCE OF SUCH A PROSECUTION EVEN THOUGH ALLEGED TO BE UNAUTHORIZED
AND HENCE UNLAWFUL IS NOT ALONE GROUND FOR RELIEF IN EQUITY WHICH
EXERTS ITS EXTRAORDINARY POWERS ONLY TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY TO
THE PLAINTIFF WHO SEEKS ITS AID."  BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD
CORP., 312 U.S. 45, 49.  A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT AN OFFICER STANDS
READY TO PERFORM HIS DUTY FALLS FAR SHORT OF SUCH A THREAT AS WOULD
WARRANT THE INTERVENTION OF EQUITY.  AND THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHERE
THERE IS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING OF A DEFINITE AND EXPRESSED
INTENT TO ENFORCE PARTICULAR CLAUSES OF A BROAD, COMPREHENSIVE AND
MULTI-PROVISIONED STATUTE.  FOR SUCH A GENERAL STATEMENT IS NOT THE
EQUIVALENT OF A THREAT THAT PROSECUTIONS ARE TO BE BEGUN SO
IMMEDIATELY, IN SUCH NUMBERS, AND IN SUCH MANNER AS TO INDICATE THE
VIRTUAL CERTAINTY OF THAT EXTRAORDINARY INJURY WHICH ALONE JUSTIFIES
EQUITABLE SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL COURTS.  THE IMMINENCE
AND IMMEDIACY OF PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT, THE NATURE OF THE THREATS
ACTUALLY MADE, AND THE EXCEPTIONAL AND IRREPARABLE INJURY WHICH
COMPLAINANTS WOULD SUSTAIN IF THOSE THREATS WERE CARRIED OUT ARE AMONG
THE VITAL ALLEGATIONS WHICH MUST BE SHOWN TO EXIST BEFORE RESTRAINT OF
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IS JUSTIFIED.  YET FROM THE LACK OF CONSIDERATION
ACCORDED TO THIS ASPECT OF THE COMPLAINT, BOTH BY COMPLAINANTS IN
PRESENTING THEIR CASE AND BY THE COURT BELOW IN REACHING A DECISION, IT
IS CLEARLY APPARENT THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER WEIGHT TO
WHAT IS IN OUR EYES AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE TO THE EXERCISE OF THIS
EQUITABLE POWER.  THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THIS RECORD IS THAT THE COURT
BELOW THOUGHT THAT IF A FEDERAL COURT FINDS A MANY-SIDED STATE CRIMINAL
STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, A MERE STATEMENT BY A PROSECUTING OFFICER
THAT HE INTENDS TO PERFORM HIS DUTY IS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION TO
WARRANT THE FEDERAL COURT IN ENJOINING ALL STATE PROSECUTING OFFICERS
FROM IN ANY WAY ENFORCING THE STATUTE IN QUESTION.  SUCH, HOWEVER, IS
NOT THE RULE.  "THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT EQUITY WILL NOT INTERFERE TO
PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE EVEN THOUGH
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  ...  TO JUSTIFY SUCH INTERFERENCE THERE MUST BE
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND A CLEAR SHOWING THAT AN INJUNCTION IS
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO AFFORD ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS.  ...  WE HAVE SAID THAT IT MUST APPEAR THAT 'THE DANGER OF
IRREPARABLE LOSS IS BOTH GREAT AND IMMEDIATE'; OTHERWISE THE ACCUSED
SHOULD FIRST SET UP HIS DEFENSE IN THE STATE COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE
VALIDITY OF A STATUTE IS CHALLENGED.  THERE IS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR
ULTIMATE REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS."  SPIELMAN MOTOR
SALES CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89, 95-96. 

SUCH "EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES" AND "GREAT AND IMMEDIATE" DANGER OF
IRREPARABLE LOSS WERE NOT HERE SHOWN.  TESTED BY THIS RULE, THEREFORE,
AND WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THAT PHASE OF THE STATUTE OUTLAWING
FLORIDA ACTIVITIES BY COMBINATIONS DECLARED UNLAWFUL IN SEC. 1 OF THE
1937 ACT (WHICH WE SHALL LATER CONSIDER SEPARATELY), NEITHER THE
FINDINGS OF THE COURT BELOW NOR THE RECORD ON WHICH THEY WERE BASED
JUSTIFIED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE PROSECUTING OFFICERS. 

IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE SITUATION HERE DOES NOT MEET THE
TESTS LAID DOWN IN THE DECIDED CASES, THE VERY SCOPE OF THESE TWO
STATUTES ILLUSTRATES THE WISDOM OF A POLICY OF JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT
ON THE PART OF FEDERAL COURTS IN SUSPENDING STATE STATUTES IN THEIR
ENTIRETY UPON THE GROUND THAT A COMPLAINANT MIGHT EVENTUALLY BE
PROSECUTED FOR VIOLATING SOME PART OF THEM.  THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,
WHICH UNDER OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT HAS THE LAST WORD ON THE
CONSTRUCTION AND MEANING OF STATUTES OF THAT STATE, HAS NEVER YET
PASSED UPON THE STATUTES NOW BEFORE US.  IT IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE THAT IT
SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO.  FN5  THERE ARE FORTY-TWO SEPARATE
WHILE OTHER SECTIONS ARE UNIMPORTANT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THERE ARE
EMBRACED WITHIN THESE TWO ACTS MANY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT REGULATIONS,
COMMANDS AND PROHIBITIONS.  NO ONE CAN FORESEE THE VARYING APPLICATIONS
OF THESE SEPARATE PROVISIONS WHICH CONCEIVABLY MIGHT BE MADE.  A LAW
WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED IN ONE MANNER MAY STILL CONTRAVENE
THE CONSTITUTION AS APPLIED IN ANOTHER.  SINCE ALL CONTINGENCIES OF
ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT CANNOT BE ENVISIONED IN ADVANCE OF THOSE
APPLICATIONS, COURTS HAVE IN THE MAIN FOUND IT WISER TO DELAY PASSING
UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ALL THE SEPARATE PHASES OF A
COMPREHENSIVE STATUTE UNTIL FACED WITH CASES INVOLVING PARTICULAR
PROVISIONS AS SPECIFICALLY APPLIED TO PERSONS WHO CLAIM TO BE INJURED. 
PASSING UPON THE POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MANIFOLD PROVISIONS OF A
BROAD STATUTE IN ADVANCE OF EFFORTS TO APPLY THE SEPARATE PROVISIONS IS
ANALOGOUS TO RENDERING AN ADVISORY OPINION UPON A STATUTE OR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT UPON A HYPOTHETICAL CASE.  IT IS OF COURSE
CONCEIVABLE THAT A STATUTE MIGHT BE FLAGRANTLY AND PATENTLY VIOLATIVE
OF EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS IN EVERY CLAUSE, SENTENCE AND
PARAGRAPH, AND IN WHATEVER MANNER AND AGAINST WHOMEVER AN EFFORT MIGHT
BE MADE TO APPLY IT.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THE STATUTES BEFORE
US ARE NOT OF THIS TYPE.  CASES UNDER THE SEPARATE SECTIONS AND
PARAGRAPHS OF THE ACTS CAN BE TRIED AS THEY ARISE - PREFERABLY IN THE
STATE COURTS.  ANY FEDERAL QUESTIONS THAT ARE PROPERLY PRESENTED CAN
THEN BE BROUGHT HERE.  BUT AT THIS TIME THE RECORD DOES NOT JUSTIFY OUR
PASSING UPON ANY PART OF THE STATUTE EXCEPT, POSSIBLY, THAT PHASE WHICH
PROHIBITS ACTIVITIES IN FLORIDA BY COMBINATIONS DECLARED UNLAWFUL. 
WHILE THE PROOF AND FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT AS CLEAR AND
SPECIFIC AS THEY MIGHT AND SHOULD BE, WE NEVERTHELESS, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, PROCEED TO THIS ULTIMATE AND DECISIVE
QUESTION.    IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE, MUCH CONFUSION HAS BEEN
BROUGHT ABOUT BY DISCUSSING THE STATUTES AS THOUGH THE POWER OF A STATE
TO PROHIBIT OR REGULATE COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE WAS
IDENTICAL WITH AND WENT NO FURTHER THAN THE POWER EXERCISED BY CONGRESS
IN THE SHERMAN ACT.  SUCH AN ARGUMENT RESTS UPON A MISTAKEN PREMISE. 
FN6  NOR IS IT WITHIN OUR PROVINCE, IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THIS
PHASE OF THE STATE STATUTE COMES INTO COLLISION WITH THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS PASSED PURSUANT THERETO, TO SCRUTINIZE THE ACT IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE BELIEVE IT TO BE FAIR OR UNFAIR,
CONDUCIVE TO GOOD OR EVIL FOR THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA, OR CAPABLE OF
PROTECTING OR DEFEATING THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE STATE.  FN7  THESE
QUESTIONS WERE FOR THE LEGISLATURE OF FLORIDA AND IT HAS DECIDED THEM. 
AND, UNLESS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID FEDERAL LEGISLATION HAS GRANTED TO
INDIVIDUAL COPYRIGHT OWNERS THE RIGHT TO COMBINE, THE STATE'S POWER
VALIDLY TO PROHIBIT THE PROSCRIBED COMBINATIONS CANNOT BE HELD NON
EXISTENT MERELY BECAUSE SUCH INDIVIDUALS CAN PRESERVE THEIR PROPERTY
RIGHTS BETTER IN COMBINATION THAN THEY CAN AS INDIVIDUALS.  WE FIND
NOTHING IN THE COPYRIGHT LAWS WHICH PURPORTS TO GRANT TO COPYRIGHT
OWNERS THE PRIVILEGE OF COMBINING IN VIOLATION OF OTHERWISE VALID STATE
OR FEDERAL LAWS.  WE HAVE, IN FACT, DETERMINED TO THE CONTRARY WITH
RELATION TO OTHER COPYRIGHT PRIVILEGES.  FN8  BUT COMPLAINANTS URGE
THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN OUR PREVIOUS HOLDINGS AND THE
QUESTION HERE.  THIS CONTENTION IS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT CONGRESS HAS
GRANTED THE COPYRIGHT PRIVILEGE WITH RELATION TO PUBLIC PERFORMANCES OF
MUSIC, AND THAT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROTECTION OF THIS PARTICULAR
PRIVILEGE, COMBINATION IS ESSENTIAL.  WE ARE THEREFORE ASKED TO
CONCLUDE FROM THE ASSERTED NECESSITIES OF THEIR SITUATION THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO GRANT THIS EXTRAORDINARY PRIVILEGE OF COMBINATION.  THIS WE
CANNOT DO.  WE ARE POINTED TO NOTHING EITHER IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE
COPYRIGHT LAWS OR IN THE HISTORY OF THEIR ENACTMENT TO INDICATE ANY
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO DEPRIVE THE STATES, EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, OF THEIR LONG-RECOGNIZED POWER TO REGULATE COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  COMPARE WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. V. TEXAS (NO. 1),
212 U.S. 86, 107. 

UNDER THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT BELOW, ASCAP COMES SQUARELY
WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE COMBINATIONS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 1 OF THE
1937 ACT.  SECTION 1 DEFINES AS AN UNLAWFUL COMBINATION AN AGGREGATION
OF AUTHORS, COMPOSERS, PUBLISHERS, AND OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED VOCAL OR
INSTRUMENTAL MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS WHO FORM ANY SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION, OR
THE LIKE, AND THE MEMBERS OF WHICH CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF
THE PERSONS, FIRMS OR CORPORATIONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WHO OWN OR
CONTROL SUCH MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS, AND "WHEN ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF SUCH
COMBINATION IS THE DETERMINATION AND FIXATION OF LICENSE FEES OR OTHER
EXACTIONS REQUIRED BY SUCH COMBINATION FOR ITSELF OR ITS MEMBERS OR
OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES."  SECTION 8 OF THE 1937 ACT MAKES IT AN
OFFENSE FOR SUCH COMBINATIONS "TO ACT WITHIN THIS STATE IN VIOLATION OF
THE TERMS OF THIS ACT."  THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT THERE WERE 1425
COMPOSERS AND AUTHORS WHO WERE MEMBERS OF ASCAP; THAT THE PRINCIPAL
MUSIC PUBLISHERS OF THE COUNTRY ARE MEMBERS; THAT THE SOCIETY CONTROLS
THE RIGHT OF PERFORMANCE OF 45,000 MEMBERS OF SIMILAR SOCIETIES IN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES; AND THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ASCAP HAVE
"ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE FIXING OF PRICES TO BE CHARGED FOR
PERFORMANCE LICENSES  ...  "  SINCE UNDER THE RECORD AND FINDINGS HERE
ASCAP IS AN ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1 OF THE 1937 ACT,
WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON AT ITS INSTANCE TO PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF
OTHER PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE NUMEROUS CLAUSES, SENTENCES, AND
PHASES OF THE 1937 OR 1939 ACT WHICH MIGHT COVER OTHER COMBINATIONS NOT
NOW BEFORE US.  IT IS ENOUGH FOR US TO SAY IN THIS CASE THAT THE PHASE
OF FLORIDA'S LAW PROHIBITING ACTIVITIES OF THOSE UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS
DESCRIBED IN SEC. 1 OF THE 1937 ACT DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE COPYRIGHT
LAWS OR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; THAT PARTICULAR ATTACKS UPON OTHER
SPECIFIED PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES INVOLVED ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR
DETERMINATION IN THIS PROCEEDING; THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN
GRANTING THE INJUNCTION; AND THAT THE BILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 
ALL OTHER QUESTIONS REMAIN OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION IN
APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS.  FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IN
NO. 610 IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE LOWER COURT WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL.  THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 611 IS
AFFIRMED.  NO. 610 REVERSED.  NO. 611 AFFIRMED. 

FN1  FLA. LAWS 1937, CH. 17807. 

FN2  FLA. LAWS 1939, CH. 19653. 

FN3  THE COURT SAID: 

"THERE REMAIN:  SECTIONS 1, 2-C AND 3, IN EFFECT DECLARING ASCAP AND
SIMILAR SOCIETIES ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS, OUTLAWING ITS ARRANGEMENTS FOR
LICENSE FEES, AND PROSCRIBING AND MAKING AN OFFENSE, ATTEMPTS TO
COLLECT THEM; SECTION 7-B MAKING PERSONS, ACTING FOR SUCH A
COMBINATION, AGENTS FOR IT AND LIABLE TO THE PENALTIES OF THE ACT;
JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE ACT, CIVILLY AND CRIMINALLY; AND SECTIONS
10-A, 10-B, 11-A AND 11-B, PRESCRIBING PROCEDURE UNDER IT."  34
F.SUPP.  516.  WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF SEC. 3, NOWHERE IN THE
COURSE OF THE OPINION WERE ANY OF THESE SECTIONS HELD INVALID. 

FN4  THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE STATE COMPTROLLER WERE ADDED AS
PARTIES DEFENDANT BY A "FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF COMPLAINT" FILED
OCTOBER 19, 1939.  THE GROUND GIVEN BY THE COMPLAINANTS FOR ADDING
PARTIES WAS THAT CERTAIN DUTIES WERE IMPOSED ON THESE OFFICIALS BY THE
1939 ACT.  THE DUTIES, HOWEVER, REQUIRED ONLY THAT CERTAIN FEES BE
COLLECTED, AND NOT THAT ACTIONS BE BROUGHT TO ENFORCE THE LAW. 

IN THE COURSE OF THIS LITIGATION, FLORIDA HAS HAD THREE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL.  THE PRESENT ATTORNEY GENERAL TOOK OFFICE ON JANUARY 7, 1941,
AND ALL THE PARTIES HAVE JOINED IN A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE HIM AS A
DEFENDANT IN PLACE OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE.  THERE IS NO OBJECTION
TO THE SUBSTITUTION, AND THE MOTION IS GRANTED. 

FN5  CF., E.G., ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION V. THOMPSON, ANTE,
132, 144; RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496,
499; RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 311 U.S.
570, 575; THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478, 483; EX
PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610, 619; GILCHRIST V. INTERBOROUGH RAPID
TRANSIT CO., 279 U.S. 159, 207. 

FN6  WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO A RECENT CONSENT DECREE AGAINST ASCAP
IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,
THE THEORY BEING THAT THE DECREE MIGHT HAVE SOME BEARING UPON THE
STATE'S POWER TO PASS THE LEGISLATION NOW UNDER ATTACK.  BUT IT HAS
NOT.  IN MATTERS RELATING TO PURELY INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS, THE STATE
MIGHT PASS VALID REGULATIONS TO PROHIBIT RESTRAINT OF TRADE EVEN IF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO LAW WHATEVER WITH REFERENCE TO SIMILAR
MATTERS INVOLVING INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS. 

FN7 THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT "ENACTMENT OF
THE SAID STATUTE WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT, NOR DOES IT SERVE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.  ...  " 

INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208.  CF. FASHION
ORIGINATORS' GUILD OF AMERICA V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 312 U.S.
457; ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






MARSH V. BUCK, 313 U.S. 406 


NO. 312.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 33 F.SUPP. 
377, REVERSED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF WATSON V. BUCK, ANTE, P. 387.  P. 407. 

MARSH, SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEBRASKA, ET AL. V. BUCK ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEBRASKA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEBRASKA ANTI-MONOPOLY ACT OF MAY 17, 1937,
AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFSAPPELLEES, WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, AN UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATION RECOGNIZED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CONSISTING
OF APPROXIMATELY 1,425 COMPOSERS AND AUTHORS AND 131 PUBLISHERS OF
MUSIC. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MOST OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THIS CASE ARE THE SAME AS THOSE
THAT WERE RAISED IN WATSON V. BUCK, ANTE, P. 387.  HERE, AS THERE, AT
THE REQUEST OF ASCAP AND ITS CO-COMPLAINANTS A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINED VARIOUS STATE OFFICIALS FROM
ENFORCING A STATE STATUTE  FN1  AIMED PRIMARILY AT PRICE-FIXING
COMBINATIONS OPERATING IN THE FIELD OF PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF COPYRIGHT
MUSIC.  FN2  HERE, AS THERE, THE COMPLAINANTS ALLEGED, AND THE
DEFENDANTS DENIED, THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT HAD BEEN THREATENED. 
HERE, AS THERE, THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT THREATS HAD BEEN MADE, THAT
SOME OF THE SECTIONS OF THE ACT WERE INVALID, THAT THE INVALIDITY OF
THOSE SECTIONS PERMEATED THE WHOLE, AND THAT THE STATE OFFICIALS SHOULD
BE ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING ANY OF THE NUMEROUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 
BUT, AS IN THE FLORIDA CASE, THE COURT BELOW PROCEEDED ON A MISTAKEN
PREMISE AS TO THE ROLE A FEDERAL EQUITY COURT SHOULD PLAY IN ENJOINING
STATE CRIMINAL STATUTES.  HERE, THERE WAS NO MORE OF A SHOWING OF
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SPECIFIC THREATS, AND IRREPARABLE INJURY
THAN IN THE FLORIDA CASE.  IN HIS BRIEF IN THIS COURT, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF NEBRASKA STATED THAT "APPELLANTS, AS LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS, SINCERELY HOPE THAT NO ACTION UNDER THIS LAW WILL BE
REQUIRED.  NONE WAS THREATENED BEFORE NOR SINCE THE SUIT WAS STARTED." 
WITH ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION, THE RECORD BEARS OUT THE STATEMENT OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER THAT ANY THREATS HAD
BEEN MADE, BUT IN HIS ANSWER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED THAT HE WOULD
"ENFORCE THE ACT AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT SOCIETY  ... (IF) THE
COMPLAINANT SOCIETY WOULD OPERATE IN THE STATE OF NEBRASKA IN VIOLATION
OF THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE BY CONNIVING AND CONSPIRING TO FIX AND
DETERMINE PRICES FOR PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL
COMPOSITIONS  ...  "  AS WE HAVE JUST HELD IN WATSON V. BUCK, IT WAS
ERROR TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IN OTHER MATERIAL RESPECTS ALSO, THIS CASE IS LIKE THE FLORIDA CASE. 
THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO PASS ON WHAT WE CONSIDER THE HEART OF THE
STATUTE BECAUSE OF WHAT IT REGARDED AS THE PERVADING VICE OF THE
INVALID SECTIONS.  BUT SEC. 12 OF THE NEBRASKA STATUTE IS SIMILAR TO
SEC. 12 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE AND PROVIDES THAT "IF ANY SECTION,
SUBDIVISION, SENTENCE OR CLAUSE IN THIS ACT SHALL, FOR ANY REASON, BE
HELD VOID OR NON-ENFORCEABLE, SUCH DECISION SHALL IN NO WAY AFFECT THE
VALIDITY OR ENFORCEABILITY OF ANY OTHER PART OR PARTS OF THIS ACT." 
THE LEGISLATIVE WILL IS RESPECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA,
FN3  AND THE COURT BELOW SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED STATE LAW IN THIS
REGARD.  THAT PART OF THE STATUTE ON WHICH THE COURT DID NOT PASS - AND
THE PART WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID HE STOOD WILLING TO ENFORCE IF
VIOLATED - SET UP A COMPLETE SCHEME FOR THE REGULATION OF COMBINATIONS
CONTROLLING PERFORMING RIGHTS IN COPYRIGHT MUSIC.  ON THE AUTHORITY OF
WATSON V. BUCK, THE DECISION BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  NEB. LAWS 1937, CH. 138. 

FN2  33 F.SUPP.  377. 

FN3  SEE PETERSEN V. BEAL, 121 NEB. 348, 353; 237 N.W. 146, QUOTING
AND APPROVING THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM SCOTT V. FLOWERS, 61 NEB. 620,
622-623; 85 N.W. 857:  "THE GENERAL RULE UPON THE SUBJECT IS THAT,
WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN AN ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE, THE STATUTE MUST YIELD TO THE EXTENT OF THE
REPUGNANCY, BUT NO FURTHER.  IF, AFTER STRIKING OUT THE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL PART OF A STATUTE, THE RESIDUE IS INTELLIGIBLE,
COMPLETE, AND CAPABLE OF EXECUTION, IT WILL BE UPHELD AND ENFORCED,
EXCEPT, OF COURSE, IN CASES WHERE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE REJECTED PART
WAS AN INDUCEMENT TO THE ADOPTION OF THE REMAINDER.  IN OTHER WORDS,
THE LEGISLATIVE WILL IS, WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, THE LAW OF THE
LAND, AND WHEN EXPRESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE, MUST
BE ASCERTAINED BY COURTS AND MADE EFFECTIVE." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 313 U.S. 409 


NO. 640.  ARGUED APRIL 10, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 32 F.SUPP. 
546, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FUNCTION OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, WHEN DETERMINING
UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT REASONABLE RATES FOR SERVICES
RENDERED BY MARKET AGENCIES DURING A PERIOD OF YEARS PAST, IS NOT
MERELY TO COMPARE THEIR ACTUAL EXPENDITURES AND INCOMES, BUT INVOLVES
CONSIDERATION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SERVICES PROPERLY SHOULD BE
CHARGED TO THE PUBLIC.  P. 414. 

2.  AS A BASIS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS PAID INTO THE REGISTRY OF
THE DISTRICT COURT BY MARKET AGENCIES PURSUANT TO AN ORDER GRANTING AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IN THEIR SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE PURPORTING TO FIX THEIR RATES,
WHICH ULTIMATELY WAS ADJUDGED VOID FOR DEFECTS OF PROCEDURE, THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE REOPENED THE PROCEEDING AND FOUND AND FIXED
FOR THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD, RATES WHICH WERE ON THE LEVEL OF THOSE FIXED
BY THE ORIGINAL ORDER.  HELD: 

(1)  A CONTENTION THAT THE SECRETARY BASED HIS JUDGMENT ON CONDITIONS
EXISTING AT THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING
SUBSEQUENT CHANGES, IS DISPROVED BY THE RECORD.  P. 416. 

(2)  A CONTENTION THAT THE SECRETARY'S FINDINGS ARE WITHOUT SUPPORT
IN THE EVIDENCE, IS WITHOUT MERIT.  P. 417. 

(3)  QUITE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS MAY PROPERLY HAVE INFLUENCED THE
SECRETARY IN FIXING RATES FOR THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD FROM THOSE BY WHICH
HE DETERMINED A SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR THE FUTURE.  P. 419. 

(4)  A MOTION THAT THE SECRETARY BE DISQUALIFIED FOR BIAS WAS
PROPERLY OVERRULED BY HIM.  P. 420. 

THE CHARGE OF BIAS GREW OUT OF HIS CRITICISM OF THE DECISION OF THIS
COURT DECLARING HIS ORIGINAL ORDER VOID (304 U.S. 1), IN A LETTER WHICH
HE WROTE TO A NEWSPAPER WHILE IN THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT THE DECISION
MEANT RETURN OF THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS TO THE MARKET AGENCIES.  IN
OVERRULING THE MOTION, HE EXPLAINED THE MISTAKE, DENIED BIAS AND ADDED
THAT, AS A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY, HE MIGHT HAVE DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF BUT
FOR THE FACT THAT, WHILE THE MARKET AGENCIES WERE PRESSING HIS
DISQUALIFICATION, THEY WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY URGING THAT NONE OTHER THAN
THE SECRETARY HAD LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE RATE ORDER. 

(5)  THE FACT THAT THE SECRETARY NOT MERELY HELD BUT EXPRESSED STRONG
VIEWS ON MATTERS BELIEVED BY HIM TO HAVE BEEN IN ISSUE IN THE EARLIER
STAGE OF THE CASE, DID NOT UNFIT HIM FOR EXERCISING HIS DUTY IN THE
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS.  P. 421. 

3.  IN A SUIT BY MARKET AGENCIES ATTACKING RATES FIXED BY THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, IT WAS IMPROPER FOR THE DISTRICT COURT, OVER
THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION, TO AUTHORIZE THE PLAINTIFFS TO TAKE THE
SECRETARY'S DEPOSITION, AND IMPROPER, UPON HIS APPEARING AT THE TRIAL,
TO EXAMINE HIM REGARDING THE PROCESS BY WHICH HE REACHED HIS
CONCLUSIONS, INCLUDING THE MANNER AND EXTENT OF HIS STUDY OF THE RECORD
AND HIS CONSULTATION WITH SUBORDINATES.  P. 422. 

4.  ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCESSES ARE COLLABORATIVE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF JUSTICE, AND THE APPROPRIATE INDEPENDENCE OF EACH
SHOULD BE RESPECTED BY THE OTHER.  P. 422. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. MORGAN, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
ADJUDGED INVALID AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, FIXING
RATES, AND DIRECTED THAT FUNDS IN THE REGISTRY THAT HAD BEEN PAID IN BY
THE PLAINTIFFS BE RETURNED TO THEM.  THE HISTORY OF THIS PROTRACTED
LITIGATION IS SUMMED UP IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE OPINION. 

THE COURT BELOW COMPELLED THE SECRETARY TO TESTIFY AS TO THE MANNER
IN WHICH HE REACHED HIS DECISION, ALTHOUGH THE RECORD WAS IN ALL
RESPECTS REGULAR ON ITS FACE.  THIS WAS ERROR, AND FATAL TO THE
DECISION, WHICH RESTS IN SUBSTANTIAL PART UPON THE TESTIMONY OF THE
SECRETARY. 

THE FINDING THAT THE SECRETARY WAS NOT AN "IMPARTIAL TRIER OF THE
FACTS" IS AN ACCUSATION SUPPORTED ONLY BY A LETTER PUBLISHED BY THE
SECRETARY, AFTER HIS ORDER HAD BEEN HELD INVALID BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL
IRREGULARITY, WHICH STATED THAT THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS "RIGHTFULLY" BELONG
TO THE FARMERS.  (1) THIS STATEMENT SIMPLY REFLECTED THE FACT THAT THE
SECRETARY'S ORDER HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THE ONLY COURT WHICH HAD
CONSIDERED ITS MERITS, AND CANNOT REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED TO INDICATE
THAT HIS MIND WOULD BE CLOSED TO THE FORCE OF NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW
ARGUMENTS. 

(2)  BUT EVEN IF THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE DECISION BELOW WERE
CORRECT, THERE YET WOULD BE NO DISQUALIFICATION.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED
THAT THE ACT HOLDS THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL TO THE SAME CRITERIA OF
IMPARTIALITY AS OBTAINS FOR THE JUDICIARY.  BUT SEC. 21 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE DISQUALIFIES ONLY FOR A PERSONAL BIAS, WITH WHICH THE SECRETARY
WAS NOT CHARGED.  AND, AS IN THE CASE OF A COURT, IF THE SECRETARY
CHOSE TO SIT THERE CAN BE NO DISQUALIFICATION. 

THE SECRETARY PROPERLY REOPENED THE PROCEEDINGS BY SERVICE OF THE
1933 FINDINGS AND ORDER.  AS HE EXPLAINED, THE SUMMARIZATION OF THE
VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE THERE CONTAINED WOULD "PROVE VERY HELPFUL AS A
WORKING BASIS FOR THIS HEARING," AND WOULD BE REVISED ACCORDING TO ANY
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE PARTIES MIGHT INTRODUCE. 

THE COURT BELOW FOUND FURTHER EVIDENCE OF AN IMPROPER PROCEEDING IN
THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE NEW EVIDENCE.  THE RULING IS
UNWARRANTED.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING
THE 1933 ORDER WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE 1939 ORDER AND, EVEN IF IT
WERE NOT, THE BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD COULD BE ASSUMED TO REST UPON THE
APPELLEES.  THE SECRETARY PROPERLY ASSUMED THAT THE EXISTING RECORD
MIGHT BE TAKEN AS SATISFACTORY EXCEPT SO FAR AS THE PARTIES WISHED TO
SUPPLEMENT IT. 

IF THE OLD RECORD, SUPPLEMENTED BY THE NEW EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY THE
APPELLEES, IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE 1939 ORDER OF THE SECRETARY,
THIS OBJECTION GOES TO THE MERITS AND DOES NOT ESTABLISH PROCEDURAL
IRREGULARITY.  UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, IN CONTRAST TO
PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION, THE REASONABLE RATES HAVE NO NECESSARY
RELATIONSHIP TO ACTUAL COSTS. 

THE NECESSITY OF TAKING EVIDENCE AS TO CHANGED CONDITIONS WAS SIMPLY
A QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION. 

THE FINDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE SECRETARY DID NOT PERSONALLY
WEIGH OR APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE IS WHOLLY WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE. 

THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY. 

THE CHANGES DURING THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD DID NOT MAKE THE RATES
INADEQUATE. 

AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO GRANT A FULL, FAIR AND
IMPARTIAL HEARING BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL TRIER OF THE FACTS. 

THE ORDER OF JUNE 20, 1939, IS INVALID BECAUSE THE REOPENED
PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED BY THE SECRETARY, AND THE ORDER RESULTING
THEREFROM WAS BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUS CONCEPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM, OF THE STATUS OF THE INVALIDATED FINDINGS OF
JUNE 14, 1933, OF THE PRIOR OPINIONS OF THIS COURT IN THIS CASE, AND
UPON A MISCONCEPTION OF THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY IN
RESPECT OF THE REOPENED PROCEEDINGS. 

THE ORDER IS INVALID BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THE SECRETARY THROUGHOUT
THE REOPENED PROCEEDINGS WAS TO PROCURE THE VALIDATION NUNC PRO TUNC OF
THE INVALIDATED ORDER OF JUNE 14, 1933. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN PERMITTING THE SECRETARY TO BE
CALLED AS A WITNESS.  RESPONDENTS WERE DENIED A HEARING BEFORE THE ONLY
TRIBUNAL AUTHORIZED TO HEAR THE MATTER, TO-WIT, THE SECRETARY HIMSELF. 

THE ORDER OF JUNE 20, 1939 IS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS ARRIVED AT
WITHOUT CONSIDERING RELEVANT AND MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE FINDING OF THE COURT BELOW, THAT THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF JUNE
20, 1939 ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT BE
DISTURBED, (1) BECAUSE IT IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, AND (2) BECAUSE IT
IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD. 

IN FIXING RATES WHICH ARE NON-COMPENSATORY TO ANY REPRESENTATIVE FIRM
OR GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVE FIRMS, HOWEVER EFFICIENT, THE ORDER HAS NOT
ONLY VIOLATED THE STANDARDS OF THE STATUTE BUT HAS VIOLATED STANDARDS
AS EXPRESSED IN THE ORDER ITSELF. 

THE ORDER OF JUNE 20, 1939 IS INVALID BECAUSE THE FINDINGS AND ORDER
CONTAIN NO LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FINDING THAT THE EXISTING RATES WERE
UNREASONABLY HIGH. 

THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY DISCHARGED ITS "DUTY TO USE BROAD
DISCRETION" TO ATTAIN A JUST AND LAWFUL RESULT, IN HOLDING THAT, IN
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED
TO THE MARKET AGENCIES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE ORIGINATED ELEVEN YEARS AGO.  AS A RESULT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEGUN IN APRIL, 1930 UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, 42 STAT.
159, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 181 ET SEQ., THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN JUNE,
1933, ISSUED AN ORDER SETTING MAXIMUM RATES TO BE CHARGED BY MARKET
AGENCIES FOR THEIR SERVICES AT THE KANSAS CITY STOCKYARDS.  THE MARKET
AGENCIES BROUGHT SUIT TO SET ASIDE HIS ORDER.  THE DISTRICT COURT
ISSUED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, UNDER WHICH AMOUNTS CHARGED IN
EXCESS OF THE RATES FIXED BY THE ORDER WERE IMPOUNDED, AND LATER IT
UPHELD THE ORDER.  8 F.SUPP.  766.  ON APPEAL HERE, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 217;
28 U.S.C. SECS. 44, 47A, THE CASE WAS SENT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT
IN ORDER TO DETERMINE ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS WHETHER THE
AGENCIES HAD BEEN DENIED THE "FULL HEARING" DEMANDED BY SEC. 310 OF THE
ACT.  298 U.S. 468.  THE DISTRICT COURT THEREUPON DECIDED THAT THIS
REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE HAD BEEN SATISFIED.  23 F.SUPP.  380.  THE
CASE WAS AGAIN BROUGHT HERE AND THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY WAS HELD
INVALID BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS.  304 U.S. 1.  PRIOR TO THIS
DECISION, THE SECRETARY AND THE MARKET AGENCIES HAD AGREED UPON A
HIGHER SCHEDULE OF RATES TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ON DECEMBER 1, 1937. 
HOWEVER, UNDER THE IMPOUNDING ORDER, WHICH HAD CONTINUED IN EFFECT
UNTIL THAT DATE, OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS HAD BEEN DEPOSITED.  THE
DISPOSITION OF THIS FUND WAS MADE A GROUND FOR A PETITION FOR REHEARING
AFTER THE SECOND MORGAN DECISION, BUT THE PETITION WAS DENIED BECAUSE
THAT QUESTION WAS FOR THE DISTRICT COURT.  304 U.S. 23, 26.  THE
SECRETARY THEN REOPENED THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE
REASONABLE RATES DURING THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD.  BEFORE THE SECRETARY
HAD MADE A NEW ORDER, THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTED THAT THE IMPOUNDED
MONEYS BE TURNED OVER TO THE MARKET AGENCIES.  24 F.SUPP.  214.  THE
CASE CAME HERE FOR THE THIRD TIME, AND WE REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT
AND REQUIRED ITS RETENTION OF THE FUND "UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
SECRETARY, PROCEEDING WITH DUE EXPEDITION, SHALL HAVE ENTERED A FINAL
ORDER IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM."  307 U.S. 183, 198.  THIS
DECISION WAS RENDERED ON MAY 15, 1939.  A MONTH LATER, THE SECRETARY
ISSUED A NEW SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD BASED ON
ELABORATE FINDINGS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE GOVERNMENT MOVED THE DISTRICT
COURT TO DISTRIBUTE THE FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECRETARY'S ORDER,
BUT THAT COURT, WITH ONE OF ITS THREE JUDGES DISSENTING, HELD THE ORDER
INVALID AND DIRECTED THAT THE FUNDS BE GIVEN TO THE MARKET AGENCIES. 
32 F.SUPP.  546.  THE CASE IS NOW HERE FOR THE FOURTH TIME. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE SECRETARY'S ORDER HAS UNDERGONE THE CLOSEST
SCRUTINY IN ELABORATE BRIEFS AND EXTENDED ORAL ARGUMENTS.  NOTHING HAS
BEEN OVERLOOKED.  HOWEVER, IN THE FINAL STAGE OF THIS LONG DRAWN OUT
LITIGATION, CRITICAL EXAMINATION REVEALS ONLY A FEW ISSUES DEMANDING
ATTENTION. 

WHEN THE MATTER WAS LAST HERE WE DEFINED THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY. 
HE WAS TO DETERMINE REASONABLE RATES FOR THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD SO THAT
THERE COULD BE JUST DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUNDS WHICH THE COURT BELOW HAD
TAKEN INTO ITS REGISTRY.  THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE
SECRETARY WAS A GUIDE TO ITS SOLUTION.  THE SECRETARY'S TASK WAS NOT
THE USUAL ENTERPRISE OF FIXING RATES FOR THE FUTURE, SO LARGELY AN
EXERCISE IN PROPHECY.  UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES MADE HIM, IN 1939, THE
ARBITER OF RATES FOR A PERIOD BETWEEN 1933 AND 1937.  BUT EVEN SUCH A
RETROSPECTIVE DETERMINATION DOES NOT PRESENT A MATHEMATICAL PROBLEM. 
DOUBTS AND DIFFICULTIES INCAPABLE OF EXACT RESOLUTION CONFRONT
JUDGMENT.  MORE THAN THAT, SINCE THE SECRETARY IS THE GUARDIAN OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IN REGULATING A BUSINESS OF PUBLIC CONCERN IT IS NOT
FOR HIM MERELY TO REFLECT THE ITEMS ON A PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT.  HE
MUST CONSIDER WHETHER THESE REPRESENT SERVICES WHICH PROPERLY SHOULD BE
CHARGED TO THE PUBLIC.  WHILE, THEREFORE, THE SECRETARY IN DETERMINING
RATES FOR THE PAST COULD NOT DENY HIMSELF THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, HE
WAS NOT MERELY A BOOKKEEPER POSTING ITEMS INTO A LEDGER.  RATES TO
WHICH THESE PUBLIC AGENCIES WERE ENTITLED WERE NOT TO BE DERIVED MERELY
FROM THEIR EXPENDITURES AND ACTUAL INCOME. 

THIS COURT DEFINED THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY IN ITS DECISION IN THE
307TH U.S. THE RECORD LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE SECRETARY, WHEN HE FILED
HIS ORDER A MONTH AFTER THAT DECISION, APPROPRIATELY DISCHARGED THE
DUTY.  HE SERVED UPON THE MARKET AGENCIES THE ORDER OF JUNE 14, 1933,
AND THE FINDINGS UNDERLYING IT AS THE STARTING POINT OF THE INQUIRY. 
THE MARKET AGENCIES PROTESTED AGAINST ANY ORDER "NUNC PRO TUNC AS OF
JUNE 14, 1933," ALLEGED THAT CONDITIONS HAD CHANGED MUCH SINCE 1933,
AND ASKED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN EXAMINER TO TAKE NEW EVIDENCE. 
BECAUSE HE DEEMED THE EARLIER FINDINGS ILLUMINATING AND HELPFUL "AS A
WORKING BASIS FOR THIS HEARING," THE SECRETARY REFUSED TO WITHDRAW
THEM.  BUT HE APPOINTED AN EXAMINER TO HEAR NEW EVIDENCE AND DENIED
"ANY INTENTION OF DEPRIVING THE RESPONDENTS OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF
OFFERING EVIDENCE CONCERNING CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE REASONABLENESS OF
THEIR RATES DURING THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO JUNE 14, 1933."  HE FURTHER
STATED THAT THE "FORECASTS OF CONDITIONS" IN THE 1933 ORDER "CAN NOW BE
CHECKED IN LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS."  HE NEITHER PURPORTED TO MAKE
NOR DID HE MAKE A NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER.  THE SECRETARY THUS ADOPTED A
PROCEDURE WHICH ADMITTED WHATEVER LIGHT WAS SHED BY CHANGE OF
CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER 1933.  THE MARKET AGENCIES FREELY AVAILED
THEMSELVES OF THIS PROCEDURE; AND THE SECRETARY'S FINDINGS LEAVE NO
ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT HIS CONCLUSIONS REPRESENT A JUDGMENT OF 1939 AND
NOT A PROPHECY OF 1933.  HAVING OVERRULED THE CONTENTION OF GOVERNMENT
COUNSEL THAT EVIDENCE OF CONDITIONS AFTER 1933 WAS IRRELEVANT, HE TOOK
NOTE OF THE FACT THAT FEWER LIVESTOCK CAME TO THE MARKET AFTER 1933;
THAT A LARGER NUMBER CAME BY TRUCK, THEREBY CAUSING A DECREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN AN AVERAGE CONSIGNMENT; THAT SPECIFIC AS WELL AS
GENERAL ECONOMIC FACTORS TOUCHING THE MARKET AT KANSAS CITY HAD
CHANGED; THAT STATISTICS RELEVANT IN 1933 HAD BECOME OUTMODED; AND THAT
HE HAD BEFORE HIM EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES FOR "BUSINESS GETTING AND
MAINTAINING" AND SALESMANSHIP NOT BEFORE HIM IN 1933.  THE SECRETARY
THUS UNEQUIVOCALLY AVOWED HIS INTENTION TO CONSIDER CONDITIONS AFTER
1933 AND HIS FINDINGS CARRY OUT HIS PURPOSE.  FN1  WE MUST THEREFORE
REJECT THE CLAIM THAT THE SECRETARY'S JUDGMENT WAS FOUNDED ON THE
MISCONCEPTION THAT HE MUST SHUT HIS MIND TO EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED
AFTER 1933 AND IN 1939 FIX RATES IN THE IMAGINARY WORLD OF 1933. 

ANOTHER ATTACK UPON THE SECRETARY'S ORDER IS THE CONVENTIONAL
OBJECTION THAT THE FINDINGS WERE NOT ROOTED IN PROOF.  TO REEXAMINE
HERE WITH PARTICULARITY THE EXTENSIVE FINDINGS MADE BY THE SECRETARY,
AND TO TEST THEM BY A RECORD OF 1340 PRINTED PAGES AND THOUSANDS OF
PAGES OF ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS, WOULD IN ITSELF GO A LONG WAY TO CONVERT
A CONTEST BEFORE THE SECRETARY INTO ONE BEFORE THE COURTS.  COMPARE
LITCHFIELD V. REGISTER AND RECEIVER, 9 WALL.  575, 578.  WE HAVE
CANVASSED TOO FULLY IN THE PAST THE DUTIES RESPECTIVELY ALLOTTED TO THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND THE COURTS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT TO JUSTIFY EXTENDED DISCUSSION OF THE
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES.  TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S.
420; ACKER V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 426; SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V.
MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 190-91.  WE ARE IN THE LEGISLATIVE REALM OF
FIXING RATES.  THIS IS A TASK OF STRIKING A BALANCE AND REACHING A
JUDGMENT ON FACTORS BESET WITH DOUBTS AND DIFFICULTIES, UNCERTAINTY AND
SPECULATION.  ON ULTIMATE ANALYSIS THE REAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
SECRETARY OR A COURT SHOULD MAKE AN APPRAISAL OF ELEMENTS HAVING
DELUSIVE CERTAINTY.  CONGRESS HAS PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE
SECRETARY AND THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DENY THE ASSIGNMENT.    THE
OBJECTION THAT THE PROOF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS IS REALLY A
REPETITION IN DISGUISE OF THE UNFOUNDED CLAIM THAT THE SECRETARY
MISCONCEIVED HIS DUTY AND MADE HIS ORDER IN 1939 AS THOUGH HE WERE
ACTING IN 1933.  THE BEDROCK OF THESE VARIOUSLY PHRASED ATTACKS UPON
THE ORDER IS THE CONTENTION THAT THE SECRETARY WAS INDIFFERENT TO
EVENTS OCCURRING AFTER 1933.  THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT HE WAS NOT.  THE
CONCLUSION WHICH HE DREW FROM THESE EVENTS IS ANOTHER MATTER.  FN2 
SPECIFICALLY, IT IS URGED THAT BY THE INCREASE OF RATES FOR THE FUTURE,
TO WHICH THE MARKET AGENCIES AND THE SECRETARY AGREED IN 1937, CHANGES
IN CIRCUMSTANCES WERE RECOGNIZED, WHILE THE PRESENT ORDER IGNORED THESE
CHANGES BECAUSE ITS RATES ARE AT THE SAME LEVEL AS THE ORIGINAL ORDER. 
BUT THE SECRETARY DID NOT DISREGARD CHANGED MARKET CONDITIONS DURING
THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD.  EVIDENCE SHOWING THESE CHANGES WAS SUBMITTED BY
THE MARKET AGENCIES.  FN3  HE WAS THUS DULY APPRISED OF THE CHANGES AND
THEY ENTERED INTO THE FINDINGS.  TO BE SURE, IN ASCERTAINING THE
REASONABLE RATES FOR THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD HE DID NOT ATTACH TO THEM
THE SIGNIFICANCE WHICH THE MARKET AGENCIES DREW FROM THEM.  AS A RESULT
OF AN ELABORATE STUDY OF CONDITIONS PRIOR TO 1933 AND EVIDENCE
INDICATING NO ESSENTIAL CHANGE IN THOSE CONDITIONS FOR THE PURPOSE AT
HAND DURING THE LATER YEARS, THE SECRETARY CONCLUDED THAT THE MARKET
WAS OVERSTAFFED AND THAT IN THE COMPETITIVE SETTING OF THE BUSINESS
AMOUNTS HAD BEEN SPENT NOT JUSTIFIED BY THAT PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH HE
IS CHARGED TO PROTECT.  ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR SALESMEN'S SALARIES AND
"BUSINESS GETTING," THE ITEMS CHIEFLY IN CONTROVERSY, HE FOUND, DID NOT
FURNISH AN ADEQUATE GUIDE TO THE ASCERTAINMENT OF REASONABLE RATES. 
HAD THE LOWER RATES ORIGINALLY SET BY THE SECRETARY IN 1933 BEEN TESTED
BY EXPERIENCE, AUDITS OF THE MARKET AGENCIES UNDER THESE RATES WOULD
HAVE REFLECTED THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE POLICY OF LOWERING COSTS
UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS.  BUT THIS SOURCE OF EXPERIENCE WAS
UNAVAILABLE BECAUSE THE AGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD
CONTINUED TO OPERATE UNDER THE HIGHER RATES.  QUITE DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS MAY PROPERLY HAVE INFLUENCED THE SECRETARY IN FIXING
RATES FOR THE IMPOUNDING PERIOD FROM THOSE BY WHICH HE DETERMINED A
SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR THE FUTURE.  THE EXISTENCE OF THE DIFFERENCES IS
RECOGNIZED IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SECRETARY AND THE MARKET
AGENCIES WHEREBY THE HIGHER RATES OF THE 1937 SCHEDULE WERE TO BE
"WITHOUT PREJUDICE" EITHER TO THE GOVERNMENT OR TO THE AGENCIES IN THE
PRESENT LITIGATION.  IT WAS FURTHER AGREED IN 1937 THAT AFTER SIX
MONTHS, AND UNLESS THE RATE ORDER OF 1933 WAS FOUND INVALID, THE
SECRETARY COULD AT ANY TIME "WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING" REDUCE THE RATES
FOR THE FUTURE TO THE 1933 LEVEL.  THERE WERE VERY GREAT COMPLEXITIES
IN DETERMINING RATES FOR AN INDUSTRY AFFECTED BY THE UNSTABLE
CONDITIONS WHICH SURROUNDED THE KANSAS CITY MARKET IN 1937.  AND THE
EXPERT TRIBUNAL CHARGED WITH THE TASK MAY WELL HAVE FELT A NEED FOR
FLEXIBILITY IN THE PROPHECY INVOLVED IN SETTING FUTURE RATES WHICH DID
NOT ENTER THE JUDGMENT REQUIRED IN FIXING RATES FOR A PAST PERIOD.  IT
IS NOT FOR US TO TRY TO PENETRATE THE PRECISE COURSE OF THE SECRETARY'S
REASONING.  OUR DUTY IS AT AN END WHEN WE FIND, AS WE DO FIND, THAT THE
SECRETARY WAS RESPONSIBLY CONSCIOUS OF CONDITIONS AT THE MARKET DURING
THE YEARS FOLLOWING 1933, THAT HE DULY WEIGHED THEM, AND NEVERTHELESS
CONCLUDED THAT RATES SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE 1933 ORDER WERE PROPER. 

BUT THE MARKET AGENCIES GO BEYOND SAYING THAT THE RECORD DID NOT
WARRANT WHAT THE SECRETARY FOUND.  THEY SAY THAT BIAS DISQUALIFIED
HIM.  THIS SERIOUS CHARGE DERIVES FROM A LETTER WRITTEN BY THE
SECRETARY TO THE NEW YORK TIMES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF
THIS COURT IN THE SECOND MORGAN CASE, 304 U.S. 1.  BY THAT DECISION,
THE COURT HAD UPSET THE ORDER OF 1933 BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL DEFECTS. 
LARGELY BECAUSE OF HIS ASSUMPTION THAT THIS MEANT THE RETURN OF THE
IMPOUNDED FUNDS TO THE MARKET AGENCIES, THE SECRETARY IN HIS LETTER
VIGOROUSLY CRITICIZED THE DECISION.  THE MARKET AGENCIES IN DUE COURSE
MOVED TO DISQUALIFY THE SECRETARY IN THE PROCEEDINGS STARTED BY HIM TO
FIX NEW RATES.  IN DENYING THEIR MOTION THE SECRETARY WROTE A PATENTLY
SINCERE DENIAL OF BIAS.  HE STATED THAT HE HAD COMPLAINED AGAINST A
RETURN OF THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS TO THE MARKET AGENCIES PRIOR TO A
DETERMINATION OF THE RATES ON THE MERITS, THAT THE DENIAL OF THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING, 304 U.S. 23, 26, HAD SHOWN HIM THE ERROR OF HIS
ASSUMPTION, THAT IN HIS LETTER OF CRITICISM HE MADE NO PREJUDGMENT
ABOUT THE RATES TO BE FIXED, AND THAT HIS ONLY CONCERN WAS TO "SEE THAT
THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES ARE FAIRLY DETERMINED."  HE ADDED
THAT "AS A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY" HE MIGHT HAVE DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF BUT
FOR THE FACT THAT, WHILE THE MARKET AGENCIES WERE PRESSING HIS
DISQUALIFICATION, THEY WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY URGING THAT NONE OTHER THAN
THE SECRETARY HAD LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE RATE ORDER.  PLAINLY
ENOUGH, WHEN IT WAS THUS SUGGESTED THAT HE CREATE A SITUATION IN WHICH
NO ORDER COULD BE MADE, THE SECRETARY WAS OFFERED NO ESCAPE FROM HIS
DUTY EVEN HAD HE PREFERRED TO CONSULT THE COMFORTS OF PERSONAL
CONVENIENCE. 

BUT, INTRINSICALLY, THE LETTER DID NOT REQUIRE THE SECRETARY'S
DIGNIFIED DENIAL OF BIAS.  THAT HE NOT MERELY HELD, BUT EXPRESSED,
STRONG VIEWS ON MATTERS BELIEVED BY HIM TO HAVE BEEN IN ISSUE, DID NOT
UNFIT HIM FOR EXERCISING HIS DUTY IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ORDERED BY
THIS COURT.  AS WELL MIGHT IT BE ARGUED THAT THE JUDGES BELOW, WHO HAD
THREE TIMES HEARD THIS CASE, HAD DISQUALIFYING CONVICTIONS.  IN
PUBLICLY CRITICIZING THIS COURT'S OPINION THE SECRETARY MERELY INDULGED
IN A PRACTICE FAMILIAR IN THE LONG HISTORY OF ANGLO-AMERICAN
LITIGATION, WHEREBY UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGANTS AND LAWYERS GIVE VENT TO
THEIR DISAPPOINTMENT IN TAVERN OR PRESS.  CABINET OFFICERS CHARGED BY
CONGRESS WITH ADJUDICATORY FUNCTIONS ARE NOT ASSUMED TO BE FLABBY
CREATURES ANY MORE THAN JUDGES ARE.  BOTH MAY HAVE AN UNDERLYING
PHILOSOPHY IN APPROACHING A SPECIFIC CASE.  BUT BOTH ARE ASSUMED TO BE
MEN OF CONSCIENCE AND INTELLECTUAL DISCIPLINE, CAPABLE OF JUDGING A
PARTICULAR CONTROVERSY FAIRLY ON THE BASIS OF ITS OWN CIRCUMSTANCES. 
NOTHING IN THIS RECORD DISTURBS SUCH AN ASSUMPTION. 

AND SO WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY FURNISHES "THE
APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN MAKING
DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND IN ITS CUSTODY."  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307
U.S. 183, 198.  BUT, FINALLY, A MATTER NOT TOUCHING THE VALIDITY OF THE
ORDER REQUIRES CONSIDERATION.  OVER THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION THE
DISTRICT COURT AUTHORIZED THE MARKET AGENCIES TO TAKE THE DEPOSITION OF
THE SECRETARY.  THE SECRETARY THEREUPON APPEARED IN PERSON AT THE
TRIAL.  HE WAS QUESTIONED AT LENGTH REGARDING THE PROCESS BY WHICH HE
REACHED THE CONCLUSIONS OF HIS ORDER, INCLUDING THE MANNER AND EXTENT
OF HIS STUDY OF THE RECORD AND HIS CONSULTATION WITH SUBORDINATES.  HIS
TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT HE DEALT WITH THE ENORMOUS RECORD IN A MANNER NOT
UNLIKE THE PRACTICE OF JUDGES IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS, AND THAT HE HELD
VARIOUS CONFERENCES WITH THE EXAMINER WHO HEARD THE EVIDENCE.  MUCH WAS
MADE OF HIS DISREGARD OF A MEMORANDUM FROM ONE OF HIS OFFICIALS WHO, ON
READING THE PROPOSED ORDER, URGED CONSIDERATIONS FAVORABLE TO THE
MARKET AGENCIES.  BUT THE SHORT OF THE BUSINESS IS THAT THE SECRETARY
SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO THIS EXAMINATION.  THE PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE SECRETARY "HAS A QUALITY RESEMBLING THAT OF A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING."  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 480.  SUCH AN
EXAMINATION OF A JUDGE WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE OF JUDICIAL
RESPONSIBILITY.  WE HAVE EXPLICITLY HELD IN THIS VERY LITIGATION THAT
"IT WAS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT TO PROBE THE MENTAL PROCESSES OF
THE SECRETARY."  304 U.S. 1, 18.  JUST AS A JUDGE CANNOT BE SUBJECTED
TO SUCH A SCRUTINY, COMPARE FAYERWEATHER V. RITCH, 195 U.S. 276, 306
07, SO THE INTEGRITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS MUST BE EQUALLY
RESPECTED.  SEE CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V. BABCOCK, 204 U.S. 585,
593.  IT WILL BEAR REPEATING THAT ALTHOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
HAS HAD A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT AND PURSUES SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT WAYS
FROM THOSE OF COURTS, THEY ARE TO BE DEEMED COLLABORATIVE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF JUSTICE AND THE APPROPRIATE INDEPENDENCE OF EACH
SHOULD BE RESPECTED BY THE OTHER.  UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S.
183, 191.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE TITLE PAGE OF THE TENTATIVE FINDINGS,
ON WHICH APPEARED, OPPOSITE THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE AND THE NAMES
OF THE FORMAL PARTIES, THE WORDS "TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED ORDER, ISSUED AS OF JUNE 14, 1933."  THIS
FORMAL CAPTION IS NOT AN UNNATURAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STARTING POINT OF
THE SECRETARY'S NEW INQUIRY.  IT CLEARLY IS NOT DESCRIPTIVE OF HIS
FINAL FINDINGS AND ORDER, LET ALONE A DENIAL OF THE PROPER THEORY ON
WHICH HE AVOWEDLY PROCEEDED. 

FN2  THAT INFERENCES FROM FACTS AND CONTENTIONS REGARDING THEIR
SIGNIFICANCE ARE THE REAL STUFF OF THESE RATE DETERMINATIONS IS WELL
ILLUSTRATED BY THE PHASE OF THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE SECRETARY THAT WAS
MOST STRONGLY PRESSED UPON US.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT SINCE 1933 THE
ARRIVAL OF ANIMALS BY TRUCK HAS INCREASED, THEREBY CAUSING A DECREASE
IN THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN A CONSIGNMENT.  AND SINCE THE
CONSIGNMENT IS THE UNIT OF COST, A DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS
RESULTS IN AN INCREASE IN COST PER HEAD IN THE CONSIGNMENT.  HENCE,
FORMAL LOGIC CONCLUDES, THE PRESENT ORDER IN SETTING THE SAME RATES AS
THOSE OF 1933 FAILS TO REFLECT THIS INCREASE IN PER HEAD COST, AND ON
THAT GROUND IS INVALID.  BUT BOTH THE 1933 AND 1939 SCHEDULES RECOGNIZE
THAT THERE ARE MINIMAL COSTS UNRELATED TO THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN A
CONSIGNMENT.  BOTH ORDERS, THEREFORE, WERE GRADUATED ACCORDING TO THE
NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN A CONSIGNMENT.  THE SECRETARY FOUND THAT THIS
GRADUATED SCALE WHICH "PRODUCES AN INCREASING PER HEAD REVENUE AS THE
NUMBER OF HEAD IN THE CONSIGNMENT DECREASES" WOULD "GIVE RECOGNITION TO
THE CHANGING METHOD OF ARRIVAL OF LIVE-STOCK."  MOREOVER, THE DECREASE
IN THE SIZE OF CONSIGNMENTS MAY WELL HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE
INCREASED ESTIMATE OF SALESMANSHIP COST.  ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS ONLY
ILLUSTRATE THAT WE ARE MOVING IN A DIFFICULT AND SPECIALIZED REALM OF
JUDGMENT WHICH HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND
NOT TO THE COURTS.  THE SECRETARY'S JUDGMENT MUST PREVAIL SINCE HIS
FINDING HAD THE SUPPORT OF INFERENCES FAIRLY DRAWN FROM THE ENTIRE
EVIDENCE, INCLUDING ALL THAT THE MARKET AGENCIES SAW FIT TO INTRODUCE
BEARING ON THEIR OPERATIONS AFTER 1933. 

FN3  AN OBJECTION TO AN EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE BY THE EXAMINER
REQUIRES BUT SLIGHT COMMENT.  TWO COOPERATIVE COMMISSION COMPANIES HAD
ACCEPTED THE RATES OF THE SECRETARY'S ORDER OF 1933, AND THE MARKET
AGENCIES ASKED THAT THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THESE COMPANIES FOR THE
IMPOUNDING PERIOD BE PRODUCED BY THE DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE WITH WHICH THEY WERE FILED.  THE EXAMINER REFUSED TO ORDER
PRODUCTION OF THE REPORTS ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO
SO, BASING HIS RULING ON A SECTION WHICH THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT
INCORPORATES FROM THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT AND WHICH PROVIDES
THAT IT SHALL BE A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY OFFICER OF THE REGULATORY AGENCY
TO MAKE PUBLIC ANY INFORMATION WHICH THE AGENCY HAS OBTAINED "WITHOUT
ITS AUTHORITY, UNLESS DIRECTED BY A COURT."  7 U.S.C. SEC. 222, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 50.  WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE REPORTS SHOULD
PROPERLY HAVE BEEN ADMITTED.  IF THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN, THE STATUTE
PROVIDES AN ORDERLY WAY FOR HAVING THIS DONE DURING THE COURSE OF THE
HEARING BY SEEKING THE SECRETARY'S AUTHORIZATION.  HAVING FAILED TO
PURSUE THE WAY OF THE STATUTE, THE MARKET AGENCIES WERE DEBARRED FROM
RAISING THE MATTER AT A LATER TIME. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

WITH MUCH THAT IS SAID IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT I AGREE, BUT I AM
COMPELLED TO DISSENT FROM THE CONCLUSION.  DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS
LITIGATION HAS EXTENDED OVER MANY YEARS, I STILL THINK THAT NOT ONLY
THE RIGHTS OF THE MARKET AGENCIES BUT THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED REQUIRE
THE COURT TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LITIGATION IS DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PRINCIPLES IT HAS LAID DOWN.  THE RESULT NOW REACHED IS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES.  A RECITAL OF THE COURSE OF THE
LITIGATION IS NECESSARY FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE AS NOW
PRESENTED. 

RATES FOR THE MARKET AGENCIES AT KANSAS CITY WERE FIXED BY THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE  FN1 JULY 24, 1923.  BY VIRTUE OF THE STATUTE
THESE BECAME THE LEGAL RATES AND THE AGENCIES WERE BOUND NOT TO EXCEED
THEM UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE SECRETARY.  APRIL 7, 1930, THE
SECRETARY INSTITUTED AN INQUIRY INTO THE EXISTING RATES.  JUNE 14,
1933, HE ISSUED AN ORDER REDUCING THEM. 

JULY 19, 1933, THE MARKET AGENCIES BROUGHT SUIT TO ENJOIN AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
JULY 22, 1933, IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH IT PROVIDED THAT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE RATES BEING CHARGED BY THE AGENCIES AND THOSE FIXED BY THE
ORDER UNDER ATTACK SHOULD BE IMPOUNDED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE
LITIGATION.  UPON THE TRIAL OF THE CAUSE THE COURT REFUSED TO CONSIDER
AN ISSUE TENDERED BY THE AGENCIES AS TO WHETHER THE SECRETARY HAD
GRANTED THEM A FULL HEARING.  UPON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, IT HELD
THE ORDER WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND, ON OCTOBER 29,
1934, DISMISSED THE BILL.  FN2  THIS COURT REVERSED, ON MAY 25, 1936,
HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE AGENCIES HAD BEEN AFFORDED A FULL HEARING.  FN3 
ON A FURTHER TRIAL THE DISTRICT COURT AGAIN UPHELD THE ORDER BY A
DECREE OF JULY 2, 1937.  FN4 THE UNITED STATES APPEALED FROM THIS
DECREE.  IN THE MEANTIME, HOWEVER, A SIGNIFICANT THING OCCURRED.  ON
NOVEMBER 14, 1937, THE SECRETARY APPROVED NEW RATES, EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER
1, 1937, IN RECOGNITION OF CHANGED CONDITIONS EXISTING IN THE BUSINESS
AT KANSAS CITY.  THE IMPOUNDING ORDER, THEREFORE, CEASED TO OPERATE
NOVEMBER 1, 1937. 

THIS COURT REVERSED THE SECOND DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT BECAUSE
IT FOUND THAT THE AGENCIES HAD BEEN DENIED A FULL HEARING IN THE
PROCEEDINGS WHICH EVENTUATED IN THE ORDER OF 1933.  ITS DECISION WAS
RENDERED APRIL 25, 1938, AND A REHEARING WAS DENIED MAY 31, 1938.  FN5 

THE SECRETARY AND HIS LEGAL ADVISERS EVIDENTLY BELIEVED, AND, AS I
THINK, CORRECTLY, THAT THE OLD RATES AUTHORIZED IN 1923 STOOD UNTIL A
NEW ORDER, LAWFULLY MADE, SUPERSEDED THEM FOR THE FUTURE.  THE RATES
FIXED FOR THE FUTURE BY THE ORDER OF 1933 HAD NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE AND
THE ACT CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR ALTERING RATES CHARGED IN THE PAST
UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE EXISTING AND OUTSTANDING ORDER OF 1923, OR
GRANTING REPARATION IN RESPECT OF THEM.  THE SECRETARY SEEMS TO HAVE
THOUGHT THAT HE COULD REACH THIS SITUATION BY THE ENTRY OF A NUNC PRO
TUNC ORDER AS OF JULY 14, 1933.  ON JUNE 2, 1938, THEREFORE, HE
DIRECTED THAT THE PROCEEDING BE REOPENED AND THAT THE "PROCEEDINGS,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION AND ORDER" ISSUED ON JUNE 14, 1933, BE
SERVED UPON THE AGENCIES AS THE "TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION
AND PROPOSED ORDER" OF THE SECRETARY, AND HE DENOMINATED THEM AS
"TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION, AND PROPOSED ORDER" ISSUED AS
OF JUNE 14, 1933.  IT IS PLAIN THAT HE PROPOSED THUS TO CURE WHAT HAD
BEEN FOUND TO BE THE DEFECT IN THE ORDER, BY AFFORDING THE MARKET
AGENCIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE AND ARGUE EXCEPTIONS, IN AN EFFORT TO
SHOW ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ON WHICH THE 1933
ORDER WAS BASED.  IF NONE WAS MADE TO APPEAR, HE PROPOSED TO ISSUE THE
ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC AS OF ITS ORIGINAL DATE.  IT IS TRUE THAT AFTER
EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED, AND UPON THE HEARING BEFORE AN EXAMINER, THE
AGENCIES WERE PERMITTED TO OFFER EVIDENCE TO SHOW CHANGED CONDITIONS
SUPERVENING IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1933 AND 1937.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT,
WHILE THE EXAMINER RETAINED ALL OF THE FINDINGS PREVIOUSLY MADE AS THE
FOUNDATION FOR THE ORDER OF 1933, HE ADDED CERTAIN FINDINGS, BUT HE DID
NOT, IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT, ALTER THE ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND, INDEED,
HE RETAINED THE EXACT RATES FIXED IN THE EARLIER ORDER AND LEFT
UNDISTURBED EVERY FINDING AS TO COST (WITH ONE IMMATERIAL EXCEPTION),
EVEN TO THE FOURTH DECIMAL PLACE, AS IT HAD STOOD IN THE ORIGINAL
REPORT. 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE REOPENING OF THE PROCEEDING CONSEQUENT UPON THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT OF MAY 31, 1938, THE SECRETARY, ON JUNE 12,
1938, APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ORDER STAYING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS, PENDING HIS FURTHER DECISION AND
ORDER.  IN HIS PETITION HE SAID:  "AFTER A FULL HEARING THE SECRETARY
WILL DETERMINE BY AN ORDER AS OF JUNE 14, 1933, WHAT RATES MAY
REASONABLY BE CHARGED BY PETITIONERS TO THEIR CLIENTS FOR THE SERVICES
RENDERED THEM."  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE APPLICATION.  FN6 

THE UNITED STATES APPEALED FROM THE DECREE.  IN ITS BRIEF IT STATED
"THE ONLY PURPOSE AND EFFECT ...  (OF THE REOPENED PROCEEDING) IS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE APPELLEES HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED
BY THE PROCEDURAL DEFECT IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDING." 

BEFORE THE CASE HAD BEEN DECIDED HERE, THE REOPENED PROCEEDING BEFORE
THE SECRETARY HAD SO PROGRESSED THAT THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN CLOSED, A
TENTATIVE REPORT MADE BY AN EXAMINER, EXCEPTIONS FILED, AND ARGUMENT
HEARD BY THE SECRETARY.  THE RECORD PLAINLY DISCLOSES THAT, UP TO THE
TIME OF OUR FINAL DECISION ON THIS LAST APPEAL, THE SECRETARY HAD BEEN
CONTENT TO TAKE THE DATA DISCLOSED BY HIS INVESTIGATION OF THE MARKET
AGENCIES' ACTIVITIES IN THE YEARS 1929, 1930 AND 1931 AS THE BASIS OF
ANY ORDER, AND THIS WAS NATURAL IF, AS HE THEN SUPPOSED, HE WAS
JUSTIFIED IN ENTERING AN ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC AS OF THE DATE OF HIS
ORIGINAL 1933 ORDER. 

THIS COURT RENDERED ITS OPINION IN THE LAST APPEAL MAY 15, 1939.  FN7
SPEAKING BY A MAJORITY, THE COURT THERE HELD THAT, AS THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS ACTING AS A COURT OF EQUITY IN THE PREMISES, THE IMPOUNDED
FUNDS SHOULD BE DISBURSED ACCORDING TO THE EQUITIES OF THE SITUATION. 
IT ADVERTED TO THE FACT THAT THE RATES FIXED BY THE SECRETARY OCTOBER
14, 1937, GOVERNED FOR THE FUTURE UNTIL ALTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW,
BUT IT HELD THAT THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE REQUIRED AN INVESTIGATION AS
TO WHETHER THE RATES CHARGED IN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN 1933 AND 1937 HAD
BEEN UNREASONABLE AND, AS A RESULT, WHETHER IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE TO
WITHHOLD FROM THE MARKET AGENCIES' CUSTOMERS AND RETURN TO THE MARKET
AGENCIES ALL OR ANY PART OF THE IMPOUNDED FUND.  THE COURT WAS OF THE
VIEW THAT THE SECRETARY WAS IN A PECULIARLY FAVORABLE POSITION TO FIND
THE FACTS AND ADVISE THE COURT UPON THIS SUBJECT AND THAT THE COURT
OUGHT TO COOPERATE WITH THE SECRETARY TO ATTAIN A JUST RESULT. 

AT THIS JUNCTURE THE REOPENED PROCEEDING WAS UNDER SUBMISSION BEFORE
THE SECRETARY.  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT HE HAD REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE
DATA IN HIS OWN POSSESSION WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OF TWO
OF THE MARKET AGENCIES WHICH HAD CONFORMED TO THE RATES HE FIXED IN
1933.  IT IS FURTHER TO BE NOTED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF CHANGED
CONDITIONS NOT ONLY IS SHOWN BY THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE OFFERED BY
THE AGENCIES BUT BY THE FACT THAT THE SECRETARY RECOGNIZED SUCH CHANGE
IN MAKING HIS ORDER OF OCTOBER 14, 1937. 

THE COURT BELOW HAS FOUND THAT CONDITIONS IN THE BUSINESS HAD
SUBSTANTIALLY, AND IN SOME RESPECTS RADICALLY, CHANGED SINCE THE
COMPLETION OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD ON WHICH THE 1933 ORDER WAS BASED. 
THE COURT FOUND THE FACTS AS TO THE CHANGES WHICH HAD INCREASED THE
COST OF DOING THE BUSINESS.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT QUESTION THE
CORRECTNESS OF THESE FINDINGS.  I THINK THESE INCREASED COSTS CANNOT BE
IGNORED OR DISMISSED WITH THE COMMENT THAT THE SECRETARY CONSIDERED
THEM, WHEN IT IS PLAIN HE DID NOT.  THIS COURT DID NOT INTEND BY ITS
DECISION IN 1939 THAT THE SECRETARY SHOULD SHUT HIS EYES TO THESE
CHANGED CONDITIONS, AND MAKE A FORECAST IN 1939 AS OF 1933 AND UPON THE
DATA AVAILABLE IN 1933, AS IF HE HAD BEFORE HIM ONLY THE EXPERIENCE
PRIOR TO 1933 AND WERE THEN ACTING.  OF A SIMILAR SITUATION THIS COURT
HAS SAID:  "A FORECAST GIVES US ONE RATE.  A SURVEY GIVES ANOTHER.  TO
PREFER THE FORECAST TO THE SURVEY IS AN ARBITRARY JUDGMENT."  FN8 

THE SECRETARY HAD MADE A CAREFUL INVESTIGATION OF THE OPERATIONS OF
THE MARKET AGENCIES IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO 1933.  THE SAME DATA WERE
AVAILABLE TO HIM IN 1939 FOR THE PERIOD 1933 TO 1937, BUT WERE NOT
CONSIDERED.  WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE DONE, IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S
DECISION, WAS AGAIN TO REOPEN THE CAUSE AND TO INVESTIGATE THE FAIRNESS
AND REASONABLENESS OF THE CHARGES EXACTED FROM 1933 TO 1937, IN THE
LIGHT OF ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.  TO ASSERT THAT HE DID IN FACT PURSUE THIS
COURSE IS TO PLACE AN UNJUSTIFIED GLOSS UPON THE RECORD NOW BEFORE THE
COURT. 

WE OUGHT NOT TO CONCLUDE THE PARTIES BY A STRAINED CONSTRUCTION OF
THE RECORD FACTS, OR BY APPLYING TO THIS INQUIRY TECHNICAL RULES OF
EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE WHICH HAVE NO PLACE IN SUCH A PROCEEDING.  ON
THE CONTRARY, WE SHOULD REQUIRE THAT TO BE DONE WHICH THE BROAD
EQUITIES OF THE CASE DEMAND.  NO LESS, IT SEEMS TO ME, WILL SATISFY THE
MANDATE OF THIS COURT IN ITS EARLIER PRONOUNCEMENT.  I SHOULD,
THEREFORE, REVERSE THE DECREE AND DIRECT THAT THE SECRETARY ASCERTAIN
THE FACTS UPON ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT WHEN THE CASE WAS LAST HERE. 

FN1  SEVERAL INCUMBENTS OF THE OFFICE ACTED IN THE CASE AT SUCCESSIVE
DATES.  THE TERM SECRETARY IS USED TO DESIGNATE THE OFFICIAL WHO ACTED
IN ANY INSTANCE. 

FN2  8 F.SUPP.  766. 

FN3  298 U.S. 468. 

FN4  23 F.SUPP.  380. 

FN5  304 U.S. 1, 23. 

FN6  24 F.SUPP.  214. 

FN7  307 U.S. 183. 

FN8  WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 79,
82. 
..END :









HELVERING V. REYNOLDS, 313 U.S. 428 


NO. 684.  ARGUED APRIL 30, MAY 1, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 114
F.2D 804, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, WHICH PROVIDES
THAT WHERE PROPERTY IS "ACQUIRED BY BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE"
THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE ITS VALUE "AT THE TIME OF
SUCH ACQUISITION," AND UNDER TREASURY REGULATIONS 86 CONSTRUING THAT
PROVISION, THE BASIS IN THE CASE OF SECURITIES THAT WERE OWNED BY THE
TESTATOR IN SPECIE AND THAT WERE DELIVERED TO THE TAXPAYER IN PURSUANCE
OF A TESTAMENTARY TRUST, AND SOLD BY HIM, IS THEIR VALUE AT THE TIME OF
THE TESTATOR'S DEATH, ALTHOUGH THE TAXPAYER'S INTEREST AT THAT TIME,
UNDER THE WILL WAS A CONTINGENT REMAINDER.  P. 431. 

THE FACT THAT THE REGULATION WAS NOT PROMULGATED UNTIL SOME TIME
AFTER THE TRANSACTIONS OCCURRED WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE TAX, IS
IMMATERIAL. 

2.  THE RULE THAT RE-ENACTMENT IMPLIES A LEGISLATIVE ADOPTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANGUAGE RE-ENACTED IS
NO MORE THAN AN AID IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THE PRIOR CONSTRUCTION BECOMES SO IMBEDDED IN THE LAW THAT ONLY
CONGRESS CAN CHANGE IT; IT GIVES WAY BEFORE CHANGES IN THE PRIOR RULE
OR PRACTICE THROUGH EXERCISE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OF ITS
CONTINUING RULE-MAKING POWER.  P. 432. 

3.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, WHERE SECURITIES DELIVERED BY A
TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEE TO A LEGATEE WHO DERIVED OWNERSHIP THROUGH A
BEQUEST OF A CONTINGENT REMAINDER, WERE SECURITIES PURCHASED BY THE
TRUSTEE, THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING GAIN OR LOSS WAS THEIR COST TO THE
TRUSTEE.  P. 434. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. REYNOLDS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 672, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OVERRULING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 41 B.T.A. 59, SUSTAINING A TAX
ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT'S FATHER DIED IN 1918, LEAVING HIM A REMAINDER INTEREST IN
A TESTAMENTARY TRUST, AN INTEREST WHICH THE COURT BELOW FOUND TO BE
CONTINGENT UNDER NORTH CAROLINA LAW.  HE RECEIVED HIS SHARE OF THE
TRUST, INCLUDING SECURITIES, FROM THE TRUSTEE ON APRIL 4, 1934.  SOME
OF THE SECURITIES SO DISTRIBUTED HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE TRUSTEE FROM
THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE AND OTHERS HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEE
BETWEEN 1918 AND 1934.  DURING THE YEAR 1934 RESPONDENT SOLD SOME OF
THE SECURITIES IN EACH GROUP.  IN COMPUTING HIS GAINS AND LOSSES HE
USED AS THE BASIS THE VALUE ON APRIL 4, 1934, WHEN HE RECEIVED THE
SECURITIES FROM THE TRUSTEE.  THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THE
PROPER BASIS UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934(48 STAT. 680) WAS THE VALUE
OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF DECEDENT'S DEATH IN THE CASE OF THOSE
THEN HELD BY DECEDENT AND THEIR COST TO THE TRUSTEE IN THE CASE OF
THOSE WHICH THE TRUSTEE HAD PURCHASED.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER.  41 B.T.A. 59.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  114 F.2D 804.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI (EXCLUSIVE OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE REMAINDER WAS VESTED
OR CONTINGENT UNDER THE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA) BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT
AMONG THE CIRCUITS.  FN1 

SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE 1934 ACT PROVIDED:  "IF THE PROPERTY WAS
ACQUIRED BY BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE, OR BY THE DECEDENT'S
ESTATE FROM THE DECEDENT, THE BASIS SHALL BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
SUCH PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF SUCH ACQUISITION."  THE GOVERNMENT PLACES
CONSIDERABLE STRESS ON MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 1; HELVERING
V. GAMBRILL, ANTE, P. 11; AND HELVERING V. CAMPBELL, ANTE, P. 15,
DECIDED UNDER THE 1928 AND 1932 ACTS, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT
AS RESPECTS SECURITIES OWNED BY DECEDENT THE PROPER BASIS WAS THEIR
VALUE AT HIS DEATH EVEN THOUGH RESPONDENT'S INTEREST WAS THEN
CONTINGENT.  AND IT ALSO RELIES ON TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, PROMULGATED
UNDER THE 1934 ACT, ART. 113(A)(5)-1(B) OF WHICH PROVIDED THAT "ALL
TITLES TO PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE RELATE
BACK TO THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT, EVEN THOUGH THE INTEREST OF HIM WHO
TAKES THE TITLE WAS, AT THE DATE OF DEATH OF THE DECEDENT, LEGAL,
EQUITABLE, VESTED, CONTINGENT, GENERAL, SPECIFIC, RESIDUAL,
CONDITIONAL, EXECUTORY, OR OTHERWISE."  RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND,
URGES THAT THE PHRASE "AT THE TIME OF SUCH ACQUISITION," WHEN IT WAS
INCLUDED IN THE 1934 ACT, HAD ACQUIRED BY CONSTRUCTION A DEFINITE
MEANING WHICH EXCLUDED CONTINGENT REMAINDERS, AND THEREFORE THAT
CONGRESS MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE USED THOSE WORDS IN THAT SENSE.  IN
THAT CONNECTION HE POINTS OUT THAT THE PHRASE "AT THE TIME OF SUCH
ACQUISITION" HAD APPEARED IN THE 1921, 1924, AND 1926 ACTS  FN2  AND
THAT CERTAIN OFFICE DECISIONS OF THE TREASURY,  FN3  AND CERTAIN
DECISIONS OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS  FN4  UNDER THOSE ACTS, MADE
PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1934 ACT, HAD HELD THAT A BENEFICIARY DID
NOT ACQUIRE PROPERTY WHEN HIS INTEREST WAS MERELY CONTINGENT. 
RESPONDENT EMPHASIZES THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE 1934 ACT
SHOWS NO MENTION OF THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL TREATMENT OF
CONTINGENT REMAINDERS AND MAKES NO COMPLAINT WITH THE PRACTICE OF THE
BUREAU OR WITH THE DECISIONS.  HE INSISTS THAT THE WORDS "ACQUIRED" OR
"ACQUISITION" ARE NOT VAGUE OR AMBIGUOUS WORDS BUT MEAN TO OBTAIN "AS
ONE'S OWN," AS HELD IN HELVERING V. SAN JOAQUIN FRUIT & INVESTMENT CO.,
297 U.S. 496, 499.  BY THESE ARGUMENTS AND RELATED ONES, RESPONDENT
SEEKS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EARLIER RULE HAD BECOME EMBEDDED IN THE
LAW SO THAT IT COULD BE CHANGED NOT BY ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OR
REGULATIONS BUT BY CONGRESS ALONE.  ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REASONING AND
THE DIFFERENCE IN WORDING BETWEEN THE 1934 ACT AND THE 1928 AND 1932
ACTS, HE SEEKS TO DISTINGUISH THE MAGUIRE, GAMBRILL, AND CAMPBELL
CASES.  AND SINCE ART. 113(A)(5)-1(B) WAS PROMULGATED ON FEBRUARY 11,
1935, RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO TRANSACTIONS
OCCURRING IN 1934 WOULD BE TO GIVE IT A RETROACTIVE EFFECT CONTRARY TO
HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 306 U.S. 110. 

RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS NOT TENABLE.  WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH A
SITUATION WHERE THE MEANING OF STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS RESOLVED BY
REFERENCE TO EXPLICIT STATEMENTS OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  MAGUIRE V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA; HELVERING V. CAMPBELL, SUPRA.  HERE, THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS  FN5  ON THE 1934 ACT ARE WHOLLY SILENT AS TO WHETHER A
TAXPAYER HAS ACQUIRED PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 113(A)(5) AT
A TIME WHEN HE HAS OBTAINED ONLY A CONTINGENT REMAINDER INTEREST.  AND
WE NEED NOT STOP TO INQUIRE WHETHER, IN ABSENCE OF THE TREASURY
REGULATIONS UNDER THE 1934 ACT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
"ACQUISITION" UNDER THE EARLIER ACTS WAS OF SUCH A CHARACTER (HIGGINS
V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 212) AND THE PRIOR JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAD
SUCH CONSISTENCY AND UNIFORMITY THAT CONGRESSIONAL REENACTMENT OF THE
LANGUAGE IN QUESTION WAS AN ADOPTION OF ITS PREVIOUS INTERPRETATION,
WITHIN THE RULE OF SUCH CASES AS UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA-MONTANA OIL
CO., 288 U.S. 459.  THAT RULE IS NO MORE THAN AN AID IN STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION.  WHILE IT IS USEFUL AT TIMES IN RESOLVING STATUTORY
AMBIGUITIES, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PRIOR CONSTRUCTION HAS BECOME SO
EMBEDDED IN THE LAW THAT ONLY CONGRESS CAN EFFECT A CHANGE.  MORRISSEY
V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344, 355.  AND SEE MURPHY OIL CO. V. BURNET,
287 U.S. 299.  IT GIVES WAY BEFORE CHANGES IN THE PRIOR RULE OR
PRACTICE THROUGH EXERCISE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OF ITS
CONTINUING RULE-MAKING POWER.  HELVERING V. WILSHIRE OIL CO., 308 U.S.
90, 100-101.  NOR IS ART. 113(A)(5)-1(B) OF THE REGULATIONS CONDEMNED
BY HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., SUPRA.  THAT CASE TURNED ON
ITS OWN SPECIAL FACTS.  THE TRANSACTIONS THERE IN QUESTION TOOK PLACE
AT A TIME WHEN A REGULATION WAS IN FORCE WHICH EXPRESSLY NEGATIVED ANY
TAX LIABILITY.  THE REGULATION REMAINED OUTSTANDING FOR A LONG TIME AND
WAS FOLLOWED BY SEVERAL REENACTMENTS OF THE STATUTE.  ABOUT FIVE YEARS
AFTER THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION TOOK PLACE, THE PRIOR REGULATION WAS
AMENDED SO AS TO IMPOSE A TAX LIABILITY.  THERE ARE NO SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE.  NO RELEVANT REGULATION WAS IN FORCE AT THE TIME
RESPONDENT SOLD THE SECURITIES IN 1934.  THE REGULATION HERE IN
QUESTION WAS PROMULGATED UNDER THE VERY ACT WHICH DETERMINES
RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY.  THE FACT THAT THE REGULATION WAS NOT
PROMULGATED UNTIL AFTER THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION HAD BEEN
CONSUMMATED IS IMMATERIAL.  CF. MANHATTAN GENERAL EQUIPMENT CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 297 U.S. 129.  THE MAGNITUDE OF THE TASK OF PREPARING
REGULATIONS UNDER A NEW ACT MAY WELL OCCASION SOME DELAY.  TO HOLD THAT
RESPONDENT HAD A VESTED INTEREST IN A HYPOTHETICAL DECISION IN HIS
FAVOR PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF THE REGULATIONS, WOULD INTRODUCE INTO THE
SCHEME OF THE REVENUE ACTS REFINED NOTIONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
WHICH WOULD, TO SAY THE LEAST, IMPAIR AN IMPORTANT ADMINISTRATIVE
RESPONSIBILITY IN THE TAX COLLECTING PROCESS. 

HENCE THE REGULATION GOVERNS THIS CASE IF THE WORD "ACQUISITION" AS
USED IN SEC. 113(A)(5) WAS SUSCEPTIBLE OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION.  WE THINK IT WAS.  HOWEVER UNAMBIGUOUS THAT WORD MIGHT
BE AS RESPECTS OTHER TRANSACTIONS (HELVERING V. SAN JOAQUIN FRUIT &
INVESTMENT CO., SUPRA), ITS MEANING IN THIS STATUTORY SETTING WAS FAR
FROM CLEAR AS RESPECTS PROPERTY PASSING BY BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR
INHERITANCE.  THE DEFINITION OF "ACQUISITION" CONTAINED IN THE
REGULATION IS NOT A STRAINED OR ARTIFICIAL ONE.  ADMITTEDLY, THE DATE
OF DEATH WOULD BE THE PROPER BASIS IF RESPONDENT'S INTEREST UNDER THE
TESTAMENTARY TRUST HAD BEEN A VESTED REMAINDER.  BUT EVEN A VESTED
REMAINDERMAN DOES NOT HAVE ALL OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF OWNERSHIP.  SO THE
TEST IN THIS TYPE OF CASE IS NOT WHETHER RESPONDENT HAD FULL ENJOYMENT
OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE DELIVERY OF THE SECURITIES TO HIM, BUT
WHETHER HE EARLIER HAD ACQUIRED AN INTEREST WHICH ULTIMATELY RIPENED
INTO COMPLETE OWNERSHIP.  RESPONDENT HAS BECOME THE TAXPAYER BECAUSE HE
HAS OBTAINED FULL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND HAS SOLD IT. THE TAX IS
ON GAINS, IF ANY, REALIZED BY HIM IN THAT TRANSACTION.  HENCE, AS WE
INDICATED IN THE MAGUIRE AND CAMPBELL CASES, TO CARRY INTO THAT
COMPUTATION THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME THE TAXPAYER HAD ONLY
A CONTINGENT REMAINDER INTEREST IN IT IS NOT TO TAX HIM ON VALUES WHICH
HE NEVER RECEIVED.  THE STATUTE AS THUS INTERPRETED "MERELY PROVIDES A
RULE OF THUMB IN ALLEVIATION OF A TAX WHICH WOULD BE COMPUTED BY
REFERENCE TO THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL INHERITANCE WERE IT TO
BE BASED ON COST TO THE TAXPAYER."  HELVERING V. CAMPBELL, SUPRA, P.
22.  AS STATED BY JUDGE ARANT IN AUGUSTUS V. COMMISSIONER, 118 F.2D 38,
43, THE REGULATION WAS AN "APT INTERPRETATION TO MAKE THIS PART OF THE
STATUTE FIT EFFICIENTLY AND CONSISTENTLY INTO THE SCHEME OF THE REVENUE
SYSTEM AS A WHOLE."  SEE MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA. 

RESPONDENT'S SUGGESTION THAT THE REGULATION DOES NOT COVER THIS CASE
WILL NOT STAND ANALYSIS.  IT HAS A BROAD SWEEP AND EMBRACES ALL
INTERESTS WHICH HAVE THEIR ORIGIN IN A BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR
INHERITANCE. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED, THE PROPER BASIS AS TO THE SECURITIES OWNED
BY THE DECEDENT WAS THEIR VALUE AT HIS DEATH. 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION AS TO THE PROPER BASIS FOR SECURITIES
PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEE.  IN THE MAGUIRE CASE WE HELD THAT "COST" WAS
THE PROPER BASIS AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 113(A) OF THE 1928 ACT, SINCE
SECURITIES PURCHASED BY A TRUSTEE WERE NOT "ACQUIRED  ...  BY WILL"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THAT ACT.  WHILE SEC. 113(A)(5)
OF THE 1934 ACT SUBSTITUTES "ACQUIRED BY BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR
INHERITANCE" FOR "ACQUIRED EITHER BY WILL OR INTESTACY" IN THE 1928
ACT, THAT CHANGE DOES NOT CALL FOR A RESULT DIFFERENT FROM THAT REACHED
IN THE MAGUIRE CASE.  FOR THE REASONS THERE STATED, WE HOLD THAT AS
RESPECTS SECURITIES PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEE THE PROPER BASIS IS THE
COST TO HIM.  THAT MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE
HOLDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT ART. 113(A)(5)-1(D) OF THE REGULATIONS
FN6  IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE DECEDENT DID NOT DIE BEFORE MARCH 1,
1913.  REVERSED. 

FN1  OPPOSED TO THE DECISION BELOW ARE VAN VRANKEN V. HELVERING, 115
F.2D 709; CARY V. HELVERING, 116 F.2D 800; ARCHBOLD V. HELVERING, 115
F.2D 1005 - ALL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT; AND AUGUSTUS V. COMMISSIONER,
118 F.2D 38, FROM THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

FN2  SEC. 202(A)(3), REVENUE ACT OF 1921(42 STAT. 229); SEC.
204(A)(5), REVENUE ACT OF 1924(43 STAT. 258); SEC. 204(A)(5), REVENUE
ACT OF 1926(44 STAT. 14). 

FN3  O.D. 727, 3 COM. BULL.  53(1920); G.C.M. 10260, XI-1 CUM. BULL. 
79, 80(1932). 

FN4  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, PRINGLE V. COMMISSIONER, 64 F.2D 863; HOPKINS
V. COMMISSIONER, 69 F.2D 11.  CF. LANE V. CORWIN, 63 F.2D 767. 

FN5  H. REP. NO. 704, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 27-28; S. REP. NO.
558, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 34-35. 

FN6  "PROPERTY ACQUIRED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913; REINVESTMENTS BY
FIDUCIARY.  - IF THE DECEDENT DIED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913, THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE ON THAT DATE IS TAKEN IN LIEU OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON
THE DATE OF DEATH, BUT ONLY TO THE SAME EXTENT AND FOR THE SAME
PURPOSES AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON MARCH 1, 1913, IS TAKEN UNDER

"IF THE PROPERTY IS AN INVESTMENT BY THE FIDUCIARY UNDER A WILL (AS,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF A SALE BY A FIDUCIARY UNDER A WILL OF
PROPERTY TRANSMITTED FROM THE DECEDENT, AND THE REINVESTMENT OF THE
PROCEEDS), THE COST OR OTHER BASIS TO THE FIDUCIARY IS TAKEN IN LIEU OF
THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME WHEN THE DECEDENT DIED." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I DISAGREED WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT IN MAGUIRE V.
COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 1, HELVERING V. GAMBRILL, ANTE, P. 11, AND
HELVERING V. CAMPBELL, ANTE, P. 15, CONSTRUING THE MEANING OF THE
PHRASE "TIME OF DISTRIBUTION TO THE TAXPAYER," AS USED IN SEC. 113A(5)
OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932.  MY DISSENT WAS BOTTOMED UPON THE
VIEW THAT TO CONSTRUE THAT PHRASE AS MEANING THE TIME OF THE
DISTRIBUTION TO A TRUSTEE, IN A CASE WHERE THE TAXPAYER COULD NEITHER
RECEIVE NOR ENJOY THE PROPERTY, WAS TO DISREGARD THE UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS
OF THE STATUTE.  I RECOGNIZE THE BINDING FORCE OF THOSE DECISIONS BUT
THINK THAT THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE PRESENT CASES CONSTITUTES AN
EVEN LOOSER AND LESS ADMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION, AMOUNTING, IN EFFECT, TO
LEGISLATION. 

IN ALL THE REVENUE ACTS FROM THAT OF 1921 TO THAT OF 1926, INCLUSIVE,
THE COGNATE PROVISION WAS THAT IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY BEQUEST,
DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE, OR BY THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE FROM THE DECEDENT,
THE BASIS SHOULD BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AT THE TIME
OF SUCH ACQUISITION.  IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 A NEW PROVISION WAS
SUBSTITUTED MAKING THE BASIS IN THE CASE OF A GENERAL OR A SPECIFIC
DEVISE OR OF INTESTACY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH
OF THE DECEDENT.  THE SAME BASIS WAS PROVIDED IF PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED
BY THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE FROM THE DECEDENT.  IN ALL OTHER CASES, IF THE
PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY WILL OR BY INTESTACY, THE BASIS WAS MADE VALUE
AT THE TIME OF THE DISTRIBUTION TO THE TAXPAYER.  THE LANGUAGE WAS
RETAINED IN THE ACT OF 1932.  IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, SEC. 113A(5)
WAS AGAIN CAST IN THE EXACT LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE COGNATE SECTIONS HAD
APPEARED IN ALL THE ACTS PRIOR TO THAT OF 1928.    THE MEANING OF THE
PROVISION IS PLAIN.  WHAT CONGRESS WAS DEALING WITH WAS THE
"PROPERTY."  IT DID NOT SPECIFY A RIGHT INCHOATE OR OTHERWISE, OR AN
INTEREST LESS THAN OWNERSHIP, BUT USED THE COLLOQUIAL TERM "PROPERTY." 
AND CONGRESS EMPLOYED A WORD IN COMMON AND ORDINARY USE, AND NOT A
TECHNICAL EXPRESSION OF CONVEYANCERS, WHEN IT SPOKE OF THE TIME OF
"ACQUISITION" OF THE PROPERTY.  ANYONE READING THE SENTENCE WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT IF HE SOLD PROPERTY WHICH CAME TO HIM FROM
A DECEDENT'S ESTATE HE MUST TAKE AS HIS BASIS OF VALUE THE MARKET VALUE
AS OF THE DATE WHEN HE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY; WHEN HE BECAME
ABLE TO ENJOY IT AND DISPOSE OF IT AT HIS WILL. 

THE PRESENT DECISION FINDS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND ANY SUCH
THING; THAT, ON THE CONTRARY, BY A CIRCUMLOCUTION, IT MEANT THAT THE
TAXPAYER MUST TAKE AS HIS BASIS THE FAIR VALUE AT THE DATE OF THE
DECEDENT'S DEATH IF HIS ULTIMATE ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY IS
TRACEABLE TO A DECEDENT'S WILL.  THUS, THOUGH HE HAD NO USE OR BENEFIT
OF THE PROPERTY, COULD NOT DISPOSE OF IT, AND MIGHT NEVER ENJOY IT, HE
IS TO BE TREATED AS HAVING ACQUIRED IT. 

A CONTRARY CONCLUSION IS REQUIRED BY HELVERING V. SAN JOAQUIN FRUIT &
INVESTMENT CO., 297 U.S. 496.  THERE THE COURT, IN APPLYING THE SAME
ART; AND THOUGH THE ACQUISITION HAD ITS ORIGIN IN AN OPTION WHICH THE
TAXPAYER EXERCISED, AS HERE THE ACQUISITION HAD ITS ORIGIN IN A WILL,
AGREED WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE TIME OF FULL ENJOYMENT
AS ONE'S OWN IS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION, NOT THE TIME OF OBTAINING SOME
INCHOATE INTEREST WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT RIPEN INTO OWNERSHIP. 

BUT IF THERE WERE DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OF CONGRESS, THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOULD PRECLUDE THE STRAINED CONSTRUCTION NOW
ADOPTED.  IN THE MAGUIRE AND RELATED CASES, ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION
AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WERE MEAGRE AND INCONCLUSIVE.  HERE, VIOLENCE
MUST BE DONE TO A SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF SUCH AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION TO
REACH THE ANNOUNCED RESULT. 

IN 1920 THE TREASURY RULED THAT 

"WHERE IN A BEQUEST OF PROPERTY THE REMAINDERMEN HAVE ONLY A
CONTINGENT INTEREST PRIOR TO THE DEATH OF THE LIFE TENANT, THE BASIS
FOR DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS FROM A SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY BY THE
REMAINDERMEN IS ITS VALUE AS OF THE DATE OF DEATH OF THE LIFE TENANT." 
FN1 

THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT BETWEEN 1920 AND 1935 THE TREASURY UNIFORMLY
SO INTERPRETED THE STATUTORY PROVISION NOW OTHERWISE CONSTRUED.  IN
1930 THIS COURT HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF A RESIDUARY LEGATEE WHOSE
PROPERTY RIGHTS ATTACHED AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH, AND WHO WAS IN
CONTEMPLATION OF LAW AND IN FACT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEQUEATHED
TO HIM FROM THE DATE OF DEATH, THE TIME OF ACQUISITION WAS THE DATE OF
DEATH.  FN2  THE DECISION OBVIOUSLY DID NOT TOUCH A SITUATION SUCH AS
THAT DISCLOSED IN THE PRESENT CASES AND THE TREASURY SO UNDERSTOOD.  IN
1932 THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE RENDERED AN
EXHAUSTIVE OPINION IN WHICH HE REFERRED TO, AND ANALYZED, OUR DECISION
AND SUMMARIZED THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE BY SAYING: 

"...  THE POSITION OF THIS OFFICE HAS BEEN THAT ONE WHO HAS A MERE
CONTINGENT INTEREST DOES NOT 'ACQUIRE' THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION UNTIL
HIS INTEREST BECOMES VESTED.  (O.D. 727, C.B. 3, 53; S.M. 4640, C.B. V
1, 60.)  SEE ALSO I.T. 1622, C.B.II-1, 135; S.O. 35, C.B. 3, 50."  THE
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION WAS UNIFORM TO THE SAME EFFECT.  FN3 

THAT THE TREASURY THOUGHT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ACQUISITION
DATE OF VESTED AND CONTINGENT INTERESTS IMPROPER IS ATTESTED BY THE
FACT THAT IN ITS BRIEFS ON APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIORARI IN SEVERAL OF
THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 4 IT SO STATED; AND IN THE PRINGLE CASE IT
STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED FOR A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND. 
IN ITS BRIEF IN THE SAN JOAQUIN CASE, SUPRA, WHICH AROSE UNDER THE VERY
RECOGNIZED THAT THE HOLDER OF A CONTINGENT ESTATE IN PROPERTY DOES NOT
ACQUIRE THE SAME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVENUE ACTS UNTIL THE
ESTATE BECOMES VESTED."  (CITING SEVERAL OF THE CASES FOUND IN THE
NOTE.)  OF COURSE THAT STATEMENT SUPPORTED THE POSITION OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN THAT CASE.  BUT A NEW VIEW HAS APPARENTLY EMERGED, WHICH
BETTER SERVES THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST HERE. 

IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT WHEN, IN 1934, CONGRESS DECIDED TO RE-ADOPT THE
LANGUAGE USED IN THE REVENUE ACTS FROM 1921 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE, IT
SHOULD BE TAKEN AS HAVING ADOPTED IT NOT ONLY WITH A SENSE OF ITS PLAIN
MEANING BUT WITH A RECOGNITION OF ITS UNIFORM INTERPRETATION.  WE ARE
NOT LEFT, HOWEVER, WITHOUT LIGHT SHED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND
THAT HISTORY FURNISHES CONFIRMATION OF THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND TO GIVE ANY STRAINED, EXTRAORDINARY, OR UNUSUAL MEANING TO ITS
LANGUAGE OR TO DISREGARD ITS ACCEPTED SIGNIFICANCE. 

THE REVENUE ACTS HAVE ALWAYS TREATED ESTATES AS TAXPAYERS FOR
PURPOSES OF INCOME TAX.  FROM THE ADOPTION OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918
THE TREASURY REGULATIONS UNIFORMLY PROVIDED THAT IF AN EXECUTOR SOLD
ESTATE PROPERTY HE MUST TAKE AS A BASIS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT
THE TIME OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH FOR CALCULATING TAXABLE GAIN.  FN4
THE TREASURY TREATED THE ESTATE'S TIME OF ACQUISITION AS THE DATE OF
THE DECEDENT'S DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTIONS OF THE REVENUE
ACTS FROM 1921 TO 1926.  IN 1926 THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT WHEN
CONGRESS USED THE TERMS "ACQUIRED" AND "ACQUISITION" IT MEANT THAT THE
EXECUTOR MIGHT TAKE, AS THE BASIS DATE, THE DATE OF ACQUISITION BY THE
DECEDENT.  FN5  THIS DECISION UPSET THE UNIFORM PRACTICE OF THE
TREASURY AND REQUIRED AN AMENDMENT OF THE REGULATIONS TO CONFORM TO IT.
CONGRESS WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS SITUATION WHEN IT CAME TO PASS THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS RESPECT IS
MOST ENLIGHTENING.  THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE, IN ITS
REPORT,  FN6 REFERRED TO THE DIFFICULTY CREATED BY THE MCKINNEY
DECISION, AND THE DOUBT THE DECISION HAD THROWN ON THE MEANING OF
ACQUISITION, AND STATED, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED SECTION:  "THE
'DATE OF DEATH' IS RECOMMENDED TO MAKE THE BASIS CERTAIN AND
DEFINITE."  THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE ALSO RENDERED A REPORT TO
ACCOMPANY THAT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.  IN THIS IT SAID:"  FN7  IT IS
BELIEVED THAT THE BASIS SHOULD BE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE
OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, AND THIS RULE IS INCORPORATED IN SECTION
113(A)(5)."  IT CONTINUED:  "IT IS ALSO PROVIDED, IN THE SAME
PARAGRAPH, THAT THE BASIS IN CASE OF A SALE BY A BENEFICIARY SHALL BE
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH." 

IT IS THUS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT CONGRESS KNEW HOW TO WRITE A STATUTE
TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE OPINION OF THE COURT HOLDS TOTALLY DIFFERENT
LANGUAGE ACCOMPLISHES. 

THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE REWROTE THE SUBSECTION AS EMBODIED IN
THE HOUSE BILL, ALTERING IT TO READ AS IT DOES IN THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928.  FN8  THIS WAS THE SECTION WHICH WAS CONSTRUED IN MAGUIRE V.
COMMISSIONER AND RELATED CASES.  FN9  IT THUS APPEARS THAT CONGRESS
REJECTED THE VERBIAGE INTENDED TO SPECIFY THE DATE OF THE DECEDENT'S
DEATH AS THE BASIS DATE TO BE TAKEN BY A BENEFICIARY UNDER THE
DECEDENT'S WILL. 

WITH THIS BACKGROUND, CONGRESS, IN ADOPTING THE 1934 ACT, DISCARDED
THE VARIOUS BASIS DATES PRESCRIBED BY THE ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932 AND
HARKED BACK TO THE LANGUAGE WHICH HAD BEEN USED IN EARLIER REVENUE
ACTS, WHICH HAD UNIFORMLY BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE TREASURY TO MEAN THAT
THE BASIS DATE WAS THE DATE WHEN THE TAXPAYER ACTUALLY ACQUIRED AS HIS
OWN THE PROPERTY WHOSE DISPOSITION GAVE RISE TO A TAXABLE GAIN OR A
DEDUCTIBLE LOSS.  THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE, AS SHOWN BY THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS ON THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, WAS NOT A DESIRE TO ALTER THE
SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PHRASE "TIME OF ACQUISITION"
BUT TO DO AWAY WITH THE DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE BASIS DATES FOR REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN CREATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1928
AND THE 1932 ACTS.  NO OTHER PURPOSE IS SHOWN BY THE REPORTS.  FN10 

REGULATIONS 86 WERE APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
FEBRUARY 11, 1935, AND WERE LATER PROMULGATED AS APPLICABLE TO THE ACT
OF 1934.  BY THESE REGULATIONS IT IS PROVIDED:  "PURSUANT TO THIS RULE
OF LAW, (I.E. THE DOCTRINE OF RELATION) SECTION 113(A)(5) PRESCRIBES A
SINGLE UNIFORM BASIS RULE APPLICABLE TO ALL PROPERTY PASSING FROM A
DECEDENT BY WILL OR UNDER THE LAW GOVERNING THE DESCENT AND
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPERTY OF DECEDENTS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE TIME OF
ACQUISITION OF SUCH PROPERTY IS THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT, AND ITS
BASIS IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH,
REGARDLESS OF THE TIME WHEN THE TAXPAYER COMES INTO POSSESSION AND
ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY."  IT IS UPON THIS REGULATION THAT THE COURT
RELIES TO JUSTIFY ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 

I THINK THE REGULATION PLAINLY UNJUSTIFIED, AS AN ATTEMPT ON THE PART
OF THE TREASURY TO LEGISLATE WHEN CONGRESS HAS FAILED TO DO SO.  THE
HEARINGS ON THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 SHOW THAT THE TREASURY WAS NOT
SATISFIED WITH THE PROVISION THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED CONGRESS SHOULD
ADOPT AND WHICH CONGRESS DID ADOPT.  IT EVIDENTLY ATTEMPTED TO REWRITE
THE CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE TO CARRY OUT WHAT IT THOUGHT CONGRESS SHOULD
HAVE PROVIDED.  IT NEEDS NO CITATION OF AUTHORITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT
SUCH IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF A REGULATION AND THAT THE ATTEMPT SHOULD
FAIL. 

FN1  O.D. 727, 3 C.B. 53. 

FN2  BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280 U.S. 327. 

FN3  LANE V. CORWIN, 63 F.2D 767; PRINGLE V. COMMISSIONER, 64 F.2D
863; HOPKINS V. COMMISSIONER, 69 F.2D 11; BECKER V. ANCHOR REALTY &
INVESTMENT CO., 3 F.SUPP.  22, AFF'D 71 F.2D 355; WARNER V.
COMMISSIONER, 72 F.2D 225; BEERS V. COMMISSIONER, 78 F.2D 447. 

FN4  SEE HARTLEY V. COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S. 216, 220. 

FN5  MCKINNEY V. UNITED STATES, 62 CT. CLS. 180. 

FN6  HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 139, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 17-18. 

FN7  H.R. NO. 2, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 18. 

FN8  SENATE REPORT NO. 960, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 26. 

FN9 FOR THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION SEE NOTE 5, MAGUIRE V.
COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 3. 

FN10  REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS OF DECEMBER 4, 1933,
P. 17; REPORT OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE H.R. 704, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., PP. 27-28; SENATE REPORT NO. 558, 73D CONG.2D SESS., PP. 34-35. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





















CARY V. COMMISSIONER, 313 U.S. 441 


NO. 734.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 116 F.2D 800,
AFFIRMED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. REYNOLDS, ANTE, P. 428.  P.
443. 

CARY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 735, FLAGLER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE;
NO. 736, ESTATE OF FLAGLER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; AND NO.
737, MATTHEWS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ALSO ON WRITS OF
CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 675, 676, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 675, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS WHICH AFFIRMED
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING INCOME TAX
ASSESSMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HENRY M. FLAGLER DIED ON MAY 20, 1913.  PETITIONERS ARE LEGATEES
UNDER A TESTAMENTARY TRUST CREATED UNDER HIS WILL.  THE TRUST CONTINUED
FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM HIS DEATH AND TERMINATED ON MAY 20,
1923.  AS OF THAT TIME, THE TRUSTEES DELIVERED TO PETITIONERS  FN1
CERTAIN SECURITIES WHICH WERE SOLD BY THEM IN 1934 AND 1936.  THE
QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING GAIN OR LOSS ON
SUCH SALES UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1934(48 STAT.
680) AND 1936  FN2  (49 STAT. 1648) IS THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES WHEN
DELIVERED TO THE LEGATEES, OR THEIR VALUE ON THE DATE OF DEATH OF THE
DECEDENT.  PETITIONERS MAKE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ARGUMENT FOR
APPLICATION OF THE FORMER CRITERION AS DID RESPONDENT IN HELVERING V.
REYNOLDS, ANTE, P. 428.  AND THEY CONTEND THAT UNDER FLORIDA LAW THEY
HAD AT THE DATE OF DEATH ONLY CONTINGENT INTERESTS.  BUT ASSUMING THEY
ARE CORRECT IN THE LATTER CONTENTION, IT IS OF NO AVAIL.  FOR THE
REASONS STATED IN HELVERING V. REYNOLDS, SUPRA, THE PROPER BASIS WAS
THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AT THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.  ACCORDINGLY,
THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT BELOW (116 F.2D 800) MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SOME SECURITIES HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DELIVERED TO HARRY HARKNESS
FLAGLER, PETITIONER IN NO. 735, ON APRIL 26, 1921.  ANNIE L. FLAGLER,
WHOSE ESTATE IS THE PETITIONER IN NO. 736, RECEIVED THE SECURITIES HERE
INVOLVED AS A GIFT FROM HER HUSBAND, HARRY HARKNESS FLAGLER.  THE
SITUATION THEREFORE IS THE SAME AS TO BOTH THESE PARTIES SINCE IT IS
STIPULATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE SECURITIES AS INDICATED ABOVE. 

FN2  SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE 1936 ACT IS THE SAME AS SEC. 113(A)(5) OF
THE 1934 ACT.  ART. 113(A)(5)-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 94, PROMULGATED
UNDER THE 1936 ACT, CONTAINS PROVISIONS IDENTICAL WITH THOSE OF ART.
113(A)(5)-1 OF REGULATIONS 86 UNDER THE 1934 ACT.  THE RELEVANT
PORTIONS OF THAT SECTION AND REGULATION UNDER THE 1934 ACT ARE SET
FORTH IN HELVERING V. REYNOLDS, ANTE, P. 428. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENT FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THEIR DISSENT IN HELVERING V. REYNOLDS, ANTE, P. 435. 
..END :















U.S. V. A.S. KREIDER CO., 313 U.S. 443 


NO. 853.  ARGUED MAY 7, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 26, 1941.  - 117 F.2D 133,
REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 24(20) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, WHICH GIVES THE DISTRICT
COURTS JURISDICTION CONCURRENT WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS OVER CERTAIN
SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, PROVIDES THAT NO SUIT SHALL BE ALLOWED
THEREUNDER UNLESS THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN SIX YEARS
AFTER THE RIGHT ACCRUED FOR WHICH THE CLAIM IS MADE.  HELD, THAT THE
SIX-YEARS PERIOD IS AN OUTSIDE LIMIT CONSISTENT WITH THE FIVE-YEARS
LIMIT ON SUITS FOR THE RECOVERY OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES SET BY SEC.
1113(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AMENDING R.S. SEC. 3226.  P. 446. 

2.  IN RESPONSE TO A CLAIM OF TAX REFUND, THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE FOUND AN OVERPAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AND SENT
THE TAXPAYER A CERTIFICATE OF OVERASSESSMENT IN THAT AMOUNT BEARING
NOTATION THAT A STATED PART OF IT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS AND
ENCLOSED A CHECK FOR THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH THE TAXPAYER ACCEPTED. 
HELD, THAT THERE WAS NO ACCOUNT STATED UPON WHICH THE TAXPAYER COULD
GROUND AN ACTION FOR THE PART NOT REPAID AND THUS AVOID THE FIVE-YEARS
LIMITATION OF SEC. 1113(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 ON SUITS TO
RECOVER INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES.  BONWIT TELLER & CO. V. UNITED STATES,
283 U.S. 258, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 448. 

3.  TO ESTABLISH AN ACCOUNT STATED THERE MUST BE A BALANCE STRUCK IN
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO IMPORT A PROMISE OF PAYMENT ON THE ONE SIDE
AND OF ACCEPTANCE ON THE OTHER.  P. 448. 

UNITED STATES V. A.S. KREIDER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 552, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
SUSTAINING A CLAIM FOR A REFUND OF TAXES.  SEE 97 F.2D 387; 30 F.SUPP. 
722. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1921, RESPONDENT FILED ITS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1920, DISCLOSING
TAX LIABILITY OF $52,481.97, WHICH IT PAID IN FULL.  THEREAFTER, AND
PRIOR TO JUNE 15, 1926, IT EXECUTED A WAIVER EXTENDING UNTIL DECEMBER
31, 1926, THE TIME FOR AUDIT AND POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT OF
TAXES.  ON JULY 26, 1926, RESPONDENT PAID A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF
$1,362.50.  ALMOST THREE YEARS LATER, ON MARCH 23, 1929, RESPONDENT
FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $53,844.47, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TAXES PAID
FOR 1920. 

THE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD OVERPAID ITS 1920 TAXES IN
THE SUM OF $14,833.68.  IN OCTOBER, 1929, HE SENT RESPONDENT A
CERTIFICATE OF OVERASSESSMENT WHICH NOTED THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN
OVERPAYMENT IN THAT AMOUNT BUT THAT $13,471.18 WAS "BARRED BY STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS."  ACCOMPANYING THE CERTIFICATE WAS A CHECK FOR THE
DIFFERENCE, $1,362.50, WHICH RESPONDENT APPARENTLY ACCEPTED.  IN THUS
COMPUTING THE REFUND OWING TO RESPONDENT, THE COMMISSIONER ASSUMED THAT
SUBSECTIONS (B)(1), (B)(2), AND (G) OF SEC. 284  FN1  OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1926(44 STAT. 9, 66, 67) AUTHORIZED HIM TO REMIT ONLY THAT PART
OF THE 1920 TAX WHICH WAS PAID IN 1926. 

ON MARCH 7, 1932, RESPONDENT BROUGHT THE PRESENT ACTION IN A UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER THE SUM WITHHELD.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE
TRIAL, PETITIONER MOVED FOR JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTION WAS
BARRED BY SEC. 1113(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926(44 STAT. 9, 116). 
THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR
PETITIONER.  30 F.SUPP.  722.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,
ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, HOLDING THAT THE GENERAL SIX-YEAR LIMITATION IN
SEC. 24(20) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20)) RATHER THAN
THE LIMITATIONS IN SEC. 1113(A) DETERMINED THE TIMELINESS OF
RESPONDENT'S ACTION.  97 F.2D 387. 

THE CAUSE WAS RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  OVER THE RENEWED
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER THAT THE ACTION WAS BARRED BY SEC. 1113(A),
THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDED TO THE MERITS.  IT HELD, IN EFFECT, THAT
SEC. 284(B)(2) DID NOT LIMIT THE REFUND SANCTIONED BY SEC. 284(G) TO
THE PORTION OF THE TAX PAID WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF RESPONDENT'S CLAIM,
AND ENTERED JUDGMENT AS PRAYED IN THE COMPLAINT.  30 F.SUPP.  724.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, ACCEPTING AS THE LAW OF THE CASE ITS
EARLIER DECISION THAT THE ACTION WAS TIMELY, DESPITE PETITIONER'S
ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY.  117 F.2D 133.  ON APRIL 14, 1941, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

RELYING PRINCIPALLY ON BONWIT TELLER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S.
258, RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THAT ITS ACTION WAS COMMENCED WELL WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE PERIOD OF LIMITATION.  FURTHER, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT
BOTH COURTS BELOW CORRECTLY REFUSED TO REGARD SEC. 284(B)(2) AS A
LIMITATION ON THE COMMISSIONER'S DUTY TO MAKE REFUNDS UNDER SEC.
284(G).  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE LATTER CONTENTION, FOR
WE ARE OF OPINION THAT RESPONDENT SUED TOO LATE. 

INSOFAR AS MATERIAL HERE, SEC. 1113(A) PROVIDES:  "...  NO (SUIT OR
PROCEEDING FOR THE RECOVERY OF ANY INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED) SHALL BE BEGUN
...  AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE PAYMENT OF
SUCH TAX ...  UNLESS SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING IS BEGUN WITHIN TWO YEARS
AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PART OF SUCH CLAIM TO WHICH SUCH SUIT OR
PROCEEDING RELATES." 

UNDOUBTEDLY, RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO BEGIN ITS ACTION WITHIN EITHER
OF THE PERIODS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 1113(A).  SEE UNITED STATES V. A.S.
KREIDER CO., 97 F.2D 387, 388.  THE SUIT WAS NOT INSTITUTED UNTIL MARCH
7, 1932, ALTHOUGH THE LAST TAX PAYMENT WAS MADE ON JULY 26, 1926, AND
THE CLAIM FOR REFUND WAS DISALLOWED IN OCTOBER, 1929.  FN2  BUT AS
ALREADY STATED, THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THE ACTION WAS NOT BARRED
BECAUSE THE TUCKER ACT (24 STAT. 505), LATER INCORPORATED IN SEC.
24(20) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, RATHER THAN SEC. 1113(A) PRESCRIBED THE
PERIOD WITHIN WHICH RESPONDENT WAS BOUND TO BRING SUIT.  WE VIEW THE
STATUTES DIFFERENTLY. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF CERTAIN SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  TO
EQUATE THE RIGHT THUS CONFERRED TO THE EXISTING RIGHT TO SUE IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS (SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 262), THE STATUTE PROVIDES:  "NO
SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER
THIS PARAGRAPH UNLESS THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN SIX YEARS
AFTER THE RIGHT ACCRUED FOR WHICH THE CLAIM IS MADE." 

WE THINK THE QUOTED LANGUAGE WAS INTENDED MERELY TO PLACE AN OUTSIDE
LIMIT ON THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH ALL SUITS MIGHT BE INITIATED UNDER
SEC. 24(20).  CLEARLY, NOTHING IN THAT LANGUAGE PRECLUDES THE
APPLICATION OF A DIFFERENT AND SHORTER PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO AN
INDIVIDUAL CLASS OF ACTIONS EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE BROUGHT UNDER SEC.
24(20).  PHRASING THE CONDITION NEGATIVELY, CONGRESS LEFT IT OPEN TO
PROVIDE LESS LIBERALLY FOR PARTICULAR ACTIONS WHICH, BECAUSE OF SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS, REQUIRED DIFFERENT TREATMENT.  SEE CHRISTIE-STREET
COMMISSION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 136 F. 326, 332-333. 

THAT SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR THE RECOVERY OF TAXES IMPEDED
EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS, CONGRESS ALLOWED ONLY
FIVE YEARS FROM PAYMENT OF THE TAX FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH
ACTIONS, UNLESS SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES EXTENDED THE PERIOD.  THAT THIS
SPECIFIC PROVISION IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PROVISION IN
SEC. 24(20) IS PLAIN.  INDEED, THE LIMITATION IN SEC. 1113(A) HAS NO
MEANING WHATEVER UNLESS THE LIMITATION IN SEC. 24(20) IS CONSTRUED NOT
TO GOVERN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RECOVERY OF "INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED."  FN3 

BONWIT TELLER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, DOES NOT REMOVE THE BAR
OF SEC. 1113(A) HERE.  THERE WE HELD UNDER THE PECULIAR FACTS DISCLOSED
THAT THE TAXPAYER COULD EVADE THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT SECTION BY
GROUNDING ITS ACTION ON A SUBSEQUENT "ACCOUNT STATED" RATHER THAN ON
THE ORIGINAL, WRONGFUL OVERASSESSMENT.  BUT THE INSTANT CASE IS PLAINLY
DISTINGUISHABLE, FOR, ASSUMING THAT FAMILIAR DOCTRINES OF CONTRACTS
FURNISH THE TEST (DAUBE V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 367, 370), WE ARE
UNABLE TO FIND THE REQUISITES OF AN ACCOUNT STATED IN THE TRANSACTIONS
ON WHICH RESPONDENT RELIES. 

TO ESTABLISH AN ACCOUNT STATED, RESPONDENT MUST SHOW THAT A BALANCE
WAS STRUCK "IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO IMPORT A PROMISE OF PAYMENT ON
THE ONE SIDE AND ACCEPTANCE ON THE OTHER."  R.H. STEARNS CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 291 U.S. 54, 65; SEE ALSO, TOLAND V. SPRAGUE, 12 PET. 300, 325;
NUTT V. UNITED STATES, 125 U.S. 650.  BUT PLAINLY, "NO SUCH PROMISE IS
A JUST OR REASONABLE INFERENCE FROM THE CERTIFICATE OF OVERASSESSMENT
DELIVERED TO THIS TAXPAYER, IF THE CERTIFICATE IS INTERPRETED IN THE
SETTING OF THE OCCASION."  R.H. STEARNS CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
IN FACT, A CONTRARY INFERENCE IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE SUPPOSITION
RESPONDENT COULD MAKE.  AT MOST, RESPONDENT COULD ASSUME THAT THE
UNITED STATES PROMISED TO PAY $1,362.50; THE CHECK WAS THERE IN
FULFILLMENT.  OBVIOUSLY, REFUSAL TO REFUND THE BALANCE DID NOT AND
COULD NOT IMPLY A PROMISE TO PAY THE AMOUNT WITHHELD. 

ACCEPTANCE BY RESPONDENT, ANOTHER ESSENTIAL OF AN ACCOUNT STATED, IS
EQUALLY LACKING.  BY ACCEPTING THE CHECK FOR $1,362.50 RESPONDENT
AGREED ONLY TO A PARTIAL ACCOUNT STATED (COMPARE STURM V. BOKER, 150
U.S. 312, 340), THEREBY CONVERTING THAT MUCH OF THE STATEMENT INTO AN
ACCOUNT SETTLED.  THE INSTITUTION OF THIS SUIT IS AMPLE PROOF THAT
RESPONDENT NEVER INTENDED TO ACCEPT THE CERTIFICATE IN ITS ENTIRETY AS
A CORRECT COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT WHICH IT CLAIMED WAS DUE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT'S SUIT IS BARRED BY THE LIMITATIONS OF
SEC. 1113(A).  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH
DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 284.  (A)  WHERE THERE HAS BEEN AN OVERPAYMENT OF ANY
INCOME, WAR-PROFITS, OR EXCESS-PROFITS TAX IMPOSED (BY SPECIFIED ACTS),
THE AMOUNT OF SUCH OVERPAYMENT SHALL (SUBJECT TO ENUMERATED CONDITIONS)
BE REFUNDED IMMEDIATELY TO THE TAXPAYER. 

(B)  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISIONS  ...  (G) OF THIS SECTION - 

(1)  NO SUCH CREDIT OR REFUND SHALL BE ALLOWED OR MADE AFTER  ...
FOUR YEARS FROM THE TIME THE TAX WAS PAID IN THE CASE OF A TAX IMPOSED
BY ANY PRIOR ACT, UNLESS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH PERIOD A CLAIM
THEREFOR IS FILED BY THE TAXPAYER; AND 

(2)  THE AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT OR REFUND SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PORTION
OF THE TAX PAID DURING THE ...  FOUR YEARS  ...  IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
THE FILING OF THE CLAIM.  ... 

(G)  ...  IF THE TAXPAYER HAS, ON OR BEFORE JUNE 15, 1926, FILED SUCH
A WAIVER IN RESPECT OF THE TAXES DUE FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR 1920 OR 1921,
THEN SUCH CREDIT OR REFUND RELATING TO THE TAXES FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR
1920 OR 1921 SHALL BE ALLOWED OR MADE IF CLAIM THEREFOR IS FILED EITHER
ON OR BEFORE APRIL 1, 1927, OR WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE TIME THE TAX
WAS PAID.  ... 

FN2  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS ACTION SEEKS RECOVERY OF MONEY
WHICH WAS PAID IN 1921.  WE ASSUME, SO FAR AS THIS DECISION IS
CONCERNED, THAT THE PHRASE "SUCH TAX" IN THE QUOTED LANGUAGE REFERS TO
THE TOTAL TAX FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION WHENEVER DETERMINED AND
ASSESSED; OR STATED DIFFERENTLY, THAT "PAYMENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THIS STATUTE DOES NOT OCCUR UNTIL THE ENTIRE TAX FOR 1920 IS PAID,
INCLUDING DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS MADE SEVERAL YEARS LATER.  COMPARE
UNION TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 70 F.2D 629. 

WE ASSUME ALSO THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S REFUSAL IN 1929 TO MAKE THE
REFUND WAS A "DISALLOWANCE" OF RESPONDENT'S CLAIM.  COMPARE BONWIT
TELLER & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 258, 265, WITH UNITED STATES V.
BERTELSEN & PETERSEN ENGINEERING CO., 306 U.S. 276, 280. 

FN3  APPARENTLY THE APPLICABILITY OF A SPECIFIC LIMITATION INSTEAD OF
THE GENERAL TUCKER ACT LIMITATION HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED FOR 35
YEARS.  SEE CHRISTIE-STREET COMMISSION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 136 F.
326.  THE SPECIFIC LIMITATION HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO APPLY IN NUMEROUS
CASES.  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES V. BERTELSEN & PETERSEN ENGINEERING
CO., 306 U.S. 276; BATES MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 567; R.H.
STEARNS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 54; DAUBE V. UNITED STATES, 289
U.S. 367. 
..END :









DETROLA CORP. V. HAZELTINE CORP., 313 U.S. 259 


NO. 666.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 12, 1941.  - 117 F.2D
238, REVERSED. 


WHEELER REISSUE PATENT, NO. 19,744, CLAIMS 1-7, INCLUSIVE, AND 9-13,
INCLUSIVE, RELATING TO AMPLIFIERS IN MODULATED CURRENT-CARRYING
SIGNALING SYSTEMS, WHEREIN THE LIMIT OF AMPLIFICATION IS AUTOMATICALLY
MAINTAINED SUBSTANTIALLY AT A PREDETERMINED LEVEL, - HELD INVALID FOR
WANT OF INVENTION OVER THE PRIOR ART. P. 268. 

THE ALLEGED INVENTION, AS UPHELD BY THE COURT BELOW, WAS OF IMPROVED
MEANS FOR OBTAINING AUTOMATIC AMPLIFICATION CONTROL BY THE COMBINATION
IN A RADIO RECEIVER OF A DIODE DETECTOR WITH A HIGH RESISTANCE
CONNECTED BETWEEN THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR AND THE CATHODE OF THE
AMPLIFYING TUBE, AND A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ANODE OF THE
DETECTOR AND THE GRID OF THE AMPLIFIER FOR IMPRESSING NEGATIVE
POTENTIAL UPON THE LATTER, THUS OBTAINING FROM THE SIGNAL VOLTAGE A SO
CALLED LINEAR RESPONSE TO THE VARIATIONS IN THE AMPLITUDE OF THE SIGNAL
CURRENT. 

WHEELER ACCOMPLISHED AN OLD RESULT BY A COMBINATION OF MEANS WHICH,
SINGLY OR IN SIMILAR COMBINATION, WERE DISCLOSED BY THE PRIOR ART, AND
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT HE WAS IGNORANT OF THE PENDING
APPLICATIONS WHICH ANTEDATED HIS CLAIMED DATE OF INVENTION AND
EVENTUATED INTO PATENTS, HE WAS NOT IN FACT THE FIRST INVENTOR, SINCE
HIS ADVANCE OVER THE PRIOR ART, IF ANY, REQUIRED ONLY THE EXERCISE OF
THE SKILL OF THE ART. 

DETROLA RADIO & TELEVISION CORP. V. HAZELTINE CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 671, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH AFFIRMED THE
DISTRICT COURT IN UPHOLDING A PATENT, ENJOINING INFRINGEMENT, AND
RETAINING JURISDICTION TO TAKE AN ACCOUNT OF PROFITS, ASSESS DAMAGES,
ETC. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

JULY 7, 1927, HAROLD A. WHEELER APPLIED FOR A PATENT FOR A CIRCUIT
DESIGNED AUTOMATICALLY TO CONTROL THE AMPLITUDE OF AMPLIFIED SIGNAL
VOLTAGE IN MODULATED CARRIER-CURRENT SIGNALLING SYSTEMS.  PATENT NO.
1,879,863 ISSUED SEPTEMBER 27, 1932, TO THE RESPONDENT AS ASSIGNEE OF
WHEELER. 

A SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIMS 1, 5, 6, AND 10.  FN1  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
THE CLAIMS INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DECREE.  FN2 

SEPTEMBER 26, 1934, WHILE THE APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WAS PENDING, RESPONDENT APPLIED FOR A REISSUE.  AFTER THE DECISION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT REDRAFTED THE CLAIMS AND,
OCTOBER 29, 1935, A REISSUE PATENT, NO. 19,744, WAS GRANTED.  THE
PRESENT SUIT WAS THEREAFTER INSTITUTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF ALL THE THIRTEEN CLAIMS OF THE REISSUE EXCEPT CLAIM 8*
.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED, AND ITS
DECREE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN3  THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI PRESENTED, INTER ALIA, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DECISION
CONFLICTS WITH THAT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

*AS AMENDED BY ORDER OF OCTOBER 13, 1941, SEE 314 U.S. - REPORTER. 

CONTROL OF THE AMPLIFICATION OF A MODULATED CARRIERWAVE SIGNAL IS
USEFUL IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING APPARATUS AND, IN
THE ORIGINAL PATENT, WHEELER CLAIMED HIS SYSTEM AS RESPECTS BOTH.  IN
HIS SPECIFICATIONS, HOWEVER, HE CONFINED HIMSELF TO ITS APPLICATION TO
RECEIVERS, WHEREIN ITS FUNCTION IS TO CONTROL THE VOLUME OF SOUND
EMITTED FROM THE LOUD SPEAKER.  IN BROADCASTING, A HIGH FREQUENCY WAVE,
KNOWN AS A CARRIER WAVE, IS IMPRESSED WITH ANOTHER LOW FREQUENCY WAVE
OR, AS IT IS SAID, MODULATED.  THE HIGH FREQUENCY, OR SIGNAL, WAVE IS
PICKED UP BY THE ANTENNA OF A RECEIVER AND CONDUCTED THENCE TO THE
INPUT OF AN AMPLIFYING DEVICE WHICH CONSISTS OF AN AMPLIFIER TUBE, OR
SEVERAL OF THEM IN SERIES.  THESE TUBES HAVE THREE ELECTRODES, A
CATHODE, AN ANODE, AND A GRID, AND ARE CALLED TRIODES.  THE SIGNAL
WAVE, AS AMPLIFIED, IS CARRIED FROM THE OUTPUT OF THE AMPLIFYING DEVICE
TO THE INPUT OF A VACUUM TUBE, KNOWN AS A DETECTOR OR RECTIFIER, WHICH
TRANSMUTES THE ALTERNATING CURRENT INTO A UNIDIRECTIONAL OR DIRECT
PULSATING CURRENT.  THIS IS LED TO AUDIO TUBES WHICH ENHANCE ITS
VOLUME, AND THENCE TO A LOUD SPEAKER.  SUCH A RECEIVING SET HAS OTHER
EQUIPMENT FOR SELECTING SIGNALS OF VARYING FREQUENCY AND ADJUSTING THE
AMPLIFICATION OF THE AUDIO WAVES, WITH WHICH WE NEED NOT CONCERN
OURSELVES. 

ONE OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE ART HAS ARISEN FROM VARIATIONS OF THE
RECEIVED SIGNALS.  WHEN THE SET IS TUNED FROM A WEAK SIGNAL TO A MUCH
STRONGER ONE, THE TENDENCY IS FOR POTENTIAL TO BUILD UP IN THE LAST
AMPLIFYING TUBE, WHICH RESULTS IN WHAT IS KNOWN AS BLASTING IN THE LOUD
SPEAKER.  OFTEN THE SAME SIGNAL VARIES IN INTENSITY.  WEAKENING MAY
RESULT IN FADING, WHEREBY THE SOUND PRODUCTION WEAKENS OR DISAPPEARS;
AND STRENGTHENING MAY BEGET DISTORTION OF THE SOUNDS EMITTED. 

WHEELER ESSAYED TO OBVIATE THESE OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES.  IT WAS
KNOWN THAT THE AMPLIFICATION OF THE CARRIER SIGNAL COULD BE CONTROLLED
BY INCREASING OR DECREASING THE POTENTIAL UPON THE GRID OF A TRIODE
AMPLIFIER.  WHEELER PROPOSED AUTOMATICALLY TO VARY THIS POTENTIAL SO AS
TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE DEGREE OF AMPLIFICATION AND THUS HOLD IT AT
A SUBSTANTIALLY PREDETERMINED LEVEL.  TO THIS END HE PROVIDED MEANS TO
INCREASE THE NEGATIVE POTENTIAL UPON THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR TUBE IN
STEP WITH THE INCREASED STRENGTH OF THE SIGNAL AND TO CONDUCT A DIRECT
CURRENT FROM THAT ANODE TO THE GRID ELECTRODE OF ONE OR MORE OF THE
AMPLIFYING TUBES.  THUS AN INCREASE OF THE STRENGTH OF THE SIGNAL WOULD
AUTOMATICALLY INCREASE THE NEGATIVE POTENTIAL ON THE GRID OF THE
AMPLIFIER AND DECREASE THE AMPLIFICATION; THE REVERSE RESULT WOULD BE
EFFECTED IF THE SIGNAL WEAKENED.  THE MEANS HE ADOPTED TO ACCOMPLISH
THIS WERE ALTERNATIVE. 

ACCORDING TO ONE METHOD, THE SIGNAL WAS AMPLIFIED TO A COMPARATIVELY
HIGH VOLTAGE, AND A DIODE USED AS A DETECTOR.  THE OUTPUT VOLTAGE FROM
THE DETECTOR WAS APPROXIMATELY AS GREAT AS THAT OF THE AMPLIFIED
SIGNAL.  BY COUPLING THE CATHODE AND ANODE OF THE DETECTOR AND
INSERTING A RESISTANCE IN THE COUPLING HE COULD MAINTAIN THE ANODE OF
THE DETECTOR SLIGHTLY NEGATIVE AT ALL TIMES.  SINCE HE CONNECTED ALL
THE CATHODES IN PARALLEL THE CATHODE OF THE DETECTOR WAS MAINTAINED AT
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME POTENTIAL AS THE CATHODE OF THE RADIO FREQUENCY
AMPLIFIER.  BY THIS MEANS, THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR COULD BE
MAINTAINED NORMALLY NEGATIVE RELATIVE TO AT LEAST A PART OF THE
AMPLIFIER CATHODE.  WHEN THE RECTIFIED CURRENT FLOWING THROUGH THE
DETECTOR CIRCUIT INCREASED WITH THE STRENGTH OF THE SIGNAL, THERE WAS
DEVELOPED AT THE OUTPUT TERMINAL OF THE DETECTOR CIRCUIT, THROUGH THE
OPERATION OF THE RESISTANCE, WHICH WAS ALSO CONNECTED BETWEEN THE ANODE
OF THE DETECTOR AND THE GRID OF THE AMPLIFIER, AN INCREASE OF NEGATIVE
VOLTAGE WHICH, THROUGH THE DIRECT CURRENT CONNECTION FROM THE TERMINAL
OF THE DETECTOR CIRCUIT TO THE GRID OF THE AMPLIFIER, INCREASED THE
NEGATIVE POTENTIAL THEREOF, AND LESSENED THE SIGNAL AMPLIFICATION. 
CONVERSELY, IF THE STRENGTH OF THE SIGNAL CURRENT DECREASED, THE
NEGATIVE POTENTIAL DEVELOPED UPON THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR
CORRESPONDINGLY DECREASED AND THERE WAS A DECREASED INHIBITION OF THE
AMPLIFYING POWER OF THE SIGNAL AMPLIFIER. 

IN HIS ALTERNATIVE METHOD, HE ACCOMPLISHED THE SAME RESULT WITH A
TRIODE DETECTOR.  IN THIS ARRANGEMENT HE MAINTAINED A NEGATIVE VOLTAGE
ON THE GRID OF THE DETECTOR TRIODE BY THE USE OF A BATTERY AND A
POTENTIOMETER CONNECTED ACROSS THE CATHODE OF THE DETECTOR TUBE.  THE
OUTPUT CIRCUIT OF THE DETECTOR INCLUDED A RESISTANCE CONNECTED BETWEEN
THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR AND THE COMMON "B" BATTERY OF A RADIO SET.  A
DIRECT CONNECTION WAS PROVIDED FROM THE OUTPUT TERMINAL OF THIS CIRCUIT
TO THE GRID OF THE SIGNAL AMPLIFIER FOR IMPRESSING THEREON THE
POTENTIAL DEVELOPED ON THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR.  THE AMPLIFIED SIGNAL
VOLTAGE OPERATED TO BRING INTO PLAY THE VOLTAGE OF THE BATTERY WHICH
CREATED THE POTENTIAL ON THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR. 

ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, EACH ARRANGEMENT HAD ADVANTAGES AND
DISADVANTAGES.  THE DIODE DETECTOR USED IN THE FIRST FURNISHED NO
AMPLIFICATION BUT IT DISPENSED WITH THE NECESSITY OF AN ADDITIONAL
BATTERY OR SOURCE OF CURRENT SUPPLY.  THE SECOND NOT ONLY REQUIRED AN
ADDITIONAL BATTERY BUT AN ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE VOLTAGE DELIVERED BY
THE TWO BATTERIES WHICH COOPERATE TO VARY THE NEGATIVE POTENTIAL ON THE
ANODE OF THE TRIODE DETECTOR. 

BOTH ARRANGEMENTS INCLUDE DEVICES TO PREVENT THE PASSAGE FROM THE
DETECTOR TO THE AUDIO TUBES, AND FROM THE DETECTOR TO THE GRID OF THE
AMPLIFIER TUBES, OF UNDESIRED FORMS OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND BOTH
EMBRACE MEANS TO PROVIDE A TIME CONSTANT WITH RESPECT TO THE
TRANSMISSION OF NEGATIVE POTENTIAL FROM THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR TO
THE GRID OF THE AMPLIFIER.  NONE OF THESE ARE NOW ASSERTED TO BE NOVEL
OR TO CONSTITUTE A PART OF THE ASSERTED INVENTION. 

IN WHEELER'S DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS HE EXHIBITED BOTH METHODS
AND SAID OF THEM THAT THEY OPERATE "SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE SAME MANNER,"
AND AGAIN THAT THEY ARE "SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR IN OPERATION."  IN HIS
APPLICATION HE PRESENTED CLAIMS WHICH DID NOT SPECIFY THE KIND OF
DETECTOR TO BE USED, AND OTHERS CALLING FOR A DIODE.  ALL OF THE LATTER
WERE DISALLOWED AND HE CONCURRED IN THEIR CANCELLATION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.  HE HAD ASSERTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPLICATION THAT "THE
INVENTION CAN OBVIOUSLY BE USED WITH ANY KIND OF DETECTOR."  NINE
CLAIMS WERE FINALLY ALLOWED.  JUST BEFORE THE PATENT ISSUED, AND NEARLY
FIVE YEARS AFTER ORIGINAL APPLICATION, WHEELER PRESENTED A NUMBER OF
ADDITIONAL CLAIMS.  IN TWO HE DESCRIBED THE DETECTOR AS A DIODE AND IN
ONE OF THESE HE DENOMINATED THE RESISTANCE CONNECTED BETWEEN THE
DETECTOR ANODE AND THE AMPLIFIER CATHODE AS A "HIGH RESISTANCE."  HE
ASSERTED THAT THESE TWO CLAIMS WERE "PRACTICALLY THE SAME AS ALLOWED
CLAIM 11," WHICH BECAME CLAIM 1 OF THE PATENT AS ISSUED AND SPECIFIED
NO PARTICULAR FORM OF DETECTOR TUBE AND NO HIGH RESISTANCE.  THEY WERE
ALLOWED AS CLAIMS 10 AND 11 OF THE PATENT AS ISSUED. 

IN THE ABRAMS SUIT ONLY CLAIMS 1, 5, 6 AND 10 WERE IN ISSUE.  THE
CONTENTION WAS THAT THE INVENTION WAS A BROAD ONE COVERING THE
PRINCIPLE OF AUTOMATIC VOLUME CONTROL BY MEANS OF ANY FORM OF CIRCUIT. 
THE DEFENDANT INSISTED THAT THE PATENT INVOLVED NO INVENTION IN VIEW OF
THE PRIOR ART AND CITED PATENTS ISSUED BEFORE WHEELER'S DATE OF
CONCEPTION N4 AND OTHERS ISSUED BEFORE THE PATENT IN SUIT ON
APPLICATIONS ANTEDATING HIS DATE OF INVENTION AND PENDING WHEN HIS
APPLICATION WAS FILED.  FN5 

SOME OF THESE WERE FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS AND SOME FOR RECEIVING
SYSTEMS.  SEVERAL DISCLOSED AUTOMATIC AMPLIFICATION CONTROL.  ALL
CONSTITUTED PRIOR ART. FN6  HAZELTINE ATTEMPTED TO DISTINGUISH THEM
FROM THE WHEELER PATENT IN THREE RESPECTS.  IT CONTENDED THAT WHEELER'S
PATENT WAS LIMITED TO THE RECEIVING ART AND THAT PRIOR INVENTIONS
ADDRESSED TO AUTOMATIC AMPLIFICATION CONTROL IN TRANSMISSION DID NOT
CONSTITUTE ANTICIPATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT ANSWERED THAT WHEELER'S
PATENT WAS NOT LIMITED BUT WAS FOR ANY MODULATED WAVE CARRIER
SIGNALLING SYSTEM.  HAZELTINE ALSO INSISTED THAT SOME OF THE PRIOR ART
DEALT WITH AMPLIFICATION CONTROL IN AMPLIFIERS BEYOND THE DETECTOR
RATHER THAN IN THOSE THROUGH WHICH THE CONTROLLED CURRENT PASSED BEFORE
IT REACHED THE DETECTOR, AS IN WHEELER.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS UNABLE
TO FIND ANY SUCH DISTINCTION FROM THE PRIOR ART IN THE WHEELER CLAIMS. 
FINALLY, HAZELTINE URGED THAT THE TIME CONSTANT DEVICE WAS NOT FOUND IN
THE PRIOR ART CITED.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT, IF ANY OF THESE
ALLEGED DIFFERENCES CONSTITUTED INVENTION ON WHEELER'S PART THE CLAIMS
DID NOT DISCLOSE THEM, AND THAT TO SUSTAIN HAZELTINE'S CONTENTION WOULD
BE TO REWRITE THE CLAIMS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TOOK A MORE LIBERAL VIEW OF THE WHEELER
PATENT AS EVIDENCED BY THE CLAIMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SPECIFICATIONS.  IT ASSUMED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECISION, THAT
WHEELER'S PATENT WAS LIMITED TO RECEIVERS.  IT RECOGNIZED THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FEED OF THE NEGATIVE POTENTIAL BACK TO THE RADIO
FREQUENCY AMPLIFIERS INSTEAD OF FORWARD BUT IT FOUND NO INVENTION IN
THE CHANGE.  IT HELD THERE WAS NO INVENTION IN THE PROVISION OF A TIME
CONSTANT.  THAT COURT, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT ALL WHEELER DID WAS TO
TAKE CERTAIN OBVIOUS STEPS IN AN ALREADY CROWDED ART, WHICH STEPS WERE
BASED UPON VARIOUS DISCLOSURES OF THAT ART, AND THAT THE CHANGES HE
MADE DID NOT AMOUNT TO INVENTION.  BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE MENTION OF A DIODE DETECTOR IN
CLAIM 10 REPRESENTED NO NEW INVENTIVE ELEMENT SINCE AT LEAST ONE OF THE
PATENTS IN THE PRIOR ART - THAT OF HEISING - DISCLOSED THE USE OF SUCH
A TUBE IN AN AUTOMATIC AMPLIFICATION CONTROL SYSTEM. 

CONFRONTED WITH THESE HOLDINGS, HAZELTINE, AS HAS BEEN STATED,
REWROTE THE SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS IN ITS APPLICATION FOR REISSUE. 
IT ELIMINATED ALL REFERENCE TO THE USE OF A TRIODE DETECTOR IN ITS
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND LIMITED THEM TO A SYSTEM EMPLOYING A
DIODE.  CERTAIN OF THE CLAIMS OF THE OLD PATENT, HOWEVER, WERE RETAINED
WHICH MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A DIODE AND A TRIODE SINCE THEY REFER
MERELY TO A DETECTOR.  HAZELTINE ALSO ALTERED THE SPECIFICATIONS TO
REFER PARTICULARLY TO A DIODE AND A HIGH RESISTANCE.  SUCH A HIGH
RESISTANCE HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS PART OF THE INVENTION IN CLAIM 11 OF THE
ORIGINAL PATENT, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT IN SUIT IN THE ABRAMS CASE.  THIS
FACT IS SIGNIFICANT FOR, IF THE HIGH RESISTANCE HAD BEEN CONSIDERED
NOVEL OR ESSENTIAL TO THE INVENTION, IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY SUIT WAS NOT
FOUNDED ON CLAIM 11, THE ONLY CLAIM WHICH DISCLOSED IT. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT HAZELTINE FOUND IT NECESSARY TO ABANDON ITS BROAD
CLAIMS TO A MONOPOLY OF AUTOMATIC VOLUME CONTROL CIRCUITS AND TO LIMIT
THE CLAIMS TO AN ALLEGED IMPROVEMENT IN SUCH CIRCUITS.  THE PETITIONER
INSISTS THAT THE EFFORT IS UNAVAILING FOR THE REASON THAT THE PATENT,
AS DEFINED IN THE REISSUE, FAILS TO DISCLOSE INVENTION IN VIEW OF THE
PRIOR ART. 

AS IS ADMITTED, AUTOMATIC AMPLIFICATION CONTROL WAS OLD IN THE ART
WHEN WHEELER MADE HIS ALLEGED INVENTION.  THE INVENTION MUST THEN
CONSIST IN THE CONCEPTION OF IMPROVED MEANS FOR OBTAINING SUCH
CONTROL.  THE COURTS BELOW HAVE FOUND INVENTION IN THE COMBINATION IN A
RADIO RECEIVER OF A DIODE DETECTOR WITH A HIGH RESISTANCE CONNECTED
BETWEEN THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR AND THE CATHODE OF THE AMPLIFYING
TUBE AND A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ANODE AND THE GRID OF THE
AMPLIFIER FOR IMPRESSING NEGATIVE POTENTIAL UPON THE LATTER, THUS
OBTAINING FROM THE SIGNAL VOLTAGE A SO-CALLED LINEAR RESPONSE TO THE
VARIATIONS IN THE AMPLITUDE OF THE SIGNAL CURRENT.  THIS COMBINATION,
THEY HELD, WAS SUCH AN ADVANCE IN THE ART AS TO CONSTITUTE INVENTION. 
WE THINK THE DECISION BELOW CONFLICTS WITH THAT IN THE ABRAMS CASE AND
FAILS TO GIVE DUE WEIGHT TO THE DISCLOSURES OF THE PRIOR ART.    THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISTINGUISHES FROM WHEELER'S CONCEPTION
AUTOMATIC AMPLIFICATION CONTROL USED IN RECEIVERS, SUCH CONTROL USED IN
TRANSMITTERS, SUCH CONTROL USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAN VOLUME CONTROL
OF AUDIO WAVES, OR ACCOMPLISHED BY THE USE OF A TRIODE OR BY MEANS
OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH EMPLOY THE SIGNAL CURRENT ITSELF AND ALSO SETS
APART AMPLIFICATION CONTROL WHICH DOES NOT PRODUCE A LINEAR RESPONSE. 

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT THE PATENTS CITED AS PRIOR ART DISCLOSE
THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF LINEAR RESPONSE.  THE CURVE EXHIBITED IN
WHEELER'S DRAWINGS TO ILLUSTRATE THE RESULT OF THE USE OF HIS SYSTEM IS
DUPLICATED IN SIMILAR CURVES BY AFFEL AND FRIIS.  IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED,
THEREFORE, THAT WHEELER HAS ACCOMPLISHED A NEW RESULT.  AT MOST HE CAN
HAVE OBTAINED AN OLD RESULT BY NEW MEANS. 

THE PRIOR ART DISCLOSES THAT AUTOMATIC AMPLIFICATION CONTROL IS USEFUL
BOTH IN RECEIVING AND TRANSMITTING DEVICES FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
VARIOUS ENDS, INCLUDING VOLUME CONTROL.  WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT THAT THE LIMITATION OF
WHEELER'S CLAIMS TO RECEIVERS OF RADIO SIGNALS WOULD NOT SPELL
INVENTION. 

THE RESPONDENT INSISTS, AND THE COURTS BELOW HELD, THAT THE REISSUE
PATENT IS LIMITED TO CLAIMING A DIODE DETECTOR AND A HIGH RESISTANCE
CONNECTED BETWEEN THE DETECTOR ANODE AND THE AMPLIFIER CATHODE AND A
DIRECT CONNECTION OF ANODE WITH CATHODE.  PASSING THE FACT THAT CLAIMS
2, 3, AND 6 IN SUIT EMBRACE ANY SORT OF DETECTOR WITHOUT LIMITATION,
AND ASSUMING THAT THE REISSUE IS LIMITED AS SUGGESTED, IT REMAINS THAT
PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE PATENTS CITED FROM THE PRIOR ART EMPLOY A
RESISTANCE TO IMPRESS THE REQUIRED POTENTIAL ON THE AMPLIFIER GRID FOR
CONTROLLING AMPLIFICATION AND THAT TWO OF THEM, THOSE OF HEISING AND
SLEPIAN, DISCLOSE THE USE OF A RESISTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH A DIODE. 

THE COURT BELOW DISTINGUISHES HEISING ON THE GROUND THAT HIS PURPOSE
WAS NOT TO CONTROL THE VOLUME OF AUDIO WAVES BUT RATHER TO USE LESS
CURRENT IN THE RADIO FREQUENCY AMPLIFIERS OF A TRANSMITTER.  WE HOLD,
AS DID THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THAT THESE
DISTINCTIONS DO NOT NEGATIVE ANTICIPATION BY HEISING.  WITH RESPECT TO
SLEPIAN, THE COURT BELOW REMARKS THAT HIS DEVICE WAS INTENDED TO
ACCOMPLISH A DIFFERENT END.  THIS IS TRUE FOR HIS OBJECT WAS TO PROVIDE
A RECEIVING SYSTEM WHICH WOULD ADMIT OF AN EXTREMELY HIGH AMPLIFICATION
OF RECEIVED SIGNAL IMPULSES.  BUT THE USE OF AUTOMATIC AMPLIFICATION
CONTROL, WHATEVER THE END IN VIEW, IS THE CRITICAL CONSIDERATION. 

THE COURT BELOW STATES THAT NEITHER HEISING NOR SLEPIAN SUCCEEDED IN
PRODUCING AUTOMATIC AMPLIFICATION CONTROL.  IN THIS THE COURT
OVERLOOKED THE UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY OF THE RESPONDENT'S EXPERT, DR.
HAZELTINE, WHO FLATLY TESTIFIED THAT EACH OF THEM DOES PRODUCE IT.  AND
HEISING PRODUCES IT FROM THE SIGNAL CURRENT BY THE USE OF A DIODE
DETECTOR, A "HIGH RESISTANCE" INSERTED BETWEEN THE ANODE THEREOF AND
THE CATHODE OF THE AMPLIFIER AND A DIRECT CURRENT CONNECTION FROM THE
DETECTOR ANODE TO THE AMPLIFIER CATHODE. 

WE THINK THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR IN STATING THAT ALL THE WORKERS
IN THE PRIOR ART OBTAINED THEIR CONTROL POTENTIAL FROM AN ADDITIONAL
BATTERY WHEREAS WHEELER OBTAINED IT FROM SIGNAL ENERGY.  THIS IS NOT
TRUE OF HEISING OR SLEPIAN. 

NOR CAN WHEELER CLAIM NOVELTY, AS THE COURT HELD, IN THE PRODUCTION
OF A LINEAR RESPONSE.  WHILE FRIIS OBTAINED ENERGY FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF POTENTIAL FROM A BATTERY, HE DISCLOSES A RESULTING LINEAR RESPONSE
COMPARABLE TO THAT CLAIMED BY WHEELER.  IF, AS IS NOW ASSERTED, THE
INSERTION OF A HIGH RESISTANCE BETWEEN THE ANODE OF THE DETECTOR AND
THE CATHODE OF THE AMPLIFIER IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF WHEELER'S
CONCEPTION, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT A RESISTANCE TO DEVELOP A POTENTIAL TO
BE CARRIED TO THE AMPLIFIER GRID IS DISCLOSED BY PRIOR INVENTORS,
INCLUDING HEISING, FRIIS, SLEPIAN, AFFEL AND EVANS AND SEVERAL OF THEM
DESCRIBE IT AS WHEELER DOES, NAMELY, A "HIGH RESISTANCE." 

WE CONCLUDE THAT WHEELER ACCOMPLISHED AN OLD RESULT BY A COMBINATION
OF MEANS WHICH, SINGLY OR IN SIMILAR COMBINATION, WERE DISCLOSED BY THE
PRIOR ART AND THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT HE WAS IGNORANT OF THE
PENDING APPLICATIONS WHICH ANTEDATED HIS CLAIMED DATE OF INVENTION AND
EVENTUATED INTO PATENTS, HE WAS NOT IN FACT THE FIRST INVENTOR, SINCE
HIS ADVANCE OVER THE PRIOR ART, IF ANY, REQUIRED ONLY THE EXERCISE OF
THE SKILL OF THE ART. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  HAZELTINE CORPORATION V. ABRAMS, 7 F.SUPP.  908. 

FN2  HAZELTINE CORPORATION V. ABRAMS, 79 F.2D 329. 

FN3  DETROLA RADIO & TELEVISION CORP. V. HAZELTINE CORPORATION, 117
F.2D 238. 

FN4  WHEELER'S DATE OF CONCEPTION OF HIS INVENTION, ACCORDING TO HIS
TESTIMONY, WAS DECEMBER 17, 1925. 

FN5  AFFEL, 1,574,780, MARCH 2, 1926; HEISING, 1,687,245, OCTOBER 9,
1928; BJORNSON, 1,666,676, APRIL 17, 1928, AND SCHELLENG, 1,836,556,
DECEMBER 15, 1931.  FRIIS, 1,675,848, JULY 3, 1928, AND EVANS,
1,736,852, NOVEMBER 26, 1929, WERE ALSO CITED BUT NOT DISCUSSED IN THE
OPINION.  IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THE DISCLOSURES AND CLAIMS OF THESE
PATENTS DID NOT DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THOSE EMBODIED IN THE
APPLICATIONS THEREFOR. 

FN6  ALEXANDER MILBURN CO. V. DAVIS-BOURNONVILLE CO., 270 U.S. 390. 
..END :






BENITEZ V. BANK, 313 U.S. 270 


NO. 90.  SUBMITTED APRIL 10, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 12, 1941.  - 109 F.2D
743, 750, REVERSED. 


THE STATUS OF "FARMER" FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, IS DETERMINED BY THE DEFINITION OF THAT TERM IN
SEC. 75(R); NOT BY THE DEFINITION IN SEC. 1(17), WHICH RELATES TO OTHER

THIS RESULTS NOT ONLY FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 75(R) BUT ALSO FROM
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

CARLOTA BENITEZ SAMPAYO V. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 623, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WHICH DISMISSED A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT A "FARMER." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TO ARRANGE A COMPOSITION OR AN EXTENSION AS A FARMER-DEBTOR,
PETITIONER FILED A PETITION IN OCTOBER, 1938, UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (47 STAT. 1467, 1470; AS AMENDED 48 STAT. 925; ID.,
1289; 49 STAT. 246; ID., 942).  FAILING TO SECURE THE ASSENTS REQUIRED
BY SEC. 75(G), PETITIONER AMENDED HER PETITION IN NOVEMBER, 1938, TO
PROCEED UNDER SEC. 75(S).  RESPONDENT THEN MOVED TO DISMISS THE
PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT A "FARMER" AND THEREFORE
WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF AFFORDED BY SEC. 75(S).  AFTER A
HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE MOTION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  IT HELD THAT THE FORMULA FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER WAS A FARMER WAS TO BE FOUND IN SEC.
1(17) OF THE CHANDLER ACT OF 1938(52 STAT. 840, 841), AND THAT
PETITIONER COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A FARMER WITHIN ITS TERMS.  109
F.2D 743, ON REHEARING, 109 F.2D 750.  BECAUSE THE DECISION WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY INCONSISTENT WITH ORDER 50(9) OF THE GENERAL ORDERS IN
BANKRUPTCY (305 U.S. 677, 710), WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN1  311 U.S.
623. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION, OF COURSE, IS WHETHER PETITIONER MAY PROCEED
UNDER SEC. 75(S) AS A FARMER-DEBTOR, BUT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THE
PROBLEM IS TO SELECT THE DEFINITION OF "FARMER" WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO
PERSONS PETITIONING FOR RELIEF UNDER SEC. 75. 

THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CONTAINS TWO DEFINITIONS OF THE TERM "FARMER." 
AN INDIVIDUAL PERSONALLY ENGAGED IN FARMING OR TILLAGE OF THE SOIL, AND
SHALL INCLUDE AN INDIVIDUAL PERSONALLY ENGAGED IN DAIRY FARMING OR IN
THE PRODUCTIONS OF POULTRY, LIVESTOCK, OR POULTRY OR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS
IN THEIR UNMANUFACTURED STATE, IF THE PRINCIPAL PART OF HIS INCOME IS
DERIVED FROM ANY ONE OR MORE OF SUCH OPERATIONS." 

PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, SECTION 4(B), AND SECTION 74, THE TERM
'FARMER' INCLUDES NOT ONLY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PRIMARILY BONA FIDE
PERSONALLY ENGAGED IN PRODUCING PRODUCTS OF THE SOIL, BUT ALSO ANY
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PRIMARILY BONA FIDE PERSONALLY ENGAGED IN DAIRY
FARMING, THE PRODUCTION OF POULTRY OR LIVESTOCK, OR THE PRODUCTION OF
POULTRY PRODUCTS OR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS IN THEIR UNMANUFACTURED STATE,
OR THE PRINCIPAL PART OF WHOSE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM ANY ONE OR MORE
OF THE FOREGOING OPERATIONS, AND INCLUDES THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF A DECEASED FARMER.  ...  " 

STARTING WITH THE PREMISE THAT ONLY ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS CAN STAND,
RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT SEC. 1(17) IS AN IMPLICIT REPEAL OF SEC.
75(R).  TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION, RESPONDENT POINTS TO THE OBSOLETE
REFERENCE IN SEC. 75(R) TO SEC. 74, AND TO A STATEMENT IN A COMMITTEE
REPORT WHICH IS SAID TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE DEFINITION
IN SEC. 1(17) TO MEASURE THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 4(B) TO PERSONS WHO
CLAIM TO BE FARMERS.  FN2 

THE ARGUMENT IGNORES THE PLAIN IMPORT OF SEC. 75(R).  THE MEANING OF
THE PHRASE "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION" IS HARDLY OPEN TO
QUESTION.  OBVIOUSLY, IT IS NEITHER IMPOSSIBLE NOR NECESSARILY
INCONSISTENT TO PRESCRIBE ONE DEFINITION FOR A PARTICULAR SECTION OR
APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 75(R) TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75 SERIOUSLY
PLACED IN DOUBT BECAUSE THE FORMER SECTION REFERS TO A SECTION WHICH NO
LONGER EXISTS UNDER THAT NUMBER AND TO A SECTION WHICH NOW MAY BE
GOVERNED BY SEC. 1(17).  THE ONLY QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER SEC. 75(R)
OR SEC. 1(17) IS APPLICABLE TO SEC. 75. 

DISTRESSED-DEBTOR LEGISLATION OF 1933.  47 STAT. 1467, 1470-1473. 
DESIGNED FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, THE RELIEF OF HARD-PRESSED FARMERS,
IT WAS REGARDED AS A SPECIAL AND TEMPORARY ENACTMENT.  SEE SEC. 75(C);
COMPARE S. REP. NO. 1215, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 3; H. REP. NO. 1898,
73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 2.  IN 1938 ITS TIME LIMIT WAS EXTENDED TO
1940.  52 STAT. 84, 85.  AT THAT TIME A SPECIAL COMMITTEE HELD
EXTENSIVE HEARINGS ON A PROPOSAL TO MAKE SEC. 75 A PERMANENT PART OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE SECTION SHOULD BE
CONTINUED ONLY AS TEMPORARY LEGISLATION.  HEARINGS BEFORE SPECIAL
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BANKRUPTCY OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 75TH
CONGRESS, 2D AND 3D SESSIONS; SEE ALSO H. REP. NO. 1833, 75TH CONG., 3D
SESS., P. 2; S. REP. NO. 899, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 1658,
76TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 2.  NATURALLY ENOUGH, LEGISLATION DRAFTED FOR
SUCH A PURPOSE CARRIED ITS OWN TEST FOR DETERMINING THE PERSONS TO WHOM
IT SHOULD APPLY. 

WHEN THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 1938 WAS BEFORE A SENATE COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTATIVE CHANDLER, THE PROPONENT OF THE BILL, STATED:  "WE DID
NOT TOUCH (SEC. 75) AND IT IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS ACT."  DISCUSSING
THE ALTERATIONS IN EXISTING STATUTES WORKED BY THE NEW ACT, THE HOUSE
REPORT LACONICALLY OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS "NO CHANGE" IN SEC. 75.  H.
REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 144.  SOMEWHAT LESS BRIEFLY,
THE SENATE REPORT STATED:  "SECTION 75 RELATES TO AGRICULTURAL
COMPOSITIONS AND EXTENSIONS.  THESE EXPIRE BY LIMITATION AND ARE,
THEREFORE, NOT COVERED BY THE BILL."  S. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D
SESS., P. 18. 

THE CHANDLER ACT, A CAREFUL AND COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF BANKRUPTCY
LEGISLATION, WAS THE PRODUCT OF SEVERAL YEARS OF THOUGHTFUL STUDY.  SEE
81 CONG. REC. 8646-8649.  ONE OF ITS AVOWED PURPOSES WAS TO CLARIFY OR
REMOVE INCONSISTENT AND OVERLAPPING PROVISIONS.  SEE H. REP. NO. 1409,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1-3.  AS A PART OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE
REVISION, NUMEROUS DEFINITIONS WERE OVERHAULED OR INSERTED FOR THE
FIRST TIME.  AMONG THE LATTER WAS SEC. 1(17).  SEE H. REP. NO. 1409,
SUPRA, P. 6.  BUT SEC. 75(R) ALSO WAS LEFT IN THE ACT, AND, AS ALREADY
INDICATED, ITS EXISTENCE WAS NOT UNKNOWN TO THE REVISORS.  ITS VERY
PRESENCE IN THE STATUTE AFTER THE REVISION IS PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE THAT
SEC. 1(17) WAS NOT INTENDED TO GOVERN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES MUST BE TESTED BY THE
DEFINITION IN SEC. 75(R) RATHER THAN BY THE ONE IN SEC. 1(17).  THE
JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR CONSIDERATION OF OTHER QUESTIONS IN LIGHT OF OUR DECISION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  INSOFAR AS MATERIAL HERE, ORDER 50(9) READS:  "  ...  THE
PETITION SHALL SHOW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE
DECEDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH WAS A FARMER WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SUBDIVISION (R) OF SECTION 75.  ...  " 

FN2  THE LATTER ARGUMENT, UPON WHICH WE EXPRESS NO OPINION, IS
GROUNDED ON THE STATEMENT IN H. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 6, WHICH RUNS:  "THE AMENDMENT OF MAY 5, 1935  ... EXTENDS THE
MEANING OF THE TERM 'FARMER.'  ...  CORRESPONDINGLY, SECTION 4 OF THE
ACT IS AMENDED BY SUBSTITUTING THE PHRASE 'A FARMER' FOR THE LANGUAGE
'A PERSON ENGAGED CHIEFLY IN FARMING OR THE TILLAGE OF THE SOIL.' 
PURSUANT TO THIS PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO EXPAND THE MEANING OF THE TERM,
IT WOULD SEEM ADVISABLE TO FORMULATE A NEW DEFINITION AND TO INCLUDE IT
IN SECTION 1 AS CLAUSE (17)." 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :













DEPT. OF TREASURY V. MFG. CO., 313 U.S. 252 


NO. 655.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 5, 1941.  - 114 F.2D 889,
REVERSED. 


AN INDIANA CORPORATION HAVING A FACTORY IN THAT STATE AT WHICH IT
MANUFACTURED ENAMEL AND APPLIED IT BY HEAT TO METAL ARTICLES, OBTAINED
THROUGH ITS TRAVELING SALESMEN FROM MANUFACTURERS IN OTHER STATES
ORDERS FOR THE ENAMELING OF METAL PARTS WHICH THEY USED IN THE MAKING
OF STOVES AND REFRIGERATORS; PURSUANT TO WHICH CONTRACTS, IT
TRANSPORTED THE PARTS FROM THE CUSTOMERS' PLANTS TO ITS OWN PLANT,
ENAMELED THEM THERE, AND RETURNED THEM TO THE PLANTS OF THE CUSTOMERS,
DOING THE TRANSPORTATION BY MEANS OF ITS OWN TRUCKS.  THEREAFTER IT
BILLED THE CUSTOMERS FOR THE ENAMELING, AND REMITTANCES WERE MADE TO IT
BY MAIL.  THE VALUE OF THE METAL PARTS AS UNITS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF
THE ENAMELING PROCESS WAS FROM TWO AND ONE-HALF TO THREE TIMES THE
VALUE OF THE PARTS BEFORE THE ENAMELING.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THE INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM SERVICES, NOT FROM SALES OF THE
ENAMEL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 254. 

2.  THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE ENAMELING WERE TAXABLE BY INDIANA
UNDER ITS GROSS INCOME TAX LAW.  P. 254. 

3.  THE TRANSPORTATION WAS AN INCIDENT TO THE ENAMELING SERVICE.  P.
255. 

4.  IF THE TRANSPORTATION WAS AN ITEM OF SERVICE FOR WHICH DEDUCTIONS
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE TAX, THE TAXPAYER SHOULD HAVE CLAIMED
THE DEDUCTION AND SHOWN ITS AMOUNT.  P. 255. 

5.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INDIANA TAX LAW ALLOWS THE TAXPAYER TO
CLAIM DEDUCTIONS IN HIS TAX RETURN AND SECURE AN APPORTIONMENT OF THE
TAX, IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW WHICH THIS COURT IS NOT CALLED UPON TO
ANSWER, THE TAXPAYER NOT HAVING PRESENTED IT TO THE STATE AUTHORITIES. 
P. 256. 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF INDIANA ET AL. V. INGRAM-RICHARDSON
MANUFACTURING CO. OF INDIANA, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 671, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A RECOVERY
IN A SUIT FOR A REFUND OF TAXES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY
COLLECTED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT, HAS HELD
THAT RESPONDENT, INGRAM-RICHARDSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, IS ENTITLED
TO A REFUND OF A TAX LEVIED UNDER THE INDIANA GROSS INCOME TAX LAW,
FN1  UPON THE GROUND OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE TAX UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  114 F.2D 889.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT. 

THE TAX WAS FOR $5410.20  FN2  AND WAS LAID UPON RESPONDENT'S GROSS
RECEIPTS DERIVED AS FOLLOWS: 

RESPONDENT, AN INDIANA CORPORATION, HAS A FACTORY AT FRANKFORT IN
THAT STATE WHERE IT MANUFACTURES ENAMEL, BOTH IN A GRANULAR FORM, KNOWN
AS FRIT, AND IN A HARD, FINISHED FORM FUSED WITH METAL ARTICLES.  IN
THE INSTANT CASE THE ENAMEL WAS FUSED WITH METAL PARTS USED IN STOVES
AND REFRIGERATORS MANUFACTURED BY RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS IN VARIOUS
STATES OTHER THAN INDIANA.  RESPONDENT'S TRAVELING SALESMEN SOLICITED
ORDERS FROM SUCH CUSTOMERS PURSUANT TO WHICH RESPONDENT TRANSPORTED BY
ITS TRUCKS THE STOVE AND REFRIGERATOR PARTS BELONGING TO ITS CUSTOMERS
FROM THEIR PLANTS TO ITS OWN PLANT FOR ENAMELING.  THERE THE ENAMELING
WAS DONE BY THE PROCESS SET FORTH IN THE FINDINGS, AND RESPONDENT THEN
HAULED THE ENAMELED PARTS BACK TO ITS CUSTOMERS' FACTORIES.  RESPONDENT
THEREAFTER BILLED ITS CUSTOMERS FOR THE ENAMELING AND REMITTANCES WERE
MADE TO RESPONDENT BY MAIL.  THE VALUE OF THE METAL PARTS AS UNITS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ENAMELING PROCESS WAS FROM TWO AND ONE-HALF
TO THREE TIMES THE VALUE OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTS BEFORE THE ENAMELING. 

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION, AS SET FORTH IN ITS COMPLAINT AND AS STILL
ASSERTED, IS THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS CONSTITUTED SALES OF THE HARD,
FINISHED ENAMEL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
DISAGREED WITH THAT CONTENTION AND HELD THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION WAS
DERIVED FROM SERVICES.  WE ARE IN ACCORD WITH THAT VIEW. 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE SERVICES PAID FOR
INCLUDED THE SOLICITATION OF ORDERS BY RESPONDENT'S AGENTS AND THE
EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS IN OTHER STATES, INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS BY
MAIL, TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH, AND ALSO THE TRANSPORTATION BY
RESPONDENT OF THE STOVE AND REFRIGERATOR PARTS FROM AND TO PLACES IN
OTHER STATES. 

THE ENAMELING PROCESS WAS AN ACTIVITY PERFORMED AT RESPONDENT'S PLANT
IN INDIANA AND THE GROSS RECEIPTS THEREFROM WERE TAXABLE BY INDIANA
UNDER ITS GROSS INCOME TAX LAW.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V. WOOD
PRESERVING CORP., ANTE, P. 62.  THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS FOR THE
ENAMELING WERE OBTAINED BY RESPONDENT'S AGENTS AND CONTRACTS WERE
EXECUTED OUTSIDE INDIANA DID NOT MAKE THE ENAMELING PROCESS OTHER THAN
AN INTRASTATE ACTIVITY AND ANY THE LESS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THE TAXING STATUTE.  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 253. 

BUT THE COURT BELOW HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS INCLUDED IN THE SERVICE
RENDERED BY RESPONDENT THE TRANSPORTATION BY ITS TRUCKS OF THE STOVE
AND REFRIGERATOR PARTS FROM AND TO THE CUSTOMERS' PLANTS IN OTHER
STATES.  THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THE REASONING OF OUR OPINION IN GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, APPLIED.  THAT CASE,
HOWEVER, PRESENTED A DIFFERENT SITUATION.  THE BUSINESS THERE WAS THAT
OF A MARKETING AGENT FOR A FEDERATION OF FRUIT GROWERS AND THE STATE
TAX WAS MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE TAXPAYER FROM THE
BUSINESS OF MARKETING FRUIT SHIPPED FROM THE TAXING STATE TO THE PLACES
OF SALE IN OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  WE FOUND THAT THE
ENTIRE SERVICE FOR WHICH THE COMPENSATION WAS PAID WAS "IN AID OF THE
SHIPMENT AND SALE OF MERCHANDISE IN THAT COMMERCE" (INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN) AND HENCE THE SERVICE WAS HELD TO BE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  ID., P. 437.  HERE, ON THE CONTRARY, THE ENTIRE
SERVICE WAS IN AID OF THE ENAMELING BUSINESS CONDUCTED WITHIN THE
STATE.  THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE METAL PARTS TO AND FROM INDIANA WERE
BUT INCIDENT TO THAT INTRASTATE BUSINESS, AS WAS THE CIRCULATION OF
APPELLANTS' MAGAZINE IN STATES OTHER THAN THE TAXING STATE IN THE
WESTERN LIVE STOCK CASE, SUPRA, P. 254. 

MOREOVER, IF THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE METAL PARTS WERE REGARDED AS
AN ITEM OF SERVICE FOR WHICH A DEDUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, WE
THINK THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF RESPONDENT, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT
WAS CONDUCTING AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS CLEARLY SUBJECT TO THE TAX, TO
CLAIM THE DEDUCTION AND SHOW THE AMOUNT WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOWED.  IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT RESPONDENT DID EITHER.  RESPONDENT MADE ITS CLAIM
FOR A TOTAL EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX UPON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS LAID
UPON INTERSTATE SALES, A CONTENTION WHICH IT HAS FAILED TO SUPPORT. 

THE STATE CONTENDS, CITING PROVISIONS OF THE TAXING ACT, THAT THE
LEGISLATURE OF INDIANA CONTEMPLATED THAT THE TAXPAYER WOULD REFLECT IN
THE TAX RETURN ANY DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED, MAKING A SEPARATION BETWEEN
TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE ITEMS, AND THAT THE TAX RETURN ITSELF PROVIDED
A METHOD FOR CLAIMING ANY DEDUCTIONS TO WHICH THE TAXPAYER THOUGHT
ITSELF ENTITLED.  RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE ACT DID NOT PROVIDE A
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EFFORT ON THE PART OF
RESPONDENT TO PRESENT A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION AND TO HAVE THE STATE
AUTHORITIES PASS UPON THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION OR APPORTIONMENT, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS CLAIM FOR A TOTAL EXEMPTION, WE ARE NOT CALLED
UPON TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE QUESTION OF STATE LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 2 OF CHAPTER 50 OF THE ACTS OF INDIANA OF 1933.  11
BURNS INDIANA STATUTES, SEC. 64-2602.  SEE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY V.
WOOD PRESERVING CORP., ANTE, P. 62. 

FN2  THE SUIT ALSO EMBRACED A CLAIM FOR AN ADDITIONAL SUM OF $1154.26
RECOVERY OF WHICH WAS DENIED BELOW.  THAT CLAIM IS NOT BEFORE US.
..END :












JENKINS V. KURN, 313 U.S. 256 


NO. 732.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 1941.  - DECIDED MAY 5, 1941.  - 146 MO. 904 -
144 S.W.2D 76, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RIGHT OF ACTION CONFERRED BY THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY
ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51, IS NOT TO BE BURDENED WITH IMPOSSIBLE
CONDITIONS.  P. 258. 

2.  IN AN ACTION BY A LOCOMOTIVE FIREMAN TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR
INJURIES RESULTING FROM A FALL ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE
NEGLIGENCE OF THE ENGINEER IN FAILING TO APPLY THE BRAKES AFTER NOTICE
THAT A TRAIN WAS STANDING ON THE TRACK AHEAD, HELD THAT EVIDENCE
TENDING TO PROVE THAT THE ENGINEER RECEIVED A WARNING FROM THE FIREMAN
WHICH, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD, WAS
SUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE JURY WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF THAT HE ACTUALLY
UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS SAID.  P. 258. 

JENKINS V. KURN ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 675, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A RECOVERY
IN AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WHEN THE INTERSTATE TRAIN ON WHICH HE WAS FIREMAN EMERGED FROM A
CURVE ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF WINFIELD, KANSAS, PETITIONER SIGHTED A TRAIN
STANDING NOT MORE THAN SIX HUNDRED FEET AHEAD ON THE SAME TRACK.  HE
SHOUTED TO THE ENGINEER TO PUSH THE BRAKE VALVE OVER IN EMERGENCY.  THE
ENGINEER TURNED AND LOOKED AT HIM BUT DID NOTHING TO ARREST THE
MOVEMENT OF THE TRAIN.  PETITIONER JUMPED FROM HIS SEAT, CROSSED THE
CAB, AND STOOD BEHIND THE ENGINEER FOR A BRIEF TIME BUT SAID NOTHING. 
WHEN THE ENGINE WAS BUT TWO OR THREE CAR LENGTHS FROM THE STANDING
TRAIN, THE ENGINEER APPLIED THE BRAKES.  AT THAT MOMENT PETITIONER
LEAPED FROM THE ENGINE AND LANDED IN SOME ROCKS ALONG THE TRACK.  HE
SUSTAINED SERIOUS INJURIES AND TO RECOVER DAMAGES BROUGHT THE INSTANT
ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (45 U.S.C. SECS. 51
59) AGAINST RESPONDENTS IN A MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT. 

THE COMPLAINT CONTAINED FIVE COUNTS CHARGING NEGLIGENCE, BUT ONLY THE
FOURTH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  COUNT FOUR ALLEGED:  "  ...  THAT
SAID ENGINEER  ...  WAS FURTHER NEGLIGENT IN THAT AFTER HE WAS NOTIFIED
BY (PETITIONER) THAT THE (TRAIN) WAS STANDING ON SAID TRACK NEAR SAID
CROSSING, HE FAILED TO IMMEDIATELY APPLY THE AIR IN THE EMERGENCY, TO
STOP SAID TRAIN, WHICH NEGLIGENCE CREATED A DILEMMA OF IMMINENT PERIL,
WHICH FORCED (PETITIONER) TO JUMP FROM SAID TRAIN IN ORDER TO SAVE HIS
LIFE, OR SOME BODILY HARM." 

THE CASE WAS TRIED BEFORE A JURY WHICH RETURNED A VERDICT OF
$12,000.  FROM JUDGMENT IN THAT AMOUNT ENTERED FOR PETITIONER,
RESPONDENTS APPEALED, ASSIGNING VARIOUS ERRORS.  CONFINING ITS
ATTENTION TO ONE, THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI HELD THAT THE CIRCUIT
COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT. 
IT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT BUT DID NOT REMAND THE CAUSE FOR A NEW TRIAL. 
146 MO. 904; 144 S.W.2D 76.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 675. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  THE SINGLE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE TRIAL
COURT CORRECTLY REFUSED TO DIRECT A VERDICT FOR RESPONDENTS. 

IN EXPLANATION OF ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, THE
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI OBSERVED: "THE BURDEN WAS ON (PETITIONER) TO
ESTABLISH THAT HE NOTIFIED THE ENGINEER TO GO INTO EMERGENCY.  HE DID
NOT SO NOTIFY HIM UNLESS THE ENGINEER UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS SAID, AND
THERE IS NOT EVEN A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE THAT THE ENGINEER UNDERSTOOD
WHAT (PETITIONER) SAID."  IN OTHER WORDS, NOT ONLY MUST PETITIONER
PROVE THAT HE MOVED TO WARN THE ENGINEER OF THE IMPENDING DANGER, BUT
HE MUST PROVE THE ENGINEER'S SUBJECTIVE COMPREHENSION AND CORRECT
INTERPRETATION OF THAT WARNING, VERBAL OR OTHERWISE.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

TO BE SURE, PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF HIS
COMPLAINT TO PROVE THAT HE ACTED PROMPTLY AND REASONABLY TO AWAKEN THE
ENGINEER TO THE DANGER AHEAD.  SINCE THE ONLY COUNT SUBMITTED TO THE
JURY CHARGED THAT THE ENGINEER WAS NEGLIGENT IN FAILING TO APPLY THE
BRAKES AFTER NOTICE OF THE TRAIN IN FRONT, PETITIONER WAS COMPELLED
ALSO TO PROVE THAT THE NOTICE WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ENGINEER.  BUT TO
ESTABLISH THE FACT OF COMMUNICATION PETITIONER HAD ONLY TO PROVE THAT
THE ENGINEER SHOULD HAVE COMPREHENDED THE WARNING UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED.  HE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO GO FURTHER AND
PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE SUBJECTIVE REACTIONS IN THE ENGINEER'S MIND. 
THE RIGHT OF ACTION CONFERRED BY SEC. 51 IS NOT TO BE BURDENED WITH
IMPOSSIBLE CONDITIONS. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IF
NOT SUBJECT TO ANY PHYSICAL DISABILITY THE ENGINEER WOULD HAVE
COMPREHENDED PETITIONER'S MONITION AND UNDERSTOOD THAT PERIL WAS
IMMINENT.  PETITIONER TESTIFIED WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT HE
"HOLLERED" HIS WARNING LOUDLY; THAT ONLY A NARROW SPACE SEPARATED HIS
PERCH FROM THE ENGINEER'S SEAT; THAT THE ENGINEER'S HEARING WAS "ALL
RIGHT"; THAT PETITIONER AND THE ENGINEER COULD AND DID CARRY ON "NORMAL
CONVERSATIONS" WHILE THE TRAIN WAS OPERATING; AND THAT THERE WAS
COMPARATIVELY LITTLE NOISE IN THE CAB FROM THE TRAIN. 

JUDGED BY THE TEST OUTLINED ABOVE, THAT EVIDENCE WAS AMPLE TO WARRANT
SUBMISSION OF THE ISSUE TO THE JURY.  SINCE OTHER QUESTIONS, WHICH OUR
DECISION DOES NOT TOUCH, WERE PRESENTED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
MISSOURI, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 
..END :
















DEPT. OF TREASURY V. WOOD CORP., 313 U.S. 62 


NO. 654.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 114 F.2D
922, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE MAY TAX THE GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED BY A FOREIGN
CORPORATION FROM GOODS BOUGHT AND SOLD BY IT WITHIN THE STATE.  ADAMS
MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 66. 

2.  A FOREIGN CORPORATION CAN NOT ESCAPE SUCH A TAX BY ARRANGING TO
HAVE THE PROCEEDS OF ITS INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS PAID TO IT IN ANOTHER
STATE.  P. 67. 

3.  A DELAWARE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE, ARRANGED BY
TELEPHONE FROM ITS OHIO OFFICE WITH INDIANA PRODUCERS FOR DELIVERY OF
RAILROAD TIES IN INDIANA AT A LOADING POINT ON THE LINE OF A RAILROAD
COMPANY WITH WHICH IT HAD CONTRACTED BOTH TO SELL TIES AND TO TREAT
THEM WITH CREOSOTE AT ITS PLANT IN OHIO.  WHEN BROUGHT TO THE RAILROAD,
IN INDIANA, THE TIES WERE EXAMINED BY THE RAILROAD'S INSPECTOR IN THE
PRESENCE OF RESPONDENT'S AGENT, AND THOSE ACCEPTED BY THE INSPECTOR
WERE IMMEDIATELY LOADED ON CARS AND WERE HAULED TO THE OHIO PLANT,
UNDER BILLS OF LADING NAMING THE RESPONDENT AS CONSIGNOR AND AN OFFICER
OF THE RAILROAD AS CONSIGNEE.  RESPONDENT PAID NO FREIGHT FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION.  ITS OHIO OFFICE MAILED WEEKLY INVOICES TO THE RAILROAD
AT ITS OFFICE IN MARYLAND FOR THE TIES SO DELIVERED TO THE RAILROAD,
AND MONTHLY REPORTS OF SUCH INVOICES WERE MADE TO RESPONDENT'S MAIN
OFFICE IN PENNSYLVANIA.  ALL PAYMENTS FOR TIES WERE MADE TO
RESPONDENT'S OFFICE IN PENNSYLVANIA AND WERE THERE DEPOSITED IN BANK. 
HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE SALES OF TIES TO THE RAILROAD IN INDIANA WERE LOCAL
TRANSACTIONS SEPARATE FROM THE CREOSOTING SERVICE AND THE RECEIPTS FROM
SUCH SALES WERE SUBJECT TO THE INDIANA TAX.  P. 68. 

(2)  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE BILLING WAS IN THE NAME OF THE
RESPONDENT AS CONSIGNOR IS IMMATERIAL, IN VIEW OF THE COMPLETED
DELIVERY TO THE RAILROAD IN INDIANA.  P. 68. 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF INDIANA ET AL. V. WOOD PRESERVING
CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 670, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE PRESENT RESPONDENT IN ITS SUIT TO RECOVER MONEY COLLECTED
AS TAXES BY THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF INDIANA. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT, THE WOOD PRESERVING CORPORATION,
TO RECOVER TAXES COLLECTED FROM IT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OF THE
STATE OF INDIANA UNDER THE INDIANA GROSS INCOME TAX ACT OF 1933.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DENIED RECOVERY AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON THE GROUND THAT THE TAXES WERE INVALID
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS LAID UPON INCOME RECEIVED OUTSIDE THE
STATE AND AS CONSTITUTING AN UNLAWFUL BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
114 F.2D 922.  IN VIEW OF THE ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 312 U.S. 670. 

THE FACTS WERE FOUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STIPULATION OF THE
PARTIES.  RESPONDENT IS A DELAWARE CORPORATION WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE
OF BUSINESS AT PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA.  IT IS QUALIFIED TO DO
BUSINESS IN INDIANA BUT HAS NO AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES WITHIN THAT STATE
EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED.  RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TREATING
RAILROAD TIES BY CREOSOTING THEM AND ALSO IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING
AND SELLING TIES.  IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, SELL TIES SAVE TO THOSE WITH
WHOM IT HAS A CONTRACT FOR TREATMENT. 

THE TAXES IN QUESTION WERE FOR THE YEARS 1934, 1935, AND 1936.  THE
TAXES WERE LAID UPON RESPONDENT'S GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF TIES
TO THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CERTAIN
CONTRACTS.  ONE CONTRACT REQUIRED THE RAILROAD COMPANY TO DELIVER FOR
TREATMENT 600,000 TIES ANNUALLY TO A TREATMENT PLANT AT FINNEY, OHIO,
BELONGING (THROUGH A SUBSIDIARY) TO RESPONDENT.  THE OTHER PROVIDED FOR
THE SALE OF RAW TIES TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY, DELIVERED F.O.B. CARS ON
THE RAILROAD TRACKS; ALSO FOR TREATMENT OF TIES AT ANOTHER PLANT TO BE
OPERATED BY RESPONDENT (UNDER LEASE FROM THE RAILROAD COMPANY) IN WEST
VIRGINIA.  A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO SHIP ALL
TIES DELIVERED TO THE RAILROAD IN TERRITORY WEST OF THE OHIO RIVER,
INCLUDING INDIANA, TO THE PLANT AT FINNEY, OHIO, FOR TREATMENT. 
RESPONDENT SOLD TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY NO TIES THAT WERE NOT TO BE
TREATED AT ONE OR THE OTHER OF ITS PLANTS BEFORE USE. 

THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, WAS AS FOLLOWS:
RESPONDENT ITSELF PRODUCED NO TIES IN INDIANA.  REQUISITIONS FOR TIES
WERE ISSUED FROM THE RAILROAD COMPANY'S OFFICE IN BALTIMORE AND WERE
ACCEPTED AT RESPONDENT'S OFFICE IN MARIETTA, OHIO, BY TELEPHONE OR
MAIL.  RESPONDENT THEN PROCURED THE TIES FROM LOCAL PRODUCERS IN
INDIANA THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS BY TELEPHONE OR MAIL FROM ITS MARIETTA
OFFICE.  THE INDIANA VENDORS DELIVERED THE TIES AT LOADING POINTS ON
THE RAILROAD IN INDIANA.  WHEN THE TIES WERE READY, AN INSPECTOR FOR
THE RAILROAD COMPANY AND RESPONDENT'S AGENT MET AT THE LOADING POINT IN
INDIANA, AND AS THE TIES WERE EXAMINED WITH RESPECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH
SPECIFICATIONS, THOSE ACCEPTED BY THE RAILROAD INSPECTOR WERE LOADED ON
FREIGHT CARS FURNISHED BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY AT THE LOADING POINT. 
THE INSPECTION AND LOADING WERE SIMULTANEOUS.  RESPONDENT PAID THE
INDIANA PRODUCERS ONLY FOR TIES WHICH WERE THUS ACCEPTED.  RESPONDENT'S
AGENT MADE OUT BILLS OF LADING WITH RESPONDENT AS CONSIGNOR AND THE
RAILROAD COMPANY'S CHIEF ENGINEER OF MAINTENANCE AT FINNEY, OHIO, AS
CONSIGNEE, AND THE TIES WERE CARRIED TO FINNEY, OHIO, FOR TREATMENT. 
RESPONDENT PAID NO FREIGHT TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY FOR THAT
TRANSPORTATION.  RESPONDENT'S OFFICE AT MARIETTA MAILED WEEKLY INVOICES
TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY AT ITS BALTIMORE OFFICE FOR THE TIES SOLD AND
DELIVERED TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY AND MONTHLY REPORTS OF SUCH INVOICES
WERE MADE TO RESPONDENT'S MAIN OFFICE AT PITTSBURGH.  ALL PAYMENTS FOR
TIES WERE MADE TO RESPONDENT'S PITTSBURGH OFFICE AND WERE THERE
DEPOSITED IN BANK. 

THE TAXES IN QUESTION WERE LAID BY THE INDIANA AUTHORITIES ON THE
RECEIPTS WHICH RESPONDENT DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE UNTREATED TIES. 
THESE RECEIPTS DID NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR THE CREOSOTING TREATMENT;
THOSE CHARGES WERE SEPARATELY BILLED BY RESPONDENT'S SUBSIDIARY WHEN
THE TREATMENT WAS COMPLETED. 

FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN1 PROVIDES FOR A TAX UPON GROSS INCOME "DERIVED
FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE STATE OF INDIANA" OF ALL NONRESIDENT PERSONS
AND CORPORATIONS.  THE COURT BELOW HAS HELD THAT UNDER THIS STATUTE THE
THING TAXED WAS "THE RECEIPT OF GROSS INCOME" AND AS THE INCOME IN
QUESTION WAS RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT IN PENNSYLVANIA, IT WAS BEYOND THE
JURISDICTION OF INDIANA; THAT, IF THE CONTRARY THEORY OF THE TAXING
OFFICIALS WAS SOUND, STILL THE TAX WAS INVALID BECAUSE NO METHOD WAS
PROVIDED FOR ALLOCATING THE TAX TO THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THAT PART OF
THE BUSINESS TRANSACTED WITHIN INDIANA; AND, FURTHER, THAT THE
TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION "WERE HAD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE," THAT THE
TAX DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THAT COMMERCE AND FOR THAT REASON WAS VOID. 

WE THINK THAT THE COURT WAS IN ERROR IN EACH OF THESE CONCLUSIONS. 

AS TO THE FIRST POINT, THE COURT RELIED UPON OUR DECISION IN ADAMS
MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307.  THAT WAS A CASE UNDER THE
SAME TAXING ACT OF INDIANA, BUT THERE THE TAX WAS APPLIED TO GROSS
RECEIPTS DERIVED BY AN INDIANA CORPORATION FROM SALES IN OTHER STATES
OF GOODS MANUFACTURED IN INDIANA.  WE OBSERVED THAT THE TAX IS NOT AN
EXCISE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOMICILE "SINCE IT IS LEVIED UPON THE GROSS
INCOME OF NONRESIDENTS FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE STATE."  THE POINT OF
THE DECISION WAS THAT "THE TAX IS WHAT IT PURPORTS TO BE,  - A TAX UPON
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM COMMERCE," AND THAT THE TAX WAS THERE LAID UPON
RECEIPTS FROM SALES TO CUSTOMERS IN OTHER STATES AND ABROAD WHICH
CONSTITUTED INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  ID., PP. 310, 311. 

THE PRESENT QUESTION IS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX UPON RECEIPTS
"DERIVED FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE STATE,"  FN2  THAT IS, UNDER SEC. 2 OF
THE ACT, FROM ACTIVITIES WHICH PETITIONERS INSIST WERE INTRASTATE.  IF
PETITIONERS ARE RIGHT IN THIS CONTENTION THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT
INDIANA HAD AUTHORITY TO LAY THE TAX.  UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V.
CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113, 120, 121; BOWMAN V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 256
U.S. 642, 648, 649; NATIONAL LEATHER CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 277 U.S.
413, 423; HANS REES' SONS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 283 U.S. 123, 134; JAMES
V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 149, 161; DRAVO CONTRACTING CO.
V. JAMES, 114 F.2D 242, 247.  COMPARE WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311
U.S. 435.  IN THAT VIEW, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT RESPONDENT HAD A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ESCAPE THAT BURDEN BY ARRANGING TO HAVE THE
PROCEEDS OF ITS INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS PAID TO IT IN ANOTHER STATE. 
UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, SUPRA, P. 120; CONTINENTAL
ASSURANCE CO. V. TENNESSEE, 311 U.S. 5. 

FURTHER, AS THE SOLE SUBJECT OF THE CHALLENGED TAX IS THE INCOME
DERIVED FROM RESPONDENT'S SALES TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY THERE IS NO
OCCASION FOR APPORTIONMENT.  THE CREOSOTING OPERATIONS IN OHIO, AND THE
INCOME DERIVED FROM THEM, WERE NOT INVOLVED.  AND THE FACT THAT THE
TIES WHICH WERE SOLD TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY WERE PURCHASED BY
RESPONDENT THROUGH ORDERS GIVEN TO THE INDIANA PRODUCERS FROM
RESPONDENT'S MARIETTA OFFICE CANNOT AFFECT THE AUTHORITY OF INDIANA TO
TAX THE RECEIPTS FROM INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENT IN ITS
DEALINGS WITH THE RAILROAD COMPANY.  WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123,
140; BANKER BROTHERS V. PENNSYLVANIA, 222 U.S. 210; WILOIL CORPORATION
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 169, 175. 

AS TO THESE DEALINGS, IT APPEARS THAT RESPONDENT RECEIVED IN INDIANA
THE TIES IT PURCHASED FROM THE LOCAL PRODUCERS AND THAT RESPONDENT SOLD
AND DELIVERED THESE TIES IN INDIANA TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY.  THE FACT
THAT THE DELIVERY BY THE PRODUCERS TO RESPONDENT AND RESPONDENT'S
DELIVERY TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY TOOK PLACE AT THE SAME TIME IS NOT
IMPORTANT.  RESPONDENT WAS IN INDIANA ACTING THROUGH ITS AGENT AT THE
DESIGNATED POINTS ON THE RAILROAD LINE.  THE RAILROAD COMPANY WAS AT
THE SAME POINTS REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR.  THE TIES BROUGHT THERE
BY THE PRODUCERS WERE THEN EXAMINED AND THOSE FOUND BY THE INSPECTOR TO
BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS WERE ACCEPTED.  IN THESE
TRANSACTIONS, RESPONDENT THROUGH ITS AGENT AT ONCE ACCEPTED FROM ITS
VENDORS THE TIES WHICH THE RAILROAD COMPANY FOUND SATISFACTORY AND THEN
AND THERE SOLD AND DELIVERED THESE TIES TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY.  THESE
WERE LOCAL TRANSACTIONS,  - SALES AND DELIVERIES OF PARTICULAR TIES BY
RESPONDENT TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY IN INDIANA.  THE TRANSACTIONS WERE
NONE THE LESS INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES BECAUSE THE TIES THUS SOLD AND
DELIVERED WERE FORTHWITH LOADED ON THE RAILROAD CARS TO GO TO OHIO FOR
TREATMENT.  THE CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR THAT TREATMENT CALLED FOR THE
TREATMENT OF TIES TO BE DELIVERED BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY AT THE OHIO
PLANT, AND THE TIES BOUGHT BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY IN INDIANA, AS ABOVE
STATED, WERE TRANSPORTED AND DELIVERED BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY TO THAT
TREATMENT PLANT.  RESPONDENT DID NOT PAY THE FREIGHT FOR THAT
TRANSPORTATION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE BILLING WAS IN ITS NAME AS
CONSIGNOR IS NOT OF CONSEQUENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS SHOWING THE
COMPLETED DELIVERY TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY IN INDIANA.  SEE SUPERIOR
OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 280 U.S. 390. 

WE FIND NO GROUND FOR SAYING THAT IN TAXING THE RECEIPTS FROM THESE
LOCAL TRANSACTIONS INDIANA HAS EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY BY
TAXING INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST IT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 2 OF CHAPTER 50 OF THE ACTS OF 1933 OF INDIANA IS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 2.  THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED A TAX, MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OR
VOLUME OF GROSS INCOME, AND IN THE AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
APPLICATION OF RATES ON SUCH GROSS INCOME AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED. 
SUCH TAX SHALL BE LEVIED UPON THE ENTIRE GROSS INCOME OF ALL RESIDENTS
OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND UPON THE GROSS INCOME DERIVED FROM SOURCES
WITHIN THE STATE OF INDIANA, OF ALL PERSONS AND/OR COMPANIES, INCLUDING
BANKS, WHO ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA, BUT ARE ENGAGED
IN BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, OR WHO DERIVE GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES
WITHIN THIS STATE, AND SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER TAXES NOW OR
HEREAFTER IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR OCCUPATIONS AND/OR
ACTIVITIES.  SAID TAX SHALL APPLY TO, AND SHALL BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED
UPON, ALL GROSS INCOMES RECEIVED ON OR AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF MAY,
1933, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED."  11 BURNS INDIANA STATUTES, SEC. 64-2602. 

FN2  SEE MILES V. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 209 IND. 172, 188; 199 N.E.
372; INDIANA CREOSOTING CO. V. MCNUTT, 210 IND. 656, 663, 664; 5 N.E.2D
310. 
..END :



SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA, 313 U.S. 69 


NO. 658.  ARGUED MARCH 14, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 144 FLA.
220 - 197 SO. 736, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE HAS POWER TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF ITS CITIZENS UPON THE
HIGH SEAS WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE STATE HAS A LEGITIMATE
INTEREST AND WHERE THERE IS NO CONFLICT WITH ACTS OF CONGRESS.  P. 77. 

2.  THE FLORIDA STATUTE FORBIDDING THE USE OF DIVING EQUIPMENT FOR
THE PURPOSE OF "TAKING COMMERCIAL SPONGES FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO, OR
THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA OR OTHER WATERS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
THE STATE OF FLORIDA" IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH
PROHIBITS TAKING, IN THOSE WATERS, OUTSIDE OF STATE TERRITORIAL LIMITS,
SPONGES OF LESS THAN A PARTICULAR SIZE.  P. 74. 

3.  THE FLORIDA REGULATION IS WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF THE STATE,
REGARDLESS OF THE QUESTION OF TERRITORIAL LIMITS, WHEN APPLIED TO A
CITIZEN OF THE STATE FOUND TAKING SPONGES WITH DIVING EQUIPMENT AT A
POINT TWO MARINE LEAGUES OFF THE WEST SHORE-LINE OF THE STATE.  PP. 74,
79. 

SKIRIOTES V. FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A CONVICTION UNDER SEC. 5846 REV.
GEN. STATS.; SEC. 8087 COMP. GEN. LAWS, 1927, OF FLORIDA. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, LAMBIRIS SKIRIOTES, WAS CONVICTED IN THE COUNTY COURT OF
PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, OF THE USE ON MARCH 8, 1938, OF DIVING
EQUIPMENT IN THE TAKING OF SPONGES FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO OFF THE
COAST OF FLORIDA IN VIOLATION OF A STATE STATUTE.  COMPILED GENERAL
LAWS OF FLORIDA (1927), SEC. 8087.  THE CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA (144 FLA. 220; 197 SO. 736) AND THE CASE COMES
HERE ON APPEAL. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED WITHOUT A JURY AND THE FACTS WERE STIPULATED.  THE
STATUTE, THE TEXT OF WHICH IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN1  FORBIDS
THE USE OF DIVING SUITS, HELMETS OR OTHER APPARATUS USED BY DEEP-SEA
DIVERS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING COMMERCIAL SPONGES FROM THE GULF OF
MEXICO, OR THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA OR OTHER WATERS WITHIN THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THAT STATE. 

THE CHARGE WAS THAT APPELLANT WAS USING THE FORBIDDEN APPARATUS "AT A
POINT APPROXIMATELY TWO MARINE LEAGUES FROM MEAN LOW TIDE ON THE WEST
SHORE LINE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
THE COUNTY OF PINELLAS."  THE STATE COURT HELD THAT THE WESTERN
BOUNDARY OF FLORIDA WAS FIXED BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1885 AT
THREE MARINE LEAGUES (NINE NAUTICAL MILES) FROM THE SHORE; THAT THIS
WAS THE SAME BOUNDARY WHICH HAD BEEN DEFINED BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION
OF 1868 TO WHICH THE ACT OF CONGRESS HAD REFERRED IN ADMITTING THE
STATE OF FLORIDA TO REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS.  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1868,
15 STAT. 73.  THE STATE COURT SUSTAINED THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO FIX
ITS MARINE BOUNDARY WITH THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS, AND CONCLUDED THAT
THE STATUTE WAS VALID IN ITS APPLICATION TO APPELLANT'S CONDUCT. 

BY MOTIONS TO QUASH THE INFORMATION AND IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT,
APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF FLORIDA FIXING THE
BOUNDARY OF THE STATE AND THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH HE WAS PROSECUTED
VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION AND TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES; THAT THE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF FLORIDA COULD NOT EXTEND BEYOND
THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND HENCE COULD NOT
EXTEND "TO A GREATER DISTANCE THAN ONE MARINE LEAGUE FROM MEAN LOW
TIDE" ON THE MAINLAND OF THE STATE AND ADJACENT ISLANDS INCLUDED WITHIN
ITS TERRITORY. 

IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION APPELLANT INVOKED SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, TO WIT, ARTICLE I, SEC. 10,
CLAUSES 1 AND 3, ARTICLE II, SEC. 2, CLAUSE 2, ARTICLE VI, AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  APPELLANT ALSO RELIED UPON NUMEROUS TREATIES OF
THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE TREATY WITH SPAIN OF FEBRUARY 22,
1919, AND THE TREATIES WITH SEVERAL COUNTRIES, SIGNED BETWEEN 1924 AND
1930, INCLUSIVE, FOR THE PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING OF INTOXICATING
LIQUORS.  THERE WERE ALSO INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE DIPLOMATIC
CORRESPONDENCE AND EXTRACTS FROM STATEMENTS OF OUR SECRETARIES OF STATE
WITH RESPECT TO THE LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THESE CONTENTIONS WERE PRESENTED TO THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE AND WERE OVERRULED. 

THE FIRST POINT OF INQUIRY IS WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUS OF
APPELLANT.  THE STIPULATION OF FACTS STATES THAT APPELLANT "IS BY TRADE
AND OCCUPATION A DEEP-SEA DIVER ENGAGED IN SPONGE FISHERY, HIS
RESIDENCE ADDRESS BEING AT TARPON SPRINGS, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA,"
AND THAT HE "HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THIS BUSINESS FOR THE PAST SEVERAL
YEARS."  APPELLANT HAS NOT ASSERTED OR ATTEMPTED TO SHOW THAT HE IS NOT
A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, OR THAT HE IS A CITIZEN OF ANY STATE
OTHER THAN FLORIDA, OR THAT HE IS A NATIONAL OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY. 
IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT THAT IN HIS BRIEF IN THIS COURT, REPLYING TO THE
STATE'S ARGUMENT THAT AS A CITIZEN OF FLORIDA HE IS NOT IN A POSITION
TO QUESTION THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE AS DEFINED BY ITS CONSTITUTION,
APPELLANT HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE STATEMENT AS TO HIS CITIZENSHIP, WHILE
HE DOES CONTEST THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES WHICH THE STATE INSISTS FLOW
FROM THAT FACT. 

IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT UPON APPELLANT'S ARREST FOR VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTE, HE SUED OUT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES AND WAS RELEASED, BUT THIS DECISION WAS REVERSED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  CUNNINGHAM V. SKIRIOTES, 101 F.2D 635. 
THAT COURT THOUGHT THAT THE QUESTION OF THE STATUTE'S VALIDITY SHOULD
BE DETERMINED IN ORDERLY PROCEDURE BY THE STATE COURT SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATE REVIEW BY THIS COURT, BUT THE COURT EXPRESSED DOUBT AS TO
THE RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT TO RAISE THE QUESTION, SAYING:  "SKIRIOTES
STATES HE IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES RESIDENT IN FLORIDA, AND
THEREFORE IS A CITIZEN OF FLORIDA.  HIS BOAT, FROM WHICH HIS DIVING
OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED, WE MAY ASSUME WAS A FLORIDA VESSEL, CARRYING
FLORIDA LAW WITH HER, BUT OF COURSE AS MODIFIED BY SUPERIOR FEDERAL
LAW."  ID., PP. 636, 637. 

IN THE LIGHT OF APPELLANT'S STATEMENTS TO THE FEDERAL COURT,
JUDICIALLY RECITED, AND UPON THE PRESENT RECORD SHOWING HIS LONG
RESIDENCE IN FLORIDA AND THE ABSENCE OF A CLAIM OF ANY OTHER DOMICILE
OR OF ANY FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE, WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING THAT HE IS A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF FLORIDA.  CERTAINLY APPELLANT HAS
NOT SHOWN HIMSELF ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER RIGHTS THAN THOSE WHICH A
CITIZEN OF FLORIDA POSSESSES. 

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO QUESTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, OR OF THE
EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IN ITS INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS, IS PRESENTED.  INTERNATIONAL LAW IS A PART OF OUR LAW AND AS
SUCH IS THE LAW OF ALL STATES OF THE UNION (THE PAQUETE HABANA, 175
U.S. 677, 700), BUT IT IS A PART OF OUR LAW FOR THE APPLICATION OF ITS
OWN PRINCIPLES, AND THESE ARE CONCERNED WITH INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS AND
DUTIES AND NOT WITH DOMESTIC RIGHTS AND DUTIES.  THE ARGUMENT BASED ON
THE LIMITS OF THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS THESE ARE
DESCRIBED BY THIS COURT IN CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO. V. MELLON, 262 U.S.
100, 122, AND IN DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND STATEMENTS OF THE
POLITICAL DEPARTMENT OF OUR GOVERNMENT, IS THUS BESIDE THE POINT.  FOR,
ASIDE FROM THE QUESTION OF THE EXTENT OF CONTROL WHICH THE UNITED
STATES MAY EXERT IN THE INTEREST OF SELF-PROTECTION OVER WATERS NEAR
ITS BORDERS, ALTHOUGH BEYOND ITS TERRITORIAL LIMITS,  FN2  THE UNITED
STATES IS NOT DEBARRED BY ANY RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FROM GOVERNING
THE CONDUCT OF ITS OWN CITIZENS UPON THE HIGH SEAS OR EVEN IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES WHEN THE RIGHTS OF OTHER NATIONS OR THEIR NATIONALS ARE NOT
INFRINGED.  WITH RESPECT TO SUCH AN EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY THERE IS NO
QUESTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW,  FN3  BUT SOLELY OF THE PURPORT OF THE
MUNICIPAL LAW WHICH ESTABLISHES THE DUTY OF THE CITIZEN IN RELATION TO
HIS OWN GOVERNMENT.  AMERICAN BANANA CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 213 U.S.
347, 355, 356; UNITED STATES V. BOWMAN, 260 U.S. 94; COOK V. TAIT, 265
U.S. 47; BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421, 437.  THUS, A
CRIMINAL STATUTE DEALING WITH ACTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY INJURIOUS TO THE
GOVERNMENT, AND ARE CAPABLE OF PERPETRATION WITHOUT REGARD TO
PARTICULAR LOCALITY, IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS APPLICABLE TO CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES UPON THE HIGH SEAS OR IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, THOUGH
THERE BE NO EXPRESS DECLARATION TO THAT EFFECT.  UNITED STATES V.
BOWMAN, SUPRA,  FN4  THE BOWMAN CASE AROSE UNDER SEC. 35 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE.  18 U.S.C., SEC. 80.  ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION IS FOUND IN
THE STATUTE RELATING TO CRIMINAL CORRESPONDENCE WITH FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS.  18 U.S.C., SEC. 5.  IN COOK V. TAIT, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT
CONGRESS COULD IMPOSE A TAX UPON INCOME RECEIVED BY A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES WHO WAS DOMICILED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY ALTHOUGH THE
INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM PROPERTY THERE LOCATED.  IN BLACKMER V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS REQUIRING A CITIZEN
OF THE UNITED STATES RESIDING IN FRANCE TO RETURN TO THIS COUNTRY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF GIVING TESTIMONY AND THE SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA UPON HIM
PERSONALLY BY AN AMERICAN CONSUL WERE SUSTAINED. 

FOR THE SAME REASON, NONE OF THE TREATIES WHICH APPELLANT CITES ARE
APPLICABLE TO HIS CASE.  HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO INVOKE THE RIGHTS
OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS OR OF THE NATIONALS OF OTHER COUNTRIES.  IF A
STATUTE SIMILAR TO THE ONE IN QUESTION HAD BEEN ENACTED BY THE CONGRESS
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SPONGE FISHERY OFF THE COASTS OF THE UNITED
STATES THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE NO GROUND UPON WHICH APPELLANT COULD
CHALLENGE ITS VALIDITY. 

THE QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER SUCH AN ENACTMENT, AS APPLIED TO THOSE
WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF FLORIDA, IS BEYOND THE
COMPETENCY OF THAT STATE.  WE HAVE NOT BEEN REFERRED TO ANY LEGISLATION
OF CONGRESS WITH WHICH THE STATE STATUTE CONFLICTS.  BY THE ACT OF
AUGUST 15, 1914 FN5  (38 STAT. 692, 16 U.S.C., SEC. 781), CONGRESS HAS
PROHIBITED "ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, OR PERSON OWING DUTY OF
OBEDIENCE TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES" FROM TAKING "IN THE WATERS
OF THE GULF OF MEXICO OR THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA OUTSIDE OF STATE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS" ANY COMMERCIAL SPONGES WHICH ARE LESS THAN A GIVEN
SIZE, OR TO POSSESS SUCH SPONGES OR OFFER THEM FOR SALE.  BUT THAT ACT
IS LIMITED TO THE PARTICULAR MATTER OF SIZE AND DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE
DIVERS' APPARATUS WHICH IS THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT OF THE FLORIDA
STATUTE.  ACCORDING TO FAMILIAR PRINCIPLES, CONGRESS HAVING OCCUPIED
BUT A LIMITED FIELD, THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO PROTECT ITS
INTERESTS BY ADDITIONAL OR SUPPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION OTHERWISE VALID IS
NOT IMPAIRED.  REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 147, 150; SAVAGE V.
JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533; MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346, 350; KELLY V.
WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10.  IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT FLORIDA HAS AN
INTEREST IN THE PROPER MAINTENANCE OF THE SPONGE FISHERY AND THAT THE
STATUTE SO FAR AS APPLIED TO CONDUCT WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF
FLORIDA, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION, IS WITHIN
THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE.  MANCHESTER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 139 U.S.
240, 266.  SEE, ALSO, COOLEY V. BOARD OF PORT WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299;
MORGAN'S S.S. CO. V. LOUISIANA, 118 U.S. 455; COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE V.
BOARD OF HEALTH, 186 U.S. 380; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 402
410; CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, POST, P. 109.  NOR IS THERE ANY REPUGNANCE
IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE STATUTE APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL PERSONS
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE. 

APPELLANT'S ATTACK THUS CENTERS IN THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE HAS
TRANSCENDED ITS POWER SIMPLY BECAUSE THE STATUTE HAS BEEN APPLIED TO
HIS OPERATIONS INIMICAL TO ITS INTERESTS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL WATERS
OF FLORIDA.  THE STATE DENIES THIS, POINTING TO ITS BOUNDARIES AS
DEFINED BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1868, WHICH THE STATE INSISTS HAD
THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS AND IN WHICH THERE HAS BEEN ACQUIESCENCE OVER
A LONG PERIOD.  SEE LIPSCOMB V. GIALOURAKIS, 101 FLA. 1130, 1134, 1135;
133 SO. 104; POPE V. BLANTON, 10 F.SUPP.  18, 22.  FN6  APPELLANT
ARGUES THAT CONGRESS BY THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1868,  FN7  TO WHICH THE
STATE COURT REFERS, DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ACCEPT OR APPROVE ANY
BOUNDARIES AS SET UP IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION BUT MERELY ADMITTED
FLORIDA AND THE OTHER STATES MENTIONED TO REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS. 
AND, FURTHER, THAT IF CONGRESS CAN BE REGARDED AS HAVING APPROVED THE
BOUNDARIES DEFINED BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THESE HAVE BEEN CHANGED
BY THE TREATIES WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES RELATING TO THE SMUGGLING OF
INTOXICATING LIQUORS, IN WHICH THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THREE-MILE LIMIT
WAS DECLARED. 

BUT PUTTING ASIDE THE TREATIES, WHICH APPELLANT HAS NO STANDING TO
INVOKE, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE CONTENTIONS AS TO
THE INTERPRETATION AND EFFECT OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF 1868.  EVEN IF
IT WERE ASSUMED THAT THE LOCUS OF THE OFFENSE WAS OUTSIDE THE
TERRITORIAL WATERS OF FLORIDA, IT WOULD NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE COULD
NOT PROHIBIT ITS OWN CITIZENS FROM THE USE OF THE DESCRIBED DIVERS'
EQUIPMENT AT THAT PLACE.  NO QUESTION AS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES OVER THESE WATERS, OR OVER THE SPONGE FISHERY, IS HERE
INVOLVED.  NO RIGHT OF A CITIZEN OF ANY OTHER STATE IS HERE ASSERTED. 
THE QUESTION IS SOLELY BETWEEN APPELLANT AND HIS OWN STATE.  THE
PRESENT CASE THUS DIFFERS FROM THAT OF MANCHESTER V. MASSACHUSETTS,
SUPRA, FOR THERE THE REGULATION BY MASSACHUSETTS OF THE MENHADEN
FISHERIES IN BUZZARDS BAY WAS SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED AS AGAINST CITIZENS
OF RHODE ISLAND (ID., P. 242) AND IT WAS IN THAT RELATION THAT THE
QUESTION WHETHER BUZZARDS BAY COULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
LIMITS OF MASSACHUSETTS WAS PRESENTED AND WAS DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THAT
COMMONWEALTH.  THE QUESTION AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF A
STATE OVER ITS OWN CITIZENS ON THE HIGH SEAS WAS NOT INVOLVED. 

IF THE UNITED STATES MAY CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF ITS CITIZENS UPON THE
HIGH SEAS, WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE STATE OF FLORIDA MAY NOT LIKEWISE
GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF ITS CITIZENS UPON THE HIGH SEAS WITH RESPECT TO
MATTERS IN WHICH THE STATE HAS A LEGITIMATE INTEREST AND WHERE THERE IS
NO CONFLICT WITH ACTS OF CONGRESS.  SAVE FOR THE POWERS COMMITTED BY
THE CONSTITUTION TO THE UNION, THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAS RETAINED THE
STATUS OF A SOVEREIGN.  FLORIDA WAS ADMITTED TO THE UNION "ON EQUAL
FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES, IN ALL RESPECTS WHATSOEVER."  FN8
AND THE POWER GIVEN TO CONGRESS BY SEC. 3 OF ARTICLE IV OF THE
CONSTITUTION TO ADMIT NEW STATES RELATES ONLY TO SUCH STATES AS ARE
EQUAL TO EACH OTHER "IN POWER, DIGNITY AND AUTHORITY, EACH COMPETENT TO
EXERT THAT RESIDUUM OF SOVEREIGNTY NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES
BY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF."  COYLE V. SMITH, 221 U.S. 559, 567. 
THERE IS NOTHING NOVEL IN THE DOCTRINE THAT A STATE MAY EXERCISE ITS
AUTHORITY OVER ITS CITIZENS ON THE HIGH SEAS.  THAT DOCTRINE WAS
EXPOUNDED IN THE CASE OF THE HAMILTON, 207 U.S. 398.  THERE, A STATUTE
OF DELAWARE GIVING DAMAGES FOR DEATH WAS HELD TO BE A VALID EXERCISE OF
THE POWER OF THE STATE, EXTENDING TO THE CASE OF A CITIZEN OF THAT
STATE WRONGFULLY KILLED ON THE HIGH SEAS IN A VESSEL BELONGING TO A
DELAWARE CORPORATION BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANOTHER VESSEL ALSO BELONGING
TO A DELAWARE CORPORATION.  IF IT BE SAID THAT THE CASE WAS ONE OF
VESSELS AND FOR THE RECOGNITION OF THE FORMULA THAT A VESSEL AT SEA IS
REGARDED AS PART OF THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE, THAT PRINCIPLE WOULD
ALSO BE APPLICABLE HERE.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT APPELLANT DID NOT
CONDUCT HIS OPERATIONS BY MEANS OF FLORIDA BOATS.  THAT HE DID SO
CONDUCT THEM WAS ASSUMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN DEALING
WITH APPELLANT'S ARREST IN CUNNINGHAM V. SKIRIOTES, SUPRA, AND THAT
REASONABLE INFERENCE HAS NOT IN ANY WAY BEEN REBUTTED HERE. 

BUT THE PRINCIPLE RECOGNIZED IN THE HAMILTON, SUPRA, WAS NOT LIMITED
BY THE CONCEPTION OF VESSELS AS FLOATING TERRITORY.  THERE WAS
RECOGNITION OF THE BROADER PRINCIPLE OF THE POWER OF A SOVEREIGN STATE
TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF ITS CITIZENS ON THE HIGH SEAS.  THE COURT
OBSERVED THAT "APART FROM THE SUBORDINATION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES" THERE WAS NO DOUBT OF ITS POWER
TO MAKE ITS STATUTE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR.  AND THE BASIC
REASON WAS, AS THE COURT PUT IT, THAT WHEN SO APPLIED "THE STATUTE
GOVERNS THE RECIPROCAL LIABILITIES OF TWO CORPORATIONS, EXISTING ONLY
BY VIRTUE OF THE LAWS OF DELAWARE, AND PERMANENTLY WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION, FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONDUCT SET IN MOTION BY THEM
THERE, OPERATING OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE, IT IS TRUE, BUT
WITHIN NO OTHER TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION."  IF CONFINED TO
CORPORATIONS, "THE STATE WOULD HAVE POWER TO ENFORCE ITS LAW TO THE
EXTENT OF THEIR PROPERTY IN EVERY CASE."  BUT THE COURT WENT ON TO SAY
THAT "THE SAME AUTHORITY WOULD EXIST AS TO CITIZENS DOMICILED WITHIN
THE STATE, EVEN WHEN PERSONALLY ON THE HIGH SEAS, AND NOT ONLY COULD BE
ENFORCED BY THE STATE IN CASE OF THEIR RETURN, WHICH THEIR DOMICIL BY
ITS VERY MEANING PROMISED, BUT IN PROPER CASES WOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN
OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY THE COURTS OF OTHER STATES."  THAT IS, "THE BARE
FACT OF THE PARTIES BEING OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY IN A PLACE BELONGING TO
NO OTHER SOVEREIGN WOULD NOT LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, AS
ACCEPTED BY CIVILIZED THEORY."  THE HAMILTON, SUPRA, P. 403.  WHEN ITS
ACTION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATION, THE SOVEREIGN
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OVER THE CONDUCT OF ITS CITIZENS UPON THE HIGH
SEAS IS ANALOGOUS TO THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER
ITS CITIZENS IN LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION
REFERS TO THE "GULF OF MEXICO, OR THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA OR OTHER
WATERS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA."  BUT WE
ARE DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED
TO APPELLANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF STATE POWER.  THE STATE HAS APPLIED
IT TO APPELLANT AT THE PLACE OF HIS OPERATIONS AND IF THE STATE HAD
POWER TO PROHIBIT THE DESCRIBED CONDUCT OF ITS CITIZEN AT THAT PLACE WE
ARE NOT CONCERNED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WITH
THE RULING OF THE STATE COURT AS TO THE EXTENT OF TERRITORIAL WATERS. 
THE QUESTION BEFORE US MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE TOTAL
POWER THE STATE POSSESSES (CASTILLO V. MCCONNICO, 168 U.S. 674, 684;
HEBERT V. LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316; UNITED GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 303
U.S. 123, 142), AND SO CONSIDERED WE FIND NO GROUND FOR HOLDING THAT
THE ACTION OF THE STATE WITH RESPECT TO APPELLANT TRANSCENDED THE
LIMITS OF THAT POWER. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE STATUTE, ORIGINALLY SEC. 4 OF CHAPTER 7389 OF THE LAWS OF
FLORIDA OF 1917, CARRIED FORWARD AS SEC. 5846 OF THE REVISED GENERAL
STATUTES OF FLORIDA AND AS SEC. 8087 OF THE COMPILED GENERAL LAWS OF
1927, IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, PERSONS, FIRM OR CORPORATION TO
MAINTAIN AND USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CATCHING OR TAKING COMMERCIAL
SPONGES FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO, OR THE STRAITS OF FLORIDA OR OTHER
WATERS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVING
SUITS, HELMETS OR OTHER APPARATUS USED BY DEEP-SEA DIVERS. 

"ANYONE VIOLATING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE
FINED IN THE SUM NOT EXCEEDING FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR BY IMPRISONMENT
NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT."  SEE
LIPSCOMB V. GIALOURAKIS, 101 FLA. 1130; 133 SO. 104. 

FN2  SEE JESSUP, "THE LAW OF TERRITORIAL WATERS AND MARITIME
JURISDICTION," INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER, P. XXXIII, ALSO PP. 9 ET SEQ., 80
ET SEQ.; CHURCH V. HUBBART, 2 CRANCH 187; THE GRACE AND RUBY, 283 F.
475; THE HENRY L. MARSHALL, 286 F. 260, 292 F. 486; UNITED STATES V.
FORD, 3 F.2D 643; 40 HARV. L.R. 1. 

FN3  OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 4TH ED., VOL. I, SEC. 145, P. 281;
STORY, CONFLICT OF LAWS, 8TH ED., SEC. 540, P. 755; MOORE'S
INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST, VOL. II, PP. 255, 256; HYDE, INTERNATIONAL
LAW, VOL. I, SEC. 240, P. 424; BORCHARD, DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF
CITIZENS ABROAD, SEC. 13, PP. 21, 22. 

FN4  AS TO VENUE OF PROSECUTIONS FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED UPON THE HIGH
SEAS OR ELSEWHERE OUT OF THE JURISDICTION OF ANY PARTICULAR STATE OR
DISTRICT SEE 28 U.S.C., SEC. 102. 

FN5  THIS ACT REPEALED THE ACT OF JUNE 20, 1906, 34 STAT. 313, WHICH
WAS BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ABBY DODGE, 223 U.S. 166. 

FN6  THE BILL IN THIS CASE WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF
THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  POPE V. BLANTON, 299 U.S. 521. 

FN7  15 STAT. 73. 

FN8  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1845, 5 STAT. 742. 
..END :









MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 80 


NO. 577.  ARGUED MARCH 13, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DISMISSING A
COMPLAINT AGAINST AN INTERSTATE CARRIER BY AN INDIVIDUAL, CHARGING
UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THE MATTER OF FACILITIES AFFORDED
HIM AS A PASSENGER ON AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY, IS REVIEWABLE, THOUGH
NEGATIVE IN FORM.  P. 92. 

2.  THE RIGHT OF A COLORED CITIZEN TO COMPLAIN TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIM, BECAUSE OF HIS RACE,
IN THE MATTER OF FACILITIES AFFORDED ON AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD JOURNEY,
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON WHETHER HE INTENDS TO MAKE A SIMILAR JOURNEY IN
THE FUTURE.  P. 93. 

3.  IN THE CASE OF A PASSENGER, AS IN THE CASE OF A SHIPPER, IT IS
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
DISCRIMINATION IS UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL, UPON INQUIRY INTO THE PARTICULAR
FACTS AND THE PRACTICE OF THE CARRIER IN THE PARTICULAR RELATION.  P.
93. 

4.  BECAUSE OF HIS RACE, A COLORED MAN WHO HAD PAID A FIRST-CLASS
FARE FOR AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY, AND WHO OFFERED TO PAY THE PROPER
CHARGE FOR AN AVAILABLE SEAT IN A PULLMAN CAR, WAS COMPELLED, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CUSTOM, TO LEAVE THAT CAR AND RIDE IN A SECOND-CLASS
CAR, AND WAS THUS DENIED THE STANDARD CONVENIENCES AFFORDED FIRST-CLASS
PASSENGERS.  HELD: 

(1)  THE DISCRIMINATION WAS ESSENTIALLY UNJUST AND VIOLATED THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 94. 

(2)  PARAGRAPH 1 OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, WHICH DECLARES IT UNLAWFUL FOR
ANY CARRIER TO SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON TO ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER,
APPLIES TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST COLORED PASSENGERS BECAUSE OF THEIR
RACE, AND REQUIRES THAT COLORED PERSONS WHO BUY FIRST-CLASS TICKETS
SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH ACCOMMODATIONS EQUAL IN COMFORTS AND
CONVENIENCES TO THOSE AFFORDED TO FIRST-CLASS WHITE PASSENGERS.  P.
95. 

(3)  THE FACT THAT THERE WAS BUT ONE INSTANCE OF DISCRIMINATION IN
THE CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT AFFORDS NO REASON WHY SUCH DISCRIMINATION
SHOULD NOT BE FORBIDDEN FOR THE FUTURE.  P. 96. 

(4)  THE FACT THAT THERE IS COMPARATIVELY LITTLE DEMAND FOR FIRST
CLASS ACCOMMODATIONS FOR COLORED PEOPLE CAN NOT JUSTIFY SUCH
DISCRIMINATION.  P. 97. 

MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  229 I.C.C. 703. 

THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN THROUGH INTERSTATE TRAVEL, TO WHICH THE
SEPARATE COACH LAW OF ARKANSAS WAS INAPPLICABLE.  MCCABE V. ATCHISON,
T. & S.F. RY., 235 U.S. 151, 160; S.C., 186 F. 966.  SEE, ALSO,
LOUISVILLE, N.O. & T. RY. CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 133 U.S. 587, 590;
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. KENTUCKY, 179 U.S. 388, 391; HINES V.
DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52. 

THE COMMISSION DISREGARDED THE LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT AND
CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY ALL FEDERAL COURTS, THAT THE SEPARATE COACH
LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES DO NOT APPLY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HART
V. STATE, 60 A. 457; HUFF V. NORFOLK & SOUTHERN RY. CO., 171 N.C. 203;
WASHINGTON, B. & A. ELECTRIC R. CO. V. WALLER, 289 F. 598, 600. 

SMITH V. TENNESSEE, 100 TENN. 494, AND SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. NORTON,
112 MISS.  302, CITED BY THE DEFENDANTS, HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED OR
APPROVED. 

THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE EMBRACES ALL THE INSTRUMENTS BY WHICH
SUCH COMMERCE MAY BE CONDUCTED; AND WHEN THE SUBJECT TO WHICH THE POWER
APPLIES IS NATIONAL IN ITS CHARACTER, OR ADMITS OF UNIFORMITY OF
REGULATION, THE POWER IS EXCLUSIVE OF ALL STATE AUTHORITY. 

THE RIGHT OF APPELLANT TO FIRST-CLASS ACCOMMODATIONS AND FACILITIES
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC.  MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T. &
S.F. RY. CO., 235 U.S. 151, 161, 162; S.C., 186 F. 966, 977; BUCHANAN
V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60, 74-80; MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305
U.S. 337, 350; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S.
344, 351, 352. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PERSONAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
APPELLANT WERE RUTHLESSLY VIOLATED.  PERSONAL RIGHTS INCLUDE PERSONAL
LIBERTY.  PERSONAL RIGHTS INCLUDE THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND
THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT FOR FIRST-CLASS SERVICES, ACCOMMODATIONS AND
FACILITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE THE
CONTRACT. 

MANY DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION CONDEMN SUCH DISCRIMINATION AS WAS
PRACTICED IN THIS CASE. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM FOR THE
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH EXCLUDES THE APPLICATION OF
LOCAL SEPARATE COACH LAWS. 

CONGRESS HAS PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION, UNDUE PREJUDICE, UNREASONABLE
AND UNDUE ADVANTAGE AND PREFERENCE IN RELATION TO CITIZENS TRAVELING AS
INTERSTATE PASSENGERS. 

THE APPELLANT HAVING SUFFERED DIRECT INJURY TO HIS RIGHTS GUARANTEED
BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS MADE PURSUANT THERETO HAS THE RIGHT TO
PROSECUTE THESE PROCEEDINGS. 

CUSTOM DOES NOT JUSTIFY CONTINUED UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. 

REFUND OF MONEY IS NOT ADEQUATE REDRESS FOR THE WRONGFUL EXCLUSION. 
BROWN V. MEMPHIS & C. RY. CO., 7 F. 51. 

THE COURT SHOULD TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
COLORED PEOPLE IN THE LACK OF FACILITIES ON INTERSTATE RAILROADS.  OHIO
BELL TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 301 U.S. 292, 301. 

APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT HE HAS LEGAL INTEREST IN THE
ACCOMMODATIONS TO BE FURNISHED IN THE FUTURE BY THE ROCK ISLAND ON ITS
TRAIN NO. 45.  ROCHESTER TEL. CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125. 

APPELLANT'S CASE BEFORE THE COMMISSION RELATED SOLELY TO THE
ACCOMMODATIONS FURNISHED TO HIM ON A SINGLE TRIP FROM CHICAGO TO HOT
SPRINGS.  HE NEITHER ALLEGED NOR SUBMITTED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE
WILL HAVE OCCASION OR INTENDS TO MAKE A SIMILAR TRIP IN THE FUTURE.  IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD SEEM THAT RECOVERY OF DAMAGES, IF ANY,
SUSTAINED ON HIS ONE TRIP WOULD CONSTITUTE COMPLETE RELIEF.  HE HAS AN
ACTION AT LAW PENDING IN A STATE COURT FOR SUCH DAMAGES. 

HE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SEEK AVOIDANCE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
OTHER COLORED PASSENGERS.  THIS COURT HAS SAID SEVERAL TIMES THAT IT
"WILL NOT LISTEN TO A PARTY WHO COMPLAINS OF A GRIEVANCE WHICH IS NOT
HIS."  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY., 218 U.S.
88, 109, AND CASES CITED; ARKADELPHIA CO. V. ST. LOUIS S.W. RY. CO.,
249 U.S. 134, 149; AVENT V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 127; MCCABE V.
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 235 U.S. 151; MOFFAT TUNNEL LEAGUE V.
UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 113; HINES TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S.
143, 148; SPRUNT V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 249, 254; PITTSBURGH & W.
VA. RY. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 479, 486. 

THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO AWARD FULL DAMAGES FOR ANY VIOLATION
OF THE ACT.  SEC. 16(1) INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT; LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO.
V. OHIO VALLEY TIE CO., 242 U.S. 288. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES SEEM TO INDICATE THAT APPELLANT'S ACTION AT LAW IS
BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF COMMON LAW RIGHTS.  SUCH SUITS HAVE BEEN
MAINTAINED IN SEVERAL INSTANCES; IN NONE WAS IT HELD THAT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION WAS NECESSARY.  CHILES
V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO., 218 U.S. 71; WASHINGTON, B. & A. ELECTRIC
R. CO. V. WALLER, 289 F. 598; HUFF V. NORFOLK-S.R. CO., 88 S.E. 344. 

THE DEFENDANTS URGED THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RAISE ANY
ISSUE AS TO PRACTICE, SINCE THE COMPLAINT MENTIONS BUT A SINGLE
INSTANCE OF ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICE, AND THAT ONE INSTANCE
DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A PRACTICE. 

COMPLAINT SHALL AT ANY TIME BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF
DIRECT DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT.  CF., INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V.
BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25, 39. 

BUT THE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR OF AN ASSOCIATION OR LEAGUE TO
PROSECUTE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION DOES NOT IN ITSELF CONFER
THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER AND THE COROLLARY RIGHT TO TAKE A DIRECT APPEAL TO
THIS COURT.  HINES TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 143, 148;
PITTSBURGH & W. VA. RY. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 479.  SEE ALSO
SPRUNT V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 249, 256-257; ALGOMA COAL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 11 F.SUPP.  487, 495-496; UNITED STATES V. MERCHANTS
ASSN., 242 U.S. 178, 188. 

THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 

NOT ALL DISCRIMINATIONS ARE UNLAWFUL UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT BUT ONLY THOSE THAT ARE UNDUE, UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUST.  WHETHER A
DISCRIMINATION IS UNDUE, UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUST IS A QUESTION OF FACT
FOR THE COMMISSION.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N,
162 U.S. 197; MANUFACTURERS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 457,
481; NASHVILLE RY. V. TENNESSEE, 262 U.S. 318; UNITED STATES V.
TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344. 

IN DETERMINING APPELLANT'S CASE THE COMMISSION PROPERLY GAVE
CONSIDERATION TO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY, WHICH HAS FOR ITS
PURPOSE THE MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  IT WAS
WITHIN ITS POWER, AND THEREFORE NOT IN EXCESS OF ITS AUTHORITY, TO
DECLINE TO ISSUE AN ORDER, OPERATING INDEFINITELY AND PERMANENTLY IN
THE FUTURE, THE EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD BE TO REQUIRE THE CARRIER TO
PROVIDE FACILITIES WHICH APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN HE WILL EVER USE, AT
AN EXPENSE WIDELY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE DEMAND FOR SUCH FACILITIES,
AND THE REVENUE TO BE DERIVED THEREFROM, IN THE FACE OF THE UNDISPUTED
EVIDENCE THAT NEGRO PASSENGERS PURCHASING FIRST-CLASS TICKETS ARE
SEATED IN THE DRAWING ROOMS OF PULLMAN CARS, AT THE REGULAR SEAT FARE,
AND THAT ORDINARILY SUCH FACILITIES ARE AMPLE TO TAKE CARE OF THE
COLORED DEMAND.  CF. WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R.,
257 U.S. 563, 585; NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 189-190;
UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70, 75; DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK RY. V.
UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456; TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 530, 531;
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266;
PIEDMONT & NOR.  RY. V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 469; 286 U.S. 299;
ATCHISON RY. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 283 U.S. 380; FLORIDA V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 6-7. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT NEITHER REQUIRES NOR PROHIBITS
SEGREGATION. 

THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION WAS VERY NARROW IN ITS
SCOPE.  IT DID NOT DISCLOSE GENERAL CONDITIONS; IT RELATED ALMOST
ENTIRELY TO ONE TRAIN OF ONE RAILROAD.  THE COMMISSION OBVIOUSLY COULD
NOT LAWFULLY ISSUE AN ORDER HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION, UPON THE NARROW
RECORD BEFORE IT. 

THE GENERAL QUESTION WHETHER SEGREGATION IS TO BE ABOLISHED IN ALL
SOUTHWEST - WOULD SEEM TO BE ONE APPROPRIATELY FOR DETERMINATION BY
CONGRESS. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER CONTRAVENES NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  NEW
YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 591, 600-601. 

THE QUESTION OF SEGREGATION IS NOT HERE INVOLVED.  COUNCILL V. W. &
A.R. CO., 1 I.C.C. 399, 345; HEARD V. GEORGIA R. CO., 1 I.C.C. 428; 3
I.C.C. 111; EDWARDS V. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R. CO., 12 I.C.C. 247;
GAINES V. S.A.L. RY., 16 I.C.C. 471.  SEE ALSO COZART V. SOUTHERN RY.
CO., 16 I.C.C. 226; CROSBY V. ST. LOUIS-S. RY. CO. 112 I.C.C. 239, AND
HARDEN V. PULLMAN CO., 120 I.C.C. 359. 

THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ARKANSAS SEGREGATION STATUTE
TO INTERSTATE PASSENGERS, AND OF ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY IF SO
APPLICABLE, IS NOT NECESSARILY PRESENTED FOR DECISION IN THIS CASE. 
SEE LOUISVILLE, N.O. & T.R. CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 133 U.S. 587;
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. KENTUCKY, 179 U.S. 388; MCCABE V.
ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 235 U.S. 151; CHILES V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO
RY. CO., 218 U.S. 71; PLESSY V. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 540; HALL V. DECUIR,
95 U.S. 485. 

MANY DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF INTERSTATE
CARRIERS TO REQUIRE SEGREGATION. 

AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF STATE SEGREGATION STATUTES TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SEE HALL V. DECUIR, SUPRA; MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY.
CO., 186 F. 966, 972; 235 U.S. 151; HART V. STATE, 60 A. 457, 462;
WASHINGTON, B. & A. ELECTRIC R. CO. V. WALLER, 289 F. 598; SMITH V.
STATE, 46 S.W. 566; ALABAMA & V. RY. CO. V. MORRIS, 60 SO. 11; SOUTHERN
RY. CO. V. NORTON, 73 SO. 1; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. PRIMROSE, 73 SO. 2. 

THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IS EXHAUSTED WHEN THERE IS FOUND TO BE A
RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSIONS APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE
BODY.  ROCHESTER TEL. CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 146. 

APPELLANT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ARKANSAS
SEPARATE-COACH STATUTE REMOVES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT FROM THE CASE, AND THEIR DISCUSSION BY APPELLANT THUS
BECOMES IRRELEVANT. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE ARKANSAS SEPARATE-COACH STATUTE APPLIES TO AN
INTERSTATE PASSENGER IS OF NO IMPORTANCE, UNLESS IT CAN BE FOUND TO
HAVE CONTROLLED THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO THE EXCLUSION OF ITS OWN
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT.  AN ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT, WHILE THE COMMISSION
TOOK NOTICE OF THE STATUTE, IT DEALT WITH THE QUESTION OF
ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THE
QUESTION OF AN UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR PREJUDICE BEING ONE
OF FACT AND NOT OF LAW, THE COMMISSION'S DECISION THAT THE PRESENT
ACCOMMODATIONS FURNISHED COLORED PASSENGERS ON THE TRAIN INVOLVED MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IS CONCLUSIVE. 

THE SEVERAL COURT DECISIONS CITED BY APPELLANT TO SUPPORT HIS
CONTENTION THAT THE ARKANSAS LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO AN INTERSTATE
PASSENGER ARE NOT PERTINENT, FOR NONE OF THEM DEALT WITH A PROCEEDING
IN WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD PREVIOUSLY EXERCISED
ITS STATUTORY POWER.  THEY CALLED FOR A DIFFERENT JUDICIAL POWER FROM
THAT INVOKED HERE.  THIS CASE INVOLVES MERELY A REQUEST BY APPELLANT
FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING FROM A BODY WHOSE LIMITS OF JURISDICTION
HE WAS BOUND TO KNOW.  BESIDES, THE CITED CASES DO NOT ESTABLISH
FINALLY THAT A STATE MAY NOT ADOPT A LEGISLATIVE POLICY, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER, FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE PUBLIC PEACE
AND ORDER, EVEN THOUGH SUCH A POLICY MAY INCIDENTALLY AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION OCCUPYING THE SAME
FIELD.  THE CONGRESS HAS ENACTED NO LEGISLATION PROHIBITING THE
SEPARATION OF RACES ON INTERSTATE JOURNEYS. 

APPELLEES PROVIDE ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH, THE COMMISSION FINDS, MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THE COMMISSION HAS
NOT MADE MERE VOLUME OF BUSINESS THE TEST OF A RIGHT, BUT HAS MERELY
PERMITTED VOLUME OF BUSINESS TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE
CAPACITY OF ACCOMMODATIONS FURNISHED.  THIS IS PROPERLY WITHIN THE
EXPERT DISCRETION OF THE REGULATING BODY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, ARTHUR W. MITCHELL, FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ALLEGING AN UNJUST DISCRIMINATION IN THE FURNISHING
OF ACCOMMODATIONS TO COLORED PASSENGERS ON THE LINE OF THE CHICAGO,
ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY FROM CHICAGO TO HOT SPRINGS,
ARKANSAS, IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THE COMMISSION
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (229 I.C.C. 703) AND APPELLANT BROUGHT THIS
SUIT TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  UPON A HEARING BEFORE THREE
JUDGES, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE FACTS AS STATED IN THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, AND HELD THAT THE LATTER WERE SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS SUPPORTED BY
ITS FINDINGS.  THE COURT THEN RULED THAT IT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION,
AND ITS DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WAS STATED TO BE UPON THAT GROUND. 
THE CASE COMES HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. 47A.    THE FOLLOWING
FACTS WERE FOUND BY THE COMMISSION:  APPELLANT, A NEGRO RESIDENT OF
CHICAGO, AND A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED
STATES, LEFT CHICAGO FOR HOT SPRINGS ON THE EVENING OF APRIL 20, 1937,
OVER THE LINES OF THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY TO MEMPHIS,
TENNESSEE, AND THE ROCK ISLAND BEYOND, TRAVELING ON A ROUND-TRIP TICKET
HE HAD PURCHASED AT THREE CENTS PER MILE.  HE HAD REQUESTED A BEDROOM
ON THE CHICAGO-HOT SPRINGS PULLMAN SLEEPING CAR BUT NONE BEING
AVAILABLE HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A COMPARTMENT AS FAR AS MEMPHIS IN THE
SLEEPER DESTINED TO NEW ORLEANS.  JUST BEFORE THE TRAIN REACHED
MEMPHIS, ON THE MORNING AFTER LEAVING CHICAGO, HE HAD A PULLMAN PORTER
TRANSFER HIM TO THE CHICAGO-HOT SPRINGS SLEEPER ON THE SAME TRAIN. 
SPACE WAS THERE AVAILABLE AND THE PORTER ASSIGNED HIM A PARTICULAR SEAT
IN THAT CAR FOR WHICH HE WAS TO PAY THE ESTABLISHED FARE OF NINETY
CENTS.  SHORTLY AFTER LEAVING MEMPHIS AND CROSSING THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER INTO ARKANSAS, THE TRAIN CONDUCTOR TOOK UP THE MEMPHIS-HOT
SPRINGS PORTION OF HIS TICKET BUT REFUSED TO ACCEPT PAYMENT FOR THE
PULLMAN SEAT FROM MEMPHIS AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUSTOM, COMPELLED HIM
OVER HIS PROTEST AND FINALLY UNDER THREAT OF ARREST TO MOVE INTO THE
CAR PROVIDED FOR COLORED PASSENGERS.  THIS WAS IN PURPORTED COMPLIANCE
WITH AN ARKANSAS STATUTE REQUIRING SEGREGATION OF COLORED FROM WHITE
PERSONS BY THE USE OF CARS OR PARTITIONED SECTIONS PROVIDING "EQUAL,
BUT SEPARATE AND SUFFICIENT ACCOMMODATIONS" FOR BOTH RACES.  LATER THE
CONDUCTOR RETURNED THE PORTION OF THE TICKET HE HAD TAKEN UP AND
ADVISED APPELLANT THAT HE COULD GET A REFUND ON THE BASIS OF THE COACH
FARE OF TWO CENTS PER MILE FROM MEMPHIS.  THAT REFUND WAS NOT CLAIMED
FROM DEFENDANTS AND WAS NOT SOUGHT BEFORE THE COMMISSION, BUT IT WAS
FOUND THAT THE CARRIERS STOOD READY TO MAKE IT UPON APPLICATION. 
APPELLANT HAS AN ACTION AT LAW PENDING AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS, FOR DAMAGES INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER. 

THE COMMISSION FURTHER FOUND THAT THE PULLMAN CAR CONTAINED TEN
ONE OF THE DRAWING ROOMS WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO SEGREGATION UNDER THE
STATE LAW AND ORDINARILY SUCH COMBINATIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO COLORED
PASSENGERS UPON DEMAND, THE NINETY CENT FARE BEING APPLICABLE. 
OCCASIONALLY THEY ARE USED BY COLORED PASSENGERS BUT IN THIS INSTANCE
BOTH DRAWING ROOMS WERE ALREADY OCCUPIED BY WHITE PASSENGERS.  THE
PULLMAN CAR WAS OF MODERN DESIGN AND HAD ALL THE USUAL FACILITIES AND
CONVENIENCES FOUND IN STANDARD SLEEPING CARS.  IT WAS AIR-CONDITIONED,
HAD HOT AND COLD RUNNING WATER AND SEPARATE FLUSHABLE TOILETS FOR MEN
AND WOMEN.  IT WAS IN EXCELLENT CONDITION THROUGHOUT.  FIRST-CLASS
WHITE PASSENGERS HAD, IN ADDITION TO THE PULLMAN SLEEPER, THE EXCLUSIVE
USE OF THE TRAIN'S ONLY DINING-CAR AND ONLY OBSERVATION-PARLOR CAR, THE
LATTER HAVING SOMEWHAT THE SAME ACCOMMODATIONS FOR DAY USE AS THE
PULLMAN CAR. 

THE COACH FOR COLORED PASSENGERS, THOUGH OF STANDARD SIZE AND STEEL
CONSTRUCTION, WAS "AN OLD COMBINATION AFFAIR," NOT AIR-CONDITIONED,
DIVIDED BY PARTITIONS INTO THREE MAIN PARTS, ONE FOR COLORED SMOKERS,
ONE FOR WHITE SMOKERS AND ONE IN THE CENTER FOR COLORED MEN AND WOMEN,
KNOWN AS THE WOMEN'S SECTION, IN WHICH APPELLANT SAT.  THERE WAS A
TOILET IN EACH SECTION BUT ONLY THE ONE IN THE WOMEN'S SECTION WAS
EQUIPPED FOR FLUSHING AND IT WAS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF COLORED
WOMEN.  THE CAR WAS WITHOUT WASH BASINS, SOAP, TOWELS OR RUNNING WATER,
EXCEPT IN THE WOMEN'S SECTION.  THE COMMISSION STATED THAT, ACCORDING
TO APPELLANT, THE CAR WAS "FILTHY AND FOUL SMELLING," BUT THAT THE
TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS' WITNESSES WAS TO THE CONTRARY. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT IN JULY, 1937, ABOUT THREE MONTHS AFTER
COMPLAINANT'S JOURNEY ABOVE MENTIONED, THE OLD COMBINATION COACH WAS
REPLACED BY A MODERN, ALL-STEEL, AIR-CONDITIONED COACH, WHICH WAS
DIVIDED BY A PARTITION INTO TWO SECTIONS, ONE FOR COLORED AND THE OTHER
FOR WHITE PASSENGERS, AND HAD COMFORTABLE SEATS.  IN EACH SECTION THERE
ARE WASH BASINS, RUNNING HOT AND COLD WATER, "AND SEPARATE FLUSH
TOILETS FOR MEN AND WOMEN."  THIS COACH, THE COMMISSION SAID, WAS "AS
FULLY DESIRABLE IN ALL ITS APPOINTMENTS AS THE COACH USED ENTIRELY BY
WHITE PASSENGERS TRAVELING AT SECOND-CLASS FARES." 

THE COMMISSION ALSO FOUND THAT THE DEMAND OF COLORED PASSENGERS FOR
PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS OVER THE ROUTE IN QUESTION WAS SHOWN TO HAVE
BEEN NEGLIGIBLE FOR MANY YEARS; THAT "ONLY ABOUT ONE NEGRO TO TWENTY
WHITE PASSENGERS RIDES THIS TRAIN FROM AND TO POINTS ON THE LINE
BETWEEN MEMPHIS AND HOT SPRINGS," AND THERE IS HARDLY EVER A DEMAND
FROM A COLORED PASSENGER FOR PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS.  THE CONDUCTOR
ESTIMATED THAT THIS DEMAND DID NOT AMOUNT TO ONE PER YEAR.  WHAT DEMAND
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AT TICKET OFFICES DID NOT APPEAR. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION WAS THUS STATED:  "THE PRESENT COACH
PROPERLY TAKES CARE OF COLORED SECOND-CLASS PASSENGERS, AND THE DRAWING
ROOMS AND COMPARTMENTS IN THE SLEEPER PROVIDE PROPER PULLMAN
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR COLORED FIRST-CLASS PASSENGERS, BUT THERE ARE NO
DININGCAR NOR OBSERVATION-PARLOR CAR ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE LATTER, AND
THEY CANNOT LAWFULLY RANGE THROUGH THE TRAIN." 

THE COMMISSION, THOUGH TREATING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE LAW AS A
MATTER FOR STATE AUTHORITIES, THOUGHT THAT IN DECIDING THE CASE ON THE
FACTS PRESENTED IT MUST RECOGNIZE THAT THE STATE LAW REQUIRED THE
DEFENDANTS TO SEGREGATE COLORED PASSENGERS; THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
THE PRESENT COLORED-PASSENGER COACH AND THE PULLMAN DRAWING ROOMS MET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT; AND THAT AS THERE WAS COMPARATIVELY LITTLE
COLORED TRAFFIC AND NO INDICATION THAT THERE WAS LIKELY TO BE SUCH
DEMAND FOR DINING-CAR AND OBSERVATION-PARLOR CAR ACCOMMODATIONS BY
COLORED PASSENGERS AS TO WARRANT THE RUNNING OF ANY EXTRA CARS OR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PARTITIONS, THE DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICE WAS
"PLAINLY NOT UNJUST OR UNDUE."  THE COMMISSION OBSERVED THAT IT WAS
ONLY DIFFERENCES IN TREATMENT OF THE LATTER CHARACTER THAT WERE
"UNLAWFUL AND WITHIN THE POWER OF THIS COMMISSION TO CONDEMN, REMOVE
AND PREVENT." 

FROM THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, FIVE COMMISSIONERS DISSENTED. 

THE UNITED STATES AS A PARTY TO THIS SUIT TO SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, AND ONE OF THE APPELLEES, DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW AND HAS FILED A MEMORANDUM STATING ITS
REASONS.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCLUDES THAT THE COMMISSION ERRONEOUSLY
SUPPOSED THAT THE ARKANSAS SEPARATE COACH LAW APPLIED TO AN INTERSTATE
PASSENGER AND ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED THAT THE SMALL NUMBER OF COLORED
PASSENGERS ASKING FOR FIRST-CLASS ACCOMMODATIONS JUSTIFIED AN
OCCASIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. 

THE OTHER APPELLEES - THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE
CARRIERS - APPEAR IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT. 

FIRST.  THE COMMISSION CHALLENGES THE STANDING OF APPELLANT TO BRING
THIS SUIT.  WE FIND THE OBJECTION UNTENABLE.  THIS QUESTION DOES NOT
TOUCH THE MERITS OF THE SUIT, BUT MERELY THE AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT
COURT TO ENTERTAIN IT.  THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS ONE OF
DISMISSAL OF APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT DID NOT FORECLOSE THE RIGHT OF
REVIEW.  APPELLANT WAS AN AGGRIEVED PARTY AND THE NEGATIVE FORM OF THE
ORDER IS NOT CONTROLLING.  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES,
307 U.S. 125, 143. 

NOR IS IT DETERMINATIVE THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT APPELLANT
INTENDS TO MAKE A SIMILAR RAILROAD JOURNEY.  HE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
FREE TO TRAVEL, AND HE IS ENTITLED TO GO BY THIS PARTICULAR ROUTE
WHENEVER HE CHOOSES TO TAKE IT AND IN THAT EVENT TO HAVE FACILITIES FOR
HIS JOURNEY WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIM WHICH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT FORBIDS.  HE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT DOES
FORBID THE CONDUCT OF WHICH HE COMPLAINS. 

THE QUESTION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER THUS INVOLVES THE PRIMARY QUESTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY,
THAT IS, WHETHER APPELLANT TOOK AN APPROPRIATE COURSE IN SEEKING A
RULING OF THE COMMISSION.  THE ESTABLISHED FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION
GIVES THE ANSWER.  THE DETERMINATION WHETHER A DISCRIMINATION BY AN
INTERSTATE CARRIER IS UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL NECESSITATES AN INQUIRY INTO
PARTICULAR FACTS AND THE PRACTICE OF THE CARRIER IN A PARTICULAR
RELATION, AND THIS UNDERLYING INQUIRY IS PRECISELY THAT WHICH THE
COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE.  AS TO THE DUTY TO SEEK A
DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION IN SUCH A CASE, WE DO NOT SEE THAT A
PASSENGER WOULD BE IN ANY BETTER SITUATION THAN A SHIPPER.  TEXAS &
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426; ROBINSON V.
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 222 U.S. 506; MITCHELL COAL CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247; MORRISDALE COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA
R. CO., 230 U.S. 304; GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V. EL DORADO
TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION AND THE QUESTION ON THAT REVIEW WAS WHETHER THAT ACTION WAS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW. 

SECOND.  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE
EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THE UNDISPUTED FACTS SHOWED
CONCLUSIVELY THAT, HAVING PAID A FIRST-CLASS FARE FOR THE ENTIRE
JOURNEY FROM CHICAGO TO HOT SPRINGS, AND HAVING OFFERED TO PAY THE
PROPER CHARGE FOR A SEAT WHICH WAS AVAILABLE IN THE PULLMAN CAR FOR THE
TRIP FROM MEMPHIS TO HOT SPRINGS, HE WAS COMPELLED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CUSTOM, TO LEAVE THAT CAR AND TO RIDE IN A SECOND-CLASS CAR AND WAS
THUS DENIED THE STANDARD CONVENIENCES AND PRIVILEGES AFFORDED TO FIRST
CLASS PASSENGERS.  THIS WAS MANIFESTLY A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HIM IN
THE COURSE OF HIS INTERSTATE JOURNEY AND ADMITTEDLY THAT DISCRIMINATION
WAS BASED SOLELY UPON THE FACT THAT HE WAS A NEGRO.  THE QUESTION
WHETHER THIS WAS A DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDEN BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT IS NOT A QUESTION OF SEGREGATION  FN1 BUT ONE OF EQUALITY OF
TREATMENT.  THE DENIAL TO APPELLANT OF EQUALITY OF ACCOMMODATIONS
BECAUSE OF HIS RACE WOULD BE AN INVASION OF A FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT WHICH IS GUARANTEED AGAINST STATE ACTION BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT (MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 235 U.S. 151, 160
162; MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337, 344, 345) AND IN
VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT AND OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY IT
CANNOT BE MAINTAINED THAT THE DISCRIMINATION AS IT WAS ALLEGED WAS NOT
ESSENTIALLY UNJUST.  IN THAT ASPECT IT COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO LIE
OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE SWEEPING PROHIBITIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT. 

WE HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT IT IS APPARENT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE ACT THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE EVIL OF DISCRIMINATION THE
PRINCIPAL THING AIMED AT, BUT THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE CONTENTION
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXEMPT ANY DISCRIMINATORY ACTION OR PRACTICE
OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH IT HAD
AUTHORITY TO REACH.  THE SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342, 356; LOUISVILLE
& NASHVILLE R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 740, 749, 750; MERCHANTS
WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501, 512, 513.  PARAGRAPH 1 OF
SEC. 3 OF THE ACT SAYS EXPLICITLY THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE ACT "TO SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON ...
TO ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT
WHATSOEVER."  49 U.S.C. 3.  FROM THE INCEPTION OF ITS ADMINISTRATION
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS RECOGNIZED THE APPLICABILITY OF
THIS PROVISION TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST COLORED PASSENGERS BECAUSE OF
THEIR RACE AND THE DUTY OF CARRIERS TO PROVIDE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT
WITH RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES; THAT IS, THAT COLORED
PERSONS WHO BUY FIRST-CLASS TICKETS MUST BE FURNISHED WITH
ACCOMMODATIONS EQUAL IN COMFORTS AND CONVENIENCES TO THOSE AFFORDED TO
FIRST-CLASS WHITE PASSENGERS.  SEE COUNCILL V. WESTERN & ATLANTIC R.
CO., 1 I.C.C. 339; HEARD V. GEORGIA R. CO., 1 I.C.C. 428; HEARD V.
GEORGIA R. CO., 3 I.C.C. 111; EDWARDS V. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY.
CO., 12 I.C.C. 247; COZART V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 16 I.C.C. 226; GAINES
V. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO., 16 I.C.C. 471; CROSBY V. ST. LOUIS-SAN
FRANCISCO RY. CO., 112 I.C.C. 239.  FN2 

THIRD. WE FIND NO SOUND REASON FOR THE FAILURE TO APPLY THIS
PRINCIPLE BY HOLDING THE DISCRIMINATION FROM WHICH THE APPELLANT
SUFFERED TO BE UNLAWFUL AND BY FORBIDDING IT IN THE FUTURE. 

THAT THERE WAS BUT A SINGLE INSTANCE WAS NOT A JUSTIFICATION OF THE
TREATMENT OF THE APPELLANT.  MOREOVER, THE COMMISSION THOUGHT IT PLAIN
THAT "THE INCIDENT WAS MENTIONED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF AN ALLEGED
PRACTICE THAT WAS EXPECTED TO CONTINUE."  AND THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT
THE EJECTION OF APPELLANT FROM THE PULLMAN CAR AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT
HE SHOULD CONTINUE HIS JOURNEY IN A SECOND-CLASS CAR WAS "IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CUSTOM," THAT IS, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM
WHICH OBTAINED IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. 

NOR DOES THE CHANGE IN THE CARRIER'S PRACTICE AVAIL.  THAT DID NOT
ALTER THE DISCRIMINATION TO WHICH APPELLANT HAD BEEN SUBJECTED, AND AS
TO THE FUTURE THE CHANGE WAS NOT ADEQUATE.  IT APPEARS THAT SINCE JULY,
1937, THE CARRIER HAS PUT IN SERVICE A COACH FOR COLORED PASSENGERS
WHICH IS OF EQUAL QUALITY WITH THAT USED BY SECOND-CLASS WHITE
PASSENGERS.  BUT, AS THE GOVERNMENT WELL OBSERVES, THE QUESTION DOES
NOT END WITH TRAVEL ON SECOND-CLASS TICKETS.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT
COLORED PASSENGERS WHO HAVE BOUGHT FIRST-CLASS TICKETS FOR
TRANSPORTATION BY THE CARRIER ARE GIVEN ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THOSE AFFORDED TO WHITE PASSENGERS.  THE
GOVERNMENT PUTS THE MATTER SUCCINCTLY:  "WHEN A DRAWING ROOM IS
AVAILABLE, THE CARRIER PRACTICE OF ALLOWING COLORED PASSENGERS TO USE
ONE AT PULLMAN SEAT RATES AVOIDS INEQUALITY AS BETWEEN THE
ACCOMMODATIONS SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED TO THE PASSENGER.  BUT WHEN NONE
IS AVAILABLE, AS ON THE TRIP WHICH OCCASIONED THIS LITIGATION, THE
DISCRIMINATION AND INEQUALITY OF ACCOMMODATION BECOME SELF-EVIDENT.  IT
IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT THE COLORED PASSENGERS, IF SUFFICIENTLY
DILIGENT AND FOREHANDED, CAN MAKE THEIR RESERVATIONS SO FAR IN ADVANCE
AS TO BE ASSURED OF FIRST-CLASS ACCOMMODATIONS.  SO LONG AS WHITE
PASSENGERS CAN SECURE FIRST-CLASS RESERVATIONS ON THE DAY OF TRAVEL AND
THE COLORED PASSENGERS CANNOT, THE LATTER ARE SUBJECTED TO INEQUALITY
AND DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE."  AND THE COMMISSION HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT INEQUALITY PERSISTS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN OTHER
FACILITIES SUCH AS DINING-CAR AND OBSERVATION-PARLOR CAR
ACCOMMODATIONS. 

WE TAKE IT THAT THE CHIEF REASON FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTION WAS THE
"COMPARATIVELY LITTLE COLORED TRAFFIC."  BUT THE COMPARATIVE VOLUME OF
TRAFFIC CANNOT JUSTIFY THE DENIAL OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF EQUALITY OF
TREATMENT, A RIGHT SPECIFICALLY SAFEGUARDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  WE THOUGHT A SIMILAR ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO
VOLUME OF TRAFFIC TO BE UNTENABLE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  WE SAID THAT IT MADE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT DEPEND UPON
THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, WHEREAS THE
ESSENCE OF THAT RIGHT IS THAT IT IS A PERSONAL ONE.  MCCABE V.
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., SUPRA.  WHILE THE SUPPLY OF PARTICULAR
FACILITIES MAY BE CONDITIONED UPON THERE BEING A REASONABLE DEMAND
THEREFOR, IF FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED, SUBSTANTIAL EQUALITY OF TREATMENT
OF PERSONS TRAVELING UNDER LIKE CONDITIONS CANNOT BE REFUSED.  IT IS
THE INDIVIDUAL, WE SAID, WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS,  - NOT MERELY A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS, OR A BODY OF PERSONS
ACCORDING TO THEIR NUMBERS.  ID.  SEE, ALSO, MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V.
CANADA, PP. 350, 351.  AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT EXPRESSLY
EXTENDS ITS PROHIBITIONS TO THE SUBJECTING OF "ANY PARTICULAR PERSON"
TO UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATIONS. 

ON THE FACTS HERE PRESENTED, THERE IS NO ROOM, AS THE GOVERNMENT
PROPERLY SAYS, FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OR EXPERT JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE DISCRIMINATION SHOWN WAS
PALPABLY UNJUST AND FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT. 

THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AND
TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN THIS VIEW, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS
DISCUSSED BY THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF SEVERAL STATES IN THEIR BRIEFS AS
AMICI CURIAE. 

FN2  IN EDWARDS V. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 12 I.C.C. 247,
249, THE PRINCIPLE WAS THUS STATED:  "IF A RAILROAD PROVIDES CERTAIN
FACILITIES AND ACCOMMODATIONS FOR FIRST-CLASS PASSENGERS OF THE WHITE
RACE, IT IS COMMANDED BY THE LAW THAT LIKE ACCOMMODATIONS SHALL BE
PROVIDED FOR COLORED PASSENGERS OF THE SAME CLASS.  THE PRINCIPLE THAT
MUST GOVERN IS THAT CARRIERS MUST SERVE EQUALLY WELL ALL PASSENGERS,
WHETHER WHITE OR COLORED, PAYING THE SAME FARE.  FAILURE TO DO THIS IS
DISCRIMINATION AND SUBJECTS THE PASSENGER TO 'UNDUE AND UNREASONABLE
PREJUDICE AND DISADVANTAGE.'" 
..END :















HUDSON & MANHATTAN R. CO. V. U.S., 313 U.S. 98 


NO. 628.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 8, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 33
F.SUPP.  495, AFFIRMED. 


THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ACTING ON A PASSENGER TARIFF
RAISING THE FARE FROM 6 TO 10 CENTS, AND FINDING THAT 10 CENTS WOULD BE
UNREASONABLE BUT THAT 8 CENTS WOULD BE REASONABLE AND WOULD PRODUCE THE
BETTER REVENUE, FIXED THE FARE AT 8 CENTS.  HELD: 

1.  THE QUESTION WHETHER A 10 OR AN 8 CENT FARE WOULD PRODUCE MORE
REVENUE WAS ONE OF JUDGMENT UPON EVIDENCE.  P. 99. 

2.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS AND ORDER.  P. 99. 

HUDSON & MANHATTAN RAILROAD CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DISMISSING A BILL TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  227 I.C.C. 741. 

PER CURIAM. 

ON JULY 31, 1937, APPELLANT FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION A PASSENGER TARIFF ESTABLISHING A FARE OF 10 CENTS FOR
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION ON ITS DOWNTOWN LINE IN LIEU OF THE EXISTING
FARE OF 6 CENTS.  THE COMMISSION SUSPENDED THE TARIFF AND AFTER FULL
HEARING FOUND THAT THE REVENUE RESULTS TO APPELLANT WOULD BE MORE
FAVORABLE UNDER AN 8-CENT FARE THAN UNDER A 10-CENT FARE AND FURTHER
DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED 10-CENT FARE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE UNDER
SECS. 1 AND 15A OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THAT AN 8-CENT FARE
HAD BEEN JUSTIFIED. 

THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THE CANCELLATION OF THE SCHEDULE FILED,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN 8-CENT FARE, AND
ACCORDINGLY, IN JULY, 1938, APPELLANT CANCELED ITS PROPOSED TARIFF AND
PUT INTO EFFECT A FARE OF 8 CENTS.  THE COMMISSION REFUSED A
REHEARING. 

IN JUNE, 1939, APPELLANT BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE CASE WAS HEARD IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY THREE
JUDGES UPON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND THE COURT
RENDERED ITS DECISION IN JUNE, 1940, HOLDING THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION WERE BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THAT THE ORDER WAS
WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY, WAS NOT CONFISCATORY, AND DID NOT
DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  33
F.SUPP.  495. 

AS THIS COURT HAS OBSERVED, "THE RAISING OF RATES DOES NOT
NECESSARILY INCREASE REVENUE.  IT MAY IN PARTICULAR LOCALITIES REDUCE
REVENUE INSTEAD OF INCREASING IT, BY DISCOURAGING PATRONAGE."  FLORIDA
V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 214.  THE EFFECT OF AN INCREASED RATE
OF 10 CENTS AS COMPARED WITH ONE OF 8 CENTS, WITH RESPECT TO RESULTING
REVENUES, WAS NECESSARILY ONE OF JUDGMENT UPON EVIDENCE AND THE
COMMISSION HAD EVIDENCE BEFORE IT WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN
THE AREA IN QUESTION AND THE EXTENT OF PROBABLE DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC IF
THE FARE WERE INCREASED TO 10 CENTS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT IN THIS RELATION
THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND ITS
FINDINGS SUPPORTED ITS ORDER. 

THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 98; VIRGINIAN
RAILWAY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 658, 665, 666; FLORIDA V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 9; OHIO V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 498, 506; UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S. 402, 411.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :






SHAMROCK OIL CORP. V. SHEETS, 313 U.S. 100 


NO. 727.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 115 F.2D
880, AFFIRMED. 


1.  REMOVABILITY OF SUITS FROM STATE TO FEDERAL COURTS IS DETERMINED
BY THE FEDERAL REMOVAL STATUTE, UNAFFECTED BY LOCAL LAW.  P. 104. 

2.  THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL UNDER THE ACT OF 1887, JUD.  CODE SEC. 28,
IS CONFINED TO THE DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS.  P. 104. 

3.  THE INTERPOSITION BY THE CITIZEN DEFENDANT IN A SUIT IN A STATE
COURT, OF A COUNTERCLAIM SETTING UP AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION
INVOLVING THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE
NON-CITIZEN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL.  P. 107. 

THE AMOUNT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND IN THE STATE COURT IS
IMMATERIAL. 

4.  NOT ONLY DOES THE LANGUAGE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF 1887
EVIDENCE THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS ON REMOVAL, BUT THE POLICY OF THE SUCCESSIVE ACTS OF
CONGRESS REGULATING THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS IS ONE CALLING
FOR THE STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH JURISDICTION.  P. 108. 

SHAMROCK OIL & GAS CORP. V. SHEETS ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS FRIONA
INDEPENDENT OIL CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 675, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT.  THE JUDGMENT WENT
IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, PETITIONER HEREIN, BOTH ON THE CAUSE OF
ACTION SET UP IN THE COMPLAINT AND ON A COUNTERCLAIM. 

THE CROSS-ACTION OR COUNTERCLAIM FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS SOUGHT
AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF FOR MORE THAN $3,000 ON A MATTER UNRELATED TO THE
VERIFIED ACCOUNT SUED UPON BY PETITIONER. 

UNDER TEXAS PRACTICE A CROSS-ACTION OR COUNTERCLAIM SUCH AS THAT HERE
INVOLVED IS A SUIT, AND ONE WHO DEFENDS IT IS A DEFENDANT.  CF. MASON
CITY & FORT DODGE R. CO. V. BOYNTON, 204 U.S. 570; MERCHANTS HEAT &
LIGHT CO. V. JAMES B. CLOW & SONS, 204 U.S. 286; KIRBY V. AMERICAN SODA
FOUNTAIN CO., 194 U.S. 141. 

THE CROSS-ACTION OR COUNTERCLAIM WAS FOR DAMAGES TOTALING $7,200 FOR
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT.  SUCH CONTRACT ALLEGEDLY WAS MADE ON A
DIFFERENT DATE FROM THAT UPON WHICH THE INDEBTEDNESS TO THE PETITIONER
WAS INCURRED, AND WAS UNRELATED TO THAT INDEBTEDNESS. 

TO THAT CROSS-ACTION, PETITIONER NOT ONLY OCCUPIED THE POSITION OF A
DEFENDANT BUT WAS AN ACTUAL DEFENDANT WITHIN THE LETTER AND INTENT OF
THE REMOVAL STATUTE. 

OF TWENTY-FIVE DECISIONS BY THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS SINCE THE
ENACTMENT OF SEC. 28 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE IN 1887, WHEREIN WAS INVOLVED
THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT TO A CROSS-ACTION TO REMOVE SUCH CROSS-ACTION,
TWENTY-ONE RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL.  THE CASES UPHOLDING THE
RIGHT OF REMOVAL ARE BETTER REASONED.  SEE BANKERS SECURITIES CORP. V.
INSURANCE EQUITIES CORP., 85 F.2D 856, 857; AMERICAN FRUIT GROWERS V.
LAROCHE, 39 F.2D 243, 244; SAN ANTONIO SUBURBAN IRRIGATED FARMS V.
SHANDY, 29 F.2D 579, 581; WICHITA ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 18
F.SUPP.  609, 610; 95 F.2D 671; 306 U.S. 103. 

THE DECISION THAT THE TERM "DEFENDANT" IN THE REMOVAL ACT IS USED IN
A TECHNICAL SENSE AND REFERS ONLY TO THE PARTY DESIGNATED AS THE
ORIGINAL DEFENDANT IN THE ACTION, CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT AS WELL AS THOSE ABOVE REFERRED TO WHICH DIRECTLY PASS UPON THE
QUESTION.  IN MASON CITY & FORT DODGE R. CO. V. BOYNTON, 204 U.S. 570,
579, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE WORD "DEFENDANT" AS USED IN THE ACT WAS
DIRECTED TO MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS THAN THE BURDEN OF PROOF OR THE
RIGHT TO OPEN AND CLOSE.  IT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT, UNDER THE
JUDICIARY ACTS OF 1875 AND 1887-8, IN DETERMINING THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL,
THE PARTIES SHOULD BE REALIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MATTER IN
DISPUTE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE POSITION THEY OCCUPY IN THE PLEADINGS AS
PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT. 

THE DECISION THAT THE ACT GIVES THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL TO AN ORIGINAL
DEFENDANT ONLY, LIKEWISE CONFLICTS WITH THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS
RECOGNIZING THE REMOVAL RIGHT OF A THIRD PARTY, BROUGHT IN BY A CROSS
ACTION.  HABERMEL V. MONG, 31 F.2D 822; HOULTON SAVINGS BANK V.
AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY CO., 7 F.SUPP.  858; ELLIS V. PEAKE, 22
F.SUPP.  908.  DISTINGUISHING WEST V. CITY OF AURORA, 6 WALL.  139. 

THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE ACT MAY NOT BE
IGNORED.  NEW ORLEANS V. QUINLAN, 173 U.S. 191. 

THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN OMITTING FROM THE ACT OF 1887-8 THE
PROVISION IN THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD "AT
THE TIME OF ENTERING HIS APPEARANCE IN SUCH STATE COURT" FILE HIS
PETITION FOR REMOVAL, WHICH LANGUAGE WAS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN
WEST V. CITY OF AURORA, SUPRA, TO LIMIT THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL TO AN
ORIGINAL DEFENDANT UNDER THE ACT OF 1789, MANIFESTS AN INTENT THAT THE
RIGHT OF REMOVAL SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT.  FISK
V. HENAIRIE, 142 U.S. 459. 

WHERE THE DEFENDANT IN THE CROSS-ACTION FILES HIS REMOVAL PETITION AT
OR BEFORE THE TIME REQUIRED, BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR THE RULES OF
THE STATE COURT, TO PLEAD TO THE COMPLAINT IN THE CROSS-ACTION, SEC. 29
JUD.  CODE HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 

CASES DENYING TO A DEFENDANT IN A CROSS-ACTION THE RIGHT TO REMOVE
ARE BASED UPON WEST V. CITY OF AURORA, SUPRA, WHICH IS NOT CONTROLLING
UNDER THE PRESENT REMOVAL STATUTES IN THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, A CITIZEN OF TEXAS AND DEFENDANT IN A COURT OF THAT
STATE, SET UP BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSS-ACTION AGAINST
PETITIONER, THE NON-CITIZEN PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT, A CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $3,000 FOR BREACH OF A CONTRACT, WHICH WAS
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE ALLEGED INDEBTEDNESS SUED UPON BY THE
PETITIONER.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE SUIT IN WHICH THE
COUNTERCLAIM IS FILED, IS ONE REMOVABLE BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT ON GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP UNDER SEC. 28 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 71. 

THE PLAINTIFF IN THE STATE COURT REMOVED THE CAUSE TO THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN TEXAS, WHICH DENIED RESPONDENT'S
MOTION TO REMAND.  AFTER A TRIAL ON THE MERITS IT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
PETITIONER, PLAINTIFF BELOW, BOTH ON THE CAUSE OF ACTION SET UP ON ITS
COMPLAINT IN THE SUIT AND ON THE COUNTERCLAIM.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, 115 F.2D 880, AND ORDERED THE CAUSE
REMANDED TO THE STATE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLAINTIFF IN THE
STATE COURT WAS NOT A "DEFENDANT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 28 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, AND SO WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REMOVE THE CAUSE UNDER THAT
PROVISIONS ONLY "BY THE DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS THEREIN."  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 675, TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT OF THE DECISION OF
THE COURT BELOW AND THAT OF WACO HARDWARE CO. V. MICHIGAN STOVE CO., 91
F. 289; SEE WEST V. AURORA CITY, 6 WALL.  139, WITH NUMEROUS DECISIONS
OF OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  CARSON & RAND LUMBER CO. V.
HOLTZCLAW, 39 F. 578; BANKERS SECURITIES CORP. V. INSURANCE EQUITIES
CORP., 85 F.2D 856; CHAMBERS V. SKELLY OIL CO., 87 F.2D 853, AND CASES
CITED IN NOTE 5 OF THE OPINION BELOW, 115 F.2D 880, 882. 

WE ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION, THAT IF THE CAUSE WAS REMOVABLE
BY PETITIONER, THE REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS WERE REGULAR AND TIMELY; THAT
RESPONDENT'S COUNTERCLAIM STATED AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION AND
THAT THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IN THAT ACTION EXCEEDED THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, AND WE CONFINE OUR DECISION TO THE QUESTION OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT ALTHOUGH NOMINALLY A PLAINTIFF IN THE STATE
COURT IT WAS IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE A DEFENDANT TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION
ASSERTED IN THE COUNTERCLAIM UPON WHICH, UNDER TEXAS PROCEDURE,
JUDGMENT COULD GO AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF IN THE FULL AMOUNT DEMANDED. 
PECK V. MCKELLAR, 33 TEX. 234; GIMBEL & SON V. GOMPRECHT & CO., 89 TEX.
497; 35 S.W. 470; HARRIS V. SCHLINKE, 95 TEX. 88; 65 S.W. 172.  BUT AT
THE OUTSET IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT DECISION TURNS ON THE MEANING OF THE
REMOVAL STATUTE AND NOT UPON THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SUIT OR THE
PARTIES TO IT BY STATE STATUTES OR DECISIONS.  MASON CITY & FT. DODGE
R. CO. V. BOYNTON, 204 U.S. 570.  THE REMOVAL STATUTE, WHICH IS
NATIONWIDE IN ITS OPERATION, WAS INTENDED TO BE UNIFORM IN ITS
APPLICATION, UNAFFECTED BY LOCAL LAW DEFINITION OR CHARACTERIZATION OF
THE SUBJECT MATTER TO WHICH IT IS TO BE APPLIED.  HENCE THE ACT OF
CONGRESS MUST BE CONSTRUED AS SETTING UP ITS OWN CRITERIA, IRRESPECTIVE
OF LOCAL LAW, FOR DETERMINING IN WHAT INSTANCES SUITS ARE TO BE REMOVED
FROM THE STATE TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.  CF. BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S.
103, 110. 

WHICH IT APPLIES "BY THE DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS THEREIN."  FN1  DURING
THE PERIOD FROM 1875 TO 1887 THE STATUTE GOVERNING REMOVALS, 18 STAT.
470, SPECIFICALLY GAVE TO "EITHER PARTY" TO THE SUIT THE PRIVILEGE OF
REMOVAL.  AT ALL OTHER PERIODS SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE JUDICIARY ACT
OF 1789 THE STATUTES GOVERNING REMOVALS HAVE IN TERMS GIVEN THE
PRIVILEGE OF REMOVAL TO "DEFENDANTS" ALONE, EXCEPT THE ACT OF 1867, 14
STAT. 558, CONTINUED AS PART OF SEC. 28 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, WHICH
PERMITS EITHER PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT TO REMOVE WHERE THERE IS THE
ADDITIONAL GROUND OF PREJUDICE AND LOCAL INFLUENCE. 

"IF A SUIT BE COMMENCED IN ANY STATE COURT AGAINST AN ALIEN  ...  OR
...  AGAINST A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE, AND THE MATTER IN DISPUTE
EXCEEDS" THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT "AND THE DEFENDANT SHALL, AT THE
TIME OF ENTERING HIS APPEARANCE IN SUCH STATE COURT, FILE A PETITION
FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CAUSE," IT SHALL BE REMOVABLE TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT.  IN WEST V. AURORA CITY, 6 WALL.  139, THIS COURT HELD THAT
REMOVAL OF A CAUSE FROM A STATE TO A FEDERAL COURT COULD BE EFFECTED
UNDER SEC. 12 ONLY BY A DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM THE SUIT IS BROUGHT BY
PROCESS SERVED UPON HIM.  CONSEQUENTLY A NON-CITIZEN PLAINTIFF IN THE
STATE COURT, AGAINST WHOM THE CITIZEN-DEFENDANT HAD ASSERTED IN THE
SUIT A CLAIM BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM WHICH, UNDER STATE LAW, HAD THE
CHARACTER OF AN ORIGINAL SUIT, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REMOVE THE CAUSE. 
THE COURT RULED THAT THE PLAINTIFF, HAVING SUBMITTED HIMSELF TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF A
RIGHT OF REMOVAL CONFERRED ONLY ON A DEFENDANT WHO HAS NOT SUBMITTED
HIMSELF TO THE JURISDICTION. 

BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF 1875, THE PRACTICE ON REMOVAL WAS GREATLY
LIBERALIZED.  IT AUTHORIZED "EITHER PARTY OR ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE
PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO REMOVE ANY SUIT" FROM THE STATE
COURT TO DO SO UPON PETITION IN SUCH SUIT TO THE STATE COURT "BEFORE OR
AT THE TERM AT WHICH SAID CAUSE COULD BE FIRST TRIED AND BEFORE THE
TRIAL THEREOF."  THESE PROVISIONS WERE CONTINUED UNTIL THE ADOPTION OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRESENT STATUTE, SO FAR AS NOW MATERIAL, BY THE
ACT OF 1887, 24 STAT. 552. 

WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT CONGRESS, IN THUS REVISING THE STATUTE WAS
UNAWARE OF THE HISTORY WHICH WE HAVE JUST DETAILED,  FN2  OR CERTAINLY
THAT IT REGARDED AS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE THE OMISSION FROM THE EARLIER
ACT OF THE PHRASE "EITHER PARTY," AND THE SUBSTITUTION FOR IT OF THE
PHRASE AUTHORIZING REMOVAL BY THE "DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS" IN THE
SUIT, OR THE LIKE OMISSION OF THE PROVISION FOR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME
BEFORE THE TRIAL, AND THE SUBSTITUTION FOR IT OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT
THE REMOVAL PETITION BE FILED BY THE "DEFENDANT" AT OR BEFORE THE TIME
HE IS REQUIRED TO PLEAD IN THE STATE COURT. 

WE THINK THESE ALTERATIONS IN THE STATUTE ARE OF CONTROLLING
SIGNIFICANCE AS INDICATING THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO NARROW THE
FEDERAL JURISDICTION ON REMOVAL BY REVIVING IN SUBSTANCE THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 12 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 AS CONSTRUED IN WEST V. AURORA
CITY, SUPRA. SEE H. REPT. NO. 1078, 49TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1.  IF,
IN REENACTING IN SUBSTANCE THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 12 OF THE
JUDICIARY ACT, CONGRESS INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE OPERATION OF THOSE
PROVISIONS OR TO REJECT THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THIS COURT HAD PLACED
UPON THEM, BY SAVING THE RIGHT OF A PLAINTIFF, IN ANY CASE OR TO ANY
EXTENT, TO REMOVE THE CAUSE UPON THE FILING OF A COUNTERCLAIM PRAYING
AN AFFIRMATIVE JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM, WE CAN HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT IT
WOULD HAVE FAILED TO USE SOME APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TO EXPRESS THAT
INTENTION.  THAT ITS OMISSION OF THE REFERENCE IN THE EARLIER STATUTE
TO REMOVAL BY "EITHER PARTY" WAS DELIBERATE IS INDICATED BY THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS WHICH RECOMMENDED THE RETENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT OF 1867 FOR REMOVAL BY EITHER PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT WHEN AN
ADDITIONAL GROUND OF REMOVAL IS PREJUDICE AND LOCAL INFLUENCE.  SEE H.
REPT., OP. CIT., SUPRA, P. 2. 

THE CASES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIES HAVE
DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION IN WEST V. AURORA CITY, SUPRA, ON THE GROUND
THAT IT AROSE UNDER AN EARLIER STATUTE.  BUT WE FIND NO MATERIAL
DIFFERENCE UPON THE PRESENT ISSUE BETWEEN THE TWO STATUTES, AND THE
REASONING OF THE COURT IN SUPPORT OF ITS DECISION IS AS APPLICABLE TO
ONE AS TO THE OTHER.  IN SOME OF THOSE CASES IT IS SUGGESTED ALSO THAT
A PLAINTIFF WHO BRINGS HIS SUIT IN A STATE COURT FOR LESS THAN THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT DOES NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO REMOVE, UPON THE
FILING OF A COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST HIM.  AND PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THIS
IS SO EVEN WHEN, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND IS IN
EXCESS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  BUT WE THINK THE AMOUNT OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S DEMAND IN THE STATE COURT IS IMMATERIAL, FOR ONE DOES NOT
ACQUIRE AN ASSERTED RIGHT BY NOT WAIVING IT, AND THE QUESTION HERE IS
NOT OF WAIVER BUT OF THE ACQUISITION OF A RIGHT WHICH CAN ONLY BE
CONFERRED BY ACT OF CONGRESS.  WE CAN FIND NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT
CONGRESS, BY OMITTING FROM THE PRESENT STATUTE ALL REFERENCE TO
"PLAINTIFFS," INTENDED TO SAVE A RIGHT OF REMOVAL TO SOME PLAINTIFFS
AND NOT TO OTHERS.  THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL, DECIDED IN
WICHITA ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 95 F.2D 671, 674, ON WHICH
PETITIONER ALSO RELIES, WAS NOT PRESENTED TO OR PASSED UPON BY THIS
COURT.  306 U.S. 103.  IT INVOLVED FACTORS NOT HERE PRESENT WHICH WE
FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER.    NOT ONLY DOES THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ACT OF 1887 EVIDENCE THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ON REMOVAL, BUT THE POLICY OF THE
SUCCESSIVE ACTS OF CONGRESS REGULATING THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL
COURTS IS ONE CALLING FOR THE STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH LEGISLATION. 
THE POWER RESERVED TO THE STATES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE FOR
THE DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSIES IN THEIR COURTS, MAY BE RESTRICTED
ONLY BY THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN CONFORMITY TO THE JUDICIARY ARTICLES
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  "DUE REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF
STATE GOVERNMENTS, WHICH SHOULD ACTUATE FEDERAL COURTS, REQUIRES THAT
THEY SCRUPULOUSLY CONFINE THEIR OWN JURISDICTION TO THE PRECISE LIMITS
WHICH THE STATUTE HAS DEFINED."  HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263, 270; SEE
KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 233, 234; MATTHEWS V.
RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525; CF. ELGIN V. MARSHALL, 106 U.S. 578. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "ANY SUIT OF A CIVIL NATURE, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, ARISING UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TREATIES MADE, OR
WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, OF WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE GIVEN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, IN ANY
STATE COURT, MAY BE REMOVED BY THE DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS THEREIN TO
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PROPER DISTRICT.  ANY
OTHER SUIT OF A CIVIL NATURE, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, OF WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION, IN ANY
STATE COURT, MAY BE REMOVED INTO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE PROPER DISTRICT BY THE DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS THEREIN,
BEING NONRESIDENTS OF THAT STATE.  ...  AND WHERE A SUIT IS BROUGHT IN
ANY STATE COURT, IN WHICH THERE IS A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN A CITIZEN OF
THE STATE IN WHICH THE SUIT IS BROUGHT AND A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE,
ANY DEFENDANT, BEING SUCH CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE, MAY REMOVE SUCH
SUIT INTO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PROPER
DISTRICT, AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE TRIAL THEREOF, WHEN IT SHALL BE MADE
TO APPEAR TO SAID DISTRICT COURT THAT FROM PREJUDICE OR LOCAL INFLUENCE
HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN JUSTICE IN SUCH STATE COURT, OR IN ANY
OTHER STATE COURT TO WHICH THE SAID DEFENDANT MAY, UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE, HAVE THE RIGHT, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH PREJUDICE OR LOCAL
INFLUENCE, TO REMOVE SAID CAUSE.  ...  AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE TRIAL OF
ANY SUIT IN ANY DISTRICT COURT, WHICH HAS BEEN REMOVED TO SAID COURT
FROM A STATE COURT ON THE AFFIDAVIT OF ANY PARTY PLAINTIFF THAT HE HAD
REASON TO BELIEVE AND DID BELIEVE THAT, FROM PREJUDICE OR LOCAL
INFLUENCE, HE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN JUSTICE IN SAID STATE COURT, THE
DISTRICT COURT SHALL, ON APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PARTY, EXAMINE INTO
THE TRUTH OF SAID AFFIDAVIT AND THE GROUNDS THEREOF, AND, UNLESS IT
SHALL APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF SAID COURT THAT SAID PARTY WILL NOT
BE ABLE TO OBTAIN JUSTICE IN SAID STATE COURT, IT SHALL CAUSE THE SAME
TO BE REMANDED THERETO.  ...  " 

FN2  SEE H. REPT. NO. 1078, 49TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1: 

"THE NEXT CHANGE PROPOSED IS TO RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO REMOVE A CAUSE
FROM THE STATE TO THE FEDERAL COURT TO THE DEFENDANT.  AS THE LAW NOW
PROVIDES, EITHER PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT MAY REMOVE A CAUSE.  THIS WAS
AN INNOVATION ON THE LAW AS IT EXISTED FROM 1789 UNTIL THE PASSAGE OF
THE ACT OF 1875. 

"IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE IT IS BELIEVED TO BE JUST AND PROPER
TO REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO ABIDE HIS SELECTION OF A FORUM.  IF HE
ELECTS TO SUE IN A STATE COURT WHEN HE MIGHT HAVE BROUGHT HIS SUIT IN A
FEDERAL COURT THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE, ORDINARILY, NO GOOD REASON TO
ALLOW HIM TO REMOVE THE CAUSE.  EXPERIENCE IN THE PRACTICE UNDER THE
ACT OF 1875 HAS SHOWN THAT SUCH A PRIVILEGE IS OFTEN USED BY PLAINTIFFS
TO OBTAIN UNFAIR CONCESSIONS AND COMPROMISES FROM DEFENDANTS WHO ARE
UNABLE TO MEET THE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS REMOTE FROM THEIR HOMES. 

"THE COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT WHEN A PLAINTIFF MAKES
AFFIDAVIT THAT FROM PREJUDICE OR LOCAL INFLUENCE HE BELIEVES THAT HE
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN JUSTICE IN THE STATE COURT HE SHOULD HAVE
THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THE CAUSE TO THE FEDERAL COURT.  THE BILL SECURES
THAT RIGHT TO A PLAINTIFF." 
..END :


















CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 109 


NO. 687.  ARGUED APRIL 3, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 41 CAL.
APP.2D 965, REVERSED. 


1.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DID NOT WHOLLY WITHDRAW FROM THE STATES THE
POWER TO REGULATE MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO WHICH
CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERCISED ITS POWER, EVEN THOUGH THE REGULATION
AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 113. 

2.  THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
REGULATION OF CASUAL OR OCCASIONAL INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS BY PERSONS NOT ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION AS A REGULAR
OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS, SEC. 303(B)(9).  P. 112. 

3.  A CALIFORNIA STATUTE REQUIRES EVERY "TRANSPORTATION AGENT,"
DEFINED AS ONE WHO SELLS OR OFFERS TO SELL OR NEGOTIATE FOR
TRANSPORTATION ON THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE, TO OBTAIN A LICENSE
ASSURING HIS FITNESS AND TO FILE A BOND SECURING FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS WHICH HE NEGOTIATES.  IT APPLIES ALIKE
TO AGENTS NEGOTIATING FOR INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE COMMERCE, IS NOT A
REVENUE MEASURE, AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO INCREASE THE COST OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  ITS APPARENT OBJECT IS TO SAFEGUARD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC,
DESIRING TO SECURE TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE, FROM FRAUD AND
OVERREACHING.  HELD, CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHEN APPLIED
TO A PERSON WHO, WITHOUT HAVING OBTAINED THE LICENSE OR FURNISHED THE
BOND, ARRANGED FOR MOTOR TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS FROM CALIFORNIA
TO TEXAS, BY A CARRIER WHO, SO FAR AS APPEARS, MADE ONLY THE SINGLE
TRIP.  P. 115. 

4.  DI SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, OVERRULED.  P. 116. 

CALIFORNIA V. THOMPSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 672, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A CONVICTION ON A
CHARGE OF MISDEMEANOR. 

IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE, AND TO PREVENT
FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC, THE BUSINESS OF ACTING AS AGENT OR BROKER FOR
THE SALE OF TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS BY MEANS OF PRIVATE PASSENGER
MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED CASUALLY BY UNLICENSED PERSONS MUST BE
REGULATED. 

THE DECISION BELOW THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION BY
CONGRESS THE STATES ARE WITHOUT SUCH POWER IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO DESTINATIONS BEYOND THE STATE, CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT. 

THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT A DIRECT BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
BRADLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 289 U.S. 92; CONTINENTAL BAKING CO.
V. WOODRING, 286 U.S. 352; FRANCIS V. ALLEN, 54 ARIZ. 377, 386; BOWEN
V. HANNAH, 167 TENN. 451, 463; MARTIN V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 93 S.W.2D
1155, 1157, 1159; CONTRA, EX PARTE TALKINGTON, 132 TEX. CR. R. 361; EX
PARTE MARTIN, 127 TEX. CR. R. 25. 

THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINIONS IN DI SANTO V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, HAVE BEEN ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THIS COURT
IN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS.  CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. V. WOODRING, 286 U.S.
352; BRADLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 289 U.S. 92; H.P. WELCH CO. V.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79; EICHHOLZ V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 306 U.S.
268; ZIFFRIN V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598;
HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155. 

THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 EXCLUDES FROM ITS OPERATION THE CASUAL,
OCCASIONAL OR RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, FOR COMPENSATION, BY ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION
BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS.  HALE BROKER
APPLICATION, 14 M.C.C. 451, 453; MICHAUX BROKER APPLICATION, 11 M.C.C.
317, 318; FRANK BROKER APPLICATION, 8 M.C.C. 15, 19.  SEE MAURER V.
HAMILTON, SUPRA; H.P. WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A STATUTE OF CALIFORNIA, CH. 390, STATUTES OF 1933, P. 1011, AS
AMENDED BY CH. 665, STATUTES OF 1935, P. 1833, DEFINES A TRANSPORTATION
AGENT AS ONE WHO "SELLS OR OFFERS TO SELL OR NEGOTIATE FOR"
TRANSPORTATION OVER THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE, SEC. 2, AND
REQUIRES EVERY SUCH AGENT TO PROCURE A LICENSE FROM THE STATE RAILROAD
COMMISSION AUTHORIZING HIM SO TO ACT.  BY SECS. 6, 7, AND 8,
PREREQUISITES TO THE LICENSE ARE DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
APPLICANT'S FITNESS TO EXERCISE THE LICENSED PRIVILEGE, THE PAYMENT OF
A LICENSE FEE OF $1.00, AND THE FILING BY THE APPLICANT OF A BOND IN
THE SUM OF $1,000, CONDITIONED UPON THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS WHICH HE NEGOTIATES.  BY SEC. 16 ANY PERSON
ACTING AS A TRANSPORTATION AGENT WITHOUT A LICENSE IS GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE STATUTORY
EXACTION OF THE LICENSE AND BOND INFRINGES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION WHEN APPLIED TO ONE WHO NEGOTIATES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
INTERSTATE OF PASSENGERS OVER THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE BY ARRANGING FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE, OF PASSENGERS FROM LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA, TO DALLAS, TEXAS, BY ONE WHO, SO FAR AS APPEARS, MADE ONLY
THE SINGLE TRIP IN QUESTION.  THE STATE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, HOLDING ON THE AUTHORITY OF DI SANTO V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, THAT THE STATUTE AS APPLIED INFRINGES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 672, THE QUESTION,
CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISIONS SINCE THE DI SANTO CASE,
SUSTAINING STATE REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BY
MOTOR VEHICLE, BEING OF IMPORTANCE. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO REGULATE THE ACTS FOR WHICH RESPONDENT
WAS CONVICTED OR THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION TO WHICH THEY RELATED. 
THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 543, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 301-327,
WHICH APPLIES TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF COMMON AND CONTRACT INTERSTATE
CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE, EXCLUDES FROM ITS OPERATION THE CASUAL OR
OCCASIONAL TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE OF PASSENGERS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BY PERSONS NOT ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION AS A REGULAR
OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS, SEC. 303(B)(9).  HENCE WE ARE CONCERNED HERE
ONLY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THOSE
WHO, WITHIN THE STATE, AID OR PARTICIPATE IN A FORM OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OVER WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO EXERCISE ITS
REGULATORY POWER. 

THE STATUTE IS NOT A REVENUE MEASURE.  CF. TEXAS TRANSPORT CO. V. NEW
ORLEANS, 264 U.S. 150.  IT APPLIES ALIKE TO TRANSPORTATION AGENTS WHO
NEGOTIATE FOR TRANSPORTATION INTRASTATE AS WELL AS INTERSTATE AND SO
DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CF. REAL SILK MILLS
V. PORTLAND, 268 U.S. 325.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE REGULATION WILL
OPERATE TO INCREASE THE COST OF THE TRANSPORTATION OR IN RESPECTS NOT
ALREADY INDICATED AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS NOT SHOWN TO BE
OTHER THAN WHAT ON ITS FACE IT APPEARS TO BE, A MEASURE TO SAFEGUARD
THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SECURE TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR
VEHICLE, WHO ARE PECULIARLY UNABLE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM FRAUD AND
OVERREACHING OF THOSE ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS NOTORIOUSLY SUBJECT TO
THOSE ABUSES. 

AS THIS COURT HAS OFTEN HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT, THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, IN CONFERRING ON CONGRESS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE, DID NOT
WHOLLY WITHDRAW FROM THE STATES THE POWER TO REGULATE MATTERS OF LOCAL
CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT EXERCISED ITS POWER,
EVEN THOUGH THE REGULATION AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  EVER SINCE
WILLSON V. BLACK BIRD CREEK MARSH CO., 2 PET. 245, AND COOLEY V. BOARD
OF PORT WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE
MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN, THE REGULATION OF WHICH UNAVOIDABLY INVOLVES
SOME REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT WHICH BECAUSE OF THEIR
LOCAL CHARACTER AND THEIR NUMBER AND DIVERSITY MAY NEVER BE ADEQUATELY
DEALT WITH BY CONGRESS.  BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCAL CHARACTER, ALSO, THERE
IS WIDE SCOPE FOR LOCAL REGULATION WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE UNIFORMITY OF
CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL COMMERCE IN MATTERS OF NATIONAL CONCERN AND
WITHOUT MATERIALLY OBSTRUCTING THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE WHICH WERE THE
PRINCIPAL OBJECTS SOUGHT TO BE SECURED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SUCH REGULATION IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION HAS, FOR THE MOST PART, BEEN LEFT TO THE STATES BY
THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, SUBJECT ONLY TO OTHER APPLICABLE
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS.  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN DI SANTO V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 40. 

A STATE MAY LICENSE TRAINMEN ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER
TO INSURE THEIR SKILL AND FITNESS.  SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465;
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. ALABAMA, 128 U.S. 96.  IT MAY DEFINE
THE SIZE OF CREWS MANNING INTERSTATE TRAINS, CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO.
V. ARKANSAS, 219 U.S. 453; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORWOOD, 283 U.S.
249, AND PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS FOR PAYMENT OF THEIR WAGES.  ERIE R. CO.
V. WILLIAMS, 233 U.S. 685.  IT MAY REQUIRE INTERSTATE PASSENGER CARS TO
BE HEATED AND GUARD POSTS TO BE PLACED ON BRIDGES OF AN INTERSTATE
RAILROAD.  NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 165 U.S. 628.  IT MAY
LIMIT THE SPEED OF INTERSTATE TRAINS WITHIN CITY LIMITS.  ERB V.
MORASCH, 177 U.S. 584.  IT MAY REQUIRE AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD TO
ELIMINATE GRADE CROSSINGS.  ERIE R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSIONERS, 254 U.S. 394, 409, 412.  IT MAY PASS LOCAL QUARANTINE
LAWS APPLICABLE TO MERCHANDISE MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS A
MEANS OF PROTECTING LOCAL HEALTH.  MORGAN'S S.S. CO. V. LOUISIANA, 118
U.S. 455; COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE V. BOARD OF HEALTH, 186 U.S. 380.  IT MAY
REGULATE AND PROTECT THE SAFE AND CONVENIENT USE OF ITS HARBORS AND
NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS UNLESS THERE IS CONFLICT WITH SOME ACT OF
CONGRESS.  WILLSON V. BLACK BIRD CREEK MARSH CO., SUPRA; SEE CLYDE
MALLORY LINES V. ALABAMA, 296 U.S. 261, 267.  IT MAY REGULATE PILOTS
AND PILOTAGE IN ITS HARBORS.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF PORT WARDENS, SUPRA.
WHERE, AS HERE, CONGRESS HAS NOT ENTERED THE FIELD, A STATE MAY PASS
INSPECTION LAWS AND REGULATIONS, APPLICABLE TO ARTICLES OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, DESIGNED TO SAFEGUARD THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE FROM
FRAUD, PROVIDED ONLY THAT THE REGULATION NEITHER DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
NOR SUBSTANTIALLY OBSTRUCTS THE COMMERCE.  TURNER V. MARYLAND, 107 U.S.
38; PLUMLEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 155 U.S. 461; PATAPSCO GUANO CO. V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 171 U.S. 345, 357, 358; SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501; SEE
ALSO MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 398-412 AND CASES CITED; SOUTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 185-191 AND
CASES CITED. 

THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT ONE OF PROHIBITING INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
LICENSING IT ON CONDITIONS WHICH RESTRICT OR OBSTRUCT IT.  CF. CRUTCHER
V. KENTUCKY, 141 U.S. 47; DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S.
282.  FOR HERE THE REGULATION IS APPLIED TO ONE WHO IS NOT HIMSELF
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION BUT WHO ACTS ONLY AS BROKER OR
INTERMEDIARY IN NEGOTIATING A TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
PASSENGERS AND THE CARRIER.  THE LICENSE REQUIRED OF THOSE ENGAGED IN
SUCH BUSINESS IS NOT CONDITIONED UPON ANY CONTROL OR RESTRICTION OF THE
MOVEMENT OF THE TRAFFIC INTERSTATE BUT ONLY ON THE GOOD CHARACTER AND
RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE ENGAGED LOCALLY AS TRANSPORTATION BROKERS. 

FRAUDULENT OR UNCONSCIONABLE CONDUCT OF THOSE SO ENGAGED WHICH IS
INJURIOUS TO THEIR PATRONS, IS PECULIARLY A SUBJECT OF LOCAL CONCERN
AND THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF LOCAL REGULATION.  IN EVERY PRACTICAL
SENSE REGULATION OF SUCH CONDUCT IS BEYOND THE EFFECTIVE REACH OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  UNLESS SOME MEASURE OF LOCAL CONTROL IS
PERMISSIBLE, IT MUST GO LARGELY UNREGULATED.  IN ANY CASE, UNTIL
CONGRESS UNDERTAKES ITS REGULATION, WE CAN FIND NO ADEQUATE BASIS FOR
SAYING THAT THE CONSTITUTION, INTERPRETED AS A WORKING INSTRUMENT OF
GOVERNMENT, HAS FORECLOSED REGULATION, SUCH AS THE PRESENT, BY LOCAL
AUTHORITY. 

IN DI SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, THIS COURT TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW. 
FOLLOWING WHAT IT CONCEIVED TO BE THE REASONING OF MCCALL V.
CALIFORNIA, 136 U.S. 104, IT HELD THAT A PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE REQUIRING
OTHERS THAN RAILROAD OR STEAMSHIP COMPANIES, WHO ENGAGE IN THE
INTRASTATE SALE OF STEAMSHIP TICKETS OR OF ORDERS FOR TRANSPORTATION TO
AND FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES, TO PROCURE A LICENSE BY GIVING PROOF OF
GOOD MORAL CHARACTER AND FILING A BOND AS SECURITY AGAINST FRAUD AND
MISREPRESENTATION TO PURCHASERS, WAS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  SINCE THE DECISION IN THAT CASE THIS COURT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NUMEROUS LOCAL
REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTERSTATE MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC.  IT HAS
UNIFORMLY HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PERTINENT CONGRESSIONAL
LEGISLATION THERE IS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IN THE STATES TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY MOTOR VEHICLE WHEREVER IT AFFECTS THE SAFETY OF
THE PUBLIC OR THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENT USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS, PROVIDED
ONLY THAT THE REGULATION DOES NOT IN ANY OTHER RESPECT UNNECESSARILY
OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. V. WOODRING, 286
U.S. 352, 371; BRADLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 92, 95;
SEE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, AND CASES
CITED; H.P. WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79, 83; EICHHOLZ V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 306 U.S. 268; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S.
598, 603; AND SEE ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132. 

IF THERE IS AUTHORITY IN THE STATE, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE
POWER, TO ADOPT SUCH REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION,
IT MUST BE DEEMED TO POSSESS THE POWER TO REGULATE THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR
SUCH TRANSPORTATION WHERE THEY AFFECT MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN WHICH
ARE IN OTHER RESPECTS WITHIN STATE REGULATORY POWER, AND WHERE THE
REGULATION DOES NOT INFRINGE THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE
FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE AND IN PRESERVING UNIFORMITY IN THE REGULATION OF
THE COMMERCE IN MATTERS OF NATIONAL CONCERN.  SEE HARTFORD ACCIDENT &
INDEMNITY CO. V. ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155. 

THE DECISION IN THE DI SANTO CASE WAS A DEPARTURE FROM THIS PRINCIPLE
WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED SINCE COOLEY V. BOARD OF PORT WARDENS, SUPRA.
IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH LATER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH HAVE
LIKEWISE RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE, AND IT CAN NO LONGER BE
REGARDED AS CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.  REVERSED. 
..END :






CASKEY BAKING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 313 U.S. 117 


NO. 676.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 176 VA.
170 - 10 S.E.2D 535, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF VIRGINIA IMPOSES AN ANNUAL FEE OF $100 FOR EACH VEHICLE
USED IN THE BUSINESS OF PEDDLING GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE "BY
SELLING AND DELIVERING THE SAME AT THE SAME TIME TO LICENSED DEALERS OR
RETAILERS AT OTHER THAN A DEFINITE PLACE OF BUSINESS OPERATED BY THE
SELLER."  THE STATUTE EXEMPTS MANUFACTURERS TAXABLE BY THE STATE ON
CAPITAL; DISTRIBUTORS OF MANUFACTURED GOODS PAYING A STATE LICENSE TAX
ON THEIR PURCHASES; AND WHOLESALE DEALERS REGULARLY LICENSED BY THE
STATE.  HELD - AS APPLIED TO A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH HAD ITS
PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE AND WHOSE
DRIVERS BROUGHT INTO THE STATE BREAD WHICH THEY THERE SOLD AND
DELIVERED TO REGULAR CUSTOMERS - NOT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OR THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P.
119. 

CASKEY BAKING CO., INC. V. VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF A STATE
LICENSE TAX STATUTE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT, A CORPORATION OF WEST VIRGINIA, HAS ITS PRINCIPAL
OFFICE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS IN MARTINSBURG, IN THAT STATE.  AS A
FOREIGN CORPORATION REGISTERED IN VIRGINIA, IT HAS PAID THE LATTER
STATE AN ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE AND AN INCOME TAX ON ITS NET PROFITS
ALLOCABLE TO ITS VIRGINIA BUSINESS.  IT MAKES BREAD WHICH IT SELLS TO
GROCERS AND OTHER RETAILERS IN TERRITORY ADJACENT TO MARTINSBURG,
INCLUDING WINCHESTER AND OTHER PLACES IN VIRGINIA.  APPELLANT'S TRUCKS
CARRY THE BREAD INTO VIRGINIA WHERE THEY SERVE REGULAR ROUTES AT
REGULAR INTERVALS.  THE DRIVERS CALL ONLY ON REGULAR CUSTOMERS, INQUIRE
OF EACH HOW MUCH BREAD HE NEEDS AND, IN RESPONSE TO HIS ORDER, TAKE IT
FROM THE TRUCK AND DELIVER IT TO THE CUSTOMER.  THUS EACH SUCH
TRANSACTION IN VIRGINIA IS A SALE AND DELIVERY IN THAT STATE TO A
REGULAR CUSTOMER. 

THE COMPANY HAS NO PROPERTY PERMANENTLY LOCATED IN VIRGINIA AND NO
PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE STATE, EXCEPT THAT, AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE
RESPECTING REGISTERED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, IT MAINTAINS AN OFFICE IN
THE STATE WHERE CLAIMS AGAINST IT MAY BE AUDITED, SETTLED, AND PAID. 

THE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED FOR MAKING A SALE IN VIRGINIA WITHOUT
HAVING PROCURED A LICENSE PURSUANT TO SEC. 192B  FN1  OF THE TAX CODE
OF VIRGINIA AND A FINE WAS IMPOSED.  THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION.  FN2 

SO FAR AS MATERIAL THE STATUTE PROVIDES:  "THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED AN
ANNUAL STATE LICENSE TAX ON EVERY PERSON, FIRM AND CORPORATION (OTHER
THAN  ...  A MANUFACTURER TAXABLE ON CAPITAL BY THIS STATE, OR A
DISTRIBUTOR OF MANUFACTURED GOODS PAYING A STATE LICENSE TAX ON HIS
PURCHASES) WHO OR WHICH SHALL PEDDLE GOODS, WARES OR MERCHANDISE BY
SELLING AND DELIVERING THE SAME AT THE SAME TIME TO LICENSED DEALERS OR
RETAILERS AT OTHER THAN A DEFINITE PLACE OF BUSINESS OPERATED BY THE
SELLER.  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THIS ACT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO
WHOLESALE DEALERS REGULARLY LICENSED BY THIS STATE, AND WHO SHALL AT
THE SAME TIME SELL AND DELIVER MERCHANDISE TO RETAIL MERCHANTS."  THE
ANNUAL FEE IS $100 FOR EACH VEHICLE USED IN THE BUSINESS. 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT A MANUFACTURER TAXABLE ON ITS
CAPITAL STOCK, NOR A DISTRIBUTOR OF MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS PAYING A
STATE LICENSE TAX ON ITS PURCHASES, NOR A LICENSED WHOLESALE DEALER,
AND DID NOT, THEREFORE, COME WITHIN ANY OF THE CLASSES EXEMPTED BY THE
ACT. 

IN THE STATE COURTS, AND HERE, THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE STATUTE
AS CONTRAVENING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  ITS POSITION IS THAT IT IS DOING EITHER AN
INTERSTATE BUSINESS WHICH THE STATE MAY NOT BURDEN BY IMPOSING A
LICENSE TAX, OR AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS AS TO WHICH THE EXACTION WORKS A
FORBIDDEN DISCRIMINATION.  WE HOLD BOTH CONTENTIONS UNTENABLE. 

1.  WHILE THE TRANSPORTATION OF BREAD ACROSS THE STATE LINE IS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THAT IS NOT THE ACTIVITY WHICH IS LICENSED OR
TAXED.  THE PURELY LOCAL BUSINESS OF PEDDLING IS WHAT THE ACT HITS, AND
THIS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SOURCE OF THE GOODS SOLD.  IT IS SETTLED THAT
SUCH A STATUTE IMPOSES NO BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION INTERDICTS.  FN3  THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, URGES THAT THE
ACT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY EXEMPTING FROM ITS
OPERATION THE PRIVILEGE OF SALES BY MANUFACTURERS PAYING TAX ON THEIR
CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN MANUFACTURE IN VIRGINIA.  IT IS SAID THAT IF ITS
BAKERY WERE SITUATE IN VIRGINIA THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF
THIS EXEMPTION AND, SINCE IT IS NOT, THE MARKETING OF APPELLANT'S GOODS
SHIPPED INTO THE STATE IS THE TARGET OF A HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION.  BUT
THE ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT PEDDLERS RESIDENT IN VIRGINIA WHO
BUY THEIR GOODS WITHIN THE STATE, OR BUY OR PROCURE THEM FROM EXTRA
STATE SOURCES, ARE ALIKE SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE
ACT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY VIRTUE OF THE
EXEMPTION IN QUESTION IS NEGATIVED BY OUR DECISIONS.  FN4 

2.  EXAMINATION OF THE TAX CODE OF VIRGINIA DISCLOSES THAT THE ACT IN
QUESTION IS BUT ONE PORTION OF A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF TAXATION. 
MANUFACTURERS WHO SELL THEIR OWN PRODUCTS PAY A TAX ON CAPITAL, WHICH
THE STATE DEEMS SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL THEIR ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THE
VENDING OF THE GOODS.  FN5  WHOLESALE MERCHANTS WHO HAVE A FIXED PLACE
OF BUSINESS PAY A LICENSE TAX MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF ALL THEIR
PURCHASES; AND IF THEY ARE ALSO LICENSED BY THE TOWN OR CITY IN WHICH
THEY HAVE THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS OR, IN LIEU THEREOF, ARE TAXED BY
SUCH TOWN OR CITY ON THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN THE BUSINESS, THEY MAY
SELL AND DELIVER AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE ANYWHERE IN THE STATE
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ANY ADDITIONAL LICENSE TAX.  FN6  EVERY DISTRIBUTING
HOUSE, WHETHER OPERATED BY A MANUFACTURER OR WHOLESALER, FOR
DISTRIBUTING GOODS AMONGST THE OWNER'S RETAIL STORES, MUST BE LICENSED
AND PAY THE SAME TAX AS IF IT WERE A WHOLESALER.  FN7 RETAIL MERCHANTS
FN8  AND PEDDLERS AT RETAIL  FN9  MUST BE LICENSED AND PAY LICENSE
TAXES,  - THE FORMER A PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE OF HIS PURCHASES AND THE
LATTER A FIXED ANNUAL FEE.  THOSE WHO HAVE NO FIXED PLACE OF BUSINESS,
WHO PEDDLE THEIR WARES ONLY TO LICENSED DEALERS OR RETAILERS AT THE
PLACES OF BUSINESS OF THE LATTER, FALL INTO NONE OF THE DESCRIBED
CLASSES.  AS THE COURT BELOW POINTS OUT, WERE IT NOT FOR SEC. 192B,
SUCH PEDDLERS WOULD BE THE ONLY VENDORS IN VIRGINIA TO ESCAPE SOME FORM
OF TAXATION. 

PEDDLERS AT WHOLESALE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BE LICENSED AND TAXED ON
THE SAME BASIS AS OTHER VENDORS, AS RESPECTS EITHER FORM OR AMOUNT.  AS
WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT PREVENT A STATE FROM CLASSIFYING BUSINESSES FOR
TAXATION OR IMPOSE ANY IRON RULE OF EQUALITY.  FN10  SOME OCCUPATIONS
MAY BE TAXED THOUGH OTHERS ARE NOT.  SOME MAY BE TAXED AT ONE RATE,
OTHERS AT A DIFFERENT RATE.  CLASSIFICATION IS NOT DISCRIMINATION.  IT
IS ENOUGH THAT THOSE IN THE SAME CLASS ARE TREATED WITH EQUALITY.  THAT
IS TRUE HERE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACTS OF VIRGINIA, 1932, P. 376, 1938, P. 440; VA. TAX CODE,
1936, 192B, MICHIE, P. 2458, 1940 SUPP. 472. 

FN2  176 VA. 170, 10 S.E.2D 535. 

FN3  MACHINE CO. V. GAGE, 100 U.S. 676; EMERT V. MISSOURI, 156 U.S.
296; WAGNER V. COVINGTON, 251 U.S. 95. 

FN4  ARMOUR & CO. V. VIRGINIA, 246 U.S. 1, AND CASES THEREIN CITED. 

FN5  TAX CODE OF VIRGINIA, 1936, SECS. 73, 188, VA. CODE, 1936,
MICHIE, PP. 2416, 2451. 

FN6  TAX CODE OF VIRGINIA, SEC. 188, VA. CODE, 1936, MICHIE, PP. 2451
2452. 

FN7  IBID. 

FN8  IBID. 

FN9  ID., SEC. 192, VA. CODE, 1936, MICHIE, P. 2457. 

FN10  STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS V. JACKSON, 283 U.S. 527, 537,
AND CASES CITED. 
..END :









CITY BANK CO. V. HELVERING, 313 U.S. 121 


NOS. 408 AND 409.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  -
112 F.2D 457, AFFIRMED. 


THE ADMINISTRATION OF A TRUST BY A TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEE WHOSE DUTIES
AND ACTIVITIES ARE CONFINED TO HOLDING AND SAFEGUARDING A FUND OF
STOCKS AND BONDS, COLLECTING INCOME, MAKING SAFE INVESTMENTS AND
REINVESTMENTS, DISTRIBUTING INCOME TO BENEFICIARIES, KEEPING ACCOUNTS,
PREPARING AND FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS, ETC., IS NOT A "CARRYING ON
BUSINESS" WITHIN SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  HENCE THE
COMMISSIONS ALLOWED AND PAID THE TRUSTEE ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THAT
TAXABLE INCOME THE TRUST IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES AS AN INDIVIDUAL,
REVENUE ACT, 1928, SECS. 161-162.  HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S.
212, FOLLOWED.  P. 124. 

CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE. 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 672, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 39 B.T.A. 29. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S CONCESSION AT THE TRIAL THAT CERTAIN ITEMS WERE
DEDUCTIBLE AS BUSINESS EXPENSES IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME OF THE
TRUSTS WAS AN ADMISSION THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUSTS WAS A
BUSINESS.  THAT ISSUE WAS THUS REMOVED FROM THE CASE.  THE COMMISSIONER
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO REPUDIATE HIS CONCESSION. 

BY SETTLED AND UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, "ORDINARY AND
NECESSARY" TRUSTEES' COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS "BUSINESS"
EXPENSES.  WHILE THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE HAS BEEN IN EFFECT, THE
STATUTORY PROVISION ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS FOR ORDINARY AND NECESSARY
BUSINESS EXPENSES HAS BEEN REENACTED TWELVE TIMES.  THIS INDICATES
CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND GIVES TO IT
THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IS SOUND, AND SHOULD BE APPROVED. 
HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 212, INVOLVING PERSONAL INVESTMENT
ACTIVITIES OF AN INDIVIDUAL, IS DISTINGUISHABLE.  HERE, THE TRUSTS WERE
SEPARATE LEGAL AND TAXABLE ENTITIES, AND THE TRUSTEE WAS ADMINISTERING
THE TRUST ESTATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS.  THEREFORE, THE
COMMISSIONS OF THE TRUSTEE AND THE OTHER EXPENSES OF ADMINISTERING THE
TRUSTS CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE REGARDED AS "PERSONAL" EXPENSES. 

THE TRUSTS WERE ESTABLISHED FOR THE INVESTMENT AND REINVESTMENT OF A
LARGE SUM AND ACCUMULATING AND REINVESTING THE INCOME THEREFROM, THUS
BUILDING UP AN EVER-INCREASING FUND.  INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES OF THAT
NATURE, WHEN CARRIED ON BY A CORPORATION OR A TRUST, HAVE OFTEN BEEN
HELD TO CONSTITUTE THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS. 

THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRUSTEES' COMMISSIONS AS "BUSINESS" EXPENSES
WOULD PRODUCE DIFFICULT COMPLICATIONS, AND WOULD RESULT IN ONLY A
SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC REVENUES. 

THE COMMISSIONS HERE IN ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY BECAUSE
THEY WERE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF AND PAID OUT OF PRINCIPAL OF THE
TRUST FUNDS.  SUCH COMMISSIONS WERE PAID FOR THE TRUSTEE'S CARE AND
MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS, AND NOT FOR THE MERE ACT OF RECEIVING THE
PRINCIPAL.  THEY DIFFER IN NO RESPECT FROM THE COMMISSIONS PAID ON
INCOME, WHICH THE RESPONDENT CONCEDED ARE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS.  AN
ITEM OTHERWISE DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING NET INCOME TAXABLE TO A TRUST AS
AN ENTITY MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED JUST BECAUSE IT IS CHARGED AGAINST
PRINCIPAL INSTEAD OF INCOME OF THE TRUST. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED IS WHETHER TWO TESTAMENTARY
TRUSTS OF WHICH PETITIONER IS TRUSTEE WERE IN 1931 "CARRYING ON  ...
BUSINESS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928. 

PURSUANT TO THE WILL OF ANGIER B. DUKE, TWO TRUSTS, CONSISTING OF
STOCKS AND BONDS WORTH APPROXIMATELY $7,600,000, WERE ESTABLISHED IN
1923 FOR THE BENEFIT OF DUKE'S TWO MINOR SONS.  PETITIONER, AS TRUSTEE,
WAS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF APPLYING A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF THE INCOME
OF EACH TRUST TO THE SUPPORT AND EDUCATION OF THE BENEFICIARY; THE
SURPLUS INCOME WAS TO BE ACCUMULATED UNTIL THE BENEFICIARY'S MAJORITY;
AND AT THAT TIME ALL ACCUMULATED INCOME WAS TO BE PAID TO THE
BENEFICIARY, WHILE THE PRINCIPAL WAS TO BE CONTINUED IN TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE SON AND HIS DESCENDANTS.  BY 1931, THE PRINCIPAL AND
ACCUMULATED INCOME OF THE TWO TRUSTS AGGREGATED ABOUT $10,000,000.  IN
THAT YEAR THE SURROGATE COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY ALLOWED TRUSTEES'
COMMISSIONS OF ABOUT $77,000, ORDERING THAT PAYMENT BE MADE OUT OF
PRINCIPAL.  IN REPORTING TRUST INCOME FOR 1931, THE TRUSTEE DID NOT
CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION FOR THESE COMMISSIONS.  LATER, IN PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED BUT DENIED. 
THE GROUND OF DENIAL WAS THAT DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR THE TRUSTS HAD
NOT BEEN "CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS," THE CARRYING ON OF SUCH
AN ACTIVITY BEING A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIMED
DEDUCTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING REVENUE ACT.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN2  DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS AS TO THE MEANING AND
SCOPE OF "CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS" PROMPTED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE, IN THE CASE OF PYNE V. UNITED STATES, 92 CT.
CLS. 44; 35 F.SUPP.  81; POST, P. 127, AND IN THE CASE OF HIGGINS V.
COMMISSIONER, 111 F.2D 795, 312 U.S. 212. 

IN THE HIGGINS CASE, 312 U.S. 212, WE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SAME CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT RENDERED THE DECISION BELOW. 
HIGGINS, AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER WHOSE ACTIVITIES DID NOT VARY
MATERIALLY FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TAXPAYING TRUSTS IN THE CASE AT
BAR,  FN3  WAS DENIED THE DEDUCTION WHICH PETITIONER HERE SEEKS.  AND
SECS. 161-162 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 PROVIDE: "THE TAXES IMPOSED BY
THIS TITLE UPON INDIVIDUALS SHALL APPLY TO THE INCOME OF ESTATES OR OF
ANY KIND OF PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST.  ...  THE NET INCOME OF THE ESTATE
OR TRUST SHALL BE COMPUTED IN THE SAME MANNER AND ON THE SAME BASIS AS
IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL.  ..."  SINCE THE TRUST IS SUBJECT TO THE
SAME RULES AS THE INDIVIDUAL, AND SINCE THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS IN THE HIGGINS CASE AND IN THE CASE AT BAR ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME,  FN4  THE HIGGINS CASE IS CONTROLLING HERE,
UNLESS, AS PETITIONER CONTENDS, DISTINGUISHABLE BY REASON OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN RELATION TO TRUSTS. 

BUT WE REGARD THE HIGGINS DECISION AS CONTROLLING DESPITE
PETITIONER'S INSISTENCE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE HAS LONG PERMITTED
DEDUCTION OF TRUSTEES' COMMISSIONS.  IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS
CONGRESSIONAL COMMAND THAT THE SAME METHOD AND BASIS OF COMPUTATION
MUST BE APPLIED TO TRUST INCOME AS TO INDIVIDUAL INCOME, IT IS DOUBTFUL
WHETHER ANY ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, NO MATTER HOW CLEAR OR LONG
EXISTING, WOULD WARRANT OUR APPLYING ONE CONCEPT OF CARRYING ON
BUSINESS IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND ANOTHER CONCEPT IN THE CASE
OF A TRUST.  THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE HERE, WHERE THE STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION PETITIONER URGES HAS NEVER RECEIVED SUPPORT IN ANY
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  FN5  AND NOT
ONLY IS THE RESULT REACHED BY THE COURT BELOW CONSISTENT WITH OUR
DECISION IN HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER, BUT, AS WE SAID IN THE HIGGINS
CASE, THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS "IS ADEQUATELY
SUPPORTED BY THIS RECORD, AND RESTS UPON A CONCEPTION OF CARRYING ON
BUSINESS SIMILAR TO THAT EXPRESSED BY THIS COURT FOR AN ANTECEDENT

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SECS. 23(A), 161, 162, 45 STAT. 799, 838. 
CF. GEORGE VANDERBILT TRUST, 36 B.T.A. 967.  THOUGH PETITIONER URGES
THAT THE COMMISSIONER, BECAUSE OF CONCESSIONS MADE BEFORE THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS, SHOULD BE BARRED FROM ASSERTING THAT THE TRUSTS WERE NOT
CARRYING ON BUSINESS, THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD RESTED ON ITS FINDING
THAT THE TRUSTS WERE NOT SO ENGAGED, AND THE ISSUE IS PROPERLY BEFORE
US. 

FN2  112 F.2D 457. 

FN3  THE BOARD FOUND IN THIS CASE THAT THE TRUSTEE'S ACTIVITIES WERE
LIMITED TO REVIEWING THE STOCKS AND BONDS IN TRUST SEVERAL TIMES A
YEAR; SELLING SECURITIES AND REINVESTING THE PROCEEDS IN OTHER STOCKS
AND BONDS; COLLECTING INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS ON SECURITY; KEEPING
ACCOUNT BOOKS FOR THE TRUSTS AND RENDERING STATEMENTS TO THE INTERESTED
PARTIES; PREPARING AND FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS; AND DISTRIBUTING
INCOME TO THE BENEFICIARIES.  SUMMARIZING, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SAID, "THE ABOVE FACTS DEMONSTRATE CONCLUSIVELY TO US THAT THIS IS A
CASE OF PASSIVE INVESTMENT AND NOT OF CARRYING ON A BUSINESS, FOR NOT
ONLY IS THE TRUSTEE LIMITED IN ITS INVESTMENTS, BUT IT IS CAUTIONED IN
EFFECT TO BE A SAFE INVESTOR RATHER THAN A PARTICIPANT IN TRADE OR
BUSINESS, AND, PLAINLY CARRYING OUT THE TESTATOR'S INJUNCTIONS, IT
CONDUCTS NO BUSINESS, BECAUSE IT HAS, AS ABOVE SEEN, NO EXPENSES OF
CONDUCTING BUSINESS OTHER THAN THE COLLECTION OF COUPONS AND MAILING
BONDS, AMOUNTING TO A FEW DOLLARS, AND AN EVEN MORE NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT
FOR TRANSFER STAMPS OR NOTARY FEES.  ...  EXTENSIVE AUTHORITY NEED NOT
BE COMPILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A MERE PASSIVE INVESTOR, COLLECTING
INTEREST AND CLIPPING COUPONS, AND MAKING A VERY FEW REINVESTMENTS, IS
NOT ENGAGED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS." 

FN4  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN REACHING THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE INSTANT TRUSTS WERE NOT "BUSINESS TRUSTS" BUT
EXISTED MERELY TO HOLD AND CONSERVE PROPERTY AND DISTRIBUTE THE INCOME
RECEIVED.  COMPARE MORRISEY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344, 356-357; VON
BAUMBACH V. SARGENT LAND CO., 242 U.S. 503, 515; ZONNE V. MINNEAPOLIS
SYNDICATE, 220 U.S. 187. 

FN5  BIDDLE V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 573, 582; HELVERING V. NEW YORK
TRUST CO., 292 U.S. 455, 467-468. 

FN6  THE CASE REFERRED TO WAS VAN WART V. COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S. 112,
115. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. PYNE, 313 U.S. 127 


NO. 683.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 92 CT.
CLS. 44 - 35 F.SUPP.  81, REVERSED. 


1.  EXECUTORS IN CARING FOR SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS IN ORDER TO
CONSERVE AND PROTECT THE ESTATE PENDING FINAL DISTRIBUTION, ARE NOT
CARRYING ON BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 23(A), 161, AND 162 OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, WHATEVER THE SIZE OF THE ESTATE OR THE NUMBER
OF THOSE WHOSE SERVICES ARE REQUIRED IN ITS CONSERVATION; AND FEES PAID
TO AN ATTORNEY FOR ADVICE ON LEGAL AND ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ARISING IN
THE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN
COMPUTING THEIR INCOME TAX UNDER THAT ACT.  PP. 129, 132. 

THEREFORE, A FINDING OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT THE EXECUTORS
CONTINUED TO CONSERVE THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE AS HE HAD WHEN HE WAS
HIMSELF "A FINANCIER AND INVESTOR" FALLS SHORT OF A FINDING THAT THEY
WERE ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION ACCORDED BY CONGRESS ONLY TO THOSE
"CARRYING ON ...  BUSINESS." 

2.  THIS COURT WILL NOT WEIGH THE FACTS SET OUT IN SUBSIDIARY
FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO SUPPLY AN ULTIMATE AND DETERMINATIVE
FINDING WHICH THAT COURT FAILED TO MAKE BUT WHICH IS NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT.  P. 130. 

UNITED STATES V. PYNE ET AL., EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 672, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ALLOWING A CLAIM FOR A
REFUND OF MONEY EXACTED, AND PAID UNDER PROTEST, AS AN INCOME TAX. 

THE COMMISSIONER WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF OTHER
EXPENSES, CONSISTING OF OFFICE RENT, MANAGEMENT, AND SALARIES OF
EMPLOYEES, HAD HE NOT RECOGNIZED THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS ENGAGED
IN CARRYING ON A BUSINESS. 

THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF A TAXPAYER ARE
"CARRYING ON A BUSINESS" REQUIRES AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS IN EACH
CASE.  HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 212. 

THE FINDINGS CLEARLY REFLECT THE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE TAXPAYER
CONTINUED THE BUSINESS IN WHICH THE DECEDENT WAS ENGAGED AT THE TIME OF
HIS DEATH AND ITSELF WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS WHILE ALSO ADMINISTERING
THE ESTATE.  UPON THIS SHOWING, THE COURT APPORTIONED THE ATTORNEY'S
FEES BETWEEN BUSINESS EXPENSE AND ADMINISTRATION EXPENSE. 

THE PETITIONER IS ASKING THIS COURT TO REVERSE THE FACTUAL
DETERMINATION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, WITHOUT HAVING ANY OF THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE IT. 

THE FACTS FOUND BY THE LOWER COURT RECEIVED THEIR PROPER APPLICATION
TO THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT AUTHORIZING THE
DEDUCTION OF BUSINESS EXPENSES BY A TAXPAYER CARRYING ON BUSINESS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER UPON THIS RECORD THE COURT OF
CLAIMS  FN1  COMMITTED ERROR IN CONCLUDING THAT RESPONDENTS, AS
EXECUTORS, WERE, IN COMPUTING THEIR FEDERAL INCOME TAX, ENTITLED TO
DEDUCT EXPENSES PROPERLY INCURRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN ESTATE,
CONGRESS HAVING PROVIDED THAT SUCH A DEDUCTION COULD BE TAKEN ONLY BY
INDIVIDUALS, ESTATES, OR TRUSTS ENGAGED IN "CARRYING ON  ...
BUSINESS."  REVENUE ACT OF 1934, SECS. 23(A), 161, 162, 48 STAT. 688,
727.  COMPARE CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, ANTE, P. 121. 

IN COMPUTING THE 1934 NET INCOME OF THE ESTATE, RESPONDENTS CLAIMED A
DEDUCTION OF $40,000 FOR FEES PAID TO THE ESTATE'S ATTORNEY DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DISALLOWED THE
DEDUCTION; THE RESPONDENTS PAID UNDER PROTEST, AND FILED SUIT FOR
REFUND IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THEIR COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT "THE
PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND THE CLAIM FOR ALLOWANCE THEREOF AS A
DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME IS PREDICATED UPON THE CONTENTION THAT THE
TREMENDOUS SIZE OF THE CORPUS OF THE ESTATE AND THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION THEREOF CONSTITUTED THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS AND THE
EMPLOYMENT OF AN ATTORNEY AS COUNSEL TO GUIDE THE EXECUTORS IN THE
HANDLING OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE ESTATE WAS JUST AS MUCH A NECESSARY
EXPENSE OF THE ESTATE AS IS INCURRED IN THE OPERATION OF ANY COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OR SELLING OF COMMODITIES."  THE
COURT MADE DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND AS ITS SINGLE CONCLUSION OF
LAW STATED THAT THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD RECOVER. 

WE RECENTLY STATED IN HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 212, THAT
DETERMINATION OF WHAT AMOUNTS TO CARRYING ON BUSINESS REQUIRES
EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS IN EACH CASE.  IN THIS CASE, THE RECORD BEFORE
US CONTAINS THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, A CONCLUSION OF LAW,
AND AN OPINION SUMMARIZING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND INDICATING THE
REASONS WHICH PROMPTED THE COURT TO REACH ITS CONCLUSION OF LAW.  THE
MOST THAT CAN BE SAID OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT IS THAT THE COURT WAS OF
THE OPINION THAT THE FACTS FOUND SHOWED THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
EXECUTORS WERE SUCH AS TO MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE OPINION
AS DETERMINATIVE OF WHAT CONSTITUTED CARRYING ON BUSINESS.  FOR WHAT
THE COURT FOUND AS A FACT WAS THAT THE DECEDENT, PRIOR TO HIS DEATH
"WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AS A FINANCIER AND INVESTOR, MAINTAINING AN
OFFICE WHERE HE EMPLOYED AN OFFICE MANAGER AND AN AVERAGE OF SIX
CLERKS.  ...  IN GENERAL, THE OPERATIONS OF THE ESTATE CONTINUED IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME MANNER AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH AS BEFORE. 
..."  IN ADDITION THE COURT FOUND THAT THE ATTORNEY EMPLOYED BY THE
EXECUTORS "WAS CALLED UPON TO ADVISE THEM WITH REFERENCE TO MATTERS
BOTH LEGAL AND ECONOMIC THAT AROSE IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE
ESTATE, WITH REFERENCE TO FEDERAL ESTATE AND STATE INHERITANCE TAXES,
AND ALSO IN REGARD TO THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF THE ESTATE'S
SECURITIES AND IN REGARD TO VARIOUS MATTERS PERTAINING TO COMPANIES IN
WHICH THE ESTATE HELD INVESTMENTS."  BUT THE EXECUTORS MIGHT DO ALL THE
THINGS THAT THE COURT FOUND THAT THEY DID AND STILL NOT BE ENGAGED IN
"CARRYING ON  ...  BUSINESS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVENUE ACT. 
FOR AS WE SAID IN THE HIGGINS CASE, "ALL EXPENSES OF EVERY BUSINESS
TRANSACTION ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE.  ONLY THOSE ARE DEDUCTIBLE WHICH RELATE
TO CARRYING ON A BUSINESS."  ALSO, WE THERE SUSTAINED A HOLDING THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS ENGAGED IN FINANCIAL AND INVESTING ACTIVITIES IN ALL
WAYS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE DECEDENT AND HIS EXECUTORS IN THIS CASE
WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION SUCH AS THAT SOUGHT BY RESPONDENTS. 
THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT THE EXECUTORS
CONTINUED TO CONSERVE THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE AS HE HAD WHEN HE WAS
HIMSELF "A FINANCIER AND INVESTOR" FALLS FAR SHORT OF A FINDING THAT
THE EXECUTORS WERE ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION ACCORDED BY CONGRESS ONLY TO
THOSE "CARRYING ON  ...  BUSINESS."  FAILURE OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO
MAKE A SPECIFIC FINDING ON THIS ULTIMATE AND DETERMINATIVE ISSUE
DEPRIVES THAT COURT'S JUDGMENT OF SUPPORT.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE
ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO WEIGH THE DIFFERENT FACTS SET OUT IN THE
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD
SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT THE EXECUTORS WERE "CARRYING ON  ...
BUSINESS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  FN2 

WHEN WE TURN TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS,  FN3  IT IS MADE
CLEAR THAT ABSENCE OF SUCH A SPECIFIC FINDING WAS THE RESULT OF THE
COURT'S ADOPTION OF CRITERIA OF "CARRYING ON  ... BUSINESS"
INCONSISTENT WITH OUR HOLDING IN THE HIGGINS CASE.  SINCE THE JUDGMENT
MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE FINDINGS, IT IS
APPROPRIATE THAT WE POINT OUT THIS INCONSISTENCY.  ACCEPTING AS TRUE
THE STATEMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS THAT A BROAD DEFINITION OF
"BUSINESS" MIGHT BE THAT IT IS "WHATEVER ENGAGES THE TIME, ATTENTION,
AND LABOR OF MEN IN ORDER TO CONSERVE WHAT THEY HAVE OR TO AVOID LOSS"
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL THAT THIS IS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE, "CARRYING ON  ...  BUSINESS."  THIS DEFINITION OF "BUSINESS"
STEMS IN PART FROM THE CASE OF FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107,
171, UPON WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS RELIED.  BUT HOWEVER APPLICABLE
THAT DEFINITION MAY HAVE BEEN TO THE CASE THERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT
CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A GUIDE IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE REASONS WHY IT
IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE STATUTORY PROVISION NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION
WERE GIVEN IN OUR OPINION IN THE HIGGINS CASE; ITS NON-APPLICABILITY TO
SPECIFIC SITUATIONS HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED IN A NUMBER OF OTHER
OPINIONS OF THIS COURT.  FN4 

NOR CAN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS BE SUPPORTED BY THAT
COURT'S STATEMENT THAT THE EXECUTORS WERE ENGAGED "IN THE BUSINESS OF
CONSERVING THE ESTATE AND PROTECTING ITS INCOME."  SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE
THE TRADITIONAL DUTY OF EXECUTORS.  EXECUTORS WHO ENGAGE ACTIVELY IN
TRADE AND BUSINESS ARE THE EXCEPTION AND NOT THE RULE.  RATHER
OBVIOUSLY, THERE COULD BE CLEAR CASES WHERE EXECUTORS "CARRY ON  ...
BUSINESS" BY CONTINUING TO OPERATE A STORE, A FACTORY OR SOME OTHER
WELL KNOWN, WELL MARKED TYPE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY.  BUT IN THE ABSENCE
OF EVIDENCE SHOWING ACTIVITIES COMING WITHIN THE GENERAL ACCEPTATION OF
THE CONCEPT OF CARRYING ON A TRADE OR BUSINESS, IT CANNOT BE SAID AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT AN EXECUTOR COMES INTO THIS CATEGORY MERELY BECAUSE
HE CONSERVES THE ESTATE BY MARSHALLING AND GATHERING THE ASSETS AS A
MERE CONDUIT FOR ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION.  AND DETERMINATION OF WHAT
CONSTITUTES "CARRYING ON  ...  BUSINESS" UNDER THE REVENUE ACT DOES NOT
DEPEND UPON THE SIZE OF THE ESTATE OR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHOSE
SERVICES ARE REQUIRED IN ORDER PROPERLY TO CONSERVE IT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OR CLAIMS IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS
HEREIN EXPRESSED.  JUDGMENT VACATED. 

FN1  92 CT. CLS. 44; 35 F.SUPP.  81. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. ESNAULT-PELTERIE, 299 U.S. 201, 206. 

FN3  CF. CHIPPEWA INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 479, 481;
AMERICAN PROPELLER & MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 475, 479-480. 

FN4  SEE, E.G., VON BAUMBACH V. SARGENT LAND CO., 242 U.S. 503, 514
515; MCCOACH V. MINEHILL & SCHUYLKILL HAVEN R. CO., 228 U.S. 295, 303;
ZONNE V. MINNEAPOLIS SYNDICATE, 220 U.S. 187, 190. 
..END :








ARKANSAS COMM'N V. THOMPSON, 313 U.S. 132 


NO. 715.  ARGUED APRIL 4, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 116 F.2D
179, REVERSED. 


1.  ASSUMED, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT SEC. 64(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
IS APPLICABLE IN RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77.  P.
138. 

2.  SECTION 64(A)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT GIVING PRIORITY TO "TAXES
LEGALLY DUE AND OWING BY THE BANKRUPT TO  ...  ANY STATE," AND
PROVIDING "THAT, IN CASE ANY QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE AMOUNT OR
LEGALITY OF ANY TAXES, SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY
THE (BANKRUPTCY) COURT," DOES NOT EMPOWER THAT COURT TO REVISE THE
VALUATION OF A RAILROAD WHICH HAS BEEN FINALLY FIXED, PURSUANT TO THE
STATE LAW, AS THE BASIS FOR A STATE TAX.  P. 142. 

SO HELD WHERE THE VALUATION WAS BY A STATE COMMISSION HAVING BROAD
AUTHORITY IN THE REGULATION OF RAILROADS AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES AND
OVER VALUATIONS FOR TAX PURPOSES, IN QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN
WHICH THE REORGANIZATION TRUSTEE HAD BEEN FULLY HEARD AND FROM THE
RESULT OF WHICH HE TOOK NO APPEAL TO THE STATE COURTS, AS PERMITTED BY
STATE LAW.  NEW JERSEY V. ANDERSON, 203 U.S. 483, DISTINGUISHED. 

ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION ET AL. V. THOMPSON, TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 673, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER IN A
RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING WHICH OVERRULED A MOTION BY THE
PRESENT PETITIONERS FOR THE DISMISSAL OF A PETITION FILED BY THOMPSON,
TRUSTEE.  HIS PETITION ALLEGED THAT CERTAIN STATE TAXES LAID ON THE
RAILROAD WERE EXCESSIVE AND UNLAWFUL AND SOUGHT TO HAVE THEIR VALIDITY
DETERMINED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT EXCEEDED ITS POWER.  PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS,
308 U.S. 79; CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO.,
294 U.S. 648; ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & TIMBER CO., 282 U.S. 734; THOMPSON
V. TERMINAL SHARES, 104 F.2D 1; MCLAUGHLIN V. ST. LOUIS & S.W. RY., 232
F. 579; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. CONWAY & VILONIA ROAD DIST., 280 F.
401; MASSACHUSETTS V. PALMER, 101 F.2D 48.  SEE, ALSO, SECS. 77 AND
77(B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT; THE JOHNSON ACT OF 1934, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
41; TAX ACT OF 1937, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41. 

OF SEC. 77.  FINLETTER ON BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION, P. 344; SEC. 77,
BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. 205; IN RE BRANNON, 62 F.2D 959; THOMPSON V.
LOUISIANA, 98 F.2D 108. 

V. M.W. SAVAGE FACTORIES, 83 F.2D 453; BOTELER V. INGELS, 308 U.S. 57;
THOMPSON V. LOUISIANA, 98 F.2D 108; HAGGERTY V. MICHIGAN, 286 U.S. 334;
ROBERTSON V. GOREE, 29 F.2D 595; MACGREGOR V. JOHNSON-COWDIN-EMMERICH,
INC., 39 F.2D 574; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 104; ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, 48 STAT.
993. 

THE ORDER OF APRIL 11, 1940, WAS AN INJUNCTION.  JOHNSON ACT OF 1934,
41 STAT. 774; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41; GRIESA V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 165 F.
48; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. UNITED STATES & MEXICAN TRUST CO.,
221 F. 545; ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379; JUD.  CODE
SEC. 24; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41. 

THE TRUSTEE HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY UNDER ARKANSAS LAW FOR ANY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ARBITRARY INVASION OF RIGHTS.  MARTINEAU V. CLEAR
CREEK OIL & GAS CO., 141 ARK. 596; POPE'S DIGEST, SEC. 1936; CLEAR
CREEK OIL & GAS CO. V. FT. SMITH CO., 161 ARK. 12; FORT SMITH CO. V.
CLEAR CREEK OIL & CO., 267 U.S. 231; ATLAS LIFE INS. CO. V. SOUTHERN,
306 U.S. 561; TERRY V. NEW YORK, 104 F.2D 498; EAST OHIO CO. V.
CLEVELAND, 84 F.2D 443; MCLAUGHLIN V. ST. LOUIS & S.W. RY CO., 232 F.
579; MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. CONWAY & VILONIA ROAD DIST., 280 F.
401. 

THE TRUSTEE'S PETITION DOES NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE ISSUE FOR REVIEW
IN A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT.  THE PETITION PRESENTS ONLY A QUESTION OF
THE RELATION OF RECOGNIZED EVIDENTIARY FACTORS, AND THESE ARE
EXCLUSIVELY QUESTIONS FOR THE STATE BOARD.  SEE PUBLIC AIDS TO
TRANSPORTATION, COORDINATOR'S SECTION OF RESEARCH, VOL. 2, P. 200;
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 310 U.S. 573; FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134;
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362; ROWLEY V. CHICAGO
& N.W.R. CO., 293 U.S. 102; CENTRAL RAILWAY V. MARTIN, 115 F.2D 968;
THE JOHNSON ACT OF 1934, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41. 

THE POWERS OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WERE NOT EXCEEDED.  IN RE WOOD &
HENDERSON, 210 U.S. 246; U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. BRAY, 225 U.S.
205; VAN HUFFEL V. HARKELRODE, 294 U.S. 225; NEW YORK V. IRVING TRUST
CO., 288 U.S. 329; NEW JERSEY V. ANDERSON, 203 U.S. 483; KALB V.
FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433. 

THE PROVISION OF SEC. 64 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT "THAT IN CASE ANY
QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE AMOUNT OR LEGALITY OF ANY TAXES, SUCH
QUESTION SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE COURT" IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH SEC. 77, AND IS OF GOVERNING FORCE IN PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 77.  MICHIGAN V. MICHIGAN TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 334; IN RE
DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN R. CO., 23 F.SUPP.  298; ST. FRANCIS LEVEE
DIST. V. KURN, 91 F.2D 118; ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DISTRICT V. KURN, 98 F.2D
394. 

THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ANY QUESTION AS TO TAXES,
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 64(A) OF THE ACT, EXTENDS TO TAXES
ACCRUING DURING THE TRUSTEE'S POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.  HENDERSON
COUNTY V. WILKINS, 43 F.2D 670; DICKINSON V. RILEY, 96 F.2D 385; IN RE
DENVER & RIO GRANDE WESTERN R. CO., 23 F.SUPP.  298; ST. FRANCIS LEVEE
DIST. V. KURN, 91 F.2D 118; ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST. V. KURN, 98 F.2D
394. 

THE ORDER OF APRIL 11, 1940, WAS NOT AN INJUNCTION AND WAS NOT IN
VIOLATION OF JUD.  CODE SEC. 24.  EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610;
HENDERSON COUNTY V. WILKINS, 43 F.2D 670; ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST. V.
KURN, 91 F.2D 118; ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST. V. KURN, 98 F.2D 394. 

EVEN THOUGH THE ARKANSAS STATUTES MAY PROVIDE FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW
IN THE STATE'S COURTS OF THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE CORPORATION
COMMISSION, THIS DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF JURISDICTION
TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OR LEGALITY OF ANY TAX INVOLVED.  U.S.
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. BRAY, 225 U.S. 205; KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308
U.S. 433. 

THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE TRUSTEE'S PETITION IS CLEARLY
JUSTICIABLE.  SEE CONSTITUTION OF ARKANSAS, ART. XVI, SEC. 5; ARK.
STATS. SECS. 2044, 2048; DAWSON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES, 255 U.S. 288;
NEW JERSEY V. ANDERSON, 203 U.S. 483; IN RE SCHAEFER CO., 103 F.2D 237;
GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. WEEKS, 297 U.S. 135; CHICAGO & N.W. RY. V.
EVELAND, 13 F.2D 442; BAILEY V. MEGAN, 102 F.2D 651; STANDARD OIL CO.
V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 268 U.S. 146; ATLANTA, B. & C.R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 296 U.S. 33; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. ROAD IMPROVEMENT
DIST., 256 U.S. 658; ROAD IMPROVEMENT DIST. V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO.,
274 U.S. 188. 

THE VALIDITY AND AMOUNT OF TAX CLAIMS MUST BE DETERMINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE TAXING SOVEREIGNTY. 

THE ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION IS A QUASIJUDICIAL TRIBUNAL.  ITS
DECISIONS CAN NOT BE OVERTURNED BY THE COURTS FOR MERE MISTAKES OF FACT
OR ERRORS OF JUDGMENT. 

THE TRUSTEE DID NOT EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY PROVIDED BY THE
ARKANSAS STATUTE.  THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY FOR
RELIEF AGAINST AN ALLEGED ILLEGAL TAX MUST BE EXHAUSTED BEFORE RESORT
MAY BE HAD TO THE COURTS FOR THAT PURPOSE, IS APPLICABLE TO TRUSTEES IN
BANKRUPTCY.  IN RE GUSTAV SCHAEFER CO., 103 F.2D 237; CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD V. HOTEL CHARLES, 84 F.2D 589; IN RE PERLMUTTER, 256 F.
861; IN RE 168 ADAMS BUILDING CORP., 105 F.2D 704; IN RE A.V. MANNING'S
SONS, 16 F.SUPP.  632; IN RE SCHACH, 17 F.SUPP.  437. 

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS NO POWER, UNDER SEC. 77, TO REASSESS THE
TAXES DUE BY THE TRUSTEE.  SECTION 77 AUTHORIZES THE FORMULATION OF A
RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PLAN, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND OF THE COURT, THAT WILL BE FAIR AND JUST TO THE
CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS, AND WHICH WILL GUARANTEE THE CONTINUED
OPERATION OF THE RAILROAD.  THE WORD "TAXES" DOES NOT APPEAR IN SEC.
77, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SECTION INDICATING AN INTENTION TO
CONFER ON BANKRUPTCY COURTS THE EXTRAORDINARY POWER TO ASSESS OR RE
ASSESS TAXES. 

IF A TAX IS VALID WHEN MEASURED BY THE LAWS OF THE TAXING SOVEREIGN
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD ALLOW IT.  IF A TAX IS INVALID WHEN
MEASURED BY THOSE LAWS, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO
DISALLOW IT.  THE ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF A TAX CLAIM EXHAUSTS THE
ENTIRE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE COURT. 

THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES IS REFERABLE TO THE LEGISLATIVE POWER, AND IT
IS NO PART OF THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  CENTRAL KENTUCKY NATURAL GAS CO.
V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 290 U.S. 264.  SEE ALSO:  WEST OHIO GAS CO. V.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 63; ROWLEY V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY.
CO., 293 U.S. 102; GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. WEEKS, 297 U.S. 136;
REAGAN V. FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO., 154 U.S. 362; WEST V. CHESAPEAKE &
POTOMAC TEL. CO., 295 U.S. 662; CENTRAL R. CO. V. MARTIN, 115 F.2D
968. 

THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN HELD TO BE APPLICABLE TO TAX CLAIMS FILED IN
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  CITY OF DETROIT V. DETROIT & CANADA TUNNEL
CO., 92 F.2D 833; CROSS V. GEORGIA IRON & COAL CO., 250 F. 438; IN RE
GOULD MANUFACTURING CO., 11 F.SUPP.  644; IN RE SCHACH, 17 F.SUPP. 
437; IN RE 168 ADAMS BUILDING CORP., 27 F.SUPP.  247. 

THE TRUSTEE'S PETITION IS A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE ASSESSMENT MADE
BY THE COMMISSION.  THE ASSESSMENT IS PRIMA FACIE VALID AND IT MUST BE
JUDGED ON THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IS
EXHAUSTED WHEN THERE IS FOUND TO BE A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE
CONCLUSIONS APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE RIGHT AND POWER OF A
FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT TO REVISE AND REDETERMINE FOR STATE TAX
PURPOSES THE PROPERTY VALUE OF A RAILROAD (MISSOURI PACIFIC) IN
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE STATE
(ARKANSAS) HAVING ALREADY DETERMINED SUCH VALUE THROUGH ITS OWN TAXING
OFFICIALS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY VALID
STATE LEGISLATION. 

OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF ARKANSAS OFFICIALS, THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING
IN BANKRUPTCY HELD THAT IT DID HAVE SUCH POWER.  33 F.SUPP.  728.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  116 F.2D 179.  IN SO HOLDING, BOTH
COURTS RELIED ON SEC. 64(A) OF THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 104(A)(SUPP.  1939), AS THE SOURCE OF THIS POWER.  THAT SECTION,
SO FAR AS PERTINENT HERE, PROVIDES "THE DEBTS TO HAVE PRIORITY, IN
ADVANCE OF THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS TO CREDITORS, AND TO BE PAID IN
FULL OUT OF BANKRUPT ESTATES  ...  SHALL BE  ...  (4) TAXES LEGALLY DUE
AND OWING BY THE BANKRUPT TO THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE  ...  :
PROVIDED,  ...  THAT, IN CASE ANY QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE AMOUNT OR
LEGALITY OF ANY TAXES, SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY
THE (BANKRUPTCY) COURT  ...  " 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT SEC. 64(A) IS IN ITS ENTIRETY INCONSISTENT
FN1  WITH THE AIMS AND PURPOSES OF SEC. 77, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(SUPP. 
1939), AND THAT IT THEREFORE HAS NO APPLICATION HERE.  THAT QUESTION WE
NEED NOT DECIDE.  FOR WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE
GIVING TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT POWER TO DETERMINE THE "AMOUNT OR
LEGALITY" OF TAXES DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COURT IS GIVEN POWER TO
REDETERMINE AND REVISE THE PROPERTY VALUE FINALLY FIXED BY A STATE
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES REVEALED BY THE TRUSTEE'S PETITION, EVEN THOUGH
THAT VALUE IS THE BASIS USED IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF TAXES "LEGALLY
DUE AND OWING." 

AN EXPLANATION OF THE POWER, FUNCTIONS, AND ACTION OF THE ARKANSAS
CORPORATION COMMISSION IS ESSENTIAL TO A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS
CASE.  THAT COMMISSION IS A STATE AGENCY CREATED PURSUANT TO STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  FN2  IT IS VESTED WITH BROAD AUTHORITY IN
THE REGULATION OF RAILROADS, CANALS, TURNPIKES, PUBLIC UTILITIES, MOTOR
VEHICLES, SLEEPING CARS, TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANIES, AND
COMPANIES TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS, OIL AND ELECTRICITY.  FN3
ALSO, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE TAX LAWS THE CORPORATION
COMMISSION HAS GENERAL AND COMPLETE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE
VALUATION, ASSESSMENT AND EQUALIZATION OF ALL PROPERTY.  BEFORE
ENTERING UPON HIS DUTIES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY, EACH MEMBER OF
THE COMMISSION MUST SUBSCRIBE TO AN OATH THAT HE WILL WELL AND TRULY
VALUE AND ASSESS ALL PROPERTY REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED.  FN4  THE
COMMISSION HAS FULL POWER TO SUMMON WITNESSES AND HEAR EVIDENCE, BUT
FURTHER, BEFORE ASSESSMENTS ARE FINALLY DETERMINED, ALL PERSONS
INTERESTED HAVE THE RIGHT, ON WRITTEN APPLICATION, TO APPEAR AND BE
HEARD. 

THE MISSOURI PACIFIC HAS BEEN IN REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77, WITH
RESPONDENT AS TRUSTEE, SINCE 1933.  IN 1939, AS IN THE PRECEDING YEARS,
THE RAILROAD'S PROPERTIES WERE BEING OPERATED BY THE TRUSTEE.  THE
COMMISSION, AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH THE TRUSTEE PARTICIPATED, FIXED
THE VALUE OF THE RAILROAD'S ARKANSAS PROPERTY, AND LEVIED AN ASSESSMENT
FOR 1939.  THE TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING WAS HEARD, CONSIDERED,
AND OVERRULED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE TRUSTEE CONCEDES HERE THAT THE
HEARING GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION WAS IN "FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE
ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS REQUIRED BY THE ARKANSAS STATUTE."  UNDER
CONTROLLING ARKANSAS LAW, IT IS PROVIDED THAT "WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER
THE ENTRY ON THE RECORD OF THE SAID ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION OF
ANY ORDER MADE BY IT, ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED MAY FILE A WRITTEN MOTION
WITH ANY MEMBER OF SUCH COMMISSION OR WITH THE SECRETARY THEREOF
PRAYING FOR APPEAL FROM SUCH ORDER TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI
COUNTY; AND THEREUPON SAID APPEAL SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY DEEMED AS
GRANTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ORDER."  FN5  ANY
PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT'S DECISION MAY THEN OBTAIN AS A
MATTER OF RIGHT AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE.  FN6  IT
IS PROVIDED BY STATUTE THAT PREFERENTIAL STANDING ON THE DOCKET BE
GIVEN TO APPEALS FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND FROM THE
CIRCUIT COURT TO THE SUPREME COURT. 

THE COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER FIXING THE VALUE OF THE RAILROAD'S
PROPERTY FOR TAX ASSESSMENT WAS ENTERED ON DECEMBER 4, 1939.  THE
TRUSTEE DID NOT APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS AS AUTHORIZED BY ARKANSAS LAW, AND THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
CORPORATION COMMISSION THEREUPON BECAME FINAL.  THUS TESTED BY ARKANSAS
TAXATION LEGISLATION, THE ASSESSED TAXES WERE, IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.
64(A), "LEGALLY DUE AND OWING" TO THE STATE IN THE "AMOUNT" FIXED BY
THE COMMISSION, AND WERE NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER JUDICIAL REVIEW, UNLESS
THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT A TAXPAYER IS IN BANKRUPTCY OR
REORGANIZATION PLACES IT IN A SEPARATE TAX CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENT
FROM THAT OF ALL OTHER ARKANSAS TAXPAYERS.    BUT THREE MONTHS AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE STATE FOR THE TRUSTEE TO
APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION'S ORDER - SPECIFICALLY, ON APRIL 11, 1940 -
THE TRUSTEE PETITIONED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, SITTING IN MISSOURI, TO
DETERMINE THE "AMOUNT OR LEGALITY" OF THE ARKANSAS TAX BY REVISING THE
PROPERTY VALUE FOUND BY THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AND UPON WHICH THE
AMOUNT WAS BASED.  THE BASIS OF THE TRUSTEE'S PETITION WAS THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD MADE AN OVERASSESSMENT, IN THAT AFTER A HEARING IT HAD
DETERMINED THE PROPERTY TO BE WORTH FAR MORE THAN ITS ACTUAL VALUE. 
THIS ARGUMENT RESTED UPON A CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION HAD
OVERVALUED THE PROPERTY BY GIVING "PREDOMINANT WEIGHT  ...  TO ORIGINAL
COST AND TO COST OF REPRODUCTION, AND WHOLLY INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION
...  TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE RAILROAD'S STOCKS AND BONDS AND TO AN
ENORMOUS REDUCTION IN EARNINGS OCCASIONED BY GENERAL BUSINESS
CONSIDERATIONS AND TO RAPID INCREASE OF COMPETITION FROM BUSES, TRUCKS,
WATER AND AIR."  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WAS ASKED TO FIND THE
COMMISSION'S TAX ASSESSMENT ILLEGAL UPON THREE GROUNDS:  (1) THE VALUE
DETERMINED BY THE BOARD WAS GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE
OF THE RAILROAD'S PROPERTY AND THEREFORE THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THAT
"UPON THE CONSIDERATION OF WHAT A CLEAR FEE SIMPLE TITLE THERETO WOULD
SELL FOR UNDER CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THAT CHARACTER OF PROPERTY IS
USUALLY SOLD."  FN7  (2) THE ASSESSMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 OF
ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ARKANSAS WHICH PROVIDES THAT ALL
PROPERTY SHALL BE TAXED ACCORDING TO ITS VALUE AND THAT NO ONE SPECIES
OF PROPERTY FROM WHICH A TAX MAY BE COLLECTED SHALL BE TAXED HIGHER
THAN ANOTHER SPECIES OF PROPERTY OF EQUAL VALUE, AND THAT ALL VALUES
SHALL BE ASCERTAINED SO AS TO MAKE THE SAME EQUAL AND UNIFORM
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.  (3) THE ALLEGED EXCESSIVE VALUATION FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

IT IS THUS OBVIOUS THAT THE TRUSTEE'S PETITION, WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT REFUSED TO DISMISS, RESTED ENTIRELY UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SEC.
64(A)(4) GAVE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT POWER TO HOLD A COMPLETELY NEW
HEARING IN ORDER TO SET ITS OWN VALUE ON THE PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF
THE VALUE FIXED BY THE STATE THROUGH ITS EXPERT AND SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCY.  FN8 

BUT WE DO NOT SO INTERPRET SEC. 64(A)(4).  WHAT SEC. 64(A)(4) RELATES
TO IS "TAXES LEGALLY DUE AND OWING BY THE BANKRUPT."  AND WHAT THAT
AMOUNT OR LEGALITY OF ANY TAXES, SUCH QUESTION SHALL BE HEARD AND
DETERMINED BY THE COURT; ...  "  NOTHING IN THIS LANGUAGE INDICATES
THAT TAXPAYERS IN BANKRUPTCY OR REORGANIZATION ARE INTENDED TO HAVE THE
EXTRAORDINARY PRIVILEGE OF TWO SEPARATE TRIALS, ONE STATE AND ONE
FEDERAL, ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF CONTROVERTED FACT - THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY TAXED.  MANIFESTLY, WHETHER OR NOT TAXES ARE "LEGALLY DUE AND
OWING" TO A STATE DEPENDS UPON THE VALID LAWS OF THAT STATE.  AD
VALOREM TAXES DEPEND UPON A DETERMINATION OF VALUE.  THE GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION OF FIXING THE VALUE FOR TAX PURPOSES HAS RARELY, IF EVER, BEEN
A JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  THE "LEGALITY" OF THE ACTION OF ARKANSAS IN
ENTRUSTING THE DETERMINATION OF VALUE TO ITS CORPORATION COMMISSION IS
NOT CHALLENGED HERE, AS OF COURSE IT COULD NOT BE.  IF THE COMMISSION
PROPERLY FOUND THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, THE "AMOUNT" OF THE TAXES IS
NOT IN QUESTION.  FOR IT IS NOT ASSERTED THAT THE COMMISSION MADE AN
IMPROPER ARITHMETICAL COMPUTATION IN APPLYING THE LEGAL TAX RATE TO THE
DETERMINED PROPERTY VALUE.  IT IS IN THIS RESPECT, AS WELL AS WITH
REGARD TO THE DISSIMILAR DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES INVOLVED, THAT THIS CASE DIFFERS FROM THAT OF
NEW JERSEY V. ANDERSON, 203 U.S. 483, UPON WHICH THE TRUSTEE HERE
STRONGLY RELIES.  IN THAT CASE, AS HERE, THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SEC.
64(A) WAS RELIED ON AS AUTHORIZING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO DETERMINE
THE "AMOUNT OR LEGALITY" OF TAXES.  NEW JERSEY HAD IMPOSED A FRANCHISE
TAX UPON THE OUTSTANDING - NOT THE AUTHORIZED - CAPITAL STOCK OF
CORPORATIONS, VARYING IN PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER OF SHARES.  A STATE
AGENCY, WITHOUT A HEARING, IMPOSED A TAX ON THE $40,000,000 AUTHORIZED
STOCK OF THE COMPANY INVOLVED, WHEN IN FACT THE COMPANY HAD ONLY
$10,000,000 OF SUCH STOCK OUTSTANDING.  THIS COURT SAID:  "IT MAY WELL
BE DOUBTED WHETHER THE BOARD HAD POWER TO TAX ANY OTHER STOCK (EXCEPT
THAT OUTSTANDING).  BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, SECTION 64A SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDES THAT IN CASE ANY QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE AMOUNT OR LEGALITY
OF TAXES, THE SAME SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE COURT, WITH A
VIEW TO ASCERTAINING THE AMOUNT REALLY DUE.  WE DO NOT THINK IT WAS THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO CONCLUDE THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS BY THE FINDINGS
OF BOARDS OF THIS CHARACTER, AND THAT THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPON
THE BASIS OF THE CAPITAL STOCK ACTUALLY OUTSTANDING."  BUT IN THAT CASE
THE TRUSTEE ARGUED IN HIS BRIEF BEFORE THIS COURT THAT UNDER
CONTROLLING NEW JERSEY LAW "THE ASSESSORS ACTED MINISTERIALLY, NOT
JUDICIALLY," THEIR "DETERMINATION WAS MERELY COMPUTATION," AND THEIR
ACTIONS EXCEEDED THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  FN9 

THE ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT ACT
MINISTERIALLY.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS A QUASIJUDICIAL AGENCY ENTRUSTED
WITH WIDE RESPONSIBILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENERAL TAX SYSTEM OF
THE STATE.  UPON IT THE STATE RELIES FOR THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION
OF MATTERS ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE AND FAIR FUNCTIONING OF A
UNIFORM TAX SYSTEM.  FOR REASONS DEEMED SUITABLE TO IT, THE STATE HAS
ELECTED TO CONFIDE THIS DUTY TO THE SAME AGENCY WHICH HAS POWER TO
EXERCISE STATE-WIDE REGULATORY SUPERVISION OVER PUBLIC UTILITIES,
INCLUDING RAILROADS.  THE DIFFICULTIES IN FIXING RAILROAD VALUATIONS
ARE WELL KNOWN, AND HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES ADVERTED TO BY THIS COURT. 
FN10  THE CORPORATION COMMISSION HAS BEEN CHOSEN BY ARKANSAS AS THE
ULTIMATE GUARDIAN OF THE RIGHTS OF THE STATE AND ITS TAXPAYERS, SUBJECT
ONLY TO THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW PROVIDED FOR BY THE STATE.  "THE STATE HAS
CONFIDED THOSE RIGHTS TO ITS PROTECTION AND HAS TRUSTED TO ITS HONOR
AND CAPACITY AS IT CONFIDES THE PROTECTION OF OTHER SOCIAL RELATIONS TO
THE COURTS OF LAW."  CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V. BABCOCK, 204 U.S. 585,
598. 

IF THE TRUSTEE HAD AVAILED HIMSELF OF HIS RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE
COURTS OF ARKANSAS, WITH AN ULTIMATE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THIS COURT FOR
FINAL DETERMINATION OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE
THAT IT WOULD NOW BE SERIOUSLY ARGUED THAT CONGRESS, BY SEC. 64(A)(4),
INTENDED TO IMPOSE UPON THE BANKRUPTCY COURT THE UNUSUAL POWER AND
DELICATE DUTY OF TRYING OUT AFRESH THE FACTS FOUND BY THE STATE WITH
RELATION TO THE VALUE OF PROPERTY.  AND THERE IS NO MORE REASON TO
ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD FAIL TO
GIVE RESPECT TO AN UNAPPEALED DETERMINATION OF VALUE MADE BY THE
ARKANSAS CORPORATION COMMISSION.  BANKRUPTCY AND REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS TODAY COVER A WIDE AREA IN THE BUSINESS FIELD.  BUT THERE
IS NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OF BANKRUPTCY OR REORGANIZATION LEGISLATION
TO SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO SET THE FEDERAL COURTS
UP AS SUPER-ASSESSMENT TRIBUNALS OVER STATE TAXING AGENCIES.  THE
EXPRESS LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE OF ARKANSAS TO MOVE TOWARDS A MORE NEARLY
UNIFORM AND FAIRLY DISTRIBUTED TAX BURDEN THROUGH RELYING ON
SUPERVISION BY A SINGLE AGENCY COULD BE IN LARGE PART FRUSTRATED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR WHICH THE TRUSTEE HERE
CONTENDS.  SECTION 64(A), THUS CONSTRUED, WOULD TEND TO OBSTRUCT, AND
NOT TO FACILITATE, THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE TAX LAWS.  FN11  NOTHING IN
THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT REQUIRES SUCH A CONSTRUCTION.  AND THE POLICY
OF REVISING AND REDETERMINING STATE TAX VALUATIONS CONTENDED FOR BY THE
TRUSTEE WOULD BE A COMPLETE REVERSAL OF OUR HISTORIC NATIONAL POLICY OF
FEDERAL NON-INTERFERENCE WITH THE TAXING POWER OF STATES. 

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE TRUSTEE'S PETITION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 77(1) PROVIDES:  "IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS THEREOF, THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF
THE COURT,  ...  AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS,  ...
SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN
FILED AND A DECREE OF ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE
DEBTOR'S PETITION WAS FILED." 

AMONG THE FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS CITED IN BRIEFS SUPPORTING THE
PETITION AS BEARING ON THE ISSUE OF INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN SECS. 64(A)
AND 77, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ARE THE FOLLOWING:  LOWDEN V.
NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., 298 U.S. 160, 164; IN RE
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 27 F.SUPP.  685; CITY OF SPRINGFIELD V.
HOTEL CHARLES CO., 84 F.2D 589; IN RE A.V. MANNING'S SONS, 16 F.SUPP. 
932; IN RE NEW YORK, O. & W. RY. CO., 25 F.SUPP.  709; TEXAS CO. V.
BLUE WAY LINES, 93 F.2D 593; HENDERSON COUNTY V. WILKINS, 43 F.2D 670. 
AND SEE FINLETTER, THE LAW OF BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION (1939) PP. 343
344. 

FN2  ARK. DIG.  STATS.  (POPE, 1937) SEC. 1930. 

FN3  ID., SECS. 1930-2128. 

FN4  ID., SEC. 2042. 

FN5 ID., SEC. 2019. 

FN6  ID., SEC. 2020. 

FN7  ID., SEC. 2044. 

FN8  AMONG THE LOWER FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS DISCUSSING THE POWER OF
BANKRUPTCY COURTS UNDER SEC. 64(A)(4) ARE:  IN RE GOULD MFG. CO., 11
F.SUPP.  644; IN RE 168 ADAMS BUILDING CORP., 27 F.SUPP.  247,
AFFIRMED, 105 F.2D 704; IN RE SCHACH, 17 F.SUPP.  437, 439; IN RE LANG
BODY CO., 92 F.2D 338; HENDERSON COUNTY V. WILKINS, 43 F.2D 670. 

FN9  IN ADVANCING THIS ARGUMENT COUNSEL CALLED ATTENTION TO THE CASE
OF PEOPLE'S INVESTMENT CO. V. STATE BOARD OF ASSESSORS, 66 N.J.L. 175;
48 A. 579, IN WHICH THE COURT HAD SAID THAT IT WAS BEYOND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE TAX AGENT TO LEVY A TAX ON ANY BUT THE OUTSTANDING
CAPITAL STOCK.  COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON ARIMEX COPPER CO. V. STATE BOARD
OF ASSESSORS, 69 N.J.L. 121; 54A.  244. 

FN10  E.G., NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362,
370; ROWLEY V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 293 U.S. 102, 109, AND CASES
CITED. 

FN11  BOTELER V. INGELS, 308 U.S. 57, 61; HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S.
263, 270; PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185.  CF. BANKRUPTCY
ACT OF 1867, SEC. 28(5), 14 STAT. 531; ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 124(A), 48 STAT. 993. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















PITTSBURGH GLASS CO. V. BOARD, 313 U.S. 146 


NO. 521.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 10, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 113
F.2D 698, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A RULING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DETERMINING AN
APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS NOT DIRECTLY REVIEWABLE
BUT IS SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE WHEN A COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR PRACTICES IS
BASED UPON IT.  P. 154. 

2.  AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING AN
EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM RECOGNIZING OR DEALING WITH A UNION
AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION, ENTERED ON STIPULATION OF THE EMPLOYER,
WITHOUT HEARING, IN A PROCEEDING CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 8(1) AND
(2) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO WHICH THE UNION WAS NOT A
PARTY, IS BINDING UPON THE EMPLOYER BUT LEAVES THE UNION'S PRIVATE
RIGHTS UNTOUCHED.  P. 155. 

3.  IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD UNDER SEC. 9(B) OF THE ACT TO
DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT OR UNITS FOR THE EMPLOYEES IN
A PLURALITY OF PLANTS OPERATED BY THE SAME EMPLOYER AND MANUFACTURING
SIMILAR PRODUCTS, THE DESIRE OF THE EMPLOYEES AT ONE OF THE PLANTS TO
BE REPRESENTED BY THEIR OWN UNION RATHER THAN BY A SINGLE ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES IN ALL THE PLANTS, IS A FACT TO BE WEIGHED,
TOGETHER WITH THE SIMILARITY OF WORKING DUTIES AND CONDITIONS, THE
CHARACTER OF THE VARIOUS PLANTS, AND THE ANTICIPATED EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE UNIT TO BE CHOSEN IN MAINTAINING INDUSTRIAL PEACE THROUGH
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  P. 156. 

4.  THE AVAILABILITY OF A WORKERS' ORGANIZATION FOR PURPOSES OF
REPRESENTATION AT A PARTICULAR PLANT IS NOT IN ITSELF DECISIVE AGAINST
JOINING THE EMPLOYEES IN THAT PLANT WITH THOSE OF OTHER PLANTS OF THE
SAME EMPLOYER AS AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT.  P. 156. 

5.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES OF A PLANT HAVING ITS
SEPARATE UNION SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THOSE IN OTHER PLANTS OPERATED
BY THE SAME EMPLOYER, AS AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT, THE FACT OF
EMPLOYER-DOMINATION IN THAT PLANT IS TO BE CONSIDERED; BUT IT PERTAINS
RATHER TO THE SUBSEQUENT CERTIFICATION OF BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. 
P. 156. 

6.  IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 9(B) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT IN WHICH ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN A PLURALITY OF SEPARATE PLANTS WERE
FOUND TO CONSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT AND A SINGLE LABOR
FEDERATION WAS CERTIFIED AS THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, THE BOARD
HAD RECEIVED THE PETITION OF A UNION INCLUDING A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE
WORKERS AT ONE OF THE PLANTS SHOWING THEIR DESIRE TO BE CLASSED AS A
SEPARATE UNIT WITH SEPARATE REPRESENTATION.  IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING
UNDER SECS. 8(1) AND (5), CHARGING THE EMPLOYER WITH UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE IN REFUSING TO BARGAIN WITH THE FEDERATION SO CERTIFIED,
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THIS DESIRE OF THE WORKERS IN THE SINGLE PLANT WAS
OFFERED IN THE ENDEAVOR TO SHOW THAT THEIR INCLUSION IN THE UNIT WAS
UNLAWFUL.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT REFUSAL BY THE BOARD TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS
NOT ARBITRARY, SINCE THE TWO PROCEEDINGS WERE VIRTUALLY ONE AND THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORKERS' DESIRES OBTAINED IN THE FIRST COULD PROPERLY
BE CONSIDERED IN THE SECOND.  P. 157. 

(2)  A REFUSAL TO ADMIT EVIDENCE THAT THE UNION AT THE SINGLE PLANT
WAS FREE FROM EMPLOYER-DOMINATION, WAS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE
BOARD, IN VIEW OF AN ORDER FORBIDDING SUCH DOMINATION, WHICH IT HAD
MADE, ON STIPULATION OF THE EMPLOYER, IN A DISTINCT PROCEEDING IN WHICH
THE UNION FAILED TO APPEAR, AND IN VIEW OF THE FULL INVESTIGATION MADE
BY THE BOARD IN THE UNIT HEARING, AT WHICH THE UNION AND ALL OTHER
INTERESTED PARTIES WERE PRESENT.  P. 158. 

(3)  REFUSAL TO ADMIT EVIDENCE CUMULATIVE TO THAT RECEIVED AT THE
UNIT HEARING, TO SHOW THAT THE EMPLOYEES AT THE LOCAL PLANT HAD
INTERESTS DISTINCT FROM THOSE OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THE OTHER PLANTS, WAS
JUSTIFIABLE IN VIEW OF THE TESTIMONY ON THE SUBJECT ADDUCED BY THE
UNION AT THE UNIT HEARING.  P. 161. 

(4)  EVIDENCE THAT THE UNION HAD BARGAINED FOR ITS MEMBERS WITH THE
EMPLOYER UNTIL THE EMPLOYER REFUSED TO DO SO BECAUSE OF CHARGES OF
DOMINATION FILED AGAINST IT, AND EVIDENCE THAT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE
UNION HAD INCREASED, MIGHT PROPERLY BE REJECTED BY THE BOARD AS OF
SLIGHT PROBATIVE VALUE IN DETERMINING AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT. 
P. 162. 

(5)  CONSIDERING TOGETHER ALL THE CONTENTIONS ABOUT EXCLUSION OF
EVIDENCE, THE COURT DOES NOT FIND THAT IN THE AGGREGATE THE EVIDENCE
EXCLUDED COULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE "APPROPRIATE
UNIT" ISSUE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA BY WHICH THE BOARD DETERMINED
THAT ISSUE.  P. 163. 

7. EVIDENCE HELD ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION OF THE LABOR BOARD
THAT ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A PLURALITY OF PLANTS SHOULD BE INCLUDED
IN ONE BARGAINING UNIT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT ONE OF THEM WAS A SEPARATE
INDUSTRIAL UNIT, WHICH WAS NOT MECHANICALLY INTEGRATED WITH THE OTHERS,
WHICH DID NOT EXCHANGE EMPLOYEES WITH THEM, AND WHICH HAD ITS OWN
SUPERINTENDENT TO DEAL WITH LABOR GRIEVANCES AND ITS OWN PURCHASING
AGENT.  P. 163. 

LABOR POLICIES AND WAGES FOR ALL THE PLANTS WERE DETERMINED AT A
CENTRAL OFFICE.  WORK, WAGES, HOURS, WORKING CONDITIONS AND
MANUFACTURING PROCESSES WERE SIMILAR.  THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN
FINDING THAT AN INDEPENDENT UNIT AT THE PLANT IN QUESTION WOULD
FRUSTRATE GENERAL EFFORT AT LABOR ADJUSTMENTS, AND WOULD ENABLE THE
EMPLOYER TO USE THE PLANT FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATION IN CASE OF STOPPAGE
OF LABOR AT THE OTHER PLANTS.  P. 164. 

8.  SECTION 9(B) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WHICH PROVIDES
THAT THE BOARD "SHALL DECIDE IN EACH CASE WHETHER, IN ORDER TO INSURE
THE EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND
TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND OTHERWISE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF
THIS ACT, THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
SHALL BE THE EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT UNIT, PLANT UNIT, OR SUBDIVISION
THEREOF," SUPPLIES ADEQUATE STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND
DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE LEGISLATIVE POWER.  P. 164. 

PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 523, CRYSTAL CITY GLASS WORKERS' UNION V. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 642, TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 642, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  15 N.L.R.B. 515.  SEE ALSO 102
F.2D 1004, ENFORCING 8 N.L.R.B. 1210; AND 10 N.L.R.B. 1111. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS IN THE TWO CASES COVERED BY THESE CERTIORARIS  FN1
ARE THE PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY, AN EMPLOYER, AND THE CRYSTAL
CITY GLASS WORKERS UNION, AN "INDEPENDENT" OR "LOCAL" UNION, THAT IS A
UNION UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION.  CHARGED WITH
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN REFUSING TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH DULY
ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES, THE COMPANY COUNTERED THE
COMPLAINT WITH THE ASSERTION THAT IT HAD AND DID BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
WITH THE PROPER REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES BUT THAT IT DENIED THE
VALIDITY OF A BOARD DECISION INCLUDING THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT OF THE
COMPANY AS A PART OF THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT.  THE CENTRAL
ISSUE THUS IS THE LEGALITY OF THE LABOR BOARD'S DECISION, UNDER SEC.
9(B) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,  FN2  DETERMINING THAT "THE
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY" AT ALL SIX PLANTS
OF ITS FLAT GLASS DIVISION, AS A WHOLE, CONSTITUTE THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR THE CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES, RATHER THAN
THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT ONLY.  THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION
IS CHALLENGED ON THE MERITS, ON PROCEDURAL AND ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS.  THE CERTIORARIS WERE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
"APPROPRIATE UNIT" PROBLEM IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 

THE SIX PLANTS OF THE FLAT GLASS DIVISION ARE LOCATED IN FIVE
DIFFERENT STATES:  FORD CITY, PENNSYLVANIA; CREIGHTON, PENNSYLVANIA;
MOUNT VERNON, OHIO; CLARKSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA; HENRYETTA, OKLAHOMA; AND
CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.  FN3  THE NORMAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE
WHOLE DIVISION IS ABOUT 6500.  THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT, WITH 1600, AND
THE SLIGHTLY LARGER PLANTS AT FORD CITY AND CREIGHTON ACCOUNT FOR THE
BULK OF THESE WORKERS; THE REMAINING THREE TOGETHER EMPLOY ONLY ABOUT
1000.  THE FEDERATION OF FLAT GLASS WORKERS, AN AFFILIATE OF THE
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, HAS A MAJORITY OF ALL THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE FLAT GLASS DIVISION AND ALSO A MAJORITY AT EACH PLANT
EXCEPT CRYSTAL CITY.  ITS POSITION, WHICH THE BOARD SUSTAINED, IS THAT
THE ENTIRE DIVISION SHOULD BE A SINGLE BARGAINING UNIT.  THE CRYSTAL
CITY UNION, WHICH CLAIMS A MAJORITY AT THAT PLANT, AND THE COMPANY BOTH
CONTEND THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE REQUIRE CRYSTAL CITY TO BE
SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE DIVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING THE
UNIT. 

THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS ARE THE THIRD STAGE OF THIS LABOR DISPUTE. 
ORIGINALLY, IN JUNE, 1938, THE BOARD FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
COMPANY ALLEGING DOMINATION OF AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE CRYSTAL CITY
UNION IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 8(1) AND (2).  FN4 THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION
WAS NOT NAMED AS A PARTY IN THAT PROCEEDING.  BEFORE ANY HEARING HAD
BEEN HELD THE COMPANY CONSENTED TO ENTRY OF AN ORDER THAT IT WOULD
CEASE AND DESIST FROM DOMINATING OR CONTRIBUTING TO THE CRYSTAL CITY
UNION OR FROM RECOGNIZING OR DEALING WITH IT AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION. 
THE BOARD ISSUED THE STIPULATED ORDER IN SEPTEMBER, 1938, AND LATER,
ALSO PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, OBTAINED AN ENFORCEMENT ORDER FROM
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN5  THE FEDERATION OF FLAT GLASS
WORKERS, WHICH HAD FILED THE CHARGES LEADING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE
COMPLAINT, ALSO HAD REQUESTED AN INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(C) OF THE ACT.  EXTENSIVE HEARINGS
ON THIS SECOND STAGE TOOK PLACE IN OCTOBER, 1938, AT WHICH THE CRYSTAL
CITY UNION APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED.  ON JANUARY 13, 1939, THE BOARD
ISSUED ITS DECISION FIXING THE BARGAINING UNIT AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE COMPANY'S PRODUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FLAT GLASS DIVISION (WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF WINDOW GLASS CUTTERS, CLERICAL EMPLOYEES NOT DIRECTLY
CONNECTED WITH PRODUCTION, AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES) CONSTITUTE AN
APPROPRIATE UNIT, AND IT CERTIFIED THE FEDERATION AS THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT.  FN6  THIS ORDER,
UNDER OUR RULING IN AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD,  FN7
WAS NOT SUBJECT TO DIRECT JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER SEC. 10(F) OF THE ACT. 
THE COMPANY, HOWEVER, CONTINUED TO ASSERT THAT THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT
SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNIT, AND REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE
FEDERATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT GROUP OF EMPLOYEES.  ACCORDINGLY, ABOUT
A MONTH AFTER ITS CERTIFICATION ORDER, THE BOARD ISSUED A COMPLAINT IN
THIS PROCEEDING, THE THIRD AND PENDING STAGE OF THE LABOR DISPUTE,
ALLEGING A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 8(1)
AND (5).  AT THE HEARING ON THIS COMPLAINT, AT WHICH THE CRYSTAL CITY
UNION WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE, THE TRIAL EXAMINER EXCLUDED A CERTAIN
OFFER OF PROOF BY IT AND THE COMPANY.  FOR VARIOUS REASONS THE BOARD
FOUND THAT THE EXCLUSION WAS IN PART PROPER AND FOR THE REST NON
PREJUDICIAL.  ON THE MERITS THE BOARD, WITH ONE MEMBER DISSENTING,
ADHERED TO ITS ORIGINAL VIEW THAT THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE UNIT AND THEREFORE FOUND THAT THE COMPANY HAD COMMITTED
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  FN8  THE COMPANY AND THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION
SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
WHICH AFFIRMED,  FN9  AND WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

TO REACH A CONCLUSION UPON THE COMPLAINT UNDER CONSIDERATION AGAINST
THE COMPANY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, VIOLATING SEC. 8, SUBSECTIONS
(1) AND (5) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE VALIDITY OF THE
BOARD'S DECISION AS TO THE APPROPRIATE UNIT MUST BE DECIDED.  AS THE
UNFAIR PRACTICE CHARGED WAS THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY BECAUSE
OF THE INCLUSION OF THE CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT, IF THEY
WERE IMPROPERLY INCLUDED THE COMPLAINT FAILS. 

THE LABOR ACT PLACES UPON THE BOARD THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING
THE APPROPRIATE GROUP OF EMPLOYEES FOR THE BARGAINING UNIT.  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY, THE BOARD MAY DECIDE THAT
ALL EMPLOYEES OF A SINGLE EMPLOYER FORM THE MOST SUITABLE UNIT FOR THE
SELECTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES, OR THE BOARD MAY
DECIDE THAT THE WORKERS IN ANY CRAFT OR PLANT OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF
ARE MORE APPROPRIATE.  FN10  THE PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT SEC. 9(A)
GRANTS TO THE MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES IN A UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH
PURPOSES THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING  FN11  IS CORRECT ONLY IN THE
SENSE THAT THE "APPROPRIATE UNIT" IS THE ONE DECLARED BY THE BOARD
UNDER SEC. 9(B), NOT ONE THAT MIGHT BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE UNDER OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN ITS ANNUAL REPORTS, THE BOARD HAS STATED THE GENERAL
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MOTIVATE ITS ACTION: 

"IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES OF ONE, SEVERAL, OR ALL PLANTS
OF AN EMPLOYER, OR THE EMPLOYEES IN ALL OR ONLY A PART OF A SYSTEM OF
COMMUNICATIONS, TRANSPORTATION, OR PUBLIC UTILITIES, CONSTITUTE AN
APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, THE BOARD
HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:  (1) THE HISTORY,
EXTENT, AND TYPE OF ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPLOYEES; (2) THE HISTORY OF
THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, INCLUDING ANY CONTRACTS; (3) THE HISTORY,
EXTENT, AND TYPE OF ORGANIZATION, AND THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, OF
EMPLOYEES OF OTHER EMPLOYERS IN THE SAME INDUSTRY; (4) THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN ANY PROPOSED UNIT OR UNITS AND THE EMPLOYER'S ORGANIZATION,
MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATION OF HIS BUSINESS, INCLUDING THE GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION OF THE VARIOUS PLANTS OR PARTS OF THE SYSTEM; AND (5) THE
SKILL, WAGES, WORKING CONDITIONS, AND WORK OF THE EMPLOYEES."  FN12  IN
ITS HEARINGS ON THE APPROPRIATE UNIT THE BOARD RECEIVED EVIDENCE AS TO
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COMPANY, THE VARIETY OF ITS BUSINESS, ITS
DISTRIBUTION OF THIS BUSINESS INTO DIVISIONS AND THE LOCATION, SIZE AND
METHOD OF OPERATION OF ITS FLAT GLASS PLANTS, WHICH COMPOSED THE FLAT
GLASS DIVISION.  THE HISTORY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE BUSINESS
WAS DEVELOPED.  FINALLY THE RELATION OF THE SEVERAL PLANTS OF THE FLAT
GLASS DIVISION WAS EXAMINED AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH PLANT AND
THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES GONE INTO.  FROM THIS EVIDENCE THE BOARD
DETERMINED THAT THE PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES OF THE SIX
SCATTERED FLAT GLASS PLANTS WERE THE APPROPRIATE UNIT AND THAT THE
FEDERATION, WHICH HAD MAJORITIES OF THE EMPLOYEES IN ALL THE PLANTS
EXCEPT CRYSTAL CITY, WAS THE LABOR REPRESENTATIVE FOR PURPOSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

THE COMPANY AND THE LOCAL UNION CONTEND THAT CRYSTAL CITY'S INCLUSION
WAS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE NEITHER IN THE HEARINGS ON THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
NOR ON THIS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE DID THE BOARD PERMIT THE INTRODUCTION
OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON THE QUESTION OF APPROPRIATE UNITS, THE
EXCLUSION OF WHICH WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE RESPONDENTS. 

WHILE THE RULING OF THE BOARD DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR
BARGAINING IS NOT SUBJECT TO DIRECT REVIEW UNDER THE STATUTE, THE
RULING IS SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE WHEN, AS HERE, A COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR
PRACTICES IS MADE PREDICATED UPON THE RULING.  FN13  PETITIONERS PRESS
THAT CHALLENGE UPON THE GROUND (1) THAT THE PROCEDURE DENIED DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, (2) THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY
THE RULING, AND (3) THAT THE AUTHORITY GRANTED THE BOARD IS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. 

FIRST.  PETITIONERS FIND IN THE REFUSAL OF THE BOARD TO ADMIT CERTAIN
PROFFERED EVIDENCE IN THE UNIT HEARING AND IN THIS HEARING A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS IN THAT THE EXCLUSION WAS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY IN
DEPRIVING THE PARTIES OF A FULL AND FAIR HEARING AS GUARANTEED BY THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE PETITIONERS SOUGHT TO ADDUCE THE EXCLUDED
EVIDENCE BY PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR AN ORDER THAT
THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BE TAKEN BY THE BOARD.  FN14  THIS WAS DENIED. 

THERE IS NO CHALLENGE TO THE SEPTEMBER 22, 1938, ORDER OF THE BOARD,
SUBSEQUENTLY AFFIRMED BY THE COURT,  FN15  IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WHERE THE CRYSTAL CITY GLASS WORKERS UNION WAS NOT A PARTY.  THIS
WITHDRAWS THE EMPLOYER'S RECOGNITION OF THE UNION AS THE EMPLOYEES'
REPRESENTATIVE "AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION."  AS THE ORDER DOES NOT RUN
AGAINST THE UNION, ITS PRESENCE WAS UNNECESSARY.  FN16  AFTER SUCH AN
ORDER THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT BE COMPELLED BY ANY OTHER AGENCY OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO PERFORM ANY ACTS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT ORDER.  FN17
WHILE IT LEAVES THE UNION'S PRIVATE RIGHTS UNTOUCHED THIS ORDER DOES
FORBID FURTHER DEALINGS BY THE COMPANY WITH THE UNION AS LABOR
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES.  NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
309 U.S. 350, 366. 

ACQUIESCING, FOR THE ARGUMENT, IN THE CONCLUSION THAT SELECTION OF
THE APPROPRIATE UNIT IS A FUNCTION OF THE BOARD, PETITIONERS URGE THAT
THIS FUNCTION MUST BE EXERCISED IN THE LIGHT OF PROPERLY AVAILABLE
EVIDENCE.  MUCH MAY BE AND WAS SAID UPON EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE AS TO
WHETHER CRYSTAL CITY PLANT OR THE FLAT GLASS DIVISION WOULD BE THE MOST
EFFICIENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT.  ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MIGHT HAVE
BROUGHT THE BOARD TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  HENCE, URGE PETITIONERS,
THE BOARD'S REFUSAL TO PERMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE
BEFORE IT, EITHER IN THE HEARING ON THE APPROPRIATE UNIT AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OR IN THIS PRESENT HEARING ON UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES PREDICATED UPON THAT DETERMINATION AND CERTIFICATION,
IS IMPORTANT.  AS THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION UPON THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
DETERMINED THAT THE FEDERATION, THE CHOICE OF A MAJORITY IN THE
SELECTED UNIT, WOULD BE THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL,
INCLUDING THE CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES, WE NEED NOT GIVE SPECIFIC
CONSIDERATION TO THE REFUSAL OF THE BOARD TO CERTIFY THE PETITIONER,
THE CRYSTAL CITY GLASS WORKERS UNION, AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
OF THOSE WORKERS.  CERTIFICATION OF THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
FOLLOWS THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE UNIT.  AS WILL PRESENTLY
APPEAR, HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT DISPOSE OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
AS TO THE CRYSTAL CITY WORKERS' DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE UNION. 
THIS IS A FACT WHICH HAS A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE
APPROPRIATE UNIT. 

FOR THE SAME REASON, THE AVAILABILITY OF A WORKERS' ORGANIZATION FOR
PURPOSES OF REPRESENTATION IS NOT IN ITSELF DECISIVE IN DETERMINING THE
APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT.  NATURALLY THE WISHES OF EMPLOYEES ARE A
FACTOR IN A BOARD CONCLUSION UPON A UNIT.  THEY ARE TO BE WEIGHED WITH
THE SIMILARITY OF WORKING DUTIES AND CONDITIONS, THE CHARACTER OF THE
VARIOUS PLANTS AND THE ANTICIPATED EFFECTIVENESS OF THE UNIT IN
MAINTAINING INDUSTRIAL PEACE THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  IT CAN
HARDLY BE SAID THAT THE DOMINATION OF A LABOR UNION BY AN EMPLOYER IS
IRRELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT UNIT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHOICE
OF LABOR REPRESENTATIVE, BUT CERTAINLY IT IS A COLLATERAL MATTER IN
THAT INVESTIGATION.  IT IS ONLY A FACT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.  IF
THE UNIT CHOSEN HAS AN EMPLOYER DOMINATED UNION, THE WORKERS MAY BE
GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES, FREE OF THIS INFIRMITY,
AND IF THE UNION IS FREE OF EMPLOYER INFLUENCE, IT MAY BE CHOSEN AS
REPRESENTATIVE.  IN SHORT, DOMINATION PERTAINS DIRECTLY TO
REPRESENTATION BUT INFLUENCES THE CHOICE OF A UNIT ONLY CASUALLY. 
TURNING TO THE REFUSAL OF THE BOARD TO ADMIT TENDERED EVIDENCE IN THIS
CASE, THERE ARE FIVE INSTANCES ALLEGED AS ERROR.  FN18  IN THE NEXT
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH WE HAVE REFERRED TO THE FIRST, THE DESIRE OF 1500
WORKERS OUT OF 1800 IN THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT TO HAVE THAT PLANT A
BARGAINING UNIT AND THEIR OPPOSITION TO FEDERATION REPRESENTATION. 
THIS WAS BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE PETITION OF THE CRYSTAL CITY WORKERS
WAS PRESENTED IN THE HEARING ON THE APPROPRIATE UNIT, WAS ADMITTED AND
CONSIDERED.  FN19  IT IS ENTIRELY PROPER FOR THE BOARD TO UTILIZE ITS
KNOWLEDGE OF THE DESIRES OF THE WORKERS OBTAINED IN THE PRIOR UNIT
PROCEEDING, SINCE BOTH PETITIONERS, THE EMPLOYER AND THE CRYSTAL CITY
UNION, WERE PARTIES TO THAT PRIOR PROCEEDING.  FN20  THE UNIT
PROCEEDING AND THIS COMPLAINT ON UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ARE REALLY
ONE.  FN21  CONSEQUENTLY THE REFUSAL TO ADMIT FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE
ATTITUDE OF THE WORKERS IS UNIMPORTANT. 

THE SECOND OFFER REFUSED IS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THE CRYSTAL CITY
UNION, CONTRARY TO THE PREVIOUS FINDING OF THE BOARD IN A DISTINCT
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE UNION WAS NOT A PARTY,  FN22 IS FREE OF
EMPLOYER DOMINATION.  THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER UPON STIPULATION AND
CONSENT DOES NOT DETRACT FROM ITS FORCE.  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES,
276 U.S. 311, 327.  AS PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED, THIS QUESTION OF
DOMINATION IS A COLLATERAL ISSUE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE
APPROPRIATE UNIT AND WE THINK TO REFUSE TO HEAR AGAIN UPON A SUBJECT
THIS REMOTE FROM THE INQUIRY WAS WELL WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE
BOARD.  FN23  ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1938, THE BOARD ISSUED ITS CEASE AND
DESIST ORDER DIRECTED AGAINST "RECOGNIZING OR DEALING WITH THE UNION AS
A LABOR ORGANIZATION" AND ON JANUARY 13, 1939, ITS APPROPRIATE UNIT
ORDER.  THE FIRST ORDER IS NOT ATTACKED.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE BOARD
BASED ITS REFUSAL TO PERMIT THIS EVIDENCE PARTLY ON THE FINALITY OF THE
ORIGINAL ORDER.  BUT IT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION HAD
NOT AVAILED ITSELF OF ITS CHANCE TO ENTER AN APPEARANCE OR VOLUNTARILY
INTERVENE IN THAT PROCEEDING.  FN24  THE BOARD HAD JUST BARRED THE
COMPANY FROM DOMINATING THE UNION AND CAUSED IT TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION
FROM IT AS AN EMPLOYEE LABOR ORGANIZATION.  AT THE HEARING ON THE
APPROPRIATE UNIT, AT WHICH ALL PARTIES HERE WERE REPRESENTED AND TOOK
ACTIVE PART, FULL INVESTIGATION WAS MADE OF THE RELEVANT CRITERIA TO
DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT.  THE HISTORY OF THE
FEDERATION WAS APPRAISED, ITS EFFORTS AT DIVISION-WIDE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, THE OPPOSITION OF CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES TO THE FEDERATION
AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VARIOUS PLANTS.  THESE ARE FACTORS WHICH
THE BOARD THOUGHT DETERMINATIVE OF THE APPROPRIATE UNIT.  WHETHER THE
UNION WAS DOMINATED BY THE EMPLOYER OR NOT WAS NOT STRESSED IN FIXING
THE UNIT.  COUNSEL FOR THE UNION STATED HIS POSITION AT THE UNIT
HEARING AS FOLLOWS: 

"I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT INASMUCH AS COUNSEL FOR THE FEDERATION OF
FLAT GLASS WORKERS HAS MADE HIS STATEMENT.  VERY BRIEFLY I WANT TO
STATE THE POSITION OF THE CRYSTAL CITY GLASS WORKERS' UNION.  WHEN THE
FIRST STATEMENT WAS MADE BY COUNSEL, IT WAS APPARENT THAT THIS
PROCEEDING IS GOING TO REVOLVE ABOUT THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT, WHICH IS
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY PLANT NO. 9.  WE EXPECT TO SHOW ON
BEHALF OF PLANT NO. 9 THAT APPROXIMATELY 1,300 OUT OF THE TOTAL OF
1,600 EMPLOYEES ARE MEMBERS OF THE CRYSTAL CITY GLASS WORKERS' UNION. 
WE EXPECT TO SHOW THAT WITH REFERENCE TO THE INTEGRATION AT THE PLANT
THE CONDITIONS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT IN
CRYSTAL CITY THAN IN ANY OTHER PLANT.  WE EXPECT TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE
CERTAIN DISTINCT FEATURES WITH REFERENCE TO THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT THAT
DO NOT EXIST AT ANY OTHER PLANT. 

"WE EXPECT TO SHOW FURTHER THAT COMMUNITY CONDITIONS DIFFER ENTIRELY
AT CRYSTAL CITY FROM WHAT THEY ARE AT ANY OTHER PLANT. 

"WE EXPECT TO SHOW THAT THE SOCIAL STATUS, THE ECONOMIC STATUS AND
THE COMMUNITY STATUS IN GENERAL OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO WORK IN THE
CRYSTAL CITY PLANT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN IT IS IN ANY OTHER PLANT
OF THE PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY. 

"IF WE SHOW THOSE THINGS WE FEEL THAT THE PROPER UNIT FOR THE CRYSTAL
CITY PLANT IS THE PLANT UNIT BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT I HAVE
MENTIONED, AND IF ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION WITH ANY OTHER UNIT WAS
RECOGNIZED AT THAT PLANT, IT WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT." 

EACH OF THESE POINTS WAS FULLY COVERED BY THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE
BOARD ON THE UNIT HEARING, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION
RECEIVED A FULL AND COMPLETE HEARING ON EVERY PROPOSITION COVERED BY
THE STATEMENT. 

THE REFUSAL TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE OF DOMINATION IN THE PRESENT
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HEARING ACCORDS, IN OUR VIEW, WITH THE BOARD'S
DISCRETIONARY POWERS. 

THE OTHER THREE INSTANCES MAY BE LISTED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOARD,
ADOPTED BY PETITIONERS, AS FOLLOWS:  (3) THAT THE EMPLOYEES AT THE
CRYSTAL CITY PLANT HAD DISTINCT INTERESTS FROM EMPLOYEES AT THE
COMPANY'S OTHER PLANTS; (4) THAT THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION HAD BARGAINED
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE COMPANY FOR ITS MEMBERS UNTIL THE COMPANY REFUSED
TO CONTINUE SUCH BARGAINING BECAUSE OF THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST IT BY
THE FEDERATION; AND (5) THAT SINCE THE STIPULATION OF JULY 22, 1938,
WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE BOARD, THE COMPANY AND THE FEDERATION, AND
SINCE THE BOARD'S DECISION OF JANUARY 13, 1939, THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE
CRYSTAL CITY UNION HAD INCREASED. 

WITH RESPECT TO ITEM (3), THE DISTINCT INTERESTS OF THE CRYSTAL CITY
EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD RULED THAT IN THE UNIT PROCEEDING THE COMPANY AND
THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION WERE GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SUCH
EVIDENCE, AND IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING NEITHER OF THEM HAD INDICATED
THAT THE PROOF SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED RELATED TO EVIDENCE UNAVAILABLE
AT, DISCOVERED SINCE, OR NOT INTROTRODUCED IN, THE UNIT HEARING.  THE
FULL JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS RULING BY THE BOARD BECOMES CLEAR ONLY
AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD IN THE UNIT PROCEEDING, WHICH UNDER
SEC. 9(D) OF THE ACT IS PART OF THE RECORD HERE. 

THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION APPEARED AT THE UNIT PROCEEDING; IT
PARTICIPATED IN THE HEARINGS; IT CALLED WITNESSES, AND CROSS-EXAMINED
THOSE CALLED BY THE OTHER PARTIES.  A GREAT DEAL OF THE HEARING WAS
TAKEN UP BY TESTIMONY DESIGNED TO BRING OUT ANY INTERESTS OF THE
CRYSTAL CITY WORKERS THAT MIGHT BE DISTINCT FROM THOSE OF EMPLOYEES AT
OTHER PLANTS.  THUS THERE WAS ABUNDANT TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT TO THEIR
RACIAL ORIGINS, THEIR AGRICULTURAL SURROUNDINGS, THEIR INCLINATION OR
DISINCLINATION TO VISIT CITIES, THEIR LACK OF A "UNION" BACKGROUND,
THEIR RECREATIONAL HABITS, ETC.  THERE WAS ALSO A THOROUGH CANVASSING
OF ALL THE DETAILS IN WHICH THE PROCESSES OF PRODUCTION AND THE WORKING
CONDITIONS AT CRYSTAL CITY DIVERGED FROM THOSE AT THE OTHER PLANTS.  IF
THE COMPANY OR THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION DESIRED TO RELITIGATE THIS ISSUE,
IT WAS UP TO THEM TO INDICATE IN SOME WAY THAT THE EVIDENCE THEY WISHED
TO OFFER WAS MORE THAN CUMULATIVE.  NOTHING MORE APPEARING, A SINGLE
TRIAL OF THE ISSUE WAS ENOUGH. 

AS TO (4), COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION, AND (5),
THAT UNION'S GROWING MEMBERSHIP AT CRYSTAL CITY, THE BOARD SAID: 

"ACCEPTING THE FOREGOING OFFER OF PROOF AS CORRECTLY STATING THE
FACTS, NEVERTHELESS, IN VIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT
CULMINATING IN THE COURT DECREE OF JANUARY 14, 1939, NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION CANNOT BE REGARDED BY
THE BOARD AS EVIDENCE OF GENUINE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; NOR CAN THE
CRYSTAL CITY UNION'S MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES AT THE
CRYSTAL CITY PLANT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AS EXPRESSING THE FREE
CHOICE OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THAT PLANT OR AS ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE
OF ANOTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION, IN ADDITION TO THE FEDERATION, CAPABLE
OF BARGAINING COLLECTIVELY WITH THE RESPONDENT FOR THE EMPLOYEES
THERE."  FN25  THE FACT THAT THE LOCAL UNION HAD UNDERTAKEN
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYER OR THAT IT HAD GROWN IN NUMBERS WOULD BE
OF SLIGHT PROBATIVE VALUE IN A PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE THE BARGAINING
UNIT.  THE BOARD MIGHT PROPERLY SAY AS IT DID THAT ACCEPTING THE OFFERS
OF PROOF IT WOULD NOT ALTER THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE UNIT. 

FURTHER, IF WE CONSIDER ALL THE CONTENTIONS ABOUT EXCLUSION OF
EVIDENCE TOGETHER INSTEAD OF SEPARATELY, WE DO NOT FIND THAT IN THE
AGGREGATE THE EVIDENCE EXCLUDED COULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED THE
OUTCOME ON THE "APPROPRIATE UNIT" ISSUE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA
BY WHICH THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT ISSUE. 

SECOND.  PETITIONERS COMPLAIN THAT THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT CERTAIN ESSENTIAL FINDINGS.  ONE OF THESE IS THE FINDING IN
REGARD TO THE HISTORY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE BOARD DETERMINED
THAT THE FEDERATION AFTER 1934 AND UNTIL 1937 HELD WRITTEN LABOR
AGREEMENTS COVERING THEIR MEMBERS IN ALL THE PLANTS OF THE COMPANY,
INCLUDING CRYSTAL CITY: 

"NOT UNTIL JANUARY 20, 1937, DID THE COMPANY FOR THE FIRST TIME
INSIST THAT CRYSTAL CITY BE EXCLUDED FROM THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN IT AND
THE FEDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE FEDERATION DID NOT HAVE AS
MEMBERS A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THIS PLANT.  THE WRITTEN
AGREEMENT SIGNED ON THAT DAY, AT THE INSISTENCE OF THE COMPANY, DESPITE
THE FEDERATION'S OBJECTIONS, DID NOT COVER THE FEDERATION MEMBERS AT
CRYSTAL CITY."  FN26  THE BOARD THOUGHT THE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIED THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE FEDERATION HAD SOUGHT AND SOMETIMES SUCCEEDED IN
ORGANIZING THE COMPANY ON A "DIVISION-WIDE" BASIS.  AN EXAMINATION OF
THE CONTRACTS SHOWS THAT THREE WERE ENTERED INTO WITH THE FEDERATION
BETWEEN 1934 AND 1937, ALL THREE OF WHICH RECOGNIZED OBLIGATIONS
TOWARDS "EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE FEDERATION OF FLAT GLASS
WORKERS OF AMERICA."  ANOTHER GRANTED A FIVE PER CENT WAGE INCREASE "IN
ALL PLATE AND SAFETY GLASS PLANTS."  THIS INCLUDED CRYSTAL CITY.  THERE
WAS TESTIMONY THAT ALL PLANTS WERE COVERED AND TESTIMONY BY PETITIONERS
THAT THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT WAS NOT COVERED.  THERE WERE CERTAIN
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE ONLY WHERE A PLANT HAD A LOCAL UNION.  THERE WAS
NONE AT CRYSTAL CITY.  THE EVIDENCE, WE CONCLUDE, JUSTIFIES THE BOARD'S
FINDING THAT CONTRACTS WERE SIGNED ON A DIVISION-WIDE BASIS.  CERTAINLY
THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES IN THE 1937 CONTRACT ON
THE EMPLOYER'S DEMAND SHOWS AN ENDEAVOR TO ORGANIZE ON THAT BASIS. 

PETITIONERS FIND FAILURE OF EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF THE DIVISION-WIDE UNIT.  IT IS TRUE THE RECORD SHOWS A SUBSTANTIAL
DEGREE OF LOCAL AUTONOMY.  CRYSTAL CITY IS A SEPARATE INDUSTRIAL UNIT,
NOT ONE MECHANICALLY INTEGRATED INTO THE DIVISION.  THE LOCAL
SUPERINTENDENT DEALS WITH LABOR GRIEVANCES, THE PLANT HAS ITS OWN
PURCHASING AGENT AND THERE IS NO EXCHANGE OF EMPLOYEES.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, LABOR POLICIES AND WAGES COME FROM THE CENTRAL OFFICE IN
PITTSBURGH, THERE IS GREAT SIMILARITY IN THE CLASS OF WORK DONE. 
WAGES, HOURS, WORKING CONDITIONS, MANUFACTURING PROCESSES DIFFER ONLY
SLIGHTLY AMONG THE PLANTS.  AN INDEPENDENT UNIT AT CRYSTAL CITY, THE
BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING, WOULD FRUSTRATE DIVISION-WIDE EFFORT AT
LABOR ADJUSTMENTS.  IT WOULD ENABLE THE EMPLOYER TO USE THE PLANT THERE
FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATION IN CASE OF STOPPAGE OF LABOR AT THE OTHER
PLANTS.  FN27  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BARGAINING UNIT SHOULD BE DIVISION
WIDE. 

THIRD. FINALLY PETITIONERS URGE THAT THE STANDARDS FOR BOARD ACTION
AS TO THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ARE INADEQUATE TO GIVE A GUIDE TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND THE RESULT IS NECESSARILY CAPRICIOUS,
ARBITRARY AND AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  WE
FIND ADEQUATE STANDARDS TO GUIDE THE BOARD'S DECISION.  WHILE THE EXACT
LIMITS OF THE BOARD'S POWERS OR THE PRECISE MEANING OF THE TERMS HAVE
NOT BEEN FULLY DEFINED, JUDICIALLY, WE KNOW THAT THEY LIE WITHIN THE
AREA COVERED BY THE WORDS "EMPLOYER," "PLANT," AND "CRAFT."  FN28  THE
DIVISION-WIDE UNIT HERE DEEMED APPROPRIATE IS WELL WITHIN THESE
LIMITS.  AS A STANDARD, THE BOARD MUST COMPLY, ALSO, WITH THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE UNIT SELECTED MUST BE ONE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY
OF THE ACT, THE POLICY OF EFFICIENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  WHERE THE
POLICY OF AN ACT IS SO DEFINITELY AND ELABORATELY STATED, THIS
REQUIREMENT ACTS AS A PERMITTED MEASURE OF DELEGATED AUTHORITY.  FN29
AFFIRMED. 

FN1 CERTIORARIS GRANTED, 311 U.S. 642. 

FN2  49 STAT. 449. 

FN3  THE DIVISION ALSO INCLUDES TWO SMALL PLANTS WITH 65 EMPLOYEES AT
KOKOMO AND ELWOOD, INDIANA.  THE WORK DONE AT THESE PLANTS IS NOT
SIMILAR TO THAT AT ANY OF THE SIX REFERRED TO, AND NONE OF THE PARTIES
CONTENDED THAT THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIT.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
BOARD EXCLUDED THEM. 

FN4  THE COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGED CERTAIN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATIONS IN
REGARD TO HIRE AND TENURE, AND OTHER INTERFERENCES WITH THE EMPLOYEES'
RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION. 

FN5  102 F.2D 1004, ENFORCING 8 N.L.R.B. 1210. 

FN6  10 N.L.R.B. 1111. 

FN7  308 U.S. 401. 

FN8  15 N.L.R.B. 515. 

FN9  113 F.2D 698. 

FN10  49 STAT. 453: 

"SEC. 9.  (A)  REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED OR SELECTED FOR THE
PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A
UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PRUPOSES, SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:  PROVIDED, THAT ANY
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE OR A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY
TIME TO PRESENT GRIEVANCES TO THEIR EMPLOYER.    "(B)  THE BOARD SHALL
DECIDE IN EACH CASE WHETHER, IN ORDER TO INSURE TO EMPLOYEES THE FULL
BENEFIT OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, AND OTHERWISE TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT, THE
UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SHALL BE THE
EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT UNIT, PLANT UNIT, OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF." 

FN11  SEC. 7.    FN12  FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT (1939) 89-90.  SEE ALSO
FIRST ANNUAL REPORT (1936) 112-20; SECOND ANNUAL REPORT (1937) 122-40;
THIRD ANNUAL REPORT (1938) 156-97; FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT (1940) 63-72. 

FN13  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401, 408
411. 

FN14  SEC. 10(E) AND (F); CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305
U.S. 197, 226. 

FN15  102 F.2D 1004. 

FN16  LABOR BOARD V. GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 271; NATIONAL
LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 365. 

FN17  NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, SUPRA, 364. 

FN18  15 N.L.R.B. AT 518. 

FN19  THE PETITION WAS ADMITTED AFTER THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY: 

"MR. HOLMES.  WE CERTAINLY OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF A PETITION
OF THAT KIND IN EVIDENCE, BEING IRRELEVANT, NOT PROPER TO SHOW THE
WISHES OF THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OR MEMBERS OF THIS CLAIMED UNION AT
CRYSTAL CITY.  IT HAS NO PLACE AT THIS HEARING, IT IS NOT PROPER
EVIDENCE. 

"MR. BUCHANAN.  WE ASK FOR THE RECORDS. 

"TRIAL EXAMINER DUDLEY.  I WILL ADMIT THE EXHIBITS FOR SUCH WEIGHT AS
IT MAY HAVE." 

IN ITS OPINION ON THE APPROPRIATE UNIT THE BOARD SAID (10 N.L.R.B. AT
1118): 

"MOREOVER, THE PRIOR EXISTENCE OF THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION FOR OVER 3
YEARS, UNTIL ALMOST THE DAY OF THE HEARING IN THIS PROCEEDING, TO A
LARGE DEGREE EXPLAINS THE DESIRE OF THE 1,300 CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES
FOR A SEPARATE BARGAINING UNIT, AS EXPRESSED IN THEIR PETITION, AND
SUCH DESIRES MAY WELL UNDERGO A RADICAL CHANGE AS THE EFFECT OF THE
TERMINATION OF THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION'S FUNCTION AS A LABOR
ORGANIZATION IS FULLY REALIZED BY THESE EMPLOYEES." 

IN ITS OPINION ON THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN (15 N.L.R.B. AT 523): 

"IN SO FAR AS THIS EVIDENCE CAN BE ASSUMED TO SHOW OPPOSITION AMONG
THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT EMPLOYEES TO THE FEDERATION, THE BOARD'S
DECISION OF JANUARY 13, 1939, CONSIDERED SUCH ARGUMENTS BY THE
RESPONDENT AND THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION.  WE SEE NO REASON TO ALTER OUR
DETERMINATION THERE SET FORTH." 

FN20  CF. FINAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMITTEE ON
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, P. 70. 

FN21  49 STAT. 453, SEC. 9: 

"(C)  WHENEVER A QUESTION AFFECTING COMMERCE ARISES CONCERNING THE
REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD MAY INVESTIGATE SUCH CONTROVERSY
AND CERTIFY TO THE PARTIES, IN WRITING, THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED OR SELECTED.  IN ANY SUCH
INVESTIGATION, THE BOARD SHALL PROVIDE FOR AN APPROPRIATE HEARING UPON
DUE NOTICE, EITHER IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 10 OR
OTHERWISE, AND MAY TAKE A SECRET BALLOT OF EMPLOYEES, OR UTILIZE ANY
OTHER SUITABLE METHOD TO ASCERTAIN SUCH REPRESENTATIVES. 

"(D)  WHENEVER AN ORDER OF THE BOARD MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(C)
IS BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON FACTS CERTIFIED FOLLOWING AN
INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION, AND THERE IS
A PETITION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OR REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER, SUCH
CERTIFICATION AND THE RECORD OF SUCH INVESTIGATION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD REQUIRED TO BE FILED UNDER
SUBSECTIONS 10(E) OR 10(F), AND THEREUPON THE DECREE OF THE COURT
ENFORCING, MODIFYING, OR SETTING ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF
THE BOARD SHALL BE MADE AND ENTERED UPON THE PLEADINGS, TESTIMONY, AND
PROCEEDINGS SET FORTH IN SUCH TRANSCRIPT." 

OF COMPLAINTS ALLEGING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY EMPLOYERS.  IT
REQUIRES A WRITTEN RECORD OF THE HEARING.  SECTIONS 10(E) AND 10(F)
GIVE THE RIGHT OF JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT AND REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S ORDERS
ON SUCH COMPLAINTS TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS ON PETITION OF THE
BOARD OR ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER. 

FN22  8 N.L.R.B. 1210.  AFTER STIPULATION THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS
BECAME PART OF THE BOARD'S ORDER: 

THE COMPANY SHALL 

"1.  CEASE AND DESIST: 

"(A)  FROM SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AS HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST;
... 

"(H)  FROM IN ANY MANNER DOMINATING OR INTERFERING WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRYSTAL CITY GLASS WORKERS' UNION OR ANY OTHER
ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR CONTRIBUTING AID OR SUPPORT TO SAID
ORGANIZATION, OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES; FROM
RECOGNIZING OR DEALING WITH THE CRYSTAL CITY GLASS WORKERS' UNION AS A
LABOR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS PURPORTING TO
REPRESENT SAID ORGANIZATION. 

"2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH THE BOARD FINDS WILL
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT: 

"(A)  WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION FROM THE CRYSTAL CITY GLASS WORKERS'
UNION AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OF
THEM, AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION, AND NOTIFY SAID ORGANIZATION TO THAT
EFFECT; ...  " 

FN23  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 228;
TENNESSEE POWER CO. V. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 145. 

FN24  15 N.L.R.B. AT 519, N. 4. 

FN25  15 N.L.R.B. AT 523. 

FN26  10 N.L.R.B. AT 1117. 

FN27  WITH REFERENCE TO THE SHIFTING OF ORDERS, THE HEAD OF THE
COMPANY'S FLAT GLASS DIVISION TESTIFIED: 

"Q.  THERE IS SOME TESTIMONY FROM YOU ABOUT STRIKES.  I DON'T KNOW HOW
LONG.  DURING THAT TIME I THINK YOU SAID THESE PLANTS WERE SHUT DOWN
EXCEPT THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT; IS THAT CORRECT? 

A. THAT IS RIGHT. 

Q. AND DURING THE TIME OF THE STRIKE, DID YOU FILL ORDERS FROM THE
CRYSTAL CITY PLANT THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE FILLED FROM THE OTHER
PLANTS? 

A. YES. 

Q. AND YOU FOUND THAT YOU COULD SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFER THE ORDERS FROM
CREIGHTON AND FORD CITY? 

A. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE KIND OF ORDERS THEY WORK ON.  THEY
MAY BE WORKING AT TIMES ON THE SAME PATTERN FOR THE SAME AUTOMOBILE
COMPANY. 

Q. ALL YOU WOULD DO WOULD BE TO WIRE CRYSTAL CITY OR CREIGHTON? 

A. YES." 

FN28  SEC. 9(B).  CF. FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT, N.L.R.B., V.G. 1 TO 4
INCLUSIVE. 

FN29  CF. NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287
U.S. 12, 24-25; OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR OF WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION, 312 U.S. 126. 

CF. ALSO LABOR BOARD V. BRADFORD DYEING ASSN., 310 U.S. 318, 340;
INTERNATIONAL ASSN. OF MACHINISTS V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 72; AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401.  SECTION 9(B) IS
TREATED AS VALID IN THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE BOARD'S ORDER, SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS PETITIONER, THE GLASS
COMPANY, TO RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN WITH RESPONDENT FEDERATION AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES AT ITS CRYSTAL CITY PLANT,
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED UNLESS THE BOARD'S CERTIFICATION OF THE FEDERATION
AS THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING AGENCY FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES IS UPHELD.  I
THINK THAT BOTH SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE OF THE BOARD'S FAILURE IN
THOSE PROCEEDINGS TO AFFORD TO PETITIONER, CRYSTAL CITY GLASS WORKERS'
UNION, AN "APPROPRIATE HEARING," AND ITS FAILURE TO DETERMINE THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ISSUE ON THE EVIDENCE, BOTH OF WHICH, TO SAY
NOTHING OF CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, ARE COMMANDED BY SECS. 9(C) AND
10(C) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

THE FEDERATION, AFFILIATED WITH THE C.I.O., HAS ORGANIZED LOCAL
UNIONS AT EACH OF THE COMPANY'S SIX PLANTS EXCEPT THAT AT CRYSTAL CITY,
WHOSE EMPLOYEES, SOME 1600 IN NUMBER, HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED BY THE
UNION.  THE COMPANY HAS RECOGNIZED AND BARGAINED WITH THE FEDERATION AS
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES AT ALL EXCEPT ITS CRYSTAL CITY
PLANT.  IN 1934 IT ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERATION
WHICH PROVIDED A METHOD OF SETTLING GRIEVANCES OF EMPLOYEES AT ALL ITS
PLANTS, THROUGH LOCAL UNIONS OF THE FEDERATION.  THESE PROVISIONS WERE
RENEWED IN 1935 BUT AS THE EFFORTS OF THE FEDERATION TO ORGANIZE A
LOCAL UNION AT CRYSTAL CITY, BEGUN IN 1933 AND CONTINUED ACTIVELY
DURING 1937 AND SINCE, HAVE NEVER SUCCEEDED, THOSE PROVISIONS HAVE
REMAINED INOPERATIVE AT CRYSTAL CITY.  THE RENEWAL CONTRACT WITH THE
FEDERATION IN 1937, WHICH IS STILL IN FORCE, DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
CRYSTAL CITY PLANT. 

THE UNION WAS INCORPORATED IN 1938.  IN APRIL IT ORGANIZED THE
EMPLOYEES AT THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT AND IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH THE
BOARD, ON PETITION OF THE FEDERATION, INSTITUTED THE CERTIFICATION
PROCEEDING NOW BEFORE US.  IN JUNE OF THAT YEAR THE BOARD ISSUED ITS
COMPLAINT, CHARGING THE COMPANY WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
SPECIFICALLY ALLEGING THAT IT HAD "DOMINATED AND INTERFERED WITH THE
FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION" OF THE UNION.  THE COMPANY ANSWERED
DENYING THE ALLEGATION.  THE UNION WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING
AND SO FAR AS APPEARS HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT.  THE BOARD, WITHOUT
TAKING ANY EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY FINDING OF AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, WHICH IS PREREQUISITE TO AN ORDER UNDER SEC. 10(C), MADE ITS
ORDER, ON CONSENT OF THE COMPANY, DIRECTING IT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
"IN ANY MANNER DOMINATING OR INTERFERING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION" OF
THE UNION, OR "CONTRIBUTING AID OR SUPPORT" TO IT AND "FROM RECOGNIZING
OR DEALING WITH IT."  THE USUAL PROVISION DISESTABLISHING THE UNION WAS
OMITTED FROM THE ORDER. 

AS SOON AS THE BOARD HAD MADE THIS ORDER IT PROCEEDED WITH HEARINGS
IN THE CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING IN WHICH BOTH THE FEDERATION AND THE
UNION PARTICIPATED AND IN WHICH THE BOARD CERTIFIED THE FEDERATION AS
THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING AGENCY FOR THE EMPLOYEES IN ALL SIX OF THE
COMPANY'S PLANTS. 

UPON THE REFUSAL OF THE COMPANY TO RECOGNIZE THE FEDERATION AS THE
AGENT OF ITS EMPLOYEES AT CRYSTAL CITY, THE BOARD, ON COMPLAINT OF THE
FEDERATION, BEGAN THE PRESENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING AGAINST
THE COMPANY.  AN AGREEMENT WAS THEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE COMPANY
AND THE FEDERATION THAT THE EXISTING BARGAINING CONTRACT WITH THE
FEDERATION, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE CRYSTAL CITY, SHOULD REMAIN IN FORCE
PENDING A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT FOR
CRYSTAL CITY. 

IN THE PRESENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING THE BOARD
RECONSIDERED AND HEARD EVIDENCE ON THE QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATE
UNIT.  IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARINGS BOTH THE UNION AND THE COMPANY
OFFERED TO PROVE:  (1) THAT 1500 OUT OF THE 1800 EMPLOYEES AT CRYSTAL
CITY BELONGED TO THE UNION AND THAT THESE MEMBERS WERE OPPOSED TO BEING
REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION; (2) THAT THE UNION WAS NOT DOMINATED BY
NOR HAD ITS FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION BEEN INTERFERED WITH BY THE
COMPANY AND THAT THE COMPANY HAD NOT CONTRIBUTED TO ITS FINANCIAL OR
OTHER SUPPORT; (3) THAT THE EMPLOYEES AT CRYSTAL CITY HAD DISTINCT
INTERESTS FROM THOSE AT THE OTHER PLANTS OF THE COMPANY; (4) THAT THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION HAD BARGAINED COLLECTIVELY FOR ITS MEMBERS
WITH THE COMPANY UNTIL THE COMPANY DECLINED TO CONTINUE SUCH BARGAINING
BY REASON OF THE CONSENT ORDER OF SEPTEMBER, 1938, WHICH THE BOARD HAD
ENTERED AGAINST IT, TO WHICH ORDER AND PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO IT THE
UNION WAS NOT A PARTY; AND (5) THAT SINCE THE ORDER WAS MADE AND SINCE
THE CERTIFICATION OF THE FEDERATION AS THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION
HAD INCREASED. 

ALL OF THESE OFFERS WERE REJECTED AND THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE WAS
EXCLUDED.  THE BOARD REAFFIRMED ITS FINDING IN THE CERTIFICATION
PROCEEDING THAT THE FEDERATION WAS THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING AGENCY
AND MADE ITS ORDER DIRECTING THE COMPANY TO BARGAIN WITH THE
FEDERATION. 

ONE MEMBER OF THE BOARD, MR. LEISERSON, DISSENTED, ON THE GROUND THAT
THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS BASED UPON AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE CRYSTAL CITY
EMPLOYEES WERE INCAPABLE OF MAKING A FREE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER IMPOSED ON THE EMPLOYEES AT THAT PLANT A
REPRESENTATIVE NOT OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING WITHOUT ANY OPPORTUNITY TO
EXPRESS THEIR OWN CHOICE AS TO REPRESENTATION, AND THAT IT DISREGARDED
THE HISTORY OF THE BARGAINING BY THE COMPANY WITH THE EMPLOYEES AT THE
CRYSTAL CITY PLANT AND ITS EXISTING CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERATION WHICH
EXCLUDED THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT FROM ITS OPERATION. 

THROUGHOUT THE CERTIFICATION AND THE LATER UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
PROCEEDINGS THE BOARD TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE UNION AND THE GLASS
COMPANY, BECAUSE OF THE CONSENT ORDER AGAINST THE COMPANY, WERE NO
LONGER FREE TO URGE THE WISHES OF THE UNION MEMBERS AS TO
REPRESENTATION OR TO SHOW THE ACTUAL BARGAINING RELATION BETWEEN THE
UNION AND THE COMPANY OR THAT THE COMPANY DID NOT IN FACT DOMINATE THE
UNION.  IN THE CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING THE BOARD STATED THAT THE
UNION, BY REASON OF THE CONSENT ORDER, HAD "CEASED TO BE ABLE TO
FUNCTION AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS EXISTENCE AS SUCH AT CRYSTAL
CITY THEN TERMINATED" AND THAT "SINCE THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION CAN NO
LONGER FUNCTION AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION, ITS WISHES ARE IMMATERIAL." 

IN REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE IN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING THE
BOARD ADHERED TO ITS VIEW THAT THE UNION BY REASON OF THE CONSENT ORDER
MUST BE TREATED BY IT AS DOMINATED BY THE COMPANY AND THAT FOR THAT
REASON THE PROFFERED AND REJECTED EVIDENCE ON THIS POINT WAS WITHOUT
WEIGHT, AND THAT ACCORDINGLY IT MUST BE TAKEN THAT THERE NEVER HAD BEEN
A "GENUINE AND LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT BY THE CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES TO
BARGAIN WITH THE COMPANY SEPARATELY FROM THE OTHER PLANTS."    A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BOARD'S FINDINGS IN BOTH PROCEEDINGS IS DEVOTED
TO THE INFERENCES JUSTIFYING ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE APPROPRIATE UNIT,
WHICH IT DREW FROM THIS SO-CALLED FINDING OF DOMINATION DERIVED WHOLLY
FROM THE CONSENT ORDER.  IT FOUND THAT THE WISHES OF THE UNION WERE
IMMATERIAL SINCE, UNDER THE ORDER, IT COULD NO LONGER FUNCTION AS A
LABOR ORGANIZATION.  IT STATED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNION FOR MORE
THAN THREE YEARS "TO A LARGE DEGREE EXPLAINS THE DESIRE OF THE 1300
CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES FOR A SEPARATE BARGAINING UNIT, AS EXPRESSED IN
THEIR PETITION, AND SUCH DESIRES MAY WELL UNDERGO A RADICAL CHANGE AS
THE EFFECT OF THE TERMINATION OF THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION'S FUNCTION AS A
LABOR ORGANIZATION IS FULLY REALIZED BY THOSE EMPLOYEES."    IN
ADDITION THE BOARD THOUGHT THAT THE EVIDENCE OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
THE COMPANY AND THE UNION, COULD NOT BE "EVIDENCE OF GENUINE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING"; IT FOUND THAT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE LARGE MAJORITY OF THE
CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES IN THE UNION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED "AS EXPRESSING
THE FREE CHOICE OF THE EMPLOYEES AT THAT PLANT OR AS ESTABLISHING THE
EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION, IN ADDITION TO THE FEDERATION,
CAPABLE OF BARGAINING WITH THE RESPONDENT (COMPANY) FOR THE EMPLOYEES
THERE"; AND IT DECLARED THAT ONE OF THE FACTORS LEADING TO THE
CONCLUSION "THAT THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF THE VARIOUS
PLANTS ARE INTERWOVEN AND THAT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR ALL THE
EMPLOYEES INVOLVED CAN MOST EFFECTIVELY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SINGLE BARGAINING UNIT," WAS "THE FACT THAT THE
MEMBERSHIP OF THE CRYSTAL CITY UNION IS COERCED AND NOT VOLUNTARY." 
THUS ON THE QUESTIONS AS TO THE DESIRES OF THE EMPLOYEES IN EACH OF THE
SIX PLANTS AND THE HISTORY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THERE - BOTH
FACTORS WHICH THE BOARD HAS UNIFORMLY CONSIDERED HERETOFORE IN
DETERMINING THE PROBABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF FUTURE BARGAINING ON THE
BASIS OF A UNIT CLAIMED TO BE APPROPRIATE - THE BOARD HAS NOT ONLY
REJECTED PROFFERED EVIDENCE, ADMITTEDLY RELEVANT, BUT HAS DRAWN
CONCLUSIONS CONTRARY TO THE REJECTED EVIDENCE, FROM FACTS FOUND BY THE
BOARD TO BE TRUE, ONLY BY TREATING THE CONFLICTING EVIDENCE TENDERED BY
THE UNION AS WITHOUT WEIGHT. 

IN ORDER TO APPRAISE THE ISSUES IN THE SEVERAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
BOARD AND ITS ACTION TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THEM, IT IS NECESSARY TO
CONSIDER THE FUNCTION WHICH THE BOARD WAS CALLED ON TO PERFORM BOTH IN
THE CERTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS AND THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PROCEEDING,
BOTH OF WHICH ARE NOW BEFORE US FOR REVIEW AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 9(D) OF
THE ACT.  SECTION 9(A) PROVIDES THAT REPRESENTATIVES "DESIGNATED OR
SELECTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE MAJORITY OF
THE EMPLOYEES IN A UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES, SHALL BE THE
EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH UNIT
FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."  AND UNDER SEC. 9(B) IT IS
THE DUTY OF THE BOARD TO "DECIDE IN EACH CASE WHETHER, IN ORDER TO
INSURE TO EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF
ORGANIZATION AND TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND OTHERWISE TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT, THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SHALL BE THE EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT UNIT, PLANT
UNIT, OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF."  THE POLICIES OF THE ACT WHICH THE BOARD
IS TO EFFECTUATE BY ITS CHOICE OF THE PROPER BARGAINING UNIT, ARE
DECLARED BY SEC. 1 TO BE THE MITIGATION AND ELIMINATION OF OBSTRUCTIONS
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE RESULTING FROM LABOR DISPUTES "BY ENCOURAGING
THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND BY PROTECTING
THE EXERCISE BY WORKERS OF FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF
ORGANIZATION, AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING," FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING "OR OTHER MUTUAL AID
OR PROTECTION." 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE FUNCTION ASSIGNED TO THE BOARD IS NOT
THE CHOICE OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION TO REPRESENT A BARGAINING UNIT,
FOR THAT IS TO BE THE FREE CHOICE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN
SOME DEFINED GROUP OF EMPLOYEES WHICH THE BOARD FINDS TO CONSTITUTE THE
APPROPRIATE UNIT.  IN MAKING THE CHOICE OF THE UNIT, WHETHER COMPOSED
OF THE EMPLOYEES OF A PLANT, A CRAFT, OR OF AN EMPLOYER, THE BOARD IS
REQUIRED TO OBSERVE THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT, WHICH ARE "TO
INSURE TO EMPLOYEES THE FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF
ORGANIZATION AND TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING" AND TO PROTECT "THE EXERCISE
BY WORKERS OF FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION, AND
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING." 

THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY THE STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED IN A CERTIFICATION
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 9(C) WHICH PROVIDES THAT WHEN A QUESTION ARISES
"CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD MAY INVESTIGATE
SUCH CONTROVERSY AND CERTIFY TO THE PARTIES, IN WRITING, THE NAME OR
NAMES OF THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED OR SELECTED.  IN
ANY SUCH INVESTIGATION, THE BOARD SHALL PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE HEARING
UPON DUE NOTICE, EITHER IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION
10(COMPLAINTS FOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES) OR OTHERWISE AND MAY TAKE A
SECRET BALLOT OF EMPLOYEES OR UTILIZE ANY OTHER SUITABLE METHOD TO
ASCERTAIN SUCH REPRESENTATIVES."  A SIMILAR REQUIREMENT IS IMPOSED ON
THE BOARD UPON COMPLAINT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. 

IT IS EVIDENT THEREFORE THAT IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING THE BOARD
COULD NOT FIND THE COMPANY GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNLESS IT
HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT,
WHICH IN TURN REQUIRED THE BOARD TO FIND FROM RELEVANT EVIDENCE WHICH
IT WAS REQUIRED TO HEAR WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CRYSTAL CITY PLANT
CONSTITUTED SUCH A UNIT.  IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION THE BOARD
CONSIDERED, AS IT COULD UNDER SEC. 9(D), THE CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING,
BUT IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO AND DID NOT CONFINE ITS CONSIDERATION TO
THAT PROCEEDING.  IT HEARD EVIDENCE BY NUMEROUS WITNESSES BEARING ON
THE QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATE UNIT.  IT WAS BOUND TO RECEIVE AND
CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THAT ISSUE, WHICH WAS WHETHER THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT WOULD BE BETTER EFFECTUATED AND WHETHER THE RIGHT
OF ALL OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION WOULD BE FULLY
SECURED BY CERTIFYING A UNIT COMPRISING ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SIX
PLANTS, OR TWO UNITS, ONE COMPOSED OF THE CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES AND
THE OTHER THE EMPLOYEES IN THE FIVE PLANTS WHERE THE FEDERATION
ADMITTEDLY HAD A MAJORITY. 

THE BOARD HAS ALWAYS HITHERTO WEIGHED THE DESIRES OF THE EMPLOYEES IN
DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE UNIT.  AND HERE THE BOARD CONCEDES THAT THE
CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES STRONGLY PREFERRED TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE
UNION.  IN REFUSING TO ATTRIBUTE ANY WEIGHT TO THIS FACT THE BOARD
FOUND THAT THEIR CHOICE WAS NOT FREE, SINCE IT CONSIDERED THAT THE
UNION, BECAUSE OF THE CONSENT ORDER, WAS COMPANY DOMINATED.  WHETHER
THE UNION AND THE EMPLOYEES WERE IN FACT DOMINATED BY THE EMPLOYER, AND
THE NATURE OF THE BARGAINING RELATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYER, WERE THUS
CRUCIAL ISSUES IN THE CASE TO BE DETERMINED ON EVIDENCE.  AND WE ARE
CONFRONTED WITH THE EXTRAORDINARY FACT THAT THE BOARD HAS DETERMINED
THOSE ISSUES WITHOUT EVER HAVING HEARD ANY EVIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT
EITHER IN THE PRESENT OR THE TWO EARLIER PROCEEDINGS. 

THE PRESENT WISHES OF THE EMPLOYEES, THEIR FREEDOM IN SELF
ORGANIZATION FROM THE DOMINATION AND INTERFERENCE OF THE EMPLOYER,
THEIR PAST BARGAINING RELATIONS WITH THE EMPLOYER, WERE ALL ADMITTEDLY
RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.  EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD COULD HAVE REFUSED TO
HEAR THE EVIDENCE OFFERED AS TO THE WISHES OF THE CRYSTAL CITY
EMPLOYEES AND AS TO THE PRIOR BARGAINING HISTORY THERE, ON THE GROUND
THAT, IF TRUE, THE GREATER EFFECTIVENESS OF EMPLOYEE BARGAINING THROUGH
A DIVISION-WIDE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE COMMON INTERESTS OF THE
EMPLOYEES IN THE SIX PLANTS WARRANTED THE SELECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES IN
THE SIX PLANTS AS THE APPROPRIATE UNIT, IT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO DO SO.
INSTEAD, IT REJECTED THE EVIDENCE PROFFERED BY THE UNION NOT ON
TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, NOR BECAUSE IT THOUGHT THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES IMMATERIAL, OR INSUFFICIENT TO CHANGE ITS DETERMINATION,
BUT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE UNION WAS COMPANY DOMINATED AND "HAD
CEASED TO FUNCTION" BY REASON OF THE BOARD'S ORDER DIRECTING THE
COMPANY NOT TO BARGAIN WITH IT.  IT DID THIS WITHOUT HAVING FOUND IN
THE PRESENT OR IN EITHER OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS THAT THE UNION HAD
EVER BEEN DOMINATED OR INTERFERED WITH BY THE COMPANY, AND WITHOUT
HAVING MADE ANY ORDER RUNNING AGAINST THE UNION OR PURPORTING TO BIND
IT.  THE POSITION OF THE BOARD THUS SEEMS TO BE THAT THE RIGHT OF THE
CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES TO ACT AS A UNIT, AND THE RIGHT OF THE UNION TO
REPRESENT THEM IN PROCEEDINGS FOR ASCERTAINING THE APPROPRIATE
BARGAINING UNIT AND IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE EMPLOYER, WERE
FOREVER FORECLOSED IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THEY WERE NOT REPRESENTED,
TO WHICH THE UNION WAS NOT A PARTY, IN WHICH NO EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED
OR FINDING MADE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND WHICH RESULTED ONLY
IN AN ORDER ON CONSENT OF THE EMPLOYER WHICH DID NOT PURPORT TO CONTROL
THE CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES OR THE UNION, OR DETERMINE THEIR RIGHTS. 

THE ONLY SUPPORT WHICH THE OPINION OF THE COURT AFFORDS FOR A RESULT
SO EXTRAORDINARY IS AN INTIMATION THAT THE CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES AND
THE UNION HAD FORFEITED THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE
CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD BECAUSE THE UNION HAD FAILED TO INTERVENE IN
THE FIRST PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE BOARD MADE ITS CONSENT ORDER AGAINST
THE COMPANY, AND BECAUSE IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT THE EXCLUDED
EVIDENCE, IF CONSIDERED, WOULD NOT HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED THE
OUTCOME. 

AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT ITSELF POINTS OUT, THE FIRST ORDER OF THE
BOARD DID NOT RUN AGAINST OR PURPORT TO BIND THE UNION, SEE LABOR BOARD
V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261; AND AS THIS COURT HAS
DECIDED THE BOARD IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,
TO SAY NOTHING OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, TO MAKE ANY ORDER
DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION IN A PROCEEDING TO WHICH
IT IS NOT MADE A PARTY.  IT WAS BECAUSE THE BOARD PURPORTED THUS TO
DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF AN ABSENT PARTY WHICH HAD FAILED TO INTERVENE,
THAT WE MODIFIED ITS ORDER IN NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 309
U.S. 350, 362, 367.  IT IS NEW DOCTRINE IN THE LAW, THAT ONE WHO IS NOT
A NECESSARY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING IN WHICH NO ORDER IS MADE AGAINST
HIM, NEVERTHELESS IN SOME WAY AND ON SOME UNDISCLOSED THEORY, FORFEITS
HIS RIGHTS IF HE DOES NOT VOLUNTARILY BECOME A PARTY.  AT THE PRESENT
TERM OF COURT WE HAVE HAD OCCASION TO REAFFIRM THE LONG RECOGNIZED
PRINCIPLE THAT A JUDGMENT OF A COURT WHICH PURPORTS TO BIND PARTIES NOT
PRESENT OR REPRESENTED IN THE LITIGATION IS WITHOUT EFFICACY TO BIND
THEM BECAUSE IF GIVEN SUCH EFFECT THE JUDGMENT WOULD BE A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  HANSBERRY V. LEE, 311 U.S. 32.  THE ORDER OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD CAN HAVE NO GREATER FORCE. 

THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE STATUTE PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OR OTHER
PROCEDURE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE RIGHTS OF ABSENT PARTIES ARE TO BE
FORECLOSED, AND IN THE PRESENT CASE IT DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR THAT THE
UNION OR THE CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES WERE NOTIFIED OR WERE OTHERWISE
AWARE OF THE PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS MADE ON CONSENT OF THE
EMPLOYER, WHICH IT IS NOW ASSERTED OPERATED TO TERMINATE THE EXISTENCE
OF THE UNION AND FOR THAT REASON FORFEITED ITS RIGHT AND THE RIGHT OF
THE EMPLOYEES TO HAVE RELEVANT EVIDENCE CONSIDERED IN A REPRESENTATION
PROCEEDING. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT AN APPROPRIATE HEARING UPON EVIDENCE MAY BE
DISPENSED WITH BECAUSE THE REJECTED EVIDENCE WOULD NOT HAVE MATERIALLY
AFFECTED THE OUTCOME, SEEMS TO BE BASED EITHER ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THE BOARD HAS IN SOME WAY PASSED ON THE WEIGHT OF THE REJECTED EVIDENCE
WITHOUT HEARING IT, OR THAT THE COURT IS NOW FREE TO APPRAISE IT AND
PERFORM THE FUNCTION WHICH THE BOARD NEGLECTED TO PERFORM.  NEITHER
POSITION IS TENABLE.  THE BOARD REFUSED TO CONSIDER ANY OF THE
PROFFERED EVIDENCE ON THE SOLE AND ERRONEOUS GROUND THAT THE UNION AND
THE CRYSTAL CITY EMPLOYEES HAD LOST THE STATUS WHICH THEY OTHERWISE
WOULD HAVE HAD ENTITLING THEM TO HAVE THEIR WISHES AND THEIR RELATIONS
WITH THE EMPLOYER CONSIDERED IN A REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING.  WE HAVE
NO WARRANT FOR SAYING THAT THE BOARD WOULD HAVE ATTRIBUTED LESS WEIGHT
TO THESE FACTORS THAN TO OTHERS FAVORABLE TO THE FEDERATION WHICH IT
DID CONSIDER, OR THAT IF IT HAD THOUGHT THAT IT WAS FREE TO CONSIDER
THEM THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME, OR THAT IN ANY CASE, ON
REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, THE INTERESTED PARTIES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ENTITLED TO URGE THAT THE BOARD, UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE
EVIDENCE, HAD NOT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION. 

AS WE ARE OFTEN REMINDED, MOST OF THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD INVOLVE
DISCRETION WHICH IS TO BE EXERCISED BY IT ALONE AND NOT THE COURTS. 
FOR THAT REASON THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF THE LITIGANT BEFORE THE
BOARD IS, IN MOST CASES, THE RIGHT TO INVOKE THE EXERCISE OF THAT
DISCRETION UPON A FULL AND FAIR CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT
EVIDENCE.  THAT RIGHT THE BOARD HAS DENIED TO PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE
BY REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE UPON PALPABLY ERRONEOUS GROUNDS. 
WE ARE NO MORE FREE IN THIS CASE TO PASS UPON THE WEIGHT AND
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, WITH THE DETAILS OF WHICH, LIKE THE BOARD,
WE ARE UNACQUAINTED, THAN IN ANY OTHER CASE IN WHICH THE BOARD IS
REQUIRED TO RECEIVE AND PASS UPON EVIDENCE. 

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT SAFEGUARDS OF THE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS AND
THE MINIMAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT, IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY VESTED WITH DISCRETION, IS THAT IT CANNOT RIGHTLY
EXCLUDE FROM CONSIDERATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELEVANT TO ITS
INQUIRY WHICH UPON DUE CONSIDERATION MAY BE OF PERSUASIVE WEIGHT IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. CHICAGO,
R.I. & P. RY. CO., 218 U.S. 88, 102; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 75, 78; OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V.
COMMISSION, 301 U.S. 292, 304, 305.    THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :














PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 177 


NO. 387.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 113 F.2D
202, MODIFIED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 8(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AN EMPLOYER
WHO REFUSES TO HIRE AN APPLICANT FOR EMPLOYMENT SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE
APPLICANT'S AFFILIATION WITH A LABOR UNION IS GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE.  P. 182. 

2.  WHEN APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY REFUSED EMPLOYMENT SOLELY
BECAUSE OF THEIR AFFILIATIONS WITH A LABOR UNION, SEC. 10(C) OF THE
LABOR ACT EMPOWERS THE LABOR BOARD TO ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO UNDO THE
DISCRIMINATION BY OFFERING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY FOR EMPLOYMENT WHICH
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED THEM.  P. 187. 

3.  IN THIS THE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 187. 

4.  IN SEC. 10(C) OF THE LABOR ACT, EMPOWERING THE LABOR BOARD TO
REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER GUILTY OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE TO DESIST AND TO
TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, "INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES
WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY," AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT,
THE PARTICIPIAL PHRASE "INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT," ETC., IS ILLUSTRATIVE
MERELY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A LIMITATION UPON THE BOARD'S
POWER TO REMEDY UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN THE HIRING AS WELL AS IN THE
DISCHARGE OF WORKERS.  P. 188. 

5.  UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT AN EMPLOYER WHO HAS
BEEN GUILTY OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE OF REFUSING TO HIRE MEN
BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION AFFILIATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE BOARD, FOR
EFFECTUATION OF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT, TO OFFER THEM OPPORTUNITY FOR
EMPLOYMENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE, IN THE MEANTIME, OBTAINED REGULAR
AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE.  P. 189. 

6.  THE BROAD MEANING OF THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" AS USED IN SEC. 10(C) OF
THE LABOR ACT AND IN THE EARLIER PART OF SEC. 2(3), IS NOT RESTRICTED
BY THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF SEC. 2(3), WHICH DECLARES THAT THE TERM
"EMPLOYEE" SHALL INCLUDE ANY INDIVIDUAL WHOSE WORK HAS CEASED AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE "AND WHO HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY
OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT."  P. 191. 

THIS LAST PROVISION IS ASSIGNABLE TO OTHER PURPOSES, E.G., FOR
DETERMINING WHO ARE THE "EMPLOYEES" WITH WHOM AN EMPLOYER MUST BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY, SECS. 8(5), 9(A), OR WHO ARE TO BE TREATED AS "EMPLOYEES"
WITHIN A BARGAINING UNIT, SEC. 9(B). 

7.  TO DENY THE BOARD POWER TO NEUTRALIZE DISCRIMINATION MERELY
BECAUSE WORKERS HAVE OBTAINED OTHER COMPENSATORY EMPLOYMENT WOULD
CONFINE THE "POLICIES OF THIS ACT" TO THE CORRECTION OF PRIVATE
INJURIES, WHEREAS THE BOARD WAS NOT DEVISED FOR SUCH A LIMITED
FUNCTION, BUT IS THE AGENCY OF CONGRESS FOR TRANSLATING INTO
CONCRETENESS THE PURPOSE OF SAFEGUARDING AND ENCOURAGING THE RIGHT OF
SELF-ORGANIZATION.  P. 192. 

8.  ALTHOUGH AN EMPLOYER WHO HAS DENIED RE-EMPLOYMENT TO WORKERS
SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR LABOR UNION AFFILIATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED TO
OFFER THEM EMPLOYMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR HAVING OBTAINED EQUIVALENT
EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE, THIS REMEDY DOES NOT FLOW FROM THE ACT
AUTOMATICALLY WHEN THE DISCRIMINATION IS FOUND, BUT DEPENDS UPON A
FINDING BY THE BOARD, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS INFORMED DISCRETION, THAT
EFFECTUATION OF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT REQUIRES SUCH REINSTATEMENT. 
P. 193. 

9.  AN ORDER OF THE LABOR BOARD REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO REINSTATE
STRIKERS WHO OBTAINED OTHER EMPLOYMENT, SHOULD STATE THE BASIS OF THE
ORDER.  P. 197. 

10.  THE REMEDY OF ORDERING BACK PAY IS IN THE BOARD'S DISCRETION,
NOT MECHANICALLY COMPELLED BY THE ACT.  P. 198. 

11.  WHERE AN ORDER OF THE LABOR BOARD REQUIRES THAT A WORKER BE
RESTORED TO EMPLOYMENT AND BE COMPENSATED FOR LOSS OF PAY, DEDUCTION
SHOULD BE MADE NOT ONLY FOR ACTUAL EARNINGS OF THE WORKER WHILE OUT OF
EMPLOYMENT BUT ALSO FOR LOSSES WHICH HE WILLFULLY INCURRED.  P. 197. 

12.  THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEDUCTION SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD
PRIOR TO FORMULATION OF ITS ORDER.  P. 200. 

PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 641, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PHELPS
DODGE CORP., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 669, TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 669, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING IN PART AND
IN PART DISAPPROVING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 19
N.L.R.B. 547. 

IT IS NOT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER TO REFUSE
EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP OR ACTIVITY TO ONE WHO IS NOT
HIS "EMPLOYEE" AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(3) OF THE ACT, AND THE
BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE EMPLOYMENT OF OR THE PAYMENT OF
BACK PAY TO SUCH A PERSON. 

IF CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYMENT OF ONE
WHO WAS NOT AN "EMPLOYEE" AT THE TIME WHEN HE WAS REFUSED EMPLOYMENT,
THE ACT VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WENT ON STRIKE ON JUNE 10, 1935, WERE NOT
"EMPLOYEES" OF THE COMPANY WHEN THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE AND DID NOT
BECOME SUCH BY VIRTUE OF ITS PROVISIONS. 

THEY HAVE AT NO TIME OCCUPIED THE STATUS OF "EMPLOYEES" UNDER THE ACT
AND NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE COMPANY.  THEY
DID NOT OCCUPY THE STATUS OF "EMPLOYEES" BETWEEN JULY 5, 1935, AND
AUGUST 24, 1935, MERELY BY VIRTUE OF THE PICKETING, WHICH WAS
DISCONTINUED ON THE LATTER DATE. 

EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE PERSONS WHO WENT ON STRIKE ON JUNE 10, 1935,
WERE "EMPLOYEES" OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE ACT BETWEEN JULY 5 AND AUGUST
24, 1935, THERE WAS NO DISCRIMINATORY REFUSAL TO "REINSTATE" AND
CONSEQUENTLY NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE DURING THAT PERIOD.  THE
DISCRIMINATORY REFUSALS TO HIRE OCCURRED AFTER AUGUST 24, 1935, BUT
FROM AND AFTER THAT DATE THE PERSONS WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ON STRIKE
WERE CLEARLY NOT "EMPLOYEES" AND NO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WAS
COMMITTED. 

THE BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 10(C) TO ORDER THE
REINSTATEMENT OF PERSONS WHO WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHILE OCCUPYING
THE STATUS OF "EMPLOYEES" AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(3), BUT WHO THEREAFTER
OBTAINED "OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE LATTER PROVISION, BECAUSE SUCH PERSONS NO LONGER
OCCUPY THE STATUS OF "EMPLOYEES." 

EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY" AND DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO
AWARD BACK PAY TO PERSONS AS TO WHOM IT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDER
REINSTATEMENT. 

A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN THE OBJECT OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HAS THE
DUTY OF EXERCISING REASONABLE DILIGENCE TO SECURE AND RETAIN OTHER
EMPLOYMENT AND THE AMOUNT OF BACK PAY TO WHICH HE MIGHT OTHERWISE BE
ENTITLED SHOULD BE REDUCED BY WHATEVER AMOUNT HE FAILED WITHOUT EXCUSE
TO EARN. 

WHERE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF PERSONS WHO CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST DELAY FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE FILING
CHARGES, AND THE BOARD THEREAFTER TAKES AN ADDITIONAL TWO AND A HALF
YEARS TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE, AN EMPLOYER WHO DURING THAT ENTIRE PERIOD
HAS BEEN HELPLESS TO OBTAIN A DETERMINATION OF HIS RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL RELIEF FROM AN EXCESSIVE AWARD OF
BACK PAY. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DOMINATING QUESTION WHICH THIS LITIGATION BRINGS HERE FOR THE
FIRST TIME IS WHETHER AN EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT MAY REFUSE TO HIRE EMPLOYEES SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR
AFFILIATIONS WITH A LABOR UNION.  SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS GROW OUT OF THIS
CENTRAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE MEANS OPEN TO THE BOARD TO "EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT," IF IT FINDS SUCH DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING AN
"UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE."  OTHER QUESTIONS TOUCHING THE REMEDIAL POWERS
OF THE BOARD ARE ALSO INVOLVED.  WE GRANTED A PETITION BY THE PHELPS
DODGE CORPORATION AND A CROSS-PETITION BY THE BOARD, 312 U.S. 669, TO
REVIEW A DECISION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT, 113 F.2D 202, WHICH ENFORCED THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, 19
N.L.R.B. 547, WITH MODIFICATIONS.  THE MAIN ISSUE IS INTRINSICALLY
IMPORTANT AND HAS STIRRED A CONFLICT OF DECISIONS.  LABOR BOARD V.
WAUMBEC MILLS, 114 F.2D 226. 

THE SOURCE OF THE CONTROVERSY WAS A STRIKE, BEGUN ON JUNE 10, 1935,
BY THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS AT PHELPS
DODGE'S COPPER QUEEN MINE, BISBEE, ARIZONA.  PICKETING OF THE MINE
CONTINUED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1935, WHEN THE STRIKE TERMINATED.  DURING
THE STRIKE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT CAME INTO FORCE.  ACT OF
JULY 5, 1935, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ. THE BASIS OF THE
BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT THE CORPORATION HAD COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT WAS A FINDING, NOT
CHALLENGED HERE, THAT A NUMBER OF MEN HAD BEEN REFUSED EMPLOYMENT
BECAUSE OF THEIR AFFILIATIONS WITH THE UNION.  OF THESE MEN, TWO,
CURTIS AND DAUGHERTY, HAD CEASED TO BE IN THE CORPORATION'S EMPLOY
BEFORE THE STRIKE BUT SOUGHT EMPLOYMENT AFTER ITS CLOSE.  THE OTHERS,
THIRTY-EIGHT IN NUMBER, WERE STRIKERS.  TO "EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES" OF
THE ACT, SEC. 10(C), THE BOARD ORDERED THE CORPORATION TO OFFER CURTIS
AND DAUGHERTY JOBS AND TO MAKE THEM WHOLE FOR THE LOSS OF PAY RESULTING
FROM THE REFUSAL TO HIRE THEM, AND IT ORDERED THIRTY-SEVEN OF THE
STRIKERS REINSTATED WITH BACK PAY, AND THE OTHER STRIKER MADE WHOLE FOR
LOSS IN WAGES UP TO THE TIME HE BECAME UNEMPLOYABLE.  SAVE FOR A
MODIFICATION PRESENTLY TO BE DISCUSSED, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCED THE ORDER AFFECTING THE STRIKERS BUT STRUCK DOWN THE
PROVISIONS RELATING TO CURTIS AND DAUGHERTY. 

FIRST.  THE DENIAL OF JOBS TO MEN BECAUSE OF UNION AFFILIATIONS IS AN
OLD AND FAMILIAR ASPECT OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.  THEREFORE,
IN DETERMINING WHETHER SUCH DISCRIMINATION LEGALLY SURVIVES THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE HISTORY WHICH LED TO THE ACT AND THE
AIMS WHICH INFUSE IT GIVE DIRECTION TO OUR INQUIRY.  CONGRESS
EXPLICITLY DISCLOSED ITS PURPOSES IN DECLARING THE POLICY WHICH
UNDERLIES THE ACT.  ITS ULTIMATE CONCERN, AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF ITS
POWER, WAS "TO ELIMINATE THE CAUSES OF CERTAIN SUBSTANTIAL OBSTRUCTIONS
TO THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE."  THIS VITAL NATIONAL PURPOSE WAS TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED "BY ENCOURAGING THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND BY PROTECTING THE EXERCISE BY WORKERS OF FULL FREEDOM OF
ASSOCIATION."  SEC. 1.  ONLY THUS COULD WORKERS ENSURE THEMSELVES
ECONOMIC STANDARDS CONSONANT WITH NATIONAL WELL-BEING.  PROTECTION OF
THE WORKERS' RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION DOES NOT CURTAIL THE
APPROPRIATE SPHERE OF MANAGERIAL FREEDOM; IT FURTHERS THE WHOLESOME
CONDUCT OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISE.  "THE ACT," THIS COURT HAS SAID, "DOES
NOT INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO
SELECT ITS EMPLOYEES OR TO DISCHARGE THEM."  BUT "UNDER COVER OF THAT
RIGHT," THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT "INTIMIDATE OR COERCE ITS EMPLOYEES WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR SELF-ORGANIZATION AND REPRESENTATION."  WHEN
"EMPLOYERS FREELY RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THEIR EMPLOYEES TO THEIR OWN
ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR UNRESTRICTED RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION THERE WILL
BE MUCH LESS OCCASION FOR CONTROVERSY IN RESPECT TO THE FREE AND
APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SELECTION AND DISCHARGE."  LABOR
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1, 45, 46.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE OF
THE NATURE OF MODERN INDUSTRIALISM.  LABOR UNIONS WERE ORGANIZED "OUT
OF THE NECESSITIES OF THE SITUATION.  ...  UNION WAS ESSENTIAL TO GIVE
LABORERS OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL ON EQUALITY WITH THEIR EMPLOYER."  SUCH
WAS THE VIEW, ON BEHALF OF THE COURT, OF CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, AMERICAN
STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRICITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 209, AFTER HIS UNIQUE
PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE CAUSES OF INDUSTRIAL UNREST AS CO
CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD.  AND SO THE PRESENT ACT,
CODIFYING THIS LONG HISTORY, LEAVES THE ADJUSTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS TO THE FREE PLAY OF ECONOMIC FORCES BUT SEEKS TO ASSURE THAT
THE PLAY OF THOSE FORCES BE TRULY FREE. 

IT IS NO LONGER DISPUTED THAT WORKERS CANNOT BE DISMISSED FROM
EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION AFFILIATIONS.  IS THE NATIONAL
INTEREST IN INDUSTRIAL PEACE LESS AFFECTED BY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
UNION ACTIVITY WHEN MEN ARE HIRED?  THE CONTRARY IS OVERWHELMINGLY
ATTESTED BY THE LONG HISTORY OF INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS, THE DIAGNOSIS OF
THEIR CAUSES BY OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS, THE CONVICTION OF PUBLIC MEN,
INDUSTRIALISTS AND SCHOLARS.  FN1  BECAUSE OF THE PULLMAN STRIKE,
CONGRESS IN THE ERDMAN ACT OF 1898 PROHIBITED INROADS UPON THE
WORKINGMAN'S RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION BY DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES AT THE
POINT OF HIRING.  FN2  KINDRED LEGISLATION HAS BEEN PUT ON THE STATUTE
BOOKS OF MORE THAN HALF THE STATES.  FN3  AND DURING THE LATE WAR THE
NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD CONCLUDED THAT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION
MEN AT THE TIME OF HIRING VIOLATED ITS DECLARED POLICY THAT "THE RIGHT
OF WORKERS TO ORGANIZE IN TRADE-UNIONS AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY  ...
SHALL NOT BE DENIED, ABRIDGED, OR INTERFERED WITH BY THE EMPLOYERS IN
ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER."  FN4 SUCH A POLICY IS AN INEVITABLE COROLLARY
OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF ORGANIZATION.  DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
UNION LABOR IN THE HIRING OF MEN IS A DAM TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AT THE
SOURCE OF SUPPLY.  THE EFFECT OF SUCH DISCRIMINATION IS NOT CONFINED TO
THE ACTUAL DENIAL OF EMPLOYMENT; IT INEVITABLY OPERATES AGAINST THE
WHOLE IDEA OF THE LEGITIMACY OF ORGANIZATION.  IN A WORD, IT UNDERMINES
THE PRINCIPLE WHICH, AS WE HAVE SEEN, IS RECOGNIZED AS BASIC TO THE
ATTAINMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE. 

THESE ARE COMMONPLACES IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS.  BUT PRECISELY FOR THAT REASON THEY MUST BE KEPT IN THE
FOREFRONT IN ASCERTAINING THE MEANING OF A MAJOR ENACTMENT DEALING WITH
THESE RELATIONS.  TO BE SURE, IN OUTLAWING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
CONGRESS DID NOT LEAVE THE MATTER AT LARGE.  THE PRACTICES CONDEMNED
"ARE STRICTLY LIMITED TO THOSE ENUMERATED IN SECTION 8," S. REP. NO.
573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 8.  SECTION 8(3) IS THE FOUNDATION OF
THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION THAT IN REFUSING EMPLOYMENT TO THE TWO MEN
BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION AFFILIATIONS PHELPS DODGE VIOLATED THE ACT.  AND
SO WE TURN TO ITS PROVISIONS THAT "IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
FOR AN EMPLOYER  ...  BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF
EMPLOYMENT OR ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR
DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION." 

UNLIKE MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLS, THE PHRASING OF SUCH SOCIAL LEGISLATION
AS THIS SELDOM ATTAINS MORE THAN APPROXIMATE PRECISION OF DEFINITION. 
THAT IS WHY ALL RELEVANT AIDS ARE SUMMONED TO DETERMINE MEANING.  OF
COMPELLING CONSIDERATION IS THE FACT THAT WORDS ACQUIRE SCOPE AND
FUNCTION FROM THE HISTORY OF EVENTS WHICH THEY SUMMARIZE.  WE HAVE SEEN
THE CLOSE LINK BETWEEN A BAR TO EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF UNION AFFILIATION
AND THE OPPORTUNITIES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS TO EXIST AND TO PROSPER. 
SUCH AN EMBARGO AGAINST EMPLOYMENT OF UNION LABOR WAS NOTORIOUSLY ONE
OF THE CHIEF OBSTRUCTIONS TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THROUGH SELF
ORGANIZATION.  INDISPUTABLY THE REMOVAL OF SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS WAS THE
DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE" MUST
BE APPLIED AS A MEANS TOWARDS THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE MAIN OBJECT OF
THE LEGISLATION.  WE ARE ASKED TO READ "HIRE" AS MEANING THE WAGES PAID
TO AN EMPLOYEE SO AS TO MAKE THE STATUTE MERELY FORBID DISCRIMINATION
IN ONE OF THE TERMS OF MEN WHO HAVE SECURED EMPLOYMENT.  SO TO READ THE
STATUTE WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO A SPONTANEOUS TEXTUAL READING OF SEC. 8(3)
IN THAT "HIRE" WOULD SERVE NO FUNCTION BECAUSE, IN THE SENSE WHICH IS
URGED UPON US, IT IS INCLUDED IN THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
"DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO  ...  ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF
EMPLOYMENT."  CONTEMPORANEOUS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,  FN5  AND, ABOVE
ALL, THE BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRIAL EXPERIENCE, FORBID SUCH TEXTUAL
MUTILATION. 

THE NATURAL CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE TEXT, THE LEGISLATIVE SETTING AND
THE FUNCTION OF THE STATUTE COMMAND, DOES NOT IMPOSE AN OBLIGATION ON
THE EMPLOYER TO FAVOR UNION MEMBERS IN HIRING EMPLOYEES.  HE IS AS FREE
TO HIRE AS HE IS TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT TOUCH
"THE NORMAL EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO SELECT ITS
EMPLOYEES OR TO DISCHARGE THEM."  IT IS DIRECTED SOLELY AGAINST THE
ABUSE OF THAT RIGHT BY INTERFERING WITH THE COUNTERVAILING RIGHT OF
SELF-ORGANIZATION. 

WE HAVE ALREADY RECOGNIZED THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO DENY AN EMPLOYER
THE FREEDOM TO DISCRIMINATE IN DISCHARGING.  LABOR BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1.  SO FAR AS QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY ARE
CONCERNED WE NEED NOT ENLARGE ON THE STATEMENT OF JUDGE LEARNED HAND IN
HIS OPINION BELOW THAT THERE IS "NO GREATER LIMITATION IN DENYING HIM
(THE EMPLOYER) THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE IN HIRING, THAN IN
DISCHARGING."  THE COURSE OF DECISIONS IN THIS COURT SINCE ADAIR V.
UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161, AND COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, HAVE
COMPLETELY SAPPED THOSE CASES OF THEIR AUTHORITY.  PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.
V. LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S. 72; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281
U.S. 548; VIRGINIAN RY. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515; LABOR BOARD V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN, SUPRA.    SECOND.  SINCE THE REFUSAL TO HIRE CURTIS
AND DAUGHERTY SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR AFFILIATION WITH THE UNION WAS AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(3), THE REMEDIAL AUTHORITY OF THE
BOARD UNDER SEC. 10(C) BECAME OPERATIVE.  OF COURSE IT COULD ISSUE, AS
IT DID, AN ORDER "TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE"
IN THE FUTURE.  DID CONGRESS ALSO EMPOWER THE BOARD TO ORDER THE
EMPLOYER TO UNDO THE WRONG BY OFFERING THE MEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR EMPLOYMENT WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED THEM? 
REINSTATEMENT IS THE CONVENTIONAL CORRECTION FOR DISCRIMINATORY
DISCHARGES.  EXPERIENCE HAVING DEMONSTRATED THAT DISCRIMINATION IN
HIRING IS TWIN TO DISCRIMINATION IN FIRING, IT WOULD INDEED BE
SURPRISING IF CONGRESS GAVE A REMEDY FOR THE ONE WHICH IT DENIED FOR
THE OTHER.  THE POWERS OF THE BOARD AS WELL AS THE RESTRICTIONS UPON IT
MUST BE DRAWN FROM SEC. 10(C), WHICH DIRECTS THE BOARD "TO TAKE SUCH
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  IT
COULD NOT BE SERIOUSLY DENIED THAT TO REQUIRE DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING
OR FIRING TO BE "NEUTRALIZED," LABOR BOARD V. MACKAY CO., 304 U.S. 333,
348, BY REQUIRING THE DISCRIMINATION TO CEASE NOT ABSTRACTLY BUT IN THE
CONCRETE VICTIMIZING INSTANCES, IS AN "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" WHICH "WILL
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  THEREFORE, IF SEC. 10(C) HAD
EMPOWERED THE BOARD TO "TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS WILL EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT," THE RIGHT TO RESTORE TO A MAN EMPLOYMENT
WHICH WAS WRONGFULLY DENIED HIM COULD HARDLY BE DOUBTED.  EVEN WITHOUT
SUCH A MANDATE FROM CONGRESS THIS COURT COMPELLED REINSTATEMENT TO
ENFORCE THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AGAINST DISCRIMINATION REPRESENTED BY
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S.
548.  FN6  ATTAINMENT OF A GREAT NATIONAL POLICY THROUGH EXPERT
ADMINISTRATION IN COLLABORATION WITH LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW MUST NOT
BE CONFINED WITHIN NARROW CANONS FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF DEEMED SUITABLE
BY CHANCELLORS IN ORDINARY PRIVATE CONTROVERSIES.  COMPARE VIRGINIAN
RY. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552.  TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN
DISCRIMINATION IN DENYING EMPLOYMENT AND IN TERMINATING IT, WOULD BE A
DIFFERENTIATION NOT ONLY WITHOUT SUBSTANCE BUT IN DEFIANCE OF THAT
AGAINST WHICH THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION IS DIRECTED. 

BUT, WE ARE TOLD, THIS IS PRECISELY THE DIFFERENTIATION CONGRESS HAS
MADE.  IT HAS DONE SO, THE ARGUMENT RUNS, BY NOT DIRECTING THE BOARD
"TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF
THIS ACT," SIMPLICITER, BUT, INSTEAD, BY EMPOWERING THE BOARD "TO TAKE
SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  TO
ATTRIBUTE SUCH A FUNCTION TO THE PARTICIPIAL PHRASE INTRODUCED BY
"INCLUDING" IS TO SHRIVEL A VERSATILE PRINCIPLE TO AN ILLUSTRATIVE
APPLICATION.  WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION WHATEVER FOR ATTRIBUTING TO
CONGRESS SUCH A CASUISTIC WITHDRAWAL OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH, BUT FOR
THE ILLUSTRATION, IT CLEARLY HAS GIVEN THE BOARD.  THE WORD "INCLUDING"
DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO SUCH DESTRUCTIVE SIGNIFICANCE.  HELVERING V.
MORGAN'S, INC., 293 U.S. 121, 125, NOTE. 

THIRD.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE RECORD WARRANTS THE
BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE STRIKERS WERE DENIED REEMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF
THEIR UNION ACTIVITIES.  HAVING HELD THAT THE BOARD CAN NEUTRALIZE SUCH
DISCRIMINATION IN THE CASE OF MEN SEEKING NEW EMPLOYMENT, THE BOARD
CERTAINLY HAD THIS POWER IN REGARD TO THE STRIKERS.  AND SO WE NEED NOT
CONSIDER WHETHER THE ORDER CONCERNING THE STRIKERS SHOULD STAND, AS THE
COURT BELOW HELD IT SHOULD, EVEN THOUGH THAT AGAINST CURTIS AND
DAUGHERTY WOULD FALL. 

FOURTH.  THERE REMAIN FOR CONSIDERATION THE LIMITATIONS UPON THE
BOARD'S POWER TO UNDO THE EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION.  SPECIFICALLY, WE
HAVE THE QUESTION OF THE BOARD'S POWER TO ORDER EMPLOYMENT IN CASES
WHERE THE MEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST HAD OBTAINED "SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT."  THE BOARD AS A MATTER OF FACT FOUND THAT NO
SUCH EMPLOYMENT HAD BEEN OBTAINED, BUT ALTERNATIVELY CONCLUDED THAT, IN
ANY EVENT, THE MEN SHOULD BE OFFERED EMPLOYMENT.  THE COURT BELOW, ON
THE OTHER HAND, IN HARMONY WITH THREE OTHER CIRCUITS, MOORESVILLE
COTTON MILLS V. LABOR BOARD, 94 F.2D 61(C.C.A.4TH); LABOR BOARD V.
BOTANY WORSTED MILLS, 106 F.2D 263(C.C.A. 3RD); LABOR BOARD V. CARLISLE
LUMBER CO., 99 F.2D 533(C.C.A.9TH), RULED THAT EMPLOYMENT NEED NOT BE
OFFERED ANY WORKER WHO HAD OBTAINED SUCH EMPLOYMENT, AND SINCE THE
RECORD AS TO SOME OF THE STRIKERS WHO HAD GONE TO WORK AT THE SHATTUCK
DENN COMPANY WAS INDECISIVE ON THIS ISSUE, REMANDED THE CASE TO THE
BOARD FOR FURTHER FINDINGS.  THIS ASPECT OF THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY
DEPENDS ON THE RELATION OF THE GENERAL REMEDIAL POWERS CONFERRED BY
SEC. 10(C) TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(3). 

THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OUT OF WHICH THE PROPER CONCLUSION
IS TO BE DRAWN SHOULD BE BEFORE US.  SECTION 10(C), AS WE ALREADY KNOW,
AUTHORIZES THE BOARD "TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF SEC. 2(3) FOLLOW:
"THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE' SHALL INCLUDE ANY EMPLOYEE, AND SHALL NOT BE
LIMITED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYER, UNLESS THE ACT
EXPLICITLY STATES OTHERWISE, AND SHALL INCLUDE ANY INDIVIDUAL WHOSE
WORK HAS CEASED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY CURRENT
LABOR DISPUTE OR BECAUSE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND WHO HAS NOT
OBTAINED ANY OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT." 

MERELY AS A MATTER OF TEXTUAL READING THESE PROVISIONS IN COMBINATION
PERMIT THREE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTIONS:  (1) A CURTAILMENT OF THE POWERS
OF THE BOARD TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY READING INTO SEC. 10(C) THE
RESTRICTIVE PHRASE OF SEC. 2(3) REGARDING A WORKER "WHO HAS NOT
OBTAINED ANY OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT";
(2) A COMPLETELY DISTRIBUTIVE READING OF SEC. 10(C) AND SEC. 2(3),
WHEREBY THE FACTOR OF "REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT"
IN NO WAY LIMITS THE BOARD'S USUAL POWER TO REQUIRE EMPLOYMENT TO BE
OFFERED A WORKER WHO HAS LOST EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION; (3)
AN AVOIDANCE OF THIS EITHER-OR READING OF THE STATUTE BY PURSUING THE
CENTRAL CLUE TO THE BOARD'S POWERS - EFFECTUATION OF THE POLICIES OF
THE ACT - AND IN THAT LIGHT APPRAISING THE RELEVANCE OF A WORKER'S
HAVING OBTAINED "SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT." 

DENIAL OF THE BOARD'S POWER TO ORDER OPPORTUNITIES OF EMPLOYMENT IN
THIS SITUATION DERIVES WHOLLY FROM AN INFILTRATION OF A PORTION OF SEC.
2(3) INTO SEC. 10(C).  THE ARGUMENT RUNS THUS: SEC. 10(C) SPECIFICALLY
REFERS TO "REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES"; THE LATTER PORTION OF SEC. 2(3)
REFERS TO AN "EMPLOYEE" AS A PERSON "WHO HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY OTHER
REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT"; THEREFORE, THERE CAN
BE NO REINSTATEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS OBTAINED SUCH EMPLOYMENT. 
THE SYLLOGISM IS PERFECT.  BUT THIS IS A BIT OF VERBAL LOGIC FROM WHICH
THE MEANING OF THINGS HAS EVAPORATED.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE HAVE SEEN
THAT THE BOARD'S POWER TO ORDER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EMPLOYMENT DOES NOT
DERIVE FROM THE PHRASE "INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY," AND IS NOT LIMITED BY IT.  SECONDLY, INSOFAR AS ANY
ARGUMENT IS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE REFERENCE TO "EMPLOYEES" IN SEC.
10(C), IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE REFERENCE IS TO "EMPLOYEES,"
UNQUALIFIED AND UNDIFFERENTIATED.  TO CIRCUMSCRIBE THE GENERAL CLASS,
"EMPLOYEES," WE MUST FIND AUTHORITY EITHER IN THE POLICY OF THE ACT OR
IN SOME SPECIFIC DELIMITING PROVISION OF IT. 

NOT ONLY IS THE ACT DEVOID OF A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF
"EMPLOYEE" RESTRICTIVE OF SEC. 10(C) BUT THE CONTRARY IS THE FACT.  THE
PROBLEM OF WHAT WORKERS WERE TO BE COVERED BY LEGAL REMEDIES FOR
ASSURING THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION WAS A FAMILIAR ONE WHEN
CONGRESS FORMULATED THE ACT.  THE POLICY WHICH IT EXPRESSED IN DEFINING
"EMPLOYEE" BOTH AFFIRMATIVELY AND NEGATIVELY, AS IT DID IN SEC. 2(3),
HAD BEHIND IT IMPORTANT PRACTICAL AND JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE.  "THE TERM
'EMPLOYEE'," THE SECTION READS, "SHALL INCLUDE ANY EMPLOYEE, AND SHALL
NOT BE LIMITED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYER, UNLESS THE
ACT EXPLICITLY STATES OTHERWISE.  ... "  THIS WAS NOT FORTUITOUS
PHRASING.  IT HAD REFERENCE TO THE CONTROVERSIES ENGENDERED BY
CONSTRUCTIONS PLACED UPON THE CLAYTON ACT AND KINDRED STATE LEGISLATION
IN RELATION TO THE FUNCTIONS OF WORKERS' ORGANIZATIONS AND THE DESIRE
NOT TO REPEAT THOSE CONTROVERSIES.  CF. NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. GROCERY
CO., 303 U.S. 552.  THE BROAD DEFINITION OF "EMPLOYEE," "UNLESS THE ACT
EXPLICITLY STATES OTHERWISE," AS WELL AS THE DEFINITION OF "LABOR
DISPUTE" IN SEC. 2(9), EXPRESSED THE CONVICTION OF CONGRESS "THAT
DISPUTES MAY ARISE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE
PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, AND THAT SELF-ORGANIZATION
OF EMPLOYEES MAY EXTEND BEYOND A SINGLE PLANT OR EMPLOYER."  H.R. REP.
NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 9; SEE ALSO S. REP. NO. 573, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 6, 7. 

THE REFERENCE IN SEC. 2(3) TO WORKERS WHO HAVE "OBTAINED REGULAR AND
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT" HAS A ROLE CONSONANT WITH SOME
PURPOSES OF THE ACT BUT NOT ONE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE BROAD DEFINITION OF
"EMPLOYEE" WITH WHICH SEC. 2(3) BEGINS.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN
EMPLOYER HAS REFUSED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF "HIS EMPLOYEES" IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(5) AND SEC. 9(A) IT IS OF
COURSE ESSENTIAL TO DETERMINE WHO CONSTITUTE "HIS EMPLOYEES."  ONE
ASPECT OF THIS IS COVERED BY SEC. 9(B) WHICH PROVIDES FOR DETERMINATION
OF THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT.  AND ONCE THE UNIT IS SELECTED, THE
REFERENCE IN SEC. 2(3) TO WORKERS WHO HAVE OBTAINED EQUIVALENT
EMPLOYMENT COMES INTO OPERATION IN DETERMINING WHO SHALL BE TREATED AS
EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE UNIT. 

TO DENY THE BOARD POWER TO NEUTRALIZE DISCRIMINATION MERELY BECAUSE
WORKERS HAVE OBTAINED COMPENSATORY EMPLOYMENT WOULD CONFINE THE
"POLICIES OF THIS ACT" TO THE CORRECTION OF PRIVATE INJURIES.  THE
BOARD WAS NOT DEVISED FOR SUCH A LIMITED FUNCTION.  IT IS THE AGENCY OF
CONGRESS FOR TRANSLATING INTO CONCRETENESS THE PURPOSE OF SAFEGUARDING
AND ENCOURAGING THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION.  THE BOARD, WE HAVE
HELD VERY RECENTLY, DOES NOT EXIST FOR THE "ADJUDICATION OF PRIVATE
RIGHTS"; IT "ACTS IN A PUBLIC CAPACITY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DECLARED
PUBLIC POLICY OF THE ACT TO ELIMINATE AND PREVENT OBSTRUCTIONS TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY ENCOURAGING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."  NATIONAL
LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 362; AND SEE AMALGAMATED
UTILITY WORKERS V. EDISON CO., 309 U.S. 261.  TO BE SURE, REINSTATEMENT
IS NOT NEEDED TO REPAIR THE ECONOMIC LOSS OF A WORKER WHO, AFTER
DISCRIMINATION, HAS OBTAINED AN EQUALLY PROFITABLE JOB.  BUT TO LIMIT
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCRIMINATION MERELY TO QUESTIONS OF MONETARY LOSS
TO WORKERS WOULD THWART THE CENTRAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT, DIRECTED AS
THAT IS TOWARD THE ACHIEVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF WORKERS' SELF
ORGANIZATION.  THAT THERE ARE FACTORS OTHER THAN LOSS OF WAGES TO A
PARTICULAR WORKER TO BE CONSIDERED IS SUGGESTED EVEN BY A MEAGER
KNOWLEDGE OF INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS.  THUS, TO GIVE ONLY ONE ILLUSTRATION,
IF MEN WERE DISCHARGED WHO WERE LEADING EFFORTS AT ORGANIZATION IN A
PLANT HAVING A LOW WAGE SCALE, THEY WOULD NOT UNNATURALLY BE COMPELLED
BY THEIR ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES TO SEEK AND OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE
AT EQUIVALENT WAGES.  IN SUCH A SITUATION, TO DENY THE BOARD POWER TO
WIPE OUT THE PRIOR DISCRIMINATION BY ORDERING THE EMPLOYMENT OF SUCH
WORKERS WOULD SANCTION A MOST EFFECTIVE WAY OF DEFEATING THE RIGHT OF
SELF-ORGANIZATION. 

THEREFORE, THE MERE FACT THAT THE VICTIM OF DISCRIMINATION HAS
OBTAINED EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT DOES NOT ITSELF PRECLUDE THE BOARD FROM
UNDOING THE DISCRIMINATION AND REQUIRING EMPLOYMENT.  BUT NEITHER DOES
THIS REMEDY AUTOMATICALLY FLOW FROM THE ACT ITSELF WHEN DISCRIMINATION
HAS BEEN FOUND.  A STATUTE EXPRESSIVE OF SUCH LARGE PUBLIC POLICY AS
THAT ON WHICH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS BASED MUST BE
BROADLY PHRASED AND NECESSARILY CARRIES WITH IT THE TASK OF
ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION.  THERE IS AN AREA PLAINLY COVERED BY THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT AND AN AREA NO LESS PLAINLY WITHOUT IT.  BUT IN THE
NATURE OF THINGS CONGRESS COULD NOT CATALOGUE ALL THE DEVICES AND
STRATAGEMS FOR CIRCUMVENTING THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  NOR COULD IT
DEFINE THE WHOLE GAMUT OF REMEDIES TO EFFECTUATE THESE POLICIES IN AN
INFINITE VARIETY OF SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.  CONGRESS MET THESE
DIFFICULTIES BY LEAVING THE ADAPTATION OF MEANS TO END TO THE EMPIRIC
PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATION.  THE EXERCISE OF THE PROCESS WAS COMMITTED
TO THE BOARD, SUBJECT TO LIMITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.  BECAUSE THE RELATION
OF REMEDY TO POLICY IS PECULIARLY A MATTER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPETENCE, COURTS MUST NOT ENTER THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF THE BOARD'S
DISCRETION AND MUST GUARD AGAINST THE DANGER OF SLIDING UNCONSCIOUSLY
FROM THE NARROW CONFINES OF LAW INTO THE MORE SPACIOUS DOMAIN OF
POLICY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POWER WITH WHICH CONGRESS INVESTED THE
BOARD IMPLIES RESPONSIBILITY - THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EXERCISING ITS
JUDGMENT IN EMPLOYING THE STATUTORY POWERS. 

THE ACT DOES NOT CREATE RIGHTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHICH MUST BE
VINDICATED ACCORDING TO A RIGID SCHEME OF REMEDIES.  IT ENTRUSTS TO AN
EXPERT AGENCY THE MAINTENANCE AND PROMOTION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE. 
ACCORDING TO THE EXPERIENCE REVEALED BY THE BOARD'S DECISIONS, THE
EFFECTUATION OF THIS IMPORTANT POLICY GENERALLY REQUIRES NOT ONLY
COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF WAGES BUT ALSO OFFERS OF EMPLOYMENT TO THE
VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION.  ONLY THUS CAN THERE BE A RESTORATION OF THE
SITUATION, AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE, TO THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE OBTAINED BUT
FOR THE ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION.  BUT EVEN WHERE A WORKER HAS NOT
SECURED EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT, THE BOARD, UNDER PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY REFUSE TO ORDER HIS EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  IT HAS, FOR EXAMPLE, DECLINED TO
DO SO IN THE CASE OF A WORKER WHO HAD BEEN DISCHARGED FOR UNION
ACTIVITIES AND HAD SOUGHT REEMPLOYMENT AFTER HAVING OFFERED HIS
SERVICES AS A LABOR SPY.  MATTER OF THOMPSON CABINET CO., 11 N.L.R.B.
1106, 1116-17.   FROM THE BEGINNING THE BOARD HAS RECOGNIZED THAT A
WORKER WHO HAS OBTAINED EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT IS IN A DIFFERENT
POSITION FROM ONE WHO HAS LOST HIS JOB AS WELL AS HIS WAGES THROUGH AN
EMPLOYER'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  IN EARLY DECISIONS, THE BOARD DID
NOT ORDER REINSTATEMENT OF WORKERS WHO HAD SECURED SUCH EQUIVALENT
EMPLOYMENT.  SEE MATTER OF RABHOR CO., INC., 1 N.L.R.B. 470, 481;
MATTER OF JEFFERY-DE WITT INSULATOR CO., 1 N.L.R.B. 618, 628.  IT
APPARENTLY FOCUSSED ON THE ABSENCE OF LOSS OF WAGES IN DETERMINING THE
APPLICABLE REMEDY.  BUT OTHER FACTORS MAY WELL ENTER INTO THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF ORDERING THE OFFENDING EMPLOYER TO OFFER EMPLOYMENT
TO ONE ILLEGALLY DENIED IT.  REINSTATEMENT MAY BE THE EFFECTIVE
ASSURANCE OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION.  AGAIN, WITHOUT SUCH A
REMEDY INDUSTRIAL PEACE MIGHT BE ENDANGERED BECAUSE WORKERS WOULD BE
RESENTFUL OF THEIR INABILITY TO RETURN TO JOBS TO WHICH THEY MAY HAVE
BEEN ATTACHED AND FROM WHICH THEY WERE WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, IT MAY BE, AS WAS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD IN
MOORESVILLE COTTON MILLS V. LABOR BOARD, 97 F.2D 959, 963, THAT, IN
MAKING SUCH AN ORDER FOR REINSTATEMENT THE NECESSITY FOR MAKING ROOM
FOR THE OLD EMPLOYEES BY DISCHARGING NEW ONES, AS WELL AS QUESTIONS
AFFECTING THE DISLOCATION OF THE BUSINESS, OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED.  ALL
THESE AND OTHER FACTORS OUTSIDE OUR DOMAIN OF EXPERIENCE MAY COME INTO
PLAY.  THEIR RELEVANCE IS FOR THE BOARD, NOT FOR US.  IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS INFORMED DISCRETION THE BOARD MAY FIND THAT EFFECTUATION OF THE
ACT'S POLICIES MAY OR MAY NOT REQUIRE REINSTATEMENT.  WE HAVE NO
WARRANT FOR SPECULATING ON MATTERS OF FACT THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH
CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED TO THE BOARD.  ALL WE ARE ENTITLED TO ASK IS
THAT THE STATUTE SPEAK THROUGH THE BOARD WHERE THE STATUTE DOES NOT
SPEAK FOR ITSELF. 

THE ONLY LIGHT WE HAVE ON THE BOARD'S DECISION IN THIS CASE IS ITS
STATEMENT THAT, IF ANY OF THE WORKERS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST HAD
OBTAINED SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT, THEY SHOULD BE OFFERED
EMPLOYMENT "FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN" MATTER OF EAGLE-PICHER MINING
& SMELTING CO., 16 N.L.R.B. 727, 833.  BUT IN THAT CASE THE BOARD
MERELY CONCLUDED THAT SEC. 2(3) DID NOT DENY IT THE POWER TO ORDER
REINSTATEMENT; IT DID NOT CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ITS
EXERCISE.  THUS THE BOARD DETERMINED ONLY THE DRY LEGAL QUESTION OF ITS
POWER, WHICH WE SUSTAIN; IT DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER IN EMPLOYING THAT
POWER THE POLICIES OF THE ACT WOULD BE ENFORCED.  THE COURT BELOW
FOUND, AND THE BOARD HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE FINDING, THAT THE BOARD
LEFT THE ISSUE OF EQUIVALENCE OF JOBS AT THE SHATTUCK DENN COMPANY IN
DOUBT, AND REMANDED THE ORDER TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER FINDINGS.  OF
COURSE, IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT HAS NOT BEEN
OBTAINED, IT IS WITHIN ITS PROVINCE TO REQUIRE OFFERS OF REEMPLOYMENT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS GENERAL CONCLUSION THAT A WORKER'S LOSS IN WAGES
AND IN GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS MUST BE MADE WHOLE.  EVEN IF IT
SHOULD FIND THAT EQUIVALENT JOBS WERE SECURED BY THE MEN WHO SUFFERED
FROM DISCRIMINATION, IT MAY ORDER EMPLOYMENT AT PHELPS DODGE IF IT
FINDS THAT TO DO SO WOULD EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  WE
BELIEVE THAT THE PROCEDURE WE HAVE INDICATED WILL LIKEWISE EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT BY MAKING WORKABLE THE SYSTEM OF RESTRICTED
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN RELATION TO THE WIDE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY WHICH
CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE BOARD. 

FROM THE RECORD OF THE PRESENT CASE WE CANNOT REALLY TELL WHY THE
BOARD HAS ORDERED REINSTATEMENT OF THE STRIKERS WHO OBTAINED SUBSEQUENT
EMPLOYMENT.  THE BOARD FIRST FOUND THAT THE MEN HAD NOT OBTAINED
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(3);
LATER IT CONCLUDED THAT EVEN IF THEY HAD OBTAINED SUCH EMPLOYMENT IT
WOULD ORDER THEIR REINSTATEMENT.  IT DID SO, HOWEVER, AS WE HAVE NOTED,
MERELY BECAUSE IT ASSERTED ITS LEGAL POWER SO TO DO.  WHEN THE COURT
BELOW HELD THAT PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD'S FINDING CONCERNING
EQUIVALENCE OF EMPLOYMENT AT SHATTUCK DENN AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE
BOARD FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THAT ISSUE, THE BOARD TOOK THIS ISSUE
OUT OF THE CASE BY EXPRESSLY DECLINING TO ASK FOR ITS REVIEW HERE. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WILL BEST BE VINDICATED BY CLARITY IN ITS
EXERCISE.  SINCE CONGRESS HAS DEFINED THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD AND
THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH IT MUST BE ASSERTED AND HAS CHARGED THE FEDERAL
COURTS WITH THE DUTY OF REVIEWING THE BOARD'S ORDERS (SEC. 10(E) AND
(F)), IT WILL AVOID NEEDLESS LITIGATION AND MAKE FOR EFFECTIVE AND
EXPEDITIOUS ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER TO REQUIRE THE BOARD TO
DISCLOSE THE BASIS OF ITS ORDER.  WE DO NOT INTEND TO ENTER THE
PROVINCE THAT BELONGS TO THE BOARD, NOR DO WE DO SO.  ALL WE ASK OF THE
BOARD IS TO GIVE CLEAR INDICATION THAT IT HAS EXERCISED THE DISCRETION
WITH WHICH CONGRESS HAS EMPOWERED IT.  THIS IS TO AFFIRM MOST
EMPHATICALLY THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD. 

FIFTH.  AS PART OF ITS REMEDIAL ACTION AGAINST THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES, THE BOARD ORDERED THAT WORKERS WHO HAD BEEN DENIED
EMPLOYMENT BE MADE WHOLE FOR THEIR LOSS OF PAY.  IN SPECIFIC TERMS, THE
BOARD ORDERED PAYMENT TO THE MEN OF A SUM EQUAL TO WHAT THEY NORMALLY
WOULD HAVE EARNED FROM THE DATE OF THE DISCRIMINATION TO THE TIME OF
EMPLOYMENT LESS THEIR EARNINGS DURING THIS PERIOD.  THE COURT BELOW
ADDED A FURTHER DEDUCTION OF AMOUNTS WHICH THE WORKERS "FAILED WITHOUT
EXCUSE TO EARN," AND THE BOARD HERE CHALLENGES THIS MODIFICATION. 

MAKING THE WORKERS WHOLE FOR LOSSES SUFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE IS PART OF THE VINDICATION OF THE PUBLIC POLICY WHICH
THE BOARD ENFORCES.  SINCE ONLY ACTUAL LOSSES SHOULD BE MADE GOOD, IT
SEEMS FAIR THAT DEDUCTIONS SHOULD BE MADE NOT ONLY FOR ACTUAL EARNINGS
BY THE WORKER BUT ALSO FOR LOSSES WHICH HE WILLFULLY INCURRED.  TO THIS
THE BOARD COUNTERS THAT TO APPLY THIS ABSTRACTLY JUST DOCTRINE OF
MITIGATION OF DAMAGES TO THE SITUATIONS BEFORE IT, OFTEN INVOLVING
SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF WORKMEN, WOULD PUT ON THE BOARD DETAILS TOO
BURDENSOME FOR EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION.  SIMPLICITY OF ADMINISTRATION
IS THUS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR DEDUCTING ONLY ACTUAL EARNINGS AND FOR
AVOIDING THE DOMAIN OF CONTROVERSY AS TO WAGES THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
EARNED. 

BUT THE ADVANTAGES OF A SIMPLE RULE MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THE
IMPORTANCE OF TAKING FAIR ACCOUNT, IN A CIVILIZED LEGAL SYSTEM, OF
EVERY SOCIALLY DESIRABLE FACTOR IN THE FINAL JUDGMENT.  THE BOARD, WE
BELIEVE, OVERESTIMATES ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES AND UNDERESTIMATES
ITS ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCEFULNESS.  HERE AGAIN WE MUST AVOID THE
RIGIDITIES OF AN EITHER-OR RULE.  THE REMEDY OF BACK PAY, IT MUST BE
REMEMBERED, IS ENTRUSTED TO THE BOARD'S DISCRETION; IT IS NOT
MECHANICALLY COMPELLED BY THE ACT.  AND IN APPLYING ITS AUTHORITY OVER
BACK PAY ORDERS, THE BOARD HAS NOT USED STEREOTYPED FORMULAS BUT HAS
AVAILED ITSELF OF THE FREEDOM GIVEN IT BY CONGRESS TO ATTAIN JUST
RESULTS IN DIVERSE, COMPLICATED SITUATIONS.  FN7  SEE (1939) 48 YALE
L.J. 1265.  THE BOARD HAS A WIDE DISCRETION TO KEEP THE PRESENT MATTER
WITHIN REASONABLE BOUNDS THROUGH FLEXIBLE PROCEDURAL DEVICES.  THE
BOARD WILL THUS HAVE IT WITHIN ITS POWER TO AVOID DELAYS AND
DIFFICULTIES INCIDENT TO PASSING ON REMOTE AND SPECULATIVE CLAIMS BY
EMPLOYERS, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IT MAY GIVE APPROPRIATE WEIGHT TO A
CLEARLY UNJUSTIFIABLE REFUSAL TO TAKE DESIRABLE NEW EMPLOYMENT.  BY
LEAVING SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WE HAVE IN
MIND NOT SO MUCH THE MINIMIZATION OF DAMAGES AS THE HEALTHY POLICY OF
PROMOTING PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT.  THIS CONSIDERATION IN NO WAY
WEAKENS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE POLICIES OF THE ACT BY EXERTING COERCION
AGAINST MEN WHO HAVE BEEN UNFAIRLY DENIED EMPLOYMENT TO TAKE EMPLOYMENT
ELSEWHERE AND LATER, BECAUSE OF THEIR NEW EMPLOYMENT, DECLARING THEM
BARRED FROM RETURNING TO THE JOBS OF THEIR CHOICE.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE
WE HOLD THAT THE POWER OF ORDERING OFFERS OF EMPLOYMENT RESTS WITH THE
BOARD EVEN AS TO WORKERS WHO HAVE OBTAINED EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT. 

BUT THOUGH THE EMPLOYER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO TO PROOF ON THIS
ISSUE, THE BOARD'S ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED BY THE COURT
BELOW.  THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT TO THE BOARD FOR DETERMINATION
BY IT PRIOR TO FORMULATING ITS ORDER AND SHOULD NOT BE LEFT FOR
POSSIBLE FINAL SETTLEMENT IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS. 

SIXTH.  OTHER MINOR OBJECTIONS TO THE BOARD'S ORDER WERE FOUND
WITHOUT SUBSTANCE BELOW.  AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE AGREE WITH
THIS DISPOSITION OF THESE QUESTIONS, AND DO NOT FEEL THAT FURTHER
DISCUSSION IS REQUIRED. 

THE DECREE BELOW SHOULD BE MODIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION,
REMANDING TO THE BOARD THE TWO MATTERS DISCUSSED UNDER FOURTH AND FIFTH
HEREIN, FOR THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION OF THESE ISSUES.  MODIFIED. 

FN1  UNITED STATES INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, FINAL REPORT (1902) P. 892;
ANTHRACITE COAL STRIKE COMMISSION, REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON THE COAL
STRIKE OF MAY-OCTOBER, 1902, S. DOC. NO. 6, 58TH CONG., SPEC. SESS., P.
78; LAIDLER, BOYCOTTS AND THE LABOR STRUGGLE (1913) P. 39 ET SEQ.;
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, FINAL REPORT (1916)
S. DOC. NO. 415, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 118; INTERCHURCH WORLD
MOVEMENT, COMMISSION OF INQUIRY, REPORT ON THE STEEL STRIKE OF
1919(1920) PP. 27, 209, 219; BONNET, EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS IN THE
UNITED STATES (1922) PP. 80, 296, 550; GULICK, LABOR POLICY OF THE
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION (1924) PP. 125-27; CUMMINS, THE LABOR
PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES (2D ED. 1935) P. 351; BUREAU OF LABOR
INVESTIGATION OF WESTERN UNION AND POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANIES
(1909) S. DOC. NO. 725, 60TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 39-41; S. REP. NO.
46, PART 1, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 8. 

FN2  30 STAT. 424; SEE UNITED STATES STRIKE COMMISSION, REPORT ON THE
CHICAGO STRIKE OF JUNE-JULY, 1894, S. DOC. NO. 7, 53D CONG., 3D SESS.;
OLNEY, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNION LABOR - LEGAL?  (1908) 42 AMER.  L.
REV. 161. 

FN3  ALA. CODE ANN. (1928) SEC. 3451; ARK., ACTS OF 1905, ACT 214, P.
545; CAL. LABOR CODE (1937) SECS. 1050-54; COLO. STAT. ANN. (1935) C.
97, SECS. 88, 89, 93; CONN. GEN. STAT. (1930) SECS. 6210-11; FLA. COMP.
GEN. LAWS ANN. (1927) SEC. 6606; ILL. ANN. STAT. (1935) C. 38, SEC.
139; IND. STAT. ANN. (1933) SECS. 40-301, 40-302; IOWA CODE (1939)
SECS. 13253-54; KAN. GEN. STAT. (1935) SECS. 44-117, 44-118, 44-119;
ME. LAWS (1933) C. 108; MINN. STAT. (1927) SEC. 10378; MISS.  CODE ANN.
(1927) SECS. 9271-74; MO. REV. STAT. (1939) SEC. 4643; MONT. REV. CODE
ANN. (1935) SECS. 3093-94; NEV. COMP. LAWS (1929) SECS. 10461-63; N.M.
STAT. ANN. (1929) SECS. 35-4613, 35-4614, 35-4615; NEW YORK LABOR LAW
SEC. 704(2), (9); N.C. CODE ANN. (1939) SECS. 4477-78; N.D. COMP. LAWS
ANN. (1913) SEC. 9446; OKLA. STAT. ANN. (1937) TIT. 40, SECS. 172-73;
ORE.  COMP.  LAWS ANN. (1940) SECS. 102-806, 102-807; TEX. STAT. (1936)
ARTS. 1616-1618; UTAH REV. STAT. ANN. (1933) SECS. 49-5-1, 49-5-2; VA.
CODE (1936) SEC. 1817; WASH. REV. STAT. ANN. (1932) SEC. 7599; WIS.
STAT. (1939) SEC. 343.682.  SEE (1937) 37 COL. L. REV. 816, 819; WITTE,
THE GOVERNMENT IN LABOR DISPUTES (1932) PP. 213-18. 

FN4  AWARDS OF THE NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD:  SLOSS-SHEFFIELD STEEL &
IRON CO., DOCKET NO. 12.  SEE ALSO OMAHA & COUNCIL BLUFFS STREET RY.,
DOCKET NO. 154; SMITH & WESSON CO., DOCKET NO. 273.  CF. GREGG, THE
NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD (1919) 33 HARV. L. REV. 39. 

FN5  RATHER CLEARLY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED THE BILL VIEWED
THE WORD "HIRE" AS COVERING THE SITUATION BEFORE US.  H.R. REP. NO.
1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 19.  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE EXPRESSLY STATED DURING THE DEBATE THAT "NO EMPLOYER MAY
DISCRIMINATE IN HIRING A MAN WHETHER HE BELONGS TO A UNION OR NOT, AND
WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT UNION HE BELONGS (EXCEPT WHERE THERE IS A VALID
CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT)."  79 CONG. REC. 7674.  FOR FURTHER MATERIALS
BEARING ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SEE THE ABLE OPINION OF JUDGE
MAGRUDER IN LABOR BOARD V. WAUMBEC MILLS, 114 F.2D 226. 

FN6  AN INJUNCTION HAD BEEN GRANTED AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH THE
WORKERS' SELF-ORGANIZATION AND REINSTATEMENT WAS ORDERED IN CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AFTER EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN DISCHARGED FOR UNION ACTIVITIES. 
SURELY, A COURT OF EQUITY HAS NO GREATER INHERENT AUTHORITY IN THIS
REGARD THAN WAS CONVEYED TO THE BOARD BY THE BROAD GRANT OF ALL SUCH
REMEDIAL POWERS AS WILL, FROM CASE TO CASE, TRANSLATE INTO ACTUALITY
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT. 

FN7  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD'S GENERAL PRACTICE, DEDUCTIONS WERE
MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR AMOUNTS EARNED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE
BACK PAY AWARD.  BUT THE DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO EARNINGS
DURING THE HOURS WHEN THE WORKER WOULD HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE
EMPLOYER IN QUESTION.  MATTER OF PUSEY, MAYNES & BREISH CO., 1 N.L.R.B.
482; MATTER OF NATIONAL MOTOR BEARING CO., 5 N.L.R.B. 409.  AND ONLY
"NET EARNINGS" ARE DEDUCTED, ALLOWANCE BEING MADE FOR THE EXPENSE OF
GETTING NEW EMPLOYMENT WHICH, BUT FOR THE DISCRIMINATION, WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN NECESSARY.  MATTER OF CROSSETT LUMBER CO., 8 N.L.R.B. 440. 

EVEN THOUGH A STRIKE IS CAUSED BY AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE THE BOARD
DOES NOT AWARD BACK PAY DURING THE PERIOD OF THE STRIKE.  MATTER OF
SUNSHINE HOSIERY MILLS, 1 N.L.R.B. 664.  EMPLOYEES WHO ARE
DISCRIMINATORILY DISCHARGED ARE TREATED AS STRIKERS IF DURING A STRIKE
THEY REFUSE AN UNCONDITIONAL OFFER OF REINSTATEMENT.  MATTER OF HARTER
CORP., 8 N.L.R.B. 391.  ORIGINALLY BACK PAY WAS ORDERED FROM THE DATE
OF APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT, MATTER OF SUNSHINE HOSIERY MILLS,
SUPRA, BUT LATER ORDERS HAVE STARTED BACK PAY FIVE DAYS AFTER
APPLICATION.  MATTER OF TINY TOWN TOGS, INC., 7 N.L.R.B. 54.    IF
THERE IS UNJUSTIFIED DELAY IN FILING CHARGES BEFORE THE BOARD, A
DEDUCTION IS MADE FOR THE PERIOD OF THE DELAY.  MATTER OF INLAND LIME &
STONE CO., 8 N.L.R.B. 944.  SIMILAR ACTION IS TAKEN WHEN A CASE IS
REOPENED AFTER HAVING BEEN CLOSED OR WITHDRAWN.  MATTER OF C.G. CONN,
LTD., 10 N.L.R.B. 498.  AND IF THE TRIAL EXAMINER RULES IN FAVOR OF THE
EMPLOYER AND THE BOARD REVERSES THE RULING, NO BACK PAY IS ORDERED FOR
THE PERIOD WHEN THE EXAMINER'S RULING STOOD UNREVERSED.  MATTER OF E.R.
HAFFELFINGER CO., 1 N.L.R.B. 760; AND SEE THE ORDER IN THE PRESENT
CASE. 

THE BOARD HAS REFUSED TO ORDER ANY BACK PAY WHERE DISCRIMINATORY
DISCHARGES WERE MADE WITH HONEST BELIEF THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED BY AN
INVALID CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT.  MATTER OF MCKESSON & ROBBINS, INC., 19
N.L.R.B. 778. 

IF THE BUSINESS CONDITIONS WOULD HAVE CAUSED THE PLANT TO BE CLOSED
OR PERSONNEL TO BE REDUCED, BACK PAY IS AWARDED ONLY FOR THE PERIOD
WHICH THE WORKER WOULD HAVE WORKED IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCRIMINATION. 
MATTER OF RAY NICHOLS, INC., 15 N.L.R.B. 846.  AT TIMES FLUCTUATIONS IN
PERSONNEL SO COMPLICATE THE SITUATION THAT A FORMULA HAS TO BE DEVISED
FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF A LUMP SUM AMONG THE WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.  MATTER OF EAGLE-PICHER MINING & SMELTING CO.,
16 N.L.R.B. 727. 

THE RATE OF PAY USED IN COMPUTING AWARDS IS GENERALLY THAT AT THE
TIME OF DISCRIMINATION, BUT ADJUSTMENTS MAY BE MADE FOR SUBSEQUENT
CHANGES.  MATTER OF LONE STAR BAG & BAGGING CO., 8 N.L.R.B. 244; CF.
MATTER OF ACME AIR APPLIANCE CO., 10 N.L.R.B. 1385.  NORMAL EARNINGS IN
TIPS OR BONUSES HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  MATTER OF CLUB TROIKA, 2
N.L.R.B. 90; MATTER OF CENTRAL TRUCK LINES, 3 N.L.R.B. 317. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY: 

WHILE I FULLY APPROVE THE DISPOSITION OF THE FIRST THREE ISSUES IN
THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED, I CANNOT ASSENT TO THE MODIFICATION OF THAT
PART OF THE BOARD'S ORDER WHICH REQUIRED REINSTATEMENT OF CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES, OR TO THE LIMITATION IMPOSED ON THE BOARD'S POWER TO MAKE
BACK PAY AWARDS. 

FIRST.  THE BOARD IS NOW DIRECTED TO RECONSIDER ITS ORDER OF
REINSTATEMENT MERELY BECAUSE, IN THE COURSE OF ITS RECITAL, IT STATED
THAT EVEN IF THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION HAD SECURED OTHER SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT IT WOULD NEVERTHELESS ORDER THEIR REINSTATEMENT
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN MATTER OF EAGLE-PICHER MINING & SMELTING
CO., 16 N.L.R.B. 727.  FN1  THERE IS NEITHER CLAIM NOR EVIDENCE THAT
REINSTATEMENT WILL NOT EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT THE ORDER THE BOARD ISSUED WAS WRONG OR BEYOND ITS
POWER.  THAT ORDER IS CHALLENGED ONLY BECAUSE THE STATEMENT AND
REFERENCE TO THE EAGLE-PICHER CASE ARE SAID TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
BOARD ORDERED REINSTATEMENT MECHANICALLY DUE TO A MISCONCEPTION OF ITS
FUNCTIONS UNDER THE STATUTE, AND THAT IT DID NOT CONSIDER WHETHER
REINSTATEMENT WOULD EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT. 

EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THIS RECITAL IMPORTS AN INACCURATE
APPRAISAL OF THE BOARD'S POWER, AN ASSUMPTION WHICH I BELIEVE IS
WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, MODIFICATION OF ITS ORDER IS NOT A NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE.  THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ORDER THE BOARD
ISSUED WAS WITHIN ITS POWER.  THERE IS NO OCCASION NOW TO DETERMINE
WHAT DISPOSITION SHOULD BE MADE OF AN ORDER WHICH WAS NOT AN EXERCISE
OF THE BOARD'S ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, OR TO INFER THAT THE BOARD
MUST INVESTIGATE THE SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCY OF OTHER EMPLOYMENT BEFORE
IT MAY ORDER REINSTATEMENT.  SUFFICE TO SAY, THE BOARD FOUND THAT
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN THE OBJECTS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND
THAT IT WOULD EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT TO ORDER THEIR
REINSTATEMENT.  IT EXPRESSLY RESTED ITS ORDER UPON THOSE FINDINGS. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OCCASIONING THE LATTER FINDING ARE CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THAT THE BOARD NOT ONLY WAS REQUIRED TO BUT DID EXERCISE
DISCRETION IN THE FORMULATION OF ITS ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT. 
THROUGHOUT THE HEARING THE EMPLOYER'S COUNSEL SOUGHT TO SHOW BY CROSS
EXAMINING THEM THAT THE COMPLAINING EMPLOYEES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO
REINSTATEMENT.  SHORTLY AFTER THAT EXAMINATION COMMENCED, THE TRIAL
EXAMINER REQUESTED THE BOARD'S ATTORNEY TO STATE THE THEORY UPON WHICH
HE CONTENDED THAT THOSE EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE REINSTATED.  CONSIDERABLE
TESTIMONY WAS OFFERED TO SHOW THE WORKING CONDITIONS, HOURS, RATES OF
PAY, CONTINUITY OF OPERATION, ETC., OF MINES IN WHICH THE WITNESSES HAD
SECURED OTHER EMPLOYMENT. 

ALL THIS WAS IN THE RECORD CERTIFIED TO THE BOARD.  ACCOMPANYING IT
WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE EMPLOYER THAT REINSTATEMENT SHOULD BE DENIED
FOR VARIOUS REASONS.  THE BOARD EXPLICITLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION,
AMONG OTHERS, THAT REINSTATEMENT WOULD PROVOKE FURTHER DISPUTES AND
DISCORD AMONG THE EMPLOYEES RATHER THAN PROMOTE LABOR PEACE.  IT ALSO
CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION THAT MANY OF THE EMPLOYEES HAD OBTAINED OTHER
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT, MAKING BOTH GENERAL AND SPECIFIC
FINDINGS CONCERNING IT.  FN2  FINALLY, IT CONCLUDED THAT THE POLICIES
OF THE ACT WOULD BE EFFECTUATED BY ORDERING THE EMPLOYER TO TENDER
REINSTATEMENT TO DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES. 

THAT ITS ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT WAS MORE THAN A PERFUNCTORY EXERCISE
OF POWER IS POINTEDLY MANIFEST FROM THE BOARD'S OWN STATEMENTS. 
ANSWERING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTENTION THAT REINSTATEMENT MIGHT FOSTER
DISCORD AMONG THE EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD DECLARED:  "WE CANNOT BUT
CONSIDER THE DIFFICULTIES OF ADJUSTMENT ENVISAGED IN THE FOREGOING
TESTIMONY (UPON WHICH THE EMPLOYER RELIED) AS CONJECTURAL AND
INSUBSTANTIAL, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE LAPSE OF TIME SINCE THE
STRIKE.  HOWEVER, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE ASSERTED RESENTMENT OF NON
STRIKERS TOWARDS STRIKERS AND PICKETERS PERSISTS, THE EFFECTUATION OF
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT PATENTLY REQUIRES THE RESTORATION OF THE
STRIKERS AND PICKETERS TO THEIR STATUS QUO BEFORE THE DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST THEM." 

IN DISCUSSING ITS PROPOSED ORDER, THE BOARD SAID:  "HAVING FOUND THAT
THE RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, WE WILL ORDER IT
TO CEASE AND DESIST THEREFROM AND TO TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT AND TO RESTORE AS NEARLY
AS POSSIBLE THE CONDITION WHICH EXISTED PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION OF THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES." 

AND IN ITS FORMAL ORDER, THE BOARD STATED:  "UPON THE BASIS OF THE
ABOVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND PURSUANT TO SECTION
10(C) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE RESPONDENT, PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION  ...
SHALL:  ...  2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH THE BOARD
FINDS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT:  (A)  OFFER TO THE
FOLLOWING PERSONS IMMEDIATE AND FULL REINSTATEMENT TO THEIR FORMER OR
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT POSITIONS  ...  ; (B) MAKE WHOLE (THE
FOLLOWING EMPLOYEES) FOR ANY LOSS OF PAY THEY MAY HAVE SUFFERED BY
REASON OF THE RESPONDENT'S DISCRIMINATORY REFUSAL TO REINSTATE THEM
...  LESS THE NET EARNINGS OF EACH  ...  " 

THE ITALICIZED PHRASES IN THESE QUOTATIONS WERE NOT CHANCE OR FORMAL
RECITALS.  THEY EXPRESSED IN SUMMARY A CONSIDERED EXERCISE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION.  THE BOARD CAREFULLY FOLLOWED THE PRECISE
PROCEDURE WHICH THIS COURT SAYS IT SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED.  IT FOUND THAT
THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION HAD BEEN THE VICTIMS OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES.  IT ALSO FOUND THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT WOULD BE
EFFECTUATED BY ORDERING THEIR REINSTATEMENT.  SINCE THERE WAS EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THESE FINDINGS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MORE THE
BOARD SHOULD OR COULD HAVE DONE. 

BUT IF WE ARE NOW TO CONSIDER IN THE ABSTRACT WHETHER THE BOARD
PROPERLY OPINED THAT IT MIGHT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER REINSTATEMENT
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCY OF OTHER EMPLOYMENT, I AM
NEVERTHELESS UNABLE TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION OF ITS ORDER, OR TO
ACCEPT THE INFERENCE THAT THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER THE SUBSTANTIAL
EQUIVALENCY OF OTHER EMPLOYMENT BEFORE IT MAY ORDER REINSTATEMENT. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN SEC. 10(C) OR IN THE ACT AS A WHOLE WHICH EXPRESSLY
OR IMPLIEDLY OBLIGATES THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE SUBSTANTIAL
EQUIVALENCY OF OTHER EMPLOYMENT OR TO MAKE FINDINGS CONCERNING IT
BEFORE IT MAY ORDER REINSTATEMENT.  INDEED, SUCH A RULE NARROWS RATHER
THAN BROADENS THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION WHICH THE ACT CONFERS ON
THE BOARD. 

PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE MAY CONVINCE THE BOARD THAT THE
SELF-INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYEE IS A FAR BETTER GAUGE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL
EQUIVALENCY OF HIS OTHER EMPLOYMENT THAN ANY EXTENDED FACTUAL INQUIRY
OF ITS OWN.  CONVERSELY, THE BOARD MAY CONCLUDE THAT THE POLICIES OF
THE ACT ARE BEST EFFECTUATED BY AN INVESTIGATION IN EVERY CASE INTO THE
NATURE OF HIS OTHER EMPLOYMENT.  THAT CHOICE OF RULES IS AN EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED TO THE BOARD.  WHICHEVER RULE
THE BOARD ADOPTS, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT REINSTATEMENT BECOMES A
REMEDY WHICH IS GRANTED AUTOMATICALLY UPON A FINDING OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES.  IF FOR OTHER REASONS THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE POLICIES OF
THE ACT WILL NOT BE EFFECTUATED, OF COURSE IT NOT ONLY COULD BUT SHOULD
DECLINE TO ORDER AN OFFER OF REINSTATEMENT.  COMPARE MATTER OF THOMPSON
CABINET CO., 11 N.L.R.B. 1106. 

SECOND.  AS ALREADY INDICATED, I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE LIMITATION
NOW IMPOSED ON THE BOARD'S POWER TO MAKE BACK PAY AWARDS.  AGAIN THE
QUESTION IS SIMPLY THIS:  WAS THE BACK PAY ORDER WITHIN THE POWER OF
THE BOARD AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE?  WHAT ORDER THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE
MADE OR WHAT RULE OF LAW IT SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED IF SOME OF THE
EMPLOYEES HAD "WILLFULLY INCURRED" LOSSES ARE QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE
WHICH WE SHOULD ANSWER ONLY WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTED.  THEY ARE NOT HERE
NOW. 

THE BOARD EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT WOULD BE
EFFECTUATED BY ORDERING THE EMPLOYER TO MAKE WHOLE THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO
HAD BEEN THE VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES.  WE ARE POINTED TO
NOTHING WHICH REQUIRES A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  WE ARE NOT REFERRED TO
ANY EMPLOYEE WHO "WILLFULLY INCURRED" LOSSES, OR TO ANY EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD COMPELLING US TO HOLD THAT ANY OF THEM DID.  AT MOST THE RECORD
SHOWS ONLY THAT SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES OBTAINED OTHER EMPLOYMENT - WHICH
WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT - AND THEN VOLUNTARILY RELINQUISHED
IT.  FOR ALL WE KNOW, THE BOARD COULD HAVE DETERMINED THAT THIS
EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH "WILLFULLY INCURRED" LOSSES.  PLAINLY THAT
WAS A PERMISSIBLE INFERENCE FROM THE EVIDENCE, AND, THIS BEING SO,
THERE IS NO OCCASION NOW TO DECIDE WHAT THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE DONE HAD
IT DRAWN SOME OTHER INFERENCE. 

BUT AGAIN, IF WE ARE NOW TO RULE ON THE ABSTRACT ISSUE, I CANNOT
AGREE THAT THE POWER TO MAKE BACK PAY AWARDS MUST BE FETTERED IN THE
MANNER DESCRIBED IN THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED.  FOR IF THE BOARD HAS
NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT THE LIMITATION NOW IMPOSED, ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION IS CURBED BY THE VERY DECISION WHICH PURPORTS TO LEAVE IT
UNTOUCHED. 

IT MUST BE CONCEDED THAT NOTHING IN THE ACT REQUIRES SUCH A
LIMITATION IN SO MANY WORDS.  TO BE SURE, NOTHING IN THE ACT REQUIRES A
BACK PAY AWARD TO BE DIMINISHED BY THE AMOUNTS ACTUALLY EARNED (COMPARE
REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7), BUT THAT SHOULD
ADMONISH US TO HESITATE BEFORE WE INTRODUCE YET ANOTHER MODIFICATION
WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO ENACT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE TWO
SITUATIONS DIFFER IN MANY RESPECTS.  IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO READ THE
ACT AS WE THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN, OR TO SUPPLANT A RULE
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD WITH ONE WHICH WE BELIEVE IS BETTER.  OUR ONLY
OFFICE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RULE CHOSEN, TESTED IN THE LIGHT OF
STATUTORY STANDARDS, WAS WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE RANGE OF THE BOARD'S
DISCRETION. 

THE BOARD MIGHT PROPERLY CONCLUDE THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT WOULD
BEST BE EFFECTUATED BY REFUSING TO EMBARK ON THE INQUIRY WHETHER THE
EMPLOYEES HAD WILLFULLY INCURRED LOSSES.  ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES
ENGENDERED BY A CONTRARY RULE WOULD BE INFINITE, PARTICULARLY AS THE
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE INCREASED.  UNDERLYING
THE CONTRARY RULE IS THE SUPPOSITION THAT THE EMPLOYEE WOULD PURPOSELY
REMAIN IDLE AWAITING HIS BACK PAY AWARD.  BUT THAT ATTRIBUTES TO THE
EMPLOYEE AN OMNISCIENCE FREQUENTLY NOT GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION.  HE MUST BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THE EMPLOYER ACTUALLY
HAS COMMITTED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
AFFECT COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 2(6) AND 2(7); THAT THE
BOARD WILL TAKE FAVORABLE ACTION AND MAKE A BACK PAY AWARD; THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL ENFORCE THAT ORDER IN FULL; AND THAT THIS
COURT FINALLY WILL AFFIRM IF THE CASE COMES HERE. 

THIS IS NOT ALL.  HE MUST HAVE CAPITAL SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE FOR
HIMSELF AND FOR ANY DEPENDENTS WHILE HE AWAITS THE BACK PAY AWARD, EVEN
THOUGH THAT MAY NOT COME UNTIL SEVERAL YEARS LATER.  FN6 HE MUST RISK
UNION DISFAVOR BY DIVIDING HIS EFFORTS BETWEEN A LABOR DISPUTE AND A
SEARCH FOR A NEW JOB.  HE MUST REALIZE, ALTHOUGH HIS NATURAL
SUPPOSITIONS ARE OTHERWISE, THAT HE WILL PROBABLY NOT ENDANGER
SENIORITY RIGHTS OR CHANCE OF REINSTATEMENT BY ACCEPTING OTHER
EMPLOYMENT.  HE MUST BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHEN HE HAS MADE SUFFICIENT
EFFORTS TO SECURE OTHER EMPLOYMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE IS NOT TOLD
WHETHER HE CAN OR MUST ACCEPT ANY JOB NO MATTER WHERE IT IS OR WHAT
TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, HOURS, OR WORKING CONDITIONS.    AT HIS
PERIL HE MUST DETERMINE ALL THESE THINGS BECAUSE CONVENTIONAL COMMON
LAW CONCEPTS AND DOCTRINES OF DAMAGES, APPLICABLE IN SUITS TO ENFORCE
PURELY PRIVATE RIGHTS, ARE TO BE IMPORTED INTO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

HAVING THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND, SUPPLEMENTED PERHAPS BY OTHERS
NOT AVAILABLE OR SUGGESTED TO US, THE BOARD MIGHT WELL DECIDE THAT THE
RULE DISAPPROVED HERE WOULD BEST EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  I
DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT ON THIS ISSUE FOR THAT
OF THE BOARD.    ACCORDINGLY, I WOULD AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IN
FULL. 

FN1  THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH IN WHICH THIS STATEMENT APPEARS READS: 

"WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS DISCRIMINATED IN REGARD TO
HIRE AND TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS NAMED ABOVE.  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH OUR USUAL PRACTICE WE SHALL ORDER THE REINSTATEMENT OR
THE REEMPLOYMENT OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS.  THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE
BOARD LACKS POWER TO ORDER THE REINSTATEMENT OF ANY STRIKER WHO HAS
OBTAINED OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT.  WE
HAVE FOUND THAT NONE OF THE STRIKERS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST HAS OBTAINED
OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  NEVERTHELESS, EVEN IF ANY STRIKER HAD OBTAINED
SUCH EMPLOYMENT, WE WOULD, FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN MATTER OF EAGLE
PICHER MINING & SMELTING CO.,  ...  STILL ORDER HIS REINSTATEMENT BY
THE RESPONDENT."  19 N.L.R.B. 547, 598. 

IT IS TO BE NOTED, OF COURSE, THAT IN THE EAGLE-PICHER CASE THE
BOARD'S REMARKS WERE MADE IN ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED HERE, THAT
SEC. 2(3) NARROWS THE APPLICATION OF THE TERM "EMPLOYEES" IN SEC.
10(C). 

IT IS WORTH NOTING, TOO, THAT IN THAT CASE THE BOARD STATED: 

"FURTHER TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE ACT, AND AS A
MEANS OF REMOVING AND AVOIDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESPONDENTS'
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, WE SHALL, IN AID OF OUR CEASE AND DESIST ORDER,
ORDER THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BELOW."  16 N.L.R.B. 727, 831. 

FN2  THE BOARD FOUND THAT NONE OF THE EMPLOYEES HAD OBTAINED OTHER
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THIS FINDING IN PART.  THE REVERSAL IS NOT CHALLENGED HERE,
BUT THAT IS IMMATERIAL SINCE THE COURT NOW DECIDES THAT THE BOARD HAS
THE POWER TO ORDER REINSTATEMENT EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYEES HAVE FOUND
OTHER SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT, PROVIDED THAT THE POLICIES
OF THE ACT WILL BE EFFECTUATED. 

FN6  THE LABOR DISPUTE WHICH GAVE RISE TO THIS PROCEEDING OCCURRED IN
1935. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE: 

WITH TWO RULINGS OF THE COURT'S OPINION THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND I ARE
UNABLE TO AGREE. 

CONGRESS HAS, WE THINK, BY THE TERMS OF THE ACT, EXCLUDED FROM THE
BOARD'S POWER TO REINSTATE WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES, ANY
AUTHORITY TO REINSTATE THOSE WHO HAVE "OBTAINED ANY OTHER REGULAR AND
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT."  AND WE ARE NOT PERSUADED THAT
CONGRESS, BY GRANTING TO THE BOARD, BY SEC. 10(C) OF THE ACT, AUTHORITY
"TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES
WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT,"
HAS ALSO AUTHORIZED IT TO ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO HIRE APPLICANTS FOR
WORK WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN IN HIS EMPLOY OR TO COMPEL HIM TO GIVE THEM
"BACK PAY" FOR ANY PERIOD WHATEVER. 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY WAY OF
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES IS NOT TO BE READ AS CONFERRING UPON IT
POWER TO TAKE ANY MEASURES, HOWEVER DRASTIC, WHICH IT CONCEIVES WILL
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  WE HAVE HELD THAT THE PROVISION IS
REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305
U.S. 197, 235, 236; SEE ALSO LABOR BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND
LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 267, 268, AND THAT ITS PURPOSE IS TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT BY ACHIEVING THE "REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES WHICH THE
ACT SETS FORTH" AND "TO RESTORE AND MAKE WHOLE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN
DISCHARGED IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT."  REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 311 U.S. 7, 12.  THE ACT ITSELF HAS EMPHASIZED THIS PURPOSE
WHEN, IN INCLUDING IN THE CATEGORY OF "EMPLOYEES" THOSE WHO MIGHT NOT
OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN SO INCLUDED, IT PROVIDED, SEC. 2(3), THAT THE TERM
"EMPLOYEE" "SHALL INCLUDE ANY INDIVIDUAL WHOSE WORK HAS CEASED AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE OR
BECAUSE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND WHO HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY
OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT." 

WHILE THE STATED POLICY OF A STATUTE IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN
INTERPRETING ITS COMMAND, WE CANNOT IGNORE THE WORDS OF THE COMMAND IN
ASCERTAINING ITS POLICY.  IN ENLARGING THE CATEGORY OF "EMPLOYEES" TO
INCLUDE WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES AND AT THE SAME TIME EXCLUDING
FROM IT THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED "OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT," THE CONGRESS ADOPTED A POLICY WHICH IT MAY WELL
HAVE THOUGHT WOULD FURTHER THE CAUSE OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE QUITE AS MUCH
AS THE ENFORCED EMPLOYMENT OF DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES WHERE THERE WAS NO
OCCASION TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR THE LOSS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  IT IS
THE POLICY OF THE ACT AND NOT THE BOARD'S POLICY WHICH IS TO BE
EFFECTUATED, AND IN THE FACE OF SO EXPLICIT A RESTRICTION OF THE
DEFINITION OF DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT PROCURED
EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT, WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS HAS ADOPTED
THE POLICY OF RESTRICTING THE AUTHORIZED "REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES"
TO THAT CLASS. 

EVEN IF WE READ THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2(3) DISTRIBUTIVELY, IT SEEMS
DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THE SPECIALLY GRANTED POWER TO REINSTATE
EMPLOYEES EXTENDS TO THOSE WHO, BY DEFINITION, ARE NOT EMPLOYEES, AND
THIS IS THE MORE SO WHEN THE EFFECT OF THE DEFINITION IS CONSONANT WITH
WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE REINSTATEMENT
PROVISION.  NOR CAN IT FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEES
IS OF SIGNIFICANCE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE
BARGAINING AGENCY OF THE EMPLOYEES.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE
STATUTE ITSELF, OR TO BE DERIVED FROM ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, THAT THE
DEFINITION WAS NOT TO BE APPLIED IN THE ONE CASE QUITE AS MUCH AS IN
THE OTHER.  CERTAINLY THE FACT OF SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT
HAS AS MUCH BEARING UPON MAKING THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE WHOLE AS UPON
HIS RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CHOICE OF A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE,
AND NO GROUND HAS BEEN ADVANCED FOR SAYING THAT IT APPLIES TO ONE AND
NOT THE OTHER. 

AS A MAJORITY OF THE COURT IS OF OPINION THAT THE BOARD DOES POSSESS
THE POWER TO ORDER REINSTATEMENT EVEN THOUGH THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES
HAD OBTAINED OTHER EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT, WE AGREE THAT THE CASE SHOULD
NOW BE REMANDED TO THE BOARD FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION
WHETHER REINSTATEMENT HERE WOULD FURTHER THE POLICIES OF THE ACT. 

WE AGREE THAT PETITIONER'S REFUSAL TO HIRE TWO APPLICANTS FOR JOBS,
BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP, WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD NEVER BEEN
EMPLOYEES OF THE PETITIONER, AND THAT UNDER SEC. 9(C) THE BOARD WAS
AUTHORIZED TO ORDER PETITIONER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE PRACTICE
AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 10 TO ENFORCE ITS
ORDER.  BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER TO SAY THAT CONGRESS HAS ALSO
AUTHORIZED THE BOARD TO ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO HIRE APPLICANTS FOR WORK
WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN IN HIS EMPLOY AND TO COMPEL HIM TO GIVE THEM "BACK
PAY." 

THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND COMMITTEE REPORTS GIVE NO HINT THAT, IN
ENACTING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, CONGRESS OR ANY MEMBER OF IT
THOUGHT IT WAS GIVING THE BOARD A REMEDIAL POWER WHICH FEW COURTS HAD
EVER ASSUMED TO EXERCISE OR HAD BEEN THOUGHT TO POSSESS, AND WE ARE
UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE GO SO FAR.  THE AUTHORITY
GIVEN TO THE BOARD BY SEC. 10(C) IS, AS WE HAVE SAID, NOT AN
UNRESTRICTED POWER, AND THE GRANT IS NOT TO BE READ AS THOUGH THE WORDS
"INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY" WERE NO
PART OF THE STATUTE.  NONE OF THE WORDS OF A STATUTE ARE TO BE
DISREGARDED AND IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE
PHRASE IN THIS ONE WAS WITHOUT A PURPOSE. 

UNDOUBTEDLY, THE WORD "INCLUDING" MAY PREFACE AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
OF A GENERAL POWER ALREADY GRANTED, HELVERING V. MORGAN'S, INC., 293
U.S. 121, 125, OR IT MAY SERVE TO DEFINE THAT POWER OR EVEN ENLARGE IT.
CF. MONTELLO SALT CO. V. UTAH, 221 U.S. 452, 462, ET SEQ. WHETHER IT
IS THE ONE OR ANOTHER MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, TO
BE ASCERTAINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONTEXT, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,
AND THE SUBJECT MATTER TO WHICH THE STATUTE IS TO BE APPLIED. 

IN VIEW OF THE TRADITIONAL RELUCTANCE OF COURTS TO COMPEL THE
PERFORMANCE OF PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS, IT SEEMS AT LEAST DOUBTFUL
WHETHER AN AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COULD,
WITHOUT MORE, FAIRLY BE CONSTRUED AS PERMITTING IT TO TAKE A KIND OF
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH HAD VERY GENERALLY BEEN THOUGHT TO BE BEYOND
THE POWER OF COURTS.  THIS IS THE MORE SO BECAUSE THE BOARD'S ORDERS
WERE BY SEC. 10(C) MADE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF THE
COURTS WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIED RESTRICTION UPON THE EXERCISE OF THAT
AUTHORITY. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S.
548, THIS COURT HAD HELD THAT UPON CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATION
OF A DECREE ENJOINING COERCIVE MEASURES BY THE EMPLOYER AGAINST HIS
UNION EMPLOYEES, A COURT COULD PROPERLY DIRECT THAT THE CONTEMPT BE
PURGED ON CONDITION THAT THE EMPLOYER RESTORE THE STATUS QUO.  BUT
CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TOOK A STEP
FURTHER BY PROVIDING THAT THE BOARD COULD ORDER REINSTATEMENT OF
EMPLOYEES EVEN THOUGH THERE HAD BEEN NO VIOLATION OF ANY PREVIOUS ORDER
OF THE BOARD OR OF A COURT.  IT THUS REMOVED THE DOUBT WHICH WOULD
OTHERWISE HAVE ARISEN BY DEFINING AND, AS WE THINK, ENLARGING THE
BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SO AS TO INCLUDE THE POWER
TO ORDER "REINSTATEMENT" OF EMPLOYEES.  BUT AN AUTHORITY TO ORDER
REINSTATEMENT IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO COMPEL THE EMPLOYER TO INSTATE AS
HIS EMPLOYEES THOSE WHOM HE HAS NEVER EMPLOYED, AND AN AUTHORITY TO
AWARD "BACK PAY" TO REINSTATED EMPLOYEES IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO COMPEL
PAYMENT OF WAGES TO APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT WHOM THE EMPLOYER WAS
NEVER BOUND TO HIRE. 

AUTHORITY FOR SO UNPRECEDENTED AN EXERCISE OF POWER IS NOT LIGHTLY TO
BE INFERRED.  IN VIEW OF THE USE OF THE PHRASE "INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT
OF EMPLOYEES," AS A DEFINITION AND ENLARGEMENT, AS WE THINK IT IS, OF
THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, WE CANNOT INFER
FROM IT A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO ORDER
COMPULSORY EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE PAYMENTS NOT EMBRACED IN ITS TERMS. 
..END :





CONTINENTAL OIL CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 313 U.S. 212 


NO. 413.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 113 F.2D
473, MODIFIED AND REMANDED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF NO. 387, PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ANTE, P. 177.  P. 214. 

CONTINENTAL OIL CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 637, TO REVIEW IN PART A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING IN
PART AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 12 N.L.R.B. 789. 

THE BOARD HAS NO POWER TO ORDER REINSTATEMENT UNLESS THE STATUS OF
"EMPLOYEE" EXISTS AT THE TIME OF THE ENTRY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, AND
UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE HAS NOT, IN THE MEANTIME, OBTAINED ANY OTHER
REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT.  MOORESVILLE COTTON
MILLS V. LABOR BOARD, 94 F.2D 51, 66; STANDARD LIME & STONE CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 97 F.2D 531, 535; LABOR BOARD V. CARLISLE LUMBER CO., 99
F.2D 533, 537, 538; LABOR BOARD V. HEARST, 102 F.2D 658, 664; LABOR
BOARD V. NATIONAL MOTOR BEARING CO., 105 F.2D 652, 662; LABOR BOARD V.
BOTANY WORSTED MILLS, 106 F.2D 263, 269; PHELPS DODGE CORP. V. LABOR
BOARD, 113 F.2D 202. 

THE BOARD MADE NO FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAD NOT OBTAINED
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT.  ONE WHO BECOMES A PROPRIETOR OF A
BUSINESS DOES NOT RETAIN HIS STATUS AS AN "EMPLOYEE." 

THE POWER OF THE BOARD TO REQUIRE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REMEDIAL, NOT
PUNITIVE.  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197; LABOR
BOARD V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORP., 306 U.S. 240; REPUBLIC STEEL
CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7. 

IN CONNECTION WITH THE REINSTATEMENT, THE BOARD ORDERED THAT JONES
SHOULD BE REIMBURSED FOR HIS EARNINGS LOSS UP UNTIL THE TIME WHEN OFFER
OF REINSTATEMENT WAS MADE.  IT CAN NOT BE PROPER TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER
TO SUBSIDIZE A BUSINESS VENTURE AND PROTECT A FORMER EMPLOYEE AGAINST
THE LOSSES IN THE BUSINESS VENTURE IN WHICH HE HAS VOLUNTARILY
ENGAGED. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS A TRANSFER OF MOORE, BUT NO DISCHARGE.  THERE IS
NO FINDING OF ANY DISCHARGE, BUT THERE IS A FINDING OF A DISCRIMINATORY
TRANSFER.  SUCH A FINDING, NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH ANY CHARGE IN THE
COMPLAINT, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY ANY REINSTATEMENT RELIEF. 

MOORE'S EMPLOYMENT AT THE PENITENTIARY AT A WAGE OF $70 PER MONTH,
PLUS ROOM AND BOARD, WAS REGULAR EMPLOYMENT SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO
HIS FORMER EMPLOYMENT.  HE THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN
EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE REINSTATEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  LABOR BOARD
V. CARLISLE LUMBER CO., 99 F.2D 533, 537. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN ITS PETITION THE CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY CHALLENGED VARIOUS
PROVISIONS OF AN ORDER OF THE LABOR BOARD WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HAD ENFORCED, BUT WE BROUGHT HERE ONLY SO MUCH OF THE CASE AS
PERTAINED TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF TWO MEN, JONES AND MOORE, 311 U.S.
637.  CONTINENTAL'S CONTENTION IS THAT REINSTATEMENT WAS PRECLUDED
BECAUSE NEITHER MAN REMAINED AN "EMPLOYEE" WITHIN SEC. 2(3) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE DECISIVE QUESTION, HOWEVER, AS WE
HAVE RULED IN THE PHELPS DODGE CASE, ANTE, P. 177, IS WHETHER
REINSTATEMENT WILL "EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES" OF THE ACT.  WE THEREFORE
REMAND THE CASE FOR AN EXERCISE BY THE BOARD OF ITS JUDGMENT ON THAT
ISSUE, IN LIGHT OF OUR OPINION IN THE PHELPS DODGE CASE.  REMANDED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE STONE REITERATE THE VIEWS EXPRESSED
BY THEM IN THE PHELPS DODGE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY ARE OF
OPINION THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS SET
FORTH BY THEM IN THE PHELPS DODGE CASE. 
..END :



















SAMPSELL V. IMPERIAL PAPER CORP., 313 U.S. 215 


NO. 601.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 114 F.2D
49, REVERSED. 


1.  A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAS JURISDICTION, BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, TO
COVER INTO THE ESTATE OF THE BANKRUPT, PROPERTY OF A CORPORATION, THE
ONLY STOCKHOLDERS AND OFFICERS OF WHICH WERE THE BANKRUPT, HIS WIFE AND
SON, AND TO WHICH THE BANKRUPT HAD MADE A TRANSFER, NOT IN GOOD FAITH,
OF HIS PROPERTY; AND AN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT, ENTERED AFTER NOTICE TO
THE CORPORATION AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS, IS BINDING ON THE CORPORATION,
AND MAY NOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED IN PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN A CREDITOR
OF THE CORPORATION SOUGHT PRIORITY AGAINST ITS ASSETS.  P. 218. 

2.  IN SUCH CASE, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR OF THE CORPORATION, WHO HAD
SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRAUDULENT CHARACTER OF THE TRANSFER BY THE
BANKRUPT TO THE CORPORATION, HELD ENTITLED ONLY TO PARI PASSU
PARTICIPATION WITH INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS OF THE BANKRUPT.  P. 219. 

SAMPSELL, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. IMPERIAL PAPER & COLOR CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 669, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING AN ORDER
DENYING PRIORITY TO A CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ONE DOWNEY WAS ADJUDGED A VOLUNTARY BANKRUPT IN NOVEMBER, 1938. 
PRIOR TO JUNE, 1936, DOWNEY HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN BUSINESS,
UNINCORPORATED, AND HAD INCURRED A DEBT TO THE PREDECESSOR OF STANDARD
COATED PRODUCTS CORPORATION OF APPROXIMATELY $104,000.  IN THAT MONTH
HE FORMED A CORPORATION, DOWNEY WALLPAPER & PAINT CO., UNDER THE LAWS
OF CALIFORNIA.  DOWNEY, HIS WIFE AND HIS SON WERE THE SOLE
STOCKHOLDERS, DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS.  DOWNEY'S STOCK OF GOODS WAS
TRANSFERRED TO THE CORPORATION N1 ON CREDIT, WHICH WAS EXTENDED FROM
TIME TO TIME.  HE LEASED SPACE IN THE STORE BUILDING OCCUPIED BY HIM TO
THE CORPORATION, WHICH CONTINUED BUSINESS AT THE OLD STAND.  EXCEPT FOR
QUALIFYING SHARES,  FN2  NEITHER HE NOR THE OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY
PAID CASH FOR THE STOCK WHICH WAS ISSUED TO THEM  FN3  BUT RECEIVED
MOST OF THOSE SHARES A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO BANKRUPTCY IN SATISFACTION
OF THE BALANCE OF THE OBLIGATION OWED TO HIM BY THE CORPORATION N4. 
RESPONDENT EXTENDED CREDIT TO THE CORPORATION.  AT THE TIME OF DOWNEY'S
BANKRUPTCY RESPONDENT'S CLAIM AMOUNTED TO ABOUT $5,400 AND WAS
UNSECURED. 

ON PETITION OF THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, THE REFEREE ISSUED AN ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE DIRECTED TO THE CORPORATION, DOWNEY, HIS WIFE AND SON WHY
THE ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION SHOULD NOT BE MARSHALLED FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE CREDITORS OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE AND ADMINISTERED BY THE
TRUSTEE.  FN5  DOWNEY ANSWERED.  THERE WAS A HEARING.  THE REFEREE
FOUND, INTER ALIA, THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE CORPORATION
WAS NOT IN GOOD FAITH BUT WAS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLACING THE
PROPERTY BEYOND THE REACH OF DOWNEY'S CREDITORS AND OF RETAINING FOR
DOWNEY AND HIS FAMILY ALL OF THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN; THAT THE
STOCK WAS ISSUED IN SATISFACTION OF DOWNEY'S CLAIM AGAINST THE
CORPORATION, WHEN DOWNEY WAS HOPELESSLY INSOLVENT, TO PREVENT DOWNEY'S
CREDITORS FROM REACHING THE ASSETS SO TRANSFERRED; THAT THE CORPORATION
WAS "NOTHING BUT A SHAM AND A CLOAK" DEVISED BY DOWNEY "FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PRESERVING AND CONSERVING HIS ASSETS" FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIMSELF AND
HIS FAMILY; AND THAT THE CORPORATION WAS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
HINDERING, DELAYING AND DEFRAUDING HIS CREDITORS.  THE REFEREE
ACCORDINGLY ORDERED THAT THE PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION WAS PROPERTY
OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE AND THAT IT BE ADMINSTERED FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE CREDITORS OF THE ESTATE.  THAT ORDER WAS ENTERED ON APRIL 7, 1939. 
NO APPEAL FROM THAT ORDER WAS TAKEN. 

RESPONDENT, WHO WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT PROCEEDING, LATER FILED ITS
CLAIM STATING THAT AS A CREDITOR OF THE CORPORATION IT HAD A PRIOR
RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUNDS IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUSTEE RECEIVED
FROM THE LIQUIDATION OF THE ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION.  IT SECURED AN
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE TRUSTEE SHOULD NOT SO APPLY SUCH FUNDS. 
THE TRUSTEE OBJECTED TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM AS A PRIOR CLAIM AND
CONTENDED THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY AS A GENERAL UNSECURED CLAIM. 
THERE WAS A HEARING.  THE REFEREE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT, WITH KNOWLEDGE
OF DOWNEY'S INDEBTEDNESS, WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN GETTING HIM TO FORM THE
CORPORATION AND HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF ITS FRAUDULENT CHARACTER.  HE
DISALLOWED RESPONDENT'S CLAIM AS A PRIOR CLAIM BUT ALLOWED IT AS A
GENERAL UNSECURED CLAIM.  THAT ORDER WAS CONFIRMED.  ON APPEAL, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT'S CLAIM
SHOULD BE ACCORDED PRIORITY AGAINST THE FUNDS REALIZED FROM THE
LIQUIDATION OF THE CORPORATION'S PROPERTY.  114 F.2D 49.  WE GRANTED
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE IN ADMINISTRATION
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED. 

WE THINK THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR. 

1.  THE ORDER ENTERED IN THE SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DOWNEY, HIS
WIFE, HIS SON AND HIS FAMILY CORPORATION WAS A FINAL ORDER BINDING AS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WAS PROPERLY EXERCISED BY SUMMARY
PROCEEDINGS.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE MANY AND VARIED WHERE AN AFFILIATED
CORPORATION DOES NOT HAVE, AS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE OF THE DOMINANT
STOCKHOLDER, THE STATUS OF A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CLAIMANT WITHIN THE
RULE OF TAUBEL-SCOTT-KITZMILLER CO. V. FOX, 264 U.S. 426.  THE LEGAL
EXISTENCE OF THE AFFILIATED CORPORATION DOES NOT PER SE GIVE IT
STANDING TO INSIST ON A PLENARY SUIT.  IN RE MUNCIE PULP CO., 139 F.
546; W.A. LILLER BLDG. CO. V. REYNOLDS, 247 F. 90; IN RE RIEGER, KAPNER
& ALTMARK, 157 F. 609; IN RE EILERS MUSIC HOUSE, 270 F. 915; CENTRAL
REPUBLIC BANK & TRUST CO. V. CALDWELL, 58 F.2D 721; COMMERCE TRUST CO.
V. WOODBURY, 77 F.2D 478; FISH V. EAST, 114 F.2D 177.  MERE LEGAL
PARAPHERNALIA WILL NOT SUFFICE TO TRANSFORM INTO A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE
CLAIMANT A CORPORATION WHOSE AFFAIRS ARE SO CLOSELY ASSIMILATED TO THE
AFFAIRS OF THE DOMINANT STOCKHOLDER THAT IN SUBSTANCE IT IS LITTLE MORE
THAN HIS CORPORATE POCKET.  WHATEVER THE FULL REACH OF THAT RULE MAY
BE, IT IS CLEAR THAT A FAMILY CORPORATION'S ADVERSE CLAIM IS MERELY
COLORABLE WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE CORPORATION IS FORMED IN ORDER TO
CONTINUE THE BANKRUPT'S BUSINESS, WHERE THE BANKRUPT REMAINS IN
CONTROL, AND WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE TRANSFER IS TO HINDER, DELAY OR
DEFRAUD HIS CREDITORS.  IN RE SCHOENBERG, 70 F.2D 321; IN RE BERKOWITZ,
173 F. 1013.  AND SEE GLENN, LIQUIDATION, SECS. 30-32.  CF. SHAPIRO V.
WILGUS, 287 U.S. 348.  HENCE, DOWNEY'S CORPORATION WAS IN NO POSITION
TO ASSERT AGAINST DOWNEY'S TRUSTEE THAT IT WAS SO SEPARATE AND
INSULATED FROM DOWNEY'S OTHER BUSINESS AFFAIRS AS TO STAND IN AN
INDEPENDENT AND ADVERSE POSITION.  FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS NO APPEAL
FROM THE ORDER ENTERED IN THE SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS.  IT THEREFORE COULD
NOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BY WHICH RESPONDENT
SOUGHT PRIORITY FOR ITS CLAIM. 

2.  THAT CONCLUSION, OF COURSE, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ORDER
CONSOLIDATING THE ESTATES DID, OR IN THE ABSENCE OF THE RESPONDENT AS A
PARTY COULD, DETERMINE WHAT PRIORITY, IF ANY, IT HAD TO THE CORPORATE
ASSETS.  IN RE FOLEY, 4 F.2D 154.  ALL QUESTIONS OF FRAUDULENT
CONVEYANCE ASIDE, CREDITORS OF THE CORPORATION NORMALLY WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO SATISFY THEIR CLAIMS OUT OF CORPORATE ASSETS PRIOR TO ANY
PARTICIPATION BY THE CREDITORS OF THE STOCKHOLDER.  IN RE SMITH, 36
F.2D 697.  SUCH PRIORITY, HOWEVER, WOULD BE DENIED IF THE CORPORATION'S
CREDITORS WERE PARTIES TO A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER OF THE STOCKHOLDER'S
ASSETS TO THE CORPORATION.  FURTHERMORE, WHERE THE TRANSFER WAS
FRAUDULENT OR WHERE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STOCKHOLDER AND THE
CORPORATION WAS SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO
ABSORB THE CORPORATE ASSETS INTO THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF THE
STOCKHOLDER, THE CORPORATION'S UNSECURED CREDITORS WOULD HAVE THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THEIR EQUITY WAS PARAMOUNT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
PRIORITY AS RESPECTS THE CORPORATE ASSETS.  CF. NEW YORK TRUST CO. V.
ISLAND OIL & TRANSPORT CORP., 56 F.2D 580.  THE POWER OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT TO SUBORDINATE CLAIMS OR TO ADJUDICATE EQUITIES ARISING OUT OF
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEVERAL CREDITORS IS COMPLETE.  TAYLOR V.
STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 306 U.S. 307; PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S.
295; BIRD & SONS SALES CORP. V. TOBIN, 78 F.2D 371.  BUT THE THEME OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS EQUALITY OF DISTRIBUTION.  SEC. 65-A; MOORE V.
BAY, 284 U.S. 4.  TO BRING HIMSELF OUTSIDE OF THAT RULE AN UNSECURED
CREDITOR CARRIES A BURDEN OF SHOWING BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT ITS APPLICATION TO HIS CASE SO AS TO DENY HIM PRIORITY WOULD WORK
AN INJUSTICE.  SUCH BURDEN HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY CREDITORS OF THE
AFFILIATED CORPORATION AND THEIR PARAMOUNT EQUITY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
WHERE THERE WAS NO FRAUD IN THE TRANSFER, WHERE THE TRANSFEROR REMAINED
SOLVENT, AND WHERE THE CREDITORS HAD EXTENDED CREDIT TO THE
TRANSFEREE.  COMMERCE TRUST CO. V. WOODBURY, SUPRA. 

BUT IN THIS CASE THERE WAS A FRAUDULENT TRANSFER.  THE SAVING CLAUSE
IN 13 ELIZ.  WHICH PROTECTED INNOCENT PURCHASERS FOR VALUE  FN6  WAS
NOT BROAD ENOUGH TO PROTECT MERE UNSECURED CREDITORS OF THE FRAUDULENT
TRANSFEREE.  CLARK'S ADMINISTRATOR V. RUCKER, 7 B. MON.  (KY.)  583;
MULLANPHY SAVINGS BANK V. LYLE, 75 TENN. 431; POWELL V. IVEY, 88 N.C.
256; LOCKREN V. RUSTAN, 9 N.D. 43, 45; 81 N.W. 60.  TO BE SURE,
CREDITORS OF A FRAUDULENT TRANSFEREE HAVE AT TIMES BEEN ACCORDED
PRIORITY OVER THE CREDITORS OF THE TRANSFEROR WHERE THEY HAVE "TAKEN
THE PROPERTY INTO THEIR OWN CUSTODY."  1 GLENN, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES
AND PREFERENCES (1940) SEC. 238.  CF. O'GASAPIAN V. DANIELSON, 284
MASS. 27; 187 N.E. 107.  THE SAME RESULT OBTAINS IN CASE OF BONA FIDE
LIEN CREDITORS OF THE FRAUDULENT TRANSFEREE.  W.T. RAWLEIGH CO. V.
GROSECLOSE, 174 OKL. 193; 49 P.2D 1085; PLAUCHE V. STREATER INVESTMENT
CORP., 189 LA. 785; 180 SO. 637.  CF. HASKELL V. PHELPS, 191 WASH. 567;
71 P.2D 550.  AND ESTOPPEL OR OTHER EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS MIGHT WELL
RESULT IN THE AWARD OF PRIORITY EVEN TO UNSECURED CREDITORS OF THE
TRANSFEREE, THE CONVEYANCE BEING GOOD BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  FN7  CF.
KENNEDY V. GEORGIA STATE BANK, 8 HOW.  586, 613.  YET NONE OF THESE
CONSIDERATIONS IS APPLICABLE HERE.  THE FACTS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE
INVOCATION OF ESTOPPEL AGAINST DOWNEY'S INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS. 
RESPONDENT IS NEITHER A LIEN CREDITOR NOR AN INNOCENT GRANTEE FOR
VALUE.  AT BEST IT IS IN NO MORE FAVORABLE POSITION THAN A JUDGMENT
CREDITOR WHO HAS NOT LEVIED EXECUTION.  FURTHERMORE, RESPONDENT HAD AT
LEAST SOME KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE FRAUDULENT CHARACTER OF DOWNEY'S
CORPORATION.  CF. GOODWIN V. HAMMOND, 13 CAL. 168; BULL V. FORD, 66
CAL. 176; 4 P. 1175.  AND TITLE TO THE PROPERTY FRAUDULENTLY CONVEYED
HAS VESTED IN THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE OF THE GRANTOR.  WE HAVE NOT BEEN
REFERRED TO ANY STATE LAW OR ANY EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD ACCORD RESPONDENT THE PRIORITY WHICH IT
SEEKS.  IT THEREFORE IS ENTITLED ONLY TO PARI PASSU PARTICIPATION WITH
DOWNEY'S INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS.  BUFFUM V. BARCELOUX CO., 289 U.S. 227. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  A NOTICE OF THE INTENDED SALE WAS RECORDED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
BULK SALES LAW.  CIVIL CODE, SEC. 3440. 

FN2  THE SHARES HAD A PAR VALUE OF $100.  DOWNEY APPARENTLY PAID $500
IN CASH FOR THE QUALIFYING SHARES. 

FN3  THERE WERE 99 SHARES ISSUED.  ON JULY 1, 1938, DOWNEY CAUSED 49
SHARES TO BE TRANSFERRED TO HIS WIFE AND 25 SHARES TO HIS SON.  THOSE
TRANSFERS, ACCORDING TO THE REFEREE, WERE "ENTIRELY WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION" TO DOWNEY. 

FN4  THERE IS SOME DISPUTE AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THIS OBLIGATION. 
PETITIONER INSISTS, AND THE FINDINGS OF THE REFEREE LEND SOME SUPPORT
TO HIS VIEW, THAT THE STOCK OF GOODS WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CORPORATION
AT THE INVENTORY PRICE - ABOUT $14,000.  THE COURT BELOW SAID THAT IT
WAS TRANSFERRED AT $7,500.  THE CORPORATION APPARENTLY HAD PAID $5,000
ON THAT OBLIGATION. 

FN5  SHORTLY AFTER THE ADJUDICATION THE RECEIVER, PURSUANT TO A
STIPULATION, TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE CORPORATION. 

FN6  SEE CLEMENTS V. MOORE, 6 WALL.  299; HARRELL V. BEALL, 17 WALL. 
590.  THAT THE SAME RESULT FOLLOWS IN ABSENCE OF THE SAVING CLAUSE, SEE
ASTOR V. WELLS, 4 WHEAT.  466, INTERPRETING L. OHIO, 1809-10, CH. LVII,
SEC. 2.  AND SEE 1 GLENN, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES AND PREFERENCES (1940)
SEC. 237. 

FN7  ALL QUESTION OF THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS OF THE GRANTOR ASIDE,
CREDITORS OF THE TRANSFEREE HAVE AT TIMES BEEN ALLOWED TO REACH THE
PROPERTY AFTER ITS RECONVEYANCE TO THE GRANTOR.  CHAPIN V. PEASE, 10
CONN. 69; BUDD V. ATKINSON, 30 N.J. EQ. 530; HEGSTAD V. WYSIECKI, 178
APP. DIV. 733; 165 N.Y.S. 898.  BUT SEE FARMERS' BANK V. GOULD, 48 W.
VA. 99; 35 S.E. 878; WESTERVELT V. HAGGE, 61 NEB. 647; 85 N.W. 852;
BICOCCHI V. CASEY-SWASEY CO., 91 TEX. 259; 42 S.W. 963. 
..END :








GELFERT V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 313 U.S. 221 


NO. 740.  ARGUED APRIL 3, 4, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 257
APP. DIV. 1076 - 14 N.Y.S.2D 995, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE STATUTE (N.Y. LAWS, 1938, C. 510, AMENDING SEC. 1083 CIVIL
PRAC.  ACT), DIRECTING THAT THE AMOUNT OF A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AFTER
FORECLOSURE SALE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY SHALL BE ASCERTAINED BY
DEDUCTING FROM THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT THE FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY (TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT UPON AFFIDAVITS OR
OTHERWISE) OR THE SALE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER, IS
NOT INVALID UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS
APPLIED TO THE CASE OF A MORTGAGEE WHO BOUGHT IN THE PROPERTY AT THE
FORECLOSURE SALE FOR MUCH LESS THAN THE DEBT, AND WHO, UNDER THE LAW AS
IT EXISTED WHEN THE MORTGAGE WAS MADE, WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT
AND THE AMOUNT OF THE SALE PRICE.  P. 231. 

THE FACT THAT THE LATER STATUTE WAS NOT BASED ON ANY DECLARED PUBLIC
EMERGENCY AND THAT IT CONFINED THE DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHT TO A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT TO THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, LEAVING THE
MORTGAGEE NO ALTERNATIVE REMEDY SUBSTANTIALLY CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THAT
AFFORDED BY THE OLDER STATUTE, DID NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE LATER
STATUTE AS APPLIED TO THE MORTGAGE. 

2. IT IS QUITE UNIFORMLY THE RULE IN THIS COUNTRY, AS IN ENGLAND,
THAT WHILE EQUITY WILL NOT SET ASIDE A FORECLOSURE SALE FOR MERE
INADEQUACY OF PRICE, IT WILL DO SO IF THE INADEQUACY IS SO GREAT AS TO
SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OR IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST
ITS FAIRNESS, SUCH AS CHILLED BIDDING.  P. 232. 

3.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY, IN LIEU OF THE MORE
RESTRICTED CONTROL BY A COURT OF EQUITY, THE LEGISLATURE CAN NOT
SUBSTITUTE A UNIFORM RULE DESIGNED TO PREVENT MORTGAGEES, BIDDING AT
FORECLOSURE SALES, FROM OBTAINING MORE THAN THEIR JUST DUE.  P. 233. 

GELFERT, EXECUTOR, V. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 674, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENTERED ON REMITTITUR
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, 284 N.Y. 13; 29 N.E.2D 449,
WHICH, REVERSING A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION,
AFFIRMED AND REINSTATED (1) AN ORDER AT SPECIAL TERM CONFIRMING A
REFEREE'S REPORT OF A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE SALE AND (2) A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT ENTERED PURSUANT TO THAT ORDER. 

AS APPLIED TO A MORTGAGE EXECUTED PRIOR TO ITS ENACTMENT, THE NEW
SEC. 1083 CONTRAVENES THE PROHIBITION OF ART. I, SEC. 10 OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AGAINST THE PASSAGE BY A STATE OF LEGISLATION IMPAIRING
THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. 

IT IS NEITHER EMERGENCY NOR TEMPORARY LEGISLATION.  CF. HOME BUILDING
& LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398.  IT IS A PERMANENT STATUTE
APPLICABLE TO FORECLOSURES OF ALL MORTGAGES, REGARDLESS OF DATE, AMOUNT
OR PARTIES, AND CONTAINS NO PROVISIONS APPOSITE TO THE RELIEF OF ANY
PRESSING PUBLIC NEEDS.  W. B. WORTHEN CO. V. THOMAS, 292 U.S. 426.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT IT IS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE GENERAL WELFARE
OF THE STATE, BUT IS DIRECTED SOLELY TO THE PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS
OF PARTIES TO AN INDEBTEDNESS SECURED BY A MORTGAGE ON REAL PROPERTY. 
CF. VEIX V. SIXTH WARD ASSN., 310 U.S. 32. 

THE LAW WHICH PROVIDES A REMEDY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A CONTRACT, AS
THAT LAW EXISTS AT THE TIME OF THE MAKING OF THE CONTRACT, ENTERS INTO
AND BECOMES PART OF THE CONTRACT AS IF FULLY SET FORTH THEREIN, FARMERS
BANK V. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, 262 U.S. 649; BRONSON V. KINZIE, 1 HOW. 
311, AND SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION MAY NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY CHANGE SUCH
REMEDY IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT, AT LEAST UNLESS A SUBSTANTIALLY CO
EXTENSIVE REMEDY REMAINS OR IS FURNISHED THEREBY.  EDWARDS V. KEARZEY,
96 U.S. 595; MCCRACKEN V. HAYWARD, 2 HOW.  608, 612; OSHKOSH WATER
WORKS CO. V. OSHKOSH, 187 U.S. 437, 439; HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V.
BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 434.  SEE CLARK V. REYNOLDS, 8 WALL.  318,
322. 

NO REMEDY SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THAT AFFORDED BY THE OLD SEC.
1083 REMAINS TO THE MORTGAGEE.  THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE MORTGAGE DEBT
AT LAW, APART FROM THE MORTGAGE SECURITY, IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY A
STATUTORY PROHIBITION AGAINST THE LEVY OF EXECUTION ON THE MORTGAGOR'S
EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.  NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 710.  THE
MAINTENANCE OF A SECOND ACTION, AFTER FORECLOSURE, TO RECOVER A
DEFICIENCY RESULTING FROM THE FORECLOSURE SALE IS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE
EXCEPT BY LEAVE OF THE COURT, NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 1078,
BUT SETTLED AUTHORITY IS AGAINST THE GRANTING OF SUCH LEAVE IN RESPECT
OF A PARTY WHO COULD HAVE BEEN MADE A DEFENDANT IN THE FORECLOSURE
ACTION UNLESS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SHOWN MANIFESTLY REQUIRING THAT
RELIEF.  EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. STEVENS, 63 N.Y. 341;
SCOFIELD V. DOSCHER, 72 N.Y. 491; VANDERBILT V. SCHREYER, 91 N.Y. 392;
MORRISON V. SLATER, 128 APP. DIV. 467; DARMSTADT V. MANSON, 144 APP.
DIV. 249; STEHL V. URIS, 210 APP. DIV. 444.  WHETHER THE NEW SEC. 1083
HAS SUPERSEDED SEC. 1078 SO AS TO FORBID THE GRANTING OF SUCH LEAVE IN
ANY CASE WAS LEFT OPEN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN ITS OPINION, BUT SOME
INDICATION WAS GIVEN THAT SUCH A HOLDING WAS NOT IMPROBABLE.  SEE
HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 275 N.Y. 382, 392. 

STATE STATUTES SIMILAR IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT HAVE BEEN HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO CONTRACTS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF
THEIR ENACTMENT.  BRONSON V. KINZIE, 1 HOW.  311; MCCRACKEN V. HAYWARD,
2 HOW.  608; GANTLY'S LESSEE V. EWING, 3 HOW.  707.  CF., JEFFRIES V.
FEDERAL LAND BANK, 302 U.S. 708. 

IN RECENT YEARS, NUMEROUS STATE COURTS OF LAST RESORT HAVE VOIDED
SIMILAR STATUTES AS APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.  BONTAG V. MCCURDY, 59 P.2D
326(ARIZ.); ADAMS V. SPILLYARDS, 61 S.W.2D 686(ARK.); HALES V. SNOWDEN,
65 P.2D 847(CAL.); ATLANTIC LOAN CO. V. PETERSON, 181 GA. 266;
VANDERBILT V. BRUNTON PIANO CO., 111 N.J.L. 596; FEDERAL LAND BANK V.
GARRISON, 193 S.E. 308; CERT. DENIED SUB NOM. JEFFRIES V. FEDERAL LAND
BANK, SUPRA; LANGEVER V. MILLER, 76 S.W.2D 1025(TEX.)  DIST'G HONEYMAN
V. JACOBS, 306 U.S. 539. 

SEE W.B. WORTHEN CO. V. THOMAS, 292 U.S. 426; WORTHEN CO. V.
KAVANAUGH, 295 U.S. 56. 

SO FAR AS THE OPINION IN THE HONEYMAN CASE MAY HAVE INDICATED THAT
THE ACT THERE CONSIDERED WAS SUSTAINABLE, APART FROM THE EXISTENT
EMERGENCY, ON THE GROUND THAT IT MERELY CODIFIED A POWER WHICH COURTS
OF EQUITY IN NEW YORK HAVE ALWAYS POSSESSED TO CONTROL THE MEASURE OF
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN
AN UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS FROM EARLIEST TIMES TO THE CASE AT BAR,
HAS HELD THAT NO SUCH EQUITABLE JURISDICTION IN FORECLOSURE SUITS EVER
EXISTED OR NOW EXISTS, APART FROM STATUTE, IN NEW YORK.  MORRIS V.
MORANGE, 38 N.Y. 172; WAGER V. LINK, 134 N.Y. 122; FEIBER REALTY CORP.
V. ABEL, 265 N.Y. 94; FRANK V. DAVIS, 135 N.Y. 275, 277-8; EMIGRANT
INDUSTRIAL SAVINGS BANK V. VAN BOKKELEN, 269 N.Y. 110, 116; GUARANTEED
TITLE & MORTGAGE CO. V. SCHEFFRES, 275 N.Y. 30. 

EQUITY COURTS HAVE ALWAYS HAD AND STILL HAVE POWER TO REFUSE
CONFIRMATION OF FORECLOSURE SALES UPON EQUITABLE GROUNDS,  - FRAUD,
COLLUSION, INADEQUACY OF PRICE SO GROSS AS TO SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF
THE COURT, ETC.  BUT THE ONLY RELIEF WHICH THE COURT COULD GRANT THE
MORTGAGOR WOULD BE TO ORDER A RESALE.  EMIGRANT INDUSTRIAL SAVINGS BANK
V. VAN BOKKELEN, 269 N.Y. 110, 115. 

IN RESPECT OF MATTERS OF LOCAL LAW, THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS ARE CONTROLLING AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THIS COURT.  ERIE R. CO.
V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64; RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S.
202. 

DISTINGUISHING RICHMOND MORTGAGE & LOAN CORP. V. WACHOVIA BANK &
TRUST CO., 300 U.S. 124. 

THE DECISION AT BAR IS SUSTAINABLE UPON A FURTHER GROUND.  AT THE
TIME THE MORTGAGE HEREIN WAS MADE AND AT THE TIME THE MONEYS SECURED
THEREBY WERE ADVANCED, MORTGAGES EXECUTED ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 1932
WERE, BY EXPRESS STATUTORY EXCEPTION, EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE
MORATORY DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ACT.  LAWS OF 1933, CHAP. 794, SEC. 4. 
THE STIMULATION OF BUSINESS BY THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF NEW LOANS WAS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY IN DEALING WITH THE THEN
EXISTING EMERGENCY.  IN EFFECT, THEREFORE, THERE WAS DIRECT LEGISLATIVE
ASSURANCE TO LENDERS THAT LOANS SECURED BY MORTGAGES MADE AFTER JULY 1,
1932 WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY THE THEN SEC.
1083.  WHILE THIS ASSURANCE MAY NOT HAVE THE FULL CONTRACTUAL FORCE OF
THE GOVERNMENT BONDS INVOLVED IN THE "GOLD CLAUSE" CASES, THERE IS
SUFFICIENT ANALOGY IN THE LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT, BY THE NEW SEC. 1083, TO
REVOKE ITS PLEDGE RETROACTIVELY, TO GIVE APPRECIABLE APTNESS TO THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS COURT IN ONE OF THOSE CASES.  PERRY V. UNITED STATES,
294 U.S. 330, 351.  SEE HOME OWNERS LOAN CORP. V. ROBINSON, 285 N.W.
768. 

UPON THE SAME ANALYSIS AND FOR THE SAME REASONS THE NEW SEC. 1083, AS
APPLIED TO THE MORTGAGE AT BAR, IS VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 6 OF ARTICLE I OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND IS ALSO INVALID
THEREUNDER.  SLIOSBERG V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 217 APP. DIV. 67, 72;
AFF'D 244 N.Y. 482; PEOPLE V. OTIS, 90 N.Y. 48. 

THE JUDGMENT IS SUSTAINABLE APART FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 
THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT, KINGS COUNTY, WERE, AS A MATTER
OF LOCAL PRACTICE, A COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEW SEC.
1083. 

THE LOANS SECURED BY THE GUARANTY OF THE APPELLANT'S TESTATOR, WHICH
WAS IN TURN SECURED BY THE MORTGAGE AT BAR, WERE ORDINARY COMMERCIAL
LOANS TO A BUSINESS CORPORATION.  THEY WERE NOT ADVANCES MADE ON THE
SECURITY OF REAL ESTATE, AND NEITHER BY THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
NOR BY ANY REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR TRANSACTION WAS REAL ESTATE
TO BE THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF REPAYMENT.  IT WOULD BE NEITHER "JUST" NOR
"EQUITABLE" TO COMPEL THE BANK TO CREDIT UPON THE INDEBTEDNESS THUS
INCURRED AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE ACTUAL PROCEEDS OF THE FORECLOSURE
SALE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH, AT MOST, WAS SECONDARY SECURITY.  IN FACT,
ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE
STABILITY AND LIQUIDITY OF BANKS.  ROTHSCHILD V. MANUFACTURERS TRUST
CO., 279 N.Y. 355, 359-361.  THE BANK COULD NOT HAVE AGREED AT THE
INCEPTION OF THE TRANSACTION TO ACCEPT LAND IN REPAYMENT, FOR THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN, IN EFFECT, AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY,
WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT, 44 STAT. 1277, C. 191,
SEC. 3; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 29.  THE PUBLIC POLICY UNDERLYING THIS STATUTE
IS THE DESIRABILITY OF KEEPING THE CAPITAL OF BANKS LIQUID AND OF
PREVENTING THE ACCUMULATION OF REAL ESTATE IN THEIR HANDS, NATIONAL
BANK V. MATTHEW, 98 U.S. 621, 626, AND IT WOULD BE A MANIFEST
FRUSTRATION OF THAT POLICY TO PERMIT A BORROWER TO CONVERT HIS
OBLIGATION TO REPAY HIS LOAN IN CASH INTO A RIGHT TO REPAY IT WITH REAL
ESTATE MERELY BECAUSE THE BANK HAD TAKEN A MORTGAGE AS ADDITIONAL
SECURITY. 

NOR IS THE INSTANT DECISION UNJUST OR INEQUITABLE TO THE APPELLANT. 
THE DEBT WAS CONTRACTED IN 1937 AND WAS TO BE REPAID WITHIN A SHORT
TIME.  THE SAME GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS PREVAILED THROUGHOUT THIS
PERIOD. 

THE JUDGMENT IS SUSTAINABLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PRICE REALIZED AT
THE FORECLOSURE SALE WAS THE FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET VALUE OF THE
PREMISES AT THE TIME OF SUCH SALE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT TO FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE MADE IN
DECEMBER, 1932, BY CARPENTER.  AT THAT TIME SEC. 1083 OF THE NEW YORK
CIVIL PRACTICE ACT PROVIDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT
WAS TO BE MEASURED BY THE RESIDUE OF THE DEBT REMAINING UNSATISFIED
AFTER A SALE OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE APPLICATION OF THE
PROCEEDS PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE JUDGMENT.  IN
NOVEMBER, 1938, A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE WAS ENTERED FOR
$18,401.25, AND IN DECEMBER, 1938, THE FORECLOSURE SALE WAS HELD AT
WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY RESPONDENT'S NOMINEE FOR $4,000. 
THE REFEREE, APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO SELL, REPORTED A DEFICIENCY
WHICH AFTER THE INCLUSION OF TAXES, FEES AND EXPENSES WAS COMPUTED AT
$16,162.12.  RESPONDENT MOVED TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE'S REPORT OF SALE
AND ASKED THAT A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT BE ENTERED FOR THAT AMOUNT. 
PETITIONER TOOK EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT AND MADE A CROSS-MOTION TO
HAVE THE COURT FIX THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT
THE SALE PRICE WAS "WHOLLY INEQUITABLE AND UNCONSCIONABLE."  A NEW SEC.
1083  FN1  (L. 1938, CH. 510), EFFECTIVE APRIL 7, 1938, PROVIDES IN
SUBSTANCE THAT THE COURT IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT SHOULD, ON APPROPRIATE MOTION, "DETERMINE, UPON AFFIDAVIT OR
OTHERWISE AS IT SHALL DIRECT, THE FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET VALUE OF
THE MORTGAGED PREMISES" AND SHOULD DEDUCT FROM THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT
THE "MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT OR THE SALE PRICE OF THE
PROPERTY WHICHEVER SHALL BE THE HIGHER."  THE RIGHT TO RECOVER ANY
DEFICIENCY IS MADE DEPENDENT ON THE MAKING OF SUCH A MOTION.  THE COURT
DENIED PETITIONER'S CROSS-MOTION  FN2  AND DIRECTED THE ENTRY OF A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT FOR $16,162.12.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE
DIVISION DENYING RESPONDENT A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT HAD NOT
MADE A MOTION FOR ONE UNDER THE NEW SEC. 1083(257 APP. DIV. 465, 13
N.Y.S.2D 600), WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH HELD, ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING, THAT THE NEW SEC. 1083, AS APPLIED TO MORTGAGE
CONTRACTS PREVIOUSLY MADE, VIOLATED THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  284 N.Y. 13, 29 N.E.2D 449.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHICH WAS
RAISED. 

AS NOTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE MEASURE OF A DEFICIENCY UNDER
THE NEW SEC. 1083 IS IN SUBSTANCE THE SAME AS THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE
NEW YORK MORATORY DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ACT - SEC. 1083-A OF THE CIVIL
PRACTICE ACT.  THE LATTER SECTION WAS SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT UNDER THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN HONEYMAN V. JACOBS, 306
U.S. 539.  BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID THAT THE NEW SEC. 1083, UNLIKE
THE MORATORY DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ACT, IS NOT ADDRESSED TO A DECLARED
PUBLIC EMERGENCY, IS UNRESTRICTED IN ITS APPLICATION,  FN3 "CONCERNS
MERELY THE PRIVATE CONTRACT RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES TO A REAL
PROPERTY MORTGAGE," IS NOT "DESIGNED FOR THE RELIEF OF URGENT PUBLIC
NEEDS," IS NOT "CONDITIONED UPON ANY EQUITABLE FACTOR," LEAVES "NO ROOM
FOR THE PLAY OF ANY EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION," BENEFITS "EVERY MORTGAGOR
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CHARACTER OR AMOUNT OF HIS INVESTMENT," AND BURDENS
"EVERY MORTGAGEE NO MATTER WHAT HIS NECESSITIES."  THE COURT POINTED
OUT THAT, UNDER PREVIOUSLY EXISTING STATUTES OF NEW YORK, THE LIABILITY
FOR A DEFICIENCY WAS TO BE FINALLY DETERMINED BY A JUDGMENT OF
FORECLOSURE AND SALE, THAT THE "SUBSEQUENT DOCKETING OF A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT WAS A MERELY CLERICAL ACT," AND THAT THE DEFICIENCY WAS TO BE
ASCERTAINED BY A SALE AND "NOT BY THE ESTIMATES OF WITNESSES OR OTHER
LESS SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE."  IT HELD THAT THAT SYSTEM OF FORECLOSURE
"ENTERED INTO THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE PRESENT PARTIES AND CREATED AND
DEFINED THE LEGAL AND EQUITABLE OBLIGATIONS OF THEIR CONTRACT."  IT
ALSO POINTED OUT THAT, UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN RICHMOND MORTGAGE & LOAN
CORP. V. WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO., 300 U.S. 124, THERE REMAINED UNDER
THE LAWS OF NEW YORK NO REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE MORTGAGEE WHICH WAS
"SUBSTANTIALLY COEXTENSIVE" WITH THAT AFFORDED BY THE OLD SEC. 1083,
SINCE, THOUGH AN ACTION AT LAW FOR THE DEBT MIGHT LIE, THE JUDGMENT
DEBTOR'S EQUITY OF REDEMPTION COULD NOT BE SOLD UNDER AN EXECUTION UPON
THAT JUDGMENT, AND SINCE THE RIGHT TO BRING A SECOND ACTION TO RECOVER
A DEFICIENCY RESULTING ON A FORECLOSURE SALE, IF IT EXISTED AT ALL
UNDER THE NEW LEGISLATION, WAS DRASTICALLY RESTRICTED.  ACCORDINGLY, IT
HELD THAT IN LIGHT OF SUCH CASES AS BARNITZ V. BEVERLY, 163 U.S. 118,
THE NEW SEC. 1083 COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO MORTGAGE CONTRACTS PREVIOUSLY
MADE, WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

WE TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW.  FN4 

THE FORMULA WHICH A LEGISLATURE MAY ADOPT FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT
OF A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT IS NOT FIXED AND INVARIABLE.  THAT WHICH
EXISTS AT THE DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE MORTGAGE DOES NOT BECOME SO
EMBEDDED IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT IT CANNOT BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY ALTERED.  AS THIS COURT SAID IN HOME BUILDING & LOAN
ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 435, "NOT ONLY ARE EXISTING LAWS READ
INTO CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO FIX OBLIGATIONS AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BUT
THE RESERVATION OF ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGN POWER IS ALSO READ
INTO CONTRACTS AS A POSTULATE OF THE LEGAL ORDER."  AND SEE VOELLER V.
NEILSTON WAREHOUSE CO., 311 U.S. 531.  IT IS THAT RESERVED LEGISLATIVE
POWER WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED. 

THE CONTROL OF JUDICIAL SALES OF REALTY BY COURTS OF EQUITY AND BY
LEGISLATURES IN ORDER TO PREVENT SACRIFICIAL PRICES HAS A LONG
HISTORY.  WEINER, CONFLICTING FUNCTIONS OF THE UPSET PRICE, 27 COL. L.
REV. 132, 133, ET SEQ. IN CHANCERY SALES IN ENGLAND DURING THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY, THERE DEVELOPED THE PRACTICE OF OPENING THE
BIDDING, PRIOR TO CONFIRMATION, ON AN OFFER TO ADVANCE THE PRICE 10 PER
CENT. GRAFFAM V. BURGESS, 117 U.S. 180, 191.  THAT PRACTICE, MUCH
CRITICIZED BY LORD ELDON, WAS GRADUALLY SUPPLANTED BY RESERVED BIDDING
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY EQUITY (JERVOISE V. CLARKE, 1 JAC.  & W. 388)
AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY STATUTE.  SALE OF LAND BY AUCTION ACT, 1867, 30 &
31 VICT.  C. 48, SEC. 7; GRAFFAM V. BURGESS, SUPRA, P. 191; 1 DANIELL,
CHANCERY PRACTICE (7TH ED. 1901) PP. 879-880.  THOUGH THE EARLY ENGLISH
RULE OF ADVANCE BIDDING FOUND LITTLE FOOTHOLD IN THIS COUNTRY, RESERVED
BIDDING HAS ITS COUNTERPART HERE IN THE OCCASIONAL UTILIZATION BY
EQUITY COURTS OF THE UPSET PRICE IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES.  BLAIR V.
ST. LOUIS, H. & K.R. CO., 25 F. 232; PEWABIC MINING CO. V. MASON, 145
U.S. 349; 2 BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY, PP. 849, ET SEQ.; STETSON
ET AL., SOME LEGAL PHASES OF CORPORATE FINANCING, REORGANIZATION AND
REGULATION (1927), P. 202.  AND IT IS QUITE UNIFORMLY THE RULE IN THIS
COUNTRY, AS IN ENGLAND, THAT WHILE EQUITY WILL NOT SET ASIDE A SALE FOR
MERE INADEQUACY OF PRICE,  FN5  IT WILL DO SO IF THE INADEQUACY IS SO
GREAT AS TO SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OR IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST ITS FAIRNESS, SUCH AS CHILLED BIDDING.  COCKS V.
IZARD, 7 WALL.  559; GRAFFAM V. BURGESS, SUPRA; BALLENTYNE V. SMITH,
205 U.S. 285.  BEYOND THAT, A NUMBER OF STATES BY STATUTE HAVE
ENDEAVORED TO PREVENT PROPERTY GOING FOR A SONG AT JUDICIAL SALES. 
PROVISIONS THAT THE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE SOLD AT LESS THAN A
DESIGNATED PERCENTAGE OF ITS APPRAISED VALUE, AND REQUIREMENTS THAT A
STATED PERCENTAGE OF THE APPRAISED VALUE ABOVE THE SALES PRICE MUST BE
CREDITED ON THE DEBT, ARE ILLUSTRATIVE.  3 JONES, MORTGAGES (8TH ED.
1928) SECS. 1695 ET SEQ., 2 BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY, PP. 839
ET SEQ. 

WE MENTION THESE MATTERS HERE BECAUSE THEY INDICATE THAT FOR ABOUT
TWO CENTURIES THERE HAS BEEN A RATHER CONTINUOUS EFFORT, EITHER THROUGH
GENERAL RULE OR BY APPEAL TO THE CHANCELLOR IN SPECIFIC CASES, TO
PREVENT THE MACHINERY OF JUDICIAL SALES FROM BECOMING AN INSTRUMENT OF
OPPRESSION.  AND, SO FAR AS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES ARE CONCERNED,
NUMEROUS DEVICES HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED TO SAFEGUARD MORTGAGORS FROM SALES
WHICH WILL, OR MAY, RESULT IN MORTGAGEES COLLECTING MORE THAN THEIR
DUE.  THE VARIETY OF FORMULAE WHICH HAS BEEN EMPLOYED TO THAT END IS
AMPLE EVIDENCE NOT ONLY OF THE INTRUSION WHICH ADVANCED NOTIONS OF
FAIRNESS HAVE MADE ON THE EARLIER CONCERN FOR STABILITY OF JUDICIAL
SALES BUT ALSO OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS
THEMSELVES.  UNDERLYING THAT CHANGE HAS BEEN THE REALIZATION THAT THE
PRICE WHICH PROPERTY COMMANDS AT A FORCED SALE MAY BE HARDLY EVEN A
ROUGH MEASURE OF ITS VALUE.  THE PARALYSIS OF REAL ESTATE MARKETS
DURING PERIODS OF DEPRESSION, THE WIDE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE MONEY
VALUE OF PROPERTY TO THE MORTGAGEE AND THE CASH PRICE WHICH THAT
PROPERTY WOULD RECEIVE AT A FORCED SALE, THE FACT THAT THE PRICE
REALIZED AT SUCH A SALE MAY BE A FAR CRY FROM THE PRICE AT WHICH THE
PROPERTY WOULD BE SOLD TO A WILLING BUYER BY A WILLING SELLER, REFLECT
THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE MOTIVATED DEPARTURES FROM THE THEORY THAT
COMPETITIVE BIDDING IN THIS FIELD AMPLY PROTECTS THE DEBTOR. 

MORTGAGEES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO NO MORE THAN PAYMENT IN
FULL.  FN6  HONEYMAN V. JACOBS, SUPRA.  THEY CANNOT BE HEARD TO
COMPLAIN ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS IF THE LEGISLATURE TAKES STEPS TO
SEE TO IT THAT THEY GET NO MORE THAN THAT.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, EQUITY
WILL INTERVENE IN INDIVIDUAL CASES WHERE IT IS PALPABLY APPARENT THAT
GROSS UNFAIRNESS IS IMMINENT.  THAT IS THE LAW OF NEW YORK.  284 N.Y.
13, 20; 29 N.E.2D 449.  AND SEE FISHER V. HERSEY, 78 N.Y. 387.  BUT
THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REASON WHY IN LIEU OF THE MORE RESTRICTED
CONTROL BY A COURT OF EQUITY THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT SUBSTITUTE A
UNIFORM COMPREHENSIVE RULE DESIGNED TO REDUCE OR TO AVOID, IN THE RUN
OF CASES, THE CHANCE THAT THE MORTGAGEE WILL BE PAID MORE THAN ONCE. 
CF. SURING STATE BANK V. GIESE, 210 WIS. 489; 246 N.W. 556.  CERTAINLY
UNDER THIS STATUTE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT MORE THAN THAT WAS
ATTEMPTED.  THE "FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET VALUE" OF THE PROPERTY HAS
AN OBVIOUS AND DIRECT RELEVANCY TO A DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
MORTGAGEE'S PROSPECTIVE LOSS.  IN A GIVEN CASE THE APPLICATION OF A
SPECIFIED CRITERION OF VALUE MAY NOT RESULT IN A DETERMINATION OF
ACTUAL LOSS WITH MATHEMATICAL CERTITUDE.  BUT "INCIDENTAL INDIVIDUAL
INEQUALITY" IS NOT FATAL.  PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 300 U.S. 319,
324.  THE FACT THAT MEN WILL DIFFER IN OPINION AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF
ANY PARTICULAR YARDSTICK OF VALUE EMPHASIZES THAT THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF ANY ONE FORMULA IS PECULIARLY A MATTER FOR LEGISLATIVE
DETERMINATION.  CERTAINLY, SO FAR AS MORTGAGEES ARE CONCERNED, THE USE
OF THE CRITERION OF "FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET VALUE" IN CASES WHERE
THEY OBTAIN THE PROPERTY FOR A LESSER AMOUNT HOLDS PROMISE OF TEMPERING
THE EXTREMES OF BOTH INFLATED AND DEPRESSED MARKET PRICES.  AND SO FAR
AS MORTGAGORS ARE CONCERNED, IT OFFERS SOME ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL
NOT BE SADDLED WITH MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS.  TO HOLD
THAT MORTGAGEES ARE ENTITLED UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE TO RETAIN THE
ADVANTAGES OF A FORCED SALE WOULD BE TO DIGNIFY INTO A CONSTITUTIONALLY
PROTECTED PROPERTY RIGHT THEIR CHANCE TO GET MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF
THEIR CONTRACTS.  HONEYMAN V. JACOBS, SUPRA.  THE CONTRACT CLAUSE DOES
NOT PROTECT SUCH A STRATEGICAL, PROCEDURAL ADVANTAGE. 

IN CONCLUSION, THE STATUTE IN QUESTION, LIKE THE ONE INVOLVED IN
RICHMOND MORTGAGE & LOAN CORP. V. WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO., SUPRA, P.
130, "CANNOT FAIRLY BE SAID TO DO MORE THAN RESTRICT THE MORTGAGEE TO
THAT FOR WHICH HE CONTRACTED, NAMELY, PAYMENT IN FULL."  HERE, AS IN
THAT CASE, THE OBLIGATION OF THE MORTGAGEE'S CONTRACT IS RECOGNIZED;
THE STATUTE DOES NO MORE THAN LIMIT "THAT RIGHT SO AS TO PREVENT HIS
OBTAINING MORE THAN HIS DUE."  ID., P. 130.  TO BE SURE, THE MORTGAGEE
RETAINED IN THAT CASE AN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY, WHILE IN THE INSTANT ONE
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SAID THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW THERE REMAINED NO
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY "SUBSTANTIALLY COEXTENSIVE" WITH THAT WHICH HAD BEEN
REMOVED.  BUT IT IS CLEAR FROM HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 302 U.S. 375, THAT A
REQUIREMENT THAT THE RIGHT TO A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
DETERMINED IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, OR THAT A MORTGAGEE IS NOT
ENTITLED TO A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT UNLESS HE MOVES FOR ONE, RAISES NO
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  AS STATED BY THIS COURT IN THAT CASE
(302 U.S. AT P. 378), THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PREVENT THE
STATES FROM DETERMINING, ON DUE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, "BY
WHAT PROCESS LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE ASSERTED OR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS"
ENFORCED.  THE PRINCIPLES OF THOSE CASES ARE APPLICABLE HERE.  THE FACT
THAT AN EMERGENCY WAS NOT DECLARED TO EXIST WHEN THIS STATUTE WAS
PASSED DOES NOT BRING WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE RIGHTS WHICH WERE DENIED SUCH PROTECTION IN HONEYMAN V. JACOBS,
SUPRA.  SEE HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, SUPRA. 

RESPONDENT POINTS OUT THAT EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE
STRUCK DOWN UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE, AS RESPECTS CONTRACTS PREVIOUSLY
MADE, A STATE STATUTE REQUIRING JUDICIAL SALES TO BRING TWO-THIRDS OF
THE AMOUNT OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  BRONSON V. KINZIE,
1 HOW.  311; MCCRACKEN V. HAYWARD, 2 HOW.  608.  AND SEE GANTLY'S
LESSEE V. EWING, 3 HOW.  707.  THOSE CASES, HOWEVER, HAVE BEEN CONFINED
TO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THERE INVOLVED.  HOME BUILDING & LOAN
ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, SUPRA, PP. 431-434.  WE CANNOT PERMIT THE BROAD
LANGUAGE WHICH THOSE EARLY DECISIONS EMPLOYED TO FORCE LEGISLATURES TO
BE BLIND TO THE LESSONS WHICH ANOTHER CENTURY HAS TAUGHT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THAT SECTION PROVIDES: 

"JUDGMENT FOR DEFICIENCY; LIMITATION.  IF A PERSON WHO IS LIABLE TO
THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE DEBT SECURED BY THE MORTGAGE IS
MADE A DEFENDANT IN THE ACTION, AND HAS APPEARED OR HAS BEEN PERSONALLY
SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS, THE FINAL JUDGMENT MAY AWARD PAYMENT BY HIM OF
THE WHOLE RESIDUE, OR SO MUCH THEREOF AS THE COURT MAY DETERMINE TO BE
JUST AND EQUITABLE, OF THE DEBT REMAINING UNSATISFIED, AFTER A SALE OF
THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY AND THE APPLICATION OF THE PROCEEDS, PURSUANT TO
THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN SUCH JUDGMENT, THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE COURT AS HEREIN PROVIDED.  SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE
MAKING OF A MOTION FOR AN ORDER CONFIRMING THE SALE PROVIDED SUCH
MOTION IS MADE WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE CONSUMMATION OF
THE SALE BY THE DELIVERY OF THE PROPER DEED OF CONVEYANCE TO THE
PURCHASER IN ALL CASES WHERE THE SALE IS HELD AFTER THE DATE THIS
WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE DATE THIS SECTION AS HEREBY AMENDED TAKES EFFECT
AND SAID SALE HAS NOT HERETOFORE BEEN CONFIRMED, THEN WITHIN NINETY
DAYS FROM THE DATE THIS SECTION AS HEREBY AMENDED TAKES EFFECT OR
WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SALE BY
DELIVERY OF THE PROPER DEED OF CONVEYANCE TO THE PURCHASER, REGARDLESS
OF WHETHER THE SALE WAS HELD PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO OR ON THE DATE THIS
SHALL BE OWING MAY MAKE A MOTION IN THE ACTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT UPON NOTICE TO THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM SUCH JUDGMENT
IS SOUGHT OR THE ATTORNEY WHO SHALL HAVE APPEARED FOR SUCH PARTY IN
SUCH ACTION.  SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE SERVED PERSONALLY OR IN SUCH OTHER
MANNER AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT.  UPON SUCH MOTION THE COURT, WHETHER OR
NOT THE RESPONDENT APPEARS, SHALL DETERMINE, UPON AFFIDAVIT OR
OTHERWISE AS IT SHALL DIRECT, THE FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET VALUE OF
THE MORTGAGED PREMISES AS OF THE DATE SUCH PREMISES WERE BID IN AT
AUCTION OR SUCH NEAREST EARLIER DATE AS THERE SHALL HAVE BEEN ANY
MARKET VALUE THEREOF AND SHALL MAKE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT.  SUCH DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT SHALL BE FOR AN AMOUNT
EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE AMOUNT OWING BY THE PARTY LIABLE AS DETERMINED
BY THE JUDGMENT WITH INTEREST, PLUS THE AMOUNT OWING ON ALL PRIOR LIENS
AND ENCUMBRANCES WITH INTEREST, PLUS COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS OF THE
ACTION INCLUDING THE REFEREE'S FEE AND DISBURSEMENTS, LESS THE MARKET
VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT OR THE SALE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY
WHICHEVER SHALL BE THE HIGHER.  IF NO MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT
SHALL BE MADE AS HEREIN PRESCRIBED THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE REGARDLESS
OF AMOUNT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THE MORTGAGE
DEBT AND NO RIGHT TO RECOVER ANY DEFICIENCY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING
SHALL EXIST.  ...  " 

FN2  AN AFFIDAVIT OF A REAL ESTATE BROKER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER IN
SUPPORT OF HIS CROSS-MOTION STATED THAT IN HIS OPINION THE FAIR MARKET
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS $11,000.  AN AFFIDAVIT OF AN APPRAISER
SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION STATED THAT IN HIS VIEW THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS $6,500.  THE PROPERTY WAS ASSESSED BY
NEW YORK CITY FOR TAX PURPOSES AT $15,000. 

FN3  THE MORATORY DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ACT DID NOT APPLY TO MORTGAGES
OR CONNECTED AGREEMENTS DATED ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 1932.  SEE 284 N.Y.
13, 16-17; 29 N.E.2D 449. 

FN4  WE ARE CONCERNED HERE SOLELY WITH THE APPLICATION OF THIS
STATUTE TO A SITUATION WHERE THE MORTGAGEE PURCHASES THE PROPERTY AT
FORECLOSURE SALE.  WE INTIMATE NO OPINION ON ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY AS
APPLIED TO THE CASE WHERE THE MORTGAGEE IS NOT THE PURCHASER. 

FN5  BUT SEE SURING STATE BANK V. GIESE, 210 WIS. 489; 246 N.W. 556;
WILSON V. FOUKE, 188 ARK. 811; 67 S.W.2D 1030; TEACHERS' RETIREMENT
FUND ASSN. V. PIRIE, 150 ORE.  435; 46 P.2D 105.    FN6  AS TO THE
BANKRUPTCY POWER SEE WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., 311 U.S.
273, AND CASES CITED. 
..END :







OLSEN V. NEBRASKA, 313 U.S. 236 


NO. 671.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 9, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 138
NEB. 574 - 293 N.W. 393, REVERSED. 


1.  A NEBRASKA STATUTE LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE WHICH MAY BE
CHARGED BY PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES, TO TEN PER CENT. OF THE FIRST
MONTH'S SALARY OR WAGES OF THE PERSON FOR WHOM EMPLOYMENT WAS OBTAINED,
HELD CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE, 277 U.S.
350, OVERRULED.  P. 243. 

2.  THE WISDOM, NEED AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS LEGISLATION ARE FOR
THE STATE TO DETERMINE.  P. 246. 

OLSEN, SECRETARY OF LABOR OF NEBRASKA, V. NEBRASKA EX REL. WESTERN
REFERENCE & BOND ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 673, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FOR A PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF MANDAMUS REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF LABOR OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
TO ISSUE LICENSES FOR THE OPERATION OF PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES. 
THE ABOVE-NAMED ASSOCIATION WAS THE ORIGINAL RELATOR.  A NUMBER OF
OTHER EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES, WHICH SOUGHT AND OBTAINED THE SAME RELIEF BY
INTERVENTION, WERE ALSO RESPONDENTS IN THIS COURT.  MR. OLSEN WAS
SUBSTITUTED FOR HIS PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE, MR. KINNEY, POST, P. 541. 

THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE, 277 U.S. 350, 359. 

THE ACT IMPOSES A MAXIMUM LIMIT ON THE FEES TO BE CHARGED, AND
FORBIDS THE EXACTION OF ANY OTHER "COMPENSATION OR REWARD," REGARDLESS
OF THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE RENDERED, OR THE EXPENSE OF PLACING THE
EMPLOYEE.  MOREOVER, IF THE EMPLOYEE ARBITRARILY REJECTS THE POSITION
OFFERED, ANY FEE PAID BEYOND THE REGISTRATION FEE MUST BE RETURNED.  IF
THE EMPLOYEE REMAINS LESS THAN A WEEK IN THE JOB, WHETHER DUE TO HIS
OWN FAULT OR THE FAULT OF HIS EMPLOYER, THE AGENCY IS REQUIRED TO REPAY
ALL FEES IN EXCESS OF THE REGISTRATION FEE, EITHER TO THE EMPLOYEE OR
HIS EMPLOYER, AS THE CASE MAY BE. 

THE STATUTE UPON ITS FACE - AND PARTICULARLY AS APPLIED TO EXECUTIVE,
TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT - IS FAR MORE ARBITRARY AND
UNREASONABLE THAN THE STATUTE IN THE RIBNIK CASE. 

THE RIBNIK CASE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS ESTABLISHED LAW IN MANY
SUBSEQUENT CASES IN THIS COURT AND HAS NEVER BEEN DISAPPROVED OR
OVERRULED.  WILLIAMS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 278 U.S. 235, 239; TAGG BROS.
V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420, 438-9; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697,
707-8; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 536-7; OLD DEARBORN
DISTRIBUTING CO. V. SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS CORP., 299 U.S. 183, 192; UNITED
STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533, 570. 

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IS THE GENERAL RULE AND RESTRAINT THE EXCEPTION. 
LEGISLATIVE ABRIDGMENT OF THIS FREEDOM CAN BE JUSTIFIED ONLY BY
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  CF., CHAS. WOLFF PACKING CO. V. INDUSTRIAL
COURT, 262 U.S. 522, 534; S.C., 267 U.S. 552, 566.  SEE, ALSO, LIGGETT
V. BALDRIDGE, 278 U.S. 105, 111; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 523;
OLD DEARBORN CO. V. SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS CORP., 299 U.S. 183, 192. 

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES CREATING EXCEPTIONS MUST BE SHOWN IN ORDER TO
SUPPORT SUCH DRASTIC REGULATION AS PRICE-FIXING.  IN SOME CASES, THEY
MAY APPEAR FROM THE INHERENT NATURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER REGULATED,
WHILE IN OTHER CASES THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON HIM WHO CHALLENGES THE
VALIDITY OF THE ACT.  SEE LIGGETT CO. V. BALDRIDGE, 278 U.S. 105. 
HERE, A PRESUMPTION ARISES FROM THE RIBNIK CASE THAT LEGISLATIVE PRICE
FIXING, AS APPLIED TO EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES, IS ARBITRARY AND
UNREASONABLE; AND THE BURDEN OF OVERCOMING THAT PRESUMPTION RESTS UPON
THE PETITIONER. 

IF THE POWER TO FIX MAXIMUM WAGES IS ADDED TO THE POWER TO FIX
MINIMUM WAGES, THERE IS LITTLE LEFT OF THE PERSONAL LIBERTY TO MAKE
CONTRACTS, WHICH IS BOTH A RIGHT OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY.  CAN IT BE
SAID THAT FIXING MAXIMUM FEES FOR SECURING POSITIONS FOR EXECUTIVE,
TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS IS ANY MORE SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE
CONTROL THAN ARE THE SALARIES OF SUCH CLASSES OF WORKERS?  THESE
OCCUPATIONS INVOLVE A CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN THOUGHT TO BE
IN NEED OF SPECIAL PROTECTION FROM EXPLOITATION. 

IT WAS SAID IN NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 708, THAT "THE POWER
OF THE STATE STOPS SHORT OF INTERFERENCE WITH WHAT ARE DEEMED TO BE
CERTAIN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIBERTY ASSURED, NOTABLY WITH
RESPECT TO THE FIXING OF PRICES AND WAGES." 

IN TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON, 273 U.S. 418, AND THE RIBNIK CASE THIS
COURT STRUCK DOWN ATTEMPTS AT LEGISLATIVE PRICE-FIXING FOR PERSONAL
SERVICES.  IN WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, THE COURT DENIED SUCH POWER
EXCEPT TO MEET THE TEMPORARY EMERGENCY OF A THREATENED RAILROAD
STRIKE. 

IN A DIFFERENT CLASS ARE MINIMUM WAGE LAWS.  WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379; UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100. 

IN O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 282 U.S. 251, THE
COURT LAID STRESS UPON THE FACT THAT THE INSURANCE BUSINESS IS SO FAR
AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST THAT THE STATE MAY REGULATE THE RATES. 
GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. LEWIS, 233 U.S. 389.  THE COURT WAS DEALING
WITH AN ACTIVITY WHICH TRADITIONALLY WAS SUBJECTED TO FAR-REACHING
REGULATIONS OF VARIOUS KINDS, INCLUDING RATE-FIXING.  TAGG BROS &
MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S.
495.  THE COURT HELD IN THE TAGG BROS. CASE THAT THE STATUTE AND THE
ORDERS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, FIXING CHARGES BY MARKET
AGENCIES, WERE VALID, BUT EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT THESE AGENCIES HAD A
MONOPOLY AND WERE ACCUSTOMED TO FIX PRICES BY AGREEMENT AMONG
THEMSELVES. 

THUS FAR ONLY HAS THIS COURT GONE IN FIXING MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR
PERSONAL SERVICES.  DIST'G TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, AND MUNN
V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113. 

IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES, AND PARTICULARLY THOSE PROVIDING
EMPLOYMENT FOR EXECUTIVES, TECHNICIANS AND PROFESSIONAL MEN, SERVICES
RENDERED ARE NOT CAPABLE OF STANDARDIZATION WITHOUT ARBITRARINESS, AS
HAS ALREADY BEEN FOUND BY THIS COURT, AND AS WAS FOUND IN EFFECT BY THE
NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE. 

LEGISLATIVE LIMITATION ON MAXIMUM FEES FOR EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES IS
CERTAIN TO REACT UNFAVORABLY UPON THOSE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY FOR
WHOM IT IS MOST DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN JOBS. 

THE ARGUMENT SHOWING THE IMPRACTICABILITY AND INJUSTICE OF SUCH
REGULATION IS ENTITLED TO SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AS RESPECTS AN INDUSTRY
WHICH IS SUBJECT TO SUBSIDIZED COMPETITION FROM FREE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
EXCHANGES IN ALMOST EVERY SECTION OF THE NATION; SO THAT THE EVIL OF
EXCESSIVE CHARGES, WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN ITS EXTENT IN THE PAST, NO
LONGER EXISTS.  NO ONE WISHES UNNECESSARILY TO DESTROY THE LIBERTY OF
PEOPLE TO SERVE AND BE SERVED ON TERMS AGREED UPON, OR TO REDUCE
UNNECESSARILY THE CIRCLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY. 

BECAUSE OF INCREASING COMPETITION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES,
AS WELL AS THE INCREASING NUMBER OF CHARITABLE, LABOR UNION AND
EMPLOYER ASSOCIATION EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES, ANY TENDENCY OF THE PAST
TOWARD EXCESSIVE FEES BY PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES MUST HAVE COME TO
AN END.  THOSE PRIVATE AGENCIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PUT OUT OF BUSINESS
BY COMPETITION, PUBLICLY SUBSIDIZED, CAN NO LONGER HOPE TO COLLECT
EXCESSIVE FEES.  THERE IS THEREFORE NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASE FOR
REGULATING THEIR CHARGES.  SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
STONE IN RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE, 277 U.S. 350, 360; LAWTON V. STEELE, 152
U.S. 133, 137. 

IN WOLFF CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COURT, 262 U.S. 522, 535-6, THE COURT
DEALS, IN DETAIL, WITH THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIES WHICH MAY BE
SUBJECT TO PRICE REGULATION, AND POINTS TO THE FACT THAT THIS INCLUDES
A GROUP OF OCCUPATIONS WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO SUCH CHANGING
CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO RESULT IN THEIR BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE GROUP
WHICH IS AFFECTED WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

ACCORD:  TYSON & BRO. V. BANTON, 273 U.S. 418, 431; RIBNIK V.
MCBRIDE, 277 U.S. 350, 355; WILLIAMS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 278 U.S. 235,
239; NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMAN, 285 U.S. 262, 277; NEBBIA V. NEW
YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 536; OLD DEARBORN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. SEAGRAM
DISTILLERS CORP., 299 U.S. 183, 192. 

OTHER CASES INDICATE THAT THE LIMITS OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IN CASES
OF THIS CHARACTER MAY HINGE ON CHANGING CONDITIONS IN RESPECT TO THE
EVIL OR EMERGENCY JUSTIFYING SUCH A DRASTIC INTRUSION ON LIBERTY. 
WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332; BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135; MARCUS BROWN
HOLDING CO. V. FELDMAN, 256 U.S. 170; PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO. V. MAHON,
260 U.S. 393. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN RELIANCE UPON RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE, 277 U.S. 350, THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEBRASKA HELD, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, THAT A STATUTE OF THAT STATE
FIXING THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION WHICH A PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY MIGHT
COLLECT FROM AN APPLICANT FOR EMPLOYMENT  FN1  WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL N2
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  138 NEB.
574, 293 N.W. 393.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH
WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
WHICH WAS RAISED. 

THE ACTION IS FOR A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS ORDERING PETITIONER,
SECRETARY OF LABOR OF NEBRASKA, TO ISSUE A LICENSE TO THE RELATOR  FN3
TO OPERATE A PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY FOR THE YEAR COMMENCING MAY 1,
1940.  THE LICENSE WAS WITHHELD BECAUSE OF RELATOR'S REFUSAL TO LIMIT
ITS MAXIMUM COMPENSATION, AS PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE, TO TEN PER CENT
OF THE FIRST MONTH'S SALARY OR WAGES OF THE PERSON FOR WHOM EMPLOYMENT
WAS OBTAINED.  THE PETITION IN MANDAMUS CHALLENGED THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  FN4  THE ANSWER
SOUGHT TO SUSTAIN THEM BY ALLEGING THAT THE BUSINESS OF A PRIVATE
EMPLOYMENT AGENCY IS "VITALLY AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST" AND
SUBJECT TO SUCH REGULATION UNDER THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE.  THE
RELATOR'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS WAS SUSTAINED AND IT WAS
ORDERED THAT A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHOULD ISSUE. 

WE DISAGREE WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA.  THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS IN QUESTION DO NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE DRIFT AWAY FROM RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE, SUPRA, HAS BEEN SO GREAT THAT
IT CAN NO LONGER BE DEEMED A CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.  IT WAS DECIDED IN
1928.  IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THIS COURT HELD THAT TENNESSEE HAD NO
POWER TO FIX PRICES AT WHICH GASOLINE MIGHT BE SOLD IN THE STATE. 
WILLIAMS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 278 U.S. 235.  SAVE FOR THAT DECISION AND
MOREHEAD V. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587, HOLDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL A NEW YORK
STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE FIXING OF WOMEN'S WAGES, THE SUBSEQUENT CASES
IN THIS COURT HAVE GIVEN INCREASINGLY WIDER SCOPE TO THE PRICE-FIXING
POWERS OF THE STATES AND OF CONGRESS.  FN5  TAGG BROS. V. UNITED
STATES, 280 U.S. 420, DECIDED IN 1930, UPHELD THE POWER OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT TO
DETERMINE THE JUST AND REASONABLE CHARGES OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE LIVESTOCK AT A
STOCKYARD ON A COMMISSION BASIS.  IN 1931 A NEW JERSEY STATUTE LIMITING
COMMISSIONS OF AGENTS OF FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES WAS SUSTAINED BY
O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 282 U.S. 251.  A NEW YORK
STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE FIXING OF MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RETAIL PRICES FOR
MILK WAS UPHELD IN 1934.  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502.  AND SEE
HEGEMAN FARMS CORP. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 163; BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS
CO. V. TEN EYCK, 297 U.S. 251.  CF. BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC., 294
U.S. 511; MAYFLOWER FARMS V. TEN EYCK, 297 U.S. 266.  IN 1937 ADKINS V.
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525, WAS OVERRULED AND A STATUTE OF
WASHINGTON WHICH AUTHORIZED THE FIXING OF MINIMUM WAGES FOR WOMEN AND
MINORS WAS SUSTAINED.  WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379. 
IN THE SAME YEAR, TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, UPHELD A GEORGIA
STATUTE FIXING MAXIMUM WAREHOUSE CHARGES FOR THE HANDLING AND SELLING
OF LEAF TOBACCO.  CF. MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38; CURRIN V. WALLACE,
306 U.S. 1.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
AUTHORIZE THE FIXING OF MINIMUM PRICES FOR MILK WAS UPHELD IN UNITED
STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533, DECIDED IN 1939.  THE
NEXT YEAR THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF
1937 WERE SUSTAINED.  SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381.  AND
AT THIS TERM WE UPHELD THE MINIMUM WAGE AND MAXIMUM HOUR PROVISIONS OF
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S.
100.  THESE CASES REPRESENT MORE THAN SCATTERED EXAMPLES OF
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE PRICE-FIXING SCHEMES.  THEY REPRESENT IN
LARGE MEASURE A BASIC DEPARTURE FROM THE PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH OF THE
MAJORITY IN THE RIBNIK CASE.  THE STANDARD THERE EMPLOYED, FOLLOWING
THAT USED IN TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON, 273 U.S. 418, 430 ET SEQ., WAS
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PRICE-FIXING LEGISLATION, AT LEAST
IN ABSENCE OF A SO-CALLED EMERGENCY,  FN6  WAS DEPENDENT ON WHETHER OR
NOT THE BUSINESS IN QUESTION WAS "AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST." 
CF. BRAZEE V. MICHIGAN, 241 U.S. 340.  IT WAS SAID TO BE SO AFFECTED IF
IT HAD BEEN "DEVOTED TO THE PUBLIC USE" AND IF "AN INTEREST IN EFFECT"
HAD BEEN GRANTED "TO THE PUBLIC IN THAT USE."  RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE,
SUPRA, P. 355.  THAT TEST, LABELLED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN HIS
DISSENT IN THE TYSON CASE (273 U.S. AT P. 446) AS "LITTLE MORE THAN A
FICTION," WAS DISCARDED IN NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, PP. 531-539.  IT
WAS THERE STATED THAT SUCH CRITERIA "ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF DEFINITION
AND FORM AN UNSATISFACTORY TEST OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION
DIRECTED AT BUSINESS PRACTICES OR PRICES," AND THAT THE PHRASE
"AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST" CAN MEAN "NO MORE THAN THAT AN
INDUSTRY, FOR ADEQUATE REASON, IS SUBJECT TO CONTROL FOR THE PUBLIC
GOOD."  ID., P. 536.  AND SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION IN RIBNIK V.
MCBRIDE, SUPRA, AT P. 359.    THE RIBNIK CASE, FREED FROM THE TEST
WHICH IT EMPLOYED, CAN NO LONGER SURVIVE.  BUT RESPONDENTS MAINTAIN
THAT THE STATUTE HERE IN QUESTION IS INVALID FOR OTHER REASONS.  THEY
INSIST THAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE SHOWN TO SUPPORT THE VALIDITY
OF SUCH DRASTIC LEGISLATION AS PRICE-FIXING, THAT THE EXECUTIVE,
TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS WHICH RESPONDENTS SERVE HAVE NOT
BEEN SHOWN TO BE IN NEED OF SPECIAL PROTECTION FROM EXPLOITATION, THAT
LEGISLATIVE LIMITATION OF MAXIMUM FEES FOR EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES IS
CERTAIN TO REACT UNFAVORABLY UPON THOSE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY FOR
WHOM IT IS MOST DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN JOBS, THAT THE INCREASING
COMPETITION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES AND OF CHARITABLE, LABOR
UNION AND EMPLOYER ASSOCIATION EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES HAVE CURBED
EXCESSIVE FEES BY PRIVATE AGENCIES, AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS
RECORD TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION AS TO THE RESULT OF THE OPERATION OF
SUCH COMPETITIVE, ECONOMIC FORCES.  AND IN THE LATTER CONNECTION
RESPONDENTS URGE THAT, SINCE NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SHOWN WHICH CURB
COMPETITION BETWEEN THE PRIVATE AGENCIES AND THE OTHER TYPES OF
AGENCIES, THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT
REASONABLY BELIEVE WOULD REDOUND TO THE PUBLIC INJURY UNLESS CORRECTED
BY SUCH LEGISLATION. 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED, HOWEVER, WITH THE WISDOM, NEED, OR
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE LEGISLATION.  DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON THAT
SCORE SUGGEST A CHOICE WHICH "SHOULD BE LEFT WHERE  ...  IT WAS LEFT BY
THE CONSTITUTION - TO THE STATES AND TO CONGRESS."  RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE,
SUPRA, AT P. 375, DISSENTING OPINION.  THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR THE
STATE TO DEMONSTRATE BEFORE US THAT EVILS PERSIST DESPITE THE
COMPETITION WHICH ATTENDS THE BARGAINING IN THIS FIELD.  IN FINAL
ANALYSIS, THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRAINTS WHICH
RESPONDENTS HAVE SUGGESTED FOR THE INVALIDATION OF THIS LEGISLATION ARE
THOSE NOTIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY EMBEDDED IN EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT BUT WHICH, AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES LONG ADMONISHED, SHOULD NOT BE
READ INTO THE CONSTITUTION.  TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON, SUPRA, AT P.
446; ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, SUPRA, AT P. 570.  SINCE THEY DO
NOT FIND EXPRESSION IN THE CONSTITUTION, WE CANNOT GIVE THEM CONTINUING
VITALITY AS STANDARDS BY WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS OF THE STATES IS TO BE DETERMINED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEBRASKA FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  NEB. COMP. STAT. 1929, SEC. 48-508: 

"PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES, REGISTRATION FEE.  A REGISTRATION FEE
NOT TO EXCEED TWO DOLLARS MAY BE CHARGED BY SUCH LICENSED AGENCY WHEN
SUCH AGENCY SHALL BE AT ACTUAL EXPENSE IN ADVERTISING SUCH INDIVIDUAL
APPLICANT, OR IN LOOKING UP THE REFERENCE OF SUCH APPLICANT.  IN ALL
SUCH CASES A COMPLETE RECORD OF SUCH REFERENCES SHALL BE KEPT ON FILE
WHICH RECORD SHALL, DURING ALL BUSINESS HOURS, BE OPEN FOR THE
INSPECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE CHIEF DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
LABOR, OR ANY OTHER INSPECTOR APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TO
MAKE SUCH INSPECTION, AND UPON DEMAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE
INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION BY THE APPLICANT.  FOR SUCH REGISTRATION FEE
A RECEIPT SHALL BE GIVEN TO SAID APPLICANT FOR HELP OR EMPLOYMENT,
GIVING NAME OF SUCH APPLICANT, DATE OF PAYMENT AND CHARACTER OF
POSITION OR HELP APPLIED FOR.  SUCH REGISTRATION FEE SHALL BE RETURNED
TO SAID APPLICANTS ON DEMAND, AFTER THIRTY DAYS AND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
FROM DATE OF RECEIPT, LESS THE AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY EXPENDED
BY SAID LICENSED AGENCY FOR SAID APPLICANT, AND AN ITEMIZED ACCOUNT OF
SUCH EXPENDITURES SHALL BE PRESENTED TO SAID APPLICANT ON REQUEST AT
THE TIME OF RETURNING THE UNUSED PORTION OF SUCH REGISTRATION FEE,
PROVIDED NO POSITION HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY SAID LICENSED AGENCY TO AND
ACCEPTED BY SAID APPLICANT.  NO LICENSED PERSON OR PERSONS SHALL, AS A
CONDITION TO REGISTERING OR OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT FOR SUCH APPLICANT,
REQUIRE SUCH APPLICANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO ANY PUBLICATION OR EXACT OTHER
FEES, COMPENSATION OR REWARD, OTHER THAN THE REGISTRATION FEE,
AFORESAID, AND A FURTHER FEE, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH SHALL BE AGREED UPON
BETWEEN SUCH APPLICANT AND SUCH LICENSED PERSON, TO BE PAYABLE AT SUCH
TIME AS MAY BE AGREED UPON IN WRITING, 'THE AMOUNT OF WHICH, TOGETHER
WITH SAID REGISTRATION FEE OF $2.00 ADDED THERETO SHALL IN NO CASE
EXCEED 10 PER CENT OF ALL MONEYS PAID TO OR TO BE PAID OR EARNED BY
SAID APPLICANT, FOR THE FIRST MONTH'S SERVICE GROWING OUT OF SAID
EMPLOYMENT FURNISHED BY SAID EMPLOYER.  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF
THROUGH NO FAULT OF SAID APPLICANT OR EMPLOYEE, HE FAILS TO REMAIN IN
SERVICE WITH SAID EMPLOYER AND OTHER POSITIONS OR PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT
ARE FURNISHED TO SAID APPLICANT BY SAID LICENSED AGENCY, THEN SAID
LICENSED AGENCY SHALL NOT ACCEPT, COLLECT OR CHARGE MORE THAN ONE FEE
EVERY THREE MONTHS,' BUT THE FURTHER FEE AFORESAID SHALL NOT BE
RECEIVED BY SUCH LICENSED PERSON BEFORE THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN TENDERED
A POSITION BY SAID LICENSED PERSON.  IN THE EVENT THAT THE POSITION, SO
TENDERED IS NOT ACCEPTED BY OR GIVEN SUCH APPLICANT, SAID LICENSED
PERSON SHALL REFUND ALL FEES REQUESTED BY SAID APPLICANT, OTHER THAN
THE REGISTRATION FEES AFORESAID WITHIN THREE DAYS AFTER DEMAND IS MADE
THEREFOR.  NO SUCH LICENSED PERSON SHALL SEND OUT ANY APPLICANT FOR
EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT HAVING OBTAINED A BONA FIDE ORDER THEREFOR, AND IF
IT SHALL APPEAR THAT NO EMPLOYMENT OF THE KIND APPLIED FOR EXISTED AT
THE PLACE WHERE SAID APPLICANT WAS DIRECTED, SAID LICENSED PERSON SHALL
REFUND TO SUCH APPLICANT WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER DEMAND, ANY SUM PAID BY
SUCH APPLICANT FOR TRANSPORTATION IN GOING TO AND RETURNING FROM SAID
PLACE AND ALL FEES PAID BY SAID APPLICANT.  IN ADDITION TO THE RECEIPT
PROVIDED TO BE GIVEN FOR REGISTRATION FEE IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF SUCH
LICENSED PERSON TO GIVE, TO EVERY APPLICANT FOR EMPLOYMENT FROM WHOM
OTHER FEE OR FEES SHALL BE RECEIVED, AN ADDITIONAL RECEIPT, IN WHICH
SHALL BE STATED THE NAME OF SUCH APPLICANT, THE DATE AND AMOUNT OF SUCH
OTHER FEES; AND TO EVERY APPLICANT FOR HELP FROM WHOM OTHER FEE OR FEES
SHALL BE RECEIVED, AN ADDITIONAL RECEIPT, STATING THE NAME AND ADDRESS
OF SAID APPLICANT, THE DATE AND AMOUNT OF SUCH OTHER FEE OR FEES, AND
THE KIND OF HELP TO BE PROVIDED.  ALL RECEIPTS SHALL HAVE PRINTED ON
THE BACK THEREOF, IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE
STATE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND THE CHIEF DEPUTY SECRETARY OF LABOR. 
EVERY SUCH LICENSED PERSON SHALL GIVE TO EVERY APPLICANT FOR
EMPLOYMENT, A CARD OR PRINTED PAPER CONTAINING THE NAME OF THE
APPLICANT, THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF SUCH EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, AND THE
WRITTEN NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE APPLICANT IS SENT
FOR EMPLOYMENT.  IF AN EMPLOYEE FURNISHED FAILS TO REMAIN ONE WEEK IN A
SITUATION, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE EMPLOYER, THEN ALL FEES PAID OR
PLEDGED, IN EXCESS OF THE REGISTRATION FEE AFORESAID, SHALL BE REFUNDED
TO THE EMPLOYER UPON DEMAND.  IF THE EMPLOYMENT FURNISHED THE APPLICANT
DOES NOT CONTINUE MORE THAN ONE WEEK, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE EMPLOYEE,
THEN ALL FEES PAID OR PLEDGED, IN EXCESS OF THE REGISTRATION FEE
AFORESAID, SHALL BE REFUNDED TO THE EMPLOYEE UPON DEMAND." 

FN2  THE COURT UPHELD THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE UNDER SEC. 3,
ART. I OF THE NEBRASKA CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO PERSON
SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW."  SEE ART. XV, SEC. 9. 

FN3  THE PETITION IN MANDAMUS WAS FILED BY RESPONDENT WESTERN
REFERENCE & BOND ASSN., INC. THE OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE MILLS TEACHERS
AGENCY, THOMAS EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, CO-OPERATIVE REFERENCE CO., MARTI
REFERENCE CO., WATTS REFERENCE CO., CORNHUSKER TEACHERS BUREAU, GRACE
BOOMER, AND DAVIS SCHOOL SERVICE, WHO INTERVENED IN THE ACTION AND
CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT.  THEIR PETITION OF
INTERVENTION STATED THAT THEY, AS WELL AS THE RELATOR, CONFINE THEIR
BUSINESS "TO SOLICITING AND SECURING POSITIONS FOR CLERICAL, EXECUTIVE,
TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS, AND DO NOT ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS
OF SECURING PLACEMENTS FOR COMMON LABORERS, DOMESTIC SERVANTS OR OTHER
CLASSES OF UNSKILLED WORKERS."  THAT SEEMS TO BE CONCEDED. 

FN4  BY STIPULATION FILED IN THE STATE COURT IT WAS AGREED THAT THE
"SOLE AND ONLY ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION" WAS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE ACT "IN SO FAR AS THE SAME FIXES OR LIMITS THE FEES OR COMPENSATION
OF PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES." 

FN5  BUT SEE NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262; OLD
DEARBORN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS CORP., 299 U.S. 183,
192; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 316. 

FN6  CF. HIGHLAND V. RUSSELL CAR & SNOW PLOW CO., 279 U.S. 253. 
..END :





















HELVERING V. FLACCUS LEATHER CO., 313 U.S. 247 


NO. 627.  ARGUED APRIL 3, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 28, 1941.  - 114 F.2D
783, REVERSED. 


A SUM RECEIVED BY A TAXPAYER AS PROCEEDS OF INSURANCE ON BUILDINGS AND
EQUIPMENT DESTROYED BY FIRE (NO PART OF THE SUM SO RECEIVED HAVING BEEN
EXPENDED TO REPLACE THE DESTROYED PROPERTY, WHICH PRIOR TO 1935 HAD
BEEN COMPLETELY DEPRECIATED FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES), HELD NOT A GAIN
FROM THE "SALE OR EXCHANGE" OF CAPITAL ASSETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 117(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  P. 249. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. WILLIAM FLACCUS OAK
LEATHER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 671, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION
OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1935, RESPONDENT'S PLANT WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE.  LATER
THAT YEAR IT RECEIVED $73,132.50 FROM AN INSURANCE COMPANY AS
COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, AND EQUIPMENT.  THE
BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, AND EQUIPMENT HAD BEEN FULLY DEPRECIATED FOR
INCOME TAX PURPOSES PRIOR TO 1935, AND NO PART OF THE INSURANCE
PROCEEDS WAS USED TO ACQUIRE OTHER PROPERTY SIMILAR OR RELATED IN
SERVICE OR USE TO THE PROPERTY DESTROYED, OR TO ACQUIRE CONTROL OF A
CORPORATION OWNING SUCH PROPERTY, OR TO ESTABLISH A FUND TO REPLACE THE
PROPERTY DESTROYED. 

IN ITS RETURN FOR 1935, RESPONDENT REPORTED THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS AS
CAPITAL GAIN AND ADDED TO THAT AMOUNT A GAIN, NOT IN ISSUE HERE, OF
$862.50 FROM SALES OF SECURITIES.  DURING THAT SAME YEAR, RESPONDENT
HAD CAPITAL LOSSES, ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE, OF $76,767.62 WHICH IT USED TO
OFFSET COMPLETELY THE TOTAL REPORTED CAPITAL GAINS OF $73,995.  THIS
LEFT AN EXCESS OF CAPITAL LOSSES OVER CAPITAL GAINS OF $2,772.62, AND
RESPONDENT DEDUCTED $2,000 OF THAT AMOUNT FROM ORDINARY INCOME. 

THE COMMISSIONER HELD THAT THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS WERE ORDINARY
INCOME RATHER THAN CAPITAL GAIN.  ACCORDINGLY, HE DECREASED
RESPONDENT'S CAPITAL GAIN AND INCREASED ITS ORDINARY INCOME BY
$73,132.50, AND ALLOWED RESPONDENT CAPITAL LOSSES OF ONLY $2,862.50, AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE GAIN FROM SECURITY SALES PLUS $2,000.  THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS AFFIRMED IN A MEMORANDUM OPINION ON THE AUTHORITY OF ESTATE
OF HERDER, 36 B.T.A. 934.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  114
F.2D 783.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 312 U.S. 671, BECAUSE THE DECISION
BELOW WAS IN CONFLICT WITH HERDER V. HELVERING, 70 APP. D.C. 287; 106
F.2D 153. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT RESPONDENT'S LOSSES RESULTED FROM SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS.  IT IS ALSO CONCEDED THAT THE ENTIRE
AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY MUST BE INCLUDED IN
RESPONDENT'S INCOME SINCE THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN FULLY DEPRECIATED FOR
INCOME TAX PURPOSES PRIOR TO 1935.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT
THAT AMOUNT MAY BE REPORTED AS CAPITAL GAIN, IN ORDER THAT CAPITAL
LOSSES MAY ABSORB IT, RATHER THAN AS AN ITEM OF ORDINARY GROSS INCOME. 

PART:  "LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS SHALL BE
ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF $2,000 PLUS THE GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR
EXCHANGES."  THUS, THE SINGLE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT RESPONDENT
RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY DERIVED FROM THE "SALE OR EXCHANGE"
OF A CAPITAL ASSET. 

GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE LANGUAGE IN THE REVENUE ACT, JUST AS IN ANY
STATUTE, IS TO BE GIVEN ITS ORDINARY MEANING, AND THE WORDS "SALE" AND
"EXCHANGE" ARE NOT TO BE READ ANY DIFFERENTLY.  COMPARE HELVERING V.
HAMMEL, 311 U.S. 504; FAIRBANKS V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 436; BURNET
V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103.  NEITHER TERM IS APPROPRIATE TO CHARACTERIZE
THE DEMOLITION OF PROPERTY AND SUBSEQUENT COMPENSATION FOR ITS LOSS BY
AN INSURANCE COMPANY.  PLAINLY THAT PAIR OF EVENTS WAS NOT A SALE.  NOR
CAN THEY BE REGARDED AS AN EXCHANGE, FOR "EXCHANGE," AS USED IN SEC.
117(D), IMPLIES RECIPROCAL TRANSFERS OF CAPITAL ASSETS, NOT A SINGLE
TRANSFER TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TRANSFEREE'S ASSET. 

THE FACT THAT SEC. 112(F) CHARACTERIZES DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AND
INDEMNIFICATION FOR ITS LOSS AS AN INVOLUNTARY CONVERSION DOES NOT
ESTABLISH THAT THE TWO EVENTS CONSTITUTED A SALE OR EXCHANGE.  THAT
WHOLE OR IN PART, THEFT OR SEIZURE, OR AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
REQUISITION OR CONDEMNATION, OR THE THREAT OR IMMINENCE THEREOF) IS
COMPULSORILY OR INVOLUNTARILY CONVERTED INTO PROPERTY SIMILAR OR
RELATED IN SERVICE OR USE TO THE PROPERTY SO CONVERTED, OR INTO MONEY
WHICH IS FORTHWITH IN GOOD FAITH, UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, EXPENDED IN THE
ACQUISITION OF OTHER PROPERTY SIMILAR OR RELATED IN SERVICE OR USE TO
THE PROPERTY SO CONVERTED, OR IN THE ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OF A
CORPORATION OWNING SUCH OTHER PROPERTY, OR IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
REPLACEMENT FUND, NO GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE RECOGNIZED.  IF ANY PART OF
THE MONEY IS NOT SO EXPENDED, THE GAIN, IF ANY, SHALL BE RECOGNIZED,
BUT IN AN AMOUNT NOT IN EXCESS OF THE MONEY WHICH IS NOT SO EXPENDED." 

WE CAN FIND NOTHING IN THIS LANGUAGE OR IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT
WHICH INDICATES, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION, THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO CLASSIFY AS "SALES OR EXCHANGES" THE INVOLUNTARY
CONVERSIONS ENUMERATED IN SEC. 112(F).  IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 111(C)
SAYS THAT "IN THE CASE OF A SALE OR EXCHANGE, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
GAIN OR LOSS  ...  SHALL BE RECOGNIZED  ... SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 112."  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT SEC. 112(F)
FOLLOWS SEC. 112(A) WHICH PROVIDES THAT "UPON THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE GAIN OR LOSS  ...  SHALL BE
RECOGNIZED, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION." 

THE INFERENCE, DRAWN FROM THE JUXTAPOSITION AND CROSS REFERENCING OF
THESE THREE SECTIONS, THAT THE INVOLUNTARY CONVERSION OF RESPONDENT'S
PROPERTY IS THUS IMPLICITLY CHARACTERIZED AS A SALE OR EXCHANGE IGNORES
THE FACT THAT IN THE SAME ACT CONGRESS HAS CHOSEN A PARTICULAR METHOD
FOR CLASSIFYING AS SALES OR EXCHANGES TRANSACTIONS WHICH WOULD NOT
ORDINARILY BE DESCRIBED BY ONE OF THOSE TERMS.  THUS SEC. 115(C)
PROVIDES:  "AMOUNTS DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLETE LIQUIDATION OF A
CORPORATION SHALL BE TREATED AS IN FULL PAYMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
STOCK, AND AMOUNTS DISTRIBUTED IN PARTIAL LIQUIDATION OF A CORPORATION
SHALL BE TREATED AS IN PART OR FULL PAYMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
STOCK." 

LOSSES FROM SHORT SALES OF PROPERTY SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS GAINS OR
LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS; AND GAINS OR LOSSES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FAILURE TO EXERCISE PRIVILEGES OR OPTIONS TO BUY OR
SELL PROPERTY SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS GAINS OR LOSSES FROM SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS HELD FOR ONE YEAR OR LESS."  SEE H. REP.
NO. 704, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 31; H. REP. NO. 1385, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 23.  SECTION 117(F) PROVIDES:  "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
TITLE, AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE HOLDER UPON THE RETIREMENT OF BONDS,
DEBENTURES, NOTES, OR CERTIFICATES OR OTHER EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS
ISSUED BY ANY CORPORATION  ...  WITH INTEREST COUPONS OR IN REGISTERED
FORM, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE THEREFOR." 
SEE MCCLAIN V. COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 527; FAIRBANKS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; H. REP. NO. 704, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 31. 

THESE SECTIONS DEMONSTRATE THAT CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY SPECIFIED THE
AMBIGUOUS TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE TO BE REGARDED AS SALES OR EXCHANGES
FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES.  THEY ARE CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE
INVOLUNTARY CONVERSION OF RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY, WHICH BEARS FAR LESS
RESEMBLANCE TO A SALE OR EXCHANGE THAN THE TRANSACTIONS EMBRACED IN
SECS. 115(C), 117(E), AND 117(F), IS NOT TO BE PLACED IN ONE OR THE
OTHER OF THOSE CATEGORIES BY IMPLICATION.  THE PROMPT WITHDRAWAL OF
ARTICLE 113(A)(9)(1) OF TREASURY REGULATIONS NO. 86(SEE T.D. 4698, XV-2
CUM. BULL.  159) INDICATES THAT THE ADMINISTRATORS CHARGED WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 112(F) REACHED A SIMILAR CONCLUSION.  COMPARE
BURNET V. CHICAGO PORTRAIT CO., 285 U.S. 1, 16. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 
..END :















NYE V. UNITED STATES, 313 U.S. 33 


NO. 558.  ARGUED MARCH 12, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 14, 1941.  - 113 F.2D
1006, REVERSED. 


1.  SEEKING TO TERMINATE A SUIT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH WHICH AN
ADMINISTRATOR HAD BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, PETITIONERS
(STRANGERS TO THE SUIT) INDUCED THE ADMINISTRATOR, BY UNDUE INFLUENCE,
TO FILE A FINAL ACCOUNT AND OBTAIN HIS DISCHARGE AS ADMINISTRATOR, AND
TO SEND LETTERS TO HIS ATTORNEY AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE ASKING DISMISSAL
OF THE SUIT.  THE MISBEHAVIOR OCCURRED MORE THAN 100 MILES FROM THE
DISTRICT COURT.  PETITIONERS WERE ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT BY THE
DISTRICT JUDGE; ONE WAS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDING, INCLUDING A SUM TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ATTORNEY; AND ON
BOTH, FINES WERE IMPOSED.  A NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED.  HELD: 

(1)  THE CASE WAS NOT ONE OF CIVIL BUT OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  P. 42. 

(A)  A CONTEMPT IS CONSIDERED CIVIL "WHEN THE PUNISHMENT IS WHOLLY
REMEDIAL, SERVES ONLY THE PURPOSES OF THE COMPLAINANT, AND IS NOT
INTENDED AS A DETERRENT TO OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC."  P. 42. 

(B)  THAT THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WAS ENTITLED IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
SUIT, AND THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT A PARTY UNTIL THE APPEAL, ARE
NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE CONTEMPT.  P. 42. 

(C)  NOR IS THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE PETITIONERS WAS ORDERED TO PAY
THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING, INCLUDING A SUM TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
ATTORNEY, DECISIVE.  P. 42. 

(D)  THE PUNITIVE CHARACTER OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT WAS
DOMINANT.  P. 43. 

(2)  THE APPEAL IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES.  P.
43. 

(A)  IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO "PLEA OF GUILTY," NO "VERDICT OF GUILT
BY A JURY," AND NO "FINDING OF GUILT BY THE TRIAL COURT WHERE A JURY IS
WAIVED."  THE QUOTED QUALIFYING LANGUAGE OF THE RULES DOES NOT
DESIGNATE MERELY THE STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES WHEN
THE RULES BECOME APPLICABLE, BUT DESCRIBES THE KINDS OF CASES TO WHICH
THEY ARE TO BE APPLIED.  P. 43. 

(B)  IN THE LIGHT OF THE HISTORY OF THE ACT AUTHORIZING THE RULES,
AND THE AMENDATORY ACT, THE CATEGORIES EMBRACED IN THE RULES MAY NOT BE
EXPANDED BY INTERPRETATION TO INCLUDE THE PRESENT CASE.  P. 44. 

(3)  THE APPEAL IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13,
1925.  P. 44. 

(4)  THIS COURT BEING EQUALLY DIVIDED IN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD POWER, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPLICATION
FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE APPEAL, TO DECIDE THE CASE ON THE MERITS, THE
ACTION OF THAT COURT IN TAKING JURISDICTION OF THE APPEAL IS AFFIRMED. 
P. 44. 

(5)  THE CONDUCT OF PETITIONERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE "MISBEHAVIOR  ...
SO NEAR" THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT "AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  P.
52. 

SO FAR AS THE CRIME OF CONTEMPT IS CONCERNED, THE FACT THAT THE
DISTRICT JUDGE RECEIVED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER IS INCONSEQUENTIAL. 

2.  THE WORDS "SO NEAR THERETO" IN SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE ARE
TO BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING A GEOGRAPHICAL, RATHER THAN A CAUSAL,
CONNOTATION.  P. 48. 

3. THE PHRASE "SO NEAR THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE" LIKEWISE CONNOTES THAT THE MISBEHAVIOR MUST HAVE OCCURRED IN
THE VICINITY OF THE COURT.  P. 48. 

4.  THE HISTORY OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1831, AND OF
SEC. 135 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, REQUIRES METICULOUS REGARD FOR THE
SEPARATE CATEGORIES OF OFFENSES THEREIN EMBRACED, SO THAT THE INSTANCES
WHERE THERE IS NO RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL WILL BE NARROWLY RESTRICTED.  P.
49. 

5.  THE PHRASE "SO NEAR THERETO" MUST BE RESTRICTED TO ACTS IN THE
VICINITY OF THE COURT AND NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO ALL ACTS WHICH
HAVE A "REASONABLE TENDENCY" TO "OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE."  P. 49. 

6.  TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402, OVERRULED. 
P. 52. 

NYE ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER UPON
AN ADJUDICATION OF CONTEMPT. 

THE COURT HAD NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTERS SHOWN IN THE
EVIDENCE.  THEREFORE, IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE FACTS BE SET FORTH IN
AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE COURT IN ORDER TO GIVE THE COURT JURISDICTION
TO ISSUE THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.  IN RE DEATON, 105 N.C. 59, 64; SONA
V. ALUMINUM CASTINGS CO., 214 F. 326.  THE TESTIMONY OF ELMORE WAS
GIVEN ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUIT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH,
AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATING A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING. 

THE CONDUCT ALLEGED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED AS
AN AFFRONT TO, OR INTERFERENCE WITH, THE COURT AND ITS FUNCTIONS. 
NOTHING WAS DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDED AS IN CIVIL CONTEMPT.  THE CAPTION IN
ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND JUDGMENT, IN ITS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, IN THE
MOTION OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL, IN THE COURT MINUTES SHOWING DENIAL OF
MOTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, AND IN THE MOTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS, IS
THE CAPTION OF THE SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH.  THERE WAS NO
ORDER CHARACTERIZING THE CHARGE AS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT; AND THE CONDUCT
CHARGED TOOK PLACE, IF AT ALL, SO FAR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT THAT IT
KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL THE EFFORTS OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL, AND THE
TESTIMONY OF ELMORE ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE MAIN ACTION, BROUGHT
IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTIVE CIVIL CONTEMPT UNDER
THE "SO NEAR THERETO" CLAUSE OF SEC. 268, JUD.  CODE, WHEN IT DID NOT
HAVE THE POWER TO PROCEED FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AND DID NOT HAVE POWER TO
ENTER A JUDGMENT OTHERWISE.  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221
U.S. 418, 448; IN RE SIXTH & WISCONSIN TOWER, INC., 108 F.2D 538, 540. 

IF THE CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONERS WAS HOSTILE TO ANY COURT, IT WAS TO
THE PROBATE COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURT COULD ENTERTAIN THE ACTION FOR
WRONGFUL DEATH ONLY AS LONG AS ELMORE REMAINED ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE, AND THE EFFECT ON THE DISTRICT COURT OF A DISCHARGE IN THE
PROBATE COURT COULD BE ONLY INCIDENTAL. 

IF THE AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL ACCOUNT HAD BEEN CONTEMPTUOUSLY PROCURED
BY THE PETITIONERS AND FILED IN THE PROBATE COURT, THE POWER TO PUNISH
FOR SUCH CONDUCT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PROBATE COURT AND NOT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT. 

THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT ALL THAT NYE DID BY PROCURING THE WRITING OF
THE LETTERS TO THE COURT AND TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL WAS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF PREVENTING THE PROSECUTION OF THE CIVIL ACTION ON ITS MERITS. 
THOUGH THE COURT SAYS THAT THIS CAUSED A LONG DELAY, SEVERAL HEARINGS
AND EXPENSE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ELMORE'S RIGHTS WERE PREJUDICED,
OR THAT THE SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT WAS DISCHARGED ON ACCOUNT OF THE
FILING OF THE FINAL ACCOUNT IN THE PROBATE COURT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF NON-SUIT RENDERED VOID THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT. 

THE CONTEMPT ADJUDICATED AND CHARGED WAS UNMISTAKABLY CRIMINAL AND
THE PROCEEDING WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE.  FOR PURPOSES OF
APPEAL, THE NATURE OF THE JUDGMENT IS DECISIVE OF THE CRIMINAL OR CIVIL
CHARACTER OF THE CONTEMPT.  THE JUDGMENT IMPOSED UNCONDITIONAL FINES
PAYABLE TO THE UNITED STATES.  APART FROM THE NATURE OF THE SENTENCE,
THE JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY FOUND THE PETITIONERS GUILTY OF MISBEHAVIOR
SO NEAR THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  THIS WAS UNEQUIVOCAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE FINES
AND OF THE ADJUDICATION OF CONTEMPT WAS TO VINDICATE THE AUTHORITY OF
THE COURT, NOT TO PERFECT THE REMEDIES OF A PRIVATE SUITOR. 

THE PROCEEDINGS ANTERIOR TO THE JUDGMENT SUPPORT THE SAME
CONCLUSION.  THE PRAYER OF THE MOTION FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WAS NOT
FOR REMEDIAL PUNISHMENT IN AID OF THE MAIN SUIT.  IT SPEAKS THE
LANGUAGE OF PUBLIC JUSTICE NOT OF PRIVATE LITIGATION.  THE ACTS CHARGED
WERE UNMISTAKABLY CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, IF CONTEMPT AT ALL.  THEY DID NOT
VIOLATE A COURT ORDER; THEY OBSTRUCTED THE WORK OF THE COURT AND
ATTEMPTED TO DECEIVE THE JUDGE.  MOREOVER, THE RESPONDENTS TO THE RULE
TO SHOW CAUSE WERE NOT PARTIES TO A PENDING ACTION; THEY WERE
STRANGERS.  AND THE MOVANT FOR THE RULE WAS NOT THE PLAINTIFF IN THE
ACTION, BUT HIS ATTORNEY.  WHILE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ENTITLED IN THE
ORIGINAL ACTION AND THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT A PARTY UNTIL THE APPEAL,
NEITHER CIRCUMSTANCE IS DECISIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE CONTEMPT.  THE
DEFENDANTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNCERTAIN THAT PUNISHMENT RATHER THAN
RELIEF WAS THE OBJECT IN VIEW. 

SINCE THE CONTEMPT WAS CRIMINAL THE JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION MUST
PREVAIL.  IN ANY EVENT, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE
IMPOSITION OF A CRIMINAL PENALTY. 

THE FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE
GUILTY OF MISBEHAVIOR SO NEAR THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT AS TO OBSTRUCT
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 268 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE. 

THE PETITIONERS' CONDUCT WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO THWART THE
PROSECUTION OF AN ACTION BY UNDUE INFLUENCE EXERCISED ON THE LITIGANT
AND MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT.  SUCH AN ATTEMPT IS A
CONTEMPT WHEN THE MEANS CONSISTS OF FORCE OR THREATS DIRECTED AGAINST A
SUITOR; AND THE TYPE OF INFLUENCE EXERTED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS
INDISTINGUISHABLE.  MOREOVER, THE CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONERS AMOUNTED
TO A MISREPRESENTATION.  FALSEHOOD MAY HAVE OBSTRUCTIVE QUALITIES WHICH
WARRANT A FINDING OF CONTEMPT. 

THE MISBEHAVIOR WAS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT OR "SO NEAR THERETO
AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE."  THE EARLY VIEW THAT THE
POWER OF SUMMARY PUNISHMENT IN CASES OF MISBEHAVIOR IS CONFINED BY THE
STATUTE TO ASSURING ORDER AND DECORUM IN COURT HAS BEEN ABANDONED.  IT
IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE LANGUAGE IS NOT TO BE "SPATIALLY CONSTRUED."  IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO RELY UPON THE MAJORITY OPINION IN TOLEDO NEWSPAPER
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402; THE PRESENT CASE FALLS FAIRLY
WITHIN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES.  A COURT WITHOUT
PLAINTIFFS CAN NOT DO BUSINESS AS A COURT.  WHILE THE PETITIONERS'
EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE ELMORE AS A PLAINTIFF ULTIMATELY FAILED, THERE WAS
AN ACTUAL OBSTRUCTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  MOREOVER, THE
LETTER WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAD ELMORE WRITE TO THE JUDGE WAS ITSELF
CONTUMACIOUS. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
BECAUSE THE VERIFICATION WAS FILED A WEEK AFTER THE MOTION FOR AN ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE IS WITHOUT MERIT. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF ELMORE'S ACTION FOR WRONGFUL
DEATH, PENDING THIS APPEAL, REQUIRES THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT TO BE SET
ASIDE, RESTS UPON THE UNSOUND PREMISE THAT THE CONTEMPT WAS CIVIL. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE ADJUDGED GUILTY OF CONTEMPT UNDER SEC. 268 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE (36 STAT. 1163, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 385) FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO
OBTAIN A DISMISSAL OF A SUIT BROUGHT BY ONE ELMORE IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA.  ELMORE,
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HIS SON, BROUGHT THAT ACTION, IN FORMA
PAUPERIS, AGAINST ONE COUNCIL AND BERNARD, PARTNERS, TRADING AS B.C.
REMEDY CO., AND ALLEGED THAT HIS SON DIED AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF A
MEDICINE, KNOWN AS B C AND MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY THEM.  THE COURT
APPOINTED WILLIAM B. GUTHRIE TO REPRESENT ELMORE.  DEFENDANTS FILED AN
ANSWER APRIL 29, 1939.  ON APRIL 19, 1939, ELMORE NOTIFIED THE DISTRICT
JUDGE AND HIS LAWYER BY LETTERS THAT HE DESIRED TO HAVE THE CASE
DISMISSED.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THE EPISODE INVOLVING THE IMPROPER CONDUCT
OF PETITIONERS WAS FOUND AS FOLLOWS: 

ELMORE IS ILLITERATE AND FEEBLE IN MIND AND BODY.  PETITIONERS N1,
THROUGH THE USE OF LIQUOR AND PERSUASION, INDUCED ELMORE TO SEEK A
TERMINATION OF THE ACTION.  NYE DIRECTED HIS OWN LAWYER TO PREPARE THE
LETTERS TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND TO GUTHRIE AND TO PREPARE A FINAL
ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNT TO BE FILED IN THE LOCAL PROBATE COURT.  NYE
TOOK ELMORE TO THE PROBATE COURT, HAD HIM DISCHARGED AS ADMINISTRATOR,
AND PAID THE CLERK A FEE OF $1.  HE THEN TOOK ELMORE TO THE POSTOFFCE,
REGISTERED THE LETTERS AND PAID THE POSTAGE.  ELMORE, HOWEVER, WAS NOT
PROMISED OR PAID ANYTHING.  THESE EVENTS TOOK PLACE MORE THAN 100 MILES
FROM DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT WAS LOCATED. 

ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1939, GUTHRIE FILED A MOTION  FN2  ASKING FOR AN
ORDER REQUIRING NYE TO SHOW CAUSE "WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE ATTACHED AND
HELD AS FOR CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT."  FN3  THE COURT ISSUED A SHOW
CAUSE ORDER TO NYE AND MAYERS WHO FILED THEIR ANSWERS.  THERE WAS A
HEARING.  EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED AND ARGUMENT WAS HEARD ON MOTIONS TO
DISMISS.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE WRITING OF THE LETTERS AND THE
FILING OF THE FINAL ACCOUNT WERE PROCURED BY NYE "FOR THE EXPRESS AND
DEFINITE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE PROSECUTION OF THE CIVIL ACTION IN
THE FEDERAL COURT AND WITH INTENT TO OBSTRUCT AND TO PREVENT THE TRIAL
OF THE CASE ON ITS MERITS"; AND THAT THE CONDUCT OF NYE AND MAYERS "DID
OBSTRUCT AND IMPEDE THE DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THIS CAUSE;
THAT THE CONDUCT HAS CAUSED A LONG DELAY, SEVERAL HEARINGS AND ENORMOUS
EXPENSE."  IT ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THEIR CONDUCT WAS "MISBEHAVIOR SO
NEAR TO THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE" AND ADJUDGED EACH GUILTY OF CONTEMPT.  IT ORDERED NYE TO PAY
THE COSTS OF THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING $500 TO GUTHRIE, AND A
FINE OF $500; AND IT ORDERED MAYERS TO PAY A FINE OF $250.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FILED ITS FINDING OF FACTS AND JUDGMENT ON FEBRUARY 8,
1940.  ON MARCH 15, 1940, PETITIONERS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE
JUDGMENT.  FN4  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT JUDGMENT. 
FN5  113 F.2D 1006.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BECAUSE THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS UNDER SEC. 268 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE TO PUNISH CONTEMPTS RAISED MATTERS OF GRAVE IMPORTANCE. 

WE ARE MET AT THE THRESHOLD WITH A QUESTION AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OVER THE APPEAL.  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES
THAT IF THIS WAS A CASE OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS
EFFECTIVE UNDER RULE 73 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  IT ARGUES,
HOWEVER, THAT THE CONTEMPT WAS CRIMINAL - IN WHICH CASE THE APPEAL WAS
NOT TIMELY IF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES GOVERN,  FN6  AND NOT MADE IN
THE PROPER FORM IF SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925(43 STAT.
936, 940, 45 STAT. 54, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 230) IS APPLICABLE.  FN7 

WE DO NOT THINK THIS WAS A CASE OF CIVIL CONTEMPT.  WE RECENTLY
STATED IN MCCRONE V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 61, 64, "WHILE PARTICULAR
ACTS DO NOT ALWAYS READILY LEND THEMSELVES TO CLASSIFICATION AS CIVIL
OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS, A CONTEMPT IS CONSIDERED CIVIL WHEN THE
PUNISHMENT IS WHOLLY REMEDIAL, SERVES ONLY THE PURPOSES OF THE
COMPLAINANT, AND IS NOT INTENDED AS A DETERRENT TO OFFENSES AGAINST THE
PUBLIC."  THE FACTS OF THIS CASE DO NOT MEET THAT STANDARD.  WHILE THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT WERE ENTITLED IN ELMORE'S ACTION AND
THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT A PARTY UNTIL THE APPEAL, THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES
THOUGH RELEVANT (GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 445
446) ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE CONTEMPT.  THE FACT
THAT NYE WAS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDING, INCLUDING $500
TO GUTHRIE, IS ALSO NOT DECISIVE.  AS MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS STATED IN
UNION TOOL CO. V. WILSON, 259 U.S. 107, 110, "WHERE A FINE IS IMPOSED
PARTLY AS COMPENSATION TO THE COMPLAINANT AND PARTLY AS PUNISHMENT, THE
CRIMINAL FEATURE OF THE ORDER IS DOMINANT AND FIXES ITS CHARACTER FOR
PURPOSES OF REVIEW."  THE ORDER IMPOSES UNCONDITIONAL FINES PAYABLE TO
THE UNITED STATES.  IT AWARDS NO RELIEF TO A PRIVATE SUITOR.  THE
PRAYER FOR RELIEF  FN8  AND THE ACTS CHARGED  FN9  CARRY THE CRIMINAL
HALLMARK.  CF. GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., SUPRA, P. 449.  THEY
CLEARLY DO NOT REVEAL ANY PURPOSE TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT "IN AID OF THE
ADJUDICATION SOUGHT IN THE PRINCIPAL SUIT."  LAMB V. CRAMER, 285 U.S.
217, 220.  WHEN THERE IS ADDED THE "SIGNIFICANT" FACT (BESSETTE V. W.B.
CONKEY CO., 194 U.S. 324, 329) THAT NYE AND MAYERS WERE STRANGERS, NOT
PARTIES, TO ELMORE'S ACTION, THERE CAN BE NO REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE
PUNITIVE CHARACTER OF THE ORDER WAS DOMINANT. 

WE COME THEN TO THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  WE DISAGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS CONTENTION THAT THE
APPEAL IN THIS CASE WAS GOVERNED BY THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES.  THOSE
RULES WERE PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF MARCH
8, 1934(48 STAT. 399; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 723A) WHICH PROVIDED, INTER ALIA,
THAT THIS COURT SHOULD HAVE "THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE, FROM TIME TO TIME,
RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO ANY OR ALL PROCEEDINGS
AFTER VERDICT, OR FINDING OF GUILT BY THE COURT IF A JURY HAS BEEN
WAIVED, OR PLEA OF GUILTY, IN CRIMINAL CASES."  THE RULES WERE ADOPTED
"AS THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN ALL PROCEEDINGS AFTER PLEA
OF GUILTY, VERDICT OF GUILT BY A JURY OR FINDING OF GUILT BY THE TRIAL
COURT WHERE A JURY IS WAIVED, IN CRIMINAL CASES."  292 U.S. 661.  IN
THIS CASE THERE WAS NO PLEA OF GUILTY, THERE WAS NO VERDICT OF GUILT BY
A JURY, AND THERE WAS NO FINDING OF GUILT BY THE COURT WHERE A JURY WAS
WAIVED.  TO BE SURE, THE RULES AND THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE "IN CRIMINAL
CASES."  BUT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE QUALIFYING
LANGUAGE OF THE RULES DESIGNATES MERELY THE STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
"IN CRIMINAL CASES" WHEN THE RULES BECOME APPLICABLE.  IT IS OUR VIEW
THAT THE RULES DESCRIBE THE KINDS OF CASES TO WHICH THEY ARE TO BE
APPLIED.  THE ACT OF MARCH 8, 1934 AMENDED THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 24,
1933(47 STAT. 904) WHICH GAVE THIS COURT RULE-MAKING POWER "WITH
RESPECT TO ANY OR ALL PROCEEDINGS AFTER VERDICT IN CRIMINAL CASES." 
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE AMENDMENT IN
1934, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, WAS MADE BECAUSE "IT WOULD NOT SEEM TO
BE DESIRABLE THAT THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT TIMES AND MANNER OF
PROCEDURE IN CASES OF APPEAL WHERE THERE IS A VERDICT OF A JURY AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM CASES IN WHICH THERE IS A FINDING OF GUILT BY THE
COURT ON THE WAIVER OF A JURY."  H. REP. NO. 858, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.,
P. 1; S. REP. NO. 257, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 1.  IN LIGHT OF THIS
HISTORY AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDER PROMULGATING THE RULES WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE CATEGORIES OF CASES EMBRACED IN THE RULES CANNOT BE
EXPANDED BY INTERPRETATION TO INCLUDE THIS TYPE OF CASE. 

THAT CONCLUSION MEANS THAT THIS APPEAL WAS GOVERNED BY SEC. 8(C) OF
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925.  THE COURT IS EQUALLY DIVIDED IN OPINION
AS TO WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN ABSENCE OF AN
APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE APPEAL, HAD THE POWER TO DECIDE THE
CASE ON THE MERITS.  HENCE THE ACTION OF THAT COURT IN TAKING
JURISDICTION OVER THE APPEAL IS AFFIRMED. 

WE COME THEN TO THE MERITS. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CONDUCT OF PETITIONERS CONSTITUTED
"MISBEHAVIOR  ...  SO NEAR" THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT "AS TO OBSTRUCT
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 268 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  FN10  THAT SECTION DERIVES FROM THE ACT OF MARCH 2,
1831(4 STAT. 487).  THE ACT OF 1789(1 STAT. 73, 83) PROVIDED THAT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES "SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO PUNISH BY FINE
OR IMPRISONMENT, AT THE DISCRETION OF SAID COURTS, ALL CONTEMPTS OF
AUTHORITY IN ANY CAUSE OR HEARING BEFORE THE SAME."  ABUSES AROSE,
FN11  CULMINATING IN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JAMES H. PECK, A
FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE, WHO HAD IMPRISONED AND DISBARRED ONE LAWLESS
FOR PUBLISHING A CRITICISM OF ONE OF HIS OPINIONS IN A CASE WHICH WAS
ON APPEAL.  JUDGE PECK WAS ACQUITTED.  FN12  BUT THE HISTORY OF THAT
EPISODE MAKES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IT SERVED AS THE OCCASION FOR A
DRASTIC DELIMITATION BY CONGRESS OF THE BROAD UNDEFINED POWER OF THE
INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS UNDER THE ACT OF 1789. 

THE DAY AFTER JUDGE PECK'S ACQUITTAL CONGRESS TOOK STEPS TO CHANGE
THE ACT OF 1789.  THE HOUSE DIRECTED ITS COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY "TO
INQUIRE INTO THE EXPEDIENCY OF DEFINING BY STATUTE ALL OFFENCES WHICH
MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPTS OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
ALSO TO LIMIT THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME."  FN13  NINE DAYS LATER
JAMES BUCHANAN BROUGHT IN A BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF MARCH 2,
1831.  HE HAD CHARGE OF THE PROSECUTION OF JUDGE PECK AND DURING THE
TRIAL HAD TOLD THE SENATE:  FN14  "I WILL VENTURE TO PREDICT, THAT
WHATEVER MAY BE THE DECISION OF THE SENATE UPON THIS IMPEACHMENT, JUDGE
PECK HAS BEEN THE LAST MAN IN THE UNITED STATES TO EXERCISE THIS POWER,
AND MR. LAWLESS HAS BEEN ITS LAST VICTIM."  THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1831,
"DECLARATORY OF THE LAW CONCERNING CONTEMPTS OF COURT," CONTAINED TWO

"THAT THE POWER OF THE SEVERAL COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO ISSUE
ATTACHMENTS AND INFLICT SUMMARY PUNISHMENTS FOR CONTEMPTS OF COURT,
SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXTEND TO ANY CASES EXCEPT THE MISBEHAVIOUR
OF ANY PERSON OR PERSONS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SAID COURTS, OR SO NEAR
THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE MISBEHAVIOUR
OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS OF THE SAID COURTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL
TRANSACTIONS, AND THE DISOBEDIENCE OR RESISTANCE BY ANY OFFICER OF THE
SAID COURTS, PARTY, JUROR, WITNESS, OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, TO
ANY LAWFUL WRIT, PROCESS, ORDER, RULE, DECREE, OR COMMAND OF THE SAID
COURTS." 

SEC. 2 OF THAT ACT, FROM WHICH SEC. 135 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE  FN15
(35 STAT. 1113, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 241) DERIVES, PROVIDED: 

"THAT IF ANY PERSON OR PERSONS SHALL, CORRUPTLY, OR BY THREATS OR
FORCE, ENDEAVOUR TO INFLUENCE, INTIMIDATE, OR IMPEDE ANY JUROR,
WITNESS, OR OFFICER, IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE
DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTY, OR SHALL, CORRUPTLY, OR BY THREATS OR FORCE,
OBSTRUCT, OR IMPEDE, OR ENDEAVOUR TO OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE, THE DUE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THEREIN, EVERY PERSON OR PERSONS, SO
OFFENDING, SHALL BE LIABLE TO PROSECUTION THEREFOR, BY INDICTMENT, AND
SHALL, ON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE PUNISHED, BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR BY IMPRISONMENT, NOT EXCEEDING THREE MONTHS, OR
BOTH, ACCORDING TO THE NATURE AND AGGRAVATION OF THE OFFENCE." 

IN 1918 THIS COURT IN TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S.
402, 418, 419, STATED THAT "THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT" THAT THE FIRST
GRANTED AND IMPOSED NO LIMITATIONS NOT ALREADY EXISTING"; AND THAT IT
WAS "INTENDED TO PREVENT THE DANGER BY REMINISCENCE OF WHAT HAD GONE
BEFORE, OF ATTEMPTS TO EXERCISE A POWER NOT POSSESSED WHICH  ...  HAD
BEEN SOMETIMES DONE IN THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER."  THE
INACCURACY OF THAT HISTORIC OBSERVATION HAS BEEN PLAINLY DEMONSTRATED. 
FRANKFURTER & LANDIS, POWER OF CONGRESS OVER PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL
CONTEMPTS IN "INFERIOR" FEDERAL COURTS - A STUDY IN SEPARATION OF
POWERS, 37 HARV. L. REV. 1010.  CONGRESS WAS RESPONDING TO GRIEVANCES
ARISING OUT OF THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER AS DRAMATIZED BY THE PECK
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.  CONGRESS WAS INTENT ON CURTAILING THAT
POWER.  THE TWO SECTIONS OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1831 WHEN READ
TOGETHER, AS THEY MUST BE, CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE CATEGORY OF
CRIMINAL CASES WHICH COULD BE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY WAS NARROWLY
CONFINED.  THAT THE PREVIOUSLY UNDEFINED POWER OF THE COURTS WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILED BY THAT ACT WAS EARLY RECOGNIZED BY LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS.  UNITED STATES V. HOLMES, FED. CAS. NO. 15,383, AT P.
363; EX PARTE POULSON, FED. CAS. NO. 11,350; UNITED STATES V. NEW
BEDFORD BRIDGE, FED. CAS. NO. 15,867, AT P. 104; UNITED STATES V.
SEELEY, FED. CAS. NO. 16,248A; UNITED STATES V. EMERSON, 4 CRANCH
(C.C.)  188; FED. CAS. NO. 15,050; KENT'S COMMENTARIES (3RD ED. 1836)
PP. 300-301.  AND WHEN THE ACT CAME BEFORE THIS COURT IN EX PARTE
ROBINSON, 19 WALL.  505, 511, MR. JUSTICE FIELD, SPEAKING FOR THE
COURT, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT HAD LIMITED THE POWER OF THOSE COURTS.  AND
SEE EX PARTE BRADLEY, 7 WALL.  364, 374.  SO FAR AS THE DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT ARE CONCERNED, THAT VIEW PERSISTED TO THE TIME WHEN TOLEDO
NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WAS DECIDED.  SEE EX PARTE WALL,
107 U.S. 265; SAVIN, PETITIONER, 131 U.S. 267, 276; CUDDY, PETITIONER,
131 U.S. 280, 285; EILENBECKER V. DISTRICT COURT, 134 U.S. 31, 38. 

MINDFUL OF THAT HISTORY, WE COME TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 268 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE IN LIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THIS CASE.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE WORDS "SO NEAR THERETO" HAVE A GEOGRAPHICAL OR
A CAUSAL CONNOTATION.  READ IN THEIR CONTEXT AND IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR
ORDINARY MEANING, WE CONCLUDE THAT THEY ARE TO BE CONSTRUED AS
GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS.  IN EX PARTE ROBINSON, SUPRA, AT P. 511, IT WAS
SAID THAT AS A RESULT OF THOSE PROVISIONS THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR
CONTEMPTS "CAN ONLY BE EXERCISED TO INSURE ORDER AND DECORUM" IN
COURT.  "MISBEHAVIOR OF ANY PERSON IN THEIR PRESENCE" PLAINLY FALLS IN
THAT CATEGORY.  EX PARTE TERRY, 128 U.S. 289.  AND IN SAVIN,
PETITIONER, SUPRA, IT WAS ALSO HELD TO INCLUDE ATTEMPTED BRIBES OF A
WITNESS, ONE IN THE JURY ROOM AND WITHIN A FEW FEET OF THE COURT ROOM
AND ONE IN THE HALLWAY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE COURT ROOM.  SEE COOKE
V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 517.  THE PHRASE "SO NEAR THERETO AS TO
OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE" LIKEWISE CONNOTES THAT THE
MISBEHAVIOR MUST BE IN THE VICINITY OF THE COURT.  NELLES & KING,
CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 28 COL. L. REV. 525,
530.  IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT THE MISBEHAVIOR CHARGED HAS SOME DIRECT
RELATION TO THE WORK OF THE COURT.  "NEAR" IN THIS CONTEXT, JUXTAPOSED
TO "PRESENCE," SUGGESTS PHYSICAL PROXIMITY NOT RELEVANCY.  IN FACT, IF
THE WORDS "SO NEAR THERETO" ARE NOT READ IN THE GEOGRAPHICAL SENSE,
THEY COME CLOSE, AS THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS, TO BEING SURPLUSAGE.  THERE
MAY, OF COURSE, BE MANY TYPES OF "MISBEHAVIOR" WHICH WILL "OBSTRUCT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE" BUT WHICH MAY NOT BE "IN" OR "NEAR" TO THE
"PRESENCE" OF THE COURT.  BROAD CATEGORIES OF SUCH ACTS, HOWEVER, WERE
EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED IN SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1831 AND
SUBSEQUENTLY IN SEC. 135 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT
AN ACT OF MISBEHAVIOR THOUGH COVERED BY THE LATTER PROVISIONS MAY ALSO
BE A CONTEMPT IF COMMITTED IN THE "PRESENCE" OF THE COURT.  SAVIN,
PETITIONER, SUPRA.  AND SEE SINCLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 749. 
YET IN VIEW OF THE HISTORY OF THOSE PROVISIONS, METICULOUS REGARD FOR
THOSE SEPARATE CATEGORIES OF OFFENSES MUST BE HAD, SO THAT THE
INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS NO RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL WILL BE NARROWLY
RESTRICTED.  IF "SO NEAR THERETO" BE GIVEN A CAUSAL MEANING, THEN SEC.
268 BY THE PROCESS OF JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION WILL HAVE REGAINED MUCH OF
THE GENERALITY WHICH CONGRESS IN 1831 EMPHATICALLY INTENDED TO REMOVE. 
SEE THOMAS, PROBLEMS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT (1934) C. VII.  IF THAT
PHRASE BE NOT RESTRICTED TO ACTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE COURT BUT BE
ALLOWED TO EMBRACE ACTS WHICH HAVE A "REASONABLE TENDENCY" TO "OBSTRUCT
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE" (TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, P. 421) THEN THE CONDITIONS WHICH CONGRESS SOUGHT TO ALLEVIATE
IN 1831 HAVE LARGELY BEEN RESTORED.  SEE FOX, THE HISTORY OF CONTEMPT
OF COURT (1927) C. IX.  THE RESULT WILL BE THAT THE OFFENSES WHICH
CONGRESS DESIGNATED AS TRUE CRIMES UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2,
1831 WILL BE ABSORBED AS CONTEMPTS WHEREVER THEY MAY TAKE PLACE.  WE
CANNOT BY THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTIONS
WHICH CONGRESS DREW. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE ONLY WITH A PROBLEM OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION,
NOT WITH A QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF THE
CONTEMPT POWER.  BUT THAT IS NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD ADHERE TO THE
CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
AND LEAVE TO CONGRESS THE TASK OF DELIMITING THE STATUTE AS THUS
INTERPRETED.  THOUGH THE STATUTE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR
OVER A CENTURY, IT HAS NOT RECEIVED DURING ITS LONG LIFE THE BROAD
INTERPRETATION WHICH THAT DECISION GAVE IT.  RATHER, THAT BROAD
CONSTRUCTION IS RELATIVELY RECENT.  SO FAR AS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
ARE CONCERNED, THE STATUTE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY SUCH EXPANDED
INTERPRETATION UNTIL TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WAS
DECIDED IN 1918.  THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT PRIOR TO 1918 PLAINLY
RECOGNIZED, AS WE HAVE NOTED, THAT CONGRESS THROUGH THE ACT OF MARCH 2,
1831 HAD IMPOSED A LIMITATION ON THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPTS - A
VIEW CONSISTENT WITH THE HOLDINGS OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS DURING
THE YEARS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE.  THE
EARLY VIEW WAS BEST EXPRESSED IN EX PARTE POULSON, SUPRA, DECIDED IN
1835.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1831 GAVE THE
COURT NO POWER TO PUNISH A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHER FOR CONTEMPT FOR
PUBLISHING AN "OFFENSIVE" ARTICLE RELATIVE TO A PENDING CASE.  IT WAS
HELD THAT THE FIRST SECTION OF THE ACT "ALLUDES TO THAT KIND OF
MISBEHAVIOR WHICH IS CALCULATED TO DISTURB THE ORDER OF THE COURT, SUCH
AS NOISE, TUMULTUOUS OR DISORDERLY BEHAVIOR, EITHER IN OR SO NEAR TO IT
AS TO PREVENT ITS PROCEEDING IN THE ORDERLY DISPATCH OF ITS BUSINESS." 
P. 1208.  THAT WAS A PLAIN RECOGNITION THAT THE WORDS "SO NEAR THERETO"
CONNOTED PHYSICAL PROXIMITY.  AND PRIOR TO 1918 THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT DID NOT DEPART FROM THAT THEORY, HOWEVER THEY MAY HAVE EXPANDED
THE EARLIER NOTIONS OF "MISBEHAVIOR."  TO BE SURE, THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS IN THE INTERVENING YEARS HAD EXPRESSED A CONTRARIETY OF VIEWS ON
THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE  FN16  AND SOME WERE GIVING IT AN EXPANDED
SCOPE  FN17  WHICH WAS LATER APPROVED IN TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  BUT IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT NOT UNTIL AFTER THE TURN OF
THIS CENTURY DID THE FIRST LINE OF FRACTURE APPEAR SUGGESTING THAT THE
STATUTE AUTHORIZED SUMMARY PUNISHMENT FOR PUBLICATION.  FN18  THUS THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS STATUTE AND ITS CAREER DEMONSTRATE THAT
THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF CORRECTING A PLAIN MISREADING OF
LANGUAGE AND HISTORY SO AS TO GIVE FULL RESPECT TO THE MEANING WHICH
CONGRESS UNMISTAKABLY INTENDED THE STATUTE TO HAVE.  ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, ITS INTERPRETATION PRIOR TO 1918, THE CHARACTER AND NATURE OF
THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, ADMONISH US NOT TO GIVE RENEWED VITALITY TO
THE DOCTRINE OF TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, BUT TO
RECOGNIZE THE SUBSTANTIAL LEGISLATIVE LIMITATIONS ON THE CONTEMPT POWER
WHICH WERE OCCASIONED BY THE JUDGE PECK EPISODE.  AND THEY NECESSITATE
AN ADHERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE SO THAT,
UNLESS ITS REQUIREMENTS ARE CLEARLY SATISFIED, AN OFFENSE WILL BE DEALT
WITH AS THE LAW DEALS WITH THE RUN OF ILLEGAL ACTS.  CF. MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES DISSENTING IN TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP.
422 ET SEQ. 

THE CONDUCT OF PETITIONERS (IF THE FACTS FOUND ARE TAKEN TO BE TRUE)
WAS HIGHLY REPREHENSIBLE.  IT IS OF A KIND WHICH CORRUPTS THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS AND IMPEDES THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  BUT THE FACT THAT
IT IS NOT REACHABLE THROUGH THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE OF CONTEMPT DOES NOT
MEAN THAT SUCH CONDUCT CAN PROCEED WITH IMPUNITY.  SECTION 135 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE, A DESCENDANT OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1831,
EMBRACES A BROAD CATEGORY OF OFFENSES.  AND CERTAINLY IT CANNOT BE
DENIED THAT THE CONDUCT HERE IN QUESTION COMES FAR CLOSER TO THE FAMILY
OF OFFENSES THERE DESCRIBED THAN IT DOES TO THE MORE LIMITED CLASSES OF
CONTEMPTS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THE ACTS
COMPLAINED OF TOOK PLACE MILES FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE EVIL
INFLUENCE WHICH AFFECTED ELMORE WAS IN NO POSSIBLE SENSE IN THE
"PRESENCE" OF THE COURT OR "NEAR THERETO."  SO FAR AS THE CRIME OF
CONTEMPT IS CONCERNED, THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE RECEIVED ELMORE'S LETTER
IS INCONSEQUENTIAL. 

WE MAY CONCEDE THAT THERE WAS AN OBSTRUCTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE, AS EVIDENCED BY THE LONG DELAY AND LARGE EXPENSE WHICH THE
REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT OF PETITIONERS ENTAILED.  AND IT WOULD FOLLOW
THAT UNDER THE "REASONABLE TENDENCY" RULE OF TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE COURT BELOW DID NOT ERR IN AFFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  BUT FOR THE REASONS STATED THAT DECISION MUST
BE OVERRULED.  THE FACT THAT IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT THERE WAS AN
OBSTRUCTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE DID NOT BRING THE
CONDEMNED CONDUCT WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE COURT IN ANY NORMAL
MEANING OF THE TERM.  IT WAS NOT MISBEHAVIOR IN THE VICINITY OF THE
COURT DISRUPTING TO QUIET AND ORDER OR ACTUALLY INTERRUPTING THE COURT
IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS.  CF. SAVIN, PETITIONER, SUPRA, AT P.
278.  HENCE, IT WAS NOT EMBRACED WITHIN SEC. 268 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 
IF PETITIONERS CAN BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR MISCONDUCT, IT MUST BE UNDER
THE CRIMINAL CODE WHERE THEY WILL BE AFFORDED THE NORMAL SAFEGUARDS
SURROUNDING CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS
REVERSED. 

FN1  NYE'S DAUGHTER WAS MARRIED TO THE SON OF COUNCIL, ONE OF THE
DEFENDANTS IN THE ELMORE ACTION.  MAYERS (MEARES) WAS NYE'S TENANT WHO
WAS ACQUAINTED WITH ELMORE. 

FN2  THE COURT HAD DEFERRED ACTION ON ELMORE'S INSPIRED REQUEST FOR A
DISMISSAL AT THE REQUEST OF GUTHRIE AND PENDING AN INVESTIGATION BY
HIM.  ON JULY 20, 1939, NYE AND ELMORE'S SON WERE EXAMINED UNDER OATH
BEFORE THE COURT AS TO THE EPISODE.  ON AUGUST 29, 1939, DEFENDANTS
MOVED TO DISMISS ELMORE'S ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD BEEN
DISCHARGED AS ADMINISTRATOR.  A HEARING WAS HELD ON THAT MOTION AND
ELMORE TESTIFIED RESPECTING HIS DISCHARGE.  THE EVIDENCE SO ADDUCED WAS
THE BASIS OF THE MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON SEPTEMBER 30,
1939. 

FN3  THE MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ALSO PRAYED:  "2.  THAT
THE COURT CALL TO THE ATTENTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THIS DISTRICT THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CAUSE WITH REQUEST TO THE
SAID UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE THE QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT A CONSPIRACY WAS ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN R. H. NYE,
W. E. TIMBERLAKE AND L. C. MAYERS, ALL OF ROBESON COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, TO DEFEAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND THE ORDERLY
PROCESS OF THIS COURT AND FURTHER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BEEN
GUILTY OF SUBORNATION OF PERJURY AND FURTHER WHETHER THEY CONSPIRED TO
PRACTICE A FRAUD AND DID PRACTICE A FRAUD UPON THIS COURT.  3.  THAT
THIS MATTER THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THIS DISTRICT BE SUBMITTED AND INQUIRED INTO BY THE GRAND JURY FOR
SUCH ACTION AND ATTENTION THE GRAND JURY SHALL DEEM PROPER.  4.  FOR
SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER PROCEDURE AS TO THIS COURT MAY SEEM PROPER." 

FN4  ON MARCH 13, 1940, ELMORE, WITH THE ASSENT OF GUTHRIE, SUBMITTED
TO A JUDGMENT OF VOLUNTARY NON-SUIT IN THE ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH
UPON PAYMENT OF A "SUBSTANTIAL SUM." 

FN5  THE UNITED STATES WAS MADE A PARTY WHEN THE CASE WAS DOCKETED IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT ENTERED ITS APPEARANCE BUT ITS
ATTORNEYS APPARENTLY TOOK NO FURTHER PART IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THAT
COURT. 

FN6  PROMULGATED MAY 7, 1934.  RULE III PROVIDES THAT AN APPEAL SHALL
BE TAKEN WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OR OF
AN ORDER DENYING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE
NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED MORE THAN A MONTH AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  IN CASE THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES GOVERN, THE
GOVERNMENT ALSO POINTS OUT THAT RULE XI REQUIRES THAT PETITIONS FOR
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT SHALL BE MADE
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT.  IN THE
PRESENT CASE THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS FILED ABOUT TWO
MONTHS AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

FN7  "NO APPEAL INTENDED TO BRING ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE BEFORE A
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR REVIEW SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS APPLICATION
THEREFOR BE DULY MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY OF SUCH
JUDGMENT OR DECREE." 

FN8  SUPRA, NOTE 3. 

FN9  ON OCTOBER 30, 1939, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED MOTIONS TO
DISMISS THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE SAYING THAT "THE QUESTION TO BE
DETERMINED IS WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS, OR EITHER OF THEM, IS GUILTY OF
MISBEHAVIOR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT, OR SO NEAR THERETO TO
OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THIS COURT, AND THAT IS A
MATTER OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE EVIDENCE AND NOT ON MOTION." 

FN10  THIS SECTION PROVIDES:  "THE SAID COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO
IMPOSE AND ADMINISTER ALL NECESSARY OATHS, AND TO PUNISH, BY FINE OR
IMPRISONMENT, AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, CONTEMPTS OF THEIR
AUTHORITY:  PROVIDED, THAT SUCH POWER TO PUNISH CONTEMPTS SHALL NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO EXTEND TO ANY CASES EXCEPT THE MISBEHAVIOR OF ANY PERSON
IN THEIR PRESENCE, OR SO NEAR THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE, THE MISBEHAVIOR OF ANY OF THE OFFICERS OF SAID COURTS IN
THEIR OFFICIAL TRANSACTIONS, AND THE DISOBEDIENCE OR RESISTANCE BY ANY
SUCH OFFICER, OR BY ANY PARTY, JUROR, WITNESS, OR OTHER PERSON TO ANY
LAWFUL WRIT, PROCESS, ORDER, RULE, DECREE, OR COMMAND OF THE SAID
COURTS." 

FN11  SEE NELLES & KING, CONTEMPT BY PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED
STATES, 28 COL. L. REV. 401, 409 ET SEQ. 

FN12  STANSBURY, REPORT OF THE TRIAL OF JAMES H. PECK (1833). 

FN13  7 CONG. DEB., 21ST CONG., 2D SESS., FEB. 1, 1831, COLS.  560
561.  AND SEE HOUSE JOURNAL, 21ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 245. 

FN14  STANSBURY, OP. CIT. P. 430. 

FN15  THAT SECTION PRESENTLY PROVIDES:  "WHOEVER CORRUPTLY, OR BY
THREATS OR FORCE, OR BY ANY THREATENING LETTER OR COMMUNICATION, SHALL
ENDEAVOR TO INFLUENCE, INTIMIDATE, OR IMPEDE ANY WITNESS, IN ANY COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES OR BEFORE ANY UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OR
OFFICER ACTING AS SUCH COMMISSIONER, OR ANY GRAND OR PETIT JUROR, OR
OFFICER IN OR OF ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OFFICER WHO MAY BE
SERVING AT ANY EXAMINATION OR OTHER PROCEEDING BEFORE ANY UNITED STATES
COMMISSIONER OR OFFICER ACTING AS SUCH COMMISSIONER, IN THE DISCHARGE
OF HIS DUTY, OR WHO CORRUPTLY OR BY THREATS OR FORCE, OR BY ANY
THREATENING LETTER OR COMMUNICATION, SHALL INFLUENCE, OBSTRUCT, OR
IMPEDE, OR ENDEAVOR TO INFLUENCE, OBSTRUCT, OR IMPEDE, THE DUE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THEREIN, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN ONE
THOUSAND DOLLARS, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 

FN16  THAT "SO NEAR THERETO" IS A GEOGRAPHICAL TERM SEE EX PARTE
SCHULENBURG, 25 F. 211, 214(1885); HILLMON V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 79
F. 749(1897); MORSE V. MONTANA ORE-PURCHASING CO., 105 F. 337,
347(1900); CUYLER V. ATLANTIC & N.C.R. CO., 131 F. 95(1904).  AND SEE
NELLES & KING, OP. CIT., PP. 532, 539-542. 

FN17  FOR CASES EXPANDING THE CONCEPT OF "PRESENCE" AND "SO NEAR
THERETO" SEE IN RE BRULE, 71 F. 943(1895); MCCAULLY V. UNITED STATES,
25 APP. D.C. 404(1905); UNITED STATES V. ZAVELO, 177 F. 536(1910); KIRK
V. UNITED STATES, 192 F. 273(1911); IN RE INDEPENDENT PUB. CO., 228 F.
787(1915). 

FN18  NELLES & KING, OP. CIT., P. 539 CITING EX PARTE MCLEOD, 120 F.
130(1903) AND UNITED STATES V. HUFF, 206 F. 700(1913). 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

THE COURT BELOW DID NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION, MOOTED HERE, WHETHER IT
ACQUIRED JURISDICTION UNDER THE APPEAL PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE
FOUR MEMBERS OF THIS COURT ARE OF OPINION THAT IT DID.  ASSUMING FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE MERITS, I THINK
ITS DECISION WAS RIGHT AND THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

WE ARE CONCERNED HERE ONLY WITH THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF AN ACT
OF CONGRESS WHICH HAS STOOD UNAMENDED ON THE STATUTE BOOKS FOR ONE
HUNDRED AND TEN YEARS.  IT GIVES STATUTORY RECOGNITION TO THE POWER OF
THE FEDERAL COURTS TO PUNISH SUMMARILY FOR CONTEMPT AND PROVIDES THAT
THAT POWER "SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXTEND TO ANY CASES EXCEPT THE
MISBEHAVIOR OF ANY PERSON OR PERSONS IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SAID
COURTS, OR SO NEAR THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE." 

THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THIS STATUTE HAS CURTAILED AN AUTHORITY
WHICH FEDERAL COURTS EXERCISED BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT.  CONCEDEDLY IT
HAS.  THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER IT HAS SO LIMITED THAT
AUTHORITY AS TO PRECLUDE SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF THE CONTEMPTUOUS ACTION
OF PETITIONER WHICH, IT IS NOT DENIED, IS "MISBEHAVIOR" ALTHOUGH NOT IN
THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT, AND WHICH, IT IS ADMITTED, SERIOUSLY
OBSTRUCTED THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN A CAUSE PENDING IN THE
COURT.  THE QUESTION IS IMPORTANT, FOR IF CONDUCT SUCH AS THIS RECORD
DISCLOSES MAY NOT BE DEALT WITH SUMMARILY THE ONLY RECOURSE OF A
FEDERAL COURT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTEGRITY OF PROCEEDINGS
PENDING BEFORE IT, FROM ACTS OF CORRUPTION AND INTIMIDATION OUTSIDE THE
COURT ROOM, IS TO AWAIT THE INDICTMENT OF THE OFFENDERS, WITH OR
WITHOUT ADJOURNMENT OF THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS AS THE EXIGENCIES OF THE
CASE MAY REQUIRE. 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE DISTANCE OF THE PRESENT CONTEMPTUOUS ACTION
FROM THE COURT IN MILES DID NOT LESSEN ITS INJURIOUS EFFECT, AND IN
THAT SENSE IT WAS "NEAR" ENOUGH TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT SUPPORTS ITS CONCLUSION ON THE
GROUND THAT "NEAR" MEANS ONLY GEOGRAPHICAL NEARNESS AND SO IMPLICITLY
HOLDS THAT NO CONTEMPT IS SUMMARILY PUNISHABLE UNLESS IT IS EITHER IN
THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT OR IS SOME KIND OF PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE WITH
OR DISTURBANCE OF ITS GOOD ORDER, SO THAT THE NEARNESS TO THE COURT OF
THE CONTEMPTUOUS ACT HAS AN EFFECT IN OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE WHICH IT
WOULD NOT HAVE IF IT TOOK PLACE AT A MORE DISTANT POINT.  FROM ALL THIS
IT SEEMS TO FOLLOW THAT THE SURREPTITIOUS TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES,
JURORS OR PARTIES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT, ALTHOUGH UNKNOWN TO IT,
WOULD BE SUMMARILY PUNISHABLE BECAUSE IN ITS PRESENCE, BUT THAT IF IT
TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE COURT ROOM OR WHILE THE WITNESS, JUROR OR PARTY
WAS ON HIS WAY TO ATTEND COURT IT WOULD NOT BE PUNISHABLE BECAUSE
GEOGRAPHICAL NEARNESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT IN MAKING THE CONTEMPTUOUS
ACTION AN OBSTRUCTION TO JUSTICE. 

THESE CONTENTIONS ASSUME THAT "SO NEAR THERETO" CAN ONLY REFER TO
GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION AND THEY IGNORE THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE.  "NEAR" MAY CONNOTE PROXIMITY
IN CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP AS WELL AS PROXIMITY IN SPACE, AND UNDER THIS
STATUTE, AS THE OPINION SEEMS TO RECOGNIZE, EVEN THE PROXIMITY TO THE
COURT, IN SPACE, OF THE CONTEMPTUOUS ACTION, IS OF SIGNIFICANCE ONLY IN
ITS CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE OBSTRUCTIONS TO JUSTICE WHICH RESULT
FROM DISORDER OR PUBLIC DISTURBANCES.  THIS COURT HAS HITHERTO, WITHOUT
A DISSENTING VOICE, REGARDED THE PHRASE "SO NEAR THERETO" AS CONNOTING
AND INCLUDING THOSE CONTEMPTS WHICH ARE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF ACTUAL
OBSTRUCTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, WHETHER BECAUSE OF THEIR
PHYSICAL NEARNESS TO THE COURT OR BECAUSE OF A CHAIN OF CAUSATION WHOSE
OPERATION IN PRODUCING THE OBSTRUCTION DEPENDS ON OTHER THAN
GEOGRAPHICAL RELATIONSHIPS TO THE COURT.  SEE SAVIN, PETITIONER, 131
U.S. 267; CUDDY, PETITIONER, 131 U.S. 280; TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402; SINCLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 749,
764, 765; CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255.  CF. MCCANN V. NEW YORK STOCK
EXCHANGE, 80 F.2D 211, 213.  CONTEMPTS WHICH OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BECAUSE
OF THEIR EFFECT ON THE GOOD ORDER AND TRANQUILLITY OF THE COURT MUST BE
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT OR GEOGRAPHICALLY NEAR ENOUGH TO HAVE THAT
EFFECT.  CONTEMPTS WHICH ARE SURREPTITIOUS OBSTRUCTIONS TO JUSTICE,
THROUGH TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES, JURORS AND THE LIKE, MUST BE
PROXIMATELY RELATED TO THE CONDEMNED EFFECT.  WE ARE POINTED TO NO
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH MILITATES AGAINST SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE. 

IN THE SAVIN, THE CRAIG, AND THE SINCLAIR CASES, AS WELL AS IN THE
TOLEDO CASE, THE CONTEMPTS WERE OF THIS LATTER KIND.  THE CONTEMPT HELD
SUMMARILY PUNISHABLE BY THIS COURT IN THE SAVIN CASE, DECIDED SIXTY
YEARS AGO, WAS THE ATTEMPTED BRIBERY OF A WITNESS AT A PLACE IN THE
COURT HOUSE BUT OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM, WITHOUT ANY DISORDER OR
DISTURBANCE OF THE COURT.  THE CONTEMPTUOUS ACTS IN THE OTHER CASES
TOOK PLACE AT POINTS DISTANT FROM THE COURT IN THE CITY WHERE IT SAT. 
IN ALL, THE INJURIOUS EFFECT ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WAS
UNRELATED TO THE DISTANCE FROM THE COURT.  IN HOLDING THAT THEY WERE
CONTEMPTS WITHIN THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION OF THE COURT THIS COURT
DEFINITELY DECIDED THAT "SO NEAR THERETO" IS NOT CONFINED TO A SPATIAL
APPLICATION WHERE THE EVIL EFFECT OF THE ALLEGED CONTEMPT DOES NOT
DEPEND UPON ITS PHYSICAL NEARNESS TO THE COURT. 

THE SAVIN AND SINCLAIR CASES WERE DECIDED BY A UNANIMOUS COURT.  THE
DISSENTING JUDGES IN THE TOLEDO AND CRAIG CASES, IN WHICH THE ACTS HELD
TO BE CONTEMPTUOUS WERE THE PUBLICATION, AT A DISTANCE FROM THE COURT,
OF COMMENTS DEROGATORY TO THE JUDGE, MADE NO CONTENTION THAT THE PHRASE
IMPOSED A GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF THE COURT.  THEIR
POSITION WAS THAT THE PARTICULAR CONTEMPTUOUS ACTS CHARGED DID NOT IN
FACT HAVE THE EFFECT OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, A CONTENTION WHICH CANNOT
BE URGED HERE.  IN THE TOLEDO CASE, JUSTICE HOLMES SAID, PAGE 423:  "I
THINK THAT 'SO NEAR AS TO OBSTRUCT' MEANS SO NEAR AS ACTUALLY TO
OBSTRUCT - AND NOT MERELY NEAR ENOUGH TO THREATEN A POSSIBLE
OBSTRUCTION."  AND IN THE CRAIG CASE, AFTER COMMENTING ON THE FACT THAT
NO CAUSE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT, HE SAID, P. 281:  "SUPPOSE THE
PETITIONER FALSELY AND UNJUSTLY CHARGED THE JUDGE WITH HAVING EXCLUDED
HIM FROM KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, HOW CAN IT BE PRETENDED THAT THE
CHARGE OBSTRUCTED THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  ...  "  COMPLETE
AGREEMENT WITH THE DISSENTS IN THESE CASES NEITHER REQUIRES THE COURT'S
DECISION HERE NOR LENDS IT ANY SUPPORT. 

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MY BRETHREN TO MAINTAIN THAT THE SECRET BRIBERY
OR INTIMIDATION OF A WITNESS IN THE COURT ROOM MAY NOT BE SUMMARILY
PUNISHED.  CF. SAVIN, SUPRA; SINCLAIR, SUPRA.  IF SO, IT IS ONLY
BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT OF THE CONTEMPTUOUS ACT IN OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE,
WHICH IS PRECISELY THE SAME IF THE BRIBERY OR INTIMIDATION TOOK PLACE
OUTSIDE THE COURT HOUSE.  IF IT MAY BE SO PUNISHED I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE
THAT CONGRESS, BY USE OF THE PHRASE "SO NEAR THERETO," INTENDED TO LAY
DOWN A DIFFERENT RULE IF THE CONTEMPTUOUS ACTS TOOK PLACE ACROSS THE
CORRIDOR, THE STREET, IN ANOTHER BLOCK, OR A MILE AWAY. 

IF THE POINT WERE MORE DOUBTFUL THAN IT SEEMS TO ME, I SHOULD STILL
THINK THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE UNDISTURBED A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE SO
LONG APPLIED AND NOT HITHERTO DOUBTED IN THIS COURT.  WE RECENTLY
DECLINED TO CONSIDER THE CONTENTION THAT THE SHERMAN ACT CAN NEVER
APPLY TO A LABOR UNION, BECAUSE OF LONG STANDING DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT TO THE CONTRARY, A CONSTRUCTION WHICH CONGRESS HAD NOT SEEN FIT
TO CHANGE.  SEE APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 487, 488. 

IN VIEW OF OUR EARLIER DECISIONS AND OF THE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES TO
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IF COURTS ARE POWERLESS TO STOP,
SUMMARILY, OBSTRUCTIONS LIKE THE PRESENT, I THINK THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
DEPARTING FROM THE LONG ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION OF THIS STATUTE SHOULD BE
LEFT TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, TO WHICH IT
RIGHTFULLY BELONGS. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
















UNITED STATES V. RESLER, 313 U.S. 57 


NO. 616.  ARGUED MARCH 14, 1941.  - DECIDED APRIL 14, 1941.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 212(B) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, WHICH SUBJECTS TO
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
TRANSFERS OF CERTIFICATES AND PERMITS, APPLIES TO A TRANSFER OF
OPERATING RIGHTS THOUGH NOT MORE THAN TWENTY MOTOR VEHICLES ARE
INVOLVED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISION OF SEC. 213(E) THAT "THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION REQUIRING AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMISSION FOR
CONSOLIDATION, MERGER, PURCHASE, LEASE, OPERATING CONTRACT, OR
ACQUISITION OF CONTROL SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MOTOR
VEHICLES INVOLVED IS NOT MORE THAN TWENTY."  P. 59. 

2.  UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE A RULE MAKING APPROVAL BY THE
COMMISSION PREREQUISITE TO AN EFFECTIVE TRANSFER OF OPERATING RIGHTS. 
P. 59. 

UNITED STATES V. RESLER, DOING BUSINESS AS RESLER TRUCK LINE AND AS
BRADY TRUCK LINE. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLORADO. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
SPECIAL PLEA IN BAR TO AN INFORMATION CHARGING VIOLATION OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT OF 1935. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL PRESENTS TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935(49 STAT. 543).  THE
FIRST IS WHETHER SEC. 213(E) PLACES BEYOND REACH OF SEC. 212(B)
TRANSFERS OF OPERATING RIGHTS WHERE NOT MORE THAN TWENTY VEHICLES ARE
INVOLVED.  THE SECOND IS WHETHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
POSSESSED STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO RULE THAT ASSENT OF THE COMMISSION IS
A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO AN EFFECTIVE TRANSFER WHICH IS SUBJECT TO SEC.
212(B). 

IN JULY, 1940, THE UNITED STATES FILED AN INFORMATION AGAINST
APPELLEE CHARGING THAT HE HAD ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER
OPERATIONS OVER A SPECIFIED ROUTE IN COLORADO WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRED BY SEC. 206(A) OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT OF 1935.  APPELLEE FILED A SPECIAL PLEA IN BAR ALLEGING IN
SUBSTANCE THAT HE HAD NOT VIOLATED SEC. 206(A) BECAUSE HE HAD ACQUIRED
THE REQUISITE CERTIFICATE FROM ONE BRADY TO WHOM IT HAD BEEN ISSUED
ORIGINALLY, AND THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
WAS NOT NECESSARY TO VALIDATE THAT TRANSFER.  THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINED THIS PLEA, AND THE UNITED STATES APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT, 34 STAT. 1246, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682.  COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT AND
APPELLEE HAVE STIPULATED THAT NOT MORE THAN TWENTY VEHICLES WERE
INVOLVED IN THE TRANSFER FROM BRADY TO APPELLEE, AND THAT THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS NOT APPROVED THAT TRANSFER. 

THE TRANSFER IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 212(B).  THAT SECTION PROVIDES:
"EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 213, ANY CERTIFICATE OR PERMIT MAY BE
TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE (INTERSTATE
COMMERCE) COMMISSION MAY PRESCRIBE."  SECTION 213, REGULATING
CONSOLIDATIONS, MERGERS, AND OTHER ACQUISITIONS OF CONTROL OF MOTOR
CARRIERS, PROVIDES IN SUBSECTION (E) THAT "  ...  THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS SECTION REQUIRING AUTHORITY FROM THE COMMISSION FOR CONSOLIDATION,
MERGER, PURCHASE, LEASE, OPERATING CONTRACT, OR ACQUISITION OF CONTROL
SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES INVOLVED IS
NOT MORE THAN TWENTY." 

THE OBVIOUS SENSE OF SEC. 212(B) COULD HARDLY BE EXPRESSED MORE APTLY
THAN IN THE LANGUAGE QUOTED.  SECTION 213(E) IS EQUALLY EXPLICIT.  READ
TOGETHER, THE TWO SECTIONS CAN MEAN ONLY THAT A TRANSFER INVOLVING NOT
MORE THAN TWENTY VEHICLES IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 212(B) AND THE
REGULATIONS ENACTED PURSUANT TO IT.  THE PHRASE "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
SEC. 213" WAS INTENDED TO REMOVE FROM THE SWEEP OF SEC. 212(B) ONLY
THOSE TRANSFERS WHICH WERE WITHIN THE COMPASS OF SEC. 213.  IT WAS
NEVER INTENDED TO PLACE BEYOND REACH OF SEC. 212(B) THE TRANSFERS WHICH
SEC. 213(E) EXPRESSLY PLACED BEYOND REACH OF SEC. 213. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE INSTANT TRANSFER IS SUBJECT TO SEC.
212(B), APPELLEE CHALLENGES THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO ENACT RULE
1(D) WHICH PROVIDES:  "NO ATTEMPTED TRANSFER OF ANY OPERATING RIGHT
SHALL BE EFFECTIVE EXCEPT UPON FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THESE RULES AND
REGULATIONS AND UNTIL AFTER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS
APPROVED SUCH TRANSFER AS HEREIN PROVIDED.  ..."  ORDER OF JULY 1,
1938, 3 FED. REG. 2157. 

POWER TO MAKE RULES REGULATING THE TRANSFERS EMBRACED IN SEC. 212(B)
DERIVES FROM THE PHRASE IN THAT SECTION "PURSUANT TO SUCH RULES AND
REGULATIONS AS THE COMMISSION MAY PRESCRIBE," AND FROM SEC. 204(A)(6)
WHICH MAKES IT THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO ADMINISTER, EXECUTE, AND
ENFORCE ALL PROVISIONS OF (THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT), TO MAKE ALL
NECESSARY ORDERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND TO PRESCRIBE RULES,
REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURE FOR SUCH ADMINISTRATION.  ..."  UNDOUBTEDLY
THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS IS NOT UNLIMITED, BUT NEITHER
RULE THAT PARTIES TO A PROPOSED TRANSFER WHICH IS GOVERNED BY SEC.
212(B) MUST FIRST OBTAIN THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION.  INDEED, THE
CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT SUCH A RULE IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE
REGULATORY POWER WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO CONFER ON THE COMMISSION,
FOR CONGRESS COULD INSURE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER SECTIONS OF
THE ACT ONLY BY GRANTING THE COMMISSION POWER TO ENACT REGULATIONS
BROAD ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE RULE 1(D). 

REGULATION OF TRANSFERS OF OPERATING RIGHTS BY MERGER, CONSOLIDATION,
OR BY OTHER SPECIFIED MEANS.  SECTION 213(A)(1) EXPRESSLY STIPULATES
THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION MUST PRECEDE A TRANSFER WHICH IS
SUBJECT TO SEC. 213.  MANIFESTLY, THE ADMINISTRATION OF SECS. 213(A)
AND 213(B) WOULD BE SERIOUSLY HAMPERED IF THE COMMISSION WERE POWERLESS
TO MAKE THE SAME REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFERS SUBJECT TO SEC.
212(B), PARTICULARLY SINCE THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES INVOLVED MAY
DETERMINE WHICH SECTION IS APPLICABLE. 

IN MANY RESPECTS A TRANSFEREE SUCH AS APPELLEE STANDS IN THE SAME
RELATION TO THE COMMISSION AS AN ORIGINAL APPLICANT FOR PERMISSION TO
OPERATE.  MANY INQUIRIES WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE INITIAL APPLICATION
ARE EQUALLY RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSED TRANSFER.  SECTION 206(A), WITH
IMMATERIAL EXCEPTIONS, PERMITS COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLES TO
OPERATE ONLY IF THE CARRIER HAS FIRST OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  SECTION 207(A) EXPRESSLY CONDITIONS
ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE ON FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE
APPLICANT IS "FIT, WILLING, AND ABLE PROPERLY TO PERFORM THE SERVICE
PROPOSED AND TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF (THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT)
AND THE REQUIREMENTS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION
THEREUNDER, AND THAT THE PROPOSED SERVICE, TO THE EXTENT TO BE
AUTHORIZED BY THE CERTIFICATE, IS OR WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE PRESENT OR
FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY."  PLAINLY THE FINDING OF THE
REQUISITE FITNESS, WILLINGNESS, AND ABILITY OF THE FIRST APPLICANT IS
WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE TO HIS PROPOSED TRANSFEREE (SEE RULE 2(C), 3 FED.
REG. 2158), AND THE OPERATIONS INCEPTIVELY AUTHORIZED NO LONGER MAY
SERVE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BECAUSE CONDITIONS HAVE
CHANGED.  SEE RULE 6, 3 FED. REG. 2158; COMPARE SECS. 208(A), 212(A). 
IT IS EVIDENT THAT FULL ENFORCEMENT OF SECS. 206(A) AND 207(A) LIKEWISE
WOULD BE IMPEDED IF THE COMMISSION LACKED POWER TO RULE THAT ITS
CONSENT MUST PRECEDE A TRANSFER SUBJECT TO SEC. 212(B).  FN1 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY TO
PRESCRIBE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT SEC. 212(B) IN RULING THAT
ITS CONSENT WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO AN EFFECTIVE TRANSFER GOVERNED
BY THAT SECTION.  IT WAS NOT COMPELLED TO CONTEST THE LEGALITY OR
PROPRIETY OF SUCH A TRANSFER AFTER IT HAD BEEN COMPLETED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ABSENT SUCH POWER, THE COMMISSION WOULD ENCOUNTER SIMILAR
DIFFICULTIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF OTHER SECTIONS.  SECTION 215
REQUIRES THE COMMISSION TO WITHHOLD A CERTIFICATE UNTIL THE CARRIER HAS
COMPLIED WITH COMMISSION REGULATIONS EXACTING SECURITY FOR DAMAGE TO
PERSONS AND PROPERTY.  SECTION 217 COMPELS SPECIFIED CARRIERS TO FILE
TARIFF SCHEDULES.  SECTION 221 OBLIGATES MOTOR CARRIERS TO FILE WRITTEN
DESIGNATIONS OF AGENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AND COMMISSION ORDERS. 

SEE ALSO SECS. 220, 223. 
..END :








COX V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 312 U.S. 569 


NO. 502.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 91 N.H.
137 - 16 A.2D 508, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CIVIL LIBERTIES, AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IMPLY THE
EXISTENCE OF AN ORGANIZED SOCIETY MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER WITHOUT
WHICH LIBERTY ITSELF WOULD BE LOST IN THE EXCESSES OF UNRESTRAINED
ABUSES.  P. 574. 

2.  THE AUTHORITY OF A MUNICIPALITY TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO
ASSURE THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE USE OF PUBLIC
HIGHWAYS HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH CIVIL LIBERTIES
BUT RATHER AS ONE OF THE MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING THE GOOD ORDER UPON
WHICH THEY ULTIMATELY DEPEND.  P. 574. 

3.  AS REGULATION OF THE USE OF THE STREETS FOR PARADES AND
PROCESSIONS IS A TRADITIONAL EXERCISE OF CONTROL BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
THE QUESTION IN A PARTICULAR CASE IS WHETHER THAT CONTROL IS EXERTED SO
AS NOT TO DENY OR UNWARRANTEDLY ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY AND THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE COMMUNICATION OF THOUGHT AND THE DISCUSSION OF
PUBLIC QUESTIONS IMMEMORIALLY ASSOCIATED WITH RESORT TO PUBLIC PLACES. 
P. 574. 

4.  A STATE LAW PROVIDING THAT NO PARADE OR PROCESSION UPON ANY
PUBLIC STREET SHALL BE PERMITTED UNLESS A SPECIAL LICENSE THEREFOR
SHALL FIRST BE OBTAINED FROM THE SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN, OR FROM A
LICENSING COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY, AND SUBJECTING ANY VIOLATOR TO A
FINE, HELD CONSTITUTIONAL, IN VIEW OF ITS CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT, AS APPLIED TO MEMBERS OF THE BAND OF "JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES," WHO MARCHED IN GROUPS OF FROM FIFTEEN TO TWENTY MEMBERS
EACH, IN CLOSE SINGLE FILES, ALONG THE SIDEWALKS IN THE BUSINESS
DISTRICT OF A POPULOUS CITY, EACH MARCHER CARRYING A SIGN OR PLACARD
WITH "INFORMATIONAL" INSCRIPTIONS.  P. 575. 

5.  IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO LICENSE PARADES ON CITY STREETS, THE
STATE MAY CHARGE A LICENSE FEE REASONABLY ADJUSTED TO THE OCCASION, FOR
MEETING ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICE EXPENSES.  P. 576. 

COX ET AL. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS IMPOSING FINES ON VIOLATORS
OF A STATE LAW REGULATING PARADES IN CITY STREETS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS ARE FIVE "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES" WHO, WITH SIXTY-THREE
OTHERS OF THE SAME PERSUASION, WERE CONVICTED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF
MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE, FOR VIOLATION OF A STATE STATUTE PROHIBITING
A "PARADE OR PROCESSION" UPON A PUBLIC STREET WITHOUT A SPECIAL
LICENSE. 

UPON APPEAL, THERE WAS A TRIAL DE NOVO OF THESE APPELLANTS BEFORE A
JURY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, THE OTHER DEFENDANTS HAVING AGREED TO ABIDE
BY THE FINAL DECISION IN THAT PROCEEDING.  APPELLANTS WERE FOUND GUILTY
AND THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE.  STATE V. COX, 91 N.H. 137; 16 A.2D 508. 

BY MOTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS, APPELLANTS RAISED THE QUESTIONS THAT THE
STATUTE WAS INVALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES IN THAT IT DEPRIVED APPELLANTS OF THEIR RIGHTS OF
FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS, AND FREEDOM OF
ASSEMBLY, VESTED UNREASONABLE AND UNLIMITED ARBITRARY AND
DISCRIMINATORY POWERS IN THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, AND WAS VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE.  THESE CONTENTIONS WERE OVERRULED AND THE CASE COMES HERE
ON APPEAL. 

THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION IS AS FOLLOWS (NEW HAMPSHIRE, P.L., CHAP.
145, SEC. 2): 

"NO THEATRICAL OR DRAMATIC REPRESENTATION SHALL BE PERFORMED OR
EXHIBITED, AND NO PARADE OR PROCESSION UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET OR WAY,
AND NO OPEN-AIR PUBLIC MEETING UPON ANY GROUND ABUTTING THEREON, SHALL
BE PERMITTED, UNLESS A SPECIAL LICENSE THEREFOR SHALL FIRST BE OBTAINED
FROM THE SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN, OR FROM A LICENSING COMMITTEE FOR
CITIES HEREINAFTER PROVIDED FOR." 

THE PROVISIONS FOR LICENSING ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 

THE FACTS, WHICH ARE CONCEDED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE ESTABLISHED BY
THE EVIDENCE, ARE THESE: THE SIXTY-EIGHT DEFENDANTS AND TWENTY OTHER
PERSONS MET AT A HALL IN THE CITY OF MANCHESTER ON THE EVENING OF
SATURDAY, JULY 8, 1939, "FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN AN INFORMATION
MARCH."  THE COMPANY WAS DIVIDED INTO FOUR OR FIVE GROUPS, EACH WITH
ABOUT FIFTEEN TO TWENTY PERSONS.  EACH GROUP THEN PROCEEDED TO A
DIFFERENT PART OF THE BUSINESS DISTRICT OF THE CITY AND THERE "WOULD
LINE UP IN SINGLE-FILE FORMATION AND THEN PROCEED TO MARCH ALONG THE
SIDEWALK, 'SINGLE-FILE,' THAT IS, FOLLOWING ONE ANOTHER."  EACH OF THE
DEFENDANTS CARRIED A SMALL STAFF WITH A SIGN READING "RELIGION IS A
SNARE AND A RACKET" AND ON THE REVERSE "SERVE GOD AND CHRIST THE
KING."  SOME OF THE MARCHERS CARRIED PLACARDS BEARING THE STATEMENT
"FASCISM OR FREEDOM.  HEAR JUDGE RUTHERFORD AND FACE THE FACTS."  THE
MARCHERS ALSO HANDED OUT PRINTED LEAFLETS ANNOUNCING A MEETING TO BE
HELD AT A LATER TIME IN THE HALL FROM WHICH THEY HAD STARTED, WHERE A
TALK ON GOVERNMENT WOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC FREE OF CHARGE. 
DEFENDANTS DID NOT APPLY FOR A PERMIT AND NONE WAS ISSUED. 

THERE WAS A DISPUTE IN THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE
MARCHERS.  DEFENDANTS SAID THAT THEY WERE FROM FIFTEEN TO TWENTY FEET
APART.  THE STATE INSISTS THAT THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE
"MARCHERS WERE AS CLOSE TOGETHER AS IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO WALK." 
APPELLANTS CONCEDE THAT THIS DISPUTE IS NOT MATERIAL TO THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED.  THE RECITAL OF FACTS WHICH PREFACED THE OPINION OF THE
STATE COURT THUS SUMMARIZES THE EFFECT OF THE MARCH:  "MANCHESTER HAD A
POPULATION OF OVER 75,000 IN 1930, AND THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT ON
SATURDAY NIGHTS IN AN HOUR'S TIME 26,000 PERSONS PASSED ONE OF THE
INTERSECTIONS WHERE THE DEFENDANTS MARCHED.  THE MARCHERS INTERFERED
WITH THE NORMAL SIDEWALK TRAVEL, BUT NO TECHNICAL BREACH OF THE PEACE
OCCURRED.  THE MARCH WAS A PREARRANGED AFFAIR, AND NO PERMIT FOR IT WAS
SOUGHT, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANTS UNDERSTOOD THAT UNDER THE STATUTE ONE
WAS REQUIRED." 

APPELLANTS URGE THAT EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS A MINISTER ORDAINED
TO PREACH THE GOSPEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS BELIEF AND THAT THE
PARTICIPATION OF THESE MINISTERS IN THE MARCH WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND WAS ONE OF THEIR
WAYS OF WORSHIP. 

THE SOLE CHARGE AGAINST APPELLANTS WAS THAT THEY WERE "TAKING PART IN
A PARADE OR PROCESSION" ON PUBLIC STREETS WITHOUT A PERMIT AS THE
STATUTE REQUIRED.  THEY WERE NOT PROSECUTED FOR DISTRIBUTING LEAFLETS,
OR FOR CONVEYING INFORMATION BY PLACARDS OR OTHERWISE, OR FOR ISSUING
INVITATIONS TO A PUBLIC MEETING, OR FOR HOLDING A PUBLIC MEETING, OR
FOR MAINTAINING OR EXPRESSING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  THEIR RIGHT TO DO ANY
ONE OF THESE THINGS APART FROM ENGAGING IN A "PARADE OR PROCESSION"
UPON A PUBLIC STREET IS NOT HERE INVOLVED AND THE QUESTION OF THE
VALIDITY OF A STATUTE ADDRESSED TO ANY OTHER SORT OF CONDUCT THAN THAT
COMPLAINED OF IS NOT BEFORE US. 

THERE APPEARS TO BE NO GROUND FOR CHALLENGING THE RULING OF THE STATE
COURT THAT APPELLANTS WERE IN FACT ENGAGED IN A PARADE OR PROCESSION
UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS.  AS THE STATE COURT OBSERVED: "IT WAS A MARCH
IN FORMATION, AND ITS ADVERTISING AND INFORMATORY PURPOSE DID NOT MAKE
IT OTHERWISE.  ...  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT ITS TACTICS WERE FEW AND
SIMPLE.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT IT PROCEEDED IN AN ORDERED AND CLOSE FILE AS
A COLLECTIVE BODY OF PERSONS ON THE CITY STREETS." 

CIVIL LIBERTIES, AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IMPLY THE
EXISTENCE OF AN ORGANIZED SOCIETY MAINTAINING PUBLIC ORDER WITHOUT
WHICH LIBERTY ITSELF WOULD BE LOST IN THE EXCESSES OF UNRESTRAINED
ABUSES.  THE AUTHORITY OF A MUNICIPALITY TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS IN ORDER
TO ASSURE THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE USE OF PUBLIC
HIGHWAYS HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH CIVIL LIBERTIES
BUT RATHER AS ONE OF THE MEANS OF SAFEGUARDING THE GOOD ORDER UPON
WHICH THEY ULTIMATELY DEPEND.  THE CONTROL OF TRAVEL ON THE STREETS OF
CITIES IS THE MOST FAMILIAR ILLUSTRATION OF THIS RECOGNITION OF SOCIAL
NEED.  WHERE A RESTRICTION OF THE USE OF HIGHWAYS IN THAT RELATION IS
DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE IN THE INTEREST OF ALL, IT
CANNOT BE DISREGARDED BY THE ATTEMPTED EXERCISE OF SOME CIVIL RIGHT
WHICH IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PROTECTION.  ONE
WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FAMILIAR RED TRAFFIC LIGHT
BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT HIS RELIGIOUS DUTY TO DISOBEY THE MUNICIPAL
COMMAND OR SOUGHT BY THAT MEANS TO DIRECT PUBLIC ATTENTION TO AN
ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS OPINIONS.  AS REGULATION OF THE USE OF THE STREETS
FOR PARADES AND PROCESSIONS IS A TRADITIONAL EXERCISE OF CONTROL BY
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE QUESTION IN A PARTICULAR CASE IS WHETHER THAT
CONTROL IS EXERTED SO AS NOT TO DENY OR UNWARRANTEDLY ABRIDGE THE RIGHT
OF ASSEMBLY AND THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE COMMUNICATION OF THOUGHT AND
THE DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC QUESTIONS IMMEMORIALLY ASSOCIATED WITH RESORT
TO PUBLIC PLACES.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 451; HAGUE V.
COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, 307 U.S. 496, 515, 516;
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310
U.S. 296, 306, 307. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE ARE AIDED BY THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE, WHICH CONSTRUED THE STATUTE AND DEFINED THE LIMITATIONS
OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED FOR THE GRANTING OF LICENSES FOR PARADES AND
PROCESSIONS.  THE COURT OBSERVED THAT IF THE CLAUSE OF THE ACT
REQUIRING A LICENSE "FOR ALL OPEN-AIR PUBLIC MEETINGS UPON LAND
CONTIGUOUS TO A HIGHWAY" WAS INVALID, THAT INVALIDITY DID NOT NULLIFY
THE ACT IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE OTHER SITUATIONS DESCRIBED. 
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CIVIL LIBERTIES INVOKED BY
APPELLANTS, THE COURT THOUGHT IT SIGNIFICANT THAT THE STATUTE
PRESCRIBED "NO MEASURES FOR CONTROLLING OR SUPPRESSING THE PUBLICATION
ON THE HIGHWAYS OF FACTS AND OPINIONS, EITHER BY SPEECH OR BY WRITING";
THAT COMMUNICATION "BY THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE OR BY THE DISPLAY
OF PLACARDS AND SIGNS" WAS IN NO RESPECT REGULATED BY THE STATUTE; THAT
THE REGULATION WITH RESPECT TO PARADES AND PROCESSIONS WAS APPLICABLE
ONLY "TO ORGANIZED FORMATIONS OF PERSONS USING THE HIGHWAYS"; AND THAT
"THE DEFENDANTS, SEPARATELY, OR COLLECTIVELY IN GROUPS NOT CONSTITUTING
A PARADE OR PROCESSION," WERE "UNDER NO CONTEMPLATION OF THE ACT."  IN
THIS LIGHT, THE COURT THOUGHT THAT INTERFERENCE WITH LIBERTY OF SPEECH
AND WRITING SEEMED SLIGHT; THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS AND
FOLDERS BY THE GROUPS "TRAVELING IN UNORGANIZED FASHION" WOULD HAVE HAD
AS LARGE A CIRCULATION, AND THAT "SIGNS CARRIED BY MEMBERS OF THE
GROUPS NOT IN MARCHING FORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN AS CONSPICUOUS, AS
PUBLISHED BY THEM WHILE IN PARADE OR PROCESSION." 

IT WAS WITH THIS VIEW OF THE LIMITED OBJECTIVE OF THE STATUTE THAT
THE STATE COURT CONSIDERED AND DEFINED THE DUTY OF THE LICENSING
AUTHORITY AND THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANTS TO A LICENSE FOR THEIR
PARADE, WITH REGARD ONLY TO CONSIDERATIONS OF TIME, PLACE AND MANNER SO
AS TO CONSERVE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE.  THE OBVIOUS ADVANTAGE OF
REQUIRING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT WAS NOTED AS GIVING THE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES NOTICE IN ADVANCE SO AS TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY FOR PROPER
POLICING.  AND THE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT, IN FIXING TIME AND
PLACE, THE LICENSE SERVED "TO PREVENT CONFUSION BY OVERLAPPING PARADES
OR PROCESSIONS, TO SECURE CONVENIENT USE OF THE STREETS BY OTHER
TRAVELERS, AND TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF DISORDER."  BUT THE COURT HELD
THAT THE LICENSING BOARD WAS NOT VESTED WITH ARBITRARY POWER OR AN
UNFETTERED DISCRETION; THAT ITS DISCRETION MUST BE EXERCISED WITH
"UNIFORMITY OF METHOD OF TREATMENT UPON THE FACTS OF EACH APPLICATION,
FREE FROM IMPROPER OR INAPPROPRIATE CONSIDERATIONS AND FROM UNFAIR
DISCRIMINATION"; THAT A "SYSTEMATIC, CONSISTENT AND JUST ORDER OF
TREATMENT, WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONVENIENCE OF PUBLIC USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS, IS THE STATUTORY MANDATE."  THE DEFENDANTS, SAID THE COURT,
"HAD A RIGHT, UNDER THE ACT, TO A LICENSE TO MARCH WHEN, WHERE AND AS
THEY DID, IF AFTER A REQUIRED INVESTIGATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC IN THE USE OF THE STREETS WOULD NOT THEREBY
BE UNDULY DISTURBED, UPON SUCH CONDITIONS OR CHANGES IN TIME, PLACE AND
MANNER AS WOULD AVOID DISTURBANCE." 

IF A MUNICIPALITY HAS AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE USE OF ITS PUBLIC
STREETS FOR PARADES OR PROCESSIONS, AS IT UNDOUBTEDLY HAS, IT CANNOT BE
DENIED AUTHORITY TO GIVE CONSIDERATION, WITHOUT UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION,
TO TIME, PLACE AND MANNER IN RELATION TO THE OTHER PROPER USES OF THE
STREETS.  WE FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE LIMITED AUTHORITY
CONFERRED BY THE LICENSING PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN QUESTION AS
THUS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT CONTRAVENED ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT. 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION OF LICENSE FEES WHICH, AS THE COURT SAID,
HAD A PERMISSIBLE RANGE FROM $300 TO A NOMINAL AMOUNT.  THE COURT
CONSTRUED THE ACT AS REQUIRING "A REASONABLE FIXING OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE FEE."  "THE CHARGE," SAID THE COURT, "FOR A CIRCUS PARADE OR A
CELEBRATION PROCESSION OF LENGTH, EACH DRAWING CROWDS OF OBSERVERS,
WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE GREATER PUBLIC EXPENSE OF POLICING THE
SPECTACLE, COMPARED WITH THE SLIGHT EXPENSE OF A LESS EXPANSIVE AND
ATTRACTIVE PARADE OR PROCESSION, TO WHICH THE CHARGE WOULD BE
ADJUSTED."  THE FEE WAS HELD TO BE "NOT A REVENUE TAX, BUT ONE TO MEET
THE EXPENSE INCIDENT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT AND TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER IN THE MATTER LICENSED."  THERE IS NOTHING
CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION IN THE CHARGE OF A FEE LIMITED TO THE
PURPOSE STATED.  THE SUGGESTION THAT A FLAT FEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
CHARGED FAILS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFICULTY OF FRAMING A FAIR
SCHEDULE TO MEET ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WE PERCEIVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUND FOR DENYING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT FLEXIBILITY OF ADJUSTMENT
OF FEES WHICH IN THE LIGHT OF VARYING CONDITIONS WOULD TEND TO CONSERVE
RATHER THAN IMPAIR THE LIBERTY SOUGHT. 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE STATUTE HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED OTHERWISE
THAN IN THE FAIR AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY MANNER WHICH THE STATE COURT
HAS CONSTRUED IT TO REQUIRE. 

THE DECISIONS UPON WHICH APPELLANTS RELY ARE NOT APPLICABLE.  IN
LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA, THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITED THE DISTRIBUTION OF
LITERATURE OF ANY KIND AT ANY TIME, AT ANY PLACE, AND IN ANY MANNER
WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE CITY MANAGER, THUS STRIKING AT THE VERY
FOUNDATION OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BY SUBJECTING IT TO LICENSE AND
CENSORSHIP.  IN HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, SUPRA,
THE ORDINANCE DEALT WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATING VIEWS; IT DID NOT MAKE COMFORT OR CONVENIENCE
IN THE USE OF STREETS THE STANDARD OF OFFICIAL ACTION BUT ENABLED THE
LOCAL OFFICIAL ABSOLUTELY TO REFUSE A PERMIT ON HIS MERE OPINION THAT
SUCH REFUSAL WOULD PREVENT "RIOTS, DISTURBANCES OR DISORDERLY
ASSEMBLAGE."  THE ORDINANCE THUS CREATED, AS THE RECORD DISCLOSED, AN
INSTRUMENT OF ARBITRARY SUPPRESSION OF OPINIONS ON PUBLIC QUESTIONS. 
THE COURT SAID THAT "UNCONTROLLED OFFICIAL SUPPRESSION OF THE PRIVILEGE
CANNOT BE MADE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN
CONNECTION WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT."  IN SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
SUPRA (P. 163) THE ORDINANCE WAS DIRECTED AT CANVASSING AND BANNED
UNLICENSED COMMUNICATION OF ANY VIEWS, OR THE ADVOCACY OF ANY CAUSE,
FROM DOOR TO DOOR, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE POWER OF A POLICE OFFICER TO
DETERMINE AS A CENSOR WHAT LITERATURE MIGHT BE DISTRIBUTED AND WHO
MIGHT DISTRIBUTE IT.  IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, SUPRA (P. 305) THE
STATUTE DEALT WITH THE SOLICITATION OF FUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS CAUSES AND
AUTHORIZED AN OFFICIAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CAUSE WAS A RELIGIOUS
ONE AND TO REFUSE A PERMIT IF HE DETERMINED IT WAS NOT, THUS
ESTABLISHING A CENSORSHIP OF RELIGION.    NOR IS ANY QUESTION OF
PEACEFUL PICKETING HERE INVOLVED, AS IN THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S.
88, AND CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106.  THE STATUTE, AS THE STATE
COURT SAID, IS NOT AIMED AT ANY RESTRAINT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND
THERE IS NO BASIS FOR AN ASSUMPTION THAT IT WOULD BE APPLIED SO AS TO
PREVENT PEACEFUL PICKETING AS DESCRIBED IN THE CASES CITED. 

THE ARGUMENT AS TO FREEDOM OF WORSHIP IS ALSO BESIDE THE POINT.  NO
INTERFERENCE WITH RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OR THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION IN ANY
PROPER SENSE IS SHOWN, BUT ONLY THE EXERCISE OF LOCAL CONTROL OVER THE
USE OF STREETS FOR PARADES AND PROCESSIONS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  NEW HAMPSHIRE, P.L., CHAP. 145, SECS. 3, 4, AND 5 ARE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 3:  LICENSING BOARD.  ANY CITY MAY CREATE A LICENSING BOARD
TO CONSIST OF THE PERSON WHO IS THE ACTIVE HEAD OF THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, THE MAYOR OF SUCH CITY AND ONE OTHER PERSON WHO SHALL BE
APPOINTED BY THE CITY GOVERNMENT, WHICH BOARD SHALL HAVE DELEGATED
POWERS TO INVESTIGATE AND DECIDE THE QUESTION OF GRANTING LICENSES
UNDER THIS CHAPTER, AND IT MAY GRANT REVOCABLE BLANKET LICENSES TO
FRATERNAL AND OTHER LIKE ORGANIZATIONS, TO THEATRES AND TO
UNDERTAKERS. 

"SECTION 4:  LICENSES:  FEES.  EVERY SUCH SPECIAL LICENSE SHALL BE IN
WRITING, AND SHALL SPECIFY THE DAY AND HOUR OF THE PERMIT TO PERFORM OR
EXHIBIT OR OF SUCH PARADE, PROCESSION OR OPEN-AIR PUBLIC MEETING. 
EVERY LICENSEE SHALL PAY IN ADVANCE FOR SUCH LICENSE, FOR THE USE OF
THE CITY OR TOWN, A SUM NOT MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH
DAY SUCH LICENSEE SHALL PERFORM OR EXHIBIT, OR SUCH PARADE, PROCESSION
OR OPEN-AIR PUBLIC MEETING SHALL TAKE PLACE; BUT THE FEE FOR A LICENSE
TO EXHIBIT IN ANY HALL SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTY DOLLARS. 

"SECTION 5:  PENALTY.  IF ANY PERSON SHALL VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF
THE PRECEDING SECTIONS HE SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SELECTMEN TO PROSECUTE FOR
EVERY VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER." 
..END :






HARRISON V. SCHAFFNER, 312 U.S. 579 


NO. 437.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 113 F.2D
449, REVERSED. 


THE LIFE BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST ASSIGNED TO HER CHILDREN SPECIFIED
AMOUNTS IN DOLLARS FROM THE INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWING
THE ASSIGNMENT.  HELD THAT THE AMOUNT ASSIGNED, WHICH WAS PAID BY THE
TRUSTEES TO THE ASSIGNEES, WAS TAXABLE AS INCOME TO THE ASSIGNOR. 
REVENUE ACT, 1928, SECS. 22(A), 161(A), 162(B).  P. 582. 

HARRISON, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. SCHAFFNER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 638, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENT IN A SUIT TO RECOVER MONEY EXACTED AS
TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN DECEMBER, 1929, RESPONDENT, THE LIFE BENEFICIARY OF A TESTAMENTARY
TRUST, "ASSIGNED" TO CERTAIN OF HER CHILDREN SPECIFIED AMOUNTS IN
DOLLARS FROM THE INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE
ASSIGNMENT.  SHE MADE A LIKE ASSIGNMENT TO HER CHILDREN AND A SON-IN
LAW IN NOVEMBER, 1930.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER, UNDER THE
APPLICABLE 1928 REVENUE ACT, 45 STAT. 791, THE ASSIGNED INCOME, WHICH
WAS PAID BY THE TRUSTEES TO THE SEVERAL ASSIGNEES, IS TAXABLE AS SUCH
TO THE ASSIGNOR OR TO THE ASSIGNEES. 

THE COMMISSIONER RULED THAT THE INCOME WAS THAT OF THE LIFE
BENEFICIARY AND ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY AGAINST HER FOR THE CALENDAR
YEARS 1930 AND 1931, WHICH SHE PAID.  IN THE PRESENT SUIT TO RECOVER
THE TAX PAID AS ILLEGALLY EXACTED THE DISTRICT COURT BELOW GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE TAXPAYER, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  113
F.2D 449.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 638, TO RESOLVE AN ALLEGED
CONFLICT IN PRINCIPLE OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH THOSE IN LUCAS V.
EARL, 281 U.S. 111; BURNET V. LEININGER, 285 U.S. 136, AND HELVERING V.
CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331. 

SINCE GRANTING CERTIORARI WE HAVE HELD, FOLLOWING THE REASONING OF
LUCAS V. EARL, SUPRA, THAT ONE WHO IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE, AT A FUTURE
DATE, INTEREST OR COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES AND WHO MAKES A GIFT OF IT
BY AN ANTICIPATORY ASSIGNMENT, REALIZES TAXABLE INCOME QUITE AS MUCH AS
IF HE HAD COLLECTED THE INCOME AND PAID IT OVER TO THE OBJECT OF HIS
BOUNTY.  HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112; HELVERING V. EUBANK, 311
U.S. 122.  DECISION IN THESE CASES WAS RESTED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE
POWER TO DISPOSE OF INCOME IS THE EQUIVALENT OF OWNERSHIP OF IT AND
THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO PROCURE ITS PAYMENT TO ANOTHER,
WHETHER TO PAY A DEBT OR TO MAKE A GIFT, IS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE
STATUTE TAXING INCOME "DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER."  IN THE LIGHT
OF OUR OPINIONS IN THESE CASES THE NARROW QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS
RECORD IS WHETHER IT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
TAXING STATUTE THAT THE GIFT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ANTICIPATORY
ASSIGNMENT OF TRUST INCOME RATHER THAN OF INTEREST, DIVIDENDS, RENTS
AND THE LIKE WHICH ARE PAYABLE TO THE DONOR. 

RESPONDENT, RECOGNIZING THAT THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF A GIFT BY
ASSIGNMENT, IN ADVANCE, OF A YEAR'S INCOME FROM THE TRUST, ARE, SO FAR
AS THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE INCOME ARE CONCERNED, NO DIFFERENT FROM
THOSE OF THE GIFT BY ASSIGNMENT OF INTEREST OR WAGES, RESTS HIS CASE ON
TECHNICAL DISTINCTIONS AFFECTING THE CONVEYANCING OF EQUITABLE
INTERESTS.  IT IS SAID THAT SINCE BY THE ASSIGNMENT OF TRUST INCOME THE
ASSIGNEE ACQUIRES AN EQUITABLE RIGHT TO AN ACCOUNTING BY THE TRUSTEE
WHICH, FOR MANY PURPOSES, IS TREATED BY COURTS OF EQUITY AS A PRESENT
EQUITABLE ESTATE IN THE TRUST PROPERTY, IT FOLLOWS THAT EACH ASSIGNEE
IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A DONEE OF AN INTEREST IN THE TRUST PROPERTY FOR
THE TERM OF A YEAR AND IS THUS THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME FROM HIS OWN
PROPERTY WHICH IS TAXABLE TO HIM RATHER THAN TO THE DONOR.  SEE BLAIR
V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5. 

WE LAY TO ONE SIDE THE ARGUMENT WHICH THE GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE MADE
THAT THE ASSIGNMENTS WERE NO MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO CHARGE THE
SPECIFIED PAYMENTS UPON THE WHOLE INCOME WHICH COULD PASS NO PRESENT
INTEREST IN THE TRUST PROPERTY.  SEE SCOTT ON TRUSTS, SECS. 10.1, 10.6,
29, 30.  FOR WE THINK THAT THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTES TAXING INCOME
IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SUCH "ATTENUATED SUBTLETIES," BUT RATHER ON THE
IMPORT AND REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TAXING ACT.  LUCAS V. EARL,
SUPRA, 114. 

INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM  ...  INTEREST, RENT,
DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES OR THE TRANSACTIONS OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON
FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY
SOURCE WHATEVER."  BY SECS. 161(A) AND 162(B) THE TAX IS LAID UPON THE
INCOME "OF ANY KIND OF PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST," AND INCOME OF A TRUST
FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR WHICH IS TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE BENEFICIARIES IS
TO BE TAXED TO THEM "WHETHER DISTRIBUTED TO THEM OR NOT."  IN
CONSTRUING THESE AND LIKE PROVISIONS IN OTHER REVENUE ACTS WE HAVE
UNIFORMLY HELD THAT THEY ARE NOT SO MUCH CONCERNED WITH THE REFINEMENTS
OF TITLE AS WITH THE ACTUAL COMMAND OVER THE INCOME WHICH IS TAXED AND
THE ACTUAL BENEFIT FOR WHICH THE TAX IS PAID.  SEE CORLISS V. BOWERS,
281 U.S. 376; LUCAS V. EARL, SUPRA; HELVERING V. HORST, SUPRA;
HELVERING V. EUBANK, SUPRA; HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA.  IT WAS FOR
THAT REASON THAT IN EACH OF THOSE CASES IT WAS HELD THAT ONE VESTED
WITH THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE INCOME DID NOT ESCAPE THE TAX BY ANY KIND OF
ANTICIPATORY ARRANGEMENT, HOWEVER SKILLFULLY DEVISED, BY WHICH HE
PROCURES PAYMENT OF IT TO ANOTHER, SINCE, BY THE EXERCISE OF HIS POWER
TO COMMAND THE INCOME, HE ENJOYS THE BENEFIT OF THE INCOME ON WHICH THE
TAX IS LAID. 

THOSE DECISIONS ARE CONTROLLING HERE.  TAXATION IS A PRACTICAL MATTER
AND THOSE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH SUPPORT THE TREATMENT OF THE
DISPOSITION OF ONE'S INCOME BY WAY OF GIFT AS A REALIZATION OF THE
INCOME TO THE DONOR ARE THE SAME WHETHER THE INCOME BE FROM A TRUST OR
FROM SHARES OF STOCK OR BONDS WHICH HE OWNS.  IT IS TRUE, AS RESPONDENT
ARGUES, THAT WHERE THE BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST HAD ASSIGNED A SHARE OF
THE INCOME TO ANOTHER FOR LIFE WITHOUT RETAINING ANY FORM OF CONTROL
OVER THE INTEREST ASSIGNED, THIS COURT CONSTRUED THE ASSIGNMENT AS A
TRANSFER IN PRAESENTI TO THE DONEE, OF A LIFE INTEREST IN THE CORPUS OF
THE TRUST PROPERTY, AND HELD IN CONSEQUENCE THAT THE INCOME THEREAFTER
PAID TO THE DONEE WAS TAXABLE TO HIM AND NOT THE DONOR.  BLAIR V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA.  BUT WE THINK IT QUITE ANOTHER MATTER TO SAY THAT
THE BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST WHO MAKES A SINGLE GIFT OF A SUM OF MONEY
PAYABLE OUT OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST DOES NOT REALIZE INCOME WHEN THE
GIFT IS EFFECTUATED BY PAYMENT, OR THAT HE ESCAPES THE TAX BY
ATTEMPTING TO CLOTHE THE TRANSACTION IN THE GUISE OF A TRANSFER OF
TRUST PROPERTY RATHER THAN THE TRANSFER OF INCOME, WHERE THAT IS ITS
OBVIOUS PURPOSE AND EFFECT.  WE THINK THAT THE GIFT BY A BENEFICIARY OF
A TRUST OF SOME PART OF THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY FOR
THE PERIOD OF A DAY, A MONTH OR A YEAR INVOLVES NO SUCH SUBSTANTIAL
DISPOSITION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY AS TO CAMOUFLAGE THE REALITY THAT HE
IS ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF THE INCOME FROM THE TRUST OF WHICH HE
CONTINUES TO BE THE BENEFICIARY, QUITE AS MUCH AS HE ENJOYS THE
BENEFITS OF INTEREST OR WAGES WHICH HE GIVES AWAY AS IN THE HORST AND
EUBANK CASES.  EVEN THOUGH THE GIFT OF INCOME BE IN FORM ACCOMPLISHED
BY THE TEMPORARY DISPOSITION OF THE DONOR'S PROPERTY WHICH PRODUCES THE
INCOME, THE DONOR RETAINING EVERY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN IT, WE
HAVE NOT ALLOWED THE FORM TO OBSCURE THE REALITY.  INCOME WHICH THE
DONOR GIVES AWAY THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF A SHORT TERM TRUST CREATED FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE DONEE IS NEVERTHELESS INCOME TAXABLE TO THE DONOR. 
HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA; HORMEL V. HELVERING, ANTE, P. 552.  WE
PERCEIVE NO DIFFERENCE, SO FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF
THE REVENUE ACT IS CONCERNED, BETWEEN A GIFT OF INCOME IN A SPECIFIED
AMOUNT BY THE CREATION OF A TRUST FOR A YEAR, SEE HORMEL V. HELVERING,
SUPRA, AND THE ASSIGNMENT BY THE BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST ALREADY CREATED
OF A LIKE AMOUNT FROM ITS INCOME FOR A YEAR. 

NOR ARE WE TROUBLED BY THE LOGICAL DIFFICULTIES OF DRAWING THE LINE
BETWEEN A GIFT OF AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN PROPERTY FOR LIFE EFFECTED
BY A GIFT FOR LIFE OF A SHARE OF THE INCOME OF THE TRUST AND THE GIFT
OF THE INCOME OR A PART OF IT FOR THE PERIOD OF A YEAR AS IN THIS
CASE.  "DRAWING THE LINE" IS A RECURRENT DIFFICULTY IN THOSE FIELDS OF
THE LAW WHERE DIFFERENCES IN DEGREE PRODUCE ULTIMATE DIFFERENCES IN
KIND.  SEE IRWIN V. GAVIT, 268 U.S. 161, 168.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT WE
FIND IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE TAXPAYER, IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE, HAS
PARTED WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN PROPERTY OTHER THAN THE
SPECIFIED PAYMENTS OF INCOME WHICH, LIKE OTHER GIFTS OF INCOME, ARE
TAXABLE TO THE DONOR.  UNLESS IN THE MEANTIME THE DIFFICULTY BE
RESOLVED BY STATUTE OR TREASURY REGULATION, WE LEAVE IT TO FUTURE
JUDICIAL DECISIONS TO DETERMINE PRECISELY WHERE THE LINE SHALL BE DRAWN
BETWEEN GIFTS OF INCOME-PRODUCING PROPERTY AND GIFTS OF INCOME FROM
PROPERTY OF WHICH THE DONOR REMAINS THE OWNER, FOR ALL SUBSTANTIAL AND
PRACTICAL PURPOSES.  CF. HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA.  REVERSED. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. SHERWOOD, 312 U.S. 584 


NO. 500.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 7, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 112
F.2D 587, REVERSED. 


A NEW YORK COURT, ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 795 OF THE NEW YORK
CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, MADE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING A JUDGMENT CREDITOR TO
SUE UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR
BREACH OF ITS CONTRACT WITH THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR, THE ORDER DIRECTING
THAT OUT OF THE RECOVERY THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO A
SUM SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY HIS JUDGMENT WITH INTEREST, COSTS, ETC.  THE
STATE LAW CITED MAKES THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR A NECESSARY PARTY AND
AUTHORIZES HIM IN ANY SUIT SO BROUGHT TO ATTACK THE VALIDITY OF THE
ORDER AND OF THE JUDGMENT ON WHICH IT IS FOUNDED.  HELD: 

1.  THAT A SUIT BROUGHT ACCORDINGLY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND THE
JUDGMENT DEBTOR WAS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT. 
P. 588. 

2.  A COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT CONSENTED.  P. 587. 

3.  JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT BY THE UNITED STATES IS DEFINED BY THE TUCKER ACT AND IS
RESTRICTED TO SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ALONE; IF ADJUDICATION OF
THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT AS AGAINST A PRIVATE PARTY
IS PREREQUISITE TO ITS PROSECUTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, THE SUIT
MUST BE DISMISSED.  P. 588. 

4.  THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DO NOT AUTHORIZE ANY SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO WHICH IT HAS NOT OTHERWISE CONSENTED.  P.
589. 

5.  THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 28 U.S.C. 723,
AUTHORIZING THIS COURT TO PRESCRIBE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN CIVIL ACTIONS
GAVE IT NO AUTHORITY TO MODIFY, ABRIDGE OR ENLARGE THE SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS OR TO ENLARGE OR DIMINISH THE JURISDICTION OF
FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 590. 

6.  THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE
TUCKER ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY SUIT WHICH COULD NOT BE LITIGATED IN
THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  P. 590. 

7.  WAIVERS OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED. 
P. 590. 

UNITED STATES V. SHERWOOD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 640, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION A SUIT AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES AND A PRIVATE PARTY. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY OF SEC. 795 OF THE
NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, MADE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING RESPONDENT, AS A
JUDGMENT CREDITOR, TO MAINTAIN A SUIT UNDER THE TUCKER ACT OF MARCH 3,
1887, 24 STAT. 505, SEC. 24(20) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
41(20), TO RECOVER DAMAGES FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR BREACH OF ITS
CONTRACT WITH THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS
WHETHER A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN
THE SUIT. 

THE ORDER AUTHORIZED RESPONDENT, WHO HAD RECOVERED A JUDGMENT AGAINST
KAISER IN THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FOR $5,567.22, TO BRING SUIT
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT TO RECOVER FOR BREACH OF ITS CONTRACT WITH
KAISER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POSTOFFICE BUILDING.  THE ORDER
DIRECTED THAT OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECOVERED RESPONDENT SHOULD BE ENTITLED
TO A SUM SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY HIS JUDGMENT WITH INTEREST "AS WELL AS
COSTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE COURT." 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND
KAISER IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN NEW YORK.  BY HIS COMPLAINT HE
SET UP THE JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER OF THE STATE COURT, THE BREACH OF
CONTRACT BY THE UNITED STATES, AND THE CONSEQUENT DAMAGE TO KAISER IN
THE SUM OF $14,448.49, AND PRAYED JUDGMENT IN THE SUM OF $10,000.  THE
ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT, 112 F.2D 587, WHICH HELD THAT UNDER RULE 17(B) OF THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RESPONDENT'S "CAPACITY TO SUE" WAS
GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF NEW YORK, WHICH WAS HIS DOMICILE; AND THAT THE
ORDER OF THE STATE COURT HAD CONFERRED AUTHORITY UPON RESPONDENT TO
MAINTAIN THE SUIT, THE UNITED STATES BEING A "PERSON INDEBTED" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 795 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, WHICH SANCTIONS
ORDERS BY THE STATE COURT AUTHORIZING A SUIT BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR
AGAINST A "PERSON  ...  INDEBTED TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR."  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 640, THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE TUCKER ACT BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

THE UNITED STATES, AS SOVEREIGN, IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT SAVE AS IT
CONSENTS TO BE SUED, UNITED STATES V. THOMPSON, 98 U.S. 486; UNITED
STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196; KANSAS V. UNITED STATES, 204 U.S. 331;
MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 387; KEIFER & KEIFER V.
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306 U.S. 381, 388; UNITED STATES V. SHAW,
309 U.S. 495(SEE CASES CITED IN THE PESARO, 277 F. 473, 474, ET SEQ.),
AND THE TERMS OF ITS CONSENT TO BE SUED IN ANY COURT DEFINE THAT
COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT.  MINNESOTA V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 388 AND CASES CITED; CF. STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S.
255, 270.  JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND CERTAIN OTHER SPECIFIED
CLASSES OF CLAIMS WAS CONFERRED ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY ACT OF
FEBRUARY 24, 1855, 10 STAT. 612.  WITH ADDITIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, THE
JURISDICTION WAS CONTINUED BY PARAGRAPH FIRST OF THE TUCKER ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1887, 24 STAT. 505, WHICH, AS SUPPLEMENTED AND REENACTED, IS
NOW SEC. 145 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 250.  SECTION 2,
WHICH, AS SUPPLEMENTED AND REENACTED, IS NOW SEC. 24(20) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20), CONFERS JURISDICTION ON THE
DISTRICT COURTS "CONCURRENT WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS, OF ALL CLAIMS NOT
EXCEEDING $10,000 FOUNDED  ...  UPON ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR FOR DAMAGES, LIQUIDATED OR
UNLIQUIDATED, IN CASES NOT SOUNDING IN TORT, IN RESPECT TO WHICH CLAIMS
THE PARTY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO REDRESS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,
EITHER IN A COURT OF LAW, EQUITY, OR ADMIRALTY, IF THE UNITED STATES
WERE SUABLE  ...  " 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS A LEGISLATIVE, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL, COURT. 
ITS JUDICIAL POWER IS DERIVED NOT FROM THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, BUT FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER "TO PAY THE DEBTS  ...
OF THE UNITED STATES," WHICH IT IS FREE TO EXERCISE THROUGH JUDICIAL AS
WELL AS NON-JUDICIAL AGENCIES.  SEE WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S.
553, 569, 579; EX PARTE BAKELITE CORPORATION, 279 U.S. 438, 452, ET
SEQ. IT IS FOR THIS REASON, AND BECAUSE OF THE POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN
TO ATTACH CONDITIONS TO ITS CONSENT TO BE SUED, THAT CONGRESS, DESPITE
THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, MAY DISPENSE WITH A JURY TRIAL IN SUITS BROUGHT
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  MCELRATH V. UNITED STATES, 102 U.S. 426;
WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 570, 571; EX PARTE BAKELITE
CORPORATION, SUPRA, 453. 

EXCEPT AS CONGRESS HAS CONSENTED THERE IS NO JURISDICTION IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS MORE THAN IN ANY OTHER COURT TO ENTERTAIN SUITS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES, OR FOR THE REVIEW OF ITS DECISIONS BY APPELLATE
COURTS.  LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 533, 536,
ET SEQ. FOR THAT REASON IT HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY HELD, UPON A REVIEW OF
THE STATUTES CREATING THE COURT AND DEFINING ITS AUTHORITY, THAT ITS
JURISDICTION IS CONFINED TO THE RENDITION OF MONEY JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
BROUGHT FOR THAT RELIEF AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES V.
ALIRE, 6 WALL.  573; UNITED STATES V. JONES, 131 U.S. 1, AND IF THE
RELIEF SOUGHT IS AGAINST OTHERS THAN THE UNITED STATES THE SUIT AS TO
THEM MUST BE IGNORED AS BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, UNITED
STATES V. JONES, SUPRA; LYNN V. UNITED STATES, 110 F.2D 586, 588;
LEATHER & LEIGH V. UNITED STATES, 61 CT. CLS. 388, OR IF ITS
MAINTENANCE AGAINST PRIVATE PARTIES IS PREREQUISITE TO PROSECUTION OF
THE SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES THE SUIT MUST BE DISMISSED.  JACKSON
V. UNITED STATES, 27 CT. CLS. 74, 84; WAITE V. UNITED STATES, 57 CT.
CLS. 546; LEATHER & LEIGH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; CF. TURNER V. UNITED
STATES, 248 U.S. 354; GREEN V. MENOMINEE TRIBE, 233 U.S. 558.  SEE
PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 44 F.2D 887, 888. 

WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT THE PRESENT SUIT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
MAINTAINED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT COURT IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OF ANY SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST PRIVATE PARTIES AND BECAUSE
ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHT OR CAPACITY OF RESPONDENT TO PROCEED WITH THE
SUIT UPON THE CONTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR WITH THE UNITED STATES IS
PREREQUISITE TO ANY RECOVERY UPON THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.  AS THE
COURT BELOW RECOGNIZED, THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR, WHO IS MADE A NECESSARY
PARTY BY SEC. 795 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, IN ANY SUIT BROUGHT
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE STATE COURT IS ENTITLED TO ATTACK THE
VALIDITY OF THE ORDER AND OF THE JUDGMENT ON WHICH IT IS FOUNDED.  SEE
NANKIVEL V. OMSK ALL RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, 237 N.Y. 150, 158; 142 N.E.
569.  ADJUDICATION OF THAT ISSUE IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS, WHOSE AUTHORITY, AS WE HAVE SEEN, IS NARROWLY
RESTRICTED TO THE ADJUDICATION OF SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
ALONE. 

BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER SUCH A SUIT IS NEVERTHELESS WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY THE TUCKER ACT ON THE DISTRICT COURTS. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT THE OBSTACLES TO JOINING PRIVATE
PARTIES, AS PARTIES DEFENDANT, IN SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ARE
PROCEDURAL ONLY, AND THAT WHILE NO PROCEDURE IS PROVIDED WHEREBY THE
COURT OF CLAIMS CAN ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE PARTIES IN SUITS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THAT COURT IS NEVERTHELESS FREE TO ADOPT SUCH A
PROCEDURE.  CF. 28 U.S.C. SEC. 263.  IN ANY CASE IT THOUGHT SUCH
PROCEDURE HAS NOW BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO SUITS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS
BY THE NEW RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE.  IT CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE
DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE TUCKER ACT HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE
CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND BY VIRTUE OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES BETWEEN
RESPONDENT AND THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR, THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AUTHORIZE THE EXERCISE OF BOTH JURISDICTIONS IN A SINGLE SUIT. 

THIS CONCLUSION PRESUPPOSES THAT THE UNITED STATES, EITHER BY THE
RULES OF PRACTICE OR BY THE TUCKER ACT OR BOTH, HAS GIVEN ITS CONSENT
TO BE SUED IN LITIGATIONS IN WHICH ISSUES BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND
THIRD PERSONS ARE TO BE ADJUDICATED.  BUT WE THINK THAT NOTHING IN THE
NEW RULES OF CIVIL PRACTICE SO FAR AS THEY MAY BE APPLICABLE IN SUITS
BROUGHT IN DISTRICT COURTS UNDER THE TUCKER ACT AUTHORIZES THE
MAINTENANCE OF ANY SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO WHICH IT HAS NOT
OTHERWISE CONSENTED.  AN AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON A COURT TO MAKE RULES
OF PROCEDURE FOR THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION IS NOT AN AUTHORITY
TO ENLARGE THAT JURISDICTION; AND THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, 48 STAT.
1064, 28 U.S.C. 723B, AUTHORIZING THIS COURT TO PRESCRIBE RULES OF
PROCEDURE IN CIVIL ACTIONS GAVE IT NO AUTHORITY TO MODIFY, ABRIDGE OR
ENLARGE THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS OR TO ENLARGE OR DIMINISH
THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS. 

NOR WITH DUE REGARD TO THE WORDS OF SEC. 2 OF THE TUCKER ACT AND TO
ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CAN WE SAY THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS CONSENTED
TO THE MAINTENANCE OF SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS WHICH COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO BE SUED, WHICH CONSENT, SINCE IT IS A
RELINQUISHMENT OF A SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, MUST BE STRICTLY INTERPRETED. 
SCHILLINGER V. UNITED STATES, 155 U.S. 163; PRICE V. UNITED STATES, 174
U.S. 373; UNITED STATES V. MICHEL, 282 U.S. 656; UNITED STATES V. SHAW,
309 U.S. 495; UNITED STATES V. U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 309 U.S.
506; CF. FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION V. BURR, 309 U.S. 242, 247. 
IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE STATUTE, OTHER SECTIONS OF WHICH REVISED AND
ENLARGED THE CLASSES OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WHICH COULD BE
LITIGATED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  IT WAS THE JURISDICTION THUS DEFINED
AND ESTABLISHED FOR THAT COURT WHICH WAS EXTENDED BY THE SECTION TO THE
DISTRICT COURTS IN THE SPECIFIED INSTANCES, FOR IN CONSENTING TO SUITS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURTS, CONGRESS PRESCRIBED THAT
THE JURISDICTION THUS CONFERRED SHOULD BE "CONCURRENT" WITH THAT OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CONSTRUING THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE WITH THAT CONSERVATISM WHICH IS
APPROPRIATE IN THE CASE OF A WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, AND IN THE
LIGHT OF THE HISTORY OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS' JURISDICTION TO WHICH WE
HAVE REFERRED, WE THINK THAT THE TUCKER ACT DID NO MORE THAN AUTHORIZE
THE DISTRICT COURT TO SIT AS A COURT OF CLAIMS AND THAT THE AUTHORITY
THUS GIVEN TO ADJUDICATE CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT
EXTEND TO ANY SUIT WHICH COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. JONES, SUPRA, 19; UNITED STATES V.
PFITSCH, 256 U.S. 547, 550; CF. BATES MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 303
U.S. 567, 571.  THE MATTER IS NOT ONE OF PROCEDURE BUT OF JURISDICTION
WHOSE LIMITS ARE MARKED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT TO BE SUED.  THAT
CONSENT MAY BE CONDITIONED, AS WE THINK IT HAS BEEN HERE, ON THE
RESTRICTION OF THE ISSUES TO BE ADJUDICATED IN THE SUIT, TO THOSE
BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND THE GOVERNMENT.  THE JURISDICTION THUS LIMITED
IS UNAFFECTED BY THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH PRESCRIBE THE
METHODS BY WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IS TO BE
EXERCISED BUT DO NOT ENLARGE THE JURISDICTION. 

THE PRESENT LITIGATION WELL ILLUSTRATES THE EMBARRASSMENTS WHICH
WOULD ATTEND THE DEFENSE OF SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IF THE
JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS WERE NOT DEEMED TO BE AS RESTRICTED AS
IS THAT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE GOVERNMENT, TO PROTECT ITS
INTERESTS, MUST NOT ONLY LITIGATE THE CLAIM UPON WHICH IT HAS CONSENTED
TO BE SUED, BUT MUST MAKE CERTAIN THAT RESPONDENT'S RIGHT, AS AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR, TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT IS PROPERLY ADJUDICATED.  AND
SINCE THE ALLEGED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IS LARGER THAN THE $10,000
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT THE GOVERNMENT MUST EITHER BE SUBJECTED TO
SUCCESSIVE SUITS FOR PARTIAL RECOVERIES OF THE AMOUNT DUE OR MUST MAKE
CERTAIN THAT RESPONDENT HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO RELINQUISH THE JUDGMENT
DEBTOR'S CLAIM IN EXCESS OF $10,000, AND THAT THIS HAS BEEN
ACCOMPLISHED BY THE LIMITATION OF HIS DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT TO THAT
AMOUNT.  SEE FRANKLIN V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 516; OTIS ELEVATOR CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 18 F.SUPP.  87.  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT TO LITIGATE
SUCH ISSUES IS HARDLY TO BE INFERRED FROM ITS CONSENT TO BE SUED UPON A
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.  CF. NATIONAL SURETY CO. V.
WASHINGTON IRON WORKS, 243 F. 260.  REVERSED. 
..END :

















U.S. V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 312 U.S. 592 


NO. 535.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 11, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 113
F.2D 919, REVERSED. 


1.  A RAILROAD COMPANY WHOSE ROAD TRAVERSES AN EMBANKMENT BUILT UP
FROM LOW-WATER MARK IN THE BED OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM TO A LEVEL ABOVE
THAT OF ORDINARY HIGH WATER IS NOT ENTITLED, UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT,
TO CLAIM COMPENSATION FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR ADDITIONAL COST OF
PROTECTING THE EMBANKMENT NECESSITATED BY THE ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT
IN RAISING THE WATER LEVEL ABOVE NATURAL HIGH-WATER MARK, BY MEANS OF A
DAM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING NAVIGATION.  SO HELD, ALTHOUGH THE
EMBANKMENT WAS REMOTE FROM THE NATURAL CHANNEL AND FROM THE COURSE OF
NAVIGATION THROUGH THE POOL FORMED BY THE DAM AND DID NOT OBSTRUCT
NAVIGATION.  PP. 593, 596. 

2.  UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, 188 U.S. 445, IN PART OVERRULED.  P.
597. 

3.  THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT OVER NAVIGATION COVERS THE ENTIRE BED
OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM, INCLUDING ALL LANDS BELOW ORDINARY HIGHWATER
MARK.  WHETHER TITLE TO THE BED IS RETAINED BY THE STATE OR IS IN THE
RIPARIAN OWNER, THE RIGHTS OF THE TITLE-HOLDER ARE SUBSERVIENT TO THIS
DOMINANT EASEMENT.  P. 596. 

UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 642, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT ON A
VERDICT AWARDING COMPENSATION TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY AND TO THE
TELEGRAPH COMPANY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN A CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE UNITED STATES MUST
COMPENSATE A RIPARIAN OWNER FOR INJURY TO STRUCTURES LOCATED BETWEEN
HIGH AND LOW WATER MARKS, WHERE THE DAMAGE IS CAUSED BY THE RAISING OF
THE WATER LEVEL IN A NAVIGABLE STREAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
NAVIGATION.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION, AND A CONFLICT IN THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, LED TO THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI. 

THE TRACKS OF THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD AND THE POLE LINES OF THE
RESPONDENT TELEGRAPH COMPANY IN WABASHA AND WINONA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA,
AS RELOCATED IN 1910, ARE, IN PART, ON AN EMBANKMENT ON THE WESTERLY
SIDE OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.  THE EMBANKMENT WAS ADEQUATELY
RIPRAPPED, WHERE NECESSARY, TO PROTECT IT IN TIMES OF HIGH WATER. 

IN THE PROSECUTION OF A PROJECT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION THE
UNITED STATES HAS BEEN, AND IS, ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTING A SERIES OF
LOCKS AND DAMS IN THE UPPER REACHES OF THE MISSISSIPPI.  ONE OF THE
DAMS AUTHORIZED BY ACT OF CONGRESS  FN1  RAISES THE LEVEL OF THE RIVER
AND CREATES A POOL WHICH INUNDATES BOTTOM LANDS ALONG THE WEST BANK. 

IN 1933 THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTED CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE
THE RIGHT TO BACK WATER ACROSS THE RESPONDENTS' RIGHT OF WAY AND
AGAINST THEIR EMBANKMENT.  SINCE THE DAM RAISES THE WATER LEVEL FROM
5.6 TO 7.5 FEET ABOVE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK, THE RESPONDENTS WERE
COMPELLED AT CERTAIN POINTS TO ADD ADDITIONAL RIPRAP TO PREVENT DAMAGE
TO THEIR EMBANKMENT. 

AT THE TRIAL IN THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED TO
PROVE THAT FOUR SEGMENTS OF THE EMBANKMENT LIE BETWEEN THE ORDINARY
HIGH AND ORDINARY LOW WATER MARKS OF THE RIVER; ARE, THEREFORE, SUBJECT
TO THE FEDERAL POWER TO IMPROVE NAVIGATION; AND THAT ANY INJURY TO THEM
BY ADDITIONAL FLOODING IS AN INCIDENT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER AND
NOT THE SUBJECT OF COMPENSATION.  THE RESPONDENTS OBJECTED TO THE OFFER
AS IMMATERIAL FOR THE REASON THAT NEITHER BEFORE NOR AFTER THE
IMPROVEMENT DID THE EMBANKMENT CONSTITUTE AN OBSTRUCTION OR MENACE TO
NAVIGATION AND ITS MAINTENANCE WAS AND IS, THEREFORE, A RIGHT OF
PRIVATE PROPERTY, THE INJURY TO WHICH, IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE
FEDERAL PROJECT, ENTITLED THE OWNER TO COMPENSATION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THE OFFER OF PROOF.  THEREUPON THE
GOVERNMENT MOVED TO DISMISS FROM THE PROCEEDINGS ALL QUESTION OF
COMPENSATION FOR THE FOUR ENCROACHMENT AREAS WHERE THE EMBANKMENT WAS
CLAIMED TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER MARKS.  THE MOTION WAS
DENIED.  A VERDICT AND JUDGMENT ENSUED FOR DAMAGES TO THE ENTIRE LENGTH
OF THE EMBANKMENT BOTH WHERE IT WAS ADMITTED TO BE LOCATED ON FAST LAND
AND WHERE IT WAS CLAIMED TO LIE BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER MARKS.  EACH
PARTY APPEALED.  THEREAFTER, BY STIPULATION, ALL QUESTIONS, EXCEPT THAT
TOUCHING THE FOUR SEGMENTS OF THE EMBANKMENT WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
CLAIMED WERE LOCATED BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER MARKS, WERE ELIMINATED
FROM THE CAUSE.  IT WAS STIPULATED BY THE RESPONDENTS THAT ONE OF THE
FOUR SEGMENTS IN QUESTION WAS SO LOCATED, BUT AS TO THE OTHER THREE THE
PARTIES ARE IN DISAGREEMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DECISION, ASSUMED THAT ALL FOUR WERE SO LOCATED BUT HELD, NEVERTHELESS,
THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS BOUND TO COMPENSATE THE RESPONDENTS FOR DAMAGE
TO ALL OF THEM, AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN2 

CERTAIN MATTERS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT THE
POINTS IN QUESTION IS NAVIGABLE.  THE RESPONDENT RAILROAD IS THE
RIPARIAN OWNER AND, AS SUCH, ITS TITLE EXTENDS TO ORDINARY LOW-WATER
MARK.  THE NATURAL CHANNEL AND THE COURSE OF NAVIGATION THROUGH THE
POOL FORMED BY THE DAM LIE AT A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE FROM THE
EMBANKMENT, WHICH DOES NOT, AND WILL NOT, OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE WITH
ACTUAL NAVIGATION.  THE LANDS LYING BETWEEN THE EMBANKMENT AND THE
NATURAL CHANNEL WERE LOWLANDS WHICH, PRIOR TO THE IMPROVEMENT, WERE TO
A GREAT EXTENT COVERED WITH TREES AND SCRUB. 

THE RESPONDENTS ASSERT THAT THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE
PRIVATE LANDS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION IS CONFINED TO THE
NATURAL WIDTHS, LEVELS, AND FLOWS OF THE RIVER AND THAT IF MORE IS
TAKEN COMPENSATION MUST BE MADE.  THEIR POSITION IS THAT THE EMBANKMENT
CAN BE INJURED WITHOUT COMPENSATION ONLY IF IT CONSTITUTES AN
ENCROACHMENT AND THUS A HINDRANCE OR OBSTRUCTION TO ACTUAL NAVIGATION. 
THE GOVERNMENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, INSISTS THAT ITS POWER IS NOT
CONFINED TO THE MERE MAKING OR CLEARING OF CHANNELS AND REMOVING
HINDRANCES AND OBSTRUCTIONS TO THEIR NAVIGATION, BUT EMBRACES THE
EXERCISE OF EVERY APPROPRIATE MEANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGABLE
CAPACITY; AND THAT, IN THE PROVISION OF ANY SUCH MEANS, IT IS ENTITLED
TO DEAL WITH AND ALTER THE LEVEL OF THE STREAM TO ANY EXTENT UP TO
ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK WITHOUT BEING ANSWERABLE TO RIPARIAN OWNERS
FOR INJURY TO STRUCTURES LYING BELOW THAT LINE. 

COMMERCE, THE REGULATION OF WHICH BETWEEN THE STATES IS COMMITTED BY
THE CONSTITUTION TO CONGRESS, INCLUDES NAVIGATION.  "THE POWER TO
REGULATE COMMERCE COMPREHENDS THE CONTROL FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND TO THE
EXTENT NECESSARY, OF ALL THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
WHICH ARE ACCESSIBLE FROM A STATE OTHER THAN THOSE IN WHICH THEY LIE. 
FOR THIS PURPOSE THEY ARE THE PUBLIC PROPERTY OF THE NATION, AND
SUBJECT TO ALL THE REQUISITE LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS."  FN3  AND THE
DETERMINATION OF THE NECESSITY FOR A GIVEN IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGABLE
CAPACITY, AND THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF IT, IS FOR CONGRESS ALONE. 
FN4  WHETHER, UNDER LOCAL LAW, THE TITLE TO THE BED OF THE STREAM IS
RETAINED BY THE STATE OR THE TITLE OF THE RIPARIAN OWNER EXTENDS TO THE
THREAD OF THE STREAM, OR, AS IN THIS CASE, TO LOW-WATER MARK,  FN5  THE
RIGHTS OF THE TITLE HOLDER ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE DOMINANT POWER OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF NAVIGATION.  FN6 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO KEEPING CLEAR THE CHANNELS
OF INTERSTATE NAVIGATION BY THE PROHIBITION OR REMOVAL OF ACTUAL
OBSTRUCTIONS LOCATED BY THE RIPARIAN OWNER, OR OTHERS, BUT COMPREHENDS
AS WELL THE POWER TO IMPROVE AND ENLARGE THEIR NAVIGABILITY.  FN7 

THE BED OF A RIVER IS "THAT PORTION OF ITS SOIL WHICH IS ALTERNATELY
COVERED AND LEFT BARE, AS THERE MAY BE AN INCREASE OR DIMINUTION IN THE
SUPPLY OF WATER, AND WHICH IS ADEQUATE TO CONTAIN IT AT ITS AVERAGE AND
MEAN STAGE DURING THE ENTIRE YEAR, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
EXTRAORDINARY FRESHETS OF THE WINTER OR SPRING, OR THE EXTREME DROUGHTS
OF THE SUMMER OR AUTUMN."  FN8 

THE DOMINANT POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
HELD, EXTENDS TO THE ENTIRE BED OF A STREAM, WHICH INCLUDES THE LANDS
BELOW ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK.  THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER WITHIN THESE
LIMITS IS NOT AN INVASION OF ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHT IN SUCH LANDS
FOR WHICH THE UNITED STATES MUST MAKE COMPENSATION.  FN9  THE DAMAGE
SUSTAINED RESULTS NOT FROM A TAKING OF THE RIPARIAN OWNER'S PROPERTY IN
THE STREAM BED, BUT FROM THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A POWER TO WHICH THAT
PROPERTY HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUBJECT. 

THE RESPONDENTS ADMIT THAT THIS IS THE SETTLED RULE BUT INSIST THAT
IT HAS BEEN APPLIED ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT
WAS EXERCISED TO EXTEND THE AREA OF PRACTICABLE NAVIGATION EITHER BY
CONSTRUCTING CHANNELS FOR ACTUAL USE OR BY REMOVING OBSTRUCTIONS TO
NAVIGATION.  THEY ASSERT, AND THE COURT BELOW WAS OF OPINION, THAT
UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, 188 U.S. 445, AND UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243
U.S. 316, SANCTION A DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE WHERE THE IMPROVEMENT CONSISTS
IN THE RAISING OF THE LEVEL OF A STREAM TO THE INJURY OF STRUCTURES
ERECTED BY THE RIPARIAN OWNER BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER MARK. 

WHAT WAS SAID IN THE CRESS CASE MUST BE CONFINED TO THE FACTS THERE
DISCLOSED.  IN THAT CASE, THE GOVERNMENT'S IMPROVEMENT IN A NAVIGABLE
STREAM RESULTED IN THE FLOODING OF THE PLAINTIFF'S LAND IN AND ADJACENT
TO A NON-NAVIGABLE STREAM.  THE OWNERS OF THE LAND ALONG AND UNDER THE
BED OF THE STREAM WERE HELD ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE TO
THEIR LANDS.  THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN THE
OPINION. 

IN THE LYNAH CASE THE PLAINTIFF'S RICE PLANTATION WAS RENDERED
WORTHLESS BY THE GOVERNMENT'S RAISING THE WATER IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER. 
THREE QUESTIONS WERE CONSIDERED AT LENGTH BY THIS COURT: WHETHER THE
TRIAL COURT (THE THEN CIRCUIT COURT) HAD JURISDICTION; WHETHER THERE
WAS A TAKING OF PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY; AND WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WAS
BOUND TO COMPENSATE THEREFOR.  ALL WERE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 
APPLYING EARLIER DECISIONS IT WAS HELD THAT THE PERMANENT FLOODING OF
LAND ADJACENT TO A STREAM IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION, PURSUANT TO
STATUTORY AUTHORITY, AMOUNTED TO A TAKING AND THAT THE COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO AWARD COMPENSATION UPON THE FOOTING OF AN IMPLIED
CONTRACT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR WHAT IT TOOK.  BUT AS THE COURT
BELOW POINTS OUT, THE QUOTED FINDINGS SHOW, AND THE OPINION ADVERTED TO
THE FACT, THAT THE PLANTATION LAY IN PART BETWEEN THE HIGH AND LOW
WATER LINES, AND THIS COURT HELD THAT THE FLOODING CONSTITUTED A TAKING
OF THE WHOLE, FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS DUE UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSTITUTION.  MOREOVER, THREE JUSTICES BASED THEIR DISSENT
LARGELY ON THE FACT THAT COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED FOR INJURY TO LANDS
LYING BELOW HIGH-WATER MARK.  WE ARE BOUND, THEREFORE, TO DETERMINE
WHETHER WE SHALL FOLLOW THAT DECISION IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED
IN THE INSTANT CASE.  THE DECISION WAS BY A DIVIDED COURT; AND LATER,
IN A SIMILAR CASE, THERE WAS AN AFFIRMANCE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED
COURT.  FN10  THE CASE HAS OFTEN BEEN CITED AS AUTHORITY FOR THE
SETTLED DOCTRINE THAT AN AUTHORIZED TAKING OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE
GIVES RISE TO AN IMPLIED PROMISE TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION.  BUT WE
THINK THIS COURT HAS NEVER FOLLOWED IT AS A BINDING DECISION THAT
COMPENSATION IS DUE FOR INJURY OR DESTRUCTION OF A RIPARIAN OWNER'S
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE BED OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM.  AND WE THINK THAT,
SO FAR AS IT SANCTIONS SUCH A PRINCIPLE, IT IS IN IRRECONCILABLE
CONFLICT WITH OUR LATER DECISIONS  FN11  AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS
EXPRESSING THE LAW. 

IT IS NOT TRUE, AS RESPONDENTS MAINTAIN, THAT ONLY STRUCTURES IN THE
BED OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM WHICH OBSTRUCT OR ADVERSELY AFFECT NAVIGATION
MAY BE INJURED OR DESTROYED WITHOUT COMPENSATION BY A FEDERAL
IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGABLE CAPACITY.  ON THE CONTRARY, ANY STRUCTURE IS
PLACED IN THE BED OF A STREAM AT THE RISK THAT IT MAY BE SO INJURED OR
DESTROYED; AND THE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE ABSENCE
OF PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE WITH NAVIGATION.  THE RATIO DECIDENDI AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED IN NUMEROUS CASES LEAD INEVITABLY TO THIS
CONCLUSION.  FN12 

THE RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT TWO OF THE SECTIONS OF EMBANKMENT IN
QUESTION NOT ONLY ARE ABOVE ORDINARY HIGHWATER MARK BUT ALSO CLAIM THAT
THEY ABUT, NOT ON THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, BUT ON A NON-NAVIGABLE
TRIBUTARY; AND THAT ANOTHER, THOUGH ALONG THE BANK OF THE RIVER, IS AT
OR ABOVE THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER LINE.  THE GOVERNMENT DISAGREES. 
THESE ISSUES OF FACT REMAIN FOR SOLUTION BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF JULY 3, 1930, C. 847, 46 STAT. 918,
927. 

FN2  113 F.2D 919. 

FN3  GILMAN V. PHILADELPHIA, 3 WALL.  713, 724. 

FN4  SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141, 162. 

FN5  MORRILL V. ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER CO., 26 MINN. 222; 2
N.W. 842. 

FN6  GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 166 U.S. 269, 271, 272. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 62; NEW
JERSEY V. SARGENT, 169 U.S. 328, 337; UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN
ELECTRIC POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377. 

FN8  ALABAMA V. GEORGIA, 23 HOW.  505, 515. 

FN9  SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141, 143, 144; GREENLEAF LUMBER
CO. V. GARRISON, 237 U.S. 251, 263; WILLINK V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S.
572, 580; DELAWARE R. CO. V. WEEKS, 293 F. 114, 120; BARR V. SPALDING,
46 F.2D 798, 800; MARRET V. UNITED STATES, 82 CT. CLS. 1, 13; UNITED
STATES V. MEYER, 113 F.2D 387, 398. 

FN10  UNITED STATES V. HEYWARD, 250 U.S. 633. 

FN11  SEE CASES CITED IN NOTE 9 SUPRA. 

FN12  SEE THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 9, AND UNITED STATES V.
CHANDLERDUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 70; LEWIS BLUE POINT OYSTER CO. V.
BRIGGS, 229 U.S. 82, 86-88. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. COOPER CORP., 312 U.S. 600 


NO. 484.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 114 F.2D
413, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHILE THE UNITED STATES IS A JURISTIC PERSON IN THE SENSE THAT IT
CAN SUE UPON ITS CONTRACTS OR IN VINDICATION OF ITS PROPERTY RIGHTS,
THE TERM "PERSON" DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SOVEREIGN, IN COMMON USAGE, NOR,
ORDINARILY, WHEN EMPLOYED IN STATUTES.  P. 604. 

2.  THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, IN CREATING NEW RIGHTS AND REMEDIES,
ALLOWED TWO CLASSES OF ACTIONS,  - THOSE MADE AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, AND A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES GRANTED TO REDRESS
PRIVATE INJURY.  P. 608. 

3.  SECTION 7 OF THE ACT, GRANTING THE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR TREBLE
DAMAGES, TO "ANY PERSON" INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY "ANY
OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION" BY REASON OF ANYTHING FORBIDDEN BY THE
ACT, DOES NOT GIVE THE UNITED STATES A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES.  P.
606 ET SEQ. 

THE TEXT OF THE ACT, TAKEN IN ITS NATURAL AND ORDINARY SENSE, MAKES
AGAINST THE EXTENSION OF THE TERM "PERSON" TO INCLUDE THE UNITED
STATES; AND THE USUAL AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT THIS CONCLUSION. 

UNITED STATES V. COOPER CORPORATION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 639, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 31 F.SUPP.  848, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN AN
ACTION BY THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 7 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE WORDS "ANY PERSON," IN SEC. 7, ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THE
UNITED STATES, BECAUSE IT IS A JURISTIC PERSON AND AS SUCH IS
ORDINARILY ENTITLED TO ALL LEGAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO ANYONE ELSE. 
DUGAN V. UNITED STATES, 3 WHEAT.  172, 181; UNITED STATES V. GEAR, 3
HOW.  120; COTTON V. UNITED STATES, 11 HOW.  228, 231. 

CORPORATIONS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ACT AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
NARROWING THE SCOPE OF SEC. 7.  ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 8 WOULD
TURN WORDS OF INCLUSION INTO WORDS OF CRIPPLING LIMITATION.  MOREOVER,
IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO EXCLUDE THE UNITED STATES IN SEC. 8 IT
WOULD HAVE DONE SO EXPRESSLY AND WITHOUT AMBIGUITY. 

INASMUCH AS SEC. 7 IS NOT LIMITED BY SEC. 8, THE WORDS "ANY PERSON"
IN SEC. 7 SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BROAD MEANING WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED. 
THE FACT THAT SEC. 7 DOES NOT REFER EXPRESSLY TO THE UNITED STATES IS
NOT CONTROLLING.  STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 147 U.S. 508, 517; HELVERING V.
STOCKHOLMS ENSKILDA BANK, 293 U.S. 84, 91-92; NARDONE V. UNITED STATES,
302 U.S. 379.  THE STATUTE IS REMEDIAL AND SHOULD BE LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED.  BECAUSE IT CONFERS A GENERAL RIGHT OR REMEDY, THE UNITED
STATES IS ENTITLED TO ITS BENEFITS EVEN THOUGH NOT EXPRESSLY NAMED. 
DOLLAR SAVINGS BANK V. UNITED STATES, 19 WALL.  227, 239. 

THE FACTS THAT THE UNITED STATES IS THE LARGEST PURCHASER OF GOODS IN
THE COUNTRY AND THAT ITS PURCHASES ARE PAID FOR WITH PUBLIC FUNDS ARE
PERSUASIVE REASONS FOR GIVING TO IT THE REMEDY CREATED BY SEC. 7. 
EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT THE UNITED STATES, LIKE ANY OTHER PURCHASER,
CAN BE VICTIMIZED BY COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES.  THE OTHER REMEDIES
GIVEN BY THE ACT TO THE UNITED STATES IN ITS SOVEREIGN OR GOVERNMENTAL
CAPACITY DO NOT ENABLE THE UNITED STATES TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF
COLLUSIVE BIDDING NOR DO THEY PROTECT IT WHEN IT HAS BEEN REQUIRED BY
CIRCUMSTANCES TO PURCHASE AT COLLUSIVE AND NONCOMPETITIVE PRICES. 
THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT THAT THE REMEDIES GIVEN TO THE UNITED
STATES BY WAY OF INDICTMENT OR INJUNCTION ARE EXCLUSIVE; THOSE REMEDIES
CANNOT PROTECT ITS PROPRIETARY INTERESTS OR COMPENSATE IT FOR THE
DAMAGES WHICH RESPONDENTS HAVE INFLICTED UPON IT. 

IF SEC. 8 IS TO BE REGARDED AS LIMITING OR QUALIFYING SEC. 7, THEN
THE WORDS OF SEC. 8 SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS INCLUDING THE UNITED
STATES.  THE UNITED STATES CAN PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS A CORPORATION OR
AN ASSOCIATION EXISTING UNDER AND AUTHORIZED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE DEFINITION OF "PERSON" IN SEC. 8 IS OBVIOUSLY DRAWN TO
INCLUDE ALL KINDS OF CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE
DEFINITION IS NOT SERVED BY DRAWING ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND OTHER CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES AND TO DEPRIVE IT OF A REMEDY OPEN TO EVERY OTHER JURISTIC
PERSON.  DAVIS V. PRINGLE, 268 U.S. 315, IS NOT CONTROLLING HERE. 
THERE THE UNITED STATES WAS SEEKING PRIORITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ASSETS OF AN INSOLVENT ESTATE.  HERE THE UNITED STATES SEEKS NOT
PRIORITY BUT EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WITH ALL OTHER JURISTIC PERSONS. 
FURTHERMORE, THE STATUTE INVOLVED IN DAVIS V. PRINGLE, SUPRA, GAVE TO
THE UNITED STATES A LIMITED RIGHT OF PRIORITY AND THE COURT REGARDED
THIS CIRCUMSTANCE AS INDICATING THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO GIVE
ANY BROADER RIGHT OF PRIORITY.  HERE, UNLESS THE UNITED STATES CAN SUE
UNDER SEC. 7, IT IS WITHOUT A REMEDY AND CANNOT RECOVER IN ANY WAY FOR
THE DAMAGES WHICH RESPONDENTS HAVE INFLICTED UPON IT.  THE SUBSEQUENT
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT CREATE GRAVE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER DAVIS V. PRINGLE, SUPRA,
LAYS DOWN ANY PRINCIPLE WHICH NOW POSSESSES VITALITY. 

FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES TO ASSERT ITS RIGHTS UNDER SEC. 7 IS NOT
ENTITLED TO ANY WEIGHT WHATSOEVER AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
OF THE STATUTE.  UNION STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 213,
224; LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 740, 757, 759;
KANSAS CITY SO. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S. 147, 151. 

THE GOVERNMENT IS INVITING THIS COURT, AS IT HAS UNSUCCESSFULLY
INVITED THE TWO COURTS BELOW, TO UNDERTAKE, AS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION,
POWERS OF LEGISLATION. 

IF THE UNITED STATES NEEDS ANY GENERAL RIGHT TO SUE FOR DAMAGES UNDER
THE ACT, IT NEEDS AT MOST A RIGHT TO SUE FOR SIMPLE DAMAGES; NO
NECESSITY EXISTS TO PUNISH THROUGH THREEFOLD DAMAGES IN ADDITION TO
FINES, IMPRISONMENT, INJUNCTIONS AND FORFEITURES.  IT DOES NOT NEED THE
RIGHT TO SUE FOR TREBLE DAMAGES IN ORDER TO OBTAIN DESIRED PRICES ON
DEFENSE PROJECTS.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS IN ITS POSSESSION WEAPONS FAR
MORE POTENT TO ACHIEVE THAT RESULT - AS, E.G., ITS RIGHT TO THREATEN,
AND IF NEED BE TO USE, THE STATUTORY RIGHT OF TAKING OVER THE PROPERTY
OF A VENDOR WHO REFUSES TO SELL AT PRICES DEEMED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
BE REASONABLE.  SECTION 9 OF THE ACT OF SEPT. 16, 1940, C. 720, 54
STAT. 885. 

THE GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION BEFORE IT CAN SUE
FOR TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  SUCH STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION
WAS INTENTIONALLY DENIED BY CONGRESS. 

THAT AUTHORITY TO SUE FOR TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT IS
LACKING, HAS BEEN THE VIEW OF THE COURTS, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
AND CONGRESS, UNIFORMLY, FOR FIFTY YEARS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE TOOK THIS CASE BECAUSE IT PRESENTS THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHETHER
THE UNITED STATES MAY MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES UNDER SEC.
7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN1 

THE COMPLAINT CHARGED THE RESPONDENTS HAD ILLEGALLY COMBINED AND
CONSPIRED TO FIX COLLUSIVE PRICES OF ARTICLES PURCHASED BY THE UNITED
STATES; ALLEGED THE MONEY DAMAGE INFLICTED UPON THE UNITED STATES
THEREBY, AND SOUGHT JUDGMENT FOR THREE TIMES THAT AMOUNT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT A PERSON AS THE TERM IS USED IN SEC. 7 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT. 
FN3 


"ANY PERSON WHO SHALL BE INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY ANY
OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION BY REASON OF ANYTHING FORBIDDEN OR DECLARED
TO BE UNLAWFUL BY THIS ACT, MAY SUE THEREFOR IN ANY CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT RESIDES OR IS
FOUND, WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, AND SHALL RECOVER
THREE FOLD THE DAMAGES BY HIM SUSTAINED, AND THE COSTS OF SUIT,
INCLUDING A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE." 

THE UNITED STATES IS A JURISTIC PERSON IN THE SENSE THAT IT HAS
CAPACITY TO SUE UPON CONTRACTS MADE WITH IT OR IN VINDICATION OF ITS
PROPERTY RIGHTS.  THE SHERMAN ACT, HOWEVER, CREATED NEW RIGHTS AND
REMEDIES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ONLY TO THOSE ON WHOM THEY ARE CONFERRED
BY THE ACT.  FN4 THE PRECISE QUESTION FOR DECISION, THEREFORE, IS
WHETHER, BY THE USE OF THE PHRASE "ANY PERSON," CONGRESS INTENDED TO
CONFER UPON THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR
TREBLE DAMAGES AGAINST A VIOLATOR OF THE ACT. 

SINCE, IN COMMON USAGE, THE TERM "PERSON" DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
SOVEREIGN, STATUTES EMPLOYING THE PHRASE ARE ORDINARILY CONSTRUED TO
EXCLUDE IT.  FN5  BUT THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST RULE OF EXCLUSION.  THE
PURPOSE, THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE CONTEXT, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND
THE EXECUTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE ARE AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION
WHICH MAY INDICATE AN INTENT, BY THE USE OF THE TERM, TO BRING STATE OR
NATION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE LAW.  FN6 

THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT OFTEN THE WORD "PERSON" IS USED IN SUCH A
SENSE AS NOT TO INCLUDE THE SOVEREIGN BUT URGES THAT WHERE, AS IN THE
PRESENT INSTANCE, ITS WIDER APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND TENDS
TO EFFECTUATE, THE PUBLIC POLICY EVIDENCED BY THE STATUTE, THE TERM
SHOULD BE HELD TO EMBRACE THE GOVERNMENT.  AND IT STRONGLY URGES THAT
ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MOVED CONGRESS TO CONFER THE RIGHT TO
RECOVER DAMAGES UPON INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS INJURED BY VIOLATIONS
OF THE ACT APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE TO THE UNITED STATES, WHICH, AS A
LARGE PROCURER OF GOODS AND SERVICES, IS AS LIKELY TO BE INJURED BY THE
DENOUNCED COMBINATIONS AND MONOPOLIES AS IS A NATURAL OR CORPORATE
PERSON.  WE ARE ASKED, IN THIS VIEW, SO TO CONSTRUE THE ACT AS NOT TO
DENY TO THE GOVERNMENT WHAT PUBLIC POLICY IS THOUGHT TO REQUIRE. 

DECISION IS NOT TO BE REACHED BY A STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORDS
OF THE ACT, NOR BY THE APPLICATION OF ARTIFICIAL CANONS OF
CONSTRUCTION.  ON THE CONTRARY, WE ARE TO READ THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE
IN ITS ORDINARY AND NATURAL SENSE, AND IF DOUBTS REMAIN, RESOLVE THEM
IN THE LIGHT, NOT ONLY OF THE POLICY INTENDED TO BE SERVED BY THE
ENACTMENT, BUT, AS WELL, BY ALL OTHER AVAILABLE AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION. 
BUT IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO ENGRAFT ON A STATUTE ADDITIONS WHICH WE
THINK THE LEGISLATURE LOGICALLY MIGHT OR SHOULD HAVE MADE.  FN7 

THE RECENT EXPRESSIONS OF THIS COURT IN TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S.
141, 148, 149, WARN THAT IT IS NOT FOR THE COURTS TO INDULGE IN THE
BUSINESS OF POLICY-MAKING IN THE FIELD OF ANTITRUST LEGISLATION. 
CONGRESS HAS NOT LEFT US AT LARGE TO DEVISE EVERY FEASIBLE MEANS FOR
PROTECTING THE GOVERNMENT AS A PURCHASER.  IT IS THE FUNCTION OF
CONGRESS TO FASHION MEANS TO THAT END, AND CONGRESS HAS DISCHARGED THIS
DUTY FROM TIME TO TIME ACCORDING TO ITS OWN WISDOM.  OUR FUNCTION ENDS
WITH THE ENDEAVOR TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE WORDS USED, CONSTRUED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL, WHAT WAS IN FACT THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS. 

1.  WITHOUT GOING BEYOND THE WORDS OF THE SECTION, THE USE OF THE
PHRASE "ANY PERSON" IS INSUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE AN ACTION BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT IF THE
PURPOSE WAS TO INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES, "THE ORDINARY DIGNITIES OF
SPEECH WOULD HAVE LED" TO ITS MENTION BY NAME.  FN8  IT IS SUPPORTED
ALSO BY THE COLLOCATION OF THE PHRASE IN THE SECTION.  THE PROVISION IS
THAT "ANY PERSON" INJURED BY VIOLATION OF THE ACT "BY ANY OTHER PERSON
OR CORPORATION" MAY MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES AGAINST THE
LATTER.  IT IS HARDLY CREDIBLE THAT CONGRESS USED THE TERM "PERSON" IN
DIFFERENT SENSES IN THE SAME SENTENCE.  YET, UNLESS IT DID, THE UNITED
STATES WOULD NOT ONLY BE ENTITLED TO SUE BUT WOULD BE LIABLE TO SUIT
FOR TREBLE DAMAGES.  THE MORE NATURAL INFERENCE, WE THINK, IS THAT THE
MEANING OF THE WORD WAS IN BOTH USES LIMITED TO WHAT ARE USUALLY KNOWN
AS NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL PERSONS, THAT IS, INDIVIDUALS AND
CORPORATIONS.  IN ADDITION, THE CONCLUDING WORDS OF THE SECTION GIVE
THE INJURED PARTY, AS PART OF HIS COSTS, A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE,
A PROVISION MORE APPROPRIATE FOR A PRIVATE LITIGANT THAN FOR THE
UNITED STATES. 

2.  THE CONNOTATION OF A TERM IN ONE PORTION OF AN ACT MAY OFTEN BE
CLARIFIED BY REFERENCE TO ITS USE IN OTHERS.  THE WORD "PERSON" IS USED
IN SEVERAL SECTIONS OTHER THAN SEC. 7.  IN SECS. 1, 2, AND 3 THE PHRASE
DESIGNATING THOSE LIABLE CRIMINALLY IS "EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL" ETC.
IN EACH INSTANCE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHILE THE TERM "PERSON" MAY WELL
INCLUDE A CORPORATION IT CANNOT EMBRACE THE UNITED STATES.  IN SEC. 8
CONGRESS ATTEMPTED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE TERM "PERSON" IS TO INCLUDE A
CORPORATION.  THE PROVISION IS "THAT THE WORD 'PERSON,' OR 'PERSONS,'
WHEREVER USED IN THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO INCLUDE CORPORATIONS AND
ASSOCIATIONS EXISTING UNDER OR AUTHORIZED BY THE LAWS OF EITHER THE
UNITED STATES, THE LAWS OF ANY OF THE TERRITORIES, THE LAWS OF ANY
STATE, OR THE LAWS OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY."  THE VERY FACT, HOWEVER,
THAT THIS SWEEPING INCLUSION OF VARIOUS ENTITIES WAS THOUGHT IMPORTANT
TO PRECLUDE ANY NARROW INTERPRETATION EMPHASIZES THE FACT THAT IF THE
UNITED STATES WAS INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED CONGRESS WOULD HAVE SO
PROVIDED EXPRESSLY.  WE MAY SAY IN PASSING THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
UNITED STATES MAY BE TREATED AS A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER ITS OWN
LAWS, THAT IS, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW, SEEMS SO
STRAINED AS NOT TO MERIT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.  IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME
THAT THE TERM "PERSON," IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INDICATION TO THE
CONTRARY, WAS EMPLOYED BY THE CONGRESS THROUGHOUT THE ACT IN THE SAME,
AND NOT IN DIFFERENT, SENSES. 

3.  THE SCHEME AND STRUCTURE OF THE LEGISLATION ARE LIKEWISE
IMPORTANT TO A PROPER ASCERTAINMENT OF ITS PURPOSE AND INTENT. 
ACTS DENOUNCED IN THOSE SECTIONS RESPECTIVELY.  SECTION 4 GIVES
JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS OF PROCEEDINGS BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND IMPOSES UPON UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
THE DUTY TO INSTITUTE EQUITY PROCEEDINGS TO THAT END.  SECTION 5
REGULATES SERVICE IN SUCH SUITS.  SECTION 6 AUTHORIZES SEIZURE, IN THE
COURSE OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, OF GOODS OWNED UNDER ANY CONTRACT
OR PURSUANT TO ANY CONSPIRACY MADE ILLEGAL BY THE STATUTE.    THUS FAR
THE ACT DEALS IN DETAIL WITH THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL REMEDIES OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN VINDICATION OF THE POLICY OF THE LEGISLATION.  THERE
FOLLOWS SEC. 7, THE ONLY OTHER SUBSTANTIVE SECTION, GIVING A CIVIL
ACTION FOR AN INJURY TO PROPERTY RIGHTS. 

IT SEEMS EVIDENT THAT THE ACT ENVISAGED TWO CLASSES OF ACTIONS,  -
THOSE MADE AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH ARE FIRST PROVIDED
IN DETAIL, AND, IN ADDITION, A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR TREBLE DAMAGES
GRANTED TO REDRESS PRIVATE INJURY.  IF THIS BE THE FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ACT, THE COURT'S TASK IS FINISHED WHEN IT GIVES EFFECT TO THE
PURPOSES OF THE LAW, EVIDENCED BY THE VARIOUS REMEDIES IT AFFORDS FOR
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.  THOUGH THE LAW GAVE A REMEDY BY WAY OF
INJUNCTION AT THE SUIT OF THE UNITED STATES, WE WERE PRESSED TO SAY
THAT A PRIVATE PERSON SHOULD HAVE THE SAME REMEDY.  WE WERE COMPELLED
TO ANSWER THAT CONGRESS HAD NOT SEEN FIT SO TO PROVIDE.  FN9  FOR THE
LIKE REASONS WE CANNOT HOLD THAT SINCE A PRIVATE PURCHASER IS GIVEN A
REMEDY FOR HIS LOSSES IN TREBLE DAMAGES, THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE
AWARDED THE SAME REMEDY. 

4.  SUPPLEMENTAL LEGISLATION LENDS SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS
HAD IN MIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE REMEDIES AND DID
NOT INTEND TO CONFER A RIGHT OF ACTION ON THE UNITED STATES BY THE USE
OF THE PHRASE "ANY PERSON" IN SEC. 7.  THE ANTITRUST PROVISIONS OF THE
WILSON TARIFF ACT  FN10  FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN AS THE SHERMAN ACT. 
IMPORTING ARTICLES FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND DECLARES THAT EVERY
PERSON GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF ITS TERMS SHALL BE PUNISHED.  SECTION 74
CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS AND AUTHORIZES PROCEEDINGS
IN EQUITY BY THE UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN SUCH ACTS.  SECTION 76
PROVIDES FOR SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY IMPORTED INTO THE
UNITED STATES CONTRARY TO LAW AND SEC. 77 GIVES AN ACTION FOR TREBLE
DAMAGES TO ANY PERSON AGAINST ANY OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION IN THE
EXACT WORDS OF SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE ANTIDUMPING PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916  FN12  MAKE IT
A CRIMINAL OFFENSE FOR "ANY PERSON" IMPORTING ARTICLES FROM A FOREIGN
COUNTRY TO SELL, OR CAUSE TO BE IMPORTED OR SOLD, SUCH ARTICLES WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES AT SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH
ARTICLES AT THE TIME OF EXPORTATION IN THE PRINCIPAL MARKETS OF THE
COUNTRY OF PRODUCTION, ETC.  THEY FURTHER DECLARE THAT ANY PERSON
INJURED IN HIS BUSINESS OR PROPERTY BY ANY VIOLATION MAY SUE THEREFOR
IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS AND RECOVER THREEFOLD DAMAGES AND COSTS,
INCLUDING A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE.  IT MUST BE OBVIOUS THAT THE
UNITED STATES CANNOT BE EMBRACED BY THE PHRASE "ANY PERSON" THERE
USED. 

WHEN CONGRESS CAME TO SUPPLEMENT THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE CLAYTON ACT,
FN13  IT INCLUDED IN THE LATTER A SIGNIFICANT SECTION BEARING UPON THE
QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION.  DOUBTS HAD ARISEN AS TO WHETHER ISSUES
ADJUDICATED IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING OR A SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY THE
UNITED STATES SHOULD BE TAKEN AS CONCLUDED IN AN ACTION FOR TREBLE
DAMAGES SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT BY AN INJURED PARTY.  BY SEC. 5 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT IT WAS SOUGHT TO GIVE SUCH ADJUDICATION THAT EFFECT.  THE

"A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE HEREAFTER RENDERED IN ANY CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION OR IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY OR ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS TO THE EFFECT THAT
A DEFENDANT HAS VIOLATED SAID LAWS SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
AGAINST SUCH DEFENDANT IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY ANY OTHER
PARTY AGAINST SUCH DEFENDANT UNDER SAID LAWS AS TO ALL MATTERS
RESPECTING WHICH SAID JUDGMENT OR DECREE WOULD BE AN ESTOPPEL AS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES THERETO:  PROVIDED, THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO
CONSENT JUDGMENTS OR DECREES ENTERED BEFORE ANY TESTIMONY HAS BEEN
TAKEN." 

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS PROVISION THE SECTION CONTINUES: 

"WHENEVER ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING IN EQUITY OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS
INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES TO PREVENT, RESTRAIN OR PUNISH
VIOLATIONS OF ANY OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION
ARISING UNDER SAID LAWS AND BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON ANY MATTER
COMPLAINED OF IN SAID SUIT OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE SUSPENDED DURING THE
PENDENCY THEREOF." 

HERE AGAIN IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO VINDICATE PUBLIC
RIGHTS AND ACTIONS BY PRIVATE LITIGANTS FOR DAMAGES. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SEC. 1 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AGAIN DEFINED THE
TERM "PERSON" EXACTLY AS IT WAS DEFINED BY SEC. 8 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
AND SEC. 4 AGAIN ENACTED THAT ANY PERSON INJURED BY A VIOLATION MIGHT
RECOVER TREBLE DAMAGES TOGETHER WITH A REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEE. 

5.  THERE HAS BEEN A CONSIDERABLE BODY OF JUDICIAL EXPRESSION TO THE
EFFECT THAT SEC. 7 AUTHORIZES AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES ONLY BY PRIVATE
SUITORS AND NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FN14  WHILE NONE OF THE CASES
PRESENTED THE EXACT QUESTION HERE INVOLVED, THE STATEMENTS BEARING ON
THE SUBJECT EXHIBIT A UNIFORM OPINION CONTRARY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
PRESENT CONTENTION. 

6.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS PERSUASIVE THAT THE SHERMAN ACT WAS
NOT INTENDED TO GIVE THE UNITED STATES A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES. 
SENATOR SHERMAN, ON MARCH 18, 1890, INTRODUCED A BILL WHICH, IN SEC. 1,
PROVIDED THAT THE UNITED STATES MIGHT BRING VARIOUS CIVIL ACTIONS AND,
IN SEC. 2, THAT "ANY PERSON" SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO SUE ANY "PERSON" OR
"CORPORATION" FOR DOUBLE DAMAGES.  FN15 

IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE BILL IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT SEC. 1
AUTHORIZED THE UNITED STATES TO BRING CIVIL ACTIONS INCLUDING THOSE FOR
SIMPLE DAMAGES AND THAT, UNDER SEC. 2, PRIVATE PARTIES WERE ENTITLED TO
SUE FOR DOUBLE DAMAGES.  SENATOR SHERMAN STATED THAT SEC. 2 GAVE A
RIGHT TO SUE FOR DOUBLE DAMAGES ONLY TO PRIVATE PARTIES AND NOT TO THE
UNITED STATES.  HE STATED THAT THE CIVIL SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 1 MIGHT BE FOR AN OUSTER OF THE POWER OF THE
CORPORATION, FOR DAMAGES, OR IN QUO WARRANTO, AND ADDED:  "BUT THE
SECOND SECTION PROVIDES PURELY A PERSONAL REMEDY, A CIVIL SUIT ALSO BY
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN16 

AS IS WELL KNOWN, AFTER SENATOR SHERMAN'S BILL HAD BEEN AMENDED,
SENATOR HOAR REWROTE MOST OF THE BILL.  IN SO DOING HE ELIMINATED SEC.
1 WITH ITS PROVISION FOR CIVIL SUITS BY THE UNITED STATES AND
SUBSTITUTED SECS. 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 6, SPECIFYING THE REMEDIES, CIVIL,
CRIMINAL, AND BY WAY OF FORFEITURE, AVAILABLE TO THE UNITED STATES.  IN
THAT REVISION HE RETAINED, WITH SLIGHT CHANGE, SEC. 2 OF THE BILL,
INCREASING THE RECOVERABLE DAMAGES TO TREBLE INSTEAD OF DOUBLE, AND
RENUMBERED THE SECTION AS SEC. 7.  IN THIS FORM THE BILL WAS ADOPTED. 

AS ALREADY STATED, THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT WAS
REPEATED IN LATER STATUTES EXTENDING THE ANTITRUST LAWS ALTHOUGH IN THE
MEANTIME THIS AND OTHER COURTS HAD EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE SECTION
ACCORDED THE GOVERNMENT NO RIGHT OF SUIT FOR TREBLE DAMAGES.  WHEN THE
CLAYTON ACT WAS BEFORE THE SENATE, SENATOR CULBERSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED THE BILL, ENUMERATED THE USUAL TYPES OF ACTION
PROSECUTED UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT,  - CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, SUITS IN
EQUITY, AND ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES, AND STATED WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNMENT
SUITS UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE CLAYTON ACT:  "THERE IS NO SUIT
AUTHORIZED BY ANY OF THESE STATUTES EXCEPT A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR A
SUIT IN EQUITY.  THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT BRING A SUIT AT LAW FOR
DAMAGES."  FN17 

IN 1926 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN RESPONSE TO A SENATE RESOLUTION
ASKING FOR INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO CASES INSTITUTED UNDER THE FIRST
SEVEN SECTIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, WROTE:  "UNDER SECTION 7, WHICH
GIVES TO PRIVATE PERSONS THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR INJURIES ARISING UNDER
THE ACT, A NUMBER OF ACTIONS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED.  THE UNITED STATES,
HOWEVER, UNDER THE STATUTE IS NOT A PARTY TO SUITS UNDER THAT

SENATOR O'MAHONEY HAS INTRODUCED A BILL, WHICH IS PENDING AS S. 2719,
PREPARED JOINTLY BY HIM AND BY THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CHARGE
OF ANTITRUST MATTERS.  ON JUNE 28, 1939, THE SENATOR STATED THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS TO PROVIDE MORE EFFECTIVE CIVIL REMEDIES.  IN
THE COURSE OF HIS STATEMENT HE SAID:  "THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER REMEDY
WORTH MENTIONING AVAILABLE UNDER EXISTING LAW TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE - THE CIVIL ACTION FOR AN INJUNCTION.  IN ADDITION, THERE IS
THE ACTION IN DAMAGES BY A PRIVATE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN INJURED. 
NEITHER OF THESE REMEDIES IS EFFECTIVE."  HE FURTHER STATED:  "THE BILL
PERMITS THE UNITED STATES, IN EFFECT, TO BRING A SUIT FOR DAMAGES
AGAINST AN OFFENDING CORPORATION AND AGAINST ITS INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS
AND OFFICERS."  FN19 

7.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPRESSIONS BY THE
COURTS, THE SUPPLEMENTAL LEGISLATION, AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, NO
ACTION HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER SEC. 7 IN THE
FIFTY YEARS DURING WHICH THE STATUTE HAS BEEN IN FORCE UNTIL THE
PRESENT ACTION WAS INSTITUTED.  DOWN TO THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 1937, 428
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND SUITS IN EQUITY HAD BEEN INSTITUTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  FN20  DOWN TO DECEMBER, 1939, 103 CIVIL SUITS HAD BEEN
INSTITUTED BY PRIVATE PERSONS, INCLUDING CORPORATIONS.  FN21  IN THE
MEANTIME THE WORLD WAR INTERVENED WITH THE GOVERNMENT A PURCHASER OF
ENORMOUS QUANTITIES OF MATERIAL AND SUPPLIES.  THEN, AS NOW, THE
COMPLAINT WAS PREVALENT THAT AGREEMENTS AND CONSPIRACIES EXISTED TO FIX
AND MAINTAIN PRICES OF MATERIALS NEEDED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  AND
THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE LEGISLATION ABLE AND VIGILANT OFFICIALS
DEVOTED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE SHERMAN ACT HAVE NOT BEEN
WANTING. 

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CONVICTION THAT NO RIGHT TO SUE HAD BEEN
GIVEN THE GOVERNMENT, RATHER THAN A SUPINE NEGLECT TO RESORT TO AN
AVAILABLE REMEDY, SEEMS TO US THE TRUE EXPLANATION OF THE FACT THAT NO
SUCH ACTIONS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

IN SUMMARY, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE TEXT OF THE ACT, TAKEN IN ITS
NATURAL AND ORDINARY SENSE, MAKES AGAINST THE EXTENSION OF THE TERM
"PERSON" TO INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT THE USUAL AIDS TO
CONSTRUCTION, TAKEN TOGETHER, INSTEAD OF INDUCING THE CONTRARY
CONCLUSION, GO TO SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS DID NOT USE THE WORD
IN THE SENSE FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JULY 2, 1890, C. 647, 26 STAT. 209, 210. 

FN2  31 F.SUPP.  848. 

FN3  114 F.2D 413. 

FN4  WILDER MFG. CO. V. CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO., 236 U.S. 165,
174; FLEITMANN V. WELSBACH STREET LIGHTING CO., 240 U.S. 27, 29; GEDDES
V. ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO., 254 U.S. 590, 593. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. FOX, 52 N.Y. 530; ID., 94 U.S. 315, 321. 

FN6  SEE LEVY V. MCCARTEE, 6 PET. 102, 110; UNITED STATES V. FREEMAN,
3 HOW.  556, 565; OHIO V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360, 370; NARDONE V.
UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379. 

FN7  THE PEDRO, 175 U.S. 354, 364; DEWEY V. UNITED STATES, 178 U.S.
510, 519, 520; PIRIE V. CHICAGO TITLE & T. CO., 182 U.S. 438, 451;
WHITE V. UNITED STATES, 191 U.S. 545, 551, 552; EBERT V. POSTON, 266
U.S. 548, 554; HELVERING V. OREGON LIFE INS. CO., 311 U.S. 267, 272. 

FN8  DAVIS V. PRINGLE, 268 U.S. 315, 318. 

FN9  MINNESOTA V. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO., 194 U.S. 48, 71; PAINE
LUMBER CO. V. NEAL, 244 U.S. 459.  THE ACT WAS AMENDED TO AUTHORIZE
SUITS FOR INJUNCTIONS BY PRIVATE LITIGANTS.  SEE THE CLAYTON ACT OF
OCTOBER 15, 1914, C. 323, SEC. 16, 38 STAT. 730, 737; 15 U.S.C. SEC.
26. 

FN10  ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1894, C. 349, 28 STAT. 509, AS AMENDED BY ACT
OF FEB. 12, 1913, C. 40, 37 STAT. 667; 15 U.S.C. SEC. 8. 

FN11  28 STAT. 570, 37 STAT. 667. 

FN12  ACT OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1916, C. 463, 39 STAT. 756, 798, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 72. 

FN13  ACT OF OCTOBER 15, 1914, C. 323, 38 STAT. 730. 

FN14  PIDCOCK V. HARRINGTON, 64 F. 821, 822; LOWENSTEIN V. EVANS, 69
F. 908, 911; GREER, MILLS & CO. V. STOLLER, 77 F. 1, 3; CITY OF ATLANTA
V. CHATTANOOGA FOUNDRY CO., 101 F. 900, 904; STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 52; UNITED STATES V. PATTERSON, 201 F.
697, 714; GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SO. RY. CO.,
260 U.S. 261, 286; GLENN COAL CO. V. DICKINSON FUEL CO., 72 F.2D 885,
889; QUEMOS THEATRE CO. V. WARNER BROS. PICTURES, 35 F.SUPP.  949, 950;
TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141, 148. 

FN15  "SECTION 1: 

"  ...  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF ALL SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE AT COMMON LAW OR
IN EQUITY ARISING UNDER THIS SECTION, AND TO ISSUE ALL REMEDIAL
PROCESS, ORDERS, OR WRITS PROPER AND NECESSARY TO ENFORCE ITS
PROVISIONS.  AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE SEVERAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ARE HEREBY DIRECTED, IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES, TO
COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ALL SUCH CASES TO FINAL JUDGMENT AND
EXECUTION." 

"SECTION 2: 

"THAT ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION INJURED OR DAMNIFIED BY SUCH
ARRANGEMENT, CONTRACT, AGREEMENT, TRUST, OR COMBINATION DEFINED IN THE
FIRST SECTION OF THIS ACT MAY SUE FOR AND RECOVER, IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT
INVOLVED, OF ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION A PARTY TO A COMBINATION
DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST SECTION OF THIS ACT, TWICE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES
SUSTAINED AND THE COSTS OF THE SUIT, TOGETHER WITH A REASONABLE
ATTORNEY'S FEE." 

FN16  21 CONG. REC. 2563-2564. 

FN17  51 CONG. REC. 13898.  STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE INDICATE A SIMILAR VIEW:  51 CONG. REC. 9079,
9490.  REPRESENTATIVE WEBB THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE MENTIONED THE
CIVIL REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE BILL AS TREBLE DAMAGE ACTIONS BY
PERSONS, SUITS BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, SUITS BY THE UNITED
STATES FOR INJUNCTIONS, AND SIMILAR SUITS BY PERSONS.  HE THEN SAID
"CERTAINLY THE REMEDIES ARE CUMULATIVE.  THE REMEDIES PILE UP, AND ALL
OF THE REMEDIES ARE OPEN TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND TO THE GOVERNMENT IN A
SUIT."  51 CONG. REC. 16276.  BUT OBVIOUSLY HE MEANT THAT THE REMEDIES
GIVEN THE PUBLIC AND THE INDIVIDUAL RESPECTIVELY WERE CUMULATIVE, AS
THEY CLEARLY ARE; FOR IT IS PLAIN THE REMEDY GIVEN THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION IS NOT AFFORDED TO THE INDIVIDUAL.    FN18  SEN. DOC. NO.
79, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1.    FN19  84 CONG. REC. 8192. 

FN20  "FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS," PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE JANUARY 1938. 

FN21  49 YALE LAW JOURNAL 296. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

IN ORDER TO GIVE PURCHASERS OF GOODS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY THEM AT
PRICES FIXED BY COMPETITIVE TRADE, THE SHERMAN ACT MADE IT ILLEGAL TO
FIX PRICES BY COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY.  IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO
BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO GIVE EQUAL PROTECTION TO ALL
PURCHASERS SIMILARLY INJURED.  IN MY JUDGMENT, NO LANGUAGE OF THAT ACT,
NOTHING IN ITS HISTORY, AND NO ARGUMENT NOW PRESENTED FOR OUR
CONSIDERATION MAKES NECESSARY THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF SOME PURCHASERS AND AGAINST OTHERS.  IT WOULD
REQUIRE CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL STATUTORY LANGUAGE TO PERSUADE ME THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO GRANT A REMEDY TO ALL EXCEPT ONE OF THOSE WHO WERE
INJURED BY TRUST PRICES - THE "ALL" INCLUDING EVERY NATURAL AND
ARTIFICIAL PERSON, EVERY CORPORATION AND ASSOCIATION,  FN1  FOREIGN AND
DOMESTIC, AND THE SINGLE EXCEPTION BEING THE UNITED STATES, WHICH BUYS
MORE GOODS AND SERVICES THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE PURCHASER.  FN2  NO SUCH
CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL STATUTORY LANGUAGE EXISTS.  AND NO PLAUSIBLE
REASON HAS BEEN HAZARDED TO PROVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT AS A PURCHASER OF
GOODS NEEDS LESS PROTECTION FROM UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS THAN DO OTHER
BUYERS.  FN3  MANY DEPLORABLE INSTANCES IN OUR HISTORY, IN FACT,
INDICATE THE CONTRARY.  CONGRESS, NO DOUBT STIMULATED TO ACTION BY
THESE HISTORICAL OCCURRENCES, HAS BY NUMEROUS ENACTMENTS RECOGNIZED THE
URGENT NECESSITY FOR SAFEGUARDING GOVERNMENTAL PURCHASES OF GOODS AND
SERVICES AGAINST UNFAIR AND COLLUSIVE PRICE-FIXING.  TO THAT END,
COMPETITIVE BIDDING AS A PREREQUISITE TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS HAS BEEN
THE GENERAL STATUTORY RULE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS, AND
COMBINATIONS TO DEPRIVE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ADVANTAGES OF SUCH
COMPETITION HAVE BEEN MADE CRIMINAL.  IT IS THEREFORE STRANGE INDEED
THAT THE SHERMAN ACT, THE GREATEST OF ALL LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO MAKE
COMPETITION, NOT COMBINATION, THE LAW OF TRADE, SHOULD NOW BE FOUND TO
AFFORD A GREATER PROTECTION AGAINST COLLUSIVE PRICE-FIXING TO EVERY
OTHER BUYER IN THE UNITED STATES THAN IS AFFORDED TO THE UNITED STATES
ITSELF. 

SO MUCH FOR WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE LOGICAL APPROACH TO THE
PROBLEM, AND THE ONE THAT SHOULD CAUSE US TO SAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT
CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES.  IF, HOWEVER, WE APPLY FAMILIAR CANONS OF
CONSTRUCTION, I THINK WE ARE LED TO THE SAME RESULT.  FOR IT IS A
PRIMARY PRINCIPLE THAT A LAW SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO CARRY OUT ITS
PURPOSE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIL AIMED AT AND THE PROTECTION INTENDED
TO BE AFFORDED.  HERE, AMONG THE EVILS LEGISLATED AGAINST WAS PRICE
FIXING BY COMBINATION, AND AMONG THE REMEDIES AFFORDED WAS THE GIVING
OF A RIGHT OF ACTION TO PURCHASERS INJURED BY PRICES SO FIXED.  THE
RESULT OF THIS CASE - DENYING TO THE LARGEST SINGLE PURCHASER OF ALL
GOODS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN THE NATION THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY
THIS LEGISLATION - IS TO RESTRICT THE REMEDY IN SUCH WAY THAT THE EVIL
AIMED AT IS LESS LIKELY TO BE SUPPRESSED.  FOR THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN
THE SHERMAN ACT, INSOFAR AS SALES TO THE GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL DAMAGES
ARE CONCERNED, ENABLES THOSE GUILTY OF VIOLATING IT TO ELUDE ITS
PROVISIONS, ESCAPE ITS CONSEQUENCES, AND DEFEAT ITS OBJECTS. 

NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT THE PREVIOUS FAILURE OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES TO BRING ACTIONS SIMILAR TO THIS SHOULD BE DEEMED
A PERSUASIVE REASON TO READ THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE ACT'S BENEFITS. 
THE 1926 STATEMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE EFFECT THAT "THE
UNITED STATES  ...  IS NOT A PARTY TO SUITS UNDER" SEC. 7 DOES NOT
SUPPLY SUCH A REASON.  FOR IN THE QUOTED STATEMENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DID NOT TAKE THE POSITION THAT THE GOVERNMENT LACKED THE POWER TO SUE
FOR CIVIL DAMAGES; APPARENTLY WHAT HE HAD REFERENCE TO WAS THE FACT
THAT THE SHERMAN ACT DID NOT MAKE THE UNITED STATES A PARTY TO ACTIONS
FOR CIVIL DAMAGES BY PRIVATE PERSONS AGAINST PRIVATE PERSONS.  WE DO
NOT KNOW AND CANNOT POSSIBLY DETERMINE WHY NO PRIOR SUITS WERE
INSTITUTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GOVERNMENT.  TO ASSIGN REASONS FOR
SUCH INACTION IS BUT TO GUESS.  AND THE GUESSES WOULD DOUBTLESS VARY
ALMOST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF THE GUESSERS. 
BUT WHATEVER MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE REASONS BEHIND THE GOVERNMENT'S
FAILURE TO SUE, SURE IT IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT THE
PURCHASING AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT.  HE CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO HAVE
CONSTANT KNOWLEDGE OF THE MANIFOLD PROBLEMS THAT FACE THOSE WHO BUY THE
GOVERNMENT'S SUPPLIES.  IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT IS PROBABLY TRUE THAT
EVEN AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO MIGHT ZEALOUSLY DESIRE TO ENFORCE THE
CRIMINAL PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT WOULD NOT LIKELY BE STIMULATED
TO INSTITUTE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FOR DAMAGES UNLESS HIS ATTENTION WAS
DIRECTED TO THE POINT BY KEENLY ALERT AND DILIGENT PURCHASING
AGENCIES.  TO ATTEMPT TO CONSTRUE THE SHERMAN ACT BY A VAIN EFFORT TO
APPRAISE THE REASONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NON-ACTION OF ATTORNEYS
GENERAL IS A JOURNEY INTO THE REALM OF IMPONDERABLES I FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO TAKE.  I WOULD SIMPLY READ THE ACT FROM ITS LANGUAGE AND
MANIFEST PURPOSE AS GIVING ALL PURCHASERS OF GOODS A RIGHT TO SUE IF
THEY HAVE BEEN INJURED AS THE RESULT OF PRICES HELD UP BY THOSE TYPES
OF UNLAWFUL COMBINATION CONDEMNED BY THE ACT.  FN4 

THE PRINCIPLE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION NOW ADOPTED IN THIS CASE,
RESULTING AS IT DOES IN DENYING TO THE GOVERNMENT THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 7
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IS A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM A LONG ESTABLISHED
POLICY UNDER WHICH THE COURTS HAVE CONSTRUED LAWS MOST LIBERALLY IN
ORDER TO DECLARE THE GOVERNMENT ENTITLED TO THEIR BENEFITS.  FN5  AND
CERTAINLY IT CAN HARDLY BE DENIED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, GIVING
ALL PERSONS A RIGHT OF ACTION, SHOULD IF LIBERALLY CONSTRUED BE HELD TO
JUSTIFY SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES.  FOR IN COTTON V. UNITED STATES, 11
HOW.  229, 231, DECIDED FORTY YEARS BEFORE THE SHERMAN ACT WAS ADOPTED,
THIS COURT SAID IN SPEAKING OF THE UNITED STATES: "EVERY SOVEREIGN
STATE IS OF NECESSITY A BODY POLITIC, OR ARTIFICIAL PERSON, AND AS SUCH
CAPABLE OF MAKING CONTRACTS AND HOLDING PROPERTY.  ...  IT WOULD
PRESENT A STRANGE ANOMALY, INDEED, IF, HAVING THE POWER TO MAKE
CONTRACTS AND HOLD PROPERTY AS OTHER PERSONS, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL,
THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SAME REMEDIES FOR THEIR PROTECTION." 
AND, SPEAKING IN SIMILAR VEIN IN HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS ENSKILDA BANK,
293 U.S. 84, 92, AFTER HAVING CITED BLACKSTONE FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
THE SOVEREIGN IS A "CORPORATION," AND AFTER HAVING GONE EVEN BEYOND
THIS TO HOLD THAT THE STATUTORY WORD "RESIDENT" INCLUDED THE UNITED
STATES, THE COURT SAID:  "THIS MAY BE IN THE NATURE OF A LEGAL FICTION;
BUT LEGAL FICTIONS HAVE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE LAW WHEN THEY ARE REQUIRED BY THE DEMANDS OF CONVENIENCE AND
JUSTICE."  FN6 

THESE PARTICULAR CASES ARE BUT FACETS OF A GENERAL RULE THAT HAS LONG
BEEN ACCEPTED - THE UNITED STATES CAN EXERCISE ALL OF THE LEGAL
REMEDIES WHICH OTHER PERSONS, BODIES OR ASSOCIATIONS CAN EXERCISE, BOTH
AT COMMON LAW AND UNDER STATUTES,  FN7  UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING IN A
STATUTE OR IN ITS HISTORY TO INDICATE AN INTENT TO DEPRIVE THE UNITED
STATES OF THAT RIGHT.  FN8  IN THIS CASE, NOTHING IN THE SHERMAN ACT
ITSELF AND NOTHING IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MAKES NECESSARY THE
CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO WITHHOLD FROM THE UNITED STATES A
REMEDY GIVEN TO ALL OTHER PURCHASERS.  FN9  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  A 1940 REPORT TO THE SENATE, MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY PURSUANT TO A SENATE RESOLUTION, REVEALED THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WAS TRANSACTING PART OF ITS BUSINESS THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF
AT LEAST 1469 GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS.  SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 172, 76TH
CONG., 3RD SESS., PART 1, P. 4.  THE JUDGMENT HERE DOES NOT FORECLOSE
SUCH CORPORATIONS FROM SUING FOR DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 7, OR SO I ASSUME. 
IF I AM CORRECT IN MY ASSUMPTION, THE RESULT IS THAT AS TO THOSE
PURCHASES MADE BY ITS CORPORATE AGENCIES, THE GOVERNMENT IS PROTECTED
BY THE SHERMAN ACT, WHILE AS TO THOSE PURCHASES MADE BY ITS NON
CORPORATE AGENCIES, IT IS NOT SO PROTECTED.  A PROCESS OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION WHICH RESULTS IN GIVING TO GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS A RIGHT
DENIED TO CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SEEMS TO
ME TO CONFLICT WITH THE FREQUENTLY DECLARED RULE THAT A STATUTE SHOULD
NOT BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH WAY AS TO PRODUCE AN UNREASONABLE OR UNJUST
RESULT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, 310 U.S.
534, 542-543; SORRELLS V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 435, 446. 

FN2  FOR A RECENT STUDY, SEE "GOVERNMENT PURCHASING - AN ECONOMIC
COMMENTARY," MONOGRAPH NO. 19 OF THE TEMPORARY NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COMMITTEE (1940). 

FN3  AN ARGUMENT IS OFFERED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO
NEED OF A RIGHT TO DAMAGES, BECAUSE IT HAS THE POWER TO BRING CRIMINAL
AND INJUNCTIVE PROCEEDINGS.  BUT THE RIGHT TO BRING THOSE PROCEEDINGS
IS GIVEN TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC, RATHER
THAN FOR ITS SELF-PROTECTION AS A PURCHASER.  FURTHER, CRIMINAL AND
INJUNCTIVE PROCEEDINGS, WHATEVER THEIR EFFICACY, DO NOT ACHIEVE THE
OBJECT OF SEC. 7, WHICH IS TO INDEMNIFY ALL INJURED PURCHASERS. 

FN4  THOUGH THE ACT IS ALL-INCLUSIVE IN NAMING THOSE WHO MAY SUE FOR
DAMAGES, IT IS NOT EQUALLY ALL-INCLUSIVE IN DESCRIBING THOSE ACTS WHICH
MAY BE REGARDED AS UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS.  THIS IS TRUE BOTH BECAUSE OF
THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND OBJECTS OF THE SHERMAN ACT ITSELF, AND
BECAUSE OF SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION.  THE MOST NOTABLE EXAMPLE OF SUCH
SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION IS THAT PORTION OF THE CLAYTON ACT WHICH
PROVIDES:  "THE LABOR OF A HUMAN BEING IS NOT A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE OF
COMMERCE.  NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE ANTITRUST LAWS SHALL BE CONSTRUED
TO FORBID THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATION OF LABOR, AGRICULTURAL, OR
HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS  ...  OR TO FORBID OR RESTRAIN INDIVIDUAL
MEMBERS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS FROM LAWFULLY CARRYING OUT THE LEGITIMATE
OBJECTS THEREOF; NOR SHALL SUCH ORGANIZATIONS, OR THE MEMBERS THEREOF,
BE HELD OR CONSTRUED TO BE ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE, UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS."  38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 17.  SEE APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469. 

FN5  IT IS ARGUED THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES IT MAY
ALSO BE SUED FOR DAMAGES.  THAT QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE US AND NEED NOT
BE DECIDED.  OTHER PRINCIPLES WILL BE MATERIAL IF SUCH A QUESTION EVER
SHOULD BE PRESENTED.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SHERWOOD, ANTE, P. 584;
NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379, 383-384; UNITED STATES V.
KNIGHT, 14 PET. 301, 315.  AMONG THESE PRINCIPLES THE MOST IMPORTANT IS
THAT OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.  "THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES
RAISES A PRESUMPTION AGAINST ITS SUABILITY, UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY SHOWN;
NOR SHOULD A COURT ENLARGE ITS LIABILITY TO SUIT BEYOND WHAT THE
LANGUAGE (OF THE STATUTE IN QUESTION) REQUIRES."  EASTERN
TRANSPORTATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 675, 686; PRICE V. UNITED
STATES, 174 U.S. 373, 375-376; UNITED STATES V. SHERWOOD, ANTE, 584. 

FN6  TO THIS STATEMENT THE COURT ADDED:  "IF TO CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES OF A STATUTE IT BE ADMISSIBLE TO CONSTRUE THE WORD 'PERSON' AS
INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES (CASES TO THAT EFFECT HAVING PREVIOUSLY
BEEN CITED), IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY, IN LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS
INADMISSIBLE TO CONSTRUE THE WORD 'RESIDENT' AS LIKEWISE INCLUDING THE
UNITED STATES."  CF. OHIO V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360, 370-71; STANLEY
V. SCHWALBY, 147 U.S. 508, 517. 

FN7  SEE DUGAN V. UNITED STATES, 3 WHEAT.  172; UNITED STATES V.
GEAR, 3 HOW.  120; COTTON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  CF. DOLLAR SAVINGS
BANK V. UNITED STATES, 19 WALL.  227; UNITED STATES V. CHAMBERLIN, 219
U.S. 250. 

FN8  CF. DAVIS V. PRINGLE, 268 U.S. 315. 

FN9  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT ENLIGHTENING
ON THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US.  AT BEST, ALL THAT CAN BE SAID OF THE
VERY FEW AND SCATTERED STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE ON THE SUBJECT DURING
THE DEBATES ON THE CLAYTON ACT IS THAT THEY LOOK BOTH WAYS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :






COMMISSION V. BRASHEAR LINES, 312 U.S. 621 


NO. 549.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 114 F.2D
1, REVERSED. 


1.  A MOTION TO ASSESS DAMAGES IN A CASE UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 266 IN
WHICH AN INJUNCTION HAS BEEN DISSOLVED AND THE BILL DISMISSED SHOULD BE
DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ORDINARY
JURISDICTION WITHOUT PARTICIPATION BY THE TWO ADDITIONAL JUDGES.  P.
625. 

2.  A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING A MOTION TO ASSESS
DAMAGES IN A CASE DECIDED BY THE COURT OF THREE JUDGES (JUD.  CODE SEC.
266), IS NOT INVALIDATED BY THE FACT THAT THE TWO ADDITIONAL JUDGES
TOOK PART IN ITS CONSIDERATION; AND, THOUGH NOT APPEALABLE DIRECTLY TO
THIS COURT, IT IS REVIEWABLE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHOSE
ACTION UPON IT MAY IN TURN BE REVIEWED HERE ON CERTIORARI.  P. 626. 

3.  IN A SUIT BY NUMEROUS CARRIERS BY TRUCK TO ENJOIN STATE OFFICIALS
FROM ENFORCING A STATE STATUTE IMPOSING LICENSE FEES, WHEREIN THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN DISSOLVING AN INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL,
HAD DISMISSED, WITHOUT HEARING ITS MERITS, A COUNTERCLAIM FOR THE
LICENSE FEES OWING BY THE SEVERAL PLAINTIFFS, THE DISMISSAL HAVING BEEN
BASED UPON A DOUBT OF THE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANTS TO MAINTAIN SUCH A
COUNTERCLAIM AND HAVING BEEN MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY RIGHT TO
MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENT SUIT OR SUITS THEREON,  - HELD, THAT THE RULING
WAS NOT DECISIVE OF THE RIGHT OF DEFENDANTS TO OBTAIN BY MOTION AT THE
END OF THE LITIGATION AN ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE
INJUNCTION, AND COSTS.  P. 626. 

4.  THE PLAINTIFFS HAVING PREVENTED COLLECTION OF LAWFUL LICENSE FEES
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI THROUGH AN INJUNCTION OBTAINED IN A
SUIT AGAINST THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL, ITS PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES, CHARGING THAT THE FEES WERE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT THE DEFENDANTS THREATENED TO COLLECT THEM,
AND MANY OF THE PLAINTIFFS HAVING FAILED BEFORE THE INJUNCTION WAS
DISSOLVED TO DEPOSIT THE FEES FALLING DUE FROM THEM, AS REQUIRED BY THE
INJUNCTION ORDER AND THEIR INJUNCTION BONDS, HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO STANDING TO RESIST A MOTION FOR
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES UPON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTORY POWER TO
COLLECT SUCH FEES IS LODGED IN THE STATE TREASURER, WHO WAS NOT A PARTY
TO THE SUIT.  P. 627. 

(2)  WHOEVER HAS THE POWER IN MISSOURI TO COLLECT SUCH LICENSE FEES,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO BRING SUITS IN THE NAME
AND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE.  P. 627. 

(3)  THE DEFENDANT OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES WERE PROPER PARTIES TO
INVOKE AN ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES ON BEHALF OF THE STATE.  P. 628. 

(4)  THE DISTRICT COURT, SITTING IN EQUITY, HAS POWER TO SEE THAT
WHATEVER SUMS ARE RECOVERED GO TO THE PROPER STATE OFFICIALS.  P. 628. 

5.  THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO ASSESS
DAMAGES IN THE INJUNCTION SUIT, THUS REMITTING THE STATE AND ITS
OFFICIALS TO MANY ACTIONS AT LAW AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS, SOME OF THEM
POSSIBLY IN OTHER STATES, AND GIVING RISE TO SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE
APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES, INCLUDING COSTS AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION. 
P. 630. 

IT IS ESPECIALLY FITTING THAT EQUITY EXERT ITS FULL STRENGTH IN ORDER
TO PROTECT FROM LOSS A STATE WHICH HAS BEEN INJURED BY REASON OF A
SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS IMPOSED BY EQUITY ITSELF. 

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI ET AL. V. BRASHEAR FREIGHT
LINES, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 642, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH AFFIRMED THE
DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF A MOTION TO ASSESS DAMAGES AND COSTS IN AN
INJUNCTION SUIT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE REVOLVE AROUND THE POWER OF A FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT TO ASSESS DAMAGES ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY A TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE COURT BUT LATER DISSOLVED ON FINAL HEARING. 
THESE ISSUES GROW OUT OF THIS SITUATION:  RESPONDENTS IN THIS COURT,
SEVENTY-SIX INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND CORPORATIONS OPERATING
TRUCKS AS COMMON CARRIERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FILED A BILL IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN PETITIONERS HERE, MISSOURI OFFICIALS
AND AGENCIES, FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THEM CERTAIN ALLEGEDLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX AND LICENSE FEATURES OF THE MISSOURI BUS AND TRUCK
LAW.  FN1  A SINGLE DISTRICT JUDGE GRANTED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER UNDER WHICH RESPONDENTS WERE REQUIRED TO POST INJUNCTION BONDS
AND UNDER WHICH THE CONTESTED FEES WERE TO BE DEPOSITED WITH A TRUSTEE
DURING THE LITIGATION.  BUT BECAUSE THE BILL SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN STATE
OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING AN ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE STATUTE,
THE CASE WAS SET DOWN FOR HEARING BEFORE A THREE JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
PURSUANT TO SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
380.  PETITIONERS, IN THEIR ANSWER TO RESPONDENTS' COMPLAINT,
COUNTERCLAIMED FOR FEES AND LICENSES THE RESPONDENTS HAD FAILED TO PAY
IN THE PAST  FN2  AND LATER AMENDED THE COUNTERCLAIM TO INCLUDE AMOUNTS
THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO DEPOSIT WITH THE TRUSTEE DURING THE
LITIGATION.  ULTIMATELY, THE THREE JUDGE COURT FOUND THE BUS AND TRUCK
LAW CONSTITUTIONAL, DISSOLVED THE RESTRAINING ORDER, DISMISSED THE
TRUCK OPERATORS' BILL, AND ALSO ORDERED THE COUNTERCLAIM DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE OF "SERIOUS DOUBT AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE
DEFENDANTS TO MAINTAIN" SUCH AN ACTION.  THE TRUCK OPERATORS DID NOT
APPEAL FROM THE DISMISSAL OF THEIR BILL.  PETITIONERS' ATTEMPT TO BRING
THE DISMISSAL OF THEIR COUNTERCLAIM HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL WAS DISMISSED
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  306 U.S. 204.  THEREUPON THE PETITIONERS, ON
THEIR OWN BEHALF AND "IN BEHALF OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI AND OF THE
STATE TREASURER," FILED IN THE THREE JUDGE COURT A MOTION FOR
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES AND COSTS AGAINST THE TRUCK OPERATORS AND THEIR
INJUNCTION BOND SURETIES.  THAT COURT DENIED THE REQUESTED RELIEF ON
THE GROUND THAT THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE MOTION FOR DAMAGES HAD
BEEN RULED UPON AND FINALLY DETERMINED BY THE JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE
ORIGINAL COUNTERCLAIM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,  FN3
BUT ON A DIFFERENT GROUND.  IT HELD THAT THE MOTION TO ASSESS DAMAGES
INVOLVED ISSUES ANCILLARY TO THE ORIGINAL LITIGATION, WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE A LONG AND COMPLICATED INQUIRY; THAT SUCH LITIGATION IS NOT THE
TYPE FOR WHICH A THREE JUDGE COURT IS PROVIDED; THAT THE THREE JUDGE
COURT, HOWEVER, DID HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE MOTION IF IT SAW
FIT, OR TO REMIT IT TO THE SINGLE DISTRICT JUDGE; AND THAT THE ACTION
ACTUALLY TAKEN BY THE THREE JUDGE COURT WAS FINAL, SINCE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COURT HAD NOT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 642, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE PROCEDURAL
IMPORTANCE OF DETERMINING THE STATUTORY FUNCTION OF A THREE JUDGE COURT
IN DEALING WITH QUESTIONS SUCH AS THOSE HERE PRESENTED.  THE CASE AS
PRESENTED TO US REQUIRES THAT WE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THESE
QUESTIONS: 

1.  SHOULD THE TWO ADDITIONAL JUDGES, CALLED TO ASSIST THE DISTRICT
JUDGE PURSUANT TO SEC. 266, HAVE PARTICIPATED IN CONSIDERATION OF THE
MOTION TO ASSESS DAMAGES? 

2.  WAS THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT ITS PRIOR DENIAL
OF THE COUNTERCLAIM WAS A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY
PETITIONERS' MOTION TO ASSESS DAMAGES? 

3.  WERE THE ENJOINED MISSOURI OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES, TO WHOM THE
INJUNCTION BONDS RAN, PROPER PARTIES TO INVOKE THE COURT'S ACTION FOR
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES? 

4.  DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERRONEOUSLY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETIONARY
POWER, BY ITS REFUSAL TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE MERITS OF PETITIONERS'
MOTION TO ASSESS DAMAGES? 

FIRST.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE TWO JUDGES CALLED IN UNDER SEC.
266 TO ASSIST THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN PASSING UPON THE APPLICATION FOR
INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION
TO ASSESS DAMAGES.  THE LIMITED STATUTORY DUTIES OF THE SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED THREE JUDGE DISTRICT COURT HAD BEEN FULLY PERFORMED BEFORE
THE MOTION FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES WAS FILED.  FOR SEC. 266 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE PROVIDES FOR A HEARING BY THREE JUDGES, INSTEAD OF ONE
DISTRICT JUDGE, ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH ADJUDICATION OF A VERY NARROW
TYPE OF CONTROVERSY - APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTIONS RESTRAINING STATE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING STATE LAWS OR
ORDERS MADE PURSUANT THERETO UPON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE STATUTES
ARE REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  FN4  THE MOTION FOR DAMAGES
RAISED QUESTIONS NOT WITHIN THE STATUTORY PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE TWO
ADDITIONAL JUDGES HAD BEEN CALLED.  THOSE QUESTIONS WERE THEREFORE FOR
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ORDINARY
JURISDICTION, AND THE THREE JUDGE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 266 HAD NO
APPLICATION.  FN5 

BUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS MISTAKENLY ASSUMED THAT THE MOTION SHOULD BE
PASSED UPON BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE TWO JUDGES
PREVIOUSLY CALLED DID NOT OF ITSELF INVALIDATE THE DISTRICT COURT'S
JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE MOTION.  THOUGH THAT JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WAS
NOT APPEALABLE DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT UNDER SEC. 266, EVEN THOUGH
PARTICIPATED IN BY THREE JUDGES, FN6  IT WAS REVIEWABLE BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, AND SINCE IT HAS BEEN SO REVIEWED, THE ISSUES
PRESENTED ARE PROPERLY BEFORE US. 

SECOND.  THE GROUND ASSIGNED BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR DENYING THE
MOTION TO ASSESS DAMAGES WAS THAT BY ITS PREVIOUS DISMISSAL OF
PETITIONERS' COUNTERCLAIM IT HAD ALREADY RULED UPON AND FINALLY
DETERMINED THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE MOTION.  THE ORIGINAL
COUNTERCLAIM, HOWEVER, WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING ON THE MERITS. 
NO EVIDENCE WAS HEARD.  IT WAS DISMISSED, AS THE COURT SAID AT THE
TIME, BECAUSE OF "SERIOUS DOUBT AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANTS TO
MAINTAIN SUCH COUNTERCLAIM," AND IN THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL IT WAS
SPECIFIED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN WAS "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF
THE DEFENDANTS  ...  TO MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENT ACTION OR SUIT
THEREON."  WE NEED NOT HERE POINT OUT THE PROCEDURAL REASONS WHICH
MIGHT HAVE CAUSED THE "SERIOUS DOUBT" WHICH PROMPTED THE COURT TO
DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM.  FOR EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE COURT PROPERLY
DISMISSED THE COUNTERCLAIM WITHOUT A HEARING ON THE MERITS, IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT ITS DISMISSAL WAS A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF EITHER THE
PROCEDURAL OR THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OF PETITIONERS TO INVOKE THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION BY A MOTION TO ASSESS DAMAGES.  SOME OF THE
DAMAGES ASSERTED IN THE MOTION - SUCH AS THE COSTS OF THE LITIGATION -
WERE NOT ASSERTED IN THE COUNTERCLAIM, AND SUCH DAMAGES COULD NOT WELL
HAVE BEEN DETERMINED UNTIL AFTER FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES WHICH
CAUSED THE THREE JUDGE COURT TO BE INVOKED.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
ACTION ON THE COUNTERCLAIM WAS DEFERRED PENDING FULL HEARING ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MISSOURI STATUTE UNDER ATTACK.  THIS
POSTPONEMENT MIGHT WELL BE ATTRIBUTED TO A BELIEF ON THE PART OF THE
COURT THAT THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COUNTERCLAIM WERE MATTERS WHICH
COULD BE BETTER DETERMINED AFTER FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES
PRESENTED BY THE ORIGINAL BILL FOR INJUNCTION.  THE JUDGMENT DISMISSING
THE MOTION FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES CANNOT BE SUPPORTED UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY IT HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED IN THE PRIOR
DISMISSAL OF THE COUNTERCLAIM. 

THIRD.  RESPONDENTS ALSO SEEK TO SUPPORT THE COURT'S JUDGMENT UPON
THE GROUND THAT THE ENJOINED STATE OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES ARE NOT THE
PROPER PARTIES TO INVOKE THE COURT'S ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE INJUNCTION.  THIS CLAIM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  THE
ARGUMENT ON WHICH IT RESTS IS THAT THE STATE TREASURER, NOT THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, IS GIVEN STATUTORY POWER TO COLLECT THE FEES THAT
ARE IN PART THE BASIS OF THE MOTION TO ASSESS DAMAGES.  BUT PETITIONERS
INSIST THAT THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ACTUALLY COLLECTS THE FEES
UNDER CUSTOMS AND RULES OF LONG STANDING, AND URGES THAT STATUTORY
AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR SUCH ACTION BY THE COMMISSION.  BUT WHOEVER HAS
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO COLLECT FEES, IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE
MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL, ONE OF THE ENJOINED AND PETITIONING
OFFICIALS, IS GIVEN EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO BRING SUIT IN THE NAME OF
AND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE.  FN7  AND IF UPON A HEARING DAMAGES ARE
SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED WITHIN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
INJUNCTION BONDS, THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN EQUITY HAS AMPLE POWER
TO SEE THAT WHATEVER SUMS ARE RECOVERED GO TO THE PROPER STATE
OFFICIALS.  IN ADDITION TO THIS, RESPONDENTS ARE IN A POOR POSITION TO
ARGUE THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT PROPER PARTIES, FOR ONE OF THE GROUNDS
UPON WHICH THE RESPONDENTS CLAIMED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THESE
PARTICULAR PETITIONERS WAS THAT IT WAS THEY WHO WERE THREATENING TO
BRING ACTIONS AGAINST RESPONDENTS TO COLLECT THE VERY FEES WHICH ARE
NOW A PART OF THE PRESENT MOTION FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES.  AT THE
INSTANCE OF THE OPERATORS, THESE STATE OFFICIALS WERE FOR A PERIOD OF
FIFTEEN MONTHS DEPRIVED OF ALL OPPORTUNITY TO COLLECT ANY FEES EXCEPT
THOSE DEPOSITED WITH THE TRUSTEES PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE
RESTRAINING ORDER.  PETITIONERS' MOTION ALLEGES THAT MANY OPERATORS
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE ORDER, AND THAT THE
STATE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF FEES THAT IT WOULD HAVE COLLECTED BUT FOR
THE INJUNCTION.  THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT BRING THEIR SUIT NOR PRESS
THEIR CLAIM UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE OFFICIALS COULD NOT AND
WOULD NOT PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE STATE.  ON THE CONTRARY, THEY
ACTED UPON A DIRECTLY OPPOSITE PREMISE AND EXECUTED BONDS RUNNING TO
THE ENJOINED OFFICIALS IN WHICH THEY AGREED TO PAY THE DAMAGES
SUFFERED.  IT IS OBVIOUS, AND WAS OBVIOUS FROM THE BEGINNING, THAT THE
MAIN DAMAGES WOULD BE SUFFERED BY THE STATE OF MISSOURI AND NOT BY
THESE PETITIONERS AS INDIVIDUALS.  IT WAS TO PROTECT THE STATE THROUGH
ITS OFFICIALS THAT THE BONDS WERE REQUIRED.  IN MAKING THIS REQUIREMENT
THE COURT ACTED IN HARMONY WITH THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE "THAT IT IS THE
DUTY OF A COURT OF EQUITY GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO DO SO UPON
CONDITIONS THAT WILL PROTECT ALL - INCLUDING THE PUBLIC - WHOSE
INTERESTS THE INJUNCTION MAY AFFECT."  INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 306 U.S. 153, 157.  PETITIONERS WERE PROPER PARTIES TO INVOKE
THE COURT'S PROTECTION OF THE STATE'S INTEREST, AND WE HAVE NO DOUBT
BUT THAT THE COURT CAN MOULD ANY DECREE IT RENDERS SO AS TO SAFEGUARD
THE RIGHTS OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. 

FOURTH.  THERE YET REMAINS THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE COURT BELOW
AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL TO ASSESS DAMAGES - THAT THE
JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE THIS POWER IS DISCRETIONARY, AND THAT REFUSAL
TO EXERCISE THE POWER WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE ERRONEOUS.  IN CONSIDERING
THIS QUESTION, IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE THAT DEALING WITH PETITIONERS'
MOTION FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES WOULD INVOLVE LONG AND COMPLICATED
HEARINGS ON ISSUES INAPPROPRIATE FOR DECISION BY A THREE JUDGE COURT. 
FOR AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THE ISSUES WERE APPROPRIATE FOR DECISION BY
THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF THAT
JUDGE'S RIGHT TO DEAL WITH ISSUES SUCH AS THOSE HERE PRESENTED.  UNDER
LONG SETTLED EQUITY PRACTICE, COURTS OF CHANCERY HAVE DISCRETIONARY
POWER TO ASSESS DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN INJURED
BECAUSE OF AN INJUNCTIVE RESTRAINT ULTIMATELY DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN
IMPROPERLY GRANTED.  RUSSELL V. FARLEY, 105 U.S. 433, 444 ET SEQ.;
PEASE V. RATHBUN-JONES ENGINEERING CO., 243 U.S. 273, 279.  THIS POWER
IS, AS STATED, DISCRETIONARY; THERE ARE OF COURSE CASES WHERE THE
CHANCELLOR MIGHT PROPERLY CONCLUDE THAT PARTIES SHOULD BE REMITTED TO
AN ACTION AT LAW.  BUT THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES.  IF PETITIONERS
HAD TO BRING ACTIONS AT LAW, EACH OF THE SEVENTY-SIX RESPONDENTS MIGHT
HAVE TO BE MADE A DEFENDANT IN A SEPARATE ACTION.  THERE IS A
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ALL OF THESE
RESPONDENTS COULD BE SUED OR SERVED IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI; TO BE
COMPELLED TO SUE SOME OF THEM ELSEWHERE WOULD WORK A HARDSHIP ON THE
STATE.  IN ADDITION TO THIS, PART OF THE DAMAGES FOR WHICH PETITIONERS
SEEK RECOVERY IS MADE UP OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF COST AND EXPENSE INCURRED
IN THE LITIGATION; IF PETITIONERS SUCCEED ON THE MERITS, THERE MIGHT
CONCEIVABLY BE SERIOUS PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE SEVENTY-SIX RESPONDENTS
AS TO THE PORTION OF DAMAGES FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH - A PROBLEM
PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE TO EQUITY, AND PREEMINENTLY ADAPTED TO
SETTLEMENT BY A SINGLE COURT.  HERE, RESPONDENTS JOINED THEMSELVES
TOGETHER IN ORDER JOINTLY TO RESTRAIN PETITIONERS; THEY EXECUTED JOINT
BONDS; AND THEY INVOKED THE ACTION OF EQUITY WHICH HAS TRADITIONALLY
EXERTED ITS POWER NOT MERELY TO ASSESS DAMAGES CAUSED BY IMPROVIDENT
INJUNCTIONS BUT ALSO TO PREVENT THE HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES OF AN
UNNECESSARY MULTIPLICITY OF CAUSES OF ACTION.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THIS CASE CALL SO STRONGLY FOR AN ASSESSMENT BY EQUITY THAT WE THINK
THE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES. 
AND IT IS ESPECIALLY FITTING THAT EQUITY EXERT ITS FULL STRENGTH IN
ORDER TO PROTECT FROM LOSS A STATE WHICH HAS BEEN INJURED BY REASON OF
A SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS IMPOSED BY EQUITY ITSELF. 
FN8  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A SINGLE DISTRICT JUDGE IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  MO. REV. STATS. (1929) SEC. 5272, AS AMENDED BY MO. LAWS (1931),
P. 311.  THE MISSOURI OFFICIALS WERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, THE STATE HIGHWAY
COMMISSION, AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.  THE GROUND OF ATTACK ON
THE STATUTE WAS THAT IT VIOLATED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 543, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 301
327(SUPP.  1939). 

FN2  RESPONDENTS DENIED "EACH AND EVERY ALLEGATION, STATEMENT AND
THING" CONTAINED IN THE COUNTERCLAIM.  LATER THEY CONTENDED THAT IT WAS
THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES THAT SHOULD THE COUNTERCLAIM BECOME
MATERIAL, THEN THIS PLEADING COULD BE WITHDRAWN AND "AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PLEAD FULLY" TO THE COUNTERCLAIM BE EXERCISED.  PETITIONERS DENIED THAT
THERE WAS ANY SUCH UNDERSTANDING. 

FN3  114 F.2D 1. 

FN4  SEE PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246; OKLAHOMA GAS &
ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386; EX PARTE PUBLIC
NATIONAL BANK, 278 U.S. 101, 104. 

FN5  A DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES UNDER SEC. 266 OF
COURSE HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE EVERY QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE
LITIGATION PERTAINING TO THE PRAYER FOR AN INJUNCTION, IN ORDER THAT A
SINGLE LAWSUIT MAY AFFORD FINAL AND AUTHORITATIVE DECISION OF THE
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. PACIFIC GAS &
ELECTRIC CO., 302 U.S. 388, 391; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378,
393-394. 

FN6  SEE, E.G., PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. COLUMBIA TERMINALS CO.,
309 U.S. 620; PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. BRASHEAR FREIGHT LINES, 306
U.S. 204, 207.  CF. EICHHOLZ V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 306 U.S.
268. 

FN7  MO. REV. STATS. (1929) SEC. 11276.  (MO. REV. STATS. (1939) SEC.
12901.) 

FN8  CF. UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183, 197; INLAND STEEL CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153, 158; ARKADELPHIA MILLING CO. V. ST.
LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 249 U.S. 134, 145-146. 
..END :







MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 312 U.S. 630 


NO. 550.  ARGUED MARCH 12, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 112 F.2D
959, REVERSED - JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 24 F.SUPP.  731,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  A RULING BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT MADE ON REVIEW OF THE FIRST
TRIAL OF AN ACTION ON CONTRACT AND DETERMINING THE APPLICABLE STATE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MUST BE FOLLOWED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS ON A
SECOND TRIAL, AFTER REMOVAL, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INTERVENING CHANGE
BY LEGISLATION OR BY RULING OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  P. 633. 

2.  ALTHOUGH A STATE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS ITSELF FREE, ON A SECOND
TRIAL, TO RECONSIDER AND OVERRULE INTERPRETATIONS OF STATE LAW MADE ON
THE FIRST REVIEW, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON REVIEW FOLLOWING A
SECOND TRIAL, AFTER REMOVAL, IS NEVERTHELESS BOUND BY THE STATE COURT'S
INTERPRETATIONS.  P. 633. 

3.  THE RIGHT OF A WORKMAN TO SUE A RAILROAD COMPANY FOR WRONGFUL
DISCHARGE IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF HIS ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  P. 634. 

MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSING A JUDGMENT RECOVERED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE
DISTRICT COURT IN AN ACTION AGAINST A RAILROAD COMPANY FOR WRONGFUL
DISCHARGE FROM EMPLOYMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE, 311 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW A
JUDGMENT IN WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED A MISSISSIPPI
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONTRARY TO THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT'S
APPLICATION OF THE SAME STATUTE TO THE SAME PLEA IN THE SAME CASE. 
COMPARE MOORE V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO., 180 MISS.  276; 176 SO.
593, WITH ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. V. MOORE, 112 F.2D 959. 

PETITIONER MOORE, A MEMBER OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN,
BROUGHT SUIT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST RESPONDENT RAILROAD COMPANY IN A
MISSISSIPPI STATE COURT, CLAIMING THAT HE HAD BEEN WRONGFULLY
DISCHARGED CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TRAINMEN AND
THE RAILROAD, A COPY OF THE CONTRACT BEING ATTACHED TO THE COMPLAINT AS
AN EXHIBIT.  PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE TRAINMEN HE WAS
ENTITLED TO ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE CONTRACT.  JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS WAS RENDERED AGAINST MOORE BY THE TRIAL COURT.  UPON APPEAL
THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED.  ONE OF THE
RAILROAD'S PLEAS WAS THAT THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN MOORE AND
THE RAILROAD WAS VERBAL, RATHER THAN WRITTEN, AND THAT ANY ACTION
THEREON WAS THEREFORE BARRED BY THE THREE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
PROVIDED BY SEC. 2299 OF THE MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1930.  WITH REFERENCE
TO THIS PLEA THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT SAID:  "THE APPELLANT'S SUIT
IS NOT ON A VERBAL CONTRACT BETWEEN HIM AND THE APPELLEE, BUT ON A
WRITTEN CONTRACT MADE WITH THE APPELLEE, FOR APPELLANT'S BENEFIT, BY
THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN; CONSEQUENTLY, SECTION 2299, CODE
OF 1930, HAS NO APPLICATION, AND THE TIME WITHIN WHICH APPELLANT COULD
SUE IS SIX YEARS UNDER SECTION 2292, CODE OF 1930."  MOORE V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA, 291. 

AFTER THE REMAND BY THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT, MOORE AMENDED HIS
BILL TO ASK DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $3000, AND THE RAILROAD REMOVED THE
CASE TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT, CONSIDERING ITSELF
BOUND BY STATE LAW, HELD THAT THE MISSISSIPPI THREE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS DID NOT APPLY,  FN1  BUT ON THIS POINT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED,  FN2  DECLINING TO FOLLOW THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME
COURT'S RULING.  CALLING ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE MISSISSIPPI
SUPREME COURT DOES NOT REGARD ITSELF AS BOUND BY A DECISION UPON A
SECOND APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (ONE JUDGE DISSENTING)
SAID:  "SINCE THE REMOVAL OF THE CASE TO THE FEDERAL COURT THIS COURT
STANDS IN THE PLACE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI AND WITH THE
SAME POWER OF RECONSIDERATION."  BUT THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS DO
NOT HAVE THE SAME POWER TO RECONSIDER INTERPRETATIONS OF STATE LAW BY
STATE COURTS AS DO THE HIGHEST COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH A DECISION
HAS BEEN RENDERED.  THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT HAD THE POWER TO
RECONSIDER AND OVERRULE ITS FORMER INTERPRETATION, BUT THE COURT BELOW
DID NOT.  AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A CHANGE BY THE MISSISSIPPI
LEGISLATURE, THE COURT BELOW COULD RECONSIDER AND DEPART FROM THE
RULING OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF MISSISSIPPI ON MISSISSIPPI'S STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ONLY TO THE EXTENT, IF ANY, THAT EXAMINATION OF THE LATER
OPINIONS OF THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT SHOWED THAT IT HAD CHANGED
ITS EARLIER INTERPRETATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE MISSISSIPPI STATUTE. 
WICHITA ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 306 U.S. 103, 107; CF. WEST
V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., 311 U.S. 223; FIDELITY UNION
TRUST CO. V. FIELD, 311 U.S. 169.  BUT THE COURT BELOW DID NOT RELY
UPON ANY CHANGE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE OR THE
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT CONCLUDED THAT IT
SHOULD REEXAMINE THE LAW BECAUSE THERE WAS INVOLVED THE INTERPRETATION
AND APPLICATION OF A COLLECTIVE CONTRACT OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD WITH
ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE COURT BELOW ALSO BASED ITS FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN MOORE'S CASE ON THE GROUND THAT
IN AN EARLIER CASE THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT HAD SAID THAT THE
THREE YEAR STATUTE APPLIED UNLESS A CONTRACT WAS "WHOLLY PROVABLE IN
WRITING," A SITUATION WHICH THE COURT BELOW DID NOT THINK EXISTED
HERE.  FN3  BUT EVEN BEFORE THE DECISION IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64, THE FEDERAL COURTS APPLIED STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERPRETATIONS GIVEN TO SUCH STATUTES BY THE
STATES' HIGHEST COURTS.  AS EARLY AS 1893, THIS COURT SAID:  "THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO A STATUTE (OF LIMITATIONS) OF A STATE BY THE
HIGHEST JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL OF SUCH STATE IS REGARDED AS A PART OF THE
STATUTE, AND IS AS BINDING UPON THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AS THE
TEXT.  IF THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL OF A STATE ADOPT NEW VIEWS AS
TO THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH A STATUTE, AND REVERSE ITS FORMER
DECISIONS, THIS COURT WILL FOLLOW THE LATEST SETTLED ADJUDICATIONS." 
N4  IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT BELOW TO DEPART FROM THE MISSISSIPPI
SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

BUT RESPONDENT SAYS THAT THERE IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THE JUDGMENT IN
ITS FAVOR SHOULD BE SUSTAINED.  FN5  THIS REASON, ACCORDING TO
RESPONDENT, IS THAT BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT MOORE'S SUIT WAS PREMATURELY
BROUGHT BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO EXHAUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
GRANTED HIM BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 44 STAT. 577, AS AMENDED, 48
STAT. 1185, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 151, ET SEQ. BUT WE FIND NOTHING IN THAT ACT
WHICH PURPORTS TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE COURTS THE JURISDICTION TO
DETERMINE A CONTROVERSY OVER A WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OR TO MAKE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE FINDING A PREREQUISITE TO FILING A SUIT IN COURT.  IN
SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, THE RAILROAD POINTS ESPECIALLY TO SEC.
153(I), WHICH, AS AMENDED IN 1934, PROVIDES THAT DISPUTES GROWING OUT
OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS
"SHALL BE HANDLED IN THE USUAL MANNER UP TO AND INCLUDING THE CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CARRIER DESIGNATED TO HANDLE SUCH DISPUTES;
BUT, FAILING TO REACH AN ADJUSTMENT IN THIS MANNER, THE DISPUTES MAY BE
REFERRED BY PETITION OF THE PARTIES OR BY EITHER PARTY TO THE
APPROPRIATE DIVISION OF THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD WITH A FULL STATEMENT OF
THE FACTS AND ALL SUPPORTING DATA BEARING UPON THE DISPUTES."  AND IN
CONNECTION WITH THIS STATUTORY LANGUAGE THE RAILROAD ALSO DIRECTS OUR
ATTENTION TO A PROVISION IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TRAINMEN AND THE
RAILROAD - A PROVISION AUTHORIZING MOORE TO SUBMIT HIS COMPLAINT TO
OFFICIALS OF THE RAILROAD, OFFER WITNESSES BEFORE THEM, APPEAL TO
HIGHER OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY IN CASE THE DECISION SHOULD BE
UNSATISFACTORY, AND OBTAIN REINSTATEMENT AND PAY FOR TIME LOST IF
OFFICIALS OF THE RAILROAD SHOULD FIND THAT HIS SUSPENSION OR DISMISSAL
WAS UNJUST.  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SECTION POINTED OUT, SEC.
153(I), AS AMENDED IN 1934, PROVIDES NO MORE THAN THAT DISPUTES "MAY BE
REFERRED ...  TO THE  ...  ADJUSTMENT BOARD  ...  "  IT IS SIGNIFICANT
THAT THE COMPARABLE SECTION OF THE 1926 RAILWAY LABOR ACT (44 STAT.
577, 578) HAD, BEFORE THE 1934 AMENDMENT, PROVIDED THAT UPON FAILURE OF
THE PARTIES TO REACH AN ADJUSTMENT A "DISPUTE SHALL BE REFERRED TO THE
DESIGNATED ADJUSTMENT BOARD BY THE PARTIES, OR BY EITHER PARTY  ...  "
THIS DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE, SUBSTITUTING "MAY" FOR "SHALL," WAS NOT,
WE THINK, AN INDICATION OF A CHANGE IN POLICY, BUT WAS INSTEAD A
CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW'S ORIGINAL PURPOSE.  FOR NEITHER THE ORIGINAL
1926 ACT, NOR THE ACT AS AMENDED IN 1934, INDICATES THAT THE MACHINERY
PROVIDED FOR SETTLING DISPUTES WAS BASED ON A PHILOSOPHY OF LEGAL
COMPULSION.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT SHOWS A CONSISTENT PURPOSE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO
ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM FOR PEACEFUL ADJUSTMENT AND MEDIATION
VOLUNTARY IN ITS NATURE.  FN6  THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS PROPERLY DECIDED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT REQUIRED BY THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT TO SEEK ADJUSTMENT OF HIS CONTROVERSY WITH THE
RAILROAD AS A PREREQUISITE TO SUIT FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE.  BUT, FOR
FAILURE TO FOLLOW STATE LAW ON THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED; THE JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  24 F.SUPP.  731. 

FN2  112 F.2D 959. 

FN3  CITY OF HATTIESBURG V. COBB BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO., 174 MISS. 
20; 163 SO. 676. 

FN4  BAUSERMAN V. BLUNT, 147 U.S. 647, 654, QUOTING FROM LEFFINGWELL
V. WARREN, 2 BLACK 599, 603.  AND SEE BALKAM V. WOODSTOCK IRON CO.$N,
154 U.S. 177, 187. 

FN5  CF. HELVERING V. GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238. 

FN6  SEE, E.G., H. REP. NO. 328, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :










HELVERING V. ENRIGHT, 312 U.S. 636 


NO. 436.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 112 F.2D
919, REVERSED. 


ACCRUABLE ITEMS, IN A DECEDENT'S GROSS INCOME FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
WITH HIS DEATH, OF HIS SHARE OF THE PROFITS EARNED, BUT NOT YET
RECEIVED, BY A PARTNERSHIP, ALTHOUGH BOTH THE DECEDENT AND HIS FIRM
KEPT THEIR ACCOUNTS AND MADE THEIR INCOME TAX REPORTS ON A CALENDAR
YEAR CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS BASIS.  P. 640. 

SO HELD OF A DECEASED MEMBER OF A LAW FIRM IN RESPECT OF HIS SHARE OF
THE EARNED PORTION OF THE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FROM THE UNFINISHED
BUSINESS OF THE FIRM, VALUED AS OF THE DATE OF HIS DEATH. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. ESTATE OF ENRIGHT ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 638, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT BELOW  FN1  BECAUSE OF
A CONFLICT BETWEEN IT AND PFAFF V. COMMISSIONER  FN2  IN THE SECOND
CIRCUIT.  THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SEC. 42 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934  FN3
PERMITS THE INCLUSION, AS ACCRUABLE ITEMS, IN A DECEDENT'S GROSS INCOME
FOR THE PERIOD ENDING WITH HIS DEATH, OF HIS SHARE OF THE PROFITS
EARNED, BUT NOT YET RECEIVED, OF A PARTNERSHIP, WHEN BOTH THE DECEDENT
AND THE PARTNERSHIP REPORTED INCOME ON A CASH RECEIPTS AND
DISBURSEMENTS BASIS. 

RESPONDENTS ARE THE EXECUTORS OF JOHN M. ENRIGHT, AN ATTORNEY AND
MEMBER OF A LAW PARTNERSHIP IN NEW JERSEY.  BOTH MR. ENRIGHT AND HIS
FIRM KEPT THEIR ACCOUNTS AND MADE THEIR INCOME TAX REPORT ON A CALENDAR
YEAR CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS BASIS.  HE DIED, TESTATE, NOVEMBER
19, 1934.  THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR THE TERMINATION OF
THE PARTNERSHIP ON THE DEATH OF ANY PARTNER AND THAT HIS ESTATE SHOULD
HAVE HIS PARTNERSHIP PERCENTAGE IN THE "NET MONIES THEN IN THE TREASURY
OF THE FIRM, PLUS HIS LIKE PERCENTAGE IN THE OUTSTANDING ACCOUNTS AND
THE EARNED PROPERTION OF THE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FROM UNFINISHED
BUSINESS."  THE WILL DIRECTED THAT THE VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CLOSING OUT THE PARTNERSHIP SHOULD BE MADE BY HIS SENIOR SURVIVING
PARTNER, MR. JAMES D. CARPENTER, AND BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN MR. CARPENTER
AND THE EXECUTORS A VALUATION WAS MADE OF THESE ITEMS AS OF THE DATE OF
DEATH FOR USE IN THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX AND NEW JERSEY INHERITANCE TAX
RETURNS, WITH THE FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SURVIVING PARTNERS
WOULD PAY OVER TO THE EXECUTORS WHATEVER WAS ULTIMATELY REALIZED OUT OF
THE VALUED ASSETS. 

PURSUANT TO THIS ARRANGEMENT THE INTEREST OF MR. ENRIGHT IN THE
UNCOLLECTED ACCOUNTS WAS VALUED AT $2,055.55 AND IN THE UNFINISHED WORK
AT $40,855.77.  THESE SUMS WERE REPORTED AS ASSETS IN THE ESTATE AND
INHERITANCE TAX RETURNS BUT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN
MADE FOR THE DECEDENT FOR 1934, NOR WERE THE SUMS DERIVED FROM THESE
ASSETS REPORTED IN THE ESTATE'S INCOME TAX FOR 1934 OR LATER YEARS. 

THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY BECAUSE HE INCLUDED IN THE
DECEDENT'S RETURN FOR 1934, UNDER THE CLAIMED AUTHORITY OF SEC. 42,
SUPRA NOTE 3, THE ITEMS OF ACCOUNTS AND UNFINISHED WORK.  RESPONDENTS
APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  THE BOARD DECIDED  FN4  THAT THE
EVIDENCE DID NOT SHOW THE SITUATION OF THE UNFINISHED WORK IN
SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO ENABLE THE BOARD TO DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY THAT
IT WAS NOT ACCRUABLE.  THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE WERE HELD ACCRUABLE. 
THIS LEFT THE COMMISSIONER'S ASSESSMENT INTACT. 

ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD.  IT WAS OF
THE OPINION THAT THE PARTNERSHIP WAS A TAX COMPUTING UNIT SEPARATE FROM
ITS MEMBERS AND THAT SEC. 42 HAD THE EFFECT OF PLACING THE DECEDENT
"UPON AN ACCRUAL BASIS AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH."  CONSEQUENTLY HIS
RETURN SHOULD BE MADE AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IF THE DECEASED USED
THE ACCRUAL METHOD.  THE COURT THEN REASONED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF
SEC. 182 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, INCLUDING A PARTNER'S DISTRIBUTIVE
SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP EARNINGS, WHETHER DISTRIBUTED OR NOT, IN THE
PARTNER'S COMPUTATION OF HIS OWN NET INCOME, PUT A PARTNER ON AN
ACCRUAL BASIS IN ACCOUNTING FOR PARTNERSHIP EARNINGS, IRRESPECTIVE OF
SEC. 42.  CONSEQUENTLY SEC. 42 WAS HELD NOT TO AFFECT THE PARTNERSHIP
ACCOUNTING PRACTICES.  IT WAS FURTHER DETERMINED THAT IT WAS THE RIGHT
TO RECEIVE PAYMENT WHICH MADE AN EARNING ACCRUE AND THAT, AS MR.
ENRIGHT UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT HAD NO RIGHT TO RECEIVE
ANYTHING FROM THE FIRM EXCEPT HIS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE CASH
RECEIPTS, THESE CASH RECEIPTS WERE ALL THAT "ACCRUED" TO HIM BEFORE HIS
DEATH. 

THE LAST SENTENCE OF SEC. 42 WHICH REQUIRES THE INCLUSION OF "AMOUNTS
ACCRUED UP TO THE DATE OF HIS DEATH" IN COMPUTING NET INCOME FOR THE
PERIOD IN WHICH HIS DEATH FALLS WAS ADDED BY THE 1934 REVENUE ACT.  FN5
THE REPORTS RECOMMENDED ITS ADDITION BECAUSE THE "COURTS HAVE HELD
THAT INCOME ACCRUED BY A DECEDENT ON THE CASH BASIS PRIOR TO HIS DEATH
IS NOT INCOME TO THE ESTATE, AND UNDER THE PRESENT LAW, UNLESS SUCH
INCOME IS TAXABLE TO THE DECEDENT, IT ESCAPES INCOME TAX ALTOGETHER." 
FN6  SO SEC. 42 WAS DRAWN TO REQUIRE THE INCLUSION OF ALL AMOUNTS
ACCRUED TO THE DATE OF DEATH "REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT HE MAY HAVE
KEPT HIS BOOKS ON A CASH BASIS."  FN7  WITH THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS IN MIND, WE PROCEED TO EXAMINE THE MEANING OF THE SECTION. 

AS THE QUESTIONED ITEMS OF UNFINISHED WORK APPEAR IN THE PARTNERSHIP
ACCOUNTS, WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH EARNINGS, EVEN IF ACCRUABLE,
ARE INCLUDIBLE IN THE PARTNER'S RETURN FOR 1934.  RESPONDENT ARGUES, AS
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THAT SEC. 182  FN8  ACCRUES, WITHOUT
ANY EFFECT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 42, ALL THE EARNINGS THAT ARE
INCLUDIBLE IN A PARTNER'S RETURN, AND THAT SINCE THE PARTNERSHIP METHOD
OF KEEPING ITS BOOKS DID NOT TREAT UNFINISHED BUSINESS AS RECEIPTS,
ONLY THE EARNINGS ACTUALLY COLLECTED ARE A PART OF THE PARTNER'S
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE UNDER SEC. 182. 

WE THINK SUCH A CONCLUSION IS ERRONEOUS.  THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
AND THE SUBSEQUENT ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE EXECUTORS AND THE SURVIVING
PARTNERS CALLED FOR A VALUATION ON MR. ENRIGHT'S DEATH AND A
DISSOLUTION AS OF THAT DAY.  THIS NECESSITATED AN ACCOUNTING OF
PARTNERSHIP EARNINGS FOR THIS PERIOD.  BY THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT,
AS WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY ANYWAY, THE EARNED PROPORTION OF THE
UNFINISHED BUSINESS WAS TO BE VALUED TO DETERMINE THE DECEDENT'S
INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP ASSETS.  FN9  ASSUMING AT THIS POINT THAT
THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS IS ACCRUABLE, THIS ACCOUNTING AS OF THE TIME OF
DEATH WOULD SHOW THE PARTNERSHIP INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR OF THE
PARTNERSHIP.  FN10  AS THE NET INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP IS TO BE
ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE DECEASED PARTNER'S RETURN, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION
OF THE PERIOD OVER WHICH THE INCOME IS EARNED, THE FACT THAT THE
PAYMENT FOR THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS WILL NOT BE COLLECTED UNTIL ANOTHER
TAXABLE YEAR IS IMMATERIAL.  "CIRCUMSTANCES WHOLLY FORTUITOUS MAY
DETERMINE THE YEAR IN WHICH INCOME, WHENEVER EARNED, IS TAXABLE."  FN11
THE "DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE" REFERRED TO IN SEC. 182 DOES NOT MEAN
AVAILABLE IN CASH FOR PAYMENT TO THE PARTNER.  IT MEANS ONLY THAT GAINS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PARTNER'S INTEREST IN THE FIRM WERE EARNED. 
PARTNERSHIP RETURNS MAY BE MADE ON A DIFFERENT BASIS OF COMPUTATION
THAN THOSE OF THE MEMBERS.  FN12  THUS BECAUSE OF THE PARTNERSHIP
ARRANGEMENT AND AGREEMENT, THE VALUE OF THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS MUST BE
DETERMINED AS OF THE DATE OF DEATH.  FURTHER, THE RESULT, UNDER THE
ASSUMPTION HERE THAT IT IS AN ACCRUAL, IS A DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE AND IS
TO BE CARRIED INTO THE PARTNER'S RETURN.  RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT
THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 182, INCLUDING ALL DISTRIBUTABLE SHARES IN THE
PARTNER'S RETURN, PUTS ALL PARTNERSHIP RETURNS ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS
FAILS TO GIVE WEIGHT TO THE FACT THAT A PARTNERSHIP ON THE CASH METHOD
SHOWS ONLY CASH RECEIPTS AS A PARTNER'S DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE.  THE
REQUIREMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR A DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE, ALTHOUGH THE SHARE IS
ACTUALLY NOT DISTRIBUTED, IS NOT A REQUIREMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR
PARTNERSHIP INCOME ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS.  SINCE A PARTNER'S RETURN OF
HIS PARTNERSHIP EARNINGS WOULD VARY, DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER THE
PARTNERSHIP USED THE CASH OR ACCRUAL METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, WE DO NOT
AGREE WITH RESPONDENT'S SUGGESTION. 

WE TURN NOW TO WHETHER THIS VALUATION OF THE DECEDENT'S INTEREST IN
THE PARTNERSHIP IS AN ACCRUAL OF INCOME WHICH MUST BE REFLECTED IN THE
INCOME TAX OR A VALUATION OF ASSETS ONLY REFLECTED IN ESTATE OR
INHERITANCE REPORTS.  THIS PARTNERSHIP USES THE CASH RECEIPTS METHOD. 
THERE WAS NO CUSTOMARY ACCOUNTING SYSTEM TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE VALUE
OF SERVICES RENDERED SHOULD BE ACCRUED BEFORE PAYMENT.  UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ITEMS OF PARTNERSHIP INCOME
PROPERLY ACCRUED SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE
DECEASED PARTNER.  THIS WILL CAUSE THE ACCRUED ITEMS OF PARTNERSHIP
RETURNS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF A DECEASED PARTNER,
WHETHER THE PARTNERSHIP METHOD IS ACCRUAL OR CASH.  FN13 FURTHERMORE,
AN ACCRUAL OF COMPENSATION FOR THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS SEEMS SOUND IN
VIEW OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 42. 

THE MEANING OF "AMOUNTS ACCRUED UP TO THE DATE OF HIS DEATH" IS CLEAR
AS TO FIXED RENT, INTEREST, SALARY OR WAGES FOR PERSONAL SERVICES AND
OTHER SIMILAR INCOME WHICH MAY READILY BE ATTRIBUTED TO A PARTICULAR
PERIOD.  THERE ARE LIKE DEDUCTIONS SUCH AS INTEREST AND TAXES.  FN14
THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE MEANING ARISES IN THE FIELD OF PERSONAL
SERVICE FROM ITEMS WHICH CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR ON A BASIS OF
SUCCESSIVE EQUAL UNITS OF TIME.  EXAMPLES OF THE DIFFICULTY ARE THE
VALUE, PRIOR TO A SUCCESSFUL RESULT, OF SERVICES RENDERED ON A
CONTINGENT BASIS, DONE ON A QUANTUM MERUIT WHETHER THAT WOULD OR WOULD
NOT VARY WITH THE OUTCOME, OR EXPLORATORY OR PRELIMINARY STEPS LOOKING
TOWARDS FINAL ACCOMPLISHMENT. 

WHILE "ACCRUE" AND ITS VARIOUS DERIVATIVES ARE NOT NEW TO THE
NOMENCLATURE OF ACCOUNTING OR TAXATION, ITS USE HAS NOT SUFFICED TO
BUILD IT INTO A WORD OF ART WITH A DEFINITE CONNOTATION WHEN EMPLOYED
IN DESCRIBING ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME.  THE 1913 ACT  FN15  PUT THE
TAXPAYER ON AN ACTUAL CASH RECEIPT AND DISBURSEMENT BASIS.  THE 1916
ACT  FN16  GAVE THE TAXPAYER THE OPTION OF REPORTING ON EITHER THE CASH
OR ACCRUAL BASIS AND THE 1918 ACT LIMITED THE RETURN TO THE METHOD OF
ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.  FN17  A SIMILAR PROVISION COVERS THE
YEAR HERE IN QUESTION.  FN18  THAT THE MEANING TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO
"ACCRUED" AS USED IN SEC. 42 IS TO BE GATHERED FROM ITS SURROUNDINGS IS
EMPHASIZED BY SEC. 48, DEFINITIONS, WHICH SAYS: 

"(C)  PAID, INCURRED, ACCRUED.  - THE TERMS 'PAID OR INCURRED' AND
'PAID OR ACCRUED' SHALL BE CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO THE METHOD OF
ACCOUNTING UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE NET INCOME IS COMPUTED UNDER
THIS PART."  FN19 

IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT NO CHANGE WAS MADE BY THE 1934 ACT IN THE SEC.
48 DEFINITION OF "ACCRUED."  FN20  YET, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE
DEFINITION IS INAPPLICABLE SINCE A TAXPAYER ON A CASH BASIS CANNOT HAVE
A "METHOD OF ACCOUNTING" BY WHICH THE MEANING OF ACCRUAL IS FIXED. 
CONSEQUENTLY IT IS BESIDE THE POINT TO GIVE WEIGHT TO PROVISIONS OF THE
REGULATIONS OR ACCOUNTING PRACTICES WHICH DO NOT RECOGNIZE ACCRUALS
UNTIL A DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION.  FN21  SUCH PROVISIONS WHEN
APPLIED BRING THE INCOME INTO SUCCEEDING YEARS.  IT HAS BEEN FREQUENTLY
SAID, AND CORRECTLY, THAT SEC. 42 WAS AIMED AT PUTTING THE CASH RECEIPT
TAXPAYER ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS.  FN22 BUT THAT STATEMENT DOES NOT ANSWER
THE MEANING OF ACCRUAL IN THIS SECTION.  ACCOUNTS KEPT CONSISTENTLY ON
A BASIS OTHER THAN CASH RECEIPTS MIGHT TREAT ACCRUALS QUITE DIFFERENTLY
FROM A METHOD DESIGNED TO REFLECT THE EARNED INCOME OF A CASH RECEIPT
TAXPAYER.  ACCRUALS HERE ARE TO BE CONSTRUED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
INTENT OF CONGRESS TO COVER INTO INCOME THE ASSETS OF DECEDENTS, EARNED
DURING THEIR LIFE AND UNREPORTED AS INCOME, WHICH ON A CASH RETURN,
WOULD APPEAR IN THE ESTATE RETURNS.  CONGRESS SOUGHT A FAIR REFLECTION
OF INCOME.  FN23 

ACCRUED INCOME OBVIOUSLY CONNOTES MORE THAN INTEREST.  IN UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN CAN CO., FN24  THIS COURT APPROVED AN ACCRUAL BASIS
WHERE "PECUNIARY OBLIGATIONS TO OR BY THE COMPANY WERE TREATED AS IF
DISCHARGED WHEN INCURRED."  IN UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON  FN25
ACCRUALS OF FIXED ANNUAL CHARGES, E.G., TAXES PAYABLE IN ANOTHER YEAR,
WERE PERMITTED AGAINST DETERMINABLE GROSS INCOME.  "KEEPING ACCOUNTS
AND MAKING RETURNS ON THE ACCRUAL BASIS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE CASH
BASIS, IMPORT THAT IT IS THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE AND NOT THE ACTUAL
RECEIPT THAT DETERMINES THE INCLUSION OF THE AMOUNT IN GROSS INCOME." 
FN26  THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK IN PROGRESS WAS NECESSARY TO FIX THE
AMOUNT DUE BUT THE RIGHT TO PAYMENT FOR WORK ORDINARILY ARISES ON
PARTIAL PERFORMANCE.  ACCRUED INCOME UNDER SEC. 42 FOR UNCOMPLETED
OPERATIONS INCLUDES THE VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DECEDENT,
CAPABLE OF APPROXIMATE VALUATION, WHETHER BASED ON THE AGREED
COMPENSATION OR ON QUANTUM MERUIT.  THE REQUIREMENT OF VALUATION
COMPREHENDS THE ELEMENTS OF COLLECTIBILITY.  FN27  THE ITEMS HERE MEET
THESE TESTS AND ARE SUBJECT TO ACCRUAL. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  112 F.2D 919. 

FN2  113 F.2D 114.  SEE PFAFF V. COMMISSIONER, POST, P. 646. 

FN3  48 STAT. 680, C. 277:  "SEC.  42.  PERIOD IN WHICH ITEMS OF
GROSS INCOME INCLUDED.  THE AMOUNT OF ALL ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME SHALL
BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH RECEIVED
BY THE TAXPAYER, UNLESS, UNDER METHODS OF ACCOUNTING PERMITTED UNDER
DIFFERENT PERIOD.  IN THE CASE OF THE DEATH OF A TAXPAYER THERE SHALL
BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING NET INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE PERIOD IN WHICH
FALLS THE DATE OF HIS DEATH, AMOUNTS ACCRUED UP TO THE DATE OF HIS
DEATH IF NOT OTHERWISE PROPERLY INCLUDIBLE IN RESPECT OF SUCH PERIOD OR
A PRIOR PERIOD."    FN4  AUGUST 28, 1939, BY MEMORANDUM OPINION.  CF.
LILLIAN O. FEHRMAN, EXECUTRIX, 38 B.T.A. 37. 

FN5  CF. REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, C. 209, SEC. 42. 

FN6  H. REP. NO. 704, 73RD CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 24; S. REP. NO. 558,
73RD CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 28. 

THIS SITUATION FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN
NICHOLS V. UNITED STATES, 64 CT. CLS. 241.  A DECEDENT ON THE CASH
BASIS WAS A MEMBER OF A PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED BY HIS DEATH. 
COMMISSIONS EARNED BEFORE DEATH BUT UNPAID TO THE PARTNERSHIP WERE
VALUED IN THE ESTATE TAX AND COLLECTED BY THE PARTNERSHIP AFTER DEATH
FOR PAYMENT TO THE EXECUTORS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD SUMS PAID THE
EXECUTORS WERE PART OF THE CORPUS AND NOT INCOME. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOLLOWED THE REASONING OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  WILLIAM G. FRANK, ADM., 6 B.T.A. 1071; E.S. HELLER, EXEC., 10
B.T.A. 53; GEORGE NICHOLS, EXEC., 10 B.T.A. 919; ESTATE OF A. PLUMER
AUSTIN, 10 B.T.A. 1055; WILLIAM K. VANDERBILT, EXEC., 11 B.T.A. 291; J.
HOWLAND AUCHINCLOSS, EXEC., 11 B.T.A. 947; WILLIAM P. BLODGET, EXEC.,
13 B.T.A. 1243; JACKSON B. KEMPER, ADM., 14 B.T.A. 931; MAURICE L.
GOLDMAN, 15 B.T.A. 1341. 

FN7  H. REP. SUPRA. 

FN8  "SEC.  182.  TAX OF PARTNERS.  THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN
COMPUTING THE NET INCOME OF EACH PARTNER HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE,
WHETHER DISTRIBUTED OR NOT, OF THE NET INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR
THE TAXABLE YEAR." 

FN9  WE DO NOT CONSIDER OR DECIDE WHETHER THIS ACCOUNTING FOR A
FRACTIONAL YEAR MAY AFFECT THE INDIVIDUAL RETURNS OF SURVIVING
PARTNERS.  NEITHER DO WE APPRAISE THE EFFECT OF ARGEEMENTS FOR
CONTINUATION OF AN INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP AFTER DEATH.  SEE BULL
V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 247. 

IF THE PARTNERSHIP HAD BEEN UPON AN ACCRUAL BASIS WHICH TREATED
ACCOUNTS AS ACCRUED UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF FEES, IT MAY
BE THAT A DECEDENT'S INTEREST WOULD NOT BE DISTRIBUTABLE UNTIL A LATER
YEAR.  IT MIGHT THEN BE INCOME TO THE ESTATE, EVEN THOUGH THE VALUE OF
THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ESTATE RETURN.  A
CONCLUSION AS TO THIS IS UNNECESSARY AND IS PRETERMITTED.  CF. NOTE 23,
THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 6 AND BULL V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 247, 255,
256-57. 

FN10  "SEC.  48.  DEFINITIONS.  WHEN USED IN THIS TITLE - 

"(A)  TAXABLE YEAR.  - 'TAXABLE YEAR' MEANS THE CALENDAR YEAR, OR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING DURING SUCH CALENDAR YEAR, UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH
THE NET INCOME IS COMPUTED UNDER THIS PART.  'TAXABLE YEAR' INCLUDES,
IN THE CASE OF A RETURN MADE FOR A FRACTIONAL PART OF A YEAR UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE OR UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH
SUCH RETURN IS MADE." 

FN11  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 303 U.S. 493, 498. 

FN12 TRUMAN V. UNITED STATES, 4 F.SUPP.  447; SECS. 183 AND 187. 

FN13  THE INEVITABLE VARIATIONS OF "ACCRUED" WHICH DEPEND UPON
ESTABLISHED ACCOUNTING PRACTICE DO NOT DESTROY THE PRINCIPLE. 

FN14  CF. UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, 269 U.S. 422. 

FN15  38 STAT. 114 AT 166. 

FN16  39 STAT. 756, SECS. 8(G) AND 13(D). 

FN17  40 STAT. 1057, SEC. 212(B). 

FN18  48 STAT. 680, SEC. 42. 

FN19  CF. ERNEST M. BULL, EXEC., 7 B.T.A. 993, 995. 

FN20  CF. SEC. 48(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 188. 

FN21  REGULATION 86, ART. 42-1. 

FN22  LILLIAN O. FEHRMAN, EXEC., 38 B.T.A. 37; ESTATE OF WILTON J.
LAMBERT, 40 B.T.A. 802, 806; ESTATE OF G. PERCY MCGLUE, 41 B.T.A. 1186,
1193; ENRIGHT V. COMMISSIONER, 112 F.2D 919, THIS CASE BELOW. 

FN23  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT ALL POSSIBILITY OF ESCAPING AN INCOME TAX
IS NOT BARRED, AS FOR INSTANCE THE INCREASED VALUE OF ASSET ITEMS IN AN
ESTATE RETURN.  ACT, 113(A)(5)  "...  THE ENTIRE FIELD OF PROPER
LEGISLATION (NEED NOT) BE COVERED BY A SINGLE ENACTMENT."  ROSENTHAL V.
NEW YORK, 226 U.S. 260, 271; CF. KEOKEE COKE CO. V. TAYLOR, 234 U.S.
224, 227. 

FN24  280 U.S. 412, 417. 

FN25  269 U.S. 422, 437. 

FN26  SPRING CITY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 292 U.S. 182, 184; GUARANTY
TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 303 U.S. 493, 498. 

FN27  CF. PARLIN, ACCRUALS TO DATE OF DEATH, 87 U. OF PA. L. REV.
294, 301; FARRAND & FARRAND, TREATMENT OF ACCRUED ITEMS ON DEATH, 13
SO. CAL. L. REV. 431. 
..END :

















PFAFF V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 646 


NO. 479.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 5, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 113
F.2D 114, AFFIRMED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. ESTATE OF ENRIGHT, ANTE, P.
636.  P. 647. 

PFAFF ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 639, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING A DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE SAME QUESTION AS HELVERING V. ESTATE OF
ENRIGHT, ANTE, P. 636.  PETITIONERS ARE THE EXECUTORS OF A DECEASED
PHYSICIAN WHO DURING 1935 WAS A MEMBER OF A MEDICAL PARTNERSHIP AND
ENTITLED TO FORTY PER CENT OF ITS PROFITS.  HE DIED DECEMBER 25, 1935,
ON WHICH DATE THERE WERE OUTSTANDING ABOUT $69,000 OF PARTNERSHIP
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO PATIENTS DURING HIS
LIFETIME.  HIS DEATH WORKED A DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP UNDER SEC.
62(4) OF THE NEW YORK PARTNERSHIP LAW.  THE DECEDENT'S INTEREST IN
THESE ACCOUNTS CAME TO OVER $27,000.  BOTH HE AND THE PARTNERSHIP WERE
ON A CASH BASIS.  PURSUANT TO SEC. 42 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 AND
ARTICLE 42(1) OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, THE COMMISSIONER INCLUDED THE
DECEDENT'S SHARE OF THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE IN HIS 1935 INCOME, THOUGH
ONLY AT ABOUT ONE-FIFTH OF FACE VALUE.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S VIEW OF THE STATUTE, AND ALSO RULED THAT
THE VALUATION OF THE DECEDENT'S INTEREST IN THE ACCOUNTS AT ONE-FIFTH
OF FACE VALUE WAS AMPLY SUPPORTED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
WITHOUT WRITING AN OPINION, AFFIRMED THE BOARD.  113 F.2D 114.  BECAUSE
OF A CONFLICT WITH THE THIRD CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN THE ENRIGHT CASE,
SUPRA, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THERE IS NO RELEVANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE FACTS AND HELVERING V.
ESTATE OF ENRIGHT.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THAT OPINION IT WAS
PROPER TO INCLUDE IN THE DECEDENT'S 1935 INCOME THE FAIR VALUE OF HIS
INTEREST IN THE ACCOUNTS.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :









MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, 313 U.S. 1 


NO. 346.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 6, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 843, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, THE BASIS FOR ASCERTAINING GAIN OR
LOSS FROM THE SALE OF PERSONALTY WHICH HAD BEEN DELIVERED TO THE
TAXPAYER BY TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES IS - 

(1)  IN THE CASE OF PERSONALTY WHICH THE DECEDENT OWNED, ITS VALUE AT
THE TIME WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE TRUSTEES FROM THE EXECUTORS.  P.
3. 

(A)  THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
APPLICABLE PROVISION OF SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE ACT.  P. 5. 

(B)  UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE BASIS FOR
ASCERTAINING GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY GENERAL
BEQUEST SHALL BE THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE "DISTRIBUTION TO THE
TAXPAYER," THE TIME OF "DISTRIBUTION TO THE TAXPAYER" IN THIS CASE WAS
THE TIME OF THE DELIVERY OF THE PROPERTY TO THE TRUSTEES BY THE
EXECUTORS.  P. 7. 

(2) IN THE CASE OF PERSONALTY PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES, THE COST
THEREOF TO THE TRUSTEES.  P. 8. 

(A)  THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES AND
SUBSEQUENTLY DELIVERED TO THE TAXPAYER WAS NOT "ACQUIRED BY WILL"; AND
THE BASIS IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 113(A), NOT BY SEC. 113(A)(5).  P. 9. 

2.  ALTHOUGH THE TITLE OF AN ACT MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED TO LIMIT THE
PLAIN MEANING OF THE TEXT, IT MAY BE OF AID IN RESOLVING AN AMBIGUITY. 
P. 9. 

MAGUIRE ET UX. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 627, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REDETERMINING A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE TAXPAYER'S  FN1  SHARE OF A TESTAMENTARY TRUST, ESTABLISHED
PURSUANT TO THE WILL OF HER FATHER, WAS DELIVERED TO HER IN KIND IN
1923.  THE PROPERTY WAS PERSONALTY, PART OF WHICH HAD BEEN OWNED BY THE
DECEDENT AND PART PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES.  THE DECEDENT DIED IN 1903
AND HIS EXECUTORS WERE DISCHARGED BY THE PROBATE COURT IN 1905. 
PURSUANT TO THAT ORDER THE EXECUTORS TURNED OVER TO THEMSELVES, AS
TRUSTEES, ALL OF THE RESIDUE OF THE ESTATE.  FN2  FROM THAT RESIDUE THE
TAXPAYER'S CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION DERIVED.  DURING THE YEAR
1930 PARTS OF BOTH GROUPS OF PROPERTY WERE SOLD.  FN3  THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED RELATE TO THE PROPER BASIS UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928(45
STAT. 791) FOR DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS UPON THOSE SALES:  (1) WHETHER
THE BASIS IN CASE OF THE PERSONALTY OWNED BY DECEDENT IS ITS VALUE WHEN
RECEIVED BY THE TRUSTEES FROM THE EXECUTORS OR ITS VALUE AT THE DATE OF
DELIVERY BY THE TRUSTEES TO THE TAXPAYER; AND (2) WHETHER THE BASIS IN
CASE OF THE PERSONALTY PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES IS ITS COST TO THE
TRUSTEES OR ITS VALUE AT THE DATE OF DELIVERY BY THE TRUSTEES TO THE
TAXPAYER.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUITS ON THOSE TWO
QUESTIONS.  FN4 

I. AS RESPECTS THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT HIS DEATH, WE
ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DATE WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE TRUSTEES FROM
THE EXECUTORS, RATHER THAN THE DATE WHEN IT WAS DELIVERED BY THE
TRUSTEES TO THE TAXPAYER, GOVERNS.  IN THE CASE OF GENERAL BEQUESTS,
SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 PROVIDED THAT "THE BASIS
SHALL BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE
DISTRIBUTION TO THE TAXPAYER."  FN5  BUT IN CASE OF SPECIFIC BEQUESTS
OF PERSONALTY OR IN CASE OF REALTY, THE BASIS WAS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY AT THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.  SEC. 113(A)(5).  IN THE
LATTER CASES THE PROPERTY EITHER VESTED IN THE HEIR OR DEVISEE AT DEATH
OR WAS RATHER DEFINITELY MARKED AT THE TIME OF DEATH FOR THE LEGATEE. 
IN THE FORMER THE LEGATEE NORMALLY MUST HAVE AWAITED ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ESTATE BEFORE THE PROPERTY BEQUEATHED TO HIM COULD HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED WITH CERTAINTY.  THAT DIFFERENCE SUGGESTS THE DISTINCTION IN
TREATMENT UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5) OF GENERAL BEQUESTS OF PERSONALTY.  IT
EMPHASIZES THAT THE WORDS "AT THE TIME OF THE DISTRIBUTION TO THE
TAXPAYER" MEANT THE TIME WHEN THE DISTRIBUTION WAS MADE OUT OF THE
ESTATE.  IT SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS FOCUSED SEC. 113(A)(5) ON
THE DECEDENT'S DEATH AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF HIS ESTATE, AND NOT ON
SUBSEQUENT TRANSFERS OR TRANSMISSIONS OF THE PROPERTY. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 113(A)(5) LENDS SUPPORT TO THAT
CONCLUSION.  PRIOR TO THE 1928 ACT THE BASIS FOR PROPERTY OBTAINED BY
BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE WAS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE "AT THE TIME
OF SUCH ACQUISITION."  FN6  THE HOUSE BILL  FN7  WHICH BECAME THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928 PROVIDED THAT THE BASIS FOR ALL PROPERTY ACQUIRED
BY BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE SHOULD BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY AT THE DATE OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH - A PROVISION DESIGNED
TO CLARIFY  FN8  THE MEANING OF "ACQUISITION" IN THE EARLIER ACTS.  FN9
IN THE SENATE THAT LANGUAGE OF SEC. 113(A)(5) WAS CHANGED TO THE FORM
IN WHICH IT APPEARED IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 - A CHANGE SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNED TO AVOID THE CONFUSION AS TO THE BASIS ON WHICH GAIN OR LOSS
ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE EXECUTOR AND DISTRIBUTED TO
BENEFICIARIES WAS TO BE DETERMINED.  FN10 

THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE SLIGHTEST SUGGESTION THAT THIS CHANGE
WAS DESIGNED AS A SUBSTANTIAL DEPARTURE FROM THE VALUE-AT-DEATH RULE. 
TO BE SURE, IT DID PRODUCE A LIMITED DEVIATION FROM THAT PRINCIPLE IN
THAT NO INCOME TAX EFFECT WAS TO BE GIVEN CHANGES IN VALUE OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY, PASSING OTHERWISE THAN BY SPECIFIC BEQUEST, DURING THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE.  BUT TO HOLD THAT IT EFFECTED THE CHANGE
WHICH PETITIONER URGES WOULD BE TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS A PURPOSE TO GO
FAR BEYOND THE EXIGENCIES OF THE SPECIFIC SITUATIONS WITH WHICH IT WAS
DEALING. 

THE LANGUAGE USED DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT RESULT.  "DISTRIBUTION TO THE
TAXPAYER" IS NOT NECESSARILY RESTRICTED TO SITUATIONS WHERE PROPERTY IS
DELIVERED TO THE TAXPAYER.  IT ALSO APTLY DESCRIBES THE CASE WHERE
PROPERTY IS DELIVERED BY THE EXECUTORS TO TRUSTEES IN TRUST FOR THE
TAXPAYER.  SUCH DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE RESULTS IN THE ACQUISITION
BY THE TAXPAYER OF AN EQUITABLE ESTATE UNDER THE TESTAMENTARY TRUST. 
THE FACT THAT HE DOES NOT THEN OBTAIN POSSESSION OR CONTROL, THE FACT
THAT HIS INTEREST IS CONDITIONAL OR CONTINGENT, THE FACT THAT LEGAL
TITLE MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO HIM UNTIL YEARS LATER, ARE IMMATERIAL. 
SEC. 113(A)(5) MERELY PROVIDED A POINT OF REFERENCE AND A STANDARD OF
VALUE FOR DETERMINATION OF GAINS OR LOSSES REALIZED ON SUBSEQUENT SALES
OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE.  IN BREWSTER
V. GAGE, 280 U.S. 327, 334, THIS COURT HELD UNDER EARLIER ACTS  FN11
THAT THE DATE OF DEATH WAS THE DATE OF "ACQUISITION" EVEN IN CASE OF A
RESIDUARY LEGATEE WHOSE INTEREST AT THE DATE OF DEATH CLEARLY WAS NOT
ABSOLUTE.  THAT CONCLUSION SUGGESTS THAT THE CRITICAL DATE IS THE TIME
WHEN THE LEGATEE ACQUIRES SOME INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY ALTHOUGH HIS
INTEREST THEN MAY NOT BE UNCONDITIONAL.  HENCE, IN CASE OF REMAINDERS
GOVERNED BY SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE 1928 ACT, IT CANNOT REALISTICALLY BE
ASSERTED THAT THE DATE WHEN THE REMAINDERMAN ACQUIRED HIS INTEREST CAME
LATER THAN THE TIME WHEN HE OBTAINED AN EQUITABLE ESTATE UNDER THE
TESTAMENTARY TRUST. 

THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY WE CANNOT INFER THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
MAKE MORE THAN A LIMITED DEPARTURE FROM THE VALUE-AT-DEATH PRINCIPLE IN
ENACTING SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE 1928 ACT.  AS RESPONDENT POINTS OUT,
THERE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL DISPARITY BETWEEN THE TREATMENT OF
REMAINDERMEN OF REALTY AND REMAINDERMEN OF PERSONALITY UNDER THE SAME
TESTAMENTARY TRUST, IF THE LATTER WERE GIVEN A BASIS OF VALUE AT THE
TIME OF DISTRIBUTION BY THE TRUST.  FURTHERMORE, WE CANNOT ON THE BASIS
OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 113(A)(5) IMPUTE TO CONGRESS A
PURPOSE TO ALLOW TRUSTEES EITHER TO SELL THE PROPERTY OR TO DISTRIBUTE
IT IN KIND, AS WOULD BE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS FOR TAX PURPOSES.  THE
CREATION OF SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MANIPULATION OF TAX LIABILITY
CANNOT BE LIGHTLY PRESUMED.  SIMILARLY WE CANNOT ASSUME IN ABSENCE OF
EXPLICIT PROVISIONS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO CREATE SUBSTANTIAL
PERIODS OF TIME FOLLOWING THE DATE OF DEATH DURING WHICH THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY BEQUEATHED WOULD HAVE NO INCIDENCE AS RESPECTS SUBSEQUENT
GAINS OR LOSSES.  RESPECT FOR THE OBVIOUS SYMMETRY OF THIS STATUTORY
SCHEME INDUCES THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A "DISTRIBUTION TO THE
TAXPAYER" WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS DELIVERED BY THE EXECUTORS TO THE
TRUSTEES.  FN12 

II.  AS RESPECTS THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES, WE
ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ITS COST TO THEM, RATHER THAN ITS VALUE AT THE
DATE OF DELIVERY TO THE TAXPAYER, GOVERNS.  SEC. 113(A) PROVIDED THAT
THE BASIS IN CASE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913, SHOULD
BE "THE COST OF SUCH PROPERTY."  FN13  THAT STANDARD CONTROLS HERE
UNLESS THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISION OF SEC.
113(A)(5) THAT, "IN ALL OTHER CASES IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED EITHER
BY WILL OR BY INTESTACY, THE BASIS SHALL BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE DISTRIBUTION TO THE TAXPAYER."  THE
LATTER PROVISION IS APPLICABLE IF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS
"ACQUIRED  ...  BY WILL."  WE THINK IT WAS NOT. 

THE TITLE OF SEC. 113(A)(5) IS "PROPERTY TRANSMITTED AT DEATH." 
WHILE THE TITLE OF AN ACT WILL NOT LIMIT THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE TEXT
(CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470, 490; STRATHEARN S.S. CO. V.
DILLON, 252 U.S. 348, 354), IT MAY BE OF AID IN RESOLVING AN
AMBIGUITY.  KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 65.  IT SUGGESTS, AS DOES
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH WE HAVE RELATED, THAT THE FOREGOING
PROVISION OF SEC. 113(A)(5) WAS CONFINED, WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS, TO THE
SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT HIS DEATH.  TO BE SURE, THE
TAXPAYER'S RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD ITS SOURCE IN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE WILL.  BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT CONGRESS IN
DRAFTING SEC. 113(A)(5) LOOKED BEYOND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE BY
THE EXECUTORS.  IN THAT CONNECTION, THE SENATE REPORT SPECIFICALLY
STATED THAT THE FOREGOING PROVISION OF SEC. 113(A)(5) GOVERNED
PURCHASES BY THE EXECUTORS.  FN14  NO REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PURCHASES
BY TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES.  THE INFERENCE IS STRONG THAT CONGRESS WAS
FASHIONING SEC. 113(A)(5) ON THE THEORY THAT FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES
ACQUISITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY PASSING BY GENERAL BEQUEST OR
INTESTACY DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE WAS MADE.  IN
THAT POSTURE OF THE PROBLEM, PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE EXECUTOR
(ACTING, SO TO SPEAK, IN THE DECEDENT'S STEAD) PRIOR TO THAT
DISTRIBUTION WAS ACQUIRED BY THE DISTRIBUTEE "BY WILL."  BUT ONCE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND THE BASIC
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION EFFECTED, SUBSEQUENT PURCHASES WERE TO BE
GOVERNED BY COST AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 113(A).  PROPERTY SO PURCHASED
WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE ORIGINAL INHERITANCE.  CERTAINLY IF THE
TRUSTEES THEMSELVES HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY, THE TRANSACTION WOULD HAVE
BEEN TAXABLE ON THE COST BASIS.  TO HOLD THAT A DIFFERENT BASIS APPLIES
IN CASE THE BENEFICIARY MADE THE SALE WOULD BE TO OPEN AN AVENUE FOR
TAX AVOIDANCE.  FURTHERMORE, WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A STATUTORY
SCHEME WHICH IN GENERAL RECOGNIZES VALUE AT THE DATE OF DEATH IN
COMPUTING SUBSEQUENT GAINS OR LOSSES.  WE ARE NOT INCLINED IN ABSENCE
OF CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE TO IMPLY A GREATER DEVIATION FROM
THAT PRINCIPLE THAN THAT WHICH IS NECESSITATED BY THE DECLARED
OBJECTIVE OF CONGRESS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PETITIONERS ARE HUSBAND AND WIFE WHO FILED A JOINT RETURN.  THE
INCOME HERE INVOLVED IS THAT OF THE WIFE. 

FN2  THE WILL DIRECTED THE EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES, NOT LESS THAN TEN
AND NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR, TO MAKE
FINAL DISTRIBUTION OF THIS RESIDUE AS FOLLOWS: "...  TO MY WIFE THE ONE
THIRD PART THEREOF, THE BALANCE TO BE EQUALLY DIVIDED AMONG MY
CHILDREN, SHARE AND SHARE ALIKE, AND SHOULD MY WIFE NOT BE LIVING AT
THE TIME OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION, THEN THE SAME SHALL BE DIVIDED EQUALLY
AMONG MY CHILDREN, SHARE AND SHARE ALIKE, THE DESCENDANTS OF ANY
DECEASED CHILDREN IN SUCH DISTRIBUTION TO TAKE THE PROPORTION OF THEIR
DECEASED PARENT,  ..." 

FN3  THE SALES WERE MADE BY TRUSTEES OF NEW INTER VIVOS TRUSTS UNDER
WHICH THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN PLACED ON ITS DELIVERY IN 1923.  IT WAS
STIPULATED THAT THE BENEFICIARIES (INCLUDING THE TAXPAYER) WERE TAXABLE
AS THOUGH THE SALES WERE MADE BY THEM INDIVIDUALLY. 

FN4  THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW IS REPORTED AT 111 F.2D 843.  ON
THE FIRST QUESTION IT HELD THAT THE BASIS WAS THE VALUE AT THE TIME THE
PROPERTY WAS RECEIVED BY THE TRUSTEES FROM THE EXECUTORS; ON THE
SECOND, THAT THE BASIS WAS COST TO THE TRUSTEES.  ON THOSE TWO
QUESTIONS THAT DECISION IS IN CONFLICT WITH COMMISSIONER V. GAMBRILL,
112 F.2D 530, FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  AND SEE
COMMISSIONER V. LIBBEY, 100 F.2D 458. 

FN5  SEC. 113(A)(5) PROVIDED:  "(A)  PROPERTY ACQUIRED AFTER FEBRUARY
28, 1913.  - THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE
OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913,
SHALL BE THE COST OF SUCH PROPERTY; EXCEPT THAT  ...  (5) PROPERTY
TRANSMITTED AT DEATH.  - IF PERSONAL PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY SPECIFIC
BEQUEST, OR IF REAL PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC DEVISE
OR BY INTESTACY, THE BASIS SHALL BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.  IF THE PROPERTY WAS
ACQUIRED BY THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE FROM THE DECEDENT, THE BASIS IN THE
HANDS OF THE ESTATE SHALL BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT
THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.  IN ALL OTHER CASES IF THE
PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED EITHER BY WILL OR BY INTESTACY, THE BASIS SHALL
BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE
DISTRIBUTION TO THE TAXPAYER.  IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN
TRUST TO PAY THE INCOME FOR LIFE TO OR UPON THE ORDER OR DIRECTION OF
THE GRANTOR, WITH THE RIGHT RESERVED TO THE GRANTOR AT ALL TIMES PRIOR
TO HIS DEATH TO REVOKE THE TRUST, THE BASIS OF SUCH PROPERTY IN THE
HANDS OF THE PERSONS ENTITLED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TRUST INSTRUMENT
TO THE PROPERTY AFTER THE GRANTOR'S DEATH SHALL, AFTER SUCH DEATH, BE
THE SAME AS IF THE TRUST INSTRUMENT HAD BEEN A WILL EXECUTED ON THE DAY
OF THE GRANTOR'S DEATH;" 

SEC. 113(B) PROVIDED:  "(B)  PROPERTY ACQUIRED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913. 
- THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OR OTHER
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913, SHALL BE:  (1)
THE COST OF SUCH PROPERTY (OR, IN THE CASE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS IS
DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (A)  ...  (5)  ... OF THIS SECTION, THE BASIS
AS THEREIN PROVIDED), OR (2) THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS
OF MARCH 1, 1913, WHICHEVER IS GREATER."    FN6  REVENUE ACT OF 1921(42
STAT. 227) SEC. 202(A); REVENUE ACT OF 1924(43 STAT. 253) SEC. 204(A);
REVENUE ACT OF 1926(44 STAT. 9) SEC. 204(A). 

FN7  H.R. 1, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN8  H. REP. NO. 2, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., INT. REV. BULL., CUM.
BULL.  1939-1, PT. 2, P. 396.  AND SEE REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON
INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION, H. DOC. NO. 139, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP.
17-18. 

FN9  MUCH OF THAT CONFUSION WAS LATER ELIMINATED BY BREWSTER V. GAGE,
280 U.S. 327, HOLDING THAT IN CASE OF A RESIDUARY LEGATEE OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY THE TIME OF "ACQUISITION" WAS THE DATE OF DECEDENT'S DEATH,
NOT THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE EXECUTORS TO THE
LEGATEE.  THAT DECISION WAS RENDERED IN 1930 UNDER THE 1918 AND 1921
ACTS.  THE WORDING OF SEC. 113(A)(5) CONTAINED IN THE 1928 ACT WAS
CONTINUED IN THE 1932 ACT (47 STAT. 169, 199).  BUT UNDER THE 1934 ACT
(48 STAT. 680, 706) THERE WAS A RETURN TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE 1926 ACT,
THE SENATE REPORT STATING:  "SECTION 113(A) 5 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932 IS A REENACTMENT OF A SIMILAR PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE 1928
ACT.  THE CHANGE IN THE 1928 ACT WAS MADE BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME DOUBT
AS TO THE MEANING OF THE TERM 'DATE OF ACQUISITION,' WHICH WAS THE TERM
USED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  SINCE THE 1928 ACT WAS PASSED, THE
SUPREME COURT HAS DEFINED 'THE DATE OF ACQUISITION' TO MEAN THE DATE OF
DEATH IN THE CASE OF ALL PROPERTY PASSING BY BEQUEST, DEVISE, AND
INHERITANCE, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL.  (BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280 U.S.
327.)  SECTION 113(A) 5 OF THE HOUSE BILL CONFORMS TO THE LANGUAGE
CONTAINED IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SO THAT A UNIFORM BASIS RULE MAY
BE REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY PASSING AT DEATH, WHETHER REAL OR
PERSONAL."  S. REP. NO. 558, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., INT. REV. BULL.,
SUPRA NOTE 8, PP. 612-613. 

FN10  S. REP. NO. 960, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., INT. REV. BULL., SUPRA
NOTE 8, P. 409, WHERE IT WAS SAID (P. 427):  "IT APPEARS THAT THE HOUSE
BILL IS INADEQUATE TO TAKE CARE OF A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS WHICH
FREQUENTLY ARISE.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE EXECUTOR, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF
THE WILL, MAY PURCHASE PROPERTY AND DISTRIBUTE IT TO THE BENEFICIARIES,
IN WHICH CASE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO USE THE VALUE AT THE DECEDENT'S DEATH
AS THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING SUBSEQUENT GAIN OR LOSS, FOR THE DECEDENT
NEVER OWNED THE PROPERTY.  MOREOVER, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY AT THE DECEDENT'S DEATH CAN NOT PROPERLY BE USED AS THE BASIS,
IN CASE OF PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WHERE THE
DONEE SELLS THE PROPERTY WHILE THE DONOR IS LIVING. 

"ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMITTEE HAS REVISED SECTION 113(A) 5 AND CERTAIN
RELATED SECTIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN THE CASE OF A SPECIFIC
BEQUEST OF PERSONALTY OR A GENERAL OR SPECIFIC DEVISE OF REALTY, OR THE
TRANSMISSION OF REALTY BY INTESTACY, THE BASIS SHALL BE THE FAIR MARKET
VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT.  IN THESE CASES IT MAY
BE SAID, AS A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE, THAT THE PROPERTY FOR ALL PRACTICAL
PURPOSES VESTS IN THE BENEFICIARY IMMEDIATELY UPON THE DECEDENT'S
DEATH, AND THEREFORE THE VALUE AT THE DATE OF DEATH IS A PROPER VASIS
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF GAIN OR LOSS TO THE BENEFICIARY.  THE SAME
RULE IS APPLIED TO REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TRANSMITTED BY THE
DECEDENT, WHERE THE SALE IS MADE BY THE EXECUTOR.  IN ALL OTHER CASES
THE BASIS IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE
DISTRIBUTION TO THE TAXPAYER.  THE LATTER RULE WOULD OBTAIN, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY NOT TRANSMITTED TO THE
BENEFICIARY BY SPECIFIC BEQUEST, BUT BY GENERAL BEQUEST OR BY
INTESTACY.  IT WOULD ALSO APPLY IN CASES WHERE THE EXECUTOR PURCHASES
PROPERTY AND DISTRIBUTES IT TO THE BENEFICIARY." 

FN11  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN12  WE ARE NOT AIDED BY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  THE BUREAU OF
INTERNAL REVENUE ORIGINALLY TOOK THE VIEW WHICH WE HAVE REACHED. 
G.C.M. 6195, VIII - 1 CUM. BULL.  99(1929).  THIS VIEW WAS REVERSED IN
G.C.M. 11309, XII - 1 CUM. BULL.  126(1933).  ITS ORIGINAL VIEW WAS
AGAIN TAKEN IN G.C.M. 14893, XIV - 1 CUM. BULL.  202(1935). 

FN13  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA.  AND SEE SEC. 113(B), SUPRA NOTE 5, AS
RESPECTS THE BASIS IN CASE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913. 

FN14  S. REP. NO. 960, SUPRA NOTE 10. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V.
GAMBRILL, 112 F.2D 530. 
..END :





HELVERING V. GAMBRILL, 313 U.S. 11 


NO. 472.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 112 F.2D
530, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, THE BASIS FOR
ASCERTAINING GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY DELIVERED TO THE
TAXPAYER BY TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES IS ITS VALUE WHEN DISTRIBUTED BY THE
EXECUTORS TO THE TRUSTEES IF THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT
DEATH, AND COST TO THE TRUSTEES IF IT WAS PURCHASED BY THEM.  MAGUIRE
V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 1.  P. 13. 

2.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER PROPERTY DELIVERED TO A
TAXPAYER BY TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES WAS "CAPITAL ASSETS" WITHIN THE
CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, THE
PERIOD FOR WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS HELD THE PROPERTY (ALTHOUGH A
REMAINDER INTEREST) DATES FROM THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT IN THE CASE OF
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT DEATH, AND FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE
IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES.  P. 14. 

3.  "PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER," AS USED IN SEC. 101(C)(8) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928, EMBRACES NOT ONLY FULL OWNERSHIP BUT ALSO ANY
INTEREST WHETHER VESTED, CONTINGENT, OR CONDITIONAL.  P. 15. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. GAMBRILL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 639, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 38 B.T.A. 981, REDETERMINING A DEFICIENCY IN
INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED HERE ARE IN PART THE SAME AS THOSE IN MAGUIRE
V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 1.  RESPONDENT WAS A REMAINDERMAN UNDER A
TRUST CREATED BY THE WILL OF HIS GRANDMOTHER  FN1 WHO DIED IN 1897. 
THE TRUST RES, CONSISTING OF PERSONALTY, WAS DELIVERED BY THE EXECUTORS
TO THEMSELVES AS TRUSTEES IN 1898.  THE LIFE BENEFICIARY, RESPONDENT'S
MOTHER, DIED IN MARCH, 1928.  ON MAY 5, 1928, THE TRUSTEES DELIVERED
THE CORPUS TO RESPONDENT AS REMAINDERMAN.  SOME OF THE PROPERTY WAS
PART OF THE ORIGINAL TRUST RES, AND SOME WAS PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES
BOTH PRIOR TO AND SUBSEQUENT TO MARCH 1, 1913.  DURING THE YEAR 1930(IN
FEBRUARY, ON MAY 6, AND IN JUNE) RESPONDENT SOLD SOME OF THE PROPERTY
IN EACH GROUP.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (38 B.T.A. 981) AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (112 F.2D 530) HELD:  (1) THAT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION THE
BASIS TO RESPONDENT BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928(45 STAT. 791) WAS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE
DATE WHEN THE CORPUS WAS DELIVERED TO RESPONDENT; AND (2) THAT THE
PROPERTY SOLD IN FEBRUARY, 1930 HAD NOT BEEN HELD BY THE TAXPAYER FOR
MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND WAS, THEREFORE, NOT A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 101(C) OF THE 1928 ACT, WHILE THAT SOLD ON MAY 6 AND IN
JUNE, 1930, HAD BEEN HELD BY RESPONDENT FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND WAS
THEREFORE A CAPITAL ASSET. 

THE RULINGS ON THE FIRST QUESTION WERE ERRONEOUS.  FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, THE BASIS UNDER SEC.
113(A)(5) FOR THE PROPERTY DELIVERED TO RESPONDENT BY THE TESTAMENTARY
TRUSTEES WAS ITS VALUE WHEN DISTRIBUTED BY THE EXECUTORS TO THE
TRUSTEES IF THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT HER DEATH, AND
COST TO THE TRUSTEES IF IT WAS PURCHASED BY THEM.  FN2 

WE ALSO DISAGREE WITH THE DISPOSITION MADE OF THE SECOND QUESTION. 
CAPITAL GAINS OR LOSSES ARE DEFINED AS THOSE RESULTING FROM SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS.  SEC. 101(C)(1) AND (2).  CAPITAL ASSETS
ARE DEFINED (WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE) AS "PROPERTY HELD BY
THE TAXPAYER FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS."  SEC. 101(C)(8).  AND SEC.
101(C)(8)(B) PROVIDES:  "IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE
TAXPAYER HAS HELD PROPERTY HOWEVER ACQUIRED THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED THE
PERIOD FOR WHICH SUCH PROPERTY WAS HELD BY ANY OTHER PERSON, IF UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 113, SUCH PROPERTY HAS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS FROM A SALE OR EXCHANGE, THE SAME BASIS IN
WHOLE OR IN PART IN HIS HANDS AS IT WOULD HAVE IN THE HANDS OF SUCH
OTHER PERSON." 

WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT UNDER THESE PROVISIONS RESPONDENT'S HOLDING
PERIOD DATES FROM THE DECEDENT'S DEATH FOR PROPERTY WHICH SHE THEN
OWNED AND FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE FOR PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE
TRUSTEES.  IN MCFEELY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 102, THIS COURT HELD
THAT A LEGATEE'S HOLDING PERIOD UNDER SEC. 101(C)(8) OF THE 1928 ACT
DATED FROM THE DECEDENT'S DEATH FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AND
DISTRIBUTED TO THE LEGATEE BY THE EXECUTORS, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT
THE LEGATEE'S BASIS UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5) WAS VALUE AT THE TIME OF
DISTRIBUTION TO HIM BY THE EXECUTORS.  THE DATE OF ACQUISITION WAS HELD
TO BE THE DATE OF DEATH, REGARDLESS OF THE GAP BETWEEN THAT DATE AND
THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION.  AND THAT RESULT WAS REACHED EVEN THOUGH SOME
OF THE TAXPAYERS INVOLVED WERE RESIDUARY LEGATEES WHOSE INTERESTS AT
DATE OF DEATH WERE NOT UNCONDITIONAL.  THE REASONING OF THAT CASE PLUS
SEC. 101(C)(8)(B) MAKE IT PLAIN THAT RESPONDENT'S INTEREST, ALBEIT A
REMAINDER, WAS ACQUIRED AT THE DATE OF DECEDENT'S DEATH FOR PROPERTY
THEN OWNED AND AT THE DATE OF PURCHASE FOR PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE
TRUSTEES.  THE CONTINUITY IN HIS HOLDING WAS NOT BROKEN BY THE
INTERVENING TRUST.  THE FORMAL CONSTITUTION OF THAT TRUST THOUGH OF
SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5)(MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER,
SUPRA) DID NOT CHANGE THE BASIC QUALITY OF HIS PROPERTY INTEREST.  AND
THE FACT THAT THAT INTEREST DID NOT RIPEN INTO FULL AND COMPLETE
OWNERSHIP EXCEPT BY THE PASSAGE OF TIME OR THE OCCURRENCE OF SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS IS INCONSEQUENTIAL.  FOR SEC. 101(C)(8)(B) PROVIDES, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, THAT IN DETERMINING THE TAXPAYER'S HOLDING PERIOD THERE SHALL BE
INCLUDED THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS HELD BY ANY OTHER PERSON
IF UNDER SEC. 113 THE PROPERTY HAD THE SAME BASIS IN WHOLE OR IN PART
IN THE TAXPAYER'S HANDS AS IT WOULD HAVE IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER
PERSON.  IT IS PLAIN THAT UNDER SEC. 113 THE BASIS TO THE TRUSTEES WAS
THE SAME AS THE BASIS TO THE TAXPAYER.  HENCE THE PERIOD OF THEIR
HOLDING IS NOT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PERIOD OF THE TAXPAYER'S
HOLDING.  THAT MAKES PLAIN THAT "PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER" AS USED
IN SEC. 101(C)(8) EMBRACES NOT ONLY FULL OWNERSHIP BUT ALSO ANY
INTEREST WHETHER VESTED, CONTINGENT, OR CONDITIONAL.  OTHERWISE THE
PERIOD OF THE HOLDING BY TRUSTEES WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE HOLDING
BY A MERE REMAINDERMAN.  HENCE, AS IN MCFEELY V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA,
WE LOOK TO THE TIME WHEN THE TAXPAYER FIRST ACQUIRED THE INTEREST WHICH
LATER RIPENED INTO FULL OWNERSHIP.  IT IS PLAIN THAT FOR PROPERTY OWNED
BY THE DECEDENT HE ACQUIRED THAT INTEREST AT HER DEATH AND THAT FOR
PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES HE ACQUIRED THAT INTEREST AT THE
DATE OF PURCHASE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  RESPONDENT WAS THE SOLE SURVIVING ISSUE OF HIS MOTHER, ANNA VAN
NEST GAMBRILL, AND TOOK UNDER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF HIS
GRANDMOTHER'S WILL: 

"NINTH.  ALL THE RESIDUE OF MY ESTATE OF EVERY KIND I GIVE AND DEVISE
AS FOLLOWS: 

'ONE HALF THEREOF IN EQUAL SHARES TO MY DAUGHTERS MARY VAN NEST
JACKSON, ANNA VAN NEST GAMBRILL, AND JENNIE VAN NEST FOSTER, AND MY
GRANDDAUGHTER, MARY ALICE VAN NEST ABSOLUTELY. 

'THE OTHER HALF THEREOF IN FOUR EQUAL SHARES TO MY EXECUTORS, TO HOLD
THE SAME IN TRUST, ONE SHARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EACH OF THE SAME FOUR
PERSONS TO WIT MY SAID THREE DAUGHTERS AND MY SAID GRANDDAUGHTER AND TO
RECEIVE THE INCOME AND PAY THE SAME TO HER DURING HER LIFE WITH FULL
POWER TO INVEST AND REINVEST IN THEIR DISCRETION WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION
WHATSOEVER AND AT HER DEATH TO TRANSFER AND DELIVER THE SAME AS SHE IF
LEAVING ISSUE SHALL BY WILL DIRECT OR IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DIRECTION,
TO HER ISSUE EQUALLY, OR IF SHE SHALL LEAVE NO ISSUE, THEN TO THE
SURVIVORS OF THE SAID FOUR PERSONS TO WIT MY SAID THREE DAUGHTERS AND
MY SAID GRANDDAUGHTER, AND TO THE ISSUE OF ANY OF THE SAID FOUR PERSONS
WHO MAY HAVE DIED, THE ISSUE TO TAKE THE SHARE WHICH THE PARENT WOULD
HAVE TAKEN IF LIVING.'" 

FN2  IT SHOULD, OF COURSE, BE NOTED THAT SEC. 113(B) PROVIDED: 

"(B)  PROPERTY ACQUIRED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913.  - THE BASIS FOR
DETERMINING THE GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY ACQUIRED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913, SHALL BE: 

(1)  THE COST OF SUCH PROPERTY (OR, IN THE CASE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS
IS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (A)(1), (4), (5), OR (12) OF THIS SECTION,
THE BASIS AS THEREIN PROVIDED), OR 

(2)  THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS OF MARCH 1, 1913,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER.  IN DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF STOCK IN
A CORPORATION AS OF MARCH 1, 1913, DUE REGARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION AS OF THAT DATE." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE COURT BELOW, 112 F.2D 530. 
..END :



HELVERING V. CAMPBELL, 313 U.S. 15 


NO. 473.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 112 F.2D
530, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932, THE
BASIS FOR ASCERTAINING GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY WHICH HAD
BEEN DELIVERED TO THE TAXPAYER BY TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES IS, IN RESPECT
TO SECURITIES OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT DEATH AND SECURITIES PURCHASED
BY THE EXECUTORS, THEIR VALUE WHEN DELIVERED BY THE EXECUTORS TO THE
TRUSTEES; AND, IN RESPECT TO SECURITIES PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES,
THEIR COST TO THE TRUSTEES.  P. 19. 

2.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER PROPERTY DELIVERED TO A
TAXPAYER BY TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES WAS "CAPITAL ASSETS" WITHIN THE
CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, THE
PERIOD FOR WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS "HELD" PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN
PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES DATES FROM THE TIME OF SUCH PURCHASE.  P.
20. 

3.  AS BETWEEN STOCK WHICH WAS DELIVERED TO THE TAXPAYER BY
TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES, AND STOCK WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY THE TAXPAYER
PRIOR TO SUCH DELIVERY BUT SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE CREATION OF THE TRUST,
THE FORMER IS REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN ACQUIRED EARLIER, UNDER THE
"FIRST IN, FIRST OUT" RULE OF TREASURY REGULATIONS.  P. 20. 

4.  THE ASCERTAINMENT OF GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY
ACQUIRED BY BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE, MAY PROPERLY BE BASED UPON
VALUE AS OF THE TIME WHEN THE TAXPAYER FIRST ACQUIRED AN INTEREST IN
THE PROPERTY, THOUGH CONTINGENT OR CONDITIONAL.  REVENUE ACTS OF 1928
AND 1932.  P. 21. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. CAMPBELL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 474, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. KNOX, AND NO. 475, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V.
ROGERS, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 639, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 639, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF DECISIONS OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (NO. 473, 39 B.T.A. 916) IN FAVOR OF THE
TAXPAYERS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THESE CASES ARE IN PART RELATED TO AND IN
PART THE SAME AS THOSE INVOLVED IN MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 1,
AND HELVERING V. GAMBRILL, ANTE, P. 11. 

THE FATHER OF THESE RESPONDENTS DIED IN 1915.  BY HIS WILL IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT HIS RESIDUARY ESTATE SHOULD BE DIVIDED INTO FOUR PARTS. 
ONE PART WAS DEVISED AND BEQUEATHED TO TRUSTEES:  "TO RECEIVE, HOLD
AND, FROM TIME TO TIME, INVEST AND REINVEST THE SAME, AND TO COLLECT
THE RENTS, INCOME, ISSUES, AND PROFITS ON THE PROPERTY FROM TIME TO
TIME CONSTITUTING SUCH TRUST FUND AND TO PAY OVER SO MUCH OF THE NET
INCOME ARISING THEREFROM, AS TO MY SAID TRUSTEES SHALL SEEM WISE AND
PROPER TOWARD THE SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE, AND EDUCATION OF MY DAUGHTER,
MARJORIE KNOX, UNTIL SHE SHALL ARRIVE AT THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21)
YEARS, AND TO ACCUMULATE THE BALANCE OF THE INCOME DURING HER MINORITY
FOR HER BENEFIT, AND TO PAY OVER THE ACCUMULATED INCOME TO HER WHEN SHE
SHALL ARRIVE AT THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS AND THEREAFTER TO PAY
OVER THE ENTIRE NET INCOME TO MY SAID DAUGHTER, MARJORIE KNOX, UNTIL
SHE SHALL ARRIVE AT THE AGE OF TWENTY-EIGHT (28) YEARS, AT WHICH TIME,
I GIVE, DEVISE, AND BEQUEATH TO MY SAID DAUGHTER, MARJORIE KNOX, ONE
HALF (1/2) OF THE PROPERTY THEN CONSTITUTING SAID TRUST FUND AND I
DIRECT MY SAID TRUSTEES TO PAY OVER THE NET INCOME ON THE REMAINING ONE
HALF (1/2) OF SAID TRUST FUND UNTIL SHE SHALL ARRIVE AT THE AGE OF
THIRTY-FIVE (35) YEARS, AT WHICH TIME I GIVE, DEVISE, AND BEQUEATH THE
REMAINING PART OF SAID TRUST FUND TO MY SAID DAUGHTER, MARJORIE KNOX,
AND TO HER HEIRS AND ASSIGNS FOREVER.  IN THE EVENT THAT MY SAID
DAUGHTER, MARJORIE KNOX, SHALL DIE BEFORE REACHING THE AGE OF THIRTY
FIVE (35) YEARS, I GIVE, DEVISE, AND BEQUEATH ANY PART OR PORTION OF
SAID TRUST FUND, WHICH HAS NOT THEN BEEN PAID OVER TO HER, OR TO THE
POSSESSION OF WHICH AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED, UNTO
THE ISSUE OF SAID MARJORIE KNOX, IF ANY, SURVIVING HER, TO BE DIVIDED
AMONG THEM, SHARE AND SHARE ALIKE.  AND IN CASE THERE BE NO ISSUE HER
SURVIVING, THEN I GIVE, DEVISE, AND BEQUEATH SAID TRUST FUND UNTO HER
HEIRS." 

MARJORIE KNOX IS RESPONDENT MARJORIE K. CAMPBELL.  ANOTHER PART OF
THE RESIDUARY ESTATE WAS PLACED IN TRUST FOR RESPONDENT DOROTHY K. G.
ROGERS, UNDER THE SAME TERMS.  AND A THIRD PART TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN
SECURITIES WAS PLACED IN TRUST FOR RESPONDENT SEYMOUR H. KNOX, UNDER
SIMILAR TERMS.  HE, HOWEVER, WAS TO RECEIVE $500,000 OF THE TRUST FUND
WHEN HE REACHED THE AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE, ONE-HALF OF THE REMAINING TRUST
FUND WHEN HE BECAME THIRTY, AND THE BALANCE AT THIRTY-FIVE.  MEANWHILE,
THE INCOME WAS PAYABLE TO HIM.  ON JULY 1, 1921, THE EXECUTORS,
PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE PROBATE COURT, TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO
THE TRUSTEES. 

MARJORIE K. CAMPBELL ATTAINED THE AGE OF TWENTY-EIGHT ON JULY 10,
1928, AND RECEIVED AT THAT TIME ONE-HALF OF THE PROPERTY OF HER TRUST. 
CERTAIN OF THE SECURITIES WHICH SHE THEN RECEIVED WERE SOLD BY HER
DURING 1933 AND CERTAIN OF THE BONDS MATURED AND WERE PAID DURING
1933.  SOME OF THOSE SECURITIES HAD BEEN HELD BY HER FATHER AT HIS
DEATH, OTHERS HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE EXECUTORS, AND SOME HAD BEEN
PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES.  IN 1926 AND 1927 SHE PURCHASED STOCK OF THE
F.W. WOOLWORTH CO., WHICH WITH DIVIDENDS RECEIVED IN 1927 AMOUNTED TO
1000 SHARES.  IN 1928 SHE RECEIVED DELIVERY FROM THE TRUSTEES OF 15,000
SHARES OF WOOLWORTH STOCK WHICH REPRESENTED SHARES OWNED BY HER FATHER
AT HIS DEATH, A SUBSEQUENT TAX-FREE STOCK SPLIT-UP, STOCK DIVIDENDS,
AND PURCHASES BY THE TRUSTEES.  IN 1929 SHE SURRENDERED THE 16,000
SHARES SHE OWNED AND RECEIVED TAX FREE 40,000 SHARES PURSUANT TO A
SPLIT-UP OF THE STOCK.  IN 1933 SHE SOLD 10,000 OF THE SHARES RECEIVED
IN 1929.  THERE IS NO WAY OF IDENTIFYING THE SHARES SOLD WITH ANY
PARTICULAR SHARES SURRENDERED IN 1929. 

DOROTHY K. G. ROGERS BECAME TWENTY-EIGHT ON AUGUST 26, 1924, AND
THIRTY-FIVE ON AUGUST 26, 1931, AT WHICH TIMES SHE RECEIVED
DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE CORPUS.  DURING 1933 SHE SOLD SECURITIES SO
RECEIVED.  SOME OF THOSE SECURITIES HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES,
SOME BY THE EXECUTORS, AND OTHERS HAD BEEN OWNED BY HER FATHER AT HIS
DEATH. 

SEYMOUR H. KNOX ATTAINED THE AGE OF THIRTY ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1928, AND
RECEIVED ON THAT DATE ONE-HALF OF THE CORPUS, INCLUDING 8,575 SHARES OF
STOCK OF MAINE SHARE CORP., OF WHICH 5,160 WERE PURCHASED BY THE
TRUSTEES ON AUGUST 31, 1927, AND 3,415 WERE PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES
ON AUGUST 30, 1928.  HE LATER EXCHANGED THOSE SHARES IN A NON-TAXABLE
TRANSACTION AND ON JUNE 10, 1930, SOLD THE SHARES RECEIVED IN THAT
EXCHANGE. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS  FN1  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (112
F.2D 530) HELD:  (1) THAT THE BASIS TO RESPONDENTS UNDER SEC. 113(A)(5)
OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932  FN2  AS RESPECTS SALES MADE BY
THEM WAS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME WHEN THE SECURITIES WERE
DELIVERED TO THEM BY THE TRUSTEES, NO MATTER WHEN OR HOW THE TRUSTEES
OR THE EXECUTORS MAY HAVE OBTAINED THE SECURITIES; (2) THAT IN
DETERMINING HOW LONG RESPONDENT KNOX HELD SECURITIES FOR PURPOSES OF
COMPUTING THE TERM OF HIS HOLDING UNDER SEC. 101 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928, THE DATE OF TRANSFER FROM THE TRUSTEES SHOULD GOVERN; AND (3)
THAT AS RESPECTS THE SALE OF WOOLWORTH STOCK BY RESPONDENT CAMPBELL,
HER OWN SHARES SHOULD BE TREATED, UNDER THE "FIRST-IN-FIRST-OUT" RULE,
AS SOLD PRIOR TO THOSE WHICH WERE DELIVERED TO HER BY THE TRUSTEES. 

IT FOLLOWS FROM OUR HOLDING IN MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, THAT
THE RULINGS ON THE FIRST ISSUE WERE ERRONEOUS.  AS RESPECTS THE
SECURITIES OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT DEATH, THE BASIS IS THEIR VALUE
WHEN DELIVERED BY THE EXECUTORS TO THE TRUSTEES.  AS RESPECTS THE
SECURITIES PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES, THE BASIS IS COST TO THE
TRUSTEES.  AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS RESPECTS SECURITIES PURCHASED
BY THE EXECUTORS THE BASIS IS THE VALUE WHEN DELIVERED BY THEM TO THE
TRUSTEES.  AS WE SAID IN MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 113(A)(5) CLEARLY INDICATES THAT IT APPLIES
TO PURCHASES BY EXECUTORS.  HENCE IT FOLLOWS FROM OUR REASONING IN
MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, THAT THE DATE OF DELIVERY BY THE
TRUSTEES TO THE BENEFICIARIES IS NO MORE APPROPRIATE HERE THAN IT IS IN
CASE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT DATE OF DEATH. 

WE ALSO DISAGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW ON THE SECOND ISSUE.  SOME OF
THE SECURITIES WERE SOLD BY RESPONDENT KNOX MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER
THEY HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE TRUSTEES.  FN3  FOR THE REASONS STATED
IN HELVERING V. GAMBRILL, SUPRA, IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THAT THEY HAD
BEEN "HELD" BY HIM FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
101(C)(8). 

WE ALSO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE THIRD PROPOSITION.  THE "FIRST
IN-FIRST-OUT" RULE IS REFLECTED IN TREASURY REGULATIONS.  THE GENERAL
RULE  FN4 IS THAT WHERE SHARES OF STOCK CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED WITH ANY
PARTICULAR LOTS PURCHASED, THEY WILL BE CHARGED AGAINST THE EARLIEST
PURCHASES.  FN5  FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE EARLIEST PURCHASES
THE REGULATION  FN6  ADOPTS THE RULE OF TACKING CONTAINED IN SEC.
101(C)(8)(B).  THAT BEING TRUE, IT MUST BE PRESUMED THAT THE WOOLWORTH
STOCK COMING FROM THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE WAS FIRST SOLD.  THE HOLDING BY
THE TRUSTEES IS INCLUDED IN THAT OF THE BENEFICIARY.  HENCE, AS WE
INDICATED IN HELVERING V. GAMBRILL, SUPRA, THE DATE OF ACQUISITION BY
THE BENEFICIARY WAS THE DATE OF DEATH.  IT IS THAT DATE OF ACQUISITION
WHICH GOVERNS THE APPLICATION OF THE "FIRST-IN-FIRST-OUT" RULE. 
THEREFORE, THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT
CAMPBELL'S OWN SHARES WERE SOLD FIRST. 

RESPONDENTS HAVE CONTENDED, AT LEAST IN REGARD TO SOME OF THESE
ISSUES, THAT THE NATURE OF THEIR REMAINDER INTERESTS NECESSITATES A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  THUS, IN CASE OF RESPONDENT KNOX IT IS STRONGLY
URGED THAT IN VIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL NATURE OF HIS REMAINDER INTEREST
HE HELD THE SECURITIES ONLY FROM THE DATE WHEN HIS INTEREST BECAME
INDEFEASIBLE AND THE SECURITIES WERE DISTRIBUTED TO HIM, SINCE ONE
CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE HELD OR ACQUIRED PROPERTY WHICH HE MIGHT NEVER
OBTAIN.  BUT UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S.
106, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED HERE WITH THE QUESTION AS TO WHEN THE
TRANSFERS TOOK EFFECT FOR PURPOSES OF THE ESTATE TAX.  AS WE INDICATED
IN MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, WE ARE DEALING ONLY WITH A POINT OF
REFERENCE AND A STANDARD OF VALUE FOR DETERMINATION OF GAINS OR LOSSES
REALIZED ON SUBSEQUENT SALES OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY BEQUEST, DEVISE,
OR INHERITANCE.  FOR THAT PURPOSE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN VESTED AND
CONTINGENT REMAINDERS OR BETWEEN ABSOLUTE AND CONDITIONAL PROPERTY
INTERESTS HAVE NO RELEVANCY.  EACH REMAINDERMAN HAS BECOME THE TAXPAYER
BECAUSE HE HAS OBTAINED POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY AND HAS
SOLD IT.  WHILE THE PROPERTY IS HELD IN TRUST, THE VESTED REMAINDERMAN
HAS NO MORE RIGHTS OF POSSESSION AND CONTROL THAN THE CONTINGENT
REMAINDERMAN.  YET EACH HAS ACQUIRED A PROPERTY INTEREST.  THE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS HERE IN QUESTION COME INTO PLAY WHEN THAT INTEREST
LATER RIPENS INTO FULL OWNERSHIP AND A SALE IS MADE.  HENCE THE VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME WHEN THE TAXPAYER FIRST ACQUIRES AN
INTEREST IN IT HAS RELEVANCE TO A SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION OF THE GAINS
OR LOSSES.  AS WE REMARKED IN MAGUIRE V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, THE
RESIDUARY LEGATEE IN BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280 U.S. 327, WAS HELD TO HAVE
ACQUIRED HIS INTEREST AT DATE OF DEATH THOUGH AT THAT TIME IT WAS NOT
ABSOLUTE.  TO BE SURE, IN THESE CASES THE INTEREST OF THE REMAINDERMEN
IN THE PROPERTY AT THE EARLIER TIME WAS LIMITED BY THE VERY TERMS OF
THE BEQUEST.  BUT THE TAX HERE IN QUESTION IS NOT ON THEIR REMAINDER
INTERESTS; IT IS ON GAINS REALIZED BY THEM AS OWNERS OF THAT PROPERTY. 
HENCE, TO CARRY INTO THAT COMPUTATION THE EARLIER VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
IS NOT TO TAX THEM ON VALUES WHICH THEY NEVER RECEIVED.  IT MERELY
PROVIDES A RULE OF THUMB IN ALLEVIATION OF A TAX WHICH WOULD BE
COMPUTED BY REFERENCE TO THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL INHERITANCE
WERE IT TO BE BASED ON COST TO THE TAXPAYER.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE OPINION OF THE BOARD IN HELVERING V. CAMPBELL IS REPORTED IN
39 B.T.A. 916; ITS OPINIONS IN THE OTHER TWO CASES ARE UNREPORTED. 

FN2 SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE 1932 ACT (47 STAT. 169, 199) WAS THE SAME
AS SEC. 113(A)(5) OF THE 1928 ACT (45 STAT. 791, 819). 

FN3  ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASES NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED AS TO
SECURITIES PURCHASED BY EXECUTORS. 

FN4  ART. 58, TREAS. REG. 77, PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1932 ACT
PROVIDES: 

"SALE OF STOCK AND RIGHTS.  - WHEN SHARES OF STOCK IN A CORPORATION
ARE SOLD FROM LOTS PURCHASED AT DIFFERENT DATES OR AT DIFFERENT PRICES
AND THE IDENTITY OF THE LOTS CANNOT BE DETERMINED, THE STOCK SOLD SHALL
BE CHARGED AGAINST THE EARLIEST PURCHASES OF SUCH STOCK.  IN THE
DETERMINATION OF THE EARLIEST PURCHASES OF STOCK THE RULES PRESCRIBED
IN SUBPARAGRAPHS (A), (B), (C), AND (D) OF SECTION 101(C)(8)(RELATING
TO THE PERIOD FOR WHICH PROPERTY HAS BEEN HELD) SHALL BE APPLIED. 
..." 

AND SEE ART. 600(4) DEALING WITH STOCK OR SECURITIES DISTRIBUTED IN
REORGANIZATION. 

FN5  THE REGULATIONS REFER ONLY TO "PURCHASES."  BUT NO QUESTION HAS
BEEN RAISED AS TO THEIR APPLICATION TO SHARES ACQUIRED UNDER A WILL. 
IN FACT, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS STATED (39 B.T.A. 916, 919) THAT THE
"PARTIES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FIRST IN, FIRST OUT RULE MUST BE
APPLIED, SINCE THE SHARES WHICH THE PETITIONER SOLD CAN NOT BE
IDENTIFIED AS THOSE PURCHASED AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME."  FURTHERMORE,
RESPONDENT CONCEDES HERE THAT THE RULE SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO
SECURITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN BOUGHT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE WHICH
HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE OBTAINED. 

FN6  ART. 58, SUPRA NOTE 4. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS THINK THE JUDGMENTS SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE COURT BELOW, 112 F.2D 530. 
..END :























LABOR BOARD V. WHITE SWAN CO., 313 U.S. 23 


NO. 529.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  -
CERTIFICATE DISMISSED. 


1.  QUESTIONS CERTIFIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE,
INVOLVING THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD WHICH REQUIRED A COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF A LAUNDRY
AND DRY CLEANING BUSINESS LOCATED IN A CITY ON A STATE LINE, TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND TO OFFER EMPLOYMENT
WITH BACK PAY TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED
BECAUSE OF UNION AFFILIATION AND ACTIVITIES, HELD DEFECTIVE BECAUSE OF
"OBJECTIONABLE GENERALITY," SINCE THE QUESTIONS DO NOT REFLECT THE
PRECISE CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD AND THE PRECISE FINDINGS ON WHICH
THOSE CONCLUSIONS WERE BASED; AND ALSO BECAUSE, EVEN IF THEY DID
REFLECT THOSE CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS, THEY WOULD CALL FOR A "DECISION
OF THE WHOLE CASE."  P. 27. 

2.  THE NECESSITY IN THIS CASE OF MAKING A SUPPOSITION AS TO THE
SENSE IN WHICH THE BOARD MADE ITS FINDING UNDER SEC. 10(A) THAT THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WERE "AFFECTING COMMERCE," REVEALS THE
HYPOTHETICAL AND ABSTRACT QUALITY OF THE QUESTIONS CERTIFIED.  P. 27. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. WHITE SWAN CO. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON A PETITION TO THAT
COURT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD.  19 N.L.R.B. 1079. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 239 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C.
SEC. 346) IS AS FOLLOWS: 

THIS IS A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, WHICH DIRECTED THE WHITE SWAN COMPANY, A CORPORATION
OF WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA, ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF A LAUNDRY AND
DRY CLEANING BUSINESS, TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES AND TO OFFER EMPLOYMENT WITH BACK PAY TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
HELD TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF UNION AFFILIATION AND
ACTIVITIES.  THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES AND DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES ARE SUSTAINED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; BUT A QUESTION HAS ARISEN, AS TO WHICH THE
MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE DIVIDED AND IN DOUBT, WITH RESPECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD IN THE PREMISES. 

THE RESPONDENT, WHITE SWAN COMPANY, OPERATES A COMBINED LAUNDRY AND
DRY CLEANING ESTABLISHMENT IN THE CITY OF WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA. 
WHILE CERTAIN OF ITS SUPPLIES ARE OBTAINED FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, THE
VOLUME OF THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS THUS INVOLVED IS NOT SUFFICIENT, IN
OUR OPINION, TO BRING THE BUSINESS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BOARD.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THESE SUPPLIES CONSIST OF SOAP, BLUING,
BLEACH, SOLVENT, COAL, WATER, PAPER, TAPE AND PADDING, AND THAT
RESPONDENT'S PURCHASES THEREOF DURING 1938 AMOUNTED TO $38,333.15, OF
WHICH $10,810.90 CAME FROM WITHOUT THE STATE.  RESPONDENT, HOWEVER,
OPERATES DELIVERY TRUCKS IN OHIO AS WELL AS IN WEST VIRGINIA, THREE OF
THE DELIVERY ROUTES FROM ITS PLANT BEING IN OHIO AND ELEVEN IN WEST
VIRGINIA.  THE BUSINESS INVOLVED IS NECESSARILY OF A PURELY LOCAL
CHARACTER, AS THE RECORD SHOWS THAT A RADIUS OF FIFTEEN MILES IS THE
PRACTICAL LIMIT FOR A LAUNDRY OR DRY-CLEANING BUSINESS IN THIS
TERRITORY.  THE FACT THAT BUSINESS IS DONE IN OHIO OUTSIDE THE STATE IN
WHICH RESPONDENT'S LAUNDRY IS LOCATED, RESULTS FROM THE FACT THAT THIS
PURELY LOCAL BUSINESS IS LOCATED IN A CITY ON A STATE LINE.  RESPONDENT
TRANSPORTS GARMENTS IN ITS TRUCKS FROM THOSE OF ITS CUSTOMERS WHO
RESIDE IN OHIO TO ITS PLANT IN WEST VIRGINIA TO BE SERVICED, AND THEN
AFTER SERVICING RETURNS THE GARMENTS IN ITS TRUCKS TO THE CUSTOMERS. 
APPROXIMATELY 12.93 PER CENT OF ITS GROSS INCOME FOR 1938 WAS DERIVED
FROM THIS SOURCE.  IN ADDITION THERETO, APPROXIMATELY 5 PER CENT OF ITS
GROSS INCOME DURING 1938 WAS DERIVED FROM THE SERVICING OF GARMENTS
WHICH PERSONS NOT IN ITS EMPLOYMENT COLLECTED IN OHIO, BROUGHT TO ITS
PLANT FOR SERVICING AND DELIVERED IN OHIO AFTER THEY HAD BEEN
SERVICED.  RESPONDENT'S TOTAL GROSS INCOME IN 1938 WAS $128,752.96. 
THE TOTAL INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OBTAINED FROM PERSONS IN OHIO DURING
THIS PERIOD WAS $28,088.43. 

WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE COLLECTION AND DELIVERY OF GARMENTS ACROSS
STATE LINES, AS ABOVE DESCRIBED, CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE
ARE ADVERTENT, HOWEVER, TO THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT THAT IN APPLYING
THE ACT WE ARE TO BEAR IN MIND "THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS
NATIONAL AND WHAT IS LOCAL IN THE ACTIVITIES OF COMMERCE."  N.L.R.B. V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN (301 U.S. 1, 30).  AND ALTHOUGH THE LETTER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT MAY COVER SUCH COLLECTIONS AND DELIVERIES
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS ARE HERE INVOLVED, THE QUESTION ARISES
WHETHER A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, IN VIEW OF THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS, WOULD INCLUDE THEM.  CF. UNITED STATES V. SORRELLS, 287 U.S.
435, 446.  WE ARE DIVIDED AND IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER SUCH COLLECTION
AND DELIVERY, WHICH RESULTS FROM THE FACT THAT BUSINESS OF A LOCAL
CHARACTER, SUCH AS A LAUNDRY, IS LOCATED ON A STATE LINE, IS SUFFICIENT
TO BRING SUCH BUSINESS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  TO SO HOLD WOULD BE TO BRING UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD A GREAT VARIETY OF BUSINESSES OF PURELY LOCAL
CHARACTER SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY MAINTAIN A DELIVERY SERVICE IN CITIES
LOCATED ON STATE LINES.  AS THERE ARE MANY SUCH CITIES IN THE UNITED
STATES, THE QUESTION SEEMS TO US ONE OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO
JUSTIFY US IN CERTIFYING IT TO THE SUPREME COURT SO THAT IT MAY BE
DEFINITELY SETTLED. 

BEING DIVIDED AND IN DOUBT, THEREFORE, THIS COURT RESPECTFULLY
CERTIFIES TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR ITS
INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF LAW, THE
DETERMINATION OF WHICH IS INDISPENSABLE TO A PROPER DECISION OF THE
CASE. 

1.  SHOULD THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT BE INTERPRETED AS HAVING
APPLICATION TO A BUSINESS OF PURELY LOCAL CHARACTER, SUCH AS A LAUNDRY,
MERELY BECAUSE SUCH BUSINESS IS LOCATED IN A CITY ON A STATE LINE AND
DERIVES A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF ITS INCOME FROM BUSINESS WHICH
INVOLVES COLLECTIONS OR DELIVERIES OF ARTICLES IN A STATE OTHER THAN
THAT IN WHICH THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED? 

2.  WHERE A LOCAL BUSINESS, SUCH AS A LAUNDRY, IS LOCATED IN A CITY
ON A STATE LINE, AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EXCEPT IN
SO FAR AS IT MAY COLLECT ARTICLES TO BE SERVICED AND MAY MAKE
DELIVERIES TO CUSTOMERS LIVING ACROSS THE STATE LINE, IS SUCH BUSINESS,
BY REASON OF SUCH COLLECTIONS AND DELIVERIES, DEEMED ENGAGED IN
"COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBSECTION 6 OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT
OF JULY 5, 1935, CH. 372, 29 U.S.C.A. 152(6), SO THAT AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE ON ITS PART WOULD BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE "AFFECTING
COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBSECTION 7 OF SAID SECTION (29
U.S.C.A. 152(7)) AND SUBSECTION (A) OF SECTION 10, 29 U.S.C.A. 160(A)? 
FN1 

THE CERTIFICATE MUST BE DISMISSED. 

BY SEC. 10(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (49 STAT. 449, 453;
29 U.S.C. SEC. 160(A)) THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED "TO PREVENT ANY PERSON
FROM ENGAGING IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (LISTED IN SECTION 8)
AFFECTING COMMERCE."  THE TERM "AFFECTING COMMERCE" IS DEFINED IN SEC.
2(7) AS "IN COMMERCE, OR BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE
FLOW OF COMMERCE, OR HAVING LED OR TENDING TO LEAD TO A LABOR DISPUTE
BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE."  AND
"COMMERCE" BY SEC. 2(6) IS DEFINED SO AS TO INCLUDE "TRADE, TRAFFIC,
COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES." 
ON A REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE
"FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL
BE CONCLUSIVE."  SEC. 10(E). 

THE QUESTIONS DO NOT FOCUS "THE CONTROVERSY IN ITS SETTING."  LOWDEN
V. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., 298 U.S. 160, 163.  FROM THE
CERTIFICATE WE DO NOT KNOW ON WHAT GROUNDS THE BOARD BASED ITS
JURISDICTION - THAT THE BUSINESS WAS "IN COMMERCE" OR THAT IT WAS
EMBRACED WITHIN THE OTHER CATEGORIES DESCRIBED IN SEC. 2(7) OF THE
ACT.  THE TERMS "BUSINESS OF PURELY LOCAL CHARACTER" AND "LOCAL
BUSINESS" ARE MEANINGFUL FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 10(A) OF THE ACT ONLY IN
LIGHT OF SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF THE BOARD.  TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WE
WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A SUPPOSITION AS TO THE SENSE IN WHICH THE BOARD
MADE ITS FINDING UNDER SEC. 10(A) THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WERE
"AFFECTING COMMERCE."  THE NECESSITY OF MAKING THAT SUPPOSITION REVEALS
THE HYPOTHETICAL AND ABSTRACT QUALITY OF THE QUESTIONS.  AND THE FACT
THAT ON THE WHOLE RECORD THE ANSWER MIGHT BE CLEAR WHICHEVER THE THEORY
OF THE BOARD'S FINDINGS DOES NOT MAKE THE QUESTIONS ANY THE LESS
DEFECTIVE.  THE REVIEWING COURT IS PASSING ON THE VALIDITY OF A
SPECIFIC ORDER OF THE BOARD.  SINCE THE QUESTIONS CERTIFIED DO NOT
REFLECT THE PRECISE CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD AND THE PRECISE FINDINGS
ON WHICH THOSE CONCLUSIONS WERE BASED, THEY NECESSARILY HAVE AN
"OBJECTIONABLE GENERALITY."  SEE UNITED STATES V. MAYER, 235 U.S. 55,
56; WHITE V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 367 371; TRIPLETT V. LOWELL, 297 U.S.
638, 648; ATLAS LIFE INS. CO. V. W.I. SOUTHERN, INC., 306 U.S. 563,
571; PFLUEGER V. SHERMAN, 293 U.S. 55, 57, 58.  AND IF, IN THIS CASE,
THEY DID REFLECT THOSE CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS, THEY WOULD BE
DEFECTIVE AS CALLING FOR A "DECISION OF THE WHOLE CASE."  NEWS
SYNDICATE CO. V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 275 U.S. 179, 188. 
DISMISSED. 

FN1  THE COURT DENIED A MOTION MADE BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL TO AMEND
THE CERTIFICATE BY EMBODYING THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AS WELL AS THE COLLECTIONS AND DELIVERIES. 
..END :












HORT V. COMMISSIONER, 313 U.S. 28 


NO. 517.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 31, 1941.  - 112 F.2D
167, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN AMOUNT RECEIVED BY A LESSOR IN CONSIDERATION OF THE
CANCELLATION OF A LEASE OF REAL ESTATE IS INCOME TAXABLE TO HIM UNDER
SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AND MUST BE REPORTED AS GROSS
INCOME IN ITS ENTIRETY.  P. 30. 

2.  ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED BE LESS THAN THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE UNMATURED RENTAL PAYMENTS AND THE FAIR
RENTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF THE LEASE,
THERE IS NO LOSS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(E) OF THE ACT.  P. 32. 

3.  EVEN THOUGH THE LEASE BE REGARDED AS "PROPERTY," THE
CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR ITS CANCELLATION IS NOT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, A RETURN OF CAPITAL.  P. 31. 

HORT V. COMMISSIONER OR INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 641, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 39 B.T.A. 922, SUSTAINING THE DETERMINATION
OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE AMOUNT PETITIONER RECEIVED AS
CONSIDERATION FOR CANCELLATION OF A LEASE OF REALTY IN NEW YORK CITY
WAS ORDINARY GROSS INCOME AS DEFINED IN SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932(47 STAT. 169, 178), AND WHETHER, IN ANY EVENT, PETITIONER
SUSTAINED A LOSS THROUGH CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE WHICH IS RECOGNIZED
IN SEC. 23(E) OF THE SAME ACT (47 STAT. 169, 180). 

PETITIONER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, A LOT AND TEN-STORY OFFICE
BUILDING, BY DEVISE FROM HIS FATHER IN 1928.  AT THE TIME HE BECAME
OWNER, THE PREMISES WERE LEASED TO A FIRM WHICH HAD SUBLET THE MAIN
FLOOR TO THE IRVING TRUST CO. IN 1927, FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE HEAD LEASE
EXPIRED, THE IRVING TRUST CO. AND PETITIONER'S FATHER EXECUTED A
CONTRACT IN WHICH THE LATTER AGREED TO LEASE THE MAIN FLOOR AND
BASEMENT TO THE FORMER FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS AT AN ANNUAL RENTAL
OF $25,000, THE TERM TO COMMENCE AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE HEAD LEASE. 

IN 1933, THE IRVING TRUST CO. FOUND IT UNPROFITABLE TO MAINTAIN A
BRANCH IN PETITIONER'S BUILDING.  AFTER SOME NEGOTIATIONS, PETITIONER
AND THE TRUST CO. AGREED TO CANCEL THE LEASE IN CONSIDERATION OF A
PAYMENT TO PETITIONER OF $140,000.  PETITIONER DID NOT INCLUDE THIS
AMOUNT IN GROSS INCOME IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1933.  ON THE
CONTRARY, HE REPORTED A LOSS OF $21,494.75 ON THE THEORY THAT THE
AMOUNT HE RECEIVED AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE CANCELLATION WAS $21,494.75
LESS THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE UNMATURED
RENTAL PAYMENTS AND THE FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE MAIN FLOOR AND
BASEMENT FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF THE LEASE.  HE DID NOT DEDUCT THIS
FIGURE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE HE REPORTED OTHER LOSSES IN EXCESS OF GROSS
INCOME. 

THE COMMISSIONER INCLUDED THE ENTIRE $140,000 IN GROSS INCOME,
DISALLOWED THE ASSERTED LOSS, MADE CERTAIN OTHER ADJUSTMENTS NOT
MATERIAL HERE, AND ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  39 B.T.A. 922.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED PER
CURIAM ON THE AUTHORITY OF WARREN SERVICE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 110
F.2D 723.  112 F.2D 167.  BECAUSE OF CONFLICT WITH COMMISSIONER V.
LANGWELL REAL ESTATE CORP., 47 F.2D 841, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED
TO THE QUESTION WHETHER, "IN COMPUTING NET GAIN OR LOSS FOR INCOME TAX
PURPOSES, A TAXPAYER (CAN) OFFSET THE VALUE OF THE LEASE CANCELED
AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM FOR THE CANCELLATION."  311
U.S. 641. 

PETITIONER APPARENTLY CONTENDS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR
CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE WAS CAPITAL RATHER THAN ORDINARY INCOME AND
THAT IT WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO SECS. 101, 111-113, AND 117(47 STAT.
169, 191, 195-202, 207) WHICH GOVERN CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES. 
FURTHER, HE ARGUES THAT EVEN IF THAT AMOUNT MUST BE REPORTED AS
ORDINARY GROSS INCOME HE SUSTAINED A LOSS WHICH SEC. 23(E) AUTHORIZES
HIM TO DEDUCT.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FOR CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE MUST
BE INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS INCOME IN ITS ENTIRETY.  SECTION 22(A), COPIED
IN THE MARGIN,  FN1  EXPRESSLY DEFINES GROSS INCOME TO INCLUDE "GAINS,
PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM  ...  RENT,  ...  OR GAINS OR PROFITS
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER."  PLAINLY THIS DEFINITION
REACHED THE RENT PAID PRIOR TO CANCELLATION JUST AS IT WOULD HAVE
EMBRACED SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS IF THE LEASE HAD NEVER BEEN CANCELED.  IT
WOULD HAVE INCLUDED A PREPAYMENT OF THE DISCOUNTED VALUE OF UNMATURED
RENTAL PAYMENTS WHETHER RECEIVED AT THE INCEPTION OF THE LEASE OR AT
ANY TIME THEREAFTER.  SIMILARLY, IT WOULD HAVE EXTENDED TO THE PROCEEDS
OF A SUIT TO RECOVER DAMAGES HAD THE IRVING TRUST CO. BREACHED THE
LEASE INSTEAD OF CONCLUDING A SETTLEMENT.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V.
SAFETY CAR HEATING CO., 297 U.S. 88; BURNET V. SANFORD, 282 U.S. 359. 
THAT THE AMOUNT PETITIONER RECEIVED RESULTED FROM NEGOTIATIONS ENDING
IN CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE RATHER THAN FROM A SUIT TO ENFORCE IT
CANNOT ALTER THE FACT THAT BASICALLY THE PAYMENT WAS MERELY A
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE RENT RESERVED IN THE LEASE.  SO FAR AS THE
APPLICATION OF SEC. 22(A) IS CONCERNED, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT
PETITIONER CHOSE TO ACCEPT AN AMOUNT LESS THAN THE STRICT PRESENT VALUE
OF THE UNMATURED RENTAL PAYMENTS RATHER THAN TO ENGAGE IN LITIGATION,
POSSIBLY UNCERTAIN AND EXPENSIVE. 

THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE WAS NOT A
RETURN OF CAPITAL.  WE ASSUME THAT THE LEASE WAS "PROPERTY," WHATEVER
THAT SIGNIFIES ABSTRACTLY.  PRESUMABLY THE BOND IN HELVERING V. HORST,
311 U.S. 112, AND THE LEASE IN HELVERING V. BRUUN, 309 U.S. 461, WERE
ALSO "PROPERTY," BUT THE INTEREST COUPON IN HORST AND THE BUILDING IN
BRUUN NEVERTHELESS WERE HELD TO CONSTITUTE ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME. 
SIMPLY BECAUSE THE LEASE WAS "PROPERTY" THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR ITS
CANCELLATION WAS NOT A RETURN OF CAPITAL, QUITE APART FROM THE FACT
THAT "PROPERTY" AND "CAPITAL" ARE NOT NECESSARILY SYNONYMOUS IN THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932 OR IN COMMON USAGE.  WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE
DISPUTED AMOUNT WAS ESSENTIALLY A SUBSTITUTE FOR RENTAL PAYMENTS WHICH
SEC. 22(A) EXPRESSLY CHARACTERIZES AS GROSS INCOME, IT MUST BE REGARDED
AS ORDINARY INCOME, AND IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT FOR SOME PURPOSES THE
CONTRACT CREATING THE RIGHT TO SUCH PAYMENTS MAY BE TREATED AS
"PROPERTY" OR "CAPITAL." 

FOR THE SAME REASONS, THAT AMOUNT WAS NOT A RETURN OF CAPITAL BECAUSE
PETITIONER ACQUIRED THE LEASE AS AN INCIDENT OF THE REALTY DEVISED TO
HIM BY HIS FATHER.  THEORETICALLY, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE IN SUCH
A CASE TO VALUE REALTY AND LEASE SEPARATELY AND TO LABEL EACH A CAPITAL
ASSET.  COMPARE MAASS V. HIGGINS, 312 U.S. 443; APPEAL OF FARMER, 1
B.T.A. 711.  BUT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED INTO CAPITAL THE AMOUNT
PETITIONER RECEIVED FROM THE TRUST CO., SINCE SEC. 22(B)(3)  FN2  OF
THE 1932 ACT (47 STAT. 169, 178) WOULD HAVE REQUIRED HIM TO INCLUDE IN
GROSS INCOME THE RENT DERIVED FROM THE PROPERTY, AND THAT SECTION, LIKE
SEC. 22(A), DOES NOT DISTINGUISH RENTAL PAYMENTS AND A PAYMENT WHICH IS
CLEARLY A SUBSTITUTE FOR RENTAL PAYMENTS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER MUST REPORT AS GROSS INCOME THE ENTIRE
AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
CLAIMED DISPARITY BETWEEN THAT AMOUNT AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
PRESENT VALUE OF THE UNMATURED RENTAL PAYMENTS AND THE FAIR RENTAL
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF THE LEASE.  THE
CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE INVOLVED NOTHING MORE THAN RELINQUISHMENT OF
THE RIGHT TO FUTURE RENTAL PAYMENTS IN RETURN FOR A PRESENT SUBSTITUTE
PAYMENT AND POSSESSION OF THE LEASED PREMISES.  UNDOUBTEDLY IT
DIMINISHED THE AMOUNT OF GROSS INCOME PETITIONER EXPECTED TO REALIZE,
BUT TO THAT EXTENT HE WAS RELIEVED OF THE DUTY TO PAY INCOME TAX. 
NOTHING IN SEC. 23(E)  FN3  INDICATES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO ALLOW
PETITIONER TO REDUCE ORDINARY INCOME ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND REPORTED BY
THE AMOUNT OF INCOME HE FAILED TO REALIZE.  SEE WARREN SERVICE CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA; JOSEY V. COMMISSIONER, 104 F.2D 453; TISCORNIA V.
COMMISSIONER, 95 F.2D 678; FARRELLY-WALSH, INC., V. COMMISSIONER, 13
B.T.A. 923; GOERKE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 7 B.T.A. 860; MERCKENS V.
COMMISSIONER, 7 B.T.A. 32.  COMPARE, UNITED STATES V. SAFETY CAR
HEATING CO., SUPRA; VOLIVA V. COMMISSIONER, 36 F.2D 212; APPEAL OF
DENHOLM & MCKAY CO., 2 B.T.A. 444.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT PETITIONER WAS
INJURED INSOFAR AS THE CANCELLATION OF THE LEASE AFFECTED THE VALUE OF
THE REALTY.  BUT THAT WOULD BECOME A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS ONLY WHEN ITS
EXTENT HAD BEEN FIXED BY A CLOSED TRANSACTION.  REGULATIONS NO. 77,
ART. 171, P. 46; UNITED STATES V. WHITE DENTAL MFG. CO., 274 U.S. 398. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 22(A).  "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME
DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, OF
WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS,
VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS IN
PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE
OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS,
SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR
PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE
WHATEVER. 

FN2  SEC. 22(B).  THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN GROSS
INCOME AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER THIS TITLE:  ... 

(3)  THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY GIFT, BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR
INHERITANCE (BUT THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE INCLUDED IN
GROSS INCOME). 

FN3 SEC. 23(E).  SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION
(R) OF THIS SECTION, IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, LOSSES SUSTAINED
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR AND NOT COMPENSATED FOR BY INSURANCE OR
OTHERWISE (SHALL BE DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME) - 

(1)  IF INCURRED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS; OR 

(2)  IF INCURRED IN ANY TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO FOR PROFIT, THOUGH
NOT CONNECTED WITH THE TRADE OR BUSINESS; OR 

(3)  OF PROPERTY NOT CONNECTED WITH THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, IF THE
LOSS ARISES FROM FIRES, STORMS, SHIPWRECK, OR OTHER CASUALTY, OR FROM
THEFT.  NO LOSS SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH IF
AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE RETURN SUCH LOSS HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS A
DEDUCTION FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES IN THE ESTATE TAX RETURN. 
..END :



















HORMEL V. HELVERING, 312 U.S. 552 


NO. 257.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 17, 1941.  - 111 F.2D
1, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT NEITHER
UNDER SEC. 166 NOR SEC. 167 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 WAS THE INCOME
OF THE TRUSTS HERE INVOLVED TAXABLE TO THE GRANTOR, THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS - HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, HAVING IN THE
MEANTIME BEEN DECIDED BY THIS COURT - COULD PROPERLY CONSIDER THE
QUESTION OF THE GRANTOR'S LIABILITY UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE ACT, EVEN
THOUGH THE COMMISSIONER HAD NOT RELIED ON THAT SECTION IN THE
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD.  PP. 554, 559. 

2.  CONSIDERATION OF THAT QUESTION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IS CONSISTENT WITH ITS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY IN REVIEWING DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS TO MODIFY,
REVERSE OR REMAND, "AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE," DECISIONS WHICH ARE NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  P. 556. 

3.  A RIGID AND UNDEVIATING JUDICIALLY DECLARED PRACTICE WHEREBY
COURTS OF REVIEW WOULD INVARIABLY AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES DECLINE
TO CONSIDER ALL QUESTIONS WHICH HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN SPECIFICALLY
URGED WOULD BE OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE POLICY THAT RULES OF PROCEDURE
AND PRACTICE SHOULD PROMOTE, NOT DEFEAT, THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.  P. 557. 

4.  THE CAUSE IS REMANDED IN ORDER THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC.
22(A) MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH EVIDENCE TOUCHING THAT
ISSUE AS MAY BE OFFERED BY THE TAXPAYER.  P. 560. 

HORMEL V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 626, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 39 B.T.A. 244, WHICH SET ASIDE A DETERMINATION OF
A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY AGAINST
PETITIONER FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE IN HIS 1934 AND 1935 TAX RETURNS THE
INCOME OF THREE SEPARATE TRUSTS DECLARED BY HIM IN 1934.  EACH OF THE
DECLARATIONS OF TRUST RECITED THAT THE BENEFICIARIES WERE "JAY C.
HORMEL (PETITIONER HIMSELF), AND GERMAINE D. HORMEL, HIS WIFE, AS
GUARDIAN FOR THEIR SON," A DIFFERENT SON BEING DESIGNATED BY EACH TRUST
INSTRUMENT.  EACH TRUST ESTATE CONSISTED OF SHARES OF STOCK IN GEO. A.
HORMEL & CO., OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS AN OFFICER.  PETITIONER NAMED
HIMSELF AND ANOTHER AS CO-TRUSTEES; ALL DIVIDENDS FROM EACH TRUST
ESTATE, UP TO $2000 A YEAR, WERE TO BE PAID TO PETITIONER'S WIFE AS
GUARDIAN FOR THE SON NAMED IN THE PARTICULAR TRUST INSTRUMENT, AND ANY
EXCESS OVER $2000 WAS TO BE PAID TO PETITIONER; THE TRUSTS WERE TO
EXPIRE AUTOMATICALLY AFTER THREE YEARS, OR UPON THE DEATH OF
PETITIONER, OR UPON THE DEATH OF THE NAMED SON, WHICHEVER EVENT SHOULD
OCCUR FIRST; UPON EXPIRATION OF EACH TRUST, THE ENTIRE PRINCIPAL SHOULD
BE THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER, HIS LEGATEES, DEVISEES, OR HEIRS;
PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE (AS GUARDIAN) HAD THE POWER TO REMOVE
PETITIONER'S CO-TRUSTEE AT ANY TIME, AND TO CHOOSE A SUCCESSOR; THE CO
TRUSTEES COULD APPOINT PROXIES TO EXERCISE VOTING RIGHTS OVER THE
SHARES OF STOCK MAKING UP THE TRUST ESTATES, AND COULD SELL THE
SECURITIES DEPOSITED AND SUBSTITUTE OTHERS; IT WAS PROVIDED THAT NO
TITLE TO THE TRUST ESTATES SHOULD VEST IN PETITIONER'S WIFE, AS
GUARDIAN, OR IN HIS SONS, AND IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE WIFE AND
SONS SHOULD HAVE NO POWER "TO SELL, TRANSFER, ENCUMBER OR IN ANY MANNER
ANTICIPATE OR DISPOSE OF ANY INTEREST IN THE TRUST ESTATE"; AND,
FINALLY, THE TRUST INSTRUMENTS STATED THAT THE CO-TRUSTEES WERE TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS ONLY UPON WILFUL AND DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF
THEIR DUTIES. 

ALL OF THE TRUST INCOME FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION WAS DISTRIBUTED TO
PETITIONER'S WIFE AS GUARDIAN, WHO REPORTED IT TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AS GUARDIANSHIP INCOME.  PETITIONER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
RETURNS, DID NOT INCLUDE IT.  THE COMMISSIONER, TAKING THE POSITION
THAT PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE TRUST INCOME IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
RETURNS, ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY AGAINST HIM, ASSERTING THAT THE TRUSTS
WERE "REVOCABLE" AND THE INCOME THEREFORE PETITIONER'S WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 166 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  FN1  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS DECIDED AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER, HOLDING THAT THE INCOME IN
QUESTION WAS TAXABLE TO PETITIONER NEITHER UNDER SEC. 166 NOR 167,  FN2
THE TWO SECTIONS EXPRESSLY RELIED ON BY THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE
BOARD.  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE COMMISSIONER ABANDONED
RELIANCE ON SEC. 166, URGED THAT THE BOARD WAS IN ERROR AS TO
TAXABILITY UNDER SEC. 167, AND ARGUED THAT IN ANY EVENT THE INCOME WAS
TAXABLE TO PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 22(A).  FN3  THE TAXPAYER ARGUED THAT
THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 22(A) WAS NOT OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION,
INASMUCH AS THAT SECTION HAD NOT BEEN RELIED ON BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THOUGH AGREEING WITH THE BOARD AS TO NON
TAXABILITY UNDER SECS. 166 AND 167, NEVERTHELESS RULED THAT SEC. 22(A)
COULD PROPERLY BE CONSIDERED, AND HELD THE INCOME TAXABLE TO PETITIONER
UNDER THAT SECTION.  BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS ON THE PROPRIETY OF CONSIDERING SEC. 22(A) UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES,  FN4  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  311 U.S. 626.  TWO
QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED FOR OUR DECISION:  FIRST, WAS THE COURT BELOW
CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT SEC. 22(A) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED?  SECOND, IF
SO, WAS THE COURT BELOW JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING THAT THE INCOME OF
THESE TRUSTS WAS TAXABLE TO PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 22(A)? 

PETITIONER IN EFFECT CHALLENGES THE POWER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TO PASS UPON ANY QUESTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH WERE DIRECTLY
AND SQUARELY PRESENTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS.  THAT COURT'S AUTHORITY TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF THE BOARD RESTS
ON STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDE IN PART THAT THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
"HAVE POWER TO AFFIRM OR, IF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, TO MODIFY OR TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD,
WITH OR WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE FOR A REHEARING, AS JUSTICE MAY
REQUIRE."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 1141(C)(1)(SUPP.  1939).  IN GENERAL, IT IS
THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD TO DETERMINE THE FACTS OF A TAX CONTROVERSY
ON ISSUES RAISED BEFORE IT AND TO APPLY THE LAW TO THOSE FACTS; AND IT
IS THE FUNCTION OF THE REVIEWING COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE BOARD HAS
APPLIED THE CORRECT RULE OF LAW.  FN5 

ORDINARILY AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT GIVE CONSIDERATION TO ISSUES
NOT RAISED BELOW.  FOR OUR PROCEDURAL SCHEME CONTEMPLATES THAT PARTIES
SHALL COME TO ISSUE IN THE TRIAL FORUM VESTED WITH AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF FACT.  THIS IS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER THAT PARTIES
MAY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY BELIEVE
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES WHICH THE TRIAL TRIBUNAL IS ALONE COMPETENT TO
DECIDE; IT IS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL IN ORDER THAT LITIGANTS MAY NOT BE
SURPRISED ON APPEAL BY FINAL DECISION THERE OF ISSUES UPON WHICH THEY
HAVE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE.  AND THE BASIC REASONS
WHICH SUPPORT THIS GENERAL PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO TRIAL COURTS MAKE IT
EQUALLY DESIRABLE THAT PARTIES SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER
EVIDENCE ON THE GENERAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE LESS FORMAL PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ENTRUSTED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
FACT FINDING.  RECOGNITION OF THIS GENERAL PRINCIPLE HAS CAUSED THIS
COURT TO SAY ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS THAT THE REVIEWING COURT SHOULD
PASS BY, WITHOUT DECISION, QUESTIONS WHICH WERE NOT URGED BEFORE THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  BUT THOSE CASES DO NOT ANNOUNCE AN INFLEXIBLE
PRACTICE AS INDEED THEY COULD NOT WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE
STATUTES WHICH GIVE TO CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS REVIEWING DECISIONS OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THE POWER TO MODIFY, REVERSE OR REMAND
DECISIONS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW "AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE."  THERE
MAY ALWAYS BE EXCEPTIONAL CASES OR PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WILL
PROMPT A REVIEWING OR APPELLATE COURT, WHERE INJUSTICE MIGHT OTHERWISE
RESULT, TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH WERE NEITHER PRESSED NOR
PASSED UPON BY THE COURT OR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY BELOW.  SEE BLAIR V.
OESTERLEIN MACHINE CO., 275 U.S. 220, 225. 

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ARE DEVISED TO PROMOTE THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE, NOT TO DEFEAT THEM.  A RIGID AND UNDEVIATING JUDICIALLY
DECLARED PRACTICE UNDER WHICH COURTS OF REVIEW WOULD INVARIABLY AND
UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES DECLINE TO CONSIDER ALL QUESTIONS WHICH HAD NOT
PREVIOUSLY BEEN SPECIFICALLY URGED WOULD BE OUT OF HARMONY WITH THIS
POLICY.  ORDERLY RULES OF PROCEDURE DO NOT REQUIRE SACRIFICE OF THE
RULES OF FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE.  AND EXAMINATION OF THE CASES RELIED UPON
BY PETITIONER DISCLOSES THAT THIS COURT, IN FOLLOWING IN SOME CASES THE
GENERAL PRINCIPLE SOUGHT TO BE INVOKED HERE BY PETITIONER, HAS BEEN
CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING APPLICATION OF THE
PRACTICE IN THE PARTICULAR CASE.  THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HELD IN
HELVERING V. WOOD, 309 U.S. 344, 348-349, THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT
PRESENT IN THIS COURT AS A WHOLLY NEW ISSUE THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC.
22(A).  BUT WE THERE ESPECIALLY RELIED UPON THE FACT THAT THE
GOVERNMENT, WHEN THE CASE WAS BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HAD
MADE AN EXPRESS WAIVER OF ANY RELIANCE UPON 22(A).  IN HELVERING V. TEX
PENN OIL CO., 300 U.S. 481, 498, THIS COURT DECLINED TO CONSIDER A
NEWLY PRESENTED QUESTION, BUT POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN RAISED
BY THE COMMISSIONER EITHER IN HIS NOTICE OF TAX DEFICIENCY, IN HIS
APPEARANCES BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, OR IN HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT.  AND IN
GENERAL UTILITIES & OPERATING CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 200, 206-207,
THOUGH THIS COURT SAID THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT
HAVE CONSIDERED A CONTENTION NOT PRESENTED TO OR RULED UPON BY THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THE STATEMENT WAS BUTTRESSED BY ADDING THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD "MADE AN INFERENCE OF FACT DIRECTLY IN
CONFLICT WITH THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND THE FINDINGS, FOR
WHICH WE THINK THE RECORD AFFORDS NO SUPPORT WHATEVER.  TO REMAND THE
CAUSE FOR FURTHER FINDINGS WOULD BE FUTILE.  THE BOARD COULD NOT
PROPERLY FIND ANYTHING WHICH WOULD ASSIST THE COMMISSIONER'S CAUSE." 
THE PLAIN IMPLICATION OF THAT DECISION WAS THAT THE CAUSE WOULD HAVE
BEEN REMANDED TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAD THE COURT CONSIDERED THE
NEWLY RAISED POINT TO BE OF SUFFICIENT MERIT.  THESE DECISIONS AND
OTHERS LIKE THEM, WHILE RECOGNIZING THE DESIRABILITY AND EXISTENCE OF A
GENERAL PRACTICE UNDER WHICH APPELLATE COURTS CONFINE THEMSELVES TO THE
ISSUES RAISED BELOW, NEVERTHELESS DO NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT
SUCH APPELLATE PRACTICE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED WHERE THE OBVIOUS RESULT
WOULD BE A PLAIN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.  ANALOGOUS IN PRINCIPLE IS THE
PHILOSOPHY WHICH UNDERLIES THIS COURT'S DECISIONS WITH RELATION TO
APPELLATE PRACTICES IN OTHER CASES:  THOSE IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD
THAT A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CAN BE SUPPORTED IN THE
REVIEWING COURT ON A NEW THEORY OF LAW; FN6  THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN
REMANDED BECAUSE THE LOWER COURTS FAILED TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO A
PHASE OF THE CASE INVOLVING LEGAL THEORIES NOT PRESENTED; FN7  AND
THOSE IN WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF EXISTING LAW
AFTER DECISION BELOW AND PENDING APPEAL - INTERPRETATIONS WHICH IF
APPLIED MIGHT HAVE MATERIALLY ALTERED THE RESULT.  FN8  WHETHER
ARTICULATED OR NOT, THE PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE
GENERAL PRACTICE IS IN ACCORD WITH THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY GIVEN TO
COURTS REVIEWING DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS - DECISIONS NOT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW SHOULD BE MODIFIED, REVERSED OR REVERSED AND
REMANDED "AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE." 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PRINCIPLE, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE COURT
BELOW SHOULD HAVE GIVEN AND PROPERLY DID GIVE CONSIDERATION TO SEC.
22(A) IN DETERMINING PETITIONER'S TAX LIABILITY.  THE COMMISSIONER
URGED THIS POINT BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND HAS STRONGLY
PRESENTED IT HERE.  AT THE TIME THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS MADE ITS
DECISION IN THIS CASE, WE HAD NOT YET HANDED DOWN OUR OPINION IN
HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT UNDER SEC.
22(A) THE INCOME OF CERTAIN TRUSTS WAS TAXABLE TO RESPONDENT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF OPINION THAT THERE WERE NO CONTROLLING
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TRUSTS CREATED BY PETITIONER IN THIS CASE AND
THOSE CREATED BY CLIFFORD.  HERE, AS THERE, CONTROL OVER THE TRUSTS WAS
COMPLETELY IN THE HANDS OF THE TAXPAYER AND HIS WIFE.  FOR WHILE
PETITIONER'S TRUST INSTRUMENTS SHOWED A CO-TRUSTEE ACTING WITH
PETITIONER, THE SAME INSTRUMENTS ALSO DISCLOSED THAT SUCH CO-TRUSTEE
COULD BE REMOVED AT ANY TIME BY THE JOINT ACTION OF PETITIONER AND HIS
WIFE.  "TO HOLD OTHERWISE (I.E., THAT PETITIONER IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
TAX) WOULD BE TO TREAT THE WIFE AS A COMPLETE STRANGER; TO LET MERE
FORMALISM OBSCURE THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAMILY SOLIDARITY; AND TO
FORCE CONCEPTS OF OWNERSHIP TO BE FASHIONED OUT OF LEGAL NICETIES WHICH
MAY HAVE LITTLE OR NO SIGNIFICANCE IN SUCH HOUSEHOLD ARRANGEMENTS." 
FN9  AS THE RECORD NOW STANDS WE THINK THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY
CONCLUDED THAT THE TRUST INCOME WAS TAXABLE TO PETITIONER UNDER THE
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE CLIFFORD CASE.  THEREFORE TO APPLY HERE THE
GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF APPELLATE PRACTICE FOR WHICH PETITIONER CONTENDS
WOULD RESULT IN PERMITTING HIM WHOLLY TO ESCAPE PAYMENT OF A TAX WHICH
UNDER THE RECORD BEFORE US HE CLEARLY OWES.  THUS VIEWED, THIS IS
EXACTLY THE TYPE OF CASE WHERE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRACTICE
WOULD DEFEAT RATHER THAN PROMOTE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AND THE COURT
BELOW WAS RIGHT IN SO HOLDING. 

BUT THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS NEITHER FOUND THE FACTS NOR CONSIDERED
THE APPLICABILITY OF 22(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLIFFORD CASE.  CONGRESS
HAS ENTRUSTED THE BOARD WITH EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE DISPUTED
FACTS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FEEL THAT PETITIONER SHOULD
BE FORECLOSED FROM ALL OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD
ON THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER REMOTE MAY BE HIS CHANCE TO TAKE HIS CASE OUT OF
THE CLIFFORD RULE.  FN10  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWER COURT
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS AFFIRMED, WITH
DIRECTIONS TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "WHERE AT ANY TIME THE POWER TO REVEST IN THE GRANTOR TITLE TO
ANY PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST IS VESTED - 

"(1)  IN THE GRANTOR, EITHER ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY PERSON
NOT HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH
PART OF THE CORPUS OR THE INCOME THEREFROM, OR    "(2)  IN ANY PERSON
NOT HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH
PART OF THE CORPUS OR THE INCOME THEREFROM, THEN THE INCOME OF SUCH
PART OF THE TRUST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME OF THE
GRANTOR." 

FN2  SECTION 167 READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:  "(A)  WHERE ANY PART OF
THE INCOME OF A TRUST - 

"(1)  IS, OR IN THE DISCRETION OF THE GRANTOR OR OF ANY PERSON NOT
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH PART
OF THE INCOME MAY BE, HELD OR ACCUMULATED FOR FUTURE DISTRIBUTION TO
THE GRANTOR; OR 

"(2)  MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE GRANTOR OR OF ANY PERSON NOT
HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH PART
OF THE INCOME, BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE GRANTOR; ..." 

FN3  "'GROSS INCOME' INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM
SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND
AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES,
BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL
OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH
PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE
TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR
PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.  ..." 

FN4  CF., E.G., HELVERING V. HORMEL, 111 F.2D 1(THE DECISION BELOW),
WITH HELVERING V. RICHTER, 114 F.2D 452, REVERSED, POST, P. 561. 

FN5  THE BOARD'S RULINGS ON QUESTIONS OF LAW, WHILE NOT AS CONCLUSIVE
AS ITS FINDINGS OF FACT, ARE NEVERTHELESS PERSUASIVE, AND IT IS
DESIRABLE THAT A REVIEWING COURT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF SUCH RULINGS.  SEE
HELVERING V. WOOD, 309 U.S. 344, 349; HELVERING V. TEX-PENN OIL CO.,
300 U.S. 481, 498.  THIS IS TRUE NOT ONLY OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
BUT OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AS WELL.  CF. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. R.F. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304, 314. 

FN6  E.G., HELVERING V. GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238, 246. 

FN7  E.G., UNITED STATES V. SHELBY IRON CO., 273 U.S. 571, 579;
UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE DAM & IRRIGATION CO., 184 U.S. 416, 423. 

FN8  E.G., VANDENBARK V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., 311 U.S. 538, AND
CASES THERE CITED. 

FN9  HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 336-337. 

FN10  IN THIS CONNECTION PETITIONER POINTED OUT IN HIS BRIEF BEFORE
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT "IF ANY CONTENTION WHATSOEVER HAD AT
ANY TIME BEEN SUGGESTED OR CONSIDERED AS TO SECTION 22, THE MATTER OF
THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED OR TO BE INTRODUCED WOULD HAVE REQUIRED FURTHER
CONSIDERATION." 
..END :



HELVERING V. RICHTER, 312 U.S. 561 


NO 516.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 4, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 17, 1941.  - 114 F.2D
452, REVERSED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF HORMEL V. HELVERING, ANTE, P. 552.  P.
562. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. RICHTER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 641, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SETTING ASIDE A DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY
IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BECAUSE THE DECISION BELOW, 114 F.2D 452, WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THAT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT IN HELVERING V.
HORMEL, 111 F.2D 1, AFFIRMED, ANTE, P. 552, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
"LIMITED TO THE FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR THE
WRIT."  311 U.S. 641.  THE PETITION STATED THAT QUESTION AS FOLLOWS:
LOWS: 

"THE TAXPAYER TRANSFERRED SECURITIES TO A THIRD PARTY IN TRUST TO PAY
THE INCOME TO HIS WIFE.  AT THE END OF FIVE YEARS, OR EARLIER IF THE
BENEFICIARY CONSENTED, THE SECURITIES WERE TO BE TRANSFERRED BACK TO
THE TAXPAYER.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD THAT THE GRANTOR WAS NOT
TAXABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE INCOME FROM THE TRUST.  TWO QUESTIONS ARE
PRESENTED: 

"1.  WHETHER, BY INVOKING THE GENERAL GROSS INCOME PROVISIONS OF
GOVERNMENT'S CASE ON APPEAL AS TO PRECLUDE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FROM CONSIDERING THE ISSUE. 

"2.  WHETHER, ON THE MERITS, THE TRUST INCOME WAS TAXABLE AS INCOME
OF THE GRANTOR UNDER SECTION 22." 

IN VIEW OF THE LIMITED GRANT OF CERTIORARI, THE SECOND QUESTION IS
NOT BEFORE US.  ON THE FIRST QUESTION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HELD THAT IT COULD NOT CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 22(A), THAT
BEING AN "ISSUE NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME PRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER." 
THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED, WAS HANDED DOWN PRIOR TO OUR DECISION IN HELVERING V.
CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331.  RESPONDENT URGES THAT HAD HE BEEN ADVISED WITH
FAIR CERTAINTY THAT THE GOVERNMENT RELIED UPON SEC. 22(A), HE COULD
HAVE INTRODUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DIRECTED TO THAT ISSUE.  FOR
REASONS SET OUT IN OUR DECISION IN HORMEL V. HELVERING, ANTE, P. 552,
WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR IN ITS
CONCLUSION, BUT WE ARE ALSO OF OPINION THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO
INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IF HE SO DESIRES.  THE JUDGMENT IS
ACCORDINGLY REVERSED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE COURT BELOW TO REMAND TO
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR REHEARING IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLIFFORD
CASE.  REVERSED. 
..END :

















METRO. CASUALTY CO. V. STEVENS, 312 U.S. 563 


NO. 425.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 17, 1941.  - 293
MICH. 31 - 291 N.W. 211, AFFIRMED. 


ONE AGAINST WHOM A STATE COURT ISSUED A WRIT OF GARNISHMENT, REQUIRING
HIM TO MAKE DISCLOSURE CONCERNING HIS LIABILITY TO JUDGMENT DEBTORS,
APPLIED TO THE STATE COURT FOR REMOVAL OF THE PROCEEDING TO THE FEDERAL
COURT.  THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED, WHEREUPON THE GARNISHEE APPLIED TO
THE FEDERAL COURT FOR REMOVAL, AND FILED IN THAT COURT A DISCLOSURE
DENYING LIABILITY TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR.  WHILE THE GARNISHEE'S
APPLICATION WAS PENDING IN THE FEDERAL COURT, THE STATE COURT ENTERED A
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GARNISHEE FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE FEDERAL COURT REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE STATE COURT,
WHICH THEREUPON REENTERED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GARNISHEE. 
UPON REVIEW HERE OF THAT JUDGMENT, HELD: 

1.  THE ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT REMANDING THE CAUSE TO THE STATE
COURT WAS NOT REVIEWABLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.  P. 565. 

2.  PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT SUBSEQUENT TO THE PETITION FOR
REMOVAL WERE VALID IF THE SUIT WAS NOT IN FACT REMOVABLE.  P. 566. 

3.  THE FEDERAL COURT'S ORDER OF REMAND BEING NOT REVIEWABLE, IT MUST
BE ASSUMED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE THAT THE PROCEEDING WAS NOT
REMOVABLE.  P. 569. 

4.  THE STATE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT,
AND IT WAS FOR THAT COURT TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THE DISCLOSURE
FILED IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  P. 569. 

5.  IN CASES SUCH AS THIS, IT IS BETTER PRACTICE FOR THE STATE COURT,
IF IT BE ASSURED THAT THE FEDERAL COURT WILL DECIDE PROMPTLY THE
QUESTION OF REMOVABILITY, TO AWAIT THAT DECISION; BUT ITS FAILURE SO TO
DO DENIES NO FEDERAL RIGHT IF THE CAUSE BE NOT REMOVABLE.  P. 569. 

METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. V. STEVENS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 637, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.  APPLICATIONS TO THE STATE COURT AND TO THE
FEDERAL COURT FOR REMOVAL OF THE CAUSE HAD BEEN DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED IN EFFECT TO HOLD INVALID A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED BY
A STATE COURT IN A GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING AFTER IT HAD DENIED A
PETITION FOR REMOVAL TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  THE PRINCIPAL
QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER WE MAY REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT REMANDING THE SUIT TO THE COURT FROM WHICH IT WAS REMOVED, AND
WHETHER THE LATTER COURT WAS FREE TO DISREGARD A DISCLOSURE FILED IN
THE FEDERAL COURT BEFORE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.  FROM THE
RECORD THE FOLLOWING APPEARS: 

ON MARCH 8, 1939, RESPONDENT OBTAINED A WRIT OF GARNISHMENT FROM A
MICHIGAN STATE COURT REQUIRING PETITIONER TO APPEAR ON OR BEFORE MARCH
31 AND DISCLOSE WHETHER IT WAS LIABLE TO INDIVIDUALS AGAINST WHOM
RESPONDENT HAD RECOVERED A JUDGMENT.  ON MARCH 28, PETITIONER FILED AN
APPLICATION AND BOND IN THE STATE COURT FOR REMOVAL OF THE PROCEEDING
TO THE PROPER FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  ON APRIL 4, THE STATE COURT
DENIED THE APPLICATION.  ON APRIL 10, PETITIONER FILED IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT COPIES OF ALL PAPERS ON RECORD IN THE STATE COURT AND
ITS DISCLOSURE DENYING ANY LIABILITY TO RESPONDENT OR TO THE JUDGMENT
DEBTORS.  THE NEXT DAY, RESPONDENT ENTERED PETITIONER'S DEFAULT IN THE
STATE COURT FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR, AND NOTIFIED PETITIONER THAT
RESPONDENT WOULD MOVE FOR JUDGMENT ON APRIL 17. 

ON APRIL 15, PETITIONER NOTIFIED RESPONDENT OF ITS ATTEMPT TO REMOVE
THE SUIT NOTWITHSTANDING THE RULING OF THE STATE COURT.  RESPONDENT
PROMPTLY MOVED TO HAVE THE PROCEEDING REMANDED, AND ON THE SAME DAY THE
DISTRICT JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION.  THE REMAND ORDER WAS FILED IN THE
STATE COURT ON APRIL 17.  RESPONDENT THEREUPON ENTERED PETITIONER'S
DEFAULT A SECOND TIME, INTRODUCED EVIDENCE, AND OBTAINED A DEFAULT
JUDGMENT.  ON APRIL 18, PETITIONER UNSUCCESSFULLY MOVED TO VACATE THE
JUDGMENT.  APPEAL TO THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT FOLLOWED AND THE
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED.  293 MICH. 31; 291 N.W. 211.  BECAUSE IT
INVOLVED IMPORTANT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE REMOVAL STATUTE (28 U.S.C.
SEC. 71), WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  311 U.S. 637. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE GARNISHMENT PROCEEDING WAS REMOVABLE AS
A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY AND THAT THE STATE COURT THEREFORE WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT.  FURTHER, PETITIONER
CONTENDS IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE PETITION FOR REMOVAL WHEN FILED IN THE
STATE COURT DEPRIVED THAT COURT OF POWER TO PROCEED WITH THE CAUSE, AT
LEAST UNTIL THE FEDERAL COURT HAD PASSED UPON THE QUESTION OF
REMOVABILITY, AND THAT IN ALL EVENTS THE REFUSAL OF THE STATE COURT TO
ACCORD ANY LEGAL EFFECT TO THE DISCLOSURE FILED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT WHILE THE PETITION FOR REMOVAL WAS PENDING THERE WAS A DENIAL OF
A FEDERAL RIGHT GIVEN BY THE REMOVAL STATUTE, SUPRA.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

THE CASE IS RULED BY YANKAUS V. FELTENSTEIN, 244 U.S. 127.  FN1
THERE WE HELD THAT AN ORDER OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT REMANDING THE
CAUSE TO THE STATE COURT WAS NOT REVIEWABLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN
SECURED BY DEFAULT.  FN2  WHILE THE OPINION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY CONSIDER
THE EFFECT OF A PETITION FOR REMOVAL ON SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE
STATE COURT, THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE DECISION IS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS
ARE VALID IF THE CASE WAS NOT IN FACT REMOVABLE.  SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO. V. WAITE, 279 F. 171; COMMODORES POINT TERMINAL CO. V. HUDNALL, 279
F. 606, 607; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. KING BRIDGE CO., 9 FED. CAS. 88. 
FN3 

THE RULE THAT THE REMAND ORDER IS NOT REVIEWABLE STEMS FROM SEC. 28
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 71) AND FROM MANY DECISIONS
ADJUSTING THE RELATIONSHIP OF STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS AND THE SCOPE OF
AUTHORITY OF EACH IN CASES SOUGHT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FORMER TO THE
LATTER.  THE RULE THAT PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT SUBSEQUENT TO THE
PETITION FOR REMOVAL ARE VALID IF THE SUIT WAS NOT IN FACT REMOVABLE IS
THE LOGICAL COROLLARY OF THE PROPOSITION THAT SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID
IF THE CAUSE WAS REMOVABLE.  IOWA CENTRAL RY. CO. V. BACON, 236 U.S.
305; MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V. ST. BERNARD MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239;
VIRGINIA V. RIVERS, 100 U.S. 313; PHOENIX INSURANCE CO. V. PECHNER, 95
U.S. 183; HOME LIFE INS. CO. V. DUNN, 19 WALL.  214; GORDON V. LONGEST,
16 PET. 97.  FN4 

WHEN A PETITION FOR REMOVAL TO A FEDERAL COURT IS DENIED BY THE STATE
COURT, THE PETITIONER MAY DO ONE OF THREE THINGS.  HE MAY OBJECT TO THE
RULING, SAVE AN EXCEPTION, AND LITIGATE THE CAUSE IN THE STATE COURTS. 
IOWA CENTRAL RY. CO. V. BACON, SUPRA; STONE V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 117 U.S.
430; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KOONTZ, 104 U.S. 5; REMOVAL CASES, 100
U.S. 457; GORDON V. LONGEST, SUPRA.  HE MAY REMOVE THE SUIT TO THE
FEDERAL COURT DESPITE THE RULING OF THE STATE COURT.  BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO. V. KOONTZ, SUPRA; KERN V. HUIDEKOPER, 103 U.S. 485; HOME LIFE
INS. CO. V. DUNN, SUPRA.  HE MAY PROCEED IN BOTH COURTS AT THE SAME
TIME.  KERN V. HUIDEKOPER, SUPRA; REMOVAL CASES, SUPRA. 

IF THE PETITIONER LITIGATES THE CAUSE IN THE STATE COURT AND
PRESERVES AN EXCEPTION, HE MAY HAVE THE ORDER OF THE STATE COURT
DENYING HIS PETITION FOR REMOVAL REVIEWED IN THE STATE APPELLATE
COURT.  IN PROPER CASES HE MAY COME HERE ASSERTING A DENIAL OF HIS
RIGHT OF REMOVAL.  IOWA CENTRAL RY. CO. V. BACON, SUPRA; STONE V. SOUTH
CAROLINA, SUPRA; REMOVAL CASES, SUPRA.  IF HE REMOVES THE CAUSE TO THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DESPITE THE STATE COURT RULING AND THE FEDERAL
COURT ASSUMES JURISDICTION OVER THE OBJECTION OF HIS ADVERSARY, THE
LATTER, AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT, MAY CONTEST THIS ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND IN THIS COURT IN
PROPER CASES.  POWERS V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO., 169 U.S. 92; CATES
V. ALLEN, 149 U.S. 451; GRAVES V. CORBIN, 132 U.S. 571.  IF PETITIONER
PROCEEDS SIMULTANEOUSLY IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS AND BOTH RENDER
FINAL JUDGMENTS, HE AND HIS ADVERSARY MAY OBTAIN REVIEW OF THE QUESTION
OF REMOVABILITY BY FOLLOWING RESPECTIVELY THE COURSES JUST OUTLINED. 
KERN V. HUIDEKOPER, SUPRA; REMOVAL CASES, SUPRA. 

PETITIONER IS PROTECTED WHICHEVER COURSE HE ELECTS.  IF HE MAKES
TIMELY APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL AND PROPERLY OBJECTS TO ITS DENIAL BY
THE STATE COURT, PARTICIPATION IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE
COURT IS NOT A WAIVER OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE CAUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
LITIGATED IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  POWERS V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO.,
SUPRA; REMOVAL CASES, SUPRA; HOME LIFE INS. CO. V. DUNN, SUPRA.
COMPARE MILLER V. BUYER, 82 COLO. 474; 261 P. 659; STATE V. AMERICAN
SURETY CO., 26 IDAHO 652; 145 P. 1097; ASHLAND V. WHITCOMB, 120 WIS.
549; 98 N.W. 531.  IF HE REMOVES THE CAUSE NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATE
COURT RULING, HE MAY NEVERTHELESS RESIST FURTHER ACTION BY HIS OPPONENT
IN THE STATE COURT.  KERN V. HUIDEKOPER, SUPRA; REMOVAL CASES, SUPRA. 

HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF REMOVABILITY IS CLOSED IF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT REFUSES TO ASSUME JURISDICTION AND REMANDS THE CAUSE.  SECTION 28
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, SUPRA, PRECLUDES REVIEW OF THE REMAND ORDER
DIRECTLY (KLOEB V. ARMOUR & CO., 311 U.S. 199; EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE
CORP. V. BRYANT, 299 U.S. 374; CITY OF WACO V. U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY
CO., 293 U.S. 140; IN RE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY, 137 U.S. 451), OR
INDIRECTLY AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE IN
WHICH DECISION COULD BE HAD.  MCLAUGHLIN BROTHERS V. HALLOWELL, 228
U.S. 278; MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. FITZGERALD, 160 U.S. 556; COMPARE
PACIFIC LIVE STOCK CO. V. LEWIS, 241 U.S. 440. 

HERE, PETITIONER ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE THE CAUSE, AS IT HAD A RIGHT TO
DO, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE COURT HAD DENIED ITS PETITION FOR REMOVAL. 
THE FEDERAL COURT HELD IT WAS NOT REMOVABLE AS A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY
AND REMANDED IT TO THE STATE COURT.  FOR THE REASONS ALREADY STATED, WE
ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO REVIEW THE REMAND ORDER.  CONSEQUENTLY, WE MUST
ASSUME, SO FAR AS THIS CASE IS CONCERNED, THAT THE SUIT WAS NOT
REMOVABLE.  HAVING MADE THIS ASSUMPTION, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE
STATE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (YANKAUS V.
FELTERSTEIN, 244 U.S. 127; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. WAITE, 279 F. 171),
AND IT WAS FOR THAT COURT TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THE DISCLOSURE
FILED IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  AYRES V. WISWALL, 112 U.S. 187; BROADWAY
INS. CO. V. CHICAGO G.W. RY. CO., 101 F. 507; COMPARE TRACY LOAN &
TRUST CO. V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 79 UTAH 33; 7 P.2D 279.  IF, IN
CASES LIKE THE PRESENT ONE, THE STATE COURT IS ASSURED THAT THE FEDERAL
COURT WILL DECIDE PROMPTLY THE QUESTION OF REMOVABILITY, IT IS BETTER
PRACTICE TO AWAIT THAT DECISION (CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. MCCABE,
213 U.S. 207; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. KOONTZ, SUPRA), BUT WE CANNOT
SAY THAT FAILURE TO DO SO IS A DENIAL OF A FEDERAL RIGHT IF THE CAUSE
WAS NOT REMOVABLE. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  FELTENSTEIN AND ANOTHER BROUGHT SUIT IN A STATE COURT AGAINST
YANKAUS ON OCTOBER 11, 1915.  ON OCTOBER 16, YANKAUS FILED A PETITION
FOR REMOVAL IN THE STATE COURT, AND ON OCTOBER 20 FILED COPIES OF ALL
PAPERS ON RECORD IN THE STATE COURT AND AN ANSWER IN THE FEDERAL
COURT.  ON THE LATTER DATE THE STATE COURT DENIED HIS PETITION FOR
REMOVAL, AND ON OCTOBER 26 ENTERED JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.  ON NOVEMBER
15, THE FEDERAL COURT REMANDED THE CAUSE, AND TWO WEEKS LATER THE STATE
COURT DENIED A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT.  THE STATE APPELLATE
COURT SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED AN APPEAL. 

FN2  IT IS NOT EVIDENT FROM THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN
BY DEFAULT, BUT THIS FACT CLEARLY APPEARS IN THE RECORD FILED IN THIS
COURT.  RECORD, P. 7. 

FN3  SEE PEARSON V. ZACHER, 177 MINN. 182; 225 N.W. 9; ROBERTS V.
CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO., 48 MINN. 521; 51 N.W. 478(AFFIRMED,
164 U.S. 703); TIERNEY V. HELVETIA SWISS FIRE INS. CO., 126 APP. DIV.
446; 110 N.Y.S. 613; STATE V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 26 IDAHO 652; 145 P.
1097. 

COMPARE IOWA CENTRAL RY. CO. V. BACON, 236 U.S. 305; MADISONVILLE
TRACTION CO. V. ST. BERNARD MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239; STONE V. SOUTH
CAROLINA, 117 U.S. 430; PHOENIX INS. CO. V. PECHNER, 95 U.S. 183;
WINCHELL V. CONEY, 54 CONN. 24; 5 A. 354; TOMSON V. TRAVELING MEN'S
ASSN., 78 NEB. 400; 110 N.W. 997; GOLDEN V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY CO., 39
MONT. 435; 104 P. 549; DAHLONEGA CO. V. HALL MDSE.  CO., 88 GA. 339; 14
S.E. 473; BISHOP-BABCOCK SALES CO. V. LACKMAN, 4 S.W.2D 109. 

FN4  SEE CENTAUR MOTOR CO. V. ECCLESTON, 264 F. 852; CITY OF
MONTGOMERY V. POSTAL TELEGRAPH CO., 218 F. 471; DONOVAN V. WELLS, FARGO
CO., 169 F. 363; MURPHY V. PAYETTE ALLUVIAL GOLD CO., 98 F. 321;
JOHNSON V. WELLS, FARGO CO., 91 F. 1; SHEPHERD V. BRADSTREET CO., 65 F.
142. 
..END :





JUST V. CHAMBERS, 312 U.S. 383 


NO. 373.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 6, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 113
F.2D 105, REVERSED. 


1.  THE COURT ACCEPTS CONCURRENT FINDINGS BY TWO COURTS BELOW ON
MATTERS OF FACT.  P. 385. 

2.  BY THE LAW OF FLORIDA, A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY DUE
TO ANOTHER'S NEGLIGENCE SURVIVES THE DEATH OF THE TORT-FEASOR.  P.
385. 

3.  FEDERAL STATUTORY PROVISION FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY EMBRACES
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE VESSEL-OWNER FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
SUFFERED ON BOARD THROUGH HIS NEGLIGENCE.  P. 385. 

4.  WHEN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY HAS ATTACHED
THROUGH A PETITION FOR LIMITATION, THE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE CLAIMS
IS NOT LOST MERELY BECAUSE THE SHIPOWNER FAILS TO ESTABLISH HIS RIGHT
TO LIMITATION.  CLAIMANTS WILL BE FURNISHED A COMPLETE REMEDY BY
DISTRIBUTION OF THE RES AND BY JUDGMENTS IN PERSONAM FOR DEFICIENCIES
AGAINST THE OWNER.  P. 386. 

5.  A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES SUFFERED ABOARD ON NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF A
STATE, AND WHICH UNDER THE STATE LAW SURVIVES HIS DEATH, SURVIVES ALSO
IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST HIS ESTATE AND AGAINST THE VESSEL.  P. 391. 

WITH RESPECT TO MARITIME TORTS, A STATE MAY MODIFY OR SUPPLEMENT THE
MARITIME LAW BY CREATING LIABILITY WHICH A COURT OF ADMIRALTY WILL
RECOGNIZE AND ENFORCE WHEN THE STATE ACTION IS NOT HOSTILE TO THE
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE MARITIME LAW OR INCONSISTENT WITH
FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 

JUST ET AL. V. CHAMBERS, EXECUTRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 634, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH IN PART AFFIRMED
AND IN PART REVERSED AN INTERLOCUTORY DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
SITTING IN ADMIRALTY IN A PROCEEDING BEGUN BY A PETITION FOR LIMITATION
OF LIABILITY.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD HELD THAT CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES SUFFERED THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE VESSEL-OWNER,
WHO AFTERWARDS HAD DIED, WERE ENFORCIBLE AGAINST HIS ESTATE AS WELL AS
THE VESSEL.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT THE LIABILITY IN
PERSONAM DID NOT SURVIVE THE DEATH AND THAT RECOVERY WAS THEREFORE
LIMITED TO THE VALUE OF THE SHIP. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HENRY C. YEISER, JR., OWNER
OF THE YACHT "FRIENDSHIP II," BROUGHT THIS PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY FOR
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.  46 U.S.C. 183.  PETITIONERS PRESENTED CLAIMS
FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES DUE TO CARBON MONOXIDE GAS POISONING
ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED ON BOARD THE VESSEL.  IT WAS CRUISING AT THE
TIME WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND
PETITIONERS WERE GUESTS OF THE OWNER.  ON THE OWNER'S DEATH,
PETITIONERS' CLAIMS WERE FILED AGAINST HIS ESTATE. 

UPON THE FACTS THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND LIABILITY TO THE CLAIMANTS
AND DENIED LIMITATION UPON THE GROUND OF NEGLECT OF DUTY BY THE OWNER. 
THE COURT HELD THAT UNDER A STATUTE OF FLORIDA THE CLAIMANTS' CAUSES OF
ACTION SURVIVED THE OWNER'S DEATH. 

UPON APPEAL FROM THE INTERLOCUTORY DECREE (28 U.S.C. 227) THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT ALL THE FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE
DISTRICT JUDGE WERE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE; THAT, AS THE INJURIES
THUS PROVED WERE NOT OCCASIONED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR PRIVITY OF THE
SHIPOWNER, RESPONDENT COULD NOT HAVE LIMITATION; THAT AS THE SHIP WAS
AT FAULT AS WELL AS THE OWNER THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN REM SURVIVED THE
OWNER'S DEATH AND THE CLAIMANTS ON THAT GROUND MIGHT RECOVER UP TO THE
VALUE OF THE SHIP, BUT THAT UNDER THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES OF ADMIRALTY
LAW THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE OWNER DID NOT SURVIVE.  113 F.2D
105.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE
ENFORCEABILITY IN ADMIRALTY OF THE CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURIES AGAINST
THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED TORTFEASOR, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S.
634. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
RESPONDENT ASKS US TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE CAUSE OF
THE CLAIMANTS' INJURIES AND THE BREACH OF DUTY BY THE SHIPOWNER,
CONTENDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS. 
APPLYING THE WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE, WE ACCEPT THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS
OF THE COURTS BELOW UPON THESE MATTERS (TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V.
RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 558) AND WE CONFINE OUR ATTENTION TO THE
QUESTION OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THERE WAS A MARITIME TORT.  THERE IS ALSO
NO QUESTION THAT THE INJURY OCCURRED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
FLORIDA AND THAT UNDER THE LOCAL STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE, THE CAUSES OF ACTION SURVIVED AGAINST THE
WRONGDOER'S ESTATE.  THIS WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  113 F.2D P. 107.  COMPILED GENERAL LAWS OF FLORIDA (1927),
SEC. 4211; WALLER V. FIRST SAVINGS & TRUST CO., 103 FLA. 1025, 1047,
1049; 138 SO. 780; GRANAT V. BISCAYNE TRUST CO., 109 FLA. 485, 488; 147
SO. 850; STATE EX REL. WOLFE CONSTRUCTION CO. V. PARKS, 129 FLA. 50,
56, 57; 175 SO. 786. 

THE STATUTORY PROVISION FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, ENACTED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE MARITIME LAW OF MODERN EUROPE AND OF LEGISLATION IN
ENGLAND, HAS BEEN BROADLY AND LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE
ITS PURPOSE TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENTS IN SHIPBUILDING AND TO AFFORD AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE VESSEL AND ITS
OWNER.  NORWICH COMPANY V. WRIGHT, 13 WALL.  104, 121.  IT LOOKS TO A
COMPLETE DISPOSITION OF WHAT MAY BE A "MANY CORNERED CONTROVERSY," THUS
APPLYING TO PROCEEDINGS IN REM AGAINST THE SHIP AS WELL AS TO
PROCEEDINGS IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE OWNER, THE LIMITATION EXTENDING TO
THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AS WELL AS TO HIS PERSON.  THE CITY OF NORWICH,
118 U.S. 468, 503; HARTFORD ACCIDENT CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 273
U.S. 207, 216.  IT APPLIES TO CASES OF PERSONAL INJURY AND DEATH AS
WELL AS TO CASES OF INJURY TO PROPERTY.  BUTLER V. BOSTON STEAMSHIP
CO., 130 U.S. 527, 552; THE ALBERT DUMOIS, 177 U.S. 240, 259.  THE
LIMITATION EXTENDS TO TORT CLAIMS EVEN WHEN THE TORT IS NON-MARITIME. 
RICHARDSON V. HARMON, 222 U.S. 96. 

WHEN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN ADMIRALTY HAS ATTACHED THROUGH
A PETITION FOR LIMITATION, THE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE CLAIMS IS NOT
LOST MERELY BECAUSE THE SHIPOWNER FAILS TO ESTABLISH HIS RIGHT TO
LIMITATION.  WE HAVE SAID THAT THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY IN SUCH A
PROCEEDING ACQUIRES THE RIGHT TO MARSHAL ALL CLAIMS, WHETHER OF
STRICTLY ADMIRALTY ORIGIN OR NOT, AND TO GIVE EFFECT TO THEM BY THE
APPORTIONMENT OF THE RES AND BY JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM AGAINST THE OWNER,
SO FAR AS THE COURT MAY DECREE.  AND THAT, IF CONGRESS HAS THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS, AS INCIDENTAL TO THAT
POWER, THAT IT MAY FURNISH A COMPLETE REMEDY FOR THE SATISFACTION OF
THOSE CLAIMS BY DISTRIBUTION OF THE RES AND BY JUDGMENTS IN PERSONAM
FOR DEFICIENCIES AGAINST THE OWNER, IF HE IS NOT RELEASED BY VIRTUE OF
THE STATUTE.  HARTFORD ACCIDENT CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., SUPRA, P.
217.  WHILE IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THE EQUITABLE RULE FOR RETAINING
JURISDICTION IN ORDER COMPLETELY TO DISPOSE OF A CAUSE DOES NOT USUALLY
APPLY IN ADMIRALTY, THE PROCEEDING FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS
DIFFERENT FROM THE ORDINARY ADMIRALTY SUIT AND, BY REASON OF THE
STATUTE AND RULES GOVERNING IT, THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY HAS AUTHORITY TO
GRANT AN INJUNCTION AND THUS BRING LITIGANTS INTO THE ADMIRALTY COURT. 
THERE IS THUS JURISDICTION TO FULFILL THE OBLIGATION TO DO EQUITY TO
CLAIMANTS BY FURNISHING THEM A COMPLETE REMEDY ALTHOUGH LIMITATION IS
REFUSED.  ID., P. 218. 

BUT RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT TO PERMIT RECOVERY UPON THE CLAIMS HERE
IN QUESTION WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO A PRECEPT OF THE ADMIRALTY LAW THAT
CAUSES OF ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY DIE WITH THE PERSON.  RESPONDENT
ARGUES THAT THE SOURCE OF THIS PRINCIPLE WAS NOT THE COMMON LAW  FN1
BUT THE CIVIL LAW  FN2  AND THAT IT SHOULD BE REGARDED AS AN INTEGRAL
PART OF THE MARITIME LAW, CONSIDERED AS AN INDEPENDENT BODY OF LAW, AND
HENCE CAN BE CHANGED ONLY BY CONGRESS, WHICH HAS NOT ACTED.  FN3 

WHETHER THE PARTICULAR RULE NOW INVOKED IS SO SECURELY BASED IN OUR
MARITIME LAW  FN4  THAT A DIFFERENT ONE CAN BE ESTABLISHED ONLY BY
LEGISLATION AND NOT BY THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER RESPONDING TO
PRESENT STANDARDS OF JUSTICE,  FN5  WE NEED NOT NOW CONSIDER.  FOR,
WHILE THE INJURY OCCURRED ON NAVIGABLE WATERS, THESE WERE WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF FLORIDA WHOSE LEGISLATION PROVIDED THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION
SHOULD SURVIVE.  AND IT IS NOT A PRINCIPLE OF OUR MARITIME LAW THAT A
COURT OF ADMIRALTY MUST INVARIABLY REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE AND ENFORCE A
LIABILITY WHICH THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED IN DEALING WITH A MARITIME
SUBJECT.  ON THE CONTRARY, THERE ARE NUMEROUS INSTANCES IN WHICH THE
GENERAL MARITIME LAW HAS BEEN MODIFIED OR SUPPLEMENTED BY STATE ACTION,
AS E.G. IN CREATING LIENS FOR REPAIRS OR SUPPLIES FURNISHED TO A VESSEL
IN HER HOME PORT.  THE LOTTAWANNA, 21 WALL.  558, 580; THE J. E.
RUMBELL, 148 U.S. 1, 12.  FN6  WITH RESPECT TO MARITIME TORTS WE HAVE
HELD THAT THE STATE MAY MODIFY OR SUPPLEMENT THE MARITIME LAW BY
CREATING LIABILITY WHICH A COURT OF ADMIRALTY WILL RECOGNIZE AND
ENFORCE WHEN THE STATE ACTION IS NOT HOSTILE TO THE CHARACTERISTIC
FEATURES OF THE MARITIME LAW OR INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 
THE CITY OF NORWALK, 55 F. 98; WESTERN FUEL CO. V. GARCIA, 257 U.S.
233, 242; GREAT LAKES DREDGE CO. V. KIEREJEWSKI, 261 U.S. 479;
VANCOUVER STEAMSHIP CO. V. RICE, 288 U.S. 445.  FN7 

THIS IS ILLUSTRATED, IN THE CASES CITED, BY THE EFFECT GIVEN IN
ADMIRALTY TO STATE LEGISLATION CREATING LIABILITY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH. 
THE LEADING CONTINENTAL STATES OF EUROPE, WHOSE JURISPRUDENCE WAS
DEVELOPED FROM THE CIVIL LAW, HAVE GIVEN A REMEDY IN SUCH A CASE,  FN8
BUT A RIGHT OF ACTION WAS DENIED BY THE COMMON LAW AND LIKEWISE BY THE
ADMIRALTY IN ENGLAND.  AND THIS COURT, UPON AN ELABORATE REVIEW OF THE
DECISIONS, CONCLUDED THAT NO SUIT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH WOULD LIE "IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE GENERAL MARITIME LAW."  THE
HARRISBURG, 119 U.S. 199, 213.  SEE, ALSO, THE CORSAIR, 145 U.S. 335,
344.  THE ABSENCE OF A FEDERAL OR STATE STATUTE GIVING A RIGHT OF
ACTION WAS EMPHASIZED.  BUT WHEN A STATE, ACTING WITHIN ITS PROVINCE,
HAS CREATED LIABILITY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH, THE ADMIRALTY WILL ENFORCE
IT. 

THERE WAS A CAREFUL AND COMPREHENSIVE EXPOSITION OF THIS SUBJECT BY
JUDGE ADDISON BROWN IN THE CITY OF NORWALK, SUPRA, DECIDED SHORTLY
AFTER THE CORSAIR, SUPRA.  HE OBSERVED THAT IF IT WAS NOT WITHIN THE
POWER OF THE STATE TO CREATE SUCH A LIABILITY IN A MARITIME CASE, THE
STATUTES OF THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES WOULD BE VOID SO FAR AS THEY
RELATED TO DEATHS IN CASES ARISING ON NAVIGABLE WATERS.  BUT THE
VALIDITY OF JUDGMENTS IN THE STATE COURTS GIVING DAMAGES IN SUCH CASES,
AND THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTES ON WHICH THEY RESTED, HAD BEEN
SUSTAINED.  STEAMBOAT COMPANY V. CHASE, 16 WALL.  522; SHERLOCK V.
ALLING, 93 U.S. 99.  THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION TO THE ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION IN ENFORCING LIABILITY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH WERE SIMILAR TO
THOSE URGED HERE; THAT IS, THAT THE CONSTITUTION PRESUPPOSES A BODY OF
MARITIME LAW, THAT THIS LAW, AS A MATTER OF INTERSTATE AND
INTERNATIONAL CONCERN, REQUIRES HARMONY IN ITS ADMINISTRATION AND
CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO DEFEAT OR IMPAIRMENT BY THE DIVERSE LEGISLATION OF
THE STATES, AND HENCE THAT CONGRESS ALONE CAN MAKE ANY NEEDED CHANGES
IN THE GENERAL RULES OF THE MARITIME LAW.  BUT THESE CONTENTIONS PROVED
UNAVAILING AND THE PRINCIPLE WAS MAINTAINED THAT A STATE, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER, MAY ESTABLISH RULES APPLICABLE ON LAND
AND WATER WITHIN ITS LIMITS, EVEN THOUGH THESE RULES INCIDENTALLY
AFFECT MARITIME AFFAIRS, PROVIDED THAT THE STATE ACTION "DOES NOT
CONTRAVENE ANY ACTS OF CONGRESS, NOR WORK ANY PREJUDICE TO THE
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE MARITIME LAW, NOR INTERFERE WITH ITS
PROPER HARMONY AND UNIFORMITY IN ITS INTERNATIONAL AND INTERSTATE
RELATIONS."  IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE STATE LEGISLATION ENCOUNTERED NONE
OF THESE OBJECTIONS.  THE MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH STATE ACTION HAD
CREATED NEW RIGHTS, RECOGNIZED AND ENFORCED IN ADMIRALTY, WERE SET
FORTH IN THE CITY OF NORWALK, AND REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO THE
NUMEROUS LOCAL REGULATIONS UNDER STATE AUTHORITY CONCERNING THE
NAVIGATION OF RIVERS AND HARBORS.  THERE WAS THE FURTHER PERTINENT
OBSERVATION THAT THE MARITIME LAW WAS NOT A COMPLETE AND PERFECT SYSTEM
FN9  AND THAT IN ALL MARITIME COUNTRIES THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE BODY
OF MUNICIPAL LAW THAT UNDERLIES THE MARITIME LAW AS THE BASIS OF ITS
ADMINISTRATION.  THESE VIEWS FIND ABUNDANT SUPPORT IN THE HISTORY OF
THE MARITIME LAW AND IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

IN THE HAMILTON, 207 U.S. 398, THERE WAS A PROCEEDING IN ADMIRALTY
FOR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF A COLLISION ON THE HIGH SEAS,
BOTH VESSELS BELONGING TO CORPORATIONS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE.  THE
COURT HELD THAT A DELAWARE STATUTE GIVING DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH
WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER, AND THAT THERE WAS THUS
CREATED A PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE OWNER TO THE CLAIMANTS WHICH
ADMIRALTY WOULD RESPECT.  MOREOVER, AS THE CASE WAS ONE FOR LIMITATION
OF LIABILITY, THE COURT NOTED THAT THE FEDERAL STATUTE HAD ENABLED THE
OWNER TO TRANSFER LIABILITY TO A FUND AND TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
OF ADMIRALTY AND HENCE "ALL CLAIMS TO WHICH THE ADMIRALTY DOES NOT DENY
EXISTENCE" MUST BE RECOGNIZED.  IN LA BOURGOGNE, 210 U.S. 95, 139, ALSO
A LIMITED LIABILITY PROCEEDING, THE REASONING OF THE HAMILTON WAS
FOLLOWED IN THE RULING THAT, AS THE CASE WAS ONE OF A FRENCH VESSEL AND
THE LAW OF FRANCE GAVE A RIGHT OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH, OUR COURT
OF ADMIRALTY WOULD ENFORCE THE CLAIM. 

FINALLY, IN WESTERN FUEL CO. V. GARCIA, SUPRA, THE COURT DEEMED IT TO
BE THE LOGICAL RESULT OF PRIOR DECISIONS THAT WHERE DEATH "RESULTS FROM
A MARITIME TORT COMMITTED ON NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN A STATE WHOSE
STATUTES GIVE A RIGHT OF ACTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT,
THE ADMIRALTY COURTS WILL ENTERTAIN A LIBEL IN PERSONAM FOR THE DAMAGES
SUSTAINED BY THOSE TO WHOM SUCH RIGHT IS GIVEN."  THE LIBEL THERE
FAILED SOLELY BECAUSE SUIT WAS BARRED BY THE STATE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  AND THE CRITERION APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY AND
EFFECT OF THE STATE LEGISLATION WAS SET FORTH IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
TERMS AS THOSE STATED IN THE CITY OF NORWALK, ABOVE QUOTED.  WESTERN
FUEL CO. V. GARCIA, SUPRA, P. 242. 

THIS CRITERION IS MANIFESTLY NOT LIMITED TO CASES OF WRONGFUL DEATH. 
IT IS A BROAD RECOGNITION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO CREATE
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES WITH RESPECT TO CONDUCT WITHIN THEIR BORDERS,
WHEN THE STATE ACTION DOES NOT RUN COUNTER TO FEDERAL LAWS OR THE
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF AN EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  SEE MINNESOTA
RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 402-410.  WE SEE NO REASON WHY, UNDER THIS
TEST, THE FLORIDA RULE IN PROVIDING FOR THE SURVIVAL OF A CAUSE OF
ACTION AGAINST A DECEASED TORTFEASOR FOR INJURIES OCCURRING ON
NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED. 
RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT, IN RELATION TO WRONGFUL DEATH, THE MARITIME
LAW HAD LEFT THE MATTER "UNTOUCHED" (THE HARRISBURG, SUPRA) AND THUS
THE STATE LAW WAS ADMITTED TO SUPPLEMENT THE MARITIME LAW, WHILE IN THE
INSTANT CASE THERE IS A POSITIVE RULE OF ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE SURVIVAL
OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION.  THAT IS, IN THE ONE CASE, THERE IS SAID TO BE
A "VOID" IN THE MARITIME LAW, WHICH THE STATE LAW MAY FILL, WHILE IN
THE OTHER THERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO MODIFY AN EXISTING PRINCIPLE.  THIS IS
A SUBTLETY WHICH WE THINK DOES NOT MERIT JUDICIAL ADOPTION.  THE
ADMIRALTY RULE IN THE CASE OF WRONGFUL DEATH CAN BE STATED EITHER
NEGATIVELY OR POSITIVELY, AND THE RESULT DOES NOT TURN ON THE MERE MODE
OF EXPRESSION.  THE PITH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE MARITIME LAW, AS WE
CONCEIVED IT, DID NOT PERMIT RECOVERY, AND IN THE SAME SENSE, IN
SUBSTANCE, THE MARITIME LAW DENIED THE SURVIVAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION
AGAINST A DECEASED TORTFEASOR.  THE MARITIME LAW WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTED
OR MODIFIED BY STATE LEGISLATION IN THE ONE CASE AS TRULY AS IN THE
OTHER, AND EITHER SUPPLEMENT OR MODIFICATION IS PERMISSIBLE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCEPTED CRITERION. 

OUR DECISIONS IN THE WRONGFUL DEATH CASES ALSO MEET THE FURTHER
ARGUMENT WHICH IS ADDRESSED TO LACK OF UNIFORMITY.  FOR WHATEVER LACK
OF UNIFORMITY THERE MAY BE IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE STATE RULE AS TO
SURVIVAL IS EQUALLY PRESENT WHEN THE STATE RULE IS APPLIED TO WRONGFUL
DEATH, OR, FOR THAT MATTER, IN ANY CASE WHEN STATE LEGISLATION IS
UPHELD IN ITS DEALING WITH LOCAL CONCERNS IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL
LEGISLATION.  UNIFORMITY IS REQUIRED ONLY WHEN THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES
OF AN EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION ARE INVOLVED.  BUT AS ADMIRALTY
TAKES COGNIZANCE OF MARITIME TORTS, THERE IS NO REPUGNANCY TO ITS
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES EITHER IN PERMITTING RECOVERY FOR WRONGFUL
DEATH OR IN ALLOWING COMPENSATION FOR A WRONG TO THE LIVING TO BE
OBTAINED FROM A TORTFEASOR'S ESTATE.  A FORTIORI, IN APPLYING THE
ESTABLISHED RULES AS TO PROOF OF CLAIMS IN LIMITATION PROCEEDINGS,
PETITIONERS, BROUGHT INTO ADMIRALTY, WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE THEIR CLAIMS
AGAINST THE SHIPOWNER'S ESTATE HEARD AND DETERMINED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AS TO THE RULE IN THE COMMON LAW, SEE HOLDSWORTH'S HISTORY OF
ENGLISH LAW, VOL. 3, PP. 576-578. 

FN2  INST.  JUST.  LIB. IV, TIT. XII, COOPER, P. 364, SANDARS, P.
476. 

FN3  THE "DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS" ACT, 46 U.S.C. 761-768, IS NOT
APPLICABLE, AS IT OCCUPIES A LIMITED FIELD AND EVEN AS TO WRONGFUL
DEATH PROVIDES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF STATE STATUTES SHALL NOT BE
AFFECTED. 

FN4  THE RULE OF THE NON-SURVIVAL OF A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A
DECEASED TORTFEASOR HAS BUT A SLENDER BASIS IN ADMIRALTY CASES IN THIS
COUNTRY.  SEE CRAPO V. ALLEN, 6 FED. CAS. (NO. 3360) 763; CUTTING V.
SEABURY, 1 SPRAGUE 522, 525; IN RE STATLER, 31 F.2D 767, 36 F.2D 1021;
CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 371.  THE PRECISE
QUESTION HERE PRESENTED DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY
DETERMINED. 

FN5  SEE THE LOTTAWANNA, 21 WALL.  558, 572-574. 

FN6  MANY OTHER INSTANCES ARE LISTED IN THE CITY OF NORWALK, 55 F.
98, 106, 107. 

FN7  SEE, ALSO, GRANT SMITH-PORTER CO. V. ROHDE, 257 U.S. 469, 477,
478; MILLERS' UNDERWRITERS V. BRAUD, 270 U.S. 59, 64.  COMPARE SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205, 216, 220; CHELENTIS V. LUCKENBACH
S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372; KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO. V. STEWART, 253 U.S. 149;
ROBINS DRY DOCK CO. V. DAHL, 266 U.S. 449. 

FN8  HUGHES ON ADMIRALTY, CHAP. X, SECS. 108-110, PP. 224-226.  SEE,
ALSO, THE HARRISBURG, 119 U.S. 199, 212, 213. 

FN9  SEE THE BLACKHEATH, 195 U.S. 361, 365. 
..END :











HELVERING V. HUTCHINGS, 312 U.S. 393 


NO 419.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 111 F.2D
229, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX LAID UPON "NET GIFTS" MADE DURING
THE CALENDAR YEAR, SEC. 504(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 PROVIDES THAT
"IN THE CASE OF GIFTS (OTHER THAN OF FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY) MADE
TO ANY PERSON BY THE DONOR DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR THE FIRST $5,000 OF
SUCH GIFTS  ...  SHALL NOT  ...  BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
GIFTS MADE DURING SUCH YEAR."  HELD THAT WHERE THE DONOR CONVEYED
PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF NUMEROUS BENEFICIARIES HE WAS
ENTITLED TO SEPARATE EXEMPTIONS OR EXCLUSIONS OF $5,000 FOR EACH
BENEFICIARY.  P. 395. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER THE GIFTS TO THE BENEFICIARIES WERE "FUTURE
INTERESTS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION IS NOT DECIDED, NOT HAVING
BEEN PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, BUT IS LEFT OPEN FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 

2.  IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND USAGE A GIFT IS MADE TO HIM UPON WHOM
THE DONOR BESTOWS THE BENEFIT OF HIS DONATION.  P. 396. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. HUTCHINGS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 638, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 40 B.T.A. 27, WHICH SUSTAINED AN ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENT OF GIFT TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI PRESENTS THE SINGLE QUESTION WHETHER
UNDER SEC. 504(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 247, THE
DONOR OF PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF NUMEROUS BENEFICIARIES IS
ENTITLED TO A SINGLE GIFT TAX EXEMPTION OR EXCLUSION TO THE EXTENT OF
THE FIRST $5,000 OR TO SEPARATE EXEMPTIONS OF $5,000 FOR EACH
BENEFICIARY. 

NET AMOUNT OF THE TRANSFERS "BY ANY INDIVIDUAL  ...  OF PROPERTY BY
GIFT."  BY SEC. 501(B) THE TAX APPLIES "WHETHER THE TRANSFER IS IN
TRUST OR OTHERWISE" AND "WHETHER THE GIFT IS DIRECT OR INDIRECT."  IN
THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX LAID UPON "NET GIFTS" MADE DURING THE
CALENDAR YEAR, SEC. 504(B) PROVIDES "IN THE CASE OF GIFTS (OTHER THAN
OF FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY) MADE TO ANY PERSON BY THE DONOR DURING
THE CALENDAR YEAR, THE FIRST $5,000 OF SUCH GIFTS  ...  SHALL NOT  ...
BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF GIFTS MADE DURING SUCH YEAR."  AND
SEC. 1111, DEFINING GENERALLY TERMS USED THROUGHOUT THE REVENUE ACT,
PROVIDES:  "(A)  WHEN USED IN THIS ACT - (1) THE TERM 'PERSON' MEANS AN
INDIVIDUAL, A TRUST OR ESTATE, A PARTNERSHIP, OR A CORPORATION." 

ON DECEMBER 30, 1935, THE TAXPAYER EXECUTED A TRUST INDENTURE BY
WHICH SHE TRANSFERRED, IN TRUST, PROPERTY OF A VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY
$145,000 FOR A TERM ENDING IN 1957, UNLESS SOONER TERMINATED BY THE
TRUSTEES, FOR THE BENEFIT OF HER SEVEN CHILDREN, WITH GIFTS OVER OF THE
SHARE OF EACH CHILD IN EVENT OF THE DEATH OF THAT CHILD BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE TRUST.  THE TAXPAYER IN HER GIFT TAX RETURN FOR 1935
EXCLUDED FROM THE TAXABLE AMOUNT OF HER GIFTS THE SUM OF $5,000 FOR
EACH CHILD OR A TOTAL OF $35,000.  THE COMMISSIONER ALLOWED ONLY A
SINGLE DEDUCTION OF $5,000 IN LIEU OF THE SEVEN $5,000 DEDUCTIONS
CLAIMED BY THE TAXPAYER AND ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY ACCORDINGLY.  THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, TREATING THE TRUST AS THE DONEE RATHER THAN THE
INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES, SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S ASSESSMENT.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  111 F.2D 229.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 638, TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT OF THE DECISION
BELOW AND OF LIKE DECISIONS IN OTHER CIRCUITS, WELCH V. DAVIDSON, 102
F.2D 100(FIRST CIRCUIT); RHEINSTROM V. COMMISSIONER, 105 F.2D
642(EIGHTH CIRCUIT); MCBRIER V. COMMISSIONER, 108 F.2D 967(THIRD
CIRCUIT), AND IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, PELZER V. UNITED STATES, 90 CT.
CLS. 614; 31 F.SUPP.  770, WITH THAT OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN UNITED
STATES V. RYERSON, 114 F.2D 150. 

IT IS NOT DOUBTED THAT SEPARATE GIFTS, OTHER THAN OF FUTURE
INTERESTS, MADE DIRECTLY TO THE DONEES WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF A
TRUSTEE ENTITLE THE DONOR UNDER SEC. 504(B), TO ONE $5,000 EXCLUSION
FOR EACH GIFT.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT HERE THE TRUSTEE OR THE
TRUST IS THE DONEE AND AS THERE WAS ONLY A SINGLE TRUST THERE CAN BE
ONLY A SINGLE STATUTORY DEDUCTION FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE GIFTS. 
AS THE STATUTE ALLOWS ONE DEDUCTION OF THE FIRST $5,000 FOR EACH GIFT
"MADE TO ANY PERSON" BY THE DONOR, THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER
IN THIS CASE OF A GIFT IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DESIGNATED
BENEFICIARIES THE SINGLE TRUST, OR EACH BENEFICIARY, IS THE "PERSON" TO
WHOM THE GIFT WAS MADE AND FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED. 

THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF "PERSON" IN SEC. 1111(A)(1) IS OF LITTLE
AID IN ANSWERING THIS QUESTION.  THE DEFINITION IS MADE GENERALLY
APPLICABLE TO ALL OF THE SECTIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT AND WAS CARRIED
FORWARD FROM EARLIER ACTS WHICH CONTAINED NO GIFT TAX PROVISIONS.  SEE
SEC. 2(A)(1) OF THE 1926 REVENUE ACT, 44 STAT. 9; SEC. 701(A)(1) OF THE
1928 REVENUE ACT, 45 STAT. 878.  THE SECTION MEANS NO MORE THAN THAT
THE WORD "PERSON" IN ANY SECTION OF THE ACT IN WHICH IT OCCURS MAY BE
TAKEN AS MEANING "TRUST" RATHER THAN "INDIVIDUAL" AS THE CONTEXT MAY
REQUIRE.  BUT SEC. 504(B), ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF EACH
GIFT TO ANY PERSON WHEN APPLIED TO GIFTS IN TRUST FOR DESIGNATED
BENEFICIARIES, MAY BE READ AS REFERRING EITHER TO A GIFT TO THE TRUST
OR A GIFT TO EACH INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARY.  HENCE WE MUST READ THE
ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, TO DETERMINE WHETHER, WITHIN ITS MEANING, THE
TRUST OR EACH INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARY IS THE DONEE TO WHOM THE GIFT IS
MADE. 

THE GIFT TAX PROVISIONS ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH MERE TRANSFERS OF
LEGAL TITLE TO THE TRUSTEE WITHOUT SURRENDER BY THE DONOR OF THE
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF OWNERSHIP AND HIS CONTROL OVER THEM.  A GIFT TO A
TRUSTEE RESERVING TO THE DONOR THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF THE TRUST OR THE
POWER OF ITS DISPOSITION, INVOLVES NO TAXABLE GIFT.  IT IS ONLY UPON
THE SURRENDER BY THE DONOR OF THE BENEFIT OR POWER RESERVED TO HIMSELF
THAT A TAXABLE GIFT OCCURS, ESTATE OF SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S.
39; RASQUIN V. HUMPHREYS, 308 U.S. 54, AND IT WOULD SEEM TO FOLLOW THAT
THE BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST TO WHOSE BENEFIT THE SURRENDER INURES,
WHETHER MADE AT THE TIME THE TRUST IS CREATED OR LATER, IS THE "PERSON"
OR "INDIVIDUAL" TO WHOM THE GIFT IS MADE. 

BUT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IT IS OF MORE IMPORTANCE THAT IN COMMON
UNDERSTANDING AND IN THE COMMON USE OF LANGUAGE A GIFT IS MADE TO HIM
UPON WHOM THE DONOR BESTOWS THE BENEFIT OF HIS DONATION.  ONE DOES NOT
SPEAK OF MAKING A GIFT TO A TRUST RATHER THAN TO HIS CHILDREN WHO ARE
ITS BENEFICIARIES.  THE REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS USED
WORDS IN THEIR NATURAL SENSE AND IN THE SENSE IN WHICH WE MUST TAKE IT
THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE USED IN SEC. 504(B) WHEN, IN DISCUSSING SEC.
501, THEY SPOKE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF A GIFT UPON TRUST AS THE PERSON
TO WHOM THE GIFT IS MADE.  SIMILARLY THEY SPOKE OF GIFTS EFFECTED BY
TRANSFER OF MONEY OR PROPERTY TO ANOTHER AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY TO A THIRD PERSON AS A GIFT TO THE
THIRD PERSON.  H. REPT. NO. 708, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 27-28; S.
REPT. NO. 665, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 39-40.  IT IS OF SOME
SIGNIFICANCE ALSO THAT THE DENIAL BY SEC. 504(B) OF THE EXEMPTION IN
THE CASE OF GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS" HAS LITTLE SCOPE FOR PRACTICAL
OPERATION UNLESS THE GIFTS TO WHICH THE EXEMPTION APPLIES INCLUDE THOSE
GIFTS MADE TO BENEFICIARIES OF A TRUST, SINCE IT IS BY RESORT TO THE
CONVEYANCE IN TRUST THAT MOST FUTURE INTERESTS ARE CREATED. 

MOREOVER, THE VERY PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A GIFT TAX EXEMPTION MEASURED
BY THE NUMBER OF DONEES, WOULD BE DEFEATED IF A DISTINCTION WERE TO BE
TAKEN BETWEEN GIFTS MADE DIRECTLY TO NUMEROUS DONEES AND A GIFT MADE
FOR THEIR BENEFIT BY WAY OF A SINGLE TRUST, AND WE ARE UNABLE TO
DISCERN IN THE STATUTE OR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ANY PURPOSE TO MAKE
SUCH A DISTINCTION.  WHILE ONE OBJECT OF THE EXEMPTION WAS TO PERMIT
SMALL TAX FREE GIFTS, AND AT THE SAME TIME "TO FIX THE AMOUNT
SUFFICIENTLY LARGE TO COVER IN MOST CASES WEDDING AND CHRISTMAS GIFTS"
WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF KEEPING ACCOUNTS AND REPORTING THE GIFTS, H.
REPT. SUPRA, 29; S. REPT. SUPRA, 41, NEVERTHELESS THE STATUTE EXTENDED
THE EXEMPTION IN THE SPECIFIED AMOUNT TO ALL GIFTS, WHETHER LARGE OR
SMALL, "MADE TO ANY PERSON." 

IN THE FACE OF AN EXEMPTION THUS MADE BROADLY APPLICABLE TO ALL GIFTS
TO ALL DONEES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME INDICATION OF AN INTENTION TO
DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN GIFTS MADE DIRECTLY TO THE DONEES AND THOSE MADE
INDIRECTLY TO THE BENEFICIARIES OF A TRUST, WE CAN HARDLY ASSUME A
PURPOSE TO FAVOR ONE CLASS OF DONEES OVER THE OTHER OR FIND SUCH A
PURPOSE IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF "PERSON" WHICH MAY
INDICATE EITHER THE TRUST OR EACH INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST
AS THE PERSON TO WHOM THE GIFT IS MADE.  FURTHER, SUCH AN ASSUMPTION
WOULD OPEN THE WAY TO AVOID THE $5,000 LIMITATION UPON THE ALLOWED
EXEMPTION, BY RESORT TO THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF THE CREATION BY A
SINGLE DONOR OF ANY NUMBER OF TRUSTS OF $5,000 EACH FOR THE BENEFIT OF
A SINGLE BENEFICIARY.  FN1  A CONSTRUCTION SO DEPENDENT UPON AN
ARTIFICIAL MEANING OF THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND SO OUT OF HARMONY
WITH THE STATUTORY SCHEME AND PURPOSE IS NOT TO BE FAVORED. 

ARTICLE 11 OF 79 TREASURY REGULATIONS (1933 EDITION), ISSUED UNDER
THE 1932 ACT, TREATS EACH GIFT TO THE BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST AS
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE $5,000 DEDUCTION UNLESS THE GIFT IS OF A
"FUTURE INTEREST" WHICH SEC. 504(B) EXCEPTS FROM THE EXEMPTION
OTHERWISE ALLOWED.  SUCH WE THINK IS THE CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER HERE THE QUESTION WHETHER A GIFT UPON
TRUST FOR IMPERSONAL, PUBLIC OR CHARITABLE PURPOSES WHERE THERE ARE NO
DESIGNATED OR ASCERTAINABLE FIRST BENEFICIARIES IS A GIFT TO THE TRUST
ENTITLED TO A SINGLE $5,000 DEDUCTION.  SEE HUTCHINGS V. COMMISSIONER,
111 F.2D 229, 231.  NOR DO WE CONSIDER WHETHER THE GIFTS TO THE
BENEFICIARIES HERE ARE OF FUTURE INTERESTS WHICH ARE EXCEPTED FROM THE
BENEFIT OF THE $5,000 DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY SEC. 504(B).  THAT QUESTION
IS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  BUT OUR JUDGMENT WILL
BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO CONSIDERATION OF THAT QUESTION BY THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS UPON THE REMAND TO IT IF, UNDER THE RULES AND PROCEDURE
GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD, THE COMMISSIONER IS FREE TO
PRESENT THE QUESTION THERE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IT WAS THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BY THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS AND BY "SEVERAL OF THE FEDERAL COURTS" WHICH LEAD TO THE
AMENDMENT OF SEC. 504(B) SO AS TO WITHDRAW THE EXEMPTION IN THE CASE OF
EVERY GIFT IN TRUST.  SEE SEC. 505 OF THE 1938 ACT, 52 STAT. 447.  S.
REPT. NO. 1567, 75TH CONG., 3RD SESS., P. 41. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. PELZER, 312 U.S. 399 


NO. 393.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 90 CT.
CLS. 614 - 31 F.SUPP.  770, REVERSED. 


1.  DECIDED IN PART UPON AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. HUTCHINGS, ANTE, P.
393.  P. 401. 

2.  THE REVENUE LAWS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR
GENERAL PURPOSE TO ESTABLISH A NATIONWIDE SCHEME OF TAXATION UNIFORM IN
ITS APPLICATION.  THEIR PROVISIONS ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS SUBJECT TO
STATE CONTROL OR LIMITATION UNLESS THE LANGUAGE OR NECESSARY
IMPLICATION OF THE SECTION INVOLVED MAKES ITS APPLICATION DEPENDENT ON
STATE LAW.  P. 402. 

3.  GIFTS IN TRUST TO GRANDCHILDREN, LIMITED TO THOSE WHO SURVIVE A
TEN-YEAR ACCUMULATION PERIOD AND ATTAIN TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE, ARE
GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS," FROM WHICH THE $5,000 EXEMPTION IN
COMPUTING GIFT TAXES IS WITHHELD BY SEC. 504(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932.  P. 403. 

UNITED STATES V. PELZER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 634, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS
GRANTING A RECOVERY OF MONEY COLLECTED AS GIFT TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DECISION IN THIS CASE TURNS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER CERTAIN GIFTS OF
PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF SEVERAL BENEFICIARIES ARE GIFTS OF
"FUTURE INTERESTS" WHICH, IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE GIFT TAX, ARE, BY
SEC. 504(B) OF THE 1932 REVENUE ACT, 47 STAT. 169, 247, DENIED THE
BENEFIT, OTHERWISE ALLOWED, OF EXCLUSION FROM THE COMPUTATION TO THE
EXTENT OF THE FIRST $5,000 OF EACH GIFT "MADE TO ANY PERSON BY THE
DONOR" DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR. 

YEAR A TAX UPON THE NET AMOUNT OF TRANSFERS "BY ANY INDIVIDUAL  ...  OF
PROPERTY BY GIFT."  FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TAX SEC. 504(B)
PROVIDES "IN THE CASE OF GIFTS (OTHER THAN OF FUTURE INTERESTS IN
PROPERTY) MADE TO ANY PERSON BY THE DONOR DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR, THE
FIRST $5,000 OF SUCH GIFTS  ... SHALL NOT  ...  BE INCLUDED IN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF GIFTS MADE DURING SUCH YEAR." 

IN 1932 THE TAXPAYER, RESPONDENT HERE, CREATED A TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF HIS EIGHT GRANDCHILDREN AND ANY OTHER GRANDCHILDREN WHO
MIGHT AFTERWARD BE BORN DURING THE TERM OF THE TRUST.  THE TRUSTEE WAS
DIRECTED TO ACCUMULATE THE INCOME FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS AND
THEREAFTER TO PAY AN "EQUAL GRANDCHILD'S DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE" OF THE
INCOME TO EACH OF THE NAMED GRANDCHILDREN WHO WERE THEN LIVING AND
TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE AND TO PAY A LIKE SHARE OF INCOME TO EACH OTHER
NAMED GRANDCHILD FOR LIFE AFTER THAT CHILD SHOULD REACH THE AGE OF
TWENTY-ONE YEARS.  PROVISION WAS MADE WHEREBY GRANDCHILDREN BORN AFTER
THE CREATION OF THE TRUST AND DURING ITS LIFE WERE TO RECEIVE LIKE
PARTICIPATION IN THE INCOME OF THE TRUST EXCEPT AS TO DISTRIBUTIONS OF
INCOME MADE PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF SUCH AFTER-BORN GRANDCHILDREN, AND
EXCEPT THAT THE AFTER-BORN GRANDCHILDREN SHOULD BE PAID THEIR SHARES OF
THE INCOME DURING THEIR RESPECTIVE MINORITIES AFTER THE TERMINATION OF
THE TEN-YEAR ACCUMULATION PERIOD.  THE TRUST INSTRUMENT ALSO MADE GIFTS
OVER OF THE SHARE OF THE INCOME OF EACH GRANDCHILD AT DEATH, THE
DETAILS OF WHICH ARE NOT NOW MATERIAL.  IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT
THE TRUST SHOULD TERMINATE TWENTY-ONE YEARS AFTER DEATH OF THE LAST
SURVIVOR OF THE NAMED GRANDCHILDREN, WHEN THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST, WITH
ACCUMULATED INCOME, WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED IN EQUAL SHARES AMONG THE
SURVIVING GRANDCHILDREN AND THE ISSUE PER STIRPES OF ALL DECEASED
GRANDCHILDREN. 

DURING THE YEARS 1933, 1934, AND 1935, THE TAXPAYER ADDED FURTHER
AMOUNTS OF PROPERTY TO THE 1932 TRUST.  IN 1934 HE ALSO MADE GIFTS
DIRECTLY TO HIS THREE GRANDDAUGHTERS AND CREATED A TRUST TO PAY THE
INCOME IN EQUAL SHARES TO HIS WIFE AND THREE DAUGHTERS WITH GIFTS OVER
OF EACH SHARE OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST UPON THE DEATH OF THE LIFE
TENANT. 

UPON CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS OF OVERPAID TAXES UPON THE TRANSFERS MADE IN
THE YEARS 1933, 1934, AND 1935, THE COMMISSIONER RECOMPUTED THE TAX AND
ALLOWED ONE $5,000 EXCLUSION ONLY FROM THE NET AMOUNTS SUBJECT TO GIFT
TAX GIVEN OR ADDED IN EACH YEAR TO EACH TRUST.  IN THE PRESENT SUIT,
BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, RESPONDENT SOUGHT TO RECOVER OVERPAID
TAXES FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE GIFTS TO THE
BENEFICIARIES WERE GIFTS OF PRESENT, NOT FUTURE, INTERESTS AND THAT THE
TAXPAYER IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX FOR EACH YEAR WAS ENTITLED TO
ONE EXCLUSION OF $5,000 FOR EACH BENEFICIARY.  THE COURT SUSTAINED BOTH
CONTENTIONS AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT ACCORDINGLY.  90 CT. CLS.
614; 31 F.SUPP.  770.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 634, TO RESOLVE
THE CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN
UNITED STATES V. RYERSON, 114 F.2D 150. 

THE GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES BOTH GROUNDS OF DECISION BELOW.  IT ARGUES
THAT ONLY A SINGLE $5,000 EXCLUSION IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SEC. 504(B) FROM
THE TOTAL GIFTS MADE TO THE TRUST IN EACH CALENDAR YEAR AND THAT IF THE
GIFTS ARE DEEMED TO BE MADE TO THE NAMED BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST NO
DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF GIFTS TO THE 1932 TRUST BECAUSE
THEY WERE OF FUTURE INTERESTS FOR WHICH NO EXCLUSION IS ALLOWED BY SEC.
504(B). 

WE HAVE THIS DAY DECIDED THE FIRST QUESTION, IN HELVERING V.
HUTCHINGS, ANTE, P. 393, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF GIFTS IN
TRUST THE BENEFICIARIES ARE THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE GIFTS ARE MADE AND
THAT FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF THE TAX SEC. 504(B) EXCLUDES THE
FIRST $5,000 IN VALUE OF THE GIFT TO EACH BENEFICIARY FROM THE TAXABLE
AMOUNT OF THE GIFTS MADE IN THE CALENDAR YEAR.  FOR THE REASONS STATED
IN OUR OPINION IN THAT CASE WE HOLD THAT THE FIRST BENEFICIARIES OF THE
TRUSTS IN THIS CASE ARE THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE GIFTS WERE MADE AND
THAT THE TAXPAYER IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE $5,000 EXCLUSION
FOR EACH GIFT TO SUCH BENEFICIARY IF IT IS NOT OF A FUTURE INTEREST. 

BUT THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES HERE, AS IT DID BELOW, THAT THE GIFTS TO
THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE 1932 TRUST ARE OF FUTURE INTERESTS WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE STATUTE AND TREASURY REGULATIONS.  WHILE THE EIGHT NAMED
GRANDCHILDREN ARE THE FIRST BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST, AND THE PERSONS
TO WHOM THE GIFTS WERE MADE, NONE OF THEM TAKES ANY BENEFIT FROM THE
TRUST BEFORE THE END OF THE TEN-YEAR ACCUMULATION PERIOD OR UNTIL HE IS
TWENTY-ONE, WHICHEVER LAST OCCURS, AND THEN ONLY IF HE SURVIVES THAT
EVENT.  AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SUCH A GIFT IS A GIFT OF A "FUTURE
INTEREST" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 504(B).  RESPONDENT, RELYING ON
STATUTES AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF ALABAMA, WHERE THE TRUST WAS CREATED
AND IS BEING ADMINISTERED, INSISTS THAT THE GIFTS TO THE NAMED
GRANDCHILDREN ARE PRESENT, NOT FUTURE, INTERESTS AS DEFINED BY ALABAMA
LAW.  HE ARGUES THAT AS SEC. 504(B) DOES NOT DEFINE THE "FUTURE
INTERESTS" GIFTS OF WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM ITS BENEFITS, THEY MUST BE
TAKEN TO BE FUTURE INTERESTS AS DEFINED BY THE LOCAL LAW, AND IT IS THE
LOCAL LAW DEFINITION OF FUTURE INTERESTS WHICH MUST BE ADOPTED IN
APPLYING THE SECTION.  BUT AS WE HAVE OFTEN HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT,
THE REVENUE LAWS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR GENERAL
PURPOSE TO ESTABLISH A NATIONWIDE SCHEME OF TAXATION UNIFORM IN ITS
APPLICATION.  HENCE THEIR PROVISIONS ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS SUBJECT TO
STATE CONTROL OR LIMITATION UNLESS THE LANGUAGE OR NECESSARY
IMPLICATION OF THE SECTION INVOLVED MAKES ITS APPLICATION DEPENDENT ON
STATE LAW.  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110; MORGAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78, 81. 

WE FIND NO SUCH IMPLICATION IN THE EXCLUSION OF GIFTS OF "FUTURE
INTERESTS" FROM THE BENEFITS GIVEN BY SEC. 504(B).  IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY STATUTORY DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE WE LOOK TO THE PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT IS INTENDED.  IT PLAINLY IS NOT CONCERNED
WITH THE VARYING LOCAL DEFINITIONS OF PROPERTY INTERESTS OR WITH THE
LOCAL REFINEMENTS OF CONVEYANCING, AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR SUPPOSING
THAT THE EXTENT OF THE GRANTED TAX EXEMPTION WAS INTENDED TO BE GIVEN A
CORRESPONDING VARIATION.  ITS PURPOSE WAS RATHER THE PROTECTION OF THE
REVENUE AND THE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX IMMUNITY PROVIDED
BY THE STATUTE.  IT IS THIS PURPOSE WHICH MARKS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
STATUTORY COMMAND.  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS RECOMMENDING THE LEGISLATION
DECLARED (H. REPT. NO. 708, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 29; S. REPT. NO.
665, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 41): 

"THE TERM 'FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY' REFERS TO ANY INTEREST OR
ESTATE, WHETHER VESTED OR CONTINGENT, LIMITED TO COMMENCE IN POSSESSION
OR ENJOYMENT AT A FUTURE DATE.  THE EXEMPTION BEING AVAILABLE ONLY IN
SO FAR AS THE DONEES ARE ASCERTAINABLE, THE DENIAL OF THE EXEMPTION IN
THE CASE OF GIFTS OF FUTURE INTERESTS IS DICTATED BY THE APPREHENDED
DIFFICULTY, IN MANY INSTANCES, OF DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF EVENTUAL
DONEES AND THE VALUES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GIFTS." 

ARTICLE XI OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 79, 1933 AND 1936 EDITIONS,
INTERPRETING SEC. 504(B), DECLARED THAT "FUTURE INTERESTS" INCLUDE ANY
INTEREST OR ESTATE "WHETHER VESTED OR CONTINGENT, LIMITED TO COMMENCE
IN USE, POSSESSION, OR ENJOYMENT AT SOME FUTURE DATE OR TIME."  THIS
DEFINITION STANDS UNCHANGED IN THE REGULATIONS AND, WHILE SEC. 504(B)
WAS AMENDED BY SEC. 505 OF THE 1938 REVENUE ACT SO AS TO WITHDRAW THE
BENEFIT OF THE $5,000 EXCLUSION FROM ALL GIFTS IN TRUST, THE SECTION AS
AMENDED CONTINUES TO WITHHOLD THE BENEFIT OF THE EXCLUSION FROM ALL
GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY." 

WE THINK THAT THE REGULATIONS, SO FAR AS THEY ARE APPLICABLE TO THE
PRESENT GIFTS, ARE WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE TREASURY IN
INTERPRETING SEC. 504(B) AND EFFECT ITS PURPOSE AS DECLARED BY THE
REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES, AND THAT THE GIFTS TO THE
EIGHT BENEFICIARIES OF THE 1932 TRUST WERE GIFTS OF FUTURE INTERESTS
WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF THAT SECTION.  HERE THE
BENEFICIARIES HAD NO RIGHT TO THE PRESENT ENJOYMENT OF THE CORPUS OR OF
THE INCOME AND UNLESS THEY SURVIVE THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD THEY WILL NEVER
RECEIVE ANY PART OF EITHER.  THE "USE, POSSESSION, OR ENJOYMENT" OF
EACH DONEE IS THUS POSTPONED TO THE HAPPENING OF A FUTURE UNCERTAIN
EVENT.  THE GIFT THUS INVOLVED THE DIFFICULTIES OF DETERMINING THE
"NUMBER OF EVENTUAL DONEES AND THE VALUE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE GIFTS"
WHICH IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO AVOID. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE DEFINITION OF FUTURE INTERESTS IN
OTHER ASPECTS THAN THOSE PRESENTED BY THE PRESENT CASE.  THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS WILL BE REVERSED SO FAR ONLY AS IT EXCLUDED THE
GIFTS TO THE 1932 TRUST FROM THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX FOR EACH OF THE
YEARS IN QUESTION.  REVERSED. 
..END :




















RYERSON V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 405 


NO. 495.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 114 F.2D
150, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A RESPONDENT IN CERTIORARI IS ENTITLED TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT
UPON A GROUND OTHER THAN THAT ADOPTED BY THE COURT BELOW.  P. 408. 

2.  IN COMPUTING GIFT TAXES UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, GIFTS IN
ONE TRUST FOR SEVERAL BENEFICIARIES ARE EACH ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UP
TO $5,000, IF THEY ARE NOT GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS."  HELVERING V.
HUTCHINGS, ANTE, P. 393.  P. 408. 

3.  GIFTS OF SEPARATE EQUAL SHARES OF THE CORPUS OF A TRUST TO EACH
OF THE TWO TRUSTEES IN THE EVENT OF THEIR JOINT REQUEST THAT THE TRUST
BE TERMINATED ARE GIFTS UPON A CONTINGENCY WHICH MAY NEVER HAPPEN AND
ARE THEREFORE GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
504(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  UNITED STATES V. PELZER, ANTE, P.
399.  P. 408. 

4. A JOINT POWER TO TWO BENEFICIARIES TO TERMINATE A TRUST AND
THEREBY ACQUIRE THE CORPUS IN EQUAL SHARES IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF
OWNERSHIP SINCE THE JOINT POWER IS NOT FOR THE JOINT BENEFIT OF THE
DONEES AND ITS EXERCISE COULD ONLY OPERATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF EACH TO
THE EXTENT OF ONE-HALF OF THE TRUST PROPERTY AND THEN ONLY IN THE EVENT
THAT BOTH AGREED TO UNITE IN ITS EXERCISE, AND THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF
ANY PART OF THE TRUST FUND BY EITHER WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL BOTH JOIN
IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER.  P. 408. 

5.  GIFTS IN TRUST DEPENDENT UPON SURVIVORSHIP OF ONE OR MORE PERSONS
AT THE DEATH OF THE DONOR, ARE GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 504(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  UNITED STATES V.
PELZER, ANTE, P. 399.  P. 409. 

RYERSON ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 640, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A RECOVERY
IN THE DISTRICT COURT, 28 F.SUPP.  265, FOR ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF GIFT
TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO HELVERING V. HUTCHINGS, ANTE, P. 393, AND
UNITED STATES V. PELZER, ANTE, P. 399, AND IT PRESENTS THE QUESTIONS
DECIDED IN THOSE CASES. 

THE SOLE QUESTION RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS WHETHER,
UNDER SEC. 504(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 247, THE
DONOR OF PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR NUMEROUS BENEFICIARIES IS ENTITLED TO A
SINGLE GIFT TAX EXEMPTION OR EXCLUSION TO THE EXTENT OF THE FIRST
$5,000 OF THE GIFT, OR TO SEPARATE EXEMPTIONS OF $5,000 FOR EACH
BENEFICIARY.  THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT IF THAT QUESTION BE DECIDED
AGAINST IT, IT IS NEVERTHELESS ENTITLED TO RETAIN THE JUDGMENT BELOW IN
ITS FAVOR BECAUSE THE GIFTS TO THE BENEFICIARIES WERE OF FUTURE
INTERESTS WHICH, BY SEC. 504(B), ARE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF THE
EXCLUSION OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THE SECTION. 

IN 1934 PETITIONERS' TESTATRIX TRANSFERRED TWO SINGLE PREMIUM
INSURANCE POLICIES ON HER OWN LIFE MATURING AT A FUTURE DATE, AS
ADDITIONS TO TWO SEPARATE TRUSTS, ONE CREATED IN 1933, THE OTHER
ESTABLISHED IN 1934 BUT BEFORE THE TRANSFER.  THE INSTRUMENT CREATING
THE FIRST TRUST PROVIDED THAT THE TRUSTEES SHOULD PAY OVER ONE-FOURTH
OF THE NET INCOME TO MARY RYERSON FROST, ONE OF THE TRUSTEES, FOR LIFE,
WITH REMAINDER OVER FOR LIFE TO HER TWO DAUGHTERS IF SURVIVING AT HER
DEATH, WITH FURTHER REMAINDERS OVER TO THEIR ISSUE PER STIRPES.  THE
TRUST INSTRUMENT DIRECTED THAT THE REMAINING THREE-FOURTHS OF THE
INCOME SHOULD BE ACCUMULATED AND ADDED TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST. 
IT PROVIDED THAT THE TRUST WAS TO TERMINATE UPON THE DEATH OF THE LAST
SURVIVOR OF THREE PERSONS, THE FIRST LIFE TENANT AND HER TWO DAUGHTERS,
AND WAS THEN TO BE DISTRIBUTED, THE PARTICULAR DISTRIBUTION BEING
DEPENDENT UPON CONTINGENCIES WHICH ARE NOT NOW MATERIAL.  THE TRUST
INSTRUMENT ALSO CONTAINED NUMEROUS PROVISIONS FOR THE TERMINATION OF
THE TRUST BY JOINT ACTION OF THE TRUSTEES, DONALD MCKAY FROST AND MARY
RYERSON FROST, WHO WAS ALSO LIFE TENANT, OR BY THE SURVIVOR OR OTHER OF
THEM IN THE CASE OF THE DEATH OR MENTAL INCAPACITY OF EITHER.  OTHER
PROVISIONS WERE MADE FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE TRUST AND DISTRIBUTION
OF THE TRUST PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OR MENTAL INCAPACITY OF
BOTH, WITHOUT HAVING EXERCISED THEIR POWER OF TERMINATION. 

THE INSTRUMENT CREATING THE 1934 TRUST PROVIDED THAT UPON THE DEATH
OF THE GRANTOR, WHO WAS THE INSURED, WHO WAS LIVING AT THE TIME OF THE
TRANSFER, THE TRUSTEES SHOULD DISTRIBUTE THE PROCEEDS OF THE INSURANCE
AS FOLLOWS:  IF THE WIDOW OF THE GRANTOR'S SON SURVIVED THE GRANTOR THE
INCOME OF ONE-THIRD OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS TO BE
PAID TO THE SON'S WIDOW FOR LIFE WITH REMAINDERS OVER TO THOSE PERSONS
WHO WOULD BE HEIRS AT LAW OF THE SON HAD HE DIED AT THE SAME TIME AS
THE LIFE TENANT.  THE REMAINING TWO-THIRDS OF THE PROCEEDS, OR ALL IF
THE SON'S WIDOW DID NOT SURVIVE THE GRANTOR, WERE TO GO TO THE
DESCENDANTS OF THE GRANTOR'S SON THEN SURVIVING, WITH GIFTS OVER IN
DEFAULT OF SUCH DESCENDANTS. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY PETITIONER TO RECOVER OVERPAID GIFT TAXES FOR
THE YEAR 1934 THE DISTRICT COURT RULED THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE
TAX THE TAXPAYER WAS ENTITLED TO TWO EXCLUSIONS TO THE EXTENT OF $5,000
EACH FOR THE GIFTS MADE TO MARY RYERSON FROST AND DONALD MCKAY FROST
UNDER THE 1933 TRUST AND TO THREE EXCLUSIONS UNDER THE 1934 TRUST, ONE
FOR THE SON'S WIDOW AND TWO FOR HIS TWO LIVING DESCENDANTS.  THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, 114 F.2D 150, HOLDING THAT
THE TWO TRUSTS WERE THE DONEES AND THAT A SINGLE EXCLUSION WAS
ALLOWABLE FOR EACH TRUST.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 640, TO
RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND THAT OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS IN THE PELZER CASE AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT IN THE HUTCHINGS CASE. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINION IN THE HUTCHINGS CASE WE HOLD
THAT THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE TWO TRUSTS WERE THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE
GIFTS WERE MADE AND THAT THE GIFTS TO THEM AND NOT TO THE TRUSTS, AS
THE COURTS BELOW HELD, WERE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE EXCLUSION
ALLOWED BY SEC. 504(B) PROVIDED THE GIFTS WERE NOT OF "FUTURE
INTERESTS" TO WHICH THE SECTION DENIES THE BENEFIT OF THE EXCLUSION. 

AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SOUGHT CERTIORARI IT CANNOT ATTACK THE
JUDGMENT BELOW, BUT IT IS FREE TO SUSTAIN IT UPON ANY LEGAL GROUND
WHICH WILL SUPPORT IT.  LETULLE V. SCOFIELD, 308 U.S. 415, 421, 422. 
EVEN THOUGH THE JUDGMENT BELOW WAS RESTED UPON THE ERRONEOUS GROUND
THAT THE TRUSTS WERE "PERSONS" TO WHOM THE GIFTS WERE MADE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 504(B), THE GOVERNMENT MAY JUSTIFY THE JUDGMENT HERE ON
THE GROUND THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE EXCLUSIONS CLAIMED
SO FAR AS THE GIFTS WERE OF FUTURE INTERESTS. 

THE GIFTS OF A SEPARATE EQUAL SHARE OF THE CORPUS OF THE 1933 TRUST
TO EACH OF THE TWO TRUSTEES IN THE EVENT OF THEIR JOINT REQUEST THAT
THE TRUST BE TERMINATED WAS A GIFT UPON A CONTINGENCY WHICH MIGHT NEVER
HAPPEN.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINION IN THE PELZER CASE THOSE
GIFTS WERE OF FUTURE INTERESTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 504(B) AND
CONSEQUENTLY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE EXCLUSION.  WHILE
A PRESENT POWER OF DISPOSITION FOR ONE'S OWN BENEFIT IS THE EQUIVALENT
OF OWNERSHIP, SEE CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, 370, ET SEQ., AND
CASES CITED, HERE THE JOINT POWER WAS NOT FOR THE JOINT BENEFIT OF THE
DONEES OF THE POWER.  ITS EXERCISE COULD ONLY OPERATE FOR THE BENEFIT
OF EACH TO THE EXTENT OF ONEHALF OF THE TRUST PROPERTY AND THEN ONLY IN
THE EVENT THAT BOTH AGREED TO UNITE IN ITS EXERCISE.  IN ANY CASE USE
AND ENJOYMENT OF ANY PART OF THE TRUST FUND BY EITHER WAS POSTPONED
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS BOTH JOINED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER.  THE
INTERESTS GRANTED TO THE TRUSTEES UPON THEIR TERMINATION OF THE TRUST
SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE BEEN INCLUDED TO THEIR FULL EXTENT IN THE
COMPUTATION OF THE GIFT TAX BECAUSE THEY WERE "FUTURE INTERESTS" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 504(B) AND ART. XI, TREASURY REGULATIONS 79.  AS
THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ONE EXCLUSION BY THE JUDGMENT BELOW
WHICH IS NOT ATTACKED HERE IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE
LIFE INTEREST IN THE INCOME GIVEN TO MARY RYERSON FROST IS A PRESENT OR
FUTURE INTEREST WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 504(B). 

FOR LIKE REASONS WE CONCLUDE THAT THE GIFTS TO THE BENEFICIARIES OF
THE 1934 TRUST WERE OF FUTURE INTERESTS AND THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE
ENTITLED TO NO EXCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  THE GIFT OF INCOME TO
THE LIFE TENANT WAS CONTINGENT UPON HER SURVIVORSHIP OF THE GRANTOR AT
A FUTURE DATE.  THE GIFTS OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE PROCEEDS OF
THE POLICY TO DESCENDANTS OF THE DECEASED SON OF THE GRANTOR WERE IN
PART CONTINGENT UPON THEIR SURVIVORSHIP OF THE SON'S WIDOW AND HER
SURVIVORSHIP OF THE GRANTOR OR, IF SHE DID NOT SURVIVE HIM, THEN THE
GIFTS OF THE ENTIRE PRINCIPAL WERE CONTINGENT UPON SURVIVORSHIP OF THE
DESCENDANTS AT THE GRANTOR'S DEATH.  THUS ALL THOSE WHO MIGHT BECOME
ENTITLED TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE TRUST, PRINCIPAL AND INCOME,
WERE ASCERTAINABLE ONLY UPON THE HAPPENING OF ONE OR MORE UNCERTAIN
FUTURE EVENTS, SURVIVORSHIP OF ONE OR MORE PERSONS AT THE DEATH OF THE
DONOR, AND SO THEY WERE DONEES OF GIFTS OF "FUTURE INTERESTS" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 504(B) AND THE TREASURY REGULATIONS.  CONSEQUENTLY
PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE SINGLE EXCLUSION WHICH THE COURT
BELOW ALLOWED.  BUT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS SOUGHT NO CROSS-PETITION
ATTACKING THE JUDGMENT BELOW, IT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :




















EQUITABLE CO. V. HALSEY, STUART & CO., 312 U.S. 410 


NO. 291.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 16, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 112
F.2D 302, REVERSED. 


1.  IN AN ACTION IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM SALES
OF SECURITIES ON REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT AFFECTING THEIR VALUE ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN FALSE AND FRAUDULENT, THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY IS GOVERNED BY
THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE REPRESENTATIONS AND SALES WERE MADE. 
P. 420. 

2.  STIPULATIONS BY WHICH ONE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF
FALSE STATEMENTS FRAUDULENTLY OR RECKLESSLY MADE ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED
IN THE COURTS OF IOWA.  P. 419. 

3.  ASSUMING THAT A DEALER IN SECURITIES WHO OFFERS BONDS BY A
PRINTED CIRCULAR CONTAINING FALSE REPRESENTATIONS IS PROTECTED FROM
LIABILITY FOR THEM, AND FOR LIKE STATEMENTS MADE LATER, BY A "HEDGE
CLAUSE" IN A CIRCULAR READING:  "ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE OFFICIAL, OR
ARE BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WE REGARD AS RELIABLE, AND WHILE WE DO
NOT GUARANTEE THEM, WE OURSELVES HAVE RELIED UPON THEM IN THE PURCHASE
OF THIS SECURITY," THE PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO MISREPRESENTATIONS
OF OTHER AND DIFFERENT FACTS MADE AFTER SUBMISSION OF THE CIRCULAR TO
THE PURCHASER.  P. 419. 

4.  A BUYER OF BONDS WHO RELIES TO HIS INJURY UPON MATERIAL FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS BY THE SELLER OF CONDITIONS AFFECTING THEIR VALUE, IS
NOT UNDER IOWA LAW PRECLUDED FROM RECOVERING HIS DAMAGE BY HIS FAILURE
TO MAKE HIS OWN INVESTIGATION TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE REPRESENTATIONS
ARE TRUE.  P. 424. 

5.  THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY, IN CONFORMITY TO
IOWA LAW, THAT TO FIND A VERDICT FOR THE PURCHASER OF THE BONDS IT MUST
FIND THAT THE UNTRUE STATEMENTS WERE KNOWN BY THE SELLER TO BE UNTRUE
OR WERE MADE AS TRUE WITH NO REASONABLE GROUND FOR BELIEVING THEM TO BE
TRUE, AND IT CORRECTLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY THE QUESTION WHETHER SUCH
STATEMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE HEDGE CLAUSE ITSELF, WERE RECKLESSLY
MADE WITHOUT REASONABLE GROUND FOR BELIEVING THEM TO BE TRUE.  P. 420. 

6.  UPON EVIDENCE THAT THE SELLER OF BONDS HAD INDUCED THEIR PURCHASE
BY EXHIBITING TO THE BUYER THE BALANCE SHEET OF A CORPORATION, WHICH
HAD GUARANTEED THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS, WITHOUT DISCLOSING
CIRCUMSTANCES KNOWN TO THE SELLER INDICATING THAT SINCE THE DATE OF THE
BALANCE SHEET THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE CORPORATION HAD BEEN
SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED, HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT, IN CONFORMITY TO IOWA
LAW, CORRECTLY SUBMITTED THE EVIDENCE TO THE JURY WITH THE INSTRUCTION
THAT IT COULD FIND THE SELLER LIABLE FOR FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION
FROM SUCH PARTIAL DISCLOSURE ACCOMPANIED BY WILFUL CONCEALMENT OF
MATERIAL FACTS INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE STATED IN THE BALANCE SHEET.  P.
425. 

EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF IOWA V. HALSEY, STUART & CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 626, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A RECOVERY
OF DAMAGES IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE ACTION WAS BASED ON FRAUD
PRACTICED IN SALES OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN
ILLINOIS TO RECOVER DAMAGES SUFFERED BY REASON OF ALLEGED FRAUDULENT
STATEMENTS MADE BY RESPONDENT'S AGENTS WHICH INDUCED PETITIONER TO
PURCHASE OF RESPONDENT A LARGE NUMBER OF LONGVIEW (WASHINGTON) LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT BONDS.  THE TRIAL TO A JURY RESULTED IN A VERDICT AND
JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER IN THE SUM OF $66,150.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT SOME OF THE UNTRUE
STATEMENTS, ON THE FAITH OF WHICH PETITIONER HAD PURCHASED THE BONDS,
WERE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE "HEDGE CLAUSE" WHICH APPEARED IN A
CIRCULAR BY WHICH RESPONDENT HAD OFFERED THE BONDS FOR SALE TO
PETITIONER.  THE CLAUSE READ: 

"ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN ARE OFFICIAL, OR ARE BASED ON INFORMATION
WHICH WE REGARD AS RELIABLE, AND WHILE WE DO NOT GUARANTEE THEM, WE
OURSELVES HAVE RELIED UPON THEM IN THE PURCHASE OF THIS SECURITY."  THE
COURT FOUND THAT ANOTHER UNTRUE STATEMENT CONTAINED IN A LETTER WRITTEN
BY RESPONDENT'S AGENT TO PETITIONER WAS "CARELESSLY MADE," BUT, TAKEN
ALONE, WAS TOO TRIVIAL IN ITS EFFECT IN INDUCING PETITIONER TO PURCHASE
THE BONDS, TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT.  IT ALSO HELD THAT THERE WAS NO
BREACH OF LEGAL DUTY ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT OR ITS OFFICERS IN THEIR
FAILURE TO REVEAL TO PETITIONER FACTS KNOWN TO RESPONDENT INDICATING
THAT A FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF A GUARANTOR OF THE BONDS, SUBMITTED TO
PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT'S AGENT, ON THE FAITH OF WHICH PETITIONER HAD
BOUGHT THE BONDS, DID NOT TRULY REPRESENT THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF
THE GUARANTOR.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 626, UPON A PETITION
WHICH ASSERTED THE FAILURE OF THE COURT BELOW TO FOLLOW STATE LAW IN
ITS RULINGS, THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE BECAUSE
THEY INVOLVE THE RELATION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO THE STATES. 

WE SUMMARIZE BRIEFLY THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY WHICH BEARS
ON THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE US.  RESPONDENT IS A LARGE DEALER IN
BONDS AND SECURITIES, WITH AN OFFICE IN CHICAGO.  PETITIONER IS AN IOWA
CORPORATION HAVING ITS OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN IOWA
WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS RESULTING IN THE SALE OF THE BONDS IN QUESTION
TOOK PLACE.  IN MAY, 1930, RESPONDENT THROUGH AN AGENT OFFERED TO SELL
PETITIONER A QUANTITY OF THE BONDS OF THE LONGVIEW LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICTS.  THE OFFERING WAS BY PRINTED CIRCULAR ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
ON APRIL 7, 1927, WHICH DESCRIBED THE BONDS AS PAYABLE FROM PROCEEDS OF
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED UPON THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES AND
STATED THAT THEIR PAYMENT WAS GUARANTEED PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST BY LONG
BELL LUMBER COMPANY, WHOSE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER
31, 1926, WAS PRINTED IN THE CIRCULAR.  THE CIRCULAR STATED - 

"LONGVIEW IS SITUATED ABOUT 133 MILES SOUTH OF SEATTLE AT THE
CONFLUENCE OF THE COLUMBIA AND COWLITZ RIVERS.  IT HAS A FRONTAGE OF 7
1/4 MILES ON THE FORMER, AND IS A PORT OF CALL FOR OCEAN-GOING VESSELS
MIDWAY BETWEEN PORTLAND AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN.  ...  BECAUSE OF ITS
NATURAL ADVANTAGES AND PROXIMITY TO THE TIMBER STANDS OF THE LONG-BELL
AND WEYERHAEUSER INTERESTS, LONGVIEW WAS SELECTED AS THE SITE FOR THE
VAST LUMBER MANUFACTURING PLANTS OF THESE COMPANIES.  THE PRESENT
OUTPUT OF THE LONG-BELL PLANTS IS 1,800,000 BOARD FEET PER DAY.  THE
WEYERHAEUSER PLANTS ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.  MANUFACTURING PLANTS HAVE
ALSO BEEN ERECTED BY OTHER CONCERNS, INCLUDING THE LONGVIEW CONCRETE
PIPE COMPANY, THE PACIFIC STRAW PAPER & BOARD COMPANY, THE MAGOR CAR
CORPORATION, THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY, LONGVIEW PAINT & VARNISH
COMPANY, AND THE CENTRAL MILL WORKS.  THE FIRST UNIT OF THE PLANTS OF
THE LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPANY, TO COST 2 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS, IS NOW WELL
UNDER WAY."  THE CIRCULAR CONTAINED THE "HEDGE CLAUSE" WHICH HAS
ALREADY BEEN QUOTED. 

IN MAKING THE OFFERING, RESPONDENT'S AGENT ALSO INFORMED A VICE
PRESIDENT OF PETITIONER THAT THE BONDS WERE SECURED BY ASSESSMENTS ON
PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF LONGVIEW AND AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY CARRIED
THE FULL AND COMPLETE GUARANTEE OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY WHICH
WAS A VERY LARGE, LONG ESTABLISHED COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN THE SOUTH
AND WEST; AND THAT LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 11 AND 19, AGAINST
WHICH MOST OF THE BONDS WERE ISSUED, WERE PRACTICALLY CO-EXTENSIVE WITH
THE LIMITS OF THE CITY. 

AFTER READING THE CIRCULAR PETITIONER'S VICE PRESIDENT REQUESTED OF
RESPONDENT'S AGENT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT LONGVIEW AND THE
PROPERTY THERE AND ABOUT THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY, WHICH HE
SUPPLIED IN A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS.  ONE WAS A BOOKLET ISSUED BY THE
LONGVIEW COMPANY, A SUBSIDIARY OF LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY, ENGAGED IN
SELLING LONGVIEW REAL ESTATE.  THE BOOKLET SHOWED A MAP ON WHICH THE
MILLS OF LONGVIEW LUMBER COMPANY, THE PROPERTY OF THE WEYERHAEUSER
TIMBER COMPANY AND THE CITY OF LONGVIEW APPEARED TO EXTEND TO AND ALONG
THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER.  THE MAP BORE A LEGEND
RECITING THAT IT "IS INTENDED TO SHOW IN A GENERAL WAY THE RELATION OF
THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CITY SITE TO EACH OTHER, AND LOCATION OF THE
CITY IN RELATION TO WATER, RAILROAD AND HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES."  ANOTHER DOCUMENT WAS ADVANCE PROOF OF AN ADVERTISEMENT OF
THE LONGVIEW COMPANY, PUBLISHED IN THE SATURDAY EVENING POST.  IT
CONTAINED AN ILLUSTRATION OF EXTENSIVE MANUFACTURING PLANTS, BENEATH
WHICH IT WAS STATED "THE THOROUGHLY MODERN ELECTRICALLY OPERATED
MANUFACTURING PLANTS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE SKETCH ARE IN LONGVIEW, WN.
THEY PRODUCE 1,800,000 FEET OF DOUGLAS FIR LUMBER A DAY.  THE BUILDINGS
COVER 72 ACRES.  SIX OCEAN-GOING FREIGHTERS CAN LOAD AT ONE TIME AT THE
LONG-BELL DOCKS."  ANOTHER DOCUMENT WAS A BOOKLET ISSUED BY THE
LONGVIEW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONTAINING STATEMENTS FROM WHICH IT COULD
REASONABLY BE INFERRED THAT THE MANUFACTURING PLANTS OF THE LONG-BELL
LUMBER COMPANY AND THE WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY WERE WITHIN THE CITY
OF LONGVIEW AND THAT THE LATTER WAS ON THE LONGVIEW WATERFRONT ALONG
THE COLUMBIA RIVER. 

STILL ANOTHER DOCUMENT, WHICH WILL PRESENTLY BE DISCUSSED, WAS THE
PUBLISHED BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1929, OF THE
LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY.  RESPONDENT'S SALES MANAGER, ON MAY 15, 1930,
ALSO WROTE TO PETITIONER'S VICE PRESIDENT A LETTER OFFERING THE FIRST
$100,000 OF BONDS PURCHASED BY PETITIONER, SAYING, "WE BELIEVE YOU HAVE
BEFORE YOU PRACTICALLY ALL THE DATA COVERING THIS ISSUE OF BONDS," AND
"YOU OBSERVE, OF COURSE, THAT THIS CITY HAS NO FUNDED DEBT OTHER THAN
THESE IMPROVEMENT BONDS AND THAT THE ORIGINAL DEBT HAS BEEN MATERIALLY
REDUCED THROUGH RETIREMENT AND MATURITY." 

IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY CONTENDED HERE THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PURCHASE
THE BONDS ON THE FAITH OF THE STATEMENTS WHICH WE HAVE DETAILED AND
OTHERS OF SIMILAR CHARACTER, NOR IS IT DENIED THAT THE LONG-BELL,
WEYERHAEUSER, LONGVIEW FIBRE AND STANDARD OIL COMPANY PLANTS WERE ALL
OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF LONGVIEW AND THAT NONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES
WERE SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENTS IN ANY OF THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.  THE
MILL PROPERTIES WERE LOCATED BETWEEN THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND THE LIMITS
OF THE CITY OF LONGVIEW.  THE CITY NEVER HAD A FRONTAGE OF 7 1/4 MILES
UPON THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND NO SUCH FRONTAGE AT ALL EXCEPT FOR A
DISTANCE OF ABOUT 200 YARDS ADJACENT TO THE LONGVIEW DOCK AND NOT
WITHIN THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.  SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE LAND
INCLUDED WITHIN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS OF LONGVIEW WAS ALSO
INCLUDED WITHIN A DIKING DISTRICT KNOWN AS COWLITZ COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
DIKING DISTRICT NO. 1, WHICH IN MAY, 1930, WHEN THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR
THE SALE OF THE BONDS TO PETITIONER TOOK PLACE, HAD OUTSTANDING BONDS
IN THE SUM OF $2,554,000 PAYABLE FROM THE PROCEEDS OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED UPON SUBSTANTIALLY ALL LANDS WITHIN THE
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.  RESPONDENT HAD PURCHASED THE ENTIRE ISSUE OF
DIKING BONDS FROM THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY IN 1925 AND LATER RESOLD
THEM TO THE PUBLIC. 

AT THE TRIAL A VICE PRESIDENT OF RESPONDENT, CALLED BY PETITIONER AS
AN ADVERSE WITNESS, TESTIFIED THAT IN PURCHASING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT BONDS RESPONDENT GAVE NO CONSIDERATION TO THE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST LONGVIEW REAL ESTATE; THAT RESPONDENT REGARDED LONG
BELL LUMBER COMPANY'S GUARANTEE AS THE SOLE JUSTIFICATION FOR HANDLING
THE BONDS AND WOULD NOT HAVE HANDLED THEM WITHOUT THE GUARANTEE.  NONE
OF THESE FACTS DETAILED BY THE WITNESS WERE COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER
IN ADVANCE OF THE SALE OF THE BONDS. 

A CLOSE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP HAD EXISTED BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND LONG
BELL LUMBER COMPANY FOR SOME YEARS BEFORE 1930.  IT HAD PURCHASED FROM
THE LUMBER COMPANY AND SOLD TO CUSTOMERS $25,000,000 OF ITS FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS BETWEEN 1922 AND 1926, AND IN SOME OF ITS OFFERINGS IT
HAD BEEN REFERRED TO AS THE "FISCAL AGENT" OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER
COMPANY.  IN 1926 IT HAD PURCHASED FROM THE LUMBER COMPANY AND RESOLD
$3,250,000 OF ITS BONDS.  IN THE YEARS 1925, 1926 AND 1927 IT PURCHASED
FROM THE LUMBER COMPANY AND LATER RESOLD MORE THAN $3,000,000 OF THE
LONGVIEW LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BONDS. 

THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY BALANCE-SHEET FOR 1929, TO WHICH WE HAVE
REFERRED, DISCLOSED TOTAL ASSETS OF MORE THAN $116,000,000 WITH CURRENT
ASSETS OF CASH AND INVENTORIES AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN $15,000,000. 
CURRENT LIABILITIES WERE LESS THAN $8,000,000 INCLUDING BANK LOANS OF
$4,000,000.  THE FUNDED DEBT OF LONG-BELL AND ALL SUBSIDIARIES WAS LESS
THAN $42,000,000, AND CAPITAL AND SURPLUS WERE SHOWN IN EXCESS OF
$59,000,000. 

THERE WAS MUCH EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE
LUMBER COMPANY, PRIOR TO THE FIRST SALE OF THE BONDS TO PETITIONER IN
MAY, 1930, HAD, BY MORE OR LESS REGULAR REPORTS, KEPT RESPONDENT
CLOSELY ADVISED OF DEVELOPMENTS AT LONGVIEW AND GENERALLY OF ITS
FINANCIAL CONDITION.  AMONG THE DATA TRANSMITTED WERE DOCUMENTS
PRODUCED FROM RESPONDENT'S FILES SHOWING THAT IN 1927 SALES OF LONGVIEW
REAL ESTATE BY THE LUMBER COMPANY'S REAL ESTATE SUBSIDIARY HAD
PRACTICALLY CEASED; THAT DURING 1928 PROPERTIES ALREADY SOLD WERE BEING
TAKEN BACK ON THE FORFEITURE OF INSTALLMENT SALES CONTRACTS, AND THAT
IN APRIL AND MAY OF THAT YEAR FORFEITURES AND REPURCHASES IN NUMBER AND
VALUATION OF PROPERTIES EQUALLED NEW SALES; THAT IN 1928 RESPONDENT
CONDUCTED MARKET OPERATIONS IN THE SECURITIES OF THE LUMBER COMPANY AND
ASKED $75,000 AS COMPENSATION FOR BRINGING ABOUT AN IMPROVEMENT IN
THEIR MARKET QUOTATIONS. 

DURING THE EARLY MONTHS OF 1930 AND BEFORE THE FIRST SALE OF BONDS TO
PETITIONER, WHICH OCCURRED ON MAY 17TH, THERE WERE FREQUENT
COMMUNICATIONS OF INFORMATION FROM THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY TO
RESPONDENT FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT WAS
ADVISED OF THE PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL DETERIORATION AND LOSS OF CREDIT
OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY.  THESE INCLUDED DISCUSSION OF AN
ATTEMPT TO CONSOLIDATE THE LONG-BELL COMPANY WITH OTHER LUMBER
PRODUCERS IN THE EFFORT, AS STATED BY LONG-BELL'S OFFICERS TO
RESPONDENT, "TO MEET QUICKLY AN ACUTE AND DISTRESSING SITUATION";
EFFORTS TO PROCURE LOANS AND TO CONVERT LONG-BELL PROPERTY INTO CASH;
"TO STRENGTHEN THE LUMBER COMPANY'S CURRENT FINANCIAL CONDITION BY
CONVERTING PHYSICAL ASSETS INTO WORKING CAPITAL TO MEET CURRENT
REQUIREMENTS"; UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS IN MARCH AND APRIL TO MARKET
SECURED BONDS AND NOTE ISSUES OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY,
UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS BY RESPONDENT IN MAY TO SECURE FINANCING FOR LONG
BELL BY NEW YORK BANKING HOUSES.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE
JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD BEEN ADVISED BY THE LONG-BELL
COMPANY, THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE CHASE NATIONAL BANK OF NEW YORK AND A
LARGE ST. LOUIS BANK HAD WITHDRAWN AND REFUSED TO RENEW THE LONG-BELL
COMPANY'S LINE OF BANK CREDIT AND THAT THE CHASE BANK HAD ADVISED
STRENGTHENING OF THE LUMBER COMPANY'S CURRENT FINANCIAL POSITION, AND
HAD SUGGESTED THE FORMATION FOR CREDIT PURPOSES OF A SUBSIDIARY
CORPORATION TO WHICH THE LONG-BELL COULD TRANSFER ITS LIQUID ASSETS FOR
PURPOSES OF BORROWING OPERATIONS.  THIS ADVICE WAS CARRIED INTO EFFECT
IN OCTOBER, 1930.  NONE OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWING THE CHANGED
FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY AFTER ITS DECEMBER
31, 1929 STATEMENT OR ANY OF THE INFORMATION OF RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT
TO THEM WERE REVEALED BY RESPONDENT OR KNOWN TO PETITIONER BEFORE
PURCHASING THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS. 

PETITIONER PURCHASED FROM RESPONDENT $353,000 OF THE BONDS, $100,000
ON MAY 17, 1930, $26,000 IN SEPTEMBER, $211,000 IN OCTOBER, $13,000 IN
JANUARY, 1931 AND $3,000 IN FEBRUARY.  OF THESE, $279,000 WERE BONDS OF
DISTRICTS 11 AND 19, WHICH WERE THE TWO DISTRICTS WHICH EMBRACED
SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE CITY OF LONGVIEW.  IN 1934 THE LONG-BELL LUMBER
COMPANY FILED A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  BY THE DECREE IN THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING THE
LUMBER COMPANY WAS RELIEVED OF ITS GUARANTEE OF THE IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT BONDS, THE PETITIONER RECEIVING 8 AND 4/10THS SHARES OF COMMON
STOCK IN THE REORGANIZED CORPORATION IN LIEU OF THE GUARANTEE ON EACH
$1,000 BOND.    PETITIONER'S CASE AS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY WAS IN
SUBSTANCE THAT IT HAD BEEN INDUCED TO PURCHASE THE BONDS BY UNTRUE
STATEMENTS KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY MADE BY RESPONDENT'S OFFICERS AND
AGENTS AS FOLLOWS:  (1) THAT THE EXTENSIVE MILL PROPERTIES OF THE LONG
BELL LUMBER COMPANY, THE WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY, THE LONGVIEW
FIBRE COMPANY AND OTHERS WERE LOCATED IN LONGVIEW AND SUBJECT TO
ASSESSMENT IN LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS NOS. 11 OR 19, THE LIMITS OF
WHICH WERE SUBSTANTIALLY CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE LIMITS OF THE CITY; (2)
THAT LONGVIEW HAD A FRONTAGE OF 7 1/4 MILES UPON THE COLUMBIA RIVER
WHICH, IF TRUE, WOULD LOCATE THE MILL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CORPORATE
LIMITS; (3) THAT THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS WERE THE ONLY BONDS CONSTITUTING
A CHARGE OR LIEN UPON THE LANDS IN THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS OF THE
CITY; AND, FINALLY, (4) THAT RESPONDENT'S OFFICERS AND AGENTS HAD IN
MAY, 1930, MADE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE STRONG FINANCIAL POSITION SHOWN
IN THE 1929 BALANCE SHEET OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY WHICH HAD
GUARANTEED THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS, WITHOUT DISCLOSING TO PETITIONER THE
KNOWLEDGE WHICH IT THEN HAD OR LATER ACQUIRED BEFORE THE SALE OF THE
BONDS, THAT THE LONG-BELL COMPANY WAS IN FACT IN A DECLINING AND
PRECARIOUS FINANCIAL CONDITION. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE VARIOUS STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION
GIVEN BY RESPONDENT'S OFFICERS AND AGENTS, AFTER RESPONDENT'S OFFERING
CIRCULAR HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO PETITIONER, WERE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
AS THOSE MADE IN THE CIRCULAR ITSELF AND THEREFORE WERE UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF THE HEDGE CLAUSE WHICH HAD BEEN PRINTED IN THE CIRCULAR. 
STIPULATIONS BY WHICH ONE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF FALSE
STATEMENTS FRAUDULENTLY OR RECKLESSLY MADE ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED IN
THE IOWA COURTS.  JORDAN V. NELSON, 178 N.W. 544.  WE ARE CITED TO NO
IOWA AUTHORITY TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH A CLAUSE APPLIES OR AFFORDS
PROTECTION TO ANY EXCEPT THE STATEMENTS TO WHICH IT REFERS.  BUT WE
ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, WITHOUT DECIDING, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS
HELD, THAT THE HEDGE CLAUSE EXTENDED ITS PROTECTION TO LATER STATEMENTS
MADE BY RESPONDENT LIKE THOSE CONTAINED IN THE CIRCULAR.  BUT IN
REACHING ITS CONCLUSION THE COURT OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE
DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS WHICH FOLLOWED THE SUBMISSION OF THE CIRCULAR
TO PETITIONER WERE IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST BY PETITIONER FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CONTAINED ITEMS OF INFORMATION NOT FOUND IN
THE CIRCULAR. 

AMONG THEM WAS THE DECEMBER 31, 1929, FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE LONG
BELL LUMBER COMPANY, THE ADVERTISING MAP BEARING A LEGEND INDICATING
THE CITY'S FRONTAGE ON THE RIVER AND THE LOCATION OF THE TAXING
DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, OTHER ADVERTISING MATERIAL CONTAINING
PICTURES INDICATING THE LOCATION OF THE LONG-BELL AND OTHER PLANTS
WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, AND THE STATEMENT MADE TO PETITIONER BY
RESPONDENT'S SALES MANAGER THAT THE CITY, WHICH WAS CO-EXTENSIVE WITH
THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, HAD NO FUNDED DEBT.  THE COURT ALSO FAILED TO
CONSIDER THE QUESTION WHETHER, UNDER IOWA LAW, THE HEDGE CLAUSE
AFFORDED TO RESPONDENT PROTECTION FROM UNTRUE STATEMENTS RECKLESSLY
MADE, WHETHER THE STATEMENTS IN THE CIRCULAR AND OTHERS LATER SUBMITTED
TO PETITIONER WERE RECKLESSLY MADE, AND WHETHER THE HEDGE CLAUSE ITSELF
CONTAINED STATEMENTS KNOWN TO RESPONDENT TO BE UNTRUE AND HAD A
MATERIAL INFLUENCE IN INDUCING PETITIONER'S PURCHASE OF THE BONDS. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT STATEMENTS HAVING
PERSUASIVE INFLUENCE IN PROMOTING THE SALE OF THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS TO
THE PETITIONER WERE:  THE STATEMENT AS TO THE LOCATION ALONG THAT
WATERFRONT AND WITHIN THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OF EXTENSIVE
MANUFACTURING PLANTS WHICH WOULD THUS BE SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT FOR
PAYMENT OF THE BONDS, THE STATEMENT THAT THE CITY HAD NO FUNDED
INDEBTEDNESS OTHER THAN THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS, AND THE REPRESENTATIONS
AS TO THE STRONG FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY
WHICH WAS GUARANTOR OF PAYMENT OF THE BONDS.  IF, AS THE JURY FOUND,
PETITIONER RELIED ON THESE REPRESENTATIONS TO ITS INJURY, IT IS
IMMATERIAL, AS APPEARS TO BE CONCEDED, THAT PETITIONER DID NOT MAKE ITS
OWN INVESTIGATION TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THEY WERE TRUE.  GARDNER V.
TRENARY, 65 IOWA 646; 22 N.W. 912; CREAMER V. STEVENS, 192 IOWA 920;
185 N.W. 581; FORD V. OTT, 186 IOWA 820; 173 N.W. 121. 

THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY CHARGED THE JURY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
IOWA DECISIONS, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT AS A PREREQUISITE TO A VERDICT FOR
PETITIONER, IT MUST FIND THAT THE REPRESENTATIONS IN QUESTION WERE
KNOWN BY RESPONDENT TO BE FALSE OR WERE MADE AS TRUE WITH NO REASONABLE
GROUND FOR BELIEVING THEM TO BE TRUE, BUT THAT IF THEY WERE BELIEVED BY
RESPONDENT TO BE TRUE AND WERE MADE WITHOUT RECKLESS DISREGARD AS TO
THEIR TRUTH OR FALSITY, AND WITHOUT INTENTION TO DECEIVE PETITIONER,
PETITIONER COULD NOT RECOVER.  THE QUESTION OF RESPONDENT'S
RECKLESSNESS WAS THUS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AND WE THINK PROPERLY SO
UPON THE EVIDENCE.  HANSON V. KLINE, 136 IOWA 101; 113 N.W. 504; DAVIS
V. CENTRAL LAND CO., 162 IOWA 269; 143 N.W. 1073; HAIGH V. WHITE WAY
LAUNDRY CO., 164 IOWA 143; 145 N.W. 473. 

RESPONDENT'S WITNESS, A VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF ITS MUNICIPAL
BOND ISSUES, TESTIFIED THAT HE ASSEMBLED THE DATA APPEARING IN THE
CIRCULAR SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER WITHOUT HIS EVER HAVING
VISITED THE CITY OF LONGVIEW AND WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY OF THE CITY
OFFICIALS OR REPRESENTATIVES AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS STATED IN
THE CIRCULAR.  SO FAR AS APPEARS NO SUCH INQUIRY WAS MADE BY RESPONDENT
OR IN ITS BEHALF BEFORE THE SALE OF THE BONDS TO PETITIONER.  THE
WITNESS STATED THAT HE HAD OBTAINED THE INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICES OF
THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY AT KANSAS CITY AND LONGVIEW; THAT HE HAD
SUBMITTED THE CIRCULAR WHEN PREPARED TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE LONG
BELL LUMBER COMPANY AT KANSAS CITY, WHO HAD APPROVED IT.  WHETHER
COUNSEL HAD ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTERS STATED IN THE
CIRCULAR, OR WHAT HE STATED TO RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO IT, DOES NOT
APPEAR.  THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE 7 1/4 MILE FRONTAGE OF THE CITY ON
THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND THE LOCATION OF THE LONG-BELL, WEYERHAEUSER AND
OTHER PLANTS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS WAS
COMPILED BY THE WITNESS FROM ADVERTISING COPY SUGGESTED BY THE
ADVERTISING MANAGER OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY.  HIS RECOLLECTION
WAS THAT SOME OF THIS INFORMATION CAME FROM AN ADDRESS MADE "BY ONE OF
THE LONG-BELL LAND AGENTS AT LONGVIEW." 

NO TESTIMONY WAS FORTHCOMING TO SHOW THAT ANY EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY GAVE ASSURANCES OF THE TRUTH OR ACCURACY
OF THIS INFORMATION, OR THAT ANY OF THEM BELIEVED IT TO BE TRUE.  WHEN
THE WITNESS SOUGHT THIS INFORMATION IN OCTOBER, 1930, HE PROMPTLY
OBTAINED THE CORRECT INFORMATION FROM THE LONGVIEW TAX AUTHORITIES. 
THE EVIDENCE IS CONFLICTING WHETHER THIS INFORMATION EVER WAS
COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER, AND IF SO WHETHER BEFORE ITS OCTOBER
PURCHASE OF THE BONDS.  PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY WAS THAT IT FIRST
ACQUIRED THE INFORMATION IN JUNE, 1931.  TWO OF RESPONDENT'S VICE
PRESIDENTS HAD VISITED LONGVIEW TWO OR MORE TIMES IN 1922 AND 1924 IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE BY RESPONDENT OF LONG-BELL BOND ISSUES. 
BOTH TESTIFIED AS WITNESSES, BUT NEITHER OF THEM DENIED KNOWLEDGE OF
THE LOCATION OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LONGVIEW AND OF THE
MILL PROPERTIES.  ANOTHER VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF PURCHASES OF
MUNICIPAL ISSUES HAD MADE A TRIP TO LONGVIEW IN 1925 AND WHILE THERE
HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE LUMBER COMPANY FOR THE PURCHASE
FROM IT BY RESPONDENT OF THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS.  HE ALSO ARRANGED IN
THAT YEAR FOR THE PURCHASE FROM LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY BY RESPONDENT
OF THE DIKING DISTRICT BONDS, ALREADY REFERRED TO.  THIS VICE
PRESIDENT, HAVING DIED, DID NOT TESTIFY, BUT THERE WAS TESTIMONY BY HIS
ASSISTANT AND SUCCESSOR THAT THE LOCATION OF THE DIKING DISTRICT WAS
ASCERTAINED BY RESPONDENT AT THAT TIME. 

THE ONLY IDENTIFIED SOURCES OF RESPONDENT'S INFORMATION AS TO THE
LOCATION OF THE CITY ON THE RIVER AND THE LOCATION OF THE MANUFACTURING
PLANTS WITH RESPECT TO THE TAXING DISTRICTS, WERE AN ADVERTISING AGENT
OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY, A LAND AGENT ACTING EITHER FOR THE
LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY OR ITS SUBSIDIARY, AND A MAP WITH DESCRIPTIVE
MATERIAL PRINTED ON IT APPEARING AS A PART OF A PUBLISHED ADVERTISEMENT
OF THE LONGVIEW COMPANY, WHICH PROMOTED THE REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISE IN
LONGVIEW.  NONE OF THIS INFORMATION WAS VERIFIED BY ANY RESPONSIBLE
OFFICIAL OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY NOR BY ANY OFFICIAL OR
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF LONGVIEW, AND NO SUCH VERIFICATION
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN SOUGHT BY RESPONDENT.  WE THINK IT WAS FOR THE
JURY TO SAY WHETHER STATEMENTS RESTING UPON SUCH FLIMSY SUPPORT, MADE
AS THE BASIS FOR A PUBLIC OFFERING OF MUNICIPAL BONDS AGGREGATING MORE
THAN $3,000,000, WERE RECKLESSLY MADE, OR WERE WITHOUT REASONABLE BASIS
FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEIR TRUTH TO PROSPECTIVE INVESTORS. 

THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THE STATEMENT MADE BY RESPONDENT'S SALES
MANAGER, DESPITE THE OUTSTANDING DIKING DISTRICT BONDS, THAT THE CITY
WAS WITHOUT FUNDED DEBT OTHER THAN THE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BONDS, WAS
CARELESSLY MADE BUT TRIVIAL IN ITS EFFECT IN INDUCING THE PURCHASE OF
THE BONDS.  BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT
IT TO THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS STATEMENT WAS KNOWINGLY FALSE OR
RECKLESSLY MADE, OR WHETHER IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MATERIALLY
INFLUENCED PETITIONER'S PURCHASE OF THE BONDS.  MOREOVER, WE THINK THAT
IN ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE TRIAL COURT RIGHTLY LEFT IT TO
THE JURY TO SAY WHETHER IN FACT RESPONDENT IN THE COURSE OF ITS
INVESTIGATION, THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENTS OR OTHERS, OF ISSUES OF
BONDS TOTALLING MORE THAN $30,000,000, ISSUED EITHER BY THE CITY OF
LONGVIEW OR THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY OR BEARING ITS GUARANTEE,
BECAME AWARE OF THE ACTUAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION. 

PETITIONER ALSO INSISTS THAT THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE HEDGE
CLAUSE ITSELF WAS KNOWN BY RESPONDENT TO BE UNTRUE WHEN MADE.  THE
CLAUSE DECLARED THAT THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE CIRCULAR "ARE
BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WE REGARD AS RELIABLE AND  ...  WE OURSELVES
HAVE RELIED UPON THEM IN THE PURCHASE OF THIS SECURITY."  YET,
RESPONDENT'S VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF MUNICIPAL ISSUES, WHO HAD
PREPARED THE OFFERING CIRCULAR, TESTIFIED, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, "WE
BOUGHT AND SOLD THE BONDS SOLELY ON THE GUARANTEE OF THE LONG-BELL
LUMBER COMPANY PAYING NO ATTENTION WHATEVER TO THE VALUATION OF THE
LANDS UPON WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS WERE LAID."  UPON THIS STATE OF THE
RECORD THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE HEDGE CLAUSE ITSELF WAS
UNTRUE AND WOULD MISLEAD PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS TO THE ERRONEOUS BELIEF
THAT HALSEY, STUART & CO. REGARDED THE BONDS AS WORTHY INVESTMENTS ON
THEIR MERITS EITHER INDEPENDENTLY OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
GUARANTEE.  IT COULD HAVE FOUND ALSO THAT ITS MATERIALITY WAS OF ADDED
IMPORTANCE IN INFLUENCING THE SALE OF THE BONDS IN VIEW OF THE
KNOWLEDGE OF RESPONDENT, NOT DISCLOSED TO PETITIONER, THAT THE LONG
BELL LUMBER COMPANY WAS ALREADY IN FINANCIAL STRAITS. 

WHILE IT IS ARGUABLE, AS THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT, WHETHER IN VIEW OF
ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES PETITIONER PLACED MORE OR LESS RELIANCE UPON THE
OBLIGATIONS ATTACHING TO A MUNICIPAL SECURITY ON THE ONE HAND OR UPON
THE GUARANTEE OF THE LONG-BELL LUMBER COMPANY ON THE OTHER, OR WHETHER
IT WOULD HAVE SCRUTINIZED MORE SEARCHINGLY THE GUARANTEE HAD IT KNOWN
THAT RESPONDENT DEPENDED ON THAT ALONE, THESE ARE ARGUMENTS FOR THE
JURY AND NOT THE COURT. 

THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THE FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO REVEAL TO
PETITIONER ITS KNOWLEDGE OF THE DECLINING FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE LONG
BELL LUMBER COMPANY, WHICH RESPONDENT ACQUIRED IN THE EARLY MONTHS OF
1930, FELL SHORT OF ESTABLISHING FRAUD OR BREACH OF LEGAL DUTY ON ITS
PART.  THE COURT REACHED THIS CONCLUSION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE WAS
NO FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER; THAT THE
1929 BALANCE SHEET OF THE LUMBER COMPANY WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE AN
UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENT OF THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE COMPANY AT THAT
TIME; THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT SEEK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS TO THE
FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE COMPANY, AND IF IT HAD DONE SO COULD READILY
HAVE ASCERTAINED ITS CONDITION FROM OTHER SOURCES. 

BUT WE THINK THAT, UNDER IOWA LAW, THESE FACTORS DID NOT, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, RELIEVE RESPONDENT OF THE DUTY TO SPEAK. 
AS WE HAVE SAID, PETITIONER WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUTH OF RESPONDENT'S STATEMENTS IF, AS THE JURY
FOUND, IT RELIED ON THOSE STATEMENTS IN THE PURCHASE OF THE BONDS. 
RESPONDENT FURNISHED THE BALANCE SHEET IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE LUMBER COMPANY AFTER EMPHASIZING TO
PETITIONER THE COMPANY'S GUARANTEE OF THE IMPROVEMENT BONDS AND STATING
"WE BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU PRACTICALLY ALL THE DATA COVERING THIS
ISSUE OF BONDS."  FROM THE EVIDENCE THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE
BALANCE SHEET WAS SUBMITTED TO PETITIONER AS ONE OF THE BASES OF THE
PENDING NEGOTIATION AND AS A REPRESENTATION, THAT IT DISCLOSED, SO FAR
AS KNOWN TO RESPONDENT, THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE COMPANY, THAT
NOTWITHSTANDING SUCH REPRESENTATION RESPONDENT THEN KNEW THAT THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL CONDITION HAD SO STEADILY AND SERIOUSLY DECLINED
AFTER THE DATE OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS TO IMPAIR SUBSTANTIALLY THE
VALUE OF THE GUARANTEE, AND THAT THIS STATEMENT OF A HALF TRUTH HAD
MATERIALLY ASSISTED IN THE SALE OF THE BONDS TO PETITIONER.    THE
TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY: 

"IT IS THE DUTY OF ONE SELLING SECURITIES, WHO ATTEMPTS TO SUPPLY A
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER WITH FACTS CONCERNING THE ISSUE, NOT ONLY TO
STATE TRUTHFULLY WHAT HE ACTUALLY TELLS, BUT ALSO NOT TO SUPPRESS ANY
FACTS WITHIN HIS KNOWLEDGE WHICH WILL MATERIALLY CHANGE OR ALTER THE
EFFECT OF THE FACTS ACTUALLY STATED.  TO TELL LESS THAN THE WHOLE TRUTH
MAY CONSTITUTE A FALSE AND FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION.  A PARTIAL AND
FRAGMENTARY DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN FACTS CONCERNING AN ISSUE OF
SECURITIES, ACCOMPANIED BY THE WILLFUL CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
WHICH CHANGE THE EFFECT OF THE FACTS ACTUALLY STATED, IS AS MUCH A
FRAUD AS AN ACTUAL POSITIVE MISREPRESENTATION."  BY THIS INSTRUCTION
AND OTHERS OF LIKE TENOR THE COURT LEFT THE JURY FREE TO APPLY TO THE
EVIDENCE THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED DOCTRINE ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN LAW
INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF TORTS, SECS. 529, 551.  SECTION 529 STATES: 

"A STATEMENT IN A BUSINESS TRANSACTION WHICH, WHILE STATING THE TRUTH
SO FAR AS IT GOES, THE MAKER KNOWS OR BELIEVES TO BE MATERIALLY
MISLEADING BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO STATE QUALIFYING MATTER IS A
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION."  SUCH A STATEMENT OF A HALF TRUTH IS AS
MUCH A MISREPRESENTATION AS IF THE FACTS STATED WERE UNTRUE.  THE
COURT'S CHARGE WAS IN CONFORMITY TO IOWA LAW AS DISCLOSED BY ITS
JUDICIAL OPINIONS.  SEE HOWARD V. MCMILLEN, 101 IOWA 453; 70 N.W. 623;
NOBLE V. RENNER, 177 IOWA 509; 159 N.W. 214; FOREMAN V. DUGAN, 205 IOWA
929; 218 N.W. 912.  NO ARGUMENT MADE OR AUTHORITY CITED HERE PERSUADES
US THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA WOULD, UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED,
APPLY ANY DIFFERENT RULE.  SEE WICHITA ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL
BANK, 306 U.S. 103, 107; CF. WEST V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH
CO., 311 U.S. 223. 

RESPONDENT HAS RAISED NUMEROUS OTHER QUESTIONS WHICH WERE NOT
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT BELOW.  THIS CAUSE WILL THEREFORE BE REVERSED
AND REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :


















LABOR BOARD V. EXPRESS PUB. CO., 312 U.S. 426 


NO. 442.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 14, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 588, REVERSED. 


1.  A RESPONDENT EMPLOYER CAN NOT ATTACK, AS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE, FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WHICH WERE THE
BASIS OF ITS ORDER AND OF A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING IT WHICH THE EMPLOYER
HAS NOT SOUGHT TO REVIEW.  P. 431. 

2.  WHERE AN EMPLOYER IS FOUND TO HAVE REFUSED TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(5) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, THE BOARD'S ORDER MAY PROPERLY REQUIRE HIM TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM SUCH REFUSAL IN ADDITION TO AN AFFIRMATIVE REQUIREMENT THAT HE
BARGAIN WITH HIS EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVES.  P. 432. 

3.  AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WHICH, WHEN
JUDICIALLY CONFIRMED, THE COURTS MAY BE CALLED ON TO ENFORCE BY
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, MUST, LIKE THE INJUNCTION ORDER OF A COURT, STATE
WITH REASONABLE SPECIFICITY THE ACTS WHICH THE RESPONDENT IS TO DO OR
REFRAIN FROM DOING.  P. 433. 

4.  THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON THE BOARD TO RESTRAIN AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYER IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED, DOES NOT
SUPPORT AN ORDER PURPORTING TO RESTRAIN HIM FROM OTHER UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES IN WHICH HE IS NOT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED AND WHICH ARE
UNRELATED TO THE PROVEN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  P. 433. 

5.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT GIVE THE BOARD AN
AUTHORITY, WHICH COURTS CAN NOT RIGHTLY EXERCISE, TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS
OF ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE MERELY BECAUSE THE VIOLATION OF
ONE HAS BEEN FOUND.  TO JUSTIFY AN ORDER RESTRAINING OTHER VIOLATIONS
IT MUST APPEAR THAT THEY BEAR SOME RESEMBLANCE TO THAT WHICH THE
EMPLOYER HAS COMMITTED, OR THAT DANGER OF THEIR COMMISSION IN THE
FUTURE IS TO BE ANTICIPATED FROM THE COURSE OF HIS CONDUCT IN THE
PAST.  P. 437. 

6.  THE ORDER OF THE BOARD DIRECTING THE EMPLOYER TO POST NOTICES
INFORMING ITS EMPLOYEES THAT IT WILL "CEASE AND DESIST" FROM REFUSING
TO BARGAIN WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES, IS
MODIFIED SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE POSTED NOTICES SHALL STATE THAT THE
EMPLOYER "WILL NOT ENGAGE IN CONDUCT FROM WHICH IT IS ORDERED TO CEASE
AND DESIST."  P. 438. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. EXPRESS PUBLISHING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 638, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENFORCING AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, BUT IN PART ONLY AND WITH
MODIFICATION. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED RESPONDENT AFFIRMATIVELY
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE SAN ANTONIO NEWSPAPER GUILD, THE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES.  IN ADDITION IT
ORDERED RESPONDENT, (1) TO "CEASE AND DESIST" FROM REFUSING TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE GUILD; (2) TO "CEASE AND DESIST" FROM
"INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION," AND OTHER RIGHTS
GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449;
29 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 151, ET SEQ.; (3) TO POST NOTICES STATING,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT RESPONDENT WILL "CEASE AND DESIST AS
AFORESAID" AND WILL BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE ORGANIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  ON THE RECORD BEFORE US THE QUESTION
FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER WHICH WE HAVE
ENUMERATED ARE SUPPORTED BY THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
REFUSED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF
ITS EMPLOYEES, AND HAD INTERFERED WITH SUCH BARGAINING NEGOTIATION, AND
HAD THEREBY INTERFERED WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY
SEC. 7 OF THE ACT. 

THE BOARD ISSUED ITS COMPLAINT CHARGING RESPONDENT, A PUBLISHER OF A
NEWSPAPER, WITH REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE GUILD AS THE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN RESPONDENT'S EDITORIAL
DEPARTMENT, AND THAT BY SUCH REFUSAL AND BY STATEMENTS MADE BY
RESPONDENT AT A MEETING OF THOSE EMPLOYEES IT "DID INTERFERE WITH,
RESTRAIN AND COERCE" ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS
GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT  FN1  AND DID ENGAGE IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES DEFINED BY SECS. 8(1) AND 8(5).  THE USUAL PROCEEDINGS AND
HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARD RESULTED IN FINDINGS BY THE BOARD TO THE
EFFECT THAT ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT HAD THROUGHOUT RECOGNIZED THE
ORGANIZATION OF RESPONDENT'S EDITORIAL ROOM EMPLOYEES AND THE GUILD AS
THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, AND HAD MET WITH THE GUILD REPRESENTATIVES
WHENEVER REQUESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE EMPLOYEES'
DEMANDS, IT NEVERTHELESS HAD PERSISTENTLY REFUSED TO DISCUSS IN DETAIL
THE PROPOSALS OF THE GUILD, TO MAKE ANY COUNTER PROPOSALS OR TO ENTER
INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH IT, AND HAD NOT NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH IN A
GENUINE EFFORT TO COMPOSE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEES. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN AS REQUIRED BY
SEC. 8(5) OF THE ACT.  IT FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD MADE THE STATEMENTS
CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT AT A MEETING OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND THAT THESE
STATEMENTS WERE AN "INTERFERENCE WITH THE GUILD'S EFFORTS TO
NEGOTIATE."  TREATING RESPONDENT'S ACTION IN REFUSING TO BARGAIN AND IN
INTERFERING WITH THE BARGAINING NEGOTIATIONS AS AN INFRINGEMENT OF ALL
THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO THE EMPLOYEES BY THE ACT, IT FOUND BROADLY, IN
THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, A VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) WHICH DECLARES THAT
IT IS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR THE EMPLOYER "TO INTERFERE WITH,
RESTRAIN OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED
IN SECTION 7."  SECTION 7 PROVIDES:  "EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND
TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION." 

FROM ALL THIS THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE "APPROPRIATE REMEDY" WAS
AN ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT "UPON REQUEST, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
WITH THE  ...  GUILD" AS THE "EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE" OF RESPONDENT'S
EDITORIAL ROOM EMPLOYEES AND "IF UNDERSTANDINGS ARE REACHED, TO EMBODY
SUCH UNDERSTANDINGS IN A SIGNED AGREEMENT, IF REQUESTED TO DO SO BY THE
GUILD."  HAVING PROVIDED THE RECOMMENDED REMEDY BY THE PROVISIONS OF
ITS ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO BARGAIN AND TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM REFUSING TO BARGAIN THE BOARD WENT FURTHER AND ORDERED BROADLY
THAT RESPONDENT SHOULD IN EFFECT REFRAIN FROM VIOLATING THE ACT IN ANY
MANNER WHATSOEVER.  THIS IT DID BY PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE ORDER WHICH
DIRECTED RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM 

"IN ANY MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING ITS
EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID AND PROTECTION, AS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT."  IT
IS THIS AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER OTHER THAN THAT PART OF IT
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO BARGAIN WHICH ARE THE SUBJECTS OF THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSY. 

UPON PETITION OF THE BOARD TO ENFORCE THE ORDER, THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STRUCK FROM IT ALL THE PROVISIONS EXCEPT THAT
WHICH DIRECTED RESPONDENT TO BARGAIN WITH THE GUILD ON REQUEST, AND TO
EMBODY ANY UNDERSTANDING IN A SIGNED AGREEMENT.  FOR SO MUCH OF THE
ORDER AS DIRECTED THE POSTING OF NOTICES THE COURT SUBSTITUTED A
REQUIREMENT THAT RESPONDENT NOTIFY THE GUILD OF ITS WILLINGNESS TO
COMPLY WITH THE ORDER AS MODIFIED AND TO NOTIFY A SPECIFIED AGENT OF
THE BOARD WHAT STEPS RESPONDENT HAD TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER. 
111 F.2D 588.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 638, THE QUESTIONS
RAISED BEING OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT HAS NOT SOUGHT CERTIORARI IT SEEKS TO RETAIN SUCH
ADVANTAGES AS IT MAY HAVE GAINED FROM THE MODIFICATION OF THE BOARD'S
ORDER BELOW, BY ARGUING BROADLY THAT THE BOARD'S FINDING OF
RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE,
WHICH IT IS SAID SHOWS ONLY THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO YIELD TO THE
GUILD DEMANDS AS IT WAS FREE TO DO.  BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CROSS
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI BY RESPONDENT THAT QUESTION IS NOT OPEN HERE. 
WITHOUT THE FINDINGS RELATING TO RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN THERE
WAS NO BASIS FOR ANY ORDER BY THE BOARD AND WE THINK THAT THE PURPOSE
AND EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINING SO MUCH OF THE BOARD'S ORDER AS
DIRECTED THAT RESPONDENT BARGAIN WITH THE GUILD WAS TO SUSTAIN THE
FINDINGS ON WHICH IT WAS BASED.  THIS APPEARS BOTH FROM THE OPINION OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PURPORT OF WHICH IS THAT RESPONDENT IN ITS
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE GUILD HAD NOT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND SO HAD
FAILED TO BARGAIN AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES, AND ALSO FROM THE TERMS OF
THE JUDGMENT MODIFYING THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE
BOARD'S ORDER AS MODIFIED RETAINED, AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUDGMENT,
THE RECITAL CONTAINED IN THE BOARD'S ORIGINAL ORDER THAT IT WAS MADE
UPON THE BASIS OF ALL THE BOARD'S FINDINGS.  IN THIS STATE OF THE
RECORD OUR REVIEW IS LIMITED TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE BOARD'S FINDINGS
TO SUPPORT THE ORDER. 

WE CONCLUDE ALSO THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO RESPONDENT TO CHALLENGE THE
JUDGMENT BELOW, AS IT ATTEMPTS TO DO, ON THE GROUND THAT THE BOARD'S
COMPLAINT IN CHARGING A FAILURE TO BARGAIN DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY INFORM
RESPONDENT OF THE CONTENTION THAT IT HAD FAILED TO BARGAIN IN GOOD
FAITH.  THIS IS THE CASE BOTH BECAUSE RESPONDENT HAS SOUGHT NO REVIEW
OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND BECAUSE IT SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS FROM THE
RECORD THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARD RESPONDENT
WAS FULLY ADVISED OF THE NATURE OF THE BOARD'S CONTENTION. 

BUT IT IS THE BOARD WHICH HAS BROUGHT THE JUDGMENT BELOW HERE FOR
REVIEW AND ON IT RESTS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING IN WHAT RESPECTS THE
JUDGMENT IS ERRONEOUS.  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BEECH-NUT CO., 257
U.S. 441.  TO SUSTAIN THAT BURDEN THE BOARD INSISTS THAT ALL THE
PROVISIONS OF ITS ORDER WERE LAWFULLY MADE AND THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO
HAVE THE ORDER ENFORCED IN ITS ENTIRETY.  SECTION 10(C) OF THE ACT
PROVIDES THAT IF THE BOARD "UPON ALL THE TESTIMONY TAKEN" "SHALL BE OF
THE OPINION THAT ANY PERSON NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT HAS ENGAGED IN OR IS
ENGAGING IN ANY SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE THEN THE BOARD SHALL STATE
ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND SHALL ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED ON SUCH
PERSON AN ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION  ...  AS
WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  THE BOARD, HAVING FOUND IN
THIS CASE THAT RESPONDENT HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN, THAT PART OF ITS
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO "CEASE AND DESIST FROM REFUSING TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY" WITH THE GUILD, WAS IN EXACT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
STATUTE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT UNDISTURBED BY THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 

A QUESTION OF A DIFFERENT NATURE IS PRESENTED BY PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE
ORDER, BY WHICH THE BOARD, ON THE BASIS OF RESPONDENT'S ACTION IN
REFUSING TO BARGAIN AND ITS STATEMENTS INTERFERING WITH THE BARGAINING
NEGOTIATIONS, HAS DIRECTED RESPONDENT NOT TO VIOLATE "IN ANY MANNER"
THE DUTIES IMPOSED ON THE EMPLOYER BY THE STATUTE.  PETITIONER ARGUES
THAT SINCE RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF
SEC. 8(5), IS ALSO A VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1), WHICH IN TERMS
INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE ALL THE RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN SEC. 7, THE
BOARD IS NOT ONLY FREE TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS LIKE THOSE WHICH
RESPONDENT HAS COMMITTED, BUT ANY OTHER UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF ANY
KIND WHICH LIKEWISE INFRINGE ANY OF THE RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN SEC. 7,
HOWEVER UNRELATED THOSE PRACTICES MAY BE TO THE ACTS OF RESPONDENT
WHICH ALONE EMERGED IN COURSE OF THE HEARING AND WHICH THE BOARD HAS
FOUND. 

BUT WE THINK IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT, BECAUSE THE ACT OF RESPONDENT
WHICH THE BOARD HAS FOUND TO BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE DEFINED BY
SEC. 8(5) IS ALSO A TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1), THE BOARD, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A BLANKET ORDER
RESTRAINING THE EMPLOYER FROM COMMITTING ANY ACT IN VIOLATION OF THE
STATUTE, HOWEVER UNRELATED IT MAY BE TO THOSE CHARGED AND FOUND, OR
THAT COURTS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE TO GIVE EFFECT IN
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS TO AN ORDER OF SUCH BREADTH. 

WE CANNOT FIND SUCH AUTHORITY OR REQUIREMENT IN THE CAREFULLY CHOSEN
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 10(C), WHICH DIRECTS THE BOARD TO STATE ITS FINDINGS
OF FACT SHOWING THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGED AND TO ORDER THE
PERSON ACCUSED TO "CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE,"
OR IN SEC. 10(E) OF THE ACT WHICH AUTHORIZES THE COURT ON APPLICATION
OF THE BOARD TO ENTER A "DECREE ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS
SO MODIFIED, OR SETTING ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE
BOARD."  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, WHICH, WHEN
JUDICIALLY CONFIRMED, THE COURTS MAY BE CALLED ON TO ENFORCE BY
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, MUST, LIKE THE INJUNCTION ORDER OF A COURT, STATE
WITH REASONABLE SPECIFICITY THE ACTS WHICH THE RESPONDENT IS TO DO OR
REFRAIN FROM DOING.  IT WOULD SEEM EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE AUTHORITY
CONFERRED ON THE BOARD TO RESTRAIN THE PRACTICE WHICH IT HAS FOUND THE
EMPLOYER TO HAVE COMMITTED IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO RESTRAIN GENERALLY
ALL OTHER UNLAWFUL PRACTICES WHICH IT HAS NEITHER FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
PURSUED NOR PERSUASIVELY TO BE RELATED TO THE PROVEN UNLAWFUL CONDUCT. 

CONGRESS HAS ITSELF AFFORDED A GUIDE POINTING TO THE APPROPRIATE
LIMITS OF THE ORDER WHICH THE BOARD IS TO MAKE IN RESTRAINING UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES.  BY ITS DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES IN THE STATUTE IT HAS SHOWN THAT THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS SO
SIMILAR OR RELATED THAT THE COMMISSION OF ONE NECESSARILY MERITS OR
RIGHTLY ADMITS OF AN ORDER RESTRAINING ALL.  HERE THE WHOLE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE GUILD WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE GUILD'S
REQUEST TO BARGAIN AND RESPONDENT'S ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE
NEGOTIATIONS AND ITS ULTIMATE REFUSAL TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FROM
ALL OF WHICH THE BOARD INFERRED THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH. 
IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS RESPONDENT HAS CONSISTENTLY LEFT THE GUILD AND
ITS ACTIVITIES UNDISTURBED.  THE BOARD MADE NO FINDING AND THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE FAILURE OF THE BARGAINING
NEGOTIATIONS AND ALL THAT ATTENDED THEM GAVE ANY INDICATION THAT IN THE
FUTURE RESPONDENT WOULD ENGAGE IN ALL OR ANY OF THE NUMEROUS OTHER
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES DEFINED BY THE ACT. 

REFUSAL TO BARGAIN, DEFINED AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE BY SEC. 8(5),
MAY BE, AS WE THINK IT WAS HERE, WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE DOMINATION OF
A LABOR UNION OR THE INTERFERENCE WITH ITS FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION
OR FINANCIAL OR OTHER SUPPORT TO IT, ALL OF WHICH ARE DEFINED AS UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES BY SEC. 8(2).  REFUSAL TO BARGAIN MAY BE, AS WE THINK
IT WAS HERE, WHOLLY UNRELATED TO "DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR
TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO
ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION," ALL OF
WHICH ARE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AS DEFINED BY SEC. 8(3).  HERE THE
BOARD MADE NO FINDING BASED EITHER ON THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD OR ON ITS OWN EXPERT JUDGMENT OF THEIR RELATION
TO THE POLICY EMBODIED IN SEC. 7, OR AS TO ANY RELATIONSHIP OR PROBABLE
RELATIONSHIP OF RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO BARGAIN AND THE OTHER TYPES OF
UNFAIR PRACTICES SOME OF WHICH ARE ENUMERATED IN SEC. 8.  YET, IF THE
CONTENTION WHICH IT MAKES IS TO BE SUSTAINED, SUBSEQUENT VIOLATIONS OF
SEC. 8(2) AND (3), WHICH ARE ALSO VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 8(1), MAY BE THE
SUBJECT OF A CONTEMPT ORDER MERELY BECAUSE RESPONDENT BY THE REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN HAS VIOLATED SEC. 8(5) WHICH IS SIMILARLY A VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(1).    IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE BOARD BY SEC. 10(C),
CAREFULLY RESTRICTED TO THE RESTRAINT OF SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AS
THE BOARD HAS FOUND THE EMPLOYER TO HAVE COMMITTED, AND OF THE BROAD
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 10(E) AUTHORIZING THE COURTS TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF
THE BOARD WHOLLY OR IN PART, WE CAN HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT THE BOARD SHOULD MAKE OR THE COURT SHOULD ENFORCE ORDERS
WHICH COULD NOT APPROPRIATELY BE MADE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  THIS IS
THE MORE SO BECAUSE SEC. 10(A), WHICH AUTHORIZES THE BOARD "AS
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE," SPECIFICALLY DIRECTS THAT "THIS POWER SHALL BE
EXCLUSIVE, AND SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT
OR PREVENTION THAT HAS BEEN OR MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT, CODE,
LAW, OR OTHERWISE."  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PROVISIONS WE THINK THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT THE COURTS SHOULD, BY CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS, TRY ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
NOT IN CONTROVERSY AND NOT FOUND BY THE BOARD AND WHICH ARE NOT SIMILAR
OR FAIRLY RELATED TO THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WHICH THE BOARD HAS
FOUND. 

A FEDERAL COURT HAS BROAD POWER TO RESTRAIN ACTS WHICH ARE OF THE
SAME TYPE OR CLASS AS UNLAWFUL ACTS WHICH THE COURT HAS FOUND TO HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED OR WHOSE COMMISSION IN THE FUTURE, UNLESS ENJOINED, MAY
FAIRLY BE ANTICIPATED FROM THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT IN THE PAST.  BUT
THE MERE FACT THAT A COURT HAS FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT HAS COMMITTED AN
ACT IN VIOLATION OF A STATUTE DOES NOT JUSTIFY AN INJUNCTION BROADLY TO
OBEY THE STATUTE AND THUS SUBJECT THE DEFENDANT TO CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
IF HE SHALL AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE COMMIT SOME NEW VIOLATION UNLIKE
AND UNRELATED TO THAT WITH WHICH HE WAS ORIGINALLY CHARGED.  THIS COURT
WILL STRIKE FROM AN INJUNCTION DECREE RESTRAINTS UPON THE COMMISSION OF
UNLAWFUL ACTS WHICH ARE THUS DISSOCIATED FROM THOSE WHICH A DEFENDANT
HAS COMMITTED.  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375; NEW YORK,
N.H. & H.R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 200 U.S. 361, 404, AND
SEE UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. SWIFT & CO., 108 F.2D 988. 

IT IS A SALUTARY PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN ONE HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE
COMMITTED ACTS IN VIOLATION OF A LAW HE MAY BE RESTRAINED FROM
COMMITTING OTHER RELATED UNLAWFUL ACTS.  BUT WE THINK THAT, WITHOUT
SACRIFICE OF THAT PRINCIPLE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT
CONTEMPLATE THAT AN EMPLOYER WHO HAS UNLAWFULLY REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH
HIS EMPLOYEES SHALL FOR THE INDEFINITE FUTURE, CONDUCT HIS LABOR
RELATIONS AT THE PERIL OF A SUMMONS FOR CONTEMPT ON THE BOARD'S
ALLEGATION, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HE HAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST A LABOR
UNION IN THE DISCHARGE OF AN EMPLOYEE, OR BECAUSE HIS SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES HAVE ADVISED OTHER EMPLOYEES NOT TO JOIN A UNION.  SEE E.G.,
H.J. HEINZ CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 311 U.S. 514. 

HAVING FOUND THE ACTS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE THE
BOARD IS FREE TO RESTRAIN THE PRACTICE AND OTHER LIKE OR RELATED
UNLAWFUL ACTS.  BUT AS THE COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION, SEE FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BEECH-NUT CO., SUPRA,
455, AN ORDER NOT SO RELATED SHOULD BE APPROPRIATELY RESTRICTED ON
REVIEW.  THE BREADTH OF THE ORDER, LIKE THE INJUNCTION OF A COURT, MUST
DEPEND UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, THE PURPOSE BEING TO
PREVENT VIOLATIONS, THE THREAT OF WHICH IN THE FUTURE IS INDICATED
BECAUSE OF THEIR SIMILARITY OR RELATION TO THOSE UNLAWFUL ACTS WHICH
THE BOARD HAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE EMPLOYER IN THE
PAST.  SEE UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290,
308, 309; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 77; TEXAS &
NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548;
LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293; VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 541, 543, 544.  WE HOLD ONLY THAT THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT GIVE THE BOARD AN AUTHORITY,
WHICH COURTS CANNOT RIGHTLY EXERCISE, TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF ALL THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE MERELY BECAUSE THE VIOLATION OF ONE HAS BEEN
FOUND.  TO JUSTIFY AN ORDER RESTRAINING OTHER VIOLATIONS IT MUST APPEAR
THAT THEY BEAR SOME RESEMBLANCE TO THAT WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAS
COMMITTED OR THAT DANGER OF THEIR COMMISSION IN THE FUTURE IS TO BE
ANTICIPATED FROM THE COURSE OF HIS CONDUCT IN THE PAST.  THAT
JUSTIFICATION IS LACKING HERE.  TO REQUIRE IT IS NO MORE ONEROUS OR
EMBARRASSING TO THE BOARD THAN TO A COURT.  AND SINCE WE ARE IN A FIELD
WHERE SUBTLETIES OF CONDUCT MAY PLAY NO SMALL PART, IT IS APPROPRIATE
TO ADD THAT AN ORDER OF THE BOARD, LIKE THE INJUNCTION OF A COURT, IS
NOT TO BE EVADED BY INDIRECTIONS OR FORMAL OBSERVANCES WHICH IN FACT
DEFY IT.  AFTER AN ORDER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IN GOOD FAITH, FOR
EXAMPLE, DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE OF UNION MEMBERS MAY SO AFFECT THE
BARGAINING PROCESS AS TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER. 

THE BOARD PLACES STRONG RELIANCE ON NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORP., 306 U.S. 240, AND ON TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS
R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CLERKS, SUPRA, 555, 567, 568, 571, AND
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, SUPRA, 543, 544.  IN
THOSE CASES THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND THE INJUNCTIONS WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE BOARD'S ORDER IN THE PRESENT
CASE.  BUT IN THEM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES DID NOT APPEAR TO BE
ISOLATED ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION, LIKE THE
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN HERE, BUT THE RECORD DISCLOSED PERSISTENT ATTEMPTS
BY VARYING METHODS TO INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION IN
CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH THE BOARD OR THE COURT FOUND OR COULD HAVE
FOUND THE THREAT OF CONTINUING AND VARYING EFFORTS TO ATTAIN THE SAME
END IN THE FUTURE. 

AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WOULD
GO NO FURTHER THAN TO RESTRAIN RESPONDENT FROM ANY REFUSAL TO BARGAIN
AND FROM ANY OTHER ACTS IN ANY MANNER INTERFERING WITH THE GUILD'S
EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE.  SO FAR AS RESPONDENT'S PAST CONDUCT MAY BE
THOUGHT TO HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT ON THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7, SUCH
CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY PREVENTED BY THE PROHIBITION OF SUCH
AN ORDER WITHOUT DRAWING IT SO BROADLY AS TO FORBID ALL OTHER UNRELATED
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID OF THAT PART OF THE BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRING
THE POSTING OF NOTICES.  WE HAVE OFTEN HELD THAT THE POSTING OF NOTICES
ADVISING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BOARD'S ORDER AND ANNOUNCING THE
READINESS OF THE EMPLOYER TO OBEY IT IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED
ON THE BOARD BY SEC. 10(C) OF THE ACT "TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
...  AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES" OF THE ACT.  SEE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 268;
H.J. HEINZ CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA. 

BUT RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD DOES NOT EXTEND
TO THE REQUIREMENT, SUCH AS WAS MADE IN THIS CASE, THAT THE EMPLOYER
CONFESS VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY A PUBLISHED ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE WILL
"CEASE AND DESIST" FROM VIOLATING IT.  SEE, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. ABELL CO., 97 F.2D 951; BURLINGTON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 104 F.2D 736; SWIFT & CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 106 F.2D 87; ART METALS CONSTRUCTION CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 110 F.2D 148, 151, 152; HARTSELL MILLS CO. V. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 111 F.2D 291, 293.  SINCE THE BOARD HAS CHANGED
ITS PRACTICE AND NOW PROVIDES IN ALL ORDERS THAT THE EMPLOYERS' NOTICES
SHALL STATE "THAT HE WILL NOT ENGAGE IN THE CONDUCT FROM WHICH HE IS
ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST" IT CONSENTS THAT THE PRESENT ORDER BE
MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID REQUIRES A REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND THE
REESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS: 

PARAGRAPH 1(B) OF THE ORDER WILL BE MODIFIED SO AS TO REQUIRE ONLY
THAT RESPONDENT SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM "IN ANY MANNER INTERFERING
WITH THE EFFORTS OF THE GUILD TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH EXPRESS
PUBLISHING COMPANY, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS." 

PARAGRAPH 2(B) OF THE ORDER WILL BE MODIFIED BY STRIKING FROM IT THE
WORDS "WILL CEASE AND DESIST AS AFORESAID", AND SUBSTITUTING FOR THEM
THE WORDS "WILL NOT ENGAGE IN THE CONDUCT FROM WHICH IT IS ORDERED TO
CEASE AND DESIST AS AFORESAID."  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY OFFICERS OR AGENTS
OF RESPONDENT WERE "EXISTING INDEPENDENT EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS MAY BE
CONTINUED BY THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OR BY EMPLOYEES AS A GROUP."  "NO
ONE CAN COMPEL YOU TO JOIN ANY ORGANIZATION."  AND REFERRING TO
RESPONDENT'S TREATMENT OF ITS EMPLOYEES, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT
RESPONDENT'S OFFICER STATED:  "EACH OF YOU KNOW WE WERE NOT FORCED TO
DO THIS BY ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION AND NO LABOR ORGANIZATION CAN FORCE
US TO DO THESE THINGS." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS: 

I THINK THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER SHOULD BE ENFORCED IN FULL. 

RESPONDENT DID NOT OBJECT IN ITS ANSWER TO THE BOARD'S PETITION
BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO THAT PORTION OF THE BOARD'S
ORDER WHICH THE COURT NOW MODIFIES.  SO FAR AS THE BRIEFS DISCLOSE IT
DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH OBJECTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  NOR
DID RESPONDENT QUESTION THE PROPRIETY OF THAT PROVISION OF THE ORDER OR
CHALLENGE THE POWER OF THE BOARD TO MAKE IT EITHER IN ITS BRIEF OR IN
ITS ORAL ARGUMENT HERE.  ANY CONTROVERSY ON THAT ISSUE BEFORE THIS
COURT IS THEREFORE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO RESPONDENT.  FOR ON THE RECORD
BEFORE US IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT RESPONDENT WHOLLY ACQUIESCES IN THAT
PHASE OF THE BOARD'S ACTION.  IN THAT POSTURE OF THE CASE, IT IS PLAIN
THIS COURT WILL NOT CUSTOMARILY RAISE SUA SPONTE OBJECTIONS WHICH
RESPONDENT DID NOT CHOOSE TO MAKE.  WE ARE, OF COURSE, ASKED TO ENFORCE
AN ORDER OF THE BOARD.  AND I SUPPOSE WE MIGHT REFUSE TO ENFORCE
PROVISIONS OF SUCH AN ORDER WHICH ARE PATENTLY ULTRA VIRES, EVEN THOUGH
THE OTHER PARTY RAISES NO OBJECTION BUT ACQUIESCES IN THEM.  BUT, IN MY
VIEW, THIS PROVISION OF THE ORDER IS NOT BEYOND THE POWER OF THE
BOARD. 

THE ORDER AS MODIFIED RESTRAINS RESPONDENT FROM INTERFERING IN ANY
MANNER "WITH THE EFFORTS OF THE GUILD TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY" WITH IT.
BUT RESPONDENT IS NOT RESTRAINED FROM INTERFERING WITH THE EMPLOYEES
IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS (A) TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, (B) TO FORM,
JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, OR (C) TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL
AID AND PROTECTION.  THESE DELETIONS REPRESENT THE LOSS OF SUBSTANTIAL
SANCTIONS - SANCTIONS WHICH THE EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY MAY WELL
HAVE CONCLUDED ARE BASIC AND ESSENTIAL FOR PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT
WHICH THIS VERY UNION HAS WON. 

TAKE THE CASE WHERE AN EMPLOYER IS PLAYING DUCKS AND DRAKES WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  HE PAYS MERE LIP SERVICE TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT WHILE INTENT ON BLOCKING IN HIS PLANT ANY
EFFECTIVE UNION ACTION.  IF THAT IS A FAITHFUL REPRESENTATION OF HIS
ATTITUDE, THE MANDATE OF THE ACT MIGHT BE WHOLLY FRUSTRATED OR ITS
ENFORCEMENT NEEDLESSLY DELAYED WERE THE BOARD MERELY TO ORDER HIM TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM INTERFERING "WITH THE EFFORTS" OF THE UNION "TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY."  THAT, WITHOUT MORE, MIGHT WELL BE WHOLLY
INEFFECTIVE, OR SO THE BOARD IN ITS DISCRETION MIGHT CONCLUDE.  IN
FACT, IT MIGHT EVEN BE AN OPEN INVITATION TO AN EMPLOYER INTENT ON
EVASION OF THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE ACT TO RESORT TO DEVIOUS ROUTES
TO THE SAME END.  EMPLOYEES ARE DROPPED - PERHAPS THE LEADERS OF THE
UNION; LABOR SPIES ARE EMPLOYED; A COMPANY UNION IS SPONSORED AND
FINANCED; NEW EMPLOYEES ARE SELECTED WHO PROMISE NOT TO JOIN THE
OUTSIDE UNION.  THE PURPOSE IS TO THWART ANY EFFECTIVE ACTION BY THAT
UNION.  SUCH OBSTRUCTIVE TACTICS COULD GO ON APACE AND YET NO "EFFORTS"
OF THE UNION "TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY" NEED BE DENIED.  THE EMPLOYER
COULD CONTINUE THE SO-CALLED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNION, PERHAPS REACH
AT LEAST A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WITH IT, AND YET IN A MYRIAD OF WAYS
UNDERMINE IT IF THE BREADTH OF THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER WERE
DELIMITED. 

PERHAPS THIS IS TO CONJURE UP REMOTE AND HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS. 
PERHAPS THAT IS NOT THIS CASE.  FN1  BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
REMIND THAT WE DO NOT SIT AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WITH DISCRETION
TO ADJUST THE REMEDIES ACCORDED BY THE ACT TO WHAT WE THINK ARE THE
NEEDS OF PARTICULAR CASES, WITH POWER TO WRITE OR REWRITE
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE THINK ARE THE EXIGENCIES OF
SPECIFIC SITUATIONS, WITH THE DUTY TO PASS ON THE WISDOM OF
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES.  CONGRESS HAS INVESTED THE BOARD, NOT US, WITH
DISCRETION TO CHOOSE AND SELECT THE REMEDIES NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE
FOR THE EVIL AT HAND. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDED (SO WE MUST PRESUME) THAT ITS ORDER DIRECTING
RESPONDENT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE GUILD NEED BE BUTTRESSED BY
BROAD PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS GOOD AGAINST ANY AND ALL METHODS OF
EVASION.  FORMAL RECITALS COULD HARDLY MAKE THAT PLAINER THAN IT IS.
FN2  AND CLEARLY THOSE PROVISIONS ARE NO BROADER THAN THE WIDE REACHES
OF THE CONTROVERSY DISCLOSED IN THIS RECORD.    WHETHER THE REMEDY
CHOSEN BY THE BOARD WAS REASONABLY NECESSARY IN THIS CASE IS NOT FOR US
TO DETERMINE.  NOR IS IT FOR US TO SAY WHAT LANGUAGE IS ADEQUATE TO
SAFEGUARD THE LABOR RIGHTS WHICH ARE IN ISSUE.  TO CUT DOWN THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS ORDER NOT ONLY SUBSTITUTES OUR JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF
THE BOARD; IT WILL ALSO RESULT IN THE CREATION OF A HOST OF
UNCERTAINTIES.  THE ORIGINAL ORDER MAKES CLEAR THAT ANY ATTEMPTED
EVASION, NO MATTER HOW DEVIOUS, IS BANNED.  AS MODIFIED THE ORDER
CLEARLY SUBTRACTS FROM THOSE SANCTIONS.  BUT THE PRECISE EXTENT OF ITS
DILUTION REMAINS UNCERTAIN.  THE BOARD MAY, OF COURSE, IN CASE OF
FUTURE VIOLATIONS INSTITUTE NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.  YET THE
METHOD HERE CHOSEN FOR SETTLEMENT OF THIS LABOR CONTROVERSY DOES NOT
PROMISE PEACE.  IT INVITES A PROLONGATION OF THE DISPUTE WHICH SHOULD
BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN SETTLED, WITH THE EMPLOYER'S ACQUIESCENCE, ONCE
AND FOR ALL.  THAT PRACTICAL ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS OF GREAT
IMPORTANCE ON THE MERITS; AND IT ALSO EMPHASIZES THE SERIOUSNESS OF OUR
INTRUSION INTO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOMAIN.  SEE NOTE (1940) 53 HARV. L.
REV. 472. 

FN1  IT SHOULD, HOWEVER, BE NOTED THAT THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT "THE
RESPONDENT HAD NO INTENTION OF NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE GUILD
NOR OF ENTERING INTO A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH IT."  AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED, "  ...  WE THINK THERE WAS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE BOARD THAT RESPONDENT HAD
DETERMINED IN ADVANCE NEVER TO AGREE TO ANYTHING." 

FN2  IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE BOARD FOUND
THAT RESPONDENT HAD "INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED ITS
EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7 OF THE
ACT" BY READING TO THEM A STATEMENT WHICH "PRESENTED A DISTORTED
CONCEPT" OF THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS UNDER THE ACT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SET ASIDE THAT FINDING.  WHILE THE BOARD DID NOT RAISE THAT
ISSUE IN ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THAT EPISODE IS NEVERTHELESS
RELEVANT TO THE SCOPE OF THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  IF IT BE ASSUMED,
AS DOES THE MAJORITY, THAT SUCH A BROAD ORDER MUST BE FOUNDED AT LEAST
ON SOME EVIDENCE THAT OTHER RELATED UNLAWFUL ACTS "MAY FAIRLY BE
ANTICIPATED FROM THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT IN THE PAST," THAT EPISODE IS
OF SIGNIFICANCE.  FOR THOUGH IT MIGHT NOT OF ITSELF SUPPORT AN
ADDITIONAL FINDING OF A SEPARATE VIOLATION OF SEC. 8, IT CERTAINLY IS
SOME EVIDENCE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE BOARD'S EXPERT JUDGMENT THAT THE
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN DID NOT HAVE AN IMPROBABLE RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER
LIKELY OBSTRUCTIVE TACTICS OF A RELATED ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :







MAASS V. HIGGINS, 312 U.S. 443 


NO. 274.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 111 F.2D
78 - 114 ID. 1017, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE AN EXECUTOR ELECTS, UNDER SEC. 302(J) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926, AS ADDED BY SEC. 202(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1935, TO HAVE THE
ESTATE VALUED AS OF ONE YEAR AFTER DEATH, OR TO HAVE ITEMS OF THE
ESTATE WHICH HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF DURING THE YEAR VALUED AS OF THE
TIME OF DISPOSITION, RENTS, DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST ACCRUED AND RECEIVED
BETWEEN THE TIME OF DEATH AND THE TIME OF SUCH VALUATION SHOULD NOT BE
INCLUDED AS PART OF THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE.  P. 446. 

2.  ART. 11, T.R. 80(1937 ED.), TO THE CONTRARY, IS INVALID.  P.
446. 

MAASS, EXECUTOR, V. HIGGINS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 510, ESTATE OF ABENDROTH ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, AND NO. 511, ESTATE OF BLACQUE ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 641, TO
THECIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 626, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS SUSTAINING DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENTS OF ESTATE TAXES.  NO. 274 WAS A SUIT AGAINST A COLLECTOR TO
RECOVER AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT.  FOR THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
SEE 29 F.SUPP.  996.  THE OTHER TWO CASES WERE DECIDED IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, WHOSE DECISION, 41 B.T.A. 1178,
SUSTAINING THE COMMISSIONER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT BELOW ON A
PETITION TO REVIEW IT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THESE CASES WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER, WHERE AN EXECUTOR AVAILS
HIMSELF OF THE OPTION EXTENDED BY THE ESTATE TAX LAW TO VALUE A
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE AS OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH,
RENTS, DIVIDENDS, AND INTEREST RECEIVED AND ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR ARE
TO BE ADDED TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THEY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE
AND INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE.  THE QUESTION ARISES
UNDER SEC. 302(J) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 AS ADDED BY SEC. 202(A) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1935.  FN1 

NO. 274 IS A SUIT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR TO RECOVER AN OVERPAYMENT OF
TAX.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE DECEDENT DIED AUGUST 30, 1936;
THAT IN THE ESTATE'S RETURN THE EXECUTORS ELECTED TO HAVE THE VALUE OF
THE GROSS ESTATE DETERMINED BY VALUING IT AS OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE
DECEDENT'S DEATH; THAT THE COMMISSIONER INCLUDED IN THE ESTATE A SUM
WHICH WAS NOT IN FACT THE DECEDENT'S PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH
BUT REPRESENTED INCOME, NAMELY, RENTS, DIVIDENDS, AND INTEREST EARNED
BY THE ESTATE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECEDENT'S DEATH; THAT THE EXECUTORS
PAID THE TAX AND THEIR CLAIM FOR REFUND WAS REJECTED.  THE COLLECTOR'S
ANSWER RAISED NO MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT.  EACH PARTY MOVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS.  THE COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  FN3 

IN NOS. 510 AND 511, THE EXECUTOR OF TWO DECEDENTS WHO DIED
RESPECTIVELY OCTOBER 9, 1936, AND APRIL 3, 1937, ELECTED IN ITS RETURNS
TO HAVE THE GROSS ESTATES VALUED AS OF ONE YEAR AFTER DEATH OR AS OF
DATE OF DISPOSITION.  IN EACH CASE THE EXECUTOR COLLECTED INTEREST AND
DIVIDENDS UPON BONDS AND STOCKS FORMING PART OF THE ESTATE AT
DECEDENT'S DEATH.  THE SUMS SO COLLECTED WERE NOT RECKONED IN FIXING
THE VALUES OF THE ESTATES, EXCEPT SUCH PORTION OF THEM AS ACCRUED PRIOR
TO DEATH.  THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED DEFICIENCIES DUE TO THE FAILURE
TO RETURN THEM.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AFFIRMED HIS ACTION  FN4  AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE BOARD'S DECISION.  FN5 

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN DECISIONS OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS,  FN6  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION AND THE NUMBER OF PENDING CASES IN WHICH IT IS PRESENTED. 

IT IS AGREED THAT THE PURPOSE OF SUBDIVISION (J) WAS TO MITIGATE THE
HARDSHIP CONSEQUENT UPON SHRINKAGE IN THE VALUE OF ESTATES DURING THE
YEAR FOLLOWING DEATH.  CONGRESS ENACTED IT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT
THAT, DUE TO SUCH SHRINKAGES, MANY ESTATES WERE ALMOST OBLITERATED BY
THE NECESSITY OF PAYING A TAX ON THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS AT THE DATE OF
DECEDENT'S DEATH.  ABOUT ONE YEAR AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE SUBSECTION,
THE TREASURY PROMULGATED ART. 11 OF REGULATIONS 80(1937 ED.)  IN WHICH
IT RULED THAT INTEREST-BEARING OBLIGATIONS, SUCH AS BONDS, EMBODIED TWO
PROMISES, ONE TO PAY PRINCIPAL, THE OTHER TO PAY INTEREST, BOTH A PART
OF THE GROSS ESTATE IF THE OBLIGATION WAS OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT HIS
DEATH.  IT FURTHER RULED THAT IN THE CASE OF LEASED REAL ESTATE TWO
FACTORS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED, THE VALUE OF THE REALTY AND THE VALUE OF
THE COVENANT TO PAY RENT.  WITH RESPECT TO STOCKS, IT RULED THAT THE
VALUE OF THE STOCK AND THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT TO DIVIDENDS THEREON WERE
SEPARABLE AND EACH CONSTITUTED AN ELEMENT OF VALUE TO THE DECEDENT. 
THE REGULATION REQUIRED THAT IF, DURING THE YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO DEATH,
RENTS, ROYALTIES, INTEREST, OR DIVIDENDS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
DECEDENT'S ESTATE, SUCH PORTION THEREOF AS HAD NOT ACCRUED, OR WAS NOT
ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PERIOD, PRIOR TO DEATH, SHOULD BE RETURNED IN FULL
AND RECKONED AS PART OF THE GROSS ESTATE IN ANY CASE WHERE THE EXECUTOR
ELECTED, AS PERMITTED BY SUBSECTION (J), TO VALUE THE ASSETS AS OF ONE
YEAR AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH OR AS OF THE DATE OF DISPOSITION OF ANY
ASSET.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATION THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE
PRESENT CASES WERE DETERMINED. 

IN THE COURTS BELOW, AND BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT SUCH ITEMS OF INCOME ARE IN TRUTH PAYMENTS ON
ACCOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AND THAT, BY SUCH PAYMENTS, THE PRINCIPAL IS
REDUCED SO THAT, WHEN THE CAPITAL ASSET IS VALUED AT THE END OF THE
PERIOD, ITS TRUE VALUE IS NOT REFLECTED UNLESS THERE BE ADDED THE
INTEREST, DIVIDEND, OR OTHER LIKE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ESTATE IN THE
INTERIM.  IN THIS COURT, THE ARGUMENT TAKES A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FORM. 
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FACT THAT, UNDER THE OPTION GRANTED, A CAPITAL
ASSET IS TO BE VALUED EITHER AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE YEAR OR AT THE
TIME OF DISPOSITION AND IT IS URGED THAT, AS RESPECTS INTEREST, RENT OR
DIVIDENDS, A DISPOSITION OCCURS AT THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE
ITEM.  IN EITHER ASPECT THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTENTION DEPENDS UPON THE
THEORY THAT, FOR PURPOSES OF ESTATE TAX VALUATION, THE ASSET CONSISTS
OF TWO ELEMENTS, - ONE THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP THE OTHER THE RIGHT TO
RECEIVE THE INCOME.  IT IS SAID THAT BOTH OF THESE ELEMENTS ENTER INTO
THE VALUATION MADE AS OF THE DATE OF DEATH AND IF, IN THE SUBSEQUENT
PERIOD, THE LATTER EMERGES IN THE SHAPE OF A PAYMENT, THAT PAYMENT IS
TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INCOME RIGHT RATHER THAN TO THE RIGHT OF
OWNERSHIP OF THE INCOME PRODUCING PROPERTY. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION IS UNREAL AND ARTIFICIAL; THAT IT DOES NOT COMPORT EITHER WITH
ECONOMIC THEORY OR BUSINESS PRACTICE; AND THAT THE REGULATION IS AN
UNWARRANTED EXTENSION OF THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE STATUTE AND CANNOT,
THEREFORE, BE SUSTAINED.  WE HOLD THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE RIGHT. 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT, IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING, RENTS, INTEREST, AND
DIVIDENDS ARE INCOME.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS, IF SUCH ITEMS ARE
COLLECTED BY A DECEDENT'S ESTATE, THE EXECUTORS ARE BOUND TO RETURN
THEM AND PAY TAX UPON THEM AS INCOME.  IN THE CASE OF A LIVING HOLDER,
SUCH RECEIPTS ARE NEVER TREATED AS ON ACCOUNT OF PRINCIPAL.  NOR DOES
THE PROMISE TO PAY INTEREST, RENTS OR DIVIDENDS EITHER TO A LIVING
OWNER OF THE ASSET OR TO HIS EXECUTOR AFTER DEATH, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
LEGALLY SEPARATED FROM THE ASSET OF WHICH IT IS AN INCIDENT, HAVE ANY
MARKET VALUE APART FROM THE ASSET, OR BEAR ANY INVARIABLE RELATION TO
THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. 

IT IS TRUE THAT A BOND EMBODIES TWO PROMISES, ONE TO PAY THE
PRINCIPAL AT MATURITY, THE OTHER TO PAY INTEREST AT INTERVALS UNTIL
MATURITY.  AND THE PROMISE TO PAY INTEREST OR RENT, OR THE EXPECTANCY
OF DIVIDENDS UPON STOCK, THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENTS, THE PAST AND
PROSPECTIVE REGULARITY OF THE PAYMENTS, AND OTHER ELEMENTS BEARING UPON
THE EXPECTATION OF THE RECEIPT OF INCOME AFFECT THE VALUE OF ANY INCOME
PRODUCING PROPERTY.  BUT THESE ELEMENTS ARE NOT SEPARATELY VALUED IN
APPRAISING THE WORTH OF THE ASSET AT ANY GIVEN TIME.  IT IS THE UNIFORM
PRACTICE TO VALUE THE ASSET AS AN ENTIRETY, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT GO TO GIVE IT VALUE IN THE MARKET. 

IN THE APPRAISAL OF A DECEDENT'S ESTATE, RENT OR INTEREST ACCRUED TO
THE DATE OF DEATH IS PROPERLY TREATED AS A CAPITAL ASSET.  SO ALSO, ON
THE SALE OF AN INTEREST-BEARING SECURITY, IT IS THE UNIFORM PRACTICE TO
ADD TO THE VALUE OF THE OBLIGATION, AS SUCH, ACCRUED INTEREST TO THE
DATE OF SALE.  SINCE THE STATUTE SAYS THAT, AT THE OPTION OF THE
EXECUTOR, A BOND MAY BE VALUED AS OF ONE YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO DECEDENT'S
DEATH, THE NATURAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THE USUAL METHOD OF VALUATION
SHALL BE PURSUED WHICHEVER DATE IS SELECTED.  THE METHOD ALWAYS ADOPTED
FOR VALUATION AT DEATH IS THE SAME USED IN FIXING A SALE PRICE; THAT
IS, TO TAKE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE BOND AND ADD ACCRUED INTEREST TO
THE DATE OF TRANSFER, AT THE RATE STIPULATED IN THE INSTRUMENT.  IT IS
NOT BELIEVED THAT CONGRESS, IN PROVIDING FOR TWO DATES OF VALUATION,
INTENDED THAT A DIFFERENT METHOD SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IF ONE DATE WERE
CHOSEN RATHER THAN THE OTHER. 

IF CONGRESS INTENDED THE RESULT FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS,
NAMELY, THAT A DIFFERENT METHOD OF VALUATION SHOULD APPLY AT THE END OF
THE ONE YEAR PERIOD THAN THAT APPLICABLE AS OF THE DATE OF DEATH, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE MATTER SO TO STATE.  THAT CONGRESS HAD NO SUCH
INTENTION SEEMS CLEAR FROM THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS ON THE
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE BILL WHICH EMBODIED THE LANGUAGE IN
QUESTION.  FN7  THERE AN EXAMPLE IS GIVEN AS TO HOW THE CALCULATION OF
VALUE SHOULD BE MADE AT THE END OF THE YEAR.  IN THIS EXAMPLE,
APPRECIATION AND DEPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF BONDS, STOCKS, AND OTHER
ASSETS, DURING THE YEAR, ARE SHOWN BUT DIVIDENDS OR INTEREST RECEIVED
ARE NOT INCLUDED. 

AS HAS BEEN SAID, THE VIEW WE TAKE COMPORTS WITH STANDARD BUSINESS
PRACTICE; WHEREAS THE THEORY ADVOCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT INVOLVES THE
ATTRIBUTION TO INTEREST PAYMENTS OF A QUALITY DERIVED FROM A REFINED
SEPARATION OF SO-CALLED RIGHTS INHERENT IN THE OWNERSHIP OF INCOME
PRODUCING PROPERTY.  CONCEDING THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF A BOND INVOLVES
BOTH THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE PRINCIPAL AND THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE INCOME, IT
IS A HIGHLY ARTIFICIAL CONCEPT THAT AN INTEREST PAYMENT IS A
DISPOSITION, PRO TANTO, OF THE LATTER RIGHT BY THE OWNER OF THE
OBLIGATION.  MORE-OVER, WHILE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FORBID DOUBLE
TAXATION, THE INTENT TO IMPOSE IT UPON A GIVEN RECEIPT IS NOT
PRESUMED.  WE THINK THAT, IF IT HAD BEEN INTENDED, CONGRESS
UNEQUIVOCALLY WOULD HAVE SO DECLARED.  JUDGMENTS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SUBSECTION HAS NOW BEEN EMBODIED IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE AS SEC. 811(J), 53 STAT. 122, 26 U.S.C. 811(J), AND IS IN PART AS
FOLLOWS: 

"OPTIONAL VALUATION.  IF THE EXECUTOR SO ELECTS UPON HIS RETURN  ...
, THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY VALUING ALL THE
PROPERTY INCLUDED THEREIN ON THE DATE OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH AS OF THE
DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, EXCEPT THAT (1) PROPERTY
INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE ON THE DATE OF DEATH AND, WITHIN ONE YEAR
AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, DISTRIBUTED  ...  OR SOLD, EXCHANGED, OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF, SHALL BE INCLUDED AT ITS VALUE AS OF THE TIME OF
SUCH DISTRIBUTION, SALE, EXCHANGE, OR OTHER DISPOSITION, WHICHEVER
FIRST OCCURS, INSTEAD OF ITS VALUE AS OF THE DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE
DECEDENT'S DEATH, AND (2) ANY INTEREST OR ESTATE WHICH IS AFFECTED BY
MERE LAPSE OF TIME SHALL BE INCLUDED AT ITS VALUE AS OF THE TIME OF
DEATH (INSTEAD OF THE LATER DATE) WITH ADJUSTMENT FOR ANY DIFFERENCE IN
ITS VALUE AS OF THE LATER DATE NOT DUE TO MERE LAPSE OF TIME.  ..." 

FN2  29 F.SUPP.  996. 

FN3  111 F.2D 78. 

FN4  41 B.T.A. 1178, FOUR MEMBERS DISSENTING. 

FN5  114 F.2D 1017. 

FN6  THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND HAS DECIDED CONTRARY TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT:  CLARK V. UNITED
STATES, 33 F.SUPP.  216. 

FN7  H.R. 1885, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 10-11. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS
QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION (SEE PAUL, STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION
(3D SERIES) PP. 423-425) AND ACCORDINGLY THAT THE JUDGMENTS IN THESE
CASES SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE
COURT BELOW IN NO. 274, SAKS V. HIGGINS, 111 F.2D 78. 
..END :




BERRY V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 450 


NO. 336.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 111 F.2D
615, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THIS SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER TOTAL PERMANENT
DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER POLICIES OF WAR RISK INSURANCE, HELD THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT, AND THAT THE EVIDENCE SUSTAINED THE VERDICT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.  P. 451. 

2.  RULE 50(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOES FARTHER THAN THE
OLD PRACTICE IN THAT DISTRICT JUDGES, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE
NOW EXPRESSLY DECLARED TO HAVE THE RIGHT (BUT NOT THE MANDATORY DUTY)
TO ENTER A JUDGMENT CONTRARY TO THE JURY'S VERDICT WITHOUT GRANTING A
NEW TRIAL; BUT IT HAS NOT TAKEN AWAY FROM JURIES AND GIVEN TO JUDGES
ANY PART OF THE EXCLUSIVE POWER OF JURIES TO WEIGH EVIDENCE AND
DETERMINE CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT.  P. 452. 

3.  THE JURY PROPERLY COULD HAVE FOUND FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE
THAT, AS A RESULT OF INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE WORLD WAR, AND WHILE HIS
POLICIES OF WAR RISK INSURANCE WERE IN FORCE, THE PLAINTIFF BECAME
TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE POLICIES AND
HAS SINCE REMAINED SO, IN THAT HE HAS NOT SINCE BEEN ABLE, AND WILL NOT
AGAIN BE ABLE, TO WORK WITH ANY REASONABLE REGULARITY AT ANY
SUBSTANTIALLY GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.  P. 453. 

TO JUSTIFY A FINDING OF TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY, IT IS NOT
NECESSARY THAT THE INSURED BE BEDRIDDEN AND HELPLESS, OR THAT HE SHOULD
NOT HAVE UNDERTAKEN ANY WORK OF ANY KIND.  P. 455. 

4.  THAT THIRTEEN YEARS ELAPSED BEFORE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THIS CASE
DOES NOT BAR RECOVERY, BUT IS A CIRCUMSTANCE TO BE WEIGHED BY THE JURY
WITH THE OTHER EVIDENCE.  P. 456. 

BERRY V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 633, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT UPON POLICIES OF WAR RISK INSURANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SUED THE UNITED STATES IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT,
ALLEGING THAT HE BECAME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED PRIOR TO
DECEMBER 1, 1919, WHILE HIS POLICIES OF WAR RISK INSURANCE WERE IN
FORCE AND EFFECT.  FN1  TRIAL WAS HAD AND EVIDENCE HEARD.  THE TRIAL
JUDGE DECLINED TO GRANT THE GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT
IN ITS FAVOR.  THE JURY FOUND FOR PETITIONER.  THE GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT
HAVING MADE ANY MOTION EITHER FOR A NEW TRIAL OR FOR JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, TOOK THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  UPON REVIEW THAT COURT HELD PLAINTIFF HAD NOT PRODUCED
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY SUBMISSION OF THE CAUSE TO THE JURY. 
THE COURT DID NOT, HOWEVER, REMAND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, BUT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND DISMISSED THE CAUSE
OF ACTION.  FN2 

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI PRESENTED TWO QUESTIONS:  FIRST, WHETHER
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT; SECOND, WHETHER
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CAUSE INSTEAD OF
REMANDING IT FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THIS SECOND QUESTION INVOKED OUR
JURISDICTION IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN AUTHORITATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
SUBDIVISION (B) OF RULE 50 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  IN PART
THAT SUBDIVISION PROVIDES:  "WHENEVER A MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT
MADE AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IS DENIED OR FOR ANY REASON IS
NOT GRANTED, THE COURT IS DEEMED TO HAVE SUBMITTED THE ACTION TO THE
JURY SUBJECT TO A LATER DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY
THE MOTION.  WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE RECEPTION OF A VERDICT, A PARTY
WHO HAS MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT MAY MOVE TO HAVE THE VERDICT AND
ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED THEREON SET ASIDE AND TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT; ...  " SINCE THE
GOVERNMENT MADE NO SUCH MOTION WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE VERDICT,
PETITIONER URGED HERE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS WITHOUT
POWER TO DISMISS THE CAUSE BUT SHOULD HAVE REMANDED IT FOR A NEW
TRIAL.  BUT WHILE THIS IMPORTANT POINT, UPON WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS ARE NOT IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT N3, IS ONE OF THE TWO
QUESTIONS UPON WHICH THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI RESTED, THERE IS NO
OCCASION FOR US TO REACH IT HERE.  FOR WE FIND THAT THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE JURY'S VERDICT, AND WE HOLD THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT IN ITS FAVOR. 

RULE 50(B) GOES FURTHER THAN THE OLD PRACTICE  FN4  IN THAT DISTRICT
JUDGES, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE NOW EXPRESSLY DECLARED TO HAVE
THE RIGHT (BUT NOT THE MANDATORY DUTY) TO ENTER A JUDGMENT CONTRARY TO
THE JURY'S VERDICT WITHOUT GRANTING A NEW TRIAL.  FN5  BUT THAT RULE
HAS NOT TAKEN AWAY FROM JURIES AND GIVEN TO JUDGES ANY PART OF THE
EXCLUSIVE POWER OF JURIES TO WEIGH EVIDENCE AND DETERMINE CONTESTED
ISSUES OF FACT FN6  - A JURY BEING THE CONSTITUTIONAL TRIBUNAL PROVIDED
FOR TRYING FACTS IN COURTS OF LAW.  HERE, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE
FROM WHICH A JURY COULD HAVE REACHED A CONTRARY CONCLUSION, THERE WAS
TESTIMONY FROM WHICH A JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THESE TO BE THE FACTS:
PETITIONER SUFFERED INJURIES ON JUNE 16, 1918, WHILE SERVING IN THE
FRONT LINES IN FRANCE.  ON THAT DATE, IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, BITS
OF SHRAPNEL WOUNDED HIM IN THE RIGHT ARM, RIGHT SHOULDER, RIGHT HIP AND
IN FRONT OF THE RIGHT EAR.  HE WAS HELPED TO A DUGOUT BY ANOTHER
SOLDIER.  THERE HE FOUND OTHERS WHO WERE WOUNDED.  ABOUT FIFTEEN
MINUTES AFTER HE ARRIVED AT THE DUGOUT, ANOTHER SHELL STRUCK,
IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE DUGOUT DOOR.  ALL THE NINE OR TEN MEN
PRESENT WERE EITHER KILLED OUTRIGHT OR WERE SO BADLY WOUNDED THAT THEY
WERE UNABLE TO LEAVE.  PETITIONER'S LEFT LEG WAS PRACTICALLY CUT OFF
BELOW THE KNEE.  HE TWISTED A PART OF HIS WRAPPED LEGGINGS AROUND HIS
WOUND TO STOP THE BLEEDING.  ABOUT SIX AND ONE-HALF HOURS LATER HE WAS
TAKEN ON A STRETCHER AND CARRIED BACK TO THE FIRST AID STATION.  THERE
HIS WOUNDS WERE TEMPORARILY DRESSED.  AFTER ANOTHER SIX OR SEVEN HOURS,
HE WAS CARRIED TO THE HOSPITAL.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER AN OPERATION
FOLLOWED AND HIS LEFT LEG WAS REMOVED.  HE UNDERWENT SEVERAL OPERATIONS
IN THE HOSPITALS IN FRANCE, LEAVING THAT COUNTRY FOR THE UNITED STATES
IN AUGUST OF 1918 AND ARRIVING IN BOSTON ON SEPTEMBER 7.  HE WAS
TREATED IN HOSPITALS IN THE UNITED STATES UNTIL ABOUT CHRISTMAS, 1918. 
DURING THE YEARS BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE INJURY AND THE TIME OF THE
TRIAL, PETITIONER SUFFERED REPEATEDLY FROM ABSCESSES AND BLISTERS ON
THE STUMP OF HIS LEFT LEG, AND HIS RIGHT LEG HAS CAUSED HIM
INCONVENIENCE, SUFFERING AND DISABILITY.  IN ADDITION HIS NERVOUS
SYSTEM HAS SHOWN SERIOUS AND CONTINUOUS IMPAIRMENT, SO MUCH SO THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY SAID, "CERTAIN IT IS THAT HE WAS
NEURASTHENIC, AND HAD UNCONTROLLABLE ACCESSES OF TERROR AT ANY
EXPLOSION, OR EVEN DURING THUNDERSTORMS."  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME
SINCE HIS INJURIES WHEN HE COULD DO WORK WHICH REQUIRED HIM TO STAND
UPON OR USE THE STUMP WITHOUT HAVING IT BLISTERED, CHAFED OR ABSCESSED
WITHIN TWO DAYS.  SEVERAL PHYSICIANS WHO EXAMINED AND TREATED HIM
THROUGH THE YEARS WERE OF OPINION THAT HE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO WORK
CONTINUOUSLY AT A GAINFUL OCCUPATION BECAUSE OF HIS CONDITION, AND THAT
HE HAD NEVER BEEN ABLE SO TO WORK SINCE THE WOUND WAS RECEIVED.  THE
GOVERNMENT GAVE HIM VOCATIONAL TRAINING BOTH IN PHOTOGRAPHY AND IN
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR WORK.  HE TRIED BOTH, BUT FROM HIS OWN EVIDENCE,
CORROBORATED BY THAT OF HIS EMPLOYERS IN MANY INSTANCES, THE JURY COULD
HAVE FOUND THAT IN SPITE OF HIS DETERMINATION TO SUCCEED, HE WAS
PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO DO SO.  HE BOUGHT A FARM.  HE WAS COMPELLED TO
DEPEND ON THE WORK OF HIS OWN FAMILY AND RELATIVES IN THIS UNDERTAKING,
BUT THE VENTURE WAS A FAILURE AND HE LOST THE FARM.  HE TRIED TO
OPERATE A GARAGE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ANOTHER.  IN THIS, TOO, HE WAS
UNSUCCESSFUL, AND THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT HIS FAILURE WAS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIS PHYSICAL DISABILITIES.  FOR A TIME HE WAS ENGAGED
AS A SALESMAN OF ALUMINUM COOKING UTENSILS.  BUT HERE AGAIN THE JURY
COULD HAVE FOUND THAT HIS CONTRIBUTION TO THE VENTURE WAS SMALL.  FOR,
AS ELSEWHERE, THERE WAS TESTIMONY TENDING TO SHOW THAT IT WAS A MEMBER
OF HIS FAMILY, IN THIS INSTANCE HIS WIFE, WHOSE LABORS MADE IT POSSIBLE
FOR THIS ACTIVITY TO BE CARRIED ON.  TAKING THE EVIDENCE AS A WHOLE,
THE JURORS, WHO HEARD THE WITNESSES AND PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE
PETITIONER'S WOUNDS, COULD FAIRLY HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT
SINCE HIS INJURIES PETITIONER NEVER HAD BEEN ABLE, AND WOULD NOT BE
ABLE THEREAFTER, TO WORK WITH ANY REASONABLE DEGREE OF REGULARITY AT
ANY SUBSTANTIALLY GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, WHO HAD THE
SAME OPPORTUNITY AS THE JURY TO HEAR THE WITNESSES, DENIED THE
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AND CORRECTLY INSTRUCTED THE
JURY WHAT THEY MUST FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO RETURN A VERDICT
FOR PETITIONER.  FN7 

IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THAT PETITIONER BE BEDRIDDEN, WHOLLY HELPLESS,
OR THAT HE SHOULD ABANDON EVERY POSSIBLE EFFORT TO WORK IN ORDER FOR
THE JURY TO FIND THAT HE WAS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.  FN8  IT
CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT IF PETITIONER HAD REFRAINED FROM TRYING TO DO
ANY WORK AT ALL, AND THE SAME EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT WHICH
APPEARS IN THIS RECORD HAD BEEN OFFERED, A JURY COULD HAVE PROPERLY
FOUND HIM TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.  AND THE JURY COULD HAVE
FOUND THAT HIS EFFORTS TO WORK - ALL OF WHICH SOONER OR LATER RESULTED
IN FAILURE - WERE MADE NOT BECAUSE OF HIS ABILITY TO WORK BUT BECAUSE
OF HIS UNWILLINGNESS TO LIVE A LIFE OF IDLENESS, EVEN THOUGH TOTALLY
AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF HIS POLICIES.  FN9 NOR
DOES THE FACT THAT HE WAITED THIRTEEN YEARS BEFORE BRINGING SUIT STAND
AS AN INSUPERABLE BARRIER TO HIS RECOVERY.  HIS CASE WAS NOT BARRED BY
ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  WHATEVER WEIGHT THE JURY SHOULD HAVE GIVEN
TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF PETITIONER'S DELAY IN FILING HIS CLAIM, THAT
WEIGHT WAS STILL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH ALL THE
OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH A JURY COULD REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT
PETITIONER WAS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.  THAT WAS ENOUGH.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THOUGH PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT HIS POLICIES WERE IN EFFECT UNTIL
DECEMBER 1, 1919, IN REALITY IT WAS NECESSARY FOR HIM TO SHOW THAT HE
BECAME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1, 1919. 
THIS VARIANCE IN DATES IS NOT MATERIAL, HOWEVER. 

FN2  111 F.2D 615. 

FN3  COMPARE CONWAY V. O'BRIEN, 111 F.2D 611, 613(C.C.A.2D),
REVERSED, POST, P. 492, WITH PRUITT V. HARDWARE DEALERS MUTUAL FIRE
INS. CO., 112 F.2D 140, 143(C.C.A.5TH).  AND SEE UNITED STATES V.
HALLIDAY, 116 F.2D 812(C.C.A.4TH). 

FN4  COMPARE SLOCUM V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., 228 U.S. 364,
WITH BALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE V. REDMAN, 295 U.S. 654. 

FN5  THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RULE PROVIDES:  "IF A VERDICT WAS
RETURNED THE COURT MAY ALLOW THE JUDGMENT TO STAND OR MAY REOPEN THE
JUDGMENT AND EITHER ORDER A NEW TRIAL OR DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
AS IF THE REQUESTED VERDICT HAD BEEN DIRECTED." 

FN6 SEE GUNNING V. COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90, 94; RICHMOND & DANVILLE R.
CO. V. POWERS, 149 U.S. 43, 45; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. COX, 145
U.S. 593, 606; RAILROAD CO. V. STOUT, 17 WALL.  657, 663. 

FN7  THE GOVERNMENT EXPRESSED SATISFACTION WITH THE TRIAL JUDGE'S
CHARGE, WHICH, AS TO TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY, CONTAINED THIS
STATEMENT:  "A TOTAL DISABILITY IS ANY PHYSICAL OR NERVOUS INJURY WHICH
MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO FOLLOW CONTINUOUSLY A SUBSTANTIALLY
GAINFUL OCCUPATION AT ANY KIND OF WORK FOR WHICH HE WAS COMPETENT OR
QUALIFIED, PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY, OR FOR WHICH HE COULD QUALIFY
HIMSELF BY A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF STUDY AND TRAINING.  THE WORD 'TOTAL'
AS APPLIED TO 'DISABILITY' DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN INCAPACITATED TO
DO ANY WORK AT ALL.  THE WORD 'CONTINUOUSLY' MEANS WITH REASONABLE
REGULARITY.  IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE PERIODS OF DISABILITY WHICH ARE
ORDINARILY INCIDENT TO ACTIVITIES OF PERSONS IN GENERALLY SOUND HEALTH,
FOR NEARLY ALL PERSONS ARE AT TIMES TEMPORARILY INCAPACITATED BY
INJURIES, OR POOR HEALTH, FROM CARRYING ON THEIR OCCUPATIONS.  IF BERRY
WAS ABLE TO FOLLOW A GAINFUL OCCUPATION ONLY SPASMODICALLY, WITH
FREQUENT INTERRUPTIONS, DUE TO HIS INJURIES, AND HIS SHOCK, HE WAS
TOTALLY DISABLED.  A DISABILITY IS PERMANENT WHEN IT IS OF SUCH A
NATURE THAT IT IS REASONABLY CERTAIN IT WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT A
PERSON'S LIFETIME." 

FN8  LUMBRA V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 551, 559-560. 

FN9  SEE UNITED STATES V. RICE, 72 F.2D 676, 677; NICOLAY V. UNITED
STATES, 51 F.2D 170, 173; UNITED STATES V. LAWSON, 50 F.2D 646, 651;
UNITED STATES V. GODFREY, 47 F.2D 126, 127; UNITED STATES V. PHILLIPS,
44 F.2D 689, 691. 
..END :





FASHION GUILD V. TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 457 


NO. 537.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 114
F.2D 80, AFFIRMED. 


A COMBINATION OF MANUFACTURERS OF WOMEN'S GARMENTS AND MANUFACTURERS
OF TEXTILES USED IN THEIR MAKING, WHO CLAIMED THAT THE DESIGNS OF THEIR
PRODUCTS, THOUGH NOT PROTECTED BY PATENT OR COPYRIGHT, WERE ORIGINAL
AND DISTINCTIVE, SOUGHT TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION BY OTHERS WHO COPIED
THEIR DESIGNS AND SOLD AT GENERALLY LOWER PRICES.  TO THIS END, THOSE
IN THE COMBINATION SYSTEMATICALLY REGISTERED THEIR DESIGNS AND REFUSED
ALL SALES TO MANUFACTURERS AND RETAILERS OF GARMENTS WHO DEALT IN THE
COPIES OR WOULD NOT AGREE NOT TO SELL THEM.  TO AID IN EFFECTUATING THE
BOYCOTT, THE COMBINATION EMPLOYED "SHOPPERS" TO VISIT RETAILERS'
STORES, ESTABLISHED TRIBUNALS TO DETERMINE WHETHER GARMENTS WERE COPIES
OF DESIGNS REGISTERED, AUDITED THE BOOKS OF ITS MEMBERS, FINED THEM FOR
VIOLATIONS OF ITS REGULATIONS, ETC.  IN VIEW OF THESE THINGS, AND THE
POWER OF THE COMBINATION AND ITS EFFECT UPON SALES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE PRACTICES OF
THE COMBINATION CONSTITUTED UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION TENDING TO
MONOPOLY AND ISSUED A "CEASE AND DESIST" ORDER.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSION WAS BASED ON ADEQUATE AND
UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS AND WAS CORRECT.  P. 463. 

2.  WHERE THE PURPOSE AND PRACTICE OF A COMBINATION RUN COUNTER TO
THE PUBLIC POLICY DECLARED IN THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS, THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION HAS THE POWER TO SUPPRESS IT AS AN UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION.  P. 463. 

3.  A PRACTICE SHORT OF A COMPLETE MONOPOLY BUT WHICH TENDS TO CREATE
A MONOPOLY AND TO DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF THE ADVANTAGES FROM FREE
COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE TRADE, OFFENDS THE POLICY OF THE SHERMAN
ACT.  P. 466. 

4.  A COMBINATION MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF THE SHERMAN AND
CLAYTON ACTS THOUGH IT DOES NOT TEND TO FIX OR REGULATE PRICES, PARCEL
OUT OR LIMIT PRODUCTION, OR BRING ABOUT A DETERIORATION IN QUALITY.  P.
466. 

IT WAS THE OBJECT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT TO REACH IN
THEIR INCIPIENCY COMBINATIONS WHICH COULD LEAD TO THESE AND OTHER TRADE
RESTRAINTS AND PRACTICES DEEMED UNDESIRABLE. 

5.  SINCE THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THIS COMBINATION, ITS POTENTIAL
POWER, ITS TENDENCY TO MONOPOLY, THE COERCION IT COULD AND DID PRACTICE
UPON A RIVAL METHOD OF COMPETITION, ALL BROUGHT IT WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION DECLARED BY THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS, IT WAS NOT
ERRONEOUS TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE PRACTICES WERE
REASONABLE AND NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF MANUFACTURER, LABORER,
RETAILER AND CONSUMER AGAINST THE EVILS GROWING FROM THE PIRATING OF
ORIGINAL DESIGNS.  P. 467. 

6.  WHETHER OR NOT SYSTEMATIC COPYING OF THE DRESS DESIGNS BY TRADE
COMPETITORS IS IN ITSELF TORTIOUS IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW; BUT EVEN
IF TORTIOUS UNDER THE LAWS OF ALL THE STATES, THAT CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD
NOT JUSTIFY A COMBINATION TO SUPPRESS IT BY REGULATING AND RESTRAINING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.  P. 468. 

FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 641, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE COURT BELOW
OF A "CEASE AND DESIST" ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

THE PETITIONERS' PROGRAM DOES NOT VIOLATE SEC. 5 BECAUSE ITS SOLE
CONSEQUENCE IS TO CURB THE UNLAWFUL COMPETITION OF THE STYLE PIRATE. 
"STYLE PIRACY" IS UNFAIR COMPETITION IN WHICH THE COPYIST HAS NO RIGHT
TO ENGAGE.  INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE CO. V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 248
U.S. 215; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 532; CALLMAN,
STYLE & DESIGN PIRACY, 22 JOURNAL OF PATENT OFFICE, 578, 586; 47 HARV.
L. REV. 1419, 1426-1427; NOTE (1930), 14 MINN. L. REV. 537.  CF.
ROGERS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, 17 MICH. L. REV. 490; HANDLER, UNFAIR
COMPETITION, 21 IOWA L. REV. 175, 191. 

"UNFAIR COMPETITION" IS ESSENTIALLY A BRANCH OF THE LAW OF TORTS.  A
MAN'S INTEREST IN HIS BUSINESS IS A SUBJECT OF PROTECTION AGAINST
UNLAWFUL INVASION BY OTHERS.  INDEED, EQUITY CALLS IT A PROPERTY RIGHT
AND WILL ENJOIN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCES.  TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S.
312, 327; PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510; MOSLER SAFE CO.
V. ELY NORRIS SAFE CO., 273 U.S. 132; THE CASE OF THE SCHOOLMASTERS,
Y.B. 11 HEN.  4, F. 47, PL. 21.  THE INJURED TRADER HAS A REMEDY
WHENEVER HE SHOWS THAT THE OTHER INVADED HIS INTEREST IN HIS BUSINESS
BY LESSENING HIS PROSPECT OF CUSTOMERS BY AN ACT WHICH SOCIETY
CONDEMNS. 

CLEAR AND IMMEDIATE INJURY TO THE DESIGN ORIGINATOR'S BUSINESS FLOWS
FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE COPYIST.  THE CONDUCT OF THE COPYIST IS
"WRONGFUL," THAT IS TO SAY, IT IS CONDEMNED BY BOTH THE COURTS AND
SOCIETY.  MONTEGUT V. HICKSON, 178 APP. DIV. 94; MARGOLIS V. NATIONAL
BELLAS HESS CO., 139 MISC. 738.  HE SYSTEMATICALLY, MECHANICALLY AND
CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATES THE FRUITS OF THE CREATOR'S SKILL, LABOR AND
EXPENSE.  HE IS NOT LIKE THE WIDE-AWAKE COMPETITOR WHO ESPIES AND FILLS
A PARTICULAR DEMAND THAT ANOTHER MAY FIRST HAVE NOTICED. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ITSELF HAS SPECIFICALLY CONDEMNED THE
PIRACY OF PATTERNS, STYLES AND DESIGNS.  IN MANY INDUSTRIES IT HAS
ACCEPTED RULES PROPOSED IN TRADE PRACTICE CONFERENCES WHICH
UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNED THE PRACTICE OF COPYING COMPETITORS'
CREATIONS. 

THE SOLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE FOGA PROGRAM IS TO LIMIT THE UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITIES OF THE STYLE PIRATES AND OF THE RETAILERS WHO JOIN THEM. 

A METHOD OF COMPETITION WHICH HAS NO EFFECT EXCEPT TO LIMIT THE
UNFAIR COMPETITION OF OTHERS IS NOT A VIOLATION OF SEC. 5.  FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. BUTTERICK PUB. CO., 85 F.2D 522. 

TO A TRADER. 

THE ACT DOES NOT PROTECT FROM INTERFERENCE TRADE WHICH HAS NO RIGHT
TO EXIST.  THE ACT IS INTENDED ALSO TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.  SEE FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. ROYAL MILLING CO., 288 U.S. 212; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N
V. R. F. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304.  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO VEST
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WITH JURISDICTION TO PREVENT METHODS OF
COMPETITION WHICH HAVE NO CONSEQUENCES EXCEPT TO LIMIT THOSE ACTIVITIES
OF OTHERS WHICH ARE UNFAIR AND WHICH EQUITY WOULD FORBID. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ERRED IN REFUSING TO HEAR EVIDENCE OF
THE ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FOGA PROGRAM.  THE PROFFERED
EVIDENCE WAS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE
PETITIONERS WERE VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT WAS RELEVANT AND
MATERIAL TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PETITIONERS' CONDUCT WAS
TORTIOUS AT COMMON LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH MODIFICATIONS NOT HERE CHALLENGED,
AFFIRMED A FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECREE ORDERING PETITIONERS TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM CERTAIN PRACTICES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DONE IN
COMBINATION AND TO CONSTITUTE "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION" TENDING
TO MONOPOLY.  FN1  DETERMINATION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION
BELOW REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF THE SHERMAN, CLAYTON, AND FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACTS.  FN2 

SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION DESIGN, MANUFACTURE, SELL AND
DISTRIBUTE WOMEN'S GARMENTS - CHIEFLY DRESSES.  OTHERS ARE
MANUFACTURERS, CONVERTERS OR DYERS OF TEXTILES FROM WHICH THESE
GARMENTS ARE MADE.  FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD OF AMERICA (FOGA), AN
ORGANIZATION CONTROLLED BY THESE GROUPS, IS THE INSTRUMENT THROUGH
WHICH PETITIONERS WORK TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES CONDEMNED BY THE
COMMISSION.  THE GARMENT MANUFACTURERS CLAIM TO BE CREATORS OF ORIGINAL
AND DISTINCTIVE DESIGNS OF FASHIONABLE CLOTHES FOR WOMEN, AND THE
TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS CLAIM TO BE CREATORS OF SIMILAR ORIGINAL FABRIC
DESIGNS.  AFTER THESE DESIGNS ENTER THE CHANNELS OF TRADE, OTHER
MANUFACTURERS SYSTEMATICALLY MAKE AND SELL COPIES OF THEM, THE COPIES
USUALLY SELLING AT PRICES LOWER THAN THE GARMENTS COPIED.  PETITIONERS
CALL THIS PRACTICE OF COPYING UNETHICAL AND IMMORAL, AND GIVE IT THE
NAME OF "STYLE PIRACY."  AND ALTHOUGH THEY ADMIT THAT THEIR "ORIGINAL
CREATIONS" ARE NEITHER COPYRIGHTED NOR PATENTED, AND INDEED ASSERT THAT
EXISTING LEGISLATION AFFORDS THEM NO PROTECTION AGAINST COPYISTS, THEY
NEVERTHELESS URGE THAT SALE OF COPIED DESIGNS CONSTITUTES AN UNFAIR
TRADE PRACTICE AND A TORTIOUS INVASION OF THEIR RIGHTS.  BECAUSE OF
THESE ALLEGED WRONGS, PETITIONERS, WHILE CONTINUING TO COMPETE WITH ONE
ANOTHER IN MANY RESPECTS, COMBINED AMONG THEMSELVES TO COMBAT AND, IF
POSSIBLE, DESTROY ALL COMPETITION FROM THE SALE OF GARMENTS WHICH ARE
COPIES OF THEIR "ORIGINAL CREATIONS."  THEY ADMIT THAT TO DESTROY SUCH
COMPETITION THEY HAVE IN COMBINATION PURPOSELY BOYCOTTED AND DECLINED
TO SELL THEIR PRODUCTS TO RETAILERS WHO FOLLOW A POLICY OF SELLING
GARMENTS COPIED BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS FROM DESIGNS PUT OUT BY GUILD
MEMBERS.  AS A RESULT OF THEIR EFFORTS, APPROXIMATELY 12,000 RETAILERS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY HAVE SIGNED AGREEMENTS TO "COOPERATE" WITH THE
GUILD'S BOYCOTT PROGRAM, BUT MORE THAN HALF OF THESE SIGNED THE
AGREEMENTS ONLY BECAUSE CONSTRAINED BY THREATS THAT GUILD MEMBERS WOULD
NOT SELL TO RETAILERS WHO FAILED TO YIELD TO THEIR DEMANDS - THREATS
THAT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE GUILD PRACTICE OF PLACING ON RED
CARDS THE NAMES OF NON-COOPERATORS (TO WHOM NO SALES ARE TO BE MADE),
PLACING ON WHITE CARDS THE NAMES OF COOPERATORS (TO WHOM SALES ARE TO
BE MADE), AND THEN DISTRIBUTING BOTH SETS OF CARDS TO THE
MANUFACTURERS. 

THE ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SIX MANUFACTURERS OF WOMEN'S GARMENTS WHO
ARE MEMBERS OF THE GUILD OCCUPY A COMMANDING POSITION IN THEIR LINE OF
BUSINESS.  IN 1936, THEY SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES MORE THAN 38% OF ALL
WOMEN'S GARMENTS WHOLESALING AT $6.75 AND UP, AND MORE THAN 60% OF
THOSE AT $10.75 AND ABOVE.  THE POWER OF THE COMBINATION IS GREAT;
COMPETITION AND THE DEMAND OF THE CONSUMING PUBLIC MAKE IT NECESSARY
FOR MOST RETAIL DEALERS TO STOCK SOME OF THE PRODUCTS OF THESE
MANUFACTURERS.  AND THE POWER OF THE COMBINATION IS MADE EVEN GREATER
BY REASON OF THE AFFILIATION OF SOME MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION
OF TEXTILES, INC. - THAT BEING AN ORGANIZATION COMPOSED OF ABOUT ONE
HUNDRED TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS, CONVERTERS, DYERS, AND PRINTERS OF SILK
AND RAYON USED IN MAKING WOMEN'S GARMENTS.  THOSE MEMBERS OF THE
FEDERATION WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE GUILD HAVE AGREED TO SELL THEIR
PRODUCTS ONLY TO THOSE GARMENT MANUFACTURERS WHO HAVE IN TURN AGREED TO
SELL ONLY TO COOPERATING RETAILERS. 

THE GUILD MAINTAINS A DESIGN REGISTRATION BUREAU FOR GARMENTS, AND THE
TEXTILE FEDERATION MAINTAINS A SIMILAR BUREAU FOR TEXTILES.  THE GUILD
EMPLOYS "SHOPPERS" TO VISIT THE STORES OF BOTH COOPERATING AND NON
COOPERATING RETAILERS, "FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THEIR STOCKS, TO
DETERMINE AND REPORT AS TO WHETHER THEY CONTAIN  ...  COPIES OF
REGISTERED DESIGNS  ...  "  AN ELABORATE SYSTEM OF TRIAL AND APPELLATE
TRIBUNALS EXISTS, FOR THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A GIVEN GARMENT IS
IN FACT A COPY OF A GUILD MEMBER'S DESIGN.  IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE
SUCCESS OF ITS PLAN OF REGISTRATION AND RESTRAINT, AND TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER GUILD REGULATIONS ARE BEING VIOLATED, THE GUILD AUDITS ITS
MEMBERS' BOOKS.  AND IF VIOLATIONS OF GUILD REQUIREMENTS ARE
DISCOVERED, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, SALES TO RED-CARDED RETAILERS, THE
VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO HEAVY FINES.  FN3 

IN ADDITION TO THE ELEMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT SET OUT ABOVE, ALL OF
WHICH RELATE MORE OR LESS CLOSELY TO COMPETITION BY SO-CALLED STYLE
COPYISTS, THE GUILD HAS UNDERTAKEN TO DO MANY THINGS APPARENTLY
INDEPENDENT OF AND DISTINCT FROM THE FIGHT AGAINST COPYING.  AMONG THEM
ARE THE FOLLOWING:  THE COMBINATION PROHIBITS ITS MEMBERS FROM
PARTICIPATING IN RETAIL ADVERTISING; REGULATES THE DISCOUNT THEY MAY
ALLOW; PROHIBITS THEIR SELLING AT RETAIL; COOPERATES WITH LOCAL GUILDS
IN REGULATING DAYS UPON WHICH SPECIAL SALES SHALL BE HELD; PROHIBITS
ITS MEMBERS FROM SELLING WOMEN'S GARMENTS TO PERSONS WHO CONDUCT
BUSINESSES IN RESIDENCES, RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS, HOTELS OR APARTMENT
HOUSES; AND DENIES THE BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP TO RETAILERS WHO
PARTICIPATE WITH DRESS MANUFACTURERS IN PROMOTING FASHION SHOWS UNLESS
THE MERCHANDISE USED IS ACTUALLY PURCHASED AND DELIVERED. 

IF THE PURPOSE AND PRACTICE OF THE COMBINATION OF GARMENT
MANUFACTURERS AND THEIR AFFILIATES RUNS COUNTER TO THE PUBLIC POLICY
DECLARED IN THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
HAS THE POWER TO SUPPRESS IT AS AN UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION.  FN4
FROM ITS FINDINGS THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE PETITIONERS,
"PURSUANT TO UNDERSTANDINGS, ARRANGEMENTS, AGREEMENTS, COMBINATIONS AND
CONSPIRACIES ENTERED INTO JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY" HAD PREVENTED SALES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HAD "SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED, HINDERED AND
SUPPRESSED" COMPETITION, AND HAD TENDED "TO CREATE IN THEMSELVES A
MONOPOLY."  AND PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE CLAYTON ACT (15 U.S.C. SEC. 14)
DECLARES "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN COMMERCE,  ...
TO  ... MAKE A SALE OR CONTRACT FOR SALE OF GOODS,  ...  ON THE
CONDITION, AGREEMENT, OR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE  ...  PURCHASER THEREOF
SHALL NOT USE OR DEAL IN THE GOODS,  ...  OF A COMPETITOR OR
COMPETITORS OF THE  ...  SELLER, WHERE THE EFFECT OF SUCH  ...  SALE,
OR CONTRACT FOR SALE  ... MAY BE TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION OR
TEND TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN ANY LINE OF COMMERCE."  THE RELEVANCE OF
THIS SECTION OF THE CLAYTON ACT TO PETITIONERS' SCHEME IS SHOWN BY THE
FACT THAT THE SCHEME IS BOTTOMED UPON A SYSTEM OF SALE UNDER WHICH (1)
TEXTILES SHALL BE SOLD TO GARMENT MANUFACTURERS ONLY UPON THE CONDITION
AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BUYERS WILL NOT USE OR DEAL IN TEXTILES
WHICH ARE COPIED FROM THE DESIGNS OF TEXTILE MANUFACTURING GUILD
MEMBERS; (2) GARMENT MANUFACTURERS SHALL SELL TO RETAILERS ONLY UPON
THE CONDITION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RETAILERS SHALL NOT USE OR
DEAL IN SUCH COPIED DESIGNS.  AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
CONCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLAYTON ACT THAT THESE UNDERSTANDINGS
SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED COMPETITION AND TENDED TO CREATE A MONOPOLY.  WE
HOLD THAT THE COMMISSION, UPON ADEQUATE AND UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS,
CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THIS PRACTICE CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION.  FN5 

NOT ONLY DOES THE PLAN IN THE RESPECTS ABOVE DISCUSSED THUS CONFLICT
WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CLAYTON ACT; THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION
BRING PETITIONERS' COMBINATION IN ITS ENTIRETY WELL WITHIN THE
INHIBITION OF THE POLICIES DECLARED BY THE SHERMAN ACT ITSELF.  SECTION
1 OF THAT ACT MAKES ILLEGAL EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES; SEC. 2
MAKES ILLEGAL EVERY COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY WHICH MONOPOLIZES OR
ATTEMPTS TO MONOPOLIZE ANY PART OF THAT TRADE OR COMMERCE.  UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT "COMPETITION NOT COMBINATION, SHOULD BE THE LAW OF TRADE." 
NATIONAL COTTON OIL CO. V. TEXAS, 197 U.S. 115, 129.  AND AMONG THE
MANY RESPECTS IN WHICH THE GUILD'S PLAN RUNS CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF
THE SHERMAN ACT ARE THESE:  IT NARROWS THE OUTLETS TO WHICH GARMENT AND
TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS CAN SELL AND THE SOURCES FROM WHICH RETAILERS CAN
BUY (MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38, 45; STANDARD SANITARY MFG.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 48-49); SUBJECTS ALL RETAILERS AND
MANUFACTURERS WHO DECLINE TO COMPLY WITH THE GUILD'S PROGRAM TO AN
ORGANIZED BOYCOTT (EASTERN STATES RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS' ASSN. V.
UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600, 609-611); TAKES AWAY THE FREEDOM OF ACTION
OF MEMBERS BY REQUIRING EACH TO REVEAL TO THE GUILD THE INTIMATE
DETAILS OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL AFFAIRS (UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LINSEED
OIL CO., 262 U.S. 371, 389); AND HAS BOTH AS ITS NECESSARY TENDENCY AND
AS ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT THE DIRECT SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION FROM
THE SALE OF UNREGISTERED TEXTILES AND COPIED DESIGNS (UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN LINSEED OIL CO., SUPRA, AT 389).  IN ADDITION TO ALL THIS, THE
COMBINATION IS IN REALITY AN EXTRA-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, WHICH
PRESCRIBES RULES FOR THE REGULATION AND RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND PROVIDES EXTRA-JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS FOR DETERMINATION AND
PUNISHMENT OF VIOLATIONS, AND THUS "TRENCHES UPON THE POWER OF THE
NATIONAL LEGISLATURE AND VIOLATES THE STATUTE."  ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211, 242.    NOR IS IT DETERMINATIVE IN
CONSIDERING THE POLICY OF THE SHERMAN ACT THAT PETITIONERS MAY NOT YET
HAVE ACHIEVED A COMPLETE MONOPOLY.  FOR "IT IS SUFFICIENT IF IT REALLY
TENDS TO THAT END AND TO DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF THE ADVANTAGES WHICH
FLOW FROM FREE COMPETITION."  UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO., 156
U.S. 1, 16; ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211,
237.  IT WAS, IN FACT, ONE OF THE HOPES OF THOSE WHO SPONSORED THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT THAT ITS EFFECT MIGHT BE PROPHYLACTIC AND
THAT THROUGH IT ATTEMPTS TO BRING ABOUT COMPLETE MONOPOLIZATION OF AN
INDUSTRY MIGHT BE STOPPED IN THEIR INCIPIENCY.  FN6    PETITIONERS,
HOWEVER, ARGUE THAT THE COMBINATION CANNOT BE CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF
THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS, SINCE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DID
NOT FIND THAT THE COMBINATION FIXED OR REGULATED PRICES, PARCELLED OUT
OR LIMITED PRODUCTION, OR BROUGHT ABOUT A DETERIORATION IN QUALITY. 
BUT ACTION FALLING INTO THESE THREE CATEGORIES DOES NOT EXHAUST THE
TYPES OF CONDUCT BANNED BY THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS.  AND AS
PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT, IT WAS THE OBJECT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT TO REACH NOT MERELY IN THEIR FRUITION BUT ALSO IN THEIR
INCIPIENCY COMBINATIONS WHICH COULD LEAD TO THESE AND OTHER TRADE
RESTRAINTS AND PRACTICES DEEMED UNDESIRABLE.  IN THIS CASE, THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE COMBINATION EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL AND
POWER IN THE WOMEN'S GARMENTS AND TEXTILE BUSINESSES "TO EXCLUDE FROM
THE INDUSTRY THOSE MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS WHO DO NOT CONFORM TO
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF SAID RESPONDENTS, AND THUS TEND TO CREATE
IN THEMSELVES A MONOPOLY IN THE SAID INDUSTRIES."  WHILE A CONSPIRACY
TO FIX PRICES IS ILLEGAL, AN INTENT TO INCREASE PRICES IS NOT AN EVER
PRESENT ESSENTIAL OF CONDUCT AMOUNTING TO A VIOLATION OF THE POLICY OF
THE SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS; A MONOPOLY CONTRARY TO THEIR POLICIES CAN
EXIST EVEN THOUGH A COMBINATION MAY TEMPORARILY OR EVEN PERMANENTLY
REDUCE THE PRICE OF THE ARTICLES MANUFACTURED OR SOLD.  FOR AS THIS
COURT HAS SAID, "TRADE OR COMMERCE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY
NEVERTHELESS BE BADLY AND UNFORTUNATELY RESTRAINED BY DRIVING OUT OF
BUSINESS THE SMALL DEALERS AND WORTHY MEN WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN SPENT
THEREIN, AND WHO MIGHT BE UNABLE TO READJUST THEMSELVES TO THEIR
ALTERED SURROUNDINGS.  MERE REDUCTION IN THE PRICE OF THE COMMODITY
DEALT IN MIGHT BE DEARLY PAID FOR BY THE RUIN OF SUCH A CLASS, AND THE
ABSORPTION OF CONTROL OVER ONE COMMODITY BY AN ALL-POWERFUL COMBINATION
OF CAPITAL."  FN7 

BUT PETITIONERS FURTHER ARGUE THAT THEIR BOYCOTT AND RESTRAINT OF
INTERSTATE TRADE IS NOT WITHIN THE BAN OF THE POLICIES OF THE SHERMAN
AND CLAYTON ACTS BECAUSE "THE PRACTICES OF FOGA WERE REASONABLE AND
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE MANUFACTURER, LABORER, RETAILER AND CONSUMER
AGAINST THE DEVASTATING EVILS GROWING FROM THE PIRATING OF ORIGINAL
DESIGNS AND HAD IN FACT BENEFITED ALL FOUR."  THE COMMISSION DECLINED
TO HEAR MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONERS DESIRED TO OFFER ON THIS
SUBJECT.  AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THE AIM OF PETITIONERS'
COMBINATION WAS THE INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION OF ONE TYPE OF MANUFACTURE
AND SALE WHICH COMPETED WITH GUILD MEMBERS.  THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF
THIS COMBINATION, ITS POTENTIAL POWER, ITS TENDENCY TO MONOPOLY, THE
COERCION IT COULD AND DID PRACTICE UPON A RIVAL METHOD OF COMPETITION,
ALL BROUGHT IT WITHIN THE POLICY OF THE PROHIBITION DECLARED BY THE
SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS.  FOR THIS REASON, THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN
APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344, AND SUGAR
INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553, HAVE NO APPLICATION HERE. 
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS NOT ERROR TO REFUSE TO HEAR THE
EVIDENCE OFFERED, FOR THE REASONABLENESS OF THE METHODS PURSUED BY THE
COMBINATION TO ACCOMPLISH ITS UNLAWFUL OBJECT IS NO MORE MATERIAL THAN
WOULD BE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE PRICES FIXED BY UNLAWFUL
COMBINATION.  CF. THOMSEN V. CAYSER, 243 U.S. 66, 85; UNITED STATES V.
TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, 398; UNITED STATES V. SOCONY
VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 212-224.  NOR CAN THE UNLAWFUL
COMBINATION BE JUSTIFIED UPON THE ARGUMENT THAT SYSTEMATIC COPYING OF
DRESS DESIGNS IS ITSELF TORTIOUS, OR SHOULD NOW BE DECLARED SO BY US.
IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHETHER OR NOT GIVEN CONDUCT IS TORTIOUS IS A
QUESTION OF STATE LAW, UNDER OUR DECISION IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, EVEN IF COPYING WERE AN ACKNOWLEDGED
TORT UNDER THE LAW OF EVERY STATE, THAT SITUATION WOULD NOT JUSTIFY
PETITIONERS IN COMBINING TOGETHER TO REGULATE AND RESTRAIN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.  AND FOR THESE SAME REASONS, THE
PRINCIPLES DECLARED IN INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V. ASSOCIATED PRESS,
248 U.S. 215, CANNOT SERVE TO LEGALIZE PETITIONERS' UNLAWFUL
COMBINATION.  THE DECISION BELOW IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

FN1  114 F.2D 80.  BECAUSE OF INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE HOLDING BELOW
AND THAT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN WM. FILENE'S SONS CO.
V. FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD OF AMERICA, 90 F.2D 556, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  311 U.S. 641. 

FN2  26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ.; 38 STAT. 730, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 12 ET SEQ.; 38 STAT. 717, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 41 ET SEQ. 

FN3  IN ONE INSTANCE A FINE OF $1500 WAS IMPOSED, AND THE GUILD
NOTIFIED ITS MEMBERSHIP THAT A FINE OF $5000 WOULD BE ASSESSED IN CASE
OF FUTURE VIOLATION. 

FN4  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO., 257 U.S. 441, 453
455.  SEE 26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1 ET SEQ.; 38 STAT. 730, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 12 ET SEQ.; 38 STAT. 717, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 41 ET SEQ.  BY 38
STAT. 734, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 21, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IS EXPRESSLY
GIVEN AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE CLAYTON ACT. 

FN5  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. R.F. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304,
314; STANDARD FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258 U.S. 346, 357. 

FN6  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643, 647.  AND SEE
REMARKS OF SENATOR CUMMINS, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED
THE BILL, 51 CONG. REC. 11455, QUOTED BY BRANDEIS, J., IN FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. GRATZ, 253 U.S. 421, 435. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290,
323. 
..END :























MILLINERY GUILD V. TRADE COMM'N, 312 U.S. 469 


NO. 251.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 10, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 109
F.2D 175, AFFIRMED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD OF AMERICA,
INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ANTE, P. 457.  P. 472. 

MILLINERY CREATOR'S GUILD, INC. (FORMERLY MILLINERY QUALITY GUILD,
INC.), ET AL. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE COURT BELOW
OF A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

IT IS NOT THE PLAN OF THE GUILD, BUT "DESIGN PIRACY" ITSELF, WHICH IS
UNFAIR COMPETITION.  INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V. ASSOCIATED PRESS,
248 U.S. 215; WM. FILENE'S SONS CO. V. FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD, 90
F.2D 556; CALLMAN, STYLE & DESIGN PIRACY JOURNAL OF U.S. PATENT OFFICE
SOC., AUG. 1940, VOL. XXII, PP. 557, 580, 583; XX BOSTON LAW REV. 365,
REPRINTED IN N.Y. LAW JOURNAL OF MAY 4 AND 6, 1940; DUTTON & CO. V.
CUPPLES, 117 APP. DIV. 172; WOLFENSTEIN V. FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD,
244 APP. DIV. 656.  SEE ALSO NATIONAL TEL. NEWS V. WESTERN UNION, 119
F. 294; ASSOCIATED PRESS V. KVOS, INC., 80 F.2D 575, 299 U.S. 269;
PITTSBURGH ATHLETIC CO. V. K.Q.V., 24 F.SUPP.  490; FANOTOPIA, LTD. V.
BRADLEY, 171 F. 951; TWENTIETH CENTURY SPORTING CLUB V. TRANSRADIO
PRESS SERVICE, 165 MISC. 71; AND FISHER V. STAR CO., 231 N.Y. 414. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT SIMPLY DECLARES UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR
METHODS OF COMPETITION.  AS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN OF THE GUILD
IS TO COMBAT A PRACTICE WHICH THE COMMISSION ITSELF HAS CONDEMNED AS
UNFAIR AND WHICH WAS ALSO CONDEMNED AS UNFAIR IN SOME SEVENTEEN CODES
UNDER N.R.A., IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE PLAN COULD AMOUNT TO A
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT. 

THE SOLE REASON ASSIGNED BY THE COURT BELOW WAS THAT THE PLAN WAS
SAID TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT.  VIRTUALLY ANY CONTRACT IS IN SOME
RESPECT A RESTRAINT OF TRADE, BOARD OF TRADE V. U.S., 246 U.S. 231,
238, AND YET NOT ALL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PARTIES ARE WITHIN
THE PROHIBITION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  SEE APEX CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S.
469.  A PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION IS, THEREFORE, THIS:  DOES THE
PLAN PRESENT ANY OF THE EVILS WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT WAS DESIGNED TO
PREVENT?  THE ANSWER IS CLEARLY, NO. 

THE PLAN DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE PRICE-FIXING.  THE MERE HOPE FOR FAIRER
PRICE LEVELS THROUGH VOLUNTARY REGULATION DOES NOT RENDER THE
REGULATION UNLAWFUL; AND THIS COURT HAS LIKEWISE ENCOURAGED BUSINESS
MEN TO "CLEAN HOUSE" WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE COURTS.  SUGAR INSTITUTE
V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553, 597-598; UNITED STATES V. SOCONY VACUUM
OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150, 215; APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED STATES, 288
U.S. 344; ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 604; CHICAGO BOARD OF
TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231, 238; CEMENT MFRS.  PROTECTIVE
ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588; MAPLE FLOORING ASSN. V. UNITED
STATES, 268 U.S. 563; NATIONAL ASSN. OF WINDOW GLASS MFRS.  V. UNITED
STATES, 263 U.S. 403.  WOLFENSTEIN V. FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD, 244
APP. DIV. 656.  NOR IS ANY OTHER FACTOR OF ILLEGAL RESTRAINT PRESENT IN
THIS SITUATION. 

FINALLY, THE PLAN SHOWS NO LIKELIHOOD OF RESULTING IN DETERIORATION
OF QUALITY.  IN FACT, QUITE THE REVERSE MAY BE EXPECTED.  JOHNSTON &
FITCH, N.R.A. WORK MATERIALS DIV. (1936) BULLETIN NO. 52, PP. 199-200,
AND WORTHY, N.R.A. WORK MATERIALS DIV. (1936) BULLETIN NO. 53. 
NYSTROM, FASHION MERCHANDISING, P. 223. 

THE PLAN IS NOT MONOPOLISTIC IN CHARACTER.  THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO
OBTAIN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OR POWER TO SELL MILLINERY IN ANY MARKET OR
PART OF A MARKET.  THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO CONCENTRATE THE MILLINERY
INDUSTRY OR ANY PART OF IT IN THE HANDS OF A FEW.  EVERYONE, WHETHER A
MEMBER OF THE GUILD OR NOT, MAY OBTAIN THE PROTECTION IT AFFORDS. 
ANYONE WHO CAN DESIGN A HAT MAY COMPETE FOR THE COMMON PRIZE; AND THEY
DO COMPETE VIGOROUSLY.  ALL THAT THE GUILD ASKS IS THAT THEY COMPETE BY
THEIR OWN SKILL AND ORGANIZATION RATHER THAN BY MERELY APPROPRIATING
THE SKILL AND ORGANIZATION OF OTHERS.  XX BOSTON LAW REV. 365. 

THE RECORD SHOWS NO TENDENCY TO CROWD ANYONE OUT OF THE INDUSTRY. 
OUR CLIENTS MERELY ATTEMPT TO SEE TO IT THAT THEIR OWN DESIGNS, AND
THOSE OF FIRMS REGISTERING WITH THEM, BE NOT FILCHED AND THEREBY RUINED
AND THAT THEIR COMPETITORS ENJOY NO UNFAIR AND UNEARNED ADVANTAGE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS VIRTUALLY THE SAME ISSUES AS FASHION ORIGINATORS'
GUILD OF AMERICA V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, ANTE, P. 457.  HERE, AS IN
THAT CASE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION DECREE ORDERING THE PETITIONERS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
CERTAIN PRACTICES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DONE IN COMBINATION AND TO
CONSTITUTE "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION" TENDING TO MONOPOLY.  FN1 

THE MEMBERS OF THE GUILD INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ARE DESIGNERS AND
MANUFACTURERS OF WOMEN'S HATS.  THEIR GUILD OPERATES A PLAN MODELLED
AFTER THAT OF THE FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD OF AMERICA, INC. 

IT WAS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES THAT "THE CAPACITY, TENDENCY,
PURPOSE, AND RESULT OF THE PLAN ...  AND THE ACTS AND PRACTICES
PERFORMED THEREUNDER  ...  HAVE BEEN, AND NOW ARE, TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE
BY ELIMINATING MANUFACTURERS OF STYLISH HATS  ...  AS TO THE OUTLETS OF
THEIR PRODUCTS AND BY LIMITING THE RETAIL DEALERS  ...  AS TO THEIR
SOURCE OF SUPPLY, AND TO DEPRIVE THE PUBLIC OF THE BENEFITS, IF ANY, OF
COMPETITION AS TO PRICE OR OTHERWISE AMONG RETAILERS OF STYLISH HATS IN
THIS RESPECT  ...  "  PURSUANT TO THE EVIDENCE AND TO THE STIPULATION
CONTAINING THIS STATEMENT, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE EFFECT OF THE
PLAN WAS "UNDULY TO HINDER COMPETITION AND TO CREATE MONOPOLY IN THE
SALE OF WOMEN'S HATS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

THE RESPECTS IN WHICH THE PLAN OF THE MILLINERY CREATOR'S GUILD
DIFFERS FROM THAT OF THE FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD ARE NOT MATERIAL,
AND NEED NOT BE SET OUT IN DETAIL.  NOR NEED THE FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION BE ENUMERATED HERE.  THE COMMISSION DID FIND THAT THE
MILLINERY CREATOR'S GUILD HAD TENDED TO HINDER COMPETITION AND CREATE
MONOPOLY "BY DEPRIVING THE PUBLIC OF THE BENEFITS OF NORMAL PRICE
COMPETITION AMONG RETAILERS OF STYLISH HATS FOR WOMEN," A FINDING NOT
MADE IN THE OTHER CASE, BUT THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF SUCH A FINDING
IS NOT DETERMINATIVE HERE.  ON THE AUTHORITY OF FASHION ORIGINATORS'
GUILD OF AMERICA V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, THE DECISION BELOW IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  109 F.2D 175. 
..END :





















EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 473 


NO. 377.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 113
F.2D 286, REVERSED. 


1.  TO AN INDICTMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES AND MAIL FRAUD ACTS, AND FOR
CONSPIRACY, BASED UPON SALES OF SECURITIES ISSUED BY ORGANIZATIONS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BY THE DEFENDANT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT
SCHEME, A PLEA IN BAR CLAIMING IMMUNITY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT
SUFFICIENTLY SHOWS THE INCRIMINATING CHARACTER OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED
UNDER SUBPOENA OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION BY ALLEGING
THAT IT CONCERNED THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED AND HIS RELATIONSHIP TO
THE ORGANIZATIONS "WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS PROSECUTION"
AND CONCERNED HIS PERSONAL ENTRIES, BOOKS AND RECORDS "WHICH ARE A PART
OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS PROSECUTION."  P. 479. 

2.  THE OVERRULING OF A PLEA IN BAR CLAIMING IMMUNITY UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT BECAUSE OF TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
DEFENDANT FAILED TO PROVE ITS ALLEGATIONS WHERE THE PLEA WAS
ACCOMPANIED BY A MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
TESTIMONY AND BOTH PLEA AND MOTION SHOWED THAT APPLICATION FOR SUCH
TRANSCRIPT HAD BEEN REFUSED BY THE COMMISSION.  P. 480. 

IT RESTED IN THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN THIS CASE TO ISSUE
AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT SHOULD NOT BE
PRODUCED, IF IT DEEMED ALL OF IT NECESSARY, OR ONLY SO MUCH OF IT AS
WOULD FAIRLY MAKE IT APPEAR WHETHER THE TESTIMONY OF THE ACCUSED BEFORE
THE COMMISSION WAS A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE AMNESTY CLAIMED. 

3.  ERROR OF A TRIAL COURT IN OVERRULING A PLEA OF IMMUNITY UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT WITHOUT ORDERING PRODUCTION OF A TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY
DELIVERED BY THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, WAS NOT CURED BY AN OFFER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE THE
TRANSCRIPT AT THE TRIAL, WHICH THE COURT DECLINED, OR BY ITS SUBSEQUENT
PRODUCTION BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 481. 

4.  AN APPEAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS TO BE HEARD ON THE RECORD
CERTIFIED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES VIII
AND IX.  P. 482. 

5.  AN OBJECTION TO AN INDICTMENT BECAUSE IN ITS ENDORSEMENT AS A
TRUE BILL THE FOREMAN OF THE GRAND JURY DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS "FOREMAN"
INSTEAD OF "FOREMAN OF THE GRAND JURY," HELD FRIVOLOUS.  P. 482. 

6.  A COUNT CHARGING SALE OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES IN VIOLATION OF
THE SECURITIES ACT NEED NOT ALLEGE THAT THEY WERE NOT OF THE CLASS
EXEMPTED FROM REGISTRATION BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT AND THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS THEREUNDER.  P. 482. 

7.  THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE SUFFICIENTLY SHOWED THE MATERIALITY
OF FACTS WITHHELD FROM PURCHASERS OF THE SECURITIES, IN VIOLATION OF
THE SECURITIES ACT, 15 U.S.C. 77Q (A)(2).  P. 483. 

EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 632, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A SENTENCE
WHICH WAS ENTERED ON A PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE AFTER A DEMURRER AND A
PLEA IN BAR HAD BEEN OVERRULED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE UPON AFFIRMANCE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF
A SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER A PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE.  FN1  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE THERE WERE INVOLVED CERTAIN IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO A PLEA IN BAR FILED BY
PETITIONER.  THAT PLEA CLAIMED IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION BECAUSE OF
PRIOR INCRIMINATING TESTIMONY GIVEN UNDER COMPULSION BY THE PETITIONER
AT AN INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION. 

THE INDICTMENT AGAINST PETITIONER, IN ELEVEN COUNTS, AROSE OUT OF AN
ALLEGED FRAUDULENT SCHEME FOR SELLING INTERESTS, CREATED BY HIM AS A
PART OF THE DEVICE, IN VARIOUS OIL AND GAS LEASES IN OKLAHOMA AND
TEXAS.  THE FIRST THREE COUNTS CHARGED VIOLATIONS OF THE FRAUD
PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITIES ACT, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77Q (A); THE FOURTH
AND FIFTH, VIOLATIONS OF THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 77E; COUNTS SIX TO TEN, VIOLATIONS OF THE MAIL FRAUD
STATUTE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 338; AND THE ELEVENTH COUNT, A CONSPIRACY TO
COMMIT THE OFFENSES PREVIOUSLY SET FORTH. 

ON DECEMBER 16, 1938, PETITIONER FILED A DEMURRER, ATTACKING THE
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT ON A NUMBER OF GROUNDS.  AT THE
SAME TIME HE FILED A "PLEA IN BAR AND APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF
TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE."  THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS PLEA WAS THE FOLLOWING:
THAT ON APRIL 14, 1938, AND TWO SUCCESSIVE DATES, PURSUANT TO
SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM, PETITIONER HAD APPEARED BEFORE AN OFFICER OF THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WITH THE BOOKS AND RECORDS CALLED
FOR, AND "AFTER HAVING CLAIMED HIS IMMUNITY AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION,
AS PROVIDED BY LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, UNDER
COMPULSION, TESTIFIED UNDER OATH, PURSUANT TO VARIOUS QUESTIONS
PROPOUNDED AND ASKED HIM BY SAID OFFICER OF SAID COMMISSION, SAID
TESTIMONY CONCERNING SAID DEFENDANT'S IDENTITY AND RELATIONSHIP TO
VARIOUS TRUSTS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS
PROSECUTION AND CONCERNING DIVERS AND SUNDRY OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING
TO THE MATTERS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS PROSECUTION, AND
PARTICULARLY TO THE PERSONAL ENTRIES, BOOKS AND RECORDS OF SAID
DEFENDANT, WHICH ARE A PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS
PROSECUTION."  THE PLEADING GOES ON TO STATE, UPON INFORMATION AND
BELIEF, THAT THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE COURSE OF
ITS INVESTIGATION WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION; THAT PETITIONER WAS COMPELLED TO GIVE INFORMATION AND
TESTIMONY "WHICH IT IS BELIEVED THE GOVERNMENT WILL USE AGAINST HIM IN
THE PROSECUTION HEREIN"; AND THAT PETITIONER WAS ACCORDINGLY IMMUNE
FROM PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 22(C) OF THE SECURITIES ACT.  FN2
PETITIONER FURTHER SET FORTH THAT AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION
HEARINGS HE HAD DEMANDED A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS TESTIMONY,
OFFERING TO PAY THE COST THEREOF, BUT THAT THE REQUEST HAD BEEN
REFUSED; THAT ON DECEMBER 1, 1938, HE HAD MADE A SIMILAR REQUEST, WHICH
ALSO HAD BEEN REFUSED, AS EVIDENCED BY AN ATTACHED LETTER FROM THE
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE COMMISSION.  FN3 PETITIONER RENEWED
HIS DEMAND AND TENDER OF PAYMENT, ASSERTING THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR
HIM TO HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT IN THE PRESENTATION TO THE COURT OF HIS PLEA
IN BAR, AND THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO HAVE IT BEFORE
PASSING ON THE PLEA.  THE PLEADING CONCLUDES BY PRAYING THE COURT TO
ORDER THAT THE TRANSCRIPT BE FURNISHED PETITIONER AND THAT HE BE HEARD
ON THE MERITS OF THIS PLEA IN BAR. 

ON FEBRUARY 28, 1939, THE GOVERNMENT FILED A PLEADING CALLED A
"MOTION TO STRIKE PLEA IN BAR AND OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF TRANSCRIPT
OF EVIDENCE."  THIS ATTACKED THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEA IN BAR ON ITS
FACE IN THREE DIFFERENT RESPECTS, AND ALSO ALLEGED IN THE NATURE OF AN
ANSWER THAT PETITIONER "WAS NEVER SWORN AT ANY TIME DURING THE
PROCEEDINGS OR HEARINGS COMPLAINED OF AND AT NO TIME PRODUCED ANY BOOKS
OR RECORDS, AND DID NOT AT ANY TIME TESTIFY UNDER OATH, AND WAS NEVER
COMPELLED TO TESTIFY OR GIVE ANY INFORMATION AGAINST HIMSELF OR ANYONE
ELSE UNDER OATH OR OTHERWISE AND THAT EACH OF SAID HEARINGS COMPLAINED
OF WAS RECESSED SHORTLY AFTER THE DEFENDANT INTERPOSED HIS PLEA OF
IMMUNITY."  IN SUPPORT OF THIS LAST ALLEGATION THE GOVERNMENT ATTACHED
AN AFFIDAVIT OF AN ATTORNEY OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WHO HAD BEEN PRESENT ON ALL THREE OCCASIONS WHEN THE PETITIONER CLAIMED
TO HAVE GIVEN INCRIMINATING TESTIMONY UNDER COMPULSION. 

PETITIONER MOVED TO STRIKE THIS AFFIDAVIT OF THE COMMISSION ATTORNEY
ON THE GROUND THAT IT DEPRIVED HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION
AND THAT IT WAS "WHOLLY INCOMPETENT TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS ATTEMPTING
TO BE ESTABLISHED." 

THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED PETITIONER'S DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT,
HIS PLEA IN BAR AND APPLICATION FOR THE TRANSCRIPT, AND ALSO HIS MOTION
TO STRIKE THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE COMMISSION ATTORNEY.  AN AFFIDAVIT LATER
FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOWS THAT AT
THIS HEARING ON PETITIONER'S PLEA IN BAR "COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES STATED TO THE COURT THAT THEY HAD THE TRANSCRIPTS OF
THE RECORD IN THE PROCEEDINGS  ...  AND IF THE GOVERNMENT'S AFFIDAVIT
WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD OFFER THEM IN EVIDENCE IF THE
COURT DESIRED TO EXAMINE THEM; THAT UPON BEING SO ADVISED, HIS HONOR,
JUDGE VAUGHT, STATED THAT HE DID NOT CARE TO SEE THE TRANSCRIPTS, THAT
HE DID NOT NEED THEM TO PASS UPON THE SAID PLEA IN BAR, AND THAT HE WAS
GOING TO OVERRULE THE DEFENDANT'S PLEA IN BAR."  THE GOVERNMENT'S
MOTION TO STRIKE THE PLEA IN BAR WAS OVERRULED, ALSO.  SUBSEQUENTLY
PETITIONER WITHDREW HIS ORIGINAL PLEA OF NOT GUILTY,  FN4  AND ENTERED
A PLEA OF NOLO CONTENDERE.  THE DISTRICT COURT SENTENCED HIM TO THREE
YEARS ON EACH COUNT, THE TERMS TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.  ON APPEAL
PETITIONER ASSIGNED AS ERROR THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
OVERRULING HIS DEMURRER AND PLEA. 

WHEN THE CASE WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE
GOVERNMENT SUBMITTED, OVER PETITIONER'S OBJECTION, A COPY OF WHAT IT
SAID WAS A TRANSCRIPT OF PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSISTANT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN CHARGE OF THIS PROSECUTION.  THE TRANSCRIPT
WAS OFFERED TO BUTTRESS THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT PETITIONER HAD
IN FACT GIVEN NO TESTIMONY OF AN INCRIMINATING NATURE, BUT THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT REST ITS AFFIRMANCE EVEN IN PART UPON THE
CONTENTS OF THE TRANSCRIPT. 

THE COURT AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE PLEA IN BAR DID NOT ALLEGE THAT THE
CLAIM OF IMMUNITY WAS MADE IN A "HEARING" OF THE COMMISSION AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM AN "INVESTIGATION" AND BECAUSE NO EVIDENCE WAS
PRODUCED BY PETITIONER IN SUPPORT OF HIS PLEA.  AS TO THE DEMURRER TO
THE INDICTMENT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND NO ERROR IN OMITTING
FROM THE CONSPIRACY COUNT ALLEGATIONS THAT THE CLASSES OF SECURITIES
INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGED FRAUDS WERE NOT IN THE EXCEPTED CATEGORIES OF
SECURITIES IN SECTION THREE OF THE SECURITIES ACT.  THIS WAS THE SOLE
GROUND OF PETITIONER'S ATTACK ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT.  IN THE BELIEF
THAT A SENTENCE ON THIS COUNT, TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH EQUAL SENTENCES
ON THE OTHER COUNTS, MADE IT UNNECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE OTHER COUNTS,
FN5  THE COURT DID NOT EXAMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE OTHER COUNTS. 

PETITIONER URGES AS GROUNDS FOR OUR REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW
THE ERRORS IN OVERRULING HIS PLEA IN BAR AND DEMURRER, IN AFFIRMING A
SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT OF THE INDICTMENT
WITHOUT EXAMINATION OF THE OTHER COUNTS, AND IN RECEIVING THE
TRANSSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND ACCOMPANYING
AFFIDAVIT AS EVIDENCE. 

PLEA IN BAR.  THE GOVERNMENT CHALLENGES THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEA
IN BAR TO SHOW PETITIONER'S CLAIM TO THE BENEFIT OF THE AMNESTY OF SEC.
22(C).  IT SUGGESTS THAT THE EXCERPT SET OUT IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF
THIS OPINION SHOWS ONLY THAT TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN CONCERNING
"DEFENDANT'S IDENTITY AND RELATIONSHIP" TO THE ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE
SECURITIES THE INDICTMENT CHARGES DEFENDANT FRAUDULENTLY SOLD; THAT
"OTHER MATTERS" TESTIFIED TO ARE NOT SPECIFIED NOR THE "NATURE" OF THE
TESTIMONY CONCERNING THEM OR HIS PERSONAL RECORDS.  BUT THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE PLEA ARE NOT TO BE WEIGHED SEPARATELY.  PETITIONER'S IDENTITY
AND HIS RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRUSTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BY HIM
AS A PART OF THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME ARE OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE IN THE
PROOF OF HIS CRIMINALITY.  THIS IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE TESTIMONY
IN HEIKE V. UNITED STATES,  FN6  A PROSECUTION FOR FRAUD ON THE REVENUE
IN WEIGHING IMPORTED SUGAR.  THERE, FORMER TESTIMONY IN A SHERMAN ACT
PROCEEDING RELATED TO OFFICIAL CONNECTION WITH A COMPANY INVOLVED AND
ALSO A TABLE SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF SUGAR HANDLED BY THE COMPANY, AND A
CLAIM FOR AMNESTY WAS DENIED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE "NEITHER LED NOR
COULD HAVE LED TO A DISCOVERY OF HIS CRIME."  CERTAINLY, HAD PETITIONER
GIVEN EVIDENCE OF HIS CREATION OF THE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH THE
INDICTMENT SAYS WERE PART OF HIS ARTIFICE IT MIGHT EASILY HAVE LED TO
DISCOVERY OF HIS TRICKERY.  IT SEEMS, TOO, THAT AT LEAST SOME OF THE
OTHER MATTERS WERE SPECIFIED, TO WIT:  THE PERSONAL ENTRIES, BOOKS AND
RECORDS OF PETITIONER.  LIKEWISE, THE NATURE OF HIS ALLEGED TESTIMONY
CONCERNING HIS RECORDS IS SUFFICIENTLY RELATED TO THE INDICTMENT BY
SAYING THEY ARE A PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS PROSECUTION.  THE
PLEA IS GOOD ON ITS FACE. 

IT IS NEXT URGED THAT THE PLEA WAS PROPERLY OVERRULED BECAUSE OF
PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO PROVE ITS ALLEGATIONS.  FN7  SUCH RESULT IS
ASSUMED TO FOLLOW ON THE THEORY THAT, AS THE BURDEN WAS ON PETITIONER
TO PROVE HIS PLEA, THE FAILURE OF THE RECORD TO SHOW AN OFFER OF PROOF
JUSTIFIES THE ORDER.  AS APPEARS FROM THE PRECEDING STATEMENT OF THE
CASE, THE TRIAL COURT OVERRULED NOT ONLY THE PLEA IN BAR BUT
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH WAS
CERTAINLY THE BEST EVIDENCE OF WHETHER THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE
COMMISSION WAS SUFFICIENTLY RELATED TO THE PROSECUTION TO SUPPORT
AMNESTY.  IN THE MARTIN CASE, FN8  THIS COURT SAID THE ACTION
DISMISSING A TRAVERSED MOTION FOR FAILURE OF PROOF WOULD HAVE BEEN
REVERSED IF THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS BY EVIDENCE HAD BEEN
DENIED THE ACCUSED.  TREATING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE
PLEA IN BAR AS A TRAVERSE OF THAT PLEADING WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE
ORDER OVERRULING IT IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING IN THE RECORD OF AN
OFFER OF PROOF, THAT RESULT DOES NOT FOLLOW WHERE, AS HERE, THE PLEA IS
ACCOMPANIED BY A MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
FORMER EVIDENCE.  THE PLEA AND MOTION SHOWED THAT APPLICATION HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FOR THE
TRANSCRIPT AND HAD BEEN REFUSED. 

WE ASSUME THAT THE PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE FORMER TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN
WAS A PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE COMMISSION RATHER
THAN A HEARING WHICH MIGHT EVENTUATE IN AN ORDER.  FN9  THE
COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE REQUEST
HAD BEEN FOR A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING.  IT RESTS IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT SHOULD NOT BE PRODUCED, IF IT DEEMS ALL OF IT
NECESSARY, OR ONLY SO MUCH AS MAY FAIRLY MAKE IT APPEAR WHETHER THE
TESTIMONY OF PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS A PROPER FOUNDATION
FOR THE AMNESTY CLAIMED.  THIS IS NOT AN INSTANCE OF THE INSPECTION OF
NOTES OR MATERIAL GATHERED BY A PROSECUTOR FOR HIS OWN USE.  FN10  WHAT
IS SOUGHT IS THE PRODUCTION AS EVIDENCE IN THE HEARING ON THE PLEA IN
BAR OF THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE PLEA.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THIS RECORD
TO INDICATE THE DESIRABILITY OF SECRECY SO FAR AS THE TESTIMONY OF
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.  THE GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS A PURPORTED TRANSCRIPT OF PETITIONER'S FORMER TESTIMONY WITHOUT
ASSERTING ITS CONFIDENTIAL CHARACTER THEN OR IN THE MOTION AND TRAVERSE
BELOW. 

FINALLY THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE REFUSAL TO ORDER THE
PRODUCTION OF THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL.  THIS ARGUMENT
PRESUPPOSES THAT THE OFFER TO PRODUCE IN THE TRIAL COURT AND THE ACTUAL
PRODUCTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS ADEQUATE.  OTHERWISE WE
CANNOT KNOW WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS WHICH IS RELIED UPON FOR THE
AMNESTY.  WE THINK THAT NEITHER OFFER WAS AN ADEQUATE PROFFER.  IN
NEITHER INSTANCE WAS THE PETITIONER GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS
EXAMINE; NO WITNESS PRODUCED THE TRANSCRIPT; IT WAS NOT CERTIFIED AS A
PART OF THE RECORD FROM THE TRIAL COURT OR AS A PART OF THE RECORDS OF
THE AGENCY.  FN11  THE RECORD CERTIFIED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IS THE RECORD ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD.  CRIMINAL APPEALS
RULES VIII AND IX. 

THE REFUSAL TO PERMIT THE ACCUSED TO PROVE HIS DEFENSE MAY PROVE
TRIVIAL WHEN THE FACTS ARE DEVELOPED.  PROCEDURAL ERRORS OFTEN ARE. 
BUT PROCEDURE IS THE SKELETON WHICH FORMS AND SUPPORTS THE WHOLE
STRUCTURE OF A CASE.  THE LACK OF A BONE MARS THE SYMMETRY OF THE
BODY.  THE PARTIES MUST BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLEAD AND PROVE
THEIR CONTENTIONS OR ELSE THE IMPRESSION OF THE JUDGE ARISING FROM
SOURCES OUTSIDE THE RECORD DOMINATES RESULTS.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT
ALLEGATIONS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE TESTED BY CROSS-EXAMINATION
PROTECTS AGAINST FALSEHOOD.  THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSERT RIGHTS THROUGH
PLEADING AND TESTIMONY IS ESSENTIAL TO THEIR SUCCESSFUL PROTECTION. 
INFRINGEMENT OF THAT OPPORTUNITY IS FORBIDDEN.  FN12    OTHER
OBJECTIONS.  AS THE CASE MUST BE REMANDED, PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO
THE THREE-YEAR SENTENCE ON THE CONSPIRACY COUNT IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT
DISCUSSION.  CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 37; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88.  FRIVOLOUS
OBJECTION IS MADE TO THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE IT IS ENDORSED "A TRUE
BILL, ERNEST W. CLARKE, FOREMAN" INSTEAD OF "FOREMAN OF THE GRAND
JURY."  THIS CONTENTION IS REJECTED. 

PETITIONER BRINGS HERE FOR REVIEW HIS DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT AND
EACH COUNT THEREOF.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THE CONSPIRACY
COUNT SUFFICIENT AGAINST AN ATTACK THAT, IN CHARGING A CONSPIRACY TO
VIOLATE THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 BY SELLING UNREGISTERED SECURITIES,
THE COUNT FAILED TO CHARGE THAT THE SECURITIES SO SOLD WERE NOT OF THE
CLASS EXEMPTED FROM REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION THREE OF THE ACT AND THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER.  WITH THIS RULING WE AGREE.  FN13  AS
THE SENTENCE UNDER COUNT ELEVEN, THE CONSPIRACY COUNT, WAS FOR AS LONG
A TIME AS ANY OF THE OTHER COUNTS UPON WHICH CONCURRENT SENTENCES HAD
BEEN IMPOSED, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT REVIEW THE ALLEGED
DEFICIENCIES OF THE OTHER COUNTS. 

COUNTS FOUR AND FIVE ARE CHARGED WITH THE SAME FAULT AS ELEVEN.  FOR
A LIKE REASON WE HOLD THEM GOOD.  COUNTS ONE AND TWO DESCRIBE THE
SCHEME TO DEFRAUD AND ALLEGE INSTANCES OF THE USE OF THE MAILS.  THE
BRIEF OF PETITIONER FAILS TO RAISE ANY QUESTION DESERVING CONSIDERATION
AS TO THEIR SUFFICIENCY AND WE SEE NONE.  PETITIONER CHALLENGES COUNT
THREE FOR FAILURE TO STATE THE MATERIALITY OF FACTS WHICH THE COUNT
CHARGES WERE OMITTED, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE REQUIRED TO BE STATED TO AVOID
MISLEADING PURCHASERS.  FN14  BUT THE COUNT, AFTER DESCRIBING VARIOUS
OMITTED FACTS BY PARAGRAPHS, ENDS SUCH PARAGRAPHS WITH THE ALLEGATION
"SUCH FACT BEING WELL KNOWN TO SAID DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM AT ALL
TIMES HEREIN MENTIONED, AND SUCH FACT BEING MATERIAL IN ORDER TO MAKE
THE STATEMENTS MADE BY SAID DEFENDANTS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE MADE, NOT MISLEADING ...  "  THE
FACTS ALLEGED WERE OBVIOUSLY MATERIAL.  COUNTS SIX TO TEN INCLUSIVE ARE
BASED UPON THE MAIL FRAUD STATUTE.  FN15 PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO
THESE COUNTS IS THAT A LATER ACT, THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, MAKES IT
UNLAWFUL TO USE THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD BY THE SALE OF SECURITIES.  HIS
ARGUMENT IS THAT, IN SO FAR AS THE LATER ACT PROHIBITS THE FRAUDULENT
SALE OF SECURITIES BY MAIL, IT REPEALS BY IMPLICATION THE PROVISIONS OF
THE OLD MAIL FRAUD STATUTE IN SO FAR AS THEY COVER SECURITIES.  WE SEE
NO BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO REPEAL THE EARLIER
STATUTE.  THE TWO CAN EXIST AND BE USEFUL, SIDE BY SIDE.  FN16
REVERSED. 

FN1  113 F.2D 286. 

FN2  15 U.S.C. SEC. 77V (C):  "NO PERSON SHALL BE EXCUSED FROM
ATTENDING AND TESTIFYING OR FROM PRODUCING BOOKS, PAPERS, CONTRACTS,
AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, OR IN OBEDIENCE
TO THE SUBPENA OF THE COMMISSION OR ANY MEMBER THEREOF OR ANY OFFICER
DESIGNATED BY IT, OR IN ANY CAUSE OR PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE
COMMISSION, ON THE GROUND THAT THE TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY
OR OTHERWISE, REQUIRED OF HIM, MAY TEND TO INCRIMINATE HIM OR SUBJECT
HIM TO A PENALTY OR FORFEITURE; BUT NO INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE PROSECUTED
OR SUBJECTED TO ANY PENALTY OR FORFEITURE FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF ANY
TRANSACTION, MATTER, OR THING CONCERNING WHICH HE IS COMPELLED, AFTER
HAVING CLAIMED HIS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, TO TESTIFY OR
PRODUCE EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT THAT SUCH INDIVIDUAL
SO TESTIFYING SHALL NOT BE EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT FOR
PERJURY COMMITTED IN SO TESTIFYING." 

FN3  IN PART, THE LETTER READ: 

"INASMUCH AS THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE COURSE OF
ITS INVESTIGATION WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION AND AN INDICTMENT HAS BEEN RETURNED, THIS COMMISSION DOES
NOT FEEL IT PROPER TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT THE TESTIMONY
TAKEN FROM WITNESSES WHICH MAY BE USED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE
PROSECUTION OF ITS CASE.  IN VIEW OF THIS, THE COMMISSION MUST
RESPECTFULLY REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH YOUR REQUEST.  THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY CONCURS IN THIS VIEW." 

FN4  PETITIONER HAD PLEADED NOT GUILTY ON DECEMBER 17, 1938. 

FN5  CLAASSEN V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S. 140; GORIN V. UNITED STATES,
312 U.S. 19. 

FN6  227 U.S. 131. 

FN7  CF. NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308, U.S. 338, 341; MARTIN V.
TEXAS, 200 U.S. 316, 319; MAMAUX V. UNITED STATES, 264 F. 816, 819. 

FN8  SUPRA, NOTE 7. 

FN9  CF. IN RE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 14 F.SUPP.  417,
418; 84 F.2D 316; REVERSED AS MOOT, 299 U.S. 504. 

FN10  PEOPLE EX REL. LEMON V. SUPREME COURT, 245 N.Y. 24; 156 N.E.
84; CF. REX V. HOLLAND, 4 T.R. (DURNFORD & EAST) 691. 

FN11  CF. R.S. SEC. 882, AS AMENDED, 48 STAT. 1109. 

FN12  CF. WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275. 

FN13  MCKELVEY V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 353, 357. 

FN14  SEC. 17(A)(2), SECURITIES ACT OF 1933; 15 U.S.C. 77Q (A)(2). 

FN15  CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 215; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 338. 

FN16  CF. UNITED STATES V. ROLLNICK, 91 F.2D 911, 918; UNITED STATES
V. MONTGOMERY, 21 F.SUPP.  770; UNITED STATES V. ALLUAN, 13 F.SUPP. 
289. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















BREISCH V. CENTRAL R.R. OF N.J., 312 U.S. 484 


NO. 384.  ARGUED JANUARY 17, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 112 F.2D
595, REVERSED. 


1.  THE REMEDY OF AN EMPLOYEE OF AN INTERSTATE RAILWAY FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES SUFFERED WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED ABOUT INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION
AND CAUSED BY A BREACH OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS, IS THE
REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE COMMON OR STATUTORY LAW OF THE STATE.  P. 486. 

2.  THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS CREATE THE RIGHT; THE REMEDY IS
WITHIN THE STATE'S DISCRETION.  P. 486. 

3.  A FIXED INTERPRETATION OF A STATE STATUTE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS WHEN IT DOES NOT
OBVIOUSLY DEPEND ALTOGETHER ON A MISCONCEPTION OF FEDERAL LAW.  P.
488. 

4.  IN CONSTRUING THE STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT AS
INAPPLICABLE TO CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACTS AND IN RULING THAT THE REMEDY IN SUCH CASES IS BY ACTION
AT LAW, THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN
ACTUATED ENTIRELY BY A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE FEDERAL ACTS.  P. 489. 

CONFIRMATORY OF THIS CONCLUSION IS THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE PROVIDING
"THAT WHEN A COURT OF LAST RESORT HAS CONSTRUED THE LANGUAGE USED IN A
LAW, THE LEGISLATURE IN SUBSEQUENT LAWS ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER
INTEND THE SAME CONSTRUCTION TO BE PLACED UPON SUCH LANGUAGE," AND THE
FACT THAT THE STATE COURT'S CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE COMPENSATION ACT AND
OF JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS
REMAIN UNDISTURBED BY THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS OF THE COMPENSATION
ACT.  P. 491. 

BREISCH V. CENTRAL RAILROAD OF NEW JERSEY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 634, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES RESULTING FROM VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACTS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI BRINGS HERE THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE LAW OF
PENNSYLVANIA LIMITS RECOVERY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACTS TO THE PROCEDURE AND AWARDS OF THAT STATE'S WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT IN ACCIDENTS WHERE THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED IN
AN INTRASTATE ACTIVITY AT THE TIME OF INJURY. 

THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT AT COMMON LAW IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP.  THE EMPLOYEE, PETITIONER HERE, WAS A CITIZEN OF
PENNSYLVANIA AND THE DEFENDANT WAS A CORPORATION CREATED UNDER THE LAWS
OF NEW JERSEY, HANDLING TRANSPORTATION MOVING BETWEEN STATES.  THE
BASIS OF THE ACTION WAS RESPONDENT'S VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACTS BY FAILURE TO FURNISH EFFICIENT HAND BRAKES FOR A CAR.  FN1  THIS
FAILURE RESULTED IN AN INJURY TO PETITIONER IN PENNSYLVANIA.  NO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS INVOLVED.  HE RECOVERED IN THE TRIAL COURT BUT
THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON ITS
DETERMINATION THAT THE REMEDY OF THE PETITIONER LAY SOLELY IN THE
COMPENSATION ACT AND WAS NOT COGNIZABLE AT LAW.  FN2  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT ON A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW
BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND MILLER V. READING COMPANY.  FN3 

NO ISSUES ARISE EXCEPT THE ONE UPON PROCEDURE.  IT IS CLEAR THAT AN
EMPLOYEE INJURED IN INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION BY DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT OF
AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD COMES UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.  FN4  NOR
IS THERE ANY LONGER A QUESTION AS TO THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE
WHATSOEVER REMEDY IT MAY CHOOSE FOR BREACHES OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACTS.  FN5  THE FEDERAL STATUTES CREATE THE RIGHT; THE REMEDY IS WITHIN
THE STATE'S DISCRETION.  IN THIS CASE WE ARE TO FIND WHAT REMEDY THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS PROVIDED. 

THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE MATTER OF WHAT REMEDIES FOR
BREACH OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY A
STATE IN TIPTON V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. FN6  THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THERE WERE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT CASE.  TIPTON WAS AN EMPLOYEE
OF A RAILROAD WHICH WAS A HIGHWAY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SUFFERED
INJURY THROUGH VIOLATION OF THE SAFETY ACTS WHILE ENGAGED WITHIN
CALIFORNIA IN INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION.  HE SOUGHT DAMAGES AT COMMON
LAW AND, AFTER REMOVAL TO THE FEDERAL COURT, WAS CAST IN THE LITIGATION
ON THE GROUND THAT HIS ONLY REDRESS LAY THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.  IN AFFIRMING THIS CONCLUSION HERE, TWO
CASES OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA WERE EXAMINED -
BALLARD V. SACRAMENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. FN7  AND WALTON V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. FN8  PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE TWO CASES HAD BEEN REFUSED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  FN9  THE BALLARD CASE TREATED SEC.
6 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 22, 1908,  FN10  THE JURISDICTIONAL SECTION OF
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT, AS APPLICABLE TO THE CAUSE OF
ACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION, ALTHOUGH THAT CAUSE WAS BOTTOMED UPON THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.  FROM THAT PREMISE THE CALIFORNIA COURT WENT
AHEAD TO CONCLUDE THAT ITS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT DID NOT APPLY BY
VIRTUE OF SEC. 69(C) OF THE COMPENSATION ACT.  FN11  THAT SECTION
OMITTED EMPLOYMENTS GOVERNED BY THE ACTS OF CONGRESS.  THE COMPENSATION
ACT IS THE EXCLUSIVE STATE REMEDY FOR INJURIES WITHIN ITS SCOPE.  THE
FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT DOES GIVE A RIGHT OF ACTION AND FIX THE
TRIBUNALS WHERE IT MAY BE ENFORCED.  FN12  THUS THROUGH ASSIMILATING
THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS TO THOSE UNDER
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT, THE CALIFORNIA WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT WAS FOUND INAPPLICABLE.  WALTON'S WAS A SIMILAR CASE
AND IT TOO, PAGE 305, FOLLOWING BALLARD, PERMITTED THE MAINTENANCE OF
THE SUIT IN THE STATE COURT. 

THIS COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CALIFORNIA COURTS EXCLUDED THESE
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE COMPENSATION ACT "BECAUSE
THEY (THE COURTS) THOUGHT THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS REQUIRED THE STATE
TO AFFORD A REMEDY IN THE NATURE OF AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES" AND FOR THAT
REASON REFUSED TO FOLLOW THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPENSATION ACT. 
ALTHOUGH THE TIPTON CASE DECIDED THE ONLY AVAILABLE CALIFORNIA REMEDY
WAS THE COMPENSATION SCHEME, IT WAS INDICATED THAT "A DEFINITE AND
AUTHORITATIVE DECISION" TO THE CONTRARY BY THE CALIFORNIA COURTS WOULD,
OF COURSE, BE FOLLOWED.  FN13  TIPTON LOST THROUGH THE DETERMINATION
HERE THAT CALIFORNIA HAD DECLARED BY ITS STATUTE HE MUST SEEK RELIEF
THROUGH COMPENSATION. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, BREISCH SUED AT COMMON LAW.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PENNSYLVANIA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT SUPPLIED THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
FOR HIS INJURY.  TO REACH THIS CONCLUSION, THE COURT DETERMINED THAT IN
MILLER V. READING COMPANY  FN14  THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DECIDED THAT "THE COMPENSATION ACT DID NOT APPLY TO MILLER'S CASE, NOT
AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION OF THAT ACT BUT BECAUSE IT
THOUGHT THAT THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACTS REQUIRED THE RULING THAT MILLER HAD A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS, COGNIZABLE IN A COURT OF LAW BUT NOT WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE COMPENSATION LAW."  RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE TIPTON
CASE AND RED CROSS LINE V. ATLANTIC FRUIT CO. FN15  WHICH SUPPORT THE
PRINCIPLE THAT INTERPRETATION OF STATE STATUTES BY STATE COURTS UNDER
COMPULSION OF FEDERAL LAW ERRONEOUSLY UNDERSTOOD DOES NOT BIND FEDERAL
COURTS. 

IT IS NOT APPARENT TO US, HOWEVER, THAT THE MILLER OPINION DEPENDS
UPON THE COMPULSION OF A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACTS.  IN MCMAHAN V. MONTOUR RAILROAD CO.,  FN16  IT IS TRUE, THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELD THE COMPENSATION ACT WAS THE
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE RAILROAD
HIGHWAYS, WHEN THE EMPLOYEES AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY WERE ENGAGED IN
AN INTRASTATE MOVEMENT.  BUT THAT CASE WAS PREDICATED UPON AN ERRONEOUS
CONCEPTION OF THE RELATION OF THE EMPLOYEE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT
WAS THOUGHT THAT ONLY EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ENGAGED IN THAT COMMERCE AT
THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT WERE COVERED BY THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS. 
FN17  NOTHING WAS SAID AS TO THE TRIBUNAL WHICH MIGHT AWARD RELIEF IN
EMPLOYMENTS COVERED BY THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS.  THIS COURT'S
CITATIONS ON REVERSAL DEALT ONLY WITH THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL ACTS,
NOT WITH REMEDIES UNDER THEM.  FN18  WHEN THE QUESTION NEXT AROSE, IN
THE MILLER CASE, THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT UNDERTOOK AN INTERPRETATION OF
THE SCOPE OF THE COVERAGE OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.  THAT ACT
PROVIDES IN SEC. 302: 

"(A)  IN EVERY CONTRACT OF HIRING MADE AFTER DECEMBER THIRTY-FIRST,
ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN, AND IN EVERY CONTRACT OF HIRING
RENEWED OR EXTENDED BY MUTUAL CONSENT, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AFTER SAID
DATE, IT SHALL BE CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED THAT THE PARTIES HAVE ACCEPTED
THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE THREE OF THIS ACT, AND HAVE AGREED TO BE
BOUND THEREBY, UNLESS THERE BE ...  "  (ARTICLE THREE IS THE
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE.)  THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THIS EXCEPT THE
CUSTOMARY EXEMPTIONS OF DOMESTIC SERVICE OR AGRICULTURE.  FN19  IN THE
MILLER CASE, COMPENSATION COVERAGE WAS REFUSED EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE
ROADS ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES IN THESE WORDS: 

"OUR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT GAVE TO A BOARD EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF PROCEEDINGS TO ADJUDICATE CLAIMS OF EMPLOYEES, WHICH,
BY CONSENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IT WAS AGREED SHOULD BE SO DISPOSED OF,
AND, AS TO SUCH CASES, JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS TO TRY AND DETERMINE
IS OUSTED.  BUT AS TO DEMANDS, NOT ARISING FROM THE ORDINARY RELATION
OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, SUCH AS THE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS FIXED BY
FEDERAL STATUTE, THEIR POWERS REMAIN AS IF NO SUCH STATE LEGISLATION
WAS IN FORCE."  FN20 

THOUGH THERE UNDOUBTEDLY WERE OTHER STATEMENTS IN THE COURSE OF THE
OPINION WHICH REFLECT A MISCONCEPTION OF THE STATE'S AUTHORITY OVER
PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERY UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS, WE CONCLUDE
THAT SUCH MISCONCEPTION IS NOT ENOUGH TO CALL FOR A REFUSAL TO FOLLOW
THE SUPREME COURT'S DEFINITE RULING THAT THE STATE COURTS WERE OPEN FOR
REDRESS FOR ACCIDENTS COVERED BY THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS. 

STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT,  FN21  RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSION REACHED BELOW, IS NOT CONTROLLING.  IN THAT CASE A DIRECT
REVIEW OF THE QUESTION DECIDED BY THE STATE COURT WAS SOUGHT HERE ON
THE GROUND THAT THE STATE'S CONCLUSION ON A MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION OF A
STATE INCOME TAX STATUTE WAS CONTROLLED BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
ON THE TAXABILITY BY STATES OF SALARIES OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.  IT WAS
NOT CLEAR TO US WHETHER THE STATE DECISION WAS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE
COURT'S VIEW OF OUR DECISIONS OR NOT.  AND, AS OUR DECISIONS AT THE
TIME OF REVIEW HERE PERMITTED A DECISION BY THE STATE COURT ON THE
STATE STATUTE, FREE FROM FEDERAL CONSTRAINT, WE RETURNED THE CASE FOR
STATE ACTION.  IN THE VAN COTT CASE WE WERE REVIEWING AN APPLICATION OF
FEDERAL LAW BY A STATE COURT TO A SOLUTION OF A STATE'S PROBLEMS.  HERE
WE HAVE A FEDERAL COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF A LONG-STANDING STATE
DECISION.  UNCOMPLETED STATE ACTION, PROBABLY INFLUENCED BY DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT SUBSEQUENTLY OVERRULED, CALLS FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
STATE TO ADJUDICATE THE QUESTION FOR ITSELF, WHILE A FIXED
INTERPRETATION OF A STATE STATUTE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE FEDERAL
COURTS WHEN IT DOES NOT OBVIOUSLY DEPEND ALTOGETHER ON A MISCONCEPTION
OF FEDERAL LAW. 

THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS WHICH FORBID THE CONCLUSION BELOW.  A
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE, DERIVED FROM THE STATE'S COMMON LAW,  FN22
PROVIDES "THAT WHEN A COURT OF LAST RESORT HAS CONSTRUED THE LANGUAGE
USED IN A LAW, THE LEGISLATURE IN SUBSEQUENT LAWS ON THE SAME SUBJECT
MATTER INTEND THE SAME CONSTRUCTION TO BE PLACED UPON SUCH LANGUAGE." 
FN23  SINCE THE MILLER CASE THE COMPENSATION ACT HAS BEEN AMENDED
SEVERAL TIMES,  FN24  BUT THE LEGISLATURE HAS NEVER ATTEMPTED TO
OVERRIDE THE LIMITATIONS READ INTO IT BY THE MILLER OPINION.  THERE
WERE COMPREHENSIVE AMENDMENTS IN THE 1937 REENACTMENT,  FN25  MORE THAN
A YEAR AFTER THIS COURT'S DECISION IN THE TIPTON CASE ESTABLISHED THAT
THE COMPENSATION REMEDY COULD BE MADE EXCLUSIVE, BUT STILL THE
LEGISLATURE TOOK NO ACTION.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OF
ITS OWN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT AND OF THE JURISDICTION OF ITS
COURTS OVER CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT IS BINDING
UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS AND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF APRIL 14, 1910, SEC. 2, 36 STAT. 298. 

FN2  112 F.2D 595. 

FN3  292 PA. 44; 140 A. 618. 

FN4  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. RIGSBY, 241 U.S. 33; TIPTON V.
ATCHISON RY. CO., 298 U.S. 141. 

FN5  MOORE V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO., 291 U.S. 205; GILVARY V.
CUYAHOGA VALLEY RY. CO., 292 U.S. 57; TIPTON V. ATCHISON RY. CO., SUPRA
NOTE 4. 

FN6  298 U.S. 141. 

FN7  126 CAL. APP. 486; 14 P.2D 1045; 15 P.2D 793. 

FN8  8 CAL. APP.2D 290; 48 P.2D 108. 

FN9  126 CAL. APP. AT 501; 14 P.2D 1045; 15 P.2D 793, AND 8 CAL.
APP.2D AT 305; 48 P.2D 108. 

FN10  35 STAT. 66 AS AMENDED APRIL 5, 1910, 36 STAT. 291, AND MARCH
3, 1911, SEC. 291, 36 STAT. 1167.  THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSEQUENT
AMENDMENT IMMATERIAL HERE, AUG. 11, 1939, SEC. 2, 53 STAT. 1404. 

FN11  SECTION 69 PROVIDED: 

"(C)  EMPLOYERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS ACT SHALL NOT
BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYMENTS WHICH, ACCORDING TO
LAW, ARE SO ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE
LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATE, OR TO EMPLOYEES INJURED WHILE THEY ARE
SO ENGAGED, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THIS ACT MAY BE PERMITTED TO APPLY
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE
ACTS OF CONGRESS." 

FN12  MOORE V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO., 291 U.S. 205, 215, 216, AND
SEC. 1 AND SEC. 6, 45 U.S.C. 51 AND 56. 

FN13  A LATER DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA IS IN
ACCORD WITH THIS COURT'S RULING IN THE TIPTON CASE.  SCOTT V.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 9 CAL.2D 315, 323; 70 P.2D 940. 

FN14 292 PA. 44; 140 A. 618. 

FN15  264 U.S. 109, 120. 

FN16 283 PA. 274; 128 A. 918. 

FN17  TIPTON V. ATCHISON RY. CO., 298 U.S. 141, 148. 

FN18  MCMAHON V. MONTOUR RAILROAD CO., 270 U.S. 628. 

FN19  PA. LAWS 1915, P. 777. 

FN20  292 PA. AT 50; 140 A. 620. 

FN21  306 U.S. 511. 

FN22  BUHL'S ESTATE, 300 PA. 29; 150 A. 86. 

FN23  PA. LAWS 1937, ACT NO. 282, SEC. 52(4). 

FN24  PA. LAWS 1929, ACTS NO. 311, 358, 361, 372; LAWS 1931, ACTS NO.
151, 205; LAWS 1933, ACTS NO. 68, 324, 328; LAWS, SPECIAL SESSION 1933
34, ACTS NO. 55, 56; LAWS 1935, ACT NO. 412; LAWS 1937, ACT NO. 323. 
FN25  PA. LAWS 1937, ACT NO. 323. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :







CONWAY V. O'BRIEN, 312 U.S. 492 


NO. 344.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 5, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 611, REVERSED. 


EVIDENCE HELD SUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE JURY ON THE ISSUE OF GROSS
NEGLIGENCE AS DEFINED BY THE LAW OF VERMONT, IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE
OWNER OF AN AUTOMOBILE FOR PERSONAL INJURIES SUFFERED BY ONE RIDING IN
IT AS HIS GUEST WHO ALLEGED THAT THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY THE GROSS
NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER IN DRIVING THE VEHICLE.  P. 493. 

CONWAY V. O'BRIEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 634, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
DAMAGES RECOVERED UNDER A VERMONT "GUEST OCCUPANT" LAW.  JURISDICTION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS FOUNDED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A CITIZEN OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, WAS INJURED WHEN THE
RESPONDENT'S CAR, IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER, COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER
ON A COUNTRY ROAD IN VERMONT.  DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP GAVE
JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT AND PETITIONER RECOVERED A VERDICT
UNDER THE VERMONT GUEST OCCUPANT LAW,  FN1  WHICH REQUIRED HER TO PROVE
GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE
INSUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE JURY, REVERSED AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. 
FN2  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO EXAMINE WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN SUFFICIENT
COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 50(B) TO AUTHORIZE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT,
FN3  BUT OUR VIEW OF THE MERITS MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THIS
QUESTION. 

THE RESULT IS DETERMINED BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT
OF THE VERMONT LAW.  THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN BROAD DAYLIGHT IN THE
LATE MORNING OF AN AUGUST DAY.  IF THE FACTS MOST FAVORABLE TO THE
PETITIONER WERE ACCEPTED, THE JURY MIGHT HAVE CONCLUDED PROPERLY THAT
THE DEFENDANT'S CAR APPROACHED FROM THE SOUTH A COVERED BRIDGE ON A
LITTLE-USED COUNTRY ROAD AT A SPEED OF FIFTEEN MILES PER HOUR. 
RESPONDENT WHO WAS THE DRIVER AND OWNER SAT ON THE FRONT SEAT WITH
ANOTHER.  THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER LADY OCCUPIED THE REAR SEAT.  THE
BRIDGE SPANNED WILLIAMS RIVER WHICH AT THAT POINT RAN EASTWARDLY TO
JOIN THE CONNECTICUT.  AS ANOTHER CAR EMERGED FROM ITS SOUTHERN END THE
COLLISION HAPPENED. 

THE ROAD ALONG WHICH RESPONDENT WAS DRIVING RAN PARALLEL WITH THE
SOUTHERNLY BANK OF THE RIVER FOR A SHORT DISTANCE AND THEN TURNED
"ABRUPTLY," IN A "SHARPER CURVE THAN ANY ON THE ROAD," AT A SIXTY
DEGREE ANGLE DOWN A NINE PER CENT GRADE TOWARDS THE BRIDGE.  BUSHES AND
SMALL TREES CUT OFF THE VIEW OF A CAR "COMING OUT OF THE BRIDGE" UNTIL
THE RESPONDENT'S CAR WAS "PROBABLY 30 FEET" AWAY. 

AS RESPONDENT'S LIGHT CAR CAME INTO THIS CURVE, HE CUT IN TO THE LEFT
WITHOUT SLACKENING SPEED OR BLOWING A HORN AND SUDDENLY FOUND HIMSELF
FACE TO FACE WITH A LARGER CAR COMING OUT OF THE BRIDGE ON ITS RIGHT
HAND SIDE OF THE ROAD AT TWO MILES PER HOUR.  THE COLLISION KNOCKED THE
HEAVIER CAR BACKWARD SEVERAL FEET AND THROUGH A GUARD RAIL ON THE WEST
SIDE OF THE BRIDGE APPROACH.  THE ROAD APPROACHING THE BRIDGE "AT THIS
BLIND CORNER" WAS SANDY, FROM FOURTEEN TO SEVENTEEN FEET WIDE. 
RESPONDENT TESTIFIED HE HAD KNOWN THE SPOT "ALL MY LIFE" AND KNEW CARS
COULD PASS ONLY "AT A SNAIL'S PACE." 

THE "LAW OF THE ROAD" IN VERMONT IS TO ROUND CURVES "AS FAR TO THE
RIGHT  ...  AS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE"  FN4  AND TO "SIGNAL WITH BELL
OR HORN" "IN GOING AROUND A CURVE."  FN5 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE VERMONT LAW
REQUIRES THE SUBMISSION OF THE QUESTION OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE TO THE
JURY.  AS A MATTER OF LAW IT SEEMS QUITE PLAIN THAT A JURY MIGHT FIND A
DRIVER OF A CAR FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCALITY GROSSLY NEGLIGENT, WHEN WITH
THREE GUESTS AND WITHOUT A SIGNAL HE ROUNDS A BLIND, SHARP CURVE AT
FIFTEEN MILES PER HOUR ON THE WRONG SIDE INTO A NARROW BRIDGE
ENTRANCE.  THE ACCEPTED VERMONT DEFINITION OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE IS FOUND
IN SHAW V. MOORE:  FN6 

"GROSS NEGLIGENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY AND APPRECIABLY HIGHER IN
MAGNITUDE AND MORE CULPABLE THAN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE.  GROSS NEGLIGENCE
IS EQUIVALENT TO THE FAILURE TO EXERCISE EVEN A SLIGHT DEGREE OF CARE. 
IT IS MATERIALLY MORE WANT OF CARE THAN CONSTITUTES SIMPLE
INADVERTENCE.  IT IS AN ACT OR OMISSION RESPECTING LEGAL DUTY OF AN
AGGRAVATED CHARACTER AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE FAILURE TO EXERCISE
ORDINARY CARE.  IT IS VERY GREAT NEGLIGENCE, OR THE ABSENCE OF SLIGHT
DILIGENCE, OR THE WANT OF EVEN SCANT CARE.  IT AMOUNTS TO INDIFFERENCE
TO PRESENT LEGAL DUTY, AND TO UTTER FORGETFULNESS OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS
SO FAR AS OTHER PERSONS MAY BE AFFECTED.  IT IS A HEEDLESS AND PALPABLE
VIOLATION OF LEGAL DUTY RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.  THE ELEMENT
OF CULPABILITY WHICH CHARACTERIZES ALL NEGLIGENCE IS, IN GROSS
NEGLIGENCE, MAGNIFIED TO A HIGH DEGREE AS COMPARED WITH THAT PRESENT IN
ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE.  GROSS NEGLIGENCE IS MANIFESTLY A SMALLER AMOUNT
OF WATCHFULNESS AND CIRCUMSPECTION THAN THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE OF A
PRUDENT MAN.  BUT IT FALLS SHORT OF BEING SUCH RECKLESS DISREGARD OF
PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES AS IS EQUIVALENT TO A WILFUL AND INTENTIONAL
WRONG.  ORDINARY AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE DIFFER IN DEGREE OF INATTENTION,
WHILE BOTH DIFFER IN KIND FROM WILFUL AND INTENTIONAL CONDUCT WHICH IS
OR OUGHT TO BE KNOWN TO HAVE A TENDENCY TO INJURE." 

THIS HAS BEEN REPEATED MANY TIMES IN LATER CASES.  FN7  THE
APPLICATION CREATES THE DIFFICULTIES.  THE LATEST CASES SAY "EACH CASE
MUST BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO ITS OWN FACTS."  FN8 ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE
INSTANCES AMONG THE VERMONT CASES WHICH MIGHT BE LOGICALLY CITED TO
SUPPORT A REFUSAL TO SUBMIT THIS CASE.  FN9  ABOUT AS MANY ARE UPON THE
OTHER SIDE.  FN10  WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY APPRAISED THE
LAW AND FACTS. 

WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND AFFIRM
THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  VERMONT PUBLIC LAWS (1933) SEC. 5113. 

FN2  111 F.2D 611. 

FN3  AS IN BERRY V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 450, THE DISTRICT COURT
DENIED RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AT THE CLOSE OF THE
CASE.  AFTER VERDICT, HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT DID NOT MAKE A MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT N.O.V. 

FN4  VERMONT PUBLIC LAWS (1933) SEC. 5110-IX. 

FN5  ID., SEC. 5110-XV. 

FN6  104 VT. 529, 531-532; 162 A. 373. 

FN7  DESSEREAU V. WALKER, 105 VT. 99, 101; 163 A. 632; FRANZONI V.
RAVENNA, 105 VT. 64; 163 A. 564; HUNTER V. PRESTON, 105 VT. 327, 338;
166 A. 17. 

FN8  ELLISON V. COLBY, 110 VT. 431; 8 A.2D 637, 640; KELLEY V.
ANTHONY, 110 VT. 490; 8 A.2D 641, 642. 

FN9  SHAW V. MOORE, 104 VT. 529; 162 A. 373; FRANZONI V. RAVENNA, 105
VT. 64; 163 A. 564; ANDERSON V. OLSON, 106 VT. 70; 184 A. 712; L'ECUYER
V. FARNSWORTH, 106 VT. 180; 170 A. 677; GARVEY V. MICHAUD, 108 VT. 226;
184 A. 712; KELLEY V. ANTHONY, 110 VT. 490; 8 A.2D 641. 

FN10  DESSEREAU V. WALKER, 105 VT. 99; 163 A. 632; FARREN V. MCMAHON,
110 VT. 55; 1 A.2D 726; HUNTER V. PRESTON, 105 VT. 327, 338; 166 A. 17;
HALL V. ROYCE, 109 VT. 99, 106; 192 A. 193; ELLISON V. COLBY, 110 VT.
431; 8 A.2D 637; POWERS V. LACKEY, 109 VT. 505; 1 A.2D 693. 
..END :






















RAILROAD COMM'N V. PULLMAN CO., 312 U.S. 496 


NO. 283.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 33
F.SUPP.  675, REVERSED. 


A RAILROAD COMPANY, SOME OF WHOSE TRAINS IN TEXAS HAD EACH BUT ONE
PULLMAN SLEEPING CAR AND THAT IN CHARGE OF A COLORED PORTER SUBJECT TO
THE CONTROL OF THE TRAIN CONDUCTOR, ASSAILED IN THE FEDERAL COURT, AS
UNAUTHORIZED BY TEXAS STATUTES AND AS VIOLATIVE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, A REGULATION BY A STATE COMMISSION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE
THAT SUCH CARS BE CONTINUOUSLY IN CHARGE OF AN EMPLOYEE "HAVING THE
RANK AND POSITION OF A PULLMAN CONDUCTOR."  PULLMAN PORTERS,
INTERVENING, ALSO ATTACKED THE ORDER, ADOPTING THE RAILROAD'S
OBJECTIONS BUT URGING MAINLY THAT IT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST NEGROES IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, PULLMAN PORTERS BEING NEGROES
AND THE CONDUCTORS WHITE.  HELD: 

1.  DECISION OF THE ISSUE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION SHOULD
BE WITHHELD PENDING PROCEEDINGS TO BE TAKEN IN THE STATE COURTS TO
SECURE A DEFINITIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE STATUTE.  P. 498. 

2.  THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHEN ASKED FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF
INJUNCTION, WILL EXERCISE A SOUND DISCRETION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO
AVOID NEEDLESS FRICTION WITH STATE POLICIES THAT MAY RESULT FROM
TENTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF STATE STATUTES AND PREMATURE ADJUDICATION ON
THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY.  P. 500. 

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS ET AL. V. PULLMAN COMPANY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
ENJOINED THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE ABOVE-NAMED RAILROAD
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THOSE SECTIONS OF TEXAS WHERE THE LOCAL PASSENGER TRAFFIC IS
SLIGHT, TRAINS CARRY BUT ONE SLEEPING CAR.  THESE TRAINS, UNLIKE TRAINS
HAVING TWO OR MORE SLEEPERS, ARE WITHOUT A PULLMAN CONDUCTOR; THE
SLEEPER IS IN CHARGE OF A PORTER WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE TRAIN
CONDUCTOR'S CONTROL.  AS IS WELL KNOWN, PORTERS ON PULLMANS ARE COLORED
AND CONDUCTORS ARE WHITE.  ADDRESSING ITSELF TO THIS SITUATION, THE
TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION AFTER DUE HEARING ORDERED THAT "NO SLEEPING
CAR SHALL BE OPERATED ON ANY LINE OF RAILROAD IN THE STATE OF TEXAS
...  UNLESS SUCH CARS ARE CONTINUOUSLY IN THE CHARGE OF AN EMPLOYEE
...  HAVING THE RANK AND POSITION OF PULLMAN CONDUCTOR."  THEREUPON,
THE PULLMAN COMPANY AND THE RAILROADS AFFECTED BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  PULLMAN
PORTERS WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS COMPLAINANTS, AND PULLMAN
CONDUCTORS ENTERED THE LITIGATION IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER.  THREE
JUDGES HAVING BEEN CONVENED, JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 266, AS AMENDED, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 380, THE COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  FROM
THIS DECREE, THE CASE CAME HERE DIRECTLY.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 238, AS
AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

THE PULLMAN COMPANY AND THE RAILROADS ASSAILED THE ORDER AS
UNAUTHORIZED BY TEXAS LAW AS WELL AS VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION,
THE DUE PROCESS AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
INTERVENING PORTERS ADOPTED THESE OBJECTIONS BUT MAINLY OBJECTED TO THE
ORDER AS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE COMPLAINT OF THE PULLMAN PORTERS UNDOUBTEDLY TENDERED A
SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  IT IS MORE THAN SUBSTANTIAL.  IT
TOUCHES A SENSITIVE AREA OF SOCIAL POLICY UPON WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS
OUGHT NOT TO ENTER UNLESS NO ALTERNATIVE TO ITS ADJUDICATION IS OPEN. 
SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION PLAINLY CAN BE AVOIDED IF A DEFINITIVE
RULING ON THE STATE ISSUE WOULD TERMINATE THE CONTROVERSY.  IT IS
THEREFORE OUR DUTY TO TURN TO A CONSIDERATION OF QUESTIONS UNDER TEXAS
LAW. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS ORDER IN A TEXAS STATUTE
WHICH WE QUOTE IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT IF THE
ORDER IS WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY ITS SUBJECT MATTER MUST BE
INCLUDED IN THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO PREVENT "UNJUST DISCRIMINATION
... AND TO PREVENT ANY AND ALL OTHER ABUSES" IN THE CONDUCT OF
RAILROADS.  WHETHER ARRANGEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE STAFFS OF PULLMAN
CARS ARE COVERED BY THE TEXAS CONCEPT OF "DISCRIMINATION" IS FAR FROM
CLEAR.  WHAT PRACTICES OF THE RAILROADS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE "ABUSES"
SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S CORRECTION IS EQUALLY DOUBTFUL.  READING
THE TEXAS STATUTES AND THE TEXAS DECISIONS AS OUTSIDERS WITHOUT SPECIAL
COMPETENCE IN TEXAS LAW, WE WOULD HAVE LITTLE CONFIDENCE IN OUR
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THAT LAW TO THE
PRESENT SITUATION.  THE LOWER COURT DID DENY THAT THE TEXAS STATUTES
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ASSERTION OF POWER.  AND THIS REPRESENTS THE
VIEW OF AN ABLE AND EXPERIENCED CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT WHICH
INCLUDES TEXAS AND OF TWO CAPABLE DISTRICT JUDGES TRAINED IN TEXAS
LAW.  HAD WE OR THEY NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER BUT TO DECIDE WHAT IS THE
LAW OF THE STATE, WE SHOULD HESITATE LONG BEFORE REJECTING THEIR
FORECAST OF TEXAS LAW.  BUT NO MATTER HOW SEASONED THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT MAY BE, IT CANNOT ESCAPE BEING A FORECAST RATHER THAN A
DETERMINATION.  THE LAST WORD ON THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 6445 OF THE
TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES, AND THEREFORE THE LAST WORD ON THE STATUTORY
AUTHORITY OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION IN THIS CASE, BELONGS NEITHER TO
US NOR TO THE DISTRICT COURT BUT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.  IN
THIS SITUATION A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY IS ASKED TO DECIDE AN ISSUE BY
MAKING A TENTATIVE ANSWER WHICH MAY BE DISPLACED TOMORROW BY A STATE
ADJUDICATION.  GLENN V. FIELD PACKING CO., 290 U.S. 177; LEE V.
BICKELL, 292 U.S. 415.  THE REIGN OF LAW IS HARDLY PROMOTED IF AN
UNNECESSARY RULING OF A FEDERAL COURT IS THUS SUPPLANTED BY A
CONTROLLING DECISION OF A STATE COURT.  THE RESOURCES OF EQUITY ARE
EQUAL TO AN ADJUSTMENT THAT WILL AVOID THE WASTE OF A TENTATIVE
DECISION AS WELL AS THE FRICTION OF A PREMATURE CONSTITUTIONAL
ADJUDICATION. 

AN APPEAL TO THE CHANCELLOR, AS WE HAD OCCASION TO RECALL ONLY THE
OTHER DAY, IS AN APPEAL TO THE "EXERCISE OF THE SOUND DISCRETION, WHICH
GUIDES THE DETERMINATION OF COURTS OF EQUITY."  BEAL V. MISSOURI
PACIFIC R. CO., ANTE, P. 45.  THE HISTORY OF EQUITY JURISDICTION IS THE
HISTORY OF REGARD FOR PUBLIC CONSEQUENCES IN EMPLOYING THE
EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF THE INJUNCTION.  THERE HAVE BEEN AS MANY AND AS
VARIEGATED APPLICATIONS OF THIS SUPPLE PRINCIPLE AS THE SITUATIONS THAT
HAVE BROUGHT IT INTO PLAY.  SEE, FOR MODERN INSTANCES, BEASLEY V. TEXAS
& PACIFIC RY. CO., 191 U.S. 492; HARRISONVILLE V. DICKEY CLAY CO., 289
U.S. 334; UNITED STATES V. DERN, 289 U.S. 352.  FEW PUBLIC INTERESTS
HAVE A HIGHER CLAIM UPON THE DISCRETION OF A FEDERAL CHANCELLOR THAN
THE AVOIDANCE OF NEEDLESS FRICTION WITH STATE POLICIES, WHETHER THE
POLICY RELATES TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW, FENNER V.
BOYKIN, 271 U.S. 240; SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89; OR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF A SPECIALIZED SCHEME FOR LIQUIDATING EMBARRASSED
BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176; OR THE
FINAL AUTHORITY OF A STATE COURT TO INTERPRET DOUBTFUL REGULATORY LAWS
OF THE STATE, GILCHRIST V. INTERBOROUGH CO., 279 U.S. 159; CF. HAWKS V.
HAMILL, 288 U.S. 52, 61.  THESE CASES REFLECT A DOCTRINE OF ABSTENTION
APPROPRIATE TO OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM WHEREBY THE FEDERAL COURTS,
"EXERCISING A WISE DISCRETION," RESTRAIN THEIR AUTHORITY BECAUSE OF
"SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENTS" AND FOR THE SMOOTH WORKING OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.  SEE
CAVANAUGH V. LOONEY, 248 U.S. 453, 457; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN INS.
ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 73.  THIS USE OF EQUITABLE POWERS IS A CONTRIBUTION
OF THE COURTS IN FURTHERING THE HARMONIOUS RELATION BETWEEN STATE AND
FEDERAL AUTHORITY WITHOUT THE NEED OF RIGOROUS CONGRESSIONAL
RESTRICTION OF THOSE POWERS.  COMPARE 37 STAT. 1013; JUDICIAL CODE,
SEC. 24(1), AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1); 47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C.
SECS. 101-15. 

REGARD FOR THESE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION IS DECISIVE HERE.  IF
THERE WAS NO WARRANT IN STATE LAW FOR THE COMMISSION'S ASSUMPTION OF
AUTHORITY THERE IS AN END OF THE LITIGATION; THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE
DOES NOT ARISE.  THE LAW OF TEXAS APPEARS TO FURNISH EASY AND AMPLE
MEANS FOR DETERMINING THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.  ARTICLE 6453 OF THE
TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES GIVES A REVIEW OF SUCH AN ORDER IN THE STATE
COURTS.  OR, IF THERE ARE DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF THIS PROCEDURE OF
WHICH WE HAVE NOT BEEN APPRISED, THE ISSUE OF STATE LAW MAY BE SETTLED
BY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE STATE TO ENFORCE OBEDIENCE TO
THE ORDER.  BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA; ARTICLE 6476, TEXAS
CIVIL STATUTES.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SHOWING THAT THESE OBVIOUS
METHODS FOR SECURING A DEFINITIVE RULING IN THE STATE COURTS CANNOT BE
PURSUED WITH FULL PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM, THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS WISE DISCRETION BY STAYING ITS HANDS. 
COMPARE THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA CO., 309 U.S. 478. 

WE THEREFORE REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT, WITH DIRECTIONS
TO RETAIN THE BILL PENDING A DETERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS, TO BE
BROUGHT WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS, IN THE STATE COURT IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  COMPARE ATLAS INS. CO. V. SOUTHERN, INC., 306 U.S.
563, 573, AND CASES CITED.  REVERSED. 

FN1 VERNON'S ANNO.  TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES, ARTICLE 6445: 

"POWER AND AUTHORITY ARE HEREBY CONFERRED UPON THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION OF TEXAS OVER ALL RAILROADS, AND SUBURBAN, BELT AND TERMINAL
RAILROADS, AND OVER ALL PUBLIC WHARVES, DOCKS, PIERS, ELEVATORS,
WAREHOUSES, SHEDS, TRACKS AND OTHER PROPERTY USED IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH IN THIS STATE, AND OVER ALL PERSONS, ASSOCIATIONS AND
CORPORATIONS, PRIVATE OR MUNICIPAL, OWNING OR OPERATING SUCH RAILROAD,
WHARF, DOCK, PIER, ELEVATOR, WAREHOUSE, SHED, TRACK OR OTHER PROPERTY
TO FIX, AND IT IS HEREBY MADE THE DUTY OF THE SAID COMMISSION TO ADOPT
ALL NECESSARY RATES, CHARGES AND REGULATIONS, TO GOVERN AND REGULATE
SUCH RAILROADS, PERSONS, ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATIONS, AND TO CORRECT
ABUSES AND PREVENT UNJUST DISCRIMINATION IN THE RATES, CHARGES AND
TOLLS OF SUCH RAILROADS, PERSONS, ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATIONS, AND TO
FIX DIVISION OF RATES, CHARGES AND REGULATIONS BETWEEN RAILROADS AND
OTHER UTILITIES AND COMMON CARRIERS WHERE A DIVISION IS PROPER AND
CORRECT, AND TO PREVENT ANY AND ALL OTHER ABUSES IN THE CONDUCT OF
THEIR BUSINESS AND TO DO AND PERFORM SUCH OTHER DUTIES AND DETAILS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















PIPE LINE CO. V. U.S., 312 U.S. 502 


NO. 268.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 13, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - NO.
268, REVERSED.  - NO. 269, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO ENJOIN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ANTITRUST ACT RESULTING FROM CONTROL OF THE AFFAIRS OF A GAS PIPE LINE
COMPANY BY COMPETITORS THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP, ETC., A CONSENT DECREE
WAS ENTERED WHICH SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED CERTAIN RIGHTS ON THE PIPE
LINE COMPANY AND SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT UPON PROPER APPLICATION IT
COULD BECOME A PARTY TO THE SUIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING THOSE
RIGHTS, JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE AND THE PARTIES BEING RETAINED TO
GIVE FULL EFFECT TO THE DECREE.  HELD: 

(1)  THE RIGHT OF THE PIPE LINE COMPANY TO INTERVENE AT A SUBSEQUENT
STAGE TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS SO RESERVED, WAS NOT DEPENDENT UPON RULE
24(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, NOR SUBJECT TO THE DISTRICT
COURT'S DISCRETION, BUT WAS A RIGHT ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSENT DECREE. 
P. 505. 

(2)  ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE MADE ON ITS BEHALF WERE
FINAL ORDERS APPEALABLE TO THIS COURT.  P. 508. 

(3)  ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH RIGHTS OF THE PIPE LINE COMPANY THROUGH ITS
INTERVENTION AND ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE LITIGATION WOULD NOT
CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  P. 508. 

(4)  THE COMPANY'S RIGHT OF INTERVENTION WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DENIAL
OF MOTIONS TO INTERVENE MADE EARLIER BY ONE OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS BUT
MADE ON THAT STOCKHOLDER'S OWN BEHALF AND INVOLVING DIFFERENT CLAIMS
FROM THOSE NOW ASSERTED.  P. 508. 

2.  EXPEDITION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS, TO BE
ATTAINED BY MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING DECREE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
GOVERNMENT, CAN NOT BE HAD AT THE SACRIFICE OF PRIVATE RIGHTS WHICH THE
DECREE ITSELF ESTABLISHED.  P. 509. 

MISSOURI-KANSAS PIPE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 269, PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. UNITED
STATES ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF DELAWARE. 

APPEALS FROM TWO ORDERS OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENYING
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN A SUIT INSTITUTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ANTITRUST ACT.  ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS PURPORTED
TO BE MADE BY THE PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY, THE OTHER WAS
MADE ON ITS BEHALF BY THE MISSOURI-KANSAS PIPE LINE COMPANY AS ONE OF
ITS STOCKHOLDERS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE PROCEEDINGS GROW OUT OF A SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN 1935 TO ENFORCE THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  THAT SUIT WAS
TERMINATED BY A CONSENT DECREE THE TERMS OF WHICH SPECIFICALLY RESERVED
CERTAIN RIGHTS TO THE PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY.  THE ISSUES
HERE REVOLVE AROUND THE SCOPE OF THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE. 

IN ITS BILL THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED THAT COLUMBIA GAS & ELECTRIC
CORPORATION AND ITS CONTROLLED INSTRUMENTALITY, COLUMBIA OIL & GASOLINE
CORPORATION, TOGETHER WITH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, HAD CONSPIRED, FOR
THE BENEFIT OF COLUMBIA GAS, TO SHUT OUT OPERATION IN THE INDIANA-OHIO
MICHIGAN AREA BY THE PANHANDLE COMPANY, WHICH HAD BUILT A NATURAL GAS
PIPE LINE FROM THE TEXAS FIELDS TO THE BORDER OF INDIANA.  PANHANDLE
WAS AN OFFSPRING OF MISSOURI-KANSAS PIPE LINE COMPANY (HEREAFTER CALLED
MOKAN), WHICH, AT THE INCEPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SUIT, STILL OWNED
HALF OF PANHANDLE'S STOCK AND HELD HALF ITS JUNIOR DEBT.  COLUMBIA GAS,
IT WAS CHARGED, HAD A PRACTICAL MONOPOLY OF NATURAL GAS IN THE MARKET
WHICH PANHANDLE PROPOSED TO ENTER, AND TO MAINTAIN THIS MONOPOLY
COLUMBIA GAS ACQUIRED DOMINATION OF PANHANDLE THROUGH THE ACQUISITION
BY COLUMBIA OIL OF HALF OF PANHANDLE'S STOCK AND JUNIOR DEBT AND ITS
WHOLE SENIOR DEBT.  THESE ACTS STIFLED, SO IT WAS CLAIMED, PANHANDLE'S
POTENTIAL COMPETITION, RENDERED IT INSOLVENT, AND FORCED MOKAN INTO
RECEIVERSHIP. 

THE CONSENT DECREE SOUGHT TO ASSURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMPETITION BY
PANHANDLE.  DEEMING THE TERMS OF THE DECREE INADEQUATE FOR ITS PURPOSE,
THE GOVERNMENT IN 1939 REOPENED THE PROCEEDINGS.  THE DEFENDANTS
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE DECREE BY A PLAN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT
REFERRED TO A MASTER.  AFTER THE MASTER'S REPORT APPROVING THE PLAN HAD
BEEN SUBMITTED BUT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ACTED UPON IT, TWO
ATTEMPTS TO INTERVENE WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF PANHANDLE.  THE DENIAL OF
THESE TWO MOTIONS BY THE DISTRICT COURT IS THE BASIS OF THE APPEALS
HERE WHICH COME TO US DIRECTLY UNDER THE EXPEDITING ACT, 32 STAT. 823,
AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29.  IN NO. 268 MOKAN, AS A STOCKHOLDER OF
PANHANDLE, MADE THE APPROPRIATE ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE UNWILLINGNESS OF
THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THE CORPORATION TO PROTECT ITS
INTERESTS, AND MOVED TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF PANHANDLE.  IN NO. 269,
THE MOTION PURPORTED TO BE MADE IN PANHANDLE'S NAME.  IN ADDITION TO
THE FORMAL PARTIES, THE CITY OF DETROIT WAS HEARD HERE AS AMICUS CURIAE
BECAUSE OF ITS INTEREST IN THE SUPPLY OF GAS BY PANHANDLE. 

FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, WE SHALL FIRST DISPOSE OF NO. 268. 

NUMEROUS ARGUMENTS WERE PRESSED UPON US CHALLENGING OUR JURISDICTION
OVER THE APPEAL, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, INSISTING ON THE PROPRIETY OF
THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  TREATING RULE 24(A) OF THE RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE AS A COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF THE ALLOWABLE INSTANCES
FOR INTERVENTION, IT IS INSISTED THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT ONE FOR
INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT, AND AS AN EXERCISE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DISCRETION IS NOT REVIEWABLE HERE.  IN ANY EVENT, THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS SAID NOT TO BE A "FINAL DECREE" WITHIN THE EXPEDITING
ACT, COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA CANNERIES, 279 U.S. 553, 556,
AND ON THIS SCORE NOT REVIEWABLE.  IF THE MERITS BE HERE OPEN, THE
ORDER WAS CORRECT BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT "TIMELY APPLICATION," AS
REQUIRED BY RULE 24(A).  FINALLY, VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS OF CONTROLLING
PUBLIC INTEREST ARE INVOKED TO SUSTAIN THE DISTRICT COURT:  THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THE GUARDIAN OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ENFORCING
THE ANTITRUST LAWS, COMPARE NEW YORK CITY V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO.,
261 U.S. 312; INJECTION OF NEW ISSUES OUGHT NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO DELAY
DISPOSITION OF THE MAIN LITIGATION, SEE UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN
SECURITIES CO., 128 F. 808, 813; A DECREE ALREADY ENTERED SHOULD NOT BE
IMPEACHED BY INTERVENTION, SEE UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA CANNERIES,
SUPRA, AT 556. 

ALL OF THESE ARGUMENTS MISCONCEIVE THE BASIS OF THE RIGHT NOW
ASSERTED.  ITS FOUNDATION IS THE CONSENT DECREE.  WE ARE NOT HERE
DEALING WITH A CONVENTIONAL FORM OF INTERVENTION, WHEREBY AN APPEAL IS
MADE TO THE COURT'S GOOD SENSE TO ALLOW PERSONS HAVING A COMMON
INTEREST WITH THE FORMAL PARTIES TO ENFORCE THE COMMON INTEREST WITH
THEIR INDIVIDUAL EMPHASIS.  PLAINLY ENOUGH, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH INTERESTED OUTSIDERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BECOME PARTICIPANTS IN
A LITIGATION IS, BARRING VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, A MATTER FOR THE
NISI PRIUS COURT.  BUT WHERE THE ENFORCEMENT OF A PUBLIC LAW ALSO
DEMANDS DISTINCT SAFEGUARDING OF PRIVATE INTERESTS BY GIVING THEM A
FORMAL STATUS IN THE DECREE, THE POWER TO ENFORCE RIGHTS THUS
SANCTIONED IS NOT LEFT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES NOR PUT IN THE KEEPING
OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DISCRETION. 

THAT IS THE PRESENT CASE.  PANHANDLE'S RIGHT TO ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE
WAS AT THE HEART OF THE CONTROVERSY.  AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THAT
INDEPENDENCE WAS THE EXTENSION OF ITS OPERATIONS TO PERMIT SALES IN
DETROIT.  THE ASSURANCE OF THIS EXTENSION WAS DEEMED SO VITAL THAT IT
WAS SAFEGUARDED BY EXPLICIT PROVISIONS IN THE DECREE.  SECTION IV,
WHICH IS IN FULL IN THE MARGIN, FN1  CONTAINED THOSE PROVISIONS, AND BY
APPLICATION," COULD "BECOME A PARTY" TO THE SUIT "FOR THE LIMITED
PURPOSE OF ENFORCING THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY SECTION IV."  MOKAN, ON
BEHALF OF PANHANDLE, CLAIMED THAT COLUMBIA GAS HAD MADE FINANCIAL
ARRANGEMENTS, WHICH WE NEED NOT DETAIL, THAT WOULD IN PRACTICE DEFEAT
THE FREE ENTERPRISE OF PANHANDLE.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF THIS CLAIM.  THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER
THERE WAS STANDING TO MAKE THE CLAIM BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT.  WE
HOLD THERE WAS SUCH STANDING.  TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY
OF GENERAL DOCTRINES OF INTERVENTION CONTAINED IN RULE 24(A) DOES NOT
TOUCH OUR PROBLEM.  AND SINCE THE PROTECTION AFFORDED PANHANDLE BY
BY SECTION V, TO WIT, ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE SUIT, THE DENIAL OF
THAT PROTECTION IS A DEFINITIVE ADJUDICATION, AND SO APPEALABLE.  SEE
CREDITS COMMUTATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 311, 316; CF.
COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 323.  NOR CAN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THIS PROTECTION BE DEEMED REMOTELY IN CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC DUTIES
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, NOR TO BRING IN DIGRESSIVE ISSUES, NOR TO
IMPEACH THE EXISTING DECREE.  IT IS A VINDICATION OF THE DECREE. 

A FINAL CONTENTION IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER REMAINS.  IT IS BASED ON
TWO PRIOR DENIALS OF MOTIONS BY MOKAN TO INTERVENE.  TREATING MOKAN'S
MOTIONS AS MADE ON ITS OWN BEHALF ON THE SCORE OF ITS OWNERSHIP OF MORE
THAN FORTY PERCENT OF PANHANDLE'S STOCK, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
MOTIONS.  APPEALS FROM THESE DENIALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, 108 F.2D 614, AND WE DENIED CERTIORARI, 309 U.S.
687.  THE DENIALS ARE NOW URGED AS RES JUDICATA.  BUT THEY WERE A
REJECTION OF MOKAN'S ATTEMPT TO INTERVENE IN ITS OWN BEHALF.  IN
NEITHER INSTANCE WAS THE RELIEF DENIED DEEMED A MODE OF ENFORCING
PANHANDLE'S RIGHTS UNDER SECTIONS IV AND V OF THE DECREE.  THE EARLIER
DENIALS INVOLVED DIFFERENT LEGAL CLAIMS FROM THAT NOW ASSERTED, AND,
THEREFORE, ARE NO BAR TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING. 

IN NO. 269 PANHANDLE'S INTERVENTION WAS SOUGHT BY A DIFFERENT ROUTE. 
AT A MEETING OF THE STOCKHOLDERS OF PANHANDLE A RESOLUTION WAS
INTRODUCED AUTHORIZING THIS PROCEEDING.  IT WAS DEFEATED BECAUSE
COLUMBIA OIL'S HOLDING OF PANHANDLE STOCK WAS VOTED AGAINST IT.  MOKAN
CLAIMED THAT THIS STOCK WAS DISQUALIFIED FROM BEING VOTED ON A MATTER
SO DEEPLY TOUCHING THE SELF-INTEREST OF THE COLUMBIA COMPANIES.  IF
THIS STOCK BE NOT COUNTED, SO RUNS THE ARGUMENT, MOKAN'S VOTES
CONSTITUTED A MAJORITY AND THE RESOLUTION CARRIED.  BUT WE NEED NOT
PASS ON THESE PROBLEMS OF CORPORATE CONTROL, BECAUSE, UNDER OUR
DECISION IN NO. 268, PANHANDLE'S PARTICIPATION, DERIVATIVELY ASSERTED
BY MOKAN, IS SECURED. 

IN A MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WE ARE ADVISED THAT ON
JANUARY 18, 1941, THE DISTRICT COURT FILED AN OPINION APPROVING THE
PLAN FOR MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL DECREE SUBJECT TO SOME SUGGESTIONS BY
THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS, WE ARE TOLD, "IS BELIEVED TO SATISFY THE PUBLIC
INTEREST," AND SO THE GOVERNMENT DESIRES TO SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF THE
COURT BELOW WITHOUT FURTHER LITIGATION.  WE RECOGNIZE THE DUTY OF
EXPEDITIOUS ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  BUT EXPEDITION CANNOT
BE HAD AT THE SACRIFICE OF RIGHTS WHICH THE ORIGINAL DECREE ITSELF
ESTABLISHED.  WE ASSUME THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WILL ADJUST THE RIGHT
WHICH BELONGS TO PANHANDLE WITH FULL REGARD TO THAT PUBLIC INTEREST
WHICH UNDERLAY THE ORIGINAL SUIT. 

THE ORDER IN NO. 268 IS REVERSED, BUT THAT IN NO. 269 IS AFFIRMED. 
NO. 268, REVERSED.  NO. 269, AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THAT THE DEFENDANTS BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY PERPETUALLY ENJOINED
FROM RESTRAINING OR INTERFERING IN ANY MANNER IN THE FREEDOM OF
PANHANDLE EASTERN TO CONTRACT OR TO FINANCE OR ARRANGE THE FINANCING OF
ALL CONTRACTS, EXTENSIONS (INCLUDING THE PROPOSED NEW LINE TO DETROIT,
WHETHER OR NOT BUILT AND OWNED BY IT), REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, SERVICE,
OR IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY IN ITS BUSINESS THROUGH OR WITH ANY FIRM,
PERSON, OR CORPORATION WITH WHOM IT MAY CHOOSE TO DEAL (AND TO THAT END
ANY SUCH FINANCIAL OR CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY PANHANDLE
EASTERN TO CONSUMMATE ITS CONTRACT DATED AUGUST 31, 1935, WITH THE
DETROIT CITY GAS COMPANY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
TRUSTEE WHO SHALL RECEIVE, AND CONSIDER THE ADVISABILITY OF,
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF FINANCING FROM ANY RESPONSIBLE UNDERWRITER); 

"THAT IF SUCH CONTRACTS BE MADE WITH OR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BE
SECURED FROM COLUMBIA GAS, SUCH CONTRACTS MAY BE MADE OR FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE FURNISHED ONLY UPON TERMS OR CONDITIONS WHICH DO NOT IN ANY
WAY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, PRESENTLY OR POTENTIALLY, CONFER UPON
COLUMBIA GAS ANY VOTING RIGHTS, CONTROL OR PARTICIPATION IN THE
MANAGEMENT OF PANHANDLE EASTERN OR CONFER ANY RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP IN
THE WORKS OR PROPERTIES OF PANHANDLE EASTERN EXCEPT AS SECURITY FOR THE
INVESTMENT; AND IN THE EVENT THAT COLUMBIA GAS SHALL, WITH RESPECT TO
ANY CONTRACT OR ANY CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER OR ANY
PROPERTY HELD AS SECURITY OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CONTRACT, IN
ANY WAY PREVENT THE FREE TRANSPORTATION, SALE, AND DISTRIBUTION OF GAS
BY PANHANDLE EASTERN, THEN UPON APPLICATION TO THIS COURT OR ANY COURT
OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION PANHANDLE EASTERN SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT (1) TO
THE IMMEDIATE APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE TO HOLD SUCH CONTRACT RIGHTS OR
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE PURPOSES AND PROVISIONS OF THIS DECREE; (2) TO
IMMEDIATE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF ANY AND ALL CONTRACTS WITH COLUMBIA
GAS; AND (3) TO IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION, BOTH TEMPORARY AND FINAL, AS WELL
AS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE REMEDY AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, INCLUDING ANY
REMEDY HEREUNDER." 

FN2  "THAT JURISDICTION OF THIS CAUSE AND OF THE PARTIES HERETO IS
RETAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING FULL EFFECT TO THIS DECREE AND FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF STRICT COMPLIANCE HEREWITH AND THE PUNISHMENT OF
EVASIONS HEREOF, AND FOR THE FURTHER PURPOSE OF MAKING SUCH OTHER AND
FURTHER ORDERS AND DECREES OR TAKING SUCH OTHER ACTION AS MAY FROM TIME
TO TIME BE NECESSARY TO THE CARRYING OUT HEREOF; AND THAT PANHANDLE
EASTERN, UPON PROPER APPLICATION, MAY BECOME A PARTY HERETO FOR THE
LIMITED PURPOSE OF ENFORCING THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY SECTION IV
HEREOF." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT BOTH JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :
























CONSOLIDATED ROCK CO. V. DU BOIS, 312 U.S. 510 


NO. 400.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 13, 14, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 114
F.2D 102, AFFIRMED. 


IN A PROCEEDING TO REORGANIZE A PARENT CORPORATION AND ITS TWO WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, A PLAN WAS APPROVED WHICH PROVIDED INTER ALIA:
THAT ALL ASSETS OF THE COMPANIES BE TRANSFERRED FREE AND CLEAR TO A NEW
CORPORATION; THAT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES, WHICH WERE SECURED ON THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES BY
SEPARATE MORTGAGES, THE BONDHOLDERS RECEIVE, FOR 50% OF THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNTS OF THEIR CLAIMS, INCOME BONDS OF INFERIOR GRADE SECURED ON THE
PROPERTY OF THE NEW COMPANY, AND FOR THE BALANCE RECEIVE AN EQUAL
AMOUNT OF ITS PAR-VALUE PREFERRED STOCK, WITH WARRANTS TO PURCHASE ITS
COMMON STOCK ON CERTAIN TERMS, BUT THAT THEIR CLAIMS TO ACCRUED
INTEREST BE EXTINGUISHED; THAT THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF THE PARENT
CORPORATION RECEIVE COMMON STOCK OF THE NEW CORPORATION, AND THAT ITS
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS RECEIVE WARRANTS TO PURCHASE THE NEW COMMON ON
TERMS STATED.  ALTHOUGH THE MORTGAGE DEBTS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES DIFFERED
IN AMOUNT, THE NET INCOME OF THE NEW COMPANY WAS TO BE APPLIED ONE-HALF
TO THE ONE AND ONE-HALF TO THE OTHER GROUP OF BONDHOLDERS FOR SERVICING
THEIR NEW SECURITIES.  EACH OF THE TWO SUBSIDIARIES HAD A MONEY CLAIM
AGAINST THE PARENT COMPANY, UNDER AN AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE LATTER HAD
TAKEN OVER THE ENTIRE MANAGEMENT AND FINANCING OF THE BUSINESS AND
PROPERTIES OF THE SUBSIDIARIES, AND WHICH STIPULATED, INTER ALIA, THAT
THAT COMPANY WOULD MAKE CERTAIN PAYMENTS AND ALLOW CERTAIN CREDITS TO
THE SUBSIDIARIES, AND, UPON TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT, WOULD RETURN
THEIR PROPERTIES AND RENDER FINAL ACCOUNTINGS.  THE AGREEMENT DECLARED
THAT IT WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTIES AND NOT "FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ANY THIRD PERSON," AND CONTAINED A PROVISION FOR EXTENSION
OF ITS DATE OF EXPIRATION AT THE OPTION OF THE PARENT COMPANY.  THE
DISTRICT COURT DID NOT FIND SPECIFIC VALUES FOR THE SEPARATE PROPERTIES
OR THE PROPERTIES OF THE ENTERPRISE AS A UNIT; YET, IN FACE OF A POOR
EARNINGS RECORD, IT FOUND THAT THE PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF ALL THE
ASSETS, EXCLUSIVE OF GOOD WILL AND GOING CONCERN VALUE, WAS IN EXCESS
OF THE TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS, PLUS ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST.  IT
FURTHER FOUND THAT, INCLUDING GOOD WILL AND GOING CONCERN VALUE, THE
VALUE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PLUS ACCRUED AND
UNPAID INTEREST AND CERTAIN LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES AND ACCRUED
DIVIDENDS ON THE PARENT COMPANY'S PREFERRED STOCK; THAT THE PRESENT
VALUE OF THE ASSETS SUBJECT TO THE TRUST INDENTURES OF THE SUBSIDIARIES
WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT, PLUS ACCRUED AND UNPAID
INTEREST, OF THE RESPECTIVE BOND ISSUES; THAT, AS A RESULT OF
COMMINGLING UNDER THE OPERATING AGREEMENT, IT WOULD BE PHYSICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE TO SEGREGATE WITH ANY DEGREE OF ACCURACY OR FAIRNESS
PROPERTIES WHICH ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO THE COMPANIES SEPARATELY, AND
THAT AN APPRAISAL WOULD PRODUCE FURTHER CONFUSION.  NO FINDING WAS MADE
OF THE AMOUNT OR VALIDITY OF THE INTERCOMPANY CLAIMS, THE COURT
CONCLUDING THAT ANY LIABILITY UNDER THE OPERATING AGREEMENT WAS NOT FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THIRD PARTIES, INCLUDING THE BONDHOLDERS.  HELD: 

1.  TO WARRANT APPROVAL OF ANY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, THERE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN A DETERMINATION OF WHAT ASSETS WERE SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF THE
RESPECTIVE CLAIMS.  P. 520. 

2.  THE MORTGAGED ASSETS BEING, AS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT,
INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS, THE BONDHOLDERS, UNDER
THE FULL AND ABSOLUTE PRIORITY RULE, WOULD HAVE, AS AGAINST THE PARENT
CORPORATION AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS, PRIOR RECOURSE AGAINST ANY
UNMORTGAGED ASSETS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES, INCLUDING THE MONEY CLAIMS OF
THE SUBSIDIARIES AGAINST THE PARENT COMPANY.  P. 520. 

3.  ASSUMING THAT, BECAUSE OF THE EXTENSION PROVISION, THE OPERATING
CONTRACT IS STILL EXECUTORY, THE TRUSTEES OF THE SUBSIDIARIES ARE
ENTITLED, UNDER SEC. 77B (B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, TO PROVE THEIR
CLAIMS AT PRESENT WORTH.  P. 521. 

4.  EQUITY WILL NOT PERMIT A HOLDING COMPANY, WHICH HAS DOMINATED AND
CONTROLLED ITS SUBSIDIARIES, TO ESCAPE OR REDUCE ITS LIABILITY TO THEM
BY RELIANCE UPON SELF-SERVING CONTRACTS WHICH IT HAS IMPOSED ON THEM. 
P. 522. 

5.  A HOLDING COMPANY IN DOMINATING AND CONTROLLING POSITION HAS
FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO SECURITY HOLDERS OF ITS SYSTEM WHICH WILL BE
STRICTLY ENFORCED.  P. 522. 

6.  A HOLDING COMPANY OWING MONEY TO ITS SUBSIDIARIES UNDER AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM CAN NOT DEFEAT OR POSTPONE AN ACCOUNTING IN THE
INTEREST OF THEIR BONDHOLDERS BY RESORT TO A DECLARATION IN THE
AGREEMENT THAT IT WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTIES TO IT, NOT
"FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY THIRD PERSON."  P. 522. 

7.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, HAVING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE
HOLDING COMPANY AND THE SUBSIDIARIES, HAS PLENARY POWER TO ADJUDICATE
ALL THE ISSUES PERTAINING TO SUCH INTERCOMPANY CLAIM.  P. 523. 

8.  IN VIEW OF THE UNIFIED OPERATION OF ALL THE PROPERTIES BY THE
PARENT COMPANY, THE COMMINGLING OF ASSETS, AND THE TREATMENT OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES AS MERE DEPARTMENTS OF ITS BUSINESS, THAT COMPANY IS IN NO
POSITION TO ASSERT THAT ITS ASSETS ARE INSULATED FROM THE CLAIMS OF THE
SUBSIDIARIES' BONDHOLDERS.  P. 523. 

9.  THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY MUST BE
DETERMINED, TO FURNISH CRITERIA FOR APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION OF THE NEW
SECURITIES BETWEEN BONDHOLDERS AND STOCKHOLDERS IN CASE ANY EQUITY
REMAINS AFTER BONDHOLDERS HAVE BEEN MADE WHOLE.  P. 524. 

10.  TO DETERMINE THE FAIRNESS OF THE PLAN AS BETWEEN THE BONDHOLDERS
OF THE SUBSIDIARIES THERE MUST BE AT LEAST AN APPROXIMATE ASCERTAINMENT
OF THE VALUE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSETS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
DIFFICULTIES OCCASIONED BY THE LACK OF EARNINGS RECORDS AND BY THE
COMMINGLING OF PROPERTIES.  P. 524. 

11.  FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY OF THE ENTERPRISE IS THE APPROPRIATE
CRITERION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SOLVENCY IN CONNECTION WITH
REORGANIZATION PLANS INVOLVING PRODUCTIVE PROPERTIES; VALUATIONS FOR
OTHER PURPOSES ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THAT ISSUE, EXCEPT AS THEY MAY
INDIRECTLY BEAR ON EARNING CAPACITY.  P. 525. 

UNLESS METICULOUS REGARD FOR EARNING CAPACITY BE HAD, INDEFENSIBLE
PARTICIPATION OF JUNIOR SECURITIES IN PLANS OF REORGANIZATION MAY
RESULT.  FINDINGS AS TO EARNING CAPACITY ARE ESSENTIAL FOR
DETERMINATION OF THE FEASIBILITY AND FAIRNESS OF A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION. 

12.  ESTIMATE OF EARNING CAPACITY MUST BE BASED ON AN INFORMED
JUDGMENT WHICH EMBRACES ALL FACTS RELEVANT TO FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY
AND HENCE TO PRESENT WORTH, INCLUDING THE NATURE AND CONDITION OF THE
PROPERTIES, THE PAST EARNING RECORD, AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THAT RECORD IS A RELIABLE CRITERION OF FUTURE
PERFORMANCE.  P. 526. 

A SUM OF VALUES BASED ON PHYSICAL FACTORS AND ASSIGNED TO SEPARATE
UNITS OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE EARNING CAPACITY OF THE
WHOLE ENTERPRISE IS PLAINLY INADEQUATE. 

13.  WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A FORMAL APPRAISAL OF PROPERTIES IN THIS
CASE IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 527. 

14.  THE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO REORGANIZATIONS OF
SOLVENT, AS WELL AS INSOLVENT, CORPORATIONS.  P. 527. 

15.  UNDER THIS PRINCIPLE, INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE BONDS IS ENTITLED
TO THE SAME PRIORITY AS THE PRINCIPAL.  P. 527. 

16.  THE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY PRINCIPLE DOES NOT MEAN THAT CREDITORS CAN
NOT BE GIVEN INFERIOR GRADES OF SECURITIES OR EVEN SECURITIES OF THE
SAME KIND AS ARE RECEIVED BY JUNIOR INTERESTS; BUT, EVEN WHERE THE
ENTERPRISE AS A WHOLE IS SOLVENT IN THE BANKRUPTCY SENSE, THE PRINCIPLE
IS VIOLATED, IN CASES WHERE STOCKHOLDERS ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE PLAN,
IF CREDITORS ARE GIVEN SECURITIES INFERIOR IN GRADE TO THOSE THEY GIVE
UP AND OF THE SAME FACE AMOUNTS, WITH NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR
THE SENIOR RIGHTS SURRENDERED.  P. 528. 

17.  WHETHER IN CASE OF A SOLVENT COMPANY THE CREDITORS SHOULD BE
MADE WHOLE FOR THE CHANGE IN OR LOSS OF THEIR SENIORITY BY AN INCREASED
PARTICIPATION IN ASSETS, IN EARNINGS, OR IN CONTROL, OR IN ANY
COMBINATION THEREOF, WILL BE DEPENDENT ON THE FACTS AND REQUIREMENTS OF
EACH CASE.  SO LONG AS THE NEW SECURITIES OFFERED ARE OF A VALUE EQUAL
TO THE CREDITORS' CLAIMS, THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE FORMULA EMPLOYED
RESTS IN THE INFORMED DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  P. 529. 

18.  THE FACT THAT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION SUBSTITUTES FOR SEVERAL
OLD BOND ISSUES, SEPARATELY SECURED, NEW SECURITIES CONSTITUTING AN
INTEREST IN ALL OF THE PROPERTIES DOES NOT MAKE IT UNFAIR AND
INEQUITABLE PER SE.  IF THE CREDITORS ARE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED FOR
THE LOSS OF THEIR PRIOR CLAIMS, IT IS NOT MATERIAL OUT OF WHAT ASSETS
THEY ARE PAID.  P. 530. 

CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. ET AL. V. DU BOIS* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 444, BADGLEY ET AL. V. DU BOIS, ALSO ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 636, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 636, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
CONFIRMING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES QUESTIONS AS TO THE FAIRNESS UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (48 STAT. 912) OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR A PARENT
CORPORATION (CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO.)  AND ITS TWO WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARIES N1 - UNION ROCK CO. AND CONSUMERS ROCK AND GRAVEL CO.,
INC. THE DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMED THE PLAN; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  114 F.2D 102.  WE GRANTED THE PETITIONS  FN2  FOR
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF CERTAIN PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE STOCK OF UNION AND CONSUMERS IS HELD BY CONSOLIDATED.  UNION HAS
OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC  FN3  $1,877,000 OF 6% BONDS
SECURED BY AN INDENTURE ON ITS PROPERTY, WITH ACCRUED AND UNPAID
INTEREST  FN4  THEREON OF $403,555 - A TOTAL MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS OF
$2,280,555.  CONSUMERS HAS OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC  FN5
$1,137,000 OF 6% BONDS SECURED BY AN INDENTURE ON ITS PROPERTY, WITH
ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST N6 THEREON OF $221,715 - A TOTAL MORTGAGE
INDEBTEDNESS OF $1,358,715.  CONSOLIDATED HAS OUTSTANDING 285,947
SHARES OF NO PAR VALUE PREFERRED STOCK  FN7  AND 397,455 SHARES OF NO
PAR COMMON STOCK. 

THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION CALLS FOR THE FORMATION OF A NEW
CORPORATION TO WHICH WILL BE TRANSFERRED ALL OF THE ASSETS OF
CONSOLIDATED, UNION,  FN8  AND CONSUMERS FREE OF ALL CLAIMS.  FN9 THE
SECURITIES OF THE NEW CORPORATION ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS: 

UNION AND CONSUMERS BONDS HELD BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE EXCHANGED FOR
INCOME BONDS  FN10  AND PREFERRED STOCK  FN11  OF THE NEW COMPANY.  FOR
50 PER CENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS OF THEIR CLAIMS, THOSE BONDHOLDERS
WILL RECEIVE INCOME BONDS SECURED BY A MORTGAGE ON ALL OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE NEW COMPANY; FOR THE BALANCE THEY WILL RECEIVE AN EQUAL AMOUNT
OF PAR VALUE PREFERRED STOCK.  THEIR CLAIMS TO ACCRUED INTEREST ARE TO
BE EXTINGUISHED, NO NEW SECURITIES BEING ISSUED THEREFOR.  THUS UNION
BONDHOLDERS FOR THEIR CLAIMS OF $2,280,555 WILL RECEIVE INCOME BONDS
AND PREFERRED STOCK IN THE FACE AMOUNT OF $1,877,000; CONSUMERS
BONDHOLDERS FOR THEIR CLAIMS OF $1,358,715 WILL RECEIVE INCOME BONDS
AND PREFERRED STOCK  FN12  IN THE FACE AMOUNT OF $1,137,000.  EACH
SHARE OF NEW PREFERRED STOCK WILL HAVE A WARRANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF
TWO SHARES OF NEW $2 PAR VALUE COMMON STOCK AT PRICES RANGING FROM $2
PER SHARE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF ISSUANCE, TO $6 PER SHARE DURING THE
FIFTH YEAR AFTER ISSUANCE. 

PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF CONSOLIDATED WILL RECEIVE ONE SHARE OF NEW
COMMON STOCK ($2 PAR VALUE) FOR EACH SHARE OF OLD PREFERRED OR AN
AGGREGATE OF 285,947 SHARES OF NEW COMMON. 

A WARRANT TO PURCHASE ONE SHARE OF NEW COMMON FOR $1 WITHIN THREE
MONTHS OF ISSUANCE WILL BE GIVEN TO THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS OF
CONSOLIDATED FOR EACH FIVE SHARES OF OLD COMMON.  FN13 

THE NEW PREFERRED STOCK, TO BE RECEIVED BY THE OLD BONDHOLDERS, WILL
ELECT FOUR OUT OF NINE DIRECTORS OF THE NEW COMPANY; THE NEW COMMON
STOCK WILL ELECT THE REMAINDER N14.  BUT ON DESIGNATED DELINQUENCIES IN
PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE NEW BONDS, THE OLD BONDHOLDERS WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO ELECT SIX OF THE NINE DIRECTORS. 

THE BONDS OF UNION AND CONSUMERS HELD BY CONSOLIDATED N15, THE STOCK
OF THOSE COMPANIES HELD BY CONSOLIDATED, AND THE INTERCOMPANY CLAIMS
(DISCUSSED HEREAFTER) WILL BE CANCELLED. 

IN 1929 WHEN CONSOLIDATED ACQUIRED CONTROL OF THESE VARIOUS
PROPERTIES, THEY WERE APPRAISED IN EXCESS OF $16,000,000 AND IT WAS
ESTIMATED THAT THEIR ANNUAL NET EARNINGS WOULD BE $500,000.  IN 1931
THEY WERE APPRAISED BY OFFICERS AT ABOUT $4,400,000, "EXCLUSIVE OF
GOING CONCERN, GOOD WILL AND CURRENT ASSETS."  THE DISTRICT COURT DID
NOT FIND SPECIFIC VALUES FOR THE SEPARATE PROPERTIES OF CONSOLIDATED,
UNION, OR CONSUMERS, OR FOR THE PROPERTIES OF THE ENTERPRISE AS A
UNIT.  THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUATIONS (APPARENTLY BASED ON PHYSICAL
FACTORS) GIVEN BY THREE WITNESSES  FN16 AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE
MASTER WERE $2,202,733 FOR UNION AS AGAINST A MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS OF
$2,280,555; $1,151,033 FOR CONSUMERS AS AGAINST A MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS
OF $1,358,715.  RELYING ON SIMILAR TESTIMONY, CONSOLIDATED ARGUES THAT
THE VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY, TO BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE NEW COMPANY, IS
OVER $1,359,000, OR EXCLUSIVE OF AN ALLEGED GOOD WILL OF $500,000,
$859,784.  THESE ESTIMATED VALUES SOMEWHAT CONFLICT WITH THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (AS AT JUNE 30, 1938) WHICH SHOWS ASSETS OF
$3,723,738.15 AND LIABILITIES (EXCLUSIVE OF CAPITAL AND SURPLUS) OF
$4,253,224.41.  MORE IMPORTANT, THE EARNINGS RECORD OF THE ENTERPRISE
CASTS GRAVE DOUBTS ON THE SOUNDNESS OF THE ESTIMATED VALUES.  NO
DIVIDENDS WERE EVER PAID ON CONSOLIDATED'S COMMON STOCK; AND EXCEPT FOR
FIVE QUARTERLY DIVIDENDS IN 1929 AND 1931, NONE ON ITS PREFERRED
STOCK.  FOR THE EIGHT AND A HALF YEARS FROM APRIL 1, 1929, TO SEPTEMBER
30, 1937, CONSOLIDATED HAD A LOSS OF ABOUT $1,200,000 BEFORE BOND
INTEREST BUT AFTER DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION.  AND EXCEPT FOR THE YEAR
1929, CONSOLIDATED HAD NO NET OPERATING PROFIT, AFTER BOND INTEREST AND
AMORTIZATION, DEPRECIATION AND DEPLETION, IN ANY YEAR DOWN TO SEPTEMBER
30, 1937.  FN17  YET ON THIS RECORD THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE
PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF ALL THE ASSETS OF THE SEVERAL COMPANIES,
EXCLUSIVE OF GOOD WILL AND GOING CONCERN VALUE, WAS IN EXCESS OF THE
TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS, PLUS ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST.  AND IT
ALSO FOUND THAT SUCH VALUE, INCLUDING GOOD WILL AND GOING CONCERN
VALUE, WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PLUS ACCRUED AND
UNPAID INTEREST AND THE LIQUIDATION PREFERENCES AND ACCRUED DIVIDENDS
ON CONSOLIDATED PREFERRED STOCK.  IT FURTHER FOUND THAT THE PRESENT
FAIR VALUE OF THE ASSETS ADMITTEDLY SUBJECT TO THE TRUST INDENTURES OF
UNION AND CONSUMERS WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE FACE AMOUNT, PLUS
ACCRUED AND UNPAID INTEREST OF THE RESPECTIVE BOND ISSUES.  IN SPITE OF
THAT FINDING, THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO FOUND THAT "IT WOULD BE
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE AND SEGREGATE WITH ANY DEGREE OF
ACCURACY OR FAIRNESS PROPERTIES WHICH ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO THE
COMPANIES SEPARATELY"; THAT AS A RESULT OF UNIFIED OPERATION PROPERTIES
OF EVERY CHARACTER "HAVE BEEN COMMINGLED AND ARE NOW IN THE MAIN HELD
BY CONSOLIDATED WITHOUT ANY WAY OF ASCERTAINING WHAT PART, IF ANY
THEREOF, BELONGS TO EACH OR ANY OF THE COMPANIES SEPARATELY"; AND THAT,
AS A CONSEQUENCE, AN APPRAISAL "WOULD BE OF SUCH AN INDEFINITE AND
UNSATISFACTORY NATURE AS TO PRODUCE FURTHER CONFUSION." 

THE UNIFIED OPERATION WHICH RESULTED IN THAT COMMINGLING OF ASSETS
WAS PURSUANT TO AN OPERATING AGREEMENT WHICH CONSOLIDATED CAUSED ITS
WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES N18 TO EXECUTE IN 1929.  UNDER THAT AGREEMENT
THE SUBSIDIARIES CEASED ALL OPERATING FUNCTIONS AND THE ENTIRE
MANAGEMENT, OPERATION AND FINANCING OF THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES OF
THE SUBSIDIARIES WERE UNDERTAKEN BY CONSOLIDATED.  THE CORPORATE
EXISTENCE OF THE SUBSIDIARIES, HOWEVER, WAS MAINTAINED AND CERTAIN
SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WERE KEPT.  UNDER THIS AGREEMENT CONSOLIDATED
UNDERTOOK, INTER ALIA, TO PAY THE SUBSIDIARIES THE AMOUNTS NECESSARY
FOR THE INTEREST AND SINKING FUND PROVISIONS OF THE INDENTURES AND TO
CREDIT THEIR CURRENT ACCOUNTS WITH ITEMS OF DEPRECIATION, DEPLETION,
AMORTIZATION AND OBSOLESCENCE N19.  UPON TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT
THE PROPERTIES WERE TO BE RETURNED AND A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
MADE, CONSOLIDATED MEANWHILE TO RETAIN ALL NET REVENUES AFTER ITS
OBLIGATIONS THEREUNDER TO THE SUBSIDIARIES HAD BEEN MET.  IT WAS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE PARTIES, NOT "FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY THIRD PERSON."  CONSOLIDATED'S
BOOKS AS AT JUNE 30, 1938, SHOWED A NET INDEBTEDNESS UNDER THAT
AGREEMENT TO UNION AND CONSUMERS OF SOMEWHAT OVER $5,000,000.  THAT
CLAIM WAS CANCELLED BY THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, NO SECURITIES BEING
ISSUED TO THE CREDITORS OF THE SUBSIDIARIES THEREFOR.  THE DISTRICT
COURT MADE NO FINDINGS AS RESPECTS THE AMOUNT OR VALIDITY OF THAT
INTERCOMPANY CLAIM; IT SUMMARILY DISPOSED OF IT BY CONCLUDING THAT ANY
LIABILITY UNDER THE OPERATING AGREEMENT WAS "NOT MADE FOR THE BENEFIT
OF ANY THIRD PARTIES AND THE BONDHOLDERS ARE INCLUDED IN THAT
CATEGORY." 

WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT IT WAS ERROR TO
CONFIRM THIS PLAN OF REORGANIZATION. 

I. ON THIS RECORD NO DETERMINATION OF THE FAIRNESS OF ANY PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION COULD BE MADE.  ABSENT THE REQUISITE VALUATION DATA, THE
COURT WAS IN NO POSITION TO EXERCISE THE "INFORMED, INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT" (NATIONAL SURETY CO. V. CORIELL, 289 U.S. 426, 436) WHICH
APPRAISAL OF THE FAIRNESS OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION ENTAILS.  CASE V.
LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308 U.S. 106.  AND SEE FIRST NATIONAL
BANK V. FLERSHEM, 290 U.S. 504, 525.  THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS OF THAT
VALUATION PROBLEM. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE MUST BE A DETERMINATION OF WHAT ASSETS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMS.  THIS OBVIOUS
REQUIREMENT WAS NOT MET.  THE STATUS OF THE UNION AND CONSUMERS
BONDHOLDERS EMPHASIZES ITS NECESSITY AND IMPORTANCE.  ACCORDING TO THE
DISTRICT COURT THE MORTGAGED ASSETS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE
MORTGAGE DEBT.  THERE IS NO FINDING, HOWEVER, AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE
DEFICIENCY OR THE AMOUNT OF UNMORTGAGED ASSETS AND THEIR VALUE.  IT IS
PLAIN THAT THE BONDHOLDERS WOULD HAVE, AS AGAINST CONSOLIDATED AND ITS
STOCKHOLDERS, PRIOR RECOURSE AGAINST ANY UNMORTGAGED ASSETS OF UNION
AND CONSUMERS.  THE FULL AND ABSOLUTE PRIORITY RULE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC
RY. CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482, AND CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS
CO., SUPRA, WOULD PRECLUDE PARTICIPATION BY THE EQUITY INTERESTS IN ANY
OF THOSE ASSETS UNTIL THE BONDHOLDERS HAD BEEN MADE WHOLE.  HERE THERE
ARE SOME UNMORTGAGED ASSETS, FOR THERE IS A CLAIM OF UNION AND
CONSUMERS AGAINST CONSOLIDATED - A CLAIM WHICH ACCORDING TO THE BOOKS
OF CONSOLIDATED IS OVER $5,000,000 IN AMOUNT.  IF THAT CLAIM IS VALID,
FN20  OR EVEN IF IT WERE ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF ITS FACE
AMOUNT,  FN21  THEN THE ENTIRE ASSETS OF CONSOLIDATED WOULD BE DRAWN
DOWN INTO THE ESTATES OF THE SUBSIDIARIES.  IN THAT EVENT UNION AND
CONSUMERS MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE SOLVENT IN THE BANKRUPTCY SENSE.  BUT
CERTAINLY IT WOULD RENDER UNTENABLE THE PRESENT CONTENTION OF
CONSOLIDATED AND THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS THAT THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING
ALL OF THE ASSETS OF THE CONSOLIDATED TO THE NEW COMPANY IN EXCHANGE
FOR WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED TO NEW SECURITIES.  ON THAT THEORY OF THE
CASE THEY WOULD BE MAKING A CONTRIBUTION OF ONLY SUCH ASSETS OF
CONSOLIDATED, IF ANY, AS REMAINED AFTER ANY DEFICIENCY OF THE
BONDHOLDERS HAD BEEN WHOLLY SATISFIED. 

THERE ARE NO BARRIERS TO A VALUATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THAT CLAIM. 
IF AS CONSOLIDATED MAINTAINS THE SUBSIDIARIES HAVE NO PRESENT CLAIM
AGAINST IT,  FN22  THE CLAIM CAN READILY BE DISCOUNTED TO PRESENT
WORTH.  IT IS PROVABLE BY TRUSTEES OF THE SUBSIDIARIES, FOR THE TERM
"CREDITORS" UNDER SEC. 77B (B) INCLUDES "HOLDERS OF CLAIMS OF WHATEVER
CHARACTER AGAINST THE DEBTOR OR ITS PROPERTY, INCLUDING CLAIMS UNDER
EXECUTORY CONTRACTS, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CLAIMS WOULD OTHERWISE
CONSTITUTE PROVABLE CLAIMS UNDER THIS ACT."  FN23  CONSOLIDATED MAKES
SOME POINT OF THE DIFFICULTY AND EXPENSE OF DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF
ITS LIABILITY UNDER THE OPERATING AGREEMENT AND OF THE NECESSITY TO
ABIDE BY THE TECHNICAL TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT  FN24  IN ASCERTAINING
THAT LIABILITY.  BUT EQUITY WILL NOT PERMIT A HOLDING COMPANY, WHICH
HAS DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED ITS SUBSIDIARIES, TO ESCAPE OR REDUCE ITS
LIABILITY TO THOSE SUBSIDIARIES BY RELIANCE UPON SELF-SERVING CONTRACTS
WHICH IT HAS IMPOSED ON THEM.  A HOLDING COMPANY, AS WELL AS OTHERS IN
DOMINATING OR CONTROLLING POSITIONS (PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295),
HAS FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO SECURITY HOLDERS OF ITS SYSTEM WHICH WILL BE
STRICTLY ENFORCED.  SEE TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 306 U.S.
307.  IN THIS CONNECTION CONSOLIDATED CANNOT DEFEAT OR POSTPONE THE
ACCOUNTING BECAUSE OF THE CLAUSE IN THE OPERATING AGREEMENT THAT IT WAS
NOT MADE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY THIRD PERSON.  THE QUESTION HERE IS NOT
A TECHNICAL ONE AS TO WHO MAY SUE TO ENFORCE THAT LIABILITY.  IT IS
MERELY A QUESTION AS TO THE AMOUNT BY WHICH CONSOLIDATED IS INDEBTED TO
THE SUBSIDIARIES AND THE PROOF AND ALLOWANCE OF THAT CLAIM.  THE
SUBSIDIARIES NEED NOT BE SENT INTO STATE COURTS TO HAVE THAT LIABILITY
DETERMINED.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAVING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER
THE HOLDING COMPANY AND THE SUBSIDIARIES HAS PLENARY POWER TO
ADJUDICATE ALL THE ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE CLAIM.  THE INTIMATIONS OF
CONSOLIDATED THAT THERE MUST BE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS AND PROTRACTED
LITIGATION IN STATE COURTS INVOLVE A MISCONCEPTION OF THE DUTIES AND
POWERS OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  THE FACT THAT CONSOLIDATED MIGHT HAVE
A STRATEGIC OR NUISANCE VALUE OUTSIDE OF SEC. 77B DOES NOT DETRACT FROM
OR IMPAIR THE POWER AND DUTY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO REQUIRE A FULL
ACCOUNTING AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO APPROVAL OF ANY PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION.  THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM MIGHT BE SETTLED, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE COURT AFTER FULL DISCLOSURE AND NOTICE TO INTERESTED
PARTIES, DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCEALED COMPROMISE EFFECTED HERE
THROUGH THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF EXTINGUISHING THE CLAIM.    SO FAR AS
THE ABILITY OF THE BONDHOLDERS OF UNION AND CONSUMERS TO REACH THE
ASSETS OF CONSOLIDATED ON CLAIMS OF THE KIND COVERED BY THE OPERATION
AGREEMENT IS CONCERNED, THERE IS ANOTHER AND MORE DIRECT ROUTE WHICH
REACHES THE SAME END.  THERE HAS BEEN A UNIFIED OPERATION OF THOSE
SEVERAL PROPERTIES BY CONSOLIDATED PURSUANT TO THE OPERATING
AGREEMENT.  THAT OPERATION NOT ONLY RESULTED IN EXTENSIVE COMMINGLING
OF ASSETS.  ALL MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS OF THE SEVERAL COMPANIES WERE
ASSUMED BY CONSOLIDATED.  THE SUBSIDIARIES ABDICATED.  CONSOLIDATED
OPERATED THEM AS MERE DEPARTMENTS OF ITS OWN BUSINESS.  NOT EVEN THE
FORMALITIES OF SEPARATE CORPORATE ORGANIZATIONS WERE OBSERVED, EXCEPT
IN MINOR PARTICULARS SUCH AS THE MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN SEPARATE
ACCOUNTS.  IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, CONSOLIDATED IS IN NO POSITION TO
CLAIM THAT ITS ASSETS ARE INSULATED FROM SUCH CLAIMS OF CREDITORS OF
THE SUBSIDIARIES.  TO THE CONTRARY, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHERE A
HOLDING COMPANY DIRECTLY INTERVENES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES SO AS TO TREAT THEM AS MERE DEPARTMENTS OF ITS OWN
ENTERPRISE, IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OBLIGATIONS OF THOSE SUBSIDIARIES
INCURRED OR ARISING DURING ITS MANAGEMENT.  DAVIS V. ALEXANDER, 269
U.S. 114, 117; JOSEPH R. FOARD CO. V. MARYLAND, 219 F. 827, 829; STARK
ELECTRIC R. CO. V. M'GINTY CONTRACTING CO., 238 F. 657, 661-663; THE
WILLEM VAN DRIEL, SR., 252 F. 35, 37-39; LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V. W.R.
GRACE & CO., 267 F. 676, 681; COSTAN V. MANILA ELECTRIC CO., 24 F.2D
383; KINGSTON DRY DOCK CO. V. LAKE CHAMPLAIN TRANSP.  CO., 31 F.2D 265,
267; DILLARD & COFFIN CO. V. RICHMOND COTTON OIL CO., 140 TENN. 290;
204 S.W. 758.  WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE WITH A SITUATION WHERE OTHER
CREDITORS OF A PARENT COMPANY ARE COMPETING WITH CREDITORS OF ITS
SUBSIDIARIES.  IF METICULOUS REGARD TO CORPORATE FORMS, WHICH
CONSOLIDATED HAS LONG IGNORED, IS NOW OBSERVED, THE STOCKHOLDERS OF
CONSOLIDATED MAY BE THE DIRECT BENEFICIARIES.  EQUITY WILL NOT
COUNTENANCE SUCH A RESULT.  A HOLDING COMPANY WHICH ASSUMES TO TREAT
THE PROPERTIES OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES AS ITS OWN CANNOT TAKE THE BENEFITS
OF DIRECT MANAGEMENT WITHOUT THE BURDENS. 

WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT NO ADEQUATE FINDING WAS MADE AS TO THE
VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF CONSOLIDATED.  IN VIEW OF WHAT WE HAVE SAID, IT
IS APPARENT THAT A DETERMINATION OF THAT VALUE MUST BE MADE SO THAT
CRITERIA WILL BE AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION OF
NEW SECURITIES BETWEEN BONDHOLDERS AND STOCKHOLDERS IN CASE THERE IS AN
EQUITY REMAINING AFTER THE BONDHOLDERS HAVE BEEN MADE WHOLE. 

THERE IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THE FAILURE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT ASSETS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF THE UNION AND CONSUMERS BONDS IS FATAL. 
THERE IS A QUESTION RAISED AS TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE PLAN AS RESPECTS
THE BONDHOLDERS INTER SESE.  WHILE THE TOTAL MORTGAGE DEBT OF CONSUMERS
IS LESS THAN THAT OF UNION, THE NET INCOME OF THE NEW COMPANY, AS WE
HAVE SEEN,  FN25  IS TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO EQUAL PARTS, ONE TO SERVICE
THE NEW SECURITIES ISSUED TO CONSUMERS BONDHOLDERS, THE OTHER TO
SERVICE THOSE ISSUED TO UNION BONDHOLDERS.  THAT ALLOCATION IS ATTACKED
HERE BY RESPONDENT AS DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST UNION, ON THE GROUND THAT
THE ASSETS OF UNION ARE MUCH GREATER IN VOLUME AND IN VALUE THAN THOSE
OF CONSUMERS.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THIS RECORD THAT UNION AND
CONSUMERS HAVE INDIVIDUAL EARNINGS RECORDS.  IF THEY DO NOT, SOME
APPROPRIATE FORMULA FOR AT LEAST AN APPROXIMATE ASCERTAINMENT OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE ASSETS MUST BE DESIGNED IN SPITE OF THE DIFFICULTIES
OCCASIONED BY THE COMMINGLING.  OTHERWISE THE ISSUE OF FAIRNESS OF ANY
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AS BETWEEN UNION AND CONSUMERS BONDHOLDERS
CANNOT BE INTELLIGENTLY RESOLVED. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THERE IS THE QUESTION OF THE METHOD OF
VALUATION.  FROM THIS RECORD IT IS APPARENT THAT LITTLE, IF ANY, EFFORT
WAS MADE TO VALUE THE WHOLE ENTERPRISE BY A CAPITALIZATION OF
PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS.  THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH AN INQUIRY IS EMPHASIZED
BY THE POOR EARNINGS RECORD OF THIS ENTERPRISE IN THE PAST.  FINDINGS
AS TO THE EARNING CAPACITY OF AN ENTERPRISE ARE ESSENTIAL TO A
DETERMINATION OF THE FEASIBILITY AS WELL AS THE FAIRNESS OF A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION.  WHETHER OR NOT THE EARNINGS MAY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED
TO MEET THE INTEREST AND DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW SECURITIES IS
A SINE QUA NON TO A DETERMINATION OF THE INTEGRITY AND PRACTICABILITY
OF THE NEW CAPITAL STRUCTURE.  IT IS ALSO ESSENTIAL FOR SATISFACTION OF
THE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY RULE OF CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO.,
SUPRA.  UNLESS METICULOUS REGARD FOR EARNING CAPACITY BE HAD,
INDEFENSIBLE PARTICIPATION OF JUNIOR SECURITIES IN PLANS OF
REORGANIZATION MAY RESULT. 

AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID IN GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS,
210 U.S. 217, 226, "THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF PROPERTY CONSISTS IN THE
EXPECTATION OF INCOME FROM IT."  AND SEE CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY.
CO. V. BACKUS, 154 U.S. 439, 445.  SUCH CRITERION IS THE APPROPRIATE
ONE HERE, SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF SOLVENCY ARISING IN
CONNECTION WITH REORGANIZATION PLANS INVOLVING PRODUCTIVE PROPERTIES. 
IT IS PLAIN THAT VALUATIONS FOR OTHER PURPOSES ARE NOT RELEVANT TO OR
HELPFUL IN A DETERMINATION OF THAT ISSUE, EXCEPT AS THEY MAY INDIRECTLY
BEAR ON EARNING CAPACITY.  TEMMER V. DENVER TRAMWAY CO., 18 F.2D 226,
229; NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. CONTINENTAL & COMMERCIAL TRUST & SAV. BANK,
26 F.2D 872, 874.  THE CRITERION OF EARNING CAPACITY IS THE ESSENTIAL
ONE IF THE ENTERPRISE IS TO BE FREED FROM THE HEAVY HAND OF PAST
ERRORS, MISCALCULATIONS OR DISASTER, AND IF THE ALLOCATION OF
SECURITIES AMONG THE VARIOUS CLAIMANTS IS TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE.  IN
RE WICKWIRE SPENCER STEEL CO., 12 F.SUPP.  528, 533; 2 BONBRIGHT,
VALUATION OF PROPERTY, PP. 870-881, 884-893.  SINCE ITS APPLICATION
REQUIRES A PREDICTION AS TO WHAT WILL OCCUR IN THE FUTURE, AN ESTIMATE,
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM MATHEMATICAL CERTITUDE, IS ALL THAT CAN BE MADE. 
BUT THAT ESTIMATE MUST BE BASED ON AN INFORMED JUDGMENT WHICH EMBRACES
ALL FACTS RELEVANT TO FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY AND HENCE TO PRESENT
WORTH, INCLUDING, OF COURSE, THE NATURE AND CONDITION OF THE
PROPERTIES, THE PAST EARNINGS RECORD, AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THAT RECORD IS A RELIABLE CRITERION OF FUTURE
PERFORMANCE.  A SUM OF VALUES BASED ON PHYSICAL FACTORS AND ASSIGNED TO
SEPARATE UNITS OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE EARNING CAPACITY
OF THE WHOLE ENTERPRISE IS PLAINLY INADEQUATE.  SEE FINLETTER, THE LAW
OF BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION, PP. 557 ET SEQ. BUT HARDLY MORE THAN THAT
WAS DONE HERE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY LEFT THE MATTER
OF A FORMAL APPRAISAL TO THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE
EXTENT AND METHOD OF INQUIRY NECESSARY FOR A VALUATION BASED ON EARNING
CAPACITY ARE NECESSARILY DEPENDENT ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. 

II.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY
RULE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, SUPRA, AND CASE V. LOS
ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, APPLIED TO REORGANIZATIONS OF
SOLVENT AS WELL AS INSOLVENT COMPANIES.  THAT IS TRUE.  WHETHER A
COMPANY IS SOLVENT OR INSOLVENT IN EITHER THE EQUITY OR THE BANKRUPTCY
SENSE, "ANY ARRANGEMENT OF THE PARTIES BY WHICH THE SUBORDINATE RIGHTS
AND INTERESTS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS ARE ATTEMPTED TO BE SECURED AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE PRIOR RIGHTS" OF CREDITORS "COMES WITHIN JUDICIAL
DENUNCIATION."  LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V. LOUISVILLE, N.A. & C. RY. CO.,
174 U.S. 674, 684.  AND WE INDICATED IN CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER
PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, THAT THAT RULE WAS NOT SATISFIED EVEN THOUGH THE
"RELATIVE PRIORITIES" OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS WERE MAINTAINED
(PP. 119-120). 

THE INSTANT PLAN RUNS AFOUL OF THAT PRINCIPLE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE,
NO PROVISION IS MADE FOR THE ACCRUED INTEREST ON THE BONDS.  THIS
INTEREST IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME PRIORITY AS THE PRINCIPAL.  SEE
AMERICAN IRON & STEEL MFG. CO. V. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY., 233 U.S. 261,
266-267; TICONIC NATIONAL BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S. 406.  IN THE SECOND
PLACE, AND APART FROM THE CANCELLATION OF INTEREST, THE PLAN DOES NOT
SATISFY THE FIXED PRINCIPLE OF THE BOYD CASE EVEN ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THE ENTERPRISE AS A WHOLE IS SOLVENT IN THE BANKRUPTCY SENSE.  THE
BONDHOLDERS FOR THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THEIR 6% BONDS RECEIVE AN EQUAL
FACE AMOUNT OF NEW 5% INCOME BONDS AND PREFERRED STOCK, WHILE THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS RECEIVE NEW COMMON STOCK.  TRUE, THE RELATIVE
PRIORITIES ARE MAINTAINED.  BUT THE BONDHOLDERS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE
WHOLE.  THEY HAVE RECEIVED AN INFERIOR GRADE OF SECURITIES, INFERIOR IN
THE SENSE THAT THE INTEREST RATE HAS BEEN REDUCED, A CONTINGENT RETURN
HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR A FIXED ONE, THE MATURITIES HAVE BEEN IN PART
EXTENDED AND IN PART ELIMINATED BY THE SUBSTITUTION OF PREFERRED STOCK,
AND THEIR FORMER STRATEGIC POSITION HAS BEEN WEAKENED.  THOSE LOST
RIGHTS ARE OF VALUE.  FULL COMPENSATORY PROVISION MUST BE MADE FOR THE
ENTIRE BUNDLE OF RIGHTS WHICH THE CREDITORS SURRENDER. 

THE ABSOLUTE PRIORITY RULE DOES NOT MEAN THAT BONDHOLDERS CANNOT BE
GIVEN INFERIOR GRADES OF SECURITIES, OR EVEN SECURITIES OF THE SAME
GRADE AS ARE RECEIVED BY JUNIOR INTERESTS.  REQUIREMENTS OF FEASIBILITY
FN26  OF REORGANIZATION PLANS FREQUENTLY NECESSITATE IT IN THE
INTERESTS OF SIMPLER AND MORE CONSERVATIVE CAPITAL STRUCTURES.  AND
STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS PERMIT IT.  THIS WAS RECOGNIZED IN KANSAS CITY
TERMINAL RY. CO. V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., 271 U.S. 445.  THIS COURT
THERE SAID (P. 455) THAT THOUGH "TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR DEBTS CREDITORS
ARE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER STOCKHOLDERS AGAINST ALL THE PROPERTY" OF
THE DEBTOR COMPANY, "IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IN EVERY REORGANIZATION
THE SECURITIES OFFERED TO GENERAL CREDITORS MUST BE SUPERIOR IN RANK OR
GRADE TO ANY WHICH STOCKHOLDERS MAY OBTAIN.  IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO
ACCORD TO THE CREDITOR HIS SUPERIOR RIGHTS IN OTHER WAYS."  AND THE
COURT WENT ON TO SAY (P. 456), "NO OFFER IS FAIR WHICH DOES NOT
RECOGNIZE THE PRIOR RIGHTS OF CREDITORS  ...  ; BUT CIRCUMSTANCES MAY
JUSTIFY AN OFFER OF DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF THE SAME GRADE OF SECURITIES
TO BOTH CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS."  THUS IT IS PLAIN THAT WHILE
CREDITORS MAY BE GIVEN INFERIOR GRADES OF SECURITIES, THEIR "SUPERIOR
RIGHTS" MUST BE RECOGNIZED.  CLEARLY, THOSE PRIOR RIGHTS ARE NOT
RECOGNIZED, IN CASES WHERE STOCKHOLDERS ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE PLAN,
IF CREDITORS ARE GIVEN ONLY A FACE AMOUNT OF INFERIOR SECURITIES EQUAL
TO THE FACE AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIMS.  THEY MUST RECEIVE, IN ADDITION,
COMPENSATION FOR THE SENIOR RIGHTS WHICH THEY ARE TO SURRENDER.  IF
THEY RECEIVE LESS THAN THAT FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT, SOME OF THEIR
PROPERTY RIGHTS WILL BE APPROPRIATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF STOCKHOLDERS
WITHOUT COMPENSATION.  THAT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.  THE PLAN THEN COMES
WITHIN JUDICIAL DENUNCIATION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE
CREDITORS'"EQUITABLE RIGHT TO BE PREFERRED TO STOCKHOLDERS AGAINST THE
FULL VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR CORPORATION." 
KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO. V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., SUPRA, P.
454. 

PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENTS, RATHER THAN A RIGID FORMULA, ARE NECESSARY. 
THE METHOD OF EFFECTING FULL COMPENSATION FOR SENIOR CLAIMANTS WILL
VARY FROM CASE TO CASE.  AS INDICATED IN THE BOYD CASE (228 U.S. AT P.
508) THE CREDITORS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY,
WHETHER "PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE, FOR DIVIDENDS OR ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF
CONTROL," FIRST APPROPRIATED TO PAYMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS.  BUT WHETHER
IN CASE OF A SOLVENT COMPANY THE CREDITORS SHOULD BE MADE WHOLE FOR THE
CHANGE IN OR LOSS OF THEIR SENIORITY BY AN INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN
ASSETS, IN EARNINGS OR IN CONTROL, OR IN ANY COMBINATION THEREOF, WILL
BE DEPENDENT ON THE FACTS AND REQUIREMENTS OF EACH CASE.  FN27  SO LONG
AS THE NEW SECURITIES OFFERED ARE OF A VALUE EQUAL TO THE CREDITORS'
CLAIMS, THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE FORMULA EMPLOYED RESTS IN THE
INFORMED DISCRETION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER, MADE CERTAIN STATEMENTS WHICH
IF TAKEN LITERALLY DO NOT COMPORT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ABSOLUTE
PRIORITY RULE.  IT APPARENTLY RULED THAT A CLASS OF CLAIMANTS WITH A
LIEN ON SPECIFIC PROPERTIES MUST RECEIVE FULL COMPENSATION OUT OF THOSE
PROPERTIES, AND THAT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION IS PER SE UNFAIR AND
INEQUITABLE IF IT SUBSTITUTES FOR SEVERAL OLD BOND ISSUES, SEPARATELY
SECURED, NEW SECURITIES CONSTITUTING AN INTEREST IN ALL OF THE
PROPERTIES.  THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER
PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA.  IF THE CREDITORS ARE ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED FOR
THE LOSS OF THEIR PRIOR CLAIMS, IT IS NOT MATERIAL OUT OF WHAT ASSETS
THEY ARE PAID.  SO LONG AS THEY RECEIVE FULL COMPENSATORY TREATMENT AND
SO LONG AS EACH GROUP SHARES IN THE SECURITIES OF THE WHOLE ENTERPRISE
ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" ARE
SATISFIED. 

ANY OTHER STANDARD MIGHT WELL PLACE INSUPERABLE OBSTACLES IN THE WAY
OF FEASIBLE PLANS OF REORGANIZATION.  CERTAINLY WHERE UNIFIED
OPERATIONS OF SEPARATE PROPERTIES ARE DEEMED ADVISABLE AND ESSENTIAL,
AS THEY WERE IN THIS CASE, THE ELIMINATION OF DIVISIONAL MORTGAGES MAY
BE NECESSARY AS WELL AS WISE.  MOREOVER, THE SUBSTITUTION OF A SIMPLE,
CONSERVATIVE CAPITAL STRUCTURE FOR A HIGHLY COMPLICATED ONE MAY BE A
PRIMARY REQUIREMENT OF ANY REORGANIZATION PLAN.  THERE IS NO NECESSITY
TO CONSTRUCT THE NEW CAPITAL STRUCTURE ON THE FRAMEWORK OF THE OLD. 
AFFIRMED.    FN1  THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B WERE INSTITUTED IN
1935 BY THE FILING OF SEPARATE VOLUNTARY PETITIONS BY CONSOLIDATED,
UNION AND CONSUMERS.  NO TRUSTEES HAVE BEEN APPOINTED, CONSOLIDATED
REMAINING IN POSSESSION. 

FN2  THE PETITION IN NO. 400 RAISES ALL OF THE QUESTIONS DISCUSSED
HEREIN, WHILE THE PETITION IN NO. 444 RAISES ONLY THE QUESTION AS TO
THE AUTHORITY OF THE REORGANIZATION COURT TO APPROVE A PLAN WHICH
SUBSTITUTES ONE MORTGAGE COVERING ALL OF THE PROPERTY FOR SO-CALLED
DIVISIONAL MORTGAGES ON SEPARATE UNITS OF THAT PROPERTY.  THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION FILED MEMORANDA URGING THAT THE PETITION IN NO. 444 BE
GRANTED AND THAT THE PETITION IN NO. 400 BE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT RAISED THE SAME QUESTION AS THAT PRESENTED BY THE PETITION IN NO.
444. 

FN3  $102,500 FACE AMOUNT OF UNION'S BONDS ARE HELD BY CONSOLIDATED. 

FN4  AS OF APRIL 1, 1937, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PLAN.  INTEREST
ON UNION BONDS HAS BEEN IN DEFAULT SINCE MARCH 1, 1934. 

FN5  $63,500 FACE AMOUNT OF CONSUMERS' BONDS ARE HELD BY
CONSOLIDATED. 

FN6  INTEREST HAS BEEN IN DEFAULT SINCE JULY 1, 1934. 

FN7  WITH A PREFERENCE ON LIQUIDATION OF $25 PER SHARE PLUS ACCRUED
DIVIDENDS. 

FN8  RELIANCE ROCK CO. IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF UNION WHOSE
PROPERTIES ALSO WERE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW COMPANY. 

FN9  THE CLAIMS OF GENERAL CREDITORS WILL BE PAID IN FULL OR ASSUMED
BY THE NEW COMPANY. 

FN10  THESE BONDS WILL MATURE IN 20 YEARS AND WILL BEAR INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 5 PER CENT IF EARNED.  THE INTEREST WILL BE CUMULATIVE IF
NOT PAID.  THE BONDS, AS WELL AS THE PREFERRED STOCK, TO BE ISSUED TO
UNION AND CONSUMERS BONDHOLDERS WILL BE IN SEPARATE SERIES.  THE NET
INCOME OF THE NEW COMPANY IS TO BE DIVIDED INTO TWO EQUAL PARTS:  EACH
PART TO BE USED TO PAY, WITH RESPECT TO BONDS AND PREFERRED STOCK OF
EACH SERIES, FIRST, INTEREST AND SINKING FUND PAYMENTS ON THE BONDS;
SECOND, DIVIDENDS AND SINKING FUND PAYMENTS ON THE PREFERRED STOCK. 
INCOME REMAINING WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL CORPORATE PURPOSES. 

FN11  THE NEW PREFERRED STOCK WILL HAVE A PAR VALUE OF $50 AND WILL
CARRY A DIVIDEND OF 5 PER CENT.  IT WILL BE NONCUMULATIVE UNTIL THE
RETIREMENT OF THE BONDS OF THE SAME SERIES EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT
NET INCOME IS AVAILABLE FOR DIVIDENDS.  THEREAFTER IT WILL BE
CUMULATIVE. 

FN12  ALL OF THE NEW INCOME BONDS AND PREFERRED STOCK ARE TO BE
ISSUED TO THE PUBLIC HOLDERS OF UNION AND CONSUMERS BONDS. 

FN13  79,491 SHARES OF NEW COMMON WILL BE RESERVED FOR THE EXERCISE
OF WARRANTS ISSUED TO OLD COMMON STOCKHOLDERS; AN ADDITIONAL 60,280
SHARES OF NEW COMMON, FOR THE EXERCISE OF WARRANTS ATTACHED TO THE NEW
PREFERRED. 

FN14  IT IS APPARENT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE NEW COMMON WILL BE HELD
BY THE OLD PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS EVEN IF ALL WARRANTS ARE EXERCISED. 

FN15  SEE NOTES 3 AND 5, SUPRA. 

FN16  TWO OFFICERS AND ONE EX-EMPLOYEE.  THESE VALUATION FIGURES
INCLUDED THE PROPERTIES OF RELIANCE.  SEE NOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN17  THE HEARINGS ON THE PLAN WERE HELD BEFORE A MASTER DURING
NOVEMBER, 1937. 

FN18  THIS AGREEMENT COVERED THE PROPERTIES OF RELIANCE AS WELL AS
UNION AND CONSUMERS.  BY A MODIFICATION MADE IN 1933 THE AGREEMENT WAS
TO EXPIRE IN FEBRUARY, 1938, CONSOLIDATED HAVING AN OPTION TO EXTEND
THE AGREEMENT FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS ON SPECIFIED NOTICE. 

FN19  THE AGREEMENT WAS MODIFIED IN 1933(BY TWO OFFICERS ACTING FOR
EACH OF THE FOUR COMPANIES) WHEREBY THE DEPRECIATION TO BE CREDITED TO
THE SUBSIDIARIES SHOULD BE CREDITED ONLY ON TERMINATION OF THE
AGREEMENT.  AT THAT TIME CONSOLIDATED WAS TO HAVE THE RIGHT, BY PAYING
A FIVE PER CENT PENALTY, TO PAY TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE DEPRECIATION CREDIT IN TEN ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS AND THE BALANCE AT
THE END OF TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TERMINATION.  SOME QUESTION HAS
BEEN RAISED AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF THAT MODIFICATION, A QUESTION ON
WHICH WE EXPRESS NO OPINION. 

FN20  CONSOLIDATED SEEMS TO ADMIT THAT THAT CLAIM IS VALID, AT LEAST
TO THE EXTENT OF NET CURRENT LIABILITIES AGGREGATING MORE THAN $250,000
AS OF JUNE 30, 1938. 

FN21  RESPONDENT POINTS OUT THAT EVEN ON THE BASIS OF A $3,300,000
VALUATION OF THE PROPERTIES OF UNION AND CONSUMERS DEPRECIATION,
DEPLETION AND OBSOLESCENCE CHARGES WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $1,250,000. 

FN22  CONSOLIDATED MAINTAINS THAT THERE IS NO PRESENT CLAIM AGAINST
IT BECAUSE NO CLAIM EXISTS UNTIL TERMINATION OF THE OPERATING AGREEMENT
WHICH RAN UNTIL FEBRUARY 1938, WITH AN OPTION IN CONSOLIDATED TO EXTEND
IT FOR FIVE YEARS.  BUT IT DOES NOT ASSERT, NOR DOES THE RECORD SHOW,
THAT THE OPTION WAS EXERCISED.  BUT EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN, ONLY THE TIME
WHEN THE AMOUNTS ACCRUED WERE PAYABLE WOULD BE AFFECTED. 

FN23  FOR AN EQUALLY BROAD DEFINITION OF "CREDITOR" UNDER CH. X OF
THE CHANDLER ACT (52 STAT. 840) SEE SEC. 106(1) AND (4). 

FN24  THUS CONSOLIDATED ARGUES THAT UNDER THE OPERATING AGREEMENT THE
MACHINERY FOR AN APPRAISAL PROVIDED THEREIN MUST BE EMPLOYED.  YET
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THAT IS TRUE, CONSOLIDATED WHICH HAS BEEN IN
POSSESSION AND CONTROL THROUGHOUT CANNOT RELY ON THE FAILURE TO HAVE AN
APPRAISAL AS A REASON FOR BLOCKING OR DELAYING ITS DUTY TO ACCOUNT. 

FN25  SUPRA, NOTE 10. 

FN26  SEC. 77B (F)(1). 

FN27  IN VIEW OF THE CONDITION OF THE RECORD RELATIVE TO THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTIES AND THE FACT THAT THE ACCRUED INTEREST IS CANCELLED BY
THE PLAN, IT IS NOT PROFITABLE TO ATTEMPT A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE
DEFICIENCIES IN THE ALLEGED COMPENSATORY TREATMENT OF THE BONDHOLDERS. 
IT SHOULD, HOWEVER, BE NOTED AS RESPECTS THE WARRANTS ISSUED TO THE OLD
COMMON STOCKHOLDERS THAT THEY ADMITTEDLY HAVE NO EQUITY IN THE
ENTERPRISE.  ACCORDINGLY, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN THAT THERE WAS A
NECESSITY OF SEEKING NEW MONEY FROM THEM AND THAT THE PARTICIPATION
ACCORDED THEM WAS NOT MORE THAN REASONABLY EQUIVALENT TO THEIR
CONTRIBUTION.  KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO. V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO.,
SUPRA; CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, PP. 121-122.  IN
THE LATTER CASE WE WARNED AGAINST THE DILUTION OF CREDITORS' RIGHTS BY
INADEQUATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY STOCKHOLDERS.  HERE THAT DILUTION TAKES A
RATHER OBVIOUS FORM IN VIEW OF THE LOWER PRICE AT WHICH THE
STOCKHOLDERS MAY EXERCISE THE WARRANTS.  WARRANTS EXERCISED BY THEM
WOULD DILUTE THE VALUE OF COMMON STOCK PURCHASED BY BONDHOLDERS DURING
THE SAME PERIOD.  FURTHERMORE, ON CONSOLIDATED'S ESTIMATE OF THE EQUITY
IN THE ENTERPRISE, THE VALUES OF THE NEW COMMON WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE
MANY FOLD TO REACH A VALUE WHICH EXCEEDS THE WARRANT PRICE BY THE
AMOUNT OF THE ACCRUED INTEREST. 
..END :






HELVERING V. LE GIERSE, 312 U.S. 531 


NO. 237.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 10, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 110
F.2D 734, REVERSED. 


1.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 302(G) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 AS
AMENDED, AMOUNTS "RECEIVABLE AS INSURANCE" ARE AMOUNTS RECEIVABLE AS
THE RESULT OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH INVOLVED AT THE TIME OF THEIR
EXECUTION AN ACTUAL INSURANCE RISK.  P. 537. 

2.  RISK-SHIFTING AND RISK-DISTRIBUTION ARE ESSENTIALS OF A CONTRACT
OF LIFE INSURANCE.  P. 539. 

3.  A CONTRACT IN THE STANDARD FORM OF A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY,
CONTAINING THE USUAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING THOSE FOR ASSIGNMENT OR
SURRENDER, WAS ISSUED TO A WOMAN OF EIGHTY YEARS OF AGE, WITHOUT
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, FOR A SINGLE PREMIUM LESS THAN THE FACE OF THE
POLICY, TOGETHER WITH AN ANNUITY POLICY FOR ANOTHER PREMIUM CALLING FOR
ANNUAL PAYMENTS TO HER UNTIL HER DEATH ALTHOUGH BOTH POLICIES WERE, ON
THE FACE, SEPARATE CONTRACTS, NEITHER REFERRING TO THE OTHER, AND EACH
WAS TREATED AS INDEPENDENT IN THE MATTERS OF APPLICATION, COMPUTATION
OF PREMIUM, REPORT AND BOOK ENTRY OF PREMIUM PAYMENT, MAINTENANCE OF
RESERVE, ETC., THEY WERE ISSUED AT THE SAME TIME, AND THE MAKING OF THE
ANNUITY CONTRACT WAS A CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE LIFE POLICY;
AND THE COMBINED EFFECT WAS SUCH THAT, IN CASE OF PREMATURE DEATH, THE
GAIN TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY UNDER ONE WOULD NEUTRALIZE ITS LOSS UNDER
THE OTHER.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE CONTRACTS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.  P. 540. 

(2)  THEY CREATED NO INSURANCE RISK.  P. 541. 

ANY RISK THAT THE PREPAYMENT WOULD EARN LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PAID BY
THE INSURANCE COMPANY AS AN ANNUITY WAS AN INVESTMENT RISK, NOT AN
INSURANCE RISK. 

(3)  THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE BENEFICIARY NAMED IN THE LIFE POLICY,
UPON THE DEATH OF THE "INSURED," WAS NOT IN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 302(G),
SUPRA, BUT WAS PROPERLY TAXED IN THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE UNDER SEC.
302(C) AS A TRANSFER TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR
AFTER DEATH.  P. 542. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. LE GIERSE ET AL.,
EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 39 B.T.A. 1134, REVERSING A DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT OF ESTATE TAX. 

THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AND THE ANNUITY WERE SEPARATE, DISTINCT,
COMPLETE CONTRACTS.  FOR EACH THERE WAS A SEPARATE APPLICATION AND A
SEPARATE CONSIDERATION.  REGULAR, STANDARD FORMS WERE USED.  NEITHER
REFERRED TO THE OTHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY; EITHER COULD HAVE BEEN
SURRENDERED WITHOUT AFFECTING THE COMPANY'S LIABILITY UNDER THE OTHER. 
THE COMPANY REGARDED THE TRANSACTIONS AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AND THEY
WERE SO REPORTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW.  SEPARATE RECEIPTS WERE ISSUED TO THE
DECEDENT BY THE COMPANY COVERING PAYMENT RECEIVED BY IT FOR EACH
CONTRACT.  THE CONSIDERATION, OR PREMIUM, FOR EACH CONTRACT WAS
COMPUTED ON AN ACTUARIAL BASIS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPANY'S
REGULAR SCHEDULE OF RATES.  IN OTHER WORDS, IN COMPUTING THE SINGLE
PREMIUM CHARGED FOR THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, NO ADJUSTMENT OR
ALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE ANNUITY PREMIUM, AND IN COMPUTING THE
ANNUITY PREMIUM, NO ADJUSTMENT OR ALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE INSURANCE
PREMIUM.  THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY AS A SINGLE PREMIUM FOR
THE INSURANCE POLICY WAS CREDITED TO ITS INSURANCE RESERVE AND THE
AMOUNT RECEIVED BY IT FOR THE ANNUITY, TO ITS ANNUITY RESERVE.  ALL THE
LEGAL INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP ENJOYED BY THE OWNER OF ANY ORDINARY LIFE
INSURANCE POLICY WERE VESTED IN THE DECEDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE POLICY
HERE IN QUESTION AND SHE COULD HAVE EXERCISED ANY OR ALL OF THEM
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE ANNUITY CONTRACT. 

ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO AN INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO ENTER INTO
A LIFE INSURANCE AND AN ANNUITY CONTRACT, SEPARATE, DISTINCT AND
INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER.  WILLISTON, CONTRACTS, 2D ED., SEC. 628. 

EVEN WHERE THE CONTRACTING PARTIES COMBINE ALL THEIR PROMISES IN ONE
DOCUMENT, IF THE AGREEMENT SETS FORTH SEPARATE FEATURES, CLEARLY
SEVERABLE, EACH FEATURE MUST BE GIVEN ITS PROPER APPLICATION. 
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR.  SOCIETY V. DEEM, 91 F.2D 569, 575; CONNECTICUT
GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. MCCLELLAN, 94 F.2D 445, 446; DOWNEY V. GERMAN
ALLIANCE INS. CO., 252 F. 701, 703, 704; LEGG V. ST. JOHN, 296 U.S.
489, 490-495; BODINE V. COMMISSIONER, 103 F.2D 982, 985.  DIST'G
PEARSON V. MCGRAW, 308 U.S. 313. 

CONTRACTS EXECUTED AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO, OR IN CONJUNCTION
WITH, OTHER CONTRACTS ARE COMMONPLACE IN BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS.  WITH
RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE ANNUITY AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE
ISSUANCE OF THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, WE THINK THAT THE COURT BELOW
COVERED THE POINT SUCCINCTLY WHEN IT SAID:  "THE FACT THAT SHE COULD
NOT HAVE GOTTEN THAT POLICY UNLESS SHE HAD ALSO BOUGHT AN ANNUITY
CONTRACT DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF WHAT SHE GOT." 

THE DECEDENT'S AGE AND THE FACT THAT SHE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE A
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION ARE IN NO WAY MATERIAL TO THE ISSUES. 

WE SHOULD HESITATE TO ACCEPT ANY DEFINITION OF THE OFTUSED TERM
"INSURANCE RISK."  WHERE INSURANCE RISK LEAVES OFF AND INVESTMENT RISK
BEGINS IS ALSO DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE.  FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW THAT THE
INVESTMENT ELEMENT IS OF MINOR CONSIDERATION IN THE LOW PREMIUM TERM
CONTRACT, WHEREAS IT BECOMES A VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE COSTLY
SINGLE PREMIUM ENDOWMENT CONTRACT. 

IF THE DECEDENT HAD SURRENDERED HER LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AT THE END
OF THE FIRST YEAR, A LOSS OR A GAIN TO THE COMPANY ON THE TWO CONTRACTS
WOULD DEPEND ALMOST ENTIRELY ON HOW LONG THE DECEDENT LIVED
THEREAFTER.  THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A LOSS UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
CLEARLY EXISTED AT THE TIME THE TWO CONTRACTS WERE ISSUED. 

THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY SOUGHT TO UNDERWRITE THE RISK BY DIFFERENT
MEANS THAN IT ORDINARILY USED IN UNDERWRITING LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES
DOES NOT MAKE THE POLICY SOMETHING OTHER THAN LIFE INSURANCE.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE EXEMPTING STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE INSURANCE
PROCEEDS BE RECEIVABLE FROM A PARTICULAR KIND OF LIFE INSURANCE
CONTRACT, OR THAT THE POLICY BE WRITTEN IN ANY PARTICULAR WAY OR
CONFORM TO ANY PARTICULAR STANDARD, OR THAT IT BE ISSUED ONLY AFTER A
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF THE INSURED, OR THAT IT BE WRITTEN ACCORDING TO
ANY SPECIFIC GROUP OF UNDERWRITING PRINCIPLES.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE EXEMPTION ON ANY OF THESE GROUNDS, AND EXPRESSES NO
CONCERN WITH ANY ACTION THE INSURANCE COMPANY MAY TAKE TO RELIEVE ITS
UNDERWRITING PROBLEMS OR TO MINIMIZE THE RISK IN PARTICULAR CASES. 

FROM A STANDPOINT OF UNDERWRITING, THE REASON THE INSURANCE COMPANY
HERE WOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY TO THE DECEDENT
WITHOUT THE ANNUITY WAS NOT BECAUSE OF HER ADVANCED AGE, NOT BECAUSE
SHE DID NOT PASS A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, BUT BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
DIFFICULT TO GET A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF PERSONS OF HER AGE TO APPLY FOR
SIMILAR POLICIES AND THUS BE BROUGHT INTO THE BROAD AVERAGE FOR
UNDERWRITING PURPOSES.  SINCE IT WAS IMPRACTICAL TO SELL INSURANCE TO A
LARGE CLASS OF THE AGE OF DECEDENT, THE COMPANY ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF A
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION THE ISSUANCE OF THE LIFE ANNUITY. 

PETITIONER WOULD ARGUE THAT IF THIS DECEDENT HAD BEEN FIFTY YEARS OF
AGE INSTEAD OF EIGHTY AND HAD VOLUNTARILY PURCHASED THE ANNUITY ALONG
WITH THE POLICY, SHE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED NEITHER A LIFE INSURANCE
POLICY NOR AN ANNUITY BUT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED INSTEAD ONE "INVESTMENT
CONTRACT." 

INSURANCE POLICIES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INTER VIVOS TRANSFERS
AKIN TO TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS.  THERE IS NO INDICATION WHATEVER
THAT SUCH WAS THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING SEC. 302(C) OR SEC.
302(G).  HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106, AND KLEIN V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 231, ARE INAPPLICABLE. 

MOST FORMS OF LIFE INSURANCE PROVIDE SOME SORT OF CASH VALUE WHICH IS
IN ITSELF AN INVESTMENT FEATURE.  IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT LIFE
INSURANCE IS FREQUENTLY PURCHASED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES. 

THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION PRESENTS THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF LIFE
INSURANCE.  FOR A STIPULATED CONSIDERATION THE COMPANY UNDERTOOK TO
INDEMNIFY THE BENEFICIARY AGAINST LOSS BY A SPECIFIED CONTINGENCY,
PERIL OR RISK.  THAT CONTINGENCY WAS THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, THIS
DECEDENT.  AND THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT WAS THE SOLE CONTINGENCY FOR
THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE POLICY.  THE FACT THAT AN
ANNUITY CONTRACT IMPOSING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT OBLIGATIONS ON THE COMPANY
WAS ISSUED AT THE SAME TIME DOES NOT MAKE THE LIFE INSURANCE CONTRACT
SOMETHING OTHER THAN LIFE INSURANCE. 

THE INSTANT CASE IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE "DEPOSIT
ARRANGEMENT" CASES.  OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 102 F.2D
380; STATE EX REL. THORNTON V. PROBATE COURT, 186 MINN. 351. 

THE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE INDICATES NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF
CONGRESS TO RESTRICT THE EXEMPTION TO PROCEEDS OF CERTAIN TYPES OF
INSURANCE CONTRACTS. 

THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION WERE ENTERED INTO BY THE DECEDENT NEITHER
IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH NOR AS A PLAN TO EVADE OR EVEN AVOID THE
PAYMENT OF TAXES. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND AS A MATTER OF FACT AND HELD AS A
MATTER OF LAW THAT THE PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED BY THE BENEFICIARY "AS
INSURANCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXEMPTING STATUTE.  SUCH FINDING
WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED ON
REVIEW.  COLORADO NATIONAL BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 305 U.S. 23, 27;
HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131. 

THE PURCHASE OF A SINGLE PREMIUM LIFE INSURANCE POLICY IS NOT A
"TRANSFER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 302(C)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926. 

THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE GRANTING THE EXEMPTION TO LIFE
INSURANCE PROCEEDS SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED BY IMPLICATION TO INSURANCE
ISSUED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  GOULD V. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151, 153;
UNITED STATES V. MERRIAM, 263 U.S. 179, 187-188; BURNET V. NIAGARA
BREWING CO., 282 U.S. 648, 654. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

LESS THAN A MONTH BEFORE HER DEATH IN 1936, DECEDENT, AT THE AGE OF
80, EXECUTED TWO CONTRACTS WITH THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE
CO. ONE WAS AN ANNUITY CONTRACT IN STANDARD FORM ENTITLING DECEDENT TO
ANNUAL PAYMENTS OF $589.80 AS LONG AS SHE LIVED.  THE CONSIDERATION
STATED FOR THIS CONTRACT WAS $4,179.  THE OTHER CONTRACT WAS CALLED A
"SINGLE PREMIUM LIFE POLICY - NON PARTICIPATING" AND PROVIDED FOR A
PAYMENT OF $25,000 TO DECEDENT'S DAUGHTER, RESPONDENT LE GIERSE, AT
DECEDENT'S DEATH.  THE PREMIUM SPECIFIED WAS $22,946.  DECEDENT PAID
THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION, $27,125, AT THE TIME THE CONTRACTS WERE
EXECUTED.  SHE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PASS A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OR TO
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS A WOMAN APPLICANT NORMALLY MUST ANSWER. 

THE "INSURANCE" POLICY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT THE ANNUITY
CONTRACT, BUT IN ALL FORMAL RESPECTS THE TWO WERE TREATED AS DISTINCT
TRANSACTIONS.  NEITHER CONTRACT REFERRED TO THE OTHER.  INDEPENDENT
APPLICATIONS WERE FILED FOR EACH.  NEITHER PREMIUM WAS COMPUTED WITH
REFERENCE TO THE OTHER.  PREMIUM PAYMENTS WERE REPORTED SEPARATELY AND
ENTERED IN DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS ON THE COMPANY'S BOOKS.  SEPARATE
RESERVES WERE MAINTAINED FOR INSURANCE AND ANNUITIES.  EACH CONTRACT
WAS IN STANDARD FORM.  THE "INSURANCE" POLICY CONTAINED THE USUAL
PROVISIONS FOR SURRENDER, ASSIGNMENT, OPTIONAL MODES OF SETTLEMENT,
ETC. 

UPON DECEDENT'S DEATH, THE FACE VALUE OF THE "INSURANCE" CONTRACT
BECAME PAYABLE TO RESPONDENT LE GIERSE, THE BENEFICIARY.  THEREAFTER, A
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX RETURN WAS FILED WHICH EXCLUDED FROM DECEDENT'S
GROSS ESTATE THE PROCEEDS OF THE "INSURANCE" POLICY.  THE COMMISSIONER
NOTIFIED RESPONDENTS BANKERS TRUST CO. AND LE GIERSE, AS EXECUTORS OF
DECEDENT'S ESTATE, THAT HE PROPOSED TO INCLUDE THE PROCEEDS OF THIS
POLICY IN THE GROSS ESTATE AND TO ASSESS A DEFICIENCY.  SUIT IN THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOLLOWED, AND THE COMMISSIONER'S ACTION WAS
REVERSED.  39 B.T.A. 1134.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  110
F.2D 734.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE OF CONFLICT WITH
COMMISSIONER V. KELLER'S ESTATE, 113 F.2D 833, AND HELVERING V. TYLER,
111 F.2D 422.  311 U.S. 625. 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE "INSURANCE" PROCEEDS MAY BE
INCLUDED IN DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE. 

STAT. 169, 279; 48 STAT. 680, 752) PROVIDES:  "THE VALUE OF THE GROSS
ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE VALUE AT
THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR
INTANGIBLE  ...  - (G)  TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY THE
EXECUTOR AS INSURANCE UNDER POLICIES TAKEN OUT BY THE DECEDENT UPON HIS
OWN LIFE; AND TO THE EXTENT OF THE EXCESS OVER $40,000 OF THE AMOUNT
RECEIVABLE BY ALL OTHER BENEFICIARIES AS INSURANCE UNDER POLICIES TAKEN
OUT BY THE DECEDENT UPON HIS OWN LIFE."  THUS THE BASIC QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED HERE ARE AMOUNTS "RECEIVABLE AS INSURANCE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 302(G). 

CONVENTIONAL AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION ARE OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE HERE. 
OF 1918 AS SEC. 402(F).  40 STAT. 1057, 1098.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN
CHANGED.  FN1  NONE OF THE ACTS HAS EVER DEFINED "INSURANCE."  TREASURY
REGULATIONS, INTERPRETING THE ORIGINAL PROVISION, STATED SIMPLY:  "THE
TERM 'INSURANCE' REFERS TO LIFE INSURANCE OF EVERY DESCRIPTION,
INCLUDING DEATH BENEFITS PAID BY FRATERNAL BENEFICIAL SOCIETIES,
OPERATING UNDER THE LODGE SYSTEM."  TREASURY REGULATIONS NO. 37, 1921
EDITION, P. 23.  THIS STATEMENT HAS NEVER BEEN AMPLIFIED.  FN2  THE
COMMITTEE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918 MERELY NOTED THAT
THE PROVISION TAXING INSURANCE RECEIVABLE BY THE EXECUTOR CLARIFIED
EXISTING LAW, AND THAT THE PROVISION TAXING INSURANCE IN EXCESS OF
$40,000 RECEIVABLE BY SPECIFIC BENEFICIARIES WAS INSERTED TO PREVENT
TAX EVASION.  HOUSE REPORT NO. 767, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 22.  FN3
SUBSEQUENT COMMITTEE REPORTS DO NOT MENTION SEC. 302(G).  TRANSCRIPTS
OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS IN 1918 AND SINCE ARE EQUALLY UNINFORMATIVE. 
FN4 

NECESSARILY, THEN, THE LANGUAGE AND THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF SEC.
302(G) ARE VIRTUALLY THE ONLY BASES FOR DETERMINING WHAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO BRING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PHRASE "RECEIVABLE AS
INSURANCE."  IN FACT, IN USING THE TERM "INSURANCE" CONGRESS HAS
IDENTIFIED THE CHARACTERISTIC THAT DETERMINES WHAT TRANSACTIONS ARE
ENTITLED TO THE PARTIAL EXEMPTION OF SEC. 302(G). 

WE THINK THE FAIR IMPORT OF SUBSECTION (G) IS THAT THE AMOUNTS MUST
BE RECEIVED AS THE RESULT OF A TRANSACTION WHICH INVOLVED AN ACTUAL
"INSURANCE RISK" AT THE TIME THE TRANSACTION WAS EXECUTED. 
HISTORICALLY AND COMMONLY INSURANCE INVOLVES RISK-SHIFTING AND RISK
DISTRIBUTING.  THAT LIFE INSURANCE IS DESIRABLE FROM AN ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL STANDPOINT AS A DEVICE TO SHIFT AND DISTRIBUTE RISK OF LOSS FROM
PREMATURE DEATH IS UNQUESTIONABLE.  THAT THESE ELEMENTS OF RISK
SHIFTING AND RISK-DISTRIBUTING ARE ESSENTIAL TO A LIFE INSURANCE
CONTRACT IS AGREED BY COURTS AND COMMENTATORS.  SEE FOR EXAMPLE:
RITTER V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 169 U.S. 139; IN RE WALSH, 19 F.SUPP. 
567; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 16 B.T.A. 314; ACKERMAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 15 B.T.A. 635; COUCH, CYCLOPEDIA OF INSURANCE, VOL. I,
SEC. 61; VANCE, INSURANCE, SECS. 1-3; COOLEY, BRIEFS ON INSURANCE, 2D
EDITION, VOL. I, P. 114; HUEBNER, LIFE INSURANCE, CH. 1.  ACCORDINGLY,
IT IS LOGICAL TO ASSUME THAT WHEN CONGRESS USED THE WORDS "RECEIVABLE
AS INSURANCE" IN SEC. 302(G), IT CONTEMPLATED AMOUNTS RECEIVED PURSUANT
TO A TRANSACTION POSSESSING THESE FEATURES.  COMMISSIONER V. KELLER'S
ESTATE, SUPRA; HELVERING V. TYLER, SUPRA; OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 102 F.2D 380; ACKERMAN V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA. 
ANALYSIS OF THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF THE PARTIAL EXEMPTION GRANTED IN
SEC. 302(G) STRENGTHENS THE ASSUMPTION THAT CONGRESS USED THE WORD
"INSURANCE" IN ITS COMMONLY ACCEPTED SENSE.  IMPLICIT IN THIS PROVISION
IS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE FACT THAT USUALLY INSURANCE PAYABLE TO
SPECIFIC BENEFICIARIES IS DESIGNED TO SHIFT TO A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS
THE RISK OF PREMATURE DEATH OF THE ONE UPON WHOM THE BENEFICIARIES ARE
DEPENDENT FOR SUPPORT.  INDEED, THE PITH OF THE EXEMPTION IS PARTICULAR
PROTECTION OF CONTRACTS AND THEIR PROCEEDS INTENDED TO GUARD AGAINST
JUST SUCH A RISK.  SEE COMMISSIONER V. KELLER'S ESTATE, SUPRA; UNITED
STATES TRUST CO. V. SEARS, 29 F.SUPP.  643; HUGHES, FEDERAL DEATH TAX,
P. 91; COMMENT, 38 MICH. L. REV. 526, 528; COMPARE CHASE NATIONAL BANK
V. UNITED STATES, 28 F.SUPP.  947; IN RE WALSH, SUPRA; MOSKOWITZ V.
DAVIS, 68 F.2D 818.  HENCE, THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
TRANSACTION IN SUIT IN FACT INVOLVED AN "INSURANCE RISK" AS OUTLINED
ABOVE. 

WE CANNOT FIND SUCH AN INSURANCE RISK IN THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN
DECEDENT AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY. 

THE TWO CONTRACTS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.  TO SAY THEY ARE
DISTINCT TRANSACTIONS IS TO IGNORE ACTUALITY, FOR IT IS CONCEDED ON ALL
SIDES AND WAS FOUND AS A FACT BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT THE
"INSURANCE" POLICY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT THE ANNUITY
CONTRACT.  FAILURE, EVEN STUDIOUS FAILURE, IN ONE CONTRACT TO REFER TO
THE OTHER CANNOT BE CONTROLLING.  MOREOVER, AUTHORITY FOR SUCH
CONSIDERATION IS NOT WANTING, HOWEVER UNREALISTIC THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN FORM AND SUBSTANCE MAY BE.  COMMISSIONER V. KELLER'S ESTATE,
SUPRA; HELVERING V. TYLER, SUPRA.  SEE WILLISTON, CONTRACTS, VOL. III,
SEC. 628; PAUL, STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION, 2D SERIES, P. 218; COMPARE
PEARSON V. MCGRAW, 308 U.S. 313.  FN5 

CONSIDERED TOGETHER, THE CONTRACTS WHOLLY FAIL TO SPELL OUT ANY
ELEMENT OF INSURANCE RISK.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE "INSURANCE" CONTRACT
LOOKS LIKE AN INSURANCE POLICY, CONTAINS ALL THE USUAL PROVISIONS OF
ONE, AND COULD HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED OR SURRENDERED WITHOUT THE ANNUITY. 
CERTAINLY THE MERE PRESENCE OF THE CUSTOMARY PROVISIONS DOES NOT CREATE
RISK, AND THE FACT THAT THE POLICY COULD HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED IS
IMMATERIAL SINCE, NO MATTER WHO HELD THE POLICY AND THE ANNUITY, THE
TWO CONTRACTS, RELATING TO THE LIFE OF THE ONE TO WHOM THEY WERE
ORIGINALLY ISSUED, STILL COUNTERACTED EACH OTHER.  IT MAY WELL BE TRUE
THAT IF ENOUGH PEOPLE OF DECEDENT'S AGE WANTED SUCH A POLICY IT WOULD
BE ISSUED WITHOUT THE ANNUITY, OR THAT IF THE INSTANT POLICY HAD BEEN
SURRENDERED A RISK WOULD HAVE ARISEN.  IN EITHER EVENT THE ESSENTIAL
RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT IS
HERE.  THE FACT REMAINS THAT ANNUITY AND INSURANCE ARE OPPOSITES; IN
THIS COMBINATION THE ONE NEUTRALIZES THE RISK CUSTOMARILY INHERENT IN
THE OTHER.  FROM THE COMPANY'S VIEWPOINT, INSURANCE LOOKS TO LONGEVITY,
ANNUITY TO TRANSIENCY.  SEE COMMISSIONER V. KELLER'S ESTATE, SUPRA;
HELVERING V. TYLER, SUPRA; OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA;
CARROLL V. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR.  SOC., 9 F.SUPP.  223; NOTE, 49 YALE
L.J. 946; COHEN, ANNUITIES AND TRANSFER TAXES, 7 KAN. B.A.J. 139. 

HERE THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS PREPAID AND EXCEEDED THE FACE VALUE
OF THE "INSURANCE" POLICY.  THE EXCESS FINANCED LOADING AND OTHER
INCIDENTAL CHARGES.  ANY RISK THAT THE PREPAYMENT WOULD EARN LESS THAN
THE AMOUNT PAID TO RESPONDENT AS AN ANNUITY WAS AN INVESTMENT RISK
SIMILAR TO THE RISK ASSUMED BY A BANK; IT WAS NOT AN INSURANCE RISK AS
EXPLAINED ABOVE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE SUMS PAYABLE TO A SPECIFIC
BENEFICIARY HERE ARE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 302(G).  THE ONLY
REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY ARE TAXABLE. 

WE HOLD THAT THEY ARE TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926, AS AMENDED, AS A TRANSFER TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER DEATH.  SEE HELVERING V. TYLER, SUPRA; OLD COLONY
TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA; KERNOCHAN V. UNITED STATES, 29
F.SUPP.  860; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA; COMPARE,
GAITHER V. MILES, 268 F. 692; COMMENT, 38 MICH. L. REV. 526; COMMENT,
32 ILL. L. REV. 223. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF 1921:  42 STAT. 227, 279; ACT OF 1924:  43 STAT. 253, 305;
ACT OF 1926:  44 STAT. 9, 71; CODE OF 1939:  53 STAT. 1, 122. 

FN2  REGULATIONS NO. 63, P. 26; REGULATIONS NO. 68, P. 31;
REGULATIONS NO. 70, 1926 EDITION, P. 30; REGULATIONS NO. 70, 1929
EDITION, P. 33; REGULATIONS NO. 80, P. 62. 

FN3  "...  (INSURANCE PAYABLE TO SPECIFIC BENEFICIARIES DOES) NOT
FALL WITHIN THE EXISTING PROVISIONS DEFINING GROSS ESTATE.  IT HAS BEEN
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE THAT WEALTHY PERSONS HAVE AND
NOW ANTICIPATE RESORTING TO THIS METHOD OF DEFEATING THE ESTATE TAX. 
AGENTS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE OPENLY URGED PERSONS OF WEALTH TO
TAKE OUT ADDITIONAL INSURANCE PAYABLE TO SPECIFIC BENEFICIARIES FOR THE
REASON THAT SUCH INSURANCE WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE. 
A LIBERAL EXEMPTION OF $40,000 HAS BEEN INCLUDED AND IT SEEMS NOT
UNREASONABLE TO REQUIRE THE INCLUSION OF AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF THIS
SUM.  ID., P. 22. 

THE SAME COMMENT APPEARS IN SENATE REPORT NO. 617, 65TH CONG., 3D
SESS., P. 42. 

FN4  THE CURIOUS CONSISTENCY AND INADEQUACY OF SEC. 302(G) HAVE NOT
ESCAPED NOTICE.  SEE PAUL, LIFE INSURANCE AND THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX,
52 HARV. L. REV. 1037; PAUL, STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION, 3D SERIES, P.
351; UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V. SEARS, 29 F.SUPP.  643, 650. 

FN5  LEGG V. ST. JOHN, 296 U.S. 489, IS NOT TO THE CONTRARY.  THERE
NOTHING INDICATED THAT THE ONE CONTRACT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED
WITHOUT THE OTHER; THERE WAS NO NECESSARY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS. 
..END :













ESTATE OF KELLER V. COMM'R, 312 U.S. 543 


NO. 371.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1941.  - DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - 113 F.2D
833, AFFIRMED. 


1.  DECIDED IN PART UPON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. LE GIERSE,
ANTE, P. 531.  P. 543. 

2.  THAT A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WAS NOT REQUIRED IS INCONCLUSIVE AS
TO THE NON-EXISTENCE OF AN "INSURANCE RISK."  P. 544. 

3.  THAT THE PREMIUM MIGHT NOT EARN ENOUGH TO COVER PROFITABLY THE
ANNUITY PAYABLE TO THE DECEDENT, OR THAT THERE WAS A MISCALCULATION OF
THE PROPER TOTAL CONSIDERATION, DOES NOT IN THIS CASE ESTABLISH THE
EXISTENCE OF AN "INSURANCE RISK."  P. 544. 

ESTATE OF KELLER ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 630, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 39 B.T.A. 1047, DISAPPROVING OF A
DEFICIENCY ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS COMPANION TO HELVERING V. LE GIERSE, ANTE, P. 531.  IN
ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS THE FACTS ARE ALIKE EXCEPT FOR THE DIFFERENCES TO
BE NOTED.  HERE THE ANNUITY CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR ANNUAL PAYMENTS OF
$390.84 AND COST DECEDENT $3,258.20.  THE "INSURANCE" POLICY STIPULATED
FOR PAYMENT OF $20,000 TO DECEDENT'S DAUGHTER AT DECEDENT'S DEATH, AND
THE SINGLE PREMIUM WAS $17,941.80.  DECEDENT WAS 74 AT THE TIME THE
CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED AND DIED ABOUT TWO YEARS LATER.  PROCEEDING ON
THE SAME THEORY AS IN THE LE GIERSE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED A
DEFICIENCY IN THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX WHICH THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
REVERSED.  39 B.T.A. 1047.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN TURN
REVERSED THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  113 F.2D 833.  THE CASE IS HERE
BECAUSE OF CONFLICT WITH THE LE GIERSE CASE (110 F.2D 734). 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THIS CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE LE
GIERSE CASE BECAUSE HERE THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOUND THAT THE TOTAL
CONSIDERATION FOR THE TWO CONTRACTS, WHICH WAS 106% OF THE FACE VALUE
OF THE POLICY, WAS INADEQUATE.  THEY POINT OUT THAT THE RATE FOR THIS
COMBINATION OF CONTRACTS WAS LATER INCREASED TO 108% AND FINALLY TO
110%.  FURTHER, THEY CONTEND THAT ABSENCE OF PHYSICAL EXAMINATION DOES
NOT ESTABLISH ABSENCE OF RISK, AND THAT THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND
THAT THERE WAS "SOME" RISK TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY. 

WE FIND THE DISTINCTION INSUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RESULT. 

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY ASSUMED "SOME"
RISK.  A BANK ASSUMES A RISK WHEN IT ACCEPTS A DEPOSITOR'S FUNDS AND
INVESTS THEM.  THE INVESTMENT MAY PROVE TO BE AN UNSAFE ONE, OR THE
BANK MAY HAVE AGREED TO PAY THE DEPOSITOR A HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST
THAN IT CAN PROFITABLY EARN ON THE FUNDS IT INVESTS.  INDISPUTABLY THIS
IS A RISK.  BUT IT IS NOT AN INSURANCE RISK IN THE SENSE EXPLAINED IN
THE LE GIERSE CASE.  THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGED
THE TOTAL CHARGE FOR THIS PARTICULAR COMBINATION OF CONTRACTS BECAUSE
IT WAS UNPROFITABLE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF AN INSURANCE
RISK.  RATHER, IT ILLUSTRATES STRIKINGLY THE INTERRELATION OF THE TWO
AGREEMENTS AND EMPHASIZES THE EFFORT OF THE COMPANY TO REMOVE ALL
POSSIBLE INVESTMENT RISK. 

ABSENCE OF A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION MAY WELL BE INCONCLUSIVE AS TO THE
EXISTENCE OF AN INSURANCE RISK.  FOR EXAMPLE, SOME COMPANIES DO NOT
REQUIRE SUCH AN EXAMINATION FOR GROUP INSURANCE.  BUT THERE THE RISK AS
TO ONE IS DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE GROUP, AN INSURANCE RISK SQUARELY
WITHIN THE DEFINITION STATED IN THE LE GIERSE CASE.  HERE THE ANNUITY
ISSUED WITH THE POLICY DID MORE THAN SUBSTITUTE FOR A PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION.  IT REMOVED THE NECESSITY FOR ANY RISK DISTRIBUTION AND
COMPLETELY COUNTERVAILED A RISK OTHERWISE ASSUMED IN THE "INSURANCE"
POLICY. 

THE FINDING BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT THERE WAS SOME RISK
NECESSARILY IS AMBIGUOUS IN VIEW OF THEIR FINDING THAT THE COMPANY
ANNUALLY EARNED FROM 3 1/2 TO 4 PERCENT ON ITS OWN INVESTMENTS.  IT IS
THEREFORE REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE "RISK" REFERRED TO WAS A RISK
THAT THE FUNDS MIGHT NOT EARN ENOUGH TO COVER PROFITABLY THE ANNUITY
PAYABLE TO THE DECEDENT, OR A RISK DUE TO A MISCALCULATION OF THE
PROPER TOTAL CONSIDERATION.  IN EITHER EVENT IT IS NOT A FINDING OF THE
EXISTENCE OF AN INSURANCE RISK. 

SINCE THE CASE IS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM HELVERING V. LE GIERSE,
SUPRA, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE REVERSED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V. LE GIERSE, 110
F.2D 734. 
..END :






EX PARTE HULL, 312 U.S. 546 


NO. - , ORIGINAL.  DECIDED MARCH 3, 1941.  - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED. 


1.  A STATE PRISON RULE ABRIDGING OR IMPAIRING A PRISONER'S RIGHT TO
APPLY TO THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS INVALID.  P.
548. 

2.  A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ATTACHED AS AN EXHIBIT TO
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO A WARDEN'S RETURN TO AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS
TREATED IN THIS CASE AS A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR THE
WRIT.  P. 549. 

3.  A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF A
CONVICTION FOR A SECOND OFFENSE, COMMITTED WHILE THE PETITIONER WAS
UNDER SENTENCE FOR A FIRST OFFENSE BUT ON PAROLE, AND SENTENCE FOR
WHICH HAS NOT BEGUN TO BE SERVED, HELD NOT PREMATURE WHEN REVOCATION OF
THE PAROLE WAS DUE TO THE SECOND CONVICTION.  P. 549. 

4.  A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
HELD NOT SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE ANSWER.  P. 550. 

THE PETITION WAS BASED ON A VARIANCE BETWEEN PLEADING AND PROOF WITH
RESPECT TO THE DATE OF THE OFFENSE.  THE PETITIONER WAS REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL, YET HIS PETITION DID NOT SAY THAT ANY
OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE, CLAIM OF SURPRISE OR MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE WAS
MADE BECAUSE OF SUCH VARIANCE; OR THAT HE HAD AN ALIBI FOR ANY OTHER
DATE.  THE PETITION DID NOT MAKE CLEAR THE EXTENT OF ANY VARIANCE AND
NO TRANSCRIPT OF THE TRIAL WAS FURNISHED. 

EX PARTE CLEIO HULL. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN JANUARY, 1936, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF A STATUTORY SEX OFFENSE
AND WAS SENTENCED TO THE MICHIGAN STATE PRISON AT JACKSON, MICHIGAN,
FOR AN INDETERMINATE TERM OF SIX MONTHS TO TEN YEARS.  ABOUT TEN MONTHS
LATER HE WAS PAROLED.  IN OCTOBER, 1937, HE WAS CONVICTED OF ANOTHER
SEX OFFENSE AND WAS RETURNED TO THE SAME PRISON TO SERVE A SENTENCE OF
TWO AND ONE-HALF TO FIVE YEARS FROM ENTRY OF THE SECOND JUDGMENT. 
APPARENTLY FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THE SECOND CONVICTION WAS REGARDED
AS A VIOLATION OF HIS PAROLE, PETITIONER WAS GIVEN A HEARING BEFORE THE
STATE PAROLE BOARD AND WAS PASSED INDEFINITELY TOWARD THE MAXIMUM
SENTENCE FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE.  SEE MICHIGAN STATUTES ANNOTATED, 1940
SUPPLEMENT, SEC. 28.2108. 

IN NOVEMBER, 1940, PETITIONER PREPARED A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND EXHIBITS TO FILE IN THIS COURT.  HE TOOK THE PAPERS TO A
PRISON OFFICIAL AND REQUESTED HIM TO NOTARIZE THEM.  THE OFFICIAL
REFUSED AND INFORMED PETITIONER THAT THE PAPERS AND A REGISTERED LETTER
TO THE CLERK OF THIS COURT CONCERNING THEM WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR
MAILING.  ALTHOUGH THE PAPERS WERE NOT NOTARIZED, PETITIONER THEN
DELIVERED THEM TO HIS FATHER FOR MAILING OUTSIDE THE PRISON BUT GUARDS
CONFISCATED THEM.  SEVERAL DAYS LATER, PETITIONER AGAIN ATTEMPTED TO
MAIL A LETTER CONCERNING HIS CASE TO THE CLERK OF THIS COURT.  IT WAS
INTERCEPTED AND SENT TO THE LEGAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE STATE PAROLE
BOARD.  FN1  APPARENTLY NEITHER OF THE LETTERS WAS RETURNED TO THE
PETITIONER,  FN2 AND THE PAPERS TAKEN FROM HIS FATHER WERE NOT RETURNED
UNTIL LATE IN DECEMBER. 

PETITIONER THEN PREPARED ANOTHER DOCUMENT WHICH HE SOMEHOW MANAGED TO
HAVE HIS FATHER, AS "AGENT," FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THIS COURT ON
DECEMBER 26, 1940.  IN THIS DOCUMENT PETITIONER DETAILED HIS EFFORTS TO
FILE THE PAPERS CONFISCATED BY PRISON OFFICIALS, CONTENDED THAT HE WAS
THEREFORE UNLAWFULLY RESTRAINED, AND PRAYED THAT HE BE RELEASED. 

ON JANUARY 6, 1941, WE ISSUED A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO FILE
A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.  THE WARDEN
FILED A RETURN TO THE RULE SETTING FORTH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TWO
CONVICTIONS, THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PAROLE BOARD, AND NUMEROUS
EXHIBITS.  IN JUSTIFICATION OF THE ACTION PREVENTING PETITIONER FROM
FILING HIS PAPERS OR COMMUNICATING WITH THIS COURT, THE WARDEN ALLEGED
THAT IN NOVEMBER, 1940, HE HAD PUBLISHED A REGULATION PROVIDING THAT:
"ALL LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BRIEFS, PETITIONS, MOTIONS, HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS AND APPEALS WILL FIRST HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE
INSTITUTIONAL WELFARE OFFICE AND IF FAVORABLY ACTED UPON BE THEN
REFERRED TO PERRY A. MAYNARD, LEGAL INVESTIGATOR TO THE PAROLE BOARD,
LANSING, MICHIGAN.  DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO PERRY A. MAYNARD, IF IN HIS
OPINION ARE PROPERLY DRAWN, WILL BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT DESIGNATED OR
WILL BE REFERRED BACK TO THE INMATE." 

IN ANSWER, PETITIONER FILED A "RESPONSE TO THE RETURN" WHICH AGAIN
CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THIS REGULATION AND WHICH CONTAINED NUMEROUS
EXHIBITS.  ONE OF THE EXHIBITS WAS THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS TAKEN FROM PETITIONER'S FATHER.  IN BRIEF, THIS PETITION
ASSAILED THE LEGALITY OF PETITIONER'S IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE SECOND
CONVICTION ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS. 

THE FIRST QUESTION CONCERNS THE EFFECT OF THE REGULATION QUOTED IN
THE WARDEN'S RETURN. 

THE REGULATION IS INVALID.  THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT PROMPTED ITS
FORMULATION ARE NOT WITHOUT MERIT, BUT THE STATE AND ITS OFFICERS MAY
NOT ABRIDGE OR IMPAIR PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO APPLY TO A FEDERAL COURT
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  WHETHER A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS ADDRESSED TO A FEDERAL COURT IS PROPERLY DRAWN AND WHAT
ALLEGATIONS IT MUST CONTAIN ARE QUESTIONS FOR THAT COURT ALONE TO
DETERMINE.  COMPARE FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. ANDERSON, 269 U.S. 341, 346;
ERIE R. CO. V. PURDY, 185 U.S. 148, 152; CARTER V. TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442,
447; SEE EX PARTE SHARP, 33 F.SUPP.  464. 

HOWEVER, THE INVALIDITY OF THE PRISON REGULATION DOES NOT COMPEL
PETITIONER'S RELEASE.  FOR THAT REASON IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE
PETITION ANNEXED TO THE RESPONSE.  ALTHOUGH IT IS HERE AS AN EXHIBIT TO
THE RESPONSE, IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS INASMUCH AS THE WARDEN HAS NOT HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER IT.  THE NEXT QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER
THIS PETITION IS PREMATURE. 

THE PETITION IS NOT PREMATURE.  COMPARE MCNALLY V. HILL, 293 U.S.
131; IN RE BONNER, 151 U.S. 242.  DESPITE THE FACT THAT PETITIONER IS
NOW IN PRISON UNDER THE SENTENCE FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE, HE WAS AT
LIBERTY ON PAROLE AT THE TIME HE WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH THE
SECOND OFFENSE.  TRUE, PAROLE REGULATIONS OBLIGATED HIM TO STAY WITHIN
JACKSON COUNTY BUT THAT IS NOT THE IMPRISONMENT PRESENT IN THE MCNALLY
CASE.  MOREOVER, PETITIONER'S PAROLE WAS REVOKED AND HE WAS ORDERED TO
SERVE OUT HIS FIRST SENTENCE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SECOND CONVICTION. 
SEE MICHIGAN STATUTES ANNOTATED, SUPRA.  THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE
THAT HE CAN COMPEL THE PAROLE BOARD TO REVIEW THE RECORD OF THE SECOND
CONVICTION, OR TO MAKE A DECLARATORY RULING THAT IF THAT CONVICTION IS
VOID HIS PAROLE WILL BE REINSTATED.  THUS THE LAST QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE PETITION, TREATED AS A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS, IS SUFFICIENT TO NECESSITATE AN ORDER REQUIRING THE
WARDEN TO ANSWER. 

AT BOTTOM, PETITIONER'S CASE IS THIS:  THAT IN THE SECOND TRIAL THERE
WAS A VARIANCE BETWEEN PLEADING AND PROOF WITH RESPECT TO THE DATE WHEN
THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED, AND THAT PETITIONER THUS WAS DENIED THE FAIR
NOTICE OF THE CHARGE GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  FROM
EXHIBITS AND RATHER VAGUE STATEMENTS IN THE PETITION, THE FOLLOWING
APPEARS:  THAT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT AND THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL THE
PROSECUTOR INSISTED THAT THE OFFENSE OCCURRED ON THE DATE CHARGED IN
THE INFORMATION; THAT PETITIONER'S DEFENSE WAS THAT HE WAS ELSEWHERE AT
THE TIME IN QUESTION; THAT SOME OF THE TESTIMONY TENDED TO FIX THE DATE
OF THE OFFENSE ABOUT A WEEK EARLIER THAN THAT CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT; THAT AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER'S COUNSEL
MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
TO PROVE THAT THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED ON THE DATE CHARGED IN THE
INFORMATION; THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE DENIED THIS MOTION AND CHARGED THE
JURY THAT THE PRECISE DATE WAS IMMATERIAL, IT BEING SUFFICIENT TO SHOW
THAT THE OFFENSE OCCURRED DURING THE MONTH PREVIOUS; THAT THE TRIAL
JUDGE ENTERED JUDGMENT ON THE JURY'S VERDICT OF GUILTY AND DENIED
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE SAME GROUND URGED IN THE
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT; AND THAT THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT
SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED CERTIORARI. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE SHOWING MADE BY THE PETITION AND EXHIBITS IS
INSUFFICIENT TO COMPEL AN ORDER REQUIRING THE WARDEN TO ANSWER. 
PETITIONER WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL THROUGHOUT THE SECOND TRIAL.  YET
THERE IS NO CLAIM IN THE PETITION THAT HE OBJECTED TO EVIDENCE TENDING
TO ESTABLISH A DIFFERENT DATE FOR COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE, OR THAT HE
CLAIMED SURPRISE, OR THAT HE MOVED FOR A CONTINUANCE TO ENABLE HIM TO
SECURE OTHER WITNESSES.  HE DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT AT THE TIME OF THE
TRIAL HE HAD AN ALIBI FOR ANY OTHER DATE, NOR DOES HE MAKE CLEAR THE
ACTUAL EXTENT OF ANY VARIANCE.  FURTHERMORE, ASCERTAINMENT OF THESE
FACTS IS IMPOSSIBLE SINCE PETITIONER HAS NOT FURNISHED THE TRANSCRIPT
TAKEN AT THE SECOND TRIAL.  ACCORDINGLY, IT WOULD BE IMPROPER TO
INQUIRE WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN THE
SECOND TRIAL.  COMPARE HARDY V. UNITED STATES, 186 U.S. 224, 225;
LEDBETTER V. UNITED STATES, 170 U.S. 606, 612; HODGSON V. VERMONT, 168
U.S. 262, 271; MATTHEWS V. UNITED STATES, 161 U.S. 500. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS
THEREFORE DENIED.  MOTION DENIED. 

FN1  ABOUT A WEEK LATER PETITIONER RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING REPLY FROM
THE LEGAL INVESTIGATOR: "YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 18, 1940, ADDRESSED TO
THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE
WRITER FOR REPLY.  IN THE FIRST PLACE YOUR APPLICATION IN ITS PRESENT
FORM WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THAT COURT.  YOU MUST FILE A PETITION
FOR WHATEVER RELIEF YOU ARE SEEKING AND STATE YOUR REASONS THEREFOR,
TOGETHER WITH A MEMORANDUM BRIEF.  YOUR PETITION MUST BE VERIFIED UNDER
OATH AND SUPPORTED BY PROPER AFFIDAVITS, IF ANY YOU HAVE.  YOUR LETTER
WAS, NO DOUBT, INTERCEPTED FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS DEEMED TO BE
INADEQUATE AND WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY ACCOUNTS FOR THE FACT THAT IT FOUND
ITS WAY TO MY DESK." 

APPARENTLY THE LEGAL INVESTIGATOR SERVES AS ATTORNEY AND ADVISOR TO
THE STATE PAROLE BOARD.  HIS FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO LEGAL DOCUMENTS
OF PRISON INMATES APPEAR MORE FULLY FROM THE PRISON REGULATION QUOTED
HEREAFTER. 

FN2  NEITHER OF THE LETTERS REACHED THE CLERK OF THIS COURT.  ON
DECEMBER 12, 1940, PETITIONER REQUESTED THE PRISON SUPERINTENDENT OF
MAIL TO TRACE THE REGISTERED LETTER SINCE HE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE
RETURN RECEIPT WHICH ACCOMPANIED IT.  THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
REPLIED:  "THIS WAS MAILED THRU PERRY MAYNARD BY ORDERS FROM WARDEN." 
APPARENTLY THE LEGAL INVESTIGATOR MADE NO REPLY. 
..END :













SMITH V. O'GRADY, 312 U.S. 329 


NO. 364.  ARGUED JANUARY 17, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1941.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  THE REMEDY BY HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE IN THE COURTS OF NEBRASKA
FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE PETITIONER'S INCARCERATION IS IN VIOLATION
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 331. 

2.  A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ALLEGING FACTS SHOWING A CASE OF
INCARCERATION FOR A SERIOUS OFFENSE, RESULTING FROM A PLEA OF GUILTY
INTO THE MAKING OF WHICH THE PETITIONER, AN UNEDUCATED MAN UNAIDED BY
COUNSEL, WAS TRICKED BY STATE OFFICERS, STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 334. 

SMITH V. O'GRADY, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 633, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING AN APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED IN A NEBRASKA STATE COURT ALLEGED FACTS WHICH IF
PROVEN ENTITLED HIM TO RELEASE FROM PRISON BECAUSE HE WAS HELD PURSUANT
TO A COURT JUDGMENT RENDERED IN VIOLATION OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED HIM BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE TRIAL COURT DECLINED TO ISSUE THE WRIT,
HOLDING THAT THE PETITION FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION JUSTIFYING
THE RELIEF PRAYED.  WITHOUT REQUIRING THE STATE TO ANSWER AND WITHOUT
GIVING PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE HIS ALLEGATIONS, THE
APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED.  A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, SETTING OUT
ADDITIONAL FACTS, WAS SIMILARLY DISMISSED.  ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEBRASKA AFFIRMED, WITHOUT OPINION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT IS A FINAL AND
AUTHORITATIVE ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT HIS IMPRISONMENT
WAS ILLEGAL UNDER THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION OR LAWS.  BUT PETITIONER
ALSO CONTENDED THAT HIS IMPRISONMENT WAS ILLEGAL UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  AND IN DENYING THE WRIT THE NEBRASKA COURT NECESSARILY
HELD THAT PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS - EVEN IF PROVEN IN THEIR ENTIRETY -
WOULD NOT ENTITLE HIM TO HABEAS CORPUS, EVEN IF THE PETITION SHOWED A
DEPRIVATION OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS.  FN1  IT WAS TO REVIEW THIS
QUESTION THAT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  311 U.S. 633. 

BUT BEFORE EXAMINING THE PLEADINGS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
ALLEGATIONS SHOWED A DEPRIVATION OF FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS, IT IS
NECESSARY TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY CONTENTION URGED BY THE STATE.  THE
TENOR OF THIS CONTENTION IS THAT UNDER NEBRASKA LAW PETITIONER COULD
NOT HAVE HIS ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHTS DETERMINED IN HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS.  AND, SUPPORTING THIS CONTENTION, THERE IS IN THE RECORD A
LETTER TO PETITIONER FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE WHO ORIGINALLY DENIED THE
WRIT - A LETTER INDICATING THAT PETITIONER'S ONLY RELIEF FROM ILLEGAL
IMPRISONMENT WAS BY APPLICATION TO THE NEBRASKA PAROLE AND PARDON
BOARD.  THIS LETTER IS NOT, HOWEVER, A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, AND
APPARENTLY NO STATE STATUTES OR COURT DECISIONS COMPEL THE RESULT IT
INDICATES.  NOR CAN WE LIGHTLY ASSUME THAT NEBRASKA AFFORDS NO
CORRECTIVE PROCESS FOR ONE WHO IS IMPRISONED UNDER A JUDGMENT RENDERED
IN VIOLATION OF RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THAT
CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, AND "UPON THE STATE
COURTS, EQUALLY WITH THE COURTS OF THE UNION, RESTS THE OBLIGATION TO
GUARD AND ENFORCE EVERY RIGHT SECURED BY THAT CONSTITUTION."  FN2
MOREOVER, WHILE THE OPINIONS OF THE NEBRASKA COURTS DO NOT MARK CLEARLY
THE EXACT BOUNDARIES WITHIN WHICH NEBRASKA CONFINES THE HISTORIC REMEDY
OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE WRIT WAS
PROPERLY INVOKED TO OBTAIN RELEASE FROM IMPRISONMENT RESULTING FROM
DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  FN3  BECAUSE OF THIS, AND
BECAUSE A CONTRARY CONCLUSION WOULD APPARENTLY MEAN THAT NEBRASKA
PROVIDES NO JUDICIAL REMEDY WHATSOEVER FOR PETITIONER EVEN THOUGH HE
CAN SHOW HE IS IMPRISONED IN VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
COMMANDED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,  FN4  WE ARE UNABLE TO REACH THE
CONCLUSION THAT HABEAS CORPUS IS UNAVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER NEBRASKA
LAW. 

IT IS THEREFORE OUR DUTY TO EXAMINE PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS IN ORDER
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY SHOW THAT HIS IMPRISONMENT IS THE RESULT OF A
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED HIM BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE
HEART OF HIS CHARGE IS THAT HE, AN IGNORANT LAYMAN NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, WAS TRICKED INTO PLEADING GUILTY TO A SERIOUS OFFENSE.  AMONG
THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS ARE: 

PETITIONER, WITHOUT BEING INFORMED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, WAS
ARRESTED IN ONE COUNTY, AND THEN REMOVED TO ANOTHER COUNTY FOR TWO
DAYS.  THERE HE WAS TOLD HE WAS WANTED FOR BURGLARY IN A THIRD COUNTY
(VALLEY COUNTY), BUT WOULD BE DEALT WITH LENIENTLY IF HE WOULD PLEAD
GUILTY.  AFTER A LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND A MAN IDENTIFIED AS THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF VALLEY
COUNTY, A CONVERSATION ARRANGED AND LISTENED TO BY THE VALLEY COUNTY
SHERIFF, A SENTENCE OF NOT OVER THREE YEARS WAS AGREED UPON. 
PETITIONER WAS SOON THEREAFTER TRANSFERRED TO THE VALLEY COUNTY JAIL. 
HIS EFFORTS TO GET COPIES OF THE CHARGES FILED AGAINST HIM WERE
UNSUCCESSFUL, THE SHERIFF TELLING HIM THAT THIS WAS "NOT NECESSARY"
SINCE "EVERYTHING HAD BEEN 'FIXED.'"  AFTER THREE DAYS IN THE VALLEY
COUNTY JAIL, AND "WITHOUT EVER HAVING HAD A COPY OF THE CHARGE,"
PETITIONER WAS TAKEN BEFORE A TRIAL JUDGE, "SUMMARILY ARRAIGNED, AND,
UPON HIS PREARRANGED PLEA OF GUILTY, SENTENCED, TO HIS SURPRISE AND
CONSTERNATION, TO A TERM OF TWENTY YEARS IMPRISONMENT IN THE NEBRASKA
STATE PENITENTIARY."  PETITIONER, AN UNEDUCATED LAYMAN, HAD NO
KNOWLEDGE OF LAW OR LEGAL PROCEDURE, AND HAD NEVER BEFORE BEEN ARRESTED
OR BEEN IN A COURT ROOM FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER.  UPON IMPOSITION OF
THE TWENTY YEAR SENTENCE, HOWEVER, HE VIGOROUSLY PROTESTED, ASKED THE
COURT AND THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR A COPY OF THE CHARGE TO WHICH HE
HAD PLEADED GUILTY, AND, THIS REQUEST BEING REFUSED, ASKED PERMISSION
TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA OF GUILTY, REQUESTED APPOINTMENT OF AN ATTORNEY TO
ADVISE AND ASSIST HIM, AND ASKED THAT HE BE GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY
TO DEFEND HIMSELF.  ALL OF THESE REQUESTS WERE REFUSED BY THE COURT,
AND "WITHIN THE HOUR" HE WAS ON HIS WAY TO THE PENITENTIARY,
ACCOMPANIED BY THE SHERIFF.  AFTER ARRIVING AT THE PENITENTIARY HE
DISCOVERED "THAT HE HAD BEEN DUPED AND INVEIGLED INTO ENTERING A PLEA
OF GUILTY TO A CHARGE OF BURGLARY WITH EXPLOSIVES  ...  ," PUNISHABLE
IN NEBRASKA BY TWENTY YEARS TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT.  SIMPLE BURGLARY, TO
WHICH PETITIONER AGREED TO PLEAD GUILTY, UPON CONDITION THAT HE BE
SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS, CARRIES A PENALTY OF ONE TO TEN YEARS. 
DURING THE EIGHT YEARS PETITIONER HAS BEEN IN THE PENITENTIARY, HE HAS
DONE EVERYTHING AN UNEDUCATED PERSON COULD DO TO BRING HIS ILLEGAL
IMPRISONMENT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE NEBRASKA AUTHORITIES, BUT HAS NOT
BEEN ABLE TO GET COUNSEL BECAUSE OF LACK OF FUNDS.  HIS APPEALS TO THE
BOARD OF PARDONS HAVE BEEN FUTILE.  BECAUSE OF HIS IGNORANCE OF HIS
RIGHTS, AND BECAUSE OF THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO APPOINT, AND HIS
INABILITY TO OBTAIN, COUNSEL, THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS NOT APPEALED. 

THESE ALLEGATIONS, IF TRUE, UNDERMINE AND INVALIDATE THE JUDGMENT
UPON WHICH PETITIONER'S IMPRISONMENT RESTS.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH PETITIONER ASSERTS HE WAS ENTRAPPED AND IMPRISONED IN THE
PENITENTIARY ARE WHOLLY IRRECONCILABLE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARDS OF DUE PROCESS.  FOR HIS PETITION PRESENTS A PICTURE OF A
DEFENDANT, WITHOUT COUNSEL, BEWILDERED BY COURT PROCESSES STRANGE AND
UNFAMILIAR TO HIM, AND INVEIGLED BY FALSE STATEMENTS OF STATE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS INTO ENTERING A PLEA OF GUILTY.  THE PETITIONER
CHARGED THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED ANY REAL NOTICE OF THE TRUE NATURE OF
THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM, THE FIRST AND MOST UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED
REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS; THAT BECAUSE OF DECEPTION BY THE STATE'S
REPRESENTATIVES HE HAD PLEADED GUILTY TO A CHARGE PUNISHABLE BY TWENTY
YEARS TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT; THAT HIS REQUEST FOR THE BENEFIT AND ADVICE
OF COUNSEL HAD BEEN DENIED BY THE COURT; AND THAT HE HAD BEEN RUSHED TO
THE PENITENTIARY WHERE HIS IGNORANCE, CONFINEMENT AND POVERTY HAD
PRECLUDED THE POSSIBILITY OF HIS SECURING COUNSEL IN ORDER TO CHALLENGE
THE PROCEDURE BY REGULAR PROCESSES OF APPEAL.  IF THESE THINGS
HAPPENED, PETITIONER IS IMPRISONED UNDER A JUDGMENT INVALID BECAUSE
OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL GUARANTIES PROTECTED AGAINST STATE
INVASION THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN5  THE STATE COURT
ERRONEOUSLY DECIDED THAT THE PETITION STATED NO CAUSE OF ACTION.  IF
PETITIONER CAN PROVE HIS ALLEGATIONS THE JUDGMENT UPON WHICH HIS
IMPRISONMENT RESTS WAS RENDERED IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND CANNOT
STAND.  REVERSED AND REMANDED. 

FN1  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT'S FINAL JUDGMENT
OF AFFIRMANCE RESTED ON PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO FILE A PRINTED BRIEF IN
THAT COURT, AND THAT THIS WAS AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND,
PRECLUDING OUR REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION RAISED.  BUT THIS
CONTENTION IS OBVIOUSLY NOT SOUND, BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT DENIED
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE RULE REQUIRING PRINTED BRIEFS
SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT UPON EXAMINATION OF THE WHOLE RECORD THE
COURT HAD FOUND THE APPEAL TO BE WITHOUT MERIT. 

FN2  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, 113. 

FN3  IN RE RESLER, 115 NEB. 335, 338-340; 212 N.W. 765.  AND SEE
KUWITZKY V. O'GRADY, 135 NEB. 466, 468; 282 N.W. 396.  CF. DARLING V.
FENTON, 120 NEB. 829; 235 N.W. 582. 

FN4  SEE NEWCOMB V. STATE, 129 NEB. 69; 261 N.W. 765. 

FN5  CF. WALKER V. JOHNSTON, ANTE, P. 275; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304
U.S. 458; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103.  AND SEE CHAMBERS V.
FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227. 
..END :
















BROWDER V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 335 


NO. 287.  ARGUED JANUARY 16, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1941.  - 113
F.2D 97, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY USES A
UNITED STATES PASSPORT WHICH WAS SECURED BY A FALSE STATEMENT, IS
GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE PASSPORT TITLE OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 15, 1917, WHEN THE USE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING HIS
IDENTITY AND CITIZENSHIP AND CONSEQUENT RIGHT TO REENTER THIS COUNTRY
FROM ABROAD.  P. 337. 

2.  THE TERM "WILLFUL" OFTEN DENOTES AN INTENTIONAL, AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM AN ACCIDENTAL, ACT.  P. 342. 

BROWDER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 631, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A SENTENCE ON
TWO COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE USE BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN OF A PASSPORT
OBTAINED BY FALSE STATEMENTS TO FACILITATE REENTRY INTO THE UNITED
STATES IS A "USE" WITHIN SEC. 2 OF THE PASSPORT TITLE OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 15, 1917,  FN1  AND, IF SO, WHETHER PETITIONER WAS PROPERLY
CONVICTED OF A "WILLFUL" USE.  WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE OF ITS
IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PASSPORT LAWS. 

IN AN APPLICATION FOR A PASSPORT OR "SHALL WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY USE
...  ANY PASSPORT THE ISSUE OF WHICH WAS SECURED IN ANY WAY BY REASON
OF ANY FALSE STATEMENT, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $2,000 OR
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR BOTH."  THE INDICTMENT IN TWO
COUNTS CHARGED THAT PETITIONER, HAVING SECURED A PASSPORT BY A FALSE
STATEMENT, WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY USED IT ON APRIL 30, 1937, AND AGAIN
ON FEBRUARY 15, 1938, EACH TIME BY PRESENTING IT TO AN IMMIGRATION
INSPECTOR TO GAIN ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.  THE PROOF SHOWED THAT
PETITIONER, A NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN, HAD IN 1921, 1927 AND 1931
OBTAINED PASSPORTS UNDER DIFFERENT ASSUMED NAMES BY MEANS OF FALSE
STATEMENTS.  IN 1934 PETITIONER APPLIED FOR A PASSPORT IN HIS OWN
NAME.  THE APPLICATION BLANK CONTAINED THE CLAUSE:  "MY LAST PASSPORT
WAS OBTAINED FROM .................. AND IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR
CANCELLATION."  DESPITE THE THREE PASSPORTS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED TO HIM,
PETITIONER WROTE "NONE" IN THE BLANK SPACE, THEN SIGNED THE APPLICATION
AND SWORE TO THE TRUTH OF ITS CONTENTS.  THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED HIM A
PASSPORT, WHICH WAS LATER EXTENDED UPON A RENEWAL APPLICATION UNTIL
SEPTEMBER 1, 1938.  RETURNING FROM EUROPE IN APRIL, 1937, AND AGAIN IN
FEBRUARY, 1938, PETITIONER SHOWED HIS PASSPORT TO AN INSPECTOR TO
IDENTIFY HIMSELF AND ESTABLISH HIS CITIZENSHIP AND CONSEQUENT RIGHT TO
REENTER THE UNITED STATES.  THE JURY CONVICTED HIM ON BOTH COUNTS FOR
WILLFULLY USING A PASSPORT SECURED BY A FALSE STATEMENT, AND THE
DISTRICT COURT SENTENCED HIM TO TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT AND A FINE OF
$1,000 ON EACH COUNT, THE TERMS TO RUN CONSECUTIVELY.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN2  AT THE TIME OF THE INDICTMENT, THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN ON THE OBTAINING OF THE PASSPORT BY A
FALSE STATEMENT (18 U.S.C. SEC. 582). 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE INDICTMENT IS FOR THE "USE" "OF A
PASSPORT AS TRUTHFUL PROOF OF HIS KANSAS BIRTH."  SINCE THE "USE" TO
PROVE AN ADMITTED FACT - HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP - WAS INNOCENT, IT IS
URGED, NO STATUTORY PROHIBITION WAS VIOLATED.  THE INDICTMENT, HOWEVER,
CHARGES THAT PETITIONER "USED  ...  A PASSPORT  ...  THE ISSUE OF WHICH
HE SECURED BY REASON OF A FALSE STATEMENT  ...  IN THE APPLICATION
THEREFOR."  THE LANGUAGE OF THE INDICTMENT CONFORMS TO THE DEFINITION
OF THE OFFENSE IN THE STATUTE, AS THE USE OF "ANY PASSPORT THE ISSUE OF
WHICH WAS SECURED IN ANY WAY BY REASON OF ANY FALSE STATEMENT."  THE
BALANCED FORM OF SEC. 2, QUOTED ABOVE AT NOTE 1, SHOWS THAT THE
CONGRESS VIEWED WITH CONCERN AND PUNISHED WITH EQUAL SEVERITY THE
SECURING OF PASSPORTS BY FALSE STATEMENTS AND THEIR USE.  THE CRIMES
DENOUNCED ARE NOT THE SECURING OR THE USE BUT EITHER OF SUCH ACTIONS
MADE CRIMINAL ONLY BY THE FALSE STATEMENTS IN THE PROCUREMENT OF THE
PASSPORT.  IF THE MISREPRESENTATION IS WITHDRAWN NOTHING CULPABLE
REMAINS IN THE USE.  A CONDEMNED USE OF A PASSPORT SECURED BY THE FRAUD
SEEMS OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE ACT. 

A MORE DIFFICULT ISSUE EMERGES FROM PETITIONER'S ASSERTION THAT THE
USE PROVEN HERE IS NOT THE KIND OF USE COVERED BY THE STATUTE.  HE
FINDS THE PROHIBITIONS DIRECTED AGAINST "DISHONEST USES OF THE SAFE
CONDUCT OF THE UNITED STATES IN FOREIGN RELATIONS."  SUCH USE MUST BE
"WILLFUL AND KNOWING," AN EXPRESSION SAID TO BEAR THE CONNOTATION OF
EVIL OR DISHONEST.  ATTENTION IS CALLED TO ALLEGED PASSPORT FRAUDS OF
ABOUT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE PASSPORT SECTIONS AND TO THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT CONGRESS PASS LEGISLATION
AGAINST THE FRAUDULENT USE OF PASSPORTS.  FN3  THESE ARE BROUGHT
FORWARD AS INDICATIVE OF THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO PUNISH FRAUDULENT
USES OR THOSE USES ABROAD WHICH WOULD INVOLVE MISUSE OF THE PRIVILEGE,
UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, OF TRAVELING THROUGH FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 

IT IS QUITE TRUE THAT PASSPORTS ARE USED CHIEFLY IN FOREIGN TRAVEL. 
THERE IS NO LIMITATION, HOWEVER, TO THAT FIELD AND SURELY THE CLOSE
CONNECTION BETWEEN FOREIGN TRAVEL AND REENTRY TO THIS COUNTRY IS
OBVIOUS.  THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE WORDS OF THE ACT COVERS THIS USE. 
NO SINGLE ARGUMENT HAS MORE WEIGHT IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION THAN
THIS.  FN4  NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS BROUGHT TO OUR
ATTENTION WHICH INDICATES ANY OTHER PURPOSE IN CONGRESS THAN THAT
EXPRESSED BY THE WORDS OF THE ACT.  THE FINAL FORM OF THE ENACTMENT DID
NOT VARY IN THIS PARTICULAR PORTION FROM THE BILL ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED
N5.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT URGE THAT EVERY USE OF A FRAUDULENT
PASSPORT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT BUT ONLY THOSE "USES IN CONNECTION
WITH TRAVEL WHICH ARE A PART OF THE ORDINARY INCENTIVES FOR OBTAINING
PASSPORTS."  CERTAINLY THE USE TO PROVE CITIZENSHIP ON REENTRY TO THE
COUNTRY IS WITHIN THE ORDINARY INCENTIVES.  FN6  IT IS ENTIRELY CLEAR
FROM THE RECORD THAT PASSPORTS WERE CUSTOMARILY USED TO PROVE THE
BEARER'S CITIZENSHIP ON REENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF
THIS ALLEGED OFFENSE.  THE USE OF A PASSPORT FOR REENTRY IS NOW
ROUTINE, ALTHOUGH NEITHER AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT NOR AT
PRESENT ARE PASSPORTS REQUIRED OF CITIZENS ON REENTRY.  OUR CONCLUSION
IS NOT WEAKENED BY THE FACT THAT THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1918,  FN7  WHICH
REQUIRED CITIZENS TO USE PASSPORTS TO DEPART FROM OR ENTER THE UNITED
STATES, WAS PERMITTED TO EXPIRE AFTER THE WAR EMERGENCY.  WHILE
PASSPORTS NO LONGER WERE REQUIRED FOR REENTRY, THEIR USE FOR THAT
PURPOSE AFTERWARDS BECAME BOTH CONVENIENT AND CUSTOMARY. 

THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT, PASSPORTS WERE
NOT CUSTOMARILY USED BY CITIZENS TO ASSURE EASY REENTRY IS BROUGHT
FORWARD BY PETITIONER TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND TO PUNISH USES SUCH AS THE ONE CHARGED HERE.  THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS CONSIDERED THE
QUESTION OF USE BY RETURNING CITIZENS.  OLD CRIMES, HOWEVER, MAY BE
COMMITTED UNDER NEW CONDITIONS.  OLD LAWS APPLY TO CHANGED SITUATIONS. 
FN8  THE REACH OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINED OR OPPOSED BY THE FACT THAT
IT IS SOUGHT TO BRING NEW SITUATIONS UNDER ITS TERMS.  FN9  WHILE A
STATUTE SPEAKS FROM ITS ENACTMENT, EVEN A CRIMINAL STATUTE EMBRACES
EVERYTHING WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY FALLS WITHIN ITS SCOPE.  FN10  THE USE
HERE CHARGED UNDER THESE TESTS WAS CLEARLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
ACT.  THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT WAS TO PUNISH THE USE OF PASSPORTS
OBTAINED BY FALSE STATEMENTS. 

THERE IS THE FURTHER CONTENTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSTRUCTION OF
THE WORD "USE" WOULD MAKE CRIMINAL, UNDER OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT,
THE PRESENTATION OF EXPIRED PASSPORTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING
CITIZENS RETURNING FROM MEXICO, BERMUDA AND CANADA.  PETITIONER URGES
THAT SUCH USES, THOUGH FREQUENT AND APPARENTLY ACQUIESCED IN BY THE
AUTHORITIES, WOULD THEN VIOLATE SEC. 3, WHICH PROHIBITS A USE "IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS THEREIN CONTAINED," AND
ALSO SEC. 4, WHICH PROHIBITS THE USE OF A PASSPORT "VALIDLY ISSUED
WHICH HAS BECOME VOID BY THE OCCURRENCE OF ANY CONDITION THEREIN
PRESCRIBED INVALIDATING THE SAME."  THE QUESTION OF THE MEANING OF
OTHER SECTIONS IS NOT BEFORE US.  CONSIDERED SOLELY FROM THE STANDPOINT
OF THEIR ANALOGY TO SEC. 2, THE USE OF EXPIRED PASSPORTS TO IDENTIFY
THE HOLDER SEEMS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE USE OF A PASSPORT OBTAINED
BY FALSE STATEMENTS.  THE VICE IN THE LATTER IS CONGENITAL.  ITS
WILLFUL USE IS PROHIBITED. 

PETITIONER POINTS OUT, HOWEVER, THAT THE USE MUST BE "WILLFULLY AND
KNOWINGLY."  IN HIS VIEW THIS MEANS A USE WHICH IS DISHONEST IN
ADDITION TO OR APART FROM THE DISHONESTY IN OBTAINING THE PASSPORT, AND
WHICH IS IN ITSELF EVIL "AS THE USE OF A PASSPORT TO INVOKE
FRAUDULENTLY THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES ABROAD."  FURTHER IT
IS SAID THIS EVIL MUST BE THE KIND OF EVIL WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND
INTENDMENT OF THE ACT.  BUT THE STATUTE PLAINLY DOES NOT PURPORT TO
PUNISH FRAUDULENT OR DISHONEST USE OTHER THAN SUCH AS IS INVOLVED IN
THE USE OF A PASSPORT DISHONESTLY OBTAINED.  NONE OF ITS WORDS SUGGEST
THAT FRAUDULENT USE IS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME.  THE STATUTE IS AIMED
AT THE PROTECTION OF THE INTEGRITY OF UNITED STATES PASSPORTS.  IT
PENALIZES BOTH PROCURING THE PASSPORT BY A FALSE STATEMENT AND ITS USE
WHEN SO PROCURED.  THE CRIME OF "USE" IS COMPLETE WHEN THE PASSPORT SO
OBTAINED IS USED WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY. 

READ IN ITS CONTEXT THE PHRASE "WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY," AS THE
TRIAL COURT CHARGED THE JURY, CAN BE TAKEN ONLY AS MEANING
"DELIBERATELY AND WITH KNOWLEDGE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH IS MERELY
CARELESS OR NEGLIGENT OR INADVERTENT."  NO EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN TO THIS
INSTRUCTION.  THE POINT AT ISSUE ARISES BECAUSE A MOTION WAS DENIED TO
DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT "THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE IS
FATALLY DEFECTIVE IN THAT IT LACKS THE MOST ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF THE
ENTIRE CASE; NAMELY, THE CRIMINAL INTENT OF THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME
OF THE ALLEGED ACT"; THAT THERE IS "NO PROOF THAT THERE WAS A KNOWING
AND WILLFUL USE TO GAIN ENTRY."  PETITIONER RELIES UPON UNITED STATES
V. MURDOCK.  FN11  THAT CASE AFFIRMED A REVERSAL OF CONVICTION FOR A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 1114(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 AND A LIKE SECTION
OF THE 1928 ACT.  THESE SECTIONS MADE IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR A TAXPAYER
TO "WILLFULLY" FAIL TO SUPPLY INFORMATION IN REGARD TO INCOME.  THE
TAXPAYER REFUSED THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND OF PRIVILEGE FROM FEAR
OF SELF-INCRIMINATION.  AT THE TIME THE LAW UPON THE POINT WAS
UNCERTAIN.  THIS REASONABLE FEAR, THIS COURT HELD, ENTITLED THE
TAXPAYER TO REQUESTED INSTRUCTION ON HIS GOOD FAITH IN REFUSING TO
ANSWER.  THIS CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE
CLAIM HERE OF A RIGHT TO USE A PASSPORT OBTAINED BY FALSE
REPRESENTATION, CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS WORDS OF THE STATUTE, BECAUSE
THERE WAS NO ULTERIOR EVIL PURPOSE IN MIND.  THE MURDOCK OPINION
RECOGNIZES, P. 394, THAT THE WORD "WILLFUL" OFTEN DENOTES AN
INTENTIONAL AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN ACCIDENTAL ACT.  ONCE THE BASIC
WRONG UNDER THIS PASSPORT STATUTE IS COMPLETED, THAT IS THE SECURING OF
A PASSPORT BY A FALSE STATEMENT, ANY INTENTIONAL USE OF THAT PASSPORT
IN TRAVEL IS PUNISHABLE. 

OTHER SUGGESTIONS AS A BASIS FOR REVERSAL ARE MADE.  THESE DO NOT
REQUIRE PARTICULAR COMMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  40 STAT. 217, 227, TITLE IX: 

"SEC. 2.  WHOEVER SHALL WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY MAKE ANY FALSE
STATEMENT IN AN APPLICATION FOR PASSPORT WITH INTENT TO INDUCE OR
SECURE THE ISSUANCE OF A PASSPORT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES, EITHER FOR HIS OWN USE OR THE USE OF ANOTHER, CONTRARY TO THE
LAWS REGULATING THE ISSUANCE OF PASSPORTS OR THE RULES PRESCRIBED
PURSUANT TO SUCH LAWS, OR WHOEVER SHALL WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY USE OR
ATTEMPT TO USE, OR FURNISH TO ANOTHER FOR USE, ANY PASSPORT THE ISSUE
OF WHICH WAS SECURED IN ANY WAY BY REASON OF ANY FALSE STATEMENT, SHALL
BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $2,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR
BOTH." 

BY THE ACT OF MARCH 28, 1940, THE MAXIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT UNDER
THIS SECTION WAS INCREASED TO TEN YEARS.  54 STAT. 80. 

FN2  113 F.2D 97. 

FN3  REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1916), P. 17. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, 310 U.S. 534,
543. 

FN5  H.R. 291, 65TH CONG. 

FN6  SINCE 1929, THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS CARRIED SUBSTANTIALLY THE
FOLLOWING SUGGESTION IN ITS "NOTICE TO BEARERS OF PASSPORTS":  "22.  AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN LEAVING THE UNITED STATES FOR A COUNTRY WHERE
PASSPORTS ARE NOT REQUIRED IS NEVERTHELESS ADVISED TO CARRY A PASSPORT,
EXCEPT IN TRAVEL TO CANADA OR MEXICO.  THE PASSPORT MAY LATER SAVE THE
TIME AND INCONVENIENCE OF APPLYING FOR ONE ABROAD SHOULD THE HOLDER
DESIRE TO TRAVEL IN COUNTRIES WHERE PASSPORTS ARE REQUIRED.  IT WILL
ALSO ENABLE THE HOLDER TO ESTABLISH HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP UPON HIS
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES AND THUS FACILITATE HIS ENTRY.  AMERICAN
CITIZENS WHO LEAVE THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT PASSPORTS SHOULD CARRY
WITH THEM PROOF OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP, SUCH AS BIRTH, BAPTISM, OR
NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATES." 

FN7  40 STAT. 559. 

FN8  CF. CAIN V. BOWLBY, 114 F.2D 519, 522, AND CASES AND INSTANCES
THERE CITED; MAXWELL, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, (7TH ED. 1929) PP. 69
70. 

FN9  NEWMAN V. ARTHUR, 109 U.S. 132, 138; PICKHARDT V. MERRITT, 132
U.S. 252, 257; DE LIMA V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 1, 197. 

FN10  STATE V. BUTLER, 42 N.M. 271, 274; 76 P.2D 1149; COMMONWEALTH
V. TILLEY, 28 N.E.2D 245(MASS.); PEOPLE V. HINES, 284 N.Y. 93, 104; 29
N.E.2D 483.    FN11  290 U.S. 389, 394. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



WARSZOWER V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 342 


NO. 338.  ARGUED JANUARY 16, 17, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1941.  -
113 F.2D 100, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WILLFULLY AND KNOWINGLY USES A
UNITED STATES PASSPORT WHICH WAS SECURED BY A FALSE STATEMENT, IS
GUILTY OF AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE PASSPORT TITLE OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 15, 1917, WHEN THE USE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING HIS
IDENTITY AND CITIZENSHIP AND CONSEQUENT RIGHT TO REENTER THIS COUNTRY
FROM ABROAD.  BROWDER V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 335.  P. 343. 

2.  EVIDENCE CONSISTING OF A SHIP'S MANIFEST OF INCOMING UNITED
STATES CITIZENS WITH THEIR NAMES AND THE NUMBERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
PASSPORTS, AND THE TESTIMONY OF AN IMMIGRATION INSPECTOR AS TO HIS
PRACTICE OF EXAMINING THE PASSPORTS IN SUCH CASES, CHECKING THEIR
NUMBERS WITH THOSE ON THE MANIFEST,  - HELD SUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE
JURY ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PRISONER PRESENTED HIS PASSPORT ON
ENTERING THE COUNTRY.  P. 344. 

3.  STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY AN ACCUSED BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME CHARGED AND WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH HIS INNOCENCE ARE
ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE WITHOUT CORROBORATIVE PROOF.  P. 347. 

WARSZOWER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 631, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A SENTENCE
UNDER AN INDICTMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS SIMILAR TO BROWDER V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 335.  THIS
PETITIONER ALSO WAS INDICTED FOR THE USE OF A PASSPORT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ENTERING THE UNITED STATES, WHICH PASSPORT HAD BEEN SECURED BY FALSE
STATEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION FOR ITS ISSUE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE CONTENTION THAT THIS USE OF THE PASSPORT WAS NOT
PROHIBITED BY SEC. 2, TITLE IX OF THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, AND BECAUSE
OF A CONFLICT ON A RULE OF EVIDENCE, REFERRED TO BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS. 

THE FALSE STATEMENTS CHARGED WERE WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S NAME,
CITIZENSHIP, PLACE OF BIRTH AND RESIDENCE ABROAD AND THE USE RELIED
UPON WAS THE PRESENTATION OF THE PASSPORT TO AN IMMIGRATION INSPECTOR. 
A JURY CONVICTED PETITIONER, A SENTENCE OF TWO YEARS WAS IMPOSED AND
THAT JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN1 

AS GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL PETITIONER URGES (1) THAT THE PRESENTATION OF
A WRONGFULLY HELD PASSPORT TO AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER UPON LANDING IS
NOT A USE WITHIN THE STATUTE; (2) THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE USE WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY; AND (3)
THAT CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY THE USE OF ADMISSIONS BEFORE THE CRIME,
WITHOUT CORROBORATION, TO ESTABLISH NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGE. 

NOTHING NEED BE ADDED TO THE DISCUSSION IN THE BROWDER CASE OF THE
ILLEGALITY OF THIS USE.  THERE ARE NO MARKS OF DIFFERENTIATION. 

PROOF OF PRESENTATION.  - PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT THE PROOF OF
PRESENTATION OF THE PASSPORT WAS INSUFFICIENT RESTS UPON THE TESTIMONY
OF THE INSPECTOR, WHICH WAS BASED ON THE MANIFEST OF UNITED STATES
CITIZENS ARRIVING ON THE S.S. NORMANDIE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1937.  THE
MANIFEST CONTAINS A LIST OF NAMES, ACCOMPANIED BY PASSPORT NUMBERS AND
OTHER INFORMATION.  NEXT TO EACH NAME APPEARS A CHECK MARK BY THE
INSPECTOR.  THE LIST INCLUDES "ROBERT WIENER," THE HOLDER OF PASSPORT
NO. 332,207, WHICH IS THE PASSPORT ISSUED TO PETITIONER.  THE INSPECTOR
TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THE ARRIVAL OF
THIS ROBERT WIENER, BUT THAT FROM LOOKING AT THE MANIFEST HE COULD SAY
THAT THE PASSPORT HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO HIM, BECAUSE "IT IS MY
INVARIABLE PRACTICE WHEN THE NUMBER OF THE PASSPORT APPEARS ON THE
MANIFEST TO ASK FOR THAT PASSPORT AND HAVE IT SHOWN TO ME  ...  BY THE
PASSENGER."  ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THE INSPECTOR STATED THAT HE HIMSELF
DID NOT MAKE ANY WRITING ON THE MANIFEST AS TO WHAT THE PEOPLE SHOWED
HIM.  THIS COLLOQUY THEN OCCURRED: 

"THE COURT.  ...  DO YOU MAKE ANY ENTRY ON THE MANIFEST WHEN A MAN
IDENTIFIES HIMSELF AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN? 

THE WITNESS.  THE WHOLE MANIFEST IS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS. 

THE COURT.  AND WHEN THE MAN PRESENTED HIS PASSPORT WHAT DID YOU DO? 

THE WITNESS.  THAT CHECK MARK SHOWS HE WAS ADMITTED AS A UNITED
STATES CITIZEN. 

THE COURT.  ON A PASSPORT? 

THE WITNESS.  NOT NECESSARILY. 

THE COURT.  CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER HE HAD A PASSPORT? 

THE WITNESS.  FROM THE FACT THE NUMBER OF THE PASSPORT APPEARS
THERE. 

Q. AND YOU CHECKED - 

MR. FOWLER.  THAT IS OBJECTED TO. 

Q. DID YOU CHECK THE INFORMATION ON THE MANIFEST WITH INFORMATION IN
THE PASSPORT? 

A. THAT IS CORRECT." 

THE PETITIONER ASKS REVERSAL BECAUSE OF THE ANSWER "NOT NECESSARILY,"
CONTENDING THIS SHOWS THAT THE CHECK MARK DID NOT INESCAPABLY INDICATE
THE PRESENTATION OF A PASSPORT.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE CHECK
MARK WAS INTENDED MERELY TO SHOW ADMISSION AS A CITIZEN AND THAT THE
LANGUAGE DOES NOT NULLIFY OR INDEED IMPUGN THE DIRECT ASSERTIONS OF THE
INSPECTOR.  WE ARE CLEAR THAT THIS TESTIMONY AS A WHOLE JUSTIFIED THE
SUBMISSION TO THE JURY AT ANY RATE AND ITS CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER
ACTUALLY USED HIS PASSPORT IN SECURING ADMISSION TO THIS COUNTRY. 

CORROBORATION OF ADMISSIONS.  - THE PROSECUTION HAD THE BURDEN OF
PROVING THAT THE PASSPORT WAS OBTAINED BY THE USE OF FALSE STATEMENTS. 
AS THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY IT MIGHT CONVICT IF ANY ONE OF
THE STATEMENTS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT TO BE FALSE WAS FOUND FALSE,
IT IS NECESSARY BEFORE AFFIRMANCE IS JUSTIFIED TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE
WAS ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE OF FALSITY AS TO EACH OF
THE STATEMENTS.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT AS TO THE ALLEGEDLY FALSE
STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND NO PRIOR RESIDENCE OUTSIDE THE
UNITED STATES, THERE WAS NO PROOF OF FALSITY EXCEPT ADMISSIONS TO THE
CONTRARY MADE BY PETITIONER PRIOR TO THE USE OF THE PASSPORT.  SUCH
ADMISSIONS, IT IS URGED, REQUIRE CORROBORATION.  THIS ARGUMENT IS DRAWN
FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF CORROBORATION AS TO CONFESSIONS AFTER THE
CRIME.  FN2  AS A COROLLARY, IT IS SAID THAT THE CORROBORATION MUST
REACH TO EACH ELEMENT OF THE CORPUS DELICTI.  FN3 

TO ESTABLISH THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THAT HE HAD RESIDED ABROAD, THE GOVERNMENT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING
PROOF:  THE MANIFEST OF ALIEN PASSENGERS OF THE S. S. HAVERFORD, WHICH
ARRIVED AT PHILADELPHIA ON MARCH 27, 1914, STATED THAT WELWEL
WARSZOWER, AGE 21, WAS A CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF RUSSIA, WHOSE LAST
PERMANENT RESIDENCE WAS IN VIKOLSK, RUSSIA, WHERE HIS FATHER LIVED;
THAT HE HAD NEVER BEEN IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE; AND THAT HE HAD
BEEN BORN IN RADAJENKO, RUSSIA.  ALTHOUGH THE OFFICER WHO HAD EXAMINED
WARSZOWER ON THIS OCCASION WAS DEAD, THE BOARDING OFFICER TESTIFIED IT
WAS THE PRACTICE TO CHECK ALL ANSWERS ON THE MANIFEST WITH THE ALIEN
PERSONALLY BEFORE ALLOWING HIM TO ENTER.  THREE YEARS LATER, ON JUNE 5,
1917, PETITIONER REGISTERED FOR THE DRAFT UNDER THE NAME OF WILLIAM
WEINER"; HE STATED HE WAS AN ALIEN BORN IN RUSSIA ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1893,
AND A CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF RUSSIA.  PETITIONER FURNISHED THE SAME
INFORMATION IN A DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNED ON DECEMBER 31, 1917,
WHERE HE ALSO STATED THAT HE SPOKE RUSSIAN, THAT HE ARRIVED IN THIS
COUNTRY AT PHILADELPHIA ON MARCH 28, 1914, ON THE S.S. HAVERFORD, THAT
HIS PARENTS HAD NOT BEEN NATURALIZED, THAT HE HAD NOT TAKEN OUT FIRST
PAPERS, AND THAT HE WAS WILLING TO RETURN TO RUSSIA AND ENTER ITS
MILITARY SERVICE.  IN 1932, PREPARATORY TO TRAVELING ABROAD, PETITIONER
APPLIED FOR A REENTRY PERMIT, WHICH IS REQUIRED ONLY OF ALIENS.  TO
SUPPORT HIS APPLICATION HE SHOWED THE INSPECTION CARD ISSUED TO HIM IN
1914 UPON HIS ARRIVAL IN PHILADELPHIA, AND STATED THAT HE WAS BORN ON
SEPTEMBER 5, 1893, AT KIEV, RUSSIA, WHICH WAS HIS LAST PERMANENT
RESIDENCE BEFORE HIS ARRIVAL IN PHILADELPHIA.  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO
SHOWED THAT PETITIONER HAD NEVER APPLIED FOR NATURALIZATION UNDER HIS
OWN NAME, OR THE NAMES "WEINER" OR "WIENER," WHICH HE ON OCCASION
USED.  IN HIS 1936 APPLICATION FOR A PASSPORT IN THE NAME OF ROBERT
WILLIAM WIENER, PETITIONER SUBMITTED A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF AN ENTRY
IN THE ATLANTIC CITY BIRTH RECORDS THAT A PERSON OF THAT NAME WAS BORN
THERE SEPTEMBER 5, 1896, BUT AT THE TRIAL THE GOVERNMENT PROVED THE
ENTRY A FORGERY. 

THE RULE REQUIRING CORROBORATION OF CONFESSIONS PROTECTS THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AGAINST ERRORS IN CONVICTIONS BASED
UPON UNTRUE CONFESSIONS ALONE.  WHERE THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENT WAS
MADE PRIOR TO THE CRIME THIS DANGER DOES NOT EXIST.  FN4  THEREFORE WE
ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH ADMISSIONS DO NOT NEED TO BE CORROBORATED. 
THEY CONTAIN NONE OF THE INHERENT WEAKNESSES OF CONFESSIONS OR
ADMISSIONS AFTER THE FACT.  CASES IN THE CIRCUITS ARE CITED BY
PETITIONER TO THE CONTRARY.  IN GULOTTA V. UNITED STATES,  FN5  THE
DECISION TURNED ON THE SIMILARITY OF CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS RATHER
THAN UPON ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADMISSIONS BEFORE AND AFTER THE
FACT.  IN DUNCAN V. UNITED STATES  FN6  AND IN GORDNIER V. UNITED
STATES  FN7 THE CONCLUSION WAS REACHED WITHOUT ANY COMMENT UPON THIS
DIFFERENCE.  OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECT OF ADMISSIONS PRIOR TO THE
CRIME LEADS US TO THE OTHER CONCLUSION.  FN8 

THE LAW REQUIRES THAT A JURY BE CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT.  AN UNCORROBORATED CONFESSION OR EVIDENCE OF
PERJURY, GIVEN BY ONE WITNESS ONLY,  FN9  DOES NOT AS A MATTER OF LAW
ESTABLISH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, BUT
THESE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE NORMAL REQUIREMENT THAT DISPUTED QUESTIONS
OF FACT ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY UNDER APPROPRIATE
INSTRUCTIONS.  IN THIS CASE THE EARLIER STATEMENTS OF BIRTH AND
THEREFORE NECESSARILY OF RESIDENCE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, IF
BELIEVED BY THE JURY, PROVE THE FALSITY OF THE STATEMENTS TO THE
CONTRARY IN THE APPLICATION.  WHERE THE CRIME CHARGED IS A FALSE
STATEMENT AND WHERE IT FINDS ITS ONLY PROOF IN ADMISSIONS TO THE
CONTRARY PRIOR TO THE ACT SET OUT IN THE INDICTMENT, IT MAY BE UNLIKELY
THAT A JURY WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE FALSITY OF THE LATER STATEMENT IS
PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT SUCH EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES
SUBMISSION OF THE QUESTION TO THEM. 

IN THIS PRESENT CASE THERE WAS OTHER EVIDENCE OF THE FALSITY OF THE
DISPUTED STATEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION.  THE MANIFEST OF THE S. S.
HAVERFORD SHOWED PETITIONER'S ARRIVAL AND CLASSIFICATION AS AN ALIEN AT
PHILADELPHIA IN 1914.  THE FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE ADDS TO THE PROOF
OF FOREIGN BIRTH BY SHOWING AN EFFORT TO ESTABLISH AMERICAN NATIVITY BY
FALSE MEANS, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S PROOF OF THE ABSENCE OF ANY ATTEMPT
AT NATURALIZATION SUPPORTS THE ALLEGATION OF FALSE STATEMENT AS TO
CITIZENSHIP.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  113 F.2D 100. 

FN2  WHARTON, CRIMINAL LAW (12TH ED.)  SECS.  357, 359; DAECHE V.
UNITED STATES, 250 F. 566; WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (3RD ED.)  SECS.  2070-71;
CHAMBERLAYNE, MODERN LAW OF EVIDENCE SEC. 1598; UNDERHILL, CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE (4TH ED.)  P. 42. 

FN3  CF. FORTE V. UNITED STATES, 68 APP. D.C. 111; 94 F.2D 236. 

FN4  WIGMORE, SUPRA. 

FN5  113 F.2D 683. 

FN6  68 F.2D 136. 

FN7  261 F. 910. 

FN8  CF. MILES V. UNITED STATES, 103 U.S. 304. 

FN9  PHAIR V. UNITED STATES, 60 F.2D 953.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
HARRIS, 311 U.S. 292. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



TRADE COMM'N V. BUNTE BROS., 312 U.S. 349 


NO. 85.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1941.  - 110
F.2D 412, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 5 OF
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT TO PREVENT A CANDY MANUFACTURER WITHIN
A STATE FROM SELLING, WHOLLY WITHIN THAT STATE, CANDY IN SO-CALLED
"BREAK AND TAKE" ASSORTMENTS.  P. 350. 

2.  SUCH SELLING IS NOT A METHOD OF COMPETITION "IN (INTERSTATE)
COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, EVEN THOUGH IT BE IN COMPETITION WITH
AND AFFECT THE SALES OF OUT-OF-STATE MANUFACTURERS WHO ARE BARRED FROM
SELLING "BREAK AND TAKE" ASSORTMENTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS AN
UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION.  P. 351. 

3.  THE PHRASE "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN (INTERSTATE)
COMMERCE," AS USED IN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, IS NOT TO BE
CONSTRUED AS THOUGH IT MEANT "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN ANY WAY
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  P. 355. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BUNTE BROTHERS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 624, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FOUND THAT BUNTE BROTHERS, CANDY
MANUFACTURERS IN ILLINOIS, SOLD PRODUCTS THERE IN WHAT THE TRADE CALLS
"BREAK AND TAKE" PACKAGES, WHICH MAKES THE AMOUNT THE PURCHASER
RECEIVES DEPENDENT UPON CHANCE; AND THAT THEREBY IT WAS ENABLED IN THE
ILLINOIS MARKET TO COMPETE UNFAIRLY WITH MANUFACTURERS OUTSIDE OF
ILLINOIS WHO COULD NOT INDULGE IN THIS DEVICE BECAUSE THE TRADE
COMMISSION HAS BARRED "BREAK AND TAKE" PACKAGES AS AN "UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION."  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, SEC. 5(A), 38 STAT. 719,
AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 45, FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. KEPPEL & BRO.,
291 U.S. 304.  DEEMING THE "BREAK AND TAKE" SALES UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION UNDER SEC. 5, EVEN THOUGH THE SALES TOOK PLACE WHOLLY
WITHIN ILLINOIS, THE COMMISSION FORBADE BUNTE BROTHERS FURTHER USE OF
THE DEVICE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE THE ORDER, 110 F.2D
412, AND WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE BECAUSE THE ISSUE AT STAKE PRESENTS
AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THE INTERPLAY OF STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITY. 
311 U.S. 624. 

THE SCOPE OF SEC. 5 IS IN CONTROVERSY.  FN1  THAT SECTION, THE COURT
BELOW HELD, AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO PROCEED ONLY AGAINST BUSINESS
PRACTICES EMPLOYED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COMMISSION URGES THAT
ITS POWERS ARE NOT SO RESTRICTED, THAT IT MAY ALSO PROSCRIBE UNFAIR
METHODS USED IN INTRASTATE SALES WHEN THESE RESULT IN A HANDICAP TO
INTERSTATE COMPETITORS. 

WHILE ONE MAY NOT END WITH THE WORDS OF A DISPUTED STATUTE, ONE
CERTAINLY BEGINS THERE.  "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE"
ARE THE CONCERN OF SEC. 5, AND THE COMMISSION IS "DIRECTED TO PREVENT
PERSONS  ...  FROM USING UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE
..."  THE "COMMERCE" IN WHICH THESE METHODS ARE BARRED IS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN2  NEITHER ORDINARY ENGLISH SPEECH NOR THE CONSIDERED
LANGUAGE OF LEGISLATION WOULD APTLY DESCRIBE THE SALES BY BUNTE
BROTHERS OF ITS "BREAK AND TAKE" ASSORTMENTS IN ILLINOIS AS "USING
UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE."  WHEN IN ORDER
TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONGRESS HAS REGULATED ACTIVITIES WHICH
IN ISOLATION ARE MERELY LOCAL, IT HAS NORMALLY CONVEYED ITS PURPOSE
EXPLICITLY.  SEE FOR EXAMPLE, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SECS. 2(7),
9(C), 10(A), 49 STAT. 450, 453, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 152(7), 159(C), 160(A);
BITUMINOUS COAL ACT, SEC. 4-A, 50 STAT. 83, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 834; FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, SEC. 1, 35 STAT. 65, AS AMENDED, 53 STAT.
1404, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51.  TO BE SURE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF EVERY SUCH
STATUTE PRESENTS A UNIQUE PROBLEM IN WHICH WORDS DERIVE VITALITY FROM
THE AIM AND NATURE OF THE SPECIFIC LEGISLATION.  BUT BEARING IN MIND
THAT IN ASCERTAINING THE SCOPE OF CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION A DUE
REGARD FOR A PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF THE LOCAL AND NATIONAL INTERESTS IN
OUR FEDERAL SCHEME MUST ALWAYS BE IN THE BACKGROUND, WE OUGHT NOT TO
FIND IN SEC. 5 RADIATIONS BEYOND THE OBVIOUS MEANING OF LANGUAGE UNLESS
OTHERWISE THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED.  MINNESOTA RATE
CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 398-412. 

THAT FOR A QUARTER CENTURY THE COMMISSION HAS MADE NO SUCH CLAIM IS A
POWERFUL INDICATION THAT EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE TRADE COMMISSION
ACT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON CONTROL OVER INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS.  FN3
AUTHORITY ACTUALLY GRANTED BY CONGRESS OF COURSE CANNOT EVAPORATE
THROUGH LACK OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXERCISE.  BUT JUST AS ESTABLISHED
PRACTICE MAY SHED LIGHT ON THE EXTENT OF POWER CONVEYED BY GENERAL
STATUTORY LANGUAGE, SO THE WANT OF ASSERTION OF POWER BY THOSE WHO
PRESUMABLY WOULD BE ALERT TO EXERCISE IT, IS EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER SUCH POWER WAS ACTUALLY CONFERRED.  SEE NORWEGIAN
NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 315.  THIS PRACTICAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT BY THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH ITS ADMINISTRATION IS
REINFORCED BY THE COMMISSION'S UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT IN 1935 TO SECURE
FROM CONGRESS AN EXPRESS GRANT OF AUTHORITY OVER TRANSACTIONS
"AFFECTING" COMMERCE IN ADDITION TO ITS CONTROL OF PRACTICES IN
COMMERCE.  S. REP. NO. 46, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
ARE ALL THE MORE SIGNIFICANT IN THAT DURING THE WHOLE OF THE
COMMISSION'S LIFE THE SO-CALLED SHREVEPORT DOCTRINE OPERATED IN THE
REGULATORY FIELD COMMITTED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  AND
IT IS THAT DOCTRINE WHICH GIVES THE CONTENTION OF THE TRADE COMMISSION
ITS STRONGEST SUPPORT. 

TRANSLATION OF AN IMPLICATION DRAWN FROM THE SPECIAL ASPECTS OF ONE
STATUTE TO A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STATUTE IS TREACHEROUS BUSINESS.  THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT ARE WIDELY
DISPARATE IN THEIR HISTORIC SETTINGS, IN THE ENTERPRISES WHICH THEY
AFFECT, IN THE RANGE OF CONTROL THEY EXERCISE, AND IN THE RELATION OF
THESE CONTROLS TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.  WE NEED NOT
AT THIS LATE DAY REHEARSE THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT LED TO THE SHREVEPORT
DECISION.  HOUSTON, E. & W.T. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342. 
THE NUB OF IT, IN THE LANGUAGE OF CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, LAY IN THE
RELATION BETWEEN INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE RAILROAD TRAFFIC:
"EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THE ONE MUST EMBRACE SOME CONTROL OVER THE OTHER
IN VIEW OF THE BLENDING OF BOTH IN ACTUAL OPERATION.  THE SAME RAILS
AND THE SAME CARS CARRY BOTH.  THE SAME MEN CONDUCT THEM."  WISCONSIN
RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 588.  AND SO
WHEN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE INTRASTATE RATES
OF A CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE ACT IN EFFECT OPERATED AS A DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST ITS INTERSTATE TRAFFIC, THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE POWER OF THE
COMMISSION TO BRING THE TWO RATES INTO HARMONIOUS RELATION AND THEREBY
TO TERMINATE THE UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION.  CONGRESS IN 1920 REVISED THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND EXPLICITLY CONFIRMED THIS POWER OF THE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  41 STAT. 484, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 13(4). 

THERE IS THE WIDEST DIFFERENCE IN PRACTICAL OPERATION BETWEEN THE
CONTROL OVER LOCAL TRAFFIC INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH INTERSTATE TRAFFIC
AND THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY HERE ASSERTED.  UNLIKE THE RELATIVELY
PRECISE SITUATION PRESENTED BY RATE DISCRIMINATION, "UNFAIR
COMPETITION" WAS DESIGNED BY CONGRESS AS A FLEXIBLE CONCEPT WITH
EVOLVING CONTENT.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. KEPPEL & BRO., SUPRA, AT 311
312.  IT TOUCHES THE GREATEST VARIETY OF UNRELATED ACTIVITIES.  THE
TRADE COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT FOR 1939 LISTS AS "UNFAIR COMPETITION"
THIRTY-ONE DIVERSE TYPES OF BUSINESS PRACTICES WHICH RUN THE GAMUT FROM
BRIBING EMPLOYEES OF PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS TO SELLING BELOW COST FOR
HINDERING COMPETITION.  FN4  THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 5 URGED BY THE
COMMISSION WOULD THUS GIVE A FEDERAL AGENCY PERVASIVE CONTROL OVER
MYRIADS OF LOCAL BUSINESSES IN MATTERS HERETOFORE TRADITIONALLY LEFT TO
LOCAL CUSTOM OR LOCAL LAW.  SUCH CONTROL BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE
STRICTLY CONFINED AUTHORITY GROWING OUT OF RAILROAD RATE
DISCRIMINATION.  AN INROAD UPON LOCAL CONDITIONS AND LOCAL STANDARDS OF
SUCH FAR-REACHING IMPORT AS IS INVOLVED HERE, OUGHT TO AWAIT A CLEARER
MANDATE FROM CONGRESS.  THE PROBLEM NOW BEFORE US IS VERY DIFFERENT
FROM THAT WHICH WAS RECENTLY PRESENTED BY UNITED STATES V. DARBY, ANTE,
P. 100.  WE HAD THERE TO CONSIDER THE FULL SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THIS CASE PRESENTS THE NARROW
QUESTION OF WHAT CONGRESS DID, NOT WHAT IT COULD DO.  AND WE MERELY
HOLD THAT TO READ "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN (INTERSTATE)
COMMERCE" AS THOUGH IT MEANT "UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN ANY WAY
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE," REQUIRES, IN VIEW OF ALL THE RELEVANT
CONSIDERATIONS, MUCH CLEARER MANIFESTATION OF INTENTION THAN CONGRESS
HAS FURNISHED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  5.  (A)  UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE, AND
UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN COMMERCE, ARE HEREBY DECLARED
UNLAWFUL. 

"THE COMMISSION IS HEREBY EMPOWERED AND DIRECTED TO PREVENT PERSONS,
PARTNERSHIPS, OR CORPORATIONS  ...  FROM USING UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION IN COMMERCE AND UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES IN
COMMERCE." 

FN2  "SEC.  4.  THE WORDS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL HAVE THE
FOLLOWING MEANING WHEN FOUND IN THIS ACT, TO WIT: 

"'COMMERCE' MEANS COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS, OR IN ANY TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OR IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, OR BETWEEN ANY SUCH TERRITORY AND ANOTHER, OR BETWEEN ANY
SUCH TERRITORY AND ANY STATE OR FOREIGN NATION, OR BETWEEN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA AND ANY STATE OR TERRITORY OR FOREIGN NATION." 

FN3  THE COMMISSION MAKES NO CLAIM OF A CONTRARY ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE.  THE CASES WHICH IT CITES IN NO WAY MITIGATE WHAT IS STATED
IN THE TEXT OF THE OPINION.  (1) COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION APPARENTLY
ARGUED FOR RECOGNITION OF THE POWER CLAIMED HERE IN CANFIELD OIL CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 274 F. 571, BUT THE COMMISSION HAD MADE NO
FINDINGS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST COMMERCE AND HAD ONLY FOUND THAT THE
OIL COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE.  (2) THE JURISDICTION SUSTAINED IN
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF MINNEAPOLIS V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 13 F.2D
673, WAS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT CLAIMED HERE.  IT RESTED ON THE FACT
THAT THE CHAMBER CONDUCTED A MARKET FOR GRAIN IN THE CURRENT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1,
AND CASES CITED.  (3) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION REVIEWED IN
CALIFORNIA RICE INDUSTRY V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 102 F.2D 716,
RESULTED FROM PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THIS
PROCEEDING AGAINST BUNTE BROTHERS HAD BEGUN. 

FN4  REPORT, PP. 83, 88.  AND SEE THESE ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES (PP. 83,
85, 89): 

"6.  MAKING FALSE AND DISPARAGING STATEMENTS RESPECTING COMPETITORS'
PRODUCTS AND BUSINESS, IN SOME CASES UNDER THE GUISE OF OSTENSIBLY
DISINTERESTED AND SPECIALLY INFORMED SOURCES OR THROUGH PURPORTED
SCIENTIFIC, BUT IN FACT MISLEADING, DEMONSTRATIONS OR TESTS; AND MAKING
FALSE AND MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO COMPETITORS'
PRODUCTS, SUCH AS THAT SELLER'S PRODUCT IS COMPETITOR'S, AND THROUGH
USE OF SUCH PRACTICES AS DECEPTIVE SIMULATION OF COMPETITOR'S COUNTER
DISPLAY CATALOGS OR TRADE NAMES; AND THAT COMPETITOR'S BUSINESS HAS
BEEN DISCONTINUED, AND THAT SELLER IS SUCCESSOR THERETO OR PURCHASER
AND OWNER THEREOF." 

"10.  SELLING REBUILT, SECOND-HAND, RENOVATED, OR OLD PRODUCTS OR
ARTICLES MADE FROM USED OR SECOND-HAND MATERIALS AS AND FOR NEW." 

"19.  USING CONTAINERS OSTENSIBLY OF THE CAPACITY CUSTOMARILY
ASSOCIATED IN THE MIND OF THE GENERAL PURCHASING PUBLIC WITH STANDARD
WEIGHTS OR QUANTITIES OF THE PRODUCT THEREIN CONTAINED, OR USING SUCH
STANDARD CONTAINERS ONLY PARTIALLY FILLED TO CAPACITY, SO AS TO MAKE IT
APPEAR TO THE PURCHASER THAT HE IS RECEIVING THE STANDARD WEIGHT OR
QUANTITY." 

"30.  FAILING AND REFUSING TO DEAL JUSTLY AND FAIRLY WITH CUSTOMERS
IN CONSUMMATING TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN, THROUGH SUCH PRACTICES AS
REFUSING TO CORRECT MISTAKES IN FILLING ORDERS, OR TO MAKE PROMISED
ADJUSTMENTS OR REFUNDS, AND RETAINING, WITHOUT REFUND, GOODS RETURNED
FOR EXCHANGE OR ADJUSTMENT, AND ENFORCING, NOTWITHSTANDING AGENTS'
ALTERATIONS, PRINTED TERMS OF PURCHASE CONTRACTS, AND EXACTING PAYMENTS
IN EXCESS OF CUSTOMERS' COMMITMENTS." 

"31.  SHIPPING PRODUCTS AT MARKET PRICES TO ITS CUSTOMERS OR
PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS OR TO THE CUSTOMERS OR PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS OF
COMPETITORS WITHOUT AN ORDER AND THEN INDUCING OR ATTEMPTING BY VARIOUS
MEANS TO INDUCE THE CONSIGNEES TO ACCEPT AND PURCHASE SUCH
CONSIGNMENTS." 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING. 

IN MY OPINION THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT RESPONDENT'S "USE OF CHANCE ASSORTMENTS IN
THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ITS CANDIES IN ILLINOIS HAS A DIRECT AND
POWERFUL BURDENSOME EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN CANDIES FROM
OTHER STATES TO THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND GIVES RESPONDENT AN UNDUE
AND UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OVER COMPETITORS LOCATED IN OTHER STATES." 
THE VALIDITY OF THAT FINDING AND OF THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION THAT
RESPONDENT'S PRACTICES CONSTITUTE UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION ARE NOT
IN ISSUE.  THE ONLY QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
IS WHETHER RESPONDENT'S PRACTICES CONSTITUTE UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION "IN COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 5(A) OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT. 

I THINK THEY DO. 

UNFAIR COMPETITION INVOLVES NOT ONLY AN OFFENDER BUT ALSO A VICTIM. 
HERE SOME OF THE VICTIMS OF THE UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION ARE
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE FACT THAT THE ACTS OF THE OFFENDER
ARE INTRASTATE IS IMMATERIAL.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO PROTECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AGAINST SPECIFIED TYPES OF INJURY.  SO FAR AS THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION IS CONCERNED, IT IS THE EXISTENCE OF
THAT INJURY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOT THE INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE
CHARACTER OF THE CONDUCT CAUSING THE INJURY WHICH IS IMPORTANT.  AN
UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION IS "IN" INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOT ONLY WHEN
IT HAS AN INTERSTATE ORIGIN BUT ALSO WHEN IT HAS A DIRECT INTERSTATE
IMPACT.  RESPONDENT IS "USING" UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION "IN"
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHEN THE DIRECT EFFECT OF ITS CONDUCT IS TO BURDEN,
STIFLE, OR IMPAIR THAT COMMERCE.    UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT (26 STAT.
209) A CONTRACT OR CONSPIRACY MAY BE "IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" EVEN THOUGH THE ACTS OR CONDUCT ARE
INTRASTATE.  SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 397; UNITED
STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 541-543; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 168-169.  SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT IS "SUPPLEMENTARY" TO THE SHERMAN ACT.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643, 647.  LIKE THE SHERMAN ACT IT SEEKS "TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM ABUSES ARISING IN THE COURSE OF COMPETITIVE
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRADE.  ...  THE PARAMOUNT AIM OF THE ACT IS THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE EVILS LIKELY TO RESULT FROM THE
DESTRUCTION OF COMPETITION OR THE RESTRICTION OF IT IN A SUBSTANTIAL
DEGREE."  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. RALADAM CO., SUPRA, PP. 647-648.  AND
AS THIS COURT SAID IN FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BEECH-NUT PACKING CO.,
257 U.S. 441, 453, THE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC POLICY CONTAINED IN THE
SHERMAN ACT IS "TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHAT ARE UNFAIR METHODS
OF COMPETITION, WHICH THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO
CONDEMN AND SUPPRESS."  FOR THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
"UNDOUBTEDLY WAS AIMED AT ALL THE FAMILIAR METHODS OF LAW VIOLATION
WHICH PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT HAD DISCLOSED."  FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304, 310. 

THAT HISTORY, OF COURSE, DOES NOT GIVE US LICENSE TO DISREGARD PLAIN
AND UNAMBIGUOUS LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION.  BUT IT
DOES ADMONISH US TO CONSTRUE ONE OF A SERIES OF LEGISLATIVE ACTS
DEALING WITH A COMMON OR RELATED PROBLEM IN LIGHT OF THE INTEGRATED
STATUTORY SCHEME.  SEE UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, ANTE, P. 219.  IT
WARNS US NOT TO WHITTLE AWAY ADMINISTRATIVE POWER BY RESOLVING AN
AMBIGUITY AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF THAT POWER WHERE THE FULL ARSENAL OF
THAT POWER IS NECESSARY TO COPE WITH THE EVIL AT HAND.  THE EVIL HERE
IS DIRECT, INJURIOUS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
COMMISSION HAS ISSUED ORDERS AGAINST SOME 120 OF RESPONDENT'S
COMPETITORS PROHIBITING THEM FROM SELLING CHANCE ASSORTMENTS OF CANDY
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UNDER THIS DECISION RESPONDENT MAY CONTINUE TO
USE THIS SAME UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION TO INCREASE ITS BUSINESS AT
THE EXPENSE OF THOSE WHO SELL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WHO ARE NOT
FREE TO EMPLOY THE SAME METHODS IN SELF-DEFENSE.  I THINK THE ACT, AN
EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS COMMERCE POWER, SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO
PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOT TO PERMIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IT. 

SUCH AN APPROACH WAS USED IN THE SHREVEPORT CASE (234 U.S. 342) TO
GIVE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CONTROL OVER INTRASTATE RATES
WHICH INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED, THROUGH AN UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION,
TRAFFIC THAT WAS INTERSTATE.  THAT RESULT WAS REACHED THOUGH THE ACT
EXPRESSLY DENIED THE COMMISSION ANY JURISDICTION WHERE THE
"TRANSPORTATION" WAS "WHOLLY WITHIN ONE STATE."  THIS COURT SAID (234
U.S. AT P. 358) THAT THOSE WORDS HAD "APPROPRIATE REFERENCE TO
EXCLUSIVELY INTRASTATE TRAFFIC, SEPARATELY CONSIDERED; TO THE
REGULATION OF DOMESTIC COMMERCE, AS SUCH.  THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THE
ACT ARE NOT THEREBY LIMITED WHERE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF IS
INVOLVED."  THE INTERRELATION BETWEEN THE INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE
ACTIVITIES IN THE INSTANT CASE IS HARDLY LESS INTIMATE THAN IN THE
SHREVEPORT CASE.  THE FACT THAT THE NEXUS HERE IS ECONOMIC AND NOT
PHYSICAL IS INCONSEQUENTIAL.  IN THIS CASE AS IN THE OTHER THE PROBLEM
IS THE EXISTENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE
PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION.  IN THE
SHREVEPORT CASE STATUTORY DOUBTS WERE RESOLVED SO AS TO STRENGTHEN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS EVEN AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT THEREBY THE STATE
AUTHORITIES WOULD BE "SHORN OF THOSE POWERS WHICH ALONE CAN JUSTIFY
THEIR EXISTENCE."  SIMILAR ARGUMENTS SHOULD NOT DETER US FROM BEING
TOLERANT OF AN ASSERTED POWER, ADMITTEDLY CONSTITUTIONAL, TO DEAL
EFFECTIVELY WITH THE REALITIES OF ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE. 

THE FACT THAT A CLARIFYING AMENDMENT TO THE ACT WAS SOUGHT WHICH
WOULD HAVE REMOVED THE DOUBTS AS TO THE MEANING OF "IN COMMERCE" IS NOT
MATERIAL EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SHOWS THAT DOUBTS EXISTED.  IT
DOES NOT AID IN RESOLVING THOSE DOUBTS.  TO BE SURE, RECENT STATUTES
DEALING WITH OTHER FIELDS HAVE REMOVED SUCH DOUBTS BY EXPLICIT
PROVISIONS.  BUT THEY ARE OF LITTLE AID IN INTERPRETING AN EARLIER ACT
IN ITS OWN LEGISLATIVE SETTING.  SEE UNITED STATES V. STEWART, 311 U.S.
60, 69.  AND AS TO THE CHARGE THAT FOR A QUARTER OF A CENTURY THE
COMMISSION MADE NO CLAIM TO SUCH A POWER, TWO ANSWERS MAY BE MADE.  IN
THE FIRST PLACE, AS EARLY AS 1921, THE COMMISSION URGED THAT THE
DOCTRINE OF THE SHREVEPORT CASE PERMITTED AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT
WHICH WOULD GIVE IT CONTROL OVER CERTAIN INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES. 
CANFIELD OIL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 274 F. 571; HANKIN,
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 12 CALIF. L. REV. 179,
197, ET SEQ. ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN
DEFINITELY SETTLED, IN 1926 THE COMMISSION RECEIVED SOME SUPPORT FOR
ITS VIEW.  SEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 13 F.2D
673, 684.  CF. AMERICAN CAN CO. V. LADOGA CANNING CO., 44 F.2D 763, 770
771.  BUT IN 1939 THAT POWER WAS DENIED.  CALIFORNIA RICE INDUSTRY V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 102 F.2D 716, 723.  NONUSE OF THE ASSERTED POWER
CLEARLY CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM THAT RECORD.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT
WOULD NOT BE RELEVANT IF THIS POWER DID LAY DORMANT FOR YEARS.  MERE
NONUSE DOES NOT SUBTRACT FROM POWER WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED.  THE HOST
OF PRACTICAL REASONS WHICH MAY DEFER EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
POWERS LIES IN THE REALM OF POLICY.  FROM THAT DELAY WE CAN HARDLY
INFER THAT THE NEED DID NOT OR DOES NOT EXIST. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :














NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., 312 U.S. 359 


NO. 255.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 14, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1941.  -
228 IOWA 1273 - 292 N.W. 130, REVERSED. 


THE IOWA USE TAX ACT, COMPLEMENTING A SALES TAX, REQUIRES EVERY
RETAILER MAINTAINING A PLACE OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, AT THE TIME
OF MAKING SALES OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR USE WITHIN THE STATE,
TO COLLECT FROM THE PURCHASER THE TAX IMPOSED.  THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO
BE COLLECTED IS MADE A "DEBT" OF THE RETAILER TO THE STATE.  FAILURE TO
COLLECT THE TAX SUBJECTS A FOREIGN CORPORATION TO REVOCATION OF ITS
PERMIT TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE.  HELD THAT A FOREIGN
CORPORATION WHICH MAINTAINED RETAIL STORES IN IOWA MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY
BE REQUIRED TO COLLECT THE TAX IN RESPECT OF MAIL ORDERS, SENT BY IOWA
PURCHASERS TO OUT-OF-STATE BRANCHES OF THE CORPORATION AND FILLED BY
DIRECT SHIPMENT BY MAIL OR COMMON CARRIER FROM THOSE BRANCHES TO THE
PURCHASERS, EVEN THOUGH SUCH ORDERS WERE NOT SOLICITED OR PLACED BY ANY
OF THE CORPORATION'S AGENTS IN IOWA.  PP. 361, 364. 

1.  THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX IN SUCH CASE IS A BURDEN WHICH THE
STATE MAY IMPOSE ON THE CORPORATION AS A PRICE FOR ENJOYING THE FULL
BENEFITS OF ITS IOWA BUSINESS.  P. 364. 

2.  SINCE THE USE TAX AND THE SALES TAX ARE COMPLEMENTARY, AND SALES
MADE WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE BEAR THE SAME BURDEN AS THE MAIL ORDER
SALES, THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P.
364. 

3.  THAT THE CORPORATION IS IN COMPETITION WITH OUT-OF-STATE MAIL
ORDER HOUSES WHICH, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN
IOWA, NEED NOT AND DO NOT COLLECT THE TAX ON THEIR SALES TO IOWA
PURCHASERS, DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE OPERATION OF THE ACT AS TO IT.  P.
365. 

4.  NOR IS THE ACT INVALID BECAUSE OF THE COST OR INCONVENIENCE TO
THE CORPORATION OF COLLECTING THE TAX, NOR BECAUSE OF LOSSES IT MAY
SUSTAIN IN MAKING DELIVERIES BEFORE COLLECTING THE TAX.  P. 365. 

NELSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION, ET AL. V. SEARS, ROEBUCK
& CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 630, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT OF A DECREE ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT
OF PROVISIONS OF THE IOWA USE TAX ACT AS APPLIED TO MAIL ORDER SALES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE IOWA USE TAX (IA.
CODE 1939, SECS. 6943.102-6943.125) AS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT'S MAIL
ORDER BUSINESS CONDUCTED DIRECTLY BETWEEN CUSTOMERS IN IOWA AND
RESPONDENT'S MAIL ORDER HOUSES LOCATED OUTSIDE IOWA.  THE SUPREME COURT
OF IOWA, IN A FIVE TO FOUR DECISION, HELD FOR RESPONDENT ON THAT
ISSUE.  228 IA. 1273; 292 N.W. 130.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED.  JUD.  CODE
SEC. 237(B); 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(B). 

THE IOWA USE TAX IS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE IOWA RETAIL SALES TAX.  IA.
CODE 1939, SECS. 6943.074, ET SEQ.  IT IS A TAX ON THE USE IN IOWA OF
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AT THE RATE OF TWO PER CENT OF THE PURCHASE
PRICE.  FN1 "USE," SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, IS DEFINED AS "THE EXERCISE
BY ANY PERSON OF ANY RIGHT OR POWER OVER TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
INCIDENT TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT PROPERTY."  SEC. 6943.102.  WHILE THE
TAX IS IMPOSED ON "EVERY PERSON USING SUCH PROPERTY WITHIN THIS STATE
UNTIL SUCH TAX HAS BEEN PAID" (SEC. 6943.103), IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED
(SEC. 6943.109) THAT EVERY "RETAILER MAINTAINING A PLACE OF BUSINESS IN
THIS STATE AND MAKING SALES OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR USE IN
THIS STATE  ...  SHALL AT THE TIME OF MAKING SUCH SALES, WHETHER WITHIN
OR WITHOUT THE STATE, COLLECT THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS ACT FROM THE
PURCHASER  ...  "  BY SEC. 6943.112 THE TAX CONSTITUTES A "DEBT OWED BY
THE RETAILER" TO THE STATE.  FN2  AND IF THE RETAILER FAILS TO COLLECT
THE TAX, ETC., HIS RETAILER'S PERMIT (SEC. 6943.084) MAY BE REVOKED;
AND IN CASE OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ITS PERMIT TO DO BUSINESS IN THE
STATE AS WELL.  SEC. 6943.122. 

RESPONDENT IS A NEW YORK CORPORATION AUTHORIZED SINCE 1928 TO DO
BUSINESS IN IOWA.  IT HAS VARIOUS RETAIL STORES THERE.  IT PAYS THE TAX
ON SALES MADE AT THOSE STORES.  IT ALSO PAYS THE TAX ON ORDERS PLACED
AT THOSE STORES, THOUGH SHIPMENT IS MADE DIRECT TO THE PURCHASER FROM
ONE OF RESPONDENT'S OUT OF STATE BRANCHES.  BUT IT HAS REFUSED TO
COLLECT THE TAX ON MAIL ORDERS SENT BY IOWA PURCHASERS TO ITS OUT OF
STATE BRANCHES AND FILLED BY DIRECT SHIPMENTS THROUGH THE MAILS OR A
COMMON CARRIER FROM THOSE BRANCHES TO THE PURCHASERS.  FN3  ON THREAT
OF PETITIONERS TO REVOKE RESPONDENT'S PERMIT BECAUSE OF SUCH REFUSAL,
RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION, ALLEGING, INTER ALIA,
THAT THE ACT AS APPLIED VIOLATES SEC. 8 OF ARTICLE I OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE IOWA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IF RESPONDENT HAD LIMITED ITS
ACTIVITIES TO A MAIL ORDER BUSINESS OF THE KIND HERE INVOLVED, IT WOULD
NOT BE DOING BUSINESS IN IOWA; THAT, ALTHOUGH TECHNICALLY THE TAX MAY
BE ON THE PURCHASER, IT MUST BE COLLECTED WHEN THE SALE IS MADE, AT
WHICH TIME THE PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE THE STATE; THAT THESE SALES ARE
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM RESPONDENT'S ACTIVITIES IN IOWA.  IT
THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE TAX AS APPLIED WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE
IOWA HAS NO POWER TO REGULATE RESPONDENT'S ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE THE STATE
OR TO REGULATE SUCH ACTIVITIES AS A CONDITION TO RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO
CONTINUE TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE. 

IN PASSING ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TAX LAW "WE ARE CONCERNED
ONLY WITH ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION, NOT ITS DEFINITION OR THE PRECISE
FORM OF DESCRIPTIVE WORDS WHICH MAY BE APPLIED TO IT."  LAWRENCE V.
STATE TAX COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276, 280; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER,
306 U.S. 167, 177; WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435.  THE
FACT THAT UNDER IOWA LAW THE SALE IS MADE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE DOES NOT
MEAN THAT THE POWER OF IOWA "HAS NOTHING ON WHICH TO OPERATE." 
WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., SUPRA.  THE PURCHASER IS IN IOWA AND THE
TAX IS UPON USE IN IOWA.  THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A TAX, SO FAR AS THE
PURCHASER IS CONCERNED, "HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE ARENA OF DEBATE." 
HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 583; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
V. GALLAGHER, SUPRA.  IT IS ONE OF THE WELL-KNOWN FUNCTIONS OF THE
INTEGRATED USE AND SALES TAX TO REMOVE THE BUYERS' TEMPTATION "TO PLACE
THEIR ORDERS IN OTHER STATES IN THE EFFORT TO ESCAPE PAYMENT OF THE TAX
ON LOCAL SALES."  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., SUPRA, P. 581.  AS
POINTED OUT IN THAT CASE (P. 582), THE FACT THAT THE BUYER EMPLOYS
AGENCIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE HIS PURCHASE IS
NOT MATERIAL, SINCE THE TAX IS "UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF USE AFTER
COMMERCE IS AT AN END."  AND SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER,
SUPRA.  USE IN IOWA IS WHAT IS TAXED REGARDLESS OF THE TIME AND PLACE
OF PASSING TITLE AND REGARDLESS OF THE TIME THE TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE
PAID.  CF. MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33,
49. 

SO THE NUB OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY CENTERS ON THE USE OF
RESPONDENT AS THE COLLECTION AGENT FOR IOWA.  THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH A
DUTY, HOWEVER, WAS HELD NOT TO BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON A
FOREIGN CORPORATION IN MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, AND
FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62.  BUT RESPONDENT
INSISTS THAT THOSE CASES INVOLVED LOCAL ACTIVITY BY THE FOREIGN
CORPORATION AS A RESULT OF WHICH PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO ITS LOCAL
CUSTOMERS, WHILE IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO LOCAL ACTIVITY BY
RESPONDENT WHICH GENERATES OR WHICH RELATES TO THE MAIL ORDERS HERE
INVOLVED.  YET THESE ORDERS ARE STILL A PART OF RESPONDENT'S IOWA
BUSINESS.  THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE REACHED FOR THE TAX IF
IT WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN IOWA WOULD MERELY BE A RESULT
OF THE "IMPOTENCE OF STATE POWER."  WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO.,
SUPRA.  SINCE IOWA HAS EXTENDED TO IT THAT PRIVILEGE, IOWA CAN EXACT
THIS BURDEN AS A PRICE OF ENJOYING THE FULL BENEFITS FLOWING FROM ITS
IOWA BUSINESS.  CF. WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., SUPRA.  RESPONDENT
CANNOT AVOID THAT BURDEN THOUGH ITS BUSINESS IS DEPARTMENTALIZED. 
WHATEVER MAY BE THE INSPIRATION FOR THESE MAIL ORDERS, HOWEVER THEY MAY
BE FILLED, IOWA MAY RIGHTLY ASSUME THAT THEY ARE NOT UNRELATED TO
RESPONDENT'S COURSE OF BUSINESS IN IOWA.  THEY ARE NONETHELESS A PART
OF THAT BUSINESS THOUGH NONE OF RESPONDENT'S AGENTS IN IOWA ACTUALLY
SOLICITED OR PLACED THEM.  HENCE TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE GLOBAL AMOUNT
OF BENEFITS WHICH RESPONDENT IS RECEIVING FROM IOWA BUSINESS IS TO
CONFORM TO BUSINESS FACTS. 

NOR IS THE MODE OF ENFORCING THE TAX ON THE PRIVILEGES OF THESE IOWA
TRANSACTIONS ANY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AS WE
HAVE SEEN, THE USE TAX AND THE SALES TAX ARE COMPLEMENTARY.  SALES MADE
WHOLLY WITHIN IOWA CARRY THE SAME BURDEN AS THESE MAIL ORDER SALES.  A
TAX OR OTHER BURDEN OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHERE "EQUALITY IS ITS THEME."  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO.,
SUPRA, PP. 583-586; MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., SUPRA,
PP. 48-49. 

RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT THE DUTY OF TAX COLLECTION PLACED
ON IT CONSTITUTES A REGULATION OF AND SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RESULTS IN AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE FREE FLOW OF
SUCH COMMERCE.  IT POINTS TO THE FACT THAT IN ITS MAIL ORDER BUSINESS
IT IS IN COMPETITION WITH OUT OF STATE MAIL ORDER HOUSES WHICH NEED NOT
AND DO NOT COLLECT THE TAX ON THEIR IOWA SALES.  BUT THOSE OTHER
CONCERNS ARE NOT DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE AS FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 
HENCE, UNLIKE RESPONDENT, THEY ARE NOT RECEIVING BENEFITS FROM IOWA FOR
WHICH IT HAS THE POWER TO EXACT A PRICE.  RESPONDENT FURTHER STRESSES
THE COST TO IT OF MAKING THESE COLLECTIONS AND ITS PROBABLE LOSS AS A
RESULT OF ITS INABILITY TO COLLECT THE TAX ON ALL SALES.  FN4  BUT COST
AND INCONVENIENCE INHERED IN THE SAME DUTY IMPOSED ON THE FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS IN THE MONAMOTOR AND FELT & TARRANT CASES.  AND SO FAR AS
ASSUMED LOSSES ON TAX COLLECTIONS ARE CONCERNED, RESPONDENT IS IN NO
POSITION TO FOUND A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ON THE PRACTICAL OPPORTUNITIES
FOR TAX AVOIDANCE WHICH ITS METHOD OF DOING BUSINESS AFFORDS IOWA
RESIDENTS, OR TO CLAIM A CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY BECAUSE IT MAY ELECT
TO DELIVER THE GOODS BEFORE THE TAX IS PAID. 

PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATORY BURDENS ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE NOT TO
BE DETERMINED BY ABSTRACTIONS.  PARTICULAR FACTS OF SPECIFIC CASES
DETERMINE WHETHER A GIVEN TAX PROHIBITIVELY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HENCE A REVIEW OF PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS BASED ON
WIDELY DISPARATE FACTS, HOWSOEVER EMBEDDED IN GENERAL PROPOSITIONS,
DOES NOT FACILITATE AN ANSWER TO THE PRESENT PROBLEM. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE IOWA
SUPREME COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE USE TAX ACT PROVIDES IN SEC. 6943.103, 

"AN EXCISE TAX IS HEREBY IMPOSED ON THE USE IN THIS STATE OF TANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY PURCHASED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT
(APRIL 16, 1937) FOR USE IN THIS STATE, AT THE RATE OF TWO PER CENT OF
THE PURCHASE PRICE OF SUCH PROPERTY.  SAID TAX IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON
EVERY PERSON USING SUCH PROPERTY WITHIN THIS STATE UNTIL SUCH TAX HAS
BEEN PAID DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTY TREASURER, TO A RETAILER, OR TO THE
COMMISSION AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED." 

THE SALES TAX IS A TWO PER CENT TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALES OF
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY SOLD AT RETAIL IN THE STATE TO CONSUMERS OR
USERS.  SEC. 6943.075.  SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, THE USE TAX NEED NOT
BE PAID ON PROPERTY WHERE A TAX IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID UNDER THE SALES
TAX ACT.  SEC. 6943.104. 

FN2  THE RETAILER MUST ALSO MAKE QUARTERLY RETURNS.  SEC. 6943.113. 
PENALTIES ARE IMPOSED FOR DELAY IN FILING RETURNS (SEC. 6943.118), FOR
FAILURE TO DO SO OR FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH DATA REQUIRED BY THE
COMMISSION.  SEC. 6943.120. 

FN3  IN 1937 RESPONDENT MAILED TO RESIDENTS OF IOWA ABOUT 600,000
SMALL CATALOGUES AND 427,000 LARGE ONES.  RESPONDENT MAINTAINS 12
RETAIL STORES IN IOWA, ITS INVESTMENT THEREIN EXCEEDING $500,000.  THE
AGGREGATE SALES OF THE RETAIL STORES IN IOWA FOR 1936 AMOUNTED TO
$5,080,000; FOR 1937, $5,600,000.  ITS MAIL ORDER SALES IN IOWA FOR
1936 AGGREGATED ABOUT $5,900,000; FOR 1937, ABOUT $5,400,000.  IT
ESTIMATES THAT IT HAS SOME 300,000 IOWA CUSTOMERS OF ITS MAIL ORDER
HOUSES AND THAT IN 1937 THERE WERE ABOUT 1,200,000 ORDERS RECEIVED FROM
IOWA CUSTOMERS. 

ONE OF RESPONDENT'S WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE CATALOGUES AND
BULLETINS MAILED OUT WERE "OUR SOLE MEANS OF SECURING" THE MAIL ORDER
BUSINESS.  BUT HE ALSO TESTIFIED, "IF A CUSTOMER INQUIRED FROM A CLERK
IN THE STORE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY A USE TAX UPON
AN ORDER, I BELIEVE THE CLERK WOULD INFORM HIM THAT IF HE HIMSELF
MAILED THE ORDER THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SALES TAX OR USE TAX CHARGED." 

FN4  IN ILLINOIS RESPONDENT UNDERTAKES TO COLLECT THE SALES TAX ON
MAIL ORDERS FROM ITS ILLINOIS CUSTOMERS.  A NOTICE AND SCHEDULE OF THE
TAX FOR VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF ORDERS ARE CONTAINED IN THE ILLINOIS
CATALOGUE.  IT ASSERTS THAT APPROXIMATELY 65% OF THOSE ORDERS INCLUDE
AN ALLOWANCE FOR THE TAX.  WHERE THE ORDERS ARE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY AN
AMOUNT COVERING THE ILLINOIS SALES TAX, RESPONDENT DOES NOT HOLD UP THE
ORDER BUT FILLS IT AND SENDS THE CUSTOMER A BILL FOR THE DIFFERENCE. 
IT SAYS THAT IT COLLECTS APPROXIMATELY 36% OF THOSE DEFICIENCIES WHERE
THE AMOUNT IS LESS THAN 25[; 70% TO 75%, WHERE THE AMOUNT IS MORE.  ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT ON SALES TO IOWA PURCHASERS THE USE TAX WOULD
AMOUNT TO $100,000 A YEAR, RESPONDENT ASSERTS THAT, BASED ON ITS
ILLINOIS EXPERIENCE, THE MAXIMUM THAT WOULD BE COLLECTED WOULD BE
$68,000.  TO DO THAT, IT SAYS, WOULD ENTAIL A DIRECT COST TO IT OF
APPROXIMATELY $13,700 A YEAR.  THOSE CALCULATIONS ARE ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT RESPONDENT WOULD PUT A NOTICE IN ITS IOWA CATALOGUES SIMILAR TO
THE ONE USED IN ILLINOIS.  IF SUCH A NOTICE WERE NOT GIVEN, IT ASSERTS
THAT COLLECTIONS OF THE IOWA USE TAX WOULD NOT EXCEED $35,000(OUT OF AN
ASSUMED $100,000) AND THAT ITS COST WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $18,000. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

THE RESPONDENT, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, CONDUCTS AN INTERSTATE MAIL
ORDER BUSINESS.  IT HAS ALSO ESTABLISHED RETAIL STORES THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY.  IN 1928, TO SECURE THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING STORES IN IOWA
AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION, IT OBTAINED A PERMIT WHICH HAS BEEN KEPT IN
FORCE BY PAYMENT OF THE FEES PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE.  NO QUESTION
ARISES WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLECTION BY THE RESPONDENT OF THE TAX ON
SALES MADE IN STORES IN IOWA OR ON SALES BASED UPON ORDERS TAKEN IN
THOSE STORES BUT FILLED BY FORWARDING ARTICLES FROM A WAREHOUSE IN
ANOTHER STATE. 

THE CONTROVERSY ARISES ONLY OVER PURE MAIL ORDER SALES.  THESE ARE
CONSUMMATED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:  THE RESPONDENT FORWARDS TO
PERSONS IN IOWA CATALOGUES DETAILING THE ARTICLES IT HAS FOR SALE, THE
PRICES, AND THE COST OF TRANSPORTING THEM.  A PERSON IN IOWA FORWARDS
HIS WRITTEN ORDER TO ONE OF THE RESPONDENT'S MAIL ORDER HOUSES LOCATED
OUTSIDE IOWA FOR THE PURCHASE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AS LISTED
AND PRICED IN RESPONDENT'S CATALOGUE, THE ORDER BEING ACCOMPANIED BY A
REMITTANCE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE, PLUS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, AND
USUALLY SPECIFYING THE METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION DESIRED BY THE
PURCHASER.  THE ORDER IS ACCEPTED OR REJECTED AT THE PLACE WHERE IT IS
RECEIVED AND, IF ACCEPTED, IS FILLED BY DELIVERY TO THE POST OFFICE OR
TO A CARRIER FOR DIRECT SHIPMENT FROM THE EXTRA-STATE MAIL ORDER HOUSE
TO THE PURCHASER IN IOWA.    THIS MAIL ORDER BRANCH OF RESPONDENT'S
BUSINESS IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ANY ACTIVITY CONDUCTED AT ITS
STORES IN IOWA.  IN CONDUCTING IT THE RESPONDENT IS IN DIRECT
COMPETITION WITH OTHER MAIL ORDER HOUSES WHICH CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS
IN EXACTLY SIMILAR FASHION BUT HAVE NO STORES IN IOWA AND ARE NOT
THEREIN REGISTERED AS FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 

THE METHOD NECESSARILY PURSUED IN THE RESPONDENT'S MAIL ORDER
BUSINESS MAKES IT A CERTAINTY THAT IT WILL BE UNABLE, BY WHATEVER
PRACTICAL EFFORTS IT MAY PUT FORTH, TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF THE USE
TAX ON ALL ITS MAIL ORDER SALES MADE TO PERSONS IN IOWA.  IN 1937 THE
NUMBER OF ITS MAIL ORDER TRANSACTIONS WITH SOME 300,000 PERSONS IN IOWA
WAS APPROXIMATELY 1,200,000.  UNDER THE STATUTE AS ATTEMPTED TO BE
ENFORCED AGAINST ITS MAIL ORDER BUSINESS, IF, IN 1937, THE RESPONDENT
HAD FAILED TO COLLECT FROM EACH CUSTOMER THE SUM INVOLVED AS TAX, IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN LIABLE TO IOWA IN THE AGGREGATE FOR TWO PER CENT.  ON
APPROXIMATELY $5,400,000, - THE VOLUME OF ITS IOWA MAIL ORDER BUSINESS
IN THAT YEAR.  IF IT HAD MADE THE EFFORT TO COLLECT THE TAX, THE COST
OF SO DOING WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY EIGHTEEN PER CENT. OF THE
TOTAL TAX ON THE MAIL ORDER SALES MADE TO PERSONS IN IOWA AND, IN
ADDITION TO THAT COST, THE RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIABLE FOR
APPROXIMATELY $38,000 OF TAX UNCOLLECTED FROM PURCHASERS.  IN ADDITION,
AS A RESULT OF THE EXACTION, THE RESPONDENT'S MAIL ORDER BUSINESS WILL
BE PLACED AT A SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER MAIL
ORDER CONCERNS WHICH HAVE NO RETAIL STORES IN IOWA AND SO HAVE A PRICE
ADVANTAGE OF TWO PER CENT. OF SALES PRICE AS AGAINST RESPONDENT. 

THE PENALTY FOR FAILING TO COLLECT THE TAX AS AGENT FOR THE STATE, OR
TO PAY THE SUM NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF COLLECTION FROM PURCHASERS, AS
REQUIRED BY THE STATE, WILL BE THE REVOCATION OF RESPONDENT'S PERMIT
FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS STORES IN IOWA, WHICH REPRESENT A LARGE
EXPENDITURE FOR FURNITURE, FIXTURES, APPLIANCES, AND STOCK, AND WILL
ENTAIL LOSS OF RENTAL VALUES UNDER LONG TERM LEASES. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE ATTEMPTED ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE IN THE
MANNER PROPOSED BY THE TAXING AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE VIOLATES BOTH
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

FIRST.  THE RESPONDENT'S MAIL ORDER BUSINESS IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
FN1  AND IOWA MAY NOT PROHIBIT THE RESPONDENT FROM CONDUCTING THAT
BUSINESS WITH HER CITIZENS.  FN2  TO ATTEMPT SO TO DO WOULD BE A
VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

NOT ONLY SO, BUT IOWA MAY NOT DIRECTLY BURDEN SUCH COMMERCE. 
THEREFORE SHE MAY NOT TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN IT; REGULATE OR
LICENSE ITS PURSUIT,  FN3  OR TAX THE GROSS INCOME DERIVED FROM IT.
FN4  AND EVEN IF THE RESPONDENT MAINTAINED A FORCE OF AGENTS IN IOWA
SOLICITING ORDERS TO BE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT FACT WOULD
NOT RENDER IT AMENABLE TO THE REGULATION OR TAXATION OF ITS MAIL ORDER
BUSINESS.  FN5 

THUS IOWA MAY NOT LAWFULLY LICENSE OR REGULATE THE BUSINESS OF AGENTS
SOLICITING ORDERS TO BE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; FN6  OR LIMIT
OR CONDITION THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE MAIL ORDER CONTRACTS IN IOWA COURTS. 
FN7  THE POWER TO EXCLUDE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ALTOGETHER FROM DOING A
LOCAL BUSINESS DOES NOT ENABLE THE STATE TO IMPOSE BURDENS UPON THE
TRANSACTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION REGISTERED
IN THE STATE; AND REGISTRATION BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION IN ORDER TO DO
BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE
CORPORATION'S RIGHT TO TRANSACT INTERSTATE BUSINESS FREE FROM THE
BURDENS OF STATE REGULATION OR TAXATION.  FN8 

IOWA MAY NOT ABUSE ITS CONCEDED POWER TO TAX OR REGULATE THE
RESPONDENT'S ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE BY ATTEMPTING TO COMPEL
COMPLIANCE BY THE RESPONDENT WITH UNCONSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS TO TAX OR
BURDEN ITS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN9  AND IOWA MAY NOT FORFEIT, AS IT
PROPOSES TO DO, THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT A DOMESTIC BUSINESS BY REASON OF
THE REFUSAL OF THE RESPONDENT TO SUBMIT TO A BURDEN UPON ITS INTERSTATE
BUSINESS.  FN10 

CLEARLY IN THIS INSTANCE THE EFFORT IS DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY TO
BURDEN THE TRANSACTION OF AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS WITH THE STATE'S
CITIZENS, IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, BY THE THREAT OF
PENALIZING DISOBEDIENCE BY THE FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO TRANSACT,
WITHIN IOWA, AN INDEPENDENT BUSINESS WHICH THE RESPONDENT CONDUCTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ALL EXISTING LAWS, INCLUDING THE LAW REQUIRING IT TO
DEDUCT AND PAY OVER THE AMOUNT OF THE IOWA SALES TAX.  UPON REASON, AS
WELL AS UPON THE UNBROKEN CURRENT OF AUTHORITY IN THIS COURT, IOWA HAS
NO SUCH POWER TO BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, AND FELT & TARRANT MFG.
CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62, RELIED UPON BY THE PETITIONERS, ARE NOT
IN POINT. 

THE FIRST IS NOT APPOSITE BECAUSE THERE THE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN
THE DISTRIBUTION OF GASOLINE IN THE STATE OF IOWA.  THIS WAS THE ONLY
ACTIVITY DRAWN IN QUESTION.  THE STATUTE MERELY REQUIRED THE COMPANY,
IN DISTRIBUTING GASOLINE TO USERS, TO ADD THE TAX TO ITS SALES PRICE
AND REPORT AND RETURN THE AMOUNT OF TAX THUS WITHHELD.  IN THE SECOND,
THE COLLECTION OF THE USE TAX WAS IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY SOLD
BY THE CORPORATION THROUGH ITS GENERAL AGENTS WHO WERE DOING BUSINESS
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND WERE HANDLING ARTICLES SOLD FOR DELIVERY
IN THAT STATE.  AS AN INCIDENT OF SUCH SALES, THE SELLER WAS REQUIRED
TO ADD THE TAX AND MAKE RETURN OF IT TO THE STATE.  FN11 

IN JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXACTION IT IS SAID THAT THE PURCHASER IS IN
IOWA AND THE TAX IS ON THE PURCHASER'S USE IN THAT STATE.  BUT IF THESE
FACTS WERE DETERMINATIVE THEY WOULD JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX OR
BURDEN, BY THE STATE OF THE PURCHASER'S RESIDENCE, ON EVERY TRANSACTION
IN WHICH GOODS ARE SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ATTENTION IS ALSO
CALLED TO THE FACT THAT IOWA CANNOT EFFECTIVELY REACH ITS OWN CITIZENS
IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THE USE TAX ON THEM.  THIS CANNOT, HOWEVER, JUSTIFY
THE STATE'S ATTEMPT TO SAVE ITSELF TROUBLE BY PLACING AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONDUCTED BY A CITIZEN
OF ANOTHER STATE.  REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT, AS A
SIMILAR TAX IS LAID ON LOCAL SALES IN IOWA, THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION
IN IMPOSING THE TAX OR ITS COLLECTION UPON THE RESPONDENT, BUT THE
ARGUMENT WILL NOT SERVE TO LEGALIZE THE TAX.  A STATE CANNOT JUSTIFY A
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY LAYING A SIMILAR BURDEN ON LOCAL
COMMERCE.  FN12 

SECOND.  SO FAR AS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED, IOWA MAY
LAY A TAX ON ANY ACTIVITY OF THE RESPONDENT WHICH IT PURSUES WITHIN THE
STATE, BUT PLAINLY, UPON THE FACTS DISCLOSED, THERE IS, IN THE CONDUCT
OF RESPONDENT'S MAIL ORDER BUSINESS, NO SUCH LOCAL ACTIVITY.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE CORRECTLY FOUND: 

"THE SALES ARE CONSUMMATED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF IOWA IN EACH
INSTANCE.  THEY ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM PLAINTIFF'S ACTIVITIES
IN IOWA.  THE STATUTE HERE CHALLENGED SEEKS TO IMPOSE UPON PLAINTIFF
THE OBLIGATION THAT IT 'SHALL AT THE TIME OF MAKING SUCH SALES, WHETHER
WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE, COLLECT THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER
FROM THE PURCHASER.'  THE SALES ARE MADE OUTSIDE OF IOWA AND THE
STATUTE REQUIRES PLAINTIFF TO COLLECT THE TAX AT THE TIME THE SALES ARE
MADE.  IT CLEARLY SEEKS TO REGULATE ACTIVITIES OF PLAINTIFF OUTSIDE THE
STATE.  ...  UNDER REPEATED PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, HEREINBEFORE REVIEWED AND QUOTED FROM, THE STATE OF IOWA
HAS NO SUCH RIGHT." 

DELIVERY TO A DESIGNATED CARRIER IS DELIVERY TO THE CUSTOMER  FN13
AND, IN THIS CASE, IS COMPLETED OUTSIDE IOWA.  THE ATTEMPT, THEREFORE,
TO IMPOSE A BURDEN UPON SUCH DELIVERY OR TO REGULATE THE TRANSACTION IS
BUT AN EFFORT ON THE PART OF IOWA TO REGULATE OR TAX AN EVENT WHICH
OCCURS OUTSIDE HER BORDERS AND OVER WHICH SHE HAS NO JURISDICTION. 
FN14  THIS COURT HAS RECENTLY ENFORCED THIS PRINCIPLE IN A CASE ON ITS
MERITS MORE FAVORABLE TO THE STATE'S CONTENTION THAN THE PRESENT.  FN15
THERE IT WAS SAID: 

"IT FOLLOWS THAT SUCH A TAX, OTHERWISE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS NOT
CONVERTED INTO A VALID EXACTION MERELY BECAUSE THE CORPORATION ENJOYS
OUTSIDE THE STATE ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM TRANSACTIONS WITHIN IT, WHICH
THE STATE MIGHT BUT DOES NOT TAX, OR BECAUSE THE STATE MIGHT TAX THE
TRANSACTIONS WHICH THE CORPORATION CARRIES ON OUTSIDE THE STATE IF IT
WERE INDUCED TO CARRY THEM ON WITHIN." 

MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33, IS
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE INSTANT CASE FOR THERE THE DECISION WAS
GROUNDED ON THE FACT THAT THE TRANSFER OF TITLE AND CONSUMMATION OF
SALE DEPENDED UPON DELIVERY BY THE SELLER IN THE TAXING STATE. 

IN THIS ASPECT ALSO THE POWER OF THE STATE DOES NOT EXTEND TO
MEASURES WHICH CONDITION RESPONDENT'S PRIVILEGE TO DO BUSINESS IN
ANOTHER STATE FREE FROM THE REGULATION OR TAXATION OF IOWA.  FN16 

FN1  HEYMAN V. HAYES, 236 U.S. 178, 186. 

FN2  BOWMAN V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 125 U.S. 465; LEISY V. HARDIN,
135 U.S. 100; SCHOLLENBERGER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 171 U.S. 1; WEST V.
KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO., 221 U.S. 229, 250, 262; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
R. CO. V. COOK BREWING CO., 223 U.S. 70, 82; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230
U.S. 352, 401. 

FN3  INTERNATIONAL TEXT BOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217 U.S. 91, 105, 108; BUCK
STOVE CO. V. VICKERS, 226 U.S. 205, 215; SAULT STE.  MARIE V.
INTERNATIONAL TRANSIT CO., 234 U.S. 333, 340; LEMKE V. FARMERS GRAIN
CO., 258 U.S. 50; PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302
U.S. 90, 94. 

FN4  FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650, 655;
ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307. 

FN5  CRUTCHER V. KENTUCKY, 141 U.S. 47; INTERNATIONAL TEXT BOOK CO.
V. PIGG, SUPRA. 

FN6  BRENNAN V. TITUSVILLE, 153 U.S. 289; CRENSHAW V. ARKANSAS, 227
U.S. 389. 

FN7  SIOUX REMEDY CO. V. COPE, 235 U.S. 197, 201; FURST & THOMAS V.
BREWSTER, 282 U.S. 493. 

FN8  FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. TAFOYA, 270 U.S. 426, 434; HANOVER
FIRE INS. CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494, 507, 517. 

FN9  LOONEY V. CRANE CO., 245 U.S. 178, 187. 

FN10  WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1, 34; PULLMAN
CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 56; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. O'CONNOR,
223 U.S. 280, 285; WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. FOSTER, 247 U.S. 105, 114;
FROST TRUCKING CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 271 U.S. 583, 593. 

FN11  COMPARE WILOIL CORPORATION V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 169;
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. V. CURRY, 308 U.S. 513. 

FN12  WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. KANSAS, SUPRA; CREW LEVICK CO.
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292. 

FN13  UNITED STATES V. R.P. ANDREWS & CO., 207 U.S. 229; COMPARE
GARRETSON V. SELBY, 37 IOWA 529. 

FN14  ST. LOUIS COTTON COMPRESS CO. V. ARKANSAS, 260 U.S. 346. 

FN15  CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77. 

FN16  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DODGE, 246 U.S. 357, 375; HOME
INSURANCE CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397, 407; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING
CO., 302 U.S. 134, 139. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :









NELSON V. MONTGOMERY WARD, 312 U.S. 373 


NO. 256.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 14, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1941.  -
228 IOWA 1301 - 292 N.W. 142, REVERSED. 


1.  A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH MAINTAINED RETAIL STORES IN IOWA, AND
ALSO SOLICITED MAIL ORDERS IN THAT STATE BY LOCAL ADVERTISING, MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE REQUIRED TO COLLECT THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE IOWA USE
TAX ACT, IN RESPECT OF MAIL ORDERS SENT BY IOWA PURCHASERS TO OUT-OF
STATE BRANCHES OF THE CORPORATION AND FILLED BY DIRECT SHIPMENT BY MAIL
OR COMMON CARRIER FROM SUCH BRANCHES TO THE PURCHASERS.  NELSON V.
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., ANTE, P. 359.  P. 375. 

2.  THE EFFECT OF ADMITTED FACTS IS A QUESTION OF LAW.  P. 376. 

NELSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION, ET AL. V. MONTGOMERY
WARD & CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 630, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT OF A DECREE ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST RESPONDENT
OF PROVISIONS OF THE IOWA USE TAX ACT AS APPLIED TO MAIL ORDER SALES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT IN NELSON V. SEARS,
ROEBUCK & CO., ANTE, P. 359.  RESPONDENT IS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION
AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN IOWA.  RESPONDENT OPERATES RETAIL STORES
AND MAIL ORDER HOUSES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  IT HAS 29 RETAIL
STORES  FN1 AND SEVERAL ORDER OFFICES IN IOWA.  IT COLLECTS THE IOWA
TAX ON SALES MADE AT THE RETAIL STORES AND ON SALES HANDLED BY THOSE
ORDER OFFICES.  BUT IT HAS REFUSED TO COLLECT THE TAX  FN2  ON ORDERS
SENT DIRECTLY FROM IOWA CUSTOMERS TO ITS OUT OF STATE MAIL ORDER HOUSES
AND FILLED BY DIRECT SHIPMENTS THROUGH THE MAILS OR A COMMON CARRIER TO
THE PURCHASERS IN IOWA.  RESPONDENT, IN SEEKING AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE
JUDGMENT OF THE IOWA SUPREME COURT  FN3  (228 IA. 1301; 292 N.W. 142)
WHICH HELD THAT THE IOWA USE TAX AS APPLIED TO THESE MAIL ORDERS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL,  FN4  MAKES SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ARGUMENTS  FN5  AS
WERE ADVANCED IN NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., SUPRA. DISTRIBUTION OF
CATALOGUES IN IOWA APPARENTLY INVOLVES NO ACT OF RESPONDENT OR ITS
AGENTS WITHIN THE STATE.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT NO EMPLOYEE OF THE
MAIL ORDER HOUSES LIVES IN IOWA; THAT THERE ARE NO ACTS OF RESPONDENT
IN IOWA IN REGARD TO ANY OF THE ORDERS SENT TO THE OUT OF STATE MAIL
ORDER HOUSES; AND THAT RESPONDENT HAS NO MACHINERY FOR COLLECTING SUMS
DUE FROM IOWA CUSTOMERS BY INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE STATE, IT NOT BEING
THE PRACTICE OF RESPONDENT TO REFER ITS DELINQUENT MAIL ORDER ACCOUNTS
TO ITS RETAIL STORES IN IOWA FOR COLLECTION.  THOSE FACTS ARE
IMMATERIAL.  SOME OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES ARE IN IOWA REPRESENTING IT
IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS WHICH IT IS CONDUCTING PURSUANT TO ITS PERMIT
TO DO BUSINESS IN THAT STATE.  THE FACT THAT OTHER OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHO
WORK IN THE MAIL ORDER HOUSES AND HANDLE THE MAIL ORDERS HERE INVOLVED
ARE NOT IN IOWA IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT.  IT DOES NOT PERMIT RESPONDENT TO
ESCAPE THE BURDEN WHICH IOWA HAS EXACTED AS A PRICE OF ENJOYING THE
FULL BENEFITS FLOWING FROM ITS AGGREGATE IOWA BUSINESS.  NELSON V.
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., SUPRA. 

THERE IS A FURTHER FACT IN THIS RECORD WHICH MAKES A REVERSAL OF THIS
JUDGMENT NECESSARY.  IT WAS STIPULATED THAT "ADVERTISEMENTS HAVE BEEN
CAUSED TO BE PRINTED BY THE RETAIL STORES OF THE PETITIONER (MONTGOMERY
WARD AND CO.)  IN THE STATE OF IOWA, ADVERTISING NOT ONLY RETAIL
MERCHANDISE, BUT THE ABILITY TO COMPLETE SERVICE THROUGH THE USE OF THE
CATALOG."  THIS STIPULATION CLEARLY MEANS THAT RESPONDENT HAS SOLICITED
MAIL ORDER SALES IN IOWA.  THE FACT THAT THAT SOLICITATION WAS DONE
THROUGH LOCAL ADVERTISEMENTS RATHER THAN DIRECTLY BY LOCAL AGENTS AS IN
FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62, IS IMMATERIAL.  NOR
IS IT MATERIAL THAT THE ORDERS WERE FILLED BY DIRECT SHIPMENTS FROM
POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE TO PURCHASERS WITHIN THE STATE.  FOR THAT
METHOD OF DELIVERY ALSO OBTAINED IN CASE OF SOME OF THE ORDERS INVOLVED
IN FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, SUPRA. 

THE EFFECT OF ADMITTED FACTS IS A QUESTION OF LAW.  SWIFT & CO V.
HOCKING VALLEY RY. CO., 243 U.S. 281; ESTATE OF SANFORD V.
COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 39, 51.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE INVESTMENT IN THESE STORES IS OVER $900,000.  THE
APPROXIMATE SALES BY THESE STORES IN 1937 WAS $7,716,000. 

FN2  IN THE CATALOGUES SENT INTO IOWA THERE WAS THE FOLLOWING
NOTICE: 

"TO OUR IOWA CUSTOMERS: 

WE BELIEVE THAT CERTAIN OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE IOWA USE TAX LAW AS
APPLIED TO OUR BUSINESS, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THEREFORE WE ARE NOT
COLLECTING OR REPORTING THE USE TAX ON MAIL ORDERS SENT BY IOWA
CUSTOMERS DIRECT TO ANY OF OUR MAIL ORDER HOUSES. 

UNTIL YOU HEAR FROM US TO THE CONTRARY, MAIL IN YOUR ORDERS JUST AS
YOU HAVE IN THE PAST.  MONTGOMERY WARD & CO." 

IT WAS TESTIFIED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE WAS NOT TO INTIMATE
TO IOWA PURCHASERS THAT BY MAILING THEIR ORDERS TO MAIL ORDER HOUSES
OUTSIDE THE STATE THEY COULD SECURE A TWO PER CENT DIFFERENTIAL OVER
PURCHASES MADE IN THE STATE. 

FN3  ONE QUESTION, NOT RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, RELATED
TO THE DUTY OF RESPONDENT TO COLLECT THE USE TAX ON SALES MADE IN
RETAIL STORES LOCATED NEAR, BUT OUTSIDE, THE BOUNDARIES OF IOWA, WHERE
THE PURCHASER WAS A RESIDENT OF IOWA AND PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR USE
IN IOWA.  THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, HELD THAT
THE USE TAX ACT AS APPLIED TO THESE TRANSACTIONS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
CHIEF JUSTICE HAMILTON, WHO DISSENTED FROM THE JUDGMENT AS RESPECTS THE
MAIL ORDERS, CONCURRED INSOFAR AS SALES FROM THE OUT OF STATE RETAIL
STORES WERE CONCERNED, SAYING THAT RESPONDENT "HAS NO FEASIBLE WAY OF
KNOWING OR ASCERTAINING WHERE THE CUSTOMER LIVES OR WHERE HE IS GOING
TO MAKE USE OF THE MERCHANDISE PURCHASED" AND THAT TO IMPOSE THE BURDEN
OF TAX COLLECTION ON IT WOULD BE TO GIVE IT "AN ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE
TASK." 

FN4  RESPONDENT'S BILL ALSO CONTAINED ALLEGATIONS THAT THE USE TAX AS
APPLIED CONTRAVENED CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE IOWA CONSTITUTION.  THOSE
ISSUES, HOWEVER, WERE NOT PASSED ON BY THE IOWA SUPREME COURT. 

FN5  ITS EXPERIENCE WITH THE ILLINOIS SALES TAX SHOWS THAT ONLY 75%
OF THE ILLINOIS CUSTOMERS REMIT THE TAX WITH THEIR ORDERS.  DUE BILLS
ARE SENT (EXCEPT FOR DEFICIENCIES LESS THAN TWO CENTS) AND 58% ARE NOT
COLLECTED.  BASED ON THIS EXPERIENCE RESPONDENT ESTIMATES THAT OUT OF
$10,000 OF USE TAXES ON MAIL ORDERS FROM IOWA CUSTOMERS, IT WOULD BE
ABLE TO COLLECT $8,550.  IF NO NOTICES WERE INCLUDED IN THE CATALOGUES
SENT INTO IOWA, THEN BASED ON ITS ILLINOIS EXPERIENCE RESPONDENT
ESTIMATES THAT ONLY 42% OF THE DUE BILLS WOULD BE COLLECTED.  IN
ADDITION TO THESE DEFICITS RESPONDENT ASSERTS THAT IT WOULD INCUR A
DIRECT COST RANGING FROM $890 TO $1,040 FOR EVERY $10,000 OF TAX
LIABILITY. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION OF
THIS CASE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENT FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN NELSON V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.,
ANTE, P. 366. 
..END :







KELLEAM V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 312 U.S. 377 


NO. 349.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 17, 1941.  - 112
F.2D 940, REVERSED. 


1.  A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD NOT GRANT A RECEIVERSHIP EXCEPT
AS ANCILLARY TO SOME PRIMARY RELIEF WHICH IS SOUGHT AND WHICH EQUITY
MAY APPROPRIATELY GRANT.  P. 380. 

2.  THE REASONS FOR SUCH RESTRAINT ARE REINFORCED WHERE THE RIGHTS TO
THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONSERVED BY A RECEIVERSHIP ARE BEING
LITIGATED IN A STATE COURT.  P. 381. 

3.  A REMEDIAL RIGHT TO PROCEED IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN EQUITY
CAN NOT BE ENLARGED BY A STATE STATUTE.  P. 382. 

4.  AFTER AN ESTATE HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO HEIRS AND THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS SURETY DISCHARGED BY A DECREE OF A STATE PROBATE
COURT, AND WHILE AN APPEAL BY OTHER HEIRS FROM A REFUSAL OF THAT COURT
TO SET ASIDE THE DECREE FOR FRAUD WAS PENDING BEFORE ANOTHER STATE
COURT, THE SURETY COMPANY ENTERED A FEDERAL COURT ON THE GROUND OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND SOUGHT PROTECTION AGAINST ITS CONTINGENT
LIABILITY BY A BILL WHICH IMPLEADED ALL OF THE HEIRS, ALLEGING THAT THE
PROBATE DECREE WAS FRAUDULENT AND PRAYING THAT THE DEFENDANTS BE
REQUIRED TO SET UP THEIR CLAIMS AND THAT A RECEIVER BE APPOINTED TO
PRESERVE THE PROPERTY PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THEIR DISPUTE.  FOR OUGHT
THAT APPEARED, THE SURETY COULD HAVE OBTAINED PROTECTION IN THE CAUSE
PENDING IN THE STATE COURT.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT APPOINTMENT BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF A RECEIVER WAS AN ABUSE
OF DISCRETION.  P. 382. 

(2)  SINCE THE BILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TO THE SURETY, IT
HAVING NO PRESENT CLAIM TO RELIEF ON ITS OWN BEHALF IN THE FEDERAL
COURT, THAT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE CLAIMS OF THE
HEIRS, THERE NOT BEING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN THEM.  P. 382. 

(3)  IF THE BILL WERE TO BE CONSTRUED AS PRESENTING A CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN HEIRS WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE JURISDICTION
TO ADJUDICATE, THAT COURT COULD NOT PROPERLY PROCEED BECAUSE THE VERY
CONTROVERSY WAS BEFORE A STATE COURT IN AN ACTION NOT SIMPLY IN
PERSONAM BUT INVOLVING ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS TO SPECIFIC PROPERTY.  P.
382. 

KELLEAM ET AL. V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. OF BALTIMORE, MD., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 627, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
APPOINTING A RECEIVER, PROVIDING FOR EXONERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
SURETY, ADJUDICATING THE RIGHTS OF HEIRS IN A DECEDENT'S ESTATE,
ESTABLISHING A LIEN, ORDERING AN ACCOUNTING, ETC. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CONTROVERSY HAS ITS ORIGIN IN A PROBATE PROCEEDING IN AN
OKLAHOMA COURT.  PETITIONER, E. A. KELLEAM, WAS ADMINISTRATOR IN THAT
PROCEEDING.  RESPONDENT, MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, WAS SURETY ON HIS
BOND.  THE PROBATE COURT HELD THAT ALL OF DECEDENT'S PROPERTY WAS A
MATERNAL ANCESTRAL ESTATE TO WHICH THE FULL-BLOOD HEIRS, E. A. KELLEAM
AND NELL SOUTHARD, WERE ENTITLED TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE HALF-BLOOD
HEIRS, THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS HERE.  SUCH DISTRIBUTION WAS ORDERED
AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY WERE DISCHARGED
FROM FURTHER LIABILITY.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN; BUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER
THE HALF-BLOOD HEIRS BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE OKLAHOMA COURT TO SET
ASIDE THAT DECREE, ALLEGING THAT PETITIONERS E. A. KELLEAM AND NELL
SOUTHARD HAD PERPETRATED A FRAUD UPON THE PROBATE COURT AND THAT THE
HALF-BLOODS WERE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATION, THE ESTATE BEING A GENERAL
NOT AN ANCESTRAL ESTATE.  A DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT WAS SUSTAINED AND
AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE OKLAHOMA DISTRICT COURT WHERE IT IS NOW
PENDING.  AFTER THAT SUIT HAD BEEN COMMENCED  FN1  RESPONDENT-SURETY,
LEARNING THAT E. A. KELLEAM AND NELL SOUTHARD HAD TRANSFERRED SOME OF
THE PROPERTY RECEIVED FROM THE ESTATE,  FN2  BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, JOINING THE FULL-BLOODS AND THE HALF
BLOODS AS DEFENDANTS AND INVOKING FEDERAL JURISDICTION ON THE BASIS OF
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  IN THIS SUIT IN EQUITY FN3  RESPONDENT
SURETY SOUGHT EXONERATION ON ITS BOND, ALLEGED THAT ITS REMEDY AT LAW
WAS INADEQUATE, AND PRAYED THAT A RECEIVER BE APPOINTED TO PRESERVE THE
DECEDENT'S PROPERTY PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE
HEIRS, AND THAT THE PARTIES BE REQUIRED TO SET UP WHATEVER CLAIMS THEY
MIGHT HAVE TO THE PROPERTY.  BY THEIR ANSWER AND CROSS-PETITION, THE
HALF-BLOODS RENEWED THEIR CLAIMS OF FRAUD IN THE PROBATE DECREE AND
JOINED IN THE PRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER.  THE ANSWERS OF
PETITIONERS ALLEGED, INTER ALIA, LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL
COURT BY REASON OF THE ACTION IN THE STATE COURT; AND THEY MOVED TO
STRIKE THE CROSS-PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.  BY AN AMENDMENT TO
ITS BILL RESPONDENT-SURETY ADDED ALLEGATIONS CHARGING FRAUD IN THE
PROBATE DECREE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONERS E. A.
KELLEAM AND NELL SOUTHARD, KNOWING OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE OTHER HEIRS,
FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALED THOSE FACTS FROM THE PROBATE COURT, GAVE NO
NOTICE TO THE OTHER HEIRS AS REQUIRED BY LAW, AND REPRESENTED THAT E.
A. KELLEAM WAS A RESIDENT OF OKLAHOMA WHEN HE WAS NOT; THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR FAILED TO APPOINT A SERVICE AGENT AS REQUIRED BY OKLAHOMA
STATUTES; THAT THE ESTATE WAS FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED AS AN ANCESTRAL
ESTATE AND THAT PETITIONERS E. A. KELLEAM AND NELL SOUTHARD IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN TO DEFRAUD THE HALF-BLOODS CONSUMMATED A
SETTLEMENT WITH SOME OF THEM IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR AGREEMENT NOT TO
CONTEST THE PROBATE DECREE; THAT THAT DECREE, HAVING BEEN OBTAINED BY
FRAUD, WAS VOID AS TO THE HALF-BLOODS; THAT THE INTERMEDIATE
CONVEYANCES BY PETITIONERS E. A. KELLEAM AND NELL SOUTHARD WERE
FRAUDULENT; THAT THE REMAINING ASSETS OF THE ESTATE WERE IN DANGER OF
BEING DISSIPATED; THAT RESPONDENT-SURETY WOULD BECOME LIABLE TO THE
HALF-BLOODS FOR FAILURE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO PERFORM HIS DUTIES; AND
THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE PRESERVED PENDING A FINAL ORDER OF
ACCOUNTING.  ACCORDINGLY, IT APPOINTED A RECEIVER, DECREED THAT
RESPONDENT-SURETY WAS ENTITLED TO EXONERATION BY HAVING DESIGNATED
PROPERTY APPLIED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE HALF
BLOODS, DECREED THAT THE HALF-BLOODS WERE OWNERS OF DESIGNATED
UNDIVIDED INTERESTS IN THE ESTATE, ESTABLISHED A LIEN THEREON, AND
ORDERED PETITIONERS E. A. KELLEAM AND NELL SOUTHARD TO ACCOUNT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  112 F.2D 940.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGED PROPRIETY OF THE ACTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN APPOINTING A RECEIVER AND IN ADJUDICATING MATTERS AT
ISSUE IN THE STATE COURT. 

WE THINK THE BILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. 

THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF THE BILL WAS TO SECURE THE APPOINTMENT OF A
RECEIVER SO AS TO CONSERVE THE PROPERTY AND TO IMPRESS IT WITH A LIEN
FOR THE SURETY'S PROTECTION.  THE SURETY HAD NO STAKE IN THE OUTCOME OF
THE DISPUTE AMONG THE HEIRS BEYOND ITS CONTINGENT RIGHT TO
EXONERATION.  IN THIS POSTURE OF THE CASE IT IS MANIFEST THAT
RESPONDENT-SURETY SOUGHT THE RECEIVERSHIP NOT AS A MEANS TO AN END BUT
AS AN END IN ITSELF.  THE RECEIVERSHIP WAS ANCILLARY ONLY IN THE SENSE
THAT IT WAS PROTECTIVE OF THE SURETY WHATEVER THE FUTURE OUTCOME OF THE
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE HEIRS.  THE SURETY WAS NOT PRESENTLY LIABLE ON
ITS BOND; ITS LIABILITY AND ITS RIGHT TO EXONERATION WERE WHOLLY
CONTINGENT, BEING DEPENDENT ON A SUCCESSFUL ATTACK ON THE PROBATE
DECREE BY THE HALF-BLOODS.  THAT ATTACK WAS CURRENTLY BEING MADE IN THE
STATE COURT. 

ACCORDINGLY, A RECEIVER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED.  THE ERROR IN
THE APPOINTMENT WAS NOT A QUESTION OF AUTHORITY BUT OF PROPRIETY. 
PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176; GORDON V. WASHINGTON, 295 U.S.
30.  AS THIS COURT STATED IN THE GORDON CASE (P. 37):  "A RECEIVERSHIP
IS ONLY A MEANS TO REACH SOME LEGITIMATE END SOUGHT THROUGH THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF A COURT OF EQUITY.  IT IS NOT AN END IN
ITSELF."  RECEIVERSHIPS FOR CONSERVATION OF PROPERTY "ARE TO BE WATCHED
WITH JEALOUS EYES LEST THEIR FUNCTION BE PERVERTED."  MICHIGAN V.
MICHIGAN TRUST CO., 286 U.S. 334, 345.  THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY
ADMONISHED THAT A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD NOT APPOINT A RECEIVER
WHERE THE APPOINTMENT IS NOT A REMEDY AUXILIARY TO SOME PRIMARY RELIEF
WHICH IS SOUGHT AND WHICH EQUITY MAY APPROPRIATELY GRANT.  BOOTH V.
CLARK, 17 HOW.  322, 331; PUSEY & JONES CO. V. HANSSEN, 261 U.S. 491;
GORDON V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA.  AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH RESTRAINT ARE
REINFORCED WHERE THE RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE CONSERVED BY A
RECEIVERSHIP ARE BEING LITIGATED IN A STATE COURT.  CF. PENN GENERAL
CASUALTY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 189; PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS,
SUPRA.  THERE WAS HERE NO ACCRUED RIGHT OF THE SURETY AS RESPECTS THE
ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH THE RECEIVERSHIP WAS AN ANCILLARY REMEDY, ITS
RIGHT TO EXONERATION BEING WHOLLY CONTINGENT.  FN4  THE EXISTENCE OF
ANY RIGHT TO EXONERATION WAS DEPENDENT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE ACTION
WHICH WAS PENDING IN THE OKLAHOMA COURT.  IN VIEW OF THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES, EQUITY PRACTICE DOES NOT SANCTION THE USE OF A
CONSERVATION RECEIVERSHIP TO PROTECT SUCH A CLAIM.  FURTHERMORE, FROM
ALL THAT APPEARS, THE SURETY COULD BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED IN THE CAUSE
PENDING IN THE OKLAHOMA COURT BY PROVISIONAL REMEDIES OR OTHERWISE. 

RESPONDENT-SURETY CONTENDS THAT UNDER OKLAHOMA STATUTES A SURETY MAY
OBTAIN INDEMNITY AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL EVEN BEFORE THE DEBT IS DUE AND
RECEIVE THE PROTECTION OF VARIOUS PROVISIONAL REMEDIES.  EVEN SO, A
"REMEDIAL RIGHT TO PROCEED IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN EQUITY CANNOT
BE ENLARGED BY A STATE STATUTE."  PUSEY & JONES CO. V. HANSSEN, SUPRA,
P. 497. 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER WAS AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION. 

SINCE RESPONDENT-SURETY HAD NO PRESENT CLAIM TO RELIEF ON ITS OWN
BEHALF IN THE FEDERAL COURT, THAT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO
ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE FULL-BLOODS AND THE HALF-BLOODS. 
EVEN IF, ON THIS RECORD, THE PRESENCE OF RESPONDENT-SURETY WOULD
SUPPORT A CLAIM TO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THAT DIVERSITY WAS LACKING
AS BETWEEN THE OTHER PARTIES.  HENCE ONCE THE BILL OF COMPLAINT WERE
DISMISSED, NO JURISDICTION WOULD REMAIN FOR ANY GRANT OF RELIEF UNDER
THE CROSS-PETITION.  SEE KROMER V. EVERETT IMP.  CO., 110 F. 22.  AND
EVEN IF THE BILL BE CONSTRUED AS DRAWING IN ISSUE THE MERITS OF THE
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE HEIRS WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION
TO ADJUDICATE WITHIN THE RULE OF ARROWSMITH V. GLEASON, 129 U.S. 86,
AND SUTTON V. ENGLISH, 246 U.S. 199, 205, THAT COURT COULD NOT WITH
PROPRIETY PROCEED.  A CASE INVOLVING THAT VERY CONTROVERSY WAS PENDING
IN THE OKLAHOMA COURT.  THAT CASE DID NOT INVOLVE SIMPLY AN IN PERSONAM
ACTION.  CF. KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226.  IT
INVOLVED AN ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS TO SPECIFIC PROPERTY DISTRIBUTED
PURSUANT TO A PROBATE DECREE.  CF. PENN GENERAL CASUALTY CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, AT P. 195.  THE FEDERAL COURT THEREFORE SHOULD NOT
HAVE ASSERTED ITS AUTHORITY.  IN SUCH A CASE IT IS "IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST THAT FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY SHOULD EXERCISE THEIR
DISCRETIONARY POWER WITH PROPER REGARD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF
STATE GOVERNMENTS IN CARRYING OUT THEIR DOMESTIC POLICY."  PENNSYLVANIA
V. WILLIAMS, SUPRA, P. 185.  REVERSED. 

FN1  RESPONDENT-SURETY APPARENTLY WAS SERVED WITH NOTICE OF THAT SUIT
AND APPEARED THEREIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUASHING THE NOTICE. 

FN2  ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS BELOW, TRANSFERS WERE MADE TO
PETITIONERS JOE E. KELLEAM AND JOE R. SOUTHARD, JR. 

FN3  THIS WAS NOT A BILL OF INTERPLEADER UNDER 49 STAT. 1096, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(26) NOR A SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACT, 48 STAT. 955, 49 STAT. 1027; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 400. 

FN4  CF. GLADES COUNTY V. DETROIT FIDELITY & SURETY CO., 57 F.2D 449,
452; MORELY CONSTRUCTION CO. V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 90 F.2D 976;
SOUTHWESTERN SURETY INS. CO. V. WELLS, 217 F. 294; CENTRAL SURETY &
INS. CORP. V. BAGLEY, 44 F.2D 808; ARANT, SURETYSHIP (1931) PP. 318
321. 
..END :




















WALKER V. JOHNSTON, 312 U.S. 275 


NO. 173.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 10, 1941.  - 109
F.2D 436, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE STATUTE GOVERNING HABEAS CORPUS, THE WRIT MAY BE DENIED
IF, UPON THE FACE OF THE PETITION, IT APPEARS THAT THE PETITIONER IS
NOT ENTITLED TO IT.  P. 284. 

2.  THE PRACTICE OF ISSUING AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PERMITTING THE
RELATOR TO REPLY TO THE RESPONDENT'S RETURN, THUS AVOIDING USELESS
ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT AND PRODUCTION OF THE PRISONER AND WITNESSES IN
CASES WHERE IT APPEARS UPON THE FACE OF THE PAPERS THAT NO MATERIAL
ISSUE OF FACT IS INVOLVED AND THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW NO CAUSE FOR
GRANTING THE WRIT EXISTS,  - IS A SETTLED PRACTICE PERMITTED BY THE
STATUTE.  P. 284. 

3.  WHERE THE PETITION AND TRAVERSE ON THE ONE HAND AND THE RETURN ON
THE OTHER RAISE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES OF FACT THE WRIT MUST BE GRANTED,
THE PRISONER PRODUCED AND HIS CASE DETERMINED UPON A HEARING OF
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT; THE STATUTE DOES NOT ALLOW A DISPOSITION OF THE
CASE UPON EX PARTE AFFIDAVITS.  P. 285. 

4.  ONE WHO, THROUGH THE DECEPTION OR COERCION OF THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY, IS INDUCED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO AN INDICTMENT FOR A FEDERAL
OFFENSE, WITHOUT THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL AND IN IGNORANCE OF HIS RIGHT TO
SUCH ADVICE, IS DEPRIVED OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  P. 286. 

5.  ON A HEARING IN HABEAS CORPUS, THE PRISONER IS UNDER THE BURDEN
OF PROVING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THE FACTS WHICH, HE ALLEGES,
ENTITLE HIM TO A DISCHARGE.  P. 286. 

WALKER V. JOHNSTON, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 635, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT IN
HABEAS CORPUS DISCHARGING A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND DISMISSING THE
PETITION FOR THE WRIT. 

THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT IS GOOD ON ITS FACE.  THE ULTIMATE ISSUE
IS ONE OF FACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE ISSUED THE WRIT, HELD A
FULL JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND SPECIFICALLY FOUND THE FACTS. 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION STATE A CASE OF IMPRISONMENT IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS.  THIS IS SHOWN BY
PRECEDENTS IN THIS COURT, THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT, AND MODERN VIEWS OF THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENT PRISONERS.  THE
CASE FALLS WITHIN JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, AND POWELL V.
ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, WHICH DECIDE THAT AN INDIGENT PRISONER CHARGED
WITH A SERIOUS CRIME IS ENTITLED TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL WITHOUT
COST, AT EVERY STEP OF THE PROCEEDINGS, TO AID HIM IN SCRUTINIZING THE
INDICTMENT AND IN PREPARING THE CASE AS WELL AS ACTUALLY TRYING IT. 

THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WAS, AS CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE INDICATES, DESIGNED
TO REQUIRE IN ALL SERIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS THE SAME RIGHT TO THE
FREE ASSIGNMENT OF COUNSEL PRIOR TO ARRAIGNMENT WHICH EXISTED UNDER THE
ENGLISH TREASON ACT OF 1695(WELL KNOWN TO THE AMERICAN COLONISTS BY ITS
CITATION IN BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, BOOK IV, P. 356), AND WHICH WAS
PROPOSED TO THE FRENCH DRAFTSMEN OF THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
(LAROCHELLE, CAHIER DU TIERS, III, 161).  FURTHERMORE, PRECEDENT AND
HISTORY ASIDE, MODERN COMMENTATORS REGARD ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PRIOR
TO ARRAIGNMENT AS A PREREQUISITE OF DUE PROCESS.  SEE NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT (POPULARLY KNOWN AS THE
WICKERSHAM COMMISSION), REPORT ON LAWLESSNESS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOL.
IV, PP. 5, 7, 281. 

SINCE THE APPLICATION IS GOOD ON ITS FACE, AND THE ULTIMATE ISSUE IS
ONE OF FACT, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO ISSUE THE
WRIT.  R.S. SECS. 755, 758.  THIS IS THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN THE
ORDERS OF THIS COURT (NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276, 285) AS WELL
AS IN MOST, THOUGH NOT ALL, OF THE INFERIOR FEDERAL COURTS, AND IN
ENGLAND.  IT IS A PRACTICE WHICH IS DEMANDED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIR
PLAY, AND HAS NOT BEEN FOUND INCONVENIENT OR IMPRACTICAL IN ATLANTA
WHERE ONE OF THE LARGEST UNITED STATES PENITENTIARIES IS LOCATED. 
MOREOVER, CONVENIENCE IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION IN A
PROCEEDING THAT PLACES AT STAKE LIBERTY OF THE PERSON. 

WHEN THE PETITIONER IS BROUGHT INTO COURT ON THE WRIT HE IS ENTITLED
TO A FULL INQUIRY INTO THE FACTS AND TO SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT BY
THE TRIAL COURT.  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86, 92; JOHNSON V. ZERBST,
304 U.S. 458. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO THE ISSUANCE OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS MUST BE TESTED BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
PETITION AND TRAVERSE AND THE UNCONTRADICTED OR IRREFUTABLE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE RETURN. 

NEITHER THE FIFTH NOR THE SIXTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THE COURT TO
ASSIGN COUNSEL IN THE ABSENCE OF A REQUEST, UNLESS THE DEFENDANT IS IN
APPARENT NEED OF AID.  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, DISTINGUISHED. 
SEE POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45. 

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A TRIAL AND A PLEA OF GUILTY AS EVIDENCE OF
THE NEED FOR COUNSEL IS THE IMPLICIT BASIS OF THE MANY DECISIONS SINCE
JOHNSON V. ZERBST WHICH TREAT A VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY, MADE WITHOUT
REQUESTING COUNSEL, AS A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT.  A TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT
ACCEPT A PLEA OF GUILTY WITHOUT ASSURING HIMSELF THAT IT IS VOLUNTARY
AND COMPETENT, AND IF IT IS NOT, IT CAN BE SET ASIDE.  FRAME V.
HUDSPETH, 309 U.S. 632. 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE TRAVERSE DO NOT ESTABLISH A REQUEST FOR
COUNSEL OR SHOW THAT THE PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY MADE.  THE SENTENCE
CONFORMED TO THE PETITIONER'S EXPECTATION AND WAS FAIR.  IT IS NOT
ALLEGED THAT HE HAD A DEFENSE WHICH HE WAS INDUCED TO FOREGO. 

THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS WAIVED.  A WAIVER DOES NOT ALWAYS REQUIRE
"AN INTENTIONAL RELINQUISHMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A KNOWN RIGHT." 
JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. AT 464.  WAIVER MAY BE IMPLIED AS A MATTER
OF LAW WHEN REASONS OF EXTRINSIC POLICY JUSTIFY THE IMPLICATION.  SUCH
REASONS ORDINARILY EXIST WHEN A DEFENDANT OF MATURE AGE COMPETENTLY AND
VOLUNTARILY PLEADS GUILTY WITHOUT REQUESTING COUNSEL. 

PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT HE ACTUALLY NEEDED COUNSEL.  THEREFORE
THE JUDGMENT CAN NOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED.  EVEN IF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT IS INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE THAT ALL DEFENDANTS HAVE COUNSEL
UPON ASSIGNMENT OR KNOWINGLY WAIVE THE RIGHT, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY
FOLLOW THAT WHENEVER THIS HAS NOT OCCURRED THE JUDGMENT IS VOID AND IS
OPEN TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  THE CONCEPT OF JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT IS NOT
INFLEXIBLE AND EVEN THE AVAILABILITY OF HABEAS CORPUS MAY TURN ON
JUDICIAL DISCRETION. 

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE ABSTRACT RIGHT WAS DENIED;
PETITIONER MUST ESTABLISH THAT HE WAS IN ACTUAL NEED OF COUNSEL EITHER
IN CHOOSING HIS OWN COURSE OR IN PRESENTING HIS CASE.  PREJUDICE CAN
NOT BE IMPLIED WHEN A DEFENDANT UNDERSTANDINGLY PLEADS GUILTY TO A
VALID INDICTMENT; AND CERTAINLY NOT WHEN HE IS A MAN OF MATURE AGE WHO
HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIME.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY
SIGNIFICANT COMPLAINT IS THAT PETITIONER DID NOT KNOW AND WAS NOT TOLD
OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  STANDING ALONE, THIS IS INSUFFICIENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE TOUCHING THE ISSUE
OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  WE ACCORDINGLY GRANTED CERTIORARI IN
FORMA PAUPERIS, AND APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER TO INSURE
ADEQUATE PRESENTATION AT OUR BAR. 

THE PETITIONER, WHO IS CONFINED IN THE FEDERAL PRISON AT ALCATRAZ,
CALIFORNIA, UNDER SENTENCE AND COMMITMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
NORTHERN TEXAS UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY TO AN INDICTMENT CHARGING ARMED
ROBBERY OF A NATIONAL BANK, SOUGHT HABEAS CORPUS IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.  HIS PETITION RECITES THAT HE WAS INDICTED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN TEXAS MARCH 9, 1936; THAT THE CAUSE
CAME ON FOR TRIAL APRIL 28, 1936, AND HE PLEADED GUILTY; THAT HE WAS
SENTENCED MAY 1, 1936, TO TWELVE YEARS' IMPRISONMENT, WAS COMMITTED TO
THE PENITENTIARY AT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS, MAY 4, 1936, AND IS NOW
CONFINED AT ALCATRAZ.  THE PETITION ALLEGES THAT AT TRIAL THE
PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; THAT HE DID NOT WAIVE
HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; THAT THE COURT DID NOT INQUIRE WHETHER HE DESIRED
COUNSEL OR INSTRUCT HIM THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL; THAT HE DID
NOT KNOW HE WAS SO ENTITLED IF HE HAD NO MONEY TO PAY AN ATTORNEY; AND
THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS VOID, AS HE WAS DEPRIVED OF THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE PRAYER IS THAT THE WRIT ISSUE AND
THAT HE BE RELEASED FROM CUSTODY. 

THE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ADDRESSED TO THE WARDEN OF
THE PENITENTIARY.  THAT OFFICER FILED A RETURN SHOWING THAT HE HELD THE
PRISONER UNDER A COMMITMENT ISSUED BY THE TEXAS DISTRICT COURT AND A
TRANSFER FROM LEAVENWORTH TO ALCATRAZ ORDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE
BUREAU OF PRISONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  ATTACHED TO THE RETURN
WERE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE INDICTMENT, MINUTE ENTRIES, SENTENCE, AND
COMMITMENT, AND DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE CAUSE, TRANSFER ORDER, AND RECORD
OF COMMITMENT.  ALSO ATTACHED WERE AFFIDAVITS OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, AND THE PROBATION
OFFICER (FORMERLY A DEPUTY MARSHAL) OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 
THESE AFFIANTS, OR SOME OF THEM, DEPOSED TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT: THE
PETITIONER WAS JOINTLY INDICTED WITH ONE WHITE, WHO PLEADED NOT GUILTY,
WAS TRIED, CONVICTED, AND SENTENCED; THE PETITIONER HAD NO COUNSEL AS
HE ENTERED A PLEA OF GUILTY.  AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS INDICTED HE WAS AN ESCAPED CONVICT
FROM THE STATE PENITENTIARY OF NEW MEXICO AND WAS BROUGHT THENCE FOR
TRIAL.  ON THE DAY OF THE TRIAL, THE MARSHAL BROUGHT HIM TO THE FEDERAL
BUILDING WHERE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TALKED TO HIM; ASKED HIM WHETHER
HE WAS GUILTY AND HE STATED HE WAS; ASKED HIM IF HE WAS GOING TO PLEAD
GUILTY AND HE STATED HE WAS; ASKED HIM WHETHER HE HAD A LAWYER AND HE
STATED HE DID NOT WANT AN ATTORNEY AS HE THOUGHT AN ATTORNEY WOULD BE
OF NO VALUE TO HIM.  THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY EXPLAINED TO THE PETITIONER
THAT HE THOUGHT THE JUDGE WOULD GIVE HIM GREATER CONSIDERATION, IF HE
WAS GUILTY, ON HIS ENTERING A PLEA OF GUILTY.  THE PETITIONER WAS TOLD
HIS INTERVIEWERS BELIEVED THAT IF HE WOULD TELL THE JUDGE THE TRUTH AND
TESTIFY IN THE CASE AS TO HIS ACCOMPLICES THAT FACT WOULD BE CONSIDERED
BY THE JUDGE IN PASSING SENTENCE.  THE PETITIONER STATED HE WOULD ENTER
A PLEA OF GUILTY BUT WOULD NOT TESTIFY.  HE REFUSED TO SAY WHETHER THE
CO-DEFENDANT WHITE WAS WITH HIM AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY AND SAID
THAT HE WOULD PREFER NOT TO MAKE A STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO OTHER
FACTS IN THE CASE.  ONE AFFIANT STATED HIS BELIEF THAT PETITIONER TOLD
THE JUDGE IN OPEN COURT THAT HE HAD NO COUNSEL AND DID NOT DESIRE ANY
AS HE WAS GUILTY AND INTENDED TO PLEAD GUILTY.  THREE WITNESSES
IDENTIFIED THE PETITIONER AS BEING ONE OF THE MEN WHO ENTERED THE BANK
AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF HIS GUILT.  AFTER SENTENCE, PETITIONER
EXPRESSED HIS SATISFACTION AT THE LENGTH OF SENTENCE IMPOSED.  SOME
TIME LATER A LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PETITIONER THANKING THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR WHAT HE HAD DONE FOR HIM. 

THE PETITIONER ANSWERED, DENYING THAT HE HAD STATED TO ONE OR MORE OF
THE AFFIANTS, OR IN THE PRESENCE OF ONE OR MORE OF THEM, THAT HE WAS
GUILTY OR THAT HE INTENDED TO PLEAD GUILTY; THAT HE DID NOT WANT AN
ATTORNEY OR FELT THAT AN ATTORNEY WOULD BE OF NO VALUE TO HIM.  HE
ALLEGED THAT HE FIRST LEARNED HE WAS TO BE PROSECUTED FOR THE OFFENSE
IN QUESTION ABOUT APRIL 26, 1936, WHEN A DEPUTY MARSHAL TOOK HIM FROM
NEW MEXICO TO TEXAS; THAT, PRIOR TO TRIAL, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, IN
THE PRESENCE OF THE DEPUTY MARSHAL, ASKED HIM TO PLEAD GUILTY AND HE
REPLIED THAT HE INTENDED TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY, WHEREUPON THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY EXHIBITED TO HIM PICTURES OF THE SCENE OF THE ALLEGED CRIME
AND, BY MEANS OF THEM AND OTHERWISE, SOUGHT TO PERSUADE HIM THAT HE
WOULD BE PROVED GUILTY; THAT THE PETITIONER REFUSED TO TALK FURTHER
WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME; THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
AGAIN VISITED HIM AND THE PETITIONER THEN REQUESTED THAT THE TRIAL BE
CONTINUED SO THAT HE COULD COMMUNICATE WITH HIS RELATIVES AND TRY TO
OBTAIN MONEY TO ENABLE HIM TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY FOR HIS DEFENSE, BUT
THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ADVISED HIM THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND TOLD
HIM TO PLEAD GUILTY, WARNING HIM THAT HE WOULD BE SENTENCED TO TWICE AS
GREAT A TERM IF HE DID NOT SO PLEAD; THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NO
RELATIVES OR FRIENDS NEAR THE SCENE OF THE TRIAL OTHER THAN HIS
CODEFENDANT WHITE.  HE ALLEGED THAT HE REQUESTED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TO BE PERMITTED TO TALK TO WHITE OR WHITE'S ATTORNEY, BUT THE REQUEST
WAS REFUSED.  IN VIEW OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S WARNING, AND IN FEAR
OF A HEAVY PRISON TERM, HE TOLD THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HE WOULD PLEAD
GUILTY.  THE ANSWER ALLEGES THAT PETITIONER HAS NO INFORMATION AND
BELIEF SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE HIM TO ANSWER THE STATEMENT CONCERNING HIS
LETTER CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SENT FROM THE PENITENTIARY AND, THEREFORE,
DENIES THE FACT; DENIES THAT THE PETITIONER STATED TO THE JUDGE THAT HE
DID NOT DESIRE COUNSEL APPOINTED FOR HIM OR THAT HE WAS PLEADING GUILTY
BECAUSE HE WAS GUILTY; ALLEGES THAT AT NO TIME WAS PETITIONER INFORMED,
DID HE KNOW OR BELIEVE THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE, AND THAT AT NO TIME DID ANYONE ASK HIM IF HE
DESIRED THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL NOR DID ANYONE OFFER TO PROCURE SUCH
ASSISTANCE FOR HIM; AVERS THAT HE WAS WITHOUT MONEY TO PAY FOR COUNSEL
AND BELIEVED HE COULD NOT OBTAIN THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WITHOUT
MONEY TO PAY A LAWYER; ASSERTS THAT HE ATTENDED SCHOOL TO THE FIFTH
GRADE AND HAD HAD NO FURTHER SCHOOLING OR EDUCATION, WAS ENTIRELY
UNVERSED IN THE LAW AND UNABLE AND UNQUALIFIED TO REPRESENT OR ACT FOR
HIMSELF IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING; THAT AT NO TIME WAS HE ASKED TO WAIVE
HIS RIGHT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL NOR DID HE BY WORD OR ACT STATE
OR INDICATE THAT HE WAIVED, OR INTENDED TO WAIVE, THAT RIGHT; DENIES
HIS GUILT AND DENIES THAT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT TRIAL SHOWED HIS
GUILT. 

UPON THESE PLEADINGS THE DISTRICT JUDGE, AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT,
DISCHARGED THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR THE
WRIT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN1 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE
STATUTE REQUIRED THE DISTRICT COURT TO ISSUE THE WRIT AND, UPON HIS
PRODUCTION IN COURT, TO HOLD A HEARING ON THE ISSUES MADE BY THE
PLEADINGS.  THE COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS ON THE CONTENTION,
SINCE IT HELD "ANOTHER MANNER OF PROCEEDING" (THAT HERE FOLLOWED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT) WAS PERMISSIBLE UNDER OUR DECISIONS.  IT APPROVED THE
SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF THE CASE ON THE PLEADINGS AND AFFIDAVITS
SUBMITTED, AS THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT
BY AFFIDAVIT WHATEVER HE DEEMED MATERIAL.  IT THOUGHT THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISBELIEVING THE PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS AND,
ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DISBELIEF, DISCHARGING THE RULE AND DENYING THE
PETITION.    THE CASE PRESENTS THESE QUESTIONS:  (1) WAS THE DISTRICT
COURT, ON THE FILING OF THE PETITION, BOUND FORTHWITH TO ISSUE THE WRIT
AND HAVE THE PETITIONER PRODUCED IN ANSWER TO IT?  (2) IF THE PROCEDURE
FOLLOWED BY THE DISTRICT COURT WAS PERMISSIBLE, AND THE PLEADINGS
RAISED ISSUES OF FACT, SHOULD THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY
TESTIMONY RATHER THAN UPON AFFIDAVITS?  (3) DID THE PLEADINGS RAISE ANY
MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT?    FIRST. THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES
DECLARE THAT THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER
TO ISSUE WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS; FN2  THAT APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT
SHALL BE MADE TO THE COURT OR JUSTICE OR JUDGE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE THE
SAME BY COMPLAINT IN WRITING, UNDER OATH, SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER,
SETTING FORTH THE FACTS CONCERNING HIS DETENTION, IN WHOSE CUSTODY HE
IS AND BY VIRTUE OF WHAT CLAIM OR AUTHORITY, IF KNOWN.  FN3  THE COURT
OR JUSTICE OR JUDGE "SHALL FORTHWITH AWARD A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
UNLESS IT APPEARS FROM THE PETITION ITSELF THAT THE PARTY IS NOT
ENTITLED THERETO."  THE WRIT SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE PERSON IN WHOSE
CUSTODY THE PETITIONER IS DETAINED.  FN4  THE PERSON TO WHOM THE WRIT
IS DIRECTED MUST CERTIFY TO THE COURT OR JUDGE THE TRUE CAUSE OF
DETENTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME HE MAKES HIS RETURN, BRING THE BODY OF
THE PARTY BEFORE THE JUDGE WHO GRANTED THE WRIT.  FN5  WHEN THE WRIT IS
RETURNED A DAY IS TO BE SET FOR THE HEARING, NOT EXCEEDING FIVE DAYS
THEREAFTER, UNLESS THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A LONGER TIME.  FN6  THE
PETITIONER MAY DENY THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE RETURN OR MAY ALLEGE ANY
OTHER MATERIAL FACTS, UNDER OATH.  FN7  THE COURT OR JUDGE "SHALL
PROCEED IN A SUMMARY WAY TO DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BY HEARING
THE TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENTS, AND THEREUPON TO DISPOSE OF THE PARTY AS
LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRE."  FN8 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT IF, UPON THE FACE OF THE PETITION, IT
APPEARS THAT THE PARTY IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE WRIT, THE COURT MAY
REFUSE TO ISSUE IT.  SINCE THE ALLEGATIONS OF SUCH PETITIONS ARE OFTEN
INCONCLUSIVE, THE PRACTICE HAS GROWN UP OF ISSUING AN ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE, WHICH THE RESPONDENT MAY ANSWER.  BY THIS PROCEDURE THE FACTS ON
WHICH THE OPPOSING PARTIES RELY MAY BE EXHIBITED, AND THE COURT MAY
FIND THAT NO ISSUE OF FACT IS INVOLVED.  IN THIS WAY USELESS GRANT OF
THE WRIT WITH CONSEQUENT PRODUCTION OF THE PRISONER AND OF WITNESSES
MAY BE AVOIDED WHERE FROM UNDISPUTED FACTS OR FROM INCONTROVERTIBLE
FACTS, SUCH AS THOSE RECITED IN A COURT RECORD, IT APPEARS, AS MATTER
OF LAW, NO CAUSE FOR GRANTING THE WRIT EXISTS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, ON
THE FACTS ADMITTED, IT MAY APPEAR THAT, AS MATTER OF LAW, THE PRISONER
IS ENTITLED TO THE WRIT AND TO A DISCHARGE.  THIS PRACTICE HAS LONG
BEEN FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT  FN9  AND BY THE LOWER COURTS.  FN10  IT IS
A CONVENIENT ONE, DEPRIVES THE PETITIONER OF NO SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT, IF
THE PETITION AND TRAVERSE ARE TREATED, AS WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE, AS
TOGETHER CONSTITUTING THE APPLICATION FOR THE WRIT, AND THE RETURN TO
THE RULE AS SETTING UP THE FACTS THOUGHT TO WARRANT ITS DENIAL, AND IF
ISSUES OF FACT EMERGING FROM THE PLEADINGS ARE TRIED AS REQUIRED BY THE
STATUTE. 

SECOND.  THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDED TO ADJUDICATE THE PETITIONER'S
RIGHT TO THE WRIT UPON THE ALLEGATIONS OF HIS PETITION AND TRAVERSE AND
THOSE OF THE RETURN AND ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVITS.  THUS THE CASE WAS
DISPOSED OF ON EX PARTE AFFIDAVITS AND WITHOUT THE TAKING OF
TESTIMONY.  THE PRACTICE THUS TO DISPOSE OF APPLICATIONS FOR HABEAS
CORPUS ON MATTERS OF FACT AS WELL AS OF LAW HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE
NINTH AND TENTH CIRCUITS.  FN11 

IN OTHER CIRCUITS, IF AN ISSUE OF FACT IS PRESENTED, THE PRACTICE
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TO ISSUE THE WRIT, HAVE THE PETITIONER PRODUCED,
AND HOLD A HEARING AT WHICH EVIDENCE IS RECEIVED.  FN12 THIS IS, WE
THINK, THE ONLY ADMISSIBLE PROCEDURE.  NOTHING LESS WILL SATISFY THE
COMMAND OF THE STATUTE THAT THE JUDGE SHALL PROCEED "TO DETERMINE THE
FACTS OF THE CASE, BY HEARING THE TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENTS."  IT IS NOT
A QUESTION WHAT THE ANCIENT PRACTICE WAS AT COMMON LAW OR WHAT THE
PRACTICE WAS PRIOR TO 1867 WHEN THE STATUTE FROM WHICH R.S. 761 IS
DERIVED WAS ADOPTED BY CONGRESS.  THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE STATUTE
REQUIRES. 

AS WE SAID IN JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 466, "CONGRESS HAS
EXPANDED THE RIGHTS OF A PETITIONER FOR HABEAS CORPUS  ...  'THERE
BEING NO DOUBT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS TO THUS LIBERALIZE THE
COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ON HABEAS CORPUS  ...  IT RESULTS THAT UNDER THE
...  INTO THE VERY TRUTH AND SUBSTANCE OF THE CAUSES OF HIS DETENTION,'
...  "  SUCH A JUDICIAL INQUIRY INVOLVES THE RECEPTION OF TESTIMONY,
AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE SHOWS. 

THE GOVERNMENT PROPERLY CONCEDES THAT IF THE PETITION, THE RETURN,
AND THE TRAVERSE RAISE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES OF FACT IT IS THE
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO HAVE THOSE ISSUES HEARD AND DETERMINED IN THE
MANNER THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES. 

THIRD.  DID THE PLEADINGS PRESENT ANY MATERIAL ISSUE OF FACT?  THE
GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY DID NOT.  IT URGES THAT, CONSTRUED MOST FAVORABLY
TO PETITIONER, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION AND THE TRAVERSE DO NOT
SHOW THAT HE WAS IN APPARENT OR ACTUAL NEED OF COUNSEL'S AID; AND DO
DISCLOSE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY WAIVED THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL. 

WITHOUT REPEATING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION AND TRAVERSE, WHICH
HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED ABOVE, WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT, TAKEN TOGETHER,
THEY OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY WHICH THE RECORD OF THE
TRIAL IMPORTS AND THAT, IF THE FACTS ALLEGED WERE ESTABLISHED BY
TESTIMONY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGE, THEY WOULD SUPPORT A
CONCLUSION THAT THE PETITIONER DESIRED THE AID OF COUNSEL, AND SO
INFORMED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WAS IGNORANT OF HIS RIGHT TO SUCH AID,
WAS NOT INTERROGATED AS TO HIS DESIRE OR INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT, AND DID
NOT KNOWINGLY WAIVE THAT RIGHT, AND THAT, BY THE CONDUCT OF THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HE WAS DECEIVED AND COERCED INTO PLEADING GUILTY
WHEN HIS REAL DESIRE WAS TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY OR AT LEAST TO BE ADVISED
BY COUNSEL AS TO HIS COURSE.  IF HE DID NOT VOLUNTARILY WAIVE HIS RIGHT
TO COUNSEL,  FN13  OR IF HE WAS DECEIVED OR COERCED BY THE PROSECUTOR
INTO ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA,  FN14  HE WAS DEPRIVED OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT.  ON A HEARING HE WOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF SUSTAINING HIS
ALLEGATIONS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.  IT IS TRUE THAT THEY ARE
DENIED IN THE AFFIDAVITS FILED WITH THE RETURN TO THE RULE, BUT THE
DENIALS ONLY SERVE TO MAKE THE ISSUES WHICH MUST BE RESOLVED BY
EVIDENCE TAKEN IN THE USUAL WAY.  THEY CAN HAVE NO OTHER OFFICE.  THE
WITNESSES WHO MADE THEM MUST BE SUBJECTED TO EXAMINATION ORE TENUS OR
BY DEPOSITION AS ARE ALL OTHER WITNESSES.  NOT BY THE PLEADINGS AND THE
AFFIDAVITS, BUT BY THE WHOLE OF THE TESTIMONY, MUST IT BE DETERMINED
WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS CARRIED HIS BURDEN OF PROOF AND SHOWN HIS
RIGHT TO A DISCHARGE.  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT HIS ALLEGATIONS
ARE IMPROBABLE AND UNBELIEVABLE CANNOT SERVE TO DENY HIM AN OPPORTUNITY
TO SUPPORT THEM BY EVIDENCE.  ON THIS RECORD IT IS HIS RIGHT TO BE
HEARD. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  109 F.2D 436. 

FN2  R.S. 751, 28 U.S.C. 451. 

FN3  R.S. 754, 28 U.S.C. 454. 

FN4  R.S. 755, 28 U.S.C. 455. 

FN5  R.S. 757, 28 U.S.C. 457; R.S. 758, 28 U.S.C. 458. 

FN6  R.S. 759, 28 U.S.C. 459. 

FN7 R.S. 760, 28 U.S.C. 460. 

FN8  R.S. 761, 28 U.S.C. 461. 

FN9  EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S. 651, 653; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294
U.S. 103, 111. 

FN10  MURDOCK V. POLLOCK, 229 F. 392. 

FN11  HARPIN V. JOHNSTON, 109 F.2D 434; FRANZEEN V. JOHNSTON, 111
F.2D 817; WALKER V. CHITTY, 112 F.2D 79; ZAHN V. HUDSPETH, 102 F.2D
759; NIVENS V. HUDSPETH, 105 F.2D 756; MCCOY V. HUDSPETH, 106 F.2D 810;
MCDONALD V. HUDSPETH, 108 F.2D 943; MOORE V. HUDSPETH, 110 F.2D 386;
TAYLOR V. HUDSPETH, 113 F.2D 825. 

FN12  CUNDIFF V. NICHOLSON, 107 F.2D 162; HURT V. ZERBST, 97 F.2D 519;
BROWN V. ZERBST, 99 F.2D 745; MOTHERSHEAD V. KING, 112 F.2D 1004;
SANDERS V. ALLEN, 69 APP. D.C. 307; 100 F.2D 717; CLAWANS V. RIVES, 70
APP. D.C. 107; 104 F.2D 240; UNITED STATES V. HIATT, 33 F.SUPP.  545. 

FN13  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458. 

FN14  MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103. 
..END :
















DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR CO., 312 U.S. 287 


NO. 1.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 16, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 10, 1941.  -
371 ILL. 377 - 21 N.E.2D 308, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE IS AT LIBERTY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO USE
INJUNCTIVE POWERS VESTED IN ITS COURTS FOR THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE
BY LABOR UNIONS IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.  P. 292. 

2.  AND WHERE THE CONTROVERSY IS ATTENDED BY PEACEFUL PICKETING AND BY
ACTS OF VIOLENCE, AND THE VIOLENCE HAS BEEN SUCH THAT CONTINUATION OF
THE PICKETING WILL OPERATE COERCIVELY BY EXCITING FEAR THAT VIOLENCE
WILL BE RESUMED, AN INJUNCTION BY A STATE COURT FORBIDDING THE
PICKETING AS WELL AS THE VIOLENCE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 294. 

3.  THE MASTER IN THE STATE COURT FOUND "INTIMIDATION OF THE
CUSTOMERS  ... BY THE COMMISSION OF THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE," AND THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE JUSTIFIED ITS INJUNCTION AGAINST PICKETING
BECAUSE PICKETING, "IN CONNECTION WITH OR FOLLOWING A SERIES OF
ASSAULTS OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY, COULD NOT HELP BUT HAVE THE EFFECT
OF INTIMIDATING THE PERSONS IN FRONT OF WHOSE PREMISES SUCH PICKETING
OCCURRED AND OF CAUSING THEM TO BELIEVE THAT NON-COMPLIANCE WOULD
POSSIBLY BE FOLLOWED BY ACTS OF AN UNLAWFUL CHARACTER."  HELD THAT IT
IS NOT FOR THIS COURT TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT VALUATION OF THE TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE MASTER OR TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE STATE
COURT RESOLVING CONFLICTS IN THE TESTIMONY OR ITS INTERPRETATION.  P.
294. 

4.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER ACTS OF VIOLENCE ACCOMPANYING AN
INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSY WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO A LABOR UNION RATHER THAN
TO IRRESPONSIBLE OUTSIDERS, A STATE COURT IS NOT CONFINED TO THE
TECHNICALITIES OF THE LAWS OF AGENCY.  P. 295. 

5.  THE PRESENT DECISION DOES NOT BAR RESORT TO THE STATE COURT FOR A
MODIFICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION SHOULD THAT COURT FIND THAT
THE PASSAGE OF TIME HAS DEPRIVED THE PICKETING OF ITS COERCIVE
INFLUENCE.  P. 298. 

6.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, AND CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310
U.S. 106, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 297. 

MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION OF CHICAGO, LOCAL 753, ET AL. V. MEADOWMOOR
DAIRIES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 655, TO REVIEW A DECREE DIRECTING A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AGAINST ACTS OF VIOLENCE AND PICKETING BY A LABOR UNION. 

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS ALL
PERSONS AGAINST ACTION BY A STATE JUDICIARY THAT TENDS TO DEPRIVE THEM
OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.  BRINKERHOF TRUST CO. V.
HALL, 281 U.S. 673; EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, 347; GELPCKE V.
DUBUQUE, 1 WALL.  175, 207; MUHLKER V. NEW YORK & HARLEM RAILROAD CO.,
197 U.S. 544, 570; HOVEY V. ELLIOTT, 167 U.S. 409, 419, 444; MURRARY V.
HOBOKEN LAND, 18 HOW.  272, 276; POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45. 

SOME STATE COURTS HAVE SQUARELY DECIDED THAT AN INJUNCTION TO
RESTRAIN PEACEFUL PICKETING, I.E., CARRYING OF BANNERS IN AN INDUSTRIAL
CONTROVERSY, VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES.  VULCAN DETINNING
CO. V. ST. CLAIR, 315 ILL. 40, 46-47; ILLINOIS MALLEABLE IRON CO. V.
MICHALEK, 279 ILL. 221; SCHUSTER V. INTERNATIONAL ASSN. OF MACHINISTS,
293 ILL. APP. 177, 193; LIETZMAN V. BROADCASTING STATION WCFL, 282 ILL.
APP. 203, 214, 218; CF. BEATON V. TARRANT, 102 ILL. APP. 124, 129. 
SEE, ALSO, BECKNER, LABOR LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS, P. 51(1929); EX
PARTE LYONS, 27 CAL. APP. 70. 

OTHER CASES HOLDING THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH PRECLUDE A STATE COURT FROM ENJOINING "PUBLICATION" OR
"UTTERANCES" BY PICKETING IN CONNECTION WITH AN INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSY
INVOLVING A STRIKE OR A BOYCOTT, ARE:  MARX & H. CLOTHING CO. V.
WATSON, 168 MO. 113; EX PARTE TUCKER, 110 TEX. 335; TRUAX V. BISBEE
LOCAL, 19 ARIZ. 379; RE HEFFRON, 79 MO. APP. 639; LINDSAY & CO. V.
MONTANA FED. LABOR, 37 MONT. 264; RICHTER BROS. V. JOURNEYMEN TAILORS'
UNION, 24 OHIO L.J. 189; RIGGS V. CINCINNATI WAITERS' ALLIANCE, 5 OHIO
N.P. 386; 8 OHIO S. & C.P. SEC. 565. 

STATE COURTS HAVE HELD ORDINANCES OR STATUTES PROHIBITING PEACEFUL
PICKETING, IN TERMS LIKE THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE INJUNCTION IN THE CASE
AT BAR, INVALID AS VIOLATIVE OF FREE SPEECH.  PEOPLE V. HARRIS, 104
COLO. 386; RENO V. SECOND JUDICIAL DIST., 95 P.2D 998; DENVER TRUCK
LINES V. PERRY, 101 P.2D 436, 444.  CF., JULIE BAKING CO. V. GRAYMARD,
152 MISC. 946; 247 N.Y.S. 250, 251-252; ROSSMAR V. UNITED KOSHER
BUTCHERS, 163 MISC. 331; 298 N.Y.S. 343-344; BERNSTEIN V. RETAIL
CLEANERS, 31 OHIO N.P. 433, 436; INDIVIDUAL STORE OWNERS V.
PENNSYLVANIA TREATY STORES, 33 PA. D. & C. 100, 101. 

THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF FREE SPEECH PRECLUDE A STATE COURT FROM
ENJOINING LABOR UNION MEMBERS AND WORKMEN FROM CARRYING ON THE PUBLIC
STREETS BANNERS OR PLACARDS CONVEYING TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
CONCERNING AN INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSY IN WHICH THEY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL
ECONOMIC INTEREST.  AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257
U.S. 184; SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 307
U.S. 147; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310
U.S. 106. 

SEE GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233; NEAR V. MINNESOTA,
283 U.S. 697, 716. 

THE STATE COURT'S ATTEMPTED JUSTIFICATION OF THE ABRIDGMENT OF THE
RIGHT OF UNION MEMBERS TO SPEAK FREELY AND DISSEMINATE INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE UNION IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE THORNHILL CASE.  CF., SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES,
249 U.S. 47; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS, 304 U.S. 144, 152;
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH MAY NOT BE ABRIDGED BY THE
STATE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CARRYING OF THE BANNER HAS BEEN
PRECEDED BY ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY
COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184; IRON MOLDERS UNION V. ALLIS CHALMERS CO., 166 F.
45; FENSKE BROTHERS V. UPHOLSTERERS UNION, 358 ILL. 239; PEOPLE V.
YOUNG, 188 ILL. APP. 208, 212, 213; HENRICI CO. V. ALEXANDER, 198 ILL.
APP. 568; WISE SHOE CO. V. LOWENTHAL, 266 N.Y. 264; WARNER V. LILLY
CO., 265 U.S. 526, 532; BORDERLAND COAL CO. V. GASWAY, 278 F. 56;
BAILLIS V. FUCHS, 283 N.Y. 133; MAY'S FURS V. BAUER, 282 N.Y. 331. 

PETITIONERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH CAN NOT BE LOST
THROUGH "UNLAWFUL ACTS OF VIOLENCE" BY IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNAUTHORIZED
THIRD PERSONS.  JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458, 464. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS SUSTAINED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION OVER THE LATTER'S CLAIM THAT IT INVOLVED AN
INFRINGEMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  SINCE THIS RULING RAISED A QUESTION INTRINSICALLY
IMPORTANT, AS WELL AS AFFECTING THE SCOPE OF THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310
U.S. 88, AND CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106, WE BROUGHT THE CASE
HERE.  310 U.S. 655. 

THE "VENDOR SYSTEM" FOR DISTRIBUTING MILK IN CHICAGO GAVE RISE TO THE
DISPUTE.  UNDER THAT SYSTEM, WHICH WAS FULLY ANALYZED IN MILK WAGON
DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY FARM PRODUCTS, 311 U.S. 91, MILK IS SOLD
BY THE DAIRY COMPANIES TO VENDORS OPERATING THEIR OWN TRUCKS WHO RESELL
TO RETAILERS.  THESE VENDORS DEPARTED FROM THE WORKING STANDARDS
THERETOFORE ACHIEVED BY THE UNION FOR ITS MEMBERS AS DAIRY EMPLOYEES. 
THE UNION, IN ORDER TO COMPEL OBSERVANCE OF THE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS,
TOOK ACTION AGAINST DAIRIES USING THE VENDOR SYSTEM.  THE PRESENT
RESPONDENT, MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, INC., BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST THE UNION
AND ITS OFFICIALS TO STOP INTERFERENCE WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF ITS
PRODUCTS.  A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING ALL UNION CONDUCT,
VIOLENT AND PEACEFUL, PROMPTLY ISSUED, AND THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO A
MASTER FOR REPORT.  BESIDES PEACEFUL PICKETING OF THE STORES HANDLING
MEADOWMOOR'S PRODUCTS, THE MASTER FOUND THAT THERE HAD BEEN VIOLENCE ON
A CONSIDERABLE SCALE.  WITNESSES TESTIFIED TO MORE THAN FIFTY INSTANCES
OF WINDOW-SMASHING; EXPLOSIVE BOMBS CAUSED SUBSTANTIAL INJURY TO THE
PLANTS OF MEADOWMOOR AND ANOTHER DAIRY USING THE VENDOR SYSTEM AND TO
FIVE STORES; STENCH BOMBS WERE DROPPED IN FIVE STORES; THREE TRUCKS OF
VENDORS WERE WRECKED, SERIOUSLY INJURING ONE DRIVER, AND ANOTHER WAS
DRIVEN INTO A RIVER; A STORE WAS SET ON FIRE AND IN LARGE MEASURE
RUINED; TWO TRUCKS OF VENDORS WERE BURNED; A STOREKEEPER AND A TRUCK
DRIVER WERE SEVERELY BEATEN; WORKERS AT A DAIRY WHICH, LIKE MEADOWMOOR,
USED THE VENDOR SYSTEM WERE HELD WITH GUNS AND SEVERELY BEATEN ABOUT
THE HEAD WHILE BEING TOLD "TO JOIN THE UNION"; CARLOADS OF MEN FOLLOWED
VENDORS' TRUCKS, THREATENED THE DRIVERS, AND IN ONE INSTANCE SHOT AT
THE TRUCK AND DRIVER.  IN MORE THAN A DOZEN OF THESE OCCURRENCES,
INVOLVING WINDOW-SMASHING, BOMBINGS, BURNINGS, THE WRECKING OF TRUCKS,
SHOOTINGS, AND BEATINGS, THERE WAS TESTIMONY TO IDENTIFY THE WRONGDOERS
AS UNION MEN.  FN1  IN THE LIGHT OF HIS FINDINGS, THE MASTER
RECOMMENDED THAT ALL PICKETING, AND NOT MERELY VIOLENT ACTS, SHOULD BE
ENJOINED.  THE TRIAL COURT, HOWEVER, ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY
AS TO ACTS OF VIOLENCE AND PERMITTED PEACEFUL PICKETING.  THE REVERSAL
OF THIS RULING BY THE SUPREME COURT, 371 ILL. 377; 21 N.E.2D 308,
DIRECTING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MASTER, IS NOW
BEFORE US. 

THE QUESTION WHICH THUS EMERGES IS WHETHER A STATE CAN CHOOSE TO
AUTHORIZE ITS COURTS TO ENJOIN ACTS OF PICKETING IN THEMSELVES PEACEFUL
WHEN THEY ARE ENMESHED WITH CONTEMPORANEOUSLY VIOLENT CONDUCT WHICH IS
CONCEDEDLY OUTLAWED.  THE CONSTITUTION IS INVOKED TO DENY ILLINOIS THE
POWER TO AUTHORIZE ITS COURTS TO PREVENT THE CONTINUANCE AND RECURRENCE
OF FLAGRANT VIOLENCE, FOUND AFTER AN EXTENDED LITIGATION TO HAVE
OCCURRED UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, BY THE TERMS OF A DECREE
FAMILIAR IN SUCH CASES.  SUCH A DECREE, ARISING OUT OF A PARTICULAR
CONTROVERSY AND ADJUSTED TO IT, RAISES TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL
PROBLEMS FROM THOSE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED BY AN ABSTRACT STATUTE WITH
AN OVERHANGING AND UNDEFINED THREAT TO FREE UTTERANCE.  TO ASSIMILATE
THE TWO IS TO DENY TO THE STATES THEIR HISTORIC FREEDOM TO DEAL WITH
CONTROVERSIES THROUGH THE CONCRETENESS OF INDIVIDUAL LITIGATION RATHER
THAN THROUGH THE ABSTRACTIONS OF A GENERAL LAW. 

THE STARTING POINT IS THORNHILL'S CASE.  THAT CASE INVOKED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH ON BEHALF OF A RELATIVELY
MODERN MEANS FOR "PUBLICIZING, WITHOUT ANNOYANCE OR THREAT OF ANY KIND,
THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE."  310 U.S. 100.  THE WHOLE SERIES OF
CASES DEFINING THE SCOPE OF FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
ARE FACETS OF THE SAME PRINCIPLE IN THAT THEY ALL SAFEGUARD MODES
APPROPRIATE FOR ASSURING THE RIGHT TO UTTERANCE IN DIFFERENT
SITUATIONS.  PEACEFUL PICKETING IS THE WORKINGMAN'S MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION. 

IT MUST NEVER BE FORGOTTEN, HOWEVER, THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS THE
CHILD OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT.  BACK OF THE GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH LAY
FAITH IN THE POWER OF AN APPEAL TO REASON BY ALL THE PEACEFUL MEANS FOR
GAINING ACCESS TO THE MIND.  IT WAS IN ORDER TO AVERT FORCE AND
EXPLOSIONS DUE TO RESTRICTIONS UPON RATIONAL MODES OF COMMUNICATION
THAT THE GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH WAS GIVEN A GENEROUS SCOPE.  BUT
UTTERANCE IN A CONTEXT OF VIOLENCE CAN LOSE ITS SIGNIFICANCE AS AN
APPEAL TO REASON AND BECOME PART OF AN INSTRUMENT OF FORCE.  SUCH
UTTERANCE WAS NOT MEANT TO BE SHELTERED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

STILL IT IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE THAT NO CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM, LEAST
OF ALL THE GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, BE DEFEATED BY
INSUBSTANTIAL FINDINGS OF FACT SCREENING REALITY.  THAT IS WHY THIS
COURT HAS THE ULTIMATE POWER TO SEARCH THE RECORDS IN THE STATE COURTS
WHERE A CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS EFFECTIVELY MADE.  AND SO THE
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH CANNOT BE DENIED BY DRAWING FROM A TRIVIAL ROUGH
INCIDENT OR A MOMENT OF ANIMAL EXUBERANCE THE CONCLUSION THAT OTHERWISE
PEACEFUL PICKETING HAS THE TAINT OF FORCE. 

IN THIS CASE THE MASTER FOUND "INTIMIDATION OF THE CUSTOMERS OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S VENDORS BY THE COMMISSION OF THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE," AND THE
SUPREME COURT JUSTIFIED ITS DECISION BECAUSE PICKETING, "IN CONNECTION
WITH OR FOLLOWING A SERIES OF ASSAULTS OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY,
COULD NOT HELP BUT HAVE THE EFFECT OF INTIMIDATING THE PERSONS IN FRONT
OF WHOSE PREMISES SUCH PICKETING OCCURRED AND OF CAUSING THEM TO
BELIEVE THAT NON-COMPLIANCE WOULD POSSIBLY BE FOLLOWED BY ACTS OF AN
UNLAWFUL CHARACTER."  IT IS NOT FOR US TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT VALUATION
OF THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE MASTER.  WE HAVE NOT ONLY HIS FINDINGS BUT
HIS FINDINGS AUTHENTICATED BY THE STATE OF ILLINOIS SPEAKING THROUGH
HER SUPREME COURT.  WE CAN REJECT SUCH A DETERMINATION ONLY IF WE CAN
SAY THAT IT IS SO WITHOUT WARRANT AS TO BE A PALPABLE EVASION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE HERE INVOKED.  THE PLACE TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS
IN THE TESTIMONY AND IN ITS INTERPRETATION WAS IN THE ILLINOIS COURTS
AND NOT HERE.  TO SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE STATE COURT
IS TO TRANSCEND THE LIMITS OF OUR AUTHORITY.  AND TO DO SO IN THE NAME
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN A MATTER PECULIARLY TOUCHING THE LOCAL
POLICY OF A STATE REGARDING VIOLENCE TENDS TO DISCREDIT THE GREAT
IMMUNITIES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  NO ONE WILL DOUBT THAT ILLINOIS CAN
PROTECT ITS STOREKEEPERS FROM BEING COERCED BY FEAR OF WINDOW-SMASHINGS
OR BURNINGS OR BOMBINGS.  AND ACTS WHICH IN ISOLATION ARE PEACEFUL MAY
BE PART OF A COERCIVE THRUST WHEN ENTANGLED WITH ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  THE
PICKETING IN THIS CASE WAS SET IN A BACKGROUND OF VIOLENCE.  IN SUCH A
SETTING IT COULD JUSTIFIABLY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE MOMENTUM OF FEAR
GENERATED BY PAST VIOLENCE WOULD SURVIVE EVEN THOUGH FUTURE PICKETING
MIGHT BE WHOLLY PEACEFUL.  SO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS FOUND.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT SUCH A FINDING SO CONTRADICTED EXPERIENCE AS TO WARRANT
OUR REJECTION.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT IT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT THAT A STATE THROUGH ITS COURTS CANNOT BASE PROTECTION
AGAINST FUTURE COERCION ON AN INFERENCE OF THE CONTINUING THREAT OF
PAST MISCONDUCT.  CF. ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S.
436. 

THESE ACTS OF VIOLENCE ARE NEITHER EPISODIC NOR ISOLATED.  JUDGES
NEED NOT BE SO INNOCENT OF THE ACTUALITIES OF SUCH AN INDUSTRIAL
CONFLICT AS THIS RECORD DISCLOSES AS TO FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION A
DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF ILLINOIS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE USE OF FORCE ON
SUCH A SCALE WAS NOT THE CONDUCT OF A FEW IRRESPONSIBLE OUTSIDERS.  THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT STILL LEAVES THE STATE AMPLE DISCRETION IN DEALING
WITH MANIFESTATIONS OF FORCE IN THE SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
CONFLICTS.  AND IN EXERCISING ITS POWER A STATE IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS
THOUGH THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE LAWS OF AGENCY WERE WRITTEN INTO THE
CONSTITUTION.  CERTAINLY A STATE IS NOT CONFINED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO
NARROWER LIMITS IN FASHIONING REMEDIES FOR DEALING WITH INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTES THAN THE SCOPE OF DISCRETION OPEN TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD.  IT IS TRUE OF A UNION AS OF AN EMPLOYER THAT IT MAY
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTS WHICH IT HAS NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED OR WHICH
MIGHT NOT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT ON STRICT APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.  INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. LABOR
BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 80; HEINZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 514.  TO
DENY TO A STATE THE RIGHT TO A JUDGMENT WHICH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO MAKE IN COGNATE SITUATIONS, WOULD
INDEED BE DISTORTING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WITH RESTRICTIONS UPON
STATE POWER WHICH IT IS NOT OUR BUSINESS TO IMPOSE.  A STATE MAY
WITHDRAW THE INJUNCTION FROM LABOR CONTROVERSIES BUT NO LESS CERTAINLY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT MAKE UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE USE OF THE
INJUNCTION AS A MEANS OF RESTRICTING VIOLENCE.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THAT PREVENTS A STATE IF IT SO CHOOSES FROM
PLACING CONFIDENCE IN A CHANCELLOR'S DECREE AND COMPELS IT TO RELY
EXCLUSIVELY ON A POLICEMAN'S CLUB.    WE HAVE ALREADY ADVERTED TO THE
GENEROUS SCOPE THAT MUST BE GIVEN TO THE GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH. 
ESPECIALLY IS THIS ATTITUDE TO BE OBSERVED WHERE, AS IN LABOR
CONTROVERSIES, THE FEELINGS OF EVEN THE MOST DETACHED MINDS MAY BECOME
ENGAGED AND A SHOW OF VIOLENCE MAY MAKE STILL FURTHER DEMANDS ON CALM
JUDGMENT.  IT IS THEREFORE RELEVANT TO REMIND THAT THE POWER TO DENY
WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE LAWFUL PICKETING DERIVES FROM THE POWER OF THE
STATES TO PREVENT FUTURE COERCION.  RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN THE FUTURE
CANNOT BE FORFEITED BECAUSE OF DISSOCIATED ACTS OF PAST VIOLENCE.  NOR
MAY A STATE ENJOIN PEACEFUL PICKETING MERELY BECAUSE IT MAY PROVOKE
VIOLENCE IN OTHERS.  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 721-22; CANTWELL
V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296.  INASMUCH AS THE INJUNCTION WAS BASED ON
FINDINGS MADE IN 1937, THIS DECISION IS NO BAR TO RESORT TO THE STATE
COURT FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION SHOULD THAT
COURT FIND THAT THE PASSAGE OF TIME HAS DEPRIVED THE PICKETING OF ITS
COERCIVE INFLUENCE.  IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CASES WARRANTING RESTRAINT UPON
NORMALLY FREE CONDUCT, THE RESTRAINT OUGHT TO BE DEFINED BY CLEAR AND
GUARDED LANGUAGE.  ACCORDING TO THE BEST PRACTICE, A JUDGE HIMSELF
SHOULD DRAW THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF SUCH RESTRAINT AND NOT RELY ON DRAFTS
SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES.  BUT WE DO NOT HAVE REVISORY POWER OVER STATE
PRACTICE, PROVIDED SUCH PRACTICE IS NOT USED TO EVADE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEES.  SEE FOX RIVER CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 274 U.S. 651, 655;
LONG SAULT DEVELOPMENT CO. V. CALL, 242 U.S. 272, 277.  WE ARE HERE
CONCERNED WITH POWER AND NOT WITH THE WISDOM OF ITS EXERCISE.  WE
MERELY HOLD THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECORD BEFORE US THE
INJUNCTION AUTHORIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DOES NOT
TRANSGRESS ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  THAT OTHER STATES HAVE CHOSEN A
DIFFERENT PATH IN SUCH A SITUATION INDICATES DIFFERENCES OF SOCIAL VIEW
IN A DOMAIN IN WHICH STATES ARE FREE TO SHAPE THEIR LOCAL POLICY. 
COMPARE BUSCH JEWELRY CO. V. UNITED RETAIL EMPLOYEES' UNION, 281 N.Y.
150; 22 N.E.2D 320, AND BAILLIS V. FUCHS, 283 N.Y. 133; 27 N.E.2D 812. 

TO MAINTAIN THE BALANCE OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM, INSOFAR AS IT IS
COMMITTED TO OUR CARE, DEMANDS AT ONCE ZEALOUS REGARD FOR THE
GUARANTEES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND DUE RECOGNITION OF THE POWERS
BELONGING TO THE STATES.  SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT REQUIRES AUSTERE JUDGMENT,
AND A PRECISE SUMMARY OF THE RESULT MAY HELP TO AVOID MISCONSTRUCTION. 

(1)  WE DO NOT QUALIFY THE THORNHILL AND CARLSON DECISIONS.  WE
REAFFIRM THEM.  THEY INVOLVED STATUTES BALDLY FORBIDDING ALL PICKETING
NEAR AN EMPLOYER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS.  ENTANGLEMENT WITH VIOLENCE WAS
EXPRESSLY OUT OF THOSE CASES.  THE STATUTES HAD TO BE DEALT WITH ON
THEIR FACE, AND THEREFORE WE STRUCK THEM DOWN.  SUCH AN UNLIMITED BAN
ON FREE COMMUNICATION DECLARED AS THE LAW OF A STATE BY A STATE COURT
ENJOYS NO GREATER PROTECTION HERE.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S.
296; AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, POST, P. 321.  BUT JUST AS
A STATE THROUGH ITS LEGISLATURE MAY DEAL WITH SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES
MENACING THE PEACE BY AN APPROPRIATELY DRAWN ACT, THORNHILL V. ALABAMA,
SUPRA, SO THE LAW OF A STATE MAY BE FITTED TO A CONCRETE SITUATION
THROUGH THE AUTHORITY GIVEN BY THE STATE TO ITS COURTS.  THIS IS
PRECISELY THE KIND OF SITUATION WHICH THE THORNHILL OPINION EXCLUDED
FROM ITS SCOPE.  "WE ARE NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH PICKETING EN MASSE OR
OTHERWISE CONDUCTED WHICH MIGHT OCCASION SUCH IMMINENT AND AGGRAVATED
DANGER  ...  AS TO JUSTIFY A STATUTE NARROWLY DRAWN TO COVER THE
PRECISE SITUATION GIVING RISE TO THE DANGER."  310 U.S. 105.  FN2  WE
WOULD NOT STRIKE DOWN A STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZED THE COURTS OF ILLINOIS
TO PROHIBIT PICKETING WHEN THEY SHOULD FIND THAT VIOLENCE HAD GIVEN TO
THE PICKETING A COERCIVE EFFECT WHEREBY IT WOULD OPERATE DESTRUCTIVELY
AS FORCE AND INTIMIDATION.  SUCH A SITUATION IS PRESENTED BY THIS
RECORD.  IT DISTORTS THE MEANING OF THINGS TO GENERALIZE THE TERMS OF
AN INJUNCTION DERIVED FROM AND DIRECTED TOWARDS VIOLENT MISCONDUCT AS
THOUGH IT WERE AN ABSTRACT PROHIBITION OF ALL PICKETING WHOLLY
UNRELATED TO THE VIOLENCE INVOLVED. 

(2)  THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POWER WHICH WE ARE SUSTAINING IS THE
VERY ANTITHESIS OF A BAN ON ALL DISCUSSION IN CHICAGO OF A MATTER OF
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.  OF COURSE WE WOULD NOT SUSTAIN SUCH A BAN.  THE
INJUNCTION IS CONFINED TO CONDUCT NEAR STORES DEALING IN RESPONDENT'S
MILK, AND IT DEALS WITH THIS NARROW AREA PRECISELY BECAUSE THE COERCIVE
CONDUCT AFFECTED IT.  AN INJUNCTION SO ADJUSTED TO A PARTICULAR
SITUATION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE SETTLED PRACTICE OF EQUITY, SANCTIONED
BY SUCH GUARDIANS OF CIVIL LIBERTY AS MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO.  COMPARE
NANN V. RAIMIST, 255 N.Y. 307; 174 N.E. 690.  SUCH AN INJUNCTION MUST
BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF ITS CIRCUMSTANCES.  NOR OUGHT STATE ACTION BE
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY INTERPRETING THE LAW OF THE STATE AS THOUGH,
TO USE A PHRASE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, ONE WERE FIRED WITH A ZEAL TO
PERVERT.  IF AN APPROPRIATE INJUNCTION WERE PUT TO ABNORMAL USES IN ITS
ENFORCEMENT, SO THAT ENCROACHMENTS WERE MADE ON FREE DISCUSSION OUTSIDE
THE LIMITS OF VIOLENCE, AS FOR INSTANCE DISCUSSION THROUGH NEWSPAPERS
OR ON THE RADIO, THE DOORS OF THIS COURT ARE ALWAYS OPEN. 

(3)  THE INJUNCTION WHICH WE SUSTAIN IS "PERMANENT" ONLY FOR THE
TEMPORARY PERIOD FOR WHICH IT MAY LAST.  IT IS JUSTIFIED ONLY BY THE
VIOLENCE THAT INDUCED IT AND ONLY SO LONG AS IT COUNTERACTS A
CONTINUING INTIMIDATION.  FAMILIAR EQUITY PROCEDURE ASSURES OPPORTUNITY
FOR MODIFYING OR VACATING AN INJUNCTION WHEN ITS CONTINUANCE IS NO
LONGER WARRANTED.  HERE AGAIN, THE STATE COURTS HAVE NOT THE LAST SAY. 
THEY MUST ACT IN SUBORDINATION TO THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO ENFORCE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES EVEN WHEN DENIED THROUGH SPURIOUS FINDINGS OF
FACT IN A STATE COURT.  COMPARE CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227. 
SINCE THE UNION DID NOT URGE THAT THE COERCIVE EFFECT HAD DISAPPEARED
EITHER BEFORE US OR, APPARENTLY, BEFORE THE STATE COURT, THAT QUESTION
IS NOT NOW HERE. 

(4)  A FINAL WORD.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS CANNOT
BE TOO OFTEN INVOKED AS BASIC TO OUR SCHEME OF SOCIETY.  BUT THESE
LIBERTIES WILL NOT BE ADVANCED OR EVEN MAINTAINED BY DENYING TO THE
STATES WITH ALL THEIR RESOURCES, INCLUDING THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THEIR
COURTS, THE POWER TO DEAL WITH COERCION DUE TO EXTENSIVE VIOLENCE.  IF
THE PEOPLE OF ILLINOIS DESIRE TO WITHDRAW THE USE OF THE INJUNCTION IN
LABOR CONTROVERSIES, THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORM IS
AT THEIR DISPOSAL.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THEY CHOOSE TO LEAVE THEIR
COURTS WITH THE POWER WHICH THEY HAVE HISTORICALLY EXERCISED, WITHIN
THE CIRCUMSCRIBED LIMITS WHICH THIS OPINION DEFINES, AND WE DENY THEM
THAT INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT, THAT POWER HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THEM
PERMANENTLY.  JUST BECAUSE THESE INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS RAISE ANXIOUS
DIFFICULTIES, IT IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR US NOT TO INTRUDE INTO THE REALM
OF POLICY-MAKING BY READING OUR OWN NOTIONS INTO THE CONSTITUTION. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IT WOULD NEEDLESSLY ENCUMBER THE REPORTS TO QUOTE IN DETAIL THE
EVIDENCE THUS SUMMARIZED.  THE CURIOUS MAY TURN TO THE RECORD IN THE
CASE. 

FN2  SEE ALSO THIS STATEMENT IN THE CARLSON OPINION:  "THE POWER AND
DUTY OF THE STATE TO TAKE ADEQUATE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE PEACE AND
PROTECT THE PRIVACY, THE LIVES, AND THE PROPERTY OF ITS RESIDENTS
CANNOT BE DOUBTED."  310 U.S. 113. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

IN MY BELIEF THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED GIVES APPROVAL TO AN
INJUNCTION WHICH SERIOUSLY INFRINGES UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS.  TO SUCH A RESULT I CANNOT AGREE. 

BEFORE DETAILING THE REASONS FOR MY DISAGREEMENT, SOME PRELIMINARY
OBSERVATIONS WILL DOUBTLESS AID IN CLARIFYING THE SUBSIDIARY ISSUES. 
THE RIGHT OF THE ILLINOIS COURTS TO ENJOIN VIOLENCE IS NOT DENIED IN
THIS CASE.  AND I AGREE THAT NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
DEPRIVES THEM OF THAT RIGHT.  BUT IT IS CLAIMED THAT ILLINOIS - THROUGH
ITS COURTS - HAS HERE SANCTIONED AN INJUNCTION SO SWEEPING IN ITS TERMS
AS TO DENY TO PETITIONERS AND OTHERS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FREELY
TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  AND THIS IS THE
SINGLE FEDERAL QUESTION WE MUST DECIDE.  IN THEIR BRIEF, PETITIONERS
STATE THAT THEY "HAVE NEVER AND DO NOT AT THE PRESENT TIME IN ANY WAY
CONDONE OR JUSTIFY ANY VIOLENCE BY ANY MEMBER OF THE DEFENDANT UNION. 
PETITIONERS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION MADE THAT THE ACT OF THE
CHANCELLOR IN GRANTING SUCH AN INJUNCTION WAS ERRONEOUS."  FN1
"ETHICALLY, MORALLY AND LEGALLY," THE PETITIONING UNION DISCLAIMS AND
CONDEMNS THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  AND THE MASTER WHO CONDUCTED THE
HEARINGS IN THE CASE SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT THE UNION OFFICIALS HAD
INSTRUCTED THEIR PICKETS TO REFRAIN FROM VIOLENCE.  FN2  THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT THE OFFICIALS GAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS (WHICH WERE OBEYED),
NOT ONLY BECAUSE THEY REALIZED THAT RESORT TO FORCE AND VIOLENCE WOULD
BE REPREHENSIBLE AND INDEFENSIBLE, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED
THAT SUCH LAWLESS CONDUCT INJURES A LABOR UNION FAR MORE THAN IT HELPS
IT.  ASIDE FROM THIS, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT ATTEMPTS TO PERSUADE
OTHERS BY THE APPLICATION OF PHYSICAL FORCE AND VIOLENCE AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR PERSUASION BY REASON AND PEACEABLE ARGUMENT IS CONTRARY
TO THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF OUR GOVERNMENT.  NOR CAN IT BE QUESTIONED
THAT IT IS A PRIME FUNCTION OF COURTS TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT MEANS
INTENDED BOTH TO PUNISH SUCH ILLEGAL CONDUCT AND TO PROTECT AGAINST IT.
BUT THIS GREAT RESPONSIBILITY IS ENTRUSTED TO COURTS NOT MERELY TO
DETERMINE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF DEFENDANTS, BUT TO DO SO IN SUCH
MANNER THAT THOSE BROUGHT BEFORE THEM MAY ENJOY A TRIAL IN WHICH ALL
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE SAFEGUARDED - INCLUDING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE INJUNCTION DOES DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES, WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT OF
THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PARTICULAR LIBERTIES THAT ARE AT
STAKE.  AND IN REACHING MY CONCLUSION I VIEW THE GUARANTIES OF THE
FIRST AMENDMENT  FN3  AS THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH OUR GOVERNMENTAL
STRUCTURE RESTS AND WITHOUT WHICH IT COULD NOT CONTINUE TO ENDURE AS
CONCEIVED AND PLANNED.  FN4  FREEDOM TO SPEAK AND WRITE ABOUT PUBLIC
QUESTIONS IS AS IMPORTANT TO THE LIFE OF OUR GOVERNMENT AS IS THE HEART
TO THE HUMAN BODY.  IN FACT, THIS PRIVILEGE IS THE HEART OF OUR
GOVERNMENT.  IF THAT HEART BE WEAKENED, THE RESULT IS DEBILITATION; IF
IT BE STILLED, THE RESULT IS DEATH. 

IN ADDITION, I DEEM IT ESSENTIAL TO OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM THAT THE
STATES SHOULD BE LEFT WHOLLY FREE TO GOVERN WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THEIR
POWERS.  THEIR DELIBERATE GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS SHOULD NOT LIGHTLY BE
DECLARED BEYOND THEIR POWERS.  FOR US TO SHEAR THEM OF POWER NOT DENIED
TO THEM BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WOULD AMOUNT TO JUDICIAL
USURPATION.  BUT THIS COURT HAS LONG SINCE - AND I THINK PROPERLY -
COMMITTED ITSELF TO THE DOCTRINE THAT A STATE CANNOT, THROUGH ANY
AGENCY, EITHER WHOLLY REMOVE, OR PARTIALLY WHITTLE AWAY, THE VITAL
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  AND IN SOLEMNLY
ADJUDICATING THE VALIDITY OF STATE ACTION TOUCHING THESE CHERISHED
PRIVILEGES WE CANNOT LOOK MERELY AT THE SURFACE OF THINGS, FOR WERE WE
TO DO SO THESE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES WOULD BECOME BARREN AND
STERILE.  WE MUST LOOK BENEATH THE SURFACE, AND MUST CAREFULLY EXAMINE
EACH STEP IN PROCEEDINGS WHICH LEAD A COURT TO ENJOIN PEACEFUL
DISCUSSION.  IN THIS CASE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
STATE HAS OVERSTEPPED CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES, I FIND IT NECESSARY TO
GIVE CONSIDERATION TO A NUMBER OF FACTORS, INCLUDING THE NATURE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS; THE DEFINITENESS, INDEFINITENESS AND CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THE BASIC LAW UPON WHICH THE INJUNCTION IS SAID TO REST;
THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE; THE DEFINITENESS, INDEFINITENESS AND
SCOPE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE INJUNCTION ITSELF; AND THE ALLEGED
IMMINENCE OF THE THREATENED DANGERS SAID TO JUSTIFY THE ADMITTED
ABRIDGMENT OF FREE SPEECH.  MY CONCLUSION THAT THE INJUNCTION AS
DIRECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS INVADES THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS RESTS ON MY BELIEF THAT
THESE PROPOSITIONS ARE CORRECT:  (1) THE SUBJECTS BANNED FROM PUBLIC
DISCUSSION BY THE INJUNCTION ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN, TOUCHING
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION;
(2) THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, AS DECLARED BY ITS SUPREME COURT, MAKES
ILLEGAL THE EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED PRIVILEGES, AND IS
AN INADEQUATE BASIS UPON WHICH TO DEFEND THIS ABRIDGMENT OF FREE
SPEECH; (3) THE RULE UPON WHICH THE INJUNCTION IS SUPPORTED HERE AND
WHICH THIS COURT NOW DECLARES TO BE THE ILLINOIS LAW IS NOT THE RULE
UPON WHICH THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT RELIED; (4) THE RULE ANNOUNCED
HERE AS SUPPORTING THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO ABRIDGE FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION IS SO GENERAL AND SWEEPING IN ITS IMPLICATIONS THAT IT OPENS
UP BROAD POSSIBILITIES FOR INVASION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; (5)
IN ANY EVENT, THE INJUNCTION HERE APPROVED IS TOO BROAD AND SWEEPING IN
ITS TERMS TO FIND JUSTIFICATION UNDER THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE
ILLINOIS COURT, AND EVEN THOUGH UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AN
INJUNCTION WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE RULE NOW ANNOUNCED BY THIS
COURT, STILL IN THIS CASE SUCH AN INJUNCTION IS SUPPORTED NEITHER BY
THE FINDINGS NOR THE EVIDENCE.    FIRST.  WHAT PETITIONERS WERE
ENJOINED FROM DISCUSSING WERE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN "WITHIN THAT
AREA OF FREE DISCUSSION THAT IS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION."  FN5
THE CONTROVERSY HERE WAS NOT A MERE PRIVATE QUARREL BETWEEN
INDIVIDUALS, INVOLVING THEIR INTERESTS ALONE.  THIS INJUNCTION DEALT
WITH TWO CONFLICTING METHODS OF MILK DISTRIBUTION - A MATTER OF
INTEREST NOT ONLY TO CHICAGO'S 148 DAIRIES, THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR
HUNDREDS OF RETAIL OUTLETS, BUT TO THE MASS OF MILK CONSUMERS IN THE
CHICAGO AREA AS WELL.  THE OLDER METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION, BY WHICH
MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONING UNION ARE EMPLOYED, DISTRIBUTES A MAJOR PART
OF THE MILK SUPPLY BY DOOR-TO-DOOR DELIVERIES TO THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMER.  THE RIVAL METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION, IN WHICH RESPONDENT
ENGAGES, TAKES TWO FORMS:  THE DAIRIES USING THIS METHOD SELL THEIR
MILK TO "CUT-RATE" STORES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF SO
CALLED "VENDORS."  THE CUT-RATE STORES SELL MILK AT A RETAIL PRICE TWO
CENTS A QUART LESS THAN THAT FIXED BY THE DAIRIES EMPLOYING UNION
LABOR.  ACCORDING TO THE COURT BELOW, THE SYSTEM OF CUT-RATE
DISTRIBUTION, RESULTING IN LOSS OF BUSINESS BY THE UNION DAIRIES, LOSS
OF EMPLOYMENT BY THE UNION DRIVERS, AND LOSS OF A THOUSAND MEMBERS BY
THE UNION ITSELF, IS AT THE ROOT OF A LONG-STANDING CONTROVERSY.  NOT
ONLY THIS:  THE SITUATION HERE IS AN INTIMATE PART OF THE LARGER
PROBLEM OF MILK PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY,
AND, INDEED, OF THE STILL LARGER PROBLEM OF ALL SORTS OF CUT-RATE
DISTRIBUTION.  THERE ARE THUS INVOLVED TRADE PRACTICES WHICH ARE NOT
CONFINED TO CHICAGO ALONE - TRADE PRACTICES IN WHICH THERE IS KNOWN TO
BE A DISTINCT CLEAVAGE IN PUBLIC THOUGHT THROUGHOUT THE NATION. 

SECOND.  IN ESSENCE, THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IT WAS
ILLEGAL FOR A LABOR UNION TO PUBLICIZE THE FACT OF ITS BELIEF THAT A
CUT-RATE BUSINESS SYSTEM WAS INJURIOUS TO THE UNION AND TO THE PUBLIC,
SINCE SUCH PUBLICITY NECESSARILY DISCOURAGED THAT SYSTEM'S PROSPECTIVE
PURCHASERS.  THIS CONCLUSION OF THE COURT WAS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
REASONING:  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION, CONSIDERED (IN SOME WAY NOT MADE CLEAR) IN
CONNECTION WITH THE UNWRITTEN "COMMON LAW," ASSURE RESPONDENT THE
UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS FREE FROM ALL UNJUSTIFIABLE
INTERFERENCE; PUBLICATION AND PEACEFUL ARGUMENT INTENDED TO PERSUADE
RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS THAT ITS METHODS OF DOING BUSINESS WERE SUCH
THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BUY THE DAIRY'S PRODUCTS WERE THEREFORE ILLEGAL
INTERFERENCE; THE UNION'S PURPOSE TO BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS OF ITS
MEMBERS WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS PEACEFUL DISCUSSION OF THE
CONTROVERSY.  NEITHER THE PRESENCE NOR THE ABSENCE OF VIOLENCE WAS
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT TO BE A NECESSARY ELEMENT IN ITS CONCLUSION. 
ALL THIS WAS BUT TO SAY THAT IN THIS CONTROVERSY PEACEFUL CRITICISM OF
THE "VENDOR SYSTEM" WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT MIGHT INJURE RESPONDENT'S
BUSINESS BY DISCOURAGING TRADE.  BUT ILLINOIS CANNOT, WITHOUT
NULLIFYING CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES, MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO MARSHAL PUBLIC
OPINION AGAINST THESE GENERAL BUSINESS PRACTICES.  AN AGREEMENT SO TO
MARSHAL PUBLIC OPINION IS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION, EVEN THOUGH
CALLED A "COMMON LAW" CONSPIRACY OR A "COMMON LAW" TORT.  DESPITE
INVIDIOUS NAMES, IT IS STILL NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE
PEOPLE THAT THEY SHOULD LOOK WITH FAVOR UPON ONE SIDE OF A PUBLIC
CONTROVERSY. 

THIRD.  BUT THIS COURT SUSTAINS THE INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT "JUSTIFIED ITS DECISION" BY REFERENCE TO
VIOLENCE, THEREBY INDICATING THAT THAT CHARACTERISTIC WAS MADE AN
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE RULE FROM WHICH THE INJUNCTION SPRANG.  I DO
NOT SO READ THAT COURT'S OPINION, AND APPARENTLY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME
COURT ITSELF DOES NOT SO READ IT.  THAT THIS IS TRUE IS EVIDENCED BY
THAT COURT'S LANGUAGE IN A LATER DECISION WHERE, SPEAKING OF THE
PRESENT CASE, IT SAID:  "IN THAT CASE THERE WAS SOME EVIDENCE OF
VIOLENCE, BUT  ...  THE ISSUE OF VIOLENCE WAS NOT THE TURNING POINT OF
THE DECISION."  FN6  AND EVEN IF VIOLENCE WERE UNINTENTIONALLY INCLUDED
OR INCIDENTALLY REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF FORMULATING A RULE
TOUCHING THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, SUCH AN UNINTENTIONAL INCLUSION OR
INCIDENTAL REFERENCE IS TOO UNCERTAIN A SUPPORT UPON WHICH TO REST A
DEPRIVATION OF THIS VITAL PRIVILEGE. 

FOURTH.  THERE IS NO STATE STATUTE UPON WHICH EITHER THIS COURT OR
THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS COULD HAVE RELIED IN SUSTAINING THE
INJUNCTION.  FN7  ASSUMING THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DID
DECLARE THE RULE WHICH THIS COURT HAS ADOPTED, IN DOING SO IT HAS NOT
MARKED THE LIMITS OF THE RULE WITH THAT CLARITY WHICH SHOULD BE A
PREREQUISITE TO AN ABRIDGMENT OF FREE SPEECH.  NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT
THIS COURT, EVEN IF IT SHOULD, HAS SUPPLIED THAT ESSENTIAL
DEFINITENESS.  WHAT WE ARE HERE DEALING WITH IS AN INJUNCTION, AND NOT
A "STATUTE NARROWLY DRAWN" TO COVER A SITUATION THREATENING "IMMINENT
AND AGGRAVATED DANGER."  FN8  SPEAKING OF A SIMILAR ABRIDGMENT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHERE THERE WAS NO GUIDING LEGISLATIVE ACT, WE
SAID IN CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT:  "VIOLATION OF AN ACT EXHIBITING SUCH
A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT AND NARROWLY DRAWN TO PREVENT THE SUPPOSED EVIL,
WOULD POSE A QUESTION DIFFERING FROM THAT WE MUST HERE ANSWER.  SUCH A
DECLARATION OF THE STATE'S POLICY WOULD WEIGH HEAVILY IN ANY CHALLENGE
OF THE LAW AS INFRINGING CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  HERE, HOWEVER,
THE JUDGMENT IS BASED ON A COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF THE MOST GENERAL AND
UNDEFINED NATURE.  ...  HERE WE HAVE A SITUATION ANALOGOUS TO A
CONVICTION UNDER A STATUTE SWEEPING IN A GREAT VARIETY OF CONDUCT UNDER
A GENERAL AND INDEFINITE CHARACTERIZATION, AND LEAVING TO THE EXECUTIVE
AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES TOO WIDE A DISCRETION IN ITS APPLICATION."  FN9
IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DISSEMINATION OF
INFORMATION THROUGH PEACEFUL PICKETING WAS BUT ONE OF THE MANY
RESTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE SWEEPING INJUNCTION.  AS TO THIS ONE SINGLE
ELEMENT OF THE PROHIBITIONS A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS APPEAR IN THE RULE
NOW FORMULATED.  ON THE ONE HAND IT IS SAID THAT "DISSOCIATED ACTS OF
PAST VIOLENCE" ARE NOT ENOUGH TO FORFEIT THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.  ON
THE OTHER HAND A "BACKGROUND OF VIOLENCE" APPEARS TO BE SUFFICIENT. 
NOR ARE ANY MORE DEFINITE STANDARDS OR GUIDES TO BE FOUND IN SUCH
CLAUSES AS "CONTEXT OF VIOLENCE"; "ENTANGLEMENT WITH VIOLENCE";
"COERCIVE EFFECT"; "TAINT OF FORCE"; AND "COERCIVE THRUST."  IT IS MY
APPREHENSION THAT A RULE EMBODYING SUCH BROAD GENERALIZATIONS OPENS UP
NEW POSSIBILITIES FOR INVASION OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT. 

FIFTH.  IN MY OPINION THE SWEEPING INJUNCTION HERE APPROVED IS
JUSTIFIED BY NEITHER OF THE RULES, AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD. 

FOR OUR PURPOSES, IN ORDER TO REACH A PROPER CONCLUSION AS TO JUST
WHAT IS THE SWEEP OF THE INJUNCTION, WE MUST NECESSARILY TURN TO THE
COMPLAINT, THE ANSWER, THE EVIDENCE, THE FINDINGS, AND THE DECISION AND
JUDGMENT OF THE ILLINOIS COURTS.  AND WHETHER THE INJUNCTION WILL
RESTRAIN THE EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DEPENDS UPON THE EFFECT
IT WILL HAVE UPON THE MINDS OF THOSE WHOSE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION MIGHT
BE ABRIDGED BY ITS MANDATE.  THIS EFFECT IN TURN DEPENDS UPON THE
LANGUAGE APPEARING UPON THE FACE OF THE INJUNCTION.  BY THAT LANGUAGE
WE MUST JUDGE IT.  FOR THIS INJUNCTION DOES NOT RUN MERELY AGAINST
LAWYERS WHO MIGHT GIVE IT A LEGALISTIC INTERPRETATION, BUT AGAINST
LAYMEN AS WELL.  OUR QUESTION THEN BECOMES:  TO WHAT EXTENT WILL THE
LAYMAN WHO MIGHT WISH TO WRITE ABOUT OR DISCUSS THE PROHIBITED SUBJECTS
FEEL THAT HE CANNOT DO SO WITHOUT SUBJECTING HIMSELF TO THE POSSIBILITY
OF A JAIL SENTENCE UNDER A SUMMARY PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT?  THIS
INJUNCTION, LIKE A CRIMINAL STATUTE, PROHIBITS CONDUCT UNDER FEAR OF
PUNISHMENT.  THERE IS EVERY REASON WHY WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE INJUNCTION
AS WE WOULD A STATUTE, AND IF UPON ITS FACE IT ABRIDGES THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, IT SHOULD BE
STRICKEN DOWN.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE BECAUSE WE MUST DEAL ONLY WITH
THE FEDERAL QUESTION PRESENTED, WHICH IS WHETHER PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN
DENIED THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  THE INJUNCTION, LIKE A
STATUTE, STANDS AS AN OVERHANGING THREAT OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT.  THE LAW
OF ILLINOIS HAS BEEN DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT IN SUCH MANNER AS TO
INFRINGE UPON CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES.  AND BY THIS INJUNCTION THAT
LAW AS ACTUALLY APPLIED ABRIDGES FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.  LOOKING AT THE
INJUNCTION, WE FIND THAT UNDER PAIN OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT BY A TRIAL
JUDGE ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONING UNION (ABOUT SIX THOUSAND)
ARE PROHIBITED "FROM INTERFERING, HINDERING OR OTHERWISE DISCOURAGING
OR DIVERTING, OR ATTEMPTING TO INTERFERE WITH, HINDER, DISCOURAGE OR
DIVERT PERSONS DESIROUS OF OR CONTEMPLATING PURCHASING MILK AND CREAM
OR OTHER PRODUCTS AFORESAID, INCLUDING THE USE OF SAID SIGNS, BANNERS
OR PLACARDS, AND WALKING UP AND DOWN IN FRONT OF SAID STORES AS
AFORESAID, AND FURTHER PREVENTING THE DELIVERIES TO SAID STORES OF
OTHER ARTICLES WHICH SAID STORES SELL THROUGH RETAIL; (OR) FROM
THREATENING IN ANY MANNER TO DO THE FOREGOING ACTS; ...  "  IT SURELY
CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT AN ACT OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE, COUCHED IN
THIS SWEEPING LANGUAGE, WOULD BE HELD INVALID ON ITS FACE.  FN10  FOR
THIS LANGUAGE IS CAPABLE OF BEING CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT NONE OF THOSE
ENJOINED CAN, WITHOUT SUBJECTING THEMSELVES TO SUMMARY PUNISHMENT,
SPEAK, WRITE OR PUBLISH ANYTHING ANYWHERE OR AT ANY TIME WHICH THE
ILLINOIS COURT - ACTING WITHOUT A JURY IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS BROAD
POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT  FN11  - MIGHT CONCLUDE WOULD RESULT IN
DISCOURAGING PEOPLE FROM BUYING MILK PRODUCTS OF THE COMPLAINING
DAIRY.  AND MORE THAN THAT - IF THE LANGUAGE IS SO CONSTRUED, THOSE
ENJOINED CAN BE SENT TO JAIL IF THEY EVEN THREATEN TO WRITE, SPEAK, OR
PUBLISH IN SUCH WAY AS TO DISCOURAGE PROSPECTIVE MILK PURCHASERS.  I
FIND NOT EVEN SLIGHT JUSTIFICATION FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THIS
INJUNCTION SO AS TO CONFINE ITS PROHIBITIONS TO CONDUCT NEAR STORES
DEALING IN RESPONDENT'S MILK.  NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE INJUNCTION
NOR THAT OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH SOUGHT THE INJUNCTION INDICATES SUCH A
LIMITATION.  MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO APPROVED NO SUCH INJUNCTION AS THIS IN
NANN V. RAIMIST, 255 N.Y. 307; 174 N.E. 690.  IN FACT, HE ORDERED
EXPUNGED FROM THE INJUNCTION THOSE PROHIBITIONS WHICH IMPAIRED
"DEFENDANT'S INDUBITABLE RIGHT TO WIN CONVERTS OVER TO ITS FOLD BY
RECOURSE TO PEACEABLE PERSUASION, AND TO INDUCE THEM BY LIKE METHODS TO
RENOUNCE ALLEGIANCE TO ITS RIVAL." 

BUT THE INJUNCTION APPROVED HERE DOES NOT STOP AT CLOSING THE MOUTHS
OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONING UNION.  IT BRINGS WITHIN ITS ALL
EMBRACING SWEEP THE SPOKEN OR WRITTEN WORDS OF ANY OTHER PERSON "WHO
MAY  ...  NOW  ...  OR HEREAFTER  ...  AGREE OR ARRANGE WITH THEM  ...
"  SO, IF A NEWSPAPER SHOULD "AGREE OR ARRANGE" WITH ALL OR SOME OF
THOSE HERE ENJOINED TO PUBLISH THEIR SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY, THEREBY
NECESSARILY TENDING TO "DISCOURAGE" THE SALE OF CUT-RATE MILK, THE
PUBLISHERS MIGHT LIKEWISE BE SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT.  FN12
ORDINARILY THE SCOPE OF THE DECREE IS COEXTENSIVE EXTENSIVE WITH THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL, ITS SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS OR FINDINGS OF
FACT.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE ACTS ENJOINED ARE THE ACTS ALLEGED IN THE
BILL AS THE BASIS FOR COMPLAINT.  FN13  AND THE COMPLAINT ON WHICH THE
INJUNCTION HERE RESTS SPECIFICALLY CHARGED THAT THE UNION HAD CAUSED
"ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE BY THE PUBLIC PRESS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING THE SAID STOREKEEPERS AND CAUSING THEM
TO CEASE PURCHASING THE MILK SOLD BY SAID PLAINTIFFS THROUGH FEAR AND
TERROR OF THE RENEWAL OF SAID CONSPIRACY,  ...  "  SPECIFIC REFERENCE
WAS MADE TO THESE NEWSPAPER STORIES AS APPEARING IN THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
AND THE CHICAGO EVENING AMERICAN.  PROOF WAS MADE OF THESE
PUBLICATIONS.  AND THE INJUNCTION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, SET ASIDE BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, SPECIFICALLY SAVED TO PETITIONERS - AS IN
EFFECT DID JUSTICE CARDOZO IN THE NEW YORK CASE - THEIR RIGHT TO
PUBLICIZE THEIR CAUSE BY MEANS OF "ADVERTISEMENT OR COMMUNICATION." 
BUT THE INJUNCTION SUSTAINED HERE IS TO BE ISSUED AS PRAYED FOR IN THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT.  AND SINCE THE ACTS ENJOINED ARE THE ACTS ALLEGED IN
THE BILL AS THE BASIS FOR COMPLAINT, NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS OF THE TYPE
REFERRED TO IN THE COMPLAINT ARE LITERALLY ENJOINED.  SINCE THE LITERAL
LANGUAGE OF THE INJUNCTION, READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPLAINT, THE
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S SAVING
CLAUSE - STRICKEN DOWN BY ACTION SUSTAINED HERE - THUS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABRIDGES THE RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS,
WE CANNOT ESCAPE OUR RESPONSIBILITY BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF
DECLARING THAT THOSE WHO MIGHT BE SENT TO JAIL FOR VIOLATING THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF THE INJUNCTION MIGHT EVENTUALLY OBTAIN RELIEF BY APPEAL TO
THIS COURT.  TO UPHOLD VAGUE AND UNDEFINED TERMINOLOGIES IN DRAGNET
CLAUSES DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY AIMED AT RESTRAINING FREEDOM OF
DISCUSSION UPON THE THEORY THAT WE MIGHT LATER ACQUIT THOSE CONVICTED
FOR VIOLATION OF SUCH TERMINOLOGY AMOUNTS IN MY JUDGMENT TO SANCTIONING
A PRIOR CENSORSHIP OF VIEWS.  NO MATTER HOW THE DECREE MIGHT EVENTUALLY
BE CONSTRUED, ITS LANGUAGE, VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE WHOLE
PROCEEDINGS, STANDS LIKE AN ABSTRACT STATUTE WITH AN OVERHANGING AND
UNDEFINED THREAT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE PRESS.  ALL THIS, OF
COURSE, IS TRUE ONLY AS TO THOSE WHO ARGUE ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPONENTS
OF CUT-RATE DISTRIBUTION.  NO SUCH UNDEFINED THREAT HANGS OVER THOSE
WHO "AGREE OR ARRANGE" WITH THE ADVOCATES OF THE CUT-RATE SYSTEM TO
ENCOURAGE THEIR METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION.    NOR IS IT ANY ANSWER TO SAY
THAT THE INJUNCTION WOULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT IN ALL ITS POTENTIAL
RIGOR.  IT WAS TO OBTAIN JUST THESE POTENTIALITIES THAT RESPONDENT,
ALREADY HAVING SECURED FROM THE TRIAL COURT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ACTS
OF VIOLENCE, APPEALED TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT IN ORDER TO SECURE
AN INJUNCTION BROAD ENOUGH TO PREVENT PETITIONERS' PEACEABLE
COMMUNICATION TO THE PUBLIC OF THEIR SIDE OF THE CONTROVERSY.  IT IS
TOO MUCH TO EXPECT THAT AFTER COMPLETE APPROVAL OF THIS ABRIDGMENT OF
PUBLIC DISCUSSION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, AND AFTER THE
OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED, THE INJUNCTION WILL NOT BE ENFORCED AS
WRITTEN.  SO WRITTEN, THERE COULD HARDLY BE PROVIDED A MORE CERTAIN
METHOD WHOLLY AND COMPLETELY TO PREVENT ALL PUBLIC DISCUSSION
ANTAGONISTIC TO RESPONDENT'S METHOD OF SELLING MILK.  AND IT IS CLAIMED
BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONING UNION THAT FORECLOSURE OF OPPORTUNITY
FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION AMOUNTS TO A DEATH SENTENCE FOR THE METHOD OF
BUSINESS WHICH GIVES THEM EMPLOYMENT.  THE DECISION HERE THUS PERMITS
STATE CONTROL BY INJUNCTION AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR COMPETITIVE DISCUSSION
OF A CONTROVERSY OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO THE UNION, AND A MATTER OF
PUBLIC CONCERN AS WELL. 

A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE CONVINCES ME THAT
NEITHER THE FINDINGS NOR THE EVIDENCE, EVEN VIEWED IN THE LIGHT MOST
FAVORABLE TO RESPONDENT, SHOWED SUCH IMMINENT, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
FN14  AS TO JUSTIFY AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND THE PRESS.  THE PICKETING, WHICH DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL SEPTEMBER,
1934, HAS AT ALL TIMES BEEN PEACEFUL.  USUALLY ONE PICKET, AND NEVER
MORE THAN TWO, WALKED ALONG THE STREET BEARING A SIGN.  THESE PICKETS
NEVER IMPEDED TRAFFIC EITHER ON THE SIDEWALKS OR IN THE STREET, NOR DID
THEY DISTURB ANY PASSERSBY OR CUSTOMERS.  IN FACT, IT IS STIPULATED IN
THE RECORD THAT PICKETS "MADE NO THREATS AGAINST ANY OF THESE
STOREKEEPERS, BUT PEACEFULLY PICKETED THESE STORES.  THEY MADE NO
ATTEMPT TO STOP ANY CUSTOMERS OR TO STOP DELIVERY EXCEPT INSOFAR AS
THEIR SITUATION AND THE SIGNS THEY BORE HAD THAT TENDENCY."  THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE TO CONNECT THEM WITH ANY KIND OR TYPE OF VIOLENCE AT ANY
TIME OR PLACE.  AS WAS FOUND BY THE MASTER, THIS WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE INSTRUCTION WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THEM BY THE UNION OFFICIALS.  FN15
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AND NO FINDING THAT DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
BY PICKETS STIMULATED ANYONE ELSE TO COMMIT ANY ACT OF VIOLENCE. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT VIOLENCE OCCURRED - SOME COMMITTED BY
IDENTIFIED PERSONS AND SOME BY UNIDENTIFIED PERSONS.  A STRIKE OF
FARMERS SUPPLYING MOST OF CHICAGO'S MILK TOOK PLACE IN THE EARLY PART
OF JANUARY, 1934.  THIS STRIKE PRACTICALLY STOPPED THE INFLOW OF MILK
INTO THE CITY.  AS A RESULT, THE UNION DRIVERS WERE ORDERED NOT TO
REPORT FOR WORK ON JANUARY 8 AND 9, AT THE HEIGHT OF THE STRIKE.  IT
WAS DURING THIS PERIOD THAT THE LARGER PART OF THE MAJOR ACTS OF
VIOLENCE OCCURRED.  ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT AND THE EVIDENCE, SEVEN
TRUCKS WERE SEIZED OR DAMAGED ON THE 8TH AND 9TH OF JANUARY, 1934, AND
ONE ON THE 6TH.  THESE ARE THE ONLY TRUCKS THAT WERE EVER SEIZED OR
DAMAGED, ACCORDING TO BOTH THE COMPLAINT AND THE EVIDENCE, AND IT WAS
IN CONNECTION WITH THESE SEIZURES THAT THE INJURIES TO TRUCK DRIVERS,
THE SHOOTINGS, AND THE THREATS REFERRED TO IN THIS COURT'S OPINION TOOK
PLACE.  UNDOUBTEDLY, SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION PARTICIPATED IN
THIS VIOLENCE, AS IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT SEVERAL WERE ARRESTED,
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS WERE INSTITUTED, AND THE CASES LATER SETTLED WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.  IT WAS EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THIS BEFORE
ANY PICKETING OCCURRED; FOUR YEARS AFTERWARDS BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE
GRANTED AN INJUNCTION, LIMITED TO VIOLENCE ALONE; FIVE YEARS BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DIRECTED A MORE STRINGENT INJUNCTION AGAINST
PEACEFUL PERSUASION; AND SEVEN YEARS BEFORE THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE
INJUNCTION. 

DURING THE PERIOD OF THE FARMERS' STRIKE IN 1934, AND IN THE
IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING MONTHS, FIVE STORES WERE EITHER BOMBED OR
BURNED.  THREE UNION MEMBERS WERE TRIED, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO THE
PENITENTIARY FOR ARSON IN CONNECTION WITH ONE OF THESE BURNINGS.  ALL
OF THIS VIOLENCE TOOK PLACE MANY MONTHS BEFORE ANY OF THE PICKETING
OCCURRED.  IN ADDITION TO THESE 1934 ACTS OF VIOLENCE, THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED THAT ONE STENCH BOMB WAS THROWN INTO A STORE IN 1935, ONE IN
1936, AND TWO IN 1937.  THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS THROWING THESE
STENCH BOMBS WAS NOT SHOWN. 

THE ONLY OTHER VIOLENCE ALLEGED OR TESTIFIED TO WAS THE BREAKING OF
WINDOWS IN CUT-RATE STORES.  MOST OF THE TESTIMONY AS TO THESE ACTS OF
VIOLENCE WAS GIVEN BY RESPONDENT'S VENDORS, AND WAS EXTREMELY
INDEFINITE.  THE MASTER MADE NO FINDINGS AS TO SPECIFIC ACTS OF
VIOLENCE, NOR AS TO THE DATES OF THEIR OCCURRENCE.  VIEWING THE
EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, ALL OF THE
ACTS OF VIOLENCE AS TO WHICH ANY TESTIMONY WAS OFFERED ARE GATHERED IN
THE ACCOMPANYING FOOTNOTE.  FN16 

IT IS ON THE BASIS OF MY STUDY OF THE ENTIRE RECORD THAT I REST MY
CONCLUSION THAT THE FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH EFFECTED BY
THE INJUNCTION IS NOT WARRANTED.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, I FULLY
RECOGNIZE THAT THE UNION MEMBERS GUILTY OF VIOLENCE WERE SUBJECT TO
PUNISHMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 
AND SOME OF THEM HAVE IN FACT BEEN PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED. 
PUNISHMENT OF LAWLESS CONDUCT IS IN ACCORD WITH THE NECESSITIES OF
GOVERNMENT AND IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PEACE AND TRANQUILLITY OF SOCIETY. 
BUT IT IS GOING A LONG WAY TO SAY THAT BECAUSE OF THE ACTS OF THESE FEW
MEN, SIX THOUSAND OTHER MEMBERS OF THEIR UNION CAN BE DENIED THE RIGHT
TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION TO THE EXTENT ACCOMPLISHED BY THE SWEEPING
INJUNCTION HERE SUSTAINED N17.  EVEN THOSE CONVICTED OF CRIME ARE NOT
IN THIS COUNTRY PUNISHED BY HAVING THEIR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
CURTAILED EXCEPT UNDER PRISON RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND THEN ONLY FOR
THE DURATION OF THEIR SENTENCE. 

NO ONE DOUBTS THAT ILLINOIS CAN PROTECT ITS STOREKEEPERS FROM BEING
COERCED BY FEAR OF DAMAGE TO THEIR PROPERTY FROM WINDOW-SMASHING, OR
BURNINGS OR BOMBINGS.  AND TO THAT END ILLINOIS IS FREE TO USE ALL ITS
VAST RESOURCES AND POWERS, NOR SHOULD THIS COURT STAND IN THE WAY SO
LONG AS ILLINOIS DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM ITS PEOPLE RIGHTS GUARANTEED
TO THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  WHEN CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER OF RIOT, DISORDER, INTERFERENCE WITH TRAFFIC UPON THE
PUBLIC STREETS, OR OTHER IMMEDIATE THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, PEACE, OR
ORDER APPEARS, THE POWER OF THE ILLINOIS COURTS TO PREVENT OR PUNISH IS
OBVIOUS.  FN18  FURTHERMORE, THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE A STATE HAS THE POWER
TO ADOPT LAWS OF GENERAL APPLICATION TO PROVIDE THAT THE STREETS SHALL
BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY PRIMARILY EXIST, AND BECAUSE THE
PRESERVATION OF PEACE AND ORDER IS ONE OF THE FIRST DUTIES OF
GOVERNMENT.  BUT IN A SERIES OF CASES WE HAVE HELD THAT LOCAL LAWS
OSTENSIBLY PASSED PURSUANT TO THIS ADMITTEDLY POSSESSED GENERAL POWER
COULD NOT BE ENFORCED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO AMOUNT TO A PRIOR CENSORSHIP
ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, OR TO ABRIDGE THAT FREEDOM AS TO THOSE
RIGHTFULLY AND LAWFULLY ON THE STREETS.  FN19  ILLINOIS, LIKE ALL THE
OTHER STATES OF THE UNION, IS PART OF A NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM THE
CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF WHICH DEPENDS UPON THE RIGHT OF FREE DISCUSSION
OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS - A RIGHT WHOSE DENIAL TO SOME LEADS IN THE DIRECTION
OF ITS EVENTUAL DENIAL TO ALL.  I AM OF OPINION THAT THE COURT'S
INJUNCTION STRIKES DIRECTLY AT THE HEART OF OUR GOVERNMENT, AND THAT
DEPRIVATION OF THESE ESSENTIAL LIBERTIES CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE
RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION BY THEIR CONSTITUTION. 

FN1  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN A PETITION TO DETERMINE DAMAGES, FILED
EVEN BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED ITS FINAL ORDER, THE PETITIONERS
SAID:  "THE COURT WAS INFORMED AT THAT TIME (WHEN THE ORIGINAL EFFORT
WAS MADE TO SECURE DISSOLUTION OF THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION) THAT THE
DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THEM, WERE WHOLLY IN ACCORD WITH THE INJUNCTION
PROHIBITING VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND.  ...  "  R. 265. 

FN2  "THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO SUCH PERSONS SO PATROLLING OR
PICKETING BY THE OFFICERS OF THE DEFENDANT UNION HAVE BEEN TO DO SAME
PEACEFULLY AND NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS IN
SAID STORES, EXCEPT TO PATROL BACK AND FORTH WITH SAID PLACARDS."  R.
230-231. 

MEADOWMOOR HAD ORIGINALLY SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT.  THE FEDERAL MASTER'S REPORT, INTRODUCED IN THIS CASE
AS AN EXHIBIT FOR MEADOWMOOR, STATES:  "I FURTHER FIND THAT THE
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO SUCH PERSONS PATROLLING OR PEACEFULLY PICKETING
BY THE OFFICERS OF THE DEFENDANT ASSOCIATION HAVE BEEN NOT TO SPEAK OR
CARRY ON ANY CONVERSATION WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS IN FRONT OF
THE SAID PREMISES, NOR TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERLY COURSE OF BUSINESS
OF THE SAID STORES, EXCEPT TO PATROL BACK AND FORTH WITH THE SAID
PLACARD."  R. 165. 

FN3  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES."  IT IS NOW TOO WELL SETTLED TO REQUIRE CITATION THAT BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THE GUARANTIES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE
PROTECTED AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE STATES. 

FN4  THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE GREAT STRATEGIST OF THE CAMPAIGN TO BRING
ABOUT THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, A CAMPAIGN WHICH HE BEGAN
EVEN BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED, SAID AS TO ONE OF THE
GUARANTIES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT:  "THE BASIS OF OUR GOVERNMENTS BEING
THE OPINION OF THE PEOPLE, THE VERY FIRST OBJECT SHOULD BE TO KEEP THAT
RIGHT; AND WERE IT LEFT TO ME TO DECIDE WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A
GOVERNMENT WITHOUT NEWSPAPERS, OR NEWSPAPERS WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT, I
SHOULD NOT HESITATE A MOMENT TO PREFER THE LATTER." 

FN5  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 102.  CF. NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE
V. SANITARY GROCERY CO., 303 U.S. 552. 

FN6  ELLINGSEN V. MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION, 2 LABOR CASES 567, 568;
377 ILL. 76. 

FN7  ILLINOIS HAS AN ANTI-INJUNCTION STATUTE RELATING TO MATTERS
INVOLVING LABOR DISPUTES (ILL. REV. STAT. 1939, CHAP. 48, SEC. 2(A)). 
THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THIS STATUTE WAS MODELED ON THE FEDERAL
CLAYTON ACT (38 STAT. 738, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 52).  BUT THE COURT HELD THAT
THE FACTS HERE DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE TYPE OF "LABOR DISPUTE" TO WHICH
THE ACT APPLIED.  371 ILL. AT 383-386; 21 N.E.2D 308.  CF. MILK WAGON
DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY FARM PRODUCTS, 311 U.S. 91. 

FN8  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 105. 

FN9  310 U.S. 296, 307-308. 

FN10  CF. THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA,
310 U.S. 106.  WITH A CHANGE OF BUT ONE WORD, A PASSAGE FROM THE
CARLSON CASE IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE:  "THE SWEEPING
AND INEXACT TERMS OF THE (INJUNCTION) DISCLOSE THE THREAT TO FREEDOM OF
SPEECH INHERENT IN ITS EXISTENCE.  IT CANNOT BE THOUGHT TO DIFFER IN
ANY MATERIAL RESPECT FROM THE STATUTE HELD VOID IN THORNHILL'S CASE." 
310 U.S. AT 112. 

AND A COMPARISON OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTES HELD INVALID IN THE
THORNHILL AND CARLSON CASES WITH THAT OF THE INJUNCTION HERE SUSTAINED
IS VERY REVEALING:

                          THORNHILL STATUTE: 

"GOING) NEAR TO OR LOITERING) ABOUT THE PREMISES OR PLACE OF BUSINESS
...  ; INFLUENCING 

...  PERSONS NOT TO TRADE  ...  ; PICKETING) THE WORKS OR PLACE OF
BUSINESS  ...  "

                MEADOWMOOR INJUNCTION: 

"WALKING UP AND DOWN IN FRONT OF SAID STORES  ...  ; DISCOURAGING
...  PERSONS  ... CONTEMPLATING PURCHASING  ...  ; INTERFERING,
HINDERING, OR  ...  DIVERTING)  ...  PERSONS DESIROUS OF  ...
PURCHASING ...  ; USING) SIGNS, BANNERS OR PLACARDS  ...  IN FRONT OF
SAID STORES  ...  "

                           CARLSON STATUTE: 

"LOITERING) IN FRONT OF  ...  ANY PLACE OF BUSINESS  ...  ;
INFLUENCING  ...  ANY PERSON TO REFRAIN FROM PURCHASING  ...  ;
INTIMIDATING, THREATENING OR COERCING  ...  ANY PERSON  ...  ;
DISPLAYING) ANY BANNER  ...  BADGE OR SIGN IN FRONT OF  ...  ANY PLACE
OF BUSINESS  ...  " 

FN11  IN ILLINOIS, THE POWER TO PUNISH SUMMARILY FOR CONTEMPT IS SAID
TO BE A BROAD "INHERENT" POWER OF COURTS, "INDEPENDENT OF STATUTORY
PROVISIONS" AND OF "CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT."  SCHMIDT V. COOPER, 274 ILL.
243, 250; 113 N.E. 641; PEOPLE V. PETERS, 305 ILL. 223, 226-227; 137
N.E. 118.  AND WHERE A TRIAL JUDGE HAS RULED THAT CONDUCT IS OR IS NOT
CONTEMPT, THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE UNLESS THE TRIAL
JUDGE'S FINDINGS ARE "MANIFESTLY AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE" OR
"CLEARLY AND PALPABLY CONTRARY" TO IT.  SEE OEHLER V. LEVY, 256 ILL.
178, 183; 99 N.E. 912; BOYDEN V. BOYDEN, 162 ILL. APP. 77, 83; AMERICAN
CIGAR CO. V. BERGER, 221 ILL. APP. 339, 341(VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION
AGAINST PICKETING); ID., 221 ILL. APP. 332; SCHMOOK V. FANE, 301 ILL.
APP. 626; 22 N.E.2D 450(VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION AGAINST PICKETING). 
AND WHERE THE TRIAL COURT HAS DETERMINED THE EXTENT OF THE PUNISHMENT
TO BE INFLICTED, "COURTS OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION WILL NOT INTERFERE
WITH THE EXERCISE OF SUCH DISCRETION EXCEPT FOR ITS ABUSE."  ASH-MADDEN
RAE CO. V. INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, 290 ILL. 301,
306; 125 N.E. 258(VIOLATION OF INJUNCTION AGAINST PICKETING). 

FN12  CF. COHEN V. UNITED STATES, 295 F. 633; TALIAFERRO V. UNITED
STATES, 290 F. 906, 214.  COHEN, "THE OWNER, EDITOR, AND PUBLISHER" OF
A NEWSPAPER, WAS CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT BY THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING "STRIKERS AND THEIR SYMPATHIZERS."  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  TALIAFERRO, A BARBER IN NO WAY CONNECTED
WITH A RAILROAD STRIKE, WAS CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT UNDER AN INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING UNION MEMBERS AND THOSE "ASSOCIATED WITH THEM." 
TALIAFERRO'S OFFENSE CONSISTED IN PLACING IN HIS WINDOW A SIGN SAYING
"NO SCABS WANTED IN HERE."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
CONVICTION.  AND SEE ILLINOIS MALLEABLE IRON CO. V. MICHALEK, 279 ILL.
221; 116 N.E. 714.    FN13  CF. FRANKFURTER AND GREENE, THE LABOR
INJUNCTION, P. 112, CITING HOTEL & RAILROAD NEWS CO. V. CLARK, 243
MASS. 317; 137 N.E. 534.  AND SEE HITCHMAN COAL & COKE CO. V. MITCHELL,
245 U.S. 229, 262; ILLINOIS MALLEABLE IRON CO. V. MICHALEK, 279 ILL.
221, 228; 116 N.E. 714. 

FN14  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 308; CARLSON V.
CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106, 113; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 258;
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52.  AND SEE THE CONCURRING
OPINION OF JUSTICES HOLMES AND BRANDEIS IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274
U.S. 357, 373, AND THE DISSENTING OPINIONS OF THE SAME JUSTICES IN
GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 672-673; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 252
U.S. 239, 255; SCHAEFER V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 466, 482; AND ABRAMS
V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 627. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN16

STORES

                        WINDOWS    TRUCKS    BOMBED OR
MISCELLANEOUS

                        BROKEN SEIZED     BURNED 

1934....................    34         8           5             4 

1935....................     5       0           1             0 

1936....................     7         0           1             0 

1937....................     7         0           2             0

               53         8           9             4 

PETITIONERS OFFERED EVIDENCE THAT THREE MEN, WITH NO UNION
CONNECTIONS WHATSOEVER, CONFESSED TO AND WERE CONVICTED OF THE SMASHING
OF WINDOWS IN TWENTY-FOUR CUT-RATE MILK STORES IN 1934, PURSUANT TO AN
INSURANCE RACKET.  THE MASTER STRUCK THIS EVIDENCE FROM THE RECORD, ON
RESPONDENT'S MOTION. 

IN ADDITION TO THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE ENUMERATED IN THE FOREGOING
TABLE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF SIX ACTS OF VIOLENCE IN 1932, AMONG THEM
THE BOMBING OF MEADOWMOOR'S PLANT REFERRED TO IN THE OPINION. 
PETITIONERS OFFERED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AT THAT TIME RESPONDENT WAS
GANGSTER-DOMINATED, AND THAT THE GANGSTERS IN QUESTION HAD SOUGHT TO
OBTAIN CONTROL OF THE UNION, BUT THIS EVIDENCE WAS EXCLUDED. 

THE OPINION ALSO REFERS TO THE BEATING OF WORKERS AT A CUT-RATE DAIRY
OTHER THAN MEADOWMOOR.  THE MASTER DID NOT MENTION THIS INCIDENT IN HIS
FINDINGS, BUT IT IS REFERRED TO IN THE EVIDENCE, AND FROM THAT SOURCE
IT APPEARS THAT THOSE BEATEN AND TOLD "TO JOIN THE UNION" WERE INSIDE
WORKERS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE PETITIONING UNION. 

FN17  IT IS SAID THAT THE DECISION HERE LEAVES THE ILLINOIS COURTS
FREE TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF THE INJUNCTION.  BUT WHETHER
MODIFICATION IS PERMISSIBLE OR WILL IN FACT TAKE PLACE DEPENDS ON
ILLINOIS LAW AND ILLINOIS COURTS.  A STATUTE CAN BE MODIFIED OR EVEN
REPEALED BY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION, BUT IF UPON ITS FACE IT INFRINGES
THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IT IS INVALID.  AND A COURT'S INJUNCTION,
MAKING A LAW FOR A PARTICULAR CASE, CAN STAND NO HIGHER THAN A
LEGISLATURE'S ACT, GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL THE PEOPLE. 

FN18  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296, 308. 

FN19  LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; SCHNEIDER V. STATE,
308 U.S. 147; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA,
310 U.S. 106; CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

MY CONCLUSION IS THAT THE INJUNCTION ORDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE MILK WAGON DRIVERS
UNION OF CHICAGO, ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS.  THE COURT REACHES A
CONTRARY RESULT ON THE GROUND THAT A STATE MAY "AUTHORIZE ITS COURTS TO
ENJOIN ACTS OF PICKETING IN THEMSELVES PEACEFUL WHEN THEY ARE ENMESHED
WITH CONTEMPORANEOUSLY VIOLENT CONDUCT WHICH IS CONCEDEDLY OUTLAWED." 
SINCE THIS CONTROVERSY, BY VIRTUE OF THE COURT'S OPINION, CENTERS
AROUND PICKETING AS A PHASE OF FREE SPEECH RATHER THAN AROUND THE MORE
GENERAL TOPIC OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, I DESIRE TO STATE FOR MYSELF
THE REASONS WHICH LEAD ME TO THE CONVICTION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
REVERSED.  A PRINCIPLE IS THUS INVOLVED, AS WELL AS A DISPUTE OVER THE
SCOPE OF A COURT INJUNCTION. 

THE RECORD SHOWS INEXCUSABLE ACTS OF VIOLENCE, COMMITTED AT LEAST IN
PART BY MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  FOR SUCH CONDUCT, THE OFFENDERS ARE
SUBJECT TO PUNISHMENT BY THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF ILLINOIS.  THE FUTURE
CONDUCT OF THE RIOTERS IS ALSO SUBJECT TO STATE CONTROL BY INJUNCTION,
EXERCISED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE BURDEN AND THE
DUTY OF MAINTAINING LAW AND ORDER FALL PRIMARILY ON ILLINOIS.  WHETHER
IT CHOOSES AN INJUNCTION AGAINST VIOLENCE ALONE OR AGAINST VIOLENCE AND
PEACEFUL PICKETING, IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT ITS COMMANDS WILL BE
OBEYED.  IT IS A POSTULATE OF REASONED THINKING THAT THE JUDICIAL
DECREES WILL BE FAITHFULLY CARRIED OUT.  THIS QUESTION THEN EMERGES. 
IS THE RIGHT TO PICKET PEACEFULLY AN EMPLOYER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS LOST
FOR ANY PERIOD OF FUTURE TIME BY PAST ACTS OF VIOLENCE?  THE TRIAL
COURT, IN THIS VERY CASE, WHILE PROHIBITING ALL VIOLENCE, PERMITTED BY
ITS INJUNCTION THE CONTINUANCE OF EFFORTS BY THE UNION, EITHER SINGLY
OR IN CONCERT, TO PEACEABLY PERSUADE OTHERS BY PICKETING OR OTHER
LAWFUL MEANS TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS. 

WHERE NOTHING FURTHER APPEARS, IT IS AGREED THAT PEACEFUL PICKETING,
SINCE IT IS AN EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED BY
INJUNCTION OR BY STATUTE.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88; AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING, POST, P. 321.  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT
THE RIGHT TO PICKET IS NOT ABSOLUTE.  IT MAY, IF ACTUALLY NECESSARY, BE
LIMITED, LET US SAY, TO TWO OR THREE INDIVIDUALS AT A TIME AND THEIR
MANNER OF EXPRESSING THEIR VIEWS MAY BE REASONABLY RESTRICTED TO AN
ORDERLY PRESENTATION.  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 105.  FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF THE STATE, INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSY MAY NOT OVERSTEP THE
BOUNDS OF AN APPEAL TO REASON AND SYMPATHY. 

THE COURT NOW DETERMINES THAT WHERE THERE IS A BACKGROUND OF
VIOLENCE, AND INFERENTIALLY, I THINK IT MUST BE ADMITTED, THAT WHERE
THERE IS A REASONABLE FEAR OF VIOLENCE, THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHICH IS
SECURED TO ALL PERSONS BY THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION MAY BE WITHDRAWN.  IT FINDS ITS JUSTIFICATION IN THE
AUTHORITY OF ILLINOIS TO "PROTECT ITS STOREKEEPERS FROM BEING COERCED
BY FEAR OF WINDOW-SMASHINGS OR BURNINGS OR BOMBINGS."  THE MOMENTUM OF
FEAR FROM PAST VIOLENCE, IT IS THOUGHT, WOULD REACH OVER INTO THE
PEACEFUL PICKETING OF THE FUTURE.  THIS GOES MUCH FARTHER THAN THE
INJUNCTION APPROVED BY THIS COURT IN HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496,
517, WHICH FORBADE INTERFERENCES WITH THE LIBERTY OF FREE SPEECH BUT
LEFT TO THE GUARDIANS OF PUBLIC PEACE THE RIGHT "TO ENFORCE LAW AND
ORDER BY LAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE OR BY ARREST AND PRODUCTION BEFORE A
JUDICIAL OFFICER."  THIS AUTHORITY OF ILLINOIS TO PROTECT ITS
STOREKEEPERS MUST BE EXERCISED, HOWEVER, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  IF ILLINOIS WERE NOT A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT
A SOVEREIGN WITHOUT EXTERIOR POLITICAL OR SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS, IT WOULD
BE IN A POSITION TO USE WHATEVER MEANS IT OR ITS COURTS MIGHT DECIDE
WOULD BEST PUT AN END TO LABOR DISTURBANCES.  AS A STATE OF THE UNION
IT IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IF THE FEAR
ENGENDERED BY PAST MISCONDUCT COERCES STOREKEEPERS DURING PEACEFUL
PICKETING, THE REMEDY LIES IN THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER, NOT IN DENIAL
OF FREE SPEECH.  CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES AGAINST OPPRESSION ARE OF
VALUE ONLY WHEN NEEDED TO CHALLENGE ATTACKS. 

THE RIGHT TO PICKET PEACEFULLY IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES IS A RECOGNIZED
MEANS FOR THE MARSHALING OF PUBLIC OPINION ON THE SIDE OF THE WORKER. 
THERE IS NO FINDING THAT VIOLENCE WAS PLANNED OR ENCOURAGED BY THE
UNION.  TO DENY THIS RIGHT OF PEACEFUL PICKETING TO THOUSANDS BECAUSE
OF THE VIOLENCE OF A FEW MEANS THE CUTTING OFF OF ONE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED WAYS IN WHICH ORDERLY ADJUSTMENTS OF
ECONOMIC DISPUTES ARE BROUGHT ABOUT.  I CANNOT SEE THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM IS "TOTALLY DIFFERENT" BECAUSE RAISED BY A COURT
DECREE RATHER THAN A STATUTE.  CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES ARE JUST AS
EFFECTIVE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AS THEY ARE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  THE
PRINCIPLE CONTENDED FOR BY PETITIONERS IS THE RIGHT TO TELL THEIR SIDE
OF THE STORY BY PEACEFUL PICKETING DESPITE A STATE COURT'S VIEW THAT
SUCH PICKETING MAY PROJECT FEAR FROM PAST VIOLENCE INTO THE FUTURE.  IN
THE LAST ANALYSIS WE MUST ASK OURSELVES WHETHER THIS PROTECTION AGAINST
ASSUMED FEAR OF FUTURE COERCION FLOWING FROM PAST VIOLENCE IS
SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE SUSPENSION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF
FREE SPEECH.  IF PICKETING IS PROHIBITED HERE, THE RIGHT MAINTAINED BY
THORNHILL V. ALABAMA COLLAPSES ON THE FIRST ATTACK. 

THIS NATION RELIES UPON PUBLIC DISCUSSION AS ONE OF THE INDISPENSABLE
MEANS TO ATTAIN CORRECT SOLUTIONS OF PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL WELFARE. 
CURTAILMENT OF FREE SPEECH LIMITS THIS OPEN DISCUSSION.  OUR WHOLE
HISTORY TEACHES THAT ADJUSTMENT OF SOCIAL RELATIONS THROUGH REASON IS
POSSIBLE WHILE FREE SPEECH IS MAINTAINED.  THIS COURT HAS THE SOLEMN
DUTY OF DETERMINING WHEN ACTS OF LEGISLATION OR DECREES OF COURTS
INFRINGE THAT RIGHT GUARANTEED TO ALL CITIZENS.  FREE SPEECH MAY BE
ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED ONLY UNDER THE MOST PRESSING NATIONAL
EMERGENCIES.  THOSE EMERGENCIES MUST BE OF THE KIND THAT JUSTIFY THE
SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE RIGHT
OF TRIAL BY JURY.  NOTHING APPROACHING THIS SITUATION EXISTS IN THIS
RECORD AND, IN MY JUDGMENT, THE ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
IN PROHIBITING PEACEFUL PICKETING VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
THESE PETITIONERS. 
..END :

















A.F. OF L. V. SWING, 312 U.S. 321 


NO. 56.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 10, 1941.  - 372
ILL. 91 - 22 N.E.2D 857, REVERSED. 


THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION IS INFRINGED BY
THE COMMON LAW POLICY OF A STATE LIMITING PEACEFUL PICKETING BY LABOR
UNIONS TO CASES IN WHICH THE CONTROVERSY IS BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND
HIS OWN EMPLOYEES.  PP. 323, 325. 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR ET AL. V. SWING ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 620, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, 298 ILL. APP. 63, 18 N.E.2D 258, WHICH
DIRECTED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST PICKETING OF A BEAUTY SHOP BY A LABOR
UNION.  THE PLAINTIFFS WERE THE PROPRIETOR SWING AND HIS EMPLOYEES. 

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT CONFER AN
ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO STRIKE.  THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT OPERATE AS A
RESTRAINT UPON THE INHERENT POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE AND CONTROL
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DESTINY OF ITS CITIZENS.  LABOR DISPUTES
INVOLVE INTERNAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF THE STATE; (EXCEPT
WHERE THE POWER TO REGULATE OR CONTROL IS GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, EITHER BY DIRECT
GRANT OR AS AN INCIDENT TO THE EXERCISE OF GRANTED POWER).  SCHECHTER
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298
U.S. 238; SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468; LAUF V. SHINNER &
CO., 303 U.S. 323. 

ASSUMING THAT THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, ENUNCIATING THE COMMON
LAW OF THE STATE, CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION OF STATE POLICY
AND ANALOGOUS TO A STATE STATUTE, THE DECLARATION OF POLICY IN THIS
CASE IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE OR ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF STATE
SOVEREIGNTY.  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1; MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S.
586. 

THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED BY THE TRADE UNION HAVING BEEN
DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL, THE MEANS USED - THE STRIKE CAMPAIGN, THE
PICKETING AND PATROLLING - ARE NECESSARILY UNLAWFUL AS BEING A PART OF
A CONSPIRACY TO DAMAGE AND INJURE AND IN AID OF AN UNLAWFUL OBJECTIVE. 
AIKENS V. WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194; AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY
COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184; DORCHY V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306; MEADOWMOOR
DAIRIES V. MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION, 371 ILL. 377; FRANKFURTER &
GREENE, THE LABOR INJUNCTION, P. 25. 

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT GRANT AN UNBRIDLED LICENSE TO SPEAK. 
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL
REGULATION AND CONTROL IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC WELFARE.  THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RECOGNIZES THE POWER OF THE STATE TO DEPRIVE
CITIZENS OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, AND EVEN LIFE, IF DONE IN THE
REASONABLE EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER.  SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301
U.S. 468; MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES V. MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION, 371 ILL.
377. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES PRIVATE PARTIES, EACH SIDE SEEKING TO FURTHER ITS
OWN ECONOMIC WELL BEING.  IT IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM AN ATTEMPT ON THE
PART OF THE STATE TO PASS AND ENFORCE PENAL LAWS.  THE CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER RULE SHOULD NOT BE THE TEST.  ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES,
250 U.S. 616; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, ANTE, P. 287, WE
HELD THAT ACTS OF PICKETING WHEN BLENDED WITH VIOLENCE MAY HAVE A
SIGNIFICANCE WHICH NEUTRALIZES THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY WHICH SUCH
ACTS WOULD HAVE IN ISOLATION.  WHEN WE TOOK THIS CASE, 310 U.S. 620, IT
SEEMED TO PRESENT A SIMILAR PROBLEM.  MORE THOROUGH STUDY OF THE RECORD
AND FULL ARGUMENT HAVE REDUCED THE ISSUE TO THIS:  IS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION INFRINGED BY THE
COMMON LAW POLICY OF A STATE FORBIDDING RESORT TO PEACEFUL PERSUASION
THROUGH PICKETING MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE DISPUTE? 

A UNION OF THOSE ENGAGED IN WHAT THE RECORD DESCRIBES AS BEAUTY WORK
UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO UNIONIZE SWING'S BEAUTY PARLOR.  PICKETING OF
THE SHOP FOLLOWED.  TO ENJOIN THIS INTERFERENCE WITH HIS BUSINESS AND
WITH THE FREEDOM OF HIS WORKERS NOT TO JOIN A UNION, SWING AND HIS
EMPLOYEES BEGAN THE PRESENT SUIT.  IN ADDITION, THEY CHARGED THE USE OF
FALSE PLACARDS IN PICKETING AND FORCIBLE BEHAVIOR TOWARDS SWING'S
CUSTOMERS.  A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED.  ANSWERS WERE THEN
FILED DENYING VIOLENCE AS WELL AS FALSITY OF THE PLACARDS.  THE UNION
ALSO MOVED TO STRIKE THE COMPLAINT AND THE TRIAL COURT, FINDING THE
COMPLAINT WANTING IN EQUITY, GRANTED THE MOTION AND DISSOLVED THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.  THE APPELLATE COURT, ONE OF ILLINOIS'
INTERMEDIATE COURTS OF REVIEW, HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS IN ERROR. 
298 ILL. APP. 63; 18 N.E.2D 258.  THIS ACTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  372 ILL. 91; 22 N.E.2D 857. 
IT FOUND THAT THE COMPLAINT PROPERLY INVOKED EQUITY FOR THREE REASONS:
(1) THERE WAS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND HIS IMMEDIATE
EMPLOYEES; (2) THE PLACARDS WERE LIBELOUS; (3) THERE WERE ACTS OF
VIOLENCE.  INASMUCH AS THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE ISSUANCE MERELY
OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, WE DENIED CERTIORARI FOR WANT OF A FINAL
JUDGMENT.  309 U.S. 659.  THEREUPON, ALTHOUGH AS WE HAVE SEEN ISSUE HAD
BEEN FORMALLY JOINED ON THE CLAIMS OF LIBEL AND VIOLENCE, THE APPELLATE
COURT, BY A PROCEDURE UNREVEALED BY THE RECORD AND WITHOUT OPINION,
ENTERED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION RANGING FROM PEACEFUL PERSUASION TO ACTS
OF VIOLENCE.  THE DECREE RECITED "THAT THIS COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT
OF THIS STATE HAVE HELD IN THIS CASE, THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF THIS
STATE, PEACEFUL PICKETING OR PEACEFUL PERSUASION ARE UNLAWFUL WHEN
CONDUCTED BY STRANGERS TO THE EMPLOYER (I.E., WHERE THERE IS NOT A
PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYER), AND THAT APPELLANTS ARE
ENTITLED IN THIS CASE TO RELIEF BY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE THREAT OF
SUCH PEACEFUL PICKETING OR PERSUASION BY APPELLEES."  THE UNION SOUGHT
REVIEW OF THIS DECREE IN THE SUPREME COURT BY WRIT OF ERROR.  SWING AND
HIS EMPLOYEES MOVED TO DISMISS THE WRIT BECAUSE IN SEEKING TO OBTAIN IT
THE UNION HAD CONCEDED THAT "ALL ISSUES OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN SETTLED
ON PRIOR APPEAL AND THAT THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT IS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE MANDATE ISSUED" TO THE APPELLATE COURT.  THE
WRIT WAS DISMISSED. 

SUCH IS THE CASE AS WE EXTRACT IT FROM A NONE TOO CLEAR RECORD.  IT
THUS APPEARS THAT IN PASSING UPON THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION THE SUPREME
COURT OF ILLINOIS SUSTAINED IT IN PART BECAUSE OF ALLEGATIONS OF
VIOLENCE AND LIBEL.  BUT OUR CONCERN IS WITH THE FINAL DECREE OF THE
APPELLATE COURT.  ON ITS FACE THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN THAT DECREE
RESTED ON THE EXPLICIT AVOWAL THAT "PEACEFUL PERSUASION" WAS FORBIDDEN
IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THOSE WHO WERE ENJOINED WERE NOT IN SWING'S
EMPLOY.  MOREOVER, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
DISMISSED PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT TO REVIEW THAT DECREE ON
REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE DECREE WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS MANDATE ON
THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. 

SINCE THE CASE CLEARLY PRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM OF THE RIGHT TO
FREE DISCUSSION AND SINCE, AS WE HAVE FREQUENTLY INDICATED, THAT RIGHT
IS TO BE GUARDED WITH A JEALOUS EYE, HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242,
258; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE
PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152N., IT WOULD BE IMPROPER TO DISPOSE OF
THE CASE OTHERWISE THAN ON THE FACE OF THE DECREE, WHICH IS THE
JUDGMENT NOW UNDER REVIEW.  WE ARE THEREFORE NOT CALLED UPON TO
CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR
DAIRIES, SUPRA, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHICH OBVIOUSLY PRESENT QUITE A
DIFFERENT SITUATION FROM THE CONTROLLING ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLENCE AND
LIBEL MADE IN THE PRESENT BILL. 

ALL THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, THEN, IS AN INSTANCE OF "PEACEFUL
PERSUASION" DISENTANGLED FROM VIOLENCE AND FREE FROM "PICKETING EN
MASSE OR OTHERWISE CONDUCTED" SO AS TO OCCASION "IMMINENT AND
AGGRAVATED DANGER."  THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88, 105.  WE ARE
ASKED TO SUSTAIN A DECREE WHICH FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CASE ASSERTS AS
THE COMMON LAW OF A STATE THAT THERE CAN BE NO "PEACEFUL PICKETING OR
PEACEFUL PERSUASION" IN RELATION TO ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND
A TRADE UNION UNLESS THE EMPLOYER'S OWN EMPLOYEES ARE IN CONTROVERSY
WITH HIM. 

SUCH A BAN OF FREE COMMUNICATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GUARANTEE
OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.  THAT A STATE HAS AMPLE POWER TO REGULATE THE
LOCAL PROBLEMS THROWN UP BY MODERN INDUSTRY AND TO PRESERVE THE PEACE
IS AXIOMATIC.  BUT NOT EVEN THESE ESSENTIAL POWERS ARE UNFETTERED BY
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THE SCOPE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IS NOT CONFINED BY THE NOTION OF A PARTICULAR STATE REGARDING
THE WISE LIMITS OF AN INJUNCTION IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, WHETHER
THOSE LIMITS BE DEFINED BY STATUTE OR BY THE JUDICIAL ORGAN OF THE
STATE.  A STATE CANNOT EXCLUDE WORKINGMEN FROM PEACEFULLY EXERCISING
THE RIGHT OF FREE COMMUNICATION BY DRAWING THE CIRCLE OF ECONOMIC
COMPETITION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS SO SMALL AS TO CONTAIN ONLY
AN EMPLOYER AND THOSE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY HIM.  THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF
ECONOMIC INTEREST OF ALL ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY HAS BECOME A
COMMONPLACE.  AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S.
184, 209.  THE RIGHT OF FREE COMMUNICATION CANNOT THEREFORE BE
MUTILATED BY DENYING IT TO WORKERS, IN A DISPUTE WITH AN EMPLOYER, EVEN
THOUGH THEY ARE NOT IN HIS EMPLOY.  COMMUNICATION BY SUCH EMPLOYEES OF
THE FACTS OF A DISPUTE, DEEMED BY THEM TO BE RELEVANT TO THEIR
INTERESTS, CAN NO MORE BE BARRED BECAUSE OF CONCERN FOR THE ECONOMIC
INTERESTS AGAINST WHICH THEY ARE SEEKING TO ENLIST PUBLIC OPINION THAN
COULD THE UTTERANCE PROTECTED IN THORNHILL'S CASE.  "MEMBERS OF A UNION
MIGHT, WITHOUT SPECIAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION BY A STATE, MAKE KNOWN
THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE, FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS GUARANTEED BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION."  SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468,
478.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

I AM UNABLE TO AGREE TO THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE.  I
THINK THE WRIT SHOULD BE DISMISSED OR THE JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

THE RECORD PRESENTS DIFFICULT QUESTIONS CONCERNING ILLINOIS
PROCEDURE, AS TO WHICH THE PARTIES ARE IN DISAGREEMENT, AND WE OUGHT
NOT TO ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THEM. 

THE RESPONDENTS FILED A COMPLAINT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, ON WHICH A
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ISSUED.  THE PETITIONERS ANSWERED.  THEY ALSO MADE
A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND THAT MOTION WAS GRANTED, WITH THE
RESULT THAT THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS DISSOLVED.  ON APPEAL, THE
APPELLATE COURT REVERSED THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.  FROM THAT
ACTION AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, WHICH
AFFIRMED THE DECREE OF THE APPELLATE COURT.  ON ANALYSIS OF THE
COMPLAINT, THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT IT CHARGED THAT NO DISPUTES
EXISTED BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYEES; THAT THE PETITIONERS
HAD BEEN INDULGING, AND WERE CONTINUING TO INDULGE, IN A SERIES OF
LIBELS AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS; WERE INDULGING AND WERE CONTINUING TO
INDULGE, IN THREATS AND ACTS OF VIOLENCE.  THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE
COURT SUSTAINED THE COMPLAINT AS STATING A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY
ARE SUMMED UP IN THE CONCLUSION OF ITS OPINION THUS:  "A STATE OR
NATION CEASES TO BE SOVEREIGN IF IT TOLERATES WITHIN IT ANY FORCE OTHER
THAN ITS OWN, AND THAT FORCE MUST BE SUCH AS IS ESTABLISHED BY LAW,
DIRECTED BY THE COURTS, OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.  TO WHATEVER EXTENT THESE RULES ARE
VIOLATED WE HAVE LAWLESSNESS, AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES A COURT OF
EQUITY WILL NOT PICK AND CHOOSE AMONG THE UNLAWFUL ACTS AND THREATS BUT
WILL ENJOIN THE WHOLE SCHEME." 

THEREAFTER THE RECORD DISCLOSES MERELY THAT THE CAUSE CAME ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING IN THE APPELLATE COURT.  WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THAT
HEARING WAS UPON THE BILL AND ANSWERS OR UPON THE COMPLAINT AND THE
MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THE PARTIES ARE IN GRAVE DISPUTE ON THE
SUBJECT.  WE DO KNOW FROM THE RECORD THAT THE APPELLATE COURT, AFTER
RECITING THE PREVIOUS HISTORY OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE AFFIRMANCE OF
ITS JUDGMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT, AND A STATEMENT THAT, UNDER THE LAW
OF ILLINOIS, PEACEFUL PICKETING IS UNLAWFUL WHEN CONDUCTED BY STRANGERS
TO THE EMPLOYER, COUPLED WITH THE FURTHER STATEMENT THAT THE
RESPONDENTS WERE ENTITLED "IN THIS CASE" TO RELIEF BY INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE THREAT OF SUCH PEACEFUL PICKETING, AND THAT THE RESPONDENTS
HAD MAINTAINED THEIR COMPLAINT AND THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE WERE WITH
THEM, THE APPELLATE COURT PROCEEDED TO DECREE "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
MANDATE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS," THAT THE PETITIONERS SHOULD
BE ENJOINED FROM PICKETING OR PATROLLING RESPONDENTS' SHOP, EXHIBITING
SIGNS AND PLACARDS TO PERSUADE PERSONS TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING THE
PLACE OF BUSINESS AND FROM ACTS OF VIOLENCE MENACING OR COERCING
PERSONS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT FROM ENTERING RESPONDENTS' PLACE OF
BUSINESS. 

FROM THIS FINAL DECREE THE PETITIONERS SUED OUT A WRIT OF ERROR IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS AND THE RESPONDENTS MOVED TO DISMISS IT
FOR THE REASON THAT THE ORDER AND OPINION ON THE PREVIOUS APPEAL
"FINALLY SETTLES ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES."  IN THE BRIEF FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS THEY STATED:  "THE WRIT OF ERROR IS HERE PRESENTED WITH
KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS COURT HAS FULLY SETTLED ALL ISSUES OF THE CASE IN A
PRIOR REVIEW THEREOF AND THAT THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT
IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT  ...  IF THIS COURT
ADHERES TO THE POSITION IN PEOPLE V. MILITZER, 301 ILL. 284, PAGE 287;
133 N.E. 761, THAT ISSUES ONCE DECIDED ON REVIEW WILL NOT BE AGAIN
CONSIDERED ON A SECOND REVIEW, A FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE MAY PROPERLY
DISMISS THE WRIT OF ERROR ON THE GROUND THAT ALL ISSUES OF THE CASE
HAVE BEEN SETTLED ON PRIOR APPEAL AND THAT THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE
APPELLATE COURT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE MANDATE ISSUED TO THE
APPELLATE COURT BY THIS COURT."    THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS,
WITHOUT OPINION, SUSTAINED THE MOTION AND DISMISSED THE WRIT OF ERROR. 
I AM UNABLE TO SAY THAT THIS ACTION WAS AN AFFIRMANCE OF ANY RECITAL IN
THE DECREE OF THE APPELLATE COURT RESPECTING THE LEGALITY OF PEACEFUL
PICKETING DISCONNECTED WITH A CONTINUED COURSE OF PUBLISHING LIBELS,
MAKING THREATS, AND USING FORCE.  IF THE FINAL DECREE WAS RIGHT ON THE
GROUND STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SUSTAINING THE TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION; AND IF, UNDER THE ILLINOIS PRACTICE, THE AFFIRMANCE OF SUCH
A CORRECT DECREE BASED ON A PREVIOUS OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT DOES
NOT AMOUNT TO THE ADOPTION OF A PREAMBLE OR RECITAL OF THE DECREE, THEN
WE OUGHT NOT TO REVERSE THE FINAL DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH,
ON THE FACTS STATED IN THE COMPLAINT, IS CORRECT WHEN TESTED BY THE
PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309
U.S. 436, 461, AND IN MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION V. MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES,
ANTE, P. 287, BECAUSE OF A RECITAL IN THE DECREE OF THE APPELLATE
COURT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :












R.F.C. V. MENIHAN CORP., 312 U.S. 81 


NO. 200.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 940, AFFIRMED. 


1.  RULE 54(D) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDING THAT "COSTS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, ITS OFFICERS, AND AGENCIES SHALL BE IMPOSED
ONLY TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW," IS MERELY DECLARATORY AND
EFFECTED NO CHANGE OF PRINCIPLE.  P. 83. 

2.  THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, A GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHOSE
TRANSACTIONS ARE AKIN TO THOSE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND WHICH IS
EMPOWERED BY STATUTE TO SUE AND BE SUED, HAS NOT BEEN ENDOWED BY
CONGRESS WITH GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM THE COSTS AND EQUITABLE
ALLOWANCES WHICH ARE THE NATURAL AND APPROPRIATE INCIDENTS OF
LITIGATION.  P. 83. 

HELD, THAT IN AN UNSUCCESSFUL SUIT BY THE CORPORATION TO ENJOIN
ALLEGED INFRINGEMENTS OF TRADE-MARKS THE RIGHT TO WHICH IT CLAIMS AS
PART OF PROPERTY ON WHICH IT HAS TAKEN MORTGAGES AND ASSIGNMENTS AS
SECURITY FOR A LOAN, THE CORPORATION IS LIABLE FOR COSTS AND THE
ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE MADE BY COURTS OF EQUITY IN SUCH CASES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SOUND EQUITY PRACTICE. 

RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION V. J.G. MENIHAN CORP. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE WHICH
REVERSED AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING COSTS AND AN ADDITIONAL
ALLOWANCE, 29 F.SUPP.  853, IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN AN ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT
OF TRADEMARKS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, TOOK MORTGAGES AND
ASSIGNMENTS OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY OF A CORPORATION, INCLUDING
ITS TRADE-MARKS AND TRADE NAMES, AS SECURITY FOR A LOAN.  ON A SALE BY
THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE DEBTOR, PETITIONER PURCHASED THE
PROPERTY.  A NEW CORPORATION UNDERTOOK TO USE THE TRADE-MARKS AND
PETITIONER SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION.  DECREE WENT AGAINST PETITIONER. 
DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION FOR COSTS AND ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE WAS DENIED. 
29 F.SUPP.  853.  THIS ORDER WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, 111 F.2D 940, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT
OF DECISIONS.  SEE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION V. CASADY,
C.C.A. 10TH, 106 F.2D 784. 

RULE 54(D) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT "COSTS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, ITS OFFICERS, AND AGENCIES SHALL BE IMPOSED
ONLY TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW."  THIS PROVISION WAS MERELY
DECLARATORY AND EFFECTED NO CHANGE OF PRINCIPLE. 

THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION IS A CORPORATE AGENCY OF THE
GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER.  47 STAT. 5; 15 U.S.C. 601. 
IT IS MANAGED BY A BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT BY AND
WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE.  THE CORPORATION HAS WIDE
POWERS AND CONDUCTS FINANCIAL OPERATIONS ON A VAST SCALE.  WHILE IT
ACTS AS A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IN PERFORMING ITS FUNCTIONS (SEE PITTMAN
V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21, 32, 33), STILL ITS
TRANSACTIONS ARE AKIN TO THOSE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISES AND THE MERE FACT
THAT IT IS AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EXTEND TO IT THE
IMMUNITY OF THE SOVEREIGN.  SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. UNITED STATES
FLEET CORPORATION, 258 U.S. 549, 566, 567.  CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY
PROVIDED THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION SHALL HAVE POWER
"TO SUE AND BE SUED, TO COMPLAIN AND TO DEFEND, IN ANY COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION, STATE OR FEDERAL."  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
STATUTES GOVERNING ITS TRANSACTIONS WHICH SUGGESTS ANY INTENTION OF
CONGRESS THAT IN SUING AND BEING SUED THE CORPORATION SHOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY INCIDENT OF UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGATION IN BEING
LIABLE FOR THE COSTS WHICH MIGHT PROPERLY BE AWARDED AGAINST A PRIVATE
PARTY IN A SIMILAR CASE. 

WE HAVE HAD RECENT OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE STATUS, IN RELATION TO
SUITS, OF A REGIONAL CORPORATION CHARTERED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION AND WE HAVE SET FORTH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH
WE THINK SHOULD GOVERN IN OUR APPROACH TO THE PARTICULAR QUESTION NOW
PRESENTED.  KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, 306 U.S.
381.  IN THE KEIFER CASE WE DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO TRACE TO ITS
ORIGIN THE DOCTRINE OF THE EXCEPTIONAL FREEDOM OF THE UNITED STATES
FROM LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY, BUT WE OBSERVED THAT "BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE
GIVES THE GOVERNMENT A PRIVILEGED POSITION, IT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATELY
CONFINED."  HENCE, WE DECLARED THAT "THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BECOME THE
CONDUIT OF ITS IMMUNITY IN SUITS AGAINST ITS AGENTS OR
INSTRUMENTALITIES MERELY BECAUSE THEY DO ITS WORK."  ID., P. 388. 
RECOGNIZING THAT CONGRESS MAY ENDOW A GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY, WE FOUND THE QUESTION TO BE "HAS IT DONE SO?"
THAT IS, IMMUNITY IN THE CASE OF A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IS NOT
PRESUMED.  WE SOUGHT EVIDENCE THAT CONGRESS HAD INTENDED THAT ITS
CREATURE, CONSIDERING THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ITS POWERS, SHOULD HAVE
THE IMMUNITY WHICH THE SOVEREIGN ITSELF ENJOYED, AND WE NOTED THE
PRACTICE OF CONGRESS AS AN INDICATION "OF THE PRESENT CLIMATE OF
OPINION" WHICH HAD BROUGHT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT INTO
DISFAVOR.  ACCORDINGLY, BEING UNABLE TO FIND THAT CONGRESS HAD INTENDED
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT WE DENIED IT. 

IT WAS WITH A SIMILAR APPROACH THAT WE DECIDED IN FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION V. BURR, 309 U.S. 242, THAT THE FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION WAS SUBJECT TO BE GARNISHED UNDER STATE LAW FOR MONEYS
DUE TO AN EMPLOYEE.  THERE, THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THE NATIONAL
HOUSING ACT WAS AUTHORIZED "TO SUE AND BE SUED IN ANY COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION, STATE OR FEDERAL."  49 STAT. 722.  STARTING
FROM THE PREMISE INDICATED IN THE KEIFER CASE THAT WAIVERS BY CONGRESS
OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN THE
CASE OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES - THAT BEING IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT
DISFAVOR OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY - WE CONCLUDED THAT
IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY SHOWING "IT MUST BE PRESUMED THAT WHEN
CONGRESS LAUNCHED A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY INTO THE COMMERCIAL WORLD AND
ENDOWED IT WITH AUTHORITY TO 'SUE AND BE SUED' THAT AGENCY IS NOT LESS
AMENABLE TO JUDICIAL PROCESS THAN A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE UNDER LIKE
CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE."  FOLLOWING THAT REASONING, THE PRECISE POINT
OF THE DECISION WAS THAT THE WORDS "SUE AND BE SUED" NORMALLY EMBRACE
ALL CIVIL PROCESS INCIDENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT OR CONTINUANCE OF LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE EMBRACED GARNISHMENT AS PART OF THAT PROCESS. 

THESE DECISIONS CHART OUR COURSE.  THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION IS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO SUE AND BE SUED.  IT HAS AVAILED
ITSELF OF THAT AUTHORITY TO BRING THE DEFENDANTS INTO COURT TO ANSWER
THE CHARGE OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT.  THE DEFENDANTS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY
RESISTED THE CHARGE AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE DENIED
THE USUAL INCIDENTS OF THEIR SUCCESS.  WE APPLY THE PRINCIPLE THAT
THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE AGENT IS CLOTHED WITH SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY.  WE LOOK AS IN THE KEIFER AND BURR CASES TO SEE WHETHER
CONGRESS HAS ENDOWED PETITIONER WITH THAT IMMUNITY AND WE FIND NO
INDICATIONS WHATEVER OF SUCH AN INTENT.  WE APPLY THE FARTHER PRINCIPLE
THAT THE WORDS "SUE AND BE SUED" NORMALLY INCLUDE THE NATURAL AND
APPROPRIATE INCIDENTS OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.  THE PAYMENT OF COSTS BY
THE UNSUCCESSFUL LITIGANT, AWARDED BY THE COURT IN THE PROPER EXERCISE
OF THE AUTHORITY IT POSSESSES IN SIMILAR CASES, IS MANIFESTLY SUCH AN
INCIDENT.  THE ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE MADE BY COURTS OF EQUITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SOUND EQUITY PRACTICE IS LIKEWISE SUCH AN INCIDENT. 
SPRAGUE V. TICONIC BANK, 307 U.S. 161.  WE PERCEIVE NO REASON FOR
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER MAY AVAIL ITSELF OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON IT AND ESCAPE THE USUAL
INCIDENTS OF THAT PROCESS IN CASE ITS ASSERTIONS OF RIGHT PROVE TO BE
UNFOUNDED.  ON THE CONTRARY, WE THINK THAT THE UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY TO
SUE AND BE SUED PLACED PETITIONER UPON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH PRIVATE
PARTIES AS TO THE USUAL INCIDENTS OF SUITS IN RELATION TO THE PAYMENT
OF COSTS AND ALLOWANCES. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. GILLILAND, 312 U.S. 86 


NO. 245.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 35
F.SUPP.  181, REVERSED. 


1.  ON AN APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT THE COURT IS CONCERNED
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE INVOLVED AND NOT WITH
INTERPRETATION OF THE INDICTMENT AS A PLEADING.  P. 89. 

2.  THAT PART OF SEC. 35 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT
OF JUNE 18, 1934, WHICH MAKES IT A CRIME KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY TO
CAUSE TO BE MADE OR USED ANY FALSE AFFIDAVIT, ETC., KNOWING THE SAME TO
CONTAIN ANY FRAUDULENT STATEMENT, "IN ANY MATTER WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES," IS NOT
RESTRICTED TO CASES INVOLVING PECUNIARY OR PROPERTY LOSS TO THE UNITED
STATES.  P. 91. 

3.  THE LANGUAGE AND HISTORY OF THE AMENDING ACT SHOW THAT IT WAS
INTENDED TO PROTECT THE AUTHORIZED FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENTAL
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES FROM THE PERVERSION WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM
THE DECEPTIVE PRACTICES DESCRIBED.  P. 93. 

4.  SECTION 35 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE
18, 1934, EMBRACES VERIFIED REPORTS FALSELY AND FRAUDULENTLY STATING
THE AMOUNT OF PETROLEUM PRODUCED FROM SPECIFIED WELLS OR RECEIVED FROM
OTHER PRODUCERS, WHICH REPORTS WERE FILED WITH A FEDERAL TENDER BOARD
IN PURPORTED COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, UNDER
THE "HOT OIL" ACT OF FEBRUARY 22, 1935.  P. 95. 

BY THE ACT LAST MENTIONED THE TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
FROM ANY STATE OF "CONTRABAND" OIL PRODUCED THEREIN - I.E., OIL
PRODUCED, TRANSPORTED OR WITHDRAWN FROM STORAGE IN EXCESS OF THE
AMOUNTS PERMITTED UNDER THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE - WAS
PROHIBITED, AND THE PRESIDENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE ENFORCEMENT
REGULATIONS. 

5.  SECTION 35 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AS SO APPLIED IS NOT INVALID FOR
INDEFINITENESS.  P. 91. 

6.  THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS GIVES NO WARRANT FOR NARROWING
ALTERNATIVE PROVISIONS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED WITH THE
PURPOSE OF AFFORDING ADDED SAFEGUARDS.  P. 93. 

7.  THE FACT THAT THE MAXIMUM PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 35 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE WAS GREATER THAN THAT FIXED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 22,
1935, FOR VIOLATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS, IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IN THE
CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF THE FORMER.  P. 95. 

8.  THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 22, 1935, SUPRA, DID NOT OPERATE TO SUPPLANT
SEC. 35 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE IN ITS APPLICATION TO AFFIDAVITS,
DOCUMENTS, ETC., RELATIVE TO THE SUBJECT OF EXCLUDING "HOT OIL" FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 95. 

UNITED STATES V. GILLILAND ET AL.* 

*IN UNITED STATES V. COHN, 270 U.S. 339, FIRST PARAGRAPH OF
HEADNOTES, CHANGE "SEC.  65" TO SEC. 35.   - REPORTER. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL, UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER AND QUASHING TEN COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT. 

THE GENERAL TERMS IN THE SECOND CLAUSE RELATE TO THE THINGS THAT ARE
ENUMERATED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ACT.  THIS CLAUSE GATHERS UP THE
THINGS THAT ARE OF THE SAME CLASS AS THOSE THAT ARE ENUMERATED.  SALAS
V. UNITED STATES, 234 F. 842; UNITED STATES V. BOWMAN, 260 U.S. 92;
UNITED STATES V. WALTER, 263 U.S. 15; MOBILE TRADE CO. V. LOTT, 12
WALL.  221; GREENLEAF V. GOODRICH, 101 U.S. 278; SEWING MACHINE COS. 
CASE, 18 WALL.  553; UNITED STATES V. KEITEL, 211 U.S. 370; UNITED
STATES V. SALEN, 235 U.S. 236. 

THE SECOND CLAUSE SHOULD NOT BE LIFTED OUT OF THE STATUTE AND BE MADE
TO STAND ALONE.  THIS WOULD CREATE A MULTITUDE OF NEW OFFENSES THAT ARE
ENTIRELY DISSOCIATED AND DISTINCT FROM THE OFFENSES ENUMERATED IN THE
ACT.  SO TREATED, IT WOULD NOT BE VALID AS A PENAL STATUTE.  UNITED
STATES V. WILTBERGER, 5 WHEAT.  76; UNITED STATES V. BREWER, 139 U.S.
278; UNITED STATES V. RESNICK, 299 U.S. 207; CONNALLY V. GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385. 

ASSUMING THAT BY THE 1934 AMENDMENT CONGRESS INTENDED TO PROHIBIT THE
PRESENTATION AND USE OF FALSE PAPERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHIPMENT OF
"HOT" OIL, THAT PART OF THE ACT WAS REPEALED BY IMPLICATION WHEN
CONGRESS LATER ENACTED WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE CONNALLY ACT, SEC. 715,
TIT. 15, U.S.C., WHICH IS A SELF-SUSTAINED AND ORGANIC WHOLE, COVERING
IN DETAIL THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF THE SHIPMENT OF "HOT" OR EXCESSIVELY
PRODUCED OIL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN,
293 U.S. 388; UNITED STATES V. POWERS, 307 U.S. 214; UNITED STATES V.
YUGINOVICH, 256 U.S. 450. 

THE CONNALLY ACT IS CLEARLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT UNDER WHICH THE
INDICTMENT IS BROUGHT.  UNITED STATES V. WINDHAM, 264 F. 376; STATE V.
TATE, 171 SO. 108.  MANY OTHER DECISIONS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE
TO THE SAME EFFECT. 

OTHERWISE, WE HAVE THE SAME OFFENSE CREATED AND PUNISHED BY TWO
DISTINCT ENACTMENTS; AND AT THE ELECTION OF THE PROSECUTING OFFICER THE
OFFENDER MAY RECEIVE AS PUNISHMENT NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND
TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS FINE, OR TEN YEARS IN THE PENITENTIARY AND TEN
THOUSAND DOLLARS FINE.  AS TO WHICH, SEE UNITED STATES V. STEVER, 222
U.S. 157. 

IN THE CHARGE OF HAVING VIOLATED THE SECOND CLAUSE OF SEC. 35, AN
INTENT TO ACCOMPLISH A PURPOSE THAT THIS CLAUSE CONTEMPLATES AND
PROHIBITS IS AN INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE AND SHOULD BE AVERRED IN THE
INDICTMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO TEN COUNTS OF AN
INDICTMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT APPEALS.  18 U.S.C. 682. 

THERE WERE ELEVEN COUNTS IN THE INDICTMENT, THE FIRST OF WHICH, A
CONSPIRACY COUNT, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND GOOD.  THE OTHER COUNTS NOW
BEFORE US WERE BASED ON SEC. 35 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  18 U.S.C. 80. 
FN1  EIGHT OF THESE COUNTS CHARGED IN SUBSTANCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD
WILLFULLY CAUSED TO BE MADE AND USED VERIFIED REPORTS FALSELY AND
FRAUDULENTLY STATING THE AMOUNT OF PETROLEUM PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN OIL
WELLS, AND THE OTHER TWO COUNTS MADE A SIMILAR CHARGE WITH RESPECT TO
VERIFIED REPORTS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF PETROLEUM RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN
PRODUCERS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THESE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS DID NOT STATE
AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 35 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
JUNE 18, 1934.  48 STAT. 996.  THE COURT PLAINLY RESTED ITS DECISION
UPON ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE AND HENCE DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS
COURT IS PROPERLY BROUGHT.  WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE CORRECTNESS
OF THIS CONSTRUCTION AND NOT WITH THE MERE INTERPRETATION OF THE
INDICTMENT AS A PLEADING.  UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 535;
UNITED STATES V. BIRDSALL, 233 U.S. 223, 230; UNITED STATES V. KAPP,
302 U.S. 214, 217; UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 195. 

"MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE ANY FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR
REPRESENTATIONS," OR TO "MAKE OR USE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE OR USED ANY
FALSE BILL, RECEIPT, VOUCHER, ROLL, ACCOUNT, CLAIM, CERTIFICATE,
AFFIDAVIT, OR DEPOSITION, KNOWING THE SAME TO CONTAIN ANY FRAUDULENT OR
FICTITIOUS STATEMENT OR ENTRY, IN ANY MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE REPORTS CONTAINING
THE ALLEGED FALSE AND FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS IN THIS INSTANCE WERE
CHARGED TO HAVE RELATED "TO A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE
FEDERAL TENDER BOARD NO. 1, KILGORE, TEXAS." 

BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 22, 1935, 49 STAT. 30, 31,  FN2  THE SO-CALLED
"HOT OIL" ACT, THE TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM ANY STATE
OF "CONTRABAND OIL" PRODUCED THEREIN WAS PROHIBITED, SUCH OIL BEING
THAT "PRODUCED, TRANSPORTED, OR WITHDRAWN FROM STORAGE" IN EXCESS OF
THE AMOUNTS PERMITTED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR REGULATIONS DULY
MADE BY ITS AGENCIES.  THE PRESIDENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE
REGULATIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT
OF "REPORTS, MAPS, AFFIDAVITS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE
PRODUCTION, STORAGE, REFINING, PROCESSING, TRANSPORTING, OR HANDLING OF
PETROLEUM AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS."  UNDER THIS AUTHORITY THE PRESIDENT
DESIGNATED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AS HIS AGENT, AND THE LATTER
PROMULGATED REGULATIONS WHICH THE PRESIDENT APPROVED.  THERE WAS THUS
SET UP FEDERAL TENDER BOARD NO. 1, TO BE LOCATED AT KILGORE, TEXAS, FOR
THE EAST TEXAS FIELD AND MONTHLY REPORTS ON FORMS APPROVED BY THE
SECRETARY WERE REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH THE BOARD.  FN3 

IF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 35, UNDER WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS LAID, BE
CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO ITS LITERAL AND NATURAL IMPORT, IT IS MANIFEST
THAT THE STATUTE COVERS THE OFFENSES CHARGED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE
COUNTS.  THE AFFIDAVITS AND REPORTS, AS DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT,
CONTAINING STATEMENTS ALLEGED TO BE FALSE AND FRAUDULENT, WERE MADE AND
USED IN A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY OF
THE UNITED STATES.  NOR CAN THE STATUTE BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID BECAUSE
OF INDEFINITENESS.  THE AFFIDAVITS AND REPORTS REQUIRED HAD BEEN
SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED AND THE DUTY ENJOINED HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY
DEFINED.  ANY ONE PRESENTING THE REQUIRED AFFIDAVITS AND REPORTS TO THE
BOARD SET UP UNDER THE PERTINENT REGULATIONS WAS SUITABLY CHARGED WITH
NOTICE OF THE CONSEQUENCE OF KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY INCLUDING THEREIN
ANY FALSE AND FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS. 

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTION, WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED, IS THAT
THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION HERE INVOLVED SHOULD BE
RESTRICTED BY CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO APPLY ONLY TO MATTERS OF A NATURE
SIMILAR TO THOSE WITH WHICH OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 35 DEAL, "SUCH AS
CLAIMS AGAINST, RIGHTS TO, OR CONTROVERSIES ABOUT FUNDS INVOLVED IN
'OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT,'" THAT IS, TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAS SOME FINANCIAL OR PROPRIETARY INTEREST.  THIS CONTENTION
IS SOUGHT TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE DOCTRINE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS AND THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO SEC. 35 PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF 1934, AND BY
REFERENCE TO THE INCONGRUITY OF THE PENALTY PRESCRIBED FOR VIOLATION OF
SEC. 35 AS CONTRASTED WITH THE PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 22, 1935, TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH THE REQUIREMENTS IN
QUESTION WERE DIRECTED.  DEFENDANT ALSO PRESENTS THE CONTENTION, UPON
WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT PASS, THAT THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 22,
1935, WAS INTENDED TO COVER THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF THE EXCLUSION OF "HOT
OIL" FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND CONSEQUENTLY OPERATED AS A REPEAL OF
ALL OTHER PROVISIONS DEALING WITH THAT MATTER. 

BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF 1934, SEC. 35, AFTER REFERRING TO THE
PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WHICH WERE KNOWN TO BE
FALSE OR FRAUDULENT, PROVIDED:  "OR WHOEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OBTAINING OR AIDING TO OBTAIN THE PAYMENT OR APPROVAL OF SUCH CLAIM, OR
FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE INTENT OF CHEATING AND SWINDLING OR
DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY DEPARTMENT
THEREOF, OR ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS A
STOCKHOLDER, SHALL KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FALSIFY OR CONCEAL OR COVER
UP BY ANY TRICK, SCHEME, OR DEVICE A MATERIAL FACT, OR MAKE OR CAUSE TO
BE MADE ANY FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS, OR MAKE
OR USE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE OR USED ANY FALSE BILL, RECEIPT, VOUCHER,
ROLL, ACCOUNT, CLAIM, CERTIFICATE, AFFIDAVIT, OR DEPOSITION, KNOWING
THE SAME TO CONTAIN ANY FRAUDULENT OR FICTITIOUS STATEMENT OR ENTRY;
...  SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN
TEN YEARS, OR BOTH."  FN4 

DISTINGUISHING THAT PROVISION FROM SEC. 37, THE CONSPIRACY SECTION OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE WHICH BY ITS TERMS EXTENDED BROADLY TO EVERY
CONSPIRACY "TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES IN ANY MANNER OR FOR ANY
PURPOSE,"  FN5  THIS COURT HELD THAT SEC. 35 WHICH USED THE WORD
"DEFRAUDING" IN CONNECTION WITH "CHEATING AND SWINDLING" SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED "AS RELATING TO THE FRAUDULENT CAUSING OF PECUNIARY OR
PROPERTY LOSS" TO THE GOVERNMENT.  AND THAT MEANING WAS DEEMED TO BE
EMPHASIZED BY THE CONTEXT FOUND IN OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 35.  UNITED
STATES V. COHN, 270 U.S. 339, 346, 347. 

THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934,  FN6  AMENDED SEC. 35 SO THAT IN PLACE OF
THE PORTION QUOTED ABOVE THERE WERE SUBSTITUTED THESE WORDS:  "OR
WHOEVER SHALL KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FALSIFY OR CONCEAL OR COVER UP BY
ANY TRICK, SCHEME, OR DEVICE A MATERIAL FACT, OR MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE
MADE ANY FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS, OR MAKE OR
USE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE OR USED ANY FALSE BILL, RECEIPT, VOUCHER, ROLL,
ACCOUNT, CLAIM, CERTIFICATE, AFFIDAVIT, OR DEPOSITION, KNOWING THE SAME
TO CONTAIN ANY FRAUDULENT OR FICTITIOUS STATEMENT OR ENTRY, IN ANY
MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY OF THE
UNITED STATES OR OF ANY CORPORATION IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IS A STOCKHOLDER; ...  SHALL BE FINED" ETC. 

THE AMENDMENT ELIMINATED THE WORDS "CHEATING AND SWINDLING" AND
BROADENED THE PROVISION SO AS TO LEAVE NO ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE
LIMITED CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED.  THE STATUTE WAS
MADE TO EMBRACE FALSE AND FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS
WHERE THESE WERE KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY USED IN DOCUMENTS OR
AFFIDAVITS "IN ANY MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES."  IN THIS, THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION TO
CASES INVOLVING PECUNIARY OR PROPERTY LOSS TO THE GOVERNMENT.  THE
AMENDMENT INDICATED THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO PROTECT THE AUTHORIZED
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES FROM THE PERVERSION
WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM THE DECEPTIVE PRACTICES DESCRIBED.  WE SEE NO
REASON WHY THIS APPARENT INTENTION SHOULD BE FRUSTRATED BY
CONSTRUCTION. 

THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS IS A FAMILIAR AND USEFUL ONE IN
INTERPRETING WORDS BY THE ASSOCIATION IN WHICH THEY ARE FOUND, BUT IT
GIVES NO WARRANT FOR NARROWING ALTERNATIVE PROVISIONS WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED WITH THE PURPOSE OF AFFORDING ADDED
SAFEGUARDS.  "THE RULE OF 'EJUSDEM GENERIS' IS APPLIED AS AN AID IN
ASCERTAINING THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, NOT TO SUBVERT IT WHEN
ASCERTAINED."  TEXAS V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 522, 534. 

IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDED SECTION COULD BE DEEMED AMBIGUOUS, THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE AMENDMENT WOULD DISPEL ANY DOUBT AS TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  LEGISLATION HAD BEEN SOUGHT BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO AID THE ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS RELATING TO THE FUNCTIONS
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND, IN PARTICULAR, TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS UNDER SEC. 9(C) OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT OF 1933  FN7  WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF "HOT
OIL."  THE SECRETARY'S EFFORT WAS DUE, AS HE STATED, TO THE LACK OF A
LAW UNDER WHICH PROSECUTIONS MIGHT BE HAD "FOR THE PRESENTATION OF
FALSE PAPERS."  FN8  THE BILL WHICH WAS PASSED BY CONGRESS, HOWEVER,
WAS AMENDED IN ITS FINAL STAGES SO AS TO REQUIRE "INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE
UNITED STATES."  FN9  THIS BILL WAS RETURNED BY THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT
HIS APPROVAL FOR THE REASON THAT THE OFFENSE AS DEFINED WAS COVERED BY
EXISTING LAW WHICH PROVIDED FOR MORE SEVERE PUNISHMENT THAN THAT
PROPOSED BY THE BILL.  FN10  ANOTHER MEASURE WAS THEN PROPOSED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WHICH WOULD OBVIATE THESE OBJECTIONS AND
ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OF REACHING THE PRESENTATION OF FALSE PAPERS IN
RELATION TO "HOT OIL."  A BILL WAS THEN PASSED AND APPROVED WHICH
INCLUDED, WITH OTHER AMENDMENTS OF SEC. 35 THE PROVISION NOW BEFORE US,
OMITTING THE LIMITING WORDS WHICH HAD BEEN DEEMED TO MAKE THE FORMER
PROVISION APPLICABLE ONLY TO CASES WHERE PECUNIARY OR PROPERTY LOSS TO
THE GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN CAUSED.  FN11  THE REPORT OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE STATED THAT THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION HAD BEEN
PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WITH THE PURPOSE "OF
REACHING A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES INVOLVING THE SHIPMENT OF 'HOT' OIL,
WHERE FALSE PAPERS ARE PRESENTED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH."  N12    THE
FACT THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WAS THEN SEEKING AID IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 9(C) OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, WHICH
THIS COURT LATER FOUND TO BE INVALID (PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293
U.S. 388), IN NO WAY AFFECTS THE PRESENT APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE. 
ITS PROVISIONS WERE NOT LIMITED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 9(C) OF THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT BUT WERE ENACTED WITH APPROPRIATE
BREADTH SO THAT THEY AT ONCE APPLIED TO THE PRESENTATION OF AFFIDAVITS,
REPORTS, ETC., REQUIRED BY THE SUBSEQUENT ACT OF FEBRUARY 22, 1935, AND
THE REGULATIONS DULY PRESCRIBED THEREUNDER.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE TEXT
OF THE ACT OF 1934, AMENDING SEC. 35, AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, IT
IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE FACT THAT THE PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 35 WAS
GREATER THAN THAT FIXED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 22, 1935, HAS NO
SIGNIFICANCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF THE
FORMER.  THE MATTER OF PENALTIES LAY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF
CONGRESS.  SECTION 35 COVERED A VARIETY OF OFFENSES AND THE PENALTIES
PRESCRIBED WERE MAXIMUM PENALTIES WHICH GAVE A RANGE FOR JUDICIAL
SENTENCES ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND GRAVITY OF PARTICULAR
VIOLATIONS. 

SIMILARLY LACKING IN MERIT IS THE CONTENTION THAT THE ACT OF FEBRUARY
22, 1935, OPERATED TO REPEAL SEC. 35 AS AMENDED IN 1934, SO FAR AS THE
LATTER APPLIED TO AFFIDAVITS, DOCUMENTS, ETC., PRESENTED IN RELATION TO
"HOT OIL."  THERE WAS NO EXPRESS REPEAL AND THERE WAS NO REPUGNANCY IN
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TWO STATUTES WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY AN
IMPLICATION OF REPEAL.  THE ACT OF 1934, WITH ITS PROVISION AS TO FALSE
AND FRAUDULENT PAPERS, HAS ITS PLACE AS A FITTING COMPLEMENT TO THE ACT
OF 1935 AS WELL AS TO OTHER STATUTES UNDER WHICH, IN CONNECTION WITH
THE AUTHORIZED ACTION OF GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES, THE
PRESENTATION OF AFFIDAVITS, DOCUMENTS, ETC., IS REQUIRED.  THERE IS NO
INDICATION OF AN INTENT TO MAKE THE ACT OF 1935 A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANY
PART OF THE PROVISION IN SEC. 35.  SEE POSADAS V. NATIONAL CITY BANK,
296 U.S. 497, 503, 504; UNITED STATES V. BORDEN COMPANY, 308 U.S. 188,
198, 199. 

THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER TO COUNTS 2 TO 11, INCLUSIVE, IS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE ACT OF APRIL 4, 1938, C. 69, 52 STAT. 197. 

FN2  15 U.S.C. 715-715D. 

FN3  EXECUTIVE ORDERS NO. 6979, ISSUED FEBRUARY 28, 1935; NO. 6980-B,
REGULATION XIV, APPROVED MARCH 1, 1935; NO. 6980-C, APPROVED MARCH 1,
1935. 

FN4  40 STAT. 1015. 

FN5  SEE HAAS V. HENKEL, 216 U.S. 462, 479; HAMMERSCHMIDT V. UNITED
STATES, 265 U.S. 182, 188. 

FN6  48 STAT. 996. 

FN7  48 STAT. 195, 200. 

FN8  SEE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1934.  S. REP.
NO. 288, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; 78 CONG. REC., PT. 3, P. 2859.  SEE,
ALSO, H. REP. NO. 829, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN9  78 CONG. REC., PT. 4, PP. 3724, 3725; PT. 6, P. 5746. 

FN10  78 CONG. REC., PT. 6, P. 6778. 

FN11  78 CONG. REC., PT. 10, PP. 11270, 11271; PT. 11, P. 11513.  ACT
OF JUNE 18, 1934, 48 STAT. 996. 

FN12  S. REP. NO. 1202, 73D CONG., 2D SESS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :








RAWLINGS V. RAY, 312 U.S. 96 


NO. 327.  ARGUED JANUARY 17, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 695, REVERSED. 


1.  THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES IN AN ACTION BY THE
RECEIVER OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK AGAINST A STOCKHOLDER TO COLLECT
A COMPTROLLER'S ASSESSMENT.  P. 97. 

2.  IN SUCH AN ACTION THE QUESTION WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED,
AS A COMPLETE AND PRESENT CAUSE OF ACTION, IS A FEDERAL QUESTION
TURNING UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE AUTHORITY OF
THE COMPTROLLER TO MAKE IT UNDER APPLICABLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  P.
98. 

3.  IN MAKING A STOCKHOLDERS' ASSESSMENT, THE COMPTROLLER IS
AUTHORIZED TO FIX A LATER DATE FOR ITS PAYMENT.  P. 99. 

4.  IN AN ACTION BY THE RECEIVER OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK IN
ARKANSAS TO COLLECT A COMPTROLLER'S ASSESSMENT, HELD THAT THE THREE
YEARS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF ARKANSAS BEGAN TO RUN NOT ON THE DAY
WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BUT ON A LATER DAY ON OR BEFORE WHICH IT
WAS EXPRESSLY MADE PAYABLE.  P. 98. 

RAWLINGS, RECEIVER, V. RAY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 627, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
SUSTAINING A PLEA OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A SUIT BY THE
RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK TO COLLECT AN ASSESSMENT FROM A
STOCKHOLDER. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER IS THE RECEIVER OF THE LEE COUNTY NATIONAL BANK OF
MARIANNA, ARKANSAS, WHICH IN 1933 WAS DECLARED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF
THE CURRENCY TO BE INSOLVENT.  ON NOVEMBER 6, 1935, THE COMPTROLLER
ASSESSED ITS SHAREHOLDERS FIFTY PER CENTUM OF THE PAR VALUE OF THEIR
SHARES.  THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE PAID ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER
13, 1935, AND THE RECEIVER GAVE NOTICE ACCORDINGLY.  AS RESPONDENT
FAILED TO PAY, THE RECEIVER BROUGHT SUIT ON DECEMBER 7, 1938, IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
ARKANSAS TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT ASSESSED.  RESPONDENT PLEADED THE
ARKANSAS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH PROVIDES THAT SUCH AN ACTION MUST
BE COMMENCED "WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION SHALL
ACCRUE."  POPE'S DIGEST OF STATUTES OF ARKANSAS (1937), SEC. 8928.  THE
DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE PLEA AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  111 F.2D 695.  BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF
DECISIONS WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  SEE STRASBURGER V. SCHRAM, CT. APP.
D.C., 93 F.2D 246; REICH V. VAN DYKE, C.C.A. 3D, 107 F.2D 682; HAIGHT
V. FIRST TRUST & DEPOSIT CO., C.C.A.2D, 112 F.2D 572; MACPHERSON V.
SCHRAM, C.C.A.5TH, 112 F.2D 674. 

THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS APPLICABLE.  MCDONALD V.
THOMPSON, 184 U.S. 71, 72; MCCLAINE V. RANKIN, 197 U.S. 154, 158.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATUTE BEGAN TO RUN ON THE DATE OF THE
ASSESSMENT, AS HELD BY THE COURT BELOW, OR ON THE DATE FIXED FOR
PAYMENT.  THE WORDS "AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION SHALL ACCRUE" IN THE
ARKANSAS STATUTE HAVE THEIR USUAL MEANING AND REFER TO "A COMPLETE AND
PRESENT CAUSE OF ACTION."  HOLLOWAY V. MORRIS, 182 ARK. 1096, 1099; 34
S.W.2D 750, 752. 

THE QUESTION AS TO THE TIME WHEN THERE WAS A COMPLETE AND PRESENT
CAUSE OF ACTION SO THAT THE RECEIVER COULD ENFORCE BY SUIT THE
LIABILITY IMPOSED BY THE COMPTROLLER'S ASSESSMENT IS A FEDERAL QUESTION
AND TURNS UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE AUTHORITY OF
THE COMPTROLLER TO MAKE IT UNDER THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION. 

WHILE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON NOVEMBER 6, 1935, IT WAS EXPRESSLY
MADE PAYABLE ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 13, 1935.  RESPONDENT WAS ALLOWED
UNTIL THAT DATE TO PAY AND PRIOR THERETO SUIT COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED
AGAINST HIM.  HENCE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN
UNTIL DECEMBER 13, 1935, AND THE SUIT WAS IN TIME. 

THE CASE OF PUFAHL V. ESTATE OF PARKS, 299 U.S. 217(UPON WHICH THE
COURT BELOW RELIED) IS NOT TO THE CONTRARY.  THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED
WAS NOT THERE INVOLVED.  IN THAT CASE, AFTER THE DEATH OF A STOCKHOLDER
OF A NATIONAL BANK, AND AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE
OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY MADE AN
ASSESSMENT UPON THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE.  THE STATE COURT, APPLYING A
STATE STATUTE, HAD DISALLOWED THE RECEIVER'S CLAIM UPON THE ASSESSMENT
AS AGAINST UNDISTRIBUTED ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF THE EXECUTORS, WHICH
HAD BEEN INVENTORIED WITHIN A YEAR FROM THE DATE OF LETTERS
TESTAMENTARY, BECAUSE THE CLAIM DID NOT ACCRUE AND WAS NOT PRESENTED TO
THE PROBATE COURT WITHIN THAT PERIOD, BUT ALLOWED THE CLAIM AS TO
ASSETS NOT INVENTORIED WITHIN THE YEAR.  WE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  WE
SAID THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE IN THE DECEDENT'S LIFETIME
AN ACCRUED AND PROVABLE DEBT EXISTED AGAINST HIS ESTATE, AND THAT IF
THE ASSESSMENT WERE MADE AFTER HIS DEATH A CLAIM AGAINST THE FUNDS AND
ASSETS OF THE ESTATE ACCRUED AS OF THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT. 
FURTHER, THAT THE CLAIM OF THE RECEIVER, ALTHOUGH BASED UPON A FEDERAL
STATUTE, COULD BE ENFORCED ONLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW OF THE FORUM
GOVERNING THE RECOVERY OF DEBTS OF LIKE NATURE (ID., PP. 224, 225) AND
THAT THE NON-DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION OF ILLINOIS WHERE THE SUIT WAS
BROUGHT WAS CONTROLLING.  WE OBSERVED THAT THE CONTINGENT OBLIGATION OF
A STOCKHOLDER TO PAY AN ASSESSMENT WAS RENDERED ABSOLUTE BY THE
COMPTROLLER'S ACTION IN ORDERING ONE AND THAT FROM THE MOMENT OF THE
ORDER OF ASSESSMENT THE RECEIVER HAD A CLAIM WHICH WOULD SUPPORT AN
ACTION AT COMMON LAW AGAINST A LIVING STOCKHOLDER OR THE EXECUTOR OF A
DECEASED STOCKHOLDER; THAT IF THE ASSESSMENT WERE MADE AFTER THE ESTATE
HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED, THE RECEIVER COULD RECOVER FROM THE DISTRIBUTEES
OR HEIRS IF AND UP TO THE EXTENT THEY WERE LIABLE UNDER THE APPLICABLE
LOCAL LAW.  ID., PP. 222, 223. 

IN ALL THIS WE WERE NOT CONSIDERING OR DECIDING THE QUESTION OF THE
APPLICATION OF A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO A SUIT AGAINST A STOCKHOLDER
UPON AN ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE COMPTROLLER WHERE PAYMENT WAS NOT
REQUIRED BEFORE A SPECIFIED DATE, PRIOR TO WHICH NO SUIT COULD BE
MAINTAINED. 

WE FIND NO GROUND FOR QUESTIONING THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMPTROLLER IN
MAKING AN ASSESSMENT TO FIX A LATER DATE FOR ITS PAYMENT.  THE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION DOES NOT IMPOSE OR SUGGEST ANY SUCH LIMITATION UPON THE
EXERCISE OF HIS POWER.  12 U.S.C. 63, 64, 191, 192.  WHAT WAS DONE IN
THE INSTANT CASE APPEARS TO BE IN ACCORD WITH A PRACTICE OF LONG
STANDING. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. DARBY, 312 U.S. 100 


NO. 82.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 20, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  -
32 F.SUPP.  734, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 PROVIDES FOR FIXING MINIMUM
WAGES AND MAXIMUM HOURS FOR EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WITH INCREASED COMPENSATION FOR
OVERTIME, AND FORBIDS, UNDER PAIN OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT:  (1)
VIOLATION BY AN EMPLOYER OF SUCH WAGE AND HOUR PROVISIONS; (2) SHIPMENT
BY HIM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ANY GOODS IN THE PRODUCTION OF WHICH
ANY EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF SUCH PROVISIONS; AND (3)
FAILURE OF THE EMPLOYER TO KEEP SUCH RECORDS OF HIS EMPLOYEES AND OF
THEIR WAGES AND HOURS, AS SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION OR ORDER.  HELD WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER AND CONSISTENT
WITH THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS.  P. 111. 

2.  WHILE MANUFACTURE IS NOT OF ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE
SHIPMENT OF MANUFACTURED GOODS INTERSTATE IS SUCH COMMERCE AND THE
PROHIBITION OF SUCH SHIPMENT BY CONGRESS IS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  P. 113. 

3.  CONGRESS, FOLLOWING ITS OWN CONCEPTION OF PUBLIC POLICY
CONCERNING THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH MAY APPROPRIATELY BE IMPOSED ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS FREE TO EXCLUDE FROM IT ARTICLES WHOSE USE IN
THE STATE FOR WHICH THEY ARE DESTINED IT MAY CONCEIVE TO BE INJURIOUS
TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, MORALS OR WELFARE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE HAS NOT
SOUGHT TO REGULATE THEIR USE.  P. 114. 

4.  SUCH REGULATION IS NOT A FORBIDDEN INVASION OF STATE POWER MERELY
BECAUSE EITHER ITS MOTIVE OR ITS CONSEQUENCE IS TO RESTRICT THE USE OF
ARTICLES OF COMMERCE WITHIN THE STATES OF DESTINATION; AND IS VALID
UNLESS PROHIBITED BY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  P. 114. 

5.  THE MOTIVE AND PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT REGULATION ARE PLAINLY TO
MAKE EFFECTIVE THE CONGRESSIONAL CONCEPTION OF PUBLIC POLICY THAT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE INSTRUMENT OF COMPETITION IN
THE DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS,
WHICH COMPETITION IS INJURIOUS TO THE COMMERCE AND TO THE STATES FROM
AND TO WHICH IT FLOWS.  P. 115. 

6.  THE MOTIVE AND PURPOSE OF A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE
MATTERS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT UPON THE EXERCISE OF WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION PLACES NO RESTRICTION AND OVER WHICH THE COURTS ARE GIVEN
NO CONTROL.  P. 115. 

7.  IN PROHIBITING INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER THE
FORBIDDEN SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS THE ACT IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY
OF CONGRESS, IF NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FORBIDS.  P. 115. 

8.  HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, OVERRULED; CARTER V. CARTER
COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, DECLARED TO HAVE BEEN LIMITED.  PP. 115, 123. 

9.  THE "PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE" INTENDED BY THE ACT
INCLUDES, AT LEAST, PRODUCTION OF GOODS, WHICH, AT THE TIME OF
PRODUCTION, THE EMPLOYER, ACCORDING TO THE NORMAL COURSE OF HIS
BUSINESS, INTENDS OR EXPECTS TO MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALTHOUGH,
THROUGH THE EXIGENCIES OF THE BUSINESS, ALL OF THE GOODS MAY NOT
THEREAFTER ACTUALLY ENTER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 117. 

10. THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE EXTENDS TO THOSE
INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES WHICH SO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER IT AS TO MAKE THEIR REGULATION
AN APPROPRIATE MEANS TO THE ATTAINMENT OF A LEGITIMATE END,  - THE
EXERCISE OF THE GRANTED POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  P. 118. 

11.  CONGRESS, HAVING BY THE PRESENT ACT ADOPTED THE POLICY OF
EXCLUDING FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALL GOODS PRODUCED FOR THAT COMMERCE
WHICH DO NOT CONFORM TO THE SPECIFIED LABOR STANDARDS, IT MAY CHOOSE
THE MEANS REASONABLY ADAPTED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE PERMITTED END,
EVEN THOUGH THEY INVOLVE CONTROL OF INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES.  P. 121. 

12.  INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PROHIBITION OF SHIPMENT OR TRANSPORTATION
OF THE PROSCRIBED GOODS, THE PROVISION OF THE ACT FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF THEIR PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS WITHIN THE COMMERCE
POWER.  P. 122. 

13.  THE TENTH AMENDMENT IS NOT A LIMITATION UPON THE AUTHORITY OF
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO RESORT TO ALL MEANS FOR THE EXERCISE OF A
GRANTED POWER WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE AND PLAINLY ADAPTED TO THE
PERMITTED END.  P. 123. 

14.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT AS TO THE KEEPING OF RECORDS ARE
VALID AS INCIDENTAL TO THE WAGE AND HOUR REQUIREMENTS.  P. 124. 

15.  THE WAGE AND HOUR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DO NOT VIOLATE THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 125. 

16.  IN ITS CRIMINAL ASPECT, THE ACT IS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO MEET
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS.  P. 125. 

UNITED STATES V. DARBY. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL, UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, FROM A JUDGMENT QUASHING AN
INDICTMENT. 

NO STATE, ACTING ALONE, COULD REQUIRE LABOR STANDARDS SUBSTANTIALLY
HIGHER THAN THOSE OBTAINING IN OTHER STATES WHOSE PRODUCERS AND
MANUFACTURERS COMPETED IN THE INTERSTATE MARKET.  EMPLOYERS WITH LOWER
LABOR STANDARDS POSSESS AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE IN INTERSTATE COMPETITION,
AND ONLY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CAN DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES MADE SPECIFIC FINDINGS WHICH WERE
EMBODIED IN THE ACT AS THE CONGRESSIONAL JUDGMENT THAT LOW LABOR
STANDARDS WERE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND EFFICIENCY OF WORKERS,
CAUSED THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO SPREAD THOSE LABOR
CONDITIONS AMONG THE STATES, BURDENED INTERSTATE COMMERCE, LED TO LABOR
DISPUTES OBSTRUCTING THAT COMMERCE, AND CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR METHOD OF
COMPETITION.  THESE FINDINGS ACCORD WITH FACTS OF WHICH THIS COURT HAS
ALREADY TAKEN JUDICIAL NOTICE, AND ARE CONCLUSIVE. 

THE INCAPACITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES TO REMEDY THE SERIOUS EVILS
RESULTING FROM LONG HOURS AND LOW WAGES IN INTERSTATE INDUSTRY RESTS IN
PART UPON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ITSELF, WHICH PREVENTS THE STATES FROM
FORBIDDING IMPORTATION OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. 
BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511.  AND, EVEN IF A STATE COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECT ITS INDUSTRIES WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS, IT
COULD NOT SAFEGUARD THEM AGAINST THE LOSS OF THEIR MARKETS IN OTHER
STATES.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS DESIGNED TO EMPOWER THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH SUCH PROBLEMS. 

THE PHRASE "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" HAD AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF
THE CONSTITUTION A MEANING EQUIVALENT TO "THE INTERRELATED BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS OF THE SEVERAL STATES."  LEXICOGRAPHERS, ECONOMISTS, AND
AUTHORS USED THE TERM "COMMERCE" TO REFER NOT ONLY TO THE NARROW
CONCEPT OF SALE OR EXCHANGE, BUT TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE MONEYED ECONOMY,
EMBRACING PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURE AS WELL AS EXCHANGE. 

THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, FROM THE BEGINNING, HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE GIVES CONGRESS POWER TO MEET THE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
OF THE NATION, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1,
194-195.  SEE ALSO MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 398.  LABOR
CONDITIONS, SO FAR FROM BEING THE CONCERN OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES
ALONE, CAN NOW ADEQUATELY BE REGULATED ONLY BY CONGRESS.  THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, IN INCAPACITATING THE STATES, GIVES THE REQUISITE POWER TO
CONGRESS. 

UNDER SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS.  THE PROVISION IS ON ITS FACE A
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THEREFORE WITHIN THE POWERS OF
CONGRESS.  MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38; ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V.
COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 419, 442; KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334, 347. 

IT CAN NO LONGER BE ASSERTED THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO RESTRICT
OR CONDITION INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS LIMITED TO ARTICLES IN THEMSELVES
HARMFUL OR DELETERIOUS. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESS CANNOT REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR
ENDS WHICH DO NOT CONCERN COMMERCE ITSELF IS ALSO UNAVAILING.  THE ACT,
INTENDED TO PREVENT UNFAIR COMPETITION AND THE SPREAD OF HARMFUL
CONDITIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HAS A GOAL WHICH IS COMMERCIAL IN
THE STRICTEST SENSE.  BUT, EVEN IF IT WERE CONCERNED SIMPLY WITH
HUMANITARIAN ENDS, IT WOULD NONE THE LESS BE WITHIN THE COMMERCE
POWER.  THAT POWER IS MEASURED BY WHAT IT REGULATES, NOT BY WHAT IT
AFFECTS. 

HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, HAS BEEN REPUDIATED BY SUBSEQUENT
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

INTERSTATE CHANNELS FREE OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER SUBSTANDARD
CONDITIONS.  INTRASTATE ACTS LIE WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS WHEN
NECESSARY EFFECTIVELY TO CONTROL INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS, AND CONGRESS
NEED NOT WAIT UNTIL TRANSPORTATION COMMENCES IN ITS EFFORT TO PROTECT
THE FLOW OF COMMERCE.  SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342. 

EVEN IF SEC. 15(A)(2) WERE ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF SEC. 15(A)(1), IT
WOULD CONSTITUTE A VALID CONTROL OVER UNFAIR COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

THE LABOR BOARD CASES ARE CONTROLLING BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS FOUND THAT
SEC. 15(A)(2) WILL DIMINISH THE OBSTRUCTIONS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WHICH FLOW FROM LABOR DISPUTES. 

THE SCHECHTER CASE, 295 U.S. 495, APPLIED ONLY TO LOCAL ACTIVITIES
AFTER INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAD ENDED.  THE CARTER COAL CASE, 298 U.S.
238, IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT, IN PARTICULAR SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, AND SHOULD NOW BE OVERRULED. 

FORBIDDING THEM TO MAKE FALSE REPORTS, ARE ANCILLARY TO THE REGULATORY

THE TENTH AMENDMENT MERELY RESERVES TO THE STATES "THE POWERS NOT
DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES."  THAT IT IS NOT A LIMITATION UPON THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWERS WHICH ARE DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
CONFIRMED BY THE HISTORY OF ITS ADOPTION. 

FROM MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE, 1 WHEAT.  304, 325, TO WRIGHT V.
UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 502, 516, THE COURT HAS
REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE TENTH AMENDMENT ADDS NOTHING TO THE
CONSTITUTION.  A FEW OF THE RELATIVELY RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
SUGGESTING A CONTRARY VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN TO HAVE OVERRULED SUB
SILENTIO SO IMPORTANT A CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE. 

THE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE ACT ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE CONDITIONS IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS,
AND CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AS A POWER DELEGATED TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE ORIGIN OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE NATURE OF
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, AND THE COURSE OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS
PREVENT. 

A PROHIBITION OF SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT NECESSARILY
WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1;
HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251; LABOR BOARD CASES, 301 U.S. 1, ET
SEQ.; BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S. 20. 

NOR IS THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS UPON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE NECESSARILY VALID REGULATION.  THE SUBJECTS UPON WHICH THE
CONDITIONS REACT MUST BE EXAMINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE REQUISITE
RELATION TO THE NEEDS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE EXISTS.  IF PROHIBITION
PER SE BE VALID, CONGRESS COULD DENY THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO COMMODITIES PRODUCED WITH LABOR OF A CERTAIN CREED OR
COLOR. 

A CLEAR DISTINCTION EXISTS BETWEEN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT
INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS OF HARMFUL AND DELETERIOUS GOODS AND ITS POWER TO
REGULATE SHIPMENTS OF USEFUL COMMODITIES.  PROHIBITION OF SHIPMENTS OF
HARMFUL COMMODITIES DOES NOT INFRINGE UPON, BUT SUPPLEMENTS, THE POWERS
OF THE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WHICH MIGHT BE AFFECTED; WHEREAS, IN
THE CASE OF USEFUL AND HARMLESS COMMODITIES THE SEPARATE INTERESTS ARE
UNEQUALLY AFFECTED. 

MERE SIMILARITY OF COMMERCIAL PROBLEMS WHICH ARE COMMON TO ALL OF THE
STATES DOES NOT MEAN THAT CONGRESS MAY LEGISLATE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH
PROBLEMS.  THE CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION IN URBAN AREAS AND THE
INCREASING USE OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAVE CREATED SERIOUS TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
IN ALL OF THE STATES OF THE UNION.  BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THESE
CONDITIONS UPON COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES AND THEIR PREVALENCE
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY WOULD NOT VALIDATE UNIFORM REGULATION OF TRAFFIC
BY CONGRESS. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS LIMITED TO THE
REGULATION OF INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 548;
CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 308. 

CONDITIONS IN PRODUCTION LIKE THOSE INVOLVED HERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN
HELD TO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE ONLY INDIRECTLY.  THEIR CONTROL IS
THEREFORE SUBJECT SOLELY TO THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES. 

THE PROPOSITION THAT EVERY CONCEIVABLE LEGISLATIVE POWER IS CONFERRED
BY SEC. 8 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH
THE DOCTRINE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A GOVERNMENT OF ENUMERATED
POWERS.  MOREOVER, THERE IS NO NEED FOR A FINDING THAT LEGISLATIVE
POWER OVER EVERY MATTER OF CONCERN TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES AND OF
THE NATION IS LODGED IN EITHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS,
INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY, SINCE THE TENTH AMENDMENT EXPRESSLY
STIPULATES THAT CERTAIN POWERS ARE RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE.  KANSAS V.
COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46, 89-91. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEDIENCY CAN NOT JUSTIFY REGULATION OF INTRASTATE
MATTERS WHERE THE RESULT IS TO OBSCURE COMPLETELY THE BOUNDARIES OF
NATIONAL AND STATE POWER.  SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 495, 507-508; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 246,
292, ET SEQ. 

THE DOCTRINE WHICH PERMITS THE REGULATION OF INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS
WHICH ARE SO COMMINGLED WITH INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS THAT ALL MUST BE
REGULATED IF THE LATTER ARE TO BE EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED, IS
INAPPLICABLE. 

ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED TO STAY ITS HAND UNTIL ACTUAL MOVEMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEGINS, CONGRESS MAY EXTEND ITS POWER ONLY TO THOSE
TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF INTERSTATE MOVEMENT
WHOSE RELATIONSHIP TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE AND
SUBSTANTIAL TO JUSTIFY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. 

FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THE STATUTORY STANDARD OF MINIMUM WAGES AND
MAXIMUM HOURS IN SUCH MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS AS APPELLEE'S DOES
NOT IN SUCH A MANNER AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NOR CONSTITUTE SUCH AN
UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION, AS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY POWER
OF CONGRESS. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT IS AN INDIRECT ATTACK UPON THE DUAL SYSTEM
OF GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 549. 

THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE DIVISION OF
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS BY RENDERING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOMINANT IN ALL
COMMERCIAL AND ECONOMIC MATTERS. 

THE POWER TO CONTROL THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION IN THE MANNER
ATTEMPTED BY THE ACT IS THE POWER TO IMPOSE THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF
ONE SECTION OF THE COUNTRY UPON ANOTHER, TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
INDUSTRIES OF ONE SECTION AND IN FAVOR OF THOSE OF ANOTHER, AND TO
EQUALIZE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS BY ELIMINATING THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF
MORE FORTUNATE LOCALITIES.  IF CONGRESS MAY ELIMINATE DIFFERENTIALS IN
LABOR CONDITIONS, IT MAY LIKEWISE ELIMINATE OTHER ECONOMIC
DIFFERENTIALS WHICH AFFECT CONDITIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  KIDD V.
PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1, 21-22. 

CASES CITED UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT AND UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT ARE INAPPLICABLE.  IN THOSE DECISIONS THE CONDEMNED
PRACTICES TENDED TO RESTRICT COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE FACT THAT INDIVIDUAL STATES CAN NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE
MARKETS WHICH LIE OUTSIDE THEIR BORDERS FOR THE ORDERLY SALE OF THEIR
PRODUCTS DOES NOT VEST IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT UNQUALIFIED POWER TO
REGULATE COMPETITION IN THOSE INTERSTATE MARKETS. 

FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THE STATUTORY STANDARD OF MINIMUM WAGES AND
MAXIMUM HOURS IN SUCH MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS AS APPELLEE'S DOES
NOT LEAD TO LABOR DISPUTES WHICH BURDEN AND OBSTRUCT COMMERCE, NOR
INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERLY AND FAIR MARKETING OF GOODS IN COMMERCE. 

THE ACT DEPRIVES APPELLEE OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW, AND OF THE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  IT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; AND IS INDEFINITE AS TO
WHAT PERSONS ARE SUBJECT TO ITS PENAL PROVISIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE TWO PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE RECORD IN THIS CASE ARE,
FIRST, WHETHER CONGRESS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO PROHIBIT THE
SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF LUMBER MANUFACTURED BY EMPLOYEES
WHOSE WAGES ARE LESS THAN A PRESCRIBED MINIMUM OR WHOSE WEEKLY HOURS OF
LABOR AT THAT WAGE ARE GREATER THAN A PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM, AND, SECOND,
WHETHER IT HAS POWER TO PROHIBIT THE EMPLOYMENT OF WORKMEN IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GOODS "FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AT OTHER THAN PRESCRIBED
WAGES AND HOURS.  A SUBSIDIARY QUESTION IS WHETHER IN CONNECTION WITH
SUCH PROHIBITIONS CONGRESS CAN REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO THEM TO
KEEP RECORDS SHOWING THE HOURS WORKED EACH DAY AND WEEK BY EACH OF HIS
EMPLOYEES INCLUDING THOSE ENGAGED "IN THE PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURE OF
GOODS TO-WIT, LUMBER, FOR 'INTERSTATE COMMERCE.'" 

APPELLEE DEMURRED TO AN INDICTMENT FOUND IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTHERN GEORGIA CHARGING HIM WITH VIOLATION OF SEC. 15(A)(1)(2) AND
(5) OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938; 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 201, ET SEQ. THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE DEMURRER AND QUASHED
THE INDICTMENT AND THE CASE COMES HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL UNDER SEC. 238
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345, AND SEC. 682,
TITLE 18 U.S.C., 34 STAT. 1246, WHICH AUTHORIZES AN APPEAL TO THIS
COURT WHEN THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER "IS BASED UPON THE
INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS
FOUNDED."    THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT SET UP A COMPREHENSIVE
LEGISLATIVE SCHEME FOR PREVENTING THE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS AND COMMODITIES PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER
LABOR CONDITIONS AS RESPECTS WAGES AND HOURS WHICH FAIL TO CONFORM TO
STANDARDS SET UP BY THE ACT.  ITS PURPOSE, AS WE JUDICIALLY KNOW FROM
THE DECLARATION OF POLICY IN SEC. 2(A) OF THE ACT,  FN1  AND THE
REPORTS OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES PROPOSING THE LEGISLATION, S. REPT.
NO. 884, 75TH CONG. 1ST SESS.; H. REPT. NO. 1452, 75TH CONG. 1ST SESS.;
H. REPT. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG. 3D SESS., CONFERENCE REPORT, H. REPT. NO.
2738, 75TH CONG. 3D SESS., IS TO EXCLUDE FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE GOODS
PRODUCED FOR THE COMMERCE AND TO PREVENT THEIR PRODUCTION FOR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UNDER CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF LIVING NECESSARY FOR HEALTH AND GENERAL WELL
BEING; AND TO PREVENT THE USE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS THE MEANS OF
COMPETITION IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS SO PRODUCED, AND AS THE MEANS
OF SPREADING AND PERPETUATING SUCH SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS AMONG
THE WORKERS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  THE ACT ALSO SETS UP AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE WHEREBY THOSE STANDARDS MAY FROM TIME TO TIME
BE MODIFIED GENERALLY AS TO INDUSTRIES SUBJECT TO THE ACT OR WITHIN AN
INDUSTRY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFIED STANDARDS, BY AN ADMINISTRATOR
ACTING IN COLLABORATION WITH "INDUSTRY COMMITTEES" APPOINTED BY HIM. 

16(A) PUNISHES WILLFUL VIOLATION OF IT BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$10,000 AND PUNISHES EACH CONVICTION AFTER THE FIRST BY IMPRISONMENT OF
NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OR BY THE SPECIFIED FINE OR BOTH.  SECTION
15(1) MAKES UNLAWFUL THE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ANY GOODS
"IN THE PRODUCTION OF WHICH ANY EMPLOYEE WAS EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION OF THE ACT A MINIMUM WAGE OF 25 CENTS PER
HOUR SHALL BE PAID TO EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE OR
THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR (INTERSTATE) COMMERCE," SEC. 6, AND THAT
THE MAXIMUM HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES "ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR
THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE" WITHOUT INCREASED COMPENSATION
FOR OVERTIME, SHALL BE FORTY-FOUR HOURS A WEEK.  SEC. 7. 

6 AND 7 INCLUDING THE MINIMUM WAGE AND MAXIMUM HOUR REQUIREMENTS JUST
MENTIONED FOR EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE. 
TO VIOLATE SEC. 11(C) WHICH REQUIRES HIM TO KEEP SUCH RECORDS OF THE
PERSONS EMPLOYED BY HIM AND OF THEIR WAGES AND HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT AS
THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL PRESCRIBE BY REGULATION OR ORDER. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES THAT APPELLEE IS ENGAGED, IN THE STATE OF
GEORGIA, IN THE BUSINESS OF ACQUIRING RAW MATERIALS, WHICH HE
MANUFACTURES INTO FINISHED LUMBER WITH THE INTENT, WHEN MANUFACTURED,
TO SHIP IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE STATE, AND
THAT HE DOES IN FACT SO SHIP A LARGE PART OF THE LUMBER SO PRODUCED. 
THERE ARE NUMEROUS COUNTS CHARGING APPELLEE WITH THE SHIPMENT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM GEORGIA TO POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE OF LUMBER
IN THE PRODUCTION OF WHICH, FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, APPELLEE HAS
EMPLOYED WORKMEN AT LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM WAGE OR MORE THAN
THE PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM HOURS WITHOUT PAYMENT TO THEM OF ANY WAGE FOR
OVERTIME.  OTHER COUNTS CHARGE THE EMPLOYMENT BY APPELLEE OF WORKMEN IN
THE PRODUCTION OF LUMBER FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT WAGES AT LESS THAN
25 CENTS AN HOUR OR FOR MORE THAN THE MAXIMUM HOURS PER WEEK WITHOUT
PAYMENT TO THEM OF THE PRESCRIBED OVERTIME WAGE.  STILL ANOTHER COUNT
CHARGES APPELLEE WITH FAILURE TO KEEP RECORDS SHOWING THE HOURS WORKED
EACH DAY A WEEK BY EACH OF HIS EMPLOYEES AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 11(C) AND
THE REGULATION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, TITLE 29, CH. 5, CODE OF FEDERAL
REGULATIONS, PART 516, AND ALSO THAT APPELLEE UNLAWFULLY FAILED TO KEEP
SUCH RECORDS OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED "IN THE PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURE OF
GOODS, TO-WIT LUMBER, FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

THE DEMURRER, SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT TO THE APPEAL, CHALLENGED THE
VALIDITY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND
THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT QUASHED THE
INDICTMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY UPON THE BROAD GROUNDS THAT THE ACT, WHICH
IT INTERPRETED AS A REGULATION OF MANUFACTURE WITHIN THE STATES, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IT DECLARED THAT MANUFACTURE IS NOT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THAT THE REGULATION BY THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF
WAGES AND HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THOSE ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
GOODS WHICH IT IS INTENDED AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION "MAY OR WILL BE"
AFTER PRODUCTION "SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PART OR IN WHOLE" IS
NOT WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE EFFECT OF THE COURT'S DECISION AND JUDGMENT IS THUS TO DENY THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF LUMBER
PRODUCED FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE PROSCRIBED SUBSTANDARD LABOR
CONDITIONS OF WAGES AND HOURS, ITS POWER TO PENALIZE THE EMPLOYER FOR
HIS FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THE WAGE AND HOUR PROVISIONS IN THE CASE OF
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF LUMBER WHICH HE INTENDS
THEREAFTER TO SHIP IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN PART OR IN WHOLE ACCORDING
TO THE NORMAL COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS AND ITS POWER TO COMPEL HIM TO
KEEP RECORDS OF HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE AND THE
REGULATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON ASSIGNMENTS BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT ERRED INSOFAR AS IT HELD THAT CONGRESS WAS WITHOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO PENALIZE THE ACTS SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT,
AND APPELLEE SEEKS TO SUSTAIN THE DECISION BELOW ON THE GROUNDS THAT
THE PROHIBITION BY CONGRESS OF THOSE ACTS IS UNAUTHORIZED BY THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AND IS PROHIBITED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE APPEAL
STATUTE LIMITS OUR JURISDICTION ON THIS APPEAL TO A REVIEW OF THE
DETERMINATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT SO FAR ONLY AS IT IS BASED ON THE
VALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO.,
308 U.S. 188, 193-195, AND CASES CITED.  HENCE WE ACCEPT THE DISTRICT
COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE INDICTMENT AND CONFINE OUR DECISION TO
THE VALIDITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 

THE PROHIBITION OF SHIPMENT OF THE PROSCRIBED GOODS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SECTION 15(A)(1) PROHIBITS, AND THE INDICTMENT CHARGES, THE
SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OF GOODS PRODUCED FOR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BY EMPLOYEES WHOSE WAGES AND HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT DO NOT
CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  SINCE THIS SECTION IS NOT
VIOLATED UNLESS THE COMMODITY SHIPPED HAS BEEN PRODUCED UNDER LABOR
CONDITIONS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 6 AND SEC. 7, THE ONLY QUESTION ARISING
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WITH RESPECT TO SUCH SHIPMENTS IS WHETHER
CONGRESS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO PROHIBIT THEM. 

WHILE MANUFACTURE IS NOT OF ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE SHIPMENT
OF MANUFACTURED GOODS INTERSTATE IS SUCH COMMERCE AND THE PROHIBITION
OF SUCH SHIPMENT BY CONGRESS IS INDUBITABLY A REGULATION OF THE
COMMERCE.  THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE IS THE POWER "TO PRESCRIBE
THE RULE BY WHICH COMMERCE IS GOVERNED."  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT. 
1, 196.  IT EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO THOSE REGULATIONS WHICH AID, FOSTER AND
PROTECT THE COMMERCE, BUT EMBRACES THOSE WHICH PROHIBIT IT. REID V.
COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137; LOTTERY CASE, 188 U.S. 321; UNITED STATES V.
DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366; HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S.
308; CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 242 U.S. 311;
UNITED STATES V. HILL, 248 U.S. 420; MCCORMICK & CO. V. BROWN, 286 U.S.
131.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT
TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE INCLUDES NOXIOUS ARTICLES,
LOTTERY CASE, SUPRA; HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 45;
CF. HOKE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; STOLEN ARTICLES, BROOKS V. UNITED
STATES, 267 U.S. 432; KIDNAPPED PERSONS, GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297
U.S. 124, AND ARTICLES SUCH AS INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR CONVICT MADE
GOODS, TRAFFIC IN WHICH IS FORBIDDEN OR RESTRICTED BY THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF DESTINATION.  KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL
R. CO., 299 U.S. 334. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT THE PRESENT PROHIBITION FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
NONE OF THESE CATEGORIES; THAT WHILE THE PROHIBITION IS NOMINALLY A
REGULATION OF THE COMMERCE ITS MOTIVE OR PURPOSE IS REGULATION OF WAGES
AND HOURS OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE, THE CONTROL OF WHICH HAS
BEEN RESERVED TO THE STATES AND UPON WHICH GEORGIA AND SOME OF THE
STATES OF DESTINATION HAVE PLACED NO RESTRICTION; THAT THE EFFECT OF
THE PRESENT STATUTE IS NOT TO EXCLUDE THE PROSCRIBED ARTICLES FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN AID OF STATE REGULATION AS IN KENTUCKY WHIP &
COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA, BUT INSTEAD, UNDER THE
GUISE OF A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT UNDERTAKES TO REGULATE
WAGES AND HOURS WITHIN THE STATE CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF THE STATE
WHICH HAS ELECTED TO LEAVE THEM UNREGULATED. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE "IS COMPLETE IN
ITSELF, MAY BE EXERCISED TO ITS UTMOST EXTENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGES NO
LIMITATIONS OTHER THAN ARE PRESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION."  GIBBONS V.
OGDEN, SUPRA, 196.  THAT POWER CAN NEITHER BE ENLARGED NOR DIMINISHED
BY THE EXERCISE OR NON-EXERCISE OF STATE POWER.  KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR
CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA. CONGRESS, FOLLOWING ITS OWN
CONCEPTION OF PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNING THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH MAY
APPROPRIATELY BE IMPOSED ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS FREE TO EXCLUDE
FROM THE COMMERCE ARTICLES WHOSE USE IN THE STATES FOR WHICH THEY ARE
DESTINED IT MAY CONCEIVE TO BE INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, MORALS
OR WELFARE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE HAS NOT SOUGHT TO REGULATE THEIR
USE.  REID V. COLORADO, SUPRA; LOTTERY CASE, SUPRA; HIPOLITE EGG CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA; HOKE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

SUCH REGULATION IS NOT A FORBIDDEN INVASION OF STATE POWER MERELY
BECAUSE EITHER ITS MOTIVE OR ITS CONSEQUENCE IS TO RESTRICT THE USE OF
ARTICLES OF COMMERCE WITHIN THE STATES OF DESTINATION; AND IS NOT
PROHIBITED UNLESS BY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.  IT IS NO
OBJECTION TO THE ASSERTION OF THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
THAT ITS EXERCISE IS ATTENDED BY THE SAME INCIDENTS WHICH ATTEND THE
EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATES.  SEVEN CASES V. UNITED
STATES, 239 U.S. 510, 514; HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES &
WAREHOUSE CO., 251 U.S. 146, 156; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS
CO., 304 U.S. 144, 147; UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER
CO., 311 U.S. 377. 

THE MOTIVE AND PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT REGULATION ARE PLAINLY TO MAKE
EFFECTIVE THE CONGRESSIONAL CONCEPTION OF PUBLIC POLICY THAT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE INSTRUMENT OF COMPETITION IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS,
WHICH COMPETITION IS INJURIOUS TO THE COMMERCE AND TO THE STATES FROM
AND TO WHICH THE COMMERCE FLOWS.  THE MOTIVE AND PURPOSE OF A
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE MATTERS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT UPON THE EXERCISE OF WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PLACES NO
RESTRICTION AND OVER WHICH THE COURTS ARE GIVEN NO CONTROL.  MCCRAY V.
UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27; SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506,
513 AND CASES CITED.  "THE JUDICIAL CANNOT PRESCRIBE TO THE LEGISLATIVE
DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT LIMITATIONS UPON THE EXERCISE OF ITS
ACKNOWLEDGED POWER."  VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8 WALL.  533.  WHATEVER
THEIR MOTIVE AND PURPOSE, REGULATIONS OF COMMERCE WHICH DO NOT INFRINGE
SOME CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION ARE WITHIN THE PLENARY POWER CONFERRED
ON CONGRESS BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SUBJECT ONLY TO THAT LIMITATION,
PRESENTLY TO BE CONSIDERED, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PROHIBITION OF THE
SHIPMENT INTERSTATE OF GOODS PRODUCED UNDER THE FORBIDDEN SUBSTANDARD
LABOR CONDITIONS IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS. 

IN THE MORE THAN A CENTURY WHICH HAS ELAPSED SINCE THE DECISON OF
GIBBONS V. OGDEN, THESE PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION
HAVE BEEN SO LONG AND REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT AS APPLICABLE
TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THAT THERE WOULD BE LITTLE OCCASION FOR
REPEATING THEM NOW WERE IT NOT FOR THE DECISION OF THIS COURT TWENTY
TWO YEARS AGO IN HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251.  IN THAT CASE IT
WAS HELD BY A BARE MAJORITY OF THE COURT OVER THE POWERFUL AND NOW
CLASSIC DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SETTING FORTH THE FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUES INVOLVED, THAT CONGRESS WAS WITHOUT POWER TO EXCLUDE THE
PRODUCTS OF CHILD LABOR FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE REASONING AND
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT'S OPINION THERE CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE
CONCLUSION WHICH WE HAVE REACHED, THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE IS PLENARY TO EXCLUDE ANY ARTICLE FROM INTERSTATE
COMMERCE SUBJECT ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

HAMMER V. DAGENHART HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.  THE DISTINCTION ON WHICH
THE DECISION WAS RESTED THAT CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO PROHIBIT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS LIMITED TO ARTICLES WHICH IN THEMSELVES HAVE SOME HARMFUL
OR DELETERIOUS PROPERTY - A DISTINCTION WHICH WAS NOVEL WHEN MADE AND
UNSUPPORTED BY ANY PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION - HAS LONG SINCE BEEN
ABANDONED.  BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO.
V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA; ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V.
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N, 303 U.S. 419; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S.
38.  THE THESIS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MOTIVE OF THE PROHIBITION OR
ITS EFFECT TO CONTROL IN SOME MEASURE THE USE OR PRODUCTION WITHIN THE
STATES OF THE ARTICLE THUS EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMERCE CAN OPERATE TO
DEPRIVE THE REGULATION OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY HAS LONG SINCE
CEASED TO HAVE FORCE.  REID V. COLORADO, SUPRA; LOTTERY CASE, SUPRA;
HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; SEVEN CASES V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 514; HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES & WAREHOUSE CO., SUPRA,
156; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, 147.  AND FINALLY
WE HAVE DECLARED "THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT DIFFER IN EXTENT OR CHARACTER FROM THAT
RETAINED BY THE STATES OVER INTRASTATE COMMERCE."  UNITED STATES V.
ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533, 569.    THE CONCLUSION IS
INESCAPABLE THAT HAMMER V. DAGENHART, WAS A DEPARTURE FROM THE
PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE PREVAILED IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE THE DECISION AND THAT SUCH VITALITY, AS A
PRECEDENT, AS IT THEN HAD HAS LONG SINCE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  IT SHOULD BE
AND NOW IS OVERRULED. 

VALIDITY OF THE WAGE AND HOUR REQUIREMENTS.  SECTION 15(A)(2) AND
SECS. 6 AND 7 REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO CONFORM TO THE WAGE AND HOUR
PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO ALL EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AS APPELLEE'S EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ALLEGED
TO BE "ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" THE VALIDITY OF THE PROHIBITION
TURNS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EMPLOYMENT, UNDER OTHER THAN THE
PRESCRIBED LABOR STANDARDS, OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SO RELATED TO THE COMMERCE AND SO
AFFECTS IT AS TO BE WITHIN THE REACH OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
REGULATE IT. 

TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION WE MUST AT THE OUTSET DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PARTICULAR ACTS CHARGED IN THE COUNTS WHICH ARE LAID UNDER SEC.
15(A)(2) AS THEY WERE CONSTRUED BELOW, CONSTITUTE "PRODUCTION FOR
COMMERCE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  AS THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS
TO APPLY THE STATUTE IN THE INDICTMENT, AND AS THE COURT BELOW
CONSTRUED THE PHRASE "PRODUCED FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE," IT EMBRACES AT
LEAST THE CASE WHERE AN EMPLOYER ENGAGED, AS IS APPELLEE, IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND SHIPMENT OF GOODS IN FILLING ORDERS OF EXTRASTATE
CUSTOMERS, MANUFACTURES HIS PRODUCT WITH THE INTENT OR EXPECTATION THAT
ACCORDING TO THE NORMAL COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS ALL OR SOME PART OF IT
WILL BE SELECTED FOR SHIPMENT TO THOSE CUSTOMERS. 

WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE THE PRECISE LIMITS OF THE PHRASE, WE
THINK THE ACTS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT ARE WITHIN THE SWEEP OF THE
STATUTE.  THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS NOT ONLY TO PREVENT THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF THE PROSCRIBED PRODUCT, BUT TO STOP THE
INITIAL STEP TOWARD TRANSPORTATION, PRODUCTION WITH THE PURPOSE OF SO
TRANSPORTING IT.  CONGRESS WAS NOT UNAWARE THAT MOST MANUFACTURING
BUSINESSES SHIPPING THEIR PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAKE IT IN
THEIR SHOPS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS ULTIMATE DESTINATION AND THEN
AFTER MANUFACTURE SELECT SOME OF IT FOR SHIPMENT INTERSTATE AND SOME
INTRASTATE ACCORDING TO THE DAILY DEMANDS OF THEIR BUSINESS, AND THAT
IT WOULD BE PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, WITHOUT DISRUPTING MANUFACTURING
BUSINESSES, TO RESTRICT THE PROHIBITED KIND OF PRODUCTION TO THE
PARTICULAR PIECES OF LUMBER, CLOTH, FURNITURE OR THE LIKE WHICH LATER
MOVE IN INTERSTATE RATHER THAN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 272 U.S. 457, 464. 

THE RECOGNIZED NEED OF DRAFTING A WORKABLE STATUTE AND THE WELL KNOWN
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WAS TO BE APPLIED ARE PERSUASIVE OF THE
CONCLUSION, WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUPPORTS, S. REPT. NO. 884,
75TH CONG. 1ST SESS., PP. 7 AND 8; H. REPT. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG. 3D
SESS., P. 17, THAT THE "PRODUCTION FOR COMMERCE" INTENDED INCLUDES AT
LEAST PRODUCTION OF GOODS, WHICH, AT THE TIME OF PRODUCTION, THE
EMPLOYER, ACCORDING TO THE NORMAL COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS, INTENDS OR
EXPECTS TO MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALTHOUGH, THROUGH THE EXIGENCIES
OF THE BUSINESS, ALL OF THE GOODS MAY NOT THEREAFTER ACTUALLY ENTER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN2 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER SUCH RESTRICTION ON THE PRODUCTION
OF GOODS FOR COMMERCE IS A PERMISSIBLE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER. 
THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT CONFINED TO THE
REGULATION OF COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  IT EXTENDS TO THOSE
ACTIVITIES INTRASTATE WHICH SO AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER IT AS TO MAKE REGULATION OF THEM
APPROPRIATE MEANS TO THE ATTAINMENT OF A LEGITIMATE END, THE EXERCISE
OF THE GRANTED POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE
MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 421.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
FERGER, 250 U.S. 199. 

WHILE THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES FOUND STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, WHEN UNIFORMITY OF ITS REGULATION IS OF NATIONAL CONCERN, TO
BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS HAS NOT
LEGISLATED ON THE SUBJECT, THE COURT HAS NEVER IMPLIED SUCH RESTRAINT
ON STATE CONTROL OVER MATTERS INTRASTATE NOT DEEMED TO BE REGULATIONS
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES EVEN THOUGH THEY AFFECT
THE COMMERCE.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 398 ET SEQ., AND
CASE CITED; 410 ET SEQ., AND CASES CITED.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT STATE LAWS WHICH ARE NOT
REGULATIONS OF THE COMMERCE ITSELF OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES ARE NOT
FORBIDDEN EVEN THOUGH THEY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  KIDD V.
PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1; BACON V. ILLINOIS, 227 U.S. 504; HEISLER V. THOMAS
COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 245; OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172. 

BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT CONGRESS MAY NOT BY APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATION REGULATE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES WHERE THEY HAVE A
SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE SANTA CRUZ FRUIT
PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 466.  A
RECENT EXAMPLE IS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT FOR THE REGULATION
OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS IN INDUSTRIES IN WHICH STRIKES,
INDUCED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES NAMED IN THE ACT, TEND TO DISTURB OR
OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 38, 40; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 604, AND CASES CITED.  BUT
LONG BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT THIS COURT
HAD MANY TIMES HELD THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE EXTENDS TO THE REGULATION THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTION OF
ACTIVITIES INTRASTATE WHICH HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE
OR THE EXERCISE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER IT.  FN3 

IN SUCH LEGISLATION CONGRESS HAS SOMETIMES LEFT IT TO THE COURTS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES HAVE THE PROHIBITED EFFECT
ON THE COMMERCE, AS IN THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT HAS SOMETIMES LEFT IT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR AGENCY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES
SOUGHT TO BE REGULATED OR PROHIBITED HAVE SUCH EFFECT, AS IN THE CASE
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
OR WHETHER THEY COME WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF THE PROHIBITED
ACT, AS IN THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  AND SOMETIMES CONGRESS
ITSELF HAS SAID THAT A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY AFFECTS THE COMMERCE, AS IT
DID IN THE PRESENT ACT, THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT AND THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT.  IN PASSING ON THE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION OF THE CLASS LAST
MENTIONED THE ONLY FUNCTION OF COURTS IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PARTICULAR ACTIVITY REGULATED OR PROHIBITED IS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE
FEDERAL POWER.  SEE UNITED STATES V. FERGER, SUPRA; VIRGINIAN RY. CO.
V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 553. 

CONGRESS, HAVING BY THE PRESENT ACT ADOPTED THE POLICY OF EXCLUDING
FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALL GOODS PRODUCED FOR THE COMMERCE WHICH DO
NOT CONFORM TO THE SPECIFIED LABOR STANDARDS, IT MAY CHOOSE THE MEANS
REASONABLY ADAPTED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE PERMITTED END, EVEN THOUGH
THEY INVOLVE CONTROL OF INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES.  SUCH LEGISLATION HAS
OFTEN BEEN SUSTAINED WITH RESPECT TO POWERS, OTHER THAN THE COMMERCE
POWER GRANTED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, WHEN THE MEANS CHOSEN,
ALTHOUGH NOT THEMSELVES WITHIN THE GRANTED POWER, WERE NEVERTHELESS
DEEMED APPROPRIATE AIDS TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SOME PURPOSE WITHIN AN
ADMITTED POWER OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  SEE JACOB RUPPERT, INC. V.
CAFFEY, 251 U.S. 264; EVERARD'S BREWERIES V. DAY, 265 U.S. 545, 560;
WESTFALL V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 256, 259.  AS TO STATE POWER UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, COMPARE OTIS V. PARKER, 187 U.S. 606, 609;
ST. JOHN V. NEW YORK, 201 U.S. 633; PURITY EXTRACT & TONIC CO. V.
LYNCH, 226 U.S. 192, 201-202.  A FAMILIAR LIKE EXERCISE OF POWER IS THE
REGULATION OF INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE SO COMMINGLED WITH OR
RELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT ALL MUST BE REGULATED IF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS TO BE EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED.  SHREVEPORT CASE,
234 U.S. 342; RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R.
CO., 257 U.S. 563; UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA,
464; CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; MULFORD V. SMITH, SUPRA.  SIMILARLY
CONGRESS MAY REQUIRE INSPECTION AND PREVENTIVE TREATMENT OF ALL CATTLE
IN A DISEASE INFECTED AREA IN ORDER TO PREVENT SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF SOME OF THE CATTLE WITHOUT THE TREATMENT.  THORNTON V.
UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 414.  IT MAY PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL, AT
DESTINATION, OF LABELS REQUIRED BY THE PURE FOOD & DRUGS ACT TO BE
AFFIXED TO ARTICLES TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MCDERMOTT V.
WISCONSIN, 228 U.S. 115.  AND WE HAVE RECENTLY HELD THAT CONGRESS IN
THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO REQUIRE INSPECTION AND GRADING OF TOBACCO
SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY COMPEL SUCH INSPECTION AND GRADING
OF ALL TOBACCO SOLD AT LOCAL AUCTION ROOMS FROM WHICH A SUBSTANTIAL
PART BUT NOT ALL OF THE TOBACCO SOLD IS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  CURRIN V. WALLACE, SUPRA, 11, AND SEE TO THE LIKE EFFECT
UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., SUPRA, 568, NOTE 37. 

WE THINK ALSO THAT SEC. 15(A)(2), NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION, IS
SUSTAINABLE INDEPENDENTLY OF SEC. 15(A)(1), WHICH PROHIBITS SHIPMENT OR
TRANSPORTATION OF THE PROSCRIBED GOODS.  AS WE HAVE SAID THE EVILS
AIMED AT BY THE ACT ARE THE SPREAD OF SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS
THROUGH THE USE OF THE FACILITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR
COMPETITION BY THE GOODS SO PRODUCED WITH THOSE PRODUCED UNDER THE
PRESCRIBED OR BETTER LABOR CONDITIONS; AND THE CONSEQUENT DISLOCATION
OF THE COMMERCE ITSELF CAUSED BY THE IMPAIRMENT OR DESTRUCTION OF LOCAL
BUSINESSES BY COMPETITION MADE EFFECTIVE THROUGH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THE ACT IS THUS DIRECTED AT THE SUPPRESSION OF A METHOD OR KIND OF
COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH IT HAS IN EFFECT CONDEMNED AS
"UNFAIR," AS THE CLAYTON ACT HAS CONDEMNED OTHER "UNFAIR METHODS OF
COMPETITION" MADE EFFECTIVE THROUGH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE VAN CAMP
& SONS CO. V. AMERICAN CAN CO., 278 U.S. 245; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304. 

THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ARE FAMILIAR
EXAMPLES OF THE EXERTION OF THE COMMERCE POWER TO PROHIBIT OR CONTROL
ACTIVITIES WHOLLY INTRASTATE BECAUSE OF THEIR EFFECT ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE AS TO THE SHERMAN ACT, NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 193 U.S. 197; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375;
UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525; UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO
COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344; LOCAL NO. 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293;
STEVENS CO. V. FOSTER & KLEISER CO., 311 U.S. 255.  AS TO THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT,
SUPRA, AND CASES CITED. 

THE MEANS ADOPTED BY SEC. 15(A)(2) FOR THE PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BY THE SUPPRESSION OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE CONDEMNED GOODS
FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SO RELATED TO THE COMMERCE AND SO AFFECTS IT
AS TO BE WITHIN THE REACH OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  SEE CURRIN V.
WALLACE, SUPRA, 11.  CONGRESS, TO ATTAIN ITS OBJECTIVE IN THE
SUPPRESSION OF NATIONWIDE COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY GOODS
PRODUCED UNDER SUBSTANDARD LABOR CONDITIONS, HAS MADE NO DISTINCTION AS
TO THE VOLUME OR AMOUNT OF SHIPMENTS IN THE COMMERCE OR OF PRODUCTION
FOR COMMERCE BY ANY PARTICULAR SHIPPER OR PRODUCER.  IT RECOGNIZED THAT
IN PRESENT DAY INDUSTRY, COMPETITION BY A SMALL PART MAY AFFECT THE
WHOLE AND THAT THE TOTAL EFFECT OF THE COMPETITION OF MANY SMALL
PRODUCERS MAY BE GREAT.  SEE H. REPT. NO. 2182, 75TH CONG. 1ST SESS.,
P. 7.  THE LEGISLATION AIMED AT A WHOLE EMBRACES ALL ITS PARTS.  CF.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT, SUPRA, 606. 

SO FAR AS CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS CONCLUSION, ITS DOCTRINE IS LIMITED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE
DECISIONS UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
WHICH WE HAVE CITED AND WHICH WE FOLLOW.  SEE ALSO SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE
COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381; CURRIN V. WALLACE, SUPRA; MULFORD V.
SMITH, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., SUPRA; CLOVER FORK
COAL CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 97 F.2D 331; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. CROWE COAL CO., 104 F.2D 633; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. GOOD COAL CO., 110 F.2D 501. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS UNAFFECTED BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT WHICH PROVIDES:
"THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR
PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES
RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE."  THE AMENDMENT STATES BUT A TRUISM
THAT ALL IS RETAINED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SURRENDERED.  THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE HISTORY OF ITS ADOPTION TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS MORE THAN
DECLARATORY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NATIONAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS AS IT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE THE
AMENDMENT OR THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS OTHER THAN TO ALLAY FEARS THAT THE
NEW NATIONAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT SEEK TO EXERCISE POWERS NOT GRANTED, AND
THAT THE STATES MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO EXERCISE FULLY THEIR RESERVED
POWERS.  SEE E.G., II ELLIOT'S DEBATES, 123, 131; III ID. 450, 464,
600; IV ID. 140, 149; I ANNALS OF CONGRESS, 432, 761, 767-768; STORY,
COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION, SECS. 1907-1908.    FROM THE
BEGINNING AND FOR MANY YEARS THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CONSTRUED AS NOT
DEPRIVING THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF AUTHORITY TO RESORT TO ALL MEANS
FOR THE EXERCISE OF A GRANTED POWER WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE AND PLAINLY
ADAPTED TO THE PERMITTED END.  MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE, 1 WHEAT. 
304, 324, 325; MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, 405, 406; GORDON V. UNITED
STATES, 117 U.S. 697, 705; LOTTERY CASE, SUPRA; NORTHERN SECURITIES CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 344-345; EVERARD'S BREWERIES V. DAY, SUPRA,
558; UNITED STATES V. SPRAGUE, 282 U.S. 716, 733; SEE UNITED STATES V.
THE BRIGANTINE WILLIAM, 28 FED. CAS. NO. 16,700, P. 622.  WHATEVER
DOUBTS MAY HAVE ARISEN OF THE SOUNDNESS OF THAT CONCLUSION, THEY HAVE
BEEN PUT AT REST BY THE DECISIONS UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WHICH WE HAVE CITED.  SEE ALSO, ASHWANDER
V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 330-331; WRIGHT V. UNION
CENTRAL INS. CO., 304 U.S. 502, 516. 

VALIDITY OF THE REQUIREMENT OF RECORDS OF WAGES AND HOURS.  SEC.
15(A)(5) AND SEC. 11(C).  THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE INCIDENTAL TO THOSE
FOR THE PRESCRIBED WAGES AND HOURS, AND HENCE VALIDITY OF THE FORMER
TURNS ON VALIDITY OF THE LATTER.  SINCE, AS WE HAVE HELD, CONGRESS MAY
REQUIRE PRODUCTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO CONFORM TO THOSE
CONDITIONS, IT MAY REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER, AS A MEANS OF ENFORCING THE
VALID LAW, TO KEEP A RECORD SHOWING WHETHER HE HAS IN FACT COMPLIED
WITH IT.  THE REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDS EVEN OF THE INTRASTATE
TRANSACTION IS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS TO THE LEGITIMATE END.  SEE
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. GOODRICH TRANSIT CO., 224 U.S. 194;
CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, 42. 

VALIDITY OF THE WAGE AND HOUR PROVISIONS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
BOTH PROVISIONS ARE MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS COMPELLING THE PAYMENT OF
A MINIMUM STANDARD WAGE WITH A PRESCRIBED INCREASED WAGE FOR OVERTIME
OF "NOT LESS THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES THE REGULAR RATE" AT WHICH THE
WORKER IS EMPLOYED.  SINCE OUR DECISION IN WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379, IT IS NO LONGER OPEN TO QUESTION THAT THE FIXING
OF A MINIMUM WAGE IS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE POWER AND THAT THE BARE
FACT OF ITS EXERCISE IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH
MORE THAN UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  NOR IS IT ANY LONGER OPEN TO
QUESTION THAT IT IS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO FIX MAXIMUM HOURS. 
HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366; MULLER V. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412; BUNTING
V. OREGON, 243 U.S. 426; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N, SUPRA. SIMILARLY THE STATUTE IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE
APPLIED ALIKE TO BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.  CF. BUNTING V. OREGON, 243 U.S.
426. 

THE ACT IS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO MEET CONSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS.  ONE
WHO EMPLOYS PERSONS, WITHOUT CONFORMING TO THE PRESCRIBED WAGE AND HOUR
CONDITIONS, TO WORK ON GOODS WHICH HE SHIPS OR EXPECTS TO SHIP ACROSS
STATE LINES, IS WARNED THAT HE MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES
OF THE ACT.  NO MORE IS REQUIRED.  NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373,
377. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED, BUT FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS OTHER
CONTENTIONS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 2.  (A)  THE CONGRESS HEREBY FINDS THAT THE EXISTENCE, IN
INDUSTRIES ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR
COMMERCE, OF LABOR CONDITIONS DETRIMENTAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
MINIMUM STANDARD OF LIVING NECESSARY FOR HEALTH, EFFICIENCY, AND
GENERAL WELL-BEING OF WORKERS (1) CAUSES COMMERCE AND THE CHANNELS AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF COMMERCE TO BE USED TO SPREAD AND PERPETUATE SUCH
LABOR CONDITIONS AMONG THE WORKERS OF THE SEVERAL STATES; (2) BURDENS
COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF GOODS IN COMMERCE; (3) CONSTITUTES AN
UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE; (4) LEADS TO LABOR DISPUTES
BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF GOODS IN
COMMERCE; AND (5) INTERFERES WITH THE ORDERLY AND FAIR MARKETING OF
GOODS IN COMMERCE. 

TRANSMISSION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES OR FROM ANY
STATE TO ANY PLACE OUTSIDE THEREOF." 

FN2  CF. ADMINISTRATOR'S OPINION, INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 5, 1940
WAGE AND HOUR MANUAL, P. 131 ET SEQ. 

FN3  IT MAY PROHIBIT WHOLLY INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES WHICH, IF
PERMITTED, WOULD RESULT IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CORONADO
COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295, 310; LOCAL 167 V. UNITED
STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 297.  IT MAY REGULATE THE ACTIVITIES OF A LOCAL
GRAIN EXCHANGE SHOWN TO HAVE AN INJURIOUS EFFECT ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1.  IT MAY
REGULATE INTRASTATE RATES OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS WHERE THE EFFECT OF
THE RATES IS TO BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HOUSTON, E. & W. TEXAS RY.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342; RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN V.
CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290
U.S. 70, 74; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1.  IT MAY COMPEL THE
ADOPTION OF SAFETY APPLIANCES ON ROLLING STOCK MOVING INTRASTATE
BECAUSE OF THE RELATION TO AND EFFECT OF SUCH APPLIANCES UPON
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC MOVING OVER THE SAME RAILROAD.  SOUTHERN RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 222 U.S. 20.  IT MAY PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM HOURS FOR
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE ACTIVITY CONNECTED WITH THE MOVEMENT OF
ANY TRAIN, SUCH AS TRAIN DISPATCHERS AND TELEGRAPHERS.  BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612, 619. 
..END :












OPP COTTON MILLS V. ADMINISTRATOR, 312 U.S. 126 


NO. 330.  ARGUED DECEMBER 20, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 23, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WAGE AND HOURS PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, AS
APPLIED TO MANUFACTURERS OF TEXTILE GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HELD
WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER AND CONSISTENT WITH THE FIFTH AND TENTH
AMENDMENTS.  UNITED STATES V. DARBY, ANTE, P. 100.  P. 142. 

2.  IN THE EXERTION OF ITS LEGISLATIVE POWERS, CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE
THAT ADMINISTRATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, MADE IN CONFORMITY TO PREVIOUSLY
ADOPTED LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY,
SHALL BE PREREQUISITE TO THE OPERATION OF ITS STATUTORY COMMAND.  P.
144. 

THE ADOPTION OF THE DECLARED POLICY BY CONGRESS AND ITS DEFINITION OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ITS COMMAND IS TO BE EFFECTIVE, CONSTITUTE
THE PERFORMANCE, IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, OF THE LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTION. 

3.  WHERE THE STANDARDS SET UP FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY, THE PROCEDURE WHICH IT IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW, AND THE RECORD OF
ITS ACTION WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE TO BE KEPT, OR WHICH IS IN
FACT PRESERVED, ARE SUCH THAT CONGRESS, THE COURTS AND THE PUBLIC CAN
ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE AGENCY HAS CONFORMED TO THE STANDARDS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED, THERE IS NO FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE OF THE
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION.  P. 144. 

4.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT AUTHORIZES
THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEES APPOINTED BY HIM TO
CLASSIFY INDUSTRIES AND FIX MINIMUM WAGES, IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  PP. 142, 145. 

THE ACT DECLARES THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO
THE 40 CENTS PER HOUR LIMIT "AS RAPIDLY AS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING EMPLOYMENT."  IT DIRECTS THAT WAGE
RATES SHALL BE DETERMINED WITH DUE REGARD TO ECONOMIC AND COMPETITIVE
CONDITIONS AND SHALL BE SUCH AS WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL
EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDUSTRY.  AS PREREQUISITES TO CLASSIFICATION WITHIN
AN INDUSTRY, THE COMMITTEE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST DETERMINE THAT
CLASSIFICATION IS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING FOR EACH CLASS
THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE RATE (NOT IN EXCESS OF 40 CENTS AN HOUR) THAT
WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT IN SUCH CLASS AND WILL NOT
GIVE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO ANY GROUP IN THE INDUSTRY.  IN MAKING
THESE DETERMINATIONS, THE COMMITTEE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR MUST
CONSIDER, "AMONG OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS," COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS AS
AFFECTED BY TRANSPORTATION, LIVING AND PRODUCTION COSTS, AND THE WAGE
SCALE FOR COMPARABLE WORK ESTABLISHED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LABOR
AGREEMENTS, AND BY EMPLOYERS WHO VOLUNTARILY MAINTAIN MINIMUM WAGE
STANDARDS IN THE INDUSTRY. 

5.  UNDER THIS ACT, SEC. 8(A)-(D), AN INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ACTS AS AN
INVESTIGATING BODY WITH DUTY TO REPORT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  ITS REPORT IS THE BASIS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 8(D), WHICH ARE JUDICIAL IN CHARACTER WITH
PROVISIONS FOR NOTICE AND FULL HEARING.  P. 147. 

THE ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UPON THE HEARING IS
WHETHER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE "ARE MADE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW, ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, AND,
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAME FACTORS AS ARE REQUIRED TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE, WILL CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF
THIS SECTION."  NO WAGE IS FIXED WHICH IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE
COMMITTEE, AND NOT THEN WITHOUT APPROPRIATE HEARING, FINDINGS AND ORDER
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

6.  THE PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF AN INDUSTRY MADE BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR WHEN HE APPOINTS AN INDUSTRY COMMITTEE UNDER SEC. 5(A) OF
THE ACT - DISTINGUISHED FROM THE DEFINITION TO BE MADE IN THE FINAL
ORDER FIXING THE WAGE, SEC. 8(F) - MAY BE REVISED BY HIM WHILE THE
INVESTIGATION IS PENDING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, BUT THE COMMITTEE'S
REPORT MUST BE BASED ON THE AMENDED DEFINITION.  P. 147. 

7.  IN DEFINING THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY AS INCLUDING COTTON, SILK, AND
RAYON PRODUCTS, THE ADMINISTRATOR TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE COMPETITIVE
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE FABRICS INCLUDED AND THE INTERCHANGEABILITY OF
THE LOOMS EMPLOYED IN PRODUCING THEM; AND IN EXCLUDING THE WOOLEN
INDUSTRY HE TOOK ACCOUNT OF ITS COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE
PRODUCTS INCLUDED AND THE DIFFERENT NATURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS, LABOR
FORCES AND WAGE STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TWO TYPES OF PRODUCT. 
HELD CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS AND PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE.  P.
149. 

8.  THE COMPOSITION OF THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE IN THIS CASE SATISFIES
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 5(B) OF THE STATUTE.  P. 150. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR GIVE "DUE REGARD" TO
GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR A MATHEMATICAL
GEOGRAPHICAL APPORTIONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE.  IT CALLS FOR THE EXERCISE
OF DISCRETION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN SELECTING, WITH THE PURPOSES OF
THE ACT IN MIND, A COMMITTEE ON WHICH THE GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTED
INTERESTS OF THE INDUSTRY SHALL BE FAIRLY REPRESENTED. 

9.  AN INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ENGAGED IN INVESTIGATIONS WITH A VIEW TO
RECOMMENDING A MINIMUM WAGE IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE ACT TO CONDUCT A
QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING UPON NOTICE AND HEARING.  P. 151. 

10.  THE DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS DO NOT REQUIRE A HEARING AT THE
INITIAL STAGE, OR AT ANY PARTICULAR POINT, OR AT MORE THAN ONE POINT,
IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING SO LONG AS THE REQUISITE HEARING IS
HELD BEFORE THE FINAL ORDER BECOMES EFFECTIVE.  P. 152. 

THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 8(D)
SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS WITHOUT FURTHER REQUIREMENT,
WHICH THE STATUTE OMITS, OF A HEARING ON NOTICE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. 

11.  THE COMMAND OF SEC. 8(D) THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR, AS A
PREREQUISITE TO A WAGE ORDER, FIND THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE "ARE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW" DOES NOT EXTEND TO A REVIEW
OF THE EVIDENCE AND HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OR AN INVESTIGATION
OF THE MENTAL PROCESSES BY WHICH COMMITTEE MEMBERS REACHED THEIR
CONCLUSION TO RECOMMEND THE MINIMUM WAGE, OR EXTEND BEYOND INQUIRY UPON
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE AND RULES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AS TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE
COMMITTEE, THE DEFINITION OF THE INDUSTRY, AND THE ACTIONS REQUIRED TO
BE TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.  P. 153. 

12.  SUCH BEING THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT
IN THIS CASE SUBSTITUTES WERE APPOINTED FOR TWO OF ITS MEMBERS IN THE
COURSE OF ITS DELIBERATIONS, IT NOT APPEARING THAT THEY DID NOT
CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE TAKEN AND THE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE THEIR
APPOINTMENTS.  P. 153. 

13.  A PARTY WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR, WAS HEARD,
INTRODUCED EVIDENCE, AND WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE MORE, HAS
NO GROUND TO COMPLAIN THAT NOTICE OF THE HEARING, GIVEN 40 DAYS
PREVIOUSLY AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATUTE, WAS INADEQUATE.  P.
153. 

14.  PERSONS INTERESTED IN A WAGE HEARING BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
ARE SUFFICIENTLY INFORMED OF THE MATTER IN ISSUE BY THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE, UPON WHICH THE HEARING IS
BASED.  P. 153. 

15.  THERE WAS NO ERROR OR WANT OF DUE PROCESS IN PERMITTING THE
INDUSTRY COMMITTEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR BY COUNSEL AND TO
OFFER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS RECOMMENDATIONS, OR IN PERMITTING
MEMBERS OF THE STAFF OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION TO GIVE TESTIMONY. 
P. 154. 

16.  THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS MAY BE
BASED IS NOT LIMITED TO SUCH AS WOULD BE COMPETENT IN A COURT OF LAW. 
IT INCLUDES RELEVANT STATISTICAL AND ECONOMIC DATA IN PUBLISHED REPORTS
OF INVESTIGATIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.  P. 154. 

IN A COURT OF LAW IF EVIDENCE OF THIS CHARACTER IS ADMITTED WITHOUT
OBJECTION IT MUST BE ACCORDED "ITS NATURAL PROBATIVE EFFECT AS IF IT
WERE IN LAW ADMISSIBLE." 

OPP COTTON MILLS, INC., ET AL. V. ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR
DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 631, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING AN ORDER
FIXING A UNIFORM MINIMUM WAGE FOR THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY UNDER THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT.  THE PROCEEDING IN THE COURT BELOW WAS BEGUN,
PURSUANT TO SEC. 10 OF THE STATUTE, BY THE PETITION OF OPP COTTON
MILLS, INC., TO HAVE THE ORDER SET ASIDE, AND FOR OTHER RELIEF. 
NUMEROUS OTHER MANUFACTURERS OF COTTON GOODS BECAME PARTIES BY
INTERVENTION. 

THE WAGE ORDER IS VOID BECAUSE:  (1) THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE WAS NOT
CONSTITUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT; (2) THE
DEFINITION OF THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY WAS NOT SEASONABLY MADE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT; (3) THE COMMITTEE DID NOT PROCEED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OF THE ACT;
AND (4) THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMITTEE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR
DID NOT AFFORD A FULL AND FAIR HEARING AS REQUIRED BY DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468; 304 U.S. 1, 23; UNITED
STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183; OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC
UTIL.  COMM'N, 301 U.S. 292. 

THE WAGE ORDER IS VOID BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS THAT THE
PROPOSED MINIMUM WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT, OR GIVE A
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO ANY GROUP, ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  MORRIS V. HARMER, 7 PET. 554; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282
U.S. 194; PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. BELL OIL & GAS CO., 98 F.2D 406; SOUTH ALABAMA CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 104 F.2D 27. 

THE GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A UNIFORM MINIMUM - WITHOUT CLASSIFICATIONS OR DIFFERENTIALS - WERE
CONTRARY TO LAW AND NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

THE ACT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF CONGRESS, BECAUSE IT USURPS POWER
RESERVED TO THE STATES BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  BAILEY V. DREXEL
FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S. 20; COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517; CHAMPLIN
REFINING CO. V. CORPORATION COMM'N, 286 U.S. 210; CARTER V. CARTER COAL
CO., 298 U.S. 238; COLLINS V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 171 U.S. 30; CHASSANIOL V.
GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584; DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT.  518,
629; HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251; HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY, 260
U.S. 245; KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1; OLIVER IRON MINING CO. V. LORD,
262 U.S. 172; PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388; RICKERT RICE
MILLS V. FONTENOT, 297 U.S. 110; SCHECHTER POULTRY CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 495; UNITED STATES V. OHIO OIL CO., 234 U.S. 548;
UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1. 

THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BACON V. ILLINOIS,
227 U.S. 504; BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1; COE V. ERROL, SUPRA;
CRUTCHER V. KENTUCKY, 141 U.S. 47; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., SUPRA;
CORONADO COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295; DARTMOUTH
COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, SUPRA; DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO. V. YARKONIS, 238
U.S. 439; GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1; HAMMER V. DAGENHART, SUPRA;
HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 308; KIDD V. PEARSON, SUPRA; KENTUCKY
WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA; LOTTERY CASE, 188
U.S. 321; MCDERMOTT V. WISCONSIN, 228 U.S. 115; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307
U.S. 38; MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CO., 301 U.S. 1, 37;
OLD DEARBORN CO. V. SEAGRAM DISTILLING CORP., 299 U.S. 183; SCHECHTER
POULTRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES,
223 U.S. 1; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495; SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING
CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 303 U.S. 453; SUNSHINE
ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342; UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL COOPERATIVE,
307 U.S. 533; UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344;
WEBER V. FRIED, 239 U.S. 325. 

THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  MULFORD V. SMITH, SUPRA; PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN,
SUPRA; SCHECHTER POULTRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V.
ROCK ROYAL COOPERATIVE, SUPRA. 

THE ACT DENIES TO THESE LITIGANTS DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN CONTRAVENTION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161; ADKINS
V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V.
CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226; COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1; HOME TELEPHONE
CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S. 278; LAWTON V. STEEL, 152 U.S. 133;
LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555; MOREHEAD V. NEW YORK, 298
U.S. 587; MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 312;
MURRAY V. HOBOKEN CO., 18 HOW.  272; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST.
P. & P.R. CO., 282 U.S. 311; WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S.
379; WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332. 

WHETHER A SUBJECT HAS AN IMPACT UPON MANY STATES OR IS "PURELY
INTERNAL" IS A PRACTICAL QUESTION TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS,
NOT ON PREDILECTIONS FOR LOCAL OR FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.  PETITIONERS
DO NOT DENY THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RELIES TO SHOW THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE SUBJECT REGULATED;
THEIR RELIANCE UPON A THEORETICAL STANDARD OF DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS IS
BESIDE THE POINT. 

THE ACT CONTAINS NO INVALID DELEGATION.  SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO.
V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38; HAMPTON & CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 394. 

THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS
PROPER UNDER THE STATUTE AND THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE COMMITTEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO HOLD A HEARING.  NEVERTHELESS, IT
MADE A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ABOUT 130
REPRESENTATIVE PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS WERE INVITED TO APPEAR; AND
THAT ABOUT 200 PERSONS, REPRESENTING ORGANIZATIONS OF LARGE MEMBERSHIP,
DID APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OR ITS SUBCOMMITTEES. 

INASMUCH AS THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE
PRINTED RECORD, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT IS PROPERLY
SUPPORTED COULD NOT BE REVIEWED BY THIS COURT EVEN IF THE COMMITTEE
WERE REQUIRED TO HOLD A FORMAL HEARING. 

THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT COMPLETELY ANSWERS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
COMMITTEE DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACTORS ENUMERATED IN THE STATUTE. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THREE TYPES OF QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
IN THIS CASE: 

FIRST, WHETHER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060,
IS AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, VIOLATES THE TENTH AMENDMENT AND
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND IS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 4(A) OF THE ACT. 

SECOND, WHETHER AN ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR PRESCRIBING A MINIMUM
WAGE IN AN INDUSTRY IS UNAUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE AND INVALID BECAUSE
THE PROCEDURE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AND AN INDUSTRY COMMITTEE APPOINTED
BY HIM PURSUANT TO SEC. 5 OF THE ACT, WHICH RESULTED IN THE ORDER, IS
UNAUTHORIZED AND VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THIRD, WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IS INVALID BECAUSE HIS
FINDINGS ON WHICH THE ORDER IS BASED ARE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  THE CHALLENGED FINDINGS ARE THAT THE MINIMUM
WAGE ESTABLISHED BY THE ORDER WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL
EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT A CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE INDUSTRY IS
UNNECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING, FOR EACH CLASSIFICATION WITHIN
IT, THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE WHICH WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL
EMPLOYMENT IN SUCH CLASSIFICATION AND WILL NOT GIVE ANY COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE TO ANY GROUP IN THE INDUSTRY. 

PETITIONER, OPP COTTON MILLS, INC., AN ALABAMA CORPORATION SUBJECT TO
THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, ALLEGING THAT IT WAS AGGRIEVED BY AN
ORDER OF RESPONDENT, THE ADMINISTRATOR, BROUGHT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT PURSUANT TO SEC.
10 OF THE ACT, TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER FIXING A UNIFORM 32
1/2 CENTS PER HOUR MINIMUM WAGE FOR THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY, AND FOR OTHER
RELIEF.  SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT PETITIONERS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF
THE ACT AND THE ORDER UPON THE GROUNDS ALREADY MENTIONED.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS SUSTAINED THE ORDER.  111 F.2D 23.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311
U.S. 631, ON A PETITION RAISING THE SAME QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE
VALIDITY OF THE ORDER, WHICH WE DEEM OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 

THE GENERAL SCOPE OF THE ACT AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 15(A)(1)(2)
AND (5) AND SECS. 6 AND 7, PROHIBITING THE MANUFACTURE FOR AND SHIPMENT
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF GOODS PRODUCED FOR THE COMMERCE BY EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYED AT LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM WAGE OR MORE THAN THE
PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM HOURS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE REQUIRED OVERTIME WAGE,
HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN UNITED STATES V. DARBY, ANTE, P. 100.  IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO REPEAT THAT DISCUSSION HERE. 

WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH SEC. 5(A), SEC. 6(A)(4), AND SEC. 8, UNDER
WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD WHICH RESULTED IN THE CHALLENGED ORDER
OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  THESE SECTIONS READ TOGETHER SET UP AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM WAGE IN PARTICULAR
INDUSTRIES GREATER THAN THE STATUTORY MINIMUM PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 6, BUT
NOT IN EXCESS OF 40 CENTS AN HOUR, SUCH INCREASE OVER THE STATUTORY
MINIMUM TO BE FIXED FOR ANY INDUSTRY SUBJECT TO THE ACT BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR IN COLLABORATION WITH AN INDUSTRY COMMITTEE. 

APPOINT AN INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR EACH INDUSTRY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR IN THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR THE COMMERCE; THAT,
SUBSECTION (B), THE COMMITTEE SHALL INCLUDE PERSONS REPRESENTING THE
PUBLIC, ONE OF WHOM SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS CHAIRMAN, A LIKE NUMBER
REPRESENTING EMPLOYEES IN THE INDUSTRY, A LIKE NUMBER REPRESENTING
EMPLOYERS IN THE INDUSTRY, AND DIRECTS THAT "IN THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
PERSONS REPRESENTING EACH GROUP, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL GIVE DUE
REGARD TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS IN WHICH THE INDUSTRY IS CARRIED
ON"; THAT, SUBSECTION (D), THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE
COMMITTEE FROM TIME TO TIME AVAILABLE DATA ON MATTERS REFERRED TO IT,
SHALL CAUSE TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH
MATTERS ANY WITNESSES WHOM HE DEEMS MATERIAL, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE
MAY SUMMON OTHER WITNESSES OR CALL UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR TO FURNISH
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO AID IT IN ITS DELIBERATIONS. 

THE SECTION THE MINIMUM WAGE SHALL BE "NOT LESS THAN THE RATE (NOT IN
EXCESS OF 40 CENTS AN HOUR) PRESCRIBED IN THE APPLICABLE ORDER OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR ISSUED UNDER SECTION 8."  SECTION 8(A) PRESCRIBES THE
PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE IN
ESTABLISHING THE MINIMUM WAGE AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 6(A)(4).  IT PROVIDES
THAT WITH THE VIEW TO CARRYING OUT THE POLICY OF THE ACT "BY REACHING,
AS RAPIDLY AS IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING
EMPLOYMENT, THE OBJECTIVE OF A UNIVERSAL MINIMUM WAGE OF 40 CENTS AN
HOUR IN EACH INDUSTRY" SUBJECT TO THE ACT, THE ADMINISTRATOR "SHALL
FROM TIME TO TIME CONVENE THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR EACH SUCH
INDUSTRY" WHICH "SHALL  ...  RECOMMEND THE MINIMUM RATE OR RATES OF
WAGES TO BE PAID UNDER SECTION 6 BY EMPLOYERS" SUBJECT TO THE ACT "IN
SUCH INDUSTRY OR CLASSIFICATIONS THEREIN." 

UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR'S REFERRING TO THE COMMITTEE THE QUESTION OF
MINIMUM WAGE RATES IN AN INDUSTRY, SEC. 8(B) REQUIRES IT TO
"INVESTIGATE CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY," AUTHORIZES IT OR A
SUBCOMMITTEE TO "HEAR SUCH WITNESSES AND RECEIVE SUCH EVIDENCE AS MAY
BE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO ENABLE THE COMMITTEE TO PERFORM ITS
DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS" UNDER THE ACT AND REQUIRES THE COMMITTEE TO
"RECOMMEND TO THE ADMINISTRATOR THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE RATES FOR THE
INDUSTRY WHICH IT DETERMINES, HAVING DUE REGARD TO ECONOMIC AND
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT IN
THE INDUSTRY."  SUBSECTION (C) REQUIRES THE COMMITTEE FOR ANY INDUSTRY
TO "RECOMMEND SUCH REASONABLE CLASSIFICATIONS WITHIN ANY INDUSTRY AS IT
DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING FOR EACH
CLASSIFICATION WITHIN SUCH INDUSTRY THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE RATE (NOT
IN EXCESS OF 40 CENTS AN HOUR) WHICH (1) WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL
EMPLOYMENT IN SUCH CLASSIFICATION AND (2) WILL NOT GIVE A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE TO ANY GROUP IN THE INDUSTRY, AND SHALL RECOMMEND FOR EACH
CLASSIFICATION IN THE INDUSTRY THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE RATE WHICH THE
COMMITTEE DETERMINES WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT IN SUCH
CLASSIFICATION."  IT FURTHER DIRECTS THAT "NO CLASSIFICATION SHALL BE
MADE, AND NO MINIMUM WAGE RATE SHALL BE FIXED, SOLELY ON A REGIONAL
BASIS, BUT THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL CONSIDER
AMONG OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS THE FOLLOWING:    "(1)  COMPETITIVE
CONDITIONS AS AFFECTED BY TRANSPORTATION, LIVING, AND PRODUCTION
COSTS; 

"(2)  THE WAGES ESTABLISHED FOR WORK OF LIKE OR COMPARABLE CHARACTER
BY COLLECTIVE LABOR AGREEMENTS NEGOTIATED BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING; AND 

"(3)  THE WAGES PAID FOR WORK OF LIKE OR COMPARABLE CHARACTER BY
EMPLOYERS WHO VOLUNTARILY MAINTAIN MINIMUM-WAGE STANDARDS IN THE
INDUSTRY." 

BY SEC. 8(D) AFTER THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FILES ITS REPORT WITH THE
ADMINISTRATOR HE, "AFTER DUE NOTICE TO INTERESTED PERSONS, AND GIVING
THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, SHALL BY ORDER APPROVE AND CARRY INTO
EFFECT THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN SUCH REPORT, IF HE FINDS THAT
THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ARE SUPPORTED BY
THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, AND, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE
SAME FACTORS AS ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE INDUSTRY
COMMITTEE, WILL CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION."  OTHERWISE THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED TO DISAPPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND AGAIN REFER THE MATTER TO THE COMMITTEE OR TO ANOTHER
COMMITTEE FOR THE INDUSTRY WHICH HE MAY APPOINT FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
SUBSECTION (F) PROVIDES AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT THE WAGE ORDERS OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR "SHALL DEFINE THE INDUSTRIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS THEREIN
TO WHICH THEY ARE TO APPLY" AND SUBSECTION (G) PROVIDES THAT "DUE
NOTICE OF ANY HEARING PROVIDED FOR IN THE SECTION SHALL BE GIVEN BY
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER AND BY SUCH OTHER MEANS AS THE
ADMINISTRATOR DEEMS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO GIVE GENERAL NOTICE TO
INTERESTED PERSONS." 

AS APPEARS FROM HIS FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER, THE
ADMINISTRATOR, ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1938, APPOINTED INDUSTRY COMMITTEE NO.
1 FOR THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY, THAT INDUSTRY BEING SO DEFINED BY THE ORDER
OF APPOINTMENT AS TO INCLUDE THE MANUFACTURE OF COTTON, SILK, RAYON AND
OTHER PRODUCTS.  SEVEN PERSONS REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC, SEVEN
REPRESENTING EMPLOYERS IN THE INDUSTRY, AND SEVEN REPRESENTING
EMPLOYEES WERE APPOINTED TO THE COMMITTEE.  UPON REQUEST OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR AT THE COMMITTEE'S FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER, 1938,
SUBCOMMITTEES WERE APPOINTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING PRECISELY
WHERE THE LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE TEXTILE AND SOME RELATED
INDUSTRIES NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION ADOPTED.  BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE CONCLUDED ITS DELIBERATIONS ON THE RECOMMENDED WAGE ORDER THE
ADMINISTRATOR MODIFIED THE DEFINITION IN CERTAIN RESPECTS NOT NOW
MATERIAL. 

AT A MEETING IN DECEMBER, 1938, THE COMMITTEE HEARD WITNESSES AND
RECEIVED BRIEFS AND MEMORANDA FROM NUMEROUS INTERESTED PARTIES. 
STATISTICAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS IN
THE ECONOMIC SECTION OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY
SUBMITTED.  THE COMMITTEE THEN DESIGNATED ANOTHER SUBCOMMITTEE TO
GATHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND HEAR SUCH TESTIMONY AS IT DEEMED
NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE COMMITTEE TO ARRIVE AT A WAGE RECOMMENDATION. 
THIS SUBCOMMITTEE OBTAINED FURTHER ECONOMIC DATA AND HEARD ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES INCLUDING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
COTTON MANUFACTURERS OF WHICH PETITIONER IS A MEMBER. 

ON MARCH 21, 1939, AFTER EXTENDED DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION, THE
COMMITTEE, BY A VOTE OF THIRTEEN TO SIX, ADOPTED A RESOLUTION WHICH
FIXED TENTATIVELY A MINIMUM WAGE OF 32 1/2 CENTS AN HOUR AMOUNTING TO
$13 PER FORTY-HOUR WEEK OR $676 FOR 52 WEEKS, AS THE RATE TO BE
RECOMMENDED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  AT THIS MEETING THE COMMITTEE
REJECTED PROPOSALS TO ESTABLISH CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE INDUSTRY AND
WAGE DIFFERENTIALS AMONG THE CLASSES.  A SUBCOMMITTEE WAS APPOINTED TO
DRAFT A REPORT, AND ON MAY 22ND AND 23RD, AFTER THE ADMINISTRATOR HAD
AGAIN MODIFIED THE DEFINITION OF THE INDUSTRY, THE COMMITTEE AGAIN
APPROVED BY THE SAME VOTE AS BEFORE THE 32 1/2 CENTS MINIMUM WAGE.  THE
REPORT WAS ACCEPTED AND SIGNED, THE MINORITY FILING TWO REPORTS IN
OPPOSITION TO THE RECOMMENDATION.  THE REPORT DETAILED THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE COMMITTEE, ANALYZED THE EVIDENCE AND DATA UPON WHICH THE
COMMITTEE RELIED IN MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION, GAVE SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE WAGE FIXED WOULD CURTAIL
EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDUSTRY GENERALLY AND IN THE SOUTHERN COTTON MILLS
IN PARTICULAR, AND TO THE PROBLEM OF CLASSIFICATION.  IT CONCLUDED THAT
"NO REASONABLY EFFICIENT ENTERPRISE IN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY NEED FEAR
THE RESULT OF THE MODEST WAGE STANDARD RECOMMENDED FOR THE INDUSTRY,"
AND THAT THE DATA BEFORE IT "DID NOT WARRANT ANY REGIONAL" OR OTHER
"CLASSIFICATION." 

ON MAY 27TH THE ADMINISTRATOR GAVE NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
WHICH WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE PRESS AND PUBLISHED IN MANY NEWSPAPERS, OF
A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.  AT THE
HEARING WHICH COMMENCED ON JUNE 19, 1939, AND WAS CONCLUDED ON JULY
11TH, MORE THAN 135 WITNESSES WERE HEARD, OVER 3,300 PAGES OF TESTIMONY
WERE TAKEN AND EIGHT VOLUMES OF EXHIBITS WERE SUBMITTED; ORAL ARGUMENTS
WERE HEARD BY THE ADMINISTRATOR ON JULY 25TH AND WRITTEN BRIEFS WERE
RECEIVED UNTIL AUGUST 22, 1939.  ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1939, THE
ADMINISTRATOR MADE HIS FINDINGS AND ORDER CARRYING INTO EFFECT THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 24, 1939, THE DATE
ON WHICH PURSUANT TO SEC. 6(A)(2) A MINIMUM WAGE OF 30 CENTS PER HOUR
FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE. 

THE INDUSTRY, AS DEFINED BY THE ORDER, INCLUDES BROADLY THE
MANUFACTURE OF YARNS AND FABRICS OF COTTON AND COMPETING MATERIAL SUCH
AS RAYON AND SILK, AND OF THOSE FINISHED PRODUCTS SUCH AS SHEETS,
TOWELS AND NAPKINS WHICH ARE NORMALLY MANUFACTURED IN THE FABRIC
WEAVING MILLS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND THAT THE BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
IN DETERMINING WHICH MANUFACTURING PROCESSES WERE TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN
THE DEFINITION WERE COMPETITIVE INTERRELATIONSHIPS, CONVERTIBILITY OF
LOOMS AND THE OPERATIONS NORMALLY CARRIED ON BY TEXTILE MILLS. 

ALTHOUGH THE ADMINSTRATOR WAS OF OPINION THAT THE QUESTION OF THE
COMPOSITION OF THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE HIM FOR
DETERMINATION, HE REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE MEMBERS
HAD BEEN CHOSEN WITH DUE REGARD TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS IN WHICH
THE INDUSTRY IS CARRIED ON AND THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD CONSIDERED THE
FACTORS SET FORTH IN SEC. 8 OF THE ACT AND HAD REACHED ITS
RECOMMENDATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND THAT THE 32 1/2 CENT MINIMUM WAGE WOULD
INCREASE THE AVERAGE WAGE BILL FOR THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE 4
PER CENT OVER THE 25 CENT MINIMUM IN EFFECT BEFORE OCTOBER 24, 1939,
AND 2.1 PER CENT OVER THE 30 CENT MINIMUM IN EFFECT THEREAFTER AND THAT
THE WAGE INCREASES IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE INDUSTRY WOULD BE
6.25 PER CENT AND 2.15 PER CENT OVER THE 25 AND 30 CENT MINIMUM
RESPECTIVELY.  HE FURTHER FOUND THAT SINCE THE AVERAGE LABOR COSTS DO
NOT CONSTITUTE OVER 36 PER CENT OF PRODUCTION COSTS THE MINIMUM WAGE
INCREASE WOULD INCREASE PRODUCTION COSTS SLIGHTLY OVER ONE-THIRD OF THE
PERCENTAGES OF WAGE INCREASES JUST INDICATED, AND THAT THE INCREASE IN
PRODUCTION COSTS WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUCH A RISE IN PRICES TO ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT AS TO DECREASE CONSUMER DEMAND. 

FROM ALL THIS HE DREW THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WOULD BE NO
SUBSTANTIAL CURTAILMENT OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE OR IN
ITS SOUTHERN BRANCH AS A RESULT OF THE INCREASED WAGE.  IN THE CASE OF
SMALL COTTON MILLS IN THE SOUTH EMPLOYING ONLY 7 PER CENT OF THE
SOUTHERN COTTON TEXTILE WORKERS (5 PER CENT OF ALL IN THE ENTIRE COTTON
INDUSTRY), PAYING THE LOWEST WAGES, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE NEW MINIMUM
RATE AS CONTRASTED WITH THE 30 CENT STATUTORY RATE WOULD RAISE
MANUFACTURING COSTS MORE THAN THE 1.94 PER CENT AVERAGE, AND FOR THESE
MILLS THE INCREASE WOULD RANGE FROM 2.77 PER CENT TO 3.75 PER CENT.
THE ADMINSTRATOR FOUND THAT CURTAILMENT OF EMPLOYMENT EVEN IN THE MILLS
PAYING THE LOWEST WAGES WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON TOTAL COST AND THE
TECHNOLOGICAL AND GENERAL EFFICIENCY OF EACH MILL, AND THAT LOW WAGES
DO NOT NECESSARILY COINCIDE WITH A LOW DEGREE OF EFFICIENCY.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR FOUND GENERALLY THAT THE SMALL SOUTHERN MILLS ARE NOT
NECESSARILY MARGINAL OR THE LEAST PROFITABLE AND THAT, ACCEPTING THE
FIGURES SUBMITTED BY THE GROUP OF SMALL MILLS OPPOSING THE 32 1/2 CENT
MINIMUM, THE INCREASE IN LABOR COSTS FOR SUCH MILLS WOULD BE 13.5% AND
ONLY 4 PER CENT IN TOTAL MANUFACTURING COST OVER THE 25 CENT MINIMUM. 
THE INCREASE OVER THE 30 CENT MINIMUM WOULD BE SLIGHTLY OVER ONE-THIRD
OF THESE PERCENTAGES.  THE ADMINISTRATOR ALSO FOUND THAT A
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM IN THESE MILLS WOULD DISPLACE ONLY A SMALL NUMBER
OF EMPLOYEES.  FROM THESE AND OTHER FACTS DETAILED IN THE FINDINGS, THE
ADMINISTRATOR CONCLUDED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SUBSTANTIAL CURTAILMENT
OF EMPLOYMENT EVEN IN THE GROUP OF SMALL MILLS. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTORS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
CLASSIFICATION SHOULD BE MADE FOR WAGE DIFFERENTIALS WITHIN THE
INDUSTRY.  AFTER EXAMINING NUMEROUS STUDIES OF LIVING COSTS MADE BY THE
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HE CONCLUDED THAT
THE COST OF LIVING IN THE NORTH EXCEEDS THAT IN THE SOUTH BY ABOUT 4.6%
ON THE AVERAGE, AND THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN COSTS BETWEEN CITIES IN
EACH REGION GREATLY EXCEED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO REGIONS AS A
WHOLE.  HE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT LIVING COSTS DO NOT VARY
SUBSTANTIALLY OR UNIFORMLY BETWEEN REGIONS AND DO NOT AFFECT
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY.  HE FOUND THAT NORTHERN MILLS
HAD AN ADVANTAGE WITH RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN SHIPPING TO
THE NEW ENGLAND STATES, BUT SOUTHERN MILLS HAD AN ADVANTAGE IN SHIPPING
TO THE MIDDLE WEST AND SOUTH, HAVING A GREAT POPULATION; THAT MANY
NORTHERN FINISHING MILLS RECEIVE UNFINISHED CLOTH FROM SOUTHERN
FACTORIES AND THUS BEAR THE DISADVANTAGE IN FREIGHT RATES FROM THE
SOUTH TO NORTHERN FINISHING MILLS AND THAT ON AN AVERAGE THE SOUTH HAS
A SLIGHT TRANSPORTATION ADVANTAGE WITH RESPECT TO COTTON COMING TO THE
MILLS THERE.  HE CONCLUDED THAT EVEN WITH THE AVERAGE FREIGHT RATES IN
THE SOUTH SOMEWHAT HIGHER THAN THE NORTH, ON THE WHOLE THE ADVANTAGES
AND DISADVANTAGES IN TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN THE TWO REGIONS WERE
APPROXIMATELY IN BALANCE AND THAT ANY REMAINING DISADVANTAGE WAS SO
SMALL AS NOT TO AFFECT COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS APPRECIABLY. 

AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROPORTION OF OBSOLESCENT MACHINERY IN NORTHERN
AND SOUTHERN MILLS, THEIR TAXES, EFFICIENCY OF WORKERS, POWER AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND PROFITS, THE ADMINISTRATOR FOUND THAT THE
SOUTHERN MILLS WERE AT LEAST IN A POSITION OF EQUALITY WITH NORTHERN
MILLS IN SO FAR AS THESE FACTORS AFFECT PRODUCTION COSTS, AND THAT
AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 32 1/2 CENT MINIMUM THE PREVAILING
MINIMUM WAGES IN THE NORTH WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY HIGHER THAN IN THE
SOUTH.  HE CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER WAGE RATES IN COLLECTIVE LABOR
AGREEMENTS NOR WAGES PAID BY EMPLOYERS MAINTAINING VOLUNTARY MINIMUM
WAGE STANDARDS REQUIRED A CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE INDUSTRY, AND
FINALLY HE CONCLUDED THAT THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS "ARE
MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT
THE HEARING AND, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAME FACTORS AS ARE
REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE, THE PRESCRIBED 32
1/2 CENT WAGE WILL CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 8 OF THE ACT." 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT.  THE OBJECTIONS THAT THE SECTIONS OF
THE ACT IMPOSING A MINIMUM WAGE AND MAXIMUM HOURS ARE NOT WITHIN THE
COMMERCE POWER AND INFRINGE THE TENTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS WERE
DISCUSSED AND DISPOSED OF IN OUR OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. DARBY,
SUPRA.  SINCE PETITIONERS CONCEDE THAT THEY ARE ENGAGED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF COTTON GOODS FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE IT IS UNNECESSARY
TO CONSIDER THESE CONTENTIONS FURTHER HERE. 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS.  PETITIONERS URGE THAT
THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED FOR FIXING THE AUTHORIZED MINIMUM WAGES
BETWEEN 30 AND 40 CENTS PER HOUR ARE TOO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE TO ADMIT
OF ANY JUDICIAL DETERMINATION WHETHER THEY ARE WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE
STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS. 

IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY URGED THAT THE POLICY AND STANDARDS OF THE
STATUTE ARE SUBJECT TO THESE CRITICISMS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PROVISIONS
RELATING TO CLASSIFICATION.  SECTION 8 DEFINES, WITH PRECISION, THE
POLICY OF THE ACT TO RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO THE 40 CENTS PER HOUR
LIMIT "AS RAPIDLY AS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY
CURTAILING EMPLOYMENT" IN EACH INDUSTRY, AND THE STANDARDS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION APPLICABLE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ARE THOSE MADE
APPLICABLE TO THE COMMITTEE WHICH IT IS PROVIDED "SHALL RECOMMEND TO
THE ADMINISTRATOR THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE RATES FOR THE INDUSTRY WHICH
IT DETERMINES, HAVING DUE REGARD TO ECONOMIC AND COMPETITIVE
CONDITIONS, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT IN THE
INDUSTRY."  BUT IT IS SAID THAT APPLICATION OF THESE STANDARDS IN AN
INDUSTRY IS MADE CONTINGENT UPON THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE INDUSTRY
IS TO BE CLASSIFIED AND IF SO, WHETHER IT IS TO BE SUBJECT TO
PARTICULAR WAGE DIFFERENTIALS, AND THAT THESE DETERMINATIONS IN TURN
DEPEND UPON FACTORS SO INADEQUATELY DEFINED AS TO AFFORD NO STANDARD OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATOR ARE REQUIRED, AS PREREQUISITES FOR THE
CLASSIFICATION, TO DETERMINE THAT IT WILL NOT GIVE A COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE TO ANY GROUP IN THE INDUSTRY, AND THAT THE PRESCRIBED WAGE
WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT IN EACH CLASSIFICATION, AND
IN MAKING THESE DETERMINATIONS THE COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATOR MUST
CONSIDER "AMONG OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS," COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS AS
AFFECTED BY TRANSPORTATION, LIVING AND PRODUCTION COSTS, AND THE WAGE
SCALE FOR COMPARABLE WORK ESTABLISHED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LABOR
AGREEMENTS, AND BY EMPLOYERS WHO VOLUNTARILY MAINTAIN MINIMUM WAGE
STANDARDS IN THE INDUSTRY.    IT IS URGED THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT
PRESCRIBE THE RELATIVE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO THE SPECIFIED FACTORS OR
THE OTHER UNNAMED "RELEVANT FACTORS."  IT IS SAID THAT THIS, WITH THE
FURTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT THE PRESCRIBED WAGE IS TO BE FIXED WITH "DUE
REGARD TO ECONOMIC AND COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS"; THAT THE CLASSIFICATION
IF MADE SHALL NOT "GIVE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE TO ANY GROUP IN THE
INDUSTRY," AND THAT THE PRESCRIBED WAGE MUST BE ONE FIXED "WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAILING EMPLOYMENT," LEAVE THE FUNCTION WHICH THE
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATOR ARE TO PERFORM SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE AS
TO BE PRACTICALLY WITHOUT ANY CONGRESSIONAL GUIDE OR CONTROL. 

THE MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS GRANTED
"SHALL BE VESTED" IN CONGRESS HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT TO PRECLUDE
CONGRESS FROM RESORTING TO THE AID OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OR BOARDS
AS FACT-FINDING AGENCIES WHOSE FINDINGS, MADE IN CONFORMITY TO
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS OR DEFINITIONS OF
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY, HAVE BEEN MADE PREREQUISITE TO THE OPERATION OF
ITS STATUTORY COMMAND.  THE ADOPTION OF THE DECLARED POLICY BY CONGRESS
AND ITS DEFINITION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ITS COMMAND IS TO BE
EFFECTIVE, CONSTITUTE THE PERFORMANCE, IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, OF
THE LEGISLATION FUNCTION. 

TRUE, THE APPRAISAL OF FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECLARED POLICY AND
IN CONFORMITY TO PRESCRIBED LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS, AND THE INFERENCES
TO BE DRAWN BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY FROM THE FACTS, SO APPRAISED,
INVOLVE THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS.  BUT
WHERE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE STANDARDS SET UP FOR THE GUIDANCE OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, THE PROCEDURE WHICH IT IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW
AND THE RECORD OF ITS ACTION WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE TO BE
KEPT OR WHICH IS IN FACT PRESERVED, ARE SUCH THAT CONGRESS, THE COURTS
AND THE PUBLIC CAN ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE AGENCY HAS CONFORMED TO THE
STANDARDS WHICH CONGRESS HAS PRESCRIBED, THERE IS NO FAILURE OF
PERFORMANCE OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. 

WHILE FACT FINDING MAY BE AND OFTEN IS A STEP IN THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD FIND
FOR ITSELF EVERY FACT UPON WHICH IT BASES LEGISLATION.  "IT IS A
CONSTITUTION WE ARE EXPOUNDING" "INTENDED TO ENDURE FOR AGES TO COME,
AND, CONSEQUENTLY, TO BE ADAPTED TO THE VARIOUS CRISES OF HUMAN
AFFAIRS."  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 407, 415.  IN AN
INCREASINGLY COMPLEX SOCIETY CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT PERFORM ITS
FUNCTIONS IF IT WERE OBLIGED TO FIND ALL THE FACTS SUBSIDIARY TO THE
BASIC CONCLUSIONS WHICH SUPPORT THE DEFINED LEGISLATIVE POLICY IN
FIXING, FOR EXAMPLE, A TARIFF RATE, A RAILROAD RATE OR THE RATE OF
WAGES TO BE APPLIED IN PARTICULAR INDUSTRIES BY A MINIMUM WAGE LAW. 
THE CONSTITUTION, VIEWED AS A CONTINUOUSLY OPERATIVE CHARTER OF
GOVERNMENT, IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS DEMANDING THE IMPOSSIBLE OR THE
IMPRACTICABLE.  THE ESSENTIALS OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION ARE THE
DETERMINATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND ITS FORMULATION AS A RULE
OF CONDUCT.  THOSE ESSENTIALS ARE PRESERVED WHEN CONGRESS SPECIFIES THE
BASIC CONCLUSIONS OF FACT UPON ASCERTAINMENT OF WHICH, FROM RELEVANT
DATA BY A DESIGNATED ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, IT ORDAINS THAT ITS
STATUTORY COMMAND IS TO BE EFFECTIVE. 

THE PRESENT STATUTE SATISFIES THOSE REQUIREMENTS.  THE BASIC FACTS TO
BE ASCERTAINED ADMINISTRATIVELY ARE WHETHER THE PRESCRIBED WAGE AS
APPLIED TO AN INDUSTRY WILL SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT, AND
WHETHER TO ATTAIN THE LEGISLATIVE END THERE IS NEED FOR WAGE
DIFFERENTIALS APPLICABLE TO CLASSES IN INDUSTRY.  THE FACTORS TO BE
CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT THESE DETERMINATIONS, BOTH THOSE SPECIFIED
AND "OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS," ARE THOSE WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO OR HAVE A
BEARING ON THE STATUTORY OBJECTIVE.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS ACCEPTS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT AS TO THE RELATIVE WEIGHTS TO BE GIVEN TO THESE
FACTORS IN EACH CASE WHEN THAT JUDGMENT IN OTHER RESPECTS IS ARRIVED AT
IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE, INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING THE
IMPOSSIBLE BY PRESCRIBING THEIR RELATIVE WEIGHT IN ADVANCE FOR ALL
CASES, IS NO MORE AN ABANDONMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION THAN WHEN
CONGRESS ACCEPTS AND ACTS LEGISLATIVELY UPON THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS AS
TO SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT REEXAMINING FOR ITSELF THE
DATA UPON WHICH THAT ADVICE IS BASED. 

MEASURED BY THIS REQUIREMENT THE PRESENT STATUTE IS NO LESS AN
EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION THAN WAS THE TARIFF ACT OF 1922
AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO RAISE OR LOWER TARIFF DUTIES SO AS TO
EQUALIZE THE DIFFERENCE WHICH, WITH THE AID OF THE TARIFF COMMISSION,
HE FINDS BETWEEN THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF DUTIABLE ARTICLES IN THIS
AND IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, HIS DETERMINATION, TO BE BASED UPON A VARIETY
OF RELEVANT FACTORS, SOME SPECIFIED AND OTHERS NOT, FOR WHICH THE
STATUTE PRESCRIBED NO RELATIVE WEIGHT.  SEE HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 276 U.S. 394; CF. NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 294; UNITED STATES V. BUSH & CO., 310 U.S. 371.  SEE
TO THE LIKE EFFECT UNDER OTHER STATUTES INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 190 U.S. 273(INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT); MULFORD
V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38, 48, 49(AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938);
SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 399(BITUMINOUS
COAL CONSERVATION ACT OF 1937); CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1(FEDERAL
TOBACCO INSPECTION ACT); UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307
U.S. 533(AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT). 

THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE.  THE PROCEDURE BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE IS ASSAILED UPON THREE PRINCIPAL GROUNDS:  THAT THE
CHANGES IN DEFINITION OF THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY MADE AFTER THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMITTEE RENDERED THE ORDER OF APPORTIONMENT VOID;
THAT THE ORDER DEFINING THE INDUSTRY IS ALSO INVALID BECAUSE THE
ADMINISTRATOR PLACED THE WOOLEN INDUSTRY IN A DIFFERENT INDUSTRY UNDER
A DIFFERENT COMMITTEE, RATHER THAN IN THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY INCLUDING
COTTON, SILK AND RAYON; AND THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT PROPERLY
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE STATUTE BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATOR IN SELECTING IT
DID NOT GIVE "DUE REGARD TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS IN WHICH THE
INDUSTRY IS CARRIED ON."  CERTAIN PROCEDURES BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ARE
ALSO CHALLENGED BECAUSE THEY ARE SAID TO BE UNAUTHORIZED OR CONTRARY TO
THE STATUTE OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS. 

AT THE OUTSET THE DISTINCT SEPARATION OF THE FUNCTIONS TO BE
PERFORMED BY THE COMMITTEE UNDER SEC. 8(A), (B), (C), (D), FROM THAT TO
BE PERFORMED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR AFTER SUBMISSION OF THE COMMITTEE'S
REPORT, IS TO BE NOTED.  THE COMMITTEE IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPOSED OF
EQUAL NUMBERS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC, OF THE EMPLOYERS AND OF
THE EMPLOYEES IN THE INDUSTRY, SELECTED WITH DUE REGARD TO GEOGRAPHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS.  IT ACTS AS AN INVESTIGATING BODY WITH THE DUTY TO
REPORT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.  ITS REPORT IS THE
BASIS OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 8(D) WHICH
ARE JUDICIAL IN CHARACTER, WITH PROVISIONS FOR NOTICE AND FULL
HEARING.  THE ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UPON THE
HEARING IS WHETHER THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE "ARE MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE
HEARING, AND, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAME FACTORS AS ARE
REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE, WILL CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION."  REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER FIXING
A WAGE IS HAD UNDER SEC. 10 BY PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR.  THUS UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 8(D) NO WAGE IS FIXED WHICH IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE
COMMITTEE, AND NOT THEN WITHOUT APPROPRIATE HEARING, FINDINGS AND ORDER
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

AS ALREADY STATED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1938,
SETTING UP THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE, DEFINED THE INDUSTRY SO AS TO
INCLUDE THE MANUFACTURE OF A VARIETY OF COTTON, SILK AND RAYON
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING THOSE MADE BY PETITIONERS, AND THROUGHOUT THE
PROCEEDINGS THEIR PRODUCTS WERE SO INCLUDED.  ON RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE TWO CHANGES IN THE DEFINITION WERE MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE
INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION OF PRODUCTS WHICH WERE NEAR THE BORDERLINE OF
THE DEFINITION BEFORE THE AMENDMENT.  DECEMBER 19, 1938, THE ORDER WAS
AMENDED SO AS TO EXCLUDE KNITTED FABRICS AND TO INCLUDE OTHER PRODUCTS
SUCH AS BLANKETS AND SHEETS.  A SECOND AMENDMENT ORDERED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR ON MAY 22, 1939, JUST BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ADOPTED ITS
REPORT, ADDED TO THE INDUSTRY THE MANUFACTURE OF MIXED PRODUCTS
CONTAINING NOT MORE THAN 45 PERCENT WOOL. 

IN ALL THIS WE CAN FIND NO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE. 
PRACTICABLE, APPOINT AN INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR EACH INDUSTRY" SUBJECT
TO THE ACT.  BUT IT DOES NOT DIRECT A FINAL DEFINITION OF THE INDUSTRY
TO BE MADE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE MEETS AND SUCH A REQUIREMENT PLAINLY
WOULD NOT COMPORT WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  SECTION 8(F) PROVIDES
THAT ORDERS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR "ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION" WHICH ARE
THE FINAL ORDERS FIXING A WAGE "SHALL DEFINE THE INDUSTRIES AND
CLASSIFICATIONS THEREIN TO WHICH THEY ARE TO APPLY."  SO FAR AS THE
DEFINITION IS OPEN TO ATTACK, IT IS UPON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATOR IF IT THERE APPEARS THAT THE DEFINITION DOES NOT CONFORM
TO THE STATUTE, OR THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE WERE BASED
ON A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF THE INDUSTRY FROM THAT FINALLY MADE AND SO
DO NOT SUPPORT AN ORDER FOR THE INDUSTRY AS DEFINED.  FN1  BUT SUBJECT
TO THESE REQUIREMENTS WHICH INSURE THAT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR ARE BASED ON THE SAME
DEFINITION OF THE INDUSTRY, THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE STATUTE
PREVENTING AMENDMENT OF THE DEFINITION WHILE THE MATTER IS PENDING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND NO PURPOSE OR POLICY OF THE ACT WHICH WOULD BE
SERVED BY PRECLUDING SUCH AMENDMENTS SO LONG AS THE REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE IS BASED ON THE AMENDED DEFINITION.  IT IS TO THE ADVANTAGE
OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT THAT THE COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY OF
THE DEFINITION SHOULD BE REEXAMINED AND THE DEFINITION REVISED WITH THE
AID OF THE COMMITTEE AT ANY TIME BEFORE ITS REPORT IS SUBMITTED.  WE
FIND NOTHING IN THE STATUTE TO PREVENT IT. 

THEREOF, OR GROUP OF INDUSTRIES."  IN DEFINING THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY AND
IN FIXING FOR IT A WAGE WHICH WITH DUE REGARD TO "ECONOMIC AND
COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS" WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT IN
THE INDUSTRY IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS.  IN DEFINING THE INDUSTRY THE
ADMINISTRATOR TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE COMPETITIVE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF
THE FABRICS INCLUDED AND THE INTERCHANGEABILITY OF THE LOOMS EMPLOYED
IN PRODUCING THEM; AND IN EXCLUDING THE WOOLEN INDUSTRY HE TOOK ACCOUNT
OF ITS COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE PRODUCTS INCLUDED AND THE
DIFFERENT NATURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS, LABOR FORCES AND WAGE
STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TWO TYPES OF PRODUCT.  ON THE RECORD
BEFORE US, WE CANNOT SAY THAT IN SO DOING HE TRANSGRESSED ANY PROVISION
OF THE STATUTE.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT IN APPLYING THESE TESTS HE
DEPARTED FROM ITS PURPOSE.  THE INCLUSION OF A GIVEN PRODUCT IN ONE
INDUSTRY OR ANOTHER, WHERE BOTH ARE SUBJECT TO THE ACT, PRINCIPALLY
CONCERNS CONVENIENCE IN ADMINISTERING THE ACT.  FOR THE PROVISIONS FOR
CLASSIFICATION WITH APPROPRIATE WAGE DIFFERENTIALS AFFORD AMPLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR FIXING AN APPROPRIATE WAGE WITH RESPECT TO ANY PRODUCT
WHETHER IT IS PLACED IN ONE INDUSTRY OR ANOTHER.  THERE IS NO SERIOUS
CONTENTION AND WE FIND NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT
SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER WITH RESPECT TO EXCLUSION OF WOOL
FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY. 

WE CONCLUDE ALSO THAT THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE SATISFIES THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT.  THE COMMITTEE CONSISTED OF TWENTY-ONE
PERSONS, SEVEN SELECTED FROM EACH OF THE THREE GROUPS REPRESENTED.  OF
THE EMPLOYER REPRESENTATIVES FIVE WERE COTTON GOODS MANUFACTURERS, AND
FOUR OF THESE WERE FROM THE SOUTHERN STATES.  THE RAYON AND SILK
MANUFACTURERS EACH HAD ONE REPRESENTATIVE.  SINCE THESE BRANCHES OF THE
INDUSTRY ARE PREDOMINANTLY NORTHERN THEY WERE SELECTED FROM THE NORTH. 
THREE OF THE SEVEN MEMBERS REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC WERE FROM SOUTHERN
STATES, ONE WAS FROM PENNSYLVANIA AND THREE FROM THE MIDDLE WEST.  TWO
OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF LABOR WERE FROM THE SOUTH, THREE FROM THE
NORTH AND TWO OF THEM FROM WASHINGTON, D.C.  ALL FIVE OF THE NON
SOUTHERN LABOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WERE EXECUTIVE OFFICIALS OF OR
CONNECTED WITH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, NATIONAL IN SCOPE, WHICH
REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES IN THE SOUTH.  THUS NINE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE WERE FROM THE SOUTH, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR COULD HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT FIVE OTHERS FAIRLY REPRESENTED THE SOUTH. 

WHILE ONLY 31 PER CENT OF THE FACTORIES IN THE INDUSTRY ARE IN THE
SOUTH, 51.5 PER CENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT IS PRODUCED IN
SOUTHERN MILLS AND 55 PER CENT OF THE WAGE EARNERS IN THE INDUSTRY ARE
EMPLOYED BY THOSE MILLS.  PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT SINCE THE SOUTH HAD A
MATHEMATICAL PREPONDERANCE IN THE INDUSTRY THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS
REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE TO APPOINT A MAJORITY OF EACH GROUP, OR AT
LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FROM THAT REGION.  BUT
THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR GIVE "DUE REGARD"
TO GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR A MATHEMATICAL
GEOGRAPHICAL APPORTIONMENT OF THE COMMITTEE.  IT CALLS FOR THE EXERCISE
OF DISCRETION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN SELECTING, WITH THE PURPOSES OF
THE ACT IN MIND, A COMMITTEE ON WHICH THE GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTED
INTERESTS OF THE INDUSTRY SHALL BE FAIRLY REPRESENTED.  AS THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT THE LOWEST WAGE SCALE PREVAILED IN THE SOUTHERN MILLS, THE
ADMINISTRATOR COULD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT A SELECTION OF A COMMITTEE, A
MAJORITY OF WHOSE MEMBERS REPRESENTED A LOW WAGE LOCALITY WOULD TEND TO
DEFEAT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  THE ACT WAS ALSO INTENDED TO PROTECT
THE INTERESTS OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES OF MILLS IN OTHER LOCALITIES
WHICH COMPETE WITH THE LOW WAGE SCALE MILLS.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR FAILED TO GIVE "DUE REGARD" TO GEOGRAPHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS OR OTHERWISE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN THE SELECTION OF
THE COMMITTEE.    PETITIONERS MAKE A GREAT VARIETY OF CRITICISMS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, ALL OF WHICH REST ON THE
PRESUPPOSITION THAT EITHER THE STATUTE OR THE DEMAND OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW REQUIRES THE COMMITTEE TO HOLD HEARINGS UPON NOTICE TO INTERESTED
PERSONS AND THAT ITS HEARINGS BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND FINALLY AS A PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO JUDICIAL REVIEW ON PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 10. 

REGULATIONS PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMITTEE." 
SUBMIT DATA TO THE COMMITTEE, SHALL CAUSE WITNESSES WHOM HE DEEMS
MATERIAL TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE IT, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE "MAY SUMMON
OTHER WITNESSES" TO AID IN ITS DELIBERATIONS.  SECTION 8(B) REQUIRES
THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE TO "INVESTIGATE" CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY.  IT
PROVIDES THAT THE COMMITTEE "MAY HEAR SUCH WITNESSES AND RECEIVE SUCH
EVIDENCE AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE" AND REQUIRES THE COMMITTEE
TO "RECOMMEND" TO THE ADMINISTRATOR THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGES "WHICH IT
DETERMINES, HAVING DUE REGARD TO ECONOMIC AND COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS,
WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDUSTRY."  AFTER THE
REPORT IS FILED WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR HE, UPON DUE NOTICE AND HEARING,
IS REQUIRED TO APPROVE OR REJECT THE RECOMMENDATIONS. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE NOW BEFORE US DO NOT
REQUIRE THE COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING UPON
NOTICE AND HEARING.  ITS FUNCTION, AS ALREADY STATED, IS TO INVESTIGATE
UPON THE BASIS OF DATA WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY SUBMIT AND WHICH THE
COMMITTEE MAY PROCURE FOR ITSELF AND TO REPORT ITS RECOMMENDATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE MINIMUM WAGE.  CF. NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 318.  THAT SUCH IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE IS
ABUNDANTLY SUPPORTED BY ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  SEE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE REPORT, H. REPT. NO. 2738, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 31, AND
THE EXPLANATION OF THE BILL BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE, 83
CONG. REC. 9164.  IN HIS STATEMENT HE POINTED OUT THAT THE PROCEDURE IS
MODELED UPON THE NEW YORK MINIMUM WAGE ACT, SEE MOREHEAD V. TIPALDO,
298 U.S. 587, 619, AND HE EMPHASIZED THAT NO MINIMUM WAGE RATE COULD BE
ESTABLISHED WHICH HAD NOT BEEN FIRST "CAREFULLY WORKED OUT" BY A
COMMITTEE DRAWN PRINCIPALLY FROM THE INDUSTRY ITSELF AND THAT IT SHOULD
NOT THEN BE PUT INTO EFFECT "BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WHICH HAS NOT
BEEN FOUND TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY AN INDEPENDENT, RESPONSIBLE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT, EXERCISING AN INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT ON THE EVIDENCE AFTER A LEGAL HEARING." 

THE DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS DO NOT REQUIRE A HEARING, AT THE INITIAL
STAGE OR AT ANY PARTICULAR POINT OR AT MORE THAN ONE POINT IN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING SO LONG AS THE REQUISITE HEARING IS HELD
BEFORE THE FINAL ORDER BECOMES EFFECTIVE.  THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATOR AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 8(D) SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE
PROCESS WITHOUT FURTHER REQUIREMENT, WHICH THE STATUTE OMITS, OF A
HEARING ON NOTICE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.  YORK V. TEXAS, 137 U.S. 15;
AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 156, 168; UNITED STATES V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 291 U.S. 457, 463. 

THE COMMAND OF SEC. 8(D) THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR, AS A PREREQUISITE TO
A WAGE ORDER, FIND THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE "ARE MADE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW" DOES NOT EXTEND TO A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND
HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MENTAL
PROCESSES BY WHICH COMMITTEE MEMBERS REACHED THEIR CONCLUSION TO
RECOMMEND THE MINIMUM WAGE, OR EXTEND BEYOND INQUIRY UPON EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR WHETHER THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATUTE AND RULES
OF THE ADMINISTRATOR AS TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE, THE
DEFINITION OF THE INDUSTRY, AND THE ACTIONS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN BY THE
COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. 

SUCH BEING THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT
SUBSTITUTES WERE APPOINTED FOR TWO MEMBERS IN THE COURSE OF ITS
DELIBERATIONS, IT NOT APPEARING THAT THEY DID NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE
TAKEN AND THE PROCEEDINGS HAD BEFORE THEIR APPOINTMENT TO THE
COMMITTEE. 

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR.  NOTICE OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE
ADMINISTRATOR WAS GIVEN IN CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTE, AND SINCE THE
NOTICE WAS FORTY DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE TIME WHEN PETITIONER'S
REPRESENTATIVE WAS HEARD AND INTRODUCED EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD AND A
FURTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO PRESENT EVIDENCE, THE CONTENTION THAT
THE NOTICE TO PETITIONER WAS INADEQUATE OR FAILED TO MEET
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS IS WITHOUT MERIT.  AND AS THE ISSUE FOR
DETERMINATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS WAS FRAMED BY THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR THERE WAS NO FAILURE TO INFORM
PETITIONER OF THE CONTENTIONS MADE IN BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT.  CF.
MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468; 304 U.S. 1.  NOR CAN WE FIND ANY
ERROR OR WANT OF DUE PROCESS IN PERMITTING THE INDUSTRY COMMITTEE TO
APPEAR BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR BY COUNSEL AND TO OFFER EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF ITS RECOMMENDATIONS OR IN PERMITTING MEMBERS OF THE STAFF OF
THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION TO GIVE TESTIMONY.  SEE DENVER UNION STOCK
YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 470, 477. 

SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS.  BY SEC. 10
REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER BY THE COURTS IS LIMITED TO
QUESTIONS OF LAW "AND FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR WHEN
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  PETITIONERS
ATTACK THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS THAT THE 32 1/2 CENT MINIMUM WILL
NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL EMPLOYMENT AND THAT CLASSIFICATION OF THE
INDUSTRY IS NOT REQUIRED, ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

SINCE THE STATUTE REQUIRED THESE FINDINGS TO BE BASED UPON
CONSIDERATION OF ECONOMIC AND COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY,
AS AFFECTED BY TRANSPORTATION, LIVING AND PRODUCTION COSTS, INCLUDING
WAGES, THE FINDINGS REST, TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE, UPON STUDIES OF
STATISTICAL DATA WITH RESPECT TO THESE FACTORS GATHERED BY GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES AND PUBLISHED BY THEM OFFICIALLY.  THEY INCLUDE PUBLICATIONS
OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, AND THE ECONOMIC SECTION OF THE WAGE AND
HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.  THE MOST IMPORTANT AND THE
PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF ATTACK IS BULLETIN NO. 663 OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR
STATISTICS ENTITLED "WAGES IN COTTON GOODS MANUFACTURING," WHICH IS A
STUDY OF THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS GENERALLY PREVAILING IN THE COTTON
TEXTILE INDUSTRY AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE WAGES OF EMPLOYEES.  THE
STATISTICS GATHERED, IF REGARDED AS OF PROBATIVE FORCE, AND THE
INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THEM BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, TAKEN WITH OTHER
EVIDENCE, AMPLY SUPPORT HIS FINDINGS. 

THE ARGUMENT OF PETITIONERS IS NOT THAT THE RECORD CONTAINS NO
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS BUT RATHER THAT THIS CLASS OF EVIDENCE
MUST BE IGNORED BECAUSE NOT COMPETENT IN A COURT OF LAW.  BUT IT HAS
LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT THE TECHNICAL RULES FOR THE EXCLUSION OF
EVIDENCE APPLICABLE IN JURY TRIALS DO NOT APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH RULES ARE TO BE OBSERVED.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N V. BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25, 44; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 93; SPILLER V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.
RY. CO., 253 U.S. 117; UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN RY. CO., 265
U.S. 274, 288; JOHN BENE & SONS V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 299 F.
468, 471.  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THIS CLASS OF EVIDENCE MUST BE
EXCLUDED FROM PROCEEDINGS IN COURT. 

FURTHER THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION WERE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE WITHOUT
OBJECTION.  AND EVEN IN A COURT OF LAW IF EVIDENCE OF THIS CHARACTER IS
ADMITTED WITHOUT OBJECTION IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AND MUST BE ACCORDED
"ITS NATURAL PROBATIVE EFFECT AS IF IT WERE IN LAW ADMISSIBLE."  DIAZ
V. UNITED STATES, 223 U.S. 442, 450; ROWLAND V. ST. LOUIS & SAN
FRANCISCO R. CO., 244 U.S. 106, 108; CF. UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES &
SALT LAKE R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 312. 

THE RELIABILITY OF THE DATA PUBLISHED IN THE BULLETIN WAS SUPPORTED
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR BY THE TESTIMONY OF SOME OF HIS COMPILERS.  IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE THINK THE BULLETIN AND OTHER DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION
WERE EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR; THAT THE WEIGHT TO
BE GIVEN TO THEM AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM WERE FOR THE
ADMINISTRATOR AND NOT THE COURTS, AND THAT THEY LEND SUBSTANTIAL
SUPPORT TO HIS FINDINGS. 

FURTHER CONTENTIONS THAT THE FINDINGS, AND PARTICULARLY THE FINDING
THAT CLASSIFICATION IN THE INDUSTRY IS UNNECESSARY, AND THE SUBSIDIARY
FINDINGS AS TO DIFFERENCES IN TRANSPORTATION, LIVING, AND PRODUCTION
COSTS, ARE UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ADDRESSED EITHER TO
THE WEIGHT AND DEPENDABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OR
TO THE TESTIMONY OF PARTICULAR WITNESSES OR CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ON
WHICH PETITIONERS RELY.  WE HAVE EXAMINED THESE CONTENTIONS AND,
WITHOUT FURTHER ELABORATION OF THE DETAILS OF THE EVIDENCE, WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  ANY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION WOULD REQUIRE US TO SUBSTITUTE OUR
JUDGMENT OF THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN
FROM IT FOR THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR WHICH THE STATUTE FORBIDS. 

NUMEROUS OTHER CONTENTIONS ARE ADVANCED BY PETITIONERS BUT THEY ARE
SUBSIDIARY TO THOSE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED, OR ARE OF SUCH
SLIGHT MOMENT AS TO CALL FOR NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  HERE THE COMMITTEE RECONSIDERED ITS REPORT, AFTER THE
ADMINISTRATOR HAD REDEFINED THE INDUSTRY ON MAY 22, 1939, AND AGAIN
ADOPTED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN AGREED UPON. 
..END :























PALMER V. WEBSTER & ATLAS BANK, 312 U.S. 156 


NO. 120.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 215, REVERSED. 


1.  TRUSTEES OF A RAILROAD IN REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHO, AFTER REJECTION OF LEASES OF OTHER LINES,
CONTINUE PURSUANT TO SEC. 77(C)(6) TO OPERATE THEM "FOR THE ACCOUNT OF
THE LESSOR," ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, BY SEC. 65
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, OR BY SEC. 77(C)(6), TO ADVANCE FUNDS, WITHOUT
SECURITY, OUT OF THE ESTATE OF THE RAILROAD FOR THE PAYMENT OF
OBLIGATIONS TO CREDITORS OF THE FORMER LESSORS, WHICH PAYMENT IS NOT
ESSENTIAL TO CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE LINES.  P. 162. 

2.  HOW FAR CASH ADVANCES TO THE FORMER LESSORS SHOULD GO; WHETHER
THE SECURITY FOR FURTHER ADVANCES IS ADEQUATE; AND WHETHER ADVANCES ARE
NECESSARY TO CONTINUED OPERATION, ARE ALL QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE DISTRICT COURT EXERCISED
A SOUND DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE TRUSTEES TO WITHHOLD FURTHER CASH
PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF OBLIGATIONS OF THE FORMER LESSORS.  P. 167. 

3.  THE QUESTION WHETHER UNDER A STATUTE OF THE STATE THE RAILROAD IS
DIRECTLY LIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE OBLIGATIONS IN QUESTION, IS NOT
PRESENTED BY THE RECORD AND IS NOT DECIDED.  P. 168. 

PALMER ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. WEBSTER AND ATLAS NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON,
TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OR THE
DISTRICT COURT DIRECTING THE TRUSTEES OF A RAILROAD IN REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT TO WITHHOLD CERTAIN
PAYMENTS OUT OF THE ESTATE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND
HARTFORD RAILROAD UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,  FN1  THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN RESPONSE TO A PETITION OF THE TRUSTEES, ORDERED THEM
TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT OF TAXES ASSESSED UPON THE PROPERTY OF BOSTON
TERMINAL COMPANY AND FRANCHISE TAXES AND BOND INTEREST OWED BY THE SAME
COMPANY.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT
STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES COMPELLED PAYMENT BY THE TRUSTEES.  FN3
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED, AND A CONFLICT OF DECISION,
FN4  MOVED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

IN 1888 BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE RAILROAD CORPORATION LEASED ITS
PROPERTY TO OLD COLONY RAILROAD COMPANY FOR A TERM OF 99 YEARS.  IN
1893 OLD COLONY LEASED ITS PROPERTY, INCLUDING ITS LEASEHOLD INTEREST
IN THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE PROPERTY, TO NEW HAVEN FOR A TERM OF 99
YEARS.  BOSTON WAS THEN SERVED BY FOUR RAILROADS ENTERING THE CITY FROM
THE SOUTH AND WEST:  THE TWO LESSORS, NEW ENGLAND RAILROAD COMPANY, AND
BOSTON AND ALBANY RAILROAD COMPANY. 

IN 1896 MASSACHUSETTS, BY A SPECIAL ACT, INCORPORATED THE BOSTON
TERMINAL COMPANY,  FN5  WITH POWER TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A UNION
PASSENGER STATION IN THE SOUTHERLY PART OF BOSTON, AND TO PROVIDE AND
OPERATE TERMINAL FACILITIES "FOR THE SEVERAL RAILROAD COMPANIES" BY THE
ACT "AUTHORIZED TO HOLD THE STOCK" OF THE COMPANY.  THE ACT SETS THE
CAPITAL STOCK AT $500,000, AND PROVIDES THAT BOSTON AND ALBANY, NEW
ENGLAND, BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE, OLD COLONY, "AND THE NEW YORK, NEW
HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY, BEING LESSEE OF OLD COLONY
RAILROAD COMPANY, MAY EACH SUBSCRIBE FOR AND HOLD" ONE-FIFTH THEREOF. 

THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY'S AFFAIRS IS VESTED IN FIVE TRUSTEES,
ONE TO BE APPOINTED BY EACH OF THE FIVE STOCKHOLDING COMPANIES. 

ALL THE NAMED RAILROADS, INCLUDING THE NEW HAVEN, ARE REQUIRED TO USE
THE TERMINAL FOR ALL THEIR TERMINAL PASSENGER BUSINESS IN BOSTON.  THEY
ARE TO PAY TO THE TERMINAL COMPANY FOR SUCH USE THE AMOUNTS NEEDED TO
COVER THE COMPANY'S EXPENSES, INCLUDING INTEREST UPON ITS BONDS, AND
TAXES.  EACH RAILROAD IS REQUIRED TO PAY IN PROPORTION TO ITS USE, AS
AGREED AMONGST THEM, OR, IN DEFAULT OF AGREEMENT, ACCORDING TO THE
PROPORTION DETERMINED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS (NOW THE DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC UTILITIES). 

THE REAL ESTATE OF THE TERMINAL COMPANY "REQUIRED BY THIS ACT TO BE
USED BY SAID RAILROAD COMPANIES SHALL BE ASSESSED TO AND THE TAXES
THEREON SHALL BE PAID BY SAID RAILROAD COMPANIES, AND IN THE ASSESSMENT
OF FRANCHISE TAXES UPON SAID RAILROAD COMPANIES EACH OF THEM SHALL BE
DEEMED TO BE THE OWNER OF SAID REAL ESTATE IN THE PROPORTION IN WHICH
IT THEN HAS THE USE THEREOF UNDER THIS ACT." 

IN 1905 NEW ENGLAND WAS MERGED INTO NEW HAVEN.  FN6  LATER BOSTON AND
ALBANY LEASED ITS PROPERTY TO THE NEW YORK CENTRAL.  THEREAFTER, IN
1921, THE MASSACHUSETTS ACT OF JUNE 9, 1896, WAS AMENDED FN7  TO GIVE
THE NEW YORK CENTRAL, AS LESSEE, THE RIGHT TO HOLD STOCK OF THE
TERMINAL COMPANY AND, DURING THE TERM OF THE LEASE, TO EXERCISE ALL THE
POWERS BY THE ACT CONFERRED ON BOSTON AND ALBANY.  THE TOTAL USE OF THE
TERMINAL THEREAFTER WAS BY NEW YORK CENTRAL, AS LESSEE OF BOSTON AND
ALBANY, BY NEW HAVEN, AS LESSEE OF OLD COLONY, AND BY NEW HAVEN, AS
OWNER OF THE NEW ENGLAND LINE.  DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
THERE WAS NO USE OF THE TERMINAL BY THE NEW HAVEN TRUSTEES ON BEHALF OF
THE NEW ENGLAND LINE.  FN8 

IN 1931 THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
DETERMINED THAT THE PROPORTION OF USE OF THE UNION STATION AND
FACILITIES WAS SEVENTY PER CENT. BY NEW HAVEN AND THIRTY PER CENT. BY
NEW YORK CENTRAL.  NO REAPPORTIONMENT HAS SINCE BEEN MADE. 

NEW HAVEN FILED ITS PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR CONNECTICUT OCTOBER 23, 1935.  AT THAT TIME THE LINES OF OLD COLONY
AND BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE CAME INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE COURT AS A PART
OF THE NEW HAVEN SYSTEM.  THE COURT DIRECTED CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE
SYSTEM AND APPOINTED TRUSTEES.  OLD COLONY FILED ITS PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION IN THE NEW HAVEN PROCEEDING JUNE 3, 1936, AND THE COURT
APPOINTED THE SAME PERSONS TRUSTEES AS HAD BEEN APPOINTED UPON THE NEW
HAVEN PETITION.  BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE INITIATED A REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS AUGUST 5, 1938, AND
TRUSTEES OF ITS PROPERTY WERE APPOINTED BY THAT COURT.  THE NEW HAVEN
TRUSTEES DISAFFIRMED AND REJECTED THE OLD COLONY LEASE JUNE 2, 1936,
AND THE TRUSTEES OF OLD COLONY REJECTED THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE LEASE
JULY 19, 1938.  UNDER ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR CONNECTICUT,
MADE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77(C)(6), THE NEW HAVEN
TRUSTEES HAVE CONTINUED TO OPERATE BOTH OLD COLONY AND BOSTON AND
PROVIDENCE RAILROADS FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE FORMER LESSORS N9.  THE
TRUSTEES HAVE KEPT THEIR ACCOUNTS COVERING THE OPERATIONS OF THE TWO
LINES ACCORDING TO A SEGREGATION AND ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES AND
REVENUES APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND BY THE
DISTRICT COURT AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN10  IN
THE ACCOUNTING, THE SEVENTY PER CENT. OF THE USE OF THE TERMINAL
FACILITIES FORMERLY CHARGED TO NEW HAVEN AS LESSEE IS CHARGED BY THE
TRUSTEES TO OLD COLONY AND BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE OPERATIONS IN
PROPORTION TO USE. 

THE TRUSTEES' OPERATION OF OLD COLONY AND BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE
PROPERTIES HAS RESULTED IN LOSSES EXCEEDING $20,000,000 IN THE PERIOD
BETWEEN OCTOBER 23, 1935, AND DECEMBER 31, 1939.  THIS EXCESS OF
EXPENDITURES OVER RECEIPTS IS SECURED BY LIENS ON THE PROPERTIES. 
PAYMENT OF THE TAXES AND BOND INTEREST OF BOSTON TERMINAL COMPANY HAS
REQUIRED CASH ADVANCES INCREASING THE ACCUMULATING DEFICIT AT THE RATE
OF APPROXIMATELY $800,000 PER ANNUM.  THE TRUSTEES BELIEVE THAT THE
PROPERTIES OF THE LESSORS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SECURE REPAYMENT OF
FURTHER CASH ADVANCES BY THE NEW HAVEN ESTATE AND THAT TO MAKE THEM
WILL JEOPARDIZE THE CLAIMS OF NEW HAVEN'S OWN SECURED CREDITORS.  IN A
PETITION OF OCTOBER 17, 1939, THEY SET FORTH THE FACTS AND STATED THEIR
VIEW THAT THEY SHOULD NOT MAKE FURTHER ADVANCES FOR PAYMENT OF BOSTON
TERMINAL TAXES AND BOND INTEREST FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE OLD COLONY AND
BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE ESTATES.  NOTICE OF HEARING WAS GIVEN AND A
NUMBER OF INTERESTED PARTIES APPEARED.  THE DISTRICT COURT ANNOUNCED
ITS OPINION AND ENTERED AN ORDER, OCTOBER 30, 1939, DIRECTING THE
TRUSTEES TO WITHHOLD THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION.  OLD COLONY TRUST
COMPANY, THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE MORTGAGE OF THE TERMINAL COMPANY,
APPEALED.  THE APPEAL WAS PROSECUTED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BY
ITS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, WEBSTER AND ATLAS NATIONAL BANK, THE RESPONDENT
IN THIS COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE CONTENTION THAT SEC. 77(C)(6)
IMPOSES AN OBLIGATION ON THE TRUSTEES OF NEW HAVEN IN BEHALF OF
CREDITORS OF THE LESSORS.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE SECTION REQUIRES THE
CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE LESSORS' PROPERTY, IF THE LESSORS ARE UNABLE
TO OPERATE, IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.  IT CALLED ATTENTION TO THE
FACT THAT THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE OPERATION IS TO BE "FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR" AND THAT NO CLAIM WAS MADE THAT FAILURE TO PAY
THE INTEREST OR TAXES IN QUESTION WOULD RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OF
OPERATION OF OLD COLONY AND BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE LINES.  THE COURT
FURTHER HELD, ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE CREATING THE
TERMINAL COMPANY, THAT ANY DIRECT OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF NEW HAVEN
TO PAY INTEREST AND TAXES TERMINATED WITH THE REJECTION OF THE OLD
COLONY LEASE WHICH RELATED BACK TO THE DATE OF THE PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION, SINCE WHICH TIME THE TRUSTEES HAVE NOT OPERATED FOR
THEIR OWN ACCOUNT BUT FOR THAT OF THE FORMER LESSORS.  THE COURT
THOUGHT THAT UPON PLAIN PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY IT OUGHT NOT TO JEOPARDIZE
THE INTERESTS OF NEW HAVEN'S SECURED CREDITORS BY IMPOSING THE PROBABLE
LOSS UPON THE NEW HAVEN ESTATE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECLINED TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION
WHETHER SEC. 77(C)(6), OF ITS OWN FORCE, REQUIRES THE NEW HAVEN
TRUSTEES TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS AS OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE FORMER
LESSORS, THOUGH PAYMENT IS NOT INDISPENSABLE TO THE CONTINUANCE OF
RAILROAD OPERATIONS, AND DECLINED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DIRECT
OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE UPON NEW HAVEN BOUND
THE TRUSTEES OF NEW HAVEN AFTER REJECTION OF THE LEASES.  THE COURT
BASED ITS REVERSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER UPON TWO FEDERAL
STATUTES. 

IT HELD THAT THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934,  FN11  WHICH PROVIDES THAT "ANY
RECEIVER, LIQUIDATOR, REFEREE, TRUSTEE, OR OTHER OFFICERS OR AGENTS
APPOINTED BY ANY UNITED STATES COURT WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY SAID COURT TO
CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS, OR WHO DOES CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS, SHALL, FROM AND
AFTER JUNE 18, 1934, BE SUBJECT TO ALL STATE AND LOCAL TAXES APPLICABLE
TO SUCH BUSINESS THE SAME AS IF SUCH BUSINESS WERE CONDUCTED BY AN
INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION  ...  ," LAYS UPON THE TRUSTEES THE
OBLIGATION TO PAY THE TAXES IN QUESTION.  WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE TRUSTEES, WHO ARE OFFICERS OR AGENTS
APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF NEW HAVEN, ARE ALSO,
WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF THE STATUTE, AGENTS WHO ARE CONDUCTING THE
BUSINESS OF OLD COLONY.  STATED OTHERWISE, THE INQUIRY IS WHETHER, IN
ADOPTING THE STATUTE, CONGRESS HAD IN VIEW AN ENFORCED OPERATION OF A
LESSOR'S PROPERTY BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE LESSEE UNDER SEC. 77(C)(6) TO
PREVENT STOPPAGE OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION.  WE THINK CONGRESS HAD NO
SUCH INTENT. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT DISCLOSES ITS PURPOSE.  THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS ACCOMPANYING THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF 1934
STATE: FN12  "THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO SUBJECT BUSINESSES
CONDUCTED UNDER RECEIVERSHIP IN FEDERAL COURTS TO STATE AND LOCAL
TAXATION THE SAME AS IF SUCH BUSINESSES WERE BEING CONDUCTED BY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATIONS."  THE REPORTS ADVERT TO THE FACT THAT
FEDERAL COURTS HAD HELD A FEDERAL RECEIVER OPERATING A BUSINESS EXEMPT
FROM STATE SALES TAXES.  THEY CONCLUDE:  "NO GOOD REASON IS PERCEIVED
WHY A RECEIVER SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO OPERATE UNDER SUCH AN ADVANTAGE
AS AGAINST HIS COMPETITORS NOT IN RECEIVERSHIP, AND THE STATES AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BE DEPRIVED OF THIS REVENUE." 

WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED WAS THAT A BUSINESS IN RECEIVERSHIP, OR
CONDUCTED UNDER COURT ORDER, SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME TAX
LIABILITY AS THE OWNER WOULD HAVE BEEN IF IN POSSESSION AND OPERATING
THE ENTERPRISE.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS PURPOSE, THE ACT DOES NOT IMPOSE
UPON THE NEW HAVEN TRUSTEES THE OBLIGATION TO PAY TAXES ARISING OUT OF
THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF OLD COLONY OR BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE. 
THE RIGHT TO REJECT BURDENSOME LEASES.  SECTION 77(C)(6) PROVIDES THAT
IF A LEASE OF A LINE OF RAILROADS IS SO REJECTED IT SHALL BE THE DUTY
OF THE LESSOR TO OPERATE THE LINE UNLESS IT BE FOUND IMPRACTICABLE FOR
THE LESSOR SO TO DO, "IN WHICH EVENT IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE LESSEE
TO CONTINUE OPERATION ON OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR."  THE TAXES
IN QUESTION ARE, IN THE WORDS OF THE ACT OF 1934, "APPLICABLE TO" THE
BUSINESS OF OLD COLONY, AND BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE.  THE NEW HAVEN
TRUSTEES HAVING REJECTED THE OLD COLONY LEASE, THEY ARE NO LONGER
APPLICABLE, IN ANY PROPER SENSE, TO THE BUSINESS OF NEW HAVEN. 

BY SEC. 77(C)(2) THE TRUSTEES OF A RAILROAD IN REORGANIZATION ARE
GIVEN POWER TO OPERATE "THE BUSINESS OF THE DEBTOR."  BY SUBSECTION
(C)(4) THE TRUSTEES ARE REQUIRED TO FILE SCHEDULES AND INFORMATION
DISCLOSING "THE CONDUCT OF THE DEBTOR'S AFFAIRS."  THE NEW HAVEN
TRUSTEES' DUTY IS TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF NEW HAVEN.  OLD COLONY
PETITIONED FOR REORGANIZATION AND TRUSTEES WERE APPOINTED IN THAT
PROCEEDING AS "TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF OLD COLONY RAILROAD
COMPANY," AND WERE GRANTED, PURSUANT TO SEC. 77, POWER TO OPERATE "THE
BUSINESS OF OLD COLONY RAILROAD COMPANY."  THE TRUSTEES OF OLD COLONY,
AS SUCH, ARE THE PERSONS WHO, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, ARE
"AUTHORIZED BY SAID COURT TO CONDUCT" THE "BUSINESS" OF OLD COLONY. 

UPON THE PETITION OF A CREDITOR FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF BOSTON AND
PROVIDENCE, WHICH ALLEGED THAT COMPANY WAS A COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND THAT THE CONNECTICUT DISTRICT COURT HAD ORDERED THE
OPERATION OF ITS LINE TO BE CONTINUED BY THE NEW HAVEN TRUSTEES FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE, AND UPON THE COMPANY'S ADMISSION OF
THE TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION, THE MASSACHUSETTS
DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THE PETITION AND APPOINTED TRUSTEES FOR THE
PROPERTY OF BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE.  THE APPOINTMENT WAS CONFIRMED BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE TRUSTEES ARE IN OFFICE.  AS
IN THE CASE OF OLD COLONY, THESE TRUSTEES ARE THE PERSONS WHO ARE
CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE AND NOT THE NEW HAVEN
TRUSTEES.    IF THE TRUSTEES OF EITHER OF THE LESSOR'S PROPERTIES WERE
ABLE TO OPERATE THE LINES OF RAILROAD AND FROM THE PROCEEDS OF THAT
OPERATION, OR FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE, WERE IN POSSESSION OF AVAILABLE
FUNDS, IT WOULD BE THE DUTY OF THE COURT IN VIEW OF THE ACT OF 1934 TO
REQUIRE THEM TO PAY THE TAXES APPLICABLE TO THE BUSINESS THEY ARE
CONDUCTING UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE COURT.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
THE NEW HAVEN TRUSTEES, WHO ARE NOT CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF OLD
COLONY OR BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE, AS SUCH, BUT WHO, UNDER THE CONSTRAINT
OF SEC. 77(C)(6), ARE MERELY OPERATING THE LINES OF THOSE COMPANIES TO
PREVENT PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE ARE, IN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE ACT OF
1934, CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS OF THE LESSORS IN SUCH SENSE AS TO BE
LIABLE, OUT OF NEW HAVEN ESTATE FUNDS, FOR TAXES OWED BY THOSE
COMPANIES.  IT WOULD REQUIRE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT LANGUAGE TO EVINCE
AN INTENT ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO APPROPRIATE THE MONEYS OF THE NEW
HAVEN ESTATE, WHICH HAS REJECTED THE OLD COLONY LEASE AND RID ITSELF OF
THE LEASEHOLD INTEREST THEREBY CREATED, TO PAY THE TAXES OF ITS
LESSOR.  WE FIND IN THE ACT OF 1934 NO SUCH CLEAR EXPRESSION.  ON THE
CONTRARY WE THINK IT PLAIN CONGRESS DID NOT HAVE IN MIND, IN ADOPTING
THAT STATUTE, ANY SUCH SITUATION AS IS CREATED BY SEC. 77(C)(6). 

THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF OPINION THAT AN OBLIGATION IS IMPOSED
UPON THE NEW HAVEN TRUSTEES TO PAY THE BOND INTEREST OF THE TERMINAL
COMPANY BY SEC. 65 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,  FN13  WHICH PROVIDES: 

"WHENEVER IN ANY CAUSE PENDING IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
THERE SHALL BE A RECEIVER OR MANAGER IN POSSESSION OF ANY PROPERTY,
SUCH RECEIVER OR MANAGER SHALL MANAGE AND OPERATE SUCH PROPERTY
ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VALID LAWS OF THE STATE IN WHICH
SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE SITUATED, IN THE SAME MANNER THAT THE OWNER OR
POSSESSOR THEREOF WOULD BE BOUND TO DO IF IN POSSESSION THEREOF.  ANY
RECEIVER OR MANAGER WHO SHALL WILLFULLY VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS
THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 

THE COURT HELD THE STATUTE APPLICABLE BY REGARDING ITS LETTER, AND,
AS WE THINK, IGNORING ITS OBVIOUS PURPOSE.  IN THE WORDS OF THE
STATUTE, THE TRUSTEES OF THE NEW HAVEN ARE "IN POSSESSION" OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY BELONGING TO OLD COLONY, AND BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE.  THEY ALSO
ARE OPERATING THAT PROPERTY.  HENCE THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT
THE MASSACHUSETTS ACT OF 1896,  - A VALID LAW PLACING UPON NEW HAVEN AN
OBLIGATION TO PAY THE BOND INTEREST OF THE TERMINAL COMPANY, - BINDS
THE TRUSTEES, SO LONG AS THEY OPERATE THE PROPERTIES, TO COMPLY WITH
THE NEW HAVEN'S STATUTORY OBLIGATION. 

THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887 FN14  AND IT HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN INTERPRETED
AND APPLIED BY THE COURTS.  FN15  ITS OBVIOUS PURPOSE WAS TO NEGATIVE
THE IDEA THAT A FEDERAL RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE COULD IGNORE THE RULES OF
LAW OF THE STATE OF OPERATION AFFECTING THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS
COMMITTED TO HIS CHARGE.  IN THIS SENSE IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AND
APPLIED AND, IN THIS SENSE, IT IS CERTAINLY BINDING UPON THE TRUSTEES
OF NEW HAVEN SO LONG AS THEY OPERATE THE PROPERTY OF THE FORMER
LESSORS.  THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT BY THE COURT BELOW GOES MUCH
FARTHER THAN THIS.  IF VALID STATE LAWS REQUIRE A DEBTOR TO PAY HIS
DEBTS THEN, UNDER THE DECISION OF THE COURT, SUCH LAWS BIND THE NEW
HAVEN TRUSTEES TO PAY THE DEBTS OF OLD COLONY, AND BOSTON AND
PROVIDENCE.  IF THIS VIEW WERE CORRECT, THE TRUSTEES WOULD NOT BE
OPERATING THE PROPERTY OF THOSE COMPANIES FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE LATTER
AS SEC. 77(C)(6) PROVIDES.  ON THE CONTRARY, THEY WOULD BE OPERATING
FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE NEW HAVEN ESTATE.  MOREOVER, ON THIS ASSUMPTION,
THE NEW HAVEN ESTATE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO PAY THE FORMER LESSORS'
DEBTS AS THEY ACCRUED.  THE RESULT WOULD BE A PREFERENCE OF THE
CREDITORS OF THE CONFESSEDLY INSOLVENT LESSORS AS AGAINST THE CREDITORS
OF THE NEW HAVEN WHOSE TRUSTEES ARE OPERATING THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE
AND OLD COLONY PROPERTY ONLY UNDER THE CONSTRAINT OF SEC. 77(C)(6).  WE
THINK THAT TO STATE THE PROPOSITION IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SEC. 65 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE HAS NO SUCH PURPOSE OR EFFECT. 

WE ARE OF OPINION, AS WAS THE DISTRICT COURT, THAT NOTHING IN SEC.
77(C)(6) WORKS THE INEQUITABLE RESULT THAT THE INVOLUNTARY OPERATION OF
THE OLD COLONY, AND BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE PROPERTIES BY THE NEW HAVEN
TRUSTEES REQUIRES THEM TO ADVANCE NEW HAVEN'S FUNDS, WITHOUT SECURITY,
FOR THE PAYMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF THE FORMER LESSORS WHICH ARE NOT
ESSENTIAL TO THE CONTINUED OPERATION DEMANDED OF THE TRUSTEES. 

HOW FAR CASH ADVANCES TO THE FORMER LESSORS SHOULD GO; WHETHER THE
SECURITY FOR FURTHER ADVANCES IS ADEQUATE; WHETHER ADVANCES ARE
NECESSARY TO CONTINUED OPERATION; ARE ALL QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE NEW HAVEN REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS.  THESE ARE PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATION TO BE SOLVED BY THE
EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION.  UPON THE UNCONTESTED FACTS, WE THINK
THE DISTRICT COURT EXERCISED SUCH A DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE
WITHHOLDING OF FURTHER CASH PAYMENTS TOWARDS THE TAXES AND INTEREST OF
THE TERMINAL COMPANY, AND THAT ITS ORDER SHOULD STAND. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MASSACHUSETTS ACT OF 1896 CHARTERING THE TERMINAL COMPANY.  THE
RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY CONSTRUED THE ACT AND
HELD THAT IT WILL NOT SUSTAIN ANY CLAIM ON THE PART OF THE TERMINAL
COMPANY, OR THE STATE OR THE CITY OF BOSTON, AGAINST THE NEW HAVEN
ESTATE IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST ON THE TERMINAL COMPANY'S BONDS AND
TAXES ASSESSED ON ITS PROPERTY AND FRANCHISE.  THE TRUSTEES' PETITION
SOUGHT AN ORDER DEALING ONLY WITH THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION OF THE NEW
HAVEN ESTATE AND THE DISTRICT COURT NEED NOT HAVE DECIDED, AND WE THINK
DID NOT DECIDE, ANY QUESTION OTHER THAN THAT PRESENTED.  IN ANY EVENT,
NO QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF ANY SUCH CLAIM IS PRESENTED ON THIS
RECORD AND OUR AFFIRMANCE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER IS NOT TO BE
TAKEN AS THE EXPRESSION OF AN OPINION UPON ANY SUCH QUESTION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  11 U.S.C. SEC. 205. 

FN2  THE ORDER ALSO DIRECTED THE TRUSTEES TO WITHHOLD PAYMENT OF
TAXES APPROXIMATING $613,000 DUE BY OLD COLONY RAILROAD COMPANY, AND
BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE RAILROAD CORPORATION TO MASSACHUSETTS, AND TAXES
APPROXIMATING $76,000 DUE BY THE SAME COMPANIES TO RHODE ISLAND.  THAT
PORTION OF THE ORDER IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

FN3  111 F.2D 215. 

FN4  SEE PHILADELPHIA CO. V. DIPPLE, POST, PP. 168, 169-170. 

FN5  ACT OF JUNE 9, 1896, MASSACHUSETTS ACTS AND RESOLVES, 1896, CH.
516, P. 520. 

FN6  MASSACHUSETTS ACTS AND RESOLVES 1905, CH. 252; RHODE ISLAND ACTS
AND RESOLVES, 1915, P. 452, SEC. 4. 

FN7  ACT OF MAY 7, 1921, MASSACHUSETTS ACTS AND RESOLVES, 1921, CH.
363, P. 391. 

FN8  IT IS ASSERTED BY RESPONDENT THAT SUCH USE HAS BEEN RESUMED,
BUT, IF THIS BE THE FACT, IT IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE IN THE CASE. 
NO PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF NEW ENGLAND USE IS IN QUESTION. 

FN9  SEE PALMER V. PALMER, 104 F.2D 161; PALMER V. WARREN, 108 F.2D
164, AFFIRMED WARREN V. PALMER, 310 U.S. 132. 

FN10  PURSUANT TO SEC. 77(C)(6), 77(C)(10); SEE PALMER V. PALMER,
SUPRA, NOTE 9. 

FN11  C. 585, 48 STAT. 993; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 124(A). 

FN12  H.R. 1138, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.; S. REPT. 1372, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS. 

FN13  28 U.S.C. SEC. 124. 

FN14 C. 373, 24 STAT. 552, 554. 

FN15  SEE E.G. UNITED STATES V. HARRIS, 177 U.S. 305; ERB V. MORASCH,
177 U.S. 584; GILLIS V. CALIFORNIA, 293 U.S. 62; HORNSBY V. EDDY, 56 F.
461; PEIRCE V. VAN DUSEN, 78 F. 693. 
..END :









PHILADELPHIA CO. V. DIPPLE, 312 U.S. 168 


NOS. 242 AND 243.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 9, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3,
1941.  - 111 F.2D 932, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TRUSTEES OF A DEBTOR STREET RAILWAY COMPANY IN A
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B (NOW CHAPTER X) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934 TO PAY,
OUT OF THE ESTATE OF THE DEBTOR, TAXES OWED BY CORPORATIONS WHOSE
PROPERTIES THE DEBTOR OPERATED - TOGETHER WITH ITS OWN IN A UNIFIED
SYSTEM - UNDER LEASES AND OPERATING AGREEMENTS, AND WHICH THE TRUSTEES
CONTINUED TO OPERATE.  P. 175. 

2.  PENDING AFFIRMATION OR REJECTION OF THE LEASES AND OPERATING
AGREEMENTS BY THE TRUSTEES, THEIR OBLIGATION WAS TO PAY ONLY A
REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR USE AND OCCUPATION, NOT IN EXCESS OF THE NET
EARNINGS DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF EACH PROPERTY.  P. 174. 

PHILADELPHIA COMPANY ET AL. V. DIPPLE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 628, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER
DIRECTING THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN TAXES BY THE TRUSTEES IN A
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  AN
APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS TAKEN BY THE TORT
CREDITORS' COMMITTEE AND THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, RESPONDENTS HERE. 
PETITIONERS HERE ARE THE PHILADELPHIA COMPANY (PRINCIPAL CREDITOR AND
OWNER OF ALL THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE DEBTOR PITTSBURGH RAILWAYS
COMPANY) AND CERTAIN UNDERLIERS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS A PROBLEM SIMILAR TO THAT INVOLVED IN PALMER V.
WEBSTER & ATLAS NATIONAL BANK, ANTE, P. 156.  HERE THE DEBTOR
INSTITUTED A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT (NOW CHAPTER X OF THAT ACT)  FN1  AND THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS
WHETHER THE TRUSTEES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PAY TAXES OWED BY
CORPORATIONS WHOSE PROPERTIES THE DEBTOR OPERATED UNDER LEASES AND
OPERATING AGREEMENTS AND THE TRUSTEES CONTINUED TO OPERATE.  ALTHOUGH
THE COURTS BELOW DID NOT REFER TO THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934,  FN2  THE
PETITIONERS' INSISTENCE THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IS IN THE TEETH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND CONFLICTS WITH
THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN
THE PALMER CASE CAUSED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE DEBTOR, PITTSBURGH RAILWAYS COMPANY, HAS, FOR MANY YEARS,
POSSESSED AND USED THE PROPERTIES OF SOME FIFTY-FIVE STREET RAILWAY
COMPANIES AND HAS OPERATED THOSE PROPERTIES, IN CONNECTION WITH ITS
OWN, AS A UNIFIED STREET RAILWAY SYSTEM IN PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA,
AND SURROUNDING TERRITORY.  THE DEBTOR OBTAINED POSSESSION OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES THROUGH LEASES AND OPERATING
AGREEMENTS WHICH REQUIRED THE DEBTOR TO PAY ALL EXPENSES OF OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE AND ALL THE TAXES OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES.  THE
SYSTEM COMPRISES SOME 560 MILES OF TRACK, INCLINE PLANE RAILWAYS, CARS,
CAR BARNS, AND BUILDINGS.  THE DEBTOR OWNS 28 MILES OF THE TRACK AND
OWNS CARS AND OTHER PROPERTY.  PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE LEASES AND
AGREEMENTS, THE DEBTOR HAS DIRECTLY PAID THE EXPENSES OF OPERATING,
MAINTENANCE CHARGES, AND ALL TAXES OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES.  AFTER
THE FILING OF THE DEBTOR'S PETITION UNDER SEC. 77B, ITS APPROVAL, AND
AN ORDER CONTINUING THE DEBTOR IN POSSESSION, THE COURT, JUNE 14, 1938,
APPOINTED TRUSTEES WITH AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN, MANAGE, AND OPERATE THE
PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF, OR OWNED BY, THE DEBTOR; TO MANAGE AND
CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS; COLLECT THE REVENUES THEREFROM, AND TO PAY ALL
TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS DUE, OR TO BECOME DUE, UPON PROPERTY IN
POSSESSION OF, OR OWNED BY, THE DEBTOR.  THE TRUSTEES HAVE SINCE BEEN
OPERATING THE BUSINESS, USING THEREIN THE PROPERTIES OF THE UNDERLYING
COMPANIES.  THEY HAVE NOT AFFIRMED OR DISAFFIRMED THE LEASES AND
OPERATING AGREEMENTS. 

MARCH 10, 1939, THE TRUSTEES PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING THE PAYMENT, AS ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES, OF
TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST THE DEBTOR, A SUBSIDIARY, AND THE UNDERLYING
COMPANIES.  FN3  THE PETITION WAS REFERRED TO A MASTER BEFORE WHOM
OBJECTIONS WERE FILED BY THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, A CREDITOR, AND ALSO
BY A CREDITORS' COMMITTEE, TO THE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST
THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES.  THESE CONSISTED OF PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATE
STOCK TAXES, PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATE NET INCOME TAXES, PENNSYLVANIA
CORPORATE LOAN TAXES, AND FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, SOME OF WHICH ACCRUED
AND BECAME PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION AND SOME OF WHICH ACCRUED PRIOR THERETO.  THE PRESENT
PETITIONERS APPEARED BEFORE THE MASTER AND ADVOCATED AN ORDER FOR
PAYMENT OF THE TAXES. 

IT APPEARED FROM THE TRUSTEES' PETITION THAT THEY HAD ON HAND AN
AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL THE TAXES AS TO WHICH THEY REQUESTED
INSTRUCTION AND THAT NONE OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES HAD FUNDS WITH
WHICH TO PAY ANY OF THE TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST THEM.  THE TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE MASTER SHOWED THAT DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIFIED
SYSTEM NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE REVENUES AND OPERATING
EXPENSES OF INDIVIDUAL UNDERLYING COMPANIES; THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO
ACCOUNT FOR THE REVENUES AND EXPENSES OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES WOULD BE
VERY EXPENSIVE AND THE RESULTS WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE TO
FORM A BASIS FOR ALLOCATING THE ITEMS; THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO
OPERATE EACH UNDERLYING COMPANY SEPARATELY SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE NET
EARNINGS OF EACH, AND THAT IT WAS PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHAT
WOULD BE THE FAIR PROPORTION OF RENTALS TO BE PAID TO THE VARIOUS
UNDERLYING COMPANIES WHOSE PROPERTIES WERE UTILIZED BY THE DEBTOR AND
ARE NOW UTILIZED BY THE TRUSTEES.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT IT WAS
IMPRACTICABLE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING FOR THE TRUSTEES TO STATE WHAT
PROPERTIES OF UNDERLYING COMPANIES WOULD BE EMBRACED IN THE
CONTEMPLATED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION. 

IN HIS REPORT, THE MASTER RECOMMENDED THAT THE TRUSTEES BE DIRECTED
NOT TO PAY TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES AT THE
PRESENT TIME.  THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS SUPPORTED BY A FINDING THAT IT
WAS UNCERTAIN THAT ANY OF THE LEASES WOULD BE AFFIRMED BY THE TRUSTEES
AND THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE NET EARNINGS OF EACH
UNDERLYING COMPANY EQUALLED ITS TAXES, PAYMENT OF TAXES MIGHT RESULT IN
PREFERMENT OR OVERPAYMENT.  FURTHERMORE, THE MASTER FOUND THAT CLAIMS
OF THE DEBTOR AGAINST CERTAIN OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES MIGHT
EXTINGUISH ANY EXISTING EQUITIES IN THE PROPERTIES OF THE LATTER. 

AFTER A HEARING ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE MASTER'S REPORT, AND AFTER
RECEIVING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE TRUSTEES AS TO WHAT TAXES OF THE
UNDERLYING COMPANIES SHOULD BE PAID, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN
ORDER THAT THE BULK OF THE TAXES OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES SHOULD BE
PAID BY THE TRUSTEES.  THE DECREE WAS PREDICATED UPON THE FACT THAT THE
SYSTEM HAD BEEN OPERATED AS A UNIT FOR MANY YEARS; THAT ALL INCOME
DERIVED FROM THE LINES OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES HAD BEEN KEPT IN ONE
FUND, AND THAT IT WAS EQUITABLE THAT THE TAXES OF THE UNDERLYING
COMPANIES BE TREATED AS TAXES OF THE DEBTOR. 

UPON AN APPEAL BY THE CREDITORS' COMMITTEE AND BY THE CITY OF
PITTSBURGH, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT SO FAR AS IT APPLIED TO THE TAXES OF THE UNDERLYING
COMPANIES.  FN4  THAT COURT HELD THAT THE DEBTOR'S UNDERTAKING TO PAY
THE TAXES OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES WAS MERELY A PORTION OF THE
CONSIDERATION FOR THE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY AND WAS, THEREFORE, A
RENTAL OBLIGATION AND NOT A TAX LIABILITY.  THE ARGUMENT WAS PRESSED
UPON THE COURT THAT THE SEPARATE CORPORATE ENTITIES OF THE UNDERLYING
COMPANIES SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.  IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE
UNDERLYING COMPANIES HAD FILED PETITIONS FOR REORGANIZATION, AND THUS
SUBJECTED THEMSELVES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT, UNTIL AFFIRMATION OF THE LEASES AND
OPERATING AGREEMENTS BY THE TRUSTEES, THEIR SOLE OBLIGATION WAS TO PAY
A REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR USE AND OCCUPATION WHICH COULD NOT BE IN EXCESS
OF THE NET EARNINGS DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF EACH PROPERTY AND
COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED UNTIL IT WAS DETERMINED WHAT PROPERTY WAS
BEING USED, THE EXTENT OF THE USE, AND THE NET EARNINGS DERIVED FROM IT
OR ITS VALUE. 

THE PETITIONERS CHALLENGE THE DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS
CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934,  FN5  WHICH DIRECTS
THAT A TRUSTEE APPOINTED BY A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS
AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS, OR DOES SO, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ALL
STATE AND LOCAL TAXES APPLICABLE TO THE BUSINESS; AND ON THE FURTHER
GROUND THAT IT IS VIOLATIVE OF ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF EQUITABLE
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES IN RECEIVERSHIP OR REORGANIZATION. 

THE SITUATION HERE DIFFERS FROM THAT DISCLOSED IN THE PALMER CASE IN
THAT SEC. 77B CONTAINS NO PROVISION REQUIRING THE DEBTOR TO CONTINUE TO
OPERATE THE BUSINESS OF A LESSOR UPON REJECTION OF THE LEASE.  IT
FURTHER DIFFERS IN THAT, HERE, THE TRUSTEES HAVE NEITHER AFFIRMED NOR
DISAFFIRMED THE LEASES AND OPERATING AGREEMENTS.  ANOTHER DIFFERENCE IS
THAT, IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, NONE OF THE LESSORS OR UNDERLYING
COMPANIES IS IN REORGANIZATION. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT SEC. 77B GIVES NO SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO
TRUSTEES IN REORGANIZATION TO REJECT BURDENSOME LEASES OR CONTRACTS, IT
IS WELL SETTLED THAT THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT AND ARE ACCORDED A REASONABLE
TIME WITHIN WHICH TO EXERCISE IT.  IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE OFFICERS
OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES, A REASONABLE TIME HAS EXPIRED THOSE
COMPANIES ARE NOT WITHOUT REDRESS.  THEY MAY DECLARE A FORFEITURE OF
THE LEASES AND ABROGATE THE AGREEMENTS FOR NONPERFORMANCE ON THE PART
OF THE TRUSTEES, OR THEY MAY APPLY TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO COMPEL AN
ELECTION BY THE TRUSTEES, TO AFFIRM OR DISAFFIRM.  IN THE MEANTIME, IF
THE SITUATION WERE SUCH AS TO PERMIT A PROPER CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT
DUE FOR USE AND OCCUPATION, IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR THE COURT TO ORDER
THE TRUSTEES TO PAY A REASONABLE SUM TO BE TREATED AS A PAYMENT FOR USE
AND OCCUPATION IN THE EVENT THAT THE LEASES AND AGREEMENTS ARE
DISAFFIRMED OR, ON ACCOUNT OF RENT, IN THE EVENT THEY ARE AFFIRMED. 
BUT THIS RECORD FURNISHES NO BASIS FOR SUCH A CALCULATION.  THE MASTER
HAS FOUND, AND THE FINDING IS NOT CHALLENGED, THAT THERE ARE NO DATA
AVAILABLE FROM WHICH IT CAN BE DETERMINED WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE
VARIOUS UNDERLYING PROPERTIES OR WHAT IS THE FAIR VALUE OF THEIR USE. 
IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEBTOR HAS WELDED THESE UNDERLYING PROPERTIES
INTO ONE SYSTEM IN SUCH FASHION THAT A SINGLE ROUTE OR A SINGLE
PASSENGER RIDE MAY INVOLVE THE USE OF A NUMBER OF THE UNDERLYING
COMPANIES' PROPERTIES.  ASCERTAINMENT OF A PROPER APPORTIONMENT OF THE
RECEIPTS OF THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE TO THE RESPECTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES' PROPERTIES IS OBVIOUSLY ALMOST AN IMPOSSIBLE
TASK.  MOREOVER, SINCE THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES ARE SIMPLE CONTRACT
CREDITORS, AN OVERPAYMENT TO ANY ONE OF THEM MIGHT WORK A PREFERENCE AS
AGAINST OTHER SUCH CREDITORS, INCLUDING THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH AND THE
TORT CLAIMANTS WHO ARE RESPONDENTS HERE. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THE ACT OF 1934
HAS NO APPLICATION.  THE TRUSTEES ARE OPERATING THE BUSINESS OF THE
PITTSBURGH RAILWAYS COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS ORDERED THEM TO PAY THE TAXES DUE BY THAT
CORPORATION AND BY ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY, A BUS COMPANY.  IN THAT
ASPECT THE ORDER IS NOT ATTACKED.  BUT THE TRUSTEES ARE NOT OPERATING
THE BUSINESS OF THE VARIOUS UNDERLYING COMPANIES.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT
THE ONLY BUSINESS THOSE COMPANIES HAVE IS TO COLLECT OR ENFORCE PAYMENT
OF THE RENTALS AND CONSIDERATIONS DUE THEM UNDER THE RESPECTIVE LEASES
AND OPERATING AGREEMENTS.  BUT, EVEN SO, THAT BUSINESS IS NOT THE
BUSINESS OF THE PITTSBURGH RAILWAYS COMPANY AND THE TRUSTEES ARE NOT
TRUSTEES OF ANY SUCH BUSINESS. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE PALMER CASE NEED NOT BE AMPLIFIED IN THIS
CASE.  IT IS PLAIN THAT THE ACT OF 1934 IS INAPPLICABLE. 

THE PETITIONERS RECOGNIZE THAT THE AUTHORITIES CITED BY THEM IN WHICH
COURTS HAVING CHARGE OF RECEIVERSHIPS OR OF REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 77B HAVE ORDERED THE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY A RECEIVER OR BY
TRUSTEES DEALT ONLY WITH THE TAXES OF THE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY
THE RECEIVER, OR FOR WHOSE BUSINESS THE TRUSTEES WERE APPOINTED.  THEY
CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT THE SAME PRINCIPLE OUGHT TO APPLY HERE BECAUSE
THE SYSTEM OPERATED BY THE PITTSBURGH RAILWAYS COMPANY IS A UNIFIED
SYSTEM.  THEY URGE THAT THE BUSINESS IS A SINGLE BUSINESS.  THEY SHOW
THAT FOR THIRTY-SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION THE
IDENTITY OF THE LINES OF THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES HAS BEEN OBLITERATED
BY THE CREATION OF A UNIFIED SYSTEM OF RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION AND THEY
SAY THAT THE WHOLE BUSINESS SHOULD BE TREATED AS THAT OF THE PITTSBURGH
RAILWAYS COMPANY NOW CONDUCTED BY ITS TRUSTEES IN REORGANIZATION.  BUT,
AS WE HAVE SAID, THE UNDERLYING COMPANIES' RELATION TO THE PITTSBURGH
RAILWAYS COMPANY IS THAT OF CREDITOR AND DEBTOR AND NO PRINCIPLE OF
EQUITY JUSTIFIES IGNORING THAT RELATION WHEN, SO TO DO, MIGHT ADVERSELY
AFFECT THE CLAIMS OF OTHER CREDITORS. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE HOLD THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WAS RIGHT AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 77B WAS ADOPTED JUNE 7, 1934, 48 STAT. 912, AND WAS AMENDED
AUG. 29, 1935, 49 STAT. 965, AND AUG. 12, 1937, 50 STAT. 622.  BY THE
TERMS OF THE CHANDLER ACT ADOPTED JUNE 22, 1938, 52 STAT. 840, 883, THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77B WERE SUPERSEDED BY CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT AND THAT CHAPTER WAS MADE APPLICABLE, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, IN
CASES PENDING WHEN THE ACT TOOK EFFECT.  THE PETITION IN THIS CASE WAS
FILED MAY 10, 1938, AND THE CHANDLER ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE SEPT. 22 OF
THAT YEAR. 

FN2  48 STAT. 993, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 124(A). 

FN3  THE TERMS OF THE ORDER ULTIMATELY ENTERED WITH RESPECT TO TAXES
OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS SUBSIDIARY ARE NOT HERE DRAWN IN QUESTION.    FN4
111 F.2D 932. 

FN5  SUPRA, NOTE 2. 
..END :









SUPERIOR BATH CO. V. MCCARROLL, 312 U.S. 176 


NO. 180.  SUBMITTED DECEMBER 18, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  -
200 ARK. 233 - 139 S.W.2D 378, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION WHICH LEASES FROM THE UNITED STATES AND
OPERATES FOR PROFIT A BATH HOUSE ON THE FEDERAL RESERVATION AT HOT
SPRINGS IS TAXABLE BY ARKANSAS ON ITS NET INCOME, UNDER AUTHORITY OF
THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF 1891, WHICH GIVES THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO "THE TAXATION, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE
OF ARKANSAS APPLICABLE TO THE EQUAL TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IN
THAT STATE, AS PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ALL STRUCTURES AND OTHER PROPERTY
IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ON THE HOT SPRINGS RESERVATION."  P. 178. 

2.  THE ACT OF 1891 MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED AS CONSENTING ONLY TO AD
VALOREM TAXES IMPOSED DIRECTLY ON TANGIBLE PROPERTY.  P. 179. 

SUPERIOR BATH HOUSE CO. V. MCCARROLL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES OF
ARKANSAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF A STATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY A 1929 ACT, ARKANSAS IMPOSED A TAX OF 2% ON THE NET INCOME OF
DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS "WITH RESPECT TO CARRYING ON OR DOING BUSINESS"
IN THE STATE.  FN1  APPELLANT, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER ARKANSAS
LAW, LEASES FROM THE UNITED STATES AND OPERATES FOR PROFIT A BATH HOUSE
ON THE FEDERAL RESERVATION AT HOT SPRINGS.  WHETHER APPELLANT IS
SUBJECT TO THE STATE TAX DEPENDS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE
OF A PROVISION OF A CONGRESSIONAL ACT OF 1891 AND THE CORRESPONDING
PROVISION OF AN ARKANSAS ACT OF 1903.  THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT READS:
"THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS HEREBY GIVEN FOR THE TAXATION,
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPLICABLE TO
THE EQUAL TAXATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY IN THAT STATE, AS PERSONAL
PROPERTY OF ALL STRUCTURES AND OTHER PROPERTY IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ON
THE HOT SPRINGS RESERVATION."  FN2  THE 1903 ARKANSAS ACT CEDED TO THE
UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE BUSINESS AREA OF THE
RESERVATION, RESERVING ONLY THE RIGHT TO TAX ACCORDED BY THE 1891 ACT
AND THE RIGHT TO SERVE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCESS.  FN3  THE SUPREME
COURT OF ARKANSAS HELD APPELLANT LIABLE FOR THE TAX, FN4  AND THE CASE
IS HERE ON APPEAL AS AUTHORIZED BY 28 U.S.C., SEC. 344. 

ARKANSAS DOES NOT CONTEND, NOR DID THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE
HOLD, THAT APPELLANT WAS LIABLE FOR THE STATE INCOME TAX UNDER THE
GENERAL POWER OF THE STATE TO TAX CORPORATIONS CREATED PURSUANT TO
ARKANSAS LAW.  ON THE CONTRARY ARKANSAS ADMITS THAT UNDER THE
RECIPROCAL STATE AND FEDERAL ACTS THE UNITED STATES POSSESSES COMPLETE
SOVEREIGN POWER OVER THE HOT SPRINGS RESERVATION, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT
OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1891 ACT AND
SUBJECT TO ITS RIGHT TO EXECUTE WITHIN THE RESERVATION ITS CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL PROCESS.  THE STATE DOES NOT CLAIM A RIGHT OF ANY KIND TO TAX
ANY CORPORATION OR INDIVIDUAL DOING BUSINESS ON THE RESERVATION UNLESS
THE TAX COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT,
EFFECTUATED BY THE 1891 AND 1903 FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION.  SINCE
THE STATE HAS TAKEN THIS VIEW, AND SINCE IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE TAX
CAN BE SUSTAINED ON THIS BASIS, IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO DETERMINE
WHETHER ANY OTHER BASIS MIGHT CONCEIVABLY EXIST. 

WHILE NOT CONTROLLING HERE, IT HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT CONVICTION OF
THE ARKANSAS COURT THAT THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION CONFERRED BROAD POWERS
OF TAXATION UPON THE STATE.  IN EX PARTE GAINES, 56 ARK. 227; 19 S.W.
602, DECIDED ONE YEAR AFTER THE ORIGINAL 1891 ACT, THE COURT HELD THAT
A LEASEHOLD INTEREST ON THE RESERVATION WAS SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION. 
IN BUCKSTAFF BATH HOUSE CO. V. MCKINLEY, 198 ARK. 91; 127 S.W.2D 802,
FN5  THE COURT UPHELD THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TAX, SAYING
OF THE 1891 ACT:  "THE CONGRESS SEEMINGLY INTENDED (AND THIS
CONSTRUCTION IS STRENGTHENED BY THE GAINES CASE) TO PERMIT THE STATE TO
EXERCISE ITS SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN THE RESERVATION WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONDUCT OF BUSINESS, COMMERCE, AND THE PROFESSIONS, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
INTEREST RETAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE
RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL LAWS  ...  " 

APPELLANT, HOWEVER, READS THE ACT MORE NARROWLY THAN DOES THE
ARKANSAS COURT, AND CONTENDS THAT THE ONLY TAXES ARKANSAS CAN LEVY ARE
AD VALOREM TAXES IMPOSED DIRECTLY ON TANGIBLE PROPERTY.  BUT THE WORDS
TANGIBLE AND AD VALOREM APPEAR NOWHERE IN THE ACT, NOR DO ANY
SYNONYMOUS WORDS THERE APPEAR.  AND IN OUR OPINION TO CONSTRUE THE ACT
AS THOUGH SUCH WORDS HAD BEEN USED WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS.  THE LANGUAGE OF CONGRESS WAS PECULIARLY ADAPTED TO THE
BROADENING OF THE STATE'S TAXING POWER - NOT TO ITS RESTRICTION.  THUS,
THOUGH UNDER ARKANSAS LAW STRUCTURES ATTACHED TO LAND WERE CONSIDERED A
PART OF THE REALTY, TAXABLE OR NON-TAXABLE WITH THE LAND,  FN6
CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT PRIVATELY OWNED STRUCTURES ON THE TAX EXEMPT
LAND OF THE RESERVATION SHOULD BE TAXED "AS PERSONAL PROPERTY."  NOT
ONLY WAS THIS DONE, BUT ALSO ALL "OTHER PROPERTY IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP"
WAS EXPRESSLY MADE SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION.  BY THESE PROVISIONS
CONGRESS MANIFESTED ITS PURPOSE THAT NO TYPE OF PRIVATELY OWNED
PROPERTY SHOULD ESCAPE THE STATE'S TAXING POWER MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS
OWNED OR USED ON THE RESERVATION. 

AND APPELLANT'S INSISTENCE THAT THESE PROVISIONS PERMIT ONLY AD
VALOREM TAXATION LOSES SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE WORD PROPERTY IS BY
NO MEANS LIMITED, IN ALL ITS VARIATIONS, TO ACTUAL TANGIBLE PHYSICAL
THINGS.  FN7  ITS MEANING MUST BE DETERMINED FROM ITS CONTEXT AS
ILLUMINED BY THE SUBJECT TREATED AND THE OBJECTIVES SOUGHT.  IT IS TRUE
THAT ARKANSAS HAD NO CORPORATE INCOME TAX IN 1891, WHEN THE ORIGINAL
PERMISSION TO TAX WAS GRANTED.  BUT TAXATION POLICIES AND SYSTEMS
CHANGE WITH NECESSITIES AND EXPERIENCE, AND NO SUPPORT CAN BE FOUND IN
THE ACT FOR A BELIEF THAT CONGRESS CONSENTED TO STATE TAXATION ONLY IF
ARKANSAS WOULD MAKE ITS 1891 TAX SYSTEM STATIC.  IF WE ACCEPT
APPELLANT'S PREMISE THAT WHAT CONGRESS CONSENTED TO WAS AD VALOREM
TAXATION ONLY, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS CONSENTED TO A TAX UNDER
WHICH ARKANSAS WAS COLLECTING VIRTUALLY ALL OF ITS REVENUES IN 1891. 
SINCE 1900, STATE GOVERNMENTS - ARKANSAS INCLUDED - HAVE TENDED TO
SECURE LESS AND LESS OF THEIR REVENUE FROM AD VALOREM TAXATION, AND
MORE AND MORE FROM TAXES OF OTHER TYPES.  FN8  THE ARKANSAS
LEGISLATURE, IN FACT, IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE 1929 INCOME TAX ACT, GAVE
AS A REASON FOR ITS ADOPTION THAT "AGRICULTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT IS NOW BEING RETARDED BECAUSE OF A POLICY TO SECURE
PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE REVENUE FROM AN ADVALOREM TAX, THUS PENALIZING
AND DISCOURAGING OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY,  ...  "  FN9  THE NARROW
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT URGED BY APPELLANT - A CORPORATION CREATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF ARKANSAS - WOULD THUS RELIEVE IT FROM AN ARKANSAS TAX
ON CORPORATE INCOME ENACTED, AT LEAST IN PART, AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
THOSE STATE AD VALOREM TAXES TO WHICH APPELLANT ADMITS IT IS SUBJECT. 
AND "THE PRIVILEGE OF USE IS ONLY ONE ATTRIBUTE, AMONG MANY, OF THE
BUNDLE OF PRIVILEGES THAT MAKES UP PROPERTY OR OWNERSHIP."  FN10  IT IS
OUR OPINION THAT THE DECISION BELOW MUST BE AFFIRMED.  FN11  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ARK. ACTS (1929) NO. 118. 

FN2  26 STAT. 844.  THE QUOTED LANGUAGE WAS SEC. 5 OF A GENERAL ACT
DEALING WITH THE RESERVATION.  THE SECTION WAS ADDED AS A SENATE
AMENDMENT TO A HOUSE BILL, AND THE ONLY RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
TO IT IS A STATEMENT BY THE HOUSE CONFEREES THAT "SECTION 5 PROVIDES
FOR LOCAL TAXATION OF THE BATH HOUSES, SO FAR AS THE CONSENT OF THE
UNITED STATES IS CONCERNED."  22 CONG. REC. 3513.  ARKANSAS, IN CEDING
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER PART OF THE RESERVATION, EXPRESSLY REFERRED
TO THE TAXING POWERS CONFERRED BY THE 1891 ACT (ARK. ACTS (1903) NO.
30), AND LATER FEDERAL ACTS EXTENDING EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION
OVER LARGER PORTIONS OF THE RESERVATION HAVE PROVIDED THAT SUCH
EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION SHALL "NOT BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO INTERFERE
WITH THE RIGHT TO TAX ALL STRUCTURES AND OTHER PROPERTY.  ..."  (E.G.,
33 STAT. 187.) 

FN3  ARK. ACTS (1903) NO. 30. 

FN4  200 ARK. 233; 139 S.W.2D 378.  IN ADDITION TO URGING THAT
ARKANSAS HAD NO POWER TO LEVY THIS TAX, APPELLANT HAD URGED THAT IT WAS
DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION BY VIRTUE OF A 1931 STATUTE EXEMPTING FROM THE
TAX THOSE DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOING
BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  (ARK. ACTS (1931) NO. 220.)  THIS LATTER
CONTENTION IS WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT, AND WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED. 

FN5  AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 308 U.S. 358. 

FN6  AT THE TIME OF THE 1891 ACT, THE ARKANSAS LAW PROVIDED THAT "THE
TERM 'REAL PROPERTY AND LANDS'  ...  SHALL BE HELD TO MEAN  ...  ALL
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND OTHER FIXTURES OF WHATEVER
KIND.  ...  "  ARK. STATS. (MANSFIELD, 1884) SEC. 5585.  SEE UNION
COMPRESS CO. V. STATE, 64 ARK. 136.  SUCH IS STILL THE ARKANSAS LAW. 
ARK. DIG.  STATS.  (POPE, 1937) SEC. 13358. 

FN7 CF. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. ARENZ, 290 U.S. 66, 68. 

FN8 ARKANSAS, FOR EXAMPLE, RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 77% OF ITS TOTAL
REVENUE FROM GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES IN 1915, WHILE IN 1937 THIS SOURCE
ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY 13%.  FINANCIAL STATISTICS OF STATES, 1915, TABLE 3,
PP. 66-67; ID., 1937, TABLE 5, PP. 36-41. 

FN9  ARK. ACTS (1929) NO. 118.  COMPARE THE PRECEDING FOOTNOTE. 

FN10  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 582. 

FN11  CF. BUCKSTAFF BATH HOUSE CO. V. MCKINLEY, 308 U.S. 358; COLLINS
V. YOSEMITE PARK & CURRY CO., 304 U.S. 518. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING: 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BUT
UPON DIFFERENT GROUNDS FROM THOSE STATED IN ITS OPINION. 

THE STATE COURT HAS HELD THAT SO FAR AS THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS ARE INVOLVED IT HAS POWER TO LAY THE PRESENT TAX.  IT IS NO
CONCERN OF OURS WHAT REASONS ARE ASSIGNED FOR THAT CONCLUSION.  THE
ONLY QUESTION FOR DECISION HERE IS WHETHER THERE IS ANYTHING IN THE
ACTS OF CONGRESS ESTABLISHING THE RESERVATION OR IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF
THE TWO SOVEREIGNTIES, STATE AND NATIONAL, TO PREVENT THE STATE FROM
LAYING A TAX ON THE NET INCOME OF ITS OWN CORPORATION. 

IF THE CONSENT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WERE NEEDFUL IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN THE PRESENT TAX WE SHOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY IN FINDING THAT
CONSENT IN THE WORDS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZING THE STATE TO
TAX "ALL STRUCTURES AND OTHER PROPERTY IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ON THE  ...
RESERVATION."  BUT WE THINK THAT SUCH CONSENT IS UNNECESSARY TO ENABLE
A STATE TO TAX THE INCOME OF ITS OWN CORPORATIONS, DERIVED FROM
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE RESERVATION.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT NO ACT OF
CONGRESS AND NO AGREEMENT BY THE STATE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PROHIBITS THE TAX. 

THE FACT THAT INCOME-PRODUCING PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY LOCATED ON THE
TERRITORY OF ANOTHER SOVEREIGNTY DOES NOT FORECLOSE THE STATE FROM
TAXING ITS OWN RESIDENTS AND CORPORATIONS ON THE INCOME DERIVED FROM
THE PROPERTY.  COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308; LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX
COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276; SEE NEWARK FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. STATE BOARD, 307
U.S. 313.  WE HAVE RECENTLY HELD THAT SUCH A TAX IS NOT A TAX ON THE
INCOME-PRODUCING PROPERTY IN ANY SUCH SENSE AS TO PRECLUDE THE TAX FOR
WANT OF "JURISDICTION" OF THE STATE TO LAY IT.  COHN V. GRAVES, SUPRA,
313, 314; GRAVES V. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, 480.  THERE IS NO OCCASION
NOW TO GIVE RENEWED CURRENCY TO THE NOTION ERRONEOUSLY ATTRIBUTED TO
POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429; CF. COHN V. GRAVES,
SUPRA, 314, 315, THAT A TAX ON INCOME IS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF
A TAX ON THE PROPERTY WHICH PRODUCES IT. 

FOR THAT REASON IF ARKANSAS HAD MADE AN UNRESTRICTED GRANT OF THE
RESERVATION IT COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE RENOUNCED ITS AUTHORITY TO TAX
INCOME OF ITS CORPORATIONS OR CITIZENS DERIVED FROM PROPERTY ON THE
RESERVATION, MORE THAN IF IT WERE LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OR IN ANOTHER STATE.  IT CLEARLY HAS NOT DONE SO BY RESERVING THE RIGHT
TO LAY A PROPERTY TAX WITHIN THE RESERVATION OR BY AGREEING THAT THE
UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER IT FOR ANY OR FOR
EVERY PURPOSE.  THE STATE'S POWER TO LAY THE TAX, BEING INDEPENDENT OF
ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE CEDED TERRITORY, SUBSISTS UNLESS WAIVED OR
PROHIBITED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. 

WHATEVER CONSTITUTIONAL POWER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE TO
PROHIBIT THE STATE TAXATION OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE RESERVATION, REGARDED AS A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY, IT IS PLAIN
THAT IT HAS NOT ASSUMED TO EXERCISE THE POWER.  GRAVES V. O'KEEFE,
SUPRA, 480.  SINCE THE STATE HAS NOT SURRENDERED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO TAX THE INCOME AND SINCE CONGRESS HAS NOT ASSUMED IN THE ACT
ESTABLISHING THE RESERVATION, OR OTHERWISE, TO PROHIBIT THE TAX, THE
POWER OF THE STATE IS UNIMPAIRED, UNLESS RESTRICTED BY ITS OWN
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER WHILE AGREEING WITH THE COURT'S OPINION ALSO
AGREES WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



















HURON CORP. V. LINCOLN CO., 312 U.S. 183 


NO. 212.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 438, REVERSED. 


PENDING APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR IDAHO, A THIRD PARTY SUED THE JUDGMENT
CREDITOR IN A STATE COURT IN NEW YORK AND A WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT WAS
ISSUED ATTACHING THE JUDGMENT DEBT IN THE HANDS OF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR
IN NEW YORK.  AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT BEFORE THE MANDATE ISSUED, THE NEW
YORK COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR AND
EXECUTION WAS HAD AGAINST THE ATTACHED DEBT.  HELD: 

1.  THE VALIDITY OF THE ATTACHMENT WAS GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF NEW
YORK, AND BY THAT LAW THE ATTACHMENT WAS VALID.  P. 188. 

2.  HAVING PAID THE JUDGMENT DEBT UNDER COMPULSION OF THE EXECUTION,
THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL
COURT FOR IDAHO MARKED SATISFIED; AND THE SURETY WAS NOT CHARGEABLE ON
ITS SUPERSEDEAS BOND.  PP. 189, 194. 

HURON HOLDING CORPORATION ET AL. V. LINCOLN MINE OPERATING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF JUDGMENTS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 27 F.SUPP.  720, HOLDING THAT AN EARLIER JUDGMENT OF
THAT COURT HAD BEEN SATISFIED, AND DECLINING TO ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST
THE SURETY ON A SUPERSEDEAS BOND. 

THE NEW YORK COURT HAD POWER TO ENFORCE ITS ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST HURON, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND ON THAT POWER WAS BASED ITS
JURISDICTION TO BIND THE NONRESIDENT JUDGMENT CREDITOR, LINCOLN, TO THE
EXTENT OF LINCOLN'S INTEREST IN THE JUDGMENT DEBT ATTACHED. 

THE STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS WERE REGULAR IN FORM, AND FULLY
AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTES AND DECIDED LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

THE PROCEDURAL REGULARITY OF THE STATE COURT ATTACHMENT, JUDGMENT AND
EXECUTION, WAS FOUND BELOW AS A FACT, AND IS ADMITTED BY RESPONDENT. 

THE LAW OF NEW YORK AUTHORIZED THE ATTACHMENT OF A DEBT EVIDENCED BY
A JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN A FEDERAL COURT IN ANOTHER STATE. 

THE MONEY JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS AN ADJUDICATION OF
HURON'S DEBT TO LINCOLN AND REMAINED BINDING UPON BOTH PARTIES DURING
APPEAL; ALTHOUGH EXECUTION WAS STAYED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE
JUDGMENT WAS NOT VACATED, AND COULD BE SUED UPON IN A FOREIGN COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT'S FAILURE TO JUDGE THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE COURT
ATTACHMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE LAW, AND ITS APPLICATION OF A
GENERAL FEDERAL RULE INSTEAD, IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN
BY THIS COURT IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

THE DISTRICT COURT IN DECIDING THAT ITS JUDGMENT WAS SATISFIED BY
HURON AND THAT NO JUDGMENT SHOULD ISSUE AGAINST THE SURETY COMPANY,
CORRECTLY ADJUDGED THE ISSUES BEFORE IT AND GAVE DUE WEIGHT UNDER ITS
OWN LAW TO THE FACTS PROVED, INCLUDING THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE COURT
PROCEEDINGS AND HURON'S PRIOR PAYMENT OF THE JUDGMENT DEBT PURSUANT
THERETO. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT IN THE ACTION AGAINST LINCOLN
DEPENDED SOLELY UPON ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. 

THE ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK WERE VOID FOR THE REASON THAT
WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND WHEN THE ATTACHMENT WAS LEVIED,
THE JUDGMENT DEBT WAS NOT ATTACHABLE BECAUSE (A) IT WAS NOT ABSOLUTELY
PAYABLE AT THE TIME OR IN THE FUTURE, AND (B) PAYMENT OF THE DEBT WAS
DEPENDENT UPON A CONTINGENCY WHICH HAD NOT THEN HAPPENED. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFF TO PROSECUTE HIS SUIT IN THAT COURT HAVING
ATTACHED, THAT RIGHT CANNOT BE ARRESTED OR TAKEN AWAY BY ANY
PROCEEDINGS IN ANOTHER COURT.  WALLACE V. M'CONNELL, 13 PET. 136;
WABASH R. CO. V. TOURVILLE, 179 U.S. 322; UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD
CORP. V. HIRSH LUMBER CO., 59 APP. D.C. 116; 35 F.2D 1010; MACK V.
WINSLOW, 59 F. 316, 319; HENRY V. GOLD PARK MINING CO., 15 F. 649, 650;
THOMAS V. WOOLRIDGE, 23 FED. CAS. 986, 987, NO. 13,918; FRANKLIN V.
WARD, 9 FED. CAS. 711, NO. 5,055; MCDONALD V. MCDONALD, 56 IDA.  444,
457; 55 P.2D 827; FREEMAN, JUDGMENTS, 7TH ED. SEC. 622. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS FINAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF
APPEAL, BUT IT WAS NOT FINAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT CONSTITUTED THE FINAL
LIQUIDATION OF A TORT CLAIM, THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES STATED IN THE
PLEADING WHICH COMMENCED THE ACTION.  WAPLEE-PLATTER GROCER CO. V.
TEXAS PACIFIC RY. CO., 62 S.W. 265; DIBRELL V. NEELY, 61 MISS.  218;
KREISLE V. CAMPBELL, 32 S.W. 581(TEX.); BURKE V. HANCE, 76 TEX. 76. 

ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, HAS NOT CHANGED THE RULE THAT A
FEDERAL JUDGMENT MAY NOT BE ATTACHED IN A FOREIGN JURISDICTION. 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR APPEALS, FOR COST AND SUPERSEDEAS BONDS (28
U.S.C. 869, 874), FOR EXECUTIONS (28 U.S.C. 727, 729), AND IN THIS
CONNECTION HAS VESTED THE FEDERAL COURTS WITH POWER AND AUTHORITY
NECESSARY FOR THE "TRIAL AND DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE."  (28 U.S.C.
729). 

IN A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE CAREFULLY
PROTECTED FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS FROM INTERFERENCE BY STATE COURTS, OR
COURTS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS.  RIGGS V. JOHNSON COUNTY, 6 WALL.  166,
187; COLLIN COUNTY NAT. BANK V. HUGHES, 152 F. 414; WAYMAN V. SOUTHARD,
10 WHEAT.  1, 22; BARBER ASPHALT PAVING CO. V. MORRIS, 132 F. 945; BRUN
V. MANN, 151 F. 145; CHICOT COUNTY V. SHERWOOD, 148 U.S. 529, 533, 534;
WEST V. AMERICAN TEL. & TEL. CO., 311 U.S. 223; NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM
CORP., 308 U.S. 165, 175. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE EFFECT A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT SHOULD GIVE TO
STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS ATTACHING, WHILE APPEAL IS PENDING, A JUDGMENT
PREVIOUSLY RENDERED BY THE FEDERAL COURT. 

RESPONDENT, LINCOLN MINE OPERATING COMPANY, OBTAINED JUDGMENT AGAINST
PETITIONER, HURON HOLDING CORPORATION, IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
FOR IDAHO.  PENDING APPEAL OF THIS JUDGMENT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, A NEW YORK CREDITOR OF LINCOLN BROUGHT SUIT ON A PROMISSORY
NOTE AGAINST LINCOLN IN A STATE COURT OF NEW YORK.  UPON A SHOWING THAT
LINCOLN WAS AN IDAHO CORPORATION, THE NEW YORK COURT CAUSED A WARRANT
OF ATTACHMENT TO ISSUE AGAINST LINCOLN'S NEW YORK PROPERTY.  FN1 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH NEW YORK LAW,  FN2  SUMMONS UPON LINCOLN WAS SERVED BY
A DEPUTY SHERIFF OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO.  HURON, A NEW YORK CORPORATION,
ANSWERED THE WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT SERVED UPON IT IN NEW YORK AND
ADMITTED THAT IT WAS THE DEFENDANT AGAINST WHICH JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
LINCOLN HAD BEEN ENTERED IN THE IDAHO DISTRICT COURT, AND THAT THE
JUDGMENT WAS STILL UNPAID, SUBJECT TO ITS RIGHT ON AN APPEAL THEN
PENDING.  AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD AFFIRMED THE IDAHO
DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, BUT BEFORE THE MANDATE HAD BEEN SENT DOWN, THE
NEW YORK COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT AGAINST LINCOLN, EXECUTION WAS ISSUED,
AND UNDER THE WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT THE NEW YORK SHERIFF WAS COMMANDED
TO OBTAIN SATISFACTION OUT OF THE JUDGMENT OBLIGATION OF HURON TO
LINCOLN.  UNDER COMPULSION OF THE NEW YORK EXECUTION HURON PAID AND
THEN FILED A MOTION IN THE IDAHO COURT ASKING THAT THE FEDERAL COURT'S
JUDGMENT BE MARKED SATISFIED.  LINCOLN COUNTERED WITH A MOTION AGAINST
NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, THE GUARANTOR ON HURON'S SUPERSEDEAS BOND IN
THE ORIGINAL ACTION, ASKING THAT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SURETY BE ENTERED
IN FAVOR OF LINCOLN.  AFTER A HEARING ON BOTH MOTIONS, THE DISTRICT
COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, HELD THAT THE
JUDGMENT HAD BEEN FULLY SATISFIED, AND DECLINED TO ENTER JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE SURETY.  FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  FN4
BECAUSE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE IMPORTANT TO THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  FN5 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE ATTACHMENT WAS VALID UNDER THE NEW YORK
LAW, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FULL EFFECT BY THE FEDERAL COURT.  IT
IS RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT (1) THE ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE
VOID; AND (2) EVEN IF NOT VOID, THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE
GIVEN EFFECT TO THEM, FOR THE REASON THAT THIS WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO
AN IMPROPER DEPRIVATION OF LINCOLN'S RIGHT TO PROSECUTE ITS SUIT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT TO FULL PAYMENT OF THE JUDGMENT. 

FIRST.  HERE, NEW YORK LAW CLEARLY GOVERNED THE VALIDITY OF THE
ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.  THE IDAHO DISTRICT COURT FOUND, AND IT IS NOT
DENIED, THAT THOSE PROCEEDINGS COMPLIED WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF
NEW YORK'S ATTACHMENT STATUTES.  BUT IT IS CONTENDED THAT AT THE TIME
OF THE LEVY THE NEW YORK COURT, UNDER NEW YORK LAW, WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE IDAHO JUDGMENT WAS THEN PENDING ON APPEAL AND
THEREFORE CONTINGENT.  RESPONDENT POINTS TO CERTAIN NEW YORK CASES
WHICH LAY DOWN THE GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT "AN INDEBTEDNESS IS NOT
ATTACHABLE UNLESS IT IS ABSOLUTELY PAYABLE AT PRESENT, OR IN THE
FUTURE, AND NOT DEPENDABLE UPON ANY CONTINGENCY."  FN6 BUT BOTH THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED THIS
ARGUMENT.  AND INDEED THE NEW YORK COURT ITSELF NECESSARILY PASSED UPON
THIS QUESTION, ADVERSELY TO RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION.  THE GARNISHEE'S
ANSWER IN THE NEW YORK COURT DISCLOSED THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS PENDING ON
APPEAL, AND THE NEW YORK COURT'S FINAL JUDGMENT WAS NOT RENDERED, NOR
EXECUTION ISSUED, UNTIL THE IDAHO JUDGMENT HAD BEEN AFFIRMED.  BY ITS
ACTION THE NEW YORK COURT NECESSARILY DECIDED THAT THE JUDGMENT DEBT
WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF NEW YORK'S ATTACHMENT LAWS.  AND NONE OF THE
NEW YORK AUTHORITIES TO WHICH THE RESPONDENTS DIRECT OUR ATTENTION
MILITATE AGAINST THE SOUNDNESS OF THE NEW YORK COURT'S RULING.  ON THE
CONTRARY, OTHER DECISIONS OF THE NEW YORK COURTS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE JUDGMENT - EVEN THOUGH ON APPEAL - WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE
AND FINAL TO BRING IT WITHIN THE NEW YORK STATUTE.  FN7  TO THE SAME
EFFECT, IN THE FEDERAL COURTS THE GENERAL RULE HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED
THAT WHILE APPEAL WITH PROPER SUPERSEDEAS STAYS EXECUTION OF THE
JUDGMENT, IT DOES NOT - UNTIL AND UNLESS REVERSED - DETRACT FROM ITS
DECISIVENESS AND FINALITY.  FN8 

SECOND.  RESPONDENT'S NEXT CONTENTION IS THAT EVEN THOUGH HURON WAS
COMPELLED TO PAY THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT AS A RESULT OF ATTACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS FULLY AUTHORIZED BY THE NEW YORK STATUTES, THE IDAHO
FEDERAL COURT NOT ONLY CAN BUT SHOULD REQUIRE A SECOND PAYMENT OF THE
SAME AMOUNT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SO HELD.  BUT SINCE HURON,
OWING A JUDGMENT DEBT TO LINCOLN, PAID IT TO A CREDITOR OF LINCOLN
UNDER A VALID NEW YORK JUDGMENT, IT CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO
PAY IT A SECOND TIME, EXCEPT FOR THE MOST COMPELLING REASONS.  "IT
OUGHT TO BE AND IT IS THE OBJECT OF COURTS TO PREVENT THE PAYMENT OF
ANY DEBT TWICE OVER."  FN9 

IT HAS NOT BEEN URGED HERE, NOR WAS IT URGED IN THE COURTS BELOW,
THAT HURON WAS GUILTY OF ANY NEGLIGENCE, MISCONDUCT OR FRAUD IN
CONNECTION WITH THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT.  IT HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED THAT
THERE WAS A FAILURE TO GIVE LINCOLN NOTICE OF THE NEW YORK SUIT AGAINST
IT.  NO FEDERAL STATUTE OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS INVOKED AS
SUPPORTING THE CONTENTION THAT THE IDAHO FEDERAL COURT WAS UNDER A DUTY
TO DISREGARD THE EFFECT OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY HURON UNDER THE
COMPULSION OF THE VALID NEW YORK JUDGMENT.  WHAT IS CONTENDED IS THAT
HISTORICALLY FEDERAL COURTS HAVE CARVED OUT A RULE TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES FROM INTERFERENCE BY STATE COURTS, AND THAT A PLAINTIFF IN A
FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDING HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE HIS SUIT
AND COLLECT HIS JUDGMENT IN THAT COURT - A RIGHT WHICH WOULD SOMEHOW BE
ARRESTED OR TAKEN AWAY BY GIVING EFFECT TO THE NEW YORK ATTACHMENT. 
THIS CONTENTION RESTS PRIMARILY UPON A STATEMENT OF THIS COURT IN
WALLACE V. M'CONNELL, 13 PET. 136, 151.  THAT CASE, A SUIT ON A
PROMISSORY NOTE, WAS BEGUN IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR ALABAMA. 
WHILE IT WAS PENDING, A SUIT FOR COLLECTION OF THE NOTE, BASED ON ITS
ATTACHMENT, WAS INSTITUTED IN AN ALABAMA STATE COURT.  IN THE STATE
COURT ACTION, THOUGH TENTATIVE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED AGAINST THE
FEDERAL COURT DEFENDANT AS GARNISHEE, THE MATTER WAS THEN STAYED FOR
SIX MONTHS BECAUSE NO JUDGMENT HAD YET BEEN RENDERED AGAINST THE STATE
COURT DEFENDANT.  AT THIS POINT, THEREFORE, ACTIONS INVOLVING THE SAME
ISSUES WERE CONCURRENTLY PENDING IN BOTH THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL
COURT WITHOUT FINAL DETERMINATION IN EITHER.  BEFORE FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE STATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CASE CAME ON FOR DECISION
IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  THAT COURT OVERRULED DEFENDANT'S PLEA BASED ON
THE STATE COURT ATTACHMENT.  ON APPEAL, THIS COURT SAID:  "THE PLEA
SHOWS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE ATTACHMENT WERE INSTITUTED AFTER THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THIS SUIT.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND THE RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFF TO PROSECUTE HIS SUIT
IN THAT COURT, HAVING ATTACHED, THAT RIGHT COULD NOT BE ARRESTED OR
TAKEN AWAY BY ANY PROCEEDING IN ANOTHER COURT.  THIS WOULD PRODUCE A
COLLISION IN THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS, THAT WOULD EXTREMELY EMBARRASS
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE  ...  (THE DOCTRINE HERE ANNOUNCED) IS
ESSENTIAL TO THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE GARNISHEE."  THE
CONCRETE QUESTION PRESENTED TO THE COURT THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
NOTHING MORE THAN A SITUATION IN WHICH TWO COURTS WERE CALLED UPON TO
LITIGATE THE SAME ISSUES AT THE SAME TIME.  FN10  SUCH IS NOT TRUE IN
THIS CASE. 

ANOTHER CASE RELIED ON BY RESPONDENT IS WABASH RAILROAD CO. V.
TOURVILLE, 179 U.S. 322.  BUT THAT CASE, INVOLVING ACTIONS IN THE
COURTS OF TWO STATES RATHER THAN IN A STATE AND A FEDERAL COURT, AS
HERE, DOES NOT SUPPORT RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION.  IN THAT CASE THIS
COURT DID NOT HOLD THAT STATE LAWS WITH REFERENCE TO ATTACHMENT AND
GARNISHMENT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN EFFECT.  ON THE CONTRARY IT BASED ITS
DECISION UPON A HOLDING BY THE MISSOURI APPELLATE COURT THAT THE
ILLINOIS GARNISHMENT WAS VOID FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS, AND UPON A RULING BY THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT "THAT THE
JUDGMENT WAS FOREIGN TO ILLINOIS, AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO
GARNISHMENT THERE."  FN11  AFTER BASING ITS JUDGMENT ON THESE GROUNDS,
THE COURT ADDED A LAST STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT "THIS COURT HAS
HELD THAT TO THE VALIDITY OF A PLEA OF ATTACHMENT THE ATTACHMENT MUST
HAVE PRECEDED THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE SUIT IN WHICH THE PLEA IS MADE. 
WALLACE V. M'CONNELL, 13 PET. 136."  WHATEVER MAY BE THE PRESENT DAY
EFFECT OF THE PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED IN WALLACE V. M'CONNELL AND
REASSERTED IN THE TOURVILLE CASE, THAT PRINCIPLE HAS NO APPLICATION
HERE.  BUT IT IS SAID THAT A BROADER PRINCIPLE, STEMMING FROM THOSE
CASES, IS HERE APPLICABLE.  AND IT IS TRUE THAT SOME COURTS, BOTH STATE
AND FEDERAL, HAVE ADOPTED THE BROADER RULE FOR WHICH RESPONDENT
CONTENDS.  FN12  THE LEADING FEDERAL CASE ON THE SUBJECT IS THOMAS V.
WOOLDRIDGE, 23 FED. CAS. 986, NO. 13,918.  THE RULE IN THAT CASE, AS
ANNOUNCED BY JUSTICE BRADLEY ON CIRCUIT, WAS THAT "JUDGMENTS OF STATE
AND FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENTS ISSUED BY EACH
OTHER."  THE REASONS THERE GIVEN TO SUPPORT THIS RULE WERE:  THE DEBT
WAS QUASI IN CUSTODIA LEGIS; ATTACHMENTS OF IT WOULD THEREFORE
INTERFERE WITH THE COURT'S DIGNITY AND PREROGATIVES, EXCITE JEALOUSIES
AND BRING ABOUT CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION; MANY RIGHTS ARE STILL LEFT
FOR ADJUSTMENT AFTER JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE ATTACHMENT OF A COURT'S
JUDGMENT WOULD BE AN INCONVENIENT, DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY FRAUD
RIDDEN INTERFERENCE WITH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  JUSTICE BRADLEY WAS
ALSO OF OPINION THAT RECOGNITION OF THIS RULE WAS PRACTICALLY COMPELLED
BY WALLACE V. M'CONNELL. 

IT IS OUR OPINION THAT NO SUCH BROAD GENERAL RULE EXISTS.  THIS DOES
NOT, HOWEVER, MEAN THAT A COURT WHICH HAS RENDERED A JUDGMENT IS
WITHOUT POWER TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION, WHEN PROPERLY INVOKED, TO
ADJUDICATE NEWLY ASSERTED RIGHTS RELATED TO THE JUDGMENT DEBT.  IT DOES
MEAN THAT LATER OPINIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE UNDERMINED THE BASIC
REASONING UPON WHICH JUSTICE BRADLEY RELIED IN DECLARING THAT JUDGMENTS
IN A FEDERAL COURT WERE NEVER SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT ELSEWHERE.  FOR IT
IS NOW SETTLED THAT ATTACHMENT IS WHOLLY THE CREATURE OF, AND
CONTROLLED BY, THE LAW OF THE STATE; PROPERTY AND PERSONS WITHIN THE
STATE CAN BE SUBJECTED TO THE OPERATION OF THAT LOCAL LAW; POWER OVER
THE PERSON WHO OWES A DEBT CONFERS JURISDICTION ON THE COURTS OF THE
STATE WHERE THE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ISSUES; AND BY REASON OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BE GIVEN THE
VALID ACTIONS OF A STATE, COURTS OF ONE STATE MUST RECOGNIZE VALID
ATTACHMENT JUDGMENTS OF OTHER STATES.  FN13  AND UNDER CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENT FEDERAL COURTS MUST ALSO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  FN14
THESE LATER DECISIONS ARE BUT A RECOGNITION OF THE GREATLY DEVELOPED
STATUTORY USE OF ATTACHMENT BY THE STATES, A DEVELOPMENT BROUGHT ABOUT
BY THE INCREASED MOBILITY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY AND THE EXPANDED AREA
OF BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS.  WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE NECESSITY FOR
THE RULE IN OTHER TIMES, IT DOES NOT FIT ITS PRESENT DAY ENVIRONMENT. 

FURTHER, WE DO NOT HERE, AS IN WALLACE V. M'CONNELL, HAVE A CASE IN
WHICH TWO COURTS ARE PROCEEDING IN THE SAME MATTER AT THE SAME TIME. 
THE NEW YORK COURT HAS PROCEEDED UNDER NEW YORK LAW TO FINAL JUDGMENT. 
IT HAS COMPELLED OBEDIENCE TO ITS JUDGMENT.  THE NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS
DID NOT ARREST OR TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT OF LINCOLN TO TRY OUT ITS ISSUES
WITH HURON IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR IDAHO.  THOSE ISSUES HAD ALREADY
BEEN TRIED AND DETERMINED IN THAT COURT, AND ITS JURISDICTION TO ADJUST
AND ADJUDICATE NEWLY ASSERTED RIGHTS RELATING TO THE JUDGMENT HAD NOT
BEEN INVOKED.  THERE WAS THEREFORE NO POSSIBILITY OF COLLISION BETWEEN
THE TWO COURTS, FOR SIMILAR ISSUES WERE NOT PENDING BEFORE THEM AT THE
SAME TIME.  IN FACT, FAR FROM COLLIDING WITH THE IDAHO COURT, THE NEW
YORK COURT ACCEPTED AS FINAL THAT COURT'S DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES
THAT IT HAD PASSED ON. FOR THE SUIT IN NEW YORK WAS BASED ON THE IDAHO
JUDGMENT, AND NOT ON THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION, AND "A CAUSE OF
ACTION ON A JUDGMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT UPON WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED."  FN15 

BOTH THE IDAHO FEDERAL COURT AND THE NEW YORK STATE COURT DECIDED
MATTERS WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY OF EACH.  TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE NEW YORK ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT, IN ANY
MANNER, INTERFERE WITH THE JURISDICTION OF THE IDAHO COURT.  WHILE THE
IDAHO COURT DID HAVE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN EXECUTION FOR THE COLLECTION
OF AN UNPAID JUDGMENT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE ENFORCED AN EXECUTION FOR THE
BENEFIT OF LINCOLN IF THE JUDGMENT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN PAID DIRECTLY TO
LINCOLN.  NOR SHOULD IT ISSUE AN EXECUTION WHEN THE MONEY WAS PAID TO
LINCOLN'S CREDITORS BY REASON OF VALID ATTACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.  FOR
THIS WOULD BE TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT TO RENDER
INEFFECTIVE THAT PROTECTION WHICH A GARNISHEE SHOULD BE AFFORDED BY
REASON OF HAVING OBEYED A JUDGMENT RENDERED BY A STATE IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OVER PERSONS AND PROPERTY WITHIN ITS
TERRITORY.  FN16  TO TAKE SUCH A STEP WOULD CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF THAT
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WHICH A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD GIVE TO THE ACTS OF
A STATE COURT.  FN17 

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY ORDERED THAT ITS JUDGMENT BE MARKED
SATISFIED, AND CORRECTLY REFUSED TO RENDER JUDGMENT ON THE SUPERSEDEAS
BOND.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND
THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ARE AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTIONS 902 AND 903 OF ART. 54 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE
ACT AUTHORIZE COURTS TO ISSUE WARRANTS OF ATTACHMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS
SHOWN TO BE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN ACTIONS AGAINST THEM BASED ON
"BREACH OF CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,  ...  " 

FN2  SECTION 233, ART. 25, NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT. 

FN3  27 F.SUPP.  720. 

FN4  111 F.2D 438. 

FN5  311 U.S. 625. 

FN6  HERRMANN & GRACE V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 130 APP. DIV. 531; 114
N.Y.S. 1107, 1110, AFFIRMED, 199 N.Y. 600; 93 N.E. 376.  OTHER CASES
CITED BY RESPONDENT WHICH SET OUT THE SAME GENERAL PRINCIPLE ARE:
FREDRICK V. CHICAGO BEARING METAL CO., 221 APP. DIV. 588; 224 N.Y.S.
629, 630; REIFMAN V. WARFIELD CO., 170 MISC. 8; 8 N.Y.S.2D 591, 592;
SHEEHY V. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN CORP., 266 N.Y. 44, 47; 193 N.E. 633. 

FN7  SHIPMAN COAL CO. V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 219 APP. DIV. 312;
219 N.Y.S. 628, AFFIRMED, 245 N.Y. 567; 157 N.E. 859.  IN DETERMINING
WHAT IS THE LAW OF A STATE, WE LOOK TO THE DECISIONS OF LOWER STATE
COURTS AS WELL AS TO THOSE OF THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT, AND FOLLOW THE
SAME LINE OF INQUIRY RECENTLY POINTED OUT IN WEST V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE
& TELEGRAPH CO., 311 U.S. 223.  AND SEE ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64. 

FN8  E.G., RAILWAY CO. V. TWOMBLY, 100 U.S. 78; DEPOSIT BANK V.
FRANKFORT, 191 U.S. 499. 

FN9  HARRIS V. BALK, 198 U.S. 215, 226. 

FN10  CF. PRINCESS LIDA V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 456, 466; INSURANCE
COMPANY V. HARRIS, 97 U.S. 331. 

FN11  IF BY THIS THE COURT MEANT THAT UNDER ILLINOIS LAW SUCH A
JUDGMENT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT, THE CASE IS NOTHING MORE THAN
A HOLDING THAT ONE STATE NEED NOT GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A VOID
ACT OF A SISTER STATE.  BUT BOTH THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT (148 MO.
614, 624; 50 S.W. 300) AND THIS COURT (179 U.S. 322, 327) CITED DRAKE
ON ATTACHMENTS (7TH ED. 1891) SEC. 625 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT BY THE
WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY A JUDGMENT OF ONE COURT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO
ATTACHMENT IN ANOTHER COURT.  THIS CITATION OF THE "WEIGHT OF
AUTHORITY" MIGHT INDICATE THAT THIS COURT WAS DECIDING THE ISSUE AS A
QUESTION OF "GENERAL LAW," UNDER SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1.  IF SO,
THIS ASPECT OF THE DECISION IS NO LONGER OF ANY WEIGHT.  ERIE RAILROAD
CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

FN12  E.G., THOMAS V. WOOLDRIDGE, 23 FED. CAS. 986, NO. 13,918;
UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD MERCHANT FLEET CORP. V. HIRSCH LUMBER CO.,
59 APP. D.C. 116; 35 F.2D 1010; ELSON V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY., 154
IOWA 96; 134 N.W. 547.  CONTRA:  SHIPMAN COAL CO. V. DELAWARE & HUDSON
CO., 219 APP. DIV. 312; 219 N.Y.S. 628; AFFIRMED, 245 N.Y. 567; 157
N.E. 859; FITHIAN V. NEW YORK & ERIE R. CO., 31 PA. 114.  AND COMPARE
MCNISH V. BURCH, 49 S.D. 215; 207 N.W. 85, WITH HARDWICK V. HARRIS, 22
N.M. 394; 163 P. 253. 

FN13  E.G., HARRIS V. BALK, 198 U.S. 215, 222; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
R. CO. V. DEER, 200 U.S. 176, 178; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
HOSTETTER, 240 U.S. 620. 

FN14  1 STAT. 122, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687.  AND SEE NOTE 17,
INFRA. 

FN15  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 275. 

FN16  CF. UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 303 U.S. 276, 281-282. 

FN17  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714, 733; GOLDEY V. MORNING NEWS, 156
U.S. 518, 521; COOPER V. NEWELL, 173 U.S. 555, 567-568; DAVIS V. DAVIS,
305 U.S. 32, 39-40. 
..END :





ARMOUR & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 312 U.S. 195 


NO. 293.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 913, AFFIRMED. 


UPON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF A COMPLAINT FILED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT IN THIS CASE, WHEREIN A PACKER SEEKS TO COMPEL RAILROAD COMPANIES
TO DELIVER SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK AT SUCH A LOCATION AND IN SUCH MANNER
THAT IT NEED NOT PAY A "YARDAGE CHARGE" TO A STOCKYARD COMPANY
(CONTRARY TO A CUSTOM OF LONG STANDING), HELD THAT, AS DETERMINATION OF
MANY COMPLEX TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS WAS PREREQUISITE TO A DECISION,
THE CAUSE WAS WITHIN THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED.  PP. 200,
202. 

ARMOUR & COMPANY V. ALTON RAILROAD CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 627, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A BILL OF COMPLAINT, 27 F.SUPP.  625. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS LITIGATION IS THE LATEST EPISODE OF A LONG STRUGGLE INVOLVING
THE MEAT PACKERS, THE RAILROADS, AND THE UNION STOCK YARD AND TRANSIT
COMPANY OF CHICAGO.  FN1  BASICALLY, ON THE MERITS THE ISSUE HERE
PRESENTED IS WHETHER ARMOUR AND COMPANY, ONE OF THE PACKERS, IS CORRECT
IN ITS CONTENTION THAT UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE RAILROADS MUST
DELIVER ITS SHIPMENTS OF LIVESTOCK AT SUCH A LOCATION AND IN SUCH A
MANNER THAT IT NEED PAY NO "YARDAGE CHARGE" TO THE STOCK YARDS
COMPANY.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI (311 U.S. 627) FROM THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT,  FN2  WHICH AFFIRMED A DISTRICT
COURT ORDER DISMISSING ARMOUR'S COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RAILROADS.  FN3
THE GROUND ON WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED WAS THAT THE ISSUES
INVOLVED PRESENTED ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS, NECESSITATING PRIMARY
RESORT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN4  THE SOLE QUESTION
WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE IS WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS CORRECT
IN THIS CONCLUSION. 

IT IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT ITS COMPLAINT SHOWED A WILFUL
FAILURE AND REFUSAL ON THE PART OF THE RAILROADS TO DELIVER LIVESTOCK
TO PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RAILROADS' CONTRACTUAL AND COMMON
LAW DUTIES; THAT INSTEAD OF DELIVERING TO PETITIONER, THE RAILROADS
DELIVERED TO THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY - CONTRARY TO PETITIONER'S EXPRESS
DIRECTION - WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY WOULD NOT
EFFECT A DELIVERY TO PETITIONER WITHOUT FIRST EXACTING A YARDAGE CHARGE
IN ADDITION TO THE AGREED TRANSPORTATION CHARGES SET OUT IN THE
RAILROADS' REGULAR PUBLISHED TARIFFS; AND THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO
PROCEED IN THE COURTS FOR SUCH A BREACH OF DUTY EXISTS UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF 49 U.S.C., SECS. 9 AND 22.  FN5  BUT RESPONDENTS CONTEND,
AND BOTH COURTS BELOW HELD, THAT THE ISSUES TENDERED BY THE COMPLAINT
ARE NOT SO SIMPLE AS PETITIONER WOULD HAVE THEM SEEM.  THEIR VIEW IS
THAT ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED RELATES TO SUCH COMPLEX
TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS THAT DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS MUST
NECESSARILY BE PRECEDED BY THE CONSIDERATION OF EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE IN A
SPECIALIZED FIELD, AND THAT DECISION OF SUCH QUESTIONS IS BY STATUTE
VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN6  SINCE
THE CAUSE WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT ANSWER OR EVIDENCE, IT IS ON THE BASIS
OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT THAT WE MUST APPLY THE CONTROLLING
LAW. 

THE FACTUAL SITUATION, ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT, IS AS FOLLOWS:
FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR TO 1933 THE RAILROADS HELD THEMSELVES OUT AS READY
TO TRANSPORT GOODS TO "UNION STOCK YARDS, ILLINOIS," AND PETITIONER
SHIPPED TO ITSELF AT THAT STATION MUCH LIVESTOCK FROM VARIOUS POINTS OF
ORIGIN IN THE UNITED STATES.  NONE OF THE RAILROADS OWN OR OPERATE A
DEPOT OR TERMINAL FACILITIES FOR THE UNLOADING AND DELIVERY OF
LIVESTOCK, BUT ALL OF THEM JOINTLY HAVE LONG HAD ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE
"UNION STOCK YARD AND TRANSIT COMPANY," A PUBLIC STOCK YARD, FOR THE
USE OF ITS TERMINAL FACILITIES.  THIS PUBLIC STOCK YARD IS A COMMON
CARRIER, SUBJECT IN SOME RESPECTS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND IN OTHERS TO THAT OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE.  ITS UNLOADING CHARGES, FIXED ACCORDING TO A TARIFF
PUBLISHED AND ON FILE WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ARE
COLLECTED BY THE RAILROADS FROM PETITIONER AND OTHER SHIPPERS AND ARE
IN TURN PAID TO THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY.  FN7  THIS CHARGE, HOWEVER,
DOES NOT INCLUDE PAYMENT FOR USE OF THE FACILITIES AFTER UNLOADING AND
BEFORE DELIVERY TO CONSIGNEES, OR FOR ANY SERVICES THEN PERFORMED.  TO
COVER THESE ITEMS, THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY COLLECTS AN ADDITIONAL
CHARGE, SINCE 1921 CONTAINED IN A TARIFF FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE,  FN8  AND IT IS THIS CHARGE WHICH IS AT THE ROOT OF THE
PRESENT CONTROVERSY. 

IN 1933 PETITIONER, WITHOUT RESORT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, DEMANDED THAT THE RAILROADS ALTER THIS LONG-STANDING
PRACTICE SO AS TO RELIEVE IT FROM PAYMENT OF THIS ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 
PURSUANT TO ITS PURPOSE, PETITIONER NOTIFIED THE RAILROADS THAT IT
WOULD NOT THEREAFTER UTILIZE ANY SERVICES AFTER UNLOADING; ASKED THAT
TENDER OF DELIVERY BE MADE TO IT IMMEDIATELY AFTER UNLOADING SO THAT IT
COULD REMOVE ITS STOCK TO ITS OWN PLANT; AVOWED ITS READINESS
THEREAFTER TO ACCEPT DELIVERY AT SUCH "REASONABLE AND PROPER DELIVERY
PENS OF THE CARRIER" AT "UNION STOCK YARDS, ILLINOIS," AS MIGHT BE
PROVIDED BY THE RAILROADS; DEMANDED THAT THE RAILROADS EITHER DIRECTLY
OR THROUGH THEIR AGENT, THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY, DELIVER THE CONSIGNED
STOCK TO PETITIONER WITHOUT ANY CHARGES EXCEPT THOSE PAID FOR
TRANSPORTATION; AND DECLARED THAT DELIVERY TO THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY
CONTRARY TO PETITIONER'S DEMAND WOULD BE TREATED AS A CONVERSION OF
PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE RAILROADS WOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE. 
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS DEMAND THE RAILROADS CONTINUED TO DELIVER
PETITIONER'S CONSIGNMENTS TO THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY AND THAT COMPANY,
OVER PETITIONER'S PROTEST, CONTINUED TO EXACT THE CONTROVERTED CHARGE. 
THE RAILROAD COMPANIES KNEW THAT DELIVERY TO PETITIONER WOULD ONLY BE
MADE BY THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY ON COMPANY PROPERTY AND WITH NO MEANS
OF EGRESS SAVE BY CROSSING OTHER PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY, FOR WHICH
PRIVILEGE A CHARGE WOULD BE EXACTED. 

THE COMPLAINT ADDS THAT IN SPITE OF THIS DEMAND THE RAILROADS HAVE
"CONTINUOUSLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE OR ESTABLISH BY LEASE OR OTHERWISE AT
THEIR SAID COMMON STATION, UNION STOCK YARDS, ILLINOIS, ANY DEPOT OR
PLATFORMS, PENS OR FACILITIES" WHERE PETITIONER MIGHT ACCEPT DELIVERY
OF ITS STOCK WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE CONTROVERTED CHARGE, AND HAVE ALSO
"FAILED TO MAKE ANY ARRANGEMENT WITH ITS SAID AGENT UNDER  ...  WHICH
THE PLAINTIFF MIGHT HAVE FREE INGRESS  ...  AND EGRESS  ...  TO A
PUBLIC STREET."  SPECIFICALLY, TWO BREACHES ARE ALLEGED:  (1) A BREACH
OF DUTY IN FAILING "TO PROVIDE REASONABLY CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE AND
SAFE UNLOADING PENS, AT THE SAID COMMON DEPOT OR STATION, AT WHICH SUCH
LIVESTOCK COULD BE TENDERED TO PLAINTIFF"; AND (2) A BREACH OF CONTRACT
IN "FAILING TO AFFORD TO PLAINTIFF AN OPPORTUNITY OF RECEIVING ITS
LIVESTOCK AND OF REMOVING THE SAME WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS FROM THE
UNLOADING PENS USED BY DEFENDANTS AT UNION STOCK YARDS, CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS, OR FROM ANY POINT AT WHICH DELIVERY THEREOF IS TENDERED,  ...
" THE CONTRACT RELIED ON PROVIDES "THAT THE CARRIER HAS RECEIVED FROM
THE SHIPPER  ...  THE LIVESTOCK  ...  CONSIGNED AND DESTINED AS
INDICATED BELOW, WHICH THE CARRIER AGREES TO CARRY TO ITS USUAL PLACE
OF DELIVERY AT SAID DESTINATION,  ...  "  THE USUAL PLACE OF DELIVERY
FOR LIVESTOCK SHIPPED TO UNION STOCK YARDS, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AND
INDEED THE ONLY PLACE OF DELIVERY EVER UTILIZED AT THAT STATION SO FAR
AS THE COMPLAINT SHOWS IS THE PUBLIC STOCK YARDS. 

THE COMPLAINT CONCLUDES WITH A PRAYER FOR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF:  AN
ADJUDICATION THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DELIVERY FREE OF ANY
CHARGES OTHER THAN THOSE FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION;
A MANDATORY INJUNCTION TO REQUIRE SUCH DELIVERY; AND AN ACCOUNTING FOR
THOSE CHARGES PAID UNDER PROTEST. 

THIS STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT REVEALS THAT
THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS RELATING TO COMPLEX TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS
THAT MUST BE SOLVED AS A PREREQUISITE TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE
RAILROADS, IN VIOLATION OF CONTRACTS OR GOVERNING LAWS, HAVE FAILED
PROPERLY TO DELIVER PETITIONER'S LIVESTOCK.  FN9  FOR ILLUSTRATION: 

FIRST.  AT WHAT POINT DID THE COMMON CARRIERS' DUTY TO TRANSPORT COME
TO AN END?  NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR ANY APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE OF
GOVERNING LAW CAN BE SAID TO MARK THIS BOUNDARY, UNDER ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS AND IN ALL CASES. 

SECOND.  UNDER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, THE PRACTICE OF
DELIVERING LIVESTOCK TO THE PUBLIC STOCK YARDS IN CHICAGO, AND THE
PRACTICE OF THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY OF EXACTING A CHARGE FROM
CONSIGNEES, ARE LONGSTANDING CUSTOMS.  SHIPPERS, RAILROADS, THE STOCK
YARD COMPANY, AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ALIKE HAVE LEFT
THESE PRACTICES IN EFFECT OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS.  IF USE OF THE
TERMINAL FACILITIES FOR EGRESS TO THE STREET AFTER UNLOADING OF
LIVESTOCK IS A PART OF TRANSPORTATION, AS PETITIONER ALLEGES, AND IF
THIS USE IS A SERVICE FOR WHICH REASONABLE COMPENSATION IS JUSTIFIED,
IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THIS CHARGE, LIKE THE UNLOADING CHARGE, IS A
PART OF THAT REASONABLE TRANSPORTATION RATE DETERMINATION OF WHICH IS
COMMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
AND BEFORE SUCH LONG-STANDING TRANSPORTATION CUSTOMS CAN BE HELD
ILLEGAL, IT IS OF COURSE NECESSARY THAT EVIDENCE BE HEARD. 

THIRD.  IF THE RAILROAD DELIVERS THROUGH THE PUBLIC STOCK YARDS, AND
PETITIONER'S POSITION IS SUSTAINED, THE RAILROAD MUST NECESSARILY
ABSORB THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE.  UNDER THE COMPLAINT, THIS WOULD BE UPON
THE BASIS THAT THE RAILROAD HAD NOT FULLY PERFORMED ITS TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE.  YET THE TARIFF CHARGES FOR SHIPPING PETITIONER'S LIVESTOCK
WERE BASED UPON THE LONG-STANDING CUSTOM IN WHICH PETITIONER AND THE
OTHER PACKERS HAD ACQUIESCED.  THE RAILROAD IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE AND
THE SHIPPER IS REQUIRED UNDER THE STATUTE TO PAY A JUST AND REASONABLE
RATE.  A COURT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER WOULD REDUCE THE
COMPENSATION OF THE RAILROADS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR SERVICES,
AND WOULD IN EFFECT CONSTITUTE A READJUSTMENT OF THEIR RATE SCHEDULES. 

FOURTH.  IF, AS PETITIONER INSISTS, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE RAILROADS
TO PROVIDE TERMINAL FACILITIES WHICH THEY DO NOT NOW OWN, POSSESS OR
CONTROL, A DRASTIC CHANGE MIGHT HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THEM. 
PROPERTY MIGHT HAVE TO BE ACQUIRED, EXPENSIVE FACILITIES MIGHT HAVE TO
BE SECURED, AND CORRESPONDINGLY, RATES MIGHT HAVE TO BE ADJUSTED.  THE
NEED FOR SUCH STEPS RAISES A TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM OF THE GREATEST
MAGNITUDE, INVOLVING MANY INTRICATE CONSIDERATIONS SUCH AS MUST ALWAYS
PLAY A PART IN EVALUATING A CLAIM THAT NEW DEPOTS AND FACILITIES ARE
NECESSARY. 

FIFTH.  THE COMPLAINT SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE TARIFF
WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE THE RAILROADS TO MAKE REFUNDS TO PETITIONER OF
THOSE CHARGES PAID BY PETITIONER TO THE STOCK YARDS COMPANY.  SUCH
REFUNDS, IF MADE, WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF SPECIAL ALLOWANCES NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE TARIFF.  A COURT'S ADJUDICATION OF THIS QUESTION IN
THIS CASE WOULD NOT UNIFORMLY BENEFIT ALL SHIPPERS FOR WHOM RESPONDENTS
HAVE TRANSPORTED LIVESTOCK.  WHETHER OR NOT SUCH A REFUND WOULD AMOUNT
TO A DISCRIMINATION SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY STUDIES SUCH AS THOSE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS ESPECIALLY EMPOWERED TO MAKE. 

SIXTH.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT PETITIONER IS WILLING TO ACCEPT
DELIVERY AT ANY POINT IN THE STATION AREA.  WHAT THE STATION AREA
EMBRACES IS NOT DEFINED.  WHETHER THERE IS PROPERTY IN THE AREA ON
WHICH THE RAILROADS COULD ERECT PENS IS NOT SHOWN.  TO DECIDE THIS
ISSUE WOULD REQUIRE A COURT TO DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF A STATION NAMED
IN A TARIFF APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE SITUATION HERE PRESENTED ARE GRAPHICALLY
ILLUSTRATED IN THE COMPANION CASE OF SWIFT & CO. V. ALTON R. CO., 238
I.C.C. 179.  SWIFT, ONE OF ARMOUR'S COMPETITORS, TOOK ITS PETITION FOR
ALTERATION OF THE SAME LONG-STANDING PRACTICE DIRECTLY TO THE
COMMISSION.  THAT EXPERT BODY FOUND IT A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO
DECISION TO HAVE A TRIAL EXAMINER CONDUCT EXTENSIVE HEARINGS, COMPILING
IN THE PROCESS A RECORD OF 5 VOLUMES, 1147 PAGES, AND NUMEROUS
EXHIBITS.  FN10 

THE PRINCIPLES MAKING UP THE SO-CALLED PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE
ARE WELL SETTLED.  THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A CASE FOR THEIR APPLICATION.  THE
DECISION BELOW IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE ADAMS V. MILLS, 286 U.S. 397; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 193. 

FN2  111 F.2D 913. 

FN3  27 F.SUPP.  625. 

FN4  THE DISTRICT COURT, IN ADDITION TO RELYING ON THIS GROUND, HELD
THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO JOIN THE STOCK
YARDS COMPANY AS A DEFENDANT, AND FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN CONSENT OF
COURT TO BRING SUIT AGAINST RAILROADS WHICH WERE IN RECEIVERSHIP.  WE
EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THOSE HOLDINGS. 

FN5  SECTION 9 PROVIDES FOR CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS "FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE DAMAGES FOR
WHICH SUCH COMMON CARRIER MAY BE LIABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER.  ...  "  SECTION 22 PROVIDES THAT "NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER
CONTAINED SHALL IN ANY WAY ABRIDGE OR ALTER THE REMEDIES NOW EXISTING
AT COMMON LAW OR BY STATUTE, BUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER ARE IN
ADDITION TO SUCH REMEDIES; ...  " 

FN6  CF. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S.
426; MITCHELL COAL & COKE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247. 

FN7  SPECIAL STATUTORY PROVISION REQUIRES RAILROADS DELIVERING AT
PUBLIC STOCKYARDS TO UNLOAD THE LIVESTOCK.  "TRANSPORTATION  ...  OF
ORDINARY LIVESTOCK  ...  DESTINED TO OR RECEIVED AT PUBLIC STOCKYARDS
SHALL INCLUDE  ...  DELIVERY  ...  INTO SUITABLE PENS.  ...  "  49
U.S.C. SEC. 15(5).    FN8  PACKERS & STOCKYARDS ACT, 42 STAT. 159, 7
U.S.C. SEC. 181 ET SEQ. BEFORE 1921, THIS CHARGE WAS FIXED BY THE STOCK
YARDS COMPANY ITSELF. 

FN9  CF. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S.
426; MITCHELL COAL & COKE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247;
UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S. 402. 
PETITIONER RELIES ON COVINGTON STOCK-YARDS CO. V. KEITH, 139 U.S. 128. 
BUT THAT CASE, A SUIT ORIGINALLY INSTITUTED BEFORE CONGRESS ADOPTED THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS OF THE COURTS AND THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE. 

FN10  FOR INSTANCES WHERE THIS COURT HAS REFERRED TO THE COMMISSION'S
REPORTS AS INDICATIVE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN
PARTICULAR CASES, SEE LOOMIS V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 240 U.S. 43, 50
51; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. SOLUM, 247 U.S. 477, 483. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. GOLTRA, 312 U.S. 203 


NO. 191.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 91 CT.
CLS. 42, MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TAKING OF PROPERTY BY A GOVERNMENT OFFICER, CLAIMING TO
REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT BUT ACTING WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND TORTIOUSLY,
CONFERS NO RIGHT TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR JUST
COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 207. 

2.  WHERE AN ARMY ENGINEER OFFICER RETOOK POSSESSION OF BOATS WHICH
WERE LEASED TO AN INDIVIDUAL AND ASSUMED TO CANCEL THE LEASE, ACTING IN
THE MATTER UNDER AN ORDER FROM THE ACTING SECRETARY OF WAR, BUT WITHOUT
AUTHORITY AND TORTIOUSLY, SUBSEQUENT POSSESSION AND USE OF THE BOATS
AFTER THE LEASE HAD BEEN DULY CANCELLED BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS DID NOT INDICATE A RATIFICATION BY THE UNITED
STATES OF THE UNLAWFUL TAKING.  P. 209. 

3.  AN ACT OF CONGRESS CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS
TO HEAR AND RENDER JUDGMENT ON A PARTICULAR CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES NOTWITHSTANDING LAPSE OF TIME, BAR OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, OR
PREVIOUS COURT DECISIONS (ACT OF APRIL 18, 1934, C. 150, 48 STAT.
1322), HELD AN ACT OF GRACE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE
CLAIMANT.  P. 210. 

4.  THE ACT OF APRIL 18, 1934, SUPRA, CONFERRING SPECIAL JURISDICTION
ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO ADJUDGE CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR "JUST
COMPENSATION," FOR THE TAKING OF CERTAIN VESSELS, ETC., "WHETHER
TORTIOUSLY OR NOT,  ...  BY THE UNITED STATES  ...  FOR THE USE AND
BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES," DOES NOT ALLOW INTEREST ON THE
RECOVERY.  PP. 207, 211. 

5.  IN A SUIT BY A LESSEE ON A CLAIM BASED UPON THE RETAKING OF
VESSELS WHICH WERE LEASED TO HIM BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE WEIGHT, IF ANY,
TO BE GIVEN TO EVIDENCE IN PROOF OF DAMAGES, CONSISTING OF AN OFFER TO
RENT THE VESSELS, MADE YEARS AFTER THE SEIZURE, AND THE RENTAL VALUE OF
SIMILAR VESSELS, WAS FOR THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO DETERMINE IN THE LIGHT
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  P. 211. 

UNITED STATES V. GOLTRA ET AL., EXECUTORS* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 192, GOLTRA ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. UNITED STATES,
ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CROSS APPEALS FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPEAL BRINGS HERE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RULING BY THE COURT OF
CLAIMS WHICH ALLOWS INTEREST ON A CLAIM AGAINST THE APPELLANT, THE
UNITED STATES.  THE CROSS APPEAL RAISES AN ISSUE THAT THE COMPENSATION
AWARDED IS INADEQUATE BECAUSE THE COURT FAILED TO CONSIDER CERTAIN
EVIDENCE AS TO THE VALUE FOR LEASE OR USE OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED. 
FN1  THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED UPON A PETITION FILED UNDER AUTHORITY OF
A PRIVATE JURISDICTIONAL ACT, QUOTED IN THE MARGIN.  FN2 

THIS CONTROVERSY HAD ITS INCEPTION ON MARCH 25, 1923.  AT THAT TIME
EDWARD F. GOLTRA WAS THE LESSEE OF FOUR TUG BOATS AND 19 STEEL BARGES
BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES.  WHILE TIED UP FOR THE WINTER ON THE
MISSISSIPPI AT THE PORT OF ST. LOUIS, THEY WERE REPOSSESSED, BECAUSE OF
AN ALLEGED BREACH OF THE LEASE, BY COLONEL ASHBURN, CHIEF OF THE INLAND
AND COASTWISE WATERWAYS SERVICE, UNDER ORDERS FROM THE ACTING SECRETARY
OF WAR.  APPARENTLY SOME UNLOADING FACILITIES WERE ALSO SEIZED.  IN
SEVERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER POSSESSION MR. GOLTRA WAS
DEFEATED.  FN3  IT WOULD BE FUTILE TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THESE
ADJUDICATIONS DETERMINED ALL OR ANY CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE PARTIES,
SINCE THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OPENED THE DOORS OF THE COURT,
"NOTWITHSTANDING THE LAPSE OF TIME OR THE BAR OF ANY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS OR PREVIOUS COURT DECISIONS."  SUING UNDER THIS SPECIAL
LEGISLATION MR. GOLTRA  FN4  SOUGHT DAMAGES FOR THE WRONGFUL TAKING OF
THE FLEET AND FACILITIES AND RECOVERED $350,000 WITH SIX PER CENT
INTEREST FROM MARCH 25, 1923, TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT
ASSIGNS ERROR ONLY TO THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND THE EXECUTORS ONLY
TO THE REFUSAL TO CONSIDER CERTAIN PROFFERED EVIDENCE. 

BY A CONTRACT OF 1919, WITH A SUPPLEMENT OF 1921, MR. GOLTRA LEASED
THE FLEET OF RIVER BOATS FOR GOVERNMENTALLY SUPERVISED OPERATION AS
COMMON CARRIERS ON THE MISSISSIPPI AND ITS TRIBUTARIES FROM THE CHIEF
OF ENGINEERS AS LESSOR.  THE LESSOR WAS ACTING FOR THE WAR DEPARTMENT,
THE EXECUTIVE AGENCY IN CHARGE OF THE BOATS.  THE TERM OF THE LEASE WAS
FIVE YEARS FROM THE DELIVERY OF THE FIRST UNIT OF THE FLEET, WHICH
OCCURRED ON JULY 15, 1922.  ALL NET EARNINGS WERE SEQUESTERED DURING
THE TERM FOR APPLICATION UPON THE PURCHASE OF THE FLEET AT COST OR
APPRAISED VALUE AS DETAILED IN THE LEASE, WITH PROVISION FOR SUBSEQUENT
INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS OVER SIXTEEN YEARS.  SECTION 8 PROVIDED FOR
TERMINATION BY THE LESSOR UPON THE LESSEE'S NONCOMPLIANCE "IN HIS
JUDGMENT WITH ANY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS" AND FOR THE RETURN TO
THE LESSOR OF THE PLANT, BARGES, AND TOWBOATS. 

ON MARCH 4, 1921, THE SECRETARY OF WAR CONSENTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LEASE, THAT MR. GOLTRA'S TARIFFS SHOULD BE 80 PER CENT OF THE
PREVAILING RAIL TARIFFS.  THIS CONSENT WAS WITHDRAWN IN MAY, 1922,
BEFORE THE DELIVERY OF THE BOATS, AND A CONSENT LIMITED TO SPECIFIC
ARTICLES SUBSTITUTED.  A CONTROL OVER THE AMOUNT OF GRAIN TO BE CARRIED
WAS DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL MANAGER OF THE MISSISSIPPI-WARRIOR RIVER
SERVICE, A GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION WHICH OPERATED A COMPETING LINE. 
THE ENTERPRISE GOT UNDER WAY IN THE SUMMER OF 1922 AND WAS IMMEDIATELY
ENTANGLED IN THE ORDINARY VISCISSITUDES OF RIVER TRANSPORTATION.  THE
TOWBOATS HAD MECHANICAL DEFICIENCIES; THE OPEN BARGES WERE NOT SUITABLE
FOR GRAIN OR OTHER PERISHABLES; LOW WATER SERIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH
NAVIGATION.  AFTER A FEW MONTHS TOWING BY ONE TUG, THE FLEET WENT INTO
WINTER QUARTERS LATE IN THE FALL.  BEFORE BUSINESS WAS RESUMED, MR.
GOLTRA WAS NOTIFIED ON MARCH 4, 1923, BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR THAT THE
LEASE WAS TERMINATED AND HE WAS DIRECTED TO TURN OVER THE TOWBOATS,
BARGES AND UNLOADING FACILITIES TO COLONEL ASHBURN.  OBEDIENCE TO THIS
ORDER WAS REFUSED AND ON MARCH 25, 1923, COLONEL ASHBURN, UNDER ORDERS
FROM THE ACTING SECRETARY OF WAR, TOOK POSSESSION OF THE FLEET WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF MR. GOLTRA OR HIS EMPLOYEES, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF
THE UNITED STATES. 

THE SEIZURE WAS WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, WHO
WAS THE LESSOR EMPOWERED BY ITS TERMS TO TERMINATE THE LEASE, AND THAT
OFFICER HAD NOT REACHED ANY CONCLUSION TO THE EFFECT THAT MR. GOLTRA
HAD IN ANY MANNER FAILED IN HIS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, IN APRIL, THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS TERMINATED THE LEASE
PURSUANT TO SEC. 8.  THE ACTION DID NOT REPRESENT HIS JUDGMENT BUT WAS
DONE UNDER DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERIOR, THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS FIXED THE DAMAGES AS OF THE TIME OF SEIZURE, WITH
INTEREST TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT "NOT AS INTEREST BUT AS A PART OF JUST
COMPENSATION." 

INTEREST.  BY STATUTE,  FN5  DERIVED FROM THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863,
NO INTEREST IS ALLOWED ON ANY CLAIM UP TO THE TIME OF THE RENDITION OF
JUDGMENT BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THIS ACCORDS WITH THE TRADITIONAL
IMMUNITY OF THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE BURDEN OF INTEREST UNLESS IT IS
SPECIFICALLY AGREED UPON BY CONTRACT OR IMPOSED BY LEGISLATION.  FN6
WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THIS GENERAL RULE, THE EXECUTORS FIND AUTHORITY
FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN THE PROVISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL
ACT FOR "JUST COMPENSATION  ...  FOR CERTAIN VESSELS AND UNLOADING
APPARATUS TAKEN, WHETHER TORTIOUSLY OR NOT  ...  , FOR THE USE AND
BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES."  THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT THE WORDS "JUST
COMPENSATION" HAVE WITHIN THEMSELVES THE SAME LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
INTEREST ON THE AWARD OR DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF THE TAKING AS HAS
BEEN GIVEN TO THESE SAME WORDS IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THEY FURTHER
URGE THAT THIS INTERPRETATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PHRASE IN THE ACT "FOR
THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES" AND THE ACCEPTED FINDING THAT
COLONEL ASHBURN'S TAKING WAS FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS
POSITION, THE RULING OF THIS COURT IN SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES  FN7  AND SUBSEQUENT SIMILAR AUTHORITY  FN8  IS RELIED
UPON. 

IN THE SEABOARD CASE, SEC. 10 OF THE LEVER ACT AUTHORIZING THE TAKING
BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF PROPERTY FOR THE PUBLIC USE ON PAYMENT OF JUST
COMPENSATION WAS UNDER EXAMINATION.  IT CONTAINS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION
FOR INTEREST.  THIS COURT HELD THAT A TAKING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
SEC. 10 REQUIRED THE JUST COMPENSATION "PROVIDED FOR BY THE
CONSTITUTION" AND THAT SUCH COMPENSATION IS PAYABLE "AS OF THE TIME
WHEN THE OWNERS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR PROPERTY."  FN9  THIS CASE,
HOWEVER, AND THE OTHERS CITED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, INVOLVE THE
REQUISITIONING OR TAKING OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN UNDER AUTHORITY
OF LEGISLATION.  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROPERTY TAKEN UNDER
AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS AND PROPERTY APPROPRIATED WITHOUT SUCH
AUTHORITY HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED N10.  ACTS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
IN TAKING PROPERTY WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS CONFER NO RIGHT OF
RECOVERY UPON THE INJURED CITIZEN.  FN11  THERE ARE TWO INSTANCES OF
CONGRESSIONAL RATIFICATION OF TAKINGS WHICH TURNED TORTIOUS ACTS INTO
THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND PLACED UPON THE
GOVERNMENT THE DUTY TO MAKE "JUST COMPENSATION," INCLUDING SUMS IN THE
NATURE OF INTEREST.  THESE ARE UNITED STATES V. CREEK NATION  FN12  AND
SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED STATES.  FN13  IN BOTH CASES THERE WAS A
SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL ACT.  IN NEITHER CASE WAS INTEREST EXPRESSLY
ALLOWED.  IN BOTH THIS COURT FOUND CONGRESSIONAL CONFIRMATION OF THE
PREVIOUSLY UNAUTHORIZED ACTS; IN THE CREEK CASE, BY DISPOSITION OF THE
WRONGFULLY ACQUIRED LANDS AND FAILURE TO SEEK CANCELLATION OF THE
DISPOSALS AFTER "FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS"  FN14  AND IN THE
SHOSHONE CASE BY "THE STATUTES ALREADY SUMMARIZED, RECOGNIZING THE
ARAPAHOES EQUALLY WITH THE SHOSHONES AS OCCUPANTS OF THE LAND,
ACCEPTING THEIR DEEDS OF CESSION, ASSIGNING TO THE TRIBES EQUALLY THE
PRIVILEGE OF NEW ALLOTMENTS, AND DEVOTING TO THE TWO EQUALLY THE AWARD
OF FUTURE BENEFITS."  FN15 

IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE US, HOWEVER, THERE IS NEITHER THE REQUISITE
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE TAKING NOR ANY RATIFICATION OR
CONFIRMATION OF THE TORT AFTER THE TAKING, WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY A
CONCLUSION THAT THE FLEET WAS ACQUIRED BY EMINENT DOMAIN.  THE
JURISDICTIONAL ACT IN ITSELF IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN.  FN16  AS THE LEASE REQUIRED ACTION BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,
THE ATTEMPT TO CANCEL IT BY THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR OF MARCH
3, 1923, AND THE ORDER OF THE ACTING SECRETARY OF MARCH 22, 1923, TO
TAKE POSSESSION WAS UNAUTHORIZED.  THE LOWER COURT FOUND THE TAKING
TORTIOUS.  FN17  NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE CONTINUED POSSESSION AND
USE BY THE UNITED STATES INDICATED ANY CONFIRMATION OR RATIFICATION OF
THE TORTIOUS ACT, SO AS TO BRING THIS CASE WITHIN THE RULE OF THE CREEK
OR SHOSHONE CASES.  A READING OF THE REPORTS OF THE PRIOR LITIGATION
FN18  MAKES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE UNITED STATES RELIED UPON THE
TERMINATION OF THE LEASE BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS WHICH WAS
PRACTICALLY CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH, THOUGH SUBSEQUENT TO, THE TAKING, AS
THEIR JUSTIFICATION FOR POSSESSION OF THE FLEET AND PROPERTY.  THIS
RELIANCE FOUND COMPLETE SUPPORT IN THE VARIOUS CITED DECISIONS OF THE
COURTS, EVEN THOUGH MR. GOLTRA'S PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THIS COURT
POINTED OUT THAT THE LETTER OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS WAS WRITTEN TO
JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE.  FN19  NOTWITHSTANDING THESE DEFINITE JUDICIAL
DECISIONS UPON THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, CONGRESS FELT THAT MR. GOLTRA
MAY NOT HAVE HAD FAIR TREATMENT.  IT PASSED THE PRESENT JURISDICTIONAL
ACT AND TO THAT THE EXECUTORS ARE RELEGATED TO FIND AUTHORITY TO ALLOW
INTEREST. 

SUCH ACTS ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  FN20  IN THE PRECEDING
PARAGRAPHS WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS UNAUTHORIZED TAKING AND
JUDICIALLY APPROVED RETENTION WAS IN NO SENSE AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER
OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  WE SEE NO GROUND TO READ INTO THIS ACT OF GRACE,
WHICH WAS APPARENTLY DRAWN TO RECTIFY WHAT CONGRESS FELT MIGHT BE A
WRONG, AN AUTHORITY TO ALLOW INTEREST AS A PART OF JUST COMPENSATION. 
IF INTEREST WAS TO BE ALLOWED FOR SO LONG A PERIOD UPON AN ORDINARY
CLAIM, AND CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICE, CONGRESS
WOULD HAVE SO DECLARED.  FN21 

EVIDENCE.  THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPEAL OF MR. GOLTRA'S
EXECUTORS RELATES TO THE EVIDENCE.  IN ITS OPINION THE COURT OF CLAIMS
SAID: 

"IT IS CONTENDED BY THE PLAINTIFF THAT, IN ARRIVING AT JUST
COMPENSATION, AN OFFER TO RENT THE FLEET MADE YEARS AFTER THE FLEET HAD
BEEN SEIZED AND THE RENTAL VALUE OF SIMILAR VESSELS ON THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.  THESE CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED."  91 CT. CLS. 42, 73.  ASSUMING THAT THESE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE
WERE COMPETENT, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS, MAKING A JURY
AWARD, WAS BOUND TO GIVE THEM WEIGHT.  THE ACTUAL DAMAGES SUFFERED BY
MR. GOLTRA WERE HIGHLY SPECULATIVE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE CONTRACT WAS
SUBJECT TO LAWFUL CANCELLATION WHENEVER THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS RIGHTLY
OR WRONGLY BUT IN GOOD FAITH DETERMINED THAT MR. GOLTRA WAS VIOLATING
ITS PROVISIONS.  MR. GOLTRA'S OPERATION UNDER THE LEASE HAD BEEN A
LOSING VENTURE.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY
HAVE BELIEVED THAT AN OFFER TO PURCHASE, MADE IN MAY, 1925, WAS TOO
REMOTE TO INFLUENCE ITS JUDGMENT AND THAT THE RENTAL VALUE OF OTHER
VESSELS ON THE MISSISSIPPI, NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS AS
THOSE TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT, WAS TOO UNRELIABLE TO AFFORD A USEFUL
COMPARISON.  IT WAS FOR THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO DECIDE WHAT WEIGHT SUCH
FACTS DESERVED, AND WE CONSTRUE ITS OPINION ONLY AS HOLDING THAT UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE OF
ANY ASSISTANCE IN REACHING A CONCLUSION. 

MR. GOLTRA'S EXECUTORS ALSO COMPLAIN OF THE FAILURE OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS TO MAKE CERTAIN FINDINGS, BUT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE
COURT OF CLAIMS DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACTS WHICH WERE EMBODIED IN THE
PROPOSED FINDINGS. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 191 IS MODIFIED AS INDICATED IN THE OPINION AND,
AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED; THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 192 IS AFFIRMED.  NO. 191,
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.  NO. 192, AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BOTH PARTIES ALSO SOUGHT REVIEW BY PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THIS COURT'S DECISION IN COLGATE V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S.
43, AND ASSINIBOINE INDIAN TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 606.  THE
INCLUSION OF THE PHRASE "AS OF RIGHT" IN THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT
SUFFICIENTLY MAKES CLEAR THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE EITHER
PARTY TO TAKE A TECHNICAL APPEAL TO THIS COURT.  CF. HOUSE REPORT NO.
828, 73RD CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 3. 

FN2  ACT OF APRIL 18, 1934, 48 STAT. 1322, C. 150: 

"BE IT ENACTED  ...  THAT JURISDICTION IS HEREBY CONFERRED UPON THE
COURT OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHOSE DUTY IT SHALL BE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE LAPSE OF TIME OR THE BAR OF ANY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS OR PREVIOUS COURT DECISIONS, TO HEAR, CONSIDER, AND RENDER
JUDGMENT ON THE CLAIMS OF EDWARD F. GOLTRA AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
FOR JUST COMPENSATION TO HIM FOR CERTAIN VESSELS AND UNLOADING
APPARATUS TAKEN, WHETHER TORTIOUSLY OR NOT, ON MARCH 25, 1923, BY THE
UNITED STATES UNDER ORDERS OF THE ACTING SECRETARY OF WAR, FOR THE USE
AND BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND ANY OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE
CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH:
PROVIDED, THAT SEPARATE SUITS MAY BE BROUGHT WITH RESPECT TO THE
VESSELS AND THE UNLOADING APPARATUS, BUT NO SUIT SHALL BE BROUGHT AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF ONE YEAR FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT:
PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT EITHER PARTY MAY APPEAL AS OF RIGHT TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM ANY JUDGMENT IN SAID CASE AT
ANY TIME WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE RENDITION THEREOF, AND ANY
JUDGMENT RENDERED IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANT SHALL BE PAID IN THE SAME
MANNER AS OTHER JUDGMENTS OF SAID COURT OF CLAIMS ARE PAID." 

FN3  WEEKS V. GOLTRA, 7 F.2D 838; EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 263 U.S.
389; GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536; GOLTRA V. DAVIS, 29 F.2D 257, CERT.
DENIED, 279 U.S. 843; GOLTRA V. INLAND WATERWAYS CORP., 49 F.2D 497. 

FN4 ON HIS DEATH HIS EXECUTORS WERE SUBSTITUTED. 

FN5  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 177. 

FN6  1 OP. ATTY. GEN. 268, 550, 554; 3 ID. 635; 4 ID. 14, 136, 286; 7
ID. 523; 9 ID. 449; TILLSON V. UNITED STATES, 100 U.S. 43, 47; ANGARICA
V. BAYARD, 127 U.S. 251, 260; UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S.
211, 216; NATIONAL VOLUNTEER HOME V. PARRISH, 229 U.S. 494, 496. 

FN7  261 U.S. 299. 

FN8  PHELPS V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 341; JACOBS V. UNITED STATES,
290 U.S. 13; LIGGETT & MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 215; BROOKS
SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 265 U.S. 106, 123. 

FN9  CF. DANFORTH V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 271, 284-286. 

FN10  SEE UNITED STATES V. NORTH AMERICAN CO., 253 U.S. 330, 333-334,
THE SEABOARD CASE AT PAGES 304 AND 305, THE PHELPS CASE AT PAGES 343
AND 344, AND THE JACOBS CASE AT PAGE 18. 

FN11  HOOE V. UNITED STATES, 218 U.S. 322, 333; UNITED STATES V.
BUFFALO PITTS CO., 234 U.S. 228, 235. 

FN12  295 U.S. 103. 

FN13  299 U.S. 476. 

FN14  295 U.S. AT 110. 

FN15  299 U.S. AT 495. 

FN16  SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 492. 

FN17  HAWKINS V. UNITED STATES, 96 U.S. 689, 697; PLUMLEY V. UNITED
STATES, 226 U.S. 545, 547; YUHASZ V. UNITED STATES, 109 F.2D 547, 468;
BURTON COAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 60 CT. CLS. 294, 312; LUTZ CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 76 CT. CLS. 405, 415. 

FN18  SEE NOTE 3 SUPRA. 

FN19  BRIEF FILED JULY 16, 1926, PP. 33-34:  "THE OPINION VIOLATES
THE ELEMENTARY COMMON-LAW RULE THAT A TRESPASS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY
AN ACT SUBSEQUENT.  IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT CAUSED THIS LETTER TO BE WRITTEN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
JUSTIFICATION OF A PRIOR TRESPASS.  IT WAS NOT THE ACT, THEREFORE, OF
MAJOR-GENERAL BEACH FOR THE PURPOSE OF CANCELING THE CONTRACT, BUT THE
ACT OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT TO EXCUSE THE ILLEGAL ACT.  WE QUOTE FROM
THE RECORD:  'MR. HOCKER:  I CAUSED THIS LETTER TO BE EXECUTED AND
DELIVERED TO MR. GOLTRA FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEETING THAT OBJECTION.  THE
COURT:  YOU CAUSED A LETTER TO BE WRITTEN A MONTH AFTER THE SEIZURE TO
JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE AND AN ATTEMPTED CANCELLATION WHICH HAD ALREADY
BEEN HAD?  MR. HOCKER:  YES, I DID.'  CERTAINLY BAD FAITH IS SHOWN
HERE." 

FN20  DUBUQUE & PACIFIC R. CO. V. LITCHFIELD, 23 HOW.  66, 88;
SLIDELL V. GRANDJEAN, 111 U.S. 412, 437-38; COOSAW MINING CO. V. SOUTH
CAROLINA, 144 U.S. 550, 562; BLAIR V. CHICAGO, 201 U.S. 400, 471;
CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 11 PET. 420, 544; SEE RUSSELL V.
SEBASTIAN, 233 U.S. 195, 205. 

FN21  CF. TILLSON V. UNITED STATES, 100 U.S. 43, 46; BOSTON SAND CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 41, 46. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THESE APPEALS. 
..END :
















HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 212 


NO. 253.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 13, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  -
111 F.2D 795, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SALARIES AND OTHER EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE LOOKING AFTER ONE'S
OWN INVESTMENTS IN BONDS AND STOCKS ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(A)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AS EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED IN CARRYING ON
A "TRADE OR BUSINESS."  P. 214. 

2.  IN THIS CONNECTION, "CARRYING ON A BUSINESS," HAS NOT BEEN
INTERPRETED BY ANY REGULATION OR BY RULINGS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY.  CERTAIN RULINGS OF LESS DIGNITY, FAVORABLE TO THE
TAXPAYER, MADE IN INDIVIDUAL CASES, ARE NOT DETERMINATIVE.  P. 215. 

UNLESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IS LONG CONTINUED AND
SUBSTANTIALLY UNIFORM IN THE BUREAU AND WITHOUT CHALLENGE BY THE
GOVERNMENT BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND IN THE COURTS, IT SHOULD
NOT BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESSIONAL REENACTMENT OF LANGUAGE SO CONSTRUED
BY RULINGS OF THE BOARD WAS AN ADOPTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. 

3.  THE PROPOSITION THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF ONE'S OWN SECURITIES MAY
BE A "BUSINESS" WHERE THERE IS SUFFICIENT EXTENT, CONTINUITY, VARIETY
AND REGULARITY, IS SUPPORTED BY NO FIXED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION. 
P. 216. 

4.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION, THE PART OF THE TAXPAYER'S EXPENSE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MANAGEMENT OF HIS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS MAY BE
SEGREGATED FROM THE PART PAID FOR THE CARE OF HIS BOND AND STOCK
INVESTMENTS.  P. 218. 

HIGGINS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 626, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A RULING OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 39 B.T.A. 1005, WHICH SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS IN AN INCOME TAX
RETURN. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, THE TAXPAYER, WITH EXTENSIVE INVESTMENTS IN REAL ESTATE,
BONDS AND STOCKS, DEVOTED A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF HIS TIME TO THE
OVERSIGHT OF HIS INTERESTS AND HIRED OTHERS TO ASSIST HIM IN OFFICES
RENTED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  FOR THE TAX YEARS IN QUESTION, 1932 AND 1933,
HE CLAIMED THE SALARIES AND EXPENSES INCIDENT TO LOOKING AFTER HIS
PROPERTIES WERE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932.  FN1  THE COMMISSIONER REFUSED THE DEDUCTIONS.  THE APPLICABLE
PHRASES ARE:  "IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS
DEDUCTIONS: (A)  EXPENSES.  - ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES
PAID OR INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR
BUSINESS  ..."  THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER WHETHER THE CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS
ARE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES.  AS THE COMMISSIONER ALSO CONCEDED
BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT THE REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES OF THE
PETITIONER IN RENTING BUILDINGS  FN2  CONSTITUTED A BUSINESS, THE BOARD
ALLOWED SUCH PORTIONS OF THE CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS AS WERE FAIRLY
ALLOCABLE TO THE HANDLING OF THE REAL ESTATE.  THE SAME OFFICES AND
STAFFS HANDLED BOTH REAL ESTATE AND SECURITY MATTERS.  AFTER THIS
ADJUSTMENT THERE REMAINED FOR THE YEAR 1932 OVER TWENTY AND FOR THE
YEAR 1933 OVER SIXTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS EXPENDED FOR MANAGING THE
STOCKS AND BONDS. 

PETITIONER'S FINANCIAL AFFAIRS WERE CONDUCTED THROUGH HIS NEW YORK
OFFICE PURSUANT TO HIS PERSONAL DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS.  HIS RESIDENCE
WAS IN PARIS, FRANCE, WHERE HE HAD A SECOND OFFICE.  BY CABLE,
TELEPHONE AND MAIL, PETITIONER KEPT A WATCHFUL EYE OVER HIS
SECURITIES.  WHILE HE SOUGHT PERMANENT INVESTMENTS, CHANGES,
REDEMPTIONS, MATURITIES AND ACCUMULATIONS CAUSED LIMITED SHIFTINGS IN
HIS PORTFOLIO.  THESE WERE MADE UNDER HIS OWN ORDERS.  THE OFFICES KEPT
RECORDS, RECEIVED SECURITIES, INTEREST AND DIVIDEND CHECKS, MADE
DEPOSITS, FORWARDED WEEKLY AND ANNUAL REPORTS AND UNDERTOOK GENERALLY
THE CARE OF THE INVESTMENTS AS INSTRUCTED BY THE OWNER.  PURCHASES WERE
MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.  PETITIONER DID NOT PARTICIPATE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CORPORATIONS IN WHICH
HE HELD STOCK OR BONDS.  THE METHOD OF HANDLING HIS AFFAIRS UNDER
EXAMINATION HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER FOR MORE THAN THIRTY
YEARS.  NO OBJECTION TO THE DEDUCTIONS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN MADE BY THE
GOVERNMENT. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS  FN3  HELD THAT THESE ACTIVITIES DID NOT
CONSTITUTE CARRYING ON A BUSINESS AND THAT THE EXPENSES WERE CAPABLE OF
APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN THE REAL ESTATE AND THE INVESTMENTS.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,  FN4  AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
CONFLICT.  FN5 

PETITIONER URGES THAT THE "ELEMENTS OF CONTINUITY, CONSTANT
REPETITION, REGULARITY AND EXTENT" DIFFERENTIATE HIS ACTIVITIES FROM
THE OCCASIONAL LIKE ACTIONS OF THE SMALL INVESTOR.  HIS ACTIVITY IS AND
THE OCCASIONAL ACTION IS NOT "CARRYING ON BUSINESS."  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT "MERE PERSONAL INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES
NEVER CONSTITUTE CARRYING ON A TRADE OR BUSINESS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH OF
ONE'S TIME OR OF ONE'S EMPLOYEES' TIME THEY MAY OCCUPY." 

SINCE THE FIRST INCOME TAX ACT, THE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING BUSINESS
DEDUCTIONS HAVE VARIED ONLY SLIGHTLY.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1913  FN6
ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION "THE NECESSARY EXPENSES ACTUALLY PAID IN
CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS."  BY 1918 THE PRESENT FORM WAS FIXED AND HAS
SO CONTINUED.  FN7 NO REGULATION HAS EVER BEEN PROMULGATED WHICH
INTERPRETS THE MEANING OF "CARRYING ON A BUSINESS," NOR ANY RULINGS
APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, I.E., TREASURY DECISIONS. 
FN8  CERTAIN RULINGS OF LESS DIGNITY, FAVORABLE TO PETITIONER,  FN9
APPEARED IN INDIVIDUAL CASES BUT THEY ARE NOT DETERMINATIVE.  FN10
EVEN ACQUIESCENCE  FN11  IN SOME BOARD RULINGS AFTER DEFEAT DOES NOT
AMOUNT TO SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  FN12  UNLESS THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IS LONG CONTINUED AND SUBSTANTIALLY UNIFORM IN
THE BUREAU AND WITHOUT CHALLENGE BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE BOARD AND
COURTS, IT SHOULD NOT BE ASSUMED, FROM RULINGS OF THIS CLASS, THAT
CONGRESSIONAL REENACTMENT OF THE LANGUAGE WHICH THEY CONSTRUED WAS AN
ADOPTION OF THEIR INTERPRETATION. 

WHILE THE COMMISSIONER HAS COMBATED VIEWS SIMILAR TO PETITIONER'S IN
THE COURTS, SOMETIMES SUCCESSFULLY  FN13  AND SOMETIMES UNSUCCESSFULLY,
FN14  THE PETITIONER URGES THAT THE BUREAU ACCEPTED FOR YEARS THE
DOCTRINE THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF ONE'S OWN SECURITIES MIGHT BE A
BUSINESS WHERE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EXTENT, CONTINUITY, VARIETY AND
REGULARITY.  WE FAIL TO FIND SUCH A FIXED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION
IN THE EXAMPLES CITED.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE DECISIONS ARE FREQUENTLY
PUT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAXPAYER'S ACTIVITIES WERE SPORADIC BUT IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT HAD THOSE ACTIVITIES BEEN CONTINUOUS THE
COMMISSIONER WOULD NOT HAVE USED THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED HERE, I.E., THAT
NO AMOUNT OF PERSONAL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT WOULD TURN THOSE ACTIVITIES
INTO A BUSINESS.  EVIDENTLY SUCH WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION IN THE
KALES CASE,  FN15  WHERE THE THINGS THE TAXPAYER DID MET PETITIONER'S
TESTS, AND IN FOSS V. COMMISSIONER  FN16  AND WASHBURN V. COMMISSIONER
FN17  WHERE THE OPINIONS TURNED ON THE EXTENT OF THE TAXPAYER'S
PARTICIPATION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CORPORATIONS IN WHICH
INVESTMENTS WERE HELD.  FN18 

PETITIONER RELIES STRONGLY ON THE DEFINITION OF BUSINESS IN FLINT V.
STONE TRACY COMPANY:"  FN19 'BUSINESS' IS A VERY COMPREHENSIVE TERM AND
EMBRACES EVERYTHING ABOUT WHICH A PERSON CAN BE EMPLOYED."  THIS
DEFINITION WAS GIVEN IN CONSIDERING WHETHER CERTAIN CORPORATIONS CAME
UNDER THE CORPORATION TAX LAW WHICH LEVIES A TAX ON CORPORATIONS
ENGAGED IN BUSINESS.  THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE WAS WHETHER CORPORATIONS
ENGAGED PRINCIPALLY IN THE "HOLDING AND MANAGEMENT OF REAL ESTATE"
FN20 WERE SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  A DEFINITION GIVEN FOR SUCH AN ISSUE IS
NOT CONTROLLING IN THIS DISSIMILAR INQUIRY.  FN21 

TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF A TAXPAYER ARE "CARRYING ON A
BUSINESS" REQUIRES AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS IN EACH CASE.  AS THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED, ALL EXPENSES OF EVERY BUSINESS
TRANSACTION ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE.  ONLY THOSE ARE DEDUCTIBLE WHICH RELATE
TO CARRYING ON A BUSINESS.  THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE HAS THIS
DUTY OF DETERMINING WHAT IS CARRYING ON A BUSINESS, SUBJECT TO
REEXAMINATION OF THE FACTS BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS  FN22  AND
ULTIMATELY TO REVIEW ON THE LAW BY THE COURTS ON WHICH JURISDICTION IS
CONFERRED.  FN23  THE COMMISSIONER AND THE BOARD APPRAISED THE EVIDENCE
HERE AS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES AS THOSE OF
CARRYING ON A BUSINESS.  THE PETITIONER MERELY KEPT RECORDS AND
COLLECTED INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS FROM HIS SECURITIES, THROUGH
MANAGERIAL ATTENTION FOR HIS INVESTMENTS.  NO MATTER HOW LARGE THE
ESTATE OR HOW CONTINUOUS OR EXTENDED THE WORK REQUIRED MAY BE, SUCH
FACTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO PERMIT THE COURTS TO
REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD.  ITS CONCLUSION IS ADEQUATELY
SUPPORTED BY THIS RECORD, AND RESTS UPON A CONCEPTION OF CARRYING ON
BUSINESS SIMILAR TO THAT EXPRESSED BY THIS COURT FOR AN ANTECEDENT

THE PETITIONER MAKES THE POINT THAT HIS ACTIVITIES IN MANAGING HIS
ESTATE, BOTH REALTY AND PERSONALTY, WERE A UNIFIED BUSINESS.  SINCE IT
WAS ADMITTEDLY A BUSINESS IN SO FAR AS THE REALTY IS CONCERNED, HE
URGES, THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO SEVER EXPENSES ALLOCABLE TO
THE SECURITIES.  BUT WE SEE NO REASON WHY EXPENSES NOT ATTRIBUTABLE, AS
WE HAVE JUST HELD THESE ARE NOT, TO CARRYING ON BUSINESS CANNOT BE
APPORTIONED.  IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO ALLOCATE EXPENSES PAID FOR SERVICES
PARTLY PERSONAL AND PARTLY BUSINESS.  FN25  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  47 STAT. 169, C. 209. 

FN2  CF. PINCHOT V. COMMISSIONER, 113 F.2D 718. 

FN3  39 B.T.A. 1005. 

FN4  111 F.2D 795. 

FN5  KALES V. COMMISSIONER, 101 F.2D 35; DUPONT V. DEPUTY, 103 F.2D
257. 

FN6  38 STAT. 167, SEC. II B. 

FN7  40 STAT. 1066, SEC. 214(A)(1). 

FN8  CF. HELVERING V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 292 U.S. 455, 467-468. 

FN9  O.D. 537, 2 C.B. 175(1920); O.D. 877, 4 C.B. 123(1921); I.T.
2751, XIII-1 C.B. 43(1934).  SEE ALSO 1934 C.C.H. FEDERAL TAX SERVICE,
VOL. 3, P6035, P. 8027. 

FN10  BIDDLE V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 573, 582.  CF. ESTATE OF
SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 39, 52.  BUT SEE HELVERING V. BLISS,
293 U.S. 144, 151, AND MCFEELY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 102, 108. 

FN11  KISSEL V. COMMISSIONER, 15 B.T.A. 1270, ACQUIESCED IN VIII-2
C.B. 28(1929); CROKER V. COMMISSIONER, 27 B.T.A. 588, ACQUIESCED IN XII
1 C.B. 4(1933). 

FN12  HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473, 478-479. 

FN13  BEDELL V. COMMISSIONER, 30 F.2D 622, 624; MONELL V. HELVERING,
70 F.2D 631; KANE V. COMMISSIONER, 100 F.2D 382. 

FN14  KALES V. COMMISSIONER, 101 F.2D 35; DUPONT V. DEPUTY, 103 F.2D
257, 259, REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 308 U.S. 488. 

FN15  KALES V. COMMISSIONER, 34 B.T.A. 1046, 101 F.2D 35. 

FN16  75 F.2D 326. 

FN17  51 F.2D 949, 953. 

FN18  CF. ROEBLING V. COMMISSIONER, 37 B.T.A. 82; HEILBRONER V.
COMMISSIONER, 34 B.T.A. 1200. 

FN19  220 U.S. 107, 171. 

FN20  ID. 169. 

FN21  COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264, 399; PUERTO RICO V. SHELL
CO., 302 U.S. 253, 269. 

FN22  REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, SEC. 272; INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE, SEC. 272. 

FN23  INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, SEC. 1141. 

FN24  VAN WART V. COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S. 112, 115. 

FN25  3 PAUL & MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION SEC. 23.65;
CF. NATIONAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BUREAU V. HELVERING, 89 F.2D 878,
881. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON, 312 U.S. 219 


NO. 43.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 32
F.SUPP.  600, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER TRADE UNION CONDUCT VIOLATES THE SHERMAN
ACT, THAT ACT SHOULD BE READ WITH SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AND WITH
THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  P. 231. 

2.  LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES ENUMERATED IN SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT,
WHICH THAT SECTION DECLARES SHALL NOT BE "CONSIDERED OR HELD TO BE
VIOLATIONS OF ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES," ARE NOT PUNISHABLE AS
CRIMINAL UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 232. 

3.  SECTION 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN
TRADE UNION CONDUCT DIRECTED AGAINST AN EMPLOYER BECAUSE OF A
CONTROVERSY ARISING IN THE RELATION BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, AS
SUCH, AND CONDUCT SIMILARLY DIRECTED BUT ARISING FROM A STRUGGLE
BETWEEN TWO UNIONS SEEKING THE FAVOR OF THE SAME EMPLOYER.  P. 232. 

4.  IN A CASE INVOLVING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UNION CARPENTERS REFUSED
TO WORK FOR A BREWING COMPANY BY WHICH THEY WERE EMPLOYED, OR ON
CONSTRUCTION WORK BEING DONE FOR IT AND FOR ITS ADJOINING TENANT; THEY
ATTEMPTED TO PERSUADE MEMBERS OF OTHER UNIONS SIMILARLY TO REFUSE TO
WORK; THEY PICKETED THE BREWER'S PREMISES, DISPLAYING SIGNS "UNFAIR TO
ORGANIZED LABOR"; AND THEY RECOMMENDED TO THE UNION MEMBERS AND THEIR
FRIENDS NOT TO BUY OR USE THE BREWER'S PRODUCT.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THESE ACTIONS WERE PROTECTED FROM PROSECUTION UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT BY SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF
CONGRESS'S DEFINITION OF A "LABOR DISPUTE" IN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT.  P. 233. 

(2)  IN VIEW OF THE BROAD DEFINITION OF "LABOR DISPUTE" IN THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT GIVES PROTECTION TO THE
CONDUCT IT DESCRIBES ALTHOUGH DIRECTED IN PART AGAINST OUTSIDERS TO THE
LABOR DISPUTE.  DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, IS
INAPPLICABLE.  P. 234. 

UNITED STATES V. HUTCHESON ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT QUASHING AN
INDICTMENT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES A DIRECT PHYSICAL RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN GOODS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY ANHEUSER-BUSCH, IN GOODS
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY THE GAYLORD CONTAINER CORPORATION, IN BUILDING
MATERIALS INTENDED FOR ANHEUSER-BUSCH, BORSARI TANK CORPORATION, L.O.
STOCKER CO., AND GAYLORD CONTAINER CORPORATION, AND IN MATERIALS
PURCHASED BY ANHEUSER-BUSCH FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ITS GOODS.  IT
FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD THE PURPOSE AND INTENT TO
RESTRAIN THIS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE CLEARLY
SUFFICIENT TO SHOW A DIRECT AND DELIBERATE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
TRADE. 

THE INDICTMENT ALSO CHARGES THE KIND OF RESTRAINT WHICH IS ILLEGAL
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  DISTINGUISHING APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310
U.S. 469.  IN THE FIRST PLACE THERE IS HERE NO MERE LOCAL DISPUTE
BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYEES, AND THE ACTS CHARGED ARE NOT
MERELY LOCAL ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN A SINGLE FACTORY AND SUBJECT TO
THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES RATHER THAT A RESTRAINT OF TRADE HAS BEEN
IMPOSED AS A RESULT OF A JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO NATIONAL
UNIONS AND THAT THIS DISPUTE HAS RESULTED IN MANY DIFFERENT STRIKES IN
MANY DIFFERENT PLACES WHICH HAVE IMPOSED A DIRECT AND UNREASONABLE
BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE TRADE.  IT FURTHER CHARGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS
SOUGHT TO FORCE ANHEUSER-BUSCH TO TAKE THEIR SIDE IN THIS DISPUTE AND,
WHEN ANHEUSER-BUSCH REFUSED, THEY ENGAGED IN A DELIBERATE CAMPAIGN ON A
NATIONAL SCALE TO DRIVE ANHEUSER-BUSCH FROM THE INTERSTATE MARKET. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS NOT THE
PROTECTION AND ADVANCEMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF LABOR, SUCH AS COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, WAGES, HOURS, OR WORKING CONDITIONS; IT WAS RATHER TO WIN
BY FORCE A JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE WITH ANOTHER UNION AND TO DEPRIVE THE
MEMBERS OF THAT OTHER UNION OF WORK.  DEFENDANTS ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY
THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH, AND TO RESTRAIN THE
INTERSTATE TRADE OF THE OTHER COMPANIES, BECAUSE THEY HOPED BY THESE
METHODS TO COMPEL ANHEUSER-BUSCH TO SIDE WITH THEM IN THE
JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE.  THE HOLDING IN THE APEX CASE THAT A UNION MAY
STOP PRODUCTION IN A LOCAL FACTORY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE UNION
RECOGNITION IS NOT AUTHORITY FOR A SIMILAR HOLDING WHEN THE OBJECTIVE
OF THE UNION IS TO WIN BY FORCE A NATION-WIDE CONTEST, NOT WITH THE
EMPLOYER, BUT WITH ANOTHER UNION. 

IN THE THIRD PLACE, THE OBJECTIVE OF THE UNION WAS SOUGHT TO BE
ACHIEVED NOT, AS IN THE APEX CASE, BY INTERFERING WITH THE BUSINESS OF
THE OTHER PARTY TO THE DISPUTE, BUT BY STOPPING INTERSTATE TRADE TO OR
BY FOUR COMPANIES, WITH ONLY ONE OF WHICH IT HAD ANY RELATION AND
AGAINST NONE OF WHICH IT HAD ANY REAL GRIEVANCE.  THE PURPOSE OF THE
DEFENDANTS IN RESTRAINING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH WAS
TO COMPEL IT TO BECOME A PARTISAN IN THE FIGHT BETWEEN THE BROTHERHOOD
OF CARPENTERS AND THE MACHINISTS' UNION.  THE PURPOSE OF THE DEFENDANTS
IN RESTRAINING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE OTHER COMPANIES WAS TO
COMPEL THEM TO PUT PRESSURE ON ANHEUSER-BUSCH TO BECOME A PARTISAN IN
THE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTE.  THIS ASPECT OF THE DEFENDANTS' ACTIVITIES
INDICATES AN INTENT TO INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON A FAR
BROADER SCALE THAN THE CLOSING OF ONE LOCAL PLANT; IT RAISES A QUESTION
QUITE DISTINCT FROM THAT IN THE APEX CASE. 

THE OPINION IN THAT CASE RECOGNIZES THAT THE TYPE OF RESTRAINT
CHARGED TO THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY AND
POTENTIALLY INTERFERES WITH COMPETITORS IN EVERY DIRECTION, IS WITHIN
THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE TEST LAID DOWN IN THAT CASE
IS WHETHER THE RESTRAINT IS "UPON COMMERCIAL COMPETITION IN THE
MARKETING OF GOODS OR SERVICES."  THE MERE CLOSING OF A FACTORY IS NOT
ENOUGH TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN THAT TEST.  BUT IF, AS IN THIS CASE,
THE RESTRAINTS GO BEYOND THAT AND ARE DIRECTED TOWARD DRIVING AN
EMPLOYER, AGAINST WHOM THE UNION HAS NO REAL GRIEVANCE, FROM THE
INTERSTATE MARKET AND ARE CALCULATED TO INTERFERE WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF PERSONS DEALING WITH THE EMPLOYER, THE APPLICATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT IS CLEAR. 

IN LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274, DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V.
DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, AND BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE
CUTTERS' ASSN., 274 U.S. 37, THIS COURT HELD THAT ACTIVITIES SIMILAR IN
ALL IMPORTANT RESPECTS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEFENDANTS HERE
RESTRAINED COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE EXCLUSION OF A TRADER FROM THE MARKET, OR THE ERECTION OF
ARBITRARY BARRIERS TO FREE ACCESS TO THE MARKET, HAS LONG BEEN
RECOGNIZED BOTH UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE COMMON LAW AS A RESTRAINT
OF TRADE.  SEE DARCY V. ALLEIN, 11 COKE 84B; THE CASE OF THE TAILORS OF
IPSWICH, 11 COKE 53A; COLGATE V. BACHELER, CRO.  ELIZA.  872; MITCHEL
V. REYNOLDS, 1 P. WMS.  181; ANON., MOORE (K.B.)  115, 72 ENG. REPR. 
477; ANON., 2 LEO.  210, 74 ENG. REPR.  485; ALGER V. THACHER, 19
PICK.  51; UNITED STATES V. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO., 85 F. 271, 279;
PRATT V. BRITISH MEDICAL ASSN., 1 K.B. 244; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN
MEDICAL ASSN., 110 F.2D 703.  THIS COURT HAS IN A NUMBER OF CASES
STRUCK DOWN RESTRAINTS, NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR EFFECT UPON PRICES OR
PRODUCTION, BUT BECAUSE THEY OPERATED TO DESTROY FREE ACCESS TO THE
MARKET.  PARAMOUNT FAMOUS CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30; UNITED
STATES V. FIRST NATIONAL PICTURES, INC., 282 U.S. 44; EASTERN STATES
LUMBER ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600. 

THE RESTRAINT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED UNDER
THE "RULE OF REASON" ENUNCIATED IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
221 U.S. 1. 

THERE IS NO FORM OF LABOR WARFARE SO OPPOSED TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AND TO THE INTEREST OF ORGANIZED LABOR ITSELF AS THE JURISDICTIONAL
STRIKE WHICH STOPS THE COMMERCE OF AN EMPLOYER WHO IS TRYING TO BE FAIR
TO ORGANIZED LABOR.  AN EMPLOYER WHO FINDS HIMSELF THE VICTIM OF SUCH A
STRIKE IS POWERLESS.  THERE IS NO CONCESSION HE CAN MAKE WHICH WILL
STOP THE ATTACK ON HIS BUSINESS.  SIMILARLY, THE UNION WHOSE RELATIONS
WITH THE EMPLOYER THE OTHER UNION SEEKS TO DISRUPT CANNOT RELY ON ITS
SATISFACTORY SERVICE OR ITS SUPERIOR CRAFTSMANSHIP TO MAINTAIN ITS
POSITION; IT HAS NO WEAPON, OTHER THAN RUTHLESS ECONOMIC WARFARE, TO
DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THE AGGRESSIVE TACTICS OF THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY
IT. 

IF A UNION IS PERMITTED TO EXPAND THROUGH THE MERE BRUTAL USE OF
POWER AGAINST NEUTRAL EMPLOYERS, THERE WILL BE A PREMIUM ON RUTHLESS
AND COERCIVE LEADERSHIP.  IF, AS THIS COURT HAS SAID, THE SHERMAN ACT
IS A CHARTER OF FREEDOM, IT MUST INCLUDE WITHIN ITS PROHIBITIONS THE
DESTRUCTION OF ONE LABOR ORGANIZATION BY ANOTHER THROUGH FORCE AND
COERCION AT THE EXPENSE OF INNOCENT BYSTANDERS AND THE TYING UP OF THE
BUSINESS OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. 

THE VIEW THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT MODIFIED OR AMENDED SEC. 1 OF
THE SHERMAN ACT SO AS TO MAKE LAWFUL THEREUNDER ACTIVITIES WHICH MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE ILLEGAL IS PLAINLY ERRONEOUS.  THAT STATUTE DOES NOTHING
MORE THAN LIMIT THE EQUITY POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  ITS PURPOSE
AND SCOPE ARE SHOWN BY ITS FIRST SECTION. 

THE PURPOSE THUS DECLARED IS CARRIED OUT BY THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT WHICH PRESCRIBE TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS IN ISSUING AND ENFORCING INJUNCTIONS IN CASES ARISING
OUT OF LABOR DISPUTES.  NOTHING IN THE ACT PURPORTS TO CHANGE THE
EXISTING SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW AS THEY APPLY TO
THE ACTIVITIES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  THIS CONCLUSION AS TO THE
PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS CONFIRMED BY ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  THE
REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND THE DEBATES ON THE FLOOR OF
CONGRESS SHOW THAT THE ACT WAS DIRECTED AT NOTHING MORE THAN THE EQUITY
POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE SITUATION AS TO THE CRIMINAL LAW IS TOO PLAIN TO REQUIRE
ELABORATION.  IT MAY BE SUGGESTED THAT BY REASON OF ITS DENIAL OF THE
INJUNCTIVE REMEDY THE LAW CHANGES THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF ONE WHO
SEEKS RELIEF IN A COURT OF EQUITY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS MUCH TO
BE SAID FOR THE VIEW THAT FOR THE MOST PART THE ACT SIMPLY EMBODIES THE
SOUND VIEW AS TO THE EQUITY PRACTICE PREVAILING BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT. 
THE ONLY SECTION OF THE ACT WHICH MIGHT PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS
IMPAIRING SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS IS SEC. 3, WHICH OUTLAWS THE SO-CALLED
"YELLOW DOG" CONTRACT.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT MODIFIES IN ANY WAY SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, WHICH
CONFERS A CIVIL RIGHT TO TRIPLE DAMAGES. 

IN BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE THE BILL FINALLY ENACTED WAS
ENTITLED "A BILL TO DEFINE AND LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS SITTING
IN EQUITY."  FOR EXPLICIT STATEMENTS AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL SEE
THE SENATE REPORT AT PAGES 7-8(S. REP. NO. 163, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.). 
SIMILAR STATEMENTS APPEAR IN THE HOUSE REPORT AT PAGES 2-3(H. REP. NO.
669, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.).  IF IT WERE NECESSARY TO RESORT TO
STATEMENTS MADE IN THE DEBATES ON THE BILL, ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THIS
CONCLUSION COULD BE SUPPLIED.  SEE 75 CONG. REC. 5467, 5464. 

THE SAME REASONING WHICH SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY AMEND SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT CLOSES
THE DOOR ON ANY POSSIBLE ARGUMENT THAT AN AMENDMENT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY
INFERENCE OR IMPLICATION.  MOREOVER, "IT IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF
CONSTRUCTION THAT REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED."  UNITED
STATES V. BORDEN COMPANY, 308 U.S. 188, 198. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IS A LIMITED STATUTE
PASSED WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE EXERCISE OF A PARTICULAR KIND OF
JURISDICTION BY THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE CASE IS RULED BY THE APEX DECISION, 310 U.S. 469. 

THE ATTACK UPON THE "JURISDICTIONAL STRIKE" IS WITHOUT ANY SOUND
LEGAL BASIS.  WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
QUESTIONS AND REFORMS WHICH LIE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS AND
THE STATE LEGISLATURES. 

IF THE SHERMAN LAW APPLIES EQUALLY TO CAPITAL AND LABOR, HOW CAN NON
COMPETITION BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS BE A CRIME UNDER THAT LAW AND
YET COMPETITION BETWEEN LABOR UNIONS BE ALSO A CRIME? 

THERE ARE MULTITUDINOUS DECISIONS HOLDING THAT A JURISDICTIONAL
STRIKE IS NOT AN OFFENSE, CRIMINAL OR EVEN CIVIL, AGAINST THE SHERMAN
LAW.  THERE IS NO DECISION TO THE CONTRARY.  TERRIO V. S.N. NIELSEN
CONST. CO., 30 F.SUPP.  77; LEVERING & G. CO. V. MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103;
UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT, 265 U.S. 457; SENN V. TILE LAYERS
UNION, 301 U.S. 468; LAUF V. E.G. SHINNER & CO., 303 U.S. 323;
BLANKENSHIP V. KURFMAN, 96 F.2D 450; UNITED CHAIN THEATRES V.
PHILADELPHIA UNION, 50 F.2D 890; ALLEN V. FLOOD, HOUSE OF LORDS 1898;
PICKETT V. WALSH, 192 MASS. 572; KEMP V. DIVISION NO. 241, 255 ILL.
213; EXCHANGE BAKERY & RESTAURANT V. RIFKIN, 245 N.Y. 260; STILLWELL
THEATRE, INC. V. KAPLAN, 259 N.Y. 405; NANN V. RAIMIST, 255 N.Y. 306;
BOSSERT V. DHUY, 221 N.Y. 342; NATIONAL PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. CUMMINGS,
170 N.Y. 315; HORMAN V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 166 ARK. 255; OVERLAND
PUBLISHING CO. V. UNION LITHOGRAPH CO., 57 CAL. APP. 366; GREENWOOD V.
BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, 71 CAL. APP. 159; SHAUGHNESSY V. JORDAN, 184
IND. 499; RODDY V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 41 OKLA. 621. 

SEE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THE CLAYTON ACT, 63RD
CONG., 2D SESS., H.R. 2, PP. 14 ET SEQ. 

THE ASSUMPTION THAT SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT IS IRRELEVANT RESTS IN
LARGE PART UPON THE SUBSTITUTION OF "REASONABLE" OR "JUSTIFIED" FOR THE
WORD "LEGITIMATE" IN THE ACT, AND UPON DISREGARDING THAT THE SUPREME
COURT HAS DEFINED THIS WORD "LEGITIMATE" AS MEANING "NORMAL."  DUPLEX
CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443.  IT ALSO DISREGARDS THAT PORTION OF THE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF MUTUAL HELP." 

SEE THE DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN THE BEDFORD
COMPANY CASE, 247 U.S. 37, 65. 

ACTS SPECIFIED THEREIN SHALL "BE CONSIDERED OR HELD TO BE VIOLATIONS OF
ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES." 

THAT SECTION AND THE SUBSEQUENT NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT ARE ALSO FATAL
TO THIS INDICTMENT.  SEE MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY FARM
PRODUCTS, INC., 311 U.S. 91; DONNELLY GARMENT CO. V. INTERNATIONAL
L.G.W. UNION, 20 F.SUPP.  767; GRACE CO. V. WILLIAMS, 20 F.SUPP.  263. 

THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT HAS TO DO ONLY
WITH "THE EQUITY POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS" IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. 
IT OVERLOOKS THE EXPRESS DECLARATION IN SEC. 2 OF THE "PUBLIC POLICY OF
THE UNITED STATES" ON THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF LABOR, AND OVERLOOKS
ALSO THE INHERENT AND IMPLIED DECLARATION OF PUBLIC POLICY CONTAINED IN
THE WHOLE TEXT AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ACT. 

ANOTHER FUNDAMENTAL ERROR WHICH ORGANIZED LABOR MUST AND DOES RESIST
AS FATAL TO ITS VERY EXISTENCE, IS THE CONSTANT EXCLUSION OF THE RIGHT
TO SEEK, GAIN AND PROTECT EMPLOYMENT AND TO STRIKE IN DEFENSE THEREOF,
FROM THE NORMAL AND LEGITIMATE OBJECTS AND OPERATIONS OF A LABOR
UNION.    THE INDICTMENT NOWHERE CHARGES A SECONDARY BOYCOTT.  THE VERY
CONTRARY APPEARS. 

THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD HAD A PERFECT COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT PEACEFULLY TO ENDEAVOR TO PERSUADE ITS MEMBERS AND
FRIENDS OF ORGANIZED LABOR TO REFRAIN FROM PATRONIZING ANHEUSER-BUSCH
BEER, WHICH WAS MERELY ONE OF MANY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY THE
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANY. 

THE ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS AFFECTING BORSARI TANK CORPORATION AND
L.O. STOCKER COMPANY WERE NOT A CRIME UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 

ASIDE FROM THE OMISSION TO SHOW ANY CRIME AGAINST THE ANTI-TRUST LAW,
THE INDICTMENT FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE BROTHERHOOD WAS MORALLY OR
LEGALLY BOUND TO SUBMIT TO THE UNILATERAL DECISION OF THE ANHEUSER
BUSCH COMPANY AWARDING TO THE MACHINISTS BY CONTRACT THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO THIS PARTICULAR CLASS OF WORK AT THE VERY TIME WHEN THE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WAS ABOUT TO BE LET. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WHETHER THE USE OF CONVENTIONAL, PEACEFUL ACTIVITIES BY A UNION IN
CONTROVERSY WITH A RIVAL UNION OVER CERTAIN JOBS IS A VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN LAW, ACT OF JULY 2, 1890, 26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 1, IS THE QUESTION.  IT IS SHARPLY PRESENTED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE
IT ARISES IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  CONCEDEDLY AN INJUNCTION EITHER
AT THE SUIT OF THE GOVERNMENT OR OF THE EMPLOYER COULD NOT ISSUE. 

SUMMARIZING THE LONG INDICTMENT, THESE ARE THE FACTS.  ANHEUSER
BUSCH, INC., OPERATING A LARGE PLANT IN ST. LOUIS, CONTRACTED WITH
BORSARI TANK CORPORATION FOR THE ERECTION OF AN ADDITIONAL FACILITY. 
THE GAYLORD CONTAINER CORPORATION, A LESSEE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, MADE A SIMILAR CONTRACT FOR A NEW BUILDING WITH THE
STOCKER COMPANY.  ANHEUSER-BUSCH OBTAINED THE MATERIALS FOR ITS BREWING
AND OTHER OPERATIONS AND SOLD ITS FINISHED PRODUCTS LARGELY THROUGH
INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS.  THE GAYLORD CORPORATION WAS EQUALLY DEPENDENT ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR MARKETING ITS GOODS, AS WERE THE CONSTRUCTION
COMPANIES FOR THEIR BUILDING MATERIALS.  AMONG THE EMPLOYEES OF
ANHEUSER-BUSCH WERE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA AND OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS. 
THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF THESE TWO ORGANIZATIONS, AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, IN REGARD TO THE ERECTION AND DISMANTLING
OF MACHINERY HAD LONG BEEN A SOURCE OF CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THEM. 
ANHEUSER-BUSCH HAD HAD AGREEMENTS WITH BOTH ORGANIZATIONS WHEREBY THE
MACHINISTS WERE GIVEN THE DISPUTED JOBS AND THE CARPENTERS AGREED TO
SUBMIT ALL DISPUTES TO ARBITRATION.  BUT IN 1939 THE PRESIDENT OF THE
CARPENTERS, THEIR GENERAL REPRESENTATIVE, AND TWO OFFICIALS OF THE
CARPENTERS' LOCAL ORGANIZATION, THE FOUR MEN UNDER INDICTMENT, STOOD ON
THE CLAIMS OF THE CARPENTERS FOR THE JOBS.  REJECTION BY THE EMPLOYER
OF THE CARPENTERS' DEMAND AND THE REFUSAL OF THE LATTER TO SUBMIT TO
ARBITRATION WERE FOLLOWED BY A STRIKE OF THE CARPENTERS, CALLED BY THE
DEFENDANTS AGAINST ANHEUSER-BUSCH AND THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES, A
PICKETING OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH AND ITS TENANT, AND A REQUEST THROUGH
CIRCULAR LETTERS AND THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE CARPENTERS THAT
UNION MEMBERS AND THEIR FRIENDS REFRAIN FROM BUYING ANHEUSER-BUSCH
BEER. 

THESE ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF THE CARPENTERS FORMED THE CHARGE OF THE
INDICTMENT AS A CRIMINAL COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN LAW.  DEMURRERS DENYING THAT WHAT WAS CHARGED CONSTITUTED A
VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WERE SUSTAINED, 32 F.SUPP. 
600, AND THE CASE CAME HERE UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  ACT OF
MARCH 2, 1907, 34 STAT. 1246, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 682; JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
238, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN INDICTMENT CHARGES AN OFFENSE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, DESIGNATION BY THE PLEADER OF THE STATUTE
UNDER WHICH HE PURPORTED TO LAY THE CHARGE IS IMMATERIAL.  HE MAY HAVE
CONCEIVED THE CHARGE UNDER ONE STATUTE WHICH WOULD NOT SUSTAIN THE
INDICTMENT BUT IT MAY NEVERTHELESS COME WITHIN THE TERMS OF ANOTHER
STATUTE.  SEE WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 168 U.S. 382.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, AN INDICTMENT MAY VALIDLY SATISFY THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE
PLEADER PROCEEDED, BUT OTHER STATUTES NOT REFERRED TO BY HIM MAY DRAW
THE STING OF CRIMINALITY FROM THE ALLEGATIONS.  HERE WE MUST CONSIDER
NOT MERELY THE SHERMAN LAW BUT THE RELATED ENACTMENTS WHICH ENTERED
INTO THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FOLLOWS:  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL."  THE CONTROVERSIES ENGENDERED BY ITS APPLICATION TO TRADE
UNION ACTIVITIES AND THE EFFORTS TO SECURE LEGISLATIVE RELIEF FROM ITS
CONSEQUENCES ARE FAMILIAR HISTORY.  THE CLAYTON ACT OF 1914 WAS THE
RESULT.  ACT OF OCTOBER 15, 1914, 38 STAT. 730.  "THIS STATUTE WAS THE
FRUIT OF UNCEASING AGITATION, WHICH EXTENDED OVER MORE THAN TWENTY
YEARS AND WAS DESIGNED TO EQUALIZE BEFORE THE LAW THE POSITION OF
WORKINGMEN AND EMPLOYER AS INDUSTRIAL COMBATANTS."  DUPLEX CO. V.
DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 484.  SECTION 20 OF THAT ACT, WHICH IS SET OUT
IN THE MARGIN IN FULL,  FN1  WITHDREW FROM THE GENERAL INTERDICT OF THE
SHERMAN LAW SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED PRACTICES OF LABOR UNIONS BY
PROHIBITING INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THEM - SINCE THE USE OF THE INJUNCTION
HAD BEEN THE MAJOR SOURCE OF DISSATISFACTION - AND ALSO RELIEVED SUCH
PRACTICES OF ALL ILLEGAL TAINT BY THE CATCH-ALL PROVISION, "NOR SHALL
ANY OF THE ACTS SPECIFIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH BE CONSIDERED OR HELD TO BE
VIOLATIONS OF ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE CLAYTON ACT GAVE RISE
TO NEW LITIGATION AND TO RENEWED CONTROVERSY IN AND OUT OF CONGRESS
REGARDING THE STATUS OF TRADE UNIONS.  BY THE GENERALITY OF ITS TERMS
THE SHERMAN LAW HAD NECESSARILY COMPELLED THE COURTS TO WORK OUT ITS
MEANING FROM CASE TO CASE.  IT WAS WIDELY BELIEVED THAT INTO THE
CLAYTON ACT COURTS READ THE VERY BELIEFS WHICH THAT ACT WAS DESIGNED TO
REMOVE.  SPECIFICALLY THE COURTS RESTRICTED THE SCOPE OF SEC. 20 TO
TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES DIRECTED AGAINST AN EMPLOYER BY HIS OWN
EMPLOYEES.  DUPLEX CO. V. DEERING, SUPRA.  SUCH A VIEW IT WAS URGED,
BOTH BY POWERFUL JUDICIAL DISSENTS AND INFORMED LAY OPINION,
MISCONCEIVED THE AREA OF ECONOMIC CONFLICT THAT HAD BEST BE LEFT TO
ECONOMIC FORCES AND THE PRESSURE OF PUBLIC OPINION AND NOT SUBJECTED TO
THE JUDGMENT OF COURTS.  IBID., P. 485-486.  AGITATION AGAIN LED TO
LEGISLATION AND IN 1932 CONGRESS WROTE THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  ACT
OF MARCH 23, 1932, 47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 101-115. 

THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT REMOVED THE FETTERS UPON TRADE UNION
ACTIVITIES, WHICH ACCORDING TO JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION SEC. 20 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT HAD LEFT UNTOUCHED, BY STILL FURTHER NARROWING THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS COULD GRANT INJUNCTIONS IN
LABOR DISPUTES.  MORE ESPECIALLY, THE ACT EXPLICITLY FORMULATED THE
"PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES" IN REGARD TO THE INDUSTRIAL
CONFLICT,  FN2  AND BY ITS LIGHT ESTABLISHED THAT THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF
UNION ACTIVITY WAS NOT TO BE RESTRICTED, AS IT HAD BEEN IN THE DUPLEX
CASE, TO AN IMMEDIATE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATION.  THEREFORE, WHETHER
TRADE UNION CONDUCT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW IS TO BE
DETERMINED ONLY BY READING THE SHERMAN LAW AND SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT AND THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT AS A HARMONIZING TEXT OF OUTLAWRY OF
LABOR CONDUCT. 

WERE, THEN, THE ACTS CHARGED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS PROHIBITED, OR
PERMITTED, BY THESE THREE INTERLACING STATUTES?  IF THE FACTS LAID IN
THE INDICTMENT COME WITHIN THE CONDUCT ENUMERATED IN SEC. 20 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME WITHIN THE GENERAL TERMS OF
THE SHERMAN LAW BECAUSE OF THE EXPLICIT COMMAND OF THAT SECTION THAT
SUCH CONDUCT SHALL NOT BE "CONSIDERED OR HELD TO BE VIOLATIONS OF ANY
LAW OF THE UNITED STATES."  SO LONG AS A UNION ACTS IN ITS SELF
INTEREST AND DOES NOT COMBINE WITH NON-LABOR GROUPS,  FN3  THE LICIT
AND THE ILLICIT UNDER SEC. 20 ARE NOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED BY ANY
JUDGMENT REGARDING THE WISDOM OR UNWISDOM, THE RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS,
THE SELFISHNESS OR UNSELFISHNESS OF THE END OF WHICH THE PARTICULAR
UNION ACTIVITIES ARE THE MEANS.  THERE IS NOTHING REMOTELY WITHIN THE
TERMS OF SEC. 20 THAT DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN TRADE UNION CONDUCT
DIRECTED AGAINST AN EMPLOYER BECAUSE OF A CONTROVERSY ARISING IN THE
RELATION BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, AS SUCH, AND CONDUCT SIMILARLY
DIRECTED BUT ULTIMATELY DUE TO AN INTERNECINE STRUGGLE BETWEEN TWO
UNIONS SEEKING THE FAVOR OF THE SAME EMPLOYER.  SUCH STRIFE BETWEEN
COMPETING UNIONS HAS BEEN AN OBDURATE CONFLICT IN THE EVOLUTION OF SO
CALLED CRAFT UNIONISM AND HAS UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN ONE OF THE POTENT FORCES
IN THE MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONS.  THESE CONFLICTS HAVE
INTENSIFIED INDUSTRIAL TENSION BUT THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST WARRANT
FOR SAYING THAT CONGRESS HAS MADE SEC. 20 INAPPLICABLE TO TRADE UNION
CONDUCT RESULTING FROM THEM. 

IN SO FAR AS THE CLAYTON ACT IS CONCERNED, WE MUST THEREFORE DISPOSE
OF THIS CASE AS THOUGH WE HAD BEFORE US PRECISELY THE SAME CONDUCT ON
THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS IN PRESSING CLAIMS AGAINST ANHEUSER-BUSCH
FOR INCREASED WAGES, OR SHORTER HOURS, OR OTHER ELEMENTS OF WHAT ARE
CALLED WORKING CONDITIONS.  THE FACT THAT WHAT WAS DONE WAS DONE IN A
COMPETITION FOR JOBS AGAINST THE MACHINISTS RATHER THAN AGAINST, LET US
SAY, A COMPANY UNION IS A DIFFERENTIATION WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT PUT
INTO THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND WHICH THEREFORE WE CANNOT WRITE INTO
IT. 

IT IS AT ONCE APPARENT THAT THE ACTS WITH WHICH THE DEFENDANTS ARE
CHARGED ARE THE KIND OF ACTS PROTECTED BY SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT. 
THE REFUSAL OF THE CARPENTERS TO WORK FOR ANHEUSER-BUSCH OR ON
CONSTRUCTION WORK BEING DONE FOR IT AND ITS ADJOINING TENANT, AND THE
PEACEFUL ATTEMPT TO GET MEMBERS OF OTHER UNIONS SIMILARLY TO REFUSE TO
WORK, ARE PLAINLY WITHIN THE FREE SCOPE ACCORDED TO WORKERS BY SEC. 20
FOR "TERMINATING ANY RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT," OR "CEASING TO PERFORM
ANY WORK OR LABOR," OR "RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING OTHERS BY
PEACEFUL MEANS SO TO DO."  THE PICKETING OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH PREMISES
WITH SIGNS TO INDICATE THAT ANHEUSER-BUSCH WAS UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED
LABOR, A FAMILIAR PRACTICE IN THESE SITUATIONS, COMES WITHIN THE
LANGUAGE "ATTENDING AT ANY PLACE WHERE ANY SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS MAY
LAWFULLY BE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PEACEFULLY OBTAINING OR COMMUNICATING
INFORMATION, OR FROM PEACEFULLY PERSUADING ANY PERSON TO WORK OR TO
ABSTAIN FROM WORKING."  FINALLY, THE RECOMMENDATION TO UNION MEMBERS
AND THEIR FRIENDS NOT TO BUY OR USE THE PRODUCT OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH IS
EXPLICITLY COVERED BY "CEASING TO PATRONIZE ...  ANY PARTY TO SUCH
DISPUTE, OR FROM RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING OTHERS BY
PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS SO TO DO." 

CLEARLY, THEN, THE FACTS HERE CHARGED CONSTITUTE LAWFUL CONDUCT UNDER
THE CLAYTON ACT UNLESS THE DEFENDANTS CANNOT INVOKE THAT ACT BECAUSE
OUTSIDERS TO THE IMMEDIATE DISPUTE ALSO SHARED IN THE CONDUCT.  BUT WE
NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONDUCT IS LEGAL WITHIN THE RESTRICTIONS
WHICH DUPLEX CO. V. DEERING GAVE TO THE IMMUNITIES OF SEC. 20 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT.  CONGRESS IN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT HAS EXPRESSED THE
PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AND DEFINED ITS CONCEPTION OF A
"LABOR DISPUTE" IN TERMS THAT NO LONGER LEAVE ROOM FOR DOUBT.  MILK
WAGON DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY FARM PRODUCTS, 311 U.S. 91.  THIS
WAS DONE, AS WE RECENTLY SAID, IN ORDER TO "OBVIATE THE RESULTS OF THE
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION" THERETOFORE GIVEN THE CLAYTON ACT.  NEW NEGRO
ALLIANCE V. SANITARY GROCERY CO., 303 U.S. 552, 562; SEE APEX HOSIERY
CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469, 507, N. 26.  SUCH A DISPUTE, SEC. 13(C)
PROVIDES, "INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS
IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING, CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE
TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE." 
FN4  AND UNDER SEC. 13(B) A PERSON IS "PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A
LABOR DISPUTE" IF HE "IS ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR
OCCUPATION, IN WHICH SUCH DISPUTE OCCURS, OR HAS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT
INTEREST THEREIN, OR IS A MEMBER, OFFICER, OR AGENT OF ANY ASSOCIATION
COMPOSED IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF EMPLOYERS OR EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN SUCH
INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION." 

TO BE SURE, CONGRESS EXPRESSED THIS NATIONAL POLICY AND DETERMINED
THE BOUNDS OF A LABOR DISPUTE IN AN ACT EXPLICITLY DEALING WITH THE
FURTHER WITHDRAWAL OF INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR CONTROVERSIES.  BUT TO
ARGUE, AS IT WAS URGED BEFORE US, THAT THE DUPLEX CASE STILL GOVERNS
FOR PURPOSES OF A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS TO SAY THAT THAT WHICH ON THE
EQUITY SIDE OF THE COURT IS ALLOWABLE CONDUCT MAY IN A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING BECOME THE ROAD TO PRISON.  IT WOULD BE STRANGE INDEED THAT
ALTHOUGH NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT NOR ANHEUSER-BUSCH COULD HAVE SOUGHT AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ACTS HERE CHALLENGED, THE ELABORATE EFFORTS TO
PERMIT SUCH CONDUCT FAILED TO PREVENT CRIMINAL LIABILITY PUNISHABLE
WITH IMPRISONMENT AND HEAVY FINES.  THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO READ THE
WILL OF CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY WHEN EXPRESSED BY A STATUTE WHICH, AS WE
HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, IS PRACTICALLY AND HISTORICALLY ONE OF A SERIES
OF ENACTMENTS TOUCHING ONE OF THE MOST SENSITIVE NATIONAL PROBLEMS. 
SUCH LEGISLATION MUST NOT BE READ IN A SPIRIT OF MUTILATING
NARROWNESS.  ON MATTERS FAR LESS VITAL AND FAR LESS INTERRELATED WE
HAVE HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT THE IMPORTANCE OF GIVING "HOSPITABLE
SCOPE" TO CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE EVEN WHEN METICULOUS WORDS ARE
LACKING.  KEIFER & KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306 U.S.
381, 391, AND AUTHORITIES THERE CITED.  THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO READ
LEGISLATION IN A SITUATION LIKE THE ONE BEFORE US, WAS INDICATED BY MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES ON CIRCUIT:  "A STATUTE MAY INDICATE OR REQUIRE AS ITS
JUSTIFICATION A CHANGE IN THE POLICY OF THE LAW, ALTHOUGH IT EXPRESSES
THAT CHANGE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC CASES MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE
MIND.  THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT THE POLICY OF THE
LAW SHALL BE, AND IF IT HAS INTIMATED ITS WILL, HOWEVER INDIRECTLY,
THAT WILL SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND OBEYED.  THE MAJOR PREMISE OF THE
CONCLUSION EXPRESSED IN A STATUTE, THE CHANGE OF POLICY THAT INDUCES
THE ENACTMENT, MAY NOT BE SET OUT IN TERMS, BUT IT IS NOT AN ADEQUATE
DISCHARGE OF DUTY FOR THE COURTS TO SAY:  WE SEE WHAT YOU ARE DRIVING
AT, BUT YOU HAVE NOT SAID IT, AND THEREFORE WE SHALL GO ON AS BEFORE." 
JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES 163 F. 30, 32. 

THE RELATION OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT TO THE CLAYTON ACT IS NOT
THAT OF A TIGHTLY DRAWN AMENDMENT TO A TECHNICALLY PHRASED TAX
PROVISION.  THE UNDERLYING AIM OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS TO
RESTORE THE BROAD PURPOSE WHICH CONGRESS THOUGHT IT HAD FORMULATED IN
THE CLAYTON ACT BUT WHICH WAS FRUSTRATED, SO CONGRESS BELIEVED, BY
UNDULY RESTRICTIVE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION.  THIS WAS AUTHORITATIVELY
STATED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.  "THE PURPOSE OF THE
BILL IS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF LABOR IN THE SAME MANNER THE CONGRESS
INTENDED WHEN IT ENACTED THE CLAYTON ACT, OCTOBER 15, 1914(38 STAT. L.,
738), WHICH ACT, BY REASON OF ITS CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS, IS INEFFECTUAL TO ACCOMPLISH THE CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT."  H. REP. NO. 669, 72D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 3.  THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT WAS A DISAPPROVAL OF DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V.
DEERING, SUPRA, AND BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS'
ASSN., 274 U.S. 37, AS THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 20 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT, FOR CONGRESS NOW PLACED ITS OWN MEANING UPON THAT
THE CLAYTON ACT BY INFUSING INTO IT THE IMMUNIZED TRADE UNION
ACTIVITIES AS REDEFINED BY THE LATER ACT.  IN THIS LIGHT SEC. 20
REMOVES ALL SUCH ALLOWABLE CONDUCT FROM THE TAINT OF BEING A "VIOLATION
OF ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES," INCLUDING THE SHERMAN LAW. 

THERE IS NO PROFIT IN DISCUSSING THOSE CASES UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT
WHICH WERE DECIDED BEFORE THE COURTS WERE FURNISHED THE LIGHT SHED BY
THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT ON THE NATURE OF THE INDUSTRIAL CONFLICT.  AND
SINCE THE FACTS IN THE INDICTMENT ARE MADE LAWFUL BY THE CLAYTON ACT IN
SO FAR AS "ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES" IS CONCERNED, IT WOULD BE IDLE
TO CONSIDER THE SHERMAN LAW APART FROM THE CLAYTON ACT AS INTERPRETED
BY CONGRESS.  CF. APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469.  IT WAS
PRECISELY IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE DIFFICULTIES TO WHICH THE GENERAL
LANGUAGE OF THE SHERMAN LAW IN ITS APPLICATION TO WORKERS HAD GIVEN
RISE, THAT CONGRESS CUT THROUGH ALL THE TANGLED VERBALISMS AND
ENUMERATED CONCRETELY THE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES WHICH HAD BECOME FAMILIAR
INCIDENTS OF UNION PROCEDURE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  38 STAT. 738, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 52:  "NO RESTRAINING ORDER OR
INJUNCTION SHALL BE GRANTED BY ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR A
JUDGE OR THE JUDGES THEREOF, IN ANY CASE BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEES, OR BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, OR BETWEEN EMPLOYEES, OR
BETWEEN PERSONS EMPLOYED AND PERSONS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT, INVOLVING, OR
GROWING OUT OF, A DISPUTE CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,
UNLESS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY TO PROPERTY, OR TO A
PROPERTY RIGHT, OF THE PARTY MAKING THE APPLICATION, FOR WHICH INJURY
THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW, AND SUCH PROPERTY OR PROPERTY RIGHT
MUST BE DESCRIBED WITH PARTICULARITY IN THE APPLICATION, WHICH MUST BE
IN WRITING AND SWORN TO BY THE APPLICANT OR BY HIS AGENT OR ATTORNEY. 

"AND NO SUCH RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION SHALL PROHIBIT ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS, WHETHER SINGLY OR IN CONCERT, FROM TERMINATING ANY
RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT, OR FROM CEASING TO PERFORM ANY WORK OR LABOR,
OR FROM RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING OTHERS BY PEACEFUL MEANS
SO TO DO; OR FROM ATTENDING AT ANY PLACE WHERE ANY SUCH PERSON OR
PERSONS MAY LAWFULLY BE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PEACEFULLY OBTAINING OR
COMMUNICATING INFORMATION, OR FROM PEACEFULLY PERSUADING ANY PERSON TO
WORK OR TO ABSTAIN FROM WORKING; OR FROM CEASING TO PATRONIZE OR TO
EMPLOY ANY PARTY TO SUCH DISPUTE, OR FROM RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR
PERSUADING OTHERS BY PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS SO TO DO; OR FROM PAYING
OR GIVING TO, OR WITHHOLDING FROM, ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN SUCH DISPUTE,
ANY STRIKE BENEFITS OR OTHER MONEYS OR THINGS OF VALUE; OR FROM
PEACEABLY ASSEMBLING IN A LAWFUL MANNER, AND FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES; OR
FROM DOING ANY ACT OR THING WHICH MIGHT LAWFULLY BE DONE IN THE ABSENCE
OF SUCH DISPUTE BY ANY PARTY THERETO; NOR SHALL ANY OF THE ACTS
SPECIFIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH BE CONSIDERED OR HELD TO BE VIOLATIONS OF
ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN2  "WHEREAS UNDER PREVAILING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, DEVELOPED WITH
THE AID OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY FOR OWNERS OF PROPERTY TO ORGANIZE IN
THE CORPORATE AND OTHER FORMS OF OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATION, THE INDIVIDUAL
UNORGANIZED WORKER IS COMMONLY HELPLESS TO EXERCISE ACTUAL LIBERTY OF
CONTRACT AND TO PROTECT HIS FREEDOM OF LABOR, AND THEREBY TO OBTAIN
ACCEPTABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, WHEREFORE, THOUGH HE
SHOULD BE FREE TO DECLINE TO ASSOCIATE WITH HIS FELLOWS, IT IS
NECESSARY THAT HE HAVE FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION,
AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS OWN CHOOSING, TO NEGOTIATE
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT HE SHALL BE FREE
FROM THE INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYERS OF LABOR, OR
THEIR AGENTS, IN THE DESIGNATION OF SUCH REPRESENTATIVES OR IN SELF
ORGANIZATION OR IN OTHER CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION." 

FN3  CF. UNITED STATES V. BRIMS, 272 U.S. 549, INVOLVING A CONSPIRACY
OF MILL WORK MANUFACTURERS, BUILDING CONTRACTORS AND UNION CARPENTERS. 

FN4  THREE YEARS LATER, IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, CONGRESS
GAVE SIMILAR BREADTH TO THE DEFINITION OF A LABOR DISPUTE.  ACT OF JULY
3, 1935, 49 STAT. 448, 449, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 152(9). 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING. 

AS I THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE INDICTMENT FAILS TO CHARGE AN OFFENSE
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, AS IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AND APPLIED BY THIS
COURT, I FIND NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT ON THE DEFINITION OF PARTICIPANTS IN A LABOR DISPUTE IN
THE CLAYTON ACT, AS CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT IN DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS
CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443 - AN APPLICATION OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT WHICH IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT AND WHICH SOME OF MY BRETHREN SHARPLY
CHALLENGE. 

THE INDICTMENT IS FOR A CONSPIRACY TO PROMOTE BY PEACEFUL MEANS A
LOCAL "JURISDICTIONAL" STRIKE IN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.  ITS AIM IS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS OR THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, BOTH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, SHALL BE PERMITTED TO
INSTALL CERTAIN MACHINERY ON THE PREMISES OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. IN
ST. LOUIS.  IT APPEARS THAT ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWS BEER AND MANUFACTURES
OTHER PRODUCTS WHICH IT SHIPS TO POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  IT ALSO
USES SUPPLIES AND BUILDING MATERIALS WHICH ARE SHIPPED TO IT FROM
POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  BORSARI TANK CORPORATION IS ABOUT TO
CONSTRUCT FOR ANHEUSER-BUSCH UPON ITS PREMISES A BUILDING FOR ITS USE
IN BREWING BEER.  L.O. STOCKER COMPANY HAS CONTRACTED AND INTENDS TO
CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING UPON LAND OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH ADJACENT TO
ITS BREWERY AND LEASED BY IT TO THE GAYLORD CONTAINER CORPORATION, A
MANUFACTURER OF PAPER AND CARDBOARD CONTAINERS WHICH IT SHIPS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT BOTH BORSARI AND STOCKER WILL
REQUIRE AND USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDINGS, MATERIALS TO BE
SHIPPED FROM POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE TO THE BUILDING SITES ON OR
ADJACENT TO THE ANHEUSER-BUSCH PREMISES. 

THE INDICTMENT CHARGES THAT PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY TO ENFORCE THE
JURISDICTIONAL DEMANDS APPELLEES, WHO ARE OFFICERS OR REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE BROTHERHOOD, CALLED A STRIKE OF ITS MEMBERS, SOME SEVENTY-EIGHT
IN NUMBER, IN THE EMPLOY OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH, ATTEMPTED TO CALL SYMPATHY
STRIKES BY MEMBERS OF OTHER UNIONS IN ITS EMPLOY AND CAUSED THE
PREMISES OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH AND THE ADJACENT PREMISES LEASED TO GAYLORD
TO BE PICKETED BY PERSONS "BEARING UMBRELLAS AND CHARGING ANHEUSER
BUSCH, INC., TO BE UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR; WITH THE INTENT TO SHUT
DOWN THE BREWERY AND MANUFACTURING PLANT OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., TO
HINDER AND PREVENT THE PASSAGE OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY TO AND FROM SAID
PREMISES AND THUS TO RESTRAIN AND STOP THE COMMERCE OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH"
IN THE BEER AND OTHER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY IT, AND IN THE SUPPLIES
AND MATERIALS PROCURED BY IT EXTRASTATE, AND "TO RESTRAIN THE COMMERCE"
OF GAYLORD.  IT IS ALLEGED THAT PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY, DEFENDANTS
"REFUSED TO PERMIT MEMBERS OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD  ...  TO BE
EMPLOYED AND PREVENTED SUCH MEMBERS FROM BEING EMPLOYED BY BORSARI  ...
WITH THE INTENT AND EFFECT OF PREVENTING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING
ABOUT TO BE BUILT BY BORSARI  ...  AND THUS OF RESTRAINING THE COMMERCE
OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH IN BEER  ...  AND ALSO WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND WILLFUL
DISREGARD OF THE CONSEQUENT RESTRAINT AND STOPPAGE OF COMMERCE IN THE
MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE USED BY BORSARI."  LIKE ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE
WITH RESPECT TO STOCKER WITH THE ADDED CHARGE THAT THE ACTS ALLEGED
WERE WITH INTENT TO PREVENT PERFORMANCE OF STOCKER'S CONTRACT WITH
GAYLORD "WITH WILLFUL DISREGARD OF THE CONSEQUENT RESTRAINT OF THE
COMMERCE OF GAYLORD." 

THERE IS THE FURTHER ALLEGATION THAT PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY
DEFENDANTS AND THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS HAVE INSTIGATED AND BROUGHT ABOUT
A "BOYCOTT OF BEER BREWED BY ANHEUSER-BUSCH ...  AND OF DEALERS IN SAID
BEER THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES," BY DISTRIBUTING TO MEMBERS OF LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS AND TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IN MANY STATES AND BY
PUBLISHED NOTICES CIRCULATED INTERSTATE "DENOUNCING ANHEUSER-BUSCH,
INC. AS UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR AND CALLING UPON ALL UNION MEMBERS
AND FRIENDS OF ORGANIZED LABOR TO REFRAIN FROM PURCHASING AND DRINKING
SAID BEER." 

WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ALLEGED ACTIVITIES OF DEFENDANTS, ACTUAL OR
INTENDED, ONLY SO FAR AS THEY HAVE AN EFFECT ON COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY
THE SHERMAN ACT AS IT HAS BEEN AMENDED OR RESTRICTED IN ITS OPERATION
BY THE CLAYTON ACT.  THE LEGALITY OF THE ALLEGED RESTRAINT UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT IS NOT AFFECTED BY CHARACTERIZING THE STRIKE, AS THIS
INDICTMENT DOES, AS "JURISDICTIONAL" OR AS NOT WITHIN THE "LEGITIMATE
OBJECT OF A LABOR UNION."  THE RESTRAINTS CHARGED ARE OF TWO TYPES: ONE
IS THAT RESULTING TO THE COMMERCE OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH, BORSARI, STOCKER
AND GAYLORD FROM THE PEACEFUL PICKETING OF THE ANHEUSER-BUSCH PREMISES,
A PART OF WHICH IS LEASED TO GAYLORD, AND THE REFUSAL OF THE
BROTHERHOOD TO PERMIT ITS MEMBERS TO WORK, AND ITS PREVENTION OF ITS
MEMBERS FROM WORKING (BY WHAT MEANS OTHER THAN PICKETING DOES NOT
APPEAR) FOR BORSARI AND STOCKER.  THE OTHER IS THAT RESULTING FROM THE
REQUESTS ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLIC TO REFRAIN FROM PURCHASING ANHEUSER
BUSCH BEER. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE FIRST TYPE OF RESTRAINT IS ONLY THAT WHICH IS
INCIDENTAL TO THE CONDUCT OF A LOCAL STRIKE AND WHICH RESULTS FROM
CLOSING THE PLANT OF A MANUFACTURER OR BUILDER WHO SHIPS HIS PRODUCT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR WHO PROCURES HIS SUPPLIES FROM POINTS OUTSIDE
THE STATE.  SUCH RESTRAINTS, INCIDENT TO SUCH A STRIKE, UPON THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF THE PRODUCTS OR SUPPLIES HAVE BEEN
REPEATEDLY HELD BY THIS COURT, WITHOUT A DISSENTING VOICE, NOT TO BE
WITHIN THE REACH OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.  THERE IS HERE NO
ALLEGATION IN THE CASE OF ANY OF THE EMPLOYERS OF ANY INTERFERENCE,
ACTUAL OR INTENDED, BY STRIKERS WITH GOODS MOVING OR ABOUT TO BE
SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SUCH AS WAS LAST TERM SO SHARPLY
PRESENTED AND HELD NOT TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN APEX
HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469. 

WITH RESPECT TO BORSARI AND STOCKER THE INDICTMENT DOES NO MORE THAN
CHARGE A LOCAL STRIKE TO ENFORCE THE JURISDICTIONAL DEMANDS UPON
ANHEUSER-BUSCH BY THE REFUSAL OF UNION MEMBERS TO WORK IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS FOR ANHEUSER-BUSCH OR UPON ITS LAND, THE WORK
UPON WHICH, SO FAR AS APPEARS, HAS NOT EVEN BEGUN.  THE RESTRAINT
ALLEGED IS ONLY THAT RESULTING FROM THE "DISREGARD" BY THE STRIKERS OF
THE STOPPAGE OF THE MOVEMENT INTERSTATE OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS AND
THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS OF GAYLORD CONSEQUENT UPON THEIR REFUSAL TO
CONSTRUCT THE BUILDINGS.  PRECISELY AS IN LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO. V.
MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103, WHERE A LOCAL BUILDING STRIKE WITH LIKE
CONSEQUENCES WAS HELD NOT TO VIOLATE THE SHERMAN LAW, THERE IS WANTING
HERE ANY FACT TO SHOW THAT THE CONSPIRACY WAS DIRECTED AT THE USE OF
ANY PARTICULAR BUILDING MATERIAL IN THE STATES OF ORIGIN AND
DESTINATION OR ITS TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THEM "WITH THE DESIGN OF
NARROWING OR SUPPRESSING THE INTERSTATE MARKET," EACH OF WHICH WERE
THOUGHT TO BE CRUCIAL IN BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. STONE CUTTERS' ASSN.,
274 U.S. 37, 46-47.  SEE APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, SUPRA, 506. 

AS TO THE COMMERCE OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH AND GAYLORD, THE INDICTMENT AT
MOST SHOWS A CONSPIRACY TO PICKET PEACEFULLY THEIR PREMISES AND
PUBLICLY TO CHARGE THE FORMER WITH BEING UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR, ALL
WITH THE INTENT TO SHUT DOWN THE PLANT OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH AND TO HINDER
AND PREVENT THE PASSAGE OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY TO AND FROM THE
PREMISES AND THUS TO RESTRAIN THE COMMERCE OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH AND
GAYLORD.  THERE IS ALSO THE ALLEGATION ALREADY NOTED THAT THE REFUSAL
TO WORK FOR STOCKER WILL RESTRAIN THE COMMERCE OF GAYLORD, PRESUMABLY
BECAUSE HE WILL MANUFACTURE AND SHIP LESS OF HIS PRODUCT IF THE
PROPOSED BUILDING IS NOT COMPLETED.    IT IS A NOVEL PROPOSITION THAT
ALLEGATIONS OF LOCAL PEACEFUL PICKETING OF A MANUFACTURING PLANT TO
ENFORCE UNION DEMANDS CONCERNING TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACCOMPANIED BY
ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT THE EMPLOYER IS UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR IS A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT WHATEVER EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY
BE INTENDED TO FOLLOW FROM THE ACTS DONE.  THEY, LIKE THE ALLEGATIONS
HERE, SHOW ONLY SUCH EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS MAY BE INFERRED
FROM THE ACTS ALLEGED AND IN ANY EVENT SUCH RESTRAINT AS THERE MAY BE
IS NOT SHOWN TO BE MORE THAN THAT WHICH IS INCIDENTAL TO EVERY STRIKE
CAUSING A SHUTDOWN OF A MANUFACTURING PLANT WHOSE PRODUCT MOVES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR STOPPING BUILDING OPERATIONS WHERE THE BUILDER
IS USING MATERIALS SHIPPED TO HIM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IF THE
COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WHICH WE ARE NOW CONSIDERING MAKE OUT AN
OFFENSE, THEN EVERY LOCAL STRIKE AIMED AT CLOSING A SHOP WHOSE PRODUCTS
OR SUPPLIES MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS, WITHOUT MORE, A VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THEY PRESENT A WEAKER CASE THAN THOSE UNANIMOUSLY
HELD BY THIS COURT NOT TO INVOLVE VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN
UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO. (FIRST CORONADO CASE), 259
U.S. 344; UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT & MEISEL CO., 265 U.S. 457;
LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, SUPRA, AND SEE CORONADO COAL CO. V.
UNITED MINE WORKERS (SECOND CORONADO CASE), 268 U.S. 295, 310.  IN ANY
CASE THERE IS NO ALLEGATION IN THE INDICTMENT THAT THE RESTRAINT DID OR
COULD OPERATE TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION IN THE MARKET OF ANY PRODUCT AND
SO DISMISSAL OF THESE COUNTS IS REQUIRED BY OUR DECISION IN APEX
HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, SUPRA. 

THE SECOND AND ONLY OTHER TYPE OF RESTRAINT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
CHARGED IS THE SO-CALLED "BOYCOTT" ALLEGED TO BE BY THE PUBLICATION OF
NOTICES CHARGING ANHEUSER-BUSCH WITH BEING UNFAIR TO LABOR AND
REQUESTING MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND THE PUBLIC NOT TO PURCHASE OR USE
THE ANHEUSER-BUSCH PRODUCT.  WERE IT NECESSARY TO A DECISION I SHOULD
HAVE THOUGHT THAT, SINCE THE STRIKE AGAINST ANHEUSER-BUSCH WAS BY ITS
EMPLOYEES AND THERE IS NO INTIMATION THAT THERE IS ANY STRIKE AGAINST
THE DISTRIBUTORS OF THE BEER, THE STRIKE WAS A LABOR DISPUTE BETWEEN
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT
AS THEY WERE CONSTRUED IN DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, SUPRA.
IN THAT CASE SEC. 20 OF THE ACT, AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT POINTS
OUT, MAKES LAWFUL THE ACTION OF ANY PERSON* "CEASING TO PATRONIZE  ...
ANY PARTY TO SUCH DISPUTE" OR "RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING
OTHERS BY PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS SO TO DO." 

*APPELLEES, BEING NATIONAL AND LOCAL OFFICERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD AND
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES IN THE LABOR DISPUTE WITH THEIR EMPLOYER,
ARE "PROXIMATELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY CONCERNED" AS PARTIES TO AN ACTUAL
DISPUTE AND ARE, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE CLAYTON
ACT.  SEE DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, SUPRA, 470, 471. 

BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS A SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO THE ASSERTED VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE PUBLICATION OF SUCH NOTICES AND REQUESTS, TO
POINT OUT THAT THE STRIKE WAS BY EMPLOYEES OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH; THAT
THERE WAS NO BOYCOTT OF OR STRIKE AGAINST ANY PURCHASER OF ANHEUSER
BUSCH BEER BY ANY CONCERTED ACTION OR REFUSAL TO PATRONIZE HIM BY THE
PURCHASE OF BEER OR OTHER PRODUCTS SUPPLIED BY HIM SUCH AS WAS
CONDEMNED IN LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274, 300-307; CF. APEX HOSIERY
CO. V. LEADER, SUPRA, 505; AND FINALLY THAT THE PUBLICATION,
UNACCOMPANIED BY VIOLENCE, OF A NOTICE THAT THE EMPLOYER IS UNFAIR TO
ORGANIZED LABOR AND REQUESTING THE PUBLIC NOT TO PATRONIZE HIM IS AN
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT
WHICH CANNOT BE MADE UNLAWFUL BY ACT OF CONGRESS.  SEE THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88* . 

*APPELLEES, BEING NATIONAL AND LOCAL OFFICERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD AND
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYEES IN THE LABOR DISPUTE WITH THEIR EMPLOYER,
ARE "PROXIMATELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY CONCERNED" AS PARTIES TO AN ACTUAL
DISPUTE AND ARE, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THE CLAYTON
ACT.  SEE DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, SUPRA, 470, 471. 

I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT, UPON PRINCIPLES HITHERTO RECOGNIZED AND
ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, THE INDICTMENT CHARGES NO
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE INDICTMENT ADEQUATELY CHARGES A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE AND
COMMERCE WITH THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF PREVENTING ANHEUSER-BUSCH FROM
RECEIVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMODITIES AND MATERIALS INTENDED FOR
USE IN ITS PLANT; OF PREVENTING THE BORSARI CORPORATION FROM OBTAINING
MATERIALS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR USE IN PERFORMING A CONTRACT FOR
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, AND OF PREVENTING THE STOCKER COMPANY FROM RECEIVING
MATERIALS IN LIKE MANNER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING FOR THE
GAYLORD CORPORATION.  THE INDICTMENT FURTHER CHARGES THAT THE
CONSPIRACY WAS TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FLOWING FROM MISSOURI
INTO OTHER STATES OF PRODUCTS OF ANHEUSER-BUSCH AND GENERALLY TO
RESTRAIN THE INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE OF THE THREE CORPORATIONS
NAMED.  FN1 

WITHOUT DETAILING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT, IT IS SUFFICIENT
TO SAY THAT THEY UNDENIABLY CHARGE A SECONDARY BOYCOTT, AFFECTING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THIS COURT, AND MANY STATE TRIBUNALS, OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS,
HAVE HELD SUCH A SECONDARY BOYCOTT ILLEGAL.  IN 1908 THIS COURT HELD
SUCH A SECONDARY BOYCOTT, INSTIGATED TO ENFORCE THE DEMANDS OF A LABOR
UNION AGAINST AN EMPLOYER, WAS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND COULD
BE RESTRAINED AT THE SUIT OF THE EMPLOYER.  FN2  IT IS MATTER OF
HISTORY THAT LABOR UNIONS INSISTED THEY WERE NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF
THE SHERMAN ACT BUT THIS COURT HELD TO THE CONTRARY.  AS A RESULT OF
CONTINUAL AGITATION THE CLAYTON ACT WAS ADOPTED.  THAT ACT, AS AMENDED,
BECAME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 15, 1914.  FN3  SUBSEQUENTLY SUITS IN EQUITY
WERE BROUGHT TO RESTRAIN SECONDARY BOYCOTTS SIMILAR TO THOSE INVOLVED
IN EARLIER CASES.  THE CONTENTION WAS MADE THAT THE CLAYTON ACT
EXEMPTED LABOR ORGANIZATIONS FROM SUCH SUITS.  THAT CONTENTION WAS NOT
SUSTAINED.  FN4  UPON THE FULLEST CONSIDERATION, THIS COURT REACHED THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT GOVERNED
NOT THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS BUT MERELY
REGULATED THE PRACTICE ACCORDING TO WHICH, AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER
WHICH, EQUITABLE RELIEF MIGHT BE GRANTED IN SUITS OF THIS CHARACTER. 

THIS COURT ALSO UNANIMOUSLY HELD THAT A CONSPIRACY SUCH AS IS CHARGED
IN THE INSTANT CASE RENDERS THE CONSPIRATORS LIABLE TO CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS.  FN5 

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE AGITATION FOR COMPLETE EXEMPTION OF
LABOR UNIONS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS PERSISTED. 
INSTEAD OF GRANTING THE COMPLETE EXEMPTION DESIRED, CONGRESS ADOPTED,
MARCH 23, 1932, THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  FN6  THE TITLE AND THE
CONTENTS OF THAT ACT, AS WELL AS ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY,  FN7
DEMONSTRATE BEYOND QUESTION THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO DEFINE AND TO LIMIT
THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN EQUITY.  THE ACT BROADENS
THE SCOPE OF LABOR DISPUTES AS THERETOFORE UNDERSTOOD, THAT IS,
DISPUTES BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYES WITH RESPECT TO WAGES,
HOURS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDES THAT BEFORE A FEDERAL COURT
CAN ENTER AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN ILLEGAL ACTS CERTAIN PRELIMINARY
FINDINGS, BASED ON EVIDENCE, MUST BE MADE.  THE ACT FURTHER DEPRIVES
THE COURTS OF THE RIGHT TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DOING OF
CERTAIN ACTS BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OR THEIR MEMBERS.  IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO DETAIL THE ACTS AS TO WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
OF EQUITY IS ABOLISHED.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY, WHAT A READING OF THE
ACT MAKES LETTER CLEAR, THAT THE JURISDICTION OF ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES
AUTHORIZED BY THE SHERMAN ACT, AND OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENSES DENOUNCED
BY THAT ACT, ARE NOT TOUCHED BY THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT. 

BY A PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION NEVER, AS I THINK, HERETOFORE INDULGED
BY THIS COURT, IT IS NOW FOUND THAT, BECAUSE CONGRESS FORBADE THE
ISSUING OF INJUNCTIONS TO RESTRAIN CERTAIN CONDUCT, IT INTENDED TO
REPEAL THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT AUTHORIZING ACTIONS AT LAW AND
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION OF TORTS AND CRIMES DEFINED BY
THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  THE DOCTRINE NOW ANNOUNCED SEEMS TO BE THAT AN
INDICATION OF A CHANGE OF POLICY IN AN ACT AS RESPECTS ONE SPECIFIC
ITEM IN A GENERAL FIELD OF THE LAW, COVERED BY AN EARLIER ACT,
JUSTIFIES THIS COURT IN SPELLING OUT AN IMPLIED REPEAL OF THE WHOLE OF
THE EARLIER STATUTE AS APPLIED TO CONDUCT OF THE SORT HERE INVOLVED.  I
VENTURE TO SAY THAT NO COURT HAS EVER UNDERTAKEN SO RADICALLY TO
LEGISLATE WHERE CONGRESS HAS REFUSED SO TO DO.  FN8 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT NOW ADOPTED IS THE MORE CLEARLY
INADMISSIBLE WHEN WE REMEMBER THAT THE SCOPE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND
REPEALS OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS IN RESPECT OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS HAS
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CONSTANT CONTROVERSY AND CONSIDERATION IN
CONGRESS.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS HISTORY, TO ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS AN
INTENT TO REPEAL LEGISLATION WHICH HAS HAD A DEFINITE AND WELL
UNDERSTOOD SCOPE AND EFFECT FOR DECADES PAST, BY RESURRECTING A
REJECTED CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAYTON ACT AND EXTENDING A POLICY
STRICTLY LIMITED BY THE CONGRESS ITSELF IN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT,
SEEMS TO ME A USURPATION BY THE COURTS OF THE FUNCTION OF THE CONGRESS
NOT ONLY NOVEL BUT FRAUGHT, AS WELL, WITH THE MOST SERIOUS DANGERS TO
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF DIVISION OF POWERS. 

FN1  C.E. STEVENS CO. V. FOSTER & KLEISER CO., 311 U.S. 255. 

FN2  LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274. 

FN3  C. 323, 38 STAT. 730. 

FN4  DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; BEDFORD CUT
STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS' ASSN., 274 U.S. 37. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. BRIMS, 272 U.S. 549. 

FN6  C. 90, 47 STAT. 70; 29 U.S.C. SECS. 101-115. 

FN7  S. REP. NO. 163, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 7-8; H. REP. NO. 669,
72D CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 2-3; 75 CONG. REC. 5464, 5467. 

FN8  THE RULE ALWAYS HERETOFORE FOLLOWED IN RESPECT OF IMPLIED REPEAL
WAS RECENTLY EXPOUNDED IN AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION IN UNITED STATES V.
BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 198. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 246 


NO. 201.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  -
DECREE VACATED. 


1.  SECTION 266 OF THE JUD.  CODE IS NOT A MEASURE OF BROAD SOCIAL
POLICY TO BE CONSTRUED WITH GREAT LIBERALITY, BUT AN ENACTMENT
TECHNICAL IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THE TERM AND TO BE APPLIED AS SUCH. 
P. 251. 

2.  A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE GOVERNOR OF A STATE FROM EMPLOYING MILITARY
FORCE IN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, CAN
NOT BE MAINTAINED IN A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC.
266, OR BE REVIEWED BY DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER THAT SECTION,
WHERE THE VALIDITY OF NO STATUTE OF THE STATE IS CHALLENGED, BUT MERELY
THE LEGALITY OF THE GOVERNOR'S ACTIONS DONE UNDER COLOR OF GENERAL
PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS CONFERRING HIS EXECUTIVE
AND MILITARY POWERS.  STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 253. 

3.  A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT MISTAKENLY BROUGHT UNDER
JUD.  CODE SEC. 266, IS REVIEWABLE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
THOUGH RENDERED BY THREE JUDGES.  P. 254. 

4.  ON AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT, IN A SUIT ERRONEOUSLY BROUGHT UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC.
266, THIS COURT VACATED THE DECREE AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT SO THAT IT MIGHT ENTER A FRESH DECREE FROM WHICH A
TIMELY APPEAL COULD BE TAKEN.  P. 254. 

PHILLIPS, GOVERNOR OF OKLAHOMA, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES AWARDING
AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  33 F.SUPP.  261. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AS PART OF A FLOOD CONTROL AND HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT, THE GRAND
RIVER DAM AUTHORITY, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, WAS EMPOWERED
TO CONSTRUCT THE GRAND RIVER DAM, WITH AUTHORITY TO BORROW MONEY AND
ACCEPT GRANTS FROM THE UNITED STATES.  OKLAHOMA LAWS OF 1935, ART. 4,
C. 70.  FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM THE UNITED STATES ALLOTTED
TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS TO THE AUTHORITY.  EIGHT AND ONE-HALF MILLIONS,
IN ROUND NUMBERS, WERE TO BE USED AS A GRANT, AND ELEVEN AND ONE-HALF
FOR THE BONDS OF THE AUTHORITY.  CONSTRUCTION BEGAN IN FEBRUARY, 1938,
AND BY THE SPRING OF LAST YEAR MUCH OF THE WORK WAS NEARING
COMPLETION.  DURING THIS PERIOD, THE GOVERNOR OF OKLAHOMA
UNSUCCESSFULLY PRESSED AGAINST THE AUTHORITY CLAIMS FOR THE FLOODING OF
ROADS WITHIN THE DAM AREA.  THE ACTION WHICH THE GOVERNOR FINALLY TOOK
TO ENFORCE HIS OWN VIEWS IN THIS MATTER IS THE SOURCE OF THE PRESENT
LITIGATION.  ON MARCH 13, 1940, HE DECLARED MARTIAL LAW IN AN AREA
SURROUNDING PART OF THE DAM-SITE AND ORDERED THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF
THE STATE TO OCCUPY IT.  THE FOLLOWING DAY THE GOVERNOR IN CONJUNCTION
WITH OTHER STATE OFFICIALS OBTAINED AN EX PARTE ORDER IN A STATE COURT
RESTRAINING FURTHER WORK ON THE DAM BY THE AUTHORITY.  THEREUPON THE
UNITED STATES BEGAN THE PRESENT SUIT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  A
TEMPORARY ORDER WAS ISSUED AGAINST THE GOVERNOR AND THE OTHER OFFICIALS
RESTRAINING THEM FROM INTERFERENCE WITH THE GRAND RIVER PROJECT BY
FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THEIR SUIT IN THE STATE COURT AND BY THE USE OF
MILITARY FORCE.  DEEMING THE SUIT TO BE ONE ARISING UNDER SEC. 266 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380, A DISTRICT COURT OF
THREE JUDGES WAS CONVENED WHICH, AFTER HEARING, ENTERED AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IN THE TERMS OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER.  THIS IS THE DECREE THAT IS NOW BEFORE US. 

BUT UNLESS SEC. 266 REQUIRED THE PRESENT SUIT TO BE HEARD BY THREE
JUDGES, UNDER THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF 1925 WE ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
TO ENTERTAIN THIS DIRECT APPEAL FROM A DISTRICT COURT.  SEC. 238 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345.  HAVING CONCLUDED THAT
THERE IS A FATAL BAR TO OUR ENTERTAINING THE APPEAL, WE ARE WITHOUT
POWER TO CONSIDER THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE ARGUED HERE. 

BY SEC. 266, WHICH IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN1  CONGRESS
PROVIDED AN EXCEPTIONAL PROCEDURE FOR A WELL-UNDERSTOOD TYPE OF
CONTROVERSY.  THE LEGISLATION WAS DESIGNED TO SECURE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN "A LIMITED CLASS OF CASES OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE."  EX PARTE
COLLINS, 277 U.S. 565, 567.  IT IS A MATTER OF HISTORY THAT THIS
PROCEDURAL DEVICE WAS A MEANS OF PROTECTING THE INCREASING BODY OF
STATE LEGISLATION REGULATING ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE FROM INVALIDATION BY A
CONVENTIONAL SUIT IN EQUITY.  WHILE CONGRESS THUS SOUGHT TO ASSURE MORE
WEIGHT AND GREATER DELIBERATION BY NOT LEAVING THE FATE OF SUCH
LITIGATION TO A SINGLE JUDGE, IT WAS NO LESS MINDFUL THAT THE
REQUIREMENT OF THREE JUDGES, OF WHOM ONE MUST BE A JUSTICE OF THIS
COURT OR A CIRCUIT JUDGE, ENTAILS A SERIOUS DRAIN UPON THE FEDERAL
JUDICIAL SYSTEM PARTICULARLY IN REGIONS WHERE, DESPITE MODERN
FACILITIES, DISTANCE STILL PLAYS AN IMPORTANT PART IN THE EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.  AND ALL BUT THE FEW GREAT METROPOLITAN
AREAS ARE SUCH REGIONS.  MOREOVER, INASMUCH AS THIS PROCEDURE ALSO
BRINGS DIRECT REVIEW OF A DISTRICT COURT TO THIS COURT, ANY LOOSE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 266 WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSES
OF CONGRESS, AS EXPRESSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF FEBRUARY 13,
1925, TO KEEP WITHIN NARROW CONFINES OUR APPELLATE DOCKET.  MOORE V.
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 272 U.S. 317, 321.  THE HISTORY OF SEC. 266(SEE
POGUE, STATE DETERMINATION OF STATE LAW, 41 HARV. L. REV. 623, AND
HUTCHESON, A CASE FOR THREE JUDGES, 47 HARV. L. REV. 795), THE
NARROWNESS OF ITS ORIGINAL SCOPE, THE PIECE-MEAL EXPLICIT AMENDMENTS
WHICH WERE MADE TO IT (SEE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1913, 37 STAT. 1013, AND ACT
OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, AMENDING SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE), THE CLOSE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE SECTION IN OBEDIENCE TO
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY (SEE, FOR INSTANCE, MOORE V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT
CO., SUPRA; SMITH V. WILSON, 273 U.S. 388; EX PARTE COLLINS, SUPRA;
OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386; EX PARTE WILLIAMS, 277
U.S. 267; EX PARTE PUBLIC NATIONAL BANK, 278 U.S. 101; RORICK V. BOARD
OF COMM'RS, 307 U.S. 208; EX PARTE BRANSFORD, 310 U.S. 354), COMBINE TO
REVEAL SEC. 266 NOT AS A MEASURE OF BROAD SOCIAL POLICY TO BE CONSTRUED
WITH GREAT LIBERALITY, BUT AS AN ENACTMENT TECHNICAL IN THE STRICT
SENSE OF THE TERM AND TO BE APPLIED AS SUCH. 

TO BRING THIS PROCEDURAL DEVICE INTO PLAY - TO DISLOCATE THE NORMAL
OPERATIONS OF THE SYSTEM OF LOWER FEDERAL COURTS AND THEREAFTER TO COME
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT - REQUIRES A SUIT WHICH SEEKS TO INTERPOSE THE
CONSTITUTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE POLICY, WHETHER SUCH POLICY
IS DEFINED IN A STATE CONSTITUTION OR IN AN ORDINARY STATUTE OR THROUGH
THE DELEGATED LEGISLATION OF AN "ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR COMMISSION." 
THE CRUX OF THE BUSINESS IS PROCEDURAL PROTECTION AGAINST AN
IMPROVIDENT STATE-WIDE DOOM BY A FEDERAL COURT OF A STATE'S LEGISLATIVE
POLICY.  THIS WAS THE AIM OF CONGRESS AND THIS IS THE RECONCILING
PRINCIPLE OF THE CASES. 

TO THE TEST OF THIS PRINCIPLE MUST BE PUT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
PRESENT CASE IS WITHIN SEC. 266. 

THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION HAS THE CUSTOMARY PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO
THE POWERS OF A GOVERNOR.  IN HIM IS LODGED "THE SUPREME EXECUTIVE
POWER," HE IS "COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE MILITIA OF THE STATE" AND HE
"SHALL CAUSE THE LAWS OF THE STATE TO BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED." 
CONSTITUTION OF OKLAHOMA, ARTICLE VI, SECS. 2, 6, 8.  DEFINING WITH
PARTICULARITY THESE POWERS, AN OKLAHOMA STATUTE "AUTHORIZED AND
REQUIRED" ITS GOVERNOR TO CALL OUT THE NATIONAL GUARD IN CASE OF WAR OR
SIMILAR CONTINGENCIES INCLUDING "ANY FORCIBLE OBSTRUCTING OF THE
EXECUTION OF THE LAWS OR REASONABLE APPREHENSION THEREOF, AND AT ALL
OTHER TIMES HE MAY DEEM NECESSARY  ...  "  OKLAHOMA STATUTES, 1931,
SEC. 4989; OKLA. STAT. ANN. TITLE 44, SEC. 66.  IN ITS COMPLAINT THE
UNITED STATES DID NOT IMPUGN THE VALIDITY OF THESE OKLAHOMA
PROVISIONS.  BUT THE GOVERNOR JUSTIFIED HIS DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW
UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, AND SINCE HIS ACTION IS DEEMED A LAWLESS
INTERFERENCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THE SUIT IS
CLAIMED TO BE AN "APPLICATION FOR" AN "INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION  ...
RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF" A "STATUTE OF
A STATE BY RESTRAINING THE ACTION OF ANY OFFICER OF SUCH STATE IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE  ...  UPON THE GROUND OF THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH STATUTE." 

THE CLAIM PROVES TOO MUCH.  PROBABLY MOST OF THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNORS
TRACE BACK TO THE COMMON PROVISION CHARGING THEM WITH TAKING CARE THAT
THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.  SOME CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY
PROVISION IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ALL ACTIONS BY STATE OFFICIALS. 
BUT AN ATTACK ON LAWLESS EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN A PARTICULAR CASE IS
NOT AN ATTACK UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE CONFERRING THE
AUTHORITY EVEN THOUGH A MISREADING OF THE STATUTE IS INVOKED AS
JUSTIFICATION.  AT LEAST NOT WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL SCHEME OF SEC.
266.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE UNITED STATES IN ITS COMPLAINT DID NOT
CHARGE THE ENABLING ACTS OF OKLAHOMA WITH UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, BUT
ASSAILED MERELY THE GOVERNOR'S ACTION AS EXCEEDING THE BOUNDS OF LAW. 
IN OTHER WORDS, IT SEEKS A RESTRAINT NOT OF A STATUTE BUT OF AN
EXECUTIVE ACTION.  BUT THE ENFORCEMENT OF A "STATUTE," WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 266, IS NOT SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED MERELY BECAUSE A
STATE OFFICIAL SEEKS SHELTER UNDER IT BY WAY OF DEFENSE AGAINST A
CHARGE OF LAWLESSNESS.  AS MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO SAID OF A RELATED
PROBLEM AFFECTING THE BUSINESS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, "WE DO NOT TRAVEL
BACK SO FAR."  GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 109, 116. 

ON ITS FACE, SEC. 266 PRECLUDES A READING WHICH WOULD BRING WITHIN
ITS SCOPE EVERY SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE CONDUCT OF A STATE OFFICIAL
WHENEVER, IN THE ULTIMATE REACHES OF LITIGATION, SOME ENACTMENT MAY BE
SAID TO AUTHORIZE THE QUESTIONED CONDUCT.  THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE ONLY
ATTENDS "THE APPLICATION FOR" AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE COMPLAINANT MUST SEEK TO
FORESTALL THE DEMANDS OF SOME GENERAL STATE POLICY, THE VALIDITY OF
WHICH HE CHALLENGES.  NO ONE QUESTIONS OKLAHOMA'S AUTHORITY TO GIVE HER
GOVERNOR "SUPREME EXECUTIVE POWER" NOR TO MAKE HIM COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF
OF HER MILITIA.  WHAT IS HERE CHALLENGED IS A SINGLE, UNIQUE EXERCISE
OF THESE PREROGATIVES OF HIS OFFICE.  THIS VIEW IS REINFORCED BY THE
PROVISO ADDED TO SEC. 266 BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1913, 37 STAT. 1013,
WHEREBY SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE
CAN BE STAYED IF APPROPRIATE PROVISION IS MADE FOR TESTING ITS VALIDITY
IN THE STATE COURTS.  OF COURSE, A SUIT CANNOT BE BROUGHT IN THE COURT
OF A STATE TO ENFORCE A GOVERNOR'S DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW.  IN
SHORT, THIS IS NOT A CASE FOR WHICH THE PROCEDURAL STRUCTURE OF SEC.
266 WAS DEVISED.  IF THE GOVERNOR'S ACTION IS SUBJECT TO RESTRAINT IN
THE DISTRICT COURT, THE PROCEDURAL ROAD TO BE TAKEN IS THE NORMAL
COURSE OF LITIGATION IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND NOT THE SHORT CUT
OF SEC. 266. 

STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, WHICH IS INVOKED AS A
PRECEDENT, WAS A VERY DIFFERENT CASE.  THERE MARTIAL LAW WAS EMPLOYED
IN SUPPORT OF AN ORDER OF THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION LIMITING
PRODUCTION OF OIL IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD.  THE GOVERNOR WAS SOUGHT TO
BE RESTRAINED AS PART OF THE MAIN OBJECTIVE TO ENJOIN "THE EXECUTION OF
AN ORDER MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE  ... COMMISSION," AND AS SUCH WAS
INDUBITABLY WITHIN SEC. 266.  COMPARE RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN &
NICHOLS OIL CO., 311 U.S. 570, AND RAILROAD COMMISSION V. HUMBLE OIL &
REFINING CO., 311 U.S. 578. 

HAD A TIMELY APPEAL BEEN TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE
DECREE BELOW COULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED THERE, THOUGH RENDERED BY THREE
JUDGES.  HEALY V. RATTA, 289 U.S. 701; 67 F.2D 554; 292 U.S. 263. 
WHILE THIS COURT CANNOT HEAR THE MERITS, IT WILL, WHERE THE QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION WAS NOT OBVIOUSLY SETTLED BY PRIOR DECISIONS, ENFORCE THE
LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 266 BY AN ORDER FRAMED TO SAVE APPELLANTS THEIR
PROPER REMEDIES.  OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386, 392. 
WE THEREFORE VACATE THE DECREE AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE COURT WHICH
HEARD THE CASE SO THAT IT MAY ENTER A FRESH DECREE FROM WHICH
APPELLANTS MAY, IF THEY WISH, PERFECT A TIMELY APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  DECREE VACATED. 

FN1  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380: 

"NO INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SUSPENDING OR RESTRAINING THE
ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF ANY STATUTE OF A STATE BY
RESTRAINING THE ACTION OF ANY OFFICER OF SUCH STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OR EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE OR IN THE ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF AN
ORDER MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR COMMISSION ACTING UNDER AND
PURSUANT TO THE STATUTES OF SUCH STATE, SHALL BE ISSUED OR GRANTED BY
ANY JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, OR BY ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR BY ANY JUDGE THEREOF, OR BY ANY CIRCUIT JUDGE ACTING
AS DISTRICT JUDGE, UPON THE GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH
STATUTE, UNLESS THE APPLICATION FOR THE SAME SHALL BE PRESENTED TO A
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO A CIRCUIT OR
DISTRICT JUDGE, AND SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THREE JUDGES, OF
WHOM AT LEAST ONE SHALL BE A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR A CIRCUIT
JUDGE, AND THE OTHER TWO MAY BE EITHER CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGES, AND
UNLESS A MAJORITY OF SAID THREE JUDGES SHALL CONCUR IN GRANTING SUCH
APPLICATION.  WHENEVER SUCH APPLICATION AS AFORESAID IS PRESENTED TO A
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, OR TO A JUDGE, HE SHALL IMMEDIATELY CALL
TO HIS ASSISTANCE TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE APPLICATION TWO OTHER
JUDGES: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ONE OF SUCH THREE JUDGES SHALL BE A
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, OR A CIRCUIT JUDGE.  SAID APPLICATION
SHALL NOT BE HEARD OR DETERMINED BEFORE AT LEAST FIVE DAYS' NOTICE OF
THE HEARING HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE GOVERNOR AND TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE, AND TO SUCH OTHER PERSONS AS MAY BE DEFENDANTS IN THE
SUIT:  PROVIDED, THAT IF OF OPINION THAT IRREPARABLE LOSS OR DAMAGE
WOULD RESULT TO THE COMPLAINANT UNLESS A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS
GRANTED, ANY JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, OR ANY CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT
JUDGE, MAY GRANT SUCH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AT ANY TIME BEFORE
SUCH HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION, BUT SUCH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE
ONLY UNTIL THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION UPON NOTICE AS AFORESAID.  THE HEARING UPON
SUCH APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SHALL BE GIVEN
PRECEDENCE AND SHALL BE IN EVERY WAY EXPEDITED AND BE ASSIGNED FOR A
HEARING AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE DAY AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE
NOTICE HEREINBEFORE PROVIDED FOR.  AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN DIRECT TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING,
AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IN SUCH CASE.  IT
IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IF BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING OF SUCH
APPLICATION A SUIT SHALL HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN A COURT OF THE STATE
HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF UNDER THE LAWS OF SUCH STATE, TO ENFORCE
SUCH STATUTE OR ORDER, ACCOMPANIED BY A STAY IN SUCH STATE COURT OF
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SUCH STATUTE OR ORDER PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF
SUCH SUIT BY SUCH STATE COURT, ALL PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN THE EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE OR ORDER SHALL
BE STAYED PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF SUCH SUIT IN THE COURTS OF
THE STATE.  SUCH STAY MAY BE VACATED UPON PROOF MADE AFTER HEARING, AND
NOTICE OF TEN DAYS SERVED UPON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE, THAT
THE SUIT IN THE STATE COURTS IS NOT BEING PROSECUTED WITH DILIGENCE AND
GOOD FAITH.  THE REQUIREMENT RESPECTING THE PRESENCE OF THREE JUDGES
SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THE FINAL HEARING IN SUCH SUIT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT; AND A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT MAY BE TAKEN FROM A
FINAL DECREE GRANTING OR DENYING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN SUCH SUIT." 

..END :







GUGGENHEIM V. RASQUIN, 312 U.S. 254 


NO. 92.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 7, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 110
F.2D 371, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 506 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, WHICH PROVIDES THAT FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THE GIFT TAX THE AMOUNT OF A GIFT IS "THE VALUE THEREOF
AT THE DATE OF THE GIFT," THE "VALUE" IN THE CASE OF SINGLE-PREMIUM
POLICIES OF LIFE INSURANCE, IRREVOCABLY ASSIGNED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH
ISSUANCE, IS THE COST TO THE DONOR AND NOT THE CASH SURRENDER VALUE OF
THE POLICIES.  P. 256. 

2.  ARTICLE 2(5) OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 79, WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE
"IRREVOCABLE ASSIGNMENT OF A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY  ...  CONSTITUTES A
GIFT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE NET CASH SURRENDER VALUE, IF ANY, PLUS THE
PREPAID INSURANCE ADJUSTED TO THE DATE OF THE GIFT," APPLIED ONLY TO
POLICIES UPON WHICH CURRENT PREMIUMS WERE STILL BEING PAID AT THE DATE
OF THE GIFT, NOT TO SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICIES.  P. 258. 

GUGGENHEIM V. RASQUIN, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 628, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PETITIONER, 28 F.SUPP.  322, IN A SUIT FOR A TAX REFUND. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IT IS PROVIDED IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932(47 STAT. 169, 248) THAT FOR
GIFT-TAX PURPOSES THE AMOUNT OF A GIFT OF PROPERTY SHALL BE "THE VALUE
THEREOF AT THE DATE OF THE GIFT."  SEC. 506.  THIS CONTROVERSY INVOLVES
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SUCH "VALUE" IN CASE OF SINGLE-PREMIUM LIFE
INSURANCE POLICIES, WHICH ARE IRREVOCABLY ASSIGNED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH
ISSUANCE, IS COST TO THE DONOR OR CASH-SURRENDER VALUE OF THE
POLICIES.  THE CASE IS HERE ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS  FN1
AS RESPECTS THE PROPER METHOD FOR VALUATION OF SUCH GIFTS MADE PRIOR TO
1936.  FN2 

IN DECEMBER, 1934, PETITIONER PURCHASED, AT A COST OF $852,438.50,
SINGLE-PREMIUM LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES ON HER OWN LIFE IN THE AGGREGATE
FACE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000.  AT SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TIME SHE ASSIGNED
THEM IRREVOCABLY TO THREE OF HER CHILDREN.  HER GIFT-TAX RETURN LISTED
THE POLICIES AT THEIR ASSERTED CASH-SURRENDER VALUE  FN3  OF
$717,344.81.  THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT THE "VALUE" OF THE
POLICIES WAS THEIR COST AND ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY WHICH PETITIONER
PAID.  THIS IS A SUIT FOR A REFUND.  JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER IN THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  110 F.2D
371. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT COST RATHER THAN CASH
SURRENDER VALUE IS THE PROPER CRITERION FOR VALUATION OF SUCH GIFTS
UNDER SEC. 506 OF THE ACT. 

CASH-SURRENDER VALUE IS THE RESERVE LESS A SURRENDER CHARGE.  AND IN
CASE OF A SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICY THE RESERVE IS THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE
CONTRACT DISCOUNTED AT A SPECIFIED RATE OF INTEREST ON THE BASIS OF THE
INSURED'S EXPECTED LIFE.  IF THE POLICY IS SURRENDERED, THE COMPANY
WILL PAY THE CASH-SURRENDER VALUE.  IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE MARKET FOR
INSURANCE CONTRACTS IS USUALLY THE ISSUING COMPANIES OR THE BANKS WHO
WILL LEND MONEY ON THEM; THAT BANKS WILL NOT LOAN MORE THAN THE CASH
SURRENDER VALUE; AND THAT IF POLICIES HAD AN ACTUAL REALIZABLE VALUE IN
EXCESS OF THEIR CASH-SURRENDER VALUE, THERE WOULD ARISE A BUSINESS OF
PURCHASING SUCH POLICIES FROM THOSE WHO OTHERWISE WOULD SURRENDER
THEM.  FROM THESE FACTS IT IS URGED THAT CASH-SURRENDER VALUE
REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD BE ACTUALLY OBTAINED FOR THE POLICIES
IN A WILLING BUYER-WILLING SELLER MARKET - THE TEST SUGGESTED BY
TREASURY REGULATIONS 79, ART. 19(1), PROMULGATED OCTOBER 30, 1933. 
FN4 

THAT ANALYSIS, HOWEVER, OVERLOOKS THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY INTEREST
WHICH IS BEING VALUED.  SURRENDER OF A POLICY REPRESENTS ONLY ONE OF
THE RIGHTS OF THE INSURED OR BENEFICIARY.  PLAINLY THAT RIGHT IS ONE OF
THE SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP.  SEE CHASE NATIONAL BANK
V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 327, 335; VANCE ON INSURANCE (2D ED.)  PP.
54-56.  BUT THE OWNER OF A FULLY PAID LIFE INSURANCE POLICY HAS MORE
THAN THE MERE RIGHT TO SURRENDER IT; HE HAS THE RIGHT TO RETAIN IT FOR
ITS INVESTMENT VIRTUES AND TO RECEIVE THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY
UPON THE INSURED'S DEATH.  THAT THESE LATTER RIGHTS ARE DEEMED BY
PURCHASERS OF INSURANCE TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL VALUE IS CLEAR FROM THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF A SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICY AND ITS
IMMEDIATE OR EARLY CASHSURRENDER VALUE - IN THE INSTANT CASE OVER
$135,000.  ALL OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF A POLICY MUST BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING ITS VALUE FOR GIFT-TAX PURPOSES.  TO
SINGLE OUT ONE AND TO DISREGARD THE OTHERS IS IN EFFECT TO SUBSTITUTE A
DIFFERENT PROPERTY INTEREST FOR THE ONE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE
GIFT.  IN THIS SITUATION AS IN OTHERS (SUSQUEHANNA POWER CO. V. STATE
TAX COMM'N, 283 U.S. 291, 296) AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY IS THE USE TO WHICH IT MAY BE PUT.  CERTAINLY THE PETITIONER
HERE DID NOT EXPEND $852,438.50 TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE GIFT LIMITED TO
$717,344.81.  PRESUMPTIVELY THE VALUE OF THESE POLICIES AT THE DATE OF
THE GIFT WAS THE AMOUNT WHICH THE INSURED HAD EXPENDED TO ACQUIRE
THEM.  COST IS COGENT EVIDENCE OF VALUE.  AND HERE IT IS THE ONLY
SUGGESTED CRITERION WHICH REFLECTS THE VALUE TO THE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE
BUNDLE OF RIGHTS IN A SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICY - THE RIGHT TO RETAIN IT AS
WELL AS THE RIGHT TO SURRENDER IT.  COST IN THIS SITUATION IS NOT
MARKET PRICE IN THE NORMAL SENSE OF THE TERM.  BUT THE ABSENCE OF
MARKET PRICE IS NO BARRIER TO VALUATION.  FN5  LUCAS V. ALEXANDER, 279
U.S. 573, 579. 

PETITIONER, HOWEVER, ARGUES THAT CASH-SURRENDER VALUE WAS MADE THE
MEASURE OF VALUE BY ART. 2(5), TREASURY REGULATIONS 79, PROMULGATED
OCTOBER 30, 1933, WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE "IRREVOCABLE ASSIGNMENT OF A
LIFE INSURANCE POLICY  ...  CONSTITUTES A GIFT IN THE AMOUNT OF THE NET
CASH SURRENDER VALUE, IF ANY, PLUS THE PREPAID INSURANCE ADJUSTED TO
THE DATE OF THE GIFT."  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT UNDER THIS REGULATION THE
RESERVE IN CASE OF A SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICY COVERS THE PREPAID INSURANCE
AND REPRESENTS THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE POLICY.  THE REGULATION IS
SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS.  BUT IN OUR VIEW IT APPLIED ONLY TO POLICIES UPON
WHICH CURRENT PREMIUMS WERE STILL BEING PAID AT THE DATE OF THE GIFT,
NOT TO SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICIES.  ACCORDINGLY, THE PROBLEM HERE INVOLVES
AN INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF "VALUE" IN SEC. 506 UNAIDED BY AN
INTERPRETATIVE REGULATION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION BELOW ARE COMMISSIONER V. HAINES,
104 F.2D 854(C.C.A. 3D); HELVERING V. CRONIN, 106 F.2D 907(C.C.A.8TH);
UNITED STATES V. RYERSON, 114 F.2D 150(C.C.A.7TH), DISCUSSED IN PAUL,
STUDIES IN FEDERAL TAXATION (3D SERIES) PP. 403, ET SEQ. 

FN2  ART. 19(9), TREASURY REGULATIONS 79, PROMULGATED FEBRUARY 26,
1936, PROVIDES THAT REPLACEMENT COST AT THE DATE OF THE GIFT IS THE
MEASURE OF VALUE OF A SINGLE-PREMIUM LIFE INSURANCE POLICY. 

FN3  THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT NONE OF THE POLICIES HAD A
CASHSURRENDER VALUE PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF ONE YEAR.  IN VIEW OF
OUR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE WE DO NOT STOP TO DECIDE WHETHER, IN VIEW
OF THE PLEADINGS AND THE STIPULATION, THAT POSITION CAN BE MAINTAINED
HERE. 

FN4  ART. 19(1) PROVIDED:  "...  THE VALUE OF PROPERTY IS THE PRICE
AT WHICH SUCH PROPERTY WOULD CHANGE HANDS BETWEEN A WILLING BUYER AND A
WILLING SELLER, NEITHER BEING UNDER ANY COMPULSION TO BUY OR TO SELL. 
WHERE THE PROPERTY IS SOLD WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD AFTER THE DATE OF
THE GIFT, AND IT IS SHOWN THAT THE SELLING PRICE REFLECTS THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE THEREOF AS OF THE DATE OF THE GIFT, THE SELLING PRICE WILL
BE ACCEPTED AS THE AMOUNT OF THE GIFT.  ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND ELEMENTS
OF VALUE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN EVERY CASE." 

FN5  IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ART. 19(1), SUPRA,
NOTE 4, DID NOT ESTABLISH MARKET PRICE AS THE SOLE CRITERION OF VALUE. 

..END :




















POWERS V. COMMISSIONER, 312 U.S. 259 


NO. 486.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 115
F.2D 209, AFFIRMED. 


DETERMINATION OF THE CRITERION OF "VALUE" FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE GIFT
TAX UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 IS A QUESTION OF LAW, AND A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT IN THE CASE OF SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICIES
OF LIFE INSURANCE, IRREVOCABLY ASSIGNED AS GIFTS SHORTLY AFTER
ISSUANCE, THE VALUE OF THE GIFTS WAS THE CASH SURRENDER VALUE OF THE
POLICIES, WAS PROPERLY REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS "NOT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  GUGGENHEIM V. RASQUIN, ANTE P. 254.  P. 260. 

POWERS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 640, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SETTING ASIDE A DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN A
GIFT TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS THE SAME AS THAT IN GUGGENHEIM V. RASQUIN,
ANTE, P. 254.  PETITIONER IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1935, PURCHASED
SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICIES OF INSURANCE ON HER OWN LIFE AND LATE IN
DECEMBER, 1935, IRREVOCABLY ASSIGNED THEM AS GIFTS.  THE COMMISSIONER
DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY, CLAIMING THAT THE VALUE OF THE POLICIES FOR
GIFT-TAX PURPOSES WAS THE COST OF DUPLICATING THEM AT THE DATES OF THE
GIFTS, NOT THE CASH-SURRENDER VALUE AS REPORTED BY PETITIONER.  THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD THAT THE VALUE OF THE GIFTS WAS THEIR
CASHSURRENDER VALUE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  115 F.2D
209.  THAT JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED ON THE AUTHORITY OF GUGGENHEIM V.
RASQUIN, SUPRA, UNLESS AS CLAIMED BY PETITIONER THE COURT BELOW WAS
PRECLUDED FROM SUBSTITUTING ITS JUDGMENT OF VALUE FOR THAT OF THE
BOARD.  HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131.  BUT THE QUESTION OF
WHAT CRITERION SHOULD BE EMPLOYED FOR DETERMINING THE "VALUE" OF THE
GIFTS IS A QUESTION OF LAW.  SEE LUCAS V. ALEXANDER, 279 U.S. 573. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS JUSTIFIED IN REVERSING
THE DECISION OF THE BOARD AS "NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  INT. REV.
CODE 1939, SEC. 1141(C)(1); 53 STAT. 164.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. RYERSON, 312 U.S. 260 


NO. 494.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 114
F.2D 150, REVERSED. 


THE LAPSE OF TIME BETWEEN THE ISSUANCE OF SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICIES OF
LIFE INSURANCE AND THEIR ASSIGNMENT AS GIFTS, HELD NOT TO JUSTIFY THE
SUBSTITUTION OF CASH SURRENDER VALUE, INSTEAD OF REPLACEMENT COST AT
THE DATE OF THE GIFT, AS THE CRITERION OF VALUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
GIFT TAX UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  P. 261. 

UNITED STATES V. RYERSON ET AL., EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 640, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 28
F.SUPP.  265, FOR THE TAXPAYER IN A SUIT TO RECOVER ALLEGED
OVERPAYMENTS OF GIFT TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS THE SAME AS THAT IN GUGGENHEIM V. RASQUIN, ANTE,
P. 254.  CONSEQUENTLY THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HOLDING THAT CASH-SURRENDER VALUE ON THE DATES OF THE GIFTS WAS THE
PROPER METHOD OF VALUING SINGLE-PREMIUM LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES FOR
GIFT-TAX PURPOSES (114 F.2D 150) MUST BE REVERSED, UNLESS THE ELAPSE OF
TIME BETWEEN THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICIES AND THE MAKING OF THE GIFTS
CALLS FOR A DIFFERENT RESULT.  THE SINGLE-PREMIUM POLICIES HERE
INVOLVED WERE TAKEN OUT BY THE INSURED IN 1928 AND 1929.  THEY WERE
ASSIGNED AS GIFTS IN DECEMBER, 1934, WHEN THE INSURED WAS 79 YEARS
OLD.  THE COST OF THE POLICIES WAS LESS THAN THEIR CASHSURRENDER VALUE
AT THE DATES OF THE GIFTS.  BUT THE COST OF REPLACING THE POLICIES AT
THE THEN AGE OF THE INSURED WOULD HAVE BEEN IN EXCESS OF THEIR CASH
SURRENDER VALUE.  WE THINK THAT SUCH COST OF REPLACEMENT, AS HELD BY
THE DISTRICT COURT, IS THE BEST AVAILABLE CRITERION OF THE VALUE OF THE
POLICIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE GIFT TAX.  THE ELAPSE OF TIME BETWEEN
ISSUANCE AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE POLICIES DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE
SUBSTITUTION OF CASH-SURRENDER VALUE FOR REPLACEMENT COST AS THE
CRITERION OF VALUE.  WE CANNOT ASSUME WITH RESPONDENTS THAT AT THE
DATES OF THE GIFTS THE POLICIES PRESUMABLY HAD NO INSURANCE, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM INVESTMENT, VALUE TO THE DONOR.  HERE, AS IN THE
CASE WHERE THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICIES AND THEIR ASSIGNMENT AS GIFTS
ARE SIMULTANEOUS, CASH-SURRENDER VALUE REFLECTS ONLY A PART OF THE
VALUE OF THE CONTRACTS.  THE COST OF DUPLICATING THE POLICIES AT THE
DATES OF THE GIFTS IS, IN ABSENCE OF MORE COGENT EVIDENCE, THE ONE
CRITERION WHICH REFLECTS BOTH THEIR INSURANCE AND INVESTMENT VALUE TO
THE OWNER AT THAT TIME.  CF. VANCE ON INSURANCE (2D ED.)  PP. 332-333;
SPEER V. PHOENIX MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 36 HUN 322.  THE FACT THAT THE
THEN CONDITION OF AN INSURED'S HEALTH MIGHT MAKE HIM UNINSURABLE
EMPHASIZES THE CONCLUSION THAT THE USE OF THAT CRITERION WILL RESULT IN
PLACING A MINIMUM VALUE UPON SUCH A GIFT.  REVERSED. 
..END :






















WOODS V. CITY BANK CO., 312 U.S. 262 


NOS. 281 AND 282.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3,
1941.  - 111 F.2D 834, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS
PLENARY POWER TO REVIEW ALL FEES AND EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
REORGANIZATION FROM WHATEVER SOURCE THEY MAY BE PAYABLE.  REASONABLE
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED MAY BE ALLOWED.  THE CLAIMANT HAS
THE BURDEN OF PROVING THEIR WORTH.  P. 267. 

2.  "REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED" NECESSARILY
IMPLIES LOYAL AND DISINTERESTED SERVICE IN THE INTEREST OF THOSE FOR
WHOM THE CLAIMANT PURPORTED TO ACT.  P. 268. 

3.  NO COMPENSATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN
CONNECTION WITH A REORGANIZATION BY A CLAIMANT WHO REPRESENTED NOT ONLY
MEMBERS OF THE INVESTING PUBLIC BUT ALSO OTHER AND CONFLICTING
INTERESTS; AND THIS ALTHOUGH NO FRAUD OR UNFAIRNESS IS SHOWN TO HAVE
RESULTED FROM THE CONFLICT.  P. 268. 

4. IN CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS, PROTECTIVE COMMITTEES, AS WELL AS
INDENTURE TRUSTEES, ARE FIDUCIARIES.  P. 268. 

5.  EXPENDITURES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ESTATE ARE NOT "PROPER," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 242 OF THE ACT,
AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, WHERE THE CLAIMANT CAN NOT SHOW THAT THEY
WERE MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF A PROJECT EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED TO THE
INTERESTS OF THOSE WHOM THE CLAIMANT PURPORTED TO REPRESENT.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, THOSE EXPENDITURES NORMALLY SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHICH HAVE
CLEARLY BENEFITED THE ESTATE.  P. 269. 

WOODS, COURT TRUSTEE, V. CITY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO. OF CHICAGO
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 629, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER, IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH DISALLOWED THE
CLAIMS OF AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE, A BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE, AND THEIR
COUNSEL, FOR SERVICES AND EXPENSES, AND WHICH ALLOWED IN PART A COUNTER
CLAIM MADE BY THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE LATTER TOOK TWO APPEALS,
ONE BY PETITION TO THE DISTRICT COURT, THE OTHER BY PETITION TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS - PRIOR TO THE RULING IN RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORP. V. PRUDENCE SECURITIES ADVISORY GROUP, 311 U.S. 579. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE BASIC QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE CONCERNS THE POWER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER CH. X OF THE CHANDLER ACT  FN1  (52
STAT. 840) TO DISALLOW CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT ON THE
GROUNDS THAT THE CLAIMANTS WERE SERVING DUAL OR CONFLICTING INTERESTS. 
THE CLAIMANTS, RESPONDENTS HERE, ARE AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE, A
BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE, AND THE COMMITTEE'S COUNSEL.  COUNSEL TO THE
COMMITTEE WAS ALSO COUNSEL TO THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE; AND ITS SERVICES
IN THE LATTER CAPACITY WERE INCLUDED IN THE CLAIM OF THE INDENTURE
TRUSTEE.  THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE
ALLOWANCE OF THESE CLAIMS, AND COUNTERCLAIMED AGAINST THE INDENTURE
TRUSTEE SEEKING TO SURCHARGE IT FOR VARIOUS ALLEGED ACTS OF MISCONDUCT
AND NEGLIGENCE.  THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE ANSWERED.  THERE WAS A HEARING
ON THE CLAIMS AND ON THE COUNTERCLAIM.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISALLOWED
THE CLAIMS "FOR WANT OF EQUITY"; AND ALLOWED THE COUNTERCLAIM ONLY AS A
RECOUPMENT TO EXTINGUISH ANY CLAIMS OF RESPONDENTS.  ON APPEAL THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  111 F.2D 834.  IT HELD THAT THERE
WAS NO CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD, NOR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF MISMANAGEMENT
OR NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT-TRUSTEE.  IT THEREUPON REMANDED
THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT, INDICATING THAT THE OUT-OF-POCKET
EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL AND THAT THE REASONABLE AND
CUSTOMARY CHARGE FOR SERVICES SO RENDERED SHOULD GOVERN THE CLAIMS FOR
COMPENSATION.  WE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI  FN2 IN
VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE IN REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS OF THE POWER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT OVER SUCH ALLOWANCES. 

WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO QUESTION THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS ON THE ISSUE OF FRAUD.  WE AGREE WITH IT THAT ON THIS RECORD
RECOVERY ON THE COUNTERCLAIM WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED.  BUT WE DO NOT
BELIEVE IT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF
FACT AS RESPECTS RESPONDENTS' DUAL OR CONFLICTING INTERESTS IN THIS
REORGANIZATION. 

THE PROPERTY HERE INVOLVED IS AN APARTMENT HOTEL - GRANADA
APARTMENTS, INC. A COMMITTEE WAS FORMED BY THE RESPONDENT-TRUSTEE  FN3
TO REPRESENT THE FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS IN THE REORGANIZATION.  IT WAS
COMPOSED OF FIVE MEMBERS.  TWO OF THESE WERE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF
ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL UNDERWRITERS OF THE BONDS.  FN4  THIS UNDERWRITER
WAS HEAVILY INTERESTED IN THE EQUITY.  FN5  SO FAR AS APPEARS, THAT
FACT WAS NOT DISCLOSED WHEN THE COMMITTEE SOLICITED THE BONDHOLDERS. 
IN ANY EVENT, THE EQUITY OWNER IS PECULIARLY ILL-SUITED TO REPRESENT
THE MORTGAGEE IN THESE SITUATIONS BECAUSE OF THEIR HISTORIC CLASH OF
INTERESTS.  SEE CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308 U.S. 106. 
FURTHERMORE, A RATHER SERIOUS QUESTION WAS RAISED EARLY IN THIS
REORGANIZATION CONCERNING ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS BY THE
UNDERWRITERS ON THE SALE OF THE BONDS THAT THE FURNISHINGS OF THE HOTEL
WERE COVERED BY THE MORTGAGE.  IT TURNED OUT THAT THEY WERE NOT; AND
BONDHOLDERS' MONEY WAS USED TO SATISFY THE LIEN OUTSTANDING AGAINST
THEM.  FN6  OBJECTIVE SCRUTINY AND FULL ENFORCEMENT OF AN UNDERWRITER'S
LIABILITY REQUIRES A COMMITTEE FREED FROM THAT UNDERWRITER'S
INFLUENCE. 

THE COMMITTEE WAS CLOSELY AFFILIATED WITH THE RESPONDENT-TRUSTEE,
WHICH, AS WE HAVE NOTED, CAUSED ITS FORMATION.  AND RESPONDENT-TRUSTEE
WAS IN TURN LATER APPOINTED AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE UNDER THE MORTGAGE ON
PETITION OF THE COMMITTEE.  THE COMMITTEE HAD AS ITS TWO MOST ACTIVE
MEMBERS OFFICERS OF THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE.  IT WAS IN SUBSTANCE A PART
OF THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE'S REORGANIZATION DIVISION.  FN7  THE INDENTURE
TRUSTEE WAS THE COMMITTEE'S DEPOSITARY; IT WOULD RECEIVE ANY FEES
ACCRUING TO THE COMMITTEE.  INDENTURE TRUSTEES THEMSELVES HAVE
FREQUENTLY CONDEMNED SUCH ENTANGLEMENTS WITH COMMITTEES.  FN8  THE
INDENTURE TRUSTEE REPRESENTS ALL THE BONDHOLDERS; THE COMMITTEE THOSE
WHO HAVE GIVEN IT AUTHORIZATIONS - IN THIS CASE ABOUT 50 PER CENT.
WHERE THE INTERESTS OF MAJORITIES AND MINORITIES DO NOT COINCIDE, THE
INTERESTS OF THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE AND THE COMMITTEE WILL TEND TO BE
ANTAGONISTIC.  FN9  BEYOND THAT IS THE FACT THAT AN INDENTURE TRUSTEE
CLOSELY AFFILIATED WITH A COMMITTEE SHARES THE COMMITTEE'S CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST. 

IN THIS CASE THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE WAS ALSO INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR
NEIGHBORING APARTMENT PROPERTIES AND DOMINATED THE COMMITTEES
REPRESENTING THE BONDS OF THOSE OTHER COMPANIES.  TWO MEMBERS OF
RESPONDENT COMMITTEE WERE ALSO MEMBERS OF ONE OF THOSE OTHER
COMMITTEES.  THERE WAS NO UNITARY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR THESE
SEVERAL PROPERTIES.  BUT THERE WERE DEALINGS BETWEEN THEM BY THEIR
COMMON REPRESENTATIVES - DEALINGS ATTACKED BY PETITIONER AS UNFAIR TO
THE INSTANT COMPANY AND DEFENDED BY RESPONDENTS AS FAIR. 

THAT IS NOT ALL. 

COUNSEL TO THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT ONLY COUNSEL TO THE INDENTURE
TRUSTEE IN THIS REORGANIZATION; IT WAS ALSO COUNSEL TO THE INDENTURE
TRUSTEE AND THE COMMITTEES FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.  AND
RESPONDENT-COUNSEL HAD ACTED AS GENERAL COUNSEL FOR ONE OF THE TWO
PRINCIPAL UNDERWRITERS N10 DURING THE FIANANCING OF THE PROPERTY HERE
INVOLVED; AND THAT UNDERWRITER'S PROSPECTUS WAS UNDER ATTACK IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS.  FN11 

UNDER CH. X OF THE CHANDLER ACT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS PLENARY
POWER TO REVIEW ALL FEES AND EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
REORGANIZATION FROM WHATEVER SOURCE THEY MAY BE PAYABLE.  FN12
REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED MAY BE ALLOWED.  FN13
THE CLAIMANT, HOWEVER, HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THEIR WORTH. 
FURTHERMORE, "REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED"
NECESSARILY IMPLIES LOYAL AND DISINTERESTED SERVICE IN THE INTEREST OF
THOSE FOR WHOM THE CLAIMANT PURPORTED TO ACT.  AMERCIAN UNITED MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO. V. CITY OF AVON PARK, 311 U.S. 138.  WHERE A CLAIMANT,
WHO REPRESENTED MEMBERS OF THE INVESTING PUBLIC, WAS SERVING MORE THAN
ONE MASTER OR WAS SUBJECT TO CONFLICTING INTERESTS, HE SHOULD BE DENIED
COMPENSATION.  IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT FRAUD OR UNFAIRNESS WERE NOT
SHOWN TO HAVE RESULTED.  CF. JACKSON V. SMITH, 254 U.S. 586, 589.  THE
PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT IN A CASE INVOLVING A
CONTRACT TO SPLIT FEES IN VIOLATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY RULES, IS
APPOSITE HERE:  "WHAT IS STRUCK AT IN THE REFUSAL TO ENFORCE CONTRACTS
OF THIS KIND IS NOT ONLY ACTUAL EVIL RESULTS BUT THEIR TENDENCY TO EVIL
IN OTHER CASES."  WEIL V. NEARY, 278 U.S. 160, 173.  FURTHERMORE, THE
INCIDENCE OF A PARTICULAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST CAN SELDOM BE MEASURED
WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT NEED NOT SPECULATE
AS TO WHETHER THE RESULT OF THE CONFLICT WAS TO DELAY ACTION WHERE
SPEED WAS ESSENTIAL, TO CLOSE THE RECORD OF PAST TRANSACTIONS WHERE
PUBLICITY AND INVESTIGATION WERE NEEDED, TO COMPROMISE CLAIMS BY
INATTENTION WHERE VIGILANT ASSERTION WAS NECESSARY, OR OTHERWISE TO
DILUTE THE UNDIVIDED LOYALTY OWED TO THOSE WHOM THE CLAIMANT PURPORTED
TO REPRESENT.  WHERE AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS, NO MORE
NEED BE SHOWN IN THIS TYPE OF CASE TO SUPPORT A DENIAL OF
COMPENSATION. 

PROTECTIVE COMMITTEES, AS WELL AS INDENTURE TRUSTEES, ARE
FIDUCIARIES.  BULLARD V. CITY OF CISCO, 290 U.S. 179; JEWETT V.
COMMONWEALTH BOND CORP., 241 APP. DIV. 131; 271 N.Y.S. 522; BERGELT V.
ROBERTS, 144 MISC. 832; 258 N.Y.S. 905, AFF'D 236 APP. DIV. 777; 258
N.Y.S. 1086; CARTER V. FIRST NAT'L BANK, 128 MD. 581; 98 A. 77.  CF.
NICHOL V. SENSENBRENNER, 220 WIS. 165; 263 N.W. 650.  A FIDUCIARY WHO
REPRESENTS SECURITY HOLDERS IN A REORGANIZATION MAY NOT PERFECT HIS
CLAIM TO COMPENSATION BY INSISTING THAT, ALTHOUGH HE HAD CONFLICTING
INTERESTS, HE SERVED HIS SEVERAL MASTERS EQUALLY WELL OR THAT HIS
PRIMARY LOYALTY WAS NOT WEAKENED BY THE PULL OF HIS SECONDARY ONE. 
ONLY STRICT ADHERENCE TO THESE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES CAN KEEP THE
STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR FIDUCIARIES "AT A LEVEL HIGHER THAN THAT
TRODDEN BY THE CROWD."  SEE MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO IN MEINHARD V. SALMON,
249 N.Y. 458, 464; 164 N.E. 545. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THESE CLAIMANTS REPRESENTED
CONFLICTING INTERESTS ARE AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 

SOME DISCRIMINATION, HOWEVER, IS NECESSARY IN APPLYING THE FOREGOING
RULE TO CLAIMS FOR EXPENSES.  REIMBURSEMENT FOR "PROPER COSTS AND
EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION" OF THE ESTATE
MAY BE ALLOWED N14.  THE RULE DISALLOWING COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF
CONFLICTING INTERESTS MAY BE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE TO BAR RECOVERY OF THE
EXPENDITURES MADE BY A CLAIMANT SUBJECT TO CONFLICTING INTERESTS. 
PLAINLY EXPENDITURES ARE NOT "PROPER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT
WHERE THE CLAIMANT CANNOT SHOW THAT THEY WERE MADE IN FURTHERANCE OF A
PROJECT EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHOM THE CLAIMANT
PURPORTED TO REPRESENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THOSE EXPENDITURES NORMALLY
SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHICH HAVE CLEARLY BENEFITED THE ESTATE.  SCOTT ON
TRUSTS (1939), SEC. 245.1.  THUS WHERE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID, NEEDFUL
REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS TO THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN MADE, OR THE LIKE,
EQUITY DOES NOT PERMIT THE ESTATE TO RETAIN THOSE BENEFITS WITHOUT
PAYING FOR THEM.  SUCH CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENSES, AT TIMES DIFFICULT,
RESTS IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT DREW NO SUCH DISTINCTION BUT PROCEEDED ON THE THEORY THAT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL EXPENSES MUST BE DENIED.  BUT IT IS NOT APPARENT
THAT ALL OF THEM FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITED CATEGORY. 

THE OTHER POINTS RAISED BY PETITIONER ARE SO PLAINLY WITHOUT MERIT
THAT THEY DO NOT WARRANT MENTION. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS REORGANIZATION STARTED WITH FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
ILLINOIS STATE COURT AND LATER WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT UPON THE FILING OF PETITIONS UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  PURSUANT TO SEC. 276(C)(2) OF THE CHANDLER ACT, THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT MADE THAT CHAPTER APPLICABLE TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THESE
CLAIMS.  THE CLAIMS UNDER REVIEW COVER NOT ONLY THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SEC. 77B BUT ALSO THE EARLIER STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS.  THOUGH SOME OF
THE ALLOWANCES HERE IN ISSUE APPARENTLY HAD BEEN FIXED BY THE STATE
COURT PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO BANKRUPTCY,
RESPONDENTS AGREED TO SUBMIT THE CLAIMS DE NOVO TO THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN2  THE TWO CASES RAISE THE SAME QUESTION.  ONE REPRESENTS AN APPEAL
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS OF RIGHT; THE OTHER AN APPEAL WITH
LEAVE.  THEY WERE TAKEN PRIOR TO OUR DECISION IN DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL
SITE V. COWAN, 309 U.S. 382.  AND SEE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. V.
PRUDENCE SECURITIES ADVISORY GROUP, 311 U.S. 579. 

FN3  NOT THEN THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE INDENTURE. 

FN4  A THIRD MEMBER WAS ALSO A DISTRIBUTOR OF THE BONDS WHEN THEY
WERE PUBLICLY OFFERED. 

FN5  THIS UNDERWRITER - CODY TRUST CO. - WENT INTO RECEIVERSHIP IN
DECEMBER, 1933, THE GRANADA BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE HAVING BEEN FORMED
IN APRIL, 1933.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT NOMINEES OF CODY TRUST
CO. OPERATED THE PROPERTY UNTIL JANUARY, 1934. 

THE REORGANIZATION BEGAN WITH A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IN THE STATE
COURT.  THE INDENTURE TRUSTEE, PREDECESSOR OF RESPONDENT TRUSTEE, LATER
TOOK POSSESSION AND EMPLOYED A SO-CALLED AGENT AT $50 PER MONTH "TO
KEEP CODY TRUST COMPANY INFORMED AS TO THE STATUS FROM TIME TO TIME." 

FN6  CERTAIN PHASES OF THE LITIGATION INVOLVING THIS QUESTION ARE
REVEALED IN THUMA V. GRANADA HOTEL CORP., 269 ILL. APP. 484; WENSTRAND
V. PICK & CO., 38 F.2D 25; IN RE GRANADA APARTMENTS, INC., 104 F.2D
528. 

SO FAR AS APPEARS NO EFFORT WAS MADE IN THIS REORGANIZATION TO ASSERT
ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNDERWRITERS. 

FN7  THAT DIVISION HAD HANDLED OVER 400 REORGANIZATIONS, HAVING BEEN
FORMED TO ACT IN CONNECTION WITH DEFAULTED BOND ISSUES UNDERWRITTEN BY
CHICAGO TRUST CO. AND CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF ILLINOIS.  CHICAGO TRUST CO.
WAS ONE OF THE UNDERWRITERS OF THE GRANADA BONDS. 

FN8  UTTER, PROBLEMS OF TRUSTEES UNDER DEFAULTED BOND ISSUES, 56
TRUST COMPANIES 653(1933); LITTLETON, ADMINISTRATION PROBLEMS UNDER
CORPORATE TRUSTEESHIP, ID., 335, 338. 

FN9  UTTER, OP. CIT. SUPRA NOTE 8, PP. 656-657.  THAT ANTAGONISM WAS
BEST ILLUSTRATED IN FORECLOSURE REORGANIZATIONS WHERE THE MINORITY WAS
NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT NEW SECURITIES BUT COULD INSIST ON CASH.  SEE
WEINER, CONFLICTING FUNCTIONS OF THE UPSET PRICE IN A CORPORATE
REORGANIZATION, 27 COL. L. REV. 132.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING WAS IN THE STATE COURT FROM JUNE, 1930 WHEN A
RECEIVER UNDER THE SECOND MORTGAGE WAS APPOINTED TO MAY, 1937 WHEN
PETITIONS UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WERE APPROVED.  FOR AN
EARLIER AND UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO PLACE THIS COMPANY UNDER SEC. 77B
SEE TUTTLE V. HARRIS, 297 U.S. 225.  RESPONDENT-INDENTURE TRUSTEE
BECAME SUCH IN JANUARY, 1935.  IT WAS IN POSSESSION FROM THEN UNTIL
MAY, 1937.    FN10  CHICAGO TRUST CO., WHICH WAS ALSO THE ORIGINAL
INDENTURE TRUSTEE. 

FN11  RESPONDENT-COUNSEL DENIES THAT IT ACTED AS COUNSEL IN THAT
PARTICULAR TRANSACTION OR KNEW OF THE ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION IN THE
PROSPECTUS AT THE TIME, AND ASSERTS THAT IT DID NOT LEARN OF THE
CONTENTS OF THE CIRCULAR UNTIL A QUESTION WAS RAISED CONCERNING IT
DURING THIS REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING.  WE ACCEPT ITS VERSION OF THE
FACTS. 

FN12  SEC. 221(4) PROVIDES:  "THE JUDGE SHALL CONFIRM A PLAN IF
SATISFIED THAT  ...  ALL PAYMENTS MADE OR PROMISED BY THE DEBTOR OR BY
A CORPORATION ISSUING SECURITIES OR ACQUIRING PROPERTY UNDER THE PLAN
OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON, FOR SERVICES AND FOR COSTS AND EXPENSES IN, OR
IN CONNECTION WITH, THE PROCEEDING OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLAN AND
INCIDENT TO THE REORGANIZATION, HAVE BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED TO THE JUDGE
AND ARE REASONABLE OR, IF TO BE FIXED AFTER CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN,
WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE; ...  " 

FN13  INDENTURE TRUSTEES, COMMITTEES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS ARE
INCLUDED AMONG THOSE TO WHOM THE COMPENSATION MAY BE ALLOWED.  SEC.
242. 

FN14  SEC. 242. 
..END :






















MD. CASUALTY CO. V. PACIFIC CO., 312 U.S. 270 


NO. 194.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1941.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 3, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 214, REVERSED. 


1.  TO SUPPORT A SUIT UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, THE FACTS
MUST SHOW A SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY, REAL AND IMMEDIATE BETWEEN PARTIES
HAVING ADVERSE LEGAL INTERESTS.  P. 273. 

2.  AN INSURER ISSUED A POLICY COVERING LIABILITY OF THE INSURED FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES CAUSED BY AUTOMOBILES "HIRED BY THE INSURED."  UNDER
THE POLICY AND THE STATE LAW, AN INJURED PARTY COULD KEEP THE POLICY
FROM LAPSING BY SERVING NOTICE OF THE ACCIDENT, ETC., IF THE INSURED
FAILED TO DO SO; AND, IF SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
INSURED, COULD ENFORCE IT BY SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
INSURER.  THE INSURED HAVING BEEN SUED IN THE STATE COURT FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES SUSTAINED IN A COLLISION BETWEEN A TRUCK DRIVEN BY AN EMPLOYEE
OF THE INSURED AND THE AUTOMOBILE OF THE CLAIMANT, THE INSURER BROUGHT
SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AGAINST THE INSURED AND THE CLAIMANT,
ALLEGING THAT THE TRUCK WAS NOT "HIRED BY THE INSURED" AND CONTENDING
THAT IT WAS NOT BOUND TO DEFEND THE STATE COURT SUIT OR TO INDEMNIFY
THE INSURED.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP AND JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT BEING
PRESENT, THE INSURER'S SUIT INVOLVED AN "ACTUAL CONTROVERSY" COGNIZABLE
UNDER THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT.  P. 273. 

(2)  AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT IS
PROHIBITED BY SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 274. 

MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. PACIFIC COAL & OIL CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE IN A
SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER ISSUED A CONVENTIONAL LIABILITY POLICY TO THE INSURED, THE
PACIFIC COAL & OIL CO., IN WHICH IT AGREED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURED FOR
ANY SUMS THE LATTER MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO PAY TO THIRD PARTIES FOR
INJURIES TO PERSON AND PROPERTY CAUSED BY AUTOMOBILES HIRED BY THE
INSURED.  PETITIONER ALSO AGREED THAT IT WOULD DEFEND ANY ACTION
COVERED BY THE POLICY WHICH WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE INSURED TO RECOVER
DAMAGES FOR SUCH INJURIES. 

WHILE THE POLICY WAS IN FORCE, A COLLISION OCCURRED BETWEEN AN
AUTOMOBILE DRIVEN BY RESPONDENT ORTECA AND A TRUCK DRIVEN BY AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE INSURED.  ORTECA BROUGHT AN ACTION IN AN OHIO STATE
COURT AGAINST THE INSURED TO RECOVER DAMAGES RESULTING FROM INJURIES
SUSTAINED IN THIS COLLISION.  APPARENTLY THIS ACTION HAS NOT PROCEEDED
TO JUDGMENT. 

PETITIONER THEN BROUGHT THIS ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED AND ORTECA. 
ITS COMPLAINT SET FORTH THE FACTS DETAILED ABOVE AND FURTHER ALLEGED
THAT AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION THE EMPLOYEE OF THE INSURED WAS
DRIVING A TRUCK SOLD TO HIM BY THE INSURED ON A CONDITIONAL SALES
CONTRACT.  PETITIONER CLAIMED THAT THIS TRUCK WAS NOT ONE "HIRED BY THE
INSURED" AND HENCE THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEFEND THE ACTION BY
ORTECA AGAINST THE INSURED OR TO INDEMNIFY THE LATTER IF ORTECA
PREVAILED.  IT SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO THIS EFFECT AGAINST THE
INSURED AND ORTECA, AND A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT PENDING FINAL JUDGMENT IN THIS SUIT. 

ORTECA DEMURRED TO THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT STATE
A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HIM.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED HIS
DEMURRER AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  111 F.2D 214.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 625, TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT WITH THE
DECISIONS OF OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS CITED IN THE NOTE.  FN1 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO
ENTITLE IT TO THE DECLARATORY RELIEF PRAYED IN ITS COMPLAINT.  THIS
RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS AN "ACTUAL CONTROVERSY" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT (JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 274D, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 400), SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO GRANT
DECLARATORY RELIEF UNLESS SUCH A CONTROVERSY EXISTS.  NASHVILLE, C. &
ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 259; U.S.C.A. CONSTITUTION,
ART. III, SEC. 2. 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ABSTRACT QUESTION AND A "CONTROVERSY"
CONTEMPLATED BY THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT IS NECESSARILY ONE OF
DEGREE, AND IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT, IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE, TO FASHION
A PRECISE TEST FOR DETERMINING IN EVERY CASE WHETHER THERE IS SUCH A
CONTROVERSY.  BASICALLY, THE QUESTION IN EACH CASE IS WHETHER THE FACTS
ALLEGED, UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOW THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL
CONTROVERSY, BETWEEN PARTIES HAVING ADVERSE LEGAL INTERESTS, OF
SUFFICIENT IMMEDIACY AND REALITY TO WARRANT THE ISSUANCE OF A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  SEE AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S.
227, 239-242.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT FREQUENTLY, IN THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT SUIT, THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES IN THE CONVENTIONAL SUIT
ARE REVERSED; THE INQUIRY IS THE SAME IN EITHER CASE.  NASHVILLE, C. &
ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, SUPRA, P. 261. 

THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THE INSTANT CASE PRESENTS SUCH A CONTROVERSY IS
PLAIN.  ORTECA IS NOW SEEKING A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED IN AN
ACTION WHICH THE LATTER CLAIMS IS COVERED BY THE POLICY, AND SECS. 9510
3 AND 9510-4 OF THE OHIO CODE (PAGE'S OHIO GENERAL CODE, VOL. 6, SECS.
9510-3, 9510-4) GIVE ORTECA A STATUTORY RIGHT TO PROCEED AGAINST
PETITIONER BY SUPPLEMENTAL PROCESS AND ACTION IF HE OBTAINS A FINAL
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED WHICH THE LATTER DOES NOT SATISFY WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS AFTER ITS RENDITION.  COMPARE MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V.
UNITED CORPORATION, 111 F.2D 443, 446; CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE CORP.
V. NORRIS, 103 F.2D 116, 117; U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. PIERSON,
97 F.2D 560, 562.  MOREOVER, ORTECA MAY PERFORM THE CONDITIONS OF THE
POLICY ISSUED TO THE INSURED REQUIRING NOTICE OF THE ACCIDENT, NOTICE
OF SUIT, ETC., IN ORDER TO PREVENT LAPSE OF THE POLICY THROUGH FAILURE
OF THE INSURED TO PERFORM SUCH CONDITIONS.  HARTFORD ACCIDENT &
INDEMNITY CO. V. RANDALL, 125 OHIO ST. 581; 183 N.E. 433; SEE ALSO,
LIND V. STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSN., 128 OHIO ST. 1; 190
N.E. 138; STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSN. V. FRIEDMAN, 122 OHIO
ST. 334; 171 N.E. 591. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PETITIONER
AND THE INSURED.  COMPARE AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, SUPRA.  IF WE
HELD CONTRARIWISE AS TO ORTECA BECAUSE, AS TO HIM, THE CONTROVERSY WERE
YET TOO REMOTE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OPPOSITE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
POLICY MIGHT BE ANNOUNCED BY THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.  FOR THE
FEDERAL COURT, IN A JUDGMENT NOT BINDING ON ORTECA MIGHT DETERMINE THAT
PETITIONER WAS NOT OBLIGATED UNDER THE POLICY, WHILE THE STATE COURT,
IN A SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDING BY ORTECA AGAINST PETITIONER, MIGHT
CONCLUDE OTHERWISE.  COMPARE CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE CORP. V.
NORRIS, SUPRA, P. 117; AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. V. YEATTS, 99 F.2D
665, 670. 

THUS WE HOLD THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PETITIONER
AND ORTECA, AND HENCE, THAT PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF
ACTION AGAINST THE LATTER.  HOWEVER, OUR DECISION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE
ISSUANCE OF THE INJUNCTION PRAYED BY PETITIONER.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
265, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 379; SEE CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE CORP. V.
NORRIS, SUPRA, P. 117; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. CONSUMERS FINANCE
SERVICE, INC., 101 F.2D 514, 516; AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. V.
YEATTS, SUPRA, P. 670. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. UNITED CORPORATION, 111 F.2D 443;
CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE CORP. V. NORRIS, 103 F.2D 116; MARYLAND
CASUALTY CO. V. CONSUMERS FINANCE SERVICE, INC., 101 F.2D 514; AETNA
CASUALTY & SURETY CO. V. YEATTS, 99 F.2D 665; U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY
CO. V. PIERSON, 97 F.2D 560; ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORP. V. MANNING, 92
F.2D 168.  SEE ALSO, EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORP. V. RYAN, 109
F.2D 690; C.E. CARNES & CO. V. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORP.,
101 F.2D 739; STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO. V. ALEXANDER, INC., 23
F.SUPP.  807; U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. PIERSON, 21 F.SUPP.  678;
BUILDERS & MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO. V. PAQUETTE, 21 F.SUPP. 
858; TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. V. YOUNG, 18 F.SUPP.  450; COMMERCIAL
CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. V. HUMPHREY, 13 F.SUPP.  174. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :








FROST & CO. V. MINES CORP., 312 U.S. 38 


NO. 78.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1941.  - 61
IDAHO 21 - 98 P.2D 965, REVERSED. 


1.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE WAS BASED
WHOLLY UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AND IS
REVIEWABLE HERE.  P. 40. 

2.  A CONTRACT OF A CORPORATION GRANTING AN OPTION TO PURCHASE AT A
STIPULATED PRICE A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF SHARES OF ITS TREASURY STOCK,
HELD - ASSUMING THAT A "PUBLIC OFFERING" WAS INVOLVED - NOT
UNENFORCEABLE ALTHOUGH THE OPTIONED SHARES WERE NOT REGISTERED UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AS AMENDED.  P. 42. 

A.C. FROST & CO. V. COEUR D'ALENE MINES CORP. 

CERTIORARI OF THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 624, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING RECOVERY UPON
A CONTRACT ON THE GROUND OF INVALIDITY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF
1933. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEPTEMBER 10, 1934, RESPONDENT, BY A WRITTEN CONTRACT, GAVE TO ONE
BOLAND "THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND OPTION TO PURCHASE THE WHOLE
OR ANY PART" OF 1,300,000 SHARES OF ITS TREASURY STOCK AT 10 CENTS PER
SHARE, PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN INSTALLMENTS.  HE IMMEDIATELY ASSIGNED
THE CONTRACT TO PETITIONER, FROST & COMPANY.  APRIL 26, 1935, THIS WAS
MODIFIED AS TO TIME AND AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS.  MAY 15, 1935, ANOTHER
MODIFICATION AUTHORIZED RESPONDENT TO SELL OPTIONED STOCK AND CREDIT
PETITIONER WITH THE PROCEEDS ABOVE 10 CENTS PER SHARE. 

PETITIONER OBTAINED 165,000 SHARES AND PAID THEREFOR $16,500. 
RESPONDENT SOLD MANY AT PRICES ABOVE 10 CENTS AND GAVE PETITIONER
CREDITS AMOUNTING TO $16,306.  NONE OF THE CORPORATION'S SHARES WERE
REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AS AMENDED, C. 38, 48 STAT.
74; C. 404, 48 STAT. 881, 905.  AND UPON THAT ALLEGED GROUND, IN JUNE
1935, RESPONDENT REFUSED DELIVERY OF THE REMAINING OPTIONED ONES -
855,150. 

BY COMPLAINT FILED IN AN IDAHO STATE COURT, MARCH 26, 1937,
PETITIONER CHARGED THAT RESPONDENT HAD REPUDIATED THE OPTION AND ASKED
JUDGMENT FOR $16,306, ALSO DAMAGES CONSEQUENT UPON BREACH OF THE
AGREEMENT. 

THE ANSWER DENIED LIABILITY UPON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE
CONTRACT "WAS ENTERED INTO IN VIOLATION OF LAW, AND PARTICULARLY IN
VIOLATION OF  ...  THE SECURITY ACT OF 1933, APPROVED MAY 27, 1933, AND
ACTS OF CONGRESS AMENDATORY THEREOF AND SUPPLEMENTAL THERETO, AND
PARTICULARLY IN THIS THAT THE 1,300,000 SHARES OF STOCK ATTEMPTED TO BE
SOLD BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE SAID W. J. BOLAND UNDER SAID INSTRUMENT
WAS THE TREASURY STOCK OF THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION, AND HAD NEVER BEEN
REGISTERED FOR SALE UNDER SAID NATIONAL SECURITIES ACT, OR ACTS
AMENDATORY THEREOF OR SUPPLEMENTAL THERETO, WITH THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND THAT THE SAID W. J. BOLAND KNEW THESE FACTS
AND KNEW THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT LEGALLY SELL TO HIM THE SAID
STOCK OR ANY PART THEREOF; AND DEFENDANT ALLEGES THAT SAID CONTRACT WAS
VOID AB INITIO." 

THE CAUSE WAS TRIED WITHOUT A JURY.  SOME EVIDENCE TENDED TO SHOW
THAT BOTH PARTIES PURPOSED THAT PETITIONER WOULD SELL ACQUIRED SHARES
TO SUNDRY PARTIES THROUGH USE OF THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE TRIAL COURT HELD THE OPTION UNENFORCEABLE SO FAR AS NOT EXECUTED
BECAUSE CONTRARY TO LAW; THAT PETITIONER COULD RECOVER THE $16,306
CREDIT; ALSO THAT THERE COULD BE NO RECOVERY FOR RESPONDENT'S FAILURE
TO DELIVER. 

UPON APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT, AS INTENDED, PETITIONER
SOLD ACQUIRED SHARES TO SUNDRY PURCHASERS, DIRECTED DELIVERIES TO
BROKERS FOR RESALE AND "THAT ALL STOCK OFFERED FOR SALE AMOUNTED TO
PUBLIC OFFERINGS AND THAT INTERSTATE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND
TRANSPORTATION WERE USED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH."  CONSEQUENTLY IT
DECLARED THE AGREEMENT VOID AB INITIO.  FURTHER THAT THE PARTIES MUST
BE LEFT IN THE SITUATION WHERE FOUND.  IT ORDERED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR
RESPONDENT.  61 IDAHO 21; 98 P.2D 965, 967.  THIS ACTION WAS BASED
WHOLLY ON INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE SECURITIES ACT.  THUS A
FEDERAL QUESTION AROSE WHICH DEMANDS DETERMINATION.  AWOTIN V. ATLAS
EXCHANGE BANK, 295 U.S. 209, 213. 

THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS TO PROTECT INVESTORS BY
REQUIRING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION CONCERNING SECURITIES
BEFORE OFFERED FOR SALE. 

SOME OF ITS RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 

PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THERE WAS NO PUBLIC
OFFERING OF OPTIONED STOCK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE AND SEC.
4(1) IS CONTROLLING.  CONSIDERING THE INTERPRETATION WHICH WE ADOPT IT
IS UNNECESSARY NOW TO PASS UPON THE POINT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO
THOUGHT THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW A PUBLIC OFFERING AND, FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES ONLY, WE MAY ACCEPT THAT VIEW. 

NO PROVISION OF THE ACT DECLARES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION,
CONTRACTS IN CONTEMPLATION OF OR HAVING RELATION TO A PUBLIC OFFERING
SHALL BE VOID.  IF THERE HAS BEEN NO REGISTRATION, IT PENALIZES THE
DOING OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED THINGS - USE OF THE MAILS,
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ETC.  IT ALSO DECLARES THAT
THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN PROSCRIBED ACTION SHALL BECOME LIABLE TO
PURCHASERS OF THE SECURITIES "WHO MAY SUE EITHER AT LAW OR IN EQUITY IN
ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, TO RECOVER THE CONSIDERATION PAID
FOR SUCH SECURITY WITH INTEREST THEREON, LESS THE AMOUNT OF ANY INCOME
RECEIVED THEREON, UPON THE TENDER OF SUCH SECURITY, OR FOR DAMAGES IF
HE NO LONGER OWNS THE SECURITY."  THESE ARE THE SANCTIONS WHICH
CONGRESS HAS DEFINITELY PROVIDED IN ORDER TO INSURE OBEDIENCE TO THE
STATUTE.  WHEN INVOKED THEY MUST BE GIVEN EFFECT. 

ALTHOUGH THE CHALLENGED CONTRACT BEARS NO EVIDENCE OF CRIMINALITY AND
IS FAIR UPON ITS FACE, WE ARE ASKED TO APPLY A SANCTION BEYOND THAT
SPECIFIED BY DECLARING IT NULL AND VOID BECAUSE OF RELATIONSHIP TO A
PUBLIC OFFERING.  THE BASIS FOR THIS DEMAND IS A SUPPOSED FEDERAL
PUBLIC POLICY WHICH REQUIRES SUCH ANNULMENT IN ORDER TO SECURE
OBSERVANCE, EFFECTUATE THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AND PREVENT NOXIOUS
CONSEQUENCES. 

COURTS HAVE OFTEN ADDED A SANCTION TO THOSE PRESCRIBED FOR AN OFFENSE
CREATED BY STATUTE WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES FAIRLY INDICATED THIS WOULD
FURTHER THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT; BUT WE THINK WHERE THE
CONTRARY DEFINITELY APPEARS - ACTUAL HINDRANCE INDEED OF THAT PURPOSE -
NO SUCH ADDITION IS PERMISSIBLE.  THE LATTER SITUATION IS BEYOND THE
REASON WHICH SUPPORTS THE DOCTRINE NOW RELIED UPON. 

HERE THE CLEAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE WAS PROTECTION OF INNOCENT
PURCHASERS OF SECURITIES.  THEY ARE GIVEN DEFINITE REMEDIES
INCONSISTENT WITH THE IDEA THAT EVERY CONTRACT HAVING RELATION TO SALES
OF UNREGISTERED SHARES IS ABSOLUTELY VOID; AND TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION
REACHED BY THE SUPREME COURT BELOW WOULD PROBABLY SERIOUSLY HINDER
RATHER THAN AID THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE. 

THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, BY PERMISSION, HAS FILED A
MEMORANDUM POINTING OUT HOW THIS PURPOSE MAY BE THWARTED AND THE
INVESTING PUBLIC INJURED IF THE RULING BELOW IS APPROVED.  AN EXCERPT
FROM THIS IS COPIED BELOW.  FN2 

THE RULE THAT CONTRACTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF PUBLIC POLICY ARE NOT
ENFORCEABLE CAME UNDER DISCUSSION IN STEELE V. DRUMMOND, 275 U.S. 199
AND TWIN CITY CO. V. HARDING GLASS CO., 283 U.S. 353, 356, 357.  IN THE
LATTER THE OPINION DECLARES, THE PRINCIPLE "SHOULD BE APPLIED WITH
CAUTION AND ONLY IN CASES PLAINLY WITHIN THE REASONS ON WHICH THAT
DOCTRINE RESTS.  IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE DOMINANT PUBLIC INTEREST
THAT ONE WHO, LIKE RESPONDENT, HAS HAD THE BENEFIT OF PERFORMANCE BY
THE OTHER PARTY WILL BE PERMITTED TO AVOID HIS OWN PROMISE." 

THE PROTEAN BASIS UNDERLYING THIS DOCTRINE HAS OFTEN BEEN STATED THUS
- NO ONE CAN LAWFULLY DO THAT WHICH TENDS TO INJURE THE PUBLIC OR IS
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC GOOD.  IF IT DEFINITELY APPEARS THAT
ENFORCEMENT OF A CONTRACT WILL NOT BE FOLLOWED BY INJURIOUS RESULTS,
GENERALLY, AT LEAST, WHAT THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO OUGHT NOT TO BE
STRUCK DOWN. 

KIMEN V. ATLAS EXCHANGE BANK, 295 U.S. 215 AND DIETRICK V. GREANEY,
309 U.S. 190, POINTED OUT THAT WHETHER A CONTRACT SHALL BE ENFORCED
REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE BROAD PURPOSES OF RELEVANT STATUTES AND
THE PROBABLE EFFECT UPON THIS.  IN BOTH CAUSES THE END WHICH CONGRESS
INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH WAS TREATED AS THE CONTROLLING FACTOR. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, WE THINK, MISINTERPRETED AND IMPROPERLY
APPLIED THE SECURITIES ACT.  ITS JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 AS AMENDED, 48 STAT. 74, 78, IN 1934, 48
STAT. 881, 905-6. 

"SEC. 2.  (15 U.S.C. SEC. 77B).  WHEN USED IN THIS TITLE, UNLESS THE
CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES - 

"(3)  THE TERM 'SALE,' 'SELL,' 'OFFER TO SELL,' OR 'OFFER FOR SALE'
SHALL INCLUDE EVERY CONTRACT OF SALE OR DISPOSITION OF, ATTEMPT OR
OFFER TO DISPOSE OF, OR SOLICITATION OF AN OFFER TO BUY, A SECURITY OR
INTEREST IN A SECURITY, FOR VALUE; EXCEPT THAT SUCH TERMS SHALL NOT
INCLUDE PRELIMINARY NEGOTIATIONS OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN AN ISSUER AND
ANY UNDERWRITER. 

"SEC. 4  (15 U.S.C., SEC. 77D).  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 SHALL
NOT 

"SEC. 4.  (15 U.S.C., SEC. 77D).  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 SHALL
NOT APPLY TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING TRANSACTIONS: 

"(1)  TRANSACTIONS BY ANY PERSON OTHER THAN AN ISSUER, UNDERWRITER,
OR DEALER; TRANSACTIONS BY AN ISSUER NOT INVOLVING ANY PUBLIC OFFERING;
...  " 

"SEC. 5.  (15 U.S.C., SEC. 77E).  (A)  UNLESS A REGISTRATION
STATEMENT IS IN EFFECT AS TO A SECURITY, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
PERSON, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY - 

"(1)  TO MAKE USE OF ANY MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION OR
COMMUNICATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR OF THE MAILS TO SELL OR OFFER
TO BUY SUCH SECURITY THROUGH THE USE OR MEDIUM OF ANY PROSPECTUS OR
OTHERWISE; OR 

"(2)  TO CARRY OR CAUSE TO BE CARRIED THROUGH THE MAILS OR IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BY ANY MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, ANY
SUCH SECURITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OR FOR DELIVERY AFTER SALE. 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY - 

"(1)  TO MAKE USE OF ANY MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION OR
COMMUNICATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR OF THE MAILS TO CARRY OR
TRANSMIT ANY PROSPECTUS RELATING TO ANY SECURITY REGISTERED UNDER THIS
TITLE, UNLESS SUCH PROSPECTUS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 10; OR 

"(2)  TO CARRY OR CAUSE TO BE CARRIED THROUGH THE MAILS OR IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ANY SUCH SECURITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OR FOR
DELIVERY AFTER SALE, UNLESS ACCOMPANIED OR PRECEDED BY A PROSPECTUS
THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 10." 

SPECIFIED PERSONS WHO, IN SOME WAY, MAKE, PERMIT OR USE AN UNTRUE
STATEMENT IN A REGISTRATION STATEMENT, ETC. 

"SEC. 12.  (15 U.S.C., SEC. 77L).  ANY PERSON WHO - 

"(1)  SELLS A SECURITY IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, OR 

"(2)  SELLS A SECURITY (WHETHER OR NOT EXEMPTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF
USE OF ANY MEANS OR INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION OR COMMUNICATION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR OF THE MAILS, BY MEANS OF A PROSPECTUS OR ORAL
COMMUNICATION, WHICH INCLUDES AN UNTRUE STATEMENT OF A MATERIAL FACT OR
OMITS TO STATE A MATERIAL FACT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAKE THE
STATEMENTS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE
MADE, NOT MISLEADING (THE PURCHASER NOT KNOWING OF SUCH UNTRUTH OR
OMISSION), AND WHO SHALL NOT SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT HE DID
NOT KNOW, AND IN THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE CARE COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN,
OF SUCH UNTRUTH OR OMISSION, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PERSON PURCHASING
SUCH SECURITY FROM HIM, WHO MAY SUE EITHER AT LAW OR IN EQUITY IN ANY
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, TO RECOVER THE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR
SUCH SECURITY WITH INTEREST THEREON, LESS THE AMOUNT OF ANY INCOME
RECEIVED THEREON, UPON THE TENDER OF SUCH SECURITY, OR FOR DAMAGES IF
HE NO LONGER OWNS THE SECURITY." 

"SEC. 24.  (15 U.S.C., SEC. 77X).  ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY VIOLATES
ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE, OR THE RULES AND REGULATIONS
PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER AUTHORITY THEREOF, OR ANY PERSON
WHO WILLFULLY IN A REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED UNDER THIS TITLE, MAKES
ANY UNTRUE STATEMENT OF A MATERIAL FACT OR OMITS TO STATE ANY MATERIAL
FACT REQUIRED TO BE STATED THEREIN OR NECESSARY TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS
THEREIN NOT MISLEADING, SHALL UPON CONVICTION BE FINED NOT MORE THAN
$5,000 OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN2  EXCERPT FROM MEMORANDUM OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION:  "THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS
WE STATED UNDER POINT A, IS TO PROTECT THE INVESTING PUBLIC.  THE ACT
FURNISHES ONE FORM OF PROTECTION BY INSISTING THAT 'EVERY ISSUE OF NEW
SECURITIES TO BE SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY
FULL PUBLICITY AND INFORMATION' TO THE END THAT 'NO ESSENTIALLY
IMPORTANT ELEMENT ATTENDING THE ISSUE SHALL BE CONCEALED FROM THE
BUYING PUBLIC.'  MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE CONGRESS, MARCH 29,
1933.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED BY
ANY JUDICIAL DOCTRINE WHICH PREVENTED THE ISSUING CORPORATION FROM
RECOVERING FROM THE UNDERWRITER, AND PUTTING TO THE INTENDED USE IN ITS
BUSINESS, THE MONEY INVESTED BY THE PUBLIC IN THE ISSUER.  AND IT WOULD
BE ANOMALOUS TO REST SUCH AN INJURY TO THE INVESTORS UPON THE FACT THAT
THE TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE SECURITIES WERE DISTRIBUTED VIOLATED THE
ACT, WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THOSE INVESTORS.  COMPARE SECTIONS
11 AND 12 WHICH, BY IMPLICATION, PERMIT A PURCHASER TO AFFIRM A SALE IN
VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  IT CAN SCARCELY BE ASSUMED THAT ANY COURT WOULD
RENDER SUCH AN UNFORTUNATE DECISION.  YET THIS WOULD BE THE LOGICAL
CONSEQUENCE OF APPLYING LITERALLY THE BROAD LANGUAGE USED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO IN STATING THE PROPOSITION THAT THE COURTS WILL
NOT LEND THEIR AID TO THE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT THAT IS PROHIBITED BY
LAW OR IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.    "IT APPEARS TO US TO BE ENTIRELY
IMMATERIAL WHETHER IN SUCH A CASE, THE AGREEMENT IS LABELLED 'VOID' OR
THE PARTIES ARE HELD TO BE 'IN PARI DELICTO.'  THERE, LABELS, AS OFTEN
IS THE CASE, MERELY STATE THE CONCLUSION REACHED, BUT DO NOT AID IN
SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM.  THE ULTIMATE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE RESULT IN
THE PARTICULAR CASE WOULD EFFECTUATE OR FRUSTRATE THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACT." 

MR. JUSTICE STONE CONCURS IN THE RESULT.    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK
NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CAUSE. 
..END :


















BEAL V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 312 U.S. 45 


NO. 72.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1941.  - 108
F.2D 897, REVERSED. 


1.  FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PROCESSES
OF THE CRIMINAL LAW IN STATE COURTS OR DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY UNDER THOSE LAWS, UNLESS IN MOST EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
AND UPON CLEAR SHOWING THAT AN INJUNCTION IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
PREVENT AN IRREPARABLE LOSS.  P. 50. 

2.  A SUIT BY A RAILROAD COMPANY TO RESTRAIN STATE OFFICERS FROM
PROSECUTING UNDER A STATE "FULL TRAIN CREW" LAW, THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGING
THAT ITS TRAINS ARE MANNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE WHEN RIGHTLY
CONSTRUED, BUT THAT IT STANDS IN DANGER OF IRREPARABLE INJURY FROM
MULTIPLICITY OF PROSECUTIONS AND POSSIBLE FINES, SHOULD NOT BE
ENTERTAINED BY A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY WHEN IT APPEARS AS A FACT THAT
ONLY A SINGLE TEST PROSECUTION IS IN CONTEMPLATION, INVOLVING ONLY ONE
ALLEGED VIOLATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE BY THE STATE COURTS.  P. 50. 

3.  UPON A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS DENIALS AND
ALLEGATIONS OF THE ANSWER WHICH ARE WELL PLEADED MUST BE TAKEN AS
TRUE.  P. 51. 

BEAL, COUNTY ATTORNEY OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, NEBRASKA, ET AL. V. MISSOURI
PACIFIC RAILROAD CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 623, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
ENJOINING THE PRESENT PETITIONERS, STATE PROSECUTING OFFICERS, FROM
PROSECUTING THE RAILROAD COMPANY'S AGENTS FOR ALLEGED CRIMINAL
VIOLATIONS OF A STATE "FULL TRAIN CREW" LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER RESPONDENT, PLAINTIFF IN THE DISTRICT COURT
BELOW, HAS ESTABLISHED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY ENTITLING IT TO A
DECREE ENJOINING PETITIONERS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA AND
OTHER STATE OFFICERS FROM PROSECUTING RESPONDENT'S AGENTS AND OFFICERS
IN THE STATE COURTS FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF THE NEBRASKA FULL TRAIN
CREW LAW, SEC. 74-519 COMP. STAT. OF NEBRASKA, 1929. 

THE STATUTE MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY RAILROAD IN NEBRASKA TO OPERATE
ANY PASSENGER TRAIN OF MORE THAN FIVE CARS "WITH A CREW CONSISTING OF
LESS THAN ONE ENGINEER, ONE FIREMAN, ONE CONDUCTOR, ONE BRAKEMAN AND
ONE FLAGMAN."  PASSENGER TRAINS OF FIVE CARS OR LESS ARE REQUIRED TO BE
OPERATED WITH A LIKE CREW, EXCEPT THAT ONLY "ONE BRAKEMAN OR FLAGMAN"
IS REQUIRED INSTEAD OF THE ONE BRAKEMAN AND ONE FLAGMAN REQUIRED IN THE
CASE OF TRAINS OF MORE THAN FIVE CARS.  BY SEC. 74-522 OFFICERS OR
AGENTS OF RAILROADS DISPATCHING TRAINS IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE ARE
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $100 NOR
MORE THAN $1,000 FOR EACH OFFENSE, AND THE RAILROAD IS MADE LIABLE FOR
ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY VIOLATIONS. 

RESPONDENT'S BILL OF COMPLAINT INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT ON GROUNDS OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE FACTS
ALLEGED, SO FAR AS NOW MATERIAL, ARE AS FOLLOWS.  RESPONDENT OPERATES
TWO TRAINS IN NEBRASKA, ON WHICH IT ASSIGNS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
DUTIES OF A BRAKEMAN OR FLAGMAN REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE, COLORED
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE FULLY QUALIFIED TO PERFORM AND DO PERFORM THOSE
DUTIES, BUT WHO ARE DESIGNATED AS "BRAKEMEN-PORTERS" AND PAID LOWER
WAGES THAN ARE RESPONDENT'S WHITE "BRAKEMEN." 

ON COMPLAINT LODGED WITH THE STATE RAILWAY COMMISSION BY AN OFFICER
OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT
VIOLATED THE STATUTE, BY EMPLOYING BRAKEMEN-PORTERS TO PERFORM THE
SERVICES OF BRAKEMEN OR FLAGMEN.  THE COMMISSION TWICE DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT, BUT UPON REHEARING IT RULED THAT ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT'S
BRAKEMEN-PORTERS, IN ADDITION TO THE DUTIES OF BRAKEMEN, WHEN
PERFORMANCE OF SUCH DUTIES PERMIT, RENDER SOME SERVICES AS PORTERS,
THEY COMPETENTLY PERFORM THE DUTIES TO WHICH THEY ARE ASSIGNED, NAMELY
THOSE OF BRAKEMEN OR FLAGMEN, AND THAT RESPONDENT'S TRAINS, SO FAR AS
THE PUBLIC SAFETY IS CONCERNED, ARE ADEQUATELY MANNED.  THE COMMISSION
DECLINED TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THEIR EMPLOYMENT IN THE
MANNER ALLEGED COMPLIED WITH THE FULL TRAIN CREW LAW OF THE STATE AND
ORDERED THAT THE RECORDS IN THE CASE BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HIS USE, IF SO ADVISED, IN PROSECUTING RESPONDENT
FOR VIOLATION OF ANY CRIMINAL STATUTE OF THE STATE. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALSO ALLEGES THAT EMPLOYMENT OF WHITE BRAKEMEN
FOR THE SERVICES NOW PERFORMED BY RESPONDENT'S BRAKEMEN-PORTERS WILL
COMPEL IT TO PAY AN INCREASE OF WAGES IN EXCESS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNT, AND THAT AS EACH TRAIN MOVEMENT INVOLVES AN ALLEGED VIOLATION
OF THE STATUTE, NUMEROUS PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS, WHICH PETITIONERS
THREATEN, WILL RESULT IN IMPOSING ON RESPONDENT THE BURDEN OF MANY
LITIGATIONS IN THE STATE CRIMINAL COURTS.  SUCH PROSECUTIONS, IF
SUCCESSFUL, IT IS ALLEGED, WILL RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF AGGREGATE
FINES IN EXCESS OF $1,000,000 A YEAR.  THE RELIEF PRAYED IS THAT THE
THREATENED PROSECUTIONS BE DECLARED TO BE UNAUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE,
AND THAT PETITIONERS BE ENJOINED FROM INTERFERING WITH THE OPERATION OF
RESPONDENT'S TRAINS THROUGH CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR OTHERWISE. 

AFTER DENIAL BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF PETITIONERS' MOTION TO DISMISS
THE BILL OF COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF EQUITY, PETITIONERS ANSWERED DENYING
AMONG OTHERS THE ALLEGATIONS THAT RESPONDENT IS THREATENED WITH
MULTIPLICITY OF CRIMINAL SUITS OR THAT PETITIONERS INTENDED TO PROCEED
WITH PROSECUTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY
STATED IN THE ANSWER.  THE ANSWER SETS UP AFFIRMATIVELY THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE QUESTION OF RESPONDENT'S
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE, AND IN THE EVENT THAT HE SHOULD DETERMINE
THAT IT IS "NECESSARY AND PROPER TO DO SO" IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION, HE WOULD CAUSE A SINGLE TEST
SUIT TO BE INSTITUTED IN THE STATE COURTS FOR SOME ONE ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY RESPONDENT, SO CONDUCTED AS TO CAUSE A MINIMUM
OF FINANCIAL EXPENSE TO RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT SEEKING TO INFLICT
FINANCIAL PENALTIES OR LOSS ON RESPONDENT PRIOR TO A FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT IN THE STATE COURTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHOUT TRIAL OF ANY ISSUE OF FACT, GAVE ITS
DECREE FOR RESPONDENT, ON THE PLEADINGS, FOR AN INJUNCTION AS PRAYED. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  108 F.2D 897. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 623, ON A PETITION WHICH CHALLENGED THE
EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURTS, THE QUESTION
BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE SINCE IT INVOLVES THE APPROPRIATE
RELATIONSHIP OF THE FEDERAL TO THE STATE COURTS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, CONSTRUING THE STATUTE, HELD THAT THE CREWS ON
RESPONDENT'S TRAINS CONFORM TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS; THAT
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF RESPONDENT'S OFFICERS IS UNAUTHORIZED BY THE
ACT AND UNLAWFUL.  IT SUPPORTED THE EXERCISE OF THE EQUITY POWERS OF
THE COURT TO RESTRAIN THE PROSECUTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ATTEMPTED
ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED BY PETITIONERS WOULD SUBJECT
RESPONDENT TO A MULTIPLICITY OF SUCH PROSECUTIONS AND TO THE RISK, IF
PETITIONERS' CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE SHOULD BE SUSTAINED, THAT
FINES OR PENALTIES AGGREGATING A LARGE AMOUNT WOULD BE IMPOSED. 

IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE THAT COURTS OF EQUITY DO NOT ORDINARILY
RESTRAIN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.  IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200, 211; DAVIS
& FARNUM MFG. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 189 U.S. 207; HYGRADE PROVISION CO.
V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497, 500.  NO CITIZEN OR MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY
IS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION, IN GOOD FAITH, FOR HIS ALLEGED CRIMINAL
ACTS.  THE IMMINENCE OF SUCH A PROSECUTION EVEN THOUGH ALLEGED TO BE
UNAUTHORIZED AND HENCE UNLAWFUL IS NOT ALONE GROUND FOR RELIEF IN
EQUITY WHICH EXERTS ITS EXTRAORDINARY POWERS ONLY TO PREVENT
IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFF WHO SEEKS ITS AID.  TERRACE V.
THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197, 214; PACKARD V. BANTON, 264 U.S. 140, 143;
TYSON V. BANTON, 273 U.S. 418, 428; CLINE V. FRINK DAIRY CO., 274 U.S.
445, 452. 

THIS IS ESPECIALLY THE CASE WHERE THE ONLY THREATENED ACTION IS THE
PROSECUTION IN THE STATE COURTS BY STATE OFFICERS OF AN ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF STATE LAW, WITH THE RESULTING FINAL AND AUTHORITATIVE
DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTED QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT COMPLAINED OF IS
LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL.  HARKRADER V. WADLEY, 172 U.S. 148; SPIELMAN MOTOR
CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89, 95.  THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO TRY ALLEGED CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF STATE STATUTES.  THE
STATE COURTS ARE THE FINAL ARBITERS OF THEIR MEANING AND APPROPRIATE
APPLICATION, SUBJECT ONLY TO REVIEW BY THIS COURT IF SUCH CONSTRUCTION
OR APPLICATION IS APPROPRIATELY CHALLENGED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. 
HYGRADE PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, SUPRA; FENNER V. BOYKIN, 271 U.S.
240. 

HENCE INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROCESSES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW IN STATE
COURTS, IN WHOSE CONTROL THEY ARE LODGED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE
DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW BY
FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY, CAN BE JUSTIFIED ONLY IN MOST EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND UPON CLEAR SHOWING THAT AN INJUNCTION IS NECESSARY
IN ORDER TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY.  CF. HYGRADE PROVISION CO. V.
SHERMAN, SUPRA; CLINE V. FRINK DAIRY CO., SUPRA; SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V.
DODGE, SUPRA.  AND IN THE EXERCISE OF THE SOUND DISCRETION, WHICH
GUIDES THE DETERMINATION OF COURTS OF EQUITY, SCRUPULOUS REGARD MUST BE
HAD FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS AND A REMEDY
INFRINGING THAT INDEPENDENCE WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE GIVEN SHOULD BE
WITHHELD IF SOUGHT ON SLIGHT OR INCONSEQUENTIAL GROUNDS.  DI GIOVANNI
V. CAMDEN INSURANCE ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 73, AND CASES CITED. 

HERE THE COURT BELOW FOUND DANGER OF IRREPARABLE INJURY IN THE
THREATENED MULTIPLICITY OF PROSECUTIONS AND RISK THAT THE AGGREGATE
FINES WHICH MIGHT BE IMPOSED WOULD BE VERY LARGE.  BUT WHETHER MORE
THAN ONE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS THREATENED WAS BY THE PLEADINGS MADE
AN ISSUE OF FACT WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT RESOLVE.  IF IT HAD
FOUND AFTER A HEARING, AS THE ANSWER ALLEGES, THAT ONLY A SINGLE SUIT
IS CONTEMPLATED, WE COULD NOT SAY THAT ANY SUCH IRREPARABLE INJURY IS
THREATENED AS WOULD JUSTIFY STAYING THE PROSECUTION AND WITHDRAWING THE
DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL QUESTION FROM THE STATE COURTS, WHOSE
APPOINTED FUNCTION IS TO DECIDE IT.  BOISE ARTESIAN WATER CO. V. BOISE
CITY, 213 U.S. 276, 287; SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, SUPRA, 96. 

IF ITS DECISION SHOULD BE FAVORABLE TO RESPONDENT NO REASON IS SHOWN
FOR ANTICIPATING FURTHER PROSECUTIONS.  IF IT WERE ADVERSE, PENALTIES
IN LARGE AMOUNT, IT IS TRUE, MIGHT BE INCURRED, BUT THEY MAY WELL BE
THE CONSEQUENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAW.  NO QUESTION IS HERE
PRESENTED OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE THE
PENALTIES WHICH IT INFLICTS ARE SO GREAT AS TO PREVENT RECOURSE TO THE
COURTS FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS UNDER IT.  SEE EX
PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, 144; MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. TUCKER, 230
U.S. 340, 349. 

IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY MOTION WAS MADE BY THE PARTIES FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.  BUT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE TRIAL COURT
ENTERED THE DECREE IN RESPONDENT'S FAVOR ON ITS OWN MOTION.  UPON SUCH
A MOTION DENIALS AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE ANSWER WHICH ARE WELL PLEADED
MUST BE TAKEN AS TRUE.  SO TAKEN THE DECREE FOR RESPONDENT CANNOT BE
SUSTAINED AND MUST BE REVERSED.  THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT ARE OF
OPINION  FN1  THAT IN VIEW OF THE STATE OF THE RECORD AND CERTAIN
CONCESSIONS MADE BY COUNSEL ON THE ARGUMENT HERE ANY FURTHER HEARING OF
THE ISSUE OF IRREPARABLE INJURY TO RESPONDENT FROM A THREATENED
MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS HAS BEEN WAIVED.  THE REVERSAL WILL ACCORDINGLY
BE WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DISMISS THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE STONE
ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 
..END :




















HINES V. DAVIDOWITZ, 312 U.S. 52 


NO. 22.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 11, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1941.  -
30 F.SUPP.  470, AFFIRMED. 


1.  APPLICABLE LEGISLATION ENACTED WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING ON
APPEAL WILL BE ENFORCED BY THE APPELLATE COURT.  P. 60. 

2.  WHATEVER POWER A STATE MAY HAVE TO RESTRICT, LIMIT, REGULATE AND
REGISTER ALIENS AS A DISTINCT GROUP, IS SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL
LEGISLATIVE AND TREATY-MAKING POWERS.  P. 68. 

3.  THE FEDERAL ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940 FORMS, WITH THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION LAWS, A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED
SCHEME FOR THE REGULATION OF ALIENS, AND PRECLUDES THE ENFORCEMENT OF
STATE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACTS SUCH AS THAT ADOPTED BY PENNSYLVANIA IN
1939.  P. 74. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT REQUIRES EVERY ALIEN 18 YEARS OR OVER, WITH
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, TO REGISTER ONCE EACH YEAR; PROVIDE SUCH
INFORMATION AS IS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE, PLUS ANY "OTHER INFORMATION
AND DETAILS" THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY MAY DIRECT; PAY
$1 AS AN ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE; RECEIVE AN ALIEN IDENTIFICATION CARD
AND CARRY IT AT ALL TIMES; SHOW THE CARD WHENEVER IT MAY BE DEMANDED BY
ANY POLICE OFFICER OR AGENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY;
AND EXHIBIT THE CARD AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO REGISTERING A MOTOR
VEHICLE IN HIS NAME OR OBTAINING A LICENSE TO OPERATE ONE.  THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTIES OF
CLASSIFYING THE REGISTRATIONS FOR "THE PURPOSE OF READY REFERENCE," AND
FURNISHING A COPY OF THE CLASSIFICATION TO THE PENNSYLVANIA MOTOR
POLICE.  NON-EXEMPT ALIENS WHO FAIL TO REGISTER ARE SUBJECT TO A FINE
OF NOT MORE THAN $100 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 60 DAYS, OR
BOTH.  FOR FAILURE TO CARRY AN IDENTIFICATION CARD OR FOR FAILURE TO
SHOW IT UPON PROPER DEMAND, THE PUNISHMENT IS A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN
$10, OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 10 DAYS, OR BOTH.  P. 59. 

THE FEDERAL ACT PROVIDES FOR A SINGLE REGISTRATION OF ALIENS 14 YEARS
OF AGE AND OVER; DETAILED INFORMATION SPECIFIED BY THE ACT, PLUS "SUCH
ADDITIONAL MATTERS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"; FINGERPRINTING OF ALL REGISTRANTS;
AND SECRECY OF THE FEDERAL FILES, WHICH CAN BE "MADE AVAILABLE ONLY TO
SUCH PERSONS OR AGENCIES AS MAY BE DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL."  NO REQUIREMENT THAT ALIENS
CARRY A REGISTRATION CARD TO BE EXHIBITED TO POLICE OR OTHERS IS
EMBODIED IN THE LAW, AND ONLY THE WILFUL FAILURE TO REGISTER IS MADE A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE; PUNISHMENT IS FIXED AT A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1000,
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, OR BOTH.  P. 60. 

HINES, SECRETARY OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. V.
DAVIDOWITZ ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
RESTRAINED OFFICIALS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA FROM ENFORCING
AGAINST AN ALIEN PROVISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT
OF 1939. 

THE ACT DOES NOT ENCROACH UPON A FIELD RESERVED TO FEDERAL ACTION. 
THE RIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL IMMIGRATION,
NATURALIZATION OR INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IS NOT IMPAIRED BY
THE REGISTRATION OF ALIENS RESIDENT WITHIN THE STATE, REQUIRED BY THE
PENNSYLVANIA LAW. 

IT DOES NOT INFRINGE THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE NOR INTERFERE WITH POWER OVER IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION. 

IN GENERAL, THE STATES MAY EXERCISE ANY POWER POSSESSED BY THEM PRIOR
TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNLESS THE EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER
IS EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION PROHIBITED THEREBY, OR
INTERFERES WITH THE EXERCISE OF SOME POWER DELEGATED TO THE UNITED
STATES.  CONGRESS HAS NO GENERAL POWER TO ENACT POLICE REGULATIONS
OPERATIVE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATE.  THAT POWER HAS
BEEN LEFT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL STATES AND CAN NOT BE TAKEN FROM THEM
EITHER WHOLLY OR IN PART.  UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542. 
THE POWER OF THE STATE IN THIS FIELD IS UNQUALIFIED AND EXCLUSIVE, SO
LONG AS ITS REGULATIONS DO NOT INVADE THE SPHERE OF NATIONAL
SOVEREIGNTY, OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE THE EXERCISE OF ANY AUTHORITY WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION HAS CONFIDED TO THE NATION, OR DEPRIVE A CITIZEN OF RIGHTS
GUARANTEED TO HIM THEREUNDER. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT SIMPLY REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN ALIENS, WHO HAVE
NOT DECLARED THEIR INTENTION TO BECOME CITIZENS, REGISTER, PAY $1.00
FOR SUCH REGISTRATION, AND CARRY A REGISTRATION CARD. 

THE STATE ENACTED THIS LAW IN ORDER TO SECURE INFORMATION IN REGARD
TO ALIENS WITHIN ITS OWN BOUNDARIES.  THE PENALTIES AND THE CARRYING OF
THE CARD ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THE LAW AND TO PREVENT
EVASION. 

COMPLIANCE BY AN ALIEN WITH THE STATE STATUTE DOES NOT INTERFERE IN
ANY WAY WITH HIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATURALIZATION STATUTE.  IF HE
FILES HIS DECLARATION OF INTENTION, HE IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE
STATE ACT, EVEN IF HE DOES NOT COMPLETE HIS APPLICATION. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY AND NO CONFLICT BETWEEN
THE ALIEN REGISTERING WITH THE STATE AND ALSO WITH THE UNITED STATES. 
LEGISLATION UNDER THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE WILL NOT BE STRICKEN
DOWN UNLESS IT PLAINLY AND PALPABLY CONFLICTS WITH SOME AUTHORITY
GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  PLUMLEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 155 U.S.
461, 479, 480. 

A STATE MAY PASS A LAW WHICH AIDS OR COOPERATES WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS FEDERAL POWER.  HALTER V. NEBRASKA,
205 U.S. 34; GILBERT V. MINNESOTA, 254 U.S. 325. 

APPELLANTS CONCEDE THAT IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION UNDER ART. I,
SEC. 8, CL. 3, OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE POWER OF
CONGRESS; BUT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT PLACE ENTIRE JURISDICTION OVER
ALIENS UNDER CONGRESS, AND THE STATES UNDER THE POLICE POWER CAN PLACE
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS UPON ALIENS.  EVEN IF CONTROL OF ALIENS
WERE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE POWER OF CONGRESS, THE STATE STILL HAS THE
RIGHT, AS A LOCAL POLICE MEASURE, TO REGULATE ALIENS RESIDENT WITHIN
ITS BORDERS, SO LONG AS SUCH REGULATIONS ARE NOT REPUGNANT TO OR
INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL ENACTMENTS. 

STATE INSOLVENCY LAWS, LIQUOR LAWS, INSPECTION LAWS AND QUARANTINE
LAWS HAVE BEEN UPHELD.  SEE INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. PINKUS, 278 U.S.
261; POTTS V. SMITH MFG. CO., 25 PA. SUPER.  CT. 206. 

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT PENNSYLVANIA PASSED ITS LAW TO REGISTER
ALIENS ON JUNE 21, 1939, BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL JUNE 28, 1940, THAT THE
FEDERAL ACT WAS PASSED.  THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT DOES NOT RESTRICT ALIENS
COMING INTO THE STATE NOR EXPEL THEM FROM THE STATE.  UNTIL THE FEDERAL
ACT, THERE WAS NO CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL POWER DELEGATED TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COVERING THE SUBJECT OF NATURALIZATION AND
IMMIGRATION.  SEE ALSO NEW YORK, N.H., & H.R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 165 U.S.
628. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO ACT IN THE
ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL WHEN PASSED, SINCE IT DOES NOT IMPINGE ON ANY POWER
GRANTED TO CONGRESS, FOR IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ENTRANCE OF ALIENS
INTO THE STATE, NOR TO THEIR DEPORTATION; NOR DOES IT INTERFERE IN ANY
WAY WITH NATURALIZATION OR WITH FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE RELATIONS.  IT
REPRESENTS SIMPLY A LOCAL POLICE MEASURE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
REGARDING ALIENS RESIDENT WITHIN THE STATE'S BORDERS FOR THE PROTECTION
OF ITS CITIZENS, LAW-ABIDING ALIENS AND PROPERTY.  THE ONLY QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE STATE ACT IS IN ABEYANCE OR WHETHER THE STATE AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENTS HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO REGISTER ALIENS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF INHABITANTS AND PROPERTY. 

THE ACT DOES NOT DENY EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO ALIENS. 

THE ACT IS DISCRIMINATORY, UNREASONABLE, INCONSISTENT AND
CAPRICIOUS.  THE ACT ENCROACHES UPON A FIELD RESERVED TO FEDERAL
ACTION.  PEOPLE V. BAUM, 251 MICH. 187; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33,
39; ARROWSMITH V. VOORHIES, 55 F.2D 310; HENDERSON V. MAYOR OF NEW
YORK, 92 U.S. 259; CHY LUNG V. FREEMAN, 92 U.S. 275. 

THE ACT DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO ALIENS IN
PENNSYLVANIA. 

THE FEDERAL ACT OF 1940 HAS SUPERSEDED THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE.  THE
ONE IS A COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON THE SUBJECT OF THE REGISTRATION AND
IDENTIFICATION OF ALIENS; THE OTHER, RATHER THAN COMPLEMENTING THE
FEDERAL LAW, COVERS ALMOST THE SAME GROUND. 

THE ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED ALIEN
REGISTRATION SYSTEM PRECLUDES THE EXERCISE OF ANY CONCURRENT AUTHORITY
BY THE STATES.  PEOPLE V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 107 U.S.
59, 63; REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 146-147; EASTON V. IOWA, 188
U.S. 220, 231, 238; OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. V. WASHINGTON, 270
U.S. 87, 99-101; ERIE R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 233 U.S. 671; ADAMS EXPRESS
CO. V. CRONINGER, 226 U.S. 491, 505-506; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 222 U.S. 370; NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. WINFIELD, 244 U.S.
147; SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 55; LINDGREN V.
UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 38, 45-46; NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER R.
V. HUDSON COUNTY, 227 U.S. 248, 263-264; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 236 U.S. 439; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. PINKUS, 278 U.S.
261, 265-266; GAVIT, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SEC. 117.  IT IS IMMATERIAL
THAT THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE ALIEN UNDER THE TWO ENACTMENTS ARE NOT
NECESSARILY INCOMPATIBLE.  CHARLESTON & WESTERN CAROLINA RY. CO. V.
VARNVILLE FURNITURE CO., 237 U.S. 597, 604; NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON
R. CO. V. TONSELLITO, 244 U.S. 360; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 246 U.S. 439, 446-448; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, 250 U.S. 566, 569; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. PORTER,
273 U.S. 341, 346; GILVARY V. CUYAHOGA VALLEY RY., 292 U.S. 57, 60-61;
CF., GULF, C. & S.F. RY. V. HEFLEY, 158 U.S. 98, 103.  AND IT IS
LIKEWISE IMMATERIAL THAT THE STATE LAW WAS ENACTED BEFORE THE FEDERAL
LAW.  SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, SUPRA, 446, 447; PEOPLE V.
COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 107 U.S. 59, 63; PORT RICHMOND
FERRY CO. V. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, 234 U.S. 317, 330; SOUTHERN
RY. CO. V. REID, 222 U.S. 424. 

THE CASE OF GILBERT V. MINNESOTA, 254 U.S. 325, CAN HAVE NO
APPLICATION TO A SITUATION LIKE THAT HERE PRESENTED WHERE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE REQUIRES CONTINUOUS CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION
AND ANY INDEPENDENT AND UNCOORDINATED EFFORT BY STATE OFFICIALS TO AID
IN ITS ENFORCEMENT COULD ONLY RESULT IN CONFUSION. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE IS ALSO UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE IT IS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY EMBODIED IN THE FEDERAL LAW. 
CONGRESS PROVIDED VARIOUS SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF
ALIENS AND TO GUARD THEM AGAINST THE VEXATION OF INTRUSIVE POLICE
SURVEILLANCE.  THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE CONTAINS NO SIMILAR SAFEGUARDS;
TO THE CONTRARY, IT IS FRAUGHT WITH THE VERY DANGERS WHICH CONGRESS
SOUGHT TO PREVENT. 

THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE REGISTRATION AND FINGERPRINTING SHALL BE
DONE AT THE POST OFFICE, THUS AVOIDING ANY SUGGESTION OF POLICE
ADMINISTRATION.  THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN
IDENTIFICATION CARD AND NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE ALIEN SHALL CARRY WITH
HIM PROOF OF REGISTRATION.  THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE CONTAINS NO
SIMILAR PROTECTION OF ALIENS. 

ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO PROTECT THE CIVIL
LIBERTIES OF ALIENS REQUIRES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RETAIN THE
POWER TO CONTROL AND COORDINATE ALL ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO
REGISTRATION AND SURVEILLANCE; THIS POLICY CAN NOT BE ENFORCED IF THE
STATES ARE PERMITTED TO ENACT AND ADMINISTER INDEPENDENT REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, WHETHER FOR PURELY LOCAL ENDS OR FOR SOME PURPOSE WHICH THE
STATES SHARE IN COMMON WITH THE NATION. 

IF THE STATES WERE PERMITTED TO ADMINISTER INDEPENDENT STATUTES, THE
PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE TO CONFUSE THE ALIENS AS TO THEIR DUTIES
UNDER EACH OF THE SEPARATE ENACTMENTS, WITH THEIR DIFFERENT PROVISIONS,
DIFFERENT REGULATIONS, AND DIFFERENT METHODS OF ADMINISTRATION. 

NOTHING IN THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS OR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS
ILLUMINES THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION CONCERNING STATE ACTION.  BUT THE
PRESIDENT DISCLOSED HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FIELD HAD BEEN
COMPLETELY OCCUPIED, IN A STATEMENT ISSUED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH HIS
SIGNING OF THE BILL, AND THE OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH ADMINISTERING THE
ACT HAVE TAKEN THE SAME POSITION.  A FORMAL STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE
PRESIDENT UPON COMPLETING HIS SHARE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IS OF
IMPORTANCE IN DETERMINING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION TO PRECLUDE OR
PERMIT STATE ACTION.  SEE JONES, STATUTORY DOUBTS AND LEGISLATIVE
INTENTION, 40 COL. L. REV. 957, 968, N. 40; CF., UNITED STATES V.
DICKERSON, 310 U.S. 554. 

THERE IS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER TO WHAT EXTENT THE STATES RETAIN THE
POWER TO ENACT CENSUS LEGISLATION FOR LOCAL PURPOSES.  CF., CITY OF NEW
YORK V. MILN, 11 PET. 102. 

APART FROM THE EFFECT OF THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940, THE
STATES MAY NOT REQUIRE THE REGISTRATION OF ALIEN RESIDENTS WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS CONSENT OF CONGRESS. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT IS IN CONFLICT WITH SEC. 16 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT OF 1870. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE VALIDITY OF AN ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT ADOPTED
BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA.  FN1  THE ACT, PASSED IN 1939,
REQUIRES EVERY ALIEN 18 YEARS OR OVER, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS,  FN2
TO REGISTER ONCE EACH YEAR; PROVIDE SUCH INFORMATION AS IS REQUIRED BY
THE STATUTE, PLUS ANY "OTHER INFORMATION AND DETAILS" THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY MAY DIRECT; PAY $1 AS AN ANNUAL
REGISTRATION FEE; RECEIVE AN ALIEN IDENTIFICATION CARD AND CARRY IT AT
ALL TIMES; SHOW THE CARD WHENEVER IT MAY BE DEMANDED BY ANY POLICE
OFFICER OR ANY AGENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY; AND
EXHIBIT THE CARD AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO REGISTERING A MOTOR
VEHICLE IN HIS NAME OR OBTAINING A LICENSE TO OPERATE ONE.  THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTIES OF
CLASSIFYING THE REGISTRATIONS FOR "THE PURPOSE OF READY REFERENCE," AND
FURNISHING A COPY OF THE CLASSIFICATION TO THE PENNSYLVANIA MOTOR
POLICE.  NONEXEMPT ALIENS WHO FAIL TO REGISTER ARE SUBJECT TO A FINE OF
NOT MORE THAN $100 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 60 DAYS, OR BOTH. 
FOR FAILURE TO CARRY AN IDENTIFICATION CARD OR FOR FAILURE TO SHOW IT
UPON PROPER DEMAND, THE PUNISHMENT IS A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10, OR
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 10 DAYS, OR BOTH. 

A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, HOLDING
THAT IT DENIED ALIENS EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND THAT IT
ENCROACHED UPON LEGISLATIVE POWERS CONSTITUTIONALLY VESTED IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN3  IT IS THAT JUDGMENT WE ARE HERE CALLED UPON
TO REVIEW.  FN4  BUT IN 1940, AFTER THE COURT HAD HELD THE PENNSYLVANIA
ACT INVALID, CONGRESS ENACTED A FEDERAL ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT.  FN5
WE MUST THEREFORE PASS UPON THE STATE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL ACT.  FN6 

THE FEDERAL ACT PROVIDES FOR A SINGLE REGISTRATION OF ALIENS 14 YEARS
OF AGE AND OVER; DETAILED INFORMATION SPECIFIED BY THE ACT, PLUS "SUCH
ADDITIONAL MATTERS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL"; FINGER-PRINTING OF ALL REGISTRANTS;
AND SECRECY OF THE FEDERAL FILES, WHICH CAN BE "MADE AVAILABLE ONLY TO
SUCH PERSONS OR AGENCIES AS MAY BE DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL."  NO REQUIREMENT THAT ALIENS
CARRY A REGISTRATION CARD TO BE EXHIBITED TO POLICE OR OTHERS IS
EMBODIED IN THE LAW, AND ONLY THE WILFUL FAILURE TO REGISTER IS MADE A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE; PUNISHMENT IS FIXED AT A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $100,
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN 6 MONTHS, OR BOTH. 

THE BASIC SUBJECT OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS IS IDENTICAL -
REGISTRATION OF ALIENS AS A DISTINCT GROUP.  APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE
PENNSYLVANIA LAW "WAS CONSTITUTIONAL WHEN PASSED," AND THAT "THE ONLY
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE ACT IS IN ABEYANCE OR WHETHER THE STATE
AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO REGISTER ALIENS
FOR THE PROTECTION OF INHABITANTS AND PROPERTY."  APPELLEES, ON THE
OTHER HAND, CONTEND THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT IS INVALID, FOR THE
REASONS THAT IT (1) DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO ALIENS
RESIDING IN THE STATE; (2) VIOLATES SEC. 16 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1870; FN7  (3) EXCEEDS PENNSYLVANIA'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IN REQUIRING
REGISTRATION OF ALIENS WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.  APPELLEES' FINAL
CONTENTION IS THAT THE POWER TO RESTRICT, LIMIT, REGULATE AND REGISTER
ALIENS AS A DISTINCT GROUP IS NOT AN EQUAL AND CONTINUOUSLY EXISTING
CONCURRENT POWER OF STATE AND NATION, BUT THAT EVEN IF THE STATE CAN
LEGISLATE ON THIS SUBJECT AT ALL, ITS POWER IS SUBORDINATE TO SUPREME
NATIONAL LAW.  APPELLEES CONCLUDE THAT BY ITS ADOPTION OF A
COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED SCHEME FOR REGULATION OF ALIENS - INCLUDING
ITS 1940 REGISTRATION ACT - CONGRESS HAS PRECLUDED STATE ACTION LIKE
THAT TAKEN BY PENNSYLVANIA.  FN8 

IN THE VIEW WE TAKE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PASS UPON APPELLEES'
FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD CONTENTIONS, AND SO WE PASS IMMEDIATELY TO
THEIR FINAL QUESTION, EXPRESSLY LEAVING OPEN ALL OF APPELLEES' OTHER
CONTENTIONS, INCLUDING THE ARGUMENT THAT THE FEDERAL POWER IN THIS
FIELD, WHETHER EXERCISED OR UNEXERCISED, IS EXCLUSIVE.  OBVIOUSLY THE
ANSWER TO APPELLEES' FINAL QUESTION DEPENDS UPON AN ANALYSIS OF THE
RESPECTIVE POWERS OF STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE REGULATION
OF ALIENS AS SUCH, AND A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER CONGRESS HAS, BY ITS
ACTION, FORECLOSED ENFORCEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA'S REGISTRATION LAW. 

FIRST.  THAT THE SUPREMACY OF THE NATIONAL POWER IN THE GENERAL FIELD
OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, INCLUDING POWER OVER IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION
AND DEPORTATION, IS MADE CLEAR BY THE CONSTITUTION, WAS POINTED OUT BY
THE AUTHORS OF THE FEDERALIST IN 1787,  FN9  AND HAS SINCE BEEN GIVEN
CONTINUOUS RECOGNITION BY THIS COURT.  FN10  WHEN THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT BY TREATY OR STATUTE HAS ESTABLISHED RULES AND REGULATIONS
TOUCHING THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OBLIGATIONS OR BURDENS OF ALIENS AS
SUCH, THE TREATY OR STATUTE IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.  NO STATE
CAN ADD TO OR TAKE FROM THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF SUCH TREATY OR STATUTE,
FOR ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "THIS CONSTITUTION,
AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE
THEREOF; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND;
AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING IN THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." 
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTING AS IT DOES THE COLLECTIVE
INTERESTS OF THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES, IS ENTRUSTED WITH FULL AND
EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS WITH FOREIGN
SOVEREIGNTIES.  "FOR LOCAL INTERESTS THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE UNION
EXIST, BUT FOR NATIONAL PURPOSES, EMBRACING OUR RELATIONS WITH FOREIGN
NATIONS, WE ARE BUT ONE PEOPLE, ONE NATION, ONE POWER."  FN11  OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS SUCH THAT THE INTEREST OF THE CITIES, COUNTIES
AND STATES, NO LESS THAN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WHOLE
NATION, IMPERATIVELY REQUIRES THAT FEDERAL POWER IN THE FIELD AFFECTING
FOREIGN RELATIONS BE LEFT ENTIRELY FREE FROM LOCAL INTERFERENCE.  AS
MR. JUSTICE MILLER WELL OBSERVED OF A CALIFORNIA STATUTE BURDENING
IMMIGRATION: "IF (THE UNITED STATES) SHOULD GET INTO A DIFFICULTY WHICH
WOULD LEAD TO WAR, OR TO SUSPENSION OF INTERCOURSE, WOULD CALIFORNIA
ALONE SUFFER, OR ALL THE UNION?"  FN12 

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND DELICATE OF ALL INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONSHIPS, RECOGNIZED IMMEMORIALLY AS A RESPONSIBILITY OF
GOVERNMENT, HAS TO DO WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE JUST RIGHTS OF A
COUNTRY'S OWN NATIONALS WHEN THOSE NATIONALS ARE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. 
EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES OF THE GRAVEST
MOMENT, SOMETIMES EVEN LEADING TO WAR, MAY ARISE FROM REAL OR IMAGINED
WRONGS TO ANOTHER'S SUBJECTS INFLICTED, OR PERMITTED, BY A GOVERNMENT. 
FN13 THIS COUNTRY, LIKE OTHER NATIONS, HAS ENTERED INTO NUMEROUS
TREATIES OF AMITY AND COMMERCE SINCE ITS INCEPTION - TREATIES ENTERED
INTO UNDER EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, AND BINDING UPON THE
STATES AS WELL AS THE NATION.  AMONG THOSE TREATIES HAVE BEEN MANY
WHICH NOT ONLY PROMISED AND GUARANTEED BROAD RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES TO
ALIENS SOJOURNING IN OUR OWN TERRITORY, BUT SECURED RECIPROCAL PROMISES
AND GUARANTEES FOR OUR OWN CITIZENS WHILE IN OTHER LANDS.  AND APART
FROM TREATY OBLIGATIONS, THERE HAS GROWN UP IN THE FIELD OF
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS A BODY OF CUSTOMS DEFINING WITH MORE OR LESS
CERTAINTY THE DUTIES OWING BY ALL NATIONS TO ALIEN RESIDENTS - DUTIES
WHICH OUR STATE DEPARTMENT HAS OFTEN SUCCESSFULLY INSISTED FOREIGN
NATIONS MUST RECOGNIZE AS TO OUR NATIONALS ABROAD.  FN14  IN GENERAL,
BOTH TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES HAVE BEEN AIMED AT PREVENTING
INJURIOUS DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST ALIENS.  CONCERNING SUCH TREATIES,
THIS COURT HAS SAID:  "WHILE TREATIES, IN SAFEGUARDING IMPORTANT RIGHTS
IN THE INTEREST OF RECIPROCAL BENEFICIAL RELATIONS, MAY BY THEIR
EXPRESS TERMS AFFORD A MEASURE OF PROTECTION TO ALIENS WHICH CITIZENS
OF ONE OR BOTH OF THE PARTIES MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DEMAND AGAINST THEIR
OWN GOVERNMENT, THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF TREATIES OF AMITY AND COMMERCE
IS TO AVOID INJURIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN EITHER COUNTRY AGAINST THE
CITIZENS OF THE OTHER."  FN15 

LEGAL IMPOSITION OF DISTINCT, UNUSUAL AND EXTRAORDINARY BURDENS AND
OBLIGATIONS UPON ALIENS - SUCH AS SUBJECTING THEM ALONE, THOUGH
PERFECTLY LAW-ABIDING, TO INDISCRIMINATE AND REPEATED INTERCEPTION AND
INTERROGATION BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS - THUS BEARS AN INSEPARABLE
RELATIONSHIP TO THE WELFARE AND TRANQUILLITY OF ALL THE STATES, AND NOT
MERELY TO THE WELFARE AND TRANQUILLITY OF ONE.  LAWS IMPOSING SUCH
BURDENS ARE NOT MERE CENSUS REQUIREMENTS, AND EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE
IMMEDIATELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A LOCAL PURPOSE, THEY
PROVOKE QUESTIONS IN THE FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.  AND
SPECIALIZED REGULATION OF THE CONDUCT OF AN ALIEN BEFORE NATURALIZATION
IS A MATTER WHICH CONGRESS MUST CONSIDER IN DISCHARGING ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY "TO ESTABLISH AN UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION
...  "  IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT BOTH THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL
REGISTRATION LAWS BELONG "TO THAT CLASS OF LAWS WHICH CONCERN THE
EXTERIOR RELATION OF THIS WHOLE NATION WITH OTHER NATIONS AND
GOVERNMENTS."  FN16  CONSEQUENTLY THE REGULATION OF ALIENS IS SO
INTIMATELY BLENDED AND INTERTWINED WITH RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT THAT WHERE IT ACTS, AND THE STATE ALSO ACTS ON THE
SAME SUBJECT, "THE ACT OF CONGRESS, OR THE TREATY, IS SUPREME; AND THE
LAW OF THE STATE, THOUGH ENACTED IN THE EXERCISE OF POWERS NOT
CONTROVERTED, MUST YIELD TO IT."  FN17  AND WHERE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERIOR AUTHORITY IN THIS FIELD,
HAS ENACTED A COMPLETE SCHEME OF REGULATION AND HAS THEREIN PROVIDED A
STANDARD FOR THE REGISTRATION OF ALIENS, STATES CANNOT, INCONSISTENTLY
WITH THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS, CONFLICT OR INTERFERE WITH, CURTAIL OR
COMPLEMENT, THE FEDERAL LAW, OR ENFORCE ADDITIONAL OR AUXILIARY
REGULATIONS.  FN18  THERE IS NOT - AND FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE
PROBLEM THERE CANNOT BE - ANY RIGID FORMULA OR RULE WHICH CAN BE USED
AS A UNIVERSAL PATTERN TO DETERMINE THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF EVERY
ACT OF CONGRESS.  THIS COURT, IN CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF STATE LAWS
IN THE LIGHT OF TREATIES OR FEDERAL LAWS TOUCHING THE SAME SUBJECT, HAS
MADE USE OF THE FOLLOWING EXPRESSIONS:  CONFLICTING; CONTRARY TO;
OCCUPYING THE FIELD; REPUGNANCE; DIFFERENCE; IRRECONCILABILITY;
INCONSISTENCY; VIOLATION; CURTAILMENT; AND INTERFERENCE.  FN19  BUT
NONE OF THESE EXPRESSIONS PROVIDES AN INFALLIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST OR
AN EXCLUSIVE CONSTITUTIONAL YARDSTICK.  IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THERE
CAN BE NO ONE CRYSTAL CLEAR DISTINCTLY MARKED FORMULA.  OUR PRIMARY
FUNCTION IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, PENNSYLVANIA'S LAW STANDS AS AN OBSTACLE TO THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT AND EXECUTION OF THE FULL PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF
CONGRESS.  FN20  AND IN THAT DETERMINATION, IT IS OF IMPORTANCE THAT
THIS LEGISLATION IS IN A FIELD WHICH AFFECTS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,
THE ONE ASPECT OF OUR GOVERNMENT THAT FROM THE FIRST HAS BEEN MOST
GENERALLY CONCEDED IMPERATIVELY TO DEMAND BROAD NATIONAL AUTHORITY. 
ANY CONCURRENT STATE POWER THAT MAY EXIST IS RESTRICTED TO THE
NARROWEST OF LIMITS; THE STATE'S POWER HERE IS NOT BOTTOMED ON THE SAME
BROAD BASE AS IS ITS POWER TO TAX.  FN21  AND IT IS ALSO OF IMPORTANCE
THAT THIS LEGISLATION DEALS WITH THE RIGHTS, LIBERTIES, AND PERSONAL
FREEDOMS OF HUMAN BEINGS, AND IS IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CATEGORY FROM
STATE TAX STATUTES OR STATE PURE FOOD LAWS REGULATING THE LABELS ON
CANS.  FN22 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT APPELLEE IS CORRECT IN HIS CONTENTION THAT THE
POWER TO RESTRICT, LIMIT, REGULATE, AND REGISTER ALIENS AS A DISTINCT
GROUP IS NOT AN EQUAL AND CONTINUOUSLY EXISTING CONCURRENT POWER OF
STATE AND NATION, BUT THAT WHATEVER POWER A STATE MAY HAVE IS
SUBORDINATE TO SUPREME NATIONAL LAW.  FN23  WE PROCEED THEREFORE TO AN
EXAMINATION OF CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT
CONGRESS HAS ACTED IN SUCH MANNER THAT ITS ACTION SHOULD PRECLUDE
ENFORCEMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA'S LAW. 

SECOND.  FOR MANY YEARS CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED A BROAD AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESCRIBING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON WHICH
ALIENS MAY ENTER THIS COUNTRY, HOW THEY MAY ACQUIRE CITIZENSHIP, AND
THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY MAY BE DEPORTED.  NUMEROUS TREATIES, IN RETURN
FOR RECIPROCAL PROMISES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS, HAVE PLEDGED THE SOLEMN
OBLIGATION OF THIS NATION TO THE END THAT ALIENS RESIDING IN OUR
TERRITORY SHALL NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR THE IMPOSITION OF DISCRIMINATORY
BURDENS.  OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR CIVIL RIGHTS ACT HAVE GUARANTEED TO
ALIENS "THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS (WHICH) IS A PLEDGE OF THE
PROTECTION OF EQUAL LAWS."  FN24  WITH A VIEW TO LIMITING PROSPECTIVE
RESIDENTS FROM FOREIGN LANDS TO THOSE POSSESSING THE QUALITIES DEEMED
ESSENTIAL TO GOOD AND USEFUL CITIZENSHIP IN AMERICA, CAREFULLY DEFINED
QUALIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET BEFORE ALIENS MAY ENTER OUR
COUNTRY.  THESE QUALIFICATIONS INCLUDE RIGID REQUIREMENTS AS TO HEALTH,
EDUCATION, INTEGRITY, CHARACTER, AND ADAPTABILITY TO OUR INSTITUTIONS. 
NOR IS THE ALIEN LEFT FREE FROM THE APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS AFTER
ENTRY AND BEFORE NATURALIZATION.  IF DURING THE TIME HE IS RESIDING
HERE HE SHOULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTRARY TO THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS LAID DOWN BY CONGRESS, HE CAN BE DEPORTED.  AT THE TIME HE
ENTERS THE COUNTRY, AT THE TIME HE APPLIES FOR PERMISSION TO ACQUIRE
THE FULL STATUS OF CITIZENSHIP, AND DURING THE INTERVENING YEARS, HE
CAN BE SUBJECTED TO SEARCHING INVESTIGATIONS AS TO CONDUCT AND
SUITABILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP.  FN25  AND IN 1940 CONGRESS ADDED TO THIS
COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME A COMPLETE SYSTEM FOR ALIEN REGISTRATION. 

THE NATURE OF THE POWER EXERTED BY CONGRESS, THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE
ATTAINED, AND THE CHARACTER OF THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE LAW, ARE
ALL IMPORTANT IN CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SUPREME FEDERAL
ENACTMENTS PRECLUDE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS ON THE SAME SUBJECT. 
FN26 OPPOSITION TO LAWS PERMITTING INVASION OF THE PERSONAL LIBERTIES
OF LAW-ABIDING INDIVIDUALS, OR SINGLING OUT ALIENS AS PARTICULARLY
DANGEROUS AND UNDESIRABLE GROUPS, IS DEEP-SEATED IN THIS COUNTRY. 
HOSTILITY TO SUCH LEGISLATION IN AMERICA STEMS BACK TO OUR COLONIAL
HISTORY,  FN27  AND CHAMPIONS OF FREEDOM FOR THE INDIVIDUAL HAVE ALWAYS
VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED BURDENSOME REGISTRATION SYSTEMS.  THE DRASTIC
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ALIEN ACTS OF 1798  FN28  BROUGHT ABOUT A POLITICAL
UPHEAVAL IN THIS COUNTRY THE REPERCUSSIONS FROM WHICH HAVE NOT EVEN YET
WHOLLY SUBSIDED N29.  SO VIOLENT WAS THE REACTION TO THE 1798 LAWS THAT
ALMOST A CENTURY ELAPSED BEFORE A SECOND REGISTRATION ACT WAS PASSED. 
THIS SECOND LAW, WHICH REQUIRED CHINESE TO REGISTER AND CARRY
IDENTIFICATION CARDS WITH THEM AT ALL TIMES, WAS ENACTED MAY 5, 1892. 
AN OPPONENT OF THIS LEGISLATION, SPEAKING IN THE SENATE OF THE
REQUIREMENT THAT CARDS BE CARRIED, SAID:  "(THE CHINESE COVERED BY THE
ACT) ARE HERE TICKET-OF-LEAVE MEN; PRECISELY AS, UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN
LAW, A CONVICT IS ALLOWED TO GO AT LARGE UPON A TICKET-OF-LEAVE, THESE
PEOPLE ARE TO BE ALLOWED TO GO AT LARGE AND EARN THEIR LIVELIHOOD, BUT
THEY MUST HAVE THEIR TICKETS-OF-LEAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION.  ...  THIS
INAUGURATES IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT A NEW DEPARTURE; ONE, I BELIEVE
NEVER BEFORE PRACTISED, ALTHOUGH IT WAS SUGGESTED IN CONFERENCE THAT
SOME SUCH RULES HAD BEEN ADOPTED IN SLAVERY TIMES TO SECURE THE PEACE
OF SOCIETY."  FN30 

FOR MANY YEARS BILLS HAVE BEEN REGULARLY PRESENTED TO EVERY CONGRESS
PROVIDING FOR REGISTRATION OF ALIENS.  SOME OF THESE BILLS PROPOSED
ANNUAL REGISTRATION OF ALIENS, ISSUANCE OF IDENTIFICATION CARDS
CONTAINING INFORMATION ABOUT AND A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BEARER, EXHIBITION
OF THE CARDS ON DEMAND, PAYMENT OF AN ANNUAL FEE, AND KINDRED
REQUIREMENTS.  FN31  OPPOSITION TO THESE BILLS WAS BASED UPON CHARGES
THAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS WERE AT WAR WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF
OUR FREE GOVERNMENT, IN THAT THEY WOULD BRING ABOUT UNNECESSARY AND
IRRITATING RESTRICTIONS UPON PERSONAL LIBERTIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL, AND
WOULD SUBJECT ALIENS TO A SYSTEM OF INDISCRIMINATE QUESTIONING SIMILAR
TO THE ESPIONAGE SYSTEMS EXISTING IN OTHER LANDS.  FN32 

WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940, MANY OF THE
PROVISIONS WHICH HAD BEEN SO SEVERELY CRITICIZED WERE NOT INCLUDED. 
FN33  THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, AS ANNOUNCED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE WHICH DRAFTED THE FINAL BILL, WAS TO "WORK  ...
THE NEW PROVISIONS INTO THE EXISTING (IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION)
LAWS, SO AS TO MAKE A HARMONIOUS WHOLE."  FN34  THAT "HARMONIOUS WHOLE"
INCLUDED THE "UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION" THE CONSTITUTION
EMPOWERED THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE.  FN35  AND AS A PART OF THAT
"HARMONIOUS WHOLE," UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT ALIENS NEED NOT CARRY CARDS,
AND CAN ONLY BE PUNISHED FOR WILFUL FAILURE TO REGISTER.  FN36
FURTHER, REGISTRATION RECORDS AND FINGERPRINTS MUST BE KEPT SECRET AND
CANNOT BE REVEALED EXCEPT TO AGENCIES - SUCH AS A STATE - UPON CONSENT
OF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.    WE HAVE ALREADY
ADVERTED TO THE CONDITIONS WHICH MAKE THE TREATMENT OF ALIENS, IN
WHATEVER STATE THEY MAY BE LOCATED, A MATTER OF NATIONAL MOMENT.  AND
WHETHER OR NOT REGISTRATION OF ALIENS IS OF SUCH A NATURE THAT THE
CONSTITUTION PERMITS ONLY OF ONE UNIFORM NATIONAL SYSTEM, IT CANNOT BE
DENIED THAT THE CONGRESS MIGHT VALIDLY CONCLUDE THAT SUCH UNIFORMITY IS
DESIRABLE.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT INDICATES THAT CONGRESS
WAS TRYING TO STEER A MIDDLE PATH, REALIZING THAT ANY REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENT WAS A DEPARTURE FROM OUR TRADITIONAL POLICY OF NOT TREATING
ALIENS AS A THING APART, BUT ALSO FEELING THAT THE NATION WAS IN NEED
OF THE TYPE OF INFORMATION TO BE SECURED.  FN37  HAVING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY SO TO DO, IT HAS PROVIDED A STANDARD FOR ALIEN
REGISTRATION IN A SINGLE INTEGRATED AND ALL-EMBRACING SYSTEM IN ORDER
TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION DEEMED TO BE DESIRABLE IN CONNECTION WITH
ALIENS.  WHEN IT MADE THIS ADDITION TO ITS UNIFORM NATURALIZATION AND
IMMIGRATION LAWS, IT PLAINLY MANIFESTED A PURPOSE TO DO SO IN SUCH A
WAY AS TO PROTECT THE PERSONAL LIBERTIES OF LAW-ABIDING ALIENS THROUGH
ONE UNIFORM NATIONAL REGISTRATION SYSTEM, AND TO LEAVE THEM FREE FROM
THE POSSIBILITY OF INQUISITORIAL PRACTICES AND POLICE SURVEILLANCE THAT
MIGHT NOT ONLY AFFECT OUR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BUT MIGHT ALSO
GENERATE THE VERY DISLOYALTY WHICH THE LAW HAS INTENDED GUARDING
AGAINST.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT CANNOT BE
ENFORCED.  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PA. STATS. ANN. (PURDON, SUPP. 1940) TIT. 35, SECS. 1801-1806. 

FN2  THE EXCEPTIONS ARE:  ALIENS WHO ARE THE "FATHER OR MOTHER OF A
SON OR DAUGHTER WHO HAS SERVED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES
DURING ANY WAR"; ALIENS WHO HAVE RESIDED IN THE UNITED STATES
CONTINUOUSLY SINCE DECEMBER 31, 1908, WITHOUT ACQUIRING A CRIMINAL
RECORD; AND ALIENS WHO HAVE FILED THEIR APPLICATION FOR CITIZENSHIP. 
THE LATTER EXCEPTION IS QUALIFIED BY THE PROVISO THAT ALIENS IN THAT
CATEGORY MUST STILL REGISTER IF THEY "SHALL NOT HAVE BECOME NATURALIZED
WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS" AFTER APPLYING FOR CITIZENSHIP.  SINCE
FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES FIVE YEARS RESIDENCE BEFORE CITIZENSHIP CAN BE
ACQUIRED (8 U.S.C. SEC. 382), THIS EXCEPTION MEANS THAT ALIENS MAY BE
EXEMPT UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE FOR THE FIRST THREE YEARS AFTER
THEIR ARRIVAL BUT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE FOR THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THEIR ELIGIBILITY FOR CITIZENSHIP. 

FN3  30 F.SUPP.  470.  ONE ALIEN AND ONE NATURALIZED CITIZEN JOINED
IN PROCEEDINGS FILED AGAINST CERTAIN STATE OFFICIALS TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT.  THE ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANTS ADMITTED THE
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION AND DEFENDED THE ACT ON THE GROUND
THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE.  PLAINTIFFS MOVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS UNDER RULE 12(C).  THE REQUESTED RELIEF WAS
DENIED AS TO THE NATURALIZED CITIZEN BUT GRANTED AS TO THE ALIEN. 

FN4  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
AS AMENDED (28 U.S.C. SEC. 380).  WE NOTED PROBABLE JURISDICTION ON
MARCH 25, 1940. 

FN5  ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940, C. 439, 54 STAT. 670. 

FN6  CF. VANDENBARK V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., 311 U.S. 538.  AND
SEE UNITED STATES V. SCHOONER PEGGY, 1 CRANCH 103, 110, AND CARPENTER
V. WABASH RY. CO., 309 U.S. 23, 26-27. 

FN7  16 STAT. 140, 144, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 41:  "ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT IN EVERY
STATE AND TERRITORY TO MAKE AND ENFORCE CONTRACTS, TO SUE, BE PARTIES,
GIVE EVIDENCE, AND TO THE FULL AND EQUAL BENEFIT OF ALL LAWS AND
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SECURITY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY AS IS ENJOYED BY
WHITE CITIZENS, AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO LIKE PUNISHMENT, PAINS,
PENALTIES, TAXES, LICENSES, AND EXACTIONS OF EVERY KIND, AND TO NO
OTHER." 

FN8  PENNSYLVANIA IS NOT ALONE AMONG THE STATES IN ATTEMPTING TO
COMPEL ALIEN REGISTRATION.  SEVERAL STATES STILL HAVE DORMANT ON THEIR
STATUTE BOOKS LAWS PASSED IN 1917-18, EMPOWERING THE GOVERNOR TO
REQUIRE REGISTRATION WHEN A STATE OF WAR EXISTS OR WHEN PUBLIC
NECESSITY REQUIRES SUCH A STEP.  E.G., CONN. GEN. STATS. (1930) TIT.
59, SEC. 6042; FLA. COMP. GEN. LAWS (1927) SEC. 2078; IOWA CODE (1939)
SEC. 503; LA. GEN. STATS. (DART, 1939) TIT. 3, SEC. 282; ME. REV.
STATS. (1930) CH. 34, SEC. 3; N.H. PUB. LAWS (1926) CH. 154; N.Y.
CONS.  LAWS (EXECUTIVE LAW) SEC. 10.  OTHER STATES, LIKE PENNSYLVANIA,
HAVE PASSED REGISTRATION LAWS MORE RECENTLY.  E.G., S.C. ACTS (1940)
NO. 1014, SEC. 9, P. 1939; N.C. CODE (1939) SECS. 193(A)-(H).  IN
SEVERAL STATES, MUNICIPALITIES HAVE RECENTLY UNDERTAKEN LOCAL ALIEN
REGISTRATION. 

REGISTRATION STATUTES OF MICHIGAN AND CALIFORNIA WERE HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ARROWSMITH V. VOORHIES, 55 F.2D 310, AND EX PARTE
AH CUE, 101 CAL. 197, 35 P. 556. 

FN9  THE IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL POWER IN ALL MATTERS RELATING TO
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE INHERENT DANGER OF STATE ACTION IN THIS FIELD
ARE CLEARLY DEVELOPED IN FEDERALIST PAPERS NO. 3, 4, 5, 42 AND 80. 

FN10  E.G., HENDERSON V. MAYOR OF NEW YORK, 92 U.S. 259; PEOPLE V.
COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 107 U.S. 59; FONG YUE TING V.
UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698, 711.  CF. Z. & F. ASSETS REALIZATION CORP.
V. HULL, 311 U.S. 470. 

FN11  CHINESE EXCLUSION CASE, 130 U.S. 581, 606.  THOMAS JEFFERSON,
WHO WAS NOT GENERALLY FAVORABLE TO BROAD FEDERAL POWERS, EXPRESSED A
SIMILAR VIEW IN 1787:  "MY OWN GENERAL IDEA WAS, THAT THE STATES SHOULD
SEVERALLY PRESERVE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY IN WHATEVER CONCERNS THEMSELVES
ALONE, AND THAT WHATEVER MAY CONCERN ANOTHER STATE, OR ANY FOREIGN
NATION, SHOULD BE MADE A PART OF THE FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY."  MEMOIR,
CORRESPONDENCE AND MISCELLANIES FROM THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON
(1829), VOL. 2, P. 230, LETTER TO MR. WYTHE.  CF. JAMES MADISON IN
FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 42:  "THE SECOND CLASS OF POWERS, LODGED IN THE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT, CONSIST OF THOSE WHICH REGULATE THE INTERCOURSE
WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.  ...  THIS CLASS OF POWERS FORMS AN OBVIOUS AND
ESSENTIAL BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.  IF WE ARE TO BE ONE
NATION IN ANY RESPECT, IT CLEARLY OUGHT TO BE IN RESPECT TO OTHER
NATIONS." 

FN12  CHY LUNG V. FREEMAN, 92 U.S. 275, 279.  CF. ALEXANDER HAMILTON
IN FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 80: "THE PEACE OF THE WHOLE OUGHT NOT TO BE
LEFT AT THE DISPOSAL OF A PART.  THE UNION WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE
ANSWERABLE TO FOREIGN POWERS FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS MEMBERS."  THAT THE
CONGRESS WAS NOT UNAWARE OF THE POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL REPERCUSSIONS OF
REGISTRATION LEGISLATION IS APPARENT FROM A STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF THE
1940 FEDERAL ACT.  CONGRESSMAN COFFEE, SPEAKING AGAINST AN EARLIER
VERSION OF THE BILL, SAID:  "ARE WE NOT GUILTY OF DELIBERATELY
INSULTING NATIONS WITH WHOM WE MAINTAIN FRIENDLY DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS? 
ARE WE NOT HUMILIATING THEIR NATIONALS?  ARE WE NOT VIOLATING THE
TRADITIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF A CENTURY AND A HALF?"  84 CONG. REC.
9536. 

FN13  FOR A COLLECTION OF TYPICAL INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSIES THAT
HAVE ARISEN IN THIS MANNER, SEE DUNN, THE PROTECTION OF NATIONALS
(1932), PP. 13 ET SEQ. CF. JOHN JAY IN FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 3:  "THE
NUMBER OF WARS WHICH HAVE HAPPENED OR WILL HAPPEN IN THE WORLD WILL
ALWAYS BE FOUND TO BE IN PROPORTION TO THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT OF THE
CAUSES, WHETHER REAL OR PRETENDED, WHICH PROVOKE OR INVITE THEM.  IF
THIS REMARK BE JUST, IT BECOMES USEFUL TO INQUIRE WHETHER SO MANY JUST
CAUSES OF WAR ARE LIKELY TO BE GIVEN BY UNITED AMERICA AS BY DISUNITED
AMERICA; FOR IF IT SHOULD TURN OUT THAT UNITED AMERICA WILL PROBABLY
GIVE THE FEWEST, THEN IT WILL FOLLOW THAT IN THIS RESPECT THE UNION
TENDS MOST TO PRESERVE THE PEOPLE IN A STATE OF PEACE WITH OTHER
NATIONS." 

FN14  "IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE RIGHT OF PROTECTION OVER ITS SUBJECTS
ABROAD WHICH EVERY STATE ENJOYS, AND THE CORRESPONDING DUTY OF EVERY
STATE TO TREAT ALIENS ON ITS TERRITORY WITH A CERTAIN CONSIDERATION, AN
ALIEN  ...  MUST BE AFFORDED PROTECTION FOR HIS PERSON AND PROPERTY. 
...  EVERY STATE IS BY THE LAW OF NATIONS COMPELLED TO GRANT TO ALIENS
AT LEAST EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW WITH ITS CITIZENS, AS FAR AS SAFETY OF
PERSON AND PROPERTY IS CONCERNED.  AN ALIEN MUST IN PARTICULAR NOT BE
WRONGED IN PERSON OR PROPERTY BY THE OFFICIALS AND COURTS OF A STATE. 
THUS THE POLICE MUST NOT ARREST HIM WITHOUT JUST CAUSE.  ...  "  1
OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW (5TH ED., 1937), PP. 547-548.  AND SEE 4
MOORE, INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST, PP. 2, 27, 28; BORCHARD, THE
DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF CITIZENS ABROAD (1928), PP. 25, 37, 73, 104. 

FN15  TODOK V. UNION STATE BANK, 281 U.S. 449, 454-455. 

FN16  HENDERSON V. MAYOR OF NEW YORK, 92 U.S. 259, 273. 

FN17  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 211; SEE CHARLESTON & WESTERN
CAROLINA RY. CO. V. VARNVILLE FURNITURE CO., 237 U.S. 597.  CF. PEOPLE
V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 107 U.S. 59, 63, WHERE THE
COURT, SPEAKING OF A STATE LAW AND A FEDERAL LAW DEALING WITH THE SAME
TYPE OF CONTROL OVER ALIENS, SAID THAT THE FEDERAL LAW "COVERS THE SAME
GROUND AS THE NEW YORK STATUTE, AND THEY CANNOT CO-EXIST." 

FN18  CF. NIELSEN V. JOHNSON, 279 U.S. 47; ASAKURA V. SEATTLE, 265
U.S. 332; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. PINKUS, 278 U.S. 261, 265, AND
CASES THERE CITED.  AND SEE SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 539. 
APPELLANT RELIES ON GILBERT V. MINNESOTA, 254 U.S. 325, AND HALTER V.
NEBRASKA, 205 U.S. 34, BUT NEITHER OF THOSE CASES IS RELEVANT TO THE
ISSUES HERE PRESENTED. 

FN19  E.G., HAUENSTEIN V. LYNHAM, 100 U.S. 483, 489; GEOFROY V.
RIGGS, 133 U.S. 258, 267; ASAKURA V. SEATTLE, 265 U.S. 332, 340, 342;
NIELSEN V. JOHNSON, 279 U.S. 47, 52; TODOK V. UNION STATE BANK, 281
U.S. 449, 454; SANTOVINCENZO V. EGAN, 284 U.S. 30, 40; UNITED STATES V.
BELMONT, 301 U.S. 324, 331(BUT COMPARE THE AFFIRMANCE BY AN EQUALLY
DIVIDED COURT IN UNITED STATES V. MOSCOW FIRE INS. CO., 309 U.S. 624);
KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10, 11; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S.
598, 604; BACARDI CORPORATION V. DOMENECH, 311 U.S. 150, 157, 167. 

FN20  CF. SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533:  "FOR WHEN THE QUESTION
IS WHETHER A FEDERAL ACT OVERRIDES A STATE LAW, THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF
THE STATUTE MUST OF COURSE BE CONSIDERED AND THAT WHICH NEEDS MUST BE
IMPLIED IS OF NO LESS FORCE THAN THAT WHICH IS EXPRESSED.  IF THE
PURPOSE OF THE ACT CANNOT OTHERWISE BE ACCOMPLISHED - IF ITS OPERATION
WITHIN ITS CHOSEN FIELD ELSE MUST BE FRUSTRATED AND ITS PROVISIONS BE
REFUSED THEIR NATURAL EFFECT - THE STATE LAW MUST YIELD TO THE
REGULATION OF CONGRESS WITHIN THE SPHERE OF ITS DELEGATED POWER." 

FN21  EXPRESS RECOGNITION OF THE BREADTH OF THE CONCURRENT TAXING
POWERS OF STATE AND NATION IS FOUND IN FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 32. 

FN22  IT IS TRUE THAT WHERE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT OF ITSELF
PROHIBIT STATE ACTION, AS IN MATTERS RELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
AND WHERE THE CONGRESS, WHILE REGULATING RELATED MATTERS, HAS PURPOSELY
LEFT UNTOUCHED A DISTINCTIVE PART OF A SUBJECT WHICH IS PECULIARLY
ADAPTED TO LOCAL REGULATION, THE STATE MAY LEGISLATE CONCERNING SUCH
LOCAL MATTERS WHICH CONGRESS COULD HAVE COVERED BUT DID NOT.  KELLY V.
WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14(INSPECTION FOR
SEAWORTHINESS OF HULL AND MACHINERY OF MOTOR-DRIVEN TUGS).  AND SEE
REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 147(PROHIBITION ON INTRODUCTION OF
DISEASED CATTLE OR HORSES); SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 529,
532(REQUIREMENT THAT CERTAIN LABELS REVEAL PACKAGE CONTENTS); CAREY V.
SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 118, 121(PROHIBITION OF SHIPMENT BY CARRIER OF
WILD DUCKS); DICKSON V. UHLMANN GRAIN CO., 288 U.S. 188,
199(PROHIBITION OF MARGIN TRANSACTIONS IN GRAIN WHERE THERE IS NO
INTENT TO DELIVER); MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346, 350-352(INSPECTION
OF CATTLE FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASES); MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598,
604, 614(PROHIBITION OF CAR-OVER-CAB TRUCKING). 

FN23  AS SUPPORTING THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE CAN ENFORCE ITS
ALIEN REGISTRATION LEGISLATION, EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS HAS ACTED ON THE
IDENTICAL SUBJECT, APPELLANT RELIES UPON A NUMBER OF PREVIOUS OPINIONS
OF THIS COURT.  OHIO EX REL. CLARKE V. DECKEBACH, 274 U.S. 392, 395,
396; FRICK V. WEBB, 263 U.S. 326, 333; WEBB V. O'BRIEN, 263 U.S. 313,
321, 322; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197, 223, 224; HEIM V. MCCALL,
239 U.S. 175, 193, 194.  IN EACH OF THOSE CASES THIS COURT SUSTAINED
STATE LEGISLATION WHICH APPLIED TO ALIENS ONLY, AGAINST AN ATTACK ON
THE GROUND THAT THE LAWS VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  IN EACH CASE, HOWEVER, THE COURT WAS CAREFUL TO POINT
OUT THAT THE STATE LAW WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANY VALID TREATIES
ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND IN NO INSTANCE DID IT APPEAR THAT
CONGRESS HAD PASSED LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT.  IN THE ONLY CASE OF
THIS TYPE IN WHICH THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING TREATY PROVISION IN
CONFLICT WITH THE STATE LAW, THIS COURT HELD THE STATE LAW INVALID. 
ASAKURA V. SEATTLE, 265 U.S. 332. 

FN24  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 369. 

FN25  8 U.S.C. SECS. 152, 373, 377(C), 382, 398, 399(A). 

FN26  CF. PRIGG V. PENNSYLVANIA, 16 PET. 539, 622, 623. 

FN27  AS EARLY AS 1641, IN THE MASSACHUSETTS "BODY OF LIBERTIES," WE
FIND THE STATEMENT THAT "EVERY PERSON WITHIN THIS JURISDICTION, WHETHER
INHABITANT OR FORREINER, SHALL ENJOY THE SAME JUSTICE AND LAW THAT IS
GENERALL FOR THE PLANTATION  ...  "    FN28  1 STAT. 570, 577. 

FN29  SEE FIELD, J., DISSENTING IN FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES,
149 U.S. 698, 746-750.  CF. 84 CONG. REC. 9534. 

FN30  QUOTED IN FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 743. 

FN31  E.G., H.R. 9101 AND H.R. 9147, 71ST CONG., 2ND SESSION; SEE 72
CONG. REC. 3886. 

FN32  THE REQUIREMENT THAT CARDS BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED HAS ALWAYS
BEEN REGARDED AS ONE OF THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES OF PROPOSED
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, FOR IT IS THOUGHT TO BE A FEATURE THAT BEST LENDS
ITSELF TO TYRANNY AND INTIMIDATION.  CONGRESSMAN CELLER, SPEAKING IN
1928 OF THE REPEATED DEFEAT OF REGISTRATION BILLS AND OF AN ATTEMPT BY
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR TO REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF INCOMING ALIENS BY
EXECUTIVE ORDER, SAID:  "BUT HERE IS THE REAL VICE OF THE SITUATION AND
THE CORE OF THE DIFFICULTY:  "THE ADMITTED ALIEN,' AS THE ORDER STATES,
'SHOULD BE CAUTIONED TO PRESENT (HIS CARD) FOR INSPECTION IF AND WHEN
SUBSEQUENTLY REQUESTED SO TO DO BY AN OFFICER OF THE IMMIGRATION
SERVICE.'"  70 CONG. REC. 190. 

FN33  CONGRESSMAN SMITH, WHO INTRODUCED THE ORIGINAL OF THE BILL THAT
AS FINALLY ADOPTED BECAME THE 1940 ACT, SAID IN COMMITTEE:  "THE
DRAFTING OF THE BILL IS  ...  A CODIFICATION OF MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN
OFFERED FROM TIME TO TIME.  ...  I HAVE TRIED TO ELIMINATE FROM THE
BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED ON THE SUBJECT THOSE WHICH SEEMED TO ME
WOULD CAUSE MUCH CONTROVERSY."  HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3 OF
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, H.R. 5138, APRIL 12, 1939, P. 71. 

FN34  CONG. REC., JUNE 15, 1940, P. 12620.  SENATOR CONNALLY MADE
THIS STATEMENT IN EXPLAINING WHY IT HAD BEEN FOUND NECESSARY TO
SUBSTITUTE A NEW BILL FOR THE BILL ORIGINALLY SENT TO THE SENATE BY THE
HOUSE.  IN DETAILING THE CARE THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN IN THE DRAFTING OF
THE NEW MEASURE, HE SAID:  "WE REGRETTED VERY MUCH THAT WE HAD TO
DISCARD ENTIRELY THE BILL PASSED BY THE HOUSE AND SUBSTITUTE A NEW BILL
AFTER THE ENACTING CLAUSE.  HOWEVER, WE CALLED IN MR. MURPHY, OF THE
DRAFTING SERVICE, WHO WORKED WITH US SOME 2 WEEKS EVERY DAY  ...  WE
CALLED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND HAD THE SOLICITOR GENERAL WITH
US. WE CALLED IN THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,
AND TOGETHER WE WENT OVER ALL THE EXISTING LAWS, AND WORKED THE NEW
PROVISIONS INTO THE EXISTING LAWS, SO AS TO MAKE A HARMONIOUS WHOLE." 
THIS SENATE VERSION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE ACT AS FINALLY ADOPTED; THE
ALIEN REGISTRATION PROVISIONS ARE TITLE III OF A BROADER ACT DEALING
WITH DEPORTABLE OFFENSES AND ADVOCACY OF DISLOYALTY IN THE ARMED
FORCES. 

FN35  IN FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 42, THE REASONS FOR GIVING THIS POWER
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE THUS EXPLAINED:  "BY THE LAWS OF SEVERAL
STATES, CERTAIN DESCRIPTIONS OF ALIENS, WHO HAD RENDERED THEMSELVES
OBNOXIOUS, WERE LAID UNDER INTERDICTS INCONSISTENT NOT ONLY WITH THE
RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP BUT WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF RESIDENCE.  WHAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN THE CONSEQUENCE, IF SUCH PERSONS, BY RESIDENCE OR OTHERWISE,
HAD ACQUIRED THE CHARACTER OF CITIZENS UNDER THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE
...  ?  WHATEVER THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES MIGHT HAVE BEEN, OTHER
CONSEQUENCES WOULD PROBABLY HAVE RESULTED, OF TOO SERIOUS A NATURE NOT
TO BE PROVIDED AGAINST.  THE NEW CONSTITUTION HAS ACCORDINGLY, WITH
GREAT PROPRIETY, MADE PROVISION AGAINST THEM, AND ALL OTHERS PROCEEDING
FROM THE DEFECT OF THE CONFEDERATION ON THIS HEAD, BY AUTHORIZING THE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM RULE OF NATURALIZATION
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES." 

FN36  THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL DECISION TO PUNISH ONLY WILFUL
TRANSGRESSIONS WAS DELIBERATE RATHER THAN INADVERTENT IS CONCLUSIVELY
DEMONSTRATED BY THE DEBATES ON THE BILL.  E.G., CONG. REC., JUNE 15,
1940, P. 12621.  AND SEE NOTE 37, INFRA. 

FN37  CONGRESSMAN CELLER, RANKING MEMBER OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED OUT THE BILL, SAID IN STATING HIS INTENTION OF
VOTING FOR THE 1940 ACT:  "MR. SPEAKER, JUDGING THE TEMPER OF THE
NATION, I BELIEVE THIS COMPROMISE REPORT IS THE BEST TO BE HAD UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND I SHALL VOTE FOR IT  ...  FURTHERMORE, I THINK
THE CONFEREES HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB BECAUSE THE PUNISHMENT IS NOT TOO
GREAT  ...  THERE MUST BE PROOF  ...  THAT THE ALIEN WILLFULLY REFUSES
TO REGISTER  ...  I DREW THE MINORITY REPORT AGAINST THIS BILL
ORIGINALLY, BECAUSE IT PROVIDED SOME VERY HARSH PROVISIONS AGAINST
ALIENS.  SOME OF THE HARSHNESS AND SOME OF THE SEVERITY OF THE ORIGINAL
BILL HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED  ...  I MUST ADMIT THAT IT IS THE BEST TO BE
HAD UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES."  CONG. REC., JUNE 22, 1940, PP. 13468-9. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

UNDOUBTEDLY CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO LEGISLATE IN
AID OF POWERS GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
MAY GREATLY ENLARGE THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND TO AN EXTENT
WHICH NEED NOT NOW BE DEFINED, IT MAY, IF SUCH IS ITS WILL, THUS
SUBTRACT FROM THE POWERS WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE EXERCISED BY THE
STATES.  ASSUMING, AS THE COURT HOLDS, THAT CONGRESS COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY SET UP AN EXCLUSIVE REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOR ALIENS, I
THINK IT HAS NOT DONE SO AND THAT IT IS NOT THE PROVINCE OF THE COURTS
TO DO THAT WHICH CONGRESS HAS FAILED TO DO. 

AT A TIME WHEN THE EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL POWER IS BEING RAPIDLY
EXPANDED THROUGH CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, IT IS DIFFICULT TO OVERSTATE THE
IMPORTANCE OF SAFEGUARDING AGAINST SUCH DIMINUTION OF STATE POWER BY
VAGUE INFERENCES AS TO WHAT CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE INTENDED IF IT HAD
CONSIDERED THE MATTER OR BY REFERENCE TO OUR OWN CONCEPTIONS OF A
POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSED AND WHICH IS NOT PLAINLY TO BE
INFERRED FROM THE LEGISLATION WHICH IT HAS ENACTED.  CF. GRAVES V.
O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, 479, 480, 487.  THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES SHOULD NOT ASSUME TO STRIKE DOWN A STATE LAW WHICH IS
IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED WITH THE SOCIAL ORDER AND SAFETY OF ITS PEOPLE
UNLESS THE STATUTE PLAINLY AND PALPABLY VIOLATES SOME RIGHT GRANTED OR
SECURED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION OR SIMILARLY
ENCROACHES UPON THE EXERCISE OF SOME AUTHORITY DELEGATED TO THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF OBJECTS OF NATIONAL CONCERN. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT DOES NOT DENY, AND I SEE NO REASON TO DOUBT
THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA REGISTRATION STATUTE, WHEN PASSED, WAS A LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATE.  WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT
NOW MATERIAL IT REQUIRES ALIENS RESIDENT IN THE STATE, WHO HAVE NOT
DECLARED THEIR INTENTION TO BECOME CITIZENS, TO REGISTER ANNUALLY, TO
PAY A REGISTRATION FEE OF $1.00, AND TO CARRY A REGISTRATION
IDENTIFICATION CARD.  IT AFFORDS TO THE STATE A CONVENIENT METHOD OF
ASCERTAINING THE NUMBER AND WHEREABOUTS OF ALIENS WITHIN THE STATE,
WHICH IT IS ENTITLED TO KNOW, AND A MEANS OF THEIR IDENTIFICATION.  IT
IS AN AVAILABLE AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A NUMBER OF STATUTES OF THE
STATE APPLICABLE TO ALIENS WHOSE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY HAS NOT BEEN
QUESTIONED, ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT NOT TO INFRINGE
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138.  FN1 

THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT HAS EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE ADMISSION OF
ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES BUT, AFTER ENTRY, AN ALIEN RESIDENT
WITHIN A STATE, LIKE A CITIZEN, IS SUBJECT TO THE POLICE POWERS OF THE
STATE AND, IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER, STATE LEGISLATURES MAY PASS
LAWS APPLICABLE EXCLUSIVELY TO ALIENS SO LONG AS THE DISTINCTION TAKEN
BETWEEN ALIENS AND CITIZENS IS NOT SHOWN TO BE WITHOUT RATIONAL BASIS. 
PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197;
COCKRILL V. CALIFORNIA, 268 U.S. 258; OHIO V. DECKEBACH, 274 U.S. 392,
396, AND CASES CITED.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO GENERAL POLICE
POWER OVER ALIENS AND, SO FAR AS IT CAN EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OVER THEM,
IT MUST BE IN THE PURSUANCE OF A POWER GRANTED TO IT BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT DOES NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION UPON THE
GROUND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT THERE
IS ANY WANT OF POWER IN THE STATE TO PASS THE PRESENT STATUTE.  IT DOES
NOT SUGGEST, NOR COULD IT WELL DO SO, THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE EITHER BY ITS OWN TERMS
OR IN ITS OPERATION INTERFERES WITH OR OBSTRUCTS THE AUTHORITY
CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OVER THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, ITS POWERS OVER
IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION OF ALIENS OR THEIR NATURALIZATION.  THE
EXISTENCE OF THE NATIONAL POWER TO CONDUCT FOREIGN RELATIONS AND
NEGOTIATE TREATIES DOES NOT FORECLOSE STATE LEGISLATION DEALING
EXCLUSIVELY WITH ALIENS AS SUCH.  THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT
TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PROTECTION OF RESIDENT ALIENS DO
NOT SUPERSEDE SUCH LEGISLATION UNLESS THEY CONFLICT WITH IT.  SEE OHIO
V. DECKEBACH, SUPRA, 395 AND CASES CITED; TODOK V. UNION STATE BANK,
281 U.S. 449, 454 ET SEQ.; CF. NIELSEN V. JOHNSON, 279 U.S. 47.  IT IS
NOT CONTENDED THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE CONFLICTS WITH ANY TERM OF
ANY TREATY. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS A DIFFERENT ONE FROM THAT CONSIDERED
IN HENDERSON V. MAYOR OF NEW YORK, 92 U.S. 259, 273, WHERE THE STATE
TAXATION AND REGISTRATION OF ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES
THROUGH A PORT OF THE STATE WAS HELD TO BE A REGULATION OF FOREIGN
COMMERCE FORBIDDEN TO THE STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, EVEN THOUGH
CONGRESS HAD PASSED NO SIMILAR LEGISLATION.  THE REGISTRATION OF ALIENS
RESIDENT IN A STATE IS NOT A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE OR OF THE ENTRY OR DEPORTATION OF ALIENS AND WOULD SEEM TO BE
NO MORE AN EXERCISE OF ANY POWER GRANTED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, OR
AN ENCROACHMENT UPON IT, THAN IS A STATE CENSUS FOR LOCAL PURPOSES AN
INFRINGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY TO TAKE A NATIONAL CENSUS FOR
NATIONAL PURPOSES.  IT IS THE FEDERAL ACT ALONE WHICH IS POINTED TO AS
CURTAILING OR WITHDRAWING THE RESERVED POWER OF THE STATE OVER ITS
ALIEN POPULATION. 

TITLE I OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE PENALIZES CERTAIN ACTS OF ANY PERSONS
INTENDED TO INTERFERE WITH, IMPAIR OR INFLUENCE THE LOYALTY, MORALE OR
DISCIPLINE OF THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES.  TITLE
II, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PROVIDES FOR THE DEPORTATION OF ALIENS AFTER
CONVICTION AND SERVICE OF SENTENCE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF
TITLE I. AND THE EVIDENT PURPOSE OF THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS OF
TITLE III IS TO AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT AND IN THE PREVENTION OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES OF ALIENS RESIDENT
WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  IT REQUIRES THE REGISTRATION AND
FINGERPRINTING OF ALL ALIENS OVER FOURTEEN YEARS OF AGE, WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED AND FINGERPRINTED
UPON ENTERING THE COUNTRY.  REGISTERED ALIENS RESIDENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION OF ANY
CHANGE OF RESIDENCE AND PENALTIES ARE IMPOSED FOR WILFUL NON
COMPLIANCE.  AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED BY THE OPINION OF THE COURT THE
FEDERAL ACT DENIES TO THE STATES THE PRACTICABLE MEANS OF IDENTIFYING
THEIR ALIEN RESIDENTS AND OF RECORDING THEIR WHEREABOUTS AND IT
WITHHOLDS FROM THE STATES THE BENEFIT OF THE INFORMATION SECURED UNDER
THE FEDERAL ACT EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM ON
APPLICATION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE FEDERAL ACT IN OPERATION DOES NOT AT ANY
POINT CONFLICT WITH THE STATE STATUTE, AND IT DOES NOT BY ITS TERMS
PURPORT TO CONTROL OR RESTRICT STATE AUTHORITY IN ANY PARTICULAR.  BUT
THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT CONGRESS BY PASSING THE FEDERAL ACT, HAS
"OCCUPIED THE FIELD" SO AS TO PRECLUDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE
STATUTE AND THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LATTER MIGHT WELL CONFLICT
WITH CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO PROTECT THE CIVIL LIBERTY OF ALIENS
AGAINST THE HARASSMENTS OF INTRUSIVE POLICE SURVEILLANCE. 

LITTLE AID CAN BE DERIVED FROM THE VAGUE AND ILLUSORY BUT OFTEN
REPEATED FORMULA THAT CONGRESS "BY OCCUPYING THE FIELD" HAS EXCLUDED
FROM IT ALL STATE LEGISLATION.  EVERY ACT OF CONGRESS OCCUPIES SOME
FIELD, BUT WE MUST KNOW THE BOUNDARIES OF THAT FIELD BEFORE WE CAN SAY
THAT IT HAS PRECLUDED A STATE FROM THE EXERCISE OF ANY POWER RESERVED
TO IT BY THE CONSTITUTION.  TO DISCOVER THE BOUNDARIES WE LOOK TO THE
FEDERAL STATUTE ITSELF, READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL SETTING
AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. 

FEDERAL STATUTES PASSED IN AID OF A GRANTED POWER OBVIOUSLY SUPERSEDE
STATE STATUTES WITH WHICH THEY CONFLICT.  PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V.
ILLINOIS BRICK CO., 297 U.S. 447, 459.  SEE KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302
U.S. 1, 10.  BUT WE ARE POINTED TO NO SUCH CONFLICT HERE.  IN THE
EXERCISE OF SUCH POWERS CONGRESS ALSO HAS WIDE SCOPE FOR PROHIBITING
STATE REGULATION OF MATTERS WHICH CONGRESS MAY, BUT HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN
TO REGULATE ITSELF.  BUT NO WORDS OF THE STATUTE OR OF ANY COMMITTEE
REPORT, OR ANY CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE INDICATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
WITHDRAW FROM THE STATES ANY PART OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OVER
ALIENS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS.  WE MUST TAKE IT THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT
UNAWARE THAT SOME NINETEEN STATES HAVE STATUTES OR ORDINANCES REQUIRING
SOME FORM OF REGISTRATION FOR ALIENS, SEVEN OF THEM DATING FROM THE
LAST WAR.  THE REPEAL OF THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT TO BE INFERRED FROM
THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING A LAW WHICH AT NO POINT CONFLICTS
WITH THE STATE LEGISLATION AND IS HARMONIOUS WITH IT. 

THE EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POWER IS CERTAINLY NOT MORE
POTENT TO CURTAIL THE EXERCISE OF STATE POWER OVER ALIENS THAN IS THE
EXERCISE OF THE TREATY MAKING POWER.  YET AS WE HAVE SEEN NO TREATY HAS
THAT EFFECT UNLESS IT CONFLICTS WITH A STATE STATUTE.  THE PASSAGE OF
THE NATIONAL PURE FOOD & DRUG ACT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE STATES FROM
SUPPLEMENTING IT BY LIKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOT CONFLICTING WITH
THOSE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT.  SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501.  THE
ENACTMENT OF FEDERAL LAWS FOR THE INSPECTION, AS A SAFETY MEASURE, OF
VESSELS PLYING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT FORECLOSE
THE STATES FROM LIKE INSPECTION OF THE HULL AND MACHINERY OF SUCH
VESSELS WITHIN THE STATE, TO INSURE SAFETY AND DETERMINE SEAWORTHINESS,
DEMANDS WHICH LIE OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.  KELLY V.
WASHINGTON, SUPRA.  THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL DRAFT AND THE NATIONAL
ESPIONAGE ACTS WITH THEIR PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION, DID NOT PRECLUDE A
STATE FROM MAKING IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR ANY PERSON TO ADVOCATE THAT
CITIZENS OF THE STATE REFUSE TO AID OR ASSIST THE UNITED STATES IN
CARRYING ON A WAR.  GILBERT V. MINNESOTA, 254 U.S. 325; CF. HALTER V.
NEBRASKA, 204 U.S. 34; SEE ALSO REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137; CAREY
V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 118; DICKSON V. UHLMANN GRAIN CO., 288 U.S.
188; MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598,
614.  THESE ARE BUT A FEW OF THE MANY EXAMPLES OF THE LONG ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION THAT AN EXERCISE BY THE
STATE OF ITS POLICE POWER, WHICH WOULD BE VALID IF NOT SUPERSEDED BY
FEDERAL ACTION, IS SUPERSEDED ONLY WHERE THE REPUGNANCE OR CONFLICT IS
SO "DIRECT AND POSITIVE" THAT THE TWO ACTS CANNOT "BE FAIRLY RECONCILED
OR CONSISTENTLY STAND TOGETHER."  SINNOT V. DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227,
243; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, 10.  A FEDERAL REGISTRATION ACT
DESIGNED TO AID IN ENFORCING FEDERAL STATUTES AND TO PREVENT SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES AGAINST THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CAN STAND CONSISTENTLY WITH
A LIKE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTS PASSED IN AID OF STATE LAWS AND
AS A SAFEGUARD TO PROPERTY AND PERSONS WITHIN THE STATE, AS READILY AS
THE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS WHICH ANNUALLY DEMAND TWO SEPARATE INCOME
TAX RETURNS OF THE CITIZEN. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF ALIENS AS
WELL AS OF CITIZENS AGAINST INFRINGEMENT BY STATE ACTION IN THE
ENACTMENT OF LAWS AND THEIR ADMINISTRATION AS WELL.  AGAIN WE ARE
POINTED TO NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OR IN THE
RECORDS OF ITS PASSAGE THROUGH CONGRESS TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS
THOUGHT THOSE GUARANTEES INADEQUATE OR THAT IN REQUIRING REGISTRATION
OF ALL ALIENS IT UNDERTOOK TO PREVENT THE STATES FROM PASSING ANY
REGISTRATION MEASURE OTHERWISE CONSTITUTIONAL.  TRUE, IT WAS CAREFUL TO
BRING THE NEW LEGISLATION INTO HARMONY WITH EXISTING FEDERAL STATUTES
AND TO AVOID, SO FAR AS CONSISTENT WITH ITS PURPOSES, ANY HARSH OR
OPPRESSIVE REQUIREMENTS, BUT IN ALL THIS THERE IS TO BE FOUND NO
WARRANT FOR SAYING THAT THERE WAS A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO CURTAIL
THE EXERCISE OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATE OVER ITS ALIEN
RESIDENTS OR TO PROTECT THE ALIEN FROM STATE ACTION WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS AND WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS STAND READY TO
PREVENT.  SEE HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 518, 525 ET SEQ. 

HERE COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW DOES NOT PRECLUDE OR EVEN
INTERFERE WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT OF CONGRESS.  THE ENFORCEMENT OF
BOTH ACTS INVOLVES NO MORE INCONSISTENCY, NO MORE INCONVENIENCE TO THE
INDIVIDUAL, AND NO MORE EMBARRASSMENT TO EITHER GOVERNMENT THAN DO ANY
OF THE LAWS, STATE AND NATIONAL, SUCH AS REVENUE LAWS, LICENSING LAWS,
OR POLICE REGULATIONS, WHERE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INVOLVED, WHICH ARE
EQUALLY APPLIED TO THE CITIZEN BECAUSE HE IS SUBJECT, AS ARE ALIENS, TO
A DUAL SOVEREIGNTY. 

FN1  TIT. 34 SEC. 1311.1001, PURDON'S PENN.  STAT.  ANN., PROHIBITING
HUNTING BY ALIENS, WAS SUSTAINED IN THE PATSONE CASE, 232 U.S. 138. 
CF. TIT. 30 SEC. 240.  OTHER PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES WHOSE VALIDITY HAS
NOT BEEN PASSED UPON REGULATE THE ACTIVITIES OF ALIENS:  TIT. 63,
SETTING FORTH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRACTICE OF CERTAIN
PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS, MAKES SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALIENS
SEEKING TO PRACTICE AS CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS (SEC. 1),
ARCHITECTS (SEC. 22), ENGINEERS (SEC. 137), NURSES (SEC. 202),
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS (SEC. 406), AND UNDERTAKERS (SEC. 478C).  THE
REAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS OF ALIENS ARE LIMITED TO 5000 ACRES OF LAND OR
LAND PRODUCING NET INCOME OF $20,000 OR LESS (TITLE 68, SECS. 28, 32). 
TAXES ARE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE WAGES OF ALIENS BY THEIR EMPLOYERS
WHEN THE TAX COLLECTOR REQUESTS (TIT. 72, SEC. 5681). 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




















SIBBACH V. WILSON & CO., 312 U.S. 1 


NO. 28.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1941.  - 108
F.2D 415, REVERSED. 


1.  CONGRESS HAS POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF
FEDERAL COURTS, AND MAY EXERCISE IT BY DELEGATING TO THE SUPREME OR
OTHER FEDERAL COURTS AUTHORITY TO MAKE RULES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
STATUTES OR CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 9. 

2.  THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, EMPOWERING THE SUPREME COURT TO
PRESCRIBE RULES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN CIVIL
ACTIONS, WAS RESTRICTED IN ITS OPERATION TO MATTERS OF PLEADING,
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.  P. 10. 

3.  IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CONGRESS,
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE SUPREME COURT UNDER
AUTHORITY OF THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934 REPEAL THE CONFORMITY ACT.  P.
10. 

4.  RULE 35 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH PROVIDES THAT, IN A SUIT IN WHICH THE
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION OF A PARTY IS IN CONTROVERSY, THE COURT
MAY ORDER THE PARTY TO SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAMINATION BY A
PHYSICIAN, HELD WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY CONGRESS IN THE ACT OF
JUNE 19, 1934, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITATION OF THAT ACT THAT THE
RULES PRESCRIBED SHALL NOT ABRIDGE, ENLARGE OR MODIFY THE "SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHTS" OF ANY LITIGANT.  P. 14. 

5.  UNION PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOTSFORD, 141 U.S. 250, AND CAMDEN &
SUBURBAN RY. V. STETSON, 177 U.S. 172, EXPLAINED.  P. 11. 

6.  RULES 35 AND 37 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ARE RULES OF
PROCEDURE, AND THEIR PRESCRIPTION DID NOT EXCEED THE AUTHORITY GRANTED
BY THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934 MERELY BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE "IMPORTANT" OR
"SUBSTANTIAL" RIGHTS.  P. 13. 

7.  THAT CONGRESS RESERVED THE POWER TO EXAMINE, BEFORE THEY SHOULD
BECOME EFFECTIVE, RULES PROPOSED PURSUANT TO THE ACT, AND TOOK NO
ADVERSE ACTION IN RESPECT OF RULE 35, INDICATES THAT NO TRANSGRESSION
OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY WAS FOUND.  P. 15. 

8.  REFUSAL TO OBEY AN ORDER UNDER RULE 35 REQUIRING A PARTY TO
SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL EXAMINATION IS EXEMPTED BY RULE
37(B)(2)(IV) FROM PUNISHMENT AS FOR A CONTEMPT.  THE REMEDIES FOR SUCH
REFUSAL ARE THOSE ENUMERATED IN RULE 37(B)(2)(I), (II), AND (III).  P.
16. 

9.  THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE, PUNISHING AS FOR
CONTEMPT A REFUSAL TO OBEY AN ORDER UNDER RULE 35 REQUIRING A PLAINTIFF
TO SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, WAS SUCH PLAIN ERROR AS THIS COURT
MAY NOTICE, ALTHOUGH NOT ASSIGNED OR SPECIFIED EITHER IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS OR HERE.  P. 16. 

SIBBACH V. WILSON & CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 650, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER
COMMITTING FOR CONTEMPT. 

IT MAY BE THAT AN ORDER COMPELLING THE PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO A
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION DOES NOT DETERMINE THE RIGHT WHICH THE PLAINTIFF
SEEKS TO HAVE ADJUDICATED IN THE LITIGATION, AND IN THAT ASPECT
INVOLVES "PROCEDURE" AND NOT "SUBSTANTIVE LAW."  NEVERTHELESS, THE
ORDER INVADES "SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS." 

DOES THE FIELD OF "RIGHTS" EXCLUDED FROM THE RULE-MAKING POWER
INCLUDE ONLY THE RIGHTS THAT DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF LITIGATION, THE
ULTIMATE RIGHTS SOUGHT TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE LITIGANTS?  CLEARLY,
CONGRESS MAY NOT DELEGATE TO THE COURTS THE POWER TO DECLARE BY RULE
WHAT RIGHTS OF THIS CHARACTER EXIST. 

PROCEDURAL DEVICES MAY INVADE HUMAN RIGHTS THAT THE COMMON LAW HAS
LONG SOUGHT TO PROTECT.  THE DOCTRINE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
ALONE, APART FROM OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, FORBIDS CONGRESS TO
DELEGATE RULE-MAKING POWER AS TO A PROCEDURAL DEVICE OF THIS
CHARACTER.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PARTICULAR MATTER IS
"EXCLUSIVELY LEGISLATIVE" OR "JUDICIAL." 

IF THE MATTER INVOLVES A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OR A QUESTION OF PUBLIC
POLICY THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS ABLE TO PASS UPON, IT SHOULD NOT BE
DEALT WITH BY A RULE OF COURT, BUT BY A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT. 

OBVIOUS EXAMPLES OF PROCEDURAL DEVICES THAT AFFECT IMPORTANT RIGHTS,
AND SO INVOLVE BROAD QUESTIONS OF POLICY, ARE THOSE THAT VIOLATE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, SUCH AS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  SEE KRING
V. MISSOURI, 107 U.S. 221. 

COMMON LAW PRIVILEGES AND INHIBITIONS AGAINST TESTIFYING - SUCH AS
THE DISABILITY OF A PARTY TO TESTIFY OR OF ONE SPOUSE TO TESTIFY FOR OR
AGAINST THE OTHER - ARE A PART OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE AND SO WITHIN THE
FIELD OF "PROCEDURE."  YET, WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD HAVE A PLACE IN
OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST,  - AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
OF PUBLIC POLICY.  MAY CONGRESS DELEGATE TO THE COURTS THE POWER TO
DETERMINE SUCH QUESTIONS BY COURT RULE? 

APPARENTLY CONGRESS BELIEVED, SINCE PROCEDURE MAY EXTEND TO THE LINE
WHERE "SUBSTANTIVE LAW" BEGINS, IT WAS DESIRABLE NOT TO DELEGATE TO THE
COURT THE POWER TO MAKE RULES THAT ABRIDGE, ENLARGE, OR MODIFY SOME
IMPORTANT RIGHTS INVOLVED IN PROCEDURE.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE ACT
USES THE WORDS "SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS" RATHER THAN "SUBSTANTIVE LAW." 

IF RULES OF "PROCEDURE" COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO INVOLVE
"SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS," THE SECOND SENTENCE IN THE ACT WOULD BE
SURPLUSAGE. 

DECISIONS OF THIS COURT INDICATE THAT AN ORDER FOR A PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION MODIFIES SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.  UNION PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
BOTSFORD, 141 U.S. 250; CAMDEN & SUBURBAN RY. CO. V. STETSON, 177 U.S.
172. 

RULE 35 IS GROUPED WITH OTHERS UNDER THE HEADING "DEPOSITIONS AND
DISCOVERY."  WHILE IT MAY SEEM TO INVOLVE MERELY A QUESTION OF
DISCOVERY, IN FACT IT DIFFERS MARKEDLY FROM THE OTHER RULES, WHICH
MERELY PERMIT A LITIGANT TO OBTAIN BEFORE TRIAL THE DISCOVERY OF
MATTERS THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PROVABLE AT THE TRIAL BY TESTIMONY
OBTAINABLE BY A SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM OR A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. 
THIS SHIFT DOES NOT INVOLVE A CHANGE IN SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.  ALSO,
LITIGANTS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN IN EQUITY SOME OF THE SAME REMEDIES
THAT ARE PROVIDED BY RULES 26, 33, AND 34, WHICH THUS DO NOT EFFECT A
CHANGE IN RIGHTS.  RULE 35, IN PROVIDING A METHOD OF PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION BEFORE TRIAL, WOULD PERMIT WHAT HAS NOT BEEN HERETOFORE
PERMITTED AT THE TRIAL OR AT ANY OTHER STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING.  ALSO,
AS POINTED OUT IN THE STACK CASE, 177 MASS. 155, AN ORDER FOR A
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WAS NOT PROCURABLE IN EQUITY.  THESE
CONSIDERATIONS SHOW WHY RULE 35 ABRIDGES SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS WHILE RULES
26, 33, AND 34 DO NOT. 

AS A DISCOVERY DEVICE RULE 35 IS OF LITTLE VALUE, AT LEAST IN A COURT
SITTING IN ILLINOIS, WHERE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PATIENT AND PHYSICIAN
ARE NOT PRIVILEGED.  BY TAKING THE DEPOSITION OF THE PLAINTIFF AND THE
PLAINTIFF'S PHYSICIAN, THE DEFENDANT IS ABLE TO DISCOVER ALL THAT THE
PLAINTIFF KNOWS ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF'S OWN CASE. 

THE LAW OF INDIANA IS INAPPLICABLE.  AN ORDER FOR A PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION IS GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE FORUM. 

UNDER THE LAW OF INDIANA, WHERE THIS CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, THE
COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO ENTER AN ORDER DIRECTING A PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION.  CITY OF SOUTH BEND V. TURNER, 156 IND. 418; ASPY V.
BOTKINS, 160 IND. 170; KOKOMO M. & W. CO. V. WALSH, 58 IND. APP. 182;
LAKE ERIE & W.R. CO. V. GRISWOLD, 72 IND. APP. 265; CITY OF VALPARAISO
V. KINNEY, 75 IND. APP. 660.  THAT MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW ARE
CONTROLLED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE WAS
SETTLED BY THIS COURT IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

IF THE MATTER INVOLVED IN THE ORDER IS ONE OF PROCEDURE, THEN IT IS
CONTROLLED BY THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 

CONGRESS HAS THE POWER AND DUTY TO PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS, AND THAT POWER CAN BE VALIDLY DELEGATED TO THE COURTS. 
WAYMAN V. SOUTHARD, 10 WHEAT.  1; BEERS V. HAUGHTON, 9 PET. 328; BANK
OF U.S. V. HALSTEAD, 10 WHEAT.  22, 27. 

THE ACT AUTHORIZES RULES COVERING THE ENTIRE FIELD OF PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE. 

RULE 35 DOES NOT INVOLVE SUBSTANTIVE LAW, NOR ABRIDGE OR MODIFY A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT ESTABLISHED BY SUBSTANTIVE LAW.  THE SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHTS IN THIS CASE ARE THOSE OUT OF WHICH THE RIGHT OF ACTION AROSE. 
THE RULE AFFECTS MERELY THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY THAT RIGHT OF ACTION IS
SOUGHT TO BE DETERMINED; IT IS A PART OF THE MEANS WHEREBY THE COURT
DETERMINES THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE RIGHT OF ACTION IS BASED. 

THE FACTS AND OPINION IN UNION PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOTSFORD, 141 U.S.
250, DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MATTER IS PROCEDURAL. 

CAMDEN & SUBURBAN RY. CO. V. STETSON, 177 U.S. 172, DOES NOT HOLD
THAT THE MATTER IS ONE OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW.  THERE WAS NO QUESTION
BEFORE THE COURT REQUIRING ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE AND
PROCEDURAL LAW. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE TERM "SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS" MEANS RIGHTS THAT
ARE IMPORTANT OR OF SUBSTANCE IS UNTENABLE.  NO LITIGANT HAS A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT IN ANY KIND OF PROCEDURE.  LURIA V. UNITED STATES,
231 U.S. 9; OCHOA V. HERNANDEZ, 230 U.S. 139; BRONSON V. KINZIE, 1
HOW.  311; MCCRACKEN V. HAYWARD, 2 HOW.  608; HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN.
V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398. 

THE COURT IS ASKED TO ADOPT AN ENTIRELY NEW THEORY AND TO PLACE THE
DIVIDING LINE WITH REFERENCE TO THE RULE-MAKING POWER, NOT BETWEEN
SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND PROCEDURAL LAW BUT BETWEEN TWO CLASSES OF
PROCEDURAL LAW.  ONE OF THESE WOULD INCLUDE ORDINARY MATTERS AND BE
WITHIN THE RULE-MAKING POWER.  THE OTHER WOULD INCLUDE SUBSTANTIAL AND
IMPORTANT MATTERS AND NOT BE WITHIN THE RULE-MAKING POWER.  SUCH A
THEORY WOULD MAKE THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS FAR
MORE CONFUSING THAN IT WAS BEFORE THE RULES WERE PROMULGATED. 

MOREOVER, ANY SUCH THEORY WOULD NULLIFY MANY OF THE RULES.  A CASUAL
REVIEW OF MERELY THE HEADINGS WILL SHOW THAT MANY DEAL WITH
"SUBSTANTIAL" AND "IMPORTANT" MATTERS. 

RULE 35 DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CALLS FOR DECISION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF RULES 35 AND 37 OF
THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
FN1 

IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONER IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
NORTHERN ILLINOIS TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR BODILY INJURIES, INFLICTED IN
INDIANA, RESPONDENT ANSWERED DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT,
AND MOVED FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION BY ONE OR MORE PHYSICIANS APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO
DETERMINE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF HER INJURIES.  THE COURT ORDERED
THAT THE PETITIONER SUBMIT TO SUCH AN EXAMINATION BY A PHYSICIAN SO
APPOINTED. 

COMPLIANCE HAVING BEEN REFUSED, THE RESPONDENT OBTAINED AN ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT.  IN
RESPONSE THE PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO ORDER
HER TO SUBMIT TO THE EXAMINATION, ASSERTING THAT THE ORDER WAS VOID. 
IT APPEARED THAT THE COURTS OF INDIANA, THE STATE WHERE THE CAUSE OF
ACTION AROSE, HOLD SUCH AN ORDER PROPER,  FN2  WHEREAS THE COURTS OF
ILLINOIS, THE STATE IN WHICH THE TRIAL COURT SAT, HOLD THAT SUCH AN
ORDER CANNOT BE MADE.  FN3  NEITHER STATE HAS ANY STATUTE GOVERNING THE
MATTER. 

THE COURT ADJUDGED THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF CONTEMPT, AND DIRECTED
THAT SHE BE COMMITTED UNTIL SHE SHOULD OBEY THE ORDER FOR EXAMINATION
OR OTHERWISE SHOULD BE LEGALLY DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY.  THE PETITIONER
APPEALED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT RULE 35, WHICH AUTHORIZES
AN ORDER FOR A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION IN SUCH A CASE, IS VALID, AND
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  FN4  THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION INVOLVED. 

THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WERE PROMULGATED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, FN5  WHICH IS: 

"BE IT ENACTED  ...  THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE, BY GENERAL RULES, FOR THE DISTRICT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOR THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, THE FORMS OF PROCESS, WRITS, PLEADINGS, AND MOTIONS, AND THE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN CIVIL ACTIONS AT LAW.  SAID RULES SHALL
NEITHER ABRIDGE, ENLARGE, NOR MODIFY THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF ANY
LITIGANT.  THEY SHALL TAKE EFFECT SIX MONTHS AFTER THEIR PROMULGATION,
AND THEREAFTER ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH SHALL BE OF NO FURTHER
FORCE OR EFFECT. 

"SEC. 2.  THE COURT MAY AT ANY TIME UNITE THE GENERAL RULES
PRESCRIBED BY IT FOR CASES IN EQUITY WITH THOSE IN ACTIONS AT LAW SO AS
TO SECURE ONE FORM OF CIVIL ACTION AND PROCEDURE FOR BOTH: PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT IN SUCH UNION OF RULES THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY AS AT
COMMON LAW AND DECLARED BY THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
SHALL BE PRESERVED TO THE PARTIES INVIOLATE.  SUCH UNITED RULES SHALL
NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THEY SHALL HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO CONGRESS BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE BEGINNING OF A REGULAR SESSION THEREOF AND
UNTIL AFTER THE CLOSE OF SUCH SESSION." 

THE TEXT OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF RULES 35 AND 37 IS: 

"RULE 35.  PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PERSONS. 

"(A)  ORDER FOR EXAMINATION.  IN AN ACTION IN WHICH THE MENTAL OR
PHYSICAL CONDITION OF A PARTY IS IN CONTROVERSY, THE COURT IN WHICH THE
ACTION IS PENDING MAY ORDER HIM TO SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL
EXAMINATION BY A PHYSICIAN.  THE ORDER MAY BE MADE ONLY ON MOTION FOR
GOOD CAUSE SHOWN AND UPON NOTICE TO THE PARTY TO BE EXAMINED AND TO ALL
OTHER PARTIES AND SHALL SPECIFY THE TIME, PLACE, MANNER, CONDITIONS,
AND SCOPE OF THE EXAMINATION AND THE PERSON OR PERSONS BY WHOM IT IS TO
BE MADE." 

"RULE 37.  REFUSAL TO MAKE DISCOVERY:  CONSEQUENCES. 

"(A)  REFUSAL TO ANSWER.  ... 

"(B)  FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER. 

(1)  CONTEMPT.  IF A PARTY OR OTHER WITNESS REFUSES TO BE SWORN OR
REFUSES TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION AFTER BEING DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE
COURT IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE DEPOSITION IS BEING TAKEN, THE
REFUSAL MAY BE CONSIDERED A CONTEMPT OF THAT COURT. 

(2)  OTHER CONSEQUENCES.  IF ANY PARTY  ...  REFUSES TO OBEY  ...  AN
ORDER MADE UNDER RULE 35 REQUIRING HIM TO SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL OR
MENTAL EXAMINATION, THE COURT MAY MAKE SUCH ORDERS IN REGARD TO THE
REFUSAL AS ARE JUST, AND AMONG OTHERS THE FOLLOWING: 

(I)  AN ORDER THAT  ...  THE PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION OF THE
PARTY,  ...  SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE PARTY OBTAINING THE ORDER; 

(II)  AN ORDER  ...  PROHIBITING (THE DISOBEDIENT PARTY) FROM
INTRODUCING  ...  EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL OR MENTAL CONDITION; 

(III)  AN ORDER STRIKING OUT PLEADINGS OR PARTS THEREOF, OR STAYING
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THE ORDER IS OBEYED, OR DISMISSING THE ACTION
OR PROCEEDING OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR RENDERING A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT
AGAINST THE DISOBEDIENT PARTY; 

(IV)  IN LIEU OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING ORDERS OR IN ADDITION THERETO,
AN ORDER DIRECTING THE ARREST OF ANY PARTY OR AGENT OF A PARTY FOR
DISOBEYING ANY OF SUCH ORDERS EXCEPT AN ORDER TO SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL
OR MENTAL EXAMINATION." 

THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER, IN FINAL ANALYSIS, IS THAT RULES 35
AND 37 ARE NOT WITHIN THE MANDATE OF CONGRESS TO THIS COURT.  THIS IS
THE LIMIT OF PERMISSIBLE DEBATE, SINCE ARGUMENT TOUCHING THE BROADER
QUESTIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER AND OF THE OBLIGATION OF FEDERAL
COURTS TO APPLY THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF A STATE IS FORECLOSED. 

CONGRESS HAS UNDOUBTED POWER TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
OF FEDERAL COURTS,  FN6  AND MAY EXERCISE THAT POWER BY DELEGATING TO
THIS OR OTHER FEDERAL COURTS AUTHORITY TO MAKE RULES NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE STATUTES OR CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES; FN7  BUT IT HAS
NEVER ESSAYED TO DECLARE THE SUBSTANTIVE STATE LAW, OR TO ABOLISH OR
NULLIFY A RIGHT RECOGNIZED BY THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE
THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, SAVE WHERE A RIGHT OR DUTY IS IMPOSED IN A
FIELD COMMITTED TO CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ON THE CONTRARY IT
HAS ENACTED THAT THE STATE LAW SHALL BE THE RULE OF DECISION IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  FN8    HENCE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ACT OF JUNE 19,
1934, WAS PURPOSELY RESTRICTED IN ITS OPERATION TO MATTERS OF PLEADING
AND COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.  ITS TWO PROVISOS OR CAVEATS
EMPHASIZE THIS RESTRICTION.  THE FIRST IS THAT THE COURT SHALL NOT
"ABRIDGE, ENLARGE, NOR MODIFY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS," IN THE GUISE OF
REGULATING PROCEDURE.  THE SECOND IS THAT IF THE RULES ARE TO PRESCRIBE
A SINGLE FORM OF ACTION FOR CASES AT LAW AND SUITS IN EQUITY, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL INHERENT IN THE FORMER MUST BE
PRESERVED.  THERE ARE OTHER LIMITATIONS UPON THE AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE
RULES WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN, BUT WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE ACT; FOR
INSTANCE, THE INABILITY OF A COURT, BY RULE, TO EXTEND OR RESTRICT THE
JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY A STATUTE.  FN9 

WHATEVER MAY BE SAID AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE CONFORMITY ACT  FN10
WHILE IT REMAINED IN FORCE, THE RULES, IF THEY ARE WITHIN THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED BY CONGRESS, REPEAL THAT STATUTE, AND THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW THE ILLINOIS PRACTICE RESPECTING AN ORDER FOR
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND IF THE RIGHT TO BE EXEMPT FROM
SUCH AN ORDER IS ONE OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW, THE RULES OF DECISION ACT
FN11  REQUIRED THE DISTRICT COURT, THOUGH SITTING IN ILLINOIS, TO APPLY
THE LAW OF INDIANA, THE STATE WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE, AND TO
ORDER THE EXAMINATION.  TO AVOID THIS DILEMMA THE PETITIONER ADMITS,
AND, WE THINK, CORRECTLY, THAT RULES 35 AND 37 ARE RULES OF PROCEDURE. 
SHE INSISTS, NEVERTHELESS, THAT BY THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ABRIDGING
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS, CONGRESS HAS BANNED THE RULES HERE CHALLENGED.  IN
ORDER TO REACH THIS RESULT SHE TRANSLATES "SUBSTANTIVE" INTO
"IMPORTANT" OR "SUBSTANTIAL" RIGHTS.  AND SHE URGES THAT IF A RULE
AFFECTS SUCH A RIGHT, ALBEIT THE RULE IS ONE OF PROCEDURE MERELY, ITS
PRESCRIPTION IS NOT WITHIN THE STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER EMBODIED IN THE
ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934.  SHE CONTENDS THAT OUR DECISIONS AND RECOGNIZED
PRINCIPLES REQUIRE US SO TO HOLD. 

THE PETITIONER RELIES UPON UNION PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOTSFORD, 141
U.S. 250, AND CAMDEN & SUBURBAN RY. CO. V. STETSON, 177 U.S. 172.  BUT
THESE CASES IN REALITY SUSTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE RULES.  IN THE
BOTSFORD CASE AN ACTION TO RECOVER FOR A PERSONAL INJURY SUFFERED IN
THE TERRITORY OF UTAH  FN12  WAS INSTITUTED IN THE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT COURT FOR INDIANA, WHICH REFUSED TO ORDER A PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION.  THIS COURT AFFIRMED, ON THE GROUND THAT NO AUTHORITY FOR
SUCH AN ORDER WAS SHOWN.  THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE QUESTION WAS
ONE OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW.  THE COURT FIRST EXAMINES THE PRACTICE AT
COMMON LAW AND FINDS THAT IT NEVER RECOGNIZED SUCH AN ORDER.  THEN,
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZING AN ORDER
OF THE SORT WOULD BE VALID, THE OPINION FINDS THERE IS NONE.  THUS THE
MATTER IS TREATED AS ONE OF PROCEDURE, FOR CONGRESS HAS NOT, IF IT
COULD, DECLARED BY STATUTE THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF A STATE.  AFTER
STATING THAT THE DECISION LAW OF INDIANA ON THE SUBJECT APPEARED NOT TO
BE SETTLED, AND THAT A CITED STATUTE OF THAT STATE WAS NOT IN POINT,
THE COURT ADDED THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT ONE OF THE LAW OF INDIANA BUT
OF THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THE FEDERAL STATUTES BY THEIR
PROVISIONS AS TO PROOF IN ACTIONS AT LAW PRECLUDED THE APPLICATION OF
THE CONFORMITY ACT.  AGAIN, THEREFORE, THE OPINION RECOGNIZED THAT THE
MATTER IS ONE OF PROCEDURE, FOR BOTH THE CITED FEDERAL STATUTES,
CONCERNING THE MODE OF PROOF IN FEDERAL COURTS, AND THE CONFORMITY ACT,
DEAL SOLELY WITH PROCEDURE. 

IN FINE, THE DECISION WAS ONLY THAT THE MAKING OF SUCH AN ORDER IS
REGULABLE BY STATUTE, THAT THE FEDERAL STATUTES FORBADE IT, AND HENCE
THE CONFORMITY ACT COULD NOT BE THOUGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE PRACTICE BY
REFERENCE TO AND INCORPORATION OF STATE LAW. 

IN THE STETSON CASE THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
NEW JERSEY BY A CITIZEN OF PENNSYLVANIA, WHO, WHILE A CITIZEN OF NEW
JERSEY, HAD BEEN INJURED IN THE LATTER STATE.  A STATUTE OF NEW JERSEY
AUTHORIZED THE STATE COURTS TO ORDER A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF A
PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES PENDING THEREIN.  THE DISTRICT COURT
REFUSED TO ORDER SUCH AN EXAMINATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT LACKED POWER
SO TO DO.  AFTER A VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF THE DEFENDANT
APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ASSIGNING THE REFUSAL AS
ERROR.  THAT COURT CERTIFIED THE QUESTION, AND THIS COURT ANSWERED THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER TO ORDER THE EXAMINATION. 

THE COURT STATED THAT IN THE BOTSFORD CASE THERE WAS NO STATUTE
AUTHORIZING SUCH AN ORDER, BUT SAID THAT HERE THERE WAS A STATE STATUTE
WHICH BY THE RULES OF DECISION ACT WAS MADE A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES
AND MUST BE GIVEN EFFECT IN A TRIAL IN A FEDERAL COURT.  WHILE IT IS
TRUE THE COURT REFERRED TO THE RULES OF DECISION ACT (R.S. 721) AND NOT
TO THE CONFORMITY ACT (R.S. 914) THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION GOES UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE MATTER IS PROCEDURAL.  IN ANY EVENT, THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW WAS IMMATERIAL, FOR
THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE AND THE TRIAL WAS HAD IN NEW JERSEY.  FN13 

IN THE INSTANT CASE WE HAVE A RULE WHICH, IF WITHIN THE POWER
DELEGATED TO THIS COURT, HAS THE FORCE OF A FEDERAL STATUTE, AND
NEITHER THE BOTSFORD NOR THE STETSON CASE IS AUTHORITY FOR IGNORING
IT. 

THE REMAINING CASE ON WHICH PETITIONER LEANS IS STACK V. NEW YORK,
N.H. & H.R. CO., 177 MASS. 155; 58 N.E. 686, WHERE THE COURT AGREED
WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN THE BOTSFORD CASE THAT COMMON-LAW PRACTICE
DID NOT WARRANT THE ENTRY OF SUCH AN ORDER AND SAID IT WAS FOR THE
LEGISLATURE RATHER THAN THE COURTS TO ALTER THE PRACTICE.  BUT IF RULE
35 IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED, THE FEDERAL LEGISLATURE SANCTIONED
IT AS CONTROLLING ALL DISTRICT COURTS. 

WE ARE THROWN BACK, THEN, TO THE ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM THE LANGUAGE OF
THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934.  IS THE PHRASE "SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS" CONFINED
TO RIGHTS CONFERRED BY LAW TO BE PROTECTED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE ADJECTIVE LAW OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE?  IT CERTAINLY EMBRACES
SUCH RIGHTS.  ONE OF THEM IS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE INJURED IN ONE'S
PERSON BY ANOTHER'S NEGLIGENCE, TO REDRESS INFRACTION OF WHICH THE
PRESENT ACTION WAS BROUGHT.  THE PETITIONER SAYS THE PHRASE CONNOTES
MORE; THAT BY ITS USE CONGRESS INTENDED THAT IN REGULATING PROCEDURE
THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DEAL WITH IMPORTANT AND SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS
THERETOFORE RECOGNIZED.  RECOGNIZED WHERE AND BY WHOM?  THE STATE
COURTS ARE DIVIDED AS TO THE POWER IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE TO ORDER A
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.  FN14  IN A NUMBER SUCH AN ORDER IS AUTHORIZED BY
STATUTE OR RULE.  FN15  THE RULES IN QUESTION ACCORD WITH THE PROCEDURE
NOW IN FORCE IN CANADA AND ENGLAND.  FN16 

THE ASSERTED RIGHT, MOREOVER, IS NO MORE IMPORTANT THAN MANY OTHERS
ENJOYED BY LITIGANTS IN DISTRICT COURTS SITTING IN THE SEVERAL STATES,
BEFORE THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALTERED AND ABOLISHED OLD
RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES AND CREATED NEW ONES IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONDUCT OF LITIGATION.  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE RULE OFFENDS THE
IMPORTANT RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM INVASION OF THE PERSON IGNORES THE FACT
THAT, AS WE HOLD, NO INVASION OF FREEDOM FROM PERSONAL RESTRAINT
ATTACHES TO REFUSAL SO TO COMPLY WITH ITS PROVISIONS.  IF WE WERE TO
ADOPT THE SUGGESTED CRITERION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ALLEGED RIGHT WE
SHOULD INVITE ENDLESS LITIGATION AND CONFUSION WORSE CONFOUNDED.  THE
TEST MUST BE WHETHER A RULE REALLY REGULATES PROCEDURE,  - THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS FOR ENFORCING RIGHTS AND DUTIES RECOGNIZED BY SUBSTANTIVE LAW
AND FOR JUSTLY ADMINISTERING REMEDY AND REDRESS FOR DISREGARD OR
INFRACTION OF THEM.  THAT THE RULES IN QUESTION ARE SUCH IS ADMITTED. 

FINALLY, IT IS URGED THAT RULES 35 AND 37 WORK A MAJOR CHANGE OF
POLICY AND THAT THIS WAS NOT INTENDED BY CONGRESS.  APART FROM THE FACT
ALREADY STATED, THAT THE POLICY OF THE STATES IN THIS RESPECT HAS NOT
BEEN UNIFORM, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE AUTHORIZATION OF A
COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM OF COURT RULES WAS A DEPARTURE IN POLICY, AND THAT
THE NEW POLICY ENVISAGED IN THE ENABLING ACT OF 1934 WAS THAT THE WHOLE
FIELD OF COURT PROCEDURE BE REGULATED IN THE INTEREST OF SPEEDY, FAIR
AND EXACT DETERMINATION OF THE TRUTH.  THE CHALLENGED RULES COMPORT
WITH THIS POLICY.  MOREOVER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT, THE RULES WERE
SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS SO THAT THAT BODY MIGHT EXAMINE THEM AND VETO
THEIR GOING INTO EFFECT IF CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF THE LEGISLATURE. 

THE VALUE OF THE RESERVATION OF THE POWER TO EXAMINE PROPOSED RULES,
LAWS AND REGULATIONS BEFORE THEY BECOME EFFECTIVE IS WELL UNDERSTOOD BY
CONGRESS.  IT IS FREQUENTLY, AS HERE, EMPLOYED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
ACTION UNDER THE DELEGATION SQUARES WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE
N17.  EVIDENTLY THE CONGRESS FELT THE RULE WAS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE
STATUTE AS NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO ELIMINATE IT FROM THE PROPOSED BODY OF
RULES, ALTHOUGH THIS SPECIFIC RULE WAS ATTACKED AND DEFENDED BEFORE THE
COMMITTEES OF THE TWO HOUSES.  FN18  THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE RULES
CALLED ATTENTION TO THE CONTRARY PRACTICE INDICATED BY THE BOTSFORD
CASE, AS DID THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE NOTES
PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE TO ACCOMPANY THE FINAL VERSION OF THE RULES. 
FN19  THAT NO ADVERSE ACTION WAS TAKEN BY CONGRESS INDICATES, AT LEAST,
THAT NO TRANSGRESSION OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY WAS FOUND.  WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE RULES UNDER ATTACK ARE WITHIN THE AUTHORITY GRANTED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT TREATED THE REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH ITS ORDER AS A
CONTEMPT AND COMMITTED THE PETITIONER THEREFOR.  NEITHER IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS NOR HERE WAS THIS ACTION ASSIGNED AS ERROR.  WE THINK,
HOWEVER, THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 37 IT WAS PLAIN
ERROR OF SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL NATURE THAT WE SHOULD NOTICE IT.  FN20
THE REFUSAL TO OBEY AN ORDER THAT A PARTY SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL OR
MENTAL EXAMINATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS IN ERROR IN GOING COUNTER
TO THIS EXPRESS EXEMPTION.  THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE RULE IN
SUCH A CASE ARE THOSE ENUMERATED IN SEC. (B)(2)(I)(II) AND (III).  FOR
THIS ERROR WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C., FOLLOWING SEC. 723C. 

FN2  SOUTH BEND V. TURNER, 156 IND. 418; 60 N.E. 271; ASPY V.
BOTKINS, 160 IND. 170; 66 N.E. 462; LAKE ERIE & W.R. CO. V. GRISWOLD,
72 IND. APP. 265; 125 N.E. 783; VALPARAISO V. KINNEY, 75 IND. APP. 660;
131 N.E. 237. 

FN3  CHICAGO V. MCNALLY, 227 ILL. 14; 81 N.E. 23; MATTICE V. KLAWANS,
312 ILL. 299; 143 N.E. 866; ILLINOIS V. SCOTT, 326 ILL. 327; 157 N.E.
247. 

FN4  108 F.2D 415. 

FN5  C. 651, 48 STAT. 1064; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 723 B, C. 

FN6  WAYMAN V. SOUTHARD, 10 WHEAT.  1, 21; BANK OF THE UNITED STATES
V. HALSTEAD, 10 WHEAT.  51, 53; BEERS V. HAUGHTON, 9 PET. 329, 359,
361. 

FN7  WAYMAN V. SOUTHARD, SUPRA, 42; BANK OF THE UNITED STATES V.
HALSTEAD, SUPRA, 61; BEERS V. HAUGHTON, SUPRA, 359. 

FN8  R.S. 721, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 725. 

FN9  HUDSON V. PARKER, 156 U.S. 277, 284; VENNER V. GREAT NORTHERN
RY. CO., 209 U.S. 24, 35; DAVIDSON MARBLE CO. V. GIBSON, 213 U.S. 10,
18; MEEK V. CENTRE COUNTY BANKING CO., 268 U.S. 426, 434. 

FN10  R.S. 914; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 724. 

FN11  SUPRA, NOTE 8. 

FN12  THE OPINION DOES NOT SO STATE, BUT THE RECORD FILED IN THIS
COURT SO SHOWS. 

FN13  AS ABOVE POINTED OUT, IF THE MATTER IS ONE OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW,
R.S. 721 REQUIRES THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF INDIANA, WHICH
AUTHORIZES AN ORDER FOR EXAMINATION. 

FN14  SEE WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SEC.  2220, NOTE 13. 

FN15  SEE NOTES TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRINTED BY THE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MARCH 1938, P. 32. 

FN16  WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (3D ED.)  SEC.  2220, NOTE 13; 31 & 32
VICT.  C. 119, SEC. 26. 

FN17  AN ANALOGY IS FOUND IN THE ORGANIC ACTS APPLICABLE TO SOME OF
THE TERRITORIES, BEFORE THEIR ADMISSION TO STATEHOOD, WHICH PROVIDED
THAT LAWS PASSED BY THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE VALID UNLESS
CONGRESS DISAPPROVED.  SEC. 5 OF THE ORDINANCE OF 1787; SEE PEASE V.
PECK, 18 HOW.  595.  TERRITORY OF FLORIDA, SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF MARCH
30, 1822(3 STAT. 655); TERRITORY OF LOUISIANA, SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF
MARCH 26, 1804(2 STAT. 284), AND SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1805(2
STAT. 331); TERRITORY OF MINNESOTA, SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3,
1849(9 STAT. 405); TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO, SEC. 7 OF THE ACT OF
SEPTEMBER 9, 1850(9 STAT. 449); TERRITORY OF OREGON, SEC. 6 OF THE ACT
OF AUGUST 14, 1848(9 STAT. 326); TERRITORY OF UTAH, SEC. 6 OF THE ACT
OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1850(9 STAT. 455); TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON, SEC. 6 OF
THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1853(10 STAT. 175); TERRITORY OF WISCONSIN, SEC. 6
OF THE ACT OF APRIL 20, 1836(5 STAT. 13).  SIMILAR PROVISIONS ARE NOW
APPLICABLE TO ALASKA, PUERTO RICO, THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND THE
PHILIPPINES.  48 U.S.C. SECS. 90, 826, 1405(O), 1054. 

CF. THE PROVISIONS FOR LYING OVER BEFORE CONGRESS IN SEC. 407 OF THE
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933(47 STAT. 1519), AND SEC. 5 OF THE REORGANIZATION
ACT OF 1939(53 STAT. 562). 

FN18  HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 75TH CONG., 3RD SESS., PP. 117, 141; HEARINGS BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. SENATE, 75TH
CONG., 3RD SESS., PP. 36-37, 39, 51. 

FN19  PRELIMINARY DRAFT (MAY, 1936) OF RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR
THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE,
P. 71; NOTES TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES (MARCH, 1938), P. 32. 

FN20  SUPREME COURT RULE 27, PAR. 6; MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32, 45;
KESSLER V. STRECKER, 307 U.S. 22, 34.    MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER,
DISSENTING: 

UNION PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOTSFORD, 141 U.S. 250, DENIED THE POWER OF
THE FEDERAL COURTS IN A CIVIL ACTION TO COMPEL A PLAINTIFF SUING FOR
INJURY TO THE PERSON TO SUBMIT TO A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.  NINE YEARS
LATER, IN CAMDEN & SUBURBAN RY. CO. V. STETSON, 177 U.S. 172, THE
BOTSFORD DECISION WAS TREATED AS SETTLED DOCTRINE.  THE PRESENT ISSUE
IS WHETHER THE AUTHORITY WHICH CONGRESS GAVE TO THIS COURT TO FORMULATE
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS ALLOWS DISPLACEMENT OF
THE LAW OF THE BOTSFORD CASE.  STATED MORE PARTICULARLY, IS RULE 35,
AUTHORIZING SUCH PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, VALID UNDER THE RULES ENABLING
ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934; 48 STAT. 1064; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 723B-C.  IT IS
URGED THAT SINCE THIS RULE PERTAINS TO PROCEDURE, IT IS VALID BECAUSE
OUTSIDE THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT ACT, WHEREBY "SAID RULES SHALL NEITHER
ABRIDGE, ENLARGE, NOR MODIFY THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF ANY LITIGANT." 

SPEAKING WITH DIFFIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A VIEW WHICH HAS NOT COMMENDED
ITSELF TO THE COURT, IT DOES NOT SEEM TO ME THAT THE ANSWER TO OUR
QUESTION IS TO BE FOUND BY AN ANALYTIC DETERMINATION WHETHER THE POWER
OF EXAMINATION HERE CLAIMED IS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE OR A MATTER OF
SUBSTANCE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE TWO ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CATEGORIES
WITH EASILY ASCERTAINABLE CONTENTS.  THE PROBLEM SEEMS TO ME TO BE
CONTROLLED BY THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE BOTSFORD DECISION.  ITS
DOCTRINE WAS NOT A SURVIVAL OF AN OUTWORN TECHNICALITY.  IT RESTED ON
CONSIDERATIONS AKIN TO WHAT IS FAMILIARLY KNOWN IN THE ENGLISH LAW AS
THE LIBERTIES OF THE SUBJECT.  TO BE SURE, THE IMMUNITY THAT WAS
RECOGNIZED IN THE BOTSFORD CASE HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION.  IT IS
AMENABLE TO STATUTORY CHANGE.  BUT THE "INVIOLABILITY OF A PERSON" WAS
DEEMED TO HAVE SUCH HISTORIC ROOTS IN ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW THAT IT WAS
NOT TO BE CURTAILED "UNLESS BY CLEAR AND UNQUESTIONABLE AUTHORITY OF
LAW."  IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT A JUDGE AS RESPONSIVE
TO PROCEDURAL NEEDS AS WAS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SHOULD, ON BEHALF OF THE
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, HAVE SUPPORTED THE BOTSFORD
DOCTRINE ON THE GROUND THAT "THE COMMON LAW WAS VERY SLOW TO SANCTION
ANY VIOLATION OF OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERSON OF A FREE CITIZEN." 
STACK V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 177 MASS. 155, 157; 58 N.E. 686. 

SO FAR AS NATIONAL LAW IS CONCERNED, A DRASTIC CHANGE IN PUBLIC
POLICY IN A MATTER DEEPLY TOUCHING THE SENSIBILITIES OF PEOPLE OR EVEN
THEIR PREJUDICES AS TO PRIVACY, OUGHT NOT TO BE INFERRED FROM A GENERAL
AUTHORIZATION TO FORMULATE RULES FOR THE MORE UNIFORM AND EFFECTIVE
DISPATCH OF BUSINESS ON THE CIVIL SIDE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  I DEEM A
REQUIREMENT AS TO THE INVASION OF THE PERSON TO STAND ON A VERY
DIFFERENT FOOTING FROM QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE DISCOVERY OF
DOCUMENTS, PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND OTHER DEVICES FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS,
ECONOMIC AND FAIR CONDUCT OF LITIGATION.  THAT DISOBEDIENCE OF AN ORDER
UNDER RULE 35 CANNOT BE VISITED WITH PUNISHMENT AS FOR CONTEMPT DOES
NOT MITIGATE ITS INTRUSION INTO AN HISTORIC IMMUNITY OF THE PRIVACY OF
THE PERSON.  OF COURSE THE RULE IS COMPULSIVE IN THAT THE DOORS OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS OTHERWISE OPEN MAY BE SHUT TO LITIGANTS WHO DO NOT
SUBMIT TO SUCH A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. 

IN THIS VIEW LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE ATTACHES TO THE FACT THAT THE RULES,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE, REMAINED ON THE TABLE OF TWO HOUSES OF
CONGRESS WITHOUT EVOKING ANY OBJECTION TO RULE 35 AND THEREBY
AUTOMATICALLY CAME INTO FORCE.  PLAINLY THE RULES ARE NOT ACTS OF
CONGRESS AND CAN NOT BE TREATED AS SUCH.  HAVING DUE REGARD TO THE
MECHANICS OF LEGISLATION AND THE PRACTICAL CONDITIONS SURROUNDING THE
BUSINESS OF CONGRESS WHEN THE RULES WERE SUBMITTED, TO DRAW ANY
INFERENCE OF TACIT APPROVAL FROM NON-ACTION BY CONGRESS IS TO APPEAL TO
UNREALITY.  AND SO I CONCLUDE THAT TO MAKE THE DRASTIC CHANGE THAT RULE
35 SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE WOULD REQUIRE EXPLICIT LEGISLATION. 

ORDINARILY, DISAGREEMENT WITH THE MAJORITY ON SO-CALLED PROCEDURAL
MATTERS IS BEST HELD IN SILENCE.  EVEN IN THE PRESENT SITUATION I
SHOULD BE LOATH TO REGISTER DISSENT DID THE ISSUE PERTAIN MERELY TO
DIVERSITY LITIGATION.  BUT RULE 35 APPLIES TO ALL CIVIL LITIGATION IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND THUS CONCERNS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL RIGHTS
AND NOT MERELY OF STATE LAW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY AGREE
WITH THESE VIEWS. 
..END :












GORIN V. UNITED STATES, 312 U.S. 19 


NO. 87.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1941.  - 111
F.2D 712, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE THE CRIMES DENOUNCED BY SECS. 1(B) AND 2 OF
THE ESPIONAGE ACT - THE OBTAINING OF DOCUMENTS CONNECTED WITH OR
RELATING TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THEIR DELIVERY TO AN AGENT OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY WITH AN INTENT, OR REASON TO BELIEVE, IN EACH CASE,
THAT THEY ARE TO BE USED TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES OR TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF A FOREIGN NATION - IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE DOCUMENTS
CONTAIN INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PLACES OR THINGS (SUCH AS VESSELS,
AIRCRAFT, FORTS, SIGNAL STATIONS, CODES OR SIGNAL BOOKS) WHICH ARE
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN SEC. 1(A) OF THE ACT.  P. 25. 

2.  "NATIONAL DEFENSE" AS USED IN SECS. 1(B) AND 2 OF THE ESPIONAGE
ACT REFERS TO THE MILITARY OR NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND TO RELATED
ACTIVITIES OF NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS FOR WAR.  P. 28. 

3.  WITH THIS MEANING OF "NATIONAL DEFENSE" AND WITH THE ELEMENTS OF
SCIENTER AND BAD FAITH WHICH MUST BE PRESENT, THE SECTIONS ARE
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO APPRISE THE PUBLIC OF THE ACTIVITIES THEY
PROHIBIT; AND THEY ACCORD WITH DUE PROCESS.  P. 27. 

4.  INFORMATION TAKEN FROM REPORTS IN THE FILES OF THE NAVAL
INTELLIGENCE, GIVING A DETAILED PICTURE OF COUNTER-ESPIONAGE WORK, HELD
CAPABLE OF USE TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES OR TO THE ADVANTAGE
OF A FOREIGN NATION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
ESPIONAGE ACT.  P. 29. 

5.  IN ESTABLISHING VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1(B) AND 2 OF THE ESPIONAGE
ACT, WHERE IT WAS PROVED THAT THE FORBIDDEN INFORMATION WAS TO BE USED
TO THE ADVANTAGE OF A FOREIGN NATION, IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE
ALSO THAT IT WAS TO BE USED TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES.  P.
29. 

6.  IN A PROSECUTION UNDER SECS. 1(B) AND 2 OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT THE
JURY DETERMINES WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS WERE CONNECTED WITH
OR RELATED TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, UNDER PROPER TESTS LAID DOWN BY THE
INSTRUCTIONS.  P. 30. 

THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT IS TO INSTRUCT AS TO THE KIND OF
INFORMATION WHICH IS VIOLATIVE OF THE STATUTE, AND THAT OF THE JURY TO
DECIDE WHETHER THE INFORMATION SECURED IS OF THE DEFINED KIND.  IT IS
NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT, WHERE REASONABLE MEN MAY DIFFER, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTS DO OR DO NOT COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE
STATUTE.  THE QUESTION OF THE CONNECTION OF THE INFORMATION WITH
NATIONAL DEFENSE IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE JURY AS
NEGLIGENCE UPON UNDISPUTED FACTS IS DETERMINED. 

GORIN V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 88, SALICH V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON CERTIORARI,
310 U.S. 622, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 622, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF SENTENCES FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI BRINGS HERE A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMING THE SENTENCES OF THE TWO PETITIONERS WHO WERE
CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917.  111 F.2D
712.  AS THE AFFIRMANCE TURNED UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE
ACT AND ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY AS CONSTRUED, THE PETITION WAS ALLOWED
BECAUSE OF THE QUESTIONS, IMPORTANT IN ENFORCING THIS CRIMINAL
STATUTE. 

THE JOINT INDICTMENT IN THREE COUNTS CHARGED IN THE FIRST COUNT
VIOLATION OF SEC. 1(B) BY ALLEGATIONS IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE OF
OBTAINING DOCUMENTS "CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE"; IN THE
SECOND COUNT VIOLATION OF SEC. 2(A) IN DELIVERING AND INDUCING THE
DELIVERY OF THESE DOCUMENTS TO THE PETITIONER, GORIN, THE AGENT OF A
FOREIGN NATION; AND IN THE THIRD COUNT OF SEC. 4 BY CONSPIRACY TO
DELIVER THEM TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENT, JUST NAMED.  THE
PERTINENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS APPEAR BELOW N1.  A THIRD PARTY, THE
WIFE OF GORIN, WAS JOINED IN AND ACQUITTED ON ALL THREE COUNTS.  THE
PETITIONERS WERE FOUND GUILTY ON EACH COUNT AND SENTENCED TO VARIOUS
TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT TO RUN CONCURRENTLY AND FINES OF $10,000 EACH. 
THE LONGEST TERM OF GORIN IS SIX YEARS AND OF SALICH FOUR YEARS. 

THE PROOF INDICATED THAT GORIN, A CITIZEN OF THE UNION OF SOVIET
SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, ACTED AS ITS AGENT IN GATHERING INFORMATION.  HE
SOUGHT AND OBTAINED FROM SALICH FOR SUBSTANTIAL PAY THE CONTENTS OF
OVER FIFTY REPORTS RELATING CHIEFLY TO JAPANESE ACTIVITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES.  THESE REPORTS WERE IN THE FILES OF THE NAVAL
INTELLIGENCE BRANCH OFFICE AT SAN PEDRO, CALIFORNIA.  SALICH, A
NATURALIZED, RUSSIAN-BORN CITIZEN, HAD FREE ACCESS TO THE RECORDS AS HE
WAS A CIVILIAN INVESTIGATOR FOR THAT OFFICE.  SPEAKING BROADLY THE
REPORTS DETAILED THE COMING AND GOING ON THE WEST COAST OF JAPANESE
MILITARY AND CIVIL OFFICIALS AS WELL AS PRIVATE CITIZENS WHOSE ACTIONS
WERE DEEMED OF POSSIBLE INTEREST TO THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE.  SOME
STATEMENTS APPEAR AS TO THE MOVEMENTS OF FISHING BOATS, SUSPECTED OF
ESPIONAGE AND AS TO THE TAKING OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF AMERICAN WAR VESSELS. 

PETITIONERS OBJECT TO THE CONVICTIONS PRINCIPALLY ON THE GROUNDS (1)
THAT THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACT ARE LIMITED TO OBTAINING AND
DELIVERING INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED PLACES AND
THINGS SET OUT IN THE ACT, SUCH AS A VESSEL, AIRCRAFT, FORT, SIGNAL
STATION, CODE OR SIGNAL BOOK; AND (2) THAT AN INTERPRETATION WHICH PUT
WITHIN THE STATUTE THE FURNISHING OF ANY OTHER INFORMATION CONNECTED
WITH OR RELATING TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE THAN THAT CONCERNING THESE
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED PLACES AND THINGS WOULD MAKE THE ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS BECAUSE OF
INDEFINITENESS. 

THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE INSISTENCE THAT THE PROHIBITIONS OF SECS.
1(B) AND 2(A), UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS BASED, ARE LIMITED TO THE
PLACES AND THINGS WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY SET OUT IN SEC. 1(A) RELIES
UPON THE TRADITIONAL FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION OF MATTERS CONNECTED WITH
NATIONAL DEFENSE WHICH IS PERMITTED IN THIS COUNTRY.  IT WOULD REQUIRE,
URGE PETITIONERS, THE CLEAREST SORT OF DECLARATION BY THE CONGRESS TO
BRING UNDER THE STATUTE THE OBTAINING AND DELIVERING TO A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT FOR ITS ADVANTAGE OF REPORTS GENERALLY PUBLISHED AND
AVAILABLE WHICH DEAL WITH FOOD PRODUCTION, THE ADVANCES OF CIVIL
AERONAUTICS, RESERVES OF RAW MATERIALS OR OTHER SIMILAR MATTERS NOT
DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH AND YET OF THE GREATEST IMPORTANCE TO NATIONAL
DEFENSE.  THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS
"CONNECTED WITH" OR "RELATING TO" NATIONAL DEFENSE IS TO BE AVOIDED BY
CONSTRUING THE ACT SO AS "TO MAKE IT A CRIME ONLY TO OBTAIN INFORMATION
AS TO PLACES AND THINGS SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN SECTION 1 AS CONNECTED
WITH OR RELATED TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE."  PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT THE
STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO LEAVE TO A JURY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER AN INNOCUOUS REPORT ON A CROP YIELD IS "CONNECTED" WITH THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE. 

PETITIONERS RELY UPON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO SUPPORT THIS
POSITION.  FN2  THE PASSAGE OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT  FN3  DURING THE WORLD
WAR YEAR OF 1917 ATTRACTED THE CLOSE SCRUTINY OF CONGRESS AND RESULTED
IN DIFFERENT BILLS IN THE TWO HOUSES WHICH WERE RECONCILED ONLY AFTER A
SECOND CONFERENCE REPORT.  NOTHING MORE DEFINITE APPEARS IN THIS
HISTORY AS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION IN REGARD TO LIMITING THE
ACT'S PROHIBITIONS UPON WHICH THIS INDICTMENT DEPENDS TO THE PLACES AND
THINGS IN SEC. 1(A), THAN THAT A HOUSE DEFINITION OF "NATIONAL DEFENSE"
WHICH GAVE IT A BROAD MEANING WAS STRICKEN OUT  FN4  AND THE CONFERENCE
REPORT STATED AS TO THE FINAL FORM OF THE PRESENT ACT: "SECTION 1 SETS
OUT THE PLACES CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE TO WHICH THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE SECTION APPLY."  NEITHER CHANGE SEEMS SIGNIFICANT
ON THIS INQUIRY.  THE HOUSE BILL HAD NOT SPECIFIED THE PLACES UNDER
SURVEILLANCE.  THE CONFERENCE CHANGE MADE THEM DEFINITE.  THE FACT THAT
THE CLAUSE "OR OTHER PLACE CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE" IS ALSO
INCLUDED IN SEC. 1(A) IS NOT AN UNUSUAL MANNER OF PROTECTING ENACTMENTS
AGAINST INADVERTENT OMISSIONS.  WITH THIS SPECIFIC DESIGNATION OF
PROHIBITED PLACES, THE BROAD DEFINITION OF SEC. 1202 OF THE HOUSE WAS
STRICKEN AS NO LONGER APT AND, AS STATED IN CONFERENCE REPORT NO. 69,
SEC. 6 OF THE ACT WAS THEREFORE ADOPTED.  OBVIOUSLY THE PURPOSE WAS TO
GIVE FLEXIBILITY TO THE DESIGNATED PLACES.  FN5  WE SEE NOTHING IN THIS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO AFFECT OUR CONCLUSION WHICH IS DRAWN FROM THE
MEANING OF THE ENTIRE ACT.  FN6 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE SATISFIES US THAT THE
MEANING OF NATIONAL DEFENSE IN SECS. 1(B) AND 2(A) CANNOT BE LIMITED TO
THE PLACES AND THINGS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 1(A).  CERTAINLY THERE IS NO
SUCH EXPRESS LIMITATION IN THE LATER SECTIONS.  SECTION 1(A) LAYS DOWN
THE TEST OF PURPOSE AND INTENT AND THEN DEFINES THE CRIME AS GOING UPON
OR OTHERWISE OBTAINING INFORMATION AS TO NAMED THINGS AND PLACES
CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE.  SECTION 1(B) ADOPTS THE SAME
PURPOSE AND INTENT OF 1(A) AND THEN DEFINES THE CRIME AS COPYING,
TAKING OR PICTURING CERTAIN ARTICLES SUCH AS MODELS, APPLIANCES,
DOCUMENTS, AND SO FORTH OF ANYTHING CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE.  NONE OF THE ARTICLES SPECIFIED IN 1(B) ARE THE SAME AS THE
THINGS SPECIFIED IN 1(A).  APPARENTLY THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE ACT FIRST
SET OUT THE PLACES TO BE PROTECTED, AND INCLUDED IN THAT CONNOTATION
SHIPS AND PLANES, AND THEN IN 1(B) COVERED MUCH OF THE CONTENTS OF SUCH
PLACES IN THE NATURE OF PLANS AND DOCUMENTS.  SECTION 2(A), IT WILL BE
OBSERVED, COVERS IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THE DELIVERY OF THESE MOVABLE
ARTICLES OR INFORMATION TO A FOREIGN NATION OR ITS AGENT.  IF A
GOVERNMENT MODEL OF A NEW WEAPON WERE OBTAINED OR DELIVERED THERE SEEMS
TO BE LITTLE LOGIC IN MAKING ITS TRANSFER A CRIME ONLY WHEN IT IS
CONNECTED IN SOME UNDEFINED WAY WITH THE PLACES CATALOGUED UNDER 1(A). 
IT IS OUR VIEW THAT IT IS A CRIME TO OBTAIN OR DELIVER, IN VIOLATION OF
THE INTENT AND PURPOSES SPECIFIED, THE THINGS DESCRIBED IN SECS. 1(B)
AND 2(A) WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR CONNECTION WITH THE PLACES AND THINGS
OF 1(A). 

IN EACH OF THESE SECTIONS THE DOCUMENT OR OTHER THING PROTECTED IS
REQUIRED ALSO TO BE "CONNECTED WITH" OR "RELATING TO" THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE.  THE SECTIONS ARE NOT SIMPLE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST OBTAINING OR
DELIVERING TO FOREIGN POWERS INFORMATION WHICH A JURY MAY CONSIDER
RELATING TO NATIONAL DEFENSE.  IF THIS WERE THE LANGUAGE, IT WOULD NEED
TO BE TESTED BY THE INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER IT HAD DOUBLE MEANING  FN7
OR FORCED ANYONE, AT HIS PERIL, TO SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN
ACTIONS VIOLATED THE STATUTE.  FN8  THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY HELD
CRIMINAL LAWS DEEMED TO VIOLATE THESE TESTS INVALID.  UNITED STATES V.
COHEN GROCERY CO.,  FN9  URGED AS A PRECEDENT BY PETITIONERS, POINTS
OUT THAT THE STATUTE THERE UNDER CONSIDERATION FORBADE NO SPECIFIC ACT,
FN10 THAT IT REALLY PUNISHED ACTS "DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST
WHEN UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE" IN A JURY'S VIEW.  IN LANZETTA V. NEW
JERSEY  FN11  THE STATUTE WAS EQUALLY VAGUE.  "ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED
IN ANY LAWFUL OCCUPATION, KNOWN TO BE A MEMBER OF ANY GANG  ...  , WHO
HAS BEEN CONVICTED AT LEAST THREE TIMES OF BEING A DISORDERLY PERSON,
OR WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME IN THIS OR ANY OTHER STATE, IS
DECLARED TO BE A GANGSTER  ...  "  WE THERE SAID THAT THE STATUTE
"CONDEMNS NO ACT OR OMISSION"; THAT THE VAGUENESS IS SUCH AS TO VIOLATE
DUE PROCESS.  FN12 

BUT WE FIND NO UNCERTAINTY IN THIS STATUTE WHICH DEPRIVES A PERSON OF
THE ABILITY TO PREDETERMINE WHETHER A CONTEMPLATED ACTION IS CRIMINAL
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LAW.  FN13 THE OBVIOUS DELIMITING WORDS IN
THE STATUTE ARE THOSE REQUIRING "INTENT OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE
INFORMATION TO BE OBTAINED IS TO BE USED TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR TO THE ADVANTAGE OF ANY FOREIGN NATION."  THIS REQUIRES
THOSE PROSECUTED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.  THE SANCTIONS APPLY ONLY
WHEN SCIENTER IS ESTABLISHED.  FN14  WHERE THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR
SECRECY, AS WITH REPORTS RELATING TO NATIONAL DEFENSE, PUBLISHED BY
AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS OR THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS, THERE CAN, OF
COURSE, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD BE NO REASONABLE INTENT TO GIVE AN ADVANTAGE
TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.  FINALLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE USE OF
THE WORDS "NATIONAL DEFENSE" HAS GIVEN THEM, AS HERE EMPLOYED, A WELL
UNDERSTOOD CONNOTATION.  THEY WERE USED IN THE DEFENSE SECRETS ACT OF
1911.  FN15  THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF WAR AS A STRUGGLE BETWEEN
NATIONS IS NOT CHANGED BY THE INTENSITY OF SUPPORT GIVEN TO THE ARMED
FORCES BY CIVILIANS OR THE EXTENSION OF THE COMBAT AREA.  NATIONAL
DEFENSE, THE GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS, "IS A GENERIC CONCEPT OF BROAD
CONNOTATIONS, REFERRING TO THE MILITARY AND NAVAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND
THE RELATED ACTIVITIES OF NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS."  WE AGREE THAT THE
WORDS "NATIONAL DEFENSE" IN THE ESPIONAGE ACT CARRY THAT MEANING. 
WHETHER A DOCUMENT OR REPORT IS COVERED BY SECS. 1(B) OR 2(A) DEPENDS
UPON ITS RELATION TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, AS SO DEFINED, NOT UPON ITS
CONNECTION WITH PLACES SPECIFIED IN SEC. 1(A).  THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED
APPEARS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO APPRISE THE PUBLIC OF PROHIBITED
ACTIVITIES AND IS CONSONANT WITH DUE PROCESS. 

AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE PETITIONERS SOUGHT A DIRECTED
VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL BECAUSE (1) THE INNOCUOUS CHARACTER OF THE
EVIDENCE FORBADE A CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONERS HAD INTENT OR REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT THE INFORMATION WAS TO BE USED TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED
STATES OR THE ADVANTAGE OF A FOREIGN NATION AND (2) THE EVIDENCE FAILED
TO DISCLOSE THAT ANY OF THE REPORTS RELATED TO OR WAS CONNECTED WITH
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE.  AS A COROLLARY TO THIS SECOND CONTENTION,
REVERSAL IS SOUGHT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT OVERRULED THE
PETITIONERS' OBJECTION THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW NONE OF THE REPORTS
DEALT WITH NATIONAL DEFENSE.  THAT IS, AS THE TRIAL COURT STATED THE
OBJECTION, THAT "THE JURY HAS NO PRIVILEGE IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NO
ANY OF THESE REPORTS HAVE TO DO WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, THAT THAT IS
A MATTER FOR THE COURT AND NOT FOR THE JURY, AS A MATTER OF LAW." 

TO JUSTIFY A COURT'S REFUSING TO PERMIT A JURY TO CONSIDER A
DEFENDANT'S INTENT IN OBTAINING AND DELIVERING THESE REPORTS, ONE WOULD
BE COMPELLED TO CONCLUDE THAT NOTHING IN THEM COULD BE VIOLATIVE OF THE
LAW.  AS THEY GAVE A DETAILED PICTURE OF THE COUNTER-ESPIONAGE WORK OF
THE NAVAL INTELLIGENCE, DRAWN FROM ITS OWN FILES, THEY MUST BE
CONSIDERED AS DEALING WITH ACTIVITIES OF THE MILITARY FORCES.  A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN POSSESSION OF THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE IN A
POSITION TO USE IT EITHER FOR ITSELF, IN FOLLOWING THE MOVEMENTS OF THE
AGENTS REPORTED UPON, OR AS A CHECK UPON THIS COUNTRY'S EFFICIENCY IN
FERRETING OUT FOREIGN ESPIONAGE.  IT COULD USE THE REPORTS TO ADVISE
THE STATE OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED OF THE SURVEILLANCE EXERCISED BY THE
UNITED STATES OVER THE MOVEMENTS OF THESE FOREIGN CITIZENS.  THE
REPORTS, IN SHORT, ARE A PART OF THIS NATION'S PLAN FOR ARMED DEFENSE. 
THE PART RELATING TO ESPIONAGE AND COUNTER-ESPIONAGE CANNOT BE VIEWED
AS SEPARATED FROM THE WHOLE. 

NOR DO WE THINK IT NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT THE INFORMATION OBTAINED
WAS TO BE USED TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE STATUTE IS
EXPLICIT IN PHRASING THE CRIME OF ESPIONAGE AS AN ACT OF OBTAINING
INFORMATION RELATING TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE "TO BE USED  ...  TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF ANY FOREIGN NATION."  NO DISTINCTION IS MADE BETWEEN
FRIEND OR ENEMY.  UNHAPPILY THE STATUS OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT MAY
CHANGE.  THE EVIL WHICH THE STATUTE PUNISHES IS THE OBTAINING OR
FURNISHING OF THIS GUARDED INFORMATION, EITHER TO OUR HURT OR ANOTHER'S
GAIN.  IF WE ACCEPT PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT "ADVANTAGE" MEANS
ADVANTAGE AS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, IT WOULD BE A USELESS ADDITION,
AS NO ADVANTAGE COULD BE GIVEN OUR COMPETITOR OR OPPONENT IN THAT SENSE
WITHOUT INJURY TO US.    AN EXAMINATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONS CONVINCES
US THAT NO INJUSTICE WAS DONE PETITIONERS BY THEIR CONTENT.  WEIGHED BY
THE TEST PREVIOUSLY OUTLINED OF RELATION TO THE MILITARY
ESTABLISHMENTS, THEY ARE FAVORABLE TO PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS.  A FEW
EXCERPTS WILL MAKE THIS CLEAR: 

"YOU ARE INSTRUCTED THAT THE TERM 'NATIONAL DEFENSE' INCLUDES ALL
MATTERS DIRECTLY AND REASONABLY CONNECTED WITH THE DEFENSE OF OUR
NATION AGAINST ITS ENEMIES.  ...  AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE STATUTE
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS THE PLACES AND THINGS CONNECTED WITH OR
COMPRISING THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE WHEN IT MENTIONS VESSELS,
AIRCRAFT, WORKS OF DEFENSE, FORT OR BATTERY AND TORPEDO STATIONS.  YOU
WILL NOTE, ALSO, THAT THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS BY NAME CERTAIN
OTHER PLACES OR THINGS RELATING TO WHAT WE MAY CALL THE SECONDARY LINE
OF NATIONAL DEFENSE.  THUS SOME AT LEAST OF THE STORAGE OF RESERVES OF
MEN AND MATERIALS IS ORDINARILY DONE AT NAVAL STATIONS, SUBMARINE
BASES, COALING STATIONS, DOCK YARDS, ARSENALS AND CAMPS; ALL OF WHICH
ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED IN THE STATUTE.  ...  YOU ARE INSTRUCTED IN
THE FIRST PLACE THAT FOR PURPOSES OF PROSECUTION UNDER THESE STATUTES,
THE INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS, PLANS, MAPS, ETC., CONNECTED WITH THESE
PLACES OR THINGS MUST DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE EFFICIENCY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OPERATION OF SAID PLACES OR THINGS AS INSTRUMENTS
FOR DEFENDING OUR NATION.  ...  YOU ARE INSTRUCTED THAT IN THE SECOND
PLACE THE INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS OR NOTES MUST RELATE TO THOSE ANGLES
OR PHRASES OF THE INSTRUMENTALITY, PLACE OR THING WHICH RELATES TO THE
DEFENSE OF OUR NATION; THUS IF A PLACE OR THING HAS ONE USE IN
PEACETIME AND ANOTHER USE IN WARTIME, YOU ARE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ONE OR THE OTHER USE.  ... 

"THE INFORMATION, DOCUMENT OR NOTE MIGHT ALSO RELATE TO THE
POSSESSION OF SUCH INFORMATION BY ANOTHER NATION AND AS SUCH MIGHT ALSO
COME WITHIN THE POSSIBLE SCOPE OF THIS STATUTE.  ...  FOR FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF MILITARY OR NAVAL STRATEGY IT MIGHT NOT ONLY BE DANGEROUS
TO US FOR A FOREIGN POWER TO KNOW OUR WEAKNESSES AND OUR LIMITATIONS,
BUT IT MIGHT ALSO BE DANGEROUS TO US WHEN SUCH A FOREIGN POWER KNOWS
THAT WE KNOW THAT THEY KNOW OF OUR LIMITATIONS. 

"YOU ARE, THEN, TO REMEMBER THAT THE INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS OR NOTES,
WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, MAY
RELATE OR PERTAIN TO THE USEFULNESS, EFFICIENCY OR AVAILABILITY OF ANY
OF THE ABOVE PLACES, INSTRUMENTALITIES OR THINGS FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  THE CONNECTION MUST NOT BE A STRAINED ONE
NOR AN ARBITRARY ONE.  THE RELATIONSHIP MUST BE REASONABLE AND
DIRECT."  PETITIONERS' OBJECTION, HOWEVER, IS THAT AFTER HAVING GIVEN
THESE INSTRUCTIONS, THE COURT INSTEAD OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE
REPORTS WERE OR WERE NOT CONNECTED WITH NATIONAL DEFENSE, LEFT THIS
QUESTION TO THE JURY IN THESE WORDS: 

"WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATION, OBTAINED BY ANY DEFENDANT IN THIS
CASE, CONCERNED, REGARDED OR WAS CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE IS
A QUESTION OF FACT SOLELY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THIS JURY, UNDER
THESE INSTRUCTIONS." 

THESE QUOTATIONS SHOW THAT THE TRIAL COURT UNDERTOOK TO GIVE TO THE
JURY THE TESTS BY WHICH THEY WERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE
PETITIONERS WERE CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE.  WE
ARE OF THE OPINION THIS WAS PROPERLY LEFT TO THE JURY.  IF WE ASSUME,
AS WE MUST HERE AFTER OUR EARLIER DISCUSSION AS TO THE DEFINITENESS OF
THE STATUTE, THAT THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE ARE SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO
ADVISE THE ORDINARY MAN OF ITS SCOPE, WE THINK IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
WORDS OF THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVE ADEQUATE DEFINITION TO "CONNECTED WITH"
OR "RELATING TO" NATIONAL DEFENSE.  THE INQUIRY DIRECTED AT THE
INSTRUCTIONS IS WHETHER THE JURY IS GIVEN SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE TO ENABLE
IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTS OF THE PETITIONERS WERE WITHIN THE
PROHIBITIONS.  THESE INSTRUCTIONS SET OUT THE DEFINITION OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE IN A MANNER FAVORABLE AND UNOBJECTIONABLE TO PETITIONERS.  WHEN
THEY REFER TO FACTS CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED TO DEFENSE, HOWEVER,
PETITIONERS URGE THAT THE CONNECTION SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE
COURT.  INSTRUCTIONS CAN, OF COURSE, GO NO FARTHER THAN TO SAY THE
CONNECTION MUST BE REASONABLE, DIRECT AND NATURAL.  FURTHER ELABORATION
WOULD NOT CLARIFY.  THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT IS TO INSTRUCT AS TO THE
KIND OF INFORMATION WHICH IS VIOLATIVE OF THE STATUTE, AND OF THE JURY
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE INFORMATION SECURED IS OF THE DEFINED KIND.  IT
IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT, WHERE REASONABLE MEN MAY DIFFER, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTS DO OR DO NOT COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE
STATUTE.  THE QUESTION OF THE CONNECTION OF THE INFORMATION WITH
NATIONAL DEFENSE IS A QUESTION OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE JURY AS
NEGLIGENCE UPON UNDISPUTED FACTS IS DETERMINED.  FN16 

IN A TRIAL UNDER AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 3  FN17  OF THIS
SAME ESPIONAGE ACT, THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER A SIMILAR
QUESTION AS TO THE FUNCTION OF THE JURY.  A PAMPHLET WAS INTRODUCED AS
EVIDENCE OF MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS WITH THE INTENT TO CAUSE
INSUBORDINATION.  TO THE OBJECTION THAT THE PAMPHLET COULD NOT
LEGITIMATELY BE CONSTRUED AS TENDING TO PRODUCE THE PROHIBITED
CONSEQUENCES THIS COURT SAID:  "WHAT INTERPRETATION OUGHT TO BE PLACED
UPON THE PAMPHLET, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROBABLE EFFECT OF DISTRIBUTING IT
IN THE MODE ADOPTED, AND WHAT WERE DEFENDANTS' MOTIVES IN DOING THIS,
WERE QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY, NOT THE COURT, TO DECIDE.  ... WHETHER THE
PRINTED WORDS WOULD IN FACT PRODUCE AS A PROXIMATE RESULT A MATERIAL
INTERFERENCE WITH THE RECRUITING OR ENLISTMENT SERVICE, OR THE
OPERATION OR SUCCESS OF THE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS A QUESTION
FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE IN VIEW OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TIME AND
CONSIDERING THE PLACE AND MANNER OF DISTRIBUTION."  FN18 

VIEWING THE INSTRUCTIONS AS A WHOLE, WE FIND NO OBJECTION SUFFICIENT
TO JUSTIFY REVERSAL. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE ERRORS
ALLEGED WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSPIRACY COUNT.  FN19  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ESPIONAGE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, C. 30, 40 STAT. 217: 

"TITLE I. ESPIONAGE.  SECTION 1.  THAT (A) WHOEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF OBTAINING INFORMATION RESPECTING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE WITH INTENT OR
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INFORMATION TO BE OBTAINED IS TO BE USED TO
THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO THE ADVANTAGE OF ANY FOREIGN
NATION, GOES UPON, ENTERS, FLIES OVER, OR OTHERWISE OBTAINS INFORMATION
CONCERNING ANY VESSEL, AIRCRAFT, WORK OF DEFENSE, NAVY YARD, NAVAL
STATION, SUBMARINE BASE, COALING STATION, FORT, BATTERY, TORPEDO
STATION, DOCKYARD, CANAL, RAILROAD, ARSENAL, CAMP, FACTORY, MINE,
TELEGRAPH, TELEPHONE, WIRELESS, OR SIGNAL STATION, BUILDING, OFFICE, OR
OTHER PLACE CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE,  ...  OR ANY PLACE IN
WHICH ANY VESSEL, AIRCRAFT, ARMS, MUNITIONS, OR OTHER MATERIALS OR
INSTRUMENTS FOR USE IN TIME OF WAR ARE BEING MADE, PREPARED, REPAIRED,
OR STORED, ...  ; OR (B) WHOEVER FOR THE PURPOSE AFORESAID, AND WITH
LIKE INTENT OR REASON TO BELIEVE, COPIES, TAKES, MAKES, OR OBTAINS, OR
ATTEMPTS, OR INDUCES OR AIDS ANOTHER TO COPY, TAKE, MAKE, OR OBTAIN,
ANY SKETCH, PHOTOGRAPH, PHOTOGRAPHIC NEGATIVE, BLUE PRINT, PLAN, MAP,
MODEL, INSTRUMENT, APPLIANCE, DOCUMENT, WRITING, OR NOTE OF ANYTHING
CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE; ...  SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE
OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO
YEARS, OR BOTH. 

"SEC. 2.  (A)  WHOEVER, WITH INTENT OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS
TO BE USED TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES OR TO THE ADVANTAGE OF A
FOREIGN NATION, COMMUNICATES, DELIVERS, OR TRANSMITS, OR ATTEMPTS TO,
OR AIDS OR INDUCES ANOTHER TO, COMMUNICATE, DELIVER, OR TRANSMIT, TO
ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, OR TO ANY FACTION OR PARTY OR MILITARY OR NAVAL
FORCE WITHIN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, WHETHER RECOGNIZED OR UNRECOGNIZED BY
THE UNITED STATES, OR TO ANY REPRESENTATIVE, OFFICER, AGENT, EMPLOYEE,
SUBJECT, OR CITIZEN THEREOF, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY
DOCUMENT, WRITING, CODE BOOK, SIGNAL BOOK, SKETCH, PHOTOGRAPH,
PHOTOGRAPHIC NEGATIVE, BLUE PRINT, PLAN, MAP, MODEL, NOTE, INSTRUMENT,
APPLIANCE, OR INFORMATION RELATING TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS:  PROVIDED,
THAT WHOEVER SHALL VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS
FOR NOT MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS; AND (B) WHOEVER, IN TIME OF WAR, WITH
INTENT THAT THE SAME SHALL BE COMMUNICATED TO THE ENEMY, SHALL COLLECT,
RECORD, PUBLISH, OR COMMUNICATE, OR ATTEMPT TO ELICIT ANY INFORMATION
WITH RESPECT TO THE MOVEMENT, NUMBERS, DESCRIPTION, CONDITION, OR
DISPOSITION OF ANY OF THE ARMED FORCES, SHIPS, AIRCRAFT, OR WAR
MATERIALS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANS OR
CONDUCT, OR SUPPOSED PLANS OR CONDUCT OF ANY NAVAL OR MILITARY
OPERATIONS, OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY WORKS OR MEASURES UNDERTAKEN FOR OR
CONNECTED WITH, OR INTENDED FOR THE FORTIFICATION OR DEFENSE OF ANY
PLACE, OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE PUBLIC DEFENSE, WHICH
MIGHT BE USEFUL TO THE ENEMY, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY DEATH OR BY
IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 4.  IF TWO OR MORE PERSONS CONSPIRE TO VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTIONS TWO OR THREE OF THIS TITLE, AND ONE OR MORE OF SUCH PERSONS
DOES ANY ACT TO EFFECT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY, EACH OF THE
PARTIES TO SUCH CONSPIRACY SHALL BE PUNISHED AS IN SAID SECTIONS
PROVIDED IN THE CASE OF THE DOING OF THE ACT THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF SUCH CONSPIRACY.  ...  " 

FN2  H.R. 291, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; CONFERENCE REPORT NO. 69, 55
CONG. REC. 3301. 

FN3  OTHER TITLES SUCH AS NEUTRALITY, FOREIGN COMMERCE AND AT ONE
TIME CENSORSHIP, 55 CONG. REC. 2097, 2102; 2109-2111; 2262; 2265; 3145;
3259; 3266, ADDED TO THE DIFFICULTIES. 

FN4  THAT DEFINITION READ:  "SECTION 1202.  THE TERM 'NATIONAL
DEFENSE' AS USED HEREIN SHALL INCLUDE ANY PERSON, PLACE, OR THING IN
ANYWISE HAVING TO DO WITH THE PREPARATION FOR OR THE CONSIDERATION OR
EXECUTION OF ANY MILITARY OR NAVAL PLANS, EXPEDITIONS, ORDERS,
SUPPLIES, OR WARFARE FOR THE ADVANTAGE, DEFENSE, OR SECURITY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." 

FN5  55 CONG. REC. 3306.  SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE
PROTECTION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE INFORMATION IS NOT IMPORTANT.  THE ACT
OF JANUARY 12, 1938, 52 STAT. 3, IS TO PROTECT AGAINST INNOCENT
DISCLOSURES.  S. REP. 108, 75TH CONG., 2ND SESS. 

PUBLIC NO. 443, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS., IS MERELY AN INCREASE OF
PENALTIES. 

FN6  CF. UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASS'NS, 310 U.S. 534,
543. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. REESE, 92 U.S. 214. 

FN8 LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451. 

FN9  255 U.S. 81, 89. 

FN10  "THAT IT IS HEREBY MADE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON WILLFULLY  ...
TO MAKE ANY UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE RATE OR CHARGE IN HANDLING OR
DEALING IN OR WITH ANY NECESSARIES."  ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1919, C. 80,
SEC. 2, 41 STAT. 297. 

FN11  306 U.S. 451. 

FN12  CRIMINAL STATUTES DEEMED VAGUE:  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 216, 221-224(RAISING PRICES ABOVE "MARKET VALUE
UNDER FAIR COMPETITION, AND UNDER NORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS"); COLLINS
V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 634(SAME); WEEDS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S.
109(EXACTING "EXCESSIVE PRICES FOR ANY NECESSARIES"); STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 369(DISPLAYING ANY "SYMBOL OR EMBLEM OF
OPPOSITION TO ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT"); SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553,
564-565(SUCH PROVISIONS REGULATING COMMON CARRIERS AS COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED TO PRIVATE CARRIERS); HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301
U.S. 242, 261-264(DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS INTENDED AT ANY TIME IN THE
FUTURE TO LEAD TO FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO LAW). 

FN13  CF. ADEQUATELY DEFINITE CRIMINAL STATUTES:  LLOYD V. DOLLISON,
194 U.S. 445, 450(LIQUOR RESTRICTIONS VARYING ACCORDING TO SALE AT
"WHOLESALE" OR "RETAIL"); WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. V. TEXAS (NO. 1), 212
U.S. 86, 108-111(CONTRACTS "REASONABLY CALCULATED" OR WHICH "TEND" TO
FIX PRICES); NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 376-378(UNREASONABLE
OR UNDUE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE); OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246 U.S. 343,
345, 348("ANY CATTLE RANGE PREVIOUSLY  ...  OR  ...  USUALLY OCCUPIED
BY ANY CATTLE GROWER"); HYGRADE PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497,
501-503(MEAT REPRESENTED TO BE "KOSHER"); MILLER V. OREGON, 273 U.S.
657(DANGEROUS RATE OF SPEED; SEE 274 U.S. AT 464-465); UNITED STATES V.
ALFORD, 274 U.S. 264, 267(BUILDING FIRES "NEAR" ANY FOREST OR
INFLAMMABLE MATERIAL); UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH, 280 U.S. 396,
399(RECEIVING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR "ANY POLITICAL PURPOSE WHATEVER");
UNITED STATES V. SHREVEPORT GRAIN & ELEVATOR CO., 287 U.S. 77, 81
82("REASONABLE VARIATIONS" IN WEIGHT OR MEASURE); KAY V. UNITED STATES,
303 U.S. 1, 8-9("ORDINARY FEES  ...  FOR SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED"). 

FN14  CF. HYGRADE PROVISION CO. V. SHERMAN, 266 U.S. 497, 501. 

FN15  36 STAT. 1084:  "THAT WHOEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING
INFORMATION RESPECTING THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, TO WHICH HE IS NOT
LAWFULLY ENTITLED, GOES UPON ANY VESSEL, OR ENTERS ANY NAVY-YARD, NAVAL
STATION, FORT, BATTERY, TORPEDO STATION, ARSENAL, CAMP, FACTORY,
BUILDING, OFFICE, OR OTHER PLACE CONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL DEFENSE,
OWNED OR CONSTRUCTED OR IN PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE UNITED STATES
... " 

FN16  GRAND TRUNK RY. CO. V. IVES, 144 U.S. 408, 417; GUNNING V.
COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90, 94.  CF. DUNLOP V. UNITED STATES, 165 U.S. 486,
500-501.    FN17  40 STAT. 217, 219, C. 30: 

"SEC. 3.  WHOEVER, WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR, SHALL WILLFULLY
MAKE OR CONVEY FALSE REPORTS OR FALSE STATEMENTS WITH INTENT TO
INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION OR SUCCESS OF THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES
OF THE UNITED STATES OR TO PROMOTE THE SUCCESS OF ITS ENEMIES AND
WHOEVER, WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR, SHALL WILLFULLY CAUSE OR
ATTEMPT TO CAUSE INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY, MUTINY, OR REFUSAL OF
DUTY, IN THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, OR SHALL
WILLFULLY OBSTRUCT THE RECRUITING OR ENLISTMENT SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES, TO THE INJURY OF THE SERVICE OR OF THE UNITED STAES, SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NO MORE THAN $10,000 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE
THAN TWENTY YEARS, OR BOTH." 

FN18  PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S. 239, 250.  JUSTICES BRANDEIS
AND HOLMES DISSENTED, LARGELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE JURY SHOULD NOT BE
LEFT TO DECIDE WHETHER STATEMENTS IN THE PAMPHLET WERE FACTS OR
CONCLUSIONS.  ID., P. 269. 

FN19  BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432, 441. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. COWDEN MFG. CO., 312 U.S. 34 


NO. 188.  ARGUED DECEMBER 20, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 13, 1941.  - 91
CT. CLS. 75 - 32 F.SUPP.  141, REVERSED. 


A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR FURNISHING A QUANTITY OF
GARMENTS STIPULATED THAT THE PRICE PAYABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE
INCREASED TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH SUBSEQUENTLY IMPOSED FEDERAL TAXES AS
ARE "MADE APPLICABLE DIRECTLY UPON THE PRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, OR SALE
OF THE SUPPLIES COVERED BY THIS CONTRACT AND ARE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR
ON THE ARTICLES HEREIN CONTRACTED FOR  ..."  HELD NOT TO OBLIGATE THE
UNITED STATES IN RESPECT TO TAXES SUBSEQUENTLY IMPOSED UNDER THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT ON THE PROCESSING OF MATERIALS SOLD TO THE
CONTRACTOR AND USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THE GARMENTS, FOR WHICH TAXES
THE PROCESSORS WERE REIMBURSED BY THE CONTRACTOR PURSUANT TO AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN THEM.  P. 36. 

THE TAXES IN QUESTION WERE NOT "DIRECTLY" APPLICABLE TO THE
MANUFACTURE OF THE "SUPPLIES COVERED BY THIS CONTRACT," NOR "PAID BY
THE CONTRACTOR," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT. 

UNITED STATES V. COWDEN MANUFACTURING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 311 U.S. 624, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES IN A SUIT UPON A CONTRACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES OF THE AMOUNTS
PAID TO PROCESSORS TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR PROCESSING TAXES PAID ON
COTTON GOODS SOLD TO RESPONDENT.  THE SUIT IS BASED ON A CONTRACT
BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE UNITED STATES, RATHER THAN ON TITLE VII OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936(49 STAT. 1648, 1747), WHICH AUTHORIZES REFUNDS
TO PROCESSORS, UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, OF PROCESSING TAXES
ILLEGALLY COLLECTED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT (48 STAT.
31).  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE "FEDERAL TAXES" CLAUSE OF THE
CONTRACT OBLIGATES THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE THE REIMBURSEMENT. 

PRIOR TO JUNE 6, 1933, THE WAR DEPARTMENT CALLED FOR BIDS ON A
CONTRACT TO FURNISH A CERTAIN KIND OF MECHANIC'S SUIT.  ON JUNE 6,
1933, RESPONDENT SUBMITTED ITS BID, AND ON JUNE 24, 1933, EXECUTED A
CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES WHEREBY RESPONDENT AGREED TO FURNISH A
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF THE SUITS AT A STATED PRICE.  THE CONTRACT
PROVIDED, IN THE "FEDERAL TAXES" CLAUSE, THAT: "PRICES SET FORTH HEREIN
INCLUDE ANY FEDERAL TAX HERETOFORE IMPOSED BY THE CONGRESS WHICH IS
APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL PURCHASED UNDER THIS CONTRACT.  IF ANY SALES
TAX, PROCESSING TAX, ADJUSTMENT CHARGE, OR OTHER TAXES OR CHARGES ARE
IMPOSED OR CHANGED BY THE CONGRESS AFTER THE DATE SET FOR THE OPENING
OF THE BID UPON WHICH THIS CONTRACT IS BASED AND MADE APPLICABLE
DIRECTLY UPON THE PRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, OR SALE OF THE SUPPLIES
COVERED BY THIS CONTRACT AND ARE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR ON THE ARTICLES
OR SUPPLIES HEREIN CONTRACTED FOR, THEN THE PRICES NAMED IN THIS
CONTRACT WILL BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ACCORDINGLY.  ..." 

TO PERFORM ITS CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, RESPONDENT CONTRACTED
TO PURCHASE COTTON CLOTH, THREAD, AND LABELS FROM SUBCONTRACTORS WHO
WERE LIABLE, AS PROCESSORS, TO PAY ANY PROCESSING TAXES LEVIED ON THE
ARTICLES SOLD TO RESPONDENT.  AT THE TIME THESE CONTRACTS WERE MADE NO
TAXES WERE IN EFFECT ON THE PROCESSING OF COTTON, BUT IN ANTICIPATION
OF SUCH TAXES RESPONDENT AND THE SUBCONTRACTORS AGREED THAT RESPONDENT
WOULD REIMBURSE THEM FOR ANY TAXES THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PAY ON THE
PROCESSING OF GOODS SOLD TO RESPONDENT, THE TAXES TO BE BILLED AS A
SEPARATE ITEM.  THEREAFTER, RESPONDENT RECEIVED THE GOODS COVERED BY
THESE CONTRACTS AND COMPENSATED THE SUBCONTRACTORS FOR THE TAXES THEY
WERE LATER REQUIRED TO PAY ON THE PROCESSING OF THE COTTON.  IT HAS
PERFORMED ITS CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES AND NOW CLAIMS THAT THE
QUOTED PROVISION OBLIGATES THE UNITED STATES TO PAY RESPONDENT THE
AMOUNTS IT HAS PAID ITS SUBCONTRACTORS TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR THE
PROCESSING TAXES THEY HAVE PAID.  BECAUSE THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
REJECTED ITS CLAIM, RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS
AND OBTAINED JUDGMENT.  91 CT. CLS. 75; 32 F.SUPP.  141.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI ON OCTOBER 14, 1940, TO RESOLVE THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE
CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE "FEDERAL TAXES" CLAUSE WHICH APPEARS IN A
LARGE NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. 

THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNITED STATES, IN THE "FEDERAL
TAXES" CLAUSE, HAS AGREED TO PAY RESPONDENT THE AMOUNT RESPONDENT PAID
ITS SUBCONTRACTORS TO REIMBURSE THEM FOR TAXES PAID ON THE PROCESSING
OF THE GOODS SOLD TO RESPONDENT.  WE HOLD THAT IT HAS NOT. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE "FEDERAL TAXES" CLAUSE DOES NOT OBLIGATE
THE UNITED STATES TO REIMBURSE ITS CONTRACTOR FOR TAXES WHICH THE
LATTER HAS BORNE MERELY AS A MATTER OF CONTRACT WITH ITS
SUBCONTRACTORS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE FAIR IMPORT OF THE CLAUSE IS THAT
THE UNITED STATES MUST MAKE REIMBURSEMENT ONLY FOR SUCH TAXES AS THE
CONTRACTOR HAS PAID PURSUANT TO AN OBLIGATION IMPOSED UPON HIM BY THE
STATUTE WHICH EXACTS THE TAX. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLAUSE IS PRECISE.  IT PROVIDES ONLY FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF THOSE TAXES WHICH ARE "MADE APPLICABLE DIRECTLY UPON
THE PRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, OR SALE OF THE SUPPLIES COVERED BY THIS
CONTRACT."  THE SUPPLIES "COVERED BY THIS CONTRACT" ARE THE MECHANICS'
SUITS, THE COMPLETED ARTICLES FURNISHED TO THE UNITED STATES.  SINCE
THE CLAUSE FURTHER PROVIDES IN EXACT LANGUAGE THAT THE TAX MUST BE
"DIRECTLY" APPLICABLE, WE CANNOT AGREE THAT A TAX ON THE CLOTH, THREAD,
AND LABELS IS A TAX ON THE "SUPPLIES COVERED BY THIS CONTRACT." 
COMPARE TELESCOPE FOLDING FURNITURE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 31 F.SUPP. 
780, 784; UNITED STATES V. GLENN L. MARTIN CO., 308 U.S. 62. 

MOREOVER, THE CLAUSE STIPULATES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TAXES "PAID BY
THE CONTRACTOR."  IT IS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS PHRASE ALSO
CONTEMPLATES PAYMENT OF TAXES TO THE UNITED STATES IN CONSEQUENCE OF AN
OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY STATUTE UPON RESPONDENT.  FOR WHILE IN A SENSE,
PERHAPS, RESPONDENT "PAID" THESE PROCESSING TAXES, IT IS MORE ACCURATE
TO SAY THAT THEY WERE "PAID" BY THE SUBCONTRACTORS WHO MERELY SHIFTED
THEIR BURDEN TO RESPONDENT AS A SEPARATE ITEM OF THE CONTRACT PRICE. 
THE CLAUSE AS A WHOLE INDICATES THAT THIS WAS THE SENSE TO BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE PHRASE QUOTED. 

A CONTRARY CONSTRUCTION OF THE "FEDERAL TAXES" CLAUSE INTRODUCES
DIFFICULTIES NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES.  IT WOULD FORCE THEM TO
TRACE THE TAXES BACK TO THE ONE UPON WHOM THE OBLIGATION FIRST RESTED,
WHETHER THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS WERE SIMPLE OR COMPLEX.  FOR IF IT
COULD BE SAID IN THIS CASE THAT THE PROCESSING TAXES WERE IMPOSED ON
THE SUPPLIES COVERED BY THE CONTRACT AND WERE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR,
IT WOULD BE IMMATERIAL HOW FAR THE CONTRACTOR WERE REMOVED FROM THE
ORIGINAL PROCESSOR IF THE FORMER COULD SHOW THAT THE BURDEN OF THE TAX
HAD BEEN SHIFTED AS THE PROCESSED ARTICLES HAD CHANGED HANDS AND
PERHAPS FORM.  WE CAN FIND NOTHING WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE PARTIES
INTENDED TO DRAFT A CLAUSE THAT WOULD OPERATE IN SUCH FASHION. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE QUOTED CLAUSE DOES NOT OBLIGATE THE UNITED
STATES TO COMPENSATE RESPONDENT FOR TAXES WHICH WERE PAID BY ITS
SUBCONTRACTORS AND WERE MERELY SHIFTED TO RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO THEIR
SUBCONTRACT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE PETITION.  REVERSED. 
..END :











Z. & F. ASSETS CORP. V. HULL, 311 U.S. 470 


NO. 381.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 10, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  -
114 F.2D 464, AFFIRMED. 


HOLDERS OF AWARDS BY THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND
GERMANY, WHICH WERE CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER THE
SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928 AND WERE PAYABLE BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY FROM THE SPECIAL FUND ESTABLISHED BY THAT ACT, SUED TO
RESTRAIN THE SECRETARY OF STATE FROM CERTIFYING AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY FROM PAYING LATER AWARDS TO OTHER CLAIMANTS, ALLEGING THAT
BECAUSE THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER HAD WITHDRAWN, AND FOR OTHER REASONS
RELATIVE TO THE POWER AND PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION, THE LATER AWARDS
WERE NULL AND VOID, AND THAT IF ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FUND THEY
WOULD SO DEPLETE IT THAT THE AWARDS OF THE PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT BE
SATISFIED.  AFTER THE FILING OF THE BILL, AND BEFORE SERVICE, THE
AWARDS COMPLAINED OF WERE CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO SUE TO PROTECT SUCH
INTEREST AS THEY MIGHT HAVE UNDER THE ACT; BUT AS THEIR STANDING RESTED
SOLELY UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THEY COULD NOT ESCAPE ITS TERMS
OR AVOID PAYMENTS FOR WHICH THE ACT IS FOUND TO PROVIDE.  P. 485. 

2.  THE CERTIFICATION BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE WHICH THE ACT
REQUIRES AS A CONDITION TO PAYMENT OF AN AWARD IS NOT A MINISTERIAL ACT
MEANING MERELY THAT THE AWARD CERTIFIED IS A GENUINE DOCUMENT, BUT IS
ASSURANCE BY THE SECRETARY THAT THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE AWARD
WERE SUCH AS DULY TO QUALIFY IT FOR PAYMENT FROM THE SPECIAL FUND.  P.
486. 

CONGRESS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO LODGE WITH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER AND PASS UPON THE REGULARITY AND
VALIDITY OF THE AWARDS MADE BY THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION FOR THE
STATUTORY PURPOSE OF QUALIFYING THEM FOR PAYMENT OUT OF THE ACCOUNT IN
THE TREASURY; AND IN VIEW OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
THE NATURE OF THE CLAIMS AND THE CONTENTIONS TO WHICH THEY MIGHT GIVE
RISE BETWEEN THE TWO GOVERNMENTS CONCERNED, CONGRESS NATURALLY REQUIRED
HIS VIEWS, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPRIETY OF PAYING AWARDS FROM THAT
FUND. 

3.  THERE IS NO BASIS IN THIS CASE FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE SECRETARY
OF STATE IN CERTIFYING THE QUESTIONED AWARDS ACTED WITHOUT DUE
DELIBERATION OR FAILED TO EXPRESS HIS CONSIDERATE JUDGMENT, AS THE
STATUTE CONTEMPLATED.  P. 488. 

4.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT UNDER THE STATUTE THE CERTIFICATION OF
THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS CONCLUSIVE.  P. 489. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER IN THIS CASE WHETHER CONGRESS COULD
COMMIT TO THE JUDICIARY THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
CHALLENGED CLAIMS. 

5.  IN VIEW OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE CASE, THERE IS
NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENT OR ACTION THEREUNDER MAY BE DEEMED TO VEST RIGHTS IN PRIVATE
PERSONS OR THE SCOPE OF SUCH RIGHTS IN PARTICULAR CASES.  P. 489. 

Z. & F. ASSETS REALIZATION CORP. V. HULL, SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 382, AMERICAN-HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP CO. V. HULL,
SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, POST, P. 632,
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 632, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING THE BILLS IN SUITS TO RESTRAIN ACTION BY THE SECRETARIES OF
STATE AND OF THE TREASURY. 

MR. JOSEPH M. PROSKAUER, WITH WHOM MESSRS.  FRANK ROBERSON, JOHN F.
CONDON, JR., AND JOHN BASSETT MOORE WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR Z. & F.
ASSETS REALIZATION CORP., PETITIONER IN NO. 381. 

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE OLD AWARD HOLDERS AND THE SABOTAGE CLAIMANTS
AS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO PAYMENT FROM THE SPECIAL DEPOSIT FUND
IS NOT A POLITICAL CONTROVERSY BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS TO
DETERMINE. 

WHERE A CONFLICT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER STATUTES AND TREATIES IS
PRESENTED, THE DETERMINATION OF THOSE RIGHTS BY THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COURTS.  BANCO DE ESPANA V.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, 114 F.2D 438, 442.  THE DOCTRINE RELIED ON BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE HAS NO APPLICATION WHERE, AS HERE, THE
DECISION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS COULD NOT IN ANY TRULY FACTUAL SENSE BE
DEEMED AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS BY THE
EXECUTIVE, NOR A MATTER FOR THE EXECUTIVE EXCLUSIVELY TO DETERMINE. 
WILLOUGHBY, CONST. L., 2D ED., SEC. 855, P. 1336; JAFFE, JUDICIAL
ASPECTS OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, P. 233; THE FLORENCE H., 248 F. 1012;
UNITED STATES V. WATTS, 8 SAWYER 370; UNITED STATES V. RAUSCHER, 119
U.S. 407; TARTAR CHEMICAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 116 F. 726.  SEE ALSO,
HEAD MONEY CASES, 112 U.S. 580, 598, 599; DEUTSCHE BANK V. CUMMINGS, 83
F.2D 554; 300 U.S. 115; CHAE CHAN PING V. UNITED STATES, 130 U.S. 581;
COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, 460. 

THE CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS A MINISTERIAL ACT AND
NOT CONCLUSIVE OF THE VALIDITY OF AN AWARD.  PETITIONERS HAVE A
PROPERTY RIGHT IN THE SPECIAL DEPOSIT FUND AND ARE ENTITLED TO BRING
THE ACTION.  CF., WILLIAMS V. HEARD, 140 U.S. 529; COMEGYS V. VASSE, 1
PET. 193.  CF., HOUSTON V. ORMES, 252 U.S. 469; PARISH V. MACVEAGH, 214
U.S. 124. 

THIS FUND CONSISTS OF 20% OF THE GERMAN PROPERTY SEIZED DURING THE
WAR, UNALLOCATED INTEREST THEREON, THE SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION BY
CONGRESS OF MORE THAN $86,000,000 AND THE MONEYS RECEIVED UNDER THE
PARIS AGREEMENT OF JANUARY 14, 1925 AND UNDER THE GERMAN-AMERICAN DEBT
AGREEMENT OF JUNE 23, 1930.  REPORT OF SECRETARY OF TREASURY, JUNE 30,
1939, P. 76.  CONSEQUENTLY, THIS ACTION COMES SQUARELY WITHIN THE CASES
HOLDING THAT, WHERE CONGRESS HAS MADE AN APPROPRIATION FOR CERTAIN
PERSONS, THOSE PERSONS MAY RESORT TO THE COURTS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THEIR RIGHT OF PAYMENT.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THESE WERE MONEYS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  AS SOON AS AN APPROPRIATION IS MADE, UNTIL THAT
APPROPRIATION IS WITHDRAWN, THE DIRECT BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH
APPROPRIATION HAVE RIGHTS WHICH MAY BE PROTECTED IN THE COURTS FROM
IMPROPER ATTACK.  AMERICAN-MEXICAN CLAIMS BUREAU V. MORGENTHAU, 26
F.SUPP.  904, 906. 

THE REAL QUESTION IS BETWEEN TWO CLASSES OF AMERICAN NATIONALS, ONE
OF WHICH SEEKS TO TAKE FROM THE OTHER THE MONEYS THAT HAD BEEN AWARDED
TO IT, HELD IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES.  MATTER OF WESTBROOK,
228 APP. DIV. 549, 550. 

IN VIEW OF PETITIONERS' PROPERTY RIGHT, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO GRANT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROTECTING THEM FROM
PAYMENT OF AWARDS THAT WERE MERE NULLITIES.  MOORE, DIGEST, VOL. VII,
SEC. 1072, P. 30; COMEGYS V. VASSE, 1 PET. 193; STANDARD MARINE INS.
CO. V. WESTCHESTER INS. CO., 19 F.SUPP.  334; AFF'D 93 F.2D 286; CERT.
DEN., 303 U.S. 661; FREVALL V. BACHE, 14 PET. 95. 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE NEITHER READS THE EVIDENCE NOR HEARS THE
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL UPON IT. IN NO SENSE, THEREFORE, CAN HIS ACT
PRECLUDE SUBSEQUENT INQUIRY AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE AWARD, EITHER
NATIONALLY OR INTERNATIONALLY. 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN THIS CASE ACTED WITHIN A FEW HOURS, SO HAD
NO TIME TO MAKE ANY JUDICIAL INQUIRY, WHICH HE MUST HAVE ASSUMED WAS
NOT CALLED FOR. 

WHENEVER THE EXECUTIVE DETERMINATION HAS BEEN HELD CONCLUSIVE IN THE
ABSENCE OF A STATUTORY PROVISION FOR A HEARING AND DETERMINATION, THE
STATUTE HAS EITHER EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR FINALITY (UNITED STATES V.
BABCOCK, 250 U.S. 328, 331), OR THE CHARACTER OF THE EXECUTIVE
DETERMINATION WAS SUCH AS TO ADMIT OF NO DOUBT THAT DISCRETION HAD
NECESSARILY BEEN CONFERRED.  WILLIAMSPORT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277
U.S. 551, 559; CF., NEWPORT NEWS CO. V. SCHAUFFLER, 303 U.S. 54, 57;
MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41, 50; ADAMS V. NAGLE, 303 U.S.
532. 

CERTIFICATION WAS NO MORE THAN A VEHICLE OF NOTIFICATION TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY THAT THE COMMISSION HAD SIGNED, SEALED AND
ENTERED ITS ALLEGED DECISION.  TRUE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE MIGHT
CHOOSE TO TAKE FURTHER DIPLOMATIC ACTION IF THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION WERE UNSATISFACTORY TO HIM (EITHER ON MORAL GROUNDS OR FOR
PALPABLE EXCESS OF POWER); BUT SUCH ACTION WOULD IN NO SENSE SPRING
FROM THE ACT OF CONGRESS, AND HENCE COULD NOT ENLARGE THE MINISTERIAL
QUALITY OF HIS FUNCTION UNDER THE STATUTE.  ORINOCO V. ORINOCO IRON
CO., 296 F. 965; MELLON V. ORINOCO IRON CO., 266 U.S. 121; PERKINS V.
ELG, 307 U.S. 325. 

THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN CERTIFYING WAS PERFORMING A PURELY
MINISTERIAL FUNCTION, IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT HE IS FREQUENTLY
CALLED UPON TO CERTIFY TO THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT INTERNATIONAL
AWARDS.  AMERICAN-MEXICAN CLAIMS BUREAU V. MORGENTHAU, 26 F.SUPP. 
904. 

A FORTIORI IS SUCH A CERTIFICATE NOT CONTROLLING WHEN MADE WITH
KNOWLEDGE OF CONTEMPLATED RESORT TO THE COURTS AND AFTER ACTUAL FILING
OF THE BILL. 

IF THEIR SUIT IS MERITORIOUS, THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE
THE STATUS QUO RESTORED AS OF THE TIME OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
ACTION.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. NORTHSIDE BELT RY. CO., 276 U.S. 475,
479. 

AN ACTION IS COMMENCED BY THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT.  FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULE 3.  THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT THAT THE SERVICE
OF PROCESS WAS "TOO LATE" IS COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED. 

THE COMMISSION MADE NO AWARDS IN FAVOR OF THE SABOTAGE CLAIMANTS,
BECAUSE, AFTER THE RETIREMENT OF THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER, THE
COMMISSION NO LONGER EXISTED. 

THE COMMISSION MADE NO AWARDS IN FAVOR OF THE SABOTAGE CLAIMANTS,
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION WAS FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND NOT EMPOWERED TO GRANT A
REHEARING. 

THE SHARES OF STOCK OF AGENCY OF CANADIAN CAR & FOUNDRY COMPANY,
LTD., BEING ENTIRELY OWNED BY CANADIAN CAR & FOUNDRY COMPANY, LTD., A
CANADIAN NATIONAL, THE COMMISSION HAD NO JURISDICTION TO GRANT IT ANY
AWARD. 

SINCE ISSUES OF FACT ARE INVOLVED, RESPONDENT-INTERVENER'S
APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD IN ANY EVENT BE DENIED. 

MR. FRED K. NIELSEN FOR AMERICAN-HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY,
PETITIONER IN NO. 382. 

THE COURT BELOW DOES NOT DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL
CONTENTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS.  THEY HAVE NOT
CONTENDED THAT THERE CAN BE ANY PROCEEDING IN THE NATURE OF A JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF ACTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION.  THEY HAVE FOUND NO
FAULT WITH ANY ACT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OR THE UMPIRE PERFORMED
CONFORMABLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 10, 1922.  THEY
HAVE NOT UNDERTAKEN TO BRING ABOUT ANY JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITIES. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER IN
FUNDS ON DEPOSIT IN THE TREASURY.  THOSE RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS WHICH
THE INTERVENER-PETITIONER UNDERTOOK TO PROTECT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL.  THE RIGHTS HAVE THEIR FOUNDATION IN (1) TREATY STIPULATIONS
CONCLUDED BY THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY; (2) PROVISIONS OF AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES TO GIVE EFFECT TO THOSE TREATY
STIPULATIONS; AND (3) STATUTORY PROVISIONS ENACTED BY CONGRESS TO GIVE
EFFECT TO BOTH THE TREATY STIPULATIONS AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT. 

THE PETITIONERS HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE COURTS HAVE THE
POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOUND IN THE SETTLEMENT
OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928 WOULD BE PROPERLY OR IMPROPERLY EXECUTED, IF
ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN CONFORMABLY TO THE PRAYERS IN THE MOTION OF THE
INTERVENER-RESPONDENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRESENTED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT AND IN THE MOTION OF THE DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND
THE BILL OF INTERVENTION.  THE LAW OF 1928, OF COURSE, CONTEMPLATES THE
PAYMENT OF VALID AWARDS ONLY, THAT IS, AWARDS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 10, 1922.  THE PETITIONERS HAVE
CONTENDED THAT, IN PASSING ON QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE EXECUTION OF
THE LAW OF 1928, THE COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO CONSTRUE THE PERTINENT
INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT VALID AWARDS WERE
RENDERED THROUGH THE ACTS OF A SINGLE COMMISSIONER AND THE UMPIRE.  THE
AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 10, 1922, WAS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE
SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928.  IN CONSTRUING AND APPLYING THE
STATUTE, IT IS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR THE COURT TO CONSTRUE THE
AGREEMENT.  THE PETITIONERS HAVE INVOKED JUDICIAL ACTION WITH THE
PURPOSE OF PROTECTING IMPORTANT PROPERTY RIGHTS. 

THE AWARDS SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN FAVOR OF THE LEHIGH VALLEY
RAILROAD COMPANY AND OTHERS WERE NOT VALID AWARDS MADE BY THE
COMMISSIONERS NOR BY THE UMPIRE.  THE SO-CALLED AWARDS ARE NOT AWARDS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT OF 1922, BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT AWARDS RENDERED CONFORMABLY TO THE TERMS AND REQUIREMENTS
OF THE AGREEMENT.  THEY ARE SIMPLY INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF ONE COMMISSIONER
AND THE UMPIRE.  THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF THESE SO-CALLED AWARDS IS
NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928.  PAYMENT
WOULD BE A MISAPPLICATION OF FUNDS WHICH ARE ON DEPOSIT IN THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT BY VIRTUE OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT. 

CONTENTIONS NOW MADE BY THE PETITIONERS WITH RESPECT TO PERTINENT
STIPULATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 10, 1922, ARE IN HARMONY WITH
THE SOUND CONSTRUCTION PUT ON THEM BY COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES IN
THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLAIMS COMMISSION TO HAVE SET
ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION DISMISSING IN 1930 THE CLAIMS OF
THE LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY AND OTHERS.  THAT CONSTRUCTION
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS, THE TWO CABINET OFFICERS, DO NOT NOW
UNDERTAKE TO DISCARD, BUT THEY ARGUE THE CASE INVOLVES POLITICAL
QUESTIONS. 

A DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CASE WOULD NOT RESULT IN
AN INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDICIARY IN POLITICAL AFFAIRS ARISING IN THE
CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS.  THOSE ISSUES INVOLVE JUSTICIABLE
QUESTIONS AND NOT SO-CALLED POLITICAL QUESTIONS, SUCH AS WERE
CONTROLLING IN NUMEROUS CASES CITED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS. 

SOME DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES REFERRED TO BY THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE NO
BEARING ON QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE POWER OF COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES TO CONSTRUE FEDERAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND INTERNATIONAL
COVENANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OR THE
INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT, ITS MATERIAL INTERESTS AND ITS INTEREST IN
THE OBSERVANCE OF INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS. 

THIS DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE DOES REVEAL FACTS TO THE EFFECT THAT
ONE PARTY TO THE PERTINENT COVENANTS HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF
ACTS WHICH THE PETITIONERS CONTEND ARE VOID.  IT ALSO REVEALS THAT THE
SECRETARY OF STATE DECLINED TO ENTER INTO A DIPLOMATIC DISCUSSION OF
RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW DETERMINATIVE OF QUESTIONS AS TO THE
PROPRIETY OF THESE ACTS WHICH THE PETITIONERS CONTEND CAN NOT LEGALLY
HAVE THE EFFECT OF DISPOSING OF THE LARGE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT IN THE
TREASURY. 

THE PETITIONERS TAKE THE POSITION THAT THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO
PASS ON THESE QUESTIONS SO FAR AS THEIR PROPER DISPOSITION RESTS WITH
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THAT IS, THE
COURT IS COMPETENT TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION LOOKING TO A PROPER
APPLICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT IN THE LIGHT OF A
RATIONAL INTERPRETATION OF SOME UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT OF
AUGUST 10, 1922, TERMS OF A VERY CONVENTIONAL CHARACTER OFTEN EMPLOYED
IN INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE. 

THE PROCEEDING INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IS A "CASE" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

SOLICITOR GENERAL BIDDLE, WITH WHOM ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL SHEA,
AND MESSRS.  MELVIN H. SIEGEL AND FRANCIS J. MCNAMARA WERE ON THE
BRIEF, FOR CORDELL HULL, SECRETARY OF STATE, AND HENRY MORGENTHAU,
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, RESPONDENTS. 

THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SABOTAGE AWARDS IS OF A POLITICAL
CHARACTER, IS CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, AND IS NOT OPEN TO JUDICIAL INQUIRY. 

APART FROM STATUTE, THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SABOTAGE
AWARDS IS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE DETERMINATION OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 

THE CLAIMS OF AMERICAN NATIONALS AGAINST GERMANY PRESENTED TO THE
COMMISSION ARE THE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND FUNDS HELD BY THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE PAYMENT OF AWARDS ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED
STATES UNTIL PAID TO THE PRIVATE CLAIMANTS.    APART FROM THE STATUTE,
THE SECRETARY OF STATE MAY ACCEPT OR REJECT THE SABOTAGE AWARDS IN HIS
SOLE DISCRETION UNTIL PAYMENT IS ULTIMATELY MADE TO THE PRIVATE
CLAIMANTS. 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE
SABOTAGE AWARDS IN HIS SOLE DISCRETION IS RECOGNIZED AND CONFIRMED IN
THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT. 

IRRESPECTIVE OF THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THE INQUIRY, CERTIFICATION OF
THE SABOTAGE AWARDS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS CONCLUSIVE, AND NOT
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.    MR. WILLIAM D. MITCHELL, WITH WHOM
MESSRS.  FREDERIC R. COUDERT, LESTER H. WOOLSEY, AMOS J. PEASLEE, AND
JOHN J. MCCLOY WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY,
INTERVENER-RESPONDENT. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE AWARDS IS NOT OPEN TO INQUIRY IN THE COURTS AND
THE CASE DOES NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. 

THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE AWARDS, INVOLVING AS IT DOES A
DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO GOVERNMENTS ABOUT THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS
OF THE COMMISSION AND THE INTERPRETATION AND EFFECT OF AN INTERNATIONAL
COMPACT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY, IS A POLITICAL MATTER
INVOLVING FOREIGN RELATIONS, IN WHICH UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT MAY NOT INTERFERE. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928 ROUTING
AWARDS OF THE COMMISSION THROUGH THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR CERTIFICATION
TO THE TREASURY, INSTEAD OF HAVING THE AWARDS CERTIFIED BY THE
COMMISSION TO THE TREASURY, IS A LEGISLATIVE RECOGNITION OF THE FACT
THAT THE SUBJECT IS ONE INVOLVING OUR AGREEMENTS AND RELATIONS WITH A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, AND GIVES THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HOLD UP AN AWARD, IF HE BELIEVES THAT IT DID AN INJUSTICE TO GERMANY,
OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON REQUIRES CORRECTION.  THE SECRETARY OF STATE
HAD FULL POWER TO REFRAIN FROM CERTIFYING AN AWARD IF IT SHOULD SEEM
OPEN TO OBJECTION.  FRELINGHUYSEN V. KEY, 110 U.S. 63; BOYNTON V. KEY,
139 U.S. 306; LA ABRA SILVER MINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S.
423. 

THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING THOSE RESPECTING ITS
POWERS AND JURISDICTION, ARE NOT OPEN TO REVIEW OR COLLATERAL ATTACK IN
THE DOMESTIC COURTS. 

IF THE QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE AWARDS IS CONSIDERED, THEIR
VALIDITY SHOULD BE UPHELD. 

THE RETIREMENT OF THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER DID NOT DEPRIVE THE UMPIRE
AND THE AMERICAN COMMISSIONER OF POWER TO DISPOSE OF THE CASES. 

THE CLAIM THAT THERE WERE GENUINE ISSUES AS TO MATERIAL QUESTIONS OF
FACT, WHICH MADE IT IMPROPER TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, IS NOT PROPERLY
RAISED AND IS DEVOID OF MERIT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS, Z. & F. ASSETS REALIZATION CORPORATION AND AMERICAN
HAWAIIAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, ARE HOLDERS OF AWARDS OF THE MIXED CLAIMS
COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND GERMANY.  THESE AWARDS HAVE BEEN
CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND ARE THUS PAYABLE OUT OF THE
FUND ESTABLISHED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928.  FN1
PETITIONERS SEEK A JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT LATER AWARDS PURPORTING TO
BE MADE BY THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION IN FAVOR OF THE LEHIGH VALLEY
RAILROAD COMPANY, THE AGENCY OF CANADIAN CAR AND FOUNDRY COMPANY,
LIMITED, THE BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY AND OTHERS, ARE NULL AND VOID, AND
RESTRAINING THE CERTIFICATION OF THESE AWARDS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
AND THEIR PAYMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  THE LEHIGH VALLEY
RAILROAD COMPANY INTERVENED AS A DEFENDANT. 

DEFENDANTS, THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
MOVED TO DISMISS PETITIONERS' BILLS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF COULD BE GRANTED.  THE
INTERVENER DEFENDANT FILED AN ANSWER AND MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE BILLS (31 F.SUPP.  371) AND ITS
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  114 F.2D 464.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, POST, P. 632. 

THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND GERMANY, WAS SET UP
PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 10, 1922,  FN2  TO DETERMINE THE
AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY GERMANY IN SATISFACTION OF HER FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY OF BERLIN OF AUGUST 25, 1921.  FN3  THE
COMMISSION CONSISTED OF THREE MEMBERS, ONE APPOINTED BY THE UNITED
STATES, ANOTHER BY GERMANY, AND AN UMPIRE SELECTED BY THE TWO
GOVERNMENTS.  THE UMPIRE WAS "TO DECIDE UPON ANY CASES CONCERNING WHICH
THE COMMISSIONERS MAY DISAGREE, OR UPON ANY POINTS OF DIFFERENCE THAT
MAY ARISE IN THE COURSE OF THEIR PROCEEDINGS."  IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED
THAT SHOULD THE UMPIRE OR ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS DIE OR RETIRE, OR BE
UNABLE FOR ANY REASON TO DISCHARGE HIS FUNCTIONS, THE VACANCY SHOULD BE
FILLED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT.  IT WAS AGREED
THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND THOSE OF THE UMPIRE SHOULD BE
ACCEPTED AS FINAL AND BINDING UPON THE TWO GOVERNMENTS. 

THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928 CREATED IN THE TREASURY A
"GERMAN SPECIAL DEPOSIT ACCOUNT."  SECTION 2 PROVIDED THAT THE
SECRETARY OF STATE SHOULD CERTIFY FROM TIME TO TIME TO THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY THE AWARDS OF THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION, AND THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY WAS DIRECTED TO PAY OUT OF THE AMOUNTS PLACED
IN THE ACCOUNT THE PRINCIPAL OF EACH AWARD SO CERTIFIED, WITH INTEREST
AS STATED. 

THE CLAIMS COVERED BY THE AWARDS ATTACKED BY PETITIONERS AROSE OUT OF
THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY CAUSED BY EXPLOSIONS AT BLACK TOM AND
KINGSLAND, NEW JERSEY, IN 1916 AND 1917.  THESE CLAIMS WERE DISMISSED
BY THE COMMISSION IN 1930, AND PETITIONS FOR REHEARING WERE DENIED IN
1931 AND 1932.  IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE AMERICAN AGENT SOUGHT TO
REOPEN THE CASES UPON THE GROUND THAT IN ITS DECISION OF 1930 THE
COMMISSION HAD BEEN MISLED BY "FRAUDULENT, INCOMPLETE, COLLUSIVE AND
FALSE EVIDENCE" ON THE PART OF WITNESSES FOR GERMANY.  THE GERMAN
GOVERNMENT DENIED THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REOPEN AND THE UMPIRE,
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, FINDING THAT THERE WAS A DISAGREEMENT UPON THE
QUESTION BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS, DECIDED, IN DECEMBER, 1933, THAT
THE COMMISSION WAS COMPETENT TO DETERMINE ITS OWN JURISDICTION BY THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT CREATING IT.  THE UMPIRE FURTHER
DECIDED THAT, WHILE THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT POWER TO REOPEN A CASE
MERELY FOR THE PRESENTATION OF AFTER-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, THE
COMMISSION WAS STILL SITTING AS A COURT AND DID HAVE POWER TO CONSIDER
THE CHARGE THAT IT HAD BEEN MISLED BY FRAUD AND COLLUSION, AND FOR THAT
PURPOSE TO REOPEN THE CASES IN ORDER THAT IT MIGHT CONSIDER THE FURTHER
EVIDENCE TENDERED BY THE AMERICAN AGENT, AND THAT OFFERED IN REPLY ON
BEHALF OF GERMANY, AND EITHER CONFIRM THE DECISIONS THERETOFORE MADE OR
ALTER THEM AS JUSTICE AND RIGHT MIGHT DEMAND. 

THEREAFTER, THE GERMAN AGENT FILED AN ANSWER DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS
OF FRAUD AND EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.  AFTER ARGUMENT, THE COMMISSION,
IN JUNE, 1936, RENDERED A DECISION, THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER CONCURRING,
BY WHICH THE RULING OF 1932 DENYING A REHEARING WAS SET ASIDE, AND THE
QUESTION WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A REHEARING WAS RESERVED FOR A HEARING
WHICH SHOULD BE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM AN ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS
UNLESS GERMANY SHOULD CONSENT TO A DIFFERENT COURSE. 

EFFORTS TO OBTAIN A SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL AND,
AFTER MUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAD BEEN INTRODUCED, THE COMMISSION, IN
JANUARY, 1939, HEARD EXTENDED ARGUMENTS BY THE AGENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE
GOVERNMENTS.  THE AMERICAN AGENT HAD REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION
SHOULD NOT ONLY SET ASIDE THE ORIGINAL DECISION OF 1930 BUT SHOULD ALSO
PROCEED TO A FINAL DECISION ON THE MERITS, AS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE
EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING ALSO
ESTABLISHED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GERMANY FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
PROPERTY AS CLAIMED.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER
INSISTED THAT, BEFORE THE MOTION FOR REHEARING SHOULD BE GRANTED, THE
COMMISSION SHOULD EXAMINE THE PROOFS TENDERED BY THE UNITED STATES TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE CLAIMS HAD BEEN MADE GOOD.  THIS, AS STATED BY
THE UMPIRE, WAS UPON THE GROUND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE COMMISSION HAD
BEEN MISLED BY FALSE AND FRAUDULENT TESTIMONY, THAT WOULD BE IMMATERIAL
IF, UPON AN INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION, THE UNITED STATES IN ITS OWN
CASES HAD FAILED TO SUSTAIN ITS BURDEN OF PROOF.  THE AMERICAN
COMMISSIONER AND THE UMPIRE THEREUPON HAD AGREED TO GO BEYOND WHAT THEY
THOUGHT THE NECESSARY FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
AND HAD PROCEEDED TO CANVASS WITH THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER THE CASES AS
MADE BY THE UNITED STATES. 

DURING THE COURSE OF THAT INVESTIGATION, ON MARCH 1, 1939, THE GERMAN
COMMISSIONER WITHDREW FROM THE COMMISSION.  AT THE TIME OF HIS
WITHDRAWAL, THE TWO COMMISSIONERS, ACCORDING TO THE CONTENTION OF THE
AMERICAN COMMISSIONER AND AS FOUND BY THE UMPIRE, WERE IN DISAGREEMENT
UPON THE POINTS IN ISSUE.  ON RECEIVING NOTICE OF A MEETING OF THE
COMMISSION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 15, 1939, THE GERMAN AGENT SAID THAT HE
WOULD NOT APPEAR AND THE GERMAN EMBASSY ADVISED THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THAT, SINCE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSION
WAS INCOMPETENT TO MAKE DECISIONS. 

AT THE MEETING HELD PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE, THE AMERICAN COMMISSIONER
FILED A CERTIFICATE OF DISAGREEMENT WITH AN OPINION SUSTAINING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  THE UMPIRE THEREUPON DECIDED THAT
THERE DID EXIST A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COMMISSIONERS, - A
DISAGREEMENT OF WHICH HE WAS PERSONALLY COGNIZANT AND WHICH WAS ALSO
SHOWN BY THE CERTIFICATE AND OPINION OF THE AMERICAN COMMISSIONER; THAT
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT OUSTED BY THE WITHDRAWAL OF
THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER "AFTER SUBMISSION BY THE PARTIES, AND AFTER THE
TRIBUNAL, HAVING TAKEN THE CASES UNDER ADVISEMENT, PURSUANT TO ITS
RULES, WAS ENGAGED IN THE TASK OF DECIDING THE ISSUES PRESENTED"; THAT
THE UNITED STATES "HAD PROVED ITS ALLEGATION THAT FRAUD IN THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY GERMANY MISLED THE COMMISSION AND AFFECTED ITS DECISION IN
FAVOR OF GERMANY"; AND THAT UPON THE RECORD AS IT THEN STOOD THE CASES
FOR THE CLAIMS WERE MADE OUT. 

THEREUPON, THE AMERICAN AGENT MOVED FOR AWARDS IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED
STATES ON BEHALF OF THE SABOTAGE CLAIMANTS.  AN ORDER WAS ENTERED
SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF 1930, AND DETERMINING THAT THE LIABILITY
OF GERMANY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AND THAT, AS IT APPEARED THAT GERMANY
DID NOT INTEND TO TAKE PART IN FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION,
AWARDS SHOULD BE MADE UPON THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND OPINION. 

ON OCTOBER 3, 1939, THE GERMAN CHARGE D'AFFAIRES ADDRESSED AN
ELABORATE COMMUNICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE MAKING A DETAILED
STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTARY TO A NOTE OF JULY 11, 1939, WITH RESPECT TO THE
ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTS OF THE UMPIRE, AND PROTESTING AGAINST ALL FURTHER
MEASURES BY THE UMPIRE, THE AMERICAN COMMISSIONER AND THE AMERICAN
AGENT, WHICH WERE AIMED AT SECURING AWARDS IN THE BLACK TOM AND
KINGSLAND CASES.  THE SECRETARY OF STATE REPLIED, ON OCTOBER 18, 1939,
THAT IT WOULD BE HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO ENDEAVOR TO
DETERMINE THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION; THAT THE
SECRETARY HAD ENTIRE CONFIDENCE IN THE ABILITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE
UMPIRE AND THE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE UNITED STATES DESPITE THE
SEVERE AND, AS HE BELIEVED, "ENTIRELY UNWARRANTED CRITICISMS," AND THAT
HE WAS CONSTRAINED TO INVITE ATTENTION TO THE FACT "THAT THE REMARKABLE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY GERMANY WAS APPARENTLY DESIGNED
TO FRUSTRATE OR POSTPONE INDEFINITELY THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION AT A
TIME WHEN, AFTER YEARS OF LABOR ON THE PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVED, IT
WAS EXPECTED THAT ITS FUNCTIONS WOULD BE BROUGHT TO A CONCLUSION." 

NOTICE WAS GIVEN OF A MEETING OF THE COMMISSION TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER
30, 1939, WHICH THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER DID NOT ATTEND, AND AWARDS WERE
THEN MADE IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANTS.  THE UMPIRE STATED THAT HE HAD
FOUND THE AWARDS TO BE ACCURATELY AND PROPERLY CALCULATED AND HAD
JOINED THE AMERICAN COMMISSIONER IN SIGNING THEM. 

THE AWARDS WERE CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY ON OCTOBER 31, 1939, PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR
CLAIMS ACT OF 1928.  ON THE SAME DAY, THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT, THE
COMPLAINT BEING FILED BEFORE, AND PROCESS BEING SERVED ON THE SECRETARY
OF STATE AFTER, HIS CERTIFICATION OF THE AWARDS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD THAT THE QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE AWARDS IN FAVOR OF THE SABOTAGE CLAIMANTS IS POLITICAL
IN ITS NATURE AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN IT. 

THERE ARE, HOWEVER, CERTAIN PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS WHICH ARE
INDUBITABLY APPROPRIATE FOR JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION, AND WE THINK THAT
THE PROPER ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE WHOLE
CASE. 

THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING TO BRING THIS
SUIT.  EXCEPT FOR THE SITUATION CREATED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS
ACT OF 1928, THEY WOULD HAVE NO SUCH STANDING.  THEY COULD NOT BE HEARD
TO COMPLAIN OF ACTION UPON CLAIMS OTHER THAN THEIR OWN.  AND CONGRESS,
WITH OR WITHOUT AWARDS, COULD PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMS IN
QUESTION WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE BY PETITIONERS.  BUT PETITIONERS
CONTEND THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT CREATED A FUND IN THE
TREASURY, KNOWN AS THE "GERMAN SPECIAL DEPOSIT ACCOUNT"; THAT
PETITIONERS WITH OTHER EARLIER AWARD-HOLDERS ARE ENTITLED BY THE ACT TO
PAYMENT OUT OF THAT FUND; THAT THE FUND IS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY
PETITIONERS' CLAIMS IN FULL IF PAYMENTS ARE PERMITTED TO BE MADE TO THE
SABOTAGE CLAIMANTS; AND HENCE THAT PETITIONERS HAVE STANDING TO
COMPLAIN OF AN UNLAWFUL DEPLETION OF THE FUND TO THEIR INJURY BY MEANS
OF SUCH PAYMENTS.    WE THINK THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AS SHOWN BY
THE BILLS PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO SUE TO PROTECT SUCH INTERESTS AS
THEY MAY HAVE UNDER THE ACT.  COMPARE HOUSTON V. ORMES, 252 U.S. 469;
MELLON V. ORINOCO IRON CO., 266 U.S. 121.  BUT AS THEIR STANDING RESTS
SOLELY UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THEY MAY NOT ESCAPE ITS TERMS OR
SUCCEED IN A CHALLENGE TO PAYMENTS FOR WHICH THE ACT IS FOUND TO
PROVIDE. 

THE NEXT QUESTION IS WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE TO THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
IN CERTIFYING THE AWARDS.  CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO PAY OUT OF THE SPECIAL ACCOUNT THE AWARDS
WHICH THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS CERTIFIED.  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS GIVEN HIS CERTIFICATE IN THIS INSTANCE.  IT
IS ADEQUATE IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE CERTIFICATION IS A MERE MINISTERIAL
ACT.  IT IS SAID TO MEAN MERELY THAT THE AWARD IS A GENUINE DOCUMENT,
IN THE SAME SENSE THAT A NOTARY PUBLIC AUTHENTICATES THE SIGNATURE OF A
GRANTOR IN A DEED.  WE THINK THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT IS
INADMISSIBLE.  THE NOTARIAL CONCEPTION OF THE FUNCTION OF THE SECRETARY
OF STATE IN THIS MATTER IGNORES HIS ROLE IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS AS THE RIGHT HAND OF THE EXECUTIVE AND IN PARTICULAR HIS
RELATION TO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS OF THE UNITED
STATES AGAINST FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.  THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO LODGE WITH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER AND PASS UPON THE REGULARITY AND
VALIDITY OF THE AWARDS MADE BY THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION FOR THE
STATUTORY PURPOSE OF QUALIFYING THEM FOR PAYMENT OUT OF THE ACCOUNT IN
THE TREASURY.  CONGRESS HAD COMPLETE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT PAYMENTS
SHOULD BE MADE FROM THAT ACCOUNT AND TO ATTACH SUCH CONDITIONS AS IT
SAW FIT.  CONGRESS NOT ONLY HAD THIS POWER BUT IT WAS NATURAL AND
APPROPRIATE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD ENTRUST TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE
DECISION OF QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ARISE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPRIETY OF
THE PAYMENT OF AWARDS MADE BY THE COMMISSION AND TO REQUIRE HIS
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION THROUGH CERTIFICATION BEFORE PAYMENT.  THE MIXED
CLAIMS COMMISSION HAD BEEN CREATED BY AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT.  THE
CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION WERE ONLY THOSE SPONSORED AND
PRESENTED BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST GERMANY.  THEY WERE PRESENTED AS
CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE NATIONAL CLAIMANTS THEMSELVES HAVING
NO STANDING SAVE AS THEY WERE REPRESENTED BY THE UNITED STATES.  SEE
FRELINGHUYSEN V. KEY, 110 U.S. 63, 75, 76; BOYNTON V. BLAINE, 139 U.S.
306, 323, 325; WILLIAMS V. HEARD, 140 U.S. 529, 537, 538.  THE CLAIMS
SO SPONSORED WERE PRESENTED AND HANDLED BY AN AMERICAN AGENT APPOINTED
BY THE PRESIDENT.  IT WAS OBVIOUS, AS THE PRESENT CONTENTIONS
ABUNDANTLY ILLUSTRATE, THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SUCH A COMMISSION
MIGHT EASILY GIVE RISE TO QUESTIONS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS CONCERNED
AND MIGHT INVOLVE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIONS OR PROTESTS WITH WHICH IT
WOULD BE THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO DEAL.  WHATEVER MIGHT BE
SAID OF SUCH REPRESENTATIONS OR PROTESTS, OR THE OCCASION FOR THEM, OR
WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF ANY INTERNATIONAL RIGHT OR OBLIGATION
ARISING FROM THE AGREEMENT SETTING UP THE COMMISSION, CONGRESS COULD,
AND NATURALLY WOULD, REQUIRE THE VIEWS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE BEFORE
APPROPRIATING MONEY FOR THE PAYMENT OF AWARDS, AND, IN CREATING A
SPECIAL FUND FOR THAT PURPOSE, WOULD LOOK TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
THE EXERCISE OF HIS APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF THE EXECUTIVE
AND THUS FOR HIS JUDGMENT UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS HAD
BEEN SUCH AS DULY TO QUALIFY THE AWARDS FOR PAYMENT.  SEE FRELINGHUYSEN
V. KEY, SUPRA; BOYNTON V. BLAINE, SUPRA.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE
SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT WHICH POINTS TO A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE CONSTRUED HIS ACTION IN
CERTIFYING AS MERELY MINISTERIAL BECAUSE HE ACTED AT ONCE ON THE
PRESENTATION OF THE AWARDS.  BUT THE ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT
THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAD LONG BEEN COGNIZANT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT
HAD ARISEN IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO GRANT A
REHEARING AND MAKE THE AWARDS.  AS EARLY AS OCTOBER, 1933, THE GERMAN
GOVERNMENT HAD NOTIFIED THE SECRETARY OF STATE THAT IT REGARDED THE
COMMISSION AS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO GRANT A REHEARING ON THE SABOTAGE
CLAIMS.  THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAD INFORMED THE AMERICAN AGENT THAT
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION WAS ONE PROPERLY TO BE DECIDED BY THE
COMMISSION ITSELF AND HE DIRECTED THE AMERICAN AGENT TO BRING THE
MATTER TO THE ATTENTION OF THE AMERICAN COMMISSIONER, OR THE FULL
COMMISSION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE DECISION OF THE UMPIRE ON
THAT DISPUTED POINT.  IN MARCH, 1939, THE AMERICAN COMMISSIONER
INFORMED THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE GERMAN
COMMISSIONER AND REVIEWED THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  IN JUNE, 1939,
PETITIONERS THEMSELVES FORMALLY COMMUNICATED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE PROCEEDINGS.  IN THE SAME MONTH THE GERMAN
EMBASSY ADVISED THE SECRETARY OF STATE THAT ITS GOVERNMENT REGARDED THE
COMMISSION AS INCOMPETENT TO MAKE DECISIONS BECAUSE OF THE GERMAN
COMMISSIONER'S WITHDRAWAL.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A FURTHER PROTEST
DELIVERED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN JULY AND A DETAILED STATEMENT BY
THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT OF ITS GROUNDS IN ITS COMMUNICATION OF OCTOBER 3,
1939, TO WHICH THE SECRETARY OF STATE REPLIED ON OCTOBER 18, 1939, IN
THE NOTE FROM WHICH WE HAVE QUOTED.  THUS, WHEN THE ACTUAL AWARDS WERE
PRESENTED THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAD BEFORE HIM THESE DIPLOMATIC
REPRESENTATIONS AND WAS FULLY CONVERSANT WITH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE COMMISSION, WITH THE ACTION OF THE GERMAN COMMISSIONER AND THE
ATTITUDE OF HIS GOVERNMENT, AND WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS. 
WE FIND NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN
CERTIFYING THE AWARDS DID NOT ACT AFTER DUE DELIBERATION OR FAIL TO
EXPRESS HIS CONSIDERATE JUDGMENT, AS WE THINK THE STATUTE
CONTEMPLATED. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT UNDER THE
STATUTE THE CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE MUST BE DEEMED TO BE
CONCLUSIVE.  WE DO NOT NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER CONGRESS COULD COMMIT
TO THE JUDICIARY THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED
CLAIMS (SEE LA ABRA SILVER MINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 423),
FOR CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE SO BUT HAS MADE PAYMENT OUT OF THE FUND
DEPEND UPON THE SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE.  THE QUESTION IN THIS RELATION
IS SIMPLY ONE OF THE INTENT OF CONGRESS AS DISCLOSED BY THE ACT. 
CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY DIRECTED PAYMENTS TO BE MADE FROM THE SPECIAL
ACCOUNT OF THE AWARDS "SO CERTIFIED."  THE LITERAL AND NATURAL IMPORT
OF THIS PROVISION IS THAT FINALITY IS TO BE ACCORDED TO THE CERTIFICATE
OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND WE PERCEIVE NO GROUND FOR LIMITING THE
TERMS OF THE ACT BY CONSTRUCTION.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE NATURE OF THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND THEIR RELATION TO THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD HAVE EFFECT ACCORDING TO ITS
EXPLICIT TERMS. 

IN VIEW OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS GOVERNING THIS CASE, WE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENT, OR ACTION THEREUNDER, MAY BE DEEMED TO VEST RIGHTS IN
PRIVATE PERSONS, OR THE SCOPE OF SUCH RIGHTS IN PARTICULAR CASES.  SEE
COMEGYS V. VASSE, 1 PET. 193; MELLON V. ORINOCO IRON CO., SUPRA.
PETITIONERS MUST CLAIM SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF THEIR INTEREST IN THE FUND
CREATED BY THE STATUTE AND UNDER ITS TERMS THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
COMPLAIN OF PAYMENTS OUT OF THAT FUND OF AWARDS WHICH THE SECRETARY OF
STATE HAS CERTIFIED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  45 STAT. 254. 

FN2  42 STAT. 2200. 

FN3  42 STAT. 1939. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING: 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE BUT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONERS SET UP NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH
THE COURT HAD POWER TO DETERMINE.  THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE
PETITIONS INVOLVE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY,
WHICH WE BELIEVE ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY COMMITTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE
LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS. 

THE SOLE GROUND UPON WHICH PETITIONERS PRAYED RELIEF IN THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS THAT AWARDS MADE BY THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION WERE "WHOLLY
NULL AND VOID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE ALLEGED
COMMISSION."  A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WAS SOUGHT TO HAVE THE AWARDS
DECLARED NULL AND VOID, AND TO ENJOIN THE SECRETARY OF STATE FROM
CERTIFYING AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FROM PAYING SUCH AWARDS
MADE BY THE COMMISSION.  IN ADDITION PETITIONERS ASKED A MANDATORY
INJUNCTION TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO PAY PETITIONERS
WITHOUT REGARD TO OTHER AWARDS OF THE COMMISSION CERTIFIED BY THE
SECRETARY OF STATE. 

THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY MOVED TO
DISMISS ON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE COMPLAINT STATED NO
CAUSE OF ACTION; THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF
THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION; THE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO PASS UPON
THE JURISDICTION OF THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION; AND THE COURT HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN THE SECRETARY OF STATE FROM CERTIFYING AWARDS
OF THE COMMISSION OR TO ENJOIN THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FROM
PAYING THE CLAIMS SO CERTIFIED.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE
MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION IN MAKING AWARDS AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN
CERTIFYING THEM WERE COMMITTED FOR DETERMINATION TO THE POLITICAL
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND THEREFORE THE COURTS WERE WITHOUT POWER TO
REVIEW THEIR DETERMINATION.  WE AGREE WITH THEIR CONCLUSION.  AND IN
THIS VIEW WE BELIEVE THE CERTIFICATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE MUST
BE DEEMED FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE IN THE COURTS, NOT BECAUSE THE CONDUCT
OF THE SECRETARY AND THE COMMISSION PRECEDING CERTIFICATION MEETS
APPROVAL OF THE COURTS, BUT BECAUSE POWER TO MAKE FINAL DETERMINATION
RESTS WITH THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT ALONE. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONS AS PRESENTED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, WERE:  WHO CAN CHALLENGE THE PROPRIETY OF THE
COMMISSION'S AWARDS?  DOES THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, RATHER
THAN THE POLITICAL, POSSESS THE POWER FINALLY TO DETERMINE THE
PROPRIETY OF THE AWARDS?  AND THE FACT THAT PETITIONERS SOUGHT TO
CHALLENGE THE COMMISSION'S POWER BY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SECRETARIES
OF STATE AND THE TREASURY, AND NOT BY DIRECT SUIT AGAINST THE
COMMISSION, IS IMMATERIAL.  IF PETITIONERS CANNOT DIRECTLY ATTACK THE
COMMISSION IN THE COURTS, NEITHER CAN THEY, IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT, ASSAIL THE PROPRIETY OF ITS AWARDS THROUGH THE
EXPEDIENT OF SUITS AGAINST OTHERS CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR
EXECUTING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION. 

THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION WAS SET UP PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY.  THE AGREEMENT GAVE THE
COMMISSION FULL POWER TO HOLD HEARINGS TO DETERMINE "THE AMOUNT TO BE
PAID BY GERMANY IN SATISFACTION OF GERMANY'S FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS"
UNDER TWO TREATIES PREVIOUSLY MADE BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES.  THE
AGREEMENT FURTHER PROVIDED THAT "THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND
THOSE OF THE UMPIRE (IN CASE THERE MAY BE ANY) SHALL BE ACCEPTED AS
FINAL AND BINDING UPON THE TWO GOVERNMENTS."  THE COMMISSION WAS SET UP
WITH AN UMPIRE AND ALL OF THE AWARDS WERE REPORTED TO THE SECRETARY OF
STATE BY THE COMMISSION. 

WHILE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE
CERTIFICATION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT
THEIR PETITIONS ULTIMATELY REST SOLELY UPON THE PREMISE THAT IT IS HIS
DUTY TO REFUSE TO CARRY OUT THE COMMISSION'S AWARDS BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
IMPROPRIETY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.  THEY SAY THAT THE
COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND POWER TO MAKE AWARDS TO CERTAIN
CLAIMANTS OTHER THAN THEMSELVES; PAYMENT OF THESE AWARDS OUT OF A FUND
THAT IS LIMITED IN AMOUNT WILL RESULT IN DIMINISHING PAYMENTS TO THEM
BELOW THE FULL AMOUNT OF THEIR AWARD WITH INTEREST; SINCE THE
COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT POWER - AS THEY CHARGE - TO MAKE THESE OTHER
AWARDS, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHOULD NOT HAVE CERTIFIED THEM FOR
PAYMENT; AND FOR THE SAME REASON THE TREASURY SHOULD NOT PAY THEM. 
THEY ASSERT A RIGHT THROUGH COURT PROCEDURE TO CHALLENGE PAYMENT TO THE
OTHER CLAIMANTS BY REASON OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS OF 1928.  FN1 

BUT THE 1928 ACT PROVIDES THAT THE SECRETARY SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME
CERTIFY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY THE AWARDS OF THE MIXED CLAIMS
COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO PAY "THE PRINCIPAL OF EACH AWARD SO
CERTIFIED, PLUS THE INTEREST THEREON, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AWARD,
...  "  NOWHERE IN THE ACT IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLY
OR BY FAIR IMPLICATION INDICATES A PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO PERMIT SOME
CLAIMANTS TO RESORT TO THE COURTS - AS PETITIONERS HERE HAVE DONE - TO
DETERMINE THE PROPRIETY OF AWARDS BY THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION TO
OTHER CLAIMANTS. 

THE EXACT CHALLENGE MADE BY PETITIONERS AGAINST THE AWARDS OF THE
COMMISSION IS THE SUBJECT OF A DIPLOMATIC CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND GERMANY.  GERMANY'S CONTENTION IS THE SAME AS
PETITIONERS'.  AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, IN CHARGE OF OUR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS, HAS DECLINED TO ACCEDE TO GERMANY'S CONTENTION THAT THE
PARTICULAR AWARDS HERE IN CONTROVERSY WERE IMPROPER AND SHOULD NOT BE
CERTIFIED OR PAID.  THE IMMEDIATE SUBJECT MATTER OF PETITIONERS'
COMPLAINT, UPON WHICH RESTS THE POWER OF THE COURT TO ACT, IF IT HAS
ANY POWER, HAS THEREFORE BEEN REPUDIATED BY THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF OUR
GOVERNMENT.  A CONTRARY CONCLUSION BY THE COURTS WOULD BRING ABOUT A
SQUARE CLASH BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT.  AND FAR MORE THAN THIS.  WHOEVER IS ENTRUSTED FINALLY TO
DETERMINE WHAT GOVERNMENT MUST OR MUST NOT DO IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN
NATIONS IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF MOMENTOUS QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC
POLICIES AFFECTING THIS NATION'S RELATIONS WITH THE OTHER COUNTRIES OF
THE WORLD.    THE CONTROVERSY HERE BEARS ALL THE EARMARKS OF THAT TYPE
OF CONTROVERSIES WHICH OUR CONSTITUTION HAS CONFIDED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE
EXECUTIVE OR POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT, AND CONCERNING WHICH
THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES REPEATED "THAT THE ACTION OF THE POLITICAL
BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT IN A MATTER THAT BELONGS TO THEM, IS
CONCLUSIVE."  FN2  SINCE THIS CLEARLY APPEARED FROM THE FACE OF THE
PLEADINGS AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY STAYED ITS
HANDS AND RENOUNCED POWER TO PROCEED. 

FN1  45 STAT. 254. 

FN2  WILLIAMS V. SUFFOLK INSURANCE CO., 13 PET. 415, 420; UNITED
STATES EX REL. BOYNTON V. BLAINE, 139 U.S. 306, 320, 321, 322-6;
FRELINGHUYSEN V. KEY, 110 U.S. 63.  NO GOOD PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY
SETTING OUT THE NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT TO THE SAME EFFECT. 
FOR A COLLECTION OF SUCH CASES SEE DIGEST OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
REPORTS, VOL. 4, COURTS, SECS. 49-63. 
..END :




JACKSON V. IRVING TRUST CO., 311 U.S. 494 


NO. 75.  ARGUED DECEMBER 19, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - 109
F.2D 714, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN AWARD OF A DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
CAN NOT BE ATTACKED FOR ALLEGED FRAUDULENT COLLUSION BY A MOTION ON
AFFIDAVITS MADE TO THAT COURT AFTER PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND THE TIME
FOR APPEAL HAS EXPIRED.  SEMBLE THAT THE REMEDY WOULD BE BY BILL OF
REVIEW.  P. 499. 

2.  YEARS AFTER THE RENDITION AND PAYMENT OF AN AWARD UNDER SEC. 9(A)
OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, FROM WHICH NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES AND AS SUCCESSOR TO
THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, BY A MOTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT
SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS, SOUGHT TO HAVE THE JUDGMENT SET ASIDE FOR WANT
OF JURISDICTION, ON THE GROUND THAT THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE CLAIM
WAS AN "ENEMY" AS DEFINED BY THAT ACT AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE SUIT WAS
NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT, BUT WAS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THE SUIT STATED A CASE WITHIN THE TERMS OF
THE ACT, AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE EVERY
ISSUE NECESSARY TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CLAIM.  P. 500. 

(2)  THAT THE STATUS, ENEMY OR NON-ENEMY, OF THE ALLEGED BENEFICIAL
OWNER, UPON WHICH WAS BASED THE "JURISDICTIONAL" QUESTION OF THE
MOTION, HAVING BEEN AN ISSUE RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS IN
THE CASE, WAS DETERMINABLE BY THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER LABELED.  P.
502. 

(3)  WHETHER THE PARTICULAR ISSUE WAS ACTUALLY LITIGATED IS
IMMATERIAL IN VIEW OF THE NECESSARY CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE IT AND THAT IT WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE DECREE. 
P. 503. 

(4)  IF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ERRED IN DEALING OR IN FAILING TO DEAL
WITH ANY ISSUE INVOLVED, THE REMEDY WAS BY APPEAL.  P. 503. 

JACKSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, AND AS
SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, V. IRVING TRUST CO.,
EXECUTOR, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 27 F.SUPP.  44, SETTING ASIDE, ON MOTION, FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION, A FORMER DECREE WHICH HAD BEEN RENDERED UNDER SEC. 9(A)
OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT. 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL SHEA, WITH WHOM SOLICITOR GENERAL BIDDLE
AND MESSRS.  FRANCIS J. MCNAMARA, MELVIN H. SIEGEL, AND RICHARD H.
DEMUTH WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR PETITIONER. 

A SUIT UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT IS A SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES; THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER IT
ONLY TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS CONSENTED TO BE
SUED.  ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THIS ACT IS THAT THE SUIT SHALL
BE BROUGHT BY ONE WHO IS NOT AN "ENEMY."  THIS CONDITION WAS PLAINLY
NOT MET. 

AT THE TIME WHEN THE SUIT WAS COMMENCED, ALL THE ASSETS OF THE
PARTNERSHIP OF CROSSMAN & SIELCKEN, INCLUDING THE CLAIM SUED ON, HAD
PASSED, PURSUANT TO THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, TO THE ESTATE OF
SIELCKEN, AND NEITHER SORENSON NOR NIELSEN HAD ANY PERSONAL INTEREST IN
THE RECOVERY.  IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT ON
BEHALF OF SIELCKEN'S ESTATE.  AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, SIELCKEN WAS AN
"ENEMY."  THE STATUS OF THE ESTATE WAS THAT OF AN ENEMY.  THE ESTATE
OWNED THE DEBT CLAIM AND WAS THE SOLE PARTY INTERESTED IN THE
RECOVERY.  IT IS, THEREFORE, PERFECTLY APPARENT THAT THE SUIT AGAINST
THE CUSTODIAN ON THE CLAIM WAS NOT ONE AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 9(A). 

SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO POWER IN THE CASE, ITS JUDGMENT WAS
VOID AND WAS PROPERLY VACATED ON THE PRESENT MOTION.  UNITED STATES V.
U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 309 U.S. 506. 

THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COURT BELOW WAS BASED ON THE
PREMISE THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED IN THE ORIGINAL
ACTION AND THAT THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT ENTERED WAS BEYOND ATTACK, EVEN
THOUGH THE COURT WHICH ENTERED IT WAS ENTIRELY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 
THIS CONCLUSION WAS THOUGHT TO BE REQUIRED BY THE DECISION IN STOLL V.
GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165.  THE COURT BELOW FURTHER HELD THAT THE 1929
JUDGMENT WAS BEYOND ATTACK EVEN IF THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE WAS NOT
ADJUDICATED IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION.  THIS RULING WAS THOUGHT TO BE
REQUIRED BY THE DECISION IN CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER
STATE BANK, 308 U.S. 371.  THIS COURT HAS SINCE HELD THAT A JUDGMENT
RENDERED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT ITS CONSENT IS "VOID" AND
THAT SUCH A JUDGMENT IS NOT RES JUDICATA OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT IN WHICH IT WAS RENDERED, AT LEAST WHERE THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE
WAS NOT ADJUDICATED IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT.  UNITED STATES V. U.S.
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., SUPRA.  IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION THAT
THE PRESENT CASE FALLS DIRECTLY WITHIN THE RULE OF THE FIDELITY &
GUARANTY CO. CASE. 

THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA MAY BE SUBJECT TO OTHER AND COMPETING
POLICIES.  HERE THE PRIVATE INTEREST IN THE FINALITY OF LITIGATION
MUST, WE BELIEVE, YIELD TO THE PUBLIC POLICY WHICH FORBIDS SUITS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, A POLICY PECULIARLY
STRONG IN THE CASE OF THIS STATUTE. 

MOREOVER, A MOTION TO VACATE IS NOT A COLLATERAL ATTACK BUT A METHOD
OF DIRECT REVIEW TO WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT
APPLICABLE.  THE DECREE UNDER REVIEW WAS SIMPLY AN EXERCISE BY THE
DISTRICT COURT OF ITS PLENARY POWER TO VACATE ITS OWN JUDGMENTS AT ANY
TIME FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNDER SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT,  FN1  A DECREE WAS ENTERED ON DECEMBER 30, 1929, DIRECTING
PAYMENT TO THE PLAINTIFFS OF A STATED AMOUNT OUT OF THE PROPERTY OF A
GERMAN CORPORATION WHICH HAD BEEN SEIZED BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN.  THERE WAS NO APPEAL AND THE AMOUNT AWARDED WAS PAID. 

IN 1938 THE UNITED STATES MOVED UPON AFFIDAVITS TO SET ASIDE THE
DECREE, CONTENDING THAT THE COURT HAD BEEN WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTION UPON THAT GROUND.  27 F.SUPP.  44. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL
DECREE.  109 F.2D 714.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  310 U.S. 621. 

IT APPEARS THAT THE SUIT HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN 1927 BY JOHN S. SORENSON
AND THORLIEF S. B. NIELSEN, AS SURVIVING PARTNERS OF THE FIRM OF
CROSSMAN & SIELCKEN.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFFS AND
HERMANN SIELCKEN, THE DECEASED PARTNER, WERE CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF
THE UNITED STATES; THAT THE PARTNERSHIP HAD ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY AND HAD NOT AT ANY TIME BEEN A "RESIDENT" IN
ENEMY TERRITORY AND HAD NOT BEEN AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT; THAT ZENTRAL-EINKAUFS
GESELLSCHAFT, M.B.H., A GERMAN CORPORATION DESCRIBED AS Z.E.G., WAS
INDEBTED TO CROSSMAN & SIELCKEN FOR CARGOES PURCHASED BY THE LATTER FOR
Z.E.G. DURING 1915 AND CONSIGNED TO NEUTRAL PORTS WHERE THEY HAD BEEN
SEIZED AND CONDEMNED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT; AND THAT THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN HAD ASSETS OF Z.E.G. WHICH HAD BEEN SEIZED UNDER THE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  THE BILL PRAYED FOR A DECREE ESTABLISHING
THE DEBT CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFFS AND ORDERING ITS PAYMENT TO THEM OUT
OF THE PROPERTY SO HELD.  THE BILL DECLARED THAT IT WAS FILED PURSUANT
TO SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AND THAT THE COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN IT BY VIRTUE OF THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THAT
PROVISION. 

THE DEFENDANTS, THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AND THE TREASURER OF THE
UNITED STATES APPEARED GENERALLY.  THEY MOVED TO DISMISS THE BILL ON
THE GROUNDS (1) THAT IT APPEARED AFFIRMATIVELY THEREFROM THAT NO DEBT
WAS OWING TO THE PLAINTIFFS FROM ANY ENEMY WHOSE PROPERTY HAD BEEN
SEIZED AND WAS THEN HELD, (2) THAT IT APPEARED AFFIRMATIVELY THAT NO
DEBT WAS OWING TO THE PLAINTIFFS BY Z.E.G., AND (3) THAT THE PLAINTIFFS
HAD NOT STATED FACTS SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE THEM TO EQUITABLE RELIEF
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  THE DEFENDANTS ALSO ANSWERED DENYING
KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE AVERMENTS OF THE BILL WHICH SET FORTH THE
CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND SIELCKEN AND THE LOCUS
OF THE PARTNERSHIP, AND THOSE CONCERNING THE TRANSACTIONS SAID TO HAVE
GIVEN RISE TO THE DEBT.  AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT
THERE WERE PRIOR CLAIMS TO THE SEIZED PROPERTY OF Z.E.G. THE LATTER
BEING JOINED AS DEFENDANT ALSO ANSWERED PUTTING IN ISSUE ALLEGATIONS
RELATING TO THE CLAIM AND SETTING UP VARIOUS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.  ONE
OF THESE ASSERTED THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE TITLE TO THE CAUSE OF
ACTION, SINCE THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE SEIZED
THE ASSETS OF CROSSMAN & SIELCKEN AS AN ENEMY FIRM BECAUSE SIELCKEN
RESIDED IN GERMANY AND BECAME AN ENEMY.  OTHER DEFENSES OF Z.E.G.
AVERRED THAT THE PARTNERSHIP OF CROSSMAN & SIELCKEN HAD BEEN DISSOLVED
THROUGH THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR, AND THAT THE CLAIM THEREUPON HAD
PASSED TO SIELCKEN AND UPON HIS DEATH TO HIS GERMAN EXECUTORS WHO HAD
ENTERED INTO AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WITH Z.E.G., AND THAT THE
ARBITRATORS HAD FOUND NO LIABILITY ON ITS PART. 

ON THE TRIAL, AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE ON BOTH SIDES, DEFENDANTS
MOVED TO DISMISS UPON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFFS HAD FAILED TO PROVE
THEIR CASE.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTIONS AND HELD THAT THE
PARTNERSHIP HAD NOT BEEN DISSOLVED BY THE OUTBREAK OF THE WAR AND THAT
Z.E.G. WAS INDEBTED AS CLAIMED; THAT THE EXECUTORS OF SIELCKEN IN
GERMANY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF A PARTNERSHIP ASSET WHICH HAD
COME INTO EXISTENCE LONG PRIOR TO OUR ENTERING THE WAR; AND THAT
PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO A DECREE FOR THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR.  DECREE
WAS ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 

WHILE THE PRESENT MOTION TO VACATE THE DECREE WAS UPON THE SOLE
GROUND THAT THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENTER IT, THERE WAS SOME
ATTEMPT IN THE AFFIDAVITS ON THE MOTION TO SHOW THAT THE DECREE WAS
COLLUSIVE.  BUT, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED, THERE WAS NO
BILL OF REVIEW PRESENTING SUCH A QUESTION AND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR
SETTING ASIDE A DECREE UPON THAT GROUND MERELY UPON AFFIDAVITS.  THE
GOVERNMENT EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY CHALLENGE TO THAT RULING.  AS TO THE
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT UPON THE TRIAL OF THE SUIT WAS OBLIGED TO RESOLVE
DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT AND THAT ITS DECISION THAT THE
JURISDICTIONAL FACTS WERE ESTABLISHED COULD NOT BE ATTACKED
COLLATERALLY.  STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165; CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE
DISTRICT V. BAXTER STATE BANK, 308 U.S. 371. 

PETITIONER THUS STATES THE QUESTION UPON WHICH REVIEW IS ASKED IN
THIS COURT:  "WHETHER AN UNAPPEALED JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ALIEN PROPERTY
CUSTODIAN UNDER SECTION 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, ON A
CLAIM TO RECOVER FOR A DEBT, MAY BE SET ASIDE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
ON THE GROUND THAT THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE CLAIM SUED ON WAS AN
'ENEMY,' AS DEFINED BY THAT ACT." 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS VOID SINCE IT WAS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT AND THUS THE SUIT WAS A
SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAD NOT
CONSENTED AND OVER WHICH, THEREFORE, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO
JURISDICTION. 

WE HOLD THE ARGUMENT UNTENABLE.  THERE IS NO QUESTION HERE OF THE
SORT PRESENTED IN UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY
CO., 309 U.S. 506, OF WANT OF CONSENT TO BE SUED OR OF AN ATTEMPT ON
THE PART OF OFFICIALS TO WAIVE THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.  THE UNITED
STATES HAD EXPRESSLY CONSENTED IN SEC. 9(A) OF THE TRADING WITH THE
ENEMY ACT THAT SUITS MIGHT BE BROUGHT BY A NON-ENEMY CLAIMANT TO HAVE
HIS CLAIM AGAINST AN ENEMY DEBTOR SATISFIED OUT OF THE LATTER'S
PROPERTY HELD BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN.  THE PERTINENT PARTS OF
THE SECTION ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN2 

THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY
FN3  "CLAIMING" ANY INTEREST OR RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY SEIZED OR TO WHOM
ANY DEBT MAY BE OWING BY THE ALIEN ENEMY MAY SUE THE CUSTODIAN AND
TREASURER.  HE MAY SUE "TO ESTABLISH THE INTEREST, RIGHT, TITLE, OR
DEBT SO CLAIMED."  THE COURT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER HIS CLAIM IS
ESTABLISHED.  IF THE CLAIM IS "SO ESTABLISHED," THE COURT IS TO ORDER
THE DELIVERY OF PROPERTY OR PAYMENT "TO WHICH THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE
SAID CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED."  NOTHING COULD BE CLEARER THAN THAT IN A
SUIT SO BROUGHT THE COURT IS TO DETERMINE EVERY ISSUE NECESSARY TO THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CLAIM. 

THE SUIT IN QUESTION WAS PRECISELY WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  IT
WAS A SUIT BY PLAINTIFFS SORENSON AND NIELSEN AS SURVIVING PARTNERS, IN
WHICH THEY ALLEGED THEIR CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
(AND THIS DOES NOT NOW APPEAR TO BE QUESTIONED), TO RECOVER A DEBT
CLAIMED TO BE OWING TO THE FIRM BY AN ENEMY CORPORATION.  THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE IN EVERY RESPECT.  IT SET FORTH THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM, THEIR
NON-ENEMY STATUS, THE TRANSACTIONS OUT OF WHICH THEIR CLAIM AROSE, AND
THAT THEY HAD GIVEN NOTICE OF THE CLAIM AS THE STATUTE REQUIRED.  THE
DENIALS OF THE ANSWERS AND THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PRESENTED ISSUES
WHICH THE COURT WAS COMPETENT TO TRY.  ALL THESE ISSUES WERE
NECESSARILY BEFORE THE COURT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS STATUTORY DUTY
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS HAD ESTABLISHED THEIR CLAIM TO THE
DEBT.  THUS, THE STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFFS, OF THE PARTNERSHIP, AND OF
SIELCKEN, THE DECEASED PARTNER, THE EFFECT OF HIS DEATH, HIS INTEREST
IN THE ASSETS UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, THE NATURE OF THE
TRANSACTIONS WITH Z.E.G., WHETHER IT WAS INDEBTED TO THE FIRM AND
WHETHER THE SURVIVING PARTNERS WERE ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE DEBT, THAT
IS, EVERY ISSUE WHICH COULD BE LITIGATED IN THE SUIT WAS BY THE VERY
TERMS OF THE ACT SUBMITTED TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SAYS THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL POINT WAS NOT CONTESTED OR
ADJUDICATED AT THE TRIAL.  THAT, WHILE THE DEFENDANTS CLAIMED THAT
SIELCKEN WAS A RESIDENT OF GERMANY AT THE TIME OF THE WAR, THAT HE
OWNED ALL THE CAPITAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP, AND THAT UPON HIS DEATH IT
WAS THE DUTY OF THE SURVIVING PARTNERS TO PAY OVER TO HIS EXECUTOR THE
CAPITAL, PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OF THE FIRM, IT WAS NOT SUGGESTED THAT
THESE FACTS RAISED THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.  PETITIONER URGES THAT THE
DISTRICT JUDGE HELD THAT WHILE SIELCKEN MAY HAVE BEEN AN 'ENEMY' AS
DEFINED IN THE ACT, 'HE DID NOT BECOME AN ENEMY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE DISSOLUTION DOCTRINE, AT LEAST SO FAR AS TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING
PRIOR TO THE WAR WERE CONCERNED.'  AND TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT,
PETITIONER RELIES UPON A COLLOQUY BETWEEN THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND
COUNSEL IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL.  RESPONDENT REJOINS THAT IN THE
SAME COLLOQUY THE DISTRICT JUDGE OBSERVED THAT 'THE PARTNERSHIP
AGREEMENT WAS BETWEEN AMERICAN CITIZENS' AND THAT IT DID NOT FOLLOW
FROM THE WAR AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT THAT
SIELCKEN WAS 'AN ALIEN ENEMY IN THE SENSE THAT A NATIONAL OF THE
COUNTRY WITH WHICH WE ARE AT WAR IS AN ALIEN ENEMY.'  AND THE DISTRICT
JUDGE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION 'HAD
BECOME FIXED PRIOR TO THE WAR' AND THAT IT WAS NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE
WAR THAT THE PARTNERSHIP WAS SO FAR DISSOLVED 'AS TO CHANGE THE RIGHTS
WITH RESPECT TO THAT PROPERTY.'  FROM ANY POINT OF VIEW, THE COLLOQUY
AFFORDS NO ADEQUATE BASIS FOR PETITIONER'S CONTENTION.  WE AGREE WITH
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT WHEN THE DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT WAS
ASKED BY COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT SIELCKEN WAS AN
ENEMY UNDER THE ACT, THE ISSUES THUS RAISED WERE THE SAME AS THOSE
WHICH PERTAINED TO THE SOCALLED 'JURISDICTIONAL' QUESTION OF RIGHT TO
SUE UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.   BY THE PROVISIONS OF THAT
ACT THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT ATTACHED WHEN THE SUIT WAS
BROUGHT UPON THE CLAIM WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS AS NON-ENEMY CLAIMANTS SET
FORTH.  HOWEVER THE ISSUES WERE LABELED THE COURT WAS AUTHORIZED TO
DETERMINE THEM.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO.,
270 U.S. 266, 274; STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, SUPRA, P. 171.  AND WHETHER A
PARTICULAR ISSUE WAS ACTUALLY LITIGATED IS IMMATERIAL IN VIEW OF THE
NECESSARY CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS FULL OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE IT AND
THAT IT WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE DECREE.  CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, 94
U.S. 351, 352; GRUBB V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 281 U.S. 470, 479;
CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER STATE BANK, SUPRA; SUNSHINE
ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381, 403.  IF THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD ERRED IN DEALING, OR IN FAILING TO DEAL, WITH ANY ISSUE THUS
INVOLVED, THE REMEDY WAS BY APPEAL AND NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  40 STAT. 411, 419, AS AMENDED, 42 STAT. 1511. 

FN2  "SEC.  9(A).  ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY CLAIMING
ANY INTEREST, RIGHT, OR TITLE IN ANY MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY WHICH MAY
HAVE BEEN CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, DELIVERED, OR PAID TO THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR SEIZED BY HIM HEREUNDER AND HELD BY HIM OR
BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO WHOM ANY DEBT MAY BE OWING
FROM AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF ENEMY WHOSE PROPERTY OR ANY PART THEREOF SHALL
HAVE BEEN CONVEYED, TRANSFERRED, ASSIGNED, DELIVERED, OR PAID TO THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR SEIZED BY HIM HEREUNDER AND HELD BY HIM OR
BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY FILE WITH THE SAID CUSTODIAN
A NOTICE OF HIS CLAIM UNDER OATH AND IN SUCH FORM AND CONTAINING SUCH
PARTICULARS AS THE SAID CUSTODIAN SHALL REQUIRE; AND THE PRESIDENT, IF
APPLICATION IS MADE THEREFOR BY THE CLAIMANT, MAY ORDER THE PAYMENT,
CONVEYANCE, TRANSFER, ASSIGNMENT, OR DELIVERY TO SAID CLAIMANT OF THE
MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY SO HELD BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR BY
THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF THE INTEREST THEREIN TO WHICH
THE PRESIDENT SHALL DETERMINE SAID CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED:  PROVIDED,
THAT NO SUCH ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT SHALL BAR ANY PERSON FROM THE
PROSECUTION OF ANY SUIT AT LAW OR IN EQUITY AGAINST THE CLAIMANT TO
ESTABLISH ANY RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST WHICH HE MAY HAVE IN SUCH MONEY
OR OTHER PROPERTY.  IF THE PRESIDENT SHALL NOT SO ORDER WITHIN SIXTY
DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF SUCH APPLICATION OR IF THE CLAIMANT SHALL HAVE
FILED THE NOTICE AS ABOVE REQUIRED AND SHALL HAVE MADE NO APPLICATION
TO THE PRESIDENT, SAID CLAIMANT MAY INSTITUTE A SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH CLAIMANT RESIDES, OR,
IF A CORPORATION, WHERE IT HAS ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS (TO
WHICH SUIT THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED
STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE MADE A PARTY DEFENDANT), TO
ESTABLISH THE INTEREST, RIGHT, TITLE, OR DEBT SO CLAIMED, AND IF SO
ESTABLISHED THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PAYMENT, CONVEYANCE, TRANSFER,
ASSIGNMENT, OR DELIVERY TO SAID CLAIMANT OF THE MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY
SO HELD BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR BY THE TREASURER OF THE
UNITED STATES OR THE INTEREST THEREIN TO WHICH THE COURT SHALL
DETERMINE SAID CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED.  ...  " 

FN3  SECTION 2 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 2.  THE WORD 'ENEMY,' AS USED HEREIN, SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN,
FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUCH TRADING AND OF THIS ACT - 

"(A)  ANY INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, OR OTHER BODY OF INDIVIDUALS, OF
ANY NATIONALITY, RESIDENT WITHIN THE TERRITORY (INCLUDING THAT OCCUPIED
BY THE MILITARY AND NAVAL FORCES) OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS AT WAR, OR RESIDENT OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY, AND ANY CORPORATION INCORPORATED WITHIN
SUCH TERRITORY OF ANY NATION WITH WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AT WAR OR
INCORPORATED WITHIN ANY COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES AND DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY." 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :

















HELVERING V. HAMMEL, 311 U.S. 504 


NO. 49.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - 108
F.2D 753, REVERSED. 


1.  A LOSS SUSTAINED BY AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER UPON THE FORECLOSURE
SALE OF AN INTEREST IN REAL ESTATE WHICH HE HAD ACQUIRED FOR PROFIT,
HELD, IN COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934,
DEDUCTIBLE ONLY TO THE LIMITED EXTENT ALLOWED BY SECS. 23(J) AND 117(D)
FOR LOSSES FROM "SALES" OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS, AND NOT IN FULL
UNDER SEC. 23(E)(2).  PP. 505, 510. 

2.  THE LANGUAGE, THE PURPOSE, AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 RELATING TO CAPITAL GAINS AND
LOSSES SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT NO DISTINCTION WAS INTENDED BETWEEN LOSSES
FROM FORCED SALES AND LOSSES FROM VOLUNTARY SALES OF CAPITAL ASSETS. 
P. 510. 

3.  COURTS ARE NOT FREE TO REJECT THE LITERAL OR USUAL MEANING OF THE
WORDS OF A STATUTE, WHEN ADOPTION OF THAT MEANING WILL NOT LEAD TO
ABSURD RESULTS NOR THWART THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE.  P. 510. 

4.  IN THIS CASE, THE FORECLOSURE SALE, AND NOT THE DECREE OF
FORECLOSURE, WAS THE DEFINITIVE EVENT WHICH ESTABLISHED THE LOSS WITHIN
THE MEANING AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE REVENUE ACT.  P. 512. 

5.  THE VIEW THAT THE LOSS IN THIS CASE MAY NOT BE TREATED AS A LOSS
FROM A SALE BECAUSE BY THE STATE LAW THE VENDOR IN A LAND CONTRACT MAY
DECLARE A FORFEITURE UPON DEFAULT, CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED, SINCE IT DOES
NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE CONTRACT IN THIS CASE CONTAINED A
FORFEITURE CLAUSE, NOR THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A FORFEITURE APART FROM
THE FORECLOSURE SALE.  P. 512. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. HAMMEL ET UX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REDETERMINING A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO SAY WHETHER A LOSS SUSTAINED BY AN INDIVIDUAL
TAXPAYER UPON THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF HIS INTEREST IN REAL ESTATE,
ACQUIRED FOR PROFIT, IS A LOSS WHICH, UNDER SEC. 23(E)(2) OF THE 1934
REVENUE ACT, 48 STAT. 680, MAY BE DEDUCTED IN FULL FROM GROSS INCOME
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT TAXABLE INCOME, OR IS A CAPITAL LOSS
DEDUCTIBLE ONLY TO THE LIMITED EXTENT PROVIDED IN SECS. 23(E)(2), (J),
AND 117. 

IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME SEC. 23(E)(2) OF THE 1934
REVENUE ACT PERMITS THE INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER TO DEDUCT LOSSES SUSTAINED
DURING THE YEAR INCURRED IN ANY TRANSACTION FOR PROFIT.  SUBSECTION (J)
PROVIDES THAT "LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS" SHALL
BE ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF $2,000 PLUS GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR
EXCHANGES AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 117(D).  BY SEC. 117(B) IT IS DECLARED
THAT "CAPITAL ASSETS" "MEANS PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER  ...  BUT
DOES NOT INCLUDE STOCK IN TRADE OF THE TAXPAYER  ...  OR PROPERTY HELD
BY THE TAXPAYER PRIMARILY FOR SALE TO CUSTOMERS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE
OF HIS TRADE OR BUSINESS." 

RESPONDENT TAXPAYERS, WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF A SYNDICATE, PURCHASED
"ON LAND CONTRACT" A PLOT OF LAND IN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN, FOR THE
SUM OF $96,000, UPON A DOWN PAYMENT OF $20,000.  THE PRECISE NATURE OF
THE CONTRACT DOES NOT APPEAR BEYOND THE FACT THAT PAYMENTS FOR THE LAND
WERE TO BE MADE IN INSTALLMENTS, AND THE VENDOR RETAINED AN INTEREST IN
THE LAND AS SECURITY FOR PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. 
BEFORE THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS PAID IN FULL THE SYNDICATE DEFAULTED ON
ITS PAYMENTS.  THE VENDOR INSTITUTED FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS BY SUIT IN
EQUITY IN A STATE COURT WHICH RESULTED IN A JUDICIAL SALE OF THE
PROPERTY, THE VENDOR BECOMING THE PURCHASER, AND IN A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE SYNDICATE.  RESPONDENTS'
CONTRIBUTION TO THE PURCHASE MONEY, SOME $4,000, WAS LOST. 

THE COMMISSIONER, IN COMPUTING RESPONDENTS' TAXABLE INCOME FOR 1934,
TREATED THE TAXPAYERS' INTEREST IN THE LAND AS A CAPITAL ASSET AND
ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF THE LOSS FROM GROSS INCOME ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF
$2,000 AS PROVIDED BY SECS. 23(J) AND 117(D), IN THE CASE OF LOSSES
FROM SALES OF CAPITAL ASSETS.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS RULED THAT THE
LOSS WAS DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED,
108 F.2D 753, HOLDING THAT THE LOSS ESTABLISHED BY THE FORECLOSURE SALE
WAS NOT A LOSS FROM A "SALE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(J).  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 619, TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT OF THE DECISION
BELOW WITH THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN
COMMISSIONER V. ELECTRO-CHEMICAL ENGRAVING CO., 110 F.2D 614. 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT IT WAS THE FORECLOSURE SALE OF RESPONDENTS'
INTEREST IN THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE SYNDICATE FOR PROFIT, WHICH
FINALLY LIQUIDATED THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT MADE BY ITS MEMBERS AND FIXED
THE PRECISE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS WHICH RESPONDENTS SEEK TO DEDUCT AS SUCH
FROM GROSS INCOME.  BUT THEY ARGUE THAT THE "LOSSES FROM SALES" WHICH
BY SEC. 23(J) ARE MADE DEDUCTIBLE ONLY TO THE LIMITED EXTENT PROVIDED
BY SEC. 117(D) ARE THOSE LOSSES RESULTING FROM SALES VOLUNTARILY MADE
BY THE TAXPAYER, AND THAT LOSSES RESULTING FROM FORCED SALES LIKE THE
PRESENT NOT BEING SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 117(D) ARE
DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL LIKE OTHER LOSSES UNDER SEC. 23(E)(2). 

TO READ THIS QUALIFICATION INTO THE STATUTE RESPONDENTS RELY ON
JUDICIAL DECISIONS APPLYING THE FAMILIAR RULE THAT A RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT AGAINST SALE OR ASSIGNMENT REFERS TO THE VOLUNTARY ACTION OF
THE COVENANTOR AND NOT TO TRANSFERS BY OPERATION OF LAW OR JUDICIAL
SALES IN INVITUM.  SEE GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. GREEN COVE & M.R. CO., 139
U.S. 137; GAZLAY V. WILLIAMS, 210 U.S. 41; RIGGS V. PURSELL, 66 N.Y.
193.  BUT HERE WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OF THE
TAXPAYER, BUT WITH A SALE AS AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ESTABLISHING A
DEDUCTIBLE LOSS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING HIS INCOME TAX.  THE TERM
SALE MAY HAVE MANY MEANINGS, DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT, SEE WEBSTER'S
NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY.  THE MEANING HERE DEPENDS ON THE PURPOSE
WITH WHICH IT IS USED IN THE STATUTE AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
THAT USE.  HENCE THE RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING IN
THE 1934 ACT FOR A SPECIAL TREATMENT OF GAINS OR LOSSES FROM CAPITAL
ASSETS WAS TO PREVENT TAX AVOIDANCE BY DEPRIVING THE TAXPAYER OF THE
OPTION ALLOWED TO HIM BY THE EARLIER ACTS, TO EFFECT LOSSES DEDUCTIBLE
IN FULL BY SALES OF PROPERTY AT ANY TIME WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER IT WAS
ACQUIRED, WHICH UNTIL HELD FOR THAT PERIOD WAS NOT DEFINED AS A CAPITAL
ASSET, SEC. 208 REVENUE ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 253; SEC. 208 REVENUE ACT
OF 1926, 44 STAT. 19, AND SEC. 101 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT.
811. 

IT IS SAID THAT SINCE LOSSES FROM FORECLOSURE SALES NOT WITHIN THE
CONTROL OF THE TAXPAYER ARE NOT WITHIN THE EVIL AIMED AT BY THE 1934
ACT, THEY MUST BE DEEMED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE REACH OF ITS
LANGUAGE.  TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION RESPONDENTS RELY ON THE REPORT OF
THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE SUBMITTING TO THE HOUSE THE BILL WHICH,
WITH AMENDMENTS NOT NOW MATERIAL, BECAME THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934.  THE
COMMITTEE IN POINTING OUT A "DEFECT" OF THE EXISTING LAW SAID:
"TAXPAYERS TAKE THEIR LOSSES WITHIN THE TWO YEAR PERIOD AND GET FULL
BENEFIT THEREFROM AND DELAY TAKING GAINS UNTIL THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD HAS
EXPIRED, THEREBY REDUCING THEIR TAXES."  H. REPT. 704, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., PP. 9 AND 10. 

BUT THE TREATMENT OF GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES OF CAPITAL ASSETS ON
A DIFFERENT BASIS FROM ORDINARY GAINS AND LOSSES WAS NOT INTRODUCED
INTO THE REVENUE LAWS BY THE 1934 ACT.  THAT HAD BEEN A FEATURE OF
EVERY REVENUE LAW BEGINNING WITH THE ACT OF 1921, 42 STAT. 227, AND
EACH HAD DEFINED AS CAPITAL LOSSES "LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
CAPITAL ASSETS."  THE 1934 ACT MADE NO CHANGE IN THIS RESPECT BUT FOR
THE FIRST TIME IT PROVIDED THAT "CAPITAL ASSETS" SHOULD INCLUDE ALL
PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE TAXPAYER FOR PROFIT REGARDLESS OF THE LENGTH
OF TIME HELD BY HIM AND THAT CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES OF
CAPITAL ASSETS SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE
INCOME ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OF TIME THE CAPITAL ASSETS ARE HELD BY
THE TAXPAYER, VARYING FROM 100% IF THE CAPITAL ASSET IS HELD FOR NOT
MORE THAN A YEAR TO 30% IF IT IS HELD MORE THAN TEN YEARS.  SEC.
117(A).  FINALLY, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE STATUTE PROVIDED THAT CAPITAL
LOSSES IN EXCESS OF CAPITAL GAINS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM ORDINARY
INCOME ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF $2,000.  THUS BY TREATING ALL PROPERTY
ACQUIRED BY THE TAXPAYER FOR PROFIT AS CAPITAL ASSETS AND LIMITING THE
DEDUCTION OF CAPITAL LOSSES IN THE MANNER INDICATED, THE ACT MATERIALLY
CURTAILED THE ADVANTAGES WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ABLE TO
GAIN BY CHOOSING THE TIME OF SELLING HIS PROPERTY. 

THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL LOSSES AS LOSSES FROM "SALES" OF CAPITAL
ASSETS, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, WAS NOT NEW.  AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR,
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS DEFINITION SHOWS THAT IT WAS NOT CHOSEN
TO EXCLUDE FROM THE CAPITAL ASSETS PROVISIONS LOSSES RESULTING FROM
FORCED SALES OF TAXPAYERS' PROPERTY.  AND, IF SO CONSTRUED, SUBSTANTIAL
LOSS OF REVENUE WOULD RESULT UNDER THE 1934 ACT, WHOSE PURPOSE WAS TO
AVOID LOSS OF REVENUE BY THE APPLICATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS
PROVISIONS.  IN DRAFTING THE 1934 ACT THE COMMITTEE HAD BEFORE IT
PROPOSALS FOR STABILIZING THE REVENUE BY THE ADOPTION OF THE BRITISH
SYSTEM UNDER WHICH NEITHER CAPITAL GAINS NOR LOSSES ENTER INTO THE
COMPUTATION OF THE TAX.  IN DECLINING TO FOLLOW THIS SYSTEM IN ITS
ENTIRETY THE COMMITTEE SAID:  "IT IS DEEMED WISER TO ATTEMPT A STEP IN
THIS DIRECTION WITHOUT LETTING CAPITAL GAINS GO ENTIRELY UNTAXED."  IT
ACCORDINGLY REDUCED THE TAX BURDEN ON CAPITAL GAINS PROGRESSIVELY WITH
THE INCREASE OF THE PERIOD UP TO TEN YEARS, DURING WHICH THE TAXPAYER
HOLDS THE CAPITAL ASSET, AND PERMITTED THE DEDUCTION, ON THE SAME
SCALE, OF CAPITAL LOSSES, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE TAXABLE
CAPITAL GAINS, PLUS $2,000.  IN THUS RELIEVING CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE
TAX IMPOSED ON OTHER TYPES OF INCOME, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED, IN THE
ABSENCE OF SOME CLEAR INDICATION TO THE CONTRARY, THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO PERMIT DEDUCTIONS IN FULL OF LOSSES RESULTING FROM FORCED
SALES OF THE TAXPAYERS' PROPERTY, FROM EITHER CAPITAL GAINS OR ORDINARY
GROSS INCOME, WHILE TAXING ONLY A FRACTION OF THE GAINS RESULTING FROM
THE SALES OF SUCH PROPERTY.  SEE WHITE V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 281,
292; HELVERING V. INTER-MOUNTAIN LIFE INS. CO., 294 U.S. 686, 689,
690. 

THE TAXATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AFTER DEDUCTION OF CAPITAL LOSSES ON A
MORE FAVORABLE BASIS THAN OTHER INCOME, WAS PROVIDED FOR BY SEC. 206 OF
THE 1921 REVENUE ACT, AS THE MEANS OF ENCOURAGING PROFIT-TAKING SALES
OF CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, H. REPT. NO. 350, 67TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 8. 
BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 106.  IN THIS SECTION, AS IN LATER
ACTS, CAPITAL NET GAIN WAS DEFINED AS "THE EXCESS OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL
GAIN OVER THE SUM OF CAPITAL DEDUCTIONS AND CAPITAL LOSSES"; CAPITAL
LOSSES BEING DEFINED AS THE LOSS RESULTING FROM THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF
CAPITAL ASSETS.  IN SUBMITTING THE PROPOSED REVENUE ACT OF 1924, THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE POINTED OUT THAT THE 1921 ACT CONTAINED NO PROVISION
FOR LIMITING DEDUCTION OF CAPITAL LOSSES WHERE THEY EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT
OF CAPITAL GAINS.  H. REPT. NO. 179, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 14. 
THIS WAS REMEDIED BY PROVIDING IN SEC. 208(C) THAT THE AMOUNT BY WHICH
THE TAX IS REDUCED ON ACCOUNT OF A CAPITAL LOSS SHALL NOT EXCEED 12
1/2% OF THE CAPITAL LOSS.  IN COMMENTING ON THIS PROVISION THE
COMMITTEE SAID, P. 20: "IF THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE TAX IS TO BE
INCREASED ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS IS LIMITED TO 12 1/2% OF THE
CAPITAL GAIN IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY THAT THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE TAX IS
REDUCED ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL LOSSES SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE 12 1/2% OF
THE LOSS."  THIS PROVISION WAS CONTINUED WITHOUT CHANGES NOW MATERIAL
UNTIL THE 1934 ACT.  SEC. 208(C) IN THE 1924 AND 1926 ACTS; SEC. 101(B)
IN THE 1928 AND 1932 ACTS, 47 STAT. 191. 

CONGRESS THUS HAS GIVEN CLEAR INDICATION OF A PURPOSE TO OFFSET
CAPITAL GAINS BY LOSSES FROM THE SALE OF LIKE PROPERTY AND UPON THE
SAME PERCENTAGE BASIS AS THAT ON WHICH THE GAINS ARE TAXED.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. PLEASANTS, 305 U.S. 357, 360.  THIS PURPOSE TO TREAT GAINS
AND DEDUCTIBLE LOSSES ON A PARITY BUT WITH A FURTHER SPECIFIC PROVISION
PROVIDED BY SEC. 117(D) OF THE 1934 ACT, PERMITTING SPECIFIED
PERCENTAGES OF CAPITAL LOSSES TO BE DEDUCTED FROM ORDINARY INCOME TO
THE EXTENT OF $2,000, WOULD BE DEFEATED IN A MOST SUBSTANTIAL WAY IF
ONLY A PERCENTAGE OF THE GAINS WERE TAXED BUT LOSSES ON SALES OF LIKE
PROPERTY COULD BE DEDUCTED IN FULL FROM GROSS INCOME.  THIS TREATMENT
OF LOSSES FROM SALES OF CAPITAL ASSETS IN THE 1924 AND LATER ACTS AND
THE REASON GIVEN FOR ADOPTING IT AFFORD CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE
"SALES" REFERRED TO IN THE STATUTE INCLUDE FORCED SALES SUCH AS HAVE
SUFFICED, UNDER LONG ACCEPTED INCOME TAX PRACTICE, TO ESTABLISH A
DEDUCTIBLE LOSS IN THE CASE OF NON-CAPITAL ASSETS.  SUCH SALES CAN
EQUALLY BE TAKEN TO ESTABLISH THE LOSS IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS
WITHOUT INFRINGING THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE STATUTE TO TREAT CAPITAL
GAINS AND LOSSES ON A PARITY. 

WE CAN FIND NO BASIS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, ITS PURPOSE OR ITS
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, FOR SAYING THAT LOSSES FROM SALES OF CAPITAL
ASSETS UNDER THE 1934 ACT, MORE THAN ITS PREDECESSORS, WERE TO BE
TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY WHETHER THEY RESULTED FROM FORCED SALES OR
VOLUNTARY SALES.  TRUE, COURTS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE HAVE
SOME SCOPE FOR ADOPTING A RESTRICTED RATHER THAN A LITERAL OR USUAL
MEANING OF ITS WORDS WHERE ACCEPTANCE OF THAT MEANING WOULD LEAD TO
ABSURD RESULTS, UNITED STATES V. KATZ, 271 U.S. 354, 362, OR WOULD
THWART THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE, HAGGAR CO. V. HELVERING, 308
U.S. 389.  BUT COURTS ARE NOT FREE TO REJECT THAT MEANING WHERE NO SUCH
CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW AND WHERE, AS HERE, IT APPEARS TO BE CONSONANT WITH
THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT AS DECLARED BY CONGRESS AND PLAINLY DISCLOSED
BY ITS STRUCTURE. 

IT IS NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE THAT CONGRESS, IN THE 1934 ACT,
ENLARGED THE SCOPE OF ITS PROVISIONS RELATING TO LOSSES FROM SALES OF
CAPITAL ASSETS BY INCLUDING WITHIN THEM LOSSES UPON THE DISPOSITION OF
THE TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY BY METHODS OTHER THAN SALE AND WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THE VOLUNTARY ACTION OF THE TAXPAYER.  IT THUS TREATS AS
LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES THE LOSS SUSTAINED FROM REDEMPTION OF
STOCK, SEC. 115(C), RETIREMENT OF BONDS, SEC. 117(F), LOSSES FROM SHORT
SALES, SEC. 117(E)(1), AND LOSS SUSTAINED BY FAILURE OF THE HOLDER OF
AN OPTION TO EXERCISE IT, SEC. 117(E)(2), ALTHOUGH NONE OF THESE
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVES A LOSS FROM A SALE.  SEE MCCLAIN V. COMMISSIONER,
POST, P. 527.    THE SCOPE OF THE CAPITAL LOSS PROVISIONS WAS STILL
FURTHER ENLARGED BY SEC. 23(K)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT.
447, WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF SECURITIES, WHICH ARE CAPITAL ASSETS, ARE
ASCERTAINED TO BE WORTHLESS AND ARE CHARGED OFF WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR
THE LOSS, WITH AN EXCEPTION NOT NOW MATERIAL, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A
LOSS ARISING FROM A SALE OR EXCHANGE.  THESE PROVISIONS DISCLOSE A
CONSISTENT LEGISLATIVE POLICY TO ENLARGE THE CLASS OF DEDUCTIBLE LOSSES
MADE SUBJECT TO THE CAPITAL ASSETS PROVISIONS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
VOLUNTARY ACTION OF THE TAXPAYER IN PRODUCING THEM.  WE COULD HARDLY
SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS WOULD NOT HAVE MADE PROVISION FOR THE LIKE
TREATMENT OF LOSSES RESULTING FROM A FORCED SALE OF THE TAXPAYER'S
PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR PROFIT EITHER IN THE 1934 OR 1938 ACT, IF IT HAD
THOUGHT THAT THE TERM "SALES OR EXCHANGES" AS USED IN BOTH ACTS DID NOT
INCLUDE SUCH SALES OF THE TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY. 

RESPONDENTS ALSO ADVANCE THE ARGUMENT, SUSTAINED IN COMMISSIONER V.
FREIHOFER, 102 F.2D 787, THAT THE DEFINITIVE EVENT FIXING RESPONDENTS'
LOSS WAS NOT THE FORECLOSURE SALE BUT THE DECREE OF FORECLOSURE WHICH
ORDERED THE SALE AND PRECEDED IT.  BUT SINCE THE FORECLOSURE
CONTEMPLATED BY THE DECREE WAS FORECLOSURE BY SALE AND THE FORECLOSED
PROPERTY HAD VALUE WHICH WAS CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED BY THE SALE FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE SALE WAS THE DEFINITIVE
EVENT ESTABLISHING THE LOSS WITHIN THE MEANING AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THE REVENUE LAWS.  THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR APPLICATION TO THE PRACTICAL
AFFAIRS OF MEN.  THE SALE, WHICH FINALLY CUTS OFF THE INTEREST OF THE
MORTGAGOR AND IS THE MEANS FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM, IS A MEANS ADOPTED BY THE STATUTE FOR DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF HIS CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OF THE MORTGAGED
PROPERTY. 

THE COURT BELOW ALSO THOUGHT THAT THE LOSS SUFFERED BY RESPONDENTS
COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A LOSS FROM A SALE SINCE BY THE LAW OF MICHIGAN
THE VENDOR UPON A LAND-CONTRACT CONTAINING THE USUAL FORFEITURE CLAUSE
HAD THE RIGHT TO DEPRIVE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR JOINT ADVENTURERS OF ALL
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BY A DECLARATION OF FORFEITURE, AND THAT THE
ONLY ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGE OF FORECLOSURE WAS TO OBTAIN A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE LAND
CONTRACT IN THIS CASE CONTAINED A FORFEITURE CLAUSE.  EVEN IF IT DID,
IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A FORFEITURE APART FROM THE
SALE ON FORECLOSURE.  CF. DAVIDSON V. COMMISSIONER, 305 U.S. 44, 46;
HELVERING V. MIDLAND INSURANCE CO., 300 U.S. 216, 224; UNITED STATES V.
PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156, 172.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, 108 F.2D 753. 
..END :
























ELECTRO-CHEMICAL CO. V. COMM'R, 311 U.S. 513 


NO. 62.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - 110
F.2D 614, AFFIRMED. 


A LOSS SUSTAINED BY A CORPORATION UPON FORECLOSURE SALE OF ITS
MORTGAGED PROPERTY, HELD, IN COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1934, DEDUCTIBLE ONLY TO THE LIMITED EXTENT ALLOWED BY SECS.
23(J) AND 117(D) FOR LOSSES FROM "SALES" OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL
ASSETS.  HELVERING V. HAMMEL, ANTE, P. 504, FOLLOWED.  P. 514. 

ELECTRO-CHEMICAL ENGRAVING CO., INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 622, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REDETERMINING A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO HELVERING V. HAMMEL, ANTE, P. 504. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE LOSS SUFFERED BY PETITIONER ON
FORECLOSURE SALE OF HIS MORTGAGED PROPERTY, ACQUIRED FOR PROFIT, MAY BE
DEDUCTED IN FULL FROM GROSS INCOME OR ONLY TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY
SEC. 117(D) OF THE 1934 REVENUE ACT.  THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
ARE THOSE OF THE 1934 ACT RELATING TO CAPITAL GAINS OR LOSSES,
PARTICULARLY "LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS"
CONSIDERED IN THE HAMMEL CASE WHICH ARE MADE APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER,
A CORPORATION, BY SEC. 23(F)(J). 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS RULED THAT PETITIONER'S LOSS WAS DEDUCTIBLE
IN FULL FROM ITS ORDINARY INCOME.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT REVERSED THE BOARD, 110 F.2D 614, HOLDING THAT THE LOSS
SUSTAINED BY PETITIONER WAS A LOSS FROM A SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS, SEC.
23(J), WHICH UNDER SEC. 117(D) COULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS INCOME
ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF CAPITAL GAINS, PLUS $2,000.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 622, SO THAT THE CASE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED WITH THE
CONFLICTING DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN
THE HAMMEL CASE, 108 F.2D 753.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINION
IN THE HAMMEL CASE WE THINK THAT THIS CASE WAS RIGHTLY DECIDED BELOW. 
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENTS. 
..END :






H.J. HEINZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 514 


NO. 73.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 18, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  -
110 F.2D 843, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE QUESTION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF AN EMPLOYER, UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, FOR UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES OF
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES IS NOT ONE OF LEGAL LIABILITY ON PRINCIPLES OF
AGENCY OR RESPONDENT SUPERIOR, BUT ONLY WHETHER THE ACT CONDEMNS SUCH
ACTIVITIES AS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES SO FAR AS THE EMPLOYER MAY GAIN
FROM THEM IN THE BARGAINING PROCESS ANY ADVANTAGE OF A KIND WHICH THE
ACT PROSCRIBES.  TO THAT EXTENT THE EMPLOYER IS AMENABLE TO THE BOARD'S
AUTHORITY TO PREVENT REPETITION OF SUCH ACTIVITIES AND TO REMOVE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THEM UPON THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION. 
PP. 518, 521. 

SO HELD WHERE THE EMPLOYER, WHEN ADVISED OF ACTIVITIES OF SUPERVISORY
EMPLOYEES ENCOURAGING THE FORMATION OF A PLANT UNION, TOOK NO STEP TO
NOTIFY THE EMPLOYEES THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES WERE UNAUTHORIZED, OR TO
CORRECT THEIR IMPRESSION THAT SUPPORT OF A RIVAL LABOR UNION WAS NOT
FAVORED BY THE EMPLOYER AND WOULD RESULT IN REPRISALS.  P. 521. 

2.  WHETHER THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF A LABOR UNION, THE FORMATION
OF WHICH WAS INFLUENCED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, CONSTITUTES AN
OBSTACLE TO THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION, IS A QUESTION OF
FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD FROM ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING
THOSE PRACTICES.  P. 522. 

3.  AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING THE
DISESTABLISHMENT OF A LABOR UNION, THE FORMATION OF WHICH WAS
INFLUENCED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, HELD SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 
P. 522. 

4.  REFUSAL OF AN EMPLOYER, ON REQUEST OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION, TO
SIGN A WRITTEN CONTRACT EMBODYING THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT WHICH HE
HAS REACHED WITH IT CONCERNING WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS, IS
A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY AND AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER
SEC. 8(5) OF THE ACT.  P. 525. 

5.  UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE BOARD
MAY REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER WHO HAS REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR
ORGANIZATION CONCERNING WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS, TO SIGN A
WRITTEN CONTRACT EMBODYING THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.  P. 526. 

H.J. HEINZ COMPANY V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DIRECTING ENFORCEMENT
OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THREE QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN THIS
CASE. 

FIRST.  WHETHER THERE IS SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE FINDING OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN GUILTY OF
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES DEFINED BY SEC. 8(1) AND (2) OF THE ACT,
INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE BY ITS EMPLOYEES OF THEIR RIGHTS OF
SELFORGANIZATION GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, AND MORE PARTICULARLY
INTERFERENCE WITH THE FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION OF A LABOR UNION OF
ITS EMPLOYEES. 

SECOND.  WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD EXCEEDED ITS
AUTHORITY IN ORDERING THE DISESTABLISHMENT OF A LABOR UNION IN WHOSE
ORGANIZATION PETITIONER HAD INTERFERED, AND 

THIRD.  WHETHER THE BOARD COULD VALIDLY FIND THAT PETITIONER'S
REFUSAL TO JOIN WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT ITS EMPLOYEES IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, IN
SIGNING A WRITTEN CONTRACT EMBODYING THE TERMS OF THEIR AGREEMENT
CONCERNING WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS, CONSTITUTED A REFUSAL
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(5) OF THE ACT, AND
WHETHER THE BOARD EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY IN ORDERING PETITIONER TO JOIN
IN SIGNING THE AGREEMENT. 

THIS IS A PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER
DIRECTING PETITIONER TO CEASE CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN WHICH
IT FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD ENGAGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE HEINZ EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, A PLANT LABOR
ORGANIZATION OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES; TO DISESTABLISH THE
ASSOCIATION; TO RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE CANNING AND
PICKLE WORKERS LOCAL, UNION NO. 325, A LABOR ORGANIZATION AFFILIATED
WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR; AND TO SIGN A WRITTEN CONTRACT
EMBODYING ANY AGREEMENT WHICH PETITIONER AND THE UNION MAY REACH
RESPECTING WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD
AND DIRECTED COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER WITHOUT MODIFICATION. 
110 F.2D 843.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 621, THE QUESTIONS
RAISED BY THE PETITION BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT DURING APRIL AND MAY, 1937, THE TWO RIVAL LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, THE ASSOCIATION AND THE UNION, SOUGHT TO ORGANIZE
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES AT ITS PITTSBURGH PLANT.  PETITIONER'S PROPOSAL
THAT AN ELECTION BE HELD TO DETERMINE WHICH ORGANIZATION REPRESENTED A
MAJORITY OF ITS EMPLOYEES WAS REJECTED BY THE UNION WHICH CALLED A
STRIKE ON MAY 24, 1937.  THE STRIKE WAS ULTIMATELY SETTLED BY A WRITTEN
CONTRACT SIGNED BY PETITIONER, THE UNION, AND THE ASSOCIATION, WHICH
PROVIDED FOR AN ELECTION, BY THE EMPLOYEES, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A
REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR THE CHOICE
OF AN ORGANIZATION TO REPRESENT THEM IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 
MEANWHILE, AND BEFORE THE ELECTION, A MAJORITY OF PETITIONER'S TWO
THOUSAND EMPLOYEES AT THE PITTSBURGH PLANT HAD SIGNED PETITIONS FOR
MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION, BUT UPON THE ELECTION HELD JUNE 8, 1937,
A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES CAST THEIR BALLOTS FOR THE UNION. 
PETITIONER HAS SINCE RECOGNIZED AND BARGAINED WITH THE UNION, BUT HAS
REFUSED TO EMBODY ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION IN A WRITTEN CONTRACT. 

BEFORE THE ELECTION THE UNION HAD LODGED A COMPLAINT WITH THE BOARD
CONCERNING THE PARTICIPATION BY PETITIONER IN THE ATTEMPTED
ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSOCIATION BY PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD
FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY
INTERFERING IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSOCIATION, CONTRARY TO THE
ACT.  IT FOUND IN DETAIL THAT PETITIONER, THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT,
FOREMEN AND OTHER SUPERVISING EMPLOYEES, HAD INTERFERED WITH,
RESTRAINED AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS TO
ORGANIZE IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 7, 8(1) OF THE ACT; THAT IT HAD
DOMINATED AND INTERFERED WITH THE FORMATION OF THE ASSOCIATION AND
CONTRIBUTED TO ITS SUPPORT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(2), AND THAT IT
HAD REFUSED TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION.  ON THE BASIS OF THESE
AND SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS WHICH NEED NOT NOW BE STATED, THE BOARD MADE
ITS ORDER, THE TERMS OF WHICH SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
SET FORTH. 

PETITIONER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO MAKE A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING
THE BOARD'S FINDINGS RESPECTING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BOTH BECAUSE THE
COURT BELOW, AFTER A THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD HAS CONFIRMED
THE BOARD'S FINDINGS, AND BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  PETITIONER DOES NOT DENY THAT THERE
IS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS THAT PETITIONER'S SUPERINTENDENT,
DURING THE ORGANIZATION CAMPAIGN, UPBRAIDED EMPLOYEES FOR ATTENDING
UNION MEETINGS, THREATENED ONE WITH DISCHARGE IF HE JOINED THE UNION,
SPOKE TO THEM DISPARAGINGLY OF THE UNION AND DIRECTED SOME OF
PETITIONER'S FOREMEN TO ENROLL THE EMPLOYEES IN THE ASSOCIATION; OR
THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE FINDING THAT A GENERAL FOREMAN
WORKING THROUGHOUT PETITIONER'S PITTSBURGH PLANT WAS ACTIVE IN
DISPARAGING THE UNION AND ITS MEMBERS TO EMPLOYEES, AND IN URGING THEM
TO REPUDIATE THE UNION ORGANIZATION, OR THAT THREE OTHER FOREMEN IN
CHARGE OF PARTICULAR BUILDINGS OR DEPARTMENTS WERE ACTIVE IN DISSUADING
EMPLOYEES FROM JOINING THE UNION.  ALL THREE SPOKE DISPARAGINGLY OF THE
UNION, ONE AT A MEETING OF EMPLOYEES WHICH HE HAD CALLED; AND TWO WERE
ACTIVE IN QUESTIONING EMPLOYEES CONCERNING THEIR LABOR UNION
SYMPATHIES.  TWO OF THEM THREATENED EMPLOYEES WITH DISCHARGE OR LOSS OF
WORK OR PRIVILEGES IF THE UNION WERE RECOGNIZED. 

THERE WAS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT OTHER FOREMEN OR FOREWOMEN IN CHARGE OF
LARGE GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN SIMILAR ACTIVITIES; AND THAT SOME
SOLICITED EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE ASSOCIATION; THAT ONE OF THE THREE
FOREMEN INDUCED AN EMPLOYEE TO SOLICIT SIGNATURES TO THE ASSOCIATION
PETITION DURING WORKING HOURS WITHOUT LOSS OF PAY, AND SUGGESTED THE
NAMES OF OTHER EMPLOYEES TO AID IN THIS WORK.  THERE WAS ALSO EVIDENCE
THAT LEADERS OR SUPERVISORS OF EMPLOYEE GROUPS WERE ALLOWED TO GO ABOUT
THE PLANT FREELY DURING WORKING HOURS AND WITHOUT LOSS OF PAY TO
SOLICIT MEMBERSHIPS IN THE ASSOCIATION WHICH WAS DONE IN THE PRESENCE
OF THE FOREMEN. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT SERIOUSLY DISPUTE THIS EVIDENCE OR CHALLENGE THE
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD SUMMARIZING IT.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THESE SUPERVISORS OF EMPLOYEES ARE NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN
AUTHORIZED OR RATIFIED BY PETITIONER; THAT FOLLOWING A COMPLAINT BY A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION, ABOUT MAY 1ST, ONE OF PETITIONER'S
OFFICERS INSTRUCTED THE SUPERINTENDENT THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAD A RIGHT
TO ORGANIZE AND THAT HE WISHED THE SUPERVISING FORCE TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THEY SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERED WITH IN ANY WAY IN ORGANIZING, AND THAT
ON MAY 21ST THE OFFICER IN QUESTION CALLED A MEETING OF THE SUPERVISORY
FORCE AT WHICH HE GAVE LIKE INSTRUCTIONS; THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF
LIKE ACTIVITIES AFTER THIS TIME AND THAT SINCE THE ELECTION PETITIONER
HAS CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED AND BARGAINED WITH THE UNION.  FROM ALL
THIS PETITIONER CONCLUDES THAT IT IS NOT CHARGEABLE WITH ANY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTS OF ITS SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AND THAT
CONSEQUENTLY THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES ON ITS PART, OR JUSTIFY THE BOARD'S ORDER PROHIBITING
PETITIONER, ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSOCIATION OR CONTRIBUTING TO ITS SUPPORT. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE KNOWLEDGE FROM THE START OF SOME OF PETITIONER'S
OFFICERS, OF THE ORGANIZATION CAMPAIGN, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE UNUSUAL
EXCITEMENT AND ACTIVITY IN PETITIONER'S PLANT ATTENDING IT, WE ASSUME
THAT ALL WERE UNAWARE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF ITS SUPERVISORY STAFF
COMPLAINED OF, AND DID NOTHING TO ENCOURAGE THEM BEFORE THE COMPLAINT
OF THEIR ACTIVITIES MADE BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION ABOUT MAY
1ST.  AT THAT TIME THE CAMPAIGN FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE RIVAL UNIONS WAS
AT ITS HEIGHT AND RESULTED, AS ANNOUNCED SOME THREE OR FOUR WEEKS
LATER, IN A MAJORITY OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES SIGNING AS MEMBERS OF
THE ASSOCIATION. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT PETITIONER'S SUPERINTENDENT AND FOREMEN HAVE
AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND THE EMPLOYMENT AND DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN.  IT IS
IN EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN RECOMMEND WAGE INCREASES AND THAT THE GROUP
LEADERS ALSO ISSUED ORDERS DIRECTING AND CONTROLLING THE EMPLOYEES AND
THEIR WORK, WITH AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND THEIR DISCHARGE.  THERE IS
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT THE EMPLOYEES REGARDED
THE FOREMEN AND THE GROUP LEADERS AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PETITIONER
AND THAT A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES SIGNED AS MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION
ONLY BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF LOSS OF THEIR JOBS OR OF DISCRIMINATION BY
THE EMPLOYER INDUCED BY THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FOREMEN AND GROUP
LEADERS. 

WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT THE BOARD COULD HAVE FOUND THESE ACTIVITIES TO
BE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT IF COUNTENANCED
BY PETITIONER, AND WE THINK THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT PETITIONER MAY SEEK
OR BE IN A POSITION TO SECURE ANY ADVANTAGE FROM THESE PRACTICES THEY
ARE NOT ANY THE LESS WITHIN THE CONDEMNATION OF THE ACT BECAUSE
PETITIONER DID NOT AUTHORIZE OR DIRECT THEM.  IN A LIKE SITUATION WE
HAVE RECENTLY HELD THAT THE EMPLOYER, WHOSE SUPERVISING EMPLOYEES HAD,
WITHOUT HIS AUTHORITY, SO FAR AS APPEARED, SO PARTICIPATED IN THE
ORGANIZATION ACTIVITIES OF HIS EMPLOYEES AS TO PREJUDICE THEIR RIGHTS
OF SELF-ORGANIZATION, COULD NOT RESIST THE BOARD'S ORDER APPROPRIATELY
DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE HIM FROM GAINING ANY ADVANTAGE THROUGH RECOGNIZING
OR BARGAINING WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION RESULTING FROM SUCH
ACTIVITIES.  INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, ANTE, P. 72.  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
LINK-BELT CO., POST, P. 584. 

THE QUESTION IS NOT ONE OF LEGAL LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYER IN DAMAGES
OR FOR PENALTIES ON PRINCIPLES OF AGENCY OR RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, BUT
ONLY WHETHER THE ACT CONDEMNS SUCH ACTIVITIES AS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
SO FAR AS THE EMPLOYER MAY GAIN FROM THEM ANY ADVANTAGE IN THE
BARGAINING PROCESS OF A KIND WHICH THE ACT PROSCRIBES.  TO THAT EXTENT
WE HOLD THAT THE EMPLOYER IS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE BOARD'S ORDER TO
PREVENT ANY REPETITION OF SUCH ACTIVITIES AND TO REMOVE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THEM UPON THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION,
QUITE AS MUCH AS IF HE HAD DIRECTED THEM. 

THIS IS THE MORE SO HERE WHERE PETITIONER, WHEN ADVISED OF THE
PARTICIPATION OF HIS SUPERVISING EMPLOYEES IN THE ORGANIZATION
CAMPAIGN, TOOK NO STEP, SO FAR AS APPEARS, TO NOTIFY THE EMPLOYEES THAT
THOSE ACTIVITIES WERE UNAUTHORIZED, OR TO CORRECT THE IMPRESSION OF THE
EMPLOYEES THAT SUPPORT OF THE UNION WAS NOT FAVORED BY PETITIONER AND
WOULD RESULT IN REPRISALS.  FROM THAT TIME ON THE BOARD COULD HAVE
FOUND THAT PETITIONER WAS AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EFFECT OF THE
ACTIVITIES OF ITS FOREMEN AND GROUP LEADERS UPON THE ORGANIZATION OF
THE ASSOCIATION AS IF IT HAD DIRECTED THEM IN ADVANCE.  THE BOARD COULD
HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THIS EFFECT WAS SUBSTANTIAL, FOR IT WAS IN THE
SUCCEEDING THREE WEEKS THAT MORE THAN ONEHALF OF THE MAJORITY OF
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES WHO JOINED THE ASSOCIATION SIGNED THEIR
PETITIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP.  WE THINK THERE WAS ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE
BOARD'S ORDER PROHIBITING PETITIONER, ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS, FROM
INTERFERING WITH THE EXERCISE OF ITS EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS OF
SELFORGANIZATION OR WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSOCIATION OR
CONTRIBUTING TO ITS SUPPORT. 

THE ORDER DISESTABLISHING THE ASSOCIATION.  WHAT WE HAVE SAID OF THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FOUND BY THE BOARD, WHEN CONSIDERED WITH ITS
UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS AS TO THE RELATIONS OF PETITIONER TO THE TWO
UNIONS, AFFORDS THE ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE BOARD
WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO COMPEL DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION. 
DISESTABLISHMENT IS A REMEDIAL MEASURE UNDER SEC. 10(C) TO BE EMPLOYED
BY THE BOARD IN ITS DISCRETION TO REMOVE THE OBSTACLE TO THE EMPLOYEES'
RIGHT OF SELFORGANIZATION, RESULTING FROM THE CONTINUED OR RENEWED
RECOGNITION OF A UNION WHOSE ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN INFLUENCED BY UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES.  WHETHER THIS RECOGNITION IS SUCH AN OBSTACLE IS AN
INFERENCE OF FACT TO BE DRAWN BY THE BOARD FROM ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ATTENDING THOSE PRACTICES.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO., 308 U.S. 241, 250. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT AS IT HAS NOW RECOGNIZED THE UNION AND BARGAINS
WITH IT, IT SHOULD BE EQUALLY FREE TO RECOGNIZE THE ASSOCIATION INSTEAD
OF THE UNION WHENEVER THE FORMER REPRESENTS A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  BUT IN WEIGHING THIS CONTENTION THE BOARD COULD CONSIDER,
AS IT DID, THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO NOTIFY ITS EMPLOYEES THAT IT
REPUDIATED THE PARTICIPATION OF ITS SUPERVISING EMPLOYEES IN THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSOCIATION AND SO HAS NOT REMOVED THE BELIEF OF
THE EMPLOYEES THAT PETITIONER FAVORED AND WOULD CONTINUE TO FAVOR THE
ASSOCIATION AND THE EMPLOYEES JOINING IT OVER OTHERS; THAT IT HAD NOT
MENTIONED THE NAME OF THE UNION IN ITS BULLETINS ANNOUNCING THE TERMS
OF ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION, AND ALTHOUGH IT HAD REACHED AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION HAD PERSISTENTLY REFUSED TO SIGN ANY WRITTEN
CONTRACT WITH IT.    FROM THIS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE
EVIDENCE, THE BOARD INFERRED, AS IT MIGHT, THAT THE INFLUENCE OF THE
PARTICIPATION OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE
ASSOCIATION HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED AND THAT THERE WAS DANGER THAT
PETITIONER WOULD SEEK TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH CONTINUING INFLUENCE TO
RENEW ITS RECOGNITION OF THE ASSOCIATION AND CONTROL ITS ACTION.  THIS
WE THINK AFFORDED ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE BOARD'S ORDER.  NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, SUPRA; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453, 461, 462; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. LINK-BELT CO., POST, P. 584.  NOTHING IN THE ORDER
PRECLUDES MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION FROM ESTABLISHING AN ORGANIZATION
INDEPENDENTLY OF PARTICIPATION BY PETITIONER AND ITS OFFICERS AND
AGENTS, AND FROM SECURING RECOGNITION THROUGH CERTIFICATION OF THE
BOARD OR AN ELECTION AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 9(C) OF THE ACT. 

THE EMPLOYER'S REFUSAL TO SIGN A WRITTEN AGREEMENT.  IT IS CONCEDED
THAT ALTHOUGH PETITIONER HAS REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION
CONCERNING WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES, IT HAS
NEVERTHELESS REFUSED TO SIGN ANY CONTRACT EMBODYING THE TERMS OF THE
AGREEMENT.  THE BOARD SUPPORTS ITS ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER, ON
REQUEST OF THE UNION, TO SIGN A WRITTEN CONTRACT EMBODYING THE TERMS
AGREED UPON ON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT A REFUSAL TO SIGN IS A
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 

IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION IT POINTS TO THE HISTORY OF THE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS SHOWING THAT ITS OBJECT HAS LONG BEEN AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES AS TO WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING
CONDITIONS EVIDENCED BY A SIGNED CONTRACT OR STATEMENT IN WRITING,
WHICH SERVES BOTH AS RECOGNITION OF THE UNION WITH WHICH THE AGREEMENT
IS REACHED AND AS A PERMANENT MEMORIAL OF ITS TERMS.  FN1  THIS
EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT REFUSAL TO SIGN A WRITTEN CONTRACT HAS BEEN A
NOT INFREQUENT MEANS OF FRUSTRATING THE BARGAINING PROCESS THROUGH THE
REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE THE LABOR ORGANIZATION AS A PARTY TO IT AND THE
REFUSAL TO PROVIDE AN AUTHENTIC RECORD OF ITS TERMS WHICH COULD BE
EXHIBITED TO EMPLOYEES, AS EVIDENCE OF THE GOOD FAITH OF THE EMPLOYER. 
SUCH REFUSALS HAVE PROVED FRUITFUL SOURCES OF DISSATISFACTION AND
DISAGREEMENT N2.  CONTRASTED WITH THE UNILATERAL STATEMENT BY THE
EMPLOYER OF HIS LABOR POLICY, THE SIGNED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REGARDED AS
THE EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT OF STABILIZING LABOR RELATIONS AND PREVENTING,
THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, STRIKES AND INDUSTRIAL STRIFE.  FN3 

BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IT HAD BEEN
THE SETTLED PRACTICE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES DEALING WITH LABOR
RELATIONS TO TREAT THE SIGNING OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EMBODYING A WAGE
AND HOUR AGREEMENT AS THE FINAL STEP IN THE BARGAINING PROCESS.  FN4
CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, HAD BEFORE IT
THE RECORD OF THIS EXPERIENCE, H. REPT. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 5, AND SEE ALSO PP. 3, 7, 15-18, 20-22, 24; S. REPT. NO. 573,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 2, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED THE LEGISLATION AS "AN AMPLIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION OF
THE PRINCIPLES ENACTED INTO LAW BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND BY SEC.
7(A) OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT."  H. REPT. 1147, SUPRA,
P. 3 AND STATED, PAGE 7, THAT SECS. 7 AND 8 OF THE ACT GUARANTEEING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO EMPLOYEES WAS A REENACTMENT OF THE LIKE
PROVISION OF SEC. 7(A) OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, SEE
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 236; LABOR BOARD
V. SANDS MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332, 342. 

WE THINK THAT CONGRESS, IN THUS INCORPORATING IN THE NEW LEGISLATION
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REQUIREMENT OF THE EARLIER STATUTES INCLUDED
AS A PART OF IT, THE SIGNED AGREEMENT LONG RECOGNIZED UNDER THE EARLIER
ACTS AS THE FINAL STEP IN THE BARGAINING PROCESS.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WHILE REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY, DOES NOT COMPEL HIM TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT.  BUT IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW, AS PETITIONER ARGUES, THAT, HAVING REACHED AN
AGREEMENT, HE CAN REFUSE TO SIGN IT, BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER AGREED TO
SIGN ONE.  HE MAY NEVER HAVE AGREED TO BARGAIN BUT THE STATUTE REQUIRES
HIM TO DO SO.  TO THAT EXTENT HIS FREEDOM IS RESTRICTED IN ORDER TO
SECURE THE LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS THE MEANS
OF CURTAILING LABOR DISPUTES AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
FREEDOM OF THE EMPLOYER TO REFUSE TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT RELATES TO ITS
TERMS IN MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE AND NOT, ONCE IT IS REACHED, TO ITS
EXPRESSION IN A SIGNED CONTRACT, THE ABSENCE OF WHICH, AS EXPERIENCE
HAS SHOWN, TENDS TO FRUSTRATE THE END SOUGHT BY THE REQUIREMENT FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  A BUSINESS MAN WHO ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS
WITH ANOTHER FOR AN AGREEMENT HAVING NUMEROUS PROVISIONS, WITH THE
RESERVATION THAT HE WOULD NOT REDUCE IT TO WRITING OR SIGN IT, COULD
HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO HAVE BARGAINED IN GOOD FAITH.  THIS IS EVEN MORE
SO IN THE CASE OF AN EMPLOYER WHO, BY HIS REFUSAL TO HONOR, WITH HIS
SIGNATURE, THE AGREEMENT WHICH HE HAS MADE WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION,
DISCREDITS THE ORGANIZATION, IMPAIRS THE BARGAINING PROCESS AND TENDS
TO FRUSTRATE THE AIM OF THE STATUTE TO SECURE INDUSTRIAL PEACE THROUGH
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

PETITIONER'S REFUSAL TO SIGN WAS A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
AND AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE DEFINED BY SEC. 8(5).  THE BOARD'S ORDER
REQUIRING PETITIONER AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNION TO SIGN A WRITTEN
CONTRACT EMBODYING AGREED TERMS IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10(C).  THIS IS
THE CONCLUSION WHICH HAS BEEN REACHED BY FIVE OF THE SIX COURTS OF
APPEALS WHICH HAVE PASSED UPON THE QUESTION.  FN5  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  LEWIS L. LORWIN, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, P. 309;
COMMONS AND ASSOCIATES, HISTORY OF LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES, VOL. II,
PP. 179-181, 423-424, 480; PERLMAN AND TAFT, HISTORY OF LABOR IN THE
UNITED STATES, 1896-1932, VOL. IV, PP. 9-10; PAUL MOONEY, COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, PP. 13-14; TWENTIETH CENTURY FUND, INC., LABOR AND THE
GOVERNMENT, P. 339. 

CONCERNING THE GROWTH AND EXTENT OF SIGNED TRADE AGREEMENTS, SEE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH BULL. 
NO. 4, WRITTEN TRADE AGREEMENTS IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PP. 213-236,
49-209; U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, FIVE YEARS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PP. 5-7; SAPOSS AND GAMM, RAPID INCREASE IN
CONTRACTS, 4 LABOR RELATIONS REPORTER NO. 15, P. 6. 

FN2  SUMMER H. SLICHTER, ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY (MARCH,
1935), PP. 110-120; R.R.R. BROOKS, WHEN LABOR ORGANIZES, P. 224.  CF.
MATTER OF INLAND STEEL CO., 9 N.L.R.B. 783, 796-797. 

FN3  CARROLL R. DAUGHERTY, LABOR PROBLEMS IN AMERICAN INDUSTRY (REV.
ED. 1938), PP. 936-937; MITCHELL, ORGANIZED LABOR, P. 347; GEORGE G.
GROAT, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF ORGANIZED LABOR IN AMERICA (2D
ED. 1926), PP. 337-339, 341, 345, 346; FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD, PP. 1-2. 

FN4  THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD ADMINISTERING THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT
OF 1926, AS AMENDED IN 1934, 44 STAT. 577, 48 STAT. 1185, INTERPRETED
THAT ACT WHICH IMPOSED A DUTY "TO EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE
AND MAINTAIN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES, AND WORKING
CONDITIONS  ...  ," TO REQUIRE SIGNED CONTRACTS.  SEE FIRST ANNUAL
REPORT, NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD (1935), PP. 1-2, 36. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR BOARD, CREATED TO ADMINISTER SEC. 7(A) OF THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, 48 STAT. 195, HELD THAT THE DUTY TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY IMPOSED BY THAT SECTION INCLUDED AN OBLIGATION TO
EMBODY AGREED TERMS IN A SIGNED TRADE AGREEMENT.  SEE, MATTER OF
HARRIMAN HOSIERY MILLS, 1 N.L.B. 68; MATTER OF PIERSON MFG. CO., 1
N.L.B. 53; MATTER OF NATIONAL ANILINE & CHEMICAL CO., 2 N.L.B. 38;
MATTER OF CONNECTICUT COKE CO., 2 N.L.B. 88.  SEE, ALSO, MATTER OF
WHITTIER MILLS CO., TEXTILE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, CASE NO. 34.  ITS
SUCCESSOR, THE FIRST NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DID LIKEWISE.  SEE,
MATTER OF HOUDE ENGINEERING CO., 1 N.L.R.B. (OLD) 35; MATTER OF DENVER
TOWEL SUPPLY CO., 2 N.L.R.B. (OLD) 221; MATTER OF COLT'S PATENT FIRE
ARMS CO., 2 N.L.R.B. (OLD) 155. 

FN5  BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
114 F.2D 930(C.C.A. 1ST); ART METALS CONSTRUCTION CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 110 F.2D 148(C.C.A.2D); NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. HIGHLAND PARK MFG. CO., 110 F.2D 632(C.C.A.4TH); WILSON & CO., INC.
V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 115 F.2D 759(C.C.A.8TH); CONTINENTAL
OIL CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 113 F.2D 473(C.C.A. 10TH). 
CONTRA, INLAND STEEL CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 109 F.2D
9(C.C.A.7TH); FORT WAYNE CORRUGATED PAPER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 111 F.2D 869(C.C.A.7TH). 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





MCCLAIN V. COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 527 


NO. 55.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - 110
F.2D 878, AFFIRMED.  - 108 F.2D 642, REVERSED. 


1.  LOSSES SUSTAINED BY HOLDERS OF CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL BONDS UPON
THEIR SURRENDER FOR CASH TO THE OBLIGORS, HELD DEDUCTIBLE, IN COMPUTING
TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, ONLY TO THE LIMITED
EXTENT PROVIDED BY SEC. 117(D), RELATING TO LOSSES FROM SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS, AND NOT IN FULL AS BAD DEBTS UNDER SEC.
23(K).  THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE AMOUNTS RECEIVED
UPON THE "RETIREMENT" OF THE BONDS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 117(F). 
P. 529. 

2.  IN COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND ACCORDING TO DICTIONARY DEFINITION
THE WORD "RETIREMENT" IS BROADER IN MEANING THAN THE WORD
"REDEMPTION."  P. 530. 

3.  THE CORRECTION OF INCONSISTENCIES AND INEQUALITIES IN THE
OPERATION OF A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES IS FOR CONGRESS AND NOT THE
COURTS.  P. 530. 

MCCLAIN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 58, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. THOMSON, EXECUTRIX, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 620, TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 620, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS WHICH, IN NO. 55
AFFIRMED, AND IN NO. 58 REVERSED, ORDERS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SUSTAINING THE COMMISSIONER'S DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS IN INCOME TAX
RETURNS.  SEE 40 B.T.A. 60. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT THE QUESTION WHETHER UPON THE SURRENDER OF BONDS
OR DEBENTURES IN EXCHANGE FOR A MONEY PAYMENT LESS THAN COST, A
TAXPAYER MAY DEDUCT THE LOSS FROM HIS GROSS INCOME AS A BAD DEBT UNDER
SEC. 23(K)  FN1  OR MUST TREAT IT AS A CAPITAL LOSS UNDER SEC. 117(F)
FN2  OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934. 

IN NUMBER 55 IT APPEARS THAT THE TAXPAYER OWNED $15,000 PAR VALUE OF
BONDS OF A WATER DISTRICT, ACQUIRED BY GIFT.  THE DISTRICT BEING IN
FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES OFFERED TO PAY $7,476.75 FOR THEM.  THE OFFER
WAS ACCEPTED AND THE BONDS DELIVERED.  IN HIS TAX RETURN THE TAXPAYER
CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF $7,523.25 AS FOR A BAD DEBT CHARGED OFF.  THE
COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION, AND THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  FN3  SUSTAINED HIS RULING. 

IN NUMBER 58 THE FACTS ARE THAT THE TAXPAYER BOUGHT $25,000 PAR VALUE
OF DEBENTURES FOR $24,750.  THE ISSUER'S AFFAIRS WERE PLACED IN THE
HANDS OF A RECEIVER.  A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION PROVIDED THAT THE
RECEIVER SHOULD PAY $5.00 FOR EACH $1000 DEBENTURE SURRENDERED FOR
CANCELLATION.  THE TAXPAYER AVAILED HIMSELF OF THIS PROVISION, AND IN
HIS TAX RETURN CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF $24,625, AS FOR A BAD DEBT.  THE
COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM, AND THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
AFFIRMED HIS DECISION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  FN4 

BY REASON OF THE CONFLICT OF DECISION WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH
CASES. 

THE EARLIER REVENUE ACTS CONTAINED SECTIONS SIMILAR TO 23(K) OF THE
ACT OF 1934.  THEY ALSO EMBODIED PROVISIONS FOR CALCULATION OF TAXES ON
CAPITAL NET GAINS.  NONE OF THEM INCLUDED ANY SECTION LIKE 117(F). 
PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 1934 ACT IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT THE PHRASE
"SALE OR EXCHANGE" OF CAPITAL ASSETS, EMPLOYED IN THOSE ACTS, WAS NOT
DESCRIPTIVE OF THE REDEMPTION OR CALL FOR REPAYMENT OF CORPORATE
SECURITIES, AND HENCE GAIN THEREBY OCCASIONED WAS TO BE TREATED AS
ORDINARY INCOME, FN5  AND LOSS SO ARISING WAS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS
INCOME AS A BAD DEBT.  FN6 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, BY SUB-SECTION (F) OF SEC. 117, PROVIDED
THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TITLE DEALING WITH CAPITAL GAINS AND
LOSSES, "AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE HOLDER UPON THE RETIREMENT" OF SUCH
SECURITIES AS ARE HERE INVOLVED, "SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AMOUNTS
RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE THEREFOR." 

IT IS PLAIN THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE NEW SUBSECTION (F) TO TAKE
OUT OF THE BAD DEBT PROVISION CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS AND TO PLACE THEM IN
THE CATEGORY OF CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER BY
EMPLOYING THE WORD "RETIREMENT" THE TRANSACTIONS HERE INVOLVED WERE SO
TRANSFERRED.  WE HOLD THAT THEY WERE. 

"RETIREMENT" APTLY DESCRIBES WHAT OCCURRED IN THE INSTANT CASES.  THE
STATUTE DOES NOT USE THE WORD IN AN UNUSUAL OR ARTIFICIAL SENSE.  IN
COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND ACCORDING TO DICTIONARY DEFINITION THE WORD
"RETIREMENT" IS BROADER IN SCOPE THAN "REDEMPTION"; IS NOT, AS
CONTENDED, SYNONYMOUS WITH THE LATTER, BUT INCLUDES IT.  NOTHING IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE PROVISION REQUIRES US TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE
TERM USED A MEANING NARROWER THAN ITS ACCEPTED MEANING IN COMMON
SPEECH. 

THE TAXPAYER IN NUMBER 58 URGES THAT TO HOLD SUBSECTION (F)
APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE WOULD GIVE THE PROVISION AN UNJUST EFFECT,
SINCE, IF HE HAD REFUSED TO SURRENDER HIS DEBENTURES FOR THE TRIFLING
CONSIDERATION OFFERED, HE COULD HAVE CHARGED OFF THEIR WHOLE COST AS A
BAD DEBT UNDER SEC. 23(K).  THE ANSWER IS THAT WE MUST APPLY THE
STATUTE AS WE FIND IT, LEAVING TO CONGRESS THE CORRECTION OF ASSERTED
INCONSISTENCIES AND INEQUALITIES IN ITS OPERATION. 

THE COURT BELOW HELD IN NUMBER 58 THAT THE PHRASE "RETIREMENT" COULD
PROPERLY BE APPLIED ONLY TO VOLUNTARY ACTION ON THE DEBTOR'S PART IN
FULFILMENT OF HIS PROMISE TO PAY.  THIS IS BUT TO SAY THAT RETIREMENT
MEANS NO MORE THAN CALL AND REDEMPTION PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE
OBLIGATION.  BUT AS WE HAVE SAID, THE TWO ARE NOT IN COMMON
UNDERSTANDING THE SAME. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NUMBER 55 IS AFFIRMED, AND THAT IN NUMBER 58 IS
REVERSED.  NO. 55, AFFIRMED.  NO. 58, REVERSED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 689; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 23(K). 

FN2  48 STAT. 715; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 117(F). 

FN3  110 F.2D 878. 

FN4  108 F.2D 642. 

FN5  WATSON V. COMMISSIONER, 27 B.T.A. 463; BRAUN V. COMMISSIONER, 29
B.T.A. 1161.  THIS VIEW WAS ADOPTED BY THIS COURT AS RESPECTS THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT OF 1934. 
FAIRBANKS V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 436. 

FN6  COMMONWEALTH BANK V. LUCAS, 59 APP. D.C. 317; 41 F.2D 111;
LEBANON NATIONAL BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 792; PACIFIC NATIONAL
BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 91 F.2D 103. 
..END :











VOELLER V. NEILSTON CO., 311 U.S. 531 


NO. 97.  SUBMITTED DECEMBER 18, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - 136
OHIO ST. 427 - 26 N.E.2D 442, REVERSED. 


A STATE STATUTE PROVIDING THAT, WHERE A CORPORATION AUTHORIZES THE
SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF ALL OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF ITS ASSETS, A
DISSENTING SHAREHOLDER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PAID THE FAIR CASH
VALUE OF HIS SHARES, AND THAT THE AMOUNT DEMANDED OF THE CORPORATION BY
THE DISSENTING SHAREHOLDER AS SUCH FAIR CASH VALUE SHALL, AFTER SIX
MONTHS,  - IF THE CORPORATION DOES NOT MAKE A COUNTER-OFFER, REQUEST AN
APPRAISAL, OR ABANDON THE SALE - "CONCLUSIVELY BE DEEMED TO BE EQUAL
TO" THE FAIR CASH VALUE, HELD, IN ITS OPERATION AS TO MAJORITY
STOCKHOLDERS, NOT A DEPRIVATION OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE MADE NO
PROVISION FOR NOTICE TO THEM AS INDIVIDUALS, OR OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO
BE HEARD, IN RESPECT TO THE DISSENTING STOCKHOLDER'S DEMAND.  P. 535. 

THE CORPORATION SUFFICIENTLY REPRESENTS THE MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS,
FOR THE PURPOSES OF NOTICE AND OF INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  P. 537. 

VOELLER ET AL. V. NEILSTON WAREHOUSE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 624, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING RECOVERY TO
MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS UPON A STATE STATUTE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

MR. FRANCIS J. WRIGHT SUBMITTED FOR RESPONDENTS. 

A STATUTE CREATING A PRESUMPTION WHICH OPERATES TO DENY A FAIR
OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT IT DEPRIVES OF DUE PROCESS.  HEINER V. DONNAN, 285
U.S. 312, 329; SCHLESINGER V. WISCONSIN, 270 U.S. 230; BAILEY V.
ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219.  SO IN THE CASE EVEN OF PRIMA FACIE
PRESUMPTIONS.  MANLEY V. GEORGIA, 279 U.S. 1; WESTERN & ATLANTIC
RAILROAD V. HENDERSON, 279 U.S. 639. 

THE CONTROVERSY HERE IS BETWEEN TWO CLASSES OR GROUPS OF
SHAREHOLDERS, DISSENTING AND NON-DISSENTING; AND ONLY THEIR INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED.  GEIGER V. AMERICAN SEEDING MACHINE CO., 124 OHIO
ST. 222.  THE CORPORATION, BEING IN LIQUIDATION, WAS A MERE STAKEHOLDER
FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS. 

THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS, THOUGH THEY VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE SALE AND
KNEW THAT CERTAIN VOTES WERE CAST AGAINST IT, WERE NOT CHARGED WITH
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TAKEN PURSUANT TO SEC. 8623-72.  SECTION
8623-65 AND SEC. 8623-72 ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT; THE FORMER DEALS
WITH CORPORATE ACTION TAKEN BY SHAREHOLDERS, THE LATTER WITH THE RIGHTS
OF SHAREHOLDERS.  MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN SHAREHOLDERS DISSENTED TO
CERTAIN CORPORATE ACTION, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THEY WILL FILE
DEMANDS UNDER SEC. 8623-72; OR THAT, IF FILED, THE DEMANDS WILL BE
REJECTED. 

THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS, THOUGH THEY KNEW OF THE AUTHORIZATION OF
THE SALE, WERE NOT BOUND TO KEEP THEMSELVES ADVISED AS TO FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS BY THE DISSENTERS. 

IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS NOT THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AS RESPECTS THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
BUT ONLY IN CORPORATE MATTERS.  ESPECIALLY IS THIS SO WHEN THE
CORPORATION IS IN LIQUIDATION AND NOTHING REMAINS TO BE DONE EXCEPT
DISTRIBUTE THE ASSETS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS.  ONLY THEY, AND AS
INDIVIDUALS, ARE INTERESTED IN THE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION.  SINCE ONLY
THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF SHAREHOLDERS INTER SE WERE INVOLVED, THEY WERE
THEMSELVES ENTITLED TO NOTICE.  NOTICE TO THE CORPORATION WAS NOT
NOTICE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS. 

EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THEY HAD NOTICE, THE MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS
STILL WERE POWERLESS TO ACT AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HAS HELD THAT SUGGESTED PROCEDURE BY
SHAREHOLDERS IN BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE
MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS, AND THAT THEY HAD NO STANDING TO MAINTAIN SUCH
AN ACTION.  THIS IS A DECISION ON THE PROCEDURAL LAW OF OHIO WHICH WILL
BE ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT.  MOREOVER, THE STATE COURT HAS HELD THAT
MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS CAN NOT MAINTAIN AN ACTION THE OBJECT OF WHICH IS
TO HAVE THE FAIR CASH VALUE OF DISSENTERS' SHARES DETERMINED, THIS
BEING LIMITED BY THE STATUTE TO THE CORPORATION AND THE DISSENTERS. 
THIS ALSO IS A PURELY PROCEDURAL MATTER GOVERNED SOLELY BY THE LAW OF
OHIO. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO INVALIDATING A STATE STATUTE ON THE GROUND THAT
IT CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN1  THE STATUTE IN QUESTION PROVIDED THAT THE
VALUE PLACED UPON HIS STOCK BY A DISSENTING SHAREHOLDER SHOULD, AFTER
SIX MONTHS AND UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, "CONCLUSIVELY BE DEEMED TO
BE EQUAL TO" THE FAIR CASH VALUE.  FN2  THE STATE COURT HELD THAT SINCE
THE STATUTE REQUIRED THAT THE DEMANDS OF THE DISSENTERS BE MADE KNOWN
ONLY TO THE CORPORATION, THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS WERE
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT NOTICE AND AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. 

CONCRETELY, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED HERE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
PETITIONERS, HOLDERS OF STOCK IN RESPONDENT CORPORATION, WERE AMONG
THOSE WHO DISSENTED WHEN A VOTE WAS CALLED ON A SALE OF SUBSTANTIALLY
ALL THE CORPORATE ASSETS.  TWO-THIRDS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS VOTED FOR THE
SALE, WHICH WAS THEREUPON CONSUMMATED.  PETITIONERS GAVE WRITTEN NOTICE
TO THE CORPORATION OF THEIR OBJECTION, THE NUMBER OF SHARES THEY HELD,
AND THE CLAIMED FAIR CASH VALUE OF THEIR STOCK.  THE CORPORATION
REFUSED IN WRITING TO PAY THE AMOUNT ASKED, BUT MADE NO COUNTER-OFFER. 
NEITHER PARTY FILED A PETITION FOR APPRAISAL.  AFTER SIX MONTHS HAD
ELAPSED, PETITIONERS FILED SUIT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ASKING
THAT JUDGMENT BE RENDERED IN THEIR FAVOR FOR THE AMOUNTS ORIGINALLY
CLAIMED. 

ALL OF THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE OHIO
LAW.  FN3  IN THEIR SUIT, PETITIONERS RELIED ON A SECTION OF THAT LAW
WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE DISSENTING SHAREHOLDERS
SHOULD "CONCLUSIVELY BE DEEMED TO BE EQUAL TO" FAIR CASH VALUE IF THE
CORPORATION HAD NEITHER MADE A COUNTER-OFFER NOR REQUESTED AN
APPRAISAL.  FN4  ONE OF THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS FILED AN INTERVENING
PETITION ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SHAREHOLDERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ALLEGING THAT THE SECTION OF THE STATUTE INVOLVED WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STRUCK OUT THIS
INTERVENTION AT THE REQUEST OF PETITIONERS, SAYING THAT THE STATUTE WAS
CONSTITUTIONAL, THE PETITION FOR INTERVENTION IRRELEVANT, AND THE
MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS WITHOUT STANDING TO INTERVENE.  FN5  NO APPEAL
WAS TAKEN FROM THIS RULING.  WHEN THE CASE CAME ON FOR TRIAL ON THE
MERITS, A DIFFERENT JUDGE SAT, AND IT WAS HIS OPINION THAT THE STATUTE
WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING,
REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT, AND WAS ITSELF REVERSED, TWO JUDGES
DISSENTING, BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE STATUTE HAD "AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OPERATION AGAINST THE MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS, AS BEING
VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS SECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION."  AND THE CORRECTNESS OF THAT CONCLUSION IS THE
ONLY QUESTION PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT.  ALL OTHER QUESTIONS
PRESENTED INVOLVE STATE LAW, FOR THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
CORPORATIONS SHALL ORGANIZE AND OPERATE ARE MATTERS WITHIN THE
EXCLUSIVE PROVINCE OF THE STATE, SO LONG AS THOSE CONDITIONS DO NOT
CLASH WITH THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION. 

WE AGREE WITH PETITIONER'S POSITION THAT NOTICE TO THE CORPORATION OF
THE DEMAND FOR PAYMENT CONSTITUTED NOTICE TO THE MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS,
AND THAT SUCH NOTICE WAS AN ADEQUATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS.  THE OBJECTIVE OF THE OHIO STATUTE
PERMITTING THE RIGHT OF APPRAISAL TO DISSENTING SHAREHOLDERS WAS THE
ELIMINATION OF ABUSES THAT HAD LONG BEEN A FIXTURE IN THE FIELD OF
CORPORATE FINANCE.  FN6  TO ASSURE THAT THE RIGHT TO APPRAISAL WOULD BE
PROMPTLY RESORTED TO AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINGENCY THAT IN SOME
CASES NO SUCH RESORT WOULD BE TAKEN, THE OHIO LEGISLATURE THOUGHT IT
ADVISABLE TO PROVIDE THAT UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORIGINAL OFFER
OR COUNTER-OFFER SHOULD CONCLUSIVELY BE DEEMED EQUAL TO THE FAIR CASH
VALUE.  THE CORPORATION WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF
BEING COMPELLED TO PAY THE CLAIMED VALUE EITHER BY MAKING A COUNTER
OFFER OR BY REQUESTING AN APPRAISAL.  IN ADDITION, IT WAS GIVEN THE
RIGHT TO AVOID BOTH APPRAISAL AND PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMED VALUE BY
ABANDONING ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE TO SELL ITS ASSETS.  THE DISSENTING
SHAREHOLDERS COULD, BY REQUESTING AN APPRAISAL, LIKEWISE AVOID
ACCEPTING THE CORPORATION'S COUNTER-OFFER.  THUS THE CORPORATION IS
COMPELLED TO PAY OR THE DISSENTING SHAREHOLDER TO ACCEPT PAYMENT OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE OFFER OR COUNTER-OFFER ONLY IF NONE OF THE MANY AVAILABLE
ALTERNATIVES ARE PURSUED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF A SIX-MONTH PERIOD. 
THE PROVISIONS, IN EFFECT, OPERATE AS STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS.  AFTER
THE LAPSE OF A PERIOD OF TIME, GIVEN DEFENSES - ATTACKS ON VALUE - CAN
NO LONGER BE ASSERTED. 

IT IS TRUE, AS RESPONDENT URGES, THAT AFTER THE MAJORITY AUTHORIZES
THE CORPORATION TO EFFECT A SALE, THE ALTERNATIVES ARE THEREAFTER
EXPRESSLY OPEN ONLY TO THE CORPORATION AND THE DISSENTERS; NO PROVISION
IS MADE FOR NOTICE TO THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS AS INDIVIDUALS.  BUT
THE MAJORITY, BY THEIR VOTE APPROVING THE SALE OF ASSETS, HAVE
INDICATED THEIR INTENTION TO REMAIN PART AND PARCEL OF THE CORPORATION;
THE DISSENTERS, ON THE OTHER HAND, BY VOTING AGAINST THE SALE AND BY
DEMANDING PAYMENT, HAVE INDICATED AN INTENTION TO SEVER RELATIONSHIPS. 
IF THEREAFTER THE FAILURE OF THE DIRECTORS TO MAKE A COUNTER-OFFER
MATERIALLY PREJUDICES THE FINANCIAL STAKE OF THE MAJORITY, IT IS NO
MORE A WANT OF DUE PROCESS TO CONSIDER THE MAJORITY BOUND THEREBY THAN
IT IS TO CONSIDER THEM BOUND BY ANY OTHER ACT OF MANAGEMENT.  THE
MAJORITY ARE PARTICIPANTS IN A CORPORATE ENTERPRISE.  IN ENTRUSTING
THEIR CAPITAL TO THE CORPORATION, THEY ACCEPT THE DISADVANTAGES OF THE
CORPORATE SYSTEM ALONG WITH ITS ADVANTAGES.  WHAT IS CLAIMED TO BE A
DISADVANTAGE HERE IS A NECESSARY CONCOMITANT OF THE SYSTEM AND ITS MOST
DISTINCTIVE ATTRIBUTE - REPRESENTATION OF THE COLLECTIVE INTEREST OF
SHAREHOLDERS BY SELECTED CORPORATE MANAGEMENT. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE IS HERE RAISED FOR THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS
BY THE CORPORATION, WHICH ADMITTEDLY ITSELF HAD NOTICE.  EXERCISING THE
VERY DELICATE RESPONSIBILITY OF PASSING UPON THE VALIDITY OF STATE
STATUTES, THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES DECLARED THE RULE THAT ONLY THOSE
WHO HAVE BEEN INJURED AS THE RESULT OF THE DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS CAN INVOKE OUR JURISDICTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  FN7
YET HERE THE CORPORATION WOULD HAVE US SAY THAT IT IS SUFFICIENTLY THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MAJORITY TO RAISE IN THEIR BEHALF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, BUT NOT SUFFICIENTLY THEIR REPRESENTATIVE TO
RECEIVE NOTICE.  WE HOLD THAT, SO FAR AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT
OF DUE PROCESS IS CONCERNED, IT IS IN THIS CASE SUFFICIENTLY THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE FOR BOTH PURPOSES, AND ACCORDINGLY WE FIND IT NECESSARY
TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW.  FN8 

THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL IN SUCH A HOLDING; THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES ARE
HABITUALLY PROTECTED IN COURT BY THOSE WHO ACT IN A REPRESENTATIVE
CAPACITY; AN EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR MAY ACT FOR THE BENEFICIARIES OF
AN ESTATE; A RECEIVER MAY REPRESENT THE COLLECTIVE INTERESTS OF
STOCKHOLDERS, PARTNERS, OR CREDITORS; A LAWYER MAY APPEAR FOR HIS
CLIENTS; AND A CORPORATION MAY REPRESENT THE COLLECTIVE INTERESTS OF
ITS SHAREHOLDERS.  IN THIS CASE, IN FACT, THE UNAPPEALED RULING OF THE
TRIAL JUDGE ON THE ATTEMPTED INTERVENTION BY THE MAJORITY STANDS AS AN
ADJUDICATION THAT IN THOSE RESPECTS HERE MATERIAL THE MAJORITY HAD
COMMITTED THEIR INTERESTS TO THE CORPORATION ITSELF.  REVERSED. 

FN1  136 OHIO STATE 427, 26 N.E.2D 442. 

FN2  OHIO CODE ANN. (THROCKMORTON, 1940) SEC. 8623-72, PARAGRAPH 7. 

FN3  OHIO CODE ANN. (THROCKMORTON, 1940) SECS. 8623-65, 8623-72. 

FN4  THE EXACT LANGUAGE IS:  "IF SUCH PETITION (FOR APPRAISAL) IS NOT
FILED WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, THE FAIR CASH VALUE OF THE SHARES SHALL
CONCLUSIVELY BE DEEMED TO BE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OFFERED TO THE
DISSENTING SHAREHOLDER BY THE CORPORATION IF ANY SUCH OFFER SHALL HAVE
BEEN MADE BY IT AS ABOVE PROVIDED, OR IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, THEN AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THAT DEMANDED BY THE DISSENTING SHAREHOLDER AS ABOVE
PROVIDED." 

FN5  THE JUDGE SAID:  "THE FAILURE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS MAY RESULT UNFORTUNATELY FOR OTHER STOCKHOLDERS, BUT THEIR
REMEDY WOULD BE AGAINST THOSE DIRECTORS WHO WERE DERELICT IN THEIR
DUTY." 

FN6  AT COMMON LAW, UNANIMOUS SHAREHOLDER CONSENT WAS A PREREQUISITE
TO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN THE CORPORATION.  THIS MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR
AN ARBITRARY MINORITY TO ESTABLISH A NUISANCE VALUE FOR ITS SHARES BY
REFUSAL TO COOPERATE.  TO MEET THE SITUATION, LEGISLATURES AUTHORIZED
THE MAKING OF CHANGES BY MAJORITY VOTE.  THIS, HOWEVER, OPENED THE DOOR
TO VICTIMIZATION OF THE MINORITY.  TO SOLVE THE DILEMMA, STATUTES
PERMITTING A DISSENTING MINORITY TO RECOVER THE APPRAISED VALUE OF ITS
SHARES, WERE WIDELY ADOPTED.  SEE S.E.C. REPORT ON THE WORK OF
PROTECTIVE AND REORGANIZATION COMMITTEES, PART VII, PP. 557, 590.  THE
OHIO APPRAISAL STATUTE HERE IN ISSUE WAS NOT ADOPTED UNTIL AFTER
RESPONDENT HAD ACQUIRED ITS CHARTER, BUT THE OHIO CONSTITUTION
EXPRESSLY RESERVES TO THE STATE THE RIGHT TO ALTER OR REPEAL THE
CORPORATE LAW.  OHIO CONST., ART. 13, SEC. 2. 

FN7  TYLER V. JUDGES, 179 U.S. 405; HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S.
610, 621.  AND SEE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, CONCURRING, IN ASHWANDER V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 347-348, AND CASES THERE
CITED. 

FN8  CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302 U.S. 500, 504; CF. KERSH LAKE
DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. JOHNSON, 309 U.S. 485, 491. 
..END :



VANDENBARK V. OWENS-ILLINOIS CO., 311 U.S. 538 


NO. 141.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - 110
F.2D 310, REVERSED. 


A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT, RULED BY THE STATE LAW AND CORRECTLY
APPLYING THAT LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT WHEN THE
JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED, MUST BE REVERSED, ON APPEAL, IF IN THE MEANTIME
THE STATE COURT HAS DISAPPROVED OF ITS FORMER RULINGS AND ADOPTED A
CONTRARY INTERPRETATION.  P. 541. 

VANDENBARK V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 635, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL INJURIES
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI BRINGS BEFORE US FOR REVIEW THE DETERMINATION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT CASES AT LAW SOUNDING IN TORT, BROUGHT IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, ARE RULED
BY THE STATE LAW AS DECLARED BY THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT WHEN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT IS ENTERED AND NOT BY THE STATE LAW AS SO
DECLARED AT THE TIME OF ENTRY OF THE APPELLATE COURT'S ORDER OF
AFFIRMANCE OR REVERSAL.  WE GRANTED THE CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE
UNCERTAINTY OF THE LAW UPON THIS QUESTION AS CONTAINED IN THIS COURT'S
FORMER DECISIONS. 

THE PETITIONER HERE, VIRGINIA VANDENBARK, THE PLAINTIFF BELOW, IS A
CITIZEN OF ARIZONA.  THE DEFENDANT, RESPONDENT HERE, THE OWENS-ILLINOIS
GLASS COMPANY, IS A CORPORATION OF OHIO.  PETITIONER BROUGHT AN ACTION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
ALLEGING THAT AS AN EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENT SHE HAD CONTRACTED VARIOUS
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES INCLUDING SILICOSIS THROUGH THE NEGLIGENCE OF
RESPONDENT.  THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE PETITION FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THIS
RULING WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITH THE STATEMENT
THAT UNDER THE LAW OF OHIO NO RECOVERY WAS PERMITTED, AT THE TIME OF
THE JUDGMENT IN THE TRIAL COURT, FOR THE TYPE OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE
ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER TO HAVE BEEN CONTRACTED BY HER AS THE RESULT
OF RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE.  FN1 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT AT THE TIME THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS SUSTAINED
NEITHER THE OHIO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT  FN2  NOR THE COMMON LAW,
AS INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE, GAVE A RIGHT OF
RECOVERY TO PETITIONER.  THE CONSTITUTION OF OHIO  FN3  AUTHORIZED THE
PASSING OF LAWS ESTABLISHING A STATE FUND OUT OF WHICH COMPENSATION FOR
DEATH INJURIES OR OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES WAS TO BE PAID EMPLOYEES IN
LIEU OF ALL OTHER RIGHTS TO COMPENSATION OR DAMAGES FROM ANY EMPLOYER
WHO COMPLIED WITH THE LAW.  AT THE TIME OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE
PETITION BY THE TRIAL COURT NO PROVISION HAD BEEN MADE BY STATUTE FOR
ANY OF THE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES INCLUDED IN PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT. 
RESPONDENT HAD FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.  THE
OHIO CONSTITUTION AND COMPENSATION STATUTES PASSED PURSUANT TO ITS
AUTHORITY HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY CONSTRUED BY THE OHIO COURTS AS
WITHDRAWING THE COMMON LAW RIGHT AND AS DENYING ANY STATUTORY RIGHT TO
RECOVERY FOR PETITIONER'S OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES.  FN4  AFTER THE ACTION
OF THE TRIAL COURT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION, THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
REVERSED ITS FORMER DECISIONS AND, IN AN OPINION EXPRESSLY OVERRULING
THEM, DECLARED OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES SUCH AS COMPLAINED OF BY
PETITIONER COMPENSABLE UNDER OHIO COMMON LAW.  FN5 

WHILE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS  FN6  MADE THE LAW OF THE STATE, AS
DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT, EFFECTIVE TO GOVERN TORT CASES
COGNIZABLE IN FEDERAL COURTS ON THE SOLE GROUND OF DIVERSITY, THERE WAS
NO NECESSITY THERE FOR DISCUSSING AT WHAT STEP IN THE CAUSE THE STATE
LAW WOULD BE FINALLY DETERMINED.  IN THAT CASE NO CHANGE OCCURRED IN
THE STATE DECISIONS BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND OUR JUDGMENT.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE RULES OF DECISION SECTION TO POINT THE WAY TO A
SOLUTION.  FN7 

DURING THE PERIOD WHEN SWIFT V. TYSON  FN8  (1842-1938) RULED THE
DECISIONS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, ITS THEORY OF THEIR FREEDOM IN MATTERS
OF GENERAL LAW FROM THE AUTHORITY OF STATE COURTS PERVADED OPINIONS OF
THIS COURT INVOLVING EVEN STATE STATUTES OR LOCAL LAW.  AS A
CONSEQUENCE SOME DECISIONS HOLD THAT A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF
STATE LAW BY STATE COURTS AFTER A DECISION IN A FEDERAL TRIAL COURT
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE FEDERAL REVIEWING COURT TO REVERSE THE TRIAL
COURT.  FN9 

IN BURGESS V. SELIGMAN, CITED IN THE PRECEDING NOTE, A STATUTE OF
MISSOURI RELATING TO THE LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS OF A MISSOURI
CORPORATION WAS INTERPRETED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONTRARY TO THE
PRIOR DECISION OF THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURT.  THIS COURT AFFIRMED THE
TRIAL COURT, SAYING 

"SO WHEN CONTRACTS AND TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO, AND
RIGHTS HAVE ACCRUED THEREON UNDER A PARTICULAR STATE OF THE DECISIONS,
OR WHEN THERE HAS BEEN NO DECISION, OF THE STATE TRIBUNALS, THE FEDERAL
COURTS PROPERLY CLAIM THE RIGHT TO ADOPT THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OF
THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE CASE, ALTHOUGH A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION MAY
BE ADOPTED BY THE STATE COURTS AFTER SUCH RIGHTS HAVE ACCRUED."  FN10 

WHAT WE CONCEIVE, HOWEVER, TO BE THE TRUE RULE TO GUIDE A FEDERAL
APPELLATE COURT WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE OF DECISION IN STATE
COURTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS STATED,
BEFORE ANY OF THE OPINIONS JUST CITED, IN UNITED STATES V. SCHOONER
PEGGY.  FN11  THE COURT THERE SAID 

"IT IS, IN THE GENERAL, TRUE, THAT THE PROVINCE OF AN APPELLATE COURT
IS ONLY TO ENQUIRE WHETHER A JUDGMENT WHEN RENDERED WAS ERRONEOUS OR
NOT.  BUT IF, SUBSEQUENT TO THE JUDGMENT, AND BEFORE THE DECISION OF
THE APPELLATE COURT, A LAW INTERVENES AND POSITIVELY CHANGES THE RULE
WHICH GOVERNS, THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED, OR ITS OBLIGATION DENIED."  IT
IS TRUE THIS COURT WAS SPEAKING OF THE INTERVENTION OF A TREATY AND
ALSO THAT IT EXPRESSED A CAUTION AGAINST RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION
BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES BUT THE PRINCIPLE QUOTED HAS FOUND ACCEPTANCE
IN A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS.  KIBBE V. DITTO  FN12  AND MOORES V.
NATIONAL BANK  FN13  HOLD THAT SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS AS TO MARRIED
WOMEN'S RIGHTS CONTROL REVIEW.  SIOUX COUNTY V. NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY
FN14  GIVES EFFECT TO A LATER DECISION ON A STATUTE AS TO SURETY
BONDS.  IN OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V. OKLAHOMA GAS CO.,  FN15  WE APPLIED
AS DETERMINATIVE A STATE DECISION, CLARIFYING THE LOCAL LAW, HANDED
DOWN AFTER THE DECREE THEN UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE. 

WHILE CASES WERE PENDING HERE ON REVIEW, THIS COURT HAS ACTED TO GIVE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICATION BY THE LOWER COURTS OF STATUTES ENACTED
AFTER THEIR JUDGMENTS OR DECREES.  FN16  IT HAS VACATED JUDGMENTS OF
STATE COURTS BECAUSE OF CONTRARY INTERVENING DECISIONS,  FN17  AND HAS
ACCEPTED JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF STATUTES ENACTED AFTER CASES WERE
PENDING BEFORE IT.  FN18 WHERE, AFTER JUDGMENT BELOW, A DECLARATION OF
WAR CHANGED THE STANDING OF ONE LITIGANT FROM AN ALIEN BELLIGERENT TO
AN ENEMY, THIS COURT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE CHANGE AND MODIFIED THE
ACTION BELOW BECAUSE OF THE NEW STATUS.  FN19  SIMILARLY REPEAL OF
CRIMINAL LAWS OR OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WITHOUT A SAVING CLAUSE
DEPRIVES APPELLATE COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THEIR SANCTIONS.  FN20  THESE INSTANCES INDICATE THAT
THE DOMINANT PRINCIPLE IS THAT NISI PRIUS AND APPELLATE TRIBUNALS ALIKE
SHOULD CONFORM THEIR ORDERS TO THE STATE LAW AS OF THE TIME OF THE
ENTRY.  INTERVENING AND CONFLICTING DECISIONS WILL THUS CAUSE THE
REVERSAL OF JUDGMENTS WHICH WERE CORRECT WHEN ENTERED. 

RESPONDENT EARNESTLY PRESSES UPON US THE DESIRABILITY OF APPLYING THE
RULE THAT APPELLATE COURTS WILL REVIEW A JUDGMENT ONLY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER IT WAS CORRECT WHEN MADE; THAT ANY OTHER REVIEW WOULD MAKE THE
FEDERAL COURTS SUBORDINATE TO STATE COURTS AND THEIR JUDGMENTS SUBJECT
TO CHANGES OF ATTITUDE OR MEMBERSHIP OF STATE COURTS, WHETHER THAT
CHANGE WAS NORMAL OR INDUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AFFECTING FORMER
FEDERAL RULINGS.  WHILE NOT INSENSIBLE TO POSSIBLE COMPLICATIONS, WE
ARE OF THE VIEW THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A CASE IS NO LONGER SUB
JUDICE, THE DUTY RESTS UPON FEDERAL COURTS TO APPLY STATE LAW UNDER THE
RULES OF DECISION STATUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THEN CONTROLLING
DECISION OF THE HIGHEST STATE COURT.  FN21  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD
BUT PERPETUATE THE CONFUSION AND INJUSTICES ARISING FROM INCONSISTENT
FEDERAL AND STATE INTERPRETATIONS OF STATE LAW.  REVERSED. 

FN1  VANDENBARK V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., 110 F.2D 310, 312. 

FN2  OHIO GEN. CODE (PAGE, 1937) SEC. 1465-70. 

FN3  ART. 2, SEC. 35. 

FN4  ZAJACHUCK V. WILLARD STORAGE BATTERY CO., 106 OHIO ST. 538; 140
N.E. 405; MABLEY & CAREW CO. V. LEE, 129 OHIO ST. 69, 73; 193 N.E.
745. 

FN5  TRIFF V. NATIONAL BRONZE & ALUMINUM FOUNDRY CO., 135 OHIO ST.
191, 205; 20 N.E.2D 232. 

FN6  304 U.S. 64. 

FN7  U.S. CODE, TITLE 28, SEC. 725.  "LAWS OF STATES AS RULES OF
DECISION.  THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE
CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES OTHERWISE
REQUIRE OR PROVIDE, SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF DECISION IN TRIALS AT
COMMON LAW, IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CASES WHERE THEY
APPLY." 

FN8  16 PET. 1. 

FN9  PEASE V. PECK, 18 HOW.  595, 599; MORGAN V. CURTENIUS, 20 HOW. 
1; BURGESS V. SELIGMAN, 107 U.S. 20, 33; CONCORDIA INSURANCE CO. V.
SCHOOL DISTRICT, 282 U.S. 545, 553. 

FN10  CF. KUHN V. FAIRMONT COAL CO., 215 U.S. 349, 356. 

FN11  1 CRANCH 103, 110. 

FN12  93 U.S. 674; SEE DISCUSSION OF THIS CASE IN BAUSERMAN V. BLUNT,
147 U.S. 647, 655-56. 

FN13  104 U.S. 625, 629. 

FN14  276 U.S. 238, 240. 

FN15  309 U.S. 4, 7-8. 

FN16  DINSMORE V. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO., 183 U.S. 115; MISSOURI EX
REL. WABASH RY. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 273 U.S. 126, 130;
CARPENTER V. WABASH RY. CO., 309 U.S. 23, 26. 

FN17 GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO. V. DENNIS, 224 U.S. 503; DORCHY V.
KANSAS, 264 U.S. 286, 291; PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600, 607. 

FN18  STEPHENS V. CHEROKEE NATION, 174 U.S. 445, 478; FREEBORN V.
SMITH, 2 WALL.  160, 174. 

FN19  WATTS, WATTS & CO. V. UNIONE AUSTRIACA, 248 U.S. 9, 21. 

FN20  UNITED STATES V. CHAMBERS, 291 U.S. 217, 222. 

FN21  WE HAVE APPLIED THE RULE ENUNCIATED IN THE CASE OF ERIE R. CO.
V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, THAT STATE LAW AS DETERMINED BY THE STATE'S
HIGHEST COURT IS TO BE FOLLOWED AS A RULE OF DECISION IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS, TO DETERMINATIONS BY STATE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURTS.  WEST
V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., ANTE, P. 223; FIDELITY UNION
TRUST CO. V. FIELD, ANTE, P. 169; SIX COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA V. JOINT
HIGHWAY DISTRICT, ANTE, P. 180; STONER V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
ANTE, P. 464. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










PALMER V. CONNECTICUT RY. CO., 311 U.S. 544 


NO. 38.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - 109
F.2D 568, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
UPON REJECTION BY THE TRUSTEES OF A 999-YEAR LEASE OF STREET RAILWAY
PROPERTIES HAVING 969 YEARS TO RUN, THE MEASURE OF THE LESSOR'S DAMAGES
IS THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE RENT RESERVED LESS THE PRESENT RENTAL VALUE
OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM.  CONNECTICUT RAILWAY & LIGHTING CO. V.
PALMER, 305 U.S. 493, 504.  P. 555. 

2.  IN APPLYING THIS RULE TO SO LONG A LEASE, SINCE THE EVIDENCE OF
DAMAGES IS NECESSARILY LIMITED TO A PERIOD OF DEFINITE FORECAST, THE
DAMAGE MAY BE ESTIMATED FOR A LIMITED FUTURE PERIOD UPON EVIDENCE OF
RENTAL VALUE DERIVED FROM A PERIOD OF PAST OPERATION OF THE LEASED
PROPERTY.  P. 555. 

THERE BEING NO SUGGESTION THAT THE RENTAL AGREED UPON WAS OTHER THAN
A REASONABLE RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF THE DEMISED PROPERTY, FAIRLY
NEGOTIATED, IT IS FAIR TO PRESUME, UNTIL SOMETHING ELSE IS SHOWN, THAT
FOR THE LONG YEARS AHEAD THE RENT AND RENTAL VALUE ARE THE SAME. 
CONSEQUENTLY, PROOF OF RENTAL VALUE SMALLER IN AMOUNT THAN THE RENT
RESERVED, FOR A TERM OF YEARS SHORTER THAN THE REMAINDER OF THE LEASE,
IS, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AS TO OTHER YEARS, PROOF OF THE DAMAGE
IN SUCH SHORTER PERIOD.  P. 557. 

3.  OPINION EVIDENCE OF RENTAL VALUE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
THE LESSOR'S DAMAGES, BUT HAS LITTLE, IF ANY, PROBATIVE FORCE BEYOND
THE IMMEDIATE YEARS AND CAN NOT BE PERMITTED TO FIX RENTAL VALUE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING DAMAGES IN THE INDEFINITE FUTURE.  P. 556. 

4.  UPON EVIDENCE OF PAST EARNINGS OF DEMISED STREET CAR PROPERTIES
OVER A PERIOD OF FOURTEEN YEARS, INCLUDING THREE YEARS OF OPERATION BY
THE LESSOR AFTER REJECTION OF THE LEASE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT, ESTIMATED THE PROBABLE EARNINGS FOR
ELEVEN YEARS SUCCEEDING THE REJECTION, UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH, AND OF
THE RENT RESERVED FOR THAT PERIOD, IT FOUND AND AWARDED DAMAGES TO THE
LESSOR.  HELD: 

(1)  THERE BEING NO DISPUTE OVER THE FACTS PROVEN, THE SUFFICIENCY OF
THE PROOF OF DAMAGE WAS FOR THE COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 558. 

(2)  THIS COURT, ON THIS REVIEW, DEALS WITH THE METHOD OF PROVING
DAMAGES, NOT THE MEASURE.  P. 558. 

(3)  THE EVIDENCE FORMED AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR A REASONED JUDGMENT
AND JUSTIFLED AN AWARD.  P. 558. 

(4)  ALTHOUGH THE BUSINESS CHANGED FROM TROLLEY TO BUS TRANSPORTATION
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE END OF THE BASE PERIOD, AND MANAGEMENT CHANGED
FROM LESSEE TO LESSOR, IN VIEW OF THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE
BUSINESS THESE CHANGES WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO AFFECT THE PROBATIVE
VALUE OF PAST EXPERIENCE.  P. 559. 

(5)  NOTHING IS MORE INDICATIVE OF THE VALUE OF FRANCHISES AND
PROPERTIES OF STREET RAILWAYS AND BUS LINES, FOR LEASE OR SALE, THAN
PAST EARNINGS.  P. 560. 

(6)  IN PROVING COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, CERTAINTY IN THE FACT OF DAMAGE
IS ESSENTIAL; CERTAINTY AS TO THE AMOUNT GOES NO FURTHER THAN TO
REQUIRE A BASIS FOR A REASONED CONCLUSION; THE INJURED PARTY IS NOT TO
BE BARRED FROM A FAIR RECOVERY BY IMPOSSIBLE REQUIREMENTS.  P. 560. 

(7)  THE FAILURE OF THE LESSOR TO PRODUCE FURTHER EVIDENCE, THROUGH
EXPERTS OR TRANSPORTATION SURVEYS, WAS NOT FATAL TO ITS CASE.  P. 561. 

PALMER ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. CONNECTICUT RAILWAY & LIGHTING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 653, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING AN ORDER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AND AWARDING DAMAGES TO THE PRESENT RESPONDENT FOR
REJECTION OF ITS LEASE IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION CASE. 

MR. JAMES GARFIELD, WITH WHOM MR. HERMON J. WELLS WAS ON THE BRIEF,
FOR PETITIONERS. 

RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE REJECTION OF THE LEASE
DEPENDS UPON WHETHER IT WILL BE INJURED BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
ENTIRE REMAINDER OF THE TERM.  IT CAN NOT WAIVE, NOR CAN THE COURTS
WAIVE FOR IT, THE LATTER PART OF THE TERM.  IT COULD NOT RECOVER FOR A
LOSS IN THE EARLY PART OF THE TERM WITHOUT PROVING THAT THERE WOULD BE
NO OFFSET TO THAT LOSS DURING THE LATER PART. 

TO DECIDE ON THE BASIS OF AN INITIAL LOSS AND DISREGARD THE LATER
PORTION OF THE TERM IS EQUIVALENT TO FINDING THAT THE RENTAL VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY WILL NOT DURING THAT PERIOD EQUAL THE RENT.  SUCH A
FINDING CAN NOT BE MADE WITHOUT PROOF.  TO SAY THAT PROOF MAY BE
DISPENSED WITH BECAUSE IT IS TOO DIFFICULT IS EITHER TO SAY THAT THE
COURT MAY REMAKE THE CONTRACT FOR THE PARTIES BY SHORTENING THE TERM OF
THE LEASE OR THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHIFTS WHEN IT BECOMES TOO HEAVY
TO BEAR.  NEITHER, WE SUBMIT, IS TRUE. 

THE LANDLORD CAN, THEREFORE, RECOVER ONLY IF HE HAS BEEN INJURED
THROUGH LOSING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RENT AND RENTAL VALUE FOR THE
ENTIRE REMAINDER OF TERM FOR WHICH HE BARGAINED.  CITING: THIS CASE,
305 U.S. 504, 505; CITY BANK CO. V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 433,
443; PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK CITY RAILWAY CO., 198 F. 721,
759. 

THE UNIVERSAL RULE IS THAT DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF FUTURE RENT WILL NOT
BE AWARDED FOR PART OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM WITHOUT PROOF OF DAMAGE FOR
THE WHOLE TERM.  PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK CITY RAILWAY CO.,
SUPRA; IN RE WISE SHOES, INC., 64 F.2D 1023.  CF. PEOPLE EX REL. NELSON
V. WEST TOWN STATE BANK, 299 ILL. APP. 242; 373 ILL. 106. 

AS THE MIND OF THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS NOT SATISFIED BY THE EVIDENCE OF
DAMAGE, THE APPELLATE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED DAMAGES ON THE
BASIS OF THAT EVIDENCE. 

THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE STATUTE WAS TO PROTECT THE
OTHER CREDITORS IN A REORGANIZATION FROM DISPROPORTIONATE AWARDS TO
THOSE WHO, LIKE LANDLORDS OR OTHER EXECUTORY CONTRACTORS, RECEIVE BACK
THEIR PROPERTY.  KUEHNER V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 445, 454. 

THE WORD "ACTUAL" CLEARLY IMPORTS THAT BECAUSE OF THE DANGER THAT
SPECULATIVE ELEMENTS MIGHT ENTER INTO THE OTHERWISE UNLIMITED
DETERMINATION OF A LANDLORD'S DAMAGES, CONGRESS INTENDED TO PRESCRIBE A
REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH DAMAGES MUST BE PROVED IN SUCH FASHION AS TO
SATISFY THE COURT THAT THEY WOULD CERTAINLY BE SUFFERED.  IF ANY DOUBT
EXISTED THEY COULD NOT BE ALLOWED.  THEREFORE, IF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S
MIND WAS NOT SATISFIED, HIS FINDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT
SHOULD BE GIVEN THE WEIGHT AND SIGNIFICANCE WHICH ATTACH TO A FINDING
OF FACT BY A JURY OR BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND SHOULD NOT BE
REVERSED EXCEPT FOR AN ERROR OF LAW. 

THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW DAMAGES TO REASONABLE CERTAINTY.  THE ONLY
EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD WHICH COULD CONCEIVABLY THROW ANY
LIGHT ON THE SUBJECT OF RENTAL VALUE CONSISTS OF THE PAST EARNINGS,
ACTUAL OR ESTIMATED, OF THE LEASED PROPERTY, ITS BOOK VALUE BEFORE
REJECTION, THE STATEMENT THAT THE DEMISED TROLLEY PROPERTIES WERE IN
PART CONVERTED TO BUSES PRIOR TO REPOSSESSION IN NOVEMBER, 1936, AND
WHOLLY SO CONVERTED SHORTLY THEREAFTER, AND THE VALUE ON DECEMBER 31,
1938, OF THE PROPERTY THEN BELONGING TO THE RESPONDENT. 

NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED OF THE CHARACTER OF THE TERRITORY SERVED OR
THE EXISTENCE OR POSSIBILITY OF COMPETITIVE TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES
THEREIN, NOR OF DEVELOPMENTS OR TRENDS OR PROSPECTS IN THE ART, OR IN
THAT TERRITORY.  THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
MIGHT BE EXPECTED OR HOW THEY WOULD AFFECT THE CHARACTER, VOLUME OR
PROFITABLENESS OF RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE. 

EVEN AS TO "THE PAST" RESPONDENT'S SHOWING WAS LIMITED TO THE
EARNINGS AND ESTIMATED EARNINGS OF THE PROPERTY AVERAGED FOR FIVE
DIFFERENT PERIODS ALL OF THEM ENDING WITH DECEMBER 31, 1938, AND NONE
OF THEM EXTENDING FURTHER BACK THAN 1924.  THESE AVERAGES WERE THEN
PROJECTED FOR 37 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS
TO PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS ON THE BASIS OF THIS COURT'S RULING THAT THE
SINKING FUNDS WHICH CAME INTO RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION ON TERMINATION OF
THE LEASE WOULD INCREASE THE EARNING POWER OF THE PROPERTY. 

A PERIOD WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE EVEN ONE COMPLETE ECONOMIC CYCLE CAN
NOT BE CONSIDERED A RELIABLE BASE FOR FORECASTING EVEN SO SMALL A PART
OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM AS THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS. 

THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHETHER CONDITIONS IN THE
INDUSTRY OR THE TERRITORY ARE NOW, OR ARE LIKELY TO BE, SIMILAR TO
THOSE DURING THE PAST FOURTEEN YEARS. 

FROM THE RECORD, ALL THAT THE APPELLATE JUDGES COULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY WAS SIMPLY THAT IT WAS TROLLEYS WHICH WERE
GRADUALLY BEING CONVERTED INTO BUSES.  OF THE TERRITORY SERVED, THEY
HAD, OF COURSE, THE FAMILIARITY OF WELL-INFORMED CITIZENS.  OF THE
HISTORY OF OPERATIONS, THEY HAD NOTHING EXCEPT NET EARNINGS.  OF THE
GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, AGAIN, THEY HAD NO MORE THAN THE KNOWLEDGE
OF ANY WELL-INFORMED PERSONS, FOR THEY WERE OFFERED NOTHING ELSE. 

THE VALUE BASE WHICH THE RESPONDENT USED IS NOT TENABLE.  IT WAS AN
APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTIES AFTER THEY HAD BEEN IN THE CONTROL OF THE
RESPONDENT FOR OVER TWO YEARS AND AFTER A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEM HAD
BEEN ABANDONED AND ALL HAD BEEN CONVERTED FROM TROLLEYS INTO BUSES. 

THE RECORD IS DEVOID OF FINDINGS ON ANOTHER ELEMENT NECESSARY TO THE
DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES, VIZ., THE AMOUNT TO BE ADDED TO POST
REJECTION EARNINGS ON ACCOUNT OF RESPONDENT'S ACQUISITION OF THE
SINKING FUNDS ON THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, THE
COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE EARNINGS HISTORY OF THE LEASED PROPERTIES
PRIOR TO 1925, WHEN THE PROPORTION OF DEPRESSION TO PROSPERITY WAS VERY
MUCH LESS THAN DURING THE FOURTEEN SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  IT ERRED IN
FAILING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE ELEMENTS WHICH SHOULD HAVE GONE
INTO A COMPUTATION OF DAMAGES. 

MR. GEORGE W. MARTIN FOR RESPONDENT. 

THE FORMULA LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT FOR CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF THE
LANDLORD'S CLAIM FOR THE LOSS OF HIS LEASE IS THAT THE DAMAGES ARE "THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM AND
THE RENT RESERVED, BOTH DISCOUNTED TO PRESENT WORTH."  CITY BANK CO. V.
IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 433, 443; KUEHNER V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299
U.S. 445, 450; CONNECTICUT RY. CO. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493, 504. 

THE COURT HAS STATED THIS RULE OF DAMAGES AS THOUGH IT WERE A
MATHEMATICAL FORMULA FOR ASCERTAINING AN ANSWER IN DOLLARS; BUT OF
COURSE, IN ADDITION, IT IS A RECOGNIZED METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE
VALUE TO THE LANDLORD OF THE LOST LEASE AT THE TIME OF ITS REJECTION. 
BECAUSE, WHAT THE LANDLORD LOSES IS HIS LEASE, AND THE DAMAGES ARE
MERELY THE NET VALUE OF THE LEASE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE FORMULA WAS A MATHEMATICAL
PRESCRIPTION, WHICH MUST BE WORKED OUT FROM RENT DAY TO RENT DAY ALL
THROUGH THE BALANCE OF THE TERM OF A LEASE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT
IN NO RENT PERIOD, OR IN NO SERIES OF RENT PERIODS, SUFFICIENT NET
AVAILS SHOULD BE REALIZED FROM THE PROPERTY TO RECOUP OR EVEN TO EXCEED
THE AMOUNT OF THE LOST RENTALS.  THE FACTOR WHICH CAUSES THE DIFFICULTY
IN THE APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA IN SUCH A WAY IS NOT THE AMOUNT OF
THE RESERVED RENT AND ITS PRESENT VALUE DISCOUNTED, BUT THE AMOUNT OF
THE RENTAL VALUE PRESUMABLY BASED ON THE FUTURE NET OPERATING INCOME
FROM THE PROPERTY.  IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, WHERE THE LEASE HAS NO
MARKET VALUE WHATEVER, THE FORMULA FOR ASCERTAINING THE VALUE OF THE
LEASE MUST BE APPLIED; BUT IT MUST BE APPLIED IN SUCH A WAY THAT "THE
DAMAGE WILL BE BASED ON EVIDENCE WHICH SATISFIES THE MIND."  305 U.S.
505. 

WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT WHEN THE EVIDENCE AS TO FUTURE RENTAL VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY ATTEMPTS TO COVER SO LONG A SPAN OF TIME INTO THE
FUTURE THAT, TO THE MIND OF THE ORDINARY MAN, NO CONVICTION IS CARRIED
THAT THE CONCLUSION WHICH IS GOING TO BE REACHED IS NOT JUST PURE
SPECULATION, THEN A POINT IS ARRIVED AT WHERE "REASONABLE CERTAINTY"
DISAPPEARS AND PROSPECTIVE LOSSES BEYOND THAT POINT CAN NO LONGER BE
RECOVERED.  ALL THIS IS MERELY THE APPLICATION OF "THE USUAL RULES AS
TO THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES."  WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS (REV. ED.), SEC.
1346; HETZEL V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 169 U.S. 26, 28. 

OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THIS COURT IN CONNECTICUT
RAILWAY CO. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493, TO LAY DOWN A NOVEL RULE OF
DAMAGES - AN ALL-OR-NOTHING RULE WHICH REQUIRED THAT EACH UNIT OF TIME
OVER THE REMAINDER OF A TERM OF 900 YEARS SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS A
PERIOD OF A LOSS TO THE LANDLORD.  IT WAS EVIDENT ON THE PREVIOUS
APPEAL THAT THIS COURT CONSIDERED THE FAR FUTURE AS UNPREDICTABLE. 

IF THIS COURT HAD INTENDED TO LAY DOWN AN ALL-OR-NOTHING RULE, IT
WOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE PREVIOUS APPEAL.  305 U.S. 493. 

WHEN THIS COURT REVERSED ON THE LAST APPEAL, IT DID NOT REVERSE ON
THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED TOO MUCH, BUT TOO LITTLE;
AND, WHEN THE CLAIM WAS SENT BACK FOR A NEW TRIAL BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT, THE OPINION OF THIS COURT WAS TO BE CONSTRUED, NOT AS LAYING
DOWN A NOVEL RULE OF DAMAGES, BUT AS A CAUTION AGAINST AN AWARD OF
DAMAGES ON ANYTHING LIKE A 969-YEAR BASIS.  THE REASON IS PLAIN:  NO
ORDINARILY PRUDENT MAN COULD POSSIBLY ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE LOST
LEASE AS OF THE TIME OF REJECTION ON ANY SUCH BASIS; BUT THIS DOES NOT
MEAN THAT THE LEASE HAS NOT A PRESENT VALUE, NOR THAT THAT VALUE CAN
NOT BE ASCERTAINED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA TO DATA WHICH ARE
REASONABLY CERTAIN, SO FAR AS ANY ONE CAN SEE, TO BE TRUE AND
APPLICABLE; AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, APPLYING THIS COMMON-SENSE
INTERPRETATION OF THIS COURT'S OPINION, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
REASONABLE CERTAINTY WAS ATTAINED BY ALLOWING THE RESPONDENT DAMAGES
FOR ELEVEN YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO REJECTION OF THE LEASE, I.E., THREE
YEARS PRIOR TO THE TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR WHICH THE DAMAGES
ARE FULLY KNOWN, AND EIGHT YEARS FOR WHICH DAMAGES ARE ESTIMATED
ACCORDING TO PAST EXPERIENCE FOR FOURTEEN YEARS. 

THIS WAS THE NET VALUE OF THE LEASE AT THE TIME IT WAS DESTROYED BY
REJECTION.  IT IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE APPLICATION OF A PRECISE
MATHEMATICAL FORMULA FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF YEARS, AND THE IGNORING OF
A SUBSEQUENT VAST PERIOD OF TIME.  IT IS A CONCLUSION THAT THE
SUBSEQUENT VAST PERIOD OF TIME IS NOT AN ELEMENT WHICH CAN ENTER INTO
THE PRESENT NET VALUE OF THE LEASE.  THIS SUBSEQUENT TIME HAS BEEN
WEIGHED AND FOUND TO BE INCOMMENSURABLE WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY.  SEE
A.L.I. RESTATEMENT OF CONTRACTS, SEC. 331(A); HEDRICK V. PERRY, 102
F.2D 802, 807; SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP., 106 F.2D 45,
51; AFFD., 309 U.S. 390; EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO MATERIALS
CO., 273 U.S. 359; SINCLAIR REFINING CO. V. JENKINS PETROLEUM PROCESS
CO., 289 U.S. 689, 697; PIECZONKA V. PULLMAN CO., 102 F.2D 432, 434. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI, WHICH WE ALLOWED BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE, INVOLVES
PROBLEMS OF PROVING A LESSOR'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR REJECTION OF ITS
LEASE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE LEASE,
DEMISING RESPONDENT'S STREET RAILWAY PROPERTIES AND EQUIPMENT IN
CONNECTICUT FOR 999 YEARS FROM 1906, WAS REJECTED ON DECEMBER 18, 1935,
BY PETITIONERS, THE TRUSTEES OF THE DEBTOR, THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND
HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY.  FN1  THE ANNUAL RENT RESERVED AT REJECTION
WAS CLOSE TO $1,050,000 WITH TAX, SINKING FUND, INTEREST AND BOND
RETIREMENT ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH ARE NOT MATERIAL TO OUR DISCUSSION. 

AFTER REJECTION THE LESSOR FILED A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES UNDER SUBSECTION
(B) OF SEC. 77.  THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"  ...  IN CASE AN EXECUTORY CONTRACT OR UNEXPIRED LEASE OF PROPERTY
SHALL BE REJECTED,  ... ANY PERSON INJURED BY SUCH  ...  REJECTION
SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION BE DEEMED TO BE A CREDITOR OF
THE DEBTOR TO THE EXTENT OF THE ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY DETERMINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OBTAINING IN EQUITY PROCEEDINGS.  ..." 

THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED, LIMITED TO THE DAMAGES ACCRUED OR WHICH MIGHT
ACCRUE BEFORE THE WINDING UP OF THE REORGANIZATION.  THIS COURT ON A
PREVIOUS CERTIORARI  FN2  DISAPPROVED THAT MEASURE OF DAMAGES AND LAID
DOWN AS THE MEASURE "THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE RENT RESERVED LESS THE
PRESENT RENTAL VALUE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM."  ON REMAND TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, THE LESSOR UNDERTOOK TO PROVE DAMAGES ACCORDING TO THE
APPROVED MEASURE BY INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF THE PRESENT VALUE (JANUARY
1, 1936), AT FOUR PER CENT DISCOUNT, OF THE RENT RESERVED UNDER THE
LEASE FOR FORTY YEARS ONLY (TO DECEMBER 31, 1975).  THIS AMOUNTED TO
AROUND TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS.  FOR A CORRESPONDING PERIOD EVIDENCE OF
RENTAL VALUE SIMILARLY DISCOUNTED WAS OFFERED.  THE DIFFERENCE WAS
SUBMITTED AS THE DAMAGES FOR REJECTION.  NO PROOF OF RENT RESERVED OR
RENTAL VALUE BEYOND THE FORTY YEARS WAS OFFERED AS RESPONDENT WAS
ADVISED SUCH PROOF WOULD BE TOO UNCERTAIN TO CARRY CONVICTION.    TO
PROVE RENTAL VALUE, RESPONDENT OFFERED EVIDENCE OF ANNUAL EARNINGS FOR
EACH OF THE FORTY YEARS.  THESE EARNINGS WERE MADE UP OF THE EARNING
POWER OF A SINKING FUND, PLUS AN ADJUSTMENT OF THE ANNUAL PAYMENTS
REQUIRED BY THE LEASE TO BE MADE TO THE SINKING FUND, PLUS THE
OPERATING PROFITS OF THE TRANSPORTATION PROPERTIES.  FOR 1936-1938 THE
ACTUAL EARNINGS WERE USED.  THIS WAS THE PERIOD AFTER REJECTION AND
BEFORE TRIAL WHEN THE DEMISED PROPERTIES WERE OPERATED BY OR FOR
RESPONDENT.  FOR 1939-1975 EARNINGS WERE ESTIMATED BY ALTERNATIVE
CALCULATIONS OF AVERAGE ANNUAL EARNINGS, BEFORE FEDERAL TAXES, OVER
FOUR PRIOR BASE PERIODS EACH ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1938:  (1) THE
PRECEDING YEAR AND A HALF OF 100% BUS OPERATION; (2) THE THREE YEARS OF
ACTUAL OPERATION, FOLLOWING REJECTION, DURING WHICH THE TRANSITION FROM
TROLLEYS TO BUSES HAD BEEN COMPLETED; (3) TEN YEARS, 1929-1938, THE
ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH WERE PARTLY RECONSTRUCTED BECAUSE BEFORE THE
REORGANIZATION THE DEMISED PREMISES WERE UTILIZED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
OTHERS NOT INVOLVED HERE; AND, FINALLY, (4) FOURTEEN YEARS, 1925-1938. 
FN3  THE EARNING POWER OF THE SUMS IN THE SINKING FUND AND THE ANNUAL
PAYMENTS TO IT WERE ASSUMED TO BE FIXED.  TO GET THE RENTAL VALUE,
THESE TWO FIXED SUMS WERE ADDED TO THE OPERATING PROFIT CALCULATED FROM
EACH OF THE FOUR BASE PERIODS.  SINCE EARNINGS WERE ERRATIC, VARYING
FROM $78,000 TO $775,000 IN THE FOURTEEN-YEAR PERIOD, THE ANNUAL RENTAL
VALUE FOR THE FUTURE VARIED ACCORDING TO THE BASE USED.  LIKEWISE, THE
DAMAGES CALCULATED FOR FORTY YEARS SHOWED A RANGE OF FROM NINE AND A
HALF TO THIRTEEN AND A THIRD MILLION.  IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY CORRECT TO
SAY THAT NO EVIDENCE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE BASE FIGURES WAS PRODUCED
FOR THE PETITIONER.  NOR DID PETITIONER INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE ON ITS
PART TO ESTABLISH A DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF DAMAGES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED TO FIND FUTURE EARNINGS BY PROJECTING THE
AVERAGE EARNINGS OF ANY OF THE FOUR BASE PERIODS.  IT POINTED OUT THAT
IN ITS VIEW THE 100% BUS OPERATION WAS TOO NEW AND HAD COINCIDED WITH
TOO GREAT A SHRINKAGE OF EARNINGS TO SERVE AS A SAFE GUIDE.  THE DATA
FOR 1936-1938 WERE DEEMED UNCONVINCING BECAUSE THEY WERE DERIVED IN A
SUBSTANTIAL MEASURE FROM TROLLEY OPERATIONS, NOW ABANDONED, AND BECAUSE
THE PERIOD WAS ONE OF ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.  THE TEN AND THE FOURTEEN
YEAR BASES WERE DISAPPROVED AS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF TROLLEY OPERATION,
AND AS SPECULATIVE BECAUSE OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF FORECASTING THE
RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF PROFITABLE AND UNPROFITABLE YEARS FROM THIS PAST
EXPERIENCE.  THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT NO EVIDENCE OF TRANSPORTATION
EXPERTS OR SURVEYS WAS OFFERED TO ASSIST IT IN APPRAISING POSSIBILITIES
OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TERRITORY, OF INCREASED OPERATING EFFICIENCY
OR THE EFFECTS OF CONSOLIDATION N4.  FURTHERMORE, THE TRIAL COURT WAS
OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN WITH ACCEPTABLE PROOF OF ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE FOR
FORTY YEARS, OR OTHER PERIOD MATERIALLY SHORTER THAN THE UNEXPIRED TERM
OF THE LEASE, NO CONCLUSION COULD BE REACHED AS TO THE PRESENT RENTAL
VALUE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM, BECAUSE THAT PORTION OF THE TERM
BEYOND THE REACH OF THE PROOF OFFERED MIGHT HAVE PROFITS OR LOSSES
WHICH WOULD UPSET THE CALCULATIONS FOR EARLIER YEARS.  THE DISTRICT
COURT THEN STRUCK OUT THE ACCRUED DAMAGES OF MORE THAN A MILLION
DOLLARS ALLOWED ON THE FORMER HEARING AND SET ASIDE THE PROVISION OF
THE SAME ORDER PERMITTING ACCRUED DAMAGES TO BE PROVEN UP TO THE DATE
OF FINAL HEARING. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT "IN EFFECT, THE LAW
FOR PURPOSES OF DAMAGES TREATS A LEASE WITH 969 MORE YEARS TO RUN AS IF
IT WERE ONLY FOR A TERM WITHIN THE REACH OF FAIRLY DEFINITE FORECAST." 
109 F.2D 568, 571.  IT THOUGHT THAT THE EVIDENCE OF EARNINGS OVER THE
FOURTEEN-YEAR EXPERIENCE WAS ADEQUATE TO ENABLE IT TO DRAW A REASONED
CONCLUSION AS TO PROBABLE EARNINGS FOR ELEVEN YEARS.  FOR THE THREE
YEARS, 1936-1938, THESE WERE KNOWN; FOR THE OTHER EIGHT YEARS, THE
AVERAGE ANNUAL EARNINGS FOR THE PRECEDING 14-YEAR PERIOD WERE ADOPTED. 
AN ALLOWANCE OF THE DAMAGES AT TIME OF REJECTION WAS MADE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,411,837.61.  FN5 

THE CERTIORARI BRINGS HERE THE QUESTIONS OF WHETHER PROOF OF DAMAGES
FOR A PORTION OF AN UNEXPIRED LEASE IS SUFFICIENT TO FIX DAMAGES FOR
THE WHOLE REMAINING TERM AND WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY
ALLOW DAMAGES ON THE SOLE BASIS OF PAST EARNINGS, EVIDENCE WHICH THE
DISTRICT JUDGE HAS HELD DOES NOT SATISFY HIS MIND. 

FIRST.  LITIGATION OVER A 999-YEAR LEASE NATURALLY BRINGS UP
INCIDENTS DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE WITH KNOWN AND ESTABLISHED LEGAL
FORMULAE.  SINCE CONVEYANCERS AND BUSINESS MEN ALIKE HAVE LONG UTILIZED
THE CHARACTERISTIC PROVISIONS OF LEASES TO ACCOMPLISH TRANSFERS OF
RIGHTS IN REAL ESTATE FOR EXTENSIVE PERIODS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE, SUCH LONG TERM AGREEMENTS HAVE BECOME A WELL RECOGNIZED
LEGAL IMPLEMENT, ESPECIALLY IN CORPORATE REALTY TRANSACTIONS AND
RAILROAD CONSOLIDATIONS AND MERGERS.  ITS RESERVATIONS OF RENT,
PROVISIONS FOR TAXES AND OPERATION ARE FIRMLY EMBEDDED IN OUR
FINANCIAL, CORPORATE AND TITLE STRUCTURES.  FN6  BUSINESS AND
GOVERNMENT ALIKE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO FIX THE RENTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY FOR
LONG TERM LEASES AND THE VALUE OF THE LEASE OVER AND ABOVE THE RENT
RESERVED AT VARYING PERIODS OF THE TERM.  FN7  IN PENDING RAILROAD
REORGANIZATIONS, THEMSELVES, APPRAISALS OF RENTAL VALUES MUST BE
CONSIDERED.  FN8  THAT SUCH DETERMINATIONS RECUR WITH SOME FREQUENCY
DEMONSTRATES THEIR PRACTICAL POSSIBILITY. 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT EVIDENCE OF RENTAL VALUE FOR A
40-YEAR PERIOD, NO MATTER HOW CERTAIN IT MAY BE, IS INADEQUATE TO
ENABLE A COURT TO ESTABLISH THE DAMAGES FOR THE ENTIRE 969 REMAINING
YEARS.  ITS ARGUMENT IS THAT ONE CANNOT BE SURE THE TRUNCATED PORTION
WILL NOT SHOW SUFFICIENT GAIN TO ABSORB ALL LOSSES.  SINCE CERTAIN
PROOF FOR DISTANT YEARS CANNOT BE PRODUCED, THIS OBJECTION LEAVES THE
LESSOR TO QUALIFIED OPINION EVIDENCE AS TO ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE,
DISCOUNTED FOR THE TERM TO SHOW PRESENT DAMAGE.  SUCH AN OPINION
NECESSARILY PROCEEDS FROM PRESUMABLY ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT
LESSEES, DESIRING BUT NOT REQUIRING THE FACILITIES, WOULD BE WILLING TO
PAY FOR A NEW LEASE AND LESSORS, IN A SIMILAR ATTITUDE TOWARD RENTING,
TO ACCEPT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM.  WHILE SUCH EVIDENCE IS
ADMISSIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION IN FORMING A JUDGMENT UPON DAMAGES, IT HAS
LITTLE, IF ANY, PROBATIVE FORCE BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE YEARS.  CERTAINLY
SUCH OPINION EVIDENCE ALONE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO FIX RENTAL VALUE FOR
PURPOSES OF DAMAGES IN THE INDEFINITE FUTURE.  THE FINAL OBJECTIVE OF
THE PROOF IS NOT HOW MUCH THE REMAINDER IS WORTH NOW BUT WHAT DAMAGES
THE LESSOR HAS SUFFERED.  FOR THIS HE IS AWARDED COMPENSATION.  THE
MEASURE OF THAT DAMAGE IS RENT LESS RENTAL VALUE, A MATTER OF JUDGMENT
TO BE REACHED IN THE LIGHT OF PLEADING AND PROOF SUPPLEMENTED BY
JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE. 

THE LAW FOR PURPOSES OF DAMAGES DOES NOT TREAT A BROKEN LEASE OF A
THOUSAND YEARS AS THOUGH IT RAN ONLY FOR A LIMITED TIME, THE DAMAGES
FOR WHICH ARE MEASURABLE.  BUT SINCE EVIDENCE OF THE DAMAGE IS
NECESSARILY LIMITED TO A TIME OF "DEFINITE FORECASTS" THE RULE OF
RENTAL VALUE PERMITS THE USE OF DATA FOR ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF YEARS
TO DETERMINE DAMAGES.  THE NUMBER OF YEARS TO BE CONSIDERED DEPENDS
UPON THE FULLNESS AND QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE OFFERED TO ESTABLISH THE
DAMAGES.  HENCE, WHETHER A LIMITED TERM BEYOND THE REACH OF FORECASTS
OR THE WHOLE TERM IS TO BE USED AS A BASE FOR RENTAL VALUE, THE
EVIDENCE OF EARNINGS WOULD BE PROJECTED THE SAME NUMBER OF YEARS. 
THIS, WE THINK, IS WHAT WAS MEANT BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHEN
IT TREATED THE LEASE "IN EFFECT" AS ONE WITH A TERM WITHIN THE RANGE OF
PREDICTABILITY AS TO RENTAL VALUE. 

HOWEVER NEBULOUS THE CONCEPT OF A LONG LEASE MAY BE, IT IS NOT A
FICTION BUT AN ACTUAL INSTRUMENT.  NOTHING APPEARS IN THE RECORD TO
SUGGEST THAT THE RENTAL AGREED UPON WAS OTHER THAN A REASONABLE RETURN
UPON THE VALUE OF THE DEMISED PROPERTY, FAIRLY NEGOTIATED.  AT THE TIME
THE LEASE WAS EXECUTED, IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME THE PARTIES THOUGHT THE
ANNUAL RENT RESERVED AND RENTAL VALUE WERE THE SAME.  WITHOUT PROOF TO
THE CONTRARY ONLY NOMINAL DAMAGES WOULD BE ALLOWED THE CLAIMANT.  AND,
UNTIL SOMETHING ELSE IS SHOWN, COURTS ARE ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED IN
ASSUMING THAT FOR THE LONG YEARS AHEAD THE RENT AND THE RENTAL VALUE
ARE THE SAME.  FN9  AS A CONSEQUENCE, EVIDENCE OF RENTAL VALUE SMALLER
IN AMOUNT THAN THE RENT RESERVED FOR A TERM SHORTER THAN THE REMAINDER
OF THE LEASE IS, IN THE ABSENCE OF TESTIMONY AS TO OTHER YEARS, PROOF
OF THE DAMAGES FOR THE YEARS COVERED.  SINCE THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT
THE RENT AND RENTAL VALUE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM ARE THE SAME,
THE DAMAGE PROVEN IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS ALL THE DAMAGE FOR THE
REJECTION OF THE LEASE. 

SECOND.  THE PETITIONER ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE REFUSING THE
CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE, DETAILED ABOVE, DID NOT SATISFY
THE MIND AS TO THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES.  IN THE VIEW OF THE TRIAL COURT,
THERE WAS A FAILURE OF PROOF.  THE CORRECTNESS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
APPELLATE COURT IN DIRECTING AN ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM DEPENDS NOT UPON
ITS POWER, WHICH WE THINK IS CLEAR,  FN10  BUT UPON ITS CONCLUSION AS
TO THE PERSUASIVE CHARACTER OF THE EVIDENCE, WHETHER IT IS TOO
SPECULATIVE, WHETHER IT SHOWED THE DAMAGE TO REASONABLE CERTAINTY.  AS
THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DISPUTE OVER THE FACTS PROVEN, THE CONCLUSION
AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE WAS FOR THE REVIEWING COURT.  WE
DEAL, IN THIS REVIEW, WITH THE METHOD OF THE PROOF OF DAMAGES, NOT THE
MEASURE.  NARROWED EVEN MORE, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE EVIDENCE OFFERED
JUSTIFIES AN AWARD, WHETHER THE QUANTUM OF PROOF PRODUCED FORMS AN
ADEQUATE BASIS FOR A REASONED JUDGMENT. 

FUTURE RENTAL VALUE CANNOT BE SUSCEPTIBLE OF PRECISE PROOF.  AS IT
DEPENDS, SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A LEASE IS
CONCERNED, UPON FUTURE PROFITS, IT PARTAKES OF THE NATURE OF LOSS OF
EARNING CAPACITY OR OF CREDIT.  TO REQUIRE PROOF OF RENTAL VALUE
APPROACHING MATHEMATICAL CERTITUDE WOULD BAR A RECOVERY FOR AN ACTUAL
INJURY SUFFERED.  ALL THAT CAN BE DONE IS TO PLACE BEFORE THE COURT
SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS ARE AVAILABLE TO ENABLE AN ESTIMATE TO
BE MADE BASED UPON JUDGMENT AND NOT GUESSWORK.  FN11  EVERY
ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF AN OBLIGATION, AND EVERY APPRAISAL OF DAMAGE
INVOLVING THE PRESENT VALUE OF PROPERTY INVOLVES A PREDICTION AS TO
WHAT WILL OCCUR IN THE FUTURE.  PRESENT MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY IS BUT
THE RESULTANT OF THE PREDICTION OF MANY MINDS AS TO THE USABILITY OF
PROPERTY AND PROBABLE FINANCIAL RETURNS FROM THAT USE, PROJECTED INTO
THE FUTURE AS FAR AS REASONABLE, INTELLIGENT MEN CAN FORESEE THE
FUTURE. 

THE PROOF OF FUTURE PROFITS BY THE EVIDENCE OF PAST PROFITS IN AN
ESTABLISHED BUSINESS GIVES A REASONABLE BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION.  FN12
IT IS TRUE THAT THIS BUSINESS CHANGED FROM TROLLEY TO BUS WITHIN TWO
YEARS OF THE END OF THE BASE PERIOD AND THAT MANAGEMENT CHANGED FROM
LESSEE TO LESSOR BUT WE THINK THE FACT OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE SAME
COMMUNITIES FOR MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A CENTURY SUFFICED TO GIVE THE
OPERATION THE CLASSIFICATION OF AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS.  HERE
DIFFERENT METHODS OF OPERATION OR NORMAL CHANGES IN THE EXECUTIVE
STAFFS DO NOT SEEM SUFFICIENT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF
PAST EXPERIENCE.  FRANCHISES AND PROPERTY OF STREET RAILWAYS AND BUS
LINES ARE DIFFICULT OF APPRAISAL.  NOTHING IS MORE INDICATIVE OF THEIR
VALUE FOR LEASE OR SALE OF THE FEE THAN PAST EARNINGS.  IF WE WERE TO
ADOPT THE VIEW THAT THE INTEREST CONVEYED IS A DEFEASIBLE FEE,  FN13
ITS DEFEASANCE DEPENDENT UPON A CONDITION SUCH AS NONPAYMENT OF ANNUAL
INSTALMENTS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE, THE SAME DIFFICULTIES EXIST.  THE
UNKNOWN SUBTRAHEND WOULD BE THE PRESENT VALUE, INSTEAD OF THE RENTAL
VALUE.  EVIDENCE OF VALUE WOULD BE MADE UP OF THE ITEMS OF PROOF.  ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE, IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY SUCH AS HERE
INVOLVED, WOULD BE PAST EARNINGS. 

THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED RECOVERIES FOR FUTURE PROFITS OVER FOUR
YEARS BASED SOLELY UPON EVIDENCE OF THE PROFITS OF AN ESTABLISHED
BUSINESS FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS.  WE THERE APPROVED AN INSTRUCTION
WHICH TOLD THE JURY, "DAMAGES ARE NOT RENDERED UNCERTAIN BECAUSE THEY
CANNOT BE CALCULATED WITH ABSOLUTE EXACTNESS.  IT IS SUFFICIENT IF A
REASONABLE BASIS OF COMPUTATION IS AFFORDED, ALTHOUGH THE RESULT BE
ONLY APPROXIMATE."  FN14 

THE WAYS COMPENSATORY DAMAGES MAY BE PROVEN ARE MANY.  THE INJURED
PARTY IS NOT TO BE BARRED FROM A FAIR RECOVERY BY IMPOSSIBLE
REQUIREMENTS.  THE WRONGDOER SHOULD NOT BE MULCTED, NEITHER SHOULD HE
BE PERMITTED TO ESCAPE UNDER COVER OF A DEMAND FOR NONEXISTENT
CERTAINTY.  FN15  DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE WERE IN CONTEMPLATION
OF THE PARTIES WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS MADE.  FN16 THE LEASE CONTAINED A
COVENANT OF REENTRY WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RIGHT OF ACTION FOR ARREARS OF
RENT OR BREACH OF COVENANTS.  THE PROVISION IN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT GIVES
A NEW RIGHT OF RECOVERY IN BANKRUPTCY ONLY.  THIS RIGHT OF RECOVERY IS
AN UNSECURED CLAIM OF THE CHARACTER OF A CLAIM FOR A DEFICIENCY ABOVE
THE VALUE OF INADEQUATE COLLATERAL. 

CERTAINTY IN THE FACT OF DAMAGE IS ESSENTIAL.  CERTAINTY AS TO THE
AMOUNT GOES NO FURTHER THAN TO REQUIRE A BASIS FOR A REASONED
CONCLUSION.  FN17  THE CERTAINTY OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO DAMAGES FOR
REJECTION OF A LEASE DEPENDS UPON THE SAME TESTS AS IN OTHER SITUATIONS
WHERE DAMAGES ARE DIFFICULT OF PROOF.  THIS COURT, RECENTLY, IN AN
INFRINGEMENT CASE  FN18  WAS REQUIRED TO APPRAISE THE VALUE OF OPINION
EVIDENCE AS TO THE PART OF PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE USE OF A PIRATED
PLAY, AN OBVIOUSLY ELUSIVE FACT.  NO EXPERT THOUGHT ANY GREATER
PERCENTAGE THAN TEN SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PLAY.  THE LOWER COURT
ALLOWED TWENTY SO THAT THE AWARD MIGHT BY NO POSSIBILITY BE TOO SMALL. 
WE APPROVED BECAUSE "WHAT IS REQUIRED IS NOT MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS BUT
ONLY A REASONABLE APPROXIMATION.  THAT, AFTER ALL, IS A MATTER OF
JUDGMENT  ...  "    SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED FOR THE THREE
YEARS OF ACTUAL OPERATION OF THE PROPERTIES COVERED BY THIS LEASE.  WE
THINK THAT PRIOR EARNINGS OF THE SAME PROPERTY OVER FOURTEEN YEARS WAS
A FAIR BASE TO USE TO PROJECT THE ESTIMATE OF THE EARNINGS FOR THE
EIGHT YEARS OF FUTURE OPERATION.  THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE FURTHER
EVIDENCE, EITHER THROUGH EXPERTS OR TRANSPORTATION SURVEYS, WAS NOT
FATAL TO RESPONDENT'S CASE, EVEN THOUGH SUCH EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE. 
WE SEE NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS THAT UNDER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THE DAMAGES FOR EIGHT
YEARS MIGHT BE PREDICTED WITH A "FAIR DEGREE OF CERTAINTY."  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE LEASE ORIGINALLY COVERED ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES, BUT AS TO
THESE THE DEBTOR NO LONGER HAD AN INTEREST. 

FN2  CONNECTICUT RAILWAY & LIGHTING CO. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493,
504. 

FN3  TO FILL OUT THE DATA PETITIONER CALCULATED THE PROPORTIONATE
RENT RESERVED AND THE ACTUAL EARNINGS FOR THE SHORT PERIOD BETWEEN THE
DATE OF REJECTION, DECEMBER 17, 1935, AND JANUARY 1, 1936. 

FN4  SEE ANOTHER NEW HAVEN LONG TERM LEASE, IN RE NEW YORK, N.H. &
H.R. CO., 30 F.SUPP.  541, WHERE EVIDENCE OF THIS KIND APPEARS. 

FN5  THE PRECISENESS OF THIS FIGURE AS TO THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE IS
ILLUSORY.  IT IS OBTAINED BY ACCEPTING ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE AND
AVERAGE EARNINGS FOR EIGHT YEARS IN THE FUTURE, REDUCED TO PRESENT CASH
VALUE, AS SHOWN BY RESPONDENT ON A TABLE COVERING FORTY YEARS AND
DEDUCTING THIS FROM THE AGREED RENT, DISCOUNTED. 

FN6  NEARLY FORTY THOUSAND MILES OF ROAD ARE LEASED BY CLASS I
RAILROADS FROM 292 LESSORS.  CLASS I ROADS OPERATE OVER 93 PER CENT OF
ALL RAILROAD MILEAGE.  LEASED PROPERTY REPRESENTS OVER 15 PER CENT OF
THIS TOTAL.  OVER FOUR BILLION DOLLARS IS INVESTED IN RAILROAD PROPERTY
UNDER LEASE.  TABLES 1, 129, 156 AND 162.  STATISTICS OF RAILWAYS IN
THE UNITED STATES 1938.  SEE MECK & MASTEN, RAILROAD LEASES AND
REORGANIZATION, 49 YALE LAW JOURNAL 626. 

FN7  TAX CASES:  IN MANY TAX CASES LONG-TERM LEASES HAVE BEEN VALUED,
THOUGH FREQUENTLY WITHOUT ANY STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE OR METHOD
USED.  NORTHERN HOTEL CO., 3 B.T.A. 1099, 1102; NEWMAN THEATRE CO., 4
B.T.A. 390; L.S. DONALDSON CO., 12 B.T.A. 271; A.H. WOODS THEATRE CO.,
12 B.T.A. 827; CONSOLIDATED INVESTMENT CO., 13 B.T.A. 1252; HOTEL
WISCONSIN REALTY CO., 16 B.T.A. 334; JAMES BLDG. CO., 22 B.T.A. 658;
MARTHA REALTY CO., 22 B.T.A. 342, 344; NEW YORK EX REL. DELAWARE &
HUDSON CANAL CO. V. FEITNER, 61 APP. DIV. 129; 70 N.Y.S. 500; APPEAL
TAX COURT V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 50 MD. 274, 298; PHILADELPHIA, W.
& B.R. CO. V. APPEAL TAX COURT, 50 MD. 397; NEW YORK EX REL. GORHAM
MFG. CO. V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 197 APP. DIV. 852; 189 N.Y.S. 241. 
EMINENT DOMAIN CASES:  MATTER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK:  BEERS V.
SCHLESSINGER, 120 APP. DIV. 700; 105 N.Y.S. 779; IN RE PARK SITE, 247
MICH. 1; 225 N.W. 498.  CONTRACT CASES:  BONDY V. HARVEY, 218 APP. DIV.
126; 217 N.Y.S. 877; WILLIAMS V. BURRELL, 1 C.B. 402. 

FN8  E.G. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY
REORGANIZATION, 239 I.C.C. 337, 351, 386, 387, 389, 453; IN RE CHICAGO,
MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC R. CO., 36 F.SUPP.  193, 205 ET SEQ.;
SAME, 239 I.C.C. 485, 537, 553; ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY REORGANIZATION,
239 I.C.C. 653, 685, 689. 

FN9  2 SEDGWICK, DAMAGES, 9TH ED., SEC. 610. 

FN10  CF. RIDINGS V. JOHNSON, 128 U.S. 212, 218; UNITED STATES V. RIO
GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 184 U.S. 416, 423. 

FN11  STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO., 282 U.S. 555, 563; EASTMAN
KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359, 379; ECKINGTON & S.H.
RY. CO. V. MCDEVITT, 191 U.S. 103, 112, 113; CF. DICTA IN UNITED STATES
V. BEHAN, 110 U.S. 338, 344; SEE RESTATEMENT OF CONTRACTS, SEC. 331,
PARTICULARLY COMMENT (A); UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V. O'BRIEN, 143 N.Y.
284, 290; 38 N.E. 266; BALL V. PARDY CONSTRUCTION CO., 108 CONN. 549,
551; 143 A. 855; COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. HACHMEISTER LIND CO., 320
PA. 233; 181 A. 787; 1 SEDGWICK, DAMAGES, 9TH ED., SEC. 170(A) ET SEQ.;
1 SUTHERLAND, DAMAGES, 4TH ED., SEC. 67. 

FN12  5 WILLISTON, CONTRACTS, REV. ED. SEC. 1346 A; BAGLEY V. SMITH,
10 N.Y. 489, 498; DICKINSON V. HART, 142 N.Y. 183, 188; 36 N.E. 801;
MACAN V. SCANDINAVIA BELTING CO., 264 PA. 384, 392; 107 A. 750;
COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. HACHMEISTER LIND CO., 320 PA. 233, 242; 181
A. 787. 

FN13  OCEAN GROVE CAMP MEETING ASSN. V. REEVES, 79 N.J.L. 334, 338
39; 75 A. 782. 

FN14  EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359, 379. 

FN15  STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO., 282 U.S. 555, 564, 565;
EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO CO., 273 U.S. 359, 379; HETZEL V.
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 169 U.S. 26, 37, 38. 

FN16  HADLEY V. BAXENDALE, 9 EXCH.  341. 

FN17  STORY PARCHMENT CO. V. PATERSON CO., 282 U.S. 555, 562, 563; 1
SEDGWICK, DAMAGES, 9TH ED., SEC. 170; UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V.
O'BRIEN, 143 N.Y. 284, 289; 38 N.E. 266. 

FN18  SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN CORP., 309 U.S. 390, 406-408. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, DISSENTING: 

ON JANUARY 3, 1939, THIS COURT UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED THAT THE "ACTUAL
DAMAGE OR INJURY" CAUSED THE LESSOR THROUGH THE DISAFFIRMANCE BY THE
TRUSTEES OF THE NEW HAVEN OF THE LEASE NOW IN CONTROVERSY WAS A
PROVABLE CLAIM.  CONNECTICUT RY. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493.  IF CONGRESS
HAD INTENDED TO RULE OUT THE LEGAL PROVABILITY OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
ARISING THROUGH THE DISAFFIRMANCE OF WHAT REMAINS OF A 999-YEAR LEASE
IT COULD EASILY HAVE DONE SO, INSTEAD OF PROVIDING FOR PROOF OF THE
DAMAGES FLOWING FROM THE TERMINATION OF SUCH AN UNEXPIRED LEASE.  AND
IF, UPON THE PRIOR CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUS OF THIS VERY LEASE, THIS
COURT HAD INTENDED TO RULE THAT LOSS DUE TO THE DISAFFIRMANCE OF THE
UNEXPIRED TERM OF 969 YEARS IS IN THE NATURE OF THINGS BEYOND RATIONAL
PROOF, IT SURELY WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN TWELVE PAGES TO AVOID SAYING SO.
BOTH CONGRESS AND THIS COURT HAVE THUS SPONSORED THE CONVICTION THAT
PROOF OF SOME DAMAGE IS NOT OUTSIDE THE ADJUDICATORY PROCESS. 

BUT WHAT IS TO BE ASSESSED IS THE VALUE OF A TERMINATED LONG-TERM
LEASE AND NOT THE VALUE OF AN INCLUDED SHORTTERM.  THEREFORE, NEITHER
THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT NOR THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN REVERSING IT SEEMS TO ME SATISFACTORY.  ALTHOUGH THE TWO
COURTS REACHED CONTRADICTORY CONCLUSIONS, THEIR VIEWS APPEAR TO SUFFER
FROM THE SAME INTRINSIC VICE.  STARTING WITH MAN'S INABILITY TO PIERCE
INTO A FUTURE OF 969 YEARS, BOTH COURTS DEEMED THE PRESENT VALUE OF A
LEASE RUNNING FOR SUCH A PERIOD BEYOND CALCULABLE FORECAST.  THEREFORE,
JUDGE HINCKS SAID IN EFFECT, WHEN AN END IS PUT TO THE BENEFITS
ACCRUING FROM SUCH A LEASE, THE LOSS TO THE LESSOR CANNOT BE TRANSLATED
INTO DOLLARS AND CENTS.  JUDGE PATTERSON, ON THE OTHER HAND, TREATED
THE LEASE AS THOUGH IT WERE A LEASE FOR AN ASCERTAINABLE, INCLUDED
SHORT TERM, AND DEEMED ELEVEN YEARS AS THE LIMIT FOR SURE JUDGMENT. 
SINCE THE LEASE IS NOT A SHORT-TERM LEASE, IT IS, ACCORDING TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, NOTHING FOR PURPOSE OF GIVING RISE TO DAMAGES.  SINCE
THE LEASE IS FOR TOO LONG A TERM, WE WILL SNIP OFF AN INCLUDED SHORT
TERM AS THOUGH IT WERE A SHORT-TERM LEASE, CONCLUDED THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS. 

BOTH THESE DISPOSITIONS RESULT IN AVOIDANCE, THROUGH OVER
SIMPLIFICATION, OF AN EXTREMELY COMPLICATED PROBLEM WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PUT UP TO THE COURTS.  SINCE NEITHER THE DISTRICT COURT NOR THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS COURT IN CONNECTICUT
RY. V. PALMER, SUPRA, HOWEVER DIFFICULT AND SUBTLE THEY MAY HAVE BEEN,
NEITHER DISPOSITION SHOULD STAND.  THE CASE SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE
DISTRICT COURT WHERE AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO MAKE PROOFS
APPROPRIATE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED, NAMELY,
ASCERTAINMENT ON A TOUGH BUSINESS BASIS OF THE DAMAGE THAT SPRANG INTO
EXISTENCE FROM THE DISAFFIRMANCE OF THE REMAINING 969-YEAR TERM RATHER
THAN FROM THE DISAFFIRMANCE OF A SUPPOSED 11-YEAR LEASE. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND I ARE OF THE VIEW THAT RESPONDENT'S PROOF WAS
WHOLLY INADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH UNDER SEC. 77(B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
THE EXTENT OF ITS "ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY" AS A RESULT OF THE
REJECTION OF THIS LEASE, SINCE THE EVIDENCE OFFERED FAILED TO SHOW WHAT
WAS "THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE RENT RESERVED LESS THE PRESENT RENTAL
VALUE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM" - THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES
ESTABLISHED FOR THIS VERY CLAIM IN CONNECTICUT RAILWAY & LIGHTING CO.
V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493, 504. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH AN UNEXPIRED TERM OF 969 YEARS.  BUT THE
CLAIM ALLOWED IS FOR A TERM WHICH DOES NOT COVER THAT SPAN.  IT COVERS
ONLY AN UNEXPIRED TERM OF 11 YEARS.  FOR THE REASONS STATED IN KUEHNER
V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 445, WE THINK THAT IF CONGRESS HAD
PROVIDED IN SEC. 77 THAT LESSORS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROVE FOR
DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF AN 11 YEAR UNEXPIRED TERM, THE LIMITATION WOULD BE
CONSTITUTIONAL.  SUCH LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE A FIRM CONSTITUTIONAL
BASIS IN THE BANKRUPTCY POWER.  BUT THE MAKING OF SUCH A LIMITATION IS
A LEGISLATIVE, NOT A JUDICIAL, FUNCTION.  IN VIEW OF THE WORDING OF
SEC. 77(B) WE DO NOT THINK THIS COURT HAS THE POWER TO SUBSTITUTE THE
VALUE OF ONE PROPERTY INTEREST FOR THE VALUE OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
ONE.  SEC. 77(B) SAYS THAT "ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY" SHALL BE ALLOWED. 
YET IT WOULD BE A MERE COINCIDENCE IF "ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY" FOR AN
11 YEAR TERM WERE THE "ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY" FOR A 969 YEAR TERM. 
HENCE THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY REFUSED TO SUBSTITUTE ANY LESSER
TERM FOR THE ONE HERE IN QUESTION.  NO AUTHORITY, WE BELIEVE, CAN BE
FOUND WHICH CAN JUSTIFY SPECULATING A CLAIMANT INTO A LOSS THROUGH THE
EASY ASSUMPTION THAT HE HAD A PROPERTY INTEREST WHICH IN FACT HE DID
NOT HAVE. 

THERE IS A RELATED OBJECTION TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THIS CLAIM.  IT IS
PLAIN THAT ANY ATTEMPTED COMPUTATION OF FUTURE RENTAL VALUES OF THIS
PROPERTY FOR THE NEXT 969 YEARS WOULD AT BEST BE A MERE FLIGHT "INTO
THE REALM OF PURE SPECULATION" WHICH THIS COURT CONDEMNED WHEN THE CASE
WAS HERE BEFORE.  305 U.S. 493, 505.  FROM OUR POINT IN HISTORY 969
YEARS HENCE IS PERPETUITY.  IT COVERS A LONGER SPAN THAT FROM 1941 A.D.
TO 500 YEARS BEFORE COLUMBUS DISCOVERED AMERICA.  TO PROJECT PAST
EARNINGS OF A PRESENT ENTERPRISE THROUGH SUCH VICISSITUDES OF TIME
WOULD BE TO ASSUME A STATIC QUALITY IN SOCIETY WHICH EVEN A DECADE OF
HISTORY WOULD DISPROVE.  THIS WAS TACITLY ADMITTED BY RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RECOGNIZED THE
IMPOSSIBILITY OF SUCH A TASK.  IT THEREFORE PRODUCED A SUBSTITUTE
METHOD.  IT COMPUTED THE ANNUAL ESTIMATED VALUES FOR EACH FUTURE YEAR
FOR AS LONG A PERIOD AS IT COULD VENTURE AN ESTIMATE.  THAT, HOWEVER,
MISSES THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM.  UNDER THE RULE LAID DOWN BY THIS
COURT, THE GREAT UNKNOWN IN SUCH CASES IS THE "PRESENT RENTAL VALUE OF
THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM."  THE ACTUAL DAMAGE, IF ANY, TO THE LESSOR
IS SUFFERED ALL AT ONCE.  FOR SEC. 77, LIKE FORMER SEC. 77B (CITY BANK
FARMERS TRUST CO. V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 433, 440) EXTENDS THE
DOCTRINE OF ANTICIPATORY BREACH (CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. CHICAGO
AUDITORIUM ASSN., 240 U.S. 581) TO LEASES OF REALTY.  WHERE THERE IS
SUCH A BREACH "COMPENSATION THEREFOR MAY BE RECOVERED AT ONCE FOR THE
WHOLE LOSS, THOUGH THE CONSEQUENCE BE A CONTINUING ONE, IF THE FUTURE
DAMAGE RESULTING THEREFROM CAN BE ASCERTAINED WITH CERTAINTY."  JAMES
V. KIBLER'S ADM'R, 94 VA. 165, 173; 26 S.E. 417.  THE LIABILITY OF THE
LESSEE FOR DAMAGES IS SINGLE, NOT MULTIPLE.  BUT SEC. 77(B), UNLIKE
SOME STATE RULES (HERMITAGE CO. V. LEVINE, 248 N.Y. 333; 162 N.E. 97),
CALLS FOR AN ASCERTAINMENT OF THE FULL DEFICIENCY NOT AT THE END OF THE
TERM BUT ON REJECTION OF THE LEASE. 

LESSORS CLAIMING DAMAGES UNDER SEC. 77(B), LIKE CLAIMANTS IN ORDINARY
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (RASMUSSEN V. GRESLY, 77 F.2D 252, 254; WHITNEY
V. DRESSER, 200 U.S. 532), CARRY THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE
EXISTENCE AND AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM.  THEIR PROOF MUST SATISFY THE "USUAL
RULES AS TO THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES"; THEY "MUST SHOW DAMAGES TO
REASONABLE CERTAINTY."  CONNECTICUT RAILWAY & LIGHTING CO. V. PALMER,
SUPRA, AT P. 505.  WHILE ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY IS NOT REQUIRED WHERE A
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IS SOUGHT (HETZEL V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 169
U.S. 26, 37), THE EVIDENCE MUST BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE EXERCISE OF AN
INFORMED JUDGMENT AS TO THE AMOUNT.  WHERE THE EXISTENCE OR EXTENT OF
THE DAMAGE IS A MATTER OF MERE CONJECTURE OR GUESSWORK, THE CLAIM WILL
BE DENIED.  PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., 198 F.
721, 759.  WHEN THE INSTANT CASE WAS HERE BEFORE, THE PENNSYLVANIA
STEEL CO. CASE WAS CITED FOR THE STATEMENT, "THE DIFFICULTIES OF PROOF
ARE WELL RECOGNIZED."  305 U.S. AT 504.  IN THE PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO.
CASE DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF A LEASE WITH AN UNEXPIRED TERM OF 995 YEARS
WERE DISALLOWED IN RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS, THE COURT SAYING (P. 759):
"WHO COULD FORETELL THE RESULTS OF OPERATION BY THE OWNER, THE GROWTH
OF THE CITY, IMPROVEMENTS IN MOTIVE POWER, OR REDUCTIONS IN COST?  WHO
COULD FORESEE WHETHER A LEASE COULD BE MADE TO ANOTHER RAILROAD COMPANY
OR THE TERMS THEREOF?  ...  THE CLAIM FOR SUCH DAMAGES WAS PROPERLY
DISALLOWED BECAUSE IT WAS UNCERTAIN IN AMOUNT AND THERE WAS NO METHOD
OF MAKING IT CERTAIN." 

THOSE OBSERVATIONS ARE PECULIARLY APT WHEN APPLIED TO THE FACTS IN
THIS RECORD.  HERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AS TO MARKET VALUE.  CF.
METROPOLITAN BLDG. CO. V. KING COUNTY, 62 WASH. 409; 113 P. 1114.  NOR
HAS THERE BEEN ANY FAIR, BONA FIDE RELETTING.  CF. JAMES V. KIBLER'S
ADM'R, SUPRA. IN THIS RECORD THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO
VALUE EXCEPT ESTIMATED PAST EARNINGS.  USEFUL AS PAST EARNINGS MAY BE
IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHERE A SHORT AND LIMITED FORECAST IS BEING MADE
(EASTMAN KODAK CO. V. SOUTHERN PHOTO MATERIALS CO., 273 U.S. 359) THEY
ARE INDEED TREACHEROUS WHEN USED AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR APPRAISAL.  FN1
THE VALUE OF A GOING ENTERPRISE IS DEPENDENT ON EARNINGS.  A FORECAST
OF EARNINGS MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE NUMEROUS AND VARIABLE
FACTORS WHICH AFFECT INCOME-PRODUCING CAPACITY.  FN2  THOSE FACTORS
VARY FROM BUSINESS TO BUSINESS.  HERE WE ARE DEALING WITH PASSENGER
TRANSPORTATION BY BUS.  CERTAINLY ANY FORECAST OF EARNINGS SHOULD
EMBRACE AN EXPERT STUDY OF PROBLEMS PECULIAR TO THIS FIELD - THE
TERRITORY SERVED, POPULATION TRENDS, COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, THE RECORD
OF COMPANIES IN COMPARABLE TERRITORY, AND THE LIKE.  ANY ESTIMATE WHICH
WHOLLY IGNORES SUCH FACTORS AND RELIES ENTIRELY ON PAST EARNINGS
IGNORES THE VERY CONDITIONS WHICH ALONE CAN IMPEACH OR SUSTAIN THE
CREDIBILITY OF PAST EARNINGS AS A MEASURE OF FUTURE EARNINGS.  FN3  CF.
HAMMOND LUMBER CO. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 104 CAL. APP. 235; 285 P.
896. 

THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING THE PRESENT VALUE OF THIS UNEXPIRED TERM
OF 969 YEARS IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE PROBLEM OF VALUING A FEE
INTEREST. 

THE FACT THAT THIS INSTRUMENT IS CALLED A "LEASE" IS NO BARRIER TO
SUCH AN APPRAISAL.  FOR, AS STATED BY THIS COURT IN UNION PACIFIC RY.
CO. V. CHICAGO.  R.I. & P.RY. CO., 163 U.S. 564, 582, WHERE A SO-CALLED
"LEASE" WAS CONSTRUED:  "WHAT IT WAS STYLED BY THE PARTIES DOES NOT
DETERMINE ITS CHARACTER OR THEIR LEGAL RELATIONS."  THE COURT HAS NOT
ONLY THE POWER BUT THE DUTY TO DETERMINE ITS REAL CHARACTER BY
CONSIDERATION OF ALL ITS INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC CHARACTERISTICS.  ID.,
AT P. 582.  A LEASE RENEWABLE FOREVER OR A LEASE IN PERPETUITY (AS
HERE) IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A FEE INTEREST.  IT HAS BEEN SO TREATED IN
CONNECTICUT, WHERE THE INSTANT LEASE WAS MADE, FOR PURPOSES OF
TAXATION.  CONNECTICUT SPIRITUALIST CAMP-MEETING ASSN. V. TOWN OF EAST
LYME, 54 CONN. 152, 155-156; 5 A. 849.  AS STATED IN PIPER V. MEREDITH,
83 N.H. 107, 110; 139 A. 294, "IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT A PERPETUAL
LEASE UPON CONDITION CONVEYS TO THE LESSEE A DETERMINABLE OR BASE
FEE."  OR AS STATED IN WHITTELSEY V. PORTER, 82 CONN. 95, 102, A 999
YEAR LEASE IS "PRACTICALLY A FEE DEFEASIBLE ONLY UPON FAILURE TO
PERFORM CERTAIN CONDITIONS."  AND SEE MONTGOMERY V. TOWN OF BRANFORD,
107 CONN. 697, 702; 142 A. 574; WELLS V. SAVANNAH, 181 U.S. 531; LEARY
V. JERSEY CITY, 248 U.S. 328; TRUSTEES OF ELMIRA V. DUNN, 22 BARB. 
402.  THE MERE REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF THE LESSOR IN A PERPETUAL LEASE
IS SO REMOTE AND SPECULATIVE AS TO DEFY VALUATION.  SEE CHICAGO WEST
DIVISION RY. CO. V. METROPOLITAN WEST SIDE ELEVATED R. CO., 152 ILL.
519, 524-526; 38 N.E. 736.  AS STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF
CONNECTICUT, THE REVERSION UNDER A 999 YEAR LEASE BECOMES A "MERE
IMAGINARY ESTATE."  BRAINARD V. TOWN OF COLCHESTER, 31 CONN. 407, 411. 
WHATEVER MAY BE THE PRECISE CATALOGUE OF ALL RIGHTS OF THE LESSEE
(GOODWIN V. GOODWIN, 33 CONN. 314; DENNIS APPEAL, 72 CONN. 369; 44 A.
545) AND WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE BUSINESS AND LEGAL REASONS FOR USE
OF THE 999 YEAR LEASE RATHER THAN THE ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS BY
MERGER, CONSOLIDATION OR OTHERWISE,  FN4  IT IS PLAIN THAT FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE LESSEE RETAINS SUCH FULL CONTROL AND SUCH
COMPLETE ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY THAT HE MAY PROPERLY BE TREATED AS
THE OWNER.  SUCH A LEASE IS IN EFFECT "A PRACTICAL SALE."  LORD V. TOWN
OF LITCHFIELD, 36 CONN. 116, 126. 

THUS THE PROBLEM OF DETERMINING THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE UNEXPIRED
TERM OF 969 YEARS IS NO DIFFERENT FROM DETERMINING THE VALUE OF LAND IN
AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE IT.  THERE THE RULE IS
THAT THE VENDOR MAY RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR HIS ACTUAL LOSS MEASURED
BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE HE WAS TO RECEIVE  FN5  (LESS THE
AMOUNT PAID) AND THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT THE TIME OF BREACH.  3
SEDGWICK ON DAMAGES (9TH ED.)  SECS.  1023 ET SEQ; IN RE MARSHALL'S
GARAGE, 63 F.2D 759.  IN MAKING THAT VALUATION THE CONVENTIONAL RULES
GOVERNING APPRAISALS OF THE WORTH OF FEE INTERESTS WOULD BE
APPLICABLE.  1 BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY, CHS.  XIII, XIV. 

IN SUM, WHATEVER RULE OF DAMAGES IS APPLIED TO THIS SITUATION, THE
PROOF SUBMITTED IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY INTEREST
HERE INVOLVED WITHOUT VIOLATING THE WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE AGAINST
ALLOWANCE OF SPECULATIVE DAMAGES, ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT ON THE FIRST
APPEAL.  NO REASONS OF POLICY HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED WHICH JUSTIFY
DEVIATION FROM THOSE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES.  THE FACT THAT THE
"LEASE" EXTENDS OVER A PERIOD OF ALMOST TEN CENTURIES ACCENTUATES THE
NECESSITY FOR CLOSE ADHERENCE TO THE RULE, NOT FOR ITS RELAXATION. 

FN1  1 BONBRIGHT, VALUATION OF PROPERTY, C. XII. 

FN2  BONBRIGHT, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 1; DEWING, FINANCIAL POLICY OF
CORPORATIONS, PP. 319 ET SEQ.; GRAHAM & DODD, SECURITY ANALYSIS, C. I;
KNISKERN, REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL & VALUATION, PP. 235 ET SEQ.; MASON,
THE STREET RAILWAY IN MASSACHUSETTS, C. 6; MCMICHAEL, LONG & SHORT TERM
LEASEHOLDS. 

FN3  IN THE MATTER OF BREEZE CORPORATIONS, INC., 3 S.E.C.D. & R. 709;
IN THE MATTER OF MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP., 1 S.E.C.D. & R. 786. 

FN4  MCMICHAEL, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 2, C. I; MECK & MASTEN,
RAILROAD LEASES AND REORGANIZATION, 49 YALE L.J. 626; NIEHUSS & FISHER,
PROBLEMS OF LONG TERM LEASES, 2 MICH. BUS.  STUDIES, PAMPHLET 8; THE
LONG TERM GROUND LEASE:  A SURVEY, 48 YALE L.J. 1400. 

FN5  FUTURE PAYMENTS WOULD OF COURSE BE REDUCED TO PRESENT WORTH. 
BONDY V. HARVEY, 218 APP. DIV. 126; 217 N.Y.S. 877. 
..END :









R.R. COMMISSION V. OIL CO., 311 U.S. 570 


NO. 218.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 13, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION LIMITING THE DAILY
ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION OF THE EAST TEXAS OIL FIELD AND PROVIDING A METHOD
FOR ITS DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE SEVERAL WELL OWNERS, HELD: 

(1)  CONSISTENT WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, P. 572. 

(2)  NOT SO CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF A STATE STATUTE, VERNON'S TEXAS
ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES, ART. 6049C, SEC. 7, AS TO WARRANT AN
INJUNCTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, P. 577, 

AS APPLIED TO AN OPERATING COMPANY WHICH CHALLENGED THE BASIS OF THE
FORMULA AND CLAIMED THAT BY ITS MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM "ALLOWABLES" IT
UNDULY FAVORED WELLS OF SMALL CAPACITY AND IMPAIRED THE FUTURE
PRODUCTIVITY OF WELLS IN HIGH-PRODUCING AND "THINLY" DRILLED AREAS. 
CF., RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 310 U.S. 573;
POST, P. 614. 

2.  IN MATTERS OF THIS KIND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT THE JUDGMENT OF AN EXPERT STATE COMMISSION BE SUPPLANTED BY THE
INDIVIDUAL VIEW OF JUDGES BASED ON THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY,
PROPHECIES AND IMPRESSIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES.  P. 576. 

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS ET AL. V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
ENJOINED THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER REGULATING PRODUCTION OF OIL IN
THE EAST TEXAS FIELD. 

MR. DAN MOODY, WITH WHOM MR. RICE M. TILLEY WAS ON THE BRIEF, FOR
APPELLEE. 

THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN 310 U.S. 573, WAS NOT DECISIVE OF THE
ISSUES IN THIS CASE.  THE ORDER IN THAT CASE WAS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. 
THE ORDER HERE ATTACKED SUBJECTS THE APPELLEE TO A GREATER DEGREE OF
DISCRIMINATION, IN THAT IT RECEIVES A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF THE
ALLOWABLE OIL UNDER THIS ORDER THAN UNDER THE OLD ORDER IN THE FIRST
CASE. 

UNDER TEXAS LAW THE OWNER OF LAND OWNS THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE
THEREUNDER, AND UNDER THE CONVENTIONAL FORM OF OIL AND GAS LEASE, SUCH
AS IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, THE LESSEE OWNS THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE,
AND IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR CHANCE TO RECOVER THE SAME, OR ITS EQUIVALENT
IN KIND; OR, OTHERWISE STATED, TO AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY WITH OTHER
OPERATORS TO REALIZE FOR HIS LEASEHOLD. 

THE PRESENT ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, ALLOCATING APPROXIMATELY 75% OF
THE "ALLOWABLE" ON A PER WELL BASIS, WHICH, AS TO SUCH 75%, ADMITTEDLY
GIVES NO CONSIDERATION TO RESERVES UNDER THE RESPECTIVE LEASES, ABILITY
OF WELLS TO PRODUCE, PRESSURES, SAND CONDITIONS, OR DENSITY OF DRILLING
ON THE RESPECTIVE LEASES, IGNORES THE DIFFERENCES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT ANY REASONABLE OR EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION.  SUCH ORDER RESULTS IN WASTE BY CAUSING PREMATURE
ENCROACHMENT OF WATER AND LOW PRESSURE AREAS; AND IS ARBITRARY, UNJUST,
UNREASONABLE, AND CONFISCATORY.  IT OPERATES TO DENY APPELLEE THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAW, TAKES ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, AND
CONTRAVENES THE LAWS OF TEXAS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REGULATORY SCHEME DEVISED BY TEXAS FOR
EXPLOITING AND SAFEGUARDING ITS OIL RESOURCES, THE RAILROAD COMMISSION
OF THAT STATE IN 1938 ISSUED AN ORDER FORMULATING A METHOD FOR
DISTRIBUTING AMONG WELL OWNERS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF OIL WHICH IT THEN
ALLOWED TO BE PRODUCED IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD.  THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THIS ORDER WAS ENJOINED BY LOWER FEDERAL COURTS AT THE SUIT OF THE
COMPLAINANT IN THE PRESENT CASE, ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL COMPANY, 28
F.SUPP.  131; 107 F.2D 70.  TO AVOID THE DISLOCATION RESULTING FROM
THIS JUDICIAL FRUSTRATION OF ITS ORDER, THE COMMISSION, BY AN ORDER OF
SEPTEMBER 11, 1939, HAD TO DEVISE A NEW PLAN OF PRORATION.  ITS ACTION
IN DOING SO WAS AGAIN PROMPTLY CHALLENGED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
IN TEXAS.  A DECREE ENJOINING THE COMMISSION FOLLOWED, AND AN APPEAL
FROM THAT DECREE IS THE MATTER NOW BEFORE US. JUDICIAL CODE, SECS. 238,
266, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 345, 380. 

THE CHALLENGED ORDER OF THE COMMISSION CONCEDEDLY SATISFIES ALL
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.  IT WAS PART OF A CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY, PRECEDED BY A SPECIFIC HEARING AFFECTING
THE IMMEDIATE SITUATION, WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE OIL COMPANY
TO DEVELOP THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS WHICH IT LATER RENEWED BELOW AND
HERE. 

THE COMMISSION'S ACTION NOW IN CONTROVERSY CANNOT BE SEVERED FROM THE
EARLIER ORDER WHICH IT REPLACED.  BOTH SET LIMITS, INCONTESTABLY VALID,
CHAMPLIN RFG.  CO. V. COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, ON THE DAILY PRODUCTION
OF THE EAST TEXAS FIELD.  IN BOTH LITIGATIONS THE OIL COMPANY CLAIMED
TO BE A VICTIM OF ILLEGALITIES IN THE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING THIS TOTAL
ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION AMONG THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF OIL PRODUCERS. 

SO FAR AS RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IS CONCERNED, WE FOUND IN THE
PRIOR PHASE OF THIS CONTINUING LITIGATION THAT THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT INFIRMITY.  310 U.S. 573; POST, P. 614.  IN THE
ORDER WHICH WAS THEN BEFORE US EACH WELL WAS ALLOWED 2.32 PER CENT OF
ITS HOURLY POTENTIAL PRODUCTION, EXCEPT THAT WELLS NOT CAPABLE OF
PRODUCING 20 BARRELS A DAY AT OPEN FLOW WERE, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
MARGINAL WELL STATUTE (VERNON'S TEXAS ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES, ART.
6049B), ALLOWED FULL CAPACITY, AND WELLS WHICH COULD NOT PRODUCE OVER
20 BARRELS A DAY AT 2.32 PER CENT OF THEIR HOURLY POTENTIAL WERE
ALLOWED 20 BARRELS A DAY.  THE ORDER DISTRIBUTED, IN ROUND NUMBERS, A
TOTAL ALLOWABLE OF 522,000 BARRELS AS FOLLOWS:  5,250 A DAY TO 451
WELLS HAVING A CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 20 BARRELS; 380,640 TO 19,032
WELLS WHICH AT 2.32 PER CENT OF HOURLY POTENTIAL COULD NOT PRODUCE OVER
20 BARRELS; 136,610 TO 6,325 WELLS AT THE RATE OF 2.32 PER CENT OF
HOURLY POTENTIAL.  THIS ADJUSTMENT BY THE STATE'S EXPERT AGENCY OF WHAT
IN OUR FORMER OPINION WE CALLED "AS THORNY A PROBLEM AS HAS CHALLENGED
THE INGENUITY AND WISDOM OF LEGISLATURES" WAS ATTACKED ON TWO GROUNDS. 
IT WAS CLAIMED THAT AN HOURLY POTENTIAL FORMULA FATALLY OMITTED OTHER
RELEVANT FACTORS, ESPECIALLY ACRE-FEET OF SAND.  FURTHER IT WAS URGED
THAT THE MINIMUM ALLOWANCE OF 20 BARRELS, WHICH NEARLY ABSORBED THE
TOTAL PRODUCTION, CONSTITUTED AN ILLEGITIMATE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
HIGHPRODUCING AND THINLY DRILLED AREAS.  WE REJECTED THESE ARGUMENTS AS
AN ATTEMPT TO SUBSTITUTE A JUDICIAL JUDGMENT FOR THE EXPERT PROCESS
INVENTED BY THE STATE IN A FIELD SO PECULIARLY DEPENDENT ON SPECIALIZED
JUDGMENT.  WE SAID IN EFFECT THAT THE BASIS OF PRESENT KNOWLEDGE
TOUCHING PRORATION WAS SO UNCERTAIN AND DEVELOPING, THAT SOUNDER
FOUNDATIONS ARE ONLY TO BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE FRUITFUL EMPIRICISM OF
A CONTINUOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.  FURTHER, THAT OUGHT NOT TO BE
STIFLED BY DRAWING FROM THE GENERALITIES OF THE CONSTITUTION ALLEGIANCE
TO ONE AS AGAINST ANOTHER SPECULATIVE ASSUMPTION EVEN THOUGH DELUSIVELY
CLOTHED IN FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT. 

IN THE ORDER NOW BEFORE US THE COMMISSION ALLOWED A TOTAL PRODUCTION
OF 691,000 BARRELS, AND THE FORMULA OF ALLOCATION TOOK INTO
CONSIDERATION TWO OTHER FACTORS - BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE AND THE QUALITY
OF THE SURROUNDING SAND OF THE WELLS - AS WELL AS HOURLY POTENTIAL.  BY
THIS FORMULA 514 WELLS INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING 20 BARRELS A DAY AT OPEN
FLOW ABSORBED 6,245 BARRELS, 25,456 WELLS WERE ALLOTTED A MINIMUM OF 20
BARRELS, THUS ABSORBING 509,000 BARRELS, LEAVING 176,000 BARRELS TO BE
DISTRIBUTED AMONG THESE LATTER WELLS ACCORDING TO THE NEW ALLOCATION
FORMULA.  UNDER THE FIRST ORDER, THE MINIMUM PER WELL ALLOWANCE OF 20
BARRELS ACCOUNTED FOR 98 PER CENT OF THE LIMITED PRODUCTION; UNDER THE
LATER ORDER ONLY 75 PER CENT WAS NEEDED TO SATISFY THE 20 BARREL
ALLOWANCE.  THE LEASE INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION WAS ALLOWED BY THE
FIRST ORDER AN OUTPUT OF 154 BARRELS A DAY, OR .029 PER CENT OF THE
TOTAL ALLOWABLE; NOW IT MAY PRODUCE 260 BARRELS A DAY, WHICH IS .037
PER CENT OF THE TOTAL.  THIS COMPARISON OF THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF
THE TWO ORDERS EXPOSES THE EMPTINESS OF THE CLAIM THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL
LINE CAN BE DRAWN BETWEEN THEM. 

THE ACCOMMODATION OF CONFLICTING PRIVATE INTERESTS IN THE EAST TEXAS
OIL FIELD, WITH DUE REGARD TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE, IS BESET WITH
PERPLEXITIES, BOTH GEOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC.  AS WE READ THE RECORDS IN
THESE CASES, THIS PICTURE EMERGES.  THE HUGE OIL RESOURCES OF THAT
REGION, VIEWED IN CROSS-SECTION FROM EAST TO WEST, ARE ROUGHLY
TRIANGULAR IN SHAPE.  ON THE LOWER WESTERN SIDE THE PRESSURE OF AN OIL
WATER FACE FURNISHES THE PRINCIPAL ENERGY OF THE FIELD.  AS THE OIL IS
WITHDRAWN, THE PRESSURE IS DECREASED.  THE DRIVE OF THE WATER FROM THE
WEST FORCES THE OIL EASTWARD, AND THE WESTERNMOST WELLS ARE FIRST
EXHAUSTED.  THE REDUCED PRESSURE IN THE FIELD SHORTENS THE LIFE OF THE
WELLS ON THE EXTREME EASTERN EDGE, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE WELLS
NEARER THE CENTER OF THE FIELD, LIKE THOSE OF THE ROWAN & NICHOLS
COMPANY, ARE LIKELY TO BE MOST LONG-LIVED.  THUS IT IS THAT A
PRODUCTION FORMULA DEPENDENT ON CURRENT RESERVES OF OIL IN PLACE - A
CONSIDERATION WHICH GREATLY INFLUENCED THE COURT BELOW AND WAS URGED
BEFORE US - CONTAINS ELEMENTS OF UNFAIRNESS TO WELLS ON THE EDGE OF THE
FIELD BY DISREGARDING THE MIGRATION OF OIL FROM WEST TO EAST.  OTHER
FACTORS FURTHER COMPLICATE THE SITUATION.  THE SURFACE IS OFTEN DIVIDED
INTO SMALL TRACTS, AND THE COMMISSION, ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
THE TEXAS STATUTES, HAS PERMITTED THE DRILLING OF WELLS BY SMALL OWNERS
IN ORDER TO PREVENT PRACTICAL FORFEITURE OF THEIR INTERESTS.  SMALL
PRODUCERS HAVE INVESTMENTS IN EXISTING WELLS WITH LOW CAPACITIES, AND
THESE WELLS NEED A MINIMUM DAILY PRODUCTION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THEIR
ENTERPRISE.  IN ADDITION TO ALL THIS, ANY SCHEME OF PRORATION DULY
MINDFUL OF ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, HARDLY MATHEMATICALLY
COMMENSURABLE, WHICH CONSTITUTE THE TOTAL WELL-BEING OF A SOCIETY, MUST
ASSURE THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF WELLS FOR AN
ADEQUATE EXPLOITATION OF THE STATE'S OIL RESOURCES. 

IN ACHIEVING A RECONCILIATION OF THESE TANGLED AND PARTLY CONFLICTING
AIMS, THE COMMISSION EVIDENTLY REGARDED THE 20 BARREL MINIMUM ALLOWANCE
AS A GUIDING FACTOR, TAKING ITS CUE DOUBTLESS IN PART FROM THE POLICY
UNDERLYING THE TEXAS MARGINAL WELL STATUTE, SUPRA.  THE JUSTIFICATION
FOR THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS ITS CONVICTION THAT THE MINIMUM
ALLOWANCE ACCELERATES THE RATE OF PRODUCTION OF THE DENSELY DRILLED
AREAS ON THE EDGES OF THE FIELD MOST SUBJECT TO LOSSES FROM THE
MIGRATION OF THE OIL, THAT SUCH ALLOWANCE IS AN APPROPRIATE INCENTIVE
TO THE DRILLING OF SMALL TRACTS, AND THAT THEREBY INVESTMENT LOSSES IN
LOW-PRODUCING WELLS ARE MINIMIZED. 

NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WARRANTS A REJECTION OF THESE EXPERT
CONCLUSIONS.  NOR, ON THE BASIS OF INTRINSIC SKILLS AND EQUIPMENT, ARE
THE FEDERAL COURTS QUALIFIED TO SET THEIR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON SUCH
MATTERS AGAINST THAT OF THE CHOSEN STATE AUTHORITIES.  FOR ITS OWN GOOD
REASONS TEXAS VESTED AUTHORITY OVER THESE DIFFICULT AND DELICATE
PROBLEMS IN ITS RAILROAD COMMISSION.  PRESUMABLY THAT BODY, AS THE
PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE'S REGULATORY RELATION TO THE OIL
INDUSTRY EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH ITS EVER-CHANGING ASPECTS, POSSESSES AN
INSIGHT AND APTITUDE WHICH CAN HARDLY BE MATCHED BY JUDGES WHO ARE
CALLED UPON TO INTERVENE AT FITFUL INTERVALS.  INDEED, WE ARE ASKED TO
SUSTAIN THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE AS THOUGH IT DERIVED FROM AN
ORDINARY LITIGATION THAT HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THAT COURT, AND AS THOUGH
TEXAS HAD NOT AN EXPERT COMMISSION WHICH ALREADY HAD CANVASSED AND
DETERMINED THE VERY ISSUES ON WHICH THE COURT FORMED ITS OWN JUDGMENT. 
FOR IT APPEARS THAT THE COURT BELOW NULLIFIED THE COMMISSION'S ACTION
WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE RECORD OF THE COMMISSION BEFORE IT.  WHEN WE
CONSIDER THE LIMITING CONDITIONS OF LITIGATION - THE ADAPTABILITY OF
THE JUDICIAL PROCESS ONLY TO ISSUES DEFINITELY CIRCUMSCRIBED AND
SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING JUDGED BY THE TECHNIQUES AND CRITERIA WITHIN THE
SPECIAL COMPETENCE OF LAWYERS - IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE FEEL OF THE EXPERT TO BE SUPPLANTED BY AN
INDEPENDENT VIEW OF JUDGES ON THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY AND PROPHESIES
AND IMPRESSIONS OF EXPERT WITNESSES. 

THIS RECORD GIVES LITTLE JUSTIFICATION FOR CONFIDENCE IN SUCH
TESTIMONY AS THE BASIS FOR JUDICIAL DOGMATISM.  TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, THE
QUESTION OF THE AMOUNT OF RECOVERABLE OIL REMAINING IN THE FIELD.  ONE
EXPERT TESTIFYING FOR THE COMPANY IN THIS CASE GAVE AN ESTIMATE OF
3,180,000,000 BARRELS, WHILE IN ANOTHER CASE A YEAR PREVIOUSLY HIS
ESTIMATE HAD BEEN A BILLION BARRELS LESS.  SIMILARLY, IN REGARD TO THE
CRUCIAL ISSUE OF THE 20 BARREL MINIMUM, ALTHOUGH IT WAS COMMON GROUND
THAT SOME MINIMUM WAS ESSENTIAL TO AVOID FATAL LOSSES OF INVESTMENT,
WHAT THAT MINIMUM SHOULD BE WAS CLEARLY NOT SHOWN TO BE CAPABLE OF
MATHEMATICAL ASCERTAINMENT, AND NO EXPERT ON BEHALF OF THE OIL COMPANY
PROVED THAT THE MINIMUM OF THE COMMISSION BORE NO RELATION TO THE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY TO BE ENFORCED BY THE COMMISSION. 

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS SHALL
STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN ASCERTAINABLE FACTS AND DUBIOUS INFERENCES
UNDERLYING SUCH A COMPLICATED AND ELUSIVE SITUATION AS IS PRESENTED BY
THE TEXAS OIL FIELDS IN ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE THE COURT'S WISDOM FOR THAT
OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. MARYSVILLE, 279 U.S.
582.  THE REAL ANSWER TO ANY CLAIMS OF INEQUITY OR TO ANY NEED OF
ADJUSTMENT TO SHIFTING CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE CONTINUING SUPERVISORY
POWER OF THE EXPERT COMMISSION.  IN ANY EVENT, A STATE'S INTEREST IN
THE CONSERVATION AND EXPLOITATION OF A PRIMARY NATURAL RESOURCE IS NOT
TO BE ACHIEVED THROUGH ASSUMPTION BY THE FEDERAL COURTS OF POWERS
PLAINLY OUTSIDE THEIR PROVINCE AND NO LESS PLAINLY BEYOND THEIR SPECIAL
COMPETENCE.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR SUCH ENDS. 

THE COURT BELOW ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THE ORDER A VIOLATION OF THE
TEXAS STATUTE REQUIRING PRORATION ON A "REASONABLE BASIS."  VERNON'S
TEXAS ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES, ART. 6049C, SEC. 7.  IN DENYING THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THE EARLIER CASES WE HELD THAT WHATEVER
RIGHTS THE STATE STATUTE MAY AFFORD ARE TO BE PURSUED IN THE STATE
COURTS, POST, P. 614. 

THE DECREE IS VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.  VACATED.    THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR.
JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENT FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V.
ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO., 310 U.S. 573.  THEY ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD DO NOT DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THOSE FOUND
IN THE EARLIER CASE AND REQUIRE THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT. 
..END :





















RAILROAD COMMISSION V. HUMBLE OIL, 311 U.S. 578 


NO. 57.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - DECREE
VACATED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. ROWAN &
NICHOLS OIL CO., ANTE, P. 570. 

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS ET AL. V. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS A COMPANION CASE TO RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWAN &
NICHOLS OIL CO., ANTE, P. 570.  THERE ARE MINOR VARIATIONS IN THE FACTS
OF THE TWO CASES, BUT NOT OF SUFFICIENT MOMENT TO CALL FOR
PARTICULARIZATION.  THE DECISION IN THE ROWAN & NICHOLS CASE IS
DECISIVE OF THIS. 

THE DECREE IS VACATED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.  VACATED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
DISSENT. 
..END :



R.F.C. V. PRUDENCE GROUP, 311 U.S. 579 


NO. 69.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 17, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  -
111 F.2D 37, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR TAKING APPEALS UNDER SEC. 250 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED, FROM ORDERS MAKING OR REFUSING TO MAKE
ALLOWANCES OF COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER CHAPTER X, IS BY
FILING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY
SEC. 25(A), APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, NOT BY FILING NOTICES OF
APPEAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 581. 

2.  RULE 73(A) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT WHEN AN APPEAL "IS PERMITTED BY LAW FROM A DISTRICT COURT
TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS" IT MAY BE TAKEN BY FILING WITH THE
DISTRICT COURT A NOTICE OF APPEAL, IS INAPPLICABLE TO APPEALS UNDER
SEC. 250 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH MAY BE HAD ONLY IN THE DISCRETION
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 581. 

3.  ALTHOUGH APPEALS UNDER SEC. 250 MUST BE "TAKEN TO" THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 25(A), IT IS NOT
REQUIRED ALSO THAT THEY BE "ALLOWED" WITHIN THAT TIME.  P. 582. 

4.  AMBIGUITIES IN STATUTORY LANGUAGE SHOULD NOT BE RESOLVED SO AS TO
IMPERIL A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED.  P. 582. 

5.  WHERE, SUBSEQUENT TO LONDON V. O'DOUGHERTY, 102 F.2D 524, AND
PRIOR TO DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL SITE V. COWAN, 309 U.S. 382, NOTICES OF
APPEALS FROM COMPENSATION ORDERS UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
WERE FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WITHIN THE APPEAL PERIOD PRESCRIBED
BY SEC. 25(A), ALTHOUGH NO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HELD THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WAS NOT WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ALLOW THE APPEALS.  PP. 580, 582. 

RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. ET AL. V. PRUDENCE SECURITIES ADVISORY
GROUP ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 622, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING APPEALS
FROM COMPENSATION ORDERS OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL SITE V. COWAN, 309 U.S. 382, DECIDED ON MARCH
11, 1940, HELD THAT APPEALS FROM ALL ORDERS MAKING OR REFUSING TO MAKE
ALLOWANCES OF COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER CH. X OF THE CHANDLER
ACT (52 STAT. 840) MAY BE HAD ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  PRIOR TO THAT DECISION THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAD HELD THAT APPEALS FROM SUCH ORDERS
(INVOLVING $500 OR MORE) COULD BE HAD AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.  LONDON V.
O'DOUGHERTY, 102 F.2D 524.  SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION IN THE LONDON
CASE AND PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL SITE V. COWAN,
SUPRA, PETITIONERS ENDEAVORED TO TAKE APPEALS FROM COMPENSATION ORDERS,
WHICH HAD BEEN ENTERED IN REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER FORMER SEC.
77 B (48 STAT. 912), BY FILING WITHIN THE APPEAL PERIOD PROVIDED BY
SEC. 25(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, NOTICES OF APPEAL IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  NO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AT ANY TIME.  SOME OF THE APPEALS WERE ARGUED IN MAY,
1939, THE BALANCE IN FEBRUARY, 1940, SOME OF THE NOTICES OF APPEAL
HAVING BEEN FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN MARCH, 1939, AND SOME IN
NOVEMBER, 1939.  WHILE THE MATTER WAS UNDER ADVISEMENT IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WE DECIDED DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL SITE V. COWAN, SUPRA.
THEREUPON CERTAIN RESPONDENTS MOVED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEALS FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  ALL OF THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED, SOME ON THOSE
MOTIONS AND SOME BY THE COURT SUA SPONTE.  111 F.2D 37.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED IN VIEW OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROCEDURAL PROBLEM IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT AND OF THE ASSERTED SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT OF THE DECISION
BELOW WITH BAXTER V. SAVINGS BANK, 92 F.2D 404, AND WILSON V. ALLIANCE
LIFE INS. CO., 102 F.2D 365, DECIDED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

SEC. 250 OF THE CHANDLER ACT PROVIDES THAT APPEALS FROM COMPENSATION
ORDERS "MAY, IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED FOR APPEALS BY
THIS ACT, BE TAKEN TO AND ALLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS." 
PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT WHEN SEC. 250 STATES THAT SUCH APPEALS MAY BE
TAKEN "IN THE MANNER  ...  PROVIDED FOR APPEALS BY THIS ACT," IT
NECESSARILY MAKES APPLICABLE SEC. 24(B) WHICH PROVIDES THAT SUCH
APPELLATE JURISDICTION SHALL BE EXERCISED "BY APPEAL AND IN THE FORM
AND MANNER OF AN APPEAL."  THEY ARGUE, THEREFORE, THAT RULE 73(A) OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, WHICH ALLOWS AN APPEAL TO BE
TAKEN "BY FILING WITH THE DISTRICT COURT A NOTICE OF APPEAL" IN THOSE
CASES WHERE AN "APPEAL IS PERMITTED BY LAW FROM A DISTRICT COURT TO A
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS," GOVERNS APPEALS UNDER SEC. 250 AS WELL AS
OTHER APPEALS, SINCE GENERAL ORDER NO. 36 MAKES THOSE RULES APPLICABLE
TO APPEALS IN BANKRUPTCY, "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE ACT." 
IN OUR VIEW, HOWEVER, RULE 73(A) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO APPEALS UNDER
SEC. 250(SEE 2 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (14TH ED.)  P. 918) FOR THEY ARE
PERMISSIVE APPEALS WHICH MAY BE HAD NOT AS OF RIGHT BUT ONLY IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  SINCE SEC. 250 PROVIDES
THAT THEY MAY "BE TAKEN TO AND ALLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS," THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR TAKING THEM IS BY FILING IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 25(A),
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL, NOT BY FILING NOTICES OF APPEAL IN
THE DISTRICT COURT AS WAS DONE HERE.  AS RESPONDENTS MAINTAIN, THAT IS
THE FAIR IMPLICATION FROM OUR CONCLUSION IN DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL SITE
V. COWAN, SUPRA, AT P. 385, THAT SUCH APPEALS "MAY BE HAD ONLY AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS."  BUT WHILE THE APPEALS
UNDER SEC. 250 MUST BE "TAKEN TO" THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITHIN
THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 25(A) WE DO NOT THINK IT IS THE FAIR
INTENDMENT OF THAT SECTION THAT THEY MUST ALSO BE "ALLOWED" WITHIN THAT
TIME.  CF. IN RE FOSTER CONSTRUCTION CORP., 49 F.2D 213; PRICE V.
SPOKANE SILVER & LEAD CO., 97 F.2D 237.  IF THAT WERE TRUE, THE
EXISTENCE OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCIES
WHICH NO DEGREE OF DILIGENCE BY AN APPELLANT COULD CONTROL. 
AMBIGUITIES IN STATUTORY LANGUAGE SHOULD NOT BE RESOLVED SO AS TO
IMPERIL A SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED. 

THE COURT BELOW WAS IN SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT WITH THE FOREGOING
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 250.  IT WENT ON TO HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT SINCE
PETITIONERS DID NOT SEEK AN ALLOWANCE OF THEIR APPEALS IN THAT COURT
WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 25(A), IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO
ALLOW THEM.  WE TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. 

THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY PETITIONERS WAS IRREGULAR.  NORMALLY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WOULD BE WHOLLY JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE MERE
FILING OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT AS INSUFFICIENT. 
BUT THE DEFECT IS NOT JURISDICTIONAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT DEPRIVES THE
COURT OF POWER TO ALLOW THE APPEAL.  THE COURT HAS DISCRETION, WHERE
THE SCOPE OF REVIEW IS NOT AFFECTED, TO DISREGARD SUCH AN IRREGULARITY
IN THE INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.  CF. TAYLOR V. VOSS, 271 U.S.
176, DEALING WITH APPEALS AND PETITIONS FOR REVISION UNDER EARLIER
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  IN THIS CASE THE EFFECT OF THE PROCEDURAL
IRREGULARITY WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL.  THE SCOPE OF REVIEW WAS NOT
ALTERED.  THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE GOOD FAITH OF PETITIONERS, OF
DILATORY TACTICS, OR OF FRIVOLOUS APPEALS.  HENCE IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY
HARSH TO HOLD THAT PETITIONERS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE THE
COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION ON THE ALLOWANCE OF THEIR APPEALS BY
REASON OF THEIR ERRONEOUS RELIANCE UPON THE PERMANENCY OF LONDON V.
O'DOUGHERTY, SUPRA.  THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT DO VIOLENCE TO SHULMAN V.
WILSON-SHERIDAN HOTEL CO., 301 U.S. 172.  AS WE INDICATED IN DICKINSON
INDUSTRIAL SITE V. COWAN, SUPRA, THE SHULMAN CASE STATED THE RULE OF
PERMISSIVE APPEALS WHICH WAS CARRIED OVER INTO SEC. 250.  THE FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, HOWEVER, IS NOT NECESSARILY A
JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT.  CF. ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. PILLSBURY, 301 U.S.
174. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE HOLD THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD
THE POWER TO ALLOW THE APPEALS.  REVERSED. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT TIMELY APPLICATION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS A JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT, AND THAT
THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE REDUCED TO A MERE
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY.  FARRAR V. CHURCHILL, 135 U.S. 609, 612-13;
OLD NICK WILLIAMS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 215 U.S. 541; SHULMAN V. WILSON
SHERIDAN HOTEL CO., 301 U.S. 172.  HOWEVER, WHEN PETITIONERS FILED
THEIR NOTICES OF APPEAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE PROPER PROCEDURE WAS
NOT SETTLED, AND PETITIONERS WERE MISLED BY THE DECISION OF THE COURT
BELOW IN LONDON V. O'DOUGHERTY, 102 F.2D 524.  IN THESE UNIQUE
CIRCUMSTANCES I THINK THAT REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT IS JUSTIFIED BY OUR
BROAD POWER TO MAKE SUCH DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AS JUSTICE REQUIRES. 
WATTS, WATTS & CO. V. UNIONE AUSTRIACA, 248 U.S. 9, 21; MONTGOMERY WARD
& CO. V. DUNCAN, 311 U.S. 243, 254-255.  IN RARE INSTANCES SUCH AS THE
CASE AT BAR THIS POWER IS APPROPRIATE FOR CURING EVEN JURISDICTIONAL
DEFECTS.  CF. RORICK V. COMMISSIONERS, 307 U.S. 208, 213. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



LABOR BOARD V. LINK-BELT CO., 311 U.S. 584 


NO. 235.  ARGUED DECEMBER 18, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 6, 1941.  - 110
F.2D 506, REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING AN
EMPLOYER TO DISESTABLISH A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND
DIRECTING THE EMPLOYER TO REINSTATE OR TO MAKE WHOLE CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
AGAINST WHOM THE BOARD FOUND THE EMPLOYER HAD DISCRIMINATED IN REGARD
TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND
ACTIVITIES, HELD BASED ON FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
PP. 585-597. 

2.  IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS
CASE FROM WHICH IT COULD BE INFERRED THAT THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT, WITH
COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM FROM DOMINATION, INTERFERENCE OR
SUPPORT OF THE EMPLOYER, FORM THEIR OWN UNION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SUBSTITUTED ITS JUDGMENT ON DISPUTED FACTS FOR THAT OF THE
BOARD - A POWER DENIED IT BY CONGRESS.  P. 596. 

3.  IT IS FOR THE BOARD, NOT THE COURTS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
DISESTABLISHMENT OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION IS REQUIRED, NOTWITHSTANDING
ITS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT, IN ORDER TO DISSIPATE COMPLETELY THE EFFECTS OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHICH AIDED ITS FORMATION.  P. 600. 

4.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SUSTAINS THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD THAT
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES WERE DISCHARGED AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) AND (3) OF THE ACT.  P. 600 ET SEQ. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. LINKBELT COMPANY* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 236, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. INDEPENDENT
UNION OF CRAFTSMEN, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, POST, P. 629, TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 629, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REFUSING TO ORDER
ENFORCEMENT OF PORTIONS OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT BELOW REFUSED TO ENFORCE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ENTERED IN PROCEEDINGS  FN1  UNDER
SEC. 10 OF THE ACT (49 STAT. 449), REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM DOMINATING OR INTERFERING WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND TO
WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM IT AS A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
OF EMPLOYEES; AND DIRECTING THE EMPLOYER TO REINSTATE OR TO MAKE WHOLE
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES  FN2  AGAINST WHOM THE BOARD FOUND THE EMPLOYER HAD
DISCRIMINATED BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES. 
ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE PORTIONS OF THE ORDER WAS REFUSED BECAUSE, IN THE
VIEW OF THE COURT BELOW, THEY WERE NOT "SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE" AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 10(E) OF THE ACT.  THE PETITION FOR WRITS OF
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE IN AN ORDERLY
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT OF THE MANDATE CONTAINED IN SEC. 10(E) THAT
THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS "IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE,
SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. WATERMAN
STEAMSHIP CORP., 309 U.S. 206. 

DISESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT.  INDEPENDENT UNION OF CRAFTSMEN WAS
ORGANIZED WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER THE DECISION BY THIS COURT, ON APRIL
12, 1937, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORP., 301 U.S. 1, WHICH UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT.  FROM
1933 DOWN TO THAT DATE THE EMPLOYER, LINK-BELT CO., HAD MAINTAINED A
COMPANY UNION, APPARENTLY CONTINUING TO RECOGNIZE IT EVEN AFTER PASSAGE
OF THE ACT IN 1935 AND EVEN THOUGH UNDER THE ACT IT WAS CONCEDEDLY AN
IMPROPER BARGAINING UNIT.  IN ANY EVENT, THAT UNION REMAINED IN
EXISTENCE UNTIL INDEPENDENT'S MEMBERSHIP DRIVE WAS SUCCESSFULLY
CONCLUDED.  THE ORGANIZATION OF INDEPENDENT WAS CONCEIVED ON APRIL 12
AND 13, 1937, BY CERTAIN EMPLOYEES, WHO WERE DISAPPOINTED AT THE
DECISION UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT.  LINDE, WHO WAS A
LEADER IN ORGANIZING INDEPENDENT, TESTIFIED:  "A. THE WAGNER ACT HAD
BEEN DECLARED CONSTITUTIONAL, AND A GROUP OF US WERE DISMAYED, I AM
FRANK TO ADMIT, OR WE THOUGHT THERE WAS NOTHING FOR US TO DO.  Q. WHY
WERE YOU DISMAYED?  A. I WILL TELL YOU, WE HAD BANKED OUR HOPES THAT IT
WOULD BE DECLARED ILLEGAL, AND IMMEDIATELY THE LABOR UNREST AND TROUBLE
WOULD HAVE STOPPED AND OUR COMPANY WOULD PROCEED AND ALL THE OTHER
COMPANIES WOULD PROCEED TO ENJOY THE PROSPERITY WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS
COMING AT THAT TIME."  THE MEMBERSHIP DRIVE TOOK PLACE IN THE MAIN ON
APRIL 14, 15, AND 16, RESULTING IN A MEMBERSHIP OF 760 OUT OF ABOUT
1,000 EMPLOYEES.  THE CONSTITUTION WAS DRAFTED ON APRIL 17.  ON APRIL
18, IT WAS DECIDED TO SEEK DISSOLUTION OF THE OLD COMPANY UNION AND
RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENT.  ACCORDINGLY, ON APRIL 19 AN AGREEMENT WAS
REACHED BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES AND PLANT MANAGER BERRY
DISSOLVING THE OLD UNION; AND HE WAS ASKED TO OBTAIN EXCLUSIVE
RECOGNITION FOR INDEPENDENT.  THAT REQUEST WAS GRANTED BY THE EMPLOYER
ON APRIL 21; AND INDEPENDENT HELD ITS FIRST MEETING ON APRIL 22. 

AN "INSIDE" UNION, AS WELL AS AN "OUTSIDE" UNION, MAY BE THE PRODUCT
OF THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEES TO SELFORGANIZATION AND TO COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING "THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING," GUARANTEED
BY SEC. 7 OF THE ACT.  THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER THE BOARD WAS
JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT INDEPENDENT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF THE
EMPLOYEES' FREE CHOICE BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER HAD INTRUDED TO IMPAIR
THEIR FREEDOM. 

RESPONDENTS POINT TO NUMEROUS EARMARKS OF INDEPENDENCE WHICH
INDEPENDENT EVIDENCES.  THEY EMPHASIZE THAT AFTER IT WAS RECOGNIZED IT
HELD MANY BARGAINING CONFERENCES AND AS A RESULT OBTAINED WAGE
INCREASES, CHANGES IN SENIORITY POLICY, BONUS PAYMENTS FOR NIGHT
WORKERS, A BETTER VACATION POLICY, BETTER LIGHTING AND AIR CONDITIONS,
AND IMPROVED SAFETY MEASURES - IN FACT, ALL OF ITS MAJOR OBJECTIVES
EXCEPT A CLOSED SHOP.  THEY STRESS THE FACTS THAT IT IS NOT FINANCED BY
THE EMPLOYER, THAT ITS MEETINGS ARE HELD OFF COMPANY PROPERTY, THAT ITS
LEADERSHIP IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION
IN THE OLD COMPANY UNION, AND THAT ITS GENESIS WAS A SUGGESTION MADE
NOT BY THE EMPLOYER BUT BY A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES. 

IN THE LATTER CONNECTION THEY URGE THAT THE EMPLOYEES CHOSE
INDEPENDENT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE TYPE OF LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH THEY
HONESTLY PREFERRED; OR AS STATED BY ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO LED THE
MEMBERSHIP DRIVE, "IT WAS SO BIG A FEATURE THAT THEY (THE EMPLOYEES)
WERE ALL ANXIOUS TO GET ON THE BAND WAGON AND DO SOMETHING.  THAT WAS
THE GENERAL ATTITUDE."  AND THEY MAINTAIN THAT THERE WAS IN FACT NO
CONNECTION BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND THE OLD COMPANY UNION; THAT THE
SUCCESS OF INDEPENDENT'S MEMBERSHIP DRIVE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY
COMPULSION OR BELIEF AS RESPECTS THE EMPLOYER'S ATTITUDE. 

IT WOULD INDEED BE A RARE CASE WHERE THE FINDERS OF FACT COULD PROBE
THE PRECISE FACTORS OF MOTIVATION WHICH UNDERLAY EACH EMPLOYEE'S
CHOICE.  NORMALLY, THE CONCLUSION THAT THEIR CHOICE WAS RESTRAINED BY
THE EMPLOYER'S INTERFERENCE MUST OF NECESSITY BE BASED ON THE EXISTENCE
OF CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THE EMPLOYER CREATED OR FOR WHICH
HE WAS FAIRLY RESPONSIBLE AND AS A RESULT OF WHICH IT MAY REASONABLY BE
INFERRED THAT THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT HAVE THAT COMPLETE AND UNFETTERED
FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHICH THE ACT CONTEMPLATES. 

HERE NO ONE FACT IS CONCLUSIVE.  BUT THE WHOLE CONGERIES OF FACTS
BEFORE THE BOARD SUPPORTS ITS FINDINGS. 

THE EMPLOYER'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS UNIONS IS RELEVANT.  AS WE HAVE
INDICATED, IT MAINTAINED A COMPANY UNION BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
ACT.  AND THE COURT BELOW SUSTAINED THE BOARD'S FINDING AS TO THE
EMPLOYER'S LONGSTANDING INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE, THROUGH THE NATIONAL
METAL TRADES ASSOCIATION, WHICH CONTINUED AT LEAST UNTIL AN
INVESTIGATION WAS MADE LATE IN 1936 BY THE LA FOLLETTE COMMITTEE OF THE
SENATE.  FN3  FURTHER, THE EMPLOYER EVIDENCED HOSTILITY TOWARDS AN
"OUTSIDE" UNION.  IN 1936, PLANT MANAGER BERRY TOLD THE BOARD OF THE
COMPANY UNION THAT "IN THE EVENT OUTSIDE PEOPLE CAME INTO OUR PLANT AND
TOLD US HOW TO RUN THE PLANT, THEN I HAD ENOUGH OF INDUSTRY."  AT THE
HEARING HE TESTIFIED THAT HE MEANT "THAT THE LINK BELT COMPANY WAS ABLE
AND HAD FOR MANY YEARS RAN THEIR ORGANIZATION AND WE DID NOT NEED
OUTSIDE PEOPLE TO TELL US HOW TO RUN THE PLANT ECONOMICALLY AND
EFFICIENTLY."  IN SEPTEMBER, 1936, SALMONS, AN EMPLOYEE OF 14 YEARS
STANDING, WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE IN THE COMPANY UNION AND
WHO BECAME DISSATISFIED WITH IT, INITIATED THE FORMATION OF
AMALGAMATED, AN "OUTSIDE" ORGANIZATION.  FN4  AMALGAMATED HELD ITS
FIRST ORGANIZING MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1936.  SALMONS WAS DISCHARGED
THE NEXT DAY BY PLANT MANAGER BERRY FOR "SPREADING UNION PROPAGANDA
AROUND HERE."  HE WAS GIVEN HALF AN HOUR TO LEAVE.  THE EMPLOYER DOES
NOT DENY THIS BUT ADDS THAT SALMONS WAS DISCHARGED BECAUSE HE ENGAGED
IN UNION ACTIVITIES ON COMPANY TIME.  THAT HE DID SOLICIT ON COMPANY
TIME SEEMS CLEAR, THOUGH IT COULD HARDLY HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVE AS HIS
FOREMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF IT.  YET IN HIS ASSOCIATION
WITH THE COMPANY UNION, HE APPARENTLY WAS ALLOWED A SIMILAR FREEDOM. 
THAT FACT, HIS POSITION OF LEADERSHIP IN AMALGAMATED, THE APPARENT
ABSENCE OF THE CUSTOMARY WARNING, HIS SOMEWHAT PRECIPITATE DISCHARGE,
THE FAILURE OF THE EMPLOYER TO DISCHARGE REPRESENTATIVES OF INDEPENDENT
WHO, AS WE SHALL SEE, SOLICITED ON COMPANY TIME WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND
APPROVAL OF AT LEAST SOME OF THE SUPERVISORS, MADE PERMISSIBLE THE
BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT SALMONS' ACTIVITY ON BEHALF OF THE "OUTSIDE"
UNION WAS THE BASIC CAUSE OF HIS DISCHARGE.  FN5  ON SEPTEMBER 21,
1936, ANOTHER EMPLOYEE, NOVAK, WHO HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY FOR
OVER 11 YEARS, WAS ALSO DISCHARGED WITHOUT WARNING BY BERRY, WHO
BELIEVED, MISTAKENLY IT WOULD SEEM, THAT NOVAK WAS A MEMBER OF AND
SOLICITOR FOR AMALGAMATED.  BERRY GAVE HIM HALF AN HOUR TO GET OUT,
AFTER CHARGING HIM WITH BEING "AN ORGANIZER AND INSTIGATOR FOR A UNION"
- A CHARGE WHICH NOVAK DENIED.  FN6  THE BOARD FOUND AND THE COURT
BELOW SUSTAINED THE FINDING THAT NOVAK WAS DISCHARGED IN VIOLATION OF
THE ACT BECAUSE OF HIS ALLEGED UNION ACTIVITIES.  WE AGREE. 

AMALGAMATED, AS WELL AS INDEPENDENT, SOLICITED ON COMPANY TIME.  BUT
A REVIEW OF THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE INSTANCES OF SOLICITATION BY
AMALGAMATED ON COMPANY TIME WERE SCATTERED OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS AND
WERE APPARENTLY MORE SPORADIC THAN THOSE OF INDEPENDENT.  AT LEAST THEY
DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE HAD THE MAGNITUDE AND INTENSITY OF THE ACTS OF
SOLICITATION ON COMPANY TIME BY INDEPENDENT.  THERE IS CONSIDERABLE
TESTIMONY BY MEMBERS OF THE SUPERVISORY STAFF THAT THEY WERE INSTRUCTED
NOT TO TAKE SIDES IN THE UNION COMPETITION AND NOT TO ALLOW
SOLICITATION ON COMPANY TIME.  PLANT MANAGER BERRY TESTIFIED ON DIRECT
EXAMINATION THAT THOSE INSTRUCTIONS WERE GIVEN AFTER APRIL 12, 1937;
AND ON CROSS-EXAMINATION HE ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE GIVEN ONLY AFTER
APRIL 19, 1937, AT WHICH TIME INDEPENDENT HAD ACQUIRED A MEMBERSHIP OF
760 MEN.  IT IS ARGUED HERE THAT THE EMPLOYER WARNED SOLICITORS FOR
INDEPENDENT AND THREATENED THEM WITH DISMISSAL FOR ENGAGING IN UNION
ACTIVITIES ON THE COMPANY'S TIME.  AND FROLING, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPANY
UNION AND ACTIVE SOLICITOR FOR INDEPENDENT, TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS WARY
ABOUT SOLICITING IN THE PLANT ON COMPANY TIME IN FRONT OF FOREMEN, FOR
ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT REMEMBER ANY FOREMAN WARNING HIM, HE NEVERTHELESS
WAS AFRAID OF BEING DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO SALMONS
ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ACTIVITIES.  IT IS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT NO
DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF INDEPENDENT CAN BE INFERRED; THAT THE QUICK
SUCCESS OF INDEPENDENT IN OBTAINING A MAJORITY WAS DUE NOT TO THE
EMPLOYER'S SUPPORT BUT TO THE EMPLOYEES' ENTHUSIASM FOR THAT UNION. 
THE BOARD STRESSES THE FACT THAT EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES IN THE
COMPANY UNION WERE EXTREMELY ACTIVE SOLICITORS FOR INDEPENDENT.  IT
POINTS OUT THAT AT LEAST SIX OF THE EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES UNDER THE
COMPANY UNION WERE ACTIVE SOLICITORS - FROLING VIRTUALLY ADMITTING THAT
HE SOLICITED THE ENTIRE MACHINE SHOP - 110 TO 120 MEN - DURING WORKING
HOURS.  KOWATCH, AN EMPLOYEE, SIGNED UP BETWEEN 100 AND 250 MEN, ABOUT
ONE-FOURTH ON COMPANY TIME AND TWICE PUNCHED OUT HIS TIME WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THE FOREMAN TO SOLICIT IN THE FOUNDRY.  THE COMPANY
COUNTERS WITH THE FACT THAT THERE WERE MANY SOLICITORS FOR INDEPENDENT
OF WHOM THOSE REPRESENTATIVES WERE A MERE MINORITY - LESS THAN A
THIRD.  THERE IS THIS TO BE SAID, HOWEVER, ABOUT THOSE CONFLICTING
CLAIMS.  MOST OF THE COMPANY UNION REPRESENTATIVES WERE ACTIVE AND
PROMINENT IN INDEPENDENT'S MEMBERSHIP DRIVE AND DURING THAT DRIVE
APPARENTLY ENJOYED SOMEWHAT THE SAME PRIVILEGE OF MOVING FREELY ABOUT
THE PLANT WHICH THEY HAD BEEN ALLOWED AS COMPANY UNION REPRESENTATIVES
A PRIVILEGE WITHDRAWN AFTER INDEPENDENT HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED.  THE
INSTANCES WHEN SUPERVISORS REMONSTRATED WITH SOLICITORS FOR INDEPENDENT
SEEM TO BE RESTRICTED TO AROUND SIX OR SEVEN IN NUMBER, AND SOME OF
THOSE RELATED TO ACTIVITIES AFTER THE APRIL MEMBERSHIP DRIVE WAS
COMPLETED.  AS RESPECTS ONE OF THE LATTER INSTANCES, LINDE, AN EMPLOYEE
SOLICITING FOR INDEPENDENT, STATED THAT FOREMEN WARNED THE MEN:  "'YOU
ARE ON UNION BUSINESS.  MY GOD, DON'T LET ME CATCH YOU OR WE WILL FIRE
YOU,' OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT."  BUT, AS THE BOARD CONCLUDED, IT SEEMS
IMPOSSIBLE TO INFER THAT, IN VIEW OF THE EXTENSIVE AND INTENSIVE
SOLICITATION FOR INDEPENDENT IN THE PLANT ON COMPANY TIME, THE
SUPERVISORY STAFF WERE NOT AWARE OF THE CAMPAIGN AND DID NOT ACQUIESCE
IN IT.  BEYOND THAT IS THE ACTIVE SUPPORT OF INDEPENDENT BY SOME OF THE
SUPERVISORY STAFF.  THERE IS ABUNDANT TESTIMONY THAT SISKAUSKIS, A
FOREMAN, ACTIVELY SOLICITED FOR INDEPENDENT.  ONE EMPLOYEE, LACKHOUSE,
WHO EARLIER HAD JOINED AMALGAMATED BUT WHO WAS SOLICITING FOR
INDEPENDENT IN APRIL 1937, TESTIFIED: 

"HE TOOK THE SHEETS IN MY HAND - THE FIRST SHEET I HAD ALREADY
FILLED, WITH THE HEADING ON IT, AND I HAD NOTHING BUT BLANK SHEETS
LEFT, AND HE WENT AROUND THE MACHINES, THE MOLDERS RIGHT OFF THE SIDE
FLOOR THERE, AND HE TOLD THEM TO SIGN UP FOR THE INSIDE UNION HERE, AND
HE SIGNED UP I BELIEVE TEN, AND ABOUT FIVE OF THEM HE SIGNED UP IN HIS
OWN HANDWRITING.  THE MAJORITY OF THEM IN THE FOUNDRY DON'T KNOW HOW TO
WRITE.  Q. AND DID YOU SEE HIM SIGN UP THESE OTHER MEN?  A. I SEEN HIM
SIGN UP ACTUALLY ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT, I AM SURE, IN HIS OWN
HANDWRITING.  HE WENT AS FAR AS ONE CRANE MAN WHO WAS WORKING RIGHT
ABOVE HIM, AND HE WAS GOING UP TO HIM AND HE WAS GOING TO EXPLAIN WHAT
IT WAS ALL ABOUT, AND HE SAYS, 'OH, HECK, HE DON'T KNOW HOW TO WRITE,'
SO HE WROTE DOWN HIS NAME, TOO.  I DON'T REMEMBER HIS NAME, I KNOW IT
WAS JOHN, THE CRANE MAN IN HIS DEPARTMENT.  I JUST DON'T KNOW HIS LAST
NAME.  Q. AND THEN DID MR. SHASKINSKIS GIVE YOU BACK THE PAPER?  A.
YES, HE RETURNED THEM BACK TO ME AFTER HE HAD THE NAMES ON THEM." 
THIS EPISODE WAS CONFIRMED AT LEAST IN PART BY JOHNSON, AN EMPLOYEE. 
ANOTHER EMPLOYEE, BALCAUSKI, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS RESPECTING
SISKAUSKIS' SOLICITATION: 

"HE WALKED TO ME AND HE SAID, 'STANLEY, WHY DON'T YOU JOIN IN THE
C.I.O.'  - I MEAN THIS HERE, THE INDEPENDENT CRAFTSMEN'S UNION.  I
SAID, 'I AM ALREADY WITH THE C.I.O.'  HE SAYS, 'THE HELL WITH THE
C.I.O.'  HE SAYS, 'JOIN IN WITH THE CRAFTSMEN'S UNION.'  HE SAYS, 'WE
ARE GOING TO HAVE OUR UNION.'  THEN I REPEATED, I SAYS, 'DO YOU KNOW
UNDER THE WAGNER LAW THAT IS NOT ALLOWED FOR THE FOREMAN TO GO AND
ORGANIZE THE WORKINGMEN ON THE COMPANY TIME OR ON HIS OWN TIME?'  HE
TOLD ME THIS, HE SAID, 'TO HELL WITH THAT.'  SO I SAYS, 'IF YOU WANT TO
SIGN UP INDEPENDENT, GO AHEAD, I AIN'T GOING TO WASTE MY TIME.'  AND I
WALKED AWAY." 

BALCAUSKI FURTHER TESTIFIED RESPECTING SISKAUSKIS' SOLICITATION OF
EMPLOYEES:  "HE TOLD THEM, 'IF YOU DON'T SIGN UP' - I HEARD IT WITH MY
OWN EARS - HE SAID, 'YOU ARE GOING TO GET OUT OF HERE.'" 

STILL ANOTHER EMPLOYEE, THOMAS, TESTIFIED: 

"Q.  DID ANYBODY ASK YOU TO JOIN THE INDEPENDENT UNION?  A.
EVERYBODY, SPLITZ (SISKAUSKIS) COMES TO ME WITH PIECE OF PAPER, SIGN
YOUR NAME.  I SAY I CAN'T SIGN MY NAME.  HE SAYS, 'ALL RIGHT, I SIGN IT
MYSELF.'  AND HE SIGNED IT HIMSELF, MY NAME.  Q. DID HE SAY ANYTHING
MORE TO YOU ABOUT IT?  A. THAT IS ALL THAT DAY.  THE SECOND DAY HE COME
AROUND AGAIN.  HE SAY, 'JOE, SIGN NAME.'  I SAY, 'I SIGN YESTERDAY.' 
HE SAY, 'ALL RIGHT, IT IS NO GOOD, I THREW IT AWAY.'  Q. IT IS NO GOOD,
HE THREW IT AWAY?  A. SURE.  I DIDN'T SIGN NO PLACE.  'JOE,' HE SAY,
'SIGN HIM UP ANYHOW, OR MAYBE LOSE JOB.'  Q. SPLITZ SAYS TO SIGN UP OR
MAYBE YOU LOSE JOB?  A. YES.  I SAYS, 'I SIGN HIM UP IF YOU WANT TO.' 
HE COME IN THURSDAY ABOUT THIS PIECE OF PAPER AGAIN AND HE SAY, 'JOE,
SIGN NAME.'  I SAY, 'WHAT IS THE MATTER, I SIGN HIM UP TWICE, I SIGN
HIM UP BEFORE YESTERDAY AND I SIGN HIM AGAIN.'  HE SAY, 'SOMETHING
WRONG, NO GOOD.'  I SAY, 'I QUIT, I DON'T WANT SIGN AT ALL.'  Q. YOU
DIDN'T WANT TO SIGN?  A. NO. Q. YOU DIDN'T SIGN EITHER DAY?  A. I DON'T
SIGN.  AT NOONTIME HE COME TO ME AND HE SAY - I WAS BY HIM OVER THERE
AND HE SAY, 'COME ON, JOE, COME IN OFFICE SOMETIME, WE WANT TO SEE
YOU.'  Q. DID YOU GO IN THE OFFICE?  A. YES.  ...  Q. SOME MAN WITH A
MUSTACHE WAS SITTING THERE?  A. YES, SIR.  HE SAYS, 'WHAT YOU WANT?'  I
SAY, 'SPLITZ SENT ME IN OFFICE, YOU WANT SOMETHING?'  HE SAID HE DIDN'T
WANT NOTHING FROM ME.  SPLITZ COME IN THEN AND GRABBED MY HAND, AND HE
SAY, 'GIVE HIM PIECE OF PAPER.'  HE SAY, 'SIGN HIS NAME.'  I CAN'T SIGN
NAME, I SAY I WILL NOT SIGN.  I SAID TWO TIMES I SIGN, I DON'T LIKE IT.
HE SAY, 'SIGN ANYHOW.'  Q. WHO SAID THAT?  A. SPLITZ, 'GO AHEAD, SIGN
AGAIN.'  I SAY, 'I AM GOING OUT, GO TO WORK.'  Q. YOU DID NOT SIGN?  A.
NO. A COUPLE OF TIMES HE COME TO ME AND SAY, 'SIGN THEM UP.'  I DON'T
SIGN NO PLACE.  A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T SIGN, I NO SIGN." 

BOZURICH, AN EMPLOYEE, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS WITH RESPECT TO THE
ATTITUDE OF SISKAUSKIS TOWARDS AMALGAMATED: 

"  ...  THEN HE WENT ON WITH REMARKS THAT IT WOULD BE VERY BAD IF
C.I.O. WOULD COME INTO THE SHOP.  AND I SAID, 'WHAT WOULD BE BAD ABOUT
IT?'  I SAID, 'IF THE WORKERS WANT IT WHO CAN STOP THEM?'  'WELL,' HE
SAID, 'IF C.I.O. COMES IN THE COMPANY WILL CLOSE THE PLANT.'  HE SAID,
'YOU SEE DURING THE DEPRESSION IT WAS HARD TO BE WITHOUT A JOB.'  I
SAID, 'COMPANY CAN'T LOCK - CLOSE THE SHOP BECAUSE OF THE UNION.'  I
SAYS, 'THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A LOCK-OUT.'  AND HE SAID, 'WHO CAN
STOP THEM?'  'WELL,' I SAID, 'THE GOVERNMENT.'  HE SAID, 'THE COMPANY
RUNS THE PLANT AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT.'  I SAID, 'THERE IS SUCH A THING
AS GOVERNMENT LABOR BOARD HERE WHO TAKES CARE OF THOSE MEMBERS,' AND I
BELIEVE I REFERRED HIM TO - WELL, TO BE EXACT, I READ IN THE PAPER
ABOUT A CERTAIN COMPANY SOMEWHERE IN NEW YORK OR NEW JERSEY THAT DUE TO
C.I.O. ACTIVITIES CLOSED THEIR PLANT AND MOVED THE MACHINERY OUT,
THINGS LIKE THAT, TO GET AWAY FROM THE UNION.  SO I CALL HIS ATTENTION
TO THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION FROM THE NEWSPAPER, THAT THE
LABOR BOARD TAKES ACTION; THEY GOT COMPANY TO PUT MACHINERY BACK.  AT
LEAST THAT IS THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT SO THE ILLUSTRATION TO HIM IS
THAT WE ARE NOT AFRAID OF THAT KIND.  THEN HE TWISTED HIS LIPS AND SAID
'OH,' HE SAYS, 'YOU BETTER KEEP AWAY FROM SOMETHING LIKE THAT,' HE
SAID, 'AND IF YOU WANT ANYTHING IT IS BEST TO GO TO BOSS YOURSELF.'" 

THERE IS ALSO TESTIMONY THAT SISKAUSKIS SIGNED FOR ILLITERATE
EMPLOYEES, THOUGH, WITH ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION, APPARENTLY NOT AGAINST
THEIR WILL.  SISKAUSKIS DENIED THAT HE MADE ANY SUCH STATEMENTS OR THAT
HE EVER SOLICITED FOR INDEPENDENT.  THE BOARD REFUSED TO BELIEVE THAT
ALL THE OPPOSING TESTIMONY WAS FABRICATED, AND FOUND HIS DENIALS
UNCONVINCING. 

LACKHOUSE, AN EMPLOYEE, TESTIFIED THAT HE OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM
NYBERG, HIS FOREMAN, TO SOLICIT FOR INDEPENDENT, NYBERG SAYING, "WELL,
IF YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO, FRANK, SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO AHEAD ON
IT."  LACKHOUSE WAS DELAYED ABOUT HALF AN HOUR IN GETTING STARTED WHEN
OLSON, AN ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, TOOK HIM ASIDE IN A SEPARATE ROOM
AND, ACCORDING TO LACKHOUSE, "COMPARED THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
OUTSIDE UNION AND THE INSIDE UNION; AND HE TOLD ME ABOUT IT UP THERE,
HOW MUCH BETTER OFF WE WOULD BE IF WE ORGANIZED AMONGST US FELLOWS,
AMONG OUR FELLOW WORKMEN OURSELVES AND KEPT THE OUTSIDE UNION OUT, THAT
YOU WILL NEVER GET ANYWHERE WITH THEM, JUST STRIKING ALL THE TIME, AND
GIVE ME THE DIFFERENCES, AND I LISTENED TO HIM ABOUT IT."  LACKHOUSE
TESTIFIED THAT THEREUPON HE SOLICITED IN THE PLANT DURING WORKING
HOURS:  "I WAS ABSENT FROM MY JOB FROM ONE O'CLOCK UNTIL QUITTING TIME
WALKING THROUGH THE WHOLE FOUNDRY."  ON DIRECT EXAMINATION OLSON DENIED
THIS CONVERSATION.  ON CROSS-EXAMINATION HE ADMITTED TALKING BRIEFLY
WITH LACKHOUSE ABOUT "A RUMOR THAT THE BOYS ARE TRYING TO FORM AN
INDEPENDENT UNION."  NYBERG WAS NOT CALLED.  THE BOARD BELIEVED
LACKHOUSE. 

THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE TESTIMONY, NOT DENIED, THAT BELOV, A NIGHT
BOSS, ALSO SOLICITED FOR INDEPENDENT.  ACCORDING TO ONE EMPLOYEE,
KALAMARIE, BELOV DID SO ON WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS LEFT BY FOREMAN
MCKINNEY WHICH KALAMARIE READ.  KALAMARIE TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS
RESPECTING THIS CONVERSATION WITH BELOV ABOUT THOSE INSTRUCTIONS: 

"Q.  SO WHEN HE (BELOV) GOT THIS NOTE TO SOLICIT FOR THE INDEPENDENT
UNION HE WAS A LITTLE BIT PUZZLED BY IT AND HE ASKED YOUR ADVICE ABOUT
IT?  A. HE DID.  Q. YOU ADVISED HIM THAT INASMUCH AS HIS SUPERIOR
OFFICER, MR. MCKINNEY, HAD ORDERED HIM TO DO IT, HE HAD BETTER GO AHEAD
AND DO IT? A.  THAT IS RIGHT, IF HE WANTED TO KEEP HIS JOB, I IMAGINE
HE SHOULD." 

MCKINNEY DENIED THAT HE HAD LEFT ANY SUCH INSTRUCTIONS, THOUGH IT
APPARENTLY WAS HIS CUSTOM TO LEAVE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE NIGHT
BOSSES ON THINGS HE WANTED DONE.  BELOV WAS NOT CALLED.  BECAUSE OF
THAT AND BECAUSE OF THE CONTRADICTORY CHARACTER OF MCKINNEY'S TESTIMONY
ON CERTAIN MATTERS, THE BOARD BELIEVED KALAMARIE. 

TOMAS, AN EMPLOYEE, TESTIFIED THAT HIS BOSS, BIG LOUIE, "A KIND OF
ASSISTANT FOREMAN," SOLICITED FOR INDEPENDENT GETTING ABOUT TEN
SIGNATURES; THAT BIG LOUIE TOLD HIM THAT "THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THE
C.I.O. OUT OF THERE." 

THE COURT BELOW WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE FROM WHICH IT COULD
BE INFERRED THAT THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT, WITH COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE AND
FREEDOM FROM DOMINATION, INTERFERENCE OR SUPPORT OF THE EMPLOYER, FORM
THEIR OWN UNION.  BUT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS
IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION SUBSTITUTED ITS JUDGMENT ON DISPUTED FACTS
FOR THE BOARD'S JUDGMENT - A POWER WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED IT BY THE
CONGRESS.  SEC. 10(E) PROVIDES THAT THE "FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO
THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  AS WE
STATED IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP.,
SUPRA, AT PP. 208-209:  "  ...  CONGRESS HAS LEFT QUESTIONS OF LAW
WHICH ARISE BEFORE THE BOARD - BUT NOT MORE - ULTIMATELY TO THE
TRADITIONAL REVIEW OF THE JUDICIARY.  NOT BY ACCIDENT, BUT IN LINE WITH
A GENERAL POLICY, CONGRESS HAS DEEMED IT WISE TO ENTRUST THE FINDING OF
FACTS TO THESE SPECIALIZED AGENCIES.  IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT COURTS
REGARD THIS DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY WHICH CONGRESS AS A MATTER OF
POLICY HAS EMBODIED IN THE VERY STATUTE FROM WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS
DERIVED ITS JURISDICTION TO ACT."  CONGRESS ENTRUSTED THE BOARD, NOT
THE COURTS, WITH THE POWER TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM THE FACTS.  NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261,
271; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453, 461. 
THE BOARD, LIKE OTHER EXPERT AGENCIES DEALING WITH SPECIALIZED FIELDS
(SEE ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 146;
SWAYNE & HOYT V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 304) HAS THE FUNCTION OF
APPRAISING CONFLICTING AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND THE WEIGHT AND
CREDIBILITY OF TESTIMONY. 

THE BOARD HAD THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
COMPANY UNION DOWN TO THE DATE WHEN INDEPENDENT'S MEMBERSHIP DRIVE WAS
COMPLETED WAS NOT A MERE COINCIDENCE.  THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
MAKES CREDIBLE THE FINDING THAT COMPLETE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ON THE PART
OF THE EMPLOYEES WAS EFFECTIVELY FORESTALLED BY MAINTENANCE OF THE
COMPANY UNION BY THE EMPLOYER UNTIL ITS ABANDONMENT WOULD COINCIDE WITH
THE RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENT.  THE DECLARED HOSTILITY TOWARDS AN
"OUTSIDE" UNION, THE LONG PRACTICE OF INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE, THE QUICK
RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENT, THE SUPPORT GIVEN INDEPENDENT'S MEMBERSHIP
DRIVE BY SOME OF THE SUPERVISORY STAFF, THE PROMINENCE OF COMPANY UNION
REPRESENTATIVES IN THAT DRIVE, THE FAILURE OF THE EMPLOYER TO WIPE THE
SLATE CLEAN AND ANNOUNCE THAT THE EMPLOYEES HAD A FREE CHOICE, THE
BELATED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SUPERVISORY STAFF NOT TO INTERFERE - ALL
CORROBORATE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EMPLOYER FACILITATED AND AIDED THE
SUBSTITUTION OF THE UNION, WHICH IT PREFERRED, FOR ITS OLD COMPANY
UNION.  BUT RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
EMPLOYEES HAD A SETTLED CONVICTION THAT THE EMPLOYER PREFERRED A
CERTAIN TYPE OF LABOR ORGANIZATION OR THAT THEY WERE UNDER COMPULSION
FROM THE EMPLOYER IN CHOOSING BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND AMALGAMATED. 
THERE WERE, HOWEVER, FORCES AT WORK IN THE PLANT WHICH MAKE TENABLE THE
CONCLUSION OF THE BOARD THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD INTRUDED SO AS
EFFECTIVELY TO RESTRAIN THE EMPLOYEES' CHOICE.  THE EMPLOYER'S ATTITUDE
TOWARDS AN "OUTSIDE" UNION COUPLED WITH THE DISCHARGE OF SALMONS AND
NOVAK FOR ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF AMALGAMATED WOULD TEND TO HAVE AS
POTENT AN EFFECT AS DIRECT STATEMENTS TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT THEY COULD
NOT AFFORD TO RISK SELECTION OF AMALGAMATED.  THAT THE DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST SALMONS HAD SOME EFFECT IS NOT DENIED, FOR FROLING, A WITNESS
FOR INDEPENDENT, INSISTED THAT EVEN HE FURTIVELY SOLICITED FOR
INDEPENDENT BECAUSE OF THE PRICE PAID BY SALMONS.  WHEN THAT
DISCRIMINATION IS CONTRASTED TO THE APPARENT ACQUIESCENCE BY THE
MANAGEMENT IN THE OPEN SOLICITATION BY INDEPENDENT, WE CANNOT SAY THAT
THE BOARD WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN THE CONCLUSION WHICH IT DREW.  AS WE
STATED IN INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 311 U.S. 72, 78, "SLIGHT SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE
EMPLOYERS CHOICE BETWEEN UNIONS MAY HAVE TELLING EFFECT AMONG MEN WHO
KNOW THE CONSEQUENCES OF INCURRING THAT EMPLOYER'S STRONG
DISPLEASURE."  NOR DOES THE BOARD LACK THE POWER TO GIVE WEIGHT TO THE
ACTIVITIES OF SOME OF THE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ON BEHALF OF
INDEPENDENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO HIRE OR TO
FIRE.  AS WE INDICATED IN INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, THE STRICT RULES OF RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH A SITUATION.  IF THE WORDS OR DEEDS
OF THE SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, TAKEN IN THEIR SETTING, WERE REASONABLY
LIKELY TO HAVE RESTRAINED THE EMPLOYEES' CHOICE AND IF THE EMPLOYER MAY
FAIRLY BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM, THEY ARE A PROPER
BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EMPLOYER DID INTERFERE.  IF THE
EMPLOYEES "WOULD HAVE JUST CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT SOLICITORS PROFESSEDLY
FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION WERE ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
MANAGEMENT, THE BOARD WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THEY DID
NOT HAVE THE COMPLETE AND UNHAMPERED FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHICH THE ACT
CONTEMPLATES."  INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA.  HERE SUCH INFERENCES WERE WHOLLY
JUSTIFIED.  THE ATTITUDE OF THE EMPLOYER TOWARDS AN "OUTSIDE"
ORGANIZATION WAS CLEARLY CONVEYED.  WHEN THAT WAS FOLLOWED BY
SOLICITATION FOR INDEPENDENT ON THE PART OF SUPERVISORS WHO HAD GENERAL
AUTHORITY OVER THE MEN, IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
EMPLOYEES DID NOT FEEL AN ACTUAL PRESSURE FROM THE MANAGEMENT.  THAT
FACT, THE FAILURE OF THE EMPLOYER TO ANNOUNCE ITS IMPARTIALITY, ITS
DELAY IN ADVISING THE SUPERVISORS TO REMAIN NEUTRAL UNTIL INDEPENDENT
HAD ACQUIRED ITS MAJORITY, THE FAVORS SHOWN INDEPENDENT, THE DISCHARGE
OF SALMONS AND NOVAK, ITS PAST UNION POLICY, ALL ARE PART OF THE
IMPONDERABLES WHICH THE BOARD WAS ENTITLED TO APPRAISE.  THE FACT THAT
THESE VARIOUS FORCES AT WORK WERE SUBTLE RATHER THAN DIRECT DOES NOT
MEAN THAT THEY WERE NONETHELESS EFFECTIVE.  INTIMATIONS OF AN
EMPLOYER'S PREFERENCE, THOUGH SUBTLE, MAY BE AS POTENT AS OUTRIGHT
THREATS OF DISCHARGE. 

RESPONDENTS SUGGEST THAT AN ORDER OF DISESTABLISHMENT WOULD MAKE
INDEPENDENT AN INNOCENT VICTIM OF THE EMPLOYER'S INACTION OR OF ITS
UNWELCOME ACTION.  IT IS URGED THAT THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF
INDEPENDENT DEMONSTRATES ITS INDEPENDENCE AND THAT AN ORDER DIRECTING
THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND DESIST ALL INTERFERENCE WITH THE EMPLOYEES
AND WITH INDEPENDENT IS WHOLLY ADEQUATE FOR THE EVIL AT HAND.  THE
BOARD, HOWEVER, WAS NOT FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SUBSEQUENT
ACTIVITIES OF INDEPENDENT ERASED THE EFFECTS OF THE EMPLOYER'S EARLIER
DISCRIMINATION, ANY MORE THAN IT WAS COMPELLED TO BELIEVE THAT THE
EMPLOYER'S LATER SHOW OF IMPARTIALITY OBLITERATED THE CONSEQUENCES OF
ITS PRIOR INTERFERENCE WITH THE EMPLOYEES' FREEDOM OF CHOICE.  WE
CANNOT ASSUME THAT THE EMPLOYEES WILL BE FREE FROM IMPROPER RESTRAINTS
AND WILL HAVE THE COMPLETE FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHICH THE ACT CONTEMPLATES
WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IS NOT COMPLETELY
DISSIPATED.  THE BOARD NOT THE COURTS DETERMINES UNDER THIS STATUTORY
SCHEME HOW THE EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES MAY BE EXPUNGED. 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, SUPRA;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. BRADFORD DYEING ASSN., 310 U.S. 318;
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, SUPRA. 

THE ORDER OF DISESTABLISHMENT MUST BE ENFORCED. 

DISCHARGES OF EMPLOYEES.  THE COURT BELOW REJECTED THE FINDING OF THE
BOARD THAT SALMONS HAD BEEN DISCHARGED IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) AND
(3) OF THE ACT.  FOR THE REASONS ALREADY STATED, WE THINK THAT THE
COURT ERRED AND THAT THE BOARD WAS RIGHT.  FN7 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT IN APRIL, 1937, EMPLOYMENT MANAGER STASKEY
CONDITIONED THE EMPLOYMENT OF FRANK SOLINKO UPON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
MEMBERSHIP IN THE INDEPENDENT BY HIS FATHER, PETE SOLINKO; AND THAT
THEREFORE THE COMPANY HAD VIOLATED SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT.  FN8  THE
BOARD CREDITED THE TESTIMONY OF PETE AND FRANK SOLINKO AGAINST
TESTIMONY OF STASKEY AND AN EMPLOYEE NAMED KOWATCH.  KOWATCH WAS A
SOLICITOR FOR INDEPENDENT WHOM PETE SOLINKO SAID STASKEY HAD TOLD HIM
TO SEE.  PETE, A MEMBER OF AMALGAMATED, JOINED INDEPENDENT.  SO DID
FRANK, WHO LATER, HOWEVER, JOINED AMALGAMATED.  THE EVIDENCE IS
SOMEWHAT CONFUSING.  BUT EVEN ACCORDING TO STASKEY, PETE SOLINKO DID
SHOW HIM AN INDEPENDENT CARD THE DAY FRANK WAS HIRED.  THE COURT BELOW
NOTED THAT EVEN IF THE TESTIMONY OF PETE WERE TRUE, THE CONVERSATION
OCCURRED TWO MONTHS BEFORE FRANK WAS HIRED; AND EVEN IF IT TOOK PLACE
ON THE DAY HE WAS HIRED, THEN IT WAS AFTER INDEPENDENT HAD BEEN
RECOGNIZED BY THE COMPANY AS THE BARGAINING AGENT FOR THE EMPLOYEES. 
WE THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE BOARD'S FINDING WAS JUSTIFIED.  WHENEVER
THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE, THE CONDITIONING OF FRANK'S EMPLOYMENT
UPON PETE'S JOINING INDEPENDENT WAS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT
IN ABSENCE OF A VALID CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT, NOT PRESENT HERE.  VIEWED
IN THAT LIGHT, IT ALSO CORROBORATES THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOARD THAT
THE EMPLOYER INTERFERED WITH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS BY
SUPPORTING INDEPENDENT, THOUGH THE EPISODE TOOK PLACE AFTER
INDEPENDENT'S MEMBERSHIP DRIVE WAS COMPLETED. 

KARBOL AND CUMORICH WERE DISCHARGED MAY 19, 1937.  IN APRIL, 1937,
BELOV, ACCORDING TO THEIR TESTIMONY, HAD ASKED THEM TO JOIN
INDEPENDENT.  THEY REFUSED.  IN THE LATTER PART OF APRIL, 1937, THEY
JOINED AMALGAMATED.  THE COMPANY'S CLAIM IS THAT THEY WERE DISCHARGED
FOR UNSATISFACTORY WORK AFTER TIME STUDIES HAD SHOWN THEIR INEFFICIENCY
AND AFTER THE DAY FOREMAN, MCKINNEY, HAD WARNED THEM THAT THEIR WORK
WAS NOT SATISFACTORY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY DENIED THAT ANYONE HAD
GIVEN THEM ANY SUCH WARNING OR HAD CRITICIZED THEIR WORK; THEY
TESTIFIED THAT AT THE TIME OF THEIR DISCHARGE BELOV STATED THAT THEY
WERE GOOD WORKMEN AND THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHY THEY WERE DISCHARGED. 
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE TIME STUDIES AND FOUND THEY DID NOT REVEAL WITH
ANY DEGREE OF PRECISION THE RELATIVE EFFICIENCY OF THE MEN.  IT
CONCLUDED THAT THEY WERE DISCHARGED BECAUSE THEY JOINED AMALGAMATED. 
THE EVIDENCE AS TO INEFFICIENCY IS QUITE INCONCLUSIVE.  THE BOARD WAS
JUSTIFIED IN RELYING ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION AND
WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DENY RELIEF BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE
THAT THE EMPLOYER KNEW THESE MEN HAD JOINED AMALGAMATED AND WAS
DISPLEASED OR WANTED TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF THEM. 

THE COURT BELOW ALSO REFUSED TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER REINSTATING
AND MAKING WHOLE KALAMARIE WHO WAS DISCHARGED ACCORDING TO THE BOARD
BECAUSE OF HIS UNION ACTIVITIES.  HE, LIKE KARBOL AND CUMORICH, DID NOT
ACCEDE TO THE SOLICITATION OF BELOV ON BEHALF OF INDEPENDENT.  HE HAD
JOINED AMALGAMATED IN MARCH, 1937, WAS AN ACTIVE SOLICITOR FOR IT, AND
SERVED ON ITS GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.  AS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE, HE
CALLED ON PLANT MANAGER BERRY TO PROTEST THE LAY-OFF OF A UNION MAN. 
SHORTLY THEREAFTER, BELOV, KALAMARIE'S NIGHT BOSS, RECEIVED
INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE DAY FOREMAN TO LAY KALAMARIE OFF FOR A WEEK IF
HIS WORK DID NOT IMPROVE.  NOVEMBER 30, 1937, HE WAS PERMANENTLY LAID
OFF FOR AN ALLEGED LACK OF WORK AS A WELDER AND IN CONNECTION WITH A
GENERAL REDUCTION OF EMPLOYEES.  UNTIL HIS PROMOTION AS A WELDER A FEW
MONTHS EARLIER KALAMARIE FOR SOME TIME HAD BEEN AN ACETYLENE BURNER. 
HE TESTIFIED THAT WHEN HE TOOK THE JOB AS WELDER, HE WAS PROMISED THAT
HE COULD GO BACK TO BURNING WITHOUT LOSS OF HIS SENIORITY RIGHTS IF
WELDING RAN OUT.  THIS WAS DENIED BY THE FOREMAN.  WHEN HE WAS LAID
OFF, MEN JUNIOR TO HIM AS BURNERS WERE RETAINED.  HE PROTESTED.  THE
COMPANY INSISTS THAT THE REFUSAL TO RESTORE KALAMARIE TO HIS OLD
POSITION AS BURNER WAS CONSISTENT WITH ITS OCCUPATIONAL SENIORITY
POLICY.  ON THIS THERE IS SOME CONTRADICTION IN THE RECORD.  THERE IS
TESTIMONY THAT UNDER COMPANY PRACTICE AN EMPLOYEE RETAINED (OR AT LEAST
MIGHT BE GIVEN) HIS ORIGINAL SENIORITY IF HE WAS PROMOTED TO ANOTHER
POSITION IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT.  THE REASONS STATED FOR NOT RESTORING
KALAMARIE TO HIS OLD SENIORITY POSITION WERE THAT HE DID NOT ASK TO BE
PUT BACK AND THAT THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE HAD TO LAY OFF A BURNER SENIOR
TO HIM.  THESE STATEMENTS WERE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE
BOARD.  ON THIS STATE OF THE RECORD WE THINK THAT THE BOARD WAS
JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT KALAMARIE WAS IN FACT DISCHARGED BECAUSE
OF HIS ACTIVITIES FOR AMALGAMATED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER IN FULL. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED ON CHARGES FILED IN 1937 AND
1938 BY LODGE 1604 OF AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN
WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING
COMMITTEE, AND THROUGH IT WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATION.  THE COMPLAINT, AS AMENDED, CHARGED THAT THE EMPLOYER,
RESPONDENT IN NO. 235, HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 8(1), (2), AND (3) OF THE ACT; 29 U.S.C. SEC. 158(1),
(2), AND (3).  INDEPENDENT UNION OF CRAFTSMEN, RESPONDENT IN NO. 236,
WAS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE, WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND PARTICIPATED
THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS. 

FN2  THE BOARD DID NOT SUSTAIN THE CHARGES THAT CERTAIN OTHER
EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION ACTIVITIES. 

FN3  SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, UNITED
STATES SENATE, OF WHICH SENATOR ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, JR., WAS
CHAIRMAN.  THIS SUBCOMMITTEE ACTED PURSUANT TO S. RES. 266, 74TH CONG.,
2D SESS., AND HELD EXTENSIVE HEARINGS BEGINNING IN 1936. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA.  AMALGAMATED APPARENTLY HAD ABOUT 400 MEMBERS
BEFORE INDEPENDENT STARTED ITS MEMBERSHIP DRIVE IN APRIL, 1937. 

FN5  SALMONS WAS REHIRED ON DECEMBER 21, 1936, AFTER MEDIATION BY THE
BOARD ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WOULD NOT ENGAGE IN UNION ACTIVITIES
ON COMPANY TIME. 

FN6  NOVAK WAS REINSTATED IN JANUARY, 1937, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT HE WOULD NOT ENGAGE IN UNION ACTIVITIES ON COMPANY TIME. 
ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CONDITION EXTENDED TO UNION ACTIVITIES AT ALL
TIMES.  ACCORDING TO THE COMPANY, IT COVERED ONLY UNION ACTIVITIES ON
COMPANY TIME.  THE BOARD DID NOT RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BUT NOTED THAT
NOVAK AS A RESULT OF HIS UNDERSTANDING, DID NOT JOIN AMALGAMATED UNTIL
AFTER THE ACT HAD BEEN UPHELD IN APRIL, 1937.  NOVAK DELAYED ACCEPTING
THE PROPOSAL OF REINSTATEMENT BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE IMPLICATION THAT
THEREBY HE WOULD TACITLY ADMIT THAT HE HAD EARLIER ENGAGED IN UNION
ACTIVITIES. 

FN7  THE BOARD ORDERED NO AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO SALMONS
AS HE HAD BEEN REINSTATED UNDER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY THAT HE
WOULD NOT RECEIVE BACK PAY. 

FN8  NO AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF WAS ORDERED AS RESPECTS PETE SOLINKO, WHO
WAS LAID OFF IN JANUARY, 1938. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














BEST & CO. V. MAXWELL, 311 U.S. 454 


NO. 61.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 22, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 23, 1940.  - 216
N.C. 114 - 3 S.E.2D 292, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE STATUTE WHICH LEVIES AN ANNUAL PRIVILEGE TAX OF $250 ON
EVERY PERSON OR CORPORATION, NOT A REGULAR RETAIL MERCHANT IN THE
STATE, WHO DISPLAYS SAMPLES IN ANY HOTEL ROOM OR HOUSE RENTED OR
OCCUPIED TEMPORARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING RETAIL ORDERS, HELD
INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 456. 

SO HELD AS APPLIED TO A NONRESIDENT MERCHANT WHO TOOK ORDERS IN THE
STATE AND SHIPPED INTERSTATE DIRECTLY TO CUSTOMERS; AND WHERE THE ONLY
CORRESPONDING FIXED-SUM LICENSE TAX EXACTED OF "REGULAR RETAIL
MERCHANTS" WAS $1 PER ANNUM FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS. 

2.  THE FREEDOM OF COMMERCE WHICH ALLOWS THE MERCHANTS OF EACH STATE
A REGIONAL OR NATIONAL MARKET FOR THEIR GOODS MAY NOT BE FETTERED BY
LEGISLATION THE ACTUAL EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF
INTRASTATE BUSINESSES.  P. 457. 

BEST & COMPANY, INC. V. MAXWELL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF NORTH
CAROLINA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT REVERSING A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A
SUIT FOR REFUND OF A LICENSE TAX.  SEE ALSO 217 N.C. 134; 6 S.E.2D
893. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, A NEW YORK RETAIL MERCHANDISE ESTABLISHMENT, RENTED A
DISPLAY ROOM IN A NORTH CAROLINA HOTEL FOR SEVERAL DAYS DURING
FEBRUARY, 1938, AND TOOK ORDERS FOR GOODS CORRESPONDING TO SAMPLES; IT
FILLED THE ORDERS BY SHIPPING DIRECT TO THE CUSTOMERS FROM NEW YORK
CITY.  BEFORE USING THE ROOM APPELLANT PAID UNDER PROTEST THE TAX
REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 127, SEC. 121(E), OF THE NORTH CAROLINA LAWS OF
1937, WHICH LEVIES AN ANNUAL PRIVILEGE TAX OF $250 ON EVERY PERSON OR
CORPORATION, NOT A REGULAR RETAIL MERCHANT IN THE STATE, WHO DISPLAYS
SAMPLES IN ANY HOTEL ROOM RENTED OR OCCUPIED TEMPORARILY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SECURING RETAIL ORDERS.  FN1  APPELLANT NOT BEING A REGULAR
RETAIL MERCHANT OF NORTH CAROLINA ADMITTEDLY COMES WITHIN THE STATUTE. 
ASSERTING, HOWEVER, THAT THE TAX WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ESPECIALLY IN
VIEW OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IT BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR A REFUND AND
SUCCEEDED IN THE TRIAL COURT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
REVERSED AND THEN, BEING EVENLY DIVIDED ON REHEARING, ALLOWED THE
REVERSAL TO STAND.  FN2  THE PREVAILING OPINION CHARACTERIZED THE TAX
AS ONE ON THE COMMERCIAL USE OF TEMPORARY QUARTERS, WHICH IN ITS
OPERATION DID NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THEREFORE DID NOT COME INTO CONFLICT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBIDS DISCRIMINATION, WHETHER FORTHRIGHT OR
INGENIOUS.  FN3 IN EACH CASE IT IS OUR DUTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
STATUTE UNDER ATTACK, WHATEVER ITS NAME MAY BE, WILL IN ITS PRACTICAL
OPERATION WORK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS
STANDARD WE THINK CONDEMNS THE TAX AT BAR.  NOMINALLY THE STATUTE TAXES
ALL WHO ARE NOT REGULAR RETAIL MERCHANTS IN NORTH CAROLINA, REGARDLESS
OF WHETHER THEY ARE RESIDENTS OR NONRESIDENTS.  WE MUST ASSUME,
HOWEVER, ON THIS RECORD THAT THOSE NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENTS COMPETING
WITH APPELLANT FOR THE SALE OF SIMILAR MERCHANDISE WILL NORMALLY BE
REGULAR RETAIL MERCHANTS.  THE RETAIL STORES OF THE STATE ARE THE
NATURAL OUTLETS FOR MERCHANDISE, NOT THOSE WHO SELL ONLY BY SAMPLE. 
SOME OF THESE LOCAL SHOPS MAY, LIKE APPELLANT, RENT TEMPORARY DISPLAY
ROOMS IN SECTIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA WHERE THEY HAVE NO PERMANENT STORE,
BUT EVEN THESE ESCAPE THE TAX AT BAR BECAUSE THE LOCATION OF THEIR
CENTRAL RETAIL STORE SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE STATE WILL QUALIFY THEM AS
"REGULAR RETAIL MERCHANTS IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA."  THE ONLY
CORRESPONDING FIXED-SUM LICENSE TAX TO WHICH APPELLANT'S REAL
COMPETITORS ARE SUBJECT IS A TAX OF $1 PER ANNUM FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
DOING BUSINESS N4.  NONRESIDENTS WISHING TO DISPLAY THEIR WARES MUST
EITHER ESTABLISH THEMSELVES AS REGULAR NORTH CAROLINA RETAIL MERCHANTS
AT PROHIBITIVE EXPENSE, OR ELSE PAY THIS $250 TAX THAT BEARS NO
RELATION TO ACTUAL OR PROBABLE SALES BUT MUST BE PAID IN ADVANCE NO
MATTER HOW SMALL THE SALES TURN OUT TO BE.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE CAN
HARDLY SURVIVE IN SO HOSTILE AN ATMOSPHERE.  A $250 INVESTMENT IN
ADVANCE, REQUIRED OF OUT-OF-STATE RETAILERS BUT NOT OF THEIR REAL LOCAL
COMPETITORS, CAN OPERATE ONLY TO DISCOURAGE AND HINDER THE APPEARANCE
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA RETAIL MARKET.  EXTRASTATE
MERCHANTS WOULD BE COMPELLED TO TURN OVER THEIR NORTH CAROLINA TRADE TO
REGULAR LOCAL MERCHANTS SELLING BY SAMPLE.  NORTH CAROLINA REGULAR
RETAIL MERCHANTS WOULD BENEFIT, BUT TO THE SAME EXTENT THE COMMERCE OF
THE NATION WOULD SUFFER DISCRIMINATION. 

THE FREEDOM OF COMMERCE WHICH ALLOWS THE MERCHANTS OF EACH STATE A
REGIONAL OR NATIONAL MARKET FOR THEIR GOODS IS NOT TO BE FETTERED BY
LEGISLATION, THE ACTUAL EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOR OF
INTRASTATE BUSINESSES, WHATEVER MAY BE THE OSTENSIBLE REACH OF THE
LANGUAGE.  FN5  REVERSED. 

FN1  "(E)  EVERY PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION, NOT BEING A REGULAR
RETAIL MERCHANT IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, WHO SHALL DISPLAY
SAMPLES, GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE IN ANY HOTEL ROOM, OR IN ANY
HOUSE RENTED OR OCCUPIED TEMPORARILY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING
ORDERS FOR THE RETAIL SALE OF SUCH GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE SO
DISPLAYED, SHALL APPLY FOR IN ADVANCE AND PROCURE A STATE LICENSE FROM
THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DISPLAYING SUCH
SAMPLES, GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE, AND SHALL PAY AN ANNUAL
PRIVILEGE TAX OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($250.00), WHICH LICENSE
SHALL ENTITLE SUCH PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION TO DISPLAY SUCH SAMPLES,
GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE IN ANY COUNTY IN THIS STATE." 

FN2  216 N.C. 114; 3 S.E.2D 292; 217 N.C. 134; 6 S.E.2D 893. 

FN3  WELTON V. MISSOURI, 91 U.S. 275, 282-283; GUY V. BALTIMORE, 100
U.S. 434; WEBBER V. VIRGINIA, 103 U.S. 344; HALE V. BIMCO TRADING CO.,
306 U.S. 375.  IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33, WE
POINTED OUT THAT THE LINE OF DECISIONS FOLLOWING ROBBINS V. SHELBY
COUNTY, 120 U.S. 489, READ IN THEIR PROPER HISTORICAL SETTING, RESTED
ON THE ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION INHERENT IN CERTAIN FIXED
SUM LICENSE TAXES (PP. 55-57).  THERE IS NO OCCASION NOW TO REEXAMINE
THE PARTICULAR TAX STATUTES INVOLVED IN THOSE CASES. 

FN4  NORTH CAROLINA LAWS OF 1937, C. 127, SEC. 405. 

FN5  CF. BACARDI CORPORATION V. DOMENECH, ANTE, PP. 150, 156-157. 
..END :






















MILLIKEN V. MEYER, 311 U.S. 457 


NO. 66.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 23, 1940.  - 105
COLO. 532 - 100 P.2D 151, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE ITS JUDGMENT IS CHALLENGED IN ANOTHER STATE, THE
JURISDICTION OF A STATE COURT OVER THE PARTIES OR THE SUBJECT MATTER IS
OPEN TO INQUIRY.  P. 462. 

2.  IF THE JUDGMENT ON ITS FACE APPEARS TO BE A RECORD OF A COURT OF
GENERAL JURISDICTION, THEN JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES AND THE
SUBJECT MATTER WILL BE PRESUMED, UNLESS DISPROVED BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
OR BY THE RECORD ITSELF.  P. 462. 

3.  WHERE A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE
PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER IS CHALLENGED IN ANOTHER STATE, THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PRECLUDES ANY
INQUIRY INTO THE MERITS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION, THE LOGIC OR
CONSISTENCY OF THE DECISION, OR THE VALIDITY OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON
WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS BASED.  P. 462. 

4.  A JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM RENDERED IN THE STATE OF HIS DOMICILE
AGAINST A DEFENDANT WHO, PURSUANT TO A STATUTE OF THAT STATE PROVIDING
FOR THE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON ABSENT DEFENDANTS, WAS PERSONALLY SERVED
IN ANOTHER STATE, HELD VALID AND ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 463. 

A COURT OF ANOTHER STATE CAN NOT REFUSE TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
TO SUCH JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND OF AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT
AND THE FINDINGS. 

5.  AN INCIDENT OF DOMICILE IS AMENABILITY TO SUIT WITHIN THE STATE
EVEN DURING SOJOURNS WITHOUT THE STATE, WHERE THE STATE HAS PROVIDED A
REASONABLE METHOD FOR APPRISING THE ABSENT PARTY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST HIM.  P. 464. 

MILLIKEN ET AL. V. MEYER, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 622, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
WHICH DENIED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A FOREIGN JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT HELD NULL AND VOID A JUDGMENT OF THE
WYOMING COURT AGAINST THE CLAIM OF MILLIKEN THAT THAT JUDGMENT WAS
ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  101
COLO. 564; 76 P.2D 420; 105 COLO. 532; 100 P.2D 151.  THE CASE IS HERE
ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WHICH WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE
SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH IS RAISED. 

THE CONTROVERSY IS OVER A 1/64TH INTEREST IN PROFITS FROM OPERATION
OF CERTAIN COLORADO OIL PROPERTIES.  TRANSCONTINENTAL N1 ON AUGUST 31,
1922, CONTRACTED TO PAY MEYER 4/64THS OF THOSE PROFITS.  MILLIKEN
ASSERTED A CLAIM TO A TWO-THIRDS INTEREST IN THAT 4/64THS SHARE.  AS A
SETTLEMENT OF THAT DISPUTE TRANSCONTINENTAL ON MAY 3, 1924, CONTRACTED
TO PAY MILLIKEN A 2/64THS INTEREST AND MILLIKEN ASSIGNED  FN2  TO
TRANSCONTINENTAL ALL HIS CLAIMS AGAINST MEYER PERTAINING TO THE LANDS
IN QUESTION AND TO MEYER'S 4/64THS INTEREST IN THE PROFITS. 

LATER MILLIKEN INSTITUTED SUIT IN THE WYOMING COURT ALLEGING A JOINT
ADVENTURE WITH TRANSCONTINENTAL AND MEYER AND CHARGING A CONSPIRACY ON
THEIR PART TO DEFRAUD HIM OF HIS RIGHTS.  HE SOUGHT A CANCELLATION OF
THE CONTRACTS OF MAY 3, 1924, AND AN ACCOUNTING FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL
AND MEYER.  MEYER, WHO WAS ASSERTED TO BE A RESIDENT OF WYOMING, WAS
PERSONALLY SERVED WITH PROCESS IN COLORADO PURSUANT TO THE WYOMING
STATUTES; FN3  BUT HE MADE NO APPEARANCE IN THE WYOMING CAUSE.  FN4
TRANSCONTINENTAL APPEARED AND ANSWERED.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS
A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN MILLIKEN AND TRANSCONTINENTAL; THAT THE
CONTRACTS OF MAY 3, 1924, WERE VALID; AND THAT THE ACTION AGAINST
TRANSCONTINENTAL SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  IT FOUND,
HOWEVER, THAT THERE WAS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN MILLIKEN AND MEYER;
THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO SHARE EQUALLY IN 6/64THS OF THE NET PROFITS;
AND THAT, WHILE MEYER HAD REGULARLY RECEIVED 4/64THS, HE HAD REFUSED TO
ACCOUNT TO MILLIKEN FOR HIS 1/64TH PART.  THE COURT DID NOT PURPORT TO
DECREE THE 1/64TH INTEREST TO MILLIKEN OR ANYONE ELSE BUT ENTERED AN IN
PERSONAM JUDGMENT AGAINST MEYER FOR THE PROFITS WHICH MEYER HAD
WITHHELD FROM MILLIKEN, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON; AND ENJOINED
TRANSCONTINENTAL FROM PAYING, AND MEYER FROM RECEIVING, MORE THAN
3/64THS OF THE NET PROFITS.  THIS WAS ON JULY 11, 1931.  THEREAFTER THE
1/64TH SHARE WAS WITHHELD FROM MEYER AND PAID OVER TO MILLIKEN.  FN5
IN 1935 RESPONDENT INSTITUTED THIS SUIT  FN6  IN THE COLORADO COURT
PRAYING, INTER ALIA, FOR A JUDGMENT AGAINST MILLIKEN FOR THE SUMS
WITHHELD UNDER THE WYOMING JUDGMENT AND PAID TO MILLIKEN, FOR AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST MILLIKEN ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THE WYOMING JUDGMENT,
AND FOR A DECREE THAT THE WYOMING JUDGMENT WAS A NULLITY FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION OVER MEYER OR HIS PROPERTY.  THE BILL ALLEGED, INTER ALIA,
THAT MEYER AT THE TIME OF SERVICE IN THE WYOMING COURT HAD LONG CEASED
TO BE A RESIDENT OF WYOMING AND WAS A RESIDENT OF COLORADO; THAT THE
SERVICE OBTAINED ON HIM DID NOT GIVE THE WYOMING COURT JURISDICTION OF
HIS PERSON OR PROPERTY; AND THAT SUCH JUDGMENT WAS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  MILLIKEN'S ANSWER ALLEGED,
INTER ALIA, THAT MEYER WAS A RESIDENT OF WYOMING AT THE TIME OF THE
WYOMING ACTION AND THAT THE WYOMING JUDGMENT WAS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT IN COLORADO UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE COLORADO
COURT, ON ISSUES JOINED, FOUND THAT MEYER WAS DOMICILED IN WYOMING WHEN
THE WYOMING SUIT WAS COMMENCED, THAT THE WYOMING STATUTES FOR
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE WERE CONSTITUTIONAL, THAT THE AFFIDAVIT FOR
CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE  FN7  ON MEYER WAS FILED IN GOOD FAITH,
SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMED TO THE WYOMING STATUTE AND STATED THE TRUTH,
THAT WYOMING HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF MEYER, THAT THE
WYOMING DECREE  FN8  WAS NOT VOID, AND THAT THE BILL SHOULD BE
DISMISSED. 

THAT JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.  IT DID
NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE WYOMING COURT HAD
JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES AND SUBJECT MATTER.  IT HELD THAT THE
WYOMING DECREE WAS VOID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE OF AN IRRECONCILABLE
CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE FINDINGS AND THE DECREE.  IN ITS VIEW THE
FINDING OF THE WYOMING COURT THAT MILLIKEN'S ASSIGNMENT OF MAY 3, 1924,
TO TRANSCONTINENTAL OF HIS CLAIMS AGAINST MEYER WAS VALID, DEPRIVED THE
COURT OF ANY GROUND UPON WHICH IT COULD PREDICATE A JUDGMENT AGAINST
MEYER, SINCE THE ONLY BASIS FOR AN ACTION BY MILLIKEN AGAINST MEYER
RESTED UPON THE CLAIM BEFORE ITS ASSIGNMENT. 

WHERE A JUDGMENT RENDERED IN ONE STATE IS CHALLENGED IN ANOTHER, A
WANT OF JURISDICTION OVER EITHER THE PERSON OR THE SUBJECT MATTER IS OF
COURSE OPEN TO INQUIRY.  GROVER & BAKER SEWING MACHINE CO. V.
RADCLIFFE, 137 U.S. 287; ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59.  BUT IF THE
JUDGMENT ON ITS FACE APPEARS TO BE A "RECORD OF A COURT OF GENERAL
JURISDICTION, SUCH JURISDICTION OVER THE CAUSE AND THE PARTIES IS TO BE
PRESUMED UNLESS DISPROVED BY EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE, OR BY THE RECORD
ITSELF."  ADAM V. SAENGER, SUPRA, AT P. 62.  IN SUCH CASE THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION PRECLUDES ANY INQUIRY INTO
THE MERITS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION, THE LOGIC OR CONSISTENCY OF THE
DECISION, OR THE VALIDITY OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT
IS BASED.  FAUNTLEROY V. LUM, 210 U.S. 230; ROCHE V. MCDONALD, 275 U.S.
449; TITUS V. WALLICK, 306 U.S. 282.  WHATEVER MISTAKES OF LAW MAY
UNDERLIE THE JUDGMENT (COOPER V. REYNOLDS, 10 WALL.  308) IT IS
"CONCLUSIVE AS TO ALL THE MEDIA CONCLUDENDI."  FAUNTLEROY V. LUM,
SUPRA, AT P. 237. 

ACCORDINGLY, IF THE WYOMING COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER MEYER, THE
HOLDING BY THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT THAT THE WYOMING JUDGMENT WAS
VOID BECAUSE OF AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE FINDINGS AND THE DECREE
WAS NOT WARRANTED. 

ON THE FINDINGS OF THE COLORADO TRIAL COURT, NOT IMPAIRED BY THE
COLORADO SUPREME COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT WYOMING HAD JURISDICTION OVER
MEYER IN THE 1931 SUIT.  DOMICILE IN THE STATE IS ALONE SUFFICIENT TO
BRING AN ABSENT DEFENDANT WITHIN THE REACH OF THE STATE'S JURISDICTION
FOR PURPOSES OF A PERSONAL JUDGMENT BY MEANS OF APPROPRIATE SUBSTITUTED
SERVICE.  SUBSTITUTED SERVICE IN SUCH CASES HAS BEEN QUITE UNIFORMLY
UPHELD WHERE THE ABSENT DEFENDANT WAS SERVED AT HIS USUAL PLACE OF
ABODE IN THE STATE (HUNTLEY V. BAKER, 33 HUN 578; HURLBUT V. THOMAS, 55
CONN. 181; 10 A. 556; HARRYMAN V. ROBERTS, 52 MD. 64) AS WELL AS WHERE
HE WAS PERSONALLY SERVED WITHOUT THE STATE.  IN RE HENDRICKSON, 40 S.D.
211; 167 N.W. 172.  THAT SUCH SUBSTITUTED SERVICE MAY BE WHOLLY
ADEQUATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS WAS RECOGNIZED BY THIS
COURT IN MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243 U.S. 90, DESPITE EARLIER INTIMATIONS TO
THE CONTRARY.  SEE PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714, 733; BURDICK, SERVICE
AS A REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS IN ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, 20 MICH. L.
REV. 422.  ITS ADEQUACY SO FAR AS DUE PROCESS IS CONCERNED IS DEPENDENT
ON WHETHER OR NOT THE FORM OF SUBSTITUTED SERVICE PROVIDED FOR SUCH
CASES AND EMPLOYED IS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO GIVE HIM ACTUAL NOTICE
OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.  IF IT IS, THE
TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE (MCDONALD V.
MABEE, SUPRA) IMPLICIT IN DUE PROCESS ARE SATISFIED.  HERE THERE CAN BE
NO QUESTION ON THAT SCORE.  MEYER DID NOT MERELY RECEIVE ACTUAL NOTICE
OF THE WYOMING PROCEEDINGS.  WHILE OUTSIDE THE STATE, HE WAS PERSONALLY
SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STATUTORY SCHEME WHICH WYOMING HAD PROVIDED
FOR SUCH OCCASIONS.  AND IN OUR VIEW THE MACHINERY EMPLOYED MET ALL THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  CERTAINLY THEN MEYER'S DOMICILE IN
WYOMING WAS A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THAT EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE.  AS
IN CASE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER ITS ABSENT CITIZENS
(BLACKMER V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 421), THE AUTHORITY OF A STATE
OVER ONE OF ITS CITIZENS IS NOT TERMINATED BY THE MERE FACT OF HIS
ABSENCE FROM THE STATE.  THE STATE WHICH ACCORDS HIM PRIVILEGES AND
AFFORDS PROTECTION TO HIM AND HIS PROPERTY BY VIRTUE OF HIS DOMICILE
MAY ALSO EXACT RECIPROCAL DUTIES.  "ENJOYMENT OF THE PRIVILEGES OF
RESIDENCE WITHIN THE STATE, AND THE ATTENDANT RIGHT TO INVOKE THE
PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS, ARE INSEPARABLE" FROM THE VARIOUS INCIDENCES OF
STATE CITIZENSHIP.  SEE LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276,
279; NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308.  THE
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THAT CITIZENSHIP ARISE OUT OF THE RELATIONSHIP TO
THE STATE WHICH DOMICILE CREATES.  THAT RELATIONSHIP IS NOT DISSOLVED
BY MERE ABSENCE FROM THE STATE.  THE ATTENDANT DUTIES, LIKE THE RIGHTS
AND PRIVILEGES INCIDENT TO DOMICILE, ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON CONTINUOUS
PRESENCE IN THE STATE.  ONE SUCH INCIDENT OF DOMICILE IS AMENABILITY TO
SUIT WITHIN THE STATE EVEN DURING SOJOURNS WITHOUT THE STATE, WHERE THE
STATE HAS PROVIDED AND EMPLOYED A REASONABLE METHOD FOR APPRISING SUCH
AN ABSENT PARTY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM.  SEE RESTATEMENT,
CONFLICT OF LAWS, SECS. 47, 79; DODD, JURISDICTION IN PERSONAL ACTIONS,
23 ILL. L. REV. 427.  HERE SUCH A REASONABLE METHOD WAS SO PROVIDED AND
SO EMPLOYED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  TRANSCONTINENTAL OIL CO. IN JUNE, 1923, TRANSCONTINENTAL HAD
DISPOSED OF A ONE-HALF INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION TO TEXAS
PRODUCTION CO. IN APRIL, 1931, OHIO OIL CO. ACQUIRED THE REMAINING
INTEREST OF TRANSCONTINENTAL IN THE PROPERTIES. 

FN2  MILLIKEN'S SON, CARL S. MILLIKEN, HAD AN INTEREST IN THE
MILLIKEN CLAIM WHICH HE LIKEWISE ASSIGNED TO TRANSCONTINENTAL. 

FN3  WYO. COMP. STAT. 1920, SEC. 5636 PROVIDED:  "SERVICE BY
PUBLICATION MAY BE HAD IN EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING CASES:  ...  6.  IN
ACTIONS WHERE THE DEFENDANT, BEING A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE, HAS
DEPARTED FROM THE COUNTY OF HIS RESIDENCE WITH THE INTENT TO DELAY OR
DEFRAUD HIS CREDITORS, OR TO AVOID THE SERVICE OF A SUMMONS, OR KEEPS
HIMSELF CONCEALED WITH LIKE INTENT." 

SEC. 5641 PROVIDED: 

"PERSONAL SERVICE OUT OF STATE.  IN ALL CASES WHERE SERVICE MAY BE
MADE BY PUBLICATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, PERSONAL
SERVICE OF A COPY OF THE SUMMONS AND THE PETITION IN SAID ACTION MAY BE
MADE OUT OF THE STATE, AND SUCH SUMMONS WHEN ISSUED FOR SERVICE OUT OF
THE STATE, SHALL BE RETURNABLE AT THE OPTION OF THE PARTY HAVING IT
ISSUED, ON THE SECOND, THIRD OR FOURTH MONDAY AFTER ITS DATE, AND SHALL
REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS NAMED THEREIN TO ANSWER THE
PETITION IN SAID ACTION ON OR BEFORE THE THIRD SATURDAY AFTER THE
RETURN DAY NAMED IN SAID SUMMONS." 

FN4  HIS DEPOSITION, HOWEVER, WAS TAKEN ON ORAL INTERROGATORIES
CONCERNING HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE IN WYOMING. 

FN5  BY THE OHIO OIL CO. ONE OF THE VENDEES OF TRANSCONTINENTAL. 
THESE PAYMENTS WERE TO MARGARET M. MILLIKEN TO WHOM MILLIKEN'S
INTERESTS HAD BEEN ASSIGNED. 

FN6  TEXAS PRODUCTION CO. AND OHIO OIL CO. WERE JOINED AS
DEFENDANTS.  THEY FILED SEPARATE ANSWERS AND CROSS-COMPLAINTS WHICH ARE
NOT MATERIAL HERE.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE OHIO OIL CO.
IN ITS ANSWER SET UP THE CONTRACT BETWEEN MILLIKEN AND TRANSCONTINENTAL
WHEREBY MILLIKEN ASSIGNED ALL OF HIS RIGHTS AGAINST MEYER IN THE LANDS
AND THE 4/64THS INTEREST IN QUESTION TO TRANSCONTINENTAL AND ALLEGED
THAT MILLIKEN WAS ESTOPPED THEREBY TO MAKE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST IT FOR
THE DISPUTED 1/64TH INTEREST. 

FN7  WHILE THE AFFIDAVIT FOR CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE STATED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 5636 OF THE WYOMING COMP. STAT., SUPRA, NOTE 3,
THAT MEYER CONCEALED HIMSELF IN ORDER TO AVOID SERVICE OF SUMMONS, THE
PRESENT RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER OR NOT THE WYOMING COURT SO
FOUND. 

FN8  THE WYOMING JUDGMENT DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BY
RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF R.S. SEC. 905, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 687 IN THEIR SUIT IN COLORADO TO SET IT ASIDE.  NOR WAS
THAT JUDGMENT SO PROVED BY THE ANSWERS.  BUT SINCE THE COLORADO TRIAL
COURT GAVE THE WYOMING JUDGMENT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT DESPITE LACK OF
SUCH PROOF, RESPONDENTS CANNOT HERE CLAIM THAT THAT WAS ERROR. 
..END :







STONER V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 311 U.S. 464 


NO. 74.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 23, 1940.  - 109
F.2D 874, REVERSED. 


IN SUITS AGAINST AN INSURER UPON POLICIES PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF
BENEFITS AND WAIVER OF PREMIUMS IN THE EVENT OF THE INSURED'S "TOTAL
DISABILITY," AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF MISSOURI HAD HELD THAT
THE EVIDENCE FOR THE INSURED WAS SUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE JURY. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE INSURER SUED THE INSURED IN A FEDERAL COURT IN THAT
STATE, FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NO LONGER OBLIGED TO PAY
DISABILITY BENEFITS OR TO WAIVE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS.  IN THIS SUIT, THE
PARTIES WERE THE SAME AS IN THE EARLIER SUITS IN THE STATE COURTS, THE
ISSUES WERE IDENTICAL, AND THE EVIDENCE CONSISTED OF A TRANSCRIPT OF
THE EVIDENCE IN ONE OF THE STATE COURT SUITS, SUPPLEMENTED ONLY BY
ADDITIONAL ITEMS INTRODUCED BY, AND FAVORABLE TO, THE INSURED.  THE
SUIT WAS TRIED WITHOUT A JURY AND JUDGMENT WAS FOR THE INSURED.  HELD: 

1.  REVERSAL BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DIRECTION TO ENTER
A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR THE INSURER, WAS ERRONEOUS.  P. 467. 

2.  THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, DETERMINING IN
EFFECT THAT THE EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE OF TOTAL DISABILITY REQUIRED A
FINDING FOR THE INSURER, WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW AS
ANNOUNCED BY THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE; AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE STATE LAW AS THUS
ANNOUNCED, SINCE THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT IT WOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED
IN LIKE CASE BY THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE OR BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT.  P. 468. 

3.  THAT IN THE EARLIER SUITS THE BURDEN WAS ON THE INSURED TO PROVE
DISABILITY, WHILE HERE THE COURTS BELOW ASSUMED THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON
THE INSURER TO SHOW THAT DISABILITY NO LONGER EXISTED, IS IMMATERIAL. 
P. 469. 

4.  THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WAS INVOLVED, FOR IT WAS
EXCEEDED BY THE SUM OF THE BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND THE PREMIUMS IN
CONTROVERSY.  P. 469. 

STONER V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 628, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN A SUIT INVOLVING THE QUESTION OF ITS
LIABILITY UPON DISABILITY PROVISIONS OF CONTRACTS OF LIFE INSURANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NO LONGER
OBLIGATED TO MAKE DISABILITY PAYMENTS TO PETITIONER OR TO WAIVE PAYMENT
OF PREMIUMS UNDER THE TOTAL DISABILITY CLAUSES OF INSURANCE POLICIES
ISSUED TO PETITIONER PRIOR TO 1931.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED TWO DECISIONS OF THE
KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS IN EARLIER SUITS BETWEEN THE SAME
PARTIES. 

IN JUNE, 1931, PETITIONER FELL AND SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS LEFT ANKLE. 
THE INJURY IS PERMANENT.  FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS AFTER THE INJURY,
RESPONDENT PAID PETITIONER THE TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS AND WAIVED
PREMIUMS.  IN OCTOBER, 1933, IT NOTIFIED HIM THAT IT INTENDED TO CEASE
BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND WAIVER OF PREMIUMS BECAUSE IT NO LONGER CONSIDERED
HIM TOTALLY DISABLED. 

IN APRIL, 1934, PETITIONER BROUGHT SUIT IN A MISSOURI STATE COURT FOR
THE DISABILITY PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY DUE AND UNPAID AT THAT TIME.  FROM A
VERDICT AND JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT HE APPEALED TO THE KANSAS CITY
COURT OF APPEALS, AN INTERMEDIATE STATE APPELLATE COURT.  THAT COURT
HELD THAT PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE THE CASE TO THE
JURY AND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN GIVING CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONS.  IT
REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR A NEW TRIAL.  90 S.W.2D 784. 
RESPONDENT THEREUPON SOUGHT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE MISSOURI
SUPREME COURT BUT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.  IN CONSEQUENCE, THE ACTION IS
STILL PENDING BUT HAS NOT YET BEEN RETRIED. 

IN JUNE, 1936, AFTER REMAND OF THE FIRST CASE, PETITIONER INSTITUTED
TWO MORE ACTIONS, ALSO IN MISSOURI STATE COURTS, TO RECOVER DISABILITY
BENEFITS WHICH ALLEGEDLY HAD ACCRUED SINCE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FIRST
SUIT.  ONE ACTION WAS TRIED AND THIS TIME PETITIONER SECURED VERDICT
AND JUDGMENT FROM WHICH RESPONDENT APPEALED.  THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF
APPEALS AGAIN REVERSED BECAUSE OF ERROR IN THE INSTRUCTIONS, ALTHOUGH
IT HELD THAT PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE PRESENTED A CASE FOR THE JURY.  IT
REMANDED THE ACTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  232 MO. APP. 1048.  114 S.W.2D
167.  BOTH OF THESE ACTIONS ALSO ARE PENDING TRIAL. 

AT THIS JUNCTURE RESPONDENT, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, STARTED THE
PRESENT SUIT AGAINST PETITIONER, A RESIDENT OF MISSOURI, IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.  IT SOUGHT A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT TOTALLY DISABLED WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE DISABILITY CLAUSE, AND HENCE, THAT RESPONDENT WAS
NOT LIABLE FOR DISABILITY PAYMENTS OR WAIVER OF PREMIUMS FROM JUNE,
1936, UNTIL THE DATE OF SUIT.  TO PROVE ITS CASE RESPONDENT INTRODUCED
THE TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY TAKEN IN THE SECOND OF THE EARLIER SUITS. 
PETITIONER SUPPLEMENTED THE TRANSCRIPT BY A STATEMENT OF RESPONDENT
AGAINST INTEREST, A PERSONAL DEPOSITION, AND THE TESTIMONY OF ANOTHER
DOCTOR.  THE TRIAL, WITHOUT A JURY, RESULTED IN A JUDGMENT FOR
PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT JUDGE FINDING THAT PETITIONER WAS TOTALLY
DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE POLICIES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED, HOWEVER, HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT
PETITIONER WAS NOT TOTALLY DISABLED.  IT REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO
ENTER A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS PRAYED BY RESPONDENT.  109 F.2D 874. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON OCTOBER 14, 1940. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING
TO FOLLOW THE TWO DECISIONS OF THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS IN
EARLIER SUITS BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUES OF LAW
AND FACT. 

WE HAVE RECENTLY HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE JURISDICTION RESTS ON
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, FEDERAL COURTS, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF ERIE
RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, MUST FOLLOW THE DECISIONS OF
INTERMEDIATE STATE COURTS IN THE ABSENCE OF CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE WOULD DECIDE DIFFERENTLY.  WEST V.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., ANTE, P. 223; FIDELITY UNION TRUST
CO. V. FIELD, ANTE, P. 169; SIX COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA V. JOINT
HIGHWAY DISTRICT, ANTE, P. 180.  IN PARTICULAR THIS IS TRUE WHERE THE
INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT HAS DETERMINED THE PRECISE QUESTION IN ISSUE
IN AN EARLIER SUIT BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, AND THE HIGHEST COURT OF
THE STATE HAS REFUSED REVIEW.  WEST V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH
CO., SUPRA. 

TWICE THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS HAS HAD BEFORE IT APPEALS
INVOLVING THE SAME PARTIES, INSURANCE CONTRACTS, AND FACTS AS ARE
INVOLVED HERE.  STONER V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 90 S.W.2D 784; STONER
V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 232 MO. APP. 1048; 114 S.W.2D 167.  EACH
TIME RESPONDENT ARGUED THAT PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE FAILED TO PRESENT A
SUBMISSIBLE CASE.  90 S.W.2D 784, 790; 232 MO. APP. 1048; 114 S.W.2D
167, 168.  EACH TIME THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS EXPRESSLY STATED
THAT THE EVIDENCE AS TO TOTAL DISABILITY PRESENTED A QUESTION FOR THE
JURY.  90 S.W.2D 784, 794, 797; 232 MO. APP. 1048; 114 S.W.2D 167,
169.  MOREOVER, IN APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONS IT
MARKED OUT THE LIMITS OF THE TEST THE JURY WAS TO EMPLOY IN DETERMINING
THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF TOTAL DISABILITY WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE POLICIES. 

IT IS APPARENT, THEN, THAT THE QUESTION OF TOTAL DISABILITY, ON THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT IN THOSE TWO CASES, IS A QUESTION FOR THE
JURY UNDER INSTRUCTIONS EMBODYING THE TEST THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF
APPEALS APPROVED.  UNDER THE RULE OF THE WEST, SIX COMPANIES, AND FIELD
CASES, SUPRA, IT WAS ERROR FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO HOLD, IN
EFFECT, THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE THAT THERE WAS TOTAL DISABILITY, UNLESS CONVINCING EVIDENCE
INDICATED THAT THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT WOULD DECIDE DIFFERENTLY. 

THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT DIFFERENT MERELY BECAUSE THERE ARE NOW IN THE
RECORD A STATEMENT AGAINST INTEREST, A DEPOSITION OF PETITIONER, AND
THE TESTIMONY OF A DOCTOR WHICH WERE NOT IN THE RECORD IN THE EARLIER
CASES.  THE THREE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER AND,
IF ANYTHING, WEAKEN RESPONDENT'S CASE.  MOREOVER, APART FROM THESE
THREE ITEMS, THE EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE CONSISTS OF THE
TRANSCRIPT THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS HAD BEFORE IT WHEN IT WROTE
THE OPINION IN THE SECOND APPEAL (232 MO. APP. 1048; 114 S.W.2D 167). 

NOR IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT EITHER THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF
APPEALS OR THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT WOULD DECIDE THIS CASE
DIFFERENTLY.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE KANSAS
CITY COURT OF APPEALS NOW WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS
INSUFFICIENT AFTER IT HAS HELD THAT THE SAME EVIDENCE PRESENTED A
QUESTION FOR THE JURY.  AND WHILE THE CONCEPT OF TOTAL DISABILITY IS
INSEPARABLE FROM THE FACTS TO WHICH IT IS APPLIED, HEALD V. AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE CO., 340 MO. 1143, 104 S.W.2D 379, INDICATES THAT THE
MISSOURI SUPREME COURT LIKEWISE WOULD CONCLUDE THAT A FINDING OF TOTAL
DISABILITY HERE IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  SEE ALSO FOGLESONG V.
MODERN BROTHERHOOD, 121 MO. APP. 548; 97 S.W. 240; JAMES V. U.S.
CASUALTY CO., 113 MO. APP. 622; 88 S.W. 125; BELLOWS V. TRAVELERS'
INSURANCE CO., 203 S.W. 978, WHICH WERE APPROVED IN THE HEALD CASE. 

FURTHERMORE, THE TEST FOR DETERMINING TOTAL DISABILITY APPROVED IN
THE HEALD CASE WAS EMPLOYED IN THE FIRST AND FOLLOWED IN THE SECOND OF
THE APPEALS TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED.  90 S.W.2D 784, 793, 795; 232
MO. APP. 1048; 114 S.W.2D 167, 171, 172.  IT HAS BEEN EMPLOYED
CONSISTENTLY SINCE THE HEALD CASE WAS DECIDED.  EDEN V. METROPOLITAN
LIFE INS. CO., 138 S.W.2D 745; COMFORT V. TRAVELERS' INSURANCE CO., 131
S.W.2D 734; ROGERS V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 122 S.W.2D 5; WRIGHT
V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 115 S.W.2D 102.  THE SAME TEST WAS USED
BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE IN THE PRESENT SUIT.  HE APPLIED IT TO THE
EVIDENCE WHICH THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS TWICE HAS SAID
PRESENTED A QUESTION FOR THE JURY; AND, SINCE THE CASE WAS TRIED TO THE
COURT, HE DETERMINED THAT THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED TOTAL DISABILITY. 
WE THINK IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT IN THE EARLIER SUITS THE BURDEN WAS ON
PETITIONER TO PROVE TOTAL DISABILITY WHILE HERE THE COURTS BELOW
ASSUMED THE BURDEN IS ON RESPONDENT TO SHOW THAT TOTAL DISABILITY NO
LONGER EXISTS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS ERROR TO DIRECT THE ENTRY OF A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  IT WAS PROPER, HOWEVER, TO DENY PETITIONER'S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF THE NECESSARY AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY SINCE
A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT WOULD DETERMINE PETITIONER'S CLAIM TO
BOTH BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND WAIVER OF PREMIUMS.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 
..END :













SINGER & SONS V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 311 U.S. 295 


NO. 34.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 15, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 16, 1940.  -
109 F.2D 493, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN ORDER THAT ONE MAY SUE AS A "PARTY IN INTEREST" UNDER PARAGRAPH
20, SEC. 402 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, TO ENJOIN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RAILROAD EXTENSION NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, HE MUST SHOW THAT THE EXTENSION WILL BRING ABOUT A
CHANGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY WHICH HIS OWN SPECIAL AND
PECULIAR INTEREST MAY BE DIRECTLY AND MATERIALLY AFFECTED.  P. 303. 

2.  NUMEROUS COMMISSION MERCHANTS WHO DID BUSINESS AND OWNED PROPERTY
IN AND ABOUT AN ESTABLISHED CITY PRODUCE MARKET ALLEGED IN THEIR BILL
AGAINST A RAILROAD COMPANY THAT THE MARKET ADEQUATELY SERVED THE
CONSUMING PUBLIC IN ITS VICINITY AND DEALT IN PRODUCE SHIPPED TO AND
FROM OTHER STATES; THAT THE CITY WAS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTING NEW
BUILDINGS FOR IT AT LARGE COST AND THAT THE MARKET HAD ADEQUATE
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES; THAT AN ADJOINING CITY WAS CONSTRUCTING A
NEW MARKET, AT GREAT EXPENSE, PARTLY WITH FUNDS TO BE PROCURED BY SALE
OF ITS BONDS TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY; THAT THE COMPANY PROPOSED AT
LARGE EXPENSE TO FURNISH TRACKAGE TO SERVE THIS NEW MARKET, WHICH WOULD
CONSTITUTE AN EXTENSION OF ITS LINES FOR WHICH IT HAD PROCURED NO
CERTIFICATE FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SUCH EXTENSION WOULD INJURE AND DESTROY
THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN AND ABOUT THE EXISTING
MARKET, BY CREATING AN UNNECESSARY RIVAL MARKET AT AN INCONVENIENT
PLACE WITHOUT INCREASE OF PRODUCE TO BE HANDLED OR CUSTOMERS TO BE
SERVED; THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF RAILROAD
FACILITIES, AT LARGE COST, WITHOUT INCREASING THE FREIGHT TO BE
HANDLED; WOULD DIVERT TRAFFIC FROM RAILROADS NOW SERVING THE EXISTING
MARKET AND CAUSE DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION BETWEEN THEM AND THE
DEFENDANT, AND NEEDLESS AND WASTEFUL EXPENDITURE BY THE DEFENDANT; THAT
THE ALLEGED EXTENSION WOULD THUS DIRECTLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECT THE
PROPERTY INTERESTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE PUBLIC BY BRINGING ABOUT A
MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SITUATION AND WOULD CONSTITUTE AN
UNNECESSARY BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DIRECTLY AND ADVERSELY
AFFECTING THE WELFARE OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WERE WITHOUT STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT
AS "PARTIES IN INTEREST" UNDER PARAGRAPH 20, SEC. 402, TRANSPORTATION
ACT OF 1920.  P. 300, ET SEQ. 

(2)  THAT THE CITY IN WHICH THE EXISTING MARKET IS LOCATED WAS
PROPERLY DENIED LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS A PARTY PLAINTIFF.  P. 305. 

L. SINGER & SONS ET AL. V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 35, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, V. L. SINGER & SONS ET
AL., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 653, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 653, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING A BILL PRAYING FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF AN ALLEGED EXTENSION OF THE LINES OF THE DEFENDANT
RAILROAD COMPANY.  THE DECREE ALSO DENIED AN APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UNDERTAKING TO PROCEED UNDER PARAGRAPHS 18, 20 AND 21, SEC. 402,
TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920  FN1 (41 STAT. 456, 477, U.S.C. TITLE 49, SEC.
1) PETITIONERS, BY BILL FILED DECEMBER 30, 1938, IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, ASKED A DECREE ENJOINING
RESPONDENT FROM CONSTRUCTING OR OPERATING AN ALLEGED EXTENSION.  26
F.SUPP.  721. 

THE BILL DESCRIBES THEM THUS: - 

"PLAINTIFFS ARE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLING AT
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL, FRUITS, VEGETABLES AND OTHER FOOD PRODUCTS WITHIN
AND ADJACENT TO THE SO-CALLED CITY MARKET OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI,
LOCATED AT AND NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF FOURTH AND WALNUT STREETS IN
SAID CITY, OR ARE DIRECTLY INTERESTED IN OR CONNECTED WITH SAID
BUSINESS.  SAID MARKET HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE AT SAID LOCATION FOR MORE
THAN SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS SERVING GREATER KANSAS CITY AND VICINITY AS A
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRODUCE MARKET, AND ALSO SERVING NUMEROUS
TERRITORIES IN OTHER STATES TO AND FROM WHICH PERISHABLE AND OTHER
PRODUCE BOUGHT AND SOLD IN SAID MARKET IS TRANSPORTED.  THE CITY OF
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, IS NOW ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL MARKET BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES IN SAID VICINITY
AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $500,000.00.  SAID MARKET IS NOW AND FOR A
LONG PERIOD OF TIME HAS BEEN SERVED BY EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OF VARIOUS TRUNK LINE RAILROADS, AND SAID EXISTING
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ARE SUITABLE, CONVENIENT AND ADEQUATE TO MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MARKET.  THE MARKET IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO ITS
CUSTOMERS THROUGH THE FACILITIES OF SAID RAILROADS AND ALSO BY THE USE
OF STREETS AND HARD-SURFACED HIGHWAYS RADIATING IN EVERY DIRECTION
THEREFROM." 

ANSWERING, THE RESPONDENT ALLEGED THAT PETITIONERS WERE NOT PARTIES
"IN INTEREST" WITHIN PARAGRAPH 20, SEC. 402, TRANSPORTATION ACT AND HAD
NO RIGHT TO SUE.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THIS DEFENSE AND
DISMISSED THE BILL.  26 F.SUPP.  721.  UPON APPEAL ITS ACTION WAS
AFFIRMED.  109 F.2D 493.  THE MATTER IS HERE BY CERTIORARI. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUMMATION OF THE BILL
- 

"THE COMPLAINT OF THE PLAINTIFFS SHOWS THAT THEY ARE COMMISSION
MERCHANTS DOING BUSINESS ON THE KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, PRODUCE MARKET,
AN OLD AND WELL-ESTABLISHED MARKET WHICH ADEQUATELY SERVES THE
CONSUMING PUBLIC IN ITS VICINITY AND RECEIVES PRODUCE FROM, AND SHIPS
PRODUCE TO, OTHER STATES; THAT KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, IS NOW ENGAGED IN
CONSTRUCTING NEW MARKET BUILDINGS FOR THIS MARKET AT A COST OF ABOUT
$500,000; THAT THE MARKET HAS SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OF ALL KINDS; THAT THE ADJOINING CITY OF KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS, PROPOSES TO BUILD AND IS BUILDING A 'FOOD TERMINAL' OR PRODUCE
MARKET ON A TRACT OF LAND WHICH IT OWNS, AT A COST OF ABOUT $4,000,000,
OF WHICH $1,710,000 IS A GRANT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT THE BALANCE OF THE NECESSARY FUNDS WILL BE
PROCURED BY A SALE OF THE CITY'S BONDS TO THE DEFENDANT RAILROAD
COMPANY; THAT THE DEFENDANT PROPOSES, AT AN EXPENSE OF SOME $500,000,
TO FURNISH TRACKAGE TO SERVE THIS KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, MARKET; THAT
THIS TRACKAGE CONSTITUTES AN EXTENSION OF THE DEFENDANT'S LINES OF
RAILROAD, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH IT HAS PROCURED NO CERTIFICATE
OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AS
REQUIRED BY LAW; THAT THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED
EXTENSION IN KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT AND WILL
DESTROY THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE LARGE
INVESTMENTS WHICH THEY HAVE MADE IN AND ADJACENT TO THE KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI, PRODUCE MARKET; THAT IT WILL CREATE AN UNNECESSARY AND
UNCALLED FOR RIVAL MARKET AT AN INCONVENIENT PLACE WITHOUT CREATING ANY
MORE PRODUCE TO BE HANDLED OR ANY MORE CUSTOMERS TO BE SERVED; THAT IT
WILL RESULT IN THE UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OF RAILROAD FACILITIES AT A
COST OF $500,000 WITHOUT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF FREIGHT TO BE
HANDLED; THAT IT WILL DIVERT TRAFFIC FROM OTHER RAILROADS WHICH ARE NOW
ADEQUATELY HANDLING THE TRAFFIC TO THE KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, PRODUCE
MARKET, AND WILL CAUSE DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT
AND OTHER RAILROADS AND WILL CAUSE A WASTEFUL AND NEEDLESS EXPENDITURE
OF MONEY BY THE DEFENDANT; THAT 'FOR EACH AND ALL OF THE REASONS
AFORESAID, THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, OR THE CONSTRUCTION, OR THE
OPERATION OF THE SAID EXTENSION OR EXTENSIONS OF RAILROAD BY THE
DEFENDANT TO SAID PROPOSED PRODUCE MARKET IN KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, WILL
DIRECTLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PROPERTY INTERESTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS
AND THE PUBLIC GENERALLY BY BRINGING ABOUT A MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION SITUATION, AND WILL CONSTITUTE AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE DIRECTLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE WELFARE
OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST.'"  109 F.2D 493. 

IT IS NOT ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS EVER SERVED THE PRODUCE
MARKET IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, OR THAT PETITIONERS MAKE OR RECEIVE
SHIPMENTS OVER ITS LINES OR THAT THE PROPOSED EXTENSION WILL DEPRIVE
THEM OF ANY SHIPPING FACILITIES.  EVIDENTLY THE REAL PURPOSE WAS TO
OBSTRUCT CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPETITOR AND THE THEORY UPON WHICH THE
PROCEEDING RESTS WOULD PERMIT PETITIONERS TO SUE IF ANY RAILROAD SHOULD
EXTEND ITS LINES TO ANY MARKET COMPETING WITH THE MARKET AT KANSAS
CITY, MISSOURI. 

CONCERNING THE PURPORT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS RIGHTLY SAID: 

"IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ONLY BASIS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM THAT THE
ALLEGED EXTENSION OF THE LINES OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS, MARKET WILL PARTICULARLY INJURE THEM IS THAT THEY DO BUSINESS
UPON THE KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, MARKET, AND THAT IF THE PROPOSED RIVAL
MARKET IN KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, FUNCTIONS, IT WILL DIVERT BUSINESS FROM
THE MARKET UPON WHICH THEY OPERATE AND WILL THUS HURT THEM, THEIR
BUSINESS, AND THEIR INVESTMENTS IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, AND THAT,
SINCE THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ITS TRACKS BY THE DEFENDANT IS
NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE RIVAL MARKET TO FUNCTION, SUCH EXTENSION WILL
THEREFORE INJURE THE PLAINTIFFS.  IT SEEMS EQUALLY OBVIOUS THAT, EXCEPT
FOR THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED EXTENSION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE OPERATION
OF THE RIVAL MARKET IN KANSAS, IT COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE ANY DIRECT OR
IMMEDIATE EFFECT UPON THE PLAINTIFFS, THEIR PROPERTY OR THEIR BUSINESS
IN MISSOURI, OTHER THAN THE EFFECT WHICH A WASTEFUL EXPENDITURE BY THE
DEFENDANT OF ITS MONEY WOULD HAVE UPON THE PUBLIC GENERALLY.  THE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFFS WILL BE THE COMPETITION
CREATED BY THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE RIVAL MARKET, AND NOT
THE CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
FURNISHED TO IT BY THE DEFENDANT OR BY OTHERS ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS." 

IT DECLARED THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER PETITIONERS WERE "PARTIES IN
INTEREST" WITHIN PARAGRAPH 20 MUST BE DETERMINED UPON CONSIDERATION OF
WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 284 U.S. 47, AND
CONCLUDED - 

"THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO DEFINITE LEGAL RIGHT WHICH IS THREATENED. 
THEY ARE, HOWEVER, PERSONS WHOSE WELFARE MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY
THE BRINGING ABOUT OF A MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION
SITUATION, IN THE SENSE THAT THE EXTENSION PROPOSED BY THE DEFENDANT,
IF BUILT AND OPERATED, WILL ENABLE A COMPETITIVE MARKET TO FUNCTION TO
THEIR DETRIMENT.  IN THAT SENSE, WE THINK IT MAY SAFELY BE SAID THAT
THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF DEFENDANT'S LINES MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE
PLAINTIFFS' WELFARE.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION, HOWEVER, THAT THEIR
COMPLAINT DISCLOSES THAT THEIR WELFARE CANNOT BE DIRECTLY, BUT ONLY
INDIRECTLY AND CONSEQUENTIALLY, AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED EXTENSION. 
THEY ARE NOT IN COMPETITION WITH THE DEFENDANT.  THEY ARE NOT ENGAGED
IN THE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS.  THEIR ONLY PECULIAR INTEREST IN THAT
BUSINESS IS IN THE EFFECT WHICH CHANGES IN IT MAY HAVE UPON THE MARKET
WHERE THEY DO BUSINESS AND UPON RIVAL MARKETS NOW OR HEREAFTER
ESTABLISHED IN THE TERRITORY WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS SERVE.  ...  WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE STATUTE IS NOT TO BE SO LIBERALLY CONSTRUED AS TO
ENABLE THOSE WHO FEAR ADVERSE EFFECTS UPON THEIR BUSINESS FROM THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISES REQUIRING TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES, TO MAINTAIN SUITS TO ENJOIN RAILROADS FROM CONSTRUCTING
WHAT ARE CLAIMED TO BE UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSIONS TO SERVE SUCH
ENTERPRISES." 

A DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE STONE LIKEWISE RELIED UPON WESTERN
PACIFIC R. CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., BUT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE
CHALLENGED ACTION MIGHT DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT PETITIONERS'
WELFARE SINCE THEIR FINANCIAL INTERESTS WOULD SUFFER FROM THE PROPOSED
RIVAL MARKET WHICH COULD NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE WITHOUT THE PROPOSED
EXTENSION. 

THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF PARAGRAPHS 18, 20 AND 21 WERE MUCH
CONSIDERED IN TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270
U.S. 266 AND WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 284 U.S.
47. 

IN THE FIRST OF THESE CAUSES A RAILROAD SOUGHT TO PREVENT ANOTHER
FROM BUILDING AN EXTENSION.  THE MEANING OF THE TERM "PARTY IN
INTEREST" WAS NOT DISCUSSED.  BUT THE OPINION ASSERTS THAT BY THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, "CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO DEVELOP AND
MAINTAIN, FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, AN ADEQUATE RAILWAY
SYSTEM.  IT RECOGNIZED THAT PRESERVATION OF THE EARNING CAPACITY, AND
CONSERVATION OF THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES, OF INDIVIDUAL CARRIERS IS A
MATTER OF NATIONAL CONCERN; THAT THE PROPERTY EMPLOYED MUST BE
PERMITTED TO EARN A REASONABLE RETURN; THAT THE BUILDING OF UNNECESSARY
LINES INVOLVES A WASTE OF RESOURCES AND THAT THE BURDEN OF THIS WASTE
MAY FALL UPON THE PUBLIC; THAT COMPETITION BETWEEN CARRIERS MAY RESULT
IN HARM TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS IN BENEFIT; AND THAT WHEN A RAILROAD
INFLICTS INJURY UPON ITS RIVAL, IT MAY BE THE PUBLIC WHICH ULTIMATELY
BEARS THE LOSS." 

ALSO "THE PROHIBITION OF PARAGRAPH 18 IS ABSOLUTE.  IF THE PROPOSED
TRACK IS AN EXTENSION AND NO CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN OBTAINED, THE PARTY
IN INTEREST OPPOSING CONSTRUCTION IS ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT TO AN
INJUNCTION." 

IN THE SECOND CAUSE IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE WESTERN PACIFIC WAS NOT
"A PARTY IN INTEREST" WITHIN THE STATUTE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ACCEPTED THAT VIEW, 46 F.2D 729; WE CONCLUDED OTHERWISE BUT DID NOT
UNDERTAKE TO ANNOUNCE AN INCLUSIVE AND EXCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF THE
TERM.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED A SPECIAL INTEREST IN THAT
COMPLAINANT WITH PROBABILITY OF DIRECT LOSS FROM WHAT THE DEFENDANT -
NOT ANOTHER - PROPOSED TO DO.  THE PORTION OF THE OPINION, PRESENTLY
SPECIALLY IMPORTANT, FOLLOWS - 

"IF, AS THE COURT BELOW SEEMS TO HAVE ASSUMED, A 'PARTY IN INTEREST'
MUST POSSESS SOME CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT FOR WHICH IT MIGHT ASK PROTECTION
UNDER THE RULES COMMONLY ACCEPTED BY COURTS OF EQUITY, THE PARAGRAPHS
UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD NOT MATERIALLY AID THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN FOR
PROMOTING TRANSPORTATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE WAS NO PURPOSE TO
PERMIT ANY INDIVIDUAL SO INCLINED TO INSTITUTE SUCH A PROCEEDING.  THE
COMPLAINANT MUST POSSESS SOMETHING MORE THAN A COMMON CONCERN FOR
OBEDIENCE TO LAW.  SEE MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 488.  IT
WILL SUFFICE, WE THINK, IF THE BILL DISCLOSES THAT SOME DEFINITE LEGAL
RIGHT POSSESSED BY COMPLAINANT IS SERIOUSLY THREATENED OR THAT THE
UNAUTHORIZED AND THEREFORE UNLAWFUL ACTION OF THE DEFENDANT CARRIER MAY
DIRECTLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPLAINANT'S WELFARE BY BRINGING
ABOUT SOME MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SITUATION." 

THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
AGAINST ACTION WHICH MIGHT ENDANGER ITS INTEREST.  IN ORDER TO AID THAT
GENERAL PURPOSE, PARAGRAPH 20, SEC. 402, PROVIDES THAT SUIT FOR AN
INJUNCTION MAY BE INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES, THE COMMISSION
(I.C.C.), ANY COMMISSION OR REGULATIVE BODY OF THE STATE OR STATES
AFFECTED, OR ANY "PARTY IN INTEREST."  SUCH A SUIT CANNOT BE INSTITUTED
BY AN INDIVIDUAL UNLESS HE "POSSESSES SOMETHING MORE THAN A COMMON
CONCERN FOR OBEDIENCE TO LAW."  THE GENERAL OR COMMON INTEREST FINDS
PROTECTION IN THE PERMISSION TO SUE GRANTED TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.  AN
INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE SOME SPECIAL AND PECULIAR INTEREST WHICH MAY BE
DIRECTLY AND MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY ALLEGED UNLAWFUL ACTION.  SEE
DETROIT & M. RY. CO. V. BOYNE CITY, G. & A.R. CO., 286 F. 540.  IF SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SHOWN HE MAY SUE; HE IS THEN "PARTY IN INTEREST"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES HE IS NOT SUCH A PARTY.    WE CANNOT THINK CONGRESS
SUPPOSED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF AN ADEQUATE RAILWAY
SYSTEM WOULD BE AIDED BY PERMITTING ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN BUSINESS
WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC MARKET TO DEMAND AN INJUNCTION AGAINST A
CARRIER SEEKING ONLY TO SERVE A COMPETING MARKET BY MEANS OF AN
EXTENSION NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

THE RIGHT TO SUE UNDER THE STATUTE IS INDIVIDUAL.  PETITIONERS ARE
NOT HELPED BY UNITING. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFTER REVIEWING ALL THE FACTS REACHED
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WELFARE OF PETITIONERS COULD ONLY BE INDIRECTLY
AND CONSEQUENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED EXTENSION; THAT THEIR
INTEREST IN THE TRANSPORTATION SITUATION "IS IN THE EFFECT WHICH
CHANGES IN IT MAY HAVE UPON THE MARKET WHERE THEY DO BUSINESS AND UPON
RIVAL MARKETS NOW OR HEREAFTER ESTABLISHED IN THE TERRITORY WHICH THE
PLAINTIFFS SERVE."  IT HELD THIS WAS NOT ENOUGH.  WE AGREE.  A MERE
EXTENSION TO THE PLANT OF A COMPETITOR WHICH IN NO OTHER WAY AFFECTS
THE COMPLAINING PARTIES IN NO PROPER SENSE BRINGS ABOUT A MATERIAL
CHANGE IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DIRECTLY AFFECTING THEIR PECULIAR
INTEREST WHICH THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PREVENT BY SUIT. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

                      NO. 35. 

THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, SOUGHT TO INTERVENE IN NO. 34. 
THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED ITS MOTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  IN VIEW OF WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED IN NO. 34 THIS DENIAL
NECESSARILY MUST BE AFFIRMED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, SEC. 402: 

"PARAGRAPH '(18)  ...  NO CARRIER BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THIS ACT
SHALL UNDERTAKE THE EXTENSION OF ITS LINE OF RAILROAD  ...  UNLESS AND
UNTIL THERE SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSION A
CERTIFICATE THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE OR WILL REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION  ...  OF SUCH  ...  EXTENDED
LINE  ...  '  PARAGRAPH '(19) THE APPLICATION FOR AND ISSUANCE OF ANY
SUCH CERTIFICATE SHALL BE UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS TO
HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS AS THE COMMISSION MAY FROM TIME TO TIME
PRESCRIBE,  ...  ' PARAGRAPH '(20)  ...  ANY CONSTRUCTION  ...
CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS  ...  OF PARAGRAPH (18) ...  MAY BE ENJOINED
BY ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AT THE SUIT OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE COMMISSION, ANY COMMISSION OR REGULATING BODY OF THE STATE
OR STATES AFFECTED, OR ANY PARTY IN INTEREST.  ... '" 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: 

I QUITE AGREE WITH MY BROTHER STONE THAT UNFAIR LOSS MAY BE CAST UPON
A COMMUNITY BY THE UNJUSTIFIED EXTENSION OF A RAILROAD LINE, AND THAT
SUCH LOSS IS ONE CONSEQUENCE OF THE EVILS OF UNREGULATED RAILROAD
BUILDING WHICH THE TRANSPORTATION ACT WAS INTENDED TO CHECK.  BUT OUR
IMMEDIATE PROBLEM IS TO DETERMINE HOW A COMMUNITY CAN CHALLENGE SUCH A
PROPOSED IMPROPER EXTENSION.  CAN A CITY, IN OTHER WORDS, COME INTO A
FEDERAL COURT AND URGE ITS SPECIAL RELATION TO AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
SEC. 1(18-22), OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, 41 STAT. 456, 477, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 1(18-22)?  THE ANSWER, OF COURSE, DEPENDS ON THE SCHEME OF
ENFORCEMENT THAT CONGRESS HAS DEVISED FOR THE ACT.  AFTER MAKING
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR SECURING A CERTIFICATE FROM THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
AN "EXTENSION," THE ACT SUBJECTS ANY CONSTRUCTION IN VIOLATION OF ITS
LICENSING SYSTEM TO AN INJUNCTION "AT THE SUIT OF THE UNITED STATES,
THE COMMISSION, ANY COMMISSION OR REGULATING BODY OF THE STATE OR
STATES AFFECTED, OR ANY PARTY IN INTEREST."  SEC. 1(20). 

A CITY DEEMING ITSELF ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED ILLEGAL
EXTENSION WOULD NATURALLY TURN TO ITS STATE COMMISSION TO ASSERT ITS
INTERESTS.  IF, FOR ANY REASON, THE STATE AGENCY DOES NOT EMPLOY ITS
POWER UNDER SEC. 1(20) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY'S CLAIMS, THE LATTER CAN
INVOKE THE LAW-ENFORCING AUTHORITY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AND ALSO ENLIST THE POWER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
INITIATE LITIGATION.  IT IS READING SEC. 1(20) WITHOUT ILLUMINATION OF
THE SCHEME AND PURPOSES OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT TO EXPAND THE
CATEGORIES OF PUBLIC AGENCIES EXPLICITLY NAMED BY CONGRESS FOR
ENFORCING SEC. 1(18) BY INCLUDING A CITY AS A "PARTY IN INTEREST."  TO
DO SO WOULD DISREGARD RECOGNITION OF A STATE UTILITY COMMISSION AS THE
SPECIAL REPOSITORY OF ALL THE INTERESTS OF A STATE IN THIS PARTICULAR
FIELD, AND OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AS THE NATIONAL ORGAN
FOR ENFORCING THE BODY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTS.  CLEARLY,
THEREFORE, KANSAS CITY CAN NOT BE DEEMED A "PARTY IN INTEREST" FOR THE
LITIGIOUS PURPOSES OF THAT PHRASE IN SEC. 1(20). 

BUT IT WOULD INDEED BE STRANGE TO FIND THAT WHILE THE CITY WAS NOT
GIVEN POWER TO RESORT TO A COURT, A PRIVATE AND MORE LIMITED SUFFERER
FROM THE SAME ECONOMIC THREAT MAY HAVE SUCH LEGAL STANDING.  SUCH A
PARADOX EXPOSES THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE OF "PARTY IN INTEREST" IN SEC.
1(20).  THE GUIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF THAT SECTION
ARE TO BE FOUND IN THE REACH OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND OF ITS STATE ANALOGUES.  THEY ARE RELIED ON FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF RAILROAD LEGISLATION NEITHER GRUDGINGLY NOR WITH
SCEPTICISM.  IN THESE AGENCIES ARE LODGED THE RESOURCES FOR COMPOUNDING
THE MANIFOLD INGREDIENTS OF "THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  TO ENTRUST THE
VINDICATION OF THIS PUBLIC INTEREST TO A PRIVATE LITIGANT PROFESSING A
SPECIAL STAKE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS TO IMPINGE ON THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS.  IF
THERE BE INSUFFICIENT ASSURANCE THAT UNLAWFUL RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION
WILL BE RESISTED BY A STATE COMMISSION REPRESENTING ALL THE INTERESTS
OF A STATE THAT ARE AFFECTED, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION MAY BE
MOVED TO ENJOIN ILLEGALITY. 

WHO THEN IS A "PARTY IN INTEREST"?  AS A PART OF THE VERY SYSTEM
THROUGH WHICH THE NATIONAL POLICY IS TO BE ACHIEVED, A RAILROAD HAS
BEEN DEEMED BY THIS COURT A "PARTY IN INTEREST" TO EFFECTUATE THE
RAILROAD POLICY INTRODUCED BY THE LICENSING SYSTEM OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY.
CO., 270 U.S. 266, 277; WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.,
284 U.S. 47.  AND ONE WHO IN A PROCEEDING INITIATED BEFORE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS BEEN TREATED BY IT AS A PARTY TO THE
LITIGATION, CF. LOS ANGELES PASSENGER TERMINAL CASES, 100 I.C.C. 421;
142 I.C.C. 489; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 283
U.S. 380, 393-94, MAY PERHAPS BE DEEMED A "PARTY IN INTEREST" IN THE
FURTHER PURSUIT OF CLAIMS BEFORE A COURT AFTER ADVERSE ACTION BY THE
COMMISSION.  COMPARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R.
CO., 288 U.S. 14, AND FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS
BROS. RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470.  BUT TO ALLOW ANY PRIVATE INTEREST
TO THRESH OUT THE COMPLICATED QUESTIONS THAT ARISE OUT OF SEC. 1(18-22)
FN1  - AS, FOR INSTANCE, WHETHER A PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS AN
"EXTENSION" OR A "SPUR," COMPARE TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. &
S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266 - IS TO INVITE DISLOCATION OF THE SCHEME
WHICH CONGRESS HAS DEVISED FOR THE EXPERT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION OF
SUCH ISSUES.  FN2  IT ALSO WOULD PUT UPON THE DISTRICT COURTS THE TASK
OF DRAWING FINE LINES IN DETERMINING WHEN A PRIVATE CLAIM IS SO SPECIAL
THAT IT MAY BE SET APART FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST AND GIVE THE
CLAIMANT POWER TO LITIGATE A PUBLIC CONTROVERSY.  THESE INQUIRIES ARE
SO HARASSING AND UNPROFITABLE AS TO BE AVOIDED, UNLESS CONGRESS HAS
EXPLICITLY CAST THE DUTY UPON THE COURTS.  AGAINST ANY SUCH
IMPLICATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF RATHER PLAIN LANGUAGE, THE WHOLE COURSE
OF FEDERAL RAILROAD LEGISLATION AND THE RELATION OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION TO IT ADMONISHES.  THE INTERESTS OF MERELY PRIVATE
CONCERNS ARE AMPLY PROTECTED EVEN THOUGH THEY MUST BE CHANNELLED
THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OR A
STATE COMMISSION. 

THEREFORE, THE COURT BELOW MADE PROPER DISPOSITIONS OF THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR.
JUSTICE MURPHY, HAVING CONCURRED IN THE COURT'S OPINION, ALSO JOIN IN
THESE VIEWS. 

FN1  THE FACT THAT, IN ORDER TO RAISE THE BARE LEGAL QUESTION OF
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO SUE, THE ILLEGALITY OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION WAS
CONCEDED BY THE PLEADINGS, DOES NOT TOUCH THE FORCE OF THE ARGUMENT. 

FN2  WITH REFERENCE TO THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES THEMSELVES, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, AT THE REQUEST OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
HAS CHOSEN A DIFFERENT REMEDY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 32 F.SUPP.  917. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE: 

I THINK THAT THE COMPLAINANTS, PETITIONERS IN NO. 34, ARE PROPER
PARTIES TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT, THAT THE DECREE SHOULD BE REVERSED AND,
ON THE REMAND, THE PETITION OF KANSAS CITY FOR INTERVENTION SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THAT CONCLUSION AND OF SECS. 212 AND 213 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 45A AND OF RULE 24 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE. 

ON THE PLEADINGS IT STANDS CONCEDED THAT THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF
RESPONDENT'S LINE IS UNAUTHORIZED AND UNLAWFUL, AND THE SOLE QUESTION
WE HAVE TO DECIDE IS WHETHER THE INTEREST OF PETITIONERS IN MAINTAINING
THIS SUIT, AS DISCLOSED BY THEIR PLEADINGS, SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT
OF THE STATUTE WHICH AUTHORIZES IT TO BE BROUGHT BY "ANY PARTY IN
INTEREST." 

49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(18), FORBIDS THE EXTENSION OF ITS LINE BY A RAILROAD
WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION THAT "THE
PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE OR WILL
REQUIRE" THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXTENSION.  SIMILARLY IT PROHIBITS THE
ABANDONMENT OF ANY PORTION OF A LINE OF RAILROAD WITHOUT A LIKE
CERTIFICATE PERMITTING THE ABANDONMENT.  SECTION 1(19) REQUIRES THE
COMMISSION TO GIVE NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE TO THE
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE PROPOSED EXTENSION IS TO BE
CONSTRUCTED AND TO PUBLISH THE NOTICE IN EACH COUNTY THROUGH WHICH THE
LINE OF RAILROAD IS CONSTRUCTED OR OPERATED.  BY SEC. 1(20) THE
COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ATTACH TO ITS CERTIFICATE SUCH "CONDITIONS
AS IN ITS JUDGMENT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY MAY REQUIRE,"
AND AUTHORIZES ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN THE
PROHIBITED CONSTRUCTION OR ABANDONMENT "AT THE SUIT OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE COMMISSION, ANY COMMISSION OR REGULATING BODY OF THE STATE
OR STATES AFFECTED, OR ANY PARTY IN INTEREST; ...  " BY SEC. 1(22)
SPUR, INDUSTRIAL, SIDE TRACKS AND THE LIKE ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION AND THE RAILROAD MAY BUILD THEM WITHOUT
APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE. 

THE INTEREST OF PETITIONERS IN MAINTAINING THE SUIT AS SHOWN BY THE
PLEADINGS IS DERIVED FROM THE INJURY TO THE PUBLIC WHICH, IT IS
SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED, WILL RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED EXTENSION THROUGH
THE INJURY TO THE COMMUNITY IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, AND VICINITY, OF
WHICH COMMUNITY PETITIONERS ARE A PART AND IN WHICH THEY ARE PROPERTY
OWNERS, AND THE CONSEQUENT INJURY ALLEGED TO AFFECT THEM INDIVIDUALLY. 
THE PUBLIC INJURY, IT IS ALLEGED, WILL BE CAUSED BY (A) THE LOSS OR
SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT IN UTILITY OF THE KANSAS CITY PUBLIC PRODUCE MARKET
AND THE DESTRUCTION OR SERIOUS DIMINUTION OF VALUES OF PROPERTY AND
BUSINESS AND OF FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS IN AND ABOUT THE MARKET, WHICH
WILL BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE EXTENSION, THROUGH THE CREATION OF A RIVAL
MARKET AND THE DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC TO IT AT A POINT IN KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS, FAR REMOVED FROM THE CENTER OF POPULATION OF KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI, AND TO THE INCONVENIENCE OF THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE
CITIZENS OF BOTH CITIES WHO ARE SERVED BY THE EXISTING MARKET, WHICH IS
ADEQUATE TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY; (B) BY THE UNNECESSARY
DUPLICATION OF RAILROAD FACILITIES IN THE KANSAS CITY DISTRICT AT LARGE
COST, WITH WASTEFUL AND NEEDLESS EXPENDITURES BY RESPONDENT AND NO
INCREASE IN FREIGHT TO BE HANDLED; AND (C) BY THE DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC
TO RESPONDENT RAILROAD FROM OTHER RAILROADS AND DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION
BETWEEN THE RAILROADS OPERATING IN THE VICINITY. 

SPECIAL INJURY IS SHOWN TO COMPLAINANTS (PETITIONERS IN NO. 34) BY
THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY ARE OWNERS OF BUSINESS PROPERTY AND
INVESTMENTS IN THE EXISTING MARKET AREA AND VICINITY, AND THAT THEIR
PROPERTY WILL BE REDUCED IN VALUE IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DIVERSION OF
TRAFFIC TO THE RIVAL MARKET.  THE PETITIONER, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, IN
INTERVENTION, IN NO. 35, ALLEGES THE LIKE INJURY TO THE PUBLIC WHICH IT
REPRESENTS AND SETS UP SPECIFICALLY THE THREATENED LOSS IN VALUE AND
UTILITY OF A LARGE PUBLIC MARKET STRUCTURE WHICH IT IS NOW BUILDING AT
GREAT COST, AND THE THREATENED LOSS TO IT OF TAXES THROUGH DIMINUTION
IN PROPERTY VALUES IN THE CITY. 

THE STATUTE DOES NOT DEFINE THE "PARTIES IN INTEREST" WHOM IT PERMITS
TO SUE TO RESTRAIN AN UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION.  IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED
THAT THE PHRASE IS MEANINGLESS OR THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD BE READ AS
THOUGH THE WORDS WERE OMITTED.  OBVIOUSLY THE PARTIES INTENDED MUST
HAVE, AS DO PETITIONERS, AN INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION
OTHER THAN THE "COMMON CONCERN FOR OBEDIENCE TO LAW."  SEE
MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 488.  AND AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE PLAINLY INDICATES, AND AS WE HAVE HELD, THEY MAY BE, AS ARE
PETITIONERS, OTHERS THAN THE PUBLIC BODIES NAMED IN THE STATUTE AS
APPROPRIATE PLAINTIFFS.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 380, 393, 394.  AND THEY MAY MAINTAIN THE SUIT
ALTHOUGH THE INJURY WHICH THEY ALLEGE IS NOT STRICTLY AN ACTIONABLE
WRONG INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PARAGRAPHS IN QUESTION.  WESTERN PACIFIC R.
CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 284 U.S. 47. 

THE STATUTE DRAWS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT INJURY
AS THE TEST OF PLAINTIFF'S INTEREST.  NOR IS ANY REASON ADVANCED FOR
SAYING THAT HIS INTEREST IS MORE SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE INJURY WHICH
HE SUFFERS IS LABELED "DIRECT" RATHER THAN "INDIRECT."  IN ANY CASE,
THAT SUFFERED BY PETITIONERS DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ANY THE LESS DIRECT
THAN THAT WHICH AN EXTENSION MAY INFLICT UPON A COMPETING RAILROAD
WHICH ADMITTEDLY MAY SUE TO ENJOIN IT.  WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO. V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., SUPRA; CF. CLAIBORNE-ANNAPOLIS FERRY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 285 U.S. 382.  IF THE STATUTE IMPOSES ANY REQUIREMENTS
OTHER THAN THOSE INDICATED BY THE PHRASE "PARTY IN INTEREST," THEY MUST
BE IMPLIED FROM THE PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE, ITS CONTEXT, AND FROM THE
REASONS FOR PERMITTING OTHERS THAN THE PUBLIC BODIES NAMED IN IT TO
BRING THE SUIT.  CF. NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES,
287 U.S. 12, 24.  ON THE OTHER HAND IF MAINTENANCE OF THE PRESENT SUIT
BY PETITIONERS IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE PURPOSES AND AIDS THEM AND IS
IN HARMONY WITH THE REASONS FOR ALLOWING ANY PARTY IN INTEREST TO SUE,
THE CONCLUSION WOULD SEEM INESCAPABLE THAT PETITIONERS ARE PROPER
PLAINTIFFS. 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE PARAGRAPHS IN QUESTION REQUIRE CONSIDERATION BY THE
COMMISSION OF THE INTERESTS OF CITIES, TOWNS AND COMMUNITIES WHICH ARE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED EXTENSION OF A LINE OF RAILROAD, IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" REQUIRE
THE EXTENSION.  THE PHRASE "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" HAS LONG
BEEN USED TO SIGNIFY THE FINAL RESULT OF THE BALANCING OF THE
CONSEQUENCES WHICH FLOW FROM THE PROPOSED ACTION TO ALL THOSE MATTERS
OF PUBLIC CONCERN WHICH ARE AFFECTED BY IT.  CF. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 35, 42; UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308
U.S. 225.  AND WE HAVE HELD THAT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COGNATE
PROVISION RELATING TO ABANDONMENT OF RAILROAD LINES THE COMMISSION MUST
CONSIDER AS A PART OF THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY THE
INTERESTS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT. 
COLORADO V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 153, 168.  A COMMUNITY MAY SUFFER
INJURY THROUGH THE LOSS OF RAILROAD SERVICE AND DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC
RESULTING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RAILROAD EXTENSION
WITHOUT ANY COMPENSATING PUBLIC ADVANTAGE WHICH IS COMPARABLE IN KIND
AND AMOUNT WITH INJURY SUSTAINED BY THE ABANDONMENT OF A LINE OF
RAILROAD.  ONE AS WELL AS THE OTHER SHOULD RECEIVE THE CONSIDERATION OF
THE COMMISSION IN DETERMINING WHETHER IT SHOULD GRANT OR WITHHOLD A
CERTIFICATE.  SUCH APPEARS TO BE ITS SETTLED PRACTICE ON APPLICATIONS
FOR A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING EXTENSION.  FN1 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS THE PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF ITS PROVISIONS BY THE
COMMISSION PUBLIC INTEREST IS OF PARAMOUNT CONCERN.  THAT INTEREST IS
PRIMARILY THAT RAILROAD EXTENSIONS, AS THE STATUTE PROVIDES, SHALL NOT
BE BUILT OR OPERATED WITHOUT RECEIVING THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION,
AND THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL GRANT ITS PERMISSION ONLY IF THE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY SO REQUIRE. 

IN DETERMINING WHO MAY BRING THE SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 1(20), IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE SUIT
IS BROUGHT TO RESTRAIN AN ACT WHICH THE STATUTE DECLARES UNLAWFUL, THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXTENSION WITHOUT THE CERTIFICATE OF THE COMMISSION,
SEC. 1(18), AND THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT IS NOT THAT OF THE
COMMISSION IN GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING A CERTIFICATE.  THE ONLY ISSUE
WHICH CAN BE LITIGATED IN SUCH A SUIT, BROUGHT BY A PROPER PLAINTIFF,
IS WHETHER IN FACT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS OF A SPUR OR SIDETRACK,
THE ONLY NEW TRACKAGE WHICH A RAILROAD MAY LAWFULLY BUILD WITHOUT
RECOURSE TO THE COMMISSION.  IT IS AN ISSUE WHICH IS BY PARAGRAPHS (18)
AND (22) OF SEC. 1 MADE A JUDICIAL, NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND
INVOLVES NO MORE COMPLEXITIES OF LITIGATION THAN MANY OTHER CASES WHICH
COURTS ARE CALLED ON DAILY TO DECIDE.  IN ANY CASE THE ISSUE IS ONE
WHICH CONGRESS DIRECTED TO BE LITIGATED IN A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER SEC.
1(20), AND ITS COMPLEXITY IS UNAFFECTED BY THE PARTICULAR PLAINTIFF WHO
BRINGS THE SUIT. 

IF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IS AN EXTENSION THE INJUNCTION MUST
ISSUE AS OF RIGHT, BUT ITS ONLY EFFECT IS TO COMPEL THE RAILROAD BEFORE
PROCEEDING FURTHER TO APPLY TO THE COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WHICH IS THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF THE
ACT.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266,
273.  THE COURT IS THUS CALLED ON TO DECIDE NO ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUE
WHICH MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION IN ADVANCE OF SUIT, AND ANY
DECREE WHICH IT MAY RENDER INVOLVES NO EMBARRASSMENT TO THE COMMISSION
OR OTHERWISE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  WHILE THE COMMISSION
ITSELF MAY BRING THE SUIT, IT IS UNDER NO STATUTORY DUTY TO DO SO AND
ITS ONLY OTHER AUTHORITY IN THE PREMISES IS TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD THE
CERTIFICATE WHEN APPLIED FOR.  ONE INJURED BY AN UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION
AND OPPOSED TO ITS CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER A STATE COMMISSION, A
COMPETING RAILROAD OR ANY OTHER INJURED PARTY, IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO
INITIATE ANY PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND ITS ONLY PROTECTION
AS OF RIGHT FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE THREATENED PUBLIC WRONG IS
THAT AFFORDED BY SUIT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 1(20).  SEE TEXAS & PACIFIC
RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., SUPRA, 272-274. 

IN CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE THIS COURT
HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH THE COMMISSION IS TO
PROTECT INCLUDES THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ADEQUATE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND THAT A RAILROAD WHOSE WELFARE, ALTHOUGH NOT
ITS LEGAL RIGHT, IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN UNAUTHORIZED AND THEREFORE
UNLAWFUL EXTENSION OF THE LINE OF ANOTHER IS A "PARTY IN INTEREST"
ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN SUIT TO ENJOIN THE EXTENSION.  WESTERN PACIFIC R.
CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., SUPRA; CF. CLAIBORNE-ANNAPOLIS FERRY CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  AND IT HAS HELD THAT ONE OTHER THAN A CARRIER
(A MUNICIPALITY), WHO HAS "A PROPER INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER,"
MAY INSTITUTE A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
UNDER SEC. 1, PARAGRAPHS 18 TO 22, TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE, SO AS TO ENABLE A RAILROAD TO BUILD AN EXTENSION TO A NEW
STATION WHICH A STATE COMMISSION HAS ORDERED IT TO BUILD.  ATCHISON, T.
& S.F. RY. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, SUPRA, 393, 394.  COMPARE
DETROIT & M. RY. CO. V. BOYNE CITY, G. & A.R. CO., 286 F. 540. 

BUT IT HAS NEVER HELD, UNLESS IT HAS DONE SO NOW, THAT THE PUBLIC
CONCERN IN PROTECTING LARGE COMMUNITIES FROM DESTRUCTION OF THEIR
BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS BY DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC TO RIVAL
COMMUNITIES BY RAILROAD EXTENSIONS, IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST CONSIDER IN
GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING A CERTIFICATE; OR THAT ONE NOT A RAILROAD WHO
IS A MEMBER OF A COMMUNITY ADVERSELY AFFECTED AND WHOSE OWN BUSINESS OR
PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE SO ADVERSELY AFFECTED IS NOT A "PARTY IN
INTEREST" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE. 

IF THE STATUTE PERMITS SOME PROTECTION THROUGH COMMISSION ACTION OF
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PRESERVATION OF COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAILROAD EXTENSIONS, NO PLAUSIBLE
REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED FOR SAYING THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF SUCH A
COMMUNITY WHOSE PROPERTY OR FINANCIAL INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED
BY THE PROPOSED UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION, AND WHO WOULD BE A PROPER PARTY
TO THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE,  FN2  IS NOT A PARTY IN INTEREST, ENTITLED TO BRING SUIT
QUITE AS MUCH AS A COMPETING RAILROAD WHOSE PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE
LIKEWISE AFFECTED.  ON THE CONTRARY, PETITIONERS HAVE A SPECIAL AND
PECULIAR INTEREST IN PREVENTING THE UNLAWFUL EXTENSION AND IN SECURING,
BEFORE THE EXTENSION IS BUILT, SUCH CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMUNITY
INTEREST AS THE COMMISSION GIVES, AND WHICH CAN BE INSURED ONLY BY
RESORT TO THE SUIT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 1(20). 

TRUE, THE STATUTE IS CONCERNED WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BUT IN ORDER THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST MIGHT NOT SUFFER, AND
THAT PRIVATE INJURY MIGHT NOT BE INFLICTED THROUGH A PUBLIC WRONG, THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNLAWFUL EXTENSION, CONGRESS DID NOT RESTRICT THE
AUTHORITY TO BRING SUIT TO PUBLIC AGENCIES - THE UNITED STATES, THE
COMMISSION OR STATE COMMISSIONS.  CONGRESS BY PROVIDING THAT
APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE NEED NOT BE MADE FOR LOCAL
SPUR OR SIDE TRACKS, RECOGNIZED THAT SUCH CONSTRUCTIONS ARE TOO TRIVIAL
TO REQUIRE A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  INSTEAD IT GAVE
AUTHORITY TO BRING THE SUIT TO PRIVATE PARTIES IN INTEREST, WHO BECAUSE
OF THE INJURY ESPECIALLY INFLICTED UPON THEM THROUGH THE ADVERSE EFFECT
OF THE UNLAWFUL EXTENSION ON THE PUBLIC, HAVE A PECULIAR INCENTIVE TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH WHICH THE STATUTE IS CONCERNED, SEE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N V. SANDERS BROS. RADIO STATION, 309 U.S.
470, 477, AND WHO BY RESTRAINING AN UNAUTHORIZED "EXTENSION" INSURE THE
EXPERT CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION IN THE SITUATION IN WHICH
CONGRESS REQUIRED IT. 

JUST AS CONGRESS GAVE AUTHORITY TO A RAILROAD TO SUE TO ENJOIN AN
UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION BY ITS COMPETITOR IN ORDER TO EFFECT THE
RAILROAD POLICY OF THE ACT, IT GAVE LIKE AUTHORITY TO COMPLAINANTS TO
EFFECT ITS PUBLIC POLICY WITH RESPECT TO A COMMUNITY INJURIOUSLY
AFFECTED BY AN UNLAWFUL RAILROAD EXTENSION.  THE STATUTE GIVES NO
WARRANT FOR SAYING THAT THE ONE MAY BRING SUIT BUT THAT THE OTHER CAN
ONLY ASK SOME PUBLIC BODY TO BRING IT; AND NEITHER INTERFERES WITH THE
FUNCTIONS WHICH THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM AND WHICH, AS
WE HAVE SEEN, ARE DISTINCT FROM THOSE ASSIGNED TO THE COURT BY SEC.
1(20). 

MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT BY COMPLAINANTS IS THUS WITHIN THE FAIR
MEANING OF THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE.  IT AIDS RATHER THAN OBSTRUCTS THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT; IT EFFECTUATES THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE ACT
AND IS WITHIN THE REASON FOR PERMITTING OTHERS THAN PUBLIC AGENCIES TO
BRING THE SUIT.  THEY ARE "PARTIES IN INTEREST" TO WHICH THE STATUTE
REFERS. 

SINCE THE SUIT WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD
ENTERTAIN AND DECIDE THE PETITION OF KANSAS CITY FOR INTERVENTION IN
THE LIGHT OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 45A AND RULE 24 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE. 

FN1  SEE AROOSTOOK VALLEY R. CO., CONSTRUCTION, 105 I.C.C. 643;
MINNESOTA WESTERN R. CO., CONSTRUCTION, 111 I.C.C. 377; NORTHERN
OKLAHOMA RYS., CONSTRUCTION, 111 I.C.C. 765; CONSTRUCTION OF PIEDMONT &
NORTHERN RY. CO., 138 I.C.C. 363; WESTERN PACIFIC CALIFORNIA R. CO.,
162 I.C.C. 5.  AND IN BALANCING THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCES AND NECESSITIES
INVOLVED, THAT IS TO SAY THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN AN ADEQUATE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PROTECTING LOCAL
COMMUNITIES FROM UNDUE INJURY FROM EXTENSIONS OF RELATIVELY SMALL
TRANSPORTATION IMPORTANCE, THE COMMISSION HAS SOMETIMES FOUND THE
INJURY TO EXISTING COMMUNITY INTERESTS PERSUASIVE GROUND FOR REFUSING
THE CERTIFICATE.  CONSTRUCTION BY AROOSTOOK VALLEY R. CO., SUPRA;
CONSTRUCTION BY MINNESOTA WESTERN R. CO., SUPRA. 

THE BROAD SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION'S INQUIRY IS EVIDENCED BY THE
QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH APPLICANTS FOR AN EXTENSION MUST ANSWER.  AMONG THE
DATA REQUIRED IS THE NATURE OF THE POPULATION, THE TERRITORY, THE
INDUSTRIES INVOLVED, THE NAMES AND CHARACTER OF TOWNS NEAR TO BUT NOT
SERVED BY THE EXTENSION.  SEE IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS UNDER
PARAGRAPHS (18) AND (21), INCLUSIVE, SECTION 1, OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT FOR CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF LINES OF RAILROAD, JANUARY 22, 1924. 
III-A SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 333-335, 351. 

FN2  IT IS SETTLED POLICY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND RELATED
STATUTES TO PERMIT SHIPPERS, CITIES, COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER
INTERESTED PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND IN THOSE BEFORE THE COURTS WHERE THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IS
INVOLVED.  SECTION 9, 24 STAT. 382, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 9, PERMITS ANY
PERSON "CLAIMING TO BE DAMAGED" BY A CARRIER TO MAKE COMPLAINT TO THE
COMMISSION OR TO BRING SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT.  COMMUNITIES, SHIPPERS
AND ASSOCIATIONS MAY MAKE COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 13(1),
49 U.S.C. SEC. 13(1), 24 STAT. 383 AS AMENDED, 36 STAT. 550.  SEE,
UNITED STATES V. MERCHANTS & MANUFACTURERS TRAFFIC ASSN., 242 U.S.
178.  SECTION 42 PROVIDES THAT IN ACTIONS TO STOP REBATES AND
CONCESSIONS "ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN OR AFFECTED BY THE RATE OR
REGULATION OR PRACTICE" MAY BE MADE PARTIES.  SECTIONS 212 AND 213 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 45A, PROVIDE THAT "COMMUNITIES,
ASSOCIATIONS, CORPORATIONS, FIRMS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN
THE CONTROVERSY OR QUESTION" BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR IN ANY SUIT WHICH
MAY BE BROUGHT UNDER THE ACT MAY INTERVENE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
















U.S. V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 311 U.S. 317 


NOS. 3 AND 4.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 5, 1940.  NO. 3, REARGUED OCTOBER 15, 16,
1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 16, 1940.  - AFFIRMED IN PART - REVERSED IN
PART. 


1.  IN A SUIT UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929, FOR AN ACCOUNTING, ETC.
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY,
WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND GRANTS MADE BY THE UNITED STATES TO THAT
COMPANY'S PREDECESSOR, DECISION ON THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT, EACH ADVANCED AS A DEFENSE TO ANY RELIEF FOR THE COMPANY,
ARE RESERVED, EIGHT JUSTICES WHO HEARD THE CASE BEING EQUALLY DIVIDED
IN OPINION CONCERNING THEM, VIZ.: 

(A)  THAT THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ACT OF JULY
2, 1864, WERE AVOIDED BY THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE GRANTEE TO OBTAIN
BONA FIDE SUBSCRIPTIONS TO ITS STOCK AND PAYMENTS THEREON, AS THE ACT
REQUIRED.  P. 335. 

(B)  THAT THE GRANTEE FAILED TO BUILD ITS WHOLE RAILROAD AS REQUIRED
BY THAT ACT, IN AS MUCH AS IT DID NOT LOCATE OR CONSTRUCT IT BETWEEN
WALLULA AND PORTLAND, A DISTANCE OF 225 MILES, BUT INSTEAD SECURED
RUNNING RIGHTS OVER TRACKS OF ANOTHER COMPANY CONNECTING THOSE TWO
PLACES.  P. 336. 

(C)  THAT THE GRANTEE, BY DIVERTING TO THE BUILDING AND SUPPORT OF
ALLEGEDLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFITABLE BRANCH LINES, FUNDS WHICH IT
SHOULD HAVE USED TO COMPLETE ITS MAIN LINE, BROKE ITS CONTRACT WITH THE
UNITED STATES AND THEREBY LOST THE RIGHT TO MAKE FURTHER LIEU
SELECTIONS OF LAND.  P. 336. 

(D)  THAT THE GRANTEE BROKE ITS CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES BY
REFUSING TO OPEN LAND GRANTED IT BY THE RESOLUTION OF 1870 TO
SETTLEMENT AND PREEMPTION AT $2.50 PER ACRE, AND IS THEREFORE NOT
ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF IN THIS CASE.  P. 337. 

(E)  THAT, THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED PRELIMINARY WITHDRAWALS OF PLACE AND
INDEMNITY LANDS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN THE INTEREST
OF THE GRANTS, THE GRANTEE AND ITS SUCCESSOR RECEIVED BENEFITS, LANDS
AND VALUES TO WHICH THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED, PRECLUDING ANY AWARD TO THE
RAILROAD COMPANY IN THIS CASE.  P. 339. 

(F)  THAT FORECLOSURES AND REORGANIZATIONS AFFECTING THE RAILROAD
COMPANY AND ITS PROPERTY DEBARRED THE COMPANY FROM SELECTING MORE LIEU
LANDS.  P. 340. 

2.  UNDER THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1864, AND THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY
31, 1870, GRANTING LAND TO THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, LAND
IN THE INDEMNITY LIMITS WAS NOT SUBJECT TO SELECTION, IN LIEU OF LAND
LOST IN THE PLACE LIMITS, UNTIL IDENTIFIED AS ODDNUMBERED SECTIONS BY
AN OFFICIAL SURVEY; NOR COULD MINERAL LAND BE SELECTED.  P. 342. 

3.  IN DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF DEFICIENCIES IN THESE
GRANTS ON THE DATES OF WITHDRAWALS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF LAND IN THE
INDEMNITY LIMITS FOR FORESTRY AND OTHER PURPOSES, TRACTS UNSURVEYED, OR
CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL, ARE NOT TO BE COUNTED AS THEN AVAILABLE FOR
SELECTION BY THE RAILROAD.  P. 342. 

4.  THE FACT THAT BY THE TERMS OF THE GRANTING ACTS THE LAND IN THE
INDEMNITY LIMITS WAS, BEFORE SURVEY, SUBJECT TO BE TAKEN BY PREEMPTORS
AND SETTLERS, WHEREBY ULTIMATE SATISFACTION OF THE GRANTS MIGHT BE
DEFEATED, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE GOVERNMENT IN RESERVING SUCH LAND TO
ITSELF AND THUS RENDERING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE COMPANY TO OBTAIN IT.
UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO., 256 U.S. 51.  P. 344. 

5.  THE RIGHT OF THE RAILROAD COMPANY, UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929,
TO BE INDEMNIFIED FOR DEFICIENCIES IN ITS GRANTS CAUSED BY GOVERNMENTAL
RESERVATIONS OF LAND WITHIN THE INDEMNITY LIMITS DOES NOT DEPEND UPON
PROOF BEING MADE BY THE COMPANY THAT, BUT FOR THE WITHDRAWALS, IT WOULD
HAVE SELECTED TRACTS SO RESERVED, AND WHAT TRACTS IT WOULD HAVE
SELECTED.  P. 346. 

THE COMPANY'S RIGHT OF SELECTION, TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEFICIENCIES
IN THE GRANTS, REMAINED AVAILABLE AS TO THE WITHDRAWN LANDS PROVIDED
THE LANDS SELECTED WERE SUCH AS ARE DEFINED IN THE GRANTS.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT NO ONE CAN SAY HOW SOON THE LANDS WOULD
HAVE BEEN SURVEYED AND SELECTED IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN AND
RESERVED, OR WHAT AREAS WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP BY SETTLERS AND
PREEMPTORS IF THERE HAD BEEN NO WITHDRAWALS OR SURVEYS, DOES NOT AVAIL
TO ABROGATE OR QUALIFY THE COMPANY'S RIGHT TO EXERCISE ITS PRIVILEGE OF
SELECTION NOTWITHSTANDING THE WITHDRAWALS.  MOREOVER, THE ARGUMENT
IGNORES THE REPEAL OF THE PREEMPTION LAWS BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891. 
P. 347. 

6.  THE INDIAN TREATIES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1851(FORT LARAMIE), AND
OCTOBER 17, 1855(BLACKFEET), WHICH PURPORT TO "RESERVE" VAST TRACTS OF
THE INDIAN COUNTRY, DID NOT CREATE TECHNICAL RESERVATIONS BUT MERELY
DEMARKED THE AREAS TO BE OCCUPIED BY THE RESPECTIVE TRIBES, THE OBJECT
BEING TO PROMOTE PEACE AMONG THEM AND BETWEEN THEM AND THE UNITED
STATES.  THE STATUS OF THE LAND AS "INDIAN COUNTRY," OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO THE INDIAN RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY, WAS NOT
ALTERED.  P. 347. 

7.  LAND ALONG THE DEFINITE LOCATION OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC WHERE IT
TRAVERSED AREAS DESCRIBED IN THESE TREATIES WAS NOT "RESERVED" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF 1864; AND THE UNDERTAKING OF THE
UNITED STATES TO EXTINGUISH THE INDIAN TITLE (SEC. 2 OF THAT ACT)
APPLIED NOT ONLY TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT ALSO TO THE LANDS IN THE PLACE
AND INDEMNITY LIMITS.  P. 348. 

8.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT BILL DO NOT SUPPORT ITS
CONTENTION THAT THE RAILROAD COMPANY SHOULD BE CHARGED IN THIS CASE
WITH A LARGE AMOUNT OF LAND ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED ILLEGALLY, AS
A RESULT OF THE COMPANY'S HAVING ADOPTED AN UNNECESSARILY CIRCUITOUS
ROUTE BETWEEN CERTAIN POINTS OF ITS LINE IN THE TERRITORY OF
WASHINGTON.  P. 349. 

9.  THE RAILROAD WAS ENTITLED, UNDER THE ACT OF 1864 AND THE
RESOLUTION OF 1870, TO MAKE SELECTIONS OF LAND IN THE SECOND INDEMNITY
LIMITS IN MONTANA IN LIEU OF PLACE SECTIONS LOST TO IT AS A RESULT OF
THE CREATION, IN 1868, OUT OF COUNTRY DESCRIBED IN THE TREATY OF 1851,
SUPRA, OF THE CROW RESERVATION - A TYPICAL INDIAN RESERVATION.  P.
352. 

10.  THE ADDITION OF LANDS IN THE RAILROAD'S INDEMNITY LIMITS TO THE
NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDIAN RESERVATION IN MONTANA, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER OF
MARCH 19, 1900, CONFIRMED BY ACT OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 3, 1926, WAS A
WITHDRAWAL OF SUCH LANDS AS A "GOVERNMENT RESERVATION" AND FOR
"GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES" WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929;
AND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT ACT SUCH LANDS WERE, ON JUNE 5, 1924,
LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF A GOVERNMENT
RESERVATION, FOR WHICH THE RAILROAD IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION. 
P. 353. 

11.  LANDS IN THE NORTHERN PACIFIC INDEMNITY LIMITS WHICH, AFTER
BEING RESERVED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR FORESTRY AND OTHER PURPOSES, WERE
FILED UPON BY HOMESTEADERS BEFORE JUNE 5, 1924, AND WERE PATENTED TO
THEM AFTER THAT DATE, ARE LANDS FOR WHICH THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929
AWARDS INDEMNITY, AS LANDS WHICH ON JUNE 5, 1924, WERE EMBRACED IN A
GOVERNMENT RESERVATION, AND WHICH, IN THE EVENT OF A DEFICIENCY OF THE
RAILROAD'S GRANTS ON THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES,
"WOULD BE, OR WERE" AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION.  P. 354. 

12.  UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1895, GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONERS
UNDERTOOK TO EXAMINE AND TO CLASSIFY AS MINERAL OR NON-MINERAL ALL
LANDS WITHIN THE PLACE AND INDEMNITY LIMITS OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD IN FOUR LAND DISTRICTS OF MONTANA AND IDAHO, AND MADE THEIR
REPORTS, WHICH WERE ACCEPTED AND APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR.  IN LIEU OF PLACE SECTIONS SO CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL, THE
RAILROAD OBTAINED PATENTS FOR MUCH INDEMNITY LAND AND IN THIS SUIT
CLAIMS CREDIT FOR MORE.  THE GOVERNMENT ALLEGES AND THE RAILROAD DENIES
THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WERE PERSUADED BY FRAUDULENT PRACTICES OF THE
RAILROAD TO CLASSIFY AS MINERAL, LANDS OF LITTLE VALUE SO THAT THE
RAILROAD COULD SELECT MORE VALUABLE TRACTS IN LIEU.  HELD: 

(1)  UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929, THIS ISSUE OF FRAUD SHOULD GO TO
TRIAL.  P. 355. 

(2)  ALTHOUGH IT WAS ALLEGED, AND FOUND BY THE COURT BELOW, THAT THE
COMMISSIONERS COULD NOT POSSIBLY EXAMINE AND CLASSIFY THE LANDS WITHIN
THE TIME LIMITED BY THE ACT OF 1895, THEIR REPORTS AND THE APPROVAL AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THEM BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, CREATE A PRIMA
FACIE SHOWING IN FAVOR OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND OF THE RAILROAD'S
INDEMNITY SELECTIONS BASED THEREON.  P. 358. 

(3)  THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FRAUD ALLEGED IS ON THE UNITED
STATES.  P. 358. 

(4)  THE UNITED STATES IS NOT BARRED BY LACHES OR ESTOPPEL FROM
ASSERTING AND PROVING THE ALLEGED FRAUD, AND FROM HAVING THE RAILROAD
CHARGED WITH ANY LANDS OR VALUES RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF IT.  P. 358. 

13.  THE "AGRICULTURAL" LAND WHICH THE RAILROAD WAS ENTITLED TO
SELECT UNDER THE ACT OF 1864 IN LIEU OF MINERAL LAND IS SUCH LAND AS,
BY LAND OFFICE PRACTICE AND PUBLIC LAND LAWS, WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE
TO INDIVIDUALS FOR CLEARING AND SUBSEQUENT CULTIVATION, OR FOR GRAZING,
OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE COMMONLY CLASSIFIED BY THE LAND OFFICE AS
COMING WITHIN THE PREEMPTION AND HOMESTEAD LAWS; BUT IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE LAND VALUABLE SOLELY FOR TIMBER.  P. 358. 

14.  THE UNITED STATES IS LIABLE TO ACCOUNT TO THE RAILROAD FOR LANDS
IN INDEMNITY LIMITS WHICH THE RAILROAD COULD HAVE SELECTED IF AND WHEN
SURVEYED, HAD THEY NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 364. 

15.  IN AS MUCH AS, UNDER THE ACT OF 1929, THE RAILROAD'S RIGHT TO
COMPENSATION DEPENDS UPON THE AVAILABILITY OF LANDS ON THE DATES OF THE
WITHDRAWALS FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES, THE CLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT
SUBSEQUENT RESTORATIONS OF WITHDRAWN LANDS TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,
SUFFICIENT IN AREA TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY CREATED BY THE
WITHDRAWALS, DEFEATED THE RAILROAD'S CLAIM TO CHOOSE LANDS WITHIN THE
WITHDRAWAL AREAS, IS NOT SUSTAINED, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS.  P.
365. 

16.  FOR ANY FINANCIAL DETRIMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OR FINANCIAL
BENEFIT TO THE COMPANY THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY PROVE TO HAVE RESULTED
FROM THE ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IN PREMATURELY
WITHDRAWING LANDS IN THE PLACE AND INDEMNITY LIMITS FROM SETTLEMENT AND
PREEMPTION, THE COMPANY SHOULD BE CHARGED AND THE UNITED STATES
CREDITED, UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929.  P. 366. 

17.  THE PROVISO OF THE RESOLUTION OF 1870, REQUIRING THAT GRANTED
LANDS BE OPENED BY THE COMPANY TO SETTLEMENT AND PREEMPTION APPLIES
ONLY TO THE ADDITIONAL LANDS GRANTED BY THAT RESOLUTION AND NOT TO
LANDS ACQUIRED UNDER THE GRANT OF 1864.  P. 367. 

18.  THE COMPANY WAS NOT A TRUSTEE OF SUCH LANDS FOR THE UNITED
STATES EITHER IN ITS OWN RIGHT OR IN BEHALF OF POSSIBLE SETTLERS.  IT
RESULTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT CALL UPON THE COMPANY TO ACCOUNT AS
A TRUSTEE FOR THE PROCEEDS OF SALE OF THE LANDS.  P. 368. 

19.  THE PROVISO OF THE RESOLUTION OF 1870 REQUIRED THE COMPANY TO
OPEN THE LANDS GRANTED BY THE RESOLUTION TO PREEMPTION AND SETTLEMENT
AT THE EXPIRATION OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE COMPLETION OF THE ENTIRE ROAD
IN 1887, WHETHER THE LANDS WERE THEN SUBJECT TO MORTGAGE OR NOT; ITS
FAILURE SO TO DO WAS A BREACH OF ITS CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES;
AND THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO PROVE, IF IT CAN, ANY DAMAGE TO IT,
OR ADVANTAGE TO THE COMPANY, WHICH RESULTED FROM THIS BREACH OF
CONTRACT.  P. 368. 

20.  THE COMPANY'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE PATENTS FOR INDEMNITY LANDS
OUTSIDE OF THE RESERVES FOR WHICH SELECTIONS WERE FILED WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PRIOR TO JUNE 5, 1924, CAN NOT BE ATTACKED
IN THIS SUIT UPON THE GROUND THAT THE BASES WERE FRAUDULENTLY
CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL, FOR THE REASON, AMONGST OTHERS, THAT THE BILL
PRAYS NO AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF IN RESPECT OF SUCH ALLEGED FRAUDULENT
CLASSIFICATION.  P. 369. 

21.  THE GOVERNMENT OBJECTED TO A PART OF THE DECREE BELOW DIRECTING
THAT THE COMPANY RECEIVE PATENTS TO CERTAIN INDEMNITY LANDS SELECTED
PRIOR TO JUNE 5, 1924, BASING THE OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMPANY HAD NOT ASSIGNED BASES FOR SELECTIONS.  HELD THAT THE POINT IS
NOT OPEN FOR ARGUMENT, IT NOT HAVING BEEN PRESERVED IN THE RECORD.  P.
370. 

22.  THE RESOLUTION OF 1870, IN AUTHORIZING LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION
OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC LINE FROM PORTLAND TO TACOMA "UNDER THE
PROVISIONS AND WITH THE PRIVILEGES, GRANTS AND DUTIES PROVIDED FOR IN
ITS (THE COMPANY'S) ACT OF INCORPORATION," MADE A NEW GRANT WITH PLACE
AND INDEMNITY LIMITS OF THE SAME WIDTH AS THOSE PRESCRIBED FOR THE
RAILROAD BUILT UNDER THE CHARTER ACT OF 1864.  P. 372. 

23.  THE LAND OFFICE CONSTRUED THE RESOLUTION OF 1870 AS REQUIRING
THE LAYING DOWN OF SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS FOR THE PORTLAND-TACOMA
LINE.  P. 375. 

24.  SUCH GRANTS ARE NOT QUANTITY GRANTS, BUT GRANTS OF LANDS "IN
PLACE" OR BY DESCRIPTION.  P. 375. 

25.  THE LANDS IN PLACE LIMITS, GRANTED TO THE NORTHERN PACIFIC UNDER
THE ACT OF 1864 IN AID OF ITS "CASCADE LINE," WHICH ARE EMBRACED ALSO
IN THE PLACE LIMITS OF THE GRANT MADE TO THE SAME COMPANY BY THE
RESOLUTION OF 1870 IN AID OF THE LATER PORTLAND-TACOMA LINE, ARE NOT
LANDS "GRANTED OR DISPOSED OF BY THE UNITED STATES" PRIOR TO THE LATER
GRANT FOR WHICH THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED BY THAT RESOLUTION, TO MAKE
INDEMNITY SELECTIONS.  P. 376. 

UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. ET AL.; AND 

NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. 

THESE WERE CROSS APPEALS UNDER A SPECIAL ACT OF MAY 22, 1936, FROM A
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
PURSUANT TO AN ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929, TO DETERMINE ALL CONTROVERSIES
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, AND
TO OBTAIN AN ACCOUNTING, ETC., IN RESPECT OF THE LAND GRANTS MADE TO
THAT COMPANY'S PREDECESSOR IN AID OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RAILROAD. 
THE BILL NAMED AS PARTIES DEFENDANT, NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY,
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, "NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
AS REORGANIZED IN 1875," NORTHWESTERN IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, BANKERS
TRUST COMPANY, GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY, AND CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST
COMPANY.  THE GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY DISCLAIMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CAUSE BROUGHT HERE BY THESE APPEALS INVOLVES THE CORRELATIVE
RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
ARISING OUT OF THE LAND GRANTS IN AID OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY. 

BY AN ACT OF JULY 2, 1864,  FN1  DESIGNATED PERSONS WERE CREATED A
BODY CORPORATE, NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED
AND EMPOWERED TO LAY OUT, LOCATE, CONSTRUCT, AND MAINTAIN A CONTINUOUS
RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH LINE FROM A POINT ON LAKE SUPERIOR TO PUGET
SOUND, WITH A BRANCH VIA THE VALLEY OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER, TO A POINT
AT OR NEAR PORTLAND, OREGON.  (SEC. 1.) 

THE ACT GRANTED A RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH THE PUBLIC LANDS, WITH
ADDITIONAL LANDS FOR STATIONS, ETC., AND THE UNITED STATES AGREED THAT
IT WOULD EXTINGUISH, AS RAPIDLY AS CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY AND
THE WELFARE OF THE INDIANS, THE INDIAN TITLE TO ALL LANDS FALLING UNDER
THE OPERATION OF THE ACT AND "ACQUIRED IN THE DONATION TO THE (ROAD)." 
(SEC. 2.) 

IN AID OF CONSTRUCTION, AND TO SECURE TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL, TROOPS,
MUNITIONS, AND PUBLIC STORES, EVERY ALTERNATE SECTION OF PUBLIC LAND,
NOT MINERAL, WAS GRANTED TO THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY SECTIONS PER MILE ON
EACH SIDE OF THE LINE THROUGH TERRITORIES, AND TEN SECTIONS PER MILE
THROUGH STATES.  IN CASE ANY OF THESE SECTIONS HAD BEEN GRANTED, SOLD,
OCCUPIED BY HOMESTEAD SETTLERS, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF AT THE TIME OF
DEFINITE LOCATION OF THE RAILROAD OPPOSITE SUCH SECTIONS, THE COMPANY
WAS TO BE ENTITLED TO SELECT, IN LIEU THEREOF, ALTERNATE ODD-NUMBERED
LIEU OF MINERAL LANDS, THE COMPANY MIGHT SELECT A LIKE QUANTITY OF
AGRICULTURAL LANDS "NEAREST TO THE LINE OF SAID ROAD AND WITHIN FIFTY
MILES THEREOF."  (SEC. 3.) 

WHENEVER TWENTY-FIVE CONSECUTIVE MILES OF ANY PORTION OF THE RAILROAD
AND TELEGRAPH BECAME READY FOR SERVICE, THE PRESIDENT WAS TO APPOINT
THREE COMMISSIONERS TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND, UPON THEIR FAVORABLE
REPORT, PATENTS WERE TO BE ISSUED TO THE COMPANY FOR THE LANDS OPPOSITE
THE COMPLETED SECTIONS.  THIS PROCEDURE WAS TO BE REPEATED AS EACH

THE GRANT WAS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD
COMMENCE WORK WITHIN TWO YEARS AND COMPLETE NOT LESS THAN FIFTY MILES
PER YEAR AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE SECOND YEAR, AND COMPLETE AND
EQUIP THE WHOLE ROAD BY JULY 4, 1876.  (SEC. 8.)  IN THE EVENT OF A
BREACH OF THESE CONDITIONS, NOT CURED WITHIN ONE YEAR, THE UNITED
STATES MIGHT "DO ANY AND ALL ACTS AND THINGS WHICH MAY BE NEEDFUL AND
NECESSARY TO INSURE A SPEEDY COMPLETION OF THE SAID ROAD."  (SEC. 9.) 

THE CAPITAL STOCK WAS TO BE PUBLICLY OFFERED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE
UNITED STATES; NO MORTGAGE OR CONSTRUCTION BONDS WERE TO BE ISSUED, OR
ANY MORTGAGE LIEN CREATED, EXCEPT WITH THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS.  (SEC.
10.)  THE ROAD WAS TO BE A POST AND MILITARY ROAD, FOR THE USE OF THE
UNITED STATES, SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY CONGRESS RESTRICTING
THE CHARGES FOR SUCH USE.  (SEC. 11.) 

THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THE ACT WAS TO BE SIGNIFIED IN WRITING
BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE
PASSAGE OF THE ACT.  (SEC. 12.) 

UNLESS THE COMPANY SHOULD OBTAIN BONA FIDE SUBSCRIPTIONS TO ITS STOCK
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000,000 WITH TEN PER CENT. PAID, WITHIN TWO YEARS
FROM THE APPROVAL OF THE ACT, THE ACT WAS TO BE NULL AND VOID.  (SEC.
19.) 

CONGRESS RESERVED POWER "AT ANY TIME, HAVING DUE REGARD FOR THE
RIGHTS OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY," TO "ADD TO, ALTER,
AMEND, OR REPEAL" THE ACT.  (SEC. 20.) 

THE COMPANY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DULY ORGANIZED AND THE INCORPORATORS
FILED THE ACCEPTANCE PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 12 WITHIN TWO YEARS. 

THE BELIEF THAT THE ROAD COULD BE FINANCED BY POPULAR STOCK
SUBSCRIPTIONS PROVED UNFOUNDED.  THE TIME FOR COMMENCING AND COMPLETING
THE ROAD WAS TWICE EXTENDED N2.  THE DATE ULTIMATELY FIXED FOR FINAL
COMPLETION WAS JULY 4, 1879.  THE TENTATIVE ROUTE ADOPTED BY THE
COMPANY SHOWED A LINE REACHING TO PUGET SOUND VIA THE YAKIMA RIVER. 
ULTIMATELY THE LINE WAS SO DEFINITELY LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED.  IN 1869
CONGRESS GAVE CONSENT TO THE ISSUE OF MORTGAGE BONDS,  FN3  AND ALSO
AUTHORIZED THE COMPANY TO EXTEND A BRANCH LINE FROM A POINT AT OR NEAR
PORTLAND TO A SUITABLE POINT ON PUGET SOUND AND TO CONNECT THE BRANCH
WITH THE MAIN LINE WEST OF THE CASCADE MOUNTAINS BUT MADE NO LAND GRANT
EXCEPT FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY.  FN4  THE COMPANY DID NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF
EITHER OF THE PRIVILEGES GRANTED.  MAY 31, 1870, CONGRESS AGAIN
AUTHORIZED THE COMPANY TO ISSUE BONDS TO AID IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND
EQUIPMENT OF ITS ROAD, TO BE SECURED BY MORTGAGE ON ALL OF ITS
PROPERTY, RAILROAD, LAND GRANT, AND FRANCHISE TO BE A CORPORATION.  IT
FURTHER AUTHORIZED THE LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAIN RAILROAD
VIA THE VALLEY OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER TO PUGET SOUND AND OF A BRANCH
FROM THE MAIN LINE ACROSS THE CASCADE MOUNTAINS TO PUGET SOUND, AND
MADE A GRANT OF LAND IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED
BETWEEN PORTLAND AND PUGET SOUND, ON THE SAME TERMS AS THE ORIGINAL
GRANT.  IT ALSO PROVIDED A SECOND INDEMNITY BELT EXTENDING TEN MILES
BEYOND THE FIRST ON EITHER SIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.  FN5 

PURSUANT TO THIS AUTHORITY THE COMPANY CREATED BONDS, SECURED BY
MORTGAGE OF THE RAILROAD AND LAND GRANT.  BY DECEMBER 30, 1871, THE
LINE WAS COMPLETED FROM CARLTON, MINNESOTA, TO THE RED RIVER AT
MOORHEAD; BY THE SPRING OF 1873 IT WAS COMPLETED TO THE MISSOURI RIVER
AT BISMARCK, A TOTAL DISTANCE OF FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOUR MILES. 
DURING THE SAME PERIOD THE ROAD FROM PORTLAND TO PUGET SOUND WAS
CONSTRUCTED FROM KALAMA, WASHINGTON, TO TACOMA, A DISTANCE OF ONE
HUNDRED AND SIX MILES.  THE LAND GRANT CONCOMITANT TO THIS CONSTRUCTION
AMOUNTED TO APPROXIMATELY TEN MILLION ACRES. 

THE PANIC OF 1873 CAUSED CESSATION OF CONSTRUCTION; THE COMPANY WAS
SHORT OF FUNDS; A RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED AND A REORGANIZATION EFFECTED
WHEREBY A BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE PURCHASED AT FORECLOSURE SALE, AND,
JOINTLY WITH THE RECEIVER, RECONVEYED THE PROPERTY TO THE COMPANY. 

CONSTRUCTION WAS RESUMED IN 1879 AND REACHED THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER IN
MONTANA IN 1880.  IN 1879 THE COMPANY BEGAN BUILDING EASTWARD AT
AINSWORTH IN WASHINGTON TERRITORY.  THE ROAD FROM CARLTON, MINNESOTA,
TO ASHLAND ON LAKE SUPERIOR WAS COMPLETED IN 1883.  EASTWARD AND
WESTWARD EXTENSIONS MET AT A POINT IN MONTANA IN AUGUST 1883.  THE
CASCADE BRANCH FROM PASCO TO TACOMA WAS COMPLETED IN 1887.  THE
COMPANY, BY CONTRACT WITH THE OREGON RAILROAD AND NAVIGATION COMPANY,
OBTAINED THE RIGHT TO USE THE LINE OF THE LATTER FROM WALLULA TO
PORTLAND WHERE IT CONNECTED WITH THE LINE TO PUGET SOUND.  AS SECTIONS
OF TWENTY-FIVE MILES WERE COMPLETED, COMMISSIONERS WERE APPOINTED,
EXAMINED THE ROAD, REPORTED FAVORABLY, AND THE CONSTRUCTION WAS
ACCEPTED BY THE PRESIDENT. 

THE CORPORATION CHARTERED BY CONGRESS OPERATED THE ROAD UNTIL
RECEIVERS WERE APPOINTED IN 1893.  PURSUANT TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS
THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY ACQUIRED TITLE TO THE RAILROAD,
THE LAND GRANT, AND ALL OTHER PROPERTY OF THE ORIGINAL CORPORATION AND
HAS SINCE OPERATED THE ROAD AND OBTAINED PATENTS FOR MILLIONS OF ACRES
UNDER THE LAND GRANTS. 

THE GRANT OF 1864 WAS OF THE TEN NEAREST ALTERNATE ODD-NUMBERED
LINE AS DEFINITELY LOCATED, IN A STATE, AND OF TWENTY SUCH SECTIONS IN
A TERRITORY.  THIS GRANT WAS IN PRAESENTI.  FN6  THE LANDS THUS GRANTED
ARE SPOKEN OF AS "PLACE LANDS."  THEY WERE IN TWO BELTS EACH TWENTY
MILES WIDE IN STATES, AND FORTY IN TERRITORIES, PARALLEL TO THE RIGHT
OF WAY. 

EXCEPTED FROM THE GRANT WERE LANDS RESERVED, GRANTED, APPROPRIATED,
PRE-EMPTED, OR SUBJECT TO OTHER CLAIMS AND RIGHTS AT THE DATE OF
DEFINITE LOCATION.  THESE EXEMPTED LANDS ARE SPOKEN OF AS "LANDS LOST
TO THE GRANT."  IN LIEU OF SUCH LOST LANDS THE ACT PROVIDED THAT OTHER
LANDS WERE TO BE SELECTED BY THE COMPANY, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, FROM ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS NOT MORE THAN TEN
MILES BEYOND THE PLACE LANDS, ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROAD.  THE TWO TEN
MILE STRIPS THUS DEFINED ARE SPOKEN OF AS "THE FIRST INDEMNITY BELTS"
OR "THE FIRST INDEMNITY LIMITS." 

THE RESOLUTION OF MAY 31, 1870 GRANTED, AS RESPECTS THE ADDITIONAL
LINE AUTHORIZED BETWEEN PORTLAND AND PUGET SOUND, PLACE AND INDEMNITY
LANDS, AS GRANTED FOR THE ORIGINAL LINE BY THE ACT OF 1864.  IT ALSO
AUTHORIZED WHAT ARE SPOKEN OF AS "SECOND INDEMNITY" BELTS TEN MILES
WIDE, ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ORIGINAL INDEMNITY LIMITS, IN ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY IN WHICH THE COMPANY COULD NOT OBTAIN THE NUMBER OF SECTIONS
INTENDED FOR IT BY ITS CHARTER.  THIS ADDITIONAL GRANT, HOWEVER, WAS
CONDITIONED THAT LIEU LANDS IN THE SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS MIGHT BE
CHOSEN ONLY IN THE SAME STATE OR TERRITORY IN WHICH PLACE LANDS WERE
LOST TO THE GRANT. 

MINERAL LANDS ARE EXCEPTED FROM BOTH GRANTS.  IN LIEU OF LANDS LOST
BECAUSE OF THEIR MINERAL CHARACTER THE LEGISLATION PERMITS SELECTION OF
AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHIN FIFTY MILES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE RIGHT OF
WAY.  THESE FIFTY MILE STRIPS ARE KNOWN AS "THE MINERAL INDEMNITY
BELTS."  THEIR EXTERIOR LIMITS COINCIDE WITH THE EXTERIOR LIMITS OF THE
FIRST INDEMNITY BELT IN TERRITORIES AND LIE TEN MILES BEYOND THE
EXTERIOR LIMITS OF THE SECOND INDEMNITY BELTS IN STATES. 

"THE ULTIMATE OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF THE
INDEMNITY LANDS IS ON THE SAME PLANE AS THAT RESPECTING THE LANDS IN
PLACE.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN THE MODE OF IDENTIFICATION.  THOSE IN
PLACE ARE IDENTIFIED BY FILING THE MAP OF DEFINITE LOCATION, AND THE
INDEMNITY LANDS BY SELECTIONS MADE IN LIEU OF LOSSES IN THE PLACE
LIMITS."  FN7 

SINCE THE GRANT EXCLUDED MINERAL LANDS AND GAVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN
LIEU THEREOF, BUT MADE NO PROVISION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE LANDS, CONGRESS PASSED AN ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1895,
FN8  WHICH DIRECTED THAT THE MINERAL CHARACTER OF THE LANDS SHOULD BE
ASCERTAINED BY A CLASSIFICATION BY COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY THE
PRESIDENT WHICH, WHEN APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, SHOULD
BE FINAL EXCEPT IN CASE OF FRAUD.  SUCH A CLASSIFICATION WAS MADE,
WHEREBY APPROXIMATELY 3,782,377 ACRES OF PLACE LANDS AND MORE THAN
1,000,000 ACRES OF INDEMNITY LANDS, WERE ASCERTAINED TO BE MINERAL. 

BETWEEN MARCH 1, 1898, AND MAY 15, 1924, 1,103,424 ACRES IN THE FIRST
INDEMNITY LIMITS, UNDER THE 1864 GRANT, AND 961,992 ACRES IN SECOND
INDEMNITY LIMITS OF THE SAME GRANT, WERE WITHDRAWN AND PLACED IN
NATIONAL FORESTS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT RESERVATIONS.  DURING THE SAME
PERIOD 155,727 ACRES FROM THE FIRST INDEMNITY LIMITS OF THE GRANT OF
1870, AND 213,001 ACRES FROM THE SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS LAID DOWN
UNDER THAT GRANT, WERE WITHDRAWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSES.  THIS ACTION
WAS TAKEN, IN THE MAIN, PURSUANT TO AN ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891.  FN9 

THE COMPANY SOUGHT TO SELECT INDEMNITY LANDS WITHIN THE RESERVATIONS
BUT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WOULD NOT ACCEPT OR APPROVE THE
SELECTIONS AND THE COMPANY WAS UNABLE, BY LITIGATION, TO COMPEL ACTION
FAVORABLE TO IT.  FN10  IN 1905, HOWEVER, THE COMPANY FILED A SELECTION
LIST FOR OVER FIVE THOUSAND ACRES OF SURVEYED LANDS IN A GOVERNMENT
FOREST RESERVE IN MONTANA.  THE LIST WAS APPROVED AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR ISSUED PATENTS.  SUBSEQUENTLY, UPON DISCOVERING THAT THESE
LANDS WERE WITHIN THE FOREST RESERVE, THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT SUIT TO
CANCEL THE PATENTS.  THE CASE REACHED THIS COURT,  FN11  WHICH HELD
THAT THE ACT OF 1864, AND THE RESOLUTION OF 1870, EMBODIED AN OFFER
THAT, IF THE COMPANY WOULD CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE RAILROAD, IT
SHOULD RECEIVE THE GRANTED LANDS; THAT THIS OFFER HAD RIPENED INTO A
CONTRACT BY THE COMPANY'S ACCEPTANCE AND PERFORMANCE; THAT THE PROMISE
OF INDEMNITY FOR GRANTED LANDS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE COMPANY WAS A
VESTED RIGHT PROTECTED FROM DESTRUCTION; THAT, THOUGH THE LANDS IN THE
INDEMNITY BELTS WERE OPEN TO ACQUISITION BY SETTLERS BEFORE SURVEY,
THEY WERE OPEN TO SELECTION BY THE COMPANY ONLY AFTER SURVEY; AND,
FINALLY, THAT WITHDRAWALS OF INDEMNITY LANDS FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES
WERE INVALID UNLESS, AT THE TIME OF WITHDRAWAL, THERE REMAINED
NONMINERAL LANDS AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY PRIOR
LOSSES TO THE COMPANY FROM THE GRANT.  THE MEASURE OF THE GRANT WAS
HELD TO BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS WITHIN THE PLACE
LIMITS, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL.  ALTHOUGH A
STIPULATION HAD BEEN FILED AS TO THE MEASURE OF THE GRANT, THE COURT
HELD THAT, SINCE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT CERTAIN NECESSARY
DEDUCTIONS FROM THE GRANT HAD BEEN MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE NET AMOUNT OF
LAND TO WHICH THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED, THE CASE WAS NOT RIPE FOR
JUDGMENT.  ACCORDINGLY THE CAUSE WAS REMANDED FOR A DETERMINATION OF
THE ALLEGED DEFICIENCY IN THE GRANT AND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
DEPENDENT UPON SUCH DETERMINATION. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WHICH WAS CHARGED WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FOREST RESERVES, REALIZED THAT IF THE COMPANY'S
CLAIMS AS TO THE DEFICIENCY IN THE GRANT, WITH CONSEQUENT RIGHT OF
SELECTION OF WITHDRAWN LANDS AS INDEMNITY, WERE SUSTAINED, MUCH OF THE
LAND IN THE FOREST RESERVES WOULD BE DIVERTED FROM THE PURPOSE INTENDED
BY THEIR RESERVATION.  THE FORESTER OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED THE
SITUATION TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND
SUGGESTED THAT THE LATTER SHOULD INVESTIGATE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
AFFECTING THE COMPANY'S CLAIMS.  THE LAND OFFICE, WITH THE COOPERATION
OF THE COMPANY, UNDERTOOK AN ADJUSTMENT OF THE GRANT AND A TENTATIVE
ADJUSTMENT WAS PREPARED.  THE FORESTER RAISED MANY OBJECTIONS. 
ULTIMATELY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, AND THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR, CALLED THE SITUATION TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND HE
AND THEY COMMUNICATED WITH CONGRESS.  AS A RESULT, THAT BODY ADOPTED A
JOINT RESOLUTION ON JUNE 5, 1924,  FN12  DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO WITHHOLD APPROVAL OF ANY ADJUSTMENT OF THE COMPANY'S LAND
GRANTS AND TO WITHHOLD THE ISSUE OF FURTHER PATENTS; AND APPOINTING A
JOINT COMMITTEE TO MAKE AN INVESTIGATION OF THE GRANTS AND TO REPORT
ITS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS.  THIS COMMITTEE HELD
PROTRACTED HEARINGS, AT WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND THE
COMPANY WERE REPRESENTED, AND PRESENTED EVIDENCE AMOUNTING TO OVER FIVE
THOUSAND PRINTED PAGES. 

IN APRIL 1929 THE COMMITTEE RENDERED ITS REPORTS  FN13  RECOMMENDING
PASSAGE OF A BILL AUTHORIZING THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROCURE "A FINAL AND COMPLETE DETERMINATION OF THE
RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY
CO. TO THE END THAT THE GRANTS SHALL BE FINALLY ADJUSTED AND THE
INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE GRANTEE SHALL BE FULLY
PROTECTED."  THE RESULT WAS THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929.  FN14 THE TITLE
INDICATES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO ALTER AND AMEND THE ACT OF
JULY 2, 1864, AND THE RESOLUTION OF MAY 31, 1870; "TO DECLARE FORFEITED
TO THE UNITED STATES CERTAIN CLAIMED RIGHTS ASSERTED" BY THE COMPANY;
AND "TO DIRECT THE INSTITUTION AND PROSECUTION OF PROCEEDINGS LOOKING
TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE GRANT." 

THE ACT RETAINS FOR THE UNITED STATES, FREE OF CLAIM BY THE COMPANY,
AND REMOVES FROM THE GRANT, ANY LANDS WITHIN THE INDEMNITY LIMITS
WHICH, ON JUNE 5, 1924, WERE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF ANY NATIONAL
FOREST OR OTHER GOVERNMENT RESERVATION AND WHICH, ON THE DATE OF
WITHDRAWALS FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES, WOULD BE, OR WERE, AVAILABLE TO
THE COMPANY, BY INDEMNITY SELECTION OR OTHERWISE, IN SATISFACTION OF
ANY DEFICIENCY; AND DIRECTS THAT THE COMPANY SHALL HAVE FROM THE UNITED
STATES SUCH COMPENSATION, IF ANY, AS THE COURTS HOLD DUE FOR THE LOSS
OF SUCH LANDS.  (SEC. 1.) 

IT DECLARES THAT ALL UNSATISFIED INDEMNITY SELECTION RIGHTS, IF ANY
EXIST, CLAIMED BY THE COMPANY, ARE FORFEITED TO THE UNITED STATES. 
(SEC. 2.)  IT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND AND REPEAL THE CHARTER ACT
AND SUPPLEMENTARY RESOLUTION AND ASSERTS THE ADHERENCE OF CONGRESS TO
THE ORIGINAL POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPANY'S DISPOSITION OF
GRANTED LANDS.  RIGHT OF WAY LANDS AND THOSE IN GOOD FAITH EMPLOYED IN
THE OPERATION OF THE RAILROAD ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DECLARED
FORFEITURE.  (SECS. 3, 4.) 

IT DIRECTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BRING SUIT TO REMOVE THE CLOUD OF
THE COMPANY'S CLAIMS UPON ANY LANDS OF THE UNITED STATES; TO DETERMINE
ALL CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMPANY, AND TO
OBTAIN A FULL ACCOUNTING OF WHAT THE COMPANY MAY BE ENTITLED TO
RECOVER, AND WHAT THE UNITED STATES MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER; TO FIND
AND DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE PERFORMANCE BY THE UNITED STATES, AND
BY THE COMPANY, OF THE TERMS OF THE GRANTING ACTS AND WHAT LANDS, IF
ANY, HAVE BEEN PATENTED OR CERTIFIED AS A RESULT OF FRAUD, MISTAKE OF
LAW OR FACT, OR LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE MISAPPREHENSION; AND,
FINALLY, TO DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT GERMANE TO A
COMPLETE ADJUDICATION OF THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE GRANTING ACT
AND RESOLUTION, AND ALL OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT PRESENTED TO
THE COMMITTEE.  (SEC. 5.) 

IT LAYS DOWN, IN GENERAL TERMS, THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE TO
GOVERN IN THE MUTUAL ACCOUNT TO BE TAKEN BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
THE COMPANY AND EMPOWERS THE COURT TO RENDER SUCH JUDGMENTS AND DECREES
AS LAW AND EQUITY MAY REQUIRE.  (SEC. 6.) 

IT ESTABLISHES THE VENUE FOR THE TRIAL OF THE SUIT, AND FOR APPEAL,
AND PROVIDES THAT A REASONABLE TIME SHALL BE FIXED BY THE COURT WITHIN
WHICH CONGRESS MAY ADOPT APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE JUDGMENT.  (SEC. 7.) 

IT REQUIRES REPORTS TO CONGRESS FROM TIME TO TIME FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AS TO THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE PROCEEDING.  (SEC. 8.) 

IT PROVIDES FOR THE WITHHOLDING OF THE APPROVAL OF THE ADJUSTMENT OF
THE LAND GRANTS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND FOR THE
WITHHOLDING OF PATENTS UNTIL THE DETERMINATION OF THE LITIGATION. 
(SEC. 9.) 

PURSUANT TO THE ACT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAUSED A BILL TO BE FILED,
ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN
WASHINGTON.  THE COMPANY AND THE TRUSTEES UNDER CERTAIN OF ITS
MORTGAGES FILED ANSWERS AND MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE WHOLE BILL AND EACH
PARAGRAPH.  THE COURT REFERRED THE MOTIONS TO A SPECIAL MASTER.  HE
REPORTED THAT THEY SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AS TO CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS OF THE
BILL.  THE COURT OVERRULED EXCEPTIONS TO HIS REPORT.  THE CASE WAS THEN
AGAIN REFERRED TO THE MASTER BEFORE WHOM TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN UPON THE
ISSUES RAISED BY THE ANSWERS TO THOSE PORTIONS OF THE BILL WHICH HAD
NOT BEEN DISMISSED.  THE MASTER REPORTED THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD BE
AWARDED COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF THE RIGHT OF INDEMNITY SELECTION
IN THE WITHDRAWN LANDS, AND SUBMITTED HIS CALCULATION OF THE ACREAGE
INVOLVED. 

THE COURT, AFTER SUSTAINING CERTAIN OF THE PLAINTIFF'S EXCEPTIONS AND
DISMISSING ALMOST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS', FOUND THE COMPANY ENTITLED TO
PATENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDS OUTSIDE THE RESERVES AND TO COMPENSATION FOR
THE LOSS OF 1,453,061 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THEM.  THE COURT RESERVED
FOR FUTURE DECISION THE CONTENTIONS OF THE MORTGAGEES THAT THEY ARE
PURCHASERS FOR VALUE WHOSE RIGHTS CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM AND ALSO ASCERTAINMENT OF THE AMOUNT TO BE AWARDED
TO THE COMPANY. 

AT THIS STAGE OF THE LITIGATION CONGRESS ADOPTED THE ACT OF MAY 22,
1936,  FN15  AUTHORIZING A DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT TO THIS COURT.  PURSUANT TO THAT STATUTE THE PRESENT
APPEALS BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMPANY WERE TAKEN.  AS TO MANY OF
THE ISSUES THE PARTIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  ERRORS ARE, HOWEVER, ASSIGNED TO THE DECREE BELOW BY BOTH THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE COMPANY. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE ACT OF 1929, SUPRA, IS NOT A
DECLARATION OF FORFEITURE FOR BREACH OF CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE ACT
OF 1864 AND THE RESOLUTION OF 1870, BUT A REFERENCE TO THE COURTS OF
ALL QUESTIONS AS TO PERFORMANCE AND BREACH OF THE CONTRACTS CREATED BY
THE ACT AND THE RESOLUTION, TO THE END THAT THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES MAY BE DETERMINED AND ENFORCED.  THE COMPANY
ASSERTS THAT THE ACT OF 1929 IS AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN WHEREBY THE COMPANY IS DEPRIVED OF FURTHER RIGHT TO SELECT
INDEMNITY LANDS, AND IS TO BE PAID JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE RIGHT SO
TAKEN.  BUT THE COMPANY DOES NOT DENY THAT, IN ASCERTAINING THE AMOUNT
DUE IT, THE GOVERNMENT MAY OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF ANY CLAIMS IT MAY NOW
BE ENTITLED TO ASSERT BY REASON OF THE COMPANY'S BREACHES OF CONTRACT. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE BREACHES OF COVENANT BY THE COMPANY
HAVE BEEN SO SUBSTANTIAL THAT IT CANNOT CALL FOR FURTHER PERFORMANCE BY
THE UNITED STATES AND IS, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO FURTHER SELECTION
RIGHTS OR TO ANY MONEY COMPENSATION FOR THEIR ABROGATION.  RELIANCE IS
PLACED UPON THE FOLLOWING ALLEGED BREACHES. 

1.  THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE COMPANY TO OBTAIN BONA FIDE
SUBSCRIPTIONS TO ITS STOCK AND PAYMENTS THEREOF REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF
1864. 

OF ITS APPROVAL THE COMPANY SHALL OBTAIN BONA FIDE STOCK SUBSCRIPTIONS
TO THE AMOUNT OF TWO MILLION DOLLARS, WITH TEN PER CENT. PAID, THE ACT
SHALL BE NULL AND VOID. 

PARAGRAPH VI OF THE BILL ALLEGES THAT, ALTHOUGH WITHIN THE TWO YEARS
PRETENDED SUBSCRIPTIONS AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE, THE PRETENDED PAYMENTS
WERE SHAM AND A FRAUD UPON THE CORPORATION AND THE UNITED STATES; THAT
THE ACT THUS BECAME VOID AND THE COMPANY IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY
COMPENSATION IN THE PRESENT SUIT. 

THE MASTER RECOMMENDED THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THIS PARAGRAPH
SHOULD BE GRANTED, AND THE DISTRICT COURT SO ORDERED. 

2.  THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE COMPANY TO PERFORM THE CONDITION OF
THE GRANT THAT IT COMPLETE THE WHOLE RAILROAD. 

RIGHT, AND PRIVILEGE HEREIN ARE SO MADE AND GIVEN TO, AND ACCEPTED BY,
SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, UPON AND SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY:  THAT THE SAID COMPANY SHALL COMMENCE THE
WORK ON SAID ROAD WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE APPROVAL OF THIS ACT BY THE
PRESIDENT, AND SHALL COMPLETE NOT LESS THAN FIFTY MILES PER YEAR AFTER
THE SECOND YEAR, AND SHALL CONSTRUCT, EQUIP, FURNISH, AND COMPLETE THE
WHOLE ROAD BY THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, ANNO DOMINI EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND
SEVENTY-SIX."  THE TIME FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE ROAD WAS EXTENDED BY
CONGRESS TO JULY 4, 1879.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE COMPANY NEVER
DEFINITELY LOCATED OR BUILT THAT PORTION OF ITS LINE EMBRACING THE TWO
HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE MILES BETWEEN WALLULA AND PORTLAND.  INSTEAD,
IT MADE A CONTRACT FOR RUNNING RIGHTS OVER THE TRACKS OF THE OREGON
RAILWAY & NAVIGATION COMPANY. 

IN PARAGRAPHS XIV AND XXVI OF THE BILL THE UNITED STATES ALLEGES THAT
THE ROAD WAS NEVER COMPLETED.  THE MASTER RECOMMENDED THAT THE
COMPANY'S MOTION TO DISMISS THESE PARAGRAPHS BE GRANTED.  THE COURT SO
ORDERED. 

3.  THE CLAIM THAT DIVERSION OF FUNDS IN THE BUILDING OF BRANCH LINES
DISENTITLES THE COMPANY TO SELECT FURTHER LANDS. 

PARAGRAPH XIV OF THE BILL ALLEGES THAT, THROUGH VARIOUS DESCRIBED
CONTRACTS AND TRANSACTIONS, THE FUNDS OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY WERE USED IN THE BUILDING OF BRANCH LINES WHICH WERE
UNJUSTIFIED AND UNPROFITABLE AND THAT FURTHER FUNDS WERE, UNDER
CONTRACT, ADVANCED TO SUCH BRANCH LINES TO KEEP THEM IN OPERATION.  IT
IS ALLEGED THAT THESE THINGS WERE DONE AT A TIME WHEN THE COMPANY HAD
NOT COMPLETED ITS MAIN LINE FROM WALLULA TO PORTLAND.  THE BILL CHARGES
THAT THE ILLEGAL AND FRAUDULENT CONDUCT IT DESCRIBES RESULTED IN THE
BRANCH LINES RECEIVING UNCONSCIONABLE AND ILLEGAL PROFITS AT THE COST
OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC WHEN THE LATTER'S FUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED
TO COMPLETE ITS MAIN LINE, ALL IN VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE NORTHERN PACIFIC CREATED BY THE ACT OF 1864 AND
THE RESOLUTION OF 1870.  THE MASTER RECOMMENDED THAT THIS PARAGRAPH BE
DISMISSED IN THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION DID NOT
DISENTITLE THE COMPANY TO EXERCISE INDEMNITY SELECTION RIGHTS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE GRANT SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE ROAD ACTUALLY
CONSTRUCTED.  THE COURT DISMISSED THE PARAGRAPH. 

4.  THE CLAIM THAT THE COMPANY FAILED TO PERFORM ITS CONTRACT BY
REFUSING TO OPEN LANDS GRANTED IT BY THE RESOLUTION OF 1870 TO
SETTLEMENT AND PRE-EMPTION AT $2.50 PER ACRE. 

CONSTRUCTION BONDS SHALL EVER BE ISSUED BY SAID COMPANY ON SAID ROAD,
OR MORTGAGE, OR LIEN MADE IN ANY WAY, EXCEPT BY THE CONSENT OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES." 

AN ADDITIONAL LINE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1870 AND
A LAND GRANT MADE THEREFOR.  THE RESOLUTION EMPOWERED THE COMPANY TO
ISSUE BONDS IN AID OF CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT, AND TO "SECURE THE
SAME BY MORTGAGE ON ITS PROPERTY AND RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OF ALL KINDS
AND DESCRIPTIONS, REAL, PERSONAL, AND MIXED, INCLUDING ITS FRANCHISE AS
A CORPORATION."  THE RESOLUTION FURTHER PROVIDED "THAT ALL LANDS HEREBY
GRANTED TO SAID COMPANY WHICH SHALL NOT BE SOLD OR DISPOSED OF OR
REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE MORTGAGE BY THIS ACT AUTHORIZED, AT THE
EXPIRATION OF FIVE YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ENTIRE ROAD, SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO SETTLEMENT AND PRE-EMPTION LIKE OTHER LANDS, AT A PRICE
TO BE PAID TO SAID COMPANY NOT EXCEEDING TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS
PER ACRE." 

PARAGRAPH XIII OF THE BILL REFERS TO THESE PROVISIONS OF THE JOINT
RESOLUTION AND ALLEGES THAT AMONG THE PLACE LANDS GRANTED THERE ARE
MANY MILLION ACRES THE QUANTITY AND DESCRIPTION OF WHICH ARE KNOWN ONLY
TO THE COMPANY, OR ITS PREDECESSOR, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN OPENED TO
SETTLEMENT AND PRE-EMPTION WHEREAS THEY WERE, SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 4,
1884, (FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE FINALLY FIXED FOR COMPLETION OF THE
ROAD), SOLD AT SUCH PRICES, AND ON SUCH CONDITIONS, AS TO THE COMPANY
SEEMED BEST, AND THAT THIS WAS A BREACH OF THE COMPANY'S CONTRACT WITH
THE UNITED STATES AND DEFEATED THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
MASTER REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS PARAGRAPH XIII
SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AND THE COURT SO RULED.    THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS
THAT THE RESOLUTION REQUIRED THE COMPANY TO HOLD THE LANDS OPEN FOR
SETTLEMENT, AT THE PRICE AND IN PARCELS AS SPECIFIED, AFTER FIVE YEARS,
WHETHER MORTGAGED OR NOT; THAT IT FAILED TO DO SO, AND SOLD THE LANDS
AT HIGHER PRICES AND IN LARGER PARCELS THAN THE RESOLUTION REQUIRED,
AND THAT ITS BREACH OF COVENANT DEFEATS ITS RIGHT TO ANY AWARD.  THE
COMPANY CONTENDS THAT THE INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION WAS TO PERMIT IT TO
MORTGAGE ALL ITS PROPERTY RIGHTS; THAT IF, AT THE EXPIRATION OF FIVE
YEARS FROM THE COMPLETION OF THE ROAD, ANY OF THE GRANTED LANDS WERE
UNDISPOSED OF, OR WERE NOT SUBJECT TO MORTGAGE, THOSE LANDS WERE OPEN
TO PREEMPTION; THAT, WHETHER OR NOT THE EXISTENCE OF A MORTGAGE
PREVENTED SETTLEMENT OF THE LANDS, AFTER FIVE YEARS, THERE WAS NO DUTY
ON THE COMPANY TO DISPOSE OF THEM TO SETTLERS; AND THAT THE COMPANY HAS
NOT BROKEN ANY COVENANT IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION. 

5.  THE CLAIM THAT UNAUTHORIZED WITHDRAWALS OF PLACE AND INDEMNITY
LANDS PRECLUDE ANY AWARD TO THE COMPANY. 

RAILROAD LINE, AS SAID COMPANY MAY ADOPT," AND FIXES THE DATE OF
PASSAGE OF TITLE TO THE COMPANY AS "THE TIME THE LINE OF SAID ROAD IS
DEFINITELY FIXED."  SECTION 6 PROVIDES THAT THE PRESIDENT SHALL CAUSE
THE PLACE LANDS TO BE SURVEYED "AFTER THE GENERAL ROUTE SHALL BE
FIXED." 

PURSUANT TO PRELIMINARY SURVEYS, THE RAILROAD COMPANY FILED WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR A MAP SHOWING THE GENERAL ROUTE OF THE
PROPOSED LINE.  THEREUPON THE SECRETARY CAUSED PLACE LIMITS TO BE LAID
DOWN ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL ROUTE AND WITHDREW FROM
SALE OR ENTRY THE ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS WITHIN THOSE LIMITS.  IN 1903
THIS COURT HELD THAT TITLE TO THE GRANTED PLACE LANDS DID NOT VEST IN
THE COMPANY UNTIL THE FILING OF A MAP OF DEFINITE LOCATION AND THAT,
CONSEQUENTLY, THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE LANDS BY THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO
THAT TIME AND COTERMINOUS WITH THE GENERAL ROUTE WAS UNAUTHORIZED. 
FN16 

AFTER THE COMPANY HAD FILED ITS MAPS OF DEFINITE LOCATION THE
SECRETARY MAPPED THE INDEMNITY LIMITS SPECIFIED BY THE ACT OF 1864 AND
WITHDREW THE LANDS COMPREHENDED WITHIN THOSE LIMITS FROM SALE OR
ENTRY.  IN 1888 THE THEN SECRETARY HELD THAT LAND WITHIN THE INDEMNITY
LIMITS WAS OPEN TO PRE-EMPTION UNDER THE HOMESTEAD LAWS AND THAT SUCH
PRE-EMPTION, EVEN BEFORE ACTUAL SURVEY OF THE LANDS, DEPRIVED THE
COMPANY OF THE RIGHT TO SELECT THE LANDS PRE-EMPTED.  THIS VIEW WAS
ADOPTED BY THIS COURT IN 1901.  FN17 

PARAGRAPH XXXII OF THE BILL RECITES THESE FACTS AND ALLEGES THAT, BY
VIRTUE OF THE WITHDRAWALS, THE RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE RAILWAY COMPANY
HAVE RECEIVED BENEFITS, LANDS, AND VALUES TO WHICH THEY WERE NOT
ENTITLED, TO THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE MASTER RECOMMENDED
THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE PARAGRAPH BE SUSTAINED AND THE COURT SO
DECREED. 

6.  THE CLAIM THAT THE FORECLOSURES AND REORGANIZATIONS OF THE
RAILROAD AND ITS PROPERTY DISENTITLE THE COMPANY TO SELECT FURTHER
LANDS. 

THE RESOLUTION OF 1870 AUTHORIZED THE RAILROAD COMPANY TO ISSUE ITS
BONDS AND SECURE THE SAME BY MORTGAGE ON ITS PROPERTY OF EVERY KIND AND
PROVIDED THAT IF THE MORTGAGE AUTHORIZED SHOULD AT ANY TIME BE ENFORCED
BY FORECLOSURE OR OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING, OR THE MORTGAGED LANDS
GRANTED BY THE RESOLUTION, OR ANY OF THEM, SHOULD BE SOLD BY THE
MORTGAGE TRUSTEES, UPON DEFAULT, "SUCH LANDS SHALL BE SOLD AT PUBLIC
SALE, AT PLACES WITHIN THE STATES AND TERRITORIES IN WHICH THEY SHALL
BE SITUATE, AFTER NOT LESS THAN SIXTY DAYS' PREVIOUS NOTICE, IN SINGLE
" 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT TWO REORGANIZATIONS OCCURRED,  - ONE IN 1875
AND THE OTHER IN 1896.  AS RESPECTS THE FIRST, IT IS CHARGED THAT,
PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER, THE TRUSTEES OF THE MORTGAGE CONVEYED THE
MORTGAGED RAILROAD AND PROPERTY IN A BLOCK TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO
THEREUPON RETRANSFERRED TO THE RAILROAD COMPANY UNDER AN ARRANGEMENT
WHEREBY MORTGAGE BONDHOLDERS RECEIVED PREFERRED STOCK IN LIEU OF THEIR
BONDS, SUCH PREFERRED STOCK TO BE REDEEMED FROM THE PROCEEDS OF THE
SALE OF THE COMPANY'S LANDS.  WITH RESPECT TO THE LATTER FORECLOSURE IT
IS ALLEGED THAT THE COMPANY, AFTER REORGANIZATION, CREATED A NUMBER OF
MORTGAGES WHICH WERE FORECLOSED AND THAT, IN THE COURSE OF THE
FORECLOSURE, SALES OF THE MORTGAGED LANDS, WHILE MADE IN THE RESPECTIVE
STATES AND TERRITORIES WHERE THEY LAY, AND ALTHOUGH MADE SECTION BY
NEW COMPANY, WHEREAS IT WAS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS THAT THEY SHOULD BE
SO SOLD AS TO GIVE INDIVIDUALS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUIRE THEM. 

PARAGRAPHS IX, X, XI, XII, XVI AND XVIII DESCRIBE THE TRANSACTIONS IN
GREAT DETAIL AND CHARGE THAT WHAT WAS DONE WAS IN THE TEETH OF THE
POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO ITS INJURY.  THE MASTER RECOMMENDED
DISMISSAL OF THESE PARAGRAPHS AND THE COURT ADOPTED HIS
RECOMMENDATION.  THE UNITED STATES INSISTS THAT WHAT WAS DONE
CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF THE COMPANY'S OBLIGATION UNDER THE RESOLUTION
OF 1870 SO SUBSTANTIAL AS TO DISENTITLE IT TO ANY FURTHER PERFORMANCE
OF THE LAND GRANTS.  THE COMPANY ASSERTS THAT THE REORGANIZATION OF
1875 INVOLVED NO SALE OF THE MORTGAGED LANDS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION
OF THE STATUTE BUT A MERE DEVICE FOR REINVESTING THE COMPANY WITH ITS
LANDS, FREED OF THE MORTGAGE, AND THAT THE FORECLOSURE SALES MADE IN
THE REORGANIZATION OF 1896 WERE MADE IN STRICT AND EXACT ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION OF 1870. 

THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT NONE OF THE PARAGRAPHS REFERRED TO ABOVE
SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.  IT SAYS THAT EACH OF THE BREACHES CHARGED
WAS SO SUBSTANTIAL AS TO DISENTITLE THE COMPANY TO FURTHER PERFORMANCE
BY THE UNITED STATES.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, IT SAYS THAT ALL OF THEM,
TAKEN TOGETHER, CERTAINLY REQUIRE THIS CONCLUSION.  THE COMPANY, ON THE
OTHER HAND, CONTENDS THAT, AS TO SOME OF THE MATTERS CHARGED, THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL DO NOT SHOW ANY BREACH, AND THAT, AS TO OTHERS,
IF A BREACH IS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED IT WAS NOT SUCH AS, IN THE LIGHT OF
THE HISTORY OF THE GRANTS AND THE PERFORMANCE RECEIVED BY THE UNITED
STATES, WOULD DISENTITLE THE COMPANY TO ALL FURTHER PERFORMANCE. 

IF THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION IS SOUND THE DECREE BELOW SHOULD BE
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE COMPANY AND IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE JUSTICES WHO HEARD THIS CASE ARE EQUALLY DIVIDED IN OPINION UPON
THESE ISSUES.  NO OPINION IS EXPRESSED UPON THEM, AND THEY ARE
RESERVED, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT OUR RULINGS ON OTHER ISSUES MAY BE
DISPOSITIVE OF THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY. 

THE GOVERNMENT PUTS FORWARD CERTAIN FURTHER CLAIMS WHICH, IF
SUSTAINED, WOULD PRECLUDE ANY RECOVERY BY THE COMPANY. 

7.  THE CLAIM THAT NO COMPENSATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED BECAUSE
UNSURVEYED PUBLIC LANDS WERE AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION, AND THE COMPANY
FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT WOULD, OR COULD, HAVE SELECTED AND OBTAINED ALL
OF THE WITHDRAWN LANDS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT, AT MARCH 1, 1898, JUST PRIOR TO THE
FIRST FOREST WITHDRAWAL, THE COMPANY HAD UNSATISFIED LOSSES OF
5,946,664 ACRES UNDER THE 1864 GRANT AND THAT THE TOTAL LANDS AVAILABLE
FOR SELECTION AT THAT DATE WERE 1,137,508 ACRES, LEAVING A DEFICIENCY
IN THE GRANT OF 4,809,156 ACRES; AND THE DEFICIENCY IN THE 1870 GRANT,
EXCLUDING AVAILABLE LAND IN SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS, AT MARCH 1, 1898,
WAS 593,656 ACRES, AND THERE HAS BEEN, EVER SINCE, A DEFICIENCY IN
RESPECT OF THAT GRANT.  IN THESE FINDINGS THE COURT COMPUTED AS LANDS
AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION ONLY NON-MINERAL, SURVEYED, VACANT LAND.  THE
COMPANY ASSERTS THAT IN THIS THE COURT WAS RIGHT.  THE GOVERNMENT
INSISTS THAT VACANT UNSURVEYED LANDS WERE "AVAILABLE" AS INDEMNITY TO
THE COMPANY NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONCESSION THAT, AS LANDS SELECTED MUST
BE IDENTIFIED, THE COMPANY CANNOT SELECT THEM UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN SO
IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY.  FN18  IT SAYS THE COMPANY FAILED TO SHOW THAT
THERE WERE NOT AMPLE UNSURVEYED LANDS WITHIN THE INDEMNITY LIMITS TO
SET OFF LOSSES IN THE PLACE LIMITS AT THE TIME OF THE WITHDRAWALS AND
ADDS THAT, INASMUCH AS HOMESTEADERS MIGHT, IN THE INTERIM, OBTAIN PRIOR
RIGHTS BY ACTUAL SETTLEMENT OF THESE UNSURVEYED LANDS,  FN19  IT IS A
MATTER OF PURE SPECULATION WHETHER THE COMPANY WOULD ULTIMATELY HAVE
OBTAINED ADEQUATE INDEMNITY EVEN IF UNSURVEYED LANDS HAD NOT BEEN
WITHDRAWN FOR FOREST RESERVES.  IT FURTHER CLAIMS THAT IF THE COURT
BELOW HAD TREATED UNSURVEYED LANDS AS AVAILABLE FOR INDEMNITY
SELECTION, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO DEFICIENCY AT THE DATES OF
WITHDRAWAL. 

THESE CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

DECISION TURNS ON THE INQUIRY AS TO WHAT LANDS WERE AVAILABLE TO THE
COMPANY FOR SELECTION AT THE TIME OF THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTAL
WITHDRAWALS. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, EVIDENT THAT THE COMPANY COULD NOT SELECT MINERAL
LANDS AS INDEMNITY.  IT FOLLOWS THAT ALL LANDS CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL
WERE EXCLUDED FROM SELECTION. 

BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF 1864 IT IS PROVIDED THAT WHENEVER ANY OF THE
PLACE LANDS GRANTED TO THE COMPANY SHALL HAVE BEEN, PRIOR TO THE TIME
OF DEFINITE LOCATION OF THE ROAD, "GRANTED, SOLD, RESERVED, OCCUPIED BY
HOMESTEAD SETTLERS, OR PRE-EMPTED, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF, OTHER
LANDS SHALL BE SELECTED BY SAID COMPANY IN LIEU THEREOF, UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IN ALTERNATE SECTIONS, AND
DESIGNATED BY ODD NUMBERS,  ...  " 

THE FACT THAT THE LANDS IN THE INDEMNITY LIMITS ARE, BEFORE SURVEY,
SUBJECT TO BE TAKEN BY PRE-EMPTORS AND SETTLERS, AND THUS ULTIMATE
SATISFACTION OF THE RAILROAD COMPANY MAY BE DEFEATED, DOES NOT JUSTIFY
THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF IN RESERVING LANDS CONTAINED WITHIN THOSE LIMITS
AND THUS RENDERING IMPOSSIBLE THE COMPANY'S OBTAINING THEM.  THIS WAS
DEFINITELY HELD IN THE FOREST RESERVE CASE.  FN20 

MUCH WAS SAID IN ARGUMENT AS TO THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "LANDS
AVAILABLE AS INDEMNITY" AS USED IN THAT CASE.  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT
UNSURVEYED LANDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE COMPANY UNDER THE ACT OF
1864.  IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE COMPANY MUST SELECT INDEMNITY LANDS
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  THAT OFFICER HAS
INVARIABLY RULED THAT NO SELECTION CAN BE MADE OR APPROVED UNTIL THE
LANDS IN QUESTION ARE SURVEYED.  FN21 

THIS RULING WAS NECESSITATED BY THE VERY TERMS OF THE ACT OF 1864,
WHICH REQUIRES SELECTION OF ALTERNATE SECTIONS DESIGNATED BY ODD
NUMBERS.  OBVIOUSLY, UNTIL SURVEYED, NO ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS COULD
EXIST.  UNSURVEYED LANDS ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS.  FN22 

THE DECISION IN THE FOREST RESERVE CASE, SUPRA, DID NOT SUGGEST ANY
DIFFERENT VIEW.  THE ALLEGATION OF DEFICIENCY IN INDEMNITY LANDS IN
THAT CASE, FOUND IN THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, WAS THAT THE LANDS
WERE THOSE ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO
SELECT UNDER THE REGULATIONS OF THE LAND DEPARTMENT.  THIS COULD ONLY
MEAN, AND THE DECISION COULD ONLY HAVE GONE UPON THE VIEW THAT IT
MEANT, THAT THE SURVEYED LANDS WITHIN THE INDEMNITY LIMITS WERE
DEFICIENT TO MEET THE SELECTION RIGHTS OF THE RAILROAD COMPANY.  THE
CASE IS NOT AN AUTHORITY, AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT UNSURVEYED VACANT LANDS WITHIN THE INDEMNITY LIMITS
ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS AVAILABLE TO THE COMPANY IN ASCERTAINING
WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS RESERVED TO ITSELF LANDS AS TO WHICH THE
COMPANY HAS SELECTION RIGHTS.  UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE FOREST RESERVE
CASE THE CHALLENGED WITHDRAWALS FOR FOREST AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
PURPOSES LEFT THE INDEMNITY LANDS AVAILABLE TO THE COMPANY DEFICIENT TO
SATISFY ITS RIGHTS OF SELECTION. 

THE HOLDING WAS THAT THE WITHDRAWALS WERE VOID AND THE COMPANY'S
RIGHTS REMAINED AS IF THE WITHDRAWALS HAD NEVER BEEN MADE.  IF AND WHEN
ANY OF THE WITHDRAWN LANDS WERE SURVEYED THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO
SELECT THEM, AS IT DID IN THE FOREST RESERVE CASE. 

IT WOULD APPEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION IS MOOT AS
RESPECTS ALL BUT 23,364 ACRES OF LANDS IN IDAHO SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS
FOR WHICH THE COMPANY WAS AWARDED COMPENSATION BY THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DECREE.  IF UNSURVEYED VACANT LANDS REMAINING WITHIN THE INDEMNITY
LIMITS AFTER A GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWAL ARE TO BE TREATED AS AVAILABLE TO
THE COMPANY FOR SELECTION, THEN THE GRANT WAS NOT DEFICIENT AS RESPECTS
SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS IN IDAHO AND THE COMPANY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
AWARDED COMPENSATION FOR THE ACREAGE MENTIONED. 

AS RESPECTS WITHDRAWALS FROM FIRST INDEMNITY LIMITS OF THE 1864
GRANT, AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THE LIMITS OF THE 1870 GRANT, IT APPEARS TO
BE UNDISPUTED THAT, OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, SUCH AS THAT
WITH RESPECT TO THE NONCOMPLETION OF THE ENTIRE ROAD, BEING LAID TO ONE
SIDE, THE WITHDRAWALS LEFT THE GRANTS DEFICIENT EVEN THOUGH UNSURVEYED
LANDS REMAINING WITHIN THE LIMITS AFTER THE WITHDRAWALS BE COUNTED AS
AVAILABLE TO THE COMPANY.  AND THE SAME CONCLUSION WOULD SEEM TO BE
REQUIRED RESPECTING LANDS WITHIN THE SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS IN MONTANA
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 4004.38 ACRES WITHDRAWN ON JULY 14, 1899. 

THUS THE ISSUE BECOMES, TO A LARGE EXTENT, MOOT BUT, AS RESPECTS
APPROXIMATELY 30,000 ACRES ABOVE REFERRED TO, WE THINK WHAT HAS BEEN
SAID ON THE SUBJECT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF UNSURVEYED LANDS SUSTAINS
THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, ARGUES THAT EVEN THOUGH THE WITHDRAWALS FOR
GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES CREATED SUCH A DEFICIENCY OF LANDS AVAILABLE FOR
SELECTION THAT, TO SATISFY THE GRANT, THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPELLED TO SELECT LANDS WITHIN THE WITHDRAWN RESERVES, NEVERTHELESS,
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN INDEMNITY FOR THE DEFICIENCY SO CREATED, THE COMPANY
IS BOUND TO PROVE THAT IT WOULD HAVE SELECTED LANDS WITHIN THE
RESERVES, AND WHAT LANDS IT WOULD HAVE SELECTED, BEFORE IT CAN CLAIM
COMPENSATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE DEPRIVATION OF ITS RIGHT TO
SELECT.  A MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES WHO HEARD THE CASE THINK THE
POSITION IS UNTENABLE.    UNDER THE RULING IN THE FOREST RESERVE CASE
IT WAS THE OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO REFRAIN FROM ANY ACTION
WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE COMPANY OF ITS RIGHT OF SELECTION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TERMS OF THE GRANT.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES WITHDREW THE LANDS
FOR FOREST AND OTHER RESERVES IT SIGNIFIED ITS PURPOSE TO RETAIN THEM
FOR ITS OWN USE AND NOT TO ALLOW THE COMPANY OR ANYONE ELSE TO OBTAIN
THEM, ANY LAW OR CONTRACT TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.  WE THINK
THE COMPANY'S RIGHT OF SELECTION, TO THE EXTENT OF THE DEFICIENCY IN
THE GRANT, REMAINED AVAILABLE AS TO THE WITHDRAWN LANDS, PROVIDED THE
LANDS SELECTED WERE SUCH AS ARE DEFINED IN THE GRANT.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION THAT NO ONE CAN SAY HOW SOON THE LANDS WOULD HAVE BEEN
SURVEYED AND SELECTED IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN AND RESERVED, OR,
IF THEY HAD REMAINED UNSURVEYED AND NOT WITHDRAWN, WHAT AREAS WOULD
HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP BY SETTLERS AND PREEMPTORS, DOES NOT AVAIL TO
ABROGATE OR QUALIFY THE COMPANY'S RIGHT TO EXERCISE ITS PRIVILEGE OF
SELECTION NOTWITHSTANDING THE WITHDRAWALS.  MOREOVER, THE ARGUMENT
IGNORES THE REPEAL OF THE PRE-EMPTION LAWS BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3,
1891.  FN23 

8.  THE CLAIM THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH 13,300,000
ACRES WRONGFULLY RECEIVED BECAUSE LYING WITHIN INDIAN RESERVATIONS. 

PARAGRAPH XXIX OF THE BILL ALLEGES THAT BY TREATIES OF SEPTEMBER 17,
1851, AND OCTOBER 17, 1855, FN24  THE UNITED STATES "RESERVED" CERTAIN
LANDS FOR INDIAN TRIBES.  THE PARAGRAPH ALLEGES THAT THE PLACE AND
INDEMNITY BELTS ESTABLISHED BY THE ACT OF 1864 CROSSED CERTAIN OF THE
LANDS RESERVED BY THE TREATIES, AND THAT, BY MISTAKE AND WITHOUT LAWFUL
AUTHORITY, THE COMPANY RECEIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES LANDS COMPRISED
IN THE RESERVATIONS AMOUNTING TO ABOUT 12,000,000 ACRES IN PLACE AND
FIRST INDEMNITY LIMITS AND 1,300,000 ACRES IN SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS;
THAT FOR ALL OF THEM IT HAD OBTAINED PATENTS TO WHICH IT WAS NOT
ENTITLED, AS IT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION, THE COURT BELOW
SUSTAINED THE MOTION TO DISMISS PARAGRAPH XXIX ON THE GROUND THAT THE
LANDS IN QUESTION WERE GRANTED TO THE COMPANY BY THE ACT OF 1864 AND
THE RESOLUTION OF 1870.  WE THINK THE COURT WAS RIGHT. 

BY AN ACT OF JUNE 30, 1834,  FN25  ALL LANDS LYING WEST OF THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER, NOT WITHIN THE STATES OF MISSOURI AND LOUISIANA OR
THE TERRITORY OF ARKANSAS, WERE DESIGNATED AS INDIAN COUNTRY.  THE FEE
OF ALL THIS TERRITORY WAS IN THE UNITED STATES, SUBJECT TO THE INDIAN
RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY.  THE TREATIES OF 1851 AND 1855 DID NOT ALTER THE
STATUS OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THEM.  THE PURPOSE OF THOSE TREATIES
WAS TO ESTABLISH PEACE AND AMITY BETWEEN WARRING INDIAN TRIBES INTER
SESE AND BETWEEN THE TRIBES AND THE UNITED STATES.  TO THIS END THE
COUNTRY OR TERRITORY OF EACH TRIBE WAS DESCRIBED AND THE TRIBES AGREED
TO RESPECT THE BOUNDARIES NAMED IN THE TREATIES.  NO ALTERATION IN THE
STATUS OF THE LANDS HAD OCCURRED UP TO THE DATE OF DEFINITE LOCATION OF
THE NORTHERN PACIFIC'S LINE.  ABOUT SEVEN HUNDRED MILES OF THE RAILROAD
TRAVERSED THE AREA EMBRACED IN THE TREATIES. 

BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1864 IT WAS PROVIDED THAT "THE UNITED STATES
SHALL EXTINGUISH, AS RAPIDLY AS MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY
AND THE WELFARE OF THE SAID INDIANS, THE INDIAN TITLES TO ALL LANDS
FALLING UNDER THE OPERATION OF THIS ACT, AND ACQUIRED IN THE DONATION
TO THE (ROAD) NAMED IN THIS BILL."  THE GOVERNMENT NOW CONTENDS THAT
THIS SECTION IS INAPPLICABLE TO ANY BUT RIGHTOF-WAY LANDS LYING WITHIN
THE AREAS DESCRIBED BY THE TREATIES.  THE CONTENTION WAS NOT MADE OR
CONSIDERED BELOW, AND WE THINK, IF IT WERE OPEN HERE, THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION RENDERS IT UNTENABLE. 

STATES "HAVE FULL TITLE, NOT RESERVED, SOLD, GRANTED, OR OTHERWISE
APPROPRIATED, AND FREE FROM PREEMPTION, OR OTHER CLAIMS OR RIGHTS, AT
THE TIME THE LINE OF SAID ROAD IS DEFINITELY FIXED,  ...  "  THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THIS SECTION EXCLUDES LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN
THE TREATY LIMITS FOR THE REASON THAT THE TREATIES "RESERVE" ALL THE
LANDS DESCRIBED IN THEM FOR THE SIGNATORY INDIAN TRIBES.  WE THINK THE
CONTENTION IS UNSOUND. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE TREATIES DID NOT CREATE TECHNICAL RESERVATIONS
AS HAVE MANY OTHER TREATIES AND ACTS OF CONGRESS.  THEY DID NOT SET
ASIDE A DEFINED TERRITORY FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF A TRIBE NOR CONTAIN
THE USUAL PROVISIONS FOR AN INDIAN AGENT FOR SCHOOLS, ASSISTANCE IN
FARMING OPERATIONS, ETC.  THE COUNTRY DESCRIBED IN THE TREATY OF 1851
AMOUNTS TO ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-THREE MILLION ACRES, AND THAT
DESCRIBED IN THE TREATY OF 1855 TO THIRTYSEVEN MILLION ACRES.  IN THE
CASE OF ONE OF THE TRIBES, IF THE TREATY WERE CONSIDERED TO CREATE A
TECHNICAL RESERVATION IT WOULD HAVE ALLOTTED TO EACH MAN, WOMAN, AND
CHILD IN THE TRIBE MORE THAN EIGHTEEN SQUARE MILES. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, AS IS EVIDENCED BY THE PATENTS
ISSUED, HAS CONSISTENTLY TREATED THE LANDS IN QUESTION AS INCLUDED IN
THE GRANT.  THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY PASSED UPON THE QUESTION; HAS
HELD THE LANDS WERE INDIAN COUNTRY, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE INDIANS' RIGHT
OF OCCUPANCY; WERE WITHIN THE GRANT MADE BY THE ACT OF 1864, AND THAT,
BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, THE UNITED STATES ASSUMED THE OBLIGATION OF
EXTINGUISHING THE INDIAN TITLE IN FAVOR OF THE COMPANY.  FN26 

WE COME NOW TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH GO TO THE
QUANTUM OF THE AWARD. 

9.  THE CLAIM THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH APPROXIMATELY
1,000,000 ACRES RECEIVED AS THE RESULT OF ADOPTION OF AN UNNECESSARILY
CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. 

CONSTRUCT A CONTINUOUS RAILROAD LINE FROM A POINT ON LAKE SUPERIOR
"WESTERLY BY THE MOST ELIGIBLE RAILROAD ROUTE, AS SHALL BE DETERMINED
BY SAID COMPANY,  ...  TO SOME POINT ON PUGET'S SOUND, WITH A BRANCH,
VIA THE VALLEY OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER, TO A POINT AT OR NEAR PORTLAND,
...  "  THE RESOLUTION OF 1870 AUTHORIZED THE COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT ITS
MAIN LINE TO A POINT ON PUGET SOUND VIA THE VALLEY OF THE COLUMBIA
RIVER, WITH THE RIGHT TO LOCATE ITS BRANCH FROM A POINT ON THE MAIN
LINE, ACROSS THE CASCADE MOUNTAINS, TO PUGET SOUND. 

PARAGRAPH XXVI ALLEGED THAT THE COMPANY WAS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT ITS
RAILROAD TO THE WESTERN TERMINUS UPON THE MOST DIRECT AND PRACTICABLE
LINE WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DEVIATIONS BUT THAT, INSTEAD OF DOING SO, THE
COMPANY BUILT THE ROAD FROM LIND, WASHINGTON, TO ELLENSBURG,
WASHINGTON, BY AN UNNECESSARILY CIRCUITOUS ROUTE SOUTHWESTWARD TO PASCO
ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER AND THENCE NORTHWESTWARD VIA THE VALLEY OF THE
YAKIMA, WHEREAS IT COULD HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE LINE NEARLY DUE WESTWARD
FROM LIND TO ELLENSBURG AND HAVE SAVED ABOUT EIGHTY-TWO MILES; THAT, BY
REASON OF THIS UNNECESSARY CIRCUITY, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILLION, FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES WERE ADDED TO THE LANDS WITHIN THE LIMITS
DESCRIBED IN THE GRANT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
INCLUDED HAD THE MORE DIRECT ROUTE BEEN FOLLOWED.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE PARAGRAPH ARE THAT, AFTER FILING GENERAL ROUTE MAPS, THE COMPANY
ULTIMATELY FILED DEFINITE MAPS OF LOCATION AND THEREUPON THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR SURVEYED AND PATENTED TO IT LANDS LYING ALONG THE LINE;
THAT THIS WAS AN ERROR AS THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO PATENT
PLACE LANDS OR ALLOW SELECTION OF INDEMNITY LANDS COTERMINOUS WITH THE
CIRCUITOUS ROUTE.  THE PARAGRAPH CONTAINS NO AVERMENT THAT THE ROUTE
WAS SELECTED BY THE COMPANY FRAUDULENTLY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL
LANDS OR THAT IT WAS NOT IN GOOD FAITH THOUGHT TO BE THE MOST ELIGIBLE
ROUTE.  THE PARAGRAPH REFERS TO THE FACT THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE CHICAGO,
MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY LOCATED ITS LINE FROM LIND TO ELLENSBURG
BY THE MORE DIRECT ROUTE.  THE MASTER RECOMMENDED THAT THE MOTION TO
DISMISS THE PARAGRAPH BE SUSTAINED AND THE COURT SO ORDERED.  WE THINK
THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THIS DISPOSITION OF THE MATTER. 

THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1870 CALLED FOR THE MAIN LINE TO RUN VIA THE
VALLEY OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER TO PUGET SOUND WITH A BRANCH LINE FROM A
CONVENIENT POINT ON THE MAIN LINE ACROSS THE CASCADE MOUNTAINS TO PUGET
SOUND.  IN PURSUANCE OF THIS REQUIREMENT THE COMPANY FILED A MAP OF
DEFINITE LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTED ITS ROUTE BETWEEN SPOKANE AND WALLULA
ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER.  AT THAT POINT IT WAS ABLE TO MAKE A CONNECTION
WITH THE OREGON RAILWAY & NAVIGATION COMPANY.  IN 1880 IT, THEREFORE,
ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR RUNNING RIGHTS OVER THE LINE OF THAT
RAILROAD AND HAS USED ITS LINE FOR TRAFFIC INTO PORTLAND.  IT WAS
NATURAL, IN THIS SITUATION, TO LAY OUT THE AUTHORIZED BRANCH LINE OVER
THE CASCADE MOUNTAINS FROM THE MAIN LINE AT PASCO.  MAPS OF THE LINE
FROM PASCO TO TACOMA WERE APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
BETWEEN JUNE 1883 AND DECEMBER 1884.  INSPECTION REPORTS IN 1879 AND
1880, MADE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, SHOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT
WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE LINE THE COMPANY WAS BUILDING. 

ON MARCH 3, 1893, CONGRESS RATIFIED AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PAYMENT TO
THE YAKIMA INDIANS FOR RIGHT OF WAY THROUGH THEIR RESERVATION PROVIDED
THE COMPANY SHOULD, WITHIN SIXTY DAYS, PAY THE NECESSARY MONEY THEREFOR
INTO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN27  THIS ACTION SHOWS THAT
CONGRESS WAS FULLY INFORMED OF THE ADOPTED ROUTE AND COOPERATED IN
MAKING ITS CONSTRUCTION FEASIBLE. 

THE MASTER AND THE COURT BELOW JUDICIALLY NOTICED THAT THE ROUTE VIA
THE YAKIMA VALLEY WAS A MUCH MORE ADVANTAGEOUS ONE IN RESPECT OF THE
COUNTRY TRAVERSED, AND THE PROBABLE AVAILABLE TRAFFIC, THAN THE MORE
DIRECT ROUTE BETWEEN LIND AND ELLENSBURG.  THE TOTAL POPULATION ALONG
THE LATTER IS SAID TO BE LESS THAN A THOUSAND PERSONS AND THE TRAFFIC
ORIGINATING THEREON PRACTICALLY NIL.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE YAKIMA
VALLEY IS ONE OF THE MOST FERTILE AND PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL SECTIONS
IN THE NORTHWEST. 

THE CIRCUITY IS NOT SUCH AS TO BE AN OBVIOUS EVASION OF THE TERMS OF
THE GRANT, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHARGE OF FRAUD, IT MUST BE TAKEN
THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY CONSIDERED THE LINE LAID OUT THE MOST
ELIGIBLE ONE.  WE THINK THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARAGRAPH DO NOT SUPPORT
THE CONTENTION THAT THE COMPANY ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED PLACE AND INDEMNITY
LANDS CONTIGUOUS TO THIS PORTION OF ITS LINE. 

10.  THE CLAIM THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH
1,198,000 ACRES RECEIVED AS INDEMNITY IN THE SECOND INDEMNITY BELT IN
MONTANA AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED COMPENSATION FOR 170,000 ACRES
IN THE SAME BELT. 

UNDER THE ACT OF 1864 LOSSES OF LAND IN THE PLACE LIMITS COULD BE
SUPPLIED ONLY IN THE FIRST AND THE MINERAL INDEMNITY LIMITS.  THE
RESOLUTION OF 1870 ADDED A SECOND INDEMNITY BELT IN WHICH SELECTIONS
COULD BE MADE ONLY FOR LOSSES IN THE SAME STATE OR TERRITORY OCCURRING
THROUGH RESERVATION, PRE-EMPTION, OR OTHER DISPOSITION SUBSEQUENT TO
THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT OF 1864. 

AS HAS BEEN STATED UNDER HEADING 8, SUPRA, THE LAND OFFICE PROPERLY
TREATED THE LANDS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES DESCRIBED BY THE TREATY OF 1851
FN28  AS AVAILABLE UNDER THE GRANT.  BY THE CROW TREATY OF 1868  FN29
A DISTINCT AND EXCLUSIVE RESERVATION FOR THAT TRIBE WAS CARVED OUT OF
THE LARGER TERRITORY DESIGNATED IN THE EARLIER DAYS AS THE CROW
COUNTRY.  THE LAND OFFICE TREATED THE LANDS THUS SPECIFICALLY RESERVED
AS LOST TO THE GRANT AND PERMITTED INDEMNITY SELECTIONS FROM THE SECOND
INDEMNITY BELT IN MONTANA, IN WHICH STATE THE LOSS OCCURRED. 

IT APPEARS THAT, BY VIRTUE OF WITHDRAWALS CHIEFLY FOR FOREST RESERVES
IN MONTANA, THE COMPANY HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO SELECT ABOUT
170,000 ACRES OF LIEU LANDS, ABOUT 64,000 ACRES OF WHICH LOSSES WERE
DUE TO THE CREATION OF THE CROW RESERVATION.  IN ITS COMPUTATION OF THE
LANDS FOR WHICH THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY AND COMPENSATION
IN THIS SUIT THE COURT BELOW INCLUDED THIS ENTIRE ACREAGE. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CHARGED THE
COMPANY WITH THE INDEMNITY LANDS RECEIVED IN SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS IN
MONTANA DUE TO ALLEGED LOSSES FROM THE CREATION OF THE CROW RESERVATION
AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ANY FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR THE
LOSS OF SELECTION RIGHTS IN THAT BELT RESULTING FROM THE CREATION OF
THE CROW RESERVATION, OR OTHERWISE, AS THE COMPANY HAD ALREADY RECEIVED
MORE THAN WAS PROPER.  WE THINK THE POSITION CANNOT BE MAINTAINED. 

AS SHOWN UNDER HEADING 8, SUPRA, NO LANDS WERE REMOVED FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE GRANT BY THE TREATIES OF 1851 AND 1855.  ON THE OTHER
HAND THE CREATION OF THE CROW RESERVATION - A TYPICAL INDIAN
RESERVATION - IN 1868, REMOVED THE LANDS IN THAT RESERVATION FROM THE
GRANT WITHIN THE INTENT AND MEANING OF THE ACT OF 1864, AS SUPPLEMENTED
BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1870, AND CONFERRED THE RIGHT TO INDEMNITY
SELECTIONS FROM THE SECOND INDEMNITY BELT WITHIN THE SAME STATE. 

11.  THE CREDIT TO THE COMPANY FOR LANDS WITHIN THE NORTHERN CHEYENNE
INDIAN RESERVATION. 

THE COURT BELOW, IN ITS AWARD, TREATED THE COMPANY AS ENTITLED TO
SELECT INDEMNITY LANDS IN FIRST AND SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS WHERE THESE
LIMITS LAY WITHIN THE NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDIAN RESERVATION IN MONTANA. 
THE AREA IN QUESTION WAS PART OF THE CROW COUNTRY RECOGNIZED BY THE
TREATY OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1851.  FN30  WHEN, IN 1868, THE CROW
RESERVATION WAS CREATED, THE CROW NATION CEDED ALL ITS RIGHT AND TITLE
IN OTHER LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN THE TREATY AREA TO THE UNITED STATES. 
BY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OF MARCH 19, 1900, THE LANDS IN QUESTION BECAME
PART OF THE NORTHERN CHEYENNE RESERVATION.  THIS ACTION WAS CONFIRMED
BY CONGRESS JUNE 3, 1926,  FN31  WHICH DECLARED THAT THE LANDS WERE THE
PROPERTY OF THE NORTHERN CHEYENNES, AUTHORIZED ALLOTMENTS, ETC.    THE
GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THESE LANDS WERE NOT, ON JUNE 5, 1924 - THE
PIVOTAL DATE MENTIONED IN THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929 - "EMBRACED WITHIN
THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF ANY NATIONAL FOREST OR OTHER GOVERNMENT
RESERVATION." 

WE THINK THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT THESE LANDS HAD BEEN
WITHDRAWN AS A "GOVERNMENT RESERVATION" AND FOR "GOVERNMENTAL
PURPOSES"; AND THE ACT WHICH AUTHORIZED THIS SUIT CONTEMPLATED THAT
COMPENSATION SHOULD BE AWARDED FOR LANDS SO WITHDRAWN, WHICH, BUT FOR
THE WITHDRAWAL, WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE COMPANY AS INDEMNITY. 

12.  THE AWARD FOR LAND WITHIN THE RESERVATIONS ON WHICH HOMESTEADERS
FILED PRIOR TO JUNE 5, 1924, AND FOR WHICH THEY RECEIVED PATENTS AFTER
JUNE 5, 1924. 

AFTER THE WITHDRAWALS HAD BEEN MADE HOMESTEADERS FILED ON CERTAIN OF
THE LANDS WITHIN THE FOREST RESERVES.  THESE FILINGS WERE PRIOR TO JUNE
5, 1924.  SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE PATENTS WERE ISSUED UNDER THE FOREST
HOMESTEAD LAWS.  THE COURT BELOW, WE THINK, PROPERLY TREATED THESE
LANDS AS HAVING BEEN AVAILABLE FOR INDEMNITY SELECTION BY THE COMPANY
AT THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL AND AWARDED THE COMPANY COMPENSATION FOR THE
ABROGATION OF ITS RIGHT TO SELECT THEM.  THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTS THAT
THIS WAS ERROR, IN THE VIEW THAT THE ACT OF 1929 AWARDED COMPENSATION
ONLY FOR THOSE LANDS WHICH WOULD BE, OR WERE, AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION
ON JUNE 5, 1924.  THE ACT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT SO PROVIDE.  IT AWARDS
INDEMNITY FOR LANDS WHICH, ON JUNE 5, 1924, WERE EMBRACED IN ANY
RESERVATION, AND "WHICH, IN THE EVENT OF A DEFICIENCY IN THE SAID LAND
GRANTS TO THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY UPON THE DATES OF THE
WITHDRAWALS OF THE SAID INDEMNITY LANDS FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES,
WOULD BE, OR WERE," AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION. 

13.  THE CLAIM THAT, AS TO MORE THAN A MILLION ACRES, THE AWARD RESTS
UPON A FRAUDULENT MINERAL CLASSIFICATION WHICH WILL NOT SUPPORT
INDEMNITY SELECTION RIGHTS. 

EXCLUDED MINERAL LANDS FROM THE GRANT.  THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT IRON
OR COAL LANDS ARE NOT TO BE CLASSED AS MINERAL.  IN LIEU OF MINERAL
LANDS THE COMPANY IS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO SELECT A LIKE QUANTITY OF
"UNOCCUPIED AND UNAPPROPRIATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS, IN ODD NUMBERED
THEREOF,  ...  " 

ONE OF THE CONTENTIONS STRONGLY PRESSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ACTING UNDER THE RESOLUTION OF
JUNE 5, 1924, WAS THAT, DUE TO THE COMPANY'S FRAUD, GREAT QUANTITIES OF
PLACE LANDS HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL, WITH THE RESULT
THAT THE COMPANY HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO SELECT, AND HAD RECEIVED PATENTS
FOR, OVER A MILLION ACRES OF LAND IN LIEU OF THOSE SO CLASSIFIED.  THE
COMPANY RESISTED THIS CONTENTION. 

BY THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929, THIS MATTER WAS REMITTED TO THE COURTS
FOR ADJUDICATION.  SECTION 5 DIRECTS THAT IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
CONTEMPLATED THERE SHALL BE PRESENTED, AND THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER,
MAKE FINDINGS RELATING TO, AND DETERMINE, TO WHAT EXTENT THE TERMS,
CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS OF THE GRANTING ACTS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED BY
THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMPANY, INCLUDING THE QUESTION WHAT LANDS,
IF ANY, HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY OR ERRONEOUSLY PATENTED OR CERTIFIED AS
THE RESULT OF FRAUD.  SECTION 6 REQUIRES THAT, IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF
COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF THE RETENTION
BY THE UNITED STATES OF INDEMNITY LANDS FOR NATIONAL FORESTS OR
GOVERNMENT RESERVES, THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE WHAT QUANTITIES IN LANDS
OR VALUES THE COMPANY AND ITS PREDECESSORS HAVE RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF
FRAUD AND THAT SUCH EXCESS LANDS AND VALUES, IF ANY, SHALL BE CHARGED
AGAINST THE COMPANY IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 

PARAGRAPH XXVIII OF THE COMPLAINT REFERS TO THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 26,
1895,  FN32  PROVIDING FOR THE EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION, AS
MINERAL OR NONMINERAL, OF PLACE AND INDEMNITY LANDS WITHIN FOUR LAND
DISTRICTS IN IDAHO AND MONTANA; RECITES THE APPOINTMENT AND FUNCTIONING
OF THE COMMISSIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT; ALLEGES THAT THE
COMMISSIONERS UNDERTOOK TO CLASSIFY APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN MILLION FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND ACRES OF LAND, AND PRETENDED TO CLASSIFY THE SAME;
FILED THEIR REPORTS WHICH, WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS, WERE APPROVED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR; ASSERTS THAT 3,782,377 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
WERE CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL, AND THAT THE COMPANY, AND ITS PREDECESSOR
IN INTEREST, MADE MINERAL LIEU SELECTIONS TOTALING 1,330,762 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS, AND RECEIVED PATENTS THEREFOR; ALLEGES THAT THE COMPANY
IS CLAIMING ADDITIONAL INDEMNITY LANDS OF APPROXIMATELY 2,451,615 ACRES
IN LIEU OF LANDS CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL; AND CHARGES THAT THE COMPANY,
AND ITS PREDECESSOR, WERE GUILTY OF FRAUDULENT AND COLLUSIVE PRACTICES
WHEREBY THE COMMISSIONERS WERE PERSUADED TO CLASSIFY, AS MINERAL, LANDS
OF LITTLE VALUE, SO THAT THE RAILROAD COULD SELECT MORE VALUABLE LANDS
IN LIEU THEREOF, AND THAT THE LANDS SO SELECTED AND PATENTED TO THE
COMPANY WERE OF A VALUE IN EXCESS OF THE ENTIRE 3,782,377 ACRES, MORE
OR LESS, OF LANDS FRAUDULENTLY CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL. 

THE COMPANY MOVED TO DISMISS THE PARAGRAPH AND IN ITS ANSWER DENIED
THE ALLEGATIONS.  THE MASTER RECOMMENDED THAT THE MOTION BE SUSTAINED
AND THE COURT SO ORDERED.  IN THIS WE THINK THERE WAS ERROR. 

THE MASTER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS SET OUT, AND MATTERS OF WHICH
HE TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE, STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN
OVERRULING THE MOTION TO DISMISS HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE POSITION TAKEN
BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ARGUMENT.  THE MASTER STATES THAT A GOODLY PORTION
OF THE NEARLY FOUR MILLION ACRES CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL CONSISTED OF
LANDS WITHIN THE FOREST RESERVES, WHICH BY THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1929,
THE GOVERNMENT SIGNIFIED ITS INTENTION TO RETAIN, THAT STILL OTHER
LANDS SO CLASSIFIED HAD BEEN PATENTED TO CLAIMANTS AS MINERAL CLAIMS,
AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD SOLD MUCH VALUABLE TIMBER FROM STILL OTHER
OF SUCH LANDS.  THE MASTER SAYS THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS HE
INQUIRED OF COUNSEL WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT DESIRED A RECLASSIFICATION
BY REASON OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD AND THAT THE REPLY WAS IN THE NEGATIVE. 
HE REPORTS THAT COUNSEL CONTENDED THE GOVERNMENT'S PLEADING WAS MEANT
TO MEET AND DEFEAT THE COMPANY'S CLAIM, ON THE THEORY THAT, AS TO THE
LANDS CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL AND THE CLAIMS TO LIEU LANDS THEREFOR, THE
COMPANY MUST BE TREATED AS A PLAINTIFF, AND, AS PARAGRAPH XXVIII
DISCLOSED THAT THE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE CLEAN HANDS, IT COULD NOT
MAINTAIN ITS CLAIM.  THE MASTER OVERRULED THIS CONTENTION, HOLDING THAT
THE COMPANY WAS, IN THIS CASE, A DEFENDANT AND THAT THE DOCTRINE OF
CLEAN HANDS DID NOT APPLY TO A DEFENDANT IN EQUITY. 

WHATEVER GLOSS GOVERNMENT COUNSEL MAY HAVE PUT UPON THE PARAGRAPH, WE
THINK THE MASTER AND THE COURT BELOW WERE BOUND TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO
THE PLEADING AND THAT THE MASTER WAS RIGHT IN HIS ORIGINAL VIEW THAT
THE FACTS SET UP, AND THE ISSUES MADE BY THE ANSWER, REQUIRED A TRIAL;
AND, IF THE GOVERNMENT SUCCEEDS IN MAINTAINING THE TRUTH OF ITS
ALLEGATIONS, THE COMPANY SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH LANDS OR VALUES
OBTAINED AS MINERAL INDEMNITY THROUGH THE FRAUD OF ITS AGENTS AND THEIR
COLLUSION WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. 

ALTHOUGH IT IS ALLEGED, AND THE MASTER FOUND, THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE
IN THE TIME ALLOWED BY CONGRESS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE SUCH A
SURVEY AND CLASSIFICATION AS THE LEGISLATION CONTEMPLATED, WE THINK THE
REPORTS AND THE SECRETARY'S APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE THEREOF, CREATE A
PRIMA FACIE SHOWING IN FAVOR OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND THE COMPANY'S
SELECTION OF INDEMNITY LANDS. 

THE UNITED STATES PLEADED THE FRAUD WHICH IT SAYS RENDERS THE
CLASSIFICATION, AND THE ACTIONS CONSEQUENT UPON IT, A NULLITY.  WE
THINK IT NECESSARILY HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SUSTAIN ITS PLEADING. 
IT IS NOT BARRED BY LACHES OR ESTOPPEL FROM ASSERTING AND PROVING THE
ALLEGED FRAUD, AND FROM HAVING THE COMPANY CHARGED WITH THE LANDS OR
VALUES RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF IT. 

THE CASE MUST GO BACK FOR A TRIAL OF THE ISSUES MADE BY PARAGRAPH
XXVIII OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE ANSWER THERETO.  IT MAY BE THAT ON THE
TRIAL THE GOVERNMENT'S EVIDENCE WILL PROVE FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE
COMPANY OF SUCH A CHARACTER AND EXTENT AS WOULD DISENTITLE THE LATTER
TO ANY AWARD EVEN THOUGH THE FRAUD DOES NOT EXTEND TO AN ACREAGE EQUAL
IN EXTENT TO THAT OF THE SELECTION RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY BY THE ACT OF
1929. 

14.  THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "AGRICULTURAL LANDS" IN THE PROVISION
FOR SELECTION IN LIEU OF EXCEPTED MINERAL LANDS. 

IN COMPUTING THE DEFICIENCY OF LANDS AVAILABLE FOR INDEMNITY
SELECTION THE DISTRICT COURT INCLUDED THE NEARLY TWO MILLION ACRES OF
MINERAL LOSSES AS TO WHICH INDEMNITY SELECTION HAD NOT BEEN MADE AT THE
TIME OF THE WITHDRAWALS AND TREATED THE WITHDRAWN LANDS AS AVAILABLE
FOR SELECTION IN RESPECT OF MINERAL LOSSES.  THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS
THAT THIS WAS ERROR BECAUSE MUCH OF THE WITHDRAWN LAND IS NOT
AGRICULTURAL AND IS NOT, THEREFORE, AVAILABLE AS INDEMNITY FOR MINERAL
LOSSES.  THE COMPANY, ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSERTS THAT IN THE GRANTING
ACT THE WORD "AGRICULTURAL" IS NOT USED IN ITS ORDINARY SENSE OF
TILLABLE OR CULTIVABLE BUT AS MEANING MERELY LANDS NOT MINERAL.  IT
BASES THIS CONTENTION LARGELY UPON THE ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION AND PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WHICH, SO
IT CLAIMS, HAS TREATED THE WORD "AGRICULTURAL" AS A TERM OF
CLASSIFICATION AND NOT ONE OF STRICT DEFINITION.  FN33  THIS WAS THE
VIEW TAKEN BY THE MASTER AND THE DISTRICT COURT. 

RAILROAD, EMPLOYS THREE DESCRIPTIONS OF PUBLIC LANDS.  THE PLACE LAND
GRANTED IS DENOMINATED "PUBLIC LAND, NOT MINERAL"; THE LIEU LANDS WHICH
MAY BE SELECTED TO MAKE UP LOSSES IN THE PLACE LANDS ARE REFERRED TO AS
"OTHER LANDS"; THE MINERAL LIEU LANDS ARE DESIGNATED AS "UNOCCUPIED AND
UNAPPROPRIATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS." 

THE ACT SEEMS TO HAVE SERVED AS A MODEL FOR OTHER RAILROAD GRANTS
MADE SHORTLY THEREAFTER.  SECTION 3 OF AN ACT OF JULY 27, 1866,  FN34
WHICH INCORPORATED AND GRANTED LANDS TO THE ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, IS IN THE SAME WORDS EXCEPT THAT THE MINERAL
INDEMNITY IS LIMITED TO A DISTANCE OF TWENTY MILES FROM THE LINE. 
LANDS TO THE TEXAS PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, EMPLOYS THE SAME
PHRASEOLOGY. 

THE GRANTING CLAUSE OF THE ACT OF 1864 DIFFERED FROM THOSE
THERETOFORE COMMONLY USED.  IN EARLIER ACTS INDEMNITY SELECTIONS WERE
REQUIRED TO BE OF LANDS NEAREST THE LINE.  BY THE ACT OF 1864 LANDS IN
LIEU OF PLACE LANDS PREVIOUSLY SOLD, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF, MIGHT BE
SELECTED FROM LAND ANYWHERE WITHIN THE INDEMNITY BELT.  IN THE MINERAL
INDEMNITY PROVISION, HOWEVER, CONGRESS REVERTED TO THE EARLIER PRACTICE
OF REQUIRING THAT AGRICULTURAL LANDS NEAREST TO THE LINE, BUT WITHIN AN
UNUSUALLY WIDE BELT OF FIFTY MILES ON EITHER SIDE, SHOULD BE SELECTED. 
IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THIS PROVISION WAS INSERTED IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT
THE MOUNTAINOUS WESTERN COUNTRY WOULD AFFORD LESS OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN
GOOD LANDS BY INDEMNITY SELECTION THAN THE MORE LEVEL FARMING COUNTRY
TO THE EAST. 

IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE BILL AS IT PASSED THE HOUSE OMITTED A
PROVISION FOUND IN BILLS EARLIER INTRODUCED IN AID OF RAILROADS IN THE
FAR WEST, REQUIRING THAT THE LIEU LANDS FOR MINERAL LOSSES SHOULD NOT
ONLY BE THOSE NEAREST THE LINE, BUT "NEAREST THE LINE OF THE ROAD
THROUGH SAID MINERAL LANDS  ...  "  FN36  IN THE SENATE THE GRANT OF
MINERAL INDEMNITY WAS STRICKEN OUT AND MINERAL LANDS WERE DEFINED TO
EXCLUDE COAL AND IRON.  FN37  THE BILL PASSED THE SENATE IN THIS FORM
AND WAS SENT TO A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.  FN38  THE MEASURE CAME FROM
THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT FINALLY PASSED.  THE
ACT THUS PERMITTED A SELECTION OF AGRICULTURAL LIEU LANDS NOT ONLY IN
THE TERRITORY ADJACENT TO THE MINERAL PLACE LANDS BUT WITHIN FIFTY
MILES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ANYWHERE ALONG THE ENTIRE
ROUTE OF THE ROAD.  IT HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN SO CONSTRUED AND THE
COMPANY HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO SELECT, AS MINERAL INDEMNITY, LANDS NOT
MORE THAN FIFTY MILES FROM ITS RIGHT OF WAY OPPOSITE ANY PART OF THE
ROAD AND IN ANY STATE TRAVERSED BY THE LINE.  FN39 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT "AGRICULTURAL" MEANS "PRESENTLY
TILLABLE" OR "PRESENTLY FIT FOR THE PLOUGH."  WE AGREE, HOWEVER, WITH
THE MASTER AND THE COURT BELOW THAT THE WORDS "MINERAL" AND
"AGRICULTURAL" AS USED IN THE ACT ARE NOT TO BE READ STRICTLY AS
DEFINED BY THE DICTIONARY.  MINERAL LANDS, AS THE PHRASE HAS BEEN
APPLIED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC LANDS, EMBRACE NOT ONLY THOSE
WHICH THE LEXICON DEFINES AS MINERAL, BUT, IN ADDITION, SUCH AS ARE
VALUABLE FOR DEPOSITS OF MARBLE, SLATE, PETROLEUM, ASPHALTUM, AND EVEN
GUANO.  LIKEWISE, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRE-EMPTION AND HOMESTEAD
LEGISLATION, THE TERMS "AGRICULTURAL" AND "CULTIVATION" HAVE BEEN GIVEN
A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION.  IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD, AND FROM THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, THAT PRE-EMPTORS OR
HOMESTEADERS, UNDER THE ACTS REQUIRING SETTLEMENT AND CULTIVATION AS A
PREREQUISITE TO A PATENT, HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TAKE UP FORESTS, GRAZING
LAND, AND, IN FACT, ALL TYPES OF LAND WHICH, IN GOOD FAITH, WERE SOUGHT
FOR A HOME, PROVIDED THE LANDS COULD, BY THE SETTLER'S EFFORT, BE MADE
HABITABLE AND USED AS A FARM HOME.  THIS HAS BEEN TRUE IN SPITE OF THE
FACT THAT THE APPLICABLE ACTS OF CONGRESS HAVE REQUIRED CULTIVATION AS
A PREREQUISITE TO ACQUISITION BY THE PRE-EMPTOR OR HOMESTEADER.  FN40 

UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, ALTHOUGH LANDS CONTAINING TIMBER
COULD BE TAKEN FOR HOMES IN THE PUBLIC LAND STATES, A CERTAIN PORTION
OF THE LANDS HAD TO BE CLEARED PRELIMINARY TO CULTIVATION.  BUT, THE
PRE-EMPTOR OR HOMESTEADER HAS NOT BEEN PERMITTED TO TAKE UP LANDS
VALUABLE ONLY FOR TIMBER OR FOR STONE OR FOR SOME OTHER USE, WHICH
COULD NOT BE RENDERED CULTIVABLE OR USABLE IN A BROAD SENSE FOR
FARMING, BY CLEARING OR OTHER WORK DONE THEREON.  PURSUANT TO
LEGISLATION ENACTED YEARS AFTER THE GRANTS TO THE COMPANY, LANDS UNFIT
FOR A FARM HOME COULD BE ACQUIRED.  FN41    IT SEEMS TO US THAT
INASMUCH AS THE RAILROAD COMPANY COULD NOT TAKE OTHER MINERAL LANDS IN
LIEU OF MINERAL PLACE LANDS LOST TO THE GRANT AND, IF IT WERE CONFINED
TO NON-MINERAL LANDS, CONTIGUOUS TO THE LOST MINERAL LANDS, IT WOULD
PROBABLY RECEIVE LANDS THEN CONSIDERED OF LITTLE OR NO VALUE, CONGRESS,
BY THE USE OF THE TERM "AGRICULTURAL," AND BY GRANTING THE RIGHT TO
SELECT THE LIEU LANDS ANYWHERE ALONG THE LINE, INTENDED TO GIVE THE
COMPANY THE PRIVILEGE OF TAKING MORE VALUABLE LANDS THAN THOSE WILD
FOREST LANDS CONTIGUOUS TO THE MINERAL PLACE LANDS IN THE WESTERN
MOUNTAIN REGIONS. 

THE TRUTH SEEMS TO BE THAT, IN EXTENDING THIS PRIVILEGE TO SELECT
MORE VALUABLE LANDS, CONGRESS DID NOT HAVE IN MIND A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN "NON-MINERAL" AND "AGRICULTURAL" LANDS, IN THE SENSE THAT THE
COMPANY MUST SELECT THE MORE VALUABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND REFRAIN
FROM TAKING LESS VALUABLE LANDS NON-MINERAL BUT NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF
CULTIVATION.  AS THE MASTER WELL SAYS, AT THE TIME OF THE GRANT
AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN STATES EASTWARD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS WERE FAR
MORE VALUABLE THAN THE ROUGH MOUNTAIN LANDS FARTHER TO THE WEST.  IT IS
REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT, AT THAT TIME, NEITHER CONGRESS NOR THE
COMPANY CONTEMPLATED THE SELECTION OF UNUSABLE MOUNTAIN LANDS RATHER
THAN LANDS ULTIMATELY AVAILABLE FOR AGRICULTURE.  NEVERTHELESS, WE ARE
BOUND TO ATTRIBUTE SOME MEANING TO THE LANGUAGE CONGRESS EMPLOYED.  IT
IS OBVIOUS THAT, BY THE USE OF THE WORD "AGRICULTURAL," THE COMPANY WAS
PRECLUDED FROM SELECTING OTHER MINERAL LANDS IN LIEU OF MINERAL LANDS
LOST IN THE PLACE LIMITS.  WITH MINERAL LANDS THUS EXCLUDED, WE THINK
THE WORD "AGRICULTURAL" IS TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF EXISTING
LEGISLATION AND CONDITIONS. 

WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE WORD "AGRICULTURAL" WAS NOT, THEREFORE,
USED AS SYNONYMOUS WITH "NON-MINERAL" BUT AS SYNONYMOUS WITH "LAND
SUBJECT TO BE TAKEN BY PRE-EMPTORS OR HOMESTEADERS UNDER THE PUBLIC
LAND LAWS."  IT IS CONCEDED THAT MUCH OF THE LAND IN THE FOREST
RESERVES WHICH THE COMPANY CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO SELECT AS MINERAL
INDEMNITY IS NOT SUCH AS COULD HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY INDIVIDUALS UNDER
THE LAND LAWS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF THE GRANT. 

WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT UNTIL THE PUBLIC LANDS WERE SURVEYED THE
COMPANY COULD NOT MAKE SELECTIONS AND THAT, IN THE MEANTIME, UNSURVEYED
LANDS MIGHT BE TAKEN, UNDER THE PRE-EMPTION AND HOMESTEAD LAWS, TO THE
COMPANY'S LOSS OR DETRIMENT.  NO DOUBT IF THE RAILROAD HAD BEEN MORE
PROMPTLY BUILT, AND IF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN MORE ACTIVE IN PAYING FOR
AND PROCURING SURVEYS, GOOD LANDS IN VARIOUS STATES WITHIN THE MINERAL
INDEMNITY BELT WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION.  THESE,
HOWEVER, WERE TAKEN UP AND REMOVED FROM THE COMPANY'S RIGHT OF
SELECTION, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE EXISTING DEFICIENCY IN THE GRANT
MUST BE SATISFIED, IF AT ALL, BY SELECTIONS OF LANDS NOW IN THE FOREST
RESERVES.  BUT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE COMPANY HAS LOST THE RIGHT TO
SELECT THE BETTER LANDS MENTIONED, AND WE CANNOT REWRITE THE STATUTE TO
CONFER UPON IT THE PRIVILEGE OF TAKING LANDS OF A DIFFERENT CHARACTER
THAN THOSE SPECIFIED. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT, WHILE THE COMPANY HAD, AT THE TIME OF WITHDRAWAL,
THE RIGHT OF SELECTION OF ANY LANDS WHICH, UNDER THE EXISTING PRACTICE
OF THE LAND OFFICE, A SETTLER COULD HAVE TAKEN UNDER THE PRE-EMPTION OR
HOMESTEAD LAWS, IT MAY NOT TAKE LANDS VALUABLE SOLELY FOR TIMBER OR FOR
OTHER USES WHICH WOULD NOT JUSTIFY PRE-EMPTION OR HOMESTEAD SETTLEMENT
UNDER THE LAND LAWS AS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY UNDERSTOOD AND ADMINISTERED. 
THE COMPANY'S RIGHT OF SELECTION IN THE FOREST RESERVES IS LIMITED TO
SUCH LAND AS WOULD, UNDER THE PRACTICE OF THE LAND OFFICE, HAVE BEEN
AVAILABLE TO INDIVIDUALS UNDER THE PUBLIC LAND LAWS EITHER FOR CLEARING
AND SUBSEQUENT CULTIVATION, OR FOR GRAZING, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE
COMMONLY CLASSIFIED BY THE LAND OFFICE AS COMING WITHIN THE PRE-EMPTION
AND HOMESTEAD LAWS. 

SINCE THE COURT BELOW HAS ACCORDED THE COMPANY A MUCH BROADER RIGHT
OF SELECTION, ITS DECREE MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE MUST BE
REMANDED FOR ASCERTAINMENT OF THE COMPANY'S SELECTION RIGHTS AS OF THE
DATES OF THE WITHDRAWALS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS HEREIN
EXPRESSED. 

15.  THE CLAIM THAT THE UNITED STATES IS LIABLE TO ACCOUNT TO THE
RAILWAY COMPANY ONLY FOR THE ASCERTAINED DEFICIENCY AT THE TIME OF
WITHDRAWAL. 

IN ITS BRIEF UPON REARGUMENT THE GOVERNMENT TAKES THE POSITION THAT
EVEN IF THE WITHDRAWALS LEFT THE GRANT DEFICIENT IN LANDS LYING IN THE
SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS, THE UNITED STATES IS LIABLE TO ACCOUNT TO THE
RAILWAY COMPANY ONLY FOR THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DEFICIENCY.  THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THAT IF A GIVEN WITHDRAWAL HAD THE EFFECT OF LEAVING WITHIN
THE INDEMNITY LIMITS AN INSUFFICIENT ACREAGE TO SATISFY THE SELECTION
RIGHTS OF THE COMPANY THE WITHDRAWAL WAS A BREACH OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
OBLIGATION BECAUSE THEREBY THE GOVERNMENT DISENABLED ITSELF TO CARRY
OUT THAT OBLIGATION.  THE CONSEQUENCE WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT ATTACHED
TO SUCH ACTION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT WAS THAT THE LANDS
WITHDRAWN WERE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE WITHDRAWAL, STILL OPEN TO SELECTION
BY THE COMPANY IF AND WHEN SURVEYED.  THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT, AS
THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE GRANT, TO EXERCISE ITS
SELECTION RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE WITHDRAWN LANDS IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACT OF 1929 CONTEMPLATED THAT IT SHOULD BE
COMPENSATED FOR THE DEPRIVATION OF THAT RIGHT. 

WE THINK THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS RIGHT AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION THAT IT IS LIABLE TO ACCOUNT ONLY FOR ANY DEFICIENCY IN THE
VACANT LANDS AT THE TIME OF WITHDRAWAL IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE
GRANTING ACT OF 1864.  THE FOREST RESERVE CASE, SUPRA, SUPPORTS THE
DECISION BELOW.  IT IS CLEARLY THERE HELD THAT IF, BY THE GOVERNMENT'S
OWN ACT IN WITHDRAWING LANDS FROM THE INDEMNITY LIMITS, IT LEAVES
INSUFFICIENT VACANT LAND AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION THE COMPANY THEREBY
BECOMES ENTITLED TO SELECT LANDS WITHIN THE INDEMNITY LIMITS.  THAT IS
EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE BY THE COMPANY WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE LITIGATION
IN THE FOREST RESERVE CASE.  THE DECISION IS CLEAR TO THE EFFECT THAT,
ASSUMING THE GRANT WAS DEFICIENT (WHICH WAS THE MATTER THE COURT COULD
NOT DETERMINE ON THE RECORD THEN PRESENTED), THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED
TO SELECT LANDS WITHIN THE RESERVE. 

16.  THE CLAIM THAT SUBSEQUENT RESTORATIONS OF WITHDRAWN LANDS DEFEAT
THE COMPANY'S RIGHT OF SELECTION OF LANDS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENTAL
WITHDRAWALS. 

WHAT HAS JUST BEEN SAID REQUIRES DENIAL OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION THAT WHERE WITHDRAWN LANDS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY RESTORED TO THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN, IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY
CREATED BY THE ORIGINAL WITHDRAWAL, THE COMPANY'S CLAIM TO CHOOSE LANDS
WITHIN THE WITHDRAWAL AREAS WAS THEREBY DEFEATED. 

UNDER THE ACT OF 1929 THE COMPANY'S RIGHT TO COMPENSATION DEPENDS
UPON THE AVAILABILITY OF LANDS ON THE DATES OF WITHDRAWALS FOR
GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES.  THIS PROVISION OF THE ACT OF 1929 IS, WE THINK,
IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE GRANTING ACT
AND RESOLUTION.  IF, BY THE WITHDRAWALS, THE GOVERNMENT DISENABLED
ITSELF TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS TO THE COMPANY, THE WITHDRAWALS
WERE UNAUTHORIZED AND THE COMPANY'S RIGHT ATTACHED TO THE WITHDRAWN
LANDS EQUALLY WITH THE VACANT LANDS REMAINING IN THE INDEMNITY LIMITS. 

17.  THE ILLEGAL WITHDRAWALS OF PLACE AND INDEMNITY LANDS. 

AS HAS BEEN NOTED UNDER HEADING 5, SUPRA, THE ACTION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IN PREMATURELY WITHDRAWING LANDS IN THE
PLACE AND INDEMNITY LIMITS FROM SETTLEMENT AND PRE-EMPTION IS CLAIMED
TO HAVE THE EFFECT OF DENYING THE COMPANY ANY FURTHER RIGHTS UNDER THE
GRANTS. 

THE FURTHER ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE COMPANY IS
LIABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR DAMAGES CONSEQUENT UPON ITS RECEIVING
LANDS WHICH, IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR THE IMPROVIDENT WITHDRAWALS, WOULD
HAVE GONE TO SETTLERS AND PRE-EMPTORS.  THE CLAIM IS THAT THE COURT
BELOW SHOULD HAVE PERMITTED THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ANY DAMAGES IT
MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHOW AS A RESULT OF THIS INCORRECT ADMINISTRATION OF
THE GRANT.  A MAJORITY OF THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT A GOOD
GROUND FOR A CREDIT IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE COMPANY
IS SET UP BY PARAGRAPH XXXII OF THE BILL AND THAT THIS PARAGRAPH IS
NOT, IN THIS ASPECT, SUBJECT TO THE MOTION TO STRIKE. 

THE PARAGRAPH SETS UP THE DISADVANTAGES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
ACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN WITHDRAWING LANDS
PREMATURELY; THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE THE COMPANY AND ITS PREDECESSOR
SECURED BENEFITS, LANDS AND VALUES TO WHICH THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED, TO
THE INJURY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT THINKS THAT SECTION SIX OF THE ACT OF 1929
REQUIRES A CHARGE AGAINST THE COMPANY FOR SUMS RECEIVED IN LANDS OR
VALUES IN EXCESS OF THAT TO WHICH IT WAS RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED THROUGH
MISTAKE OF LAW OR FACT, OR THROUGH MISAPPREHENSION AS TO THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF SAID GRANTS, OR AS A RESULT OF FRAUD, OR OTHERWISE. 

THE PROOF OF THESE ALLEGED ADVANTAGES GAINED OR LOSSES SUFFERED MAY
BE DIFFICULT.  THIS IS FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THE HEARING.  THE PROOF,
HOWEVER, MUST BE OF FINANCIAL DETERIMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OR OF
FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE COMPANY. 

18.  THE COMPANY'S FAILURE TO OPEN LANDS GRANTED BY THE RESOLUTION OF
1870 TO SETTLEMENT AND PRE-EMPTION. 

THE COMPANY'S ALLEGED BREACH IN THIS ASPECT AS A DEFENSE TO THE
COMPANY'S ENTIRE CLAIM IS MENTIONED IN HEADING 4, SUPRA. 

THE BILL ALLEGES, IN PARAGRAPH XIII, THE COMPANY'S FAILURE TO OPEN
THE GRANTED LANDS TO SETTLEMENT AND PREEMPTION WAS A BREACH OF ITS
CONTRACT AND "IN DEFEAT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT
TO THE DISPOSITION OF ITS PUBLIC DOMAIN,  ...  "  IN PARAGRAPH XLII THE
COURT IS ASKED TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMPANY HAS FAILED
TO COMPLY WITH THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION
PERTAINING TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE LANDS BY SETTLEMENT AND PRE
EMPTION AND TO DECREE THAT THE COMPANY NOW PERFORM ITS COVENANT TO THE
EXTENT THIS IS POSSIBLE AND, WHERE IT IS FOUND IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
COMPANY TO PERFORM, THE PLAINTIFF HAVE SUCH RELIEF AS THE COURT MAY
DEEM PROPER; AND FURTHER THAT THE COURT DECREE THAT ANY AND ALL MONEYS
RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY FROM OR BY REASON OF THE GRANTED LANDS AFTER
THE BREACH OF ITS COVENANT BE DECLARED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE
COMPANY IN TRUST FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT
THE PLAINTIFF BE AWARDED JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT OF SUCH MONEYS.  THE
PRAYER IS, THEREFORE, IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR DAMAGES OR FOR AN
ACCOUNTING, AS UPON A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST. 

WE HOLD, CONTRARY TO THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSERTION, THAT THE PROVISO OF
THE RESOLUTION OF 1870, REQUIRING THAT THE LANDS BE OPENED BY THE
COMPANY TO SETTLEMENT AND PREEMPTION APPLIES ONLY TO THE ADDITIONAL
LANDS GRANTED BY THAT RESOLUTION AND NOT TO LANDS ACQUIRED UNDER THE
GRANT OF 1864.  FN42  WE HOLD FURTHER THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT A
TRUSTEE OF THE LANDS FOR THE UNITED STATES EITHER IN ITS OWN RIGHT OR
IN BEHALF OF POSSIBLE SETTLERS.  FN43  IT RESULTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT
CANNOT CALL UPON THE COMPANY TO ACCOUNT AS A TRUSTEE FOR THE PROCEEDS
OF SALE OF THE LANDS. 

A MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES WHO HEARD THIS CASE ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE PROVISO OF THE RESOLUTION OF 1870 REQUIRED THE COMPANY TO OPEN THE
LANDS GRANTED BY THE RESOLUTION TO PRE-EMPTION AND SETTLEMENT AT THE
EXPIRATION OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE COMPLETION OF THE ENTIRE ROAD IN
1887, WHETHER THE LANDS WERE THEN SUBJECT TO MORTGAGE OR NOT; THAT ITS
FAILURE SO TO DO WAS A BREACH OF ITS CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES
AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED, IF IT CAN, TO PROVE ANY DAMAGE TO
IT, OR ADVANTAGE TO THE COMPANY, WHICH RESULTED FROM THIS BREACH OF
CONTRACT.  IN THIS VIEW THE COURT BELOW SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED
PARAGRAPH XIII OF THE BILL AND THAT PARAGRAPH SHOULD BE REINSTATED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PERMITTING THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE DAMAGES AND PROOF
SHOULD BE SUBMITTED THEREUNDER TO THAT END. 

19.  THE CLAIM THAT THE DECREE BELOW IN DIRECTING PATENTS TO ISSUE
FOR 428,986.68 ACRES OF LAND OUTSIDE THE RESERVES WAS ERRONEOUS TO THE
EXTENT OF 44,838.60 ACRES OF INDEMNITY LANDS. 

IN ITS BRIEF UPON REARGUMENT, THE GOVERNMENT ADVANCES THE CLAIM THAT
THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT QUIETING THE COMPANY'S TITLE TO
428,986.68 ACRES OF LAND LYING OUTSIDE THE RESERVES, AND DIRECTING THAT
PATENTS ISSUE UPON PAYMENT OF ANY BALANCE OF FEES DUE BY THE COMPANY,
WAS ERRONEOUS AS TO 44,838.60 ACRES.  IT IS ASSERTED THAT 383,808.08 OF
THE ACRES IN QUESTION LIE WITHIN THE PLACE LIMITS OF THE GRANT BUT
45,178.60 ACRES LIE WITHIN INDEMNITY LIMITS.  OF THESE THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDES THAT, BY A STIPULATION FILED, 340 ACRES ARE TO BE PATENTED TO
THE COMPANY.  AS TO THE REMAINING ACREAGE, THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE
COMPANY IS NOT ENTITLED TO PATENTS, ALTHOUGH SELECTIONS WERE FILED WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, PRIOR TO JUNE 5, 1924. 

IT IS SAID THAT, ON GROUNDS HERETOFORE STATED, THE COMPANY'S BREACHES
DISENTITLE IT TO FURTHER PERFORMANCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
AND, IT IS URGED THAT, AS TO OVER 30,000 ACRES OF THE LANDS IN
QUESTION, THE COMPANY ASSIGNED LOSSES OF MINERAL LANDS AS BASE FOR
INDEMNITY SELECTION AND THE ALLEGED FRAUD IN MINERAL CLASSIFICATION
VITIATES THE SELECTION OF THIS ACREAGE AS INDEMNITY.  THE GOVERNMENT
ALSO ASSERTS THAT SOME 13,000 ACRES OF LANDS SELECTED FOR PATENT PRIOR
TO THE BAR DATE ARE INDIAN LANDS WITHIN THE CROW RESERVATION.  THE
FIRST CONTENTION CANNOT PREVAIL IN VIEW OF THE EVEN DIVISION OF OPINION
ALREADY STATED; THE SECOND CANNOT, SINCE THE BILL PRAYS NO AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE FRAUDULENT CLASSIFICATION IT ALLEGES; THE
THIRD CANNOT, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISION STATED UNDER HEADING 10,
SUPRA.    SECONDLY, THE GOVERNMENT URGES, SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
HELD THAT, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION FOR THE DEPRIVATION OF
RIGHTS TO SELECT LANDS LYING WITHIN THE WITHDRAWN GOVERNMENT RESERVES,
THE COMPANY MUST ASSIGN BASE FOR THE LANDS SELECTED AS TO WHICH
COMPENSATION IS CLAIMED, THE SAME PRINCIPLE MUST APPLY TO SELECTION
RIGHTS EXERCISED PRIOR TO THE RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1924.  IT ADDS THAT
THE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT IN SELECTING LANDS WITHIN THE
INDEMNITY LIMITS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THAT RESOLUTION IT ASSIGNED BASE
FOR SUCH SELECTIONS, TO WHICH THE COMPANY REPLIES THAT THE GOVERNMENT
IS IN ERROR IN ASSERTING THAT IT DID NOT ASSIGN SUCH BASE. 

THE ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SELECTED INDEMNITY LANDS, WHICH THE
DISTRICT COURT DECREED SHOULD BE PATENTED TO THE COMPANY, FIRST EMERGED
IN THIS COURT ON REARGUMENT.  IN ITS ORIGINAL BRIEF THE GOVERNMENT
SAID: 

"THE DECREE QUIETS TITLE TO THE LANDS FROM THE INDEMNITY BELTS
RETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE FOREST RESERVES AND OTHER RESERVES
AND DIRECTS THE ISSUANCE OF PATENTS TO THE COMPANY FOR 428,986.68
ACRES, MOSTLY IN PLACE LIMITS OF THE GRANTS.  IN THESE AND SEVERAL
OTHER RESPECTS THE DECREE IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEAL." 

IT IS NOW SAID THAT, DESPITE THIS CONCESSION, THE POINT WAS PRESERVED
IN THE RECORD BELOW AND IS OPEN HERE.  WE CANNOT AGREE. 

BY ITS EXHIBITS NOS. 149 TO 158, INCLUSIVE, THE COMPANY LISTED THE
LANDS IN PLACE AND INDEMNITY LIMITS WHICH HAD BEEN SELECTED FOR PATENT
AMOUNTING TO OVER 455,000 ACRES.  BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES CERTAIN
OF THESE WERE ELIMINATED.  THEREAFTER THE GOVERNMENT, BY ITS EXHIBITS
NOS. 103(REVISED) AND 210(REVISED) LISTED THE REMAINING LANDS AS
CHARGEABLE TO THE GRANT.  WITH NEGLIGIBLE EXCEPTIONS THE MASTER FOUND
THAT THEY WERE SO CHARGEABLE.  IN ITS FINDINGS THE DISTRICT COURT
ADOPTED THE MASTER'S RULING AND STATED DEFINITELY IN ITS FINDINGS THAT
THE PLAINTIFF TOOK NO EXCEPTION TO THE MASTER'S REPORT IN CONNECTION
WITH THIS MATTER.  THE COURT FOUND, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE
MASTER'S REPORT, THAT THE TOTAL OF THE LANDS BOTH IN PLACE AND
INDEMNITY LIMITS SO SELECTED BY THE COMPANY SHOULD GO TO PATENT.  THE
GOVERNMENT, WHILE NOT CONTROVERTING THE FACT FOUND BY THE COURT THAT IT
HAD TAKEN NO EXCEPTION TO THIS PORTION OF THE MASTER'S REPORT, POINTS
TO AN ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR FILED ON THE APPEAL TO THIS COURT ASSERTING
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED:  "52.  IN HOLDING THAT THE RAILROAD IS
NOW ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PATENT TO ANY OF THE INDEMNITY LANDS MENTIONED
OR REFERRED TO IN SUBDIVISION XVIII OF THE COURT'S FINDINGS." 
SUBDIVISION XVIII IS THAT SUBDIVISION OF THE FINDINGS IN WHICH THE
COURT DEALT WITH THE WHOLE MATTER OF PATENTS TO BE ISSUED FOR LANDS
SELECTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION OF 1924 AND DOES NOT
DEAL SPECIFICALLY OR SEPARATELY WITH INDEMNITY LANDS AS CONTRASTED WITH
PLACE LANDS. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT SUSTAINING THE
GOVERNMENT'S POSITION THAT, IN THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF
INDEMNITY SELECTION RIGHTS TO LANDS WITHIN THE RESERVES THE COMPANY
MUST ASSIGN BASE FOR THE LANDS IT ALLEGED IT LOST BY THEIR WITHDRAWAL,
FURNISHES NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CLAIM THAT THE MASTER OR THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS ASKED TO ANNUL AND HOLD INEFFECTUAL SELECTION RIGHTS
EXERCISED WITH RESPECT TO LANDS OUTSIDE THE RESERVES WHICH, BUT FOR THE
INTERPOSITION OF CONGRESS IN THE RESOLUTION OF 1924, WOULD HAVE GONE TO
PATENT.  MOREOVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD WHETHER THE COMPANY
DID IN FACT ASSIGN BASE IN THE LISTS OF SELECTION RIGHTS FILED, OR
FAILED TO DO SO.  THE IMPLICATION FROM THE RECORD SEEMS TO BE THAT THE
COMPANY DID ASSIGN SUCH BASE.  IN ANY EVENT, WE THINK THE POINT WAS NOT
BROUGHT TO THE MASTER'S OR THE COURT'S ATTENTION IN ANY SUCH MANNER AS
TO JUSTIFY ITS BEING MADE THE BASIS OF A CLAIM OF ERROR IN THIS COURT. 
THIS MUST HAVE BEEN THE GOVERNMENT'S VIEW WHEN THE CASE WAS FIRST
ARGUED.  IN THE LIGHT OF ITS SWEEPING CONCESSION ABOVE QUOTED, AND THE
STATE OF THE RECORD, WE ARE UNWILLING TO DISTURB THE DISTRICT COURT'S
DECREE AS RESPECTS LANDS TO BE PATENTED TO THE COMPANY. 

20.  THE COMPANY'S CLAIM TO INDEMNITY RESULTING FROM THE TACOMA
OVERLAP. 

IN ITS APPEAL (NO. 4) THE COMPANY CHALLENGES THE REJECTION OF ITS
CLAIM FOR LOSS OF SELECTION RIGHTS IN SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS
APPURTENANT TO THE PORTLAND-TACOMA LINE.  IT IS URGED THAT THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OF 1870, WHICH MADE A GRANT IN AID OF THIS LINE, AUTHORIZED
THE CREATION OF SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE WAS A
DEFICIENCY OF LANDS IN FIRST INDEMNITY LIMITS, TO SUPPLY LOSS OF PLACE
LANDS LYING ALONG THE ROUTE.  THE COMPANY INSISTS THAT WHEN, IN 1898,
1902 AND 1906, 213,000 ACRES OF LAND WERE WITHDRAWN AND PLACED IN
NATIONAL FORESTS, THESE WITHDRAWALS DEPRIVED THE COMPANY OF SELECTION
OF ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS IN SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS, AS THE 1870 GRANT
WAS DEFICIENT IN 1882, THE DATE OF THE DEFINITE LOCATION OF THE LAST
SEGMENT OF THE PORTLAND-TACOMA LINE, AND SO REMAINED. 

FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTENTION CERTAIN FACTS MUST BE BORNE IN
MIND.  BY THE ACT OF 1864 THE LINE AUTHORIZED WAS TO RUN FROM A POINT
ON LAKE SUPERIOR TO SOME POINT ON PUGET SOUND, WITH A BRANCH VIA THE
COLUMBIA RIVER TO A POINT AT OR NEAR PORTLAND.  BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION
OF 1870 THE COMPANY WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONSTRUCT ITS MAIN LINE TO A
POINT ON PUGET SOUND VIA THE VALLEY OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER WITH THE
RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT ITS BRANCH FROM A POINT ON ITS MAIN LINE, ACROSS THE
CASCADE MOUNTAINS TO PUGET SOUND.  THUS THE RESOLUTION ALTERED WHAT HAD
BEEN THE PROPOSED MAIN LINE ACROSS THE CASCADE MOUNTAINS INTO A BRANCH
LINE, AND THE FORMER BRANCH LINE TO PORTLAND INTO A SECTION OF THE MAIN
LINE RUNNING DOWN THE COLUMBIA RIVER TO PORTLAND AND THENCE TURNING
NORTH TO PUGET SOUND.  ALTHOUGH BY AN ACT OF 1869 THE COMPANY HAD BEEN
AUTHORIZED TO CONSTRUCT A LINE BETWEEN PORTLAND AND TACOMA, AND A RIGHT
OF WAY HAD BEEN GRANTED THEREFOR, NO GRANT OF LANDS IN AID OF SUCH
CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE UNTIL THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION OF 1870. 
THAT RESOLUTION IN AUTHORIZING THE LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS
PORTION OF THE COMPANY'S ROAD, DID SO IN THESE WORDS:  "UNDER THE
PROVISIONS AND WITH THE PRIVILEGES, GRANTS, AND DUTIES PROVIDED FOR IN
ITS ACT OF INCORPORATION."  OBVIOUSLY THE LAND GRANT WAS THE SAME AS
THAT IN THE CHARTER ACT, NAMELY, PLACE LANDS IN A STRIP EXTENDING
TWENTY MILES ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROAD IN STATES AND FORTY MILES ON EACH
SIDE IN TERRITORIES, WITH AN INDEMNITY BELT TEN MILES IN WIDTH ON
EITHER SIDE OF THE EXTERIOR LIMITS OF THE PLACE GRANT. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE RESOLUTION SHOWS THAT CONGRESS WAS
INFORMED THE COMPANY COULD NOT OBTAIN, IN CONNECTION WITH ITS ORIGINAL
GRANT, ALL THAT CONGRESS INTENDED IT SHOULD HAVE, FOR THE REASON THAT,
PRIOR TO SELECTION OF INDEMNITY LANDS FOR LOSSES IN PLACE LANDS, MUCH
TERRITORY HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT BY PRE-EMPTION
AND SETTLEMENT UNDER THE LAND LAWS.  IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE THE COMPANY
FOR SUCH LOSSES THERE WAS INSERTED IN THE JOINT RESOLUTION THE
FOLLOWING:  "AND IN THE EVENT OF THERE NOT BEING IN ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY IN WHICH SAID MAIN LINE OR BRANCH MAY BE LOCATED, AT THE TIME
OF THE FINAL LOCATION THEREOF, THE AMOUNT OF LANDS PER MILE GRANTED BY
CONGRESS TO SAID COMPANY, WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY ITS CHARTER,
THEN SAID COMPANY SHALL BE ENTITLED, UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, TO RECEIVE SO MANY SECTIONS OF LAND
BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES, AND DESIGNATED BY ODD NUMBERS, IN SUCH
STATE OR TERRITORY, WITHIN TEN MILES ON EACH SIDE OF SAID ROAD, BEYOND
THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED IN SAID CHARTER, AS WILL MAKE UP SUCH DEFICIENCY,
ON SAID MAIN LINE OR BRANCH, EXCEPT MINERAL AND OTHER LANDS AS EXCEPTED
IN THE CHARTER OF SAID COMPANY  ...  TO THE AMOUNT OF THE LANDS THAT
HAVE BEEN GRANTED, SOLD, RESERVED, OCCUPIED BY HOMESTEAD SETTLERS, PRE
EMPTED, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT
OF JULY TWO, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR." 

THE RESOLUTION MADE A NEW GRANT IN AID OF THE PORTLAND-TACOMA LINE. 
FN44  THE PORTION OF THE CASCADE BRANCH (DESIGNATED AS MAIN LINE IN THE
ACT OF 1864) ENTERING TACOMA FROM THE EAST WAS DEFINITELY LOCATED IN
1884.  THIS LOCATION DEFINED THE PLACE LANDS GRANTED BY THE ACT OF
1864.  THE LINE AUTHORIZED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION ENTERING TACOMA FROM
THE SOUTH WAS DEFINITELY LOCATED IN 1874, THUS EARNING THE GRANT MADE
BY THE RESOLUTION.  THE PLACE LIMITS FORTY MILES WIDE TO THE SOUTH OF
THE CASCADE LINE, AND OF EQUAL WIDTH TO THE EAST OF THE PORTLAND-TACOMA
LINE, OVERLAP.  THE AREA OF THE OVERLAP, APPROXIMATELY FORTY MILES
SQUARE, CONTAINS ALTERNATE SECTIONS TOTALING 637,580 ACRES.  THE
COMPANY SAYS THAT, UNDER THE 1864 GRANT PURSUANT TO WHICH THE CASCADE
LINE WAS BUILT, TITLE TO THE PLACE LANDS VESTED IN THE COMPANY ON THE
DATE OF DEFINITE LOCATION, AS OF THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL GRANT; THAT
THESE LANDS WERE THUS LOST TO THE GRANT OF 1870 APPURTENANT TO THE
PORTLAND-TACOMA LINE; AND THAT, THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY
FOR THEM.  IF THIS IS THE RIGHT VIEW, 637,580 ACRES MUST BE ADDED TO
THE OTHER LOSSES FOR WHICH INDEMNITY WAS NEEDED AT THE DATE OF THE
FOREST WITHDRAWALS AND THUS THE DEFICIENCY IN THE GRANT REQUIRED A
LARGE QUANTITY OF LANDS IN SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS THROUGH THE
WITHDRAWN LANDS, IF ANY SUCH LIMITS WERE CREATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
1870 GRANT.  THE LAND OFFICE CONSTRUED THE RESOLUTION OF 1870 AS
REQUIRING THE LAYING DOWN OF SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS FOR THE PORTLAND
TACOMA LINE, AND LAID THEM DOWN IN 1906.  THE MASTER AND THE COURT
BELOW CONCLUDED THAT NO PLACE LANDS WERE LOST TO THE 1870 GRANT BY THE
OVERLAP.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THEY WERE RIGHT. 

SEVERAL DECISIONS RESPECTING OVERLAPS OF RAILROAD LAND GRANTS ARE
CITED BUT NONE IS PRECISELY IN POINT.  IT SEEMS TO BE CONCEDED THAT IF
THE CASCADE BRANCH AND THE PORTLAND-TACOMA LINE HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY
THE SAME ACT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN BUT A SINGLE GRANT OF ODD-NUMBERED
INDEMNITY AS FOR A GRANT OF DOUBLE AID IN THE AREA.  FN45  AND IT IS
SETTLED THAT SUCH A GRANT AS THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A GRANT NOT OF
LANDS BY QUANTITY BUT OF LANDS IN PLACE OR BY DESCRIPTION.  FN46
WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED, IN CONNECTION WITH ITS LATER GRANT OF 1870,
TO ACCORD THE COMPANY INDEMNITY FOR FAILURE TO RECEIVE, IN AID OF THE
PORTLAND-TACOMA LINE, LANDS TO WHICH IT WOULD GET TITLE IN VIRTUE OF
ITS DEFINITE LOCATION OF THE CASCADE LINE, IS THE QUESTION.  WE
CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT SO INTEND. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE GRANT OF 1870 WAS UPON THE SAME TERMS AS THAT OF
1864.  UNQUESTIONABLY THE COMPANY, IN RESPECT OF THE LINE BUILT UNDER
THE LATER GRANT, WAS ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY FOR LANDS GRANTED OR
DISPOSED OF BY THE UNITED STATES TO OTHERS PRIOR TO THE GRANT.  INDEED,
IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY FOR LOSS DUE TO AN EARLIER
OVERLAPPING GRANT TO ANOTHER RAILROAD.  FN47  THE GRANT OF 1864,
CARRIED TITLE TO THE LANDS WITHIN THE OVERLAP TO THE COMPANY AND,
THEREFORE, CONGRESS COULD NOT AND DID NOT MAKE A SECOND GRANT OF THE
SAME LANDS IN 1870.  DID CONGRESS INTEND TO GRANT THE COMPANY INDEMNITY
FOR A PRECEDING GRANT, NOT TO A STRANGER, BUT TO THE COMPANY ITSELF? 
IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT IF THE GRANTS HAD
BEEN CONTEMPORANEOUS NO INTENT TO MAKE A DOUBLE GRANT, OR A GRANT OF
INDEMNITY, WOULD BE INFERRED, AND THAT THE TWO GRANTS HERE IN QUESTION
REALLY DEALT WITH BUT A SINGLE RAILROAD SYSTEM.  WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO CONFER A RIGHT TO INDEMNITY UPON THE COMPANY
WHICH WOULD GIVE IT LANDS DOUBLE IN QUANTITY AT THE POINT OF
INTERSECTION OF TWO OF ITS LINES.  AS, IN THIS VIEW, THE ALTERNATE
1864, WERE NOT A LOSS TO THE GRANT TO THE PORTLAND-TACOMA LINE MADE BY
THE RESOLUTION OF 1870, THE LATTER GRANT WAS NOT DEFICIENT AND NO RIGHT
TO SELECT LANDS IN SECOND INDEMNITY LIMITS WAS INFRINGED BY GOVERNMENT
WITHDRAWALS. 

THE APPEAL IN NO. 4 IS WITHOUT MERIT, BUT, UPON THE APPEAL IN NO. 3,
THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS AS INDICATED IN THIS OPINION.  NO. 4, DISMISSED.  NO. 3,
REVERSED. 

FN1  13 STAT. 365. 

FN2  14 STAT. 355; 15 STAT. 255. 

FN3  15 STAT. 346. 

FN4  16 STAT. 57. 

FN5  JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY 31, 1870, 16 STAT. 378. 

FN6  ST. PAUL & PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 139 U.S.
1, 5. 

FN7  PAYNE V. CENTRAL PACIFIC RY. CO., 255 U.S. 228, 236. 

FN8 28 STAT. 683. 

FN9  26 STAT. 1095, 1103; 16 U.S.C. 471. 

FN10  NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. LANE, 46 APP. D.C. 434. 

FN11  UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 256 U.S. 51. 

FN12  43 STAT. 461. 

FN13  S. REP. NO. 5, 71ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN14  46 STAT. 41. 

FN15  49 STAT. 1369. 

FN16  NELSON V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 188 U.S. 108, 116-117. 

FN17  HEWITT V. SCHULTZ, 180 U.S. 139. 

FN18  ATLANTIC & PACIFIC R. CO., 17 L.D. 313; NORTHERN PACIFIC R.
CO., 20 L.D. 187; SAWYER V. GRAY, 205 F. 160, 163; DOUGLASS V. RHODES,
280 F. 230, 231; COX V. HART, 260 U.S. 427, 436. 

FN19  HEWITT V. SCHULTZ, 180 U.S. 139; SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V.
BELL, 183 U.S. 675. 

FN20  256 U.S. 51, 66, 67. 

FN21  ATLANTIC & PACIFIC R. CO., 17 L.D. 313; NORTHERN PACIFIC R.
CO., 20 L.D. 187, 190. 

FN22  HEWITT V. SCHULTZ, 180 U.S. 139, 152; UNITED STATES V. MONTANA
LUMBER & MFG. CO., 196 U.S. 573, 578; UNITED STATES V. MORRISON, 240
U.S. 192, 200; COX V. HART, 260 U.S. 427; SAWYER V. GRAY, 205 F. 160,
163; DOUGLASS V. RHODES, 280 F. 230, 231; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
LANE, 46 APP. D.C. 434.    FN23  C. 561, SEC. 4, 26 STAT. 1097. 

FN24  IV KAPPLER, 1065; 11 STAT. 657. 

FN25  4 STAT. 729. 

FN26  BEECHER V. WETHERBY, 95 U.S. 517; BUTTZ V. NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD, 119 U.S. 55; BARDON V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 145 U.S. 535,
542; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. ROBERTS, 152 U.S. 114, 117; CLAIRMONT
V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 551, 556. 

FN27  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1893, C. 209, 27 STAT. 612, 631. 

FN28  SUPRA, P. 346. 

FN29  TREATY OF MAY 7, 1868, 15 STAT. 649. 

FN30  SUPRA, NOTE 24. 

FN31  C. 459, 44 STAT. 690. 

FN32  SUPRA, NOTE 8. 

FN33  IT IS TRUE THAT IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE GRANT THE LAND OFFICE
APPROVED SELECTIONS UPON AFFIDAVIT MERELY THAT THE CHOSEN LANDS WERE
"NON-MINERAL"; BUT APPARENTLY THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT PHRASE WAS
SYNONYMOUS WITH "AGRICULTURAL" WAS NOT RAISED OR CONSIDERED.  WE THINK
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, THEREFORE, DOES NOT STRENGTHEN THE
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT.  MOREOVER, CONGRESS HAS NOT APPROVED THE PRACTICE,
BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, HAS DIRECTED THAT ERRORS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE GRANT SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE COURT'S DECREE. 

FN34  14 STAT. 292, 294. 

FN35  16 STAT. 573, 576. 

FN36  CF. S. 65, 35TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 411, 35TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN37  CONG. GLOBE, 38TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3290. 

FN38  CONG. GLOBE, 38TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 3459. 

FN39  OP. A.G. 498, 41 L.D. 571; SESSEY V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO.,
43 L.D. 302.  THE PRACTICE OF THE LAND OFFICE HAS BEEN UNIFORM IN
PERMITTING SELECTION OF MINERAL LIEU LANDS IN ANY STATE IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE STATE OF LOSS.  THE SAME PRINCIPLE HAS GOVERNED THE RIGHT OF
SELECTION OF FIRST INDEMNITY LANDS FOR LOSSES OTHER THAN MINERAL.  19
OP. A.G. 88, 94; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 20 L.D. 187; NORTHERN PACIFIC
R. CO. V. SHEPHERDSON, 24 L.D. 417; HAGEN V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO.,
26 L.D. 312. 

FN40  ACT OF JUNE 19, 1834, C. 54, 4 STAT. 678; ACT OF JUNE 22, 1838,
C. 119, 5 STAT. 251; ACT OF AUGUST 4, 1842, C. 122, 5 STAT. 502; ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1843, C. 86, 5 STAT. 619, 621; ACT OF MAY 20, 1862, C. 75, 12
STAT. 392; R.S. SEC. 2291, 43 U.S.C. SEC. 164. 

FN41  TIMBER AND STONE ACT, JUNE 3, 1878, C. 151, 20 STAT. 89; DESERT
LAND ACT, MARCH 3, 1877, C. 107, 19 STAT. 377.  THE LATTER ACT EXCLUDED
BOTH MINERAL AND FORST LANDS FROM ITS OPERATION. 

FN42  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS CONVINCING:  SEE CONG. GLOBE, 41ST
CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 2480-85; 2569-84. 

FN43  COMPARE OREGON & CALIFORNIA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S.
393, 431-436. 

FN44  UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 152 U.S. 284;
NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. DELACEY, 174 U.S. 622; UNITED STATES V.
NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 193 U.S. 1. 

FN45  SEE UNITED STATES V. OREGON & CALIFORNIA R. CO., 164 U.S. 526,
537. 

FN46  WINONA & ST. PETER R. CO. V. BARNEY, 113 U.S. 618, 627; BARNEY
V. WINONA & ST. PETER R. CO., 117 U.S. 228, 231-2; CF. WISCONSIN
CENTRAL R. CO. V. FORSYTHE, 159 U.S. 46, 59-60. 

FN47  UNITED STATES V. OREGON & CALIFORNIA R. CO., 176 U.S. 28, 50. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













U.S. V. APPALACHIAN POWER CO., 311 U.S. 377 


NO. 12.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 15, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 16, 1940.  -
107 F.2D 769, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW OF A CASE INVOLVING THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL COMMERCE
POWER IN RELATION TO LICENSING BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION OF A
HYDROELECTRIC DAM, THIS COURT MAY DETERMINE FOR ITSELF WHETHER A
PARTICULAR WATERWAY IS A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IT
IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE RULE THAT FACTUAL FINDINGS CONCURRED IN BY TWO
COURTS BELOW WILL BE ACCEPTED HERE UNLESS CLEAR ERROR IS SHOWN.  P.
403. 

2.  THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR WATERWAY IS A
NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS TO BE
APPLIED IN MAKING THE DETERMINATION, INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF LAW
INSEPARABLE FROM THE PARTICULAR FACTS TO WHICH THEY ARE APPLIED.  P.
404. 

3.  A WATERWAY WHICH BY REASONABLE IMPROVEMENT CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE
FOR NAVIGATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE
UNITED STATES, PROVIDED THERE BE A BALANCE BETWEEN COST AND NEED AT A
TIME WHEN THE IMPROVEMENT WOULD BE USEFUL.  P. 407. 

4.  IN SUCH CASE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE IMPROVEMENT SHALL HAVE
BEEN ALREADY UNDERTAKEN OR COMPLETED NOR EVEN THAT IT SHALL HAVE BEEN
AUTHORIZED.  P. 408. 

5.  A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT LOSE THAT
CHARACTER BECAUSE ITS USE FOR NAVIGATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS
LESSENED OR CEASED.  PP. 408, 409. 

6.  A WATERWAY MAY BE A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES FOR A
PART ONLY OF ITS COURSE.  P. 410. 

7.  LACK OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CLASSIFICATION
OF A WATERWAY AS A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE PERSONAL
OR PRIVATE USE BY BOATS DEMONSTRATES ITS AVAILABILITY FOR THE SIMPLER
TYPES OF COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION.  P. 416. 

8.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HELD THAT THE NEW RIVER, FROM
ALLISONIA, VIRGINIA, TO HINTON, WEST VIRGINIA, IS A NAVIGABLE WATER OF
THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 410, 418-419. 

9.  IT IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO REQUIRE THAT
A FEDERAL LICENSE BE OBTAINED FOR THE ERECTION OR MAINTENANCE OF A
STRUCTURE IN A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES, EVEN THOUGH THE
SOLE PURPOSE OF THE STRUCTURE BE THE GENERATION OF ELECTRIC POWER.  PP.
424, 426. 

10.  THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES IS NOT LIMITED TO CONTROL FOR THE PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION ONLY,
BUT IS AS BROAD AS THE NEEDS OF COMMERCE.  P. 426. 

11.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OVER A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE
UNITED STATES, CONGRESS MAY FORBID THE PLACING OF AN OBSTRUCTION
THEREIN, OR MAY GRANT THE PRIVILEGE ON SUCH TERMS AS IT CHOOSES; AND IT
IS NO OBJECTION THAT ITS EXERCISE OF POWER IN THIS RESPECT IS ATTENDED
BY THE SAME INCIDENTS WHICH ATTEND THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF
THE STATES.  P. 427. 

12.  THE FEDERAL POWER ACT PROVIDES THAT LICENSES ISSUED BY THE
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, FOR PROJECTS REQUIRED BY THE ACT TO BE
LICENSED, SHALL CONTAIN CERTAIN CONDITIONS.  SECTION 10(A) REQUIRES
THAT THE PROJECT BE BEST ADAPTED TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR IMPROVING
OR DEVELOPING THE WATERWAY FOR THE USE OR BENEFIT OF INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE, FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND UTILIZATION OF WATER-POWER
DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR OTHER BENEFICIAL PUBLIC USES, INCLUDING
RECREATIONAL PURPOSES; SEC. 10(C) REQUIRES THAT THE LICENSEE MAINTAIN
THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY FOR NAVIGATION AND FOR EFFICIENT POWER
OPERATION, MAINTAIN DEPRECIATION RESERVES ADEQUATE FOR RENEWALS AND
REPLACEMENTS, AND CONFORM TO THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF LIFE, HEALTH AND PROPERTY; SEC. 10(D) REQUIRES THAT OUT
OF SURPLUS EARNED AFTER THE FIRST 20 YEARS ABOVE A SPECIFIED REASONABLE
RATE OF RETURN, THE LICENSEE MAINTAIN AMORTIZATION RESERVES TO BE
APPLIED IN REDUCTION OF NET INVESTMENT; SEC. 10(E) REQUIRES THE
LICENSEE TO PAY TO THE UNITED STATES REASONABLE ANNUAL CHARGES FOR
ADMINISTERING THE ACT, AND AUTHORIZES THE UNITED STATES DURING THE
FIRST 20 YEARS TO EXPROPRIATE EXCESSIVE PROFITS UNLESS OR UNTIL THE
STATE PREVENTS SUCH PROFITS; SEC. 14 GIVES THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT,
UPON EXPIRATION OF A LICENSE, TO TAKE OVER AND OPERATE THE PROJECT BY
PAYING THE LICENSEE'S "NET INVESTMENT," NOT TO EXCEED THE FAIR VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY TAKEN.  HELD THAT RESPONDENT, A POWER COMPANY WHICH, UNDER
LICENSE FROM THE STATE, HAD UNDERTAKEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
HYDROELECTRIC DAM IN NEW RIVER, COULD BE COMPELLED, IN A SUIT BROUGHT
BY THE UNITED STATES, TO OBTAIN FROM THE COMMISSION A LICENSE
CONTAINING CONDITIONS AUTHORIZED BY SECS. 10(A), (C), (D), (E) AND 14;
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO REMOVE ITS WORKS FROM THE RIVER. 

(1)  THE VALIDITY OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE, CHALLENGED ONLY
GENERALLY AS UNRELATED TO NAVIGATION, NOT DECIDED.  P. 420. 

(2)  THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14 FOR ACQUISITION BY THE
UNITED STATES AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE LICENSE PERIOD VITALLY AFFECT
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FINANCING OF RESPONDENT'S PROJECT, REQUIRES THAT
THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SECTION AND OF THE LICENSE
PROVISIONS BASED UPON IT BE DETERMINED NOW, AND THAT THE DETERMINATION
BE NOT DEFERRED UNTIL THE RIGHT MATURES AND THE UNITED STATES PROCEEDS
TO EXERCISE IT.  P. 421. 

(3)  ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT BY COMPULSION OF THE METHOD OF
ACQUISITION PROVIDED BY SEC. 14 AND THE REQUIRED LICENSE, RIPARIAN
RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENT MAY ULTIMATELY PASS TO THE UNITED STATES FOR
LESS THAN THEIR VALUE, THIS MUST BE REGARDED AS THE PRICE WHICH THE
RESPONDENT MUST PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE TO MAINTAIN THE DAM, AND DOES NOT
INVOLVE A VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 427. 

(4)  THE LICENSE CONDITIONS HERE CONSIDERED HAVE AN OBVIOUS
RELATIONSHIP TO THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  P. 427. 

(5)  THE PROVISIONS FOR FUTURE ACQUISITION OF THE PROJECT BY THE
UNITED STATES IS NOT AN INVASION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.  P.
428. 

13.  A VALID EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF THE POWER DELEGATED TO IT BY THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE CAN NOT CONSTITUTE AN ENCROACHMENT ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY
IN VIOLATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 428. 

14.  THE COURT CONFINES ITS DECISION IN THIS CASE TO THE CONCRETE
LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED, AND DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE ABSTRACT
QUESTIONS AS TO THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE STATES AND THE UNITED STATES
IN RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF WATER POWER.  P. 423. 

UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 646, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING A BILL BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE POWER
COMPANY TO ENJOIN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM IN THE NEW RIVER.  OPINION
OF DISTRICT COURT, 23 F.SUPP.  83. 

SOLICITOR GENERAL BIDDLE, WITH WHOM MESSRS.  JOHN W. AIKEN, WARNER W.
GARDNER, MELVIN H. SIEGEL, WILLIAM S. YOUNGMAN, JR., DAVID W. ROBINSON,
JR., GREGORY HANKIN, AND WILLARD W. GATCHELL WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR THE
UNITED STATES. 

THE ULTIMATE FINDING OF NAVIGABILITY IS A QUESTION FOR THIS COURT,
AND NOT A SIMPLE PHYSICAL OR HISTORICAL FACT.  CONCURRENT FINDINGS DO
NOT PRECLUDE AN INDEPENDENT REEXAMINATION.  LEOVY V. UNITED STATES, 177
U.S. 621, 628; THE MONTELLO, 20 WALL.  430, 442; CF., ARIZONA V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 452. 

THE FOUNDATION OF THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS THAT THE STREAM BE
"USED OR SUITABLE FOR USE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY
IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE."  FEDERAL POWER ACT, SEC. 3(8).  IF
THE STREAM HAS IN FACT BEEN USED FOR NAVIGATION OF A CONSEQUENTIAL
CHARACTER, IT FOLLOWS WITHOUT MORE THAT THE RIVER IS NAVIGABLE; AND, IF
THE NAVIGATION WAS THE TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, THAT THE RIVER IS NAVIGABLE WATER OF
THE UNITED STATES. 

IF THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STREAM IS SUITABLE FOR NAVIGATION,
SEC. 3(8) IN TERMS PUTS ASIDE A NUMBER OF CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE URGED TO DEFEAT A FINDING OF NAVIGABILITY.  STREAMS WHICH
OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT BE NAVIGABLE ARE NAVIGABLE IF THEY "HAVE BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS FOR IMPROVEMENT AFTER INVESTIGATION UNDER ITS
AUTHORITY."  SEE ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288,
328, 329-330. 

CONGRESS HAS POWER TO DEFINE THE CHARACTER OF THE STREAMS WHICH
REQUIRE FEDERAL CONTROL, AND THUS TO IMPLEMENT ITS CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT
OF POWER BY APPROPRIATE DEFINITION.  EVERARD'S BREWERIES V. DAY, 265
U.S. 545, 560; CF. PURITY EXTRACT CO. V. LYNCH, 226 U.S. 192; RUPPERT
V. CAFFEY, 251 U.S. 264.  EVEN IF THE DEFINITION WENT SOMEWHAT BEYOND
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT COULD HARDLY BE DENIED THAT THE WATERS
DESCRIBED IN SEC. 3(8) HAVE AN EXISTING OR POTENTIAL EFFECT UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THEIR REGULATION THEREFORE MAY BE SUSTAINED AS A
CONTROL OF MATTERS WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD OFFER A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SHREVEPORT RATE CASES, 234 U.S. 342; WISCONSIN
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563; LABOR
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1, 37-38. 

THE RADFORD-WILEY'S SHOALS STRETCH OF NEW RIVER IS PLAINLY NAVIGABLE;
IT HAS BORNE A VARIED AND EXTENSIVE NAVIGATION. 

IT IS UNIMPORTANT THAT ACTUAL NAVIGATION HAS BEEN ABANDONED.  THE
DESPLAINES RIVER HAD BEEN OUT OF USE FOR A CENTURY, "BUT A HUNDRED
YEARS IS A BRIEF SPACE IN THE LIFE OF A NATION," AND IF FEDERAL CONTROL
OF NAVIGABLE WATERS IS TO BE ABANDONED "IT IS FOR CONGRESS, NOT THE
COURTS, SO TO DECLARE."  ECONOMY LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S.
113, 124; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 453-454. 

NOR IS IT MATERIAL THAT THE NAVIGATION WAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH
DIFFICULTY OR DANGER.  NAVIGATION ON THE HIGH SEAS IS OFTEN DIFFICULT
AND DANGEROUS, YET IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SEAS ARE NOT NAVIGABLE. 

THE IRREGULARITY OF COMMERCIAL TRIPS, OR THE ABSENCE OF AN
ESTABLISHED TRADE ROUTE, IS IRRELEVANT.  TRIPS WHICH OCCUR ONLY WHEN
THERE IS A SUFFICIENT COMMERCIAL DEMAND PROVE NAVIGABILITY AS
COMPLETELY AS THOSE WHICH MOVE ON REGULAR SCHEDULE.  UNITED STATES V.
UTAH, 283 U.S. 64. 

THE VIEW THAT THE COMMERCE OVER THE RELEVANT STRETCH MUST BE AN
APPRECIABLE PART OF THE RIVER'S TOTAL COMMERCE IS UNSOUND. 

THE SIZE OR CHARACTER OF THE VESSELS USED IS IMMATERIAL.  ECONOMY
LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 113, 117; WATER POWER CO. V. WATER
COMMISSIONERS, 168 U.S. 349, 359; THE MONTELLO, 20 WALL.  430, 441
442. 

THE SECTION IS NAVIGABLE ALSO BECAUSE IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF, OR
SUITABLE TO, NAVIGATION.  THE CONCEDED TRAFFIC ON THIS STRETCH IS PROOF
OF ITS SUITABILITY FOR COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION.  A FEW TRIPS BETWEEN
ALLISONIA AND HINTON WOULD NOT SHOW AN APPRECIABLE COMMERCIAL
NAVIGATION, BUT WOULD DEMONSTRATE SUITABILITY FOR NAVIGATION. 

THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RADFORD-WILEY'S SHOALS STRETCH IS NAVIGABLE
IS REQUIRED WHETHER ACTUAL NAVIGATION OR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS BE
CONSIDERED.  THE ALLISONIA-RADFORD AND WILEY'S SHOALS-HINTON STRETCHES
ALSO BEING NAVIGABLE, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE NEW RIVER IS NAVIGABLE FROM
ALLISONIA, VIRGINIA, TO HINTON, WEST VIRGINIA.  SINCE THIS 111-MILE
STRETCH IS INTERSTATE, IT RESULTS THAT THE SITE OF RESPONDENT'S PROJECT
IS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

RESPONDENT'S PROJECT IS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ALSO
BECAUSE THE ALLISONIA-RADFORD STRETCH, IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED, WAS THE
AVENUE OF AN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH MOVED BY BOAT TO RADFORD AND WAS
THERE TRANSSHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY RAILROAD.  THE PROTECTION
WHICH CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO EXTEND OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS MUST BE
THE SAME WHETHER THEY ARE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHOLLY BY
WATER OR BY WATER AND RAIL.  CONGRESS REGULATES INTERSTATE WATERWAYS
AND INTERSTATE RAILROADS.  NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS
REGULATION OF AN INTERSTATE ROUTE WHICH IS PART WATER AND PART RAIL. 

AS AN INTERSTATE PUBLIC UTILITY, RESPONDENT MAY NOT COMPLAIN OF ANY
PROHIBITION AGAINST UNLICENSED CONSTRUCTION OF ITS PROJECT.  ITS
PROJECT WILL SEND THE BULK OF ITS ELECTRIC ENERGY INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND WILL BE PART OF AN EXTENSIVE INTERSTATE ELECTRIC SYSTEM,
INTERCONNECTED WITH OTHER SYSTEMS.  THEREFORE, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE
COMMERCE POWERS OF CONGRESS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FEDERAL CONTROL OF
TRIBUTARY STREAMS.  PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION V. ATTLEBORO STEAM &
ELEC.  CO., 273 U.S. 83, 86; UTAH POWER & L. CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S.
165, 182; ELECTRIC BOND CO. V. COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 419, 432-433.  AND,
SINCE CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE THE INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION OF
ELECTRICITY, IT HAS FULL POWER TO LICENSE ITS GENERATION FOR PURPOSES
OF INTERSTATE SALE. 

ANOTHER REASON FOR FEDERAL CONTROL OF RESPONDENT'S PROJECT, WHATEVER
THE NAVIGABILITY OF NEW RIVER AT ITS SITE, IS THAT THE WATERS OF NEW
RIVER ARE IN INTERSTATE MOVEMENT AND CONCERN WEST VIRGINIA AND OHIO AS
FULLY AS VIRGINIA.  THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER EXTENDS TO THE
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF WATERS, SINCE IT APPLIES TO THE INTERSTATE
MOVEMENT OF STOLEN AUTOMOBILES, BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432;
IMPURE FOODS, HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 45; KIDNAPPED
PERSONS, GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124; CONVICTMADE GOODS,
KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334;
AND WOMEN TRANSPORTED FOR IMMORAL PURPOSES, CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES,
242 U.S. 470. 

THE LICENSE PROVISIONS, DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE RECAPTURE CLAUSE,
ARE VALID.  WHETHER RESPONDENT'S PROJECT IS LOCATED IN NAVIGABLE OR IN
NON-NAVIGABLE WATERS, THE UNITED STATES HAS POWER TO FORBID ITS
CONSTRUCTION, AND IT THEREFORE HAS FULL POWER TO CONDITION ITS
PERMISSION WITH REGULATORY PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO SERVE PUBLIC ENDS,
WHETHER OR NOT THE CONDITIONS ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO NAVIGATION AS
SUCH.  SEE GREEN BAY CANAL CO. V. PATTEN PAPER CO., 172 U.S. 58, 80. 

THE FEDERAL POWER ACT IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWERS GRANTED TO
CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND IT THEREFORE DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROL OF THE WATER RESOURCES OF THE COUNTRY HAS
LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A NATIONAL PROBLEM.  RIVERS FLOW PAST OR ALONG
STATE BOUNDARIES; THEIR NAVIGABILITY IN ONE STATE OFTEN DEPENDS UPON
UPSTREAM CONDITIONS IN ANOTHER STATE.  IF FLOODS IN PENNSYLVANIA AND
OHIO ARE TO BE REDUCED, THE TRIBUTARIES IN WEST VIRGINIA AND VIRGINIA
MUST BE CONTROLLED.  IF DOWNSTREAM LANDS IN ARID REGIONS ARE TO BE
IRRIGATED, THE WATER APPROPRIATIONS IN UPSTREAM STATES MUST BE
CONTROLLED.  IF THE DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY IS TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT INJURY TO THESE INTERSTATE CONCERNS, THE STATE OR
STATES IN WHICH THE DAM CHANCES TO BE BUILT CANNOT HAVE THE SOLE VOICE
IN ITS CONTROL. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO BUILD THE PROJECT OR TO TAKE IT BY EMINENT
DOMAIN IS CONCEDED.  THERE IS NO INVASION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES
IF IT ELECTS INSTEAD TO SECURE AN OPTION TO TAKE OVER THE PROJECT 50
YEARS HENCE. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY NOW TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE RECAPTURE
PROVISION.  RESPONDENT WILL HAVE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY IF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SHOULD EVER IN FACT BE INVADED. 

NEVERTHELESS, THE RECAPTURE PROVISION IS A VALID CONDITION TO THE
LICENSE.  SINCE THERE IS POWER TO PROHIBIT CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION,
THERE IS POWER TO GRANT A FRANCHISE OR A LICENSE FOR A LIMITED PERIOD. 
GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1.  AT THE END OF THE LICENSE PERIOD, THE
STRUCTURE CAN NO LONGER BE MAINTAINED OR OPERATED.  IT THEN CAN HAVE NO
MORE THAN A JUNK VALUE.  CF. ROBERTS V. NEW YORK CITY, 295 U.S. 264,
284-285.  THE NET INVESTMENT CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT IS FAR IN EXCESS
OF THE JUNK VALUE OF THE PLANT.  AND THERE CAN BE NO CLAIM FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR WATER POWER RIGHTS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF WHICH THE
UNITED STATES CAN AND HAS FORBIDDEN.  CF. UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER
DUNBAR WATER POWER CO., 229 U.S. 53. 

THERE IS NO CONFISCATION.  THE RECAPTURE PROVISIONS ARE SIMPLY THE
PRICE WHICH RESPONDENT MUST PAY TO OBTAIN A PRIVILEGE OTHERWISE DENIED
IT.  IF THE CONTRACT IS HARSH, RESPONDENT HAS THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF
NOT CONSTRUCTING THE PROJECT.  THE POWER OF MUNICIPALITIES TO CONDITION
THE TERMS OF THEIR FRANCHISES IS ANALOGOUS.  SOUTHERN IOWA ELECTRIC CO.
V. CHARITON, 255 U.S. 539, 542; PADUCAH V. PADUCAH RY. CO., 261 U.S.
267, 273; GEORGIA RY. CO. V. DECATUR, 262 U.S. 432, 438-439; PUBLIC
SERVICE CO. V. ST. CLOUD, 265 U.S. 352, 355-356; FOX RIVER CO. V.
RAILROAD COMMISSION, 274 U.S. 651, 657. 

EVEN IF CONGRESS WERE WITHOUT POWER TO FORBID CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM
OR OPERATION OF THE HYDROELECTRIC PLANT, IT MAY NEVERTHELESS FORBID THE
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF ELECTRIC ENERGY FROM RESPONDENT'S GENERATORS. 
TO OBTAIN THIS PRIVILEGE, RESPONDENT AS AN INTERSTATE PUBLIC UTILITY
MUST ACCEPT A LICENSE FROM THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, JUST AS AN
INTERSTATE RAILROAD, MOTOR CARRIER, OR VESSEL MUST OBTAIN A LICENSE OR
A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE APPROPRIATE
FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  THE RECAPTURE PROVISION IS AN APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTUAL PRICE TO PAY FOR RECEIPT OF THAT PRIVILEGE. 

RESPONDENT CANNOT CHALLENGE THE AMORTIZATION RESERVE REQUIREMENT IF
IT IS BUILT UP OUT OF THE EXCESS OF ITS INCOME OVER A REASONABLE RATE
OF RETURN.  DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456. 
ITS ATTACK, THEN, MUST BE DIRECTED AT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN BE REFERRED TO THE NET INVESTMENT VALUE.  THE
GOVERNMENT HAS URGED THAT THE EQUIVALENT "PRUDENT INVESTMENT" BASIS OF
VALUATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  HERE CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
FOR THIS METHOD OF VALUATION, AND THE ARGUMENTS HAVE AUGMENTED STRENGTH
FROM THAT CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION. 

THE RECAPTURE PROVISION DOES NOT DENY JUST COMPENSATION BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT PROVIDE PAYMENT FOR ANY INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES DURING THE
PERIOD OF THE LICENSE.  IF ONE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF A PUBLIC UTILITY
IS TO DEVOTE ITS PROPERTY TO THE PUBLIC USE FOR A FAIR RETURN UPON ITS
NET INVESTMENT, THEN IT IS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC EXPROPRIATION UPON THE
SAME BASIS.  IF THERE IS NO CONFISCATION FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THERE CAN
BE NONE WHEN THE PROJECT IS TAKEN OVER AT THE END OF THE LICENSE
PERIOD.  CERTAINLY THIS IS THE RESULT WHEN RESPONDENT, WITH KNOWLEDGE
OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14, UNDERTAKES THE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS
PROJECT. 

MR. RAYMOND T. JACKSON, WITH WHOM MESSRS.  A. HENRY MOSLE, CRESWELL
M. MICOU, FRASER M. HORN, WENDELL W. FORBES, M. W. BELCHER, JR., AND
JOHN L. ABBOT WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR RESPONDENT. 

FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH ARE CONCURRED IN BY TWO LOWER COURTS WILL BE
ACCEPTED HERE IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  ALABAMA POWER CO.
V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 477.  THE RULE APPLIES TO A FINDING THAT A
STREAM IS NOT NAVIGABLE IN FACT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BREWER-ELLIOTT
OIL & GAS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 77.  AND THERE IS NO
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FINDINGS OF BASIC OR EVIDENTIARY FACTS AND FINDINGS
OF ULTIMATE FACTS.  UNITED STATES V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 501; TEXAS &
N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; PICK MFG. CO. V. GENERAL
MOTORS CO., 299 U.S. 3, 4; UNITED STATES V. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CO., 286
U.S. 63; UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1; BAKER V.
SCHOFIELD, 243 U.S. 114. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT PETITIONER MERELY "DIFFERS" WITH THE LOWER COURTS
ON THE "LEGAL QUESTION" OF THE "WEIGHT AND RELEVANCE" OF THE EVIDENCE
IS DISINGENUOUS.  NO QUESTION OF THE ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE
(AS A MATTER OF RELEVANCY OR OTHERWISE) IS PRESENTED BY PETITIONER; AND
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE "WEIGHT" ACCORDED VARIOUS SELECTED ITEMS OF
EVIDENCE BY THE COURTS BELOW PRESENTS NO ISSUE OF LAW FOR THIS COURT. 
NAVIGABILITY IN THE FEDERAL SENSE IS A QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL
FACT.  CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 55; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283
U.S. 423, 452.  NEITHER CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS,
NOR OTHER FEDERAL LEGISLATION OR ACTS OF FEDERAL OFFICERS OR AGENCIES
CAN ESTABLISH NAVIGABILITY OF A RIVER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
QUESTION IS ALWAYS ONE OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURTS. 
OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 258 U.S. 574, 585, 590-591.  INDEED, ABANDONMENT OF
A FEDERAL ATTEMPT TO MAKE A STREAM NAVIGABLE CREATES A PRESUMPTION OF
NONNAVIGABILITY.  OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 590.    NAVIGABLE WATERS OF
THE UNITED STATES ARE WATERS WHICH ARE NAVIGABLE IN FACT AND WHICH, BY
THEMSELVES OR BY UNITING WITH OTHER WATERS (NAVIGABLE IN FACT), FORM A
CONTINUOUS HIGHWAY OVER WHICH COMMERCE IS OR MAY BE CONDUCTED AMONG THE
STATES OR WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN THE CUSTOMARY MODES IN WHICH
COMMERCE IS CONDUCTED BY WATER.  THE DANIEL BALL, 10 WALL.  557; THE
MONTELLO, 20 WALL.  430; UNITED STATES V. OREGON, 295 U.S. 1, 23. 

NAVIGABILITY IN FACT MUST EXIST UNDER "NATURAL AND ORDINARY
CONDITIONS."  UNITED STATES V. OREGON, SUPRA, 23; UNITED STATES V.
CRESS, 243 U.S. 316, 321, 325, 326; UNITED STATES V. HOLT STATE BANK,
270 U.S. 56.  EXCEPTIONAL USE, OR SUSCEPTIBILITY OF USE, IN TIMES OF
TEMPORARY HIGH WATER OR UNDER OTHER ABNORMAL CONDITIONS, IS
INSUFFICIENT.  OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 587; UNITED STATES V. RIO
GRANDE D. & I. CO., 174 U.S. 690, 699.  TO BE NAVIGABLE IN FACT, A
WATER MUST HAVE A "CAPACITY FOR GENERAL AND COMMON USEFULNESS FOR
PURPOSES OF TRADE AND COMMERCE."  UNITED STATES V. OREGON, SUPRA, 23. 
THE MONTELLO, 20 WALL.  430, 442-3; DONNELLY V. UNITED STATES, 228 U.S.
243, 262.  IT MUST BE USED OR SUSCEPTIBLE OF USE FOR "COMMERCE OF A
SUBSTANTIAL AND PERMANENT CHARACTER."  LEOVY V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S.
621, 632; UNITED STATES V. DOUGHTON, 62 F.2D 936, 938.  "A THEORETICAL
OR POTENTIAL NAVIGABILITY OR ONE THAT IS TEMPORARY, PRECARIOUS AND
UNPROFITABLE, IS NOT SUFFICIENT."  HARRISON V. FITE, 148 F. 781, 784;
UNITED STATES V. DOUGHTON, SUPRA, 939.  WHERE "A STREAM HAS NEVER BEEN
IMPRESSED WITH THE CHARACTER OF NAVIGABILITY BY PAST USE IN COMMERCE,
... COMMERCE ACTUALLY IN ESSE OR AT LEAST  ...  IN POSSE IS ESSENTIAL
TO NAVIGABILITY," GULF & I. RY. CO. V. DAVIS, 26 F.2D 930, 933, AFF'D
31 F.2D 109, CITED WITH APPROVAL IN UNITED STATES V. DOUGHTON, SUPRA.
WHETHER PRACTICAL CAPACITY FOR CARRYING USEFUL, SUBSTANTIAL AND
PERMANENT COMMERCE EXISTS IS A QUESTION OF FACT.  UNITED STATES V.
UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 87; CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 55. 

THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ALONE ESTABLISH THAT NEW RIVER IN ITS
NATURAL AND ORDINARY CONDITION WAS NOT NAVIGABLE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ANYWHERE IN ITS COURSE. 

ASIDE FROM THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF EARLY USE, PETITIONER FAILED TO
ESTABLISH PRACTICAL USE, OR SUSCEPTIBILITY FOR PRACTICAL USE, IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE LIMITED FEDERAL WORK DID NOT CHANGE ITS NON
NAVIGABLE CHARACTER. 

THE WATER POWER RESOURCES OF STREAMS, EITHER NAVIGABLE OR NON
NAVIGABLE, ARE NOT THE "HERITAGE" OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT ARE
THE PROPERTY OF THE SEVERAL STATES, EXCEPT SO FAR AS GRANTED TO THEIR
CITIZENS.  THE UNITED STATES HAS NO TITLE OR PROPERTY RIGHT IN
NAVIGABLE STREAMS, THEIR WATERS, THEIR WATER POWER OR THE LANDS OVER
WHICH THEY FLOW; AND THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF RIPARIAN OWNERS, ON BOTH
NAVIGABLE AND NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS, ARE CREATED BY AND FLOW
EXCLUSIVELY FROM STATE SOVEREIGNTY.  PORT OF SEATTLE V. OREGON & W.R.
CO., 255 U.S. 56, 63; UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316; BORAX
CONSOLIDATED, LTD. V. LOS ANGELES, 296 U.S. 10; SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152
U.S. 1. 

THE RIGHT OR AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IN RELATION TO NAVIGABLE
WATERS IS LIMITED TO CONTROL FOR THE PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION.  PORT OF
SEATTLE V. OREGON & W.R. CO., SUPRA, 63; UNITED STATES V. OREGON, 295
U.S. 1, 14; KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46.  ANY LEGISLATION
OSTENSIBLY FOR THE CONTROL OF NAVIGABLE WATERS WHICH HAS NO REAL OR
SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THEIR CONTROL FOR PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.  UNITED STATES V. RIVER ROUGE CO., 269 U.S.
411, 419; WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS, 278 U.S. 367, 415. 

SO LONG AS THE STATES DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR NAVIGABLE CAPACITY
OF FEDERAL NAVIGABLE WATERS, THE STATES MAY AUTHORIZE OR COMMAND SUCH
ALTERATION IN NATURAL FLOW OF THEIR STREAMS AS THEY DEEM IN THEIR BEST
INTERESTS.  KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46, 94; UNITED STATES V. RIO
GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690, 703; HEAD V. AMOSKEAG CO., 113
U.S. 9; HOLYOKE CO. V. LYMAN, 15 WALL.  500; OTIS CO. V. LUDLOW CO.,
201 U.S. 140, 152; CONNECTICUT V. MASSACHUSETTS, 282 U.S. 660, 670;
CALIFORNIA POWER CO. V. CEMENT CO., 295 U.S. 142, 163-4. 

THE UNITED STATES HAS NO AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR
OTHERWISE TO CONSTRUCT OR ACQUIRE A POWER PROJECT OR TO DEVELOP THE
WATERPOWER RESOURCES OF EITHER NAVIGABLE OR NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS; AND
IT MAY NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY CREATE WATER POWER OTHER THAN THAT WHICH IS
INCIDENTALLY AND NECESSARILY PRODUCED BY WORKS CONSTRUCTED FOR SOME
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE, AND THOSE WORKS MUST BE REASONABLY APPROPRIATE
FOR, AND HAVE A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO, THE PERFORMANCE OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTION WHICH IN THE PREMISES IS LIMITED TO THE
CREATION OR IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGABILITY.  ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 340; KAUKAUNA CO. V. GREEN BAY CO., 142 U.S.
254, 273; UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 73;
ALABAMA POWER CO. V. GULF POWER CO., 283 F. 606, 613; MISSOURI V. UNION
E.L. & P. CO., 42 F.2D 692, 695.  THIS LIMITATION UPON PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY IS UNAFFECTED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF "ECONOMIC
FEASIBILITY" AND CAN NOT BE ESCAPED BY DESIGNATING A STATUTORY SCHEME
AS A "MULTIPLE PURPOSE PROJECT."  PETITIONER MAY NOT DEVELOP WATER
POWER MERELY FOR PROFIT, OR AS A PRIMARY PURPOSE, OR AS A SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT OBJECTIVE, MERELY BECAUSE IT CONCURRENTLY AUTHORIZES SOME
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARILY OR INCIDENTALLY
CREATE THE WATER POWER. 

THE SERVITUDE IN FAVOR OF NAVIGATION, TO WHICH RIPARIAN LANDS ON
NAVIGABLE STREAMS ARE SUBJECT, IS A NATURAL SERVITUDE IMPLICIT IN THE
LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND LIMITED TO THE STREAM IN ITS NATURAL
STATE.  UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316, 321, 325; PUMPELLY V.
GREEN BAY CO., 13 WALL.  166; UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, 188 U.S. 445;
PACKER V. BIRD, 137 U.S. 661, 667; UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE
IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690, 698; LEOVY V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S.
621, 631.  WHENEVER THAT SERVITUDE IS EXCEEDED BY ANY ACTION OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF A NAVIGABLE WATER OR THE
CREATION OF AN ARTIFICIAL FEDERAL WATERWAY, IT TAKES PROPERTY FOR WHICH
IT MUST MAKE COMPENSATION.  UNITED STATES V. CRESS, SUPRA, 326; UNITED
STATES V. LYNAH, SUPRA; MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES,
148 U.S. 312, 336; UNITED STATES V. RIVER ROUGE CO., 269 U.S. 411, 419;
WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS, 278 U.S. 367, 415, 418. 

THE IMPLIED AUTHORITY OVER INTERSTATE NAVIGABLE STREAMS ARISES SOLELY
FROM THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NATURAL HIGHWAYS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
IT DOES NOT DERIVE FROM THE FACT THAT THEY ARE WATER BUT FROM THE FACT
THAT THEY ARE NATURAL INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
RESULT IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY REGULATE, AND THEREFORE
REQUIRE A LICENSE FOR, THE PLACING OF STRUCTURES IN SUCH HIGHWAYS SO
LONG AS SUCH REGULATION HAS A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE
PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION OR NAVIGABLE CAPACITY AND SO LONG AS IT DOES
NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE EXERCISE OF THE LICENSING POWER THE VEHICLE OF
EXTENDING FEDERAL AUTHORITY INTO A FIELD CLOSED TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION.  UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1;
LINDER V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 5, 17; EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES,
207 U.S. 463, 502; FROST TRUCKING CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 271 U.S.
583.  WITHIN THOSE LIMITATIONS, IT MAY MAKE THE ERECTION OR MAINTENANCE
OF A STRUCTURE IN A NAVIGABLE STREAM WITHOUT A FEDERAL LICENSE IPSO
FACTO UNLAWFUL.  GREENLEAF LUMBER CO. V. GARRISON, 237 U.S. 251. 

NEITHER CONSTRUCTION NOR OPERATION OF RESPONDENT'S PROJECT IS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UTAH POWER CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165, 179-182;
SOUTH CAROLINA POWER CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 52 F.2D 515, 524; AFF'D 286
U.S. 525. 

CONSTRUCTION OF RESPONDENT'S PROJECT WITHOUT A FEDERAL LICENSE MAY
NOT BE FORBIDDEN MERELY BECAUSE SOME PART OF THE ELECTRICITY WHICH IT
GENERATES WILL MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UTAH POWER CO. V. PFOST,
SUPRA; KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S.
238; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495.  IN PART II OF THE
POWER ACT, CONGRESS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED ANY INTENTION TO ASSERT SUCH
AUTHORITY. 

PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT IT MAY PROHIBIT CONSTRUCTION OF RESPONDENT'S
PROJECT BECAUSE THE NATURAL FLOW OF ALL WATERS FROM THE SPRING HOUSES
TO THE SEA IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS THEORY WOULD DESTROY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN NAVIGABLE AND NON-NAVIGABLE WATERS
AND BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE WATERS, AND WOULD TRANSFER TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER, AND VIRTUAL OWNERSHIP OF, PRACTICALLY ALL OF
THE WATERS OF THE STATES. 

NONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE TENDERED LICENSE HAS ANY RELATION TO
THE PROTECTION OF NAVIGABLE CAPACITY.  SOME OF THEM REQUIRE A LICENSEE
TO DEVOTE ITS PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USE WITHOUT COMPENSATION, AND THEY
FURTHER ATTEMPT TO TRANSFER TO PETITIONER THE FULL POLICE POWER OF THE
STATE. 

THE "CAPTURE CLAUSE" INVADES THE RESERVED RIGHT OF THE STATES AND
THEIR PEOPLE, AND TAKES PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

PETITIONER HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO TAKE OVER AND OPERATE
RESPONDENT'S PROJECT.  THE TAKING OF A CITIZEN'S PROPERTY FOR A PURPOSE
FOR WHICH THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDEMN, IS A GROSS
INVASION OF HIS RIGHTS, NO MATTER WHAT COMPENSATION IS PAID.  THUS ALSO
MAY BE DESTROYED THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO REGULATE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR OWN RESOURCES AND THE RIGHTS OF THEIR PEOPLE TO
UTILIZE SUCH RESOURCES UNDER STATE LAW IN CONFORMITY WITH STATE
POLICY. 

THE "CAPTURE" CLAUSE IS CONFISCATORY.  IT REQUIRES A LICENSEE TO
AGREE THAT PETITIONER MAY "TAKE OVER" THE PROJECT UPON PAYMENT TO THE
LICENSEE OF ITS "NET INVESTMENT" IN THE PROJECT, OR ITS FAIR VALUE AT
THE TIME OF TAKING, WHICHEVER IS THE LESS.  BOTH THE "NET INVESTMENT"
AND THE "FAIR VALUE" PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT NOT ONLY EXCLUDE "GOING
VALUE," BUT ALSO ANY VALUE FOR WATER RIGHTS OR LANDS IN EXCESS OF "THE
ACTUAL REASONABLE COST THEREOF AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION" (NO MATTER
WHEN ACQUIRED, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN YEARS BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE
LICENSE) SO THAT PETITIONER WILL "TAKE" ANY INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF
LANDS OR WATER RIGHTS AND THE LICENSEE WILL BEAR THE LOSS OF ANY
DECREASE IN THEIR VALUE. 

IF SEVERE INFLATION SHOULD COME, PETITIONER MIGHT "TAKE OVER"
RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY UPON PAYING MERELY THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS (GREATLY
REDUCED IN PURCHASING POWER) WHICH HAD NOT BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE
ORIGINAL INVESTMENT BY THE STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF "NET INVESTMENT"
AND "FAIR VALUE," AND THEREBY MIGHT ACQUIRE SUCH PROPERTY FOR AN
INSIGNIFICANT FRACTION OF ITS REPRODUCTION VALUE, OF ITS REAL WORTH OR
OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT. 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER RESOURCES IS NO MORE A "NATIONAL PROBLEM"
THAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL OTHER ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF THE STATES. 
THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE "NATIONAL PROBLEMS." 
KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S.
238, 291-292; UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1.  HELVERING V. DAVIS,
301 U.S. 619, DEALING WITH THE POWER TO SPEND (BUT NOT TO REGULATE) FOR
THE GENERAL WELFARE, IS INAPPOSITE. 

THE FACT THAT ANY TRACT OF LAND IN THE STATE MIGHT BE ACQUIRED FOR
SOME CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL PURPOSE AND THEREBY BE REMOVED FROM THE
STATE TAX ROLL, DOES NOT SUSTAIN THE CONCLUSION THAT PETITIONER MIGHT
COMPEL ANY OR ALL LAND OWNERS IN THE STATE TO TURN OVER THEIR PROPERTY
FOR FEDERAL USE IN COMMERCIAL VENTURES NOT WITHIN PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, AND THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE AN INVASION OF THE
RIGHTS OF THE STATE OR OF HER PEOPLE. 

EVEN ON A NAVIGABLE STREAM, THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP WATER POWER IS IN
THE RIPARIAN OWNER.  PETITIONER MAY REGULATE THE RIGHT ONLY IN SO FAR
AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT NAVIGATION OR NAVIGABLE CAPACITY.  PORT OF
SEATTLE V. OREGON & W.R. CO., 255 U.S. 56; PIKE RAPIDS POWER CO. V.
RAILROAD, 99 F.2D 902, 908, CERT. DEN., 305 U.S. 660. 

PETITIONER MAY NOT CONVERT THE PROJECT TO ITS OWN USE WITHOUT
COMPENSATION ON THE THEORY THAT IT COULD HAVE ELECTED TO ABATE IT AS A
PUBLIC NUISANCE.  MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S.
312; UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53. 

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISES ARE NOT ANALOGOUS.  NO ONE IS COMPELLED TO
ACCEPT A MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE TO USE ITS STREETS ON PENALTY OF BEING
BARRED FROM USE OF HIS OWN PROPERTY.  MOREOVER, MUNICIPALITIES IN SUCH
CASES EXERCISE FULL PROPRIETARY RIGHTS IN THEIR STREETS, POLICE POWER
AND THE AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN BUSINESS. 

FOX RIVER CO. V. COMMISSION, 274 U.S. 651, IS INAPPOSITE.  A STATE,
UNLIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN THE
ELECTRIC POWER BUSINESS, AND IT MAY ESTABLISH SUCH LAW OF PROPERTY,
RIPARIAN AND OTHER, AS IT CHOOSES, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT CONFISCATE
VESTED RIGHTS. 

PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
A PRIVILEGE WHICH PETITIONER MAY GRANT, DENY OR BARTER UPON SUCH TERMS
AS IT MAY CHOOSE - INCLUDING THE "TAKING OVER" OF THE PROPERTY OF A
CITIZEN AS A CONDITION OF THE GRANT.  THIS IS TOTALITARIANISM RUN
RIOT.    "NET INVESTMENT" UNDER THE POWER ACT WOULD BE CONFISCATORY
EVEN IF "PRUDENT INVESTMENT" WERE REGARDED AS A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
FOR RATE MAKING OR FOR COMPENSATION IN CONDEMNATION.  BUT THAT BASIS
HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY REJECTED BY THIS COURT.  SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S.
466; DRISCOLL V. EDISON CO., 307 U.S. 104.  MOREOVER, EVEN ON
PETITIONER'S ERRONEOUS HYPOTHESIS, IT WOULD HARDLY FOLLOW THAT A
UTILITY'S PROPERTY COULD BE TAKEN FOR LESS THAN FAIR VALUE.  THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ARE TO THE CONTRARY. 

BY SPECIAL LEAVE OF COURT, MR. ABRAM P. STAPLES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
FILED A BRIEF AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT (SEE 309 U.S. 636)
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMICUS CURIAE. 

VIRGINIA AND THE UNITED STATES EACH ENJOYS IN THIS COURT AN EQUAL
STATUS, AND THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE EXERCISE BY EITHER OF A
POWER CLAIMED BY THE OTHER IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR PROPER. 

EVEN IF NEW RIVER WERE NAVIGABLE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE A HALF
CENTURY OR MORE AGO, SUCH FACT ALONE WOULD NOT CONFER PERPETUAL
JURISDICTION ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
NAVIGATION IN THE STREAM.  THERE IS NO SUCH NAVIGATION NOW, AND NO
REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE EVER WILL BE ANY, TO REGULATE. 
DISTINGUISHING ECONOMY LIGHT & POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S.
113. 

THE FEDERAL POWER TO PROTECT NAVIGABLE WATERS IN INTERSTATE NAVIGABLE
STREAMS IS ITSELF IMPLIED FROM THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND IT CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF INFERRING ADDITIONAL
REGULATORY POWER WHICH HAS NO RELATION TO REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

REGULATION OF THE MANUFACTURE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED FOR BY THE ACT IS NOT A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
THE EXERCISE OF ANY SUCH POWER BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OVER THE
PROTEST OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE PLANT IS LOCATED, WOULD DESTROY OUR
DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 

FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO CONTROL AND REGULATE, NOT ONLY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A WATERPOWER PROJECT AFFECTING INTERSTATE NAVIGATION IN
SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS STREAM FLOW (WHICH VIRGINIA CONCEDES), BUT ALL
OTHER DETAILS OF THE PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH HAVING NO POSSIBLE RELATION
TO NAVIGATION, CANNOT BE PREDICATED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT EVERY
PLANT WHICH SENDS ITS PRODUCTS INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A BUSINESS
"AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE FEDERAL
COMMERCE POWER IF IT EXTENDS TO EVERY ACT AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

THE POWER TO PREVENT THE CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT IMPLY THE FURTHER
POWER TO EMBRACE IN A LICENSE OR PERMIT ANY AND EVERY REGULATORY
PROVISION WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY DESIRE, EVEN THOUGH WITHOUT
RELATION TO STREAM FLOW OR TO THE PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION OR NAVIGABLE
WATERS.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JURISDICTION AND POWERS OVER
NAVIGABLE WATERS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE REGULATION OF NAVIGATION AND THE
PROTECTION OF SUCH WATERS FROM HARMFUL OBSTRUCTIONS; AND, WHILE THE
STREAM IS SUBJECT TO A SERVITUDE IN FAVOR OF NAVIGATION AND INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE STATES THEMSELVES POSSESS ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
JURISDICTION.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 140. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POSSESSES NO POWER TO PROHIBIT IN NAVIGABLE
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES STRUCTURES WHICH ARE NOT HURTFUL OR HARMFUL
TO THE NAVIGABLE CAPACITY OF SUCH WATERS, OR TO NAVIGATION THEREIN. 
THE ONLY POWER THAT IT HAS OVER SUCH HARMLESS STRUCTURES IS THAT OF
DECIDING WHETHER THEY ARE IN FACT HARMLESS.  AND IT WOULD BE AN OBVIOUS
ABUSE OF THE POWER TO DECIDE THIS QUESTION, TO EXACT, AS A CONDITION TO
A FAVORABLE DECISION, THE ADDITIONAL POWER TO REGULATE MATTERS IN NO
WAY RELATED TO NAVIGATION OR THE PROTECTION OF SUCH WATERS. 

THE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OVER STREAMS, EXCEPT IN
SO FAR AS SUCH CONTROL RELATES TO NAVIGATION AND THE PROTECTION OF
NAVIGABLE WATERS, RESIDE IN THE STATES, AND THESE PROPERTY RIGHTS CAN
BE CONVERTED INTO SO-CALLED "NATIONAL RESOURCES" ONLY BY GRANT BY THE
STATES OR BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 

THE POWER ACT CONTAINS NOTHING ABOUT FLOOD CONTROL, AND THE
REGULATORY POWERS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THEY
RELATE TO THE CONTROL OF STREAM FLOW FOR THE PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION,
HAVE NO MORE RELATION TO FLOOD CONTROL THAN THEY DO TO NAVIGATION. 

ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD ITSELF CONSTRUCT A PROJECT IN
AID OF NAVIGATION AND FLOOD CONTROL, IT WOULD HAVE TO ACQUIRE THE
PROPERTY RIGHTS INVOLVED AND ERECT THE STRUCTURE AT ITS OWN EXPENSE. 
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM UNDERTAKING TO DEDICATE, AND IN
EFFECT TO CONFISCATE, THE PROPERTIES OF THE STATES, WITHOUT THEIR
CONSENT, FOR SUCH A PURPOSE. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE POWER ACT WHICH AUTHORIZE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OVER THE PROPERTY OF VIRGINIA, CONSISTING OF THE BED
OF THE RIVER AND THE USUFRUCT OF THE STREAM FLOW, WITHOUT COMPENSATION
TO THE STATE, VIOLATE ART. 4, SEC. 3, CL. 2, AS WELL AS THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

EVEN IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD THE POWER TO REGULATE THE
MANUFACTURE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY, THE REGULATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS, WHERE THERE IS NO
SUCH REGULATION OF PLANTS OPERATED BY STEAM, IS ARBITRARY AND WOULD
RESULT IN NEEDLESSLY CONFUSING THE EFFORTS OF VIRGINIA TO REGULATE THE
INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE. 

VIRGINIA IS ENTITLED TO A DECISION NOW ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE CAPTURE CLAUSE, AS WELL AS THE OTHER LICENSE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,
SO AS TO ENABLE HER TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF HER MANY
VALUABLE STREAMS. 

BY LEAVE OF COURT, BRIEFS OF AMICI CURIAE WERE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
STATES OF KENTUCKY, BY HUBERT MEREDITH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND M. B.
HOLIFIELD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL; WEST VIRGINIA, BY CLARENCE W.
MEADOWS, ATTORNEY GENERAL; WISCONSIN, BY JOHN E. MARTIN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL, NEWELL S. BOARDMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND MR. ADOLPH
KANNEBERG. 

A JOINT BRIEF WAS FILED:  FOR ALABAMA, BY THOMAS S. LAWSON, ATTORNEY
GENERAL; ARIZONA, BY JOE CONWAY, ATTORNEY GENERAL; CALIFORNIA, BY EARL
WARREN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; COLORADO, BY BYRON G. ROGERS, ATTORNEY
GENERAL; CONNECTICUT, BY FRANCIS A. PALLOTTI, ATTORNEY GENERAL;
DELAWARE, BY JAMES R. MORFORD, ATTORNEY GENERAL; FLORIDA, BY GEORGE
COUPER GIBBS, ATTORNEY GENERAL; IDAHO, BY J. W. TAYLOR, ATTORNEY
GENERAL; ILLINOIS, BY JOHN E. CASSIDY, ATTORNEY GENERAL; IOWA, BY JOHN
M. RANKIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; KANSAS, BY JAY S. PARKER, ATTORNEY
GENERAL; KENTUCKY, BY HUBERT MEREDITH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND M. B.
HOLIFIELD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL; LOUISIANA, BY EUGENE STANLEY,
ATTORNEY GENERAL; MAINE, BY FRANZ E. BURKETT, ATTORNEY GENERAL;
MARYLAND, BY WILLIAM C. WALSH, ATTORNEY GENERAL; MASSACHUSETTS, BY PAUL
A. DEVER, ATTORNEY GENERAL; MICHIGAN, BY THOMAS READ, ATTORNEY GENERAL;
MINNESOTA, BY J. A. A. BURNQUIST, ATTORNEY GENERAL; MISSISSIPPI, BY
GREEK L. RICE, ATTORNEY GENERAL; MISSOURI, BY ROY MCKITTRICK, ATTORNEY
GENERAL; NEBRASKA, BY WALTER R. JOHNSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL; NEVADA, BY
GRAY MASHBURN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; NEW HAMPSHIRE, BY THOMAS P. CHENEY,
ATTORNEY GENERAL; NEW JERSEY, BY DAVID T. WILENTZ, ATTORNEY GENERAL;
NEW MEXICO, BY FILO M. SEDILLO, ATTORNEY GENERAL; NEW YORK, BY JOHN J.
BENNETT, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND HENRY EPSTEIN, SOLICITOR GENERAL;
NORTH CAROLINA, BY HARRY MCMULLAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL; NORTH DAKOTA, BY
ALVIN C. STRUTZ, ATTORNEY GENERAL; OHIO, BY THOMAS J. HERBERT, ATTORNEY
GENERAL; OREGON, BY I. H. VAN WINKLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL; PENNSYLVANIA,
BY CLAUDE T. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL; RHODE ISLAND, BY LOUIS V.
JACKVONY, ATTORNEY GENERAL; SOUTH DAKOTA, BY LEO A. TEMMEY, ATTORNEY
GENERAL; TENNESSEE, BY ROY H. BEELER, ATTORNEY GENERAL; UTAH, BY JOSEPH
CHEZ, ATTORNEY GENERAL; VERMONT, BY LAWRENCE C. JONES, ATTORNEY
GENERAL; VIRGINIA, BY ABRAM P. STAPLES, ATTORNEY GENERAL; WASHINGTON,
BY SMITH TROY, ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND WYOMING, BY EWING T. KERR,
ATTORNEY GENERAL - SETTING FORTH THE POSITION OF THE STATES IN REGARD
TO THE RELATIVE POWERS OF THE STATES AND THE UNITED STATES OVER
NAVIGABLE AND NON-NAVIGABLE WATERS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER IN
RELATION TO CONDITIONS IN LICENSES, REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HYDROELECTRIC DAMS IN NAVIGABLE
RIVERS OF THE UNITED STATES.  TO REACH THIS ISSUE REQUIRES,
PRELIMINARILY, A DECISION AS TO THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE NEW RIVER, A
WATERCOURSE FLOWING THROUGH VIRGINIA AND WEST VIRGINIA.  THE DISTRICT
COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVE BOTH HELD THAT THE NEW
RIVER IS NOT NAVIGABLE, AND THAT THE UNITED STATES CANNOT ENJOIN THE
RESPONDENT FROM CONSTRUCTING AND PUTTING INTO OPERATION A HYDROELECTRIC
DAM SITUATED IN THE RIVER JUST ABOVE RADFORD, VIRGINIA. 

UNLAWFUL TO CONSTRUCT A DAM IN ANY NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS.  FN1  BY THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT
OF 1920,  FN2  HOWEVER, CONGRESS CREATED A FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
WITH AUTHORITY TO LICENSE THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH DAMS UPON SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS.  SECTION 23 OF THAT ACT PROVIDED THAT PERSONS INTENDING TO
CONSTRUCT A DAM IN A NONNAVIGABLE STREAM MAY FILE A DECLARATION OF
INTENTION WITH THE COMMISSION.  IF AFTER INVESTIGATION THE COMMISSION
FINDS THAT THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE WILL NOT BE
AFFECTED, PERMISSION SHALL BE GRANTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION.  OTHERWISE
CONSTRUCTION CANNOT GO FORWARD WITHOUT A LICENSE. 

THE RADFORD DAM PROJECT WAS INITIATED BY RESPONDENT'S PREDECESSOR,
THE NEW RIVER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, WHICH FILED ITS DECLARATION OF
INTENTION WITH THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ON JUNE 25, 1925.  THE
COMMISSION REQUESTED A REPORT FROM GENERAL HARRY TAYLOR, THEN CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT.  HE FIRST REPORTED THAT THE RIVER WAS
NAVIGABLE, AND ALSO THAT WHILE THE WATER FLOW FROM THE DAM, IF NOT
PROPERLY REGULATED, COULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON NAVIGATION DURING
LOW WATER STAGES IN THE KANAWHA RIVER (OF WHICH THE NEW WAS ONE OF THE
PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES), SUCH POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECT WOULD NOT WARRANT
REFUSING A LICENSE TO CONSTRUCT THE DAM IF CONTROL WERE MAINTAINED BY
THE UNITED STATES.  ON REVIEW AT THE COMMISSION'S REQUEST, HOWEVER,
GENERAL TAYLOR RENDERED A SECOND REPORT, CONCLUDING THAT THE NEW RIVER
IN ITS PRESENT CONDITION WAS NOT NAVIGABLE AND THAT NAVIGATION ON THE
KANAWHA WOULD NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED POWER
DEVELOPMENT.  ON MARCH 2, 1926, THE COMMISSION HELD A HEARING ON THE
DECLARATION; THE ONLY EVIDENCE THEN SUBMITTED WAS GENERAL TAYLOR'S
SECOND REPORT. 

RESPONDENT, THE APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, TOOK AN
ASSIGNMENT OF THE DECLARATION OF INTENTION ON AUGUST 30, 1926, AND
SEVERAL DAYS LATER FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE ON THE
COMMISSION'S SUGGESTION THAT THIS WOULD EXPEDITE MATTERS AND COULD BE
WITHDRAWN IF IT LATER DEVELOPED THAT NO FEDERAL LICENSE WAS REQUIRED. 
IN OCTOBER, THE DISTRICT ENGINEER OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT HELD A PUBLIC
HEARING AT RADFORD.  ON JUNE 1, 1927, THE COMMISSION MADE A FINDING
THAT THE NEW RIVER WAS NOT "NAVIGABLE WATERS" WITHIN THE DEFINITION IN
SEC. 3 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT OF 1920 BUT THAT (UNDER SEC. 23
OF THE ACT) THE PROJECT WOULD AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  ON JULY 1, 1927, THE COMMISSION TENDERED TO
RESPONDENT A STANDARD FORM LICENSE, WHICH THE RESPONDENT REFUSED, IN
APRIL, 1928, PRINCIPALLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDITIONS - ESPECIALLY
THOSE CONCERNING RATES, ACCOUNTS AND EVENTUAL ACQUISITION - WERE
UNRELATED TO NAVIGATION.  IN FEBRUARY, 1930, RESPONDENT REITERATED THAT
ITS PROJECT WAS NOT WITHIN THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, BUT
NEVERTHELESS OFFERED TO ACCEPT A "MINOR-PART" LICENSE  FN3 CONTAINING
ONLY SUCH CONDITIONS AS WOULD PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN NAVIGATION.  IN SEPTEMBER, 1930, ATTORNEY GENERAL MITCHELL
ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT IT COULD PROPERLY ISSUE SUCH A MINOR-PART
LICENSE; FN4  THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION HAD STATED THAT
THE NEW RIVER WAS NEITHER NAVIGATED NOR NAVIGABLE IN FACT.  ON NOVEMBER
25, THE COMMISSION "DECLINED TO TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION
FAVORABLE OR ADVERSE," ON THE GROUND THAT A COURT ADJUDICATION WAS
DESIRABLE.  AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION AS AN INDEPENDENT
AGENCY,  FN5  IT HELD ANOTHER HEARING IN FEBRUARY, 1931; IN APRIL IT
DENIED THE APPLICATION FOR A MINOR-PART LICENSE, DIRECTED THAT THE
RESPONDENT BE TENDERED A STANDARD FORM LICENSE UNDER THE ACT, AND
ORDERED IT NOT TO PROCEED WITHOUT SUCH A LICENSE.  A MINORITY OF THE
COMMISSION THEN FAVORED A FINDING THAT THE NEW RIVER WAS NAVIGABLE; THE
MAJORITY, HOWEVER, THOUGHT THAT QUESTION WAS FOR THE COURTS AND THAT
THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY BASED UPON SEC. 23 OF THE
FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT. 

ON JUNE 8, 1931, THE RESPONDENT BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE
COMMISSION TO REMOVE A CLOUD ON ITS TITLE AND TO RESTRAIN INTERFERENCE
WITH THE USE OF ITS PROPERTY.  THIS CASE WAS DISMISSED FOR
JURISDICTIONAL REASONS.  FN6  WHILE IT WAS PENDING, ON OCTOBER 12,
1932, THE COMMISSION WITHOUT NOTICE ADOPTED A RESOLUTION THAT THE NEW
RIVER, FROM THE MOUTH OF WILSON CREEK, VIRGINIA, NORTH, WAS NAVIGABLE. 

THE RESPONDENT BEGAN CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE DAM ABOUT JUNE 1,
1934.  ON MAY 6, 1935, THE UNITED STATES FILED THIS BILL FOR AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPOSED DAM
OTHERWISE THAN UNDER A LICENSE FROM THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, AND
IN THE ALTERNATIVE A MANDATORY ORDER OF REMOVAL.  IT ALLEGED THAT THE
NEW RIVER IS NAVIGABLE; THAT THE DAM WOULD CONSTITUTE AN OBSTRUCTION TO
NAVIGATION AND WOULD IMPAIR THE NAVIGABLE CAPACITY OF THE NAVIGABLE
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE NEW, KANAWHA AND OHIO RIVERS; THAT
THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND THE DAM WOULD AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE; AND THAT ITS CONSTRUCTION THEREFORE
VIOLATED BOTH THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT AND THE FEDERAL WATER POWER
ACT.  RESPONDENT DENIED THESE ALLEGATIONS, AND ALSO SET FORTH A NUMBER
OF SEPARATE DEFENSES BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE NEW RIVER WAS
NONNAVIGABLE.  THE FORTIETH AND FORTY-FIRST PARAGRAPHS OF THE ANSWER,
HOWEVER, SET FORTH DEFENSES RELIED ON BY THE RESPONDENT EVEN IF THE
RIVER WERE HELD NAVIGABLE.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE WAS (1) THAT THE
CONDITIONS OF ANY FEDERAL LICENSE MUST BE STRICTLY LIMITED TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE NAVIGABLE CAPACITY OF THE WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES; AND (2) THAT THE COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO GRANT THE MINOR-PART
LICENSE CONTAINING ONLY SUCH CONDITIONS WAS UNLAWFUL, AND THAT ANY
RELIEF SHOULD BE CONDITIONED UPON THE COMMISSION'S GRANTING RESPONDENT
SUCH A LICENSE.  BY THESE DEFENSES RESPONDENT PUT IN QUESTION - IN THE
EVENT OF AN ADVERSE HOLDING ON NAVIGABILITY - THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONDITIONS OF THE ACT CARRIED OVER INTO THE STANDARD FORM LICENSE WHICH
RELATE TO ACCOUNTS, CONTROL OF OPERATION AND EVENTUAL ACQUISITION OF
THE PROJECT AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE LICENSE. 

AFTER TRIAL, IN AN OPINION REINFORCED BY FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND
LAW, THE DISTRICT COURT DECIDED THAT THE NEW RIVER IS NOT A NAVIGABLE
WATER OF THE UNITED STATES; THAT RESPONDENT'S DAM WOULD NOT OBSTRUCT
THE NAVIGABLE CAPACITY OF THE KANAWHA OR ANY OTHER NAVIGABLE RIVER, AND
WOULD NOT AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THAT THE POWER
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ON THESE MATTERS WERE NOT FINAL BUT SUBJECT TO
THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURTS; FN7  THAT THE FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT
DID NOT VEST IN THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE A LICENSE IN A
NONNAVIGABLE RIVER; THAT EVEN IF THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO
REQUIRE SOME LICENSE FOR A DAM IN NON-NAVIGABLE WATERS, IT COULD NOT
IMPOSE CONDITIONS HAVING NO RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF THE NAVIGABLE
CAPACITY OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND THAT ITS EFFORT TO IMPOSE
UPON RESPONDENT A LICENSE CONTAINING UNLAWFUL CONDITIONS BARRED THE
UNITED STATES FROM RELIEF.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE THEREFORE DISMISSED THE
BILL, BUT LEFT IT OPEN TO THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSERT ITS RIGHTS IF FUTURE
OPERATION OF THE PROJECT INTERFERED WITH THE NAVIGABLE CAPACITY OF THE
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ONE
JUDGE DISSENTING, AFFIRMED.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN8 

CONCURRENT FINDINGS.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE NEW RIVER
WAS NOT NAVIGABLE WAS CONCURRED IN BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFTER A CAREFUL APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.  FN9  BOTH
COURTS STATED IN DETAIL THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS RELATING TO THE USE OF
THE RIVER AND ITS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, SUCH AS VOLUME OF WATER,
SWIFTNESS AND OBSTRUCTIONS.  THERE IS NO REAL DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES HERE CONCERNING THESE PHYSICAL AND HISTORICAL EVIDENTIARY
FACTS.  BUT THERE ARE SHARP DIVERGENCIES OF VIEW AS TO THEIR
RELIABILITY AS INDICIA OF NAVIGABILITY AND THE WEIGHT WHICH SHOULD BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THEM.  THE DISAGREEMENT IS OVER THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION
UPON NAVIGABILITY TO BE DRAWN FROM THIS UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE. 

THE RESPONDENT RELIES UPON THIS COURT'S STATEMENT THAT "EACH
DETERMINATION AS TO NAVIGABILITY MUST STAND ON ITS OWN FACTS,"  FN10
AND UPON THE CONVENTIONAL RULE THAT FACTUAL FINDINGS CONCURRED IN BY
TWO COURTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT UNLESS CLEAR ERROR IS SHOWN. 
FN11 

IN CASES INVOLVING THE NAVIGABILITY OF WATER COURSES, THIS COURT,
WITHOUT EXPRESSLY PASSING ON THE FINALITY OF THE FINDINGS, ON SOME
OCCASIONS HAS ENTERED INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS FOUND BY TWO
COURTS TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE CORRECTLY
APPLIED TO THE FACTS FOUND THE PROPER LEGAL TESTS.  FN12  WHEN WE DEAL
WITH ISSUES SUCH AS THESE BEFORE US, FACTS AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE ARE TOO CLOSELY CONNECTED TO MAKE THE TWO-COURT RULE A
SERVICEABLE GUIDE.  THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF NAVIGABILITY EMBRACES BOTH
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS.  IT IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY A FORMULA
WHICH FITS EVERY TYPE OF STREAM UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND AT ALL
TIMES.  OUR PAST DECISIONS HAVE TAKEN DUE ACCOUNT OF THE CHANGES AND
COMPLEXITIES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A RIVER.  WE DO NOT PURPORT NOW TO
LAY DOWN ANY SINGLE DEFINITIVE TEST.  WE DRAW FROM THE PRIOR DECISIONS
IN THIS FIELD AND APPLY THEM, WITH DUE REGARD TO THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF
THE PROBLEM, TO THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED BY THE NEW
RIVER.  TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CERTAIN JUDICIAL STANDARDS ARE TO BE
APPLIED FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE COMPLEX OF THE CONDITIONS IN
RESPECT TO ITS CAPACITY FOR USE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE RENDER IT A
NAVIGABLE STREAM WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  BOTH THE
STANDARDS AND THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF LAW
INSEPARABLE FROM THE PARTICULAR FACTS TO WHICH THEY ARE APPLIED. 

NAVIGABILITY.  THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES OVER ITS WATERS WHICH
ARE CAPABLE OF USE AS INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS ARISES FROM THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO
REGULATE COMMERCE  ...  AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES."  IT WAS HELD EARLY
IN OUR HISTORY THAT THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE NECESSARILY INCLUDED
POWER OVER NAVIGATION.  FN13  TO MAKE ITS CONTROL EFFECTIVE THE
CONGRESS MAY KEEP THE "NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES" OPEN AND
FREE AND PROVIDE BY SANCTIONS AGAINST ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THE
COUNTRY'S WATER ASSETS.  FN14 IT MAY LEGISLATE TO FORBID OR LICENSE
DAMS IN THE WATERS; FN15  ITS POWER OVER IMPROVEMENTS FOR NAVIGATION IN
RIVERS IS "ABSOLUTE."  FN16 

THE STATES POSSESS CONTROL OF THE WATERS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS,
"SUBJECT TO THE ACKNOWLEDGED JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION IN REGARD TO COMMERCE AND THE NAVIGATION OF THE WATERS
OF RIVERS."  FN17  IT IS THIS SUBORDINATE LOCAL CONTROL THAT, EVEN AS
TO NAVIGABLE RIVERS, CREATES BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS A
CONTRARIETY OF INTERESTS RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND PROTECTION OF
WATERS THROUGH LICENSES, THE OPERATION OF STRUCTURES AND THE
ACQUISITION OF PROJECTS AT THE END OF THE LICENSE TERM.  BUT THERE IS
NO DOUBT THAT THE UNITED STATES POSSESSES THE POWER TO CONTROL THE
ERECTION OF STRUCTURES IN NAVIGABLE WATERS. 

THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE NEW RIVER IS, OF COURSE, A FACTUAL QUESTION
FN18  BUT TO CALL IT A FACT CANNOT OBSCURE THE DIVERSE ELEMENTS THAT
ENTER INTO THE APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL TESTS AS TO NAVIGABILITY.  WE
ARE DEALING HERE WITH THE SOVEREIGN POWERS OF THE UNION, THE NATION'S
RIGHT THAT ITS WATERWAYS BE UTILIZED FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMERCE
OF THE WHOLE COUNTRY.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE USES TO WHICH THE STREAMS
MAY BE PUT VARY FROM THE CARRIAGE OF OCEAN LINERS TO THE FLOATING OUT
OF LOGS; FN19  THAT THE DENSITY OF TRAFFIC VARIES EQUALLY WIDELY FROM
THE BUSY HARBORS OF THE SEACOAST TO THE SPARSELY SETTLED REGIONS OF THE
WESTERN MOUNTAINS.  FN20  THE TESTS AS TO NAVIGABILITY MUST TAKE THESE
VARIATIONS INTO CONSIDERATION. 

BOTH LOWER COURTS BASED THEIR INVESTIGATION PRIMARILY UPON THE
GENERALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF THE DANIEL BALL.  FN21  IN SO DOING
THEY WERE IN ACCORD WITH THE RULINGS OF THIS COURT ON THE BASIC CONCEPT
OF NAVIGABILITY.  FN22  EACH APPLICATION OF THIS TEST, HOWEVER, IS APT
TO UNCOVER VARIATIONS AND REFINEMENTS WHICH REQUIRE FURTHER
ELABORATION. 

IN THE LOWER COURTS AND HERE, THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE PHRASE
"SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING USED, IN THEIR ORDINARY CONDITION," IN THE DANIEL
BALL DEFINITION, SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY
OF DETERMINING NAVIGABILITY IN THE LIGHT OF THE EFFECT OF REASONABLE
IMPROVEMENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT THE ARGUMENT INAPPLICABLE. 
FN23 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID:  "IF THIS STRETCH OF THE RIVER WAS
NOT NAVIGABLE IN FACT IN ITS UNIMPROVED CONDITION, IT IS NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED NAVIGABLE MERELY BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE NAVIGABLE
BY IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT IN FACT MADE.  OF COURSE IF THE
IMPROVEMENTS HAD BEEN MADE THE QUESTION OF FACT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
DIFFERENT."  FN24 

TO APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE OF NAVIGABILITY ON THE NATURAL CONDITION
ONLY OF THE WATERWAY IS ERRONEOUS.  ITS AVAILABILITY FOR NAVIGATION
MUST ALSO BE CONSIDERED.  "NATURAL AND ORDINARY CONDITION"  FN25
REFERS TO VOLUME OF WATER, THE GRADIENTS AND THE REGULARITY OF THE
FLOW.  A WATERWAY, OTHERWISE SUITABLE FOR NAVIGATION, IS NOT BARRED
FROM THAT CLASSIFICATION MERELY BECAUSE ARTIFICIAL AIDS MUST MAKE THE
HIGHWAY SUITABLE FOR USE BEFORE COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION MAY BE
UNDERTAKEN.  CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THIS IN SEC. 3 OF THE WATER POWER
ACT BY DEFINING "NAVIGABLE WATERS" AS THOSE "WHICH EITHER IN THEIR
NATURAL OR IMPROVED CONDITION" ARE USED OR SUITABLE FOR USE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT IS QUITE RIGHT IN SAYING THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIMITS TO
SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AS AFFECTING NAVIGABILITY.  THESE LIMITS ARE
NECESSARILY A MATTER OF DEGREE.  FN26  THERE MUST BE A BALANCE BETWEEN
COST AND NEED AT A TIME WHEN THE IMPROVEMENT WOULD BE USEFUL.  WHEN
ONCE FOUND TO BE NAVIGABLE, A WATERWAY REMAINS SO. FN27  THIS IS NO
MORE INDEFINITE THAN A RULE OF NAVIGABILITY IN FACT AS ADOPTED BELOW
BASED UPON "USEFUL INTERSTATE COMMERCE" OR "GENERAL AND COMMON
USEFULNESS FOR PURPOSES OF TRADE AND COMMERCE" IF THESE ARE INTERPRETED
AS BARRING IMPROVEMENTS.  FN28  NOR IS IT NECESSARY THAT THE
IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE ACTUALLY COMPLETED OR EVEN AUTHORIZED.  THE
POWER OF CONGRESS OVER COMMERCE IS NOT TO BE HAMPERED BECAUSE OF THE
NECESSITY FOR REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE AN INTERSTATE WATERWAY
AVAILABLE FOR TRAFFIC. 

OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFICULTIES IN APPLYING THESE VIEWS. 
IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY BE ENTIRELY REASONABLE IN A THICKLY POPULATED,
HIGHLY DEVELOPED, INDUSTRIAL REGION MAY HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY TOO COSTLY
FOR THE SAME REGION IN THE DAYS OF THE PIONEERS.  THE CHANGES IN
ENGINEERING PRACTICES OR THE COMING OF NEW INDUSTRIES WITH VARYING
CLASSES OF FREIGHT MAY AFFECT THE TYPE OF THE IMPROVEMENT.  ALTHOUGH
NAVIGABILITY TO FIX OWNERSHIP OF THE RIVER BED  FN29  OR RIPARIAN
RIGHTS FN30  IS DETERMINED AS THE CASES JUST CITED IN THE NOTES SHOW,
AS OF THE FORMATION OF THE UNION IN THE ORIGINAL STATES OR THE
ADMISSION TO STATEHOOD OF THOSE FORMED LATER, NAVIGABILITY, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE, MAY LATER ARISE.  FN31  AN
ANALOGY IS FOUND IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION,  FN32  WHICH MAY BE
EXTENDED OVER PLACES FORMERLY NONNAVIGABLE.  FN33  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN
DOUBT THAT THE NAVIGABILITY REFERRED TO IN THE CASES WAS NAVIGABILITY
DESPITE THE OBSTRUCTION OF FALLS, RAPIDS, SAND BARS, CARRIES OR
SHIFTING CURRENTS.  FN34  THE PLENARY FEDERAL POWER OVER COMMERCE MUST
BE ABLE TO DEVELOP WITH THE NEEDS OF THAT COMMERCE WHICH IS THE REASON
FOR ITS EXISTENCE.  IT CANNOT PROPERLY BE SAID THAT THE FEDERAL POWER
OVER NAVIGATION IS ENLARGED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATERWAYS.  IT
IS MERELY THAT IMPROVEMENTS MAKE APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN WATERWAYS THE
EXISTING POWER OVER COMMERCE.  FN35  IN DETERMINING THE NAVIGABLE
CHARACTER OF THE NEW RIVER IT IS PROPER TO CONSIDER THE FEASIBILITY OF
INTERSTATE USE AFTER REASONABLE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH MIGHT BE MADE. 
FN36 

NOR IS IT NECESSARY FOR NAVIGABILITY THAT THE USE SHOULD BE
CONTINUOUS.  THE CHARACTER OF THE REGION, ITS PRODUCTS AND THE
DIFFICULTIES OR DANGERS OF THE NAVIGATION INFLUENCE THE REGULARITY AND
EXTENT OF THE USE.  FN37  SMALL TRAFFIC COMPARED TO THE AVAILABLE
COMMERCE OF THE REGION IS SUFFICIENT.  FN38  EVEN ABSENCE OF USE OVER
LONG PERIODS OF YEARS, BECAUSE OF CHANGED CONDITIONS, THE COMING OF THE
RAILROAD OR IMPROVED HIGHWAYS DOES NOT AFFECT THE NAVIGABILITY OF
RIVERS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  FN39  IT IS WELL RECOGNIZED TOO
THAT THE NAVIGABILITY MAY BE OF A SUBSTANTIAL PART ONLY OF THE WATERWAY
IN QUESTION.  FN40 OF COURSE, THESE EVIDENCES OF NONNAVIGABILITY IN
WHOLE OR IN PART ARE TO BE APPRAISED IN TOTALITY TO DETERMINE THE
EFFECT OF ALL.  WITH THESE LEGAL TESTS IN MIND WE PROCEED TO EXAMINE
THE FACTS TO SEE WHETHER THE 111-MILE REACH OF THIS RIVER FROM
ALLISONIA TO HINTON, ACROSS THE VIRGINIA-WEST VIRGINIA STATE LINE, HAS
"CAPABILITY OF USE BY THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COMMERCE."  FN41 

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS.  NEW RIVER MAY BE SAID TO ASSUME ITS
CHARACTER AS SUCH AT THE MOUTH OF WILSON CREEK NEAR THE NORTH CAROLINA
VIRGINIA LINE.  FROM THAT POINT IT FLOWS FIRST IN A NORTHEAST AND THEN
IN A NORTHWEST DIRECTION SOMETHING OVER 250 MILES TO KANAWHA FALLS,
WEST VIRGINIA.  IT PASSES THROUGH ALLISONIA AND RADFORD, VIRGINIA, AND
THEN HINTON, WEST VIRGINIA.  IT IS JOINED BY MANY TRIBUTARIES, THE
LARGEST OF WHICH IS THE GAULEY.  AT KANAWHA FALLS IT CHANGES ITS NAME
TO THE KANAWHA, A NAVIGABLE RIVER OF COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE WHICH JOINS
THE OHIO 97 MILES BELOW.  THE WHOLE TERRITORY TRAVERSED BY THE NEW IS
BROKEN AND MOUNTAINOUS.  BETWEEN HINTON AND KANAWHA FALLS, THE RIVER IS
SWIFT AND THE GORGE PRECIPITOUS.  ABOVE HINTON THE RIVER FLOWS MORE
SLOWLY, THROUGH A BROADER VALLEY AND BETWEEN LESS RUGGED MOUNTAINS. 
THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF THE AREA ABOVE RADFORD.  THROUGHOUT THE RIVER
THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF WATER, AND THE RESPONDENT HARDLY DENIES THAT
THE FLOWAGE SUFFICES IF OTHER CONDITIONS MAKE THE NEW AVAILABLE FOR
NAVIGATION.  FN42 

IT WILL CONSERVE DISCUSSION TO APPRAISE THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE 111
MILE STRETCH BETWEEN ALLISONIA AND HINTON IN THREE SECTIONS WHICH
TOGETHER FORM THE WHOLE REACH BETWEEN THESE POINTS: THE 28 MILES FROM
ALLISONIA TO RADFORD, WHICH THE UNITED STATES IMPROVED BETWEEN 1876 AND
1883; THE 59-MILE STRETCH FROM RADFORD TO WILEY'S FALLS, VIRGINIA,
NEVER IMPROVED EXCEPT AT WILEY'S FALLS ITSELF; AND THE 24 MILES FROM
WILEY'S FALLS ACROSS THE STATE LINE TO HINTON, WEST VIRGINIA, WHICH,
LIKE THE UPPER SECTION, THE GOVERNMENT IMPROVED DURING 1876-1883.  WE
SHALL EXAMINE CHIEFLY THE DISPUTED MIDDLE SECTION, FOR AS TO THE OTHERS
THE EVIDENCE OF NAVIGABILITY IS MUCH STRONGER AND THAT OF OBSTRUCTIONS
MUCH WEAKER.  FOR INSTANCE, THE REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR
1873 REFERS TO CERTAIN KEELBOATS OPERATING ON THE RIVER, AND HIS REPORT
FOR 1883 SHOWS THAT 17 KEELBOATS OPERATED ABOVE HINTON.  KEELBOATS WERE
FLAT-BOTTOMED BATEAUX, 50 TO 70 FEET LONG, WITH A DRAFT OF TWO FEET AND
A CARRYING CAPACITY VARYING UP TO 10 OR 12 TONS.  THEY WERE USED
COMMERCIALLY TO TRANSPORT LUMBER, TOBACCO AND OTHER PRODUCTS OF THE
REGION.  THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT THESE BATEAUX PLIED FROM HINTON UP
TO NEAR GLEN LYN WITH FAIR REGULARITY THROUGH THE FIRST DECADE OF THIS
CENTURY AND WELL INTO THE SECOND; TIMBER AND LUMBER IN LARGE QUANTITIES
APPARENTLY WERE BOATED AND RAFTED DOWN TO HINTON FROM VARIOUS UP-RIVER
POINTS BELOW GLEN LYN UNTIL ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD WAR.  FN43
AROUND AND ABOVE RADFORD THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS REPORTED TWO KEELBOATS
OPERATING IN 1881, EIGHT IN 1882, AND EIGHT TOGETHER WITH A SMALL
STEAMBOAT IN 1883.  THE CORROBORATING TESTIMONY OF MANY WITNESSES SHOWS
THAT IN THE 80S THESE BOATS CARRIED IRON ORE AND PIG IRON, AS WELL AS
PRODUCE AND MERCHANDISE, BETWEEN ALLISONIA AND NEW RIVER BRIDGE, WHICH
IS A LITTLE ABOVE RADFORD.  FN44  AT THE HINTON AND NEW RIVER BRIDGE
RAILROAD STATIONS, FREIGHT BROUGHT IN BY THE KEELBOATS OR OTHER RIVER
CRAFT WAS TRANSSHIPPED, AND FREIGHT ARRIVING BY RAIL WAS FORWARDED BY
RIVER. 

WE COME THEN TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE CRUCIAL STRETCH FROM RADFORD
TO BELOW WILEY'S FALLS WHERE JUNCTION IS MADE WITH THE INTERSTATE REACH
FROM WILEY'S FALLS TO HINTON.  IN THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR
FOR 1872 APPEARS HUTTON'S USEFUL MILE-BY-MILE SURVEY OF THE RIVER FROM
ABOVE ALLISONIA TO THE MOUTH OF THE GREENBRIER, WHICH IS NEARLY DOWN TO
HINTON.  IT WAS MADE AS A BASIS FOR PLANS TO IMPROVE THE NEW BY FEDERAL
APPROPRIATION.  FN45  THIS SURVEY DESIGNATES THE RADFORD-WILEY'S FALLS
STRETCH AS "MILE 46" TO "MILE 104" INCLUSIVE.  EIGHTEEN OF THESE MILES
HAVE GRADES FALLING, GRADUALLY OR ABRUPTLY, MORE THAN FOUR FEET IN THE
MILE.  SEVERAL OF THESE WHERE THERE ARE RAPIDS OR FALLS SHOW DROPS OF
EIGHT, NINE AND IN ONE INSTANCE 11 1/2 FEET.  THE HIGHER FOOTAGE
REPRESENTS, OF COURSE, MILES IN WHICH SMALL FALLS ARE FOUND.  BETWEEN
THESE MORE PRECIPITOUS SECTIONS ARE MANY MILES OF WHAT IS CALLED "GOOD
WATER," WITH A GRADUAL FALL OF 4 FEET OR LESS.  EVEN IN MILES WHERE THE
DECLIVITY IS RAPID, THE FALL IS APPARENTLY LARGELY IN SECTIONS
CONTAINING OBSTRUCTIONS.  FOR INSTANCE, THE 51ST MILE READS "RAPID,
OVER BOWLDERS AND GRAVEL, 1,500 FEET LONG; FALL, 8 1/2 FEET," AND THE
100TH MILE "NEILLEY'S FALLS AND RAPIDS; WHOLE FALL, 11 FEET, 6 OF IT
NEARLY VERTICAL.  A SLUICE 500 FEET LONG, ALONG LEFT BANK, WILL PASS
THEM, WITH 50 FEET OF ROCK EXCAVATION AND 450 FEET OF BOWLDERS AND
GRAVEL."  QUITE FREQUENTLY WHERE THE FALL IS MODERATE, OTHER
OBSTRUCTIONS APPEAR, AS THE 78TH MILE "RAPIDS, 500 FEET LONG, OVER
BOWLDERS AND GRAVEL; FALL, 2 FEET."  LARGE ISOLATED ROCKS ARE SCATTERED
ABUNDANTLY THROUGHOUT THE STRETCH.  A GEOLOGIST TESTIFYING FOR THE
RESPONDENT TELLS STRIKINGLY HOW THE FAULTING AND FOLDING OF THE SURFACE
AT THIS STRETCH HAS RESULTED IN THE TILTING OF THE ROCK STRATA TO A
STEEP DEGREE.  "IN ITS FLOW, THE WATER OF NEW RIVER MOVES ALONG AND UP
THE SLOPES OF SUCCESSIVE ROCK STRATA OR LEDGES ...  THIS RESULTS IN A
RIVER WITH NUMEROUS LEDGES OF ROCK STRATA, SOME PARTLY SUBMERGED, SOME
EXPOSED, WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY VERTICAL OR STANDING ON END, AND WHICH
EXTEND ACROSS THE STREAM AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE LINE OF FLOW  ...  THE
SLOPE OF THE STRATA IS DOWNWARD IN AN UPSTREAM DIRECTION RATHER THAN IN
A DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION," CONTRARY TO THE USUAL CONDITION.  NO OTHER
DATA POINT TO MATERIAL VARIATIONS FROM THESE DESCRIPTIONS. 

USE OF THE RIVER FROM RADFORD TO WILEY'S FALLS.  NAVIGATION ON THE
RADFORD-WILEY'S FALLS STRETCH WAS NOT LARGE.  UNDOUBTEDLY THE
DIFFICULTIES RESTRICTED IT AND WITH THE COMING OF THE NORFOLK & WESTERN
AND THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILROADS IN THE 80S, SUCH USE AS THERE HAD
BEEN PRACTICALLY CEASED, EXCEPT FOR SMALL PUBLIC FERRIES GOING FROM ONE
BANK TO THE OTHER.  FN46  WELL AUTHENTICATED INSTANCES OF BOATING ALONG
THIS STRETCH, HOWEVER, EXIST.  IN 1819 A SURVEY WAS MADE BY MOORE AND
BRIGGS, WHOM THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA HAD SENT TO REPORT ON THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE NEW FOR IMPROVEMENT.  BEGINNING AT THE MOUTH OF THE
GREENBRIER THEY BOATED UP TO THE MOUTH OF SINKING CREEK, SOME 55 MILES,
NOTING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RIVER AS THEY WENT.  THEY REPORTED
THAT THEY ASCENDED ALL FALLS WITH THEIR BOAT, "THOUGH, IN TWO OR THREE
INSTANCES, WITH CONSIDERABLE DIFFICULTY, AFTER TAKING OUT OUR BAGGAGE,
STORES, &C."  FN47  SINKING CREEK IS ABOUT HALF WAY UP THIS STRETCH OF
RIVER WE ARE CONSIDERING. 

IN 1861 THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATED $30,000 TO IMPROVE
THE NEW RIVER TO ACCOMMODATE TRANSPORTATION OF MILITARY STORES BY
BATEAUX FROM CENTRAL DEPOT (RADFORD) TO THE MOUTH OF THE GREENBRIER. 
FN48  WHILE THERE IS NO DIRECT PROOF THAT THIS PARTICULAR APPROPRIATION
WAS SPENT, REPORTS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT ENGINEERS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT EFFECTED SOME IMPROVEMENTS ON THE RIVER. 
FN49  THESE FACTS BUTTRESS THE TESTIMONY OF SEVERAL WITNESSES, ONE A
CONFEDERATE VETERAN, THAT DURING THE CIVIL WAR KEELBOTTOM BOATS BROUGHT
SUPPLIES FROM RADFORD TO A COMMISSARY AT THE NARROWS (ABOUT 7 MILES
ABOVE GLEN LYN), AND THEN CONTINUED FURTHER DOWNSTREAM.  FN50  THIS
TESTIMONY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ACCEPTED AS TRUE.  FN51 

FROM THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR TO THE COMING OF THE RAILROADS, THE
EVIDENCE OF ELDERLY RESIDENTS FAMILIAR WITH EVENTS ALONG THE BANKS OF
THE RIVER BETWEEN RADFORD AND WILEY'S FALLS LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT AT
LEAST SPORADIC TRANSPORTATION TOOK PLACE IN AND THROUGHOUT THIS
STRETCH.  BY THIS IT IS NOT MEANT THAT THE KEELBOATS ABOVE RADFORD AND
ABOVE HINTON, WHICH OPERATED FREQUENTLY IN THE IMPROVED SECTIONS, MADE
REGULAR THROUGH TRIPS FROM ALLISONIA PAST RADFORD TO HINTON.  THROUGH
NAVIGATION, HOWEVER, DID OCCUR, AS IS SHOWN BY THE TESTIMONY OF A
NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND RECOGNIZED BY THE LOWER COURTS.  FN52  THERE
ARE ALSO NUMEROUS REFERENCES TO ISOLATED BITS OF BOATING ALONG PARTS OF
THE RADFORD-WILEY'S FALLS REACH.  FN53  AND WHEN THE GOVERNMENT STOPPED
IMPROVEMENT IN 1883, IT ORDERED THE BOATS IT WAS USING IN THE LEAD
MINES' DIVISION ABOVE ALLISONIA, AND AT VARIOUS PLACES DOWNSTREAM, TO
BE BROUGHT DOWN THE FULL STRETCH OF THE RIVER TO HINTON FOR SALE. 
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, A DERRICK BOAT, FOUR
BATEAUX, AND NUMEROUS FLAT BOATS, SKIFFS AND CANOES - MORE THAN TWENTY
VESSELS IN ALL - WERE TAKEN DOWN TO HINTON, A NUMBER OF THEM FROM
POINTS ABOVE RADFORD.  THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED, AS THE CHIEF OF
ENGINEERS' REPORT SHOWS, DESPITE DIFFICULTIES OCCASIONED BY "WEATHER,
LOW WATER, AND SCARCITY OF LABOR."  FN54 

IN ADDITION TO THE TESTIMONY OF USE IN THE DAYS BEFORE RAILWAYS AND
GOOD ROADS, THERE WAS A DEMONSTRATION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF NAVIGATION
BY A GOVERNMENT SURVEY BOAT WITH AN OUTBOARD MOTOR, 16 FEET LONG, FIVE
FEET WIDE, DRAWING 2 1/2 TO 3 FEET, LOADED WITH A CREW OF FIVE AND ITS
SURVEY EQUIPMENT.  THIS BOAT MADE A ROUND TRIP FROM THE NARROWS, JUST
ABOVE WILEY'S FALLS, TO ALLISONIA, A DISTANCE OF 72 MILES ONE WAY, IN
JULY, 1936, WHEN THE RIVER STAGE WAS NORMAL SUMMER LOW WATER.  WHILE
THE CREW WAS OUT OF THE BOAT AND USED POLES A NUMBER OF TIMES, THERE
WERE NO CARRIES OR PORTAGES.  GOING UPSTREAM IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO
PULL OR PUSH THE BOAT MORE THAN A MILE AND A QUARTER AND NOT MORE THAN
A FEW HUNDRED FEET ON THE RETURN TRIP. 

USE OF A STREAM LONG ABANDONED BY WATER COMMERCE IS DIFFICULT TO
PROVE BY ABUNDANT EVIDENCE.  FOURTEEN AUTHENTICATED INSTANCES OF USE IN
A CENTURY AND A HALF BY EXPLORERS AND TRAPPERS, COUPLED WITH GENERAL
HISTORICAL REFERENCES TO THE RIVER AS A WATER ROUTE FOR THE EARLY FUR
TRADERS AND THEIR SUPPLIES IN PIROGUES AND DURHAM OR FLAT-BOTTOMED
CRAFT SIMILAR TO THE KEELBOATS OF THE NEW, SUFFICED UPON THAT PHASE IN
THE CASE OF THE DESPLAINES.  FN55  NOR IS LACK OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC A
BAR TO A CONCLUSION OF NAVIGABILITY WHERE PERSONAL OR PRIVATE USE BY
BOATS DEMONSTRATES THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STREAM FOR THE SIMPLER TYPES
OF COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION.  FN56 

THE EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL USE OF THE RADFORD-WILEY'S FALLS SECTION FOR
COMMERCE AND FOR PRIVATE CONVENIENCE, WHEN TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH ITS
PHYSICAL CONDITION, MAKES IT QUITE PLAIN THAT BY REASONABLE IMPROVEMENT
THE REACH WOULD BE NAVIGABLE FOR THE TYPE OF BOATS EMPLOYED ON THE LESS
OBSTRUCTED SECTIONS.  INDEED THE EVIDENCE DETAILED ABOVE IS STRIKINGLY
SIMILAR TO THAT RELIED UPON BY THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. UTAH
FN57  TO ESTABLISH THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE COLORADO FROM CATARACT
CANYON TO THE UTAH-ARIZONA BOUNDARY LINE.  THERE HAD BEEN SEVENTEEN
THROUGH TRIPS OVER A PERIOD OF SIXTY YEARS FROM THE ORIGINAL
EXPLORATION; AND THESE TOGETHER WITH SPORADIC TRIPS ON PARTS OF THE
STRETCH, AND CONSIDERABLE USE - IN CONNECTION WITH GOLD PLACER MINING -
OF OTHER PARTS FROM 1888 TO 1915, SUFFICED TO SUSTAIN NAVIGABILITY. 
FN58 

EFFECT OF IMPROVABILITY.  RESPONDENT DENIED THE PRACTICABILITY OF
ARTIFICIAL MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE NEW RIVER AND
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY IMPROVEMENT TO MAKE THE RIVER A NAVIGABLE
WATER OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED ITS ALLEGATION OF
IMPROVABILITY BY POINTING OUT THAT THE USE OF THE SECTION FOR THROUGH
NAVIGATION AND LOCAL BOATING ON FAVORABLE STRETCHES OF THE RADFORD
WILEY'S FALLS REACH SHOWED THE FEASIBILITY OF SUCH USE AND THAT LITTLE
WAS NEEDED IN THE WAY OF IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE THE SECTION A
THOROUGHFARE FOR THE TYPICAL, LIGHT COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC OF THE AREA. 
KEELBOATS, EIGHT FEET WIDE, DRAWING TWO FEET, WERE THE USUAL
EQUIPMENT.  IN THE 1872 REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, MAJOR
CRAIGHILL IN CHARGE OF NEW RIVER REPORTS THAT TO GET "GOOD SLUICE
NAVIGATION OF 2 FEET AT ALL TIMES" FOR 54 MILES UP FROM THE MOUTH OF
THE GREENBRIER RIVER, NEAR HINTON, WOULD COST $30,000 AND FOR 128
MILES, GREENBRIER TO THE LEAD MINES (ABOVE ALLISONIA), WOULD COST
$100,000.  THE DEPTH OVER THE SHOALS COULD BE INCREASED TO 2 FEET
WITHOUT "TOO MUCH INCREASE OF VELOCITY OF THE CURRENT."  THIS
RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED ON HUTTON'S MILE-BY-MILE SURVEY AND INCLUDES
ALL OF THE RADFORD-WILEY'S FALLS SECTION. 

THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE UNDERTAKEN BEGINNING IN 1877.  AS THE REGION
WAS BECOMING BETTER DEVELOPED, A HIGHER TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT BECAME
DESIRABLE, WIDER SLUICE WAYS AND A DEEPER CHANNEL, USABLE BY SMALL
STEAMBOATS.  WORK WENT FORWARD ABOVE HINTON AND ABOVE RADFORD TO MEET
THE PRESSING DEMANDS OF THE COMMUNITIES.  ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE CHIEF
OF ENGINEERS ASSUMED OR REAFFIRMED THE NAVIGABILITY OF THE ENTIRE RIVER
ABOVE HINTON AND THE PRACTICALITY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.  FN59  BY 1891,
$109,733.21 HAD BEEN SPENT.  IT WAS IN THAT YEAR ESTIMATED $159,000
MORE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT THE FULL LENGTH FROM
WILSON CREEK TO HINTON.  FN60  USEFUL NAVIGATION MOVED REGULARLY
BETWEEN HINTON AND NEAR GLEN LYN AND BETWEEN RADFORD AND ALLISONIA. 
ABOUT HALF THE REACH BETWEEN HINTON AND ALLISONIA WAS IMPROVED.  THE
RADFORD-WILEY'S FALLS SECTION WAS NEVER IMPROVED.  IT WAS REPORTED THAT
CONDITIONS HAD CHANGED AND THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED.  FN61
THE PROVISIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS WERE REPEALED IN 1902.  FN62  BY 1912
THE REGION'S NEED FOR USE OF THE RIVER HAD SO DIMINISHED THAT THE ARMY
ENGINEERS ADVISED AGAINST UNDERTAKING IMPROVEMENTS AGAIN, AND EVEN
REFERRED TO THE COST AS "PROHIBITIVE."  FN63  FROM THE USE OF THE
RADFORD-WILEY'S FALLS STRETCH AND THE EVIDENCE AS TO ITS READY
IMPROVABILITY AT A LOW COST FOR EASIER KEELBOAT USE, WE CONCLUDE THAT
THIS SECTION OF THE NEW RIVER IS NAVIGABLE.  IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS,
TOGETHER WITH THE UNDISPUTED COMMERCIAL USE OF THE TWO STRETCHES ABOVE
RADFORD AND HINTON, THAT THE NEW RIVER FROM ALLISONIA, VIRGINIA, TO
HINTON, WEST VIRGINIA, IS A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE UNITED STATES. 

LICENSE PROVISIONS.  THE DETERMINATION THAT THE NEW RIVER IS
NAVIGABLE ELIMINATES FROM THIS CASE ISSUES WHICH MAY ARISE ONLY WHERE
THE RIVER INVOLVED IS NONNAVIGABLE.  FN64  BUT EVEN ACCEPTING THE
NAVIGABILITY OF THE NEW RIVER, THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE, WHICH SEEK TO CONTROL AFFAIRS OF THE
LICENSEE, ARE UNCONNECTED WITH NAVIGATION AND ARE BEYOND THE POWER OF
THE COMMISSION, INDEED BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO
AUTHORIZE. 

THE ISSUE ARISES BECAUSE OF THE PRAYER OF THE BILL THAT THE
RESPONDENT BE COMPELLED TO ACCEPT THE LICENSE AS REQUIRED BY LAW OR
REMOVE THE DAM AS AN OBSTRUCTION AND THE ANSWER OF THE RESPONDENT THAT
THE LICENSE REQUIRED BY LAW AND TENDERED TO IT BY THE COMMISSION
CONTAINS PROVISIONS, UNRELATED TO NAVIGATION OR THE PROTECTION OF
NAVIGABLE CAPACITY, WHICH ARE BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF
CONGRESS TO REQUIRE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS. 
THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE.  IN THE NOTE BELOW  FN65  THE CHIEF
STATUTORY CONDITIONS FOR A LICENSE ARE EPITOMIZED.  THE LICENSE OFFERED
THE RESPONDENT ON MAY 5, 1931, EMBODIED THESE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
AND WE ASSUME IT TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EXISTING ADMINISTRATION
OF THE POWER ACT.  WE SHALL PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF ONLY THOSE
PROVISIONS OF THE LICENSE CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION BY THE RESPONDENT AS
BEING UNRELATED TO THE PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION.  THESE ARE THE
CONDITIONS DERIVED FROM SECS. 10A, 10C, 10D, 10E AND 14.  WE DO NOT
CONSIDER THAT THE VALIDITY OF OTHER CLAUSES HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE
RESPONDENT'S GENERAL CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY
PROVISION "OTHER THAN THOSE RELATING SOLELY TO THE PROTECTION" OF
NAVIGABLE WATERS.  FN66  IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT NO COMPLAINT IS
MADE OF ANY CONDITIONS OF THE LICENSE DEPENDENT UPON THE AUTHORIZATION
OF SEC. 10G, THE OMNIBUS CLAUSE REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH OTHER
CONDITIONS AS THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE.    THE PETITIONER SUGGESTS
THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 14, THE ACQUISITION CLAUSE,
AND THE LICENSE CONDITIONS BASED UPON ITS LANGUAGE ARE PROPERLY TO BE
DEFERRED UNTIL THE UNITED STATES UNDERTAKES TO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO
PURCHASE THE PROJECT ON THE LICENSE TERMS FIFTY YEARS AFTER ITS
ISSUANCE.  FN67  ASSUMING THAT THE MERE ACCEPTANCE OF A LICENSE WOULD
NOT LATER BAR THE OBJECTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS, EVEN WHEN
ACCOMPANIED BY A SPECIFIC AGREEMENT TO ABIDE BY THE STATUTE AND
LICENSE,  FN68  WE CONCLUDE THAT HERE THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 14 SO
VITALLY AFFECT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND FINANCING OF RESPONDENT'S PROJECT
AS TO REQUIRE A DETERMINATION OF THEIR VALIDITY BEFORE FINALLY
ADJUDGING THE ISSUE OF INJUNCTION. 

THE RESPONDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE STATUTORY AND LICENSE PROVISIONS,
AS APPLIED TO NAVIGABLE STREAMS, ARE BASED ON THE CONTENTIONS (1) THAT
THE UNITED STATES' CONTROL OF THE WATERS IS LIMITED TO CONTROL FOR
PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION, (2) THAT CERTAIN LICENSE PROVISIONS TAKE ITS
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, AND (3) THAT THE CLAIMED RIGHT TO ACQUIRE
THIS PROJECT AND TO REGULATE ITS FINANCING, RECORDS AND AFFAIRS, IS AN
INVASION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES, CONTRARY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 

FORTY-ONE STATES JOIN AS AMICI IN SUPPORT OF THE RESPONDENT'S
ARGUMENTS.  WHILE CONCEDING, AS OF COURSE, THAT CONGRESS MAY PROHIBIT
THE ERECTION IN NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF ANY STRUCTURE
DEEMED TO IMPAIR NAVIGATION, THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL SPEAKING FOR THE
STATES INSIST THAT THIS POWER OF PROHIBITION DOES NOT COMPREHEND A
POWER TO EXACT CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE UNRELATED TO NAVIGATION, FOR THE
PERMISSION TO ERECT SUCH STRUCTURES.  TO PERMIT, THE ARGUMENT
CONTINUES, THE IMPOSITION OF LICENSES INVOLVING CONDITIONS SUCH AS THIS
ACQUISITION CLAUSE, ENABLING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE OVER A
NATURAL RESOURCE SUCH AS WATER-POWER, ALLOWS LOGICALLY SIMILAR
ACQUISITION OF MINES, OIL OR FARMLANDS AS CONSIDERATION FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THE STATES THUS LOSE
CONTROL OF THEIR RESOURCES AND PROPERTY IS WITHDRAWN FROM TAXATION IN
VIOLATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 

FURTHER, THE POINT IS MADE THAT A CLASH OF SOVEREIGNTY ARISES BETWEEN
THE LICENSE PROVISIONS OF THE POWER ACT AND STATE LICENSING
PROVISIONS.  THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ADVANCES FORCIBLY ITS
CONTENTION THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE REGULATION OF WATER-POWER PROJECTS ON
ITS NAVIGABLE STREAMS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES RESTS WITH THE STATE,
BEYOND THAT NEEDED FOR NAVIGATION.  "WHILE THE SUPREMACY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN ITS OWN PROPER SPHERE, AS DELINEATED IN THE CONSTITUTION,
IS CHEERFULLY CONCEDED, YET JUST AS EARNESTLY DOES VIRGINIA INSIST UPON
THE SUPREMACY OF HER OWN GOVERNMENT IN ITS PROPER FIELD AS ESTABLISHED
BY THAT INSTRUMENT."  VIRGINIA HAS A WATER POWER ACT.  FN69  IT, TOO,
OFFERS A FIFTY-YEAR LICENSE, WITH THE RIGHT TO USE THE NATURAL
RESOURCES OF THE STATE, THE STREAM FLOW AND THE BEDS OF THE WATER
COURSES FOR THE PERIOD OF THE LICENSE OR ITS EXTENSIONS SUBJECT TO
STATE CONDEMNATION AT ANY TIME ON VIRGINIA'S TERMS FOR ASCERTAINMENT OF
VALUE.  OPERATION IS LIKEWISE REGULATED BY STATE LAW.  FN70  THE
COMMONWEALTH OBJECTS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS WATER POWER RESOURCES
IS SUBJECTED TO FEDERAL POWER ACT REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS ARE DETAILED
ABOVE IN STATING THE RESPONDENT'S OBJECTION, EVEN TO THE POINT THAT
VIRGINIA ITSELF MAY NOT BUILD AND OPERATE A DAM IN NAVIGABLE WATER
WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION AND REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

THE BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS AT THE BAR HAVE MARSHALED REASONS AND
PRECEDENTS TO COVER THE WIDE RANGE OF POSSIBLE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN
NATION AND STATE IN THE FUNCTIONING OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.  TO
PREDETERMINE, EVEN IN THE LIMITED FIELD OF WATER POWER, THE RIGHTS OF
DIFFERENT SOVEREIGNTIES, PREGNANT WITH FUTURE CONTROVERSIES, IS BEYOND
THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  THE COURTS DEAL WITH CONCRETE LEGAL ISSUES,
PRESENTED IN ACTUAL CASES, NOT ABSTRACTIONS N71.  THE POSSIBILITY OF
OTHER USES OF THE COERCIVE POWER OF LICENSE, IF IT IS HERE UPHELD, IS
NOT BEFORE US.  WE DEEM THE PICTURED EXTREMES IRRELEVANT SAVE AS
POSSIBILITIES FOR CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE PRESENT QUESTION OF
THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED LICENSE PROVISIONS.  TO THIS WE LIMIT
THIS PORTION OF OUR DECISION.  FN72 

THE RESPONDENT IS A RIPARIAN OWNER WITH A VALID STATE LICENSE TO USE
THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE STATE FOR ITS ENTERPRISE.  CONSEQUENTLY IT
HAS AS COMPLETE A RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE RIPARIAN LANDS, THE WATER,
AND THE RIVER BED AS CAN BE OBTAINED UNDER STATE LAW.  THE STATE AND
RESPONDENT, ALIKE, HOWEVER, HOLD THE WATERS AND THE LANDS UNDER THEM
SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONTROL THE WATERS FOR THE PURPOSE
OF COMMERCE.  FN73  THE POWER FLOWS FROM THE GRANT TO REGULATE, I.E.,
TO "PRESCRIBE THE RULE BY WHICH COMMERCE IS TO BE GOVERNED."  FN74
THIS INCLUDES THE PROTECTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS IN CAPACITY AS WELL AS
USE.  FN75  THIS POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE IS SO
UNFETTERED THAT ITS JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER A STRUCTURE IS OR IS NOT A
HINDRANCE IS CONCLUSIVE.  ITS DETERMINATION IS LEGISLATIVE IN
CHARACTER.  FN76  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DOMINATION OVER THE WATER
POWER INHERENT IN THE FLOWING STREAM.  IT IS LIABLE TO NO ONE FOR ITS
USE OR NON-USE.  THE FLOW OF A NAVIGABLE STREAM IS IN NO SENSE PRIVATE
PROPERTY; "THAT THE RUNNING WATER IN A GREAT NAVIGABLE STREAM IS
CAPABLE OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IS INCONCEIVABLE."  EXCLUSION OF RIPARIAN
OWNERS FROM ITS BENEFITS WITHOUT COMPENSATION IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE
GOVERNMENT'S DISCRETION.  FN77 

POSSESSING THIS PLENARY POWER TO EXCLUDE STRUCTURES FROM NAVIGABLE
WATERS AND DOMINION OVER FLOWAGE AND ITS PRODUCT, ENERGY, THE UNITED
STATES MAY MAKE THE ERECTION OR MAINTENANCE OF A STRUCTURE IN A
NAVIGABLE WATER DEPENDENT UPON A LICENSE.  FN78  THIS POWER IS
EXERCISED THROUGH SEC. 9 OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899
PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT AND THROUGH SEC.
4(E) OF THE PRESENT POWER ACT. 

IT IS QUITE TRUE THAT THE CRITICIZED PROVISIONS SUMMARIZED ABOVE ARE
NOT ESSENTIAL TO OR EVEN CONCERNED WITH NAVIGATION AS SUCH.  RESPONDENT
ASSERTS THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE USE OF THE WATERS
IS LIMITED TO NAVIGATION.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE FEDERAL
SOVEREIGNTY OVER WATERS WAS SO DESCRIBED IN PORT OF SEATTLE V. OREGON &
WASHINGTON R. CO.,  FN79  UNITED STATES V. OREGON,  FN80  KANSAS V.
COLORADO,  FN81  UNITED STATES V. RIVER ROUGE COMPANY,  FN82  AND
WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS.  FN83  THE FIRST TWO OF THESE CASES CENTERED
AROUND THE ISSUE OF TITLE TO LAND UNDER NAVIGABLE WATER.  NOTHING
FURTHER WAS INVOLVED AS TO THE USE OF THE WATER THAN ITS NAVIGABILITY. 
IN KANSAS V. COLORADO THE POINT WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S ADVOCACY OF THE
DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN AND INHERENT POWER TO JUSTIFY THE UNITED STATES
TAKING CHARGE OF THE WATERS OF THE ARKANSAS TO CONTROL THE RECLAMATION
OF ARID LANDS (PP. 85-89).  THERE WAS FOUND NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
FOR IRRIGATION IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE CLAUSE RELATING TO
PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN84  IT CANNOT BE SAID, HOWEVER, THAT
THE CASE IS AUTHORITY FOR LIMITING FEDERAL POWER OVER NAVIGABLE WATERS
TO NAVIGATION,  FN85  ESPECIALLY SINCE THE STRETCH OF THE ARKANSAS
RIVER INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE WAS ASSERTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO BE
NONNAVIGABLE (P. 86).  IN THE RIVER ROUGE CONTROVERSY, THIS COURT SPOKE
OF THE LIMITATION "TO THE CONTROL THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSES OF
NAVIGATION."  BUT THERE, TOO, IT WAS A QUESTION OF THE RIPARIAN OWNER'S
USE OF HIS PROPERTY FOR ACCESS TO THE CHANNEL, A USE FIXED BY STATE
LAW.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT INTERFERE, EXCEPT
FOR NAVIGATION, WITH HIS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO NAVIGABLE WATER, REQUIRED
NO APPRAISAL OF OTHER RIGHTS.  WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS IS A PART OF THE
CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL LITIGATION.  IN SO FAR AS PERTINENT HERE, IT
MERELY DECIDED THAT UNDER A CERTAIN FEDERAL STATUTE FN86  THERE WAS NO
AUTHORITY FOR DIVERSION OF THE WATERS OF LAKE MICHIGAN FOR SANITARY
PURPOSES (P. 418).  THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO USE WATER FOR OTHER THAN NAVIGABLE PURPOSES, THOUGH IT IS
PLAIN THAT OTHER ADVANTAGES OCCUR (PP. 415, 419). 

IN OUR VIEW, IT CANNOT PROPERLY BE SAID THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER
OF THE UNITED STATES OVER ITS WATERS IS LIMITED TO CONTROL FOR
NAVIGATION.  BY NAVIGATION RESPONDENT MEANS NO MORE THAN OPERATION OF
BOATS AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE WATERWAY ITSELF.  IN TRUTH THE AUTHORITY
OF THE UNITED STATES IS THE REGULATION OF COMMERCE ON ITS WATERS. 
NAVIGABILITY, IN THE SENSE JUST STATED, IS BUT A PART OF THIS WHOLE. 
FLOOD PROTECTION, WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT, RECOVERY OF THE COST OF
IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH UTILIZATION OF POWER ARE LIKEWISE PARTS OF
COMMERCE CONTROL.  FN87  AS RESPONDENT SOUNDLY ARGUES, THE UNITED
STATES CANNOT BY CALLING A PROJECT OF ITS OWN "A MULTIPLE PURPOSE DAM"
GIVE TO ITSELF ADDITIONAL POWERS, BUT EQUALLY TRULY THE RESPONDENT
CANNOT, BY SEEKING TO USE A NAVIGABLE WATERWAY FOR POWER GENERATION
ALONE, AVOID THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OVER THE STREAM.  THAT
AUTHORITY IS AS BROAD AS THE NEEDS OF COMMERCE.  WATER POWER
DEVELOPMENT FROM DAMS IN NAVIGABLE STREAMS IS FROM THE PUBLIC'S
STANDPOINT A BYPRODUCT OF THE GENERAL USE OF THE RIVERS FOR COMMERCE. 
TO THIS GENERAL POWER, THE RESPONDENT MUST SUBMIT ITS SINGLE PURPOSE OF
ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION.  THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION IS WILLING TO GIVE
A LICENSE FOR A POWER DAM ONLY IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IN APPRAISING THE
TYPE OF CONDITIONS ALLOWABLE.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT THIS PORTION OF THE
RIVER IS NOT NEEDED FOR NAVIGATION AT THIS TIME.  OR THAT THE DAM
PROPOSED MAY FUNCTION SATISFACTORILY WITH OTHERS, CONTEMPLATED OR
INTENDED.  IT MAY FIT IN AS A PART OF THE RIVER DEVELOPMENT.  THE POINT
IS THAT NAVIGABLE WATERS ARE SUBJECT TO NATIONAL PLANNING AND CONTROL
IN THE BROAD REGULATION OF COMMERCE GRANTED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
THE LICENSE CONDITIONS TO WHICH OBJECTION IS MADE HAVE AN OBVIOUS
RELATIONSHIP TO THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  EVEN IF THERE WERE
NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP THE PLENARY POWER OF CONGRESS OVER NAVIGABLE
WATERS WOULD EMPOWER IT TO DENY THE PRIVILEGE OF CONSTRUCTING AN
OBSTRUCTION IN THOSE WATERS.  IT MAY LIKEWISE GRANT THE PRIVILEGE ON
TERMS.  IT IS NO OBJECTION TO THE TERMS AND TO THE EXERTION OF THE
POWER THAT "ITS EXERCISE IS ATTENDED BY THE SAME INCIDENTS WHICH ATTEND
THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATES."  FN88  THE
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS COMPLETE UNLESS
LIMITED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT AS RIPARIAN OWNER WITH STATE APPROVAL OF
ITS PLANS, IT IS ENTITLED TO FREEDOM IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS PROPERTY
AND PARTICULARLY CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO SUBMIT TO THE ACQUISITION
CLAUSE WITH A PRICE FIXED AT LESS THAN A FAIR VALUE, IN THE EMINENT
DOMAIN SENSE, AT THE TIME OF TAKING.  SUCH A TAKING, IT IS CONTENDED,
WOULD VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IT IS NOW A QUESTION WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT IN TAKING OVER THE PROPERTY MAY DO SO AT LESS THAN A FAIR
VALUE.  IT HAS BEEN SHOWN, NOTE 77, SUPRA, THAT THERE IS NO PRIVATE
PROPERTY IN THE FLOW OF THE STREAM.  THIS HAS NO ASSESSABLE VALUE TO
THE RIPARIAN OWNER.  IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE NOW TO BUILD THE DAM, IT
WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE FAIR VALUE, JUDICIALLY DETERMINED,  FN89  FOR THE
FAST LAND; NOTHING FOR THE WATER POWER.  FN90  WE ASSUME WITHOUT
DECIDING THAT BY COMPULSION OF THE METHOD OF ACQUISITION PROVIDED IN
SEC. 14 OF THE POWER ACT AND THE TENDERED LICENSE, THESE RIPARIAN
RIGHTS MAY PASS TO THE UNITED STATES FOR LESS THAN THEIR VALUE.  IN OUR
VIEW THIS "IS THE PRICE WHICH (RESPONDENTS) MUST PAY TO SECURE THE
RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THEIR DAM."  THE QUOTED WORDS ARE THE CONCLUSION OF
THE OPINION IN FOX RIVER CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION.  FN91  THE CASE IS
DECISIVE ON THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION.  IT RELATES TO AN ACQUISITION
CLAUSE IN A WISCONSIN LICENSE BY WHICH A DAM IN NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE
STATE MIGHT BE TAKEN OVER AT SUCH A PRICE AS WOULD, THIS COURT ASSUMED,
AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE LICENSE PROVISION.  TITLE TO THE BANK
AND BED WERE IN THE OBJECTOR, JUST AS, BY VIRTUE OF THE STATE'S LICENSE
AND THE RIPARIAN OWNERSHIP, ALL RIGHTS HERE BELONG TO RESPONDENT. 
THERE, AS HERE, THE RIGHTS WERE SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENTAL "CONTROL OF
NAVIGABLE WATERS."  FN92  THE FACT THAT THE FOX RIVER CASE INVOLVED A
STATE AND THAT THIS CASE INVOLVES THE UNITED STATES IS IMMATERIAL FROM
THE DUE PROCESS STANDPOINT.  SINCE THE UNITED STATES MIGHT ERECT A
STRUCTURE IN THESE WATERS ITSELF, EVEN ONE EQUIPPED FOR ELECTRICAL
GENERATION,  FN93  IT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY ACQUIRE ONE ALREADY BUILT. 

SUCH AN ACQUISITION OR SUCH AN OPTION TO ACQUIRE IS NOT AN INVASION
OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF A STATE.  AT THE FORMATION OF THE UNION, THE
STATES DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  SO LONG AS THE THINGS DONE WITHIN THE
STATES BY THE UNITED STATES ARE VALID UNDER THAT POWER, THERE CAN BE NO
INTERFERENCE WITH THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.  IT IS THE NON
DELEGATED POWER WHICH UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT REMAINS IN THE STATE OR
THE PEOPLE.  THE WATER POWER STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF
VIRGINIA RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTIES OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT BY
PROVIDING, EACH IN ITS OWN ENACTMENTS, FOR THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS OF
THE OTHER.  FN94 

REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
ENTER AN ORDER ENJOINING THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF
THE RADFORD PROJECT OTHERWISE THAN UNDER A LICENSE, ACCEPTED BY THE
RESPONDENT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM TENDERED
RESPONDENT BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION ON OR ABOUT MAY 5, 1931, OR
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AS PRAYED IN THE BILL.  REVERSED.    FN1  30 STAT.
1151, 33 U.S.C. SECS. 401, 403. 

FN2  41 STAT. 1063.  THE ACT WAS AMENDED BY 49 STAT. 838(1935),
U.S.C. SUPP. V, TITLE 16, SEC. 791A ET SEQ., BY WHICH IT BECAME KNOWN
AS THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

FN3  SEC. 10(I). 

FN4  36 OP. A.G. 355. 

FN5  ORIGINALLY IT CONSISTED OF THREE CABINET OFFICERS, EX OFFICIO:
THE SECRETARIES OF WAR, INTERIOR, AND AGRICULTURE.  BY 46 STAT. 797 IT
WAS REORGANIZED INTO AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION WITH FIVE MEMBERS.  THE
NEW COMMISSION BEGAN TO FUNCTION ON DECEMBER 22, 1930. 

FN6  APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. SMITH, 67 F.2D 451, CERT.
DENIED, 291 U.S. 674. 

FN7  IN BOTH COURTS BELOW THE GOVERNMENT UNSUCCESSFULLY URGED THAT
THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
WERE CONCLUSIVE.  ALTHOUGH IT STILL REGARDS THIS CONTENTION AS CORRECT,
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SEEK TO HAVE THIS COURT PASS ON IT IN THIS
CASE. 

FN8  309 U.S. 646. 

FN9  107 F.2D 769, 780, 787. 

FN10  UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 87. 

FN11  BREWER OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 77, 86; E.G., ALABAMA
POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 477; PICK MFG. CO. V. GENERAL MOTORS
CORP., 299 U.S. 3; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RY. CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 558;
UNITED STATES V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 501, 508. 

FN12  UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690, 699;
LEOVY V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 621; ECONOMY LIGHT CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 256 U.S. 113, 117; UNITED STATES V. HOLT BANK, 270 U.S. 49,
55. 

FN13  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 189; LEOVY V. UNITED STATES, 177
U.S. 621, 632. 

FN14  GILMAN V. PHILADELPHIA, 3 WALL.  713, 724-25; UNITED STATES V.
COOMBS, 12 PET. 72, 78. 

FN15  WILLSON V. BLACK BIRD CREEK MARSH CO., 2 PET. 245, 250; UNITED
STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690, 703. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. RIVER ROUGE CO., 269 U.S. 411, 419. 

FN17  ST. ANTHONY FALLS WATER POWER CO. V. WATER COMMISSIONERS, 168
U.S. 349, 366; UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S.
690, 702. 

FN18  ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 452. 

FN19  THE MONTELLO, 20 WALL.  430, 441. 

FN20  UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 83. 

FN21  10 WALL.  557, 563: 

"  ...  THOSE RIVERS MUST BE REGARDED AS PUBLIC NAVIGABLE RIVERS IN
LAW WHICH ARE NAVIGABLE IN FACT.  AND THEY ARE NAVIGABLE IN FACT WHEN
THEY ARE USED, OR ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING USED, IN THEIR ORDINARY
CONDITION, AS HIGHWAYS FOR COMMERCE, OVER WHICH TRADE AND TRAVEL ARE OR
MAY BE CONDUCTED IN THE CUSTOMARY MODES OF TRADE AND TRAVEL ON WATER. 
AND THEY CONSTITUTE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACTS OF CONGRESS, IN CONTRADISTINCTION FROM THE
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE STATES, WHEN THEY FORM IN THEIR ORDINARY
CONDITION BY THEMSELVES, OR BY UNITING WITH OTHER WATERS, A CONTINUED
HIGHWAY OVER WHICH COMMERCE IS OR MAY BE CARRIED ON WITH OTHER STATES
OR FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN THE CUSTOMARY MODES IN WHICH SUCH COMMERCE IS
CONDUCTED BY WATER." 

UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO., 23 F.SUPP.  83, 98;
SAME, 107 F.2D 769, 780. 

FN22  UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690, 698;
BREWER OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 77, 86; UNITED STATES V. HOLT
BANK, 270 U.S. 49, 56; UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 76; UNITED
STATES V. OREGON, 295 U.S. 1, 15. 

FN23  23 F.SUPP.  AT 99-100. 

FN24  107 F.2D AT 786. 

FN25  UNITED STATES V. OREGON, 295 U.S. 1, 15. 

FN26  THUS IN THE RIO GRANDE CASE, THE RECORD CONTAINED REPORTS OF
ARMY ENGINEERS THAT IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE RIVER NAVIGABLE
WOULD BE FINANCIALLY, IF NOT PHYSICALLY, IMPRACTICABLE BECAUSE OF THE
MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO OBSERVED THAT "THE NAVIGABILITY OF A RIVER
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON ITS SUSCEPTIBILITY OF BEING SO IMPROVED BY HIGH
ENGINEERING SKILL AND THE EXPENDITURE OF VAST SUMS OF MONEY, BUT UPON
ITS NATURAL PRESENT CONDITIONS" (9 N.M. 292, 299; 51 P. 674, 676). 
THIS COURT AGREED THAT TOO MUCH IMPROVEMENT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE NEW
MEXICO STRETCH OF THE RIVER TO BE CONSIDERED NAVIGABLE.  UNITED STATES
V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690, 699. 

FN27  ECONOMY LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 113. 

FN28  SEE 107 F.2D AT 780. 

FN29  SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152 U.S. 1, 18 AND 26; UNITED STATES V.
UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 75. 

FN30  OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 258 U.S. 574, 591, 594; UNITED STATES V.
OREGON, 295 U.S. 1, 14. 

FN31  CF. UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690,
699. 

FN32  ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 1.  CF. GENESEE CHIEF V. FITZHUGH, 12
HOW.  443. 

FN33  THE ROBERT W. PARSONS, 191 U.S. 17, 28; EX PARTE BOYER, 109
U.S. 629; MARINE TRANSIT CO. V. DREYFUS, 284 U.S. 263, 271-72. 

FN34  THE MONTELLO, 20 WALL.  430, 442-43; ECONOMY LIGHT CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 113, 122; UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64,
86.  SEE ALSO MR. JUSTICE MCLEAN IN SPOONER V. MCCONNELL, 22 FED. CAS.
NO. 13,245, AT P. 944(C.C.D. OHIO 1838). 

FN35  ILLUSTRATIVE OF THIS NATURAL GROWTH IS UNITED STATES V. CRESS,
243 U.S. 316, INVOLVING RIPARIAN PROPRIETORS' RIGHTS WHERE IMPROVEMENTS
RAISE THE RIVER LEVEL SO THAT UPLANDS ARE NEWLY AND PERMANENTLY
SUBJECTED TO THE SERVITUDE OF PUBLIC USE FOR NAVIGATION.  COMPENSATION
WAS DECREED FOR THE TAKING WITH A DECLARATION THAT THE WATERWAYS IN
QUESTION, AS ARTIFICIALLY IMPROVED, REMAINED NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES (PP. 325 AND 326).  CF. ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S.
423, 454. 

FN36  CF. BARNES V. UNITED STATES, 46 CT. CL. 7, 28. 

FN37  UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283
U.S. 423, 452-54. 

FN38  UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 82. 

FN39  ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 329. 

FN40  ECONOMY LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 113, 124; ARIZONA
V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 453. 

FN41  CF. THE MONTELLO, 20 WALL.  430, 441. 

FN42  SEE 23 F.SUPP.  AT 91. 

FN43  THIS IS SHOWN BY THE TESTIMONY OF WEISS, PETERS, STARBUCK,
LANE, E. M. SMITH, FARLEY, KENLEY, LUCAS, E. W. LILLY, W. L. BURKS, Z.
V. BURKS, JOHNSON, WAUHOP, STOVER, R. CALLOWAY, J. C. MARTIN, TOMKIES,
AND B. C. LILLY. 

FN44  E.G., THE TESTIMONY OF R. L. HOWARD, GRAHAM, J. BREEDING, OWEN,
Z. FARMER, H. B. ALLISON, J. H. HOWARD, PETERSON, MOORE, LIKENS, ROOP,
AND INGLES. 

IN 1885 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER REPORTED THAT "FROM INQUIRIES IT IS
THOUGHT THAT THE CHANNEL-WAY MADE IN FORMER YEARS (ON THE IMPROVED
IRON HAVING BEEN SHIPPED TO NEW RIVER BRIDGE UP TO THE TIME OF THE
SUSPENSION OF THE FURNACES BY THE PREVAILING HARD TIMES" (REPORT OF THE
CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR 1886). 

FN45  17 STAT. 376. 

FN46  AT DIFFERENT TIMES BEFORE 1935 FERRIES CROSSED THE RIVER AT NO
LESS THAN TEN POINTS ALONG THE RADFORD-WILEY'S FALLS STRETCH.  IN 1935
THERE WERE FIVE SUCH PUBLIC FERRIES. 

FN47  REPORT OF MOORE AND BRIGGS.  FOURTH AND FIFTH ANNUAL REPORTS OF
THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA (1819). 
REPORT OF THE PRINCIPAL ENGINEER OF THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS. 

WHILE MARSHALL WAS CHIEF JUSTICE HE WAS HEAD OF A VIRGINIA COMMISSION
WHICH HAD SURVEYED PART OF THE NEW RIVER BY BOAT IN 1812, BUT ONLY
GOING DOWNSTREAM FROM THE MOUTH OF THE GREENBRIER.  REPORT OF THE
COMMISSIONERS, PRINTED 1816. 

FN48 48 VIRGINIA ACTS OF 1861-62, C. 50. 

FN49  "BUT LITTLE HAS BEEN DONE IN THE WAY OF IMPROVING THE RIVER
SINCE THE TIME OF MOORE AND BRIGGS, THOUGH AN EFFORT IS SAID TO HAVE
BEEN MADE IN THAT DIRECTION BY THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT IN THE LATE
WAR" (REPORT OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR 1873).  "EXPERIENCE, AS
DEVELOPED BY THE UNIVERSAL FATE OF THE WORK OF THE LATE CONFEDERATE
STATES ON THIS RIVER (THOUGH THIS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN INJUDICIOUSLY
LOCATED AND POORLY BUILT), IS ADVERSE TO ANYTHING LIKE RIGID STRUCTURES
...  " (REPORT OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR 1879). 

FN50  TESTIMONY OF SNYDER, SNIDOW, SKEEN. 

FN51  107 F.2D AT 783. 

FN52  SEE 23 F.SUPP.  AT 93; 107 F.2D AT 786. 

TESTIMONY OF BATEAUX GOING FROM RADFORD, OR ABOVE, TO HINTON, IS
GIVEN BY FLANNAGAN, LINKOUS, COLLINS, WEBB, SNYDER. 

A BOAT, 50 FEET BY 8, WITH A GASOLINE MOTOR, WENT FROM RADFORD TO
HINTON IN 1901, THOUGH AFTER THE RIVER HAD BEEN MATERIALLY RAISED BY A
RAIN. 

FN53  E.G., TESTIMONY OF COLEMAN, HOWARD, WEBB, SNYDER, PRICE,
MARTIN, ANDERSON. 

FN54  REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR 1883.  SEE ALSO TESTIMONY
OF OWEN, CROWELL, DICKINSON. 

FN55  ECONOMY LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 256 F. 792, 797-98;
AFFIRMED 256 U.S. 113. 

FN56  UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 82. 

FN57  283 U.S. 64, 81. 

FN58  SEE THE REPORT OF THE MASTER, P. 127 ET SEQ. 

FN59  REPORT FOR 1878, PP. 69, 495-99; 1879, PP. 79, 530-45; 1880,
PP. 107-08, 676-81; 1881, PP. 144-45, 904-11; 1882, PP. 140-42, 913-19;
1883, PP. 144-45, 699-705; 1886, PP. 281-82, 1599-1602. 

FN60  REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS FOR 1891, P. 303. 

FN61  ID., AT 302-303. 

FN62  32 STAT. 374. 

FN63  HOUSE DOC. NO. 1410, 62ND CONG., 3D SESS., P. 3. 

FN64  CF. UNITED STATES V. APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO., 107 F.2D
769, 793 ET SEQ. 

FN65  SECTION 4(A) OF THE ACT ALLOWS THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE THE
LICENSEE'S ACCOUNTS. 


LICENSES OR RIGHTS GRANTED THEREUNDER. 

ADAPTED TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR IMPROVING OR DEVELOPING THE
WATERWAY FOR THE USE OR BENEFIT OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, FOR
THE IMPROVEMENT AND UTILIZATION OF WATER-POWER DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR
OTHER BENEFICIAL PUBLIC USES, INCLUDING RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.  UNDER
SEC. 10(C) THE LICENSEE MUST MAINTAIN THE PROJECT ADEQUATELY FOR
NAVIGATION AND FOR EFFICIENT POWER OPERATION, MUST MAINTAIN
DEPRECIATION RESERVES ADEQUATE FOR RENEWALS AND REPLACEMENTS, AND MUST
CONFORM TO THE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIFE,
HEALTH AND PROPERTY; (D) OUT OF SURPLUS EARNED AFTER THE FIRST 20 YEARS
ABOVE A SPECIFIED REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN, THE LICENSEE MUST MAINTAIN
AMORTIZATION RESERVES TO BE APPLIED IN REDUCTION OF NET INVESTMENT; (E)
THE LICENSEE MUST PAY THE UNITED STATES REASONABLE ANNUAL CHARGES FOR
ADMINISTERING THE ACT, AND DURING THE FIRST 20 YEARS THE UNITED STATES
IS TO EXPROPRIATE EXCESSIVE PROFITS UNTIL THE STATE PREVENTS SUCH
PROFITS; (F) THE LICENSEE MAY BE ORDERED TO REIMBURSE THOSE BY WHOSE
CONSTRUCTION WORK IT IS BENEFITED. 

BY SEC. 11, FOR PROJECTS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES THE
COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE THE LICENSEE TO CONSTRUCT LOCKS, ETC., AND TO
FURNISH THE UNITED STATES FREE OF COST (A) LANDS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO
IMPROVE NAVIGATION FACILITIES, AND (B) POWER FOR OPERATING SUCH
FACILITIES. 

LICENSE, TO TAKE OVER AND OPERATE THE PROJECT BY PAYING THE LICENSEE'S
"NET INVESTMENT" AS DEFINED, NOT TO EXCEED FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
TAKEN.  HOWEVER, THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY STATE OR
MUNICIPALITY TO CONDEMN THE PROJECT AT ANY TIME IS EXPRESSLY RESERVED. 

EXISTS, THE COMMISSION MAY EXERCISE SUCH JURISDICTION. 

FN66  DENVER STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 470, 484;
PACIFIC STATES CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 184. 

FN67  CF. ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N,
303 U.S. 419, 435; W.W. CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452, 468;
NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328, 339. 

FN68  SEC. 6. 

FN69  MICHIE'S 1936 CODE, SECS. 3581(1)-(16). 

FN70  MICHIE'S 1936 CODE, SECS. 4065A, 4066. 

FN71  CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA, 5 PET. 1, 75; UNITED STATES V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463, 474; NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328; CF.
MCGUINN V. HIGH POINT, 217 N.C. 449, 458; 8 S.E.2D 462. 

FN72  ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 339. 

FN73 NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328, 337; UNITED STATES V. RIVER
ROUGE CO., 269 U.S. 411, 419; UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316,
320; WILLINK V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 572, 580; UNITED STATES V.
CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 62; GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 166 U.S.
269, 271. 

FN74  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 196. 

FN75  GILMAN V. PHILADELPHIA, 3 WALL.  713, 725. 

FN76  UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 64, 65;
UNION BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 204 U.S. 364, 400; CF. PENNSYLVANIA
V. WHEELING BRIDGE CO., 13 HOW.  518, 18 HOW.  421. 

FN77  UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 66, 69, 76;
CF. ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 330. 

FN78  GREENLEAF LUMBER CO. V. GARRISON, 237 U.S. 251, 268; UNITED
STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 174 U.S. 690, 707. 

FN79  255 U.S. 56, 63. 

FN80  295 U.S. 1, 14. 

FN81  206 U.S. 46, 85-86. 

FN82  269 U.S. 411, 419. 

FN83  278 U.S. 367, 415. 

FN84  ART. IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2. 

FN85  CF. UNITED STATES V. HANSON, 167 F. 881, 884; CINCINNATI SOAP
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 308, 322. 

FN86 CF. SANITARY DISTRICT V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 405, 428. 

FN87  CF. ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288. 

FN88  UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 147.  CF.
MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38, 48. 

FN89  MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 312,
327. 

FN90  UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 66, 76. 
FN91  274 U.S. 651. 

FN92  ID., 656. 

FN93  ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288; ARIZONA
V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423. 

FN94  SECS. 10E, 14 AND 19 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT; MICHIE'S 1936
VIRGINIA CODE, SEC. 3581(9). 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING: 

THE JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL RESTS ON THE CONCLUSION THAT NEW RIVER IS
NAVIGABLE, - A CONCLUSION RESTING ON FINDINGS OF FACT, MADE HERE DE
NOVO, AND IN CONTRADICTION OF THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE TWO COURTS
BELOW.  I AM OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED, FIRST, BECAUSE THIS COURT OUGHT TO RESPECT
AND GIVE EFFECT TO SUCH CONCURRENT FINDINGS WHICH HAVE SUBSTANTIAL
SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE; SECONDLY, BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WILL NOT
SUPPORT CONTRARY FINDINGS IF THE NAVIGABILITY OF NEW RIVER BE TESTED BY
CRITERIA LONG ESTABLISHED. 

1.  A RIVER IS NAVIGABLE IN LAW IF IT IS NAVIGABLE IN FACT.  FN1
INDEED THE ISSUE OF NAVIGABILITY VEL NON IS SO PECULIARLY ONE OF FACT
THAT A DETERMINATION AS TO ONE STREAM CAN HAVE LITTLE RELEVANCY IN
DETERMINING THE STATUS OF ANOTHER.  AS THIS COURT HAS SAID, "EACH
DETERMINATION AS TO NAVIGABILITY MUST STAND ON ITS OWN FACTS."  FN2 

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS,  - INDEED I THINK IT REQUIRES,  - A FINDING
THAT, APPLYING ACCEPTED CRITERIA, NEW RIVER IS NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN,
IN FACT NAVIGABLE.  ON THIS RECORD THE RULE OF DECISION, MANY TIMES
ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT, THAT THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT OF TWO
LOWER COURTS, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WILL BE ACCEPTED
HERE, REQUIRES AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT.  THE RULE APPLIES NOT ONLY
TO EVIDENTIARY FACTS BUT TO CONCLUSIONS OF FACT BASED THEREON. 
MOREOVER, IT HAS BEEN THE BASIS OF THIS COURT'S DECISION IN A SUIT
INVOLVING THE QUESTION OF NAVIGABILITY.  INVOKING THE RULE, THIS COURT,
IN BREWER-ELLIOTT OIL & GAS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 77, 86,
DECLINED TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT BASED ON A CONCURRENT FINDING OF TWO
LOWER COURTS THAT A STREAM "WAS NOT, AND HAD NEVER BEEN, NAVIGABLE
WITHIN THE ADJUDGED MEANING OF THAT TERM." 

THE CASES CITED FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE NAVIGABILITY WAS AN
ISSUE THIS COURT HAS RECONSIDERED THE FACTS FOUND BY THE COURTS BELOW
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY HAVE CORRECTLY APPLIED THE PROPER LEGAL TESTS
DO NOT, WHEN THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED ARE UNDERSTOOD, LEND SUPPORT TO THE
ACTION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE.  FN3 

THE PETITIONER, IN EFFECT, ASKS THIS COURT TO CONVICT THE COURTS
BELOW OF ERROR IN DETERMINING THE CREDIBILITY, WEIGHT AND RELEVANCE OF
THE EVIDENCE.  BUT THAT DETERMINATION IS PECULIARLY WITHIN THEIR
PROVINCE, AS THIS COURT HAS OFTEN SAID.  THE DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS
CASE WITH ESPECIAL FORCE.  THE RESPONDENT SAYS, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION,
THAT THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS BRIEF IN THE CIRCUIT COURT STATED:  "IT
CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE NEW RIVER PRESENTS A 'CLEAR CASE' OF
NAVIGABILITY OR NON-NAVIGABILITY  ...  "  YET THIS COURT IS ASKED TO
IGNORE CONCURRENT FINDINGS ON THE SUBJECT. 

IF THE EVIDENCE MAY FAIRLY SUPPORT THESE FINDINGS THE COURTS BELOW
CAN BE CONVICTED OF ERROR ONLY IN APPLYING AN ERRONEOUS RULE OF LAW TO
THE FACTS FOUND. 

EXAMINATION OF THE OPINIONS BELOW SHOWS THAT THE COURTS FAITHFULLY
FOLLOWED THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS. 
THEY ADOPTED THE DEFINITION N4 AND APPLIED THE CRITERIA THIS COURT HAS
ANNOUNCED IN APPRAISING THE EFFECT OF THE FACTS FOUND. 

AS SHOWN BY THE CASES CITED IN THE MARGIN  FN5  A STREAM TO BE
NAVIGABLE IN FACT MUST HAVE "A CAPACITY FOR GENERAL AND COMMON
USEFULNESS FOR PURPOSES OF TRADE AND COMMERCE."  EXCEPTIONAL USE OR
CAPABILITY OF USE AT HIGH WATER OR UNDER OTHER ABNORMAL CONDITIONS WILL
NOT SUFFICE.  MOREOVER, THE STREAM MUST BE USED, OR AVAILABLE TO USE,
"FOR COMMERCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL AND PERMANENT CHARACTER."  WHERE THE
STREAM "HAS NEVER BEEN IMPRESSED WITH THE CHARACTER OF NAVIGABILITY BY
PAST USE IN COMMERCE,  ...  COMMERCE ACTUALLY IN ESSE OR AT LEAST IN
POSSE IS ESSENTIAL TO NAVIGABILITY" AND "A THEORETICAL OR POTENTIAL
NAVIGABILITY OR ONE THAT IS TEMPORARY, PRECARIOUS AND UNPROFITABLE IS
NOT SUFFICIENT."  THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERION BY WHICH TO ASCERTAIN
THE NAVIGABILITY OF A STREAM IS THAT NAVIGABILITY IN FACT MUST EXIST
UNDER "NATURAL AND ORDINARY CONDITIONS."  APPLICATION OF THESE TESTS BY
THE COURT BELOW TO THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE LED TO BUT ONE CONCLUSION,
- THAT NEW RIVER HAS NOT BEEN, AND IS NOT NOW, A NAVIGABLE WATER OF THE
UNITED STATES.  IF THE FINDINGS BELOW HAD BEEN THE OTHER WAY, THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE HERE STRENUOUSLY CONTENDING THAT THEY COULD NOT BE
SET ASIDE, AS IT SUCCESSFULLY DID IN BREWER-ELLIOTT OIL & GAS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

2.  THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ACCEPTED
TESTS TO THE FACTS DISCLOSED AMOUNTS TO A RULING OF LAW, AND ASSERTS
THAT ERROR IN THEIR APPLICATION IS REVIEWABLE.  AS I READ THE COURT'S
OPINION, THE ARGUMENT IS NOT FOUND PERSUASIVE.  WHILE APPARENTLY
ENDORSING IT IN THE ABSTRACT THE COURT, INSTEAD OF RELYING ON IT,
ADOPTS TWO ADDITIONAL TESTS IN THE TEETH OF THE UNIFORM CURRENT OF
AUTHORITY.  IF ANYTHING HAS BEEN SETTLED BY OUR DECISIONS IT IS THAT,
IN ORDER FOR A WATER TO BE FOUND NAVIGABLE, NAVIGABILITY IN FACT MUST
EXIST UNDER "NATURAL AND ORDINARY CONDITIONS."  THIS MEANS ALL
CONDITIONS, INCLUDING A MULTIPLICITY OF OBSTACLES, FALLS AND RAPIDS
WHICH MAKE NAVIGATION A PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.  THE COURT NOW,
HOWEVER, ANNOUNCES THAT "NATURAL AND ORDINARY CONDITIONS" REFERS ONLY
TO VOLUME OF WATER GRADIENTS, AND REGULARITY OF FLOW.  NO AUTHORITY IS
CITED AND I BELIEVE NONE CAN BE FOUND FOR THUS LIMITING THE CONNOTATION
OF THE PHRASE.  BUT FURTHER THE COURT HOLDS, CONTRARY TO ALL THAT HAS
HERETOFORE BEEN SAID ON THE SUBJECT, THAT THE NATURAL AND ORDINARY
CONDITION OF THE STREAM, HOWEVER IMPASSABLE IT MAY BE WITHOUT
IMPROVEMENT, MEANS THAT IF, BY "REASONABLE" IMPROVEMENT, THE STREAM MAY
BE RENDERED NAVIGABLE THEN IT IS NAVIGABLE WITHOUT SUCH IMPROVEMENT;
THAT "THERE MUST BE A BALANCE BETWEEN COST AND NEED AT A TIME WHEN THE
IMPROVEMENT WOULD BE USEFUL."  NO AUTHORITY IS CITED AND I THINK NONE
CAN BE CITED WHICH COUNTENANCES ANY SUCH TEST.  IT IS OF COURSE TRUE
THAT IF A STREAM IN ITS NATURAL AND ORDINARY CONDITION IS NAVIGABLE IT
DOES NOT CEASE TO BE SO BECAUSE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BETTERED THE
CONDITIONS OF NAVIGATION.  FN6 BUT THE CONVERSE IS NOT TRUE,  - THAT
WHERE A STREAM IN ITS NATURAL AND ORDINARY CONDITION IS NON-NAVIGABLE,
A PROJECT TO BUILD A CANAL ALONG ITS ENTIRE COURSE, OR DAMS AND LOCKS
EVERY FEW MILES, AT ENORMOUS EXPENSE, WOULD RENDER IT A NAVIGABLE WATER
OF THE UNITED STATES.  WHO IS TO DETERMINE WHAT IS A REASONABLE OR AN
UNREASONABLE IMPROVEMENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES; OR WHAT IS A PROPER
BALANCE BETWEEN COST AND NEED?  IF THESE QUESTIONS MUST BE ANSWERED IT
IS FOR CONGRESS, CERTAINLY NOT FOR THIS COURT, TO ANSWER THEM.  IF THIS
TEST BE ADOPTED, THEN EVERY CREEK IN EVERY STATE OF THE UNION WHICH HAS
ENOUGH WATER, WHEN CONSERVED BY DAMS AND LOCKS OR CHANNELLED BY WING
DAMS AND SLUICES, TO FLOAT A BOAT DRAWING TWO FEET OF WATER, MAY BE
PRONOUNCED NAVIGABLE BECAUSE, BY THE EXPENDITURE OF SOME ENORMOUS SUM,
SUCH A PROJECT WOULD BE POSSIBLE OF EXECUTION.  IN OTHER WORDS,
CONGRESS CAN CREATE NAVIGABILITY BY DETERMINING TO IMPROVE A NON
NAVIGABLE STREAM. 

IF THIS CRITERION BE THE CORRECT ONE, IT IS NOT SEEN HOW ANY STREAM
CAN BE FOUND NOT TO BE NAVIGABLE NOR IS IT SEEN WHY THIS COURT AND
OTHER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE BEEN AT PAINS FOR MANY YEARS TO APPLY THE
OTHER TESTS MENTIONED WHEN THE SIMPLE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM IN EACH
CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER, AT "REASONABLE" COST,
THE UNITED STATES COULD RENDER A MOST DIFFICULT AND FORBIDDING MOUNTAIN
TORRENT SUITABLE FOR THE LEAST PRETENTIOUS FORM OF WATER TRAFFIC.  IN
THE LIGHT OF THE COURT'S OPINION, IF THIS TEST BE APPLIED TO THE NEW
RIVER IT MUST, OF COURSE, BE ADMITTED THAT BY BLASTING OUT CHANNELS
THROUGH REEFS AND SHOALS, BY DIGGING CANALS AROUND FALLS AND RAPIDS,
AND POSSIBLY BY DAMS AND LOCKS, THE NEW RIVER COULD BE RENDERED FIT FOR
SOME SORT OF COMMERCIAL USE.  WHAT THE EXPENSE WOULD BE NO ONE KNOWS. 
OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD BE ENORMOUS.  CONGRESS IN THE PAST HAS UNDERTAKEN TO
RENDER THE RIVER NAVIGABLE AND DECADES AGO GAVE UP THE ATTEMPT.  STILL
WE ARE TOLD THAT, AT "REASONABLE" COST, THE THING CAN BE DONE, AND SO
THE STREAM IS NAVIGABLE. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE DECISION OF THE COURT IS
BASED IT HARDLY SEEMS NECESSARY TO COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCE, FOR IT IS
IN THE MAIN ADDRESSED TO ISSUES NO LONGER IN THE CASE.  THE TWO COURTS
BELOW HAVE ANALYZED IT AND EXAMINED IT IN DETAIL AND REFERENCE TO THEIR
CAREFULLY CONSIDERED OPINIONS SUFFICES.  FN7  I THINK THE CONCLUSION
REACHED BY THE COURTS BELOW MUST STAND UNLESS THE TWO NOVEL DOCTRINES
NOW ANNOUNCED BE THROWN INTO THE SCALE TO OVERCOME IT. 

FN1  OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 258 U.S. 574, 585, 590-1; ARIZONA V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 452; CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 55. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 87. 

FN3  THE CASES CITED ARE UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO.,
174 U.S. 690, 699, WHERE THIS COURT SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE FINDINGS:
"WE ARE NOT, THEREFORE, DISPOSED TO QUESTION THE CONCLUSION REACHED,"
BY THE COURTS BELOW; LEOVY V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 621, WHERE A
JUDGMENT ON A JURY'S VERDICT WAS REVERSED FOR ERROR IN THE JUDGE'S
INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE CRITERIA OF NAVIGABILITY; ECONOMY LIGHT CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 113, 117, WHERE THE COURT DID NOT REEXAMINE THE
FACTS BUT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AS
THAT COURT HAD CORRECTLY APPLIED THE TEST LAID DOWN IN THE DANIEL BALL;
AND UNITED STATES V. HOLT BANK, 270 U.S. 49, 55, WHERE THE COURTS BELOW
TREATED THE QUESTION OF NAVIGABILITY AS ONE OF LOCAL LAW TO BE
DETERMINED BY APPLYING THE RULE ADOPTED IN MINNESOTA, AND THIS COURT,
THOUGH HOLDING THAT THEY APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD, AS THE QUESTION
WAS ONE OF FEDERAL LAW, AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS, INSTEAD OF REMANDING THE
CASE, SINCE THE RECORD DISCLOSED THAT ACCORDING TO THE RIGHT STANDARD
THE WATER WAS NAVIGABLE. 

FN4  CF.  THE DANIEL BALL, 10 WALL.  557; THE MONTELLO, 11 WALL. 
411, 415; UNITED STATES V. OREGON, 295 U.S. 1, 23. 

FN5  THE MONTELLO, 20 WALL.  430; UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE CO.,
174 U.S. 690; LEOVY V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 621; DONNELLY V. UNITED
STATES, 228 U.S. 243; UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316; OKLAHOMA V.
TEXAS, 258 U.S. 574; UNITED STATES V. HOLT STATE BANK, 270 U.S. 49;
UNITED STATES V. OREGON, 295 U.S. 1; HARRISON V. FITE, 148 F. 781; GULF
& I. RY. CO. V. DAVIS, 26 F.2D 930, 31 F.2D 109; UNITED STATES V.
DOUGHTON, 62 F.2D 936. 

FN6  ECONOMY LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 113. 

FN7  23 F.SUPP.  83; 107 F.2D 769. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :







WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., 311 U.S. 435 


NO. 46.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 20, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 16, 1940.  - 233
WIS. 286 - 289 N.W. 677, REVERSED. 


1.  WITH RESPECT TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, WISCONSIN
IMPOSES A TAX "FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DECLARING AND RECEIVING DIVIDENDS"
OUT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AND BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN
THE STATE, EQUAL TO A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF SUCH DIVIDENDS, THE PAYOR
CORPORATION BEING REQUIRED TO DEDUCT THE TAX FROM THE DIVIDENDS,
PAYABLE TO RESIDENTS OR NON-RESIDENTS, AND TO REPORT AND PAY IT OVER TO
THE STATE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE PRACTICAL OPERATION IS TO IMPOSE A TAX ON CORPORATE
EARNINGS WITHIN WISCONSIN, IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL TAX ON CORPORATE
INCOME, BUT TO POSTPONE LIABILITY FOR THE TAX UNTIL SUCH EARNINGS ARE
PAID OUT IN DIVIDENDS.  P. 441. 

(2)  THE TAX IS CONSTITUTIONAL - CONSISTENT WITH THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - AS APPLIED TO A DELAWARE
CORPORATION HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICES IN NEW YORK, HOLDING ITS
MEETINGS AND VOTING ITS DIVIDENDS IN NEW YORK, AND DRAWING ITS DIVIDEND
CHECKS ON NEW YORK BANK ACCOUNTS.  P. 442. 

2.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE TAX DEPENDS UPON ITS OPERATING
INCIDENCE AND NOT UPON THE NAME OR DESCRIPTION ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT.  P. 443. 

3.  THE PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY A STATE TO A FOREIGN CORPORATION OF
CARRYING ON LOCAL BUSINESS SUPPORTS A TAX BY THAT STATE ON THE INCOME
DERIVED FROM THAT BUSINESS.  P. 444. 

4.  THE FACT THAT SUCH A TAX IS BY THE STATE LAW IMPOSING IT MADE
CONTINGENT UPON THE HAPPENING OF EVENTS OUTSIDE OF THE TAXING STATE -
AS IN THIS CASE, UPON THE DECLARATION AND PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS FROM THE
LOCAL EARNINGS - DOES NOT DESTROY THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE TAX AND THE
LOCAL TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH IT IS AN EXACTION.  P. 445. 

5.  CONNECTICUT GENERAL CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77, DISTINGUISHED. 
P. 445. 

WISCONSIN ET AL. V. J.C. PENNEY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT WHICH
CONFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE WISCONSIN TAX COMMISSION ASSESSING A TAX. 

MR. W. H. DANNAT PELL, WITH WHOM MESSRS.  ROSWELL DEAN PINE, JR. AND
G. BURGESS ELA WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR RESPONDENT. 

THE STATE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO TAX THE CORPORATE SURPLUS AT THE
TIME THE DIVIDENDS WERE PAID, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH SURPLUS MAY
HAVE INCLUDED FUNDS DERIVED IN PART FROM EARNINGS IN WISCONSIN; NOR TO
TAX THE PART MADE UP OF SUCH EARNINGS.  NEWARK FIRE INSURANCE CO. V.
STATE BOARD, 307 U.S. 313. 

THE CONCEPT OF BUSINESS SITUS IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF MORE OR LESS EXACT
DEFINITION, AND THE FACTS UPON WHICH AN ALLEGED BUSINESS SITUS IS BASED
MUST BE SHOWN WITH PARTICULARITY IF THE PRESUMPTION FAVORING
DOMICILIARY TAXATION IS TO BE REBUTTED. 

THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT FUNDS CONSISTING OF THE PROCEEDS OF SALES
OF MERCHANDISE IN WISCONSIN (AND IN OTHER STATES), NOT NEEDED TO MEET
LOCAL PAYROLLS, RENTS, ADVERTISING AND OTHER LOCAL EXPENSES, ARE
DEPOSITED TO THE GENERAL CREDIT OF THE RESPONDENT IN NEW YORK BANKS. 
THE FUNDS SO DEPOSITED ARE USED TO PAY SALARIES, GENERAL OVERHEAD OF
THE NEW YORK OFFICE, ACCOUNTS PAYABLE FOR MERCHANDISE PURCHASED, AND
TAXES.  DIVIDENDS ARE ALSO PAID FROM THESE NEW YORK BANK ACCOUNTS. 
AFTER LEAVING WISCONSIN THE FUNDS COMPLETELY LOSE THEIR IDENTITY AS FAR
AS HAVING BEEN DERIVED FROM ANY PARTICULAR SOURCE, AND THERE IS NO ONE
IN WISCONSIN WHO HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM. 

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT FUNDS SO DEPOSITED AND USED GAINED A BUSINESS
SITUS IN NEW YORK, SINCE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY MIGHT
CONCEIVABLY BE SAID TO BE SUFFICIENT TO GIVE IT A COMMERCIAL DOMICILE
THERE UNDER THE RULE LAID DOWN IN WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S.
193.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HOWEVER, EXCEPT THE
FACT OF PARTIAL DERIVATION FROM WISCONSIN, UPON WHICH TO BASE AN
ALLEGED BUSINESS SITUS, IN THAT STATE, OF THE NEW YORK BANK ACCOUNTS
USED TO PAY THE DIVIDENDS. 

WE KNOW OF NO CASE WHICH INDICATES THAT DERIVATION OF EARNINGS ALONE
IS OR MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT TO GIVE BANK ACCOUNTS CONTAINING THEM A TAX
SITUS IN THE STATE OF DERIVATION.  MANY AFFIRMATIVELY INDICATE THAT IT
IS NOT.  CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77;
EQUITABLE LIFE SOCIETY V. PENNSYLVANIA, 238 U.S. 143; PROVIDENT SAVINGS
ASSN. V. KENTUCKY, 239 U.S. 103; BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N,
282 U.S. 1; RHODE ISLAND TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, 270 U.S. 69. 

THE TAX CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AS AMOUNTING TO AN INCOME TAX UPON
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE.  IT IS NOT AN
INCOME TAX BUT AN EXCISE UPON "THE PAYMENT AND RECEIPT OF DIVIDENDS." 
THE SUBJECT OF AN INCOME TAX IS INCOME EARNED WITHIN THE STATE.  HOPE
GAS CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284; ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307,
313; DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 198 U.S. 341. 

IN THE CASE OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION THE BASIS OF JURISDICTION TO
LEVY AN INCOME TAX IS THAT THE INCOME ACCRUED IN THE STATE.  AS THE
INCOME IS EARNED, LIABILITY TO PAY THE TAX IS INCURRED.  AS INCOME MAY
BE SAID TO REPRESENT A CONTINUOUS FLOW, THE CALCULATION OF THE TAX IS
SIMPLY DEFERRED UNTIL A GIVEN DATE FOR CONVENIENCE IN MEASUREMENT.  THE
FACT THAT THE INCOME MAY HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATE BEFORE THIS
CALCULATION DATE ARRIVED IS IMMATERIAL.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER,
THAT THE TAX MAY BE REGARDED AS BEING IMPOSED UPON A PROPORTIONATE PART
OF THE CORPORATE SURPLUS AS OF THE RETURN DAY.  IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT
THE CORPORATION EARNING THE INCOME MUST PAY THE STATE'S "METERAGE"
CHARGE OR RENDER ITS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE SUBJECT TO EXECUTION. 

ALTHOUGH SUBSECTION (4) OF THE STATUTE CONTAINS A PRESUMPTION THAT
DIVIDENDS OF CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE
STATE ARE PAID FROM EARNINGS ATTRIBUTABLE TO WISCONSIN FOR THE
PRECEDING YEAR, THE TAX IS NOT LIMITED TO CASES IN WHICH THIS
PRESUMPTION IS NOT REBUTTED.  UNDER THE LAW, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT, EVEN
THOUGH A CORPORATE SURPLUS HAD BEEN ACCUMULATED FOR TWENTY YEARS AND NO
WISCONSIN EARNINGS REALIZED DURING THAT PERIOD, THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION WOULD STILL BE OBLIGED TO DETERMINE WHAT PART OF A DIVIDEND
PAID BY SUCH CORPORATION CONSISTED OF FUNDS ATTRIBUTABLE TO WISCONSIN
EARNINGS, AND ASSESS A TAX THEREON. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE TAX SHOULD BE TREATED AS A CORPORATE INCOME
TAX, NOTWITHSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO THE
CONTRARY, IGNORES THE PRINCIPLE THAT THIS COURT IS BOUND BY THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE LAW BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  KNIGHTS OF
PYTHIAS V. MEYER, 265 U.S. 30; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. BLODGETT, 287 U.S.
509.  PETITIONERS ARE FORECLOSED FROM ASSERTING IT HERE. 

THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX IS UPON THE DECLARATION AND RECEIPT OF
DIVIDENDS AND NOT UPON THE EARNING OF INCOME.  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST.
LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459; HOPE GAS CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284. 

IT IS MOST LIKELY THAT A VERY LARGE PROPORTION OF INCOME REALIZED IN
ONE STATE BY A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN SEVERAL WILL NEVER BE PAID
OUT IN DIVIDENDS. 

THERE IS NO SUCH CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EARNING OF INCOME IN
WISCONSIN BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION, WHICH DOES BUSINESS BOTH WITHIN AND
WITHOUT THE STATE, AND ITS PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS AS TO RENDER A TAX UPON
THE ONE A TAX UPON THE OTHER.  COLORADO NATIONAL BANK V. BEDFORD, 310
U.S. 41, 52.  CF., TRAVIS V. YALE & TOWNE MFG. CO., 252 U.S. 60. 

PETITIONERS HAVE ADVANCED NO CONTENTION THAT THE TAX SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED AS AN INCOME TAX UPON STOCKHOLDERS, AND IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE
TOO CLEAR TO ADMIT OF SERIOUS CONTROVERSY THAT THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
MAY NOT IMPOSE AN INCOME TAX UPON RESPONDENT'S NONRESIDENT
STOCKHOLDERS.  SEE DOMENECH V. UNITED PORTO RICAN SUGAR CO., 62 F.2D
562; CERT. DEN.  289 U.S. 739.  AN EFFORT TO DO THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO A
DISREGARD OF RESPONDENT'S CORPORATE ENTITY, AND THIS MAY NOT BE DONE. 
RHODE ISLAND TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, 270 U.S. 69; KLEIN V. BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, 282 U.S. 19; BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 282
U.S. 1; ELLINGER V. WISCONSIN STATE TAX COMM'N, 229 WIS. 71. 

THE ASSESSMENT IS FURTHER VOID BECAUSE THE TAX WAS CALCULATED
PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE DIVIDENDS WERE PAID FROM
THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S INCOME AND CONTAINED AN EXACTLY PROPORTIONATE PART
OF THE WISCONSIN EARNINGS FOR SUCH YEAR.  SUCH PRESUMPTION IS PLAINLY
NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE FACTS AND IS, THEREFORE, EITHER REBUTTED OR IS
VOID AS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE.  IF ITS EFFECT IS TO ESTABLISH A
RULE OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW REQUIRING FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO DECLARE THEIR
DIVIDENDS FROM ANY PARTICULAR SOURCE, SUCH A PRESUMPTION IS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WHETHER THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 3 OF CHAPTER 505 OF THE WISCONSIN
LAWS OF 1935 MAY APPLY TO A FOREIGN CORPORATION LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS
IN WISCONSIN WITHOUT OFFENDING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US.  THE STATUTE IS QUOTED IN THE
MARGIN.  FN1 WHEN THIS QUESTION ORIGINALLY CAME BEFORE THE SUPREME
COURT OF WISCONSIN IT FOUND NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IN SUCH AN
EXACTION.  STATE EX REL. FROEDTERT G. & M. CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 221
WIS. 225; 265 N.W. 672; 267 N.W. 52.  BUT DEEMING ITSELF CONSTRAINED BY
ITS READING OF THIS COURT'S DECISION IN CONNECTICUT GENERAL CO. V.
JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77, THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE
FOUND THAT THE STATUTE RAN AFOUL THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE INSOFAR AS IT
COVERED LOCALLY LICENSED FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  233 WIS. 286; 289 N.W.
677.  INASMUCH AS IMPORTANT ISSUES AFFECTING THE EXERTION OF THE TAXING
POWER OF THE STATES ARE INVOLVED, WE BROUGHT THIS AND ITS COMPANION
CASES HERE.  310 U.S. 618, 619. 

FOR MANY YEARS, CORPORATIONS CHARTERED BY OTHER STATES BUT PERMITTED
TO CARRY ON BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO A GENERAL
CORPORATE INCOME TAX ACT ON EARNINGS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR WISCONSIN
ACTIVITIES.  THE STATE HAS, OF COURSE, POWER TO IMPOSE SUCH A TAX. 
U.S. GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321; UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V.
CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113.  "FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DECLARING AND
RECEIVING DIVIDENDS, OUT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AND
BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN" WISCONSIN, AN EXACTION "EQUAL TO TWO AND ONE
HALF PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DIVIDENDS DECLARED AND PAID BY
ALL CORPORATIONS (FOREIGN AND LOCAL)" IS THE ADDITIONAL TAX NOW BEFORE
US.  IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS MEASURE AGAINST FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
THE AMOUNT OF INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO WISCONSIN IS CALCULATED ACCORDING
TO THE SAME FORMULA AS THAT EMPLOYED IN ASSESSING THE GENERAL CORPORATE
INCOME TAX PAID BY SUCH FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  THE PRACTICAL OPERATION
OF THIS LEGISLATION IS TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL TAX ON CORPORATE
EARNINGS WITHIN WISCONSIN BUT TO POSTPONE THE LIABILITY FOR THIS TAX
UNTIL SUCH EARNINGS ARE PAID OUT IN DIVIDENDS.  IN A WORD, BY ITS
GENERAL INCOME TAX WISCONSIN TAXES CORPORATE INCOME THAT IS TAKEN IN;
BY THE PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX OF 1935 WISCONSIN SUPERIMPOSED UPON THIS
INCOME TAX A TAX ON CORPORATE INCOME THAT IS PAID OUT. 

AS PRESSURES FOR NEW REVENUES BECOME MORE AND MORE INSISTENT, WAYS
AND MEANS OF MEETING THEM PRESENT TO A STATE NOT ONLY THE BAFFLING TASK
OF TAPPING FRESH SOURCES OF REVENUE BUT OF DOING SO WITH DUE REGARD TO
A STATE'S EXISTING TAXING SYSTEM.  THE TAX NOW ASSAILED GAINS
NOURISHING SIGNIFICANCE WHEN PLACED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WISCONSIN
TAXING SYSTEM OF WHICH IT BECAME A PART.  WISCONSIN RELIED HEAVILY UPON
TAXATION OF INCOMES AND LARGELY LOOKED TO THIS SOURCE TO MEET THE
INCREASING DEMANDS OF THE DEPRESSION YEARS.  BUT A SPECIAL WISCONSIN
FEATURE WAS EXEMPTION OF DIVIDENDS FROM PERSONAL TAXATION.  SEE WELCH
V. HENRY, 305 U.S. 134, 142-43.  THIS EXEMPTION PERSISTED WHILE REGULAR
AND SURTAX RATES AGAINST PERSONAL INCOMES WERE RAISED.  ATTEMPTS AT
RELIEF FROM THE UNFAIRNESS CHARGED AGAINST THIS EXEMPTION OF DIVIDENDS,
PARTICULARLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE HIGHER BRACKETS, WERE STEADILY PRESSED
BEFORE THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE.  TO RELIEVE LOCAL EARNINGS OF FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS FROM A DIVIDEND TAX WOULD HAVE HAD A DEPRESSIVE EFFECT ON
WHOLLY LOCAL ENTERPRISES.  THE PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX WAS DEVISED TO
REDUCE AT LEAST IN PART THE STATE'S REVENUE LOSSES DUE TO DIVIDEND
EXEMPTIONS, AND ALSO TO EQUALIZE THE BURDENS ON ALL WISCONSIN EARNINGS,
REGARDLESS OF THE FORMAL HOME OF THE CORPORATION. 

HAD WISCONSIN, AS PART OF ITS PRICE FOR THE PRIVILEGES IT AFFORDED
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WITHIN ITS BORDERS, EXPLICITLY PROVIDED FOR A
SUPPLEMENTARY TAX ON THE WISCONSIN EARNINGS OF SUCH CORPORATIONS, BUT
POSTPONED LIABILITY FOR THE TAX UNTIL SUCH EARNINGS WERE TO BE PAID OUT
IN DIVIDENDS, THE POWER OF WISCONSIN TO DO SO WOULD HARDLY BE
QUESTIONED.  COMPARE CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE CO. V. TENNESSEE, ANTE, P.
5.  BUT BECAUSE THE LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE RAN "FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
DECLARING AND RECEIVING DIVIDENDS, OUT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY
LOCATED AND BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN THIS STATE" THE COURT BELOW RAISED
THE BARRIER OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  RESPONDENT IS A DELAWARE
CORPORATION HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICES IN NEW YORK; ITS MEETINGS ARE
HELD IN THE LATTER STATE WHERE THE DIVIDENDS ARE VOTED AND THE DIVIDEND
CHECKS ARE DRAWN ON NEW YORK BANK ACCOUNTS.  SINCE THE PROCESS FOR
DECLARING DIVIDENDS AND THE DETAILS ATTENDING THEIR DISTRIBUTION AMONG
THE STOCKHOLDERS TRANSPIRED OUTSIDE WISCONSIN, ALTHOUGH THE EXACTION
WAS APPORTIONED TO THE EARNINGS DERIVED FROM WISCONSIN, THE STATE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THE TAX WAS AN ATTEMPT BY WISCONSIN TO LEVY AN EXACTION
ON TRANSACTIONS BEYOND WISCONSIN'S BORDERS. 

THE CASE THUS REDUCES ITSELF TO THE INQUIRY WHETHER WISCONSIN HAS
TRANSGRESSED ITS TAXING POWER BECAUSE ITS SUPREME COURT HAS DESCRIBED
THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE EXERTION OF THAT POWER BY ONE LEGAL FORMULA
RATHER THAN ANOTHER - HAS LABELED IT A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
DECLARING DIVIDENDS RATHER THAN A SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME TAX. 

A TAX IS AN EXACTION.  ASCERTAINMENT OF THE SCOPE OF THE EXACTION -
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN IT - IS FOR THE STATE COURT.  BUT THE DESCRIPTIVE
PIGEON-HOLE INTO WHICH A STATE COURT PUTS A TAX IS OF NO MOMENT IN
DETERMINING THE CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXACTION.  "IN
WHATEVER LANGUAGE A STATUTE MAY BE FRAMED, ITS PURPOSE MUST BE
DETERMINED BY ITS NATURAL AND REASONABLE EFFECT."  HENDERSON V. MAYOR
OF NEW YORK, 92 U.S. 259, 268.  SUCH HAS BEEN THE REPEATED IMPORT OF
THE CASES WHICH ONLY RECENTLY WERE WELL SUMMARIZED BY THE GUIDING
FORMULATION FOR ADJUDICATING A TAX MEASURE, THAT "IN PASSING ON ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION,
NOT ITS DEFINITION OR THE PRECISE FORM OF DESCRIPTIVE WORDS WHICH MAY
BE APPLIED TO IT."  LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 276,
280. 

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A FORMULARY.  IT DOES NOT DEMAND OF STATES
STRICT OBSERVANCE OF RIGID CATEGORIES NOR PRECISION OF TECHNICAL
PHRASING IN THEIR EXERCISE OF THE MOST BASIC POWER OF GOVERNMENT, THAT
OF TAXATION.  FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES THE DECISIVE ISSUE TURNS ON
THE OPERATING INCIDENCE OF A CHALLENGED TAX.  A STATE IS FREE TO PURSUE
ITS OWN FISCAL POLICIES, UNEMBARRASSED BY THE CONSTITUTION, IF BY THE
PRACTICAL OPERATION OF A TAX THE STATE HAS EXERTED ITS POWER IN
RELATION TO OPPORTUNITIES WHICH IT HAS GIVEN, TO PROTECTION WHICH IT
HAS AFFORDED, TO BENEFITS WHICH IT HAS CONFERRED BY THE FACT OF BEING
AN ORDERLY, CIVILIZED SOCIETY.    CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ARE OFTEN
SO GLOSSED OVER WITH COMMENTARY THAT IMPERCEPTIBLY WE TEND TO CONSTRUE
THE COMMENTARY RATHER THAN THE TEXT.  WE CANNOT, HOWEVER, BE TOO OFTEN
REMINDED THAT THE LIMITS ON THE OTHERWISE AUTONOMOUS POWERS OF THE
STATES ARE THOSE IN THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT VERBAL WEAPONS IMPORTED
INTO IT.  "TAXABLE EVENT," "JURISDICTION TO TAX," "BUSINESS SITUS,"
"EXTRATERRITORIALITY," ARE ALL COMPENDIOUS WAYS OF IMPLYING THE
IMPOTENCE OF STATE POWER BECAUSE STATE POWER HAS NOTHING ON WHICH TO
OPERATE.  THESE TAGS ARE NOT INSTRUMENTS OF ADJUDICATION BUT STATEMENTS
OF RESULT IN APPLYING THE SOLE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST FOR A CASE LIKE THE
PRESENT ONE.  THAT TEST IS WHETHER PROPERTY WAS TAKEN WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, OR, IF PARAPHRASE WE MUST, WHETHER THE TAXING POWER
EXERTED BY THE STATE BEARS FISCAL RELATION TO PROTECTION, OPPORTUNITIES
AND BENEFITS GIVEN BY THE STATE.  THE SIMPLE BUT CONTROLLING QUESTION
IS WHETHER THE STATE HAS GIVEN ANYTHING FOR WHICH IT CAN ASK RETURN. 
THE SUBSTANTIAL PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN WISCONSIN, WHICH
HAS HERE BEEN GIVEN, CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE TAX, AND THE STATE HAS NOT
GIVEN THE LESS MERELY BECAUSE IT HAS CONDITIONED THE DEMAND OF THE
EXACTION UPON HAPPENINGS OUTSIDE ITS OWN BORDERS.  THE FACT THAT A TAX
IS CONTINGENT UPON EVENTS BROUGHT TO PASS WITHOUT A STATE DOES NOT
DESTROY THE NEXUS BETWEEN SUCH A TAX AND TRANSACTIONS WITHIN A STATE
FOR WHICH THE TAX IS AN EXACTION.  SEE CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE CO. V.
TENNESSEE, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO EQUITABLE LIFE SOCIETY V. PENNSYLVANIA, 238
U.S. 143; MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250 U.S. 525; COMPANIA DE TABACOS V.
COLLECTOR, 275 U.S. 87, 98; NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S.
308; ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412; ATLANTIC
REFINING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 302 U.S. 22; CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S.
357. 

THIS ANALYSIS IS MERELY A REFORMULATION OF THE CLASSIC APPROACH OF
THIS COURT TO THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES.  LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX
COMMISSION, SUPRA, P. 280.  AMBIGUOUS INTIMATIONS OF GENERAL PHRASES IN
OPINIONS TORN FROM THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CONCRETE CIRCUMSTANCES, OR EVEN
OCCASIONAL DEVIATIONS OVER A LONG COURSE OF YEARS, NOT UNNATURAL IN
VIEW OF THE CONFUSING COMPLEXITIES OF TAX PROBLEMS, DO NOT ALTER THE
LIMITED NATURE OF THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT WHEN STATE TAXES COME
BEFORE IT.  AT BEST, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVISING JUST AND
PRODUCTIVE SOURCES OF REVENUE CHALLENGES THE WIT OF LEGISLATORS. 
NOTHING CAN BE LESS HELPFUL THAN FOR COURTS TO GO BEYOND THE EXTREMELY
LIMITED RESTRICTIONS THAT THE CONSTITUTION PLACES UPON THE STATES AND
TO INJECT THEMSELVES IN A MERELY NEGATIVE WAY INTO THE DELICATE
PROCESSES OF FISCAL POLICY-MAKING.  WE MUST BE ON GUARD AGAINST
IMPRISONING THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES WITHIN FORMULAS THAT ARE NOT
COMPELLED BY THE CONSTITUTION BUT MERELY REPRESENT JUDICIAL
GENERALIZATIONS EXCEEDING THE CONCRETE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THEY PROFESS
TO SUMMARIZE. 

NOR DOES CONNECTICUT GENERAL CO. V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, PRESENT A BARRIER
AGAINST WHAT WISCONSIN HAS DONE.  ITS PRESUPPOSITIONS RECOGNIZE THE
SCOPE OF THE STATE TAXING POWER WE HAVE OUTLINED.  303 U.S. 77, 80,
82.  IN THE PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED BY THE RECORD IT WAS FOUND
THAT THE TAX NEITHER IN ITS MEASURE NOR IN ITS INCIDENCE WAS RELATED TO
CALIFORNIA TRANSACTIONS.  HERE, ON THE CONTRARY, THE INCIDENCE OF THE
TAX AS WELL AS ITS MEASURE IS TIED TO THE EARNINGS WHICH THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN HAS MADE POSSIBLE, INSOFAR AS GOVERNMENT IS THE PREREQUISITE
FOR THE FRUITS OF CIVILIZATION FOR WHICH, AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES WAS
FOND OF SAYING, WE PAY TAXES.  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, HIS DISSENT IN
COMPANIA DE TABACOS V. COLLECTOR, SUPRA, P. 100. 

BECAUSE THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT FOUND THE STATUTE TO BE INVALID
AS TO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN THE POSITION OF THE RESPONDENT IT HAD NO
OCCASION TO PASS ON CERTAIN CLAIMS RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE
STATUTE TO THE SPECIFIC DIVIDENDS HERE INVOLVED.  WE THEREFORE REMAND
THE CASE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH QUESTIONS AS ARE OPEN IN THE
LIGHT OF THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 3, CHAPTER 505, LAWS OF WISCONSIN, 1935, AS AMENDED BY
CHAPTER 552, LAWS OF WISCONSIN, 1935: 

"SECTION 3.  PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX.  (1)  FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
DECLARING AND RECEIVING DIVIDENDS, OUT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY
LOCATED AND BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN THIS STATE, THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED
A TAX EQUAL TO TWO AND ONE-HALF PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH
DIVIDENDS DECLARED AND PAID BY ALL CORPORATIONS (FOREIGN AND LOCAL)
AFTER THE PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION OF THIS ACT AND PRIOR TO JULY 1,
1937.  SUCH TAX SHALL BE DEDUCTED AND WITHHELD FROM SUCH DIVIDENDS
PAYABLE TO RESIDENTS AND NON-RESIDENTS BY THE PAYOR CORPORATION. 

"(2)  EVERY CORPORATION REQUIRED TO DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD ANY TAX UNDER
THIS SECTION SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DAY OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING
THE PAYMENT OF THE DIVIDEND, MAKE RETURN THEREOF AND PAY THE TAX TO THE
TAX COMMISSION, REPORTING SUCH TAX ON THE FORMS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE
TAX COMMISSION. 

"(3)  EVERY SUCH CORPORATION HEREBY MADE LIABLE FOR SUCH TAX, SHALL
DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAX FROM THE DIVIDENDS SO DECLARED. 

"(4)  IN THE CASE OF CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN AND WITHOUT
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, SUCH TAX SHALL APPLY ONLY TO DIVIDENDS DECLARED
AND PAID OUT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS TRANSACTED AND PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.  THE AMOUNT OF INCOME
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIS STATE SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 71.  IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY,
SUCH DIVIDENDS SHALL BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID OUT OF EARNINGS OF
SUCH CORPORATION ATTRIBUTABLE TO WISCONSIN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 71, FOR THE YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PAYMENT OF SUCH
DIVIDEND.  IF A CORPORATION HAD A LOSS FOR THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE
PAYMENT OF THE DIVIDEND, THE TAX COMMISSION SHALL UPON APPLICATION,
DETERMINE THE PORTION OF SUCH DIVIDEND PAID OUT OF CORPORATE SURPLUS
AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS DERIVED FROM BUSINESS TRANSACTED AND PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE. 

"(5)  DIVIDENDS PAID BY A SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION TO ITS PARENT SHALL
NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE TAX HEREIN IMPOSED PROVIDED THAT THE SUBSIDIARY
AND ITS PARENT REPORT THEIR INCOME FOR TAXATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 71 ON A CONSOLIDATED INCOME RETURN BASIS, OR BOTH CORPORATIONS
REPORT SEPARATELY. 

"(6)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO DIVIDENDS
DECLARED AND PAID BY A WISCONSIN CORPORATION OUT OF ITS INCOME WHICH IT
HAS REPORTED FOR TAXATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 71, TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE BUSINESS OF SUCH CORPORATION CONSISTS IN THE RECEIPTS
OF DIVIDENDS FROM WHICH A PRIVILEGE DIVIDEND TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AND
WITHHELD AND THE DISTRIBUTION THEREOF TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS. 

"(7)  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION DIVIDENDS SHALL BE DEFINED AS
IN SECTION 71.02, EXCEPT THAT THE TAX HEREIN IMPOSED SHALL NOT APPLY TO
STOCK DIVIDEND OR LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS. 

"(8)  THE TAX HEREBY LEVIED, IF NOT PAID WITHIN THE TIME HEREIN
PROVIDED, SHALL BECOME DELINQUENT AND WHEN DELINQUENT SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO A PENALTY OF TWO PER CENT ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX AND INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF ONE-HALF PER CENT PER MONTH UNTIL PAID. 

"(9)  THE TAX HEREBY IMPOSED SHALL, WHEN COLLECTED BY THE TAX
COMMISSION, BE PAID BY IT INTO THE STATE TREASURY." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS. 

I ASSUME THAT THE PRINCIPLE STILL HOLDS GOOD THAT A STATE, A MEMBER
OF THE SISTERHOOD OF STATES IN THE REPUBLIC, CANNOT EXTEND HER
SOVEREIGNTY BY LEGISLATION SO AS TO PROHIBIT, TO REGULATE, OR TO TAX
PROPERTY OR TRANSACTIONS OF CITIZENS OF OTHER SOVEREIGN STATES LYING
OUTSIDE HER BOUNDARIES AND REGULATED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
DOMICILE OR RESIDENCE.  I ASSUME ALSO THAT, WHERE A STATE HAS, BY LAW,
FIXED THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A CORPORATE CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE
MAY ENTER TO TRANSACT BUSINESS, SHE MAY NOT THEREAFTER EXTEND HER
SOVEREIGNTY TO MATTERS NOT WITHIN HER COMPETENCE, IN THE GUISE OF
ANNEXING OTHER AND FURTHER CONDITIONS OR BURDENS UPON THE TRANSACTION
OF THE CORPORATION'S BUSINESS WITHIN HER BORDERS.  THOSE ACTIVITIES
WHICH HAVE A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE BUSINESS TRANSACTED
BY THE CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE WITHIN HER CONFINES ARE, OF COURSE,
SUBJECT TO REGULATION AND TO TAXATION.  IT WOULD BE MERE AFFECTATION TO
CITE THE ADJUDICATIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH ARE FOUNDED UPON THESE
PROPOSITIONS.  I HAVE THOUGHT THAT THESE PRINCIPLES WERE OF THE VERY
WARP AND WOOF OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM WHICH BINDS THE STATES
TOGETHER IN A FEDERAL UNION.  ATTEMPTED TRANSGRESSIONS OF THESE LIMITS
OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY HAVE TIME AND AGAIN RUN AFOUL OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE RESPONDENT ADMITTEDLY RECEIVES INCOME IN WISCONSIN.  NO ONE
QUESTIONS THE POWER OF WISCONSIN TO LAY A TAX UPON THE RECEIPT OF THAT
INCOME.  IT HAS DONE SO.  IT IS SAID THAT THE CHALLENGED EXACTION IS
MERELY AN ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX,  - THIS, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX
IS NOT CALLED AN INCOME TAX, HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF
WISCONSIN NOT TO BE AN INCOME TAX BUT AN EXCISE UPON A PRIVILEGE,  - IN
THE VIEW THAT IN TESTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN EXACTION THIS
COURT EXAMINES FOR ITSELF THE NATURE AND INCIDENCE OF THE TAX AND
DISREGARDS MERE NAMES AND DESCRIPTIVE EPITHETS.  WITH THAT PRINCIPLE I
HAVE NO QUARREL, BUT I THINK THE OPINION OF THE COURT DEMONSTRATES THAT
THE TAX HERE IN QUESTION IS, AND CAN BE, SUSTAINED ONLY BY A DISREGARD
OF IT. LET ME ILLUSTRATE MY MEANING.  ASSUMING THAT, BY STATUTE, AN AD
VALOREM TAX ON PROPERTY IS PROHIBITED AND AN INCOME TAX PERMITTED.  THE
TERMS USED IN THE STATUTE NECESSARILY HAVE A CONVENTIONAL CONNOTATION. 
ONE CANNOT INTELLIGENTLY DISCUSS THINGS OR ACTIONS EXCEPT BY USING THE
NAMES COMMONLY EMPLOYED TO DESCRIBE THEM.  CONCEPTS OF AD VALOREM
TAXATION ON PROPERTY AND TAXATION OF INCOME ARE CLEAR AND EASILY
DISCRIMINABLE.  WHAT WOULD BE SAID OF A DECISION CONSTRUING SUCH A
STATUTORY PROVISION SO AS TO HOLD A TAX OF SO MANY CENTS ON THE DOLLAR
UPON PROPERTY AN INCOME TAX BECAUSE, FORSOOTH, ALL THE PROPERTY
ASSESSED HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS THE FRUITS OF LABOR, OF INDUSTRY, OR OF
CAPITAL, UPON THE THEORY THAT, AS THE PROPERTY HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE
AT SOME REMOTE DATE AS INCOME, THE TAX WAS AN INCOME TAX?  I THINK THAT
IS PRECISELY WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. 

THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE RESPONDENT RECEIVES INCOME IN MANY
STATES.  THAT INCOME IS FORWARDED TO ITS HOME OFFICE AFTER BEARING
WHATEVER TAX IS LAID UPON ITS RECEIPT IN THE STATE OF RECEIPT. 
THEREUPON THE FUNDS SO FORWARDED BECOME A PORTION OF THE GENERAL MASS
OF THE RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY, HELD AND ADMINISTERED AT ITS GENERAL
OFFICE.  THE FUNDS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE EXTENSION OF ITS BUSINESS;
THEY MAY BE HELD AS INSURANCE AGAINST FUTURE BUSINESS LOSSES OR THEY
MAY BE DISTRIBUTED TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS IN DIVIDENDS.  THEIR MANAGEMENT
AND THEIR DISBURSEMENT HAVE NO RELATION TO THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT OF
INCOME SAVE ONLY THE FACT THAT, LIKE MOST PROPERTY, THEY ARE BUILT UP
AS THE FRUITS OF INCOME.  THEIR USE AND THEIR DISBURSEMENT DOES NOT
DEPEND ON ANY LAW OF WISCONSIN AND CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY ANY SUCH
LAW.  THE ACT OF DISBURSING THEM, WHETHER IN PAYMENT OF CORPORATE
OBLIGATIONS OR AS DIVIDENDS, IS ONE WHOLLY BEYOND THE REACH OF
WISCONSIN'S SOVEREIGN POWER, ONE WHICH IT CANNOT EFFECTIVELY COMMAND,
OR PROHIBIT OR CONDITION.  THAT DISTRIBUTION CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF
AN EXCISE TAX BY THE STATE OF WISCONSIN.  SO MUCH THE STATE ADMITS. 

UNDER THE CHALLENGED STATUTE, A PRESUMPTION IS CREATED WHICH IS SHOWN
IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS IN
QUESTION TO BE CONTRARY TO THE FACT,  - NAMELY, THAT AN ARBITRARILY
ASSUMED PROPORTION OF THE DIVIDEND IS PAID OUT OF THE RESPONDENT'S
EARNINGS IN WISCONSIN FOR THE YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PAYMENT OF
SUCH DIVIDEND.  BY THE VERY TERMS OF THE ACT, THE TAX IS LAID NOT ON
THE CORPORATION BUT ON THE STOCKHOLDER RECEIVING THE DIVIDEND AND, BY
CONFESSION, THOUSANDS OF SUCH STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF
WISCONSIN.  THE CORPORATION IS THE MERE COLLECTOR OF THE TAX AND THE
PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COLLECT IT IS THAT THE CORPORATION MUST PAY IT.
IF THE EXACTION IS AN INCOME TAX IN ANY SENSE IT IS SUCH UPON THE
STOCKHOLDER AND IS OBVIOUSLY BAD.  IT CANNOT, EXCEPT BY A PERVERSION OF
THE TERM AND THE AFFIXING OF AN ARBITRARY LABEL, BE DENOMINATED A TAX
UPON THE INCOME OF THE RESPONDENT. 

THE EXPLANATION OF THE REASON AND PURPOSE FOR IMPOSING THE TAX,
DISCLOSED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, SERVES TO CONDEMN IT.  IF
WISCONSIN FOUND THAT DIVIDEND INCOME OF STOCKHOLDERS OF DOMESTIC
CORPORATIONS ESCAPED TAXATION, AND SHOULD BEAR IT, AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO
REACH THE DIVIDEND RECEIPTS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS OF SUCH CORPORATIONS
WAS TO PLACE A TAX UPON THE RECEIPT OF DIVIDENDS BY THEM.  BUT SUCH A
LEVY UPON THE STOCKHOLDERS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION, NOT RESIDENT
WITHIN WISCONSIN, OBVIOUSLY WAS IMPOSSIBLE ALTHOUGH THAT IS EXACTLY
WHAT WAS ATTEMPTED BY THE STATUTE IN QUESTION.  WE ARE NOW TOLD THAT
THIS IS NOT A FAIR EXPOSITION OF THE LAW BUT THAT, ON THE CONTRARY, AND
IN THE TEETH OF THE KNOWN FACTS, WHAT WISCONSIN DID WAS TO LAY A
SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME TAX UPON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  THIS IS SIMPLY TO
TAKE THE NAME OF A WELL UNDERSTOOD CONCEPT AND ASSIGN THAT NAME AS A
LABEL TO SOMETHING WHICH IN ORDINARY UNDERSTANDING NEVER FELL WITHIN
SUCH CONCEPT.  BY THIS PROCESS ANY EXACTION CAN BE TORTURED INTO
SOMETHING ELSE AND THEN JUSTIFIED UNDER AN ASSUMED NAME.    THE
RESPONDENT OWNS PROPERTY IN VARIOUS STATES OF THE UNION.  IT IS
REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT MUCH OF THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED OUT
OF CORPORATE SURPLUS, THAT IS, OUT OF PAST EARNINGS.  AN AD VALOREM TAX
BY WISCONSIN ON PROPERTY SO ACQUIRED COULD BE QUITE AS EASILY JUSTIFIED
UNDER THE LABEL OF AN INCOME TAX BECAUSE THE PROPERTY REPRESENTED
INCOME ONCE RECEIVED, AS THE PRESENT TAX, ON THE DECLARATION AND
RECEIPT OF DIVIDENDS OUT OF EARNED SURPLUS. 

UPON THE FACTS, THE TAX IS LEVIED ON WHAT LIES OUTSIDE THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF WISCONSIN.  ITS ATTEMPTED COLLECTION IS A VIOLATION OF
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND SHOULD BE
STRICKEN DOWN. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN COULD NOT HAVE DECIDED OTHERWISE IN
THE LIGHT OF A RECENT EXPRESSION OF THIS COURT ON THE SUBJECT.  IN
REACHING ITS DECISION IT PROFESSEDLY FOLLOWED AND APPLIED CONNECTICUT
GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77.  THERE A
CONNECTICUT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY DID BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA UNDER
LICENSE FROM THAT STATE.  IT ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH OTHER
INSURANCE COMPANIES, ALSO LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA,
REINSURING THEM AGAINST LOSS ON POLICIES WRITTEN BY THEM IN CALIFORNIA
ON THE LIVES OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS.  THE CONTRACTS WERE MADE IN
CONNECTICUT, PREMIUMS WERE PAID THERE, AND THE LOSSES, IF ANY, WERE
THERE PAYABLE.  CALIFORNIA IMPOSED A TAX UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
COMPANY TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN CALIFORNIA.  THE TAX WAS MEASURED BY THE
GROSS PREMIUMS RECEIVED.  CALIFORNIA OFFICIALS ATTEMPTED TO COLLECT THE
TAX ON THE PREMIUMS RECEIVED BY THE CONNECTICUT CORPORATION UNDER THE
REINSURANCE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SUSTAINED THE TAX.  IN THAT CASE, AS IN THIS, THE HIGHEST STATE COURT
DESCRIBED AND DEFINED THE TAX.  THERE THE TAX WAS DENOMINATED "A
FRANCHISE TAX ENACTED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE
STATE."  HERE, THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN HAS DENOMINATED THE
EXACTION AS A PRIVILEGE OR EXCISE TAX IMPOSED UPON THE TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY.  BY THE VERY PROCESS THE COURT NOW PROFESSES TO EMPLOY OF
DISREGARDING THE NAME GIVEN TO THE TAX BY THE STATE COURT, THIS COURT,
IN THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. CASE, REACHED THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COULD NOT IMPOSE THE TAX ON THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE CONNECTICUT COMPANY WHICH WERE NOT WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION.  CITING MANY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, IT WAS THERE SAID: 

"BUT THE LIMITS OF THE STATE'S LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION TO TAX,
PRESCRIBED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ARE TO BE ASCERTAINED BY
REFERENCE TO THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX UPON ITS OBJECTS RATHER THAN THE
ULTIMATE THRUST OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND BURDENS OF TRANSACTIONS
WITHIN THE STATE." 

THE VERY ARGUMENT NOW INVOKED IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESENT DECISION WAS
REPUDIATED BY THE COURT IN THE CONNECTICUT CASE IN THESE WORDS: 

"IT IS SAID THAT THE STATE COULD HAVE LAWFULLY ACCOMPLISHED ITS
PURPOSE IF THE STATUTE HAD FURTHER STIPULATED THAT THE DEDUCTION SHOULD
BE ALLOWED ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE REINSURANCE IS EFFECTED IN THE
STATE OR THE REINSURANCE PREMIUMS PAID THERE.  BUT AS THE STATE HAS
PLACED NO SUCH LIMITATION ON THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS, THE END
SOUGHT CAN BE ATTAINED ONLY IF THE RECEIPT BY APPELLANT OF THE
REINSURANCE PREMIUMS PAID IN CONNECTICUT UPON THE CONNECTICUT POLICIES
IS WITHIN THE REACH OF CALIFORNIA'S TAXING POWER.  APPELLEE ARGUES THAT
IT IS, BECAUSE THE REINSURANCE TRANSACTIONS ARE SO RELATED TO BUSINESS
CARRIED ON BY APPELLANT IN CALIFORNIA AS TO BE A PART OF IT AND
PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THE MEASURE OF THE TAX; AND BECAUSE, IN ANY CASE,
NO INJUSTICE IS DONE TO APPELLANT SINCE THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE AS
CONSTRUED IS TO REDISTRIBUTE THE TAX, WHICH THE STATE MIGHT HAVE
EXACTED FROM THE ORIGINAL INSURERS BUT DID NOT, BY ASSESSING IT UPON
APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT HAS RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE
ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS." 

IN DESCRIBING THE INCIDENCE OF THE VOID TAX THIS COURT SAID, AS IT
MIGHT WITH EQUAL ACCURACY BE SAID OF THE INSTANT TAX: 

"APART FROM THE FACTS THAT APPELLANT WAS PRIVILEGED TO DO BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA, AND THAT THE RISKS REINSURED WERE ORIGINALLY INSURED
AGAINST IN THAT STATE BY COMPANIES ALSO AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS
THERE, CALIFORNIA HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO APPELLANT OR TO THE
REINSURANCE CONTRACTS.  NO ACT IN THE COURSE OF THEIR FORMATION,
PERFORMANCE OR DISCHARGE, TOOK PLACE THERE.  THE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE
ACTS WAS NOT DEPENDENT UPON ANY PRIVILEGE OR AUTHORITY GRANTED BY IT,
AND CALIFORNIA LAWS AFFORDED TO THEM NO PROTECTION." 

AND FINALLY THE COURT CONCLUDED: 

"ALL THAT APPELLANT DID IN EFFECTING THE REINSURANCE WAS DONE WITHOUT
THE STATE AND FOR ITS TRANSACTION NO PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE BY CALIFORNIA
WAS NEEDFUL.  THE TAX CANNOT BE SUSTAINED EITHER AS LAID ON PROPERTY,
BUSINESS DONE, OR TRANSACTIONS CARRIED ON WITHIN THE STATE, OR AS A TAX
ON A PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE STATE." 

I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR
IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :

















WISCONSIN V. MINNESOTA MINING CO., 311 U.S. 452 


NO. 48.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 20, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 16, 1940.  - 233
WIS. 306 - 289 N.W. 686, REVERSED. 


1.  DECIDED, IN PART, UPON THE AUTHORITY OF WISCONSIN ET AL. V. J.C.
PENNEY CO., ANTE, P. 435.  P. 453. 

2.  A STATE TAX ON EARNINGS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION ATTRIBUTABLE TO
ACTIVITIES IN THE TAXING STATE, HELD, CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, ALTHOUGH THE LIABILITY TO PAY IT WAS MADE CONTINGENT UPON
HAPPENINGS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  P. 453. 

WISCONSIN ET AL. V. MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT WHICH
CONFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE WISCONSIN TAX COMMISSION ASSESSING A TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, INVOLVING ANOTHER APPLICATION OF THE WISCONSIN PRIVILEGE
DIVIDEND TAX CONSIDERED IN WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., ANTE, P. 435,
IS GOVERNED BY THAT DECISION EXCEPT FOR A CONTENTION MADE BY THIS
RESPONDENT BUT NOT PRESSED HERE IN PENNEY'S CASE. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS INVOKED.  BUT IT IS TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO
FIND OFFENSE TO THAT CLAUSE BECAUSE A STATE TAX IS IMPOSED ON CORPORATE
NET INCOME OF AN INTERSTATE ENTERPRISE WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
EARNINGS WITHIN THE TAXING STATE, MATSON NAVIGATION CO. V. STATE BOARD,
297 U.S. 441.  THAT LIABILITY FOR SUCH A TAX IS MADE CONTINGENT UPON
LATER HAPPENINGS, AS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE.  REVERSED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, AND
MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE DISSENTING
OPINION IN WISCONSIN V. J.C. PENNEY CO., ANTE, P. 446. 
..END :













BACARDI CORP. V. DOMENECH, 311 U.S. 150 


NO. 21.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  - 109
F.2D 57, REVERSED IN PART - AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  THE GENERAL INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION FOR TRADE-MARK AND
COMMERCIAL PROTECTION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON FEBRUARY 20, 1929, AND
RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES, BY CUBA AND BY OTHER AMERICAN COUNTRIES,
IS A PART OF OUR LAW; AND NO SPECIAL LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES
WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE THERE.  P. 161. 

2.  THE TREATY BINDS THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO, AND CAN NOT BE
OVERRIDDEN BY THE PUERTO RICAN LEGISLATURE.  P. 162. 

3.  THE TREATY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY TO GIVE EFFECT TO ITS
PURPOSE.  WHERE A PROVISION FAIRLY ADMITS OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, ONE
RESTRICTING, THE OTHER ENLARGING, RIGHTS CLAIMED UNDER IT, THE MORE
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE PREFERRED.  P. 163. 

4.  WHEN A FOREIGN MARK IS ENTITLED, BY VIRTUE OF THE TREATY, TO
REGISTRATION IN A RATIFYING STATE, AND IS DULY REGISTERED THERE, A
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT TO ITS PROTECTION IN THAT STATE ATTACHES.  P. 163. 

5.  A RATIFYING STATE CAN NOT ESCAPE THE OBLIGATION OF PROTECTING THE
OWNER IN HIS USE OF A FOREIGN TRADE-MARK, DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE
TREATY, BY REFUSING THAT PROTECTION TO ITS OWN NATIONALS.  P. 164. 

IT IS THE PLAIN PURPOSE OF THE TREATY TO PREVENT A RATIFYING STATE
FROM DENYING PROTECTION TO THE FOREIGN MARK BECAUSE OF ITS ORIGIN OR
PREVIOUS REGISTRATION IN THE FOREIGN COUNTRY.  PROTECTION AGAINST
PIRACY NECESSARILY PRESUPPOSES THE RIGHT TO USE THE MARKS THUS
PROTECTED. 

6.  THE TREATY RECOGNIZES THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER SEPARATELY FOR EACH
COUNTRY THE RIGHT TO USE AND EXPLOIT TRADE-MARKS REGISTERED UNDER IT
WHEN THE TRANSFER IS EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE PLACE
WHERE IT IS MADE AND IS DULY RECORDED.  P. 165. 

7.  A STATUTE OF PUERTO RICO PROHIBITING THE USE ON DISTILLED SPIRITS
MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO OF TRADE-MARKS WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN
USED ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF PUERTO RICO, EXCEPTING ANY THAT HAD BEEN USED
ON SPIRITS MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO ON OR BEFORE A DATE SPECIFIED OR
THAT HAD BEEN USED EXCLUSIVELY IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES PRIOR TO
THAT DATE, HELD DISCRIMINATORY, IN VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED
TREATY, WHEN APPLIED TO CUBAN TRADE-MARKS ON RUM, DULY REGISTERED BUT
NOT WITHIN THE STATUTORY EXCEPTIONS, AND WHICH A CORPORATION, UNDER
LICENSE FROM THE CUBAN OWNER, SOUGHT TO USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF RUM IN PUERTO RICO.  PP. 154, 167. 

8.  THE FACT THAT A CORPORATION APPLIED, UNDER PUERTO RICAN LAWS, FOR
A PERMIT TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF RECTIFYING DISTILLED SPIRITS IN
PUERTO RICO, DID NOT ESTOP IT FROM QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF LATER
LEGISLATION DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ITS FOREIGN TRADE-MARKS IN VIOLATION
OF THE TREATY.  P. 166. 

9.  A REGULATION OF THE PUERTO RICAN LEGISLATURE PROVIDING THAT
DISTILLED SPIRITS (WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE) MAY BE
SHIPPED OR EXPORTED FROM THE ISLAND ONLY IN CONTAINERS HOLDING NOT MORE
THAN ONE GALLON, IS WITHIN THE LOCAL POLICE POWER AND NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT.  P. 167. 

BACARDI CORPORATION OF AMERICA V. DOMENECH, TREASURER OF PUERTO RICO,
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 652, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH REVERSED A DECREE
PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THE TREASURER OF PUERTO RICO FROM ENFORCING
AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION LEGISLATION REGULATING THE USE OF
TRADE-MARKS ON DISTILLED SPIRITS AND FORBIDDING EXPORT OF SPIRITS IN
BULK. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION OF
PUERTO RICO PROHIBITING THE USE OF TRADE MARKS, BRANDS, OR TRADE NAMES,
ON DISTILLED SPIRITS MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO IF THE MARKS, BRANDS,
OR NAMES HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED ANYWHERE OUTSIDE PUERTO RICO, UNLESS
THEY HAD BEEN USED ON SPIRITS MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO ON OR BEFORE
FEBRUARY 1, 1936, OR IN THE CASE OF TRADE MARKS THEY HAD BEEN USED
EXCLUSIVELY IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES PRIOR TO THAT DATE. 

PETITIONER, BACARDI CORPORATION OF AMERICA, BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PUERTO RICO AGAINST THE
TREASURER OF PUERTO RICO TO HAVE THIS LEGISLATION DECLARED INVALID AND
ITS ENFORCEMENT ENJOINED.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGED INVALIDITY UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, THE ORGANIC ACT OF PUERTO RICO, THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL
ADMINISTRATION ACT, AND THE GENERAL INTER-AMERICAN TRADE-MARK
CONVENTION OF 1929.  THE DESTILERIA SERRALLES, INC., A PUERTO RICAN
CORPORATION, WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS A DEFENDANT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE LEGISLATION INVALID AND ISSUED A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DECREE
AND DIRECTED THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.  109 F.2D 57.  IN VIEW OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  309 U.S. 652. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH WERE NOT DISTURBED BY THE
RULINGS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SHOW THE FOLLOWING: 

PETITIONER, BACARDI CORPORATION OF AMERICA, IS A PENNSYLVANIA
CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO MANUFACTURE DISTILLED SPIRITS.  BY AGREEMENT,
PETITIONER BECAME ENTITLED TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL RUM IN PUERTO RICO
UNDER THE TRADE MARKS AND LABELS OF COMPANIA RON BACARDI, S.A., A CUBAN
CORPORATION.  FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, SAVE FOR THE PERIOD DURING
NATIONAL PROHIBITION, THE CUBAN CORPORATION AND ITS PREDECESSORS HAD
SOLD RUM IN PUERTO RICO AND THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES UNDER TRADE
MARKS WHICH INCLUDED THE WORD "BACARDI," "BACARDI Y CIA," THE
REPRESENTATION OF A BAT IN A CIRCULAR FRAME, AND CERTAIN DISTINCTIVE
LABELS.  THESE TRADE MARKS WERE DULY REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES
PATENT OFFICE AND IN THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF PUERTO
RICO PRIOR TO THE LEGISLATION HERE IN QUESTION. 

BACARDI RUM HAS ALWAYS BEEN MADE ACCORDING TO DEFINITE SECRET
PROCESSES, HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY ADVERTISED AND ENJOYS AN EXCELLENT
REPUTATION.  UNDER PETITIONER'S AGREEMENT WITH THE CUBAN CORPORATION,
ALL RUM DESIGNATED BY THE DESCRIBED TRADE MARKS AND LABELS WAS TO BE
MANUFACTURED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CUBAN
CORPORATION AND TO BE THE SAME KIND AND QUALITY AS THE RUM THAT THE
LATTER MANUFACTURED AND SOLD. 

IN MARCH, 1936, PETITIONER ARRANGED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PLANT
IN PUERTO RICO.  SINCE MARCH 31, 1936, PETITIONER HAS BEEN DULY
LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN PUERTO RICO UNDER ITS LAWS RELATING TO
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  PETITIONER'S BASIC PERMITS FROM THE FEDERAL
ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION WERE AMENDED SO AS TO ENABLE PETITIONER TO
OPERATE IN PUERTO RICO AND ITS LABELS WERE APPROVED.  PETITIONER RENTED
A BUILDING IN PUERTO RICO AND SPENT LARGE SUMS IN INSTALLING ITS
PLANT. 

ON MAY 15, 1936, THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO PASSED ACT NO. 115
KNOWN AS THE "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LAW" WHICH, AFTER PROVIDING FOR
PERMITS, PROHIBITED THE HOLDER OF A PERMIT FROM MANUFACTURING ANY
DISTILLED SPIRITS WHICH WERE "LOCALLY OR NATIONALLY KNOWN UNDER A
BRAND, TRADE NAME, OR TRADE-MARK PREVIOUSLY USED ON SIMILAR PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, OR IN ANY OTHER PLACE OUTSIDE PUERTO
RICO," WITH A PROVISO EXCEPTING BRANDS, TRADE NAMES, OR TRADE MARKS
USED ON SPIRITS "MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO ON FEBRUARY 1, 1936," AND
ALSO "ANY NEW BRAND, TRADE NAME, OR TRADE-MARK WHICH MAY IN THE FUTURE
BE USED IN PUERTO RICO."  FN1  THIS ACT WAS DECLARED TO BE OF AN
EXPERIMENTAL NATURE.  IT WAS REPEALED BY ACT NO. 6 OF JUNE 30, 1936,
WHICH CONTAINED A SIMILAR PROVISION AND ADDED A PROHIBITION AGAINST
EXPORTS IN BULK.  FN2  THAT ACT WAS TO BE IN FORCE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30,
1937.  IT WAS, HOWEVER, CONVERTED INTO PERMANENT LEGISLATION BY THE
PROVISIONS OF ACT NO. 149 OF MAY 15, 1937, KNOWN AS THE "SPIRITS AND
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ACT."  FN3 

DECLARING IT TO BE THE POLICY OF THE LEGISLATURE "TO PROTECT THE
RENASCENT LIQUOR INDUSTRY OF PUERTO RICO FROM ALL COMPETITION BY
FOREIGN CAPITAL,"  FN4  THE ACT OF 1937 PROVIDED IN SECS. 44 AND 44(B)
AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 44.  - NO HOLDER OF A PERMIT GRANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS OR OF ANY OTHER ACT SHALL DISTILL, RECTIFY,
MANUFACTURE, BOTTLE, OR CAN ANY DISTILLED SPIRITS, RECTIFIED SPIRITS,
OR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON WHICH THERE APPEARS, WHETHER ON THE
CONTAINER, LABEL, STOPPER, OR ELSEWHERE, ANY TRADE MARK, BRAND, TRADE
NAME, COMMERCIAL NAME, CORPORATION NAME OR ANY OTHER DESIGNATION, IF
SAID TRADE MARK, BRAND, TRADE NAME, COMMERCIAL NAME, CORPORATION NAME,
OR ANY OTHER DESIGNATION, DESIGN, OR DRAWING HAS BEEN USED PREVIOUSLY,
IN WHOLE OR IN PART, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER,
ANYWHERE OUTSIDE THE ISLAND OF PUERTO RICO:  PROVIDED, THAT THIS
LIMITATION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE DESIGNATIONS USED BY A DISTILLER,
RECTIFIER, MANUFACTURER, BOTTLER, OR CANNER OF DISTILLED SPIRITS
MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 1, 1936." 

"SECTION 44(B).  - DISTILLED SPIRITS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ETHYLIC
ALCOHOL, 180 DEGREE PROOF OR MORE, INDUSTRIAL ALCOHOL, ALCOHOL
DENATURED ACCORDING TO AUTHORIZED FORMULAS, AND DENATURED RUM FOR
INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES, MAY BE SHIPPED OR EXPORTED FROM PUERTO RICO TO
FOREIGN COUNTRIES, TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, OR TO ANY OF ITS
TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS, OR IMPORTED INTO PUERTO RICO, ONLY IN
CONTAINERS HOLDING NOT MORE THAN ONE GALLON, AND EACH CONTAINER SHALL
BEAR THE CORRESPONDING LABEL CONTAINING THE INFORMATION PRESCRIBED BY
LAW AND BY THE REGULATIONS OF THE TREASURER; ...  "  FN5 

IT IS THESE SECTIONS WHICH PETITIONER ATTACKS. 

MAKE ITS LIMITATION APPLICABLE, IN REGARD TO TRADE MARKS ONLY, TO SUCH
"AS SHALL HAVE BEEN USED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES"
PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 1936.  FN6  PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT IN THE ABSENCE
OF THIS LAST PROVISION, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN TWO DISTILLERS WHOSE
TRADE MARKS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 44, THAT IS,
PETITIONER AND ONE OTHER; AND THAT SEC. 7 PROTECTED THE OTHER
MANUFACTURER, LEAVING PETITIONER, WHOSE MARKS HAD BEEN USED IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES AND NOT EXCLUSIVELY IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, THE ONLY
CONCERN AFFECTED BY THE PROHIBITION.  THE DISTRICT COURT SAID THAT THE
ACT HAD THE APPEARANCE OF BEING FRAMED SO AS TO EXCLUDE ONLY THE
PLAINTIFF AND THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF "A MORE GLARING
DISCRIMINATION."  IN THIS RELATION PETITIONER CITES THE CRITICAL
REFERENCE IN MCFARLAND V. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO., 241 U.S. 79, 86,
TO A STATUTE WHICH "BRISTLES WITH SEVERITIES THAT TOUCH THE PLAINTIFF
ALONE."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHILE RECOGNIZING THE IMMEDIATE
BEARING OF THE PROVISION AS THUS CHALLENGED SUSTAINED IT "AS APPLYING
TO ALL WHO MIGHT LATER ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS." 

THAT CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT TOUCH THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF
THE DISCRIMINATION WHICH THE STATUTE SEEKS TO EFFECT IN THE USE OF
TRADE MARKS.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE ADMISSION OF
CORPORATIONS, FOREIGN TO PUERTO RICO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSACTING
BUSINESS IN THE ISLAND.  PETITIONER RECEIVED ITS LOCAL LICENSE.  NOR
DOES THE STATUTE PROHIBIT THE MANUFACTURE OF RUM IN PUERTO RICO.  THAT
IS ALLOWED.  PETITIONER RECEIVED PERMITS FROM PUERTO RICO FOR THAT
MANUFACTURE AS WELL AS THE BASIC PERMITS FROM THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL
ADMINISTRATION.  THE STATUTORY RESTRICTION IS NOT ON DOING BUSINESS OR
MANUFACTURING APART FROM THE USE OF PETITIONER'S TRADE MARKS AND LABELS
TO DESIGNATE ITS PRODUCT.  AS TO THESE TRADE MARKS AND LABELS, THE
PROHIBITION DOES NOT REST ON LACK OF PROPER REGISTRATION UNDER THE
LOCAL LAW.  PETITIONER'S TRADE MARKS HAVE BEEN DULY REGISTERED IN THE
UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO.  NOR DOES THE PROHIBITION OF USE PROCEED
ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRADE MARKS, AS SUCH, ARE INVALID.  THE CUBAN
CORPORATION WHICH LICENSED PETITIONER TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL BACARDI
PRODUCTS AND TO USE BACARDI TRADE MARKS HAD FOR MANY YEARS SOLD ITS RUM
IN PUERTO RICO, ALTHOUGH THE RUM WAS NOT MANUFACTURED THERE.  THERE IS
NO QUESTION OF DECEPTION OR UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION.  PETITIONER
IS PROHIBITED FROM THE USE OF ITS TRADE MARKS, ALTHOUGH VALID AND DULY
REGISTERED AND ALTHOUGH THE PRODUCT TO WHICH THEY ARE APPLIED IS
OTHERWISE LAWFULLY MADE AND THE SUBJECT OF LAWFUL SALE, SOLELY BECAUSE
THE MARKS HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED OUTSIDE PUERTO RICO AND HAD NOT BEEN
USED ON SPIRITS MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO, OR EXCLUSIVELY IN
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 1936. 

THE FIRST QUESTION THUS PRESENTED IS WHETHER THIS DISCRIMINATORY
ENACTMENT CONFLICTS WITH THE GENERAL INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION FOR
TRADE MARK AND COMMERCIAL PROTECTION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON ON FEBRUARY
20, 1929.  FN7 

THIS TREATY WAS THE CULMINATION OF THE EFFORTS OF MANY YEARS TO
SECURE THE COOPERATION OF THE AMERICAN STATES IN UNIFORM TRADE MARK
PROTECTION.  AS PREVIOUS CONVENTIONS HAD NOT PROVED SATISFACTORY,  FN8
THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES, HELD AT HAVANA
IN 1928, RECOMMENDED TO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE PAN AMERICAN UNION
THE CALLING OF A SPECIAL CONFERENCE "FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDYING IN ITS
AMPLEST SCOPE THE PROBLEM OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PROTECTION OF TRADE
MARKS."  DELEGATES FROM THE RESPECTIVE STATES WERE APPOINTED
ACCORDINGLY AND FROM THEIR PROCEEDINGS THE CONVENTION OF 1929
RESULTED.  THERE WERE OBVIOUS DIFFICULTIES TO BE SURMOUNTED.  THESE
INHERED IN THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRINCIPLES OF TRADE MARK
PROTECTION IN THE LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES, WHERE THE CIVIL LAW IS
FOLLOWED, AND THE COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES OBTAINING IN THE UNITED
STATES.  THE CONVENTION STATES THAT THE CONTRACTING STATES WERE
"ANIMATED BY THE DESIRE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENT JURIDICAL SYSTEMS
WHICH PREVAIL IN THE SEVERAL AMERICAN REPUBLICS" AND RESOLVED TO
NEGOTIATE THE CONVENTION "FOR THE PROTECTION OF TRADE MARKS, TRADE
NAMES, AND FOR THE REPRESSION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE
INDICATIONS OF GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN." 

BY CHAPTER I, ENTITLED "EQUALITY OF CITIZENS AND ALIENS AS TO TRADE
MARK AND COMMERCIAL PROTECTION," THE RESPECTIVE CONTRACTING STATES BIND
THEMSELVES TO GRANT TO THE NATIONALS OF THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES
THE SAME RIGHTS AND REMEDIES WHICH THEIR LAWS EXTEND TO THEIR OWN
NATIONALS. 

BY CHAPTER II, ENTITLED "TRADE MARK PROTECTION," PROVISION IS MADE
FOR REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT OF TRADE MARKS IN THE PROPER OFFICES OF THE
CONTRACTING STATES.  ARTICLE 3 THEN SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES: 

"EVERY MARK DULY REGISTERED OR LEGALLY PROTECTED IN ONE OF THE
CONTRACTING STATES SHALL BE ADMITTED TO REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT AND
LEGALLY PROTECTED IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES, UPON COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE DOMESTIC LAW OF SUCH STATES." 

THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT MAY BE REFUSED OR
CANCELED ARE THEN SET FORTH, INCLUDING THOSE CASES WHERE THE
DISTINGUISHING ELEMENTS OF MARKS INFRINGE RIGHTS ALREADY ACQUIRED BY
ANOTHER PERSON IN THE COUNTRY WHERE REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT IS CLAIMED,
OR WHERE THEY LACK AN APPROPRIATE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER, OR OFFEND
PUBLIC MORALS, ETC. (ART. 3).  IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT LABELS,
INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS AND SLOGANS USED TO IDENTIFY OR TO ADVERTISE GOODS
SHALL RECEIVE THE SAME PROTECTION ACCORDED TO TRADE MARKS IN COUNTRIES
WHERE THEY ARE CONSIDERED AS SUCH, UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DOMESTIC TRADE MARK LAW (ART. 5).  THE OWNER OF A
MARK PROTECTED IN ONE OF THE CONTRACTING STATES IS PERMITTED TO OPPOSE
REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT OF AN INTERFERING MARK (ART. 7); AND THE OWNER
OF A MARK REFUSED REGISTRATION BECAUSE OF AN INTERFERING MARK HAS THE
RIGHT TO APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN THE CANCELLATION OF THE INTERFERING MARK
ON MEETING STATED REQUIREMENTS.  (ART. 8.) 

THERE IS ANOTHER PROVISION THAT "THE USE AND EXPLOITATION OF TRADE
MARKS MAY BE TRANSFERRED SEPARATELY FOR EACH COUNTRY" AND PROPERLY
RECORDED.  (ART. 11.) 

CHAPTER III PROVIDES FOR THE "PROTECTION OF COMMERCIAL NAMES,"
CHAPTER IV FOR THE "REPRESSION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION," AND CHAPTER V
FOR THE "REPRESSION OF FALSE INDICATIONS OF GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN OR
SOURCE."  THE REMAINING CHAPTERS RELATE TO REMEDIES AND CONTAIN GENERAL
PROVISIONS.  AMONG THE LATTER IS ONE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROVISIONS
OF THE CONVENTION "SHALL HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW IN THOSE STATES IN WHICH
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES POSSESS THAT CHARACTER, AS SOON AS THEY ARE
RATIFIED BY THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL ORGANS."  AN ACCOMPANYING PROTOCOL
ESTABLISHES AN INTER-AMERICAN TRADE MARK BUREAU WHERE MARKS MAY BE
REGISTERED.    THE TEXT OF THE PROVISIONS ABOVE MENTIONED RELATING TO
THE PROTECTION OF TRADE MARKS IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN9 

THIS TREATY ON RATIFICATION BECAME A PART OF OUR LAW.  NO SPECIAL
LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES WAS NECESSARY TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE. 
HEAD MONEY CASES, 112 U.S. 580, 598, 599; ASAKURA V. SEATTLE, 265 U.S.
332, 341.  THE TREATY BOUND PUERTO RICO AND COULD NOT BE OVERRIDEN BY
THE PUERTO RICAN LEGISLATURE.  ASAKURA V. SEATTLE, SUPRA; NIELSEN V.
JOHNSON, 279 U.S. 47, 52; UNITED STATES V. BELMONT, 301 U.S. 324, 331. 
ACCORDING TO THE ACCEPTED CANON, WE SHOULD CONSTRUE THE TREATY
LIBERALLY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PURPOSE WHICH ANIMATES IT.  EVEN WHERE
A PROVISION OF A TREATY FAIRLY ADMITS OF TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, ONE
RESTRICTING, THE OTHER ENLARGING, RIGHTS WHICH MAY BE CLAIMED UNDER IT,
THE MORE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION IS TO BE PREFERRED.  JORDAN V. TASHIRO,
278 U.S. 123, 127; NIELSEN V. JOHNSON, SUPRA; FACTOR V. LAUBENHEIMER,
290 U.S. 276, 293, 294. 

HERE, THE CLEAR PURPOSE OF THE TREATY IS TO PROTECT THE FOREIGN TRADE
MARKS WHICH FALL WITHIN THE TREATY'S PURVIEW.  THE BASIC CONDITION OF
THAT PROTECTION, AS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 3, IS THAT THE MARK SHALL HAVE
BEEN "DULY REGISTERED OR LEGALLY PROTECTED" IN ONE OF THE CONTRACTING
STATES.  THIS PHRASE SHOWS THE ENDEAVOR TO RECONCILE THE CONFLICTING
JURIDICAL PRINCIPLES OF THESE STATES, - THE WORDS "OR LEGALLY
PROTECTED" BEING ADDED TO THE WORDS "DULY REGISTERED" WITH THE APPARENT
INTENT TO COVER TRADE MARKS WHICH WERE ENTITLED UNDER THE COMMON LAW TO
PROTECTION BY REASON OF APPROPRIATION AND USE.  FN10  IF DULY
REGISTERED OR LEGALLY PROTECTED IN ONE OF THE CONTRACTING STATES, THE
MARK IS TO BE ADMITTED TO REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT AND IS TO BE LEGALLY
PROTECTED IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES.  THE CONDITION OF THAT
PROTECTION IN THE OTHER STATES IS COMPLIANCE "WITH THE FORMAL
PROVISIONS" OF THE DOMESTIC LAW.  THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT
FORMALITIES OR PROCEDURAL REQUISITES ARE ENVISAGED AND THAT, WHEN THESE
HAVE BEEN MET, IT IS THE INTENT OF THE TREATY TO CONFER A SUBSTANTIVE
RIGHT TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FOREIGN MARK.  THE INTENT TO GIVE THIS
RIGHT OF PROTECTION IF THE MARK IS ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION UNDER THE
TREATY, IS SHOWN WITH ABUNDANT CLARITY BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAME
ARTICLE SETTING FORTH THE GROUNDS, RELATING TO INFRINGEMENT OF
PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED RIGHTS OR LACK OF DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER, ETC., UPON
WHICH REGISTRATION MAY BE REFUSED OR CANCELED IN THE COUNTRY WHERE
PROTECTION IS SOUGHT.  ALSO BY THE PROVISIONS AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE
OWNER OF A MARK PROTECTED IN ONE OF THE CONTRACTING STATES TO OPPOSE
REGISTRATION IN ANOTHER STATE OF AN INTERFERING MARK (ART. 7); AND BY
THE PROVISIONS AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE OWNER OF A MARK, HAVING ITS
ORIGIN IN ONE STATE AND SEEKING REGISTRATION IN ANOTHER, TO OBTAIN
CANCELLATION OR ANNULMENT OF AN INTERFERING MARK WHICH STANDS IN THE
WAY OF THE REGISTRATION SOUGHT, UPON PROVING PRIORITY OF RIGHT AS
STATED.  (ART. 8.)  THEN THERE IS THE ADDITIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE
RIGHT TO TRANSFER THE OWNERSHIP OF A REGISTERED MARK AND ALSO TO
TRANSFER SEPARATELY FOR EACH COUNTRY THE USE AND EXPLOITATION OF TRADE
MARKS WHEN THE TRANSFER IS EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE
PLACE WHERE IT IS MADE AND IS DULY RECORDED.  IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT
THE RIGHT OF PROTECTION OF THE FOREIGN MARKS, ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PRESCRIBED FORMALITIES, IS ACCORDED IN EACH OF THE RATIFYING STATES
IRRESPECTIVE OF CITIZENSHIP OR DOMICILE.  FN11  WHEN THE FOREIGN MARK
IS ENTITLED BY VIRTUE OF THE TREATY TO REGISTRATION IN A RATIFYING
STATE, AND IS DULY REGISTERED THERE, THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT TO ITS
PROTECTION IN THAT STATE ATTACHES. 

IN THIS VIEW, THE CONTENTION THAT A RATIFYING STATE, ON DUE
REGISTRATION OF A FOREIGN MARK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREATY, IS NOT
BOUND TO PROTECT THE OWNER IN THE USE OF THAT MARK PROVIDED IT REFUSES
THAT PROTECTION TO ITS OWN NATIONALS NECESSARILY FAILS.  UNDOUBTEDLY
THE CONTRACTING STATES ARE BOUND RESPECTIVELY TO GIVE TO THE NATIONALS
OF THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES THE SAME RIGHTS AND REMEDIES THAT ARE
EXTENDED TO THEIR OWN NATIONALS.  THAT IS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 1.  BUT
THAT PROVISION DOES NOT EXHAUST THE RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE TREATY.  THESE
RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 3 EXTEND TO THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF THE FOREIGN
MARKS WHEN DULY REGISTERED.  WHEN PROTECTION IS SOUGHT FOR SUCH MARKS A
RATIFYING STATE CANNOT ESCAPE THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE TREATY AND DENY
PROTECTION BY THE SIMPLE DEVICE OF EMBRACING ITS OWN NATIONALS IN THAT
DENIAL.  THAT WOULD MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE TREATY.  IT IS ITS PLAIN
PURPOSE TO PREVENT A RATIFYING STATE FROM DENYING PROTECTION TO THE
FOREIGN MARK BECAUSE OF ITS ORIGIN OR PREVIOUS REGISTRATION IN A
FOREIGN COUNTRY.  IT IS SAID THAT THE OBJECT OF THE TREATY IS TO
PREVENT PIRACY.  THAT IS TRUE, BUT THE ARGUMENT DOES NOT MEET THE
ISSUE.  PROTECTION AGAINST PIRACY NECESSARILY PRESUPPOSES THE RIGHT TO
USE THE MARKS THUS PROTECTED. 

WE ARE HERE CONCERNED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY ONLY AS IT
INVOLVES THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTORY
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE FOREIGN MARKS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY
REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO.  THE BACARDI MARKS ARE
OF CUBAN ORIGIN.  WE MUST ASSUME UPON THIS RECORD THAT THEY WERE DULY
REGISTERED AND WERE VALID IN CUBA.  BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND CUBA
HAVE RATIFIED THE TREATY.  FN12  THE RIGHT OF THE CUBAN CORPORATION
WHICH OWNED THE MARKS TO MAKE A SEPARATE TRANSFER TO PETITIONER OF THE
RIGHT TO USE AND EXPLOIT THEM IN PUERTO RICO IS RECOGNIZED BY THE
TREATY.  DESPITE THIS, PUERTO RICO HAS ATTEMPTED TO DENY THE RIGHT TO
USE THESE MARKS ON RUM MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO FOR THE SOLE REASON
THAT THE MARKS HAD BEEN USED OUTSIDE PUERTO RICO AND HAD NOT BEEN USED
ON SPIRITS MADE THERE, OR EXCLUSIVELY IN CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES,
BEFORE THE GIVEN DATE.  THAT IS, THE VERY FACT OF ORIGIN IN CUBA, WHICH
MAKES THE TREATY APPLICABLE, IS ASSERTED AS A GROUND FOR DENYING THE
RIGHT TO USE THE TRADE MARKS, DULY REGISTERED, ON A PRODUCT OTHERWISE
LAWFULLY MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO. 

THAT PUERTO RICO MAKES ITS RULE APPLICABLE TO ITS OWN CITIZENS WHO
MAY POSSESS SUCH FOREIGN MARKS CANNOT AVAIL TO PURGE THE DISCRIMINATION
OF ITS HOSTILITY TO THE TREATY.  THE SAME REASONING, IF ADMITTED TO
SUSTAIN THIS PARTICULAR DISCRIMINATION, WOULD JUSTIFY AS AGAINST THE
TREATY A LOCAL STATUTE DENYING THE RIGHT TO USE IN PUERTO RICO ANY
FOREIGN TRADE MARK IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE EXIGENCIES OF LOCAL TRADE AND MANUFACTURE WHICH PROMPTED THE
ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE CANNOT SAVE IT, AS THE UNITED STATES IN
EXERCISING ITS TREATY MAKING POWER DOMINATES LOCAL POLICY. 

WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT PETITIONER IS ESTOPPED BY
ACTS OF ACQUIESCENCE TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE PUERTO RICAN
LEGISLATION.  IT IS SAID THAT PETITIONER, HAVING ACCEPTED THE PRIVILEGE
TO ENGAGE IN THE LOCAL BUSINESS, IS BOUND BY THE PRESCRIBED
CONDITIONS.  THE BASIS OF THE CONTENTION FAILS.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR
THAT PETITIONER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT UNDER THE ACT OF 1937 WHICH IS THE
SUBJECT OF ATTACK.  PETITIONER DID APPLY, ON MARCH 31, 1936, FOR A
PERMIT TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF RECTIFYING DISTILLED SPIRITS.  AT
THAT TIME THE LEGISLATION OF PUERTO RICO DID NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
PETITIONER'S TRADE MARKS, AND THE LEGISLATION OF MAY 15, 1936, WAS OF A
TEMPORARY CHARACTER.  APART FROM THAT, IT IS NOT THE RIGHT TO
MANUFACTURE, ASIDE FROM THE USE OF TRADE MARKS, THAT IS IN DISPUTE HERE
BUT THE RIGHT TO USE PETITIONER'S TRADE MARKS UPON ITS PRODUCT. 
NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WARRANT A FINDING OF ESTOPPEL TO ASSERT THE
INVALIDITY OF THE DISCRIMINATION THUS ATTEMPTED IN VIOLATION OF THE
TREATY.  W.W. CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452, 468; HANOVER FIRE
INSURANCE CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494, 507; POWER MANUFACTURING CO. V.
SAUNDERS, 274 U.S. 490, 497; FROST V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 278 U.S.
515, 527, 528. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT, UPON THIS GROUND OF REPUGNANCE TO THE TREATY, THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT INSOFAR AS IT ENJOINED THE ENFORCEMENT OF
SEC. 44 OF ACT NO. 6 OF JUNE 30, 1936, AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 149 OF MAY
15, 1937, (INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT MADE BY SEC. 7 OF THAT ACT) WITH
RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S TRADE MARKS, WAS RIGHT, AND THAT THE REVERSAL
IN THAT RELATION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS ERRONEOUS. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE OTHER GROUNDS OF OBJECTION TO
SEC. 44 WHICH HAVE BEEN URGED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE ORGANIC ACT OF PUERTO RICO. 

A DIFFERENT SITUATION IS PRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO SEC. 44(B) OF ACT
NO. 149 OF 1937, PROHIBITING BULK SHIPMENTS OF DISTILLED SPIRITS.  THIS
PROHIBITION DOES NOT APPEAR TO OFFEND ANY RIGHT CONFERRED BY THE TREATY
AND WE THINK AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR IT IS FOUND IN THE POLICE POWER OF
PUERTO RICO AS APPLIED TO TRAFFIC IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS.  WE HAVE
RECENTLY SAID THAT "THE AIM OF THE FORAKER ACT AND THE ORGANIC ACT WAS
TO GIVE PUERTO RICO FULL POWER OF LOCAL SELF-DETERMINATION, WITH AN
AUTONOMY SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE STATES AND INCORPORATED TERRITORIES." 
PUERTO RICO V. SHELL COMPANY, 302 U.S. 253, 261, 262.  SEE, ALSO,
PUERTO RICO V. RUBERT HERMANOS, 309 U.S. 543, 547.  AS THE GRANT OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER IN RESPECT OF LOCAL MATTERS WAS "AS BROAD AND
COMPREHENSIVE AS LANGUAGE COULD MAKE IT" (PUERTO RICO V. SHELL COMPANY,
SUPRA), WE THINK THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
POLICE POWER HAD FULL AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THE MANUFACTURE OF, AND
TRAFFIC IN, INTOXICATING LIQUORS, SO FAR AS THE ISLAND WAS AFFECTED, IN
THE ABSENCE OF A TREATY VIOLATION SUCH AS WE HAVE FOUND IN THE
PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF VALID TRADE MARKS UPON LIQUORS WHICH WERE
OTHERWISE PERMITTED TO BE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD.  THE LEGISLATURE OF
PUERTO RICO COULD THUS HAVE ABSOLUTELY INTERDICTED THE MANUFACTURE OR
SALE (MUGLER V. KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623), THE IMPORTATION INTO THE ISLAND
(STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION V. YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59, 62;
MAHONEY V. JOSEPH TRINER CORP., 304 U.S. 401, 404) AND THE EXPORTATION
FROM THE ISLAND.  ZIFFRIN V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132, 139.  HAVING THIS
POWER, THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO COULD ADOPT MEASURES REASONABLY
APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT ITS INHIBITIONS.  THAT BROAD POWER NECESSARILY
EMBRACED THE LIMITED EXERCISE WHICH WE FIND IN SEC. 44(B) WITH RESPECT
TO SHIPMENTS IN BULK.  NOR DO WE FIND ANYTHING IN THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL
ADMINISTRATION ACT WHICH MILITATES AGAINST THAT PROVISION.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ERR IN ITS DECISION IN THIS RESPECT. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN RELATION TO SEC. 44 IS
REVERSED AND THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS MODIFIED SO AS TO
ELIMINATE THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 40  FN13  AND
SEC. 44(B) OF ACT NO. 149 OF MAY 15, 1937, AND AS THUS MODIFIED IS
AFFIRMED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THESE PROVISIONS WERE AS FOLLOWS (LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, 1936, PP.
610, 644, 646): 

"(G)  NO HOLDER OF A PERMIT UNDER THIS TITLE SHALL MANUFACTURE,
DISTILL, RECTIFY, OR BOTTLE, EITHER FOR HIMSELF OR FOR OTHERS, ANY
DISTILLED SPIRIT LOCALLY OR NATIONALLY KNOWN UNDER A BRAND, TRADE NAME,
OR TRADE-MARK PREVIOUSLY USED ON SIMILAR PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED IN A
FOREIGN COUNTRY, OR IN ANY OTHER PLACE OUTSIDE PUERTO RICO; PROVIDED,
(1) THAT SUCH LIMITATION, AIMED AT PROTECTING THE INDUSTRY ALREADY
EXISTING IN PUERTO RICO, SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY BRAND, TRADE NAME, OR
TRADE-MARK USED BY A MANUFACTURER, RECTIFIER, DISTILLER, OR BOTTLER OF
DISTILLED SPIRITS MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO ON FEBRUARY 1, 1936; AND
(2) SUCH RESTRICTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY NEW BRAND, TRADE NAME, OR
TRADE-MARK WHICH MAY IN THE FUTURE BE USED IN PUERTO RICO." 

"(H)  IF ANY KIND, TYPE, OR BRAND OF DISTILLED SPIRITS OF A FOREIGN
ORIGIN BECOMES NATIONALLY OR INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN BY REASON OF ITS
BEARING OR SHOWING AS ITS BRAND, TRADE NAME, OR TRADE-MARK, THE PROPER
NAME OF THE MANUFACTURER THEREOF, SUCH NAME SHALL NOT, IN ANY MANNER OR
FORM WHATEVER, APPEAR ON THE LABELS FOR ANY DISTILLED SPIRIT OF SAID
KIND OR TYPE MANUFACTURED, DISTILLED, RECTIFIED, OR BOTTLED IN PUERTO
RICO." 

FN2  LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, THIRD SPECIAL SESSION, 1936, P. 78. 

FN3  LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, 1937, P. 392. 

FN4  THIS DECLARATION IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 1(B).  DECLARATION OF POLICY.  IT HAS BEEN AND IS THE
INTENTION AND THE POLICY OF THIS LEGISLATURE TO PROTECT THE RENASCENT
LIQUOR INDUSTRY OF PUERTO RICO FROM ALL COMPETITION BY FOREIGN CAPITAL
SO AS TO AVOID THE INCREASE AND GROWTH OF FINANCIAL ABSENTEEISM AND TO
FAVOR SAID DOMESTIC INDUSTRY SO THAT IT MAY RECEIVE ADEQUATE PROTECTION
AGAINST ANY UNFAIR COMPETITION IN THE PUERTO RICAN MARKET, THE
CONTINENTAL AMERICAN MARKET, AND IN ANY OTHER POSSIBLE PURCHASING
MARKET." 

FN5  THERE FOLLOWED IN SEC. 44(B), AFTER THE PROVISION QUOTED IN THE
TEXT, A PROVISO RELATING TO THE LIQUIDATION OF A STOCK OF RUM WHERE A
RECTIFIER WISHES TO WITHDRAW FROM BUSINESS. 

FN6  SECTION 7 IS AS FOLLOWS:  "IN REGARD TO TRADE MARKS, THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PROVISO OF SECTION 44 OF ACT NO. 6, APPROVED JUNE 30,
1936, AND WHICH IS HEREBY AMENDED, SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY TO SUCH
TRADE MARKS AS SHALL HAVE BEEN USED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE CONTINENTAL
UNITED STATES BY ANY DISTILLER, RECTIFIER, MANUFACTURER, BOTTLER, OR
CANNER OF DISTILLED SPIRITS PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 1936, PROVIDED SUCH
TRADE MARKS HAVE NOT BEEN USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY A DISTILLER,
RECTIFIER, MANUFACTURER, BOTTLER, OR CANNER OF DISTILLED SPIRITS
OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO SAID
DATE."    FN7  THE CONVENTION WAS RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES ON
FEBRUARY 11, 1931, AND PROCLAIMED FEBRUARY 27, 1931.  46 STAT. 2907. 
IT WAS RATIFIED BY CUBA IN 1930.  ID., P. 2976.  IT HAS ALSO BEEN
RATIFIED BY COLOMBIA, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HONDURAS, NICARAGUA, PANAMA AND
PERU.  BULLETIN, U.S. TRADE-MARK ASSOCIATION, 1936, P. 174. 

FN8  LADAS, "THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION OF TRADE MARKS BY THE
AMERICAN REPUBLICS," PP. 11 ET SEQ.; DERENBERG, "TRADE-MARK PROTECTION
AND UNFAIR TRADING," PP. 779 ET SEQ.    FN9  "CHAPTER I. EQUALITY OF
CITIZENS AND ALIENS AS TO TRADE MARK AND COMMERCIAL PROTECTION. 

"ARTICLE 1.  THE CONTRACTING STATES BIND THEMSELVES TO GRANT TO THE
NATIONALS OF THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES AND TO DOMICILED FOREIGNERS
WHO OWN A MANUFACTURING OR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT OR AN AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT IN ANY OF THE STATES WHICH HAVE RATIFIED OR ADHERED TO THE
PRESENT CONVENTION THE SAME RIGHTS AND REMEDIES WHICH THEIR LAWS EXTEND
TO THEIR OWN NATIONALS OR DOMICILED PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO TRADE
MARKS, TRADE NAMES, AND THE REPRESSION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE
INDICATIONS OF GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN OR SOURCE." 

"CHAPTER II.  TRADE MARK PROTECTION. 

"ARTICLE 2.  THE PERSON WHO DESIRES TO OBTAIN PROTECTION FOR HIS
MARKS IN A COUNTRY OTHER THAN HIS OWN, IN WHICH THIS CONVENTION IS IN
FORCE, CAN OBTAIN PROTECTION EITHER BY APPLYING DIRECTLY TO THE PROPER
OFFICE OF THE STATE IN WHICH HE DESIRES TO OBTAIN PROTECTION, OR
THROUGH THE INTER-AMERICAN TRADE MARK BUREAU REFERRED TO IN THE
PROTOCOL ON THE INTER-AMERICAN REGISTRATION OF TRADE MARKS, IF THIS
PROTOCOL HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY HIS COUNTRY AND THE COUNTRY IN WHICH HE
SEEKS PROTECTION." 

"ARTICLE 3.  EVERY MARK DULY REGISTERED OR LEGALLY PROTECTED IN ONE
OF THE CONTRACTING STATES SHALL BE ADMITTED TO REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT
AND LEGALLY PROTECTED IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES, UPON COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE DOMESTIC LAW OF SUCH STATES. 

"REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT MAY BE REFUSED OR CANCELED OF MARKS: 

"1.  THE DISTINGUISHING ELEMENTS OF WHICH INFRINGE RIGHTS ALREADY
ACQUIRED BY ANOTHER PERSON IN THE COUNTRY WHERE REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT
IS CLAIMED. 

"2.  WHICH LACK ANY DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OR CONSIST EXCLUSIVELY OF
WORDS, SYMBOLS, OR SIGNS WHICH SERVE IN TRADE TO DESIGNATE THE CLASS,
KIND, QUALITY, QUANTITY, USE, VALUE, PLACE OF ORIGIN OF THE PRODUCTS,
TIME OF PRODUCTION, OR WHICH ARE OR HAVE BECOME AT THE TIME
REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT IS SOUGHT, GENERIC OR USUAL TERMS IN CURRENT
LANGUAGE OR IN THE COMMERCIAL USAGE OF THE COUNTRY WHERE REGISTRATION
OR DEPOSIT IS SOUGHT, WHEN THE OWNER OF THE MARKS SEEKS TO APPROPRIATE
THEM AS A DISTINGUISHING ELEMENT OF HIS MARK. 

"IN DETERMINING THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OF A MARK, ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, PARTICULARLY THE
DURATION OF THE USE OF THE MARK AND IF IN FACT IT HAS ACQUIRED IN THE
COUNTRY WHERE DEPOSIT, REGISTRATION OR PROTECTION IS SOUGHT, A
SIGNIFICANCE DISTINCTIVE OF THE APPLICANT'S GOODS. 

"3.  WHICH OFFEND PUBLIC MORALS OR WHICH MAY BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
ORDER. 

"4.  WHICH TEND TO EXPOSE PERSONS, INSTITUTIONS, BELIEFS, NATIONAL
SYMBOLS OR THOSE OF ASSOCIATIONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, TO RIDICULE OR
CONTEMPT. 

"5.  WHICH CONTAIN REPRESENTATIONS OF RACIAL TYPES OR SCENES TYPICAL
OR CHARACTERISTIC OF ANY OF THE CONTRACTING STATES, OTHER THAN THAT OF
THE ORIGIN OF THE MARK. 

"6.  WHICH HAVE AS A PRINCIPAL DISTINGUISHING ELEMENT, PHRASES, NAMES
OR SLOGANS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE TRADE NAME OR AN ESSENTIAL OR
CHARACTERISTIC PART THEREOF, BELONGING TO SOME PERSON ENGAGED IN ANY OF
THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES IN THE MANUFACTURE, TRADE OR PRODUCTION OF
ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE OF THE SAME CLASS AS THAT TO WHICH THE MARK
APPLIED."  ... 

"ARTICLE 5.  LABELS, INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS, SLOGANS, PRINTS, CATALOGUES
OR ADVERTISEMENTS USED TO IDENTIFY OR TO ADVERTISE GOODS, SHALL RECEIVE
THE SAME PROTECTION ACCORDED TO TRADE MARKS IN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY ARE
CONSIDERED AS SUCH, UPON COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DOMESTIC TRADE MARK LAW."  ... 

"ARTICLE 7.  ANY OWNER OF A MARK PROTECTED IN ONE OF THE CONTRACTING
STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DOMESTIC LAW, WHO MAY KNOW THAT SOME
OTHER PERSON IS USING OR APPLYING TO REGISTER OR DEPOSIT AN INTERFERING
MARK IN ANY OTHER OF THE CONTRACTING STATES, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
OPPOSE SUCH USE, REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT AND SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
EMPLOY ALL LEGAL MEANS, PROCEDURE OR RECOURSE PROVIDED IN THE COUNTRY
IN WHICH SUCH INTERFERING MARK IS BEING USED OR WHERE ITS REGISTRATION
OR DEPOSIT IS BEING SOUGHT, AND UPON PROOF THAT THE PERSON WHO IS USING
SUCH MARK OR APPLYING TO REGISTER OR DEPOSIT IT, HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE
EXISTENCE AND CONTINUOUS USE IN ANY OF THE CONTRACTING STATES OF THE
MARK ON WHICH OPPOSITION IS BASED UPON GOODS OF THE SAME CLASS, THE
OPPOSER MAY CLAIM FOR HIMSELF THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHT TO USE SUCH MARK
IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THE OPPOSITION IS MADE OR PRIORITY TO REGISTER OR
DEPOSIT IT IN SUCH COUNTRY, UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
ESTABLISHED BY THE DOMESTIC LEGISLATION IN SUCH COUNTRY AND BY THIS
CONVENTION." 

"ARTICLE 8.  WHEN THE OWNER OF A MARK SEEKS THE REGISTRATION OR
DEPOSIT OF THE MARK IN A CONTRACTING STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF ORIGIN OF
THE MARK AND SUCH REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT IS REFUSED BECAUSE OF THE
PREVIOUS REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT OF AN INTERFERING MARK, HE SHALL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN THE CANCELLATION OR ANNULMENT OF THE
INTERFERING MARK UPON PROVING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGAL PROCEDURE
OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH CANCELLATION IS SOUGHT, THE STIPULATIONS IN
PARAGRAPH (A) AND THOSE OF EITHER PARAGRAPH (B) OR (C) BELOW: 

"(A)  THAT HE ENJOYED LEGAL PROTECTION FOR HIS MARK IN ANOTHER OF THE
CONTRACTING STATES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE
REGISTRATION OR DEPOSIT WHICH HE SEEKS TO CANCEL; AND 

"(B)  THAT THE CLAIMANT OF THE INTERFERING MARK, THE CANCELLATION OF
WHICH IS SOUGHT, HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE USE, EMPLOYMENT, REGISTRATION OR
DEPOSIT IN ANY OF THE CONTRACTING STATES OF THE MARK FOR THE SPECIFIC
GOODS TO WHICH SAID INTERFERING MARK IS APPLIED, PRIOR TO ADOPTION AND
USE THEREOF OR PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION OR DEPOSIT OF THE
MARK WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE CANCELLED; OR 

"(C)  THAT THE OWNER OF THE MARK WHO SEEKS CANCELLATION BASED ON A
PRIOR RIGHT TO THE OWNERSHIP AND USE OF SUCH MARK, HAS TRADED OR TRADES
WITH OR IN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH CANCELLATION IS SOUGHT, AND THAT GOODS
DESIGNATED BY HIS MARK HAVE CIRCULATED AND CIRCULATE IN SAID COUNTRY
FROM A DATE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OR
DEPOSIT FOR THE MARK, THE CANCELLATION WHICH IS CLAIMED, OR PRIOR TO
THE ADOPTION AND USE OF THE SAME."  ... 

"ARTICLE 11.  THE TRANSFER OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A REGISTERED OR
DEPOSITED MARK IN THE COUNTRY OF ITS ORIGINAL REGISTRATION SHALL BE
EFFECTIVE AND SHALL BE RECOGNIZED IN THE OTHER CONTRACTING STATES,
PROVIDED THAT RELIABLE PROOF BE FURNISHED THAT SUCH TRANSFER HAS BEEN
EXECUTED AND REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNAL LAW OF THE
STATE IN WHICH SUCH TRANSFER TOOK PLACE.  SUCH TRANSFER SHALL BE
RECORDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LEGISLATION OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH IT
IS TO BE EFFECTIVE. 

"THE USE AND EXPLOITATION OF TRADE MARKS MAY BE TRANSFERRED
SEPARATELY FOR EACH COUNTRY, AND SUCH TRANSFER SHALL BE RECORDED UPON
THE PRODUCTION OF RELIABLE PROOF THAT SUCH TRANSFER HAS BEEN EXECUTED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERNAL LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH SUCH TRANSFER
TOOK PLACE.  SUCH TRANSFER SHALL BE RECORDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
LEGISLATION OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH IT IS TO BE EFFECTIVE." 

FN10  DERENBERG, OP CIT., P. 788. 

FN11  SEE BULLETIN, U.S. TRADE MARK ASSOCIATION, 1931, P. 173;
DERENBERG, OP. CIT., P. 788. 

FN12  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL HAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT A
COMMUNICATION BY THE CUBAN EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON TO THE SECRETARY OF
STATE OF THE UNITED STATES RELATING TO THE INTEREST OF CUBAN NATIONALS
AND THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT IN THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED. 

FN13  SECTION 40 WAS EMBRACED IN THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT BUT
IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF ATTACK IN THIS COURT. 
..END :


















FIDELITY TRUST CO. V. FIELD, 311 U.S. 169 


NO. 32.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 13, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  -
108 F.2D 521, REVERSED - DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE THE APPLICABLE RULE OF DECISION IS THE STATE LAW, THE DUTY
OF THE FEDERAL COURT IS TO ASCERTAIN AND APPLY THAT LAW EVEN THOUGH IT
HAS NOT BEEN EXPOUNDED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  P. 177. 

2.  AN INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT IN DECLARING AND APPLYING THE STATE
LAW IS ACTING AS AN ORGAN OF THE STATE, AND ITS DETERMINATION, IN THE
ABSENCE OF MORE CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE STATE LAW IS, SHOULD BE
FOLLOWED BY A FEDERAL COURT IN DECIDING A STATE QUESTION.  P. 177. 

3.  CERTAIN STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY HAD BEEN HELD BY THE STATE COURT
OF CHANCERY, IN TWO CASES DECIDED INDEPENDENTLY BY TWO VICE
CHANCELLORS, NOT TO HAVE CHANGED THE PREEXISTING LAW OF THE STATE WITH
RESPECT TO THE INSUFFICIENCY OF A MERE SAVINGS BANK DEPOSIT MADE BY A
DECEDENT IN HIS OWN NAME AS "TRUSTEE" FOR ANOTHER, BUT OVER WHICH HE
EXERCISED COMPLETE CONTROL DURING HIS LIFE, TO ESTABLISH A GIFT INTER
VIVOS OR TO CREATE A TRUST AS AGAINST THE DECEDENT'S LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES.  SO FAR AS APPEARED, THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW
JERSEY HAD NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINION ON THE CONSTRUCTION OR EFFECT OF
THESE STATUTES, AND THE DECISIONS OF THE CHANCERY COURT STOOD AS THE
ONLY EXPOSITION OF THE RELEVANT STATE LAW.  HELD, IN A CASE PRESENTING
THE SAME QUESTION, THAT A FEDERAL COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE
DECISIONS OF THE CHANCERY COURT, AND WAS NOT AT LIBERTY TO REJECT THEM
MERELY BECAUSE IT DID NOT AGREE WITH THEIR REASONING.  P. 178. 

4.  IT IS INADMISSIBLE THAT THERE SHOULD BE ONE RULE OF STATE LAW FOR
LITIGANTS IN THE STATE COURTS AND ANOTHER RULE, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF
DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP, FOR LITIGANTS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 180. 

FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO. ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. FIELD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 652, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WHICH DECLINED TO FASTEN A TRUST ON A SAVINGS BANK
ACCOUNT.  JURISDICTION WAS BY DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP. 

MR. CHARLES DANZIG, WITH WHOM MR. FRANCIS F. WELSH WAS ON THE BRIEF,
FOR PETITIONERS. 

THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED BY THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW
JERSEY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S.
64; RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 202; ROSENTHAL V. NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 263; KUHN V. FAIRMONT, 215 U.S. 349, 372;
BRINE V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 96 U.S. 627; MASINO V. WEST JERSEY &
S.S.R. CO., 41 F.2D 646; MURRAY V. PAYNE, 273 F. 820; ISLAND
DEVELOPMENT CO. V. MCGEORGE, 26 F.2D 841; CERT. DEN.  278 U.S. 642;
CF., DORRANCE V. MARTIN, 12 F.SUPP.  746; AFF'D 296 U.S. 393; AND,
FOLLOWING THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURTS (NOT THE HIGHEST COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA) TAPLINGER V. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK, 101 F.2D 274;
BERLET V. LEHIGH VALLEY SILK MILLS, 287 F. 769; CF., STEINBACH V.
METZGER, 63 F.2D 74. 

SEE BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 300 U.S. 5, AT P. 10;
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. RUHLIN, 25 F.SUPP.  65, AFF'D 106 F.2D 65,
69; CERT. DEN.  309 U.S. 655. 

IN MANY OTHER CASES, DECISIONS OF COURTS LOWER THAN THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED:  IN RE GILLIGAN, 152 F. 605; CERT.
DEN., 206 U.S. 563; AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSN. V. RITHOLZ, 101 F.2D 883;
CERT. DEN., 307 U.S. 647; DELAWARE & HUDSON R. CORP. V. BONZIH, 105
F.2D 541; IN RE WIEGAND, 27 F.SUPP.  725; GALLAGHER V. FLORIDA EAST
COAST RY., 196 F. 1000.  CF. TIPTON V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 298
U.S. 141. 

THE THIRD CIRCUIT HAS FOLLOWED THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF NEW JERSEY
UNDER THE RULE OF THE HILT CASE IN NO LESS THAN THREE CASES:  GREIMAN
V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 96 F.2D 685; EX PARTE ZWILLMAN, 48 F.
78, APPEAL DISMISSED, 144 U.S. 310; RADIN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, 33 F.2D 39, 40. 

THE RULINGS OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY CARRY EQUAL WEIGHT WITH THOSE OF
THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS. 
RAMSEY V. HUTCHINSON, 117 N.J.L. 222. 

SINCE IT HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY HELD THAT THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
ARE COMPELLED TO OBSERVE THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
JERSEY CONSTRUING THE STATUTES OF THAT STATE, AS BEING DECLARATORY OF
THE LAW OF THAT STATE (ERIE R. CO. V. HILT, 247 U.S. 97, 100; ERIE R.
CO. V. DUPLAK, 286 U.S. 440, 443; AND NORTH PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V.
SMITH, 13 F.2D 585, 586), IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE
UNDER REVIEW, WHICH, IN EFFECT, IGNORED THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY LIKEWISE CONSTRUING A STATUTE OF THAT STATE, MUST BE BASED ON
THE VIEW THAT THE COURT OF CHANCERY IS NOT OF EQUAL RANK OR IMPORTANCE
WITH THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  SUCH REASONING IS PATENTLY ERRONEOUS. 
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. NAT. DOCKS RY. CO., 54 N.J. EQ. 652; IN RE
APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHANCELLORS, 105 N.J. EQ. 759; GREGORY V. GREGORY,
67 N.J. EQ. 7, 10-11; PHILADELPHIA & CAMDEN FERRY CO. V. JOHNSON, 97
N.J. EQ. 296, 297; RAMSEY V. HUTCHINSON, 117 N.J.L. 222; CASSATT V.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WEST NEW YORK, 9 N.J. MISC. 222. 

THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CHANCELLOR BOTH SIT ON THE
COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS, BUT THE CHANCELLOR IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE
COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS. 

ALTHOUGH, AS STATED IN LUDLOW V. EXECUTORS OF LUDLOW, 4 N.J.L. 451,
AND IN WHITEHEAD V. GRAY, 12 N.J.L. 36, THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE
SUPERINTENDENCE OF ALL INFERIOR COURTS BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, NOWHERE
IS IT GIVEN SUPERINTENDENCE OVER THE COURT OF CHANCERY, NOR HAS IT EVER
ATTEMPTED TO ASSERT SUCH SUPERINTENDENCE. 

FEDERAL COURTS, CHARGED WITH A DUTY TO ASCERTAIN A STATE LAW, NEED
NOT GIVE GREATER WEIGHT TO DECISIONS OF A LOCAL COURT THAN OTHER COURTS
IN THE SAME STATE BUT OUTSIDE OF ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WOULD
ACCORD, AND ARE FREE TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF STATE LAW
IN THE SAME MANNER AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATIONS AS SUCH OTHER
STATE COURTS.  CF. 53 HARV. LAW REV., NO. 5, P. 880.  BUT WHERE THE
JURISDICTION OF AN IMPORTANT STATE COURT, SUCH AS THE COURT OF CHANCERY
OF NEW JERSEY, IS STATE-WIDE, ITS DETERMINATION AS TO THE PREVAILING
STATE LAW SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY FEDERAL COURTS, PARTICULARLY WHERE ITS
DECISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED FOR YEARS BY ANY OTHER COURT IN THE
STATE, AND WHERE THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO MODIFY OR AMEND
THE STATUTE CONSTRUED BUT HAS RE-ENACTED IT.  SEE BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO. V. BAUGH, 149 U.S. 368. 

MR. RUSSELL C. MACFALL FOR RESPONDENT. 

THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF 1932 VALIDATED TENTATIVE TRUSTS WITH
RESPECT TO SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS. 

THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN THATCHER V. TRENTON TRUST CO., 119 N.J. EQ.
408, AND TRAVERS V. REID, 119 N.J. EQ. 416, AND THE TRIAL COURT BELOW,
IN REFUSING TO APPLY THE 1932 STATUTE, DISREGARDED FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF
CONSTRUCTION.  NO CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE PRESUMPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT; NOR TO THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE
LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND TO ADOPT A SUPERFLUOUS LAW; NOR TO THE RULE
THAT WHERE AN ACT IS UNAMBIGUOUS IN ITS TERMS THERE IS NO ROOM FOR
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IS PRESUMED TO EVINCE THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT; NOR TO THE RULE THAT WHERE AN ACT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF
TWO CONSTRUCTIONS, THAT WHICH WILL VALIDATE IT MUST BE ADOPTED. 

IF SUCH DECISIONS CARRIED THE WEIGHT AND AUTHORITY CLAIMED FOR THEM,
IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO RECOGNIZE THAT A SITUATION EXISTS WHEREBY THE
WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AS EXPRESSED THROUGH ITS
LEGISLATURE, MAY BE SET ASIDE SOLELY BY THE DECISION OF A TRIAL JUDGE. 

BUT THAT IS NOT THE FACT.  THE EFFECT AND VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE
WILL ULTIMATELY BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW
JERSEY.  THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY DO NOT SETTLE THE LAW
OF THE STATE.  DORMAN V. WEST JERSEY TITLE & GUARANTY CO., 92 N.J.L.
487, 489; FLAGG V. JOHANSEN, 124 N.J.L. 456; MCGOLDRICK V. GREBENSTEIN,
108 N.J.L. 335; STABEL V. GERTEL, 11 N.J. MISC. 247, AFFIRMED, 111
N.J.L. 296; KICEY V. KICEY, 112 N.J. EQ. 459; GREGORY V. GREGORY, 67
N.J. EQ. 7.  CF. RAMSEY V. HUTCHINSON, 117 N.J.L. 222. 

UNTIL THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE IS FINALLY DETERMINED BY NEW JERSEY'S
COURT OF LAST RESORT, OR AT LEAST BY AN AUTHORITATIVE APPELLATE COURT
OF THAT STATE, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE FREE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY TRULY EXPRESS THE LOCAL LAW. 

NO ADVANTAGE EXISTS TO THE LITIGANTS BECAUSE THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION
HAS BEEN INVOKED, NOR SHOULD ANY DISADVANTAGE RESULT, AND IF IN AN
IDENTICAL ACTION IN THE STATE COURTS THOSE COURTS ARE FREE TO DISAGREE
WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY, THE FEDERAL COURTS
LIKEWISE ARE FREE, AND ARE CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF DETERMINING AND
APPLYING THE APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW. 

ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, AND RUHLIN V. NEW YORK
LIFE INSURANCE CO., 304 U.S. 202, LEFT UNTOUCHED THE WELL ESTABLISHED
RULE, REITERATED BY THIS COURT IN MINNESOTA EX REL. PEARSON V. PROBATE
COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY, 309 U.S. 270, THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE BOUND
BY THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE IN MATTERS DEPENDING
UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE STATUTES OR CONSTITUTION. 

IN BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 300 U.S. 5, THIS COURT
FOUND THAT THE DECISION OF THE STATE APPELLATE COURT WAS RES JUDICATA. 

IN RUSSELL V. TODD, 309 U.S. 280, THIS COURT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF
THE APPELLATE DIVISION, AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, NOT BECAUSE IT
FELT BOUND BY THAT DECISION IN THE ABSENCE OF A RULING UPON THE PRECISE
QUESTION BY THE COURT OF LAST RESORT, BUT BECAUSE THE REASONING OF THE
DECISION WAS PERSUASIVE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY STATED THE RULE:  THE FEDERAL
COURTS SHOULD IN ALL INSTANCES FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE STATE WITH RESPECT
TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE STATUTES.  WHERE THAT LAW HAS BEEN
DETERMINED BY THE COURTS OF LAST RESORT THEIR DECISIONS ARE STARE
DECISIS, AND MUST BE FOLLOWED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS'
OPINION AS TO WHAT THE LAW OUGHT TO BE.  AS TO PRONOUNCEMENTS OF OTHER
STATE COURTS, HOWEVER, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT SO BOUND, BUT MAY
CONCLUDE THAT THE DECISION DOES NOT TRULY EXPRESS THE STATE LAW. 

OTHER DECISIONS CITED OR DISCUSSED WERE:  BURNS MORTGAGE CO. V.
FRIED, 292 U.S. 487; KUHN V. FAIRMONT COAL CO., 215 U.S. 349; BLACK &
WHITE TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276 U.S. 518, 532-536;
BRINE V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 96 U.S. 627; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V.
RUHLIN, 25 F.SUPP.  65; DEFEO V. PEOPLES GAS CO., 104 N.J.L. 156;
IRVING NATIONAL BANK V. LAW, 9 F.2D 536. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1935, EDITH M. PECK CAUSED THE TITLE OF A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT
STANDING IN HER NAME TO BE TRANSFERRED ON THE RECORDS OF THE BANK TO
"EDITH M. PECK, IN TRUST FOR ETHEL ADELAIDE FIELD."  MISS PECK RETAINED
EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE ACCOUNT, WITH SOLE RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL AND
RIGHT OF REVOCATION, AND GAVE NO FURTHER NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A
TRUST. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY ETHEL ADELAIDE FIELD AGAINST THE BANK AND
THE EXECUTORS OF MISS PECK TO OBTAIN A DECREE THAT THE CREDIT BALANCE
OF THE ACCOUNT BELONGED TO THE COMPLAINANT.  THE EXECUTORS DENIED THE
VALIDITY OF THE TRUST AND CLAIMED TITLE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND IN
FAVOR OF THE EXECUTORS UPON THE GROUND THAT UNDER THE LAW OF NEW JERSEY
THERE WAS NO TRUST AND NO VALID GIFT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT, HOLDING THAT UNDER A STATE STATUTE THE
COMPLAINANT WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER.  IN SO RULING, THE COURT DECLINED
TO FOLLOW CONTRARY DECISIONS OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF NEW JERSEY.  108
F.2D 521.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION THUS PRESENTED, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  309 U.S. 652. 

IN 1932, THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW JERSEY PASSED FOUR STATUTES, IN
SIMILAR TERMS AND APPROVED ON THE SAME DATE, DEALING WITH TRUST
DEPOSITS IN BANKS.  THE TEXT OF ONE OF THESE PROVISIONS IS SET FORTH IN
THE MARGIN.  FN1  PRIOR TO THESE STATUTES, IT HAD BEEN THE LAW OF NEW
JERSEY THAT A MERE SAVINGS BANK DEPOSIT MADE BY A DECEDENT IN HIS OWN
NAME AS TRUSTEE FOR ANOTHER, OVER WHICH THE DECEDENT EXERCISED COMPLETE
CONTROL DURING HIS LIFE, WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A GIFT INTER
VIVOS OR TO CREATE A TRUST AS AGAINST THE DECEDENT'S LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES.  NICKLAS V. PARKER, 69 N.J. EQ. 743, AFFIRMED, 71 N.J.
EQ. 777; 61 A. 267; JOHNSON V. SAVINGS INVESTMENT & TRUST CO., 107 N.J.
EQ. 547; 153 A. 382, AFFIRMED, 110 N.J. EQ. 466; 160 A. 371. 

THE STATUTES OF 1932 CAME BEFORE THE CHANCERY COURT OF NEW JERSEY IN
1936, IN TWO CASES DECIDED INDEPENDENTLY BY TWO VICE-CHANCELLORS,
THATCHER V. TRENTON TRUST CO., 119 N.J. EQ. 408; 182 A. 912, AND
TRAVERS V. REID, 119 N.J. EQ. 416; 182 A. 908.  IN THE THATCHER CASE IT
APPEARED THAT THE DECEDENT, AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH IN 1934, HAD TWO
BANK BALANCES STANDING TO HER CREDIT "IN TRUST FOR CLIFFORD THATCHER,"
THE COMPLAINANT.  THE BILL WAS DISMISSED.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THERE
WERE NO FACTS, BEYOND THE MERE OPENING OF THE ACCOUNT IN THAT MANNER,
"IN ANY WAY TENDING TO PROVE THE DECLARATION OF A TRUST."  THE COURT
EXAMINED THE LEGISLATION OF 1932, WHICH IT WAS ARGUED HAD CHANGED THE
LAW OF THE STATE, AND AFTER CONSIDERING POSSIBLE PURPOSES OF THE
LEGISLATURE AND ANALYZING THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED, WHICH WAS DEEMED TO BE
"CONFUSED" AND "DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND," THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE
LEGISLATION WAS INOPERATIVE TO CHANGE THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS
BEFORE THE COURT.  IN THE TRAVERS CASE, THE DECEDENT HAD CHANGED HIS
BANK ACCOUNT TO HIS NAME "IN TRUST FOR JOSEPH JENNINGS," A MINOR.  IN A
SUIT BY THE DECEDENT'S EXECUTRIX TO RECOVER THE MONEY, A MOTION BY THE
MINOR'S GUARDIAN TO STRIKE THE BILL FOR WANT OF EQUITY AND UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE FUND WAS THE PROPERTY OF THE WARD OR HELD IN TRUST FOR
HIM, WAS DENIED.  AFTER STATING THE LAW AS IT STOOD BEFORE THE STATUTES
OF 1932, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE TO ALTER
THE PREVIOUS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF A GIFT INTER VIVOS OR A VALID
TRUST.  THESE CASES WERE NOT REVIEWED BY THE COURT OF ERRORS AND
APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY AND, SO FAR AS APPEARS, THAT COURT HAS NOT
EXPRESSED AN OPINION UPON THE CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT OF THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS.  FN2 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH THE
FACTS IN THE TWO CHANCERY CASES FROM THOSE SHOWN HERE.  THE COURT
RECOGNIZED ITS DUTY TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE STATE AND SAID THAT WHERE
THAT LAW HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY THE STATE COURT OF LAST RESORT ITS
DECISION MUST BE FOLLOWED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FEDERAL COURT'S OPINION
OF WHAT THE LAW OUGHT TO BE.  BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TOOK THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT SO BOUND "BY THE PRONOUNCEMENTS
OF OTHER STATE COURTS" BUT MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT "THE DECISION DOES NOT
TRULY EXPRESS THE STATE LAW."  THE COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTE OF 1932
WAS "CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNAMBIGUOUS" AND THAT "CONTRARY
DECISIONS" OF THE CHANCERY COURT OF NEW JERSEY WERE NOT BINDING. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS REVERSED.    WE
THINK THAT THIS RULING WAS ERRONEOUS.  THE HIGHEST STATE COURT IS THE
FINAL AUTHORITY ON STATE LAW (BEALS V. HALE, 4 HOW.  37, 54; ERIE
RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 78), BUT IT IS STILL THE DUTY OF
THE FEDERAL COURTS, WHERE THE STATE LAW SUPPLIES THE RULE OF DECISION,
FN3 TO ASCERTAIN AND APPLY THAT LAW EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NOT BEEN
EXPOUNDED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  SEE RUHLIN V. NEW YORK
LIFE INSURANCE CO., 304 U.S. 202, 209.  AN INTERMEDIATE STATE COURT IN
DECLARING AND APPLYING THE STATE LAW IS ACTING AS AN ORGAN OF THE STATE
AND ITS DETERMINATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF MORE CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF
WHAT THE STATE LAW IS, SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY A FEDERAL COURT IN
DECIDING A STATE QUESTION.  WE HAVE DECLARED THAT PRINCIPLE IN WEST V.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., POST, P. 223.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN
THAT CASE AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE HAD DETERMINED
THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION AS BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES IN A PRIOR SUIT, AND
THE HIGHEST STATE COURT HAD REFUSED TO REVIEW THE LOWER COURT'S
DECISION, BUT WE SET FORTH THE BROADER PRINCIPLE AS APPLICABLE TO THE
DECISION OF AN INTERMEDIATE COURT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A DECISION BY THE
HIGHEST COURT, WHETHER THE QUESTION IS ONE OF STATUTE OR COMMON LAW. 

HERE, THE QUESTION WAS AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT OF A STATE
STATUTE.  THE FEDERAL COURT WAS NOT AT LIBERTY TO UNDERTAKE THE
DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION ON ITS OWN REASONING INDEPENDENT OF THE
CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT WHICH THE STATE ITSELF ACCORDED TO ITS
STATUTE.  THAT CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT ARE SHOWN BY THE JUDICIAL ACTION
THROUGH WHICH THE STATE INTERPRETS AND APPLIES ITS LEGISLATION.  THAT
JUDICIAL ACTION IN THIS INSTANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CHANCERY COURT
OF NEW JERSEY AND WE HAVE NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF THE STATE LAW IN THIS
RELATION.  EQUITY DECREES IN NEW JERSEY ARE ENTERED BY THE CHANCELLOR,
WHO CONSTITUTES THE COURT OF CHANCERY,  FN4 UPON THE ADVICE OF THE VICE
CHANCELLORS,  FN5  AND THESE DECREES, LIKE THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEW JERSEY, ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW ONLY BY THE COURT OF ERRORS
AND APPEALS.  FN6 WE HAVE HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE STATUTE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE
ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESSION OF A COUNTERVAILING VIEW BY THE STATE'S
HIGHEST COURT (ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. HILT, 247 U.S. 97, 100, 101; ERIE
RAILROAD CO. V. DUPLAK, 286 U.S. 440, 444), AND WE THINK THAT THE
DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY ARE ENTITLED TO LIKE RESPECT AS
ANNOUNCING THE LAW OF THE STATE. 

WHILE, OF COURSE, THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY ARE NOT
BINDING ON THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS, A UNIFORM RULING EITHER BY
THE COURT OF CHANCERY OR BY THE SUPREME COURT OVER A COURSE OF YEARS
WILL NOT BE SET ASIDE BY THE HIGHEST COURT "EXCEPT FOR COGENT AND
IMPORTANT REASONS."  RAMSEY V. HUTCHINSON, 117 N.J.L. 222, 223; 187 A.
650.  IT APPEARS THAT ORDINARILY THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY, IF THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DISAPPROVED, ARE TREATED AS BINDING IN
LATER CASES IN CHANCERY (PHILADELPHIA & CAMDEN FERRY CO. V. JOHNSON, 94
N.J. EQ., 296, 297; 121 A. 900), BUT THERE IS ALWAYS, AS RESPONDENT
URGES, THE POSSIBILITY THAT A PARTICULAR DECISION OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY WILL NOT BE FOLLOWED BY THE SUPREME COURT (SEE FLAGG V.
JOHANSEN, 124 N.J.L. 456, 461; 12 A.2D 374) OR EVEN BY THE COURT OF
CHANCERY ITSELF.  SEE KICEY V. KICEY, 112 N.J. EQ. 459, 461; 164 A.
684.  IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT OF LAST RESORT TO RESOLVE SUCH
CONFLICTS AS MAY BE CREATED BY DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS, AND
EXCEPT IN RARE INSTANCES THAT FUNCTION IS PERFORMED AND THE LAW IS
SETTLED ACCORDINGLY.  HERE, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF DECISION. 
WHETHER THERE EVER WILL BE, OR THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS WILL
DISAPPROVE THE RULINGS IN THE THATCHER AND TRAVERS CASES, IS MERELY A
MATTER OF CONJECTURE.  SEE WEST V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.,
SUPRA.  AT THE PRESENT TIME THE THATCHER AND TRAVERS CASES STAND AS THE
ONLY EXPOSITION OF THE LAW OF THE STATE WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT OF THE STATUTES OF 1932, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS WAS NOT AT LIBERTY TO REJECT THESE DECISIONS MERELY BECAUSE
IT DID NOT AGREE WITH THEIR REASONING. 

THE QUESTION HAS PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IT IS INADMISSIBLE
THAT THERE SHOULD BE ONE RULE OF STATE LAW FOR LITIGANTS IN THE STATE
COURTS AND ANOTHER RULE FOR LITIGANTS WHO BRING THE SAME QUESTION
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURTS OWING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY SHOWING, THE RULE OF THE
THATCHER AND TRAVERS CASES APPEARS TO BE THE ONE WHICH WOULD BE APPLIED
IN LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURT, AND WHETHER BELIEVED TO BE SOUND OR
UNSOUND, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CHAPTER 40, NEW JERSEY SESSION LAWS OF 1932, SEC. 1, IS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"1.  WHENEVER ANY DEPOSIT SHALL BE MADE WITH ANY SAVINGS BANK, TRUST
COMPANY OR BANK BY ANY PERSON IN TRUST FOR ANOTHER, AND NO OTHER OR
FURTHER NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE AND TERMS OF A LEGAL AND VALID TRUST
SHALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN WRITING TO THE SAVINGS BANK, TRUST COMPANY OR
BANK, IN THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF THE TRUSTEE, THE SAME OR ANY PART
THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH THE DIVIDENDS OR INTEREST THEREON, SHALL BE PAID
TO THE PERSON IN TRUST FOR WHOM THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS MADE, OR TO HIS OR
HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED
TRUSTEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE FUNDS SO DEPOSITED NOR TO THE
DIVIDENDS OR INTEREST THEREON NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE FUNDS SO
DEPOSITED MAY HAVE BEEN THE PROPERTY OF THE TRUSTEE; PROVIDED, THAT THE
PERSON FOR WHOM THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE, IF A MINOR, SHALL NOT DRAW THE
SAME DURING HIS OR HER MINORITY WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SAID TRUSTEE."  SEE REVISED STATUTES OF NEW
JERSEY, 1937, 17; 9-4. 

FN2  IN CUTTS V. NAJDROWSKI, 123 N.J. EQ. 481; 198 A. 885(1938), THE
COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS HELD THAT THE VALIDITY OF A TRUST OF CHOSES
IN ACTION CREATED BY A TRANSACTION INTER VIVOS WAS DETERMINED BY THE
LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE TRANSACTION OCCURRED, IN THAT CASE NEW
YORK.  IN TRUST COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY V. FARAWELL, 127 N.J. EQ. 45; 11
A.2D 98(1940), THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS HELD THAT, WHERE THE
DECEDENT HAD MADE A DEPOSIT IN HER NAME IN TRUST FOR HER DAUGHTERS, AND
THE SAVINGS BANK BOOK WAS THEREAFTER IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DAUGHTERS
AND WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE UPON THE SIGNATURES OF THE MOTHER AND THE
DAUGHTERS AND WERE USED FOR MAINTAINING PROPERTIES DEVISED TO THE
DAUGHTERS BY THE MOTHER SHORTLY AFTER THE ACCOUNT WAS OPENED, THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW A PRESENTLY EFFECTIVE TRUST.  THE COURT
SAID THAT SUCH A TRUST DEPENDS ESSENTIALLY UPON THE SAME PRINCIPLES
"THAT ACTIVATE A GIFT INTER VIVOS, COMPRISING DONATIVE INTENT, DELIVERY
OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER TO THE EXTENT THAT DELIVERY IS POSSIBLE OR CAN BE
INDICATED, AND THE ABDICATION BY THE DONOR OF DOMINION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER."  ID., P. 48.  IN THESE CASES, THE COURT DID NOT REFER TO THE
STATUTES OF 1932 OR TO THE CHANCERY DECISIONS CITED IN THE ABOVE TEXT. 

FN3  JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, SEC. 34; R.S. 721, 28 U.S.C. 725. 

FN4  N.J. CONSTITUTION, ART. VI, SEC. 4. 

FN5  SEE GREGORY V. GREGORY, 67 N.J. EQ. 7, 10, 11; 58 A. 287; IN RE
APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHANCELLORS, 105 N.J. EQ. 759; 148 A. 570. 

FN6  REVISED STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY, 2:  27-350, 2:  29-117. 
..END :














SIX COMPANIES V. HIGHWAY DIST., 311 U.S. 180 


NO. 267.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 14, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  -
110 F.2D 620, REVERSED. 


1.  AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF STATE LAW BY AN INTERMEDIATE STATE APPELLATE
COURT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY RULING BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT
OR OF OTHER CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE LAW IS OTHERWISE, SHOULD
BE FOLLOWED BY FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 188. 

2.  AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAD RULED THAT, IN
THAT STATE, A STIPULATION IN A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES IN CASE OF DELAY IN COMPLETION WAS INAPPLICABLE AFTER
ABANDONMENT OF THE WORK.  THIS, APPARENTLY, HAD NOT BEEN DISAPPROVED,
AND THERE WAS NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE LAW OF THE STATE WAS
OTHERWISE.  HELD, THAT THE RULING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS IN A CASE INVOLVING THE SAME QUESTIONS, IN CALIFORNIA. 
P. 188. 

SIX COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. V. JOINT HIGHWAY DISTRICT NO. 13 OF
CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 631, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
DAMAGES AWARDED ON A CROSS-COMPLAINT, AGAINST A BUILDING CONTRACTOR FOR
DELAY IN COMPLETING A BUILDING.  JURISDICTION WAS BASED ON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP. 

MR. PAUL S. MARRIN, WITH WHOM MESSRS.  MAX THELEN, DELANCEY C. SMITH,
AND JEWEL ALEXANDER WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR PETITIONERS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA IN SINNOTT V. SCHUMACHER, 45
CAL. APP. 46. 

THE QUESTION INVOLVED IS:  WHAT IS THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA?  UNDER THE
REASONING OF THE ERIE RAILROAD CO. CASE, 304 U.S. 64, IT MAKES LITTLE
DIFFERENCE WHAT STATE COURT HAS DECLARED THE LAW SO LONG AS IT IS THE
RULE OF DECISION IN THE STATE.  IN THE ERIE CASE THIS COURT REFERRED TO
THE LAW OF THE STATE AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT IN A DECISION,
BUT IT DID NOT SAY THAT THE LAW OF THE STATE MIGHT NOT BE ESTABLISHED
BY THE DECISION OF AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT.  AND WHERE THE
DECISION OF SUCH COURT DOES IN FACT ANNOUNCE A RULE OF LAW WHICH OTHER
STATE COURTS ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW, IT ESTABLISHES THE LAW OF THE STATE
EVEN THOUGH ANOTHER COURT OF THE STATE HAS THE POWER TO OVERRULE ITS
DECISION. 

HAD THIS CASE BEEN TRIED IN ANY SUPERIOR (TRIAL) COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
SUCH COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN BOUND BY SINNOTT V. SCHUMACHER, AND THE
RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE OPPOSITE OF THAT ANNOUNCED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  IF, THEREFORE, THE STATE LAW IS TO BE DETERMINED
JUST AS IT WOULD BE IN A CASE TRIED IN THE STATE COURTS, WE CAN NOT
ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
COURTS OF APPEAL ARE BINDING ON THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TO OVERRULE DECISIONS OF
THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL HAS LITTLE BEARING ON THE SOLUTION OF THE
PROBLEM.  THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE POWER TO OVERRULE ITS OWN
DECISIONS, BUT ITS PRIOR DECISIONS, AS WELL AS PRIOR DECISIONS OF THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL, ARE THE LAW OF THE STATE UNLESS AND UNTIL
OVERRULED. 

THE DECISION OF ONE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN CALIFORNIA BINDS THE
OTHERS, PARTICULARLY WHEN A PETITION FOR HEARING BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE EARLIER CASE HAS BEEN DENIED.  SKAGGS V. TAYLOR, 77 CAL. APP.
519; CLOVER V. JACKSON, 81 CAL. APP. 55; BRIDGES V. FISK, 53 CAL. APP.
117, 122; PEOPLE V. WHITAKER, 68 CAL. APP. 7, 11; MASONIC MINES ASSN.
V. SUPERIOR COURT, 136 CAL. APP. 298, 300.  DISTINGUISHING PEOPLE V.
BRUNWIN, 2 CAL. APP.2D 287. 

DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL ARE OF STATEWIDE SCOPE AND
APPLICATION.  A RULE OF LAW ANNOUNCED IN ONE DISTRICT WILL BE FOLLOWED
IN ALL OTHERS AND MUST BE FOLLOWED BY ALL TRIAL COURTS. 

THE DECISION BELOW PERPETUATES THE EVILS CONDEMNED IN ERIE RAILROAD
CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  THERE ARE MANY PROPOSITIONS OF STATE LAW
IN CALIFORNIA WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN DECIDED BY ITS SUPREME COURT, BUT
WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY A DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL ON WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT HAS DENIED A HEARING.  THESE DECISIONS OF THE DISTRICT
COURTS OF APPEAL ARE ACCEPTED AS THE LAW THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND THE
RULES ANNOUNCED BY THEM ARE APPLIED IN LITIGATION IN ITS COURTS.  MANY
OF THE RULES OF LAW ANNOUNCED BY THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL OF THE
STATE HAVE NEVER BEEN DECIDED BY ITS SUPREME COURT AND PROBABLY NEVER
WILL BE, BECAUSE, UNDER THE ENLARGED JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL BY THE 1928 AMENDMENT TO ART. VI, SEC. 4, OF
THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, MOST APPEALS ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THESE
COURTS, AND IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE SUPREME COURT WOULD ORDER ANY CASE
IN WHICH IT BELIEVES THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE PROPERLY
APPLIED THE LAW TO BE TRANSFERRED TO IT FOR HEARING.  WE EARNESTLY
CONTEND THAT THE DECISIONS OF THESE COURTS ARE THE LAW OF THE STATE
WHEN THERE IS NO DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT WHICH CONFLICTS WITH
THEM.  IF THE FEDERAL COURTS REFUSE TO FOLLOW THEM WE MAY HAVE, FOR
LONG AND INDEFINITE PERIODS OF TIME, ONE RULE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AND
ANOTHER IN THE STATE COURTS, A CONDITION SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL IS STATE-WIDE. 
THEY HAVE JURISDICTION OF APPEALS FROM ANY SUPERIOR COURT IN THE STATE
AND THEIR JURISDICTION IS NOT LIMITED TO HEARING APPEALS FROM SUPERIOR
COURTS IN THEIR OWN DISTRICTS. 

THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DISREGARD
DECISIONS OF LOWER STATE COURTS WAS NOT INVOLVED IN WICHITA ROYALTY CO.
V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 306 U.S. 103. 

MESSRS. ARCHIBALD B. TINNING AND THEODORE P. WITTSCHEN FOR
RESPONDENT. 

DENIAL BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT OF A PETITION FOR HEARING THEREIN
AFTER DECISION BY A DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN APPROVAL OF
THE OPINION AND DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT.  PEOPLE V. DAVIS, 147 CAL.
346, 350; BOHN V. BOHN, 164 CAL. 532, 537; IN RE STEVENS, 197 CAL. 408,
423; PEOPLE V. RABE, 202 CAL. 409, 418; SENEY V. PICKWICK STAGES, 206
CAL. 389, 391; SHELTON V. LOS ANGELES, 206 CAL. 544, 550; WESTERN
LITHOGRAPH CO. V. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 11 CAL.2D 156, 167. 

THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL HAVE HELD, AND THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES, THAT THE DECISION OF A DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL IN ONE DISTRICT IS NOT BINDING ON ANOTHER.  DANLEY V.
SUPERIOR COURT, 64 CAL. APP. 594, 599; MCMILLAN V. GREER, 85 CAL. APP.
558, 563; STONE V. SAN FRANCISCO, 27 CAL. APP.2D 34; RAYNOR V. CITY OF
ARCATA, 11 CAL.2D 113, 120. 

THAT BEING SO, THEN CLEARLY NEITHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS NOR
THIS COURT IS SO BOUND. 

THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL ARE COURTS OF LIMITED AND
NOT STATE-WIDE JURISDICTION.  BUT EVEN IF JURISDICTION WERE STATE-WIDE,
IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESS LIMITATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED UPON THEIR
DECISIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, THEIR DECISIONS, EVEN WHEN
THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES A HEARING, ARE NOT THOSE OF THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE, WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SIX COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA, A CONTRACTOR, BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST
RESPONDENT, JOINT HIGHWAY DISTRICT NO. 13, TO RECOVER THE REASONABLE
VALUE OF MATERIALS AND LABOR FURNISHED UNDER A CONTRACT.  THE
CONTRACTOR HAD UNDERTAKEN TO RESCIND FOR ALLEGED BREACH BY RESPONDENT
AND HAD STOPPED WORK.  RESPONDENT ANSWERED, ALLEGING WRONGFUL
ABANDONMENT OF THE CONTRACT AND BY CROSS-COMPLAINT SOUGHT DAMAGES
AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR AND ITS SURETIES. 

THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $500 A DAY IN CASE OF DELAY IN COMPLETION.  FN1  THE DISTRICT
COURT FOUND AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR AND ITS SURETIES AND ON THE CROSS
COMPLAINT AWARDED DAMAGES WHICH INCLUDED $142,000 AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
FOR DELAY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  110
F.2D 620. 

PETITIONERS CONTENDED THAT UNDER THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA THE CLAUSE
PROVIDING FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES DID NOT APPLY TO DELAY WHICH OCCURRED
AFTER THE ABANDONMENT OF THE WORK BY THE CONTRACTOR.  THIS CONTENTION
WAS OVERRULED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THAT
ITS DECISION IN THAT RESPECT WAS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN CALIFORNIA IN THE CASE OF SINNOTT V.
SCHUMACHER, 45 CAL. APP. 46; 187 P. 105.  BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THOUGHT THAT DECISION WRONG AND REFUSED TO FOLLOW IT.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS ERROR IN
THAT RULING.  OCTOBER 14, 1940. 

IN SINNOTT V. SCHUMACHER, SUPRA, THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RECOVER THE
VALUE OF LABOR AND MATERIALS FURNISHED UNDER A BUILDING CONTRACT. 
AFTER PART PERFORMANCE THE CONTRACTOR GAVE NOTICE OF RESCISSION AND
ABANDONED WORK BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO RECEIVE THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF
THE AGREED PAYMENT.  DEFENDANTS DENIED THAT THE INSTALLMENT WAS DUE AND
FILED A CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS SURETY ASKING
DAMAGES BECAUSE OF THE ABANDONMENT OF THE WORK.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND
AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF ON HIS COMPLAINT AND IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS
ON THEIR CROSS-COMPLAINT, AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES.  THE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE DENIED A PETITION FOR HEARING IN THAT COURT. 

ON THE APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THE PLAINTIFF
APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE
DAMAGES AWARDED, BASING HIS CONTENTION UPON THE CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT
WHICH PROVIDED FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN A STIPULATED AMOUNT PER DAY IN
CASE OF DELAY IN COMPLETION.  FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL HELD
THAT THE CLAUSE HAD NO APPLICATION TO A CASE WHERE THE CONTRACT HAD
BEEN ABANDONED WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE.  THE COURT SAID: 

"AS TO THE APPELLANTS' CONTENTION THAT THE COURT WAS IN ERROR IN ITS
FINDING AND CONCLUSION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS BY REASON OF THE PLAINTIFF'S
UNJUSTIFIED ABANDONMENT OF WORK UPON SAID BUILDING, AND HIS FAILURE,
NEGLECT, AND REFUSAL TO COMPLETE THE SAME, IT MAY BE STATED THAT THIS
CONTENTION IS BASED UPON THE CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT WHICH RELATES TO
THE MATTER OF DELAY IN THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF SAID BUILDING AND
WHICH PURPORTS TO FIX A PENALTY OF FIFTY DOLLARS PER DAY FOR SUCH
DELAY; BUT THIS PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT HAS NO APPLICATION TO A
CONDITION WHEREIN THE CONTRACTOR IS SHOWN TO HAVE ABANDONED HIS
CONTRACT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, IN WHICH CASE THE RIGHT OF THE
DEFENDANTS TO DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S BREACH OF SAID
CONTRACT COULD NOT BE AFFECTED OR LIMITED BY SAID PROVISION OF THE
CONTRACT FOR A PENALTY FOR DELAY IN THE COMPLETION OF THE STRUCTURE
BEYOND THE STIPULATED TIME FOR SUCH COMPLETION."  FN3 

RESPONDENT URGES THAT WHAT WAS SAID BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SINNOTT CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE CLAUSE WAS A
MERE DICTUM.  WE DO NOT SO REGARD IT.  THIS PART OF THE OPINION OF THE
COURT WAS ITS ANSWER TO THE APPELLANTS' INSISTENCE THAT THE JUDGMENT ON
APPEAL WAS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE CLAUSE HAD BEEN
DISREGARDED AND DAMAGES HAD BEEN AWARDED IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT FOR
WHICH THE CONTRACT PROVIDED.  WHAT THE COURT SAID AS TO THIS WAS A
STATEMENT OF THE GROUND OF ITS DECISION.  IT WAS A STATEMENT OF THE LAW
OF CALIFORNIA AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS BEFORE THE COURT.  IT IS SAID
THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CASES.  THAT DIFFERENCE
APPEARS TO BE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE OWNER IS SEEKING TO APPLY
THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE CLAUSE IN ORDER TO RECOVER FROM THE CONTRACTOR,
WHILE IN THE SINNOTT CASE THE CONTRACTOR WAS SEEKING TO LIMIT THE
DAMAGE RECOVERABLE AGAINST HIM TO THE AMOUNT AGREED UPON.  BUT, SO FAR
AS THE QUESTION CONCERNS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE
CLAUSE, THE DIFFERENCE WOULD NOT SEEM TO BE MATERIAL, AS BY THE TERMS
OF THE CLAUSE IN EACH CASE IT APPEARS TO BE INTENDED TO BIND BOTH
PARTIES WHEN APPLICABLE.  THE RULING AS TO THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA AS
APPLIED BY THE STATE COURT WAS THAT THE STIPULATION IN THE CONTRACT AS
TO THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES IN CASE OF DELAY IN COMPLETION WAS NOT
APPLICABLE TO DELAY AFTER THE CONTRACTOR HAD ABANDONED THE WORK.  AS
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID, THAT DECISION "IS ADVERSE TO OURS." 

THE DECISION IN THE SINNOTT CASE WAS MADE IN 1919.  WE HAVE NOT BEEN
REFERRED TO ANY DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA TO THE
CONTRARY.  WE THUS HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE STATE LAW BY AN
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT IN CALIFORNIA IN A RULING WHICH APPARENTLY
HAS NOT BEEN DISAPPROVED, AND THERE IS NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE
LAW OF THE STATE IS OTHERWISE.  WE HAVE FULLY DISCUSSED THE PRINCIPLE
INVOLVED IN THE CASES OF WEST V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.,
POST, P. 223, AND FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO. V. FIELD, ANTE, P. 169, AND
FURTHER AMPLIFICATION IS UNNECESSARY.  SEE, ALSO, RINDGE CO. V. LOS
ANGELES, 262 U.S. 700, 708; TIPTON V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 298
U.S. 141, 151.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT IN SINNOTT V. SCHUMACHER WITH RESPECT TO
THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGE CLAUSE IN THE EVENT OF THE
ABANDONMENT OF WORK UNDER THE CONTRACT, AND ITS JUDGMENT TO THE
CONTRARY IS REVERSED.  THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THAT CLAUSE PROVIDED: 

"(D)  DAMAGES FOR DELAY.  - THE PARTIES HERETO EXPRESSLY STIPULATE
AND AGREE THAT TIME IS THE ESSENCE OF THIS CONTRACT.  IN CASE THE WORK
IS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT OR WITHIN
SUCH EXTENSIONS OF THE CONTRACT TIME AS MAY BE ALLOWED AS HEREIN
PROVIDED, IT IS DISTINCTLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL PAY THE DISTRICT AS AGREED AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND NOT AS A
PENALTY FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH AND EVERY WORKING DAY
WHICH MAY ELAPSE BETWEEN THE LIMITING DATE AS HEREIN PROVIDED AND THE
DATE OF ACTUAL COMPLETION OF THE WORK, SAID SUM BEING SPECIFICALLY
AGREED UPON AS A MEASURE OF DAMAGE TO THE DISTRICT BY REASON OF DELAY
IN THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK; IT BEING EXPRESSLY STIPULATED AND AGREED
THAT IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE TO ESTIMATE AND ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL
DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES; AND THE
CONTRACTOR AGREES AND CONSENTS THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES SO FIXED, SHALL BE DEDUCTED AND RETAINED BY THE DISTRICT FROM
ANY MONEY THEN DUE, OR THEREAFTER TO BECOME DUE, THE CONTRACTOR." 
FN2  THE CLAUSE FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IN THE CONTRACT IN THE SINNOTT
CASE WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR FAIL TO COMPLETE THIS CONTRACT AND THE WORK
PROVIDED FOR WITHIN THE TIME SET FOR COMPLETION AS AFORESAID, DUE
ALLOWANCE BEING MADE FOR THE CONTINGENCIES PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, HE
SHALL THEN BECOME LIABLE TO THE OWNER FOR ALL LOSS AND DAMAGES WHICH
THE OWNER MAY SUFFER ON ACCOUNT THEREOF, IN THE SUM OF TEN DOLLARS PER
DAY, WHICH THE CONTRACTOR HEREBY AGREES TO DEDUCT FROM HIS CONTRACT
PRICE, FOR EACH DAY THAT THE WORK SHALL REMAIN UNFINISHED BEYOND SUCH
TIME FOR COMPLETION, AND THE OWNER AGREES TO PAY TO THE CONTRACTOR A
BONUS OF TEN DOLLARS ($10) FOR EACH DAY THAT THE WORK MAY BE COMPLETED
BEFORE THE TIME AFORESAID FOR THE COMPLETION. 

"THE AGREEMENT IN THIS PARAGRAPH MADE FOR DAMAGES IS MADE AS HEREIN
SET FORTH FOR THE REASON THAT THE ACTUAL DAMAGE WHICH WILL BE SUSTAINED
BY THE OWNER BY REASON OF THE CONTRACTOR'S BREACH OF THE COVENANT TO
COMPLETE THIS CONTRACT WITHIN THE TIME STATED IS FROM THE NATURE OF THE
CASE IMPRACTICAL AND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FIX; AND ONE OF THE
CONSIDERATIONS MOVING THE OWNER TO ENTER INTO THIS CONTRACT WITH THE
CONTRACTOR IS THE AGREEMENT OF THE CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE HIS SAID
CONTRACT WITHIN THE TIME HEREIN STATED AND THE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
HEREIN ABOVE STATED FOR HIS FAILURE TO DO SO." 

THE PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE WAS THAT THE DELAY IN
COMPLETION WAS NOT MORE THAN FIVE DAYS THE DAMAGE FOR WHICH UNDER THE
CONTRACT WOULD AMOUNT TO $50. 

FN3  COMPARE BACIGALUPI V. PHOENIX BUILDING CO., 14 CAL. APP. 632,
639; 112 P. 892.  SEE WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS, REV. ED., VOL. 3, SEC.
785, PP. 2210, 2211. 
..END :






HELVERING V. JANNEY, 311 U.S. 189 


NO. 36.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  - 108
F.2D 564, AFFIRMED - 111 ID. 144, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 51(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, WHEN A JOINT RETURN
IS MADE BY HUSBAND AND WIFE, THE TAX IS COMPUTED ON THEIR AGGREGATE NET
INCOME; AND CAPITAL LOSSES OF ONE SPOUSE MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM CAPITAL
GAINS OF THE OTHER.  P. 194. 

2.  SECTION 117(D) OF THIS ACT DID NOT PURPORT TO ALTER THE RULE AS
TO THE RIGHT OF THE SPOUSES TO DEDUCTIONS IN THEIR JOINT RETURN, BUT
MERELY LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL LOSSES WHICH COULD BE DEDUCTED. 
P. 194. 

3.  TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, ART. 117-5, IN UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE
THAT "THE ALLOWANCE OF LOSSES OF ONE SPOUSE FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
CAPITAL ASSETS IS IN ALL CASES TO BE COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO GAINS
AND LOSSES OF THE OTHER SPOUSE UPON SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL
ASSETS," IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT AND THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE.  P.
194. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. JANNEY ET UX.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 113, GAINES ET UX. V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, POST, P. 628, TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS WHICH DEALT WITH RULINGS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  IN NO.
36, A DECISION OF THE BOARD, 39 B.T.A. 240, SUSTAINING A DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT BELOW, WHOSE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED
HERE.  IN NO. 113, A LIKE RULING OF THE BOARD WAS AFFIRMED BY A
JUDGMENT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT WHICH THIS COURT REVERSES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT THE SAME QUESTION, THAT IS, WHETHER UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934, IN THE CASE OF A JOINT RETURN BY HUSBAND AND WIFE,
THE CAPITAL LOSSES OF ONE SPOUSE MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE CAPITAL GAINS
OF THE OTHER. 

IN HELVERING V. JANNEY, THE WIFE REALIZED NET GAINS FROM THE SALE OF
CAPITAL ASSETS DURING 1934, AND THE HUSBAND REALIZED NET LOSSES FROM
THE SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS DURING THE SAME YEAR.  THEY FILED A JOINT
INCOME TAX RETURN REPORTING THE CAPITAL GAIN, WHICH REPRESENTED THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WIFE'S ADJUSTED CAPITAL GAINS AND THE HUSBAND'S
ADJUSTED CAPITAL LOSSES.  THE COMMISSIONER RULED THAT THE HUSBAND'S
LOSSES COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO REDUCE THE GAINS REALIZED BY HIS WIFE
AND ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER (39 B.T.A. 240) BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT REVERSED.  108 F.2D 564. 

IN GAINES V. HELVERING, THE HUSBAND REALIZED A NET GAIN FROM THE SALE
OF CAPITAL ASSETS DURING 1934, WHILE HIS WIFE SUSTAINED A NET LOSS FROM
THE SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS.  THEY FILED A JOINT RETURN REPORTING A
CAPITAL LOSS, WHICH REPRESENTED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HUSBAND'S
NET CAPITAL GAIN AND HIS WIFE'S NET CAPITAL LOSS.  THE COMMISSIONER, AS
IN THE JANNEY CASE, DECIDED AGAINST THIS ADJUSTMENT AND THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS AFFIRMED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD.  111 F.2D 144. 

IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE DECISIONS, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  NO. 36, 310 U.S. 617; NO. 113, OCTOBER 14, 1940. 

RETURNS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE PROVIDED: 

"(B)  HUSBAND AND WIFE.  - IF A HUSBAND AND WIFE LIVING TOGETHER HAVE
AN AGGREGATE NET INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR OF $2,500 OR OVER, OR AN
AGGREGATE GROSS INCOME FOR SUCH YEAR OF $5,000 OR OVER - 

"(1)  EACH SHALL MAKE SUCH A RETURN, OR 

"(2)  THE INCOME OF EACH SHALL BE INCLUDED IN A SINGLE JOINT RETURN,
IN WHICH CASE THE TAX SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE AGGREGATE INCOME." 

THE SAME PROVISION IN SUBSTANCE IS FOUND IN THE EARLIER REVENUE ACTS
FROM THAT OF 1921.  FN2 

THE "AGGREGATE INCOME," TO WHICH PARAGRAPH 2 OF SEC. 51(B) REFERS, IS
CLEARLY THE AGGREGATE NET INCOME AS IT IS THE AGGREGATE INCOME ON WHICH
"THE TAX IS TO BE COMPUTED."  IN THAT VIEW THE DEDUCTIONS TO WHICH
EITHER SPOUSE WOULD BE ENTITLED WOULD BE TAKEN IN THE CASE OF A JOINT
RETURN, FROM THE AGGREGATE GROSS INCOME. 

THAT WAS THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE PROVISION FOR A JOINT
RETURN IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918 BY THE SOLICITOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
IN AN OPINION RENDERED IN 1921.  FN3  AFTER CONSIDERING THE TERMS OF
THE STATUTE AND THE REASONABLE INFERENCE AS TO THE INTENT OF CONGRESS,
THE SOLICITOR CONCLUDED: 

"FROM THE FOREGOING IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1918 PERMITS A HUSBAND AND WIFE LIVING TOGETHER, AT
THEIR OPTION, TO FILE SEPARATE RETURNS OR A SINGLE JOINT RETURN.  IF A
SINGLE JOINT RETURN IS FILED IT IS TREATED AS THE RETURN OF A TAXABLE
UNIT AND THE NET INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE RETURN IS SUBJECT TO BOTH
NORMAL AND SURTAX AS THOUGH THE RETURN WERE THAT OF A SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL.  IN CASES, THEREFORE, IN WHICH THE HUSBAND OR WIFE HAS
ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS IN EXCESS OF HIS OR HER GROSS INCOME, SUCH EXCESS
MAY, IF JOINT RETURN IS FILED, BE DEDUCTED FROM THE NET INCOME OF THE
OTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING BOTH THE NORMAL AND SURTAX." 

THE TERMS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921 MADE THIS VIEW EVEN CLEARER. 
FN4  TREASURY REGULATIONS 62, ARTICLE 401, PROMULGATED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1921, APPARENTLY FOLLOWED THE SAME VIEW.  THAT ARTICLE
PROVIDED AS TO JOINT RETURNS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE,  - 

"WHERE THE INCOME OF EACH IS INCLUDED IN A SINGLE JOINT RETURN, THE
TAX IS COMPUTED ON THE AGGREGATE INCOME AND ALL DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS
TO WHICH EITHER IS ENTITLED SHALL BE TAKEN FROM SUCH AGGREGATE
INCOME."  FN5 

THE QUESTION AS TO DEDUCTIONS FOR LOSSES ON SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
SECURITIES AROSE UNDER SEC. 23(R)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  FN6
THAT PROVIDED THAT LOSSES AS THERE DESCRIBED SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY TO
THE EXTENT OF GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH SALES OR EXCHANGES.  NOTHING WAS
SAID IN THIS SECTION WHICH IN ANY WAY AFFECTED THE PROVISION OF THE
STATUTE AS TO JOINT RETURNS BY HUSBAND AND WIFE.  THE QUESTION IN THAT
RELATION, THAT IS, AS TO DEDUCTION FOR LOSSES ON SALES OF SECURITIES,
WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND WAS ANSWERED
BY HIM ON DECEMBER 29, 1932, AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE SPECIFIC QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE
HUSBAND MAY BE APPLIED TO OFFSET THE SAME AMOUNT OF GAIN REALIZED BY
THE WIFE IN RENDERING JOINT INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR.  IN REPLY
YOU ARE ADVISED THAT, IN THE CASE OF A HUSBAND AND WIFE LIVING TOGETHER
WHO FILE A JOINT INCOME TAX RETURN, THE TAX LIABILITY IS COMPUTED ON
THE AGGREGATE INCOME AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 51(B)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932, AND SUCH JOINT RETURN IS TREATED AS IF IT WAS THE RETURN OF A
SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.  THE AGGREGATE INCOME IN SUCH CASE WOULD OF COURSE
EMBRACE THE GAINS AS WELL AS THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS OF EACH SPOUSE. 
IF IT IS CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD FROM YOUR LETTER THAT THE GAINS AND
LOSSES IN THE ILLUSTRATION PRESENTED ARE FROM TRANSACTIONS FALLING
WITHIN THE SAME CLASS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE SUCH AS SALES
OF SECURITIES NOT HELD FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS, THE LOSS
SUSTAINED BY THE HUSBAND WOULD OFFSET THE SAME AMOUNT OF GAIN REALIZED
BY THE WIFE FROM SUCH SOURCE."  FN7 

THIS STATEMENT BY THE COMMISSIONER APPLIED THE SAME PRINCIPLE WHICH
HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN FOLLOWED WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTIONS IN THE JOINT
RETURNS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, THERE HAVING BEEN NO INDICATION BY
CONGRESS OF ANY DIFFERENT PURPOSE. 

TREASURY REGULATIONS NO. 77, PROMULGATED UNDER THE ACT OF 1932,
CONTAINED NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY AND THE REGULATION THERETOFORE
OBTAINING AS TO SUCH JOINT RETURNS WAS LEFT UNCHANGED.  ART. 381. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 CONTINUED THE PRIOR STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS
TO JOINT RETURNS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND SEC. 117(D) OF THAT ACT, AS
TO CAPITAL LOSSES, DID NOT PURPORT TO ALTER THE RULE AS TO THE RIGHT OF
THE SPOUSES TO DEDUCTIONS IN THEIR JOINT RETURN.  SECTION 117(D) MERELY
LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF LOSSES WHICH COULD BE DEDUCTED, AS FOLLOWS: 

"(D)  LIMITATION ON CAPITAL LOSSES.  - LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES
OF CAPITAL ASSETS SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF $2,000 PLUS
THE GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR EXCHANGES." 

THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE ACT OF 1932,
IN THE OPINION ABOVE MENTIONED, WAS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE NEW ACT. 

IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1935 THAT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT BY ARTICLE 117-5
OF REGULATIONS 86 UNDERTOOK TO PROVIDE THAT "THE ALLOWANCE OF LOSSES OF
ONE SPOUSE FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS IS IN ALL CASES TO
BE COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO GAINS AND LOSSES OF THE OTHER SPOUSE UPON
SALES OR EXCHANGES OF CAPITAL ASSETS."  FN8 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OF 1934 AS
TO JOINT RETURNS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE, WHICH EMBODIED A POLICY SET FORTH
IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TERMS FOR MANY YEARS, CONGRESS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE FOR A TAX ON THE AGGREGATE NET INCOME AND THAT THE LOSSES OF
ONE SPOUSE MIGHT BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GAINS OF THE OTHER; AND THAT THIS
APPLIED AS WELL TO DEDUCTIONS FOR CAPITAL LOSSES AS TO OTHER
DEDUCTIONS.  THIS, WE THINK, WAS THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934 WHEN IT WAS ENACTED, AND IT WAS SUBJECT TO CHANGE
ONLY BY CONGRESS, AND NOT BY THE DEPARTMENT. 

IN NO. 36, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

IN NO. 113, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED
AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH
THIS OPINION.  NO. 36, AFFIRMED.  NO. 113, REVERSED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 697. 

FN2  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, SEC. 223, ALSO PROVIDED FOR A JOINT
RETURN BY HUSBAND AND WIFE.  40 STAT. 1074. 


"(B)  IF A HUSBAND AND WIFE LIVING TOGETHER HAVE AN AGGREGATE NET
INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR OF $2,000 OR OVER, OR AN AGGREGATE GROSS
INCOME FOR SUCH YEAR OF $5,000 OR OVER - 

"(1)  EACH SHALL MAKE SUCH A RETURN, OR 

"(2)  THE INCOME OF EACH SHALL BE INCLUDED IN A SINGLE JOINT RETURN,
IN WHICH CASE THE TAX SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE AGGREGATE INCOME." 

FN3  SOL.  OP. 90, CUM. BULL.  NO. 4, P. 236(1921). 

FN4  THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORTED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVISION OF THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1921 AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 231 OF THE BILL PROPOSES TO AMEND SECTION 223 OF THE PRESENT
LAW IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CLEAR UP THE DOUBT NOW EXISTING AS TO THE
RIGHT OF HUSBAND AND WIFE IN ALL CASES TO MAKE A JOINT RETURN AND HAVE
THE TAX COMPUTED ON THE COMBINED INCOME."  HOUSE REP. NO. 350, 67TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.  SEE, ALSO, SEN. REP. NO. 275, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN5  THE SAME PROVISION WAS CONTINUED IN SUBSTANCE IN SUCCEEDING
REGULATIONS.  ARTICLE 401 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 65 AND 69 UNDER THE
REVENUE ACTS OF 1924 AND 1926; ARTICLE 381 OF REGULATIONS 74 AND 77
UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932. 

FN6  47 STAT. 183.  SECTION 23(R)(1) PROVIDED:  "LOSSES FROM SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF STOCKS AND BONDS (AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION (T) OF THIS
BE ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR EXCHANGES
(INCLUDING GAINS WHICH MAY BE DERIVED BY A TAXPAYER FROM THE RETIREMENT
OF HIS OWN OBLIGATIONS)." 

FN7  1933 COMMERCE CLEARING HOUSE FEDERAL TAX SERVICE, VOL. III, PAR.
6037. 

FN8  IT WAS ALSO IN 1935 THAT THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
ANNOUNCED THE SAME RULING UNDER THE ACT OF 1932.  G.C.M. 15438, CUM.
BULL.  XIV-2, P. 156. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :















TAFT V. HELVERING, 311 U.S. 195 


NO. 183.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  - 111
F.2D 145, REVERSED. 


1.  A JOINT RETURN BY A HUSBAND AND WIFE, UNDER SEC. 51(B) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934, IS TO BE TREATED AS A RETURN OF A TAXABLE UNIT AND
AS THOUGH MADE BY AN INDIVIDUAL.  P. 197. 

2.  IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME ON A JOINT RETURN OF HUSBAND AND
WIFE, THEIR COMBINED CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE DEDUCTIBLE FROM THEIR
AGGREGATE GROSS INCOME UP TO 15% OF THE AGGREGATE NET INCOME, C. 277,
48 STAT. 690, SEC. 23(O).  PP. 197-198. 

ARTICLE 401, TREASURY REGULATIONS 62, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921
IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION. 

3.  ARTICLE 23(O), TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, WHICH SOUGHT TO REQUIRE A
HUSBAND AND WIFE, WHETHER THEY MAKE "A JOINT RETURN OR SEPARATE
RETURNS," TO BASE THEIR DEDUCTION FOR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE
SEPARATE NET INCOME OF THE SPOUSE MAKING THEM, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
ACT AND THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE.  P. 198. 

TAFT ET UX. V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 628, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A
RULING OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (40 B.T.A. 229) SUSTAINING A
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, FILED JOINT INCOME-TAX RETURNS FOR THE
YEARS 1934 AND 1935.  IN COMPUTING THEIR AGGREGATE NET INCOME UNDER
SEC. 51(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934,  FN1  THEY MADE DEDUCTIONS OF
THEIR COMBINED CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.  FN2  THE COMMISSIONER RULED
THAT THE DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF THE WIFE'S CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
SHOULD BE REDUCED TO 15 PER CENT OF HER SEPARATE INCOME AND DEFICIENCES
WERE DETERMINED ACCORDINGLY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER (40 B.T.A. 229) AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  111 F.2D 145. 

BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS COGNATE TO THAT PRESENTED IN THE CASES OF
HELVERING V. JANNEY, ANTE, P. 189, AND GAINES V. HELVERING, ANTE, P.
189, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  OCTOBER 14, 1940. 

THE PROVISION FOR JOINT RETURNS IN SEC. 51(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1934 WAS IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AS THE CORRESPONDING PROVISION
IN THE PRIOR REVENUE ACTS FROM 1921.  THE IMPORT OF THAT PROVISION IS
THAT IN MAKING A JOINT RETURN THE HUSBAND AND WIFE SHOULD REPORT THEIR
AGGREGATE GROSS INCOME AND COULD COMBINE THEIR DEDUCTIONS IN REPORTING
THEIR AGGREGATE NET INCOME UPON WHICH THE TAX WAS TO BE COMPUTED.  THAT
WAS THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE ORIGINAL PROVISION FOR JOINT
RETURNS, IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, BY THE SOLICITOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE.  HE SAID IN HIS RULING:  "IF A SINGLE JOINT RETURN IS FILED IT
IS TREATED AS THE RETURN OF A TAXABLE UNIT AND THE NET INCOME DISCLOSED
BY THE RETURN IS SUBJECT TO BOTH NORMAL AND SURTAX AS THOUGH THE RETURN
WERE THAT OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.  IN CASES, THEREFORE, IN WHICH THE
HUSBAND OR WIFE HAS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS IN EXCESS OF HIS OR HER GROSS
INCOME, SUCH EXCESS MAY, IF JOINT RETURN IS FILED, BE DEDUCTED FROM THE
NET INCOME OF THE OTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING BOTH THE NORMAL
AND SURTAX."  FN3  WE THINK THAT THIS WAS THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS IN
ENACTING THE ACT OF 1921  FN4 AND THE LATER ACTS CONTAINING THE SAME
PROVISION FOR JOINT RETURNS.  WE THINK THAT IT WAS ALSO THE FAIR IMPORT
OF THE TREASURY REGULATIONS UNDER THE ACT OF 1921 AND OF SUBSEQUENT
REGULATIONS PRIOR TO 1934.  FN5 

RESPONDENT PLACES EMPHASIS ON THE PHRASING OF ARTICLE 401 OF
REGULATIONS 62 UNDER THE ACT OF 1921, THAT "IN A SINGLE JOINT RETURN,
THE TAX IS COMPUTED ON THE AGGREGATE INCOME AND ALL DEDUCTIONS AND
CREDITS TO WHICH EITHER IS ENTITLED SHALL BE TAKEN FROM SUCH AGGREGATE
INCOME."  THE ARGUMENT STRESSES THE WORDS "TO WHICH EITHER IS ENTITLED"
AND IT IS URGED THAT EACH SPOUSE IS ENTITLED ONLY TO DEDUCT 15 PER CENT
OF HIS OR HER SEPARATE NET INCOME.  BUT WE THINK THAT THIS IS AN
INADMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE AND IS NOT A NECESSARY
CONSTRUCTION OF THE REGULATION.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PREMISE OF THE SOLICITOR'S OPINION, ABOVE MENTIONED, THAT A
JOINT RETURN "IS TREATED AS THE RETURN OF A TAXABLE UNIT" AND THE TAX
IS TO BE LAID AS THOUGH THE RETURN WERE THAT "OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL." 
THE MORE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION IN THE ACT OF 1921, WHICH
FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE IS THE SAME AS THAT IN THE ACT OF 1934, AFFORDS
A STRONGER BASIS FOR THIS CONCLUSION.  IT PROVIDES SPECIFICALLY FOR THE
INCLUSION OF THE INCOME OF EACH SPOUSE "IN A SINGLE JOINT RETURN" AND
IN THAT CASE THAT "THE TAX SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE AGGREGATE INCOME." 
THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE JOINT RETURN IS TO BE TREATED AS THE RETURN OF A
"TAXABLE UNIT" AND AS THOUGH IT WERE MADE BY A "SINGLE INDIVIDUAL"
WOULD BE VIOLATED IF IN MAKING A JOINT RETURN EACH SPOUSE WERE
COMPELLED TO CALCULATE HIS OR HER CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AS IF HE OR
SHE WERE MAKING A SEPARATE RETURN.  THE PRINCIPLE OF A JOINT RETURN
PERMITTED AGGREGATION OF INCOME AND DEDUCTIONS AND THUS OVERRODE THE
LIMITATIONS INCIDENT TO SEPARATE RETURNS.  WE FIND NO INDICATION IN
ARTICLE 401 OF REGULATIONS 62 UNDER THE ACT OF 1921 OF ANY INTENTION TO
DEPART FROM THE SOLICITOR'S VIEW AS TO THE PURPORT OF THE STATUTE. 

IN 1935, BY ARTICLE 23(O)-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, THE
DEPARTMENT SOUGHT TO REQUIRE A HUSBAND AND WIFE, WHETHER THEY MAKE "A
JOINT RETURN OR SEPARATE RETURNS," TO BASE THEIR DEDUCTION FOR
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS ON THE SEPARATE NET INCOME OF THE SPOUSE
MAKING THEM.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934,
TAKEN WITH THE MEANING WE THINK IT HAD WHEN ENACTED, PETITIONERS WERE
ENTITLED TO THE COMBINED DEDUCTIONS THEY CLAIMED, AND THAT THE
DEPARTMENTAL REGULATION TO THE CONTRARY WAS INEFFECTIVE TO DEPRIVE THEM
OF THAT RIGHT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 697. 

FN2  SEC. 23(O), 48 STAT. 690. 

FN3  SOL.  OP. 90, CUM. BULL.  NO. 4, P. 236(1921).  SEE HELVERING V.
JANNEY, ANTE, P. 189. 

FN4  HOUSE REP. NO. 350, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; SEN. REP. NO. 275,
67TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN5  TREASURY REGULATIONS NOS. 65 AND 69, ART. 401; REGULATIONS NOS.
74 AND 77, ART. 381. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :

















KLOEB V. ARMOUR & CO., 311 U.S. 199 


NO. 65.  SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 18, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  -
109 F.2D 72, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTIONS 71 AND 80, TITLE 28 U.S.C., WERE DESIGNED TO PREVENT
DELAY OVER ORDERS REMANDING CAUSES.  THEY ENTRUST DETERMINATION TO THE
INFORMED JUDICIAL DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND CUT OFF REVIEW. 
P. 204. 

2.  A STATE SUPREME COURT, BASING ITS DETERMINATION EXCLUSIVELY ON
THE ALLEGATIONS OF A PETITION TO REMOVE, AND CONCLUDING THEREFROM THAT
THE CAUSE INVOLVED A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF
DIFFERENT STATES, DIRECTED REMOVAL.  THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, BASING
ITS DETERMINATION ON THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING NEW FACTS, FOUND THAT
THERE WAS NO SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS AN ALIEN,
AND REMANDED THE CAUSE.  HELD: 

(1)  THE DISTRICT COURT ACTED WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO
SECS. 71 AND 80, TITLE 28, U.S.C.  P. 204. 

(2)  THE ORDER OF REMAND WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  P. 205. 

KLOEB, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, V. ARMOUR & COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW ORDERS OF THE COURT BELOW, IN
MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS, WHICH DIRECTED THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE
REMANDS IN FIVE SEPARATE ACTIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, ARMOUR & COMPANY, A KENTUCKY CORPORATION, BY PETITION
OBTAINED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH CIRCUIT, AN ORDER
DIRECTING THE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, TO SET
ASIDE THE REMANDS OF FIVE SEPARATE ACTIONS.  109 F.2D 72.  THE OPINION
OF THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT CONCERNING THE BASIC ISSUE. 

"A NUMBER OF PERSONS, INCLUDING GEORGE E. KNIESS, BROUGHT SUIT
AGAINST ARMOUR AND COMPANY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCAS COUNTY
FOR DAMAGES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SUFFERED IN THE CONSUMPTION OF FOOD
PRODUCTS, MATERIALS FOR WHICH WERE PREPARED BY ARMOUR AND COMPANY, BUT
WHICH WERE PROCESSED BY A RETAILER IN TOLEDO BY THE NAME OF
BURMEISTER.  IN EACH OF THE FIVE CASES, AND UPON IDENTICAL PETITIONS,
THE PLAINTIFFS JOINED BURMEISTER AS A DEFENDANT ON THE THEORY THAT HE
AND THE ARMOUR COMPANY WERE JOINT TORTFEASORS.  ARMOUR AND COMPANY
FILED ITS PETITIONS FOR REMOVAL WITH THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ACCOMPANIED BY PROPER REMOVAL BONDS.  ITS PETITIONS WERE CONTESTED BY
THE PLAINTIFFS AND WERE DENIED.  THE KNIESS CASE PROCEEDED TO TRIAL
WHILE THE OTHER CASES WERE HELD IN ABEYANCE AND IT EVENTUALLY REACHED
THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, KNIESS V. ARMOUR & CO., 134 O.S. 432; 17
N.E.2D 734; 119 A.L.R. 1348.  THAT COURT DISPOSED OF THE CASE UPON THE
SOLE GROUND THAT THE REMOVAL PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, BECAUSE
A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY EXISTED AS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND ARMOUR.  IT
STATED THE LAW OF OHIO TO BE THAT WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TWO
TORTFEASORS DIFFERS IN DEGREE AND IN NATURE, LIABILITY CANNOT BE JOINT
AND THE ALLEGED TORTS ARE NOT CONCURRENT.  HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANT
ARMOUR AND COMPANY HAD ADEQUATELY PRESERVED ITS EXCEPTIONS TO THE
RULING OF THE LOWER COURT, THE CAUSE WAS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO GRANT THE REMOVAL PETITION,
AND THE MANDATE DIRECTED THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TO REMOVE THE CAUSE
TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"WHEN THE CASE CAME BEFORE THE RESPONDENT THE PLAINTIFF MOVED TO
REMAND AND, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADJUDICATION BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT
WHICH HAD BECOME FINAL, THE RESPONDENT PROCEEDED TO TAKE EVIDENCE UPON
THE QUESTION OF A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY, DECIDED THERE WAS NONE, THAT
THE CAUSE WAS NOT REMOVABLE UNDER THE STATUTE, ENTERED AN ORDER TO
REMAND THE CASE TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUCAS COUNTY, AND
DENIED PETITIONS FOR REHEARING." 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE RENDERED NO OPINION TO SUPPORT HIS ACTIONS; BUT
RESPONDING TO THE RULE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO SHOW CAUSE,
HE CITED MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178,
REFERRED TO AFFIDAVITS FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTIONS AND SAID THAT
UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD, HE BECAME SATISFIED THAT NONE
OF THE FIVE SUITS "REALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY INVOLVED A DISPUTE OR
SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY WHOLLY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES WHICH
COULD BE FULLY DETERMINED AS BETWEEN THEM, AND THEREFORE NONE OF SAID
CAUSES WERE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND FURTHER THAT PLAINTIFF KNIESS IS AN ALIEN." 

TITLE 28, U.S.C. PROVIDES - 

"SECTION 71 - WHENEVER ANY CAUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ANY STATE
COURT INTO ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE DISTRICT
COURT SHALL DECIDE THAT THE CAUSE WAS IMPROPERLY REMOVED, AND ORDER THE
SAME TO BE REMANDED TO THE STATE COURT FROM WHENCE IT CAME, SUCH REMAND
SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY CARRIED INTO EXECUTION, AND NO APPEAL OR WRIT OF
ERROR FROM THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT SO REMANDING SUCH CAUSE
SHALL BE ALLOWED." 

"SECTION 80 - IF IN ANY SUIT COMMENCED IN A DISTRICT COURT, OR
REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT TO A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT
SHALL APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SAID DISTRICT COURT, AT ANY
TIME AFTER SUCH SUIT HAS BEEN BROUGHT OR REMOVED THERETO, THAT SUCH
SUIT DOES NOT REALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY INVOLVE A DISPUTE OR CONTROVERSY
PROPERLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SAID DISTRICT COURT, OR THAT THE
PARTIES TO SAID SUIT HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY OR COLLUSIVELY MADE OR
JOINED, EITHER AS PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING
A CASE COGNIZABLE OR REMOVABLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER, THE SAID DISTRICT
COURT SHALL PROCEED NO FURTHER THEREIN, BUT SHALL DISMISS THE SUIT OR
REMAND IT TO THE COURT FROM WHICH IT WAS REMOVED, AS JUSTICE MAY
REQUIRE, AND SHALL MAKE SUCH ORDER AS TO COSTS AS SHALL BE JUST." 

EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORP. V. BRYANT, 299 U.S. 374, 380, 381, SAYS
OF THESE SECTIONS:  "THEY ARE IN PARI MATERIA, ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
ACCORDINGLY RATHER THAN AS DISTINCT ENACTMENTS, AND, WHEN SO CONSTRUED,
SHOW, AS WAS HELD IN MOREY V. LOCKHART, 123 U.S. 56, 58, THAT THEY ARE
INTENDED TO REACH AND INCLUDE ALL CASES REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT INTO
A FEDERAL COURT AND REMANDED BY THE LATTER." 

THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED:  "THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO POWER TO
DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY ENTITLING THE PETITIONER
TO REMOVE BECAUSE THAT ISSUE HAD ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, AND THE DISTRICT COURT, UPON FAMILIAR
PRINCIPLES, WAS BOUND BY SUCH ADJUDICATION." 

AND IT SAID - "IT WOULD SEEM THAT IN THE USE IN SECTION 71 OF THE
WORDS 'THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL DECIDE,' AND IN THE EMPLOYMENT IN
SAID DISTRICT COURT,' IT WAS WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE CONGRESS
THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD APPLY TO THOSE CASES IN WHICH THERE WAS SOME
ISSUE WHICH, AS A MATTER OF PRIMARY DECISION, WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
DISTRICT JUDGE.  IT CERTAINLY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO APPLY TO
DECISION OF A QUESTION WHICH WAS NOT PROPERLY AT ISSUE BEFORE THE
DISTRICT JUDGE SINCE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF OHIO IN THE SAME PROCEEDING, BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES, AND
UPON THE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO PERMIT
THE DISTRICT COURT TO DEFY THE STATUTE 28 U.S.C.A., SEC. 687, WHICH
PROVIDES: 'THE RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURTS OF ANY
STATE  ...  SHALL HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY
COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE
COURTS OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN.'" 

ALSO - "THE DECISIONS IN EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORPORATION V. BRYANT,
DISTRICT JUDGE, SUPRA, AND IN RE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY, SUPRA, MUST NOT,
IN OUR JUDGMENT, BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE SITUATIONS REQUIRING THE
APPLICATION OF THE RULE THERE ANNOUNCED, THAT IS TO SAY, TO CASES WHERE
THE ISSUE OF THE PETITION TO REMAND CALLED FOR ORIGINAL AND PRIMARY
DECISION BY THE DISTRICT COURT UNFETTERED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA OR THE MANDATE OF THE 'FULL FAITH AND CREDIT' STATUTE." 

"THAT THE DECISION OF THE OHIO COURT WAS RES JUDICATA NOTWITHSTANDING
THE ISSUE WAS ONE INVOLVING THE JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT, IS
SETTLED BY AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 156, 53 S. CT. 98,
77 L. ED. 231, 86 A.L.R. 298; BALDWIN V. IOWA STATE TRAVELING MEN'S
ASS'N, 283 U.S. 522, 51 S. CT. 517, 75 L. ED. 1244, AND THE DECISION IN
EVELYN TREINIES, PETITIONER, V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., ET AL., (308 U.S.
66) 60 S. CT. 44, 84 L. ED. - , ANNOUNCED AS RECENTLY AS NOVEMBER 6,
1939." 

"WHILE THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED IS ONE OF FIRST IMPRESSION,
THE SUPREME COURT IN RE METROPOLITAN TRUST COMPANY, 218 U.S. 312, 31 S.
CT. 18, 54 L. ED. 1051, HAS DRAWN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ORDERS TO
REMAND ERRONEOUSLY ISSUED AND THOSE ISSUED BY A DISTRICT JUDGE IN
EXCESS OF HIS AUTHORITY.  THE FORMER MAY NOT BE CHALLENGED BY APPEAL OR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS - THE LATTER ARE A NULLITY.  WE THINK IT FOLLOWS THAT
UNDER GENERAL SUPERVISORY POWERS THEY MAY BE SET ASIDE." 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT
DERIVES FROM AN INADEQUATE APPRAISAL OF THE RECORD AND OF SECS. 71 AND
80 U.S. CODE, SUPRA. 

THESE SECTIONS WERE DESIGNED TO LIMIT POSSIBLE REVIEW OF ORDERS
REMANDING CAUSES AND THUS PREVENT DELAY.  IN RE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY,
137 U.S. 451, 454.  THEY ENTRUST DETERMINATION CONCERNING SUCH MATTER
TO THE INFORMED JUDICIAL DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND CUT OFF
REVIEW. 

IN THIS CAUSE THE DISTRICT JUDGE WEIGHED THE PETITIONS AND RELEVANT
AFFIDAVITS AND CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS NOT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THAT COURT.  HIS CLEAR DUTY WAS TO PROCEED NO FURTHER
AND TO DISMISS OR REMAND THE CAUSES.  THE STATUTE EXEMPTED HIS ACTION
FROM REVIEW. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAD NO POWER TO
CONSIDER THE ENTIRE RECORD AND PASS UPON THE QUESTION OF SEPARABILITY,
BECAUSE THIS POINT HAD BEEN FINALLY SETTLED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
OHIO, FINDS NO ADEQUATE SUPPORT IN THE CASES CITED BY THE OPINION
BELOW:  BALDWIN V. IOWA STATE TRAVELING MEN'S ASSN., 283 U.S. 522,
AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 156 AND TREINIES V. SUNSHINE
MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66.  NONE OF THESE CAUSES INVOLVED A SITUATION
COMPARABLE TO THE ONE HERE PRESENTED. 

CAUSES FROM STATE TO FEDERAL COURTS AND DIRECTS THAT WHEN COMPLIED
WITH, THE STATE COURT SHALL PROCEED NO FURTHER.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
OHIO DECLARED:  "IN PASSING UPON THE QUESTION OF REMOVAL, UNFORTUNATELY
WE ARE LIMITED SOLELY TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE
PETITION."  IT HELD THAT UPON THEM THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE
RELINQUISHED JURISDICTION. 

THE CAUSES WENT TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND ADDITIONAL FACTS
WERE THERE PRESENTED.  AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE, THAT COURT
CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS, PETITIONS AND AFFIDAVITS, EXERCISED
ITS DISCRETION AND ORDERED THE REMANDS.  JURISDICTION TO DECIDE, WE
THINK, IS CLEAR; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS LACKED POWER TO REVIEW
THE REMAND. 

THE CHALLENGED ORDER MUST BE REVERSED. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. FALCONE, 311 U.S. 205 


NO. 42.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  - 109
F.2D 579, AFFIRMED. 


ONE WHO SELLS MATERIALS KNOWING THAT THEY ARE INTENDED FOR USE, OR
WILL BE USED, IN THE PRODUCTION OF ILLICIT DISTILLED SPIRITS, BUT NOT
KNOWING OF A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE CRIME, IS NOT CHARGEABLE AS CO
CONSPIRATOR.  P. 210. 

UNITED STATES V. FALCONE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 620, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING CONVICTIONS
OF CONSPIRACY. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD IS WHETHER ONE WHO SELLS
MATERIALS WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE INTENDED FOR USE OR WILL BE USED
IN THE PRODUCTION OF ILLICIT DISTILLED SPIRITS MAY BE CONVICTED AS A CO
CONSPIRATOR WITH A DISTILLER WHO CONSPIRED WITH OTHERS TO DISTILL THE
SPIRITS IN VIOLATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 

RESPONDENTS WERE INDICTED WITH SIXTY-THREE OTHERS IN THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE THE REVENUE LAWS BY THE
OPERATION OF TWENTY-TWO ILLICIT STILLS IN THE VICINITY OF UTICA, NEW
YORK.  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AS TO TWENTY-FOUR DEFENDANTS,
OF WHOM THE FIVE RESPONDENTS AND SIXTEEN OPERATORS OF STILLS WERE
CONVICTED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED THE
CONVICTION OF THE FIVE RESPONDENTS ON THE GROUND THAT AS THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENTS WERE THEMSELVES CONSPIRATORS, THE SALE BY
THEM OF MATERIALS, KNOWING THAT THEY WOULD BE USED BY OTHERS IN ILLICIT
DISTILLING, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT RESPONDENTS WERE
GUILTY OF THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED.  109 F.2D 579.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 620, TO RESOLVE AN ASSERTED CONFLICT OF THE
DECISION BELOW WITH THOSE OF COURTS OF APPEALS IN OTHER CIRCUITS. 
SIMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 11 F.2D 591; PATTIS V. UNITED STATES, 17 F.2D
562; BORGIA V. UNITED STATES, 78 F.2D 550; MARINO V. UNITED STATES, 91
F.2D 691; SEE BACKUN V. UNITED STATES, 112 F.2D 635.  COMPARE YOUNG V.
UNITED STATES, 48 F.2D 26. 

ALL OF RESPONDENTS WERE JOBBERS OR DISTRIBUTORS WHO, DURING THE
PERIOD IN QUESTION, SOLD SUGAR, YEAST OR CANS, SOME OF WHICH FOUND
THEIR WAY INTO THE POSSESSION AND USE OF SOME OF THE DISTILLER
DEFENDANTS.  THE INDICTMENT WHILE CHARGING GENERALLY THAT ALL THE
DEFENDANTS WERE PARTIES TO THE CONSPIRACY DID NOT ALLEGE SPECIFICALLY
THAT ANY OF RESPONDENTS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONSPIRACY BUT IT DID
ALLEGE THAT RESPONDENTS ALBERICO AND NOLE BROTHERS SOLD THE MATERIALS
MENTIONED KNOWING THAT THEY WERE TO BE USED IN ILLICIT DISTILLING.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS, REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE THOUGHT, IN THE CASE OF SOME
OF THE RESPONDENTS, THAT THE JURY MIGHT TAKE IT THAT THEY WERE
KNOWINGLY SUPPLYING THE DISTILLERS.  AS TO NICHOLAS NOLE, WHOSE CASE IT
CONSIDERED MOST DOUBTFUL, IT THOUGHT THAT HIS EQUIVOCAL CONDUCT "WAS AS
LIKELY TO HAVE COME FROM A BELIEF THAT IT WAS A CRIME TO SELL THE YEAST
AND THE CANS TO DISTILLERS AS FROM BEING IN FACT ANY FURTHER INVOLVED
IN THEIR BUSINESS."  BUT IT ASSUMED FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION THAT ALL
FURNISHED SUPPLIES WHICH THEY KNEW ULTIMATELY REACHED AND WERE USED BY
SOME OF THE DISTILLERS.  UPON THIS ASSUMPTION IT SAID, "IN THE LIGHT OF
ALL THIS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SELLER
OF GOODS, IN THEMSELVES INNOCENT, BECOMES A CONSPIRATOR WITH - OR, WHAT
IS IN SUBSTANCE THE SAME THING, AN ABETTOR OF - THE BUYER BECAUSE HE
KNOWS THAT THE BUYER MEANS TO USE THE GOODS TO COMMIT A CRIME."  AND IT
CONCLUDED THAT MERELY BECAUSE RESPONDENT DID NOT FOREGO A "NORMALLY
LAWFUL ACTIVITY OF THE FRUITS OF WHICH HE KNEW THAT OTHERS WERE MAKING
UNLAWFUL USE" HE IS NOT GUILTY OF A CONSPIRACY. 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ARGUE HERE THE POINT WHICH SEEMS TO BE
IMPLICIT IN THE QUESTION RAISED BY ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THAT
CONVICTION OF CONSPIRACY CAN REST ON PROOF ALONE OF KNOWINGLY SUPPLYING
AN ILLICIT DISTILLER, WHO IS NOT CONSPIRING WITH OTHERS.  IN SUCH A
CASE, AS THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES, THE ACT OF SUPPLYING OR SOME OTHER
PROOF MUST IMPORT AN AGREEMENT OR CONCERT OF ACTION BETWEEN BUYER AND
SELLER, WHICH ADMITTEDLY IS NOT PRESENT HERE.  CF. GEBARDI V. UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 112, 121; DI BONAVENTURA V. UNITED STATES, 15 F.2D
494.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT DOES CONTEND THAT ONE WHO WITH KNOWLEDGE OF A
CONSPIRACY TO DISTILL ILLICIT SPIRITS SELLS MATERIALS TO A CONSPIRATOR
KNOWING THAT THEY WILL BE USED IN THE DISTILLING, IS HIMSELF GUILTY OF
THE CONSPIRACY.  IT IS SAID THAT HE IS, EITHER BECAUSE HIS KNOWLEDGE
COMBINED WITH HIS ACTION MAKES HIM A PARTICIPANT IN THE AGREEMENT WHICH
IS THE CONSPIRACY, OR WHAT IS THE SAME THING HE IS A PRINCIPAL IN THE
CONSPIRACY AS AN AIDER OR ABETTOR BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 332 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 550, WHICH PROVIDES:  "WHOEVER DIRECTLY COMMITS
ANY ACT CONSTITUTING AN OFFENSE DEFINED IN ANY LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR AIDS, ABETS, COUNSELS, COMMANDS, INDUCES OR PROCURES ITS
COMMISSION, IS A PRINCIPAL." 

THE ARGUMENT, THE MERITS OF WHICH WE DO NOT CONSIDER, OVERLOOKS THE
FACT THAT THE OPINION BELOW PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
EVIDENCE SHOWED ONLY THAT RESPONDENTS OR SOME OF THEM KNEW THAT THE
MATERIALS SOLD WOULD BE USED IN THE DISTILLATION OF ILLICIT SPIRITS,
AND FELL SHORT OF SHOWING RESPONDENTS' PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSPIRACY
OR THAT THEY KNEW OF IT.  WE DID NOT BRING THE CASE HERE TO REVIEW THE
EVIDENCE, BUT WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT RELIES DOES NOT DO MORE THAN SHOW KNOWLEDGE BY RESPONDENTS
THAT THE MATERIALS WOULD BE USED FOR ILLICIT DISTILLING IF IT DOES AS
MUCH IN THE CASE OF SOME.  FN1  IN THE CASE OF ALBERICO, AS IN THE CASE
OF NICHOLAS NOLE, THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT HE KNEW THAT ONE OF
THEIR CUSTOMERS WHO IS AN UNCONVICTED DEFENDANT WAS USING THE PURCHASED
MATERIAL IN ILLICIT DISTILLING.  BUT IT COULD NOT BE INFERRED FROM THAT
OR FROM THE CASUAL AND UNEXPLAINED MEETINGS OF SOME OF RESPONDENTS WITH
OTHERS WHO WERE CONVICTED AS CONSPIRATORS THAT RESPONDENTS KNEW OF THE
CONSPIRACY.  THE EVIDENCE RESPECTING THE VOLUME OF SALES TO ANY KNOWN
TO BE DISTILLERS IS TOO VAGUE AND INCONCLUSIVE TO SUPPORT A JURY
FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS KNEW OF A CONSPIRACY FROM THE SIZE OF THE
PURCHASES EVEN THOUGH WE WERE TO ASSUME WHAT WE DO NOT DECIDE THAT THE
KNOWLEDGE WOULD MAKE THEM CONSPIRATORS OR AIDERS OR ABETTORS OF THE
CONSPIRACY.  RESPONDENTS ARE NOT CHARGED WITH AIDING AND ABETTING
ILLICIT DISTILLING, AND THEY CANNOT BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE SWEEP OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONSPIRACY DRAGNET IF THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS
A CONSPIRACY. 

THE GIST OF THE OFFENSE OF CONSPIRACY AS DEFINED BY SEC. 37 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88, IS AGREEMENT AMONG THE CONSPIRATORS
TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE ATTENDED BY AN ACT OF ONE OR MORE OF THE
CONSPIRATORS TO EFFECT THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY.  PETTIBONE V.
UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 197; MARINO V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; TROUTMAN
V. UNITED STATES, 100 F.2D 628; BELAND V. UNITED STATES, 100 F.2D 289;
CF. GEBARDI V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THOSE HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE
CONSPIRACY ARE NOT CONSPIRATORS, UNITED STATES V. HIRSCH, 100 U.S. 33,
34; WENIGER V. UNITED STATES, 47 F.2D 692, 693; AND ONE WHO WITHOUT
MORE FURNISHES SUPPLIES TO AN ILLICIT DISTILLER IS NOT GUILTY OF
CONSPIRACY EVEN THOUGH HIS SALE MAY HAVE FURTHERED THE OBJECT OF A
CONSPIRACY TO WHICH THE DISTILLER WAS A PARTY BUT OF WHICH THE SUPPLIER
HAD NO KNOWLEDGE.  ON THIS RECORD WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE ANY
OTHER QUESTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TWO FALCONES WHO WERE IN BUSINESS AS SUGAR JOBBERS WERE
SHOWN TO HAVE SOLD SUGAR TO THREE WHOLESALE GROCERS WHO IN TURN WERE
SHOWN TO HAVE SOLD SOME OF THE SUGAR TO DISTILLERS.  TO ESTABLISH
GUILTY KNOWLEDGE THE GOVERNMENT RELIES UPON EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE
VOLUME OF THEIR SALES WAS MATERIALLY LARGER DURING THE PERIODS OF
ACTIVITY OF THE ILLICIT STILLS; THAT JOSEPH FALCONE WAS SHOWN ON TWO
OCCASIONS, AT ONE OF WHICH SALVATORE FALCONE WAS PRESENT, TO HAVE BEEN
IN CONVERSATION WITH ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS WHO WAS A DISTILLER, AND
ON ONE OCCASION WITH ANOTHER DISTILLER CONSPIRATOR WHO WAS HIS BROTHER
IN-LAW; THAT JOSEPH FALCONE HAD BEEN SEEN AT THE VENEZIA RESTAURANT
WHICH WAS PATRONIZED BY SOME OF THE CONSPIRATORS AND KNEW ITS
PROPRIETOR; AND ON TWO OCCASIONS SALVATORE FALCONE HAD VISITED THE
RESTAURANT, ON ONE TO COLLECT FUNDS FOR THE RED CROSS AND ON ANOTHER
FOR A MONUMENT TO MARCONI. 

RESPONDENT ALBERICO WAS A MEMBER OF A FIRM OF WHOLESALE GROCERS WHO
DEALT IN SUGAR AND FIVE-GALLON TIN CANS AMONG OTHER THINGS.  THEY SOLD
SUGAR TO WHOLESALE GROCERS AND JOBBERS.  TO ESTABLISH ALBERICO'S GUILTY
KNOWLEDGE THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON EVIDENCE THAT HIS TOTAL PURCHASES OF
SUGAR MATERIALLY INCREASED DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE ILLICIT STILLS
WERE SHOWN TO BE IN OPERATION; THAT SOME OF HIS SUGAR PURCHASES FROM A
LOCAL WHOLESALER WERE AT HIGHER PRICES THAN HE WAS THEN PAYING OTHERS;
THAT ON THE PREMISES OF ONE OF THE DISTILLERS THERE WERE FOUND FIFTY
FIVE CARDBOARD CARTONS, EACH SUITABLE FOR CONTAINING ONE DOZEN FIVE
GALLON CANS, ON ONE OF WHICH WAS STENCILLED THE NAME OF ALBERICO'S
FIRM; THAT ON EIGHT TO TEN OCCASIONS ALBERICO SOLD SUGAR AND CANS IN
UNNAMED AMOUNTS TO MORREALE, ONE OF THE DEFENDANT DISTILLERS WHO WAS
NOT CONVICTED, AND ON ONE OCCASION WAS OVERHEARD TO SAY, IN REFUSING
CREDIT TO MORREALE, "I COULD NOT TRUST YOU BECAUSE YOUR BUSINESS IS TOO
RISKY." 

RESPONDENT NICHOLAS NOLE WAS SHOWN TO BE PROPRIETOR OF ACME YEAST
COMPANY AND ALSO THE UTICA FREIGHT FORWARDING COMPANY, TO WHICH ONE AND
ONE-HALF TONS OF K & M YEAST WAS CONSIGNED BY THE SELLER.  WRAPPERS
BEARING THE DISTINCTIVE MARKS OF THE ACME YEAST COMPANY AND K & M
YEAST, QUANTITY NOT STATED WERE FOUND AT ONE OF THE STILLS; AND A K & M
YEAST CONTAINER WAS FOUND AT ANOTHER.  TO SHOW GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF
NICHOLAS NOLE THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HE
REGISTERED THE ACME YEAST COMPANY IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE IN THE
NAME OF A COUSIN; THAT THE ORDER FOR THE CONSIGNMENT OF K & M YEAST WAS
PLACED IN THE NAME OF AN UNIDENTIFIED PERSON; THAT NOLE HAD BEEN SEEN
IN CONVERSATION WITH SOME OF THE CONVICTED DISTILLERS AT A TIME WHEN
SOME OF THE ILLICIT STILLS WERE IN OPERATION, AND THAT ON ONE OCCASION
DURING THAT PERIOD HE SOLD AND DELIVERED FIFTEEN FIVE-GALLON CANS OF
ILLICIT ALCOHOL FROM A SOURCE NOT STATED. 

RESPONDENT JOHN NOLE WAS SHOWN TO BE A DISTRIBUTOR FOR THE NATIONAL
GRAIN YEAST COMPANY IN UTICA DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION.  YEAST
WRAPPERS BEARING THE NATIONAL LABELS WERE FOUND AT THREE OF THE
STILLS.  TO SHOW GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF JOHN NOLE THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON
EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD ASSISTED HIS BROTHER NICHOLAS IN UNLOADING YEAST
AT THE UTICA FREIGHT FORWARDING CO.; THAT HE WAS A PATRON OF THE
VENEZIA RESTAURANT; THAT ON ONE OCCASION HE WAS SEEN TALKING WITH
MORREALE, THE UNCONVICTED DISTILLER, IN THE VICINITY OF A STORE IN
UTICA, WHOSE STORE IT DOES NOT APPEAR.  ON THREE OCCASIONS MORREALE AND
ANOTHER CONVICTED DEFENDANT PROCURED YEAST IN CARTONS AND SOME IN KEGS
AT THE STORE AND ON ONE OCCASION JOHN NOLE TOLD THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF
THE STORE TO LET THEM HAVE THE YEAST; THAT JOHN NOLES' INFORMATION
RETURN REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ALL SALES OF YEAST IN EXCESS OF
FIVE POUNDS TO ONE PERSON DID NOT SHOW IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH, 1938, ANY
SALE OF YEAST TO MORREALE OR ANY SALE OF KEG YEAST. 
..END :
















SCHRIBER CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO., 311 U.S. 211 


NO. 9.  ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 25, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  - 108
F.2D 109, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CLAIMS OF A PATENT ARE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
SPECIFICATIONS, BUT WITH REFERENCE ALSO TO ITS FILE-WRAPPER HISTORY. 
P. 217. 

2.  IT IS A RULE OF PATENT CONSTRUCTION THAT A CLAIM IN A PATENT MUST
BE READ AND INTERPRETED WITH REFERENCE TO CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN
CANCELLED OR REJECTED AND THE CLAIMS ALLOWED CAN NOT BY CONSTRUCTION BE
READ TO COVER WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE PATENT.  P. 220. 

3.  WHILE THIS RULE IS MOST FREQUENTLY INVOKED WHEN THE ORIGINAL AND
CANCELLED CLAIM IS BROADER THAN THAT ALLOWED, THE RULE AND THE REASON
FOR IT ARE THE SAME IF THE CANCELLED OR REJECTED CLAIM BE NARROWER.  P.
221. 

4.  THE PATENTEE MAY NOT, BY RESORT TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS,
GIVE TO AN ALLOWED CLAIM A SCOPE WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE HAD BUT FOR
AMENDMENTS, THE CANCELLATION OF WHICH AMOUNTS TO A DISCLAIMER.  P.
221. 

5.  THE PATENT TO JARDINE, NO. 1,763,523, (CLAIMS 1, 8, AND 11),
RELATING TO PISTONS FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, CLAIMS THE
COMBINATION OF A PISTON-HEAD, A DIVIDED SKIRT, AND WEBS CONNECTING THE
HEAD AND SKIRT PORTIONS AND SUPPORTING TWO WRIST-PIN BOSSES.  ASSUMING
THAT, WITH THE AID OF THE SPECIFICATION, THESE CLAIMS MIGHT BE
CONSTRUED TO CLAIM FLEXIBLE WEBS, DEVISED TO ACT IN COOPERATION WITH
THE OTHER ELEMENTS TO MAKE THE PISTON RESPOND TO PHYSICAL COMPRESSION
AND THERMAL EXPANSION, AS AN ELEMENT OF THE COMBINATION WHICH THEY DO
NOT CLAIM EXPRESSLY, SUCH CONSTRUCTION IS PRECLUDED BECAUSE THE
PATENTEE, BY AMENDMENTS WHILE HIS APPLICATION WAS PENDING, MADE
ADDITIONAL CLAIMS LIKE THOSE MENTIONED BUT SPECIFYING FLEXIBLE WEBS,
AND THEREAFTER WITHDREW THEM, UPON THEIR BEING REJECTED IN INTERFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 215, 222. 

SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 10, ABERDEEN MOTOR SUPPLY CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST
CO. ET AL., AND NO. 11, F.E. ROWE SALES CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO. ET
AL., ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 648, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.  THE CHRYSLER CORPORATION WAS JOINED AS
A PARTY PLAINTIFF IN THE ORIGINAL SUITS AND IS A NOMINAL RESPONDENT
HERE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 648, TO REVIEW A DECREE SUSTAINING A PATENT IN
SUITS TO RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT* . 

*THE OPINION APPEARS HERE AS AMENDED BY AN ORDER OF FEBRUARY 3, 1941,
REPORTED IN 312 U.S. 

DECISION IN THESE CASES TURNS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER, IN THE LIGHT
OF THE PATENT OFFICE HISTORY OF THE JARDINE PATENT ON A PISTON FOR GAS
ENGINES, THE COURT BELOW, IN CONSTRUING THE SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS,
ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED ONE ELEMENT, "FLEXIBLE" OR "YIELDING" WEBS, IN THE
PATENTED COMBINATION. 

A RELATED QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN CONNECTION WITH
THE GULICK AND MAYNARD PATENTS, ALSO INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION, IN
SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO., 305 U.S. 47.  RESPONDENT,
THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY, IS THE ASSIGNEE IN TRUST UNDER A POOLING
AGREEMENT OF SOME EIGHTY PATENTS RELATING TO PISTONS FOR GAS ENGINES. 
IT BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN OHIO AGAINST
PETITIONERS, THREE PISTON DEALERS, CUSTOMERS OF THE STERLING PRODUCTS
COMPANY, TO RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENT OF FIVE OF THE PATENTS, INCLUDING THE
GULICK PATENT NO. 1,815,733, APPLIED FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1917 AND ALLOWED
JULY 31, 1931, THE JARDINE PATENT NO. 1,763,523, APPLIED FOR MARCH 11,
1920 AND ALLOWED JUNE 10, 1930, AND THE MAYNARD PATENT NO. 1,655,968,
APPLIED FOR JANUARY 3, 1921 AND ALLOWED JUNE 10, 1928. 

THE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED AND TRIED BEFORE A SPECIAL MASTER WHO,
UPON THE BASIS OF ELABORATE SPECIAL FINDINGS, CONCLUDED THAT THE GULICK
PATENT WAS INVALID BECAUSE OF WANT OF INVENTION AND BECAUSE OF THE
ADDITION TO THE APPLICATION BY AMENDMENT IN 1922 OF A NEW ELEMENT OF
THE ALLEGED INVENTION; THAT THE MAYNARD PATENT WAS INVALID FOR WANT OF
INVENTION AND FOR FAILURE TO DESCRIBE AND CLAIM THE ALLEGED INVENTION,
AND THAT THE JARDINE PATENT WAS INVALID AS NOT SHOWING INVENTION OVER
THE PRIOR ART EXHIBITED BY RICARDO, FRANQUIST AND LONG.  HE HELD THE
OTHER PATENTS INVALID FOR REASONS NOT NOW MATERIAL. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ADOPTED THE MASTER'S FINDINGS AND GAVE ITS DECREE
FOR PETITIONERS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AS TO TWO OF THE FIVE
PATENTS, HOLDING THE GULICK AND MAYNARD PATENTS VALID AND INFRINGED. 
92 F.2D 330.  THE ELEMENTS OF THE COMBINATION AS STATED IN CLAIM 39, OF
THE GULICK PATENT, ARE: 

"A PISTON FOR AN ENGINE CYLINDER COMPRISING A SKIRT, A HEAD SEPARATED
FROM THE SKIRT WALL AROUND ITS ENTIRE PERIPHERY, SAID SKIRT BEING
LONGITUDINALLY SPLIT TO RENDER THE SKIRT WALL YIELDABLE ON EVERY
DIAMETER IN RESPONSE TO CYLINDER WALL PRESSURE, WRIST PIN BOSSES, AND
MEANS RIGIDLY CONNECTING SAID BOSSES TO THE HEAD AND YIELDINGLY
CONNECTING SAID BOSSES TO THE SKIRT WHEREBY SAID SKIRT IS YIELDABLE IN
RESPONSE TO CYLINDER WALL PRESSURE." 

REFERENCE TO A COMBINATION, INCLUDING WITH OTHER ELEMENTS WEB
CONNECTIONS "WHEREBY SAID PISTON SKIRT IS RENDERED YIELDABLE DURING
OPERATION IN RESPONSE TO CYLINDER WALL PRESSURE" APPEARS IN NUMBER 18,
ONE OF THE SUSTAINED CLAIMS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND INVENTION IN BOTH THE GULICK AND MAYNARD
PATENTS, IN A COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS OF WHICH ONE WAS "WEBS LATERALLY
FLEXIBLE," WHICH WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED OR CLAIMED IN THE
GULICK PATENT BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT OF 1922 AND WAS NEVER SO DESCRIBED
OR CLAIMED IN THE MAYNARD PATENT. 

CONCEDING THAT OTHER ELEMENTS IN THE COMBINATIONS WERE OLD IN THE
PISTON ART IT SAID:  "BUT TO COMBINE INSULATION OF HEAD FROM SKIRT,
RETRACTION OF THE BOSSES FROM THE SKIRT PERIPHERY, CONNECTION OF SUCH
BOSSES TO THE SKIRT WITH WEBS LATERALLY FLEXIBLE AND YET SO CARRIED
FROM THE HEAD AS TO SUPPORT THE LOAD UPON THE WRIST PIN WITH SUFFICIENT
STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY, AND TO UTILIZE THE MECHANICAL FORCE OF THE
CYLINDER WALL UPON THE SKIRT AND THE THERMAL EXPANSION OF THE BOSSES SO
AS TO COMPENSATE EVENLY AND FULLY FOR HEAD EXPANSION AND TO SECURE A
BALANCED FLEXIBILITY OF THE SKIRT WITH NO BENDING CONCENTRATION AT ANY
POINT THEREIN, DISCLOSES, WE THINK, A MERITORIOUS CONCEPT BEYOND THE
REACH OF THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART."  92 F.2D AT 334. 

UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE GULICK APPLICATION BEFORE AMENDMENT AND
THE MAYNARD PATENT WE CONCLUDED, 305 U.S. 47, THAT NEITHER DESCRIBED OR
CLAIMED FLEXIBLE OR YIELDABLE WEBS AS AN ELEMENT IN THE PATENTED
INVENTIONS.  FOR THAT REASON ALONE WE HELD THAT, IF THE FLEXIBLE WEB
CONSTITUTED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE INVENTIONS, BOTH PATENTS FAILED
TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE THAT THE PATENTEE DESCRIBE
HIS INVENTION SO THAT OTHERS MAY CONSTRUCT AND USE IT AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PATENT AND THAT IT "INFORM THE PUBLIC DURING THE LIFE
OF THE PATENT OF THE LIMITS OF THE MONOPOLY ASSERTED, SO THAT IT MAY BE
KNOWN WHICH FEATURES MAY BE SAFELY USED OR MANUFACTURED WITHOUT A
LICENSE AND WHICH MAY NOT," PERMUTIT CO. V. GRAVER CORP., 284 U.S. 52,
60; THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE PATENT MONOPOLY DID NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE
INVENTION DESCRIBED AND EXPLAINED BY THE PATENT AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES
AND COULD NOT BE ENLARGED BY AMENDMENT SO AS TO EMBRACE IN THE
INVENTION AN ELEMENT NOT DESCRIBED OR CLAIMED IN THE APPLICATION AS
FILED, AT LEAST WHEN ADVERSE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC HAD INTERVENED.  SEE
SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO., SUPRA, 57. 

UPON THE REMAND THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD IN THE PRESENT SUIT,
SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO., 108 F.2D 109, THAT THE
ELEMENTS OF THE COMBINATION DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED IN THE GULICK PATENT
BEFORE AMENDMENT AND IN THE MAYNARD PATENT WITHOUT INCLUDING THE
FLEXIBLE WEB ELEMENT WHICH WAS ADDED ONLY BY AMENDMENT TO THE GULICK
PATENT, DID NOT DISCLOSE INVENTION OVER THE PRIOR ART. BUT CONSIDERING
THAT THE FLEXIBLE WEB ELEMENT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
COMBINATION PATENTED BY GULICK AND MAYNARD HAD BEEN DESCRIBED AND
CLAIMED IN THE JARDINE PATENT, IT RECALLED ITS MANDATE TO THE DISTRICT
COURT BY WHICH IT HAD DIRECTED DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE SUIT
BROUGHT ON THAT PATENT.  SEE SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST
CO., SUPRA, 112, 113.  UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE JARDINE
SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS IT FOUND THERE DESCRIBED AND CLAIMED THE
INVENTION WHICH IT HAD PREVIOUSLY FOUND IN GULICK AND MAYNARD, BUT
WHICH THIS COURT HAD FOUND THE PATENTEES HAD FAILED TO DESCRIBE AND
CLAIM IN THEIR APPLICATIONS. 

THE JARDINE CLAIMS, 1, 8 AND 11, WHICH IT SUSTAINED, RECITE THE WEBS
AS AN ELEMENT BUT DO NOT DESCRIBE THEM AS FLEXIBLE OR POINT TO
FLEXIBILITY AS AN ELEMENT IN THE INVENTION CLAIMED.  BUT IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PATENT, WHICH SO FAR AS NOW MATERIAL APPEARED IN
JARDINE'S APPLICATION DESCRIBING THE INVENTION, HE MAKES SPECIFIC
REFERENCE TO THE WEBS CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH PROPORTIONS AS TO ENABLE THEM
TO "BEND" IN RESPONSE TO THE REACTION FORCE OF THE CYLINDER WALL ON THE
OUTER FACES OF THE GUIDE SEGMENTS AS THE PISTON EXPANDS, AND TO THE
COOPERATION OF THE "BENDING" WEB WITH THE THERMAL EXPANSION OF THE
GUIDE PART OF THE PISTON WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN ITS OUTER
DIAMETER.  FN1  HE EXPLAINED THE PRINCIPLE OF HIS DEVICE SAYING, "I
HAVE FOUND THAT THESE DIFFICULTIES CAN BE OVERCOME BY CONSTRUCTING A
PISTON WITH ITS SKIRT OR GUIDE PORTION SUPPORTED AND SLOTTED OR DIVIDED
IN A MANNER TO PERMIT DEFORMATION AND DEFLECTION OF PARTS THEREOF
WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF
THE RESPECTIVE PARTS." 

READING SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS TOGETHER, THE COURT OF APPEALS
INTERPRETED THE LATTER AS INCORPORATING THE ELEMENT OF WEB FLEXIBILITY
IN THE COMBINATION CLAIMED AND CONCLUDED THAT JARDINE HAD EXPLAINED AND
CLAIMED "THE PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION OF HIS MACHINE AND THE FLEXIBILITY
OF ITS WEBS."  IT SAID THAT "THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WAS NOT GULICK'S OR WAS
BY HIM CONCEALED IS CLEAR TO JARDINE AND BY HIM PROCLAIMED."  IT HELD
THE JARDINE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED AS IT HAD FOUND GULICK INFRINGED
IN ITS EARLIER DECISION. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 648, ON A PETITION WHICH RAISED,
AMONG OTHERS, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD
MISINTERPRETED OR UNDULY LIMITED THIS COURT'S EARLIER DECISION IN THIS
CASE AND ITS DECISION IN PERMUTIT CO. V. GRAVER CORP., SUPRA, BY
REFUSING TO HOLD A PATENT INVALID WHERE A FEATURE FOUND TO BE AN
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE PATENTED COMBINATION WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE
CLAIMS OF THE PATENT AND WAS IN FACT SURRENDERED DURING THE PROSECUTION
OF THE APPLICATION AND AFTER ADVERSE DECISIONS IN INTERFERENCES.  FN2 

THE CLAIMS OF A PATENT ARE ALWAYS TO BE READ OR INTERPRETED IN THE
LIGHT OF ITS SPECIFICATIONS, HOGG V. EMERSON, 11 HOW.  587; CARNEGIE
STEEL CO. V. CAMBRIA IRON CO., 185 U.S. 403; SMITH V. SNOW, 294 U.S. 1;
AND WE MAY ASSUME THAT IF IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SPECIFICATIONS AND
CLAIMS OF THE PATENT WERE TO BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS
FILE WRAPPER HISTORY, THE WEBS REFERRED TO IN THE CLAIMS ARE THE WEBS
DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AS CAPABLE OF BENDING IN COOPERATION
WITH THE SLOTTED PISTON GUIDES OR SKIRTS SO AS TO COMPENSATE FOR
THERMAL EXPANSION AND SO SUPPLY THE ELEMENT OF WEBS LATERALLY FLEXIBLE
WHICH WAS WANTING TO GULICK AND TO MAYNARD.  BUT THE PARTICULAR
INVENTION TO WHICH THE PATENTEE HAS MADE CLAIM IN CONFORMITY TO THE
STATUTE IS NOT ALWAYS TO BE ASCERTAINED FROM AN INSPECTION OF THE
SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS OF THE PATENT ALONE.  WHERE THE PATENTEE IN
THE COURSE OF HIS APPLICATION IN THE PATENT OFFICE HAS, BY AMENDMENT,
CANCELLED OR SURRENDERED CLAIMS, THOSE WHICH ARE ALLOWED ARE TO BE READ
IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE ABANDONED AND AN ABANDONED CLAIM CANNOT BE
REVIVED AND RESTORED TO THE PATENT BY READING IT BY CONSTRUCTION INTO
THE CLAIMS WHICH ARE ALLOWED.  HENCE, PETITIONERS ARGUE, THE EFFECT TO
BE GIVEN TO THE OMISSION FROM THE JARDINE CLAIMS OF ANY REFERENCE TO
THE FLEXIBLE WEB FEATURE, WHICH THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT DISTINGUISHED
HIS ALLEGED INVENTION FROM THAT OF THE GULICK AND MAYNARD PATENTS,
CANNOT RIGHTLY BE DETERMINED WITHOUT SOME EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIMS
POINTING TO FLEXIBLE WEBS AS A FEATURE OF HIS INVENTION, WHICH JARDINE
ADDED TO HIS APPLICATION BY AMENDMENT AND LATER SURRENDERED AS A RESULT
OF INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PATENT OFFICE. 

THE JARDINE PATENT WAS DESCRIBED AS OF THE SLIPPER TYPE OF PISTON
ALTHOUGH NOT LIMITED TO THAT TYPE, THE SKIRT CONSISTING OF TWO
SEPARATED PARTS CIRCUMFERENTIALLY SEPARATED FROM THE PISTON HEAD,
SUPPORTED BY THE WEBS WHICH CONNECT THE SKIRT OR SLIPPERS WITH THE
PISTON HEAD AND SUPPORT WRIST PIN BOSSES FROM WHICH THE SKIRT IS
RETRACTED OR CUT AWAY.  THE CLAIMS OF THE JARDINE APPLICATION AS FILED
OR LATER AMENDED AND ULTIMATELY ALLOWED MADE NO REFERENCE TO THE WEBS
AS FLEXIBLE, YIELDING, OR RESILIENT, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND,
WHEN COOPERATING WITH OTHER STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, TO BE A DISTINGUISHING
FEATURE OF JARDINE'S INVENTION.  CLAIM 8 OF THE JARDINE PATENT, WHICH
IS TYPICAL OF THE THREE WHICH THE COURT BELOW SUSTAINED, READS: 

"IN A PISTON FOR AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE, THE COMBINATION OF A
HEAD HAVING A CYLINDRICAL RING FLANGE, OPPOSITELY DISCLOSED WEBS
INTEGRAL WITH THE FLANGE AND CARRYING DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE PISTON PIN
BOSSES, A SKIRT INTEGRAL WITH SAID WEBS AND CUT AWAY TO EXPOSE THE
SIDES OF SAID WEBS AND SEPARATED FROM THE RING FLANGE BY
CIRCUMFERENTIAL SLITS AND PROVIDED WITH A LONGITUDINAL SLIT DISPOSED
BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE WEBS." 

CLAIMS 5 AND 6 REFER TO THE "SKIRT PORTION CUT AWAY FROM THE HEAD TO
EXPOSE THE BOSSES." 

WHILE THE APPLICATION WAS PENDING JARDINE AMENDED HIS CLAIMS SO AS TO
SUPPLY THIS OMISSION.  IN VARIOUS FORMS HE CLAIMED THE PISTON HEAD,
SKIRT AND WEB COMBINATION WITH PISTON HEAD SEPARATED AT ITS FLANGE OR
PERIPHERY FROM THE SKIRT, THE SKIRT SLOTTED OR SEPARATED INTO PARTS AND
CONNECTED WITH THE HEAD BY THE WEBS, VARIOUSLY DESCRIBED AS "YIELDING
RIBS," "RESILIENT ARMS," "SKIRT CARRIERS  ...  SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING
SLIGHTLY FLEXED RADIALLY" OR AS "JOINING MEANS BEING RESILIENTLY
YIELDABLE," OR AS "MEANS FOR YIELDINGLY CONNECTING THE SAID SKIRT
INTO INTERFERENCE WITH HARTOG, NO. 1,842,022, APPLIED FOR FEBRUARY 16,
1920, ALLOWED JANUARY 19, 1932, AND IN SOME INSTANCES WITH GULICK AND
WITH LONG, NO. 1,872,772, APPLIED FOR MARCH 7, 1919, ALLOWED AUGUST 23,
1932, WERE REJECTED BY THE PATENT OFFICE.  JARDINE THEN WITHDREW ALL OF
THESE AMENDMENTS.  OF THESE AMENDED AND CANCELLED CLAIMS, CLAIM 18(19
E) IS TYPICAL.  IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN A PISTON OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED, A CUP-LIKE HEAD COMPRISING A
PRESSURE RECEIVING END AND A WALL PORTION, A SKIRT CIRCUMFERENTIALLY
DISCONNECTED FROM THE WALL PORTION OF THE HEAD AND DIVIDED FROM END TO
END, AND SKIRT CARRIERS CONNECTING SAID SKIRT TO THE PRESSURE RECEIVING
END, SAID SKIRT CARRIERS BEING DISCONNECTED FROM THE WALL PORTION OF
THE HEAD AND SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING SLIGHTLY FLEXED RADIALLY."    UPON
COMPARISON OF THE WITHDRAWN CLAIM WITH CLAIM 8 OF THE PATENT AS ALLOWED
IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT BOTH ARE COMBINATION CLAIMS FOR A PISTON
HAVING A HEAD, A DIVIDED OR SLOTTED SKIRT DISCONNECTED FROM THE WALL
PORTION OF THE HEAD AND CONNECTED WITH THE HEAD BY RIBS, WEBS OR SKIRT
CARRIERS.  THE ONLY MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID
TO BE THE INVENTION IS THE STATEMENT IN THE WITHDRAWN CLAIMS THAT THE
SKIRT CARRIERS (WEBS) ARE "SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING SLIGHTLY FLEXED
RADIALLY" OR THE LIKE.  WHATEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIMS AS ALLOWED, READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
SPECIFICATIONS ALONE, THERE BEING NO AMENDMENTS, THE QUESTION NOW
PRESENTED IS WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS AND THEIR WITHDRAWAL THE
PATENT CAN RIGHTLY BE CONSTRUED AS INCLUDING THE FLEXIBLE WEBS IN THE
CLAIM ALLOWED. 

IN ADDITION TO THE FACT OF THE CANCELLATION OF THE ONLY CLAIMS
SPECIFYING FLEXING WEBS OR THEIR EQUIVALENTS AS A FEATURE OF THE
INVENTION, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT AT NO TIME DURING THE PROSECUTION OF
THE JARDINE APPLICATION DID HE URGE THAT HE WAS THE INVENTOR OF A
PISTON HAVING FLEXIBLE WEBS.  BEFORE THE INTERFERENCES AND IN
DISTINGUISHING HIS INVENTION FROM THE RICARDO PISTON, JARDINE URGED AS
HIS ONLY ADVANCE OVER RICARDO THE ADDITION OF THE SLOTTED SKIRT WHICH
"CHANGES THE STRUCTURE AND THE RESISTANCE TO A DISPOSAL OF THE FORCES
WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE PISTON WHEN THE PISTON IS IN USE," ALTHOUGH IN
THIS LITIGATION IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE RICARDO PATENT DID NOT
DISCLOSE FLEXING WEBS.  IN SUBMITTING THE FINAL AMENDMENT CANCELLING
THE FLEXIBLE WEB CLAIMS IN INTERFERENCE AND PRESENTING THE CLAIMS 8 AND
11 OF THE JARDINE PATENT HELD VALID BY THE COURT BELOW, THERE IS NO
MENTION OF FLEXING WEBS, THE FEATURES STRESSED BEING IN THE CASE OF
CLAIM 8 THAT THE WEBS ARE INTEGRAL WITH THE RING FLANGE AND IN THE CASE
OF CLAIM 11 THAT THE WEBS ARE INTEGRAL WITH THE FLANGE AND EXTEND
"CONVERGINGLY INWARDLY" THEREFROM. 

IT IS A RULE OF PATENT CONSTRUCTION CONSISTENTLY OBSERVED THAT A
CLAIM IN A PATENT AS ALLOWED MUST BE READ AND INTERPRETED WITH
REFERENCE TO CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN CANCELLED OR REJECTED, AND THE
CLAIMS ALLOWED CANNOT BY CONSTRUCTION BE READ TO COVER WHAT WAS THUS
ELIMINATED FROM THE PATENT.  SHEPARD V. CARRIGAN, 116 U.S. 593; SUTTER
V. ROBINSON, 119 U.S. 530; ROEMER V. PEDDIE, 132 U.S. 313; PHOENIX
CASTER CO. V. SPIEGEL, 133 U.S. 360; HUBBELL V. UNITED STATES, 179 U.S.
77; WEBER ELECTRIC CO. V. E.H. FREEMAN ELECTRIC CO., 256 U.S. 668;
I.T.S. RUBBER CO. V. ESSEX RUBBER CO., 272 U.S. 429, 443.  THE PATENTEE
MAY NOT, BY RESORT TO THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS, GIVE TO AN ALLOWED
CLAIM A SCOPE WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE HAD WITHOUT THE AMENDMENTS, THE
CANCELLATION OF WHICH AMOUNTS TO A DISCLAIMER.  SMITH V. MAGIC CITY
CLUB, 282 U.S. 784, 790; WEBER ELECTRIC CO. V. E.H. FREEMAN ELECTRIC
CO., SUPRA, 677, 678; I.T.S. RUBBER CO. V. ESSEX RUBBER CO., SUPRA,
444.  THE INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES TO THE PUBLIC AND TO INVENTORS AND
PATENT APPLICANTS IF PATENTEES WERE THUS PERMITTED TO REVIVE CANCELLED
OR REJECTED CLAIMS AND RESTORE THEM TO THEIR PATENTS ARE MANIFEST.  SEE
LEGGETT V. AVERY, 101 U.S. 256, 259. 

TRUE, THE RULE IS MOST FREQUENTLY INVOKED WHEN THE ORIGINAL AND
CANCELLED CLAIM IS BROADER THAN THAT ALLOWED, BUT THE RULE AND THE
REASON FOR IT ARE THE SAME IF THE CANCELLED OR REJECTED CLAIM BE
NARROWER.  MORGAN ENVELOPE CO. V. ALBANY PAPER CO., 152 U.S. 425, 429;
WM. B. SCAIFE & SONS CO. V. FALLS CITY WOOLEN MILLS, 209 F. 210, 213;
SEE COMPUTING SCALE CO. V. AUTOMATIC SCALE CO., 204 U.S. 609, 620, 621;
CF. IN CASE OF DISCLAIMER ALTOONA PUBLIX THEATRES, INC. V. TRI-ERGON
CORP., 294 U.S. 477, 492, 493. 

IN VIEW OF THE PRIOR ART WHICH PRECLUDED, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD,
INVENTION IN GULICK AND MAYNARD, ABSENT THE FLEXIBLE WEBS, AND IN
JARDINE WITHOUT THE INCLUSION OF THE SURRENDERED FLEXIBLE WEB FEATURE
IN THE PATENTED COMBINATION, IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHY THE PATENT OFFICE
ALLOWED THE BROAD CLAIMS AFTER REJECTING THE NARROWER ONES.  BUT IN ANY
CASE THE PATENTEE, HAVING ACQUIESCED IN THEIR REJECTION, IS NO LONGER
FREE TO GAIN THE SUPPOSED ADVANTAGE OF THE REJECTED CLAIMS BY A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ALLOWED CLAIMS AS EQUIVALENT TO THEM.  MORGAN
ENVELOPE CO. V. ALBANY PAPER CO., SUPRA. 

THE APPLICATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT
FORECLOSED AS RESPONDENT SUGGESTS BECAUSE THE COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS
SURRENDERED DIFFERS FROM THE COMBINATION WHICH THE COURT BELOW FOUND TO
BE PRESERVED IN THE ALLOWED CLAIMS AND IN WHICH IT FOUND INVENTION. 
THE COMBINATION WHICH IT FOUND TO BE PRESERVED IN JARDINE'S CLAIMS WAS
"A COMBINATION WITH BALANCED SKIRT FLEXIBILITY DUE TO CO-OPERATION OF
LONGITUDINAL AND VERTICAL SLOTTING WITH FLEXING WEBS SUPPORTING
RETRACTED BOSSES AND CONNECTED TO A SKIRT THEREBY MADE RESPONSIVE TO
PHYSICAL COMPRESSION AND THERMAL EXPANSION SO AS TO PERMIT OF MINUTE
CLEARANCES BETWEEN PISTON AND CYLINDER, A CONCEPT PERCEIVED IN GULICK
AS AMENDED AND MINUS AMENDMENT NO LONGER PERCEIVED."  108 F.2D 114. 

BUT THE AMENDED AND CANCELLED CLAIMS ARE TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF
THE SPECIFICATIONS.  SO READ, CANCELLED CLAIM 18(19 E), ALREADY QUOTED,
CLAIMS A PISTON "OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED" AND EMBRACES THE COMBINATION
IN WHICH THE COURT BELOW FOUND INVENTION, LONGITUDINAL AND VERTICAL
SLOTTING, FLEXING WEBS SUPPORTING "RETRACTED BOSSES" AND CONNECTED TO A
SKIRT THEREBY MADE RESPONSIVE TO PHYSICAL COMPRESSION AND THERMAL
EXPANSION.  TRUE THE AMENDED AND CANCELLED CLAIM AND ALLOWED CLAIMS 1,
8 AND 11 DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION RETRACTION OF THE SKIRT FROM THE
BOSSES.  NOR DID EITHER THE AMENDED CLAIMS OR THE ALLOWED CLAIMS
SPECIFY BALANCED SKIRT FLEXIBILITY DUE TO COOPERATION OF THE PARTS. 
FOR THEM RECOURSE MUST BE HAD TO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS IN
WHICH THE COURT BELOW FOUND THE ELEMENTS OF THE INVENTION WHICH IT
DESCRIBED BUT IN WHICH, ABSENT THE FLEXIBLE WEB ELEMENT, IT FOUND NO
INVENTION.  IN VIEW OF SUCH WANT OF INVENTION AND OF THE PRIOR ART, THE
ONLY MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMENDED AND THE ALLOWED CLAIMS IS
THE PRESENCE IN THE FORMER OF THE FLEXIBLE WEB ELEMENT AND, IN
CONSEQUENCE OF THE SURRENDER OF THE FORMER PARTICULARIZING THE FLEXIBLE
WEB FEATURE OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION, THE LATTER CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS
INCLUDING THAT FEATURE. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE PRIOR ART,
THE JARDINE PATENT DISCLOSED INVENTION IF THE FLEXIBLE WEB FEATURE HAD
NOT BEEN SURRENDERED.  WITHOUT IT THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT
JARDINE, LIKE GULICK AND MAYNARD, DISCLOSED NO INVENTION.  IT REJECTED
THE SCHMIEDEKNECHT PATENT, NO. 1,256,265, ONE OF THOSE IN SUIT, ON LIKE
GROUNDS, SAYING, "IT DISCLOSES NO WEB FLEXIBILITY CO-OPERATING WITH
OTHER ELEMENTS OF RESILIENCY TO ACHIEVE THE BALANCED FLEXIBILITY
PERCEIVED IN JARDINE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ALONE THE LATTER IS THOUGHT
TO BE VALID ...  "  WE ACCEPT THIS CONCLUSION AS SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR ART IN THE MASTER'S FINDINGS AND THE ONLY ONE
WHICH COULD BE REACHED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE DECISION BELOW WITH
RESPECT TO THE GULICK AND MAYNARD PATENTS WHICH STAND ADJUDGED AS
INVALID.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AN EXCERPT FROM THE JARDINE SPECIFICATIONS READS: 

"THE WEBS 6 AND GUIDE SEGMENTS PREFERABLY ARE SO DESIGNED THAT THIS
DISPLACEMENT OF THE SEGMENTS 10, 10A, IS PERMITTED BY VIRTUE OF A
BENDING OF THE WEBS 6 AT POINTS REMOTE FROM THE GUIDE SEGMENTS.  TO
THIS END, AS SHOWN IN FIG. 4, THE THICKNESS OF THE GUIDE SEGMENTS IS
INCREASED TOWARD THE WEBS 6 AND THE WEBS 6 ARE DECREASED IN THICKNESS
FROM THE GUIDE PORTIONS INWARD TOWARD THE BOSSES TO POINTS IN LINE WITH
THE INNER ENDS OF THE SLOTS 11A.  THIS GIVES IN EFFECT A CANTILEVER
STRUCTURE WEAKEST AT ITS SUPPORT,  ...  THUS THE REACTION FORCE OF THE
CYLINDER WALL ON THE OUTER FACES OF THE GUIDE SEGMENTS AS THE PISTON
EXPANDS TENDS TO CAUSE BENDING OF THE WEBS 6 ALONG SAID LINES 13.  DUE
TO THE BENDING OF THE WEB SECTIONS 6 AND THE FORCING TOGETHER OF EACH
PAIR OF SEGMENTS, THE GUIDE PART OF THE PISTON MAY UNDERGO A
CONSIDERABLE THERMAL EXPANSION WITHOUT A CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN THE
OUTER DIAMETER THEREOF AND THUS A SMALL INITIAL CLEARANCE CAN BE USED
WITHOUT DANGER OF SCORING OR SEIZURE OF THE PISTON." 

FN2  A QUESTION RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS WHETHER
RESPONDENT COULD PROSECUTE ITS SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IN THE ABSENCE, AS A
PARTY, OF THE LICENSEE TO WHOM RESPONDENT HAD GRANTED THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE, UNDER THE PATENTS IN QUESTION, ALUMINUM PISTONS,
THE ONLY FIELD IN WHICH CONCEDEDLY THE PATENT HAS PRESENT PRACTICAL
UTILITY.  THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND AGAINST PETITIONERS ON THIS POINT
AND NO EXCEPTIONS WERE TAKEN TO HIS FINDING, NOR WAS THE POINT ARGUED
WHEN THE CASE WAS FIRST BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THIS
COURT.  THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE
RIGHT OF RESPONDENTS TO AN INJUNCTION WAS NO LONGER AN ISSUE.  WE DO
NOT HERE PASS ON THE QUESTION SINCE WE FIND THAT, IN ANY CASE, FOR
REASONS APPEARING IN THE OPINION, NO INJUNCTION SHOULD ISSUE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :












WEST V. A.T. & T. CO., 311 U.S. 223 


NOS. 44 AND 45.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940. 
- 108 F.2D 347, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF IN PROTECTION OF
LEGAL RIGHTS GROWING OUT OF AN UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF STOCK BY A
CORPORATION, THE STATE LAWS DEFINING THOSE RIGHTS ARE THE RULES OF
DECISION.  P. 236. 

2.  A RULE ANNOUNCED AND APPLIED BY STATE COURTS AS THE LAW OF THE
STATE, THOUGH NOT PASSED ON BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT, MAY NOT BE
REJECTED BY A FEDERAL COURT BECAUSE IT THINKS THAT THE RULE IS UNSOUND
IN PRINCIPLE OR THAT ANOTHER IS PREFERABLE.  P. 236. 

3.  IN DECIDING LOCAL QUESTIONS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COURT
TO ASCERTAIN FROM ALL AVAILABLE DATA WHAT THE STATE LAW IS AND APPLY
IT, HOWEVER SUPERIOR A DIFFERENT RULE MAY APPEAR FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF
GENERAL LAW AND HOWEVER MUCH THE STATE RULE MAY HAVE DEPARTED FROM
PRIOR DECISIONS OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 237. 

4. WHERE AN INTERMEDIATE STATE APPELLATE COURT RESTS ITS CONSIDERED
JUDGMENT UPON THE RULE OF LAW WHICH IT ANNOUNCES, THAT IS A DATUM FOR
ASCERTAINING STATE LAW WHICH IS NOT TO BE DISREGARDED BY A FEDERAL
COURT UNLESS IT IS CONVINCED BY OTHER PERSUASIVE DATA THAT THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE WOULD DECIDE OTHERWISE.  P. 237. 

THIS IS THE MORE SO WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE HIGHEST STATE COURT
HAS REFUSED TO REVIEW THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION, RENDERED IN ONE PHASE
OF THE VERY LITIGATION WHICH IS BEING PROSECUTED BY THE SAME PARTIES
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT. 

5.  THE OHIO COUNTY COURT OF APPEALS, BY A JUDGMENT WHICH THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE DECLINED TO REVIEW, DECIDED THAT AN ACTION AGAINST A
CORPORATION FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS ISSUE OF A CERTIFICATE FOR
SHARES OF ITS STOCK IN THE NAME OF ONE WHO WAS A LIFE TENANT OF THE
STOCK, WITHOUT DISCLOSING ON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE THAT THE
STOCKHOLDER WAS A LIFE TENANT OR THE INTEREST OF THE REMAINDERMEN,
FOLLOWED BY A WRONGFUL TRANSFER OF THE STOCK TO A THIRD PERSON, WAS
PREMATURE BECAUSE NO DEMAND HAD BEEN MADE ON THE CORPORATION TO
REINSTATE THE PLAINTIFFS' RIGHTS IN THE STOCK AND BECAUSE THE
CORPORATION HAD NOT REFUSED THIS IN ADVANCE OF THE SUIT.  IN A SECOND
SUIT BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AFTER A SUFFICIENT DEMAND HAD BEEN
MADE, IN WHICH THE SAME PLAINTIFFS SOUGHT EQUITABLE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
FROM THE SAME CORPORATION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, DECLINING TO
FOLLOW THE RULING OF THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS, HELD THAT A DEMAND WAS
NOT ESSENTIAL - THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED WHEN THE STOCK WAS
ISSUED TO THE LIFE TENANT AND, COUNTING FROM THAT TIME, WAS BARRED BY A
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, OR LACHES.  HELD: 

(1)  NO REASON APPEARS FOR SUPPOSING THAT, IF THE SECOND SUIT HAD
BEEN BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT, THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS WOULD DEPART
FROM ITS PREVIOUS RULING OR THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE WOULD
GRANT THE REVIEW WHICH IT WITHHELD BEFORE.  P. 238. 

(2)  THE LAW THUS ANNOUNCED AND APPLIED BY THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS
IS THE LAW OF THE STATE, APPLICABLE TO A CASE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES
IN THE FEDERAL COURT, AND THE FEDERAL COURT IS NOT FREE TO APPLY A
DIFFERENT RULE, HOWEVER DESIRABLE IT MAY BELIEVE IT TO BE, AND EVEN
THOUGH IT MAY THINK THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT MAY ESTABLISH A
DIFFERENT RULE IN SOME FUTURE LITIGATION.  P. 238. 

(3)  SINCE THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE OHIO LAW DID NOT ARISE UNTIL
DEMAND, WHICH WAS EITHER WHEN THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURT
OR WHEN THE FORMAL DEMAND WAS MADE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT
BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL ONE OR THE OTHER OF THOSE DATES.  P. 238. 

(4)  NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SHOWN EFFECTIVE UNDER OHIO LAW TO
LIMIT THE TIME OF DEMAND OR SHORTEN THE STATUTORY PERIOD AFTER DEMAND;
THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT
ESTOPPED OR GUILTY OF LACHES WERE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND SHOULD NOT
BE DISTURBED.  P. 239. 

WEST ET AL. V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO. 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW A DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WHICH (UPON SEPARATE APPEALS BY THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT
HERE, BUT ON A SINGLE RECORD) REVERSED A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
REQUIRING THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO PROCURE SHARES OF ITS COMMON
STOCK TO BE HELD IN A TRUST DURING THE LIFE OF A DECEDENT'S WIDOW AND
TO BE ULTIMATELY DISTRIBUTED TO REMAINDERMEN, AS DIRECTED BY THE WILL. 
JURISDICTION WAS BY DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP. 

MR. H. L. DEIBEL, WITH WHOM MR. ORLIN F. GOUDY WAS ON THE BRIEF, FOR
PETITIONERS. 

THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT ON THE ISSUE OF DEMAND IS RES
JUDICATA IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS.  BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, 300 U.S. 5; DE SOLLAR V. HANSCOME, 158 U.S. 216;
FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS, 5TH ED., SECS. 745, 1465; NORTH CAROLINA R. CO.
V. STORY, 268 U.S. 288; MITCHELL V. BANK, 180 U.S. 471. 

THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT CREATES A RIGHT WHICH IS PROTECTED BY
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE LAW OF OHIO REQUIRES DEMAND, AND THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE BOUND BY
THE LAW OF THE STATE, STATUTORY OR COMMON LAW, IN DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP CASES.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64; RUHLIN V. NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 202; ROSENTHAL V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.,
304 U.S. 263; LYON V. MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSN., 305 U.S. 484, 489; CITIES
SERVICE OIL CO. V. DUNLAP, 308 U.S. 208; MARTIN V. COBB, 110 F.2D 159,
163; ERIE R. CO. V. HILT, 247 U.S. 97; BURNS MORTGAGE CO. V. FRIED, 292
U.S. 487. 

FEDERAL COURTS ARE BOUND TO DECIDE A CASE AS THEY THINK THE STATE
COURTS WOULD DECIDE IT, AND NOT AS THEY THINK THE STATE COURTS SHOULD
DECIDE IT. 

IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY TO HAVE REGARD ONLY FOR THE ADJUDICATIONS OF
THE HIGHEST STATE COURT. 

IF IT BE THE CORRECT DOCTRINE THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGHEST COURT
ONLY ARE THE STATE LAW, THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS NEVERTHELESS ERRONEOUS,
BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HAS EXPRESSLY HELD DEMAND
PREREQUISITE IN ACTIONS BY SHAREHOLDERS OF CORPORATIONS FOR RECOGNITION
OF THEIR RIGHTS AND FOR MESNE DIVIDENDS.  STEVERDING V. CLEVELAND CO
OPERATIVE STOVE CO., 121 OHIO ST. 250. 

WHETHER THE PETITIONERS ARE REGARDED AS REMAINDERMEN, OR AS ABSOLUTE
OWNERS, THEY ARE SEEKING TO RESTORE THEIR RIGHTS IN THE SHARES, AND THE
PRINCIPLE OF THE STEVERDING CASE SHOULD BE APPLIED.  CF., CLEVELAND &
MAHONING R. CO. V. ROBBINS, 35 OHIO ST. 483. 

FAILURE OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO ORDER CERTIFICATION IS IN SOME
DEGREE AN APPROVAL OF THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS, AND
LENDS IT PARTIAL SANCTION, AND TO THIS EXTENT IS THE SUPREME COURT'S
PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE LAW. 

ONLY A FRACTION OF THE CASES LITIGATED IN THE OHIO NISI PRIUS COURTS
AND REVIEWED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, REACH THE SUPREME COURT.  THE
HIGHEST COURT HAS ABSOLUTE AND ARBITRARY DISCRETION IN RULING ON
MOTIONS TO CERTIFY; IT MAY CERTIFY IN ANY CASE, AND FROM ITS
CONCLUSIONS THERE IS NO APPEAL.  THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
THEREFORE ARE USUALLY FINAL.  THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THEY "SHALL BE
FINAL IN ALL CASES," WITH NAMED EXCEPTIONS. 

ALTHOUGH THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS CAN REVIEW ONLY THE CASES THAT ARE
TRIED IN THE LOWER COURTS OF ITS DISTRICT, AS PRESCRIBED BY
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, IT HAS STATE-WIDE JURISDICTION IN SOME CASES,
E.G. IN QUO WARRANTO. 

THE FACT IS THAT NO COURT IS BOUND BY ANY DECISION IN THE STATE OF
OHIO, WHETHER RENDERED BY A LOW COURT OR A HIGH COURT.  A NISI COURT
MAY WITH ENTIRE IMPUNITY DISREGARD AND OVERRULE THE JUDGMENTS OF EVEN
THE SUPREME COURT IN OTHER CASES.  AND OCCASIONALLY, ON FURTHER
EXAMINATION, THE SUPREME COURT CONCURS.  STARE DECISIS DOES NOT BIND A
COURT TO FOLLOW EVEN ITS OWN PRIOR DECISIONS.  THERE IS NO BINDING
FORCE IN THIS DOCTRINE EXCEPT THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIRES
CERTAINTY AND UNIFORMITY.  KEARNEY V. BUTTLES, 1 OHIO ST. 362, 366;
STATE V. YATES, 66 OHIO ST. 546. 

BUT THE DECISIONS OF THE OHIO COURTS OF APPEALS ARE OF IMPORTANCE IN
ALL THE COURTS OF THE STATE, AND DECLARE THE LAW OF OHIO, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ADVERSE PRONOUNCEMENTS BY THE SUPREME COURT, AND NOT MERELY
THE LAW OF THEIR DISTRICTS. 

THE ONLY SOUND RULE IN DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP CASES IS, THAT THE
FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD DECIDE AS THEY THINK THE STATE COURTS WOULD
DECIDE IN THE SAME CASE.  ALL THE REASONING OF ALL THE STATE TRIBUNALS
MAY BE SCRUTINIZED.  THAT IS DONE IN THE STATE COURTS, AND SHOULD BE
DONE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

SINCE DEMAND WAS REQUIRED, THE ACTION CAN NOT BE BARRED BY ANY
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  EVEN IF DEMAND WERE NOT NECESSARY, THE ACTION
WOULD NOT BE BARRED. 

THE APPELLANTS ARE NOT BARRED BY LACHES. 

THE UNAUTHORIZED SALE OF THE STOCK BY THE LIFE TENANT TERMINATED HER
LIFE ESTATE, AND ACCELERATED ALL RIGHTS IN, AND ACCRUING FROM, THE
STOCK TO THE REMAINDERMEN AS OF THE TIME OF THE SALE.  AND THE SALE,
HAVING BEEN MADE POSSIBLE BY THE WRONGFUL ACT OF RESPONDENT, IS TO BE
LAID AT RESPONDENT'S DOOR, AS OF THE TIME IT RECOGNIZED THE SALE,
CANCELLED THE WEST CERTIFICATE AND ISSUED A NEW CERTIFICATE TO A THIRD
PERSON. 

A CORPORATION MUST RESPOND TO SHAREHOLDERS FOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM
UNAUTHORIZED AND WRONGFUL TRANSFERS. 

EQUITY WILL AFFORD COMPLETE RELIEF, INCLUDING DAMAGES. 

MR. WILLIAM B. COCKLEY FOR RESPONDENT. 

THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN TRANSFERRING ITS STOCK WITHOUT
LIMITATION.  THIS ACTION IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BY
LACHES, AND BY THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE OPINION OF THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS IS A MISAPPLICATION OF WELL
SETTLED OHIO LAW. 

THE REFUSAL OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT TO GRANT THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO CERTIFY DID NOT IMPLY APPROVAL OF THE OPINION OF THE OHIO COURT OF
APPEALS. 

THE OPINION OF THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED
BINDING ON THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64, 78 AND OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IS THAT THE LAW OF A
STATE MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY ITS LEGISLATURE OR BY ITS HIGHEST COURT. 
LYONS V. MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASSN., 305 U.S. 484, 489-490;
WICHITA ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 306 U.S. 103, 107; RUSSELL
V. TODD, 309 U.S. 280, 293.  THESE CASES ESTABLISH THE RULE OF BINDING
AUTHORITY FOR THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE AND A
PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY ONLY FOR THE DECISIONS OF INFERIOR STATE COURTS. 
THIS HAS BEEN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT NOT
ONLY BY THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN THE INSTANT CASE BUT BY OTHER CIRCUITS. 
SIX COMPANIES V. JOINT HIGHWAY DISTRICT NO. 13 OF CALIFORNIA, 110 F.2D
620; FIELD V. FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO., 108 F.2D 521; HACK V. AMERICAN
SURETY CO., 96 F.2D 939.  CF., ERIE R. CO. V. HILT, 247 U.S. 97, 99. 

GRAHAM V. WHITE-PHILLIPS CO., 296 U.S. 27, CLEARLY HELD THAT THE
DECISION OF AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT IN ILLINOIS CONSTRUING THE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT LAW WAS NOT BINDING UPON THE FEDERAL COURT
SITTING IN ILLINOIS. 

EVEN IF THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS WERE TO BE EXTENDED IT
OUGHT NOT TO INCLUDE DECISIONS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO.  THERE
ARE NINE COURTS OF APPEALS IN OHIO, EACH HAVING JURISDICTION IN A
PARTICULAR DISTRICT.  THE EIGHTH DISTRICT HAS JURISDICTION IN ONLY A
SINGLE COUNTY, NAMELY, CUYAHOGA.  IT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER SUITS
BROUGHT IN THE OTHER EIGHTY-SEVEN COUNTIES OF THE STATE.  ITS JUDGMENTS
ARE FINAL EXCEPT IN CASES INVOLVING QUESTIONS UNDER THE STATE OR
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND "CASES OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST IN
WHICH THE SUPREME COURT MAY DIRECT ANY COURT OF APPEALS TO CERTIFY ITS
RECORD TO THAT COURT."  OHIO CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 6.  IN PRACTICE THIS
MEANS THAT THE SUPREME COURT CAN, BY GRANTING A MOTION TO CERTIFY,
REVIEW PRACTICALLY ANY CASE DECIDED BY ANY COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY ARE NOT
BINDING UPON THE COURTS OF THE OTHER EIGHTY-SEVEN COUNTIES OF OHIO BUT
ARE OF PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY ONLY.  COMMON PLEAS JUDGES OF THE OTHER 87
COUNTIES AND THE COURTS OF APPEALS OF THE OTHER EIGHT DISTRICTS ARE
UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO ACCORD THE OPINION IN WEST V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE
& TELEGRAPH CO. ANY GREATER WEIGHT THAN ITS REASONING COMPELS.  NOR
DOES THE FACT THAT A MOTION TO CERTIFY THIS DECISION WAS DENIED BY THE
OHIO SUPREME COURT ADD TO ITS AUTHORITY.  VILLAGE OF BREWSTER V. HILL,
120 OHIO ST. 343. 

THE ONLY OHIO COURT, THEREFORE, THAT IS BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY IS THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF THAT
COUNTY.  IF THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM IN THIS CASE IS RECOGNIZED IT WILL
MEAN THAT THE DECISION OF THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY
CAN BE IGNORED BY THE COURTS OF EIGHTY-SEVEN OF EIGHTY-EIGHT COUNTIES
IN OHIO, AS IT CAN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, BUT WILL BE BINDING
UPON JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, MUNICIPAL COURTS AND THE COMMON PLEAS COURT
OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY AND UPON ALL THE FEDERAL COURTS, INCLUDING THE
HIGHEST. 

MOREOVER, IT MEANS THAT A PLAIN MISINTERPRETATION AND MISCONSTRUCTION
OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO INCORPORATED IN THE
OPINION IN THIS CASE CAN BE CORRECTED IN A LATER CASE IN PRACTICALLY
ALL THE COURTS OF OHIO BUT CAN NOT BE CORRECTED BY ANY OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS. 

FINALLY, IT MEANS, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID, THAT A
DECISION PROCEEDING UPON A MISUNDERSTANDING OF A FORMER DECISION OF THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CAN NOT BE CORRECTED BY THAT COURT OR BY
THIS COURT. 

THERE ARE OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF MOMENT.  IF THE RULE SOUGHT BY THE
PLAINTIFFS WERE PUT IN EFFECT EVERY CAUSE OF ACTION SUPPORTED BY A
DOUBTFUL DECISION OF A COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO WOULD BE BROUGHT IN THE
FEDERAL COURT WHERE DIVERSITY OR OTHER JURISDICTIONAL GROUND EXISTED
FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE OHIO COURTS FROM CORRECTING THE
UNSOUND RULE. 

WE POINT OUT FURTHER THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DIVISION
OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO HAS JURISDICTION IN SOME NINETEEN
COUNTIES.  THESE SAME NINETEEN COUNTIES INCLUDE ALL OR PARTS OF THE
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THREE OHIO COURTS OF APPEALS.  UNDER THE
RULE ADVOCATED BY THE PETITIONERS A SINGLE JUDGE SITTING IN THE EASTERN
DIVISION OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO MIGHT CONCEIVABLY HAVE THREE
DIFFERENT RULES OF LAW FROM WHICH TO CHOOSE AS ANNOUNCED BY THE THREE
OHIO COURTS OF APPEALS IN HIS DISTRICT.  AND WHY STOP HERE?  IF EACH
COURT OF APPEALS IN OHIO CAN DECLARE THE LAW OF THE STATE BINDING ON
THE FEDERAL COURT, THEORETICALLY THERE COULD BE NINE SUCH DECISIONS
FROM WHICH THE DISTRICT JUDGE MIGHT CHOOSE. 

THE OPINION OF THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE CAN NOT BE
ACCEPTED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS WITHOUT (A) DENYING FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE SAME CASE, AND (B) PERPETUATING
A PLAIN MISCONSTRUCTION OF WELL-SETTLED OHIO LAW. 

PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS AS TO THE RELIEF ARE WHOLLY UNWARRANTED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS CASE, IN WHICH JURISDICTION
RESTS EXCLUSIVELY ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, DECLINED TO FOLLOW THE
RULING IN WEST V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., 54 OHIO APP. 369;
7 N.E.2D 805; 7 OHIO OPINIONS 363, OF THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF
APPEALS, AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF OHIO.  THE QUESTION FOR
DECISION IS WHETHER, IN REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW ANNOUNCED BY
THE STATE COURT, THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO APPLY STATE LAW WITHIN THE
REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 34 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 AND OF OUR DECISION
IN ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

IN 1926 AN OHIO DECEDENT, DOMICILED AT DEATH IN CUYAHOGA COUNTY,
BEQUEATHED HIS ESTATE, INCLUDING NINETY-TWO SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK
OF RESPONDENT, TO HIS WIDOW FOR LIFE, WITH REMAINDER TO PETITIONERS,
THE SONS OF DECEDENT'S FIRST WIFE, WHO WAS THE SISTER OF HIS WIDOW. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1927, THE WIDOW TENDERED TO RESPONDENT, FOR TRANSFER,
CERTIFICATES FOR THE NINETY-TWO SHARES OF STOCK STANDING IN DECEDENT'S
NAME, EACH ENDORSED WITH AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE SHARES EVIDENCED BY THE
CERTIFICATE, TO THE WIDOW, SIGNED IN HER NAME AS EXECUTRIX OF
DECEDENT'S ESTATE.  ACCOMPANYING THE CERTIFICATE WERE DULY ATTESTED
DOCUMENTS AS FOLLOWS:  A COPY OF DECEDENT'S WILL, A CERTIFICATE OF THE
CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROBATE COURT OF THE QUALIFICATION OF THE WIDOW AS
EXECUTRIX UNDER THE WILL; COPY OF AN APPLICATION OF THE EXECUTRIX FOR
THE DISTRIBUTION IN KIND OF THE ESTATE, CONSISTING OF SPECIFIED
CORPORATE STOCKS INCLUDING THE NINETY-TWO SHARES OF RESPONDENT'S STOCK,
WITH THE APPENDED CONSENT OF PETITIONERS TO THE DISTRIBUTION IN KIND,
AND A COPY OF THE JOURNAL OF THE PROBATE COURT SHOWING THAT IT HAD
GRANTED THE APPLICATION AND ORDERED THE DISTRIBUTION. 

THEREUPON RESPONDENT ISSUED A NEW CERTIFICATE FOR THE NINETY-TWO
SHARES IN THE NAME OF THE WIDOW WHICH DID NOT DISCLOSE HER LIMITED
INTEREST AS LIFE TENANT OR THAT OF PETITIONERS AS REMAINDERMEN. 
OCTOBER 31, 1929 THE WIDOW ENDORSED AND DELIVERED THE CERTIFICATE AS
COLLATERAL SECURITY FOR HER BROKERAGE ACCOUNT TO A STOCK BROKER TO WHOM
RESPONDENT ISSUED A NEW CERTIFICATE IN HIS NAME AS STOCKHOLDER ON
NOVEMBER 4, 1929.  IN MARCH, 1934, PETITIONERS FIRST LEARNED OF THIS
DISPOSITION OF THE SHARES BY THE WIDOW AND IN JUNE, 1934, BROUGHT SUIT
AGAINST RESPONDENT IN THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
SEEKING RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR THE WRONGFUL TRANSFER OF THE SHARES. 
IN ADDITION TO DEFENSES ON THE MERITS RESPONDENT SET UP THE OHIO FOUR
YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  AFTER A TRIAL ON THE MERITS THE TRIAL
COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS, WHICH THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED PETITIONERS' MOTION
TO REQUIRE THE COURT OF APPEALS TO CERTIFY ITS RECORD TO THE SUPREME
COURT FOR REVIEW BECAUSE OF "PROBABLE ERROR" IN THE CASE, AFTER WHICH
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ENTERED "FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST APPELLEES
(PETITIONERS HERE) AND IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT (RESPONDENT HERE)" UPON
THE MANDATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS STATING "THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS IS REVERSED FOR REASONS STATED IN OPINION ON FILE AND
FINAL JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED FOR APPELLANT, NO ERROR APPEARING IN
THE RECORD."  THE OPINION OF THE APPELLATE COURT WAS NOT FILED BUT
COPIES WERE FURNISHED COUNSEL AND IT APPEARS OF RECORD. 

THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT UPON THE TENDER FOR TRANSFER OF
THE CERTIFICATES OF STOCK BY THE EXECUTRIX IT WAS THE DUTY OF
RESPONDENT TO ISSUE A NEW CERTIFICATE SHOWING ON ITS FACE THE
RESPECTIVE INTERESTS OF THE LIFE TENANT AND OF THE PETITIONERS AS
REMAINDERMEN; THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE SHARES BY RESPONDENT TO THE
BROKER WITHOUT THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE CERTIFICATE BY PETITIONERS WAS
UNAUTHORIZED AND WRONGFUL; THAT THE UNLAWFUL DISPOSITION OF THE STOCK
BY THE LIFE TENANT DID NOT TERMINATE THE LIFE INTEREST OR ACCELERATE
THE RIGHTS OF THE REMAINDERMEN, BUT THAT THE REFUSAL OF RESPONDENT
AFTER DEMAND BY PETITIONER TO RECOGNIZE AND REESTABLISH PETITIONERS'
RIGHTS IN THE STOCK, OR OTHER STOCK OF EQUAL PAR VALUE, WAS A
CONVERSION OF IT ENTITLING PETITIONERS TO DAMAGES TO THE EXTENT OF THE
VALUE OF THEIR INTEREST IN THE STOCK OR TO A DECREE OF RESTITUTION
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO ISSUE A NEW CERTIFICATE FOR THE NINETY-TWO
SHARES IN SUCH MANNER AS WOULD PROTECT THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS OF ALL
PARTIES. 

CONSTRUING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO UNIFORM STOCK TRANSFER
ACT (OHIO G.C., SECS. 8673-1-22) THE COURT HELD THAT AS A PREREQUISITE
TO RECOVERY FOR CONVERSION OF PETITIONERS' INTEREST IN THE STOCK IT WAS
NECESSARY THAT RESPONDENT REPUDIATE PETITIONERS' TITLE AND THAT THE
PETITIONERS SHOULD ALLEGE AND PROVE THAT RESPONDENT HAD REFUSED TO
RECOGNIZE PETITIONERS' RIGHT IN THE STOCK AND TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE
CERTIFICATE FOR IT.  AS PETITIONERS HAD FAILED TO ALLEGE OR PROVE ANY
DEMAND ON RESPONDENT OR ANY REFUSAL BY IT IN ADVANCE OF SUIT TO
RECOGNIZE PETITIONERS' RIGHTS OR TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATE,
THE COURT DIRECTED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT IN CONFORMITY TO ITS
MANDATE. 

ON JUNE 18, 1937, FOLLOWING THE DENIAL OF PETITIONERS' MOTION BY THE
STATE SUPREME COURT, IN JANUARY, 1937, PETITIONERS MADE DEMAND ON
RESPONDENT, THE SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH IS NOT QUESTIONED, TO RESTORE TO
PETITIONERS THEIR RIGHTS IN THE SHARES, AND ON JULY 14, 1937,
PETITIONERS BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR
NORTHERN OHIO.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, AFTER ALLEGING THE FACTS ALREADY
MENTIONED WHICH THE STATE COURT HAD FOUND TO ESTABLISH THE WRONGFUL
TRANSFER OF THE STOCK BY RESPONDENT AND AFTER RECITING THE COURSE AND
RESULTS OF THE LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURTS AND THE DEMAND ON
RESPONDENT, SET UP PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO RELIEF ACCORDING TO THE
DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURTS AND PRAYED JUDGMENT THAT RESPONDENT ISSUE
TO PETITIONERS A CERTIFICATE FOR THE NINETY-TWO SHARES OF STOCK AND FOR
BACK DIVIDENDS WITH INTEREST, AND DAMAGES, AND GENERALLY FOR OTHER
RELIEF. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT ACCRUE UNTIL
THE DEMAND MADE UPON RESPONDENT; THAT SUIT WAS NOT BARRED BY THE PRIOR
ADJUDICATION IN THE STATE COURT SINCE THAT SUIT, IN WHICH NO DEMAND WAS
ALLEGED OR PROVED, WAS ON A DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION FROM THAT NOW
ASSERTED; THAT IT WAS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATIONS OR LACHES AND THAT THE
REMAINDER INTERESTS HAD NOT BEEN ACCELERATED BY THE WRONGFUL
DISPOSITION AND TRANSFER OF THE STOCK.  IT ACCORDINGLY DECREED THAT
RESPONDENT PROCURE BY PURCHASE OR OTHERWISE NINETY-TWO SHARES OF ITS
COMMON STOCK, ISSUE A CERTIFICATE FOR IT TO A TRUSTEE, WHICH WAS
DIRECTED TO HOLD THE STOCK DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE WIDOW FOR THE
BENEFIT OF RESPONDENT AND UPON HER DEATH TO MAKE DISTRIBUTION OF IT TO
THE REMAINDERMEN AS DIRECTED BY THE WILL. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF
PETITIONERS RAISING QUESTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL AND ON THE APPEAL OF THE
RESPONDENT, REVERSED THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 108 F.2D 347. 
IT HELD CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF THE STATE COURT THAT DEMAND UPON
RESPONDENT WAS NOT PREREQUISITE TO THE ACCRUAL OF PETITIONERS' CAUSE OF
ACTION AND THAT PETITIONERS' RIGHT OF RECOVERY WAS BARRED BY
LIMITATIONS AND LACHES.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 618, UPON A
PETITION WHICH SET UP THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD ERRONEOUSLY FAILED
TO APPLY THE OHIO LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE NECESSITY FOR A DEMAND AS
DEFINED BY THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE LITIGATION BETWEEN THE
PRESENT PARTIES AND THAT THE COURT BELOW HAD ERRONEOUSLY APPLIED THE
OHIO RULE OF LIMITATIONS AND OF LACHES, ALL QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE CONCERNING THE INTERRELATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT DEMAND WAS NOT AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE
CAUSE OF ACTION WHERE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY REMAINDERMEN NOT ENTITLED
TO POSSESSION OF THE STOCK CERTIFICATE, CONSEQUENTLY THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE RULING OF THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS
AND THAT BOTH HAD MISCONSTRUED AND MISAPPLIED AN EARLIER DECISION OF
THE COURT BELOW IN AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. HUNT, 79 F.2D 558, WHERE
DEMAND WAS HELD TO BE PREREQUISITE TO A SUIT BROUGHT BY ONE WHO HAD
ACQUIRED SHARES BY PURCHASE BUT HAD FAILED TO PRESENT THE ENDORSED
CERTIFICATE TO THE CORPORATION FOR TRANSFER BEFORE BRINGING SUIT.  IT
CITED DECISIONS OF SIMILAR PURPORT BY THE OHIO SUPREME COURT BUT
RECOGNIZED THAT THE ONLY OHIO CASE PASSING UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER
DEMAND IS PREREQUISITE TO SUIT IN THE CASE OF A REMAINDERMAN IS THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS IN WEST V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE &
TELEGRAPH CO., SUPRA.  IT HELD THAT IT WAS NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW THE
DECISION OF AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE AND SO WAS
FREE TO ADOPT AND APPLY WHAT IT CONSIDERED TO BE THE BETTER RULE THAT
DEMAND IS UNNECESSARY AND CONSEQUENTLY IS NOT A PART OF THE
PETITIONERS' CAUSE OF ACTION.  FROM THIS IT CONCLUDED THAT THE CAUSE OF
ACTION WHICH IT THOUGHT HAD ACCRUED IN 1927 WHEN THE STOCK CERTIFICATE
WAS ISSUED TO THE LIFE TENANT, WAS BARRED BY THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO CAUSES OF ACTION "FOR AN INJURY TO THE RIGHTS
OF THE PLAINTIFF NOT ARISING ON CONTRACT  ...  "  SEC. 11224 OHIO G.C.,
OR BY LACHES IF DEMAND WERE NECESSARY. 

SINCE THE EQUITABLE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THIS SUIT IS PREDICATED UPON
PETITIONERS' LEGAL RIGHTS GROWING OUT OF RESPONDENT'S UNLAWFUL TRANSFER
OF THE STOCK TO THE ASSIGNEE OF THE LIFE TENANT, THE STATE "LAWS"
WHICH, BY SEC. 34 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, C. 20, 28 U.S.C., SEC.
725, ARE MADE "THE RULES OF DECISION IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW" DEFINE
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT.  SEE RUSSELL V. TODD, 309
U.S. 280, 289.  AND THE RULES OF DECISION ESTABLISHED BY JUDICIAL
DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS ARE "LAWS" AS WELL AS THOSE PRESCRIBED BY
STATUTE.  ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, 78.  TRUE, AS WAS
INTIMATED IN THE ERIE RAILROAD CASE, THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE IS
THE FINAL ARBITER OF WHAT IS STATE LAW.  WHEN IT HAS SPOKEN, ITS
PRONOUNCEMENT IS TO BE ACCEPTED BY FEDERAL COURTS AS DEFINING STATE LAW
UNLESS IT HAS LATER GIVEN CLEAR AND PERSUASIVE INDICATION THAT ITS
PRONOUNCEMENT WILL BE MODIFIED, LIMITED OR RESTRICTED.  SEE WICHITA
ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 306 U.S. 103, 107.  BUT THE OBVIOUS
PURPOSE OF SEC. 34 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT IS TO AVOID THE MAINTENANCE
WITHIN A STATE OF TWO DIVERGENT OR CONFLICTING SYSTEMS OF LAW, ONE TO
BE APPLIED IN THE STATE COURTS, THE OTHER TO BE AVAILED OF IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS, ONLY IN CASE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  THAT OBJECT
WOULD BE THWARTED IF THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE FREE TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN
RULES OF DECISION WHENEVER THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAS NOT
SPOKEN. 

A STATE IS NOT WITHOUT LAW SAVE AS ITS HIGHEST COURT HAS DECLARED IT.
THERE ARE MANY RULES OF DECISION COMMONLY ACCEPTED AND ACTED UPON BY
THE BAR AND INFERIOR COURTS WHICH ARE NEVERTHELESS LAWS OF THE STATE
ALTHOUGH THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAS NEVER PASSED UPON THEM.  IN
THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES A FEDERAL COURT IS NOT FREE TO REJECT THE STATE
RULE MERELY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SANCTION OF THE HIGHEST
STATE COURT, EVEN THOUGH IT THINKS THE RULE IS UNSOUND IN PRINCIPLE OR
THAT ANOTHER IS PREFERABLE.  STATE LAW IS TO BE APPLIED IN THE FEDERAL
AS WELL AS THE STATE COURTS AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE FORMER IN EVERY
CASE TO ASCERTAIN FROM ALL THE AVAILABLE DATA WHAT THE STATE LAW IS AND
APPLY IT RATHER THAN TO PRESCRIBE A DIFFERENT RULE, HOWEVER SUPERIOR IT
MAY APPEAR FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF "GENERAL LAW" AND HOWEVER MUCH THE
STATE RULE MAY HAVE DEPARTED FROM PRIOR DECISIONS OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  SEE ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, 78; RUSSELL V. TODD,
SUPRA, 203. 

WHERE AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE STATE COURT RESTS ITS CONSIDERED
JUDGMENT UPON THE RULE OF LAW WHICH IT ANNOUNCES, THAT IS A DATUM FOR
ASCERTAINING STATE LAW WHICH IS NOT TO BE DISREGARDED BY A FEDERAL
COURT UNLESS IT IS CONVINCED BY OTHER PERSUASIVE DATA THAT THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE WOULD DECIDE OTHERWISE.  SIX COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA
V. JOINT HIGHWAY DISTRICT, ANTE, P. 180; FIDELITY UNION TRUST CO. V.
FIELD, ANTE, P. 169.  CF. GRAHAM V. WHITE-PHILLIPS CO., 296 U.S. 27;
WICHITA ROYALTY CO. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA, 107; RUSSELL V. TODD,
SUPRA.  THIS IS THE MORE SO WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE HIGHEST COURT
HAS REFUSED TO REVIEW THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION RENDERED IN ONE PHASE
OF THE VERY LITIGATION WHICH IS NOW PROSECUTED BY THE SAME PARTIES
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURT.  TRUE, SOME OTHER COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
MAY IN SOME OTHER CASE ARRIVE AT A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION AND THE SUPREME
COURT OF OHIO, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS REFUSAL TO REVIEW THE STATE DECISION
AGAINST THE PETITIONER, MAY HOLD ITSELF FREE TO MODIFY OR REJECT THE
RULING THUS ANNOUNCED.  VILLAGE OF BREWSTER V. HILL, 128 OHIO ST. 343,
353; 190 N.E. 766.  FN1  EVEN THOUGH IT IS ARGUABLE THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF OHIO WILL AT SOME LATER TIME MODIFY THE RULE OF THE WEST CASE,
WHETHER THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN REMAINS A MATTER OF CONJECTURE.  IN THE
MEANTIME THE STATE LAW APPLICABLE TO THESE PARTIES AND IN THIS CASE HAS
BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY DECLARED BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT IN WHICH A
DECISION COULD BE HAD.  IF THE PRESENT SUIT HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN THE
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT NO REASON IS ADVANCED FOR SUPPOSING THAT THE
CUYAHOGA COURT OF APPEALS WOULD DEPART FROM ITS PREVIOUS RULING OR THAT
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE WOULD GRANT THE REVIEW WHICH IT WITHHELD
BEFORE.  WE THINK THAT THE LAW THUS ANNOUNCED AND APPLIED IS THE LAW OF
THE STATE APPLICABLE IN THE SAME CASE AND TO THE SAME PARTIES IN THE
FEDERAL COURT AND THAT THE FEDERAL COURT IS NOT FREE TO APPLY A
DIFFERENT RULE HOWEVER DESIRABLE IT MAY BELIEVE IT TO BE, AND EVEN
THOUGH IT MAY THINK THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT MAY ESTABLISH A
DIFFERENT RULE IN SOME FUTURE LITIGATION. 

WHETHER THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE FIRST SUIT DEFINED THE
CAUSE OF ACTION AS ARISING OUT OF THE FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO DESCRIBE
CORRECTLY THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES, IN THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO
THE WIDOW IN 1927, OR OUT OF THE WRONGFUL TRANSFER IN 1929, IS
IMMATERIAL TO THE QUESTION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION.  IN EITHER
CASE, SINCE THE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE OHIO LAW DID NOT ARISE UNTIL
DEMAND, WHICH WAS EITHER ON JUNE 2, 1934, WHEN THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN
THE STATE COURT, OR JUNE 18, 1937, WHEN THE FORMAL DEMAND WAS MADE, THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN UNTIL ONE OR THE OTHER OF
THOSE DATES.  SEE KEITHLER V. FOSTER, 22 OHIO ST. 27.  IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER, AS PETITIONERS CONTEND, THE SUIT WAS ON
CONTRACT OR STATUTORY LIABILITY TO WHICH THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE APPLIES,
SEC. 11222, OHIO G.C., OR "FOR THE RECOVERY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY OR FOR
TAKING OR DETAINING IT," IN WHICH CASE THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT
DEEMED TO ACCRUE "UNTIL THE WRONGDOER IS DISCOVERED  ...  " SEC. 11224,
OHIO G.C., SEE CLEVELAND & MAHONING R. CO. V. ROBBINS, 35 OHIO ST. 483,
502, OR WHETHER AS THE COURT BELOW HELD THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS "FOR
INJURY TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF NOT ARISING ON CONTRACT  ... ,"
IN WHICH CASE THE STATUTE RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE INJURY WHEN DEMAND
IS NOT REQUIRED.  SEC. 11224, OHIO G.C.  FOR IN ANY EVENT SINCE UNDER
OHIO LAW NO CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE UNTIL DEMAND WAS MADE, THE FOURYEAR
PERIOD WOULD RUN EITHER FROM THE DATE OF THE FIRST SUIT, OR FROM THAT
OF THE FORMAL DEMAND, AND HAD NOT EXPIRED ON JULY 14, 1937, WHEN THE
PRESENT SUIT WAS COMMENCED IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE COURT BELOW ALSO HELD THAT IF DEMAND WERE TO BE DEEMED A
PREREQUISITE TO SUIT PETITIONERS WERE BARRED BY THEIR "UNNECESSARY
DELAY" IN MAKING IT, CITING KEITHLER V. FOSTER, SUPRA, FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT DEMAND MUST BE MADE WITHIN FOUR YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE
AROSE (1927 OR 1929), THE TIME LIMITED BY THE STATUTE FOR BRINGING AN
ACTION IF NO DEMAND WERE NECESSARY.  BUT THE SUPREME COURT IN THAT CASE
THOUGHT IT CORRECT TO APPLY THE RULE RELIED UPON BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS ONLY WHEN "NO CAUSE FOR DELAY CAN BE SHOWN."  CF. STEARNS V.
HIBBEN DRY GOODS CO., 11 OHIO C.C. (N.S.)  553; 31 OHIO C.C. 270;
AFFIRMED 84 OHIO ST. 470; 95 N.E. 1157.  HERE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
ARE SHOWN FOR LIMITING THE TIME OF DEMAND OR SHORTENING THE STATUTORY
PERIOD AFTER DEMAND.  FN2  BOTH THE STATE COURT AND THE DISTRICT COURT
IN THIS CASE HAVE RULED THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT ESTOPPED BY THEIR
CONSENT TO DISTRIBUTION, WHICH BOTH COURTS INTERPRETED AS A CONSENT
ONLY TO A LAWFUL DISTRIBUTION BY A LAWFUL PROCEDURE.  THE DISTRICT
COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON TO SHOW LACK OF
DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF PETITIONERS IN PROSECUTING INQUIRIES WHICH
WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THE UNLAWFUL TRANSFER FAILED OF ITS PURPOSE AND
WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH EITHER ESTOPPEL OR LACHES.  AT MOST THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT IN 1930 ONE OF THE PETITIONERS BECAME SUSPICIOUS
THAT THE LIFE TENANT HAD SUFFERED LOSSES IN THE STOCK MARKET AND MADE
INQUIRY OF ONE CORPORATION WHOSE STOCK WAS INCLUDED IN THE ESTATE ONLY
TO LEARN THAT THE STOCK CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN PROPERLY ISSUED TO THE
WIDOW AS LIFE TENANT OF THE ESTATE AND THAT HE MADE NO FURTHER
INQUIRIES.  THE RECORD IS BARREN OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT
PETITIONERS HAD ANY GROUND FOR SUSPICION THAT RESPONDENT HAD ISSUED THE
CERTIFICATE TO THE LIFE TENANT IN ANY IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL FORM BEFORE
MARCH, 1934, WHEN THEY DISCOVERED THE MISAPPROPRIATION OF THE STOCK. 
THEY BROUGHT SUIT IN THE STATE COURT THE FOLLOWING JUNE.  WE THINK
THERE WAS NO WANT OF DILIGENCE ON THE PART OF PETITIONERS IN PRESENTING
AND PROSECUTING THEIR DEMAND AND THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED. 

THE JUDGMENT WILL BE REVERSED, BUT AS OTHER POINTS INVOLVING
QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW ARGUED HERE WERE NOT PASSED UPON BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ARTICLE IV, SEC. 6 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT:
"JUDGMENTS OF THE COURTS OF APPEALS SHALL BE FINAL IN ALL CASES, EXCEPT
CASES INVOLVING QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES OR OF THIS STATE  ...  AND CASES OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL
INTEREST IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT MAY DIRECT ANY COURT OF APPEALS TO
CERTIFY ITS RECORD TO THAT COURT  ...  AND WHENEVER THE JUDGES OF A
COURT OF APPEALS FIND THAT A JUDGMENT UPON WHICH THEY HAVE AGREED IS IN
CONFLICT WITH A JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED UPON THE SAME QUESTION BY ANY OTHER
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE, THE JUDGES SHALL CERTIFY THE RECORD OF
THE CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW AND FINAL DETERMINATION." 

FN2  IN KEITHLER V. FOSTER, 22 OHIO ST. 27, THE DEMAND ON A SHERIFF
FOR MONEYS COLLECTED ON AN EXECUTION SALE IN 1855 WAS NOT MADE UNTIL
1867.  THE SUPREME COURT IN HOLDING THAT THE SUIT BROUGHT ON THE
SHERIFF'S BOND IN 1868 WAS NOT BARRED BY THE TEN YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS SAID THAT WHERE "THE STATUTE BEGINS TO RUN, IN CASES LIKE
THIS, FROM THE TIME OF DEMAND, IT WOULD BE BUT REASONABLE TO HOLD, IN
THE ABSENCE OF OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN NO DEMAND IS SHOWN TO
HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR BRINGING THE ACTION,
THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING THE STATUTE IN OPERATION, A DEMAND
WILL BE PRESUMED AT THE EXPIRATION OF THAT PERIOD, FROM WHICH TIME THE
STATUTE WILL BEGIN TO RUN." 

IN DOUGLAS V. CORRY, 46 OHIO ST. 349; 21 N.E. 440; TOWNSEND V.
EICHELBERGER, 51 OHIO ST. 213; 38 N.E. 207, ON WHICH RESPONDENT RELIES,
NO SUIT WAS BROUGHT UNTIL AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE ADDITIONAL
LIMITATION PERIOD AFTER THE DEMAND WAS MADE OR PRESUMED AS IN KEITHLER
V. FOSTER, SUPRA. 

HERE, EVEN IF DEMAND WERE PRESUMED AT THE END OF A FOUR YEAR PERIOD,
WHICH BEGAN TO RUN EITHER IN 1927 OR 1929, THE STATE COURT ACTION WAS
TIMELY WHEN BEGUN ON JUNE 2, 1934.  IT WAS DISMISSED IN FEBRUARY,
1937.  THE PRESENT ACTION WAS BEGUN IN JULY, 1937.  SEC. 11233 OF THE
OHIO G.C. PROVIDES:  "IN AN ACTION COMMENCED, OR ATTEMPTED TO BE
COMMENCED, IF IN DUE TIME A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BE REVERSED, OR
IF THE PLAINTIFF FAILS OTHERWISE THAN UPON THE MERITS, AND THE TIME
LIMITED FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH ACTION AT THE DATE OF REVERSAL OR
FAILURE HAS EXPIRED, THE PLAINTIFF  ...  MAY COMMENCE A NEW ACTION
WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER SUCH DATE.  ...  " 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I CONCUR IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN SO FAR AS IT HOLDS THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE TREATED THE DECISION OF THE
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF APPEALS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE,
AS EXPRESSING THE LAW OF OHIO WITH RESPECT TO THE NECESSITY OF A DEMAND
PRIOR TO INSTITUTION OF SUIT.  I DO NOT, HOWEVER, AGREE THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

I AM UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THAT, UNDER
OHIO LAW, THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO PETITIONERS'
CAUSE OF ACTION, AND THAT DELAY OF DEMAND FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS
AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED BARRED THE SUIT.  BOTH HOLDINGS SEEM
TO ME TO BE SUPPORTED BY DECISIONS OF THE OHIO COURTS; KEITHLER V.
FOSTER, 22 OHIO ST. 27; DOUGLAS V. CORRY, 46 OHIO ST. 349; 21 N.E. 440;
TOWNSEND V. EICHELBERGER, 51 OHIO ST. 213; 38 N.E. 207; STEARNS V.
HIBBEN DRY GOODS CO., 11 OHIO C.C. (N.S.)  553, 31 OHIO C.C. 270;
AFFIRMED 84 OHIO ST. 470; 95 N.E. 1157.  THERE IS HERE NO PLACE FOR ANY
PRESUMPTION OF DEMAND, AS IN KEITHLER V. FOSTER, FOR HERE THE SUIT IN
THE STATE COURT WAS DISMISSED ON THE EXPRESS GROUND THAT NO DEMAND HAD
IN FACT BEEN MADE; AND IN THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT THE AVERMENT OF THE COMPLAINT IS THAT DEMAND WAS MADE
JUNE 18, 1937, AT LEAST EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED. 
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE OTHER CITED CASES SHOW, A DEMAND MADE AT
A DATE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS, DOES NOT TOLL THE STATUTE.  IN
THE DOUGLAS CASE THE AVERMENT WAS THAT DEMAND WAS MADE NINE YEARS AFTER
THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED AND SUIT WAS BROUGHT WITHIN FOUR YEARS
THEREAFTER.  IN THE STEARNS CASE IT WAS ALLEGED DEMAND WAS MADE FOUR
YEARS AND NINE MONTHS AFTER ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION, AND SUIT BEGUN
WITHIN FOUR YEARS THEREAFTER.  THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS HELD A
BAR IN BOTH. 

THOUGH THE ACTION WAS IN EQUITY, AN ACTION AT LAW MIGHT HAVE BEEN
MAINTAINED (STEARNS V. HIBBEN DRY GOODS CO., SUPRA; RUSSELL V. TODD,
309 U.S. 280, 289), AND THE STATUTE GOVERNING SUCH AN ACTION IS
APPLICABLE. 

NOT ONLY HAVE PETITIONERS FAILED TO SHOW "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES"
JUSTIFYING THEIR DELAY IN MAKING DEMAND (KEITHLER V. FOSTER, SUPRA),
BUT THE COURT BELOW HAS HELD THEY WERE GUILTY OF LACHES, AN INDEPENDENT
GROUND OF DECISION, WHICH, THOUGH THE QUESTION BE A CLOSE ONE, WE OUGHT
NOT, UNDER OUR SETTLED PRACTICE, TO REEXAMINE. 

FOR THESE REASONS I THINK THAT, DESPITE THE ERRONEOUS VIEW OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS TO THE LAW OF OHIO ON THE POINT DECIDED BY
THE STATE COURT OF APPEALS, THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :











MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. DUNCAN, 311 U.S. 243 


NO. 30.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  - 108
F.2D 848, MODIFIED. 


1.  A DEFENDANT WHO MOVED THE DISTRICT COURT SUCCESSFULLY FOR JUDGMENT
NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO AND WHO THEREUPON URGED THAT, BECAUSE OF THE
GRANTING OF THE JUDGMENT HIS ALTERNATIVE MOTION (ON OTHER GROUNDS) FOR
A NEW TRIAL HAD PASSED OUT OF THE CASE, DID NOT THEREBY ELECT TO STAND
UPON HIS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ALONE AND ABANDON HIS RIGHT TO HAVE THE
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL DECIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HIS JUDGMENT
BE REVERSED ON APPEAL.  P. 249. 

2.  UNDER RULE 50(B) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT
COURTS, THE GRANTING OF A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO
DOES NOT EFFECT AN AUTOMATIC DENIAL OF AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL.  PP. 249-250. 

3.  THE PROVISION OF THE RULE THAT "A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE
JOINED WITH THIS MOTION (FOR JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO), OR A NEW
TRIAL MAY BE PRAYED FOR IN THE ALTERNATIVE" - DOES NOT CONFINE THE
TRIAL JUDGE TO AN INITIAL CHOICE OF DISPOSING OF EITHER MOTION TO THE
EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER.  P. 251. 

4.  RULE 50(B) SHOULD BE SO ADMINISTERED AS TO ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT IS
PERMISSIBLE UNDER ITS TERMS IN AVOIDANCE OF DELAY IN LITIGATION.  P.
253. 

5.  UNDER RULE 50(B) WHERE THERE IS A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NON
OBSTANTE VEREDICTO, AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE OF
TRIAL ERRORS AND MATTERS APPEALING TO THE JUDGE'S DISCRETION, THE JUDGE
SHOULD RULE ON THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT, AND, WHATEVER THE RULING
THEREON, SHOULD ALSO RULE ON THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, INDICATING THE
GROUNDS OF HIS DECISION.  IF HE GRANTS JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO
AND DENIES A NEW TRIAL, THE PARTY WHO OBTAINED THE VERDICT MAY APPEAL
FROM THAT JUDGMENT, AND THE APPELLEE MAY CROSS-ASSIGN ERROR TO RULINGS
OF LAW AT THE TRIAL, SO THAT IF THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSES THE ORDER
FOR JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO, IT MAY PASS ON THE ERRORS OF LAW
WHICH THE APPELLEE ASSERTS NULLIFY THE JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT.  P.
253. 

6.  WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO
TO THE DEFENDANT, BUT FAILED TO PASS UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN THE
ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL, AND THE GRANTING OF THE JUDGMENT NON
OBSTANTE VEREDICTO WAS ADJUDGED ERRONEOUS AND REVERSED ON APPEAL, HELD,
THAT IN VIEW OF THE NOVELTY OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER RULE 50(B) AND OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CAUSE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
DIRECTIONS TO HEAR AND RULE UPON THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  P. 254. 

MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. DUNCAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 650, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW
WHICH REVERSED A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DEFENDANT
ENTERED NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO AND REMANDED THE CASE WITH INSTRUCTIONS
TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE
PLAINTIFF. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURE UNDER RULE 50(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. 
FN1 

TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, RESPONDENT (HEREINAFTER
SPOKEN OF AS PLAINTIFF) BROUGHT ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER (HEREINAFTER
SPOKEN OF AS DEFENDANT), PURSUANT TO AN ARKANSAS STATUTE DECLARING THAT
CORPORATIONS SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYE ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF A FELLOW EMPLOYE.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE
PLAINTIFF, WHILE IN THE DEFENDANT'S SERVICE, HAD BEEN SO INJURED.  THE
ANSWER DENIED THE PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYE OF THE DEFENDANT; DENIED HE
WAS INJURED IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED OR BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF HIS CO
EMPLOYE, AND SET UP ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE
UPON THE TRIAL, THE DEFENDANT MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  THE MOTION
WAS DENIED AND THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF ON WHICH
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.  WITHIN TEN DAYS THE DEFENDANT FILED ITS WRITTEN
MOTION IN THE FOLLOWING FORM: 

"COMES THE DEFENDANT, MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, AND FILES ITS MOTION
PRAYING THAT THE JURY'S VERDICT HEREIN AND THE JUDGMENT RENDERED AND
ENTERED THEREON BE SET ASIDE AND JUDGMENT ENTERED HEREIN FOR THE
DEFENDANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT, AND ITS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AND AS GROUNDS THEREFOR STATES  ...  " 

THEREUNDER, IN HEADING A, IT SET OUT NINE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT, FOUR OF WHICH WERE GENERAL, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
VERDICT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW, TO THE EVIDENCE, TO THE LAW AND THE
EVIDENCE, AND THAT THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO DIRECT A VERDICT. 
FOUR CHALLENGED THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO NEGLIGENCE, AS TO
THE EXISTENCE OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION, AND AS TO ASSUMPTION OF RISK,
TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT.  ONE DEALT WITH THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE AND WAS THEREFORE INAPPROPRIATE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. 

UNDER HEADING B, IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, THE SAME
REASONS AS WERE ASSIGNED FOR THE OTHER MOTION WERE, WITH AN IMMATERIAL
EXCEPTION, REPEATED; AND ADDITIONAL REASONS WERE ADDED TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE DAMAGES WERE EXCESSIVE; THAT THE COURT ERRED IN RULING UPON
EVIDENCE, AND IN REFUSING TO GIVE REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS. 

THE MOTION CONCLUDED THUS: 

"WHEREFORE, THE DEFENDANT PRAYS THAT THE VERDICT OF THE JURY HEREIN,
AND THE JUDGMENT RENDERED AND ENTERED THEREON, BE SET ASIDE, AND A
JUDGMENT RENDERED AND ENTERED HEREIN IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT; AND
DEFENDANT FURTHER PRAYS IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT IN THE EVENT THE COURT
REFUSES TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT RENDERED FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND THE
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF RENDERED AND ENTERED ON SAID
VERDICT, AND REFUSES TO RENDER AND ENTER JUDGMENT HEREIN IN FAVOR OF
THE DEFENDANT NOTWITHSTANDING SAID VERDICT AND JUDGMENT, THAT THE COURT
SET ASIDE SAID VERDICT AND JUDGMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF AND
GRANT THE DEFENDANT A NEW TRIAL HEREIN." 

THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED AN OPINION  FN2  HOLDING THAT THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE CO-EMPLOYE AND THAT,
THEREFORE, JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED FOR THE DEFENDANT. 

THE PLAINTIFF FILED A MOTION PRAYING THAT, TO LIMIT THE ISSUES ON
APPEAL, THE COURT'S ORDER AND JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY SHOW THE GROUNDS ON
WHICH RELIEF WAS GRANTED, AND "IN ORDER THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
APPELLATE COURT MAY BE FINAL," THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BE
OVERRULED.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, MERELY ENTERED A JUDGMENT FOR THE
DEFENDANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT. 

THE PLAINTIFF FILED A SECOND MOTION RECITING THAT, AT A HEARING UPON
HIS EARLIER MOTION, THE DEFENDANT HAD RESISTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE
COURT SHOULD RULE ON THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AS THAT MOTION "PASSED
OUT OF EXISTENCE AND CONSIDERATION ON THE GRANTING OF ITS MOTION FOR A
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT."  THE PLAINTIFF FURTHER RECITED
THAT THE COURT DID NOT PASS UPON THE PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS BUT SIMPLY
ENTERED A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, AND RENEWED HIS PRAYER
THAT THE COURT CONSIDER THE MOTION, MODIFY THE JUDGMENT TO SPECIFY THE
GROUNDS UPON WHICH RELIEF WAS GRANTED, AND DISPOSE OF ALL ISSUES RAISED
BY BOTH MOTIONS.  THIS WAS DENIED. 

THE PLAINTIFF APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH DECIDED
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO
MAKE A CASE FOR A JURY.  IT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE
CAUSE WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE
VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.  FN3  IT OVERRULED THE DEFENDANT'S
CONTENTION THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED WITH LEAVE TO THE TRIAL
COURT TO DISPOSE OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF A DECISION BY THIS COURT, RESPECTING THE PROPER
PRACTICE UNDER RULE 50(B), AND A CONFLICT OF DECISIONS,  FN4 MOVED US
TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID: 

"STRICTLY SPEAKING THE MOTION DID NOT PRAY FOR RELIEF IN THE
'ALTERNATIVE,' GIVING THE COURT A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO PROPOSITIONS
EITHER OF WHICH HE MIGHT GRANT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  THE COURT WAS
ASKED TO RULE ON THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ONLY 'IN THE EVENT' HE
'REFUSES TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT  ...  AND JUDGMENT  ...  AND REFUSES
TO ENTER JUDGMENT HEREIN IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT.  ...  '  THE COURT
HAVING GRANTED THE PRAYER OF THE MOTION AS MADE DID NOT ERR IN NOT
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THE CONDITION ON WHICH THE COURT
WAS ASKED TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL DID NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE.  THE NEW
RULES ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROLONG LITIGATION BY PERMITTING LITIGANTS TO
TRY CASES PIECEMEAL.  THEIR PURPOSE WOULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED IF WHEN
RELIEF IS ASKED ON CONDITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY
COULD ON REVERSAL GO BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT AND DEMAND A RULING ON HIS
CONDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE PROPOSITION.  THE ORDER SUSTAINING THE
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT WAS EQUIVALENT TO A
DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL; AND THE LATTER MOTION PASSED OUT
OF THE CASE UPON THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER." 

THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE RULE CONTINUES THE EXISTING PRACTICE
RESPECTING GRANTING OF NEW TRIALS, AND ALSO REGULATES THE PROCEDURE FOR
RENDERING JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING A VERDICT; THAT THE PROVISION FOR AN
ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WOULD BE MEANINGLESS AND NUGATORY IF
THE GRANTING OF THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OPERATED AUTOMATICALLY TO
DISMISS IT, SINCE THE BASES OF THE TWO MOTIONS ARE, OR MAY BE,
DIFFERENT, AND ORDERLY PROCEDURE REQUIRES THAT THE COURT FIRST RULE ON
THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT, THE GRANTING OF WHICH RENDERS UNNECESSARY A
RULING UPON THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, WHICH SHOULD BE RESERVED UNTIL
FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE FORMER. 

THE PLAINTIFF INSISTS THAT THE TRIAL COURT IS LIMITED TO A CHOICE OF
ACTION ON ONE MOTION OR THE OTHER, BUT CANNOT RULE UPON THE MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT AND LEAVE THAT FOR A NEW TRIAL TO BE DISPOSED OF ONLY IF
JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT IS DENIED.  HE FURTHER ASSERTS, IN
SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW, THAT THE UNCONTRADICTED ALLEGATIONS OF
HIS MOTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT DISCLOSE THAT DEFENDANT ELECTED TO
STAND UPON ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ALONE AND THAT IT CANNOT NOW
REPUDIATE THE POSITION THUS TAKEN. 

WE SHALL CONSIDER THE PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS IN INVERSE ORDER. 

1.  WHILE WE TOOK THE CASE TO REVIEW THE CIRCUIT COURT'S CONSTRUCTION
OF THE RULE, IT IS TRUE THAT IF THE DEFENDANT ELECTED TO STAND ON ITS
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AND, IN EFFECT, WITHDREW ITS MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL, WE DO NOT REACH THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN OUR GRANT OF
CERTIORARI.  WE ARE, HOWEVER, UNABLE TO SPELL OUT ANY SUCH ELECTION OR
WITHDRAWAL.  THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ASSIGNED GROUNDS NOT
APPROPRIATE TO BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT.  IT PUT FORWARD CLAIMS THAT THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND WAS EXCESSIVE; THAT THE COURT ERRED IN
RULINGS ON EVIDENCE AND IN REFUSING REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS.  AN
AFFIRMATIVE FINDING WITH RESPECT TO ANY OF THESE CLAIMS WOULD HAVE
REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL WHEREAS NONE OF THEM COULD BE CONSIDERED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT. 

WE THINK THAT WHEN THE DEFENDANT URGED UPON THE DISTRICT COURT THAT
IT SHOULD NOT DECIDE THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE IT PASSED OUT
OF EXISTENCE AND CONSIDERATION ON THE GRANTING OF THE MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT, ALL THAT DEFENDANT MEANT WAS THAT, HAVING GRANTED THE MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT, THE COURT HAD NO OCCASION TO PASS UPON THE REASONS
ASSIGNED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  THAT WOULD
OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN TRUE IF NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT'S ACTION OR IF THAT ACTION HAD BEEN AFFIRMED UPON APPEAL. 

2.  WE COME THEN TO THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION WHICH MOVED US TO ISSUE
THE WRIT, NAMELY, WHETHER UNDER RULE 50(B) THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT
OF THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT EFFECTED AN AUTOMATIC DENIAL OF THE
ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  WE HOLD THAT IT DID NOT. 

THE RULE WAS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPEEDING LITIGATION AND
PREVENTING UNNECESSARY RETRIALS.  IT DOES NOT ALTER THE RIGHT OF EITHER
PARTY TO HAVE A QUESTION OF LAW RESERVED UPON THE DECISION OF WHICH THE
COURT MIGHT ENTER JUDGMENT FOR ONE PARTY IN SPITE OF A VERDICT IN FAVOR
OF THE OTHER.  FN5  PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE RULE, IN ORDER TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO RESERVE THE QUESTION
OF LAW RAISED BY A MOTION TO DIRECT A VERDICT.  FN6  THE PRACTICE WAS
AN INCIDENT OF JURY TRIAL AT COMMON LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF
THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  FN7 

RULE 50(B) MERELY RENDERS UNNECESSARY A REQUEST FOR RESERVATION OF
THE QUESTION OF LAW OR A FORMAL RESERVATION; AND, IN ADDITION,
REGULATES THE TIME AND MANNER OF MOVING FOR DIRECTION AND OF MOVING FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE REFUSAL TO DIRECT.  IT ADDS NOTHING OF
SUBSTANCE TO RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS HERETOFORE EXISTING AND AVAILABLE
THROUGH A MORE CUMBERSOME PROCEDURE. 

A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT DID NOT, AT COMMON
LAW, PRECLUDE A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  FN8  AND THE LATTER MOTION
MIGHT BE, AND OFTEN WAS, PRESENTED AFTER THE FORMER HAD BEEN DENIED. 
THE RULE WAS NOT INTENDED TO ALTER THE EXISTING RIGHT TO MOVE FOR A NEW
TRIAL THERETOFORE RECOGNIZED AND CONFIRMED BY STATUTE.  FN9  IT PERMITS
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION FOR A
NEW TRIAL OR THE FILING OF BOTH MOTIONS JOINTLY OR A MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL IN THE ALTERNATIVE. 

EACH MOTION, AS THE RULE RECOGNIZES, HAS ITS OWN OFFICE.  THE MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT CANNOT BE GRANTED UNLESS, AS MATTER OF LAW, THE OPPONENT
OF THE MOVANT FAILED TO MAKE A CASE AND, THEREFORE, A VERDICT IN
MOVANT'S FAVOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED.  THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
MAY INVOKE THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT IN SO FAR AS IT IS BOTTOMED ON
THE CLAIM THAT THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT
THE DAMAGES ARE EXCESSIVE, OR THAT, FOR OTHER REASONS, THE TRIAL WAS
NOT FAIR TO THE PARTY MOVING; AND MAY RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING
OUT OF ALLEGED SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS IN ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE
OR INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE PROVISION OF THE RULE,  - "A MOTION FOR A
NEW TRIAL MAY BE JOINED WITH THIS MOTION, OR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE PRAYED
FOR IN THE ALTERNATIVE" - DOES NOT CONFINE THE TRIAL JUDGE TO AN
INITIAL CHOICE OF DISPOSING OF EITHER MOTION, THE EXERCISE OF WHICH
CHOICE PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING MOTION.  WE HOLD THAT
THE PHRASE "IN THE ALTERNATIVE" MEANS THAT THE THINGS TO WHICH IT
REFERS ARE TO BE TAKEN NOT TOGETHER BUT ONE IN THE PLACE OF THE OTHER. 
FN10 

THE RULE CONTEMPLATES THAT EITHER PARTY TO THE ACTION IS ENTITLED TO
THE TRIAL JUDGE'S DECISION ON BOTH MOTIONS, IF BOTH ARE PRESENTED.  A
DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE MOVING PARTY UPON THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ENDS
THE LITIGATION AND OFTEN MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR AN APPELLATE COURT TO
DISPOSE OF THE CASE WITHOUT REMANDING IT FOR A NEW TRIAL.  IF, HOWEVER,
AS IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE
MOTION THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE VERDICT WENT IS ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL CONSIDERED IN RESPECT OF ASSERTED SUBSTANTIAL
TRIAL ERRORS AND MATTERS APPEALING TO THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE.  IN
THIS CASE THE REASONS ASSIGNED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
WERE IN BOTH CATEGORIES.  THE GROUNDS ASSIGNED FOR A NEW TRIAL HAVE NOT
BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DISCLOSED THE
UNIFORM PRACTICE IN STATE APPELLATE COURTS HAS BEEN TO REMAND THE CASE
TO THE TRIAL COURT WITH LEAVE TO PASS UPON THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. 
FN11 

THE PLAINTIFF URGES THAT, WHEREAS THE RULE WAS INTENDED TO EXPEDITE
LITIGATION, TO PREVENT UNNECESSARY TRIALS, AND TO SAVE THE TIME OF
COURTS AND LITIGANTS, THE COURSE URGED BY THE DEFENDANT TENDS TO EXTEND
THE DURATION OF LITIGATION, TO CREATE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, AND TO
DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE.    WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE POSITION
IS UNTENABLE.  THIS CASE WELL ILLUSTRATES THE EFFICACY OF THE PROCEDURE
SANCTIONED BY THE RULE.  IN VIEW OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S CONCLUSION THAT
THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR THE JURY HE WOULD, UNDER
THE EARLIER PRACTICE, SIMPLY HAVE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL.  UPON THE NEW
TRIAL, THE JUDGE, IF HIS VIEW AS TO THE LAW REMAINED UNCHANGED, WOULD
HAVE DIRECTED A VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  THE ONLY RECOURSE OF THE
PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE BEEN AN APPEAL FROM THIS SECOND JUDGMENT.  IF THE
APPELLATE COURT HAD BEEN OF THE VIEW IT HERE EXPRESSED, IT WOULD HAVE
REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR A THIRD TRIAL.  UPON
SUCH THIRD TRIAL, IF THE TRIAL COURT HAD RULED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND
GIVEN THE INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT OBJECTS A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A THIRD APPEAL AND, IF THE
DEFENDANT'S POSITION WERE SUSTAINED BY THE APPELLATE COURT, THE CAUSE
WOULD BE REMANDED FOR A FOURTH TRIAL AT WHICH PROPER RULINGS WOULD BE
RENDERED AND PROPER INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN. 

MUCH OF THE DELAY FORMERLY ENCOUNTERED MAY BE AVOIDED BY PURSUING THE
COURSE FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS.  BUT THE COURTS SHOULD SO
ADMINISTER THE RULE AS TO ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER ITS
TERMS.  IS IT NECESSARY, IF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S ORDER FOR JUDGMENT BE
REVERSED ON APPEAL, THAT ONLY THEREAFTER HE DEAL WITH THE ALTERNATIVE
MOTION?  IF SO, AND HE THEN REFUSES TO SET ASIDE THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT,
A SECOND APPEAL WILL LIE,  - NOT FROM HIS ORDER DENYING A NEW TRIAL,
FOR THAT ORDER, SAVE IN MOST EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IS NOT
APPEALABLE N12, BUT FROM THE JUDGMENT ENTERED ON THE VERDICT, FOR
ERRORS OF LAW COMMITTED ON THE TRIAL.  CAN SUCH A SECOND APPEAL BE
AVOIDED IN THE INTEREST OF SPEEDING LITIGATION?  WE THINK SO. 

IF ALTERNATIVE PRAYERS OR MOTIONS ARE PRESENTED, AS HERE, WE HOLD
THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD RULE ON THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT.  WHATEVER
HIS RULING THEREON HE SHOULD ALSO RULE ON THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL,
INDICATING THE GROUNDS OF HIS DECISION.  IF HE DENIES A JUDGMENT N.O.V.
AND ALSO DENIES A NEW TRIAL THE JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT STANDS, AND THE
LOSING PARTY MAY APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON IT, ASSIGNING AS
ERROR BOTH THE REFUSAL OF JUDGMENT N.O.V. AND ERRORS OF LAW IN THE
TRIAL, AS HERETOFORE.  FN13 THE APPELLATE COURT MAY REVERSE THE FORMER
ACTION AND ITSELF ENTER JUDGMENT N.O.V. OR IT MAY REVERSE AND REMAND
FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR ERRORS OF LAW.  IF THE TRIAL JUDGE, AS HE DID HERE,
GRANTS JUDGMENT N.O.V. AND DENIES THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, THE PARTY
WHO OBTAINED THE VERDICT MAY, AS HE DID HERE, APPEAL FROM THAT
JUDGMENT.  ESSENTIALLY, SINCE HIS ACTION IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW, THE
TRIAL JUDGE'S ORDER IS AN ORDER NISI.  THE JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT MAY
STILL STAND, BECAUSE THE APPELLATE COURT MAY REVERSE THE TRIAL JUDGE'S
ACTION.  THIS BEING SO, WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE APPELLEE MAY NOT, AND
SHOULD NOT, CROSS-ASSIGN ERROR, IN THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL, TO RULINGS
OF LAW AT THE TRIAL, SO THAT IF THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSES THE ORDER
FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V., IT MAY PASS ON THE ERRORS OF LAW WHICH THE
APPELLEE ASSERTS NULLIFY THE JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICT.  FN14 

SHOULD THE TRIAL JUDGE ENTER JUDGMENT N.O.V. AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
GRANT A NEW TRIAL ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS ASSIGNED THEREFOR, HIS
DISPOSITION OF THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WOULD NOT ORDINARILY BE
REVIEWABLE,  FN15  AND ONLY HIS ACTION IN ENTERING JUDGMENT WOULD BE
GROUND OF APPEAL.  IF THE JUDGMENT WERE REVERSED, THE CASE, ON REMAND,
WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE'S AWARD OF A NEW TRIAL. 

WE MIGHT REVERSE AND DIRECT THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT TO PASS ON BOTH MOTIONS.  BUT THAT COURSE WOULD, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, BE NEITHER FAIR NOR PRACTICAL.  AS RESPECTS FEDERAL
COURTS, THE PROCEDURE PERMITTED BY THE RULE IS NOVEL.  THE PROVISION
WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE SUBSTANTIALLY FOLLOWS THE FIRST STATE
STATUTE TO AUTHORIZE SUCH PROCEDURE.  FN16  THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT
STATE HAS CONSTRUED THE STATUTE TO PERMIT THE TRIAL JUDGE TO PASS ON
THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT, LEAVING THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR LATER
DISPOSITION.  IN THE EVENT THAT HIS DECISION IS REVERSED, THE PRACTICE
IS TO REMAND THE CAUSE WITH LEAVE TO THE TRIAL JUDGE TO PASS UPON THE
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.  FN17  IT WAS THEREFORE NOT UNNATURAL FOR THE
DEFENDANT TO ADVOCATE THAT COURSE, OR FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE TO FOLLOW
IT. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE THINK THE FAILURE OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO
RULE IN THE ALTERNATIVE ON BOTH MATTERS CAN BE CURED WITHOUT DEPRIVING
THE DEFENDANT OF OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ITS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL HEARD
AND DECIDED BY THE TRIAL COURT, BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT BELOW TO
PROVIDE THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO HEAR AND
RULE UPON THAT MOTION.  MODIFIED. 

FN1  308 U.S. APPENDIX, P. 63; U.S.C., TIT. 28, SEC. 723C ADDENDUM. 
"WHENEVER A MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT MADE AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE
EVIDENCE IS DENIED OR FOR ANY REASON IS NOT GRANTED, THE COURT IS
DEEMED TO HAVE SUBMITTED THE ACTION TO THE JURY SUBJECT TO A LATER
DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE MOTION.  WITHIN 10
DAYS AFTER THE RECEPTION OF A VERDICT, A PARTY WHO HAS MOVED FOR A
DIRECTED VERDICT MAY MOVE TO HAVE THE VERDICT AND ANY JUDGMENT ENTERED
THEREON SET ASIDE AND TO HAVE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS
MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT; OR IF A VERDICT WAS NOT RETURNED SUCH
PARTY, WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE JURY HAS BEEN DISCHARGED, MAY MOVE FOR
JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  A
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL MAY BE JOINED WITH THIS MOTION, OR A NEW TRIAL
MAY BE PRAYED FOR IN THE ALTERNATIVE.  IF A VERDICT WAS RETURNED THE
COURT MAY ALLOW THE JUDGMENT TO STAND OR MAY REOPEN THE JUDGMENT AND
EITHER ORDER A NEW TRIAL OR DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE
REQUESTED VERDICT HAD BEEN DIRECTED.  IF NO VERDICT WAS RETURNED THE
COURT MAY DIRECT THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AS IF THE REQUESTED VERDICT HAD
BEEN DIRECTED OR MAY ORDER A NEW TRIAL." 

FN2  27 F.SUPP.  4. 

FN3  108 F.2D 848. 

FN4  PRUITT V. HARDWARE DEALERS MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO., 112 F.2D 140;
PESSAGNO V. EUCLID INVESTMENT CO., 112 F.2D 577.  OTHER CASES CITED
SEEM NOT TO HAVE RAISED THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED.  LEADER V.
APEX HOSIERY CO., 108 F.2D 71; AFFIRMED 310 U.S. 469; MASSACHUSETTS
PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. MOUBER, 110 F.2D 203; LOWDEN V. DENTON, 110 F.2D
274; RELIANCE LIFE INS. CO. V. BURGESS, 112 F.2D 234; FERRO CONCRETE
CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 112 F.2D 488; WILLIAMS V. NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK TRANSIT CO., 113 F.2D 649; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. BELL, 114 F.2D
341. 

FN5  COMPARE SLOCUM V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 228 U.S. 364 WITH
BALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE V. REDMAN, 295 U.S. 654. 

FN6  BALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE V. REDMAN, SUPRA, 659. 

FN7  IBID., 660. 

FN8  THOMPSON, TRIALS, (2D ED.)  SEC.  2726; BRANNON V. MAY, 42 IND.
92; STONE V. HAWKEYE INS. CO., 68 IOWA 737; TOMBERLIN V. CHICAGO, ST.
P., M. & O. RY. CO., 211 WIS. 144, 148; 246 N.W. 571; 248 N.W. 121. 

FN9  SEE RULE 59(A), 28 U.S.C. 723C ADDENDUM, CF. JUDICIAL CODE SEC.
269, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 391. 

FN10  THE WORD "ALTERNATIVE" MAY BE USED PROPERLY IN THIS SENSE.  SEE
WEBSTER'S INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, SECOND EDITION. 

FN11  BRYAN V. INSPIRATION CONSOL.  COPPER CO., 24 ARIZ. 47; 206 P.
402; ESTATE OF CALDWELL, 216 CAL. 694; 16 P.2D 139; HAYDEN V. JOHNSON,
59 GA. 105; CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO. V. DIMICK, 96 ILL. 42; DANIELS V.
BUTLER, 175 IOWA 439; 155 N.W. 1013; LINKER V. UNION PAC. R. CO., 87
KAN. 186; 123 P. 745; CUMMINS' ESTATE, 271 MICH 215; 259 N.W. 894; KIES
V. SEARLES, 146 MINN. 359; 178 N.W. 811; CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BANK V.
FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO., 159 MINN. 28; 198 N.W. 137; WEGMANN V.
MINNEAPOLIS STREET RY. CO., 165 MINN. 41; 205 N.W. 433; TROVATTEN V.
HANSON, 171 MINN. 130; 213 N.W. 536; FISK V. HENARIE, 15 ORE.  89; 13
P. 760; OSCHE V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 324 PA. 1; 187 A. 396;
ALTOMARI V. KRUGER, 325 PA. 235; 188 A. 828; RASKE V. NORTHERN PACIFIC
RY. CO., 74 WASH. 155; 132 P. 865; MCLAIN V. EASLEY, 146 WASH. 377; 262
P. 975; 264 P. 714.  STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR RULES RENDER IT POSSIBLE
IN SOME STATES TO BRING THE GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL OR THE ACTION OF THE
TRIAL COURT ON THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT. 
SEE PETERS V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO., 282 MICH. 426; 276 N.W. 504; KAUDERS
V. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, 299 ILL. APP. 152; 19 N.E. 630;
DOCHTERMANN VAN & EXPRESS CO. V. FISS, DOERR & CARROLL HORSE CO., 155
APP. DIV. (N.Y.)  162; 140 N.Y.S. 72. 

FN12  SEE FAIRMOUNT GLASS WORKS V. CUB FORK COAL CO., 287 U.S. 474,
481-485. 

FN13  HALL V. WEARE, 92 U.S. 728, 732. 

FN14  THIS PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED UNDER A STATUTE AND A
SUPPLEMENTARY COURT RULE IN MICHIGAN; PETERS V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO.,
282 MICH. 426; 276 N.W. 504, AND PERHAPS IS INDICATED IN WISCONSIN IN
THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE OR FORMAL RULE:  TOMBERLIN V. CHICAGO, ST. P.,
M. & O. RY. CO., 211 WIS. 144, 149; 246 N.W. 571; 248 N.W. 121. 

FN15  UNITED STATES V. YOUNG, 94 U.S. 258; YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, 95
U.S. 641; PHILLIPS V. NEGLEY, 117 U.S. 665, 671; HUME V. BOWIE, 148
U.S. 245; FAIRMOUNT GLASS WORKS V. CUB FORK COAL CO., SUPRA. 

FN16  2 MASON'S MINNESOTA STATUTES (1927) SEC. 9495. 

FN17  SEE THE MINNESOTA CASES CITED IN NOTE 11. 
..END :




















STEVENS CO. V. FOSTER & KLEISER CO., 311 U.S. 255 


NO. 41.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 20, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  -
109 F.2D 764, REVERSED. 


A COMPLAINT IN A SUIT FOR TRIPLE DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST
ACT, BROUGHT BY A POSTER ADVERTISING COMPANY AGAINST OTHERS ENGAGED IN
THAT BUSINESS, ADEQUATELY ALLEGED A CONSPIRACY BY THE DEFENDANTS TO
MONOPOLIZE THE BUSINESS OF BILL POSTING BY RESTRAINING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF POSTERS.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ALSO,
AS PART OF THE GENERAL CONSPIRACY, LOCAL ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS AIMED
AT PREVENTING THE COMPLAINANT FROM OBTAINING SITES FOR POSTING AND
SIGNS.  INJURY AND DAMAGE TO THE COMPLAINANT, INCLUDING LOSS OF
BUSINESS AND PROFITS, WERE ALLEGED.  HELD: 

1.  THE DAMAGE ALLEGED COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN THE
CONSEQUENCE SOLELY OF THE LOCAL ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS; AND THE
ALLEGATIONS OF DAMAGE, THOUGH GENERAL, WERE ADEQUATE.  P. 260. 

2.  IT WAS NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT THE
COMPLAINANT ALLEGE IT WAS UNABLE, AS A RESULT OF DEFENDANTS'
ACTIVITIES, TO OBTAIN POSTERS.  P. 261. 

C.E. STEVENS COMPANY ET AL. V. FOSTER & KLEISER CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT FOR TRIPLE DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN
ANTITRUST ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE THE PETITIONERS FILED A COMPLAINT  FN1  IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR WESTERN WASHINGTON UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,  FN2  FOR
TRIPLE DAMAGES FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION BY THE RESPONDENTS OF SECS. 1 AND
2 OF THE ACT.  FN3  THE RESPONDENTS DEMURRED TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT TREATED THE
DEMURRER AS A MOTION TO DISMISS AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  FN4 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES DAMAGE TO THE
PETITIONERS CONSEQUENT UPON A CONSPIRACY TO CREATE A MONOPOLY IN THE
BUSINESS OF BILL POSTING IN THE PACIFIC COAST REGION AND TO ACCOMPLISH
THAT MONOPOLY BY RESTRAINING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE TRANSPORTATION
OF POSTERS. 

THE RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT MAY BE SUMMARIZED. 

THE PETITIONER C.E. STEVENS COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, WHICH IS THE BUSINESS OF PROCURING LOCATIONS AND
ERECTING STRUCTURES THEREON FOR THE POSTING OF BILLS AND THE PAINTING
OF SIGNS.  ITS BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED IN WASHINGTON AND OTHER STATES. 
MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES ARE THE SOLICITING,
ENTERING INTO, AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS FOR POSTER SERVICE FOR THE
DISPLAY OF POSTERS, PAINTED BULLETINS, AND WALL DISPLAYS.  THESE
CONTRACTS ARE SECURED FROM ADVERTISERS, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, AND
ADVERTISING AGENCIES LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND
CONSTITUTE AGREEMENTS WHEREBY THE PARTIES ARE TO SHIP POSTERS,
LITHOGRAPHS, DESIGNS, STENCILS, ETC., INTERSTATE WITH THE PURPOSE THAT
THE POSTERS OR LITHOGRAPHS SHALL BE PLACED UPON BILLBOARDS AND THE
OTHER MATERIAL USED FOR PAINTING SIGNS ON LOCATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE
BILL POSTING COMPANY.  FOSTER & KLEISER CO., ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS, IS
ENGAGED IN THE SAME BUSINESS IN THE PACIFIC COAST STATES AND
ELSEWHERE.  THE OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE CONNECTED WITH AND CONTROLLED BY
FOSTER & KLEISER CO. OR ITS SUBSIDIARY, RESTOP REALTY CO., THE LATTER
BEING IN THE BUSINESS OF OWNING, HOLDING, AND LEASING PROPERTY FOR
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SITES ON THE PACIFIC COAST. 

THE USUAL ROUTINE OF THE BUSINESS IS THAT THE ADVERTISER, DIRECTLY OR
THROUGH AN AGENCY, CONTRACTS WITH A LITHOGRAPHER FOR MAKING POSTERS. 
THE ADVERTISER, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH AN AGENCY, CONTRACTS WITH
A BILL POSTING COMPANY IN THE DESIRED LOCALITY FOR THE PLACING OF THE
POSTERS.  THE ADVERTISER THEN FORWARDS THE POSTERS TO THE BILL POSTER
OR ORDERS THE LITHOGRAPHER TO FORWARD THEM.  FOSTER & KLEISER CO. IS
OPERATING UNDER NUMEROUS CONTRACTS THUS MADE. 

FOSTER & KLEISER CO. FORMULATED AND ENTERED INTO A PLAN, SCHEME, AND
CONSPIRACY WITH OTHERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MONOPOLIZING ALL BRANCHES OF
THE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING BUSINESS IN THE PACIFIC COAST AREA AND
PREVENTING PETITIONER AND OTHER INDEPENDENTS, SO-CALLED, FROM ENGAGING
IN THAT BUSINESS AND SECURING AND EXECUTING CONTRACTS THEREFOR AND FROM
SECURING POSTERS FOR USE THEREIN.  THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRATORS WAS
TO PREVENT LITHOGRAPHERS FROM SUPPLYING POSTERS TO INDEPENDENTS,
INCLUDING PETITIONER, OR TO ADVERTISERS WHO WERE CUSTOMERS OF
PETITIONER AND TO PREVENT INDEPENDENTS FROM SECURING ADEQUATE SITES FOR
THE DISPLAY OF POSTERS. 

THE BILL ASSERTS THAT THERE IS AN ASSOCIATION OF PAINT PLANT  FN5
OPERATORS AND POSTER PLANT OPERATORS, KNOWN AS "OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.," OF WHICH THE OWNERS OF SEPARATE PLANTS
LOCATED IN SEPARATE CITIES ARE MEMBERS.  THERE IS ONE MEMBERSHIP FOR
EACH MUNICIPALITY.  VOTING RIGHTS ARE ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF
SEPARATE PLANTS OWNED AND OPERATED BY EACH VOTING MEMBER.  FOSTER &
KLEISER CO. HAS SOME SIX HUNDRED PLANTS WITH CONCOMITANT VOTING
RIGHTS.  BY VIRTUE OF ITS VOICE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION,
AND PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY, IT CAUSED THE ASSOCIATION TO THREATEN
TO REFUSE, AND TO REFUSE, TO POST LITHOGRAPHS IF THE MANUFACTURERS
THEREOF SOLD OR FURNISHED THEM FOR POSTING BY INDEPENDENT PLANTS OR
FURNISHED SAMPLES OF POSTERS TO INDEPENDENT PLANTS, WITH THE AIM AND
EFFECT OF COERCING AND INTIMIDATING THE LITHOGRAPHERS SO AS TO PREVENT
AND HAMPER THE PETITIONER AND OTHER COMPETITORS OF THE ASSOCIATION'S
PLANTS, AND OF THE RESPONDENTS, FROM SECURING SAMPLES OR LITHOGRAPHS. 
ACTUAL OBSTRUCTION AND HINDRANCE OF THE INDEPENDENTS, INCLUDING THE
PETITIONER, RESULTED.  PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY, THE ASSOCIATION AND
THE CONSPIRATORS THREATENED TO REFUSE, AND HAVE REFUSED, TO POST
POSTERS AND LITHOGRAPHS FOR ADVERTISERS IF THEY PATRONIZED OR MADE
CONTRACTS WITH INDEPENDENT PLANTS.  IN ADDITION, THE CONSPIRATORS
REFUSED TO EXECUTE ANY PORTION OF NATIONAL CONTRACTS FOR OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING IF ANY PART OF THE WORK HAD BEEN EXECUTED, OR WAS TO BE
EXECUTED BY AN INDEPENDENT PLANT.  THE MOVEMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF POSTERS, LITHOGRAPHS, AND DESIGNS FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING WAS THUS
ATTEMPTED TO BE MONOPOLIZED, WAS MONOPOLIZED, AND WAS UNREASONABLY
RESTRAINED BY THE RESPONDENTS. 

OTHER ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE WITH RESPECT TO AGREEMENTS BROUGHT ABOUT
BY THE FOSTER & KLEISER CO. AND OTHER BILL POSTING CONCERNS TO EXCLUDE
THE PETITIONER AND OTHER INDEPENDENTS FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE
NATIONAL BUSINESS OF ADVERTISING.  IT IS ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE
RESPONDENTS RESORTED TO VARIOUS OTHER ILLEGAL AND UNFAIR ACTS AND MEANS
IN THE PETITIONER'S LOCALITY IN AN EFFORT TO PREVENT PETITIONER FROM
OBTAINING SITES FOR POSTING LITHOGRAPHS AND DISPLAYING ADVERTISING
SIGNS, AS PART OF THE SAME GENERAL CONSPIRACY AND FOR THE SAME ULTIMATE
PURPOSE.  WE DO NOT FURTHER SET OUT THESE ALLEGATIONS BECAUSE ENOUGH
HAS BEEN SAID TO INDICATE THE QUESTION ON WHICH THE CASE TURNS. 

THE RESPONDENTS CONCEDED IN THE COURT BELOW, AND HERE, THAT THE
COMPLAINT CHARGES A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN
RAMSAY CO. V. ASSOCIATED BILL POSTERS, 260 U.S. 501. 

THE COURT BELOW, HOWEVER, AGREED WITH THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE
COMPLAINT FAILS TO ALLEGE THAT THE CONSPIRACY, SO FAR AS IT AFFECTED
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WAS EFFECTIVE TO INJURE PETITIONER, SINCE THERE
WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT RESPONDENTS' CONDUCT PREVENTED THE PETITIONER
FROM OBTAINING OR RECEIVING ANY POSTERS.  IT THOUGHT THE ALLEGATIONS OF
DAMAGE TO PETITIONER'S BUSINESS WERE DIRECTED TO THE LOCAL ACTS OF THE
RESPONDENTS RATHER THAN TO ANY RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
POSTERS; AND, AS PURELY LOCAL ACTIVITIES WERE THE GRAVAMEN OF THE
COMPLAINT, NO VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT WAS SUFFICIENTLY CHARGED. 
THIS, UPON THE PRINCIPLE THAT LOCAL ACTIVITIES PURSUED WITHOUT INTENT
TO HINDER OR RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH THEY INDIRECTLY
AFFECT IT, CANNOT FLOW FROM OR SUSTAIN A FINDING OF CONSPIRACY TO
INTERFERE WITH OR RESTRAIN SUCH COMMERCE. 

THE PETITIONER URGES THAT THE COMPLAINT CHARGES A GENERAL CONSPIRACY
TO MONOPOLIZE THE BILL POSTING BUSINESS ON THE PACIFIC COAST AND, AS
ONE OF THE MEANS OF SUCH MONOPOLY, TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
POSTERS CONTRIBUTING TO THE RESULTING INJURY OF THE PETITIONER.  IT
INSISTS THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS WRONG IN CONSTRUING THE COMPLAINT AS
CHARGING A MONOPOLY OF LOCAL BUSINESS NOT INTENDED TO AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES A CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF SECS.
1 AND 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE OBJECT OF IT IS TO MONOPOLIZE OR TO
RESTRAIN TRADE IN THE BILL POSTING BUSINESS ON THE PACIFIC COAST, AND
IN AID OF THAT PURPOSE, TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN POSTERS; AND
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGES THAT SUCH MONOPOLY AND RESTRAINT
INFLICTED DAMAGE UPON THE PETITIONER. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE PETITIONER SOLICITS
CONTRACTS FOR POSTER ADVERTISING AS DOES THE RESPONDENT, FOSTER &
KLEISER CO. THE PETITIONER IS THUS IN COMPETITION WITH FOSTER & KLEISER
CO. IN THE EFFORT TO OBTAIN CONTRACTS WHICH CALL FOR THE INTERSTATE
SHIPMENT OF POSTERS FOR THEIR EXECUTION.  THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY
CHARGES A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN THE TRANSPORTATION OF POSTERS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN AID OF THE ATTEMPTED MONOPOLY.  IT ALSO CHARGES
OTHER MEANS AND ACTS, LOCAL IN CHARACTER, WITH THE SAME AIM.  THE
CONSPIRACY, WITH ITS EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS ALLEGED TO HAVE
CAUSED THE PETITIONER GREAT EXPENSE AND LOSS OF PROFITS; TO HAVE
RESTRAINED AND PREVENTED PETITIONER FROM ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS IN SAN
FRANCISCO, "ALL TO THE GREAT INJURY AND DAMAGE OF PLAINTIFF."  THE
PLEADING FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS WERE INJURIOUS TO
THE PETITIONER, EXCLUDED PETITIONER FROM FAIR COMPETITION, AND CHARGES
THAT BECAUSE OF PETITIONER'S INABILITY TO COMPETE WITH RESPONDENTS,
PETITIONER "HAS BEEN DAMAGED IN THAT ITS BUSINESS WAS RENDERED
UNPROFITABLE, AND THE PROFITS OF ITS SAID TRADE AND COMMERCE HAVE
DIMINISHED, AND THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY HAS SUFFERED LOSS AND BEEN
DAMAGED THEREBY." 

WHILE THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE GENERAL, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THEY ARE
INADEQUATE NOR ARE WE ABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THEY ARE
COUPLED WITH AND TREATED SOLELY AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF LOCAL ACTIVITIES
OF THE RESPONDENTS. 

WE THINK THAT, IN ORDER TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE PETITIONER
WAS NOT BOUND TO AVER THAT IT HAD BEEN WHOLLY UNABLE TO OBTAIN
POSTERS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE C.E. STEVENS COMPANY AND TWO
SUBSIDIARIES.  THE COMPLAINT IS IN THREE COUNTS, THE FIRST SETTING
FORTH THE CLAIM OF THE PARENT COMPANY, AND EACH OF THE OTHERS THE CLAIM
OF ONE OF THE SUBSIDIARIES, AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS.  SAVE AS TO THE
LOCALE OF THE PLAINTIFFS' BUSINESS, AND THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES DEMANDED,
THE COUNTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE.  WE SHALL REFER TO THE FIRST COUNT
AS THE COMPLAINT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION OF
THE PROPRIETY OF THE JOINDER OF THE SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION, WHICH WAS
RAISED BY THE DEMURRER, AND WE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON IT. 

FN2  ACT OF OCT. 15, 1914, C. 323, SEC. 4, 38 STAT. 731, 15 U.S.C.
SEC. 15. 

FN3  ACT OF JULY 2, 1890, C. 647, SECS. 1 AND 2, 26 STAT. 209; 15
U.S.C. SECS. 1 AND 2. 

FN4  109 F.2D 764. 

FN5  A PLANT IS A GROUP OF SIGN LOCATIONS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY ONE
BILL POSTER IN ONE CITY OR COMMUNITY. 
..END :















BOWMAN V. LOPERENA, 311 U.S. 262 


NO. 59.  SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 20, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  -
110 F.2D 348, REVERSED. 


1.  A PETITION IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR A REHEARING, FROM THE
DENIAL OF WHICH AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
THIS CASE, HELD A PETITION FOR REHEARING OF AN ORDER ADJUDGING THE
DEBTOR A BANKRUPT.  P. 265. 

2.  WHERE A PETITION FOR REHEARING OF AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT ADJUDGING THE DEBTOR A BANKRUPT IS ALLOWED TO BE FILED OUT OF
TIME, AND THE COURT UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS DENIES THE
PETITION, THE TIME FOR THE TAKING OF AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF
ADJUDICATION RUNS NOT FROM THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER BUT FROM THE DATE OF
THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR REHEARING.  P. 266. 

BOWMAN V. LOPERENA ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FROM
AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ADJUDICATING THE DEBTOR A BANKRUPT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER MADE BY
A DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN BANKRUPTCY. 

THE PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED BY THE PETITIONER, HEREINAFTER SPOKEN OF
AS THE DEBTOR, IN THE DISTRICT COURT, FOR AN EXTENSION UNDER SEC. 74 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED.  FN1  THE PETITION, FILED MAY 23, 1935,
WAS REFERRED TO A REFEREE, WHO DENIED IT JULY 26, 1935.  MAY 15, 1936,
THE COURT, ON PETITION FOR REVIEW, RE-REFERRED THE CAUSE TO A REFEREE,
WHO, ON AUGUST 19, 1936, FILED HIS CERTIFICATE WITH THE COURT IN WHICH
HE CONCLUDED:  "I THEREFORE RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSAL OR PROPOSALS OF
THE DEBTOR FOR AN EXTENSION UNDER SEC. 74 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BE NOT
CONFIRMED, AND THAT THE DEBTOR BE ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT." 

AUGUST 21, 1936, THE DISTRICT COURT, RECITING THE REFEREE'S
RECOMMENDATION, MADE AN ORDER ADJUDICATING THE DEBTOR A BANKRUPT AND
AGAIN REFERRING THE CAUSE TO THE REFEREE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
BANKRUPTCY. 

AUGUST 28, 1936, THE DEBTOR PRAYED A REVIEW AND THE REFEREE CERTIFIED
THE MATTER TO THE COURT.  IN THE PETITION FOR REVIEW BOTH THE ACTION OF
THE REFEREE IN REPORTING HIS RECOMMENDATIONS INSTEAD OF GRANTING OR
DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR EXTENSION, AND THE ACTION OF THE COURT ON
THE REFEREE'S REPORT ADJUDICATING THE DEBTOR A BANKRUPT, WERE
CHALLENGED.  SEPTEMBER 10, 1936, THE DEBTOR FILED A PETITION FOR
REHEARING OF THE ORDER OF ADJUDICATION, PRAYING THAT IT BE VACATED AND
THE CAUSE REHEARD.  OCTOBER 14, 1936, MOTION WAS FILED BY THE DEBTOR,
AFTER DUE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES IN INTEREST, PRAYING THAT THE ORDER OF
ADJUDICATION BE VACATED AND THE PROCEEDING DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. 

OCTOBER 16, 1936, A DISTRICT JUDGE HEARD THE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ADJUDICATION AND ENTERED AN ORDER THAT THE
ENTIRE MATTER OF THE DEBTOR'S PETITION FOR EXTENSION WHICH WAS RE
REFERRED TO THE REFEREE MAY 15, 1936, BE AGAIN RE-REFERRED TO HIM WITH
DIRECTION TO HEAR AND CONSIDER THE PETITION FOR EXTENSION AND ANY
SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION, AND TO MAKE AN ORDER OR ORDERS THEREON AS
PROVIDED BY THE ACT AND THE GENERAL ORDERS, AND CONTINUING:  "IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS HEREIN, OTHER THAN THOSE
HEREINABOVE ORDERED, AND PARTICULARLY ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE
ADJUDICATION AND ORDER OF REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 74 ENTERED ON AUGUST
21ST, 1936, BE STAYED UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT MADE BY A
JUDGE THEREOF."  IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE COURT DID NOT FINALLY
DISPOSE OF THE PETITION AND MOTION SO FAR AS THEY WERE DIRECTED TO THE
ADJUDICATION OF THE DEBTOR. 

PROCEEDINGS ON A SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSAL OF EXTENSION WERE HAD BEFORE
THE REFEREE FROM TIME TO TIME AND EVENTUATED, ON JUNE 14, 1937, IN AN
ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR EXTENSION.  THE DEBTOR PRESENTED A
PETITION FOR REVIEW TO THE REFEREE JULY 15, 1937, AND THEREUPON THE
LATTER MADE AND FORWARDED TO THE COURT HIS CERTIFICATE RECITING THE
PROCEEDINGS AND CERTIFYING THE EVIDENCE.  THE MATTER CAME ON FOR
HEARING BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT AND, ON OCTOBER 25, 1937, A JUDGE OF
THAT COURT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE REFEREE AND ORDERED THAT THE STAY
OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ORDER OF ADJUDICATION OF AUGUST 21, 1936,
SHOULD BE VACATED AND THAT THE REFEREE SHOULD PROCEED TO PERFORM HIS
DUTIES UNDER THE ADJUDICATION AND ORDER OF REFERENCE. 

NOVEMBER 15, 1937, THE DEBTOR FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING IN WHICH
HE ASKED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY BE VACATED
AND SET ASIDE.  ON THE SAME DAY A JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENDORSED
UPON THE PETITION: 

"THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN 'SEASONALLY PRESENTED' AND 'ENTERTAINED'
BY THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT, PERMISSION TO FILE SAME IS HEREBY
GRANTED." 

THE PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS HEARD BY A JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
AND, ON FEBRUARY 17, 1938, HE RENDERED HIS OPINION AND MADE AN ORDER
THEREON.  24 F.SUPP.  381.  IN THE OPINION HE SAID: 

"THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT (A) ON A PETITION TO REVIEW AN ORDER
OF THIS COURT DENYING REVIEW OF AN ORDER TO SET ASIDE ADJUDICATION; (B)
ON A PETITION TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE REFEREE CALLING A MEETING OF
CREDITORS FOR ELECTING, AND ELECTING A TRUSTEE, IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED
ESTATE." 

HIS ORDER WAS:  "THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED." 

MARCH 18, 1938, AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS ALLOWED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  IN HIS PETITION FOR APPEAL THE DEBTOR STATED
THAT HE "DOES HEREBY APPEAL  ...  FROM SUCH ORDER OR ORDERS, JUDGMENT
OR JUDGMENTS, AND PARTICULARLY FROM THE ORDER OF ADJUDICATION, MADE AND
ENTERED AUGUST 21, 1936, ...  "  HIS FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR WAS TO
THE ORDER OF ADJUDICATION. 

THE COURT BELOW DISMISSED THE APPEAL  FN2  IN THE VIEW THAT, WHILE IT
WAS TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE ORDER DENYING THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING, IT CAME TOO LATE BECAUSE THE ADJUDICATION WAS ENTERED AUGUST
21, 1936, AND THE TIME FOR APPEAL THEREFROM EXPIRED THIRTY DAYS
THEREAFTER UNLESS THE RUNNING OF TIME FOR TAKING APPEAL WAS SUSPENDED
BY APPLICATION FOR REHEARING.  THE COURT CONSTRUED THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1936, AS DIRECTED RATHER TO THE ACTION OF
THE REFEREE THAN TO THE ORDER OF ADJUDICATION, BUT THAT PETITION, AS WE
HAVE SEEN, RECITED THE ADJUDICATION, ALLEGED THAT IT WAS ERRONEOUS, AND
PRAYED THAT IT BE VACATED.  THIS POSITION WAS REITERATED IN THE MOTION
OF OCTOBER 14, 1936, AND BOTH THE PETITION AND THE MOTION WERE HEARD
TOGETHER AND WERE THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF OCTOBER 16, 1936, RE
REFERRING THE CASE AND STAYING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ADJUDICATION
UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. 

AS APPEARS FROM THE ORDER OF OCTOBER 25, 1937, THE DISTRICT JUDGE
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY OF THE ADJUDICATION WAS
BEFORE HIM AND DEALT WITH IT IN HIS DENIAL OF THE PETITION.  TREATING
THE PETITION OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1936, AND THE MOTION OF OCTOBER 14, 1936,
AS PETITIONS FOR REHEARING OF THE ORDER OF ADJUDICATION, AND THE
PETITION OF NOVEMBER 15, 1937, AS A SECOND PETITION FOR REHEARING FILED
OUT OF TIME, THE ENDORSEMENT UPON THE LATTER BY A JUDGE OF THE COURT,
AND THE HEARING HELD AND OPINION ANNOUNCED UPON IT, SHOW THAT IT WAS
ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT AND DEALT WITH UPON ITS MERITS.  UNTIL THE
ORDER OF FEBRUARY 17, 1938, NO FINAL DECISION WAS RENDERED SUSTAINING
THE ADJUDICATION AS AGAINST THE DEBTOR'S ATTACK. 

THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ENLARGED THE TIME FOR TAKING APPEAL FROM THE
ORDER OF ADJUDICATION.  THE FILING OF AN UNTIMELY PETITION FOR
REHEARING WHICH IS NOT ENTERTAINED OR CONSIDERED ON ITS MERITS, OR A
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUCH A PETITION OUT OF TIME, IF NOT ACTED ON
OR IF DENIED BY THE TRIAL COURT, CANNOT OPERATE TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR
APPEAL.  FN3  BUT WHERE THE COURT ALLOWS THE FILING AND, AFTER
CONSIDERING THE MERITS, DENIES THE PETITION, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AS ORIGINALLY ENTERED DOES NOT BECOME FINAL UNTIL SUCH DENIAL, AND THE
TIME FOR APPEAL RUNS FROM THE DATE THEREOF.  FN4 

WE HOLD THAT THE COURT BELOW SHOULD HAVE ENTERTAINED THE APPEAL. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, C. 204, SEC. 1, 47 STAT. 1467; ACT OF JUNE
7, 1934, C. 424, SEC. 2, 48 STAT. 922, 923; 11 U.S.C. (1934) SEC. 202. 

FN2  IN RE BOWMAN, 110 F.2D 348. 

FN3  MORSE V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 151, 153, 154; WAYNE UNITED GAS
CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., 300 U.S. 131, 137. 

FN4  VOORHEES V. JOHN T. NOYE MFG. CO., 151 U.S. 135, 137; GYPSY OIL
CO. V. ESCOE, 275 U.S. 498, 499; WAYNE UNITED GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS
GLASS CO., SUPRA, 137, 138. 
..END :

















HELVERING V. OREGON INS. CO., 311 U.S. 267 


NO. 564.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  - 112
F.2D 468, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 203(A)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1932 AND 1934, WHICH
PERMITS A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY - DEFINED BY THE ACTS AS "AN INSURANCE
COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY
CONTRACTS (INCLUDING CONTRACTS OF COMBINED LIFE, HEALTH, AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE)" - IN COMPUTING INCOME TAX TO DEDUCT FROM GROSS INCOME AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO A PRESCRIBED PERCENTAGE OF ITS "RESERVE FUNDS REQUIRED
BY LAW," AUTHORIZES SUCH DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RESERVES (REQUIRED BY
LAW) BASED UPON DISABILITY PROVISIONS OF POLICIES OF COMBINED LIFE AND
DISABILITY INSURANCE.  P. 270. 

2.  THE DEDUCTION MAY BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF SUCH RESERVES WHETHER
THE POLICYHOLDERS HAVE THEN INCURRED DISABILITY OR NOT.  P. 271. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. OREGON MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 640, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHICH REVERSED A DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY
IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN COMPUTING ITS NET TAXABLE INCOME FOR 1933 AND 1934, RESPONDENT
TOOK A DEDUCTION OF 3 3/4% OF THE RESERVES IT HAD SET ASIDE WITH
RESPECT TO ITS COMBINED POLICIES OF LIFE, HEALTH, AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE.  SECTION 203(A)(2) OF THE 1932 AND 1934 REVENUE ACTS PERMITS
A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY TO DEDUCT FROM ITS GROSS INCOME "AN AMOUNT
EQUAL TO (3 3/4%) OF THE MEAN OF THE RESERVE FUNDS REQUIRED BY LAW
..."  FN1  THAT RESPONDENT WAS A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AS DEFINED BY
THE REVENUE ACTS AND THAT IT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW TO MAINTAIN RESERVES
TO PROTECT BOTH DEATH AND DISABILITY BENEFITS WERE CONCEDED.  THE
COMMISSIONER ALLOWED A DEDUCTION FOR DEATH RESERVES, BUT DISALLOWED AS
TO DISABILITY RESERVES, ON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE WORDS "RESERVE FUNDS
REQUIRED BY LAW" SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY ONLY TO RESERVES FOR
DEATH LOSSES - THEREBY EXCLUDING DISABILITY RESERVES.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS HELD THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWABLE IN BOTH RESPECTS AND REVERSED THE
COMMISSIONER.  FN2  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED; FN3  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD
REACHED AN OPPOSITE RESULT ON THE SAME QUESTION.  FN4 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DISCLOSES THAT A DEDUCTION SIMILAR TO THAT
ALLOWED BY SEC. 203(A)(2) FIRST APPEARED IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921,
FN5  AND HAS REAPPEARED IN EVERY REVENUE MEASURE SINCE, INCLUDING THAT
OF 1939.  FN6  PRIOR TO 1921, INSURANCE COMPANIES HAD NOT BEEN ALLOWED
SUCH A DEDUCTION, BUT HAD BEEN SUBJECT TO THE SAME TAX PLAN AS
CORPORATIONS GENERALLY; THE 1921 ACT, HOWEVER, WHOLLY EXEMPTED
INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM THE GENERAL SCHEME OF CORPORATE TAXATION AND
SET UP SPECIAL SYSTEMS APPLICABLE TO THEM ALONE.  FN7  THE NEW PLAN, AS
IT RELATED TO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES, HAD AS A MAJOR OBJECTIVE THE
ELIMINATION OF PREMIUM RECEIPTS FROM THE FIELD OF TAXABLE INCOME.  IT
HAD LONG BEEN POINTED OUT TO CONGRESS THAT THESE RECEIPTS, EXCEPT AS TO
A VERY MINOR PROPORTION OF EACH PREMIUM, WERE NOT TRUE INCOME BUT WERE
ANALOGOUS TO PERMANENT CAPITAL INVESTMENT.  FN8  IN ALL THE REVENUE
ACTS FROM 1921 THROUGH 1939, THE GROSS INCOME OF LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANIES NO LONGER INCLUDED PREMIUM RECEIPTS, BUT WAS LIMITED TO
INCOME "FROM INTEREST, DIVIDENDS, AND RENTS."  FN9  AND, PURSUANT TO
THE CONCEIVED ANALOGY OF RESERVES TO CAPITAL INVESTMENT, NET INCOME WAS
TO BE DETERMINED BY PERMITTING, AMONG OTHER DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS
INCOME, THAT SAME DEDUCTION HERE IN DISPUTE - A PERCENTAGE OF THE
"RESERVE FUNDS REQUIRED BY LAW." 

AS ENTIRELY NEW AND SEPARATE TAX PROVISIONS RELATING ONLY TO LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANIES WERE THUS ENACTED, IT BECAME NECESSARY SPECIFICALLY
TO DEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTED A "LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  THEREFORE, IT WAS DECLARED IN THE 1921 ACT AND ALL
ITS SUCCESSORS THAT "WHEN USED IN THIS TITLE THE TERM 'LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY' MEANS AN INSURANCE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING
LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CONTRACTS (INCLUDING CONTRACTS OF COMBINED
LIFE, HEALTH, AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE), THE RESERVE FUNDS OF WHICH HELD
FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF SUCH CONTRACTS COMPRISE MORE THAN 50 PER CENTUM
OF ITS TOTAL RESERVE FUNDS."  FN10 

UNDER THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN, THERE IS GRANTED A DEDUCTION BASED ON
THOSE "RESERVE FUNDS REQUIRED BY LAW."  SECTION 203(A)(2) GRANTS THIS
DEDUCTION; SEC. 201 DEFINES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.  IT SEEMS CLEAR
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO PERMIT THE DEDUCTION OF RESERVES BASED ON
THOSE POLICIES THAT MAKE A COMPANY A "LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY" UNDER THE
ACT, WHICH, BY DEFINITION, INCLUDES POLICIES OF "COMBINED LIFE, HEALTH,
AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE."  THE RESERVES HERE RELATED TO THE DISABILITY
PROVISIONS OF SUCH COMBINED POLICIES.  THE SAME UNDERLYING
CONSIDERATIONS THAT PROMPTED THE DEDUCTION FOR DEATH RESERVES ARE
APPLICABLE TO THE RESERVES FOR DISABILITY IN THESE COMBINED POLICIES. 
AND DISABILITY AS WELL AS DEATH RESERVES FALL LITERALLY WITHIN THE
LANGUAGE OF THE DEDUCTION PROVISION.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER EVERY REVENUE ACT FROM
1921 THROUGH 1932 RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO
TAKE DEDUCTIONS BOTH FOR DEATH AND FOR DISABILITY RESERVES ON POLICIES
SUCH AS THOSE HERE INVOLVED.  FN11  NOR IS IT DENIED THAT THE 1934
REENACTMENT OF SEC. 203(A)(2) FOLLOWED THIRTEEN YEARS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION AND PRACTICE UNDER WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL PROVISIONS
HAD BEEN SO CONSTRUED AND APPLIED THAT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES COULD
AND DID OBTAIN THESE DEDUCTIONS.  DURING THAT ENTIRE PERIOD, THE
TREASURY FOUND NO AMBIGUITY IN SEC. 203(A)(2), AND EXPRESSED NO DOUBT
AS TO A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY'S RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH DEDUCTIONS.  BUT ON
FEBRUARY 11, 1935, REGULATIONS WERE PROMULGATED ASSERTING DISABILITY
RESERVES TO BE NON-DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE 1934 ACT; FN12  AND ON DECEMBER
18, 1935, A TREASURY DECISION DECLARED THAT THIS REGULATION APPLIED
RETROACTIVELY TO THE 1932 AND EARLIER ACTS.  FN13  PETITIONER NOW SAYS
THAT THE FORMER PRACTICE IN PERMITTING DISABILITY RESERVE DEDUCTIONS
WAS ERRONEOUS,  FN14  AND THAT THE NEW REGULATION SHOULD BE GIVEN FULL
RETROACTIVE EFFECT. 

IT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE CHANGE IN THE REGULATIONS
WAS PARTICULARLY APPROPRIATE BECAUSE INDUCED BY JUDICIAL DECISION. 
FN15  AND IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT RESERVES SET ASIDE
BY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PROTECT PAYMENT OF POLICY INVESTMENT
PURCHASES CANNOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR DEDUCTIONS.  FN16  BUT THOSE
DECISIONS RESTED UPON THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INVESTMENT FUND FEATURES
HAD NO RELATION TO THE INSURANCE RISKS.  HERE, IN THE COMBINED LIFE AND
HEALTH AND ACCIDENT POLICIES, THE HEALTH AND ACCIDENT RESERVES ARE
BASED UPON CONTINGENCIES OF THE COMMENCEMENT AND CONTINUANCE OF
DISABILITY.  THEY HAVE A DIRECT AND INSEPARABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE
VERY INSURANCE CONTRACTS WHICH BRING RESPONDENT UNDER A SPECIAL TAX
SCHEME.  FN17  NOR IS THERE A DISTINCTION, AS PETITIONER URGES, BETWEEN
THAT PART OF THE RESERVE SET ASIDE TO PROTECT POLICY HOLDERS NOT YET
DISABLED AND THAT PART SET ASIDE TO PROTECT THOSE ALREADY DISABLED. 
THE LIABILITY TO THOSE WHO HAVE INCURRED DISABILITY IS NOT A FIXED SUM,
BUT REMAINS A CONTINGENCY, STILL UNCERTAIN IN DURATION AND AMOUNT. 
RESERVES HELD FOR SUCH A CONTINGENT LIABILITY ARE TRUE RESERVES IN THE
INSURANCE SENSE. 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH A
REGULATION MIGHT, UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE
EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE STATUTORY POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER.  FN18  NOR
DO WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE POLICY BEHIND
THE SPECIAL TREATMENT AFFORDED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES DOES NOT
WARRANT ALLOWING THIS DEDUCTION.  FOR IT IS OUR CONCLUSION THAT BY SEC.
203(A)(2) OF THE 1932 AND 1934 ACTS, CONGRESS HAS GRANTED LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANIES A DEDUCTION FOR DISABILITY RESERVES WHICH ONLY
CONGRESS CAN TAKE AWAY.  FN19 AFFIRMED. 

FN1  47 STAT. 224; 48 STAT. 732. 

FN2  THE OPINION IS NOT OFFICIALLY REPORTED; THE BOARD RELIED ON ITS
EARLIER DECISIONS IN EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. COMMISSIONER,
33 B.T.A. 708; MONARCH LIFE INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 38 B.T.A. 716;
AND PAN-AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 38 B.T.A. 1430. 

FN3  112 F.2D 468.  OTHER CIRCUITS REACHED A LIKE RESULT:
COMMISSIONER V. PAN-AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO., 111 F.2D 366(C.C.A. 5);
COMMISSIONER V. MONARCH LIFE INS. CO., 114 F.2D 314(C.C.A. 1). 

FN4  NEW WORLD LIFE INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 26 F.SUPP.  444. 

FN5  42 STAT. 261, SEC. 245(A)(2). 

FN6  53 STAT. 72. 

FN7  THE HISTORY OF THIS LEGISLATION IS SET OUT IN NATIONAL LIFE INS.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 508, 523-524. 

FN8  SEE, E.G., S. REP. NO. 617, PART 1, PAGE 9, 65TH CONG., 3D
SESS. 

FN9  E.G., SEC. 244(A), ACT OF 1921, 42 STAT. 261; SEC. 202(A), ACT
OF 1939, 53 STAT. 71. 

FN10  E.G., SEC. 242, ACT OF 1921, 42 STAT. 261; SEC. 201, ACT OF
1939, 53 STAT. 71.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE DETERMINATIVE
RATIO UNDER THIS SECTION IS DEATH RESERVES TO TOTAL RESERVES; THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES CONTEND THAT THE RATIO IS ALL RESERVES ON THE
ENUMERATED TYPES OF POLICIES TO TOTAL RESERVES.  SINCE OREGON MUTUAL IS
ADMITTEDLY A "LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY" REGARDLESS OF WHICH OF THESE
CONTENTIONS IS CORRECT, THIS QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE US. 

FN11  ARTICLE 681 OF REGULATIONS 62, 65, 69, AND ARTICLE 971 OF
REGULATIONS 74 AND 77. 

FN12  ARTICLE 203(A)(2) OF REGULATION 86. 

FN13  T.D. 4615, XIV-2 CUM. BULL.  310. 

FN14  IN SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER'S RIGHT TO CHANGE THE
REGULATIONS UNDER THIS SUPPOSED STATE OF FACTS, THE GOVERNMENT CITES
MANHATTAN GENERAL EQUIPMENT CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 297 U.S. 129, 134-135,
AND MURPHY OIL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 299. 

FN15  CF. MORRISSEY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344, 355.  THE JUDICIAL
DECISIONS RELIED ON ARE THOSE CITED IN THE FOLLOWING FOOTNOTE. 

FN16  HELVERING V. INTER-MOUNTAIN LIFE INS. CO., 294 U.S. 686;
HELVERING V. ILLINOIS LIFE INS. CO., 299 U.S. 88. 

FN17  CF. RHINE V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 273 N.Y. 1; 6 N.E.2D 74;
RUBIN V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 278 N.Y. 625; 16 N.E.2D 293. 

FN18  FOR THE COMMISSIONER'S POWER TO PROMULGATE RETROACTIVE
REGULATIONS, PETITIONER RELIES ON SEC. 506 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934,
WHICH AMENDED SEC. 1108(A) OF THE 1926 ACT. 

FN19  BIDDLE V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 573, 582; KOSHLAND V.
HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441, 446-447. 
..END :






HELVERING V. PAN-AMERICAN INS. CO., 311 U.S. 272 


NO. 264.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  - 111
F.2D 366, AFFIRMED. 


DECIDED ON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. OREGON MUTUAL LIFE INS CO.,
ANTE, P. 267. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. PAN-AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE C.O. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 637, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 38 B.T.A. 1430. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES RESPONDENT'S INCOME TAX FOR THE TAX YEAR 1933.  IT
IS IN ALL RESPECTS GOVERNED BY OUR DECISION IN HELVERING V. OREGON
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., ANTE, P. 267, AND ON THE AUTHORITY OF THAT CASE
THE DECISION BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 
..END :







WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., 311 U.S. 273 


NO. 51.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 20, 22, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  -
108 F.2D 361, MODIFIED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 75(S)(3) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE DEBTOR, UPON HIS
REQUEST, MUST BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY AT ITS
CURRENT VALUE (AS REAPPRAISED, OR AS FIXED BY THE COURT AFTER HEARING,
PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION), BEFORE THE PROPERTY MAY BE
ORDERED SOLD AT PUBLIC SALE.  P. 277. 

2.  THE DEBTOR'S RIGHT, UPON REQUEST, TO REDEEM PURSUANT TO THE
PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN THE FIRST PROVISO OF SEC. 75(S)(3) CAN NOT BE
DEFEATED BY THE REQUEST OF A SECURED CREDITOR FOR A PUBLIC SALE UNDER
THE SECOND PROVISO.  P. 279. 

3.  THE POWER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT UNDER SEC. 75(S)(3) TO APPOINT
A TRUSTEE AND ORDER A SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY IF THE
DEBTOR "AT ANY TIME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
OR IS UNABLE TO REFINANCE HIMSELF WITHIN THREE YEARS," MAY NOT BE
EXERCISED SO AS TO DEPRIVE THE DEBTOR OF HIS RIGHT TO REDEEM AT THE
REAPPRAISED VALUE OR AT THE VALUE FIXED BY THE COURT.  P. 280. 

4.  PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF FARMER-DEBTORS
MUST BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO GIVE THE DEBTOR THE FULL MEASURE OF THE
RELIEF AFFORDED BY CONGRESS.  P. 279. 

5.  PURSUANT TO SEC. 75(S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, A FARMER-DEBTOR HAD
BEEN ADJUDGED BANKRUPT AND PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM HAD BEEN STAYED. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, A MORTGAGE CREDITOR PETITIONED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR
AN IMMEDIATE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, ALLEGING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE
DEBTOR'S FINANCIAL CONDITION WAS BEYOND HOPE OF REHABILITATION AND THAT
HE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(S)(3) AND ORDERS OF
THE COURT PURSUANT THERETO.  THE DEBTOR ANSWERED AND FILED A CROSS
PETITION UNDER SEC. 75(S)(3) REQUESTING A REAPPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY
OR THAT ITS VALUE BE FIXED BY THE COURT AFTER HEARING, AND THAT HE BE
ALLOWED TO REDEEM AT THE VALUE SO DETERMINED AND FREE FROM ANY
LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF ANY DEFICIENCY.  UPON HEARING, THE COURT FOUND
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BUT ORDERED ITS SALE WITHOUT AFFORDING THE
DEBTOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDEEM AT THAT VALUE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE DEBTOR'S CROSS-PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THAT
HE WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE PROPERTY REAPPRAISED OR THE VALUE FIXED AT
A HEARING; THAT THE VALUE HAVING BEEN THUS DETERMINED, HE WAS THEN
ENTITLED TO HAVE A REASONABLE TIME, FIXED BY THE COURT, IN WHICH TO
REDEEM AT THAT VALUE; AND THAT IF HE DID SO REDEEM, THE LAND SHOULD BE
TURNED OVER TO HIM FREE AND CLEAR OF ENCUMBRANCES AND HIS DISCHARGE
GRANTED.  P. 281. 

ONLY IN CASE THE DEBTOR FAILED TO REDEEM WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
WOULD THE COURT BE AUTHORIZED TO ORDER A PUBLIC SALE. 

(2)  AS THUS MODIFIED, THE ORDER OF THE COURT SHOULD STAND, GRANTING
THE MORTGAGEE THE PRIVILEGE OF PURCHASING THE PROPERTY AT THE SALE AND
OF CREDITING THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE DEBTOR AGAINST THE PURCHASE PRICE;
THE DEBTOR TO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF REDEMPTION WITHIN NINETY DAYS, UPON
PAYMENT OF THE SALES PRICE AND INTEREST THEREON, AS PROVIDED BY SEC.
75(S)(3) OF THE ACT.  P. 281. 

WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT DIRECTING THAT THE PROPERTY OF A DEBTOR BE SOLD. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE SAME DEBTOR AND THE SAME 200 ACRE TRACT OF
LAND AS WERE INVOLVED IN WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., 304
U.S. 502.  AS REVEALED IN THAT CASE, THE DEBTOR IS A FARMER WHO FILED A
PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND LATER AMENDED IT UNDER
SEC. 75(S), ASKING TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT.  FN1  THIS COURT HELD
THAT THE 200 ACRE TRACT WAS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT AND THAT SEC. 75(N) EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION
WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.  THE PRESENT RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE ALL THAT HAS
TRANSPIRED IN THIS PROCEEDING.  FOR EXAMPLE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER
THE DEBTOR ASKED FOR AN APPRAISAL UNDER SEC. 75(S) WHICH IT IS THE DUTY
OF THE COURT TO MAKE ON SUCH REQUEST AND IN WHICH EVENT THE THREE-YEAR
STAY PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 75(S)(2) MAY START TO RUN ONLY AFTER SUCH
APPRAISAL HAS BEEN MADE.  JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. BARTELS,
308 U.S. 180; BORCHARD V. CALIFORNIA BANK, 310 U.S. 311.  BUT SUCH
PROBLEM IS NOT SHARPLY PRESENTED BY THE RECORD BEFORE US.  THE NARROW
ISSUE PRESENTED BY THIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND WHICH MOVED US TO
GRANT IT IS WHETHER UNDER SEC. 75(S)(3) THE DEBTOR MUST BE ACCORDED AN
OPPORTUNITY, ON HIS REQUEST, TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY AT THE REAPPRAISED
VALUE OR AT A VALUE FIXED BY THE COURT BEFORE THE COURT MAY ORDER A
PUBLIC SALE. 

ON JULY 22, 1938, RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION PRAYING THAT THE
PROCEEDING BE DISMISSED OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT AN IMMEDIATE SALE
BE HAD, AND ALLEGING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE DEBTOR'S FINANCIAL CONDITION
WAS BEYOND ALL REASONABLE HOPE OF REHABILITATION, THAT HE HAD FAILED TO
COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF THE COURT REQUIRING TWO-FIFTHS OF THE CROPS TO
BE DELIVERED TO THE TRUSTEE, THAT HE HAD MADE NO OFFER OF COMPOSITION,
AND THAT HE HAD FAILED TO PAY TAXES AND INSURANCE AND HAD MADE NO
PAYMENT ON PRINCIPAL SINCE 1925 AND NONE ON INTEREST SINCE 1930.  THE
DEBTOR'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION WAS DENIED.  ON OCTOBER 5,
1938, THE DEBTOR FILED BOTH AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION, AND A CROSS
PETITION UNDER SEC. 75(S)(3) TO HAVE THE LAND APPRAISED OR A DATE SET
FOR HEARING AND AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE TO HAVE ITS VALUE FIXED, TO BE
ALLOWED TO REDEEM AT THAT VALUE, AND TO BE DISCHARGED FROM LIABILITY ON
ACCOUNT OF ANY DEFICIENCY.  RESPONDENT ANSWERED ALLEGING THAT THE
DEBTOR WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REDEEM AT SUCH VALUE AND THAT BY THE TERMS
OF SEC. 75(S)(3) ITS REQUEST FOR A SALE TOOK PRECEDENCE OVER ANY SUCH
RIGHT OF THE DEBTOR.  THE COURT HELD A HEARING AT WHICH EVIDENCE WAS
ADDUCED.  IT FOUND, INTER ALIA, THAT THE AMOUNT OWED BY THE DEBTOR TO
RESPONDENT WAS $15,903.68, THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS $6,000,
THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE UPON WHICH MIGHT BE BASED A REASONABLE HOPE
OR EXPECTATION OF THE DEBTOR'S FINANCIAL REHABILITATION, THAT THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE OF HIS ABILITY TO EFFECT A REFINANCING OF THE PROPERTY AT
THAT VALUE, AND THAT HE HAD FAILED AND REFUSED TO OBEY ORDERS OF THE
COURT.  ACCORDINGLY IT ORDERED THAT THE PROPERTY BE SOLD "AT PUBLIC
SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER AND FOR CASH, WITHOUT ANY RELIEF WHATEVER
FROM VALUATION AND APPRAISEMENT LAWS"; THAT RESPONDENT BE ALLOWED TO
PURCHASE AT THE SALE AND TO "UTILIZE AND BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR ALL OR ANY
PART OF THE INDEBTEDNESS OF (THE) DEBTOR"; AND THAT THE DEBTOR BE
BARRED FROM ALL EQUITY OF REDEMPTION IN THE PROPERTY IF IT BE NOT
REDEEMED BY HIM "WITHIN THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER ALLOWED AND
PROVIDED" BY SEC. 75(S)(3).  FN2 ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THAT ORDER WAS AFFIRMED, 108 F.2D 361, THE COURT STATING THAT
THE FACTS NOT ONLY AUTHORIZED THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER BUT MADE SUCH
ACTION IMPERATIVE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE PROBLEM TO THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 

WE THINK THAT THE DENIAL OF AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEBTOR TO REDEEM
AT THE VALUE FIXED BY THE COURT BEFORE ORDERING A PUBLIC SALE WAS
ERROR. 

THE PROVISION IN SEC. 75(S)(3) THAT AT THE END OF THREE YEARS, OR
PRIOR THERETO, THE DEBTOR MAY PAY INTO COURT THE AMOUNT OF THE
APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY, IS FOLLOWED BY TWO PROVISOS.  FN3  THE FIRST
STATES THAT "UPON REQUEST OF ANY SECURED OR UNSECURED CREDITOR, OR UPON
REQUEST OF THE DEBTOR, THE COURT SHALL CAUSE A REAPPRAISAL OF THE
DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, OR IN ITS DISCRETION SET A DATE FOR HEARING, AND
AFTER SUCH HEARING, FIX THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY,  ...  AND THE DEBTOR
SHALL THEN PAY THE VALUE SO ARRIVED AT INTO COURT  ...  "  THE SECOND
PROVIDES THAT "UPON REQUEST IN WRITING BY ANY SECURED CREDITOR OR
CREDITORS, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH SUCH SECURED
CREDITORS HAVE A LIEN TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION." 

TRUE, THE GRANTING OF A REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC SALE IS MANDATORY.  BUT
SO IS THE GRANTING OF A REQUEST FOR A VALUATION AT WHICH THE DEBTOR MAY
REDEEM.  YET A RECONCILIATION OF THESE SEEMINGLY INCONSISTENT REMEDIES
IS NOT DIFFICULT IF THE PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF THE ACT ARE NOT
OBSCURED.  THIS ACT PROVIDED A PROCEDURE TO EFFECTUATE A BROAD PROGRAM
OF REHABILITATION OF DISTRESSED FARMERS FACED WITH THE DISASTER OF
FORCED SALES AND AN OPPRESSIVE BURDEN OF DEBT.  WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL
LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA; JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. BARTELS,
SUPRA; KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433.  SAFEGUARDS WERE PROVIDED TO
PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF SECURED CREDITORS, THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, TO
THE EXTENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS.
CO. V. BARTELS, SUPRA, AT PP. 186-187; BORCHARD V. CALIFORNIA BANK,
SUPRA, AT P. 317.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM OF THE CREDITOR TO
MORE THAN THAT.  AND SO LONG AS THAT RIGHT IS PROTECTED THE CREDITOR
CERTAINLY IS IN NO POSITION TO INSIST THAT DOUBTS OR AMBIGUITIES IN THE
ACT BE RESOLVED IN ITS FAVOR AND AGAINST THE DEBTOR.  RATHER, THE ACT
MUST BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO GIVE THE DEBTOR THE FULL MEASURE OF THE
RELIEF AFFORDED BY CONGRESS (JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
BARTELS, SUPRA; KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, SUPRA), LEST ITS BENEFITS BE
FRITTERED AWAY BY NARROW FORMALISTIC INTERPRETATIONS WHICH DISREGARD
THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE ACT. 

EQUAL PROTECTION TO DEBTOR AND CREDITOR ALIKE CAN BE AFFORDED ONLY BY
HOLDING THAT THE DEBTOR'S REQUEST FOR REDEMPTION PURSUANT TO THE
PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN THE FIRST PROVISO OF SEC. 75(S)(3) CANNOT BE
DEFEATED BY A REQUEST OF A SECURED CREDITOR FOR A PUBLIC SALE UNDER THE
SECOND PROVISO.  CERTAINLY EQUAL PROTECTION OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR
WOULD NOT BE OBTAINED IF THE CONTRARY VIEW WERE FOLLOWED.  THEN THE
DEBTOR'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO WOULD BE EITHER DEPENDENT ON
THE OUTCOME OF HIS RACE OF DILIGENCE WITH A CREDITOR, FOR WHICH
CUSTOMARILY HE WOULD BE POORLY EQUIPPED (CF. KALB V. FEUERSTEIN,
SUPRA); OR THEY WOULD BE DEFEASIBLE AT THE INSTANCE OF A CREDITOR. 
UNDER OUR CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER, THE DEBTOR WILL BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT
OF AN EXPRESS MANDATE OF THE ACT.  AND THE CREDITOR WILL NOT BE
DEPRIVED OF THE ASSURANCE THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE
DEVOTED TO THE PAYMENT OF ITS CLAIM.  FOR, AS INDICATED IN WRIGHT V.
VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440, 468, IF THE DEBTOR DID REDEEM PURSUANT TO
THAT PROCEDURE, HE WOULD NOT GET THE PROPERTY AT LESS THAN ITS ACTUAL
VALUE.  IN THAT CASE THIS COURT, IN SUSTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
SEC. 75(S), EMPHASIZED THAT THE ACT PRESERVED THE RIGHT OF THE
MORTGAGEE TO REALIZE UPON THE SECURITY BY A JUDICIAL SALE.  BY OUR
CONSTRUCTION THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT IS MERELY DEFERRED OR POSTPONED
UNTIL THE OTHER CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT, PRESCRIBED FOR
THE PROTECTION OF THE DEBTOR, HAVE BEEN MET.  IT IS EVENTUALLY DENIED
THE CREDITOR ONLY IN CASE HE IS PAID THE FULL AMOUNT OF WHAT HE CAN
CONSTITUTIONALLY CLAIM. 

RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, PLACES GREAT RELIANCE ON THAT PART OF SEC.
75(S)(3) WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF THE DEBTOR "AT ANY TIME FAILS TO COMPLY
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, OR WITH ANY ORDERS OF THE COURT
MADE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, OR IS UNABLE TO REFINANCE HIMSELF WITHIN
THREE YEARS, THE COURT MAY ORDER THE APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE, AND
ORDER THE PROPERTY SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED FOR IN
THIS ACT."  THIS PROVISION IS SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS.  AND NO SIGNIFICANT
LIGHT IS THROWN ON ITS MEANING BY THE COMMITTEE REPORTS.  FN4  TO BE
SURE IT WAS RELIED ON BY THIS COURT IN WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, SUPRA,
PP. 460-462, FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE THREE-YEAR STAY PROVIDED FOR
IN SEC. 75(S)(2) IS NOT AN "ABSOLUTE ONE" BUT THAT "THE COURT MAY
TERMINATE THE STAY AND ORDER A SALE EARLIER."  (P. 461.)  BUT THERE IS
NOTHING IN THAT OPINION OR IN THE ACT WHICH SAYS THAT THAT POWER OF THE
COURT MAY BE UTILIZED SO AS TO WIPE OUT THE CLEAR AND EXPRESS RIGHT OF
THE DEBTOR UNDER SEC. 75(S)(3) TO REDEEM AT THE REAPPRAISED VALUE OR AT
THE VALUE FIXED BY THE COURT.  NOR CAN THE EXISTENCE OF THAT POWER BE
FAIRLY IMPLIED.  THE POWER OF THE COURT TO "ORDER THE PROPERTY SOLD OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT" CANNOT BE TAKEN TO
MEAN A DISCRETIONARY POWER TO TERMINATE THE PROCEEDINGS THROUGH THE
EXCLUSIVE DEVICE OF A PUBLIC SALE.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT CERTAIN
CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE DEBTOR OR HIS INABILITY TO
REFINANCE HIMSELF WITHIN THREE YEARS MAY BE AN APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR A
TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OR FOR AN ACCELERATION THEREOF.  WE
CANNOT INFER, HOWEVER, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT SUCH FACTS SHOULD
HAVE ANY FURTHER LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE UNDER THE ACT.  TO HOLD THAT THEY
EMPOWERED THE COURT TO DEPRIVE THE DEBTOR OF HIS EXPRESS AND
FUNDAMENTAL STATUTORY RIGHT TO REDEEM AT THE REAPPRAISED VALUE OR AT
THE VALUE FIXED BY THE COURT WOULD BE TO IMPLY A POWER OF FORFEITURE
WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE BROAD DESIGN OF THE ACT TO AID AND PROTECT
FARMER-DEBTORS WHO WERE VICTIMS OF THE GENERAL ECONOMIC DEPRESSION. 
WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, SUPRA, P. 466.  SUCH AN IMPORTANT REMEDIAL
RIGHT CANNOT BE LOST BY MERE IMPLICATION.  AND TO HOLD THAT THE COURT
HAS THE DISCRETION TO DENY OR TO GRANT THE DEBTOR'S RIGHT TO REDEEM AT
THE REAPPRAISED VALUE OR AT THE VALUE FIXED BY THE COURT, DEPENDENT ON
GENERAL EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS, WOULD BE TO REWRITE THE ACT, SO AS TO
VEST IN THE COURT A POWER WHICH CONGRESS DID NOT PLAINLY DELEGATE. 
THIS DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE COURT IS EXHAUSTED WHEN THE COURT
TERMINATES THE PROCEEDINGS OR ACCELERATES THEIR TERMINATION.  SUCH
TERMINATION CAN BE EFFECTED ONLY PURSUANT TO THE PRECISE PROCEDURE
WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED.  AND SO WE RETURN TO OUR RECONCILIATION OF
THE TWO APPARENTLY CONFLICTING PROVISOS OF SEC. 75(S)(3). 

WE HOLD THAT THE DEBTOR'S CROSS PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED;
THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE PROPERTY REAPPRAISED OR THE VALUE
FIXED AT A HEARING; THAT THE VALUE HAVING BEEN DETERMINED AT A HEARING
IN CONFORMITY WITH HIS REQUEST, HE WAS THEN ENTITLED TO HAVE A
REASONABLE TIME, FIXED BY THE COURT, IN WHICH TO REDEEM AT THAT VALUE;
AND THAT IF HE DID SO REDEEM, THE LAND SHOULD BE TURNED OVER TO HIM
FREE AND CLEAR OF ENCUMBRANCES AND HIS DISCHARGE GRANTED.  ONLY IN CASE
THE DEBTOR FAILED TO REDEEM WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME WOULD THE COURT BE
AUTHORIZED TO ORDER A PUBLIC SALE. 

SOME QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC SALE ORDER, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHICH GIVE THE
CREDITOR THE RIGHT TO UTILIZE ALL OF ITS INDEBTEDNESS IN BIDDING FOR
THE PROPERTY. 

THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT IS OF OPINION THAT EXCEPT FOR THE
MODIFICATION WE HAVE INDICATED THE ORDER FOR SALE SHOULD STAND WITH THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE RESPONDENT MORTGAGEE TO PURCHASE AT THE SALE AND TO
RECEIVE CREDIT FOR THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE DEBTOR IN SATISFACTION OF
THE PURCHASE PRICE AND WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF THE DEBTOR TO REDEEM
WITHIN NINETY DAYS UPON PAYMENT OF THE SALES PRICE AND INTEREST
THEREON, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 75(S)(3) OF THE ACT. 

TO THE EXTENT INDICATED, WE MODIFY THE JUDGMENT; AND WE REMAND THE
CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH
THIS OPINION.  MODIFIED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, C. 204, 47 STAT. 1467, 1470; ACT OF JUNE
28, 1934, C. 869, 48 STAT. 1289; ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935, C. 792, 49
STAT. 942, 943.  THE PETITION WAS AMENDED OCTOBER 11, 1935, AS
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 75(S) AS ENACTED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935. 
SEC. 75 HAS BEEN FURTHER AMENDED BY THE ACTS OF MARCH 4, 1938, AND JUNE
22, 1938, 52 STAT. 84, 85, 939, AND BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1940, C. 39,
54 STAT. 40, BUT IN RESPECTS NOT MATERIAL HERE.  SEC. 75, AS NOW IN
FORCE, APPEARS IN 11 U.S.C. SEC. 203. 

FN2  SEC. 75(S)(3) GRANTS THE DEBTOR NINETY DAYS TO REDEEM ANY
PROPERTY SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE, BY PAYING THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH IT WAS
SOLD, TOGETHER WITH 5% INTEREST, INTO COURT. 

FN3  SEC. 75(S)(3) READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"AT THE END OF THREE YEARS, OR PRIOR THERETO, THE DEBTOR MAY PAY INTO
COURT THE AMOUNT OF THE APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH HE RETAINS
POSSESSION, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF ENCUMBRANCES ON HIS EXEMPTIONS, UP
TO THE AMOUNT OF THE APPRAISAL, LESS THE AMOUNT PAID ON PRINCIPAL:
PROVIDED, THAT UPON REQUEST OF ANY SECURED OR UNSECURED CREDITOR, OR
UPON REQUEST OF THE DEBTOR, THE COURT SHALL CAUSE A REAPPRAISAL OF THE
DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, OR IN ITS DISCRETION SET A DATE FOR HEARING, AND
AFTER SUCH HEARING, FIX THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, AND THE DEBTOR SHALL THEN PAY THE VALUE SO
ARRIVED AT INTO COURT, LESS PAYMENTS MADE ON THE PRINCIPAL, FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO ALL SECURED AND UNSECURED CREDITORS, AS THEIR INTERESTS
MAY APPEAR, AND THEREUPON THE COURT SHALL, BY AN ORDER, TURN OVER FULL
POSSESSION AND TITLE OF SAID PROPERTY, FREE AND CLEAR OF ENCUMBRANCES
TO THE DEBTOR:  PROVIDED, THAT UPON REQUEST IN WRITING BY ANY SECURED
CREDITOR OR CREDITORS, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH
SUCH SECURED CREDITORS HAVE A LIEN TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION.  THE
DEBTOR SHALL HAVE NINETY DAYS TO REDEEM ANY PROPERTY SOLD AT SUCH SALE,
BY PAYING THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH ANY SUCH PROPERTY WAS SOLD, TOGETHER
WITH 5 PER CENTUM PER ANNUM INTEREST, INTO COURT, AND HE MAY APPLY FOR
HIS DISCHARGE, AS PROVIDED FOR BY THIS ACT.  IF, HOWEVER, THE DEBTOR AT
ANY TIME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, OR WITH
ANY ORDERS OF THE COURT MADE PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, OR IS UNABLE TO
REFINANCE HIMSELF WITHIN THREE YEARS, THE COURT MAY ORDER THE
APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE, AND ORDER THE PROPERTY SOLD OR OTHERWISE
DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT." 

FN4  S. REP. NO. 985, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REP. NO. 1808, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.
..END :














DECKERT V. INDEPENDENCE CORP., 311 U.S. 282 


NO. 17.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  - 108
F.2D 51, REVERSED. 


1.  A BILL OF COMPLAINT FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY PURCHASERS OF
SECURITIES UNDER A FINANCIAL PLAN WHICH INVOLVED A TRUST, ALLEGED IN
SUBSTANCE THAT THE VENDOR SOLD THE SECURITIES BY MEANS WHICH RENDERED
IT LIABLE TO THE PURCHASERS UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933; THAT THE
VENDOR WAS INSOLVENT, WAS THREATENED WITH MANY LAWSUITS, AND ITS ASSETS
WERE IN DANGER OF DISSIPATION OR DEPLETION; AND THAT THE TRUSTEE WAS IN
POSSESSION OF ASSETS CONSISTING IN PART OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE
PURCHASERS.  THE BILL PRAYED THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER FOR THE
VENDOR, WITH POWER TO LIQUIDATE ASSETS AND TO PAY CLAIMS OF THE
COMPLAINANTS; AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE TRUSTEE FROM TRANSFERRING
OR DISPOSING OF ASSETS OF THE TRUST; AND GENERAL RELIEF.  HELD: 

(1)  AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY
ORDER GRANTING AN INJUNCTION WAS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 129 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE AND WAS NOT PREMATURE.  P. 286. 

(2) UPON SUCH APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS COULD PROPERLY
DETERMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF MOTIONS TO
DISMISS THE BILL, ALTHOUGH NORMALLY SUCH DENIAL WOULD BE APPEALABLE
ONLY AFTER A FINAL DECREE.  P. 287. 

(3)  MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL BECAUSE IT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE
OF ACTION, AND BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION, WERE
PROPERLY DENIED.  P. 287. 

(4)  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT UNDER SEC. 22(A)
OF THE SECURITIES ACT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY OR THE
CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES.  P. 289. 

(5)  THE GRANT OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION BY THE DISTRICT COURT -
RESTRAINING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS HELD BY THE TRUSTEE FOR THE ACCOUNT
OF THE VENDOR, UPON SECURITY BEING GIVEN TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANTS -
WAS PROPER TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF
THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE BILL.  P. 290. 

THE GRANT OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE
TRIAL COURT AND WILL NOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL UNLESS IT BE CONTRARY
TO EQUITY OR AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

(6)  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL SUFFICIENTLY SHOWED THAT THE LEGAL
REMEDY AGAINST THE VENDOR, WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE FUND IN POSSESSION
OF THE TRUSTEE, WOULD BE INADEQUATE.  P. 290. 

(7)  ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWING THE BRINGING IN OF TWO
ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS, AND REFERRING THE ISSUE OF INSOLVENCY TO A
MASTER, WERE INTERLOCUTORY AND NOT REVIEWABLE EXCEPT UPON APPEAL FROM A
FINAL DECREE.  P. 290. 

2.  THE RELIEF OF PURCHASERS WHO HAVE BEEN SOLD SECURITIES BY MEANS
WHICH RENDER THE SELLER LIABLE UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, IS NOT
RESTRICTED TO A MONEY JUDGMENT.  P. 287. 

3.  THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE DISTRICT COURT BY SEC. 22(A) OF
THE SECURITIES ACT OF SUITS "TO ENFORCE ANY LIABILITY OR DUTY" CREATED
BY THE ACT, IMPLIES THE POWER TO MAKE EFFECTIVE THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY
AFFORDED BY THE ACT, AND THE POWER TO MAKE THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY
EFFECTIVE IMPLIES THE POWER TO UTILIZE ANY OF THE PROCEDURES OR ACTIONS
NORMALLY AVAILABLE TO A LITIGANT IN THE EXIGENCIES OF THE PARTICULAR
CASE.  P. 288. 

4.  A SUIT TO RESCIND A CONTRACT INDUCED BY FRAUD, AND TO RECOVER THE
CONSIDERATION PAID, IS COGNIZABLE IN EQUITY, AT LEAST WHERE THE LEGAL
REMEDY IS INADEQUATE.  P. 289. 

DECKERT ET AL. V. INDEPENDENCE SHARES CORP. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 18, DECKERT ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY FOR
INSURANCES ON LIVES AND GRANTING ANNUITIES, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI,
309 U.S. 648, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 648, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF INTERLOCUTORY
ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 27 F.SUPP.  763, INCLUDING THE DENIAL OF
MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND THE GRANT OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, IN A SUIT
BASED UPON THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED BY THESE PETITIONS.  THE FIRST
IS WHETHER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933(48 STAT. 74) AUTHORIZES
PURCHASERS OF SECURITIES TO MAINTAIN A SUIT IN EQUITY TO RESCIND A
FRAUDULENT SALE AND SECURE RESTITUTION OF THE CONSIDERATION PAID, AND
TO ENFORCE THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION AGAINST A THIRD PARTY WHERE THE
VENDOR IS INSOLVENT AND THE THIRD PARTY HAS ASSETS IN ITS POSSESSION
BELONGING TO THE VENDOR.  THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHETHER SUCH
PURCHASERS MUST SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $3,000
EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE AS AMENDED (28 U.S.C. SEC. 41). 

PETITIONERS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION RESIDENTS OF PENNSYLVANIA, ARE OWNERS
AND HOLDERS OF CAPITAL SAVINGS PLAN CONTRACT CERTIFICATES PURCHASED
FROM CAPITAL SAVINGS PLAN, INC., SINCE MERGED WITH AND NOW INDEPENDENCE
SHARES CORPORATION, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION.  THESE CERTIFICATES
REQUIRED THE HOLDERS TO MAKE CERTAIN INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS TO THE
PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY FOR INSURANCES ON LIVES AND GRANTING ANNUITIES,
ALSO A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION.  FN1  PENNSYLVANIA, AFTER DEDUCTING
CERTAIN FIXED CHARGES, USED THE BALANCE OF THESE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS
TO PURCHASE INDEPENDENCE TRUST SHARES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS.  INDEPENDENCE TRUST SHARES, ISSUED BY
PENNSYLVANIA, REPRESENTED INTERESTS IN A TRUST OF COMMON STOCKS OF 42
AMERICAN CORPORATIONS DEPOSITED BY INDEPENDENCE WITH PENNSYLVANIA. 
PURSUANT TO TRUST AGREEMENT AND INDENTURE BETWEEN PENNSYLVANIA AND
INDEPENDENCE, PENNSYLVANIA COLLECTED DIVIDENDS AND PROFITS FROM THE
STOCKS AND ADMINISTERED THE TRUST. 

PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AGAINST PENNSYLVANIA, INDEPENDENCE, TWO
AFFILIATED COMPANIES, AND CERTAIN OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF
INDEPENDENCE WHOSE RESIDENCE DOES NOT APPEAR.  THE ACTION AGAINST THE
AFFILIATED COMPANIES HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT INDEPENDENCE AND ITS PREDECESSOR CAPITAL WERE
GUILTY OF FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATIONS AND CONCEALMENTS IN THEIR SALE
AND ADVERTISEMENT OF CONTRACT CERTIFICATES TO PETITIONERS AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED IN VIOLATION OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933.  IT
ALLEGES THAT INDEPENDENCE IS INSOLVENT AND THREATENED WITH MANY LAW
SUITS, THAT ITS BUSINESS IS VIRTUALLY AT A STANDSTILL BECAUSE OF
UNFAVORABLE PUBLICITY, THAT PREFERENCES TO CREDITORS ARE PROBABLE, AND
THAT ITS ASSETS ARE IN DANGER OF DISSIPATION AND DEPLETION. 
PETITIONERS THEREFORE PRAY THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER FOR
INDEPENDENCE WITH POWER TO COLLECT AND TAKE POSSESSION OF THE ASSETS OF
INDEPENDENCE AND THE TRUST ASSETS HELD BY PENNSYLVANIA, LIQUIDATE THE
ASSETS, DETERMINE THE CLAIMS OF PETITIONERS AND OTHER CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS AND PAY THEM, AND WIND UP AND DISSOLVE THE CORPORATIONS.  THEY
ALSO SEEK RELIEF INCIDENTAL TO THE ABOVE AND AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
PENNSYLVANIA FROM TRANSFERRING OR DISPOSING OF ANY OF THE ASSETS OF THE
CORPORATIONS OR OF THE TRUST.  THERE IS THE USUAL PRAYER FOR GENERAL
RELIEF. 

NONE OF THE ORIGINAL PETITIONERS' CLAIMS EXCEEDS $3,000 AND
RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE AGGREGATE OF ALL OF THEM WILL NOT EXCEED
$3,000.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE ASSETS SOUGHT TO BE REACHED ARE
GREATLY IN EXCESS OF $3,000. 

RESPONDENTS ANSWERED THE BILL AND THEREAFTER MOVED TO DISMISS IT.
THE MOTIONS WERE HEARD WITH PETITIONERS' MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION AND THE ADDITION OF TWO PLAINTIFFS.  THE TRIAL JUDGE DENIED
THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS, APPROVED THE ADDITION OF TWO PLAINTIFFS, BUT
RESERVED DECISION ON THE APPLICATION FOR A RECEIVER.  HE DIRECTED THE
APPOINTMENT OF A MASTER TO TAKE TESTIMONY AND FILE A REPORT ON THE
QUESTION OF THE INSOLVENCY OF INDEPENDENCE, AND ENJOINED PENNSYLVANIA
FROM TRANSFERRING OR OTHERWISE DISPOSING OF THE SUM OF $38,258.85
REPRESENTING CERTAIN CHARGES, INCOME, AND PROCEEDS RECEIVED IN
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST.  27 F.SUPP.  763. 

PENNSYLVANIA, INDEPENDENCE, AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS APPEALED
FROM THESE ORDERS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT EXPRESSLY
CONSIDER WHETHER THE APPEALS WERE PREMATURE.  IT THOUGHT THAT THE
SECURITIES ACT DID NOT AUTHORIZE A BILL SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF
AGAINST A THIRD PARTY WHICH HAS ASSETS BELONGING TO THE VENDOR, AND
THEREFORE, THAT PENNSYLVANIA WAS NOT A PROPER PARTY TO THE SUIT SINCE
NO CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT WAS STATED AGAINST IT.  IT
REVERSED ALL OF THE ORDERS APPEALED FROM AND REMANDED THE CAUSE WITH
DIRECTIONS TO ALLOW PETITIONERS TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT TO STATE A
CLAIM FOR A MONEY JUDGMENT AT LAW AGAINST INDEPENDENCE ONLY.  108 F.2D
51.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED.  309 U.S. 648. 

WE BELIEVE THAT THE APPEALS FROM THE ORDER GRANTING THE TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION WERE NOT PREMATURE.  IT IS TRUE THAT SEC. 128 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 225) AUTHORIZES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS
TO REVIEW ONLY FINAL DECISIONS.  BUT SEC. 129 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28
U.S.C. SEC. 227) EXPRESSLY EXCEPTS FROM THE GENERAL RULE CERTAIN
INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS AND DECREES.  IT PROVIDES IN PART:  "WHERE, UPON A
HEARING IN A DISTRICT COURT  ...  AN INJUNCTION IS GRANTED  ...  BY AN
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OR DECREE  ...  AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN FROM SUCH
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OR DECREE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  ...  "
THUS BY THE PLAIN WORDS OF SEC. 129 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
AUTHORIZED TO CONSIDER THE APPEALS FROM THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. 
COMPARE ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., 293 U.S. 379; SHANFEROKE
COAL & SUPPLY CORP. V. WESTCHESTER SERVICE CORP., 293 U.S. 449. 

HOWEVER, THIS POWER IS NOT LIMITED TO MERE CONSIDERATION OF, AND
ACTION UPON, THE ORDER APPEALED FROM.  "IF INSUPERABLE OBJECTION TO
MAINTAINING THE BILL CLEARLY APPEARS, IT MAY BE DISMISSED AND THE
LITIGATION TERMINATED."  MECCANO, LTD. V. WANAMAKER, 253 U.S. 136,
141.  SEE ALSO EAGLE GLASS & MFG. CO. V. ROWE, 245 U.S. 275;
METROPOLITAN WATER CO. V. KAW VALLEY DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 223 U.S. 519;
MAST, FOOS & CO. V. STOVER MFG. CO., 177 U.S. 485; SMITH V. VULCAN IRON
WORKS, 165 U.S. 518.  ACCORDINGLY, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
PROPERLY EXAMINED THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS TO
DISMISS, ALTHOUGH GENERALLY IT COULD CONSIDER SUCH AN ORDER ONLY ON
APPEAL FROM A FINAL DECISION.  REED V. LEHMAN, 91 F.2D 919; MILLER V.
PYRITES CO., 71 F.2D 804.  COMPARE GILLESPIE V. SCHRAM, 108 F.2D 39;
RODRIGUEZ V. AROSEMENA, 91 F.2D 219; KNEBERG V. GREEN CO., 89 F.2D 100;
SATTERLEE V. HARRIS, 60 F.2D 490. 

RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS SOUGHT TO DISMISS THE BILL BECAUSE IT FAILED TO
STATE ANY CAUSE OF ACTION AND BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED
JURISDICTION.  WE HOLD THAT THESE MOTIONS WERE CORRECTLY DENIED. 

WE THINK THE SECURITIES ACT DOES NOT RESTRICT PURCHASERS SEEKING
RELIEF UNDER ITS PROVISIONS TO A MONEY JUDGMENT.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
ACT AS A WHOLE INDICATES AN INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A STATUTORY RIGHT
WHICH THE LITIGANT MAY ENFORCE IN DESIGNATED COURTS BY SUCH LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE ACTIONS OR PROCEDURES AS WOULD NORMALLY BE AVAILABLE TO HIM. 
UNDOUBTEDLY ANY SUIT TO ESTABLISH THE CIVIL LIABILITY IMPOSED BY THE
ACT MUST ULTIMATELY SEEK RECOVERY OF THE CONSIDERATION PAID LESS INCOME
RECEIVED OR DAMAGES IF THE CLAIMANT NO LONGER OWNS THE SECURITY.  SEC.
12(2); 15 U.S.C. SEC. 77(1)(2).  BUT SEC. 12(2) STATES THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF CONDUCT PROSCRIBED BY THE ACT; IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO
STATE THE FORM OF ACTION OR PROCEDURE THE CLAIMANT IS TO EMPLOY. 

MOREOVER, IN SEC. 22(A)(15 U.S.C., SEC. 77V) SPECIFIED COURTS ARE
GIVEN JURISDICTION "OF ALL SUITS IN EQUITY AND ACTIONS AT LAW BROUGHT
TO ENFORCE ANY LIABILITY OR DUTY CREATED BY THIS SUBCHAPTER."  THE
POWER TO ENFORCE IMPLIES THE POWER TO MAKE EFFECTIVE THE RIGHT OF
RECOVERY AFFORDED BY THE ACT.  AND THE POWER TO MAKE THE RIGHT OF
RECOVERY EFFECTIVE IMPLIES THE POWER TO UTILIZE ANY OF THE PROCEDURES
OR ACTIONS NORMALLY AVAILABLE TO THE LITIGANT ACCORDING TO THE
EXIGENCIES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE.  IF PETITIONERS' BILL STATES A CAUSE
OF ACTION WHEN TESTED BY THE CUSTOMARY RULES GOVERNING SUITS OF SUCH
CHARACTER, THE SECURITIES ACT AUTHORIZES MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT,
PROVIDING THE BILL CONTAINS THE ALLEGATIONS THE ACT REQUIRES.  THAT IT
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE BILL IN SO MANY WORDS IS NO MORE SIGNIFICANT
THAN THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT IN TERMS AUTHORIZE EXECUTION TO ISSUE ON
A JUDGMENT RECOVERED UNDER SEC. 12(2). 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE BILL STATES A CAUSE FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF. 
THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS THAT INDEPENDENCE IS INSOLVENT, THAT ITS BUSINESS
IS PRACTICALLY HALTED, THAT IT IS THREATENED WITH MANY LAW SUITS, THAT
ITS ASSETS ARE ENDANGERED, AND THAT PREFERENCES TO CREDITORS ARE
PROBABLE.  THERE ARE PRAYERS FOR AN ACCOUNTING, APPOINTMENT OF A
RECEIVER, AN INJUNCTION PENDENTE LITE, AND FOR RETURN OF PETITIONERS'
PAYMENTS.  OTHER ALLEGATIONS SHOW THAT ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS DEALT WITH
INDEPENDENCE THEIR INSTALLMENTS WERE PAID TO PENNSYLVANIA AND THAT THE
COMPLICATED ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN PENNSYLVANIA AND INDEPENDENCE MIGHT
MAKE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN SATISFACTION OF ANY CLAIM
ESTABLISHED AGAINST INDEPENDENCE. 

THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTS OF THE SUIT ARE RESCISSION OF THE SAVINGS PLAN
CONTRACTS AND RESTITUTION OF THE CONSIDERATION PAID, INCLUDING RECOVERY
OF THE BALANCE, HELD BY PENNSYLVANIA FOR ACCOUNT OF INDEPENDENCE, WHICH
CONSISTED IN PART OF THE PAYMENTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PROCURED BY THE
FRAUD OF INDEPENDENCE.  THAT A SUIT TO RESCIND A CONTRACT INDUCED BY
FRAUD AND TO RECOVER THE CONSIDERATION PAID MAY BE MAINTAINED IN
EQUITY, AT LEAST WHERE THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES MAKING THE LEGAL REMEDY
INADEQUATE, IS WELL ESTABLISHED.  TYLER V. SAVAGE, 143 U.S. 79;
MONTGOMERY V. BUCYRUS MACHINE WORKS, 92 U.S. 257; BOYCE'S EXECUTORS V.
GRUNDY, 3 PET. 210.  SEE BLACK, RESCISSION AND CANCELLATION, 2D
EDITION, SEC. 643, ET SEQ.; WILLISTON, CONTRACTS, 3D EDITION, SEC.
1525, ET SEQ.; POMEROY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, 4TH EDITION, SECS. 881,
1092.  FN3 

IT IS ENOUGH AT THIS TIME TO DETERMINE THAT THE BILL CONTAINS
ALLEGATIONS WHICH, IF PROVED, ENTITLE PETITIONERS TO SOME EQUITABLE
RELIEF.  WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE OR PROVE THEIR RIGHT
TO ALL OF THE RELIEF PRAYED IN THE BILL WE DO NOT DECIDE BECAUSE THE
QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE US.  HENCE, IF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION IT WAS PROPER TO CONSIDER WHETHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD
BE GIVEN IN AID OF THE RECOVERY SOUGHT BY THE BILL. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURTS BELOW THAT THE SECURITIES ACT CONFERS
JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT UPON THE DISTRICT COURT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY OR THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES.  SECTION 22(A)
PROVIDES IN PART:  "THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION  ...  OF ALL SUITS IN EQUITY AND ACTIONS AT LAW
BROUGHT TO ENFORCE ANY LIABILITY OR DUTY CREATED BY THIS SUBCHAPTER." 
THIS IS PLAINLY A SUIT TO ENFORCE A LIABILITY OR DUTY CREATED BY THE
ACT.  THAT THE DISTRICT COURT THEREFORE HAS JURISDICTION IS EVIDENT
FROM THE PROVISION QUOTED.  ACCORDINGLY, THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE INJUNCTION WAS PROPER. 

WE HOLD THAT THE INJUNCTION WAS A REASONABLE MEASURE TO PRESERVE THE
STATUS QUO PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE
BILL.  "IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE GRANTING OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION,
PENDING FINAL HEARING, IS WITHIN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL
COURT; AND THAT, UPON APPEAL, AN ORDER GRANTING SUCH AN INJUNCTION WILL
NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS CONTRARY TO SOME RULE OF EQUITY, OR THE RESULT
OF IMPROVIDENT EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION."  PRENDERGAST V. NEW
YORK TELEPHONE CO., 262 U.S. 43, 50-51; MECCANO, LTD. V. WANAMAKER, 253
U.S. 136, 141.  AS ALREADY STATED, THERE WERE ALLEGATIONS THAT
INDEPENDENCE WAS INSOLVENT AND ITS ASSETS IN DANGER OF DISSIPATION OR
DEPLETION.  THIS BEING SO, THE LEGAL REMEDY AGAINST INDEPENDENCE,
WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE FUND IN THE HANDS OF PENNSYLVANIA, WOULD BE
INADEQUATE.  THE INJUNCTION WAS FRAMED NARROWLY TO RESTRAIN ONLY THE
TRANSFER OF $38,258.85, AND THE TRIAL JUDGE REQUIRED PETITIONERS TO
FURNISH SECURITY FOR ANY LOSSES RESPONDENTS MIGHT SUFFER.  IN VIEW OF
THIS WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION IN
GRANTING THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDERS GRANTING THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND
DENYING THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE CORRECT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUSTAINED.  THE ORDERS ALLOWING THE ADDITION OF TWO PLAINTIFFS AND
REFERRING THE ISSUE OF INSOLVENCY TO A MASTER WERE INTERLOCUTORY AND
NOT APPEALABLE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 225),  FN4  AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN
REVERSED ONLY IF PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY EQUITABLE
RELIEF.  SEE MECCANO, LTD. V. WANAMAKER, 253 U.S. 136; SMITH V. VULCAN
IRON WORKS, 165 U.S. 518.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY DID
NOT CONSIDER THEM ON THE MERITS, AND IF ULTIMATELY THERE IS AN APPEAL
FROM A FINAL DECREE THE CORRECTNESS OF THESE ORDERS MAY BE EXAMINED. 
THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  FOR CONVENIENCE THE THREE CORPORATIONS JUST NAMED WILL BE
REFERRED TO AS CAPITAL, INDEPENDENCE, AND PENNSYLVANIA. 

FN3  IN FALK V. HOFFMAN, 233 N.Y. 199, 202; 135 N.E. 243, 244, JUDGE
CARDOZO SAID:  "EQUITY WILL NOT BE OVER-NICE IN BALANCING THE EFFICACY
OF ONE REMEDY AGAINST THE EFFICACY OF ANOTHER WHEN ACTION WILL BAFFLE,
AND INACTION MAY CONFIRM, THE PURPOSE OF THE WRONGDOER." 

FN4  AN ORDER ALLOWING THE ADDITION OF PLAINTIFFS IS INTERLOCUTORY
AND NOT APPEALABLE:  CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CANNERIES CO. V. DUNKLEY CO.,
282 F. 406, 410.  SEE ONEIDA NAVIGATION CORP. V. W. & S. JOB & CO., 252
U.S. 521; CYCLOPEDIA OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE, VOL. 5, SEC. 2608. 

AN ORDER OF REFERENCE TO A MASTER IS GENERALLY INTERLOCUTORY AND NOT
APPEALABLE, AT LEAST IF NOT FOR A MERE MINISTERIAL PURPOSE:  GEORGE V.
VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO., 293 U.S. 377.  SEE LATTA V. KILBOURN, 150
U.S. 524; MCGOURKEY V. TOLEDO & OHIO CENTRAL RY. CO., 146 U.S. 536;
HILL V. CHICAGO & EVANSTON R. CO., 140 U.S. 52; BEEBE V. RUSSELL, 19
HOW.  283; CRAIGHEAD V. WILSON, 18 HOW.  199; FORGAY V. CONRAD, 6 HOW. 
201; CYCLOPEDIA OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE, VOL. 5, SEC. 2618. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. HARRIS, 311 U.S. 292 


NO. 52.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 22, 1940.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 9, 1940.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  AN INDICTMENT CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH HAVING FALSELY TESTIFIED
UNDER OATH BEFORE A FEDERAL GRAND JURY - IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION
MATERIAL TO THE INVESTIGATION, AND KNOWING THE ANSWER TO BE FALSE -
THAT HE DID NOT MAKE CERTAIN STATEMENTS TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS CONCERNING
EARLIER CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHERS REGARDING THE OPERATION OF PLACES OF
ILL REPUTE, SUFFICIENTLY CHARGES PERJURY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 125 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE.  PP. 293, 295. 

2.  THE ALLEGED PERJURY CONSISTS NOT IN THE ACCUSED HAVING
CONTRADICTED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY EARLIER STATEMENTS MADE BY HIM IN
CONVERSATION WITH OTHERS, BUT IN HIS HAVING SWORN FALSELY THAT HE HAD
NEVER TOLD GOVERNMENT AGENTS HE HAD MADE SUCH STATEMENTS.  P. 294. 

UNITED STATES V. HARRIS* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 53, UNITED STATES V. KENNY, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW
JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT QUASHING AN INDICTMENT FOR PERJURY. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE A GRAND JURY, APPELLEES WERE ASKED WHETHER, IN
1937, THEY HAD MADE CERTAIN STATEMENTS TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS CONCERNING
EARLIER CONVERSATIONS WITH ONE RAY BORN AND OTHERS REGARDING THE
OPERATION OF PLACES OF ILL REPUTE.  THEY DENIED HAVING MADE THE
STATEMENTS.  THE GRAND JURY THEREUPON FOUND THE INDICTMENTS  FN1  NOW
BEFORE US WHICH CHARGE, IN EFFECT, THAT APPELLEES' TESTIMONY WAS FALSE,
THAT IT WAS MATERIAL TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE GRAND JURY, AND THAT
APPELLEES THEREFORE COMMITTED PERJURY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 125 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE (35 STAT. 1111, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 231).  FN2 

APPELLEES PROMPTLY MOVED TO QUASH THE INDICTMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT
THEY FAILED "TO CHARGE AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES."  AFTER
HEARING ON THE MOTIONS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ENTERED ORDERS IN BOTH CASES
QUASHING THE INDICTMENTS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CHARGE AN OFFENSE UNDER
THE STATUTE.  THE CASES ARE HERE ON APPEALS FROM THESE RULINGS.  18
U.S.C. SEC. 682, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345; SEE UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO.,
308 U.S. 188, 193. 

THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE TWO CASES IS WHETHER THE
INDICTMENTS CHARGE AN OFFENSE UNDER THE STATUTE.  THE INDICTMENT
AGAINST MAY HARRIS ALLEGED THAT "  ...  THE SAID MAY HARRIS  ...  AT
THE TIMES SHE MADE THE STATEMENTS AFORESAID (BEFORE THE GRAND JURY),
THEN AND THERE WELL AND FULLY KNEW THAT THEY WERE, AS A MATTER OF FACT,
FALSE AND UNTRUE IN THAT, AND FOR THE REASON THAT, MAY HARRIS AFORESAID
THEN AND THERE WELL AND FULLY KNEW THAT SHE DID IN FACT TELL AND INFORM
THE SAID SPECIAL AGENTS  ...  THAT SHE HAD GONE TO RAY BORN IN 1932 AND
TALKED TO HIM  ...  ; THAT SHE HAD SPOKEN TO LOU KISSEL  ...  ; THAT
SHE HAD PAID MONEY TO SAID JAMES MCCULLOUGH.  ...  "  FN3 

THE TRIAL JUDGE APPARENTLY THOUGHT THAT THE ALLEGED PERJURY CONSISTED
OF CONTRADICTING, BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, THE EARLIER STATEMENTS MADE BY
APPELLEES IN CONVERSATIONS WITH BORN AND OTHERS, FOR IN THE OPINION
ACCOMPANYING THE ORDERS QUASHING THE INDICTMENTS HE STATED:  "  ...  I
AM SATISFIED  ...  THAT PERJURY CANNOT BE PREDICATED UPON A CONTRARY
STATEMENT MADE BY THE WITNESS AT A TIME PRIOR TO OR AFTER THE MAKING OF
THE SWORN STATEMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CLAIM THAT THE WITNESS ON HER
OATH DENIED THAT SHE MADE SUCH STATEMENTS, WHICH, IT IS AVERRED, CAN BE
PROVEN BY TWO OR MORE CREDIBLE WITNESSES."  HE CITED SEVERAL CASES TO
SHOW THAT MERE PROOF OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT OR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS
WOULD NOT SUPPORT A CHARGE OF PERJURY.  SEE PHAIR V. UNITED STATES, 60
F.2D 953, 954; CLAYTON V. UNITED STATES, 284 F. 537, 540. 

IT IS EVIDENT, HOWEVER, THAT THE INDICTMENT CHARGED PERJURY NOT IN
THE MERE MAKING OF CONTRADICTORY AND INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS CONCERNING
THESE CONVERSATIONS, BUT IN SWEARING FALSELY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY THAT
APPELLEES HAD NEVER TOLD THE GOVERNMENT AGENTS THEY HAD HAD SUCH
CONVERSATIONS.  MOREOVER, PROOF THAT APPELLEES HAD TOLD GOVERNMENT
AGENTS THAT THEY HAD CONVERSED WITH BORN AND OTHERS WOULD NOT BE
EVIDENCE OF MERE PREVIOUS INCONSISTENT OR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS BY
APPELLEES AFFECTING ONLY THEIR CREDIBILITY AS WITNESSES, BUT WOULD BE
DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE OFFENSE ITSELF AND HENCE WOULD SUPPORT THE
CHARGE MADE IN THE INDICTMENT.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INSTANT
CASES AND SUCH CASES AS PHAIR V. UNITED STATES, 60 F.2D 953, THEREFORE,
IS OBVIOUS AND SUBSTANTIAL.  SEE O'BRIEN V. UNITED STATES, 69 APP. D.C.
135; 99 F.2D 368. 

FALSE ASSERTIONS OF THE FACT OF PRIOR STATEMENTS AND THE FALSE
ASSERTIONS OF ANY OTHER FACT.  NOR CAN WE SEE ANY REASON TO MAKE ONE. 
AS THE GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT, THE DENIAL OF THE FACT THAT CERTAIN
STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE MAY BE EQUALLY AS CLEAR, DELIBERATE, AND
MATERIAL A FALSEHOOD AS THE DENIAL OF ANY OTHER FACT.  AND SINCE
STATEMENTS MADE TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS ARE GENERALLY ONE OF THE BASES
UPON WHICH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED AND INDICTMENTS
RETURNED, SUCH A DISTINCTION MIGHT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPEDE EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL LAW. 

THE FACTS STATED IN THE INDICTMENT ARE CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE A
VIOLATION OF THE PERJURY STATUTE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS QUASHING THE
INDICTMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ALTHOUGH APPELLEES WERE INDICTED SEPARATELY, THE INDICTMENTS IN
ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS ARE IDENTICAL, AND THE APPEALS PRESENT THE SAME
QUESTION.  THEY ARE THEREFORE TREATED IN ONE OPINION. 

FN2  SECTION 125.  WHOEVER, HAVING TAKEN AN OATH BEFORE A COMPETENT
TRIBUNAL, OFFICER, OR PERSON, IN ANY CASE IN WHICH A LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES AUTHORIZES AN OATH TO BE ADMINISTERED, THAT HE WILL TESTIFY,
DECLARE, DEPOSE, OR CERTIFY TRULY, OR THAT ANY WRITTEN TESTIMONY,
DECLARATION, DEPOSITION, OR CERTIFICATE BY HIM SUBSCRIBED, IS TRUE,
SHALL WILLFULLY AND CONTRARY TO SUCH OATH STATE OR SUBSCRIBE ANY
MATERIAL MATTER WHICH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE, IS GUILTY OF
PERJURY, AND SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS AND
IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. 

FN3  THE CHARGE IN THE INDICTMENT AGAINST MARIE KENNY, MUTATIS
MUTANDIS, IS IDENTICAL WITH THE ONE QUOTED. 
..END :




















WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS, 311 U.S. 107 


NOS. 2, 3, AND 4, ORIGINAL.  ORDER ENTERED NOVEMBER 25, 1940. 


PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE 

WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, OHIO, AND PENNSYLVANIA V. ILLINOIS AND THE
SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ET AL.* 

*FOR THE OPINION AND DECREE IN THESE CASES, SEE 281 U.S. 179, 696;
SEE ALSO, 309 U.S. 569, 636. 

MICHIGAN V. ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ET AL. 

NEW YORK V. ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ET AL.

ORDER. 

UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE STATES OF WISCONSIN,
MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, AND ILLINOIS, AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATION: 

"WHEREAS, THE STATE OF ILLINOIS CONTENDS THAT ALSO DURING THE PERIOD
INTERVENING BETWEEN THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DECREE AND SINCE THEN
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF FLOCCULENT ACTIVE SLUDGE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE HAVE
ACCUMULATED IN THE BRANDON ROAD POOL AND THAT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH
ACCUMULATION ALSO ADDS TO THE MENACE OF THE HEALTH OF THE PERSONS
LIVING ADJACENT THERETO (WHICH CONTENTION IS DENIED BY THE RESPONDENT
GREAT LAKES STATES) AND, 

WHEREAS, THE SPECIAL MASTER IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CAUSES, THE
HONORABLE MONTE M. LEMANN, BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE HEARINGS, SUGGESTED
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL OF THE STATES OF WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA,
MICHIGAN AND NEW YORK (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE OPPOSING GREAT
LAKES STATES) CONSIDER THE MAKING OF AN AGREEMENT TO PERMIT A TEMPORARY
INCREASE IN DIVERSION FROM 1500 CUBIC SECOND FEET PLUS DOMESTIC PUMPAGE
NOW AUTHORIZED BY THE DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF
APRIL 21, 1930, TO 10,000 CUBIC SECOND FEET PLUS DOMESTIC PUMPAGE OF
WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN THROUGH THE CHICAGO SANITARY CANAL FOR ONE
CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF TEN DAYS SO AS TO SCOUR OUT THE BRANDON ROAD POOL
AT JOLIET, ILLINOIS, AND ATTEMPT TO REMOVE WHATEVER FLOCCULENT ACTIVE
SLUDGE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE MAY HAVE ACCUMULATED IN SAID POOL, AND 

WHEREAS, THE SPECIAL MASTER SUGGESTED THAT ANY SUCH AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE OPPOSING GREAT LAKES STATES WOULD BE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF THE PARTIES TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CAUSES,
AND WOULD BE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING BY THIS MEANS TO REMOVE
WHATEVER FLOCCULENT ACTIVE SLUDGE DEPOSITS AND SEWAGE SLUDGE MAY HAVE
ACCUMULATED IN THE BRANDON ROAD POOL BY REASON OF THE INTRODUCTION OF
UNTREATED SEWAGE AND SLUDGE FROM TREATED SEWAGE.  NOTHING IN THIS
STIPULATION SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AN ADMISSION BY THE OPPOSING GREAT
LAKES STATES AS IN ANY MANNER OR FORM WHATSOEVER WAIVING, ABANDONING OR
PREJUDICING ANY OF THE POSITIONS OF THE OPPOSING GREAT LAKES STATES
HEREINBEFORE STATED OR AT ANY TIME TAKEN IN THESE CAUSES OR IN THE
COURSE OF THE PRESENT HEARINGS; AND SAID OPPOSING GREAT LAKES STATES
HEREBY AFFIRM AND AGAIN ADVANCE EACH AND EVERY CONTENTION AND
ALLEGATION SET FORTH IN THE RETURN OF WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, OHIO,
PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN AND NEW YORK AS RESPONDENTS TO RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE ISSUED ON APPLICATION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AS PETITIONER,
FOR A TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE DECREE OF APRIL 21,
1930, FILED IN THIS COURT ON FEBRUARY 26, 1940; AND SAID OPPOSING GREAT
LAKES STATES AGAIN DENY EACH AND EVERY ALLEGATION CONTAINED IN THE
PETITION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS HEREIN, FILED IN THIS COURT ON
JANUARY 15, 1940, AND DENY THE POSITIONS TAKEN DURING THE COURSE OF THE
PRESENT HEARINGS BY ILLINOIS, AND, 

WHEREAS, IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD THAT THE STATE OF ILLINOIS DOES NOT
BY REASON OF THIS STIPULATION OR MOTION OR TEST IN ANY MANNER OR FORM
WAIVE, ABANDON OR PREJUDICE ANY OF ITS POSITIONS AT ANY TIME STATED OR
TAKEN IN THIS PROCEEDING, AND THE STATE OF ILLINOIS HEREBY AFFIRMS AND
AGAIN ADVANCES EACH AND EVERY CONTENTION AND ALLEGATION SET FORTH IN
ITS PETITION, AND IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN ADMISSION BY THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS THAT SUCH TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DIVERSION OF WATER
FOR A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS WILL EITHER REMEDY OR AMELIORATE EFFECTIVELY
THE CONDITIONS IN BRANDON POOL WHICH ILLINOIS CONTENDS HAVE CONSTITUTED
THE ALLEGED MENACE TO HEALTH COMPLAINED OF, AND, 

WHEREAS, IT IS THE POSITION OF THE OPPOSING GREAT LAKES STATES THAT
ANY ACCUMULATION OF SEWAGE WASTES AND SLUDGE IN THE BRANDON ROAD POOL
SINCE THE DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WENT INTO FULL
OPERATION ON DECEMBER 31, 1938, HAS NOT CREATED ANY NUISANCE CONDITION
EITHER FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, NAVIGATION OR IN ANY OTHER
WAY, AND THAT SUCH TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DIVERSION IS IN NO WISE
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH OR NAVIGATION, AND 

WHEREAS, THE OPPOSING GREAT LAKES STATES ARE NEVERTHELESS, IN A
SPIRIT OF CONCILIATION AND ACCOMMODATION, WILLING TO ENTER INTO THE
AGREEMENT SUGGESTED BY THE SPECIAL MASTER UPON THE EXPRESS CONDITION -
(A) THAT SUCH AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS IN ANY WAY WAIVING,
ABANDONING OR PREJUDICING ANY OF THE POSITIONS OF THE OPPOSING GREAT
LAKES STATES HEREINBEFORE STATED OR AT ANY TIME TAKEN IN THESE CAUSES
OR IN THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT HEARING; (B) THAT NOTHING IN THIS
STIPULATION NOR THE FACT OF THE CONSENT OF THE OPPOSING GREAT LAKES
STATES TO SUCH TEMPORARY EXPEDIENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS AN ADMISSION
OR EVIDENCE OF ANY CLAIM OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS OR THE SANITARY
DISTRICT OF CHICAGO IN THE PREMISES AND SHALL NOT BE USED AS A
PRECEDENT FOR ANY FUTURE REQUEST FOR ANY ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY DIVERSION
OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNTS FIXED BY THE DECREE OF APRIL 21, 1930. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS  STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE
PARTIES TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CAUSES, BY THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL,
THAT A TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DIVERSION FROM 1500 CUBIC SECOND FEET PLUS
DOMESTIC PUMPAGE NOW AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
DECREE OF APRIL 21, 1930, TO 10,000 CUBIC SECOND FEET PLUS DOMESTIC
PUMPAGE OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN THROUGH THE CHICAGO SANITARY CANAL
MAY BE AUTHORIZED FOR ONE CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF TEN DAYS FOR THE PUPOSE
OF TRYING TO REMOVE WHATEVER FLOCCULENT ACTIVE SLUDGE DEPOSITS AND
SEWAGE SLUDGE MAY HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE SAID BRANDON ROAD POOL.  IT
IS UNDERSTOOD THAT A RECORD OF SAID OPERATION WILL BE MADE AND THE
RESULTS THEREOF INCORPORATED IN THE RECORD OF THE HEARING. 

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT ANY SUCH AGREEMENT WILL BE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CAUSES AND THAT
SUCH AGREEMENT IS NOT TO BE USED AS A PRECEDENT FOR ANY FUTURE REQUEST
FOR ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY DIVERSION IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS FIXED BY
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECREE OF APRIL 21, 1930. 

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT A MOTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THIS STIPULATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND
THAT AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS STIPULATION MAY
THEREUPON BE ENTERED BY SAID COURT WITHOUT NOTICE TO ANY OF SAID
PARTIES. 

STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

BY JOHN E. CASSIDY, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. 

STATES OF WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN, AND NEW
YORK, 

BY HERBERT H. NAUJOKS, 

SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO ATTORNEYS GENERAL. 

DATED THIS 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1940." 

IT IS ORDERED THAT THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO BE AND IT HEREBY
IS AUTHORIZED TO INCREASE ITS DIVERSION OF WATER FROM THE GREAT LAKES
ST. LAWRENCE SYSTEM OR WATERSHED THROUGH THE CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
FROM 1,500 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND IN ADDITION TO DOMESTIC PUMPAGE TO
10,000 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND IN ADDITION TO DOMESTIC PUMPAGE FOR ONE
CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF TEN DAYS FROM AN APPROPRIATE HOUR ON DECEMBER 2,
1940, TO THE SAME HOUR ON DECEMBER 12, 1940, AFTER WHICH PERIOD ALL THE
PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ENTERED APRIL 21, 1930, 281 U.S. 696, SHALL BE
AND REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT. 

..END :












HELVERING V. HORST, 311 U.S. 112 


NO. 27.  ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 25, 1940.  - 107
F.2D 906, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE, IN 1934 AND 1935, AN OWNER OF NEGOTIABLE BONDS, WHO
REPORTED INCOME ON THE CASH RECEIPTS BASIS, DETACHED FROM THE BONDS
NEGOTIABLE INTEREST COUPONS BEFORE THEIR DUE DATE AND DELIVERED THEM AS
A GIFT TO HIS SON, WHO IN THE SAME YEAR COLLECTED THEM AT MATURITY,
HELD THAT, UNDER SEC. 22 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, AND IN THE YEAR
THAT THE INTEREST PAYMENTS WERE MADE, THERE WAS A REALIZATION OF
INCOME, IN THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENTS, TAXABLE TO THE DONOR.  P. 117. 

2.  THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS IS THE TAXATION OF
INCOME TO THOSE WHO EARN OR OTHERWISE CREATE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT
AND WHO ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF IT WHEN PAID.  P. 119. 

3.  THE TAX LAID BY THE 1934 REVENUE ACT UPON INCOME "DERIVED FROM
...  WAGES OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND
IN WHATEVER FORM PAID  ...  ; ALSO FROM INTEREST  ..."  CAN NOT FAIRLY
BE INTERPRETED AS NOT APPLYING TO INCOME DERIVED FROM INTEREST OR
COMPENSATION WHEN HE WHO IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT MAKES USE OF HIS
POWER TO DISPOSE OF IT IN PROCURING SATISFACTIONS WHICH HE WOULD
OTHERWISE PROCURE ONLY BY THE USE OF THE MONEY WHEN RECEIVED.  P. 119. 

4.  THIS CASE DISTINGUISHED FROM BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5;
AND COMPARED WITH LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111, AND BURNET V. LEININGER,
285 U.S. 136.  PP. 118-120. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. HORST. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 650, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 39 B.T.A. 757, SUSTAINING A DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. ARNOLD RAUM, WITH WHOM SOLICITOR GENERAL BIDDLE, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL CLARK, AND MESSRS.  SEWALL KEY AND MORTON K.
ROTHSCHILD WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR PETITIONER. 

MR. SELDEN BACON, WITH WHOM MR. HARRY H. WIGGINS WAS ON THE BRIEF,
FOR RESPONDENT. 

THE COUPONS WERE INDEPENDENT NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS COMPLETE IN
THEMSELVES, AND BY THE GIFT BECAME THE ABSOLUTE PROPERTY OF THE DONEE
FREE FROM ANY CONTROL BY THE DONOR BY REASON OF HIS RETENTION OF THE
BONDS FROM WHICH THEY HAD BEEN DETACHED.  CLARK V. IOWA CITY, 20 WALL. 
583; HARTMAN V. GREENHOW, 102 U.S. 672; KOSHKONONG V. BURTON, 104 U.S.
668; CLOKEY V. EVANSVILLE & T.H.R. CO., 16 APP. DIV. 304; PRATT V.
HIGGINSON, 230 MASS. 256. 

THE TWO CASES ON THIS POINT IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AGREE
THAT COUPONS SO GIVEN AWAY BEFORE THEIR MATURITY ARE NOT INCOME OF THE
DONOR, BUT OF THE DONEE.  ROSENWALD V. COMMISSIONER, 33 F.2D 423; HORST
V. COMMISSIONER, 107 F.2D 906.  SEE ALSO, MATCHETTE V. HELVERING, 81
F.2D 73; WILLISTON V. COMMISSIONER, 2 MASS. A.T.B. 663; SCHOONMAKER V.
COMMISSIONER, 39 B.T.A. 496. 

THE CASE AT BAR IS NOT GOVERNED BY HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S.
331, BUT BY BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 11-14.  IN THE CLIFFORD
CASE THERE WAS NO THING SEPARATED AND COMPLETELY TRANSFERRED.  WHAT WAS
TRANSFERRED WAS NET INCOME FROM A TRUST FUND OVER WHICH CLIFFORD
RETAINED ABSOLUTE CONTROL.  HE MIGHT EASILY, UNDER THE EXTENSIVE POWERS
RESERVED TO HIMSELF, INVEST IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THERE MIGHT BE NO NET
INCOME THEREFROM DURING THE SPECIFIED PERIOD.  THAT WAS LEFT TO HIS OWN
ABSOLUTE DISCRETION.  THAT IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING FROM AN ABSOLUTE
TRANSFER OF A SPECIFIC COUPON.  MOREOVER, CLIFFORD ALSO RETAINED
CONTROL EVEN OVER WHATEVER NET INCOME THERE MIGHT BE, UNDER THE
STRIKING PROVISION THAT HE WAS TO PAY OVER TO HIS WIFE DURING THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE TRUST, THE WHOLE OR SUCH PART OF THE NET INCOME AS
HE "IN HIS ABSOLUTE DISCRETION" MIGHT DETERMINE.  THAT PROVISION
PRACTICALLY NULLIFIED ANY ABSOLUTE RIGHT ON HER PART TO GET THE
INCOME.  RAYMOND V. TIFFANY, 59 MISC. 283.  ANY INCOME PAID HER BECAME
A COMPLETED GIFT ONLY WHEN CLIFFORD EXERCISED HIS DISCRETION IN HER
FAVOR, AFTER THE INCOME HAD BEEN COLLECTED BY HIM. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE GIFT, DURING THE
DONOR'S TAXABLE YEAR, OF INTEREST COUPONS DETACHED FROM THE BONDS,
DELIVERED TO THE DONEE AND LATER IN THE YEAR PAID AT MATURITY, IS THE
REALIZATION OF INCOME TAXABLE TO THE DONOR. 

IN 1934 AND 1935 RESPONDENT, THE OWNER OF NEGOTIABLE BONDS, DETACHED
FROM THEM NEGOTIABLE INTEREST COUPONS SHORTLY BEFORE THEIR DUE DATE AND
DELIVERED THEM AS A GIFT TO HIS SON WHO IN THE SAME YEAR COLLECTED THEM
AT MATURITY.  THE COMMISSIONER RULED THAT UNDER THE APPLICABLE SEC. 22
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, 686, THE INTEREST PAYMENTS
WERE TAXABLE, IN THE YEARS WHEN PAID, TO THE RESPONDENT DONOR WHO
REPORTED HIS INCOME ON THE CASH RECEIPTS BASIS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING THE
TAX.  107 F.2D 906; 39 B.T.A. 757.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 309 U.S.
650, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE REVENUE LAWS AND BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT IN PRINCIPLE OF
THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111, AND WITH
THAT OF DECISIONS BY OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  SEE BISHOP V.
COMMISSIONER, 54 F.2D 298; DICKEY V. BURNET, 56 F.2D 917, 921; VAN
METER V. COMMISSIONER, 61 F.2D 817. 

THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT AS THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE COUPONS HAD
PASSED TO THE OBLIGOR, THE DONOR HAD, BY THE GIFT, PARTED WITH ALL
CONTROL OVER THEM AND THEIR PAYMENT, AND FOR THAT REASON THE CASE WAS
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM LUCAS V. EARL, SUPRA, AND BURNET V. LEININGER, 285
U.S. 136, WHERE THE ASSIGNMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES HAD
PRECEDED THE RENDITION OF THE SERVICES, AND WHERE THE INCOME WAS HELD
TAXABLE TO THE DONOR. 

THE HOLDER OF A COUPON BOND IS THE OWNER OF TWO INDEPENDENT AND
SEPARABLE KINDS OF RIGHT.  ONE IS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND AND RECEIVE AT
MATURITY THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BOND REPRESENTING CAPITAL
INVESTMENT.  THE OTHER IS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND AND RECEIVE INTERIM
PAYMENTS OF INTEREST ON THE INVESTMENT IN THE AMOUNTS AND ON THE DATES
SPECIFIED BY THE COUPONS.  TOGETHER THEY ARE AN OBLIGATION TO PAY
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY OR PROPERTY WHICH
WAS PRESUMABLY THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE OBLIGATION OF THE BOND.  HERE
RESPONDENT, AS OWNER OF THE BONDS, HAD ACQUIRED THE LEGAL RIGHT TO
DEMAND PAYMENT AT MATURITY OF THE INTEREST SPECIFIED BY THE COUPONS AND
THE POWER TO COMMAND ITS PAYMENT TO OTHERS, WHICH CONSTITUTED AN
ECONOMIC GAIN TO HIM. 

ADMITTEDLY NOT ALL ECONOMIC GAIN OF THE TAXPAYER IS TAXABLE INCOME. 
FROM THE BEGINNING THE REVENUE LAWS HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED AS DEFINING
"REALIZATION" OF INCOME AS THE TAXABLE EVENT, RATHER THAN THE
ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT.  AND "REALIZATION" IS NOT
DEEMED TO OCCUR UNTIL THE INCOME IS PAID.  BUT THE DECISIONS AND
REGULATIONS HAVE CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED THAT RECEIPT IN CASH OR
PROPERTY IS NOT THE ONLY CHARACTERISTIC OF REALIZATION OF INCOME TO A
TAXPAYER ON THE CASH RECEIPTS BASIS.  WHERE THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT
RECEIVE PAYMENT OF INCOME IN MONEY OR PROPERTY REALIZATION MAY OCCUR
WHEN THE LAST STEP IS TAKEN BY WHICH HE OBTAINS THE FRUITION OF THE
ECONOMIC GAIN WHICH HAS ALREADY ACCRUED TO HIM.  OLD COLONY TRUST CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716; CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376, 378. 
CF. BURNET V. WELLS, 289 U.S. 670. 

IN THE ORDINARY CASE THE TAXPAYER WHO ACQUIRES THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE
INCOME IS TAXED WHEN HE RECEIVES IT, REGARDLESS OF THE TIME WHEN HIS
RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYMENT ACCRUED.  BUT THE RULE THAT INCOME IS NOT
TAXABLE UNTIL REALIZED HAS NEVER BEEN TAKEN TO MEAN THAT THE TAXPAYER,
EVEN ON THE CASH RECEIPTS BASIS, WHO HAS FULLY ENJOYED THE BENEFIT OF
THE ECONOMIC GAIN REPRESENTED BY HIS RIGHT TO RECEIVE INCOME, CAN
ESCAPE TAXATION BECAUSE HE HAS NOT HIMSELF RECEIVED PAYMENT OF IT FROM
HIS OBLIGOR.  THE RULE, FOUNDED ON ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE, IS ONLY
ONE OF POSTPONEMENT OF THE TAX TO THE FINAL EVENT OF ENJOYMENT OF THE
INCOME, USUALLY THE RECEIPT OF IT BY THE TAXPAYER, AND NOT ONE OF
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION WHERE THE ENJOYMENT IS CONSUMMATED BY SOME
EVENT OTHER THAN THE TAXPAYER'S PERSONAL RECEIPT OF MONEY OR PROPERTY. 
CF. ALUMINUM CASTINGS CO. V. ROUTZAHN, 282 U.S. 92, 98.  THIS MAY OCCUR
WHEN HE HAS MADE SUCH USE OR DISPOSITION OF HIS POWER TO RECEIVE OR
CONTROL THE INCOME AS TO PROCURE IN ITS PLACE OTHER SATISFACTIONS WHICH
ARE OF ECONOMIC WORTH.  THE QUESTION HERE IS, WHETHER BECAUSE ONE WHO
IN FACT RECEIVES PAYMENT FOR SERVICES OR INTEREST PAYMENTS IS TAXABLE
ONLY ON HIS RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENTS, HE CAN ESCAPE ALL TAX BY GIVING
AWAY HIS RIGHT TO INCOME IN ADVANCE OF PAYMENT.  IF THE TAXPAYER
PROCURES PAYMENT DIRECTLY TO HIS CREDITORS OF THE ITEMS OF INTEREST OR
EARNINGS DUE HIM, SEE OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA;
BOWERS V. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170; UNITED STATES V. KIRBY
LUMBER CO., 284 U.S. 1, OR IF HE SETS UP A REVOCABLE TRUST WITH INCOME
PAYABLE TO THE OBJECTS OF HIS BOUNTY, SECS. 166, 167, REVENUE ACT OF
1934, CORLISS V. BOWERS, SUPRA; CF. DICKEY V. BURNET, 56 F.2D 917, 921,
HE DOES NOT ESCAPE TAXATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE
MONEY.  CF. DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1; HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309
U.S. 331. 

UNDERLYING THE REASONING IN THESE CASES IS THE THOUGHT THAT INCOME IS
"REALIZED" BY THE ASSIGNOR BECAUSE HE, WHO OWNS OR CONTROLS THE SOURCE
OF THE INCOME, ALSO CONTROLS THE DISPOSITION OF THAT WHICH HE COULD
HAVE RECEIVED HIMSELF AND DIVERTS THE PAYMENT FROM HIMSELF TO OTHERS AS
THE MEANS OF PROCURING THE SATISFACTION OF HIS WANTS.  THE TAXPAYER HAS
EQUALLY ENJOYED THE FRUITS OF HIS LABOR OR INVESTMENT AND OBTAINED THE
SATISFACTION OF HIS DESIRES WHETHER HE COLLECTS AND USES THE INCOME TO
PROCURE THOSE SATISFACTIONS, OR WHETHER HE DISPOSES OF HIS RIGHT TO
COLLECT IT AS THE MEANS OF PROCURING THEM.  CF. BURNET V. WELLS,
SUPRA. 

ALTHOUGH THE DONOR HERE, BY THE TRANSFER OF THE COUPONS, HAS
PRECLUDED ANY POSSIBILITY OF HIS COLLECTING THEM HIMSELF, HE HAS
NEVERTHELESS, BY HIS ACT, PROCURED PAYMENT OF THE INTEREST AS A
VALUABLE GIFT TO A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY.  SUCH A USE OF HIS ECONOMIC
GAIN, THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE INCOME, TO PROCURE A SATISFACTION WHICH CAN
BE OBTAINED ONLY BY THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY OR PROPERTY, WOULD SEEM TO
BE THE ENJOYMENT OF THE INCOME WHETHER THE SATISFACTION IS THE PURCHASE
OF GOODS AT THE CORNER GROCERY, THE PAYMENT OF HIS DEBT THERE, OR SUCH
NONMATERIAL SATISFACTIONS AS MAY RESULT FROM THE PAYMENT OF A CAMPAIGN
OR COMMUNITY CHEST CONTRIBUTION, OR A GIFT TO HIS FAVORITE SON.  EVEN
THOUGH HE NEVER RECEIVES THE MONEY, HE DERIVES MONEY'S WORTH FROM THE
DISPOSITION OF THE COUPONS WHICH HE HAS USED AS MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH
IN THE PROCURING OF A SATISFACTION WHICH IS PROCURABLE ONLY BY THE
EXPENDITURE OF MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  THE ENJOYMENT OF THE ECONOMIC
BENEFIT ACCRUING TO HIM BY VIRTUE OF HIS ACQUISITION OF THE COUPONS IS
REALIZED AS COMPLETELY AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF HE HAD COLLECTED THE
INTEREST IN DOLLARS AND EXPENDED THEM FOR ANY OF THE PURPOSES NAMED. 
BURNET V. WELLS, SUPRA. 

IN A REAL SENSE HE HAS ENJOYED COMPENSATION FOR MONEY LOANED OR
SERVICES RENDERED, AND NOT ANY THE LESS SO BECAUSE IT IS HIS ONLY
REWARD FOR THEM.  TO SAY THAT ONE WHO HAS MADE A GIFT THUS DERIVED FROM
INTEREST OR EARNINGS PAID TO HIS DONEE HAS NEVER ENJOYED OR REALIZED
THE FRUITS OF HIS INVESTMENT OR LABOR, BECAUSE HE HAS ASSIGNED THEM
INSTEAD OF COLLECTING THEM HIMSELF AND THEN PAYING THEM OVER TO THE
DONEE, IS TO AFFRONT COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND TO DENY THE FACTS OF
COMMON EXPERIENCE.  COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND EXPERIENCE ARE THE
TOUCHSTONES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 

THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF INCOME IS THE EQUIVALENT OF OWNERSHIP OF IT.
THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER TO PROCURE THE PAYMENT OF INCOME TO ANOTHER
IS THE ENJOYMENT, AND HENCE THE REALIZATION, OF THE INCOME BY HIM WHO
EXERCISES IT.  WE HAVE HAD NO DIFFICULTY IN APPLYING THAT PROPOSITION
WHERE THE ASSIGNMENT PRECEDED THE RENDITION OF THE SERVICES, LUCAS V.
EARL, SUPRA; BURNET V. LEININGER, SUPRA, FOR IT WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE
LEININGER CASE THAT IN SUCH A CASE THE RENDITION OF THE SERVICE BY THE
ASSIGNOR WAS THE MEANS BY WHICH THE INCOME WAS CONTROLLED BY THE DONOR
AND OF MAKING HIS ASSIGNMENT EFFECTIVE.  BUT IT IS THE ASSIGNMENT BY
WHICH THE DISPOSITION OF INCOME IS CONTROLLED WHEN THE SERVICE PRECEDES
THE ASSIGNMENT, AND IN BOTH CASES IT IS THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
DISPOSITION OF THE INTEREST OR COMPENSATION, WITH THE RESULTING PAYMENT
TO THE DONEE, WHICH IS THE ENJOYMENT BY THE DONOR OF INCOME DERIVED
FROM THEM. 

THIS WAS EMPHASIZED IN BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, ON WHICH
RESPONDENT RELIES, WHERE THE DISTINCTION WAS TAKEN BETWEEN A GIFT OF
INCOME DERIVED FROM AN OBLIGATION TO PAY COMPENSATION AND A GIFT OF
INCOMEPRODUCING PROPERTY.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE, THE RIGHT
TO INCOME FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS THOUGHT TO BE SO IDENTIFIED WITH
THE EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, FROM WHICH ALONE THE
BENEFICIARY DERIVED HIS RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INCOME AND HIS POWER TO
COMMAND DISPOSITION OF IT, THAT A GIFT OF THE INCOME BY THE BENEFICIARY
BECAME EFFECTIVE ONLY AS A GIFT OF HIS OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY
PRODUCING IT.  SINCE THE GIFT WAS DEEMED TO BE A GIFT OF THE PROPERTY,
THE INCOME FROM IT WAS HELD TO BE THE INCOME OF THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, WHO WAS THE DONEE, NOT THE DONOR - A REFINEMENT WHICH WAS
UNNECESSARY IF RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION HERE IS RIGHT, BUT ONE CLEARLY
INAPPLICABLE TO GIFTS OF INTEREST OR WAGES.  UNLIKE INCOME THUS DERIVED
FROM AN OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST OR COMPENSATION, THE INCOME OF THE
TRUST WAS REGARDED AS NO MORE THE INCOME OF THE DONOR THAN WOULD BE THE
RENT FROM A LEASE OR A CROP RAISED ON A FARM AFTER THE LEASEHOLD OR THE
FARM HAD BEEN GIVEN AWAY.  BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, 12, 13 AND
CASES CITED.  SEE ALSO REINECKE V. SMITH, 289 U.S. 172, 177.  WE HAVE
HELD WITHOUT DEVIATION THAT WHERE THE DONOR RETAINS CONTROL OF THE
TRUST PROPERTY THE INCOME IS TAXABLE TO HIM ALTHOUGH PAID TO THE
DONEE.  CORLISS V. BOWERS, SUPRA.  CF. HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA. 

THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE REVENUE LAWS IS THE TAXATION OF INCOME TO
THOSE WHO EARN OR OTHERWISE CREATE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT AND ENJOY
THE BENEFIT OF IT WHEN PAID.  SEE, CORLISS V. BOWERS, SUPRA, 378;
BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, 283.  THE TAX LAID BY THE 1934
REVENUE ACT UPON INCOME "DERIVED FROM  ...  WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR
PERSONAL SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID,  ...  ;
ALSO FROM INTEREST  ..."  THEREFORE CANNOT FAIRLY BE INTERPRETED AS NOT
APPLYING TO INCOME DERIVED FROM INTEREST OR COMPENSATION WHEN HE WHO IS
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT MAKES USE OF HIS POWER TO DISPOSE OF IT IN
PROCURING SATISFACTIONS WHICH HE WOULD OTHERWISE PROCURE ONLY BY THE
USE OF THE MONEY WHEN RECEIVED.    IT IS THE STATUTE WHICH TAXES THE
INCOME TO THE DONOR ALTHOUGH PAID TO HIS DONEE.  LUCAS V. EARL, SUPRA;
BURNET V. LEININGER, SUPRA.  TRUE, IN THOSE CASES THE SERVICE WHICH
CREATED THE RIGHT TO INCOME FOLLOWED THE ASSIGNMENT, AND IT WAS
ARGUABLE THAT IN POINT OF LEGAL THEORY THE RIGHT TO THE COMPENSATION
VESTED INSTANTANEOUSLY IN THE ASSIGNOR WHEN PAID, ALTHOUGH HE NEVER
RECEIVED IT; WHILE HERE THE RIGHT OF THE ASSIGNOR TO RECEIVE THE INCOME
ANTEDATED THE ASSIGNMENT WHICH TRANSFERRED THE RIGHT AND THUS PRECLUDED
SUCH AN INSTANTANEOUS VESTING.  BUT THE STATUTE AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR
SUCH "ATTENUATED SUBTLETIES."  THE DISTINCTION WAS EXPLICITLY REJECTED
AS THE BASIS OF DECISION IN LUCAS V. EARL.  IT SHOULD BE REJECTED HERE;
FOR NO MORE THAN IN THE EARL CASE CAN THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO TAX
THE INCOME TO HIM WHO EARNS, OR CREATES AND ENJOYS IT BE ESCAPED BY
"ANTICIPATORY ARRANGEMENTS HOWEVER SKILFULLY DEVISED" TO PREVENT THE
INCOME FROM VESTING EVEN FOR A SECOND IN THE DONOR. 

NOR IS IT PERCEIVED THAT THERE IS ANY ADEQUATE BASIS FOR
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE GIFT OF INTEREST COUPONS HERE AND A GIFT OF
SALARY OR COMMISSIONS.  THE OWNER OF A NEGOTIABLE BOND AND OF THE
INVESTMENT WHICH IT REPRESENTS, IF NOT THE LENDER, STANDS IN THE PLACE
OF THE LENDER.  WHEN, BY THE GIFT OF THE COUPONS, HE HAS SEPARATED HIS
RIGHT TO INTEREST PAYMENTS FROM HIS INVESTMENT AND PROCURED THE PAYMENT
OF THE INTEREST TO HIS DONEE, HE HAS ENJOYED THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF
THE INCOME IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH THE
TRANSFER WERE OF EARNINGS, AND IN BOTH CASES THE IMPORT OF THE STATUTE
IS THAT THE FRUIT IS NOT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO A DIFFERENT TREE FROM THAT
ON WHICH IT GREW.  SEE LUCAS V. EARL, SUPRA, 115.  REVERSED. 

THE SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS. 

THE FACTS WERE STIPULATED.  IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW THE
ISSUES ARE THUS ADEQUATELY STATED - 

"THE PETITIONER OWNED A NUMBER OF COUPON BONDS.  THE COUPONS
REPRESENTED THE INTEREST ON THE BONDS AND WERE PAYABLE TO BEARER.  IN
1934 HE DETACHED UNMATURED COUPONS OF FACE VALUE OF $25,182.50 AND
TRANSFERRED THEM BY MANUAL DELIVERY TO HIS SON AS A GIFT.  THE COUPONS
MATURED LATER ON IN THE SAME YEAR, AND THE SON COLLECTED THE FACE
AMOUNT, $25,182.50, AS HIS OWN PROPERTY.  THERE WAS A SIMILAR
TRANSACTION IN 1935.  THE PETITIONER KEPT HIS BOOKS ON A CASH BASIS. 
HE DID NOT INCLUDE ANY PART OF THE MONEYS COLLECTED ON THE COUPONS IN
HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THESE TWO YEARS.  THE SON INCLUDED THEM IN
HIS RETURNS.  THE COMMISSIONER ADDED THE MONEYS COLLECTED ON THE
COUPONS TO THE PETITIONER'S TAXABLE INCOME AND DETERMINED A TAX
DEFICIENCY FOR EACH YEAR.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THREE MEMBERS
DISSENTING, SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER, HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNTS
COLLECTED ON THE COUPONS WERE TAXABLE AS INCOME TO THE PETITIONER." 

THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WAS REVERSED AND PROPERLY
SO, I THINK. 

THE UNMATURED COUPONS GIVEN TO THE SON WERE INDEPENDENT NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS, COMPLETE IN THEMSELVES.  THROUGH THE GIFT THEY BECAME AT
ONCE THE ABSOLUTE PROPERTY OF THE DONEE, FREE FROM THE DONOR'S CONTROL
AND IN NO WAY DEPENDENT UPON OWNERSHIP OF THE BONDS.  NO QUESTION OF
ACTUAL FRAUD OR PURPOSE TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE IS PRESENTED. 

NEITHER LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111, NOR BURNET V. LEININGER, 285
U.S. 136, SUPPORT PETITIONER'S VIEW.  BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S.
11, 12, SHOWS THAT NEITHER INVOLVED AN UNRESTRICTED COMPLETED TRANSFER
OF PROPERTY. 

HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331, 335, 336, DECIDED AFTER THE
OPINION BELOW, IS MUCH RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER, BUT INVOLVED FACTS
VERY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE NOW BEFORE US.  THERE NO SEPARATE THING WAS
ABSOLUTELY TRANSFERRED AND PUT BEYOND POSSIBLE CONTROL BY THE
TRANSFERROR.  THE COURT AFFIRMED THAT CLIFFORD, BOTH CONVEYOR AND
TRUSTEE, "RETAINED THE SUBSTANCE OF FULL ENJOYMENT OF ALL THE RIGHTS
WHICH PREVIOUSLY HE HAD IN THE PROPERTY."  "IN SUBSTANCE HIS CONTROL
OVER THE CORPUS WAS IN ALL ESSENTIAL RESPECTS THE SAME AFTER THE TRUST
WAS CREATED, AS BEFORE."  "WITH THAT CONTROL IN HIS HANDS HE WOULD KEEP
DIRECT COMMAND OVER ALL THAT HE NEEDED TO REMAIN IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME FINANCIAL SITUATION AS BEFORE." 

THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES APPROVED IN BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5,
ARE APPLICABLE AND CONTROLLING.  THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






HELVERING V. EUBANK, 311 U.S. 122 


NO. 205.  ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 25, 1940.  - 110
F.2D 737, REVERSED. 


RENEWAL COMMISSIONS PAID IN 1933 BY INSURANCE COMPANIES TO THE
ASSIGNEE OF AN AGENT, PURSUANT TO ASSIGNMENTS MADE BY THE AGENT, IN
1924 AND 1928, OF SUCH COMMISSIONS AS SHOULD BECOME PAYABLE TO HIM FOR
SERVICES WHICH HAD BEEN RENDERED IN WRITING POLICIES OF INSURANCE UNDER
AGENCY CONTRACTS, HELD, UNDER SEC. 22 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,
INCOME TAXABLE IN 1933 TO THE ASSIGNOR.  FOLLOWING HELVERING V. HORST,
ANTE, P. 112.  P. 124. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. EUBANK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 630, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 39 B.T.A. 583, SUSTAINING A DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. ARNOLD RAUM, WITH WHOM SOLICITOR GENERAL BIDDLE, ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL CLARK, AND MESSRS.  J. LOUIS MONARCH AND MORTON K.
ROTHSCHILD WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR PETITIONER. 

MR. HARRY J. RUDICK, WITH WHOM MR. JOHN W. DRYE, JR. WAS ON THE
BRIEF, FOR RESPONDENT. 

THE TAXABLE STATUS OF ASSIGNED INCOME DEPENDS UPON OWNERSHIP OR
CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY WHICH PRODUCES THE INCOME.  THE RESPONDENT DID
NOT RETAIN ANY SUCH OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, AND IS NOT TAXABLE ON THE
INCOME. 

THE CONTRACT RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE RENEWAL COMMISSIONS, EVEN THOUGH IT
MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM SERVICES OF THE ASSIGNOR, CONSTITUTED A PROPERTY
RIGHT CAPABLE OF ASSIGNMENT; AND THE DISPOSITION OF THAT RIGHT DID NOT
CORRESPOND TO AN ASSIGNMENT OF EARNINGS.  LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111,
DISTINGUISHED. 

THE COMMISSIONS WERE NOT WHOLLY THE PRODUCT OF SERVICES PERSONALLY
RENDERED BY THE TAXPAYER.  ASSUMING, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSIONS WERE
ENTIRELY THE RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S INDIVIDUAL EFFORTS, LUCAS V. EARL
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THEY BE TAXED TO HIM.  THAT CASE RELATED TO
EARNINGS QUA EARNINGS AND NOT TO A SEPARATELY DISPOSABLE CONTRACT RIGHT
RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES. 

THE DOCTRINE THAT EARNINGS ARE ALWAYS TAXABLE TO THE EARNER PRODUCES
ABSURD RESULTS.  SUPPOSE AN AGENT OWNING A RIGHT TO RENEWAL COMMISSIONS
BECOMES BANKRUPT AND THE RIGHT TO SUCH COMMISSIONS IS SOLD BY THE
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY TO AN OUTSIDER.  WOULD THE AGENT BE TAXABLE ON
THE COMMISSIONS PAID TO THE PURCHASER BECAUSE THEY WERE EARNED BY THE
AGENT?  SUPPOSE THE AGENT HAD SOLD HIS RIGHT TO THE FUTURE COMMISSIONS,
WOULD HE BE SUBJECT TO TAX NOT ONLY ON THE PROCEEDS OF SALE, BUT ON THE
LARGER AMOUNT OF COMMISSIONS AS WELL BECAUSE HE HAD "EARNED" THESE
COMMISSIONS?  OR SUPPOSE THE AGENT HAD DIED OWNING THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE
THE RENEWAL COMMISSIONS.  APPLICATION OF THE SWEEPING DOCTRINE
ADVOCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO BE TAXED AFTER HIS
DEATH.  THIS VIEW WAS SPECIFICALLY REJECTED IN SEATTLE FIRST NATIONAL
BANK V. HENRICKSEN, 24 F.SUPP.  256, APPEAL DISMISSED, 100 F.2D 1015. 

A FUTURE COMMISSIONS CONTRACT IN THE NATURE OF A ROYALTY CONTRACT,
SUCH AS IS HERE INVOLVED - THE INCOME FROM WHICH IS IN NO WAY DEPENDENT
UPON FUTURE SERVICES OF THE ASSIGNOR, AND THE INCOME FROM WHICH HAS NOT
YET ARISEN, AND WILL ARISE, IF AT ALL, BY THE HAPPENING OF EVENTS OVER
WHICH THE ASSIGNOR HAS NO CONTROL - MAY BE ASSIGNED SO AS TO RELIEVE
THE ASSIGNOR OF THE TAX ON THE INCOME THEREFROM IN JUST THE SAME WAY
THAT THE SAME SORT OF PROPERTY ARISING FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN PERSONAL
SERVICES MAY BE ASSIGNED SO AS TO RELIEVE THE ASSIGNOR OF TAX. 

THE RIGHT TO ASSIGN A CONTRACT OF THIS CHARACTER ARISING FROM
PERSONAL SERVICES OFFERS NO MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR TAX AVOIDANCE THAN THE
RIGHT TO ASSIGN A SIMILAR CONTRACT ARISING FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO HELVERING V. HORST, ANTE, P. 112, AND
PRESENTS ISSUES NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE IN THAT CASE. 

RESPONDENT, A GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE AGENT, AFTER THE TERMINATION OF
HIS AGENCY CONTRACTS AND SERVICES AS AGENT, MADE ASSIGNMENTS IN 1924
AND 1928 RESPECTIVELY OF RENEWAL COMMISSIONS TO BECOME PAYABLE TO HIM
FOR SERVICES WHICH HAD BEEN RENDERED IN WRITING POLICIES OF INSURANCE
UNDER TWO OF HIS AGENCY CONTRACTS.  THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED THE
RENEWAL COMMISSIONS PAID BY THE COMPANIES TO THE ASSIGNEES IN 1933 AS
INCOME TAXABLE TO THE ASSIGNOR IN THAT YEAR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
1932 REVENUE ACT, 47 STAT. 169, SEC. 22 OF WHICH DOES NOT DIFFER IN ANY
RESPECT NOW MATERIAL FROM SEC. 22 OF THE 1934 REVENUE ACT INVOLVED IN
THE HORST CASE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED
THE ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT.  110
F.2D 737; 39 B.T.A. 583.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI OCTOBER 14, 1940. 

NO PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENTS APPEARS OTHER THAN TO CONFER ON THE
ASSIGNEES THE POWER TO COLLECT THE COMMISSIONS, WHICH THEY DID IN THE
TAXABLE YEAR.  THE GOVERNMENT AND RESPONDENT HAVE BRIEFED AND ARGUED
THE CASE HERE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ASSIGNMENTS WERE VOLUNTARY
TRANSFERS TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE COMMISSIONS AS
AND WHEN THEY BECAME PAYABLE, AND THE RECORD AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR ANY
OTHER. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED AT LENGTH IN THE OPINION IN THE HORST CASE, WE
HOLD THAT THE COMMISSIONS WERE TAXABLE AS INCOME OF THE ASSIGNOR IN THE
YEAR WHEN PAID.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

THE SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS. 

THE CAUSE WAS DECIDED UPON STIPULATED FACTS.  THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
TAKEN FROM THE COURT'S OPINION DISCLOSES THE ISSUES. 

"THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER RENEWAL COMMISSIONS PAYABLE TO A
GENERAL AGENT OF A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HIS
AGENCY AND BY HIM ASSIGNED PRIOR TO THE TAXABLE YEAR, MUST BE INCLUDED
IN HIS INCOME DESPITE THE ASSIGNMENT. 

"DURING PART OF THE YEAR 1924 THE PETITIONER WAS EMPLOYED BY THE
CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY AS ITS BRANCH MANAGER FOR THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN.  HIS COMPENSATION CONSISTED OF A SALARY PLUS CERTAIN
COMMISSIONS.  HIS EMPLOYMENT TERMINATED ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1924.  UNDER
THE TERMS OF HIS CONTRACT HE WAS ENTITLED TO RENEWAL COMMISSIONS ON
PREMIUMS THEREAFTER COLLECTED BY THE COMPANY ON POLICIES WRITTEN PRIOR
TO THE TERMINATION OF HIS AGENCY, WITHOUT THE OBLIGATION TO PERFORM ANY
FURTHER SERVICES.  IN NOVEMBER 1924 HE ASSIGNED HIS RIGHT, TITLE, AND
INTEREST IN THE CONTRACT AS WELL AS THE RENEWAL COMMISSIONS TO A
CORPORATE TRUSTEE.  FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1924 TO JUNE 30, 1927, THE
PETITIONER AND ANOTHER, CONSTITUTING THE FIRM OF HART & EUBANK, WERE
GENERAL AGENTS IN NEW YORK CITY FOR THE AETNA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY,
AND FROM JULY 1, 1927 TO AUGUST 31, 1927, THE PETITIONER INDIVIDUALLY
WAS GENERAL AGENT FOR SAID AETNA COMPANY.  THE AETNA CONTRACTS LIKEWISE
CONTAINED TERMS ENTITLING THE AGENT TO COMMISSIONS ON RENEWAL PREMIUMS
PAID AFTER TERMINATION OF THE AGENCY, WITHOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY
FURTHER SERVICES.  ON MARCH 28, 1928, THE PETITIONER ASSIGNED TO THE
CORPORATE TRUSTEE ALL COMMISSIONS TO BECOME DUE HIM UNDER THE AETNA
CONTRACTS.  DURING THE YEAR 1933 THE TRUSTEE COLLECTED BY VIRTUE OF THE
ASSIGNMENTS RENEWAL COMMISSIONS PAYABLE UNDER THE THREE AGENCY
CONTRACTS ABOVE MENTIONED, AMOUNTING TO SOME $15,600.  THESE
COMMISSIONS WERE TAXED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE COMMISSIONER, AND THE
BOARD HAS SUSTAINED THE DEFICIENCY RESULTING THEREFROM."  110 F.2D
738. 

THE COURT BELOW DECLARED - 

"IN THE CASE AT BAR THE PETITIONER OWNED A RIGHT TO RECEIVE MONEY FOR
PAST SERVICES; NO FURTHER SERVICES WERE REQUIRED.  SUCH A RIGHT IS
ASSIGNABLE.  AT THE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT THERE WAS NOTHING CONTINGENT IN
THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT, ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT COLLECTIBLE IN FUTURE YEARS
WAS STILL UNCERTAIN AND CONTINGENT.  BUT THIS MAY BE EQUALLY TRUE WHERE
THE ASSIGNMENT TRANSFERS A RIGHT TO INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS, AS IN
BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, AND HORST V. COMMISSIONER, 107 F.2D
906(C.C.A. 2), OR A RIGHT TO PATENT ROYALTIES, AS IN NELSON V.
FERGUSON, 56 F.2D 121(C.C.A. 3), CERTIORARI DENIED, 286 U.S. 565.  BY
AN ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE EARNINGS A TAXPAYER MAY NOT ESCAPE TAXATION
UPON HIS COMPENSATION IN THE YEAR WHEN HE EARNS IT.  BUT WHEN A
TAXPAYER WHO MAKES HIS INCOME TAX RETURN ON A CASH BASIS ASSIGNS A
RIGHT TO MONEY PAYABLE IN THE FUTURE FOR WORK ALREADY PERFORMED, WE
BELIEVE THAT HE TRANSFERS A PROPERTY RIGHT, AND THE MONEY, WHEN
RECEIVED BY THE ASSIGNEE, IS NOT INCOME TAXABLE TO THE ASSIGNOR." 

ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WAS REVERSED; AND THIS, I
THINK, IS IN ACCORD WITH THE STATUTE AND OUR OPINIONS. 

THE ASSIGNMENT IN QUESTION DENUDED THE ASSIGNOR OF ALL RIGHT TO
COMMISSIONS THEREAFTER TO ACCRUE UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH THE INSURANCE
COMPANY.  HE COULD DO NOTHING FURTHER IN RESPECT OF THEM; THEY WERE
ENTIRELY BEYOND HIS CONTROL.  IN NO PROPER SENSE WERE THEY SOMETHING
EITHER EARNED OR RECEIVED BY HIM DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THE RIGHT TO
COLLECT BECAME THE ABSOLUTE PROPERTY OF THE ASSIGNEE WITHOUT RELATION
TO FUTURE ACTION BY THE ASSIGNOR. 

A MERE RIGHT TO COLLECT FUTURE PAYMENTS, FOR SERVICES ALREADY
PERFORMED, IS NOT PRESENTLY TAXABLE AS "INCOME DERIVED" FROM SUCH
SERVICES.  IT IS PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE ASSIGNED.  WHATEVER THE ASSIGNOR
RECEIVES AS CONSIDERATION MAY BE HIS INCOME; BUT THE STATUTE DOES NOT
UNDERTAKE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY UPON HIM BECAUSE OF PAYMENTS TO ANOTHER
UNDER A CONTRACT WHICH HE HAD TRANSFERRED IN GOOD FAITH, UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THOSE HERE DISCLOSED. 

AS IN HELVERING V. HORST, JUST DECIDED, THE PETITIONER RELIES UPON
OPINIONS HERE; BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY AROSE UPON FACTS ESSENTIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THOSE NOW PRESENTED.  THEY DO NOT SUPPORT HIS
CONTENTION.  THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES APPROVED IN BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER,
300 U.S. 5, AND APPLIED IN HELVERING V. HORST, ARE CONTROLLING AND CALL
FOR AFFIRMATION OF THE JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















SMITH V. TEXAS, 311 U.S. 128 


NO. 33.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 25, 1940.  - 136
S.W.2D 842, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CONVICTION OF A NEGRO UPON AN INDICTMENT RETURNED BY THE GRAND
JURY OF A COUNTY IN WHICH, AT THE TIME OF SUCH RETURN AND LONG PRIOR
THERETO, NEGROES WERE INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM
GRAND JURY SERVICE, SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE AND COLOR, DENIES
TO HIM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 132. 

2.  UPON REVIEW OF A STATE COURT DECISION WHEREIN A CLAIM OF A RIGHT
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WAS DENIED, THIS COURT WILL EXAMINE AND
APPRAISE FOR ITSELF THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO SUCH RIGHT.  P. 130. 

3.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SUSTAINS THE CLAIM OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF THE GRAND JURY BY WHICH THE NEGRO
DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED; AND, WHETHER SUCH DISCRIMINATION WAS
ACCOMPLISHED INGENIOUSLY OR INGENUOUSLY, HIS CONVICTION WAS VOID.  PP.
130-132. 

SMITH V. TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 651, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
SENTENCING THE PETITIONER UPON HIS CONVICTION OF A CRIME.  THE TRIAL
COURT HAD OVERRULED A MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, WHERE PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS INDICTED AND
CONVICTED OF RAPE, NEGROES CONSTITUTE OVER 20% OF THE POPULATION, AND
ALMOST 10% OF THE POLLTAX PAYERS; A MINIMUM OF FROM THREE TO SIX
THOUSAND OF THEM MEASURE UP TO THE QUALIFICATIONS PRESCRIBED BY TEXAS
STATUTES FOR GRAND JURY SERVICE.  THE COURT CLERK, CALLED AS A STATE
WITNESS AND TESTIFYING FROM COURT RECORDS COVERING THE YEARS 1931
THROUGH 1938, SHOWED THAT ONLY 5 OF THE 384 GRAND JURORS WHO SERVED
DURING THAT PERIOD WERE NEGROES; THAT OF 512 PERSONS SUMMONED FOR GRAND
JURY DUTY, ONLY 18 WERE NEGROES; THAT OF THESE 18, THE NAMES OF 13
APPEARED AS THE LAST NAME ON THE 16 MAN JURY LIST, THE CUSTOM BEING TO
SELECT THE 12 MAN GRAND JURY IN THE ORDER THAT THE NAMES APPEARED ON
THE LIST; THAT OF THE 5 NEGROES SUMMONED FOR GRAND JURY SERVICE WHO
WERE NOT GIVEN THE NUMBER 16, 4 WERE GIVEN NUMBERS BETWEEN 13 AND 16,
AND 1 WAS NUMBER 6; THAT THE RESULT OF THIS NUMBERING WAS THAT OF THE
18 NEGROES SUMMONED, ONLY 5 EVER SERVED, WHEREAS 379 OF THE 494 WHITE
MEN SUMMONED ACTUALLY SERVED; THAT OF 32 GRAND JURIES EMPANELLED, ONLY
5 HAD NEGRO MEMBERS, WHILE 27 HAD NONE; THAT OF THESE 5, THE SAME
INDIVIDUAL SERVED 3 TIMES, SO THAT ONLY 3 INDIVIDUAL NEGROES SERVED AT
ALL; THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO NEGROES ON ANY OF THE GRAND JURIES IN 1938,
THE YEAR PETITIONER WAS INDICTED; THAT THERE HAD BEEN NONE ON ANY OF
THE GRAND JURIES IN 1937; THAT THE SERVICE OF NEGROES BY YEARS HAD
BEEN:  1931, 1; 1932, 2; 1933, 1; 1934, 1; 1935, NONE; 1936, 1; 1937,
NONE; 1938, NONE. 

IT IS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS BASED ON AN
INDICTMENT OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT THAT "NO STATE SHALL  ...  DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."  AND THE CONTENTION
THAT EQUAL PROTECTION WAS DENIED HIM RESTS ON A CHARGE THAT NEGROES
WERE, IN 1938 AND LONG PRIOR THERETO, INTENTIONALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY
EXCLUDED FROM GRAND JURY SERVICE SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE AND
COLOR.  THAT A CONVICTION BASED UPON AN INDICTMENT RETURNED BY A JURY
SO SELECTED IS A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION IS WELL SETTLED,  FN1  AND
IS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE STATE.  BUT BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE TEXAS
CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS WERE OF OPINION THAT THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO
SUPPORT THE CHARGE OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.  FOR THAT REASON THE
APPELLATE COURT APPROVED THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION IN DENYING
PETITIONER'S TIMELY MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT.  FN2  BUT THE
QUESTION DECIDED RESTED UPON A CHARGE OF DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION, A
BASIC RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AND IT IS THEREFORE
OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE AS IT RELATES TO THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  FN3 

IT IS PART OF THE ESTABLISHED TRADITION IN THE USE OF JURIES AS
INSTRUMENTS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE THAT THE JURY BE A BODY TRULY
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY.  FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION TO RESULT
IN THE EXCLUSION FROM JURY SERVICE OF OTHERWISE QUALIFIED GROUPS NOT
ONLY VIOLATES OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS ENACTED UNDER IT  FN4  BUT
IS AT WAR WITH OUR BASIC CONCEPTS OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND A
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.  WE MUST CONSIDER THIS RECORD IN THE LIGHT
OF THESE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES.  THE FACT THAT THE WRITTEN WORDS OF A
STATE'S LAWS HOLD OUT A PROMISE THAT NO SUCH DISCRIMINATION WILL BE
PRACTICED IS NOT ENOUGH.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THAT EQUAL
PROTECTION TO ALL MUST BE GIVEN - NOT MERELY PROMISED. 

HERE THE TEXAS STATUTORY SCHEME IS NOT IN ITSELF UNFAIR; IT IS
CAPABLE OF BEING CARRIED OUT WITH NO RACIAL DISCRIMINATION WHATSOEVER. 
FN5  BUT BY REASON OF THE WIDE DISCRETION PERMISSIBLE IN THE VARIOUS
STEPS OF THE PLAN, IT IS EQUALLY CAPABLE OF BEING APPLIED IN SUCH A
MANNER AS PRACTICALLY TO PROSCRIBE ANY GROUP THOUGHT BY THE LAW'S
ADMINISTRATORS TO BE UNDESIRABLE.  AND FROM THE RECORD BEFORE US THE
CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT IT IS THE LATTER APPLICATION THAT HAS
PREVAILED IN HARRIS COUNTY.  CHANCE AND ACCIDENT ALONE COULD HARDLY
HAVE BROUGHT ABOUT THE LISTING FOR GRAND JURY SERVICE OF SO FEW NEGROES
FROM AMONG THE THOUSANDS SHOWN BY THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE TO POSSESS
THE LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR JURY SERVICE.  NOR COULD CHANCE AND
ACCIDENT HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMBINATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH A NEGRO'S NAME, WHEN LISTED AT ALL, ALMOST INVARIABLY
APPEARED AS NUMBER 16, AND UNDER WHICH NUMBER 16 WAS NEVER CALLED FOR
SERVICE UNLESS IT PROVED IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED JURORS FROM
THE FIRST 15 NAMES ON THE LIST. 

THE STATE ARGUES THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE COMMISSIONERS THEMSELVES
SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO ARBITRARY OR SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION.  AND IT IS
TRUE THAT TWO OF THE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO DREW THE SEPTEMBER, 1938,
PANEL TESTIFIED TO THAT EFFECT.  BOTH OF THEM ADMITTED THAT THEY DID
NOT SELECT ANY NEGROES, ALTHOUGH THE SUBJECT WAS DISCUSSED, BUT BOTH
CATEGORICALLY DENIED THAT THEY INTENTIONALLY, ARBITRARILY OR
SYSTEMATICALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST NEGRO JURORS AS SUCH.  ONE SAID
THAT THEIR FAILURE TO SELECT NEGROES WAS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT KNOW THE
NAMES OF ANY WHO WERE QUALIFIED AND THE OTHER SAID THAT HE WAS NOT
PERSONALLY ACQUAINTED WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE NEGRO RACE.  THIS IS, AT
BEST, THE TESTIMONY OF TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO PARTICIPATED IN DRAWING 1
OUT OF THE 32 JURY PANELS DISCUSSED IN THE RECORD.  BUT EVEN IF THEIR
TESTIMONY WERE GIVEN THE GREATEST POSSIBLE EFFECT, AND THEIR SITUATION
CONSIDERED TYPICAL OF THAT OF THE 94 COMMISSIONERS WHO DID NOT TESTIFY,
WE WOULD STILL FEEL COMPELLED TO REVERSE THE DECISION BELOW.  WHAT THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBITS IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE
SELECTION OF GRAND JURIES.  WHERE JURY COMMISSIONERS LIMIT THOSE FROM
WHOM GRAND JURIES ARE SELECTED TO THEIR OWN PERSONAL ACQUAINTANCE,
DISCRIMINATION CAN ARISE FROM COMMISSIONERS WHO KNOW NO NEGROES AS WELL
AS FROM COMMISSIONERS WHO KNOW BUT ELIMINATE THEM.  IF THERE HAS BEEN
DISCRIMINATION, WHETHER ACCOMPLISHED INGENIOUSLY OR INGENUOUSLY, THE
CONVICTION CANNOT STAND.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354; MARTIN V. TEXAS, 200 U.S.
316, 319; CARTER V. TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442, 447. 

FN2  136 S.W.2D 842. 

FN3  CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 228; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306
U.S. 354, 358; NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 590. 

FN4  "NO CITIZEN POSSESSING ALL OTHER QUALIFICATIONS  ...  SHALL BE
DISQUALIFIED FOR SERVICE AS GRAND OR PETIT JUROR IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY STATE, ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR, OR PREVIOUS
CONDITION OF SERVITUDE; ...  " 18 STAT. 336, 8 U.S.C. SEC. 44. 

FN5  THE STATUTORY SCHEME IS SET OUT IN THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, ARTICLES 333-350.  AT EACH TERM OF COURT, THREE GRAND JURY
COMMISSIONERS ARE APPOINTED; AT THE TIME THEY ARE SWORN IN, THE JUDGE
INSTRUCTS THEM AS TO THEIR DUTIES; THEY ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH
NOT KNOWINGLY TO SELECT A GRAND JUROR WHOM THEY BELIEVE UNFIT OR
UNQUALIFIED; THEY MUST THEN RETIRE TO A ROOM IN THE COURT HOUSE, TAKING
THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLL WITH THEM; WHILE IN THAT ROOM THEY MUST
SELECT A GRAND JURY OF 16 MEN FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTY; THEY
MUST NEXT SEAL IN AN ENVELOPE THE LIST OF THE 16 NAMES SELECTED; THIRTY
DAYS BEFORE COURT MEETS THE CLERK IS REQUIRED TO MAKE A COPY OF THE
LIST AND DELIVER IT TO THE SHERIFF; THEREUPON THE SHERIFF MUST SUMMON
THE JURORS. 
..END :









COMM'N V. BROADCASTING SYSTEM, 311 U.S. 132 


NO. 39.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 25, 1940.  - 71
APP. D.C. 206 - 108 F.2D 737, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 402(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA FROM AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DENYING
AN APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 310(B) FOR CONSENT TO THE TRANSFER OF A RADIO
STATION LICENSE.  P. 134. 

2.  SUCH AN ORDER IS NOT ONE REFUSING AN "APPLICATION FOR A RADIO
STATION LICENSE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 402(A) OR SEC. 402(B)(1). 
P. 136. 

3.  IMPLIED ADOPTION OF A JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION UPON THE RE-ENACTMENT
OF A STATUTE IS MERELY ONE FACTOR IN THE TOTAL EFFORT TO GIVE FAIR
MEANING TO STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  P. 137. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM OF
CALIFORNIA, INC.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 40, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V.
ASSOCIATED BROADCASTERS, INC., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 310 U.S.
617, TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW THE DENIAL OF MOTIONS IN TWO
CASES TO DISMISS APPEALS FROM AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION REFUSING CONSENT TO THE TRANSFER OF A RADIO STATION
LICENSE.  THE PROPOSED TRANSFEROR AND THE PROPOSED TRANSFEREE HAD
JOINED IN AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR SUCH CONSENT, AND TOOK
SEPARATE APPEALS FROM THE ORDER DENYING IT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE BROUGHT THESE TWO CASES HERE, 310 U.S. 617, BECAUSE THEY RAISE
QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE TOUCHING THE DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934.  (ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, 48 STAT.
1064, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 5, 1936, 49 STAT. 1475, AND BY THE
ACT OF MAY 20, 1937, 50 STAT. 189; 47 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ.) 

INSOFAR AS ACTION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IS SUBJECT
TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE ACT BIFURCATES ACCESS TO THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  BARRING THE EXCEPTIONS IMMEDIATELY TO BE NOTED, SEC.
402(A) ASSIMILATES "SUITS TO ENFORCE, ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL, OR
SUSPEND ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS ACT" TO THE SCHEME OF
THE ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913(38 STAT. 219), PERTAINING TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THEREFORE AS
TO THE GENERAL CLASS OF ORDERS DEALT WITH BY SEC. 402(A) JURISDICTION
RESTS EXCLUSIVELY IN THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT, SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED, WITH DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT.  EXCEPTED FROM THIS
SCHEME OF JURISDICTION IS "ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION GRANTING OR
REFUSING AN APPLICATION FOR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A RADIO STATION,
OR FOR A RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING RADIO
STATION LICENSE, OR FOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING RADIO STATION
LICENSE, OR SUSPENDING A RADIO OPERATOR'S LICENSE."  THESE FIVE TYPES
OF ORDERS, THUS PLACED BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS,
ARE THEN AFFIRMATIVELY DEALT WITH BY SEC. 402(B).  AS TO THEM, THAT
PROVISION GIVES AN APPEAL "FROM DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA," WITH ULTIMATE RESORT TO
THIS COURT ONLY UPON WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

OUR PROBLEM, THEN, IS TO APPLY THIS SCHEME OF JURISDICTION TO THE
SITUATION BEFORE US.  ACTING UNDER SEC. 310(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
ACT, THE COMMISSION REFUSED CONSENT TO AN ASSIGNMENT TO THE COLUMBIA
BROADCASTING SYSTEM OF CALIFORNIA OF A RADIO STATION LICENSE HELD BY
THE ASSOCIATED BROADCASTERS.  COLUMBIA AND ASSOCIATED THEREUPON SOUGHT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S
DENIAL OF CONSENT.  THE COMMISSION MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEALS FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE COURT BELOW, WITH ONE JUSTICE DISSENTING,
DENIED THE MOTIONS AND ENTERTAINED JURISDICTION.  71 APP. D.C. 206; 108
F.2D 737. 

THE CRUX OF THE CONTROVERSY IS WHETHER AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, IN
THE EXERCISE OF ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 310(B), DENYING CONSENT TO AN
ASSIGNMENT OF A RADIO STATION LICENSE IS AN ORDER "REFUSING AN
APPLICATION  ...  FOR A RADIO STATION LICENSE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SECS. 402(A) AND (B).  IF IT IS, THE COURT BELOW WAS SEIZED OF
JURISDICTION.  IF IT IS NOT, THAT COURT WAS WITHOUT IT.  IN THE
LANGUAGE QUOTED IN THE MARGIN, CONGRESS HAS MADE THE CHOICE AND IT IS
FOR US TO ASCERTAIN IT.  FN1 

PRIMARILY, OUR TASK IS TO READ WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN.  AS A
MATTER OF COMMON SPEECH, THE EXCEPTED TYPES OF ORDERS WHICH ALONE CAN
COME BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DO NOT
INCLUDE AN ORDER REFUSING THE CONSENT REQUIRED BY SEC. 310(B). 
REFUSING "AN APPLICATION  ...  FOR A RADIO STATION LICENSE" IS HARDLY
AN APT WAY TO CHARACTERIZE REFUSAL TO ASSENT TO THE TRANSFER OF SUCH A
LICENSE FROM AN EXISTING HOLDER.  NOR IS THERE ANYTHING TO INDICATE
THAT THE PECULIAR IDIOM OF THE INDUSTRY OR OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE
HAS MODIFIED THE MEANING THAT ORDINARY SPEECH ASSIGNS TO THE LANGUAGE. 
INSTEAD OF ASSIMILATING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSFERS TO APPLICATIONS
FOR NEW LICENSES OR RENEWALS, THE ACT AS A WHOLE SHARPLY DIFFERENTIATES
BETWEEN THEM.  DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY MAY GOVERN THE
GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING OF LICENSES FROM THOSE WHICH PERTAIN TO ASSENT
TO TRANSFERS.  AND CONGRESS SAW FIT TO FASHION DIFFERENT PROVISIONS FOR
THEM.  COMPARE SECS. 307, 308, 309, AND 319 WITH SEC. 310(B).  THERE
ARE ALSO DIFFERENCES IN THE FORMULATED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE FOR
DISPOSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR STATION LICENSES AND REQUESTS FOR
CONSENTS TO TRANSFER.  NOR DO SOME SIMILARITIES IN TREATMENT MAKE
IRRELEVANT THE DIFFERENCES. 

A SENSIBLE READING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS TO WHICH THEY RELATE GIVES NO WARRANT FOR
DENYING SIGNIFICANCE TO THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY CONGRESS BETWEEN
THOSE ORDERS FOR WHICH REVIEW CAN ONLY COME BEFORE THE LOCAL DISTRICT
COURTS, AND THOSE FIVE TYPES OF ORDERS, EXPLICITLY CHARACTERIZED, WHICH
ALONE CAN COME BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT.  AND AN
ORDER DENYING CONSENT TO AN APPLICATION FOR A TRANSFER IS NOT ONE OF
THOSE FIVE, FOR IT IS NOT AN APPLICATION FOR "A RADIO STATION LICENSE"
IN ANY FAIR INTENDMENT OF THAT CATEGORY. 

WHAT THUS APPEARS CLEAR FROM A READING OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT
ITSELF IS NOT MODIFIED BY THE COLLATERAL MATERIALS WHICH HAVE BEEN
PRESSED UPON US.  THAT BOTH SIDES INVOKE THE SAME EXTRINSIC AIDS, ONE
TO FORTIFY AND THE OTHER TO NULLIFY THE CONCLUSION WE HAVE REACHED, IN
ITSELF PROVES WHAT DUBIOUS LIGHT THEY SHED.  WHAT WAS SAID IN COMMITTEE
REPORTS, AND SOME REMARKS BY THE PROPONENT OF THE MEASURE IN THE
SENATE, ARE SUFFICIENTLY AMBIGUOUS INSOFAR AS THIS NARROW ISSUE IS
CONCERNED, TO INVITE MUTUALLY DESTRUCTIVE DIALECTIC, BUT NOT STRONG
ENOUGH EITHER TO STRENGTHEN OR WEAKEN THE FORCE OF WHAT CONGRESS HAS
ENACTED.  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 781, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 9-10; HOUSE
REP. NO. 1918, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 49-50; 78 CONG. REC. 8825-26. 
THIS LEAVES FOR CONSIDERATION ONLY THE BEARING OF AN EARLIER DECISION
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT ON THIS VERY QUESTION, ARISING
UNDER THE PREDECESSOR OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, THE RADIO ACT OF 1927,
44 STAT. 1162, AS AMENDED, 46 STAT. 844.  IN THAT ACT, SEC. 16 COVERED,
FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 402(B) OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  INTER ALIA, IT PROVIDED FOR APPEALS TO THE COURT
BELOW BY "ANY APPLICANT FOR A STATION LICENSE."  CONSTRUING THAT
PROVISION, THE COURT BELOW IN POTE V. FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION, 67 F.2D
509, HELD THAT IT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER AN APPEAL BY A
TRANSFEREE TO WHOM CONSENT TO A TRANSFER HAD BEEN DENIED.  THE PRESENT
SEC. 402 WAS ADOPTED AFTER THIS DECISION AND ANOTHER DECISION BY THE
SAME COURT WITHIN THIS FIELD OF JURISDICTION (GOSS V. FEDERAL RADIO
COMMISSION, 67 F.2D 507) HAD BEEN PRESUMABLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION
OF CONGRESS.  HEARINGS ON S. 2910, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 44-45.  ON
THE ONE HAND IT IS INSISTED THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,
THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE POTE DECISION WAS IMPLIEDLY ENACTED BY
CONGRESS, WHILE RESPONDENTS URGE THAT DIFFERENCES IN THE PROVISIONS
REGARDING THE COMMISSION'S POWER OVER CONSENT TO TRANSFERS DESTROY THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE POTE CASE.  BUT THESE CHANGES IN SEC. 310(B), WHICH
STIFFENED THE CONTROL OF THE COMMISSION OVER TRANSFERS, ARE WHOLLY
UNRELATED TO THE TECHNICAL QUESTION OF JURISDICTION WITH WHICH WE ARE
NOW CONCERNED.  WE ARE NOT, HOWEVER, WILLING TO REST DECISION ON ANY
DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE IMPLIED ENACTMENT OF A JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION
UPON REENACTMENT OF A STATUTE.  THE PERSUASION THAT LIES BEHIND THAT
DOCTRINE IS MERELY ONE FACTOR IN THE TOTAL EFFORT TO GIVE FAIR MEANING
TO LANGUAGE.  AND SO, AT THE LOWEST, THE POTE CASE CERTAINLY DOES NOT
DETRACT FROM, BUT IF ANYTHING REENFORCES, THE CONSTRUCTION REQUIRED BY
A CLEAR-EYED READING OF THE STATUTE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 402:  "(A)  THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 22,
1913(38 STAT. 219), RELATING TO THE ENFORCING OR SETTING ASIDE OF THE
ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, ARE HEREBY MADE
APPLICABLE TO SUITS TO ENFORCE, ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL, OR SUSPEND
ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS ACT (EXCEPT ANY ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION GRANTING OR REFUSING AN APPLICATION FOR A CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT FOR A RADIO STATION, OR FOR A RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR
RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR MODIFICATION OF AN
EXISTING RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR SUSPENDING A RADIO OPERATOR'S
LICENSE) AND SUCH SUITS ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO BE BROUGHT AS PROVIDED
IN THAT ACT. 

"(B)  AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN, IN THE MANNER HEREINAFTER PROVIDED,
FROM DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CASES: 

"(1)  BY ANY APPLICANT FOR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A RADIO STATION,
OR FOR A RADIO STATION LICENSE, OR FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXISTING RADIO
STATION LICENSE, OR FOR MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING RADIO STATION
LICENSE, WHOSE APPLICATION IS REFUSED BY THE COMMISSION. 

"(2)  BY ANY OTHER PERSON AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED BY ANY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION GRANTING OR REFUSING ANY
SUCH APPLICATION. 

"(3)  BY ANY RADIO OPERATOR WHOSE LICENSE HAS BEEN SUSPENDED BY THE
COMMISSION." 

IF THE ASSIGNEE IS COVERED SEC. 402(B)(1) THE ASSIGNOR WOULD BE
WITHIN SEC. 402(B)(2). 
..END :




















AMERICAN INS. CO. V. AVON PARK, 311 U.S. 138 


NO. 31.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 25, 1940.  - 108
F.2D 1010, REVERSED. 


1.  A PLAN FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE DEBTS OF A MUNICIPALITY UNDER
CHAPTER IX OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT COMPRISED A REFUNDING PLAN WHEREBY THE
MUNICIPALITY'S FISCAL AGENT (A PRIVATE CORPORATION) WOULD DEFRAY THE
EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE REFUNDING AND WOULD BE REIMBURSED THEREFOR AND
COMPENSATED FOR ITS SERVICES BY AN ASSESSMENT OF PARTICIPATING
BONDHOLDERS.  A STATED CHARGE WAS TO BE MADE FOR EACH $1000 BOND, BUT
THE CHARGE WOULD BE LESS IF THE BONDHOLDER SHOULD SELL TO THE FISCAL
AGENT ACCRUED INTEREST COUPONS AT A THIRD OF THEIR FACE VALUE.  THE
FISCAL AGENT SOLICITED ACCEPTANCES OF THE PLAN, AND ACCEPTANCES
REPRESENTING MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS OF ALL CLAIMS AFFECTED WERE
OBTAINED.  EXCLUSIVE OF CLAIMS HELD BY THE FISCAL AGENT AS CREDITOR AND
VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN, HOWEVER, THE TWO-THIRDS REQUIRED FOR
CONFIRMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN LACKING.  THE CLAIMS HELD BY THE FISCAL
AGENT WERE ACQUIRED BY IT AT ABOUT FIFTY CENTS ON THE DOLLAR, SOME
BEFORE AND OTHERS AFTER IT ENTERED INTO THE AGENCY CONTRACT WITH THE
MUNICIPALITY.  IT DID NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD IN THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT WHETHER THE FISCAL AGENT DISCLOSED TO CREDITORS FROM WHOM IT
SOLICITED ACCEPTANCES:  THAT IT WAS A CREDITOR AS WELL AS FISCAL AGENT
OF THE MUNICIPALITY; THE EXTENT, OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
ACQUISITION, OF THE CLAIMS HELD BY IT; OR ITS INTENT TO VOTE THOSE
CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN.  NO SUCH DISCLOSURE WAS MADE IN THE PLAN. 
HELD THAT AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT CONFIRMING THE PLAN OF
COMPOSITION MUST BE SET ASIDE.  PP. 141, 143. 

2.  WHETHER THE FISCAL AGENT'S COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED
WOULD EXCEED THE "REASONABLE COMPENSATION" AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 83(B) OF
THE ACT, REQUIRES EVALUATION OF THE AGGREGATE OF ALL BENEFITS WHICH
MIGHT ACCRUE TO IT UNDER THE PLAN, INCLUDING ITS SPECULATIVE
INTERESTS.  P. 144. 

3.  THAT THE FISCAL AGENT'S POSITION IN THE PLAN IS SPECULATIVE DOES
NOT DISPENSE WITH THE NECESSITY FOR THE DEFINITIVE FINDING DEMANDED BY
THE ACT AS TO THE REASONABLENESS OF COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
RENDERED.  P. 144. 

4.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE BENEFITS ACCRUING TO THE FISCAL AGENT
UNDER THE PLAN MIGHT EXCEED "REASONABLE COMPENSATION" FOR SERVICES
RENDERED, THE ALLOWANCE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 83(B).  P. 144. 

5.  ALSO, IF EXCESS BENEFITS SHOULD ACCRUE TO THE FISCAL AGENT, THE
PLAN WOULD NOT THEN COMPLY WITH SEC. 83(E)(1), FOR IT WOULD
DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF THE FISCAL AGENT AS CREDITOR.  P.
144. 

6.  SINCE THE FISCAL AGENT IN SOLICITING CREDITORS' ACCEPTANCES OF
THE PLAN IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE MADE FULL DISCLOSURE WITH RESPECT TO ITS
DUAL CAPACITY AS FISCAL AGENT AND CREDITOR, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE
ASSENTS WERE FAIRLY OBTAINED, NOR THAT ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN WAS
IN "GOOD FAITH" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 83(E)(5).  P. 144. 

7.  THE CONTROL WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS OVER THE WHOLE PROCESS
OF FORMULATION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS OF COMPOSITION OR REORGANIZATION,
AND THE OBTAINING OF ASSENTS THERETO, IS TO BE EXERCISED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, SO FAR AS CONSISTENT WITH THE ACT.  P. 145. 

8.  THE DUTY OF THE COURT IN CASES SUCH AS THIS REQUIRES SCRUTINY OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ACCEPTANCES, THE SPECIAL OR ULTERIOR
MOTIVES WHICH MAY HAVE INDUCED THEM, THE TIME OF ACQUIRING THE CLAIMS
SO VOTING, THE AMOUNT PAID THEREFOR, ETC.  ONLY AFTER SUCH
INVESTIGATION CAN THE COURT EXERCISE THE "INFORMED, INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT" ESSENTIAL TO CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN.  P. 145. 

9.  IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURT BEFORE ENTERING AN ORDER OF
CONFIRMATION TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE PLAN IN ITS PRACTICAL INCIDENCE
EMBODIES A FAIR AND EQUITABLE BARGAIN OPENLY ARRIVED AT AND DEVOID OF
OVERREACHING, HOWEVER SUBTLE.  P. 146. 

10.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN PERMITTING CLAIMS HELD BY THE FISCAL
AGENT AS CREDITOR TO BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE STATUTORY PERCENTAGE
OF ASSENTS, WITHOUT PROTECTING OTHER CREDITORS BY REQUIRING FULL
DISCLOSURE AND OTHER APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS, AND IN ALLOWING
COMPENSATION TO THE FISCAL AGENT WITHOUT SCRUTINIZING THE LATTER'S
SPECULATIVE INTERESTS, DID NOT IN THIS CASE DISCHARGE ITS
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE ACT.  P. 146. 

11.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 83(B) FOR ALLOWANCE OF "REASONABLE
COMPENSATION" FOR "SERVICES RENDERED" NECESSARILY IMPLIES "LOYAL AND
DISINTERESTED SERVICE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PERSONS" FOR WHOM THE
CLAIMANT PURPORTED TO ACT.  P. 147. 

12.  APPROVAL REPRESENTING THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF CLAIMS AFFECTED
IS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE TEST OF WHETHER A PLAN OF COMPOSITION SATISFIES
THE STATUTORY STANDARD; IT IS INDEPENDENT OF, NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR, THE
STATUTORY STANDARD.  P. 148. 

13.  CLAIMS ARE "CONTROLLED" BY THE MUNICIPALITY AND REQUIRED BY SEC.
83(D) TO BE EXCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE STATUTORY TWO-THIRDS REQUIRED FOR
CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN NOT ONLY WHEN THE HOLDER OF THE CLAIMS IS AN
AGENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY WITHIN THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR,
BUT ALSO WHEN THERE IS SUCH CLOSE IDENTITY OF INTERESTS BETWEEN THE
CLAIMANT AND THE MUNICIPALITY THAT THE CLAIMANT'S ASSENT TO THE PLAN
MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE MORE THE PRODUCT OF THE MUNICIPALITY'S
INFLUENCE AND TO REFLECT MORE THE MUNICIPALITY'S DESIRES THAN AN
EXPRESSION OF AN INVESTOR'S INDEPENDENT BUSINESS JUDGMENT.  P. 148. 

14.  SHOULD THERE BE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE ANOTHER PLAN OF
COMPOSITION INVOLVING A FISCAL AGENCY CONTRACT, THE QUESTION OF THE
LEGALITY OF SUCH CONTRACT UNDER THE STATE LAW WOULD BE A RELEVANT
INQUIRY FOR THE DISTRICT COURT, AS BEARING ON WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY
"IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO TAKE ALL ACTION NECESSARY TO BE TAKEN BY IT TO
CARRY OUT THE PLAN," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 83(E)(6).  P. 149. 

AMERICAN UNITED MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. CITY OF AVON PARK,
FLORIDA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 651, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER
CONFIRMING A PLAN FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE DEBTS OF A MUNICIPALITY
UNDER CHAPTER IX OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMED A PLAN FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE DEBTS
OF RESPONDENT UNDER CH. IX OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (50 STAT. 653; 52
STAT. 939, 940).  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THAT
ORDER.  108 F.2D 1010.  PETITIONER, A CREDITOR OF THE CITY, HAVING
OBJECTED TO THE CONFIRMATION IN THE COURTS BELOW, BROUGHT THE CASE HERE
ON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, WHICH WE GRANTED IN VIEW OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEMS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPOSITION AND
REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

THE CITY'S COMPOSITION WAS A REFUNDING PLAN WORKED OUT BY IT AND ITS
FISCAL AGENT,  FN2 R.E. CRUMMER & CO. PURSUANT TO THE FISCAL AGENCY
CONTRACT BOTH PARTIES WERE TO USE THEIR BEST EFFORTS TO INDUCE THE
CREDITORS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLAN.  THE CITY WAS NOT TO PAY ANY OF
THE COSTS OF THE REFUNDING, AS CRUMMER WAS TO DEFRAY ALL EXPENSES
INCIDENT TO ASSEMBLING THE BONDS, PRINTING THE REFUNDING BONDS,
REPRESENTING THE CITY IN PROCEEDINGS TO VALIDATE THE NEW BONDS,
OBTAINING A LEGAL OPINION APPROVING THE BONDS, ETC.  THE FISCAL AGENCY
CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT CRUMMER WAS TO BE COMPENSATED FOR ITS SERVICES
AND REIMBURSED FOR ITS EXPENSES BY ASSESSING CHARGES AGAINST THE
PARTICIPATING BONDHOLDERS.  THIS CHARGE WAS $40 FOR EACH $1000 BOND; OR
IN CASE THE BONDHOLDERS ELECTED TO SELL CRUMMER THE INTEREST COUPONS,
ACCRUED TO JULY 1, 1937, AT ONE-THIRD OF THEIR FACE AMOUNT  FN3  THE
CHARGE WAS TO BE $20 PER $1000 BOND. 

CRUMMER SOLICITED ASSENTS TO THE PLAN.  APPROXIMATELY 69% OF THE
BONDHOLDERS ACCEPTED.  BUT FOR THE CLAIMS HELD BY THE CRUMMER
INTERESTS,  FN4  AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN, THE REQUISITE TWO
THIRDS STATUTORY VOTE, HOWEVER, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED.  SOME OF
THESE CLAIMS HAD BEEN PURCHASED PRIOR TO THE FISCAL AGENCY CONTRACT,
SOME LATER.  THE AVERAGE PRICE WAS APPARENTLY ABOUT 50[ ON THE DOLLAR. 
THE INFERENCE SEEMS CLEAR THAT SOME OF THEM WERE ACQUIRED IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE CONSUMMATION OF THE COMPOSITION BY PLACING THEM IN FRIENDLY
HANDS.  BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER OR NOT CRUMMER DISCLOSED
TO THE BONDHOLDERS WHEN THEIR ASSENTS WERE SOLICITED THAT IT WAS A
CREDITOR AS WELL AS THE CITY'S FISCAL AGENT, THE EXTENT OF THE CLAIMS
HELD BY IT AND ITS AFFILIATE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THEIR
ACQUISITION, AND ITS INTENT TO VOTE THOSE CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN. 
NO SUCH DISCLOSURE WAS MADE IN THE PLAN. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE TWO-THIRDS OF THE
AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF CLAIMS AFFECTED BY THE PLAN, REQUIRED BY SEC.
83(D), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 403(D), FOR CONFIRMATION, HAD ASSENTED.  IT ALSO
FOUND THAT CRUMMER'S COMPENSATION WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE, THAT THE
PLAN AND ITS ACCEPTANCE WERE IN GOOD FAITH, AND THAT THE PLAN WAS FAIR,
EQUITABLE AND FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS, AND DID NOT
DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF ANY CREDITOR. 

WE DISAGREE.  THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION MUST BE SET ASIDE.  IT CANNOT
BE SAID THAT THE PLAN DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN FAVOR OF ANY
CREDITOR, THAT THE ACCEPTANCES WERE IN GOOD FAITH, THAT THE REQUISITE
TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF APPROVAL HAD BEEN OBTAINED. 

CRUMMER HAD AT LEAST  FN5  THREE FINANCIAL STAKES IN THIS
COMPOSITION:  (1) THE FEE TO BE COLLECTED FROM THE BONDHOLDERS; (2) ITS
SPECULATIVE POSITION IN SUCH OF THE INTEREST ACCRUALS AS IT MIGHT
ACQUIRE FROM THE BONDHOLDERS AT A THIRD OF THEIR FACE AMOUNT; (3) THE
PROFIT WHICH MIGHT ACCRUE TO IT OR ITS AFFILIATE, AS A RESULT OF THE
REFUNDING, ON BONDS ACQUIRED AT DEFAULT PRICES. 

THE COURT FOUND THAT THE FIRST OF THESE ITEMS WAS REASONABLE.  BUT IT
APPARENTLY DEEMED THE OTHERS IRRELEVANT TO THE INQUIRY. 

CLEARLY, HOWEVER, NO FINDING COULD BE MADE UNDER SEC. 83(B), 11
U.S.C. SEC. 403(B), THAT THE COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE FISCAL
AGENT WAS REASONABLE WITHOUT PASSING ON THE WORTH OF THE AGGREGATE OF
ALL THE EMOLUMENTS ACCRUING TO THE CRUMMER INTERESTS AS A RESULT OF
CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN.  SINCE THAT INQUIRY WOULD NECESSITATE AN
APPRAISAL OF THE FISCAL AGENT'S SPECULATIVE POSITION IN THE PLAN,
PERHAPS THE DEFINITIVE FINDING DEMANDED BY THE ACT COULD NOT BE MADE. 
YET THAT IS A CHANCE WHICH THE FISCAL AGENT, NOT THE BONDHOLDERS, MUST
TAKE; FOR IT IS THE AGENT WHO IS SEEKING THE AID OF THE COURT IN
OBTAINING ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT.  MOREOVER, TO THE EXTENT THAT
THE AGGREGATE BENEFITS FLOWING TO THE CRUMMER INTERESTS EXCEEDED
REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED, THEIR REWARD WOULD
EXCEED WHAT THE COURT COULD AUTHORIZE UNDER SEC. 83(B), 11 U.S.C. SEC.
403(B).  FURTHERMORE, IF ANY SUCH EXCESS BENEFITS WOULD ACCRUE TO THEM,
THEN THE PLAN WOULD RUN AFOUL OF SEC. 83(E)(1), 11 U.S.C. SEC.
403(E)(1).  FOR IN THAT EVENT THE PLAN WOULD DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN
FAVOR OF THE CRUMMER INTERESTS AS CREDITORS. 

HENCE THE LACK OF THAT ESSENTIAL FINDING WOULD BE FATAL IN ANY CASE. 
IT IS ESPECIALLY SERIOUS HERE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WITHOUT THE VOTE
OF THE FISCAL AGENT THE REQUISITE TWO-THIRDS ACCEPTANCE WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN OBTAINED.  WHERE IT DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR THAT FULL AND
COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE FISCAL AGENT'S INTERESTS WAS MADE TO THE
BONDHOLDERS WHEN THEIR ASSENTS WERE SOLICITED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT
THOSE ASSENTS WERE FAIRLY OBTAINED.  CF. ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO.,
288 U.S. 123, 143.  AND WHERE WITHOUT SUCH DISCLOSURE THE FISCAL
AGENT'S VOTE WAS CAST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN, IT CANNOT BE SAID
THAT SUCH ACCEPTANCE WAS IN "GOOD FAITH" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
83(E)(5), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 403(E)(5).  HERE THE FISCAL AGENT WAS ACTING
IN A DUAL CAPACITY.  WHILE IT WAS REPRESENTING THE CITY, IT LIKEWISE
PURPORTED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF BONDHOLDERS.  THE VERY MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT FOR FAIR DEALING WAS THE ELEMENTARY OBLIGATION OF FULL
DISCLOSURE OF ALL ITS INTERESTS.  AND THE BURDEN WAS ON IT TO SHOW AT
LEAST THAT SUCH DISCLOSURE WAS MADE.  EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE
OBVIOUSLY WILL NOT PERMIT A FINDING THAT AN ACCEPTANCE OF A PLAN BY A
PERSON ACTING IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY IS IN "GOOD FAITH" WHERE
THAT PERSON IS OBTAINING AN UNDISCLOSED BENEFIT FROM THE PLAN. 

WE HAVE EMPHASIZED THAT FULL DISCLOSURE IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IN
ORDER NOT TO IMPLY THAT IT IS THE LIMIT OF THE POWER AND DUTY OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THESE SITUATIONS.  AS THIS COURT STATED IN
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES REALTY &
IMPROVEMENT CO., 310 U.S. 434, 455:  "A BANKRUPTCY COURT IS A COURT OF
EQUITY, SEC. 2, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 11, AND IS GUIDED BY EQUITABLE DOCTRINES
AND PRINCIPLES EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT. 
...  A COURT OF EQUITY MAY IN ITS DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
JURISDICTION COMMITTED TO IT GRANT OR DENY RELIEF UPON PERFORMANCE OF A
CONDITION WHICH WILL SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  AND SEE PEPPER V.
LITTON, 308 U.S. 295, 304, ET SEQ. THESE PRINCIPLES ARE A PART OF THE
CONTROL WHICH THE COURT HAS OVER THE WHOLE PROCESS OF FORMULATION AND
APPROVAL OF PLANS OF COMPOSITION OR REORGANIZATION, AND THE OBTAINING
OF ASSENTS THERETO.  AS WE SAID IN CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS
CO., 308 U.S. 106, 114, "THE COURT IS NOT MERELY A MINISTERIAL REGISTER
OF THE VOTE OF THE SEVERAL CLASSES OF SECURITY HOLDERS."  THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURT ENTAILS SCRUTINY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THE ACCEPTANCES, THE SPECIAL OR ULTERIOR MOTIVES WHICH MAY
HAVE INDUCED THEM, THE TIME OF ACQUIRING THE CLAIMS SO VOTING, THE
AMOUNT PAID THEREFOR, AND THE LIKE.  SEE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. V.
LOUISIANA OIL REFINING CORP., 89 F.2D 333.  ONLY AFTER SUCH
INVESTIGATION CAN THE COURT EXERCISE THE "INFORMED, INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT" (NATIONAL SURETY CO. V. CORIELL, 289 U.S. 426, 436; CASE V.
LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, P. 115) WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL
PREREQUISITE FOR CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN.  AND THAT IS TRUE WHETHER THE
ASSENTS TO THE PLAN HAVE BEEN OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE
PETITION OR SUBSEQUENTLY THERETO.  WHERE SUCH INVESTIGATION DISCLOSES
THE EXISTENCE OF UNFAIR DEALING, A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS,
PROFITING FROM A TRUST, SPECIAL BENEFITS FOR THE REORGANIZERS, OR THE
NEED FOR PROTECTION OF INVESTORS AGAINST AN INSIDE FEW, OR OF ONE CLASS
OF INVESTORS FROM THE ENCROACHMENTS OF ANOTHER, THE COURT HAS AMPLE
POWER TO ADJUST THE REMEDY TO MEET THE NEED.  THE REQUIREMENT OF FULL,
UNEQUIVOCAL DISCLOSURE; THE LIMITATION OF THE VOTE TO THE AMOUNT PAID
FOR THE SECURITIES (IN RE MCEWEN'S LAUNDRY, INC., 90 F.2D 872); THE
SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION OF CLAIMANTS (SEE FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. POLAND
UNION, 109 F.2D 54, 55); THE COMPLETE SUBORDINATION OF SOME CLAIMS
(TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 306 U.S. 307; PEPPER V. LITTON,
SUPRA), INDICATE THE RANGE AND TYPE OF THE POWER WHICH A COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY MAY EXERCISE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.  THAT POWER IS AMPLE FOR
THE EXIGENCIES OF VARYING SITUATIONS.  IT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON EXPRESS
STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  IT INHERES IN THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY.  THE NECESSITY FOR ITS EXERCISE (PEPPER V. LITTON, SUPRA,
P. 308) IS BASED ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COURT BEFORE ENTERING AN
ORDER OF CONFIRMATION TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE PLAN IN ITS PRACTICAL
INCIDENCE EMBODIES A FAIR AND EQUITABLE BARGAIN OPENLY ARRIVED AT AND
DEVOID OF OVERREACHING, HOWEVER SUBTLE.  NEGLECT OF THAT DUTY IS
APPARENT HERE BY INCLUSION OF THE VOTE OF THE CLAIMS HELD BY THE
CRUMMER INTERESTS IN COMPUTING THE REQUISITE STATUTORY ASSENTS, WITHOUT
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INVESTORS THROUGH THE REQUIREMENT OF FULL
DISCLOSURE AND OF OTHER APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS.  BY THE SAME TOKEN
ALLOWANCE OF COMPENSATION TO CRUMMER WITHOUT SCRUTINY OF CRUMMER'S
SPECULATION IN THE SECURITIES DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE STANDARDS FOR
SURVEILLANCE REQUIRED OF COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY BEFORE CONFIRMING PLANS
OF COMPOSITION OR REORGANIZATION OR BEFORE MAKING SUCH ALLOWANCES.  THE
SCOPE OF THE POWER OF THE COURT EMBRACES DENIAL OF COMPENSATION TO
THOSE WHO HAVE PURCHASED OR SOLD SECURITIES DURING OR IN CONTEMPLATION
OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  AS IN CASE OF REORGANIZATIONS UNDER FORMER SEC.
77B, THE PROVISION IN SEC. 83(B), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 403(B), FOR ALLOWANCE
OF "REASONABLE COMPENSATION" FOR "SERVICES RENDERED" NECESSARILY
IMPLIES "LOYAL AND DISINTERESTED SERVICE IN THE INTEREST OF THE
PERSONS" FOR WHOM THE CLAIMANT PURPORTED TO ACT.  IN RE PARAMOUNT
PUBLIX CORP., 12 F.SUPP.  823, 828. 

BEYOND THAT IS THE QUESTION OF UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION TO WHICH WE HAVE
ADVERTED.  COMPOSITIONS UNDER CH. IX, LIKE COMPOSITIONS UNDER THE OLD
SEC. 12, ENVISAGE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF CREDITORS.  UNDER THAT
ONE CREDITOR WAS OBTAINING SOME SPECIAL FAVOR OR INDUCEMENT NOT
ACCORDED THE OTHERS, WHETHER THAT CONSIDERATION MOVED FROM THE DEBTOR
OR FROM ANOTHER.  IN RE SAWYER, FED. CAS. NO. 12,395; IN RE WEINTROB,
240 F. 532; IN RE M. & H. GORDON, 245 F. 905.  AS STATED BY JUDGE
LOWELL IN IN RE SAWYER, SUPRA, "IF A VOTE IS INFLUENCED BY THE
EXPECTATION OF ADVANTAGE, THOUGH WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE PROMISE, IT
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AN HONEST AND UNBIASED VOTE."  THAT RULE OF
COMPOSITIONS IS BUT PART OF THE GENERAL RULE OF "EQUALITY BETWEEN
CREDITORS" (CLARKE V. ROGERS, 228 U.S. 534, 548) APPLICABLE IN ALL
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  THAT PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN IMBEDDED BY CONGRESS
IN CH. IX BY THE EXPRESS PROVISION AGAINST UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION.  THAT
PRINCIPLE AS APPLIED TO THIS CASE NECESSITATES A REVERSAL.  IN ABSENCE
OF A FINDING THAT THE AGGREGATE EMOLUMENTS RECEIVABLE BY THE CRUMMER
INTERESTS WERE REASONABLE, MEASURED BY THE SERVICES RENDERED, IT CANNOT
BE SAID THAT THE CONSIDERATION ACCRUING TO THEM, UNDER OR AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN, LIKEWISE ACCRUED TO ALL OTHER
CREDITORS OF THE SAME CLASS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPRIMATUR OF THE
FEDERAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THIS PLAN.  THE FACT THAT
THE VAST MAJORITY OF SECURITY HOLDERS MAY HAVE APPROVED A PLAN IS NOT
THE TEST OF WHETHER THAT PLAN SATISFIES THE STATUTORY STANDARD.  THE
FORMER IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE LATTER.  THEY ARE INDEPENDENT.  SEE
CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, PP. 114-115. 

SINCE THE CAUSE MUST BE REMANDED, THERE ARE TWO OTHER MATTERS WHICH
SHOULD BE MENTIONED.  SECTION 83(D), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 403(D), PROVIDES
THAT IN COMPUTING THE STATUTORY TWO-THIRDS VOTE NECESSARY FOR
CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN ALL CLAIMS "OWNED, HELD, OR CONTROLLED" BY THE
CITY SHALL BE EXCLUDED.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, THE CLAIMS HELD BY THE
CRUMMER INTERESTS WERE NOT OWNED BY OR HELD FOR THE CITY.  YET IT IS BY
NO MEANS CLEAR THAT THEY WERE NOT "CONTROLLED" BY THE CITY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  CLAIMS HELD BY A CITY'S FISCAL AGENT PRESUMPTIVELY
WOULD SEEM TO FALL IN THAT PROHIBITED CATEGORY.  THE ABUSE AT WHICH THE
ACT IS AIMED IS NOT CONFINED TO THOSE CASES WHERE THE HOLDER OF THE
CLAIMS IS AN AGENT OF THE CITY WITHIN THE STRICT RULES OF RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR.  RATHER, THE TEST IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUCH CLOSE
IDENTITY OF INTERESTS BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND THE CITY THAT THE
CLAIMANT'S ASSENT TO THE PLAN MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE MORE THE PRODUCT
OF THE CITY'S INFLUENCE AND TO REFLECT MORE THE CITY'S DESIRES THAN AN
EXPRESSION OF AN INVESTOR'S INDEPENDENT, BUSINESS JUDGMENT.  HERE THERE
WAS SUCH A CLOSE IDENTITY OF INTERESTS BETWEEN CRUMMER AND THE CITY VIS
A-VIS THE REFUNDING AS TO RAISE GRAVE DOUBTS AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF
ALLOWING THOSE CLAIMS TO VOTE IN ANY EVENT.  THAT, HOWEVER, IS A
QUESTION FOR APPROPRIATE FINDINGS BY THE COURT SHOULD ANOTHER PLAN BE
PRESENTED.    PETITIONER ALSO URGES THAT THE FISCAL AGENCY CONTRACT
BETWEEN CRUMMER AND THE CITY WAS ILLEGAL UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN TAYLOR V. WILLIAMS, 142 FLA. 402, 562, 756;
195 SO. 175, 181, 184; 196 SO. 214, AND W.J. HOWEY CO. V. WILLIAMS, 142
FLA. 415, 562, 756; 195 SO. 181, 184; 196 SO. 214.  UNDER SEC.
83(E)(6), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 403(E)(6), THE COURT MUST BE SATISFIED THAT
THE CITY "IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO TAKE ALL ACTION NECESSARY TO BE TAKEN
BY IT TO CARRY OUT THE PLAN" BEFORE IT MAY ENTER A DECREE OF
CONFIRMATION.  PLAINLY THAT FINDING COULD NOT BE MADE IF IT WAS CLEAR,
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A TAXPAYER COULD ENJOIN THE ISSUANCE OF THE NEW BONDS
OR THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS THEREFOR.  THE COURTS BELOW DID NOT PASS ON
THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE RECENT FLORIDA DECISIONS TO THIS FISCAL
AGENCY CONTRACT, SINCE THEY WERE DECIDED AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION.  NOR DO WE UNDERTAKE TO
DECIDE THE QUESTION, IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSITION OF THE CASE.  IT IS,
HOWEVER, A RELEVANT INQUIRY TO BE MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS, IF AND
WHEN ANOTHER PLAN OF COMPOSITION IS PRESENTED, WHICH DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY INVOLVES ANY SUCH FISCAL AGENCY CONTRACT. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT BELOW AND REMAND THE
CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE ACT OF AUGUST 16, 1937(50 STAT. 653) UNDER WHICH THE
PETITION WAS FILED EXPIRED JUNE 30, 1940, EXCEPT IN RESPECT TO
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON OR PRIOR TO THAT DATE.  THAT ACT, HOWEVER, WAS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1940(76TH CONG. 3D SESS., C. 438, 54
STAT. 667), WHICH, INTER ALIA, EXTENDED FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS THE TIME
FOR FILING PETITIONS. 

FN2  R.E. CRUMMER & CO. IS A DELAWARE CORPORATION ORGANIZED PRIMARILY
TO REPRESENT CLIENTS OF AN AFFILIATE (SEE INFRA, NOTE 4) WHO HAD
PURCHASED BONDS IN FLORIDA.  BEGINNING IN 1931, IT HAD HANDLED THE DEBT
PROBLEMS OF OVER 200 TAXING UNITS. 

FN3  UNDER THE ORIGINAL PLAN ALL SUCH ACCRUED INTEREST COUPONS WERE
TO BE ACQUIRED BY CRUMMER AT 33 1/3% OF THE FACE AMOUNT, WHICH WHEN
REFUNDED INTO NEW BONDS, WOULD BE HELD BY IT SUBJECT TO PURCHASE BY THE
CITY AT NOT EXCEEDING 50% OF THE FACE THEREOF FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS,
60% FOR THE SUCCEEDING SIX MONTHS, 70% FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, AND 75%
FOR THE FOLLOWING SIX MONTHS.  DUE TO FEARS OF ILLEGALITY, THE PLAN WAS
MODIFIED.  AS MODIFIED IT PROVIDED THAT COMPENSATION OF THE FISCAL
AGENT WAS TO BE 4% OF THE PRINCIPAL DEBT WITH THE RIGHT OF ANY CREDITOR
TO SELL TO CRUMMER THE INTEREST ACCRUALS AT 33 1/3% OF THEIR FACE
AMOUNT.  IN THE LATTER EVENT THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM WAS REDUCED TO 2%
AND CRUMMER HELD THE SECURITIES SO OBTAINED SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE
CITY TO ACQUIRE THEM AT THE RATES ABOVE INDICATED.  THE FISCAL AGENT
ESTIMATED THAT IT WOULD GET SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY OUT
OF THE PLAN WHICHEVER OPTION THE BONDHOLDERS ELECTED. 

INTEREST ACCRUALS WERE TO BE ESCROWED.  PROCEEDS OF THE COLLECTION OF
DELINQUENT TAXES WERE TO BE REMITTED TO THE ESCROW AGENT WHO WOULD
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OWED BY THE CITY UNDER THE ESCROW BY SUCH AMOUNT AS
WOULD RESULT IN THE PARTICULAR PROCEEDS CONSTITUTING A PRO TANTO
PAYMENT AND DISCHARGE AT 50% OF PAR DURING THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, 60%
DURING THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, 70% DURING THE NEXT SIX MONTHS, AND 75%
DURING THE FOLLOWING SIX MONTHS. 

THUS IN EFFECT THE INTEREST ACCRUALS COULD BE OFFSET AGAINST
DELINQUENT TAXES, THE CITY BEING ABLE TO RETIRE SOME OF ITS DEBT AT
LESS THAN PAR IF IT COULD STIMULATE TAX COLLECTIONS.  THE PROCEEDS
RECEIVED BY THE ESCROW AGENT WERE TO BE HELD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
DEPOSITORS. 

FN4  R.E. CRUMMER & CO. AND BROWN-CRUMMER INVESTMENT CO. R.E. CRUMMER
WAS PRESIDENT OF BOTH.  A MAJORITY OF THE BOARDS OF BOTH CORPORATIONS
WAS IDENTICAL.  THE CRUMMER INTERESTS HAD ACQUIRED OVER A THIRD OF THE
CLAIMS. 

FN5  THERE WERE OTHER EMOLUMENTS FOR CRUMMER.  IT WAS GRANTED
"EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY" TO ACT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY FOR A PERIOD
OF THREE YEARS "IN ALL MATTERS CONNECTED WITH, OR RELATING TO, THE
EXCHANGE."  AND IN CASE ANY BONDS OR COUPONS WERE PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT
OR SUIT INSTITUTED THEREON THE CITY AGREED TO GIVE CRUMMER NOTICE
BEFORE ANY TERMS OF SETTLEMENT WERE AGREED UPON.  THESE PROVISIONS, THE
FACT THAT THE CRUMMER INTERESTS HOLD LARGE BLOCKS OF CLAIMS ACQUIRED AT
DEFAULT PRICES, THE LIKELY INTEREST OF CRUMMER IN THE ACCRUED COUPONS
AND ITS STRATEGIC POSITION ALL POINT TOWARDS FUTURE SPECULATIVE
POSSIBILITIES WHICH ARE NOT INCONSIDERABLE, WHATEVER MAY BE SAID OF
THEIR UNHEALTHY IMPACT ON THE CITY AND THE PUBLIC INVESTORS ALIKE. 
..END :

















DRIVERS' UNION V. LAKE VALLEY CO., 311 U.S. 91 


NO. 20.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 22, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 18, 1940.  -
108 F.2D 436, REVERSED - DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED. 


A UNION OF MILK-WAGON DRIVERS, EMPLOYED BY LOCAL DAIRIES IN DELIVERING
MILK, MAINLY FROM DOOR TO DOOR TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS, PICKETED A LARGE
NUMBER OF RETAIL STORES WHICH SOLD, AT CUT PRICES ON THE CASH-AND-CARRY
PLAN, MILK BOUGHT AT WHOLESALE FROM INDIVIDUALS, CALLED "VENDORS," WHO
DELIVERED IT BY THEIR OWN TRUCKS FROM SUPPLIES BOUGHT FROM OTHER
DAIRIES UNDER AN ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY THE MILK THAT THEY DID NOT SELL
WAS TAKEN BACK AT FULL PURCHASE PRICE BY THE DAIRIES THAT SUPPLIED IT.
THIS "VENDOR SYSTEM" HAD MADE INROADS ON THE BUSINESS OF UNION DAIRIES
AND AFFECTED UNFAVORABLY THE WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE
DRIVERS' UNION.  THE UNION CLAIMED THAT IT CONSTITUTED UNFAIR
COMPETITION - A DEVICE TO ESCAPE UNION WAGES AND UNION WORKING
CONDITIONS - AND THROUGH THE PICKETING IT SOUGHT TO COMPEL THE
"VENDORS" TO JOIN IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING THEIR WAGES AND
WORKING CONDITIONS.  TWO OF THE "CUT-PRICE" DAIRIES JOINED WITH AN
INDUSTRIAL UNION (ORGANIZED BY THEIR EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING "VENDORS")
AND A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF ANOTHER STATE FROM WHICH THEY OBTAINED
THEIR SUPPLIES OF MILK, IN A SUIT CHARGING THE DRIVERS' UNION AND ITS
OFFICERS WITH A CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN MILK IN
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AND SEEKING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
PICKETING AND ATTENDANT TRESPASSES.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THERE EXISTED A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT.  P. 96. 

2.  IT WAS NOT MATERIAL IN THIS REGARD THAT THE ATTEMPT OF THE
DRIVERS' UNION TO UNIONIZE THE "VENDORS" WAS UPON CONDITION THAT, IF
ADMITTED TO THAT UNION, THEY WOULD CEASE TO HANDLE MILK AS "VENDORS." 
P. 98. 

3.  THE CONTROVERSY DID NOT CEASE TO BE A "LABOR DISPUTE" WHEN THE
PLAINTIFF DAIRIES' EMPLOYEES BECAME ORGANIZED.  P. 99. 

4.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT NOT HAVING BEEN MET,
THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION,
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE SUIT WAS BASED UPON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  P. 100. 

MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION, LOCAL NO. 753 ET AL. V. LAKE VALLEY FARM
PRODUCTS, INC. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 649, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH REVERSED A DECREE
DISMISSING, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, A BILL PRAYING FOR AN
INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PROCEEDING PRESENTS TWO QUESTIONS:  FIRST, DOES THERE HERE EXIST
A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT?  FN1
SECOND, IF THERE IS A "LABOR DISPUTE," MUST THE JURISDICTIONAL
PREREQUISITES OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT  FN2  BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE
INJUNCTIVE PROCESS CAN BE USED AGAINST A LABOR UNION ACCUSED OF
VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT?  FN3 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THIS WAS A CASE "INVOLVING OR GROWING
OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE"; THAT PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS HERE) HAD FAILED
TO SATISFY THE PREREQUISITES OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT; AND THAT,
ACCORDINGLY, THE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GRANT EITHER A
TEMPORARY OR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING; FN4  IT WAS THE OPINION OF THAT COURT
THAT THE CASE DID NOT GROW OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE, AND THAT EVEN IF IT
HAD, A FEDERAL COURT WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN IF THE SHERMAN
ACT HAD BEEN VIOLATED.  FN5 BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE
QUESTIONS, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN6 

THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT APPLIES TO LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN "PERSONS
WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT OR OCCUPATION; OR
HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTERESTS HEREIN."  FN7  HERE, ALL OF THE
PARTIES HAVE "DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTERESTS" IN THE PRODUCTION,
PROCESSING, SALE, AND DISTRIBUTION OF MILK.  PLAINTIFFS, WHO SOUGHT THE
INJUNCTION, WERE FOUR:  ONE WAS THE CHICAGO LOCAL OF A C.I.O. UNION,
THE AMALGAMATED DAIRY WORKERS; TWO WERE CHICAGO DAIRIES WHOSE MILK WAS
PROCESSED AND DISTRIBUTED BY MEMBERS OF THE C.I.O. UNION; FN8  THE
FOURTH WAS A WISCONSIN COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION WHICH SUPPLIED MILK TO
THE PLAINTIFF DAIRIES.  DEFENDANTS WERE THE CHICAGO LOCAL OF THE A.F.
OF L. MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION, AND ITS OFFICIALS.  THE DEFENDANT
UNION IS A CRAFT ORGANIZATION, LIMITING ITS MEMBERSHIP TO MILK WAGON
DRIVERS; THE PLAINTIFF UNION IS ORGANIZED ALONG INDUSTRIAL LINES, AND
ITS MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF ALL KINDS OF DAIRY WORKERS, INCLUDING INSIDE
HELP, OFFICE WORKERS, WAGON DRIVERS, HELPERS, SWEEPERS AND JANITORS. 

A BRIEF STATEMENT AS TO THE BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY IS
NECESSARY FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES.  THE CHICAGO LOCAL
OF THE A.F. OF L. MILK WAGON DRIVERS' UNION WAS ORGANIZED IN 1902. 
SINCE THE ORGANIZATION, WORKING CONDITIONS OF THE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN
MATERIALLY IMPROVED; HOURS HAVE BEEN SHORTENED, WAGES HAVE BEEN RAISED,
AND VACATION PERIODS WITH FULL PAY HAVE BEEN SECURED.  THESE BETTER
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT HAVE MOVED CONCURRENTLY WITH A MORE
OR LESS STEADY INCREASE IN UNION MEMBERSHIP AND INFLUENCE.  AT THE TIME
THIS LITIGATION WAS BEGUN THE UNION HAD MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND
MEMBERS. 

WITH THE APPROACH AND CONTINUANCE OF THE DEPRESSION OF THE EARLY
THIRTIES, THE MILK BUSINESS, LIKE OTHER INDUSTRIES, WAS IN ACUTE
DISTRESS.  LOSS OF PROFITS FROM DECREASED DEMAND STIMULATED DAIRIES TO
DEVISE NEW AND CHEAPER METHODS TO OBTAIN AND SERVE CUSTOMERS.  UNDER
THE LONG EXISTING PRACTICE IN CHICAGO, DAIRIES HAD OWNED MILK TRUCKS
AND WAGONS, AND HAD OPERATED THEM WITH EMPLOYEE DRIVERS - CHIEFLY
MEMBERS OF THE A.F. OF L. LOCAL.  A MAJOR PART OF THE BUSINESS
CONSISTED OF DOOR-TO-DOOR DELIVERIES TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS.  SOME OF THE
A.F. OF L. DRIVERS ALSO DELIVERED MILK TO RETAIL STORES, THOSE STORES
IN TURN SELLING TO THEIR CUSTOMERS.  WHAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN AN
INSIGNIFICANT PART OF THE MILK SUPPLY OF PRE-DEPRESSION CHICAGO WAS
DELIVERED BY RETAIL MILK "PEDDLERS" WHO BOUGHT FROM THE DAIRY AT
WHOLESALE AND SOLD AT RETAIL FROM THEIR OWN TRUCKS OR WAGONS.  BUT WITH
THE DEPRESSION THIS PRACTICE OF SALE BY "PEDDLERS" EXPANDED, BRANCHED
OUT INTO SALES TO RETAIL STORES, AND DEVELOPED INTO WHAT IS CALLED THE
"VENDOR SYSTEM" - AROUND WHICH REVOLVES THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY. 
RETAIL PEDDLING STARTED THE CONTROVERSY; AT THE ROOT OF THE CONFLICT,
HOWEVER, IS THIS LATER EMERGING "VENDOR SYSTEM," UNDER WHICH "VENDORS"
DELIVERED MILK AT WHOLESALE TO RETAIL STORES.  UNDER THIS SYSTEM,
PLAINTIFF DAIRIES MAKE DAILY SALES OF MILK TO INDIVIDUALS OWNING THEIR
OWN TRUCKS.  THESE INDIVIDUALS, CALLED "VENDORS," RESELL THE MILK TO
RETAIL STORES.  UNSOLD MILK IS NO LOSS TO THE "VENDOR," BECAUSE THE
DAIRY TAKES IT BACK AT THE FULL PURCHASE PRICE. 

WITH THE SPREAD OF THIS NEW COMPETITIVE SYSTEM, THE BUSINESS OF THE
DAIRIES EMPLOYING UNION MILK WAGON DRIVERS DECREASED.  MANY OF THE
UNION DRIVERS LOST THEIR JOBS AND WERE DEPENDENT UPON THEIR UNION'S
RELIEF FUNDS AND UPON PUBLIC RELIEF AGENCIES FOR THEIR SUPPORT.  HOW
MANY OF THOSE WHO LOST THEIR JOBS BECAME UNEMPLOYED AS THE RESULT OF
THE DEPRESSION AND HOW MANY WERE DISPLACED BY THE GROWTH OF THE "VENDOR
SYSTEM" CANNOT BE DETERMINED; BOTH CAUSES UNDOUBTEDLY CONTRIBUTED. 

THE STORES BUYING MILK FROM PLAINTIFF DAIRIES THROUGH THESE VENDORS
MADE A PRACTICE OF SELLING IT BELOW THE STANDARD PRICES CHARGED FOR
MILK SUPPLIED BY DAIRIES EMPLOYING A.F. OF L. DRIVERS.  DEFENDANT UNION
AND ITS MEMBERS CLAIMED THAT THE REASON THE PRICE COULD BE CUT WAS THAT
THE VENDORS WORKED LONG HOURS, UNDER UNFAVORABLE WORKING CONDITIONS,
WITHOUT VACATIONS, AND WITH VERY LOW EARNINGS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
VENDORS AND THE DAIRIES UTILIZING THEIR SERVICES ASSERTED THAT THE
REASON FOR THE LOWER PRICES WAS THAT THE VENDOR SYSTEM WAS MORE
ECONOMICAL, THAT UNDER IT MORE MILK COULD BE DELIVERED BY WHOLESALE TO
THE CASH AND CARRY CUT-RATE STORES, AND THAT SUCH DISTRIBUTION COST
LESS EVEN ON THE SAME WAGE LEVEL THAN DID DOOR-TO-DOOR DISTRIBUTION. 
AS THE VENDOR SYSTEM MADE INCREASING INROADS ON THE BUSINESS OF THE
UNION DAIRIES, THE OPPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT UNION BECAME MORE
ACTIVE.  ITS MEMBERS INSISTED THAT THE VENDOR SYSTEM CONSTITUTED UNFAIR
COMPETITION, DEPRESSING LABOR STANDARDS.  TO COMBAT IT, THEY ATTEMPTED
AS THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND FROM THE FACTS - TO UNIONIZE THE EMPLOYEES
AND VENDORS OF THE DAIRIES UTILIZING THIS PLAN.  NOT SUCCEEDING IN THIS
ATTEMPT, IN 1934 THEY BEGAN PICKETING THE SO-CALLED CUT-RATE STORES. 
THE PICKETING WAS CARRIED ON ALMOST CONTINUOUSLY UNTIL THIS SUIT WAS
FILED.  PICKETS USUALLY CARRIED PLACARDS DENOUNCING CUT-RATE STORES AS
UNFAIR TO THE A.F. OF L. LOCAL.  DURING THE YEARS IN WHICH THIS STRIFE
CONTINUED, STORE WINDOWS WERE BROKEN, PERSONAL ALTERCATIONS OCCURRED,
CHARGES AND COUNTER-CHARGES WERE FREQUENT, ARRESTS WERE MADE AND COURT
PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED.  FINALLY, IN MARCH, 1938 - ABOUT TWO MONTHS
BEFORE THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN THIS CASE - THE VENDORS AND THE OTHER
EMPLOYEES OF THE PLAINTIFF DAIRIES ORGANIZED THE PLAINTIFF UNION UNDER
A C.I.O. CHARTER.  THEREUPON SIGNS WERE PLACED INSIDE THE CUT-RATE
STORE WINDOWS, ANNOUNCING THAT THE MILK HANDLED BY THE STORES WAS
PROCESSED AND DELIVERED BY MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF UNION.  BUT THIS
DID NOT SETTLE THE LONG-STANDING CONTROVERSY; THE PICKETING CONTINUED,
AND THIS SUIT FOLLOWED. 

THE PETITION FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTS PRIMARILY UPON THE CHARGE THAT
THE DEFENDANT UNION AND ITS OFFICIALS HAD ENTERED INTO A CONSPIRACY TO
INTERFERE WITH AND RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN AND CLAYTON ACTS.  IT IS CONTENDED BY PLAINTIFFS THAT THE
CONTROVERSY IS NOT A LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, BUT IS AN UNLAWFUL SECONDARY BOYCOTT OF WHICH THE
PURPOSE IS NOT TO UNIONIZE THE VENDORS BUT TO OBTAIN FOR THE
DEFENDANTS' EMPLOYERS A CHICAGO MILK MONOPOLY AT A SUSTAINED HIGH PRICE
LEVEL, CONTRARY TO THE SHERMAN ACT. 

FIRST.  THE COMPLAINT ON ITS FACE IS PROBABLY SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT
A LABOR DISPUTE EXISTED.  FN9  WE NEED NOT DECIDE THAT POINT, HOWEVER,
FOR THE CASE PROCEEDED TO FINAL JUDGMENT.  DEFENDANTS FILED AN ANSWER,
AND THE COURT REFERRED PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION TO
A SPECIAL MASTER.  THE MASTER CONDUCTED EXTENSIVE HEARINGS, AND HEARD
EVIDENCE OFFERED BY BOTH SIDES.  IN HIS REPORT, THE MASTER FOUND, IN
THE LANGUAGE OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, THAT THE CASE AROSE OUT OF
AND INVOLVED A LABOR "DISPUTE BETWEEN ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS OR
ASSOCIATIONS OF EMPLOYERS AND ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
EMPLOYEES," ALL OF WHOM WERE ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT
OR OCCUPATION, NAMELY, THE MILK INDUSTRY; THAT DEFENDANTS HAD ATTEMPTED
FOR SOME TIME TO UNIONIZE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PLAINTIFF DAIRIES AND OF
OTHER CUT-RATE DAIRIES, AND THAT THE PICKETING WAS AN EFFORT ON THE
PART OF THE DEFENDANTS TO COMPEL THE VENDORS AND WAGON DRIVERS OF THE
DAIRIES TO JOIN THE DEFENDANT UNION FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING
WORKING CONDITIONS AND WAGES OF VENDORS; THAT THE WORKING HOURS OF THE
PLAINTIFF DAIRIES' EMPLOYEES WERE LONGER AND THE WAGE SCALES LOWER THAN
THE UNION STANDARDS.  FN10  THE DISTRICT COURT ADOPTED THE FINDINGS OF
THE MASTER, AND MADE FURTHER FINDINGS OF ITS OWN. 

IT IS NOT MATERIAL, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT, THAT
DEFENDANTS' ATTEMPT TO UNIONIZE THE VENDORS WAS UPON THE CONDITION THAT
THEY WOULD CEASE TO HANDLE MILK AS "VENDORS" IF ADMITTED TO MEMBERSHIP
IN THE UNION.  THERE ARE FEW INSTANCES OF ATTEMPTED UNIONIZATION IN
WHICH A CHANGE TO UNION MEMBERSHIP WOULD NOT REQUIRE SOME ALTERATION IN
THE CONDITIONS OR TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT.  UNION MEMBERSHIP CONTEMPLATES
CHANGE - CHANGE WHICH IT IS BELIEVED WILL BRING ABOUT BETTER WORKING
CONDITIONS FOR THE EMPLOYEES.  MOREOVER, THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE
PLAINTIFFS THEMSELVES SHOWS THAT MEMBERSHIP IN DEFENDANT UNION WOULD
HAVE INVOLVED NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE VENDORS' RELATIONSHIP TO THE
DAIRIES.  TRUCK DRIVERS EMPLOYED BY DAIRIES WERE ELIGIBLE FOR
MEMBERSHIP IN THE DEFENDANT UNION, AND PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT
THE "VENDORS" WERE ACTUALLY REGARDED AS EMPLOYEES OF THE PLAINTIFF
DAIRIES.  THE PLAINTIFFS OFFERED AS A PART OF THEIR EVIDENCE THE
ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF UNION AND THE PLAINTIFF
DAIRIES; EACH OF THOSE CONTRACTS CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING PROVISION:
"THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE,' AS USED IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL MEAN ALL
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL ROUTE SALESMEN OR DRIVERS AND THEIR HELPERS AND
ASSISTANTS; ALL MILK DISTRIBUTORS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 'VENDORS';
ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED IN THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMPANY'S
PRODUCTS; ...  "  AND EACH AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR A CLOSED SHOP AND
GAVE TO PLAINTIFF UNION THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO REPRESENT ALL THE
DAIRY'S EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THE VENDORS, FOR PURPOSES OF NEGOTIATING
ON "ALL QUESTIONS OF WAGES, HOURS, AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT THAT
SHALL PREVAIL IN THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS."  FN11 

WHETHER RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, THE DEFENDANT UNION BELIEVED THAT THE
"VENDOR SYSTEM" WAS A SCHEME OR DEVICE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESCAPING THE PAYMENT OF UNION WAGES AND THE ASSUMPTION OF WORKING
CONDITIONS COMMENSURATE WITH THOSE IMPOSED UNDER UNION STANDARDS.  TO
SAY, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID, THAT THE CONFLICT HERE IS NOT
A GOOD FAITH LABOR ISSUE, AND THAT THEREFORE THERE IS NO "LABOR
DISPUTE," IS TO IGNORE THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF THE TERM; TO SAY,
FURTHER, THAT THE CONDITIONED ABANDONMENT OF THE VENDOR SYSTEM, UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS AN ISSUE UNRELATED TO LABOR'S EFFORTS TO IMPROVE
WORKING CONDITIONS, IS TO SHUT ONE'S EYES TO THE EVERYDAY ELEMENTS OF
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE. 

NOR DOES THE CONTROVERSY CEASE TO BE A LABOR DISPUTE, AS THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF DAIRIES' EMPLOYEES
BECAME ORGANIZED.  FN12  THIS MERELY TRANSFORMED THE DEFENDANTS'
ACTIVITIES FROM AN EFFORT TO ORGANIZE NON-UNION MEN TO A CONFLICT WHICH
INCLUDED A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO UNIONS.  A CONTROVERSY "CONCERNING
THE ASSOCIATION OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING,
MAINTAINING, CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT" IS EXPRESSLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A LABOR
DISPUTE IN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT NOT ONLY FOUND THAT A LABOR DISPUTE EXISTED, BUT
ALSO FOUND THAT IT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION
BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT HAD NOT BEEN MET. 
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OVERTURNED THIS
FINDING.  THAT COURT SAID:  "AGAIN, IF JURISDICTION WERE CONCEDED AND
THERE WAS A LABOR DISPUTE INVOLVED, THEN IT IS QUITE DOUBTFUL IF
APPELLANTS COULD RECOVER BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT IN EVERY RESPECT
COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT."  WE AGREE
WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THIS CASE GROWS OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE. 
SINCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT HAVE NOT BEEN MET,
THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION UNLESS BY
VIRTUE OF THAT PHASE OF THE BILL WHICH CHARGED A VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT. 

SECOND.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE DEFENDANTS'
PICKETING ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTED A SECONDARY BOYCOTT IN VIOLATION OF
THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, AND THAT FOR THIS REASON, REGARDLESS OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO GRANT AN
INJUNCTION EVEN THOUGH THE CASE AROSE OUT OF OR INVOLVED A LABOR
DISPUTE.  FN13  IN THIS THE COURT WAS IN ERROR.    NO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE
OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IS POINTED TO IN SUPPORT OF THE THEORY THAT
THE ACT WAS TO BE INAPPLICABLE WHERE INJUNCTIONS ARE SOUGHT AGAINST
LABOR UNIONS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT IN THE COURSE OF
LABOR DISPUTES.  ON THE CONTRARY, SEC. 1 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT
PROVIDES THAT "NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY RESTRAINING ORDER OR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION IN A CASE INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE,
EXCEPT IN A STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  THIS
UNEQUIVOCAL JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION IS REITERATED IN OTHER SECTIONS
OF THE ACT.  THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT - CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE AND IN
ITS VARIOUS PARTS - WAS INTENDED DRASTICALLY TO CURTAIL THE EQUITY
JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS IN THE FIELD OF LABOR DISPUTES.  AND
THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT "THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT
DEMONSTRATES THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS FURTHER TO EXTEND
THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT RESPECTING THE EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION BY FEDERAL COURTS AND TO OBVIATE THE RESULTS OF THE
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THAT ACT."  FN14 

THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT REVEAL THAT MANY OF
THE INJUNCTIONS WHICH WERE CONSIDERED MOST OBJECTIONABLE BY THE
CONGRESS WERE BASED UPON COMPLAINTS CHARGING CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE
THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.  TO END THE GRANTING OF INJUNCTIONS OF THIS
TYPE, SEC. 5 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT DEPRIVED FEDERAL COURTS OF
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE RESTRAINING ORDERS OR INJUNCTIONS "UPON THE
GROUND THAT ANY OF THE PERSONS PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A LABOR
DISPUTE CONSTITUTE OR ARE ENGAGED IN AN UNLAWFUL COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY BECAUSE OF THE DOING IN CONCERT OF THE ACTS ENUMERATED  ...
"  IN REPORTING THE BILL, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID: "THIS
INJUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS, A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF WHICH
IS A FINDING OF THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY OR COMBINATION AND
WITHOUT WHICH NO INJUNCTION COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED."  FN15 

THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, PASSED IN 1932, IS THE CULMINATION OF A
BITTER POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONTROVERSY EXTENDING OVER HALF A
CENTURY.  HOSTILITY TO "GOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION" HAD BECOME THE
RALLYING SLOGAN OF MANY AND VARIED GROUPS.  INDEED, AS EARLY AS 1914
CONGRESS HAD RESPONDED TO A WIDESPREAD PUBLIC DEMAND THAT THE SHERMAN
ACT BE AMENDED, AND HAD PASSED THE CLAYTON ACT, ITSELF DESIGNED TO
LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN CASES
INVOLVING LABOR DISPUTES.  BUT THE PROPONENTS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT FELT THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT HAD
BEEN LARGELY NULLIFIED BY JUDICIAL DECISION.  THUS, THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, REPORTING THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, SAID:  "THAT
THERE HAVE BEEN ABUSES OF JUDICIAL POWER IN GRANTING INJUNCTIONS IN
LABOR DISPUTES IS HARDLY OPEN TO DISCUSSION.  THE USE OF THE INJUNCTION
IN SUCH DISPUTES HAS BEEN GROWING BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS.  ...  FOR
EXAMPLE, APPROXIMATELY 300 WERE ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE RAILWAY
SHOPMEN'S STRIKE OF 1922,  ...  "  FN16  AND ON THE SAME SUBJECT THE
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID:  "THESE ARE THE SAME CHARACTER OF ACTS
WHICH CONGRESS IN SECTION 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT OF OCTOBER 15, 1914,
SOUGHT TO RESTRICT FROM THE OPERATION OF INJUNCTIONS, BUT BECAUSE OF
THE INTERPRETATIONS PLACED BY THE COURTS ON THIS SECTION OF THE CLAYTON
ACT, THE RESTRICTIONS AS CONTAINED THEREIN HAVE BECOME MORE OR LESS
VALUELESS TO LABOR, AND THIS SECTION IS INTENDED BY MORE SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE TO OVERCOME THE QUALIFYING EFFECTS OF THE DECISIONS OF THE
COURTS IN THIS RESPECT."  FN17  AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT WHICH THE COMMITTEE SAID WAS
"RESPONSIBLE IN PART FOR THIS AGITATION FOR FURTHER LEGISLATION," THE
COMMITTEE REFERRED TO THE CASES OF DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V.
DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY CENTRAL
TRADES COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, AND BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN
STONE CUTTERS' ASSOCIATION, 274 U.S. 37.  IN THESE CASES, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS HAD BEEN UPHELD UPON
ALLEGATIONS AND FINDINGS THAT THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT HAD BEEN
VIOLATED. 

WHETHER OR NOT ONE AGREES WITH THE COMMITTEES THAT THE CITED CASES
CONSTITUTED AN UNDULY RESTRICTED INTERPRETATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT, ONE
MUST AGREE THAT THE COMMITTEES AND THE CONGRESS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR
THEIR INTENTION THAT WHAT THEY REGARDED AS THE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE
CLAYTON ACT SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT.  FOR US TO HOLD, IN THE FACE OF THIS LEGISLATION, THAT
THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO GRANT INJUNCTIONS IN CASES
GROWING OUT OF LABOR DISPUTES, MERELY BECAUSE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT ARE INVOLVED, WOULD RUN COUNTER TO THE PLAIN MANDATE OF THE
ACT AND WOULD REVERSE THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  FN18  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR; ITS JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE BILL FOR INJUNCTION IS
AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  29 U.S.C. SECS. 101-115, 47 STAT. 70.  THE ACT DEFINES A LABOR
DISPUTE AS FOLLOWS:  "THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY
CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING THE
ASSOCIATION OR REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING,
MAINTAINING, CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE
PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE."  29 U.S.C. SEC. 113(C),
47 STAT. 73. 

FN2  "NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS HEREIN DEFINED, SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY RESTRAINING ORDER OR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION IN A CASE INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE,
EXCEPT IN A STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT  ...  "
29 U.S.C. SEC. 101, 47 STAT. 70. 

FN3  15 U.S.C. SECS. 1-7, 26 STAT. 209, AS AMENDED.  SECTION 1
PROVIDES:  "EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE
ILLEGAL." 

FN4 108 F.2D 436. 

FN5  THERE IS NO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND FEDERAL JURISDICTION,
IF PRESENT AT ALL, EXISTS BECAUSE OF VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE
CONTENTION THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INVOLVED STEMS FROM THE FACT
THAT DEFENDANTS, IN CHICAGO, PICKETED RETAIL STORES SELLING MILK
PRODUCED IN WISCONSIN.  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE, WE FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO PASS ON THIS QUESTION. 

FN6  309 U.S. 649. 

FN7  29 U.S.C. SEC. 113(A), 47 STAT. 73. 

FN8  AS TO ONE OF THESE PLAINTIFF DAIRIES, THE COMPLAINT WAS
VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED. 

FN9  AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE COMPLAINT REVEALED THAT THE VENDORS WERE
MEMBERS OF THE C.I.O. UNION WHICH HAD MADE A CONTRACT TOUCHING ON THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THE PLAINTIFF DAIRIES, THAT THE
VENDORS' RIGHT OF ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AVOIDING INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WITH THE DEFENDANT UNION SHOULD
BE PROTECTED, AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF UNION AND THE DEFENDANT UNION WERE
IN ACTUAL COMPETITION IN OBTAINING EMPLOYMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MILK IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO. 

FN10  PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN OF THE FORM IN WHICH THIS LAST FINDING WAS
MADE.  UNDOUBTEDLY, THE MASTER FAILED TO USE APT LANGUAGE IN EXPRESSING
HIS CONCLUSIONS.  BUT THE LANGUAGE USED, READ IN ITS CONTEXT AND IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE ENTIRE RECORD, REVEALS THAT THE OBJECTIONS TO THE
FINDING ARE WITHOUT FOUNDATION.  WHAT THE MASTER SAID IN HIS REPORT
WAS:  "THE MASTER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE
INSTANT CASE BRINGS IT WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT  ...  THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS' WITNESSES IS TO THE EFFECT THAT
THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED FOR SOME TIME TO UNIONIZE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
PLAINTIFF DAIRIES AND OTHER CUT-RATE DAIRIES; THAT THE PICKETING
COMPLAINED OF HEREIN IS AN EFFORT TO COMPEL THE VENDORS, AND WAGON
DRIVERS EMPLOYED BY THE PLAINTIFF DAIRIES TO JOIN THE DEFENDANT UNION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING WORKING CONDITIONS AND WAGES OF SAID
VENDORS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE PLAINTIFF DAIRIES, AND THAT THE WORKING
HOURS AND WAGE SCALE OF PLAINTIFF DAIRY'S EMPLOYEES IS LOWER THAN THE
UNION SCALE." 

FN11  ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTUAL STATUS OF THE VENDORS, THE
PRESIDENT OF ONE OF THE PLAINTIFF DAIRIES TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE WITNESS (SIGFRIED WEISS, PRESIDENT OF THE LAKE VALLEY DAIRY):
HE WANTS TO KNOW IF THEY ARE EMPLOYED BY THE DAIRY? 

"MR. RISKIND (ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS).  YES, THAT IS ALL I WANT TO
KNOW. 

"A.  NOW THAT IS NOT SO EASY TO SAY, IF THEY ARE EMPLOYED OR NOT.  WE
HAVE CONTRACTS, AND THEY ARE BOUND TO OUR DAIRY.  THEY ARE ACTUALLY
EMPLOYED BY OUR DAIRY, BUT WE HAVE THE VENDOR SYSTEM, WHERE THEY OWN
THEIR OWN TRUCKS AND THEY PAY THEIR OWN EXPENSES AND THEY BUY MILK AT A
CERTAIN PRICE AT OUR DAIRY.  IN ONE WAY THEY ARE EMPLOYEES, AND IN
ANOTHER WAY, WE DON'T PAY WAGES.  WE HAVE TO PAY WHATEVER THEY CAN MAKE
OVER A CERTAIN PRICE.  WE CHARGE THEM A CERTAIN PRICE." 

FN12  "UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WE THINK IT CANNOT BE FAIRLY SAID THAT
THERE IS A GOOD FAITH LABOR ISSUE INVOLVED BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT UNION
AND EITHER THE DAIRIES' EMPLOYEES OR THE 'VENDORS' OR THE STORES. 
ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE WHEN WE CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE 'VENDORS'
ARE ORGANIZED AS MEMBERS OF A WELL-RECOGNIZED UNION, WHICH WITH THEIR
CONSENT IS ACTING AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IN MATTERS DEALING WITH THEIR
EMPLOYERS."  108 F.2D AT 442. 

FN13  THE COURT SAID:  "MOREOVER, WE THINK IT IS CLEAR FROM THE
FINDINGS AND FROM THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT THE
APPELLEES' PICKETING ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTE A SECONDARY BOYCOTT, WHICH
IS AN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, OF WHICH APPELLEES COULD NOT AVAIL THEMSELVES
EVEN THOUGH A LABOR DISPUTE WERE INVOLVED.  SEE DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS
COMPANY V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; MEADOWMOOR DAIRIES, INC., V. MILK
WAGON DRIVERS' UNION OF CHICAGO, NO. 753, 371 ILL. 377; 21 N.E.2D 308,"
108 F.2D AT 442. 

FN14  NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. SANITARY GROCERY CO., 303 U.S. 552, 562. 

FN15  H. REP. NO. 669, 72ND CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 8. 

FN16  S. REP. NO. 163, 72ND CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 8. 

FN17  H. REP. NO. 669, SUPRA, PP. 7, 8. 

FN18  FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE PREREQUISITES TO ANY INJUNCTION UNDER
THE ACT IS "THAT THE PUBLIC OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY TO PROTECT
COMPLAINANT'S PROPERTY ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO FURNISH ADEQUATE
PROTECTION."  CONCERNING THIS, THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SAID:
"THE LAST PROVISION IS CONSIDERED DESIRABLE, BECAUSE IT OFTEN HAPPENS
THAT COMPLAINANTS RUSH INTO A FEDERAL COURT AND OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION
THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH REQUIRES THE COURT TO CONSIDER AND PUNISH ACTS
WHICH ARE AND OUGHT TO BE, UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, COGNIZABLE
IN THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS.  OUR FEDERAL COURTS ALREADY ARE CONGESTED WITH
CASES ORDINARLY COGNIZABLE IN THE LOCAL POLICE COURTS,  ...  "  H. REP.
NO. 669, SUPRA, P. 9. 
..END :











WILSON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 311 U.S. 104 


NO. 23.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 23, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 18, 1940.  -
90 CT. CLS. 131 - 30 F.SUPP.  672, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CLAIMS TO REFUNDS BY EXPORTERS OF PRODUCTS UPON WHICH PROCESSING
OR FLOOR STOCK TAXES HAD BEEN PAID UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT, HELD GOVERNED BY SEC. 601(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936(WHICH
REENACTED SEC. 17(A) OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT), WHERE
CLAIMANTS DISAVOW ANY ATTEMPT TO PROCEED UNDER TITLE VII OF THE ACT. 
P. 105. 

2.  WHERE, IN THE CASE OF A CLAIM FOR REFUND GOVERNED BY SEC. 601(A)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THE GROUND OF
DENIAL BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION. 
REVENUE ACT OF 1936, SEC. 601(E).  P. 106. 

WILSON & CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 24, WILSON & CO., INC., OF KANSAS V. UNITED
STATES, AND NO. 25, T. M. SINCLAIR & CO., LTD. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 651, TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 651, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF PETITIONS IN
THREE CASES FOR REFUNDS OF PROCESSING AND FLOOR TAXES PAID UNDER THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT UPON PRODUCTS SUBSEQUENTLY EXPORTED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN THE PREPARATION, PACKING, AND
SALE OF MEAT PRODUCTS IN FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE.  BETWEEN
NOVEMBER 5, 1933 AND JANUARY 6, 1936 THEY EXPORTED TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
LARGE QUANTITIES OF HOG PRODUCTS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THEY PAID
PROCESSING TAXES UNDER SEC. 9(A) AND FLOOR STOCK TAXES UNDER SEC. 16(A)
OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.  48 STAT. 31, 35, 40.  SUBSEQUENT
TO EXPORTATION PETITIONERS FILED CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS UNDER SEC. 17(A). 
48 STAT. 31, 40.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DENIED ALL OF
THE CLAIMS AND SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOLLOWED.  THE UNITED STATES
THEREUPON MOVED TO DISMISS THE PETITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT
OF CLAIMS WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
TITLE VII OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  49 STAT. 1648, 1747-1755.  THE
COURT OF CLAIMS DISMISSED THE ACTIONS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, ON THE
GROUND, HOWEVER, THAT SEC. 601(E) OF TITLE IV OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1936, 49 STAT. 1648, 1740, PREVENTED JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE
COMMISSIONER'S ACTION.  30 F.SUPP.  672.  TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT WITH
CUDAHY BROS. CO. V. LA BUDDE, 92 F.2D 937, AND NEUSS, HESSLEIN & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 30 F.SUPP.  595, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  309 U.S. 651. 

THE SINGLE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF PETITIONERS' SUITS.  WE HOLD THAT IT WAS. 

TITLE VII CONDITIONS PAYMENT OF REFUNDS UPON PROOF THAT THE CLAIMANT
ACTUALLY BORE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE REFUNDED OR THAT HE
UNCONDITIONALLY REPAID IT TO HIS VENDEE WHO BORE THE BURDEN.  SINCE
PETITIONERS DO NOT ALLEGE SATISFACTION OF THESE CONDITIONS IT IS PLAIN
THAT THEY DO NOT CLAIM UNDER TITLE VII.  INDEED, THEY DISOWN ANY
ATTEMPT TO BRING THEIR CLAIMS WITHIN ITS PROVISIONS. 

TITLE IV PROVIDES FOR REFUNDS TO EXPORTERS OF PRODUCTS UPON WHICH
PROCESSING OR FLOOR STOCK TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID.  IT IS TRUE THAT SEC.
17(A) OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT PROVIDED FOR THESE REFUNDS
BEFORE THE ACT WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER,
297 U.S. 1.  WHETHER PETITIONERS COULD STILL ESTABLISH REFUND CLAIMS
UNDER THAT SECTION IF THE ACT HAD NEVER BEEN INVALIDATED IS A QUESTION
WE NEED NOT CONSIDER.  FOR WHATEVER THE EFFECT OF THAT DECISION ON SEC.
17(A), CONGRESS EXPRESSLY MADE IT A PART OF TITLE IV BY REENACTING IT
IN SEC. 601(A).  49 STAT. 1648, 1739.  FN1  IT FOLLOWS THAT
PETITIONERS' CLAIMS, PURPORTEDLY BASED ON SEC. 17(A), MUST BE GOVERNED
BY TITLE IV AND THE LIMITATIONS IT IMPOSES. 


"THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE WITH
RESPECT TO ANY REFUND UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE FINAL AND NO COURT
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW SUCH DETERMINATION." 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO COMMIT TO THE FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER ONLY "SUCH MATTERS AS FINDINGS OF
FACT, COMPUTATIONS, AND THE LIKE."  QUITE APART FROM THE FACT THAT IN
SEC. 601(D)  FN2  CONGRESS USES VIRTUALLY THE QUOTED WORDS IN LIMITING
REVIEW BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS, WE FAIL TO SEE HOW THE ARGUMENT CAN
AID PETITIONERS HERE BECAUSE THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHY THEIR CLAIMS
WERE DENIED.  SINCE THE RECORD IS SILENT ON THIS POINT, SUCH DECISIONS
AS UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 278 U.S. 255, AND SILBERSCHEIN V. UNITED
STATES, 266 U.S. 221, ARE PLAINLY DISTINGUISHABLE. 

WE HOLD THAT UPON THIS RECORD THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER
IS FINAL.  THUS WE SEE NO OCCASION TO NARROW THE EFFECT OF SEC.
601(E).  THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS CORRECT AND MUST BE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 601.  (A)  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS  ...  17(A) OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, AS AMENDED, ARE HEREBY REENACTED BUT ONLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING REFUNDS IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH IN CASES
WHERE  ...  THE EXPORTATION  ...  TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO JANUARY 6, 1936. 

FN2  SEC. 601.  (D)  IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD, THE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE UPON THE
MERITS OF ANY CLAIM ADJUSTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION AND THE
MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION THEREIN SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY ANY
ADMINISTRATIVE OR ACCOUNTING OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. 
..END :












REPUBLIC STEEL CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 7 


NO. 14.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  - 107
F.2D 472, MODIFIED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, HAVING ORDERED THE
REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK PAY OF EMPLOYEES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED
OR DENIED REINSTATEMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, AND HAVING DIRECTED THE EMPLOYER TO DEDUCT FROM THE BACK PAY SUCH
AMOUNTS AS WERE RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEES FROM GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
FOR SERVICES PERFORMED MEANWHILE ON WORK RELIEF PROJECTS, WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY FURTHER TO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO PAY OVER TO THE
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES THE AMOUNTS SO DEDUCTED.  PP. 9, 12. 

2.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS ESSENTIALLY REMEDIAL.  THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 10(C) AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO ORDER "SUCH
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT" IS
REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE.  AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES
OF THIS ACT IS ACTION TO ACHIEVE THE REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES WHICH THE ACT
SETS FORTH.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE BOARD'S REQUIREMENTS TO
SAY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF DETERRING PERSONS FROM VIOLATING
THE ACT.  PP. 10-11. 

THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE BOARD FOR THE REQUIREMENT IN QUESTION -
REASONS WHICH RELATE TO THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF WORK RELIEF PROJECTS
AND TO THE PRACTICE AND AIMS OF THE WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION -
INDICATE THAT ITS ORDER IS NOT DIRECTED TO THE APPROPRIATE EFFECTUATING
OF THE POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, BUT TO THE
EFFECTUATING OF A DISTINCT AND BROADER POLICY WITH RESPECT TO
UNEMPLOYMENT. 

REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 655, TO REVIEW A DECREE ENFORCING AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  9 N.L.R.B. 219. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, FINDING THAT THE REPUBLIC STEEL
CORPORATION HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(1), 8(2) AND 8(3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, ORDERED THE
COMPANY TO DESIST FROM THESE PRACTICES, TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM A
LABOR ORGANIZATION FOUND TO BE DOMINATED BY THE COMPANY, AND TO
REINSTATE CERTAIN EMPLOYEES, WITH BACK PAY, FOUND TO HAVE BEEN
DISCRIMINATORILY DISCHARGED OR DENIED REINSTATEMENT.  THE BOARD, IN
PROVIDING FOR BACK PAY, DIRECTED THE COMPANY TO DEDUCT FROM THE
PAYMENTS TO THE REINSTATED EMPLOYEES THE AMOUNTS THEY HAD RECEIVED FOR
WORK PERFORMED UPON "WORK RELIEF PROJECTS" AND TO PAY OVER SUCH AMOUNTS
TO THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.  EXCEPT FOR A MODIFICATION,
NOT NOW IMPORTANT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTED ENFORCEMENT OF
THE BOARD'S ORDER.  107 F.2D 472. 

IN VIEW OF CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., 111 F.2D 619(C.C.A.2D) AND NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. TOVREA PACKING CO., 111 F.2D 626(C.C.A.9TH), WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE BOARD HAD
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE COMPANY TO MAKE THE DESCRIBED PAYMENTS TO THE
AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT.  310 U.S. 655. 

THE AMOUNTS EARNED BY THE EMPLOYEES BEFORE REINSTATEMENT WERE
DIRECTED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THEIR BACK PAY MANIFESTLY BECAUSE, HAVING
ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED, THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOT NEEDED TO MAKE THE
EMPLOYEES WHOLE.  THAT PRINCIPLE WOULD APPLY WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES HAD
EARNED THE AMOUNTS IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT.  FURTHER, THERE IS
NO QUESTION THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WERE FOR
SERVICES ACTUALLY PERFORMED.  PRESUMABLY THESE AGENCIES, AND THROUGH
THEM THE PUBLIC, RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF SERVICES REASONABLY WORTH THE
AMOUNTS PAID.  THERE IS NO FINDING TO THE CONTRARY. 

THE BOARD URGES THAT THE WORK RELIEF PROGRAM WAS DESIGNED TO MEET THE
EXIGENCY OF LARGE-SCALE UNEMPLOYMENT PRODUCED BY THE DEPRESSION; THAT
PROJECTS HAD BEEN SELECTED, NOT WITH A SINGLE EYE TO COSTS OR
USEFULNESS, BUT WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDING THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF
EMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF UNEMPLOYED WORKERS IN VARIOUS
COMMUNITIES; IN SHORT, THAT THE WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
CONDUCTED AS A MEANS OF DEALING WITH THE RELIEF PROBLEM.  HENCE IT IS
CONTENDED THAT THE BOARD COULD PROPERLY CONCLUDE THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES OF THE COMPANY HAD OCCASIONED LOSSES TO THE GOVERNMENT
FINANCING THE WORK RELIEF PROJECTS. 

THE PAYMENTS TO THE FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, OR OTHER GOVERNMENTS
CONCERNED ARE THUS CONCEIVED AS BEING REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REDRESSING, NOT AN INJURY TO THE EMPLOYEES, BUT AN INJURY TO THE
PUBLIC,  - AN INJURY THOUGHT TO BE NOT THE LESS SUSTAINED ALTHOUGH HERE
THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS HAVE RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE SERVICES
PERFORMED.  SO CONCEIVED, THESE REQUIRED PAYMENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF
PENALTIES IMPOSED BY LAW UPON THE EMPLOYER,  - THE BOARD ACTING AS THE
LEGISLATIVE AGENCY IN PROVIDING THAT SORT OF SANCTION BY REASON OF
PUBLIC INTEREST.  WE NEED NOT PAUSE TO PURSUE THE APPLICATION OF THIS
THEORY OF THE BOARD'S POWER TO A VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
COMMUNITY INTERESTS MIGHT BE ASSERTED.  THE QUESTION IS,  - HAS
CONGRESS CONFERRED THE POWER UPON THE BOARD TO IMPOSE SUCH
REQUIREMENTS. 

WE THINK THAT THE THEORY ADVANCED BY THE BOARD PROCEEDS UPON A
MISCONCEPTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE ACT IS
ESSENTIALLY REMEDIAL.  IT DOES NOT CARRY A PENAL PROGRAM DECLARING THE
DESCRIBED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES TO BE CRIMES.  THE ACT DOES NOT
PRESCRIBE PENALTIES OR FINES IN VINDICATION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OR PROVIDE
INDEMNITY AGAINST COMMUNITY LOSSES AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PROTECTION
AND COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES.  HAD CONGRESS BEEN INTENT UPON SUCH A
PROGRAM, WE CANNOT DOUBT THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE EXPRESSED ITS INTENT
AND WOULD ITSELF HAVE DEFINED ITS RETRIBUTIVE SCHEME. 

THE REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF THE ACT ARE QUITE CLEAR.  IT IS AIMED, AS
THE ACT SAYS (SEC. 1) AT ENCOURAGING THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND AT PROTECTING THE EXERCISE BY WORKERS OF FULL
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, OF SELF ORGANIZATION AND OF NEGOTIATING THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR
PROTECTION THROUGH THEIR FREELY CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES.  THIS RIGHT OF
THE EMPLOYEES IS SAFEGUARDED THROUGH THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE
BOARD TO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO DESIST FROM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
DESCRIBED AND TO LEAVE THE EMPLOYEES FREE TO ORGANIZE AND CHOOSE THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES.  THEY ARE THUS PROTECTED FROM COERCION AND
INTERFERENCE IN THE FORMATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND FROM
DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE.  WHETHER THE ACT HAS BEEN VIOLATED BY THE
EMPLOYER - WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE - IS A
MATTER FOR THE BOARD TO DETERMINE UPON EVIDENCE.  WHEN IT DOES SO
DETERMINE THE BOARD CAN REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO DISESTABLISH
ORGANIZATIONS CREATED IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT; IT CAN DIRECT THE
EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH THOSE WHO APPEAR TO BE THE CHOSEN
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES AND IT CAN REQUIRE THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES
AS HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT BE REINSTATED WITH BACK
PAY.  ALL THESE MEASURES RELATE TO THE PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES AND
THE REDRESS OF THEIR GRIEVANCES, NOT TO THE REDRESS OF ANY SUPPOSED
PUBLIC INJURY AFTER THE EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN MADE SECURE IN THEIR RIGHT
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND HAVE BEEN MADE WHOLE. 

AS THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE CLAIM OF AUTHORITY TO GO FURTHER AND TO
DEMAND PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENTS, THE BOARD RELIES ON THE LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 10(C) WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF UPON EVIDENCE THE BOARD FINDS THAT
THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE COMPLAINT IS LODGED HAS ENGAGED IN AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THE BOARD SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER - "REQUIRING SUCH
PERSON TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND TO TAKE
SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT." 

THIS LANGUAGE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND
REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
TO VEST IN THE BOARD A VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED DISCRETION TO DEVISE
PUNITIVE MEASURES, AND THUS TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES OR FINES WHICH THE
BOARD MAY THINK WOULD EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  WE HAVE SAID
THAT "THIS AUTHORITY TO ORDER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS
TO CONFER A PUNITIVE JURISDICTION ENABLING THE BOARD TO INFLICT UPON
THE EMPLOYER ANY PENALTY IT MAY CHOOSE BECAUSE HE IS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT MIGHT BE EFFECTUATED BY SUCH AN ORDER."  WE HAVE
SAID THAT THE POWER TO COMMAND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REMEDIAL, NOT
PUNITIVE.  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
305 U.S. 197, 235, 236.  SEE, ALSO, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 267, 268.  WE ADHERE TO
THAT CONSTRUCTION. 

IN THAT VIEW, IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE BOARD'S REQUIREMENTS TO
SAY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF DETERRING PERSONS FROM VIOLATING
THE ACT.  THAT ARGUMENT PROVES TOO MUCH, FOR IF SUCH A DETERRENT EFFECT
IS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN AN ORDER OF THE BOARD, IT WOULD BE FREE TO SET
UP ANY SYSTEM OF PENALTIES WHICH IT WOULD DEEM ADEQUATE TO THAT END. 

WE THINK THAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO "EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS
ACT" IS ACTION TO ACHIEVE THE REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES WHICH THE ACT SETS
FORTH.  THUS THE EMPLOYER MAY BE REQUIRED NOT ONLY TO END HIS UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES; HE MAY ALSO BE DIRECTED AFFIRMATIVELY TO RECOGNIZE AN
ORGANIZATION WHICH IS FOUND TO BE THE DULY CHOSEN BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYEES; HE MAY BE ORDERED TO CEASE PARTICULAR
METHODS OF INTERFERENCE, INTIMIDATION OR COERCION, TO STOP RECOGNIZING
AND TO DISESTABLISH A PARTICULAR LABOR ORGANIZATION WHICH HE DOMINATES
OR SUPPORTS, TO RESTORE AND MAKE WHOLE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN
DISCHARGED IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT, TO GIVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF HIS
COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER, AND OTHERWISE TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS
WILL ASSURE TO HIS EMPLOYEES THE RIGHTS WHICH THE STATUTE UNDERTAKES TO
SAFEGUARD.  THESE ARE ALL REMEDIAL MEASURES.  TO GO FURTHER AND TO
REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO PAY TO GOVERNMENTS WHAT THEY HAVE PAID TO
EMPLOYEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO THEM IS AN EXACTION NEITHER TO MAKE
THE EMPLOYEES WHOLE NOR TO ASSURE THAT THEY CAN BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
WITH THE EMPLOYER THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOICE.  WE FIND
NO WARRANT IN THE POLICIES OF THE ACT FOR SUCH AN EXACTION. 

IN TRUTH, THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE BOARD FOR THE REQUIREMENT IN
QUESTION - REASONS WHICH RELATE TO THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF WORK
RELIEF PROJECTS AND TO THE PRACTICE AND AIMS OF THE WORK PROJECTS
ADMINISTRATION - INDICATE THAT ITS ORDER IS NOT DIRECTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE EFFECTUATING OF THE POLICIES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, BUT TO THE EFFECTUATING OF A DISTINCT AND BROADER POLICY
WITH RESPECT TO UNEMPLOYMENT.  THE BOARD HAS MADE ITS REQUIREMENT IN AN
APPARENT EFFORT TO PROVIDE ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AND
PUBLIC WORK RELIEF, AND TO CARRY OUT SUPPOSED POLICIES IN RELATION TO
THE LATTER.  THAT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD.  IT HAS NOT BEEN
ASSIGNED A ROLE IN RELATION TO LOSSES CONCEIVED TO HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED
BY COMMUNITIES OR GOVERNMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH WORK RELIEF PROJECTS. 
THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD IN THIS CASE WAS TO ASSURE TO PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THROUGH THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY PETITIONER AND TO MAKE GOOD TO
THE EMPLOYEES WHAT THEY HAD LOST THROUGH THE DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONAL PROVISION REQUIRING THE PAYMENTS TO
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WAS BEYOND THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY, AND TO THAT
EXTENT THE DECREE BELOW ENFORCING THE BOARD'S ORDER IS MODIFIED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH DIRECTION TO ENTER A DECREE ENFORCING THE
BOARD'S ORDER WITH THAT PROVISION ELIMINATED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS: 

IT MIGHT FAIRLY BE IMPLIED BY THE WORDS "REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES
WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY" THAT THE EMPLOYEES MUST THEMSELVES BE THE
RECIPIENTS OF THE BACK PAY.  WERE THE OPINION BASED ON THAT GROUND WE
WOULD ACQUIESCE.  BUT THE JUDGMENT HERE DOES NOT REST UPON SUCH AN
INTERPRETATION.  THE HOLDING APPEARS TO BE ON THE BROAD GROUND THAT THE
BOARD MAY NOT REQUIRE FULL BACK PAY, EVEN TO A WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED
EMPLOYEE, IF HE HAS RECEIVED PAY FOR SERVICES PERFORMED ON A
GOVERNMENTAL RELIEF PROJECT PROVIDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE NEEDY
UNEMPLOYED.  WITH THIS CONCLUSION WE CANNOT AGREE. 

THE STATUTE COMMANDS THAT THE BOARD MUST ORDER "BACK PAY" IF THE
POLICY OF THE ACT WILL THEREBY BE EFFECTUATED.  AT LEAST TWO PERSONS
ARE IMMEDIATELY INVOLVED IN "BACK PAY," AS HERE USED; ONE WHO PAYS AND
ONE WHO RECEIVES.  THE PROPRIETY OF A "BACK PAY" ORDER AS AN
INSTRUMENTALITY FOR EFFECTUATING THE ACT'S POLICIES, MUST THEREFORE BE
DETERMINED BY THE MANNER IN WHICH IT INFLUENCES THE PAYOR AND PAYEE,
ONE, OR BOTH.  THE CENTRAL POLICY OF THE ACT IS PROTECTION TO EMPLOYEES
FROM EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, INTIMIDATION AND COERCION IN RELATION TO
UNIONIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  WE CANNOT DOUBT BUT THAT A
BACK PAY ORDER AS APPLIED TO THE EMPLOYER WILL EFFECTUALLY AID IN
SAFEGUARDING THESE RIGHTS.  WE BELIEVE, AS DID THE BOARD AND THE COURT
BELOW, THAT IT MAY WELL BE SAID THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT WILL BE
EFFECTUATED BY DENYING TO AN OFFENDING EMPLOYER THE OPPORTUNITY OF
SHIFTING TO GOVERNMENT RELIEF AGENCIES THE BURDEN OF SUPPORTING HIS
WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES.  THE KNOWLEDGE THAT HE MAY BE CALLED
UPON TO PAY OUT THE WAGES HIS EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE EARNED BUT FOR THEIR
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE, REGARDLESS OF ANY ASSISTANCE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE
RENDERED THEM DURING THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT, MIGHT WELL BE A FACTOR IN
INDUCING AN EMPLOYER TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT. 

AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISION FOR BACK PAY IS NOT HELPED BY
LABELING THE ACT'S PURPOSE OR THE BOARD'S ACTION AS EITHER "PUNITIVE"
OR "REMEDIAL."  THE "BACK PAY" PROVISION IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. 
HENCE, IT IS ENOUGH HERE FOR US TO DETERMINE WHAT CONGRESS MEANT FROM
WHAT IT SAID. 

NOR IS THERE SUBSTANCE TO THE EXPRESSED FEAR THAT COMPLETE ACCEPTANCE
OF THE WORDS AS CONGRESS WROTE THEM WOULD VEST UNLIMITED DISCRETION IN
THE BOARD, BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT.  THAT DISCRETION IS NARROWLY LIMITED,
BY THE FACT THAT AS TO "BACK PAY" THE BOARD CAN IN NO INSTANCE AWARD
ANY GREATER SUM THAN "BACK PAY" FOR THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEE
WAS ABSENT FROM HIS EMPLOYER'S SERVICES BY REASON OF HIS EMPLOYER'S
VIOLATION OF THE LAW. 
..END :



















FLEISHER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 311 U.S. 15 


NO. 15.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 18, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  -
107 F.2D 925, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE MILLER ACT OF 1935, REQUIRING CONTRACTORS FOR PUBLIC WORK OF
THE UNITED STATES TO FURNISH A PAYMENT BOND FOR THE PROTECTION OF
PERSONS SUPPLYING LABOR OR MATERIALS, PROVIDES THAT A SUPPLIER HAVING
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP NOT WITH THE CONTRACTOR FURNISHING SUCH BOND
BUT WITH A SUBCONTRACTOR, "SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF ACTION UPON THE SAID
PAYMENT BOND UPON GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO SAID CONTRACTOR  ...  "  THE
ACT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT "SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE SERVED BY MAILING THE
SAME BY REGISTERED MAIL  ...  "  HELD THAT A SUIT UNDER THE ACT WAS
MAINTAINABLE ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE WAS SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL AND NOT BY
REGISTERED MAIL, WHERE IT WAS OTHERWISE SUFFICIENT AND ACTUALLY REACHED
ONE OF TWO JOINT AND SEVERAL CONTRACTORS.  P. 17. 

2.  WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER OF GIVING THE PRESCRIBED NOTICE, THE
ACT SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN AID OF ITS REMEDIAL PURPOSE.  P.
18. 

FLEISHER ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES FOR
THE USE AND BENEFIT OF HALLENBECK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 693, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT ON A
BOND GIVEN BY TWO CONTRACTORS, WITH SURETIES, TO SECURE PAYMENT FOR
LABOR AND MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT WITH THE
UNITED STATES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT THIS SUIT ON BEHALF OF GEORGE S. HALLENBECK
TO RECOVER UPON A BOND GIVEN BY FLEISHER ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY AND JOSEPH A. BASS, WITH THEIR SURETIES, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
PAYMENT FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL FURNISHED UNDER A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
PRINCIPALS ON THE BOND AND THE UNITED STATES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
CERTAIN HOUSING PROJECT.  PART OF THE LABOR REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT
WAS PERFORMED BY HALLENBECK FOR A SUBCONTRACTOR WITH THE APPROVAL OF
THE CONTRACTORS.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE MILLER ACT OF AUGUST
24, 1935, 40 U.S.C. 270B.  PLAINTIFF OBTAINED A SUMMARY JUDGMENT (30
F.SUPP.  964) WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  107 F.2D
925. 

THE APPLICABLE PROVISION OF THE MILLER ACT IS SET FORTH IN THE
MARGIN.  FN1  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE GIVING OF THE REQUIRED
WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CONTRACTOR WAS SUFFICIENT, AS IT WAS NOT SENT BY
"REGISTERED MAIL."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT AS THE
RECEIPT OF WRITTEN NOTICE WAS CONCEDED AND THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE
WERE ADEQUATE, THE STATUTE WAS SATISFIED.  IN VIEW OF ALLEGED CONFLICT
WITH THE DECISION IN UNITED STATES FOR THE USE OF JOHN A. DENIE'S SONS
CO. V. BASS, 111 F.2D 965, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  309 U.S. 693. 

IN CONSTRUING THE EARLIER ACT, THE HEARD ACT, FOR WHICH THE MILLER
ACT IS A SUBSTITUTE, WE OBSERVED THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE HIGHLY
REMEDIAL AND SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY.  UNITED STATES FOR THE USE
OF ALEXANDER BRYANT CO. V. NEW YORK STEAM FITTING CO., 235 U.S. 327,
337; ILLINOIS SURETY CO. V. JOHN DAVIS CO., 244 U.S. 376, 380;
FLEISCHMANN CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 349, 360.  WE
RECOGNIZED THAT THE STATUTE CREATED A NEW RIGHT OF ACTION AND THAT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED LIMITATION WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE
ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT CONFERRED.  ACCORDINGLY, AS IT WAS PROVIDED THAT
A MATERIAL-MAN COULD NOT BRING SUIT ON THE CONTRACTOR'S BOND IN THE
NAME OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM COMPLETION AND
SETTLEMENT, THE COURT HELD THAT THIS PROVISION PLAINLY CONDITIONED THE
RIGHT TO SUE.  UNITED STATES EX REL. TEXAS PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V.
MCCORD, 233 U.S. 157, 162, 163.  THAT RULING WAS DISTINGUISHED IN THE
CASE OF THE ALEXANDER BRYANT COMPANY, SUPRA, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE
PROVISION OF THE ACT REQUIRING NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO OTHER CREDITORS BY
THE CREDITOR AVAILING HIMSELF OF THE RIGHT TO SUE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED
YEAR, IF THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT BRING SUIT WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER
COMPLETION, WAS NOT "OF THE ESSENCE OF JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE" OR
"A CONDITION OF THE LIABILITY" OF THE SURETY ON THE BOND.  IN SHORT, A
REQUIREMENT WHICH IS CLEARLY MADE A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE RIGHT TO
SUE MUST BE GIVEN EFFECT, BUT IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PROVISION IS OF
THAT CHARACTER THE STATUTE MUST BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED SO AS TO
ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE.  "TECHNICAL RULES OTHERWISE PROTECTING SURETIES
FROM LIABILITY HAVE NEVER BEEN APPLIED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS
STATUTE."  ILLINOIS SURETY CO. V. JOHN DAVIS CO., SUPRA.  THE SAME
PRINCIPLE SHOULD GOVERN THE APPLICATION OF THE MILLER ACT. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE MAY LAY ON ONE SIDE THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE
WAS ADDRESSED TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER.  AS THE COURT BELOW SAID, IT WAS
ADMITTED THAT THE NOTICE WAS IN WRITING AND WAS SENT BY MAIL AND THAT
IT REACHED ONE OF THE TWO CONTRACTORS WHO HAD JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY
AGREED TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT.  AND AT THIS BAR, THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF
THE NOTICE AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF ITS STATEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN
CHALLENGED. 

IN GIVING THE STATUTE A REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO EFFECT
ITS REMEDIAL PURPOSE, WE THINK THAT A DISTINCTION SHOULD BE DRAWN
BETWEEN THE PROVISION EXPLICITLY STATING THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE
RIGHT TO SUE AND THE PROVISION AS TO THE MANNER OF SERVING NOTICE.  THE
STRUCTURE OF THE STATUTE INDICATES THE DISTINCTION.  THE PROVISO, WHICH
DEFINES THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT, STATES THAT THE MATERIAL-MAN
OR LABORER "SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF ACTION UPON THE SAID PAYMENT BOND
UPON GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO SAID CONTRACTOR" WITHIN NINETY DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF FINAL PERFORMANCE.  THE CONDITION AS THUS EXPRESSED WAS
FULLY MET.  THEN THE STATUTE GOES ON TO PROVIDE FOR THE MODE OF SERVICE
OF THE NOTICE.  "SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE SERVED BY MAILING THE SAME BY
REGISTERED MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID," OR "IN ANY MANNER" IN WHICH THE
UNITED STATES MARSHAL "IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO SERVE SUMMONS."  WE
THINK THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION AS TO MANNER OF SERVICE WAS TO
ASSURE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE, NOT TO MAKE THE DESCRIBED METHOD
MANDATORY SO AS TO DENY RIGHT OF SUIT WHEN THE REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE
WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME HAD ACTUALLY BEEN GIVEN AND RECEIVED.  IN THE
FACE OF SUCH RECEIPT, THE REASON FOR A PARTICULAR MODE OF SERVICE
FAILS.  IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
INSIST UPON AN IDLE FORM.  RATHER, WE THINK THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE A METHOD WHICH WOULD AFFORD SUFFICIENT PROOF OF SERVICE WHEN
RECEIPT OF THE REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE WAS NOT SHOWN. 

IN THIS VIEW WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY
DISPOSED OF THE CASE AND ITS JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1935, C. 642, 49 STAT. 794,
40 U.S.C., SEC. 270B, PROVIDES: 

"(A)  EVERY PERSON WHO HAS FURNISHED LABOR OR MATERIAL IN THE
PROSECUTION OF THE WORK PROVIDED FOR IN SUCH CONTRACT, IN RESPECT OF
WHICH A PAYMENT BOND IS FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 270A OF THIS TITLE AND
WHO HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL THEREFOR BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF A
PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS AFTER THE DAY ON WHICH THE LAST OF THE LABOR WAS
DONE OR PERFORMED BY HIM OR MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED OR SUPPLIED BY HIM
FOR WHICH SUCH CLAIM IS MADE, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE ON SUCH
PAYMENT BOND FOR THE AMOUNT, OR THE BALANCE THEREOF, UNPAID AT THE TIME
OF INSTITUTION OF SUCH SUIT AND TO PROSECUTE SAID ACTION TO FINAL
EXECUTION AND JUDGMENT FOR THE SUM OR SUMS JUSTLY DUE HIM:  PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT ANY PERSON HAVING DIRECT CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A
SUBCONTRACTOR BUT NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WITH
THE CONTRACTOR FURNISHING SAID PAYMENT BOND SHALL HAVE A RIGHT OF
ACTION UPON THE SAID PAYMENT BOND UPON GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO SAID
CONTRACTOR WITHIN NINETY DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH PERSON DID OR
PERFORMED THE LAST OF THE LABOR OR FURNISHED OR SUPPLIED THE LAST OF
THE MATERIAL FOR WHICH SUCH CLAIM IS MADE, STATING WITH SUBSTANTIAL
ACCURACY THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AND THE NAME OF THE PARTY TO WHOM THE
MATERIAL WAS FURNISHED OR SUPPLIED OR FOR WHOM THE LABOR WAS DONE OR
PERFORMED.  SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE SERVED BY MAILING THE SAME BY
REGISTERED MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, IN AN ENVELOP ADDRESSED TO THE
CONTRACTOR AT ANY PLACE HE MAINTAINS AN OFFICE OR CONDUCTS HIS
BUSINESS, OR HIS RESIDENCE, OR IN ANY MANNER IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES
MARSHAL OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IS SITUATED IS
AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO SERVE SUMMONS." 
..END :

















WEST INDIA OIL CO. V. DOMENECH, 311 U.S. 20 


NO. 26.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 24, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  -
108 F.2D 144, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 3 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF PUERTO RICO, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT
OF MARCH 4, 1927, AUTHORIZING THE INSULAR LEGISLATURE TO LEVY INTERNAL
REVENUE TAXES AS SOON AS THE ARTICLES TO BE TAXED ARE MANUFACTURED,
SOLD, USED, OR "BROUGHT INTO THE ISLAND," GIVES THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS
TO A NONDISCRIMINATORY SALES TAX SO FAR AS IT IS LAID ON THE DELIVERY,
IN CONSUMMATION OF SALES, OF FUEL OIL IMPORTED IN BOND AND WITHDRAWN,
DUTY FREE (PURSUANT TO THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AND THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932), FOR DELIVERY TO VESSELS IN PUERTO RICAN PORTS FOR USE AS FUEL
UPON THEIR VOYAGES TO PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES OR FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 
MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP., 309 U.S. 414, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 25. 

2.  CONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP OF GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION
TO LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE TERRITORIES AND INSULAR
POSSESSIONS, REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT TO BE FAVORED AND WILL NOT
BE ADJUDGED UNLESS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION TO REPEAL IS CLEAR.  P.
29. 

WEST INDIA OIL CO. (PUERTO RICO) V. DOMENECH, TREASURER OF PUERTO
RICO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

THIS WAS A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE OIL COMPANY AGAINST BONET, TREASURER
OF PUERTO RICO (FOR WHOM DOMENECH, SUCCESSOR IN THE OFFICE, HAS BEEN
SUBSTITUTED) PRAYING FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE TAXES
IN QUESTION.  A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RENDERED BY A DISTRICT COURT OF
PUERTO RICO AGAINST THE TAX WAS REVERSED BY A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE TERRITORY, 54 P.R. DEC. 732, WHICH WAS IN TURN AFFIRMED BY
THE COURT BELOW. 

MR. JAMES R. BEVERLEY FOR PETITIONER. 

SO LONG AS THE GOODS REMAIN UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CUSTOMS SERVICE,
THE MERCHANDISE IS IN PROCESS OF IMPORTATION AND CAN NOT BE TAXED BY
STATES OR OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS, OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES.  A
TERRITORIAL TAX AT THIS STAGE EITHER ON THE PROPERTY OR ON A
TRANSACTION MOVING THE PROPERTY WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO AN "IMPORT
DUTY," WHICH PUERTO RICO CAN NOT LAY.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO
PERMIT THE STATES AND TERRITORIES TO INTERFERE WITH AND PERHAPS EVEN
PROHIBIT (THROUGH TAXES OR OTHER EXACTIONS) THE IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN
GOODS,  - A POWER DENIED TO THEM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC.
8, CL. 3.  THE FOREIGN FUEL OIL CAME UNDER THE IMMEDIATE AND COMPLETE
SUPERVISION OF THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE FROM THE MOMENT IT
ENTERED THE HARBOR OF SAN JUAN (OR PONCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE); AND SUCH
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL NEVER CEASED UNTIL THE OIL WAS CONSUMED AT SEA
BY SHIPS IN THEIR JOURNEYS.  IT WAS NEVER "IMPORTED" INTO PUERTO RICO,
BUT WAS MERELY ENTERED IN BOND UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IT SHOULD BE
DELIVERED TO THE SHIPS' BUNKERS.  TECHNICALLY, IT NEVER ENTERED THE
ISLAND AND NEVER BECAME A PART OF THE MASS OF PROPERTY THERE, BUT
REMAINED APART UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL. 

THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED, IN DEALING WITH CERTAIN SUPPLIES
TO SHIPS, INCLUDING FUEL OIL, STATES THAT SUCH SUPPLIES SHALL BE
TREATED AS "EXPORTED."  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC. 601(B), PROVIDES
THAT THE TAXES INVOLVED "SHALL BE TREATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALL
PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO CUSTOMS REVENUE AS A DUTY IMPOSED BY SUCH
ACT  ...  "  (TARIFF ACT OF 1930).  SO FAR AS THIS FUEL OIL IS
CONCERNED, ALL THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO CUSTOMS DUTIES APPLY. 
FURTHER, ART. 942 OF THE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS OF 1931, INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE IN THE TARIFF ACT, PROVIDES THAT "IMPORTED GOODS IN BONDED
WAREHOUSES ARE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES."  THIS REGULATION ALSO APPEARS IN CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
OF 1937(ART.  940) AND IN PRIOR REGULATIONS (1923).  CONGRESS IN THE
TITLE TO THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 HAS ASSERTED THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT IS TO "REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES" AND ANOTHER
PURPOSE IS "TO ENCOURAGE THE INDUSTRIES OF THE UNITED STATES." 

THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO IS BOUND BY THIS EXPRESSED INTENTION OF
CONGRESS AND IS BOUND TO TREAT THIS FUEL OIL AS IF IT WERE AN EXPORT. 
IT FOLLOWS THAT NO TAX ON ANY TRANSACTION MOVING THIS OIL IN COMMERCE
COULD BE LAID BY PUERTO RICO, BEING PROHIBITED BOTH BY THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932, AND BY THE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS. 

THE FUEL OIL NEVER LEFT THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  IN SUCH CASE, A TAX CAN NOT BE VALIDLY LAID BY PUERTO RICO
ON THE DELIVERY OF THE OIL TO SHIPS' BUNKERS.  IT WOULD SEEM ALSO THAT
A TAX ON THIS OIL OR UPON THE DELIVERY TO SHIPS' BUNKERS WOULD BE A
DIRECT BURDEN ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, SINCE THE OIL IS USED
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE PROPULSION OF SHIPS IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IF THE PRESENT TAX IS VALID,
THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT COULD IMPOSE SUCH TAXES AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE
FOR SHIPS TO FUEL IN PUERTO RICAN PORTS AND THUS DRIVE THEM TO FUEL IN
FOREIGN OR OTHER PORTS.  THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS ON THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932 AND ITS AMENDMENTS SHOW THAT CONGRESS HAD PRECISELY THIS SITUATION
IN MIND WHEN IT EXEMPTED SHIPS' SUPPLIES FROM TAXES. 

MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S. 33, HELD THAT
THE NEW YORK CITY SALES TAX WAS APPLICABLE TO A CONTRACT OF SALE MADE
IN NEW YORK FOR DELIVERY IN NEW YORK FROM PENNSYLVANIA.  BUT THIS COURT
HAS NEVER HELD THAT THE STATE OF EXIT COULD LEVY A TAX ON GOODS MOVING
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR ON THE TRANSACTION MOVING THEM.  IN THE
INSTANT CASE, THE FUEL OIL IS MOVED OUT OF PUERTO RICO TO THE HIGH SEAS
BY THE TRANSACTION ATTEMPTED TO BE TAXED, AND THE CONTRACT FOR SALE IS
NOT MADE IN PUERTO RICO; WITH THE ADDED IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE FUEL
OIL WAS NEVER TECHNICALLY IN PUERTO RICO, BUT WAS UNDER THE CONTROL OF
THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE AT ALL TIMES.  ON PRINCIPLE, THIS
CASE IS ANALOGOUS TO THE CASE OF MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORPORATION,
309 U.S. 414. 

MR. WILLIAM CATTRON RIGBY, WITH WHOM MESSRS.  GEORGE A. MALCOLM,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PUERTO RICO, AND NATHAN R. MARGOLD WERE ON THE
BRIEF, FOR RESPONDENT. 

THIS TAX ON SALES IS AN EXCISE. 

THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE EXTENDS TO LEVYING AN EXCISE ON THE
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF A DOMESTIC CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THOSE ACTIVITIES, IF, AS
HERE, MOVABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, IS THEN ACTUALLY LOCATED WITHIN THE
JURISDICTIONAL TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF PUERTO RICO, OR NOT.  PLAINTIFF'S
DEPOSIT OF THE OIL IN A BONDED WAREHOUSE IS, THEREFORE, IMMATERIAL
HERE, FOR ANY PURPOSE. 

THE SALES WERE MADE "IN PUERTO RICO," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 62
OF THE LOCAL EXCISE LAW HERE INVOLVED. 

THE ESTABLISHED RULE OF THE RESPECT TO BE ACCORDED TO THE DECISION OF
A LOCAL TERRITORIAL SUPREME COURT, INTERPRETING LOCAL TERRITORIAL
STATUTES AND LAWS, IS PECULIARLY APPLICABLE HERE. 

THE LEVY OF THIS EXCISE ON THE FIRST SALE IN PUERTO RICO OF THIS OIL
IS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY GRANTED BY THE CONGRESS BY THE
PROVISO ADDED TO SEC. 3 OF THE ORGANIC ACT BY THE BUTLER ACT AMENDMENT
OF MARCH 4, 1927, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF INTERNAL
REVENUE TAXES BY THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO, "ON THE ARTICLES
SUBJECT TO SAID TAX, AS SOON AS THE SAME ARE ... BROUGHT INTO THE
ISLAND," AND DIRECTING THE OFFICIALS OF THE CUSTOMS AND POSTAL SERVICES
OF THE UNITED STATES "TO ASSIST THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS OF THE PORTO
RICAN GOVERNMENT IN THE COLLECTION OF THESE TAXES." 

THAT THIS OIL WAS BROUGHT IN FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY, AND THAT THE
SALE IN PUERTO RICO WAS ITS FIRST SALE AFTER LANDING, IS IMMATERIAL. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BUTLER ACT EMPHASIZES THE INTENTION OF
THE CONGRESS. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS NOT APPLICABLE. 

IT IS WHOLLY IMMATERIAL THAT CONGRESS BY SEC. 309 OF THE TARIFF ACT
OF 1930 DIRECTED THAT FEDERAL TARIFF TAXES AND DUTIES SHOULD BE
REMITTED UPON OIL IMPORTED FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND USED FOR THE
PROPULSION OF SHIPS IN DOMESTIC COMMERCE BETWEEN PUERTO RICO (OR OTHER
OFF-SHORE TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS) AND THE MAINLAND.  THERE IS NO
REPEAL OF THE LOCAL TAXING POWERS EXPRESSLY GRANTED THE LEGISLATURE OF
PUERTO RICO. 

THIS CASE IS NOT GOVERNED BY MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORPORATION, 309
U.S. 414. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A PUERTO RICO SALES TAX IMPOSED BY SECS.
16(A), 62 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE ACT OF PUERTO RICO, (AS AMENDED BY
ACT NO. 17 OF JUNE 3, 1927, LAWS OF 1927, SPECIAL SESSION, PP. 458
486), IS INVALID BECAUSE AS APPLIED IT INFRINGES CONGRESSIONAL
REGULATIONS OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE EFFECTED BY THE TARIFF
LAWS AND CUSTOMS REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE TAX IS
CHALLENGED SO FAR AS IT IS LAID ON THE DELIVERY, IN CONSUMMATION OF
SALES, OF FUEL OIL WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN IMPORTED IN BOND AND THEN
WITHDRAWN, DUTY FREE, FOR DELIVERY TO VESSELS IN PUERTO RICAN PORTS FOR
USE AS FUEL UPON THEIR VOYAGES TO PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES OR FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HAS AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO SUSTAINING THE TAX, 54
P.R. DEC. 732(SPANISH EDITION).  108 F.2D 144.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
309 U.S. 652, BECAUSE THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS OF IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CUSTOMS LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE
REVENUE LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, AND BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH
OUR DECISION IN MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP., 309 U.S. 414. 

PETITIONER BRINGS FUEL OIL FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY, WHERE IT IS
PRODUCED AND REFINED, TO PUERTO RICO, WHERE IT IS STORED IN BONDED
WAREHOUSES IN THE JOINT CUSTODY OF PETITIONER AND THE CUSTOMS OFFICERS
OF THE UNITED STATES, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 555 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF
1930, 46 STAT. 743, 19 U.S.C. SEC. 1555, AND APPLICABLE CUSTOMS
REGULATIONS.  FROM TIME TO TIME PETITIONER WITHDRAWS SOME OF THE OIL
FROM BOND, FOR DISPOSITION AND USE IN PUERTO RICO.  PETITIONER ALSO
WITHDRAWS SOME OF THE OIL, WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED, AND
DELIVERS IT TO VESSELS IN PUERTO RICAN PORTS UPON SALES FOR USE AS
SHIPS' STORES IN THE MANNER ALREADY INDICATED.  UPON SUCH WITHDRAWAL
AND DELIVERY THE IMPORT TAX IMPOSED ON FUEL OIL BY SEC. 601(A)(C)(4) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 259-260, AND REQUIRED BY SEC.
601(B) TO BE "TREATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALL PROVISIONS OF LAW
RELATING TO THE CUSTOMS REVENUE AS A DUTY IMPOSED BY  ...  (THE TARIFF
ACT OF 1930)" IS REMITTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 309 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF
1930, 46 STAT. 590, 690 AND SEC. 630 OF THE ACT OF 1932, ADDED BY THE
AMENDMENT OF JUNE 16, 1933, 48 STAT. 256. 

UNDER TREASURY REGULATIONS, OF ARTICLES OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURE OR
PRODUCTION FOR USE AS SHIPS' SUPPLIES, AND SECS. 601(B), 630 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932 EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF THOSE PROVISIONS TO FUEL OIL
IMPORTED IN BOND AND WITHDRAWN AND "SOLD FOR USE AS FUEL  ...  ON
VESSELS  ...  ENGAGED IN FOREIGN TRADE OR TRADE  ... BETWEEN THE UNITED
STATES AND ANY OF ITS POSSESSIONS."  SEE MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP.,
SUPRA, 423 ET SEQ. 

IT IS TRUE, AS PETITIONER URGES, THAT IN MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL
CORP., SUPRA, WE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AND
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AND THE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS RELATING TO
BONDED MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSES, WHEN APPLIED TO CRUDE OIL IMPORTED
INTO NEW YORK AND THERE MANUFACTURED INTO FUEL OIL IN BONDED WAREHOUSES
AND WITHDRAWN DUTY FREE FOR SALE AS SHIPS' STORES, MANIFESTED AN
INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE FOREIGN COMMERCE INVOLVED, IN THE
INTEREST OF AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS, AND THAT
A STATE TAX ON THE SALE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IN CONFLICT WITH SUCH
REGULATION.  WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER WHETHER, AS RESPONDENT INSISTS,
A DIFFERENT RESULT SHOULD BE REACHED HERE BECAUSE THE IMPORTED OIL WAS
IMPORTED IN ITS MANUFACTURED STATE AND WAS NOT, AS IN THE GULF OIL
CASE, EARMARKED FOR MANUFACTURE IN BONDED WAREHOUSE AND WITHDRAWN AFTER
MANUFACTURE FOR SALE AS SHIPS' STORES.  WE NEED NOT NOW DETERMINE
WHETHER STANDING ALONE THE STATUTORY CHARACTERIZATION OF THE OIL SOLD
AS SHIPS' SUPPLIES AS "EXPORTS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CUSTOMS LAWS,
SEC. 309(B) TARIFF ACT OF 1930; SEC. 630 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,
DOES MORE THAN MAKE APPLICABLE TO IT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TARIFF ACT
OF 1930 FOR REMISSION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES UPON MERCHANDISE IMPORTED IN
BOND AND LATER EXPORTED.  NOR IS IT NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE VARIOUS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED THAT THE TAX, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, IS AN
INFRINGEMENT OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OVER COMMERCE.  FOR WE THINK A
SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO ALL THE CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER IS TO BE FOUND
IN THE CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT TO THE TAX GIVEN BY THE MARCH 4, 1927
AMENDMENT OF SEC. 3 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF PUERTO RICO, 44 STAT. 1418. 

BEFORE THE AMENDMENT, SEC. 3 HAD PROHIBITED DUTIES "ON EXPORTS FROM
PUERTO RICO," BUT HAD PROVIDED THAT "TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY,
INTERNAL REVENUE" ETC., "MAY BE IMPOSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INSULAR
AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS, RESPECTIVELY, AS MAY BE PROVIDED AND DEFINED
BY THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO.  ...  "  CONGRESS, BY THE AMENDMENT,
ADDED TO SEC. 3 A PROVISO "THAT THE INTERNAL-REVENUE TAXES LEVIED BY
THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO IN PURSUANCE OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY
THIS ACT ON ARTICLES, GOODS, WARES OR MERCHANDISE MAY BE LEVIED AND
COLLECTED AS SUCH LEGISLATURE MAY DIRECT, ON THE ARTICLES SUBJECT TO
SAID TAX, AS SOON AS THE SAME ARE MANUFACTURED, SOLD, USED, OR BROUGHT
INTO THE ISLAND:  PROVIDED, THAT NO DISCRIMINATION BE MADE BETWEEN THE
ARTICLES IMPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES OR FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND
SIMILAR ARTICLES PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED IN PUERTO RICO.  THE
OFFICIALS OF THE CUSTOMS AND POSTAL SERVICES OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
HEREBY DIRECTED TO ASSIST THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS OF THE PUERTO RICAN
GOVERNMENT IN THE COLLECTION OF THESE TAXES." 

THE PLAIN PURPORT OF THE WORDS OF THIS PROVISO IS THAT ANY TAX
AUTHORIZED BY THE ORGANIC ACT WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES OF DOMESTIC
PRODUCTION MAY LIKEWISE BE LEVIED WITH RESPECT TO IMPORTED ARTICLES "AS
SOON AS  ...  (THEY)  ...  ARE MANUFACTURED, SOLD, USED, OR BROUGHT
INTO THE ISLAND" PROVIDED ONLY THAT THERE BE NO TAX DISCRIMINATION
BETWEEN ARTICLES BROUGHT FROM THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AND DOMESTIC ARTICLES.  THE AMENDMENT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN OCCASIONED BY
DOUBTS WHICH HAD ARISEN WHETHER MERCHANDISE BROUGHT TO THE ISLAND FROM
THE UNITED STATES WAS SUBJECT TO LOCAL TAXATION WHILE IN THE ORIGINAL
PACKAGE AND ALSO WHETHER THE MERCHANDISE HAS, WHILE IN THE CONTROL OF
THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES, THE SAME STATUS AS RESPECTS LOCAL TAXATION AS
GOODS SIMILARLY CONTROLLED WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPORTED FROM FOREIGN
COUNTRIES AND WHETHER THE POWER OF THE INSULAR LEGISLATURE TO TAX
IMPORTS FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES WAS ANY GREATER THAN THAT OF THE STATES
WHICH ARE FORBIDDEN, BY CLAUSE 2, OF SEC. 10 OF ART. I OF THE
CONSTITUTION, TO TAX IMPORTS AND EXPORTS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
CONGRESS.  S. REPT. NO. 1011, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.  CF.
SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S. 506, WITH BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294
U.S. 511, 526.  THESE QUESTIONS WERE INVOLVED IN PUERTO RICO TAX
APPEALS, 16 F.2D 545, DECIDED JANUARY 7, 1927, SHORTLY BEFORE THE
AMENDMENT OF SEC. 3 OF THE ORGANIC ACT.  THE JUDGMENTS IN THAT CASE
WERE REVERSED AND THE SUITS ORDERED DISMISSED BY THIS COURT FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION, OCTOBER 24, 1927(275 U.S. 56), AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO THE
ORGANIC ACT OF MARCH 4, 1927, WHICH DEPRIVED THE FEDERAL COURTS OF
JURISDICTION IN THE PENDING AND OTHER LIKE SUITS TO RESTRAIN THE
ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF PUERTO RICO TAXES. 

MOREOVER PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED IN
LEVYING INSULAR TAXES UPON GOODS ON THEIR ARRIVAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES AND WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF POSTAL OR CUSTOMS
OFFICERS, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE LOCAL TAX WHILE IN ITS PRACTICAL
EFFECT A CUSTOMS DUTY WAS NOT COLLECTED BY POSTAL OR CUSTOMS
OFFICIALS.  S. REPT. NO. 1011, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE DOUBTS AND
THE DIFFICULTY WERE REMOVED BY THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 3, GIVING THE
CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT THAT ARTICLES SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE TAXING
JURISDICTION OF THE PUERTO RICO LEGISLATURE AS SOON AS BROUGHT INTO THE
ISLAND WHETHER FROM THE UNITED STATES OR FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND
DIRECTING THAT THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS OFFICIALS AND POSTAL SERVICE
SHOULD AID LOCAL OFFICERS IN THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX.  THE EFFECT OF
THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT ONLY TO SUBJECT TO TAXATION
ALL IMPORTED GOODS, WHETHER FROM THE UNITED STATES OR FOREIGN
COUNTRIES, WHEN BROUGHT INTO THE ISLAND IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE, BUT TO
NEUTRALIZE THE REGULATORY EFFECT OF THE CUSTOMS LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN
SO FAR AS THEY PROTECTED ARTICLES FROM LOCAL TAXATION AFTER THEIR
ARRIVAL.  MERCHANDISE IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE WAS THUS SUBJECTED TO TAX
WHEN BROUGHT INTO THE ISLAND WITHOUT REGARD TO CUSTOMS REGULATIONS.  IT
WOULD SEEM PLAIN THAT OTHER MERCHANDISE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE WAS
LEFT IN NO MORE FAVORABLE SITUATION AND IN THE FACE OF THE BROAD AND
UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE ONE, MORE
THAN THE OTHER, IS IMMUNE FROM LOCAL TAXATION.  EVEN IF THE OIL SOLD AS
SHIPS' STORES WERE TO BE REGARDED AS "EXPORTED," CF. SWAN & FINCH CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 190 U.S. 143, 145; UNITED STATES V. CHAVEZ, 228 U.S.
525; CUNARD S.S. CO. V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 100, THE TAX IS ONE CLEARLY
WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE PROVISO ADDED TO SEC. 3 AND SO IS ONE CONSENTED
TO BY THE UNITED STATES. 

THE PROCEDURE FOR SEGREGATING IMPORTED MERCHANDISE IN BOND WITHOUT
PAYMENT OF CUSTOMS DUTIES PENDING ITS WITHDRAWAL AND SHIPMENT OUT OF
THE COUNTRY IS OLD, LONG ANTEDATING THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 3 OF THE
ORGANIC ACT.  SEE MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP., SUPRA.  THE LATER ACTS
OF 1930 AND 1932 THUS PLACED FUEL OIL, SO FAR AS PUERTO RICO IS
CONCERNED, IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS OTHER MERCHANDISE BROUGHT INTO THE
ISLAND IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE OR IN BOND WHICH, BY VIRTUE OF THE
PROVISO OF SEC. 3 OF THE ORGANIC ACT, WAS MADE SUBJECT TO LOCAL
TAXATION AS SOON AS BROUGHT INTO THE ISLAND.  THE EXTENSION BY CONGRESS
TO FUEL OIL OF THE BENEFITS OF THE CUSTOMS LAWS AND REGULATIONS
AFFECTING MERCHANDISE IMPORTED IN BOND DID NOT IMPLY THAT THOSE LAWS
AND REGULATIONS WERE TO BE GIVEN ANY DIFFERENT EFFECT IN PUERTO RICO
THAN THEY THEN WERE PERMITTED TO HAVE UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ORGANIC ACT. 
IN ANY EVENT, CONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP OF GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL
LEGISLATION TO LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO OUR TERRITORIES
AND POSSESSIONS, REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT TO BE FAVORED AND WILL
NOT BE ADJUDGED UNLESS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION TO REPEAL IS CLEAR. 
POSADAS V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 296 U.S. 497, 501 ET SEQ. AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING. 

THIS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED ON THE AUTHORITY OF MCGOLDRICK V.
GULF OIL CORP., 309 U.S. 414.  THAT CASE HAS JUST ESTABLISHED THE
SUPERIORITY OF A FEDERAL STATUTE FOR THE PROTECTION OF COMMERCE OVER A
STATE'S RIGHT TO LEVY A SALES TAX.  IN IT WE POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLENARY POWER OF CONGRESS OVER COMMERCE TO PERMIT
LOCAL EXACTIONS TO CUT INTO THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES PROVIDED THROUGH
THE REMISSION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES TO SUPPLIERS AND EXPORTERS BY THE SHIP
STORES AND FUEL OIL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 309 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930
AND SEC. 601(B) AND SEC. 630 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED THESE ADVANTAGES TO GIVE OUR SHIP CHANDLERS OPPORTUNITY TO
COMPETE FOR THIS TRADE ON AN EVEN BASIS WITH NONRESIDENTS.  THE GULF
OIL CASE HELD THAT IMPORTED FUEL OIL CARRIED IN NEW YORK BONDED
WAREHOUSES FOR EXPORT MIGHT BE SOLD, UNDER TREASURY OVERSIGHT, TO
NONCOASTWISE SHIPPING WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE CITY SALES TAX.  THE
OPINION DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WOULD BE THWARTED IF
LOCAL TAXATION WERE PERMITTED TO INTERFERE.  THE SAME HOLDING IN MY
OPINION IS REQUIRED HERE. 

FUEL OIL IMPORTS INTO PUERTO RICO ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME TARIFF
PROVISIONS, REGULATIONS FOR BONDED WAREHOUSES AND DELIVERIES IN BOND TO
PURCHASERS FOR USE IN OVERSEAS VOYAGES AS ARE THOSE INTO THE
CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE BUTLER ACT IS HELD BY
THE COURT TO REQUIRE DIFFERENT TREATMENT IN NEW YORK OR PUERTO RICO OF
THE SAME SITUATION, DESPITE THE TAX INEQUALITY PRODUCED BETWEEN THE
RESPECTIVE TAXING UNITS.  ONE WOULD EXPECT THAT PUERTO RICO WOULD HAVE
NO MORE AUTHORITY THAN A STATE TO LEVY A SALES TAX ON BONDED FUEL OIL;
BUT THIS COURT'S RULING PERMITS IT TO TAX WHERE NEW YORK FAILED. 

THE AUTHORITY IS SAID TO LIE IN THE GRANT BY CONGRESS TO PUERTO RICO
OF THE RIGHT TO TAX "AS SOON AS THE SAME (ARTICLES SUBJECT TO TAX) ARE
MANUFACTURED, SOLD, USED, OR BROUGHT INTO THE ISLAND."  AS THE FUEL OIL
IS BROUGHT INTO THE ISLAND, THIS COURT'S OPINION CONCLUDES, IT IS
TAXABLE.  THE REPORT UPON THE BUTLER ACT POINTS OUT THE REASON FOR ITS
ENACTMENT.  FN1  IT WAS TO ENABLE PUERTO RICO TO TAX IN THE ORIGINAL
PACKAGE.  IT SHOULD TAKE MORE THAN A GENERAL TAX AUTHORIZATION TO
DESTROY THE SYMMETRY OF THE FEDERAL CONTROL OVER IMPORTS BONDED FOR
EXPORT AND TO PERMIT LOCAL TAXATION IN PUERTO RICO OF WHAT IS FREE FROM
LOCAL TAXATION IN NEW YORK.  "BROUGHT" SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN WHEN
GOODS PASS FROM THE CUSTOMS CONTROL TO PRIVATE CONTROL, OR THE
AUTHORITY TO TAX OF THE BUTLER ACT SHOULD BE HELD TO BE SUBJECT TO THE
FEDERAL POWER OF TAX EXEMPTION EXERCISED GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF FUEL OIL
BY SEC. 309 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AND SEC. 601(B) AND SEC. 630 OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  SINCE THE RIGHT TO TAX IMPORTS IN THE
ORIGINAL PACKAGE, GRANTED PUERTO RICO BY THE BUTLER ACT, MERELY MAKES
GOODS IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE IN PUERTO RICO TAXABLE AS OTHER GOODS IN
THE COMMON MASS OF TAXABLE PROPERTY, THE BUTLER ACT GIVES TO PUERTO
RICO NO BROADER POWER TO TAX OIL SALES THAN WAS POSSESSED BY NEW YORK,
BY VIRTUE OF ITS SOVEREIGN POWER, IN THE GULF OIL CASE.  MCGOLDRICK V.
BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33.  NOTHING REQUIRES US TO FRUSTRATE THE
LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF FREE COMPETITION IN WORLD MARKETS. 

THE DECREE BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  "IN MAKING USE OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SECTION 3 TO LEVY AND
COLLECT INTERNAL-REVENUE TAXES THE GOVERNMENT OF PORTO RICO HAS FOUND
ITSELF UNABLE TO COLLECT SAID TAXES ON ARTICLES PURCHASED IN AND SENT
FROM THE UNITED STATES TO PORTO RICO BY MAIL, OR SOMETIMES WHEN SAID
ARTICLES ARE SENT BY VESSEL, AS THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE POST
OFFICE OR CUSTOMS OFFICIALS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD (THE)
DELIVERY OF SUCH ARTICLES SUBJECT TO THE INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX UNTIL THE
TAX IS PAID, AS SUCH TAX COLLECTED IN THIS MANNER IS IN EFFECT A
CUSTOMS DUTY.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE INTERNAL
REVENUE TAX CAN NOT BE COLLECTED WHILE THE ARTICLE SUBJECT TO THE TAX
IS IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE. 

"THIS CONDITION OF AFFAIRS HAS PRACTICALLY NULLIFIED THE POWER OF THE
INSULAR GOVERNMENT TO LEVY INTERNAL-REVENUE TAXES, AND THEREFORE THE
EFFICACY OF THIS SOURCE OF REVENUE HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED. 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF RIGHTING THIS SITUATION, A NEW PROVISION IS ADDED
TO SECTION 3, WHICH STATES AS FOLLOWS: 

"AND IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED, THAT THE INTERNAL-REVENUE TAXES LEVIED
BY THE LEGISLATURE OF PORTO RICO IN PURSUANCE OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED
BY THIS ACT ON ARTICLES, GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE MAY BE LEVIED AND
COLLECTED AS SUCH LEGISLATURE MAY DIRECT, ON THE ARTICLES SUBJECT TO
SAID TAX, AS SOON AS THE SAME ARE MANUFACTURED, SOLD, USED, OR BROUGHT
INTO THE ISLAND:  PROVIDED, THAT NO DISCRIMINATION IN RATES BE MADE
BETWEEN THE ARTICLES IMPORTED FROM THE UNITED STATES OR FOREIGN
COUNTRIES AND SIMILAR ARTICLES PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED IN PORTO RICO. 
THE OFFICIALS OF THE CUSTOMS AND POSTAL SERVICES OF THE UNITED STATES
ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO ASSIST THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS OF THE PORTO
RICAN GOVERNMENT IN THE COLLECTION OF THESE TAXES. 

"IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF PORTO RICO WILL SO MAKE USE OF
THIS POWER AS NOT TO UNNECESSARILY PLACE ANY BARRIERS IN THE WAY OF THE
FREE-TRADE CONDITIONS NOW EXISTING BETWEEN (PORTO RICO) AND THE
MAINLAND, WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL FACTOR IN THE PROGRESS AND PROSPERITY
OF PORTO RICO."  (SENATE REP. NO. 1011, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2.) 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :













HANSBERRY V. LEE, 311 U.S. 32 


NO. 29.  ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  - 372
ILL. 369 - 24 N.E.2D 37, REVERSED. 


NUMEROUS OWNERS OF LOTS IN A PARTICULAR AREA AGREED IN WRITING, EACH
SEVERALLY WITH EACH OF THE OTHERS, THAT THEIR LOTS SHOULD NOT BE SOLD
TO OR OCCUPIED BY NEGROES, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE AGREEMENT BEING
CONDITIONED, HOWEVER, UPON SIGNING BY OWNERS OF A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE
OF THE LOT FRONTAGE.  IN A CASE IN A STATE COURT, TRIED UPON AN AGREED
STATEMENT OF FACTS, IN WHICH IT WAS STIPULATED (ERRONEOUSLY) THAT THIS
CONDITION HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH, AND IN WHICH THE ISSUE LITIGATED WAS
WHETHER THE AGREEMENT HAD CEASED TO BE ENFORCEABLE IN EQUITY BY REASON
OF CHANGES IN THE RESTRICTED AREA, AN OWNER OF ONE OF THE LOTS, SUING
IN BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OF OTHERS IN LIKE SITUATION, OBTAINED A DECREE
ENJOINING VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT BY FOUR INDIVIDUALS, WHO ASSERTED
AN INTEREST IN THE RESTRICTED LAND THROUGH ANOTHER SIGNER OF THE
AGREEMENT, BUT WHO WERE NOT TREATED BY THE PLEADINGS OR DECREE AS
REPRESENTING OTHERS OR AS FORECLOSING BY THEIR DEFENSE THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS, AND WHOSE INTEREST IN DEFEATING THE CONTRACT DID NOT APPEAR TO
OUTWEIGH THEIR INTEREST IN SUSTAINING IT.  HELD: 

1.  THAT OTHERS WHO WERE PRIVY TO THE AGREEMENT, BUT NOT MADE PARTIES
TO THE LITIGATION, AND WHOSE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST WAS IN RESISTING
PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, COULD NOT BE BOUND BY THE DECREE UPON THE
THEORY THAT THE SUIT WAS A CLASS SUIT IN WHICH THEY WERE DULY
REPRESENTED.  PP. 39, 44. 

2.  THAT A DECREE OF THE STATE COURT IN A SECOND, SIMILAR SUIT,
ADJUDGING SUCH OTHER PERSONS ESTOPPED BY THE FORMER DECREE AS RES
JUDICATA FROM DEFENDING UPON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT OF
THE AGREEMENT HAD NOT BEEN FULFILLED, WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 40, 44. 

HANSBERRY ET AL. V. LEE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 652, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE IN
EQUITY ENJOINING A VIOLATION OF AN AGREEMENT OF LOT-OWNERS RESTRICTING
THE SALE AND USE OF LOTS IN A PARTICULAR AREA. 

MR. EARL B. DICKERSON, WITH WHOM MESSRS.  TRUMAN K. GIBSON, JR., C.
FRANCIS STRADFORD, LORING B. MOORE, AND IRVIN C. MOLLISON WERE ON THE
BRIEF, FOR PETITIONERS. 

THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA WAS NOT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.  POSTAL CABLE TELEGRAPH CO. V. NEWPORT, 247 U.S. 464, 476;
BRINKERHOFF-FARIS TRUST & SAVINGS CO. V. HILL, 281 U.S. 673, 679-682;
CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. NORWALK, 291 U.S. 431; WINDSOR V. MCVEIGH, 93
U.S. 274, 277; FAYERWEATHER V. RITCH, 195 U.S. 276. 

BURKE V. KLEIMAN, 277 ILL. APP. 519, WAS NOT A CLASS OR
REPRESENTATIVE SUIT. 

THIS COURT IN WABASH RAILROAD CO. V. ADELBERT COLLEGE, 208 U.S. 38,
58, HAS SOUNDED A WARNING IN RESPECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IN
REPRESENTATIVE SUITS. 

THE HOLDING OF THE BURKE V. KLEIMAN SUIT TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE SUIT
AND RES JUDICATA AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, DEPRIVED THE PETITIONERS OF
THE BENEFIT OF NOTICE AND A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND.  WINDSOR V.
MCVEIGH, 93 U.S. 274, 277. 

A RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN 500 OR MORE DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS
OWNING AS MANY OR MORE DIFFERENT AND DISSIMILAR PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE
CAN NOT BE THE SUBJECTMATTER OF A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE SUIT, THERE
BEING NO COMMON RES, NO COMMON SUBJECT MATTER, AND NO IDENTITY OF
INTEREST AMONG THEM.  IN ORDER TO BRING A REPRESENTATIVE SUIT THERE
MUST BE SOME COMMON RIGHT, RES, TITLE OR COMMON SUBJECT MATTER OR
IDENTICAL INTEREST IN ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS.  SEE SMITH V.
SWORMSTEDT, 16 HOW.  288, 303; WABASH RAILROAD CO. V. ADELBERT COLLEGE,
208 U.S. 38, 57-59; CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302 U.S. 500, 505; HALE
V. HALE, 146 ILL. 227, 258; WEBERPALS V. JENNY, 300 ILL. 157; SAUNDERS
V. POLAND PARK CO., 198 A. 269. 

SEE ALSO:  POMEROY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, 4TH ED. (1918), VOL. 1,
SEC. 268, P. 498.  SEE SCOTT V. DONALD, 165 U.S. 107, 115-117; CUTTING
V. GILBERT, 5 BLATCHFORD 259, 261. 

AN ALLEGATION IN A COMPLAINT THAT A PLAINTIFF BRINGS THE ACTION ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED DOES NOT IN ITSELF
MAKE AN ACTION A CLASS SUIT.  SEE WABASH RAILROAD CO. V. ADELBERT
COLLEGE, 208 U.S. 38, 57-59; HAMMER V. NEW YORK RAILWAY CO., 244 U.S.
266, 273. 

A REPRESENTATIVE OR CLASS SUIT IF PERMITTED AND SUSTAINED IN A CASE
LIKE THIS WOULD DESTROY, ESSENTIALLY, ALL THE PERSONAL DEFENSES TO
WHICH EACH OWNER IS ENTITLED, NAMELY:  FORGERY OF SIGNATURES, FRAUD AND
TRICKERY IN OBTAINING SIGNATURES, SIGNING UPON THE CONDITION THAT A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF OTHER OWNERS WOULD SIGN, ALTERATION OF THE
INSTRUMENT, LACHES, WAIVER, ABANDONMENT, ESTOPPEL, AND CHANGE IN THE
CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH WOULD RENDER INEQUITABLE THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PURPORTED AGREEMENT.  EACH INDIVIDUAL PARTY
SIGNATORY IS ENTITLED TO PROVE AS TO THESE, NOT ONLY IN RESPECT TO
HIMSELF BUT IN RESPECT TO ALL OTHER PURPORTED PARTIES SIGNATORY, BY
WHOM AND WITH WHOM HE IS SOUGHT TO BE BOUND.  HE IS ENTITLED TO REQUIRE
PROOF OF OR TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE AGREEMENT. 

MERE NUMBER OF PARTIES DOES NOT SUSTAIN A REPRESENTATIVE OR CLASS
SUIT.  SEE MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 529-530; HALE V.
ALLINSON, 188 U.S. 56, 77 ET SEQ.; ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN
RY. CO. V. MCKNIGHT, 244 U.S. 368, 375; KELLEY V. GILL, 245 U.S. 116
120. 

THE PROOF SHOWED THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. 
CONSEQUENTLY, NO AGREEMENT EVER CAME INTO EFFECT AND THERE WAS NO CLASS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY ANY ONE.  THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO BIND
THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR PRIVIES, WHO WERE NOT PARTIES AND NOT SERVED
WITH SUMMONS OR PROCESS IN THE FIRST CAUSE.  THE DECREE OF BURKE V.
KLEIMAN WAS THEREFORE VOID AND COULD NOT BE PLEADED AS RES JUDICATA
AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS.  SEE SCOTT V. MCNEAL, 154 U.S. 34, 48-51;
GALPIN V. PAGE, 18 WALL.  350, 365, 366; OLD WAYNE LIFE ASSN. V.
MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8, 14-18, 22, 23.  THOMPSON V. WHITMAN, 18 WALL. 
457. 

A JUDGMENT VOID FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION MAY BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED
AT ANY TIME AND IN ANY COURT.  SEE GALPIN V. PAGE, 18 WALL.  350, 366,
367.  PRESUMPTIONS WILL NOT BE INDULGED TO SUPPLY A PROPER OR VALID
SUBJECT-MATTER OR JURISDICTIONAL FACT WHERE THE EVIDENCE AND RECORD IN
THE CASE SHOW THE CONTRARY.  GALPIN V. PAGE, SUPRA, 266. 

SUCH FRAUDULENT PROCEEDINGS AND DECREE CAN NOT BE RES JUDICATA
AGAINST ANY ONE.  HATFIELD V. KING, 184 U.S. 162; GETER V. HEWITT, 22
HOW.  364; LORD V. VEASIE, 8 HOW.  251, 253. 

THE DECREE ENTERED BY THE CHANCELLOR IN THE TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED THE
PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHTS BY THE ARBITRARY SEIZURE OF THEIR PROPERTY
BY A MASTER IN CHANCERY.  THE RESULT OF THIS ACTION WAS THE FORCEFUL
TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY OF ONE CITIZEN TO ANOTHER.  THIS HARSH AND
OPPRESSIVE ACTION VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CHICAGO, B. &
Q.R. CO. V. CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226, 236, 237; MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY
CO. V. NEBRASKA, 164 U.S. 403. 

THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT ABRIDGED THE RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF PETITIONERS AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

MR. MCKENZIE SHANNON, WITH WHOM MESSRS.  ANGUS ROY SHANNON, WILLIAM
C. GRAVES, AND PRESTON B. KAVANAGH WERE ON THE BRIEF, FOR RESPONDENTS. 

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS SUCH AS THIS ARE VALID AND DO NOT OFFEND THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  CORRIGAN V. BUCKLEY, 299 F. 899; 271 U.S. 323,
330; PARMALEE V. MORRIS, 218 MICH. 625; QUEENSBOROUGH LAND CO. V.
CAZEAUX, 136 LA. 724; LOS ANGELES INVESTMENT CO. V. GARY, 181 CAL. 680;
KOEHLER V. ROWLAND, 275 MO. 573; BURKE V. KLEIMAN, 277 ILL. APP. 519;
LEE V. HANSBERRY, 291 ILL. APP. 517. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT ONE MEMBER OF A CLASS MAY NOT BE SUED BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CLASS TO ENFORCE A COMMON RIGHT.  THE REASONING
THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE PERSON SUED ARE NECESSARILY IN CONFLICT WITH
THOSE OF THE CLASS WOULD PREVENT ALL MANNER OF CLASS SUITS.  SUCH IS
NOT THE LAW OF ILLINOIS, WHICH CONSIDERS ALL MEMBERS OF A CLASS HAVING
COMMON RIGHTS NEEDING PROTECTION BOUND BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
IN A PROPER REPRESENTATIVE SUIT.  GROVES V. FARMERS STATE BANK, 368
ILL. 35, 47, 49; LEONARD V. BYE, 361 ILL. 185, 190, 192; SCHMIDT V.
MODERN WOODMEN, 261 ILL. APP. 276, 281; GREENBERG V. CHICAGO, 256 ILL.
213, 219; PEOPLE EX REL. MODERN WOODMEN V. CIRCUIT COURT, 347 ILL. 34,
46; HANNA V. READ, 102 ILL. 596, 602, 606; HARDING CO. V. HARDING, 352
ILL. 417, 426; BAYER V. BLOCK, 246 ILL. APP. 416, 421, 423, 424; PEOPLE
V. PRATHER, 343 ILL. 443, 447; KLUS V. RUSZEL, 353 ILL. 179, 183. 

RES JUDICATA IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW.  KERSH LAKE DRAINAGE DIST.
V. JOHNSON, 309 U.S. 485, 491; OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V. GAS CO., 309
U.S. 4, 8; UNION & PLANTERS BANK V. MEMPHIS, 189 U.S. 71, 75; COVINGTON
V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 198 U.S. 100, 109; WRIGHT V. GEORGIA RAILROAD &
BANKING CO., 216 U.S. 420, 429. 

THE DECISION BELOW WAS RESTED UPON A POINT OF STATE LAW ADEQUATE TO
SUPPORT IT.  THERE WAS NO FRAUD (EXCEPT SUCH AS CAN BE IMPUTED TO THE
PETITIONERS); AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD, NO FEDERAL QUESTION FOR
REVIEW BY THIS COURT IS PRESENTED. 

THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DOES NOT MENTION
PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE IN THIS
CASE DENIES THEIR RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE CONTENTION WAS FORCIBLY URGED BELOW AND IT CAN NOT
BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN IGNORED.  ON THE CONTRARY, IN BALANCING THE
EQUITIES, THE COURT MUST HAVE CONSIDERED THAT PETITIONERS' OWN
MISCONDUCT ESTOPPED THEM FROM ATTACKING RESPONDENTS' PLEA OF RES
JUDICATA, AND THAT THE DECREE BINDING THEM AS MEMBERS OF A CLASS WHOSE
RIGHTS WERE REPRESENTED IN THE PRIOR SUIT DOES NOT OFFEND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE DECREE DOES NOT OFFEND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CORRIGAN V.
BUCKLEY, 299 F. 899; ENTERPRISE IRRIGATION DIST. V. FARMERS MUTUAL
CANAL CO., 243 U.S. 157, 166; COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, 427. 

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WAS PROPER.  HANSBERRY WAS NOT REQUIRED TO
CONVEY HIS FRAUDULENTLY ACQUIRED TITLE WITHOUT COMPENSATION.  HE WAS
AFFORDED THIRTY DAYS IN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH THE COVENANT, BY CONVEYING
TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN A NEGRO FOR ANY CONSIDERATION OF HIS CHOICE. 

CF., CORNISH V. O'DONOGHUE, 30 F.2D 983; TORREY V. WOLFES, 6 F.2D
702; RUSSELL V. WALLACE, 30 F.2D 981; FOX RIVER CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 274 U.S. 651, 657. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, BY ITS
ADJUDICATION THAT PETITIONERS IN THIS CASE ARE BOUND BY A JUDGMENT
RENDERED IN AN EARLIER LITIGATION TO WHICH THEY WERE NOT PARTIES, HAS
DEPRIVED THEM OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, TO ENJOIN THE BREACH BY PETITIONERS OF AN AGREEMENT
RESTRICTING THE USE OF LAND WITHIN A DESCRIBED AREA OF THE CITY OF
CHICAGO, WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BY SOME FIVE
HUNDRED OF THE LANDOWNERS.  THE AGREEMENT STIPULATED THAT FOR A
SPECIFIED PERIOD NO PART OF THE LAND SHOULD BE "SOLD, LEASED TO OR
PERMITTED TO BE OCCUPIED BY ANY PERSON OF THE COLORED RACE," AND
PROVIDED THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE UNLESS SIGNED BY THE "OWNERS
OF 95 PER CENTUM OF THE FRONTAGE" WITHIN THE DESCRIBED AREA.  THE BILL
OF COMPLAINT SET UP THAT THE OWNERS OF 95 PER CENT OF THE FRONTAGE HAD
SIGNED; THAT RESPONDENTS ARE OWNERS OF LAND WITHIN THE RESTRICTED AREA
WHO HAVE EITHER SIGNED THE AGREEMENT OR ACQUIRED THEIR LAND FROM OTHERS
WHO DID SIGN; AND THAT PETITIONERS HANSBERRY, WHO ARE NEGROES, HAVE,
WITH THE ALLEGED AID OF THE OTHER PETITIONERS AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE
AGREEMENT, ACQUIRED AND ARE OCCUPYING LAND IN THE RESTRICTED AREA
FORMERLY BELONGING TO AN OWNER WHO HAD SIGNED THE AGREEMENT. 

TO THE DEFENSE THAT THE AGREEMENT HAD NEVER BECOME EFFECTIVE BECAUSE
OWNERS OF 95 PER CENT OF THE FRONTAGE HAD NOT SIGNED IT, RESPONDENTS
PLEADED THAT THAT ISSUE WAS RES JUDICATA BY THE DECREE IN AN EARLIER
SUIT.  BURKE V. KLEIMAN, 277 ILL. APP. 519.  TO THIS PETITIONERS
PLEADED, BY WAY OF REJOINDER, THAT THEY WERE NOT PARTIES TO THAT SUIT
OR BOUND BY ITS DECREE, AND THAT DENIAL OF THEIR RIGHT TO LITIGATE, IN
THE PRESENT SUIT, THE ISSUE OF PERFORMANCE OF THE CONDITION PRECEDENT
TO THE VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT WOULD BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR, NOR IS
IT CONTENDED THAT ANY OF PETITIONERS IS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO OR
IN PRIVITY WITH ANY OF THE PARTIES IN THE EARLIER SUIT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT, AFTER A TRIAL ON THE MERITS, FOUND THAT OWNERS OF
ONLY ABOUT 54 PER CENT OF THE FRONTAGE HAD SIGNED THE AGREEMENT, AND
THAT THE ONLY SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE BURKE CASE WAS A FALSE AND
FRAUDULENT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES THAT OWNERS OF 95 PER CENT HAD
SIGNED.  BUT IT RULED THAT THE ISSUE OF PERFORMANCE OF THE CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS RES JUDICATA AS ALLEGED
AND ENTERED A DECREE FOR RESPONDENTS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
AFFIRMED.  372 ILL. 369; 24 N.E.2D 37.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO
RESOLVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  309 U.S. 652. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD IN
BURKE V. KLEIMAN, SUPRA, FOUND THAT THAT SUIT, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
COOK COUNTY, WAS BROUGHT BY A LANDOWNER IN THE RESTRICTED AREA TO
ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT, WHICH HAD BEEN SIGNED BY HER PREDECESSOR IN
TITLE, IN BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN LIKE
SITUATION, AGAINST FOUR NAMED INDIVIDUALS, WHO HAD ACQUIRED OR ASSERTED
AN INTEREST IN A PLOT OF LAND FORMERLY OWNED BY ANOTHER SIGNER OF THE
AGREEMENT; THAT, UPON STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES IN THAT SUIT THAT THE
AGREEMENT HAD BEEN SIGNED BY OWNERS OF 95 PER CENT OF ALL THE FRONTAGE,
THE COURT HAD ADJUDGED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS IN FORCE, THAT IT WAS A
COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND BINDING ALL THE LAND WITHIN THE
DESCRIBED AREA IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT AND THOSE
CLAIMING UNDER THEM, INCLUDING DEFENDANTS, AND HAD ENTERED ITS DECREE
RESTRAINING THE BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT BY THE DEFENDANTS AND THOSE
CLAIMING UNDER THEM, AND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT HAD AFFIRMED THE
DECREE.  IT FOUND THAT THE STIPULATION WAS UNTRUE BUT HELD, CONTRARY TO
THE TRIAL COURT, THAT IT WAS NOT FRAUDULENT OR COLLUSIVE.  IT ALSO
APPEARS FROM THE RECORD IN BURKE V. KLEIMAN THAT THE CASE WAS TRIED ON
AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH RAISED ONLY A SINGLE ISSUE, WHETHER
BY REASON OF CHANGES IN THE RESTRICTED AREA, THE AGREEMENT HAD CEASED
TO BE ENFORCIBLE IN EQUITY. 

FROM THIS THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS CONCLUDED IN THE PRESENT CASE
THAT BURKE V. KLEIMAN WAS A "CLASS" OR "REPRESENTATIVE" SUIT, AND THAT
IN SUCH A SUIT, "WHERE THE REMEDY IS PURSUED BY A PLAINTIFF WHO HAS THE
RIGHT TO REPRESENT THE CLASS TO WHICH HE BELONGS, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
CLASS ARE BOUND BY THE RESULTS IN THE CASE UNLESS IT IS REVERSED OR SET
ASIDE ON DIRECT PROCEEDINGS"; THAT PETITIONERS IN THE PRESENT SUIT WERE
MEMBERS OF THE CLASS REPRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE EARLIER SUIT
AND CONSEQUENTLY WERE BOUND BY ITS DECREE, WHICH HAD RENDERED THE ISSUE
OF PERFORMANCE OF THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT
RES JUDICATA, SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.  THE COURT THOUGHT
THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE STIPULATION IN THE EARLIER SUIT THAT
OWNERS OF 95 PER CENT OF THE FRONTAGE HAD SIGNED THE AGREEMENT WAS
CONTRARY TO THE FACT, AS FOUND IN THE PRESENT SUIT, DID NOT MILITATE
AGAINST THIS CONCLUSION, SINCE THE COURT IN THE EARLIER SUIT HAD
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE FACT AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES BEFORE IT,
AND THAT ITS DETERMINATION, BECAUSE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OF
THE SUIT, EVEN THOUGH ERRONEOUS, WAS BINDING ON PETITIONERS UNTIL SET
ASIDE BY A DIRECT ATTACK ON THE FIRST JUDGMENT. 

STATE COURTS ARE FREE TO ATTACH SUCH DESCRIPTIVE LABELS TO
LITIGATIONS BEFORE THEM AS THEY MAY CHOOSE AND TO ATTRIBUTE TO THEM
SUCH CONSEQUENCES AS THEY THINK APPROPRIATE UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS
AND LAWS, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.  BUT WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, ASCRIBING TO
THE JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER COURT THE BINDING FORCE AND EFFECT OF RES
JUDICATA, IS CHALLENGED FOR WANT OF DUE PROCESS IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF
THIS COURT TO EXAMINE THE COURSE OF PROCEDURE IN BOTH LITIGATIONS TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE LITIGANT WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE THUS BEEN ADJUDICATED
HAS BEEN AFFORDED SUCH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AS ARE
REQUISITE TO THE DUE PROCESS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PRESCRIBES. 
WESTERN LIFE INDEMNITY CO. V. RUPP, 235 U.S. 261, 273. 

IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL APPLICATION IN ANGLO-AMERICAN
JURISPRUDENCE THAT ONE IS NOT BOUND BY A JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM IN A
LITIGATION IN WHICH HE IS NOT DESIGNATED AS A PARTY OR TO WHICH HE HAS
NOT BEEN MADE A PARTY BY SERVICE OF PROCESS.  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S.
714; 1 FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS (5TH ED.), SEC. 407.  A JUDGMENT RENDERED
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES, R.S. SEC. 905,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 687, PRESCRIBE, PENNOYER V. NEFF, SUPRA; LAFAYETTE INS.
CO. V. FRENCH, 18 HOW.  404; HALL V. LANNING, 91 U.S. 160; BAKER V.
BAKER, ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394; AND JUDICIAL ACTION ENFORCING IT
AGAINST THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF THE ABSENT PARTY IS NOT THAT DUE
PROCESS WHICH THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS REQUIRE.  POSTAL
TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. NEWPORT, 247 U.S. 464; OLD WAYNE MUTUAL LIFE
ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8. 

TO THESE GENERAL RULES THERE IS A RECOGNIZED EXCEPTION THAT, TO AN
EXTENT NOT PRECISELY DEFINED BY JUDICIAL OPINION, THE JUDGMENT IN A
"CLASS" OR "REPRESENTATIVE" SUIT, TO WHICH SOME MEMBERS OF THE CLASS
ARE PARTIES, MAY BIND MEMBERS OF THE CLASS OR THOSE REPRESENTED WHO
WERE NOT MADE PARTIES TO IT.  SMITH V. SWORMSTEDT, 16 HOW.  288; ROYAL
ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531; HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. IBS, 237 U.S.
662; HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. BARBER, 245 U.S. 146; SUPREME TRIBE OF
BEN-HUR V. CAUBLE, 255 U.S. 356; CF. CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302
U.S. 500. 

THE CLASS SUIT WAS AN INVENTION OF EQUITY TO ENABLE IT TO PROCEED TO
A DECREE IN SUITS WHERE THE NUMBER OF THOSE INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT
OF THE LITIGATION IS SO GREAT THAT THEIR JOINDER AS PARTIES IN
CONFORMITY TO THE USUAL RULES OF PROCEDURE IS IMPRACTICABLE.  COURTS
ARE NOT INFREQUENTLY CALLED UPON TO PROCEED WITH CAUSES IN WHICH THE
NUMBER OF THOSE INTERESTED IN THE LITIGATION IS SO GREAT AS TO MAKE
DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE THE JOINDER OF ALL BECAUSE SOME ARE NOT WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OR BECAUSE THEIR WHEREABOUTS IS UNKNOWN OR WHERE IF
ALL WERE MADE PARTIES TO THE SUIT ITS CONTINUED ABATEMENT BY THE DEATH
OF SOME WOULD PREVENT OR UNDULY DELAY A DECREE.  IN SUCH CASES WHERE
THE INTERESTS OF THOSE NOT JOINED ARE OF THE SAME CLASS AS THE
INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO ARE, AND WHERE IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE LATTER
FAIRLY REPRESENT THE FORMER IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE LITIGATION OF THE
ISSUES IN WHICH ALL HAVE A COMMON INTEREST, THE COURT WILL PROCEED TO A
DECREE.  BROWN V. VERMUDEN, CH. CAS. 272; CITY OF LONDON V. RICHMOND, 2
VERN.  421; COCKBURN V. THOMPSON, 16 VES.  JR. 321; WEST V. RANDALL,
FED. CAS. NO. 17,424; 2 MASON 181; BEATTY V. KURTZ, 2 PET. 566; SMITH
V. SWORMSTEDT, SUPRA; SUPREME TRIBE OF BEN-HUR V. CAUBLE, SUPRA; STORY,
EQUITY PLEADING (2D ED.)  SEC.  98. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MAY INDUCE A COURT THUS
TO PROCEED, DESPITE A TECHNICAL DEFECT OF PARTIES, MAY DIFFER FROM
THOSE WHICH MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE
ABSENT PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THE DECREE OR, IF IT IS ADJUDGED THAT THEY
ARE, IN ASCERTAINING WHETHER SUCH AN ADJUDICATION SATISFIES THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS AND OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT. 
NEVERTHELESS, THERE IS SCOPE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION
FOR HOLDING IN APPROPRIATE CASES THAT A JUDGMENT RENDERED IN A CLASS
SUIT IS RES JUDICATA AS TO MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO ARE NOT FORMAL
PARTIES TO THE SUIT.  HERE, AS ELSEWHERE, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES
NOT COMPEL STATE COURTS OR LEGISLATURES TO ADOPT ANY PARTICULAR RULE
FOR ESTABLISHING THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENTS IN CLASS SUITS; CF.
BROWN V. NEW JERSEY, 175 U.S. 172; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278;
UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123; AVERY V. ALABAMA,
308 U.S. 444, 446, 447, NOR DOES IT COMPEL THE ADOPTION OF THE
PARTICULAR RULES THOUGHT BY THIS COURT TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  WITH A PROPER REGARD FOR DIVERGENT LOCAL INSTITUTIONS
AND INTERESTS, CF. JACKSON COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343, 351,
THIS COURT IS JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT THERE HAS BEEN A FAILURE OF DUE
PROCESS ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PROCEDURE
ADOPTED, FAIRLY INSURES THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF ABSENT
PARTIES WHO ARE TO BE BOUND BY IT.  CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. CHICAGO,
166 U.S. 226, 235. 

IT IS FAMILIAR DOCTRINE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS THAT MEMBERS OF A CLASS
NOT PRESENT AS PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION MAY BE BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT
WHERE THEY ARE IN FACT ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED BY PARTIES WHO ARE
PRESENT, OR WHERE THEY ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN THE CONDUCT OF THE
LITIGATION IN WHICH MEMBERS OF THE CLASS ARE PRESENT AS PARTIES, PLUMB
V. GOODNOW'S ADMINISTRATOR, 123 U.S. 560; CONFECTIONERS' MACHINERY CO.
V. RACINE ENGINE & MACH. CO., 163 F. 914; 170 F. 1021; BRYANT ELECTRIC
CO. V. MARSHALL, 169 F. 426, OR WHERE THE INTEREST OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE CLASS, SOME OF WHOM ARE PRESENT AS PARTIES, IS JOINT, OR WHERE FOR
ANY OTHER REASON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES PRESENT AND THOSE
WHO ARE ABSENT IS SUCH AS LEGALLY TO ENTITLE THE FORMER TO STAND IN
JUDGMENT FOR THE LATTER.  SMITH V. SWORMSTEDT, SUPRA; CF. CHRISTOPHER
V. BRUSSELBACK, SUPRA, 503, 504, AND CASES CITED. 

IN ALL SUCH CASES, SO FAR AS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE
CLASS WHO ARE PRESENT ARE, BY GENERALLY RECOGNIZED RULES OF LAW,
ENTITLED TO STAND IN JUDGMENT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT, WE MAY ASSUME FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES THAT SUCH PROCEDURE AFFORDS A PROTECTION TO THE
PARTIES WHO ARE REPRESENTED, THOUGH ABSENT, WHICH WOULD SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS AND FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SEE BERNHEIMER V.
CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516; MARIN V. AUGEDAHL, 247 U.S. 142; CHANDLER V.
PEKETZ, 297 U.S. 609.  NOR DO WE FIND IT NECESSARY FOR THE DECISION OF
THIS CASE TO SAY THAT, WHEN THE ONLY CIRCUMSTANCE DEFINING THE CLASS IS
THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF ITS MEMBERS TURNS UPON A SINGLE
ISSUE OF FACT OR LAW, A STATE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ADOPT A
PROCEDURE WHEREBY SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS COULD STAND IN
JUDGMENT FOR ALL, PROVIDED THAT THE PROCEDURE WERE SO DEVISED AND
APPLIED AS TO INSURE THAT THOSE PRESENT ARE OF THE SAME CLASS AS THOSE
ABSENT AND THAT THE LITIGATION IS SO CONDUCTED AS TO INSURE THE FULL
AND FAIR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMON ISSUE.  COMPARE NEW ENGLAND
DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184, 197; TAGGART V. BREMNER, 236 F. 544.  WE
DECIDE ONLY THAT THE PROCEDURE AND THE COURSE OF LITIGATION SUSTAINED
HERE BY THE PLEA OF RES JUDICATA DO NOT SATISFY THESE REQUIREMENTS. 

THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT DID NOT PURPORT TO CREATE A JOINT
OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY.  IF VALID AND EFFECTIVE ITS PROMISES WERE THE
SEVERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE SIGNERS AND THOSE CLAIMING UNDER THEM.  THE
PROMISES RAN SEVERALLY TO EVERY OTHER SIGNER.  IT IS PLAIN THAT IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES ALL THOSE ALLEGED TO BE BOUND BY THE AGREEMENT WOULD NOT
CONSTITUTE A SINGLE CLASS IN ANY LITIGATION BROUGHT TO ENFORCE IT.
THOSE WHO SOUGHT TO SECURE ITS BENEFITS BY ENFORCING IT COULD NOT BE
SAID TO BE IN THE SAME CLASS WITH OR REPRESENT THOSE WHOSE INTEREST WAS
IN RESISTING PERFORMANCE, FOR THE AGREEMENT BY ITS TERMS IMPOSES
OBLIGATIONS AND CONFERS RIGHTS ON THE OWNER OF EACH PLOT OF LAND WHO
SIGNS IT.  IF THOSE WHO THUS SEEK TO SECURE THE BENEFITS OF THE
AGREEMENT WERE RIGHTLY REGARDED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT AS
CONSTITUTING A CLASS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THOSE SIGNERS OR THEIR
SUCCESSORS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE
AGREEMENT AND RESISTING ITS PERFORMANCE ARE NOT OF THE SAME CLASS IN
THE SENSE THAT THEIR INTERESTS ARE IDENTICAL SO THAT ANY GROUP WHO HAD
ELECTED TO ENFORCE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE AGREEMENT COULD BE SAID TO
BE ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF ANY OTHERS WHO WERE FREE TO DENY ITS
OBLIGATION. 

BECAUSE OF THE DUAL AND POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF THOSE
WHO ARE PUTATIVE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT IN COMPELLING OR RESISTING
ITS PERFORMANCE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY, SOLELY BECAUSE THEY ARE
PARTIES TO IT, THAT ANY TWO OF THEM ARE OF THE SAME CLASS.  NOR WITHOUT
MORE, AND WITH THE DUE REGARD FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF
ABSENT PARTIES WHICH DUE PROCESS EXACTS, CAN SOME BE PERMITTED TO STAND
IN JUDGMENT FOR ALL. 

IT IS ONE THING TO SAY THAT SOME MEMBERS OF A CLASS MAY REPRESENT
OTHER MEMBERS IN A LITIGATION WHERE THE SOLE AND COMMON INTEREST OF THE
CLASS IN THE LITIGATION, IS EITHER TO ASSERT A COMMON RIGHT OR TO
CHALLENGE AN ASSERTED OBLIGATION.  SMITH V. SWORMSTEDT, SUPRA; SUPREME
TRIBE OF BEN-HUR V. CAUBLE, SUPRA; GROVES V. FARMERS STATE BANK, 368
ILL. 35; 12 N.E.2D 618.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO HOLD THAT ALL THOSE WHO
ARE FREE ALTERNATIVELY EITHER TO ASSERT RIGHTS OR TO CHALLENGE THEM ARE
OF A SINGLE CLASS, SO THAT ANY GROUP, MERELY BECAUSE IT IS OF THE CLASS
SO CONSTITUTED, MAY BE DEEMED ADEQUATELY TO REPRESENT ANY OTHERS OF THE
CLASS IN LITIGATING THEIR INTERESTS IN EITHER ALTERNATIVE.  SUCH A
SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR PURPOSES OF LITIGATION, WHOSE
SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY OR EVEN PROBABLY THE SAME AS
THOSE WHOM THEY ARE DEEMED TO REPRESENT, DOES NOT AFFORD THAT
PROTECTION TO ABSENT PARTIES WHICH DUE PROCESS REQUIRES.  THE DOCTRINE
OF REPRESENTATION OF ABSENT PARTIES IN A CLASS SUIT HAS NOT HITHERTO
BEEN THOUGHT TO GO SO FAR.  SEE TERRY V. BANK OF CAPE FEAR, 20 F. 777,
781; WEIDENFELD V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 129 F. 305, 310; MCQUILLEN
V. NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO., 22 F.SUPP.  867, 873, AFF'D 112 F.2D
877, 882; BRENNER V. TITLE GUARANTEE & TRUST CO., 276 N.Y. 230; 11
N.E.2D 890; CF. WABASH R. CO. V. ADELBERT COLLEGE, 208 U.S. 38; COE V.
ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, 237 U.S. 413.  APART FROM THE OPPORTUNITIES IT
WOULD AFFORD FOR THE FRAUDULENT AND COLLUSIVE SACRIFICE OF THE RIGHTS
OF ABSENT PARTIES, WE THINK THAT THE REPRESENTATION IN THIS CASE NO
MORE SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS THAN A TRIAL BY A
JUDICIAL OFFICER WHO IS IN SUCH SITUATION THAT HE MAY HAVE AN INTEREST
IN THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION IN CONFLICT WITH THAT OF THE
LITIGANTS.  TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S. 510. 

THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE BURKE CASE SOUGHT TO COMPEL PERFORMANCE OF THE
AGREEMENT IN BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. 
THEY DID NOT DESIGNATE THE DEFENDANTS IN THE SUIT AS A CLASS OR SEEK
ANY INJUNCTION OR OTHER RELIEF AGAINST OTHERS THAN THE NAMED
DEFENDANTS, AND THE DECREE WHICH WAS ENTERED DID NOT PURPORT TO BIND
OTHERS.  IN SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT THE PLAINTIFFS IN THAT
SUIT WERE NOT REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS HERE WHOSE SUBSTANTIAL
INTEREST IS IN RESISTING PERFORMANCE.  THE DEFENDANTS IN THE FIRST SUIT
WERE NOT TREATED BY THE PLEADINGS OR DECREE AS REPRESENTING OTHERS OR
AS FORECLOSING BY THEIR DEFENSE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS; AND, EVEN THOUGH
NOMINAL DEFENDANTS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEIR INTEREST IN DEFEATING
THE CONTRACT OUTWEIGHED THEIR INTEREST IN ESTABLISHING ITS VALIDITY. 
FOR A COURT IN THIS SITUATION TO ASCRIBE TO EITHER THE PLAINTIFFS OR
DEFENDANTS THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH FUNCTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
HERE, IS TO ATTRIBUTE TO THEM A POWER THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THEY
HAD ASSUMED TO EXERCISE, AND A RESPONSIBILITY WHICH, IN VIEW OF THEIR
DUAL INTERESTS IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THEY COULD RIGHTLY DISCHARGE. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED
CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :













HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL MILLS, 311 U.S. 46 


NO. 121.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  - 110
F.2D 286, REVERSED. 


1.  PROVISIONS OF TAX STATUTES GRANTING EXEMPTIONS ARE TO BE STRICTLY
CONSTRUED.  P. 49. 

2.  SECTION 26(C)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 ALLOWS, IN THE
COMPUTATION OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 14 ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS, A
CREDIT FOR SUCH UNDISTRIBUTED EARNINGS AS THE CORPORATION COULD NOT
DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT VIOLATING "A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT
EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION  ...  , WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS
WITH THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS."  HELD THAT, WHERE THE RESTRICTION ON
DISTRIBUTION BY THE CORPORATION WAS THE RESULT OF A PROHIBITION BY
STATE LAW, THE CREDIT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE.  P. 49. 

3.  THE CORPORATION'S CHARTER, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THE STATE LAW,
DOES NOT IN SUCH CASE CONSTITUTE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 26(C)(1),
"A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION" WHICH "EXPRESSLY DEALS
WITH THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS."  P. 51. 

4.  THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 26(C)(1) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A CREDIT
WHEN THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS IS PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW IS FURTHER
SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION OF SEC. 26(C)(2) OF THE ACT AND BY THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION.  P. 49. 

5.  AS HERE CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, THE TAXING ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, (A) BY DISCRIMINATING, IN THE ALLOWANCE OF A
CREDIT, BETWEEN CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE BARRED FROM DISTRIBUTING
DIVIDENDS BY "WRITTEN" CONTRACTS AND THOSE WHICH ARE RESTRAINED ORAL
CONTRACTS OR BY STATE LAW; OR (B) BY IMPOSING A TAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED
"INCOME" OF A CORPORATION WHICH HAS AN EXISTING DEFICIT.  P. 52. 

6.  NOR DOES IT VIOLATE THE TENTH AMENDMENT, SINCE THE RESERVED
POWERS OF THE STATES OVER CORPORATIONS - TO PRESCRIBE THEIR POWERS AND
CONDITION THE EXERCISE THEREOF - ARE NOT INFRINGED.  P. 53. 

7.  THE TAX IS AUTHORIZED BY THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ALTHOUGH
IMPOSED ON THE INCOME ONLY IF NOT DISTRIBUTED, THE TAX NEVERTHELESS IS
ON INCOME AND NOT ON CAPITAL, IT BEING IMPOSED ON PROFITS EARNED DURING
A DEFINITE PERIOD - THE TAX YEAR.  P. 53. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. NORTHWEST STEEL
ROLLING MILLS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 629, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION
OF A TAX DEFICIENCY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT CORPORATION, BECAUSE OF A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING DEFICIT, WAS
PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW FN1  FROM DISTRIBUTING AS DIVIDENDS ITS PROFITS
EARNED IN 1936.  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS STATE PROHIBITION, THE
COMMISSIONER HELD RESPONDENT LIABLE UNDER THE 1936 REVENUE ACT  FN2
FOR SURTAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER; FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  FN4  ON A SIMILAR STATE OF FACTS THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT HELD UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAXABLE.  FN5  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI IN BOTH CASES TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT.  FN6 

PROFITS EARNED BUT NOT DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS DURING THE TAX YEAR. 
PROFITS WHICH THE CORPORATION COULD NOT DISTRIBUTE AS DIVIDENDS
"WITHOUT VIOLATING A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE
CORPORATION PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936, WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS WITH
THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS." 

THE ONLY "WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION" UPON WHICH
RESPONDENT RELIES FOR ITS CLAIMED EXEMPTION IS ITS CORPORATE CHARTER,
GRANTED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.  UPON THE PREMISES THAT
RESPONDENT'S WASHINGTON CHARTER WAS A WRITTEN CONTRACT, AND THAT THE
WASHINGTON LAWS PROHIBITING DIVIDEND PAYMENTS WERE BY OPERATION OF LAW
A PART OF THAT CONTRACT, THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT THE TAXPAYER
HAD SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 26(C)(1). 

WE MUST THEREFORE DECIDE WHETHER SEC. 26(C)(1) AUTHORIZED A CREDIT OR
DEDUCTION TO CORPORATIONS PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW FROM DISTRIBUTING
DIVIDENDS.  AND RESPONDENT STRONGLY URGES THAT THE ACT, IF CONSTRUED TO
DENY SUCH CREDIT, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

FIRST.  IT IS MATERIAL THAT WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH A GENERALLY
IMPOSED SURTAX UPON THE UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME OF CORPORATIONS, AND
THAT RESPONDENT'S CLAIM IS FOR A CREDIT IN THE NATURE OF A SPECIALLY
PERMITTED DEDUCTION.  IT HAS BEEN SAID MANY TIMES THAT PROVISIONS
GRANTING SPECIAL TAX EXEMPTIONS ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  FN7 

MEASURED BY THIS SOUND STANDARD IT IS PROBABLY NOT NECESSARY TO GO
BEYOND THE PLAIN WORDS OF SEC. 26(C)(1) IN SEARCH OF THE LEGISLATIVE
MEANING.  CERTAINLY, AT FIRST BLUSH, FEW WOULD SUPPOSE THAT WHEN
CONGRESS GRANTED A SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO CORPORATIONS WHOSE DIVIDEND
PAYMENTS WERE PROHIBITED BY EXECUTED WRITTEN CONTRACTS, IT THEREBY
INTENDED TO GRANT AN EXEMPTION TO CORPORATIONS WHOSE DIVIDEND PAYMENTS
WERE PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW.  THE NATURAL IMPRESSION CONVEYED BY THE
WORDS "WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION" IS THAT AN
EXPLICIT UNDERSTANDING HAS BEEN REACHED, REDUCED TO WRITING, SIGNED AND
DELIVERED.  TRUE, OBLIGATIONS NOT SET OUT AT LENGTH IN A WRITTEN
CONTRACT MAY BE INCORPORATED BY SPECIFIC REFERENCE, OR EVEN BY
IMPLICATION.  BUT CONGRESS INDICATED THAT ANY EXEMPTED PROHIBITION
AGAINST DIVIDEND PAYMENTS MUST BE EXPRESSLY WRITTEN IN THE EXECUTED
CONTRACT.  IT DID THIS BY ADDING A PRECAUTIONARY CLAUSE THAT THE
GRANTED CREDIT CAN ONLY RESULT FROM A PROVISION WHICH "EXPRESSLY DEALS
WITH THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS." 

THAT THE LANGUAGE USED IN SEC. 26(C)(1) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A CREDIT
FOR STATUTORILY PROHIBITED DIVIDENDS IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY A
CONSIDERATION OF SEC. 26(C)(2).  BY THIS SECTION, A CREDIT IS ALLOWED
TO CORPORATIONS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO SET EARNINGS ASIDE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF DEBTS.  FN8  THAT THIS SECTION REFERRED TO ROUTINE CONTRACTS
DEALING WITH ORDINARY DEBTS AND NOT TO STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS IS OBVIOUS
- YET THE WORDS USED TO INDICATE THAT THE SECTION HAD REFERENCE ONLY TO
A "WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE CORPORATION" ARE IDENTICAL WITH
THOSE USED IN SEC. 26(C)(1).  THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THAT A BROADER MEANING BE ATTACHED TO THESE WORDS AS
USED IN SEC. 26(C)(1) THAN ATTACHED TO THEM UNDER THE NECESSARY
LIMITATIONS OF 26(C)(2). 

RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 26(C)(1)
SUPPORTS ITS CONTENTION.  BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT HISTORY POINTS IN
THE OTHER DIRECTION.  THE ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL CONTAINED SEPARATE RELIEF
PROVISIONS (1) FOR DEFICIT CORPORATIONS SUCH AS RESPONDENT; (2) FOR
CORPORATIONS CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO PAY DEBTS; AND (3) FOR
CORPORATIONS CONTRACTUALLY PROHIBITED FROM PAYING DIVIDENDS.  FN9  THE
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE STRUCK OUT ALL THREE OF THESE HOUSE
PROVISIONS, BUT SUBSTITUTED AN EQUIVALENT FOR THE THIRD.  FN10  AN
AMENDMENT FROM THE SENATE FLOOR RESTORED AN EQUIVALENT OF THE SECOND. 
FN11  BUT THE BILL AS FINALLY PASSED CONTAINED NO EXPRESS RELIEF
PROVISION RELATING TO DEFICIT CORPORATIONS. 

IT IS TRUE, AS RESPONDENT CONTENDS, THAT A CHARTER HAS BEEN
JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT INSOFAR AS IT GRANTS RIGHTS,
PROPERTIES, PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES.  FN12  TO THIS EXTENT IT HAS
BEEN SAID THAT AN ACT OF INCORPORATION IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATE
AND THE STOCKHOLDERS.  FN13  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO INCLUDE CORPORATE CHARTERS AND RELATED STATE LAWS IN THE
CAUTIOUSLY LIMITED AREA PERMISSIBLE FOR TAX CREDITS AND DEDUCTIONS
UNDER THIS SECTION.  NOR HAVE THE COURTS CONSIDERED THAT ALL THE
PROVISIONS OF LAWS PROVIDING FOR THE GRANT OF CORPORATE FRANCHISES ARE
NECESSARILY CONTRACTUAL IN THEIR NATURE.  THE SAME LEGISLATIVE ACT IS A
LAW AS WELL AS A GRANT, AND THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SAME
LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT MAY BE BOTH A CONTRACT - WHICH CANNOT BE IMPAIRED
- AND A LAW, SUBJECT TO REPEAL, MODIFICATION, ALTERATION, OR AMENDMENT
WITHIN THE GENERAL LEGISLATIVE POWERS.  FN14  RESPONDENT'S CHIEF
RELIANCE IS UPON THAT CHARTER PROVISION WHICH REQUIRED THAT IT CONFORM
TO THE EXISTING AND FUTURE LAWS OF WASHINGTON.  BUT THAT PROVISION IS
NOT A GRANT AND IS NOT A CONTRACT.  WITH OR WITHOUT SUCH A CHARTER
PROVISION, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE CORPORATION TO CONFORM TO VALID
WASHINGTON STATUTES.  THE CORPORATION WAS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF
WASHINGTON; IT COULD NOT RISE ABOVE IT.  A CORPORATE CHARTER TO OPERATE
A PARTICULAR BUSINESS IN A PARTICULAR MANNER DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE STATE
OF ITS INHERENT POWER OF LEGISLATION TOUCHING CORPORATE ACTIVITIES. 
AND THE GRANT OF A FRANCHISE DOES NOT EXEMPT THE CORPORATION FROM THE
REQUIREMENT THAT IT OBEY STATE LEGISLATION VALIDLY ADOPTED IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  FN15  IT CANNOT BE SAID, THEREFORE,
THAT THE CHARTER PROVISION THAT THE CORPORATION SHOULD OBEY WASHINGTON
LAW, INCLUDING THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION AGAINST DISTRIBUTING
DIVIDENDS, WAS A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY
RESPONDENT.  MORE, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON UNDER
WHICH THE GENERAL CORPORATION LAWS WERE ENACTED PROVIDES THAT "ALL LAWS
RELATING TO CORPORATIONS MAY BE ALTERED, AMENDED, OR REPEALED BY THE
LEGISLATURE AT ANY TIME, AND ALL CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS IN THIS
STATE MAY, AS TO SUCH BUSINESS, BE REGULATED, LIMITED, OR RESTRAINED BY
LAW."  FN16  IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT WHAT PROHIBITED RESPONDENT
FROM DISTRIBUTING DIVIDENDS WAS NOT THE PROVISION OF AN EXECUTED
WRITTEN CONTRACT EXPRESSLY DEALING WITH THE PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS.  ON
THE CONTRARY, WHAT PROHIBITED RESPONDENT FROM PAYING DIVIDENDS WAS A
VALID LAW OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.  FN17 

SECOND.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE TAX STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED,
OFFENDS THE FIFTH, TENTH AND SIXTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  NONE OF THOSE
CONTENTIONS IS VALID.  FN18 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ACT OFFENDS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT PERMITS CREDITS OR DEDUCTIONS IN THE CASE OF
CORPORATIONS RESTRAINED FROM A DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS UNDER A GIVEN
TYPE OF WRITTEN CONTRACT, WHILE NOT PERMITTING ANY CREDIT OR DEDUCTION
TO CORPORATIONS RESTRAINED FROM DISTRIBUTION BY ORAL CONTRACTS OR BY
THE LAWS OF A STATE.  THIS CONTENTION IS WITHOUT MERIT.  IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO POINT OUT THE MANY OBVIOUS REASONS THAT MIGHT UNDERLIE THE
DISTINCTIONS HERE DRAWN IN GRANTING SPECIAL DEDUCTIONS FROM A GENERALLY
IMPOSED TAX. 

RESPONDENT ALSO URGES THAT THE TAX AS APPLIED TO IT AMOUNTS TO A
CONFISCATION OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE THE TAX
IS IMPOSED, NOT ON INCOME, BUT ONLY ON UNDISTRIBUTED INCOME, AND THAT
THERE CAN BE NO UNDISTRIBUTED INCOME SO LONG AS THE CORPORATION HAS AN
EXISTING DEFICIT.  BUT THE SURTAX HERE IS IMPOSED UPON THE
UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME OF THE CORPORATION "FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR." 
IT IS TRUE THAT THE SURTAX IS IMPOSED UPON THE ANNUAL INCOME ONLY IF IT
IS NOT DISTRIBUTED, BUT THIS DOES NOT SERVE TO MAKE IT ANYTHING OTHER
THAN A TRUE TAX ON INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  NOR IS IT TRUE, AS RESPONDENT URGES, THAT BECAUSE THERE
MIGHT BE AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE CAPITAL STOCK, THE TAX ON THE CURRENT
ANNUAL PROFIT WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A TAX UPON CAPITAL.  WHETHER
THERE WAS AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OR NOT, THE TAX HERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION WAS IMPOSED ON PROFITS EARNED DURING A DEFINITE PERIOD -
A TAX YEAR - AND THEREFORE ON PROFITS CONSTITUTING INCOME WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE STATUTE AS HERE APPLIED VIOLATES THE TENTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO
PRESCRIBE THE POWERS OF CORPORATIONS AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
THEIR POWERS MAY BE EXERCISED.  BUT THE STATUTE IN NO WAY LIMITS THE
POWERS OF THE CORPORATION.  IT IMPOSES A TAX AS AUTHORIZED BY THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AND DOES NOT INFRINGE UPON THE POWERS RESERVED TO
THE STATE BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  FN19  THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR;
ITS JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "NO CORPORATION SHALL PAY DIVIDENDS  ...  EXCEPT FROM THE
SURPLUS OF THE AGGREGATE OF ITS ASSETS OVER THE AGGREGATE OF ITS
LIABILITIES.  ..."  WASH. REV. STAT. ANN. (REMINGTON, 1932), TIT. 25,
SEC. 3803-24. 

FN2  49 STAT. 1648, 1655. 

FN3  THE MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE BOARD IS NOT OFFICIALLY REPORTED;
THE BOARD RELIED ON ITS EARLIER OPINION IN CRANE-JOHNSON CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 38 B.T.A. 1355. 

FN4  110 F.2D 286. 

FN5  CRANE-JOHNSON CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 105 F.2D 740. 

FN6  309 U.S. 692; POST, P. 629. 

FN7  E.G., DEPUTY V. DU PONT, 308 U.S. 488, 493; WHITE V. UNITED
STATES, 305 U.S. 281, 292; NEW COLONIAL ICE CO. V. HELVERING, 292 U.S.
435, 440. 

FN8  49 STAT. 1664.  THE CREDIT ALLOWED IS "AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE
PORTION OF THE EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR WHICH IS
REQUIRED (BY A PROVISION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE
CORPORATION PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1936, WHICH PROVISION EXPRESSLY DEALS WITH
THE DISPOSITION OF EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF THE TAXABLE YEAR) TO BE PAID
WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR IN DISCHARGE OF A DEBT, OR TO BE IRREVOCABLY
SET ASIDE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR THE DISCHARGE OF A DEBT; TO THE
EXTENT THAT SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN SO PAID OR SET ASIDE." 

FN9  H.R. 12395, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., SECS. 14, 15, AND 16; SEE H.
REP. NO. 2475, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 8-9. 

FN10  SEE S. REP. NO. 2156, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 12-13, 15-16. 

FN11  80 CONG. REC. 9071, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN12  TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT.  518; HOME
BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 429. 

FN13  THE BINGHAMTON BRIDGE, 3 WALL.  51, 73. 

FN14  OREGON & CALIFORNIA RAILROAD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S.
393, 427. 

FN15  HAMMOND PACKING CO. V. ARKANSAS, 212 U.S. 322, 345. 

FN16  WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 12, SEC. 1. 

FN17  RESPONDENT CONTENDED THAT THE STOCK CERTIFICATES SATISFIED THE
STATUTORY REQUISITES EVEN IF THE CHARTER DID NOT; BUT WHAT WE HAVE HERE
SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARTER APPLIES EQUALLY TO THE CERTIFICATES. 

FN18  CF. HELVERING V. NATIONAL GROCERY CO., 304 U.S. 282. 

FN19  HELVERING V. NATIONAL GROCERY CO., SUPRA, AT 286-287.  AND CF.
FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12, 17:  "CONGRESS CANNOT ACCOMMODATE ITS
LEGISLATION TO THE CONFLICTING OR DISSIMILAR LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES
NOR CONTROL THE DIVERSE CONDITIONS TO BE FOUND IN THE VARIOUS STATES
WHICH NECESSARILY WORK UNLIKE RESULTS FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE SAME
TAX." 
..END :



















CRANE-JOHNSON CO. V. HELVERING, 311 U.S. 54 


NO. 8.  ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  - 105
F.2D 740, AFFIRMED. 


DECIDED ON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL ROLLING
MILLS, ANTE, P. 46. 

CRANE-JOHNSON COMPANY V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 692, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 38 B.T.A. 1355, WHICH SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A TAX DEFICIENCY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BECAUSE OF A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING DEFICIT, PETITIONER CORPORATION WAS
PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW FN1  FROM DISTRIBUTING AS DIVIDENDS ITS PROFITS
EARNED IN 1936.  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS STATE PROHIBITION, THE
COMMISSIONER HELD RESPONDENT LIABLE UNDER THE 1936 REVENUE ACT  FN2
FOR SURTAX ON UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER,  FN3  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  FN4  ON A SIMILAR STATE OF FACTS THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS EXEMPT FROM SURTAX.  FN5
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH CASES TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT.  FN6  THE
LEGAL QUESTIONS HERE PRESENTED ARE IN ALL RESPECTS THE SAME AS THOSE
PRESENTED IN HELVERING V. NORTHWEST STEEL ROLLING MILLS, ANTE, P. 46,
AND ON THE AUTHORITY OF THAT CASE THE DECISION BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THE DIRECTORS OF CORPORATIONS MUST NOT MAKE DIVIDENDS EXCEPT
FROM THE SURPLUS PROFITS ARISING FROM THE BUSINESS THEREOF  ..."  N.D.
COMP. LAWS (SUPP. 1925) SEC. 4543. 

FN2  49 STAT. 1648, 1655. 

FN3  38 B.T.A. 1355. 

FN4  105 F.2D 740. 

FN5  NORTHWEST STEEL ROLLING MILLS V. COMMISSIONER, 110 F.2D 286. 

FN6  309 U.S. 692; POST, P. 629. 
..END :







RILEY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 55 


NO. 50.  ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  - 110
F.2D 655, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME IN THE CASE OF MINES, SEC.
114(B)(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 PERMITS DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPLETION
ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS PROVIDED THAT THE TAXPAYER IN MAKING HIS "FIRST
RETURN" UNDER THE ACT ELECTS TO AVAIL OF THAT BASIS.  HELD THAT AN
AMENDED RETURN, FILED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR
FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN, INCLUDING SUCH EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD AS
THE COMMISSIONER WAS EMPOWERED TO GRANT, WAS NOT A "FIRST RETURN"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION.  P. 57. 

2.  THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE CONSTRUCTION THUS
GIVEN THE STATUTE WORKS A HARDSHIP ON THE TAXPAYER, MAY BE THE BASIS OF
AN APPEAL TO CONGRESS FOR RELIEF BUT NOT TO THE COURTS.  P. 59. 

3.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN THIS CASE WAS CORRECT AND MUST
BE SUSTAINED WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT GAVE A WRONG REASON FOR ITS
ACTION.  P. 59. 

J.E. RILEY INVESTMENT CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHICH, ON PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION OF
INCOME TAX, UPHELD THE COMMISSIONER'S RULING DENYING PERCENTAGE
DEPLETION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT OF THE
DECISION BELOW (110 F.2D 655) WITH C.H. MEAD COAL CO. V. COMMISSIONER,
106 F.2D 388. 

PETITIONER IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING GOLD AT FLAT,
ALASKA.  THE WINTER MAIL SERVICE TO AND FROM THAT REMOTE PLACE WAS SO
UNCERTAIN AND SLOW THAT, IN ORDER TO AVOID DELINQUENCY IN INCOME TAX
RETURNS, PETITIONER'S OFFICERS WERE ACCUSTOMED TO USE THE FORMS FOR AN
EARLIER YEAR.  CONSEQUENTLY PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL RETURN FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 1934 WAS FILED ON A 1933 FORM WHICH HAD BEEN MAILED TO
PETITIONER BY THE COLLECTOR AT TACOMA, WASHINGTON.  THIS RETURN WAS
EXECUTED ON JANUARY 2, 1935, AND REACHED TACOMA ON JANUARY 29, 1935. 
WHEN IT WAS EXECUTED PETITIONER DID NOT KNOW OF THE PROVISION  FN1  IN
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934(48 STAT. 680) ALLOWING PERCENTAGE DEPLETION. 
BUT PETITIONER DID KNOW THAT UNLESS THE LAW HAD BEEN CHANGED IT WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO DEPLETION, AS IT HAD NO BASIS FOR COST DEPLETION.  THE
COLLECTOR IN SENDING THE 1933 FORMS HAD NOT ADVISED PETITIONER WITH
RESPECT TO PERCENTAGE DEPLETION.  AND IT WAS FOUND THAT IF PETITIONER
HAD KNOWN OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION FOR PERCENTAGE DEPLETION, IT WOULD
HAVE ELECTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. PETITIONER FIRST ACTUALLY LEARNED
OF THE PROVISION IN AUGUST, 1935.  ON MARCH 3, 1936, PETITIONER FILED
AN AMENDED RETURN FOR 1934 UPON WHICH A DEDUCTION OF PERCENTAGE
DEPLETION WAS TAKEN; AND IT ASKED FOR A REFUND.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS UPHELD THE COMMISSIONER'S RULING DENYING PERCENTAGE DEPLETION
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 

SEC. 114(B)(4) OF THE 1934 ACT REQUIRED THE TAXPAYER TO ELECT IN HIS
"FIRST RETURN" WHETHER THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE WAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH
OR WITHOUT REGARD TO PERCENTAGE DEPLETION.  THE METHOD SO ELECTED IS
APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO THE YEAR IN QUESTION BUT TO ALL SUBSEQUENT
TAXABLE YEARS. 

WE THINK THAT PETITIONER'S AMENDED RETURN, FILED ON MARCH 3, 1936,
WAS NOT A "FIRST RETURN" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 114(B)(4).  BY SEC.
53(A)(1) OF THE 1934 ACT, THE RETURN WAS DUE ON OR BEFORE MARCH 15,
1935.  BY SEC. 53(A)(2) THE COMMISSIONER WAS EMPOWERED TO GRANT A
REASONABLE EXTENSION FOR FILING RETURNS  FN2  BUT, SO FAR AS APPLICABLE
HERE, NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS.  HAGGAR CO. V. HELVERING, 308 U.S. 389,
WOULD COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT HAD THE AMENDED RETURN BEEN FILED
WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN A "FIRST RETURN" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 114(B)(4).  BUT WE CAN
FIND NO STATUTORY SUPPORT FOR THE VIEW THAT AN AMENDMENT MAKING THE
ELECTION PROVIDED FOR IN THAT SECTION MAY BE FILED AS OF RIGHT AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN. 

WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH AN AMENDMENT DESIGNED MERELY TO CORRECT
ERRORS AND MISCALCULATIONS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN.  ADMITTEDLY THE
TREASURY HAS BEEN LIBERAL IN ACCEPTING SUCH AMENDED RETURNS EVEN THOUGH
FILED AFTER THE PERIOD FOR FILING ORIGINAL RETURNS.  FN3  THIS,
HOWEVER, IS NOT A CASE WHERE A TAXPAYER IS MERELY DEMANDING A CORRECT
COMPUTATION OF HIS TAX FOR A PRIOR YEAR BASED ON FACTS AS THEY
EXISTED.  PETITIONER IS SEEKING BY THIS AMENDMENT NOT ONLY TO CHANGE
THE BASIS UPON WHICH ITS TAXABLE INCOME WAS COMPUTED FOR 1934 BUT TO
ADOPT A NEW METHOD OF COMPUTATION FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  THAT
OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED AS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE GRACE; THE ELECTION
HAD TO BE MADE IN THE MANNER AND IN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS. 
THE OFFER WAS LIBERAL.  BUT THE METHOD OF ITS ACCEPTANCE WAS
RESTRICTED.  THE OFFER PERMITTED AN ELECTION ONLY IN AN ORIGINAL RETURN
OR IN A TIMELY AMENDMENT.  AN AMENDMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC.
114(B)(4) WOULD BE TIMELY ONLY IF FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD PROVIDED BY
THE STATUTE FOR FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN.  NO OTHER TIME LIMITATION
WOULD HAVE STATUTORY SANCTION.  TO EXTEND THE TIME BEYOND THE LIMITS
PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT IS A LEGISLATIVE, NOT A JUDICIAL, FUNCTION. 

STRONG PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORT THIS POSITION. 

IF PETITIONER'S VIEW WERE ADOPTED, TAXPAYERS WITH THE BENEFIT OF
HINDSIGHT COULD SHIFT FROM ONE BASIS OF DEPLETION TO ANOTHER IN LIGHT
OF DEVELOPMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THEIR ORIGINAL CHOICE.  IT SEEMS CLEAR
THAT CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT THE ELECTION MUST BE MADE ONCE AND FOR ALL
IN THE FIRST RETURN IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY SUCH SHIFTS.  AND TO REQUIRE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING ON A SHOWING OF
CAUSE FOR DELAY WOULD BE TO VEST IN IT DISCRETION WHICH THE CONGRESS
DID NOT SEE FIT TO DELEGATE. 

PETITIONER URGES THAT THIS RESULT WILL PRODUCE A HARDSHIP HERE.  IT
STRESSES THE FACT THAT IT HAD NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEW
OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED IT BY SEC. 114(B)(4) OF THE 1934 ACT AND THAT
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD THEREFORE GOVERN.  THAT MAY BE THE
BASIS FOR AN APPEAL TO CONGRESS IN AMELIORATION OF THE STRICTNESS OF
THAT SECTION.  BUT IT IS NO GROUND FOR RELIEF BY THE COURTS FROM THE
RIGORS OF THE STATUTORY CHOICE WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED. 

FINALLY, PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT WE CANNOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF
THE TIMELINESS OF THE AMENDED RETURN SINCE BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RESPONDENT URGED ONLY THAT
PETITIONER'S CLAIM WAS BASED UPON AN AMENDED, RATHER THAN AN ORIGINAL,
RETURN.  BUT EVEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT ISSUE DID NOT EMBRACE THE
QUESTION OF TIMELINESS, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS JUSTIFIED IN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  WHERE THE DECISION
BELOW IS CORRECT IT MUST BE AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE COURT THOUGH THE
LOWER TRIBUNAL GAVE A WRONG REASON FOR ITS ACTION.  HELVERING V.
GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238, 245-246.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 114(B)(4) PROVIDED: 

"THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION UNDER SECTION 23(M) SHALL BE, IN THE
CASE OF COAL MINES, 5 PER CENTUM, IN THE CASE OF METAL MINES, 15 PER
CENTUM, AND, IN THE CASE OF SULPHUR MINES OR DEPOSITS, 23 PER CENTUM,
OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR,
EXCLUDING FROM SUCH GROSS INCOME AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ANY RENTS OR
ROYALTIES PAID OR INCURRED BY THE TAXPAYER IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY. 
SUCH ALLOWANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 PER CENTUM OF THE NET INCOME OF THE
TAXPAYER (COMPUTED WITHOUT ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION) FROM THE PROPERTY. 
A TAXPAYER MAKING HIS FIRST RETURN UNDER THIS TITLE IN RESPECT OF A
PROPERTY SHALL STATE WHETHER HE ELECTS TO HAVE THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
FOR SUCH PROPERTY FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR FOR WHICH THE RETURN IS MADE
COMPUTED WITH OR WITHOUT REGARD TO PERCENTAGE DEPLETION, AND THE
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROPERTY FOR SUCH YEAR SHALL BE
COMPUTED ACCORDING TO THE ELECTION MADE.  IF THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MAKE
SUCH STATEMENT IN THE RETURN, THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH PROPERTY
FOR SUCH YEAR SHALL BE COMPUTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PERCENTAGE
DEPLETION.  THE METHOD, DETERMINED AS ABOVE, OF COMPUTING THE DEPLETION
ALLOWANCE SHALL BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE PROPERTY FOR ALL TAXABLE
YEARS IN WHICH IT IS IN THE HANDS OF SUCH TAXPAYER, OR OF ANY OTHER
PERSON IF THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTY (FOR DETERMINING GAIN) IN HIS HANDS
IS, UNDER SECTION 113, DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO THE BASIS IN THE
HANDS OF SUCH TAXPAYER, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH ONE OR MORE
SUBSTITUTED BASES, AS DEFINED IN THAT SECTION." 

FN2  SEE TREASURY REGULATIONS NO. 86, ARTS. 53-1 - 53-4 INC. 

FN3  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, TREASURY REGULATIONS NO. 86, ART. 43-2,
GOVERNING THE FILING OF AMENDED RETURNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTING
LOSSES WHICH WERE SUSTAINED DURING A PRIOR TAXABLE YEAR.  CF. UNION
METAL MFG. CO., 1 B.T.A. 395. 
..END :























UNITED STATES V. STEWART, 311 U.S. 60 


NO. 13.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  - 106
F.2D 405, REVERSED. 


1.  THE EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION GRANTED BY SEC. 26 OF THE FARM LOAN
ACT OF 1916 TO FARM LOAN BONDS AND THE "INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM," DOES
NOT APPLY TO INCOME DERIVED FROM DEALINGS OR TRANSACTIONS IN SUCH
BONDS, AND SUCH INCOME IS TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1928.  APPLYING WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216.  PP. 61, 63. 

2.  ACTS OF CONGRESS WHICH ARE IN PARI MATERIA ARE TO BE TAKEN
TOGETHER, AS IF THEY WERE ONE LAW.  P. 64. 

3.  THE LATER OF ACTS WHICH ARE IN PARI MATERIA MAY BE REGARDED AS A
LEGISLATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE EARLIER, AND IS ENTITLED TO GREAT
WEIGHT IN RESOLVING DOUBTS AND AMBIGUITIES.  P. 64. 

4.  THE FARM LOAN ACT OF 1916 AND THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916(ENACTED
SHORTLY AFTERWARD AT THE SAME SESSION OF CONGRESS) ARE IN PARI
MATERIA.  THAT IN THE CASE OF FARM LOAN BONDS THE LATTER ACT, LIKE THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928, EXPRESSLY EXEMPTS INCOME FROM "INTEREST" ALONE IS
PERSUASIVE THAT THE FORMER DOES NOT EXEMPT CAPITAL GAINS.  P. 64. 

5.  THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 26 OF THE FARM LOAN ACT DOES NOT EXEMPT
INCOME DERIVED FROM DEALINGS OR TRANSACTIONS IN FARM LOAN BONDS IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION.  P. 65. 

6.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 817 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938, THAT "ALL
INCOME, EXCEPT INTEREST, DERIVED" FROM FARM LOAN BONDS SHALL BE
INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME, CAN NOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN INTENDED
TO CHANGE THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING LAW, SO FAR AS THE QUESTION INVOLVED
IN THIS CASE IS CONCERNED.  P. 66. 

7.  AN ANALYSIS OF NUMEROUS OTHER EXEMPTION STATUTES IS OF LITTLE
WEIGHT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN DETERMINING THE MEANING OF "INCOME
DERIVED THEREFROM" IN SEC. 26.  P. 69. 

8.  THE FARM LOAN BOARD WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS
THAT CAPITAL GAINS FROM DEALINGS IN FARM LOAN BONDS WERE NOT TAXABLE,
AND STATEMENTS BY THE BOARD, WHICH A PURCHASER SO INTERPRETED AND ON
WHICH HE RELIED, CAN NOT BE ACCORDED THE WEIGHT OF UNIFORM AND LONG
ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE TREATMENT.  P. 70. 

9.  AN OFFICER OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM NO
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DELEGATED CAN NOT, EVEN BY AN
AFFIRMATIVE UNDERTAKING, WAIVE OR SURRENDER A PUBLIC RIGHT AND THEREBY
ESTOP THE UNITED STATES.  P. 70. 

10.  EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION MAY NOT REST UPON MERE IMPLICATION; AND
STATUTORY PROVISIONS GRANTING EXEMPTIONS ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED. 
P. 71. 

UNITED STATES V. STEWART. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 647, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE TAXPAYER, 24 F.SUPP.  145, IN A SUIT TO RECOVER A REFUND OF
INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT OF THE DECISION
BELOW (106 F.2D 405) WITH STERN BROTHERS & CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 108
F.2D 309. 

DURING THE YEAR 1930 RESPONDENT PURCHASED FARM LOAN BONDS ISSUED BY
JOINT-STOCK LAND BANKS UNDER THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT OF 1916(39 STAT.
360).  THE PURCHASES WERE MADE FOR THE PROSPECTIVE INCREMENT TO THE
BONDS AND NOT FOR THEIR INTEREST.  AT THE TIME THE PURCHASES WERE MADE
THE BANKS WERE IN RECEIVERSHIP.  THE BONDS WERE ACQUIRED AT PRICES
SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW PAR. IN MAKING THESE PURCHASES RESPONDENT RELIED
UPON STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN CIRCULARS AND BULLETINS ISSUED BY THE FARM
LOAN BOARD, REASONABLY BELIEVING THAT HE WAS PURCHASING SECURITIES THE
PROFIT UPON WHICH IN CASE OF SALE WOULD BE EXEMPT INCOME.  A PART OF
THE BONDS SO PURCHASED, WITH THEIR APPURTENANT COUPONS, WAS SOLD IN
1931; AND A PART WAS SURRENDERED IN THAT YEAR TO THE RECEIVER OF THE
ISSUING BANK IN EXCHANGE FOR CASH PAID TO RESPONDENT "UNDER AND
PURSUANT TO THE COVENANTS CONTAINED" IN THE BONDS.  EACH OF THESE
TRANSACTIONS RESULTED IN A PROFIT TO RESPONDENT.  FN1  THE COMMISSIONER
HELD THAT THOSE GAINS WERE TAXABLE INCOME.  CONSEQUENTLY, RESPONDENT
INCLUDED THEM IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1931 AND CLAIMED A
REFUND.  ON DISALLOWANCE OF THAT CLAIM, THIS SUIT FOR REFUND WAS
INSTITUTED.  THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED THAT THE GAINS SO REALIZED
WERE INCOME AND TAXABLE.  24 F.SUPP.  145.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED. 

SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928(45 STAT. 791) INCLUDES IN GROSS
INCOME "GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM  ...  SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL."  SEC. 22(B)(4) EXEMPTS
FROM TAXATION "INTEREST UPON  ...  SECURITIES ISSUED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, OR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
SUCH ACT AS AMENDED." 

IF THOSE TWO SECTIONS ARE CONTROLLING, IT IS CLEAR THAT RESPONDENT IS
TAXABLE ON THESE GAINS, FOR THEY FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF
GROSS INCOME CONTAINED IN SEC. 22(A) AND THEY ARE NOT "INTEREST"  FN2
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 22(B)(4).  BUT RESPONDENT PLACES HIS MAIN
RELIANCE ON SEC. 26 OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT
"FARM LOAN BONDS ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL BE
DEEMED AND HELD TO BE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND AS SUCH THEY AND THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM SHALL BE
EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL, STATE MUNICIPAL, AND LOCAL TAXATION."  IT IS URGED
THAT THE GAINS HERE INVOLVED WERE "INCOME DERIVED" FROM THE BONDS
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT SECTION. 

WE DISAGREE WITH THAT CONCLUSION.  IT IS OUR VIEW THAT UNDER SEC. 26
RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO AN EXEMPTION ONLY FOR INTEREST ON THE BONDS. 

TO BE SURE, "INCOME" IS A GENERIC TERM AMPLY BROAD TO INCLUDE CAPITAL
GAINS FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX.  MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. V.
SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509.  IT IS LIKEWISE TRUE THAT CONGRESS WILL BE
PRESUMED TO HAVE USED A WORD IN ITS USUAL AND WELL-SETTLED SENSE.  OLD
COLONY R. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 284 U.S. 552; DEPUTY V. DU PONT, 308
U.S. 488.  BUT SEC. 26 DOES NOT EXEMPT SIMPLY "INCOME"; IT EXEMPTS THE
BONDS AND THE "INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM."  ANALYTICALLY, INCOME DERIVED
FROM MERE OWNERSHIP OF THE BONDS IS CLEARLY DIFFERENT FROM INCOME
DERIVED FROM DEALINGS OR TRANSACTIONS IN THE BONDS.  AS STATED IN
WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216, 227-228: 

"THE TAX UPON INTEREST IS LEVIED UPON THE RETURN WHICH COMES TO THE
OWNER OF THE SECURITY ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE OBLIGATION AND
WITHOUT ANY FURTHER TRANSACTION ON HIS PART.  THE TAX FALLS UPON THE
OWNER BY VIRTUE OF THE MERE FACT OF OWNERSHIP, REGARDLESS OF USE OR
DISPOSITION OF THE SECURITY.  THE TAX UPON PROFITS MADE UPON PURCHASES
AND SALES IS AN EXCISE UPON THE RESULT OF THE COMBINATION OF SEVERAL
FACTORS, INCLUDING CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND, QUITE GENERALLY, SOME
MEASURE OF SAGACITY; THE GAIN MAY BE REGARDED AS 'THE CREATION OF
CAPITAL, INDUSTRY AND SKILL.'  TAX COMMISSIONER V. PUTNAM, 227 MASS.
522, 531." 

TRUE, THE BUNN CASE DEALT ONLY WITH THE ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL
INHIBITION AGAINST TAXATION OF CAPITAL GAINS ON MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOT
WITH A SPECIFIC STATUTORY EXEMPTION.  BUT ITS ANALYSIS IS COGNATE HERE
AS INDICATING THAT, IN ABSENCE OF CLEAR COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE, AN
EXEMPTION OF "INCOME DERIVED" FROM A SECURITY DOES NOT EMBRACE "INCOME
DERIVED" FROM TRANSACTIONS IN THAT SECURITY. 

THERE ARE NO CIRCUMSTANCES HERE WHICH SHOULD MAKE THE REASONING OF
THE BUNN CASE INAPPLICABLE. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916(39 STAT. 756) WAS ENACTED SHORTLY AFTER THE
FARM LOAN ACT BY THE SAME CONGRESS AND AT THE SAME SESSION.  FN3  SEC.
2 OF THAT ACT, LIKE SEC. 22(A) OF THE 1928 ACT, INCLUDED IN TAXABLE
INCOME "GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM  ...  SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY."  AND SEC. 4 OF THAT ACT, LIKE SEC. 22(B)(4) OF
THE 1928 ACT, EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION "INTEREST UPON  ...  SECURITIES
ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT."  IT IS CLEAR
THAT "ALL ACTS IN PARI MATERIA ARE TO BE TAKEN TOGETHER, AS IF THEY
WERE ONE LAW."  UNITED STATES V. FREEMAN, 3 HOW.  556, 564.  THAT THESE
TWO ACTS ARE IN PARI MATERIA IS PLAIN.  BOTH DEAL WITH PRECISELY THE
SAME SUBJECT MATTER, VIZ., THE SCOPE OF THE TAX EXEMPTION AFFORDED FARM
LOAN BONDS.  THE LATER ACT CAN THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS A LEGISLATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE EARLIER ACT (COPE V. COPE, 137 U.S. 682, 688; CF.
STOCKDALE V. INSURANCE COMPANIES, 20 WALL.  323, 331-332) IN THE SENSE
THAT IT AIDS IN ASCERTAINING THE MEANING OF THE WORDS AS USED IN THEIR
CONTEMPORARY SETTING.  FN4  IT IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT IN
RESOLVING ANY AMBIGUITIES AND DOUBTS.  CF. UNITED STATES V. STAFOFF,
260 U.S. 477, 480.  IN THAT VIEW THE EXPRESS EXEMPTION OF INTEREST
ALONE MAKES TOLERABLY CLEAR THAT CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT EXEMPT. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTRARY VIEW GREAT STRESS IS PLACED ON THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 26.  EXTENSIVE REFERENCES ARE MADE TO THE
HEARINGS ON THIS BILL AND TO THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS.  TYPICAL ARE THE
STATEMENTS OR CRITICISMS THAT THE BILL GAVE "THESE INVESTMENTS A
DISTINCT ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER INVESTMENTS,"  FN5  THAT THE EXEMPTION
PROVISION WAS  FN6  THAT MAINTENANCE OF A MARKET FOR THE BONDS WAS
DESIRABLE,  FN7  THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS TOO BROAD.  FN8  THESE
COMMENTS, HOWEVER, ARE INCONCLUSIVE.  THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
DISCRIMINATING IN THEIR ANALYSIS OR CRITICISM TO THROW LIGHT ON THE
NARROW ISSUE INVOLVED HERE. 

RESPONDENT'S RESORT TO ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 26 IS
EQUALLY UNPRODUCTIVE.  NO ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IS
SHOWN.  THE HOLDING OF THE UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM  FN9  OF THE GENERAL
COUNSEL OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE RELIED UPON IS NOT PRECISELY
IN POINT, EVEN WERE WE TO ASSUME THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO AUTHORITATIVE
WEIGHT.  FN10  IT MERELY RULED THAT A JOINT-STOCK LAND BANK WAS NOT
TAXABLE ON GAINS FROM PURCHASES OF ITS OWN BONDS.  AND WHEN THE
QUESTION OF THE TAXABILITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL ON HIS CAPITAL GAINS FROM
SALES OF THESE BONDS WAS RAISED LESS THAN TWO YEARS LATER, ANOTHER SUCH
RULING WAS ISSUED TO THE EFFECT THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ANY
EXEMPTION.  FN11 

NOR IS RESPONDENT MATERIALLY AIDED BY THE CHANGE IN SEC. 26 MADE BY
SEC. 817 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938(52 STAT. 447, 578).  THAT AMENDMENT
PROVIDES THAT "ALL INCOME, EXCEPT INTEREST, DERIVED" FROM SUCH BONDS,
SHALL BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME.  FN12  IT IS URGED THAT THIS
AMENDMENT IS AFFIRMATIVE RECOGNITION BY THE CONGRESS THAT SEC. 26
EXEMPTS THESE CAPITAL GAINS.  BUT HERE AGAIN THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD IS
AMBIGUOUS AND HENCE INCONCLUSIVE.  THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 817, AS
ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED, CLEARLY WAS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT CAPITAL GAINS
REALIZED BY JOINT-STOCK LAND BANKS ON TRANSACTIONS IN THEIR OWN
OBLIGATIONS WOULD NOT BE EXEMPT.  FN13  THE SECTION WAS AMENDED ON THE
FLOOR OF THE SENATE TO ITS PRESENT FORM ON THE SUGGESTION THAT "PERHAPS
THE LANGUAGE IS NOT AS BROAD AS IT SHOULD BE."  FN14  THE PURPOSE OF
THE AMENDMENT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN TO CLARIFY THE DOUBTFUL AND UNCERTAIN
STATUS OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH WERE NOT COVERED BY THE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION.  THERE IS NO CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS
DESIGNED TO CHANGE EXISTING LAW, SO FAR AS THESE OTHER CATEGORIES OF
CAPITAL GAINS WERE CONCERNED.  BUT EVEN IF A CONTRARY IMPLICATION WERE
TO BE ASSUMED, IT WOULD NOT OVERRIDE SO BELATEDLY THE CLEAR INFERENCE,
BASED ON A LONG SERIES OF REVENUE ACTS EXEMPTING ONLY INTEREST, THAT
CAPITAL GAINS WERE TAXABLE. 

RESPONDENT FURTHER ARGUES THAT COMPARISON OF OTHER EXEMPTION STATUTES
WITH THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 26 REINFORCES THE VIEW THAT THESE CAPITAL
GAINS ARE EXEMPT.  IN THAT CONNECTION OUR ATTENTION IS CALLED TO
NUMEROUS STATUTES - SOME EXEMPTING ONLY BONDS  FN15  AND OTHERS
EXEMPTING PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST; FN16  SOME EXEMPTING A CORPORATION,
"INCLUDING THE CAPITAL STOCK AND SURPLUS THEREIN, AND THE INCOME
DERIVED THEREFROM,"  FN17  AND OTHERS  FN18  CONTAINING SOMEWHAT
SIMILAR EXEMPTIONS FOR THE CORPORATION BUT ONLY AN EXEMPTION AS TO
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST FOR ITS BONDS; AND STILL OTHERS  FN19
CONTAINING THE SAME KIND OF EXEMPTION AS SEC. 26 OF THE FARM LOAN ACT. 
FROM THIS PAINSTAKING REVIEW RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT WHERE CONGRESS HAS
DESIRED TO EXEMPT ONLY "INTEREST" IT HAS SAID SO AND WHERE IT HAS
INTENDED TO GRANT A BROADER EXEMPTION IT HAS USED THE WORD "INCOME";
THAT STATUTES EXEMPTING ONLY "INTEREST" HAVE A NARROWER MEANING THAN
THOSE EXEMPTING "INCOME"; AND THAT THIS LONG AND RECURRENT LEGISLATIVE
PRACTICE DISCLOSES A CLEAR DESIGN ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO DRAW
DISTINCTIONS AND TO SHAPE THE VARIOUS EXEMPTIONS TO SUIT ITS DIFFERING
POLICY IN DIVERS SITUATIONS. 

SUGGESTIVE AS THIS ANALYSIS IS, IT IS ENTITLED TO LITTLE WEIGHT.  NO
MERE COLLATION OF OTHER STATUTES CAN BE DECISIVE IN DETERMINING WHAT
THE INSTANT STATUTE MEANS.  THE MEANING OF EACH PHRASE MUST BE CLOSELY
RELATED TO THE TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF ITS USE.  THE PHRASE "INCOME
DERIVED THEREFROM" AS USED IN SEC. 26 CLEARLY HAS TAKEN ON COLORATION
FROM THE EXPRESS EXEMPTION FOR NEARLY A QUARTER CENTURY OF ONLY
INTEREST ON THESE BONDS.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO INTIMATE AN OPINION AS
TO THE MEANING OF OTHER SIMILAR STATUTES.  IT IS SUFFICIENT HERE TO
NOTE THAT IN ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE SETTING "INCOME DERIVED" FROM BONDS
MAY OR MAY NOT BE SYNONYMOUS WITH "INTEREST" ON BONDS.  THAT MUST
NECESSARILY BE DEPENDENT ON A HOST OF FACTORS WHICH ONLY A MINUTE
SCRUTINY OF THE PARTICULAR LEGISLATIVE SCHEME WOULD REVEAL.  FOR THIS
REASON THE FACT THAT THE SAME CONGRESS WHICH IN 1938 AMENDED SEC. 26
GRANTED AN EXEMPTION TO ANOTHER FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY  FN20  COUCHED
IN THE IDENTICAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL SEC. 26 IS MERELY A STRAW IN
THE WIND.  SO FAR AS THE INSTANT BONDS ARE CONCERNED, THAT IN ITSELF IS
ENTITLED TO LITTLE WEIGHT AS AGAINST THE LONG STANDING EXPRESS
EXEMPTION IN SUCCESSIVE REVENUE ACTS OF INTEREST ALONE. 

RESPONDENT ALSO STRESSES THE FACT THAT CIRCULARS, PREPARED AND
DISTRIBUTED BY THE FARM LOAN BOARD "ADVISING INVESTORS OF THE MERITS
AND ADVANTAGES OF FARM LOAN BONDS,"  FN21  STATED THAT THESE BONDS AND
THEIR INCOME WERE "FREE FROM ALL FORMS OF TAXATION" INCLUDING THE
INCOME TAX, THAT "THIS EXEMPTION IS COMPLETE," ETC.  AS WE HAVE SAID,
IT WAS FOUND THAT RESPONDENT RELIED UPON SUCH STATEMENTS REASONABLY
BELIEVING THAT CAPITAL GAINS WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE.  BUT ASIDE FROM THE
FACT THAT THOSE STATEMENTS ARE HARDLY MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE STATUTE
ITSELF, THEY CANNOT BE ACCORDED THE WEIGHT OF UNIFORM AND LONG STANDING
ADMINISTRATIVE TREATMENT.  FN22  THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE BOARD
TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS THAT CAPITAL GAINS WERE OR WERE NOT TAX
EXEMPT.  THAT ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION RESIDED ONLY IN THE TREASURY.  AN
OFFICER OR AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM NO ADMINISTRATIVE
AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DELEGATED CANNOT ESTOP THE UNITED STATES EVEN BY AN
AFFIRMATIVE UNDERTAKING TO WAIVE OR SURRENDER A PUBLIC RIGHT.  UTAH V.
UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 534, 545-546; WILBER NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED
STATES, 294 U.S. 120, 123-124. 

WE RETURN TO OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE WEIGHT OF THESE VARIOUS
CONSIDERATIONS LEANS TO THE VIEW THAT ONLY INTEREST IS EXEMPT.  THE
CUMULATIVE STRENGTH OF THE SEVERAL FACTORS URGED BY RESPONDENT IS NOT
SUCH CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AS TO MAKE INAPPOSITE THE
APPLICATION OF THE REASONING OF WILLCUTS V. BUNN, SUPRA, TO THIS
SITUATION.  IN THAT POSTURE OF THE CASE, RESPONDENT HAS SUCCEEDED ONLY
IN CASTING SOME DOUBT ON THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  YET
THOSE WHO SEEK AN EXEMPTION FROM A TAX MUST REST IT ON MORE THAN A
DOUBT OR AMBIGUITY.  BANK OF COMMERCE V. TENNESSEE, 161 U.S. 134, 146;
163 U.S. 416, 423.  EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION CANNOT REST UPON MERE
IMPLICATIONS.  UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 307 U.S. 57, 60. 
AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO IN TROTTER V. TENNESSEE, 290 U.S. 354,
356, "EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION ARE NOT TO BE ENLARGED BY IMPLICATION IF
DOUBTS ARE NICELY BALANCED."  AND SEE PACIFIC CO., LTD., V. JOHNSON,
285 U.S. 480, 491.  HENCE BROAD, GENERALIZED STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS HAVE
FREQUENTLY BEEN CONSTRUED NARROWLY AND CONFINED TO THOSE SITUATIONS
WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE EXEMPTION WAS DIRECTLY, NOT INDIRECTLY
OR REMOTELY, INVOLVED.  MURDOCK V. WARD, 178 U.S. 139; HALE V. STATE
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW, 302 U.S. 95; UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V.
HELVERING, SUPRA.  THE EXEMPTION CONTAINED IN SEC. 26 OF THE FARM LOAN
ACT MUST BE SO CONSTRUED.    FOR THESE REASONS THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT
MUST BE REVERSED.    FN1  THESE PURCHASES WERE FOR RESPONDENT AND HIS
WIFE WHO FILED SEPARATE RETURNS FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION. 

FN2  THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW WHAT PORTION, IF ANY, OF THE SUMS
RECEIVED ON THE SALE OR ON THE EXCHANGE OF THE BONDS AND APPURTENANT
COUPONS WAS RECEIVED AS PAYMENT ON ACCRUED INTEREST.  NOR DID THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGE THAT ANY PORTION OF THE SUMS RECEIVED WAS EXEMPT
BECAUSE IT WAS "INTEREST" ON THE BONDS.  HENCE THAT POINT WAS NOT
RAISED BELOW OR HERE. 

FN3  THE FARM LOAN ACT BECAME LAW ON JULY 17, 1916, THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1916 ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1916. 

FN4  IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT THE EXEMPTION OF
"INTEREST" CONTAINED IN SEC. 4 OF THE 1916 ACT WAS CONTINUED IN EACH
SUBSEQUENT REVENUE ACT UNTIL 1934.  SEC. 213(B)(4), REVENUE ACT OF
1918(40 STAT. 1057, 1065); SEC. 213(B)(4), REVENUE ACT OF 1921(42 STAT.
227, 238); SEC. 213(B)(4), REVENUE ACT OF 1924(43 STAT. 253, 268); SEC.
213(B)(4), REVENUE ACT OF 1926(44 STAT. 9, 24); SEC. 22(B)(4), REVENUE
ACT OF 1928(45 STAT. 791, 798; SEC. 22(B)(4), REVENUE ACT OF 1932(47
STAT. 169, 178).  BY SEC. 22(B)(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934(48 STAT.
680, 687) THE EXEMPTION WAS GENERALIZED SO AS TO INCLUDE INTEREST ON
OBLIGATIONS OF ANY FEDERAL CORPORATION WHICH IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF
THE UNITED STATES, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION THAT INTEREST IS EXEMPT
ONLY IF AND TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED FOR IN THE ACTS OF CONGRESS
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS.  THE SENATE COMMITTEE (S.
REP. NO. 558, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 23-24; INTERNAL REV. BULL., CUM.
BULL.  1939-1, PART 2, P. 604) MADE THE FOLLOWING COMMENT ON THAT
CHANGE: 

"THIS IS MERELY A CLARIFYING CHANGE MADE BY THE HOUSE.  UNDER THE
LANGUAGE OF THIS SECTION, AS CONTAINED IN EXISTING LAW, INTEREST ON
SECURITIES ISSUED UNDER THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, OR SUCH ACT AS
AMENDED, IS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME AND THEREBY MADE
EXEMPT FROM THE INCOME TAX.  OTHER ACTS HAVE BEEN ENACTED WHICH ALSO
EXEMPT THE INTEREST ON OBLIGATIONS ISSUED THEREUNDER FROM TAX.  IN
ORDER TO BRING THE SECTION INTO ACCORD WITH THE ACTS AUTHORIZING SUCH
EXEMPTIONS AND TO AVOID THE NECESSITY OF REFERRING TO ALL SUCH ACTS, A
GENERAL PROVISION HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE HOUSE EXCLUDING FROM GROSS
INCOME THE INTEREST UPON THE OBLIGATIONS OF A CORPORATION ORGANIZED
UNDER ACT OF CONGRESS IF SUCH CORPORATION IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
UNITED STATES; SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION, HOWEVER, THAT THE INTEREST IS
EXEMPT ONLY TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED FOR IN THE ACTS OF CONGRESS
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS." 

FN5  CONG. RECORD, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. 53, PART 8, P. 7312. 
AND SEE H. REP. NO. 630, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 8. 

FN6  JOINT HEARINGS BEFORE SUB-COMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEES ON
BANKING AND CURRENCY, RURAL CREDITS, 63D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 95-97; S.
DOC. NO. 380, 63D CONG., 2D SESS., AGRICULTURAL CREDIT, REP. U.S.
COMMISSION, PP. 17, 33. 

FN7  H. DOC. NO. 679, 63D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 15, 16. 

FN8  CONG. RECORD, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 5, PP. 6850, 7311.  NOR IS
IT SIGNIFICANT THAT SUBSTITUTE BILLS WERE OFFERED (CONG. RECORD, OP.
CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 5, PP. 7385, 7387; S. 4061, 63D CONG., 2D SESS.) BY
THE TERMS OF WHICH "INTEREST" WAS EXEMPTED.  THESE WERE OVERALL
SUBSTITUTES.  THEREFORE THE IMPLICATION IS NOT WARRANTED THAT THE
FAILURE OF THEIR ADOPTION WAS DUE TO THE DESIRE OF CONGRESS TO GRANT A
BROADER EXEMPTION THAN "INTEREST." 

FN9  THIS IS REPRODUCED, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE, IN S. HEARINGS,
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., H.R. 9682, PART 4, PP. 619
621. 

FN10  SEE HELVERING V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 292 U.S. 455, 468. 

FN11  SEE AGRICULTURAL SECURITIES CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 39 B.T.A.
1103, 1111. 

FN12  THIS AMENDMENT IS PROSPECTIVE ONLY.  IT PROVIDES: 

"NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 OF THE FEDERAL FARM
LOAN ACT, AS AMENDED, IN THE CASE OF MORTGAGES MADE OR OBLIGATIONS
ISSUED BY ANY JOINT-STOCK LAND BANK AFTER THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF
THIS ACT, ALL INCOME, EXCEPT INTEREST, DERIVED THEREFROM SHALL BE
INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME AND SHALL NOT BE EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME
TAXATION." 

FN13  S. REP. NO. 1567, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 47.  THIS REPORT
CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT UNDER SEC. 26
JOINT-STOCK LAND BANKS WERE EXEMPT FROM CAPITAL GAINS RESULTING FROM
PURCHASES OF THEIR OWN OBLIGATIONS.  A CHANGE IN THAT REGARD WAS
CLEARLY INTENDED, FOR THE COMMITTEE SAID, P. 47: 

"THIS SECTION SUBJECTS TO FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION THE CAPITAL GAIN
REALIZED BY A JOINT-STOCK LAND BANK ON THE PURCHASE OF ITS OWN
OBLIGATIONS OR OF MORTGAGES MADE BY IT.  IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE COMMITTEE THAT THESE BANKS HAVE BEEN PURCHASING THEIR
OWN BONDS AT BELOW PAR AND ISSUING NEW BONDS AT OR ABOVE PAR. GAIN
REALIZED ON SUCH A PURCHASE IS, UNDER THE LAW, TAXABLE INCOME AND IN
THE CASE OF AN ORDINARY CORPORATION, IS TAXED.  UNDER THE FEDERAL FARM
LOAN ACT, HOWEVER, WHICH GOVERNS THE TAXABILITY OF OBLIGATIONS OF JOINT
STOCK LAND BANKS, SUCH INCOME IS EXEMPT.  THE COMMITTEE IS OF THE
OPINION THAT SUCH INCOME OUGHT TO BE TAXED."  THE COMMITTEE DRAFT OF
SEC. 817(THEN SEC. 816) PROVIDED FOR THAT CHANGE AS FOLLOWS (H.R. 9682,
75TH CONG., 3D SESS.): 

"NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 OF THE FEDERAL FARM
LOAN ACT, AS AMENDED, GAIN REALIZED ON THE ACQUISITION BY A JOINT-STOCK
LAND BANK OF OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY IT OR MORTGAGES MADE BY IT, IF SUCH
OBLIGATIONS OR MORTGAGES ARE MADE OR ISSUED AFTER THE DATE OF THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, SHALL NOT BE EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME
TAXATION." 

AS INDICATED, SUPRA, NOTE 9, THE UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM OF THE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE RULING THAT A JOINT
STOCK LAND BANK WAS NOT TAXABLE ON GAINS FROM PURCHASES OF ITS OWN
BONDS WAS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE.  CF. THE RECOMMENDATION MADE TO
THE COMMITTEE, S. HEARINGS, OP. CIT., SUPRA, NOTE 9, PP. 614, 615. 

FN14  STATEMENT BY SENATOR KING, MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,
CONG. RECORD, VOL. 83, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 4959.  WHEN SENATOR
KING OFFERED THE AMENDMENT, HE GAVE THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION (ID. P.
5174): 

"THE BILL AS REPORTED SUBJECTED TO FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION CAPITAL
GAINS REALIZED BY A JOINT-STOCK LAND BANK ON OBLIGATIONS ISSUED AND
MORTGAGES MADE BY IT AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE ACT.  THE
EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ONLY TO TAX THAT GAIN BUT ALSO TO TAX
GAIN REALIZED BY ANOTHER JOINT-STOCK LAND BANK OR BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR
CORPORATION WHICH ITSELF IS NOT EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL TAXATION.  THUS,
GAIN ON A SALE OF SUCH A JOINT-STOCK LAND BANK BOND BY AN INVESTOR IS
SUBJECT TO TAX.  THE AMENDMENT CONTINUES THE PRESENT PROVISION OF LAW
UNDER WHICH INTEREST ON SUCH BONDS AND MORTGAGES IS EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL
TAXATION." 

FN15  STATUTES GOVERNING PANAMA CANAL TOLL BONDS (32 STAT. 481, 484;
36 STAT. 11, 117) AND POSTAL SAVINGS BONDS (36 STAT. 814, 817) ARE
CITED. 

FN16  REFERENCE IS MADE TO VARIOUS STATUTES INCLUDING THOSE
PERTAINING TO TREASURY NOTES (38 STAT. 251, 269) AND SEVERAL OF THE
LIBERTY LOANS (40 STAT. 35; 40 STAT. 288, 291; 40 STAT. 1309, 1310). 

FN17  FEDERAL RESERVE ACT OF DECEMBER 23, 1913(38 STAT. 251, 258). 
AND SEE BANKHEAD-JONES FARM TENANT ACT OF JULY 22, 1937(50 STAT. 522,
528); AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938(52 STAT. 31, 75). 

FN18  REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE WAR FINANCE CORPORATION ACT OF APRIL
5, 1938(40 STAT. 506, 511); RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION ACT OF
JANUARY 22, 1932(47 STAT. 5, 9); HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF JUNE 13,
1933(48 STAT. 128, 130). 

FN19  FEDERAL FARM MORTGAGE CORPORATION ACT OF JANUARY 31, 1934(48
STAT. 344, 347); COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION ACT OF MARCH 8, 1938(52
STAT. 107, 108). 

FN20  COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION, SUPRA, NOTE 19. 

FN21  PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN BOARD
BY SEC. 3 OF THE ACT. 

FN22  NOR CAN THE CASUAL STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
IN THE COURSE OF A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, TO
THE EFFECT THAT "LAND BANK BONDS CARRY A WIDER EXEMPTION THAN LIBERTY
BONDS," (S. HEARINGS, H.R. 12863, 65TH CONG., 3D SESS., PART 4, P. 117)
CARRY AUTHORITATIVE WEIGHT, AS IT DOES NOT EVEN PURPORT TO BE A
DISCRIMINATING ANALYSIS OF THIS PROBLEM IN ITS VARIOUS ASPECTS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED ON THE GROUNDS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ITS
OPINION BELOW, 106 F.2D 405. 
..END :




















I.A. OF M. V. LABOR BOARD, 311 U.S. 72 


NO. 16.  ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  - 71
APP. D.C. 175 - 110 F.2D 29, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, FINDING THAT A LABOR
ORGANIZATION, HAVING A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WITH AN EMPLOYER, HAD BEEN
"ASSISTED" IN ITS ORGANIZATIONAL DRIVE BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE
EMPLOYER, WAS AUTHORIZED TO ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
GIVING EFFECT TO THE CONTRACT.  P. 75. 

2.  THE FINDING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN THIS CASE
THAT A LABOR ORGANIZATION HAD BEEN "ASSISTED" BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
OF THE EMPLOYER IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 75. 

3.  THE BOARD'S FINDINGS IN THIS CASE HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE
COURT BELOW, THERE IS NO NEED HERE TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE IN DETAIL. 
P. 75. 

4.  IN DETERMINING, UPON THE RECORD OF THIS CASE, WHETHER A LABOR
ORGANIZATION WAS "ASSISTED" BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYER,
THE BOARD COULD PROPERLY CONSIDER NOT ONLY THE EMPLOYER'S ACTIVITIES
DURING THE ORGANIZATION'S MEMBERSHIP DRIVE BUT ALSO PREVIOUS AND
SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITIES.  P. 79. 

5.  THAT, IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE TIME AS OF WHICH A
LABOR ORGANIZATION CLAIMS TO HAVE OBTAINED A MAJORITY OF THE WORKERS IN
AN APPROPRIATE UNIT AND THE DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF A CLOSED-SHOP
CONTRACT BETWEEN IT AND THE EMPLOYER, THE BOARD MADE NO FINDING THAT
THE CLAIMED MAJORITY WAS MAINTAINED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, IS NOT
MATERIAL IN THIS CASE.  THE FINDING OF THE BOARD THAT THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION DID NOT REPRESENT AN UNCOERCED MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES
IN SUCH UNIT WHEN THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED IS ADEQUATE TO
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MAINTENANCE AS WELL AS THE ACQUISITION
OF THE ALLEGED MAJORITY WAS WRONGFULLY ACHIEVED.  P. 78. 

6.  AN EMPLOYER MAY BE FOUND UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
TO HAVE "ASSISTED" A LABOR ORGANIZATION BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, EVEN
THOUGH THE EMPLOYEES THROUGH WHOSE ACTIVITIES THE EMPLOYER IS REGARDED
AS HAVING SO ASSISTED WERE NOT EMPLOYED IN A "SUPERVISORY" CAPACITY,
AND EVEN THOUGH THEIR ACTS WERE NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED OR WERE NOT
SUCH AS MIGHT CONSTITUTE A BASIS OF EMPLOYER LIABILITY UNDER THE
DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.  PP. 79-80. 

7.  WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN INFERENCE
THAT THE EMPLOYEES BELIEVED THAT CERTAIN SOLICITORS, THOUGH BONA FIDE
MEMBERS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION AND PROFESSEDLY ACTING THEREFOR, WERE
IN FACT ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYER, THE BOARD MAY
JUSTIFIABLY FIND THAT THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT HAVE THE COMPLETE AND
UNHAMPERED FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHICH THE ACT CONTEMPLATES.  P. 80. 

8.  WHERE, IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 10 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, THE BOARD FINDS THAT A LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN
ASSISTED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYER, IT MAY ORDER THE
EMPLOYER TO DEAL EXCLUSIVELY, FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
WITH A RIVAL LABOR ORGANIZATION; AND THE BOARD MAY PROPERLY REFUSE TO
ACT UPON A NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE FIRST LABOR ORGANIZATION, PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF ITS ORDER, THAT THAT ORGANIZATION HAS OBTAINED A
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT.  P. 81. 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS; TOOL AND DIE MAKERS LODGE NO.
35, ETC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 649, TO REVIEW A DECISION AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS HERE FOR DECISION:  (1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS
OF THIS CASE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY
IN FINDING THAT AN INDUSTRIAL UNIT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING PURPOSES TO THE EXCLUSION OF A CRAFT UNIT; AND (2) WHETHER
THE BOARD HAD AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH THAT
INDUSTRIAL UNIT, DESPITE A CLAIM SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD BY THE CRAFT
UNIT BEFORE THE ORDER ISSUED THAT THE LATTER THEN HAD BEEN DESIGNATED
BY A MAJORITY OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE QUESTIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT (49 STAT. 449) AND BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW (71 APP. D.C. 175; 110 F.2D 29) AND HAMILTON
BROWN SHOE CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 104 F.2D 49, ON THE
SECOND QUESTION. 

THE BOARD FOUND, IN PROCEEDINGS DULY HAD UNDER SEC. 10 OF THE ACT,
THAT THE EMPLOYER, SERRICK CORPORATION, HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  IT ORDERED THE EMPLOYER TO
CEASE AND DESIST FROM THOSE PRACTICES AND TO TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION.  MORE SPECIFICALLY, IT DIRECTED THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE GIVING
EFFECT TO A CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WITH PETITIONER  FN1  COVERING THE
TOOLROOM EMPLOYEES; TO DEAL WITH U.A.W., AN INDUSTRIAL UNIT,  FN2 AS
THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENT OF ITS EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THE TOOLROOM
MEN; TO DESIST FROM VARIOUS DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONER AND AGAINST U.A.W.; AND TO REINSTATE AND MAKE WHOLE CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY DISCHARGED.  THE EMPLOYER HAS
COMPLIED WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER.  BUT PETITIONER, AN INTERVENER IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD, FILED A PETITION IN THE COURT BELOW TO
REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THOSE PORTIONS OF THE ORDER WHICH DIRECT THE
EMPLOYER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO ITS CLOSED-SHOP
CONTRACT WITH PETITIONER AND TO BARGAIN EXCLUSIVELY WITH U.A.W.  THE
COURT BELOW AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE BOARD. 

ABROGATION OF PETITIONER'S CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT.  - THE BOARD FOUND
THAT THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE EMPLOYER WAS
INVALID UNDER SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT  FN3  BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN "ASSISTED"
BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYER, BECAUSE PETITIONER DID NOT
REPRESENT AN UNCOERCED MAJORITY OF THE TOOLROOM EMPLOYEES AT THE TIME
THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED, AND BECAUSE FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS IT
WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT.  WE THINK THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN ASSISTED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF
THE EMPLOYER AND THAT THEREFORE THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO
GIVE EFFECT TO ITS CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT. 

SINCE THE COURT BELOW HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD THERE
IS NO NEED TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE IN DETAIL.  NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 309 U.S. 350, 357.  IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE EMPLOYER HAD AN OPEN AND AVOWED HOSTILITY TO U.A.W.  IT IS PLAIN
THAT THE EMPLOYER EXERTED GREAT EFFORT, THOUGH UNSUCCESSFULLY, TO
SUSTAIN ITS OLD COMPANY UNION, THE ACME WELFARE ASSOCIATION, AS A
BULWARK AGAINST U.A.W.  AND IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE EMPLOYER, WHILE
EVINCING GREAT HOSTILITY TO U.A.W. IN A CONTEST TO ENLIST ITS
PRODUCTION FORCE, ACQUIESCED WITHOUT PROTEST IN THE ORGANIZATION BY
PETITIONER OF THE TOOLROOM EMPLOYEES.  THE MAIN CONTESTED ISSUE HERE IS
NARROWLY CONFINED.  IT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE EMPLOYER "ASSISTED" THE
PETITIONER IN ENROLLING ITS MAJORITY. 

FOUTS, SHOCK, DININGER, BOLANDER, BYROAD AND BAKER WERE ALL EMPLOYEES
OF THE TOOLROOM.  FOUR OF THESE - FOUTS, SHOCK, BYROAD AND BOLANDER -
WERE OLD AND TRUSTED EMPLOYEES.  FOUTS WAS "MORE OR LESS AN ASSISTANT
FOREMAN," HAVING CERTAIN EMPLOYEES UNDER HIM.  SHOCK WAS IN CHARGE OF
THE TOOLROOM DURING THE ABSENCE OF THE FOREMAN.  DININGER AND BOLANDER
WERE IN CHARGE OF THE SECOND AND THIRD SHIFTS RESPECTIVELY, WORKING AT
NIGHT.  PRIOR TO MID-JULY, 1937, THEY HAD BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED ON
BEHALF OF THE COMPANY UNION.  WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT AT THAT TIME THAT
THE EFFORTS TO BUILD UP THAT UNION WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL, FOUTS, SHOCK,
BYROAD AND BOLANDER SUDDENLY SHIFTED THEIR SUPPORT FROM THE COMPANY
UNION TO PETITIONER AND MOVED INTO THE FOREFRONT IN ENLISTING THE
SUPPORT OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR PETITIONER.  THE GENERAL MANAGER TOLD
SHOCK THAT HE WOULD CLOSE THE PLANT RATHER THAN DEAL WITH U.A.W.  THE
SUPERINTENDENT AND SHOCK REPORTED TO TOOLROOM EMPLOYEES THAT THE
EMPLOYER WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE THE C.I.O.  THE SUPERINTENDENT LET IT BE
KNOWN THAT THE EMPLOYER WOULD DEAL WITH AN A.F. OF L. UNION.  AT THE
SAME TIME THE SUPERINTENDENT ALSO STATED TO ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT
SOME OF THE "FOREMEN DON'T LIKE THE C.I.O."  AND ADDED, WITH PROPHETIC
VISION, THAT THERE WAS "GOING TO BE QUITE A LAYOFF AROUND HERE AND
THESE FELLOWS THAT DON'T LIKE THE C.I.O. ARE GOING TO LAY THOSE FELLOWS
OFF FIRST."  DURING WORKING HOURS, BYROAD CONDUCTED A STRAW VOTE AMONG
THE EMPLOYEES AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF FOUTS AND SHOCK LEFT THE PLANT
TO SEEK OUT AN ORGANIZER FOR PETITIONER.  FOUTS SOLICITED AMONG WORKMEN
IN THE TOOLROOM STATING THAT HIS PURPOSE WAS TO "BEAT" THE U.A.W.  FOR
A WEEK PRECEDING AUGUST 13, SHOCK SPENT MUCH TIME, AS DID BYROAD, GOING
"FROM ONE BENCH TO ANOTHER SOLICITING" FOR PETITIONER.  BAKER LIKEWISE
SOLICITED.  DININGER OFFERED AN EMPLOYEE A "GOOD RATING" IF HE WOULD
JOIN PETITIONER.  NOT LESS THAN A WEEK BEFORE AUGUST 13, THE PERSONNEL
DIRECTOR ADVISED TWO EMPLOYEES TO "JOIN THE A.F. OF L."  BYROAD SPENT
CONSIDERABLE TIME DURING WORKING HOURS SOLICITING EMPLOYEES,
THREATENING LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT TO THOSE WHO DID NOT SIGN UP WITH
PETITIONER AND REPRESENTING THAT HE WAS ACTING IN LINE WITH THE DESIRES
OF THE TOOLROOM FOREMAN, MCCOY.  THIS ACTIVE SOLICITATION FOR
PETITIONER WAS ON COMPANY TIME AND WAS MADE OPENLY IN THE SHOP.  MUCH
OF IT WAS MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE TOOLROOM FOREMAN, MCCOY, WHO
CLEARLY KNEW WHAT WAS BEING DONE.  YET THE FREEDOM ALLOWED SOLICITORS
FOR PETITIONER WAS APPARENTLY DENIED SOLICITORS FOR U.A.W.  THE PLANT
MANAGER WARNED SOME OF THE LATTER TO CHECK OUT THEIR TIME FOR A
CONFERENCE WITH HIM ON U.A.W. AND QUESTIONED THEIR RIGHT TO DISCUSS
U.A.W. MATTERS ON COMPANY PROPERTY.  THE INFERENCE IS JUSTIFIED THAT
U.A.W. SOLICITORS WERE CLOSELY WATCHED, WHILE THOSE ACTING FOR
PETITIONER WERE ALLOWED MORE LEEWAY. 

FIVE U.A.W. OFFICIALS HAD BEEN DISCHARGED IN JUNE, 1937, BECAUSE OF
THEIR UNION ACTIVITIES.  THE KNOWN ANTAGONISM OF THE EMPLOYER TO U.A.W.
BEFORE PETITIONER'S DRIVE FOR MEMBERSHIP STARTED MADE IT PATENT THAT
THE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT FREE TO CHOOSE U.A.W. AS THEIR BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE.  PETITIONER STARTED ITS DRIVE FOR MEMBERSHIP LATE IN
JULY, 1937, AND ITS CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WAS SIGNED AUGUST 11, 1937. 
FN4  ON AUGUST 10, 1937, THE U.A.W., HAVING A CLEAR MAJORITY OF ALL THE
EMPLOYEES, PRESENTED TO THE EMPLOYER A PROPOSED WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THIS WAS REFUSED.  ON AUGUST 13, 1937, ALL
TOOLROOM EMPLOYEES WHO REFUSED MEMBERSHIP IN PETITIONER, SOME 20 IN
NUMBER, WERE DISCHARGED.  ON AUGUST 15, 1937, THE MANAGEMENT CIRCULATED
AMONG THE EMPLOYEES A STATEMENT WHICH, AS FOUND BY THE BOARD, WAS A
THINLY VEILED ATTACK ON THE U.A.W. AND A FIRM DECLARATION THAT THE
EMPLOYER WOULD NOT ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH IT. 

PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE EMPLOYER'S HOSTILITY TO U.A.W. CANNOT BE
TRANSLATED INTO ASSISTANCE TO THE PETITIONER AND THAT NONE OF THE ACTS
OF THE EMPLOYEES ABOVE MENTIONED, WHO WERE SOLICITING FOR PETITIONER,
CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE EMPLOYER. 

WE DISAGREE WITH THAT VIEW.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE
TOOLROOM EPISODE WAS BUT AN INTEGRAL PART OF A LONG PLANT CONTROVERSY. 
WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE RELATIVELY BRIEF PERIOD FROM LATE JULY TO
AUGUST 11, 1937, CANNOT PROPERLY BE DIVORCED FROM THE EVENTS
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND FOLLOWING.  THE ACTIVE OPPOSITION OF THE
EMPLOYER TO U.A.W. THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE CONTROVERSY HAS A DIRECT
BEARING ON THE EVENTS DURING THAT INTERMEDIATE PERIOD.  KNOWN HOSTILITY
TO ONE UNION AND CLEAR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IT MAY INDEED MAKE
SEEMINGLY TRIVIAL INTIMATIONS OF PREFERENCE FOR ANOTHER UNION POWERFUL
ASSISTANCE FOR IT.  SLIGHT SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE EMPLOYER'S CHOICE
BETWEEN UNIONS MAY HAVE TELLING EFFECT AMONG MEN WHO KNOW THE
CONSEQUENCES OF INCURRING THAT EMPLOYER'S STRONG DISPLEASURE.  THE
FREEDOM OF ACTIVITY PERMITTED ONE GROUP AND THE CLOSE SURVEILLANCE
GIVEN ANOTHER MAY BE MORE POWERFUL SUPPORT FOR THE FORMER THAN CAMPAIGN
UTTERANCES. 

TO BE SURE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE EMPLOYER INSTIGATED THE
INTRODUCTION OF PETITIONER INTO THE PLANT.  BUT THE BOARD WAS WHOLLY
JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYER "ASSISTED" IT IN ITS
ORGANIZATIONAL DRIVE.  SILENT APPROVAL OF OR ACQUIESCENCE IN THAT DRIVE
FOR MEMBERSHIP AND CLOSE SURVEILLANCE OF THE COMPETITOR; THE
INTIMATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER'S CHOICE MADE BY SUPERIORS; THE FACT THAT
THE EMPLOYEE-SOLICITORS HAD BEEN CLOSELY IDENTIFIED WITH THE COMPANY
UNION UNTIL THEIR QUICK SHIFT TO PETITIONER; THE RANK AND POSITION OF
THOSE EMPLOYEE-SOLICITORS; THE READY ACCEPTANCE OF PETITIONER'S
CONTRACT AND THE CONTEMPORANEOUS REJECTION OF THE CONTRACT TENDERED BY
U.A.W.; THE EMPLOYER'S KNOWN PREJUDICE AGAINST THE U.A.W. WERE ALL
PROPER ELEMENTS FOR IT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN WEIGHING THE
EVIDENCE AND DRAWING ITS INFERENCES.  TO SAY THAT THE BOARD MUST
DISREGARD WHAT PRECEDED AND WHAT FOLLOWED THE MEMBERSHIP DRIVE WOULD BE
TO REQUIRE IT TO SHUT ITS EYES TO POTENT IMPONDERABLES PERMEATING THIS
ENTIRE RECORD.  THE DETECTION AND APPRAISAL OF SUCH IMPONDERABLES ARE
INDEED ONE OF THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF AN EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY. 

PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT IT HAD OBTAINED ITS MAJORITY OF TOOLROOM
EMPLOYEES BY JULY 28, 1938, AND THAT THERE WAS NO FINDING BY THE BOARD
THAT THAT MAJORITY WAS MAINTAINED BETWEEN THEN AND THE DATE OF
EXECUTION OF THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  IN
THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THAT IS AN IRRELEVANT REFINEMENT.  THE EXISTENCE OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE PERIOD PERMITS THE
INFERENCE THAT THE EMPLOYEES DID NOT HAVE THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHICH
IS THE ESSENCE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  AND THE FINDING OF THE BOARD
THAT PETITIONER DID NOT REPRESENT AN UNCOERCED MAJORITY OF TOOLROOM
EMPLOYEES WHEN THE CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED IS ADEQUATE TO
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MAINTENANCE AS WELL AS THE ACQUISITION
OF THE ALLEGED MAJORITY WAS CONTAMINATED BY THE EMPLOYER'S AID. 

PETITIONER ATTACKS THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT ITS MEMBERSHIP DRIVE
WAS HEADED BY "SUPERVISORY" EMPLOYEES - FOUTS, SHOCK, DININGER AND
BOLANDER.  ACCORDING TO PETITIONER THESE MEN WERE NOT FOREMEN, LET
ALONE SUPERVISORS ENTRUSTED WITH EXECUTIVE OR DIRECTORIAL FUNCTIONS,
BUT MERELY "LEAD MEN" WHO BY REASON OF LONG EXPERIENCE WERE SKILLED IN
HANDLING NEW JOBS AND HENCE DIRECTED THE SET-UP OF THE WORK. 
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS THAT SINCE THESE MEN WERE NOT SUPERVISORY
THEIR ACTS OF SOLICITATION WERE NOT COERCIVE AND NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE EMPLOYER. 

THE EMPLOYER, HOWEVER, MAY BE HELD TO HAVE ASSISTED THE FORMATION OF
A UNION EVEN THOUGH THE ACTS OF THE SO-CALLED AGENTS WERE NOT EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED OR MIGHT NOT BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIM ON STRICT APPLICATION OF
THE RULES OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.  WE ARE DEALING HERE NOT WITH PRIVATE
RIGHTS (AMALGAMATED UTILITY WORKERS V. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO., 309
U.S. 261) NOR WITH TECHNICAL CONCEPTS PERTINENT TO AN EMPLOYER'S LEGAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO THIRD PERSONS FOR ACTS OF HIS SERVANTS, BUT WITH A
CLEAR LEGISLATIVE POLICY TO FREE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS FROM
ALL TAINT OF AN EMPLOYER'S COMPULSION, DOMINATION, OR INFLUENCE.  THE
EXISTENCE OF THAT INTERFERENCE MUST BE DETERMINED BY CAREFUL SCRUTINY
OF ALL THE FACTORS, OFTEN SUBTLE, WHICH RESTRAIN THE EMPLOYEES' CHOICE
AND FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYER MAY FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE RESPONSIBLE.  THUS,
WHERE THE EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE JUST CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT SOLICITORS
PROFESSEDLY FOR A LABOR ORGANIZATION WERE ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
THE MANAGEMENT, THE BOARD WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THEY
DID NOT HAVE THE COMPLETE AND UNHAMPERED FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHICH THE
ACT CONTEMPLATES.  FN5  HERE THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT
INFERENCE.  AS WE HAVE SAID, FOUTS, SHOCK, DININGER AND BOLANDER ALL
HAD MEN WORKING UNDER THEM.  TO BE SURE, THEY WERE NOT HIGH IN THE
FACTORY HIERARCHY AND APPARENTLY DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO HIRE OR TO
FIRE.  BUT THEY DID EXERCISE GENERAL AUTHORITY OVER THE EMPLOYEES AND
WERE IN A STRATEGIC POSITION TO TRANSLATE TO THEIR SUBORDINATES THE
POLICIES AND DESIRES OF THE MANAGEMENT.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY DID
EXACTLY THAT.  MOREOVER, THREE OF THEM - FOUTS, SHOCK AND BOLANDER -
HAD BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED DURING THE PRECEDING WEEKS IN PROMOTING THE
COMPANY UNION.  DURING THE MEMBERSHIP DRIVE FOR PETITIONER THEY
STRESSED THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER WOULD PREFER THOSE WHO JOINED
PETITIONER TO THOSE WHO JOINED U.A.W.  THEY SPREAD THE IDEA THAT THE
PURPOSE IN ESTABLISHING PETITIONER WAS "TO BEAT THE C.I.O."  AND THAT
THE EMPLOYEES MIGHT WITHDRAW FROM THE PETITIONER ONCE THIS OBJECTIVE
WAS REACHED.  AND IN DOING THESE THINGS THEY WERE EMULATING THE EXAMPLE
SET BY THE MANAGEMENT.  THE CONCLUSION THEN IS JUSTIFIED THAT THIS IS
NOT A CASE WHERE SOLICITORS FOR ONE UNION MERELY ENGAGED IN A ZEALOUS
MEMBERSHIP DRIVE WHICH JUST HAPPENED TO COINCIDE WITH THE MANAGEMENT'S
DESIRES.  HENCE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE BONA FIDE MEMBERS OF PETITIONER
DID NOT REQUIRE THE BOARD TO DISREGARD THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE
NOTED. 

BY SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT DISCRIMINATION UPON THE BASIS OF UNION
MEMBERSHIP CONSTITUTES AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNLESS MADE BECAUSE OF
A VALID CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACT.  BUT THAT SECTION AUTHORIZES AN ORDER
UNDER SEC. 10 ABROGATING SUCH A CONTRACT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION
WHICH HAS BEEN ASSISTED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  THE PRESENCE OF
SUCH PRACTICES IN THIS CASE JUSTIFIED THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT
PETITIONER DID NOT REPRESENT AN UNCOERCED MAJORITY OF THE TOOLROOM
EMPLOYEES.  SECS. 7, 8(1).  THIS CONCLUSION MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO
PASS UPON THE SCOPE OF THE BOARD'S POWER TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE
BARGAINING UNIT UNDER SEC. 9(B). 

ALLEGED CHANGE IN STATUS OF PETITIONER.  - PETITIONER CHALLENGES THE
ORDER DIRECTING THE EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN EXCLUSIVELY WITH U.A.W., ON THE
GROUND THAT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER PETITIONER HAD OBTAINED
AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES AND HAD SO
NOTIFIED THE BOARD.  PETITIONER MADE NO SHOWING AT THE HEARING THAT A
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES HAD SHIFTED TO IT AFTER THE EMPLOYER REFUSED
TO BARGAIN WITH U.A.W.  NOR DID IT SEEK LEAVE FROM THE COURT BELOW TO
ADDUCE SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(E).  NEVERTHELESS
IT CONTENDS THAT THE BOARD ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE
ORDERED AN ELECTION OR AT LEAST HAVE MADE AN INVESTIGATION. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THE BOARD IN FAILING TO ACT ON
THIS REQUEST DID NOT COMMIT ERROR.  THIS WAS NOT A CERTIFICATION
PROCEEDING  FN6  UNDER SEC. 9(C); IT WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 10.  WHERE AS A RESULT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A UNION CANNOT BE SAID TO REPRESENT AN UNCOERCED MAJORITY, THE BOARD
HAS THE POWER TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO THE END THAT THE EFFECT OF
THOSE PRACTICES WILL BE DISSIPATED.  THAT NECESSARILY INVOLVES AN
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE BOARD - DISCRETION INVOLVING
AN EXPERT JUDGMENT AS TO WAYS AND MEANS OF PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF
CHOICE GUARANTEED TO THE EMPLOYEES BY THE ACT.  IT IS FOR THE BOARD,
NOT THE COURTS, TO DETERMINE HOW THE EFFECT OF PRIOR UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES MAY BE EXPUNGED.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 271; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453, 461.  IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED
THAT AN UNREMEDIED REFUSAL OF AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH
AN APPROPRIATE LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PACIFIC
GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 272, 275.  NOR IS THE CONCLUSION UNJUSTIFIED
THAT UNLESS THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IS COMPLETELY
DISSIPATED, THE EMPLOYEES MIGHT STILL BE SUBJECT TO IMPROPER RESTRAINTS
AND NOT HAVE THE COMPLETE FREEDOM OF CHOICE WHICH THE ACT
CONTEMPLATES.  HENCE THE FAILURE OF THE BOARD TO RECOGNIZE PETITIONER'S
NOTICE OF CHANGE WAS WHOLLY PROPER.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
BRADFORD DYEING ASSN., 310 U.S. 318, 339-340. 

SEC. 9 OF THE ACT PROVIDES ADEQUATE MACHINERY FOR DETERMINING IN
CERTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION AFTER UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AS OBSTACLES TO THE EMPLOYEES' FULL
FREEDOM OF CHOICE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PETITIONERS, LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, ARE TREATED HEREIN IN THE SINGULAR. 

FN2  UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 459(HEREIN
CALLED U.A.W.)  IS AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATIONS (C.I.O.). 

FN3  SEC. 8(3) PROVIDES: 

"IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER -  ... 

"(3)  BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR
ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN THIS
ACT, OR IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT (U.S.C., SUPP. VII,
TITLE 15, SECS. 701-712), AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, OR IN ANY CODE
OR AGREEMENT APPROVED OR PRESCRIBED THEREUNDER, OR IN ANY OTHER STATUTE
OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER FROM MAKING AN
AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION (NOT ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR
ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THIS ACT AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE)
TO REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP THEREIN, IF SUCH
LABOR ORGANIZATION IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 9(A), IN THE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT COVERED
BY SUCH AGREEMENT WHEN MADE." 

FN4  THE CONTRACT, THOUGH DATED AUGUST 6, 1937, WAS ACTUALLY EXECUTED
ON AUGUST 11, 1937. 

FN5  SEE CONSUMERS POWER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 113
F.2D 38, 44.  CF. SWIFT & CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 106
F.2D 87, 93. 

FN6  U.A.W. DID IN FACT FILE A PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION UNDER SEC.
9(C).  BUT THIS WAS DISMISSED BY THE BOARD SINCE IT FOUND FOR REASONS
STATED THAT U.A.W. WAS THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT. 
..END :









NEUBERGER V. COMMISSIONER, 311 U.S. 83 


NO. 5.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 17, 1940.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1940.  -
104 F.2D 649, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 23(R)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, A TAXPAYER'S
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF PARTNERSHIP PROFITS DERIVED FROM SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF STOCKS AND BONDS THAT WERE NOT CAPITAL ASSETS (AS DEFINED
IN SEC. 101), IS A "GAIN" TO THE EXTENT OF WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO A
DEDUCTION OF A LOSS SUSTAINED BY HIM IN SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS FOR HIS
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT.  P. 88. 

2.  THAT SECS. 184-188 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 ADVERT TO INSTANCES
IN WHICH PARTNERSHIP INCOME RETAINS ITS IDENTITY IN THE INDIVIDUAL
PARTNER'S RETURN, DOES NOT BY APPLICATION OF THE MAXIM EXPRESSIO UNIUS
EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS REQUIRE DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION HERE
CLAIMED.  THE MAXIM IS NOT A RULE OF LAW BUT AN AID TO CONSTRUCTION,
AND MAY NOT OVERRIDE THE CLEAR INTENT OF CONGRESS.  P. 88. 

3.  WHERE THE INTENT OF CONGRESS IS PLAIN, THE SCOPE OF AN ACT MAY
NOT BE NARROWED BY ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION.  P. 89. 

4.  CASES VARIOUSLY EMPHASIZING THE CHARACTER OF PARTNERSHIPS AS
BUSINESS UNITS, OR AS ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS, BUT NOT INVOLVING
SEC. 23(R)(1), ARE OF LITTLE AID IN ASCERTAINING ITS MEANING.  P. 89. 

5.  THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN THIS CASE SHOW THAT
THE ALLOWANCE OF A DEDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED WOULD NOT EXCEED THE
LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 23(R)(1).  P. 89. 

6.  THE CONSTRUCTION HERE GIVEN SEC. 23(R)(1) IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF AMENDATORY LEGISLATION AS WELL AS THAT OF THE

7.  SHEARER V. BURNET, 285 U.S. 228, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 90. 

NEUBERGER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 310 U.S. 655, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 37 B.T.A. 223, SUSTAINING THE DETERMINATION
OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, WAS A MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK
STOCK EXCHANGE.  HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN
SECURITIES ON THE FLOOR OF THE EXCHANGE FOR THE PARTNERSHIP OF HILSON &
NEUBERGER, OF WHICH HE WAS A MEMBER, EXECUTING ORDERS ON BEHALF OF
CUSTOMERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP.  IN ADDITION HE MADE NUMEROUS PURCHASES
AND SALES OF SECURITIES FOR HIS OWN ACCOUNT. 

DURING THE YEAR 1932, THE ONE HERE IN QUESTION, HILSON & NEUBERGER
DERIVED A PROFIT OF $142,802.29 FROM THE SALE OF SECURITIES WHICH WERE
NOT CAPITAL ASSETS AS DEFINED IN SEC. 101 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932. 
47 STAT. 169, 191.  THE FIRM HAD OTHER INCOME OF $170,830.65 AND
DEDUCTIONS OF $203,981.78, OR NET INCOME OF $109,651.16.  PETITIONER'S
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE WAS $44,158.55.  DURING THE SAME YEAR PETITIONER
SUSTAINED A NET LOSS OF $25,588.93 ON HIS PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS IN
STOCKS AND BONDS WHICH WERE NOT CAPITAL ASSETS AS DEFINED IN SEC. 101. 

IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1932 PETITIONER DEDUCTED FROM
GROSS INCOME THE LOSS OF $25,588.93.  THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE
DEDUCTION AND ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UPHELD
THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER.  37 B.T.A. 223.  ON APPEAL THE SECOND
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  104 F.2D 649.  BECAUSE OF
SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT WITH JENNINGS V. COMMISSIONER, 110 F.2D 945, AND
CRAIK V. UNITED STATES, 31 F.SUPP.  132, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITED
TO THE QUESTIONS WHETHER SEC. 23(R)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47
STAT. 169, 183, AUTHORIZED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION, AND WHETHER, IN THE
EVENT THAT IT DID NOT, THE STATUTE AS SO CONSTRUED WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. 
310 U.S. 655. 

DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.  SECTION 23(R)(1) PROVIDES: 

"LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF STOCKS AND BONDS (AS DEFINED IN
SUBSECTION (T) OF THIS SECTION) WHICH ARE NOT CAPITAL ASSETS (AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 101) SHALL BE ALLOWED (AS DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS
INCOME) ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR EXCHANGES
..." 

THE BASIC AND NARROW QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF
AN INDIVIDUAL PARTNER, THE WORD "GAINS" IN SEC. 23(R)(1) INCLUDES GAINS
FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PARTNERSHIP STOCKS AND BONDS WHICH ARE NOT
CAPITAL ASSETS AS DEFINED IN SEC. 101.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IT
DOES. 

IN COMPUTING GROSS INCOME PRIOR TO THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SUBJECT
TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS A TAXPAYER WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE FULL
AMOUNT OF HIS LOSSES FROM TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES.  REVENUE ACT OF
1928, SECS. 23(E), 23(G), 101(B), 113.  BUT THE GROWING CUSTOM OF
DIMINISHING ORDINARY INCOME BY DEDUCTING LOSSES REALIZED ON THE SALE OF
SECURITIES WHICH HAD SHRUNK IN VALUE, DUE NO DOUBT TO THE FALL IN
PRICES AFTER 1929, LED CONGRESS TO PROVIDE IN SEC. 23(R)(1) THAT
DEDUCTIONS FOR SUCH LOSSES SHOULD BE LIMITED TO GAINS FROM SIMILAR
TRANSACTIONS. 

THAT THIS WAS THE PURPOSE AND THE ONLY PURPOSE OF SEC. 23(R)(1)
ABUNDANTLY APPEARS FROM THE REPORT OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
ACCOMPANYING THE BILL.  FN1  NOWHERE DOES THERE APPEAR ANY INTENTION TO
DENY TO A TAXPAYER WHO CHOOSES TO EXECUTE PART OF HIS SECURITY
TRANSACTIONS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ANOTHER THE RIGHT TO DEDUCTIONS WHICH
PLAINLY WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO HIM IF HE HAD EXECUTED ALL OF THEM
SINGLY.  NOWHERE IS THERE ANY SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO TAX
NONCAPITAL SECURITY GAINS UNTIL THEY EXCEEDED SIMILAR LOSSES.  THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 23(R)(1) DOES NOT REQUIRE SUCH A CONSTRUCTION.  NOR DO
THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCES OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT INDICATE SUCH A
PURPOSE. 

RESPONDENT POINTS OUT, HOWEVER, THAT UNDER SECS. 181-189 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 222-223,  FN2  PARTNERSHIP INCOME IS
COMPUTED ON AN ENTITY BASIS, THAT ITEMS OF PARTNERSHIP GROSS INCOME DO
NOT APPEAR ON A PARTNER'S RETURN, THAT ONLY PARTNERSHIP NET INCOME IS
REFLECTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNER'S INCOME AND IS REPORTED ONLY IN
THE FORM OF A DISTRIBUTABLE OR DISTRIBUTED SHARE.  HE CONTENDS THAT
SINCE PARTNERSHIP INCOME IS COMPUTED IN THE SAME WAY AS AN INDIVIDUAL'S
THE DEDUCTION AFFORDED BY SEC. 23(R)(1) TO THE PARTNERSHIP IS A
DISTINCT PRIVILEGE NOT TO BE CONFUSED OR COMBINED WITH THAT AFFORDED TO
THE INDIVIDUAL.  THUS, HE ARGUES, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED HERE IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL SCHEME CREATED FOR REPORTING PARTNERSHIP
INCOME AS WELL AS, IN EFFECT, A SECOND OR DOUBLE USE OF SEC. 23(R)(1). 

IT IS NOT TO BE DOUBTED THAT IN THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 23(R)(1)
CONGRESS INTENDED NOT ONLY TO DEAL WITH INDIVIDUAL SECURITY GAINS AND
LOSSES, BUT ALSO TO PERMIT LOSSES SUFFERED IN PARTNERSHIP SECURITY
TRANSACTIONS TO BE APPLIED AGAINST PARTNERSHIP GAINS IN LIKE
TRANSACTIONS.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, HOWEVER, AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION,
THAT LOSSES SUSTAINED IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY MAY NOT BE SET OFF
AGAINST GAINS FROM IDENTICAL THOUGH DISTINCT PARTNERSHIP DEALINGS.  IF
THE INDIVIDUAL LOSSES ARE ACTUALLY INCURRED IN SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS IT
CANNOT JUSTLY BE SAID THAT THE SAME DEDUCTION IS TAKEN A SECOND TIME,
OR THAT THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY TO TAX THE
NET INCOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNER, WOULD THEREBY BE IMPAIRED. 

PROVIDE GENERALLY FOR COMPUTATION AND REPORTING OF PARTNERSHIP INCOME. 
IN REQUIRING A PARTNERSHIP INFORMATIONAL RETURN ALTHOUGH ONLY
INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS PAY ANY TAX, CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE PARTNERSHIP
BOTH AS A BUSINESS UNIT AND AS AN ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUALS.  THIS
WEAKENS RATHER THAN STRENGTHENS RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE
PRIVILEGES ARE DISTINCT OR THAT THE UNIT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
PARTNERSHIP MUST BE EMPHASIZED.  COMPARE JENNINGS V. COMMISSIONER, 110
F.2D 945; CRAIK V. UNITED STATES, 31 F.SUPP.  132; UNITED STATES V.
COULBY, 251 F. 982(AFFIRMED, 258 F. 27).  NOR IS THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED
HERE PRECLUDED BECAUSE CONGRESS, IN SECS. 184-188, HAS PARTICULARIZED
INSTANCES WHERE PARTNERSHIP INCOME RETAINS ITS IDENTITY IN THE
INDIVIDUAL PARTNER'S RETURN.  THE MAXIM EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO
ALTERIUS IS AN AID TO CONSTRUCTION, NOT A RULE OF LAW.  IT CAN NEVER
OVERRIDE CLEAR AND CONTRARY EVIDENCES OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.  UNITED
STATES V. BARNES, 222 U.S. 513. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT ADOPTED A CONTRARY POSITION
AND DENIED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION.  G.C.M. 14012, XIV-1 CUM. BULL.  145;
I.T. 2892, XIV-1 CUM. BULL.  148.  UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES GREAT
WEIGHT HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND TREASURY
RULINGS, BUT BEYOND QUESTION THEY CANNOT NARROW THE SCOPE OF A STATUTE
WHEN CONGRESS PLAINLY HAS INTENDED OTHERWISE.  RASQUIN V. HUMPHREYS,
308 U.S. 54; NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S.
294. 

IT IS TRUE, TOO, THAT IN SOME CASES THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
PARTNERSHIPS AS BUSINESS UNITS HAVE BEEN EMPHASIZED, FORRES V.
COMMISSIONER, 25 B.T.A. 154; WILSON V. COMMISSIONER, 17 B.T.A.
976(APPEAL DISMISSED, 55 F.2D 1086); BURNS V. COMMISSIONER, 12 B.T.A.
1209; APPEAL OF MENKEN, 8 B.T.A. 1062, WHILE IN OTHERS THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTNERSHIPS AS ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIVIDUALS HAVE
BEEN STRESSED.  UNITED STATES V. COULBY, SUPRA.  COMPARE BENCE V.
UNITED STATES, 18 F.SUPP.  848.  THESE CASES, NOT DECIDED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AND TURNING, AS THEY MUST, ON THEIR OWN PECULIAR
FACTS, ARE LITTLE AID IN ASCERTAINING THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO SEC.
23(R)(1). 

IT IS NOT TRUE, HOWEVER, AS RESPONDENT ARGUES, THAT THE ASSERTED
DEDUCTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS SUGGESTED NO WAY TO
CALCULATE IT PROPERLY OR TO IMPORT ITEMS OF GROSS INCOME FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP INFORMATIONAL RETURN.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS EXPRESSLY
FOUND THE AMOUNT OF PARTNERSHIP GAINS FROM SECURITY TRANSACTIONS AND
THE PROPORTION IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS TO SHARE IN THE PROFITS OF THE
PARTNERSHIP.  37 B.T.A. 223, 224.  SINCE PETITIONER'S SHARE OF THESE
NONCAPITAL SECURITY GAINS IS GREATER THAN HIS LOSS OF $25,588.93, THE
LIMIT ON DEDUCTIONS SET BY SEC. 23(R)(1) IS NOT EXCEEDED. 

OUR CONCLUSION THAT THIS IS THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 23(R)(1)
IS CONFIRMED BY THE ACTION OF CONGRESS SINCE 1932.  IN 1933 CONGRESS
AMENDED SEC. 182(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 TO DENY TO INDIVIDUAL
PARTNERS DEDUCTIONS FOR PARTNERSHIP LOSSES WHICH HAD BEEN DISALLOWED IN
THE PARTNERSHIP RETURN, THE CONVERSE OF THE INSTANT CASE.  48 STAT.
195, 209.  FN3  MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, IN 1938, AFTER THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT HAD RULED TO THE CONTRARY, G.C.M. 14012, XIV-1 CUM. BULL. 
145; I.T. 2892, XIV-1 CUM. BULL.  148, CONGRESS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR
THE DEDUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL SECURITY LOSSES FROM SIMILAR PARTNERSHIP
GAINS.  REVENUE ACT OF 1938, SECS. 182-183; 52 STAT. 447, 521.  FN4
THAT THE AMENDMENT OF 1933 CHANGED AND THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 RESTORED
THE LAW OF 1932 AS WE HAVE EXPLAINED IT IS PLAIN FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE TWO ACTS AND OF SEC. 23(R)(1). 

SHEARER V. BURNET, 285 U.S. 228, IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE CONCLUSION WE
REACH HERE.  THERE THE DECISION TURNED ON THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION TO BE
GIVEN TO SEC. 218(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 253, 275, AND
THE COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT CONGRESS HAD NOT INTENDED TO ALLOW
THE ASSERTED CREDIT. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION.  THE
DECISION OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THE
CASE IS REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  REPORT OF SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE (72D CONGRESS, 1ST SESS.),
NUMBER 665, P. 10: 

"YOUR COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT SECURITY GAINS AND LOSSES SHOULD BE
SEGREGATED, THAT SECURITY LOSSES SHOULD BE DEDUCTED SOLELY FROM
SECURITY GAINS; BUT THAT SECURITY GAINS SHOULD NOT BE TAXED UNTIL THEY
ACTUALLY EXCEED SECURITY LOSSES." 

SEE ALSO REPORT OF HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE (72D CONGRESS, 1ST
SESS.), NUMBER 708, PP. 12-13: 

"THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS IN EXISTING LAW CORRESPONDING TO SECTION
23(R),  ...  MANY TAXPAYERS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY OR PARTIALLY
ELIMINATING FROM TAX THEIR INCOME FROM SALARIES, DIVIDENDS, RENTS,
ETC., BY DEDUCTING THEREFROM LOSSES SUSTAINED IN THE STOCK AND BOND
MARKETS, WITH SERIOUS EFFECT UPON THE REVENUE.  YOUR COMMITTEE IS OF
THE OPINION THAT SOME LIMITATION OUGHT TO BE PLACED ON THE ALLOWANCE OF
SUCH LOSSES." 

FN2  SEC. 181.  INDIVIDUALS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN PARTNERSHIP SHALL
BE LIABLE FOR INCOME TAX ONLY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 

SEC. 182.  (A)  THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME
OF EACH PARTNER HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE, WHETHER DISTRIBUTED OR NOT, OF
THE NET INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR. 

(B)  ... 

SEC. 183.  THE NET INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP SHALL BE COMPUTED IN THE
SAME MANNER AND ON THE SAME BASIS AS IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL,
EXCEPT THAT THE SO-CALLED "CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTION" DEDUCTION PROVIDED
IN SECTION 23(N) SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. 

SEC. 184.  THE PARTNER SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE NORMAL TAX, BE
ALLOWED AS A CREDIT AGAINST HIS NET INCOME, IN ADDITION TO THE CREDITS
ALLOWED TO HIM UNDER SECTION 25, HIS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF SUCH
AMOUNTS OF DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST SPECIFIED IN SECTION 25(A) AND (B) AS
ARE RECEIVED BY THE PARTNERSHIP. 

SEC. 185.  IN THE CASE OF THE MEMBERS OF A PARTNERSHIP THE PROPER
PART OF EACH SHARE OF THE NET INCOME WHICH CONSISTS OF EARNED INCOME
SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY AND SHALL BE SEPARATELY
SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND SHALL BE TAXED TO THE MEMBER
AS PROVIDED IN THIS SUPPLEMENT. 

SEC. 186.  IN THE CASE OF THE MEMBERS OF A PARTNERSHIP THE PROPER
PART OF EACH SHARE OF THE NET INCOME WHICH CONSISTS, RESPECTIVELY, OF
ORDINARY NET INCOME, CAPITAL NET GAIN, OR CAPITAL NET LOSS, SHALL BE
DETERMINED UNDER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, AND SHALL BE
SEPARATELY SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND SHALL BE TAXED TO
THE MEMBER AS PROVIDED IN THIS SUPPLEMENT, BUT AT THE RATES AND IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 101(A) AND (B), RELATING TO CAPITAL NET
GAINS AND LOSSES. 

SEC. 187.  THE BENEFIT OF THE SPECIAL DEDUCTION FOR NET LOSSES
ALLOWED BY SECTION 117 SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE MEMBERS OF A PARTNERSHIP
UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF
THE SECRETARY. 

SEC. 188.  THE AMOUNT OF INCOME, WAR-PROFITS, AND EXCESS-PROFITS
TAXES IMPOSED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES OR POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A CREDIT AGAINST THE TAX OF THE MEMBER OF A
PARTNERSHIP TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN SECTION 131.    SEC. 189.  EVERY
PARTNERSHIP SHALL MAKE A RETURN FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR, STATING
SPECIFICALLY THE ITEMS OF ITS GROSS INCOME AND THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED
BY THIS TITLE, AND SHALL INCLUDE IN THE RETURN THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES
OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET INCOME IF
DISTRIBUTED AND THE AMOUNT OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF EACH
INDIVIDUAL.  THE RETURN SHALL BE SWORN TO BY ANY ONE OF THE PARTNERS. 

FN3  IN SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT NUMBER 114(73RD CONGRESS, 1ST
SESS.) ACCOMPANYING THE BILL, IT IS STATED AT PAGE 7: 

"SUBSECTION (D) AMENDS THE PARTNERSHIP PROVISIONS OF EXISTING LAW. 
UNDER EXISTING LAW THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF A PARTNERSHIP ARE ENTITLED
TO REDUCE THEIR INDIVIDUAL NET INCOMES BY THEIR DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES OF
A NET LOSS INCURRED BY THE PARTNERSHIP." 

FN4  IN HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE REPORT NUMBER 1860(75TH
CONGRESS, 3RD SESS.) ACCOMPANYING THE BILL, IT IS STATED AT PAGES 42
43: 

"THE METHOD OF TREATMENT PROVIDED IN THESE SECTIONS OF THE BILL IS A
LOGICAL COROLLARY OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONLY THE PARTNERS AS
INDIVIDUALS, NOT THE PARTNERSHIP AS AN ENTITY, ARE TAXABLE PERSONS AND
IS NECESSARY TO GIVE THE PARTNERS AS INDIVIDUALS THE BENEFIT OF THE
ALTERNATIVE TAX IN THE CASE OF NET LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS, PROVIDED IN
EXCHANGE OF PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL ASSETS.  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS
METHOD INVOLVES A DEPARTURE FROM THE PRINCIPLE ADOPTED IN THE REVENUE
ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS ARE
OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :









CONTINENTAL CO. V. TENNESSEE, 311 U.S. 5 


NO. 117.  DECIDED OCTOBER 21, 1940.  - 176 TENN. 1 - 137 S.W.2D 277 -
138 ID. 447, DISMISSED. 


WHERE A STATE STATUTE IMPOSES UPON A FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF ENTERING THE STATE AND DOING LOCAL BUSINESS A LICENSE TAX
MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE PREMIUMS THAT WILL ACCRUE AND BE PAID
TO IT ON POLICIES ISSUED IN THE STATE, THROUGHOUT THE LIVES OF SUCH
POLICIES, THE STATE MAY, CONSISTENTLY WITH DUE PROCESS, CONTINUE TO
COLLECT SUCH PERCENTAGE ON PREMIUMS WHICH ACCRUE FROM SUCH POLICIES
AFTER THE COMPANY'S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATE, AND WHICH ARE PAID TO IT
AT ITS OFFICE IN ANOTHER STATE.  P. 6. 

CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE CO. V. TENNESSEE. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF
DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, SUSTAINING THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO
COLLECT FROM THE ASSURANCE COMPANY 2 1/2% OF PREMIUMS PAID TO IT BY
RESIDENTS OF TENNESSEE AFTER ITS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATE.  THE CASE
CAME BEFORE THIS COURT ON THE APPELLANT'S JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT AND
THE APPELLEE'S STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE STATE OF TENNESSEE BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF
PRIVILEGE TAXES MEASURED BY PREMIUMS ON POLICIES OF INSURANCE ISSUED
WHILE APPELLANT WAS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, BUT UPON WHICH THE
PREMIUMS WERE PAID AFTER ITS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE STATE.  APPELLANT
CONTENDED THAT SINCE ITS WITHDRAWAL IT HAD TRANSACTED NO BUSINESS
WITHIN THE STATE; THAT THE POLICYHOLDERS THERE HAD MAILED THEIR
PREMIUMS ON UNMATURED POLICIES TO THE HOME OFFICE OF APPELLANT IN
ANOTHER STATE; AND THAT TO HOLD IT LIABLE FOR THE TAXES DEMANDED WOULD
DEPRIVE IT OF ITS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SUSTAINED THE TAX.  IT CONSTRUED THE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS TO MEAN "THAT THE TAX IS LEVIED UPON THE RIGHT TO
DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE, MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF ANNUAL PREMIUMS
TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER TAXES, THE TAX ON THE ANNUAL PREMIUMS TO
BE PAID THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF POLICIES ISSUED"; THAT THOUGH "MEASURED
BY TWO AND A HALF PER CENT OF PREMIUMS RECEIVED ON POLICIES ISSUED BY
THE COMPANY WHILE EXERCISING ITS LICENSE FROM THE STATE, THE TAX WAS
LEVIED UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF ENTERING THE STATE AND ENGAGING IN THE
INSURANCE BUSINESS, AND NOT UPON THE ANNUAL PREMIUMS"; AND THAT THE
APPELLANT "BY ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE ADOPTED AND AGREED TO THE
CONSTRUCTION WE HAVE GIVEN IT, AND CANNOT NOW REPUDIATE ITS
PROVISIONS."  137 S.W.2D 277. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE DISTINGUISHES THE CASE FROM THAT OF
PROVIDENT SAVINGS & LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. KENTUCKY, 239 U.S. 103. 
THERE THE QUESTION UNDER THE STATUTE, AS IT HAD BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE
STATE COURT, WAS WHETHER THE INSURANCE COMPANY CONTINUED TO DO BUSINESS
WITHIN THE STATE FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, DESPITE THE FACT
THAT IT HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATE, MERELY BECAUSE OF THE RECEIPT OF
PREMIUMS AFTER WITHDRAWAL.  THE TAX WAS NOT LAID UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF
DOING BUSINESS DURING THE PERIOD THAT THE COMPANY WAS ACTUALLY WITHIN
THE STATE, THE TAX ON THAT PRIVILEGE BEING MEASURED BY THE PREMIUMS
RECEIVED DURING THE LIFE OF THE POLICIES.  ID., PP. 110, 111.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE EMPHASIZED THE POINT OF THIS DISTINCTION IN
ITS OPINION ON REHEARING.  138 S.W.2D 447.  COMPARE STATE V. INSURANCE
COMPANY, 106 TENN. 282, 333-335; 61 S.W. 75. 

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR THE WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
QUESTION.  DISMISSED. 
..END :






ARKANSAS V. TENNESSEE, 311 U.S. 1 


NO. 9, ORIGINAL.  IN EQUITY.  DECREE ENTERED OCTOBER 14, 1940. 


PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE 

ARKANSAS V. TENNESSEE* . 

*FOR THE OPINION IN THIS CASE, SEE 310 U.S. 563. 

                               DECREE. 

CAME ON THIS CAUSE TO BE HEARD UPON THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, THE ANSWER
AND CROSS-BILL OF THE DEFENDANT THERETO, THE REPLICATION OF THE
COMPLAINANT TO SUCH ANSWER AND CROSS-BILL, THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL
MASTER HERETOFORE FILED IN THIS CAUSE, THE EXCEPTIONS FILED THERETO BY
THE COMPLAINANT AND THE ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES WHEN, AFTER
CONSIDERATION THEREOF, THE COURT DOTH ORDER, ADJUDGE AND DECREE AS
FOLLOWS:

        I. 

THAT THE EXCEPTIONS OF COMPLAINANT, STATE OF ARKANSAS, TO THE REPORT
OF THE SPECIAL MASTER HEREIN ARE HEREBY OVERRULED AND SAID REPORT IN
ALL THINGS IS CONFIRMED AND APPROVED. 

                                 II. 

THAT THE COMPLAINANT, STATE OF ARKANSAS, IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER
OF THE DEFENDANT, STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN COUNT I OF
THE COMPLAINANT'S BILL BUT THAT THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, UPON ITS ANSWER
AND CROSSBILL IS DECREED TO BE ENTITLED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION
THEREOVER. 

III. 

THAT THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND STATE OF
TENNESSEE AT THE POINT OPPOSITE THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN COUNT I OF THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THIS CAUSE IS HEREBY DECREED TO BE THE THALWEG OR
CHANNEL OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AS THE SAME FLOWED ON OCTOBER 28,
1935, THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL BILL HEREIN. 

                                 IV. 

THAT THE FORMATION KNOWN AS BLUEGRASS TOWHEAD IS EXPRESSLY DECREED TO
BE UNDER THE JURISDICTION AND A PART OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. 

                                  V. 

THAT THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE TWO STATES AT THE POINTS DESCRIBED
IN COUNT II OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT IS HEREBY DECREED TO RUN AS
FOLLOWS: 

"BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT APPROXIMATE NORTH
LATITUDE 35-48-20, WEST LONGITUDE 89-44-12, SAID POINT BEING AT THE
MOUTH OF THE CHUTE OF SAID RIVER SEPARATING FORKED DEER ISLAND FROM
ISLAND 25; RUNNING THENCE THROUGH THE CENTER OF SAID CHUTE AS FOLLOWS: 

NORTH 74 DEGREES 15 MINUTES WEST 6500 FEET TO MONUMENT #1(NOT
PHYSICAL); THENCE NORTH 79 DEGREES 15 MINUTES WEST 2250 FEET TO
MONUMENT #2(NOT PHYSICAL); THENCE SOUTH 550 FEET TO MONUMENT #3 ON THE
BANK OF SAID CHUTE FROM WHICH: 

SOUTH 88 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST 21 FEET; 

SOUTH 37 DEGREES EAST 14 1/2 FEET, COTTONWOOD POINTERS:  THENCE SOUTH
72 DEGREES WEST 2400 FEET TO MONUMENT #4 FROM WHICH: 

SOUTH 59 DEGREES 45 MINUTES WEST 8 FEET; 

SOUTH 22 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST 7 FEET; 

NORTH 51 DEGREES EAST 5 FEET, COTTONWOOD POINTERS, BEING AT A "T"
CORNER OF PRESENT FENCE; THENCE SOUTH 72 DEGREES WEST FOLLOWING PRESENT
FENCE IN GENERAL 2761 FEET TO MONUMENT #5, FROM WHICH: 

NORTH 34 DEGREES EAST 10 FEET; 

SOUTH 25 DEGREES WEST 8 FEET; 

NORTH 16 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 16 FEET; 

SOUTH 66 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 15 FEET, COTTONWOOD POINTERS:
THENCE SOUTH 43 DEGREES 45 MINUTES WEST FOLLOWING PRESENT FENCE IN
GENERAL 2268 FEET TO MONUMENT #6, FROM WHICH: 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSIONER'S BENCH MARK (FORKED DEER) BEARS SOUTH
57 DEGREES 15 MINUTES EAST 724 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43 DEGREES 45 MINUTES
WEST FOLLOWING PRESENT FENCE IN GENERAL 3963 FEET TO MONUMENT #7 FROM
WHICH: 

NORTH 2 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST 4.5 FEET; 

NORTH 55 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 12 FEET; 

SOUTH 52 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 10 FEET; 

SOUTH 38 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 14 FEET, COTTONWOOD POINTERS; THENCE
SOUTH 30 DEGREES 45 MINUTES WEST FOLLOWING PRESENT FENCE IN GENERAL
1400 FEET TO MONUMENT #8, FROM WHICH: 

SOUTH 63 DEGREES WEST 16 FEET; 

SOUTH 13 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST 17 FEET, COTTONWOOD POINTERS; THENCE
SOUTH 30 DEGREES 45 MINUTES WEST 500 FEET TO MONUMENT #9(NOT PHYSICAL)
IN THE CENTER OF THE CHUTE SEPARATING FORKED DEER ISLAND FROM THE
ARKANSAS MAIN SHORE; THENCE WITH THE CHUTE AS FOLLOWS: 

SOUTH 17 DEGREES 15 MINUTES EAST 2650 FEET TO MONUMENT #10(NOT
PHYSICAL); THENCE SOUTH 8 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 800 FEET TO MONUMENT
#11(NOT PHYSICAL); THENCE SOUTH 23 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST 600 FEET TO
MONUMENT #12(NOT PHYSICAL); THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREES 15 MINUTES WEST
1400 FEET TO MONUMENT #13(NOT PHYSICAL); THENCE SOUTH 50 DEGREES WEST
1200 FEET TO MONUMENT #14(NOT PHYSICAL) IN SAID CHUTE, AT APPROXIMATE
NORTH LATITUDE 35-46-21, WEST LONGITUDE 89-48-22. 

MAGNETIC VARIATION 5 DEGREES 15 MINUTES." 

                            VI. 

THAT W. H. GREEN OF COVINGTON, TENNESSEE, AND O. W. GAUSS OF OSCEOLA,
ARKANSAS, BE AND THEY ARE HEREBY APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE BOUNDARY ABOVE DESIGNATED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN COUNT II.  THE COMMISSIONERS, AFTER FIRST
TAKING AN OATH TO FULLY AND IMPARTIALLY PERFORM THE DUTIES REQUIRED OF
THEM BY THIS DECREE, WILL GO UPON THE LANDS IN QUESTION AND DESIGNATE
THE BOUNDARY HEREIN FIXED BY THE ERECTION OF AT LEAST FOUR PERMANENT
STATION MONUMENTS OF CONCRETE OR OTHER DURABLE MATERIAL AT ANGLE POINTS
UPON THE LINE HEREIN DECREED TO BE THE TRUE BOUNDARY.  IN ADDITION
THERETO, THEY WILL ERECT FOUR MONUMENTS OF LIKE PERMANENT CHARACTER AT
POINTS DEEMED BY THEM TO BE NOT SUBJECT TO EROSION BY THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER, AS REFERENCE MONUMENTS, TWO REFERRING TO EACH TERMINUS OF THE
LINE HEREIN DECREED, WHICH MONUMENTS SHALL BE FIXED BY APPROPRIATE
COURSES AND DISTANCES FROM THE TERMINAL POINTS OF THE LINE AS HEREIN
DECREED.  THE COMMISSIONERS HEREIN NAMED ARE AUTHORIZED TO PROCURE SUCH
ASSISTANCE AS MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THEM FOR THE EFFECTIVE
DISCHARGE OF THE FUNCTIONS HEREIN IMPOSED UPON THEM.  IN THE EVENT OF A
DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COMMISSIONERS, EITHER PARTY TO THE
LITIGATION MAY APPLY TO THE COURT, IF IN SESSION OR TO THE CHIEF
JUSTICE THEREOF IN VACATION, FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A THIRD
COMMISSIONER. 

AFTER COMPLETING THEIR LABORS, THE COMMISSIONERS WILL FILE WITH THE
CLERK OF THIS COURT A REPORT SETTING FORTH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
DUTIES AS HEREIN IMPOSED AND A SCHEDULE OF THEIR DISBURSEMENTS IN THE
PREMISES.  UPON APPLICATION TO THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, THE
COMMISSIONERS OR EITHER OF THEM WILL BE FURNISHED WITH A COPY OF THIS
DECREE AS THEIR AUTHORITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS IN THE PREMISES. 

ALL OTHER MATTERS ARE RESERVED UNTIL THE COMING IN OF THE REPORT OF
THE COMMISSIONERS. 
..END :










ARKANSAS V. TENNESSEE, 310 U.S. 563 


NO. 9, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED APRIL 23, 1940.  - DECIDED JUNE 3, 1940.  -
EXCEPTIONS OVERRULED - REPORT CONFIRMED - AND DECREE ORDERED. 


1.  LAND ON THE ARKANSAS SIDE OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WAS CUT OFF BY
A SUDDEN CHANGE OF THE RIVER'S COURSE, IN 1821, AND BECAME ATTACHED TO
THE TENNESSEE SIDE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT IT SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME A PART OF TENNESSEE AS THE RESULT OF
LONG AND CONTINUOUS EXERCISE BY THAT STATE OF DOMINION AND JURISDICTION
OVER IT WITH THE ACQUIESCENCE OF ARKANSAS.  P. 566. 

(2)  THAT AN ADDITION TO THIS AREA, CAUSED BY GRADUAL ACCRETION FROM
THE RIVER, WAS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE TENNESSEE JURISDICTION.  P. 572. 

2.  THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESCRIPTION AND ACQUIESCENCE IS APPLICABLE IN
THE DETERMINATION OF BOUNDARIES BETWEEN STATES.  P. 569. 

3.  THE RULE OF THE THALWEG RESTS UPON EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS AND
IS INTENDED TO SAFEGUARD TO EACH STATE EQUALITY OF ACCESS AND RIGHT OF
NAVIGATION IN THE STREAM.  THE RULE YIELDS TO THE DOCTRINE THAT A
BOUNDARY IS UNALTERED BY AN AVULSION; AND IN SUCH CASE, IN THE ABSENCE
OF PRESCRIPTION, THE BOUNDARY NO LONGER FOLLOWS THE THALWEG BUT REMAINS
AT THE ORIGINAL LINE.  P. 571. 

4.  THE DOCTRINE AS TO THE EFFECT OF AN AVULSION MAY BECOME
INAPPLICABLE WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE HAS BEEN ACQUIESCENCE IN
A LONG-CONTINUED AND UNINTERRUPTED ASSERTION OF DOMINION AND
JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA AFFECTED.  P. 571. 

5.  THE QUESTION WHETHER A STATE HAS ACQUIRED POLITICAL JURISDICTION
BY PRESCRIPTION IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE TITLE TO
THE AREA IS IN THE UNITED STATES, SUCH TITLE NOT BEING DISPUTED.  P.
571. 

ARKANSAS V. TENNESSEE. 

UPON EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT OF A SPECIAL MASTER, APPOINTED IN AN
ORIGINAL BOUNDARY SUIT (301 U.S. 666) BETWEEN THE STATES OF ARKANSAS
AND TENNESSEE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE SEEKING A DECREE DETERMINING THE TRUE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
STATES AT CERTAIN POINTS AND CONFIRMING THE JURISDICTION AND
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS OVER THE DESCRIBED TERRITORY. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT SET FORTH TWO COUNTS.  THE FIRST COUNT
PRESENTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ARKANSAS AS TO THE BOUNDARY IN RELATION TO
AN AREA KNOWN AS "NEEDHAM'S ISLAND," LATER AS "CUTOFF ISLAND" OR "MOSS
ISLAND," AND TO A CONTIGUOUS FORMATION KNOWN AS "BLUE GRASS TOWHEAD." 
THIS IS THE ONLY AREA WHICH REMAINS IN CONTROVERSY, AS THE PARTIES HAVE
AGREED BY STIPULATION UPON THE BOUNDARY LINE TO BE FIXED IN RELATION TO
THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE SECOND COUNT. 

TENNESSEE ANSWERED, CONTESTING THE CLAIMS OF ARKANSAS AND ASSERTING
BY CROSS-BILL ITS JURISDICTION AND SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE TERRITORY IN
QUESTION. 

THE ISSUES WERE REFERRED TO MONTE M. LEMANN AS SPECIAL MASTER.  301
U.S. 666.  THE MASTER HAS FILED A CAREFUL AND COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
RECOMMENDING A DECREE IN FAVOR OF TENNESSEE AS TO THE AREA DESCRIBED IN
COUNT ONE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STIPULATION AS TO THAT DESCRIBED
IN COUNT TWO.  THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD UPON THAT REPORT AND THE
EXCEPTIONS FILED BY ARKANSAS. 

THE MASTER SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING FACTS AS AGREED UPON BY THE
PARTIES: 

"PRIOR TO 1821, THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY IN THIS SUIT WAS ON THE WEST
BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE RIVER FLOWED
TO THE EAST THEREOF.  AT THE LOCATION INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT, THE RIVER
AT THAT TIME FLOWED AROUND A TWELVE MILE BEND CAUSED BY THE EXTENSION
OF A PENINSULA INTO THE RIVER FROM THE WESTERN SHORE.  IN 1821 AN
AVULSION TOOK PLACE IN THE COURSE OF THE RIVER OCCASIONED BY THE WATERS
CUTTING ACROSS THE NECK OF THIS PENINSULA AT A POINT WHERE IT HAD
BECOME ONLY HALF A MILE WIDE DUE TO CAVING OF THE RIVER BANKS.  AT THE
PRESENT TIME THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOWS TO THE
WEST OF THE LANDS IN CONTROVERSY AND HAS SO FLOWED FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR
TO THE PRESENT.  THE ORIGINAL CHANNEL OF THE RIVER IS NOW, AND HAS FOR
MANY YEARS BEEN, FILLED UP SO THAT THE ISLAND ORIGINALLY CREATED BY THE
AVULSION IS NOW, AND HAS FOR MANY YEARS BEEN, PHYSICALLY CONNECTED TO,
AND A PART OF, THE EASTERN SHORE OF THE RIVER." 

AFTER A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE UPON POINTS IN DISPUTE, THE MASTER
MADE A SUMMARY OF HIS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(1)  THE TERRITORY OF ARKANSAS WAS ORGANIZED BY ACT OF MARCH 2,
1819, 3 STAT. 493, BEING CARVED OUT OF THE TERRITORY OF MISSOURI, WHICH
WAS A PART OF THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE, AND THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE
TERRITORY WAS THE MIDDLE OF THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. 

"(2)  IN 1819 THE LANDS IN CONTROVERSY WERE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE
MAIN CHANNEL OF THE RIVER AND WERE PART OF THE TERRITORY OF ARKANSAS. 

"(3)  THE AVULSION AT NEEDHAM'S CUTOFF OCCURRED IN 1821. 

"(4)  THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE RIVER FLOWED THROUGH THE CUTOFF PRIOR
TO 1836. 

"(5)  ARKANSAS WAS ADMITTED INTO THE UNION ON JUNE 15, 1836, 5 STAT.
50, AND ITS EASTERN BOUNDARY WAS FIXED AT THE MIDDLE OF THE MAIN
CHANNEL OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. 

"(6)  ON JUNE 15, 1836, WHEN ARKANSAS WAS ADMITTED INTO THE UNION,
THE LANDS IN CONTROVERSY WERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE MAIN CHANNEL OF
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. 

"(7)  THE AVULSION DID NOT CHANGE THE BOUNDARY LINE THERETOFORE
EXISTING BETWEEN TENNESSEE AND THE TERRITORY OF ARKANSAS. 

"(8)  THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 15, 1836, ADMITTING ARKANSAS INTO
THE UNION, DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF EXCLUDING FROM THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS LANDS WHICH IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF
THE ACT WERE WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF ARKANSAS. 

"(9)  TENNESSEE WAS ADMITTED INTO THE UNION ON JUNE 1, 1796, 1 STAT.
491, C. 47.  ITS WESTERN BOUNDARY WAS THE MIDDLE OF THE MAIN CHANNEL OF
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.  THE LANDS IN CONTROVERSY WERE IN 1796 ON THE
WEST OF THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE RIVER. 

"(10)  THE ACT OF JUNE 15, 1836, 5 STAT. 50, ADMITTING ARKANSAS INTO
THE UNION, DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF ENLARGING THE BOUNDARIES OF
TENNESSEE. 

"(11)  FROM 1826 TO THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THIS SUIT, TENNESSEE
HAS CONTINUOUSLY EXERCISED DOMINION AND JURISDICTION OVER THE LANDS IN
CONTROVERSY. 

"(12)  ARKANSAS HAS ACQUIESCED IN TENNESSEE'S EXERCISE OF DOMINION
AND JURISDICTION. 

"(13)  THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN COUNT ONE OF THE COMPLAINT ARE NOW
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF TENNESSEE AS A RESULT OF PRESCRIPTION.  BLUE
GRASS TOWHEAD, WHICH HAS BEEN FORMED BY GRADUAL PROCESSES AND IS
ATTACHED TO MOSS ISLAND, IS LIKEWISE NOW WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF
TENNESSEE." 

THE EXCEPTIONS OF ARKANSAS TO THE MASTER'S REPORT PRESENT FOR THE
MOST PART QUESTIONS OF LAW.  ARKANSAS CONTENDS THAT ITS TRUE EASTERN
BOUNDARY AT THE PLACE IN CONTROVERSY WAS DETERMINED BY THE RULE OF THE
THALWEG, BEING THE MIDDLE OF THE MAIN CHANNEL OF NAVIGATION OF THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AS IT EXISTED WHEN THE TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN WAS CONCLUDED IN 1783, SUBJECT TO SUCH
SUBSEQUENT CHANGES AS OCCURRED THROUGH NATURAL AND GRADUAL PROCESSES. 
ARKANSAS V. TENNESSEE, 246 U.S. 158; ARKANSAS V. MISSISSIPPI, 250 U.S.
39; ARKANSAS V. MISSISSIPPI, 252 U.S. 344.  THE MASTER SUPPORTS THAT
CONTENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARY OF THE TERRITORY OF
ARKANSAS, AND ALSO THE CONTENTION THAT THE AVULSION OF 1821 DID NOT
CHANGE THE BOUNDARY LINE THERETOFORE EXISTING BETWEEN TENNESSEE AND THE
TERRITORY OF ARKANSAS; AND, FURTHER, THE MASTER HOLDS THAT THE ACT OF
1836 ADMITTING ARKANSAS INTO THE UNION DID NOT OPERATE TO EXCLUDE FROM
ITS BOUNDARIES THE LANDS WHICH IMMEDIATELY BEFORE WERE WITHIN THE
TERRITORY OF ARKANSAS OR TO ENLARGE THE BOUNDARIES OF TENNESSEE. 

DESPITE THESE CONCLUSIONS, THE MASTER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AREA
IN QUESTION SHOULD NOW BE DEEMED TO BE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF
TENNESSEE BY VIRTUE OF PRESCRIPTION AND THE ACQUIESCENCE ON THE PART OF
ARKANSAS IN THE EXERCISE BY TENNESSEE OF DOMINION AND JURISDICTION OVER
THAT AREA.  UPON THAT QUESTION OF FACT, THE MASTER FOUND THAT TENNESSEE
HAD CONTINUOUSLY EXERCISED THAT DOMINION AND JURISDICTION FROM THE YEAR
1826 TO THE TIME OF THE BRINGING OF THE PRESENT SUIT.  IN SUPPORT OF
THIS FINDING, THE MASTER THUS SUMMARIZED THE EVIDENCE: 

"THE CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT AS EARLY AS 1823 ENTRIES OF THE
LAND WERE BEING MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF TENNESSEE AND SURVEYS WERE
MADE UNDER AUTHORITY OF TENNESSEE AS EARLY AS 1824.  WITNESSES SIXTY
FIVE, SEVENTY-EIGHT AND EIGHTY-FOUR YEARS OLD TESTIFIED BEFORE ME THAT
THE INHABITANTS OF THE ISLAND ALWAYS VOTED IN TENNESSEE ELECTIONS; WERE
TAXED BY TENNESSEE, MARRIED BY TENNESSEE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE,
REQUIRED TO DO ROAD WORK UNDER TENNESSEE AUTHORITY, EDUCATED UPON THE
ISLAND IN A SCHOOL OPERATED BY TENNESSEE.  THE RECORDS OF DYER COUNTY,
TENNESSEE, SHOWED THAT ASSESSMENTS ON THE LANDS IN CONTROVERSY FOR
LOCAL TAXES WERE MADE BY TENNESSEE AUTHORITIES AND LAND TAXES PAID TO
TENNESSEE AS FAR BACK AS 1870, PRIOR TO WHICH RECORDS ARE MISSING. 
TENNESSEE EXHIBIT 42 SHOWS A TAX SALE BY A TENNESSEE SHERIFF IN 1848
COVERING LANDS ON THE ISLAND.  THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IN THE CASE OF
MOSS V. GIBBS, SHOWS TESTIMONY IN THAT CASE THAT AS FAR BACK AS 1826
TENNESSEE ASSESSED THE LANDS ON THE CUTOFF ISLAND, COLLECTED THE TAXES
ON THEM AND SERVED PROCESS THERE.  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
TENNESSEE IN MOSS V. GIBBS (1872) 57 TENN. 283 RECITES THESE FACTS AS
PROVEN THEREIN." 

THE MASTER ADDED THAT IF HE WAS MISTAKEN IN THINKING IT PROPER TO
CONSIDER THE DEPOSITIONS AND OPINION IN MOSS V. GIBBS AS AFFORDING
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, "THE TESTIMONY TAKEN BEFORE ME AND THE OTHER
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, CONSISTING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ENTRIES,
SURVEYS AND PATENTS, IS, IN MY JUDGMENT, SUFFICIENT TO PROVE
TENNESSEE'S LONG AND UNINTERRUPTED EXERCISE OF DOMINION AND
JURISDICTION OVER THE LANDS IN CONTROVERSY." 

THE MASTER WAS EQUALLY EXPLICIT IN FINDING THAT THE RECORD SHOWED THE
ACQUIESCENCE OF ARKANSAS IN THIS ASSERTION OF DOMINION BY TENNESSEE. 
ON THIS POINT HIS REPORT STATES: 

"THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT ARKANSAS EVER ASSERTED ANY CLAIM TO THE
LAND IN CONTROVERSY PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THIS SUIT.  THE LANDS
WERE NEVER SURVEYED OR GRANTED BY ARKANSAS.  IN 1848 THE UNITED STATES
SURVEYOR OF PUBLIC LANDS IN ARKANSAS WROTE TO THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE
IN WASHINGTON THAT HE HAD BEEN CALLED UPON TO SURVEY THE LANDS ON THE
CUTOFF ISLAND.  HE RECEIVED A REPLY AUTHORIZING HIM TO PROCEED WITH THE
SURVEY OF THE ISLAND 'MORE ESPECIALLY IF IT IS NOT CLAIMED BY THE STATE
OF TENNESSEE.'  BUT NO SURVEY WAS EVER MADE.  ON OCTOBER 10TH, 1935,
APPLICATION WAS FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS OF ARKANSAS
FOR THE PURCHASE OF BLUE GRASS TOWHEAD, BUT NO ACTION WAS TAKEN
THEREON.  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE IN MOSS V.
GIBBS, 57 TENN. 283, WAS PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1872 AND MADE THE CLAIMS
OF TENNESSEE A MATTER OF PUBLIC NOTORIETY." 

THERE WAS SLIGHT, IF ANY, CONTROVERSY AS TO THE FACTS UPON THE
HEARING AT THIS BAR.  THE FINDINGS OF THE MASTER WITH RESPECT TO THE
EXERCISE OF DOMINION AND JURISDICTION BY TENNESSEE AND AS TO THE
ACQUIESCENCE THEREIN OF ARKANSAS ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, AND
WE MUST DETERMINE THE CAUSE UPON THAT BASIS. 

THE CONTENTIONS OF ARKANSAS IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF PRESCRIPTION AND ACQUIESCENCE IN DETERMINING THE BOUNDARY
BETWEEN STATES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  THAT PRINCIPLE HAS HAD REPEATED
RECOGNITION BY THIS COURT.  IN RHODE ISLAND V. MASSACHUSETTS, 4 HOW. 
591, 639, THE COURT SAID:  "NO HUMAN TRANSACTIONS ARE UNAFFECTED BY
TIME.  ITS INFLUENCE IS SEEN ON ALL THINGS SUBJECT TO CHANGE.  AND THIS
IS PECULIARLY THE CASE IN REGARD TO MATTERS WHICH REST IN MEMORY AND
WHICH CONSEQUENTLY FADE WITH THE LAPSE OF TIME, AND FALL WITH THE LIVES
OF INDIVIDUALS.  FOR THE SECURITY OF RIGHTS, WHETHER OF STATES OR
INDIVIDUALS, LONG POSSESSION UNDER A CLAIM OF TITLE IS PROTECTED.  AND
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY IN WHICH THIS GREAT PRINCIPLE MAY BE INVOLVED
WITH GREATER JUSTICE AND PROPRIETY THAN IN A CASE OF DISPUTED
BOUNDARY."  APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE IN INDIANA V. KENTUCKY, 136 U.S.
479, 510, TO THE LONG ACQUIESCENCE IN THE EXERCISE BY KENTUCKY OF
DOMINION AND JURISDICTION OVER THE LAND THERE IN CONTROVERSY, THE COURT
SAID:  "IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC LAW UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED, THAT
LONG ACQUIESCENCE IN THE POSSESSION OF TERRITORY AND IN THE EXERCISE OF
DOMINION AND SOVEREIGNTY OVER IT, IS CONCLUSIVE OF THE NATION'S TITLE
AND RIGHTFUL AUTHORITY."  AGAIN, IN LOUISIANA V. MISSISSIPPI, 202 U.S.
1, 53, THE COURT OBSERVED:  "THE QUESTION IS ONE OF BOUNDARY, AND THIS
COURT HAS MANY TIMES HELD THAT, AS BETWEEN THE STATES OF THE UNION,
LONG ACQUIESCENCE IN THE ASSERTION OF A PARTICULAR BOUNDARY AND THE
EXERCISE OF DOMINION AND SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE TERRITORY WITHIN IT,
SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS CONCLUSIVE WHATEVER THE INTERNATIONAL RULE MIGHT
BE IN RESPECT OF THE ACQUISITION BY PRESCRIPTION OF LARGE TRACTS OF
COUNTRY CLAIMED BY BOTH."  SEE, ALSO, VIRGINIA V. TENNESSEE, 148 U.S.
503, 523; MARYLAND V. WEST VIRGINIA, 217 U.S. 1, 41-44; VERMONT V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 289 U.S. 593, 613. 

IN MICHIGAN V. WISCONSIN, 270 U.S. 295, 308, THE COURT THUS REFERRED
TO THE RECOGNITION OF THIS PRINCIPLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, SAYING:
"THAT RIGHTS OF THE CHARACTER HERE CLAIMED MAY BE ACQUIRED ON THE ONE
HAND AND LOST ON THE OTHER BY OPEN, LONG-CONTINUED AND UNINTERRUPTED
POSSESSION OF TERRITORY, IS A DOCTRINE NOT CONFINED TO INDIVIDUALS BUT
APPLICABLE TO SOVEREIGN NATIONS AS WELL, DIRECT UNITED STATES CABLE CO.
V. ANGLO-AMERICAN TELEGRAPH CO., (1877) L.R. 2 A.C. 394, 421; WHEATON,
INTERNATIONAL LAW, 5TH ENG. ED., 268-269; 1 MOORE, INTERNATIONAL LAW
DIGEST, 294 ET SEQ., AND, A FORTIORI, TO THE QUASI-SOVEREIGN STATES OF
THE UNION."  PRESCRIPTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, SAYS OPPENHEIM, MAY BE
DEFINED AS "THE ACQUISITION OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER A TERRITORY THROUGH
CONTINUOUS AND UNDISTURBED EXERCISE OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER IT DURING SUCH
A PERIOD AS IS NECESSARY TO CREATE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF HISTORICAL
DEVELOPMENT THE GENERAL CONVICTION THAT THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THINGS
IS IN CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL ORDER."  AND THUS HE FINDS THAT
PRESCRIPTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW "HAS THE SAME RATIONAL BASIS AS
PRESCRIPTION IN MUNICIPAL LAW - NAMELY, THE CREATION OF STABILITY OF
ORDER."  OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 5TH ED., PP. 455, 456.  SEE,
ALSO, HALL, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 8TH ED., PP. 143, 144; HYDE,
INTERNATIONAL LAW, SEC. 116. 

THIS PRINCIPLE OF PRESCRIPTION AND ACQUIESCENCE, WHEN THERE IS A
SUFFICIENT BASIS OF FACT FOR ITS APPLICATION, SO ESSENTIAL TO THE
"STABILITY OF ORDER" AS BETWEEN THE STATES OF THE UNION, IS IN NO WAY
DISREGARDED OR IMPAIRED BY OUR DECISIONS IN ARKANSAS V. TENNESSEE,
SUPRA, AND ARKANSAS V. MISSISSIPPI, SUPRA, UPON WHICH COUNSEL FOR
ARKANSAS RELY.  IN THOSE CASES THE EVIDENCE FELL SHORT OF THE PROOF OF
LONG ACQUIESCENCE WHICH WAS NECESSARY TO WARRANT THE APPLICATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE AND THERE WAS NO SUCH SHOWING OF ACTS OF DOMINION AND
JURISDICTION AS ARE SHOWN ON THE PART OF TENNESSEE IN THE INSTANT
CASE.    ON BEHALF OF ARKANSAS IT IS ARGUED THAT THE RULE OF THE
THALWEG IS OF SUCH DOMINATING CHARACTER THAT IT MEETS AND OVERTHROWS
THE DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION AND ACQUIESCENCE.  THAT POSITION IS
UNTENABLE.  THE RULE OF THE THALWEG RESTS UPON EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
AND IS INTENDED TO SAFEGUARD TO EACH STATE EQUALITY OF ACCESS AND RIGHT
OF NAVIGATION IN THE STREAM.  IOWA V. ILLINOIS, 147 U.S. 1, 7, 8;
MINNESOTA V. WISCONSIN, 252 U.S. 273, 281, 282; WISCONSIN V. MICHIGAN,
295 U.S. 455, 461; NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE, 291 U.S. 361, 380.  THE RULE
YIELDS TO THE DOCTRINE THAT A BOUNDARY IS UNALTERED BY AN AVULSION AND
IN SUCH CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESCRIPTION, THE BOUNDARY NO LONGER
FOLLOWS THE THALWEG BUT REMAINS AT THE ORIGINAL LINE ALTHOUGH NOW ON
DRY LAND BECAUSE THE OLD CHANNEL HAS FILLED UP.  NEBRASKA V. IOWA, 143
U.S. 359, 367; MISSOURI V. NEBRASKA, 196 U.S. 23, 36; ARKANSAS V.
TENNESSEE, SUPRA, PP. 173, 174.  AND, IN TURN, THE DOCTRINE AS TO THE
EFFECT OF AN AVULSION MAY BECOME INAPPLICABLE WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED
THAT THERE HAS BEEN ACQUIESCENCE IN A LONG-CONTINUED AND UNINTERRUPTED
ASSERTION OF DOMINION AND JURISDICTION OVER A GIVEN AREA.  HERE THAT
FACT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND THE ORIGINAL RULE OF THE THALWEG NO
LONGER APPLIES. 

THE CONTENTION IS ALSO PRESSED THAT THE DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION IS
UNAVAILABLE UPON THE GROUND THAT THE TITLE TO THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY
IS IN THE UNITED STATES; THAT THE LAND IS STILL UNSURVEYED LAND OF THE
UNITED STATES; AND, HENCE, THAT THE DEFENSE OF ADVERSE POSSESSION COULD
NOT BE GOOD AGAINST ARKANSAS AS SHE DID NOT HAVE TITLE.  BUT THE
QUESTION IN THIS SUIT IS NOT ONE OF TITLE TO PARTICULAR LAND BUT OF
BOUNDARIES AND OF POLITICAL JURISDICTION AS BETWEEN ARKANSAS AND
TENNESSEE.  TENNESSEE IS MAKING NO CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  NO
TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO LANDS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF EITHER
STATE IS HERE IN QUESTION OR IS HERE DETERMINED.  THE RULING OF THE
MASTER IN OVERRULING THIS CONTENTION IS SUSTAINED. 

A SPECIAL POINT IS URGED AS TO THE AREA KNOWN AS "BLUE GRASS
TOWHEAD."  AS TO THIS AREA, THE MASTER FOUND: 

"BLUE GRASS TOWHEAD IS A FORMATION ADJOINING MOSS ISLAND (THE CUTOFF
ISLAND) ON THE WEST THEREOF, WHICH HAS BEEN FORMED SINCE THE YEAR 1916
BY THE GRADUAL PROCESSES OF THE RIVER AND IS NOW ATTACHED PHYSICALLY TO
THE EASTERN SHORE OF THE RIVER.  INSOFAR AS THIS FORMATION IS IN
CONTROVERSY IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT ALSO
IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF TENNESSEE, AS IT WAS FORMED BY
GRADUAL PROCESSES AND IS ATTACHED TO MOSS ISLAND; SEE ARKANSAS V.
TENNESSEE, 246 U.S. 158, 173." 

IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT AS MOSS ISLAND BY PRESCRIPTION AND ACQUIESCENCE
MUST BE DEEMED TO BE PART OF THE TERRITORY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
OF TENNESSEE, THIS ADDITION BY GRADUAL PROCESSES SHOULD BE TREATED AS
PART OF MOSS ISLAND AND AS SUBJECT TO THE SAME JURISDICTION. 

THE EXCEPTIONS OF ARKANSAS TO THE MASTER'S REPORT ARE OVERRULED AND
THE REPORT IS IN ALL RESPECTS CONFIRMED.  DECREE WILL BE ENTERED
ACCORDINGLY, PROVIDING: 

(1)  THAT THE CLAIMS OF ARKANSAS TO THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN COUNT ONE
BE REJECTED AND THE CLAIMS OF TENNESSEE THERETO BE MAINTAINED, AND THAT
THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE STATES AT THE POINT TO WHICH COUNT ONE
REFERS BE FIXED AT THE MIDDLE OF THE MAIN CHANNEL OF NAVIGATION IN THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AS IT EXISTED AT THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE BILL
OF COMPLAINT HEREIN. 

(2)  THAT THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN ARKANSAS AND TENNESSEE AT THE POINT
DESCRIBED IN COUNT TWO OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT BE FIXED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STIPULATION ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES, AND THAT A
COMMISSIONER BE APPOINTED TO MARK THE BOUNDARY LINE AS SET OUT IN THE
STIPULATION BY PLACING THREE SUITABLE MARKERS ALONG THE LINE AND A
FOURTH ONE ON SUFFICIENTLY HIGH GROUND TO BE USED IN LOCATING THE OTHER
THREE IN THE EVENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE COVERED BY WATER, MOVED OR
DESTROYED. 

(3)  THAT COSTS BE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE STATES. 

DECREE MAY BE SETTLED ON NOTICE.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 
..END :











RAILROAD COMMISSION V. OIL CO., 310 U.S. 573 


NO. 681.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 25, 1940.  - DECIDED JUNE 3, 1940.  - 107
F.2D 70, REVERSED. 


AN ORDER OF A STATE COMMISSION FOR LIMITING AND PRORATING THE
PRODUCTION OF AN OIL FIELD, FIXED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TO ANY WELL AT
2.32% OF ITS "HOURLY POTENTIAL," BUT GAVE TO "MARGINAL" WELLS - THOSE
WHICH, IF THEIR LOW CAPACITY WERE CURTAILED, WOULD HAVE TO BE
PREMATURELY ABANDONED - A SPECIAL STATUS, ALLOWING EACH OF THEM
PRODUCTION UP TO TWENTY BARRELS PER DAY.  BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER
OF SUCH LOW-CAPACITY WELLS, APPROXIMATELY 385,000 BARRELS, OUT OF A
TOTAL DAILY "ALLOWABLE" OF 522,000 BARRELS FOR THE ENTIRE FIELD, WERE
EXEMPT FROM THE "HOURLY POTENTIAL" FORMULA.  A COMPANY WHOSE WELLS WERE
FAVORABLY SITUATED AND CAPABLE OF LARGE PRODUCTION, BUT WERE ALLOWED BY
THE FORMULA A DAILY PRODUCTION OF BUT TWENTY-TWO BARRELS EACH, CLAIMED
THAT THE REGULATION DISREGARDED ITS RIGHT TO THE OIL IN PLACE WITHIN
ITS GROUND; THAT IT PERMITTED OTHERS UNDUE OPPORTUNITY TO CAPTURE OIL
DRAINING FROM ITS GROUND; THAT THE "POTENTIAL" METHOD FAILED TO GIVE
SUFFICIENT WEIGHT TO RELEVANT FACTORS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF OIL IN
PLACE, ESPECIALLY TO THE DEPTH OF THE COMPANY'S RESERVES; THAT ONLY AN
ALLOCATION BASED UPON ACRE-FEET OF THE OIL SAND, OR ITS EQUIVALENT,
WOULD BE REASONABLE; THAT THE ORDER WAS, IN EFFECT, AN ALLOCATION ON A
FLAT PER-WELL BASIS, REGARDLESS OF GREAT VARIATION IN THE CAPACITY OF
WELLS AND THE DENSITY OF WELL DRILLING ON DIFFERENT TRACTS; THAT
EXCESSIVE DRILLINGS ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION AS EXCEPTIONS TO ITS
GENERAL SPACING RULE, ENABLED DENSELY DRILLED TRACTS, BY VIRTUE OF THE
"MARGINAL" ALLOWANCES, TO DRAIN AWAY THE COMPANY'S RESERVES; AND THAT,
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY WAS TAKEN WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW.  HELD: 

1.  THAT, IN VIEW OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE PROBLEM OF FAIR
ALLOCATION, THE SPECULATION INVOLVED IN AN APPROACH TO ITS SOLUTION,
AND THE SPECIAL FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION, A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD NOT
UNDERTAKE TO DETERMINE IT UPON THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS. 
P. 580. 

2.  IN A CONTROVERSY SUCH AS THIS, COURTS MUST NOT SUBSTITUTE THEIR
NOTIONS OF EXPEDIENCY AND FAIRNESS FOR THOSE WHICH HAVE GUIDED THE
AGENCIES TO WHOM THE FORMULATION AND EXECUTION OF POLICY HAVE BEEN
ENTRUSTED.  PP. 580-581. 

3.  WHETHER A SYSTEM OF PRORATION BASED UPON HOURLY POTENTIAL IS AS
FAIR AS ONE BASED UPON ESTIMATED RECOVERABLE RESERVES OR SOME OTHER
FACTOR OR COMBINATION OF FACTORS, IS IN ITSELF A QUESTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE AND NOT JUDICIAL JUDGMENT.  P. 581. 

IN A DOMAIN OF KNOWLEDGE STILL SHIFTING AND GROWING, AND IN A FIELD
WHERE JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE NECESSARILY BESET BY THE NECESSITY OF
INFERENCES BORDERING ON CONJECTURE EVEN FOR THOSE LEARNED IN THE ART,
IT WOULD BE PRESUMPTUOUS FOR COURTS, ON THE BASIS OF CONFLICTING EXPERT
TESTIMONY, TO DEEM THE VIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ACTING
UNDER LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, OFFENSIVE TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

4.  IN MAKING EXCEPTIONS TO ITS GENERAL SPACING RULE AND GENERAL
RESTRICTIVE PRODUCTION FORMULA, IN FAVOR OF SMALL, IRREGULARLY SHAPED
TRACTS THAT, OTHERWISE, MIGHT LOSE THEIR OIL BY FAILURE TO DRILL OR
INABILITY TO OPERATE AT A PROFIT, THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT NOT ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS OF THESE SMALL OWNERS,
BUT ALSO EFFECTS ON THE STATE'S ECONOMY.  P. 582. 

5.  IT IS NOT FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS TO SUPPLANT THE COMMISSION'S
JUDGMENT EVEN IN THE FACE OF CONVINCING PROOF THAT A DIFFERENT RESULT
WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.  P. 583. 

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS ET AL. V. ROWAN & NICHOLS OIL CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 646, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE (28
F.SUPP.  131) ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN OIL PRORATION ORDER. 

UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, A LANDOWNER UNDER
PRORATION IS ENTITLED TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER SUBSTANTIALLY THE
EQUIVALENT OF THE OIL AND GAS ORIGINALLY IN PLACE BENEATH HIS LAND. 

THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT IT IS BEING IRREPARABLY
INJURED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRORATION ORDERS OF THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION, BECAUSE THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE RESPONDENT
HAS SUFFERED NO PHYSICAL DEPLETION OF ITS LEASE, AND HAS BENEFITED FROM
THE OPERATION OF THE PRORATION ORDERS UP TO THE PRESENT TIME. 

RESPONDENT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT IT WILL BE DEPRIVED, BY THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRORATION ORDERS, OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF ULTIMATELY
RECOVERING FROM ITS LEASE AN AMOUNT OF OIL SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO
THE AMOUNT OF OIL ORIGINALLY IN PLACE BENEATH ITS LEASE. 

RESPONDENT IS WITHOUT STANDING TO ATTACK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
PRORATION ORDERS, BECAUSE IT HAS BENEFITED FROM AND ACQUIESCED IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SAME METHOD OF PRORATION FOR OVER FIVE YEARS BEFORE
BRINGING A SUIT TO SET ASIDE SUCH ORDERS, DURING WHICH TIME PROPERTY
RIGHTS HAVE VESTED WHICH WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THE INVALIDATION OF SUCH
ORDERS. 

RESPONDENT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MARGINAL OR MINIMUM ALLOWABLE
ASSIGNED TO EACH WELL IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD IS NOT REASONABLY
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PREVENT WASTE AND THE CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY. 

THE WELL-POTENTIAL METHOD IS THE BEST PRACTICAL MEANS OF ALLOCATING
THE ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION ACCORDING TO THE PRODUCTIVE CAPACITIES OF THE
WELLS AND, TOGETHER WITH THE SPACING RULES, GIVES FAIR CONSIDERATION TO
THE RECOVERABLE OIL UNDER EACH TRACT. 

PRORATING THE ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION IN PROPORTION TO THE RESERVES OF
OIL BENEATH EACH LEASE WOULD BE DISCRIMINATORY AND CONFISCATORY OF THE
PROPERTY OF MANY OPERATORS IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD AND WOULD PERMIT
OPERATORS IN THE FAIRWAY TO RECOVER MUCH MORE THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF
THE OIL ORIGINALLY IN PLACE BENEATH THEIR LEASES. 

THE TEXAS RULE OF PROPERTY IS THAT THE OWNER OF LAND OWNS THE OIL AND
GAS BENEATH IT; THAT THE OWNER OF AN OIL AND GAS LEASE OWNS THE OIL AND
GAS IN PLACE BENEATH THE LAND AFFECTED BY THE LEASE. 

THE TEXAS LAW IS THAT UNDER PRORATION THE OWNER OF THE OIL AND GAS
ESTATE IN LAND IS ENTITLED TO "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY WITH ADJOINING
LEASEHOLDERS OF DEVELOPING AND REALIZING FOR HIS LEASEHOLD"; THAT HE IS
ENTITLED TO "A FAIR CHANCE TO RECOVER THE OIL AND GAS IN OR UNDER HIS
LAND, OR THEIR EQUIVALENT IN KIND"; THAT IS, HE IS ENTITLED TO AN
OPPORTUNITY "TO RECOVER A QUANTITY OF OIL AND GAS SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT IN AMOUNT TO THE RECOVERABLE OIL AND GAS UNDER HIS LAND." 

THE REASONABLENESS OF THE POTENTIAL METHOD OF PRORATION IS NOT
MATERIAL BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE METHOD HERE INVOLVED.  APPROXIMATELY
99 PER CENT OF THE FIELD "ALLOWABLE" WAS DIVIDED AMONG WELLS ON A BASIS
OF 20 BARRELS PER WELL.  SUCH A PER WELL BASIS OF PRORATION DOES NOT
RESULT IN A DISTRIBUTION OF THE FIELD ALLOWABLE ON A REASONABLE BASIS
AS IS REQUIRED BY LAW, AND IS ARBITRARY AND CONFISCATORY. 

THE METHOD OF PRORATION HERE ENFORCED WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PREVENT
WASTE; IT RESULTED IN UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE DRAINAGE OF
RESPONDENT'S OIL BY OTHER OPERATORS AND PREVENTED RESPONDENT'S
CURRENTLY OR ULTIMATELY RECOVERING ITS FAIR SHARE OR PROPORTIONATE
SHARE OF THE RECOVERABLE OIL. 

RESPONDENT REPEATEDLY PROTESTED THE INEQUITIES AND UNREASONABLENESS
OF THE METHOD OF PRORATION HERE INVOLVED, AND THIS SUIT TO PROTECT ITS
PROPERTY FROM CONFISCATION WAS TIMELY. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE VALIDITY, WHEN CHALLENGED BY APPEAL TO
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, OF AN OIL PRORATION ORDER PROMULGATED BY THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, INSOFAR AS IT APPLIES TO THE RESPONDENT'S
WELLS. 

TO SAFEGUARD ITS OIL RESOURCES TEXAS HAS DEVISED A REGULATORY SCHEME
FOR THEIR PRODUCTION, AND HAS PLACED ITS ADMINISTRATION IN THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION'S HANDS.  REVISED CIVIL STATUTES, ARTS. 6014 ET SEQ. IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS STATUTE, WHICH HAS FAMILIAR PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS,
THE COMMISSION IN THE FALL OF 1938 ISSUED THE ASSAILED PRORATION ORDER
COVERING THE EAST TEXAS OIL FIELD, WHERE RESPONDENT'S WELLS ARE
LOCATED.  BY THIS ORDER EACH WELL WAS ALLOWED TO PRODUCE 2.32% OF ITS
"HOURLY POTENTIAL" - THAT IS, 2.32% OF ITS HOURLY PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY
UNDER UNRESTRICTED FLOW.  BUT THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THIS ORDER WAS
LARGELY CUT ACROSS BY ALLOWANCES MADE TO "MARGINAL WELLS."  THESE ARE
WELLS WHICH, IF THEIR LOW PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY WERE LEGALLY CURTAILED,
WOULD HAVE TO BE PREMATURELY ABANDONED.  THEREFORE THE TEXAS STATUTE
GIVES THEM A SPECIAL STATUS.  IN ACCORD WITH ITS POLICY TOWARD THESE
MARGINAL WELLS, THE COMMISSION FREED THEM FROM THE BURDEN OF ITS HOURLY
POTENTIAL FORMULA BY ALLOWING THEM PRODUCTION UP TO TWENTY BARRELS A
DAY.  BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF THESE LOW CAPACITY UNITS IN THE
EAST TEXAS FIELD, APPROXIMATELY 385,000 BARRELS OUT OF A TOTAL DAILY
"ALLOWABLE" OF 522,000 BARRELS WERE EXEMPT FROM THE RESTRICTING
FORMULA, LEAVING ONLY ABOUT 136,000 FOR THE CLASS WITHIN WHICH
RESPONDENT'S WELLS FELL.  APPLICATION TO THEM OF THE HOURLY POTENTIAL
FORMULA RESULTED IN AN ALLOTMENT OF ONLY ABOUT TWENTY-TWO BARRELS A DAY
TO EACH WELL.  CLAIMING THAT SUCH A MODE OF REGULATION DISREGARDED ITS
RIGHT TO THE OIL IN PLACE BENEATH ITS LEASES, RESPONDENT SOUGHT AND
OBTAINED A DECREE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS ENJOINING THE COMMISSION FROM CARRYING ITS PRORATION PLAN INTO
EFFECT.  28 F.SUPP.  131.  WITH MODIFICATION NOT HERE RELEVANT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DECREE.  107 F.2D 70.  WE BROUGHT
THE CASE HERE BY CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 646, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE MATTER IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TEXAS LAW AND KINDRED
CONSERVATION STATUTES. 

AS SUSTAINED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND ACCEPTED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT'S CLAIMS MAY BE SUMMARIZED BY
WHAT FOLLOWS.  THE COMMISSION'S PRORATION FORMULA AS APPLIED PERMITS
OTHER LEASEHOLDERS, MORE LENIENTLY TREATED, TO CAPTURE OIL AT A MORE
RAPID RATE THAN IS POSSIBLE FOR THE RESPONDENT, THEREBY DRAINING AWAY
OIL WHICH UNDERLIES RESPONDENT'S LEASED LANDS.  THIS IS DUE BOTH TO THE
ALLOCATING FORMULA ITSELF, AND MORE ESPECIALLY TO THE PERMISSION
GRANTED MARGINAL WELLS TO PRODUCE WITHOUT LIMIT UP TO TWENTY BARRELS A
DAY.  THE "POTENTIAL" METHOD OF ALLOCATION FAILS TO GIVE SUFFICIENT
WEIGHT TO RELEVANT FACTORS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF OIL IN PLACE,
ESPECIALLY TO THE DEPTH OF RESPONDENT'S RESERVES SITUATED IN THE
"FAIRWAY," A DEEP AND RICH PORTION OF THE EAST TEXAS FIELD.  ONLY AN
ALLOCATION BASED UPON ACRE-FEET OF SAND OR ITS EQUIVALENT WOULD BE A
REASONABLE MEANS OF MEASURING THE OIL IN PLACE BENEATH RESPONDENT'S
LEASES; AND ANY FORMULA FAILING TO DO THIS TAKES RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  MOREOVER, THE ALLOWANCE MADE TO MARGINAL
WELLS ABSORBS SO MUCH OF THE TOTAL "ALLOWABLE" AS TO MAKE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IN EFFECT AN ALLOCATION ON A FLAT PER WELL BASIS,
REGARDLESS OF GREAT VARIATION IN THE CAPACITY OF THE WELLS AND THE
DENSITY WITH WHICH DIFFERENT LEASES HAVE BEEN DRILLED.  AN IMPORTANT
FACTOR IN PRODUCING THIS RESULT IS THE PERMISSION FREQUENTLY GRANTED BY
THE COMMISSION, UNDER POWER CONFERRED UPON IT BY STATUTE, FOR DEPARTURE
FROM ITS SPACING AND DRILLING RULES WHEREBY THE FIELD HAS BEEN DRILLED
WITH AN IRREGULAR DENSITY.  AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE MORE DENSELY DRILLED
TRACTS ADJOINING RESPONDENT'S LEASES MAY, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR MARGINAL
ALLOWANCES, PRODUCE OIL IN SUCH QUANTITIES AS TO DRAIN AWAY
RESPONDENT'S RESERVES.  SUCH IS THE BASIS FOR RESPONDENT'S RESISTANCE
TO THE ORDER. 

UNDERLYING THESE CLAIMS IS AS THORNY A PROBLEM AS HAS CHALLENGED THE
INGENUITY AND WISDOM OF LEGISLATURES.  IN MAJOR PART IT WAS CREATED BY
THE DISCOVERY OF VAST OIL RESOURCES AND BY THEIR DEVELOPMENT UNDER
RULES OF LAW FASHIONED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY COURTS ON THE BASIS OF
ANALOGIES DRAWN FROM OTHER FIELDS OF THE COMMON LAW.  IN TEXAS,
ACCORDING TO CONVENTIONAL DOCTRINE, THE HOLDER OF AN OIL LEASE "OWNS"
THE OIL IN PLACE BENEATH THE SURFACE.  LEMAR V. GARNER, 121 TEX. 502;
50 S.W.2D 769; STEPHENS COUNTY V. MID-KANSAS OIL & GAS CO., 113 TEX.
160; 254 S.W. 290; 1 SUMMERS, OIL AND GAS (2ND ED.), P. 16.  BUT
EQUALLY RECOGNIZED IS THE "RULE OF CAPTURE" WHICH SUBJECTS THE LESSEE'S
INTEREST TO HIS NEIGHBORS' POWER TO DRAIN HIS OIL AWAY.  THEREFORE, TO
SPEAK OF OWNERSHIP IN ITS RELATION TO OIL, IS TO IMPLY A CONTINGENCY OF
CONTROL NOT APPLICABLE TO ORDINARY INTERESTS IN REALTY.  SEE ELY, THE
CONSERVATION OF OIL, 51 HARV. L. REV. 1209, 1218-22.  EACH LEASEHOLDER,
THAT IS TO SAY, IS AT THE MERCY OF ALL THOSE WHO ADJOIN HIM, SINCE OIL
IS A FUGACIOUS MINERAL, THE MOVEMENTS OF WHICH ARE NOT CONFINED BY THE
ARTIFICIAL BOUNDARIES OF SURFACE TRACTS.  THIS GAP BETWEEN THE
GEOLOGICAL NATURE OF THE OIL POOL AND THE FORMAL SURFACE RIGHTS OF THE
LESSEES IS FREQUENTLY BRIDGED BY THE DRILLING OF "OFFSET WELLS" AT THE
BOUNDARY OF EACH SURFACE TRACT, SO THAT OWNERS MAY PROTECT THEMSELVES
AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF ONE ANOTHER'S CAPTURE RIGHTS.  PARTLY TO
MITIGATE THE UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS UNSYSTEMATIZED
DEVELOPMENT, THE OIL-PRODUCING STATES, TEXAS AMONG THEM, HAVE ENACTED
CONSERVATION LAWS WITH APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS TO CONTROL
DRILLING AND PRODUCTION.  THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THE TEXAS STATUTE IS
NOT CHALLENGED.  ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY IS HERE SETTLED.  CHAMPLIN
REFINING CO. V. COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210. 

BUT MERELY WRITING LAWS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THE MATTER.  THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THESE LAWS IS FULL OF PERPLEXITIES.  STATE AGENCIES
HAVE ENCOUNTERED INNUMERABLE DIFFICULTIES IN TRYING TO ADJUST THE MANY
CONFLICTING INTERESTS WHICH GROW OUT OF THE RULE OF CAPTURE AND ITS
IMPLICATIONS.  THE EXPERIENCE OF TEXAS ILLUSTRATES THAT A BROOD OF
LITIGATION ALMOST INEVITABLY FOLLOWS THE INHERENT EMPIRICISM OF THESE
ATTEMPTED SOLUTIONS.  SEE ELY, OP. CIT. SUPRA, AT PP. 1225-29; MARSHALL
AND MEYERS, THE LEGAL PLANNING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTION:  TWO YEARS OF
PRORATION, 42 YALE L.J. 701.  FOR SOME YEARS THE TEXAS COMMISSION HAS
BEEN ENGAGED IN EXPERIMENTAL ENDEAVOR TO DEVISE APPROPRIATE FORMULAS
FOR A FAIR ALLOTMENT OF THE ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION.  THE COMMITMENT OF
SUCH A DELICATE TASK TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS HAS NOT ESCAPED
CHALLENGE IN THE COURTS, AND AT TIMES THE CHALLENGE HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFUL.  COMPARE MACMILLAN V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 51 F.2D 400;
CONSTANTIN V. SMITH, 57 F.2D 227; PEOPLES' PETROLEUM PRODUCERS V.
SMITH, 1 F.SUPP.  361; AMAZON PETROLEUM CORP. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 5
F.SUPP.  633.  BUT SUCH CASES ARE ONLY EPISODES IN THE EVOLUTION OF
ADJUSTMENT AMONG PRIVATE INTERESTS AND IN THE RECONCILIATION OF ALL
THESE PRIVATE INTERESTS WITH THE UNDERLYING PUBLIC INTEREST IN SUCH A
VITAL SOURCE OF ENERGY FOR OUR DAY AS OIL.  CERTAINLY SO FAR AS THE
FEDERAL COURTS ARE CONCERNED THE EVOLUTION OF THESE FORMULAS BELONGS TO
THE COMMISSION AND NOT TO THE JUDICIARY.  EXCEPT WHERE THE JURISDICTION
RESTS, AS IT DOES NOT HERE, ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE ONLY
QUESTION OPEN TO A FEDERAL TRIBUNAL IS WHETHER THE STATE ACTION
COMPLAINED OF HAS TRANSGRESSED WHATEVER RESTRICTIONS THE VAGUE CONTOURS
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE MAY PLACE UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S
REGULATORY POWER.  A CONTROVERSY LIKE THIS ALWAYS CALLS FOR FRESH
REMINDER THAT COURTS MUST NOT SUBSTITUTE THEIR NOTIONS OF EXPEDIENCY
AND FAIRNESS FOR THOSE WHICH HAVE GUIDED THE AGENCIES TO WHOM THE
FORMULATION AND EXECUTION OF POLICY HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED. 

GENERAL AS THESE CONSIDERATIONS MAY BE, THEY ARE DECISIVE OF THE
PRESENT CASE.  BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DOMINATED BY THEIR OWN CONCEPTION OF THE FAIRNESS
AND REASONABLENESS OF THE CHALLENGED ORDER.  FOR ALL WE KNOW, THE
JUDGMENT OF THESE TWO LOWER COURTS MAY HAVE BEEN WISER THAN THAT OF THE
COMMISSION, AND THEIR STANDARD OF FAIRNESS A BETTER ONE.  BUT WHETHER A
SYSTEM OF PRORATION BASED UPON HOURLY POTENTIAL IS AS FAIR AS ONE BASED
UPON ESTIMATED RECOVERABLE RESERVES OR SOME OTHER FACTOR OR COMBINATION
OF FACTORS, IS IN ITSELF A QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND NOT JUDICIAL
JUDGMENT.  ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION'S EXPERTS, THEORIES OF
ALLOCATION URGED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS BELOW
WOULD IN FACT GIVE TO RESPONDENT MORE THAN ITS FAIR SHARE OF THE OIL IN
THE FIELD.  RESPONDENT, THE COMMISSION'S WITNESSES CONTEND, WOULD GAIN
UNDUE BENEFIT FROM THE CONSTANT EASTWARD MIGRATIONS OF OIL CAUSED BY
THE GRADUAL INFLUENCE OF SUBSURFACE PRESSURE GRADIENTS - AND THIS AT
THE EXPENSE OF OTHER LESSEES IN GEOLOGICALLY LESS FORTUNATE PORTIONS OF
THE FIELD.  THE COMMISSION'S EXPERTS FURTHER INSISTED THAT, THOUGH MUCH
TECHNICAL PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, ESTIMATES OF RECOVERABLE RESERVES
BENEATH THE SURFACE OF A PARTICULAR TRACT REMAIN LARGELY AN
INDETERMINATE VENTURE; AND THAT HOURLY POTENTIAL ACTUALLY TAKES INTO
ACCOUNT, AT LEAST IN SOME MEASURE, ALL RELEVANT FACTORS FOR
ASCERTAINING RECOVERABLE RESERVES.  CERTAINLY IN A DOMAIN OF KNOWLEDGE
STILL SHIFTING AND GROWING, AND IN A FIELD WHERE JUDGMENT IS THEREFORE
NECESSARILY BESET BY THE NECESSITY OF INFERENCES BORDERING ON
CONJECTURE EVEN FOR THOSE LEARNED IN THE ART, IT WOULD BE PRESUMPTUOUS
FOR COURTS, ON THE BASIS OF CONFLICTING EXPERT TESTIMONY, TO DEEM THE
VIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ACTING UNDER LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY, OFFENSIVE TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  COMPARE SOUTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 191, ET SEQ. 
EQUALLY ENMESHED IN A CONFLICT OF EXPERTISE IS THE CLAIM MOST
VIGOROUSLY URGED BY RESPONDENT THAT, TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH
EXCEPTIONS MADE BY THE COMMISSION TO ITS SPACING RULES AND WITH THE
UNRESTRICTED TWENTY BARREL ALLOWANCE TO MARGINAL WELLS, THE PRORATION
ORDER SUBSTANTIALLY PLACES PRODUCTION ON A FLAT PER WELL BASIS.  SUCH A
RESULT, ACCORDING TO RESPONDENT'S CLAIM AS ACCEPTED BY THE LOWER
COURTS, GIVES A CONSTITUTIONALLY INADMISSIBLE ADVANTAGE TO SMALLER AND
MORE DENSELY DRILLED TRACTS AS AGAINST THOSE OWNED BY RESPONDENT.  BUT
THIS CLAIM REALLY PRESENTS A MORE SPECIALIZED ASPECT OF THE GENERAL
PROBLEM.  IN REGULATING FLOW OF PRODUCTION THE TREATMENT TO BE ACCORDED
TO SMALL AND IRREGULARLY SHAPED TRACTS WHICH DO NOT FIT NEATLY INTO THE
COMMISSION'S GENERAL SCHEME FOR SPACING, HAS PRESENTED A DIFFICULTY
ALMOST AS GREAT AS THE FRAMING OF PRORATION FORMULAS.  COMPARE WALKER,
THE PROBLEM OF THE SMALL TRACT UNDER SPACING REGULATIONS, 17 TEX. L.
REV. 157(SUPP.  BAR ASSOCIATION PROCEEDINGS).  TO DENY THE HOLDERS OF
THESE TRACTS PERMISSION TO DRILL MIGHT SUBJECT THEM TO THE RISK OF
LOSING THEIR OIL IN PLACE OR OF BEING PUT AT THE MERCY OF ADJOINING
HOLDERS.  IN MANY INSTANCES, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION HAS GRANTED
EXCEPTIONS TO ITS GENERAL SPACING RULE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH
INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND WELLS DRILLED.  IF THESE WELLS, MOST OF
THEM SMALL, WERE RESTRICTED TO PRODUCTION ON THE BASIS OF AN HOURLY
POTENTIAL FORMULA, IT MIGHT BE UNPROFITABLE TO OPERATE THEM AT ALL. 
NOT ONLY ARE THE INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS OF THESE SMALL OPERATORS
INVOLVED, BUT THEIR EFFECT ON THE STATE'S ECONOMY IS AN APPROPRIATE
FACTOR TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN PLANS ARE DEVISED TO KEEP THE
WELLS OPEN. 

A FLAT PER WELL ALLOWANCE TO THESE PRODUCERS WAS NOT AN UNNATURAL
ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM.  WHETHER, AS CONTENDED BY THE RESPONDENT, THE
MAXIMUM FIGURE SET BY THE COMMISSION IS TOO HIGH IN THAT IT LEADS TO
THE CAPTURE OF OIL FROM BENEATH ITS LEASES BY NEIGHBORING OPERATORS,
AND WHETHER A LOWER LIMIT MIGHT SUFFICE TO ASSURE PROFITABLE PRODUCTION
- THESE QUESTIONS TAKE US INTO THAT DEBATABLE TERRITORY WHICH IT IS NOT
THE PROVINCE OF FEDERAL COURTS TO ENTER.  THE RECORD IS REDOLENT WITH
FAMILIAR DOGMATIC ASSERTIONS BY EXPERTS EQUALLY CONFIDENT OF
CONTRADICTORY CONTENTIONS.  THESE TOUCH MATTERS OF GEOGRAPHY AND
GEOLOGY AND PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING.  NO LESS IS THERE CONFLICT IN THE
EVIDENCE AS TO THE SOLIDITY OF RESPONDENT'S APPREHENSION THAT THERE
WILL BE DRAINAGE OF THE OIL BENEATH ITS SURFACE BY NEIGHBORING WELLS. 
THE COMMISSION'S EXPERTS INSIST THAT THE THREAT, IF EXISTENT AT ALL, IS
SPECULATIVE, AND THAT THE COMMISSION'S POWER OF CONTINUOUS OVERSIGHT IS
READILY AVAILABLE FOR RELIEF IF REAL DANGER SHOULD ARISE IN THE
FUTURE. 

PLAINLY THESE ARE NOT ISSUES FOR OUR ARBITRAMENT.  THE STATE WAS
CONFRONTED WITH ITS GENERAL PROBLEM OF PRORATION AND WITH THE SPECIAL
RELATION TO IT OF THE SMALL TRACTS IN THE PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION OF
THE EAST TEXAS FIELD.  FN1  IT HAS CHOSEN TO MEET THESE PROBLEMS
THROUGH THE DAY-TO-DAY EXERTIONS OF A BODY SPECIALLY ENTRUSTED WITH THE
TASK BECAUSE PRESUMABLY COMPETENT TO DEAL WITH IT.  IN STRIKING THE
BALANCES THAT HAVE TO BE STRUCK WITH THE COMPLICATED AND SUBTLE FACTORS
THAT MUST ENTER INTO SUCH JUDGMENTS, THE COMMISSION HAS OBSERVED
ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE.  IF THE HISTORY OF PRORATION IS ANY GUIDE, THE
PRESENT ORDER IS BUT ONE MORE ITEM IN A CONTINUOUS SERIES OF
ADJUSTMENTS.  IT IS NOT FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS TO SUPPLANT THE
COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT EVEN IN THE FACE OF CONVINCING PROOF THAT A
DIFFERENT RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER. 

THE CHALLENGED DECREE MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED. 

FN1  WE ARE HERE NOT CONCERNED WITH A STATUTE, OR ORDERS UNDER IT,
NOT THOUGHT TO ENFORCE STATE POLICY "FOR THE PREVENTION OF WASTE, AND
THE PROTECTION OF CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF OWNERS IN THE COMMON POOL," BUT
DIRECTED SOLELY "TO COMPEL THOSE WHO MAY LEGALLY PRODUCE, BECAUSE THEY
HAVE MARKET OUTLETS FOR PERMITTED USES, TO PURCHASE GAS FROM POTENTIAL
PRODUCERS WHOM THE STATUTE PROHIBITS FROM PRODUCING BECAUSE THEY LACK
SUCH A MARKET FOR THEIR POSSIBLE PRODUCT."  THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED
GAS CORP., 300 U.S. 55, 69, 77. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING: 

THE PETITIONERS' PRORATION ORDER IS CHALLENGED NOT MERELY AS UNFAIR
OR UNREASONABLE BUT AS CONFISCATORY OF THE RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY.  UPON
THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION. 
ALTHOUGH THE PROBLEM OF PRORATION PRESENTED TECHNICAL AND DIFFICULT
QUESTIONS, AND ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION WAS VESTED WITH A BROAD
DISCRETION IN DEALING WITH THEM, THESE FACTS COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE
COURT'S ABDICATING ITS JURISDICTION TO TEST THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 
THE CASE WAS TRIED DE NOVO AND NEITHER THE FULL RECORD MADE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION NOR ITS FINDINGS APPEAR IN THE EVIDENCE, EXCEPT FOR WHAT IS
CONTAINED IN THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS.  AFTER A PAINSTAKING TRIAL, AND
UPON DETAILED AND WELL SUPPORTED FINDINGS OF FACT, THE COURT REACHED
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER WORKED A CONFISCATION OF RESPONDENT'S
PROPERTY.  FN1  THE COURT SAID: "THE RESPONDENTS' (PETITIONERS')
ENGINEERS FRANKLY ADMITTED THAT THE PRESENT SCHEME OF PRORATION IS
NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN ONE ON A PER WELL BASIS."  REFERRING TO SUCH
A BASIS, THE COURT ADDED:  "IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT IT TAKES NO
ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WELLS, OF THE RICHNESS OR THICKNESS OF
THE SAND, OF THE LOCATION UPON THE STRUCTURE, OF THE POROSITY OR
PERMEABILITY OF THE SAND, OF THE ESTIMATED OIL RESERVES, OR OF THE
ACREAGE UPON WHICH THE RESPECTIVE WELLS ARE SITUATED.  THE WORST
PROPERTY IS RAISED TO THE LEVEL OF THE BEST AND THE BEST IS LOWERED TO
THE LEVEL OF THE WORST."  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDER OPERATED
TO APPROPRIATE, FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS, THE RESPONDENT'S OIL WITHOUT
COMPENSATION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN2 

THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, IN MY JUDGMENT, ANNOUNCES PRINCIPLES WITH
RESPECT TO THE REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION CHALLENGED UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 
A RECENT EXPOSITION OF THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES IS FOUND IN THE
OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, WRITTEN FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, IN
THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES CORP., 300 U.S. 55, DEALING WITH
A PRORATION ORDER AFFECTING GAS, ENTERED BY THE SAME COMMISSION WHICH
ENTERED THE ORDER HERE IN ISSUE.  I THINK THAT ADHERENCE TO THE
PRINCIPLES THERE STATED REQUIRES THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE DECREE. 

FN1  28 F.SUPP.  131. 

FN2  107 F.2D 70. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

REPORTER'S NOTE.  - THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE WAS AMENDED
BY AN ORDER OF OCTOBER 21, 1940, WHICH WILL BE REPORTED IN VOL. 311
U.S.
..END :














MINERSVILLE DISTRICT V. GOBITIS, 310 U.S. 586 


NO. 690.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1940.  - DECIDED JUNE 3, 1940.  - 108 F.2D
683, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE REGULATION REQUIRING THAT PUPILS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ON
PAIN OF EXPULSION, PARTICIPATE IN A DAILY CEREMONY OF SALUTING THE
NATIONAL FLAG, WHILST RECITING IN UNISON A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO IT
"AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS; ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE, WITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" - HELD WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS APPLIED TO
CHILDREN BROUGHT UP IN, AND ENTERTAINING, A CONSCIENTIOUS RELIGIOUS
BELIEF THAT SUCH OBEISANCE TO THE FLAG IS FORBIDDEN BY THE BIBLE AND
THAT THE BIBLE, AS THE WORD OF GOD, IS THE SUPREME AUTHORITY.  P. 591. 

2.  RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS DO NOT RELIEVE THE INDIVIDUAL FROM
OBEDIENCE TO AN OTHERWISE VALID GENERAL LAW NOT AIMED AT THE PROMOTION
OR RESTRICTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  P. 594. 

3.  SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED, IT IS WITHIN THE
PROVINCE OF THE LEGISLATURES AND SCHOOL AUTHORITIES OF THE SEVERAL
STATES TO ADOPT APPROPRIATE MEANS TO EVOKE AND FOSTER A SENTIMENT OF
NATIONAL UNITY AMONG THE CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  P. 597. 

4.  THIS COURT CAN NOT EXERCISE CENSORSHIP OVER THE CONVICTION OF
LEGISLATURES THAT A PARTICULAR PROGRAM OR EXERCISE WILL BEST PROMOTE IN
THE MINDS OF CHILDREN WHO ATTEND THE COMMON SCHOOLS AN ATTACHMENT TO
THE INSTITUTIONS OF THEIR COUNTRY, NOR OVERRULE THE LOCAL JUDGMENT
AGAINST GRANTING EXEMPTIONS FROM OBSERVANCE OF SUCH A PROGRAM.  P.
598. 

MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MINERSVILLE SCHOOL
DISTRICT, ET AL. V. GOBITIS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 645, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE (24
F.SUPP.  271; OPINION, 21 F.SUPP.  581) WHICH PERPETUALLY ENJOINED THE
ABOVE-NAMED SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE MEMBERS OF ITS BOARD OF EDUCATION, AND
ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FROM CONTINUING TO ENFORCE AN
ORDER EXPELLING FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS CERTAIN MINORS (SUING IN THIS
CASE BY THEIR FATHER AS NEXT FRIEND) AND FROM REQUIRING THEM TO SALUTE
THE NATIONAL FLAG AS A CONDITION TO THEIR RIGHT TO ATTEND. 

THE RESOLUTION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD REQUIRING PUPILS TO SALUTE THE
FLAG WAS LAWFULLY ADOPTED, AND THE EXPULSION OF THE CHILDREN WAS WITHIN
ITS POWER AND AUTHORITY. 

THE EXPULSION OF THE CHILDREN DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RIGHT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  LEOLES V. LANDERS, 302 U.S. 656;
HERING V. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 303 U.S. 624; GABRIELLI V.
KNICKERBOCKER, 306 U.S. 621; JOHNSON V. DEERFIELD, 306 U.S. 621;
JOHNSON V. DEERFIELD, 307 U.S. 650; LEOLES V. LANDERS, 184 GA. 580;
HERING V. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 118 N.J.L. 566; GABRIELLI V.
KNICKERBOCKER, 12 CAL.2D 85; JOHNSON V. DEERFIELD, 25 F.SUPP.  918;
PEOPLE V. SANDSTROM, 279 N.Y. 523; NICHOLLS V. MAYOR, 7 N.E.2D 577;
HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245; COALE V. PEARSON, 290 U.S. 597;
REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145; DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333;
JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11; SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245
U.S. 366; SHAPIRO V. LYLE, 30 F.2D 971; UNITED STATES V. MACINTOSH, 283
U.S. 605, 625. 

THE EXPULSION OF THE CHILDREN DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RIGHT UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA.  COMMONWEALTH V. LESHER, 17 S. & R.
(PA.)  155, 160; WILKES-BARRE V. GARABED, 11 PA. SUPER.  355, 366;
COMMONWEALTH V. HERR, 229 PA. 132, 141; STEVENSON V. HANYON, 7 PA.
DIST. REP. 585; PITTSBURGH V. RUFFNER, 134 PA. SUPER.  192, 198; OATHS
OF ALLEGIANCE IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 25 PA. DIST. & COUNTY REP. 8. 

THE REFUSAL OF THE CHILDREN TO SALUTE THE NATIONAL FLAG AT SCHOOL
EXERCISES BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THAT TO DO SO WOULD VIOLATE THE WRITTEN
LAW OF ALMIGHTY GOD AS CONTAINED IN THE BIBLE WAS NOT FOUNDED ON A
RELIGIOUS BELIEF.  DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333, 342. 

THE ACT OF SALUTING THE FLAG HAS NO BEARING ON WHAT A PUPIL MAY THINK
OF HIS CREATOR OR WHAT ARE HIS RELATIONS TO HIS CREATOR.  NOR IS A
PUPIL REQUIRED TO EXHIBIT HIS RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS IN A PARTICULAR
"FORM OF WORSHIP" WHEN SALUTING THE FLAG, BECAUSE THE CEREMONY IS NOT,
BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, A "FORM OF WORSHIP."  LIKE THE STUDY
OF HISTORY OR CIVICS OR THE DOING OF ANY OTHER ACT WHICH MIGHT MAKE A
PUPIL MORE PATRIOTIC AS WELL AS TEACH HIM OR HER "LOYALTY TO THE STATE
AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENT," THE SALUTE HAS NO RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS. 
NICHOLLS V. MAYOR, 7 N.E.2D 577, 580; LEOLES V. LANDERS, 184 GA. 580,
587; PEOPLES V. SANDSTROM, 279 N.Y. 523, 529. 

THE COMMANDMENTS OF JEHOVAH, AS SET FORTH IN THE BIBLE, DO NOT
PROHIBIT THE SALUTING OF A NATIONAL FLAG BUT ON THE CONTRARY APPROVE OF
THAT PRACTICE. 

THE ACT OF SALUTING THE FLAG IS ONLY ONE OF MANY WAYS IN WHICH A
CITIZEN MAY EVIDENCE HIS RESPECT FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  EVERY CITIZEN
STANDS AT ATTENTION, AND THE MEN REMOVE THEIR HATS, WHEN THE NATIONAL
ANTHEM IS PLAYED; YET SUCH ACTION CAN NOT BE CALLED A RELIGIOUS
CEREMONY.  THE SAME RESPECT IS SHOWN THE AMERICAN FLAG WHEN IT PASSES
IN A PARADE; YET THAT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS RITE. 

THOUGH MEMBERS OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ENDEAVOR TO EXTEND RELIGIOUS
IMPLICATIONS TO A CEREMONY PURELY PATRIOTIC IN DESIGN, THEY DO NOT
ACCORD TO OTHERS THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WHICH THEY DEMAND FOR
THEMSELVES, CLAIMING THAT THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHICH THEY MAY GO WHEN
THEY THINK THEY ARE WORSHIPPING GOD.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 126
CONN. 1; 310 U.S. 296. 

THE ACT OF SALUTING THE FLAG DOES NOT PREVENT A PUPIL, NO MATTER WHAT
HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF MAY BE, FROM ACKNOWLEDGING THE SPIRITUAL
SOVEREIGNTY OF ALMIGHTY GOD BY RENDERING TO GOD THE THINGS WHICH ARE
GOD'S.  HARDWICK V. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES, 54 CAL. APP. 696, 712. 

THE RULE COMPELLING RESPONDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CEREMONY OF
SALUTING THE FLAG AND THE ACT OF ITS SCHOOL BOARD IN EXPELLING THEM
BECAUSE THEY REFRAINED, VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY ART.  I,
SEC. 3, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA AND THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE VITAL QUESTION IS:  SHALL THE CREATURE MAN BE FREE TO EXERCISE
HIS CONSCIENTIOUS BELIEF IN GOD AND HIS OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW OF
ALMIGHTY GOD, THE CREATOR, OR SHALL THE CREATURE MAN BE COMPELLED TO
OBEY THE LAW OR RULE OF THE STATE, WHICH LAW OF THE STATE, AS THE
CREATURE CONSCIENTIOUSLY BELIEVES, IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
OF ALMIGHTY GOD? 

THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE INDIVIDUAL ALONE IS
PRIVILEGED TO DETERMINE WHAT HE SHALL OR SHALL NOT BELIEVE.  THE LAW,
THEREFORE, DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO SETTLE DIFFERENCES OF CREEDS AND
CONFESSIONS, OR TO SAY THAT ANY POINT OR DOCTRINE IS TOO ABSURD TO BE
BELIEVED.  THAT RULE WAS LAID DOWN MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO BY
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS IN SCHRIBER V. RAPP, 5 WATTS 351, 363. 

AS EARLY AS 1784 A LIKE QUESTION WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES OF
THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.  MR. JEFFERSON PREPARED A BILL:  "FOR
ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM."  AFTER DEFINING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND
RECITING "THAT TO SUFFER THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE TO INTRUDE HIS POWERS
INTO THE FIELD OF OPINION, AND TO RESTRAIN THE PROFESSION OR
PROPAGATION OF PRINCIPLES ON SUPPOSITION OF THEIR ILL TENDENCY, IS A
DANGEROUS FALLACY WHICH AT ONCE DESTROYS ALL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY," IT IS
DECLARED "THAT IT IS TIME ENOUGH FOR THE RIGHTFUL PURPOSES OF CIVIL
GOVERNMENT FOR ITS OFFICERS TO INTERFERE WHEN PRINCIPLES BREAK OUT INTO
OVERT ACTS AGAINST PEACE AND GOOD ORDER."  SEE REYNOLDS V. UNITED
STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 162. 

WILL ANY COURT ATTEMPT TO SAY THAT RESPONDENTS MISTAKENLY BELIEVE
WHAT IS SET FORTH IN THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER OF EXODUS IN THE BIBLE?  THE
BELIEF OF RESPONDENTS IS NOT BASED UPON CONJECTURE OR A MYTH. 
RESPONDENTS' BELIEF IS BASED STRICTLY UPON THE BIBLE.  THE MINOR
RESPONDENTS FROM THEIR INFANCY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY THEIR FATHER TO RELY
UPON THE BIBLE. 

THE SALUTING OF THE FLAG OF ANY EARTHLY GOVERNMENT BY A PERSON WHO
HAS COVENANTED TO DO THE WILL OF GOD IS A FORM OF RELIGION AND
CONSTITUTES IDOLATRY. 

THE MODERN-DAY COMPULSORY FLAG SALUTING AS A DAILY EXERCISE OR
CEREMONY IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS CLEARLY AN EXPERIMENT.  THE NATION
HAS EXISTED FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY WITHOUT ANY SUCH ENFORCED RULE.  TO
EXPEL CHILDREN FROM SCHOOL AND DENY THEM THE OPPORTUNITY OF AN
EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO VIOLATE THEIR CONSCIENCE, IS WRONG AND
IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.  "NO CRUEL EXPERIMENT ON ANY LIVING
CREATURE SHALL BE PERMITTED IN ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL OF THIS
COMMONWEALTH."  24 PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN.  SEC. 1554. 

"THE GREATEST DANGERS TO LIBERTY LURK IN INSIDIOUS ENCROACHMENT BY
MEN OF ZEAL, WELL MEANING, BUT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING."  MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, IN OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 479.  SEE ASSOCIATED
PRESS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 301 U.S. 103, 141. 

THE RULE CERTAINLY ABRIDGES THE PRIVILEGES OF THE RESPONDENTS AND
DEPRIVES THEM OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  CF.
PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 

PETITIONERS CLAIM THAT THE PURPOSE OF SALUTING THE FLAG IS TO
"INSTILL IN THE CHILDREN PATRIOTISM AND LOVE OF COUNTRY."  BUT WHY
LIMIT THAT COMPULSORY RULE TO TEACHERS AND PUPILS OF THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS?  WHY NOT REQUIRE THAT SAME CEREMONY IN ALL THE SCHOOLS?  WHY
NOT APPLY THE SAME RULE TO ALL OFFICIALS OF THE NATION AND STATE, FROM
THE PRESIDENT AND THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DOWN TO THE VERY LEAST AND
HUMBLEST CITIZEN?  THE GENERAL ANSWER WOULD BE THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF
SUCH A RULE IS RIDICULOUS AND NONSENSICAL.  CHAP. 14, "PATRIOTISM OF
THE FLAG," MOSS, THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES, ITS HISTORY AND
SYMBOLISM, PP. 85-86. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY CONFRONTS THIS COURT WHENEVER IN COURSE OF
LITIGATION IT MUST RECONCILE THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF LIBERTY AND
AUTHORITY.  BUT WHEN THE LIBERTY INVOKED IS LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE, AND
THE AUTHORITY IS AUTHORITY TO SAFEGUARD THE NATION'S FELLOWSHIP,
JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE IS PUT TO ITS SEVEREST TEST.  OF SUCH A NATURE IS
THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY. 

LILLIAN GOBITIS, AGED TWELVE, AND HER BROTHER WILLIAM, AGED TEN, WERE
EXPELLED FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF MINERSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA, FOR
REFUSING TO SALUTE THE NATIONAL FLAG AS PART OF A DAILY SCHOOL
EXERCISE.  THE LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION REQUIRED BOTH TEACHERS AND
PUPILS TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CEREMONY.  THE CEREMONY IS A FAMILIAR
ONE.  THE RIGHT HAND IS PLACED ON THE BREAST AND THE FOLLOWING PLEDGE
RECITED IN UNISON:  "I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO MY FLAG, AND TO THE
REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS; ONE NATION INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL."  WHILE THE WORDS ARE SPOKEN, TEACHERS AND PUPILS
EXTEND THEIR RIGHT HANDS IN SALUTE TO THE FLAG.  THE GOBITIS FAMILY ARE
AFFILIATED WITH "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES," FOR WHOM THE BIBLE AS THE WORD
OF GOD IS THE SUPREME AUTHORITY.  THE CHILDREN HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP
CONSCIENTIOUSLY TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH A GESTURE OF RESPECT FOR THE FLAG
WAS FORBIDDEN BY COMMAND OF SCRIPTURE.  FN1 

THE GOBITIS CHILDREN WERE OF AN AGE FOR WHICH PENNSYLVANIA MAKES
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE COMPULSORY.  THUS THEY WERE DENIED A FREE EDUCATION,
AND THEIR PARENTS HAD TO PUT THEM INTO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.  TO BE RELIEVED
OF THE FINANCIAL BURDEN THEREBY ENTAILED, THEIR FATHER, ON BEHALF OF
THE CHILDREN AND IN HIS OWN BEHALF, BROUGHT THIS SUIT.  HE SOUGHT TO
ENJOIN THE AUTHORITIES FROM CONTINUING TO EXACT PARTICIPATION IN THE
FLAG-SALUTE CEREMONY AS A CONDITION OF HIS CHILDREN'S ATTENDANCE AT THE
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL.  AFTER TRIAL OF THE ISSUES, JUDGE MARIS GAVE RELIEF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT, 24 F.SUPP.  271, ON THE BASIS OF A THOUGHTFUL
OPINION AT A PRELIMINARY STAGE OF THE LITIGATION, 21 F.SUPP.  581; HIS
DECREE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 108 F.2D 683. 
SINCE THIS DECISION RAN COUNTER TO SEVERAL PER CURIAM DISPOSITIONS OF
THIS COURT,  FN2  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO GIVE THE MATTER FULL
RECONSIDERATION.  309 U.S. 645.  BY THEIR ABLE SUBMISSIONS, THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AS FRIENDS OF THE COURT, HAVE HELPED US
TO OUR CONCLUSION. 

WE MUST DECIDE WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT OF PARTICIPATION IN SUCH A
CEREMONY, EXACTED FROM A CHILD WHO REFUSES UPON SINCERE RELIGIOUS
GROUNDS, INFRINGES WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW THE LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

CENTURIES OF STRIFE OVER THE ERECTION OF PARTICULAR DOGMAS AS
EXCLUSIVE OR ALL-COMPREHENDING FAITHS LED TO THE INCLUSION OF A
GUARANTEE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, AND THE FOURTEENTH THROUGH ITS ABSORPTION OF THE FIRST,
SOUGHT TO GUARD AGAINST REPETITION OF THOSE BITTER RELIGIOUS STRUGGLES
BY PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE RELIGION AND BY SECURING TO
EVERY SECT THE FREE EXERCISE OF ITS FAITH.  SO PERVASIVE IS THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PRECIOUS RIGHT THAT ITS SCOPE IS BROUGHT INTO
QUESTION, AS HERE, ONLY WHEN THE CONSCIENCE OF INDIVIDUALS COLLIDES
WITH THE FELT NECESSITIES OF SOCIETY. 

CERTAINLY THE AFFIRMATIVE PURSUIT OF ONE'S CONVICTIONS ABOUT THE
ULTIMATE MYSTERY OF THE UNIVERSE AND MAN'S RELATION TO IT IS PLACED
BEYOND THE REACH OF LAW.  GOVERNMENT MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH ORGANIZED
OR INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION OF BELIEF OR DISBELIEF.  PROPAGATION OF BELIEF
- OR EVEN OF DISBELIEF - IN THE SUPERNATURAL IS PROTECTED, WHETHER IN
CHURCH OR CHAPEL, MOSQUE OR SYNAGOGUE, TABERNACLE OR MEETING-HOUSE. 
LIKEWISE THE CONSTITUTION ASSURES GENEROUS IMMUNITY TO THE INDIVIDUAL
FROM IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES FOR OFFENDING, IN THE COURSE OF HIS OWN
RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES, THE RELIGIOUS VIEWS OF OTHERS, BE THEY A MINORITY
OR THOSE WHO ARE DOMINANT IN GOVERNMENT.  CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT,
ANTE, P. 296. 

BUT THE MANIFOLD CHARACTER OF MAN'S RELATIONS MAY BRING HIS
CONCEPTION OF RELIGIOUS DUTY INTO CONFLICT WITH THE SECULAR INTERESTS
OF HIS FELLOW-MEN.  WHEN DOES THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE COMPEL
EXEMPTION FROM DOING WHAT SOCIETY THINKS NECESSARY FOR THE PROMOTION OF
SOME GREAT COMMON END, OR FROM A PENALTY FOR CONDUCT WHICH APPEARS
DANGEROUS TO THE GENERAL GOOD?  TO STATE THE PROBLEM IS TO RECALL THE
TRUTH THAT NO SINGLE PRINCIPLE CAN ANSWER ALL OF LIFE'S COMPLEXITIES. 
THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF, HOWEVER DISSIDENT AND HOWEVER
OBNOXIOUS TO THE CHERISHED BELIEFS OF OTHERS - EVEN OF A MAJORITY - IS
ITSELF THE DENIAL OF AN ABSOLUTE.  BUT TO AFFIRM THAT THE FREEDOM TO
FOLLOW CONSCIENCE HAS ITSELF NO LIMITS IN THE LIFE OF A SOCIETY WOULD
DENY THAT VERY PLURALITY OF PRINCIPLES WHICH, AS A MATTER OF HISTORY,
UNDERLIES PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS TOLERATION.  COMPARE MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES IN HUDSON WATER CO. V. MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349, 355.  OUR PRESENT
TASK, THEN, AS SO OFTEN THE CASE WITH COURTS, IS TO RECONCILE TWO
RIGHTS IN ORDER TO PREVENT EITHER FROM DESTROYING THE OTHER.  BUT,
BECAUSE IN SAFEGUARDING CONSCIENCE WE ARE DEALING WITH INTERESTS SO
SUBTLE AND SO DEAR, EVERY POSSIBLE LEEWAY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE CLAIMS
OF RELIGIOUS FAITH.    IN THE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
WE ARE CONCERNED WITH A HISTORIC CONCEPT.  SEE MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO IN
HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. AT 265.  THE RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION PROTECTS HAS NEVER EXCLUDED LEGISLATION OF GENERAL SCOPE
NOT DIRECTED AGAINST DOCTRINAL LOYALTIES OF PARTICULAR SECTS.  JUDICIAL
NULLIFICATION OF LEGISLATION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ATTRIBUTING TO THE
FRAMERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS VIEWS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO HISTORIC
WARRANT.  CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES HAVE NOT, IN THE COURSE OF THE LONG
STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS TOLERATION, RELIEVED THE INDIVIDUAL FROM
OBEDIENCE TO A GENERAL LAW NOT AIMED AT THE PROMOTION OR RESTRICTION OF
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  FN3  THE MERE POSSESSION OF RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS
WHICH CONTRADICT THE RELEVANT CONCERNS OF A POLITICAL SOCIETY DOES NOT
RELIEVE THE CITIZEN FROM THE DISCHARGE OF POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 
THE NECESSITY FOR THIS ADJUSTMENT HAS AGAIN AND AGAIN BEEN RECOGNIZED. 
IN A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS THE EXERTION OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN
SUSTAINED, WHILE BASIC CONSIDERATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM HAVE BEEN
LEFT INVIOLATE.  REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145; DAVIS V.
BEASON, 133 U.S. 333; SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366; HAMILTON
V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245.  IN ALL THESE CASES THE GENERAL LAWS IN
QUESTION, UPHELD IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THOSE WHO REFUSED OBEDIENCE
FROM RELIGIOUS CONVICTION, WERE MANIFESTATIONS OF SPECIFIC POWERS OF
GOVERNMENT DEEMED BY THE LEGISLATURE ESSENTIAL TO SECURE AND MAINTAIN
THAT ORDERLY, TRANQUIL, AND FREE SOCIETY WITHOUT WHICH RELIGIOUS
TOLERATION ITSELF IS UNATTAINABLE.  NOR DOES THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
ASSURED BY DUE PROCESS MOVE IN A MORE ABSOLUTE CIRCLE OF IMMUNITY THAN
THAT ENJOYED BY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.  EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT
FREEDOM OF SPEECH GOES BEYOND THE HISTORIC CONCEPT OF FULL OPPORTUNITY
TO UTTER AND TO DISSEMINATE VIEWS, HOWEVER HERETICAL OR OFFENSIVE TO
DOMINANT OPINION, AND INCLUDES FREEDOM FROM CONVEYING WHAT MAY BE
DEEMED AN IMPLIED BUT REJECTED AFFIRMATION, THE QUESTION REMAINS
WHETHER SCHOOL CHILDREN, LIKE THE GOBITIS CHILDREN, MUST BE EXCUSED
FROM CONDUCT REQUIRED OF ALL THE OTHER CHILDREN IN THE PROMOTION OF
NATIONAL COHESION.  WE ARE DEALING WITH AN INTEREST INFERIOR TO NONE IN
THE HIERARCHY OF LEGAL VALUES.  NATIONAL UNITY IS THE BASIS OF NATIONAL
SECURITY.  TO DENY THE LEGISLATURE THE RIGHT TO SELECT APPROPRIATE
MEANS FOR ITS ATTAINMENT PRESENTS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ORDER OF PROBLEM
FROM THAT OF THE PROPRIETY OF SUBORDINATING THE POSSIBLE UGLINESS OF
LITTERED STREETS TO THE FREE EXPRESSION OF OPINION THROUGH DISTRIBUTION
OF HANDBILLS.  COMPARE SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147. 

SITUATIONS LIKE THE PRESENT ARE PHASES OF THE PROFOUNDEST PROBLEM
CONFRONTING A DEMOCRACY - THE PROBLEM WHICH LINCOLN CAST IN MEMORABLE
DILEMMA:  "MUST A GOVERNMENT OF NECESSITY BE TOO STRONG FOR THE
LIBERTIES OF ITS PEOPLE, OR TOO WEAK TO MAINTAIN ITS OWN EXISTENCE?" 
NO MERE TEXTUAL READING OR LOGICAL TALISMAN CAN SOLVE THE DILEMMA.  AND
WHEN THE ISSUE DEMANDS JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, IT IS NOT THE PERSONAL
NOTION OF JUDGES OF WHAT WISE ADJUSTMENT REQUIRES WHICH MUST PREVAIL. 

UNLIKE THE INSTANCES WE HAVE CITED, THE CASE BEFORE US IS NOT
CONCERNED WITH AN EXERTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER FOR THE PROMOTION OF
SOME SPECIFIC NEED OR INTEREST OF SECULAR SOCIETY - THE PROTECTION OF
THE FAMILY, THE PROMOTION OF HEALTH, THE COMMON DEFENSE, THE RAISING OF
PUBLIC REVENUES TO DEFRAY THE COST OF GOVERNMENT.  BUT ALL THESE
SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES OF GOVERNMENT PRESUPPOSE THE EXISTENCE OF AN
ORGANIZED POLITICAL SOCIETY.  THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF A FREE SOCIETY
IS THE BINDING TIE OF COHESIVE SENTIMENT.  SUCH A SENTIMENT IS FOSTERED
BY ALL THOSE AGENCIES OF THE MIND AND SPIRIT WHICH MAY SERVE TO GATHER
UP THE TRADITIONS OF A PEOPLE, TRANSMIT THEM FROM GENERATION TO
GENERATION, AND THEREBY CREATE THAT CONTINUITY OF A TREASURED COMMON
LIFE WHICH CONSTITUTES A CIVILIZATION.  "WE LIVE BY SYMBOLS."  THE FLAG
IS THE SYMBOL OF OUR NATIONAL UNITY, TRANSCENDING ALL INTERNAL
DIFFERENCES, HOWEVER LARGE, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
THIS COURT HAS HAD OCCASION TO SAY THAT " ...  THE FLAG IS THE SYMBOL
OF THE NATION'S POWER, THE EMBLEM OF FREEDOM IN ITS TRUEST, BEST
SENSE.  ...  IT SIGNIFIES GOVERNMENT RESTING ON THE CONSENT OF THE
GOVERNED; LIBERTY REGULATED BY LAW; THE PROTECTION OF THE WEAK AGAINST
THE STRONG; SECURITY AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF ARBITRARY POWER; AND
ABSOLUTE SAFETY FOR FREE INSTITUTIONS AGAINST FOREIGN AGGRESSION." 
HALTER V. NEBRASKA, 205 U.S. 34, 43.  AND SEE UNITED STATES V.
GETTYSBURG ELECTRIC RY. CO., 160 U.S. 668.  FN4 

THE CASE BEFORE US MUST BE VIEWED AS THOUGH THE LEGISLATURE OF
PENNSYLVANIA HAD ITSELF FORMALLY DIRECTED THE FLAG-SALUTE FOR THE
CHILDREN OF MINERSVILLE; HAD MADE NO EXEMPTION FOR CHILDREN WHOSE
PARENTS WERE POSSESSED OF CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES LIKE THOSE OF THE
GOBITIS FAMILY; AND HAD INDICATED ITS BELIEF IN THE DESIRABLE ENDS TO
BE SECURED BY HAVING ITS PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN SHARE A COMMON
EXPERIENCE AT THOSE PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT WHEN THEIR MINDS ARE
SUPPOSEDLY RECEPTIVE TO ITS ASSIMILATION, BY AN EXERCISE APPROPRIATE IN
TIME AND PLACE AND SETTING, AND ONE DESIGNED TO EVOKE IN THEM
APPRECIATION OF THE NATION'S HOPES AND DREAMS, ITS SUFFERINGS AND
SACRIFICES.  THE PRECISE ISSUE, THEN, FOR US TO DECIDE IS WHETHER THE
LEGISLATURES OF THE VARIOUS STATES AND THE AUTHORITIES IN A THOUSAND
COUNTIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE BARRED FROM
DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF VARIOUS MEANS TO EVOKE THAT UNIFYING
SENTIMENT WITHOUT WHICH THERE CAN ULTIMATELY BE NO LIBERTIES, CIVIL OR
RELIGIOUS.  FN5  TO STIGMATIZE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT IN PROVIDING FOR
THIS UNIVERSAL GESTURE OF RESPECT FOR THE SYMBOL OF OUR NATIONAL LIFE
IN THE SETTING OF THE COMMON SCHOOL AS A LAWLESS INROAD ON THAT FREEDOM
OF CONSCIENCE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS, WOULD AMOUNT TO NO LESS
THAN THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF PEDAGOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DOGMA IN A
FIELD WHERE COURTS POSSESS NO MARKED AND CERTAINLY NO CONTROLLING
COMPETENCE.  THE INFLUENCES WHICH HELP TOWARD A COMMON FEELING FOR THE
COMMON COUNTRY ARE MANIFOLD.  SOME MAY SEEM HARSH AND OTHERS NO DOUBT
ARE FOOLISH.  SURELY, HOWEVER, THE END IS LEGITIMATE.  AND THE
EFFECTIVE MEANS FOR ITS ATTAINMENT ARE STILL SO UNCERTAIN AND SO
UNAUTHENTICATED BY SCIENCE AS TO PRECLUDE US FROM PUTTING THE WIDELY
PREVALENT BELIEF IN FLAG-SALUTING BEYOND THE PALE OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER.  IT MOCKS REASON AND DENIES OUR WHOLE HISTORY TO FIND IN THE
ALLOWANCE OF A REQUIREMENT TO SALUTE OUR FLAG ON FITTING OCCASIONS THE
SEEDS OF SANCTION FOR OBEISANCE TO A LEADER. 

THE WISDOM OF TRAINING CHILDREN IN PATRIOTIC IMPULSES BY THOSE
COMPULSIONS WHICH NECESSARILY PERVADE SO MUCH OF THE EDUCATIONAL
PROCESS IS NOT FOR OUR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT.  EVEN WERE WE CONVINCED OF
THE FOLLY OF SUCH A MEASURE, SUCH BELIEF WOULD BE NO PROOF OF ITS
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  FOR OURSELVES, WE MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO SAY THAT
THE DEEPEST PATRIOTISM IS BEST ENGENDERED BY GIVING UNFETTERED SCOPE TO
THE MOST CROCHETY BELIEFS.  PERHAPS IT IS BEST, EVEN FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF THOSE INTERESTS WHICH ORDINANCES LIKE THE ONE UNDER
REVIEW SEEK TO PROMOTE, TO GIVE TO THE LEAST POPULAR SECT LEAVE FROM
CONFORMITIES LIKE THOSE HERE IN ISSUE.  BUT THE COURTROOM IS NOT THE
ARENA FOR DEBATING ISSUES OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY.  IT IS NOT OUR
PROVINCE TO CHOOSE AMONG COMPETING CONSIDERATIONS IN THE SUBTLE PROCESS
OF SECURING EFFECTIVE LOYALTY TO THE TRADITIONAL IDEALS OF DEMOCRACY,
WHILE RESPECTING AT THE SAME TIME INDIVIDUAL IDIOSYNCRACIES AMONG A
PEOPLE SO DIVERSIFIED IN RACIAL ORIGINS AND RELIGIOUS ALLEGIANCES.  SO
TO HOLD WOULD IN EFFECT MAKE US THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE COUNTRY.  THAT
AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THIS COURT, NOR SHOULD WE ASSUME IT. 

WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH THE FORMATIVE PERIOD IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CITIZENSHIP.  GREAT DIVERSITY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL OPINION
EXISTS AMONG US CONCERNING THE BEST WAY TO TRAIN CHILDREN FOR THEIR
PLACE IN SOCIETY.  BECAUSE OF THESE DIFFERENCES AND BECAUSE OF
RELUCTANCE TO PERMIT A SINGLE, IRON-CAST SYSTEM OF EDUCATION TO BE
IMPOSED UPON A NATION COMPOUNDED OF SO MANY STRAINS, WE HAVE HELD THAT,
EVEN THOUGH PUBLIC EDUCATION IS ONE OF OUR MOST CHERISHED DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTIONS, THE BILL OF RIGHTS BARS A STATE FROM COMPELLING ALL
CHILDREN TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS,
268 U.S. 510.  BUT IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT THING FOR THIS COURT TO
EXERCISE CENSORSHIP OVER THE CONVICTION OF LEGISLATURES THAT A
PARTICULAR PROGRAM OR EXERCISE WILL BEST PROMOTE IN THE MINDS OF
CHILDREN WHO ATTEND THE COMMON SCHOOLS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE
INSTITUTIONS OF THEIR COUNTRY. 

WHAT THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES ARE REALLY ASSERTING IS THE RIGHT TO
AWAKEN IN THE CHILD'S MIND CONSIDERATIONS AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
FLAG CONTRARY TO THOSE IMPLANTED BY THE PARENT.  IN SUCH AN ATTEMPT THE
STATE IS NORMALLY AT A DISADVANTAGE IN COMPETING WITH THE PARENT'S
AUTHORITY, SO LONG - AND THIS IS THE VITAL ASPECT OF RELIGIOUS
TOLERATION - AS PARENTS ARE UNMOLESTED IN THEIR RIGHT TO COUNTERACT BY
THEIR OWN PERSUASIVENESS THE WISDOM AND RIGHTNESS OF THOSE LOYALTIES
WHICH THE STATE'S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS SEEKING TO PROMOTE.  EXCEPT
WHERE THE TRANSGRESSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY IS TOO PLAIN FOR
ARGUMENT, PERSONAL FREEDOM IS BEST MAINTAINED - SO LONG AS THE REMEDIAL
CHANNELS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS REMAIN OPEN AND UNOBSTRUCTED  FN6  -
WHEN IT IS INGRAINED IN A PEOPLE'S HABITS AND NOT ENFORCED AGAINST
POPULAR POLICY BY THE COERCION OF ADJUDICATED LAW.  THAT THE FLAG
SALUTE IS AN ALLOWABLE PORTION OF A SCHOOL PROGRAM FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT
INVOKE CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES IS SURELY NOT DEBATABLE.  BUT FOR US TO
INSIST THAT, THOUGH THE CEREMONY MAY BE REQUIRED, EXCEPTIONAL IMMUNITY
MUST BE GIVEN TO DISSIDENTS, IS TO MAINTAIN THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT SUCH AN EXEMPTION MIGHT INTRODUCE ELEMENTS
OF DIFFICULTY INTO THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE, MIGHT CAST DOUBTS IN THE
MINDS OF THE OTHER CHILDREN WHICH WOULD THEMSELVES WEAKEN THE EFFECT OF
THE EXERCISE. 

THE PRECIOUSNESS OF THE FAMILY RELATION, THE AUTHORITY AND
INDEPENDENCE WHICH GIVE DIGNITY TO PARENTHOOD, INDEED THE ENJOYMENT OF
ALL FREEDOM, PRESUPPOSE THE KIND OF ORDERED SOCIETY WHICH IS SUMMARIZED
BY OUR FLAG.  A SOCIETY WHICH IS DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF THESE
ULTIMATE VALUES OF CIVILIZATION MAY IN SELF-PROTECTION UTILIZE THE
EDUCATIONAL PROCESS FOR INCULCATING THOSE ALMOST UNCONSCIOUS FEELINGS
WHICH BIND MEN TOGETHER IN A COMPREHENDING LOYALTY, WHATEVER MAY BE
THEIR LESSER DIFFERENCES AND DIFFICULTIES.  THAT IS TO SAY, THE PROCESS
MAY BE UTILIZED SO LONG AS MEN'S RIGHT TO BELIEVE AS THEY PLEASE, TO
WIN OTHERS TO THEIR WAY OF BELIEF, AND THEIR RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE IN THEIR
CHOSEN PLACES OF WORSHIP FOR THE DEVOTIONAL CEREMONIES OF THEIR FAITH,
ARE ALL FULLY RESPECTED. 

JUDICIAL REVIEW, ITSELF A LIMITATION ON POPULAR GOVERNMENT, IS A
FUNDAMENTAL PART OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME.  BUT TO THE LEGISLATURE
NO LESS THAN TO COURTS IS COMMITTED THE GUARDIANSHIP OF DEEPLY
CHERISHED LIBERTIES.  SEE MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. MAY, 194 U.S.
267, 270.  WHERE ALL THE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF INDUCING POLITICAL CHANGES
ARE LEFT FREE FROM INTERFERENCE, EDUCATION IN THE ABANDONMENT OF
FOOLISH LEGISLATION IS ITSELF A TRAINING IN LIBERTY.  TO FIGHT OUT THE
WISE USE OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IN THE FORUM OF PUBLIC OPINION AND
BEFORE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES RATHER THAN TO TRANSFER SUCH A CONTEST TO
THE JUDICIAL ARENA, SERVES TO VINDICATE THE SELF-CONFIDENCE OF A FREE
PEOPLE.  FN7  REVERSED. 

FN1  RELIANCE IS ESPECIALLY PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING VERSES FROM
CHAPTER 20 OF EXODUS: 

"3.  THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. 

"4.  THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE, OR ANY LIKENESS
OF ANY THING THAT IS IN HEAVEN ABOVE, OR THAT IS IN THE EARTH BENEATH,
OR THAT IS IN THE WATER UNDER THE EARTH: 

"5.  THOU SHALT NOT BOW DOWN THYSELF TO THEM, NOR SERVE THEM:  ...
" 

FN2  LEOLES V. LANDERS, 302 U.S. 656; HERING V. STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 303 U.S. 624; GABRIELLI V. KNICKERBOCKER, 306 U.S. 621;
JOHNSON V. DEERFIELD, 306 U.S. 621; 307 U.S. 650.  COMPARE NEW YORK V.
SANDSTROM, 279 N.Y. 523; 18 N.E.2D 840; NICHOLLS V. MAYOR AND SCHOOL
COMMITTEE OF LYNN, 7 N.E.2D 577(MASS.). 

FN3  COMPARE II WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (FORD ED.)  P. 102; 3
LETTERS AND OTHER WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, PP. 274, 307-308; 1 RHODE
ISLAND COLONIAL RECORDS, PP. 378-80; 2 ID. PP. 5-6; WIENER, ROGER
WILLIAMS' CONTRIBUTION TO MODERN THOUGHT, 28 RHODE ISLAND HISTORICAL
SOCIETY COLLECTIONS, NO. 1; ERNST, THE POLITICAL THOUGHT OF ROGER
WILLIAMS, CHAP. VII; W. K. JORDAN, THE DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS
TOLERATION IN ENGLAND, PASSIM.  SEE COMMONWEALTH V. HERR, 229 PA. 132;
78 A. 68. 

FN4  FOR THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN FLAG, SEE 8 JOURNALS
OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, P. 464; 22 ID., PP. 338-40; ANNALS OF
CONGRESS, 15TH CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. 1, PP. 566 ET SEQ.; ID., VOL. 2,
PP. 1458 ET SEQ. 

FN5  COMPARE BALFOUR, INTRODUCTION TO BAGEHOT'S ENGLISH CONSTITUTION,
P. XXII; SANTAYANA, CHARACTER AND OPINION IN THE UNITED STATES, PP. 110
11. 

FN6  IN CASES LIKE FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380; DE JONGE V. OREGON,
299 U.S. 353; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307
U.S. 496, AND SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, THE COURT WAS CONCERNED
WITH RESTRICTIONS CUTTING OFF APPROPRIATE MEANS THROUGH WHICH, IN A
FREE SOCIETY, THE PROCESSES OF POPULAR RULE MAY EFFECTIVELY FUNCTION. 
FN7  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE CONGRESS HAS NOT ENTERED THE FIELD OF
LEGISLATION HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

TWO YOUTHS, NOW FIFTEEN AND SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE, ARE BY THE JUDGMENT
OF THIS COURT HELD LIABLE TO EXPULSION FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND TO
DENIAL OF ALL PUBLICLY SUPPORTED EDUCATIONAL PRIVILEGES BECAUSE OF
THEIR REFUSAL TO YIELD TO THE COMPULSION OF A LAW WHICH COMMANDS THEIR
PARTICIPATION IN A SCHOOL CEREMONY CONTRARY TO THEIR RELIGIOUS
CONVICTIONS.  THEY AND THEIR FATHER ARE CITIZENS AND HAVE NOT EXHIBITED
BY ANY ACTION OR STATEMENT OF OPINION, ANY DISLOYALTY TO THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.  THEY ARE READY AND WILLING TO OBEY ALL ITS LAWS
WHICH DO NOT CONFLICT WITH WHAT THEY SINCERELY BELIEVE TO BE THE HIGHER
COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.  IT IS NOT DOUBTED THAT THESE CONVICTIONS ARE
RELIGIOUS, THAT THEY ARE GENUINE, OR THAT THE REFUSAL TO YIELD TO THE
COMPULSION OF THE LAW IS IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH ALL SINCERITY.  IT
WOULD BE A DENIAL OF THEIR FAITH AS WELL AS THE TEACHINGS OF MOST
RELIGIONS TO SAY THAT CHILDREN OF THEIR AGE COULD NOT HAVE RELIGIOUS
CONVICTIONS. 

THE LAW WHICH IS THUS SUSTAINED IS UNIQUE IN THE HISTORY OF ANGLO
AMERICAN LEGISLATION.  IT DOES MORE THAN SUPPRESS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
MORE THAN PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, WHICH CONCEDEDLY ARE
FORBIDDEN BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE LIBERTY
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH.  FOR BY THIS LAW THE STATE SEEKS TO
COERCE THESE CHILDREN TO EXPRESS A SENTIMENT WHICH, AS THEY INTERPRET
IT, THEY DO NOT ENTERTAIN, AND WHICH VIOLATES THEIR DEEPEST RELIGIOUS
CONVICTIONS.  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT SUCH COMPULSION IS A PROHIBITED
INFRINGEMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION,
GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS IT MAY BE
JUSTIFIED AND SUPPORTED AS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POWER OVER
PUBLIC EDUCATION.  SINCE THE STATE, IN COMPETITION WITH PARENTS, MAY
THROUGH TEACHING IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDOCTRINATE THE MINDS OF THE
YOUNG, IT IS SAID THAT IN AID OF ITS UNDERTAKING TO INSPIRE LOYALTY AND
DEVOTION TO CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY AND THE FLAG WHICH SYMBOLIZES IT, IT
MAY COERCE THE PUPIL TO MAKE AFFIRMATION CONTRARY TO HIS BELIEF AND IN
VIOLATION OF HIS RELIGIOUS FAITH.  AND, FINALLY, IT IS SAID THAT SINCE
THE MINERSVILLE SCHOOL BOARD AND OTHERS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
COUNTRY WILL BE BETTER SERVED BY CONFORMITY THAN BY THE OBSERVANCE OF
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PRESCRIBES, THE COURTS ARE NOT
FREE TO PASS JUDGMENT ON THE BOARD'S CHOICE. 

CONCEDEDLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF PERSONAL LIBERTY ARE NOT
ALWAYS ABSOLUTES.  GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO SURVIVE AND POWERS
CONFERRED UPON IT ARE NOT NECESSARILY SET AT NAUGHT BY THE EXPRESS
PROHIBITIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  IT MAY MAKE WAR AND RAISE ARMIES. 
TO THAT END IT MAY COMPEL CITIZENS TO GIVE MILITARY SERVICE, SELECTIVE
DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U.S. 366, AND SUBJECT THEM TO MILITARY TRAINING
DESPITE THEIR RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS.  HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S.
245.  IT MAY SUPPRESS RELIGIOUS PRACTICES DANGEROUS TO MORALS, AND
PRESUMABLY THOSE ALSO WHICH ARE INIMICAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND
GOOD ORDER.  DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333.  BUT IT IS A LONG STEP, AND
ONE WHICH I AM UNABLE TO TAKE, TO THE POSITION THAT GOVERNMENT MAY, AS
A SUPPOSED EDUCATIONAL MEASURE AND AS A MEANS OF DISCIPLINING THE
YOUNG, COMPEL PUBLIC AFFIRMATIONS WHICH VIOLATE THEIR RELIGIOUS
CONSCIENCE. 

THE VERY FACT THAT WE HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES OF CIVIL
LIBERTIES AND THE SPECIFICITY OF THEIR COMMAND WHERE FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND OF RELIGION ARE CONCERNED REQUIRE SOME ACCOMMODATION OF THE POWERS
WHICH GOVERNMENT NORMALLY EXERCISES, WHEN NO QUESTION OF CIVIL LIBERTY
IS INVOLVED, TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEMAND THAT THOSE LIBERTIES BE
PROTECTED AGAINST THE ACTION OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  THE STATE
CONCEDEDLY HAS POWER TO REQUIRE AND CONTROL THE EDUCATION OF ITS
CITIZENS, BUT IT CANNOT BY A GENERAL LAW COMPELLING ATTENDANCE AT
PUBLIC SCHOOLS PRECLUDE ATTENDANCE AT A PRIVATE SCHOOL ADEQUATE IN ITS
INSTRUCTION, WHERE THE PARENT SEEKS TO SECURE FOR THE CHILD THE
BENEFITS OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION NOT PROVIDED BY THE PUBLIC SCHOOL. 
PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510.  AND ONLY RECENTLY WE HAVE
HELD THAT THE STATE'S AUTHORITY TO CONTROL ITS PUBLIC STREETS BY
GENERALLY APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE TO WHICH FREE
SPEECH MUST YIELD, AND CANNOT BE MADE THE MEDIUM OF ITS SUPPRESSION,
HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, 307 U.S. 496, 514, ET
SEQ., ANY MORE THAN CAN ITS AUTHORITY TO PENALIZE LITTERING OF THE
STREETS BY A GENERAL LAW BE USED TO SUPPRESS THE DISTRIBUTION OF
HANDBILLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATING IDEAS TO THEIR RECIPIENTS. 
SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147. 

IN THESE CASES IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THERE ARE COMPETING
DEMANDS OF THE INTERESTS OF GOVERNMENT AND OF LIBERTY UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, AND WHERE THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IS
BROUGHT INTO CONFLICT WITH SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS, THERE
MUST, WHEN THAT IS POSSIBLE, BE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THEM
SO AS TO PRESERVE THE ESSENTIALS OF BOTH AND THAT IT IS THE FUNCTION OF
COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH ACCOMMODATION IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE. 
IN THE CASES JUST MENTIONED THE COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT THERE WERE
WAYS ENOUGH TO SECURE THE LEGITIMATE STATE END WITHOUT INFRINGING THE
ASSERTED IMMUNITY, OR THAT THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED BY THE INABILITY TO
SECURE THAT END SATISFACTORILY THROUGH OTHER MEANS, DID NOT OUTWEIGH
FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR RELIGION.  SO HERE, EVEN IF WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH
COMPULSIONS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO NATIONAL UNITY, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO
TEACH LOYALTY AND PATRIOTISM WHICH ARE THE SOURCES OF NATIONAL UNITY,
THAN BY COMPELLING THE PUPIL TO AFFIRM THAT WHICH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE
AND BY COMMANDING A FORM OF AFFIRMANCE WHICH VIOLATES HIS RELIGIOUS
CONVICTIONS.  WITHOUT RECOURSE TO SUCH COMPULSION THE STATE IS FREE TO
COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL AND REQUIRE TEACHING BY INSTRUCTION AND
STUDY OF ALL IN OUR HISTORY AND IN THE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF
OUR GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE GUARANTIES OF CIVIL LIBERTY WHICH TEND TO
INSPIRE PATRIOTISM AND LOVE OF COUNTRY.  I CANNOT SAY THAT GOVERNMENT
HERE IS DEPRIVED OF ANY INTEREST OR FUNCTION WHICH IT IS ENTITLED TO
MAINTAIN AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES BY
REQUIRING IT TO RESORT TO THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH DO NOT COERCE AN
AFFIRMATION OF BELIEF. 

THE GUARANTIES OF CIVIL LIBERTY ARE BUT GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF THE
HUMAN MIND AND SPIRIT AND OF REASONABLE FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY TO
EXPRESS THEM.  THEY PRESUPPOSE THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO HOLD SUCH
OPINIONS AS HE WILL AND TO GIVE THEM REASONABLY FREE EXPRESSION, AND
HIS FREEDOM, AND THAT OF THE STATE AS WELL, TO TEACH AND PERSUADE
OTHERS BY THE COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS.  THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE LIBERTY
WHICH THEY GUARANTY IS THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL FROM COMPULSION AS
TO WHAT HE SHALL THINK AND WHAT HE SHALL SAY, AT LEAST WHERE THE
COMPULSION IS TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS TO HIS RELIGION.  IF THESE
GUARANTIES ARE TO HAVE ANY MEANING THEY MUST, I THINK, BE DEEMED TO
WITHHOLD FROM THE STATE ANY AUTHORITY TO COMPEL BELIEF OR THE
EXPRESSION OF IT WHERE THAT EXPRESSION VIOLATES RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS,
WHATEVER MAY BE THE LEGISLATIVE VIEW OF THE DESIRABILITY OF SUCH
COMPULSION. 

HISTORY TEACHES US THAT THERE HAVE BEEN BUT FEW INFRINGEMENTS OF
PERSONAL LIBERTY BY THE STATE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED, AS THEY
ARE HERE, IN THE NAME OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE PUBLIC GOOD, AND FEW
WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTED, AS THEY ARE NOW, AT POLITICALLY HELPLESS
MINORITIES.  THE FRAMERS WERE NOT UNAWARE THAT UNDER THE SYSTEM WHICH
THEY CREATED MOST GOVERNMENTAL CURTAILMENTS OF PERSONAL LIBERTY WOULD
HAVE THE SUPPORT OF A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST
WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY ITS CURTAILMENT THAN BY ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
PROTECTION.  I CANNOT CONCEIVE THAT IN PRESCRIBING, AS LIMITATIONS UPON
THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, THE FREEDOM OF THE MIND AND SPIRIT SECURED BY
THE EXPLICIT GUARANTIES OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION, THEY
INTENDED OR RIGHTLY COULD HAVE LEFT ANY LATITUDE FOR A LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT THAT THE COMPULSORY EXPRESSION OF BELIEF WHICH VIOLATES
RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS WOULD BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAN THEIR
PROTECTION.  THE CONSTITUTION MAY WELL ELICIT EXPRESSIONS OF LOYALTY TO
IT AND TO THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IT CREATED, BUT IT DOES NOT COMMAND SUCH
EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE GIVE ANY INDICATION THAT COMPULSORY
EXPRESSIONS OF LOYALTY PLAY ANY SUCH PART IN OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT
AS TO OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
RELIGION.  AND WHILE SUCH EXPRESSIONS OF LOYALTY, WHEN VOLUNTARILY
GIVEN, MAY PROMOTE NATIONAL UNITY, IT IS QUITE ANOTHER MATTER TO SAY
THAT THEIR COMPULSORY EXPRESSION BY CHILDREN IN VIOLATION OF THEIR OWN
AND THEIR PARENTS' RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS CAN BE REGARDED AS PLAYING SO
IMPORTANT A PART IN OUR NATIONAL UNITY AS TO LEAVE SCHOOL BOARDS FREE
TO EXACT IT DESPITE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF
RELIGION.  THE VERY TERMS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS PRECLUDE, IT SEEMS TO
ME, ANY RECONCILIATION OF SUCH COMPULSIONS WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTIES BY A LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION THAT THEY ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO
THE PUBLIC WELFARE THAN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 

BUT EVEN IF THIS VIEW BE REJECTED AND IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THERE IS
SOME SCOPE FOR THE DETERMINATION BY LEGISLATURES WHETHER THE CITIZEN
SHALL BE COMPELLED TO GIVE PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF SUCH SENTIMENTS
CONTRARY TO HIS RELIGION, I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT WE SHOULD REFRAIN
FROM PASSING UPON THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT "AS LONG AS THE REMEDIAL
CHANNELS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS REMAIN OPEN AND UNOBSTRUCTED."  THIS
SEEMS TO ME NO LESS THAN THE SURRENDER OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
OF THE LIBERTY OF SMALL MINORITIES TO THE POPULAR WILL.  WE HAVE
PREVIOUSLY POINTED TO THE IMPORTANCE OF A SEARCHING JUDICIAL INQUIRY
INTO THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT IN SITUATIONS WHERE PREJUDICE AGAINST
DISCRETE AND INSULAR MINORITIES MAY TEND TO CURTAIL THE OPERATION OF
THOSE POLITICAL PROCESSES ORDINARILY TO BE RELIED ON TO PROTECT
MINORITIES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144,
152, NOTE 4.  AND UNTIL NOW WE HAVE NOT HESITATED SIMILARLY TO
SCRUTINIZE LEGISLATION RESTRICTING THE CIVIL LIBERTY OF RACIAL AND
RELIGIOUS MINORITIES ALTHOUGH NO POLITICAL PROCESS WAS AFFECTED.  MEYER
V. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390; PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, SUPRA;
FARRINGTON V. TOKUSHIGE, 273 U.S. 284.  HERE WE HAVE SUCH A SMALL
MINORITY ENTERTAINING IN GOOD FAITH A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, WHICH IS SUCH A
DEPARTURE FROM THE USUAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT, THAT MOST PERSONS ARE
DISPOSED TO REGARD IT WITH LITTLE TOLERATION OR CONCERN.  IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO SECURE
CONFORMITY OF BELIEF AND OPINION BY A COMPULSORY AFFIRMATION OF THE
DESIRED BELIEF, IS ESPECIALLY NEEDFUL IF CIVIL RIGHTS ARE TO RECEIVE
ANY PROTECTION.  TESTED BY THIS STANDARD, I AM NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT
THE RIGHT OF THIS SMALL AND HELPLESS MINORITY, INCLUDING CHILDREN
HAVING A STRONG RELIGIOUS CONVICTION, WHETHER THEY UNDERSTAND ITS
NATURE OR NOT, TO REFRAIN FROM AN EXPRESSION OBNOXIOUS TO THEIR
RELIGION, IS TO BE OVERBORNE BY THE INTEREST OF THE STATE IN
MAINTAINING DISCIPLINE IN THE SCHOOLS. 

THE CONSTITUTION EXPRESSES MORE THAN THE CONVICTION OF THE PEOPLE
THAT DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES MUST BE PRESERVED AT ALL COSTS.  IT IS ALSO
AN EXPRESSION OF FAITH AND A COMMAND THAT FREEDOM OF MIND AND SPIRIT
MUST BE PRESERVED, WHICH GOVERNMENT MUST OBEY, IF IT IS TO ADHERE TO
THAT JUSTICE AND MODERATION WITHOUT WHICH NO FREE GOVERNMENT CAN
EXIST.  FOR THIS REASON IT WOULD SEEM THAT LEGISLATION WHICH OPERATES
TO REPRESS THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF SMALL MINORITIES, WHICH IS
ADMITTEDLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROTECTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
MUST AT LEAST BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AS LEGISLATION
WHICH WE HAVE RECENTLY HELD TO INFRINGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY OF
RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL MINORITIES. 

WITH SUCH SCRUTINY I CANNOT SAY THAT THE INCONVENIENCES WHICH MAY
ATTEND SOME SENSIBLE ADJUSTMENT OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE IN ORDER THAT THE
RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS OF THESE CHILDREN MAY BE SPARED, PRESENTS A
PROBLEM SO MOMENTOUS OR PRESSING AS TO OUTWEIGH THE FREEDOM FROM
COMPULSORY VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS FAITH WHICH HAS BEEN THOUGHT WORTHY
OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. 
..END :

















U.S. V. SUMMERLIN, 310 U.S. 414 


NO. 715.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1940.  - 140 FLA.
475 - 191 SO. 842, REVERSED. 


1.  A CLAIM ASSIGNED TO THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR BECAME A
CLAIM OF, AND ENFORCIBLE BY, THE UNITED STATES.  ACT OF JUNE 27, 1934. 
P. 416. 

2.  WHETHER THE UNITED STATES SUES IN ITS OWN COURT OR IN A STATE
COURT, IT IS NOT BOUND BY STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS OR SUBJECT TO
THE DEFENSE OF LACHES.  P. 416. 

THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM IN QUESTION WAS ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES
UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT DOES NOT TAKE THE CASE OUT OF THE RULE. 
P. 416. 

3.  A STATE STATUTE PROVIDING THAT CLAIMS AGAINST A DECEDENT'S ESTATE
NOT FILED WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD SHALL BE VOID MIGHT DEPRIVE THE
STATE PROBATE COURT OF JURISDICTION TO RECEIVE AND PASS UPON A CLAIM OF
THE UNITED STATES, BUT CAN NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY.  P. 417. 

UNITED STATES V. SUMMERLIN, ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 647, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DECLARING A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST A DECEDENT'S ESTATE VOID
BECAUSE NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY A STATE STATUTE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS, WHICH IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REVIEW, THE
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR, ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES,
BECAME THE ASSIGNEE OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE OF ONE J. F. ANDREW,
DECEASED.  RESPONDENT WAS APPOINTED ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATRIX OF THAT
ESTATE BY THE COUNTY JUDGE OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA.  RESPONDENT, ON
AUGUST 13, 1937, GAVE NOTICE BY PUBLICATION TO THE CREDITORS OF THE
ESTATE TO FILE PROOF OF THEIR CLAIMS WITHIN EIGHT MONTHS AS REQUIRED BY
THE STATE STATUTE. 

THE UNITED STATES FILED ITS CLAIM IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY JUDGE
ON JULY 1, 1938, WITH A PETITION ASKING THAT THE CLAIM BE ALLOWED WITH
THE PRIORITY ACCORDED BY THE FEDERAL STATUTES (31 U.S.C. 191, 192) AND
ALSO ASSERTING THAT THE STATE STATUTE AS TO THE TIME FOR FILING CLAIMS
DID NOT APPLY TO CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE COUNTY JUDGE DENIED
THE PETITION, HOLDING THAT THE STATE STATUTE WAS APPLICABLE AND FURTHER
ADJUDGING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES BE "DISALLOWED AS A CLAIM
AGAINST THE ESTATE" OF THE DECEDENT. 

THE UNITED STATES APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY,
WHERE THE ORDER OF THE COUNTY JUDGE WAS IN ALL RESPECTS AFFIRMED.  THE
JUDGMENT EXPLICITLY DECLARED THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE
"VOID," BECAUSE NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED.  AN APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RESULTED IN AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT.  140 FLA. 475; 191 SO. 842.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION.  309 U.S. 647. 

THE STATUTE OF FLORIDA (SEC. 5541(92) COMPILED GENERAL LAWS OF 1927,
SUPP.) PROVIDES: 

"NO CLAIM OR DEMAND, WHETHER DUE OR NOT, DIRECT OR CONTINGENT,
LIQUIDATED OR UNLIQUIDATED, OR CLAIM FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OR FOR DAMAGES, SHALL BE
VALID OR BINDING UPON AN ESTATE, OR UPON THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
THEREOF, OR UPON ANY HEIR, LEGATEE, OR DEVISEE OF THE DECEDENT UNLESS
THE SAME SHALL BE IN WRITING AND CONTAIN THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND
POST OFFICE ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT AND SHALL BE SWORN TO BY THE
CLAIMANT, HIS AGENT OR ATTORNEY, AND BE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY JUDGE GRANTING LETTERS.  ANY SUCH CLAIM OR DEMAND NOT SO FILED
WITHIN EIGHT MONTHS FROM THE TIME OF THE FIRST PUBLICATION OF THE
NOTICE TO CREDITORS SHALL BE VOID EVEN THOUGH THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE HAS RECOGNIZED SUCH CLAIM OR DEMAND BY PAYING A PORTION
THEREOF OR INTEREST THEREON OR OTHERWISE:  ..." 

THE CLAIM ASSIGNED TO THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR ACTING ON
BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES BECAME THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
THE UNITED STATES THEREUPON BECAME ENTITLED TO ENFORCE IT.  ACT OF JUNE
27, 1934, 48 STAT. 1246.  COMPARE GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE,
306 U.S. 466, 477; PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21, 32,
33. 

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT BOUND BY STATE
STATUTES OF LIMITATION OR SUBJECT TO THE DEFENSE OF LACHES IN ENFORCING
ITS RIGHTS.  UNITED STATES V. THOMPSON, 98 U.S. 486; UNITED STATES V.
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 118 U.S. 120, 125, 126; STANLEY V.
SCHWALBY, 147 U.S. 508, 514, 515; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES,
304 U.S. 126, 132; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S.
343, 351.  THE SAME RULE APPLIES WHETHER THE UNITED STATES BRINGS ITS
SUIT IN ITS OWN COURTS OR IN A STATE COURT.  DAVIS V. CORONA COAL CO.,
265 U.S. 219, 222, 223. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM WAS ACQUIRED BY
THE UNITED STATES THROUGH OPERATIONS UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
DOES NOT TAKE THE CASE OUT OF THIS RULE.  THE STATE COURT TREATED THE
CASE AS IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS ONE OF "STATUTES PROVIDING FOR
CONVEYANCING AND MARKETING NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS, AND CONDUCTING OTHER
BUSINESS RELATIONS."  BUT THIS IS NOT A CASE RELATING TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE LAW MERCHANT AS TO THE TRANSFER OF NEGOTIABLE PAPER
AND THE DILIGENCE NECESSARY TO CHARGE AN ENDORSER OR AS TO THE
INCURRING BY THE UNITED STATES OF CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES BY BECOMING
A PARTY TO SUCH PAPER.  UNITED STATES V. BARKER, 12 WHEAT.  559; COOKE
V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 389, 396.  EVEN AS A HOLDER OF SUCH PAPER, AS
E.G. NEGOTIABLE BONDS, THE UNITED STATES SUING THE MAKER IS NOT BOUND
BY A STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  UNITED STATES V. NASHVILLE, C. &
ST. L. RY. CO., SUPRA.  WHEN THE UNITED STATES BECOMES ENTITLED TO A
CLAIM, ACTING IN ITS GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY, AND ASSERTS ITS CLAIM IN
THAT RIGHT, IT CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE ABDICATED ITS GOVERNMENTAL
AUTHORITY SO AS TO BECOME SUBJECT TO A STATE STATUTE PUTTING A TIME
LIMIT UPON ENFORCEMENT.  CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE CANAL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 250 U.S. 123, 126, 127. 

THE STATE COURT, HOWEVER, HAS SAID THAT THE STATUTE IN QUESTION IS
NOT A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, BUT RATHER A STATUTE OF "NON-CLAIM" FOR
THE ORDERLY AND EXPEDITIOUS SETTLEMENT OF DECEDENTS' ESTATES. 
PRESUMABLY THE COURT REFERS TO THE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE THAT IF A
CLAIM IS NOT FILED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD IT "SHALL BE VOID EVEN
THOUGH THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RECOGNIZED SUCH CLAIM OR DEMAND
BY PAYING A PORTION THEREOF OR INTEREST THEREON OR OTHERWISE." 

IF THIS WERE A STATUTE MERELY DETERMINING THE LIMITS OF THE
JURISDICTION OF A PROBATE COURT AND THUS PROVIDING THAT THE COUNTY
JUDGE SHOULD HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO RECEIVE OR PASS UPON CLAIMS NOT
FILED WITHIN THE EIGHT MONTHS, WHILE LEAVING AN OPORTUNITY TO THE
UNITED STATES OTHERWISE TO ENFORCE ITS CLAIM, THE AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE TO IMPOSE SUCH A LIMITATION UPON ITS PROBATE COURT MIGHT BE
CONCEDED.  BUT IF THE STATUTE, AS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE COURT,
UNDERTAKES TO INVALIDATE THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES, SO THAT IT
CANNOT BE ENFORCED AT ALL, BECAUSE NOT FILED WITHIN EIGHT MONTHS, WE
THINK THE STATUTE IN THAT SENSE TRANSGRESSED THE LIMITS OF STATE
POWER.  DAVIS V. CORONA COAL CO., SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE STORY HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF A STATE STATUTE PURPORTING TO BAR CLAIMS AGAINST
DECEDENTS' ESTATES IN UNITED STATES V. HOAR, FED. CAS. NO. 15,373; 2
MASON 311.  THERE AN ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST AN
ADMINISTRATOR OF AN ESTATE AND THE DEFENDANT PLEADED THE GENERAL
STATUTE OF LIMITATION OF MASSACHUSETTS AS TO PERSONAL ACTIONS AND ALSO
THE PARTICULAR STATUTE LIMITING SUITS AGAINST EXECUTORS AND
ADMINISTRATORS TO FOUR YEARS AFTER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRUST.  MR.
JUSTICE STORY THOUGHT IT CLEAR THAT THE DEFENSE OF THESE STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS COULD NOT AVAIL.  THE QUESTION WHETHER A FURTHER DEFENSE OF
PLENE ADMINISTRAVIT WAS GOOD, THAT IS, WHETHER A DISTRIBUTION OF
SURPLUS ASSETS AFTER THE PAYMENT OF ALL KNOWN DEBTS AMONG THE HEIRS,
EITHER VOLUNTARY OR UNDER A PROBATE DECREE, WOULD PROTECT THE
ADMINISTRATOR FROM SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES, IT WAS THOUGHT NOT
NECESSARY TO DECIDE.  NOR HAVE WE SUCH A QUESTION HERE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE STATE STATUTE IN THIS INSTANCE REQUIRING CLAIMS TO
BE FILED WITHIN EIGHT MONTHS CANNOT DEPRIVE THE UNITED STATES OF ITS
RIGHT TO ENFORCE ITS CLAIM; THAT THE UNITED STATES STILL HAS ITS RIGHT
OF ACTION AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATOR, EVEN THOUGH THE PROBATE COURT IS
TO BE REGARDED AS HAVING NO JURISDICTION TO RECEIVE A CLAIM AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. 

SO FAR AS THE JUDGMENT GOES BEYOND THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION
OF THE PROBATE COURT AND PURPORTS TO ADJUDGE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE
UNITED STATES IS VOID AS A CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT
BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE, THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED. 

THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :




















DELAWARE RIVER COMM'N V. COLBURN, 310 U.S. 419 


NO. 563.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1940.  - 123
N.J.L. 197 - 8 A.2D 563, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPACT MADE BETWEEN TWO STATES AND
SANCTIONED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS INVOLVES A FEDERAL "TITLE, RIGHT,
PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY" WHICH, WHEN "SPECIALLY SET UP AND CLAIMED" IN A
STATE COURT, MAY BE REVIEWED UNDER SEC. 237(B) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 
P. 427. 

2.  THE COMPACT OF 1934 BETWEEN NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA CREATED A
COMMISSION TO PERFORM STATE FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING THE LOCATION,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF BRIDGES OVER THE DELAWARE RIVER; TO THAT
END IT AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY PURCHASE
OR EMINENT DOMAIN, DEFINING REAL PROPERTY AS EMBRACING "INTERESTS IN
LAND," INCLUDING "CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO REAL ESTATE," AND PROVIDED
THAT, WHERE RESORT TO EMINENT DOMAIN WAS NEEDFUL FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
SUCH INTERESTS, THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER SHOULD BE "IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED" BY AN ACT OF NEW JERSEY OF APRIL 1, 1912, AS AMENDED.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT, BEYOND PAYMENT FOR THE LAND OR INTERESTS THEREIN OF THE
PRICE AGREED UPON BY THE COMMISSION OR FIXED BY PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT
DOMAIN, THE COMPACT IMPOSES NO OBLIGATION ON THE COMMISSION TO
COMPENSATE FOR DAMAGES INFLICTED BY ITS ACTS, BUT LEAVES THE COMMISSION
TO SUCH LIABILITY AS IS IMPOSED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE WITHIN WHICH
THE COMMISSION ACTS, INCLUDING THE ACT OF 1912, AS AMENDED, IN SO FAR
AS THE COMPACT HAS MADE THAT ACT APPLICABLE.  P. 428. 

(2)  UNDER THE GENERALLY APPLICABLE DECISIONS AND STATUTES OF NEW
JERSEY THE COMMISSION IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY SUCH CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. 
P. 430. 

(3)  THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF 1912, MENTIONED IN THE COMPACT, WAS BY
ITS TERMS APPLICABLE TO A COMMISSION OTHER THAN PETITIONER, AND
AUTHORIZED THE FORMER TO ACQUIRE BY A PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE, EXISTING
BRIDGES BY PURCHASE OR EMINENT DOMAIN AND TO DETERMINE "DAMAGES FOR
PROPERTY TAKEN, INJURED OR DESTROYED."  P. 429. 

(4)  UNDER THE COMPACT, THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF 1912 IS EXCLUDED
FROM THE OPERATION OF THE COMPACT EXCEPT AS IT AFFORDS A MANNER OR
PROCEDURE FOR EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, WHICH IS CALLED
INTO OPERATION BY THE COMPACT ONLY IF THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO
ACQUIRE NEEDED PROPERTY BY PURCHASE AND THEN ONLY AS A MEANS OF FIXING
THE COMPENSATION WHICH UNDER THE COMPACT THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO
PAY.  P. 431. 

3.  EVEN THOUGH IT WERE INTENDED BY THE COMPACT TO ADOPT THE RULE OF
DAMAGES PRESCRIBED BY ART. XVI, SEC. 8 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION
(1874), WHICH PROVIDES THAT "MUNICIPAL AND OTHER CORPORATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS INVESTED WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR
PUBLIC USE SHALL MAKE JUST COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY TAKEN, INJURED OR
DESTROYED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OR ENLARGEMENT OF THEIR WORKS, HIGHWAYS
OR IMPROVEMENTS  ...  ," THAT SECTION, AS CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPACT, APPLIES ONLY
WHERE THERE IS A TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN, AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF
STATUTE, GIVES NO RIGHT OF RECOVERY FROM A LANDOWNER FOR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM STRUCTURES ERECTED WHOLLY ON HIS OWN LAND
WHETHER ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE OR BY EMINENT DOMAIN.  P. 432. 

DELAWARE RIVER JOINT TOLL BRIDGE COMMISSION V. COLBURN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 549, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
SUSTAINING A SPECIAL VERDICT AND AWARDING A PEREMPTORY MANDAMUS (119
N.J.L. 600; 197 A. 896) REQUIRING THE BRIDGE COMMISSION TO PAY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE
ABUTMENT ON LAND PURCHASED BY THE COMMISSION, OR TO TAKE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT. 

THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE COMPACT PRESENT A FEDERAL QUESTION
FOR ULTIMATE ADJUDICATION BY THIS COURT.  U.S. CONST., ART. III, SEC.
2; HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA RIVER & CHERRY CREEK DITCH CO., 304 U.S. 92,
110; KENTUCKY V. INDIANA, 281 U.S. 163; PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING &
BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 13 HOW.  518; GREEN V. BIDDLE, 8 WHEAT.  1. 

EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE COMPACTS INVOLVES
DETERMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF THE LEGISLATION OF EITHER STATE, THIS
COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY AND DUTY TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF ALL QUESTIONS
PERTAINING TO THE COMPACT. 

THE TWO STATES ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS REVIEW.  HINDERLIDER
V. LA PLATA RIVER & CHERRY CREEK DITCH CO., SUPRA. 

THE COMPACT IS TO BE GOVERNED NOT BY THE STATUTES OR JUDICIAL
DECISIONS OF EITHER STATE, OR BY DECISIONS CONSTRUING FEDERAL STATUTES,
BUT BY THE "FEDERAL COMMON LAW."  HINDERLIDER CASE, SUPRA; SMITH V.
ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465, 477, 478. 

THE COMPACT IS A CONTRACT, AND THE RULE OF LAW IS THAT CONTRACTS TO
WHICH THE STATE IS A PARTY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF THE STATE. 
PANAMA-PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION CO. V. PANAMA-PACIFIC
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION, 178 CAL. 746; 174 P. 890. 

THE COMPACT DID NOT GIVE RESPONDENTS A RIGHT TO CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES. 

IN NEW JERSEY THERE WAS AND IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR
DAMAGES FOR "INJURY" TO PROPERTY, BUT THERE IS A PROVISION ONLY FOR
DAMAGES FOR "TAKING" (ART. I, SEC. 16). 

UNDER THE NEW JERSEY DECISIONS THERE WAS NO RIGHT TO LIGHT, AIR AND
VIEW OVER OTHER LANDS, NOR IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS WAS THERE ANY
RIGHT TO AN AWARD FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR OBSTRUCTION OF VIEW,
LIMITATION OF LIGHT AND AIR, OR FROM THE CLOSING OF STREETS.  BARNETT
V. JOHNSON, 15 N.J. EQ. 481; HARWOOD V. TOMPKINS, 24 N.J.L. 425; HAYDEN
V. DUTCHER, 31 N.J. EQ. 217; NEWARK V. HATT, 79 N.J.L. 548; R. & A.
REALTY CORP. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 16 N.J. MISC. REPS.  537. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR DAMAGES TO PROPERTY
"INJURED" AS WELL AS DAMAGES FOR "TAKING," (ART. 16, SEC. 8). 

THE COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA HAVE HELD THAT EVEN UNDER THEIR
CONSTITUTION THERE COULD BE NO RECOVERY BY ADJOINING LANDOWNERS FOR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES UNLESS, IN ADDITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION, THERE WAS A STATUTE EXPRESSLY GIVING A RIGHT THERETO.  IN RE
SOLDIERS AND SAILORS MEMORIAL BRIDGE, 308 PA. 487; HOFFER V. READING
CO., 287 PA. 120; WESTMORELAND C. & C. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, 294 PA. 451; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. MARCHANT, 119 PA. 541;
AFF'D 153 U.S. 380; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. LIPPINCOTT, 116 PA. 472;
HOLMES V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 79 PA. SUP. CT. 381. 

IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, EVEN WITH CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS SIMILAR
TO THOSE OF PENNSYLVANIA AND WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THE
LANGUAGE OF THE COMPACT IN QUESTION, INJURIES OF THE KIND HERE INVOLVED
WERE HELD TO BE DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA.  CF. HOWELL V. NEW YORK, N.H. &
H.R. CO., 221 MASS. 169; EACHUS V. LOS ANGELES R. CO., 103 CAL. 614,
617. 

THE "FEDERAL COMMON LAW," UNDER WHICH THE COMPACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED,
ADOPTS THE GENERAL COMMON LAW, SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465; AND IN
CONSTRUING THE COMPACT BETWEEN PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY, BOTH OF
WHICH ARE COMMON LAW STATES, THE SOUND AND SAFE PRINCIPLES OF THE
GENERAL COMMON LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED. 

THE COMPACT SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE ENLARGEMENT OF
THE COMMON LAW PRINCIPLE.  SHAW V. RAILROAD CO., 101 U.S. 557. 

THE COMPACT FAILS TO BRING TO LIGHT ANY INTENTION TO CREATE NEW,
UNDEFINED AND UNLIMITED RIGHTS TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.  THE
DEFINITION IN THE COMPACT OF THE TERM "REAL PROPERTY" AS INCLUDING
"CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE TO REAL ESTATE" RELATES ONLY TO THAT WHICH THE
BRIDGE COMMISSION MAY ACQUIRE BY PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION, AND NOT TO
CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMMISSION. 

THE WORDS "DAMAGE TO REAL ESTATE" CLEARLY MEAN THAT WHEN THE BRIDGE
COMMISSION ACQUIRES REAL PROPERTY BY PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION, IT MAY
ALSO ACQUIRE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE TO REAL ESTATE EXISTING IN FAVOR OF THE
PROPERTY OWNERS AND AGAINST THIRD PARTIES. 

THE 1912 ACT, AS AMENDED IN 1919, ONLY PROVIDED FOR THE ACQUISITION
OF EXISTING TOLL BRIDGES AND TURNING OF THEM INTO FREE BRIDGES, AND DID
NOT CONTEMPLATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BRIDGES. 

REFERENCE IN THE COMPACT TO THE ACT OF 1912, AS AMENDED, PROVIDED
ONLY A SPECIFIC EMINENT DOMAIN METHOD, AND GAVE NO RIGHT TO
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. 

THE COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE QUESTION PRESENTED FOR
REVIEW IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE STATUTE.  PEOPLE V. CENTRAL R.
CO. OF N.J., 42 N.Y. 283, 294; 12 WALL.  455; ADAMS V. RUSSELL, 229
U.S. 353; KENNEY V. CRAVEN, 215 U.S. 125. 

THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF AN INTERSTATE COMPACT DO NOT PRESENT A
FEDERAL QUESTION. 

THE COMPACT CLAUSE DOES NOT MAKE THE SUPREME COURT THE FINAL ARBITER
WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERPRETATION OF INTERSTATE COMPACTS.  34 YALE LAW
JOURNAL 685, 694-695; VIRGINIA V. TENNESSEE, 148 U.S. 503, 519. 

THIS COURT IN PEOPLE V. CENTRAL RAILROAD, 12 WALL.  455, HAS HELD
THAT THE ADJUDICATION BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT AS TO THE MEANING OF
AN INTERSTATE COMPACT DOES NOT PRESENT A FEDERAL QUESTION.  PEOPLE V.
CENTRAL R. CO., 42 N.Y. 283.  CF. HINDERLIDER V. LAPLATA RIVER & CHERRY
CREEK DITCH CO., 304 U.S. 92. 

THE CASES CITED BY PETITIONER DO NOT HOLD THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF
AN INTERSTATE COMPACT STANDING ALONE PRESENTS A FEDERAL QUESTION. 
HINDERLIDER V. LAPLATA RIVER CO., SUPRA; KENTUCKY V. INDIANA, 281 U.S.
163, PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 13 HOW.  518; GREEN
V. BIDDLE, 8 WHEAT.  1; PEOPLE V. CENTRAL RAILROAD, 12 WALL.  455;
FLEMING V. FLEMING, 264 U.S. 29.  SEE 35 COL. L. REV. 76. 

THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS PRESENTED FOR
DECISION TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTES CREATING THE BRIDGE COMMISSION AND
GRANTING IT THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR THE
ALLOWANCE OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.  CHAPTER 297 OF THE LAWS OF NEW
JERSEY OF 1912, AS AMENDED BY C. 76 OF THE LAWS OF 1919, NOW REVISED
STATUTES OF 1937; BURNS HOLDING CORP. V. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, 8
N.J. MISC. 452; SOMMER V. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, 106 N.J.L. 26;
WOLFSON V. COMMISSION OF PERTH AMBOY, 9 N.J. MISC. 161. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA REQUIRED COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY
IN THAT STATE "TAKEN, INJURED OR DESTROYED" FOR PUBLIC USE.  ART. 16,
SEC. 8. 

UNDER THIS PROVISION A TAKING IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO AN AWARD FOR
DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT.  THE PROVISION WAS INTENDED FOR
THE PROTECTION OF NOT ONLY THE PERSON WHOSE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN, BUT
EQUALLY FOR THOSE WHO SUFFERED CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES BY REASON OF A
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT.  PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. MILLER, 132 U.S. 75;
CHESTER COUNTY V. BROWER, 117 PA. 647; 12 ATL. 577. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS IN INTERPRETING STATUTES SIMILAR TO THE
STATUTE IN QUESTION HAVE HELD THAT THE STATUTES CREATE NEW RIGHTS TO
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.  DISTINGUISHING IN RE SOLDIERS AND SAILORS
MEMORIAL BRIDGE, 308 PA. 487; 162 ATL. 309; HOFFER V. READING CO., 287
PA. 120; 134 ATL. 415; WESTMORELAND CHEMICAL & COLOR CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, 294 PA. 451; 144 ATL. 407; PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD V.
LIPPINCOTT, 116 PA. 462; 9 ATL. 871; PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD V. MARCHANT,
119 PA. 541; 13 ATL. 690.  SEE:  PENNSYLVANIA S.F.R. CO. V. WALSH, 124
PA. 544, 558; 17 ATL. 186, 187; HOLMES & HOLMES V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, 79 PA. SUPER.  COURT, 381, 386. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS IN INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
AND LEGISLATION THEREUNDER ALLOWING DAMAGES TO PROPERTY INJURED BY AN
IMPROVEMENT HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT NEW RIGHTS ARE CREATED IN FAVOR
OF OWNERS WHO SUFFER DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY IRRESPECTIVE
OF THEIR LOCATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE IMPROVEMENT.  MELLOR V.
PHILADELPHIA, 160 PA. 614; 28 ATL. 991; BODEMER V. COUNTY OF
NORTHAMPTON, 101 PA. SUPER.  CT. 492; IN RE MELON STREET, 182 PA. 397;
38 ATL. 482; IN RE CONSTRUCTION OF WALNUT ST. BRIDGE, 191 PA. 153; 43
ATL. 88; RE CHATHAM STREET, 191 PA. 604; 43 ATL. 365; LEWIS V.
HOMESTEAD, 194 PA. 199; 45 ATL. 123. 

THE AUTHORITIES RECOGNIZE THAT STATUTES PROVIDING FOR DAMAGES FOR
"PROPERTY TAKEN, INJURED OR DESTROYED" APPLY TO ALL CLASSES OF PROPERTY
WHICH IS DEPRECIATED IN VALUE BY REASON OF THE IMPROVEMENT.  LEWIS ON
EMINENT DOMAIN (3D ED.)  VOL.  1, SECS. 359, 360 AND 354; NICHOLAS ON
EMINENT DOMAIN, VOL. 1, P. 324. 

THE NEW JERSEY ACT OF 1912, AS AMENDED, WAS THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD
PRESCRIBED FOR EXERCISING THE GENERAL POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN GRANTED
THE COMMISSION BY THE COMPACT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS OF THE RIGHT OF RESPONDENTS TO RECOVER CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES TO THEIR NEW JERSEY LAND, DUE TO INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR ACCESS
TO THE LAND AND WITH THEIR LIGHT, AIR AND VIEW CAUSED BY PETITIONER'S
CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE ABUTMENT ON ADJACENT LAND.  THE ANSWER TURNS
ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMPACT OF 1934 BETWEEN NEW JERSEY AND
PENNSYLVANIA AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE AND ITS
APPROACHES, EXCLUDED THE APPLICATION TO PETITIONER OF A NEW JERSEY
STATUTE WITHOUT WHICH RESPONDENTS WOULD ENJOY NO RIGHT OF RECOVERY
UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW. 

PETITIONER, THE BRIDGE COMMISSION, IS A "BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC"
CREATED BY THE COMPACT ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE TWO STATES,
N.J.P.L. 1934, CH. 215(NOW N.J.R.S. 1937, 32:  8-1 ET SEQ.), 1931 PA.
P.L. 1352; 1933 PA. P.L. 827, AND CONSENTED TO BY CONGRESS, 49 STAT.
1058(1935).  THE COMPACT AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO BUILD BRIDGES
ACROSS THE DELAWARE RIVER BETWEEN THE TWO STATES, AND FOR THAT PURPOSE
GAVE THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY BY PURCHASE OR
BY THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  THE COMMISSION, IN THE EXERCISE OF
ITS AUTHORITY IN CONSTRUCTION OF A BRIDGE BETWEEN PHILLIPSBURG, NEW
JERSEY AND EASTON, PENNSYLVANIA, ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE LAND IN THE TOWN
OF PHILLIPSBURG, UPON WHICH IT HAS LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED A HIGHWAY
APPROACH TO THE BRIDGE, ON AN EMBANKMENT OR ABUTMENT LEADING TO THE NEW
JERSEY END OF THE BRIDGE.  THE PROPERTY THUS ACQUIRED AND USED INCLUDES
LAND ADJOINING THE REAR OF PROPERTY OWNED BY RESPONDENTS, HAVING ITS
FRONT ON A PUBLIC STREET.  THE EMBANKMENT AND THE LAND ON WHICH IT
RESTS ALSO CROSSES CERTAIN STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOT IMMEDIATELY
ADJACENT TO RESPONDENTS' LAND WHICH HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY CLOSED BY THE
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE BRIDGE APPROACH. 

THE PRESENT SUIT IS A PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS, BROUGHT IN THE NEW
JERSEY SUPREME COURT TO COMPEL THE COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS,
WHICH IT IS ALLEGED ARE AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED BY THE COMPACT, TO FIX
AND AWARD COMPENSATION TO RESPONDENTS FOR DAMAGES TO THEIR LAND,
SUFFERED BY REASON OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ABUTMENT.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT SUSTAINED THE SPECIAL VERDICT OF
A JURY WHICH FOUND THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION HAD DAMAGED RESPONDENTS
BY DEPRIVING THEM OF ACCESS TO THEIR LAND AND THEIR ENJOYMENT OF LIGHT,
AIR AND VIEW.  THE COURT FOUND AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT AS THE ABUTMENT
WAS LOCATED WHOLLY ON LAND ACQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION, AND AS THE
STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD BEEN CLOSED AND GRADES CHANGED BY STATE
AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS WERE WITHOUT RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR THE DAMAGES
SUFFERED, IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME STATUTE AUTHORIZING RECOVERY.  BUT IT
FOUND SUCH A STATUTE IN CH. 297 OF P.L. 1912 AS AMENDED BY CH. 76 OF
P.L. 1919(NOW N.J.R.S. 1937, 32:9-1 ET SEQ.), WHICH IT CONSTRUED WITH
THE COMPACT AS REQUIRING THE COMMISSION TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGES
WHICH RESPONDENTS HAD SUFFERED.  119 N.J.L. 600; 197 A. 896. 

RESPONDENTS, BEING WITHOUT OTHER ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY, THE COURT
AWARDED A PEREMPTORY MANDAMUS DIRECTING PETITIONER TO COMPENSATE THEM
FOR THE DAMAGE OR TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE
AMOUNT TO BE AWARDED AS COMPENSATION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE III OF THE COMPACT, WHICH IT ALSO HELD REQUIRED THE PROCEEDINGS
FOR THAT PURPOSE TO BE TAKEN ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 297 OF P.L. 1912 AS
AMENDED BY CH. 76 OF P.L. 1919(NOW N.J.R.S. 1937, 32:9-1 ET SEQ.) ON
APPEAL THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE SAME
GROUNDS AS THOSE ON WHICH THE SUPREME COURT RESTED ITS DECISION.  123
N.J.L. 197; 8 A.2D 563.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 549, THE
QUESTIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPACT BETWEEN STATES AND OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.    IN PEOPLE V.
CENTRAL RAILROAD, 12 WALL.  455, JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW A
JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT CONSTRUING A COMPACT BETWEEN STATES WAS
DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPACT WAS NOT A STATUTE OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS GIVING CONSENT
WAS IN NO WAY DRAWN IN QUESTION, NOR WAS ANY RIGHT SET UP UNDER IT.
THIS DECISION HAS LONG BEEN DOUBTED, SEE HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA CO.,
304 U.S. 92, 110, NOTE 12, AND WE NOW CONCLUDE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SUCH A COMPACT SANCTIONED BY CONGRESS BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 10,
CLAUSE 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION, INVOLVES A FEDERAL "TITLE, RIGHT,
PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY" WHICH WHEN "SPECIALLY SET UP AND CLAIMED" IN A
STATE COURT MAY BE REVIEWED HERE ON CERTIORARI UNDER SEC. 237(B) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344.  SEE GREEN V. BIDDLE, 8 WHEAT.  1;
PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 13 HOW.  518; WEDDING V.
MEYLER, 192 U.S. 573; CF. WHARTON V. WISE, 153 U.S. 155; KENTUCKY UNION
CO. V. KENTUCKY, 219 U.S. 140, 161; HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA CO., SUPRA.
HENCE WE ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE COMPACT ON WHICH
RESPONDENTS RELY TO SUSTAIN A RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR INJURY TO THEIR
LANDS, FOR WHICH, APART FROM THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF 1912, REFERRED
TO IN THE COMPACT, THE NEW JERSEY COURTS HAVE HELD THERE IS NO SUPPORT
IN STATE LAW. 

THE COMPACT CREATED THE COMMISSION AS A "PUBLIC CORPORATE
INSTRUMENTALITY" OF THE TWO STATES, TO PERFORM STATE FUNCTIONS, AMONG
OTHERS, THE LOCATION, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
BRIDGES EXTENDING BETWEEN THE TWO STATES AND ACROSS A SPECIFIED SECTION
OF THE DELAWARE RIVER.  TO THIS END IT CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSION
THE POWER: 

"(B)  TO SUE AND BE SUED; ... 

"(H)  TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS; ... 

"(J)  TO ACQUIRE, OWN, USE, LEASE, OPERATE AND DISPOSE OF REAL
PROPERTY AND INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY, AND TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS
THEREON; ...  AND 

"(M)  TO EXERCISE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN." 

IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF ANY REAL PROPERTY FOR ANY
AUTHORIZED PURPOSE, ARTICLE III OF THE COMPACT PROVIDES: 

"IF THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE OWNER OR OWNERS
THEREOF UPON TERMS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF ANY SUCH REAL PROPERTY, IN
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, THEN THE COMMISSION
MAY ACQUIRE SUCH PROPERTY BY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF EMINENT
DOMAIN, IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY AN ACT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
ENTITLED 'AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND MAINTAINING BY THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, OF
TOLL BRIDGES ACROSS THE DELAWARE RIVER, AND PROVIDING FOR FREE TRAVEL
ACROSS THE SAME,' APPROVED THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, ONE THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED AND TWELVE (CHAPTER TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN), AND THE VARIOUS
ACTS AMENDATORY THEREOF AND SUPPLEMENTARY THERETO, RELATING TO THE
ACQUISITION OF INTERSTATE TOLL BRIDGES OVER THE DELAWARE RIVER."  IT
FURTHER PROVIDES: 

"THE TERM 'REAL PROPERTY,' AS USED IN THIS COMPACT, INCLUDES LANDS,
...  AND INTERESTS IN LAND, ...  AND ANY AND ALL THINGS AND RIGHTS
USUALLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE SAID TERM, AND INCLUDES NOT ONLY FEES
SIMPLE AND ABSOLUTE BUT ALSO ANY AND ALL LESSER INTERESTS, SUCH AS
EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, USES, LEASES, LICENSES, AND ALL OTHER
INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS, AND EVERY ESTATE, INTEREST OR RIGHT, LEGAL
OR EQUITABLE, INCLUDING TERMS OF YEARS AND LIENS THEREON BY WAY OF
JUDGMENTS, MORTGAGES, OR OTHERWISE, AND ALSO CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE TO REAL
ESTATE."  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE EFFECT OF THESE PROVISIONS IS TO
AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO ACQUIRE "REAL PROPERTY" BY PURCHASE OR BY
EMINENT DOMAIN, AND THAT BY DEFINITION REAL PROPERTY INCLUDES
"INTERESTS IN LAND" WHICH ARE SO DEFINED AS TO INCLUDE "CLAIMS FOR
DAMAGE TO REAL ESTATE," AND THAT, WHERE RESORT TO EMINENT DOMAIN IS
NEEDFUL FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH INTERESTS, THE EXERCISE OF THAT
POWER IS TO BE "IN THE MANNER PROVIDED" IN THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF
1912 AS AMENDED.  BY ITS TERMS THE COMPACT CONFERS UPON THE COMMISSION
THE POWER TO ACQUIRE THE SPECIFIED INTERESTS IN LAND OR RELATING TO
LAND, CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT FOR THE INTERESTS ACQUIRED, AN AMOUNT
AGREED UPON OR FIXED BY PROCEEDINGS IN EMINENT DOMAIN.  BEYOND THIS IT
IMPOSES NO DUTY OR OBLIGATION ON THE COMMISSION TO COMPENSATE FOR
DAMAGES INFLICTED BY ITS ACTS, BUT LEAVES THE COMMISSION SUBJECT TO
SUCH LIABILITY AS IS IMPOSED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE WITHIN WHICH THE
COMMISSION ACTS. 

THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF 1912 WHICH, AS PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE III OF
THE COMPACT AFFORDS THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH THE COMMISSION IS TO
EXERCISE ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, DOES NOT ENLARGE THE DUTIES OR
LIABILITY OF THE COMMISSION AS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMPACT.  THE AMENDED
STATUTE OF 1912 AUTHORIZED A STATE COMMISSION, ACTING IN COOPERATION
WITH A LIKE COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHTS,
FRANCHISES AND PROPERTY OF BRIDGE COMPANIES OWNING AND OPERATING
EXISTING TOLL BRIDGES ACROSS THE DELAWARE RIVER WITHIN A SPECIFIED
TERRITORY AND TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THEM AS FREE BRIDGES. 

IT AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO ACQUIRE THE BRIDGES BY PURCHASE OR BY
EMINENT DOMAIN AND FOR THAT PURPOSE "TO DETERMINE THE COMPENSATION TO
BE ALLOWED AS OF THE TIME OF ENTRY UPON THE PROPERTY AND TAKING
POSSESSION THEREOF, FOR THE VALUE OF PROPERTY, FRANCHISES, EASEMENTS OR
RIGHTS IN THE TWO STATES."  IT COMMANDS THAT AFTER VIEW OF THE PREMISES
AND HEARING, THE COMMISSION, IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION,
"SHALL ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN, INCLUDING ANY
EASEMENT, RIGHTS OR FRANCHISES INCIDENT THERETO, AS WELL AS THE DAMAGES
FOR PROPERTY TAKEN, INJURED OR DESTROYED, AND SHALL STATE TO WHOM THE
DAMAGES ARE PAYABLE." 

RESPONDENTS INSIST THAT THIS DIRECTION THAT THE COMMISSION CREATED
UNDER THE 1912 ACT "SHALL ESTIMATE  ...  DAMAGES FOR PROPERTY TAKEN,
INJURED OR DESTROYED" IS, BY THE COMPACT, MADE A DIRECTION TO
PETITIONER FOR PAYMENT OF CONSEQUENTIAL INJURIES TO PROPERTY TO WHICH
THE COMPACT MAKES NO REFERENCE.  UNDER THE GENERALLY APPLICABLE
DECISIONS AND STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY, AS HER COURTS HAVE HELD IN THIS
CASE, THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT LIABILITY TO PAY CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES.  BUT IT FOUND A STATUTORY CREATION OF SUCH LIABILITY IN THE
ACT OF 1912 AS AMENDED IN 1919.  AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
COMPACT THERE WAS NO STATUTE IN NEW JERSEY PURPORTING TO IMPOSE SUCH A
LIABILITY WHICH WAS ON ITS FACE APPLICABLE TO THE COMMISSION.  IF THE
ACT OF 1912 AS AMENDED IMPOSED SUCH A LIABILITY, IT APPEARED TO BE
APPLICABLE ONLY TO A DIFFERENT CORPORATE BODY FROM PETITIONER AND THEN
ONLY IN THE CASE OF THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF EXISTING TOLL BRIDGES
TO THE COMMISSION THE ACQUISITION OF WHICH COULD INFLICT NO
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.  IN ENTERING INTO A COMPACT IT WAS THEN
COMPETENT FOR THE STATES TO PROVIDE BY ITS TERMS THE EXTENT TO WHICH
THEY WERE TO TAKE OVER AND APPLY TO THE NEW COMMISSION, PERFORMING A
DIFFERENT FUNCTION UNDER DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SUBSTANTIVE RULES
GOVERNING COMPENSATION UPON THE ACQUISITION OF EXISTING TOLL BRIDGES
UNDER THE 1912 ACT.  THE COMPACT WAS EXPLICIT IN ITS SPECIFICATIONS OF
WHAT PROPERTY INTERESTS SHOULD BE TAKEN AND COMPENSATED FOR, AND OF THE
RIGHT AND AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO ACQUIRE THEM BY PURCHASE OR BY
EMINENT DOMAIN.  BY ITS SILENCE IT LEFT THE COMMISSION SUBJECT TO SUCH
LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ONLY AS WAS IMPOSED BY THE LAWS OF
THE STATE, INCLUDING THE ACT OF 1912, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE COMPACT
RESTRICTED THE APPLICATION OF THAT ACT.  THE COMPACT WAS EQUALLY
EXPLICIT IN ITS STATEMENT OF THE EFFECT WHICH WAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE
1912 ACT AND ITS AMENDMENTS. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT, UNDER THE COMPACT, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THAT
LEGISLATION, THE COMMISSION COULD HAVE ACQUIRED LAND BY PURCHASE AND
BUILT A BRIDGE UPON IT WITHOUT SUBJECTING ITSELF TO LIABILITY FOR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.  BUT IT WAS NECESSARY THAT A PROCEDURE SHOULD BE
ADOPTED FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN CONFERRED ON
THE COMMISSION BY THE COMPACT AND THIS WAS DONE BY THE PROVISION OF THE
COMPACT THAT "THE COMMISSION MAY ACQUIRE SUCH PROPERTY BY THE EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN, IN THE MANNER PROVIDED" BY THE 1912
ACT.  UNDER THE COMPACT THAT ACT IS GIVEN EFFECT ONLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT IT AFFORDS A MANNER OR PROCEDURE OF EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF
EMINENT DOMAIN, WHICH IS CALLED INTO OPERATION ONLY IF THE COMMISSION
IS UNABLE TO ACQUIRE NEEDED PROPERTY BY PURCHASE AND THEN ONLY AS A
MEANS OF FIXING THE COMPENSATION WHICH, UNDER THE COMPACT, THE
COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO PAY.  THE COMPACT CAN BE GIVEN A MORE
EXTENSIVE EFFECT ONLY BY DISREGARDING ITS LANGUAGE AND BY ATTRIBUTING
TO ITS DRAFTSMEN AN INTENTION TO ADOPT A RULE OF DAMAGES NOT GENERALLY
APPLICABLE IN THE STATE AND NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME ADOPTED BY A
CONSTRUCTION PLAINLY INAPPLICABLE TO THE ACQUISITION OF EXISTING TOLL
BRIDGES TO WHICH THE ACT OF 1912 AND ITS AMENDMENTS ALONE REFERRED. 

ONLY BY READING INTO THE WORDS OF THE COMPACT SUCH A STRAINED AND
UNNATURAL MEANING, IS IT POSSIBLE TO FIND IN IT A MODIFICATION OF THE
SETTLED LAW OF THE STATE DEFINING THE RECOVERABLE DAMAGES UPON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS.  NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OF THE COMPACT
HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION TO SUGGEST ANY REASON OR PURPOSE FOR
SUCH MODIFICATION IN THE SPECIAL CASE OF BRIDGES TO BE CONSTRUCTED
BETWEEN THE TWO STATES.  BOTH THE NEW JERSEY COURTS THOUGHT THEY
DISCERNED SUCH A REASON IN ARTICLE XVI, SEC. 8 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
CONSTITUTION OF 1874, WHICH PROVIDES:  "MUNICIPAL AND OTHER
CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS INVESTED WITH THE PRIVILEGE OF TAKING
PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE SHALL MAKE JUST COMPENSATION FOR
PROPERTY TAKEN, INJURED OR DESTROYED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OR ENLARGEMENT
OF THEIR WORKS, HIGHWAYS OR IMPROVEMENTS  ...  "  IN PASSING UPON THIS
CASE THEY THOUGHT THAT THIS PROVISION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION
AS CONSTRUED BY TWO DECISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT IN 1888
AND 1889, CHESTER COUNTY V. BROWER, 117 PA. 647; 12 A. 577; APPEAL OF
DELAWARE COUNTY, 119 PA. 159; 13 A. 62, REQUIRED COMPENSATION FOR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS. 

FROM THIS THEY REASONED THAT BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPACT FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS "IN THE MANNER"
PROVIDED BY THE 1912 ACT WITH ITS STIPULATION FOR PAYMENT OF "DAMAGES
FOR PROPERTY TAKEN, INJURED OR DESTROYED" IT WAS INTENDED BY THE
COMPACT TO MAKE THE RULE OF DAMAGE UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION
APPLICABLE TO PROPERTY SIMILARLY ACQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION IN NEW
JERSEY.  BUT THIS REASONING OVERLOOKS THE IMPORTANT CIRCUMSTANCE THAT
THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION IS WITHOUT APPLICATION WHERE THERE IS NO TAKING BY EMINENT
DOMAIN, AND THAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS OR OTHERS, ALTHOUGH POSSESSED
OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, ARE NOT LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES INFLICTED BY THE ERECTION OF STRUCTURES WHOLLY ON THEIR OWN
LAND ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE.  PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. LIPPINCOTT, 116 PA.
472; 9 A. 871; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. MARCHANT, 119 PA. 541; 13 A. 690;
HARTMAN V. PITTSBURGH INCLINE PLANE CO., 159 PA. 442; 28 A. 145;
GILLESPIE V. BUFFALO, R. & P. RY. CO., 226 PA. 31; 74 A. 738; RIDGEWAY
V. PHILADELPHIA & READING RY. CO., 244 PA. 282; 90 A. 652. 

MOREOVER, IN 1928, SIX YEARS BEFORE THE COMPACT, THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, IN WESTMORELAND CHEMICAL & COLOR CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 294 PA. 451; 144 A. 407, DEPARTED FROM ITS RULING IN CHESTER
COUNTY V. BROWER, SUPRA, AND APPEAL OF DELAWARE COUNTY, SUPRA, AND HAS
SINCE HELD THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IN THE ABSENCE OF A
STATUTE REQUIRING IT GIVES NO RIGHT OF RECOVERY FROM A LANDOWNER FOR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM STRUCTURES LOCATED WHOLLY ON HIS
OWN LAND WHETHER ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE OR EMINENT DOMAIN.  HOFFER V.
READING CO., 287 PA. 120; 134 A. 415; SOLDIERS AND SAILORS MEMORIAL
BRIDGE, 308 PA. 487, 491; 162 A. 309; MCGARRITY V. COMMONWEALTH, 311
PA. 436, 439; 166 A. 895. 

EVEN THOUGH IT BE THOUGHT THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO ADOPT, BY THE 1912
ACT, THE THEN PREVAILING INTERPRETATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, THAT FACT COULD HAVE NO FORCE HERE, BOTH
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED BY THE
PENNSYLVANIA COURTS AS APPLICABLE TO THE USE OF LAND ACQUIRED BY
PURCHASE AND BECAUSE THE COMPACT BY ITS TERMS EXCLUDES THE 1912 ACT
FROM ITS OPERATION EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS IT AFFORDS A MANNER OR METHOD OF
PROCEDURE WHEN THE COMMISSION RESORTS TO EMINENT DOMAIN.  REVERSED. 
..END :







SECURITIES COMM'N V. U.S. REALTY CO., 310 U.S. 434 


NO. 796.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 30, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1940.  - 108
F.2D 794, REVERSED. 


1.  A BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO MAKE ORDERS NOT SUBJECT TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK IN A PROCEEDING FOR AN "ARRANGEMENT" WITH UNSECURED
CREDITORS BROUGHT BY A DEBTOR CORPORATION UNDER CHAPTER XI OF THE
CHANDLER ACT, ALTHOUGH THE FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SETUP OF THE DEBTOR
ARE SUCH THAT ADEQUATE PROTECTION AND RELIEF CAN NOT BE OBTAINED UNDER
THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT CHAPTER BUT REQUIRE A REORGANIZATION UNDER
CHAPTER X WITH THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE AND SAFEGUARDS WHICH THAT CHAPTER
AFFORDS.  P. 446. 

CHAPTER X, DEVISED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP, IS
SPECIALLY ADAPTED TO THE REORGANIZATION OF LARGE CORPORATIONS WHOSE
SECURITIES ARE HELD BY THE PUBLIC, AND SETS UP A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR
THE PROTECTION OF WIDELY SCATTERED SECURITY HOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC
THROUGH THE INTERVENTION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
WHILE CHAPTER XI, WHICH IS PECULIARLY ADAPTED TO THE SPEEDY COMPOSITION
OF DEBITS OF SMALL INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE BUSINESSES, OMITS THE
MACHINERY FOR REORGANIZATION SET UP BY CHAPTER X, AND CONTAINS NO
PROVISION FOR PARTICIPATION BY THE COMMISSION IN A PROCEEDING UNDER
CHAPTER XI. 

2.  CHAPTERS X AND XI OF THE CHANDLER ACT, IN PROVIDING THAT A PLAN
OR ARRANGEMENT, TO WARRANT ITS CONFIRMATION, SHALL BE "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE," USE THOSE WORDS WITH THE MEANING ATTACHED TO THEM, AS WORDS
OF ART, IN CASES OF REORGANIZATION THROUGH EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS OR
UNDER FORMER SEC. 77B, VIZ., THAT, IN ANY PLAN OF CORPORATE
REORGANIZATION, CREDITORS ARE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER STOCKHOLDERS TO
THE FULL EXTENT OF THEIR DEBTS, AND THAT ANY SCALING DOWN OF CREDITORS'
CLAIMS, WITHOUT SOME FAIR COMPENSATING ADVANTAGE TO THEM WHICH IS PRIOR
TO THE RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS, IS INADMISSIBLE.  NORTHERN PACIFIC RY.
CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482.  P. 452. 

3.  SINCE CHAPTER XI ADMITS OF AN "ARRANGEMENT" ONLY WITH RESPECT TO
UNSECURED CREDITORS, WITHOUT ALTERATION OF THE RELATIONS OF ANY OTHER
CLASS OF SECURITY HOLDERS, AND SINCE IT CONTEMPLATES (AS REQUIRED BY
SEC. 366) THAT THE ARRANGEMENT SHALL BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE BOYD CASE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT GIVES NO APPROPRIATE
SCOPE FOR AN ARRANGEMENT OF AN UNSECURED INDEBTEDNESS HELD BY HUNDREDS
OF CREDITORS OF A CORPORATION HAVING THOUSANDS OF STOCKHOLDERS.  P.
452. 

THE HOPE OF SECURING AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, WITHOUT SOME READJUSTMENT
OF THE RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS SUCH AS MAY BE HAD UNDER CHAPTER X, BUT
IS PRECLUDED BY CHAPTER XI, IS AT BEST BUT NEGLIGIBLE AND, IF
ACCOMPLISHED AT ALL, MUST BE WITHOUT THE AIDS TO THE PROTECTION OF
CREDITORS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INCLUDING PARTICIPATION BY THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, WHICH ARE PROVIDED BY CHAPTER X,
AND WHICH WOULD SEEM TO BE INDISPENSABLE TO A JUST DETERMINATION
WHETHER THE PLAN IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE. 

4.  WHETHER CONFIRMATION OF AN ARRANGEMENT PROPOSED IN THIS CASE
WOULD BE "FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CREDITORS," AS SEC. 366(2)
REQUIRES, DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THE STOCKHOLDERS SHOULD BE ELIMINATED OR
THE CREDITORS RECEIVE SOME SUBSTITUTE COMPENSATION AND WHETHER THAT
COMPENSATION WOULD BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE.  IT IS FOR THE BEST INTEREST
OF THE CREDITORS THAT THESE QUESTIONS BE ANSWERED IN A CHAPTER X
PROCEEDING.  P. 453. 

5.  CHAPTER XI HAS SPECIAL SCOPE IN THE CASE OF SMALL BUSINESSES,
WHERE THERE ARE NO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INTERESTS INVOLVED REQUIRING
PROTECTION BY THE PROCEDURE AND REMEDIES OF CHAPTER X. P. 454. 

6.  UNDER SEC. 146(2) A PETITION MAY NOT BE FILED UNDER CHAPTER X
UNLESS THE JUDGE IS SATISFIED THAT "ADEQUATE RELIEF" WOULD NOT BE
OBTAINABLE UNDER CHAPTER XI.  THE ADEQUACY OF THE RELIEF UNDER CHAPTER
XI MUST BE APPRAISED IN COMPARISON WITH THAT TO BE HAD UNDER CHAPTER X,
AND IN THE LIGHT OF ITS EFFECT ON ALL THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS
CONCERNED INCLUDING THOSE OF THE DEBTOR.  P. 454. 

7.  IF THE CASE IS SUCH THAT ADEQUATE RELIEF CAN NOT BE OBTAINED
UNDER CHAPTER XI, THE COURT, EXERCISING ITS EQUITY POWER, SHOULD
DISMISS THE PROCEEDING UNDER THAT CHAPTER, LEAVING THE PETITIONER FREE
TO PROCEED UNDER CHAPTER X, WHICH AFFORDS EVERY REMEDY OBTAINABLE UNDER
CHAPTER XI, AND MORE.  PP. 455, 456. 

8.  A BANKRUPTCY COURT IS A COURT OF EQUITY, SEC. 2, 11 U.S.C. SEC.
11, AND IS GUIDED BY EQUITABLE DOCTRINES AND PRINCIPLES EXCEPT IN SO
FAR AS THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT; AND AN ACT DEALING WITH
BANKRUPTCY SHOULD BE READ IN HARMONY WITH THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF EQUITY
JURISPRUDENCE, OF WHICH IT IS A PART.  PP. 455, 457. 

9.  A COURT OF EQUITY MAY, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETIONARY
JURISDICTION, CONDITION RELIEF ON FULFILLMENT OF A REQUIREMENT WHICH
WILL SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IT MAY WITHHOLD RELIEF ALTOGETHER,
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHEN PRIVATE RIGHT WILL NOT SUFFER.  P. 455. 

10.  WHAT THE COURT CAN DECIDE UNDER THE EXPRESS TERMS OF SEC. 146 OF
CHAPTER X AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE RELIEF AFFORDED BY CHAPTER XI, IT
CAN DECIDE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS EQUITY POWERS UNDER CHAPTER XI FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS INVOLVED
AND PROTECTING ITS OWN JURISDICTION FROM MISUSE.  P. 456. 

11.  IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE, IN THE
EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION, TO DISMISS THE PETITION UNDER CHAPTER
XI, LEAVING THE DEBTOR TO PROCEED UNDER CHAPTER X. P. 456. 

12.  THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, IN VIEW OF THE DUTIES
AND FUNCTIONS LAID UPON IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY CHAPTER X OF THE
CHANDLER ACT, MAY BE PERMITTED, UNDER RULE 24 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE AND PARAGRAPH 37 OF THE GENERAL ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY, TO
INTERVENE IN A CHAPTER XI PROCEEDING AND MOVE ITS DISMISSAL UPON THE
GROUND THAT RESORT TO THAT CHAPTER RATHER THAN CHAPTER X INTERFERES
WITH PERFORMANCE OF THE COMMISSION'S DUTIES AND VIOLATES THE POLICY OF
THE ACT.  P. 458. 

13.  UPON A DENIAL OF SUCH MOTION TO DISMISS, THE COMMISSION IS
ENTITLED TO APPEAL, UNDER SECS. 24 AND 25 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P.
460. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES REALTY &
IMPROVEMENT CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 649, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED AN
ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT PERMITTING THE ABOVE-NAMED COMMISSION TO
INTERVENE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND
WHICH DISMISSED THE COMMISSION'S APPEAL FROM THE DENIAL OF ITS MOTIONS
THAT AN APPROVAL OF THE DEBTOR'S PETITION BE VACATED AND THAT THE
PETITION BE DISMISSED, ETC. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN RESPONDENT'S
PETITION UNDER CHAPTER XI BECAUSE CHAPTER X IS THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD BY
WHICH CORPORATIONS WITH SECURITIES OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE
PUBLIC MAY REORGANIZE UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  ALTHOUGH LITERAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEFINITION PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD PERMIT A
PUBLICLY HELD CORPORATION TO FILE UNDER CHAPTER XI, THE STRUCTURE OF
THE ACT AS A WHOLE, AS WELL AS ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, SHOWS
UNMISTAKABLY THAT SUCH LITERAL CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT REFLECT THE
MEANING OF CONGRESS.  THE RULE IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE REAL
PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY MUST PREVAIL OVER THE
LITERAL IMPORT OF THE WORDS USED. 

CHAPTERS X AND XI EMBODY STRIKINGLY DIFFERENT SCHEMES OF
REORGANIZATION.  CHAPTER X PROVIDES DETAILED SAFEGUARDS DESIGNED TO
PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC INVESTORS; CHAPTER XI PROVIDES MERELY A
RUDIMENTARY SYSTEM OF CREDITOR CONTROL DESIGNED FOR THE CORPORATION
WHICH HAS ONLY TRADE AND COMMERCIAL CREDITORS.  THE CONTRAST BETWEEN
THE PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED MAKES IT PLAIN THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT
ALL PUBLIC SECURITY HOLDERS SHOULD HAVE THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY
CHAPTER X AND THAT CHAPTER XI SHOULD BE CONFINED TO CORPORATIONS WITH
ONLY TRADE AND COMMERCIAL CREDITORS. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS CONFIRMED BY ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD WHICH
STRIKINGLY SHOWS THE INADEQUACY OF THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY CHAPTER
XI FOR A CORPORATION IN WHICH THERE IS A PUBLIC INVESTOR INTEREST.  IT
IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE WHICH
DEMONSTRATES THAT IN ENACTING CHAPTERS X AND XI CONGRESS HAD CLEARLY IN
MIND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION AND A
CORPORATION WITH SECURITIES OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION BECAUSE NO
"FAIR AND EQUITABLE" PLAN CAN BE CONSUMMATED IN THE PROCEEDING AND NO
ARRANGEMENT CAN BE PROPOSED IN GOOD FAITH.  CHAPTER XI PROVIDES ONLY
FOR THE MODIFICATION OF UNSECURED OBLIGATIONS; UNDER THIS CHAPTER,
THEREFORE, ALTERATION OF THE GUARANTY ON THE TRINITY CERTIFICATES MUST
BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT ALTERING THE DEBTOR'S LARGE STOCK ISSUE AND
PROBABLY ALSO WITHOUT MODIFYING ITS DEBENTURES.  YET THE TRINITY
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST THE DEBTOR WHICH MUST BE
SATISFIED BEFORE THE STOCKHOLDERS RECEIVE ANYTHING AND WHICH RANKS ON A
PAR WITH THAT OF THE DEBENTURE HOLDERS, SINCE THE SECURITY BEHIND THE
DEBENTURES IS VALUELESS.  NO PLAN WHICH MODIFIED THE DEBTOR'S
OBLIGATION ON THE GUARANTY BUT LEFT THE STOCKHOLDERS AND PERHAPS ALSO
THE DEBENTURE HOLDERS UNAFFECTED WOULD BE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 366(3); YET SUCH A PLAN IS THE ONLY ONE WHICH COULD BE
CONSUMMATED UNDER CHAPTER XI.  A DISCLOSURE THAT A PLAN CANNOT BE
CONSUMMATED IN THE PROCEEDING GOES TO THE JURISDICTION AND REQUIRES
DISMISSAL. 

MOREOVER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, NO
ARRANGEMENT PROPOSED CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF "GOOD FAITH" CONTAINED
IN SEC. 366(5).  AND, EVEN APART FROM THE "GOOD FAITH" PROVISION, THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND THAT
THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY CHAPTER X WAS MORE APPROPRIATE. 

THE HOLDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT
HAVE PERMITTED THE COMMISSION TO INTERVENE IN THE PROCEEDING IS CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS.  IN EFFECT, THE DECISION ESTABLISHES THE PRINCIPLE THAT, IN
THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS STATUTORY PROVISION, A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY MAY
NEVER INTERVENE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM EVASION OR EMASCULATION OF
THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE AGENCY FUNCTIONS, UNLESS THE AGENCY HAS
SOME PROPERTY OR PECUNIARY RIGHT AFFECTED BY THE LITIGATION.  THIS
DRASTIC RESTRICTION UPON THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC INTEREST FINDS NO SUPPORT IN PRECEDENT OR POLICY. 

THE INTEREST OF THE COMMISSION IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS TWOFOLD. 
FIRST, AS THE AGENCY DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS TO PARTICIPATE IN CHAPTER X
PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC INVESTORS, IT HAS A VERY REAL INTEREST
IN ASSURING THAT SUCH INVESTORS ARE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE SAFEGUARDS
CONTAINED IN CHAPTER X THROUGH IMPROPER EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER
CHAPTER XI.  SECOND, IT HAS AN EQUALLY GREAT INTEREST IN PROTECTING ITS
OWN FUNCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER X FROM IMPAIRMENT THROUGH IMPROPER RESORT
TO CHAPTER XI BY CORPORATIONS WHICH SHOULD FILE UNDER CHAPTER X. THE
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THIS INTEREST
IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER PERMITTING THE
COMMISSION TO INTERVENE.  COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433, 442, 466;
PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176; THE EXCHANGE, 7 CRANCH 116;
PERCY SUMMER CLUB V. ASTLE, 110 F. 486, 489; IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564;
HOPKINS SAVINGS ASSN. V. CLEARY, 296 U.S. 315, 339-341; NEW YORK V. NEW
JERSEY, 256 U.S. 296, 307-308; UNITED STATES TRUST CO. V. CHICAGO
TERMINAL T.R. CO., 188 F. 292, 296.  CF. STATE V. SUPERIOR COURT FOR
WALLA WALLA COUNTY, 159 WASH. 335; 293 P. 986; STATE V. SUPERIOR COURT
OF MARION COUNTY, 202 IND. 589; 177 N.E. 322.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION
THAT IT WAS PROPERLY PERMITTED TO INTERVENE UNDER CLAUSE (B)(2) OF RULE
24. 

IF THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS DISCRETION IN PERMITTING
THE COMMISSION TO INTERVENE, THE COMMISSION HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL
FROM THE ORDERS DENYING ITS MOTION.  AN INTEREST SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT
INTERVENTION IS PLAINLY SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT APPEAL, AFTER
INTERVENTION, FROM A DECISION ADVERSE TO THAT INTEREST. 

THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY SEC. 208 DOES NOT APPLY. 

THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT A CORPORATION WITH SECURITIES
OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC CAN NOT PROCEED UNDER CHAPTER
XI.  IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS,
INASMUCH AS ANY CORPORATION WHICH CAN BECOME A BANKRUPT MAY BY THE
EXPRESS TERMS OF THE STATUTE INSTITUTE A PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER XI,
WHICH CONTAINS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEBTOR'S SECURITIES SHALL NOT BE
PUBLICLY HELD.  THE STATUTE IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND IS SO CLEAR AND
UNAMBIGUOUS THAT THE COURTS ARE POWERLESS TO ENLARGE OR MODIFY ITS
MEANING UNDER THE GUISE OF "CONSTRUCTION."  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT THE DEBTOR COULD NOT FILE A PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X UNLESS IT
COULD AFFIRMATIVELY SHOW THAT IT COULD NOT OBTAIN RELIEF UNDER CHAPTER
XI (SECS. 130, 146, 147). 

EVEN IF THIS WERE A PROPER CASE FOR CONSTRUCTION, NEITHER IN THE
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES WHICH CONSIDERED THE
CHANDLER BILL, NOR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORTS, NOR IN THE FACTUAL
BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL DERIVATION OF CHAPTER XI, NOR IN THE
STRUCTURE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, CAN THERE BE FOUND EVIDENCE OF ANY
INTENT OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT CORPORATIONS WITH PUBLICLY HELD
SECURITIES FROM PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER XI.  IN FACT THE EVIDENCE IS
TO THE CONTRARY. 

THE FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND FEASIBILITY OF ANY ARRANGEMENT ARE NOT
PROPERLY IN ISSUE AT THIS TIME, INASMUCH AS THE DISTRICT COURT HAS NOT
YET CONFIRMED OR REFUSED TO CONFIRM ANY ARRANGEMENT. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS DEBTOR CAN PROPOSE AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH MEETS
THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER XI.  THE ARRANGEMENT ORIGINALLY FILED,
WHICH IS TO SO GREAT AN EXTENT THE OBJECT OF THE COMMISSION'S
OBJECTIONS, HAS BEEN AMENDED IN SUBSTANTIAL RESPECTS AND IS NO LONGER
EVEN BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT. 

NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482, AND CASE V. LOS
ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308 U.S. 106, DO NOT APPLY TO A PROCEEDING
INSTITUTED UNDER CHAPTER XI FOR A SETTLEMENT OF UNSECURED DEBTS.  THE
USE OF THE PHRASE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" IN BOTH CHAPTERS X AND XI IS NOT
SIGNIFICANT, SINCE THE SAME WORDS MAY HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SAME STATUTE.  THAT PHRASE IS EMPLOYED IN ALL
THE DEBTOR RELIEF CHAPTERS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND IT IS OBVIOUS
THAT IT CAN NOT HAVE THE MEANING ASCRIBED TO IT IN THE BOYD AND LOS
ANGELES CASES IN CHAPTERS SUCH AS CHAPTER XIII, WHICH APPLIES TO
COMPOSITIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF INDEBTEDNESS OF WAGE EARNERS.  HOWEVER,
EVEN IF SUCH DOCTRINE WERE HELD TO BE APPLICABLE, IT IS CLEAR THAT AN
ARRANGEMENT WHICH IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE THEREUNDER CAN BE PROPOSED BY
THE DEBTOR IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE
IN A PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER XI EVEN WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE
COURT. 

THE COMMISSION HAS NO STATUS TO APPEAL FROM THE ORDERS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  CHAPTER XI DOES NOT AUTHORIZE SUCH AN APPEAL AND
CHAPTER X EXPRESSLY DENIES IT IN AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION.  FURTHERMORE,
THE COMMISSION IS NOT A PROPER PARTY TO APPEAL WITHIN SECS. 24 AND 25
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OR WITHIN THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES REQUIRING AN
APPELLANT TO HAVE A REAL INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR AN ARRANGEMENT OF
ITS UNSECURED DEBTS UNDER CHAPTER XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT SHOULD BE
DISMISSED BECAUSE THE RELIEF OBTAINABLE UNDER THAT CHAPTER IS
INADEQUATE, AND WHETHER THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IS
ENTITLED TO RAISE AND LITIGATE THAT QUESTION BY INTERVENTION AND
APPEAL. 

RESPONDENT, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK AS
OWNER OF AND MANAGER OF REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, HAS OUTSTANDING
900,000 SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK WITHOUT PAR VALUE, WHICH ARE LISTED ON
THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE AND ARE STATED BY RESPONDENT TO BE HELD BY
SOME SEVEN THOUSAND STOCKHOLDERS.  IT HAS LIABILITIES OF $5,051,416, OF
WHICH ONLY $74,916 IS CURRENT.  THIS INDEBTEDNESS INCLUDES TWO SERIES
OF PUBLICLY HELD DEBENTURES AGGREGATING $2,339,000, MATURING JANUARY 1,
1944, WHICH ARE SECURED BY A PLEDGE OF CORPORATE STOCK OF LITTLE VALUE
AND A $3,000,000 NOTE, DUE AUGUST 12, 1939, WHICH IS SECURED BY A FIRST
MORTGAGE OWNED BY RESPONDENT.  IN ADDITION RESPONDENT IS ALSO LIABLE AS
A GUARANTOR OF PAYMENT, PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, AND SINKING FUND OF
MORTGAGE CERTIFICATES IN THE SUM OF $3,710,500, ISSUED BY ITS WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY TRINITY BUILDING CORPORATION OF NEW YORK AND NOW IN
THE HANDS OF SOME NINE HUNDRED HOLDERS.  THESE CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN
IN DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO PAY INTEREST, PRINCIPAL AND SINKING FUND
SINCE JANUARY 1, 1939.  THEY ARE SECURED BY MORTGAGE OF REAL ESTATE AND
BUILDINGS WHICH ARE TRINITY'S ONLY SUBSTANTIAL ASSETS.  EACH YEAR SINCE
1936 RESPONDENT HAS SUFFERED A NET LOSS IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS
AND IS NOW UNABLE TO PAY ITS DEBTS AS THEY MATURE.  FN1 

BEFORE MATURITY OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE CERTIFICATES, RESPONDENT AND
THE TRINITY COMPANY JOINED IN PROPOSING TO CERTIFICATE HOLDERS A PLAN
FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE CERTIFICATES, LEAVING
UNAFFECTED THE OTHER INDEBTEDNESS AND STOCK OF RESPONDENT.  BY THIS
PLAN THE MATURITY OF THE CERTIFICATES WAS TO BE EXTENDED, THE RATE OF
INTEREST REDUCED, AND THE TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENT OF THE
SINKING FUND MODIFIED.  RESPONDENT'S GUARANTEE AS TO THE EXTENSION AND
INTEREST WAS TO BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY, AND ITS GUARANTEE OF SINKING
FUND PAYMENTS WAS TO BE ELIMINATED.  THE PLAN WAS TO BE CONSUMMATED BY
RESORT TO TWO PROCEEDINGS, ONE TO BE INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT UNDER
CHAPTER XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 11 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 701 ET SEQ.,
52 STAT. 840, 905, FOR AN "ARRANGEMENT" MODIFYING ITS GUARANTEE OF THE
CERTIFICATES IN THE MANNER ALREADY INDICATED.  THE OTHER WAS TO BE
INSTITUTED ON BEHALF OF TRINITY IN THE NEW YORK STATE COURTS UNDER THE
BURCHILL ACT, NEW YORK REAL PROPERTY LAW, SECS. 121-123, TO SECURE THE
APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION OF TRINITY'S PRIMARY OBLIGATION ON THE
CERTIFICATES.  THE PLAN PROVIDED THAT THE MODIFICATION OF RESPONDENT'S
GUARANTEE BY THE CHAPTER XI PROCEEDING SHOULD STAND, EVEN THOUGH THE
STATE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO CONFIRM THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF
TRINITY'S OBLIGATION ON THE CERTIFICATES.  WHEN THE ASSENT TO THE PLAN
OF HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES AMOUNTING TO APPROXIMATELY 55 PER CENT. IN
NUMBER AND AMOUNT, HAD BEEN OBTAINED, THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN
MAY 31, 1939, BY THE FILING IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN NEW YORK
OF A PETITION PRAYING THAT THE PROPOSED "ARRANGEMENT" AFFECTING THE
UNSECURED INDEBTEDNESS OF RESPONDENT BE APPROVED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE PETITION WAS PROPERLY FILED  FN2
UNDER SEC. 322 OF CHAPTER XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AND DIRECTED THAT
RESPONDENT DEBTOR CONTINUE IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY.  ON JULY 18,
1939, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN ORDER PERMITTING THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION TO INTERVENE.  THE MOTIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO
VACATE THE ORDER APPROVING THE DEBTOR'S PETITION, TO DISMISS THE
PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER XI, AND TO DENY CONFIRMATION OF THE PROPOSED
ARRANGEMENT, WERE DENIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CAUSE WAS
REFERRED TO A REFEREE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  ON APPEAL BY THE
COMMISSION FROM THESE SEVERAL ORDERS AND ON APPEAL OF THE RESPONDENT
FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT PERMITTING THE COMMISSION TO
INTERVENE, THE APPEALS BEING CONSOLIDATED AND HEARD TOGETHER, THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED THE ORDER PERMITTING THE
COMMISSION TO INTERVENE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE COMMISSION. 
108 F.2D 794.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 649, THE QUESTIONS
RAISED BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.    THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE PROCEEDING TO
SECURE APPROVAL OF THE ARRANGEMENT, EMBODIED IN THE PLAN PROPOSED BY
RESPONDENT, WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER CHAPTER XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT; THAT THE INTERVENTION BY THE COMMISSION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY
PROVISION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND THAT IT HAD NO INTEREST AFFECTED BY
THE PROCEEDING UNDER THAT CHAPTER ENTITLING IT TO INTERVENE UNDER THE
APPLICABLE RULES CONTROLLING INTERVENTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND
THAT CONSEQUENTLY IT WAS NOT AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER APPEALED FROM AND
SO WAS NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN ITS APPEAL. 

THE COMMISSION ARGUES THAT CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PRESCRIBES
THE EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE FOR REORGANIZATION OF A LARGE CORPORATION
HAVING ITS SECURITIES OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC SUCH AS
RESPONDENT N3, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN RESPONDENT'S PETITION UNDER CHAPTER XI; THAT
IN ANY CASE THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION
BECAUSE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NO FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT
AFFECTING RESPONDENT'S UNSECURED CREDITORS ALONE SUCH AS IS PRESCRIBED
BY CHAPTER XI, CAN BE CONSUMMATED IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THAT CHAPTER. 
SUCH BEING THE STATUS OF THE CAUSE UNDER CHAPTER XI, THE COMMISSION
INSISTS THAT IT WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN ORDER TO PROTECT
THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC SPECIALLY COMMITTED TO ITS GUARDIANSHIP BY
THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER X, AND TO FORESTALL THE IMPAIRMENT OF ITS OWN
FUNCTIONS UNDER THAT CHAPTER BY AN UNAUTHORIZED OR IMPROPER RESORT BY
RESPONDENT TO CHAPTER XI, AND THAT FOR THE SAME REASON THE COMMISSION
WAS ENTITLED TO APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSING TO
DISMISS THE CHAPTER XI PROCEEDINGS. 

TO THIS IT IS ANSWERED, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THAT
RESPONDENT, ALTHOUGH A LARGE CORPORATION WITH ITS SECURITIES WIDELY
DISTRIBUTED IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC, IS NEVERTHELESS WITHIN THE
LITERAL TERMS OF CHAPTER XI, WHICH UNQUALIFIEDLY AUTHORIZES A DEBTOR TO
PETITION UNDER THAT CHAPTER FOR AN ARRANGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ITS
UNSECURED INDEBTEDNESS, AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ACCORDINGLY
BOUND TO ENTERTAIN THE PETITION, HOWEVER DESIRABLE IT MIGHT BE THAT THE
REORGANIZATION SHOULD PROCEED UNDER CHAPTER X, WHOSE PROCEDURE IS
BETTER ADAPTED IN CASES LIKE THE PRESENT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST
AND TO SECURE A FAIR AND EQUITABLE REORGANIZATION, THAN ARE THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XI. 

CHAPTER XI PROVIDES A SUMMARY PROCEDURE BY WHICH A DEBTOR MAY SECURE
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF AN "ARRANGEMENT" OF HIS UNSECURED DEBTS.  THE
DEBTOR, WHO IS DEFINED AS A "PERSON WHO COULD BECOME A BANKRUPT UNDER
SEC. 4 OF THE ACT," SEC. 306(3), MAY, ACCORDING TO SECS. 4 AND 1(23),
BE ANY PERSON (WHICH INCLUDES CORPORATIONS), EXCEPT A MUNICIPAL,
RAILROAD, INSURANCE OR BANKING CORPORATION OR A BUILDING AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION.  THE DEBTOR FILES HIS ORIGINAL VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR AN
ARRANGEMENT IN SUCH A COURT AS WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION OF A PETITION IN
ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY  FN4 AND MUST FILE WITH THE PETITION THE PROPOSED
ARRANGEMENT.  SECS. 322, 323.  AN ARRANGEMENT IS DEFINED AS "ANY PLAN
OF A DEBTOR FOR THE SETTLEMENT, SATISFACTION, OR EXTENSION OF THE TIME
OF PAYMENT OF HIS UNSECURED DEBTS UPON ANY TERMS."  SEC. 306(1).  THE
UNSECURED DEBTORS MAY BE TREATED GENERALLY OR IN CLASSES.  SECS. 356,
357. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTIONS TO WHICH WE HAVE
REFERRED IN TERMS CONFERS ON THE COURT JURISDICTION OF A PETITION FOR
AN ARRANGEMENT, WHICH THE PRESENT PETITION IS, FILED BY A DEBTOR, WHICH
THE RESPONDENT IS, IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE THAT IT CONFERS ON THE COURT
POWER TO MAKE ORDERS IN THE CAUSE WHICH ARE NOT OPEN TO COLLATERAL
ATTACK.  SEE PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 180, ET SEQ. BUT
THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT A PROCEEDING BEGUN UNDER CHAPTER X MAY
BE BEGUN AND CONTINUED UNDER THAT CHAPTER ONLY IF THE PETITION IS FILED
IN GOOD FAITH, SECS. 130(7), 143, 146(2), 221, AND THAT UNDER SEC.
146(2) "A PETITION SHALL BE DEEMED NOT TO BE FILED IN GOOD FAITH IF
...  (2) ADEQUATE RELIEF WOULD BE OBTAINABLE BY A DEBTOR'S PETITION
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XI"; THAT CHAPTER X, DEVISED AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP, IS SPECIALLY ADAPTED TO THE
REORGANIZATION OF LARGE CORPORATIONS WHOSE SECURITIES ARE HELD BY THE
PUBLIC, AND SETS UP A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE PROTECTION OF WIDELY
SCATERED SECURITY HOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE INTERVENTION OF
THE COMMISSION, WHILE CHAPTER XI, WHICH IS PECULIARLY ADAPTED TO THE
SPEEDY COMPOSITION OF DEBTS OF SMALL INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE
BUSINESSES, OMITS THE MACHINERY FOR REORGANIZATION SET UP BY CHAPTER X,
AND CONTAINS NO PROVISION FOR PARTICIPATION BY THE COMMISSION IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER XI.  FROM THIS IT ARGUES THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN RESPONDENT'S PETITION UNDER
CHAPTER XI, AND THE READJUSTMENT OF ITS INDEBTEDNESS THROUGH JUDICIAL
ACTION CAN PROPERLY PROCEED ONLY WITH THE SAFEGUARDS, PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE, AFFORDED BY CHAPTER X. 

WHILE WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT IN GENERAL, AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR MORE
IN DETAIL, THE TWO CHAPTERS WERE SPECIFICALLY DEVISED TO AFFORD
DIFFERENT PROCEDURES, THE ONE ADAPTED TO THE REORGANIZATION OF
CORPORATIONS WITH COMPLICATED DEBT STRUCTURES AND MANY STOCKHOLDERS,
THE OTHER TO COMPOSITION OF DEBTS OF SMALL INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS AND
CORPORATIONS WITH FEW STOCKHOLDERS, WE FIND IN NEITHER CHAPTER ANY
DEFINITION OR CLASSIFICATION WHICH WOULD ENABLE US TO SAY THAT A
CORPORATION IS SMALL OR LARGE, ITS SECURITY HOLDERS FEW OR MANY, OR
THAT ITS SECURITIES ARE "HELD BY THE PUBLIC," SO AS TO PLACE THE
CORPORATION EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNDER ONE
CHAPTER RATHER THAN THE OTHER.  BUT GRANTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT, THE QUESTION REMAINS OF THE PROPRIETY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, OF
ITS ORDER RETAINING JURISDICTION, AND OF THE EXTENT OF ITS DUTY TO GO
FORWARD WITH THE PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER XI IN THE FACE OF THE
CONTENTION THAT CHAPTER X ALONE AFFORDS A REMEDY ADEQUATELY PROTECTING
THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS INVOLVED.  THE ANSWER TURNS NOT ON THE
COURT'S STATUTORY JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER
XI, BUT ON CONSIDERATIONS GROWING OUT OF THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE ACT
FOUND BOTH IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND IN AN ANALYSIS OF ITS TERMS,
AND OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT CLOTHED WITH EQUITY POWERS AND
SITTING IN BANKRUPTCY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THAT POLICY THROUGH ITS POWER
TO WITHHOLD RELIEF UNDER CHAPTER XI WHEN RELIEF IS AVAILABLE UNDER
CHAPTER X, WHICH IS ADEQUATE AND MORE CONSONANT WITH THAT POLICY. 

BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 48 STAT. 911,
912, THE BANKRUPTCY MECHANISM WAS DESIGNED FOR THE FINAL LIQUIDATION OF
THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT ONLY THAT A COMPROMISE WITH
CREDITORS WAS AUTHORIZED BY SECS. 12, 74.  BANKRUPTCY AFFORDED NO
FACILITIES FOR CORPORATION REORGANIZATION, WHICH, IN CONSEQUENCE, COULD
BE EFFECTED ONLY THROUGH RESORT TO THE EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP WITH ITS
CUSTOMARY MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES AND ITS ATTENDANT PARAPHERNALIA OF
CREDITORS' AND SECURITY HOLDERS' COMMITTEES, AND OF RIVAL
REORGANIZATION PLANS.  LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND CONTROL BY THE COURT OF
THE CONDITIONS ATTENDING FORMULATION OF REORGANIZATION PLANS, THE
INADEQUATE PROTECTION OF WIDELY SCATTERED SECURITY HOLDERS, THE
FREQUENT ADOPTION OF PLANS WHICH FAVORED MANAGEMENT AT THE EXPENSE OF
OTHER INTERESTS, AND WHICH AFFORDED THE CORPORATION ONLY TEMPORARY
RESPITE FROM FINANCIAL COLLAPSE, SO OFTEN CHARACTERISTIC OF
REORGANIZATIONS IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS, LED TO THE ENACTMENT OF 77B. 
FN5 

THE CREATION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, SPECIALLY
CHARGED BY VARIOUS STATUTES WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE
INVESTING PUBLIC,  FN6  AND OBSERVED INADEQUACIES OF SEC. 77B,  FN7
LED TO ITS REVISION AND ENACTMENT IN CHANGED FORM AS CHAPTER X, SO AS
TO PROVIDE FOR A LARGER MEASURE OF CONTROL BY THE COURT OVER SECURITY
HOLDERS' COMMITTEES AND THE FORMULATION OF REORGANIZATION PLANS AND TO
SECURE IMPARTIAL AND EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE IN CORPORATE
REORGANIZATIONS THROUGH PARTICIPATION OF THE COMMISSION.  EXCEPT WHERE
THE LIABILITIES ARE LESS THAN $250,000, CHAPTER X REQUIRES THE
APPOINTMENT OF A DISINTERESTED TRUSTEE, SECS. 156-158, AND A THOROUGH
EXAMINATION AND STUDY BY THE TRUSTEE OF THE DEBTOR'S FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
AND MANAGEMENT, SEC. 167(3)(5).  THE TRUSTEE IS REQUIRED TO REPORT THE
RESULT OF HIS STUDY, TO SEND THE REPORT TO ALL SECURITY HOLDERS WITH
NOTICE TO SUBMIT TO HIM PROPOSALS FOR A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, SEC.
167(5)(6).  HE THEN FORMULATES A PLAN OR REPORTS THE REASONS WHY A PLAN
CANNOT BE FORMULATED, SEC. 169.  BY SEC. 176 CONSENT TO A PLAN IN
ADVANCE OF ITS INITIAL APPROVAL BY THE JUDGE IS VOID UNLESS PROCURED
WITH HIS CONSENT.  A LARGE MEASURE OF CONTROL IS GIVEN TO THE COURT
OVER THE REORGANIZATION AND OF COMMITTEES OF SECURITY HOLDERS AND THEIR
COMPENSATION, SECS. 163, 165, 209, 212, 241-243. 

IF THE JUDGE FINDS THE PLAN PRESENTED WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION HE MAY
REFER IT TO THE COMMISSION FOR REPORT AND MUST DO SO WHERE THE
LIABILITIES OF THE DEBTOR, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, EXCEED $3,000,000,
SEC. 172.  WHEN THE PLAN IS SUBMITTED TO CREDITORS AFTER APPROVAL BY
THE JUDGE IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION AND THE
OPINION OF THE JUDGE APPROVING THE PLAN, SEC. 175.  THE COMMISSION WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO PARTICIPATE GENERALLY IN THE
PROCEEDINGS AS A PARTY, AND IT IS ITS DUTY TO DO SO UPON REQUEST OF THE
COURT, SEC. 208. 

NO COMPARABLE SAFEGUARDS ARE FOUND IN CHAPTER XI.  FN8  EVERY PHASE
OF THE PROCEDURE BEARING ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARRANGEMENT IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE DEBTOR.  THE
PROCESS OF FORMULATING AN ARRANGEMENT AND THE SOLICITATION OF CONSENT
OF CREDITORS, SACRIFICES TO SPEED AND ECONOMY EVERY SAFEGUARD, IN THE
INTEREST OF THOROUGHNESS AND DISINTERESTEDNESS, PROVIDED IN CHAPTER X.
THE DEBTOR IS GENERALLY PERMITTED TO STAY IN POSSESSION AND OPERATE THE
BUSINESS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COURT, SEC. 342, AND A TRUSTEE IS
PROVIDED FOR ONLY IN THE CASE WHERE A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAS
PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPOINTED AND IS IN POSSESSION, OR IF "NECESSARY" A
RECEIVER MAY BE APPOINTED.  SEC. 332.  THE DEBTOR PROPOSES THE
ARRANGEMENT, SECS. 306(1), 323, 357, AND THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED
THE CREDITORS IN RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED PLAN IS TO ACCEPT OR REJECT IT
AS SUBMITTED BY THE DEBTOR.  ACCEPTANCES MAY BE SOLICITED EITHER BEFORE
OR AFTER FILING THE PETITION AND ALWAYS BEFORE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN BY
THE COURT, SEC. 336(4).  SECTION 361 AUTHORIZES CONFIRMATION OF AN
ARRANGEMENT WHEN ACCEPTED BY ALL THE CREDITORS AFFECTED BY IT, "IF THE
COURT IS SATISFIED THAT THE ARRANGEMENT AND THE ACCEPTANCE ARE IN GOOD
FAITH," AND SEC. 362 PERMITS CONFIRMATION IF ONLY A MAJORITY OF THE
CREDITORS AFFECTED ACCEPT.  THE ARRANGEMENT IS TO BE CONFIRMED IF THE
COURT IS SATISFIED THAT "(1) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER HAVE BEEN
COMPLIED WITH; (2) IT IS FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS; (3)
IT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND FEASIBLE  ...  ; AND (5) THE PROPOSAL AND
ITS ACCEPTANCE ARE IN GOOD FAITH ...  "  SEC. 366. 

THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS FOR AN INDEPENDENT STUDY OF THE DEBTOR'S
AFFAIRS BY COURT OR TRUSTEE, OR FOR ADVICE BY THEM TO CREDITORS WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR RIGHTS OR INTERESTS IN ADVANCE OF THEIR CONSENT TO THE
ARRANGEMENT.  COMMITTEES OF THE CREDITORS ARE PERMITTED, SECS. 334,
338, BUT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON OR SUPERVISION OVER THEIR SELECTION
AND CONDUCT AS IN CHAPTER X. THE ARRANGEMENT MAY BE CONSUMMATED AT THE
CONCLUSION OF A SINGLE CREDITORS' MEETING.  THE COURT IN PASSING UPON
THE ARRANGEMENT, IS WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF INVESTIGATION AND STUDY BY
THE TRUSTEE OR COMMISSION, WHICH CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED IN
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER X, AND IS THEN FACED WITH THE
FACT THAT A MAJORITY OF THE CREDITORS HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE PLAN. 

STILL MORE IMPORTANT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE REMEDIES OBTAINABLE
UNDER THE TWO CHAPTERS WHICH RESULT FROM DIFFERENCES IN THE NATURE OF
THE TWO PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE SECURITIES WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THEM.  A PLAN UNDER CHAPTER X MAY AFFECT ONE OR MORE CLASSES OF DEBTS
OR SECURITIES OF THE CORPORATION TO BE REORGANIZED, AND A SUBSIDIARY OF
THE DEBTOR MAY BE BROUGHT INTO SUCH A PROCEEDING AND REORGANIZED WITH
THE DEBTOR.  SEC. 129.  UNDER CHAPTER XI ONLY THE RIGHTS OF UNSECURED
CREDITORS OF THE DEBTOR MAY BE ARRANGED AND THIS WITHOUT ALTERATION OF
THE STATUS OF ANY OTHER CLASSES OF SECURITY HOLDERS OR OF
SUBSIDIARIES.  BOTH CHAPTERS PROVIDE FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN OR
ARRANGEMENT BY THE JUDGE "IF SATISFIED THAT" IT "IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE
AND FEASIBLE" AND IF "THE PROPOSAL" OF THE PLAN OR ARRANGEMENT "AND ITS
ACCEPTANCE ARE IN GOOD FAITH," SECS. 221, 366.  "FAIR AND EQUITABLE,"
TAKEN FROM SEC. 77B AND MADE THE CONDITION OF CONFIRMATION UNDER BOTH
CHAPTER X OR CHAPTER XI ARE "WORDS OF ART" HAVING A WELL UNDERSTOOD
MEANING IN REORGANIZATIONS IN EQUITABLE RECEIVERSHIPS AND UNDER SEC.
77B WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN THE STRUCTURE OF BOTH CHAPTERS X AND XI.
SEE CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., 308 U.S. 106, 115, ET SEQ.
THE PHRASE SIGNIFIES THAT THE PLAN OR ARRANGEMENT MUST CONFORM TO THE
RULE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE PRINCIPLE WHICH WE RECENTLY APPLIED IN THE LOS ANGELES
CASE, THAT IN ANY PLAN OF CORPORATE REORGANIZATION UNSECURED CREDITORS
ARE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER STOCKHOLDERS TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THEIR
DEBTS AND THAT ANY SCALING DOWN OF THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS WITHOUT SOME
FAIR COMPENSATING ADVANTAGE TO THEM WHICH IS PRIOR TO THE RIGHTS OF
STOCKHOLDERS IS INADMISSIBLE.    SINCE THE SECTIONS UNDER CHAPTER XI
ALREADY CONSIDERED ADMIT OF AN "ARRANGEMENT" ONLY WITH RESPECT TO
UNSECURED CREDITORS WITHOUT ALTERATION OF THE RELATIONS OF ANY OTHER
CLASS OF SECURITY HOLDERS, AND SINCE IT CONTEMPLATES, AS REQUIRED BY
SEC. 366, THAT THE ARRANGEMENT SHALL BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE BOYD CASE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT CHAPTER XI GIVES NO
APPROPRIATE SCOPE FOR AN ARRANGEMENT OF AN UNSECURED INDEBTEDNESS HELD
BY SOME NINE HUNDRED INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS OF A CORPORATION HAVING SEVEN
THOUSAND STOCKHOLDERS.  THE HOPE OF SECURING AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH IS
FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF UNSECURED CREDITORS,
WITHOUT SOME READJUSTMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS SUCH AS MAY BE
HAD UNDER CHAPTER X, BUT IS PRECLUDED BY CHAPTER XI, IS AT BEST BUT
NEGLIGIBLE, AND, IF ACCOMPLISHED AT ALL, MUST BE WITHOUT THE AIDS TO
THE PROTECTION OF CREDITORS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH ARE PROVIDED
BY CHAPTER X, AND WHICH WOULD SEEM TO BE INDISPENSABLE TO A JUST
DETERMINATION WHETHER THE PLAN IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE. 

RESPONDENT SUGGESTS THAT THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT MAY BE TAKEN TO
SATISFY THE TEST OF THE BOYD CASE SINCE UNDER IT THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS WOULD RECEIVE A NEW GUARANTEE, ENFORCIBLE AS TO PRINCIPAL
NOTWITHSTANDING THE NEW YORK MORATORIUM LAW, IN PLACE OF THE OLD
GUARANTEE TO WHICH THAT LAW APPLIES.  SEE HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 275 N.Y.
382; 9 N.E.2D 970, APPEAL DISMISSED 302 U.S. 375.  IT ALSO INSISTS THAT
IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT AN ARRANGEMENT OF ITS UNSECURED INDEBTEDNESS
UNDER CHAPTER XI MAY BE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD MEET THE TEST.  IT STATES
THAT, AVAILING ITSELF OF THE PRIVILEGE AFFORDED BY SEC. 363, IT HAS
PROPOSED AN AMENDED ARRANGEMENT WHICH IS NOT IN THE RECORD AND THE
TERMS OF WHICH ARE NOT DISCLOSED.  BUT IT SUGGESTS THAT THE ARRANGEMENT
COULD BE AMENDED SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A RATABLE DISTRIBUTION TO
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF PREFERRED STOCK OF TRINITY, RESPONDENT'S
SUBSIDIARY, HELD BY RESPONDENT OR FOR A SIMILAR DISTRIBUTION OF CASH. 
BUT SUCH SUGGESTIONS RAISE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SUPPOSED ADVANTAGE
TO THE CREDITORS IS A FAIR AND ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ELIMINATION
OF STOCKHOLDERS WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BOYD CASE - A QUESTION
WHICH OBVIOUSLY CANNOT BE ANSWERED WITH ANY ASSURANCE IN THE PRESENT
CASE WITHOUT RESORT TO THE FACILITIES FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND STRUCTURE OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS SUBSIDIARY, AND
TO THE EXPERT AID AND ADVICE OF THE COMMISSION AVAILABLE UNDER CHAPTER
X. 

CONFIRMATION OF AN ARRANGEMENT FOLLOWS A FINDING OF THE COURT THAT IT
IS FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS, SEC. 366(2).  HERE
DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS IN THE "BEST INTEREST OF THE CREDITORS"
DEPENDS ON THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE STOCKHOLDERS SHOULD
BE ELIMINATED OR THE CREDITORS SHOULD RECEIVE SOME SUBSTITUTE
COMPENSATION, AND WHETHER THAT COMPENSATION IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE.  IN
A SITUATION LIKE THE PRESENT IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
CREDITORS THAT THESE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN A CHAPTER X
PROCEEDING. 

WHILE THIS MEANS THAT ARRANGEMENTS OF UNSECURED DEBTS OF
CORPORATIONS, LIKE RESPONDENT, MAY NOT BE "IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
CREDITORS" AND "FEASIBLE" UNDER CHAPTER XI, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE
IS NO SCOPE FOR APPLICATION OF THAT CHAPTER IN MANY CASES WHERE THE
DEBTOR'S FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CORPORATE STRUCTURE DIFFER FROM
RESPONDENT'S.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY THE CASE WITH SMALL INDIVIDUAL OR
CORPORATE BUSINESS WHERE THERE ARE NO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INTERESTS
INVOLVED REQUIRING PROTECTION BY THE PROCEDURE AND REMEDIES AFFORDED BY
CHAPTER X. IN CASES WHERE SUBORDINATE CREDITORS OR THE STOCKHOLDERS ARE
THE MANAGERS OF ITS BUSINESS, THE PRESERVATION OF GOING-CONCERN VALUE
THROUGH THEIR CONTINUED MANAGEMENT OF THE BUSINESS MAY COMPENSATE FOR
REDUCTION OF THE CLAIMS OF THE PRIOR CREDITORS WITHOUT ALTERATION OF
THE MANAGEMENT'S INTERESTS, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED BY THE
BOYD CASE.  SEE CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, 121,
122. 

UNDER SEC. 146(2) A PETITION MAY NOT BE FILED UNDER CHAPTER X UNLESS
THE JUDGE IS SATISFIED THAT "ADEQUATE RELIEF" WOULD NOT BE OBTAINABLE
UNDER CHAPTER XI.  OBVIOUSLY THE ADEQUACY OF THE RELIEF UNDER CHAPTER
XI MUST BE APPRAISED IN COMPARISON WITH THAT TO BE HAD UNDER CHAPTER X,
AND IN THE LIGHT OF ITS EFFECT ON ALL THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS
CONCERNED INCLUDING THOSE OF THE DEBTOR.  APPLYING THIS TEST, IF
RESPONDENT HAD PROCEEDED UNDER CHAPTER X THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPELLED UPON INQUIRY TO APPROVE ITS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT IT
COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER X, AND THAT ADEQUATE RELIEF
COULD NOT BE OBTAINED UNDER CHAPTER XI.  THAT BEING THE CASE THE
QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION OF CHAPTER XI
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION, THE DISTRICT
COURT SHOULD ON THAT GROUND HAVE DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER
XI, LEAVING RESPONDENT FREE TO PROCEED UNDER CHAPTER X, WHICH AFFORDS
EVERY REMEDY WHICH COULD BE OBTAINED UNDER CHAPTER XI AND MORE. 

A BANKRUPTCY COURT IS A COURT OF EQUITY, SEC. 2, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 11,
AND IS GUIDED BY EQUITABLE DOCTRINES AND PRINCIPLES EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS
THEY ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ACT.  BARDES V. HAWARDEN BANK, 178 U.S.
524, 534, 535; CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NAT. BANK & T. CO. V. CHICAGO, R.I.
& P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648, 675; WAYNE UNITED GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS
GLASS CO., 300 U.S. 131; PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295.  A COURT OF
EQUITY MAY IN ITS DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION
COMMITTED TO IT GRANT OR DENY RELIEF UPON PERFORMANCE OF A CONDITION
WHICH WILL SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IT MAY IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, EVEN WITHHOLD RELIEF ALTOGETHER, AND IT WOULD SEEM THAT IT IS
BOUND TO STAY ITS HAND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHEN IT REASONABLY
APPEARS THAT PRIVATE RIGHT WILL NOT SUFFER.  PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS,
SUPRA, 185 AND CASES CITED; VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S.
515, 549, ET SEQ. BEFORE THE PROVISIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES WERE
BROUGHT INTO THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BY CHAPTERS X AND XI THE OCCASION WAS
RARE WHEN A COURT COULD HAVE FELT FREE TO DENY A PETITION IN ORDER TO
SERVE SOME PUBLIC OR COLLATERAL INTEREST AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO AN ADJUDICATION.  BUT HERE RESPONDENT, IF
DISMISSED, NEED NOT GO WITHOUT REMEDY.  ALL THAT IT CAN SECURE RIGHTLY
OR EQUITABLY IN A CHAPTER XI PROCEEDING IS TO BE HAD IN A CHAPTER X
PROCEEDING.  THE CASE STATED MOST FAVORABLY TO RESPONDENT IS THAT IT
HAS PROPOSED AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH APPEARS ON ITS FACE NOT TO BE "FAIR
AND EQUITABLE" AND HENCE NOT TO BE ENTITLED TO CONFIRMATION UNDER
CHAPTER XI.  RESPONDENT'S CIRCUMSTANCES, AS DISCLOSED BY ITS PETITION
AND PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT, ARE SUCH AS TO RAISE A SERIOUS QUESTION
WHETHER ANY FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
CREDITORS CAN BE EFFECTED WITHOUT SOME RE-ARRANGEMENT OF ITS CAPITAL
STRUCTURE.  IN ANY CASE, THAT AND SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS CANNOT BE
ANSWERED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF CREDITORS WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE
PROCEDURE OF A CHAPTER X PROCEEDING.  PENDING THE LITIGATION RESPONDENT
SEEKS TO STAY THE HAND OF ITS CREDITORS AND IN THE MEANTIME TO AVOID
THAT INQUIRY INTO ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION AND PRACTICES AND ITS
BUSINESS PROSPECTS, PROVIDED FOR BY CHAPTER X, WITHOUT WHICH THERE IS
AT LEAST DANGER THAT ANY ADJUSTMENT OF ITS INDEBTEDNESS WILL NOT BE
JUST AND EQUITABLE, AND THAT ITS REVIVED FINANCIAL LIFE WILL BE TOO
SHORT TO SERVE ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE INTEREST OTHER THAN THAT OF
RESPONDENT. 

IN THIS SITUATION, WE THINK THE COURT WAS AS FREE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE RELIEF AFFORDED BY CHAPTER XI WAS ADEQUATE AS IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN IF RESPONDENT HAD FILED ITS PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X.  WHAT THE
COURT CAN DECIDE UNDER SEC. 146 OF CHAPTER X AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE
RELIEF AFFORDED BY CHAPTER XI, IT CAN DECIDE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
EQUITY POWERS UNDER CHAPTER XI FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAFEGUARDING THE
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS INVOLVED AND PROTECTING ITS OWN
JURISDICTION FROM MISUSE.  HERE, WE THINK IT WAS PLAINLY THE DUTY OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION TO HAVE
DISMISSED THE PETITION, REMITTING RESPONDENT IF IT WAS SO ADVISED TO
THE INITIATION OF A PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER X, IN WHICH IT MAY SECURE
A REORGANIZATION WHICH, AFTER STUDY AND INVESTIGATION APPROPRIATE TO
ITS CORPORATE BUSINESS STRUCTURE AND OWNERSHIP, IS FOUND TO BE FAIR,
EQUITABLE AND FEASIBLE, AND IN THE BEST INTEREST OF CREDITORS.  WHILE A
BANKRUPTCY COURT CANNOT, BECAUSE OF ITS OWN NOTIONS OF EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLES, REFUSE TO AWARD THE RELIEF WHICH CONGRESS HAS ACCORDED THE
BANKRUPT, THE REAL QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE RELIEF WHICH CONGRESS HAS
ACCORDED THE BANKRUPT AND IS IT MORE LIKELY TO BE SECURED IN A CHAPTER
X OR CHAPTER XI PROCEEDING?  IN ANSWERING IT WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS HAS DISREGARDED WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, THE MORE SO
WHEN CONGRESS ITSELF HAS PROVIDED THAT THE RELIEF TO BE GIVEN SHALL BE
"FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND FEASIBLE."  GOOD SENSE AND LEGAL TRADITION
ALIKE ENJOIN THAT AN ENACTMENT OF CONGRESS DEALING WITH BANKRUPTCY
SHOULD BE READ IN HARMONY WITH THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF EQUITY
JURISPRUDENCE OF WHICH IT IS A PART. 

IF RESPONDENT HAD SOUGHT RELIEF BY WAY OF AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP SUCH
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DUTY OF THE COURT.  PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS,
SUPRA.  WE THINK IT IS NO LESS SO HERE.  BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF
CHAPTERS X AND XI, THE DISTRICT COURT IN A 77B PROCEEDING WAS "NOT
BOUND TO CLOG ITS DOCKET WITH VISIONARY OR IMPRACTICABLE SCHEMES OF
RESUSCITATION," HOWEVER HONEST THE EFFORTS OF THE DEBTOR AND HOWEVER
SINCERE ITS MOTIVES, AND IT WAS ITS DUTY TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING
WHENEVER IT APPEARED THAT A FAIR AND EQUITABLE PLAN WAS NOT FEASIBLE,
LEAVING THE DEBTOR TO THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY OF BANKRUPTCY LIQUIDATION,
SEE TENNESSEE PUBLISHING CO. V. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S. 18,
22.  AND IT HAS LONG BEEN THE PRACTICE OF BANKRUPTCY COURTS TO PERMIT
CREDITORS OR OTHERS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE PLEADINGS OR OTHERWISE CONTEST
THE ALLEGATIONS OF A PETITION, TO MOVE FOR THE VACATION OF AN
ADJUDICATION OR THE DISMISSAL OF A PETITION ON GROUNDS, WHETHER
STRICTLY JURISDICTIONAL OR NOT,  FN9  THAT THE PROCEEDING OUGHT NOT TO
BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD NO SUCH SPECIAL
INTEREST AS TO ENTITLE IT TO INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT IN THE CHAPTER XI
PROCEEDING AND CONCLUDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING
THE INTERVENTION AND THAT FROM THIS IT FOLLOWED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD
NO RIGHT TO APPEAL.  ITS DECISION IS IN EFFECT THAT A GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY NOT ASSERTING THE RIGHT TO POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF SPECIFIC
PROPERTY INVOLVED IN A LITIGATION MAY NOT BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE
WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  NEITHER CHAPTER X NOR CHAPTER XI, IN
TERMS, GIVES A RIGHT OF "INTERVENTION," BUT THE COMMISSION IS
AUTHORIZED, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE COURT, TO APPEAR IN ANY CHAPTER
X PROCEEDINGS, SEC. 208.  SUCH RIGHT AS THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE TO
INTERVENE IN A CHAPTER XI PROCEEDING IS, THEREFORE, GOVERNED BY THE
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING
INTERVENTION.  WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH THE REFINEMENTS OF THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTERVENTION, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, WHICH THE COURT
OF APPEALS THOUGHT WAS RESTRICTED TO CASES WHERE THE INTERVENOR HAS A
DIRECT PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE LITIGATION, AND PERMISSIVE
INTERVENTION, A DISTINCTION WHICH HAS BEEN PRESERVED BY RULE 24 OF THE
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  FOR HERE THE QUESTION IS NOT OF THE
COMMISSION'S INTERVENTION "AS OF RIGHT," BUT WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PERMITTING IT TO INTERVENE. 

THE COMMISSION IS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, CHARGED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF
IMPORTANT PUBLIC DUTIES IN EVERY CASE BROUGHT UNDER CHAPTER X, WHICH
WILL BE THWARTED, TO THE PUBLIC INJURY, IF A DEBTOR MAY SECURE
ADJUSTMENT OF HIS DEBTS IN A CHAPTER XI PROCEEDING WHEN, UPON THE
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES WHICH WE HAVE DISCUSSED, HE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO
PROCEED, IF AT ALL, UNDER CHAPTER X. THE COMMISSION'S DUTY AND ITS
INTEREST EXTEND NOT ONLY TO THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS PRESCRIBED FUNCTIONS
WHERE A PETITION IS FILED UNDER CHAPTER X, BUT TO THE PREVENTION, SO
FAR AS THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PERMIT, OF INTERFERENCES WITH THEIR
PERFORMANCE THROUGH IMPROPER RESORT TO A CHAPTER XI PROCEEDING IN
VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE ACT WHICH IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
COURT TO SAFEGUARD BY RELEGATING RESPONDENT TO A CHAPTER X PROCEEDING. 
THE COMMISSION DID NOT HERE INTERVENE TO PERFORM THE ADVISORY FUNCTIONS
REQUIRED OF IT BY CHAPTER X, BUT TO OBJECT TO AN IMPROPER EXERCISE OF
THE COURT'S JURISDICTION WHICH, IF PERMITTED TO CONTINUE, CONTRARY TO
THE COURT'S OWN EQUITABLE DUTY IN THE PREMISES, WOULD DEFEAT THE PUBLIC
INTERESTS WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS DESIGNATED TO REPRESENT.  SEN. REP.
NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 31. 

RULE 24 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, MADE APPLICABLE TO
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS BY PARAGRAPH 37 OF THE GENERAL ORDERS IN
BANKRUPTCY, AUTHORIZES "PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION."  IT DIRECTS THAT
"UPON TIMELY APPLICATION ANYONE MAY BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN AN
ACTION  ...  (2) WHEN AN APPLICANT'S CLAIM OR DEFENSE AND THE MAIN
ACTION HAVE A QUESTION OF LAW OR FACT IN COMMON.  IN EXERCISING ITS
DISCRETION, THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER WHETHER THE INTERVENTION WILL
UNDULY DELAY OR PREJUDICE THE ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
ORIGINAL PARTIES."  THIS PROVISION PLAINLY DISPENSES WITH ANY
REQUIREMENT THAT THE INTERVENOR SHALL HAVE A DIRECT PERSONAL OR
PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT OF THE LITIGATION.  CF. PENNSYLVANIA
V. WILLIAMS, SUPRA.  IF, AS WE HAVE SAID, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE COURT
TO DISMISS THE CHAPTER XI PROCEEDING BECAUSE ITS MAINTENANCE THERE
WOULD DEFEAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN HAVING ANY SCHEME OF REORGANIZATION
OF RESPONDENT SUBJECTED TO THE SCRUTINY OF THE COMMISSION, WE THINK IT
PLAIN THAT THE COMMISSION HAS A SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN THE MAINTENANCE
OF ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS PUBLIC DUTIES TO
ENTITLE IT THROUGH INTERVENTION TO PREVENT REORGANIZATIONS, WHICH
SHOULD RIGHTLY BE SUBJECTED TO ITS SCRUTINY, FROM PROCEEDING WITHOUT
IT.  THE EXCHANGE, 7 CRANCH 116; STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 147 U.S. 508;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. CO., 288 U.S. 14;
PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, SUPRA.  SEE, HOPKINS SAVINGS ASSN. V. CLEARY,
296 U.S. 315.  CF. IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564; NEW YORK V. NEW JERSEY,
256 U.S. 296, 307-308. 

THIS INTEREST OF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DIFFER FROM THAT OF A
LIQUIDATOR UNDER A STATE STATUTORY PROCEEDING WHO MAY, IN A PROPER
CASE, INTERVENE IN AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP IN A FEDERAL COURT TO ASK THE
COURT TO RELINQUISH ITS JURISDICTION IN FAVOR OF THE STATE PROCEEDING. 
PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, SUPRA.  NEITHER THE LIQUIDATOR NOR THE STATE
HAS ANY PERSONAL, FINANCIAL OR PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE FEDERAL COURT.  THEIR ONLY INTEREST, LIKE THAT OF
THE COMMISSION, IS A PUBLIC ONE, TO MAINTAIN THE STATE AUTHORITY AND TO
SECURE A LIQUIDATION IN CONFORMITY TO STATE POLICY.  THE "CLAIM OR
DEFENSE" OF THE COMMISSION FOUNDED UPON THIS INTEREST HAS A QUESTION OF
LAW IN COMMON WITH THE MAIN PROCEEDING IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ANY PARTY
OR A CREDITOR COULD CHALLENGE THE PROPRIETY OF THE COURT'S PROCEEDING
UNDER CHAPTER XI. FN10  THE CLAIM OR DEFENSE IS THUS WITHIN THE
REQUIREMENT OF RULE 24 AND INTERVENTION WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED.  THE
COMMISSION WAS, THEREFORE, A PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THE COURT'S ORDER
REFUSING TO DISMISS AND WAS ENTITLED TO APPEAL UNDER SECS. 24 AND 25 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. OREGON
WASHINGTON R. CO., SUPRA; TEXAS V. ANDERSON, CLAYTON & CO., 92 F.2D
104. 

COMMISSION, UPON FILING ITS NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, "THE RIGHT TO BE
HEARD ON ALL MATTERS ARISING IN SUCH PROCEEDING," BUT PROVIDES THAT IT
"MAY NOT APPEAL OR FILE ANY PETITION FOR APPEAL IN ANY SUCH
PROCEEDING."  AS SEC. 208 HAS NO APPLICATION TO A PROCEEDING UNDER
CHAPTER XI, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE SUGGESTION OF THE
COMMISSION THAT THE LIMITATION OF THE SECTION IS UPON APPEALS TO REVIEW
QUESTIONS ARISING IN THE PROCEEDING FROM THE PERFORMANCE BY THE
COMMISSION OF ITS ADVISORY FUNCTIONS AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE IT FROM
APPEALING TO CHALLENGE THE EXERCISE OR NON-EXERCISE BY THE DISTRICT
COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION UNDER CHAPTER X. REVERSED. 

FN1  THE ALLEGED VALUE OF DEBTOR'S ASSETS IS $7,076,515.  OF THIS
$5,200,000 IS REPRESENTED BY THE STOCK OF THE SUBSIDIARY AND A FIRST
MORTGAGE ON A BUILDING OWNED BY THE SUBSIDIARY WHICH IS PLEDGED TO
SECURE RESPONDENT'S $3,000,000 NOTE.  CURRENT ASSETS ARE LESS THAN
$400,000.  THE BALANCE OF THE ASSETS CONSISTS CHIEFLY OF MORTGAGES,
LOANS AND OTHER SECURITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $555,655, AN INVESTMENT OF
$477,300 IN SECURITIES OF AN INDEPENDENT COMPANY, UNIMPROVED REAL
ESTATE VALUED AT $290,000, AND A NOTE RECEIVABLE FROM A SUBSIDIARY OF
$137,500.  AS AGAINST THE TOTAL NOMINAL VALUE OF THESE ASSETS OF
$7,076,515, THE DEBTOR'S TOTAL LIABILITIES, INCLUDING ITS LIABILITY ON
THE MATURED DEBENTURE CERTIFICATES, ARE $9,261,916. 

FN2  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT COUNSEL FOR ONE OF THE COMMITTEES OF
BONDHOLDERS INTERPOSED OBJECTIONS TO THE CHAPTER XI PROCEEDINGS AND
PROPOSED TO FILE AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X. THE DISTRICT
JUDGE EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT A CHAPTER X PROCEEDING WAS PREFERABLE,
BUT WHEN THE DEBTOR AGREED TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE INTEREST PAYMENT OF ONE
AND ONE-HALF PER CENT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISSUADING THE CREDITORS FROM
FILING THE CHAPTER X PETITION, AND WHEN THE OBJECTING CREDITORS
ACCEPTED THE OFFER AND DROPPED THE INVOLUNTARY PETITION, THE JUDGE FELT
COMPELLED TO CONTINUE THE CHAPTER XI PROCEEDING. 

FN3  BY SEC. 126 A CORPORATION OR THREE OR MORE CREDITORS MAY FILE A
PETITION UNDER CHAPTER X. 

BY SEC. 130 EVERY PETITION SHALL STATE: 

"(1)  THAT THE CORPORATION IS INSOLVENT OR UNABLE TO PAY ITS DEBTS AS
THEY MATURE; 

"(2)  THE APPLICABLE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS REQUISITE UNDER THIS
CHAPTER; 

.         .         .         .         . 

'(7)  THE SPECIFIC FACTS SHOWING THE NEED FOR RELIEF UNDER THIS
CHAPTER AND WHY ADEQUATE RELIEF CANNOT BE OBTAINED UNDER CHAPTER XI OF
THIS ACT; ...  " 

FN4  SEC. 311 CONFERS ON THE COURT IN WHICH THE PETITION IS FILED
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND HIS PROPERTY, WHERE NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER. 

FN5  SEE S. DOC. NO. 65, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 90; H. REPT. NO.
1049, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2. 

FN6  THE BASIC ASSUMPTION OF CHAPTER X AND OTHER ACTS ADMINISTERED BY
THE COMMISSION IS THAT THE INVESTING PUBLIC DISSOCIATED FROM CONTROL OR
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE MANAGEMENT, NEEDS IMPARTIAL AND EXPERT
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE IN THE ASCERTAINMENT OF FACTS, IN THE
DETECTION OF FRAUD, AND IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF COMPLEX FINANCIAL
PROBLEMS.  SEE, E.G., SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 74, 15 U.S.C.
SECS. 77A-77AA; SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 881, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 78; PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT.
838, 15 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SEC. 79; TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939, 53 STAT.
1149, 15 U.S.C. SUPP. V, SECS. 77AAA-77BBBB. 

FN7  THE REVISION OF 77B RESULTED FROM THE INVESTIGATION OF A SPECIAL
SENATE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE RECEIVERSHIP AND BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS, S. DOC. NO. 268, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.; AND FROM A STUDY BY
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF THE DEGREE OF PROTECTION
AFFORDED TO THE INVESTING PUBLIC IN REORGANIZATIONS.  REPORT ON THE
STUDY AND INVESTIGATION OF THE WORK, ACTIVITIES, PERSONNEL AND
FUNCTIONS OF PROTECTIVE AND REORGANIZATION COMMITTEES (1936-1939).  SEE
HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 8046, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.; HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 8046, 75TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H. REPT.
NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. REPT. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3D
SESS.  SEE DODD, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION'S REFORM
PROGRAM FOR BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATIONS, 38 COL. L. REV. 223; SWAINE,
"DEMOCRATIZATION" OF CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS, 38 COL. L. REV. 256;
HEUSTON, CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS UNDER THE CHANDLER ACT, 38 COL. L.
REV. 1199; TETON, REORGANIZATION REVISED, 48 YALE L.J. 573; GERDES,
CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS - CHANGES EFFECTED BY CHAPTER X OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, 52 HARV. L. REV. 1; ROSTOW AND CUTLER, COMPETING
SYSTEMS OF REORGANIZATION, CHAPTERS X AND XI OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 48
YALE L.J. 1334. 

FN8  CHAPTER XI WAS SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT
MEN AND OTHER GROUPS OF CREDITORS' REPRESENTATIVES EXPERT IN
BANKRUPTCY.  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON
H.R. 6439(REINTRODUCED AND PASSED IN 1938 AS H.R. 8046), 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., PP. 31, 35.  THEIR BUSINESS OF REPRESENTING TRADE CREDITORS
IN SMALL AND MIDDLE-SIZED COMMERCIAL FAILURES IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN
THE BACKGROUND OF THE CHAPTER.  SEE, MONTGOMERY, COUNSEL FOR THE
ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT MEN, ON ARRANGEMENTS, 13 J.N.A. REF. BANKRUPTCY,
17. 

FN9  ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. AMERICAN BOND & MORTGAGE CO., 61 F.2D
875, AFF'D 289 U.S. 165; IN RE ETTINGER, 76 F.2D 741; CHICAGO BANK OF
COMMERCE V. CARTER, 61 F.2D 986; VASSAR FOUNDRY CO. V. WHITING CORP., 2
F.2D 240; IN RE NASH, 249 F. 375. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 8 SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION OF THIS
CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

THE CHANDLER ACT  FN1  REVISED THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898, AS
AMENDED, AND, IN CHAPTERS X, XI, XII, XIII, AND XIV, PROVIDED FOR
CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS, ARRANGEMENTS, REAL PROPERTY ARRANGEMENTS,
WAGE EARNERS' PLANS, AND MARITIME COMMISSION LIENS.  THESE, WITH
CHAPTER VIII, AUTHORIZING AGRICULTURAL COMPOSITIONS, CHAPTER IX,
DEALING WITH INDEBTEDNESS OF LOCAL TAXING AGENCIES, CHAPTER XV, ADDED
BY ACT OF JULY 28, 1939, 53 STAT. 1134, AND SEC. 77, RELATING TO
REORGANIZATION OF INTERSTATE RAILROADS, IN ADDITION TO THE SEVEN
CHAPTERS OF THE ORIGINAL ACT, CONSTITUTE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM FOR
ACCOMMODATING OR LIQUIDATING INDEBTEDNESS IN THE INTEREST OF BOTH
DEBTORS AND CREDITORS.  IN CHAPTERS X TO XIII, INCLUSIVE, ADDED BY THE
CHANDLER ACT, THE FIRST SECTION STATES:  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER SHALL APPLY EXCLUSIVELY TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER,"
THUS EVIDENCING THE PURPOSE TO MAKE EACH TYPE OF PROCEEDING COMPLETE
AND EXCLUSIVE OF THE OTHERS. 

THE PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE RESPONDENT, AS IS CONCEDED, FALLS
PRECISELY WITHIN THE TERMS OF CHAPTER XI, WHICH DEALS WITH
ARRANGEMENTS, AND CONFERS JURISDICTION ON THE DISTRICT COURT TO
ENTERTAIN THE CAUSE.  BUT IT IS SAID THAT FOR THE COURT TO EXERCISE
THAT JURISDICTION WOULD BE SO CONTRARY TO THE UNEXPRESSED PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS THAT THE COURT SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO ACT.  THE DECISION
ASSUMES THAT IF CONGRESS HAD BEEN INTERROGATED AS TO ITS INTENT IT
WOULD HAVE EXPRESSED ITS WILL THAT AN ARRANGEMENT BY ONE HAVING SUCH A
FINANCIAL STRUCTURE AS THE RESPONDENT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED, AND
THAT, IN ORDER TO PREVENT SUCH A RESULT, CONGRESS, IF IT HAD BEEN
PRESCIENT, WOULD HAVE SO STATED.  THIS SEEMS TO ME TO GO BEYOND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT AS IT IS WRITTEN AND TO AMOUNT TO AN AMENDMENT
OF IT.  I THINK THAT THIS IS NOT ADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND ADVANCED THAT
TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO NULLIFY RATHER THAN TO EFFECTUATE THE
INTENT OF CONGRESS WHICH IS THOUGHT TO PERVADE THE STATUTORY SCHEME. 

WHERE THE WORDS ARE AS PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS AS THEY ARE IN CHAPTER
XI, RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR OTHER EXTRANEOUS
AIDS TO CONSTRUE THEM IN SOME OTHER SENSE, TO ADD TO, OR TO SUBTRACT
FROM, WHAT IS WRITTEN.  FN2 

BUT IF RESORT TO CONVENTIONAL AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION WERE ADMISSIBLE,
THEY SEEM TO ME TO CONFIRM THE STATUTORY RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT TO
PROCEED UNDER CHAPTER XI AND TO PRECLUDE A HOLDING THAT IT SHOULD HAVE
PROCEEDED UNDER CHAPTER X. 

UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898 A CORPORATION COULD
PROPOSE A COMPOSITION, BUT, AS RECOURSE TO BANKRUPTCY, WHETHER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATION OR OF PROPOSING A COMPOSITION, WAS DEPENDENT
UPON INSOLVENCY AS DEFINED IN THE STATUTE RATHER THAN MERE INABILITY TO
PAY DEBTS AS THEY ACCRUED, A COMPANY FINDING ITSELF IN THE LATTER
CONDITION COULD NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF THE BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION BUT HAD
TO RESORT TO AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP. 

IN 1932 THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, IN A REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT AND ITS ADMINISTRATION,  FN3  POINTED OUT THE
DIFFICULTIES OF PROPOSING A COMPOSITION IN BANKRUPTCY AND SUGGESTED
RELIEF OF THE SORT WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY ACCORDED BY THE ADOPTION OF
SEC. 77B. 

BY AN ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933,  FN4  THERE WAS ADDED TO THE ACT A
PROVISION WHICH PERMITTED "ANY PERSON EXCEPTING A CORPORATION," BY
PETITION, OR BY ANSWER IN AN INVOLUNTARY PROCEEDING, TO ASSERT HIS
INSOLVENCY OR HIS INABILITY TO MEET HIS DEBTS AS THEY ACCRUED AND HIS
DESIRE TO EFFECT A COMPOSITION OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY HIS
DEBTS, AND TO ADJUST HIS INDEBTEDNESS IN THAT WAY.  THUS AN ARRANGEMENT
PROCEDURE WAS PROVIDED FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE NOT INSOLVENT IN THE
BANKRUPTCY SENSE.  THE SAME LEGISLATION ALSO PROVIDED FOR AGRICULTURAL
COMPOSITIONS AND EXTENSIONS AND FOR REORGANIZATIONS OF INTERSTATE
RAILROADS, BUT CONGRESS DID NOT, AT THAT TIME, AFFORD ANY FURTHER
RELIEF TO CORPORATIONS GENERALLY. 

BY THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1934,  FN5  SEC. 77B WAS ADDED, PERMITTING THE
REORGANIZATION OF A CORPORATION UNABLE TO MEET ITS DEBTS AS THEY
MATURE. 

WHEN, BY THE CHANDLER ACT, CONGRESS DETERMINED TO REVISE AND CODIFY
THE ENTIRE BANKRUPTCY SYSTEM, IT REPEALED SEC. 12 AND SEC. 74, AND, IN
LIEU OF THEM, ADOPTED CHAPTER XI, PERMITTING ARRANGEMENTS OF UNSECURED
DEBTS BY INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND CORPORATIONS.  FN6  IT THUS
CLEARLY DREW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A REORGANIZATION WHICH AFFECTS
VARIOUS CLASSES OF CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS AND AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH
IS MERELY AN EXTENSION, ADJUSTMENT, OR ACCOMMODATION OF UNSECURED
CLAIMS WITHOUT DISTURBING EITHER SECURED CLAIMS OR STOCK INTERESTS. 
WHERE THIS SIMPLE FORM OF ACCOMMODATION WOULD SUFFICE, IT WAS NOT
INTENDED THAT THE CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF A
REORGANIZATION UNDER CHAPTER X, THE SUCCESSOR OF SEC. 77B, FOR IT IS
PROVIDED IN CHAPTER X (SEC. 146) THAT A PETITION SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO
BE FILED IN GOOD FAITH IF ADEQUATE RELIEF WOULD BE OBTAINABLE BY A
DEBTOR'S PETITION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XI AND FURTHER (SEC.
147) THAT A PETITION FILED UNDER CHAPTER X IMPROPERLY, BECAUSE ADEQUATE
RELIEF CAN BE OBTAINED UNDER CHAPTER XI, MAY BE AMENDED TO COMPLY WITH
CHAPTER XI AND MAY BE PROCEEDED WITH AS IF ORIGINALLY FILED UNDER THE
LATTER.  NO SUCH PROVISION IS FOUND IN CHAPTER XI WITH RESPECT TO A
CASE PROPERLY FALLING UNDER CHAPTER X. OBVIOUSLY THE RIGHT TO PROCEED
UNDER CHAPTER X WAS DEEMED A PRIVILEGE OF WHICH A CORPORATION COULD NOT
AVAIL ITSELF IF IT COULD PROCEED UNDER CHAPTER XI. 

THE GRAVAMEN OF PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE
MORE DETAILED AND CUMBERSOME PROCEDURE OF CHAPTER X TO APPLY WHEREVER
SECURITIES OF THE CORPORATION WERE HELD BY THE PUBLIC WHEREAS CHAPTER
XI WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUALS OR
CORPORATIONS NOT HAVING SUCH SECURITIES OUTSTANDING.   THE ACT WILL BE
SEARCHED IN VAIN FOR ANY HINT OF SUCH A DISTINCTION.  SMALL
CORPORATIONS ARE PERMITTED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF CHAPTER X IF
STOCKHOLDERS' OR SECURED CREDITORS' RIGHTS ARE TO BE AFFECTED; LARGE
CORPORATIONS, UNDER THE VERY LETTER OF CHAPTER XI, MAY AVAIL THEMSELVES
OF ITS PROVISIONS IF ALL THEY DESIRE TO DO IS TO EXTEND OR ACCOMMODATE
THEIR UNSECURED INDEBTEDNESS.  THE SMALLEST CORPORATION CANNOT COME IN
UNDER CHAPTER XI IF IT DESIRES WHAT HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY KNOWN AS A
REORGANIZATION.  THE LARGEST CORPORATION MAY PROCEED UNDER CHAPTER XI
IF IT DOES NOT DESIRE A REORGANIZATION.    THE ARGUMENT OF THE
COMMISSION COMES MERELY TO THIS:  THAT FORESIGHT AND PROVIDENCE ON THE
PART OF CONGRESS WOULD HAVE DICTATED A DIFFERENT LINE OF DEMARCATION
BETWEEN THE TWO CHAPTERS AND THAT WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE SAID IN
CHAPTER XI WAS THAT ANY DEBTOR WHICH DID NOT HAVE SECURITIES
OUTSTANDING IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC MIGHT FILE A PETITION UNDER
CHAPTER XI BUT THAT ALL OTHERS MUST FILE UNDER CHAPTER X. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FURNISHES BUT THE SCANTIEST SUPPORT FOR THE
ARGUMENT.  INDEED IT BEARS QUITE AS STRONGLY AGAINST THE COMMISSION'S
CONTENTION AS IN ITS FAVOR.  THE ONLY ITEM TO WHICH COUNSEL IS ABLE TO
POINT IS A COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE HOUSE  FN7  WHEREIN IT IS SAID: 

"SECTION 12 HAS BEEN RECAST; SUCH FEATURES OF SECTION 74 ARE
INCORPORATED AS ARE DEEMED OF VALUE, AND THE COMBINED SECTIONS ARE MADE
CHAPTER XI OF THE ACT UNDER THE TITLE 'ARRANGEMENTS' ...  THE INCLUSION
OF CORPORATIONS WILL PERMIT A LARGE NUMBER OF THE SMALLER COMPANIES
SUCH AS ARE NOW SEEKING RELIEF UNDER SECTION 77B BUT DO NOT REQUIRE THE
COMPLEX MACHINERY OF THAT SECTION, TO RESORT TO THE SIMPLER AND LESS
EXPENSIVE, THOUGH FULLY ADEQUATE, RELIEF AFFORDED BY SECTION 12." 

IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE THAT MANY MORE SMALL CORPORATIONS WILL FIND
CHAPTER XI AVAILABLE THAN LARGE ONES BUT THIS DOES NOT AT ALL SUPPORT
THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM THAT THE CHAPTER WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE
AVAILABLE TO COMPANIES HAVING SECURITIES IN THE HANDS OF THE PUBLIC. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE WAS
TO THE EFFECT THAT LARGE CORPORATIONS WOULD NOT COME UNDER CHAPTER X IF
THEY WERE SEEKING MERELY TO ADJUST THEIR UNSECURED DEBTS AND SHOULD GO,
THEREFORE, UNDER CHAPTER XI.  FN8 

ONE OF THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE CHANDLER ACT, IN A PUBLIC EXPOSITION,
FN9  HAS SAID: 

"WHAT IS THE LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER X
AND CHAPTER XI?  WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO GO INTO DETAIL, CHAPTER XI
PROCEEDINGS ARE INTENDED FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF CORPORATIONS WITH
SIMPLE DEBT STRUCTURES - REORGANIZATIONS UNDER WHICH THE INTERESTS OF
STOCKHOLDERS AND SECURED CREDITORS ARE NOT TO BE MODIFIED OR
READJUSTED.  IF SECURED CLAIMS OR STOCK INTERESTS ARE TO BE CHANGED
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ALL OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AND SECURED CREDITORS,
PROCEEDINGS MUST BE INSTITUTED UNDER CHAPTER X." 

THAT CHAPTERS X AND XI WERE NOT WRITTEN IN IGNORANCE OF THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CORPORATIONS HAVING PUBLICLY OWNED SECURITIES AND
THOSE WHICH HAVE NOT, IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT A SPECIAL COMMITTEE'S
REPORT CALLED ATTENTION TO THIS DIFFERENCE AND SUGGESTED THAT
CORPORATIONS NOT HAVING SUCH SECURITIES OUTSTANDING BE PERMITTED TO GO
UNDER THE ARRANGEMENTS CHAPTER WHEREAS THE FIRST NAMED SHOULD BE
REQUIRED TO FILE UNDER WHAT IS NOW CHAPTER X. FN10  WITH THIS
SUGGESTION BEFORE IT CONGRESS ADOPTED A DIFFERENT CRITERION. 

WHEN ALL IS CONSIDERED IT IS EVIDENT THAT LITTLE SUPPORT FOR THE
COMMISSION'S ARGUMENT CAN BE GAINED FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  IT
IS OF NO AVAIL TO URGE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR BETTER FOR CONGRESS
TO ADOPT A DIFFERENT SCHEME AND THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH CONGRESS
HAD IN MIND IN WRITING CHAPTER X EXTENDS QUITE AS MUCH TO A COMPOSITION
SUCH AS THAT PROPOSED IN THE INSTANT CASE AS TO THE REORGANIZATIONS
ENVISAGED IN CHAPTER X. THESE CONSIDERATIONS MAY WELL BE URGED UPON
CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF AN AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE BUT THEY CAN HAVE NO
WEIGHT WITH A COURT CALLED UPON TO APPLY ITS PLAIN LANGUAGE. 

EQUALLY UNAVAILING IS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESENT CASE MUST BELONG
UNDER CHAPTER X SINCE SECURED CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS MUST BE
BROUGHT INTO THE RECKONING AND BECAUSE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC.
366 IS THAT THE COURT MUST FIND THE ARRANGEMENT IS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE
AND FEASIBLE."  IT IS SAID THAT THIS PHRASE IS A TERM OF ART, GIVEN
MEANING BY OUR DECISION IN NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. BOYD, 228 U.S.
482, AND THAT, WITHIN THAT MEANING, NO FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND FEASIBLE
PLAN CAN HERE BE ACCOMPLISHED UNDER CHAPTER XI ALTHOUGH IT COULD BE
UNDER CHAPTER X. 

THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT THE PHRASE IS USED NOT ONLY IN CHAPTER XI
AND CHAPTER X BUT ALSO IN CHAPTER XII RESPECTING REAL PROPERTY
ARRANGEMENTS, AND IN CHAPTER XIII RESPECTING WAGE EARNERS' PLANS.  FN11
OBVIOUSLY THE PHRASE AS USED IN THE CHANDLER ACT MUST BE GIVEN THE
CONNOTATION APPROPRIATE TO THE SECTION IN WHICH IT IS USED. 

ANOTHER ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD IS THAT, AS COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY ARE
COURTS OF EQUITY, THEY MAY, AS A CHANCELLOR MIGHT IN THE CASE OF A BILL
FOR RECEIVERSHIP, FIND THAT THE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE REQUIRES A
REFUSAL TO EXERCISE A JURISDICTION POSSESSED.  I THINK THIS IS A
COMPLETE MISAPPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IS
A COURT OF EQUITY.  THAT HAS BEEN MANY TIMES STATED BUT NEVER IN
CONNECTION WITH THE RIGHT OF A DEBTOR TO INVOKE THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY
CONGRESS IN THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS.  THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPECIFIED WHO IS
ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE AND IN WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE COURT HAS NO POWER TO REFUSE THAT RELIEF ON THE
GROUND THAT SOME OTHER RELIEF WOULD BETTER SERVE THE PURPOSE.  WHAT IS
MEANT BY THE STATEMENT THAT A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IS A COURT OF EQUITY
IS THAT ITS FUNCTION IS TO MAKE AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE
AMONG THE CREDITORS, BUT THE PRINCIPLE HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED IN THE
SENSE THAT THE COURT MAY, IN ITS BETTER JUDGMENT, REFUSE TO AWARD THE
RELIEF WHICH CONGRESS HAS ACCORDED THE BANKRUPT. 

NO STOCKHOLDER OR CREDITOR, SECURED OR UNSECURED, HAS ATTEMPTED TO
RAISE THE QUESTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION UNDER CHAPTER
XI.  THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ALTHOUGH CHARGED WITH NO
DUTY BY THE ACT IN CONNECTION WITH PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER XI, HAS
SOUGHT TO INTERVENE AND TO APPEAL FROM A DECISION BY THE DISTRICT COURT
ADVERSE TO THE COMMISSION'S VIEWS.  ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION MAY BE
PERMITTED TO APPEAR IN CHAPTER X PROCEEDINGS, IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED
THAT IT MAY NOT APPEAL FROM ANY DECISION.  FN12  NO ANALOGOUS PROVISION
IS FOUND IN CHAPTER XI ALTHOUGH THAT CHAPTER DOES, IN CERTAIN
INSTANCES, GRANT INTERESTED PARTIES THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD.  FN13 

BY GENERAL ORDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ARE MADE APPLICABLE IN
BANKRUPTCY SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT RULE 24
AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION'S INTERVENTION BUT A MERE READING OF THE RULE
SHOWS THAT NEITHER INTERVENTION OF RIGHT, NOR PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION,
IS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION IN THIS CASE.  THE COMMISSION MAY NOT
INTERVENE AS OF RIGHT UNDER THE RULE BECAUSE NO STATUTE CONFERS ON IT
AN UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE; THE COMMISSION HAS NO INTEREST
WHICH MAY BE BOUND BY A JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION; AND IT CANNOT BE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE COURT'S DECISION.  IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO
PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION BECAUSE NO STATUTE CONFERS A CONDITIONAL RIGHT
TO INTERVENE AND BECAUSE IT HAS NO CLAIM OR DEFENSE WHICH WILL BE
AFFECTED BY ANY DECISION OF LAW OR FACT BY THE COURT.  THE CASES IN
WHICH BANKRUPTCY COURTS HAVE ALLOWED CREDITORS TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF
VENUE OR OF JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE,
WHERE THE PROCEEDING WOULD AFFECT THE CREDITORS' FINANCIAL INTEREST,
ARE INAPPOSITE, AS ARE ALSO EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP CASES WHERE AN OFFICIAL
INTERVENES IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE RIGHT, AS SUCH OFFICIAL, TO TAKE OVER
AND ADMINISTER THE PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF THE COURT. 

I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, 52 STAT. 840. 

FN2  THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 547, 551; ISELIN V. UNITED
STATES, 270 U.S. 245, 250; UNITED STATES V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO.,
278 U.S. 269, 277; UNITED STATES V. SHREVEPORT GRAIN & ELEVATOR CO.,
287 U.S. 77, 83; HELVERING V. CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 85,
89; WALLACE V. CUTTEN, 298 U.S. 229, 237; OSAKA SHOSEN LINE V. UNITED
STATES, 300 U.S. 98, 101; PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79, 83. 

FN3  SEN. DOC. 65, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN4  47 STAT. 1467, SEC. 74. 

FN5  48 STAT. 911. 

FN6  11 U.S.C. SECS. 706, 707. 

FN7  H. REP. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 50-51. 

FN8  HEARINGS, SUBCOMMITTEE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON H.R. 8046,
75TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 75. 

FN9  JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REFEREES IN BANKRUPTCY
(JAN. 1939), P. 72. 

FN10  SEN. DOC. 268, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 9-15. 

FN11  SEE SECS. 472 AND 656, 11 U.S.C. SECS. 872, 1056. 

FN12  SEC. 208, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 608. 

FN13  SECS. 334 AND 365, 11 U.S.C. SECS. 734 AND 765. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AGREE WITH THIS
OPINION. 
..END :



APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER, 310 U.S. 469 


NO. 638.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 2, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1940.  - 108 F.2D
71, AFFIRMED. 


MEMBERS OF A LABOR UNION, BENT ON UNIONIZING A HOSIERY FACTORY IN
WHICH BUT A FEW OF THEM WERE EMPLOYED, FORCIBLY, AND IN VIOLATION OF
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE STATE, TOOK POSSESSION OF THE PLANT AND
HELD IT DURING A PROTRACTED "SIT-DOWN" STRIKE, DURING WHICH MUCH OF THE
MACHINERY WAS WILLFULLY INJURED OR DESTROYED AND DURING WHICH THE
BUSINESS, LARGELY INTERSTATE, WAS ENTIRELY SUSPENDED.  WHEN THE PLANT
WAS SEIZED THERE WERE ON HAND 130,000 DOZEN PAIRS OF FINISHED HOSE, OF
A VALUE OF $800,000, READY FOR SHIPMENT ON UNFILLED ORDERS, MOSTLY
DESTINED TO POINTS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  SHIPMENT WAS PREVENTED BY THE
STRIKERS, WHO REPEATEDLY REFUSED REQUESTS MADE BY THE OWNER FOR
PERMISSION TO REMOVE THE MERCHANDISE FOR SHIPMENT IN FILLING THE
ORDERS.  IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS CAUSED BY
THE STRIKE AFFECTED OR WAS INTENDED TO AFFECT COMPETITION AND PRICES IN
THE MARKET.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY "IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE
AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST
ACT, AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT BY THE EMPLOYER,
BASED ON THE ACT, IN WHICH THERE WAS NO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GIVE JUDGMENT FOR THE DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE
EMPLOYER.  FIRST CORONADO CASE, 259 U.S. 344; UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V.
HERKERT, 265 U.S. 457, FOLLOWED.  PP. 481, 486. 

2.  THE EFFECT OF THE STRIKE WAS TO RESTRICT SUBSTANTIALLY THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCT, SO AS TO BRING
THE ACTS CAUSING IT WITHIN THE REACH OF THE COMMERCE POWER, BUT THE
QUESTION FOR DECISION IS NOT ONE OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER BUT OF THE
EXTENT TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXERCISED IT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  P.
484. 

3.  THE JURY'S VERDICT MUST BE TAKEN, IN VIEW OF THE INSTRUCTIONS OF
THE COURT, AS A FINDING SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT THE STRIKERS
INTENDED TO PREVENT SHIPMENTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE SENSE THAT
THEY MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE INTENDED THE NATURAL AND PROBABLE
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTS.  P. 485. 

4.  THE LIABILITY OF THE STRIKERS FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT
TURNS NOT ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE, BUT ON THE
EXTENT TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS EXERTED ITS POWER IN THE ENACTMENT OF THE
LAW.  P. 488. 

5.  IN THE APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, IT IS THE NATURE OF THE
RESTRAINT AND ITS EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND NOT THE AMOUNT OF
THE COMMERCE WHICH ARE THE TESTS OF VIOLATION.  RESTRAINTS NOT WITHIN
THE ACT WHEN ACHIEVED BY PEACEFUL MEANS ARE NOT BROUGHT WITHIN IT
MERELY BECAUSE WITHOUT OTHER DIFFERENCES THEY ARE ATTAINED BY
VIOLENCE.  P. 485. 

6.  LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE NOT WHOLLY EXCLUDED
FROM THE OPERATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 487. 

7.  THE SHERMAN ACT DOES NOT CONDEMN ALL COMBINATIONS AND
CONSPIRACIES WHICH INTERRUPT INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  P. 486. 

8.  THE ACT IS TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY AND OF THE PARTICULAR EVILS AT WHICH IT WAS AIMED.  P. 489. 

9.  THE END SOUGHT BY THE ACT WAS PREVENTION OF RESTRAINTS TO FREE
COMPETITION IN BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH TEND TO
RESTRICT PRODUCTION, RAISE PRICES OR OTHERWISE CONTROL THE MARKET TO
THE DETRIMENT OF PURCHASERS OR CONSUMERS OF GOODS AND SERVICES, ALL OF
WHICH HAD COME TO BE REGARDED AS A SPECIAL FORM OF PUBLIC INJURY.  P.
493. 

10.  THE PHRASE "RESTRAINT OF TRADE" HAD A WELL-UNDERSTOOD MEANING AT
COMMON LAW.  THE WORDS "OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" WERE
ADDED TO RELATE THE PROHIBITED RESTRAINT OF TRADE TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, SO THAT CONGRESS THROUGH ITS
COMMERCE POWER, MIGHT SUPPRESS AND PENALIZE RESTRAINTS ON THE
COMPETITIVE SYSTEM WHICH INVOLVED OR AFFECTED INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT
WAS IN THIS SENSE OF PREVENTING RESTRAINTS ON COMMERCIAL COMPETITION
THAT CONGRESS EXERCISED ALL THE POWER IT POSSESSED.  P. 494. 

11.  THE CONTRACTS AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE MADE
ILLEGAL BY THE COMMON LAW WERE CONTRACTS FOR THE RESTRICTION OR
SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKET, AGREEMENTS TO FIX PRICES,
DIVIDE MARKETING TERRITORIES, APPORTION CUSTOMERS, RESTRICT PRODUCTION
AND THE LIKE PRACTICES, WHICH TEND TO RAISE PRICES OR OTHERWISE TAKE
FROM BUYERS OR CONSUMERS THE ADVANTAGES WHICH ACCRUE TO THEM FROM FREE
COMPETITION IN THE MARKET.  P. 497. 

12.  THE SHERMAN LAW TOOK OVER THE COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF ILLEGAL
RESTRAINTS BY CONDEMNING THEM WHEREVER THEY OCCUR IN OR AFFECT COMMERCE
BETWEEN THE STATES.  IT EXTENDED ITS CONDEMNATION TO RESTRAINTS
EFFECTED BY ANY COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR
CONSPIRACY, AS WELL AS BY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, HAVING THOSE EFFECTS
ON THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM AND ON PURCHASERS AND CONSUMERS OF GOODS OR
SERVICES WHICH WERE CHARACTERISTIC OF RESTRAINTS DEEMED ILLEGAL AT
COMMON LAW, AND IT GAVE BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC REMEDIES FOR THE
INJURIES FLOWING FROM SUCH RESTRAINTS.  P. 497. 

13.  RESTRAINT ON COMPETITION OR ON THE COURSE OF TRADE IN ARTICLES
MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ACT, UNLESS THE
RESTRAINT IS SHOWN TO HAVE, OR IS INTENDED TO HAVE, AN EFFECT UPON
PRICES IN THE MARKET OR OTHERWISE TO DEPRIVE PURCHASERS OR CONSUMERS OF
THE ADVANTAGES WHICH THEY DERIVE FROM FREE COMPETITION.  P. 500. 

14.  A COMBINATION OF EMPLOYEES NECESSARILY RESTRAINING COMPETITION
AMONG THEMSELVES IN THE SALE OF THEIR SERVICES TO THEIR EMPLOYER WAS
NOT CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE AT COMMON LAW WHEN THE
SHERMAN ACT WAS ADOPTED, EITHER BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THOUGHT TO BE
UNREASONABLE OR BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DEEMED A "RESTRAINT OF TRADE."  P.
501. 

15.  SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE DECLARATION IN SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON
ACT IT WOULD SEEM PLAIN THAT RESTRAINTS ON THE SALE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S
SERVICES TO THE EMPLOYER ARE NOT IN THEMSELVES COMBINATIONS OR
CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 
P. 502. 

16. THE MERE FACT THAT STRIKES OR AGREEMENTS NOT TO WORK, ENTERED
INTO BY LABORERS TO COMPEL EMPLOYERS TO YIELD TO THEIR DEMANDS, MAY
RESTRICT THE POWER OF SUCH EMPLOYERS TO COMPETE IN THE MARKET WITH
THOSE NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH DEMANDS DOES NOT BRING THE AGREEMENTS WITHIN
THE CONDEMNATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 503. 

17.  THIS COURT HAS HELD THE SHERMAN ACT INAPPLICABLE IN CASES LIKE
THE PRESENT IN WHICH LOCAL STRIKES, ALTHOUGH CONDUCTED BY MEANS ILLEGAL
UNDER LOCAL LAW, IN A PRODUCTION INDUSTRY, PREVENTED INTERSTATE
SHIPMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF THE PRODUCT BUT IN WHICH IT WAS NOT
SHOWN THAT THE RESTRICTIONS ON SHIPMENTS HAD OPERATED TO RESTRAIN OR
WERE INTENDED TO RESTRAIN COMMERCIAL COMPETITION IN SOME SUBSTANTIAL
WAY.  P. 508. 

18.  THE SHERMAN ACT WAS NOT ENACTED TO POLICE INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION, OR TO AFFORD A REMEDY FOR WRONGS WHICH ARE ACTIONABLE
UNDER STATE LAW AND RESULT FROM COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES WHICH
FALL SHORT, BOTH IN THEIR PURPOSE AND EFFECT, OF ANY FORM OF MARKET
CONTROL OF A COMMODITY.  P. 512. 

19.  THE MAINTENANCE IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM OF A PROPER DISTRIBUTION
BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF POLICE AUTHORITY AND OF
REMEDIES PRIVATE AND PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC WRONGS IS OF FARREACHING
IMPORTANCE.  AN INTENTION TO DISTURB THE BALANCE IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE
IMPUTED TO CONGRESS.  P. 513. 

APEX HOSIERY CO. V. LEADER ET AL.* 

*WILLIAM LEADER AND AMERICAN FEDERATION OF FULL FASHIONED HOSIERY
WORKERS, PHILADELPHIA, BRANCH NO. 1, LOCAL NO. 706, RESPONDENTS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 644, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
TRIPLE-DAMAGES RECOVERED IN AN ACTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST
ACT. 

THE RIGHTS OF LABOR WILL IN NO WAY BE IMPAIRED OR DESTROYED BY A
DECISION THAT THE SHERMAN ACT WAS VIOLATED IN THIS CASE.  CLAYTON ACT,
SECS. 6, 20; LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORP., 306 U.S. 240,
253. 

THERE ARE NO WORDS IN THE SHERMAN ACT LIMITING THE FIELD OR SCOPE OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO WHICH IT IS MEANT TO APPLY.  ITS LANGUAGE IS AS
BROAD AS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

DESPITE THE FACT THAT, DURING THE FIFTY YEARS SINCE THE SHERMAN ACT
WAS ENACTED, IT HAS CONSTANTLY BEEN CONTENDED THAT LABOR UNIONS ARE NOT
SUBJECT TO ITS PROVISIONS, THE ACT HAS NEVER BEEN SO LIMITED IN ITS
INTERPRETATION.  IT HAS LONG BEEN FIRMLY ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT WITHOUT A SINGLE DISSENT, THAT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE ACT, WHEN, PURSUANT TO A CONSPIRACY, THEY ENGAGE IN
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES WHICH RESTRAIN OR OBSTRUCT THE FREE FLOW OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274; GOMPERS V. BUCKS
STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418; LAWLOR V. LOEWE, 235 U.S. 522; DUPLEX
PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES
V. TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184; CORONADO COAL CO. V.
UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295; UNITED STATES V. BRIMS, 272 U.S.
549; BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS' ASSN., 274 U.S.
37; LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293. 

THE SHERMAN ACT IS VIOLATED WHEN IT IS SHOWN THAT A COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY EXISTED WHICH RESULTED IN A RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE. 

IN CONSTRUING THE ACT THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS A RESTRAINT
OF COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT:  WHEN THE CONSPIRACY AFFECTS
COMMERCE, BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS' ASSN., 274
U.S. 37; DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; LOEWE V.
LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274; LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1; WHEN
THE CONSPIRATORS INTENDED TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE, EVEN IF ORDINARILY THE
CONSPIRATORS' ACTS AFFECTED COMMERCE ONLY INDIRECTLY, CORONADO COAL CO.
V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295; SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 547. 

WHEN RESPONDENTS COMPLETELY STOPPED PETITIONER'S MANUFACTURING AND
SHIPPING OPERATIONS, COMMERCE WAS DIRECTLY AFFECTED AND RESTRAINED. 

THE STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS OF A PLANT "IN THE FLOW OF COMMERCE"
DIRECTLY AFFECTS, BURDENS AND RESTRAINS COMMERCE.  LABOR BOARD V. JONES
& LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1, 41; LABOR BOARD V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS
CLOTHING CO., 301 U.S. 58. 

BOTH CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND THIS
COURT, IN SUSTAINING IT, HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT UNDER OUR EXISTING
ECONOMIC STRUCTURE THE STOPPAGE OF MANUFACTURING AND SHIPPING
OPERATIONS IN A SINGLE PLANT "IN THE FLOW OF COMMERCE" DIRECTLY BURDENS
AND RESTRAINS COMMERCE. 

THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN AND FRIEDMAN
HARRY MARKS CASES DID NOT TURN UPON NOR EVEN INVOLVE THE SCOPE OF THE
WORD "AFFECT" IN THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IN THOSE CASES, THIS COURT
FOUND, AS HAD CONGRESS IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THAT
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE CAUSED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN A MANUFACTURING
PLANT RESULTS IN THE STOPPAGE OF ITS OPERATIONS.  THE ISSUE THEN WAS
WHETHER THIS STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS HAD A DIRECT EFFECT UPON COMMERCE,
FOR UNLESS THE EFFECT WAS DIRECT, CONGRESS WOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO
PROHIBIT LOCAL PRACTICES RESULTING IN SUCH A STOPPAGE.  WHEN THIS COURT
DECIDED THAT ISSUE BY HOLDING THAT SUCH A STOPPAGE DID HAVE A DIRECT
EFFECT UPON COMMERCE, IT ANNOUNCED A LEGAL PRINCIPLE IN NO WAY CONFINED
TO NOR DEPENDENT ON THE USE OF THE WORD "AFFECT" IN THE LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, BUT ONE WHICH WAS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE OR TO ANY
CASE WHERE THAT IS THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED. 

THE QUESTION IN THOSE CASES, IT IS SAID, WAS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WHEREAS THE QUESTION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  WHILE THE ULTIMATE QUESTION FOR
DECISION IN EACH CASE IS DIFFERENT, THE ISSUE UPON WHICH THE ANSWER TO
THAT QUESTION DEPENDS IS EXACTLY THE SAME, NAMELY, WHETHER THE EFFECT
UPON COMMERCE OF A STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS IS DIRECT OR INDIRECT. 
INDEED, IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN CASE, P. 38, THIS COURT POINTED OUT
THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PASS THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE SAME TEST WHICH THIS COURT APPLIES IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THERE IS A RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, NAMELY, WHETHER THE CONDUCT INVOLVED DIRECTLY AFFECTS COMMERCE. 
SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 546. 

THEREFORE, THE HOLDING IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN AND FRIEDMAN-HARRY
MARKS CASES THAT THE STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS IN A SINGLE PLANT HAS A
DIRECT EFFECT UPON COMMERCE IS CONCLUSIVE OF THAT SAME ISSUE IN THE
CASE AT BAR. 

EVEN IF IT BE SAID THAT THE STOPPAGE OF PETITIONER'S MANUFACTURING
OPERATIONS HAD BUT AN INDIRECT EFFECT ON COMMERCE, NEVERTHELESS, WHEN
RESPONDENTS WRONGFULLY PREVENTED THE INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS OF THE
FINISHED MERCHANDISE APEX HAD ON HAND AGAINST ORDERS, THEY THEREBY
DIRECTLY RESTRAINED INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.,
298 U.S. 238, 303; UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT, 265 U.S. 457,
463; BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS' ASSN., 274 U.S.
37, 47; LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274; DUPLEX V. DEERING, 254 U.S.
443. 

THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS AND THE JURY FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS
INTENDED TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE. 

THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS CARRIED OUT THEIR CONSPIRACY THROUGH THE
MEDIUM OF A SIT-DOWN STRIKE AND WITH THE STATED PURPOSE OF NOT
SURRENDERING POSSESSION OF PETITIONER'S PLANT UNTIL THEIR DEMANDS WERE
GRANTED IS COMPLETE PROOF OF THEIR INTENT TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE.  SUCH A
CONSPIRACY, BY ITS VERY NATURE, CONTEMPLATED THE COMPLETE THROTTLING OF
PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

PROOF OF AN INTENT TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS
IMMATERIAL WHETHER RESPONDENTS' CONSPIRACY IS SAID TO HAVE DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY RESTRAINED COMMERCE - IN EITHER CASE THERE IS A VIOLATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT.  CORONADO COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S.
295, 310. 

EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FINDING BY THE JURY, RESPONDENTS' INTENT
TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE WILL BE PRESUMED AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY DECLARED, IN SHERMAN ACT CASES, THAT THE
CONSPIRATORS ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE INTENDED THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES
OF THEIR ACTS AND CAN NOT BE HEARD TO SAY THE CONTRARY.  UNITED STATES
V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 543; LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, SUPRA,
P. 40. 

THE "INTENT," IN THE SENSE OF "PURPOSE" OR "ULTIMATE OBJECT," OF THE
LABOR UNION, INVOLVED IN EVERY SHERMAN ACT CASE HERETOFORE DECIDED BY
THIS COURT, HAS MERELY BEEN TO UNIONIZE THE PARTICULAR PLANT INVOLVED
OR TO OBTAIN SOME OTHER UNION OBJECTIVE, RATHER THAN TO RESTRAIN
COMMERCE.  NEVERTHELESS THIS COURT HAS SQUARELY HELD THAT SUCH AN
ULTIMATE OBJECT CANNOT JUSTIFY A RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT.  BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS'
ASSN., 274 U.S. 37, 47; INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO V.
UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 64, 77; DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING,
254 U.S. 443, 468. 

THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SHERMAN ACT WAS NOT
VIOLATED BECAUSE A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE NATIONAL VOLUME OF COMMERCE
IN HOSIERY WAS NOT RESTRAINED.  SUCH A TEST IS IN COMPLETE CONFLICT
WITH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS. 

IN SO HOLDING, THE COURT PURPORTED TO APPLY THE SO-CALLED "RULE OF
REASON" LAID DOWN IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, 178. 

THAT RULE HAS NEVER BEEN APPLIED BY THIS COURT IN ANY CASE INVOLVING
THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES OF A LABOR UNION.  THE REASON IS CLEAR.  IN
BUSINESS COMBINATION CASES, THE ACTIVITIES ENGAGED IN ARE LAWFUL AND
PROPER ACTIVITIES AND ONLY BECAME VIOLATIVE OF THE SHERMAN ACT WHEN
THEY UNREASONABLY CONTROL OR RESTRAIN COMMERCE.  BECAUSE THEY ARE
OTHERWISE LAWFUL ACTIVITIES, THE "RULE OF REASON" FURNISHES A
"YARDSTICK" FOR DETERMINING WHEN THESE LAWFUL ACTIVITIES HAVE REACHED A
POINT WHERE THEY RESULT IN AN UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE. 

WHERE, HOWEVER, COMMERCE IS DIRECTLY RESTRAINED BY ACTS WHICH IN
THEMSELVES ARE FLAGRANTLY UNLAWFUL, AS IN THE CASE AT BAR, SUCH A
RESTRAINT CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED "REASONABLE" AND THEREFORE NOT IN
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE VOLUME OF COMMERCE
RESTRAINED IS BUT A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE NATIONAL VOLUME.  CF.
SECOND CORONADO COAL CASE, 268 U.S. 295; LAWLOR V. LOEWE, 235 U.S. 522;
DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; LABOR BOARD V.
FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 606; STEERS V. UNITED STATES, 192 F. 1;
O'BRIEN V. UNITED STATES, 290 F. 185; PATTERSON V. UNITED STATES, 222
F. 599. 

THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO LABOR UNIONS. 

THE TERMS "CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE" AND "COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE" MUST BE GIVEN THEIR COMMON LAW
MEANING, OTHERWISE THE ENTIRE SHERMAN ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
VOID. 

AT COMMON LAW THE TERMS "CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE" AND
"COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE" DID NOT APPLY TO
LABOR UNIONS IN THEIR RELATION WITH EMPLOYERS. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES ESTABLISH THE INTENT TO EXCLUDE LABOR
UNIONS FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT. 

LABOR UNIONS IN THEIR RELATIONS WITH EMPLOYERS WERE NOT WITHIN THAT
FIELD OF COMMON LAW WHICH DEALT WITH COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE. 

THE COURT WAS IN ERROR IN APPLYING THE ACT TO A LABOR UNION IN LOEWE
V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274. 

THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY CONSIDERATION OF SEC. 6
OF THE CLAYTON ACT.  A CONSIDERATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE PERIOD
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND ACCOMPANYING THE PASSAGE OF THE CLAYTON ACT
AND OF THE MISCHIEF TO BE REMEDIED, AS WELL AS THE GENERAL TREND OF
DEBATE ON SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT IN THE CONGRESS, SANCTIONS THE
CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO UNDO THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN
LOEWE V. LAWLOR, SUPRA.  ALTHOUGH THE COURT ADHERED TO THE DOCTRINE OF
LOEWE V. LAWLOR IN DUPLEX PRINTING CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, AND IN
BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONECUTTERS ASSOCIATION, 274 U.S.
37, THE COURT SHOULD NEVERTHELESS OVERRULE A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT WHICH MAKES THAT STATUTE APPLICABLE TO LABOR UNIONS WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR RELATIONS TO EMPLOYERS. 

TO OBVIATE THE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN LOEWE V.
LAWLOR, SUPRA, CONGRESS ENACTED SEC. 6 AND SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT. 

IN EVERY CASE INVOLVING THE SHERMAN ACT, THERE ARE TWO PROBLEMS
INVOLVED, ONE OF JURISDICTION AND THE OTHER OF SUBSTANCE.  THE FAILURE
TO DIFFERENTIATE THESE TWO PROBLEMS DISTINGUISHES MOST OF THE
SIGNIFICANT LABOR CASES DECIDED BY THE COURT. 

EVEN IF THE SHERMAN ACT IS APPLICABLE TO LABOR UNIONS, AND THEIR
ACTIVITIES, THAT ACT HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED BY THE RESPONDENTS, BECAUSE
THE LOCAL STRIKE ACTIVITIES WERE NOT PART OF A CONSPIRACY DIRECTLY
AIMED AT INTERSTATE COMMERCE NOR VITALIZED BY AN INTENT TO MONOPOLIZE
THE SUPPLY OF THE ARTICLE ENTERING AND MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
TO FIX THE PRICE OF IT IN INTERSTATE MARKETS. 

LOCAL ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES ON STRIKE ARE NOT WITHIN THE REACH OF
THE FEDERAL POWER. 

THE CASE IS SQUARELY WITHIN FIRST CORONADO COAL CASE, 259 U.S. 344;
UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT & MEISEL, 265 U.S. 457; AND LEVERING
& GARRIGUES V. MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103; LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN,
301 U.S. 1; SECOND CORONADO COAL CASE, 268 U.S. 295. 

IN THE CASE AT BAR THE REQUISITE INTENT WAS NEITHER ALLEGED NOR
PROVED.  THERE WAS NOTHING MORE THAN CONCERTED ACTION TO UNIONIZE THE
MILL BY MEANS OF A SIT-DOWN STRIKE WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF
PREVENTING THE PETITIONER FROM CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS. 

THE JURY DID NOT AND INDEED COULD NOT FIND THE REQUISITE INTENT.  THE
JURY FOUND AN INTENT TO CONDUCT A SIT-DOWN STRIKE.  FIRST CORONADO COAL
CASE, SUPRA, P. 411; INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO V. UNITED
STATES, 268 U.S. 64. 

THE DAMAGES WHICH THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO RECOVER IN THIS CASE ARE
SUCH AS RESULTED FROM A TRESPASS UNDER THE COMMON LAW, AND TO RECOVER
THEM THE PETITIONER MAY BRING AN ACTION IN THE STATE COURTS.  WILDER
MANUFACTURING CO. V. CORN PRODUCTS CO., 236 U.S. 165; NASH V. UNITED
STATES, 229 U.S. 373. 

THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS FORMULATED TO COMPLEMENT THE ANTI-TRUST
ACT.  IN VIEW OF THIS, HOW CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE SHERMAN ACT, THOUGH
IT IS UNABLE TO FULFILL ITS FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE, HAS VITALITY AGAINST
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH CONGRESS BELIEVED WOULD BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE
THAT SAME PURPOSE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING? 
BARGAINING POWER MAY VERY WELL DEPEND UPON THE STRIKE AND THE BOYCOTT. 
HOW CAN IT BE SAID THAT EMPLOYEES MAY ORGANIZE AND FORM UNIONS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF BARGAINING COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR EMPLOYER, BUT THAT, IF
THEY ENGAGE IN A STRIKE, WHICH, TO THE DEGREE THAT IT IS SUCCESSFUL,
NECESSARILY STOPS PRODUCTION, THEY COME WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE
SHERMAN ACT? 

THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REQUIRES THAT THE ORGANIZATION
EXTEND ITS INFLUENCE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY.  AMERICAN STEEL
FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE SECOND CORONADO CASE HAS BEEN
OVERCOME BY THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE WAGNER ACT. 

"NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH OR
IMPEDE OR DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE." 

THE ACT AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT UPHOLDING ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY HAVE NOT EXPANDED THE MEANING OF "COMMERCE" NOR
EXTENDED THE APPLICATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THAT A
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE COMMODITY MUST BE INVOLVED IN A VIOLATION OF
THE ANTI-TRUST ACT. 

APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE ILLEGALITY OF
THE MEANS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, IS ENGAGED IN THE
MANUFACTURE, AT ITS FACTORY IN PHILADELPHIA, OF HOSIERY, A SUBSTANTIAL
PART OF WHICH IS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT BROUGHT THE
PRESENT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
AGAINST RESPONDENT FEDERATION, A LABOR ORGANIZATION, AND ITS OFFICERS,
TO RECOVER TREBLE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE INFLICTED ON IT BY RESPONDENTS
IN CONDUCTING A STRIKE AT PETITIONER'S FACTORY ALLEGED TO BE A
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.  26 STAT. 209,
15 U.S.C. SEC. 1.  THE TRIAL TO A JURY RESULTED IN A VERDICT FOR
PETITIONER IN THE SUM OF $237,310, RESPONDENTS SAVING BY PROPER MOTIONS
AND EXCEPTIONS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO
ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE TRIAL JUDGE TREBLED THE
VERDICT TO $711,932.55, IN CONFORMITY TO THE PROVISION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT AS AMENDED BY SEC. 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 1914, 38 STAT. 731, 15
U.S.C. SEC. 15, AND GAVE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT REVERSED, 108 F.2D 71, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE RESTRAINED OR AFFECTED BY RESPONDENTS' ACTS WAS
UNSUBSTANTIAL, THE TOTAL SHIPMENT OF MERCHANDISE FROM PETITIONER'S
FACTORY BEING LESS THAN THREE PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE
OUTPUT IN THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY OF THE COUNTRY, AND ON THE FURTHER GROUND
THAT THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO SHOW AN INTENT ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS
TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 644,
THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BEING OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY
COULD HAVE FOUND AS FOLLOWS.  PETITIONER EMPLOYS AT ITS PHILADELPHIA
FACTORY ABOUT TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED PERSONS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
HOSIERY, AND MANUFACTURES ANNUALLY MERCHANDISE OF THE VALUE OF ABOUT
$5,000,000.  ITS PRINCIPAL RAW MATERIALS ARE SILK AND COTTON, WHICH ARE
SHIPPED TO IT FROM POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  IT SHIPS INTERSTATE MORE
THAN 80 PER CENT. OF ITS FINISHED PRODUCT, AND IN THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS
OF 1937 IT SHIPPED IN ALL 274,791 DOZEN PAIRS OF STOCKINGS.  IN APRIL,
1937, PETITIONER WAS OPERATING A NON-UNION SHOP.  A DEMAND OF THE
RESPONDENT FEDERATION AT THAT TIME FOR A CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT CAME TO
NOTHING.  ON MAY 4, 1937, WHEN ONLY EIGHT OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES
WERE MEMBERS OF THE FEDERATION, IT ORDERED A STRIKE.  SHORTLY AFTER
MIDDAY ON MAY 6, 1937, WHEN PETITIONER'S FACTORY WAS SHUT DOWN, MEMBERS
OF THE UNION, EMPLOYED BY OTHER FACTORIES IN PHILADELPHIA WHO HAD
STOPPED WORK, GATHERED AT PETITIONER'S PLANT.  RESPONDENT LEADER,
PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION, THEN MADE A FURTHER DEMAND FOR A CLOSED
SHOP AGREEMENT.  WHEN THIS WAS REFUSED LEADER DECLARED A "SIT DOWN
STRIKE."  IMMEDIATELY, ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PETITIONER'S PLANT AND
THE EMPLOYEES IN CHARGE OF IT WERE COMMITTED BY THE ASSEMBLED MOB.  IT
FORCIBLY SEIZED THE PLANT, WHEREUPON, UNDER UNION LEADERSHIP, ITS
MEMBERS WERE ORGANIZED TO MAINTAIN THEMSELVES AS SIT-DOWN STRIKERS IN
POSSESSION OF THE PLANT, AND IT REMAINED IN POSSESSION UNTIL JUNE 23,
1937, WHEN THE STRIKERS WERE FORCIBLY EJECTED PURSUANT TO AN INJUNCTION
ORDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT IN APEX HOSIERY
CO. V. LEADER, 90 F.2D 155, 159; REVERSED AND DISMISSAL ORDERED AS MOOT
IN LEADER V. APEX HOSIERY CO., 302 U.S. 656. 

THE LOCKS ON ALL GATES AND ENTRANCES OF PETITIONER'S PLANT WERE
CHANGED; ONLY STRIKERS WERE GIVEN KEYS.  NO OTHERS WERE ALLOWED TO
LEAVE OR ENTER THE PLANT WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE STRIKERS.  DURING
THE PERIOD OF THEIR OCCUPANCY, THE UNION SUPPLIED THEM WITH FOOD,
BLANKETS, COTS, MEDICAL CARE, AND PAID THEM STRIKE BENEFITS.  WHILE
OCCUPYING THE FACTORY, THE STRIKERS WILFULLY WRECKED MACHINERY OF GREAT
VALUE, AND DID EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO OTHER PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT OF THE
COMPANY.  ALL MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS BY PETITIONER CEASED ON MAY
6TH.  AS THE RESULT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE COMPANY'S MACHINERY AND
PLANT, IT DID NOT RESUME EVEN PARTIAL MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS UNTIL
AUGUST 19, 1937.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES A LAWLESS INVASION OF
PETITIONER'S PLANT AND DESTRUCTION OF ITS PROPERTY BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE OF THE MOST BRUTAL AND WANTON CHARACTER, UNDER LEADERSHIP AND
DIRECTION OF RESPONDENTS, AND WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY THE LOCAL
AUTHORITIES. 

FOR MORE THAN THREE MONTHS, BY REASON OF RESPONDENTS' ACTS,
MANUFACTURE WAS SUSPENDED AT PETITIONER'S PLANT AND THE FLOW OF
PETITIONER'S PRODUCT INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS STOPPED.  WHEN THE
PLANT WAS SEIZED, THERE WERE ON HAND 130,000 DOZEN PAIRS OF FINISHED
HOSIERY, OF A VALUE OF ABOUT $800,000, READY FOR SHIPMENT ON UNFILLED
ORDERS, 80 PER CENT. OF WHICH WERE TO BE SHIPPED TO POINTS OUTSIDE THE
STATE.  SHIPMENT WAS PREVENTED BY THE OCCUPATION OF THE FACTORY BY THE
STRIKERS.  THREE TIMES IN THE COURSE OF THE STRIKE RESPONDENTS REFUSED
REQUESTS MADE BY PETITIONER TO BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE THE MERCHANDISE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SHIPMENT IN FILLING THE ORDERS. 

IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS
HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL."  ONLY A SINGLE QUESTION IS PRESENTED BY
THE RECORD FOR OUR DECISION, WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WHICH WE HAVE
DETAILED, WHOSE VERITY MUST BE TAKEN TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE JURY'S
VERDICT, ESTABLISHES A RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE WHICH THE SHERMAN
ACT CONDEMNS. 

IT IS NOT DENIED, AND WE ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THAT
RESPONDENTS BY SUBSTITUTING THE PRIMITIVE METHOD OF TRIAL BY COMBAT,
FN1  FOR THE ORDINARY PROCESSES OF JUSTICE AND MORE CIVILIZED MEANS OF
DECIDING AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE, VIOLATED THE CIVIL AND PENAL LAWS OF
PENNSYLVANIA WHICH AUTHORIZE THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMPENSATION AND
IMPOSE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR THE WRONGS DONE.  BUT IN THIS SUIT, IN
WHICH NO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES IS ALLEGED OR SHOWN,
THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE STATE LAWS.  THEIR
ONLY JURISDICTION IS TO VINDICATE SUCH FEDERAL RIGHT AS CONGRESS HAS
CONFERRED ON PETITIONER BY THE SHERMAN ACT AND VIOLENCE, AS WILL APPEAR
HEREAFTER, HOWEVER REPREHENSIBLE, DOES NOT GIVE THE FEDERAL COURTS
JURISDICTION. 

AT THE OUTSET, AND BEFORE CONSIDERING THE MORE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES
WHICH WE REGARD AS DECISIVE OF THIS CAUSE, IT IS DESIRABLE TO REMOVE
FROM THE FIELD OF CONTROVERSY CERTAIN QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MUCH
ARGUED HERE AND BELOW, BUT WHICH WE THINK, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
PRESENT CASE, ARE IRRELEVANT TO DECISION.  WE FIND ABUNDANT SUPPORT FOR
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE EFFECT OF THE SIT-DOWN STRIKE WAS TO
RESTRICT SUBSTANTIALLY THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF ITS
MANUFACTURED PRODUCT, SO AS TO BRING THE ACTS OF RESPONDENTS BY WHICH
THE RESTRICTION WAS EFFECTED WITHIN THE REACH OF THE COMMERCE POWER IF
CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO EXERCISE IT.  CESSATION OF PETITIONER'S
MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS, WHICH RESPONDENTS COMPELLED, INDUBITABLY
MEANT THE CESSATION OF SHIPMENT INTERSTATE.  THE EFFECT UPON THE
COMMERCE RESULTED NATURALLY AND INEVITABLY FROM THE CAUSE.  THE
OCCUPANCY OF PETITIONER'S FACTORY BY THE STRIKERS PREVENTED THE
SHIPMENT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MERCHANDISE ON HAND WHEN THE
STRIKE WAS CALLED.  IN POINT OF THE IMMEDIACY OF THE EFFECT OF THE
STRIKERS' ACTS UPON THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION INVOLVED AND OF ITS
VOLUME, THE CASE DOES NOT DIFFER FROM MANY OTHERS IN WHICH WE HAVE
SUSTAINED THE CONGRESSIONAL EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  THE
NATIONAL POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THAT WHICH IS
NATIONWIDE IN ITS SCOPE.  HERE THE STRIKERS' ACTIVITIES WERE AS CLOSELY
RELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND AFFECTED IT AS SUBSTANTIALLY AS
NUMEROUS OTHER ACTIVITIES NOT IN THEMSELVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH
HAVE NEVERTHELESS BEEN HELD TO BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STATUTES ENACTED
IN THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER.  FN2  MORE RECENTLY, WHERE THE
STATUTE WAS BY ITS TERMS APPLICABLE AND THE QUESTION WAS OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER, WE HAVE SUSTAINED THE APPLICATION OF THE WAGNER
ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 151-166, REGULATING LABOR RELATIONS
"AFFECTING" INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO SITUATIONS NO MORE CLOSELY RELATED
TO THE COMMERCE THAN THESE, AND WHERE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AFFECTED
WAS NO GREATER IN VOLUME.  FN3  AND IN THE APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, AS WE HAVE RECENTLY HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT, IT IS THE NATURE OF
THE RESTRAINT AND ITS EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND NOT THE AMOUNT
OF THE COMMERCE WHICH ARE THE TESTS OF VIOLATION.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., ANTE, P. 224, NOTE 59.  CF. LABOR BOARD V.
FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 606. 

WE THINK ALSO, AS PETITIONER CONTENDS, THAT THE JURY'S VERDICT MUST
BE TAKEN AS A FINDING SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENTS INTENDED
TO PREVENT PETITIONER'S SHIPMENTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE SENSE
THAT RESPONDENTS MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE INTENDED THE NATURAL AND
PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTS.  THE TRIAL COURT LEFT IT TO THE
JURY TO SAY WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS INTENDED TO RESTRAIN PETITIONER'S
INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS, AND CHARGED THAT IN A SUIT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR IT TO FIND AN INTENT
ON THE PART OF RESPONDENTS TO CAUSE THE PROHIBITED RESTRAINT OF
COMMERCE,  FN4  BUT THAT SUCH INTENT MIGHT BE INFERRED FROM THEIR ACTS
IN STOPPING PETITIONER'S MANUFACTURE OF A PRODUCT LARGELY AND REGULARLY
SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CONCEDEDLY THE PURPOSE OF THE STRIKERS
AND THEIR PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE WERE TO COMPEL PETITIONER TO YIELD TO
THEIR DEMANDS FOR A UNION SHOP, BUT IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE
AND EXPERIENCE THAT THE STOPPAGE OF A LARGE MANUFACTURING PLANT, WHICH
THE STRIKERS DID INTEND, WHOSE PRODUCT IS DISTRIBUTED GENERALLY TO
CONSUMERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WOULD PREVENT ITS SHIPMENTS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE MUST TAKE IT FROM THE JURY'S VERDICT THAT THIS
WAS KNOWN TO THE STRIKERS AS WELL AS TO OTHERS.  IN ADDITION THERE WAS
SPECIFIC TESTIMONY THAT THE STRIKERS REFUSED TO PERMIT THE WITHDRAWAL
OF THE FINISHED MERCHANDISE FROM PETITIONER'S FACTORY FOR SHIPMENT. 

BUT THE SHERMAN ACT ADMITTEDLY DOES NOT CONDEMN ALL COMBINATIONS AND
CONSPIRACIES WHICH INTERRUPT INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  UNITED MINE
WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344(FIRST CORONADO CASE); UNITED
LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT CO. 265 U.S. 457(LEATHER WORKERS CASE).  IN
IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564, 600, THIS COURT DECLINED TO CONSIDER WHETHER
THE STOPPAGE OF TRAINS ON AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD RESULTING FROM A
STRIKE, WAS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT - A QUESTION WHICH IT HAS
NOT SINCE BEEN CALLED ON TO DECIDE.  FN5  IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY CONTENDED
HERE THAT A CONSPIRACY TO DERAIL AND ROB AN INTERSTATE TRAIN, EVEN
THOUGH IT WERE LADEN WITH 100,000 DOZEN PAIRS OF STOCKINGS, NECESSARILY
WOULD INVOLVE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THIS COURT HAS NEVER
APPLIED THE ACT TO LABORERS OR TO OTHERS AS A MEANS OF POLICING
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, AND SO THE QUESTION TO WHICH WE MUST ADDRESS
OURSELVES IS WHETHER A CONSPIRACY OF STRIKERS IN A LABOR DISPUTE TO
STOP THE OPERATION OF THE EMPLOYER'S FACTORY IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THEIR
DEMANDS AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS THE KIND OF RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR
COMMERCE AT WHICH THE ACT IS AIMED, EVEN THOUGH A NATURAL AND PROBABLE
CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR ACTS AND THE ONLY EFFECT ON TRADE OR COMMERCE WAS
TO PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL SHIPMENTS INTERSTATE BY THE EMPLOYER. 

A POINT STRONGLY URGED IN BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT
BEFORE US IS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXCLUDE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND
THEIR ACTIVITIES WHOLLY FROM THE OPERATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  TO THIS
THE SHORT ANSWER MUST BE MADE THAT FOR THE THIRTY-TWO YEARS WHICH HAVE
ELAPSED SINCE THE DECISION OF LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274, THIS
COURT, IN ITS EFFORTS TO DETERMINE THE TRUE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE WORDS OF THE ACT, "EVERY
CONTRACT, COMBINATION  ...  OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR
COMMERCE" DO EMBRACE TO SOME EXTENT AND IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES LABOR
UNIONS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES; FN6  AND THAT DURING THAT PERIOD CONGRESS,
ALTHOUGH OFTEN ASKED TO DO SO, HAS PASSED NO ACT PURPORTING TO EXCLUDE
LABOR UNIONS WHOLLY FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT.  FN7  ON THE
CONTRARY CONGRESS HAS REPEATEDLY ENACTED LAWS RESTRICTING OR PURPORTING
TO CURTAIL THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR
ACTIVITIES, THUS RECOGNIZING THAT TO SOME EXTENT NOT DEFINED THEY
REMAIN SUBJECT TO IT.  FN8 

WHETHER LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE WHOLLY EXCLUDED
FROM THE SHERMAN ACT IS A QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, NOT
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  FN9  THE LONG TIME FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO ALTER
THE ACT AFTER IT HAD BEEN JUDICIALLY CONSTRUED, AND THE ENACTMENT BY
CONGRESS OF LEGISLATION WHICH IMPLICITLY RECOGNIZES THE JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION AS EFFECTIVE, IS PERSUASIVE OF LEGISLATIVE RECOGNITION
THAT THE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION IS THE CORRECT ONE.  THIS IS THE MORE SO
WHERE, AS HERE, THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO LABOR UNIONS HAS
BROUGHT FORTH SHARPLY CONFLICTING VIEWS BOTH ON THE COURT AND IN
CONGRESS, AND WHERE AFTER THE MATTER HAS BEEN FULLY BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC AND THE CONGRESS, THE LATTER HAS NOT SEEN FIT
TO CHANGE THE STATUTE. 

WHILE WE MUST REGARD THE QUESTION WHETHER LABOR UNIONS ARE TO SOME
EXTENT AND IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES SUBJECT TO THE ACT AS SETTLED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, IT IS EQUALLY PLAIN THAT THIS COURT HAS NEVER THOUGHT THE
ACT TO APPLY TO ALL LABOR UNION ACTIVITIES AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT WERE NOT STATED IN TERMS
OF PRECISION OR OF CRYSTAL CLARITY AND THE ACT ITSELF DID NOT DEFINE
THEM.  IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE VAGUENESS OF ITS LANGUAGE, PERHAPS NOT
UNCALCULATED,  FN10  THE COURTS HAVE BEEN LEFT TO GIVE CONTENT TO THE
STATUTE, AND IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT FUNCTION IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT
COURTS SHOULD INTERPRET ITS WORD IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY AND OF THE PARTICULAR EVILS AT WHICH THE LEGISLATION WAS
AIMED.  CF. STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; NASH V.
UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373; APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED STATES, 288
U.S. 344, 359, 360. 

THE CRITICAL WORDS WHICH CIRCUMSCRIBE THE JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE OF
THIS FUNCTION SO FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED ARE "EVERY  ...
COMBINATION  ...  OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE." 
SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE NATURAL AND PREDICTABLE
CONSEQUENCE OF THE STRIKE WAS THE RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION THE PRECISE QUESTION WHICH WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DECIDE
IS WHETHER THAT RESTRAINT RESULTING FROM THE STRIKE MAINTAINED TO
ENFORCE UNION DEMANDS BY COMPELLING A SHUTDOWN OF PETITIONER'S FACTORY
IS THE KIND OF "RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE" WHICH THE ACT
CONDEMNS. 

IN CONSIDERING WHETHER UNION ACTIVITIES LIKE THE PRESENT MAY FAIRLY
BE DEEMED TO BE EMBRACED WITHIN THIS PHRASE, THREE CIRCUMSTANCES
RELATING TO THE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE ACT WHICH ARE OF
STRIKING SIGNIFICANCE MUST FIRST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SHERMAN ACT AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT INTERPRETING IT, SHOW THAT IT WAS NOT AIMED AT POLICING
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND PROPERTY.  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND THE VOLUMINOUS LITERATURE WHICH WAS GENERATED
IN THE COURSE OF THE ENACTMENT AND DURING FIFTY YEARS OF LITIGATION OF
THE SHERMAN ACT GIVE NO HINT THAT SUCH WAS ITS PURPOSE.  FN11  THEY DO
NOT SUGGEST THAT, IN GENERAL, STATE LAWS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT MACHINERY
WERE INADEQUATE TO PREVENT LOCAL OBSTRUCTIONS OR INTERFERENCES WITH
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, OR PRESENTED ANY PROBLEM REQUIRING THE
INTERPOSITION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  FN12  IN 1890 WHEN THE SHERMAN ACT
WAS ADOPTED THERE WERE ONLY A FEW FEDERAL STATUTES IMPOSING PENALTIES
FOR OBSTRUCTING OR MISUSING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  FN13  WITH AN
EXPANDING COMMERCE, MANY OTHERS HAVE SINCE BEEN ENACTED SAFEGUARDING
TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS THE NEED WAS SEEN, INCLUDING
STATUTES DECLARING CONSPIRACIES TO INTERFERE OR ACTUAL INTERFERENCE
WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY VIOLENCE OR THREATS OF VIOLENCE TO BE
FELONIES.  FN14  IT WAS ANOTHER AND QUITE A DIFFERENT EVIL AT WHICH THE
SHERMAN ACT WAS AIMED.  IT WAS ENACTED IN THE ERA OF "TRUSTS" AND OF
"COMBINATIONS" OF BUSINESSES AND OF CAPITAL ORGANIZED AND DIRECTED TO
CONTROL OF THE MARKET BY SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING OF
GOODS AND SERVICES, THE MONOPOLISTIC TENDENCY OF WHICH HAD BECOME A
MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  THE END SOUGHT WAS THE PREVENTION OF
RESTRAINTS TO FREE COMPETITION IN BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS
WHICH TENDED TO RESTRICT PRODUCTION, RAISE PRICES OR OTHERWISE CONTROL
THE MARKET TO THE DETRIMENT OF PURCHASERS OR CONSUMERS OF GOODS AND
SERVICES, ALL OF WHICH HAD COME TO BE REGARDED AS A SPECIAL FORM OF
PUBLIC INJURY.  FN15 

FOR THAT REASON THE PHRASE "RESTRAINT OF TRADE" WHICH, AS WILL
PRESENTLY APPEAR, HAD A WELL-UNDERSTOOD MEANING AT COMMON LAW, WAS MADE
THE MEANS OF DEFINING THE ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED.  THE ADDITION OF THE
WORDS "OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL KIND
OF RESTRAINT TO BE PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT BUT WAS THE MEANS USED
TO RELATE THE PROHIBITED RESTRAINT OF TRADE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES, ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED STATES,
286 U.S. 427, 434, SO THAT CONGRESS, THROUGH ITS COMMERCE POWER, MIGHT
SUPPRESS AND PENALIZE RESTRAINTS ON THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM WHICH
INVOLVED OR AFFECTED INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BECAUSE MANY FORMS OF
RESTRAINT UPON COMMERCIAL COMPETITION EXTENDED ACROSS STATE LINES SO AS
TO MAKE REGULATION BY STATE ACTION DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE, CONGRESS
ENACTED THE SHERMAN ACT, 21 CONG. REC. 2456.  IT WAS IN THIS SENSE OF
PREVENTING RESTRAINTS ON COMMERCIAL COMPETITION THAT CONGRESS EXERCISED
"ALL THE POWER IT POSSESSED."  ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 435. 

A SECOND SIGNIFICANT CIRCUMSTANCE IS THAT THIS COURT HAS NEVER
APPLIED THE SHERMAN ACT IN ANY CASE, WHETHER OR NOT INVOLVING LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS OR ACTIVITIES, UNLESS THE COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT THERE
WAS SOME FORM OF RESTRAINT UPON COMMERCIAL COMPETITION IN THE MARKETING
OF GOODS OR SERVICES FN16  AND FINALLY THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO APPLY
THE SHERMAN ACT IN CASES LIKE THE PRESENT IN WHICH LOCAL STRIKES
CONDUCTED BY ILLEGAL MEANS IN A PRODUCTION INDUSTRY PREVENTED
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF THE PRODUCT BUT IN WHICH
IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE RESTRICTIONS ON SHIPMENTS HAD OPERATED TO
RESTRAIN COMMERCIAL COMPETITION IN SOME SUBSTANTIAL WAY.  FIRST
CORONADO CASE, SUPRA; LEATHER WORKERS CASE, SUPRA.  LEVERING &
GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103. 

THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINES RELATING TO CONTRACTS AND COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE WERE WELL UNDERSTOOD LONG BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF
THE SHERMAN LAW.  FN17  THEY WERE CONTRACTS FOR THE RESTRICTION OR
SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION IN THE MARKET, AGREEMENTS TO FIX PRICES,
DIVIDE MARKETING TERRITORIES, APPORTION CUSTOMERS, RESTRICT PRODUCTION
AND THE LIKE PRACTICES, WHICH TEND TO RAISE PRICES OR OTHERWISE TAKE
FROM BUYERS OR CONSUMERS THE ADVANTAGES WHICH ACCRUE TO THEM FROM FREE
COMPETITION IN THE MARKET.  SUCH CONTRACTS WERE DEEMED ILLEGAL AND WERE
UNENFORCIBLE AT COMMON LAW.  BUT THE RESULTING RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WERE
NOT PENALIZED AND GAVE RISE TO NO ACTIONABLE WRONG.  CERTAIN CLASSES OF
RESTRAINTS WERE NOT OUTLAWED WHEN DEEMED REASONABLE, USUALLY BECAUSE
THEY SERVED TO PRESERVE OR PROTECT LEGITIMATE INTERESTS, PREVIOUSLY
EXISTING, OF ONE OR MORE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT.  FN18 

IN SEEKING MORE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC FROM THE GROWING
EVILS OF RESTRAINTS ON THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM EFFECTED BY THE
CONCENTRATED COMMERCIAL POWER OF "TRUSTS" AND "COMBINATIONS" AT THE
CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, THE LEGISLATORS FOUND READY AT THEIR
HAND THE COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF ILLEGAL RESTRAINTS OF TRADE OR
COMMERCE.  IN ENACTING THE SHERMAN LAW THEY TOOK OVER THAT CONCEPT BY
CONDEMNING SUCH RESTRAINTS WHEREVER THEY OCCUR IN OR AFFECT COMMERCE
BETWEEN THE STATES.  THEY EXTENDED THE CONDEMNATION OF THE STATUTE TO
RESTRAINTS EFFECTED BY ANY COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, AS WELL AS BY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, HAVING
THOSE EFFECTS ON THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM AND ON PURCHASERS AND CONSUMERS
OF GOODS OR SERVICES WHICH WERE CHARACTERISTIC OF RESTRAINTS DEEMED
ILLEGAL AT COMMON LAW, AND THEY GAVE BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC REMEDIES
FOR THE INJURIES FLOWING FROM SUCH RESTRAINTS. 

THAT SUCH IS THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE SHERMAN ACT WAS FIRST
JUDICIALLY RECOGNIZED AND EXPOUNDED IN THE CLASSIC OPINION IN UNITED
STATES V. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO., 85 F. 271, AFFIRMED 175 U.S. 211,
WRITTEN BY JUDGE, LATER CHIEF JUSTICE, TAFT, AND CONCURRED IN BY
JUSTICE HARLAN AND JUDGE, LATER JUSTICE, LURTON, OF THIS COURT.  THIS
COURT HAS SINCE REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE RESTRAINTS AT WHICH THE
SHERMAN LAW IS AIMED, AND WHICH ARE DESCRIBED BY ITS TERMS, ARE ONLY
THOSE WHICH ARE COMPARABLE TO RESTRAINTS DEEMED ILLEGAL AT COMMON LAW,
ALTHOUGH ACCOMPLISHED BY MEANS OTHER THAN CONTRACT AND WHICH, FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS, ARE CONFINED TO TRANSACTIONS IN OR WHICH AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN19 

IN STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 54, 55, 58, DECIDED
IN 1911, THIS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE, POINTED OUT
THAT THE RESTRAINT OF TRADE CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 1 OF THE ACT TOOK ITS
ORIGIN FROM THE COMMON LAW, AND THAT THE SHERMAN ACT WAS ADAPTED TO THE
PREVENTION, IN MODERN CONDITIONS, OF CONDUCT OR DEALING EFFECTING THE
WRONG, AT WHICH THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINE WAS AIMED.  THIS, IT WAS SAID,
IS "THE DREAD OF ENHANCEMENT OF PRICES AND OF OTHER WRONGS WHICH IT WAS
THOUGHT WOULD FLOW FROM THE UNDUE LIMITATION ON COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS
CAUSED BY CONTRACTS OR OTHER ACTS OF INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATIONS,  ...
"  FN20  THE COURT DECLARED, PAGE 59, THAT "THE STATUTE WAS DRAWN IN
THE LIGHT OF THE EXISTING PRACTICAL CONCEPTION OF THE LAW OF RESTRAINT
OF TRADE," AND DREW THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESTRAINTS WHICH WERE
CONDEMNED BY THE STATUTE ARE THOSE WHICH, FOLLOWING THE COMMON LAW
ANALOGY, ARE "UNREASONABLE OR UNDUE."  THIS VIEW WAS FOLLOWED AND MORE
EXPLICITLY STATED IN UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S.
106, 179, WHERE IT WAS SAID:  "  ...  IT WAS HELD IN THE STANDARD OIL
CASE THAT AS THE WORDS 'RESTRAINT OF TRADE' AT COMMON LAW AND IN THE
LAW OF THIS COUNTRY AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT
ONLY EMBRACED ACTS OR CONTRACTS OR AGREEMENTS OR COMBINATIONS WHICH
OPERATED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE PUBLIC INTERESTS BY UNDULY RESTRICTING
COMPETITION OR UNDULY OBSTRUCTING THE DUE COURSE OF TRADE OR WHICH,
EITHER BECAUSE OF THEIR INHERENT NATURE OR EFFECT OR BECAUSE OF THE
EVIDENT PURPOSE OF THE ACTS, ETC., INJURIOUSLY RESTRAINED TRADE, THAT
THE WORDS AS USED IN THE STATUTE WERE DESIGNED TO HAVE AND DID HAVE BUT
A LIKE SIGNIFICANCE."  IN THUS GROUNDING THE "RULE OF REASON" UPON THE
ANALOGY OF THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINES APPLICABLE TO ILLEGAL RESTRAINTS OF
TRADE THE COURT GAVE A CONTENT AND MEANING TO THE STATUTE IN HARMONY
WITH ITS HISTORY AND PLAINLY INDICATED BY ITS LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. 
LABOR CASES APART, WHICH WILL PRESENTLY BE DISCUSSED, THIS COURT HAS
NOT DEPARTED FROM THE CONCEPTION OF THE SHERMAN ACT AS AFFORDING A
REMEDY, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, FOR THE PUBLIC WRONGS WHICH FLOW FROM
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE IN THE COMMON LAW SENSE OF RESTRICTION OR
SUPPRESSION OF COMMERCIAL COMPETITION.  IN THE CASES CONSIDERED BY THIS
COURT SINCE THE STANDARD OIL CASE IN 1911 SOME FORM OF RESTRAINT OF
COMMERCIAL COMPETITION HAS BEEN THE SINE QUA NON TO THE CONDEMNATION OF
CONTRACTS, COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, AND IN
GENERAL RESTRAINTS UPON COMPETITION HAVE BEEN CONDEMNED ONLY WHEN THEIR
PURPOSE OR EFFECT WAS TO RAISE OR FIX THE MARKET PRICE.  FN21  IT IS IN
THIS SENSE THAT IT IS SAID THAT THE RESTRAINTS, ACTUAL OR INTENDED,
PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT ARE ONLY THOSE WHICH ARE SO SUBSTANTIAL
AS TO AFFECT MARKET PRICES.  RESTRAINTS ON COMPETITION OR ON THE COURSE
OF TRADE IN THE MERCHANDISING OF ARTICLES MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS NOT ENOUGH, UNLESS THE RESTRAINT IS SHOWN TO HAVE OR IS INTENDED TO
HAVE AN EFFECT UPON PRICES IN THE MARKET OR OTHERWISE TO DEPRIVE
PURCHASERS OR CONSUMERS OF THE ADVANTAGES WHICH THEY DERIVE FROM FREE
COMPETITION.  CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231,
238; UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CO., 251 U.S. 417; CEMENT
MANUFACTURERS ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588; UNITED STATES V.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., 274 U.S. 693; APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 344, 375, ET SEQ. FN22 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE EFFECT OF THE COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY AMONG RESPONDENTS WAS A RESTRAINT OF TRADE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THIS IS NOT A CASE OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION
BEING USED BY COMBINATIONS OF THOSE ENGAGED IN AN INDUSTRY AS THE MEANS
OR INSTRUMENT FOR SUPPRESSING COMPETITION OR FIXING PRICES.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. BRIMS, 272 U.S. 549; LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S.
293.  HERE IT IS PLAIN THAT THE COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY DID NOT HAVE
AS ITS PURPOSE RESTRAINT UPON COMPETITION IN THE MARKET FOR
PETITIONER'S PRODUCT.  ITS OBJECT WAS TO COMPEL PETITIONER TO ACCEDE TO
THE UNION DEMANDS AND AN EFFECT OF IT, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE STRIKERS'
TORTIOUS ACTS, WAS THE PREVENTION OF THE REMOVAL OF PETITIONER'S
PRODUCT FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT.  SO FAR AS APPEARS THE DELAY OF THESE
SHIPMENTS WAS NOT INTENDED TO HAVE AND HAD NO EFFECT ON PRICES OF
HOSIERY IN THE MARKET, AND SO WAS IN THAT RESPECT NO MORE A RESTRAINT
FORBIDDEN BY THE SHERMAN ACT THAN THE RESTRICTION UPON COMPETITION AND
THE COURSE OF TRADE HELD LAWFUL IN APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, BECAUSE NOTWITHSTANDING ITS EFFECT UPON THE MARKETING OF THE
COAL IT NEVERTHELESS WAS NOT INTENDED TO AND DID NOT AFFECT MARKET
PRICE.    A COMBINATION OF EMPLOYEES NECESSARILY RESTRAINS COMPETITION
AMONG THEMSELVES IN THE SALE OF THEIR SERVICES TO THE EMPLOYER; YET
SUCH A COMBINATION WAS NOT CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL RESTRAINT OF TRADE AT
COMMON LAW WHEN THE SHERMAN ACT WAS ADOPTED, EITHER BECAUSE IT WAS NOT
THOUGHT TO BE UNREASONABLE OR BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DEEMED A "RESTRAINT OF
TRADE."  FN23  SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE DECLARATION IN SEC. 6 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT THAT "THE LABOR OF A HUMAN BEING IS NOT A COMMODITY OR
ARTICLE OF COMMERCE ...  NOR SHALL SUCH (LABOR) ORGANIZATIONS, OR THE
MEMBERS THEREOF, BE HELD OR CONSTRUED TO BE ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR
CONSPIRACIES IN THE RESTRAINT OF TRADE UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS," IT
WOULD SEEM PLAIN THAT RESTRAINTS ON THE SALE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S SERVICES
TO THE EMPLOYER, HOWEVER MUCH THEY CURTAIL THE COMPETITION AMONG
EMPLOYEES, ARE NOT IN THEMSELVES COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 

STRIKES OR AGREEMENTS NOT TO WORK, ENTERED INTO BY LABORERS TO COMPEL
EMPLOYERS TO YIELD TO THEIR DEMANDS, MAY RESTRICT TO SOME EXTENT THE
POWER OF EMPLOYERS WHO ARE PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE TO COMPETE IN THE
MARKET WITH THOSE NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH DEMANDS.  BUT UNDER THE DOCTRINE
APPLIED TO NON-LABOR CASES, THE MERE FACT OF SUCH RESTRICTIONS ON
COMPETITION DOES NOT IN ITSELF BRING THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT
WITHIN THE CONDEMNATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  APPALACHIAN COALS V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 360.  FURTHERMORE, SUCCESSFUL UNION ACTIVITY, AS
FOR EXAMPLE CONSUMMATION OF A WAGE AGREEMENT WITH EMPLOYERS, MAY HAVE
SOME INFLUENCE ON PRICE COMPETITION BY ELIMINATING THAT PART OF SUCH
COMPETITION WHICH IS BASED ON DIFFERENCES IN LABOR STANDARDS.  SINCE,
IN ORDER TO RENDER A LABOR COMBINATION EFFECTIVE IT MUST ELIMINATE THE
COMPETITION FROM NON-UNION MADE GOODS, SEE AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V.
TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 209, AN ELIMINATION OF
PRICE COMPETITION BASED ON DIFFERENCES IN LABOR STANDARDS IS THE
OBJECTIVE OF ANY NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION.  BUT THIS EFFECT ON
COMPETITION HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE THE KIND OF CURTAILMENT OF
PRICE COMPETITION PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  SEE LEVERING &
GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, SUPRA; CF. AMERICAN FOUNDRIES CASE, SUPRA,
209; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WINDOW GLASS MFRS.  V. UNITED STATES, 263
U.S. 403.  FN24  AND IN ANY CASE, THE RESTRAINT HERE IS, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, OF A DIFFERENT KIND AND HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE ANY ACTUAL OR
INTENDED EFFECT ON PRICE OR PRICE COMPETITION. 

THIS COURT FIRST APPLIED THE SHERMAN ACT TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION IN
LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274, IN 1908, HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT
HAD ERRONEOUSLY SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE DECLARATION IN A SUIT FOR
DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMBINATION ALLEGED WAS NOT WITHIN THE ACT.  THE COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY CHARGED WAS THAT OF A NATION-WIDE LABOR ORGANIZATION TO
FORCE ALL MANUFACTURERS OF FUR HATS IN THE UNITED STATES TO ORGANIZE
THEIR WORKERS BY MAINTAINING A BOYCOTT AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF THE
PRODUCT OF NON-UNION MANUFACTURERS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
RESTRAINT ALLEGED WAS NOT A STRIKE OR REFUSAL TO WORK IN THE
COMPLAINANTS' PLANT, BUT A SECONDARY BOYCOTT BY WHICH, THROUGH THREATS
TO THE MANUFACTURER'S WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS, THE
UNION SOUGHT TO COMPEL OR INDUCE THEM NOT TO DEAL IN THE PRODUCT OF THE
COMPLAINANTS, AND TO PURCHASE THE COMPETING PRODUCTS OF OTHER UNIONIZED
MANUFACTURERS.  THIS COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE RESTRAINT WAS PRECISELY
LIKE THAT IN EASTERN STATES RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS CO. V. UNITED STATES,
234 U.S. 600, 610, 614, IN WHICH A CONSPIRACY TO CIRCULATE A "BLACK
LIST," INTENDED TO PERSUADE RETAILERS NOT TO DEAL WITH SPECIFIED
WHOLESALERS, WAS HELD TO VIOLATE THE ACT BECAUSE OF ITS RESTRAINT UPON
COMPETITION WITH UNLISTED WHOLESALERS.  THE COURT IN THE LOEWE CASE
HELD THAT THE BOYCOTT OPERATED AS A RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AND THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ACT, "EVERY COMBINATION, ETC." WAS BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE A LABOR
UNION IMPOSING SUCH A RESTRAINT.  LIKE PROBLEMS FOUND A LIKE SOLUTION
IN DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, AND IN BEDFORD
CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS ASSN., 274 U.S. 37; WHERE, IN
THE ONE CASE, A SECONDARY BOYCOTT, AND IN THE OTHER, THE REFUSAL OF THE
UNION TO WORK ON A PRODUCT IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER, WERE CARRIED
ON ON A COUNTRY-WIDE SCALE BY A NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION, IN ORDER
TO INDUCE THE PURCHASERS OF A MANUFACTURED PRODUCT SHIPPED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO WITHDRAW THEIR PATRONAGE FROM THE PRODUCER.  IN
BOTH, AS IN THE LOEWE CASE, THE EFFORT OF THE UNION WAS TO COMPEL
UNIONIZATION OF AN EMPLOYER'S FACTORY, NOT BY A STRIKE IN HIS FACTORY
BUT BY RESTRAINING, BY THE BOYCOTT OR REFUSAL TO WORK ON THE
MANUFACTURED PRODUCT, PURCHASES OF HIS PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IN COMPETITION WITH THE LIKE PRODUCT OF UNION SHOPS. 

IN THE BEDFORD STONE CASE IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT, AS IN THE DUPLEX
PRINTING PRESS CO. CASE, THE STRIKE WAS DIRECTED AGAINST THE USE OF THE
MANUFACTURED PRODUCT BY CONSUMERS "WITH THE IMMEDIATE PURPOSE AND
EFFECT OF RESTRAINING FUTURE SALES AND SHIPMENTS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE" AND "WITH THE PLAIN DESIGN OF SUPPRESSING OR NARROWING THE
INTERSTATE MARKET," AND THAT IN THIS RESPECT THE CASE DIFFERED FROM
THOSE IN WHICH A FACTORY STRIKE, DIRECTED AT THE PREVENTION OF
PRODUCTION WITH CONSEQUENT CESSATION OF INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS, HAD BEEN
HELD NOT TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  SEE FIRST CORONADO
CASE, SUPRA; LEATHER WORKERS CASE, SUPRA; CF. SECOND CORONADO CASE,
SUPRA, 310. 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT IN EACH OF THESE CASES WHERE THE ACT WAS
HELD APPLICABLE TO LABOR UNIONS, THE ACTIVITIES AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WERE DIRECTED AT CONTROL OF THE MARKET AND WERE SO WIDESPREAD
AS SUBSTANTIALLY TO AFFECT IT.  THERE WAS THUS A SUPPRESSION OF
COMPETITION IN THE MARKET BY METHODS WHICH WERE DEEMED ANALOGOUS TO
THOSE FOUND TO BE VIOLATIONS IN THE NON-LABOR CASES.  SEE MONTAGUE &
CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38, 45, 46; RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA; PARAMOUNT FAMOUS LASKY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S.
30; UNITED STATES V. FIRST NATIONAL PICTURES, 282 U.S. 44.  THAT THE
OBJECTIVE OF THE RESTRAINT IN THE BOYCOTT CASES WAS THE STRENGTHENING
OF THE BARGAINING POSITION OF THE UNION AND NOT THE ELIMINATION OF
BUSINESS COMPETITION - WHICH WAS THE END IN THE NON-LABOR CASES - WAS
THOUGHT TO BE IMMATERIAL BECAUSE THE COURT VIEWED THE RESTRAINT ITSELF,
IN CONTRAST TO THE INTERFERENCE WITH SHIPMENTS CAUSED BY A LOCAL
FACTORY STRIKE, TO BE OF A KIND REGARDED AS OFFENSIVE AT COMMON LAW
BECAUSE OF ITS EFFECT IN CURTAILING A FREE MARKET AND IT WAS HELD TO
OFFEND AGAINST THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE IT EFFECTED AND WAS AIMED AT
SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION WITH UNION MADE GOODS IN THE INTERSTATE
MARKET. 

BOTH THE DUPLEX PRINTING CO. AND BEDFORD STONE CASES FOLLOWED THE
ENACTMENT OF THE CLAYTON ACT AND THE RECOGNITION OF THE "RULE OF
REASON" IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE, SUPRA.  THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT
RULE TO RESTRAINTS UPON COMMERCE AFFECTED BY A LABOR UNION IN ORDER TO
PROMOTE AND CONSOLIDATE THE INTERESTS OF ITS UNION WAS NOT CONSIDERED. 
FN25  BUT AN IMPORTANT POINT CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE COURT IN
BOTH CASES WAS THAT NOTHING IN THE CLAYTON ACT PRECLUDED THE RELIEF
GRANTED.  WE ARE NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH THE MERITS OF EITHER POINT. 
FN26  THE ONLY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TWO CASES FOR PRESENT PURPOSES IS
THAT IN EACH THE COURT CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT ITS
DECISION, TO FIND THAT THE RESTRAINT OPERATED TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION
IN THE MARKET. 

THIS COURT WAS FIRST CALLED ON TO CONSIDER A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT IN
THE FIRST CORONADO CASE, SUPRA.  THERE A LOCAL BRANCH OF A NATIONAL
LABOR UNION SOUGHT TO UNIONIZE A COAL MINE WHICH WAS SHIPPING ITS
PRODUCT INTERSTATE TO THE EXTENT OF MORE THAN 5,000 TONS A WEEK. 
MEMBERS OF THE UNION COMPELLED THE MINE TO SHUT DOWN, BY FORCE AND
VIOLENCE, INCLUDING MURDER AND ARSON.  BY REASON OF THEIR FORCIBLE
ACTION ALL WORK AT THE MINE WAS PREVENTED, IT FILLED WITH WATER,
SHIPMENTS OF COAL WHICH WERE REGULARLY MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS
MINED, CEASED, AND THE STRIKERS BURNED MORE THAN TEN CARS, THREE OF
THEM LOADED WITH COAL AND SOME BILLED FOR MOVEMENT INTERSTATE.  THIS
COURT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADMITTEDLY SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT OF THE STRIKE
ON THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF THE COAL, AND THE ADMITTEDLY ILLEGAL AND
OUTRAGEOUS ACTS OF THE STRIKERS, HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT RESTED ITS
DECISION SPECIFICALLY ON TWO GROUNDS:  THAT "OBSTRUCTION TO COAL MINING
IS NOT A DIRECT OBSTRUCTION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN COAL,"  FN27  AND
THAT THE INTENT TO OBSTRUCT THE MINING OF COAL AND TO BURN THE LOADED
CARS, DID NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY AN INTENT TO RESTRAIN THE COMMERCE,
ALTHOUGH CONCEDEDLY INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS AND THE FILLING OF INTERSTATE
ORDERS FOR COAL WERE NECESSARILY ENDED BY THE STOPPAGE OF MINING
OPERATIONS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE LOADED CARS.  IT PERHAPS SUFFICES
FOR PRESENT PURPOSES TO SAY THAT IF THE STRIKE IN THE CORONADO CASE WAS
NOT WITHIN THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE ITS EFFECT UPON THE COMMERCE WAS
"INDIRECT" AND BECAUSE THE "INTENTION" TO SHUT DOWN THE MINE AND
DESTROY THE CARS OF COAL DESTINED FOR AN INTERSTATE SHIPMENT, DID NOT
IMPLY AN "INTENTION TO OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE," THEN THE LIKE
TESTS REQUIRE THE LIKE DECISION HERE. 

BUT WE ARE NOT RELEGATED TO SO MECHANICAL AN APPLICATION OF THESE
CRYPTIC PHRASES IN THE APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, FOR
THE COURT HAS SINCE SO INTERPRETED THEM AS TO GIVE TO THE PHRASE
"RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE" A MEANING AND CONTENT CONSONANT WITH
THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL HISTORY OF THE ACT TO WHICH WE HAVE
REFERRED.  IN THE LEATHER WORKERS CASE, SUPRA, THE COURT WAS AGAIN
CALLED ON TO DETERMINE WHETHER A LOCAL STRIKE IN A FACTORY WHICH
PREVENTED SHIPMENT OF ITS PRODUCT IN FILLING INTERSTATE ORDERS OF
SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME VIOLATED THE SHERMAN ACT.  AS IN THE FIRST CORONADO
CASE THE COURT HELD THAT THE RESTRAINT WAS NOT ONE PROHIBITED BY THE
SHERMAN ACT.  IT POINTED OUT, PAGE 469, THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT,
AS IN LOEWE V. LAWLOR, TO BOYCOTT THE SALE OF COMPLAINANT'S PRODUCTS IN
OTHER STATES, AND THAT IF THE INTERRUPTION OF INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS
RESULTING FROM A LOCAL FACTORY STRIKE AIMED AT COMPELLING THE EMPLOYER
TO YIELD TO UNION DEMANDS WERE DEEMED WITHIN THE SWEEP OF THE SHERMAN
ACT, "THE NATURAL, LOGICAL AND INEVITABLE RESULT WILL BE THAT EVERY
STRIKE IN ANY INDUSTRY OR EVEN IN ANY SINGLE FACTORY WILL BE WITHIN THE
SHERMAN ACT AND SUBJECT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION PROVIDED ANY
APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ITS PRODUCT ENTERS INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE,"
PAGE 471.  AFTER DISCUSSING THE CASES WHICH HAD GIVEN CURRENCY TO THE
NOTION THAT THE SHERMAN ACT, WHERE THE COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IS NOT
FORMED WITH THE "INTENT TO RESTRAIN TRADE OR COMMERCE," IS TO BE
APPLIED ONLY TO THOSE RESTRAINTS CHARACTERIZED AS "DIRECT," THE COURT
SAID, PAGE 471: 

"THIS REVIEW OF THE CASES MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE MERE REDUCTION IN
THE SUPPLY OF AN ARTICLE TO BE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BY THE
ILLEGAL OR TORTIOUS PREVENTION OF ITS MANUFACTURE, IS ORDINARILY AN
INDIRECT AND REMOTE OBSTRUCTION TO THAT COMMERCE.  IT IS ONLY WHEN THE
INTENT OR NECESSARY EFFECT UPON SUCH COMMERCE IN THE ARTICLE IS TO
ENABLE THOSE PREVENTING THE MANUFACTURE TO MONOPOLIZE THE SUPPLY,
CONTROL ITS PRICE OR DISCRIMINATE AS BETWEEN ITS WOULD-BE PURCHASERS,
THAT THE UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH ITS MANUFACTURE CAN BE SAID
DIRECTLY TO BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

AND THE COURT ADDED, 

"THE RECORD IS ENTIRELY WITHOUT EVIDENCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES TO SHOW
THAT THE DEFENDANTS IN THEIR CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE THE COMPLAINANTS OF
THEIR WORKERS WERE THUS DIRECTING THEIR SCHEME AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE." 

IT WAS THUS MADE APPARENT THAT IN SAYING THAT "INDIRECT OBSTRUCTIONS"
TO COMMERCE WERE NOT CONDEMNED BY THE SHERMAN ACT WHERE THE CONSPIRACY
IS NOT DIRECTED AT THAT COMMERCE, THE COURT WAS NOT SEEKING TO APPLY A
PURELY MECHANICAL TEST OF LIABILITY, BUT WAS USING A SHORTHAND
EXPRESSION TO SIGNIFY THAT THE SHERMAN ACT WAS DIRECTED ONLY AT THOSE
RESTRAINTS WHOSE EVIL CONSEQUENCES ARE DERIVED FROM THE SUPPRESSION OF
COMPETITION IN THE INTERSTATE MARKET, SO AS "TO MONOPOLIZE THE SUPPLY,
CONTROL ITS PRICE OR DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN ITS WOULD-BE PURCHASERS." 
AND IN SPEAKING OF INTENT AS A PREREQUISITE TO LIABILITY UNDER THE ACT
WHERE THE RESTRAINT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS "INDIRECT" IT MEANT NO
MORE THAN THAT THE CONSPIRACY OR COMBINATION MUST BE AIMED OR DIRECTED
AT THE KIND OF RESTRAINT WHICH THE ACT PROHIBITS OR THAT SUCH RESTRAINT
IS THE NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSPIRACY. 

THIS WAS AGAIN POINTED OUT IN THE SECOND CORONADO CASE, SUPRA, 310,
WHERE UPON A RETRIAL OF THE CASE ON AMENDED PLEADINGS IT APPEARED THAT
"THE PURPOSE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MINES WAS TO STOP THE PRODUCTION
OF NON-UNION COAL AND PREVENT ITS SHIPMENT TO MARKETS OF OTHER STATES
THAN ARKANSAS, WHERE IT WOULD BY COMPETITION TEND TO REDUCE THE PRICE
OF THE COMMODITY AND AFFECT INJURIOUSLY THE MAINTENANCE OF WAGES FOR
UNION LABOR IN COMPETING MINES,  ...  "  THE COURT DECLARED SUCH A
RESTRAINT TO BE A "DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT."  THE LIKE
DISTINCTION WAS TAKEN AND EXPLANATION MADE IN THE BEDFORD STONE CASE,
SUPRA, PP. 46, 49, WHERE THE RESTRAINT CONSISTED IN THE REFUSAL OF THE
UNIONS TO WORK ON STONE SHIPPED INTERSTATE FROM AN OPEN SHOP QUARRY
AFTER ITS INTERSTATE JOURNEY TO THE PURCHASER HAD ENDED, AND WHERE IT
APPEARED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE STRIKE WAS TO PREVENT THE INTERSTATE
SALE OF THE STONE IN COMPETITION WITH THE PRODUCT OF UNIONIZED
PRODUCERS.  CF. LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, SUPRA.    THESE
CASES SHOW THAT ACTIVITIES OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS NOT IMMUNIZED BY THE
CLAYTON ACT ARE NOT NECESSARILY VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
UNDERLYING AND IMPLICIT IN ALL OF THEM IS RECOGNITION THAT THE SHERMAN
ACT WAS NOT ENACTED TO POLICE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, OR TO AFFORD A
REMEDY FOR WRONGS, WHICH ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER STATE LAW, AND RESULT
FROM COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES WHICH FALL SHORT, BOTH IN THEIR
PURPOSE AND EFFECT, OF ANY FORM OF MARKET CONTROL OF A COMMODITY, SUCH
AS TO "MONOPOLIZE THE SUPPLY, CONTROL ITS PRICE, OR DISCRIMINATE
BETWEEN ITS WOULD-BE PURCHASERS."  THESE ELEMENTS OF RESTRAINT OF
TRADE, FOUND TO BE PRESENT IN THE SECOND CORONADO CASE AND ALONE TO
DISTINGUISH IT FROM THE FIRST CORONADO CASE AND THE LEATHER WORKERS
CASE, ARE WHOLLY LACKING HERE.  WE DO NOT HOLD THAT CONSPIRACIES TO
OBSTRUCT OR PREVENT TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CAN IN NO
CIRCUMSTANCES BE VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  APART FROM THE CLAYTON
ACT IT MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN LABOR AND NON-LABOR CASES.  WE ONLY
HOLD NOW, AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HELD BOTH IN LABOR AND NON-LABOR CASES,
THAT SUCH RESTRAINTS ARE NOT WITHIN THE SHERMAN ACT UNLESS THEY ARE
INTENDED TO HAVE, OR IN FACT HAVE, THE EFFECTS ON THE MARKET ON WHICH
THE COURT RELIED TO ESTABLISH VIOLATION IN THE SECOND CORONADO CASE. 
UNLESS THE PRINCIPLE OF THESE CASES IS NOW TO BE DISCARDED, AN
IMPARTIAL APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT TO THE ACTIVITIES OF INDUSTRY
AND LABOR ALIKE WOULD SEEM TO REQUIRE THAT THE ACT BE HELD INAPPLICABLE
TO THE ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENTS WHICH HAD AN EVEN LESS SUBSTANTIAL
EFFECT ON THE COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY THAN THE
COMBINATION OF PRODUCERS UPHELD IN THE APPALACHIAN COALS CASE AND IN
OTHERS ON WHICH IT RELIED.  FN28 

IF, WITHOUT SUCH EFFECTS ON THE MARKET, WE WERE TO HOLD THAT A LOCAL
FACTORY STRIKE, STOPPING PRODUCTION AND SHIPMENT OF ITS PRODUCT
INTERSTATE, VIOLATES THE SHERMAN LAW, PRACTICALLY EVERY STRIKE IN
MODERN INDUSTRY WOULD BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS, UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, TO REMEDY LOCAL LAW VIOLATIONS.  THE ACT
WAS PLAINLY NOT INTENDED TO REACH SUCH A RESULT, ITS LANGUAGE DOES NOT
REQUIRE IT, AND THE COURSE OF OUR DECISIONS PRECLUDES IT.  THE
MAINTENANCE IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM OF A PROPER DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN
STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF POLICE AUTHORITY AND OF REMEDIES
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC WRONGS IS OF FAR-REACHING IMPORTANCE.  AN
INTENTION TO DISTURB THE BALANCE IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE IMPUTED TO
CONGRESS.  THE SHERMAN ACT IS CONCERNED WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE
PROHIBITED RESTRAINTS AND WITH THEIR EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT
DRAWS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RESTRAINTS EFFECTED BY VIOLENCE AND
THOSE ACHIEVED BY PEACEFUL BUT OFTENTIMES QUITE AS EFFECTIVE MEANS. 
RESTRAINTS NOT WITHIN THE ACT, WHEN ACHIEVED BY PEACEFUL MEANS, ARE NOT
BROUGHT WITHIN ITS SWEEP MERELY BECAUSE, WITHOUT OTHER DIFFERENCES,
THEY ARE ATTENDED BY VIOLENCE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS COURT HAS RECENTLY CHARACTERIZED THE ENCOURAGING, AIDING
AND ABETTING THE STRIKERS IN SIMILAR UNLAWFUL ACTS AS A "HIGH-HANDED
PROCEEDING WITHOUT SHADOW OF LEGAL RIGHT," SEE LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL
CORP., 306 U.S. 240, 252. 

FN2 MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612, 619; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 222 U.S. 20; HOUSTON, E. & W.T. RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 234 U.S. 342; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1;
KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334;
UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 147; CURRIN V.
WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38. 

FN3  LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 38-40;
LABOR BOARD V. FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO., 301 U.S. 49; LABOR BOARD V.
FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO., 301 U.S. 58; SANTA CRUZ PACKING CO.
V. LABOR BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 463 ET SEQ.; CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V.
LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197; LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 604
ET SEQ. SEE LABOR BOARD V. CROWE COAL CO., 104 F.2D 633; LABOR BOARD V.
GOOD COAL CO., 110 F.2D 501. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290,
342; ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211, 243;
UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 543; DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO.
V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 468; INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO
V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 64, 77; BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN
STONE CUTTERS ASSN., 274 U.S. 37; CF. LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN,
301 U.S. 1, 40. 

FN5  THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PROTECTING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION FROM
INTERFERENCE BY STRIKES, RECOGNIZED IN THE DEBS CASE, 158 U.S. 564,
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE SHERMAN LAW, HAS SINCE BEEN PROTECTED BY
LEGISLATION SPECIALLY DIRECTED TO THAT END.  SEE, E.G., ERDMAN ACT, 30
STAT. 424(1898); NEWLANDS ACT, 38 STAT. 103(1913); TITLE III,
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41 STAT. 456, 469; RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF
1926, 44 STAT. 577; RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1185, 45 U.S.C.
SECS. 151-163.  SEE VIRGINIAN RY. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 545,
553; UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225, 236.  I SHARFMAN, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 100-102, NOTES 39, 40. 

FN6  LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274; GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE
CO., 221 U.S. 418; LAWLOR V. LOEWE, 235 U.S. 522; DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS
CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; CORONADO COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS,
268 U.S. 295; UNITED STATES V. BRIMS, 272 U.S. 549; BEDFORD CUT STONE
CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS' ASSN., 274 U.S. 37; LOCAL 167 V.
UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293. 

FN7  ELEVEN BILLS INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS SHORTLY AFTER PASSAGE OF THE
SHERMAN ACT PROVIDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR THE EXEMPTION OF LABOR
FROM PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, FAILED OF ENACTMENT.  THEY ARE H.R. 6640,
IN THE 52ND CONGRESS; H.R. 10539 IN THE 56TH CONGRESS; H.R. 11667 IN
THE 56TH CONGRESS; S. 649 AND H.R. 14947 IN THE 57TH CONGRESS; S. 1728,
H.R. 89, H.R. 166, AND H.R. 2636 IN THE 52ND CONGRESS; H.R. 7938 IN THE
55TH CONGRESS AND H.R. 11988 IN THE 57TH CONGRESS.  THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
ANOTHER BILL, S. 1546, 55TH CONGRESS, WAS TO AMEND THE ACT SO AS TO
EXEMPT ALL LABOR ORGANIZATIONS FROM ITS PROHIBITIONS.  COPIES OF THESE
BILLS ARE PRINTED IN BILLS AND DEBATES RELATING TO TRUSTS, SEN. DOC.
147, 57TH CONG., 2D SESS. 1902-1903, PP. 465 AND 411, 469 AND 449, 473
AND 431, 477 AND 417, 481, 581, 949, 953, 987 AND 999. 

FN8  SEE E.G. SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 731, (1914);
RESTRICTIONS ON APPROPRIATIONS, 38 STAT. 53(1913); 44 STAT.
1194(1927). 

FOR DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL HISTORY SEE FRANKFURTER AND
GREENE, THE LABOR INJUNCTION (1930), PP. 139-144. 

FN9  CF. COMMENT ON THE LABOR ANTI-TRUST CASES IN A.L.A. SCHECHTER
POULTRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 548:  "  ...  THESE
DECISIONS RELATED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE AND NOT
TO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY,  ...  " AND IN LABOR BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN CO., 301 U.S. 1, 40, IN DISCUSSING THE FIRST CORONADO CASE IT
WAS SAID "THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE ACTIVITIES THERE INVOLVED
- A LOCAL STRIKE - BROUGHT THEM WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST
ACT.  ..." 

FN10  SEE DEBATES, 21 CONG. REC. 2460, 3148; 2 HOAR, AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF
SEVENTY YEARS 364; SENATOR EDMUNDS, THE INTERSTATE TRUST AND COMMERCE
ACT OF 1890, 194 NO. AM. REV. 801, 813, "AFTER MOST CAREFUL AND EARNEST
CONSIDERATION BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE IT WAS AGREED BY
EVERY MEMBER THAT IT WAS QUITE IMPRACTICABLE TO INCLUDE BY SPECIFIC
DESCRIPTION ALL THE ACTS WHICH SHOULD COME WITHIN THE MEANING AND
PURPOSE OF THE WORDS 'TRADE' AND 'COMMERCE' OR 'TRUST,' OR THE WORDS
'RESTRAINT' OR 'MONOPOLIZE,' BY PRECISE AND ALLINCLUSIVE DEFINITIONS;
AND THAT THESE WERE TRULY MATTERS FOR JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION." 

SEE ALSO SENATOR HOAR WHO WITH SENATOR EDMUNDS PROBABLY DRAFTED THE
BILL (SEE A.H. WALKER, HISTORY OF THE SHERMAN LAW (1910), P. 27-28) IN
36 CONG. REC. 522, JAN. 6, 1903:  "WE UNDERTOOK BY LAW TO CLOTHE THE
COURTS WITH THE POWER AND IMPOSE ON THEM AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
THE DUTY OF PREVENTING ALL COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  IT WAS
BELIEVED THAT THE PHRASE, 'IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE,' HAD A TECHNICAL AND
WELL-UNDERSTOOD MEANING IN THE LAW." 

FN11  SEE THE BIBLIOGRAPHY ON TRUSTS (1913) PREPARED BY THE LIBRARY
OF CONGRESS.  CF. HOMAN, "INDUSTRIAL COMBINATION AS SURVEYED IN RECENT
LITERATURE," 44 QUART.  J. ECON., 345(1930).  WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS THE
ARTICLES, SCIENTIFIC AND POPULAR, REFLECTED THE POPULAR IDEA THAT THE
ACT WAS AIMED AT THE PREVENTION OF MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES AND
RESTRAINTS UPON TRADE INJURIOUS TO PURCHASERS AND CONSUMERS OF GOODS
AND SERVICES BY PRESERVATION OF BUSINESS COMPETITION.  SEE E.G. SEAGER
AND GULICK, TRUSTS AND CORPORATION PROBLEMS (1929), 367 ET SEQ., 42
ANN. AM. ACAD., INDUSTRIAL COMPETITION AND COMBINATION (JULY, 1912);
P.L. ANDERSON, COMBINATION V. COMPETITION, 4 EDIT.  REV.  500(1911);
GILBERT HOLLAND MONTAGUE, TRUST REGULATION TODAY, 105 ATL. MONTHLY,
1(1910); FEDERAL REGULATION OF INDUSTRY, 32 ANN. AM. ACAD.  OF POL. 
SCI., NO. 108(1908) PASSIM; CLARK, FEDERAL TRUST POLICY (1931), CH. II,
V; HOMAN, TRUSTS, 15 ENCY.  SOC.  SCIENCES 111, 113, "CLEARLY THE LAW
WAS INSPIRED BY THE PREDATORY COMPETITIVE TACTICS OF THE GREAT TRUSTS
AND ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM
IN INDUSTRY."  SEE ALSO, SHULMAN, LABOR AND THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, 34
ILL. L. REV. 769; BOUDIN, THE SHERMAN LAW AND LABOR DISPUTES, 39 COL.
L. REV. 1283; 40 COL. L. REV. 14. 

FN12 THERE WAS NO LACK OF EXISTING LAW TO PROTECT AGAINST EVILS
ASCRIBED TO ORGANIZED LABOR.  LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL ACTION OF BOTH A
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL NATURE ALREADY RESTRAINED CONCERTED ACTION BY
LABOR.  SEE E.G. THE KINDS OF STRIKES WHICH WERE DECLARED ILLEGAL IN
PENNSYLVANIA, INCLUDING A STRIKE ACCOMPANIED BY FORCE OR THREAT OF HARM
TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY, BRIGHTLY'S PURDON'S DIGEST OF 1885, PP. 426,
1172. 

FOR COLLECTION OF STATE STATUTES ON LABOR ACTIVITIES, SEE REPORT OF
THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, LABOR LAWS OF THE VARIOUS STATES (1892);
BULL.  370, LABOR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH DECISIONS RELATING
THERETO, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS (1925); WITTE, THE
GOVERNMENT IN LABOR DISPUTES (1932), 12-45, 61-81. 

FN13  THREE STATUTES COVERED IN 1890 THE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IN
RELATION TO OBSTRUCTIONS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  A PENALTY WAS IMPOSED
FOR THE REFUSAL TO TRANSMIT A TELEGRAPH MESSAGE (R.S. SEC. 5269, 17
STAT. 366(1872)), FOR TRANSPORTING NITROGLYCERINE AND OTHER EXPLOSIVES
WITHOUT PROPER SAFEGUARDS (R.S. SEC. 5353, 14 STAT. 81(1866)) AND FOR
COMBINING TO PREVENT THE CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OF FREIGHT, 24 STAT. 382,
49 U.S.C. SEC. 7. 

FN14  SEE E.G. REGULATION OF:  INTERSTATE CARRIAGE OF LOTTERY
TICKETS, 28 STAT. 963(1895), 18 U.S.C. SEC. 387; TRANSPORTATION OF
OBSCENE BOOKS, 29 STAT. 512(1897), 18 U.S.C. SEC. 396; TRANSPORTATION
OF ILLEGALLY KILLED GAME, 31 STAT. 188(1900), 18 U.S.C. SECS. 392-395;
INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS, 35 STAT. 1136(1909), 18
U.S.C. SECS. 388-390; WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC, 36 STAT. 825(1910), 18
U.S.C. SECS. 397-404; TRANSPORTATION OF PRIZE-FIGHT FILMS, 37 STAT.
240(1912), 18 U.S.C. SECS. 405-407; LARCENY OF GOODS MOVING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 37 STAT. 670(1913), 18 U.S.C. SEC. 409; VIOLENT
INTERFERENCE WITH FOREIGN COMMERCE, 40 STAT. 221(1917), 18 U.S.C. SEC.
381; TRANSPORTATION OF STOLEN MOTOR VEHICLES, 41 STAT. 324(1919), 18
U.S.C. SEC. 408; TRANSPORTATION OF KIDNAPPED PERSONS, 47 STAT.
326(1932), 18 U.S.C. SEC. 408A-408C; THREATENING COMMUNICATION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 48 STAT. 781(1934), 18 U.S.C. SEC. 408D;
TRANSPORTATION OF STOLEN OR FELONIOUSLY TAKEN GOODS, SECURITIES OR
MONEY, 48 STAT. 794(1934), 18 U.S.C. SEC. 415; TRANSPORTING
STRIKEBREAKERS, 49 STAT. 1899(1936), 18 U.S.C. SEC. 407A; DESTRUCTION
OR DUMPING OF FARM PRODUCTS RECEIVED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 44 STAT.
1355(1927), 7 U.S.C. SEC. 491.  CF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49
STAT. 449(1935), 29 U.S.C., CH. 7, SEC. 151, "FINDINGS AND DECLARATION
OF POLICY.  THE DENIAL BY EMPLOYERS OF THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO
ORGANIZE AND THE REFUSAL BY EMPLOYERS TO ACCEPT THE PROCEDURE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEAD TO STRIKES AND OTHER FORMS OF INDUSTRIAL
STRIFE AND UNREST, WHICH HAVE THE INTENT OR NECESSARY EFFECT OF
BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE.  ...  " 

THE ANTI-RACKETEERING ACT, 48 STAT. 979, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 420A-E (1934),
IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT TRADE AND COMMERCE AGAINST INTERFERENCE BY
VIOLENCE AND THREATS.  SEC. 420A PROVIDES THAT "ANY PERSON WHO, IN
CONNECTION WITH OR IN RELATION TO ANY ACT IN ANY WAY OR IN ANY DEGREE
AFFECTING TRADE OR COMMERCE OR ANY ARTICLE OR COMMODITY MOVING OR ABOUT
TO MOVE IN TRADE OR COMMERCE - 

"(A)  OBTAINS OR ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN, BY THE USE OF OR ATTEMPT TO USE
OR THREAT TO USE FORCE, VIOLENCE, OR COERCION, THE PAYMENT OF MONEY OR
OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS  ...  NOT INCLUDING, HOWEVER, THE PAYMENT
OF WAGES BY A BONA FIDE EMPLOYER TO A BONA FIDE EMPLOYEE; OR 

"(B)  OBTAINS THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER, WITH HIS CONSENT, INDUCED BY
WRONGFUL USE OF FORCE OR FEAR, OR UNDER COLOR OF OFFICIAL RIGHT, OR 

"(C)  COMMITS OR THREATENS TO COMMIT AN ACT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE OR
PHYSICAL INJURY TO A PERSON OR PROPERTY IN FURTHERANCE OF A PLAN OR
PURPOSE TO VIOLATE SUBSECTION (A) OR (B); 

"(D)  CONSPIRES OR ACTS CONCERTEDLY WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS
TO COMMIT ANY OF THE FOREGOING ACTS, SHALL, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE
GUILTY OF A FELONY AND SHALL BE PUNISHED BY IMPRISONMENT FROM ONE TO
TEN YEARS OR BY FINE OF $10,000 OR BOTH."    BUT THE APPLICATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 420A TO LABOR UNIONS IS RESTRICTED BY SEC. 420D,
WHICH PROVIDES:  "JURISDICTION OF OFFENSES.  ANY PERSON CHARGED WITH
VIOLATING SECTION 420A OF THIS TITLE MAY BE PROSECUTED IN ANY DISTRICT
IN WHICH ANY PART OF THE OFFENSE HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY HIM OR BY HIS
ACTUAL ASSOCIATES PARTICIPATING WITH HIM IN THE OFFENSE OR BY HIS
FELLOW CONSPIRATORS:  PROVIDED, THAT NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
SHALL CONSTRUE OR APPLY ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 420A TO 420E
OF THIS TITLE IN SUCH MANNER AS TO IMPAIR, DIMINISH, OR IN ANY MANNER
AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF BONA FIDE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN LAWFULLY CARRYING
OUT THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTS THEREOF, AS SUCH RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSED IN
EXISTING STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES." 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT CHAPTER 9 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, DEALING WITH
"OFFENSES AGAINST FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE," AND RELATING
SPECIFICALLY TO ACTS OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR ITS OBSTRUCTION,
MAKES NO MENTION OF THE SHERMAN ACT, WHICH IS MADE A PART OF THE CODE
WHICH DEALS WITH SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL RESULTS OF INTERSTATE
ACTIVITY, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS CRIMINAL PENALTY. 

FN15  THE HISTORY OF THE SHERMAN ACT AS CONTAINED IN THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCEEDINGS IS EMPHATIC IN ITS SUPPORT FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT
"BUSINESS COMPETITION" WAS THE PROBLEM CONSIDERED AND THAT THE ACT WAS
DESIGNED TO PREVENT RESTRAINTS OF TRADE WHICH HAD A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON SUCH COMPETITION. 

ON JULY 10, 1888, THE SENATE ADOPTED WITHOUT DISCUSSION A RESOLUTION
OFFERED BY SENATOR SHERMAN WHICH DIRECTED THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE TO
INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH REVENUE BILLS, "SUCH
MEASURES AS IT MAY DEEM EXPEDIENT TO SET ASIDE, CONTROL, RESTRAIN, OR
PROHIBIT ALL ARRANGEMENTS, CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, TRUSTS, OR
COMBINATIONS BETWEEN PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS, MADE WITH A VIEW, OR
WHICH TEND TO PREVENT FREE AND FULL COMPETITION  ...  WITH SUCH
PENALTIES AND PROVISIONS  ...  AS WILL TEND TO PRESERVE FREEDOM OF
TRADE AND PRODUCTION, THE NATURAL COMPETITION OF INCREASING PRODUCTION,
THE LOWERING OF PRICES BY SUCH COMPETITION  ...  " (19 CONG. REC.
6041.) 

THIS RESOLUTION EXPLICITLY PRESENTED THE ECONOMIC THEORY OF THE
PROPONENTS OF SUCH LEGISLATION.  THE VARIOUS BILLS INTRODUCED BETWEEN
1888 AND 1890 FOLLOW THE THEORY OF THIS RESOLUTION.  MANY BILLS SOUGHT
TO MAKE VOID ALL ARRANGEMENTS "MADE WITH A VIEW, OR WHICH TEND, TO
PREVENT FULL AND FREE COMPETITION IN THE PRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, OR
SALE OF ARTICLES OF DOMESTIC GROWTH OR PRODUCTION," S. 3445; S. 3510;
H.R. 11339, ALL OF THE 50TH CONG., 1ST SESS. (1888) WERE BILLS OF THIS
TYPE.  IN THE 51ST CONG. (1889) THE BILLS WERE IN A SIMILAR VEIN.  SEE
S. 1, SEC. 1(THIS BILL AS REDRAFTED BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
ULTIMATELY BECAME THE SHERMAN LAW); H.R. 202, SEC. 3; H.R. 270; H.R.
286; H.R. 402; H.R. 509; H.R. 826; H.R. 3819.  SEE BILLS AND DEBATES IN
CONGRESS RELATING TO TRUSTS (1909), VOL. 1, PP. 1025-1031. 

ONLY ONE, WHICH WAS NEVER ENACTED, S. 1268 IN THE 52D CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1892), INTRODUCED BY SENATOR PEFFER, SOUGHT TO PROHIBIT "EVERY WILFUL
ACT  ...  WHICH SHALL HAVE THE EFFECT TO IN ANYWAY INTERFERE WITH THE
FREEDOM OF TRANSIT OF ARTICLES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,  ...  " 

WHEN THE ANTITRUST BILL (S. 1, 51ST CONG., 1ST SESS.), CAME BEFORE
CONGRESS FOR DEBATE, THE DEBATES POINT TO A SIMILAR PURPOSE.  SENATOR
SHERMAN ASSERTED THE BILL PREVENTED ONLY "BUSINESS COMBINATIONS" "MADE
WITH A VIEW TO PREVENT COMPETITION," 21 CONG. REC. 2457, 2562; SEE ALSO
IBID. AT 2459, 2461. 

SENATOR ALLISON SPOKE OF COMBINATIONS WHICH "CONTROL PRICES," IBID.
2471; SENATOR PUGH OF COMBINATIONS "TO LIMIT PRODUCTION" FOR "THE
PURPOSE OF DESTROYING COMPETITION," IBID. 2558; SENATOR MORGAN OF
COMBINATIONS "THAT AFFECT THE PRICE OF COMMODITIES," IBID. 2609;
SENATOR PLATT, A CRITIC OF THE BILL, SAID THIS BILL PROCEEDS ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT "COMPETITION IS BENEFICENT TO THE COUNTRY," IBID. 2729;
SENATOR GEORGE DENOUNCED TRUSTS WHICH CRUSH OUT COMPETITION "AND THAT
IS THE GREAT EVIL AT WHICH ALL THIS LEGISLATION OUGHT TO BE DIRECTED,"
IBID. 3147. 

IN THE HOUSE, REPRESENTATIVE CULBERSON, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE
BILL, INTERPRETED THE BILL TO PROHIBIT VARIOUS ARRANGEMENTS WHICH TEND
TO DRIVE OUT COMPETITION, IBID. 4089; REPRESENTATIVE WILSON SPOKE IN
FAVOR OF THE BILL AGAINST COMBINATIONS AMONG "COMPETING PRODUCERS TO
CONTROL THE SUPPLY OF THEIR PRODUCT, IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY DICTATE THE
TERMS ON WHICH THEY SHALL SELL IN THE MARKET, AND MAY SECURE RELEASE
FROM THE STRESS OF COMPETITION AMONG THEMSELVES," IBID. 4090. 

THE UNANIMITY WITH WHICH FOES AND SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL SPOKE OF ITS
AIMS AS THE PROTECTION OF FREE COMPETITION, PERMIT USE OF THE DEBATES
IN INTERPRETING THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT.  SEE WHITE, C.J., IN STANDARD
OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 50; UNITED STATES V. SAN
FRANCISCO, ANTE, P. 16. 

SEE ALSO REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON CONTROL OF
CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, S. REPT. 1326, 62D CONG.,
3D SESS. (1913), PP. 2, 4; REPORT OF FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, S. DOC.
226, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS. (1929), PP. 343-345. 

FN16  WHILE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSIDER ALL THE ANTI-TRUST CASES IN
THIS COURT WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACTS CONDEMNED OR
CONDONED HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON COMPETITION IN THE INDUSTRY,
NEVERTHELESS IN MOST OF THEM, PARTICULARLY IN THE CASES ARISING SINCE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE "RULE OF REASON" IN 1912, EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON
THE "COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY." 

IN ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211, ARISING
BEFORE THE "RULE OF REASON," JUSTICE PECKHAM ADOPTED JUDGE TAFT'S
STATEMENT OF THE CASE IN HIS OPINION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
POINTING OUT THAT WITHIN SUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES, PRICE
COMPETITION HAD BEEN PRACTICALLY ELIMINATED (SEE PAGE 236).  STANDARD
OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, WHICH HERALDED THE "RULE OF
REASON" STRESSED INTENT TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION AND THE PREDATORY
PRACTICES BY WHICH COMPETITION HAD ACTUALLY BEEN ELIMINATED.  UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, DECIDED THE SAME DAY,
INVOLVED A TRUST WHICH DOMINATED THE WHOLE INDUSTRY AND EXERCISED ITS
POWER IN SECURING PRICE CONTROL.  IN BOTH THE OIL CASE AND THE TOBACCO
CASE, DECISIONS WERE SPECIFICALLY RESTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE
CONDEMNED COMBINATIONS "UNDULY RESTRICTED COMPETITION." 

A COMBINATION OF TWO GREAT RAILROADS RESULTING IN "DESTROYING OR
GREATLY ABRIDGING THE FREE OPERATION OF COMPETITION THERETOFORE
EXISTING" WAS ENJOINED IN UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC CO., 226 U.S.
61.  BUT WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT THE
EVIDENCE DID NOT SHOW THAT THE COMBINATION "EVER POSSESSED OR EXERTED
SUFFICIENT POWER WHEN ACTING ALONE TO CONTROL PRICES OF THE PRODUCTS OF
THE INDUSTRY," THE SHERMAN ACT WAS HELD NOT TO APPLY TO THE
COMBINATION, UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417. 
ON FINDING SUCH A POWER TO CONTROL THE OUTPUT, SUPPLY OF THE MARKET AND
THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF POTENTIAL COMPETITORS, IN THE
ANTHRACITE COAL MARKET, THE ARRANGEMENT WAS HELD VOID IN UNITED STATES
V. READING CO., 253 U.S. 26, 47-48. 

THE BELIEF THAT "COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS IN THE TRADE IN HARVESTING
MACHINES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED," COMPELLED THE COURT TO FIND COMPLIANCE
WITH AN EARLIER CONSENT DECREE IN UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO., 274 U.S. 693, 704. 

"IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY THIS COURT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTE IS TO MAINTAIN FREE COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE  ...  "
AMERICAN COLUMN & LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 377, 400;
UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 226 U.S. 61, 87; UNITED STATES
V. READING CO., 226 U.S. 324, 369; EASTERN STATES LUMBER DEALERS' ASSN.
V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600, 609; UNITED STATES V. TRENTON
POTTERIES, 273 U.S. 392, 397; APPALACHIAN COALS V. UNITED STATES, 288
U.S. 344, 360. 

FOR A COMPLETE COLLECTION OF CASES, SEE HANDLER, INDUSTRIAL MERGERS
AND THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS, 32 COLUMBIA LAW REV. 179; HANDLER, THE SUGAR
INSTITUTE CASE, 36 COLUMBIA LAW REV. 1; THE RULE OF REASON IN LOOSE
KNIT COMBINATIONS, 32 COLUMBIA LAW REV. 291. 

FN17  IN HIS EXPLANATION OF THE BILL SENATOR SHERMAN REFERRED TO
SEVERAL COMMON LAW CASES ON RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  21 CONG. REC. 2457
2460. 

FN18  UNITED STATES V. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO., 85 F. 271.  SEE
CASES COLLECTED IN HANDLER, CASES ON TRADE REGULATIONS (1937), CC. III,
IV; HANDLER, RESTRAINT OF TRADE, 13 ENCY.  SOC.  SCIENCES, 339. 

FN19  SEE CASES DISCUSSED IN NOTE 15, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO, UNITED STATES
V. FREIGHT ASSOCIATION, 166 U.S. 290; UNITED STATES V. JOINT TRAFFIC
ASSN., 171 U.S. 505; MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38; NORTHERN
SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197, 361; NASH V. UNITED
STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 376; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246
U.S. 231, 238; MAPLE FLOORING ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563,
583, 584. 

FN20  "WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL AND BUT VERY BRIEFLY SURVEYING THE
WHOLE FIELD, IT MAY BE WITH ACCURACY SAID THAT THE DREAD OF ENHANCEMENT
OF PRICES AND OF OTHER WRONGS WHICH IT WAS THOUGHT WOULD FLOW FROM THE
UNDUE LIMITATION ON COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS CAUSED BY CONTRACTS OR OTHER
ACTS OF INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATIONS, LED, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY,
TO THE PROHIBITION OR TREATING AS ILLEGAL ALL CONTRACTS OR ACTS WHICH
WERE UNREASONABLY RESTRICTIVE OF COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, EITHER FROM
THE NATURE OR CHARACTER OF THE CONTRACT OR ACT OR WHERE THE SURROUNDING
CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY HAD NOT
BEEN ENTERED INTO OR PERFORMED WITH THE LEGITIMATE PURPOSE OF
REASONABLY FORWARDING PERSONAL INTEREST AND DEVELOPING TRADE, BUT ON
THE CONTRARY WERE OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS TO GIVE RISE TO THE INFERENCE
OR PRESUMPTION THAT THEY HAD BEEN ENTERED INTO OR DONE WITH THE INTENT
TO DO WRONG TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND TO LIMIT THE RIGHT OF
INDIVIDUALS, THUS RESTRAINING THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE AND TENDING TO
BRING ABOUT THE EVILS, SUCH AS ENHANCEMENT OF PRICES, WHICH WERE
CONSIDERED TO BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY."  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 221 U.S. 1, AT 58. 

FN21  SEE E.G. ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436;
UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., ANTE, P. 150, ESPECIALLY NOTE
59 AND CASES CITED. 

FN22  "  ...  'ONLY SUCH CONTRACTS AND COMBINATIONS ARE WITHIN THE
ACT AS, BY REASON OF INTENT OR THE INHERENT NATURE OF THE CONTEMPLATED
ACTS, PREJUDICE THE PUBLIC INTERESTS BY UNDULY RESTRICTING COMPETITION
OR UNDULY OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF TRADE.'"  APPALACHIAN COALS V.
UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344, 360. 

FN23  COMBINATIONS OF CAPITAL AND LABOR HAVE SELDOM BEEN TREATED AS
PHASES OF A GENERAL MOVEMENT TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION.  SEE TAFT, ANTI
TRUST ACT AND THE SUPREME COURT (1914), P. 21; SEAGER, THE ATTITUDE OF
THE STATE TOWARDS TRADE UNIONS AND TRUSTS, 22 POL.  SCI.  Q. 385(1907);
COMMONS AND ANDREWS, PRINCIPLES OF LABOR LEGISLATION (1927), PP. 125
129. 

IN ENGLAND PRIOR TO 1824 THE TWO TYPES OF COMBINATIONS WERE TREATED
AS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, THE COMBINATIONS ACTS (39 GEO. III, C. 81;
39 & 40 GEO. III, C. 106), PREVENTING COMBINATIONS OF WAGE EARNERS EVEN
FOR THE MORE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF SECURING HIGHER WAGES OR SHORTER
HOURS.  THESE RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY VARIOUS ACTS (E.G. 5
GEO. IV, C. 95, S. 2; 22 VICT., C. 34; 34 & 35 VICT., C. 31, S.C.; 38 &
39 VICT.  36) UNTIL THE TRADE DISPUTES ACT OF 1906(6 EDW.  VII, C. 47)
WHICH CLEARLY ENCOURAGES THE COMBINATIONS OF WORKMEN.  SEE HENDERSON,
TRADE UNIONS AND THE LAW (1927).  COMPARE THE ENGLISH TREATMENT OF
CAPITAL COMBINATIONS, SEE, THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS OF THE BRITISH
COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS, 32 COL. L. REV. 324. 

THE EXPERIENCE IN THE UNITED STATES HAS PARALLELED THAT IN ENGLAND. 
IN A FEW EARLY CASES ALL LABOR COMBINATIONS WERE REGARDED AS UNLAWFUL,
GROAT, ATTITUDE OF AMERICAN COURTS IN LABOR CASES, 42 COL. UNIV. 
STUDIES (1911), PP. 36-38, BUT SINCE COMMONWEALTH V. HUNT, 4 METCALF
111(MASS.  1842), THE LEGITIMATE SCOPE OF LABOR COMBINATIONS HAS
STEADILY EXPANDED, SEE FRANKFURTER AND GREENE, THE LABOR INJUNCTION
(1930), C. I; LANDIS, CASES ON LABOR LAW (1934), PP. 32-34.  IN
ADDITION TO THIS DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT REFLECTED IN JUDICIAL
DECISIONS, MANY STATES HAVE BY LEGISLATION ACCORDED FAVORABLE TREATMENT
TO UNIONS ON OTHER MATTERS.  SEE COLLECTION OF LEGISLATION FAVORABLE TO
UNIONISM FOUND IN UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S.
344, 386, NOTE 1; BULL.  NO. 370, LABOR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1925);
WITTE, THE GOVERNMENT AND LABOR DISPUTES (1932), 17 ET SEQ. 

FN24  FEDERAL LEGISLATION AIMED AT PROTECTING AND FAVORING LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS AND ELIMINATING THE COMPETITION OF EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES BASED ON LABOR CONDITIONS REGARDED AS SUBSTANDARD, THROUGH
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRY-WIDE STANDARDS BOTH BY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND BY LEGISLATION SETTING UP MINIMUM WAGE AND HOUR
STANDARDS, SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT REGARD THE
EFFECTS UPON COMPETITION FROM SUCH COMBINATIONS AND STANDARDS AS
AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY OR CONDEMNED BY THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 101-115,
LIMITING THE USE OF INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR DISPUTES, IS PREDICATED ON THE
POLICY THAT "UNDER PREVAILING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS," IT IS NECESSARY
THAT THE WORKER "HAVE FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION  ...  TO NEGOTIATE
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT."  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF
1934, 48 STAT. 1185, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 151-164, PROVIDED FOR INDEPENDENCE
OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES IN THE MATTER OF SELF-ORGANIZATION.  THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 151-166, WAS PASSED
TO PROTECT THE WORKERS IN THE "EXERCISE OF FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION,
SELF-ORGANIZATION, AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT  ...  " AND EXPRESSLY PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF SELF
ORGANIZATION, RECOGNIZES THE STRIKE AS A PROPER UNION WEAPON AND
PERMITS CLOSED-SHOP CONTRACTS.    THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT, 49 STAT.
2036, 41 U.S.C. SECS. 35-48, WAS AIMED AT PREVENTING PRICE COMPETITION
IN GOVERNMENT BIDDING BASED ON WAGE CUTTING AND AUTHORIZES THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM WAGE STANDARDS.  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1060, 29 U.S.C. SECS. 201-219, LIKEWISE SEEKS TO
ELIMINATE COMPETITION WHICH THRIVED UPON LOW WAGES AND SUBSTANDARD
WORKING CONDITIONS. 

THIS SERIES OF ACTS CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THAT COMBINATIONS OF WORKERS
ELIMINATING COMPETITION AMONG THEMSELVES AND RESTRICTING COMPETITION
AMONG THEIR EMPLOYERS BASED ON WAGE CUTTING ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE
PUBLIC POLICY. 

FN25 WHETHER THE INTEREST OF THE LABOR UNIONS IN THESE CASES IN
MAINTAINING AND EXTENDING THEIR RESPECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS, RENDERED THE
RESTRAINT REASONABLE AS A MEANS OF ATTAINING THAT END WITHIN THE COMMON
LAW RULE, OR BROUGHT THE RESTRAINTS WITHIN THE RULE OF REASON DEVELOPED
AND ANNOUNCED IN THE STANDARD OIL CASE, WAS NOT DISCUSSED AND WE NEED
NOT CONSIDER IT HERE.  RESTRAINTS UPON THE COMPETITIVE MARKETING OF A
MANUFACTURER'S PRODUCT BROUGHT ABOUT BY AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO SECURE CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT OF
THE EMPLOYEES WAS HELD TO BE WITHIN THE RULE OF REASON AND THEREFORE
NOT AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
WINDOW GLASS MFRS.  V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 403. 

FN26  SECTION 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT DECLARED THAT "NOTHING CONTAINED
IN THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS SHALL BE CONSTRUED  ...  TO FORBID OR RESTRAIN
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS FROM LAWFULLY CARRYING OUT THE
LEGITIMATE OBJECTS THEREOF; NOR SHALL SUCH ORGANIZATIONS, OR THE
MEMBERS THEREOF, BE HELD OR CONSTRUED TO BE ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR
CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS."  AND
SEC. 20 OF THE CLAYTON ACT PROVIDED, "NO RESTRAINING ORDER OR
INJUNCTION SHALL BE GRANTED BY ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR A
JUDGE OR THE JUDGES THEREOF, IN ANY CASE BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEES, OR BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES  ...  INVOLVING, OR
GROWING OUT OF, A DISPUTE CONCERNING TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,
UNLESS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY TO PROPERTY, OR TO A
PROPERTY RIGHT.  ... 

"AND NO SUCH RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION SHALL PROHIBIT ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS, WHETHER SINGLY OR IN CONCERT, FROM TERMINATING ANY
RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT OR FROM CEASING TO PERFORM ANY WORK OR LABOR, OR
FROM RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING OTHERS BY PEACEFUL MEANS SO
TO DO; ...  OR FROM CEASING TO PATRONIZE OR TO EMPLOY ANY PARTY TO SUCH
DISPUTE, OR FROM RECOMMENDING, ADVISING, OR PERSUADING OTHERS BY
PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS SO TO DO; ...  NOR SHALL ANY OF THE ACTS
SPECIFIED IN THIS PARAGRAPH BE CONSIDERED OR HELD TO BE VIOLATIONS OF
ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES." 

IN BOTH THE DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. AND THE BEDFORD STONE CUTTERS
CASES, IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT
DID NOT EXTEND TO ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE, WHICH THE CONCERTED ACTION TAKEN BY THE LABOR UNIONS IN THESE
CASES WAS HELD TO BE, AND THAT THE RESTRICTIONS OF SEC. 20 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT UPON THE INJUNCTION APPLIED ONLY TO ACTUAL DISPUTES BETWEEN
AN EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYEES, WITH RESPECT TO THE TERMS OR CONDITIONS
OF THEIR OWN EMPLOYMENT, AND DID NOT EXTEND TO ACTS OF LABOR UNIONS,
BOYCOTTING THE PRODUCT OF AN EMPLOYER BY WHOM THEY WERE NOT EMPLOYED. 
CF. NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. SANITARY GROCERY CO., 303 U.S. 552. 

FN27  THE ASSERTION THAT THE DECISION IN THE FIRST CORONADO CASE
RESTS ON THE GROUND THAT "PRODUCTION, AS SUCH - IN THAT CASE, COAL
MINING - WAS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE" IS NEITHER SUPPORTED BY THE
OPINION IN THAT CASE NOR BY ITS SUBSEQUENT INTERPRETATION BY THIS
COURT.  SEE SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495,
548; LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CO., 301 U.S. 1, 40.  SEE NOTE 9,
SUPRA.  CF. SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, ANTE, P. 381.  THE
OPINION RECOGNIZED THAT THE CESSATION OF PRODUCTION OF THE COAL
PREVENTED INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE COAL BUT HELD THAT IT DID NOT
VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE THE EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE WAS
"INDIRECT," TO WHICH IT WAS THOUGHT THE SHERMAN ACT DID NOT APPLY. 

FN28  IT IS SAID TO BE ANOMALOUS TO HOLD EMPLOYERS SUBJECT TO THE
LABOR ACT BECAUSE THEIR UNFAIR PRACTICES WOULD PREVENT THE SHIPMENT OF
THEIR GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND AT THE SAME TIME TO HOLD THE
ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES WHICH AMOUNT TO A "DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL
OBSTRUCTION" TO INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, NOT TO BE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF "RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE," UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  IF
ANY OTHER ANSWER THAN A COMPARISON OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND
OBJECTIVES OF THE TWO ACTS, AND OUR DECISIONS UNDER THEM, WERE NEEDED,
IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE SHERMAN ACT CANNOT BE SAID TO SUBJECT
EMPLOYEES TO A LIABILITY WHICH IT DOES NOT IMPOSE ON EMPLOYERS OR
OTHERS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, DISSENTING: 

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS WILL BEAR A BRIEF REPETITION, FOR UPON AN
APPRECIATION OF THEIR TRUE IMPORT HINGES THE APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN
ACT. 

AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID, THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSED A "SIT
DOWN STRIKE IN ITS MOST AGGRAVATED AND ILLEGAL FORM."  WHEN THE UNION
DEMANDED A CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT AND, ON ITS REFUSAL, DECLARED THE
STRIKE, ONLY EIGHT OF THE COMPANY'S TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES WERE
MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  THE COMPANY'S PLANT WAS SEIZED AND HELD FOR
SEVERAL WEEKS.  ITS MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT WERE "WANTONLY DEMOLISHED
OR DAMAGED TO THE EXTENT OF MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS." 

THERE WAS NOT MERELY A STOPPAGE OF PRODUCTION, BUT THERE WAS ALSO A
DELIBERATE PREVENTION OF THE SHIPMENT OF FINISHED GOODS TO CUSTOMERS
OUTSIDE THE STATE.  THIS WAS NOT SIMPLY THE RESULT OF THE OCCUPATION OF
THE PLANT BUT WAS DUE TO THE REPEATED AND EXPLICIT REFUSALS OF THE
UNION TO PERMIT THE SHIPMENT.  THESE GOODS AMOUNTED TO 134,000 DOZENS
OF FINISHED HOSIERY, OF THE VALUE OF ABOUT $800,000, OF WHICH 80 PER
CENT, AS RESPONDENTS WELL KNOW, WERE READY FOR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THE COMPANY'S REPRESENTATIVE THUS
BESOUGHT THE UNION'S PRESIDENT: "WE HAVE ORDERS ON HAND FROM CUSTOMERS
ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WHICH WE CAN FILL WITH MERCHANDISE WHICH WE HAVE
ON HAND AT THE PLANT.  WILL YOU PERMIT US TO GO INTO THE PLANT FOR THE
SOLE PURPOSE OF REMOVING THAT FINISHED MERCHANDISE SO THAT WE CAN SHIP
IT AGAINST ORDERS?"  THE UNION'S PRESIDENT EMPHATICALLY ANSWERED:  "NO,
NOT UNTIL THIS STRIKE IS SETTLED." 

THERE WAS THUS A DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL PREVENTION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN THE FURTHERANCE OF AN ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY.  THIS, I TAKE IT,
THE OPINION OF THE COURT CONCEDES.  WHATEVER VISTAS OF NEW
UNCERTAINTIES IN THE APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT THE PRESENT
DECISION MAY OPEN, IT SEEMS TO BE DEFINITELY DETERMINED THAT A
CONSPIRACY OF WORKERS, OR FOR THAT MATTER OF OTHERS, TO OBSTRUCT OR
PREVENT THE SHIPMENT OR DELIVERY OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO
FILL ORDERS OF THE CUSTOMERS OF A MANUFACTURER OR DEALER IS NOT A
VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  WITH THAT CONCLUSION I CANNOT AGREE. 

THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN PRESSED IN THIS CASE, AND IN OTHER RECENT
CASES, THAT THE SHERMAN ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO LABOR UNIONS.  THE COURT
FINDS THAT ARGUMENT UNTENABLE, REFERRING TO OUR DECISIONS TO THE
CONTRARY AND TO THE FAILURE OF REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO PERSUADE CONGRESS
TO EXCLUDE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT. 
RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT FOR IMMUNITY UNDER THE TERMS OF SECS. 6 AND 20 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT  FN1  HAS ALSO BEEN FOUND UNAVAILING.  SECTION 6
DECLARES THAT "THE LABOR OF A HUMAN BEING IS NOT A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE
OF COMMERCE" AND THAT NOTHING IN THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS SHALL BE CONSTRUED
TO FORBID THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATION OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INSTITUTED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF MUTUAL HELP, "OR TO FORBID OR RESTRAIN INDIVIDUAL
MEMBERS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS FROM LAWFULLY CARRYING OUT THE LEGITIMATE
OBJECTS THEREOF; NOR SHALL SUCH ORGANIZATIONS, OR THE MEMBERS THEREOF,
BE HELD OR CONSTRUED TO BE ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE, UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS."  THE REFERENCE IN THE
LAST CLAUSE TO "SUCH ORGANIZATIONS" HAS MANIFEST REFERENCE TO WHAT
PRECEDES, AND THE IMMUNITY CONFERRED IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE
"LAWFULLY CARRYING OUT" OF THEIR "LEGITIMATE OBJECTS."  SECTION 20
FORBIDS THE GRANTING OF INJUNCTIONS PROHIBITING PERSONS "SINGLY OR IN
CONCERT" FROM "TERMINATING ANY RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT," OR FROM
ENGAGING IN DESCRIBED ACTIVITIES OF PERSUASION, ETC., WHEN THESE ARE
"PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL"; OR "FROM PEACEABLY ASSEMBLING IN A LAWFUL
MANNER, AND FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES."  THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THESE
PROVISIONS IS APPARENT. 

BUT WHILE THE CLAYTON ACT DOES NOT GIVE THE IMMUNITY DESIRED BY
RESPONDENTS, AND LABOR UNIONS ARE FOUND BY THE COURT TO BE WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE SHERMAN ACT "TO SOME EXTENT AND IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES,"
THE ACT IS CONSTRUED AS NOT EMBRACING THE DIRECT AND DELIBERATE
INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT IS HERE DISCLOSED.  I THINK
THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IS TOO NARROW. 

"COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH
FOREIGN NATIONS."  "CONSPIRACY" IS A FAMILIAR TERM OF ART AND MEANS A
COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS BY CONCERTED ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH AN
UNLAWFUL PURPOSE, OR SOME PURPOSE NOT IN ITSELF UNLAWFUL BY UNLAWFUL
MEANS.  THERE WAS PLAINLY A CONSPIRACY HERE.  TO "RESTRAIN" IS TO HOLD
BACK, REPRESS, OBSTRUCT,  - TO HINDER FROM LIBERTY OF ACTION. 
MANIFESTLY THERE WAS RESTRAINT IN THIS CASE.  WHAT THEN IS THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM "COMMERCE" AS USED IN THE ACT?  ADOPTING THE
LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS EVIDENTLY USED THE TERM IN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  "COMMERCE" IS INTERCOURSE; IN ITS MOST LIMITED
MEANING IT EMBRACES TRAFFIC.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 189. 
"COMMERCE" MANIFESTLY COVERS THE SHIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION OF
COMMODITIES ACROSS STATE LINES TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS OF SALE.  THE TERM
"COMMERCE," WE SAID IN SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1,
46, "EMBRACES COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE IN ALL ITS BRANCHES, INCLUDING
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS AND PROPERTY BY COMMON CARRIERS WHETHER
CARRIED ON BY WATER OR BY LAND." 

AS THE INSTANT CASE FALLS DIRECTLY WITHIN THE LANGUAGE OF THE SHERMAN
ACT IN ITS NATURAL IMPORT, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT LANGUAGE HAS
BEEN, OR SHOULD BE, SO NARROWED BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION AS TO EXCLUDE
FROM ITS APPLICATION THE CONSPIRACY AND RESTRAINT HERE FOUND.  THE
SCOPE OF THIS QUESTION IS NOT ONLY LIMITED BY THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COURT THAT LABOR UNIONS ARE NOT EXCEPTED FROM THE ACT BUT ALSO BY THE
COURT'S REJECTION OF THE BASES OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW. 
THUS THE IMMEDIACY OF THE EFFECT OF RESPONDENTS' ACTION UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS ADMITTED, AND THE ARGUMENT THAT THE INTERDICTED SHIPMENTS
CONSTITUTED BUT A SMALL PART OF THE "TOTAL NATIONAL OUTPUT IN THE
INDUSTRY" IS DISMISSED AS IRRELEVANT.  THIS RULING NECESSARILY FOLLOWS
FROM THE REASONING OF OUR DECISIONS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT.  IN LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 606, WE SAID THAT "THE
EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT  ... HAS NEVER
BEEN THOUGHT TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRICTED BECAUSE IN ANY
PARTICULAR CASE THE VOLUME OF THE COMMERCE AFFECTED MAY BE SMALL." 
HERE, THE VOLUME AFFECTED WAS VERY SUBSTANTIAL ALTHOUGH IT WAS BUT A
SMALL PROPORTION OF THE ENTIRE TRAFFIC IN SIMILAR COMMODITIES.  AGAIN,
THE COURT REJECTS THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE EVIDENCE
DID NOT SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS INTENDED TO PREVENT THE
SHIPMENT OF THE GOODS.  THE CONTRARY, AS WE HAVE SEEN, WAS CLEARLY
SHOWN. 

NOR DOES THE "RULE OF REASON" AID RESPONDENTS.  FN3  THE TEST OF
REASONABLENESS UNDER THAT RULE IS THE EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT OR
COMBINATION, NOT THE MOTIVES WHICH INSPIRE IT.  LEADERS OF INDUSTRY
HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IN STRIKING FASHION THAT WHEN THE COURT FINDS THAT
THEY HAVE COMBINED TO IMPOSE A DIRECT RESTRAINT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THEIR BENEVOLENT PURPOSES TO PROMOTE THE INTEREST OF THE
INDUSTRY, OR TO RESCUE IT FROM A DISTRESSFUL CONDITION, WILL NOT SAVE
THEM EVEN FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
SEE UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., ANTE, P. 150.  IF LABOR
UNIONS ARE NOT EXCEPTED FROM THE ACT, AND THEY HAVE ACTED OUTSIDE THE
LEGITIMATE FIELD CONTEMPLATED BY THE CLAYTON ACT, THE IMPARTIAL
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW WOULD SEEM TO REQUIRE THAT THE SAME DOCTRINE BE
APPLIED TO THEM.  IN THAT VIEW, THE PURPOSE OF RESPONDENTS TO PROMOTE
THE INTERESTS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION CANNOT BE DEEMED TO JUSTIFY THE
DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL RESTRAINT THEY IMPOSED UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HOLD OTHERWISE. 
FROM NO POINT OF VIEW, AS IT SEEMS TO ME, CAN THE RESTRAINT BE REGARDED
AS REASONABLE. 

WHY THEN SHOULD THE SHERMAN ACT BE CONSTRUED TO BE INAPPLICABLE?  IT
IS SAID THAT THE ACT WAS NOT AIMED AT "POLICING" INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  BUT THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE A STATEMENT OF RESULT RATHER
THAN A JUSTIFICATION FOR REACHING IT.  IF "POLICING" MEANS THE
PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION FROM UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACIES TO
RESTRAIN IT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE SHERMAN ACT PROVIDES THAT
PROTECTION.  THE FACT THAT VARIOUS STATUTES HAVE BEEN PASSED BY
CONGRESS TO PREVENT THE TRANSPORTATION OF ARTICLES DEEMED TO BE
INJURIOUS DOES NOT INDICATE THE CONTRARY, FOR THESE ARE STATUTES
RESTRICTING THE RIGHT OF TRANSPORTATION IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC,
WHILE THE SHERMAN ACT IS AIMED AT SECURING THE FREEDOM OF
TRANSPORTATION IN LAWFUL COMMERCE.    THE QUESTION WHETHER A CONSPIRACY
TO PREVENT TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS WITHIN THE SHERMAN
ACT CAME BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURTS NOT LONG AFTER THE ACT WAS PASSED. 
IN UNITED STATES V. WORKINGMEN'S AMALGAMATED COUNCIL, 54 F. 994, IT
APPEARED THAT IN CONSEQUENCE OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAREHOUSEMEN
IN NEW ORLEANS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES AND THE PRINCIPAL DRAYMEN AND THEIR
SUBORDINATES, A STRIKE WAS CALLED BY LABOR ASSOCIATIONS WHICH ENFORCED
"A DISCONTINUANCE OF LABOR IN ALL KINDS OF BUSINESS, INCLUDING THE
BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AND MERCHANDISE WHICH WERE IN
TRANSIT THROUGH THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, FROM STATE TO STATE, AND TO
AND FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES."  BY THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THE DEFENDANTS'
ACTIONS, "NOT A BALE OF GOODS CONSTITUTING THE COMMERCE OF THE COUNTRY
COULD BE MOVED."  DISTRICT JUDGE BILLINGS, SITTING IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT, CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION "BUT THAT THE COMBINATION
OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS IN RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE" AND HENCE A VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  ID., PP. 999, 1000.  AN INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED AND
THE ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  57 F. 85. 

A SIMILAR VIEW WAS APPARENTLY ENTERTAINED BY CIRCUIT JUDGE TAFT AND
CIRCUIT JUDGE LURTON.  SEE THOMAS V. CINCINNATI, N.O. & T.P. RY. CO.,
62 F. 803, 821.  IT WAS NOTED IN THAT CASE THAT A CONSPIRACY TO PREVENT
TRANSPORTATION MIGHT RESULT IN THE PARALYSIS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
ID., P. 822. 

IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. DEBS, 64 F. 724, THE UNITED STATES
BROUGHT SUIT TO ENJOIN THOSE ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH
TRANSPORTATION UPON SEVERAL RAILROADS, AND AN INJUNCTION HAVING BEEN
ISSUED AND DISOBEYED, CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED.  THE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE
INJUNCTION.  CIRCUIT JUDGE WOODS FOUND THAT IT HAD AND BASED HIS
DECISION UPON THE SHERMAN ACT.  AFTER STATING THAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN
OF THE ACT TO SUPPRESS TRUSTS AND MONOPOLIES CREATED BY CONTRACT OR
COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST, WHICH WOULD BE OF A CONTRACTUAL
CHARACTER, WAS ADHERED TO, THE COURT THOUGHT IT EQUALLY CLEAR THAT "A
FURTHER AND MORE COMPREHENSIVE PURPOSE" CAME TO BE ENTERTAINED AND WAS
EMBODIED IN THE FINAL FORM OF THE ENACTMENT.  THE ACT EXTENDED TO
CONSPIRACIES IN THE SENSE OF THE LAW AND, CITING THE DECISIONS SHOWING
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SCOPE OF THE TERM "COMMERCE" AND ITS APPLICATION TO
TRANSPORTATION, THE COURT FOUND NO REASON FOR THINKING THAT THE TERM AS
USED IN THE SHERMAN ACT WAS "LESS COMPREHENSIVE."  ID., PP. 747-751. 

IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN THE DEBS CASE CAME TO THIS COURT ON A PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS, THE DECISION SUSTAINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES WAS PLACED
UPON THE GROUND THAT THE UNITED STATES, HAVING THE FULL ATTRIBUTES OF
SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS GRANTED POWERS, HAD AMONG THOSE
THE POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND OVER THE TRANSMISSION OF THE
MAILS AND WAS ENTITLED TO REMOVE EVERYTHING PUT UPON HIGHWAYS, NATURAL
OR ARTIFICIAL, TO OBSTRUCT THE PASSAGE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE
CARRYING OF THE MAILS.  158 U.S. 564.  BUT WHILE THE COURT CHOSE THAT
BROAD GROUND FOR SUSTAINING JURISDICTION, IT WAS CAREFUL NOT TO
INTIMATE DISAGREEMENT WITH THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  REFERRING TO THAT
DECISION, AND TO THE SHERMAN ACT, THE COURT SAID:  "WE ENTER INTO NO
EXAMINATION OF THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1890, C. 647, 26 STAT. 209, UPON
WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT RELIED MAINLY TO SUSTAIN ITS JURISDICTION.  IT
MUST NOT BE UNDERSTOOD FROM THIS THAT WE DISSENT FROM THE CONCLUSIONS
OF THAT COURT IN REFERENCE TO THE SCOPE OF THE ACT, BUT SIMPLY THAT WE
PREFER TO REST OUR JUDGMENT ON THE BROADER GROUND WHICH HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED IN THIS OPINION, BELIEVING IT OF IMPORTANCE THAT THE
PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING IT SHOULD BE FULLY STATED AND AFFIRMED."  ID., P.
600. 

IN LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274, IN HOLDING THAT THE SHERMAN ACT
APPLIED TO LABOR UNIONS, THE COURT CITED IN SUPPORT OF ITS REASONING
THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. WORKINGMEN'S AMALGAMATED COUNCIL, SUPRA,
QUOTING THE STATEMENT OF DISTRICT JUDGE BILLINGS IN DESCRIBING THE NEW
ORLEANS CONSPIRACY:  "ONE OF THE INTENDED RESULTS OF THEIR COMBINED
ACTION WAS THE FORCED STAGNATION OF ALL THE COMMERCE WHICH FLOWED
THROUGH NEW ORLEANS.  THIS INTENT AND COMBINED ACTION ARE NONE THE LESS
UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY INCLUDED IN THEIR SCOPE THE PARALYSIS OF ALL
OTHER BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY AS WELL."  THAT "FORCED STAGNATION" WAS
THE OBSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THE COURT IN THE LOEWE
CASE ALSO QUOTED IN FULL THE OBSERVATION IN THE DEBS CASE THAT THE
COURT SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS DISSENTING FROM THE CONCLUSIONS OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  AND THIS COURT,
STILL CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF THAT ACT TO LABOR UNIONS, THEN
QUOTED WHAT HAD BEEN SAID BY MR. JUSTICE BREWER IN THE DEBS CASE
(SUPRA, P. 581) WITH RESPECT TO OBSTRUCTIONS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS
FOLLOWS:  "IT IS CURIOUS TO NOTE THE FACT THAT IN A LARGE PROPORTION OF
THE CASES IN RESPECT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE BROUGHT TO THIS COURT THE
QUESTION PRESENTED WAS OF THE VALIDITY OF STATE LEGISLATION IN ITS
BEARINGS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE UNIFORM COURSE OF DECISION
HAS BEEN TO DECLARE THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF A STATE TO
LEGISLATE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IF A
STATE, WITH ITS RECOGNIZED POWERS OF SOVEREIGNTY, IS IMPOTENT TO
OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CAN IT BE THAT ANY MERE VOLUNTARY
ASSOCIATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THAT STATE HAS A POWER
WHICH THE STATE ITSELF DOES NOT POSSESS?"  LOEWE V. LAWLOR, SUPRA, PP.
303, 304. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS AND OF THE
SIGNIFICANT AND UNANIMOUS EXPRESSIONS BY THIS COURT, THE ARGUMENT SEEMS
TO BE UNTENABLE THAT THE SHERMAN ACT HAS BEEN REGARDED AS NOT EXTENDING
TO CONSPIRACIES TO OBSTRUCT OR PREVENT TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  ON THE CONTRARY, I THINK THAT HITHERTO IT HAS NOT
BEEN SUPPOSED THAT SUCH CONSPIRACIES LAY OUTSIDE THE ACT. 

WITH THIS BACKGROUND WE COME TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPLICATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE APPEAR TO
BE REQUIRED BY ITS COMPREHENSIVE TERMS, HAS BEEN PRECLUDED BY OUR
DECISIONS IN LABOR CASES.  THE VIEW IS ANNOUNCED THAT THE SHERMAN ACT
WAS NOT DIRECTED AT THOSE RESTRAINTS WHICH FALL SHORT OF ANY FORM OF
MARKET CONTROL OF A COMMODITY, SUCH AS TO MONOPOLIZE THE SUPPLY,
CONTROL ITS PRICE, OR DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN ITS WOULD-BE PURCHASERS. 
THAT IS, IN SHORT, THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL
OBSTRUCTION OR PREVENTION OF THE SHIPMENT OR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS TO
FILL THE ORDERS OF CUSTOMERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SUCH AS WE HAVE
HERE.  I DO NOT READ OUR DECISIONS AS EITHER REQUIRING OR JUSTIFYING
SUCH A JUDICIAL LIMITATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  RATHER, I
BELIEVE, THEY POINT TO A CONTRARY CONCLUSION. 

WHILE LOEWE V. LAWLOR, SUPRA, WAS THE CASE OF A BOYCOTT, THE
PRINCIPLE APPLIED WAS NOT LIMITED TO THAT SORT OF RESTRAINT BUT WAS AS
BROAD AS THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  THE COURT NOT ONLY DID NOT EXCLUDE
OBSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS FROM BEING REGARDED AS A VIOLATION
OF THE STATUTE BUT DREW UPON THE DECISIONS WHICH HAD INVOLVED SUCH
OBSTRUCTION TO SUPPORT ITS GENERAL CONCLUSION.  THE COURT CONSIDERED
THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN THE LOEWE CASE AS CONSTITUTING A DIRECT
RESTRAINT, BUT PLAINLY THOSE MEANS WERE NOT DEEMED TO BE EXCLUSIVE OF
OTHER MEANS INCLUDING THOSE WHICH HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN THE CASES WHICH
THE COURT CITED.  THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF OTHER BOYCOTT CASES.  SEE
DUPLEX PRINTING CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V.
JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS ASSN., 274 U.S. 37. 

IN GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 438, THE COURT,
REFERRING TO LOEWE V. LAWLOR, EMPHASIZED THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, SAYING: 

"IN LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274, THE STATUTE WAS HELD TO APPLY TO
ANY UNLAWFUL COMBINATION RESULTING IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IN THAT CASE THE DAMAGES SUED FOR WERE OCCASIONED BY ACTS
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, DID INCLUDE THE CIRCULATION OF
ADVERTISEMENTS.  BUT THE PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT WAS GENERAL. 
IT COVERED ANY ILLEGAL MEANS BY WHICH INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
RESTRAINED, WHETHER BY UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS OF CAPITAL, OR UNLAWFUL
COMBINATIONS OF LABOR; AND WE THINK ALSO WHETHER THE RESTRAINT BE
OCCASIONED BY UNLAWFUL CONTRACTS, TRUSTS, POOLING ARRANGEMENTS,
BLACKLISTS, BOYCOTTS, COERCION, THREATS, INTIMIDATION, AND WHETHER
THESE BE MADE EFFECTIVE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY ACTS, WORDS OR PRINTED
MATTER." 

MOREOVER, OF WHAT AVAIL IS IT TO INTERDICT BOYCOTTS OR TO ASSURE A
FREE MARKET, THAT IS, TO SECURE FREEDOM IN OBTAINING CUSTOMERS, AND YET
TO LEAVE UNPROTECTED THE RIGHT TO SHIP GOODS TO THE CUSTOMERS WHO ARE
THUS OBTAINED?  OF WHAT ADVANTAGE IS IT TO SOLICIT ORDERS FREELY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IF THEY CANNOT BE FILLED?  THE FREEDOM OF
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT - IMMUNITY FROM CONSPIRACIES DIRECTLY TO RESTRAIN
SHIPMENT AND DELIVERY - LIES AT THE VERY BASE OF A FREE MARKET AND THE
UNTRAMMELED MAKING OF SALES. 

THE FIRST CORONADO COMPANY CASE (259 U.S. 344), CHIEFLY RELIED UPON,
DOES NOT SEEM TO AFFORD AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE BROADER RULING NOW
MADE.  THAT DECISION WAS CENTERED UPON THE POINT THAT PRODUCTION, AS
SUCH,  - IN THAT CASE, COAL MINING,  - WAS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
THAT OBSTRUCTION TO COAL MINING THROUGH A STRIKE WAS NOT IN ITSELF A
DIRECT OBSTRUCTION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ID., PP. 407, 408.  AND IT
WAS DEEMED TO BE NECESSARY TO GO FURTHER AND FIND AN "INTENT TO INJURE,
OBSTRUCT OR RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" IN ORDER TO BRING THE CASE
WITHIN THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW
SUCH AN INTENT.  THUS, THE COURT DID NOT DECIDE THAT A DIRECT AND
INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF
THE ACT.  IN THE SECOND CORONADO COMPANY CASE (268 U.S. 295), EVIDENCE
OF THAT INTENT WAS SUPPLIED AND THE COURT ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE A
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE LOCAL UNION.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURT, IN
DEALING WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE LOCAL UNION, FOUND THAT IT WAS TO STOP
THE PRODUCTION OF NON-UNION COAL AND PREVENT ITS SHIPMENT TO MARKETS OF
OTHER STATES, WHERE BY COMPETITION IT WOULD TEND TO REDUCE THE PRICE OF
THE COMMODITY AND AFFECT INJURIOUSLY THE MAINTENANCE OF WAGES FOR UNION
LABOR IN COMPETING MINES.  BUT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT WAS THUS
FOUND TO BE DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY OBSTRUCTED WAS THE SHIPMENT OF
THE COAL, AND WHETHER THE PURPOSE WAS TO MAINTAIN UNIONIZATION IN OTHER
STATES, OR WITHIN THE SAME STATE, WOULD NOT SEEM TO BE MATERIAL, SO
LONG AS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN EITHER CASE IS DIRECTLY AND
INTENTIONALLY PREVENTED. 

THE COURT IN THE SECOND CORONADO COMPANY CASE NOT ONLY DECIDED THE
PARTICULAR CASE BUT LAID DOWN THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE AS FOLLOWS:  "BUT
WHEN THE INTENT OF THOSE UNLAWFULLY PREVENTING THE MANUFACTURE OR
PRODUCTION IS SHOWN TO BE TO RESTRAIN OR CONTROL THE SUPPLY ENTERING
AND MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR THE PRICE OF IT IN INTERSTATE
MARKETS, THEIR ACTION IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT." 
ID., P. 310.  THE USE OF THE DISJUNCTIVE IS SIGNIFICANT. 

THE RULING OF THE FIRST CORONADO COMPANY CASE AS TO A MERE STOPPAGE
OF PRODUCTION, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF A DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL
OBSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WAS REPEATED IN THE CASE OF UNITED
LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT CO., 265 U.S. 457.  BUT THE DICTUM FROM THE
OPINION IN THAT CASE, WHICH THE COURT QUOTES IN ITS PRESENT OPINION,
MUST BE READ IN CONNECTION WITH WHAT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS WHERE THE
COURT POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT INTERFERENCE BY THE
DEFENDANTS IN THE HERKERT CASE "WITH THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION" OF
THE GOODS OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY.  ANY DOUBT AS TO THE TRUE IMPORT OF
THE CORONADO AND HERKERT CASES IS SET AT REST BY THIS COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THESE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V.
JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS ASSN., SUPRA.  THERE THE COURT EMPHASIZED THE
POINT AS TO THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION IN THE EARLIER CASES, SAYING (274 U.S. PP. 47, 48): 

"THE CASE, THEREFORE, IS CONTROLLED, NOT BY UNITED MINE WORKERS V.
CORONADO CO., SUPRA, (259 U.S. 344) AND UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V.
HERKERT, 265 U.S. 457, AS RESPONDENTS CONTEND, BUT BY OTHERS PRESENTLY
TO BE DISCUSSED.  IN THE UNITED LEATHER WORKERS CASE, IT APPEARED THAT
THE STRIKES WERE LEVELED ONLY AGAINST PRODUCTION, AND THAT THE STRIKERS
(P. 471) 'DID NOTHING WHICH IN ANY WAY DIRECTLY INTERFERED WITH THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR SALES OF THE COMPLAINANTS' PRODUCT'; AND
THE DECISION RESTS UPON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS AN ENTIRE ABSENCE OF
EVIDENCE OR CIRCUMSTANCES TO SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANTS, IN THIS
CONSPIRACY TO COERCE COMPLAINANTS, WERE DIRECTING THEIR SCHEME AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO CO., SUPRA, PP.
408-409, IS TO THE SAME EFFECT." 

AND THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE SET FORTH IN THE SECOND CORONADO COMPANY
CASE, AS ABOVE QUOTED, WAS REITERATED. 

IN LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103, 107, THERE WAS
NO SHOWING OF A DIRECT OR INTENTIONAL RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  BUT IN LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, THE
EVIDENCE SHOWED A CONSPIRACY "TO BURDEN THE FREE MOVEMENT OF LIVE
POULTRY INTO THE METROPOLITAN AREA" IN NEW YORK.  THE COURT SAID:  "THE
INTERFERENCE BY APPELLANTS AND OTHERS WITH THE UNLOADING, THE
TRANSPORTATION, THE SALES BY MARKETMEN TO RETAILERS, THE PRICES CHARGED
AND THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS EXACTED OPERATES SUBSTANTIALLY AND DIRECTLY
TO RESTRAIN AND BURDEN THE UNTRAMMELED SHIPMENT AND MOVEMENT OF THE
POULTRY WHILE UNQUESTIONABLY IT IS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  ID., P.
297.  THUS IT WAS "THE UNTRAMMELED SHIPMENT AND MOVEMENT" WHICH, WHEN
FOUND TO BE DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY RESTRAINED, WAS HELD TO
CONSTITUTE VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.    SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE
SHOULD BE A CONSPIRACY AMONG THE TEAMSTERS AND TRUCK DRIVERS IN NEW
YORK CITY TO PREVENT THE HAULING OF GOODS AND THEIR TRANSPORTATION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CAN IT BE DOUBTED THAT THE SHERMAN ACT WOULD
APPLY?  WOULD IT NOT BE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SORT OF OBSTRUCTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN EFFECTED IN UNITED STATES
V. WORKINGMEN'S AMALGAMATED COUNCIL, SUPRA, WHERE THE TRANSPORTATION OF
GOODS IN NEW ORLEANS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS TIED UP? THERE THE
DEFENDANTS PARALYZED LOCAL BUSINESS AND THEIR OBJECT WAS TO BENEFIT
THEMSELVES IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS, BUT TO ATTAIN THAT
END THEY DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY OBSTRUCTED THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THUS CAME WITHIN THE INTERDICTION OF THE ACT. 
THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE NOT TEAMSTERS CAN
MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS IT IS THE DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL PREVENTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT TURNS THE SCALES. 

OUR DECISIONS HAVE SAID MUCH OF THE "FREE FLOW" OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WHAT IS THIS METAPHOR OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM PROTECTED IN
ITS FLOW BY THE SHERMAN ACT BUT A STRIKING WAY OF DESCRIBING THE
MOVEMENT OF GOODS BY UNTRAMMELED SHIPMENTS IN PURSUANCE OF FREELY
NEGOTIATED SALES? 

IT WAS TO PROTECT THIS FREE MOVEMENT FROM BEING OBSTRUCTED BY
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE THROUGH THE DENIAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THAT
CONGRESS PASSED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IN SUSTAINING THE
VALIDITY OF THAT ACT WE REFERRED TO OUR DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONDUCT OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION, SUMMING UP THE MATTER IN
THIS WAY:  "AND IN THE SECOND CORONADO CASE THE COURT RULED THAT WHILE
THE MERE REDUCTION IN THE SUPPLY OF AN ARTICLE TO BE SHIPPED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY THE ILLEGAL OR TORTIOUS PREVENTION OF ITS
MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION IS ORDINARILY AN INDIRECT AND REMOTE
OBSTRUCTION TO THAT COMMERCE, NEVERTHELESS WHEN THE 'INTENT OF THOSE
UNLAWFULLY PREVENTING THE MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION IS SHOWN TO BE TO
RESTRAIN OR CONTROL THE SUPPLY ENTERING AND MOVING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, OR THE PRICE OF IT IN INTERSTATE MARKETS, THEIR ACTION IS A
DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE (SHERMAN) ANTI-TRUST ACT.'"  NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 40.  IT IS
TRUE THAT IN THAT CASE WE WERE CONSIDERING THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT WE WERE POINTING TO THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER
IN THE SHERMAN ACT, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID "THAT
CONGRESS MEANT TO DEAL COMPREHENSIVELY AND EFFECTIVELY WITH THE EVILS
RESULTING FROM CONTRACTS, COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE, AND TO THAT END TO EXERCISE ALL THE POWER IT POSSESSED." 
ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 427, 435.  THAT
POWER, AND ITS EXERCISE, SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED TO FALL SHORT OF THE
PROTECTION OF THE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF GOODS FROM CONSPIRACIES TO
IMPOSE A DIRECT RESTRAINT UPON IT. 

THE ATTEMPT IN THE COURT BELOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE USE OF THE
WORD "AFFECT" IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THE WORD
"RESTRAINT" IN THE SHERMAN ACT IS INEFFECTUAL AS IT FAILS TO TAKE NOTE
OF THE FACT THAT THE WORD "AFFECT" WAS CONSTRUED AS PURPORTING "TO
REACH ONLY WHAT MAY BE DEEMED TO BURDEN OR OBSTRUCT" INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND HENCE UNDER THE FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE "THAT ACTS
WHICH DIRECTLY BURDEN OR OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR
ITS FREE FLOW, ARE WITHIN THE REACH OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER," THE
STATUTE WAS UPHELD.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN
STEEL CORP., SUPRA, PP. 31, 32. 

THE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE REMEDIED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
WAS THE INTERRUPTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE PRIMARILY BY THE PREVENTION
OF THE FREE SHIPMENT AND DELIVERY OF GOODS IN THAT COMMERCE, AND HENCE
IT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THOSE CASES WHERE INDUSTRIES ARE OF SUCH A
CHARACTER THAT THE PROHIBITED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WOULD NATURALLY
HAVE THE EFFECT OF INTERRUPTING THE MOVEMENT OF COMMODITIES BETWEEN THE
STATES.  SEE, E.G., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRUEHAUF, 301
U.S. 49, 53, 54; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS
CO., 301 U.S. 58, 72, 73; SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 468; CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 221.  IN NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT, SUPRA, PP. 605, 606, WE FOUND THAT
"INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS INVOLVED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
MATERIALS TO BE PROCESSED ACROSS STATE LINES TO THE FACTORY OF
RESPONDENTS AND IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT TO POINTS
OUTSIDE THE STATE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO PURCHASERS AND ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS," AND THAT "TRANSPORTATION ALONE ACROSS STATE LINES IS
COMMERCE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT";
AND, HAVING SAID THAT, WE POINTED TO THE PROTECTIVE EXERCISE OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AS NOT IN ANY WAY RESTRICTED
BECAUSE THE VOLUME OF THE COMMERCE INVOLVED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION WAS
SMALL.  ID. 

IT WOULD INDEED BE ANOMALOUS IF, WHILE EMPLOYERS ARE BOUND BY THE
LABOR ACT BECAUSE THEIR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES MAY LEAD TO CONDUCT
WHICH WOULD PREVENT THE SHIPMENT OF THEIR GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
AT THE SAME TIME THE DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION OR PREVENTION
OF SUCH SHIPMENTS BY THE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT DEEMED TO BE A RESTRAINT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE BROAD TERMS OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THIS COURT HAS NEVER HERETOFORE DECIDED THAT A DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL
OBSTRUCTION OR PREVENTION OF THE SHIPMENT OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN MY OPINION IT
SHOULD NOT SO DECIDE NOW.  IT FINDS NO WARRANT FOR SUCH A DECISION IN
THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE.  I AM UNABLE TO FIND ANY COMPULSION OF
JUDICIAL DECISION REQUIRING THE COURT SO TO LIMIT THOSE TERMS. 
RESTRAINTS MAY BE OF VARIOUS SORTS.  SOME MAY BE IMPOSED BY EMPLOYERS,
OTHERS BY EMPLOYEES.  BUT WHEN THEY ARE FOUND TO BE UNREASONABLE AND
DIRECTLY IMPOSED UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BOTH EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SANCTIONS OF THE ACT. 

IT IS SAID THAT SUCH A VIEW WOULD BRING PRACTICALLY EVERY STRIKE IN
MODERN INDUSTRY WITHIN THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE.  I DO NOT
AGREE.  THE RIGHT TO QUIT WORK, THE RIGHT PEACEABLY TO PERSUADE OTHERS
TO QUIT WORK, THE RIGHT TO PROCEED BY LAWFUL MEASURES WITHIN THE
CONTEMPLATION OF THE CLAYTON ACT TO ATTAIN THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTS OF
LABOR ORGANIZATION, IS TO MY MIND QUITE A DIFFERENT MATTER FROM A
CONSPIRACY DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY TO PREVENT THE SHIPMENT OF GOODS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE EITHER BY THEIR ILLEGAL SEIZURE FOR THAT
PURPOSE, OR BY THE DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTION OF THEIR
TRANSPORTATION OR BY BLOCKING THE HIGHWAYS OF INTERSTATE INTERCOURSE. 

ONCE IT IS DECIDED, AS THIS COURT DOES DECIDE, THAT THE SHERMAN ACT
DOES NOT EXCEPT LABOR UNIONS FROM ITS PURVIEW,  - ONCE IT IS DECIDED,
AS THIS COURT DOES DECIDE, THAT THE CONDUCT HERE SHOWN IS NOT WITHIN
THE IMMUNITY CONFERRED BY THE CLAYTON ACT,  - THE COURT, AS IT SEEMS TO
ME, HAS NO OPTION BUT TO APPLY THE SHERMAN ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS
EXPRESS PROVISIONS. 

FN1  15 U.S.C. 17; 29 U.S.C. 52. 

FN2  15 U.S.C. 1. 

FN3  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

..END :














WHITE V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 530 


NO. 87.  ARGUED MAY 20, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1940.  - PETITION
DENIED. 


1.  USE IN A STATE COURT OF A COERCED CONFESSION IN PROCURING A
CONVICTION OF A CAPITAL CRIME VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 531. 

2.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE CONFESSION USED IN THE TRIAL OF THIS
CASE WAS COERCED.  P. 532. 

WHITE V. TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. 

ON A PETITION BY THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE REHEARING OF A CASE
ADJUDGED MARCH 25, 1940, 309 U.S. 631, REVERSING A DEATH SENTENCE UPON
A CONVICTION OF RAPE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF RAPE AND SENTENCED TO DEATH IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS.  THE STATE'S APPELLATE
CRIMINAL COURT OF LAST RESORT AFFIRMED AND DENIED REHEARING.  FN1  WE
DECLINED TO GRANT CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE STATE COURT'S ACTION, 308
U.S. 608.  FEBRUARY 29, 1940, PETITIONER SOUGHT REHEARING OF HIS
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, ALLEGING THAT HIS CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
RESULTED FROM PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE STATE HAD UTILIZED AN ALLEGED
CONFESSION IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  MARCH 25, 1940, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, AND REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT, 309 U.S. 631, UPON AUTHORITY OF CHAMBERS
V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, AND CANTY V. ALABAMA, 309 U.S. 629.  THE CASE
IS BEFORE US NOW ON THE STATE'S PETITION FOR REHEARING.  FN2 

FROM THE FIRST OFFER OF THE ALLEGED CONFESSION IN EVIDENCE AT THE
TRIAL, PETITIONER HAS CHALLENGED THE STATE'S RIGHT TO UTILIZE IT,
CONSISTENTLY WITH RIGHTS GUARANTEED HIM BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
FN3  IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF DEATH, THE COURT BELOW
NECESSARILY DETERMINED THAT USE OF THE CONFESSION DID NOT CONSTITUTE A
DENIAL OF THAT DUE PROCESS WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES. 

THE STATE SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER DENIED EVER
HAVING MADE OR SIGNED THE CONFESSION WHICH PURPORTED TO BE SIGNED BY
HIS MARK.  THEREFORE, IT INSISTS THAT PETITIONER IS BARRED FROM URGING
THAT THE PROSECUTION'S USE OF THE CONFESSION COULD HAVE DEPRIVED HIM OF
DUE PROCESS AT HIS TRIAL.  BUT REGARDLESS OF PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY ON
THIS QUESTION, THE STATE INSISTED AND OFFERED TESTIMONY TO ESTABLISH
THAT THE CONFESSION WAS SIGNED BY HIM, AND UPON THIS EVIDENCE THE
CONFESSION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING HIS
CONVICTION.  SINCE, THEREFORE, THE CONFESSION WAS PRESENTED BY THE
STATE TO THE JURY AS THAT OF PETITIONER, WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE
RECORD SHOWS THAT, IF SIGNED AT ALL, THE CONFESSION WAS OBTAINED AND
USED IN SUCH MANNER THAT PETITIONER'S TRIAL FELL SHORT OF THAT
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

PETITIONER IS AN ILLITERATE FARMHAND WHO WAS ENGAGED, AT THE TIME OF
HIS ARREST, UPON A PLANTATION ABOUT TEN MILES FROM LIVINGSTON, TEXAS. 
ON THE DAY FOLLOWING THE CRIME WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN CHARGED, HE WAS
CALLED FROM THE FIELD IN WHICH HE WAS PICKING COTTON AND WAS TAKEN TO
THE HOUSE OF THE BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE PROSECUTRIX, THE VICTIM OF THE
CRIME, WHERE FIFTEEN OR SIXTEEN NEGROES OF THE VICINITY WERE AT THE
TIME IN CUSTODY WITHOUT WARRANTS OR THE FILING OF CHARGES.  TAKEN TO
THE COUNTY COURT HOUSE, AND THENCE TO THE POLK COUNTY JAIL, PETITIONER
WAS KEPT THERE SIX OR SEVEN DAYS.  ACCORDING TO HIS TESTIMONY, ARMED
TEXAS RANGERS ON SEVERAL SUCCESSIVE NIGHTS TOOK HIM HANDCUFFED FROM THE
JAIL "UP IN THE WOODS SOMEWHERE," WHIPPED HIM, ASKED HIM EACH TIME
ABOUT A CONFESSION AND WARNED HIM NOT TO SPEAK TO ANY ONE ABOUT THE
NIGHTLY TRIPS TO THE WOODS.  DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS ARREST UP TO AND
INCLUDING THE SIGNING OF THE ALLEGED CONFESSION, PETITIONER HAD NO
LAWYER, NO CHARGES WERE FILED AGAINST HIM AND HE WAS OUT OF TOUCH WITH
FRIENDS OR RELATIVES. 

THERE WERE DENIALS THAT PETITIONER WAS EVER PHYSICALLY MISTREATED OR
ABUSED.  BUT THE RANGERS AND A LOCAL PEACE OFFICER, IDENTIFIED BY
PETITIONER AS THE OFFICERS WHO TOOK HIM ON THE NIGHT TRIPS TO THE WOODS
AND THERE WHIPPED HIM, DID NOT SPECIFICALLY DENY THAT HE WAS TAKEN OUT
OF JAIL, AT NIGHT, AND INTERROGATED IN THE WOODS.  THIS LOCAL PEACE
OFFICER WASN'T SURE "HOW MANY TIMES" THE PRISONER WAS REMOVED FROM
JAIL, AND ONE RANGER RE-STATED HIS TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE FIRST TRIAL
THAT HE "TOOK HIM OUT SO MANY TIMES" THE EXACT NUMBER COULD NOT BE
RECALLED.  THE PRISONER WAS TAKEN OUT OF JAIL, DRIVEN "OUT ON THE ROAD"
AND THEN "OUT OFF OF THE ROAD," AS THIS RANGER TESTIFIED, IN ORDER THAT
THE OFFICERS COULD TALK TO HIM AND BECAUSE THE JAIL WAS CROWDED.  IN
JAIL, THE SHERIFF PUT PETITIONER BY HIMSELF AND "KEPT WATCHING HIM AND
TALKING TO HIM." 

BEFORE CARRYING PETITIONER TO BEAUMONT, WHERE THE ALLEGED CONFESSION
WAS TAKEN, THE SHERIFF TALKED ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF WITH HIM.  THE
RANGERS WHO HAD BEEN TAKING PETITIONER TO THE WOODS AT NIGHT KNEW THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY WAS GOING TO BEAUMONT TO GET A STATEMENT; THEY, TOO,
WENT THERE AND WERE IN AND OUT OF THE EIGHTH FLOOR ROOM OF THE JAIL IN
BEAUMONT, WITH THE ELEVATOR LOCKED, WHERE PETITIONER WAS INTERROGATED
FROM APPROXIMATELY 11:00 P.M. TO 3:00 OR 3:30 A.M.  THE ALLEGED
CONFESSION WAS REDUCED TO WRITING AFTER 2 A.M.  IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT
WAS TAKEN DOWN, THE PRISONER WAS REPEATEDLY ASKED BY THE PRIVATE
PROSECUTOR WHETHER HE WAS READY TO CONFESS.  PETITIONER THEN BEGAN TO
CRY, AND THE TYPING OF THE CONFESSION, UPON WHICH THE STATE'S CASE
SUBSTANTIALLY RESTED, WAS COMPLETED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ABOUT
DAYLIGHT.  TWO CITIZENS OF BEAUMONT SIGNED IT AS WITNESSES. 

"DUE PROCESS OF LAW, PRESERVED FOR ALL BY OUR CONSTITUTION, COMMANDS
THAT NO SUCH PRACTICE AS THAT DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD SHALL SEND ANY
ACCUSED TO HIS DEATH."  FN4 

THE STATE'S PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED. 

FN1  139 TEX. CRIM. REP. -; 128 S.W.2D 51.  A PRIOR CONVICTION WAS
REVERSED.  135 TEX. CRIM. REP. 210; 117 S.W.2D 450. 

FN2  PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS DENIED
NOVEMBER 13, 1939, 308 U.S. 608.  ON FEBRUARY 29, 1940, AFTER OUR
DECISION IN THE CHAMBERS CASE, PETITIONER FILED A PETITION FOR
REHEARING OF HIS ORIGINAL PETITION, ASSIGNING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND
THAT HIS CONVICTION WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE USE BY THE STATE OF A
CONFESSION OBTAINED BY COERCION AND INTIMIDATION.  MARCH 2, 1940, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PENDENCY OF THE PETITION
FOR REHEARING AND HE HAS INFORMED THE CLERK OF THIS COURT THAT HE
NOTIFIED THE STATE'S APPELLATE CRIMINAL ATTORNEY.  INFORMATION OF
PENDENCY OF THE PETITION FOR REHEARING OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
WAS ALSO COMMUNICATED TO THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CLERK,
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE GOVERNOR AND THE STATE BOARD OF PARDONS AND
PAROLES.  THE STATE'S PETITION FOR REHEARING OF OUR JUDGMENT OF MARCH
25, 1940, REVERSING THE STATE COURT'S JUDGMENT, ALLEGED THAT THE STATE
HAD NOT RECEIVED ADEQUATE NOTICE AND SOUGHT FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT THE STATE'S VIEWS.  WE THEREFORE HEARD ORAL ARGUMENTS UPON THE
STATE'S PETITION FOR REHEARING. 

FN3  IN ADDITION TO ALLEGING THAT THE CONFESSION RELIED ON BY THE
STATE WAS COERCED AND INVOLUNTARY, BOTH PETITIONER'S AMENDED MOTION FOR
A NEW TRIAL AND HIS BILL OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE COURT BELOW SET OUT THAT
HE "WAS NOT PERMITTED TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY TO ADVISE HIM BUT WAS KEPT
INCOMMUNICADO, WAS NOT PERMITTED TO USE A TELEPHONE, WAS KEPT IN THE
WOODS BY RANGERS A GREAT PORTION OF THE TIME AND WAS DENIED EVERY RIGHT
THAT EVEN THIS DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF TEXAS
AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN4  CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227, 241; CANTY V. ALABAMA, 309
U.S. 629. 
..END :






















U.S. V. AMER. TRUCKING ASS'NS, 310 U.S. 534 


NO. 713.  ARGUED APRIL 26, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1940.  - 31 F.SUPP. 
35, REVERSED. 


1.  THE POWER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, 1935, SEC. 204(A), TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF
EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS, IS CONFINED TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHOSE
DUTIES AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION.  PP. 546, 553. 

2.  WHEN ACCEPTANCE OF THE LITERAL MEANING OF WORDS IN A STATUTE
LEADS TO RESULTS WHICH ARE ABSURD OR FUTILE OR PLAINLY AT VARIANCE WITH
THE POLICY OF THE LEGISLATION, THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE WILL BE
FOLLOWED.  P. 543. 

3.  EVEN THOUGH, SUPERFICIALLY, THE MEANING OF STATUTORY WORDS
APPEARS PLAIN, AIDS TO THEIR INTERPRETATION MAY BE RESORTED TO IN
PURSUIT OF THE PURPOSE.  P. 543. 

4.  TO ACCEPT LITERALLY THE WORD "EMPLOYEE" IN SEC. 204(A) OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT, WOULD PLACE UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
THE FUNCTION OF REGULATING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF LARGE NUMBERS OF
EMPLOYEES WHOSE DUTIES DO NOT AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION, CONTRARY TO
THE SETTLED PRACTICE OF CONGRESS, EVINCED IN OTHER ACTS, WITH RESPECT
TO REGULATION OF HOURS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES,
AND CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF MOST OF THE STATES, AS SHOWN BY ACTS IN
FORCE WHEN THE FEDERAL ACT WAS PASSED.  P. 544. 

5.  INDICATION OF ANY INTENTION OF CONGRESS, BY SEC. 204(A), TO GRANT
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OTHER THAN THE CUSTOMARY POWER TO
SECURE SAFETY, IS ABSENT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT.  P. 546. 

6.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 204(A) BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AND BY THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR, AS RELATING SOLELY TO SAFETY OF OPERATION, IS OF GREAT WEIGHT. 
P. 549. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES COMMANDING
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER BY WHICH IT
DECLINED, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, TO DETERMINE QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES OF CONTRACT AND MOTOR
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, AND COMMANDING IT TO TAKE
JURISDICTION AND PROCEED WITH SUCH DETERMINATION.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMISSION, UNDER SEC. 205(H) OF THE
ACT, BY THE ABOVENAMED TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS AND FIVE COMMON CARRIERS
BY MOTOR.  THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR INTERVENED ON THE SIDE OF THE DEFENSE. 

ONE OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF THE ACT WAS THE PROMOTION AND
ENHANCEMENT OF SAFETY OF OPERATION OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED BY
MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  IT WAS
SOLELY TO THIS END THAT CONGRESS EMPOWERED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR
EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS. 

THE INTENT IS SHOWN BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 204(A)(1) AND
(2), AND IS FURTHER REVEALED BY ANALYSIS OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT.  THESE POINT TO "SAFETY OF OPERATION" AS THE SOLE CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE.  FEDERAL STATUTES REGULATING HOURS OF SERVICE IN OTHER FIELDS
OF TRANSPORTATION, AND STATE MOTOR CARRIER STATUTES, IN THE LIGHT OF
WHICH THE MEANING OF THE ACT MUST BE SOUGHT, INDICATE A LEGISLATIVE
POLICY DIRECTED TOWARD THE END OF "SAFETY OF OPERATION."  FINALLY, THE
FACT THAT THE REGULATORY POWER WAS CONFERRED BY THE ACT UPON AN AGENCY
EXPERT IN TRANSPORTATION MATTERS ALONE, UNATTENDED BY THE LEGISLATIVE
STANDARDS TRADITIONALLY GUIDING THE REGULATION OF HOURS OF WORK,
SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE COMMISSION'S
POWER TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION. 

THE PURPOSES AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS
ACT AFFORD ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THE VIEW THAT SEC. 204(A)(1) AND (2)
OF THE ACT IS RESTRICTED TO THOSE EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES
AFFECTING SAFETY OF OPERATION.  THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY SEC. 13(B)(1)
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE EMPLOYEES AS TO
WHOM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO PRESCRIBE
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE WAS ENACTED UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE COMMISSION'S POWER WAS LIMITED TO "SAFETY"
EMPLOYEES.  EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS WHOSE DUTIES DO NOT AFFECT
SAFETY OF OPERATION ARE ENGAGED IN PURSUITS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOLLOWED
BY MILLIONS OF OTHER EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, MORE PROPERLY FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THAT STATUTE THAN OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT. 

THE ACT CONTAINS A BROAD DECLARATION OF POLICY, AND A COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR THE REGULATION OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR
VEHICLE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SECTION 202 DECLARES THE CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY AND CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE COMMISSION.  IT DECLARES A
POLICY TO INCLUDE THE FOSTERING OF SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, THE
PROMOTION OF ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT SERVICE, AND THE PREVENTION OF
UNFAIR OR DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES; AND IT VESTS IN THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION JURISDICTION TO REGULATE TRANSPORTATION
BY MOTOR VEHICLE, THE PROCUREMENT THEREOF AND THE PROVISION OF
FACILITIES THEREFOR. 

THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED, SEC. 204, TO "ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS" FOR (1) CONTINUOUS AND ADEQUATE SERVICE, (2)
TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS, (3) UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS,
RECORDS AND REPORTS, (4) PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, (5) QUALIFICATIONS
AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND (6) SAFETY OF OPERATIONS
AND EQUIPMENT. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE TERM "EMPLOYEES" IS NOT LIMITED, AND THAT
THE ONLY LIMITATION UPON THE AUTHORIZED REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THEY BE
"REASONABLE."  THUS THE TERMS OF SEC. 204(A)(1) AND (2) APPLY WITH
RESPECT TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR
VEHICLE; AND, AS NO "REASONABLE REQUIREMENT" COULD EVER CAUSE A HARSH,
OPPRESSIVE OR ABSURD RESULT, THERE IS NO REASON TO CONSTRUE THE SECTION
TO MEAN ANYTHING ELSE. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT AND RELATED ACTS DISCLOSES A CLEAR
CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL REGULATE HOURS OF
SERVICE AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR ALL PURPOSES WITHIN THE DECLARATION OF
POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SEC. 204, AND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE. 

THE NATURE OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS MAKES IT NECESSARY
THAT ONE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HAVE POWER TO REGULATE QUALIFICATION AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR ALL BUSINESS PURPOSES, AND THE COMMISSION
IS THE ONLY AGENCY CHARGED BY CONGRESS WITH THE DUTY OF EXECUTING ITS
TRANSPORTATION POLICY. 

THERE CAN BE NO DIVIDED JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RELATIONS TO
ANY PHASE OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  BUT IF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT APPLIES, THEN STATE STATUTES OR MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCES MORE RESTRICTIVE IN TERMS ARE MADE EFFECTIVE.  THIS WOULD
LEAD TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULT, BECAUSE AUTHORITY WOULD BE
DELEGATED TO STATES WITHOUT ANY STANDARDS OR POLICY DECLARED. 

WHERE THE LANGUAGE IS PLAIN, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION. 
UNITED STATES V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 278 U.S. 269. 

NO LIMITATIONS ARE EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL REQUIRES DETERMINATION OF THE POWER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, TO ESTABLISH
REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF MOTOR CARRIERS, OTHER THAN EMPLOYEES
WHOSE DUTIES AFFECT SAFETY OF OPERATION. 

AFTER DETAILED CONSIDERATION, THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, WAS
PASSED.  FN1  IT FOLLOWED GENERALLY THE SUGGESTION OF FORM MADE BY THE
FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION N2.  THE DIFFICULTY AND WIDE
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE GROWTH OF THE MOTOR CARRIER
INDUSTRY WERE OBVIOUS.  CONGRESS SOUGHT TO SET OUT ITS PURPOSE AND THE
RANGE OF ITS ACTION IN A DECLARATION OF POLICY WHICH COVERED THE
PRESERVATION AND FOSTERING OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, TARIFFS, THE COORDINATION OF MOTOR CARRIAGE WITH OTHER FORMS
OF TRANSPORTATION AND COOPERATION WITH THE SEVERAL STATES IN THEIR
EFFORTS TO SYSTEMATIZE THE INDUSTRY.  FN3 

WHILE EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL MOVEMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
OBVIOUSLY A MAJOR OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT,  FN4  THERE ARE NUMEROUS
PROVISIONS WHICH MAKE IT CLEAR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXERCISE ITS
POWERS IN THE NON-TRANSPORTATION PHASES OF MOTOR CARRIER ACTIVITY.  FN5
SAFETY OF OPERATION WAS CONSTANTLY BEFORE THE COMMITTEES AND CONGRESS
IN THEIR STUDY OF THE SITUATION.  FN6 

THE PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE SECTION OF THE ACT IMMEDIATELY UNDER
DISCUSSION READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 204(A).  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION - 

"(1)  TO REGULATE COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN THIS
PART, AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO CONTINUOUS AND ADEQUATE SERVICE,
TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS, UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS,
RECORDS, AND REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND
EQUIPMENT. 

"(2)  TO REGULATE CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN
THIS PART, AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND
REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT. 

"(3)  TO ESTABLISH FOR PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE,
IF NEED THEREFOR IS FOUND, REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE SAFETY OF
OPERATION, AND TO THAT END PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS
OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT  ...  "  SHORTLY
AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSION ON ITS OWN MOTION
UNDERTOOK TO AND DID FIX MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR "EMPLOYEES WHOSE
FUNCTIONS IN THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS
DESIRABLE BECAUSE OF SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS."  FN7  A FEW MONTHS AFTER
THIS DETERMINATION, THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT WAS ENACTED.  FN8
ALL EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO ITS TERMS AND SEC. 18 MAKES THE MAXIMUM HOURS
OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT SUBJECT TO FURTHER REDUCTION BY
APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE LAW OR MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES.  THERE WERE
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES EXCEPTED, HOWEVER, FROM THESE REGULATIONS BY SEC.
13(B).  IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 13(B).  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 SHALL NOT APPLY WITH
RESPECT TO (1) ANY EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS POWER TO ESTABLISH QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM
HOURS OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, 1935; ...  " 

THIS EXEMPTION BROUGHT SHARPLY INTO FOCUS THE COVERAGE OF EMPLOYEES
BY MOTOR CARRIER ACT, SEC. 204(A).  CLERICAL, STORAGE AND OTHER NON
TRANSPORTATION WORKERS ARE UNDER THIS OR THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT,
DEPENDENT UPON THE SWEEP OF THE WORD EMPLOYEE IN THIS ACT.  THE
COMMISSION AGAIN EXAMINED THE QUESTION OF ITS JURISDICTION AND IN EX
PARTE NO. MC-28  FN9  AGAIN REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT ITS POWER UNDER
"SECTION 204(A)(1) AND (2) IS LIMITED TO PRESCRIBING QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES  ...  WHOSE ACTIVITIES
AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION."  IT ADDED: "THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
202 EVINCE A CLEAR INTENT OF CONGRESS TO LIMIT OUR JURISDICTION TO
REGULATING THE MOTOR-CARRIER INDUSTRY AS A PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM OF THE NATION.  TO EXTEND THAT REGULATION TO FEATURES WHICH ARE
NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF TRANSPORTATION OR INHERENT IN THAT INDUSTRY
STRIKES US AS AN ENLARGEMENT OF OUR JURISDICTION UNWARRANTED BY ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED PROVISION IN THE ACT, WHICH VESTS IN US ALL THE
POWERS WE HAVE."  FN10  THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR ARRIVED AT THE SAME RESULT IN AN INTERPRETATION.  FN11 

SHORTLY THEREAFTER APPELLEES, AN ASSOCIATION OF TRUCKMEN AND VARIOUS
COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR, FILED A PETITION WITH THE COMMISSION IN THE
PRESENT CASE SEEKING AN EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION UNDER
SEC. 204(A) TO FIX REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS "WITH RESPECT TO
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF ALL EMPLOYEES OF COMMON
AND CONTRACT CARRIERS, EXCEPT EMPLOYEES WHOSE DUTIES ARE RELATED TO
SAFETY OF OPERATIONS; (3) TO DISREGARD ITS REPORT AND ORDER IN EX PARTE
MC-28."  FN12  THE COMMISSION REAFFIRMED ITS POSITION AND DENIED THE
PETITION.  THE APPELLEES PETITIONED A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT TO
COMPEL THE COMMISSION TO TAKE JURISDICTION AND CONSIDER THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF ALL EMPLOYEES
OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE.  FN13  THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION WAS PERMITTED TO
INTERVENE.  FN14  THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED THE COMMISSION, SET ASIDE
ITS ORDER AND DIRECTED IT TO TAKE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLEES'
PETITION.  31 F.SUPP.  35.  A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS GRANTED. 
FN15 

IN THE BROAD DOMAIN OF SOCIAL LEGISLATION FEW PROBLEMS ARE ENMESHED
WITH THE DIFFICULTIES THAT SURROUND A DETERMINATION OF WHAT
QUALIFICATIONS AN EMPLOYEE SHALL HAVE AND HOW LONG HIS HOURS OF WORK
MAY BE.  UPON THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF THESE FACTORS WITHIN AN INDUSTRY
AND IN RELATION TO COMPETITIVE ACTIVITIES MAY WELL DEPEND THE ECONOMIC
SUCCESS OF THE ENTERPRISES AFFECTED AS WELL AS THE EMPLOYMENT AND
EFFICIENCY OF THE WORKERS.  THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT LAYS LITTLE EMPHASIS
UPON THE CLAUSE WE ARE CALLED UPON NOW TO CONSTRUE, "QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES."  NONE OF THE WORDS ARE DEFINED
BY THE SECTION, 203, DEVOTED TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE MEANING OF THE
WORDS USED IN THE ACT.  THEY ARE A PART OF AN ELABORATE ENACTMENT DRAWN
AND PASSED IN AN ATTEMPT TO ADJUST A NEW AND GROWING TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE TO THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC.  TO FIND THEIR CONTENT, THEY MUST
BE VIEWED IN THEIR SETTING. 

IN THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, THE FUNCTION OF THE COURTS IS
EASILY STATED.  IT IS TO CONSTRUE THE LANGUAGE SO AS TO GIVE EFFECT TO
THE INTENT OF CONGRESS.  FN16  THERE IS NO INVARIABLE RULE FOR THE
DISCOVERY OF THAT INTENTION.  TO TAKE A FEW WORDS FROM THEIR CONTEXT
AND WITH THEM THUS ISOLATED TO ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE THEIR MEANING,
CERTAINLY WOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE GREATLY TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE PURPOSE
OF THE DRAFTSMEN OF A STATUTE, PARTICULARLY IN A LAW DRAWN TO MEET MANY
NEEDS OF A MAJOR OCCUPATION.  FN17 

THERE IS, OF COURSE, NO MORE PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE OF THE PURPOSE OF A
STATUTE THAN THE WORDS BY WHICH THE LEGISLATURE UNDERTOOK TO GIVE
EXPRESSION TO ITS WISHES. OFTEN THESE WORDS ARE SUFFICIENT IN AND OF
THEMSELVES TO DETERMINE THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION.  IN SUCH CASES
WE HAVE FOLLOWED THEIR PLAIN MEANING.  FN18  WHEN THAT MEANING HAS LED
TO ABSURD OR FUTILE RESULTS, HOWEVER, THIS COURT HAS LOOKED BEYOND THE
WORDS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT.  FN19  FREQUENTLY, HOWEVER, EVEN WHEN
THE PLAIN MEANING DID NOT PRODUCE ABSURD RESULTS BUT MERELY AN
UNREASONABLE ONE "PLAINLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE POLICY OF THE
LEGISLATION AS A WHOLE"  FN20  THIS COURT HAS FOLLOWED THAT PURPOSE,
RATHER THAN THE LITERAL WORDS.  FN21  WHEN AID TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MEANING OF WORDS, AS USED IN THE STATUTE, IS AVAILABLE, THERE CERTAINLY
CAN BE NO "RULE OF LAW" WHICH FORBIDS ITS USE,  FN22  HOWEVER CLEAR THE
WORDS MAY APPEAR ON "SUPERFICIAL EXAMINATION."  FN23  THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING OF STATUTES, AS APPLIED TO JUSTICIABLE
CONTROVERSIES, IS EXCLUSIVELY A JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  THIS DUTY REQUIRES
ONE BODY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS, THE JUDGES, TO CONSTRUE THE MEANING OF
WHAT ANOTHER BODY, THE LEGISLATORS, HAS SAID.  OBVIOUSLY THERE IS
DANGER THAT THE COURTS' CONCLUSION AS TO LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE WILL BE
UNCONSCIOUSLY INFLUENCED BY THE JUDGES' OWN VIEWS OR BY FACTORS NOT
CONSIDERED BY THE ENACTING BODY.  A LIVELY APPRECIATION OF THE DANGER
IS THE BEST ASSURANCE OF ESCAPE FROM ITS THREAT BUT HARDLY JUSTIFIES AN
ACCEPTANCE OF A LITERAL INTERPRETATION DOGMA WHICH WITHHOLDS FROM THE
COURTS AVAILABLE INFORMATION FOR REACHING A CORRECT CONCLUSION.  FN24
EMPHASIS SHOULD BE LAID, TOO, UPON THE NECESSITY FOR APPRAISAL OF THE
PURPOSES AS A WHOLE OF CONGRESS IN ANALYZING THE MEANING OF CLAUSES OR
IN THE TEXT OF STATUTES SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN A WIDE MEANING, CONTRARY TO
A SETTLED POLICY, "EXCEPTING AS A DIFFERENT PURPOSE IS PLAINLY SHOWN." 
FN25 

THE LANGUAGE HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, IF CONSTRUED AS APPELLEES
CONTEND, GIVES TO THE COMMISSION A POWER OF REGULATION AS TO
QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF EMPLOYEES QUITE DISTINCT FROM THE SETTLED
PRACTICE OF CONGRESS.  THAT POLICY HAS BEEN CONSISTENT IN LEGISLATING
FOR SUCH REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEES IN MATTERS OF MOVEMENT
AND SAFETY ONLY.  THE HOURS OF SERVICE ACT  FN26  IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS
ON THE HOURS OF LABOR OF EMPLOYEES "ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN OR CONNECTED
WITH THE MOVEMENT OF ANY TRAIN."  THE SEAMEN'S ACT  FN27  LIMITS
EMPLOYEE REGULATIONS UNDER IT TO MEMBERS OF SHIPS' CREWS.  THE CIVIL
AERONAUTICS AUTHORITY HAS AUTHORITY OVER HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES
"IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY."  FN28  IT IS STATED BY APPELLANTS IN THEIR
BRIEF WITH DETAILED CITATIONS, AND THE STATEMENT IS UNCONTRADICTED,
THAT AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT "FORTY STATES
HAD REGULATORY MEASURES RELATING TO THE HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES"
AND EVERY ONE "APPLIED EXCLUSIVELY TO DRIVERS OR HELPERS ON THE
VEHICLES."  IN THE FACE OF THIS COURSE OF LEGISLATION, COUPLED WITH THE
SUPPORTING INTERPRETATION OF THE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES CONCERNED
WITH ITS INTERPRETATION, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE
WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE WORD "EMPLOYEE" AS
USED IN SEC. 204(A) IS SO CLEAR AS TO THE WORKMEN IT EMBRACES THAT WE
WOULD ACCEPT ITS BROADEST MEANING.  THE WORD, OF COURSE, IS NOT A WORD
OF ART. IT TAKES COLOR FROM ITS SURROUNDINGS AND FREQUENTLY IS
CAREFULLY DEFINED BY THE STATUTE WHERE IT APPEARS.  FN29 

WE ARE ESPECIALLY HESITANT TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
GRANT THE COMMISSION OTHER THAN THE CUSTOMARY POWER TO SECURE SAFETY IN
VIEW OF THE ABSENCE IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT OF ANY
DISCUSSION OF THE DESIRABILITY OF GIVING THE COMMISSION BROAD AND
UNUSUAL POWERS OVER ALL EMPLOYEES.  THE CLAUSE IN QUESTION WAS NOT
CONTAINED IN THE BILL AS INTRODUCED.  FN30  NOR WAS IT IN THE
COORDINATOR'S DRAFT.  FN31  IT WAS PRESENTED ON THE SENATE FLOOR AS A
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT FOLLOWING A SUGGESTION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE COMMISSION, MR. MCMANAMY.  FN32  THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS AND THE DEBATES CONTAIN NO INDICATION THAT A
REGULATION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF ALL EMPLOYEES
WAS CONTEMPLATED; IN FACT THE EVIDENCE POINTS THE OTHER WAY.  THE
SENATE COMMITTEE'S REPORT EXPLAINED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 204(A)(1),
(2) AS GIVING THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY OVER COMMON AND CONTRACT
CARRIERS SIMILAR TO THAT GIVEN OVER PRIVATE CARRIERS BY SEC.
204(A)(3).  FN33  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE EXPRESSED THE
SAME THOUGHT WHILE EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS ON THE FLOOR OF THE
SENATE.  FN34  WHEN SUGGESTING THE ADDITION OF THE CLAUSE, THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE COMMISSION'S LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE SAID:  "  ... IT RELATES TO
SAFETY."  FN35  IN THE HOUSE THE MEMBER IN CHARGE OF THE BILL
CHARACTERIZED THE PROVISIONS AS TENDING "GREATLY TO PROMOTE CAREFUL
OPERATION FOR SAFETY ON THE HIGHWAYS," AND SPOKE WITH ASSURANCE OF THE
COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO "FORMULATE A SET OF REASONABLE RULES  ...
INCLUDING THEREIN MAXIMUM LABORHOURS SERVICE ON THE HIGHWAY."  FN36
AND IN THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE A MEMBER SET OUT SEPARATE
VIEWS CRITICIZING THE DELEGATION OF DISCRETION TO THE COMMISSION AND
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR AN EIGHT-HOUR DAY FOR "ANY
EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF SUCH MOTOR VEHICLE."  FN37 

THE COMMISSION AND THE WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, AS WE HAVE SAID, HAVE
BOTH INTERPRETED SEC. 204(A) AS RELATING SOLELY TO SAFETY OF
OPERATION.  IN ANY CASE SUCH INTERPRETATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT
WEIGHT.  THIS IS PECULIARLY TRUE HERE WHERE THE INTERPRETATIONS INVOLVE
"CONTEMPORANEOUS CONTRUCTION OF A STATUTE BY THE MEN CHARGED WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF SETTING ITS MACHINERY IN MOTION, OF MAKING THE PARTS
WORK EFFICIENTLY AND SMOOTHLY WHILE THEY ARE YET UNTRIED AND NEW." 
FN38  FURTHERMORE, THE COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION GAINS MUCH
PERSUASIVENESS FROM THE FACT THAT IT WAS THE COMMISSION WHICH SUGGESTED
THE PROVISIONS' ENACTMENT TO CONGRESS.  FN39 

IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE COMMISSION HAS THREE TIMES
CONCLUDED THAT ITS AUTHORITY WAS LIMITED TO SECURING SAFETY OF
OPERATION.  THE FIRST INTERPRETATION WAS MADE ON DECEMBER 29, 1937,
WHEN THE COMMISSION STATED:  "  ...  UNTIL THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE
GIVEN US A MORE PARTICULAR AND DEFINITE COMMAND IN THE PREMISES, WE
SHALL LIMIT OUR REGULATIONS CONCERNING MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE TO
THOSE EMPLOYEES WHOSE FUNCTIONS IN THE OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAKE
SUCH REGULATIONS DESIRABLE BECAUSE OF SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS."  FN40
THIS EXPRESSION WAS HALF A YEAR OLD WHEN CONGRESS ENACTED THE FAIR
LABOR STANDARDS ACT WITH THE EXEMPTION OF SEC. 13(B)(1).  SEEMINGLY THE
SENATE AT LEAST WAS AWARE OF THE COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION OF ITS
POWERS EVEN BEFORE ITS INTERPRETATION WAS ANNOUNCED.  FN41  UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS UNLIKELY INDEED THAT CONGRESS WOULD NOT HAVE
EXPLICITLY OVERRULED THE COMMISSION'S INTERPRETATION HAD IT INTENDED TO
EXEMPT OTHERS THAN EMPLOYEES WHO AFFECTED SAFETY FROM THE LABOR
STANDARDS ACT. 

IT IS CONTENDED BY APPELLEES THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE BETWEEN
SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (2) AND SUBSECTION (3) IS INDICATIVE OF A
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE REGULATION OF EMPLOYEES OF
PRIVATE CARRIERS TO "SAFETY OF OPERATION" WHILE INSERTING BROADER
AUTHORITY IN (1) AND (2) FOR EMPLOYEES OF COMMON AND CONTRACT
CARRIERS.  APPELLANTS ANSWER THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN LANGUAGE IS
EXPLAINED BY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE POWERS.  AS (1) AND (2) GIVE POWERS
BEYOND SAFETY FOR SERVICE, GOODS, ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS, LANGUAGE
LIMITING THOSE SUBSECTIONS TO SAFETY WOULD BE INAPT. 

APPELLEES CALL OUR ATTENTION TO CERTAIN PENDING LEGISLATION AS
SUSTAINING THEIR VIEW OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IN ENACTING THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  WE DO NOT THINK IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ACTION OF
THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THIS PENDING TRANSPORTATION
LEGISLATION THROWS MUCH LIGHT ON THE POLICY OF CONGRESS OR THE MEANING
ATTRIBUTED BY THAT BODY TO SEC. 204(A).  ASIDE FROM THE VERY PERTINENT
FACT THAT THE LEGISLATION IS STILL UNADOPTED, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
UP TO NOW POINTS ONLY TO A HESITATION TO DETERMINE A CONTROVERSY AS TO
THE MEANING OF THE PRESENT MOTOR CARRIER ACT, PENDING A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION.  FN42 

ONE AMENDMENT MADE TO THE THEN PENDING MOTOR CARRIER ACT HAS
RELEVANCE TO OUR INQUIRY.  SECTION 203(B) READS AS SET OUT IN THE NOTE
BELOW.  FN43  THE WORDS, "EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 RELATIVE
TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY
OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT," ITALICIZED IN THE NOTE, WERE
ADDED BY AMENDMENT IN THE HOUSE AFTER THE PASSAGE OF S. 1629 IN THE
SENATE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE DISPUTED CLAUSE TO SEC. 204(A)(1) AND
(2).  FN44  IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE EXEMPTED VEHICLES AND OPERATORS
INCLUDE COMMON, CONTRACT AND PRIVATE CARRIERS.  IT SEEMS EQUALLY
EVIDENT THAT WHERE THESE VEHICLES OR OPERATORS WERE COMMON OR CONTRACT
CARRIERS, IT WAS NOT INTENDED BY CONGRESS TO GIVE THE COMMISSION POWER
TO REGULATE THE QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, OTHER
THAN THOSE CONCERNED WITH THE SAFETY OF OPERATIONS. 

OUR CONCLUSION, IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET OUT IN THIS OPINION,
IS THAT THE MEANING OF EMPLOYEES IN SEC. 204(A)(1) AND (2) IS LIMITED
TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHOSE ACTIVITIES AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION. 
THE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REGULATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OR
HOURS OF SERVICE OF ANY OTHERS.  THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
ACCORDINGLY REVERSED AND IT IS DIRECTED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OF THE
APPELLEES.  REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 543. 

FN2  S. DOC. NO. 152, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS., REGULATION OF
TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES, P. 350.  SEE P. 25, FOR DISCUSSION OF THE
PRELIMINARY STEPS OF MOTOR CARRIER REGULATION.  HEARINGS ON REGULATION
OF INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS, H.R. 5262 AND H.R. 6016, BEFORE THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.;
HEARINGS ON S. 1629, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN3  SEC. 202; MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598. 

FN4  SECS. 202, 216, 217, 218. 

FN5  SERVICES, SEC. 203(A)(19); BROKERS, SEC. 203(A)(18), SEC.
204(A)(4); SECURITY ISSUES, SEC. 214; INSURANCE, SEC. 215; ACCOUNTS,
RECORDS AND REPORTS, SEC. 220. 

FN6  MAURER V. HAMILTON, SUPRA; REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION
AGENCIES, SUPRA, HIGHWAY AND SAFETY REGULATIONS, P. 32; HEARINGS ON S.
1629, SUPRA, PP. 122-123, 184. 

FN7  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665, 667. 

FN8  52 STAT. 1060. 

FN9  13 M.C.C. 481, 488. 

FN10  13 M.C.C. 481, 489. 

FN11  INTERPRETATIVE BULLETIN NO. 9, WAGE & HOUR MANUAL (1940) 168. 

FN12  SEC. 204(A)(1), (6) AND (7)(E); RULES OF PRACTICE I.C.C., APRIL
1, 1936, RULE XV. 

FN13  SEC. 205(H), MOTOR CARRIER ACT; URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, 38
STAT. 220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47, 47A. 

FN14  CF. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N V. U.S. REALTY & IMPROVEMENT
CO., ANTE, P. 434. 

FN15  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 238; 38 STAT. 208, 219-20; 49 STAT. 543,
SEC. 205(H). 

FN16  STORY, J., IN MINOR V. MECHANICS' BANK, 1 PETERS 46, 64:  "BUT
NO GENERAL RULE CAN BE LAID DOWN UPON THIS SUBJECT, FURTHER THAN THAT
THAT EXPOSITION OUGHT TO BE ADOPTED IN THIS, AS IN OTHER CASES, WHICH
CARRIES INTO EFFECT THE TRUE INTENT AND OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATURE IN
THE ENACTMENT."  PENNINGTON V. COXE, 2 CRANCH 33, 59; JAMES V.
MILWAUKEE, 16 WALL.  159, 161; ATKINS V. DISINTEGRATING CO., 18 WALL. 
272, 301; WHITE V. UNITED STATES, 191 U.S. 545, 551; OZAWA V. UNITED
STATES, 260 U.S. 178, 194; UNITED STATES V. STONE & DOWNER CO., 274
U.S. 225, 239; GULF STATES STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 32, 45;
ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. V. AMERICAN BOND & M. CO., 289 U.S. 165, 169;
LINCOLN V. RICKETTS, 297 U.S. 373, 376; FOSTER V. UNITED STATES, 303
U.S. 118, 120. 

FN17  CF. DAVIES, THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES IN THE LIGHT OF
THEIR POLICY BY THE ENGLISH COURTS, 35 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 519; RADIN,
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 43 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 863; LANDIS, A NOTE ON
"STATUTORY INTERPRETATION," 43 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 886; R. POWELL,
CONSTRUCTION OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS, 14 INDIANA LAW JOURNAL 199, 309,
324; JONES, THE PLAIN MEANING RULE, 25 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW
QUARTERLY 2. 

FN18  TAFT V. COMMISSIONER, 304 U.S. 351, 359; HELVERING V. CITY BANK
CO., 296 U.S. 85, 89; WILBUR V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 231, 237;
CROOKS V. HARRELSON, 282 U.S. 55, 60; UNITED STATES V. MISSOURI PACIFIC
R. CO., 278 U.S. 269, 278; VAN CAMP & SONS V. AMERICAN CAN CO., 278
U.S. 245, 253; CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470, 490;
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. INTERNATIONAL COAL CO., 230 U.S. 184, 199. 

FN19  ARMSTRONG CO. V. NU-ENAMEL CORP., 305 U.S. 315, 332; SORRELLS
V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 435, 446; UNITED STATES V. RYAN, 284 U.S.
167, 176. 

FN20  OZAWA V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 178, 194. 

FN21  HELVERING V. MORGAN'S, INC., 293 U.S. 121, 126; JOHNSON V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 196 U.S. 1, 14; POPOVICI V. AGLER, 280 U.S. 379;
SMILEY V. HOLM, 285 U.S. 355; WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 553;
MAURER V. HAMILTON, SUPRA, PP. 612, 615. 

FN22  BOSTON SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 41, 48. 

FN23  HELVERING V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 292 U.S. 455, 465. 

FN24  CF. COMMITTEE ON MINISTERS' POWERS REPORT (CMD.  4060, 1932),
P. 135. 

FN25  UNITED STATES V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO., 291 U.S. 386, 396;
UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA, 295 U.S. 174, 188, 191; KEIFER & KEIFER V.
R.F.C., 306 U.S. 381, 394; OZAWA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

FN26  34 STAT. 1415. 

FN27  38 STAT. 1164, 1169, 1170-84. 

FN28  52 STAT. 1007, SEC. 601(A)(5).  THIS AUTHORITY HAS APPARENTLY
BEEN EXERCISED ONLY AS TO PILOTS AND COPILOTS.  DEPT. OF COMMERCE,
BUREAU OF AIR COMMERCE, CIVIL AIR REGULATIONS, NO. 61, SCHEDULED
AIRLINE RULES (INTERSTATE), AS AMENDED TO MAY 31, 1938, SECS. 61.518
61.5185. 

FN29  THAT THE WORD "EMPLOYEES" IS NOT TREATED BY CONGRESS AS A WORD
OF ART HAVING A DEFINITE MEANING IS APPARENT FROM AN EXAMINATION OF
RECENT LEGISLATION.  THUS THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES
THAT "THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE' INCLUDES AN OFFICER OF A CORPORATION," (42
U.S.C. SEC. 1301(A)(6)) WHILE THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT SPECIFICALLY
EXEMPTS "ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN A BONA FIDE EXECUTIVE,
ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, OR LOCAL RETAILING CAPACITY.  ...  "  (29
U.S.C. SEC. 213(A)(1)).  IN THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT,
CONGRESS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THE VARIABLE MEANING OF EMPLOYEE EVEN
WHEN DEFINED AT LENGTH AND USED ONLY IN A SINGLE ACT:  "  ...
'EMPLOYEE' (EXCEPT WHEN USED IN PHRASES ESTABLISHING A DIFFERENT
MEANING) MEANS  ...  "  (45 U.S.C. SEC. 351(D)).  IN A STATUTE
PERMITTING HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS TO SETTLE CLAIMS UP TO $1,000 ARISING
FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF "EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT," CONGRESS GIVES
RECOGNITION TO THE FACT THAT THE TERM IS NOT ON ITS FACE ALL-INCLUSIVE
BY PROVIDING:  "'EMPLOYEE' SHALL INCLUDE ENLISTED MEN IN THE ARMY, NAVY
AND MARINE CORPS."  (31 U.S.C. SECS. 215, 216.)  SEE ALSO THE VARYING
DEFINITIONS OF "EMPLOYEES" IN THE FOLLOWING STATUTES:  RAILROAD
RETIREMENT ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 228A (B)(C); INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 1(7); EMERGENCY RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION ACT, 49 U.S.C. SEC.
251(F); COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 210; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 152(3); MARITIME LABOR RELATIONS ACT, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 1253(C); CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1923(CIVIL SERVICE), 5
U.S.C. SEC. 662; U.S. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. SEC. 790;
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 33 U.S.C. SEC.
902; BOILER INSPECTION ACT, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 22; RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 45
U.S.C. SEC. 151(5). 

WHERE THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" HAS BEEN USED IN STATUTES WITHOUT
PARTICULARIZED DEFINITION IT HAS NOT BEEN TREATED BY THE COURTS AS A
WORD OF DEFINITE CONTENT.  SEE METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S.
514, 520(CONSULTING ENGINEERS PERFORMING SERVICES FOR STATES,
MUNICIPALITIES, AND WATER DISTRICTS HELD NOT TO BE "EMPLOYEES" UNDER
STATUTE EXEMPTING "OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES UNDER  ... ANY STATE,  ...
OR ANY LOCAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF" FROM THE INCOME TAX); WASKEY V.
HAMMER, 223 U.S. 85(MINERAL SURVEYOR, APPOINTED BY THE SURVEYOR BUT
PAID BY PRIVATE PERSONS, IS WITHIN PROHIBITION OF STATUTE PROHIBITING
"EMPLOYES IN THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE" FROM PURCHASING PUBLIC LAND);
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' DEPT., 93 F.2D
340(FURLOUGHED RAILROAD WORKERS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY IN REHIRING HELD
"EMPLOYEES" WITHIN MEANING OF RAILWAY LABOR ACT), DISCUSSED IN 51 HARV.
L. REV. 1299; LATTA V. LONSDALE, 107 F. 585(ATTORNEY NOT "EMPLOYEE"
WITHIN MEANING OF STATUTE GIVING "EMPLOYEES" PREFERENCE AGAINST ASSETS
OF INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS); VANE V. NEWCOMBE, 132 U.S. 220(CONTRACTOR
WHO BUILT LINES FOR TELEGRAPH COMPANY NOT "EMPLOYEE" WITHIN STATUTE
GIVING EMPLOYEES LIENS AGAINST CORPORATE PROPERTY); MALCOMSON V. WAPPOO
MILLS, 86 F. 192(SAME); CF. UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 55 APP. D.C.
123; 2 F.2D 925(WAR DEPARTMENT CLERK RECEIVING DISABILITY COMPENSATION
HELD EMPLOYEE OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN COMMON LAW RULE OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA THAT EMPLOYEE OF A LITIGANT CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF JURY); SEE
ALSO, HULL V. PHILADELPHIA & READING RY. CO., 252 U.S. 475; LOUISVILLE,
E. & ST. L.R. CO. V. WILSON, 138 U.S. 501; CAMPBELL V. COMMISSIONER, 87
F.2D 128; BURNET V. JONES, 50 F.2D 14; BURNET V. MCDONOUGH, 46 F.2D
944. 

FN30  S. 1629, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN31  S. DOC. 152, 73RD CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 352, SEC. 304(A)(1). 

FN32  SEE THE TESTIMONY OF MR. MCMANAMY IN HEARINGS ON S. 1629 BEFORE
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP.
122, 123: 

"THE REGULATION OF THE HOURS OF SERVICE OF BUS AND TRUCK OPERATORS IS
FAR MORE IMPORTANT FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT THAN THE REGULATION OF THE
HOURS OF SERVICE OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THE DANGER IS GREATER. 
...  THIS COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY INSERTING IN SECTION 304(A)(1) AND
(2), LINES 9 AND 15, PAGE 8, FOLLOWING THE WORD 'RECORDS' IN BOTH
LINES, THE WORDS WHICH APPEAR IN S. 394, AS FOLLOWS:  'QUALIFICATIONS
AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES.'" 

THE CLAUSE IN QUESTION CAME FROM SEC. 2(A)(1) OF S. 394, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., A SUBSECTION OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE THE CORRESPONDING
SUBSECTION IN S. 1629. 

SENATOR WHEELER, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
SPONSOR OF THE BILL, EXPLAINED THE PROVISION ON THE FLOOR OF THE
SENATE: "  ...  THE COMMITTEE AMENDED PARAGRAPHS (1) AND (2)(OF SEC.
204) TO CONFER POWER ON THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE
REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS,  ...  THIS
SUGGESTION CAME TO US, I THINK, FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  ... 

"IN ORDER TO MAKE THE HIGHWAYS MORE SAFE, AND SO THAT COMMON AND
CONTRACT CARRIERS MAY NOT BE UNDULY PREJUDICED IN THEIR COMPETITION
WITH PEDDLER TRUCKS AND OTHER PRIVATE OPERATORS OF MOTOR TRUCKS, A
PROVISION WAS ADDED IN SUBPARAGRAPH 3 GIVING THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY
TO ESTABLISH SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE QUALIFICATIONS
AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF SUCH OPERATORS.  ..."  79
CONG. REC. 5652. 

FN33  S. REP. 482, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE REPORT STATED:  "NO
REGULATION IS PROPOSED FOR PRIVATE CARRIERS EXCEPT THAT AN AMENDMENT
ADOPTED IN COMMITTEE AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE THE
'QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY OF
OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT' OF PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR
VEHICLE IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THERE IS NEED FOR
SUCH REGULATION.  OTHER AMENDMENTS ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE CONFER LIKE
AUTHORITY UPON THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO COMMON AND CONTRACT
CARRIERS."  SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL
BILL. 

FN34  SEE LAST PARAGRAPH OF REMARKS OF SENATOR WHEELER, NOTE 32
SUPRA. 

FN35  HEARINGS, NOTE 32 SUPRA. 

FN36  79 CONG. REC. 12206. 

FN37  H.R. REP. NO. 1645, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN38  NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 315. 

FN39 HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303, 310. 

FN40  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, 3 M.C.C. 665, 667. 

FN41  81 CONG. REC. 7875. 

FN42  THE PENDING LEGISLATION IS S. 2009, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 84
CONG. REC. 3509.  AS TO THE POINT HERE UNDER DISCUSSION, THE REPORT OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE SAID:  "PARAGRAPH (1) OF SECTION 34 OF THE BILL IS
BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF SUBPARAGRAPHS (1), (2), AND (3) OF SECTION
204(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT, THERE WAS
INSERTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PARAGRAPH THE CLAUSE 'IN ORDER TO
PROMOTE SAFETY OF OPERATIONS,' THUS MAKING CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION'S
POWER TO REGULATE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF
EMPLOYEES IS CONFINED TO THOSE WHO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY OF
OPERATION.  THIS IS A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CONSIDERABLE DOUBT
SEEMS TO HAVE ARISEN UNDER THE WORDING OF THE PRESENT LAW.  UPON THE
STRENUOUS OBJECTION OF THE TRUCKERS CLAIMING CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS LAW
AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT, THE BILL (I.E., THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT) RESTORES THE LAW TO THE PRESENT PROVISIONS OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT."  S. REP. NO. 433, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 24.  THE BILL
PASSED THE SENATE.  THE HOUSE BILL LEFT SEC. 204(A)(1), (2) AND (3) OF
THE PRESENT ACT UNCHANGED.  84 CONG. REC. 9459; H.R. REP. NO. 1217,
76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., 84 CONG. REC. 10125.  WHILE THE BILLS WERE IN
CONFERENCE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION SENT TO THE CHAIRMEN OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE
COMMITTEES A LETTER ON THE HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS WHICH SUGGESTED THAT
BOTH BILLS EXPLICITLY LIMIT THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER
QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES TO CONSIDERATIONS OF
SAFETY.  THE LETTER STATED:  "WHILE THE SUBSECTION (IN THE SENATE BILL)
FOLLOWS THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OF SECTION 204  ...  , A CONTROVERSY HAS
ARISEN IN REGARD TO THE MEANING OF THAT LANGUAGE.  ...  THIS
CONTROVERSY HAS NOW REACHED THE SUPREME COURT.  WE THINK IT MAY WELL BE
DETERMINED IN THIS NEW LEGISLATION.  IN OUR JUDGMENT, IF RESTRICTIONS
ON HOURS OF LABOR FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REASONS ARE TO BE IMPOSED,
THIS SHOULD BE DONE BY CONGRESS, AND NO DUTY IN THAT RESPECT SHOULD BE
DELEGATED TO THE COMMISSION, WHICH HAS NO EXPERIENCE WHICH PARTICULARLY
FITS IT FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH A DUTY.  OUR AUTHORITY OVER
QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE
CONFINED TO THE NEEDS OF SAFETY IN OPERATION.  ...  "  ON APRIL 26,
1940, THE HOUSE CONFEREES REPORTED TO THE HOUSE A COMPROMISE BILL
AGREED ON BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WHICH LEFT SEC. 204(A)(1), (2),
AND (3) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT UNAMENDED.  86 CONG. REC. 7847; H.R.
REP. NO. 2016, 76TH CONG., 3D SESS.  ON MAY 9, 1940, THE HOUSE BECAUSE
OF DISAGREEMENT WITH SECTIONS OF THIS BILL NOT HERE RELEVANT VOTED TO
RECOMMIT THE BILL TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.  86 CONG. REC. 8986. 

FN43  "(B)  NOTHING IN THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
204 RELATIVE TO QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF
EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE (1) MOTOR VEHICLES EMPLOYED SOLELY IN TRANSPORTING
SCHOOL CHILDREN AND TEACHERS TO OR FROM SCHOOL; OR (2) TAXICABS, OR
OTHER MOTOR VEHICLES PERFORMING A BONA FIDE TAXICAB SERVICE, HAVING A
CAPACITY OF NOT MORE THAN SIX PASSENGERS AND NOT OPERATED ON A REGULAR
ROUTE OR BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI; OR (3) MOTOR VEHICLES OWNED OR OPERATED
BY OR ON BEHALF OF HOTELS AND USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF HOTEL PATRONS BETWEEN HOTELS AND LOCAL RAILROAD OR OTHER COMMON
CARRIER STATIONS; OR (4) MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED, UNDER AUTHORIZATION,
REGULATION, AND CONTROL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, PRINCIPALLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING PERSONS IN AND ABOUT THE NATIONAL PARKS
AND NATIONAL MONUMENTS; OR (4A) MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLLED AND OPERATED
BY ANY FARMER, AND USED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES AND PRODUCTS THEREOF, OR IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUPPLIES
TO HIS FARM; OR (4B) MOTOR VEHICLES CONTROLLED AND OPERATED BY A
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AS DEFINED IN THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT,
APPROVED JUNE 15, 1929, AS AMENDED; OR (5) TROLLEY BUSSES OPERATED BY
ELECTRIC POWER DERIVED FROM A FIXED OVERHEAD WIRE, FURNISHING LOCAL
PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SIMILAR TO STREET-RAILWAY SERVICE; OR (6)
MOTOR VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY IN CARRYING LIVESTOCK, FISH (INCLUDING
SHELL FISH), OR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES (NOT INCLUDING MANUFACTURED
PRODUCTS THEREOF); OR (7) MOTOR VEHICLES USED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF NEWSPAPERS; NOR, UNLESS AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
COMMISSION SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME FIND THAT SUCH APPLICATION IS
NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF CONGRESS ENUNCIATED IN SECTION
202, SHALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART, EXCEPT THE PROVISIONS OF
EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY OF OPERATION OR STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT APPLY TO:
(8) THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE WHOLLY WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY OR BETWEEN CONTIGUOUS
MUNICIPALITIES OR WITHIN A ZONE ADJACENT TO AND COMMERCIALLY A PART OF
ANY SUCH MUNICIPALITY OR MUNICIPALITIES, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH
TRANSPORTATION IS UNDER A COMMON CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT
FOR A CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OR SHIPMENT TO OR FROM A POINT WITHOUT SUCH
MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPALITIES, OR ZONE, AND PROVIDED THAT THE MOTOR
CARRIER ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER REGULAR OR
IRREGULAR ROUTE OR ROUTES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ALSO LAWFULLY
ENGAGED IN THE INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OVER THE ENTIRE
LENGTH OF SUCH INTERSTATE ROUTE OR ROUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS
OF EACH STATE HAVING JURISDICTION; OR (9) THE CASUAL, OCCASIONAL, OR
RECIPROCAL TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE FOR COMPENSATION BY ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS A REGULAR OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS." 

FN44  H.R. REP. NO. 1645, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE STONE, AND MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS ARE OF OPINION THAT THE DECREE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED FOR
THE REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 31 F.SUPP. 
35. 
..END :
















UNITED STATES V. DICKERSON, 310 U.S. 554 


NO. 705.  ARGUED APRIL 26, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 27, 1940.  - 89 CT. CLS.
520, REVERSED. 


1.  A PROVISO APPENDED TO AN APPROPRIATION IN SEC. 402 OF PUBLIC
RESOLUTION 122, JUNE 21, 1938, DECLARED "NO PART OF ANY APPROPRIATION
CONTAINED IN THIS OR ANY OTHER ACT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30,
1939, SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT" OF ANY ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE
FOR "RE-ENLISTMENTS MADE DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1939,
NOTWITHSTANDING APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 9 AND 10" OF THE BASIC
MILITARY PAY ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922.  HELD, IN VIEW OF ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, THAT THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISO WAS NOT MERELY TO RESTRICT THE
FUNDS AVAILABLE, BUT TO SUSPEND THE RIGHT TO RE-ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCES
DURING THE FISCAL YEAR SPECIFIED.  P. 555. 

2.  THERE SHOULD BE A CONSIDERED WEIGHING OF EVERY RELEVANT AID TO
CONSTRUCTION, IN DETERMINING THE MEANING OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  P.
562. 

UNITED STATES V. DICKERSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 647, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE CLAIM
OF A SOLDIER FOR A RE-ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER RESPONDENT, DICKERSON, MAY RECOVER A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UPON A CAUSE OF ACTION FOUNDED UPON SEC. 9 OF
THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, C. 212, 42 STAT. 625, 629-630. 

ALLOWANCE SHALL BE PAID "TO EVERY HONORABLY DISCHARGED ENLISTED MAN
...  WHO RE-ENLISTS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF
HIS DISCHARGE."  RESPONDENT, WHO WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED UPON THE
TERMINATION OF AN ENLISTED PERIOD ENDING ON THE 21ST OF JULY, 1938, RE
ENLISTED ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE 22ND, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS,
BUT WAS NOT PAID AN ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE.  HE THEREUPON BROUGHT THIS
ACTION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT SEC. 9, IF NOT
REPEALED OR SUSPENDED AT THE DATE OF HIS RE-ENLISTMENT, WOULD ENTITLE
HIM TO THE SUM OF SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS. 

THE GOVERNMENT OPPOSED THE ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF CLAIMS ON THE
GROUND THAT SEC. 402 OF PUBLIC RESOLUTION NO. 122, JUNE 21, 1938, C.
554, 52 STAT. 809, 818-819, SUSPENDED THE ALLOWANCE FOR RE-ENLISTMENT
DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1939.  SECTION 402 CONTAINS A
PROVISO, APPENDED TO AN APPROPRIATION FOR THE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION
ADMINISTRATION, THAT "NO PART OF ANY APPROPRIATION CONTAINED IN THIS OR
ANY OTHER ACT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1939, SHALL BE
AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT" OF ANY ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE FOR "RE
ENLISTMENTS MADE DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1939,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 9 AND 10" OF THE
ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND
THAT SEC. 402, WHILE IT RESTRICTED THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF
THE ALLOWANCE, DID NOT SUSPEND OR REPEAL SEC. 9.  89 CT. CLS. 520. 
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
REVENUES, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  309 U.S. 647. 

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS COULD SUSPEND OR REPEAL THE
AUTHORIZATION CONTAINED IN SEC. 9; AND IT COULD ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE
BY AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROPRIATION BILL, OR OTHERWISE.  UNITED STATES
V. MITCHELL, 109 U.S. 146, 150; MATHEWS V. UNITED STATES, 123 U.S. 182;
DUNWOODY V. UNITED STATES, 143 U.S. 578; BELKNAP V. UNITED STATES, 150
U.S. 588, 593; UNITED STATES V. VULTE, 233 U.S. 509, 515.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. LANGSTON, 118 U.S. 389.  THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER IT DID
SO DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING ON THE 30TH OF JUNE, 1939. 

YEARS ENDING ON THE 30TH OF JUNE, 1923 TO 1933, AFTER WHICH DATE IT WAS
SUSPENDED DURING THE ENSUING FOUR FISCAL YEARS BY A PROVISION INSERTED
IN VARIOUS APPROPRIATION ACTS.  SECTION 18 OF THE ECONOMY ACT OF MARCH
3, 1933, C. 212, 47 STAT. 1489, 1519, PROVIDED THAT "SO MUCH OF
PROVIDES FOR THE PAYMENT OF ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCES TO ENLISTED MEN FOR
RE-ENLISTMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM DATE OF DISCHARGE IS
HEREBY SUSPENDED AS TO RE-ENLISTMENTS MADE DURING THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 1934."  THIS PROVISION, WHICH CONCEDEDLY SUSPENDED THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE, WAS CONTINUED IN FULL FORCE
AND EFFECT FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDING ON THE 30TH OF JUNE, 1935, 1936
AND 1937, BY ITS INSERTION IN THE ECONOMY PROVISIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT
OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1935 AND IN THE TREASURY
POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION ACTS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1936 AND 1937. 
FN1 

THE SECOND DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL OF MAY 28, 1937, C. 277, 50
STAT. 213, 232, ALSO CONTAINED A PROVISION AFFECTING THE ENLISTMENT
ALLOWANCE, BUT THE FORM OF WORDS USED WAS CHANGED.  THAT ACT AS PASSED
BY CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT "NO PART OF ANY APPROPRIATION CONTAINED IN
THIS OR ANY OTHER ACT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1938, SHALL
BE AVAILABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE TO ENLISTED MEN
FOR RE-ENLISTMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM DATE OF
DISCHARGE AS TO RE-ENLISTMENTS MADE DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE
30, 1938, NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 9 AND
10 OF THE ACT" APPROVED JUNE 10, 1922.  THE IDENTICAL PROVISION, WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THE DATES, WAS APPENDED AS A PROVISO TO SEC. 402 OF
PUBLIC RESOLUTION 122, COPIED ABOVE, AND WAS MADE APPLICABLE DURING THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING ON THE 30TH OF JUNE, 1939. 

THE PROVISION INSERTED IN THE SECOND DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL
FOR 1937 WAS INTRODUCED ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AS AN AMENDMENT BY
SENATOR BYRNES.  IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE AMENDMENT, THE
SENATOR STATED (81 CONG. REC. 4426): 

"...  THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN CARRIED ORDINARILY IN
THE TREASURY AND POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION BILL, BUT WAS NOT CARRIED IN
THAT APPROPRIATION BILL THIS YEAR, AND IS THEREFORE PROPOSED TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE BILL NOW BEFORE US. 

     .         .         .         .       . 

THE EFFECT OF IT IS SIMPLY TO CARRY THE SAME LIMITATION THAT HAS BEEN
CARRIED FOR YEARS IN THE APPROPRIATION BILLS. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

ITS PURPOSE IS TO CONTINUE THE APPROPRIATION SITUATION THAT HAS
EXISTED FOR YEARS, SO THAT NO BOUNTY SHALL BE PAID FOR RE-ENLISTMENT IN
THE MILITARY AND OTHER UNIFORMED SERVICES."  THE AMENDMENT WAS
THEREUPON ADOPTED IN THE SENATE WITHOUT RECORDED OPPOSITION, AND WAS
SENT TO CONFERENCE.  THE HOUSE MANAGERS, IN REPORTING THE AMENDMENT TO
THE HOUSE, DESCRIBED IT AS "CONTINUING DURING THE FISCAL YEAR 1938 THE
SUSPENSION OF THE RE-ENLISTMENT GRATUITY FOR ENLISTED PERSONNEL OF THE
ARMY, NAVY, MARINE CORPS, AND COAST GUARD."  81 CONG. REC. 5084.  THE
COURSE OF THE DEBATE AMPLY DISCLOSES THAT THE HOUSE REGARDED THE
AMENDMENT AS CONTINUING DURING THE FISCAL YEAR 1938 THE SAME
RESTRICTION ON THE ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE AS THE PROVISION INSERTED IN
EARLIER APPROPRIATION BILLS.  FN2  IT WAS THEN ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE. 
81 CONG. REC. 5091. 

THE IDENTICAL PROVISION (EXCEPT AS TO THE DATES), EVENTUALLY APPENDED
TO SEC. 402 OF PUBLIC RESOLUTION 122, WAS INTRODUCED AS AN AMENDMENT TO
THE SECOND DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1938(H.R.
10851, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.), THEN PENDING IN THE HOUSE.  83 CONG. REC.
8522-8569.  A POINT OF ORDER WAS MADE AGAINST THE AMENDMENT ON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS LEGISLATION IN AN APPROPRIATION BILL; REPRESENTATIVE
WOODRUM, WHO HAD CHARGE OF THE AMENDMENT, ADMITTED THAT THE POINT OF
ORDER WAS GOOD, AND THE CHAIR SUSTAINED IT.  83 CONG. REC. 8567.  THE
AMENDMENT WAS THEN OFFERED IN THE SENATE, WHERE THE PRESIDING OFFICER
ALSO SUSTAINED A POINT OF ORDER THAT IT WAS LEGISLATION IN AN
APPROPRIATION BILL.  FN3  83 CONG. REC. 9189. 

THE PROVISION WAS THEREAFTER INCLUDED BY THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE AS
A PROVISO TO SEC. 402 OF H.J. RES. 679(WHICH LATER BECAME PUB. RES. NO.
122).  SEE 83 CONG. REC. 9512, 9677.  IT WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE
WITHOUT MUCH DEBATE.  FN4  IN THE HOUSE, THE DEBATE DISCLOSED THAT THE
AMENDMENT HAD THE SAME PURPOSE AND EFFECT AS THE PROVISION INSERTED IN
THE VARIOUS APPROPRIATION BILLS FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS. 
REPRESENTATIVE WOODRUM, IN PRESENTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSE,
DESCRIBED IT AS FOLLOWS (83 CONG. REC. 9677): 

"  ...  WE ARE PROVIDING A FURTHER INHIBITION FOR 1 YEAR AGAINST
PAYMENT OF THE RE-ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCES IN THE MILITARY AND NAVAL
SERVICES. 

"NO RE-ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN PAID FOR THE PAST 5 FISCAL
YEARS IN ANY OF THE SERVICES, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PERMANENT LAW
STOPPING IT, THE INHIBITION HAS BEEN SHUTTLED ABOUT IN ECONOMY BILLS
AND APPROPRIATION BILLS AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER.  WE HAVE NOT PAID THEM
FOR 5 YEARS, AND THE LATTER PART OF THIS AMENDMENT NOW BEFORE THE HOUSE
IS A SENATE AMENDMENT WHICH DISCONTINUES FOR ANOTHER YEAR THE PAYMENT
OF THE RE-ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCES." 

THE OPPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENT, WHILE QUESTIONING ITS WISDOM, WERE IN
GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH ITS SPONSORS CONCERNING ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT. 
83 CONG. REC. 9678-9679.  THE AMENDMENT WAS THEN ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE. 
83 CONG. REC. 9679. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED IN SEC. 402 TO SUSPEND THE
ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 9 DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
ON THE 30TH OF JUNE, 1939.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, SUMMARIZED ABOVE,
DISCLOSES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE
ALLOWANCE DURING THE FISCAL YEARS 1938 AND 1939 AS A CONTINUATION OF
THE SUSPENSION ENACTED IN EACH OF THE FOUR PRECEDING YEARS.  THE
ADOPTION IN THE ACT OF MAY 28, 1937, OF DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY MIGHT IN
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE AN INTENT TO CHANGE THE OBJECT OF THE
LEGISLATION.  COMPARE BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280 U.S. 327, 337; CRAWFORD V.
BURKE, 195 U.S. 176, 190; PIRIE V. CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO., 182 U.S.
438, 448.  BUT THE DRAWING OF SUCH AN INFERENCE IS A WORKABLE RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION, NOT AN INFALLIBLE GUIDE TO LEGISLATIVE INTENT, AND CANNOT
OVERCOME MORE PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE WHERE, AS HERE, IT EXISTS.  COMPARE
BOSTON SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 41, 48. 

THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE WORDS OF SEC. 402 ARE PLAIN AND
UNAMBIGUOUS AND THAT OTHER AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION MAY NOT BE UTILIZED. 
IT IS SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO DENY THAT SUCH WORDS WHEN USED IN AN
APPROPRIATION BILL ARE WORDS OF ART OR HAVE A SETTLED MEANING.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. PERRY, 50 F. 743, 748(C.C.A.8TH).  FN5  THE VERY
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS WHICH RESPONDENT WOULD EXCLUDE REFUTE HIS
ASSUMPTION.  IT WOULD BE ANOMALOUS TO CLOSE OUR MINDS TO PERSUASIVE
EVIDENCE OF INTENTION ON THE GROUND THAT REASONABLE MEN COULD NOT
DIFFER AS TO THE MEANING OF THE WORDS.  LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS MAY BE
WITHOUT PROBATIVE VALUE, OR CONTRADICTORY, OR AMBIGUOUS, IT IS TRUE,
AND IN SUCH CASES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO CONTROL THE CUSTOMARY
MEANING OF WORDS OR OVERCOME RULES OF SYNTAX OR CONSTRUCTION FOUND BY
EXPERIENCE TO BE WORKABLE; THEY CAN SCARCELY BE DEEMED TO BE
INCOMPETENT OR IRRELEVANT.  SEE BOSTON SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AT 48.  THE MEANING TO BE ASCRIBED TO AN ACT OF CONGRESS
CAN ONLY BE DERIVED FROM A CONSIDERED WEIGHING OF EVERY RELEVANT AID TO
CONSTRUCTION.  FN6  THESE LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  C. 102, 48 STAT. 509, 523; C. 110, 49 STAT. 218, 226-227; C.
725, 49 STAT. 1827, 1837. 

FN2  MR. SCOTT, ONE OF THE CHIEF SPEAKERS AGAINST THE AMENDMENT,
STATED (81 CONG. REC. 5089): "IN 1933 AN AMENDMENT WENT INTO THE
TREASURY-POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION BILL TAKING AWAY OR SUSPENDING THIS
RE-ENLISTMENT BONUS.  ...  THE PROVISION WAS CONTINUED BY INSERTING IT
IN THE TREASURY-POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION BILL EACH YEAR FROM 1933
UNTIL THIS YEAR.  IT WAS IN THE TREASURY-POST OFFICE APPROPRIATION BILL
THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO THE HOUSE FOR CONSIDERATION THIS YEAR.  I RAISED
A POINT OF ORDER AGAINST THE PROVISION ON THE GROUND IT WAS LEGISLATION
ON AN APPROPRIATION BILL, AND THAT IT DID NOT COME UNDER THE HOLMAN
RULE.  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE SUSTAINED THE POINT OF ORDER. 

"THE BILL WENT TO THE SENATE AND THE SUSPENSION WAS NOT PLACED IN THE
BILL.  THE SECOND DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATION BILL PASSED THE HOUSE AND
WENT OVER TO THE SENATE.  THIS AMENDMENT WAS PLACED IN THERE.  IT WAS
CLEARLY SUBJECT TO A POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE, BUT THE POINT WAS
NOT MADE AGAINST IT. 

"IT NOW COMES BACK TO THE HOUSE FOR A SEPARATE VOTE AS AN AMENDMENT. 
IF WE VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT IT MEANS THE FURTHER SUSPENSION OF THE RE
ENLISTMENT BONUS TO THE ENLISTED PERSONNEL OF THE ARMY, NAVY, MARINE
CORPS, COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY, AND COAST GUARD." 

MR. WOODRUM, WHO TOOK CHARGE OF EXPLAINING THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO
THE HOUSE, STATED (81 CONG. REC. 5090):  "IN THE FIRST PLACE, I WISH TO
EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE AMENDMENT ONLY ASKS TO
CONTINUE THIS LEGISLATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1938.  ...  WE ASK IN
THIS AMENDMENT THAT DURING THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR THIS RE-ENLISTMENT
BONUS BE NOT ALLOWED; AND I MAY SAY, MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS NOT TAKING
ONE SOLITARY THING AWAY FROM ANY ENLISTED MAN IN THE ARMY, NAVY, OR
MARINE CORPS.  HE IS GETTING EXACTLY THE PAY THAT WAS PROMISED HIM, AND
EVERY MEMBER OF THE ARMY, THE NAVY, AND THE MARINE CORPS WHO ENLISTED
DURING THE LAST 3 YEARS ENLISTED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THERE WAS NO RE
ENLISTMENT BONUS GOING TO BE PAID TO HIM IF HE DID RE-ENLIST. 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"  ...  THEY KNOW NOW WHAT THEY KNEW WHEN THEY RE-ENLISTED, THAT THE
TIME HAS NOT YET COME WHEN THE CONGRESS CAN OFFER A BONUS TO PEOPLE
WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT." 

FN3  SENATOR BYRNES, WHO HAD OFFERED THE AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, THEN ENGAGED IN THE FOLLOWING COLLOQUY WITH
SENATOR WALSH (83 CONG. REC. 9189-9190): 

MR. BYRNES.  ...  I WILL SAY TO THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS, IN
THE LIGHT OF THE RULING OF THE CHAIR, THAT BEFORE THE CONGRESS ADJOURNS
I SHALL CERTAINLY MAKE AN EFFORT TO DO SOMETHING TO BRING ABOUT A
CHANGE, SO THAT THERE WILL NOT BE DISSATISFACTION AMONG THE VARIOUS
SERVICES.  IF THE BOUNTIES WERE ALL RESTORED, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WOULD
BE INVOLVED.    MR. WALSH.  IS NOT THE SITUATION THAT UNDER EXISTING
LAW THERE IS NOW AN AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS TO BE PAID TO THOSE WHO RE
ENLIST IN THE ARMY, NAVY, MARINE CORPS, AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE?  IS
NOT THAT THE SITUATION? 

MR. BYRNES.  THERE IS AUTHORITY TO PAY THE BOUNTY.  IT HAS NOT BEEN
PAID FOR 6 YEARS. 

MR. WALSH.  NO FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. 

MR. BYRNES.  NO FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE.    MR. WALSH.  THE HOUSE BILL
DID SEEK TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR RE-ENLISTMENT BOUNTIES IN THE ARMY.  OF
COURSE, IT WOULD BE HIGHLY DISCRIMINATORY TO HAVE RE-ENLISTMENT
BOUNTIES PAID TO THOSE WHO RE-ENLIST IN THE ARMY, AND NONE PAID TO
THOSE WHO RE-ENLIST IN THE OTHER BRANCHES OF THE MILITARY SERVICE. 

MR. BYRNES.  IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE DISCRIMINATORY, AND CAUSE GREAT
DISSATISFACTION AMONG THE SERVICES. 

MR. WALSH.  IS THE BILL NOW IN SUCH SHAPE THAT NO FUNDS ARE PROVIDED
FOR RE-ENLISTMENT BOUNTIES FOR ANY BRANCH OF THE MILITARY SERVICE? 

MR. BYRNES.  THAT IS CORRECT. 

MR. WALSH.  WHAT THE SENATOR SOUGHT TO DO WAS TO HAVE CONGRESS
DECLARE AS ITS POLICY THAT IT DID NOT INTEND IN THE FUTURE TO PAY SUCH
RE-ENLISTMENT BOUNTIES, SO AS TO PREVENT POSSIBLE CLAIMS; IS NOT THAT
TRUE? 

MR. BYRNES.  MR. PRESIDENT, THE SOLE POSITION OF THE COMMITTEE IS
THAT NO FUNDS BEING PROVIDED, WE SHOULD NOT LEAVE OPEN THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR NUMBERS OF PERSONS TO FILE CLAIMS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN BEHALF
OF MEN WHO RE-ENLIST, WITH THE RESULT THAT A YEAR FROM NOW, OR 2 YEARS
FROM NOW, SOME MEN WOULD RECEIVE THE RE-ENLISTMENT BOUNTY OR SOME PART
OF IT, AFTER THE ATTORNEYS RECEIVED THEIR FEES. 

MR. WALSH.  I THINK I UNDERSTAND. 

FN4  THE DEBATE IN THE SENATE WAS AS FOLLOWS (83 CONG. REC. 9512): 

MR. WALSH.  MR. PRESIDENT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BILL AS IT PASSED
THE HOUSE CONTAINED A PROVISION FOR THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THIS
APPROPRIATION FOR RE-ENLISTMENTS IN THE ARMY, AND NO PROVISIONS WERE
MADE FOR THE USE OF ANY OF THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF RE
ENLISTMENTS IN THE NAVY, THE MARINE CORPS, OR THE COAST GUARD. 

MR. ADAMS.  THAT IS CORRECT. 

MR. WALSH.  THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT IS TO ELIMINATE THE
PROVISION FOR PAYMENT IN CASE OF RE-ENLISTMENTS IN THE ARMY BECAUSE IT
IS DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST THE OTHER SERVICES AND CIVIL FORCES, WHICH
FORMERLY RECEIVED RE-ENLISTMENT PAY AND ALLOWANCES. 

MR. ADAMS.  THAT IS CORRECT, AND IT IS TO OPEN THE WAY FOR STATUTORY
CLEARING OF THE WHOLE SITUATION. 

FN5  COMPARE LUCE, LEGISLATIVE PROBLEMS (1935), PP. 421 ET SEQ.,
432. 

FN6  "WHERE THE MIND LABOURS TO DISCOVER THE DESIGN OF THE
LEGISLATURE, IT SEIZES EVERY THING FROM WHICH AID CAN BE DERIVED  ...
"  UNITED STATES V. FISHER, 2 CRANCH 358, 386. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS ARE OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 
..END :














DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET V. OIL CO., 310 U.S. 268 


NO. 662.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  - 106 F.2D
896, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE, BY THE TERMS OF A CHARTER PARTY, THE CHARTERER HAS THE
DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE VESSEL, AND THERE IS NO PROHIBITION
AGAINST THE CREATION OF LIENS FOR NECESSARY SUPPLIES ORDERED BY THE
CHARTERER, ONE WHO ON THE ORDER OF THE CHARTERER SUPPLIES FUEL OIL TO
THE VESSEL IS ENTITLED TO A MARITIME LIEN, EVEN THOUGH THE CHARTER
REQUIRES THE CHARTERER TO "PROVIDE AND PAY FOR" FUEL.  CONSTRUING THE
ACT OF JUNE 23, 1910, AS AMENDED.  PP. 271, 275. 

SEMBLE, WHERE THE CHARTER PARTY PROHIBITS THE CREATION OF A LIEN FOR
SUPPLIES ORDERED BY THE CHARTERER, NO LIEN WILL ATTACH. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE SUPPLIER HAD A GENERAL CONTRACT WITH THE
CHARTERER TO SUPPLY "THE FUEL OIL REQUIREMENTS OF ANY AND ALL VESSELS
OWNED, CHARTERED, OR OPERATED" BY THE LATTER, HELD NOT TO DEFEAT THE
LIEN, WHERE SUCH CONTRACT DID NOT PROVIDE THAT THE OIL SHOULD BE
SUPPLIED ON THE SOLE CREDIT OF THE CHARTERER OR NEGATIVE THE CREATION
OF MARITIME LIENS FOR SUPPLIES ACTUALLY FURNISHED TO THE VESSELS IN
SATISFYING THEIR REQUIREMENTS.  P. 276. 

3.  THE ACT OF JUNE 23, 1910, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES THAT "ANY PERSON
TO WHOM THE MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL AT THE PORT OF SUPPLY IS
INTRUSTED" SHALL BE PRESUMED TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO PROCURE SUPPLIES UPON
THE CREDIT OF THE VESSEL.  HELD THAT WHERE, APART FROM MERE NAVIGATION,
THE VESSEL IS PLACED UNDER THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE CHARTERER
AS THE HIRER OF THE VESSEL, WHO AS SUCH MAY DETERMINE TO WHAT PORT SHE
SHALL GO AND WHAT SHE SHALL CARRY, SUBJECT ONLY TO SPECIFIED
EXCEPTIONS, THEN THE CHARTERER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION TO THE
CONTRARY, IS DEEMED TO BE INTRUSTED WITH THE VESSEL'S MANAGEMENT,
WITHIN THAT PROVISION OF THE ACT.  PP. 277, 279-280. 

DAMPSKIBSSELSKABET DANNEBROG, CLAIMANT, ET AL. V. SIGNAL OIL & GAS CO.
OF CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 644, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF DECREES IN
ADMIRALTY, 25 F.SUPP.  594, SUSTAINING MARITIME LIENS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO MARITIME LIENS
FOR FUEL OIL DELIVERED TO PETITIONERS' VESSELS. 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1932, RESPONDENT, SIGNAL OIL AND GAS COMPANY, MADE A
CONTRACT WITH THE ANGLO CANADIAN SHIPPING COMPANY, LIMITED, AGREEING TO
SELL FUEL OIL TO ANY VESSEL WHICH THE ANGLO CANADIAN COMPANY MIGHT OWN,
CHARTER OR OPERATE.  IN MAY, 1933, THE PARTIES MODIFIED THE CONTRACT SO
AS TO INCLUDE THE FUEL OIL REQUIREMENTS OF VESSELS OWNED, CHARTERED OR
OPERATED BY W. L. COMYN & SONS.  LATER, THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS OF THE
TWO VESSELS HERE IN QUESTION, THE "STJERNEBORG" AND THE "BRAND,"
CHARTERED THEM TO W. L. COMYN & SONS. 

THE CHARTERS WERE TIME CHARTERS ON THE SO-CALLED "GOVERNMENT FORM." 
THE OWNERS AGREED "TO LET" AND THE CHARTERERS "TO HIRE" THE VESSEL
"FROM THE TIME OF DELIVERY" FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD, THE VESSEL TO BE
PLACED "AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE CHARTERERS" AT SUCH PLACE AS THE
CHARTERERS MAY DIRECT, BEING ON HER DELIVERY READY TO RECEIVE CARGO AND
TO BE EMPLOYED IN CARRYING MERCHANDISE AS STATED.  THE OWNERS AGREED TO
PROVIDE AND PAY FOR ALL PROVISIONS, WAGES AND SHIPPING AND DISCHARGING
FEES OF THE CAPTAIN, OFFICERS, ENGINEERS, FIREMEN AND CREW; TO PAY FOR
THE INSURANCE OF THE VESSEL, AND TO MAINTAIN HER IN A THOROUGHLY
EFFICIENT STATE IN HULL, MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT.  THE CHARTERERS
AGREED TO "PROVIDE AND PAY FOR" COALS AND FUEL OIL, PORT CHARGES,
PILOTAGES, ETC., AND ALL OTHER USUAL EXPENSES EXCEPT AS BEFORE STATED. 
THE CHARTERERS WERE TO PAY "FOR THE USE AND HIRE" OF THE VESSEL A
STIPULATED AMOUNT COMMENCING "ON AND FROM THE DAY OF HER DELIVERY" AND
TO CONTINUE UNTIL "THE DAY OF HER REDELIVERY IN LIKE GOOD ORDER AND
CONDITION, ORDINARY WEAR AND TEAR EXCEPTED, TO THE OWNERS (UNLESS LOST)
AT A SAFE PORT" AS DESIGNATED.  IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE CAPTAIN,
ALTHOUGH APPOINTED BY THE OWNERS, SHOULD BE "UNDER THE ORDERS AND
DIRECTION OF THE CHARTERERS AS REGARDS EMPLOYMENT OR AGENCY"; AND THE
CHARTERERS WERE TO LOAD, STOW AND TRIM THE CARGO AT THEIR EXPENSE UNDER
THE SUPERVISION OF THE CAPTAIN.  IF THE CHARTERERS SHOULD HAVE REASON
TO BE DISSATISFIED WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE CAPTAIN, OFFICERS OR
ENGINEERS, THE OWNERS IF NECESSARY SHOULD MAKE A CHANGE IN THE
APPOINTMENTS.  THE CHARTERERS WERE ALLOWED TO APPOINT A SUPERCARGO TO
ACCOMPANY THE VESSEL AND "SEE THAT VOYAGES ARE PROSECUTED WITH THE
UTMOST DESPATCH."  IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THE CHARTER
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A "DEMISE" AND THAT THE OWNERS WERE TO REMAIN
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NAVIGATION OF THE VESSEL.  THE CHARTERS CONTAINED
NO PROHIBITION AGAINST THE CREATION OF LIENS FOR NECESSARY SUPPLIES
ORDERED BY THE CHARTERERS. 

RESPONDENT LIBELED THE VESSELS FOR FUEL OIL SUPPLIED TO THE VESSELS
RESPECTIVELY ON THE CHARTERERS' ORDER, AND THE OWNERS APPEARED AND
FILED ANSWERS ALLEGING THAT THE OIL WAS FURNISHED UPON THE CHARTERERS'
CREDIT AND NOT UPON THAT OF THE VESSEL. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE LIENS, 25 FED. SUPP. 594, AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DECREES.  106 F.2D 896.  BECAUSE
OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN THE CRATHEUS, 263 F. 693, AND PENSACOLA
SHIPPING CO. V. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, 277 F. 889, CERTIORARI
WAS GRANTED, 309 U.S. 644. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE INSTANT CASE FOLLOWED ITS
DECISIONS IN THE PORTLAND, 273 F. 401, AND THE GOLDEN GATE, 52 F.2D
397.  THE GOLDEN GATE WAS A CASE OF A TIME CHARTER WHICH REQUIRED THE
CHARTERER TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR FUEL OIL BUT CONTAINED NO PROVISION
DENYING THE RIGHT OF THE CHARTERER TO BIND THE SHIP FOR NECESSARY
SUPPLIES.  THE COURT SAID THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PROHIBITION THE
SHIP WAS BOUND WHETHER THE SUPPLIES WERE ORDERED BY THE CHARTERER OR BY
THE MASTER.  THE RULING WAS REITERATED BY THE SAME COURT IN THE LUDDCO,
66 F.2D 997, 998.  IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION, RESPONDENT CITES
THE FOLLOWING CASES FROM OTHER CIRCUITS:  THE EVEROSA, C.C.A. 1ST, 93
F.2D 732, 735; THE J. W. HENNESSY, C.C.A.2D, 57 F.2D 77, 79, 80; THE
ANNA E. MORSE, C.C.A. 3D, 286 F. 794, 798; MUNSON INLAND WATER LINES V.
SEIDL, C.C.A.7TH, 71 F.2D 791, 793. 

PETITIONERS RELY UPON OUR DECISIONS IN THE KATE, 164 U.S. 458, 464,
AND THE VALENCIA, 165 U.S. 264, TO THE EFFECT THAT WHERE THE CHARTER
PARTY REQUIRES THE CHARTERER TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR SUPPLIES, THE
SUPPLIER BEING CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER
PARTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A MARITIME LIEN FOR SUPPLIES FURNISHED TO THE
VESSEL UPON THE ORDER OF THE CHARTERER. 

THESE DECISIONS, HOWEVER, WERE PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 23, 1910, 36 STAT. 604, WHICH GOVERNS THE PRESENT CASE.  THE TEXT
OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED, IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 ITS PURPOSE
WAS TO SIMPLIFY AND CLARIFY THE RULES AS TO MARITIME LIENS AS TO WHICH
THERE HAD BEEN MUCH CONFUSION.  THE ACT DID AWAY WITH THE ARTIFICIAL
DISTINCTION BETWEEN REPAIRS, SUPPLIES, ETC., FURNISHED IN HOME PORTS
AND THOSE FURNISHED IN FOREIGN PORTS.  IT DID AWAY WITH THE DOCTRINE
THAT WHEN THE OWNER OF A VESSEL CONTRACTED IN PERSON FOR NECESSARIES OR
WAS PRESENT IN THE PORT WHEN THEY WERE ORDERED, IT WAS PRESUMED THAT
THE MATERIAL-MAN DID NOT INTEND TO RELY UPON THE VESSEL'S CREDIT.  IT
SUBSTITUTED A FEDERAL STATUTE FOR NUMEROUS STATE STATUTES PURPORTING TO
CONFER LIENS.  PIEDMONT COAL CO. V. SEABOARD FISHERIES CO., 254 U.S. 1,
11.  FN2 

IN SO DOING, THE STATUTE PROVIDED A SERIES OF SIMPLE AND
COMPREHENSIVE RULES.  WHILE IT WAS SAID NOT TO BE INTENDED TO CHANGE
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF MARITIME LIENS,  FN3  IT WAS
INTENDED TO OPERATE IN AID OF THOSE WHO SUPPLY NECESSARIES TO SHIPS AND
IT CORRESPONDINGLY RESTRICTED THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNERS OF THE VESSELS. 
ANY PERSON FURNISHING REPAIRS, SUPPLIES, ETC., TO A VESSEL WHETHER
FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, "UPON THE ORDER OF THE OWNER" OR "OF A PERSON
AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER," IS TO HAVE A MARITIME LIEN WHICH MAY BE
ENFORCED BY SUIT IN REM.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ALLEGE OR PROVE THAT
CREDIT WAS GIVEN TO THE VESSEL.  THE "MANAGING OWNER, SHIP'S HUSBAND,
MASTER, OR ANY PERSON TO WHOM THE MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL AT THE PORT
OF SUPPLY IS INTRUSTED,"  IS PRESUMED TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO PROCURE THE
NECESSARIES.  THE OFFICERS AND AGENTS THUS SPECIFIED INCLUDE THOSE
APPOINTED "BY A CHARTERER, BY AN OWNER PRO HAC VICE, OR BY AN AGREED
PURCHASER IN POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL."  THESE BROAD PROVISIONS ARE
THEN SUBJECTED TO THE QUALIFICATION THAT NOTHING IN THE ACT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED TO CONFER A LIEN "WHEN THE FURNISHER KNEW, OR BY EXERCISE OF
REASONABLE DILIGENCE COULD HAVE ASCERTAINED, THAT BECAUSE OF THE TERMS
OF A CHARTER PARTY, AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE VESSEL, OR FOR ANY OTHER
REASON, THE PERSON ORDERING THE REPAIRS, SUPPLIES, OR OTHER NECESSARIES
WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO BIND THE VESSEL THEREFOR." 

DESPITE THE AIM THUS TO PROVIDE SIMPLE AND CLEAR RULES, THERE HAS
BEEN NO LITTLE CONTRARIETY OF OPINION IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
STATUTE, - WELL ILLUSTRATED BY THE CONFLICTING DECISIONS TO WHICH WE
HAVE REFERRED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF MARITIME LIENS WHERE
SUPPLIES HAVE BEEN ORDERED BY A CHARTERER WHO HAS AGREED WITH THE OWNER
TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR THEM.  AS, IN SUCH A CASE, THE SUPPLIES ARE
FURNISHED ON THE CHARTERER'S ORDER, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE
SUPPLIER IS CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER
WHEN HE EITHER KNOWS THEM OR BY REASONABLE DILIGENCE COULD HAVE
ASCERTAINED THEM.  SO FAR, THE PRINCIPLE OF THE KATE AND THE VALENCIA,
SUPRA, IS EMBODIED IN THE STATUTE.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT, IN THE
LIGHT OF THE STATUTE, THE KATE AND THE VALENCIA CAN STILL BE REGARDED
AS AUTHORITY FOR THE VIEW THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE CHARTERER IS
BOUND TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR THE SUPPLIES EXCLUDES THE SUPPLIER FROM
HAVING A MARITIME LIEN WHEN THE CHARTER PARTY CONTAINS NO PROHIBITION
AGAINST ITS CREATION. 

WE THINK THAT OUR DECISION IN THE SOUTH COAST, 251 U.S. 519,  FN4
NEGATIVES SUCH A CONCLUSION.  THAT WAS A CASE OF A BARE-BOAT CHARTER
WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE CHARTERER SHOULD PAY FOR ALL SUPPLIES AND ALL
OTHER CHARGES AND SAVE THE OWNER HARMLESS FROM ALL LIENS.  THE SUPPLIES
WERE ORDERED BY THE MASTER, BUT, THOUGH APPOINTED BY THE OWNER, THE
MASTER WAS UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE CHARTERER AND THUS THE MASTER'S
ORDERS WERE THE CHARTERER'S ORDERS.  WHEN THE SUPPLIES WERE ORDERED,
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OWNER AT THE PORT OF SUPPLY WARNED THE SUPPLIER
THAT THE VESSEL WAS UNDER CHARTER AND THAT HE MUST NOT FURNISH THE
SUPPLIES ON THE CREDIT OF THE VESSEL.  IF THE OWNER HAD POWER TO
PREVENT THE ATTACHING OF A LIEN BY THIS WARNING, THE OWNER HAD DONE SO.
BUT WHILE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CHARTER PARTY IT WAS CLEARLY THE DUTY
OF THE CHARTERER TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR THE SUPPLIES AND TO SAVE THE
OWNER HARMLESS, THIS WAS HELD NOT TO PRECLUDE THE CREATION OF A
MARITIME LIEN.  THE KATE AND THE VALENCIA WERE CITED UNAVAILINGLY. 
WHEN THE CHARTER PARTY WAS EXAMINED TO SEE IF IT PROHIBITED LIENS IT
WAS FOUND THAT IT DID NOT DO SO; IT RECOGNIZED THE POSSIBILITY OF
LIENS.  IT PROVIDED THAT THE OWNER MIGHT RETAKE THE VESSEL IN CASE OF
THE FAILURE OF THE CHARTERER TO DISCHARGE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS ANY DEBT
WHICH WAS A LIEN UPON IT AND ALSO FOR A SURRENDER OF THE VESSEL FREE OF
LIENS UPON THE CHARTERER'S FAILURE TO MAKE CERTAIN PAYMENTS. 

WE THINK THAT THE FAIR IMPORT OF OUR DECISION IN THE SOUTH COAST IS
THAT WHEN THE CHARTERER HAS THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE VESSEL AND
IT IS HIS BUSINESS TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUPPLIES, AND THE CHARTER PARTY
DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE CREATION OF A MARITIME LIEN THEREFOR, THE
MATERIALMAN IS ENTITLED TO FURNISH THE SUPPLIES UPON THE CREDIT OF THE
VESSEL AS WELL AS UPON THAT OF THE CHARTERER AND THE LIEN IS NOT
DEFEATED BY THE FACT THAT THE CHARTERER HAS PROMISED THE OWNER TO PAY. 

WHEN, HOWEVER, THE CHARTER PARTY, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF WHICH THE
MATERIAL-MAN IS CHARGED, PROHIBITS THE CREATION OF A LIEN FOR SUPPLIES
ORDERED BY THE CHARTERER OR THE CHARTERER'S REPRESENTATIVE, NO LIEN
WILL ATTACH.  THIS WAS DECIDED IN UNITED STATES V. CARVER, 260 U.S.
482.  THAT WAS A CASE OF VESSELS OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE
CHARTERER, WHOSE REPRESENTATIVE HAD ORDERED THE SUPPLIES, HAD AGREED
THAT IT WOULD "NOT SUFFER NOR PERMIT ANY LIEN" WHICH MIGHT HAVE
PRIORITY OVER THE TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE OWNER.  THE QUESTION WAS
WHETHER A MARITIME LIEN WOULD HAVE ARISEN AGAINST THE VESSELS IF THEY
HAD BEEN PRIVATELY OWNED.  THE COURT, QUOTING THE PROVISION OF THE ACT
OF 1910 AS TO THE DUTY OF THE MATERIAL-MAN TO MAKE INQUIRY, SAID THAT
HE WAS NOT ENTITLED "TO REST UPON PRESUMPTIONS UNTIL HE IS PUT UPON
INQUIRY"; HE MUST INQUIRE.  "IF BY INVESTIGATION WITH REASONABLE
DILIGENCE THE MATERIAL-MAN COULD HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THE VESSEL WAS
UNDER CHARTER, HE WAS CHARGEABLE WITH NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A CHARTER;
IF IN THE SAME WAY HE COULD HAVE FOUND OUT ITS TERMS HE WAS CHARGEABLE
WITH NOTICE OF ITS TERMS."  THE COURT ADDED THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN
NO DIFFICULTY IN FINDING OUT BOTH.  THE COURT FOUND A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CHARTER PARTY IN THE CARVER CASE AND THAT
USED IN THE SOUTH COAST.  IN THE CARVER CASE "THE PRIMARY UNDERTAKING"
WAS THAT "A LIEN SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED."  THE LIEN WAS DENIED, NOT
BECAUSE THE CHARTERER WAS BOUND TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR SUPPLIES, BUT
BECAUSE THE CHARTER PARTY PROHIBITED THE LIEN.  TO THE SAME EFFECT IS
THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE ST. JOHN'S.  COLONIAL BEACH CO. V.
QUEMAHONING COAL CO., 260 U.S. 707. 

AS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CHARTER PARTIES CONTAINED NO PROVISION
PROHIBITING THE CREATION OF A MARITIME LIEN, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
THE MERE FACT THAT THEY REQUIRED THE CHARTERERS TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR
THE SUPPLIES DID NOT PREVENT THE LIENS FROM ATTACHING. 

THE ARGUMENT IS PRESSED THAT RESPONDENT WAS UNDER A GENERAL CONTRACT
TO SUPPLY "THE FUEL OIL REQUIREMENTS OF ANY AND ALL VESSELS OWNED,
CHARTERED, OR OPERATED" BY W.L. COMYN & SONS.  BUT THIS CONTRACT DID
NOT PROVIDE THAT THE OIL SHOULD BE SUPPLIED ON THE SOLE CREDIT OF COMYN
AS THE OWNER OR CHARTERER OF THE VESSELS OR NEGATIVE THE CREATION OF
MARITIME LIENS FOR SUPPLIES ACTUALLY FURNISHED TO THE VESSELS IN
SATISFYING THEIR REQUIREMENTS.  THE DECISIONS WHICH PETITIONER CITES
ARE NOT APPOSITE.  IN PIEDMONT COAL CO. V. SEABOARD FISHERIES CO.,
SUPRA, THE COAL COMPANY HAD MADE A CONTRACT WITH A CORPORATION, WHICH
OWNED BOTH STEAMERS AND FACTORIES, TO FURNISH SUCH COAL AS SHOULD BE
REQUIRED.  THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE DIFFICULTY WHICH CONFRONTED THE
COAL COMPANY IN SEEKING TO ENFORCE A MARITIME LIEN DID NOT LIE IN THE
FACT THAT A CONTRACT HAD BEEN MADE FOR THE SUPPLY OF COAL.  "A VESSEL,"
SAID THE COURT, "MAY BE LIABLE IN REM FOR SUPPLIES, ALTHOUGH THE OWNER
CAN BE MADE LIABLE THEREFOR IN PERSONAM; SINCE THE DEALER MAY RELY UPON
THE CREDIT OF BOTH."  SO, THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT IF IN THAT CASE
"THE COAL HAD BEEN FURNISHED TO THE SEVERAL VESSELS BY THE LIBELLANT,
MARITIME LIENS WOULD HAVE ARISEN AND COULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED UNDER
THE STATUTE WITHOUT PROOF THAT CREDIT WAS GIVEN TO THE VESSELS."  THE
DIFFICULTY WHICH BLOCKED RECOVERY BY THE COAL COMPANY WAS "SOLELY THAT
IT DID NOT FURNISH COAL TO THE VESSELS."  THERE "WAS NO UNDERSTANDING
WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS MADE, OR WHEN THE COAL WAS DELIVERED BY THE
LIBELLANT, THAT ANY PART OF IT WAS FOR ANY PARTICULAR VESSEL OR EVEN
FOR THE VESSELS THEN COMPOSING THE FLEET.  AND IT WAS CLEARLY
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PURCHASING CORPORATION WOULD APPLY PART OF THE COAL
TO A NON-MARITIME USE."  ID., PP. 10, 11, 13.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE
OIL WAS SUPPLIED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE VESSELS IN QUESTION, WAS DELIVERED
DIRECTLY TO THE VESSELS AND WAS SO INVOICED; AND THERE WAS NOTHING IN
THE GENERAL CONTRACT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SUPPLIES WERE TO BE
FURNISHED UPON THE EXCLUSIVE CREDIT OF W. L. COMYN & SONS AND NOT ALSO
UPON THE CREDIT OF THE VESSELS. 

IN THE OTHER CASE RELIED UPON, MARSHALL & CO. V. THE PRESIDENT
ARTHUR, 279 U.S. 564, THE POINT WAS THAT THE MARITIME LIEN HAD BEEN
WAIVED BY THE LIBELLANT UNDER AN AGREEMENT BY WHICH TRADE ACCEPTANCES
ENDORSED BY DESIGNATED PERSONS HAD BEEN RECEIVED; THAT "BY TAKING OTHER
AND DIFFERENT SECURITY, UPON WHICH IT RELIED, AND WHICH IT STILL
RETAINS, WITHOUT STIPULATING FOR THE RETENTION OF THE LIEN, IT HAS
WAIVED THE LIEN WHICH IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE HAD."  ID., P. 572.  IT
MAY BE NOTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS A CONTENTION THAT THE
LIENS HAD BEEN WAIVED BY THE RESPONDENT BY ENTERING INTO A CERTAIN
CREDITOR'S AGREEMENT AND BY ACCEPTING CERTAIN SECURITY.  BUT IT
APPEARED THAT IN THOSE TRANSACTIONS THE RIGHT TO THE LIENS ON THE
VESSELS HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY RESERVED.  THE COURT BELOW ACCORDINGLY RULED
THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO WAIVER AND ITS DECISION IN THAT RELATION HAS NOT
BEEN CHALLENGED HERE. 

THERE REMAINS THE CONTENTION THAT, APART FROM ANY PROHIBITION OF THE
CREATION OF LIENS, THE VESSELS COULD NOT BE BOUND FOR SUPPLIES ORDERED
BY THE CHARTERERS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CHARTER PARTIES.  THERE
IS A PLAIN DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CASE OF A BARE-BOAT CHARTER, WHERE THE
CHARTERER MANS THE VESSEL, AND A CASE WHERE THE CHARTER PARTY IS A MERE
CONTRACT FOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS.  IN THE FORMER THERE IS A CLEAR
DEMISE; IN THE LATTER, THE CHARTERER IS IN SUBSTANCE ONLY A SHIPPER. 
FN5  THERE IS AN INTERMEDIATE CLASS OF CHARTERS WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO
MANY QUESTIONS IN VARIOUS SITUATIONS.  TIME CHARTERS OF THE SORT NOW
BEFORE US ARE IN THIS CLASS.  THE OWNER PROVIDES THE MASTER AND CREW
AND UNDERTAKES THE NAVIGATION OF THE VESSEL AND TO MAINTAIN HER IN AN
EFFICIENT CONDITION.  BUT THE MASTER ALTHOUGH APPOINTED BY THE OWNER,
IS PLACED "UNDER THE ORDERS AND DIRECTION OF THE CHARTERERS AS REGARDS
EMPLOYMENT OR AGENCY."  THE OWNERS AGREE "TO LET" THE VESSEL AND THE
CHARTERERS "TO HIRE" HER "FROM THE TIME OF DELIVERY" UNTIL THE DATE SET
FOR "HER REDELIVERY."  THE CHARTERERS ARE TO PROVIDE AND PAY FOR FUEL
SUPPLIES, PORT CHARGES, PILOTAGES, ETC. AND ALL OTHER EXPENSES EXCEPT
THOSE PERTAINING TO THE CAPTAIN, OFFICERS OR CREW. 

THERE IS THUS A DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIBILITY, AND LIABILITY OR THE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF PARTICULAR CONDUCT WOULD BE DETERMINED
ACCORDINGLY.  WHILE THE OWNERS ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
NAVIGATION OF THE VESSELS AND THEIR MAINTENANCE IN AN EFFICIENT STATE,
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH ANY QUESTIONS RELATING TO FAULTS IN
NAVIGATION OR FAILURE IN MAINTENANCE.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE OWNERS
FURNISHED THE MASTER AND CREW CANNOT BE REGARDED AS DECISIVE OF THE
QUESTION BEFORE US.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SHEA, 152 U.S. 178, 190, 191;
UNITED STATES V. CORNELL STEAMBOAT CO., 267 U.S. 281.  ASIDE FROM THE
NAVIGATION OF THE VESSELS, THEY WERE PLACED UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE
CHARTERERS AND THE MASTER AND CREW WERE UNDER THEIR DIRECTIONS.  THE
VESSELS BY THE TERMS OF THE CHARTERS WERE DELIVERED TO THE CHARTERERS,
AND WHERE THE VESSELS WERE TO GO AND WHAT THEY WERE TO CARRY, WITHIN
THE BROAD LIMITS DESCRIBED IN THE CHARTERS, WERE DETERMINED BY THE
CHARTERERS. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER UNDER A CHARTER, CONTAINING THESE OR SIMILAR
PROVISIONS, THE MATERIAL-MAN MAY HAVE A LIEN FOR SUPPLIES FURNISHED ON
THE ORDER OF THE CHARTERER HAS GIVEN RISE TO CONFLICTING VIEWS  FN6
AND NO LITTLE CONFUSION HAS RESULTED. 

WE THINK THAT THIS CONFLICT MAY BE RESOLVED BY HAVING DUE REGARD TO
THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF THE GOVERNING STATUTE.  THE ACT SAYS NOTHING
ABOUT TYPES OF CHARTERS.  IN SPEAKING OF THOSE WHO SHALL BE PRESUMED TO
HAVE AUTHORITY TO PROCURE SUPPLIES, THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY INCLUDES NOT
ONLY THE "SHIP'S HUSBAND" AND THE "MASTER" BUT "ANY PERSON TO WHOM THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE VESSEL AT THE PORT OF SUPPLY IS INTRUSTED," AND THESE
PERSONS ARE TO BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE SUCH OFFICERS AND AGENTS "WHEN
APPOINTED BY A CHARTERER, BY AN OWNER PRO HAC VICE, OR BY AN AGREED
PURCHASER IN POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL."  WE THINK THAT THE PURPOSE OF
THE STATUTE IS NOT PROPERLY SERVED BY CONSTRUING THE TERM "MANAGEMENT
OF THE VESSEL" AS REFERRING TO HER "NAVIGATION."  MANAGEMENT IS A
BROADER TERM CONNOTING DIRECTION AND CONTROL FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH
THE VESSEL IS USED.  WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, APART FROM MERE
NAVIGATION, THE VESSEL IS PLACED UNDER THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE
CHARTERER AS THE HIRER OF THE VESSEL, WHO AS SUCH MAY DETERMINE TO WHAT
PORT SHE SHALL GO AND WHAT SHE SHALL CARRY, SUBJECT ONLY TO SPECIFIED
EXCEPTIONS, WE THINK THE CHARTERER MUST BE DEEMED TO BE INTRUSTED WITH
THE VESSEL'S MANAGEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE STATUTORY TEST
OF AUTHORITY TO OBTAIN NECESSARY SUPPLIES UPON THE CREDIT OF THE
VESSEL, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY. 

THE ORIGIN OF THE MARITIME LIEN IS THE NEED OF THE SHIP.  PIEDMONT
COAL CO. V. SEABOARD FISHERIES CO., SUPRA.  THE LIEN IS GIVEN FOR
SUPPLIES WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO KEEP THE SHIP GOING.  THE MATERIAL-MAN
WHEN FURNISHING SUCH SUPPLIES ON THE ORDER OF THE CHARTERER IS CHARGED
WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE TERMS OF THE CHARTER PARTY WHEN HE CAN ASCERTAIN
THEM, BUT WHEN IT APPEARS THAT BY THESE TERMS THE CHARTERER HAS
DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE VESSEL AND THAT HE IS THE ONE TO OBTAIN
THE ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES, AND THAT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION OF THE
CREATION OF A MARITIME LIEN, THE MATERIAL-MAN IS PROTECTED BY THE TERMS
OF THE STATUTE.  HE FURNISHES THE SUPPLIES ON THE ORDER OF THE PERSON
AUTHORIZED TO OBTAIN THEM AND HE IS ENTITLED TO RELY ON THE CREDIT OF
THE VESSEL AS WELL AS UPON THE CREDIT OF THE ONE WHO GIVES THE ORDER. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD THWART THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE
TO COMPEL THE MATERIAL-MAN FURNISHING SUPPLIES TO THE VESSEL TO RESOLVE
THE AMBIGUITIES WHICH MAY BE FOUND IN SUCH CHARTERS AS THOSE HERE
INVOLVED.  THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO AFFORD THE MATERIAL-MAN A
REASONABLY CERTAIN CRITERION.  THE OWNER HAS A SIMPLE AND READY MEANS
OF PROTECTION.  ALL THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR HIM TO DO, AS THE MATERIAL
MAN IN DEALING WITH THE CHARTERER IS CHARGED WITH NOTICE OF THE
CHARTER, IS TO PROVIDE THEREIN THAT THE CREATION OF MARITIME LIENS IS
PROHIBITED.  WHEN THE OWNER DOES NOT DO SO, HE SHOULD NOT BE HEARD TO
COMPLAIN WHEN IT APPEARS THAT IT IS THE CHARTERER'S BUSINESS TO OBTAIN
SUPPLIES TO KEEP THE VESSEL ON HER WAY AND THE CHARTER HAS NOT
PROHIBITED RELIANCE UPON THE CREDIT OF THE VESSEL. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ACT OF JUNE 23, 1910, 36 STAT. 604, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
JUNE 5, 1920, SEC. 30, 41 STAT. 1005, 46 U.S.C. 971-973, PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 971.  PERSONS ENTITLED TO LIEN.  ANY PERSON FURNISHING REPAIRS,
SUPPLIES, TOWAGE, USE OF DRY DOCK OR MARINE RAILWAY, OR OTHER
NECESSARIES, TO ANY VESSEL, WHETHER FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC, UPON THE ORDER
OF THE OWNER OF SUCH VESSEL, OR OF A PERSON AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER,
SHALL HAVE A MARITIME LIEN ON THE VESSEL, WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY SUIT
IN REM, AND IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO ALLEGE OR PROVE THAT CREDIT
WAS GIVEN TO THE VESSEL. 

"SEC. 972.  PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO PROCURE REPAIRS, SUPPLIES, AND
NECESSARIES.  THE FOLLOWING PERSONS SHALL BE PRESUMED TO HAVE AUTHORITY
FROM THE OWNER TO PROCURE REPAIRS, SUPPLIES, TOWAGE, USE OF DRY DOCK OR
MARINE RAILWAY, AND OTHER NECESSARIES FOR THE VESSEL:  THE MANAGING
OWNER, SHIP'S HUSBAND, MASTER, OR ANY PERSON TO WHOM THE MANAGEMENT OF
THE VESSEL AT THE PORT OF SUPPLY IS INTRUSTED.  NO PERSON TORTIOUSLY OR
UNLAWFULLY IN POSSESSION OR CHARGE OF A VESSEL SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO
BIND THE VESSEL. 

"SEC. 973.  NOTICE TO PERSON FURNISHING REPAIRS, SUPPLIES, AND
NECESSARIES.  THE OFFICERS AND AGENTS OF A VESSEL SPECIFIED IN SECTION
972, SHALL BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE SUCH OFFICERS AND AGENTS WHEN APPOINTED
BY A CHARTERER, BY AN OWNER PRO HAC VICE, OR BY AN AGREED PURCHASER IN
POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL; BUT NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE
CONSTRUED TO CONFER A LIEN WHEN THE FURNISHER KNEW, OR BY EXERCISE OF
REASONABLE DILIGENCE COULD HAVE ASCERTAINED, THAT BECAUSE OF THE TERMS
OF A CHARTER PARTY, AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE VESSEL, OR FOR ANY OTHER
REASON, THE PERSON ORDERING THE REPAIRS, SUPPLIES, OR OTHER NECESSARIES
WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO BIND THE VESSEL THEREFOR." 

OTHER PROVISIONS, SECS. 974 AND 975, RELATE TO THE WAIVER OF LIENS
AND THE SUPERSEDING OF STATE LAWS. 

FN2  SEE, ALSO, THE YANKEE, 233 F. 919, 924; THE OCEANA, 244 F. 80,
82; SENATE REPORT, NO. 831, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS.; HOUSE REPORT, NO.
772, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN3  SENATE REPORT, NO. 831, 61ST CONG., 1ST SESS.  MARSHALL & CO. V.
THE PRESIDENT ARTHUR, 279 U.S. 564, 568. 

FN4  THE FACTS ARE MORE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  THE SOUTH COAST, 247 F. 84. 

FN5  SEE REED V. UNITED STATES, 11 WALL.  591, 600; LEARY V. UNITED
STATES, 14 WALL.  607, 610; UNITED STATES V. SHEA, 152 U.S. 178, 189
191; THE BARNSTABLE, 181 U.S. 464, 468. 

FN6  SEE, E.G., UPHOLDING THE LIEN; THE INDIA, 14 F. 476, 16 F. 262;
THE BOMBAY, 38 F. 512, 863; THE GEORGE DUMOIS, 68 F. 926; THE ANNA E.
MORSE, 286 F. 794; THE A. S. SHERMAN, 51 F.2D 782; THE GOLDEN GATE, 52
F.2D 397; THE EVEROSA, 93 F.2D 732.  SEE, E. G., CONTRA:  THE CRATHEUS,
263 F. 693; PENSACOLA SHIPPING CO. V. U.S. SHIPPING BOARD, 277 F. 889;
THE THORDIS, 290 F. 255; THE VILLE DE DJIBOUTI, 295 F. 869; THE PAJALA,
7 F.SUPP.  618; THE DICTATOR, 18 F.2D 131.  COMPARE, THE J. W.
HENNESSY, 57 F.2D 77, 80. 
..END :




















SONTAG STORES CO. V. NUT CO., 310 U.S. 281 


NO. 671.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  - 107 F.2D
318, REVERSED. 


1.  ONE WHO, SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PATENT BUT PRIOR TO THE
FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR A REISSUE PATENT ON BROADENED CLAIMS, PUT
INTO USE A MACHINE WHICH IT IS ALLEGED INFRINGES THE REISSUE PATENT,
THOUGH IT DOES NOT INFRINGE THE ORIGINAL PATENT, HELD, IN THE ABSENCE
OF FRAUD OR BAD FAITH, TO HAVE ACQUIRED INTERVENING RIGHTS WHICH BARRED
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST CONTINUED USE OF THE ACCUSED MACHINE.  PP.
282, 293-295. 

2.  THAT AT THE TIME THE ACCUSED MACHINE WAS FIRST PUT INTO USE THE
ALLEGED INFRINGER WAS WITHOUT ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT,
DOES NOT DEFEAT THE CLAIM OF INTERVENING RIGHTS.  P. 295. 

3.  ASSUMED, BUT NOT DECIDED, THAT (APART FROM THE QUESTION OF
INTERVENING RIGHTS) THE REISSUE PATENT HERE INVOLVED WAS VALID AND
INFRINGED.  P. 285. 

SONTAG CHAIN STORES CO., LTD. V. NATIONAL NUT COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 645, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE DENYING
AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECLARED RESPONDENT'S REISSUE PATENT NO.
20,024, FOR A NUT TREATING APPARATUS, VALID AND INFRINGED BY
PETITIONER'S USE OF THE ACCUSED MACHINE, AND REJECTED THE DEFENSE OF
INTERVENING RIGHTS.  THE RECORD REQUIRES US TO CONSIDER WHAT EFFECT AN
ENLARGED INCLUSIVE REISSUE CLAIM HAS UPON THE USE OF A MACHINE
MANUFACTURED AND OPERATED AFTER GRANT OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT WITHOUT
INFRINGING IT, BUT WHICH DOES COME WITHIN THE ENLARGEMENT. 

KOHLER'S PATENT - NO. 1,958,409 - WITH FOUR NARROW CLAIMS, ISSUED MAY
15, 1934. 

PETITIONER PROCURED AND BEGAN TO USE THE MACHINE HERE ACCUSED ABOUT
APRIL 1, 1935.  IT FIRST OBTAINED ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGINAL
PATENT OCTOBER 8, 1935 WHEN NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT WAS RECEIVED. 
NOTHING SHOWS EARLIER KNOWLEDGE BY THE MANUFACTURER WHO BEGAN TO MAKE
AND SELL LIKE MACHINES NOT LATER THAN AUGUST 1934. 

BY SUIT FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, OCTOBER 19, 1935, RESPONDENT
CHARGED PETITIONER WITH INFRINGING THE ORIGINAL PATENT, AND ASKED
APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  INFRINGEMENT WAS DENIED BY ANSWER, NOVEMBER 22,
1935. 

JANUARY 15, 1936 RESPONDENT APPLIED FOR AND ON JUNE 30, 1936 OBTAINED
A REISSUE PATENT - NO. 20,024 - WITH SEVENTEEN CLAIMS.  THE FIRST FOUR
WERE IDENTICAL WITH THE ORIGINAL ONES; THIRTEEN OF BROADER SCOPE COVER
PETITIONER'S MACHINE.  RESPONDENT WAS MOVED TO OBTAIN THE REISSUE BY
PETITIONER'S USE OF THE ACCUSED MACHINE. 

JANUARY 26, 1937 RESPONDENT BEGAN ANOTHER PROCEEDING CHARGING
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ENLARGED CLAIMS.  PETITIONER'S ANSWER RELIED UPON
INTERVENING RIGHTS ACQUIRED THROUGH PUBLIC USE WITHOUT VIOLATING THE
ORIGINAL PATENT; ALSO, INVALIDITY OF THE REISSUE BECAUSE OF LACHES. 
THE TWO SUITS WERE CONSOLIDATED; CLAIMS ONE TO FOUR WERE NOT RELIED ON.
A SINGLE DECREE WENT FOR PETITIONER.  BOTH BILLS WERE DISMISSED. 

INFRINGEMENT OF RESPONDENT'S DESIGN PATENT NO. 89,347 - FEBRUARY 28,
1933 - WAS ALLEGED, BUT BOTH COURTS DECLARED IT NOT INFRINGED.  NO
POINT IN RESPECT OF IT IS BEFORE US. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD - "THAT WITH RESPECT TO KOHLER REISSUE
LETTERS PATENT NO. 20,024 IN SUIT, THIS DEFENDANT AND THOSE IN PRIVITY
WITH IT, INCLUDING THE MANUFACTURER OF THE MACHINE IN QUESTION,
ACQUIRED INTERVENING RIGHTS WHICH IN EQUITY PLANTIFF MAY NOT NOW
DISTURB."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND DIRECTED A
REMAND.  107 F.2D 318. 

THE CAUSE IS HERE BY CERTIORARI.  PETITIONER ASSERTS THE REISSUE
PATENT IS VOID BECAUSE OF LACHES; ALSO THAT BY REASON OF ACQUIRED
INTERVENING RIGHTS, USE OF THE ACCUSED MACHINE MAY CONTINUE. 

THE PROVISION CONCERNING REISSUES IN THE PRESENT PATENT ACT, SEC.
4916 REVISED STATUTES AS AMENDED BY ACT MAY 24, 1928, C. 730, 45 STAT.
732; U.S.C. TITLE 35, SEC. 64, IS COPIED IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  IT
DERIVES THROUGH THE ACTS JULY 3, 1832, C. 162, SEC. 3, 4 STAT. 559;
JULY 4, 1836, C. 357, SEC. 13, 5 STAT. 117, 122; MARCH 3, 1837, C. 45,
SEC. 5, 5 STAT. 191, 192; JULY 8, 1870, C. 230, SEC. 53, 16 STAT. 198,
205. 

THE REISSUE PROVISION, ACT 1832, WAS SUPPLANTED WITHOUT CHANGE
PRESENTLY IMPORTANT BY THE CORRESPONDING ONE IN THE 1836 ACT.  THIS WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED IN 1870.  MODIFICATIONS BY THE 1928 ACT ARE NOT
IMPORTANT HERE.  STIMPSON V. WEST CHESTER RAILROAD CO., (1846) 4 HOW. 
380, 402; PARKER & WHIPPLE CO. V. YALE CLOCK CO., (1887) 123 U.S. 87,
96; WALKER ON PATENTS, DELLER'S EDITION (1937), VOL. 2, P. 1342;
ROBINSON ON PATENTS (1890) VOL. 2, SEC. 653 ET SEQ. 

THESE PROVISIONS HAVE OFTEN BEEN BEFORE THE COURTS AND THERE ARE
SHARPLY DIFFERING VIEWS CONCERNING THEM.  SOME OF THE PERTINENT CASES
ARE NOTED BELOW.  FN2 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFTER HOLDING THE ENLARGED REISSUE
CLAIMS VALID AND INFRINGED FURTHER DECLARED - "IN THE INSTANT CASE
THERE WAS ADMITTEDLY NO KNOWLEDGE OF OR RELIANCE ON THE SCOPE OF
PLAINTIFF'S PATENT, AND NO FACTS CREATING AN ESTOPPEL.  FURTHERMORE,
DEFENDANT HAS NOT SHOWN A TWO-YEARS USER OF THE INFRINGING PATENT.  THE
DEFENSE OF INTERVENING RIGHTS IS DENIED." 

FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, CORRECTNESS OF THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE REISSUE PATENT WAS VALID AND INFRINGED, AND UPON
THAT ASSUMPTION, WE COME TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE ENLARGED CLAIMS
UPON PETITIONER'S MACHINE, LAWFULLY MANUFACTURED AND OPERATED PRIOR TO
THEIR INCEPTION.  THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW DISHONESTY, BAD FAITH, OR
DECEPTIVE INTENTION UPON PETITIONER'S PART. 

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT INSIST THE DENIAL OF INTERVENING RIGHTS FINDS
ADEQUATE SUPPORT IN STIMPSON V. WEST CHESTER RAILROAD CO., SUPRA;
BATTIN V. TAGGERT, SUPRA; WHITE V. DUNBAR, SUPRA; TOPLIFF V. TOPLIFF,
SUPRA; ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. V. BALDWIN, SUPRA.  THE FIRST TWO ARE IN
POINT; BUT WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH LATER OPINIONS ARE NOT
DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT ISSUE.  THE OTHER CASES RELIED UPON ARE NOT
ESPECIALLY HELPFUL. 

THE PATENT ACT OF 1832 WAS A RESPONSE TO GRANT V. RAYMOND, (FEB. 23,
1832) 6 PET. 218, 242, 243-244.  THE OPINION THERE (CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL) AFFIRMED THE POWER OF THE SECRETARY TO GRANT AN APPLICATION
DATED APRIL 20, 1825 FOR REISSUE OF A PATENT DATED AUGUST 11, 1821
ALTHOUGH NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED SO TO DO, UPON THE GROUND THAT THIS
WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO EFFECT THE PURPOSES OF THE PATENT ACT BY
SECURING TO INVENTORS FULL BENEFIT OF THEIR DISCOVERIES THROUGH
"FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE SOLEMN PROMISE MADE BY THE UNITED STATES." 
THE COURT SAID - 

"AN OBJECTION MUCH RELIED ON IS, THAT AFTER THE INVENTION HAS BEEN
BROUGHT INTO GENERAL USE, THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART OR SCIENCE WITH
WHICH IT IS CONNECTED, PERCEIVING THE VARIANCE BETWEEN THE
SPECIFICATION AND THE MACHINE, AND AVAILING THEMSELVES OF IT, MAY HAVE
CONSTRUCTED, SOLD AND USED THE MACHINE WITHOUT INFRINGING THE LEGAL
RIGHTS OF THE PATENTEE, OR INCURRING THE PENALTIES OF THE LAW.  THE NEW
PATENT WOULD RETRO-ACT ON THEM, AND EXPOSE THEM TO PENALTIES TO WHICH
THEY WERE NOT LIABLE WHEN THE ACT WAS COMMITTED." 

"THIS OBJECTION IS MORE FORMIDABLE IN APPEARANCE THAN IN REALITY.  IT
IS NOT PROBABLE THAT THE DEFECT IN THE SPECIFICATION CAN BE SO APPARENT
AS TO BE PERCEIVED BY ANY BUT THOSE WHO EXAMINE IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PIRATING THE INVENTION.  THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO MUCH FAVOUR.  BUT THE
ANSWER TO THE OBJECTION IS, THAT THIS DEFENCE IS NOT MADE IN THIS CASE;
AND THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT
SUCH A DEFENCE WOULD NOT BE SUCCESSFUL.  THAT QUESTION IS NOT BEFORE
THE COURT, AND IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE OPINION WE ARE CONSIDERING.  THE
DEFENCE WHEN TRUE IN FACT MAY BE SUFFICIENT IN LAW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VALIDITY OF THE NEW PATENT." 

UNDER THE TWO YEAR RULE OF MILLER V. BRASS CO., (1881) SUPRA, NOTE 2,
A REISSUE PATENT GRANTED IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THOSE DISCLOSED BY THE
REPORT OF GRANT'S CASE, NOW WOULD BE DECLARED INVALID. 

STIMPSON V. WEST CHESTER RAILROAD CO., (1846) SUPRA, NOTE 2, INVOLVED
INFRINGEMENT OF A REISSUE, GRANTED IN 1835, OF AN ORIGINAL PATENT DATED
IN 1831.  THE TRIAL JUDGE CHARGED THE JURY - 

"IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTRUCTED THEIR RAILROAD
WITH THE PLAINTIFF'S CURVES IN 1834, ONE YEAR OR MORE BEFORE THE
PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR HIS RENEWED PATENT; CONSEQUENTLY, THEY MAY
CONTINUE ITS USE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO THE PLAINTIFF." 

THIS WAS DECLARED IN CONFLICT WITH THE REISSUE PROVISION ACT OF 1832
AND THE CORRESPONDING ONE IN THE 1836 ACT.  THE TWO ARE DECLARED
SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE.  THE COURT SAID - "IT IS PLAIN THAT NO PRIOR USE
OF THE DEFECTIVE PATENT CAN AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE INVENTION AFTER
THE EMANATION OF THE RENEWED PATENT UNDER THE ABOVE SECTION.  TO GIVE
TO THE PATENTEE THE FRUITS OF HIS INVENTION WAS THE OBJECT OF THE
PROVISION; AND THIS OBJECT WOULD BE DEFEATED, IF A RIGHT COULD BE
FOUNDED ON A USE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL PATENT AND PRIOR TO THE
RENEWED ONE.  ...  NOW ANY PERSON USING AN INVENTION PROTECTED BY A
RENEWED PATENT SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE DATE OF THIS ACT IS GUILTY OF AN
INFRINGEMENT, HOWEVER LONG HE MAY HAVE USED THE SAME AFTER THE DATE OF
THE DEFECTIVE AND SURRENDERED PATENT." 

BATTIN V. TAGGERT, (1854) SUPRA, NOTE 2, REAFFIRMED STIMPSON V. WEST
CHESTER R. CO., AND DISAPPROVED THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY -
"THAT A DESCRIPTION, BY THE APPLICANT, FOR A PATENT OF A MACHINE, OR A
PART OF A MACHINE, IN HIS SPECIFICATION, UNACCOMPANIED BY NOTICE THAT
HE HAS RIGHTS IN IT AS INVENTOR, OR THAT HE DESIRES TO SECURE TITLE TO
IT AS A PATENTEE, IS A DEDICATION OF IT TO THE PUBLIC.  THAT SUCH A
DEDICATION CANNOT BE REVOKED, AFTER THE MACHINE HAS PASSED INTO PUBLIC
USE, EITHER BY SURRENDER AND REISSUE, OR OTHERWISE." 

THE COURT SAID - "WHETHER THE DEFECT BE IN THE SPECIFICATIONS OR IN
THE CLAIM, UNDER THE 13TH SECTION (ACT 1836) ABOVE CITED, THE PATENTEE
MAY SURRENDER HIS PATENT, AND, BY AN AMENDED SPECIFICATION OR CLAIM,
CURE THE DEFECT.  THE REISSUED PATENT MUST BE FOR THE SAME INVENTION,
SUBSTANTIALLY, THOUGH IT BE DESCRIBED IN TERMS MORE PRECISE AND
ACCURATE THAN IN THE FIRST PATENT.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, A NEW AND
DIFFERENT INVENTION CANNOT BE CLAIMED.  BUT WHERE THE SPECIFICATION OR
CLAIM IS MADE SO VAGUELY AS TO BE INOPERATIVE AND INVALID, YET AN
AMENDMENT MAY GIVE TO IT VALIDITY, AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE
PATENTEE AGAINST ALL SUBSEQUENT INFRINGEMENTS." 

"SO STRONGLY WAS THIS REMEDY OF THE PATENT RECOMMENDED, BY A SENSE OF
JUSTICE AND OF POLICY, THAT THIS COURT, IN THE CASE OF GRANT V.
RAYMOND, 6 PET. 218, SUSTAINED A REISSUED AND CORRECTED PATENT, BEFORE
ANY LEGISLATIVE PROVISION WAS MADE ON THE SUBJECT." 

"HOW MUCH STRONGER IS A CASE UNDER THE STATUTE, WHICH SECURES THE
RIGHTS OF THE PATENTEE BY A SURRENDER, AND DECLARES THE EFFECT OF THE
REISSUED AND CORRECTED PATENT?  BY THE DEFECTS PROVIDED FOR IN THE
STATUTE, NOTHING PASSES TO THE PUBLIC FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS OR
CLAIMS, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PATENTEE'S INVENTION.  AND THIS MAY BE
ASCERTAINED BY THE LANGUAGE HE USES." 

MILLER V. BRASS CO., (1881) SUPRA, NOTE 2, DEPARTING FROM THE VIEW
EXPRESSED IN BATTIN V. TAGGERT CONCERNING OMISSIONS IN CLAIMS, DECLARED
- 

"BUT IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE CLAIM OF A SPECIFIC DEVICE OR
COMBINATION, AND AN OMISSION TO CLAIM OTHER DEVICES OR COMBINATIONS
APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE PATENT, ARE, IN LAW, A DEDICATION TO THE
PUBLIC OF THAT WHICH IS NOT CLAIMED.  IT IS A DECLARATION THAT THAT
WHICH IS NOT CLAIMED IS EITHER NOT THE PATENTEE'S INVENTION, OR, IF
HIS, HE DEDICATES IT TO THE PUBLIC.  THIS LEGAL EFFECT OF THE PATENT
CANNOT BE REVOKED UNLESS THE PATENTEE SURRENDERS IT AND PROVES THAT THE
SPECIFICATION WAS FRAMED BY REAL INADVERTENCE, ACCIDENT, OR MISTAKE,
WITHOUT ANY FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE INTENTION ON HIS PART; AND THIS
SHOULD BE DONE WITH ALL DUE DILIGENCE AND SPEED.  ANY UNNECESSARY
LACHES OR DELAY IN A MATTER THUS APPARENT ON THE RECORD AFFECTS THE
RIGHT TO ALTER OR REISSUE THE PATENT FOR SUCH CAUSE.  IF TWO YEARS'
PUBLIC ENJOYMENT OF AN INVENTION WITH THE CONSENT AND ALLOWANCE OF THE
INVENTOR IS EVIDENCE OF ABANDONMENT, AND A BAR TO AN APPLICATION FOR A
PATENT, A PUBLIC DISCLAIMER IN THE PATENT ITSELF SHOULD BE CONSTRUED
EQUALLY FAVORABLE TO THE PUBLIC.  NOTHING BUT A CLEAR MISTAKE, OR
INADVERTENCE, AND A SPEEDY APPLICATION FOR ITS CORRECTION, IS
ADMISSIBLE WHEN IT IS SOUGHT MERELY TO ENLARGE THE CLAIM." 

"WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT THE SPECIAL PURPOSE OF THE
LEGISLATION ON THIS SUBJECT TO AUTHORIZE THE SURRENDER OF PATENTS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REISSUING THEM WITH BROADER AND MORE COMPREHENSIVE
CLAIMS, ALTHOUGH, UNDER THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE LAW, SUCH A REISSUE
MAY BE MADE WHERE IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT AN ACTUAL MISTAKE HAS
INADVERTENTLY BEEN MADE.  BUT BY A CURIOUS MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW IT
HAS COME TO BE PRINCIPALLY RESORTED TO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENLARGING AND
EXPANDING PATENT CLAIMS.  AND THE EVILS WHICH HAVE GROWN FROM THE
PRACTICE HAVE ASSUMED LARGE PROPORTIONS.  PATENTS HAVE BEEN SO EXPANDED
AND IDEALIZED, YEARS AFTER THEIR FIRST ISSUE, THAT HUNDREDS AND
THOUSANDS OF MECHANICS AND MANUFACTURERS, WHO HAD JUST REASON TO
SUPPOSE THAT THE FIELD OF ACTION WAS OPEN, HAVE BEEN OBLIGED TO
DISCONTINUE THEIR EMPLOYMENTS, OR TO PAY AN ENORMOUS TAX FOR CONTINUING
THEM." 

MAHN V. HARWOOD (1884) SUPRA, NOTE 2, REAFFIRMS MILLER V. BRASS
COMPANY, AND DECLARES - 

"THE PUBLIC IS NOTIFIED AND INFORMED BY THE MOST SOLEMN ACT ON THE
PART OF THE PATENTEE, THAT HIS CLAIM TO INVENTION IS FOR SUCH AND SUCH
AN ELEMENT OR COMBINATION, AND FOR NOTHING MORE.  OF COURSE, WHAT IS
NOT CLAIMED IS PUBLIC PROPERTY.  THE PRESUMPTION IS, AND SUCH IS
GENERALLY THE FACT, THAT WHAT IS NOT CLAIMED WAS NOT INVENTED BY THE
PATENTEE, BUT WAS KNOWN AND USED BEFORE HE MADE HIS INVENTION.  BUT,
WHETHER SO OR NOT, HIS OWN ACT HAS MADE IT PUBLIC PROPERTY IF IT WAS
NOT SO BEFORE.  THE PATENT ITSELF, AS SOON AS IT IS ISSUED, IS THE
EVIDENCE OF THIS.  THE PUBLIC HAS THE UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO USE, AND IT IS
TO BE PRESUMED DOES USE, WHAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY CLAIMED IN THE
PATENT.  EVERY DAY THAT PASSES AFTER THE ISSUE OF THE PATENT ADDS TO
THE STRENGTH OF THIS RIGHT, AND INCREASES THE BARRIER AGAINST
SUBSEQUENT EXPANSION OF THE CLAIM BY REISSUE UNDER A PRETENCE OF
INADVERTENCE AND MISTAKE."    "THE TRUTH IS (AS WAS SHOWN IN MILLER V.
THE BRASS COMPANY), THAT THIS CLASS OF CASES, NAMELY, REISSUES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENLARGING AND EXPANDING THE CLAIM OF A PATENT, WAS NOT
COMPRISED WITHIN THE LITERAL TERMS OF THE LAW WHICH CREATED THE POWER
TO REISSUE PATENTS.  BUT SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE UNDOUBTEDLY
WAS TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF RELIEF WHICH COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE ALWAYS
GIVEN IN CASES OF CLEAR ACCIDENT AND MISTAKE IN THE DRAWING UP OF
WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS, IT MAY FAIRLY BE INFERRED THAT A MISTAKE IN A
PATENT WHEREBY THE CLAIM IS MADE TOO NARROW, IS WITHIN THE EQUITY, IF
NOT WITHIN THE WORDS, OF THE STATUTE.  YET NO COURT OF EQUITY,
CONSIDERING ALL THE INTERESTS INVOLVED, WOULD EVER GRANT RELIEF IN SUCH
A CASE WITHOUT DUE DILIGENCE AND PROMPTNESS ON THE PART OF THE PATENTEE
IN SEEKING TO HAVE THE ERROR CORRECTED.  IT IS JUST ONE OF THOSE CASES
IN WHICH LACHES AND UNNECESSARY DELAY WOULD BE HELD TO BE A BAR TO SUCH
RELIEF.  AND IN EXTENDING THE EQUITY OF THE STATUTE SO AS TO EMBRACE
THE CASE, THE COURTS SHOULD NOT OVERLOOK OR DISREGARD THE CONDITIONS ON
WHICH ALONE COURTS OF EQUITY WOULD TAKE ANY ACTION, AND ALSO ON WHICH
ALONE THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS HAS ANY POWER TO GRANT A REISSUE." 

SEE, CLEMENTS V. ODORLESS APPARATUS CO., (1884) 109 U.S. 641, 649
650; TURNER & SEYMOUR CO. V. DOVER STAMPING CO., (1884) 111 U.S. 319,
326-327; COON V. WILSON, (1885) 113 U.S. 268, 277. 

TOPLIFF V. TOPLIFF, (1892) SUPRA, NOTE 2, RECOGNIZES THAT A VALID
REISSUE PATENT WITH ENLARGED CLAIMS MAY BE GRANTED, WHEN THE ORIGINAL
IS INOPERATIVE, UNDER CONDITION - 

"SECOND.  THAT DUE DILIGENCE MUST BE EXERCISED IN DISCOVERING THE
MISTAKE IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT, AND THAT, IF IT BE SOUGHT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENLARGING THE CLAIM, THE LAPSE OF TWO YEARS WILL ORDINARILY,
THOUGH NOT ALWAYS, BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE OF AN ABANDONMENT OF THE NEW
MATTER TO THE PUBLIC TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT A FAILURE BY THE INVENTOR
TO APPLY FOR A PATENT WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE PUBLIC USE OR SALE OF
HIS INVENTION IS REGARDED BY THE STATUTE AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF AN
ABANDONMENT OF THE PATENT TO THE PUBLIC." 

IN DUNHAM V. DENNISON MANUFACTURING CO., (1894) SUPRA, NOTE 2,
INFRINGEMENT WAS ALLEGED OF A REISSUE, DATED JUNE 10, 1884, OF AN
ORIGINAL PATENT ISSUED MAY 8, 1883, FOR "A NEW AND IMPROVED COMBINED
TAG AND ENVELOPE."  THIS COURT SAID - 

"THE PATENT OF MAY 8, 1883, WAS EXPRESSLY AND DISTINCTLY, BOTH IN THE
SPECIFICATION AND IN THE CLAIMS, LIMITED TO AN ENVELOPE, WITH AN
OPENING AT ONE END; WITH A FLAP, ATTACHED TO THE ENVELOPE AT THAT END,
OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO COVER THE WHOLE OF THAT SIDE OF THE ENVELOPE IN
WHICH THE OPENING WAS; ...  THE PATENTEE THUS GAVE THE PUBLIC TO
UNDERSTAND THAT AN ENVELOPE, THE FLAP OF WHICH DID NOT COVER ITS WHOLE
LENGTH, WOULD NOT COME WITHIN HIS PATENT, AND MIGHT RIGHTFULLY BE MADE
BY ANY ONE.  AFTER THE DEFENDANT HAD MADE ENVELOPES WITH A SHORT FLAP
OF SEMI-CIRCULAR SHAPE AND COVERING LITTLE MORE THAN THE OPENING OF THE
ENVELOPE, (WHICH, IT IS ADMITTED, DID NOT INFRINGE THE PLAINTIFF'S
PATENT AS ORIGINALLY ISSUED,) THE PLAINTIFF OBTAINED A REISSUE,
ENLARGING THE CLAIMS, AND ALTERING THE SPECIFICATION THROUGHOUT, SO AS
TO INCLUDE AN ENVELOPE WITH A FLAP OF ANY SIZE OR SHAPE, AND TO MAKE
THE INVENTION CONSIST, NOT, AS IN THE LEADING WORDS OF THE DESCRIPTION
IN THE ORIGINAL PATENT, OF 'AN ENVELOPE WITH AN END FLAP COVERING ITS
SIDE,' BUT IN 'A TAG PROVIDED WITH MEANS FOR ATTACHING IT TO THE
MERCHANDISE, AND WITH AN ENVELOPE OR POCKET TO RECEIVE A BILL OR
INVOICE OF THE MERCHANDISE.'  THE WORDS OF THE DESCRIPTION IN THE
ORIGINAL PATENT WERE NEITHER TECHNICAL NOR COMPLICATED; BUT THEY WERE
OF THE SIMPLEST KIND, AND THEIR MEANING AND SCOPE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
MISUNDERSTOOD BY ANY ONE WHO READ THEM WITH THE SLIGHTEST ATTENTION,
LEAST OF ALL BY THE PATENTEE.  TO UPHOLD SUCH A REISSUE UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE TO GRANT A NEW AND DISTINCT PRIVILEGE TO THE
PATENTEE AT THE EXPENSE OF INNNOCENT PARTIES, AND WOULD BE INCONSISTENT
WITH THE WHOLE COURSE OF RECENT DECISIONS IN THIS COURT." 

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. V. BALDWIN, (1917) SUPRA, NOTE 2, DECLARED A
REISSUE CLAIM WAS NOT AN ENLARGEMENT AND HELD THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF
VIOLATING THE PATENT AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN. 

IN KELLER V. ADAMS-CAMPBELL CO., (1924) SUPRA, NOTE 2, CERTIORARI WAS
DISMISSED.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE POINTED OUT THAT THE QUESTION OF
INTERVENING RIGHTS, WHILE NOT FREE FROM DIFFICULTIES, WAS NOT BEFORE
THE COURT.  IT DECIDED NOTHING PRESENTLY IMPORTANT. 

THE OPINIONS REVIEWED ABOVE WILL SUFFICE TO INDICATE THE PROGRESSIVE
EFFORTS OF THE COURT TO MEET PROBLEMS INCIDENT TO OUR RAPIDLY EXPANDING
PATENT SYSTEM.  FROM A SMALL STATE DEPARTMENT BUREAU IN 1836, THE
PATENT OFFICE HAS EXPANDED UNTIL IN 1939 OVER 40,000 PATENTS WERE
GRANTED - IN 1838, 515 WERE GRANTED.  ALTHOUGH OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE,
THE SYSTEM HAS BECOME EXCEEDINGLY COMPLEX.  QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO
REISSUED PATENTS HAVE LONG BEEN VEXATIOUS TO THOSE IMMEDIATELY
CONCERNED WITH ADMINISTRATION OF THE PATENT LAWS. 

MILLER V. BRASS COMPANY, SUPRA, POINTED OUT THAT "THE EVILS WHICH
HAVE GROWN FROM THE PRACTICE (REISSUES) HAVE ASSUMED LARGE
PROPORTIONS.  PATENTS HAVE BEEN SO EXPANDED AND IDEALIZED, YEARS AFTER
THEIR FIRST ISSUE, THAT HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF MECHANICS AND
MANUFACTURERS, WHO HAD JUST REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THE FIELD OF ACTION
WAS OPEN, HAVE BEEN OBLIGED TO DISCONTINUE THEIR EMPLOYMENTS, OR TO PAY
AN ENORMOUS TAX FOR CONTINUING THEM." 

IT IS NOW ACCEPTED DOCTRINE THAT "THE CLAIM OF A SPECIFIC DEVICE OR
COMBINATION, AND AN OMISSION TO CLAIM OTHER DEVICES OR COMBINATIONS
APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE PATENT, ARE, IN LAW, A DEDICATION TO THE
PUBLIC OF THAT WHICH IS NOT CLAIMED."  "THIS LEGAL EFFECT OF THE PATENT
CANNOT BE REVOKED UNLESS THE PATENTEE SURRENDERS IT AND PROVES THAT THE
SPECIFICATION WAS FRAMED BY REAL INADVERTENCE, ACCIDENT, OR MISTAKE,
...  "  ALSO, THAT A REISSUE WITH ENLARGED CLAIMS, NOT APPLIED FOR
WITHIN THE TWO YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL, IS VOID IN THE ABSENCE OF
EXTRAORDINARY EXCULPATING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE PATENTEE MIGHT HAVE INCLUDED IN
THE APPLICATION FOR THE ORIGINAL PATENT, CLAIMS BROAD ENOUGH TO EMBRACE
PETITIONER'S ACCUSED MACHINE, BUT DID NOT.  THIS "GAVE THE PUBLIC TO
UNDERSTAND" THAT WHATEVER WAS NOT CLAIMED "DID NOT COME WITHIN HIS
PATENT AND MIGHT RIGHTFULLY BE MADE BY ANYONE."  THE ENLARGED CLAIMS
WERE PRESENTED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCUSED MACHINE AND DEFINITE
PURPOSE TO INCLUDE IT. 

RECAPTURE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF WHAT A PATENTEE DEDICATES TO THE PUBLIC
THROUGH OMISSION IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS, BUT NOT, WE
THINK, "AT THE EXPENSE OF INNOCENT PARTIES."  OTHERWISE, THE DOOR IS
OPEN FOR GROSS INJUSTICE TO ALERT INVENTORS AND BAFFLING UNCERTAINTY
WILL HINDER ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF USEFUL ARTS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY RULED THAT PETITIONER HAD "ACQUIRED
INTERVENING RIGHTS WHICH IN EQUITY PLAINTIFF (RESPONDENT HERE) MIGHT
NOT NOW DISTURB." 

IN ASHLAND FIRE BRICK CO. V. GENERAL REFRACTORIES CO., (1928) 27 F.2D
744, 745-746, THE MATTER OF "INTERVENING RIGHTS" WAS LUCIDLY
DISCUSSED.  THE OPINION STATES THE CASE THUS - 

"THIS IS THE USUAL SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT, BASED UPON REISSUE PATENT
NO. 15,889, AUGUST 12, 1924, TO TACKETT, FOR A BRICK MACHINE.  THE
DEFENSE CHIEFLY RELIED UPON IN THE COURT BELOW AND HERE IS THAT,
BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL ISSUE AND THE APPLICATION FOR THE
BROADENED REISSUE, THE DEFENDANT HAD BUILT AND BEGUN TO OPERATE ITS
MACHINES IN A FORM WHICH WAS NOT COVERED BY THE ORIGINAL PATENT, EVEN
THOUGH IT WERE BY THE REISSUE, AND THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THUS ACQUIRED
SUCH A RIGHT, INTERVENING WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL AND REISSUE,
AS TO MAKE IT INEQUITABLE TO ENFORCE AGAINST IT THE LATER AND BROADER
MONOPOLY."  AND IT CONCLUDED - 

"BECAUSE THE CLAIMS OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT WERE LIMITED AS TO THE
FORM OF CONVEYOR, AND BECAUSE AFTER THE ISSUE OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT
AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OF IT AND EXPRESSLY APPRECIATING ITS LIMITED
CHARACTER, INDEED, BEING GOVERNED THEREIN BY THE ADVICE OF PATENT
COUNSEL, THE DEFENDANT BUILT A NONINFRINGING BRICK MACHINE, AND STILL
BEFORE THE REISSUE APPLICATION ANOTHER ONE, AT A SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSE,
AND PUT THEM INTO COMMERCIAL USE ON A LARGE SCALE BY EXTENSIVELY
SELLING THEIR PRODUCT, AND THUS MADE THEM SUBSTANTIALLY MATERIAL TO ITS
MANUFACTURING BUSINESS, THE DEFENDANT THEREBY ACQUIRED AT LEAST A RIGHT
TO CONTINUE TO USE THESE TWO MACHINES AS IF IT HELD A LICENSE THEREFOR
UNDER THE REISSUED PATENT." 

WE THINK THIS CONCLUSION WAS RIGHT AND APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCE PRESENTED. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ACCUSED MACHINE WENT INTO OPERATION WHEN THE
OWNER HAD NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT; BUT THAT
CIRCUMSTANCE WE THINK OUGHT NOT TO DEFEAT THE DEFENSE BASED UPON
INTERVENING RIGHTS.  ALL PATENTS MUST "BE RECORDED, TOGETHER WITH THE
SPECIFICATIONS, IN THE PATENT OFFICE IN BOOKS TO BE KEPT FOR THAT
PURPOSE."  U.S.C. TITLE 35, SEC. 39.  CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THEIR
EXISTENCE GOES THUS TO ALL THE WORLD.  BOYDEN V. BURKE, (1852) 14 HOW. 
575, 582; WINE RY. APPLIANCE CO. V. ENTERPRISE RY. EQUIPMENT CO.,
(1936) 297 U.S. 387, 393; WALKER ON PATENTS, DELLER'S EDITION (1937)
VOL. 3, P. 2176.  IN CONSEQUENCE THE OWNER OF THE MACHINE HERE ACCUSED
OPERATED IT WITH IMPLIED KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT AND MAY
JUSTLY CLAIM WHATEVER PRIVILEGES WOULD FOLLOW ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. 

GRANT V. RAYMOND, SUPRA, SPEAKS DISPARAGINGLY OF ONE WHO HAVING
OBTAINED KNOWLEDGE OF AN INVENTION FROM A PATENT THEREAFTER
APPROPRIATES WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BUT WAS NOT.  IN THE
DIFFERENT CONDITIONS OF TODAY THAT OBSERVATION WOULD NOT BE
APPROPRIATE.  WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT ONE SO CIRCUMSTANCED OCCUPIES A
POSITION SUPERIOR TO AN HONEST INVENTOR OR USER WHO HAS ACTED WITH
IMPLIED BUT NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF A RECORDED PATENT.  "THE PURPOSE OF
THE STATUTE UNDOUBTEDLY WAS TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF RELIEF WHICH COURTS
OF EQUITY HAVE ALWAYS GIVEN IN CASES OF CLEAR ACCIDENT AND MISTAKE IN
THE DRAWING UP OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS," AND THESE COURTS ARE ALWAYS
TENDER OF RIGHTS CLAIMED BY INNOCENT PARTIES.  "A SENSE OF JUSTICE AND
OF POLICY" SHELTERS THEM. 

THE POSSIBILITY OF DEFEATING A CHARGE OF INFRINGEMENT BY ESTABLISHING
INTERVENING RIGHTS IS ADUMBRATED IN GRANT V. RAYMOND, SUPRA, "THE
DEFENCE WHEN TRUE IN FACT MAY BE SUFFICIENT IN LAW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
VALIDITY OF THE NEW PATENT." 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED WITH A REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  "WHENEVER ANY PATENT IS WHOLLY OR PARTLY INOPERATIVE OR INVALID,
BY REASON OF A DEFECTIVE OR INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICATION, OR BY REASON OF
THE PATENTEE CLAIMING AS HIS OWN INVENTION OR DISCOVERY MORE THAN HE
HAD A RIGHT TO CLAIM AS NEW, IF THE ERROR HAS ARISEN BY INADVERTENCE,
ACCIDENT, OR MISTAKE, AND WITHOUT ANY FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE
INTENTION, THE COMMISSIONER SHALL, ON THE SURRENDER OF SUCH PATENT AND
THE PAYMENT OF THE DUTY REQUIRED BY LAW, CAUSE A PATENT FOR THE SAME
INVENTION, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CORRECTED SPECIFICATION, TO BE
REISSUED TO THE PATENTEE OR TO HIS ASSIGNS OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES,
FOR THE UNEXPIRED PART OF THE TERM OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT.  SUCH
SURRENDER SHALL TAKE EFFECT UPON THE ISSUE OF THE REISSUED PATENT, BUT
IN SO FAR AS THE CLAIMS OF THE ORIGINAL AND REISSUED PATENTS ARE
IDENTICAL, SUCH SURRENDER SHALL NOT AFFECT ANY ACTION THEN PENDING NOR
ABATE ANY CAUSE OF ACTION THEN EXISTING, AND THE REISSUED PATENT TO THE
EXTENT THAT ITS CLAIMS ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE ORIGINAL PATENT SHALL
CONSTITUTE A CONTINUATION THEREOF AND HAVE EFFECT CONTINUOUSLY FROM THE
DATE OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT.  THE COMMISSIONER MAY, IN HIS DISCRETION,
CAUSE SEVERAL PATENTS TO BE ISSUED FOR DISTINCT AND SEPARATE PARTS OF
THE THING PATENTED, UPON DEMAND OF THE APPLICANT, AND UPON PAYMENT OF
THE REQUIRED FEE FOR A REISSUE FOR EACH OF SUCH REISSUED LETTERS
PATENT.  THE SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS IN EVERY SUCH CASE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO REVISION AND RESTRICTION IN THE SAME MANNER AS ORIGINAL
APPLICATIONS ARE.  EVERY PATENT SO REISSUED, TOGETHER WITH THE
CORRECTED SPECIFICATIONS, SHALL HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AND OPERATION IN
LAW, ON THE TRIAL OF ALL ACTIONS FOR CAUSES THEREAFTER ARISING, AS IF
THE SAME HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY FILED IN SUCH CORRECTED FORM; BUT NO NEW
MATTER SHALL BE INTRODUCED INTO THE SPECIFICATION, NOR IN CASE OF A
MACHINE PATENT SHALL THE MODEL OR DRAWINGS BE AMENDED, EXCEPT EACH BY
THE OTHER; BUT WHEN THERE IS NEITHER MODEL NOR DRAWING, AMENDMENTS MAY
BE MADE UPON PROOF SATISFACTORY TO THE COMMISSIONER THAT SUCH NEW
MATTER OR AMENDMENT WAS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL INVENTION, AND WAS
OMITTED FROM THE SPECIFICATION BY INADVERTENCE, ACCIDENT, OR MISTAKE,
AS AFORESAID." 

FN2  STIMPSON V. WEST CHESTER RAILROAD CO. (1846) 4 HOW.  380; BATTIN
V. TAGGERT, (1854) 17 HOW.  74; MILLER V. BRASS CO., (1881) 104 U.S.
350; MAHN V. HARWOOD, (1884) 112 U.S. 354; COON V. WILSON, (1885) 113
U.S. 268; WOLLENSAK V. REIHER, (1885) 115 U.S. 96; WHITE V. DUNBAR,
(1886) 119 U.S. 47; NEWTON V. FURST & BRADLEY CO., (1886) 119 U.S. 373;
IVES V. SARGENT, (1887) 119 U.S. 652; PARKER & WHIPPLE CO. V. YALE
CLOCK CO., (1887) 123 U.S. 87; ELECTRIC GAS CO. V. BOSTON ELECTRIC CO.,
(1891) 139 U.S. 481; TOPLIFF V. TOPLIFF, (1892) 145 U.S. 156; LEGGETT
V. STANDARD OIL CO., (1893) 149 U.S. 287; DUNHAM V. DENNISON
MANUFACTURING CO., (1894) 154 U.S. 103; ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. V.
BALDWIN, (1917) 245 U.S. 198; KELLER V. ADAMS-CAMPBELL CO., (1924) 264
U.S. 314, AND CASES THERE CITED; ALTOONA THEATRES V. TRI-ERGON CORP.,
(1935) 294 U.S. 477; WOOSTER V. HANDY, (1884) 21 F. 51; ASHLEY V.
SAMUEL C. TATUM CO., (1917) 240 F. 979; GENERAL REFRACTORIES CO. V.
ASHLAND FIRE BRICK CO., (1926) 15 F.2D 215, REVERSED ON APPEAL (1928)
27 F.2D 744; CHRISTMAN V. NEW YORK AIR BRAKE CO., (1928) 1 F.SUPP. 
211; MOTO METER GAUGE & EQUIPMENT CORP. V. E.A. LABORATORIES, (1932) 55
F.2D 936. 
..END :











CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT, 310 U.S. 296 


NO. 632.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940 - 126 CONN. 1;
8 A.2D 533, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF LIBERTY EMBODIED IN THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT EMBRACES THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  P.
303. 

2.  THE ENACTMENT BY A STATE OF ANY LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT
OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF IS FORBIDDEN BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 303. 

3.  UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY, FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND OF
RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS ABSOLUTE; ALTHOUGH FREEDOM TO ACT IN THE EXERCISE
OF RELIGION IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF SOCIETY. 
SUCH REGULATION, HOWEVER, IN ATTAINING A PERMISSIBLE END, MUST NOT
UNDULY INFRINGE THE PROTECTED FREEDOM.  PP. 303-304. 

4.  A STATE STATUTE WHICH FORBIDS ANY PERSON TO SOLICIT MONEY OR
VALUABLES FOR ANY ALLEGED RELIGIOUS CAUSE, UNLESS A CERTIFICATE
THEREFOR SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN PROCURED FROM A DESIGNATED OFFICIAL, WHO
IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH CAUSE IS A RELIGIOUS ONE AND WHO
MAY WITHHOLD HIS APPROVAL IF HE DETERMINES THAT IT IS NOT, IS A
PREVIOUS RESTRAINT UPON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION AND A DEPRIVATION
OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 304. 

SO HELD AS IT WAS APPLIED TO PERSONS ENGAGED IN DISTRIBUTING
LITERATURE PURPORTING TO BE RELIGIOUS, AND SOLICITING CONTRIBUTIONS TO
BE USED FOR THE PUBLICATION OF SUCH LITERATURE. 

A STATE CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY BY GENERAL AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY
LEGISLATION REGULATE THE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF SOLICITING UPON ITS
STREETS, AND OF HOLDING MEETINGS THEREON; AND MAY IN OTHER RESPECTS
SAFEGUARD THE PEACE, GOOD ORDER AND COMFORT OF THE COMMUNITY.  THE
STATUTE HERE, HOWEVER, IS NOT SUCH A REGULATION.  IF A CERTIFICATE IS
ISSUED, SOLICITATION IS PERMITTED WITHOUT OTHER RESTRICTION; BUT IF A
CERTIFICATE IS DENIED, SOLICITATION IS ALTOGETHER PROHIBITED. 

5.  THE FACT THAT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS ACTION BY THE LICENSING
OFFICER IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW CAN NOT VALIDATE THE STATUTE.  A
PREVIOUS RESTRAINT BY JUDICIAL DECISION AFTER TRIAL IS AS OBNOXIOUS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS RESTRAINT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  P. 306. 

6.  THE COMMON LAW OFFENSE OF BREACH OF THE PEACE MAY BE COMMITTED
NOT ONLY BY ACTS OF VIOLENCE, BUT ALSO BY ACTS AND WORDS LIKELY TO
PRODUCE VIOLENCE IN OTHERS.  P. 308. 

7.  DEFENDANT, WHILE ON A PUBLIC STREET ENDEAVORING TO INTEREST
PASSERSBY IN THE PURCHASE OF PUBLICATIONS, OR IN MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS,
IN THE INTEREST OF WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE RELIGION, INDUCED
INDIVIDUALS TO LISTEN TO THE PLAYING OF A PHONOGRAPH RECORD DESCRIBING
THE PUBLICATIONS.  THE RECORD CONTAINED A VERBAL ATTACK UPON THE
RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION OF WHICH THE LISTENERS WERE MEMBERS, PROVOKING
THEIR INDIGNATION AND A DESIRE ON THEIR PART TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANT,
WHO THEREUPON PICKED UP HIS BOOKS AND PHONOGRAPH AND WENT ON HIS WAY. 
THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT DEFENDANT'S DEPORTMENT WAS NOISY, TRUCULENT,
OVERBEARING OR OFFENSIVE; NOR WAS IT CLAIMED THAT HE INTENDED TO INSULT
OR AFFRONT THE LISTENERS BY PLAYING THE RECORD; NOR WAS IT SHOWN THAT
THE SOUND OF THE PHONOGRAPH DISTURBED PERSONS LIVING NEARBY, DREW A
CROWD, OR IMPEDED TRAFFIC.  HELD, THAT DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION OF THE
COMMON LAW OFFENSE OF BREACH OF THE PEACE WAS VIOLATIVE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 
PP. 307 ET SEQ. 

CANTWELL ET AL. V. CONNECTICUT. 

APPEAL FROM AND CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF
CONNECTICUT. 

APPEAL FROM, AND CERTIORARI (309 U.S. 626) TO REVIEW, A JUDGMENT
WHICH SUSTAINED THE CONVICTION OF ALL THE DEFENDANTS ON ONE COUNT OF AN
INFORMATION AND THE CONVICTION OF ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS ON ANOTHER
COUNT.  THE CONVICTIONS WERE CHALLENGED AS DENYING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANTS. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM FRAUD IN THE
SOLICITATION OF MONEY OR OTHER VALUABLES UNDER THE GUISE OF RELIGION. 
THE ONLY ACTIVITY OF ANY ALLEGED RELIGIOUS GROUP WHICH IT IS SOUGHT TO
REGULATE IS SUCH SOLICITATION. 

THE STATUTE DOES NOT IMPAIR IN ANY WAY RIGHTS COMMONLY REGARDED AS
EMBRACED IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 

THE "LIBERTY" OF WORSHIP UNDOUBTEDLY INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO ENTERTAIN
THE BELIEFS, TO ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLES, AND TO TEACH THE DOCTRINES
WHICH APPELLANTS ADVOCATE.  HAMILTON V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, 293 U.S. 245, 262.  BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THIS
STATUTE CAN INTERFERE WITH THEIR FREEDOM TO WORSHIP AS THEY SEE FIT. 
IT DOES NOT LIMIT OR DEFINE THEIR MODE OF WORSHIP OR RESTRICT THEIR
TEACHINGS OR DOCTRINE. 

THE FACT THAT APPELLANTS MAY BELIEVE AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE
STATUTE CONTRAVENES THEIR RELIGION FURNISHES NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
FOR THEIR VIOLATION OF IT.  COMMONWEALTH V. PLAISTED, 148 MASS. 375;
REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145. 

UNDOUBTEDLY APPELLANTS' ACTIVITY IN DISTRIBUTING LITERATURE IS
PROTECTED BY FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  BUT THE ACTIVITY WHICH VIOLATED THE
STATUTE WAS THEIR SOLICITATION OF FUNDS.  THE STATUTE RESTRICTS IN NO
WAY THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS AND LITERATURE, NOR THE MERE
RECEIVING OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THOSE WHO MIGHT BE INCLINED TO DONATE. 
WHETHER SOLICITATION WAS THEIR PRIMARY PURPOSE, OR MERELY INCIDENTAL TO
THE SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR VIEWS, IS NOT
CONTROLLING. 

DENIAL IN THE EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL DISCRETION WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE
FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ON THE PERSON APPLYING FOR A PERMIT.  NORWALK V.
CONNECTICUT CO., 89 CONN. 537, 542. 

UNLIKE THE ORDINANCE IN SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, THE STATUTE
DOES NOT SEEK TO PLACE ANY RESTRICTION UPON COMMUNICATION OF ANY VIEWS
OR THE ADVOCACY OF ANY CAUSE, NOR TO SET UP CENSORSHIP IN A POLICE
OFFICER TO DETERMINE WHAT LITERATURE MAY BE DISTRIBUTED OR IDEAS
COMMUNICATED OR WHO MAY DISTRIBUTE IT. 

THE ORDINANCE IN LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, FORBADE THE
DISTRIBUTION BY HAND OR OTHERWISE OF LITERATURE OF ANY KIND WITHOUT
WRITTEN PERMISSION. 

THE ACTS AND CONDUCT OF PETITIONER ARE WITHIN THE COMMON LAW
DEFINITION OF BREACH OF PEACE.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT OTHER
PERSONS WERE ACTUALLY PROVOKED TO THE POINT OF VIOLENCE.  1 BISHOP
CRIMINAL LAW, 9TH ED., SEC. 539; STATE V. FARRALL, 29 CONN. 72; STATE
V. WARNER, 34 CONN. 276, 279; DAVIS V. BURGESS, 54 MICH. 514, 517; DELK
V. COMMONWEALTH, 166 KY. 39, 45; L.R.A. 1916 B, 1117.  NOR IS A
SPECIFIC INTENT TO PROVOKE A BREACH OF PEACE ESSENTIAL; IT IS
SUFFICIENT IF THE ACTS TEND TO PRODUCE IT.  STATE V. SHELBY, 95 MINN.
65. 

ACTS OR LANGUAGE WHICH, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE CALCULATED OR
LIKELY TO PROVOKE ANOTHER TO ACTS OF IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE MAY CONSTITUTE
A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  49 L.R.A. (N.S.)  919; HOLMES V. STATE, 135
ARK. 187, 189; FAULKNER V. STATE, 166 GA. 645, 665. 

THE RULE IS AS APPLICABLE WHERE THE OBJECTIONABLE LANGUAGE IS
COMMUNICATED BY MEANS OF A PHONOGRAPH OPERATED BY THE ACCUSED OR BY
BANNER OR PLACARD.  WEST V. COMMONWEALTH, 208 KY. 735. 

THE TENDENCY OF WORDS OR CONDUCT DEPENDS LARGELY UPON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IS A QUESTION OF FACT.  STATE V. MOSER, 33 ARK. 140. 
THE PLAYING FOR AUDITION BY LOYAL CATHOLICS OF A RECORD VIOLENTLY
ATTACKING THEIR RELIGION COULD WELL BE FOUND TO CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE
CHARGED. 

WHILE THE RIGHT TO PROPAGATE RELIGIOUS VIEWS IS NOT TO BE DENIED, ONE
WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO COMMIT A BREACH OF PEACE UNDER THE GUISE OF
PREACHING THE GOSPEL.  DELK V. COMMONWEALTH, SUPRA, 47. 

ACTS AND CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF SOCIAL DUTIES, SUBVERSIVE OF GOOD
ORDER, AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE LAND ARE NOT IMMUNE BECAUSE THEY
ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEF.  REYNOLDS V.
UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145; COMMONWEALTH V. PLAISTED, 148 MASS. 375. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NEWTON CANTWELL AND HIS TWO SONS, JESSE AND RUSSELL, MEMBERS OF A
GROUP KNOWN AS JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, AND CLAIMING TO BE ORDAINED
MINISTERS, WERE ARRESTED IN NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, AND EACH WAS
CHARGED BY INFORMATION IN FIVE COUNTS, WITH STATUTORY AND COMMON LAW
OFFENSES.  AFTER TRIAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NEW HAVEN COUNTY
EACH OF THEM WAS CONVICTED ON THE THIRD COUNT, WHICH CHARGED A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 6294 OF THE GENERAL STATUTES OF CONNECTICUT,  FN1
AND ON THE FIFTH COUNT, WHICH CHARGED COMMISSION OF THE COMMON LAW
OFFENSE OF INCITING A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT THE CONVICTION OF ALL THREE ON THE THIRD COUNT WAS AFFIRMED.  THE
CONVICTION OF JESSE CANTWELL, ON THE FIFTH COUNT, WAS ALSO AFFIRMED,
BUT THE CONVICTION OF NEWTON AND RUSSELL ON THAT COUNT WAS REVERSED AND
A NEW TRIAL ORDERED AS TO THEM.  FN2 

BY DEMURRERS TO THE INFORMATION, BY REQUESTS FOR RULINGS OF LAW AT
THE TRIAL, AND BY THEIR ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IN THE STATE SUPREME
COURT, THE APPELLANTS PRESSED THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE UNDER
WHICH THE THIRD COUNT WAS DRAWN WAS OFFENSIVE TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE, ON ITS FACE AND AS CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED, IT DENIED THEM FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PROHIBITED THEIR FREE
EXERCISE OF RELIGION.  IN LIKE MANNER THEY MADE THE POINT THAT THEY
COULD NOT BE FOUND GUILTY ON THE FIFTH COUNT, WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE
AMENDMENT. 

WE HAVE JURISDICTION ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENTS ON THE THIRD COUNT,
AS THERE WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND THE DECISION WAS IN FAVOR OF VALIDITY. 
SINCE THE CONVICTION ON THE FIFTH COUNT WAS NOT BASED UPON A STATUTE,
BUT PRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WE
GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN RESPECT OF IT. 

THE FACTS ADDUCED TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTIONS ON THE THIRD COUNT
FOLLOW.  ON THE DAY OF THEIR ARREST THE APPELLANTS WERE ENGAGED IN
GOING SINGLY FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE ON CASSIUS STREET IN NEW HAVEN.  THEY
WERE INDIVIDUALLY EQUIPPED WITH A BAG CONTAINING BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS ON
RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS, A PORTABLE PHONOGRAPH AND A SET OF RECORDS, EACH OF
WHICH, WHEN PLAYED, INTRODUCED, AND WAS A DESCRIPTION OF, ONE OF THE
BOOKS.  EACH APPELLANT ASKED THE PERSON WHO RESPONDED TO HIS CALL FOR
PERMISSION TO PLAY ONE OF THE RECORDS.  IF PERMISSION WAS GRANTED HE
ASKED THE PERSON TO BUY THE BOOK DESCRIBED AND, UPON REFUSAL, HE
SOLICITED SUCH CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS THE PUBLICATION OF THE PAMPHLETS AS
THE LISTENER WAS WILLING TO MAKE.  IF A CONTRIBUTION WAS RECEIVED A
PAMPHLET WAS DELIVERED UPON CONDITION THAT IT WOULD BE READ. 

CASSIUS STREET IS IN A THICKLY POPULATED NEIGHBORHOOD, WHERE ABOUT
NINETY PER CENT OF THE RESIDENTS ARE ROMAN CATHOLICS.  A PHONOGRAPH
RECORD, DESCRIBING A BOOK ENTITLED "ENEMIES," INCLUDED AN ATTACK ON THE
CATHOLIC RELIGION.  NONE OF THE PERSONS INTERVIEWED WERE MEMBERS OF
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. 

THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE APPELLANTS WERE CHARGED PROVIDES: 

"NO PERSON SHALL SOLICIT MONEY, SERVICES, SUBSCRIPTIONS OR ANY
VALUABLE THING FOR ANY ALLEGED RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE OR PHILANTHROPIC
CAUSE, FROM OTHER THAN A MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR WHOSE BENEFIT
SUCH PERSON IS SOLICITING OR WITHIN THE COUNTY IN WHICH SUCH PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION IS LOCATED UNLESS SUCH CAUSE SHALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE COUNCIL.  UPON APPLICATION OF ANY
PERSON IN BEHALF OF SUCH CAUSE, THE SECRETARY SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER
SUCH CAUSE IS A RELIGIOUS ONE OR IS A BONA FIDE OBJECT OF CHARITY OR
PHILANTHROPY AND CONFORMS TO REASONABLE STANDARDS OF EFFICIENCY AND
INTEGRITY, AND, IF HE SHALL SO FIND, SHALL APPROVE THE SAME AND ISSUE
TO THE AUTHORITY IN CHARGE A CERTIFICATE TO THAT EFFECT.  SUCH
CERTIFICATE MAY BE REVOKED AT ANY TIME.  ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY
PROVISION OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED
DOLLARS OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS OR BOTH." 

THE APPELLANTS CLAIMED THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES WERE NOT WITHIN THE
STATUTE BUT CONSISTED ONLY OF DISTRIBUTION OF BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, AND
PERIODICALS.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED THE FINDING OF THE
TRIAL COURT TO BE THAT "IN ADDITION TO THE SALE OF THE BOOKS AND THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE PAMPHLETS THE DEFENDANTS WERE ALSO SOLICITING
CONTRIBUTIONS OR DONATIONS OF MONEY FOR AN ALLEGED RELIGIOUS CAUSE, AND
THEREBY CAME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE."  IT OVERRULED THE
CONTENTION THAT THE ACT, AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANTS, OFFENDS THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT ABRIDGES OR
DENIES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF SPEECH AND PRESS.  THE COURT
STATED THAT IT WAS THE SOLICITATION THAT BROUGHT THE APPELLANTS WITHIN
THE SWEEP OF THE ACT AND NOT THEIR OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE
DISSEMINATION OF LITERATURE.  IT DECLARED THE LEGISLATION
CONSTITUTIONAL AS AN EFFORT BY THE STATE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AGAINST
FRAUD AND IMPOSITION IN THE SOLICITATION OF FUNDS FOR WHAT PURPORTED TO
BE RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, OR PHILANTHROPIC CAUSES. 

THE FACTS WHICH WERE HELD TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION OF JESSE CANTWELL
ON THE FIFTH COUNT WERE THAT HE STOPPED TWO MEN IN THE STREET, ASKED,
AND RECEIVED, PERMISSION TO PLAY A PHONOGRAPH RECORD, AND PLAYED THE
RECORD "ENEMIES," WHICH ATTACKED THE RELIGION AND CHURCH OF THE TWO
MEN, WHO WERE CATHOLICS.  BOTH WERE INCENSED BY THE CONTENTS OF THE
RECORD AND WERE TEMPTED TO STRIKE CANTWELL UNLESS HE WENT AWAY.  ON
BEING TOLD TO BE ON HIS WAY HE LEFT THEIR PRESENCE.  THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS PERSONALLY OFFENSIVE OR ENTERED INTO ANY ARGUMENT
WITH THOSE HE INTERVIEWED. 

THE COURT HELD THAT THE CHARGE WAS NOT ASSAULT OR BREACH OF THE PEACE
OR THREATS ON CANTWELL'S PART, BUT INVOKING OR INCITING OTHERS TO
BREACH OF THE PEACE, AND THAT THE FACTS SUPPORTED THE CONVICTION OF
THAT OFFENSE. 

FIRST.  WE HOLD THAT THE STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED TO THE
APPELLANTS, DEPRIVES THEM OF THEIR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW
IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT
OF LIBERTY EMBODIED IN THAT AMENDMENT EMBRACES THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  FN3  THE FIRST AMENDMENT DECLARES THAT
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION OR
PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAS
RENDERED THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES AS INCOMPETENT AS CONGRESS TO
ENACT SUCH LAWS.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL INHIBITION OF LEGISLATION ON THE
SUBJECT OF RELIGION HAS A DOUBLE ASPECT.  ON THE ONE HAND, IT
FORESTALLS COMPULSION BY LAW OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY CREED OR THE
PRACTICE OF ANY FORM OF WORSHIP.  FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND FREEDOM TO
ADHERE TO SUCH RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OR FORM OF WORSHIP AS THE
INDIVIDUAL MAY CHOOSE CANNOT BE RESTRICTED BY LAW.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
IT SAFEGUARDS THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE CHOSEN FORM OF RELIGION.  THUS
THE AMENDMENT EMBRACES TWO CONCEPTS,  - FREEDOM TO BELIEVE AND FREEDOM
TO ACT.  THE FIRST IS ABSOLUTE BUT, IN THE NATURE OF THINGS, THE SECOND
CANNOT BE.  CONDUCT REMAINS SUBJECT TO REGULATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
SOCIETY.  FN4  THE FREEDOM TO ACT MUST HAVE APPROPRIATE DEFINITION TO
PRESERVE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT PROTECTION.  IN EVERY CASE THE POWER
TO REGULATE MUST BE SO EXERCISED AS NOT, IN ATTAINING A PERMISSIBLE
END, UNDULY TO INFRINGE THE PROTECTED FREEDOM.  NO ONE WOULD CONTEST
THE PROPOSITION THAT A STATE MAY NOT, BY STATUTE, WHOLLY DENY THE RIGHT
TO PREACH OR TO DISSEMINATE RELIGIOUS VIEWS.  PLAINLY SUCH A PREVIOUS
AND ABSOLUTE RESTRAINT WOULD VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THE GUARANTEE.  FN5
IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT A STATE MAY BY GENERAL AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY
LEGISLATION REGULATE THE TIMES, THE PLACES, AND THE MANNER OF
SOLICITING UPON ITS STREETS, AND OF HOLDING MEETINGS THEREON; AND MAY
IN OTHER RESPECTS SAFEGUARD THE PEACE, GOOD ORDER AND COMFORT OF THE
COMMUNITY, WITHOUT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INVADING THE LIBERTIES PROTECTED
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE APPELLANTS ARE RIGHT IN THEIR
INSISTENCE THAT THE ACT IN QUESTION IS NOT SUCH A REGULATION.  IF A
CERTIFICATE IS PROCURED, SOLICITATION IS PERMITTED WITHOUT RESTRAINT
BUT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE, SOLICITATION IS ALTOGETHER
PROHIBITED. 

THE APPELLANTS URGE THAT TO REQUIRE THEM TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE AS A
CONDITION OF SOLICITING SUPPORT FOR THEIR VIEWS AMOUNTS TO A PRIOR
RESTRAINT ON THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RELIGION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THE STATE INSISTS THAT THE ACT, AS CONSTRUED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, IMPOSES NO PREVIOUS RESTRAINT UPON THE
DISSEMINATION OF RELIGIOUS VIEWS OR TEACHING BUT MERELY SAFEGUARDS
AGAINST THE PERPETRATION OF FRAUDS UNDER THE CLOAK OF RELIGION. 
CONCEDING THAT THIS IS SO, THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE METHOD
ADOPTED BY CONNECTICUT TO THAT END TRANSGRESSES THE LIBERTY SAFEGUARDED
BY THE CONSTITUTION.    THE GENERAL REGULATION, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
OF SOLICITATION, WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY RELIGIOUS TEST AND DOES NOT
UNREASONABLY OBSTRUCT OR DELAY THE COLLECTION OF FUNDS, IS NOT OPEN TO
ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION, EVEN THOUGH THE COLLECTION BE FOR A
RELIGIOUS PURPOSE.  SUCH REGULATION WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A PROHIBITED
PREVIOUS RESTRAINT ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION OR INTERPOSE AN
INADMISSIBLE OBSTACLE TO ITS EXERCISE. 

IT WILL BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE ACT REQUIRES AN APPLICATION TO
THE SECRETARY OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE COUNCIL OF THE STATE; THAT HE IS
EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CAUSE IS A RELIGIOUS ONE, AND THAT
THE ISSUE OF A CERTIFICATE DEPENDS UPON HIS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  IF HE
FINDS THAT THE CAUSE IS NOT THAT OF RELIGION, TO SOLICIT FOR IT BECOMES
A CRIME.  HE IS NOT TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE AS A MATTER OF COURSE.  HIS
DECISION TO ISSUE OR REFUSE IT INVOLVES APPRAISAL OF FACTS, THE
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT, AND THE FORMATION OF AN OPINION.  HE IS
AUTHORIZED TO WITHHOLD HIS APPROVAL IF HE DETERMINES THAT THE CAUSE IS
NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.  SUCH A CENSORSHIP OF RELIGION AS THE MEANS OF
DETERMINING ITS RIGHT TO SURVIVE IS A DENIAL OF LIBERTY PROTECTED BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND INCLUDED IN THE LIBERTY WHICH IS WITHIN THE
PROTECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH. 

THE STATE ASSERTS THAT IF THE LICENSING OFFICER ACTS ARBITRARILY,
CAPRICIOUSLY, OR CORRUPTLY, HIS ACTION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
CORRECTION.  COUNSEL REFER TO THE RULE PREVAILING IN CONNECTICUT THAT
THE DECISION OF A COMMISSION OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WILL BE
REVIEWED UPON A CLAIM THAT "IT WORKS MATERIAL DAMAGE TO INDIVIDUAL OR
CORPORATE RIGHTS, OR INVADES OR THREATENS SUCH RIGHTS, OR IS SO
UNREASONABLE AS TO JUSTIFY JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, OR IS NOT CONSONANT
WITH JUSTICE, OR THAT A LEGAL DUTY HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED."  FN6  IT IS
SUGGESTED THAT THE STATUTE IS TO BE READ AS REQUIRING THE OFFICER TO
ISSUE A CERTIFICATE UNLESS THE CAUSE IN QUESTION IS CLEARLY NOT A
RELIGIOUS ONE; AND THAT IF HE VIOLATES HIS DUTY HIS ACTION WILL BE
CORRECTED BY A COURT. 

TO THIS SUGGESTION THERE ARE SEVERAL SUFFICIENT ANSWERS.  THE LINE
BETWEEN A DISCRETIONARY AND A MINISTERIAL ACT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO
MARK AND THE STATUTE HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT TO
IMPOSE A MERE MINISTERIAL DUTY ON THE SECRETARY OF THE WELFARE
COUNCIL.  UPON HIS DECISION AS TO THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE, THE RIGHT TO
SOLICIT DEPENDS.  MOREOVER, THE AVAILABILITY OF A JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR
ABUSES IN THE SYSTEM OF LICENSING STILL LEAVES THAT SYSTEM ONE OF
PREVIOUS RESTRAINT WHICH, IN THE FIELD OF FREE SPEECH AND PRESS, WE
HAVE HELD INADMISSIBLE.  A STATUTE AUTHORIZING PREVIOUS RESTRAINT UPON
THE EXERCISE OF THE GUARANTEED FREEDOM BY JUDICIAL DECISION AFTER TRIAL
IS AS OBNOXIOUS TO THE CONSTITUTION AS ONE PROVIDING FOR LIKE RESTRAINT
BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  FN7 

NOTHING WE HAVE SAID IS INTENDED EVEN REMOTELY TO IMPLY THAT, UNDER
THE CLOAK OF RELIGION, PERSONS MAY, WITH IMPUNITY, COMMIT FRAUDS UPON
THE PUBLIC.  CERTAINLY PENAL LAWS ARE AVAILABLE TO PUNISH SUCH
CONDUCT.  EVEN THE EXERCISE OF RELIGION MAY BE AT SOME SLIGHT
INCONVENIENCE IN ORDER THAT THE STATE MAY PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM
INJURY.  WITHOUT DOUBT A STATE MAY PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM FRAUDULENT
SOLICITATION BY REQUIRING A STRANGER IN THE COMMUNITY, BEFORE
PERMITTING HIM PUBLICLY TO SOLICIT FUNDS FOR ANY PURPOSE, TO ESTABLISH
HIS IDENTITY AND HIS AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE CAUSE WHICH HE PURPORTS
TO REPRESENT.  FN8  THE STATE IS LIKEWISE FREE TO REGULATE THE TIME AND
MANNER OF SOLICITATION GENERALLY, IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
PEACE, COMFORT OR CONVENIENCE.  BUT TO CONDITION THE SOLICITATION OF
AID FOR THE PERPETUATION OF RELIGIOUS VIEWS OR SYSTEMS UPON A LICENSE,
THE GRANT OF WHICH RESTS IN THE EXERCISE OF A DETERMINATION BY STATE
AUTHORITY AS TO WHAT IS A RELIGIOUS CAUSE, IS TO LAY A FORBIDDEN BURDEN
UPON THE EXERCISE OF LIBERTY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

SECOND.  WE HOLD THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED, THE CONVICTION
OF JESSE CANTWELL ON THE FIFTH COUNT MUST BE SET ASIDE.  DECISION AS TO
THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CONVICTION DEMANDS THE WEIGHING OF TWO
CONFLICTING INTERESTS.  THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW DECLARES THE INTEREST OF
THE UNITED STATES THAT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION BE NOT PROHIBITED
AND THAT FREEDOM TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION AND OPINION BE NOT
ABRIDGED.  THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAS AN OBVIOUS INTEREST IN THE
PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF PEACE AND GOOD ORDER WITHIN HER
BORDERS.  WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE ALLEGED PROTECTION OF THE
STATE'S INTEREST, MEANS TO WHICH END WOULD, IN THE ABSENCE OF
LIMITATION BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, LIE WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE'S
DISCRETION, HAS BEEN PRESSED, IN THIS INSTANCE, TO A POINT WHERE IT HAS
COME INTO FATAL COLLISION WITH THE OVERRIDING INTEREST PROTECTED BY THE
FEDERAL COMPACT. 

CONVICTION ON THE FIFTH COUNT WAS NOT PURSUANT TO A STATUTE EVINCING
A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT STREET DISCUSSION OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS,
BECAUSE OF ITS TENDENCY TO PROVOKE DISORDER, SHOULD BE REGULATED, OR A
JUDGMENT THAT THE PLAYING OF A PHONOGRAPH ON THE STREETS SHOULD IN THE
INTEREST OF COMFORT OR PRIVACY BE LIMITED OR PREVENTED.  VIOLATION OF
AN ACT EXHIBITING SUCH A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT AND NARROWLY DRAWN TO
PREVENT THE SUPPOSED EVIL, WOULD POSE A QUESTION DIFFERING FROM THAT WE
MUST HERE ANSWER.  FN9  SUCH A DECLARATION OF THE STATE'S POLICY WOULD
WEIGH HEAVILY IN ANY CHALLENGE OF THE LAW AS INFRINGING CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS.  HERE, HOWEVER, THE JUDGMENT IS BASED ON A COMMON LAW
CONCEPT OF THE MOST GENERAL AND UNDEFINED NATURE.  THE COURT BELOW HAS
HELD THAT THE PETITIONER'S CONDUCT CONSTITUTED THE COMMISSION OF AN
OFFENSE UNDER THE STATE LAW, AND WE ACCEPT ITS DECISION AS BINDING UPON
US TO THAT EXTENT. 

THE OFFENSE KNOWN AS BREACH OF THE PEACE EMBRACES A GREAT VARIETY OF
CONDUCT DESTROYING OR MENACING PUBLIC ORDER AND TRANQUILITY.  IT
INCLUDES NOT ONLY VIOLENT ACTS BUT ACTS AND WORDS LIKELY TO PRODUCE
VIOLENCE IN OTHERS.  NO ONE WOULD HAVE THE HARDIHOOD TO SUGGEST THAT
THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH SANCTIONS INCITEMENT TO RIOT OR THAT
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CONNOTES THE PRIVILEGE TO EXHORT OTHERS TO PHYSICAL
ATTACK UPON THOSE BELONGING TO ANOTHER SECT.  WHEN CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER OF RIOT, DISORDER, INTERFERENCE WITH TRAFFIC UPON THE PUBLIC
STREETS, OR OTHER IMMEDIATE THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, PEACE, OR ORDER,
APPEARS, THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PREVENT OR PUNISH IS OBVIOUS. 
EQUALLY OBVIOUS IS IT THAT A STATE MAY NOT UNDULY SUPPRESS FREE
COMMUNICATION OF VIEWS, RELIGIOUS OR OTHER, UNDER THE GUISE OF
CONSERVING DESIRABLE CONDITIONS.  HERE WE HAVE A SITUATION ANALOGOUS TO
A CONVICTION UNDER A STATUTE SWEEPING IN A GREAT VARIETY OF CONDUCT
UNDER A GENERAL AND INDEFINITE CHARACTERIZATION, AND LEAVING TO THE
EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES TOO WIDE A DISCRETION IN ITS
APPLICATION. 

HAVING THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND, WE NOTE THAT JESSE CANTWELL, ON
APRIL 26, 1938, WAS UPON A PUBLIC STREET, WHERE HE HAD A RIGHT TO BE,
AND WHERE HE HAD A RIGHT PEACEFULLY TO IMPART HIS VIEWS TO OTHERS. 
THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT HIS DEPORTMENT WAS NOISY, TRUCULENT,
OVERBEARING OR OFFENSIVE.  HE REQUESTED OF TWO PEDESTRIANS PERMISSION
TO PLAY TO THEM A PHONOGRAPH RECORD.  THE PERMISSION WAS GRANTED.  IT
IS NOT CLAIMED THAT HE INTENDED TO INSULT OR AFFRONT THE HEARERS BY
PLAYING THE RECORD.  IT IS PLAIN THAT HE WISHED ONLY TO INTEREST THEM
IN HIS PROPAGANDA.  THE SOUND OF THE PHONOGRAPH IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE
DISTURBED RESIDENTS OF THE STREET, TO HAVE DRAWN A CROWD, OR TO HAVE
IMPEDED TRAFFIC.  THUS FAR HE HAD INVADED NO RIGHT OR INTEREST OF THE
PUBLIC OR OF THE MEN ACCOSTED. 

THE RECORD PLAYED BY CANTWELL EMBODIES A GENERAL ATTACK ON ALL
ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS AS INSTRUMENTS OF SATAN AND INJURIOUS TO
MAN; IT THEN SINGLES OUT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR STRICTURES
COUCHED IN TERMS WHICH NATURALLY WOULD OFFEND NOT ONLY PERSONS OF THAT
PERSUASION, BUT ALL OTHERS WHO RESPECT THE HONESTLY HELD RELIGIOUS
FAITH OF THEIR FELLOWS.  THE HEARERS WERE IN FACT HIGHLY OFFENDED.  ONE
OF THEM SAID HE FELT LIKE HITTING CANTWELL AND THE OTHER THAT HE WAS
TEMPTED TO THROW CANTWELL OFF THE STREET.  THE ONE WHO TESTIFIED HE
FELT LIKE HITTING CANTWELL SAID, IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION "DID YOU DO
ANYTHING ELSE OR HAVE ANY OTHER REACTION?"  "NO, SIR, BECAUSE HE SAID
HE WOULD TAKE THE VICTROLA AND HE WENT."  THE OTHER WITNESS TESTIFIED
THAT HE TOLD CANTWELL HE HAD BETTER GET OFF THE STREET BEFORE SOMETHING
HAPPENED TO HIM AND THAT WAS THE END OF THE MATTER AS CANTWELL PICKED
UP HIS BOOKS AND WALKED UP THE STREET. 

CANTWELL'S CONDUCT, IN THE VIEW OF THE COURT BELOW, CONSIDERED APART
FROM THE EFFECT OF HIS COMMUNICATION UPON HIS HEARERS, DID NOT AMOUNT
TO A BREACH OF THE PEACE.  ONE MAY, HOWEVER, BE GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE
IF HE COMMIT ACTS OR MAKE STATEMENTS LIKELY TO PROVOKE VIOLENCE AND
DISTURBANCE OF GOOD ORDER, EVEN THOUGH NO SUCH EVENTUALITY BE
INTENDED.  DECISIONS TO THIS EFFECT ARE MANY, BUT EXAMINATION DISCLOSES
THAT, IN PRACTICALLY ALL, THE PROVOCATIVE LANGUAGE WHICH WAS HELD TO
AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF THE PEACE CONSISTED OF PROFANE, INDECENT, OR
ABUSIVE REMARKS DIRECTED TO THE PERSON OF THE HEARER.  RESORT TO
EPITHETS OR PERSONAL ABUSE IS NOT IN ANY PROPER SENSE COMMUNICATION OF
INFORMATION OR OPINION SAFEGUARDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, AND ITS
PUNISHMENT AS A CRIMINAL ACT WOULD RAISE NO QUESTION UNDER THAT
INSTRUMENT. 

WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE NO ASSAULT OR THREATENING OF BODILY HARM,
NO TRUCULENT BEARING, NO INTENTIONAL DISCOURTESY, NO PERSONAL ABUSE. 
ON THE CONTRARY, WE FIND ONLY AN EFFORT TO PERSUADE A WILLING LISTENER
TO BUY A BOOK OR TO CONTRIBUTE MONEY IN THE INTEREST OF WHAT CANTWELL,
HOWEVER MISGUIDED OTHERS MAY THINK HIM, CONCEIVED TO BE TRUE RELIGION. 

IN THE REALM OF RELIGIOUS FAITH, AND IN THAT OF POLITICAL BELIEF,
SHARP DIFFERENCES ARISE.  IN BOTH FIELDS THE TENETS OF ONE MAN MAY SEEM
THE RANKEST ERROR TO HIS NEIGHBOR.  TO PERSUADE OTHERS TO HIS OWN POINT
OF VIEW, THE PLEADER, AS WE KNOW, AT TIMES, RESORTS TO EXAGGERATION, TO
VILIFICATION OF MEN WHO HAVE BEEN, OR ARE, PROMINENT IN CHURCH OR
STATE, AND EVEN TO FALSE STATEMENT.  BUT THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION HAVE
ORDAINED IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY, THAT, IN SPITE OF THE PROBABILITY OF
EXCESSES AND ABUSES, THESE LIBERTIES ARE, IN THE LONG VIEW, ESSENTIAL
TO ENLIGHTENED OPINION AND RIGHT CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE CITIZENS OF
A DEMOCRACY. 

THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THESE LIBERTIES IS, THAT UNDER THEIR
SHIELD MANY TYPES OF LIFE, CHARACTER, OPINION AND BELIEF CAN DEVELOP
UNMOLESTED AND UNOBSTRUCTED.  NOWHERE IS THIS SHIELD MORE NECESSARY
THAN IN OUR OWN COUNTRY FOR A PEOPLE COMPOSED OF MANY RACES AND OF MANY
CREEDS.  THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE EXERCISE OF THESE LIBERTIES.  THE
DANGER IN THESE TIMES FROM THE COERCIVE ACTIVITIES OF THOSE WHO IN THE
DELUSION OF RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS CONCEIT WOULD INCITE VIOLENCE AND
BREACHES OF THE PEACE IN ORDER TO DEPRIVE OTHERS OF THEIR EQUAL RIGHT
TO THE EXERCISE OF THEIR LIBERTIES, IS EMPHASIZED BY EVENTS FAMILIAR TO
ALL.  THESE AND OTHER TRANSGRESSIONS OF THOSE LIMITS THE STATES
APPROPRIATELY MAY PUNISH. 

ALTHOUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE RECORD NOT UNNATURALLY AROUSED
ANIMOSITY, WE THINK THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE NARROWLY DRAWN TO
DEFINE AND PUNISH SPECIFIC CONDUCT AS CONSTITUTING A CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER TO A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF THE STATE, THE PETITIONER'S
COMMUNICATION, CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEES, RAISED NO SUCH CLEAR AND PRESENT MENACE TO PUBLIC PEACE AND
ORDER AS TO RENDER HIM LIABLE TO CONVICTION OF THE COMMON LAW OFFENSE
IN QUESTION.  FN10 

THE JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE CONVICTIONS ON THE THIRD AND FIFTH COUNTS
IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  GENERAL STATUTES SEC. 6294 AS AMENDED BY SEC. 860D OF THE 1937
SUPPLEMENT. 

FN2  126 CONN. 1; 8 A.2D 533. 

FN3  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160. 

FN4  REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145; DAVIS V. BEASON, 133
U.S. 333. 

FN5  COMPARE NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 713. 

FN6  WOODMONT ASSN. V. MILFORD, 85 CONN. 517, 522; 84 A. 307, 310;
SEE ALSO CONNECTICUT CO. V. NORWALK, 89 CONN. 528, 531; 94 A. 992. 

FN7  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697. 

FN8  COMPARE LEWIS PUBLISHING CO. V. MORGAN, 229 U.S. 288, 306-310;
NEW YORK EX REL. BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63, 72. 

FN9  COMPARE GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 670-1; THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, ANTE, PP. 98-105. 

FN10  COMPARE SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52; HERNDON V.
LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242, 256; THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, ANTE, P. 88. 
..END :












BORCHARD V. CALIFORNIA BANK, 310 U.S. 311 


NO. 752.  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  - 107 F.2D
96, REVERSED. 


IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75(S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE DEBTORS
PETITIONED THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER FOR AN APPRAISAL AND THE
SETTING ASIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THEM (NO ACTION HAVING BEEN TAKEN UPON
A PREVIOUS PETITION); APPRAISERS WERE APPOINTED AND MADE REPORT TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT NO STAY ORDER FIXING
TERMS ON WHICH THE DEBTORS WOULD REMAIN IN POSSESSION HAD BEEN
ENTERED.  HELD, THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AT THAT STAGE, IN
GRANTING LEAVE TO A CREDITOR TO SELL THE PROPERTY UNDER DEEDS OF TRUST
WAS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(S).  P. 316. 

BORCHARD ET AL. V. CALIFORNIA BANK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 648, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75(S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE DEBTORS' PROPERTY UNDER DEEDS OF TRUST. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE FOR THE REASON THAT IT PRESENTS
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY SEC.
75(S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED.  FN1 

THE PRECISE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY
PERMIT FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE LIENS WHERE THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY
SEC. 75(S) HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. 

THE PETITIONERS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, ARE FARMERS.  OVER THE PERIOD
JANUARY 24, 1927 TO JUNE 19, 1933, THEY BORROWED FROM THE RESPONDENT,
THE CALIFORNIA BANK, A TOTAL OF $87,566.93, IN VARYING AMOUNTS,
EXECUTING TO THE BANK THEIR PROMISSORY NOTES FOR THE RESPECTIVE LOANS
TOGETHER WITH DEEDS OF TRUST  FN2  ON THEIR FARM REAL ESTATE AS
SECURITY.  FROM TIME TO TIME THEY MADE PAYMENTS WHICH REDUCED THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE INDEBTEDNESS TO $53,919.20.  THE LENDER, IN THE
MEANTIME, HAD MADE SOME ADVANCES TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF TAXES ON THE
PROPERTY.  FURTHER TO SECURE THEIR INDEBTEDNESS THEY EXECUTED, ON
JANUARY 30, 1934, A MORTGAGE ON ALL THE CROPS STANDING OR GROWING, OR
WHICH SHOULD THEREAFTER BE PLANTED, GROWN, CULTIVATED, CUT, GATHERED,
PACKED, OR HARVESTED, DURING THE LIFE OF THE MORTGAGE ON CERTAIN OF
THEIR FARM REAL ESTATE. 

NOVEMBER 17, 1934, THEY FILED THEIR PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH WAS APPROVED AND REFERRED TO A CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER.  IN JANUARY 1935 THE RESPONDENT BANK DECLARED DEFAULTS,
AND RECORDED NOTICES THEREOF AND OF ITS ELECTION TO CAUSE THE PROPERTY
TO BE SOLD PURSUANT TO THE DEEDS OF TRUST, AND THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA. 

MARCH 25, 1935, THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER APPOINTED APPRAISERS
WHO FILED AN APPRAISAL ON MAY 1 VALUING THE DEBTORS' REAL ESTATE AT
$68,550.  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SEC. 75 CONTAINS NO PROVISION FOR
APPRAISAL DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS COVERED BY
SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (R); NOR DO WE FIND ANY RULE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
PROVIDING FOR APPRAISAL AT THIS STAGE OF THE CAUSE.  THE TRANSCRIPT OF
RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE WHETHER THIS APPRAISAL WAS ASKED BY ANY
CREDITOR OR BY THE DEBTORS.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, THE ORDER FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF APPRAISERS WAS MADE BY THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER OF
HIS OWN MOTION. 

THE DEBTORS WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE REQUISITE ACCEPTANCE OF
CREDITORS TO THE COMPOSITION AND EXTENSION PROPOSAL THEY SUBMITTED.  AS
A CONSEQUENCE, THEY AMENDED THEIR PETITIONS AND PRAYED TO BE
ADJUDICATED BANKRUPTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(S). 
THE PETITION WAS GRANTED AND AN ADJUDICATION ENTERED MAY 6, 1935. 
APPARENTLY NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UNTIL JUNE 26, 1935, WHEN
THE BANKRUPTCY CAUSE WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THIS COURT HAD
HELD SEC. 75(S) UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FN3 ON THE SAME DAY THE DEBTORS
PETITIONED A LOCAL COURT FOR RELIEF UNDER A STATE MORATORIUM ACT AND
OBTAINED AN ORDER GRANTING A MORATORIUM, WHICH REMAINED IN EFFECT UNTIL
SEPTEMBER 20, 1935, WHEN THE DEBTORS FILED A PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
OF THE BANKRUPTCY CAUSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 75(S)
ADOPTED TO MEET THE DECISION IN THE RADFORD CASE.  FN4  ON THE SAME
DATE THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THE PETITION, ORDERED THE PROCEEDINGS
REINSTATED, AND REFERRED THE CASE TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(S).  THE COURT RESTRAINED THE
RESPONDENTS FROM SELLING, OR PROCEEDING WITH A SALE OF, THE REAL ESTATE
COVERED BY THE DEEDS OF TRUST AND ALSO ENJOINED THEM FROM COLLECTING
FROM PACKERS OR PROCESSORS THE PROCEEDS OF CROPS COVERED BY MORTGAGE,
UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. 

OCTOBER 18, 1935, THE PETITIONER FRANZ J. BORCHARD PRESENTED HIS
PETITION TO THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER PRAYING THAT APPRAISERS BE
APPOINTED; THAT HIS EXEMPT PROPERTY BE SET ASIDE TO HIM, AND THAT HE BE
ALLOWED TO RETAIN POSSESSION, UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE
COURT, OF ALL OF THE REMAINDER OF HIS PROPERTY, AND FOR SUCH FURTHER
ORDER AS MIGHT BE JUST AND PROPER IN THE PREMISES, AS AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 75(S).  SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE DEBTORS FILED A PETITION FOR AN
ORDER ON THE BANK TO COMPEL IT TO RELEASE ITS ASSERTED CLAIM TO THE
CROP OF ORANGES GROWN ON THEIR PROPERTY IN 1935.  IN OPPOSITION THE
BANK NOT ONLY ASSERTED THE VALIDITY OF ITS LIEN, BUT URGED THAT THE
PROCEEDINGS BE DISMISSED BECAUSE SEC. 75(S), AS AMENDED, WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE HELD THAT THE BANK HAD A LIEN ON
THE 1935 ORANGE CROP BUT REFRAINED FROM PASSING UPON THE VALIDITY OF
SEC. 75(S), STATING THAT HE WOULD DECIDE THAT QUESTION AT A LATER DATE
IF THE PARTIES SO DESIRED.  APPARENTLY THE PARTIES REQUESTED A RULING,
AND, ON MAY 15, 1936, THE JUDGE OVERRULED THE CONTENTION OF THE BANK
AND REFUSED TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDINGS. 

NOTHING HAVING BEEN DONE PURSUANT TO THE PETITION FOR APPRAISAL AND
AWARD OF POSSESSION TO FRANZ J. BORCHARD, THE PETITIONERS AND
RESPONDENTS, ON MAY 27, 1936, FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A STIPULATION
BY THE TERMS OF WHICH $3,900, HELD BY THIRD PARTIES, BEING THE PROCEEDS
OF 1935 CROPS HARVESTED FROM THE PREMISES, WAS TO BE PAID TO THE BANK
AND BY IT EXPENDED FOR THE CULTIVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE LAND. 
THE DISTRICT COURT ACCORDINGLY ORDERED THE SUM PAID TO THE BANK.  JUNE
10, 1937, THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT $2,494, LIKE PROCEEDS OF CROPS
HARVESTED, BE PAID TO THE BANK, TO BE EXPENDED FOR THE CULTIVATION OF
THE FARM.  THE COURT SO ORDERED.  DECEMBER 20, 1937, A STIPULATION WAS
FILED AND AN ORDER MADE THAT $2,000 BE PAID TO THE BANK, $1,500 TO THE
DEBTORS, AND $946 APPLIED TO TAXES.  FINALLY, ON MARCH 7, 1938,
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, $1,763 WAS RELEASED FROM THE HANDS OF THIRD
PARTIES TO BE EXPENDED FOR THE CULTIVATION AND PRESERVATION OF THE
MORTGAGED REAL ESTATE.  THE STIPULATION FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE BANK
SHOULD RECEIVE THE MONIES REALIZED FROM THE SALE OF THEN GROWING CROPS
AND SHOULD APPLY THEM, SO FAR AS NECESSARY, TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT THE
ORANGE GROVE ON THE PROPERTY. 

ALL OF THE STIPULATIONS RESERVED THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AND WERE
TO BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO SUCH RIGHTS. 

MAY 24, 1938, THE DEBTORS PETITIONED THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER
FOR AN APPRAISAL AND THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THEM.  JUNE
22, 1938, APPRAISERS WERE APPOINTED AND THEY REPORTED THE VALUE OF THE
REAL ESTATE AS $87,300.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHAT, IF ANY, PROCEEDINGS
WERE HAD BEFORE THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER UPON THE COMING IN OF THE
APPRAISERS' REPORT.  THE PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS
CONSIDERING THE TERMS OF AN ORDER FOR A STAY AND THE CONDITIONS TO BE
INSERTED IN THAT ORDER.  ON NOVEMBER 10, 1938, HOWEVER, THE BANK FILED
ITS PETITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR LEAVE TO SELL UNDER ITS TRUST
DEEDS.  THE PETITION RECITED THE FACTS AS ABOVE OUTLINED, STATED THE
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST DUE UNDER THE VARIOUS NOTES; SET FORTH THE
AMOUNT OF THE ADVANCES THE BANK HAD MADE FOR TAXES AND OTHER ACCOUNTS,
AND SHOWED AN EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS, SECURED BY DEEDS OF TRUST AND
MORTGAGE, TOTALING $89,246.82.  IT ALLEGED THAT THE MORTGAGED PREMISES
WOULD NOT BRING MORE THAN $65,000; THAT THE BANK HAD ALREADY SUFFERED A
SERIOUS LOSS; AND THAT FURTHER DELAY IN THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD
ENTAIL A GREATER ONE.  THE COURT TOOK TESTIMONY AS TO VALUE AND
CONCLUDED THAT THE REAL ESTATE WAS NOT WORTH MORE THAN $65,000.  IT
FOUND THAT, AS THE DEBTORS HAD HAD SEVERAL YEARS WITHIN WHICH TO
ARRANGE AN ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND HAD BEEN UNABLE SO TO
DO, IT WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE THAT THE BANK BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED SO AS
TO SAVE ITSELF FURTHER LOSS.  THE PETITION WAS GRANTED AND THE
OUTSTANDING RESTRAINING ORDER WAS DISSOLVED. 

ON APPEAL BY THE DEBTORS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
DECREE,  FN5  HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION WAS JUSTIFIED BY
OUR DECISION IN WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH BANK, 300 U.S. 440. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN PERMITTING
THE CREDITOR TO PROCEED TO A SALE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS LIENS AT
THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING WAS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
75(S).  THAT THIS IS SO IS MADE PLAIN BY OUR DECISIONS IN WRIGHT V.
VINTON BRANCH BANK, SUPRA, AND JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. BARTELS, 308
U.S. 180.  AS WAS SAID IN THE LATTER CASE (P. 187): 

"THE SCHEME OF THE STATUTE IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE AN ORDERLY
PROCEDURE SO AS TO GIVE WHATEVER RELIEF MAY PROPERLY BE AFFORDED TO THE
DISTRESSED FARMER-DEBTOR, WHILE PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF HIS
CREDITORS BY ASSURING THE FAIR APPLICATION OF WHATEVER PROPERTY THE
DEBTOR HAS TO THE PAYMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS, THE PRIORITIES AND LIENS OF
SECURED CREDITORS BEING PRESERVED." 

THAT ORDERLY PROCEDURE INCLUDES AN APPLICATION BY THE DEBTOR, SUCH AS
WAS MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE, FOR AN APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY, AN
ORDER THAT THE DEBTOR REMAIN IN POSSESSION UPON TERMS FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TO HIM AND TO SECURED CREDITORS, AND THE ENTRY OF A STAY
WHICH WILL ASSURE HIM OF HIS POSSESSION FOR THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE
OF THE ORDER, UPON THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE ACT.  AS A
PREREQUISITE TO AN INTELLIGENT DETERMINATION OF THE TERMS UNDER WHICH
THE DEBTOR IS TO REMAIN IN POSSESSION, THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE
COURT AND THE PARTIES SHALL BE INFORMED OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY.  AS POINTED OUT IN THE WRIGHT CASE, SUPRA, THE SECURED
CREDITORS' RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED TO THE EXTENT OF THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY.  THE COURT MAY ORDER RENT TO BE PAID BY THE DEBTOR, MAY ORDER
HIM TO MAKE PAYMENTS ON ACACCOUNT OF PRINCIPAL, AND, IN ITS CONTINUING
CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY, MAY ENTER ANY OTHER ORDERS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE DEBTOR AND SECURED CREDITORS WHICH THE SITUATION
REQUIRES.  FAILURE OF THE DEBTOR TO COMPLY WITH ANY SUCH ORDERS MAY
EVENTUATE IN A SALE. 

INSTEAD OF PROSECUTING THE CAUSE BEFORE THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER
PURSUANT TO THE DEBTORS' PETITION, THE BANK RESORTED TO A PROCEDURE NOT
CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE, EVIDENTLY ON THE THEORY THAT IT COULD
OBTAIN SOME ADVANTAGE BY THAT COURSE.  BY WRITTEN STIPULATIONS THE BANK
CONSENTED TO THE RETENTION OF POSSESSION BY THE DEBTORS AND ARRANGED
THAT THEY SHOULD COOPERATE IN THE CULTIVATION OF THE FARM, PROCEEDS OF
THE CROPS BEING USED FOR FURTHER CULTIVATION AND CONSERVATION OF THE
REAL ESTATE, FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES, AND FOR PAYMENTS TO THE DEBTORS. 
FOR MORE THAN THIRTY-ONE MONTHS AFTER THE PETITION FOR APPRAISAL WAS
FILED NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.  AN APPRAISAL WAS THEREAFTER MADE.  NO STAY
ORDER HAS BEEN ENTERED FIXING TERMS ON WHICH THE DEBTORS ARE TO REMAIN
IN POSSESSION.  THE PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE.  THE BANK, AT ANY TIME, COULD HAVE
OBTAINED ACTION BY THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER AND THE COURT, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE.  IT CANNOT NOW MAINTAIN THAT THE
DISORDERLY AND UNAUTHORIZED PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE PARTIES IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE AND THAT, AS THE
PETITIONERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO REHABILITATE THEMSELVES, IT IS
ENTITLED TO ENFORCE ITS LIENS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, C. 204, 47 STAT. 1467; ACT OF JUNE 28,
1934, C. 869, 48 STAT. 1289; ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935, C. 792, 49 STAT.
942.  THE ACT HAS BEEN FURTHER AMENDED IN PARTICULARS NOT HERE
IMPORTANT BY THE ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, 52 STAT. 840, 939.  SECTION 75,
AS IT NOW STANDS, IS TIT. 11, U.S.C. SEC. 203. 

FN2  THE DEEDS OF TRUST RAN TO THE RESPONDENT TRUST COMPANY AS
TRUSTEE. 

FN3  LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555. 

FN4  ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935, C. 792, 49 STAT. 942. 

FN5  BORCHARD V. CALIFORNIA BANK, 107 F.2D 96. 
..END :





LABOR BOARD V. BRADFORD DYEING ASSN., 310 U.S. 318 


NO. 588.  ARGUED MARCH 26, 27, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  - 106
F.2D 119, REVERSED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO AN EMPLOYER
WHOSE BUSINESS CONSISTS OF DYEING AND FINISHING GOODS MOVED TO AND FROM
ITS PLANT BY THEIR OWNERS THROUGH THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
P. 324. 

2.  THE ACT IS APPLICABLE EVEN THOUGH THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS IS
SMALL IN COMPARISON WITH THE INDUSTRY TO WHICH IT BELONGS.  P. 326. 

3.  IT IS NOT MATERIAL TO THE QUESTION OF THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION
THAT THE CUSTOMERS OF THE PROCESSOR, IF THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF THE
GOODS TO AND FROM THE PLANT WERE STOPPED BY A STRIKE, MIGHT SECURE THE
SAME SERVICES FROM OTHER PROCESSORS IN THE SAME STATE.  P. 326. 

4.  SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO PROTECT AND FOSTER INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE BOARD CAN EXERT JURISDICTION BEFORE INDUSTRIAL STRIFE
OCCURS IN THE PLANT.  P. 326. 

5.  EVIDENCE BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SUSTAINED ITS
FINDINGS: 

(1)  THAT TWO OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES WERE DISCHARGED
FOR UNION ACTIVITIES.  PP. 326, 330. 

(2)  THAT THE COMPANY DOMINATED AND SUPPORTED ONE LABOR ORGANIZATION
AND REFUSED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH ANOTHER AFTER A MAJORITY OF
THE EMPLOYEES HAD SELECTED IT AS THEIR BARGAINING UNIT.  PP. 333 ET
SEQ. 

6.  WHERE A SHIFT OF MAJORITY MEMBERSHIP FROM ONE UNION TO ANOTHER
WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYER, THE
BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN FINDING THAT THE FIRST UNION CONTINUED TO BE THE
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  P. 339. 

7.  IN VACATING THE BOARD'S ORDER FOR REINSTATEMENT OF TWO EMPLOYEES,
UPON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD INCITED OR THREATENED UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
AFTER THEIR DISCHARGE, THE COURT BELOW ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  P.
340. 

8.  WHERE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ACTING WITHIN THE
COMPASS OF ITS POWER, ON A CHARGE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, HAS HELD A
PROPER HEARING, HAS MADE FINDINGS BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND
HAS ORDERED AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
BOUND, ON APPLICATION, TO ENFORCE THE ORDER.  P. 342. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. BRADFORD DYEING ASSOCIATION
(U.S.A.)  ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 549, TO REVIEW A DECREE ON A PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  4
N.L.R.B. 604; 8 ID. 979. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECLINED TO DECREE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT
OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UPON THE GROUND THAT
THE BOARD'S ORDER, IN MATERIAL RESPECTS, RESTED UPON FINDINGS THAT WERE
NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

IN ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THE BOARD TOOK SHARP ISSUE WITH THE
COURT OF APPEALS, ASSERTING THAT SOME FINDINGS UPSET BY THE COURT WERE
SUPPORTED NOT MERELY BY SUBSTANTIAL BUT BY "UNCONTRADICTED" AND
"UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE."  THE PETITION ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE COURT'S
OPINION WAS "AMBIGUOUS AND INCONCLUSIVE" AND "LEFT UNCLEAR THE COURT'S
HOLDING AS TO WHETHER THE BOARD HAD JURISDICTION."  OUR INSPECTION OF
THE COURT'S OPINION AND DECREE DISCLOSED THAT THE COURT DEEMED THE
BOARD TO BE WHOLLY LACKING IN JURISDICTION.  NEVERTHELESS, THE BOARD
WAS ORDERED TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION WHICH CONCLUDED
WITH THE INDECISIVE STATEMENT THAT "IF THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION" A LARGE PART, BUT APPARENTLY NOT ALL, OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER SHOULD BE VACATED.  THE COURT'S DECREE DID NOT DIRECT
ENFORCEMENT EVEN OF THOSE PARTS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER NOT EXPRESSLY
VACATED.  THE BOARD'S PETITION FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ITS MOTION FOR
REHEARING IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION OF ITS JURISDICTION AND TO
ESTABLISH THE STATUS OF "THOSE PORTIONS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER WHICH THE
COURT NEITHER VACATED NOR ENFORCED" WAS DENIED WITHOUT EXPLANATION. 
BECAUSE THE LABOR BOARD'S PETITION IN CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS THUS RAISED QUESTIONS OF GRAVE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
AFFECTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND
JUDICIAL REVIEW AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN1 

THIS PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED UPON CHARGES FILED BY THE TEXTILE
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE OF THE C.I.O.  THEREUPON, THE LABOR BOARD
SERVED A COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE BRADFORD DYEING
ASSOCIATION (U.S.A.), RESPONDENT HERE. 

IN THE COMPLAINT, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT IN ORDER TO
DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN THE C.I.O., HAD DISCHARGED AND REFUSED TO
REINSTATE ITS EMPLOYEES, EDWARD NELSON AND PERCY SCHOFIELD, BECAUSE OF
THEIR AFFILIATION AND ACTIVITIES IN THE TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING
COMMITTEE OF THE C.I.O., (T.W.O.C.); RESPONDENT HAD DOMINATED AND
SUPPORTED THE BRADFORD DYEING ASSOCIATION EMPLOYEES' FEDERATION, A
LABOR ORGANIZATION, AND HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES THROUGH THE T.W.O.C. AFTER A MAJORITY HAD SELECTED IT AS
THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. 

THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION WAS UNSUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND
THAT RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS INVOLVED NO ACTIVITIES IN OR AFFECTING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  AND, ANSWERING,
RESPONDENT ALLEGED THAT SCHOFIELD WAS DISCHARGED BECAUSE HE SMOKED
DURING WORKING HOURS; "THAT  ...  NELSON WAS NOT DISCHARGED, THAT HE
WAS INSUBORDINATE AND DEFIANT, THAT HE DID NOT WORK AND REFUSED TO WORK
DURING THE TIMES WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING, THAT HE WAS ON THE
PREMISES DURING HOURS WHEN HE WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE PREMISES OF
RESPONDENT AND WAS TAKING UP THE TIME OF OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO WERE
SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING DURING SUCH TIME, THAT  ... NELSON WENT UPON A
VACATION AND HAS NOT RETURNED TO WORK AFTER SUCH VACATION NOR MADE ANY
STATEMENT OF HIS READINESS TO RETURN TO WORK OR MADE ANY REQUEST THAT
HE BE PUT TO WORK AGAIN"; THAT RESPONDENT HAD NOT DOMINATED OR COERCED
THE FEDERATION; AND THAT ANY LABOR DISPUTES AT ITS PLANT WERE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF THE T.W.O.C. 

THE FEDERATION WAS ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN THE EXTENSIVE HEARING HELD
BY THE BOARD. 

AFTER THIS HEARING, THE BOARD FOUND THAT "A LABOR DISPUTE" IN
RESPONDENT'S PLANT WOULD WIDELY AFFECT "THE FLOW OF COMMODITIES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE," WITH CONSEQUENT JURISDICTION IN THE BOARD, AND
THAT THE CHARGES OF THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN SUBSTANTIATED. 

THE BOARD ACCORDINGLY ORDERED RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
(1), INTERFERING, OR COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
RIGHTS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION; (2), DOMINATING AND INTERFERING WITH THE
FEDERATION OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION; (3) DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP
IN THE T.W.O.C.; (4), REFUSING TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE
T.W.O.C; AND (5), ORDERED RESPONDENT AFFIRMATIVELY TO OFFER
REEMPLOYMENT TO SCHOFIELD AND NELSON AND TO MAKE THEM WHOLE, TO
WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION FROM AND COMPLETELY DISESTABLISH THE
FEDERATION, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH ITS EMPLOYEES THROUGH
T.W.O.C., AND TO POST THE USUAL NOTICES THROUGHOUT ITS PLANT STATING
THAT THE COMPANY WOULD CEASE ITS UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
AND WOULD TREAT ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERATION AS OF NO EFFECT. 

IN ITS FINAL DECREE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTED THAT "UNTIL
A NEW ELECTION HAS TAKEN PLACE BY ORDER OF THE BOARD, AND THE EMPLOYEES
HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR PREFERENCE AS TO WHAT GROUP OR BODY SHALL
REPRESENT THEM IN ANY LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN THEM AND THE RESPONDENT,
THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, EXCEPT AS TO PARAGRAPHS (1), (2), AND (3) OF
THE CEASE AND DESIST PORTION OF THE ORDER, AND THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH
ORDERING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, SHALL BE VACATED, THE BOARD THEN TO
PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION PASSED DOWN THIS DAY."  AS
PHRASED, THE DECREE IS NOT CLEAR BUT APPARENTLY THE COURT VACATED
SUBDIVISIONS (4) AND (5) OF THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE COURT'S OPINION DID
MAKE CLEAR THAT UNDER ITS DECREE THE COMPANY WAS LEFT FREE TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE FEDERATION AND TO DECLINE TO BARGAIN WITH THE
T.W.O.C.  DISCHARGES OF SCHOFIELD AND NELSON WERE APPROVED AND THE
COMPANY WAS RELEASED FROM PUBLISHING NOTICES WHICH, IF WARRANTED, WERE
"ESSENTIAL IF THE EMPLOYEES WERE TO FEEL FREE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS
WITHOUT INCURRING THE COMPANY'S DISFAVOR."  FN2  ALTHOUGH THOSE
PORTIONS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER PROHIBITING THE COMPANY'S INTERFERING
WITH ITS EMPLOYEES' UNION AFFILIATIONS WERE NOT EXPRESSLY SET ASIDE OR
MODIFIED, NEITHER WERE THEY ORDERED ENFORCED.  FN3  THUS THE COURT'S
DECREE GAVE THE BOARD'S ORDER NO EFFECT AT ALL. 

IT DID NOT EXPLICITLY SO DECREE, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS EVIDENTLY
WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EVIDENCE WAS LACKING UPON WHICH THE BOARD COULD
HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS WAS IN OR AFFECTED INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE COURT EXPRESSLY FOUND A LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT SCHOFIELD AND NELSON WERE DISCHARGED FOR UNION
ACTIVITIES AND STATED ITS BELIEF THAT SCHOFIELD WAS DISCHARGED FOR
SMOKING IN THE PLANT AND NELSON FOR INSUBORDINATION, AND THAT "THE
FINDING BY THE BOARD THAT THE T.W.O.C. HAD A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES
OF THE RESPONDENT SIGNED UP EVEN TO BECOME MEMBERS OF A UNION UNDER
THAT NAME IS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO REST." 

WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY PASSING UPON THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT RESPONDENT
HAD UNLAWFULLY DOMINATED THE FEDERATION, THE OPINION OF THE COURT
STATED, "  ... ASSUMING THAT THE PRESIDENT OR OFFICERS OF THE
RESPONDENT INFLUENCED ITS EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE FEDERATION, SO-CALLED,
IT DOES NOT APPEAR BY CLEAR AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT A MAJORITY OF
THE EMPLOYEES EVER JOINED, OR INDICATED AN INTENT TO JOIN, THE
T.W.O.C.,  ..."  SINCE THE COURT DID NOT VACATE THAT PART OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER DIRECTING THE COMPANY TO DISCONTINUE DOMINATION OF THE
FEDERATION, WE MIGHT INFER THAT THE COURT ACCEPTED THE BOARD'S FINDING
THAT THE FEDERATION HAD BEEN SO DOMINATED.  BUT THIS INFERENCE IS
OPPOSED BY THE COURT'S ACTION IN VACATING THE ORDER OF
DISESTABLISHMENT.  THE UNCERTAINTY IN WHICH THE COURT HAS LEFT THE
QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION AND COMPANY DOMINATION OF THE FEDERATION
MAKES NECESSARY A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE ON BOTH, ALONG WITH OTHER
EVIDENCE WHICH WE THINK AMPLY DEMONSTRATES THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
BOARD'S ORDER IN EVERY RESPECT. 

FIRST.  AS TO JURISDICTION. 

A MAJOR PORTION OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW IS DEVOTED TO ITS
EXPRESSION OF DOUBTS ABOUT THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, I.E., "THERE IS NO
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A FINDING THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OF
THESE MATERIALS BY THE RESPONDENT WAS EVER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE";
"THERE IS ALSO LACKING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT FORTY PER CENT OF THE
SUPPLIES CONSISTING OF CHEMICAL AND DYES, WHICH WERE CONTRACTED FOR IN
RHODE ISLAND AND DELIVERED BY THE SELLERS TO THE RESPONDENT'S PLANT IN
BRADFORD, WERE TRANSPORTED BY THE RESPONDENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR
THAT THEY WERE USED BY THE RESPONDENT EXCEPT AT BRADFORD, THOUGH THE
BOARD ASSUMED WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE SHIPPED BY THE RESPONDENT
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT ITS ASSUMPTION LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
ON WHICH TO REST, THAT WOULD COMPEL THIS COURT TO ACCEPT IT AS A FACT";
"THE RESPONDENT, ACCORDING TO UNCONTROVERTED TESTIMONY, NEITHER SELLS,
TRANSPORTS, NOR ARRANGES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS INTO OR OUT OF
RHODE ISLAND IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH IS DONE IN EACH INSTANCE BY
THE CUSTOMER,  ...  "; AND "THE BOARD APPARENTLY ASSUMED THAT THE
RESPONDENT TRANSPORTED GOODS TO ITS PLANT AND FROM IT, WHICH THE
UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE DISCLOSED WERE NOT THE FACTS."  REFERRING TO
WASTE PRODUCTS WHICH RESPONDENT SELLS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE COURT
NOTED THAT THEY DID NOT "EXCEED ONE PER CENT OF THE TOTAL GOODS
PROCESSED" AND SAID THAT THEY WERE BUT "A MERE INCIDENT ...  (OF THE
BUSINESS) TO WHICH THE MAXIM DE MINIMIS MIGHT WELL BE APPLIED, EVEN BY
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."  AND THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE
OPINION WERE ONLY STATED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION "IF THE CASE SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION." 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD WHICH SHOWED: 

THE BRADFORD DYEING ASSOCIATION (U.S.A.), AS STATED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
IS "ENGAGED IN THE DYEING AND FINISHING OF COTTON, RAYON AND ACETATE
PIECE GOODS."  THESE PIECE GOODS REACH THE PLANT AT BRADFORD, TOWN OF
WESTERLY, RHODE ISLAND, AS UNFINISHED "GRAY GOODS."  CUSTOMERS OF
BRADFORD, KNOWN AS "CONVERTERS," SHIP THE GRAY GOODS TO THE PLANT,
RETAINING TITLE, AND DIRECT SHIPMENT OF THE GOODS WHEN PROCESSED. 
BRADFORD OWNS NO GOODS OR MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND ITS CUSTOMERS
PAY THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THE PLANT.  A NEW YORK
OFFICE IS MAINTAINED, HOWEVER, "WHERE  ... SOLICITORS (WHO CONTACT
CONVERTERS) MAKE THEIR HEADQUARTERS," AND ADVERTISEMENTS ARE RUN IN NEW
YORK PAPERS AND TRADE JOURNALS.  A MAJORITY OF BRADFORD'S (CONVERTERS)
ARE LOCATED IN STATES OTHER THAN RHODE ISLAND, IN BALTIMORE, BOSTON,
PHILADELPHIA, TRENTON, AND PRINCIPALLY IN NEW YORK CITY.  THERE ARE
"VERY FEW CUSTOMERS" IN RHODE ISLAND.  IN 1936, 57,000,000 YARDS OF
GOODS WERE PROCESSED AND FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1937, 29,000,000. 
ABOUT NINETY PER CENT OF ALL GOODS PROCESSED, THE PROCESSING TAKING "AN
AVERAGE OF BETWEEN TWO AND THREE WEEKS," ARE SHIPPED OUT OF RHODE
ISLAND.  "MORE THAN HALF" OF THE GOODS PROCESSED COME FROM BEYOND THE
BORDERS OF RHODE ISLAND. 

INCIDENTAL TO ITS BUSINESS OF PROCESSING, RESPONDENT ACCUMULATES AND
ACQUIRES TITLE TO "REMNANTS" WHICH ARE ENDS OF CLOTH PROCESSED AND
GOODS DAMAGED IN PROCESSING.  IN 1936, 588,000 YARDS OF REMNANTS WERE
SOLD BY RESPONDENT, NINETY PER CENT OF WHICH WAS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THESE REMNANTS REPRESENTED ROUGHLY "JUST LESS THAN ONE PER
CENT" OF THE YARDS PROCESSED IN THAT YEAR.  FOR THE SAME YEAR,
RESPONDENT PURCHASED $355,856.00 WORTH OF COLORS AND DYESTUFFS,
WEIGHING OVER 235,111 POUNDS, OF WHICH FORTY PER CENT CAME FROM OUTSIDE
OF RHODE ISLAND.  THE COMPANY, DURING 1935, AVERAGED 688 EMPLOYEES,
WITH WAGES OF $604,614.68, AND ITS GROSS INCOME FROM PROCESSING WAS
$2,026,156.00.  IN 1937, THE EMPLOYEES ON THE PAYROLL WERE NEARLY 800. 

THAT THIS EVIDENCE WAS ABUNDANTLY SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY EXERCISE OF
JURISDICTION BY THE BOARD IS NOT NOW OPEN TO CONTROVERSY.  IT IS
SETTLED THAT THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO A PROCESSOR, WHO CONSTITUTES EVEN
A RELATIVELY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF HIS INDUSTRY'S CAPACITY,  FN4  WHERE
THE MATERIALS PROCESSED ARE MOVED TO AND FROM THE PROCESSOR BY THEIR
OWNERS THROUGH THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,  FN5  AND IT IS NOT
MATERIAL, AS THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT, THAT RESPONDENT'S CUSTOMERS MIGHT
BE ABLE TO SECURE THE SAME SERVICES FROM OTHER RHODE ISLAND PROCESSORS
IF A LABOR DISPUTE SHOULD STOP THE INTERSTATE FLOW OF MATERIALS TO AND
FROM RESPONDENT'S PLANT.  SINCE THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO PROTECT
AND FOSTER INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION CAN ATTACH, AS
HERE, BEFORE ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL STRIFE MATERIALIZES TO OBSTRUCT THAT
COMMERCE.  FN6 

SECOND.  DISCHARGE OF NELSON. 

IN ITS ANSWER TO THE BOARD'S COMPLAINT, THE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT
NELSON WAS NOT DISCHARGED APRIL 3, 1937, BUT WAS MERELY "LAID OFF," AND
ON APRIL 2, "WENT UPON A VACATION" AND DID NOT RETURN OR INDICATE A
WILLINGNESS TO GO BACK TO WORK.  HOWEVER, THE COMPANY INSISTS, AS IT
HAS THROUGHOUT, THAT NELSON WAS NOT A DILIGENT WORKER AND WAS
INSUBORDINATE; THAT HE TRESPASSED UPON COMPANY PROPERTY AFTER WORK
HOURS THURSDAY, APRIL 1ST; THAT "ONE OR TWO MORNINGS THAT WEEK HE
STARTED WORK A LITTLE LATE AND QUIT A LITTLE EARLY"; THAT HE DID NOT
START WORK SATURDAY, APRIL 3, UNTIL 7:30, A HALF HOUR LATE.    SOME OF
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT NELSON WAS ACTUALLY
DISCHARGED FOR UNION ACTIVITIES ON APRIL 3, WAS: 

PRIOR TO SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 1937, WHEN NELSON WAS "LAID OFF," HE HAD
WORKED FOR THE COMPANY TWO YEARS AS A CARPENTER.  HE HAD BECOME
ACTIVELY INTERESTED IN ORGANIZING THE EMPLOYEES IN A C.I.O. UNION THE
PRECEDING MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1937.  ON THAT DAY, HE HAD OBTAINED THREE
HUNDRED AND FIFTY T.W.O.C. CARDS FROM A FELLOW EMPLOYEE (SCHOFIELD),
WHO, HE HEARD, "HAD SOME APPLICATIONS FOR JOINING THE UNION, THE
C.I.O."  HIS DISTRIBUTION OF THE CARDS MET WITH QUICK RESPONSE AND MANY
SIGNED SO THAT ON FRIDAY, THE COMPANY OFFICIAL "WHO DOES ALL THE
HIRING," APPROACHED HIM AND SAID, "YOU'RE A RINGLEADER OF THE C.I.O.,
BUT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE FIRED FOR IT."  NELSON REFUSED TO TELL THIS
OFFICIAL THE NAMES OF HIS COLLABORATORS IN FORMING THE UNION AND ALSO
TOLD HIM HE WOULD NOT REVEAL THEIR NAMES TO MR. SUMMERSBY, THE
COMPANY'S PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER.  LATER THAT DAY, NELSON
OBSERVED SCHOFIELD TALKING WITH SUMMERSBY AND WAS INTRODUCED TO THE
LATTER AS "HELPING  ...  (SCHOFIELD) TO ORGANIZE AND GET THESE PLEDGE
CARDS SIGNED IN THE MILL."  HE WAS, THAT SAME DAY, FRIDAY, REFUSED
ADMISSION TO A MEETING IN SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE BETWEEN SOME EMPLOYEES AND
SUMMERSBY, BUT THAT AFTERNOON, AFTER WORK, HE WAS CALLED TO SUMMERSBY'S
OFFICE.  THERE SUMMERSBY ASKED "WHY DIDN'T WE FORM A LOCAL UNION OF OUR
OWN" AND "THOUGHT IT WAS A MUCH BETTER PLAN TO FORM A LOCAL UNION." 
AND SUMMERSBY ASKED THAT THE QUESTION OF A LOCAL UNION BE PUT UP TO A
C.I.O. COMMITTEE MEETING TO BE HELD THAT NIGHT. 

ALL DAY FRIDAY AND SATURDAY MORNING, HIS FOREMAN "DIDN'T SPEAK ONE
WORD TO" NELSON.  SATURDAY MORNING, APRIL 3, THIS FOREMAN ASKED HIM
"WHEN (HE)  ...  INTENDED TO START WORK" BUT ADDED THAT HE "DIDN'T HOLD
ANYTHING AGAINST" HIM.  WHEN SATURDAY'S WORK WAS OVER, NELSON WAS SENT
FOR BY SUMMERSBY, WHO WAS AFFABLE AT FIRST, BUT WHO BECAME HOSTILE WHEN
NELSON INDICATED HE WOULD NOT GO ALONG WITH A LOCAL UNION.  SUMMERSBY
THEN ASKED NELSON IF HE HAD BEEN STEALING ON AN OCCASION WHEN HE HAD
RETURNED TO THE PLANT AFTER HOURS TO GET SOME T.W.O.C. CARDS, AND ASKED
HIM IF HE HAD BEGUN WORK PROMPTLY THAT DAY (SATURDAY, APRIL 3).  NELSON
WAS TOLD BY SUMMERSBY "TO TAKE TWO WEEKS OFF AND COOL OFF."  NELSON
INSISTED HE WAS READY TO GO BACK TO WORK MONDAY MORNING.  HIS TESTIMONY
NARRATED THIS CONVERSATION IN PART AS FOLLOWS 

"A.  ...  I SAID, 'AS FAR AS BEING EXCITED ABOUT IT, YOU ARE MORE
EXCITED THAN I AM AND YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT IT AND I AIN'T.'  HE SAYS,
'SURE, I AM EXCITED ABOUT IT, BUT YOU ARE THE CAUSE OF ALL IT.'  I
SAID, 'I CAN'T HELP THAT.'  HE SAID, 'YOU TAKE THE TWO WEEKS OFF AND
THEN COME BACK AND SEE MR. PIERCE.'  I SAID, 'MEANING WHAT, THAT I GO
BACK AND SEE MR. PIERCE?  I AM NOT SURE OF A JOB WHEN I COME BACK?  OR
IS THIS JUST A MATTER OF BEATING ABOUT THE BUSH TO FIRE ME?'  HE SAYS,
'I WON'T GIVE YOU NOTHING DEFINITE.'  I SAYS, 'I WANT SOMETHING
DEFINITE.  I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE FIRING ME.  IF YOU ARE
NOT TELLING ME WHETHER I GO TO WORK WHEN I COME BACK OR NOT, I WANT TO
KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE FIRING ME.'  HE SAYS, 'I WON'T GIVE YOU NOTHING
DEFINITE.'  I SAYS, 'I CAN'T GO OUT WITHOUT MONEY.  IF YOU ARE GOING TO
FIRE ME, I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT MONEY.'  HE SAYS, 'SILVIA, GET HIS
MONEY.'  MR. SILVIA WENT OUT AND GOT ME MY MONEY AND CAME IN AND I
THANKED MR. SILVIA FOR MY MONEY AND WENT OUT.  WHEN I WAS HALFWAY
ACROSS THE OUTER OFFICE I HEARD LAUGHING, AND I SAW SILVIA SWING HIS
ARM DOWN, AND MR. SILVIA AND MR. SUMMERSBY WERE LAUGHING FOR ALL THEY
WERE WORTH, AS THOUGH THEY HAD PULLED A BIG JOKE." 

"Q.  DID YOU EVER GO BACK AFTER THAT FOR YOUR JOB?  A. NO I DIDN'T.
MR. SUMMERSBY TOLD ME IF I STEPPED FOOT ON THE PREMISES WITHIN TWO
WEEKS HE WAS GOING TO HAVE ME ARRESTED." 

NELSON NEVER WENT BACK BECAUSE A T.W.O.C. OFFICIAL WHO CONFERRED WITH
SUMMERSBY SAID SUMMERSBY WOULD NOT TAKE HIM BACK.  THIS T.W.O.C.
OFFICIAL AND A CONCILIATOR OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
SAID SUMMERSBY WOULDN'T TAKE NELSON BACK BECAUSE "THERE WOULD BE A
QUESTION OF HIS AUTHORITY."  IN FACT, A FELLOW EMPLOYEE TOLD NELSON
THAT SUMMERSBY HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT FIRING NELSON AND SCHOFIELD AND
"THAT HE WOULD FIND SOME WAY OF GETTING AROUND IT."  ON THE MORNING OF
THE DAY NELSON WAS FIRED HE HAD SPENT A "COUPLE OF MINUTES" TELLING
OTHER EMPLOYEES ABOUT A C.I.O. MEETING OF THE PREVIOUS NIGHT. 

FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE T.W.O.C. OFFICIAL IN QUESTION, A T.W.O.C.
DIRECTOR FOR RHODE ISLAND, SUMMERSBY WOULD NOT REHIRE "ESPECIALLY MR.
NELSON."  AND SUMMERSBY HIMSELF STATED THAT HE TOLD THE FEDERAL
CONCILIATOR, "I COULDN'T TAKE BACK EITHER OF THEM BECAUSE IT WOULD
BREAK DOWN THE DISCIPLINE OF OUR PLANT." 

NELSON'S FOREMAN TESTIFIED AS A WITNESS FOR RESPONDENT - 

ON FRIDAY, APRIL 2, "I COULD SEE THAT HE (NELSON) WAS TALKING AROUND
MORE OR LESS, AND SO I HAD HIM COME IN THE SHOP TO WORK ON THE TRUCKS. 
I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE THE PLACE WHERE I COULD WATCH HIM BETTER."  HE
SAW NELSON TALKING TO THE MEN EARLY ON APRIL 3, BEFORE WORK AND UNTIL
7:30, ALTHOUGH WORK BEGINS AT 7.  HE REPORTED TO HIS SUPERIOR THAT
NELSON WAS "TALKING TO DIFFERENT ONES," AND WENT WITH NELSON TO
SUMMERSBY WHO ASKED NELSON "IF HE DECIDED, ON SOME QUESTION THAT THEY
WERE TALKING ABOUT THE AFTERNOON BEFORE  ...  (NELSON) SAID, 'NO,'" AND
SUMMERSBY SAID, "WELL, THEN, IF YOU CAN'T GIVE ME A SATISFACTORY ANSWER
ON THAT I HAVE THOUGHT IT OVER AND I HAVE DECIDED TO LAY YOU OFF FOR
TWO WEEKS AND LET YOU THINK IT OVER."  THIS FOREMAN "KNEW  ... (NELSON)
WAS INTERESTED IN THE C.I.O., BUT  ...  DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING HE SAID"
TO THE MEN SATURDAY MORNING.  ON OTHER OCCASIONS, HE HAD SEEN NELSON
START LATE OR QUIT EARLY WITHOUT EVER REPORTING THE FACT, AND HAD SEEN
NELSON TALK AROUND LIKE THAT "QUITE OFTEN" BUT "THIS IS THE ONLY TIME
... (THE FOREMAN) EVER GOT MAD AT HIM."  THIS TIME, HE WAS AWARE THAT
NELSON HAD BEEN CONNECTED WITH THE C.I.O. FOR THE PAST WEEK "AND  ...
SUPPOSED HE WAS STILL AT IT."  THE FOREMAN ADMITTED THAT NELSON WAS "A
VERY GOOD WORKMAN," THAT HE MAY HAVE WORKED BETWEEN 7 AND 7:10 ON THIS
PARTICULAR SATURDAY MORNING AND THAT ON SATURDAY, APRIL 3, NELSON,
AFTER HAVING BEEN SPOKEN TO, "SAID HE HADN'T ANY FEELINGS BUT WHAT HE
WOULD GO ON AND DO HIS WORK ALL RIGHT.  AND HE DID AFTER THAT." 

ACCORDING TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WHO RANKED ABOVE NELSON'S FOREMAN - 

NELSON PREVIOUSLY "DID A WHOLE LOT OF TALKING."  IN HIS THREE YEARS
WITH THE COMPANY, HE HAD SEEN OTHERS TALKING BUT NEVER LAID ANY ONE
ELSE OFF FOR TALKING.  IN HIS VIEW "WHEN MEN ARE TALKING WITH ONE
ANOTHER THERE IS VERY LITTLE WORK DONE," BUT THE FOREMAN DID NOT REPORT
THE MEN TO WHOM NELSON WAS TALKING ON APRIL 3, ALTHOUGH THEY ALSO WERE
"SURELY" WASTING TIME.  THE PLANT RULES DO NOT FORBID TALKING. 

SUMMERSBY, THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER - 

ON APRIL 2, "INQUIRED AS TO WHO (NELSON)  ...  WAS AND WHAT HE DID
AND IF HE HAD BEEN ACTIVE IN THE C.I.O. AS AN ORGANIZER."  NELSON, HE
STATED, "AUTOMATICALLY FORFEITED HIS JOB" BY NOT COMING BACK AT THE END
OF HIS TWO WEEKS LAY OFF, WHICH WAS WITHOUT PAY.  AND IF HE SHOULD
APPLY FOR WORK, HIS FORCED VACATION "WOULD BE ON HIS RECORD AND WOULD
ALWAYS BE A BLACK MARK AGAINST HIM." 

THIRD.  DISCHARGE OF SCHOFIELD. 

THE COURT BELOW SAW NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE BOARD'S FINDINGS THAT
THIS EMPLOYEE WAS DISCHARGED FOR UNION ACTIVITIES, AND ACCEPTED THE
COMPANY'S CONTENTION THAT HE WAS DISCHARGED FOR SMOKING IN THE PLANT
CONTRARY TO RULES.  RESPONDENT ADMITS THAT SCHOFIELD WAS DISCHARGED. 

SCHOFIELD, A MACHINE OPERATOR, OR "JIGGER," TESTIFIED - 

ON SATURDAY, MARCH 27, 1937, HE ATTENDED A C.I.O. MEETING, OBTAINED
EIGHT APPLICATION CARDS FOR THE C.I.O. AND TALKED TO SOME OF HIS FELLOW
EMPLOYEES ABOUT THE C.I.O.  ALL EIGHT CARDS WERE SIGNED THAT NIGHT.  BY
SUNDAY, MARCH 28, HE HAD ASKED FOR AND OBTAINED SEVEN HUNDRED CARDS
WHICH HE USED DURING THE FOLLOWING WEEK, GIVING NELSON ABOUT ONE-HALF
ON MONDAY, MARCH 29.  BY WEDNESDAY, THE CARDS GAVE OUT.  ON FRIDAY,
APRIL 2, HE AND SUMMERSBY DISCUSSED CERTAIN DIFFICULTIES WITH THE PIECE
WORK OF "JIGGERS."  SUMMERSBY, TALKING THERE IN THE PLANT, BROUGHT UP
THE C.I.O. AND SAID "HE COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN AN ORGANIZATION
OUTSIDE ...  (WITH)  ...  BIG SHOTS  ...  RUNNING BIG AUTOMOBILES AND
HOTEL EXPENSES." 

SUMMERSBY THEN SUGGESTED "A UNION OF OUR OWN IN THE SHOP."  SCHOFIELD
ATTENDED A MEETING IN SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE AS A MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE OF
"JIGGERS," AND THE SUBJECT OF THE C.I.O. AROSE AGAIN.  SUMMERSBY SAID
HE WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE AN OUTSIDE UNION.  WHEN NELSON ATTEMPTED TO ENTER
THIS MEETING, SUMMERSBY TURNED HIM AWAY AND REFERRED TO HIM AS A
"TROUBLEMAKER."  SUNDAY, APRIL 4, THERE WAS A C.I.O. MEETING AT WHICH
SCHOFIELD AND NELSON WERE BOTH ON THE PLATFORM.  SCHOFIELD WENT TO WORK
ON MONDAY, THE 5TH, CONTINUING TO DISTRIBUTE C.I.O. CARDS.  ON TUESDAY,
THE 6TH, AT 2:25(NELSON HAD BEEN "LAID OFF" ON THE 3RD), A "CHARGE
HAND" NOTIFIED SCHOFIELD THAT SUMMERSBY WANTED TO SEE HIM "IN HIS
OFFICE RIGHT AWAY."  HE LEFT HIS WORK AND WENT DIRECTLY TO THE LOCKER
ROOM TO WASH AND CHANGE FROM WORK CLOTHES.  WHILE THERE, HE AND TWO
OTHER EMPLOYEES WERE SMOKING.  AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMPANY - A BOSS DYER
- WHOM HE HAD NEVER SEEN "IN THE LOCKER ROOM, NOT WHILE THE MEN WERE
CHANGING THEIR CLOTHES" - CAUGHT SCHOFIELD SMOKING AND SAID, "SO THAT'S
IT, YOU DAMN FOOL."  SCHOFIELD THEN WENT TO SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE AS HE
HAD BEEN DIRECTED, BUT DID NOT FIND HIM THERE.  SUMMERSBY'S FIRST
WORDS, ON ENTERING THE OFFICE ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES LATER, CHARGED
SCHOFIELD WITH SMOKING, BUT SUMMERSBY REFUSED TO TELL SCHOFIELD WHY HE
HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN SENT FOR - BEFORE HE WAS CAUGHT SMOKING.  SCHOFIELD
WAS TOLD TO "TAKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS OFF."  HE HAD BEEN LAID OFF ONCE
BEFORE FOR SMOKING. 

ON THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE TUESDAY ON WHICH THIS EMPLOYEE WOULD, HE
THOUGHT, HAVE BEEN TAKEN BACK TO WORK, A FEDERAL CONCILIATOR AND C.I.O.
OFFICIALS CONFERRED WITH SUMMERSBY ABOUT NELSON AND HIM.  THE C.I.O.
OFFICIAL TOLD SCHOFIELD THAT SUMMERSBY REFUSED TO REHIRE EITHER, AND AS
A RESULT HE NEVER WENT BACK.  ALTHOUGH HE "WANTED TO GO BACK THE FIRST
WEEK," HE TOOK THE WORD OF THE FEDERAL CONCILIATOR AND THE C.I.O.
OFFICIAL THAT HE WOULD NOT BE REHIRED.  THE TWO OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO
WERE SMOKING WHEN HE WAS CAUGHT WERE NOT DISCIPLINED, ALTHOUGH THE
ACCOSTING OFFICIAL COULD SEE THEM.  DESPITE "NO SMOKING" SIGNS, IT WAS
THE PRACTICE OF THE MEN TO SMOKE ON THE SLY.  OTHER MEN HAVE BEEN LAID
OFF TWO WEEKS FOR SMOKING, BUT NELSON WAS CAUGHT AND "OTHERS" HAVE BEEN
SEEN BY FOREMEN AND NO LAY-OFFS RESULTED.  SCHOFIELD DIDN'T "KNOW OF
ANY ONE BEING DISCHARGED" FOR SMOKING.  HE WAS MADE T.W.O.C. LOCAL
FINANCIAL SECRETARY. 

IN THE WORDS OF THE C.I.O. OFFICIAL, "MR. SUMMERSBY SAW RED THE
MINUTE I MENTIONED SCHOFIELD'S AND NELSON'S NAMES." 

AS TOLD BY THE BOSS DYER WHO FOUND SCHOFIELD SMOKING - 

THIS OFFICIAL HAD SENT AN EMPLOYEE TO NOTIFY SCHOFIELD OF SUMMERSBY'S
DESIRE TO SEE HIM; HE HIMSELF WENT TO THE LOCKER ROOM TO DELIVER THE
MESSAGE.  HE ASKED ONE OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE LOCKER ROOM TO
REMEMBER THE SCENE BECAUSE HE "KNEW PERCY SCHOFIELD'S CHARACTER."  IT
WAS HIS DUTY TO DETECT SMOKERS AND HE USUALLY LAID OFF, HIMSELF, ANY
MAN FOUND SMOKING.  HE HAD TIME TO LAY OFF SCHOFIELD WHILE WALKING WITH
HIM PART OF THE WAY TO SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO.  "IT
WAS A PECULIAR CASE AND I WANTED TO THINK BEFORE I DID ANYTHING."  THIS
WAS THE ONLY CASE IN WHICH HE HAD EVER REPORTED A SMOKER TO A HIGHER
UP.  HE HAD LAID SCHOFIELD OFF FOR TWO WEEKS TWICE BEFORE, FOR
SMOKING.  IN SIX OR SEVEN YEARS, HE HAD CAUGHT SEVEN OR EIGHT SMOKERS
OF WHOM, EXCEPTING SCHOFIELD, ONLY ONE WAS DISCHARGED.  HE DIDN'T GO TO
THE WASH ROOM "VERY OFTEN."  "A VERY SHORT TIME BEFORE" HE HAD HEARD
THAT SCHOFIELD WAS SOMEWHAT ACTIVE IN THE C.I.O. 

ONE OF THE FELLOW EMPLOYEES PRESENT IN THE LOCKER-ROOM WHERE
SCHOFIELD WAS FOUND SMOKING, STATED THAT HE ALSO HAD BEEN SMOKING BUT
WAS NOT DOING SO WHEN THE BOSS DYER CAME IN, AND THAT THE THIRD MAN WAS
SMOKING AT THAT TIME BUT WASN'T OBSERVED.  HE GOT THE IMPRESSION, THEN,
THAT THE BOSS DYER SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE AT LAST "HAD"
SCHOFIELD AFTER HAVING BEEN AFTER HIM FOR SOME TIME.  HE "HAD NEVER
SEEN  ...  (THE BOSS DYER) GO TO THE LOCKER ROOM" BEFORE. 

SUMMERSBY TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD BEEN TOLD BY SCHOFIELD THAT HE WAS
"INTERESTED IN ORGANIZING THE C.I.O."; AND THAT HE DISCHARGED SCHOFIELD
FOR SMOKING. 

FOURTH.  DOMINATION OF THE FEDERATION. 

AS ALREADY NOTED, THE COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION DID NOT ESPECIALLY
PASS UPON THIS CONTENTION.  SINCE, HOWEVER, THE COURT DID NOT ENFORCE
THE BOARD'S ORDER TO CEASE DOMINATING AND TO DISESTABLISH THE
FEDERATION, AS WE THINK IT SHOULD HAVE, APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE ON THIS
ISSUE WILL BE POINTED OUT. 

A MACHINIST, EMPLOYED ELEVEN YEARS BY RESPONDENT, TESTIFIED - 

HE ATTENDED A MEETING IN SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE ON APRIL 6, THE DAY OF
SCHOFIELD'S DISCHARGE.  SUMMERSBY "SAID THAT HE WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE THE
C.I.O. AND THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FOR US TO JOIN OUR OWN UNION
THAN TO BE BOTHERED BY THIS C.I.O."  WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE MEN TO GO
OUT ON SYMPATHY STRIKES.  THIS EMPLOYEE SAW FEDERATION CARDS AND
LITERATURE "ON THE TABLE" IN THE COMPANY'S OFFICE.  THESE WERE "HANDED
AROUND" AND ONE OR TWO WERE PICKED UP BY THE EMPLOYEES PRESENT; WHEN
SUMMERSBY AND THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY LEFT THE ROOM, THE
EMPLOYEES "SEEMED TO PICK THEM UP MORE FREQUENTLY."  TEMPORARY OFFICERS
OF THE FEDERATION WERE CHOSEN THERE, IN SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE.  A DAY OR
SO LATER, THE FEDERATION MET IN THE COMPANY'S SHIPPING ROOM WITH ONE
HUNDRED AND FIFTY TO TWO HUNDRED MEN PRESENT; SUMMERSBY ADDRESSED THE
MEETING AND SAID HE WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE THE C.I.O. AND THAT IT WAS
BETTER TO HAVE OUR OWN UNION.  THE MACHINIST DISTRIBUTED IN THE PLANT
THE FEDERATION CARDS WHICH HE HAD "PICKED  ...  UP" IN "SUMMERSBY'S
OFFICE"; THE FEDERATION CARDS "WERE THERE."    FROM TESTIMONY OF OTHER
EMPLOYEES, IT APPEARED THAT -    AT THE MEETING ON THE 6TH (THE DAY
SCHOFIELD WAS DISCHARGED) IN SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE, FEDERATION CARDS AND
CIRCULARS WERE SEEN, AND AN EMPLOYEE DISTRIBUTED THESE CARDS; SUMMERSBY
SAID "HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS LOCAL UNION" AND "WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE
THE C.I.O."  THREE "JIGGERS" HAD SEEN SUMMERSBY ON APRIL 5 ABOUT WAGES
AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; HE "THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE HAD
OUR OWN UNION" INSTEAD OF PAYING OUTSIDE FELLOWS.  "SOMEONE" SUGGESTED
THAT CARDS BE PASSED OUT FOR A LOCAL UNION.  WORD WAS PASSED OUT BY
FELLOW WORKERS THAT THE COMPANY WOULD PAY FOR TIME SPENT AT THE MEETING
IN THE SHIPPING ROOM, AT WHICH SUMMERSBY "SAID HE WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE
C.I.O. OR A.F. OF L., NO OUTSIDE UNION," THAT IT WOULD "BE BETTER IF WE
HAD A LOCAL UNION" INSTEAD OF PAYING OTHERS TO RIDE AROUND IN BIG CARS
AND THAT "HE WOULD NOT TOLERATE C.I.O."  WORKERS WERE SEEN PASSING OUT
FEDERATION CARDS IN THE PLANT DURING WORKING HOURS.  PAY WAS GIVEN FOR
THE HALF-HOUR SPENT IN THE SHIPPING ROOM MEETING AND THIS TIME WAS
INCLUDED BY INSTRUCTION OF THE "BOSS OF THE FRAMES."  FEDERATION CARDS
WERE PASSED OUT "OPENLY" BY MEN ON THE DAY OF THE SHIPPING ROOM
MEETING.  BOSSES WERE SEEN WITH CARDS.  ONE EMPLOYEE WAS GIVEN HIS
FEDERATION CARD BY THE BOSS OF HIS DEPARTMENT.  ANOTHER WAS ASKED BY
HIS FOREMAN WHETHER HE HAD JOINED THE FEDERATION. 

AN EMPLOYEE TESTIFIED - 

SUMMERSBY SENT FOR HIM ON APRIL 6, (THE DAY OF SCHOFIELD'S
DISCHARGE).  THE PAYMASTER CAME TO HIS HOUSE FOR HIM AND SAID HE WAS
GLAD THAT THIS MAN WASN'T "DEEP  ...  IN THE C.I.O.," AND TOOK HIM TO
THE OFFICE.  THERE SUMMERSBY TOLD HIM HE WAS SORRY THAT MEN IN HIS LINE
OF WORK (IN THE GRAY ROOM) HAD BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE MEETING THAT
MORNING IN SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE.  THIS EMPLOYEE HAD TOLD THE MEN IN THE
GRAY ROOM THAT THEY SHOULDN'T SIGN CARDS FROM A MEETING AT WHICH THEY
HAD NOT BEEN REPRESENTED.  SUMMERSBY TOLD HIM THE C.I.O. WOULD TAKE
MONEY OUT OF THE PLANT AND THAT A "COMMITTEE HAD GOTTEN TOGETHER  ...
TO FORM THIS LOCAL UNION, BECAUSE HE INFORMED THEM THAT HE WOULDN'T
RECOGNIZE THE C.I.O., AND THEY STARTED TO ORGANIZE A UNION THAT HE
WOULD RECOGNIZE.  HE SAID HE WOULD RECOGNIZE THE LOCAL."  HE AND
SUMMERSBY THEN WENT INTO THE MEETING IN AN ADJOINING OFFICE ("ONE IS
MR. PAWSON'S (RESPONDENT'S VICE PRESIDENT) AND THE OTHER IS MR.
SUMMERSBY'S").  A LEADER AT THIS MEETING IN COMPANY OFFICES AND
ATTENDED BY SUMMERSBY, "SAID A FEW OF THEM GOT TOGETHER AND DECIDED
THEY DIDN'T WANT A C.I.O., THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WOULD BE BETTER OFF
IF THEY HAD A LOCAL UNION, THAT THEY HAD A TALK WITH MR. SUMMERSBY, AND
MR. SUMMERSBY WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE THE C.I.O., AND RATHER THAN HAVE
TROUBLE HE WAS GOING TO SEE IF WE COULDN'T HAVE A LOCAL UNION." 
SUMMERSBY "EXPLAINED ADVANTAGES OF THE LOCAL UNION AND SPOKE OF THE
B.D.A." 

ANOTHER EMPLOYEE SUPPLIED EVIDENCE THAT A WEEK OR TWO AFTER NELSON
WAS FIRED, THE TIMEKEEPER TOOK HIM TO SEE SUMMERSBY, WHO ASKED ABOUT A
C.I.O. CARD WHICH HAD BEEN ON THE BACK OF THIS EMPLOYEE'S CAR, AND THAT
SUMMERSBY THEN "SAID HE WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE IT" AND COULD CLOSE THE
PLANT DOWN. 

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE FEDERATION STATED - 

HE WAS FIRST GIVEN A TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT AT THE MEETING IN
SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE, APRIL 6, WHEN SUMMERSBY SAID "HE DIDN'T LIKE THE
IDEA OF BARGAINING OUTSIDE."  THE MEN PRESENT IN THE AFTERNOON MEETING
IN SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE "ASKED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE OFFICE TO
FIND OUT HOW WE HAD MADE OUT ON OUR CARDS."  THE MEETING IN THE
SHIPPING ROOM WAS A DAY OR SO LATER.  AFTER THE MORNING MEETING IN
SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE ON THE 6TH, THIS TEMPORARY FEDERATION OFFICIAL
STARTED PASSING OUT FEDERATION CARDS FOR WHICH SUMMERSBY HAD GIVEN
PERMISSION.  FEDERATION CIRCULARS WERE POSTED ON PLANT BULLETIN
BOARDS.  FEDERATION APPLICATION CARDS WERE PASSED OUT BY "ALL OF US
THAT WERE IN THE OFFICE AT THAT FIRST MEETING."  OFFICERS OF THE
FEDERATION WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ELECTED (APRIL 11).  "ALL US MEN WHO WERE
IN THE OFFICE THE FIRST DAY, I THINK WE ACTED AS A COMMITTEE."  BETWEEN
APRIL 6 AND 11, SUMMERSBY PERMITTED THE TEMPORARY COMMITTEE TO MEET IN
AN OLD COMPANY OFFICE IN THE PLANT.  THE PAYMASTER GAVE THEM A LIST OF
THE MEN IN THE PLANT BY WHICH TO DETERMINE THE NECESSARY FIFTY-ONE PER
CENT.  ON APRIL 9, PRIOR TO THE ELECTION OF THE FEDERATION'S OFFICERS
ON THE 11TH, THIS TEMPORARY COMMITTEE PRESENTED A LETTER TO SUMMERSBY
STATING THAT THEY REPRESENTED FIFTY-ONE PER CENT OF THE MEN.  THAT SAME
DAY, SUMMERSBY GRANTED RECOGNITION TO THE FEDERATION.  THIS EMPLOYEE
FELT NO NEED FOR ORGANIZATION, EXCEPT FOR "BETTER FEELING" WHICH HE
THOUGHT "WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE C.I.O. WAS GOING TO DO THE SAME
THING."  HE HELPED FORM THE FEDERATION "PARTLY" TO STOP THE C.I.O., AND
BECAUSE THE C.I.O. HAD ALREADY STARTED.  A COMPANY CAR WAS USED BY HIM
ON ONE OCCASION FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERATION.  MEETINGS OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE FEDERATION WERE HELD IN A CLUB ROOM "ON
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE B.D.A."  THIS WITNESS ENGAGED AS ATTORNEY FOR THE
FEDERATION ONE WHO HE KNEW "HAD REPRESENTED  ...  (THE COMPANY) ON SOME
CASES"; HE HIMSELF LIVES IN A HOUSE OWNED BY THE COMPANY.  SOME
FEDERATION DUES WERE COLLECTED ON THE COMPANY'S PREMISES; MEMBERS WERE
NOT SUSPENDED FOR DUES DELINQUENCY AND MAY ALSO BE MEMBERS OF ANY LABOR
UNION OR SOCIETY.  THE FEDERATION STARTED ABOUT A WEEK AFTER THE C.I.O.
DRIVE; IT HAD NO INCOME OF ITS OWN PRIOR TO THE LAST WEEK IN APRIL. 
EVENTUALLY IT AFFILIATED WITH AN OUTSIDE UNION STILL DESIGNATED "AS THE
B.D.A. EMPLOYEES' FEDERATION" "TO BRING A LITTLE MORE PRESTIGE AND TO
PROVE TO THE ONES THAT WERE SKEPTICAL, THAT WE WERE NOT A COMPANY
UNION." 

THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERATION TESTIFIED - 

HE NEGOTIATED RECOGNITION OF THE FEDERATION, APRIL 9, (THREE AND SIX
DAYS RESPECTIVELY AFTER DISCHARGE OF SCHOFIELD AND NELSON) AS ITS
ACTING PRESIDENT.  ON THAT DAY, HE CALLED A MEETING OF THE ORGANIZING
COMMITTEE IN "THE LITTLE OFFICE IN THE GRAY ROOM," SHOWED THEM THAT
THEY HAD FIFTY-ONE PER CENT SIGNED CARDS, AND THEN WENT TO SUMMERSBY'S
OFFICE.  IN SUMMERSBY'S OFFICE, THE WITNESS AND COMPANY OFFICIALS
COUNTED THE SIGNED CARDS AND CHECKED THEM AGAINST A LIST OF EMPLOYEES
WHICH SUMMERSBY ASKED THE PAYMASTER TO GET.  THE CARDS WERE NOT CHECKED
TO SEE IF EACH SIGNER WAS ELIGIBLE; THE MANAGEMENT TOOK THE TEMPORARY
COMMITTEE'S WORD FOR IT.  AND THE CARDS WERE LEFT WITH SUMMERSBY.  THE
WITNESS DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE FEDERATION PLANNED TO DO ANYTHING THAT
"WAS ANY DIFFERENT" FROM WHAT THE EMPLOYEES PREVIOUSLY COULD HAVE DONE
BY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES.  HE HAD HEARD RUMORS THAT A BOSS HAD
FEDERATION CARDS OR SPOKE TO EMPLOYEES ABOUT THEM, AND BELIEVED ONE MAN
QUIT WORK AS THE RESULT OF POSTING C.I.O. HAND-BILLS.  HE SPOKE AT THE
SHIPPING ROOM MEETING AND ASKED SUMMERSBY TO SPEAK THERE.  SUMMERSBY
DID SPEAK.  ALONG THE LINES OF HIS CONVERSATION AT THE TWO PREVIOUS
MEETINGS IN HIS OFFICE, SUMMERSBY TOLD THIS GATHERING OF EMPLOYEES THAT
HE PREFERRED A LOCAL AND "WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF BARGAINING WITH THE
C.I.O." 

T.W.O.C.'S STATE DIRECTOR FOR RHODE ISLAND STATED - 

ON APRIL 7, HE SAW SUMMERSBY AND TOLD HIM T.W.O.C. HAD "ABOUT SEVENTY
FIVE PER CENT" OF THE MEN SIGNED.  SUMMERSBY REFUSED TO SAY THEN THAT
HE WOULD RECOGNIZE T.W.O.C.  APRIL 16, THE DIRECTOR, A FEDERAL
CONCILIATOR AND A T.W.O.C. ORGANIZER SAW SUMMERSBY AGAIN AND WERE TOLD
BY SUMMERSBY THAT "HE HAD A UNION" AND WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE THE C.I.O. AS
HE WAS "AFRAID OF AN OUTSIDE UNION."  IT WAS AGREED THAT HE WOULD HEAR
FROM SUMMERSBY'S ATTORNEY AFTER THE FIRST (APRIL 7) MEETING, BUT HE
NEVER HEARD.  A FORM CONTRACT WAS SUBMITTED TO SUMMERSBY ON THE 16TH,
BUT BY THAT DATE "HE HAD DEFINITELY DECIDED THAT HE WOULD REFUSE TO
BARGAIN WITH THE C.I.O." 

ACCORDING TO THE COMPANY'S VICE PRESIDENT - 

HE WAS PRESENT PART OF THE TIME AT ONE OF THE MEETINGS IN SUMMERSBY'S
OFFICE ON APRIL 6, WHERE CARDS AND LITERATURE WERE PRESENT AND A UNION
WAS DISCUSSED.  SUMMERSBY WAS HEARD TO EXPRESS THE OPINION "THAT HE
WOULD PREFER TO DEAL WITH A UNION OF HIS OWN EMPLOYEES RATHER THAN TO
DEAL WITH OUTSIDE INFLUENCES." 

ONE OF THE MEN PRESENT WHEN SCHOFIELD WAS FOUND SMOKING TESTIFIED
THAT A SALARIED EMPLOYEE WHO REPORTS "THINGS WHICH ARE DONE WRONG" CAME
AROUND AND ASKED EVERYBODY IF HE HAD JOINED THE LOCAL UNION; AT THE
MEETING IN THE SHIPPING ROOM, SUMMERSBY SAID HE WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE THE
C.I.O. BUT WOULD RECOGNIZE A LOCAL; THE WITNESS WAS PAID FOR THE
FIFTEEN MINUTES SPENT AT THAT MEETING; THE MEN WERE TOLD BY THE TIME
KEEPER THAT THEY WOULD BE SO PAID.  AN OFFICIAL OF THE FEDERATION SAID,
"THE IMPRESSION WAS THAT MR. SUMMERSBY PROBABLY WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE" THE
C.I.O.; THIS OFFICIAL WAS "ONE OF THE FIRST" ORGANIZERS OF THE
FEDERATION AND CONVEYED TO PEOPLE THE IMPRESSION THAT SUMMERSBY
WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE THE C.I.O. 

AS RELATED BY SUMMERSBY, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF RESPONDENT
 

A WAGE INCREASE WAS ANNOUNCED MARCH 31.  AFTER HE MET IN HIS OFFICE
ON APRIL 6, (THE DAY OF NELSON'S DISCHARGE) WITH THE COMMITTEE OF
"JIGGERS," LATER THE SAME DAY HE WAS ASKED FOR A PLACE IN WHICH THE
FEDERATION'S TEMPORARY COMMITTEE COULD MEET.  HE ANSWERED THE REQUEST
BY SAYING, "YOU CAN HAVE MY OFFICE AND MAKE YOURSELVES COMFORTABLE." 
THAT AFTERNOON, AS HE WAS READY TO LEAVE, THE TEMPORARY COMMITTEE MET
IN HIS OFFICE AND HE WAS "ADVISED THAT THEY WERE ORGANIZING A LOCAL
UNION  ...  I TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD GRANT THEM THE SAME PRIVILEGES I
WOULD GRANT ANY OTHER UNION ...  "  TWO DAYS AFTER RECOGNIZING THE
FEDERATION, HE PLACED AND PAID FOR AN AD IN A LOCAL PAPER, ENTITLED
"THE STRIKE THAT FAILED" BECAUSE IN PART, AS HE SAID, "THE B.D.A.
EMPLOYEES' FEDERATION HAD FORMED AND HAD TAKEN THE ORGANIZATION INTO
THEIR OWN HANDS, AND HAD SHOWN THAT THEY WERE STILL REAL CITIZENS." 
RESPONDENT IS OWNED BY AN ENGLISH CONCERN AND A STATEMENT BY HIM
APPEARED IN THE LOCAL PAPER, ON APRIL 25, DISCLOSING THE POSSIBILITY OF
THE COMPANY'S MOVING THE PLANT OUT OF THE UNITED STATES IF THERE WERE
TO BE "LABOR UNCERTAINTIES." 

HE RECOGNIZED THE FEDERATION APRIL 9, AND ON APRIL 13, TOLD THE
FEDERAL CONCILIATOR THAT AN ELECTION COULD NOT BE HELD, SINCE THE
FEDERATION HAD ALREADY BEEN RECOGNIZED.  AND ON THE 16TH, SUMMERSBY
TOLD SALERNO THAT HIS PROPOSED T.W.O.C. CONTRACT WOULD BE TAKEN UP WITH
SUMMERSBY'S LAWYER. 

FIFTH.  DESIGNATION OF T.W.O.C. AS BARGAINING AGENT. 

THE COURT BELOW FOUND NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S
FINDING THAT A MAJORITY OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES JOINED THE T.W.O.C.,
OR THAT "THE T.W.O.C.  ...  EVER CAME INTO ACTUAL EXISTENCE WITH
AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH THE RESPONDENT."  MUCH OF THE
TESTIMONY ALREADY REFERRED TO BORE UPON THE GENESIS OF T.W.O.C. AT
RESPONDENT'S PLANT. 

SCHOFIELD SAID: 

BY APRIL 4 HE HAD "FOUR HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIVE OR FOUR HUNDRED AND
SIXTY-SEVEN" SIGNED APPLICATION CARDS "MARKED DOWN."  THE CARDS WERE
SENT TO BOSTON.  A FEW MEN PAID DUES BUT COLLECTION WAS STOPPED.  "
...  WE HAD A MAJORITY OF CARDS SIGNED."  DUES ARE NOT COLLECTED UNTIL
MANAGEMENT GRANTS RECOGNITION.  NO LOCAL C.I.O. (T.W.O.C.)  ENTITY HAD
BEEN FORMED FOR THE PLANT; "WE HAD THE FIFTY-ONE PER CENT, BUT THIS
COMPANY UNION STUFF AND DISCHARGE AND EVERYTHING CAME ALONG, AND WE
HAVE JUST HAD TO WAIT FOR THIS HEARING  ...  " 

NELSON STATED THAT HE TOLD THE TIMEKEEPER, ON APRIL 2, "IT'S ALL OVER
BUT THE SHOUTING  ...  WE HAVE WELL OVER SIXTY PER CENT SIGNED UP ALL
READY."  AND FROM THE TESTIMONY OF AN OFFICER OF THE FEDERATION IT
APPEARED THAT THE C.I.O. DRIVE RESULTED IN A NUMBER OF SIGNATURES, AND
THAT BOTH ORGANIZATIONS COULD POSSIBLY CLAIM FIFTY-ONE PER CENT OF THE
EMPLOYEES SIGNED UP. 

AS EXPLAINED BY THE T.W.O.C. STATE DIRECTOR - 

A CHARTER OR LOCAL IS UNNECESSARY FOR MEMBERSHIP IN T.W.O.C.; NO
CHARTER TO A LOCAL IS GRANTED UNTIL AFTER RECOGNITION.  MEMBERS OF THE
FEDERATION ARE MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING OF T.W.O.C., EVEN IF THEY HAVE
NOT PAID DUES OR INITIATION FEES.  THE T.W.O.C. CARDS WERE BROUGHT TO
HIM DURING THE FIRST WEEK IN APRIL.  SUMMERSBY, APRIL 9, REFUSED TO
AGREE TO HAVE THE FEDERAL CONCILIATOR, OR A THIRD PARTY, COUNT THE
T.W.O.C. CARDS.  EMPLOYEES ARE ELIGIBLE TO MEMBERSHIP IN T.W.O.C.,
WITHOUT FORMATION OF A PLANT LOCAL. 

THE T.W.O.C. DIRECTOR'S SECRETARY STATED THAT THE T.W.O.C. CARDS WERE
BROUGHT IN BEFORE APRIL 12.  IT WAS AGREED AT THE HEARING THAT, AFTER
RESPONDENT CHECKED AGAINST THE ORIGINAL SIGNED CARDS, T.W.O.C. HAD A
LIST OF FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-TWO NAMES TAKEN FROM THOSE CARDS.  AND
IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THESE CARDS WERE SIGNED "ON OR BEFORE APRIL 10,
1937." 

SHIFT IN MEMBERSHIP. 

RESPONDENT HAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE BOARD, AS HERE, THAT IF THE
T.W.O.C. DID ACTUALLY REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF ITS EMPLOYEES ON APRIL
4(AS THE BOARD FOUND), A SHIFT IN MEMBERSHIP HAD GIVEN THE FEDERATION A
MAJORITY WHEN THE COMPANY ON APRIL 9 RECOGNIZED IT AS EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.  HOWEVER, THE BOARD FOUND THAT "THE RECORD
IS CLEAR THAT, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE
RESPONDENT IN ORGANIZING AND FOSTERING THE FEDERATION AND IN
PERSUADING, INTIMIDATING AND COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE
FEDERATION AND LEAVE THE T.W.O.C., THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES WOULD
HAVE REMAINED MEMBERS OF THE T.W.O.C."  IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL
SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE BOARD'S FINDINGS THAT THE COMPANY
INTIMIDATED AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES AND DOMINATED THE FEDERATION, THE
BOARD PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT "THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE
RESPONDENT CANNOT OPERATE TO CHANGE THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
PREVIOUSLY SELECTED BY THE UNTRAMMELLED WILL OF THE MAJORITY."  FN7
AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN ITS FINDING "THAT ON APRIL
4, 1937, AND AT ALL TIMES THEREAFTER, THE T.W.O.C., PURSUANT TO SECTION
9(A) OF THE ACT, WAS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES
IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING  ...  " 
SIXTH.  THE "SIT DOWN." 

AS ONE OF THE APPARENTLY ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS OF ITS DECISION, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECLARED THE BOARD WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ORDER
REINSTATEMENT OF NELSON AND SCHOFIELD BECAUSE OF SO-CALLED UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT AND THE ALLEGED INCITEMENT OF A "SIT DOWN" STRIKE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE FANSTEEL CASE.  FN8  THE OPINION STATED THAT "NELSON
EVEN THREATENED TRUCK DRIVERS DELIVERING MATERIALS TO THE PLANT WITH
VIOLENCE, AND TO DESTROY THE SPUR TRACKS OVER WHICH MATERIALS WERE
DELIVERED TO THE PLANT,  ...  THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION THAT IS AUTHORIZED
IS TO MAKE THESE REMEDIES EFFECTIVE IN THE REDRESS OF THE EMPLOYEES'
RIGHTS, TO ASSURE THEM SELF-ORGANIZATION AND FREEDOM IN REPRESENTATION,
NOT TO LICENSE THEM TO COMMIT TORTIOUS ACTS OR TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE
APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENCES OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OR REEMPLOYMENT OF EMPLOYEES
GUILTY OF THE ACTS, WHICH IT IS NOT DENIED WERE COMMITTED IN THIS
INSTANCE, WOULD NOT ONLY NOT EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE ACT, BUT
WOULD DIRECTLY TEND TO MAKE ABORTIVE ITS PLAN FOR PEACEABLE
PROCEDURE." 

WE FIND NO SUCH ISSUE RAISED BY RESPONDENT'S PLEADINGS BEFORE THE
BOARD.  RESPONDENT MADE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL FINDINGS BY THE BOARD, BUT
INCLUDED NONE THAT NELSON AND SCHOFIELD HAD BEEN GUILTY OF ANY UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT.  NELSON CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING MADE THREATS OF VIOLENCE. 
THE COURT WAS APPARENTLY REFERRING TO THE TESTIMONY OF A TRUCK DRIVER
WHICH APPEARS IN THE RECORD.  AN OBJECTION OF THE BOARD'S
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS PARTICULAR TESTIMONY WAS
OVERRULED BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER WHEN RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY MADE THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT:  "IF YOUR HONOR PLEASE, MAY I POINT OUT THAT WHILE
MR. NELSON WAS ON THE WITNESS STAND IN CROSS-EXAMINATION I ASKED HIM IF
HE DID NOT SAY CERTAIN THINGS AT THIS TIME AND PLACE, THAT THIS WITNESS
HAS BEEN REFERRING TO, WHICH THE WITNESS NELSON DENIES.  THE TESTIMONY
OF THIS WITNESS THAT NELSON DID SAY THOSE THINGS IS IN CONTRADICTION OF
MR. NELSON'S TESTIMONY AND IS CLEARLY ADMISSIBLE AS TENDING TO IMPEACH
THE VERACITY OF MR. NELSON'S TESTIMONY.  ASIDE FROM THAT I ALSO SUBMIT
IT AS BEARING ON THE TYPE OF CONDUCT AND THE ATTITUDE OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES AND ORGANIZERS OF THIS T.W.O.C. GETTING MEMBERSHIP AND
CONDUCTING THE AFFAIRS OF THIS ORGANIZATION." 

THIS TRUCK DRIVER'S HELPER TESTIFIED THAT ON THE MORNING OF APRIL 8,
AFTER SCHOFIELD AND NELSON HAD BEEN LAID OFF, HE SAW NELSON, SCHOFIELD
AND A THIRD "LITTLE FELLOW FROM THE C.I.O."  "OUTSIDE THE MILL YARD." 
HE NOTICED NELSON "GOING UP AND DOWN MOTIONING ...  GOING LIKE THIS
(ILLUSTRATING BY WAVING ARMS, SQUATTING AND STANDING.)"  AS THIS TRUCK
DRIVER RECOLLECTED, SCHOFIELD WAS NOT "DOING ANYTHING."  "IF ANYBODY
WAS LOOKING OUT THE EAST DOOR THEY COULD" SEE NELSON OR SCHOFIELD
MOVING THEIR HANDS THAT MORNING; NELSON "MADE A MOTION TO SIT DOWN,
THAT IS ALL," OUT "ON THE MAIN ROAD GOING TO THE PLANT."  HE "COULDN'T
SAY THAT" ANY WORKERS WOULD HAVE SEEN NELSON; HE "COULDN'T SAY THAT,
WHETHER THEY COULD SEE OUT OR NOT.  I DON'T KNOW."  AN EMPLOYEE, NOT
NELSON OR SCHOFIELD, WHO "WENT THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT SHOUTING 'SIT
DOWN STRIKE,'" WAS TAKEN FOR AN AUTOMOBILE RIDE BY THE COMPANY'S VICE
PRESIDENT, TALKED TO, GIVEN LUNCH AND SENT HOME TO BED WITHOUT LOSS OF
PAY AND WAS STILL WORKING FOR THE COMPANY AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 
WHEN ASKED, "YOU REMEMBER YOU SAID, 'WELL, WE CAN BLOW UP THE
RAILROAD?'," NELSON ANSWERED, "NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT." 

IN VACATING THE BOARD'S ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT ON THE GROUND THAT
UNDENIED EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT NELSON AND SCHOFIELD HAD, AFTER THEIR
UNLAWFUL DISCHARGE, INCITED OR THREATENED UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, THE COURT
ACTED WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. 

CONGRESS HAS PLACED THE POWER TO ADMINISTER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IN THE LABOR BOARD, SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISORY POWERS OF
THE COURTS OF APPEALS AS THE ACT SETS OUT.  IF THE BOARD HAS ACTED
WITHIN THE COMPASS OF THE POWER GIVEN IT BY CONGRESS, HAS, ON A CHARGE
OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, HELD A "HEARING," WHICH THE STATUTE REQUIRES,
COMPORTING WITH THE STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS INHERENT IN PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS, HAS MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND HAS
ORDERED AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY, A LIKE OBEDIENCE TO THE STATUTORY LAW ON
THE PART OF THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRES THE COURT TO GRANT
ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER.  UNTIL GRANTED SUCH ENFORCEMENT, THE
BOARD IS POWERLESS TO ACT UPON THE PARTIES BEFORE IT.  AND THE PROPER
WORKING OF THE SCHEME FASHIONED BY CONGRESS TO DETERMINE INDUSTRIAL
CONTROVERSIES FAIRLY AND PEACEABLY DEMANDS THAT THE COURTS QUITE AS
MUCH AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY ACT AS CONGRESS HAS REQUIRED. 

MINDFUL OF THE SEPARATE RESPONSIBILITIES CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED UPON
THE BOARD AND THE COURTS, WE HAVE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED THIS ENTIRE
RECORD.  WITHIN THE RANGE OF OUR EXAMINATION HAS APPEARED NOT MERELY
THE TESTIMONY BUT ALSO THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED FROM THE FILING OF THE
CHARGE BEFORE THE BOARD TO FINAL DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE
BOARD AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES SOLICITOUSLY GUARDED RESPONDENT'S AND
INTERVENOR'S RIGHT TO A FULL AND FAIR HEARING; MANIFESTED LIBERALITY IN
RULING UPON EVIDENCE PROPOSED BY BOTH SIDES; AND CONDUCTED THE
PROCEEDINGS IN A MANNER CALCULATED TO BRING ABOUT A JUST RESULT.  AND
AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE RESULT WHICH
THE BOARD DID REACH.  FN9  NOTWITHSTANDING, THE COURT BELOW DECLINED TO
ORDER ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF ITS
OPINION ARE THAT THE BOARD WITHOUT A PROPER REGARD FOR EITHER THE
LIMITATIONS ON ITS POWER OR THE EVIDENCE MADE FINDINGS ALL OF WHICH HAD
NO SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT. 

BUT IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION THE COURT OF APPEALS ITSELF FAILED TO
GIVE PROPER REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS BEFORE THE BOARD, WHICH
APPEARED IN THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT AND WHICH WE HAVE SET OUT IN
THIS OPINION.  IN REFUSING TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER, THE COURT
EXCEEDED THE POWER GIVEN IT.  THE CAUSE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
DIRECTIONS TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER WITHOUT CONDITIONS OR
QUALIFICATIONS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  308 U.S. 549; CF. LABOR BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CO., 309
U.S. 206. 

FN2  LABOR BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453, 462. 

FN3  SECTION 10(E) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT GIVES THE
BOARD POWER TO PETITION ANY CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER; GRANTS THESE COURTS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION AND PROVIDES THAT "UPON  ...  (THE BOARD'S FILING A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE PROCEEDING), THE COURT SHALL
CAUSE NOTICE THEREOF TO BE SERVED UPON SUCH PERSON, AND THEREUPON SHALL
HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE PROCEEDING AND OF THE QUESTION DETERMINED
THEREIN, AND SHALL HAVE POWER TO  ...  MAKE AND ENTER UPON THE
PLEADINGS, TESTIMONY, AND PROCEEDINGS SET FORTH IN SUCH TRANSCRIPT A
DECREE ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS SO MODIFIED, OR SETTING
ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BOARD."  49 STAT. 449, 454. 

FN4  THE RECORD INDICATES THAT RESPONDENT DOES ROUGHLY ONE PER CENT
OF THE NATIONAL TOTAL OF BUSINESS IN ITS INDUSTRY. 

FN5  LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601. 

FN6  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 222; CF.,
LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 43.  A STRIKE AT
RESPONDENT'S PLANT IN 1929 APPARENTLY DID RESULT IN A STOPPAGE OF THE
FLOW OF THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF MATERIALS TO AND OF PROCESSED GOODS
FROM RESPONDENT'S PLANT. 

FN7  CF. TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 557,
571, AFFIRMING 33 F.2D 13, AFFIRMING 24 F.2D 426; 25 ID. 873; 25 ID.
876, 877-8. 

FN8  LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP., 306 U.S. 240. 

FN9  ACCEPTING THE UNDERLYING FINDINGS OF THE BOARD, AS WE DO, IT WAS
WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE BOARD TO DRAW THE INFERENCES THAT THE
GUARANTEES OF SEC. 7 OF THE ACT REQUIRED DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE
FEDERATION (FALK CASE, 308 U.S. 461, AND CASES CITED), AND THAT POSTING
OF APPROPRIATE NOTICES WAS NECESSARY.  ID., P. 462. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :











UNITED STATES V. TRUCKING CO., 310 U.S. 344 


NO. 724.  ARGUED APRIL 26, 29, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  -
REVERSED. 


COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FILED TARIFFS
PROVIDING RATES ON GOODS RESHIPPED IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES AS LESS
THAN TRUCK-LOAD CONSIGNMENTS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEIR TRANSPORTATION AS
PARTS OF A TRUCK-LOAD OR CARLOAD CONSIGNMENT, AND ON LESSTHAN-TRUCK
LOAD GOODS WHICH, ON ARRIVAL AT THEIR IMMEDIATE DESTINATION, ARE TO BE
IMMEDIATELY RESHIPPED, IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES, AS PARTS OF A TRUCK
LOAD OR CARLOAD CONSIGNMENT.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOUND
THE RATES LOWER THAN OTHER RATES ON LIKE GOODS BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS;
THAT PRACTICALLY THEY COULD BE USED ONLY BY FORWARDERS AND A FEW LARGE
SHIPPERS; THAT THEY WOULD OPERATE FOR THE SPECIAL BENEFIT OF FORWARDERS
AND WOULD NOT BENEFIT OWNERS OF THE GOODS SHIPPED; AND THAT FORWARDERS
WOULD THEREBY BE AFFORDED TRANSPORTATION AT RATES LOWER THAN THOSE
CHARGED CERTAIN OTHER SHIPPERS UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 216(D) OF THE
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELING THE PROPOSED
TARIFFS.  P. 347. 

2.  SECTION 216(D) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, LIKE PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, INSURES EQUALITY OF RATES FOR SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR SERVICES.  P. 351. 

3.  ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS UNDISPUTED, IT WAS FOR THE COMMISSION
TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF UNDUE PREFERENCE AND DISCRIMINATION.  P.
352. 

4.  THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT IN THE MATTER ON ITS OWN
MOTION, WITHOUT COMPLAINT BY SHIPPERS.  P. 353. 

5.  THE COMMISSION PERFORMS ITS DUTIES IN THE INTERESTS OF SHIPPERS
GENERALLY, OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, AND OF THE PUBLIC. 
P. 354. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. CHICAGO HEIGHTS TRUCKING CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CANCELING TARIFFS
OF MOTOR CARRIERS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS ARE FORTY-ONE INTERSTATE COMMON CARRIERS OPERATING MOTOR
VEHICLES SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER THE
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935.  FN1  OUR DECISION TURNS UPON THE
VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION CANCELLING CERTAIN PROPOSED
TARIFFS OF THESE CARRIERS UPON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE UNLAWFULLY
DISCRIMINATORY IN AFFORDING LOWER RATES TO "FORWARDERS" OF FREIGHT THAN
TO OTHER SHIPPERS. 

FORWARDERS UTILIZE COMMON CARRIERS BY RAIL AND MOTOR TRUCK TO
TRANSPORT GOODS OWNED BY OTHERS.  THEY SOLICIT AND OBTAIN MANY SMALL
SHIPMENTS, FROM VARIOUS POINTS WITHIN AN AREA, AND CAUSE THEM TO BE
CARRIED IN LESS THAN TRUCK-LOAD OR CARLOAD LOTS TO A CONCENTRATION
CENTER WITHIN THE AREA.  THERE THEY ARE ASSEMBLED BY THE FORWARDER FOR
FURTHER TRANSPORTATION IN TRUCK-LOAD OR CARLOAD LOTS.  ALTHOUGH THE
FORWARDER GIVES OWNERS OF INDIVIDUAL SMALL SHIPMENTS HIS OWN CONTRACT
CORRESPONDING IN FORM TO THROUGH BILLS OF LADING AND ASSUMES
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAFE THROUGH CARRIAGE, THE FORWARDER CUSTOMARILY
ARRANGES FOR THE PICKUP, ASSEMBLY AND TRANSPORTATION OF THE SHIPMENTS
BY CARRIERS FOR HIRE.  AND THE FORWARDERS, NOT THE OWNERS OF THE GOODS,
SELECT THE CARRIERS AND ROUTE THE SHIPMENTS.  UPON ARRIVAL OF A TRUCK
LOAD OR CARLOAD OF THE ASSEMBLED SMALL SHIPMENTS AT A DISTRIBUTION
CENTER, THE BULK SHIPMENT IS BROKEN UP, THE FORWARDER SEPARATES AND
TAKES POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL SMALL SHIPMENTS AND ARRANGES, WHERE
NECESSARY, THEIR FURTHER CARRIAGE TO THEIR VARIOUS FINAL DESTINATIONS
IN THE AREA SERVED BY THE PARTICULAR DISTRIBUTION POINT.  IN THIS FINAL
CARRIAGE OF THE SMALL SHIPMENT TO ITS ULTIMATE DESTINATION, THE
FORWARDER AGAIN UTILIZES CARRIERS FOR HIRE TO MOVE THESE LESS THAN
TRUCK-LOAD OR CARLOAD LOTS.  THUS, FORWARDERS MAY USE THE SERVICE OF
CARRIERS TO ASSEMBLE SHIPMENTS OF LESS THAN TRUCK-LOAD OR CARLOAD LOTS
AT THEIR CONCENTRATION CENTER, TO TRANSPORT THE ASSEMBLED TRUCK-LOAD OR
CARLOADS TO A DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND TO CARRY THE BROKEN UP SMALL
SHIPMENTS BEYOND THEIR BREAK-BULK DISTRIBUTION CENTER. 

THE FORWARDING BUSINESS HAS BEEN BUILT UPON THE EXPECTATION THAT A
MATERIAL PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION WHICH IT CAUSES TO BE PROVIDED FOR
SMALL SHIPPERS CAN BY CONSOLIDATION OF SMALL SHIPMENTS BE OBTAINED AT
TRUCK-LOAD OR CARLOAD RATES.  FOR THE FORWARDERS' BUSINESS WAS
ORIGINALLY MADE PROFITABLE BECAUSE IT COULD OPERATE UPON THE MARGIN OF
PROFIT REPRESENTED BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RAILROAD CARLOAD RATES
PAID BY THE FORWARDER AND THE HIGHER RATES, APPROXIMATING LESS THAN
CARLOAD RATES, WHICH THE FORWARDER CHARGED THE OWNER OF A SHIPMENT. 
FN2  BUT FORWARDERS IN USING RAILROADS ENJOY NO SPECIAL TARIFF RATES
AND PAY THE SAME PUBLISHED CARLOAD AND LESS THAN CARLOAD RATES THAT
OTHER SHIPPERS PAY.  AND THE QUESTION HERE IT NOT WHETHER THE
COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE APPROVED AS LAWFUL LOWER RATES FOR TRUCK-LOADS
THAN FOR SMALLER SHIPMENTS, BUT WHETHER THE COURT PROPERLY SET ASIDE
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WHICH HAD DIRECTED CANCELLATION OF RESPONDENTS'
TARIFFS PROVIDING LOWER RATES FOR CERTAIN LESS THAN TRUCK-LOAD
SHIPMENTS SOLELY BECAUSE THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN, OR WERE INTENDED
SUBSEQUENTLY TO BE, CONSOLIDATED IN TRUCKLOADS WITH OTHER INDIVIDUAL
SHIPMENTS. 

UPON THE COMMISSION'S OWN MOTION, A HEARING WAS HELD AND THE
COMMISSION ORDERED THE CANCELLATION OF THESE TARIFFS.  FN3  RESPONDENTS
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE AND RESTRAIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  A THREE JUDGE COURT HELD THE
ORDER VOID AND PERPETUALLY ENJOINED ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THE CASE IS HERE
ON DIRECT APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  FN4 

RESPONDENTS' TARIFFS WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO FORWARDERS WHO ARRANGE
ASSEMBLING, TRANSPORTATION AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES IN THE TRADE AREAS
SURROUNDING CONCENTRATION AND BREAK-BULK CENTERS IN ILLINOIS, WISCONSIN
AND INDIANA.  AND THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT "IN PRACTICAL EFFECT THESE
RATES CAN BE USED BY FEW, IF ANY, SHIPPERS, EXCEPT THE FORWARDERS." 
SINCE IN ITS OPINION THESE TARIFFS WERE "MATERIALLY LOWER THAN
RESPONDENTS' LOCAL RATES ON LIKE TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS," FN5
THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT "THE FORWARDERS  ...  AND POSSIBLY A FEW
LARGE SHIPPERS  ...  WILL BE AFFORDED TRANSPORTATION AT RATES LOWER
THAN THE RATES  ...  CHARGED CERTAIN OTHER SHIPPERS UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 216(D)." 
FN6 IN THE VIEW WE TAKE, IT BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL
GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND THE TARIFFS VIOLATED ANOTHER

SO FAR AS PERTINENT HERE, THE TARIFFS BEFORE US PROPOSE RATES FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF COMMODITIES IN LESS THAN TRUCK-LOAD LOTS.  ALL
COMMODITIES (WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL) ARE AS A GROUP GIVEN
THE SAME SPECIAL RATE.  IN GENERAL, RESPONDENTS' OTHER TARIFFS PROVIDE
RATES WHICH VARY FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMODITIES.  ACCORDINGLY, IF
THE SUSPENDED RATES WERE IN EFFECT, TRANSPORTATION OF THE SAME
COMMODITY OVER THE SAME HAUL MIGHT COST A FORWARDER LESS THAN OTHER
SHIPPERS. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE  FN8
REVEAL THAT LOCAL LESS-THAN-TRUCK-LOAD RATES CHARGED SHIPPERS ARE IN
MANY IF NOT MOST INSTANCES GREATER THAN RATES ON LIKE COMMODITIES
BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS TO BE AFFORDED FORWARDERS UNDER THE PROPOSED
TARIFFS WHICH THE COMMISSION ORDERED CANCELLED.  HOWEVER, UPON
REVIEWING THE IDENTICAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD CONSIDERED,
THE COURT BELOW DREW INFERENCES OPPOSITE TO THOSE OF THE COMMISSION AND
DISAGREED WITH ITS CONCLUSION THAT IN OPERATION THE DISPUTED TARIFFS
WOULD VIOLATE SEC. 216(D) WHICH FORBIDS UNDUE PREFERENCES AND
ADVANTAGES THAT LEAD TO UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.  THE EXERCISE OF
JUDGMENT BY THE COMMISSION AND BY THE COURT IN APPRAISING THE SAME
EVIDENCE HAS LED TO THESE OPPOSING CONCLUSIONS. 

THE TARIFFS APPLY ON "'ALL FREIGHT' (EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
...  ), WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED TO  ...  (AN) ORIGIN STATION  ...  ,
AS A PART OF A TRUCK-LOAD CONSIGNMENT OR CARLOAD CONSIGNMENT MOVING
UNDER TARIFFS OR SCHEDULES LAWFULLY ON FILE WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND IMMEDIATELY RESHIPPED IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES
AS AN L.T.L. (LESS THAN TRUCK-LOAD) SHIPMENT: 

"(B) 'ALL FREIGHT',  ...  WHICH IS TO BE TRANSPORTED TO  ...  (A
NAMED) DESTINATION STATION ...  AS AN L.T.L. SHIPMENT, AND IMMEDIATELY
RESHIPPED IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE AS PART OF A TRUCK-LOAD CONSIGNMENT
OR CARLOAD ASSIGNMENT MOVING UNDER TARIFFS OR SCHEDULES LAWFULLY ON
FILE WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION." 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE SPECIAL TARIFFS ARE AVAILABLE ONLY TO
SHIPPERS WHO INTEND AND ARE ABLE (A) TO ARRANGE IMMEDIATE FURTHER
TRANSPORTATION IN CARLOADS OR TRUCK-LOADS FOR COMMODITIES THAT HAVE
BEEN CARRIED IN LESS THAN TRUCK-LOAD LOTS, OR (B) TO MOVE COMMODITIES
IN LESS THAN TRUCK-LOAD LOTS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN CARRIED
AS PART OF A CARLOAD OR TRUCK-LOAD.  WHILE, AS HAS BEEN NOTED, SOME FEW
LARGE SHIPPERS MAY POSSIBLY AVAIL OF THE TARIFFS, THERE IS NO QUESTION
ABOUT THE FINDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE "PRINCIPAL TRAFFIC WHICH
WILL BE CARRIED UNDER THE SUSPENDED RATES IS WHAT IS CALLED BY THE
COMMISSION 'FREIGHT FORWARDER TRAFFIC.'" 

ALMOST SINCE ITS INCEPTION THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN CALLED UPON TO
EXERCISE ITS JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS
APPLIED TO FORWARDERS.  FN9  INITIAL HOSTILITY OF THE RAILROADS CAUSED
THEM TO DENY FORWARDERS THE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR PUBLISHED RATES. 
HOWEVER, WHEN CALLED UPON TO DECIDE, THE COMMISSION HELD THAT THE
RAILROADS' ACTION DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FORWARDERS AND DECLARED
FORWARDERS TO BE ENTITLED AS SHIPPERS TO PUBLISHED CARLOAD RATES.  THIS
COURT SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION.  FN10 

ABOUT 1920, PRIOR TO THE MOTOR CARRIERS ACT, FORWARDERS BEGAN TO
UTILIZE MOTOR CARRIERS.  FORWARDERS AND TRUCKERS OPERATED UNDER
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS PROVIDING DIVISIONS OF THE COMPLETE LINE HAUL
CHARGE.  AFTER THE TARIFF PROVISIONS OF THE MOTOR CARRIERS ACT WENT
INTO EFFECT, FORWARDERS FILED TARIFF SCHEDULES WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WERE SUBJECT TO THE ACT
AS COMMON CARRIERS.  TARIFFS SO FILED WERE, HOWEVER, ORDERED CANCELLED
BY THE COMMISSION UPON THE GROUND THAT FORWARDERS WERE NOT MOTOR
CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  A THREE JUDGE DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE
COMMISSION  FN11  AND THIS COURT AFFIRMED.  FN12 

HERE, THE COMPLAINT ITSELF HAS ALLEGED THAT THE SO-CALLED
"PROPORTIONAL" TARIFFS UNDER CONSIDERATION "NAME RATES WHICH ARE
IDENTICAL WITH" THE DIVISIONS OF THROUGH L.C.L. RATES WHICH RESPONDENTS
WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD THE FORWARDERS' TARIFFS BEEN UPHELD.  AND, AS
STATED BY THE COMMISSION, "STRIPPED OF PROTECTIVE COLORING, THESE RATES
ARE PUBLISHED AS PROPORTIONAL RATES PRIMARILY AS A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY
TO SERVE THE PURPOSE OF CERTAIN FREIGHT FORWARDERS AND TO PERPETUATE IN
ANOTHER FORM SO-CALLED DIVISIONS OF PURPORTED JOINT RATES OF THE
FREIGHT FORWARDERS." 

RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE COMMISSION IMPROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT THE
CANCELED TARIFFS CREATE UNDUE PREFERENCES OR ADVANTAGES RESULTING IN
UNJUST DISCRIMINATIONS IN VIOLATION OF 216(D) BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE SUSPENDED RATES WOULD SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON
OR TYPE OF TRAFFIC TO DISADVANTAGE OR INJURY; WHILE THE SUSPENDED
RATES, APPLICABLE ON ALL CLASSES OF TRAFFIC, MIGHT BE LOWER AS TO SOME
COMMODITIES, THE AGGREGATE COMPENSATION FROM THEM WOULD NOT BE LESS
THAN THAT FROM LIKE LOCAL TRAFFIC IF ALL SUCH LOCAL TRAFFIC IS
CONSIDERED; SERVICES RENDERED BY RESPONDENTS TO THE FORWARDERS ARE
UNLIKE AND LESS BURDENSOME THAN LOCAL SERVICES RENDERED INDIVIDUAL
SHIPPERS; SERVICES RENDERED THE FORWARDERS ARE ON LONGER HAULS THAN ON
OTHER LOCAL LESS THAN TRUCK-LOAD COMMODITY TRAFFIC; TERMINAL SERVICES
RENDERED FORWARDERS BY RESPONDENTS ARE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN IN THE CASE
OF OTHER SHIPPERS; FORWARDERS BEAR THE EXPENSE OF SOLICITING BUSINESS
THEREBY RELIEVING RESPONDENTS OF THAT BURDEN; THE ONLY EVIDENCE BEFORE
THE COMMISSION WAS INTRODUCED BY RESPONDENTS; AND NO SHIPPERS
COMPLAINED OF INJURY.  FN13 

WEIGHTY AS THESE ARGUMENTS WERE, THEY DID NOT PERSUADE THE COMMISSION
THAT FORWARDERS COULD WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BE GIVEN LOWER L.T.L.
RATES THAN OTHER SHIPPERS.  THE COMMISSION WAS IMPRESSED BY THE FACTS
THAT THE PROPOSED RATES WERE NOT IN REALITY AVAILABLE TO ALL OF THE
SHIPPING PUBLIC AND IN PRACTICAL EFFECT WOULD OPERATE FOR THE SPECIAL
BENEFIT OF THE FORWARDERS AND WOULD NOT BENEFIT THE OWNER OF GOODS
SHIPPED; THAT SEC. 216(D) OF THE ACT REPRESENTED A MANIFESTATION OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IN PART I, SEC. 2, AND PART II, SEC. 202(A) OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, TO PREVENT FAVORITISM BY INSURING EQUALITY
OF TREATMENT ON RATES FOR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR SERVICES; AND THAT THE
PROPOSED TARIFF WOULD AFFORD "FORWARDERS  ...  , AND POSSIBLY A VERY
FEW LARGE SHIPPERS  ...  , TRANSPORTATION AT RATES LOWER THAN THE RATES
WHICH ...  (WOULD) BE CHARGED CERTAIN OTHER SHIPPERS UNDER
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS, IN VIOLATION OF
CONCLUDED THAT THE MERE FACT THAT FORWARDERS MIGHT ORDINARILY FURNISH A
VOLUME OF TRAFFIC GREATER THAN BUT IDENTICAL IN KIND WITH THAT
FURNISHED BY INDIVIDUAL SHIPPERS DID NOT JUSTIFY LOWER RATES FOR
FORWARDERS. 

"IT IS NOT DISPUTABLE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING THE VERY PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS CREATED WAS TO BRING INTO EXISTENCE A BODY
WHICH FROM ITS PECULIAR CHARACTER WOULD BE MOST FITTED TO PRIMARILY
DECIDE WHETHER FROM FACTS, DISPUTED OR UNDISPUTED, IN A GIVEN CASE
PREFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION EXISTED."  FN14  AND WHERE A COURT
SUBSTITUTED "ITS JUDGMENT AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF PREFERENCE FOR THAT OF
THE COMMISSION ON THE GROUND THAT WHERE THERE WAS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE
FACTS IT HAD A RIGHT TO DO SO, (THE COURT) OBVIOUSLY EXERTED AN
AUTHORITY NOT CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE STATUTE."  FN15  SO HERE, IT HAS
BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE IN THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, ALL OF WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY RESPONDENTS.  BUT THE
DIFFERING INFERENCES AS TO DISCRIMINATION FINDING POSSIBLE SUPPORT IN
THAT EVIDENCE ARE MADE TO STAND OUT BY THE PERSUASIVE REASONING
ADVANCED IN BOTH THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY OPINIONS OF THE COMMISSION. 
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO DEFINE AN UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION WITH MATHEMATICAL PRECISION.  INSTEAD, DIFFERENT
TREATMENT FOR SIMILAR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IS MADE AN UNLAWFUL
DISCRIMINATION WHEN "UNDUE," "UNJUST," "UNFAIR," AND "UNREASONABLE." 
AND THE COURTS HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO COMMIT
TO THE COMMISSION THE DETERMINATION, BY APPLICATION OF AN INFORMED
JUDGMENT TO EXISTING FACTS, OF THE EXISTENCE OF FORBIDDEN PREFERENCES,
ADVANTAGES AND DISCRIMINATION.  FN16    A SPECIAL ALLOWANCE TO A
FORWARDER AS AN INDUCEMENT TO SHIP GOODS BY A PARTICULAR CARRIER WOULD
BE AN ILLEGAL REBATE.  FN17  SIMILARLY, AND AS PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT,
FORWARDERS ARE SHIPPERS PROTECTED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT FROM
DISCRIMINATION BY CARRIERS.  FN18  AS SHIPPERS, FORWARDERS DO BUSINESS
SUBJECT TO THE PARAMOUNT PRINCIPLE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED OUR NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TO OPERATE WITHOUT FAVORITISM.  PURSUANT TO ITS
DUTY TO APPLY THAT PRINCIPLE UPON A NATIONAL SCALE, THE COMMISSION CAN
PREVENT UNJUST RATE DISCRIMINATION BY CARRIERS AGAINST OTHER SHIPPERS
AND IN FAVOR OF FORWARDERS.  THE PARTICULAR PROBLEM HERE INVOLVED IS
BUT A SEGMENT OF THE LARGER COMPLICATED NATIONAL PROBLEM OF RATES WITH
WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST DEAL.  AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THIS RECORD, THE
COMMISSION IS "INFORMED BY EXPERIENCE"  FN19  OF YEARS IN ITS
CONSIDERATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF FORWARDERS TO OUR NATIONAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 

THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION ACTED ON ITS MOTION WITHOUT COMPLAINTS
BY INDIVIDUAL SHIPPERS DID NOT DETRACT FROM THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO
PROTECT AND MAINTAIN A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FREE FROM PARTIALITY TO
PARTICULAR SHIPPERS.  THE COMMISSION ACTED IN ITS CAPACITY AS A PUBLIC
AGENCY AND CARRIED OUT DUTIES IMPOSED UPON IT BY CONGRESS IN THE
INTEREST OF SHIPPERS GENERALLY, THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  FN20  ITS ORDER WAS THE EMBODIMENT OF THE
COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT THAT THE PROPOSED TARIFF WAS A DISCRIMINATION
PROHIBITED BY THE ACT.  "THE JUDGMENT SO EXERCISED, BEING SUPPORTED BY
AMPLE EVIDENCE, IS CONCLUSIVE."  FN21 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED AND THE BILL IS ORDERED
DISMISSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 543. 

FN2  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO., 220
U.S. 235, 243. 

FN3  DIVISION 5 FIRST REPORTED, 10 M.C.C. 556.  ON RECONSIDERATION,
THE REPORT WAS BY THE COMMISSION, 17 M.C.C. 573. 

FN4  28 U.S. CODE, 45, 45(A), 47(A), 345. 

FN5  TWO COMMISSIONERS IN DISSENT THOUGHT THIS WAS "TRUE ONLY IN
PART.  THEY ARE LOWER THAN SOME, BUT BY NO MEANS ALL, OF THE
CORRESPONDING LOCAL RATES." 

FN6  SEC. 216(D):  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER BY
MOTOR VEHICLE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE TO MAKE, GIVE,
OR CAUSE ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY
PARTICULAR PERSON, PORT, GATEWAY, LOCALITY, OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC
IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER, OR TO SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, PORT,
GATEWAY, LOCALITY, OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC TO ANY UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION OR ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE
IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS PARAGRAPH
SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO DISCRIMINATIONS, PREJUDICE, OR
DISADVANTAGE TO THE TRAFFIC OF ANY OTHER CARRIER OF WHATEVER
DESCRIPTION." 

FN7  SEE SEC. 217(A), (B). 

FN8  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT SOME OF THE LOCAL "RATES ARE
HIGHER AND SOME LOWER THAN THE SUSPENDED RATE," BUT THE AVERAGE REVENUE
DERIVED BY THE RESPONDENTS FROM LOCAL RATES "PER HUNDRED POUNDS  ...
UPON THE WHOLE, IS LESS THAN" THAT PRODUCED BY THE SUSPENDED RATES. 

FN9  SEE, E.G., EXPORT SHIPPING CO. V. WABASH RAILROAD CO., 14 I.C.C.
437; FREIGHT FORWARDING INVESTIGATION, 229 I.C.C. 201; ACME FAST
FREIGHT, INC., COMMON CARRIER APPLICATION, 8 M.C.C. 211. 

FN10  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 220 U.S.
235. 

FN11  8 M.C.C. 211, ACME FAST FREIGHT, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 30
F.SUPP.  968. 

FN12  ACME FAST FREIGHT, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 638. 

FN13  THESE ARGUMENTS FOR SUSTAINING THE TARIFFS WERE ALL FORCEFULLY
PRESENTED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF CHAIRMAN EASTMAN, CONCURRED IN
BY COMMISSIONER MAHAFFIE. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 235 U.S. 314,
320. 

FN15  ID. 

FN16  SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 304;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., SUPRA, AT 255;
MANUFACTURERS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 457, 481.  TEXAS &
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 162 U.S. 197, REPRESENTS
AN APPARENT EXCEPTION, AT AN EARLY DATE BEFORE THE FUNCTION OF THE
COMMISSION HAD BECOME FULLY OUTLINED AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF TIME AND
THE EMPIRIC PATTERN OF LITIGATION.  (COMMISSION'S BILL TO ENFORCE ITS
HOLDING THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED MERCHANDISE
COULD NOT JUSTIFY DIFFERENT RATES BETWEEN THE PORT OF RECEPTION AND
POINT OF DELIVERY, ORDERED DISMISSED). 

FN17  LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 444. 

FN18  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., SUPRA,
AT 255. 

FN19  CF. STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 235, 239;
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 206 U.S. 441,
454. 

FN20  CF. INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153, 157. 

FN21  UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 263 U.S. 515, 525,
526. 
..END :













EX PARTE BRANSFORD, 310 U.S. 354 


NO. - , ORIGINAL.  ARGUED APRIL 23, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  -
MOTION DENIED. 


1.  MANDAMUS IS PROPER TO REVIEW ERROR OF A DISTRICT COURT IN REFUSING
TO CALL IN ADDITIONAL JUDGES, UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 266, IN A SUIT
PRAYING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE OFFICERS.  P. 355. 

2.  THE APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS MAY BE MADE BY ONE OF SEVERAL
DEFENDANTS.  P. 356. 

3.  A SUIT BY A NATIONAL BANK TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF A STATE TAX
IS NOT A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE OF THE STATE
"UPON THE GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH STATUTE," WITHIN
THE MEANING OF JUD.  CODE SEC. 266, WHERE THE BILL MAKES NO ATTACK UPON
THE STATE LEGISLATION INVOLVED BUT ALLEGES THAT STATE OFFICIALS HAVE
MISCONSTRUED IT AND HAVE MADE AN ASSESSMENT WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BECAUSE EXCESSIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY AND WHICH IS ALSO INVALID BECAUSE
IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NATIONAL BANK SHARES IN VIOLATION OF R.S. SEC.
5219, AND INCLUDES PREFERRED SHARES OF THE BANK OWNED BY THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, WHICH ARE EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT OF
CONGRESS OF MARCH 20, 1936.  P. 357. 

A PETITION FOR AN INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
OF A STATUTE AS APPLIED, WHICH REQUIRES A THREE-JUDGE COURT, IS TO BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM ONE BASED ON THE ALLEGED UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
RESULT OBTAINED BY THE USE OF A STATUTE WHICH IS NOT ATTACKED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE LATTER DOES NOT REQUIRE A THREE-JUDGE COURT, ITS
ATTACK BEING AIMED AT ALLEGEDLY ERRONEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. 

EX PARTE BRANSFORD, COUNTY TREASURER OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, ETC. 

ON A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
ON THE RESPONDENT'S RETURN TO A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COUNTY TREASURER AND EX-OFFICIO TAX COLLECTOR OF PIMA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, MOVES TO FILE A TENDERED PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO BE
DIRECTED TO DISTRICT JUDGE LING OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THAT
STATE.  A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE HAS ISSUED AND THE RETURN HAS BEEN MADE. 
PETITIONER, A COUNTY TREASURER, AND OTHER OFFICIALS ARE DEFENDANTS
TOGETHER WITH THEIR COUNTIES, IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
BY THE VALLEY NATIONAL BANK IN WHICH THE BANK IS SEEKING AN
INTERLOCUTORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE COLLECTION OF
CERTAIN TAXES BY THE COUNTIES.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE HAS RULED THAT HE
WILL HEAR THE CASE WHILE SITTING ALONE AND PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT
UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE CASE
HEARD BEFORE THREE JUDGES.  MANDAMUS IS THE PROPER REMEDY.  FN1 

ARIZONA TAXES SHARES OF BANK STOCK IN THE NAME OF THE SHAREHOLDERS
AND REQUIRES THE BANK TO PAY FOR THEM.  FN2  ASSESSMENTS ARE MADE IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE BY COUNTY ASSESSORS, WITH AN APPEAL ALLOWED FIRST TO
A COUNTY AND THEN TO A STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.  THE STATE BOARD
RETURNS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT WITH A LEVY OF THE RATE FOR STATE PURPOSES
TO THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS.  THIS BODY ADDS THE SEVERAL LOCAL RATES AND
PLACES THE ASSESSMENT UPON THE TAX ROLL.  COLLECTION IS PERFORMED BY
THE COUNTY TREASURER,  FN3  AND THE TAXES COLLECTED ARE APPORTIONED
BETWEEN STATE AND COUNTY.  FN4  WHERE A BANK IS DOING BUSINESS IN
SEVERAL COUNTIES THE VALUE OF ITS STOCK IS APPORTIONED AMONG THE
COUNTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ASSETS LOCATED IN EACH.  FN5  BECAUSE
OTHER PROPERTY IN THE STATE HAS BEEN UNDER-ASSESSED THE STATE BOARD IN
1935 ORDERED THAT BANK SHARES BE VALUED AT 75% OF CAPITAL STOCK,
SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED PROFIT.  ASSETS, BORROWINGS, DEPOSITS AND OTHER
LIABILITIES ARE DISREGARDED. 

THE PETITIONER IS THE ONLY DEFENDANT TO APPLY FOR MANDAMUS.  AS THE
ISSUANCE OF SUCH AN ORDER DEPENDS ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE SINGLE
DISTRICT JUDGE, SITTING ALONE, OVER THE SUIT PENDING IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, THIS IS SUFFICIENT.  AS THE ISSUES WITH THIS PETITIONER IN THAT
SUIT INCLUDE THOSE WITH ALL OTHER DEFENDANTS, WE DO NOT NEED TO STATE
THE ISSUES ARISING WITH THE OFFICIALS OF COUNTIES OTHER THAN PIMA.  THE
BANK STATES ITS CONTROVERSY WITH THE PETITIONER AROSE IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER.  THE BANK HAD BRANCHES IN SEVERAL COUNTIES.  IT HAD COMMON
CAPITAL STOCK, A SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS.  ALSO THE BANK HAD AN
ISSUE OF PREFERRED WHICH IT HAD SOLD TO THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE 1935 ASSESSMENT AT THE PAR VALUE
OF $1,240,000 AND WHICH THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION STILL
OWNS.  TAKING THE POSITION THAT THE PREFERRED OWNED BY THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION COULD NOT BE TAXED, THE BANK
REPORTED A TOTAL VALUE OF $524,629.50, 75% OF $699,026(THE AMOUNT OF
ITS COMMON, SURPLUS, UNDIVIDED PROFITS AND RESERVES), AS THE TOTAL
TAXABLE VALUE OF ITS SHARES, AND APPORTIONED THIS AMONG THE COUNTIES
ACCORDING TO THE ASSETS THERE LOCATED.  ON THIS BASIS $139,088.80,
26.53% OF ITS TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE, WAS APPORTIONED TO PIMA COUNTY.  THE
ASSESSOR OF PIMA COUNTY MADE AN ASSESSMENT OF $327,590, THE "ACTUAL
CASH VALUE OF THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY" SITUATED IN PIMA COUNTY. 
BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, THE BANK PAID THE AMOUNT WHICH UNDER ITS
COMPUTATION WAS DUE PIMA COUNTY, THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE THE VALIDITY OF
THE COUNTY'S ASSESSMENT BEING RESERVED.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PETITIONER
HAVING THREATENED TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE COUNTY'S
ASSESSMENT, THE BANK BROUGHT ITS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN
COLLECTION. 

THE BANK BY ITS BILL IN THE DISTRICT COURT SEEKS AN INJUNCTION UPON
SEVERAL GROUNDS.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NONE OF THESE COMPELS THE
TRIAL JUDGE TO CALL A THREE-JUDGE COURT UNDER SEC. 266. 

THE ASSESSMENT IN PIMA COUNTY WAS MADE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE VALUE OF
THE BANK'S REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY.  IT IS THEREFORE, SAYS
THE BANK, IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT IS THE VALUATION OF
THE PROPERTY, THE PROPORTION OF THE VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK ALONE OR
THAT OF THE AGGREGATE OF THE COMMON AND PREFERRED.  AN ASSESSMENT UPON
THE PROPERTY, IT IS ALLEGED, IS "VOID AS UNAUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTES
OF ARIZONA."  IF THE VALUATION INCLUDES THE PREFERRED STOCK, THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGES IT IS INVALID BECAUSE OF THE ACT OF MARCH 20, 1936,
EXEMPTING THE PREFERRED STOCK WHILE OWNED BY THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION.  FN6  IF THE VALUATION IS UPON THE COMMON STOCK ALONE, IT
IS SAID TO BE INVALID (1) BECAUSE THE VALUATION IS FAR BEYOND THE
ACTUAL VALUE AND THEREFORE CONFISCATORY AND (2) BECAUSE THE VALUATION
IS DISCRIMINATORY SINCE THE COMMON STOCK IN OTHER BANKS IS ASSESSED AT
75% OF THE VALUE OF COMMON STOCK, SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS AND
OTHER CLASSES OF PROPERTY AT SIXTY PER CENT OF ITS ACTUAL VALUE, WHILE
THIS VALUATION IS ON THE BASIS OF APPROXIMATELY TWICE THE COMMON STOCK,
SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS OF THE BANK AND TWICE ITS ACTUAL VALUE. 
IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THIS EXCESSIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY VALUATION
VIOLATES R.S. SEC. 5219 WHICH LIMITS THE RATE OF TAXATION OF NATIONAL
BANK SHARES TO THAT ASSESSED "UPON OTHER MONEYED CAPITAL IN THE HANDS
OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS  ...  COMING INTO COMPETITION WITH THE BUSINESS
OF NATIONAL BANKS."  IT IS PRAYED THAT ACTION UNDER THESE ASSESSMENTS
FOR THE REASONS STATED BE ENJOINED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ARIZONA. 

COURT THAT THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OFFICER OF THE STATE TO RESTRAIN
THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION OR EXECUTION OF THE STATE STATUTE MUST BE
SOUGHT "UPON THE GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH STATUTE." 

IN SO FAR AS IT IS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS ARE VOID BECAUSE
UNAUTHORIZED BY THE ARIZONA STATUTE, THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT IS OBVIOUSLY
NOT UPON THE GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE STATUTE AS
TESTED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE ASSESSMENTS SHOULD BE ENJOINED BECAUSE
VIOLATIVE OF THE STATUTE EXEMPTING PREFERRED STOCK OWNED BY THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AND R.S. SEC. 5219 DEPEND UPON NO
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266. 
IF SUCH ASSESSMENTS ARE INVALID, IT IS BECAUSE THEY LEVY TAXES UPON
PROPERTY WITHDRAWN FROM TAXATION BY FEDERAL LAW  FN7  OR IN A MANNER
FORBIDDEN BY THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT.  FN8  THE DECLARATION OF THE
SUPREMACY CLAUSE  FN9  GIVES SUPERIORITY TO VALID FEDERAL ACTS OVER
CONFLICTING STATE STATUTES BUT THIS SUPERIORITY FOR PRESENT PURPOSES
INVOLVES MERELY THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, NOT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE ENACTMENT.  THIS WAS DECIDED AS TO SEC.
266 IN EX PARTE BUDER,  FN10  AND BEFORE THAT A SIMILAR RESULT HAD BEEN
REACHED IN LEMKE V. FARMERS GRAIN COMPANY FN11  IN REGARD TO A
PROVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE GRANTING DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT IN
CASES WHERE THE SOLE ISSUE  FN12  WAS THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
STATE STATUTE.  FN13 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THE ALLEGATIONS OF CONFISCATION AND
DISCRIMINATION IN VALUATION OF THE COMMON SHARES IN COMPARISON WITH THE
STOCK OF OTHER BANKS AND OTHER PROPERTY SHOW THE INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT
UPON THE GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE.  THIS POINT
DEPENDS UPON EXCESSIVE VALUATION OF THE SHARES.  THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE ITSELF IS NOT INVOLVED.  VARIATIONS BY ASSESSORS IN VALUATIONS
OF LIKE PROPERTY, TAXABLE UNDER THE SAME STATUTE, SUFFICIENTLY MARKED
TO BE DISCRIMINATORY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR VALUATIONS SO LARGE AS
TO BE CONFISCATORY CANNOT PROPERLY BE SAID TO BE THE BASIS FOR ATTACK
ON THE GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE.  SUCH
ASSESSMENTS, IF MADE AND IF INVALID, ARE SO BECAUSE OF A WRONG DONE BY
OFFICERS UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF
THE STATUTE ITSELF.  FN14 

BUT IT IS SAID BY THE PETITIONER HERE THAT THE LAST SENTENCE OF SEC.
3071 REQUIRES THIS EXCESSIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY ASSESSMENT.  THAT
SENTENCE READS:  "WHEN A BANK MAINTAINS BRANCHES OR CONDUCTS BUSINESS
IN MORE THAN ONE COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN, THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE
CAPITAL STOCK SHALL BE APPORTIONED AMONG THE SEVERAL COUNTIES, CITIES
AND TOWNS IN WHICH THE MAIN OFFICE OR SUCH BRANCHES ARE MAINTAINED OR
BUSINESS CONDUCTED, AND THE AMOUNT APPORTIONED TO EACH COUNTY, CITY OR
TOWN SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE ACTUAL CASH VALUE OF THE REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SUCH BANK SITUATED IN SUCH COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN." 
IF THIS IS INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING THAT THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE VALUE
OF THE CAPITAL STOCK TO EACH COUNTY MUST NOT BE LESS THAN THE TANGIBLE
PROPERTY IN THAT COUNTY, THE AGGREGATE APPORTIONMENT MAY BE MUCH LARGER
THAN THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE STOCK.  A GREATER ASSESSMENT PER SHARE
WILL OCCUR IF THE TOTAL VALUATION IS ALLOCATED TO COMMON SHARES ONLY. 
IF THE VALUATION, REACHED UNDER THE FORMULA BY TREATING THE PREFERRED
AS CAPITAL STOCK, IS ALLOCATED AMONG THE COMMON SHARES, ONLY, IT WOULD
MEAN THAT THE PREFERRED WAS TREATED AS STOCK FOR PURPOSES OF THE
VALUATION AND DISREGARDED FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL SHARES.  THE
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER IS THAT IF THE RESULT, AS HE CONTENDS THE BANK
ALLEGES, VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION BY DISCRIMINATION OF COMMON
SHARES AS COMPARED TO SHARES OF OTHER BANKS WITHOUT PREFERRED STOCK OR
OWNERS OF OTHER PROPERTY, THE STATUTE VIOLATES IT. THEREFORE, IN
EFFECT, THE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ASSESSMENT IS AN
ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE. 

THE CONTENTION OF THE BANK, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE ASSESSOR
MISINTERPRETED THE STATUTE; THAT THE OBJECTIONABLE ASPECT OF THE
ASSESSMENT IS THE ATTRIBUTION TO THE COMMON OF THE WHOLE AMOUNT INSTEAD
OF AN APPORTIONMENT TO BOTH PREFERRED AND COMMON OR THE USE OF THE
PREFERRED AS CAPITAL STOCK IN THE STATE VALUATION FORMULA.  WE ARE NOT
NOW CALLED UPON TO REACH ANY CONCLUSION UPON THE MEANING OF THE ARIZONA
TAX STATUTES.  IF THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINES THAT THE ASSESSMENT
COMPLAINED OF IS MADE PROPERLY UNDER THE STATUTE AND THAT BY THE
STATUTE THE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE PRORATED AMONG THE COMMON SHARES, IT
WOULD DETERMINE ONLY A QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  IT IS
NECESSARY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A PETITION FOR INJUNCTION ON THE
GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE AS APPLIED, WHICH
REQUIRES A THREE-JUDGE COURT,  FN15  AND A PETITION WHICH SEEKS AN
INJUNCTION ON THE GROUND OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RESULT
OBTAINED BY THE USE OF A STATUTE WHICH IS NOT ATTACKED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE LATTER PETITION DOES NOT REQUIRE A THREE-JUDGE
COURT.  FN16  IN SUCH A CASE THE ATTACK IS AIMED AT AN ALLEGEDLY
ERRONEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  FN17  UNTIL THE COMPLAINANT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT ATTACKS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE, THE CASE
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONVENING OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT, ANY MORE THAN IF
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SEEK AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  FN18  WHERE BY
AN OMISSION TO ATTACK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE, ITS
VALIDITY IS ADMITTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BILL, A DETERMINATION BY
THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDS WITH THE STATUTE WOULD
RESULT IN THE REFUSAL OF THE INJUNCTION AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE BILL. 
JURISDICTION, PROPERLY ASSUMED, MAY BE LOST BY THE SPECIAL COURT, WHEN
IT APPEARS THAT A PREREQUISITE SUCH AS NEED FOR RELIEF AGAINST STATE
OFFICERS IS LACKING.  FN19  EVEN WHERE THE STATUTE IS ATTACKED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SEC. 266 IS INAPPLICABLE UNLESS THE ACTION COMPLAINED
OF IS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATUTE.  FN20  THERE IS NO
INDICATION THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT BY SEC. 266 TO HAVE EVERY ATTACK ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE DETERMINED BY A THREE-JUDGE
COURT.  IT SOUGHT SUCH A BENCH ONLY TO AVOID PRECIPITATE DETERMINATIONS
ON CONSTITUTIONALITY ON MOTIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS. 

AS THE FOREGOING GROUND ADEQUATELY DISPOSES OF THE PETITION FOR
MANDAMUS, WE DO NOT DISCUSS THE OTHER REASONS FOR REFUSAL URGED BY THE
BANK. 

THE MOTION TO FILE THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS IS DENIED. 

FN1  EX PARTE WILLIAMS, 277 U.S. 267, 269; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 282 U.S. 10, 16. 

FN2  REVISED CODE OF ARIZONA, 1928, SECS. 3069-71. 

FN3  ID., SEC. 3110. 

FN4  ID., SEC. 3111. 

FN5  ID., SEC. 3071. 

FN6  49 STAT. 1185. 

FN7  PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' CORP., 308 U.S. 21. 

FN8  R.S. SEC. 5219; OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173 U.S.
664, 668. 

FN9  ART. VI, CL. 2:  "THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; ...  SHALL BE THE
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND  ...  " 

FN10  271 U.S. 461, 465-66. 

FN11  258 U.S. 50, 52. 

FN12  SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. V. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397, 407. 

FN13  SEE D.A. BEARD TRUCK LINE CO. V. SMITH, 12 F.SUPP.  964. 
FN14  CF. EX PARTE WILLIAMS, 277 U.S. 267, 271; JETT BROS. CO. V.
CARROLLTON, 252 U.S. 1, 5. 

FN15  STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY., 282 U.S. 10. 

FN16  EX PARTE HOBBS, 280 U.S. 168. 

FN17  EX PARTE WILLIAMS, SUPRA. 

FN18  STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY., 282 U.S. 10, 15. 

FN19  OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386, 391. 

FN20  EX PARTE COLLINS, 277 U.S. 565, 567, 569. 
..END :



















NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. BROWNING, 310 U.S. 362 


NO. 789.  ARGUED APRIL 30, MAY 1, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  - 140
S.W.2D 781, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES RENDERING IT INAPPLICABLE
TO THE PARTICULAR CASE, THE MILEAGE BASIS AFFORDS AN APPROPRIATE
METHOD, CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, OF APPORTIONING THE VALUE
OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD SYSTEM AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES IN WHICH IT
FUNCTIONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION.  ARITHMETICAL PRECISION IN THE
APPORTIONMENT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO ITS VALIDITY.  P. 365. 

THE JUDGMENT OF STATE TAXING AUTHORITIES AND COURTS UPHOLDING A USE
OF THE MILEAGE BASIS, DESPITE EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENT EARNING CAPACITIES
OF LINES OF THE RAILROAD IN AND OUT OF THE STATE, - ACCEPTED IN THIS
CASE. 

2.  UPON REVIEW OF A DECREE OF A STATE COURT SUSTAINING A TAX
ASSESSMENT OF A RAILROAD OVER THE OBJECTION THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DISCRIMINATION RESULTED FROM SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF RAILROADS AND
OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES AT FULL VALUE AND UNDERVALUATION OF ALL OTHER
KINDS OF PROPERTY, THIS COURT DECLINES TO EXAMINE THE MINUTES OF THE
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, NOT IN THE RECORD BUT PROFFERED HERE FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN THE LITIGATION, IN ORDER TO LEARN WHETHER THE STATE
COURT WAS CORRECT IN PRESUMING THAT DISPARITIES OF ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN
EQUALIZED, AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE LAW.  P. 366. 

3.  THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PERMITS A
STATE TO CLASSIFY THE PROPERTY OF RAILROADS AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES
SEPARATELY FROM OTHER PROPERTY AND TO TAX IT HIGHER.  P. 367. 

4.  WHERE A STATE FOR MANY YEARS SYSTEMATICALLY ASSESSED THE PROPERTY
OF RAILROADS AND OTHER UTILITIES AT FULL CASH VALUE AND ALL OTHER KINDS
OF PROPERTY AT LESS THAN CASH VALUE,  - HELD THAT THE PRACTICE WAS THE
"LAW" OF THE STATE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH UNIFORMITY OF TAXATION WAS
COMMANDED BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION, AND ALTHOUGH IT WERE TRUE THAT THE
TAX IN QUESTION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT BY A RESORT TO
FICTION.  P. 369. 

5.  THE CONTENTION THAT AN ASSESSMENT, CONTINUED WITHOUT CHANGE FOR A
SERIES OF YEARS, HAD BECOME CONFISCATORY BECAUSE OF DECREASE IN VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO ECONOMIC CAUSES, IS REJECTED BECAUSE 

(1)  THE COURT FINDS IN THE RECORD NO WARRANT FOR UPSETTING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION, SUSTAINED BY THE STATE COURTS.  P. 370. 

(2)  THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ASSESSMENT IN THE FACE OF DECLINING VALUE
IS MERELY A WAY OF INCREASING THE TAX.  P. 370. 

NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY V. BROWNING ET AL.,
CONSTITUTING THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF TENNESSEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 651, TO REVIEW A DECREE SUSTAINING THE DISMISSAL
OF A SUIT TO REDUCE, AS EXCESSIVE, A TAX ASSESSMENT OF RAILROAD
PROPERTY. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
TENNESSEE SUSTAINING AN ASSESSMENT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, TANGIBLE
AND INTANGIBLE, UNDER THAT STATE'S AD VALOREM TAX LAW.  ALL TENNESSEE
PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO SUCH A TAX; BUT THERE ARE TWO SCHEMES OF
PROCEDURE FOR MAKING ASSESSMENTS, ONE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS
AND ONE FOR OTHER TAXPAYERS.  AS TO ORDINARY PROPERTY THE TASK OF
VALUATION RESTS UPON OFFICIALS OF THE VARIOUS COUNTIES.  FOR PUBLIC
SERVICE CORPORATIONS THE ASSESSMENTS MUST BE MADE BY THE RAILROAD AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, WHICH IS COMMANDED TO ASCERTAIN THE
"ACTUAL CASH VALUE" OF CORPORATE PROPERTY SITUATED IN TENNESSEE. 
TENNESSEE CODE, SEC. 1526.  SINCE PETITIONER OPERATES AN INTERSTATE
RAILROAD, THE VALUE OF ITS ENTIRE SYSTEM AND NOT MERELY OF THAT PORTION
WITHIN TENNESSEE HAD FIRST TO BE ASCERTAINED.  THIS THE COMMISSION
ESTIMATED AT $23,996,604.14.  FROM THIS FIGURE WAS DEDUCTED THE VALUE
OF PETITIONER'S "LOCALIZED" PROPERTY, THAT IS, ITS TERMINAL BUILDINGS,
SHOPS, AND NON-OPERATING REAL ESTATE.  THE REMAINING SUM SERVED AS THE
BASE FOR CALCULATING THE VALUE OF WHAT IN THE LANGUAGE OF TENNESSEE LAW
IS CALLED THE UTILITY'S "DISTRIBUTABLE" PROPERTY ATTRIBUTABLE TO
TENNESSEE, SEC. 1528, WHICH THE COMMISSION ASCERTAINED BY TAKING THE
RATIO WHICH PETITIONER'S MILEAGE IN TENNESSEE BEARS TO ITS TOTAL
MILEAGE.  THIS WAS FOUND TO BE $12,925,944; AND THAT IS THE AMOUNT OF
THE ASSESSMENT HERE IN DISPUTE.  FROM THIS ACTION BY THE COMMISSION
PETITIONER APPEALED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL STATUTE, TO THE STATE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, RESPONDENT HERE.  AFTER HEARING AND BY FORMAL
OPINION, THE BOARD CONFIRMED THE COMMISSION'S VALUATION. 

IN ANTICIPATION OF A CERTIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF ITS FINAL
ASSESSMENT PRELIMINARY TO THE COLLECTION OF TAXES BASED UPON IT, THE
RAILWAY BROUGHT AN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURTS TO SET
ASIDE WHAT IT CLAIMED WAS THE VOID "EXCESS OF THE FAIR TAXABLE VALUE"
OF ITS PROPERTY.  THIS SUIT WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND ITS
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE WITH TWO
JUSTICES SEPARATELY DISSENTING.  140 S.W.2D 781.  BECAUSE OF
PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THE RESULT BELOW WAS INCONSISTENT WITH
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  309 U.S. 651.  THE
ASSESSMENT WAS CONTESTED BELOW ON OBJECTIONS GROUNDED IN BOTH STATE AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.  HERE, OF COURSE, ONLY FEDERAL QUESTIONS ARE
OPEN.  PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE CHALLENGED ASSESSMENT VIOLATES THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN ITS GUARANTEES OF DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND IS OFFENSIVE TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

WE SHALL FIRST CONSIDER THE CLAIM BASED ON THE HISTORIC IMPLICATIONS
OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS A LIMITATION UPON THE STATE'S TAXING POWER. 
PETITIONER ARGUED THAT TENNESSEE HAS TAXED VALUES WHICH ARE IN TRUTH
OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS, THEREBY BURDENING THAT WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
HAS LEFT FREE.  THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE STATE'S
RIGHT TO SECURE ITS REVENUES AND THE NATION'S DUTY TO PROTECT
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION ARE BY THIS TIME WELL SETTLED.  THE PROBLEM
TO BE SOLVED IS WHAT PORTION OF AN INTERSTATE ORGANISM MAY
APPROPRIATELY BE ATTRIBUTED TO EACH OF THE VARIOUS STATES IN WHICH IT
FUNCTIONS.  BASIC TO THE ACCOMMODATION OF THESE CONFLICTING STATE AND
NATIONAL INTERESTS IS REALIZATION THAT BY ITS VERY NATURE THE PROBLEM
IS INCAPABLE OF PRECISE AND ARITHMETICAL SOLUTION.  IN TAPPING THESE
COMMON SOURCES OF REVENUE A STATE CANNOT, WE HAVE HELD, USE A FISCAL
FORMULA, WHATEVER MAY BE ITS APPEARANCE OF CERTITUDE, TO PROJECT THE
TAXING POWER OF THE STATE PLAINLY BEYOND ITS BORDERS.  WALLACE V.
HINES, 253 U.S. 66.  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PRINCIPLES, TENNESSEE HAS
NOT OVERSTEPPED ITS BOUNDS. 

IN BASING ITS APPORTIONMENT ON MILEAGE, THE TENNESSEE COMMISSION
ADOPTED A FAMILIAR AND FREQUENTLY SANCTIONED FORMULA.  PULLMAN'S CAR
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S. 18; MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK RY. CO., 142
U.S. 217; PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. BACKUS, 154 U.S. 421;
BRANSON V. BUSH, 251 U.S. 182.  SEE 2 COOLEY ON TAXATION, PP. 1660-64. 
ITS ASSERTED INAPPLICABILITY TO THE PARTICULAR SITUATION IS RESTED ON
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE AS TO THE COMPARATIVE REVENUE-PRODUCING CAPACITY
OF ITS LINES IN AND OUT OF TENNESSEE.  BUT BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE THOUGHT THAT THIS EVIDENCE, HOWEVER WEIGHTY,
WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DISPLACE THE RELEVANCE OF THE FORMULA.  IN A MATTER
WHERE EXACTNESS IS CONCEDEDLY UNOBTAINABLE AND THE FEEL OF JUDGMENT SO
IMPORTANT A FACTOR, WE MUST BE ON GUARD LEST UNWITTINGLY WE DISPLACE
THE TAX OFFICIALS' JUDGMENT WITH OUR OWN.  CERTAINLY WE CANNOT SAY THAT
THE COMBINED JUDGMENT OF COMMISSION, BOARD, AND STATE COURTS IS
BASELESS.  WHEREVER THE STATES' TAXING AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN HELD TO
HAVE INTRUDED UPON THE PROTECTED DOMAIN OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THEIR
USE OF A MILEAGE FORMULA, THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR
SITUATION, IN THE VIEW WHICH THIS COURT TOOK OF THEM, PRECLUDED A
DEFENSIBLE UTILIZATION OF THE MILEAGE BASIS.  UNION TANK LINE CO. V.
WRIGHT, 249 U.S. 275; WALLACE V. HINES, SUPRA; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 274 U.S. 76.  NO SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ARE HERE PRESENTED. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE COMPANY'S CLAIMS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE RAILWAY FIRST ASSERTS THAT IT IS A VICTIM OF SUCH
INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF TENNESSEE'S TAX
STATUTES AS IS PROSCRIBED BY THE GUARANTY OF "THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS."  THE CLAIM IS FOUNDED UPON THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES.  AS
WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE MODES FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY IN TENNESSEE, EACH WITH ITS DISTINCTIVE
PROCEDURE.  THE PROPERTY OF PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS IS ASSESSED BY
THE COMMISSION; ALL OTHER PROPERTY BY LOCAL OFFICIALS.  THIS BROAD
CLASSIFICATION, SEPARATING TWO VERY DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROPERTY, HAS
BEEN REFLECTED, ACCORDING TO PETITIONER'S CONTENTION, BY A
CORRESPONDING DIFFERENCE IN THE BASES OF ASSESSMENT.  FOR MORE THAN
FORTY YEARS, SO IT WAS URGED BEFORE THE COURTS OF TENNESSEE AND LATER
HERE, THE COUNTY ASSESSORS HAVE SYSTEMATICALLY VALUED PROPERTY AT FAR
LESS THAN ITS TRUE WORTH, WHILE UTILITY AND RAILROAD PROPERTIES HAVE
BEEN ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSION AT FULL VALUE.  FN1 THIS SYSTEMATIC
DIFFERENTIATION, PETITIONER CLAIMS, HAS BEEN CONTINUOUS AND STATE-WIDE
IN ITS OPERATION; HAS BEEN "REPEATEDLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE"; HAS BEEN LEFT UNCORRECTED
BY THAT BODY; AND UNTIL THE PRESENT CASE, SO FAR AS WE ARE INFORMED,
HAS BEEN UNCHALLENGED.  IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THE RAILWAY ADDUCED
OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL REPORTS AS WELL AS A VOLUME OF AFFIDAVITS FROM
LOCAL ASSESSING OFFICIALS IN THE COUNTIES THROUGH WHICH ITS LINES RUN -
ALL TO THE EFFECT THAT LOCALLY ASSESSED PROPERTY WAS UNDERVALUED.  THE
ISSUE OF FORBIDDEN DISCRIMINATION WAS THUS SQUARELY RAISED BELOW.  BUT
THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT DID NOT DEEM PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
REVIEWING FUNCTION, THE BOARD HAD EQUALIZED ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE COMMAND OF STATE LAW.  WE SHOULD BE RELUCTANT ON SUCH A
QUESTION TO REJECT THE STATE COURT'S DETERMINATION AS WITHOUT
FOUNDATION, AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH IN THE RECORD TO WARRANT ITS
REPUDIATION.  AT THE BAR OF THIS COURT PETITIONER PROFFERED THE MINUTES
OF THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION - NOT IN THE RECORD - TO SHOW THE
ABSENCE OF EQUALIZATION.  CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE LITIGATION, THE
VIGOR AND ABILITY WITH WHICH IT WAS CONTESTED BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF DAVIDSON COUNTY, ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL THERE, ON THE ORIGINAL
APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AND FINALLY ON PETITION FOR
REHEARING, IT WOULD INDEED TURN THIS COURT INTO A BOARD OF TAX REVIEW
IF WE WERE NOW TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE NOT OFFERED IN ANY OF THE TRIBUNALS
BELOW. 

BUT WERE WE TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THAT WHICH THESE MINUTES WERE
OFFERED TO SHOW, AND THEREFORE TO REGARD THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE STATE
COURT AS A STRAINED EVASION OF THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN UTILITY
PROPERTY ON THE ONE HAND AND ALL THE REST ON THE OTHER, WE SHOULD STILL
FIND NO DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  IT MUST BE
EMPHASIZED THAT THE COMPANY MAKES NO CLAIM THAT ITS PROPERTY IS SINGLED
OUT FROM AMONG OTHER PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS FOR DISCRIMINATION. 
ITS ASSERTED GRIEVANCE IS COMMON TO THE WHOLE CLASS.  WE MUST PUT TO
ONE SIDE THEREFORE ALL THOSE CASES RELIED ON BY THE PETITIONER WHICH
INVOKED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST DISCRIMINATIONS INVIDIOUS TO A
PARTICULAR TAXPAYER.  RAYMOND V. CHICAGO TRACTION CO., 207 U.S. 20;
SUNDAY LAKE IRON CO. V. WAKEFIELD, 247 U.S. 350; SIOUX CITY BRIDGE V.
DAKOTA COUNTY, 260 U.S. 441; BOHLER V. CALLAWAY, 267 U.S. 479;
CUMBERLAND COAL CO. V. BOARD, 284 U.S. 23; IOWA-DES MOINES BANK V.
BENNETT, 284 U.S. 239.  ALL THESE CASES ARE INAPPOSITE.  NONE DENIED
POWER TO A STATE TO APPLY DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS TO DIFFERENT CLASSES OF
PROPERTY.  EQUALLY IRRELEVANT ARE THOSE CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT,
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE LITIGATION, WAS CONSTRUING THE UNIFORMITY
CLAUSE OF A STATE CONSTITUTION, AND WAS NOT APPLYING THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  GREENE V. LOUISVILLE & I.R. CO., 244 U.S. 499; LOUISVILLE &
N.R. CO. V. GREENE, 244 U.S. 522.  THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY HAD
OCCASION TO ADVERT TO THE NARROW AND SOMETIMES CRAMPING PROVISION OF
THESE STATE UNIFORMITY CLAUSES, AND HAS LEFT NO DOUBT THAT THEIR
INFLEXIBLE RESTRICTIONS UPON THE TAXING POWERS OF THE STATE WERE NOT TO
BE INSINUATED INTO THAT MERITORIOUS CONCEPTION OF EQUALITY WHICH ALONE
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE WAS DESIGNED TO ASSURE.  SEE PUGET SOUND
CO. V. KING COUNTY, 264 U.S. 22, 27. 

THAT THE STATES MAY CLASSIFY PROPERTY FOR TAXATION; MAY SET UP
DIFFERENT MODES OF ASSESSMENT, VALUATION AND COLLECTION; MAY TAX SOME
KINDS OF PROPERTY AT HIGHER RATES THAN OTHERS; AND IN MAKING ALL THESE
DIFFERENTIATIONS MAY TREAT RAILROADS AND OTHER UTILITIES WITH THAT
SEPARATENESS WHICH THEIR DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS IN
SOCIETY MAKE APPROPRIATE - THESE ARE AMONG THE COMMONPLACES OF TAXATION
AND OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  KENTUCKY RAILROAD TAX CASES, 115 U.S. 321;
PACIFIC EXPRESS CO. V. SEIBERT, 142 U.S. 339; FLORIDA CENTRAL & P.R.
CO. V. REYNOLDS, 183 U.S. 471; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. WATTS, 260 U.S. 519;
ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. DAUGHTON, 262 U.S. 413; RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V.
NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573.  SINCE, SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS
CONCERNED, A STATE CAN PUT RAILROAD PROPERTY INTO ONE PIGEONHOLE AND
OTHER PROPERTY INTO ANOTHER, THE ONLY QUESTION RELEVANT FOR US IS
WHETHER THE STATE HAS DONE SO.  IF THE DISCRIMINATION OF WHICH THE
RAILWAY COMPLAINS HAD BEEN FORMALLY WRITTEN INTO THE STATUTES OF
TENNESSEE, CHALLENGE TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY WOULD BE FRIVOLOUS.  IF
THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAD CONSTRUED THE REQUIREMENT OF UNIFORMITY IN
THE TENNESSEE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO PERMIT RECOGNITION OF THESE
DIVERSITIES, NO APPEAL COULD SUCCESSFULLY BE MADE TO THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  HERE, ACCORDING TO PETITIONER'S OWN CLAIM, ALL THE ORGANS
OF THE STATE ARE CONFORMING TO A PRACTICE, SYSTEMATIC, UNBROKEN FOR
MORE THAN FORTY YEARS, AND NOW QUESTIONED FOR THE FIRST TIME.  IT WOULD
BE A NARROW CONCEPTION OF JURISPRUDENCE TO CONFINE THE NOTION OF "LAWS"
TO WHAT IS FOUND WRITTEN ON THE STATUTE BOOKS, AND TO DISREGARD THE
GLOSS WHICH LIFE HAS WRITTEN UPON IT.  SETTLED STATE PRACTICE CANNOT
SUPPLANT CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES, BUT IT CAN ESTABLISH WHAT IS STATE
LAW.  THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DID NOT WRITE AN EMPTY FORMALISM INTO
THE CONSTITUTION.  DEEPLY EMBEDDED TRADITIONAL WAYS OF CARRYING OUT
STATE POLICY, SUCH AS THOSE OF WHICH PETITIONER COMPLAINS, ARE OFTEN
TOUGHER AND TRUER LAW THAN THE DEAD WORDS OF THE WRITTEN TEXT.  COMPARE
CARINO V. INSULAR GOVERNMENT, 212 U.S. 449, 459.  AND IF THE STATE
SUPREME COURT CHOOSES TO COVER UP UNDER A FORMAL VENEER OF UNIFORMITY
THE ESTABLISHED SYSTEM OF DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN TWO CLASSES OF
PROPERTY, AN EXPOSURE OF THE FICTION IS NOT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH ITS
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  FICTIONS HAVE PLAYED AN IMPORTANT AND SOMETIMES
FRUITFUL PART IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAW; AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE IS NOT A COMMAND OF CANDOR.  SO WE ARE OF OPINION THAT SUCH A
DISCRIMINATION, NOT INVIDIOUS BUT LONG-SANCTIONED AND INDEED
CONVENTIONAL, WOULD NOT BE OFFENSIVE TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SIMPLY
BECAUSE TENNESSEE HAD REACHED IT BY A CIRCUITOUS ROAD.  IT IS NOT THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S FUNCTION TO UPROOT SYSTEMS OF TAXATION
INSEPARABLE FROM THE STATE'S TRADITION OF FISCAL ADMINISTRATION AND
INGRAINED IN THE HABITS OF ITS PEOPLE. 

FINALLY, THE RAILWAY CLAIMS THAT THE VALUATION OF ITS ENTIRE SYSTEM,
ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS MEASURED TENNESSEE'S SHARES,
IS SO FAR IN EXCESS OF "FULL CASH VALUE" AS TO OFFEND THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  THE DETAILS ON WHICH THIS CLAIM IS BASED ARE FULLY SET FORTH
IN THE OPINIONS BELOW AND CALL ONLY FOR SUMMARY TREATMENT HERE.  THE
ARGUMENT BASICALLY DERIVES FROM THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION'S
VALUATION OF PETITIONER'S SYSTEM WAS THE SAME AS THAT FOR THE PREVIOUS
BIENNIUM, ALTHOUGH NUMEROUS ADVERSE ECONOMIC FACTORS ARE ALLEGED TO
HAVE GREATLY REDUCED THE PROPERTY'S WORTH.  BUT RAILROADS, UNLIKE FARMS
AND CITY LOTS AND STOCKS AND BONDS, ARE NOT OBJECTS OF EXCHANGE.  THE
VERY NOTION OF A "FULL CASH VALUE" FOR A RAILROAD IS IN MANY RESPECTS
ARTIFICIAL.  SEE 1 BONBRIGHT, THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY, PP. 511-632. 
WHATEVER MAY BE THE PRETENSES OF EXACTITUDE IN DETERMINING SUCH A
"VALUE," TO CLAIM FOR IT "SCIENTIFIC" VALIDITY, IS TO EMPLOY THE TERM
IN ITS LOOSEST SENSE.  COMPARE CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V. BABCOCK, 204
U.S. 585, 598.  THOROUGH CANVASS BY THE STATE COURTS FOUND NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR UPSETTING THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION, AND WE
COULD SCARCELY FIND WARRANT IN THE RECORD FOR DOING SO. BUT EVEN
ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS AN OVERASSESSMENT, CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY
WOULD NOT FOLLOW.  IF THE NEEDS OF A STATE REQUIRE HIGHER TAXES, THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CERTAINLY DOES NOT BAR THEIR IMPOSITION.  THE
MAINTENANCE OF HIGHER ASSESSMENT IN THE FACE OF DECLINING VALUE IS
MERELY ANOTHER WAY OF ACHIEVING THE SAME RESULT.  GREAT NORTHERN RY.
CO. V. WEEKS, 297 U.S. 135, DOES NOT BAR THE WAY.  THAT IS THE ONLY
CASE, AND IT WAS DECIDED BY A SHARPLY DIVIDED COURT, IN WHICH A NON
DISCRIMINATORY ASSESSMENT WAS STRUCK DOWN SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS THOUGHT
EXCESSIVE.  PLAINLY, THEREFORE, THE CASE MUST HAVE RESTED UPON
CONSIDERATIONS PECULIAR TO ITS OWN FACTS.  THOSE ARE NOT THE FACTS NOW
BEFORE US.  WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE COMMISSION'S OVER
ASSESSMENT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, IF OVER-ASSESSMENT THERE WAS,
CONSTITUTES NO DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  FOR A HISTORY OF TENNESSEE RAILROAD TAXATION, SEE BRANNEN,
TAXATION IN TENNESSEE, PP. 62 ET SEQ.; ROBISON, BOB TAYLOR AND THE
AGRARIAN REVOLT IN TENNESSEE, PP. 123 ET SEQ.
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. BUSH & CO., 310 U.S. 371 


NO. 613.  ARGUED APRIL 23, 24, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  - 27
C.C.P.A. - 104 F.2D 368, REVERSED. 


THE PRESIDENT, ACTING ON A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE TARIFF
COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE FLEXIBLE TARIFF PROVISIONS OF THE TARIFF ACT
OF 1930, PROCLAIMED AN INCREASE OF DUTY ON A JAPANESE PRODUCT, TO
EQUALIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JAPANESE AND DOMESTIC COSTS OF
PRODUCTION.  IN FIXING THE INCREASE, FOREIGN COST OF PRODUCTION WAS
DETERMINED, UNDER SEC. 336(E), ON THE "WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE INVOICE
PRICES OR VALUES FOR A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD," TAKING AS REPRESENTATIVE
THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 1, 1930, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1932; BUT, AS THE
INVOICE PRICES WERE IN YEN AND AS SEC. 336 CONTAINS NO PROVISION FOR
CONVERSION OF CURRENCY, THE COMMISSION, IN ORDER TO COMPARE THOSE
PRICES WITH DOMESTIC COST, HAD CONVERTED THEM INTO DOLLARS AT THE
AVERAGE RATE OF EXCHANGE FOR 1932, SELECTING THAT PERIOD BECAUSE THE
VALUE OF YEN IN DOLLARS HAD DECLINED STEADILY FROM DECEMBER 1931 TO
NOVEMBER 1932.  HELD: 

1.  THERE IS NO EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE ACT REQUIRING THAT THE RATE
OF EXCHANGE BE TAKEN FROM THE SAME PERIOD AS THE INVOICE PRICES, AND
NONE CAN BE IMPLIED.  P. 378. 

2.  THE PRESIDENT'S JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER IS NOT SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY
BY THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS OR BY THIS COURT.  P. 379. 

3.  SECTION 501 OF THE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OF
THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRESIDENT THAT THE RATES OF DUTY RECOMMENDED BY THE
COMMISSION ARE NECESSARY TO EQUALIZE THE DIFFERENCES IN DOMESTIC AND
FOREIGN COSTS OF PRODUCTION.  P. 379. 

4.  UNDER SEC. 336, THE COMMISSION SERVES THE PRESIDENT AS AN
ADVISER.  IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRESIDENT ON THE FACTS SUBMITTED TO
HIM BY THE COMMISSION THAT DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THE RECOMMENDED
RATE WILL BE PROMULGATED.  P. 379. 

5.  IN SUBSTANCE, AND TO A LARGE EXTENT IN FORM, THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION AND THE PRESIDENT IS BUT ONE STAGE OF THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS.  P. 379. 

UNITED STATES V. GEORGE S. BUSH & CO., INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS ORDERING A REAPPRAISEMENT UNDER SEC. 501 OF
THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930. 

THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT AND THE COMMISSION WAS IN SUBSTANCE
ONE STAGE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294.  SUCH ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
IMPEACHMENT IF THE PRESCRIBED FORMS OF LEGISLATION HAVE BEEN REGULARLY
OBSERVED.  ID.  HERE THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION, THE
HEARING WHICH IT HELD AFTER DUE NOTICE TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, ITS
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, AND HIS PROCLAMATION APPROVING THE
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, CONSTITUTED A FULL AND REGULAR OBSERVANCE
OF THE FORMS PRESCRIBED. 

MOREOVER, IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE PROCLAMATION WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT ACCEPTED THE REASONING OF THE TARIFF COMMISSION OR PREDICATED
HIS APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION UPON HIS OWN
CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT. 
IF THE REASONING OF THE COMMISSION WAS IN FACT BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE, THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTED
PROPERLY REQUIRES THE COURTS TO ASSUME THAT HE FOLLOWED THE LATTER
COURSE. 

THE HOLDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT, UNDER SEC. 336(E)(2)(A), IF THE
WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE INVOICE PRICES FOR A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD IS
USED TO DETERMINE FOREIGN COSTS OF PRODUCTION, THOSE PRICES MUST BE
CONVERTED INTO TERMS OF DOLLARS AT THE RATE OF EXCHANGE PREVAILING
DURING THAT PERIOD, HAS NO WARRANT IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND TO
A VERY LARGE EXTENT NULLIFIES THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE
FLEXIBLE TARIFF PROVISION. 

SEC. 336 CONTAINS NO MENTION OF CONVERSION OF CURRENCY.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF EXPRESS STATUTORY PROVISION IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IN
CONVERTING FOREIGN COSTS INTO DOLLARS THE COMMISSION MAY, AS IT DID IN
THIS CASE, USE THE RATE OF EXCHANGE PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF ITS
INVESTIGATION, SINCE THIS RATE REFLECTS THE THEN EXISTING DIFFERENCES
IN COSTS OF PRODUCTION.  IF, AS HELD BY THE COURT BELOW, THE COMMISSION
IS REQUIRED TO CONVERT FOREIGN COSTS INTO DOLLARS AT THE RATE OF
EXCHANGE WHICH PREVAILED DURING THE PERIOD USED TO ASCERTAIN THE
FOREIGN COSTS BUT WHICH, DUE TO SUBSEQUENT EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIONS, IS
NOT THE RATE PREVAILING AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTIGATION, THE
COMMISSION WILL BE UTTERLY UNABLE TO PERFORM ITS FUNCTION OF
DETERMINING WHAT CHANGE IN DUTY WILL EQUALIZE THE DIFFERENCES IN COSTS
OF PRODUCTION AT THE TIME WHEN THE CHANGE BECOMES EFFECTIVE.  ALTHOUGH
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 336 SHOWS PLAINLY THAT FLUCTUATING
FOREIGN EXCHANGE WAS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FACTORS WHICH CONGRESS
CONSIDERED AS CREATING THE NEED FOR A FLEXIBLE TARIFF LAW, THE DECISION
BELOW RENDERS THE PROVISION LARGELY USELESS FOR THIS PURPOSE. 

EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION BY THE COURT BELOW IS CORRECT, THE ACTION OF
THE COMMISSION WAS STILL AUTHORIZED UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC.
336. 

NEITHER THE TARIFF COMMISSION, NOR THE PRESIDENT IN HIS REVIEW OF THE
FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION, COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
336 WHEN THEY ASCERTAINED THE FOREIGN COST OF PRODUCTION, THE
DIFFERENCES IN COST OF PRODUCTION BETWEEN THE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC
ARTICLE, AND THE "DUTIES EXPRESSLY FIXED BY STATUTE." 

IF THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE PRESIDENT IS NOT
IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF SEC. 336, THEN THE STATUTE IS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN THAT IT GRANTS TO
AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT DISCRETION AS TO WHAT THE LAW SHALL BE. 

THE CONVERSION FROM YEN INTO DOLLARS AT THE AVERAGE RATE OF EXCHANGE
FOR THE YEAR 1932 WAS ILLEGAL, FOR BY THIS ACTION THE COMMISSION
OBTAINED A VALUE WHICH DID NOT REPRESENT THE COST OF PRODUCTION
REFERRED TO IN THE STATUTE, I.E., THE COST FOR THE SELECTED
"REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD." 

IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 336(A) THE COMMISSION FAILED TO ASCERTAIN THE
AMOUNT OF "DUTIES EXPRESSLY FIXED BY STATUTE" AND TO COMPARE THIS
AMOUNT WITH THE DIFFERENCES IN COSTS OF PRODUCTION.  ALTHOUGH THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT "FOREIGN VALUE" WAS DUTIABLE VALUE, IT
DISREGARDED SEC. 402(C) OF THE ACT, REQUIRING THE DATE OF EXPORTATION
TO BE TAKEN IN ASCERTAINING FOREIGN VALUE, AND ALSO DISREGARDED SEC.
522 REQUIRING FOREIGN CURRENCY TO BE CONVERTED TO DOLLARS IN A
PARTICULAR MANNER. 

THE COMMISSION FAILED TO COMPARE THE AMOUNT OF DUTY BASED ON THE
AMERICAN SELLING PRICE AS DEFINED IN SEC. 402(G), WITH THE DIFFERENCE
IN COST OF PRODUCTION COMPUTED AS OF THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT ASCERTAIN THE REQUIRED FACTS FROM "THE
INVESTIGATION," BUT ASCERTAINED THEM BY USE OF AN UNAUTHORIZED AND
ILLEGAL CURRENCY-CONVERSION FACTOR. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT SPECIFY IN ITS REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT SUCH
INCREASE OR DECREASE IN RATE OF DUTY OR CHANGE IN BASIS OF VALUE AS WAS
"SHOWN BY THE INVESTIGATION" TO BE NECESSARY TO EQUALIZE THE
DIFFERENCES IN COST OF PRODUCTION. 

AS TO THE COURT'S POWER TO REVIEW, SEE:  HAMPTON V. UNITED STATES,
276 U.S. 394, 409; ROBERTSON V. FRANK, 132 U.S. 17, 24; MUSER V.
MAGONE, 155 U.S. 240, 247; UNITED STATES V. PASSAVANT, 169 U.S. 16, 21;
WAITE V. MACY, 246 U.S. 606; NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 294; MOSS V. UNITED STATES, 26 C.C.P.A. 381, 385; 103
F.2D 395; FOSTER V. UNITED STATES, 20 C.C.P.A. 15, 23; FOX RIVER BUTTER
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 20 C.C.P.A. 38, 45; UNITED STATES V. SEARS,
ROEBUCK & CO., 20 C.C.P.A. 295, 301; CERT. DEN.  290 U.S. 633. 

AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES "LEGAL INVESTIGATION" BY THE TARIFF
COMMISSION, AND "PROCEEDING IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW" BY THE PRESIDENT,
THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS ARE PERTINENT:  FOSTER V. UNITED STATES, 20
C.C.P.A. 15, 22, 25-6; ZEISS V. UNITED STATES, 23 C.C.P.A. 7, 14;
NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 20 C.C.P.A. 27, 34-5;
288 U.S. 294; FOX RIVER BUTTER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 20 C.C.P.A. 38,
45; MOSS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

AS BOTH DECISIONS BY THIS COURT IN CASES PERTAINING TO THE FLEXIBLE
TARIFF PROVISIONS (HAMPTON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND NORWEGIAN
NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA), AND MANY OF THE
DECISIONS BY THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS IN SIMILAR
LITIGATION, RELATE TO ACTIONS BROUGHT UNDER THE TARIFF ACT OF
1922(SEC.  315), RATHER THAN THE ACT OF 1930(SEC.  336), THE
DIFFERENCES IN THE RESPECTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE TWO ACTS MUST BE KEPT
IN MIND WHEN CONSIDERING THE PRESENT CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THESE
DECISIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS HELD INVALID THE PROCLAMATION
MADE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON MAY 1, 1934, INCREASING
THE DUTY ON CANNED CLAMS IMPORTED FROM JAPAN.  104 F.2D 368.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT DECISION TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FLEXIBLE TARIFF PROVISIONS OF THE TARIFF ACT OF
1930(46 STAT. 590). 

IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 336(A) OF THAT ACT, THE TARIFF COMMISSION, IN
RESPONSE TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN INCREASED DUTY ON CANNED CLAMS,
INSTITUTED AN INVESTIGATION IN JUNE 1932, GAVE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE
HEARING, HELD THE HEARING IN OCTOBER 1932 AND GAVE INTERESTED PARTIES
AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT, TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE, AND TO BE HEARD.  AS
A RESULT OF THAT INVESTIGATION THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE STATUTORY
DUTY OF 35% AD VALOREM ON THE FOREIGN DUTIABLE VALUE  FN1  DID NOT
EQUALIZE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COSTS OF PRODUCTION OF THE DOMESTIC
ARTICLE AND THE JAPANESE ARTICLE.  ON SUCH A FINDING THE COMMISSION WAS
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 336(A) TO RECOMMEND TO THE PRESIDENT AN INCREASE OR
DECREASE IN THE STATUTORY RATE BUT NOT IN EXCESS OF 50 PER CENT; OR IN
CASE THE DIFFERENCES COULD NOT BE EQUALIZED IN THAT MANNER, IT WAS
EMPOWERED BY SEC. 336(B) TO SPECIFY SUCH AD VALOREM RATE OF DUTY BASED
UPON THE AMERICAN SELLING PRICE  FN2  OF THE DOMESTIC ARTICLE AS IT
FOUND NECESSARY TO EQUALIZE SUCH DIFFERENCES.  IN THE LATTER EVENT,
HOWEVER, THE STATUTORY RATE COULD NOT BE INCREASED.  THE COMMISSION
FOUND THAT THE RATE OF DUTY ON FOREIGN VALUE WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY
TO EQUALIZE THE DIFFERENCE IN COSTS EXCEEDED THE THEN EXISTING
STATUTORY RATE BY MORE THAN 50 PER CENT.  ACCORDINGLY IT PROCEEDED
UNDER SEC. 336(B) TO SPECIFY AN AD VALOREM RATE BASED ON AMERICAN
SELLING PRICE, AND RECOMMENDED TO THE PRESIDENT AN INCREASE IN THE
DUTY, TO BE EFFECTED BY ASSESSING THE RATE OF 35 PER CENT AD VALOREM ON
THE AMERICAN SELLING PRICE. 

IT IS PROVIDED IN SEC. 336(C) THAT THE PRESIDENT "SHALL BY
PROCLAMATION APPROVE THE RATES OF DUTY AND CHANGES IN CLASSIFICATION
AND IN BASIS OF VALUE SPECIFIED IN ANY REPORT OF THE COMMISSION UNDER
THIS SECTION, IF IN HIS JUDGMENT SUCH RATES OF DUTY AND CHANGES ARE
SHOWN BY SUCH INVESTIGATION OF THE COMMISSION TO BE NECESSARY TO
EQUALIZE SUCH DIFFERENCES IN COSTS OF PRODUCTION."  THE PROCLAMATION
REFERRED TO THE REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AND CONCLUDED
THAT THE CHANGE IN DUTY RECOMMENDED WAS "IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE
PRESIDENT" NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  AFTER THE PRESIDENT ISSUED HIS
PROCLAMATION, RESPONDENT IMPORTED SOME CANNED CLAMS AND THEY WERE
APPRAISED ON THE BASIS OF THE AMERICAN SELLING PRICE.  IT WAS ON AN
APPEAL FOR REAPPRAISEMENT PURSUANT TO SEC. 501 THAT THE PROCLAMATION
WAS HELD INVALID BY THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS.  ITS
INVALIDITY, ACCORDING TO THAT COURT, FLOWED FROM THE BASIS ON WHICH THE
COMMISSION COMPUTED THE JAPANESE COST OF PRODUCTION.  BY SEC. 336(E)(2)
THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED, WHEN THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF A FOREIGN
ARTICLE WAS NOT "READILY ASCERTAINABLE," TO ACCEPT AS EVIDENCE THEREOF
THE "WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE INVOICE PRICES OR VALUES FOR A
REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD."  THE COMMISSION TOOK THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF
SUCH PRICES FOR THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 1, 1930, TO SEPTEMBER 30,
1932.  THOSE PRICES WERE IN JAPANESE YEN.  SEC. 336 CONTAINS NO
PROVISION FOR CONVERSION OF CURRENCY.  BUT THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO
COMPARE THOSE PRICES WITH DOMESTIC COSTS CONVERTED THEM INTO UNITED
STATES DOLLARS, AT THE AVERAGE RATE OF EXCHANGE FOR 1932.  THAT PERIOD
WAS SELECTED BECAUSE JAPAN WENT OFF THE GOLD STANDARD IN DECEMBER 1931
AND THE VALUE OF THE YEN IN TERMS OF UNITED STATES DOLLARS DECLINED
STEADILY FROM THAT DATE TO NOVEMBER 1932.  FN3 

THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS HELD THAT IT WAS ERROR TO
CONVERT INVOICE PRICES FOR ONE PERIOD INTO UNITED STATES DOLLARS AT THE
AVERAGE RATE OF EXCHANGE FOR ANOTHER PERIOD.  IN ITS VIEW THE PHRASE
"WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE INVOICE PRICES OR VALUES FOR A REPRESENTATIVE
PERIOD" CONTAINED IN SEC. 336(E)(2) MUST BE CONSTRUED AS THOUGH IT
READ, "WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE INVOICE PRICES OR VALUES IN UNITED
STATES CURRENCY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD."  THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER,
URGES THAT IF THE COMMISSION WERE FORCED TO TAKE THE CONVERSION RATE
FOR THE EARLIER PERIOD, TO WHICH IT HAD TO RESORT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
THE INVOICE PRICES, IT WOULD USE A RATE WHICH HAD MERELY AN HISTORICAL
INTEREST AND WHICH DID NOT REFLECT THE CONDITIONS WHICH MADE DESIRABLE
AN INCREASE IN THE DUTIES, VIZ. THE DEPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF THE
YEN. 

THE DETERMINATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE VALUE WAS PRESCRIBED, IN THE
PROCEDURE OUTLINED BY CONGRESS, NEITHER FOR THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION NOR FOR THAT OF THE PRESIDENT.  FN4  THERE IS NO EXPRESS
PROVISION IN THE ACT THAT THE RATE OF EXCHANGE MUST BE TAKEN FOR THE
SAME PERIOD AS THE INVOICE PRICES.  TO IMPLY IT WOULD BE TO ADD WHAT
CONGRESS HAS OMITTED AND DOUBTLESS OMITTED IN VIEW OF THE VERY NATURE
OF THE PROBLEM.  THE MATTER WAS LEFT AT LARGE.  THE PRESIDENT'S METHOD
OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM WAS OPEN TO SCRUTINY NEITHER BY THE COURT OF
CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS NOR BY US.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE SCOPE OF
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY SEC. 501 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930,
FN5  IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT PERMIT JUDICIAL EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENT
OF THE PRESIDENT THAT THE RATES OF DUTY RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION
ARE NECESSARY TO EQUALIZE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN
COSTS OF PRODUCTION. 

THE POWERS WHICH CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED TO THE PRESIDENT UNDER THE
ACT OF 1930 DO NOT ESSENTIALLY DIFFER IN KIND FROM THOSE WHICH HAVE
BEEN GRANTED HIM UNDER THE TARIFF ACTS FOR WELL OVER A CENTURY.  SEE
NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 308 ET
SEQ., FOR A REVIEW OF THE STATUTES.  SINCE ITS CREATION IN 1916 THE
COMMISSION HAS ACTED AS AN ADVISER TO THE CONGRESS OR TO THE
PRESIDENT.  UNDER SEC. 336 OF THE ACT OF 1930 THE COMMISSION SERVES THE
PRESIDENT IN THAT ROLE.  IT DOES NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE THE RATES OF
DUTY; IT IS BUT THE EXPERT BODY WHICH INVESTIGATES AND SUBMITS THE
FACTS AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PRESIDENT.  IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF
THE PRESIDENT ON THOSE FACTS WHICH IS DETERMINATIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT
THE RECOMMENDED RATES WILL BE PROMULGATED.  IN SUBSTANCE AND TO A GREAT
EXTENT IN FORM (NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA) THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION AND THE PRESIDENT IS BUT ONE STAGE
OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S.
394.  "NO ONE HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO THE MAINTENANCE OF AN EXISTING RATE
OR DUTY."  NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P.
318.  AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRESIDENT THAT ON THE FACTS, ADDUCED IN
PURSUANCE OF THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS, A CHANGE OF RATE IS
NECESSARY IS NO MORE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THIS STATUTORY
SCHEME THAN IF CONGRESS ITSELF HAD EXERCISED THAT JUDGMENT.  IT HAS
LONG BEEN HELD THAT WHERE CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED A PUBLIC OFFICER TO
TAKE SOME SPECIFIED LEGISLATIVE ACTION WHEN IN HIS JUDGMENT THAT ACTION
IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF CONGRESS, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE OFFICER AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACTS CALLING FOR
THAT ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW.  MARTIN V. MOTT, 12 WHEAT.  19;
MONONGAHELA BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 216 U.S. 177; DAKOTA CENTRAL
TELEPHONE CO. V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 163; UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL
FOUNDATION, INC., 272 U.S. 1.  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE STORY IN MARTIN
V. MOTT, SUPRA, PP. 31-32:  "WHENEVER A STATUTE GIVES A DISCRETIONARY
POWER TO ANY PERSON, TO BE EXERCISED BY HIM UPON HIS OWN OPINION OF
CERTAIN FACTS, IT IS A SOUND RULE OF CONSTRUCTION, THAT THE STATUTE
CONSTITUTES HIM THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JUDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE
FACTS." 

FOR THE JUDICIARY TO PROBE THE REASONING WHICH UNDERLIES THIS
PROCLAMATION WOULD AMOUNT TO A CLEAR INVASION OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND
EXECUTIVE DOMAINS.  UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IT IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR
CONGRESS, OR THOSE TO WHOM IT DELEGATES AUTHORITY, TO DETERMINE WHAT
TARIFFS SHALL BE IMPOSED.  HERE THE PRESIDENT ACTED IN FULL CONFORMITY
WITH THE STATUTE.  NO QUESTION OF LAW IS RAISED WHEN THE EXERCISE OF
HIS DISCRETION IS CHALLENGED. 

THE OTHER POINTS RAISED ARE SO UNIMPORTANT AS NOT TO MERIT
DISCUSSION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 1, SCH.  7, PAR. 721(B). 

FN2  AS DEFINED IN SEC. 402(G). 

FN3  THE COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, DATED APRIL 5,
1934, STATED ON THIS POINT: 

"THE YEARS 1931 AND 1932 ARE REPRESENTATIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE
DOMESTIC COST OF PRODUCTION OF CANNED CLAMS AND THE INVOICE PRICES OF
JAPANESE CANNED CLAMS, IN TERMS OF JAPANESE CURRENCY.  DURING MOST OF
1931 THE EXCHANGE RATE OF THE JAPANESE YEN FOR THE DOLLAR WAS NOT MUCH
BELOW PAR, WHEREAS SINCE THAT TIME IT HAS BEEN MUCH BELOW PAR. FOR THIS
REASON THE INVOICE PRICES OF THE JAPANESE PRODUCT IMPORTED IN 1931,
WHEN CONVERTED TO DOLLARS AT THE THEN CURRENT RATE OF EXCHANGE, ARE NOT
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESENT OR PROBABLE FUTURE INVOICE VALUES IN
TERMS OF DOLLARS.  THE COMMISSION HAS, THEREFORE, USED, FOR COMPARISON
WITH THE DOMESTIC COSTS, THE INVOICE PRICES IN YEN AS EVIDENCE OF COSTS
OF THE JAPANESE PRODUCT DURING 1931 AND 1932, CONVERTED TO DOLLARS AT
THE AVERAGE RATE OF EXCHANGE FOR 1932.  ALTHOUGH THE EXCHANGE RATE OF
THE YEN HAS RISEN SINCE APRIL 1933, THE RATE NOW PREVAILING IS NOT MUCH
HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE RATE FOR 1932." 

FN4  SEC. 522(B) PROVIDES THAT FOR "THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT AND
COLLECTION OF DUTIES" UPON IMPORTS, FOREIGN CURRENCY SHALL BE CONVERTED
AT VALUES PROCLAIMED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR THE QUARTER
IN WHICH THE MERCHANDISE WAS EXPORTED.  THIS SECTION CLEARLY HAS NO
APPLICATION TO THE ISSUE HERE, SINCE IT APPLIES ONLY TO ASSESSMENT AND
COLLECTION OF DUTIES - MATTERS OUTSIDE THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE
TARIFF COMMISSION. 

FN5  THAT SECTION GIVES EITHER PARTY A RIGHT TO APPEAL TO THE COURT
OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS ON "A QUESTION OR QUESTIONS OF LAW
ONLY." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :























SUNSHINE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, 310 U.S. 381 


NO. 804.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  - AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE 19 1/2% TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 3(B) OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL
CONSERVATION ACT (1937) ON SALES OF SUCH COAL BY PRODUCERS, "WHICH
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
THE CODE PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 4, OR OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4A,"
APPLIES TO PRODUCERS WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CODE, ALTHOUGH UNDER
SEC. 4 THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE ARE FOR CODE MEMBERS ONLY.  P. 391. 

A CONTRARY CONSTRUCTION WOULD READ THE 19 1/2% TAX OUT OF THE ACT,
(SINCE BY SEC. 3(B) CODE MEMBERS ARE EXEMPT FROM IT); THE ESSENTIAL
SANCTION OF THE ACT WOULD THEN DISAPPEAR AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS WOULD BE
SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED.  SECTION 4 IS MADE EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE "ONLY TO
MATTERS AND TRANSACTIONS IN OR DIRECTLY AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT THE TAX WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO
THOSE SALES BY NON-CODE MEMBERS WHICH "WOULD BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATION
UNDER SEC. 4.  P. 392. 

2.  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT IS UPHELD OVER THE CONTENTIONS
THAT THE 19 1/2% TAX IS NOT A TAX BUT A PENALTY; THAT CONGRESS LACKS
POWER TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES FOR BITUMINOUS COAL SOLD IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE; THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INVALID DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AND
JUDICIAL POWER; AND THAT THE DIVISION OF BITUMINOUS COAL INTO CODE AND
NON-CODE CLASSES IS IMPROPER.  PP. 393 ET SEQ. 

3.  THE TAXING POWER OF CONGRESS MAY BE USED AS A SANCTION FOR THE
EXERCISE OF ANOTHER GRANTED POWER.  P. 393. 

4.  THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE WITHIN THE COMMERCE
POWER; THEY APPLY ONLY TO SALES OR TRANSACTIONS IN, OR INTIMATELY
AFFECTING, INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 393. 

5.  PRICE CONTROL IS A MEANS AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS FOR THE PROTECTION
AND PROMOTION OF THE PUBLIC ECONOMY.  P. 394. 

COURTS ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WISDOM, POLICY OR APPROPRIATENESS
OF THIS LEGISLATION.  BUT THE STATE OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY AND
ITS HISTORY AND PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, PLAINLY SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT OF
CONGRESS THAT PRICE-FIXING AND THE ELIMINATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITIVE
PRACTICES WERE APPROPRIATE METHODS FOR PREVENTION OF THE FINANCIAL
RUIN, LOW WAGES, POOR WORKING CONDITIONS, STRIKES, AND DISRUPTION OF
THE CHANNELS OF TRADE WHICH FOLLOWED IN THE WAKE OF THE DEMORALIZED
PRICE STRUCTURES.  P. 394. 

6.  CONGRESS MAY MODIFY THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY
PLACING THE MACHINERY OF PRICE-FIXING IN THE HANDS OF PUBLIC AGENCIES. 
P. 396. 

7.  CONGRESS MAY SINGLE OUT A PARTICULAR INDUSTRY AND REMOVE AS TO IT
THE PENALTIES OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 396. 

8.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE EMPOWERS CONGRESS TO STABILIZE AN INTERSTATE
INDUSTRY THROUGH A PROCESS OF PRICE-FIXING WHICH SAFEGUARDS THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BY PLACING PRICE-CONTROL IN THE HANDS OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE.  P. 396. 

9.  THE STANDARDS SPECIFIED BY SEC. 4, IIC) OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL
ACT TO CONTROL THE COMMISSION IN FIXING MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRICES
BINDING CODE MEMBERS, ARE ADEQUATE, AND THERE IS NO INVALID DELEGATION
OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  P. 397. 

10.  IN THE MATTER OF PRICE-MAKING, CODE MEMBERS ARE SUBORDINATED BY
THE ACT TO THE COMMISSION, SO THAT THERE IS NO DELEGATION OF
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE INDUSTRY.  P. 399. 

11.  THE DEFINITION OF BITUMINOUS COAL IN THE ACT, SEC. 17(B), IS
ADEQUATE AS A STANDARD FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN DETERMINING WHAT
COAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  P. 399. 

12.  THE ACT MAKES NO INVALID DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER TO THE
COMMISSION FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTICULAR COAL PRODUCER FALLS
WITHIN ITS PROVISIONS; AND IT GRANTS SUFFICIENT JUDICIAL REVIEW.  P.
400. 

13.  A CONTENTION THAT THE ACT, BY CLASSIFYING THE COAL AS CODE AND
NON-CODE AND APPLYING THE 19 1/2% TAX TO THE LATTER ALONE, VIOLATES THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, IS REJECTED, SINCE THE PROCEDURAL FEATURES SATISFY DUE
PROCESS, AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT HAS NO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE; NOR IS
UNIFORMITY REQUIRED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 400. 

14.  A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING ON REVIEW A DETERMINATION BY THE
BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION THAT A PRODUCER'S COAL IS "BITUMINOUS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 17(B) OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL CONSERVATION
ACT, THUS SUBJECTING HIM TO THE 19 1/2% TAX LAID ON SALES BY PRODUCERS
WHO HAVE NOT JOINED THE CODE, IS RES JUDICATA IN A SUIT BY THE PRODUCER
TO ENJOIN THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FROM COLLECTING THE
TAX.  P. 401. 

15.  WHERE CONGRESS HAS CREATED A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
FOR DETERMINING THE STATUS OF PERSONS AND COMPANIES UNDER A REGULATORY
ACT, AND HAS PRESCRIBED A PROCEDURE SATISFYING DUE PROCESS, THAT REMEDY
IS EXCLUSIVE.  P. 404. 

16.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO
RELIEF FROM PAYMENT OF TAXES ACCRUED DURING THE LITIGATION SINCE THE
DATE FIXED BY THE DECREE BELOW.  P. 404. 

SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. ADKINS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING A BILL TO
ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF TAXES.  SEE ALSO 31 F.SUPP.  125 AND 105 F.2D
559. 

THIS CASE DOES NOT CHALLENGE EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ANY ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION, AND, IN ANY EVENT, THERE IS NO PRIVITY BETWEEN THE
NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION OR ITS SUCCESSOR AND THE APPELLEE
HEREIN. 

NO POWER TO HOLD HEARINGS AND MAKE DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS OR IS NOT
BITUMINOUS COAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937
IS DELEGATED BY THE ACT, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INFERENTIALLY, TO THE
NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION OR ITS SUCCESSOR. 

IF THE STATUTE BE CONSTRUED AS DELEGATING TO THE COMMISSION POWER TO
DETERMINE THE OBJECT TO WHICH THE LAW IS TO BE APPLIED, WITHOUT FIXED
STANDARDS, IT IS INVALID AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER.  IF IT BE CONSTRUED AS DELEGATING POWER TO EXERCISE
THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT, THEN IT IS INVALID AS
AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER. 

CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT AS TO THE MEANING OF "BITUMINOUS, SEMI
BITUMINOUS AND SUB-BITUMINOUS" IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND CAN NOT BE
DELEGATED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. 

SINCE APPELLANT IS A NON-CODE PRODUCER, SALE OF APPELLANT'S COAL IS
NOT SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE CODE PROVIDED FOR
IN SEC. 4 OR OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4-A, AND THEREFORE IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE SO-CALLED 19 1/2% TAX. 

THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE FOLLOWING
REASONS:  (A)  THE DIVISION OF A NATURAL CLASS, BITUMINOUS COAL, INTO
ARTIFICIAL CLASSES OF CODE AND NON-CODE FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES IS
UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY, AND VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  (B)  THE
SO-CALLED 19 1/2% TAX ON SALE PRICE OF COAL IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A TAX, BUT
A CONFISCATORY PENALTY ASSESSED WITHOUT FAULT ON THE PART OF THE
APPELLANT.  EXEMPTION FROM SAID SOCALLED TAX IS BASED NOT UPON
DIFFERENCE IN EITHER CONDUCT OR PRODUCT, BUT SOLELY UPON MEMBERSHIP IN
THE CODE.  SUCH CLASSIFICATION FOR EXEMPTION PURPOSES IS CLEARLY
UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY, AND NOT IN ANY WISE A PROPER METHOD OF
ACCOMPLISHING A PROPER CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, AND VIOLATES THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  MEMBERSHIP OR NONMEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION CERTAINLY
CANNOT BE A PROPER BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION EITHER FOR PURPOSES OF
REGULATION OR TAXATION.  (C)  CONGRESS IS WITHOUT POWER TO FIX MINIMUM
PRICES FOR BITUMINOUS COAL SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NEBBIA V. NEW
YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 536; UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307
U.S. 533.  MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38, DISTINGUISHED. 

THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937 ARE IN
SUBSTANCE THE SAME AS THOSE CONTAINED IN THE BITUMINOUS COAL
CONSERVATION ACT OF 1935.  ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT IN CARTER
V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, DID NOT PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF
THESE PROVISIONS, THE DISSENTING OPINIONS INDICATED THAT THEY WERE
VALID. 

SINCE THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLY ONLY TO SALES IN OR DIRECTLY
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THEY ARE A VALID EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL
COMMERCE POWER.  UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S.
533. 

STATUTES FIXING PRICES DO NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  MAYO
V. LAKELAND HIGHLANDS CANNING CO., 309 U.S. 310.  EVEN IF CONDITIONS IN
AN INDUSTRY BE DEEMED MATERIAL, THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE
REGULATION IS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS AND OF OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION
OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS UPON THE PERSON ASSAILING THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE, AND THAT BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN SUSTAINED BY APPELLANT HERE. 
MOREOVER, BOTH THE RECORD IN THIS CASE AND FACTS SUBJECT TO THE COURT'S
NOTICE DEMONSTRATE THAT THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS ARE NOT ARBITRARY,
CAPRICIOUS, OR UNREASONABLE. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING THE ESTABLISHING OF MINIMUM PRICES IN
THE COAL INDUSTRY WERE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE DESCRIBED BY
THIS COURT IN NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, WITH RESPECT TO THE
MILK INDUSTRY. 

THE PRICE-FIXING PROVISIONS CONTAIN MUCH MORE DETAILED STANDARDS THAN
THOSE PRESCRIBED FOR THE USE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN FIXING RATES UNDER THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AND THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT AND IN OTHER REGULATORY
STATUTES.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS AN INVALID DELEGATION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER IS PLAINLY WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  THE DEFINITION OF
"BITUMINOUS COAL" IN SEC. 17(B) CONSTITUTES A SATISFACTORY STANDARD,
WHICH IS NOT RENDERED INADEQUATE BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF
BORDERLINE CASES WHERE ITS APPLICATION MAY BE DIFFICULT.  CF. SHIELDS
V. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177. 

THE GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF
FACT AS TO THE STATUS OF COAL UNDER THE ACT IS NOT AN INVALID
DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER.  THE DECISION IS REVIEWABLE BY THE
COURTS.  CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, IS NOT IN POINT; APPELLANT IS
ADMITTEDLY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
DEPEND UPON THE FACTUAL QUESTION HERE IN ISSUE.  CF. SHIELDS V. UTAH
IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177. 

MEMBERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE 19 1/2% TAX.  IF THE TAX IS NOT APPLICABLE
TO NON-CODE MEMBERS, IT CANNOT APPLY TO ANY ONE.  BOTH THE LANGUAGE OF
THE STATUTE AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOW THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH ANY SUCH ABSURD RESULT. 

THE 19 1/2% TAX IS VALID REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS A TAX OR A
PENALTY, INASMUCH AS THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS WHICH THE SECTION IS
AIMED TO EFFECTUATE ARE A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER. 
THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO IMPOSE PENALTIES
IN ORDER TO ENFORCE LAWS ENACTED UNDER ANY OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS. 

IF THE TAX BE A PENALTY, THERE CAN BE NO IMPROPER CLASSIFICATION IN
APPLYING IT ONLY TO THOSE WHO FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATORY PLAN
WHICH IT IS DESIGNED TO ENFORCE.  FURTHERMORE, THE CHOICE OF WHETHER TO
SUBJECT ITSELF TO THE TAX OR THE REGULATORY SCHEME LAY ENTIRELY WITH
APPELLANT, AND APPELLANT CAN NOT COMPLAIN BECAUSE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX
NOW TURNS OUT TO BE GREATER THAN THAT OF THE SYSTEM OF REGULATION WHICH
IT COULD VOLUNTARILY HAVE ACCEPTED INSTEAD.  IN ANY EVENT, THE
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN CODE MEMBERS AND NON-CODE MEMBERS IS VALID AS A
MEANS OF EQUALIZING THE BURDENS IMPOSED UPON THE TWO GROUPS.  NEW YORK
RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573, 580. 

THE DECISION IN SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS
COAL COMMISSION, 105 F.2D 559, IS CLEARLY RES JUDICATA WITH RESPECT TO
THE STATUS OF APPELLANT'S CASE.  ALTHOUGH THE NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL
COMMISSION AND THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE MAY NOMINALLY BE
DIFFERENT PARTIES, THEY ARE IN LEGAL EFFECT THE SAME, BOTH REPRESENTING
THE UNITED STATES.  UNDER THE STATUTE THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE COAL ACT BOTH FOR REGULATORY AND TAX PURPOSES.  IT
IS SETTLED THAT THERE IS PRIVITY BETWEEN OFFICERS REPRESENTING THE SAME
GOVERNMENT, AND THAT ALTHOUGH A JUDGMENT ENTERED IN A CASE AGAINST A
COLLECTOR MAY NOT BE BINDING IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, A
JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE
IS CONCLUSIVE IN A SUIT AGAINST A COLLECTOR.  TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND
RY. CO., 289 U.S. 620. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALSO WAS BARRED FROM DETERMINING THE STATUS OF
APPELLANT'S COAL BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE
AND STATUTORY REMEDY, THE ADEQUACY OF WHICH HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED WITH
RESPECT TO APPELLANT ITSELF.  MOREOVER, THE POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDERS
OF THE COMMISSION IS VESTED BY THE ACT EXCLUSIVELY IN THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS (SEC. 6(B), (D)).  THIS STATUTORY LIMITATION UPON THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IS VALID.  ANNISTON MFG. CO. V.
DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL CONSERVATION ACT OF
1935(49 STAT. 991) WERE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THIS COURT IN CARTER
V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238.  THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937(50
STAT. 72) WAS THEREUPON ENACTED.  IT ELIMINATED THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE
EARLIER ACT AND MADE OTHER SUBSTANTIVE AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES.  FN1
THE BASIC PROBLEM HERE INVOLVED IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 1937
ACT. 

THAT ACT PROVIDES FOR THE REGULATION OF THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
BITUMINOUS COAL BY THE NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION,  FN2  WITH
THE COOPERATION OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL INDUSTRY.  ITS AIM IS THE
STABILIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY PRIMARILY THROUGH PRICE-FIXING AND THE
ELIMINATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION.  IT IS PROVIDED IN SEC. 4 THAT THE
COAL PRODUCERS, ACCEPTING MEMBERSHIP, SHALL BE ORGANIZED UNDER THE
BITUMINOUS COAL CODE.  SOME TWENTY DISTRICT BOARDS OF CODE MEMBERS ARE
PROVIDED FOR, WHICH ARE TO OPERATE AS AN AID TO THE COMMISSION BUT
SUBJECT TO ITS PERVASIVE SURVEILLANCE AND AUTHORITY.  THE STATUTE
SPECIFIES IN DETAIL THE METHODS OF THEIR ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION,
THE SCOPE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS, AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION
OVER THEM.  THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES FOR CODE
MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATED STANDARDS.  UNDER SEC. 4, IIA) EACH
BOARD SHALL "ON ITS OWN MOTION OR WHEN DIRECTED BY THE COMMISSION"
PROPOSE MINIMUM PRICES PURSUANT TO PRESCRIBED STATUTORY STANDARDS. 
THESE MAY BE APPROVED, DISAPPROVED, OR MODIFIED BY THE COMMISSION AS
THE BASIS FOR THE COORDINATION OF MINIMUM PRICES.  SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE
MACHINERY IS PROVIDED FOR SUCH COORDINATION OF MINIMUM PRICES "IN
COMMON CONSUMING MARKET AREAS UPON A FAIR COMPETITIVE BASIS," SEC. 4,
IIB), AND FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS INCIDENTAL TO THE
SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF COAL BY CODE MEMBERS.  SEC. 4, IIA).  THE
COMMISSION IS ALSO GIVEN POWER BY SEC. 4, IIC) TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM
PRICES FOR CODE MEMBERS PURSUANT TO STANDARDS PRESCRIBED THEREIN.  THE
SALE, DELIVERY, OR OFFER FOR SALE OF COAL BELOW THE MINIMUM OR ABOVE
THE MAXIMUM PRICES ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION IS MADE A VIOLATION OF
THE CODE.  SEC. 4, IIE).  SO ARE NUMEROUS PRACTICES, SPECIFIED IN SEC.
4, III) AS UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION.  AND CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE
OF COAL AT PRICES BELOW THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM OR ABOVE THE MAXIMUM ARE
INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE.  SEC. 4, IIE).  THE COMMISSION MAY, AFTER
HEARING, REVOKE THE CODE MEMBERSHIP OF ANY COAL PRODUCER FOR WILLFUL
VIOLATION OF THE CODE OR OF ANY REGULATION MADE THEREUNDER.  SEC.
5(B). 

SEC. 3(A) IMPOSES AN EXCISE TAX OF 1 CENT PER TON OF TWO THOUSAND
POUNDS UPON THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION BY THE PRODUCER OF BITUMINOUS
COAL PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES.  FN3  SEC. 3(B) IMPOSES AN
ADDITIONAL 19 1/2% TAX (BASED ON SALE PRICE OR IN CERTAIN CASES ON FAIR
MARKET VALUE) ON SALES OF BITUMINOUS COAL BY PRODUCERS "WHICH WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CODE
PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 4, OR OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4-A."  FN4
PRODUCERS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CODE ARE EXEMPT FROM THAT TAX.  AS WE
SHALL SEE, THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 3(B) IS A SUBJECT OF
CONTROVERSY.  BUT IF, AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, THE 19 1/2% TAX IS
APPLICABLE TO SALES BY NON-MEMBERS, THERE ARE STRONG INDUCEMENTS FOR
JOINING THE CODE. 

MACHINERY IS PROVIDED IN SEC. 4-A FOR OBTAINING EXEMPTIONS.  A
PRODUCER WHO BELIEVES THAT ANY COMMERCE IN COAL IS NOT, OR MAY NOT BE
MADE, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4 MAY FILE AN APPLICATION FOR
EXEMPTION WITH THE COMMISSION.  SUBJECT TO QUALIFICATIONS NOT MATERIAL
HERE, THE FILING OF SUCH APPLICATION "IN GOOD FAITH" EXEMPTS THE
APPLICANT FROM ANY "OBLIGATION, DUTY OR LIABILITY" IMPOSED BY SEC. 4
PENDING ACTION BY THE COMMISSION ON THE APPLICATION.  THE COMMISSION
SHALL GRANT THE APPLICATION, OR, AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING, SHALL DENY OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF IT.  AN APPLICANT AGGRIEVED
BY SUCH DENIAL OR OTHER DISPOSITION MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF THE ORDER IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN THE CIRCUIT WHERE HE RESIDES OR HAS HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS.  SEC. 6(B).  THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE FACTS,
IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, ARE CONCLUSIVE. 

APPELLANT IS LESSEE OF COAL LANDS IN ARKANSAS AND IS ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF MINING AND SHIPPING COAL.  IT HAS NOT SUBSCRIBED TO OR
ACCEPTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL CODE PROVIDED FOR IN
SEC. 4 OF THE ACT.  IN AUGUST 1937 IT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR
EXEMPTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT ITS COAL WAS NOT BITUMINOUS COAL AS
DEFINED IN SEC. 17(B) OF THE ACT.  FN5  THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THAT APPLICATION IN OCTOBER 1937.  FN6  APPELLANT APPEARED,
INTRODUCED EVIDENCE, AND WAS HEARD ON ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  FN7  IN AUGUST 1938 THE COMMISSION HANDED DOWN AN OPINION
WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ENTERED AN ORDER
DENYING APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT ITS
COAL WAS BITUMINOUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 17(B).  APPELLANT
OBTAINED A REVIEW OF THIS ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THAT
COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE STATUS
OF COAL CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT AND THAT THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS
BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  IT ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED THE ORDER. 
SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION,
105 F.2D 559.  WE DENIED CERTIORARI.  308 U.S. 604.    IN MAY 1938,
WHILE THE ABOVE PROCEEDING WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, APPELLEE
DEMANDED THAT APPELLANT PAY THE TAXES, PENALTIES AND INTEREST ACCRUING
UNDER SEC. 3(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 1938; AND
FILED A NOTICE OF TAX LIEN AGAINST APPELLANT'S PROPERTY.  THEREUPON
APPELLANT FILED ITS COMPLAINT IN THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF
THE TAX.  A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS CONVENED, WHICH ISSUED A TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION.  APPARENTLY NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THIS CASE UNTIL
AFTER THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN SUNSHINE
ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION, SUPRA, WHEN
APPELLEE FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER STATING THAT THE DECISION IN THAT
CASE WAS RES JUDICATA AS TO THE STATUS OF APPELLANT'S COAL UNDER THE
ACT AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THAT SUBJECT
MATTER.  THE COURT BELOW DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE THAT
PORTION OF THE ANSWER.  31 F.SUPP.  125.  THE CASE WAS TRIED.  THE
COURT HELD THE ACT TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL AND DISMISSED THE BILL ON THE
MERITS.  FN8  THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL (50 STAT. 752; 28 U.S.C. SEC.
380A). 

I. APPELLANT ARGUES THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE 19 1/2% TAX IMPOSED
BY SEC. 3(B) BECAUSE THAT SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PRODUCERS WHO ARE
NOT MEMBERS OF THE CODE.  ITS ARGUMENT RESTS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SEC. 3(B) AND SEC. 4.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE FORMER PLACES THE 19 1/2%
TAX ON THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF COAL "WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
THE APPLICATION OF THE CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CODE PROVIDED
FOR IN SECTION 4, OR OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4-A."  SEC. 4
PROVIDES THAT THE "PROVISIONS OF SUCH CODE SHALL APPLY ONLY TO SUCH
CODE MEMBERS."  APPELLANT THEREFORE CONTENDS THAT THE TAX IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO ITS COAL, SINCE THE COAL PRODUCED BY A NON-CODE PRODUCER
SUCH AS APPELLANT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE. 

BUT IF THE 19 1/2% TAX IS NOT APPLICABLE TO NON-CODE MEMBERS, IT IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO ANYONE SINCE SEC. 3(B) EXEMPTS CODE MEMBERS FROM THAT
TAX.  THAT CONSTRUCTION WOULD READ THE 19 1/2% TAX OUT OF THE ACT.  THE
ESSENTIAL SANCTION OF THE ACT WOULD THEN DISAPPEAR AND ITS
EFFECTIVENESS WOULD BE SERIOUSLY IMPAIRED.  THAT ALTERNATIVE WILL NOT
BE TAKEN WHERE A CONSTRUCTION IS POSSIBLE WHICH WILL PRESERVE THE
VITALITY OF THE ACT AND THE UTILITY OF THE LANGUAGE IN QUESTION.  SEE
ARMSTRONG PAINT & VARNISH WORKS V. NU-ENAMEL CORP., 305 U.S. 315, 333
AND CASES CITED.  ONLY A HIGHLY STRAINED CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 3(B)
WOULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NON-CODE MEMBERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
19 1/2% TAX.  IT SEEMS THAT CONGRESS MADE A DELIBERATE CHOICE OF WORDS
WHEN IT SAID THAT THE TAX APPLIED TO THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF
COAL WHICH "WOULD BE" SUBJECT TO SEC. 4 AND SEC. 4-A.  SEC. 4 IS MADE
EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE "ONLY TO MATTERS AND TRANSACTIONS IN OR DIRECTLY
AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN BITUMINOUS COAL."  HENCE IT SEEMS
PLAIN THAT THE TAX WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO THOSE SALES BY NON
CODE MEMBERS WHICH "WOULD BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER SEC. 4. 
APPELLANT'S COAL PLAINLY FALLS IN THAT CLASS SINCE PRACTICALLY ITS
ENTIRE OUTPUT IS SOLD TO PURCHASERS OUTSIDE THE STATE OF ARKANSAS.  TO
SUSTAIN APPELLANT'S POSITION WE WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE TO SUBSTITUTE "IS"
FOR "WOULD BE"; WE WOULD HAVE TO OVERRIDE THE EXPRESS CONGRESSIONAL
PLAN TO MAKE THE 19 1/2% TAX "IN AID OF THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE" IN BITUMINOUS COAL.  FN9  THAT WOULD BE NOT ONLY TO REWRITE
SEC. 3(B) BUT TO REMAKE THE WHOLE STATUTORY SCHEME.  OBVIOUSLY SUCH A
TASK IS NOT FOR THE COURTS. 

II.  APPELLANT CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT ON THE
GROUNDS THAT THE 19 1/2% TAX IS NOT A TAX BUT A PENALTY, THAT CONGRESS
LACKS THE POWER TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES FOR BITUMINOUS COAL SOLD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INVALID DELEGATION OF
LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL POWER, AND THAT THE DIVISION OF BITUMINOUS
COAL INTO CODE AND NON-CODE CLASSES IS IMPROPER. 

CLEARLY THIS TAX IS NOT DESIGNED MERELY FOR REVENUE PURPOSES.  IN
PURPOSE AND EFFECT IT IS PRIMARILY A SANCTION TO ENFORCE THE REGULATORY
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATUTE IS
INVALID AND THE TAX UNENFORCEABLE.  CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE PENALTIES IN
AID OF THE EXERCISE OF ANY OF ITS ENUMERATED POWERS.  THE POWER OF
TAXATION, GRANTED TO CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION, MAY BE UTILIZED AS A
SANCTION FOR THE EXERCISE OF ANOTHER POWER WHICH IS GRANTED IT.  HEAD
MONEY CASES, 112 U.S. 580, 596.  AND SEE SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES,
300 U.S. 506.  IT IS SO UTILIZED HERE. 

THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS ARE CLEARLY WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THESE PROVISIONS ARE
APPLICABLE ONLY TO SALES OR TRANSACTIONS IN, OR DIRECTLY OR INTIMATELY
AFFECTING, INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE FIXING OF PRICES, THE PROSCRIPTION
OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MARKETING RULES
RESPECTING SUCH SALES OF BITUMINOUS COAL CONSTITUTE REGULATIONS WITHIN
THE COMPETENCE OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  AS STATED BY MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO IN HIS DISSENT IN CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., SUPRA, P.
326, "TO REGULATE THE PRICE FOR SUCH TRANSACTIONS IS TO REGULATE
COMMERCE ITSELF, AND NOT ALONE ITS ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS OR ITS
ULTIMATE CONSEQUENCES."  SEE TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES,
280 U.S. 420.  WHAT IS TRUE OF PRICES IS TRUE OF THE ATTACHMENT OF
OTHER CONDITIONS TO THE FLOW OF A COMMODITY IN INTERSTATE CHANNELS. 
MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38 AND CASES CITED.  SINCE THIS POWER WHEN
IT EXISTS IS COMPLETE IN ITSELF, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 196,
THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ARE AN
EXERTION OF THE PARAMOUNT FEDERAL POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533. 

NOR DOES THE ACT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PRICE CONTROL IS ONE
OF THE MEANS AVAILABLE TO THE STATES (NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502
AND TO THE CONGRESS (UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, SUPRA)
IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DOMAINS (BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC., 294 U.S.
511) FOR THE PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF THE WELFARE OF THE ECONOMY. 
BUT APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THIS ACT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  IT URGES THAT THE NATURE AND USE OF
BITUMINOUS COAL IN NOWISE ENDANGER THE HEALTH AND MORALS OF THE
POPULACE; THAT NO QUESTION OF CONSERVATION IS INVOLVED; THAT THE ILLS
OF THE INDUSTRY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO OVERPRODUCTION; THAT THE INCREASE
OF PRICES WILL CAUSE A FURTHER LOSS OF MARKETS AND ADD TO THE
AFFLICTIONS WHICH BESET THE INDUSTRY; AND THAT THE CONSUMING PUBLIC
WILL BE DEPRIVED OF THE WHOLESOME RESTRICTION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 
THOSE MATTERS, HOWEVER, RELATE TO QUESTIONS OF POLICY, TO THE WISDOM OF
THE LEGISLATION, AND TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE REMEDY CHOSEN -
MATTERS WHICH ARE NOT OUR CONCERN.  IF WE ENDEAVORED TO APPRAISE THEM
WE WOULD BE TRESPASSING ON THE LEGISLATIVE DOMAIN.  AND IF WE UNDERTOOK
TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN THIS FIELD, AS SUGGESTED
BY APPELLANT, WE WOULD BE BLIND TO AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS OF HISTORY. 
FOR A GENERATION THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS MANIFESTATIONS OF INCESSANT
DEMAND FOR FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN THE COAL INDUSTRY.  FN10  THE
INVESTIGATIONS PRECEDING THE 1935 AND 1937 ACTS ARE REPLETE WITH AN
EXPOSITION OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE BESET THAT INDUSTRY.  FN11
OFFICIAL  FN12  AND PRIVATE  FN13  RECORDS GIVE ELOQUENT TESTIMONY TO
THE STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO IN THE CARTER CASE (P. 330) THAT
FREE COMPETITION HAD BEEN "DEGRADED INTO ANARCHY" IN THE BITUMINOUS
COAL INDUSTRY.  OVERPRODUCTION AND SAVAGE, COMPETITIVE WARFARE WASTED
THE INDUSTRY.  LABOR AND CAPITAL ALIKE WERE THE VICTIMS.  FINANCIAL
DISTRESS AMONG OPERATORS AND ACUTE POVERTY AMONG MINERS PREVAILED EVEN
DURING PERIODS OF GENERAL PROSPERITY.  THIS HISTORY OF THE BITUMINOUS
COAL INDUSTRY IS WRITTEN IN BLOOD AS WELL AS IN INK. 

IT WAS THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS THAT PRICE-FIXING AND THE ELIMINATION
OF UNFAIR COMPETITIVE PRACTICES WERE APPROPRIATE METHODS FOR PREVENTION
OF THE FINANCIAL RUIN, LOW WAGES, POOR WORKING CONDITIONS, STRIKES, AND
DISRUPTION OF THE CHANNELS OF TRADE WHICH FOLLOWED IN THE WAKE OF THE
DEMORALIZED PRICE STRUCTURES IN THIS INDUSTRY.  IF THE STRATEGIC
CHARACTER OF THIS INDUSTRY IN OUR ECONOMY AND THE CHAOTIC CONDITIONS
WHICH HAVE PREVAILED IN IT DO NOT JUSTIFY LEGISLATION, IT IS DIFFICULT
TO IMAGINE WHAT WOULD.  TO INVALIDATE THIS ACT WE WOULD HAVE TO DENY
THE EXISTENCE OF POWER ON THE PART OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE TO DEAL DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY WITH THOSE FORCES WHICH IN ITS
JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DISLOCATE AN IMPORTANT SEGMENT OF
OUR ECONOMY AND TO DISRUPT AND BURDEN INTERSTATE CHANNELS OF TRADE. 
THAT STEP COULD NOT BE TAKEN WITHOUT PLAIN DISREGARD OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THERE ARE LIMITS ON THE POWERS OF THE STATES TO ACT AS
RESPECTS THESE INTERSTATE INDUSTRIES.  BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC.,
SUPRA.  IF THE INDUSTRY ACTING ON ITS OWN HAD ENDEAVORED TO STABILIZE
THE MARKETS THROUGH PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS, IT WOULD HAVE RUN AFOUL OF
THE SHERMAN ACT.  UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., ANTE, P.
150.  BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS A NO MAN'S LAND BETWEEN THE
STATE AND FEDERAL DOMAINS.  CERTAINLY WHAT CONGRESS HAS FORBIDDEN BY
THE SHERMAN ACT IT CAN MODIFY.  IT MAY DO SO, BY PLACING THE MACHINERY
OF PRICE-FIXING IN THE HANDS OF PUBLIC AGENCIES.  IT MAY SINGLE OUT FOR
SEPARATE TREATMENT, AS IT HAS DONE ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS,  FN14  A
PARTICULAR INDUSTRY AND THEREBY REMOVE THE PENALTIES OF THE SHERMAN ACT
AS RESPECTS IT.  CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS NOT IMPOTENT TO
DEAL WITH WHAT IT MAY CONSIDER TO BE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF LAISSEZ
FAIRE.  IT IS NOT POWERLESS TO TAKE STEPS IN MITIGATION OF WHAT IN ITS
JUDGMENT ARE ABUSES OF CUT-THROAT COMPETITION.  AND IT IS NOT LIMITED
IN ITS CHOICE BETWEEN UNRESTRAINED SELF-REGULATION ON THE ONE HAND AND
RIGID PROHIBITIONS ON THE OTHER.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE EMPOWERS IT TO
UNDERTAKE STABILIZATION OF AN INTERSTATE INDUSTRY THROUGH A PROCESS OF
PRICE-FIXING WHICH SAFEGUARDS THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY PLACING PRICE
CONTROL IN THE HANDS OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REPRESENTATIVE.  UNITED
STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, SUPRA.  THAT WAS THE CHOICE WHICH
CONGRESS MADE HERE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CARTER CASE WHICH STANDS
IN THE WAY.  THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT IN THAT CASE DID NOT PASS ON THE
PRICE-FIXING FEATURES OF THE EARLIER ACT.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO IN SEPARATE MINORITY OPINIONS EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT
THE PRICE-FIXING FEATURES OF THE EARLIER ACT WERE CONSTITUTIONAL.  WE
REST ON THEIR CONCLUSIONS FOR SUSTAINING THE PRESENT ACT. 

NOR DOES THE ACT CONTAIN AN INVALID DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. 
UNDER SEC. 4, IIC) THE COMMISSION MAY FIX MAXIMUM PRICES WHEN IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IT DEEMS IT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER
AGAINST UNREASONABLY HIGH PRICES.  THESE MAXIMUM PRICES MUST BE FIXED
AT A UNIFORM INCREASE ABOVE MINIMUM PRICES SO THAT IN THE AGGREGATE
THEY WILL YIELD A REASONABLE RETURN ABOVE THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE TOTAL
COST OF THE DISTRICT.  AND NO MAXIMUM PRICE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR
ANY MINE WHICH WILL NOT YIELD A FAIR RETURN ON THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY.  THE MINIMUM PRICES TO BE FIXED MUST CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS:  THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST FOR EACH MINIMUM PRICE AREA MUST
BE COMPUTED, THE ELEMENTS OF COST BEING DEFINED; A CLASSIFICATION OF
THE VARIOUS SIZES AND GRADES OF COAL SHALL BE MADE WHICH REFLECTS AS
NEARLY AS POSSIBLE THE RELATIVE MARKET VALUE OF THE VARIOUS KINDS,
QUALITIES, AND SIZES OF COAL, WHICH IS JUST AND EQUITABLE AS BETWEEN
PRODUCERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND WHICH HAS DUE REGARD TO THE INTERESTS
OF THE CONSUMING PUBLIC; AND COORDINATED MINIMUM PRICES SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED FOR SUCH COAL (A) WHICH REFLECT AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE THE
RELATIVE MARKET VALUES AT POINTS OF DELIVERY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT
SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED FACTORS, (B) WHICH PRESERVE AS NEARLY AS MAY BE
EXISTING FAIR COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITIES, (C) WHICH ARE JUST AND
EQUITABLE AS BETWEEN THE DISTRICTS, AND (D) WHICH, CONSISTENTLY WITH
THE PROCESS OF COORDINATION, YIELD A RETURN TO EACH AREA APPROXIMATING
ITS WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST PER TON. 

THE PROBLEM OF FIXING REASONABLE PRICES FOR BITUMINOUS COAL CANNOT BE
DIFFERENTIATED LEGALLY FROM THE TASK OF FIXING RATES UNDER THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (41 STAT. 484, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15) AND THE
PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT (42 STAT. 166, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 211).  THE
LATTER PROVIDE THE STANDARD OF "JUST AND REASONABLE" TO GUIDE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IN THE RATE-MAKING PROCESS.  THE VALIDITY OF THAT
STANDARD (TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA), THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CRITERION OF THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" IN VARIOUS
CONTEXTS (NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S.
12, 24; UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1; AVENT V.
UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 127), THE LEGALITY OF THE STANDARD OF
"UNREASONABLE OBSTRUCTION" TO NAVIGATION (UNION BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 204 U.S. 364) ALL MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS A VALID
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE.  THE STANDARDS WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED HERE FAR EXCEED IN SPECIFICITY OTHERS WHICH HAVE BEEN
SUSTAINED.  CERTAINLY IN THE HANDS OF EXPERTS THE CRITERIA WHICH
CONGRESS HAS SUPPLIED ARE WHOLLY ADEQUATE FOR CARRYING OUT THE GENERAL
POLICY AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT.  TO REQUIRE MORE WOULD BE TO INSIST ON A
DEGREE OF EXACTITUDE WHICH NOT ONLY LACKS LEGAL NECESSITY BUT WHICH
DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. 
DELEGATION BY CONGRESS HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS NECESSARY IN ORDER
THAT THE EXERTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER DOES NOT BECOME A FUTILITY. 
CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 15 AND CASES CITED.  BUT THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES
WOULD BECOME ENDANGERED IF CONGRESS WERE UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMPULSION OF FILLING IN THE DETAILS BEYOND THE LIBERAL PRESCRIPTION
HERE.  THEN THE BURDENS OF MINUTIAE WOULD BE APT TO CLOG THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW AND DEPRIVE THE AGENCY OF THAT FLEXIBILITY
AND DISPATCH WHICH ARE ITS SALIENT VIRTUES.  FOR THESE REASONS WE HOLD
THAT THE STANDARDS WITH WHICH CONGRESS HAS SUPPLIED THE COMMISSION ARE
PLAINLY VALID.  UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, SUPRA. 

NOR HAS CONGRESS DELEGATED ITS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE
INDUSTRY.  THE MEMBERS OF THE CODE FUNCTION SUBORDINATELY TO THE
COMMISSION.  IT, NOT THE CODE AUTHORITIES, DETERMINES THE PRICES.  AND
IT HAS AUTHORITY AND SURVEILLANCE OVER THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE
AUTHORITIES.  SINCE LAW-MAKING IS NOT ENTRUSTED TO THE INDUSTRY, THIS
STATUTORY SCHEME IS UNQUESTIONABLY VALID.  CURRIN V. WALLACE, SUPRA,
AND CASES CITED. 

BUT APPELLANT MAINTAINS THAT THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHAT COAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ACT IS UNLAWFUL
BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF BITUMINOUS COAL. 
SEC. 17(B) DEFINES THE TERM "BITUMINOUS COAL" AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE TERM 'BITUMINOUS COAL' INCLUDES ALL BITUMINOUS, SEMIBITUMINOUS,
AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL AND SHALL EXCLUDE LIGNITE, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A
LIGNITIC COAL HAVING CALORIFIC VALUE IN BRITISH THERMAL UNITS OF LESS
THAN SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PER POUND AND HAVING A NATURAL MOISTURE
CONTENT IN PLACE IN THE MINE OF 30 PER CENTUM OR MORE." 

AS IN THE CASE OF THE TERM "INTERURBAN" ELECTRIC RAILWAY IN THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT (SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177)
WE THINK THE DEFINITION OF BITUMINOUS COAL IS WHOLLY ADEQUATE AS A
STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A
CHEMIST'S OR AN ENGINEER'S DEFINITION IS NOT FATAL.  THE DEFINITION IS
NOT DEVOID OF MEANING.  WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT IT CANNOT BE APPLIED
SO AS TO DELINEATE THE AREAS IN WHICH CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE THIS
SYSTEM OF CONTROL EFFECTIVE.  THE FACT THAT MANY INSTANCES MAY OCCUR
WHERE ITS APPLICATION MAY BE DIFFICULT IS MERELY TO EMPHASIZE THE
NATURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM AND THE REASON FOR THE GRANT OF
LATITUDE BY THE CONGRESS.  THE DIFFICULTY OR IMPOSSIBILITY OF DRAWING A
STATUTORY LINE IS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR SUPPLYING MERELY A STATUTORY
GUIDE.  CF. PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 299, 312.  THAT GUIDE IS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE FOR
AN INTELLIGENT DETERMINATION OF THE ULTIMATE QUESTIONS OF FACT BY
EXPERTS. 

NOR IS THERE AN INVALID DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL POWER.  TO HOLD THAT
THERE WAS WOULD BE TO TURN BACK THE CLOCK ON AT LEAST A HALF CENTURY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.  THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT APPELLANT SHOULD BE
SUBJECTED TO THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT WAS
ONE WHICH THE CONGRESS COULD DECIDE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  IN LIEU OF MAKING THAT DECISION ITSELF, IT COULD
BRING TO ITS AID THE SERVICES OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  AND IT
COULD DELEGATE TO THAT AGENCY THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION OF FACT
WHETHER A PARTICULAR COAL PRODUCER FELL WITHIN THE ACT.  SHIELDS V.
UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA, P. 180.  THE FACT THAT SUCH
DETERMINATION INVOLVED AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "BITUMINOUS COAL"
IS OF NO MORE SIGNIFICANCE HERE THAN WAS THE FACT THAT IN THE SHIELDS
CASE A DECISION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF WHAT
CONSTITUTED AN "INTERURBAN" ELECTRIC RAILWAY WAS NECESSARY FOR THE
ULTIMATE FINDING AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT TO
CARRIERS.  THAT PROBLEM INVOLVES NO MORE THAN THE ADEQUACY OF THE
STANDARD GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THE DELEGATED AUTHORITY. 
FURTHERMORE, ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE, APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED ALL THE
JUDICIAL REVIEW TO WHICH IT IS ENTITLED.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, IT OBTAINED
A REVIEW UNDER SEC. 6(B) OF THE COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ITS APPLICATION
FOR EXEMPTION.  THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURTS CEASE WHEN IT IS
ASCERTAINED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION MEET THE STATUTORY
TEST.  ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 146. 

APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE STATUTORY CLASSIFICATION OF COAL INTO
CODE AND NON-CODE CLASSES AND THE APPLICATION OF THE 19 1/2% TAX TO THE
LATTER ARE IMPROPER UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  ITS OBJECTION IS NOT
PREMISED ON LACK OF DUE PROCESS.  NOR COULD IT BE IN VIEW OF THE
ELABORATE MACHINERY AND PROCEDURE FOR THE ACT'S ENFORCEMENT WHICH THE
CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED.  RATHER APPELLANT'S OBJECTION IS FOUNDED ON ITS
CLAIM OF DISCRIMINATION.  BUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, UNLIKE THE
FOURTEENTH, HAS NO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V.
DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 584 AND CASES CITED.  AND THERE IS "NO REQUIREMENT
OF UNIFORMITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMERCE POWER."  CURRIN V.
WALLACE, SUPRA, P. 14.  THE LACK OF SIMILARITY IN TREATMENT OF THE TWO
CLASSES OF COAL IS AN INTEGRAL AND ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF THIS ACT.  AS
WE HAVE SAID, IT IS THROUGH THAT DEVICE THAT CONGRESS SOUGHT TO OBTAIN
AN EFFECTIVE SANCTION FOR THE ACT'S ENFORCEMENT.  COERCION IS THE VERY
ESSENCE OF ANY PENALTY EXACTED FOR FAILURE OF SUBMISSION.  "IT IS OF
THE ESSENCE OF THE PLENARY POWER CONFERRED" BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
"THAT CONGRESS MAY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN THE USE OF THE POWER." 
CURRIN V. WALLACE, SUPRA, P. 14.  A PART OF THAT DISCRETION IS THE
SELECTION OF THE SANCTION FOR THE LAW'S ENFORCEMENT.  DISCRIMINATION
CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY BE THE PRICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE.  "INQUIRY INTO THE
HIDDEN MOTIVES WHICH MAY MOVE CONGRESS TO EXERCISE A POWER
CONSTITUTIONALLY CONFERRED UPON IT IS BEYOND THE COMPETENCY OF
COURTS."  SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 513-514.  AND SEE
MULFORD V. SMITH, SUPRA, P. 48. 

III.  APPELLANT CONTENDS HERE, AS IT DID BELOW, THAT SUNSHINE
ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION, SUPRA, IS
NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE PRESENT ISSUES SINCE THAT CASE DID NOT INVOLVE
THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES AND SINCE THE COMMISSION HAD NO AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE THE STATUS OF APPELLANT'S COAL. 

THESE CONTENTIONS ARE UNTENABLE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE IS MERELY THE AGENCY TO COLLECT TAXES
LEVIED UNDER THE ACT; HE IS NOT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT WHOM CONGRESS
HAS DESIGNATED TO DETERMINE WHAT COAL IS EXEMPT FROM THE 19 1/2% TAX. 
THAT FUNCTION IS ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION.  BY THE TERMS OF SEC. 4-A
IT IS THE COMMISSION WHICH DETERMINES WHETHER AN APPLICATION FOR
EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED OR DENIED.  BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3(B)
IT IS THE COMMISSION WHICH CERTIFIES TO THE COMMISSIONER THOSE WHO ARE
CODE MEMBERS AND CONSEQUENTLY EXEMPT FROM THE 19 1/2% TAX.  HENCE THE
COMMISSION DETERMINES THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THEIR
APPLICABILITY TO VARIOUS PRODUCERS.  THE COMMISSIONER IS GIVEN NO
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS WHATSOEVER EXCEPT TAX COLLECTION.  IN THE
SECOND PLACE, THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IN EACH OF THESE TWO SUITS IS THE
SAME.  IN SUNSHINE ANTHRACITE COAL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL
COMMISSION, SUPRA, THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT APPELLANT'S COAL WAS
"BITUMINOUS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 17(B).  WHEN THAT ISSUE WAS
DECIDED ADVERSELY TO APPELLANT, LIABILITY FOR THE 19 1/2% TAX FOLLOWED
UNLESS APPELLANT JOINED THE CODE, IN WHICH EVENT IT WOULD BE ENTITLED
TO A CERTIFICATE FROM THE COMMISSION EVIDENCING ITS TAX EXEMPTION.  IN
THE PRESENT SUIT, APPELLANT IS SEEKING TO RAISE THE IDENTICAL ISSUE,
SINCE ITS PURPOSE IS TO ENJOIN COLLECTION OF THE SELF-SAME TAX. 

THE RESULT IS CLEAR.  WHERE THE ISSUES IN SEPARATE SUITS ARE THE
SAME, THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES ARE NOT PRECISELY IDENTICAL IS NOT
NECESSARILY FATAL.  AS STATED IN CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V.
SCHENDEL, 270 U.S. 611, 620, "IDENTITY OF PARTIES IS NOT A MERE MATTER
OF FORM, BUT OF SUBSTANCE.  PARTIES NOMINALLY THE SAME MAY BE, IN LEGAL
EFFECT, DIFFERENT,  ...  AND PARTIES NOMINALLY DIFFERENT MAY BE, IN
LEGAL EFFECT, THE SAME."  A JUDGMENT IS RES JUDICATA IN A SECOND ACTION
UPON THE SAME CLAIM BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES OR THOSE IN PRIVITY WITH
THEM.  CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, 94 U.S. 351.  THERE IS PRIVITY
BETWEEN OFFICERS OF THE SAME GOVERNMENT SO THAT A JUDGMENT IN A SUIT
BETWEEN A PARTY AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES IS RES
JUDICATA IN RELITIGATION OF THE SAME ISSUE BETWEEN THAT PARTY AND
ANOTHER OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT.  SEE TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY.
CO., 289 U.S. 620.  THE CRUCIAL POINT IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE EARLIER
LITIGATION THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES HAD AUTHORITY TO
REPRESENT ITS INTERESTS IN A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN
CONTROVERSY.  CF. GUNTER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 200 U.S. 273,
284-289.  CASES HOLDING THAT A JUDGMENT IN A SUIT AGAINST A COLLECTOR
FOR UNLAWFUL EXACTION IS NOT A BAR TO A SUBSEQUENT SUIT BY OR AGAINST
THE COMMISSIONER OR THE UNITED STATES (SAGE V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S.
33; BANKERS POCAHONTAS COAL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 308) ARE NOT IN
POINT, SINCE THE SUIT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR IS "PERSONAL AND ITS
INCIDENTS, SUCH AS THE NATURE OF THE DEFENSES OPEN AND THE ALLOWANCE OF
INTEREST, ARE DIFFERENT."  SAGE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 37.  BUT
HERE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION IS CLEAR.  THERE CAN BE NO
QUESTION THAT IT WAS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS
OF APPELLANT'S COAL UNDER THE ACT.  IT REPRESENTED THE UNITED STATES IN
THAT DETERMINATION AND THE DELEGATION OF THAT POWER TO THE COMMISSION
WAS VALID, AS WE HAVE SAID.  THAT SUIT THEREFORE BOUND THE UNITED
STATES, AS WELL AS THE APPELLANT.  WHERE A SUIT BINDS THE UNITED
STATES, IT BINDS ITS SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS.  TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND
RY. CO., SUPRA.  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DOES
NOT APPLY UNLESS THE COURT RENDERING THE JUDGMENT HAD JURISDICTION OF
THE CAUSE IS SUFFICIENTLY ANSWERED BY STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165
AND TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO., 308 U.S. 66.  AS HELD IN THOSE
CASES, IN GENERAL THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA APPLY TO QUESTIONS OF
JURISDICTION AS WELL AS TO OTHER MATTERS - WHETHER IT BE JURISDICTION
OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OR OF THE PARTIES.  ACCORDINGLY THE LOWER COURT
CORRECTLY HELD THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER
APPELLANT'S COAL WAS "BITUMINOUS" AS DEFINED IN THE ACT.  FURTHERMORE
WHERE, AS HERE, CONGRESS HAS CREATED A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF PERSONS OR COMPANIES UNDER A
REGULATORY ACT AND HAS PRESCRIBED A PROCEDURE WHICH MEETS ALL
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS, THAT REMEDY IS EXCLUSIVE.  SEE ANNISTON
MANUFACTURING CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337. 

THE DECREE BELOW SUBJECTED APPELLANT TO PAYMENT OF TAXES ACCRUED OR
ASSESSED AGAINST IT UNDER SEC. 3(B) AFTER DECEMBER 4, 1939.  TO RELIEVE
AGAINST PAYMENT OF TAXES UNTIL FINAL TERMINATION OF THE LITIGATION
WOULD BE TO PUT A PREMIUM ON DILATORY TACTICS IN A SITUATION WHERE
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CURRIN V. WALLACE, MULFORD V. SMITH, AND UNITED
STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, SUPRA, THE SUBJECT OF THE ACT WAS
CLEARLY ONE OVER WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS WAS COMPLETE. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  H. REPORT NO. 294, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 2-3. 

FN2  THOUGH WE REFER THROUGHOUT TO THE COMMISSION, IT SHOULD BE NOTED
THAT ITS FUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED SINCE JULY 1, 1939, BY THE
BITUMINOUS COAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. 
REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. II, SEC. 4(A) AND (B), SUBMITTED BY THE
PRESIDENT TO THE CONGRESS MAY 9, 1939.  PUB. RES. NO. 20, 76TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., C. 193, APPROVED JUNE 7, 1939. 

FN3  THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOW FOUND IN SEC. 3520 OF THE INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE.  (53 STAT. 430).  THE 1[ TAX WAS APPARENTLY DESIGNED TO
COVER THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE ACT.  SEE H. REPORT NO. 294,
SUPRA NOTE 1, PP. 2-3, RECOMMENDING A 1/2% TAX WHICH IN CONFERENCE WAS
CHANGED TO 1[ PER TON.  H. REPORT NO. 578, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
5. 

FN4  SEC. 4, AS WE HAVE SEEN, GOVERNS THE CONSTITUTION AND OPERATION
OF THE CODE.  SEC. 4-A PROVIDES, INTER ALIA, THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL
SUBJECT COAL IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4 IF IT
FINDS AFTER HEARING THAT TRANSACTIONS IN THAT COAL "CAUSE ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGE, PREFERENCE, OR PREJUDICE AS BETWEEN PERSONS AND
LOCALITIES IN SUCH COMMERCE ON THE ONE HAND AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
COAL ON THE OTHER HAND, OR ANY UNDUE, UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN COAL, OR IN ANY MANNER
DIRECTLY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN COAL." 

FN5  SEC. 17(B) PROVIDES:  "THE TERM 'BITUMINOUS COAL' INCLUDES ALL
BITUMINOUS, SEMIBITUMINOUS, AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL AND SHALL EXCLUDE
LIGNITE, WHICH IS DEFINED AS A LIGNITIC COAL HAVING CALORIFIC VALUE IN
BRITISH THERMAL UNITS OF LESS THAN SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PER POUND
AND HAVING A NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT IN PLACE IN THE MINE OF 30 PER
CENTUM OR MORE." 

FN6  THIS HEARING WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO APPELLANT'S APPLICATION. 
OTHER PRODUCERS IN THE SAME FIELD INTERVENED. 

FN7  THE LIBERAL NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AFFORDED
APPELLANT ARE ILLUSTRATED BY THE FOLLOWING:  IN JANUARY 1938 THE REPORT
OF THE EXAMINER WAS SERVED ON APPELLANT.  IN MAY 1938 A PROPOSED REPORT
OF THE COMMISSION WAS ISSUED GIVING APPELLANT 30 DAYS TO FILE
EXCEPTIONS AND BRIEFS AND IN THAT EVENT TO APPLY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. 
APPELLANT FILED EXCEPTIONS AND ASKED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.  NOTICE OF ORAL
ARGUMENT WAS ISSUED AND ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HAD.  THEREAFTER THE
COMMISSION ISSUED ITS ORDER DENYING THE APPLICATION.    FN8  IT
GRANTED, HOWEVER, A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST COLLECTION OF TAXES
PRIOR TO DECEMBER 4, 1939 THE DATE ON WHICH THIS COURT DENIED A
PETITION FOR REHEARING ON THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  308 U.S. 638. 
APPELLEE HAS NOT APPEALED FROM THAT PART OF THE DECREE.  THE COURT ALSO
GRANTED A STAY WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTION OF TAXES ACCRUING AFTER
DECEMBER 4, 1939, PENDING FINAL DISPOSITION OF THIS APPEAL. 

FN9  H. REPORT, NO. 294, SUPRA NOTE 1, STATES CONCERNING THIS TAX (P.
4):  "UNDER SUBSECTION (B) A TAX OF 19 1/2 PERCENT IS APPLIED TO COAL
WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 4 OR THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 4A.  PRODUCERS WHO ARE CODE MEMBERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS
TAX.  THIS TAX IS INTENDED TO BE IN AID OF THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN COAL PROVIDED FOR IN SECTIONS 4 AND 4A." 

FN10  NATIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, ENERGY RESOURCES AND NATIONAL
POLICY (1939) PP. 41-123, 338-346, 405-423. 

FN11 HEARINGS ON H.R. 8479, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN12  NATIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, ENERGY RESOURCES AND NATIONAL
POLICY, SUPRA NOTE 10; H. REP. NO. 1800, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
COVERING THE 1935 ACT; S. REP. NO. 252, H. REP. NO. 294, 75TH CONG.,
1ST SESS., COVERING THE 1937 ACT; APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 344; THIRD ANNUAL REPORT UNDER THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT
OF 1937(1940), PP. 4-5. 

FN13  HAMILTON & WRIGHT, THE CASE OF BITUMINOUS COAL (1926); REPORT
OF THE FIFTEENTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE NATIONAL COAL ASSOC., OCT. 1934,
PP. 9-11, 96-97. 

FN14  SEE UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., SUPRA, P. 225. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE ACT UNDER REVIEW IS
BEYOND ANY POWER GRANTED TO CONGRESS AND THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD
BE REVERSED. 
..END :



















ANDERSON V. HELVERING, 310 U.S. 404 


NO. 682.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 20, 1940.  - 107 F.2D
459, AFFIRMED. 


OIL PROPERTIES, INCLUDING FEE INTERESTS, WERE SOLD FOR A SPECIFIED
MONEY CONSIDERATION PAYABLE PART IN CASH AND THE BALANCE, WITH
INTEREST, FROM ONE-HALF OF THE PROCEEDS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE VENDEE
FROM THE OIL AND GAS TO BE PRODUCED FROM THE PROPERTIES AND FROM THE
SALE BY HIM OF THE FEE OF ANY OR ALL OF THE LAND CONVEYED.  THE VENDOR
WAS TO HAVE A FIRST LIEN AND CLAIM AGAINST THE ONE-HALF OF OIL AND GAS
PRODUCTION AND FEE INTERESTS FROM WHICH THE BALANCE WAS PAYABLE.  THE
PROCEEDS FROM PRODUCTION AND SALES WERE TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE VENDEE,
WHO WAS TO DEPOSIT ONE-HALF TO THE CREDIT OF THE VENDOR.  THE AGREEMENT
RECITED THE VENDOR'S DESIRE TO SELL ALL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES; AND
IMMEDIATELY UPON ITS EXECUTION THEY WERE CONVEYED TO THE VENDEE WITHOUT
RESERVATION.  HELD THAT THE PART OF THE GROSS PROCEEDS WHICH THE VENDEE
RECEIVED FROM PRODUCTION AND SALE OF OIL FROM THE PROPERTIES, AND PAID
OVER TO THE VENDOR PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT, SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
GROSS INCOME OF THE VENDEE, IN COMPUTING HIS INCOME TAX UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  P. 407. 

ANDERSON V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 683, PRICHARD V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 645, TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 645, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A RULING OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OKLAHOMA CITY COMPANY IN 1931 OWNED CERTAIN ROYALTY INTERESTS, FEE
INTERESTS, AND DEFERRED OIL PAYMENTS IN PROPERTIES IN OKLAHOMA.  DURING
THAT YEAR IT ENTERED INTO A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH PETITIONER PRICHARD
PROVIDING FOR THE CONVEYANCE TO HIM OF THESE INTERESTS FOR THE AGREED
CONSIDERATION OF ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, PAYABLE FIFTY
THOUSAND IN CASH AND ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND FROM ONE-HALF OF THE
PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY HIM WHICH MIGHT BE DERIVED FROM OIL AND GAS
PRODUCED FROM THE PROPERTIES AND FROM THE SALE OF FEE TITLE TO ANY OR
ALL OF THE LAND CONVEYED.  INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM WAS TO
BE PAID FROM THE PROCEEDS OF PRODUCTION AND OF SALES UPON THE UNPAID
BALANCE.  OKLAHOMA COMPANY WAS TO HAVE IN ADDITION A FIRST LIEN AND
CLAIM AGAINST "THAT ONE HALF OF ALL OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND FEE
INTEREST  ...  FROM WHICH THE $110,000 IS PAYABLE," THE LIEN AND CLAIM
"NOT IN ANY WAY (TO) AFFECT THE ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL AND GAS
PRODUCTION AND FEE INTEREST OR THE REVENUE THEREFROM WHICH  ...  (IT)
IS TO HAVE AND RECEIVE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT."  THE PROCEEDS DERIVED
FROM THE OIL AND GAS PRODUCED AND FROM SALES OF THE FEE INTERESTS WERE
TO BE PAID DIRECTLY TO PRICHARD WHO WAS TO DEPOSIT ONE-HALF OF THEM AT
A DESIGNATED BANK, AT INTERVALS OF 90 DAYS, TO THE CREDIT OF OKLAHOMA
COMPANY.  THE AGREEMENT RECITED THAT OKLAHOMA COMPANY DESIRED "TO SELL
ALL OF ITS RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST OF WHATSOEVER NATURE" IN THE
DESCRIBED PROPERTIES, AND PROVIDED THAT A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT AND A
RELEASE BE PLACED IN ESCROW FOR DELIVERY TO PRICHARD UPON PAYMENT IN
FULL OF THE ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND INTEREST.  IMMEDIATELY
UPON THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT THE PROPERTIES WERE CONVEYED TO
PRICHARD WITHOUT RESERVATION.  FN1  IN ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT
PRICHARD ACTED NOT ONLY FOR HIMSELF BUT ALSO FOR PETITIONER ANDERSON,
EACH OF THEM HAVING A 45% INTEREST.  FN2 

THE GROSS PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF OIL FROM
THE PROPERTIES  FN3  DURING 1932 AMOUNTED TO SOME EIGHTY-ONE THOUSAND
DOLLARS.  PRICHARD, UPON RECEIVING THIS SUM, DISTRIBUTED ONE-HALF TO
OKLAHOMA COMPANY PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION
IS WHETHER THE PROCEEDS THUS PAID OVER TO OKLAHOMA COMPANY SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE GROSS INCOME OF PETITIONERS FOR THE TAX YEAR 1932.  FN4
THE RULING OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AGAINST PETITIONERS WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  107 F.2D 459.  BECAUSE OF AN
ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  MARCH 4, 1940. 

IT IS SETTLED THAT THE SAME BASIC ISSUE DETERMINES BOTH TO WHOM
INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS IS TAXABLE AND TO
WHOM A DEDUCTION FOR DEPLETION IS ALLOWABLE.  THAT ISSUE IS, WHO HAS A
CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE AND WHAT IS THE EXTENT
OF HIS INTEREST.  HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., 303 U.S. 362, 367;
HELVERING V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 370; HELVERING V. ELBE OIL CO., 303
U.S. 372; THOMAS V. PERKINS, 301 U.S. 655, 661, 663; HELVERING V. TWIN
BELL OIL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, 321; PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551. 
COMPARE HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331. 

OIL AND GAS RESERVES LIKE OTHER MINERALS IN PLACE, ARE RECOGNIZED AS
WASTING ASSETS.  THE PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS, LIKE THE MINING OF ORE,
IS TREATED AS AN INCOMEPRODUCING OPERATION, NOT AS A CONVERSION OF
CAPITAL INVESTMENT AS UPON A SALE, AND IS SAID TO RESEMBLE A
MANUFACTURING BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE USE OF THE SOIL.  BURNET V.
HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 106-107; BANKERS COAL CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S.
308; UNITED STATES V. BIWABIK MINING CO., 247 U.S. 116; VON BAUMBACH V.
SARGENT LAND CO., 242 U.S. 503, 521, 522; STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE V.
HOWBERT, 231 U.S. 399, 414.  THE DEPLETION EFFECTED BY PRODUCTION IS
LIKENED TO THE DEPRECIATION OF MACHINERY OR THE USING UP OF RAW
MATERIALS IN MANUFACTURING.  UNITED STATES V. LUDEY, 274 U.S. 295, 302
303; LYNCH V. ALWORTH-STEPHENS CO., 267 U.S. 364, 370.  COMPARE VON
BAUMBACH V. SARGENT LAND CO., SUPRA, AT 524-525.  THE DEDUCTION IS
THEREFORE PERMITTED AS AN ACT OF GRACE AND IS INTENDED AS COMPENSATION
FOR THE CAPITAL ASSETS CONSUMED IN THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME THROUGH THE
SEVERANCE OF THE MINERALS.  HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., 303 U.S.
362, 366-367.  THE GRANTING OF AN ARBITRARY DEDUCTION, IN THE INTERESTS
OF CONVENIENCE, OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE
SEVERANCE OF OIL AND GAS, MERELY EMPHASIZES THE UNDERLYING THEORY OF
THE ALLOWANCE AS A TAX-FREE RETURN OF THE CAPITAL CONSUMED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF GROSS INCOME THROUGH SEVERANCE.  HELVERING V. TWIN BELL
OIL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, 321; UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA-MONTANA OIL
CO., 288 U.S. 459, 467. 

THE SOLE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF OIL PROPERTIES CLEARLY HAS A CAPITAL
INVESTMENT IN THE OIL IN PLACE, IF ANYONE HAS, AND SO IS TAXABLE ON THE
GROSS PROCEEDS OF PRODUCTION AND IS GRANTED A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS
INCOME AS COMPENSATION FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF HIS CAPITAL.  SEE BURNET
V. HARMEL, SUPRA, AT 107-108; HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331.  BY
AN OUTRIGHT SALE OF HIS INTEREST FOR CASH, SUCH AN OWNER CONVERTS THE
FORM OF HIS CAPITAL INVESTMENT, SEVERS HIS CONNECTION WITH THE
PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS AND THE INCOME DERIVED FROM PRODUCTION, AND
THUS RENDERS INAPPLICABLE TO HIS SITUATION THE REASONS FOR THE
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE.  "THE WORDS 'GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY,' AS
USED IN THE STATUTE GOVERNING THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION, MEAN GROSS
INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE OIL AND GAS WELLS BY ONE WHO
HAS A CAPITAL INVESTMENT THEREIN, - NOT INCOME FROM THE SALE OF THE OIL
AND GAS PROPERTIES THEMSELVES."  HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND CO., 303
U.S. 372, 375-376. 

OTHER SITUATIONS, FALLING BETWEEN THE TWO MENTIONED, HAVE BEEN PUT ON
ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER AS THE CASES AROSE.  THE HOLDER OF A ROYALTY
INTEREST - THAT IS, A RIGHT TO RECEIVE A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF ALL
OIL AND GAS PRODUCED DURING THE TERM OF THE LEASE - IS DEEMED TO HAVE
"AN ECONOMIC INTEREST" IN THE OIL IN PLACE WHICH IS DEPLETED BY
SEVERANCE.  PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 557; MURPHY OIL CO. V.
BURNET, 287 U.S. 299; BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103.  SEE LYNCH V.
ALWORTH-STEPHENS CO., 267 U.S. 364.  CASH BONUS PAYMENTS, WHEN INCLUDED
IN A ROYALTY LEASE, ARE REGARDED AS ADVANCE ROYALTIES, AND ARE GIVEN
THE SAME TAX CONSEQUENCES.  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103; MURPHY OIL
CO. V. BURNET, 287 U.S. 299; BANKERS POCAHONTAS COAL CO. V. BURNET, 287
U.S. 308.  COMPARE HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND CO., 303 U.S. 372, 375. 
A SHARE IN THE NET PROFITS DERIVED FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION, ON
THE CONTRARY, DOES NOT ENTITLE THE HOLDER OF SUCH INTEREST TO A
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE EVEN THOUGH CONTINUED PRODUCTION IS ESSENTIAL TO
THE REALIZATION OF SUCH PROFITS.  HELVERING V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 370;
HELVERING V. ELBE OIL CO., 303 U.S. 372.  SIMILARLY, THE HOLDER OF A
FAVORABLE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE WET GAS AT THE MOUTH OF THE WELL IS
DENIED A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT
PRICE AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE.  HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., 303
U.S. 362.  SUCH AN INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY US AS A "MERE
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE DERIVED FROM PRODUCTION, THROUGH A CONTRACTUAL
RELATION TO THE OWNER."  HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., SUPRA, AT 367. 

THOMAS V. PERKINS, 301 U.S. 655, RELIED UPON BY PETITIONERS,
PRESENTED THE ISSUE WHETHER THE RIGHT TO OIL PAYMENTS - THAT IS, THE
RIGHT TO A SPECIFIED SUM OF MONEY, PAYABLE OUT OF A SPECIFIED
PERCENTAGE OF THE OIL, OR THE PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF SUCH
OIL, IF, AS AND WHEN PRODUCED - SHOULD BE TREATED FOR TAX PURPOSES LIKE
THE RIGHT TO OIL ROYALTIES OR LIKE THE RIGHT TO CASH PAYMENTS UPON A
SALE.  IN THAT CASE, THE ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE PROVIDED FOR PAYMENTS IN
OIL ONLY WITHOUT THE RESERVATION OF A ROYALTY INTEREST.  THE QUESTION
WAS WHETHER THE ASSIGNEES' GROSS INCOME SHOULD INCLUDE MONEYS PAID TO
THE ASSIGNORS BY PURCHASERS OF THE OIL.  WE STATED (P. 659): "THE
GRANTING CLAUSE IN THE ASSIGNMENT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT, IF STANDING
ALONE, TO TRANSFER ALL THE OIL TO THE ASSIGNEE.  IT DOES NOT
SPECIFICALLY EXCEPT OR EXCLUDE ANY PART OF THE OIL.  BUT IT IS
QUALIFIED BY OTHER PARTS OF THE INSTRUMENT.  THE PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENT
TO ASSIGNORS IN OIL ONLY, THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBLIGATION OF THE ASSIGNEE
TO PAY IN OIL OR IN MONEY, AND THE FAILURE OF ASSIGNORS TO TAKE ANY
SECURITY BY WAY OF LIEN OR OTHERWISE UNMISTAKABLY SHOW THAT THEY
INTENDED TO WITHHOLD FROM THE OPERATION OF THE GRANT ONEFOURTH OF THE
OIL TO BE PRODUCED AND SAVED UP TO AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT WHEN SOLD TO
YIELD $395,000."  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MONEYS RECEIVED BY THE
ASSIGNORS FROM THE SALE OF THE OIL WERE DEEMED NOT TO BE INCOME TO THE
ASSIGNEES.  SEE ALSO PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551. 

THE HOLDER OF AN OIL PAYMENT RIGHT, AS AN ORIGINAL PROPOSITION, MIGHT
BE REGARDED AS HAVING NO CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE OIL AND GAS IN
PLACE.  THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT, EVEN THOUGH DEPENDENT UPON THE EXTENT
OF THE OIL RESERVES, IS FIXED AT THE MOMENT OF CREATION AND DOES NOT
VARY DIRECTLY WITH THE SEVERANCE OF THE MINERAL FROM THE SOIL.  IN THIS
SENSE IT RESEMBLES THE RIGHT TO CASH PAYMENTS MORE CLOSELY THAN THE
RIGHT TO ROYALTY PAYMENTS.  YET IT DOES DEPEND UPON THE PRODUCTION OF
OIL, ORDINARILY CAN BE REALIZED UPON ONLY OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, AND
PERMITS OF A SIMPLE AND CONVENIENT ALLOCATION BETWEEN LESSOR AND LESSEE
OF BOTH THE GROSS INCOME DERIVED FROM PRODUCTION AND THE ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPLETION.  COMPARE BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 106-107. 
ACCORDINGLY, THIS COURT IN THOMAS V. PERKINS DECIDED THAT THE PROVISION
IN THE LEASE FOR PAYMENTS SOLELY OUT OF OIL PRODUCTION SHOULD BE
REGARDED AS A RESERVATION FROM THE GRANTING CLAUSE OF AN AMOUNT OF OIL
SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE AGREED PAYMENTS, AND SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME
TAX CONSEQUENCES AS A PROVISION FOR OIL ROYALTIES.  THE DECISION DID
NOT TURN UPON THE PARTICULAR INSTRUMENT INVOLVED, OR UPON THE
FORMALITIES OF THE CONVEYANCER'S ART, BUT RESTED UPON THE PRACTICAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS OF THAT TYPE.  SEE PALMER V.
BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 555-557; BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 111. 

THE GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE
FROM THOMAS V. PERKINS FOR THE REASON THAT THE BASIS FOR DECISION THERE
WAS THAT OWNERSHIP OF SUFFICIENT OIL TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS HAD NOT BEEN
CONVEYED TO THE ASSIGNEE BUT REMAINED IN THE ASSIGNOR.  IT ASSERTS THAT
THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF CONVEYANCE HERE
NEGATIVE ANY INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE PARTIES TO WITHHOLD FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE GRANT AN AMOUNT OF OIL EQUAL TO THE OIL PAYMENTS.  THE
FOLLOWING FACTORS, AMONG OTHERS, ARE RELIED UPON AS SUPPORTING THIS
CONTENTION:  (1) THE CONTRACT CONTAINS NO QUALIFYING LANGUAGE RESERVING
FROM THE GRANT ANY INTEREST IN THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE; (2) THE
DEFERRED PAYMENTS OF ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS WERE PAYABLE IN
CASH AND NOT DIRECTLY IN OIL; (3) THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS DREW INTEREST
UNTIL PAID; (4) OKLAHOMA COMPANY HAD A FIRST LIEN AND CLAIM AGAINST ONE
HALF OF THE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND FEE INTEREST; (5) PETITIONER
PRICHARD HAD THE RIGHT TO SELL THE FEE INTEREST COVERED BY THE CONTRACT
AND DISCHARGE THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH SALE
RATHER THAN OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION. 

SEVERAL OF THE DISTINCTIONS URGED UPON US BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE
WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE TRANSACTION ARE
NOT MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE PROVISION FOR OIL
PAYMENTS IS NOT PHRASED IN TERMS OF A RESERVATION FROM THE CONVEYANCE
TO OKLAHOMA COMPANY OF AN INTEREST IN THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE.  AND
THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS TO OKLAHOMA COMPANY ARE IN CASH RATHER THAN
DIRECTLY IN OIL IS OF NO MOMENT IN DETERMINING THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR
DECISION.  COMPARE, HOWEVER, GENERAL UTILITIES CO. V. HELVERING, 296
U.S. 200.  SIMILARLY, THE RETENTION OF A LIEN, IF IT WERE CONSTRUED AS
A LIEN ONLY UPON THE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION, AND NOTHING MORE,  FN5
WOULD NOT MAKE OKLAHOMA COMPANY ANY THE LESS DEPENDENT UPON SUCH
PRODUCTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS RESERVED. 

THE RESERVATION OF AN INTEREST IN THE FEE, IN ADDITION TO THE
INTEREST IN THE OIL PRODUCTION, HOWEVER, MATERIALLY AFFECTS THE
TRANSACTION.  OKLAHOMA COMPANY IS NOT DEPENDENT ENTIRELY UPON THE
PRODUCTION OF OIL FOR THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS; THEY MAY BE DERIVED FROM
SALES OF THE FEE TITLE TO THE LAND CONVEYED.  IT IS CLEAR THAT PAYMENTS
DERIVED FROM SUCH SALES WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO AN ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPLETION OF THE OIL RESERVES, FOR NO OIL WOULD THEREBY HAVE BEEN
SEVERED FROM THE GROUND; AN ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION UPON THE PROCEEDS
OF SUCH A SALE WOULD RESULT, CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS, IN A
DOUBLE DEDUCTION - FIRST, TO OKLAHOMA COMPANY; SECOND, TO THE VENDEE
OWNER UPON THE PRODUCTION OF OIL.  HELVERING V. TWIN BELL OIL
SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, 321.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE RESERVATION
OF THIS ADDITIONAL TYPE OF SECURITY FOR THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS SERVES TO
DISTINGUISH THIS CASE FROM THOMAS V. PERKINS.  IT IS SIMILAR TO THE
RESERVATION IN A LEASE OF OIL PAYMENT RIGHTS TOGETHER WITH A PERSONAL
GUARANTEE BY THE LESSEE THAT SUCH PAYMENTS SHALL AT ALL EVENTS EQUAL
THE SPECIFIED SUM.  IN EITHER CASE, IT IS TRUE, SOME OF THE PAYMENTS
RECEIVED MAY COME DIRECTLY OUT OF THE OIL PRODUCED.  BUT OUR DECISION
IN THOMAS V. PERKINS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT PAYMENTS RESERVED TO THE
TRANSFEROR OF OIL PROPERTIES SHALL FOR TAX PURPOSES BE TREATED
DISTRIBUTIVELY, AND NOT AS A WHOLE, DEPENDING UPON THE SOURCE FROM
WHICH EACH DOLLAR IS DERIVED.  AN EXTENSION OF THAT DECISION TO COVER
THE CASE AT BAR WOULD CREATE ADDITIONAL, AND IN OUR OPINION
UNNECESSARY, DIFFICULTIES TO THE ALLOCATION FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES OF
SUCH PAYMENTS AND OF THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION BETWEEN TRANSFEROR AND
TRANSFEREE.  IN THE INTERESTS OF A WORKABLE RULE, THOMAS V. PERKINS
MUST NOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE SITUATION IN WHICH, AS A MATTER OF
SUBSTANCE, WITHOUT REGARD TO FORMALITIES OF CONVEYANCING, THE RESERVED
PAYMENTS ARE TO BE DERIVED SOLELY FROM THE PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS. 
THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS RESERVED BY OKLAHOMA COMPANY, ACCORDINGLY, MUST
BE TREATED AS PAYMENTS RECEIVED UPON A SALE TO PETITIONERS, NOT AS
INCOME DERIVED FROM THE CONSUMPTION OF ITS CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE
RESERVES THROUGH SEVERANCE OF OIL AND GAS. 

PETITIONERS, AS PURCHASERS AND OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES, ARE
THEREFORE TAXABLE UPON THE GROSS PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM THE OIL
PRODUCTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ARRANGEMENT TO PAY OVER SUCH PROCEEDS
TO OKLAHOMA COMPANY.  SEE HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331; REINECKE
V. SMITH, 289 U.S. 172, 177; OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279
U.S. 716.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PETITIONERS STATE THAT "THE INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSFER OF THOSE
PROPERTIES WERE ABSOLUTE AND UNQUALIFIED ASSIGNMENTS AND CONVEYANCES"
AND THAT THERE WAS "NO RESERVATION OF ANY SORT OF INTEREST, MUCH LESS
ANY LEGAL INTEREST, SPECIFIED IN THOSE ASSIGNMENTS AND CONVEYANCES." 

FN2  THE REMAINING 10% INTEREST WAS ACQUIRED FOR ONE OLSEN, WHOSE
CASE WAS CONSOLIDATED WITH THOSE OF PRICHARD AND ANDERSON, AND DISPOSED
OF IN THE SAME OPINION BELOW, BUT WHO HAS NOT SOUGHT REVIEW HERE. 

FN3  THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE WHAT PORTION OF THE GROSS PROCEEDS
WAS DERIVED FROM THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF OIL AND GAS AND WHAT
PORTION, IF ANY, WAS DERIVED FROM SALES OF FEES AND FROM ROYALTIES ON
LEASES.  THE COMMISSIONER IN DETERMINING DEFICIENCIES AGAINST
PETITIONERS, HOWEVER, ADDED $11,276.39 TO THE GROSS INCOME OF EACH WITH
THE EXPLANATION THAT THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTED "IN-OIL PAYMENTS RECEIVED
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PATTERSON (OKLAHOMA COMPANY) DEAL" NOT REPORTED
BY PETITIONERS.  RESPONDENT, IN VIEW OF THIS EXPLANATION BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND THE OMISSION FROM THE RECORD OF ANY DISCLOSURE OF THE
METHOD OF COMPUTING THE $11,276.39 ADDITION TO GROSS INCOME, ACCEPTS
PETITIONERS' STATEMENT THAT "THE ONLY INCOME FROM THE PROPERTIES HERE
IN DISPUTE IS FROM OIL PRODUCTION." 

FN4  REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169. 

FN5  THE LIEN HERE APPEARS TO COVER BOTH THE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
AND THE FEE INTEREST FROM WHICH THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS WERE TO BE
DERIVED. 
..END :























TIGNER V. TEXAS, 310 U.S. 141 


NO. 635.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 6, 1940.  - 132 S.W.2D
885, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SINCE FARMERS AND STOCKMEN ARE WIDELY SCATTERED AND INURED TO
HABITS OF INDIVIDUALISM AND ECONOMICALLY ARE IN LARGE MEASURE DEPENDENT
UPON CONTINGENCIES BEYOND THEIR CONTROL, A LEGISLATURE MAY REASONABLY
BELIEVE THAT COMBINATIONS OF FARMERS AND STOCKMEN RESTRAINING TRADE IN
THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND LIVESTOCK PRESENT NO THREAT TO THE
COMMUNITY, OR, AT LEAST, THAT THE THREAT IS OF A DIFFERENT ORDER FROM
THAT OF COMBINATIONS OF INDUSTRIALISTS AND MIDDLEMEN.  P. 145. 

2.  SINCE CONNOLLY V. UNION SEWER PIPE CO., 184 U.S. 540, WAS
DECIDED, AN IMPRESSIVE LEGISLATIVE MOVEMENT BEARS WITNESS TO GENERAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AGRICULTURE AND
INDUSTRY CALL FOR DIFFERENTIATION IN THE FORMULATION OF PUBLIC POLICY. 
P. 145. 

3.  THE "LAWS" MEANT BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT ARE NOT ABSTRACTIONS BUT ARE EXPRESSIONS OF POLICY ARISING
OUT OF SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES, ADDRESSED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF SPECIFIC
ENDS BY THE USE OF SPECIFIC REMEDIES.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
REQUIRE THINGS WHICH ARE DIFFERENT IN FACT OR OPINION TO BE TREATED IN
LAW AS THOUGH THEY WERE THE SAME.  P. 147. 

4.  A TEXAS PENAL STATUTE PUNISHING CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE BUT EXPRESSLY INAPPLICABLE TO "AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OR LIVESTOCK
WHILE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRODUCER OR RAISER," HELD CONSISTENT WITH THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 149. 

5.  IN EFFECTUATING ITS POLICY WITH RESPECT TO COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE, THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE, THOUGH EXEMPTING FARMERS AND
STOCKMEN FROM PENAL REMEDIES APPLICABLE TO OTHERS, SUBJECTED THEM LIKE
OTHERS TO CIVIL PENALTIES.  HELD, WITHIN LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION AND
CONSISTENT WITH EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  P. 149. 

TIGNER V. TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT DENYING A PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND REMANDING THE PETITIONER TO CUSTODY
UNDER AN INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY. 

THE EXEMPTION PROVISION IN THE ILLINOIS STATUTE INVOLVED IN CONNOLLY
V. UNION SEWER PIPE CO., 184 U.S. 540, WAS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL, AND
THAT CASE IS DECISIVE HERE.  SEE ALSO BARBIER V. CONNOLLY, 113 U.S. 27,
32; HAYES V. MISSOURI, 120 U.S. 68, 71.  THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE
COURT BELOW DO NOT SUSTAIN ITS CONCLUSION THAT "IN VIEW OF THE
SUPERVENING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SINCE 1902" THE RULE OF THE CONNOLLY
CASE IS NOT CONTROLLING. 

THE OBJECT OF THE TEXAS ANTITRUST LAWS IS TO ENCOURAGE COMPETITION
AND PREVENT THE EVILS INCIDENT TO PRICE FIXING ETC. UNDER THE CIVIL
STATUTES, PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS OF FARMERS ARE ILLEGAL, JUST AS ARE
THOSE MADE BY OTHERS.  STATE V. STANDARD OIL CO., 130 TEX. 313.  THUS,
THE STATE RECOGNIZES THAT IT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO PERMIT
MONOPOLIES, TRUSTS AND CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE BY ANY CLASS
OF CITIZENS.  YET, THIS POLITICALLY POWERFUL CLASS IS EXEMPTED FROM
PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY THE CRIMINAL ANTITRUST STATUTES, WHILE ALL
OTHER CLASSES ARE SUBJECTED THERETO. 

WHAT JUSTIFICATION IN LOGIC OR IN LAW CAN BE OFFERED FOR MAKING AN
ACT CRIMINAL IF COMMITTED BY A MERCHANT OR A MANUFACTURER BUT NOT IF
COMMITTED BY A RANCHMAN OR FARMER?  NO GRAND JURY COULD INDICT THESE
RANCHMEN FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, BECAUSE THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION.  AND NO ACTION UNDER THE CIVIL ANTITRUST STATUTES COULD BE
TAKEN AGAINST THEM FOR PRICE FIXING, UNLESS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL, CONSENTED THAT SUCH A SUIT BE INSTITUTED.  ART. 7436,
TIT. 126, VERNON'S TEXAS CIVIL STATS. VOL. 20, P. 638.  SUCH A
PROCEEDING HAS NEVER OCCURRED AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL OCCUR IN TEXAS. 

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE EXCEPTION OF FARMERS AND
STOCKMEN FROM THE CRIMINAL ANTITRUST LAWS.  THEY ARE NOT EXCEPTED FROM
THE CIVIL ANTITRUST LAWS.  THERE EXISTS NO SUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
CLASSES IN THEIR RELATION TO THE ULTIMATE OBJECT OF THE STATUTE AS
WOULD JUSTIFY THE DISCRIMINATION.  THE OBJECT OF THE STATUTE IS
PUNISHMENT FOR PRICE-FIXING AND OTHER FORBIDDEN ACTS.  RANCHMEN AND
FARMERS HAVE THE SAME RELATIONSHIP TOWARDS THIS OBJECT AS APPELLANT. 
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN OCCUPATIONS, IN EACH OF WHICH PRICE-FIXING
AGREEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL UNDER THE CIVIL LAWS. 

MANY BUSINESS MEN HAVE AS LITTLE OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION
AS FARMERS AND STOCKMEN, AND MANY PEOPLE ARE AS POOR.  THE MERE FACT
THAT MORE FARMERS AND STOCKMEN LIVE IN THE COUNTRY THAN IN THE CITY,
AND THE MERE FACT THAT AS A GROUP THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME
OPPORTUNITIES AND FACILITIES FOR RESTRICTING COMPETITION AND
CONTROLLING PRICES AS OTHER BUSINESSMEN, ARE DIFFERENCES INSUFFICIENT
TO JUSTIFY THE CLASSIFICATION.  TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312;
HARTFORD STEAM BOILER CO. V. HARRISON, 301 U.S. 459; POWER MFG. CO. V.
SAUNDERS, 274 U.S. 490; QUAKER CITY CAB CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 277 U.S.
389; LIGGETT CO. V. BALDRIDGE, 278 U.S. 105; SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S.
553; FROST V. CORPORATION COMM'N, 278 U.S. 515; GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO.
V. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150; IN RE OPINION OF JUSTICES, 211 MASS. 618. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 344, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS OF TEXAS SUSTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TEXAS ANTI-TRUST
LAW, AND THEREFORE UPHOLDING AN INDICTMENT UNDER IT.  APPELLANT WAS
CHARGED WITH PARTICIPATION IN A CONSPIRACY TO FIX THE RETAIL PRICE OF
BEER.  SUCH A CONSPIRACY IS MADE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE BY TITLE 19,
CHAPTER 3, OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE.  BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LAW
DO NOT "APPLY TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OR LIVE STOCK IN THE HANDS OF
THE PRODUCER OR RAISER," ART. 1642, TIGNER CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF
THE ENTIRE STATUTE AND SOUGHT RELEASE IN THE LOCAL COURTS BY HABEAS
CORPUS.  HIS CLAIM HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS.  132 S.W.2D 885.  ESSENTIALLY HIS CONTENTION IS THAT THE
EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE TEXAS STATUTE FALLS WITHIN THE CONDEMNATION OF
CONNOLLY V. UNION SEWER PIPE CO., 184 U.S. 540, AS OFFENSIVE TO "THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS" WHICH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SAFEGUARDS.  IF THAT CASE CONTROLS, APPELLANT CONTENDS, THE TEXAS ACT
CANNOT SURVIVE AND HE MUST GO FREE. 

THE COURT BELOW RECOGNIZED THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS IDENTICAL WITH THAT
DEEMED FATAL TO THE ILLINOIS STATUTE INVOLVED IN CONNOLLY'S CASE.  BUT
IT FELT THAT TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAD DRAINED THAT CASE OF VITALITY,
LEAVING IT FREE TO TREAT THE EXEMPTION AS AN EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE
DISCRETION.  A SIMILAR ATTITUDE HAS BEEN REFLECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF WISCONSIN, NORTHERN WISCONSIN COOPERATIVE TOBACCO POOL V. BEKKEDAL,
182 WIS. 571, 593; 197 N.W. 936, AND APPEARS TO UNDERLIE MUCH RECENT
STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  DEALING AS WE ARE WITH AN APPEAL TO THE
CONSTITUTION, THE CONNOLLY CASE OUGHT NOT TO FORECLOSE US FROM
CONSIDERING THIS EXEMPTION IN ITS OWN SETTING. 

THE PROBLEM, IN BRIEF, IS THIS:  MAY TEXAS PROMOTE ITS POLICY OF
FREEDOM FOR ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE BY UTILIZING THE CRIMINAL LAW AGAINST
VARIOUS FORMS OF COMBINATION AND MONOPOLY, BUT EXCLUDE FROM CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT CORRESPONDING ACTIVITIES OF AGRICULTURE? 

LEGISLATION, BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL, SIMILAR TO THAT OF TEXAS HAD ITS
ORIGIN IN FEAR OF THE CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL POWER FOLLOWING THE
CIVIL WAR.  LAW WAS INVOKED TO BUTTRESS THE TRADITIONAL SYSTEM OF FREE
COMPETITION, FREE MARKETS AND FREE ENTERPRISE.  PRESSURE FOR THIS
LEGISLATION CAME MORE PARTICULARLY FROM THOSE WHO AS PRODUCERS, AS WELL
AS CONSUMERS, CONSTITUTED THE MOST DISPERSED ECONOMIC GROUPS.  FN1
THESE LARGE SECTIONS OF THE POPULATION - THOSE WHO LABORED WITH THEIR
HANDS AND THOSE WHO WORKED THE SOIL - WERE AS A MATTER OF ECONOMIC FACT
IN A DIFFERENT RELATION TO THE COMMUNITY FROM THAT OCCUPIED BY
INDUSTRIAL COMBINATIONS.  FARMERS WERE WIDELY SCATTERED AND INURED TO
HABITS OF INDIVIDUALISM; THEIR ECONOMIC FATE WAS IN LARGE MEASURE
DEPENDENT UPON CONTINGENCIES BEYOND THEIR CONTROL.  IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, LEGISLATORS MAY WELL HAVE THOUGHT COMBINATIONS OF
FARMERS AND STOCKMEN PRESENTED NO THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY, OR, AT
LEAST, THE THREAT WAS OF A DIFFERENT ORDER FROM THAT ARISING THROUGH
COMBINATIONS OF INDUSTRIALISTS AND MIDDLEMEN.  AT ALL EVENTS
LEGISLATION LIKE THAT OF TEXAS RESTED ON THIS VIEW, CURBING INDUSTRIAL
AND COMMERCIAL COMBINATIONS, AND DID NOT VISIT THE SAME CONDEMNATION
UPON COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS BY FARMERS AND STOCKMEN BECAUSE THE LATTER
WERE FELT TO HAVE A DIFFERENT ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE.  FN2 

SINCE CONNOLLY'S CASE WAS DECIDED, NEARLY FORTY YEARS AGO, AN
IMPRESSIVE LEGISLATIVE MOVEMENT BEARS WITNESS TO GENERAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE VIEW THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AGRICULTURE AND INDUSTRY CALL FOR
DIFFERENTIATION IN THE FORMULATION OF PUBLIC POLICY.  THE STATES AS
WELL AS THE UNITED STATES HAVE SANCTIONED COOPERATIVE ACTION BY
FARMERS; HAVE RESTRICTED THEIR AMENABILITY TO THE ANTITRUST LAWS; HAVE
RELIEVED THEIR ORGANIZATIONS FROM TAXATION.  SEE, E.G., CAPPER-VOLSTEAD
ACT, 42 STAT. 388, 7 U.S.C. SEC. 291; CLAYTON ACT, 38 STAT. 730, 731,
15 U.S.C. SEC. 17; SEC. 101(1) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 53 STAT.
33.  SUCH EXPRESSIONS OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY HAVE WITHSTOOD CHALLENGE IN
THE COURTS.  LIBERTY WAREHOUSE CO. V. TOBACCO GROWERS, 276 U.S. 71. 
FN3  CONGRESS AND THE STATES HAVE SOMETIMES THOUGHT IT NECESSARY TO
CONTROL THE SUPPLY AND PRICE OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE SPHERES OF JURISDICTION, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
THESE MEASURES HAS BEEN SUSTAINED.  MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38;
UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK,
291 U.S. 502. 

AT THE CORE OF ALL THESE ENACTMENTS LIES A CONCEPTION OF PRICE AND
PRODUCTION POLICY FOR AGRICULTURE VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH
UNDERLIES THE DEMANDS MADE UPON INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE BY ANTI-TRUST
LAWS.  FN4  THESE VARIOUS MEASURES ARE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE FACT THAT
IN OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY AGRICULTURE EXPRESSES FUNCTIONS AND FORCES
DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER ELEMENTS IN THE TOTAL ECONOMIC PROCESS. 
CERTAINLY THESE ARE DIFFERENCES WHICH MAY BE ACTED UPON BY THE
LAWMAKERS.  THE EQUALITY AT WHICH THE "EQUAL PROTECTION" CLAUSE AIMS IS
NOT A DISEMBODIED EQUALITY.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ENJOINS "THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS," AND LAWS ARE NOT ABSTRACT PROPOSITIONS. 
THEY DO NOT RELATE TO ABSTRACT UNITS A, B AND C, BUT ARE EXPRESSIONS OF
POLICY ARISING OUT OF SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES, ADDRESSED TO THE
ATTAINMENT OF SPECIFIC ENDS BY THE USE OF SPECIFIC REMEDIES.  THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THINGS WHICH ARE DIFFERENT IN FACT OR
OPINION TO BE TREATED IN LAW AS THOUGH THEY WERE THE SAME.  AND SO WE
CONCLUDE THAT TO WRITE INTO LAW THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AGRICULTURE AND
OTHER ECONOMIC PURSUITS WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE. 
CONNOLLY'S CASE HAS BEEN WORN AWAY BY THE EROSION OF TIME, AND WE ARE
OF OPINION THAT IT IS NO LONGER CONTROLLING. 

ANOTHER FEATURE OF TEXAS ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION IS RELIED ON BY
TIGNER TO INVALIDATE THE CRIMINAL STATUTE UNDER WHICH HE IS BEING
PROSECUTED.  BEGINNING WITH THE FIRST ENACTMENT IN 1894, THE TEXAS ANTI
TRUST LAWS HAVE HAD A COMPLICATED AND CHECKERED HISTORY.  AT PRESENT
THERE ARE TWO STATUTES DIRECTED AT COMBINATION AND MONOPOLY - THE ONE
UNDER WHICH TIGNER WAS INDICTED, AND ANOTHER, SUBJECTING TO CIVIL
PENALTIES THE SAME CONDUCT AT WHICH THE CHALLENGED CRIMINAL LAW IS
AIMED.  TITLE 126, REVISED CIVIL STATUTES.  FROM SUCH CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS, WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INITIATES, NO EXEMPTION IS
GIVEN TO FARMERS AND STOCKMEN.  APPELLANT URGES THAT THE DIVERGENCE
BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAWS RELATING TO THE SAME CONDUCT UNDERMINES
THE VALIDITY OF THE EXEMPTION IN THE CRIMINAL STATUTE AND THUS
INVALIDATES THE WHOLE OF IT.  THIS ARGUMENT IS BUT A MINOR VARIATION ON
APPELLANT'S MAIN THEME.  IT AMOUNTS TO A CLAIM THAT DIFFERENCES
SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO PERMIT SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENTIATION IN FORMULATING
LEGISLATIVE POLICY DO NOT PERMIT DIFFERENTIATION AS TO REMEDY. 

HOW TO EFFECTUATE POLICY - THE ADAPTATION OF MEANS TO LEGITIMATELY
SOUGHT ENDS - IS ONE OF THE MOST INTRACTABLE OF LEGISLATIVE PROBLEMS. 
WHETHER PROSCRIBED CONDUCT IS TO BE DETERRED BY QUI TAM ACTION OR
TRIPLE DAMAGES OR INJUNCTION, OR BY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, OR MERELY BY
DEFENSE TO ACTIONS IN CONTRACT, OR BY SOME, OR ALL, OF THESE REMEDIES
IN COMBINATION, IS A MATTER WITHIN THE LEGISLATURE'S RANGE OF CHOICE. 
JUDGMENT ON THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF THE VARIOUS WEAPONS IN THE ARMORY
OF THE LAW CAN LAY LITTLE CLAIM TO SCIENTIFIC BASIS.  SUCH JUDGMENT AS
YET IS LARGELY A PROPHECY BASED ON MEAGER AND UNINTERPRETED
EXPERIENCE.  HOW EMPIRIC THE PROCESS IS OF ADJUSTING REMEDY TO POLICY,
IS SHOWN BY THE HISTORY OF ANTI-TRUST LAWS IN TEXAS AND ELSEWHERE.  THE
SHERMAN LAW ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED THE INJUNCTION AT THE SUIT OF THE
GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE ACTION FOR TRIPLE DAMAGES, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND
FORFEITURE.  LATER THE INJUNCTION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO PRIVATE
SUITORS.  FN5  IN THE CASE OF COMBINATIONS OF COMMON CARRIERS THE
SHERMAN LAW IS QUALIFIED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, KEOGH V.
CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 260 U.S. 156, AND, IN THE CASE OF SHIPPING
COMBINATIONS, BY THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, U.S. NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD
S.S. CO., 284 U.S. 474.  IN ITS OWN GROPING EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH THE
PROBLEM OF MONOPOLY, THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE HAS IN THE COURSE OF NEARLY
HALF A CENTURY INVOKED A DOZEN REMEDIES.  FN6  WHEN IOWA SUPERIMPOSED
UPON ITS GENERAL ANTI-TRUST LAW AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY IN THE CASE OF
FIRE INSURANCE COMBINATIONS, THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE.  CARROLL V. GREENWICH INSURANCE CO., 199 U.S. 401. 

LEGISLATION CONCERNING ECONOMIC COMBINATIONS PRESENTS PECULIAR
DIFFICULTIES IN THE FASHIONING OF REMEDIES.  THE SENSITIVENESS OF THE
ECONOMIC MECHANISM, THE RISKS OF INTRODUCING NEW EVILS IN TRYING TO
STAMP OUT OLD, FAMILIAR ONES, THE DIFFICULTIES OF PROOF WITHIN THE
CONVENTIONAL MODES OF PROCEDURE, THE EFFECT OF SHIFTING TIDES OF PUBLIC
OPINION - THESE AND MANY OTHER SUBTLE FACTORS MUST INFLUENCE
LEGISLATIVE CHOICE.  MOREOVER, THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF DETERRENCE IS
RELATED TO STILL WIDER CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING THE TEMPER OF THE
COMMUNITY IN WHICH LAW OPERATES.  THE TRADITIONS OF A SOCIETY, THE
HABITS OF OBEDIENCE TO LAW, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LAW-ENFORCING
AGENCIES, ARE ALL PECULIARLY MATTERS OF TIME AND PLACE.  THEY ARE THUS
MATTERS WITHIN LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE.  TO SAY THAT THE LEGISLATURE OF
TEXAS MUST GIVE TO FARMERS COMPLETE IMMUNITY OR NONE AT ALL, IS TO SAY
THAT JUDGMENT ON THESE VEXING ISSUES PRECLUDES THE VIEW THAT, WHILE THE
DANGERS FROM COMBINATIONS OF FARMERS AND STOCKMEN ARE SO TENUOUS THAT
CIVIL REMEDIES SUFFICE TO SECURE DETERRENCE, THEY ARE SUBSTANTIAL
ENOUGH NOT TO WARRANT ENTIRE DISREGARD.  WE HOLD OTHERWISE.  HERE,
AGAIN, WE MUST BE MINDFUL NOT OF ABSTRACT EQUIVALENTS OF CONDUCT, BUT
OF CONDUCT IN THE CONTEXT OF ACTUALITY.  DIFFERENCES THAT PERMIT
SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENTIATIONS ALSO PERMIT DIFFERENTIATIONS OF REMEDY. 
WE FIND NO CONSTITUTIONAL BAR AGAINST EXCLUDING FARMERS AND STOCKMEN
FROM THE CRIMINAL STATUTE AGAINST COMBINATION AND MONOPOLY, AND SO
HOLDING, WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS LIKEWISE NO BAR AGAINST MAKING THE
EXEMPTION PARTIAL RATHER THAN COMPLETE.  AFFIRMED.    FN1  SEE 2 BEARD,
THE RISE OF AMERICAN CIVILIZATION, PP. 254-343; BUCK, THE GRANGER
MOVEMENT, PASSIM; HICKS, THE POPULIST REVOLT, PASSIM; SHELDON, POPULISM
IN THE OLD DOMINION, PP. 17-20.  COMPARE THE LETTER OF MR. JUSTICE
MILLER IN FAIRMAN, MR. JUSTICE MILLER AND THE SUPREME COURT, P. 67. 
FOR THE BACKGROUND OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATION SEE FINTY, ANTI-TRUST
LEGISLATION IN TEXAS, A COLLECTION OF ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN THE
GALVESTON NEWS DURING THE SUMMER OF 1916; NUTTING, THE TEXAS ANTI-TRUST
LAW:  A POST-MORTEM 14 TEX. L. REV. 293. 

FN2  SEE SEAGER AND GULICK, TRUST AND CORPORATION PROBLEMS, PP. 149
95, 339-85. 

FN3 THE STATE COURT CASES ARE COLLECTED IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK
ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 563-64.  SEE HANNA, LAW OF COOPERATIVE
MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS, PP. 26-111.  COMPARE GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO.
V. LEWIS, 233 U.S. 389, 418; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. MISSOURI,
234 U.S. 199; AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285. 

FN4  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, THE FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS OF POLICY
EMBODIED IN THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 31, 120,
202, 215, 586, 775.  COMPARE SEAGER AND GULICK, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 2,
PP. 322-23; BLACK, AGRICULTURAL REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES, PP. 1-61,
337-49; NOURSE, DAVIS AND BLACK, THREE YEARS OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION, PASSIM; NOURSE, MARKETING AGREEMENTS UNDER
THE A.A.A., PP. 315-49.  COMPARE, AS TO RAILROAD AND EXPRESS
CONSOLIDATIONS, SEC. 5(8) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED, 41
STAT. 456, 482, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(8); AS TO BITUMINOUS COAL, SEE SEC. 4,
I (D) OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 72, 77. 

FN5  SEE THE SHERMAN LAW, AS AMENDED, AND SUPPLEMENTARY ENACTMENTS,
IN 15 U.S.C. SECS. 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 21, 23, 25, 26. 

FN6  SEE NUTTING OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 1, PP. 296-97.  FOR THE
REMEDIES NOW PREVAILING, SEE TEXAS PENAL CODE, ART. 1635, 1637, 1638;
REVISED CIVIL STATUTES, ART. 7428-7437. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD
BE REVERSED. 
..END :




















U.S. V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., 310 U.S. 150 


NO. 346.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 6, 1940.  - DECIDED MAY 6, 1940.  - 105
F.2D 809, REVERSED. 


1.  AGREEMENTS TO FIX PRICES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE UNLAWFUL PER
SE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT; AND NO SHOWING OF SO-CALLED COMPETITIVE
ABUSES OR EVILS WHICH THE AGREEMENTS WERE DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE OR
ALLEVIATE MAY BE INTERPOSED AS A DEFENSE.  PP. 210, 218. 

2.  NUMEROUS OIL COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS WERE CONVICTED UNDER AN
INDICTMENT ALLEGING THAT, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
THEY CONSPIRED TO RAISE AND MAINTAIN SPOT MARKET PRICES OF GASOLINE,
AND PRICES TO JOBBERS AND CONSUMERS IN THE "MIDWESTERN AREA," EMBRACING
MANY STATES, BY BUYING UP "DISTRESS" GASOLINE ON THE SPOT MARKETS AND
ELIMINATING IT AS A MARKET FACTOR.  IN SUPPORT OF ALLEGATIONS OF THE
INDICTMENT, THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANTS, WITH
INTENT TO RAISE AND MAINTAIN PRICES, DEVISED AND CARRIED OUT AN
ORGANIZED PROGRAM OF REGULARLY ASCERTAINING THE AMOUNTS OF SURPLUS SPOT
MARKET GASOLINE, OF ASSIGNING ITS SELLERS TO BUYERS WHO WERE IN THE
COMBINATION, AND OF PURCHASING IT AT FAIR GOING MARKET PRICES, AND THAT
THIS PROCESS, BY REMOVING PART OF THE SPOT MARKET SUPPLY, WAS AT LEAST
A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN STABILIZING THE SPOT MARKET AND THEREBY
CAUSING AN INCREASE OF PRICES, SO THAT JOBBERS AND CONSUMERS IN THE
MIDWESTERN AREA PAID MORE FOR THEIR GASOLINE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE PAID
BUT FOR THE CONSPIRACY, THEIR PRICES BEING GEARED TO SPOT MARKET
PRICES.  HELD: 

(1)  IT IS IMMATERIAL TO THE QUESTION OF GUILT THAT OTHER FACTORS
ALSO MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE RISE AND STABILITY OF THE MARKETS AND
THAT COMPETITION ON THE SPOT MARKETS WAS NOT ENTIRELY ELIMINATED.  P.
219. 

(2)  THE ELIMINATION OF SO-CALLED COMPETITIVE EVILS IS NO LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH BUYING PROGRAMS.  SO FAR AS PRICE-FIXING
AGREEMENTS ARE CONCERNED THE ACT ESTABLISHES ONE UNIFORM RULE
APPLICABLE TO ALL INDUSTRIES ALIKE.  P. 220. 

(3)  EVEN THOUGH THE MEMBERS OF THE PRICE-FIXING GROUP WERE IN NO
POSITION TO CONTROL THE MARKET, YET TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY RAISED,
LOWERED, FIXED, PEGGED, OR STABILIZED PRICES THEY WOULD BE DIRECTLY
INTERFERING WITH THE FREE PLAY OF MARKET FORCES.  P. 221. 

(4)  THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE REFUSAL TO CHARGE THAT, IN ORDER TO
CONVICT, THE JURY MUST FIND THAT THE RESULTANT PRICES WERE RAISED AND
MAINTAINED AT "HIGH, ARBITRARY AND NON-COMPETITIVE LEVELS."  A CHARGE
IN THE INDICTMENT TO THAT EFFECT WAS SURPLUSAGE.  P. 222. 

(5)  NOR IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE PRICES PAID BY THE COMBINATION WERE
NOT FIXED IN THE SENSE OF BEING UNIFORM AND INFLEXIBLE.  P. 222. 

(6)  A COMBINATION FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE EFFECT OF
RAISING, DEPRESSING, FIXING, PEGGING, OR STABILIZING THE PRICE OF A
COMMODITY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS ILLEGAL PER SE UNDER THE
ACT.  P. 223. 

(7)  WHERE THE MEANS FOR PRICE-FIXING ARE PURCHASES OF A PART OF THE
SUPPLY OF THE COMMODITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING IT FROM HAVING A
DEPRESSIVE EFFECT ON THE MARKET, POWER TO FIX PRICES MAY BE FOUND TO
EXIST THOUGH THE COMBINATION DOES NOT CONTROL A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE
COMMODITY.  P. 224. 

(8)  PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS MAY HAVE EFFECTIVE INFLUENCE OVER THE
MARKET, AND UTILITY TO MEMBERS OF THE CONSPIRACY GROUP, THOUGH THE
POWER POSSESSED OR EXERTED BY THE COMBINATION FALLS FAR SHORT OF
DOMINATION AND CONTROL.  THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT CONCERNED SOLELY WITH
MONOPOLY POWER.  P. 224. 

(9)  PROOF THAT A COMBINATION WAS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING
PRICES, AND THAT IT CAUSED THEM TO BE FIXED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THAT
RESULT, IS PROOF OF THE COMPLETION OF A PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACY UNDER
SEC. 1 OF THE ACT.  P. 224. 

(10)  A CONSPIRACY TO FIX PRICES VIOLATES SEC. 1 OF THE ACT THOUGH NO
OVERT ACT IS SHOWN, THOUGH IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSPIRATORS
HAD THE MEANS AVAILABLE FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THEIR OBJECTIVE, AND
THOUGH THE CONSPIRACY EMBRACED BUT A PART OF THE INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE IN THE COMMODITY.  P. 225N. 

(11)  UNDER THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, 48 STAT. 195, A
PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENT COULD BE EXEMPTED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT ONLY THROUGH THE CODE MACHINERY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
PRESIDENT AS PROVIDED IN SECS. 3(A) AND 5; MERE KNOWLEDGE, ACQUIESCENCE
OR TACIT APPROVAL BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WOULD NOT SUFFICE.  PP. 225
227. 

(12)  A PRACTICE CONTRARY TO THE SHERMAN ACT, EVEN IF APPROVED UNDER
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, BECAME UNLAWFUL WHEN CONTINUED
AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE RECOVERY ACT.  P. 227. 

(13)  THE FACT THAT THE BUYING PROGRAM IN THIS CASE MAY HAVE BEEN
CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT IS IRRELEVANT TO ITS LEGALITY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, WHERE
THE METHOD PROVIDED BY CONGRESS FOR ALLEVIATING THE PENALTIES OF THE
SHERMAN ACT WAS NOT FOLLOWED.  P. 227. 

(14)  OFFERS OF PROOF BY DEFENDANTS TO SHOW THAT BY THEIR BUYING
PROGRAM THEY HAD NOT RAISED SPOT MARKET PRICES OF GASOLINE TO AN
ARTIFICIAL, NON-COMPETITIVE LEVEL, HELD PROPERLY DENIED AS IMMATERIAL. 
P. 229. 

(15)  OFFERS OF PROOF BY DEFENDANTS TO ESTABLISH AND EVALUATE OTHER
CONTRIBUTING CAUSES FOR PRICE RISE AND MARKET STABILITY DURING THE
INDICTMENT PERIOD, HELD PROPERLY DENIED, AS CUMULATIVE AND COLLATERAL. 
A TRIAL COURT HAS A WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETION IN THE EXCLUSION OF SUCH
EVIDENCE.  P. 229. 

3.  IN A TRIAL UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, WHERE MUCH EVIDENCE HAD BEEN
GIVEN OF GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS BEFORE AND DURING THE INDICTMENT
PERIOD, THE DEFENSE OFFERED FURTHER EVIDENCE OF MARKET CONDITIONS
ANTEDATING THAT PERIOD, INTRODUCTION OF WHICH WOULD HAVE COMPLICATED
THE CASE, CONFUSED THE JURY POSSIBLY, AND PROTRACTED AN ALREADY LENGTHY
TRIAL, HELD THAT REFUSAL OF THE OFFERS WAS NOT GROUND FOR A NEW TRIAL,
MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE NOT BEING AFFECTED.  P. 229. 

4.  USE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFRESHING THE
RECOLLECTION OF A WITNESS RESTS IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE AND NO IRON-CLAD RULE REQUIRES THAT OPPOSING COUNSEL BE SHOWN THE
GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT WHERE IT IS NOT SHOWN THE WITNESS AND WHERE SOME
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE IS ADOPTED TO PREVENT ITS IMPROPER USE.  PP. 231,
233. 

5.  GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS ORDINARILY CONFIDENTIAL.  BUT AFTER THE
GRAND JURY'S FUNCTIONS ARE ENDED, DISCLOSURE IS WHOLLY PROPER WHERE THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE IT.  PP. 233-234. 

6.  PERMISSION TO USE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY TO REFRESH THE MEMORIES OF
WITNESSES IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS NOT GROUND FOR A NEW TRIAL, EVEN IF
ERRONEOUS, WHERE IT WAS CLEARLY NOT PREJUDICIAL AND DID NOT AFFECT
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE DEFENDANT.  JUD.  CODE, SEC. 269.  P. 235. 

7.  IN THE ABSENCE OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPROPER REMARKS
MADE BY A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY IN HIS ARGUMENT TO THE JURY IN A
CRIMINAL TRIAL, ARE NOT GROUND FOR A NEW TRIAL IF THEY WERE NOT
OBJECTED TO AT THE TIME.  PP. 237, 238-239. 

8.  IT IS NOT IMPROPER IN A SHERMAN ACT CASE TO DISCUSS CORPORATE
POWER, ITS USE AND ABUSE, RELEVANTLY TO THE ISSUES; FOR THE SUBJECT IS
MATERIAL TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THAT ACT, AND ITS PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES
ARE CLEARLY LEGITIMATE SUBJECTS FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE THE JURY.  P.
239. 

9.  APPEALS TO CLASS PREJUDICE IN ARGUMENT TO A JURY ARE HIGHLY
IMPROPER AND CAN NOT BE CONDONED AND TRIAL COURTS SHOULD EVER BE ALERT
TO PREVENT THEM.  P. 239. 

10.  ALTHOUGH SOME OF THE REMARKS MADE TO THE JURY BY GOVERNMENT
COUNSEL IN ARGUMENT OF THIS CASE APPEALED TO CLASS PREJUDICE, WERE
UNDIGNIFIED AND INTEMPERATE, AND DID NOT COMPORT WITH THE STANDARDS OF
PROPRIETY EXPECTED OF A PROSECUTOR, THEY ARE, IN THE PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT REGARDED AS PREJUDICIAL BUT AS MINOR ABERRATIONS IN
A PROLONGED TRIAL OF A STRONG CASE WHICH COULD NOT HAVE INFLUENCED THE
MINDS OF JURORS.  P. 239. 

11.  STATEMENTS MADE IN ARGUMENT TO THE JURY BY GOVERNMENT COUNSEL IN
A PROSECUTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WAS THE WISH
AND DESIRE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE
DEFENDANTS CONVICTED, HELD NOT GROUND FOR A NEW TRIAL, BECAUSE THE
DEFENDANTS HAD SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIVITIES AS DONE WITH
GOVERNMENT APPROVAL AND BECAUSE THE STATEMENTS WERE BUT CASUAL EPISODES
IN A LONG SUMMATION AND NOT AT ALL REFLECTIVE OF THE QUALITY OF THE
ARGUMENT AS A WHOLE.  PP. 241-242. 

12.  ASSERTIONS OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, MADE IN ARGUMENT TO THE JURY
BY GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, HELD NOT PREJUDICIAL, WHERE THEY RELATED TO A
MATTER IRRELEVANT TO THE CASE AND, UPON OBJECTION, WERE WITHDRAWN AND
THE JURY INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD THEM.  P. 242. 

13.  THE GRANTING OF A NEW TRIAL TO SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS CONVICTED
OF A CONSPIRACY DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A NEW TRIAL BE GRANTED TO THE
OTHERS, WHERE PARTICIPATION BY THE FORMER WAS NOT NECESSARY TO THE
EXISTENCE OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED THAT IT
COULD CONVICT ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE
COMBINATION AND THAT IT NEED NOT CONVICT ALL OR NONE.  PP. 243, 246. 

14. IN A SHERMAN ACT CASE, AS IN OTHER CONSPIRACY CASES, THE GRANT OF
A NEW TRIAL TO SOME DEFENDANTS AND ITS DENIAL TO OTHERS IS NOT PER SE
REVERSIBLE ERROR.  AFTER THE JURY'S VERDICT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AS
RESPECTS SOME OF THE ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS, THOSE REMAINING CAN NOT
SEIZE ON THAT ACTION AS GROUND FOR THE GRANTING OF A NEW TRIAL TO THEM,
UNLESS THEY CAN ESTABLISH THAT SUCH ACTION WAS SO CLEARLY PREJUDICIAL
TO THEM THAT THE DENIAL OF THEIR MOTIONS CONSTITUTED A PLAIN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.  P. 247. 

15.  AS A GENERAL RULE, NEITHER THIS COURT NOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WILL REVIEW THE ACTION OF A FEDERAL TRIAL COURT IN GRANTING OR
DENYING A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR ERROR OF FACT, SINCE SUCH ACTION
IS A MATTER WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL COURT.  P. 247. 

16.  A DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE
VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO
REVIEW.  P. 248. 

17.  WHERE AN INDICTMENT CHARGES VARIOUS MEANS BY WHICH A CONSPIRACY
IS TO BE EFFECTUATED, NOT ALL OF THEM NEED BE PROVED.  P. 249. 

18.  WHERE A PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACY, VIOLATING THE SHERMAN ACT,
EMBRACED, AT LEAST BY CLEAR IMPLICATION, THE MAKING OF SALES AT
ADVANCED PRICES TO JOBBERS AND CONSUMERS IN A WIDE AREA, HELD THAT
PROSECUTION WOULD LIE IN A JUDICIAL DISTRICT WITHIN THAT AREA AND
WITHIN WHICH SUCH SALES WERE MADE BY ANY OF THE CONSPIRATORS, THOUGH
THE CONSPIRACY WAS FORMED ELSEWHERE.  P. 250. 

19.  CONSPIRACIES UNDER THE ACT ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE DOING OF ANY
ACT OTHER THAN THE ACT OF CONSPIRING, AS A CONDITION OF LIABILITY.  P.
252. 

UNITED STATES V. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., INC. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 347, SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., INC. ET AL. V. UNITED
STATES, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI (308 U.S. 540) TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 540, ON CROSS-PETITIONS, TO REVIEW THE RULINGS
OF THE COURT BELOW IN A CASE INVOLVING THE INDICTMENT AND CONVICTION OF
CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS FOR A CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF
THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.  THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
REPORTED IN 23 F.SUPP.  937. 

A COMBINATION FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTROLLING THE MARKET PRICE
OF A COMMODITY AND POSSESSING THE POWER TO MAKE ITS CONTROL EFFECTIVE
RAISES SUCH DANGER OF EVIL CONSEQUENCES WHICH THE SHERMAN ACT WAS
INTENDED TO PREVENT, THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE DIRECT CONDEMNATION OF
THE STATUTE AND CAN NOT BE REMOVED BY COLLATERAL CONSIDERATIONS URGED
IN JUSTIFICATION OF THE RESTRAINT.  UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES
CO., 273 U.S. 392. 

WHILE THE ACT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS FORBIDDING ONLY UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINTS OF TRADE AND WHILE THIS CONCEPT IS OF VALUE IN MANY
SITUATIONS WHERE THE NATURE OF THE RESTRAINT IS SUCH THAT THE
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IS DOUBTFUL, THE CONCEPT DOES NOT COMPEL THE
CONCLUSION THAT THERE ARE NO RESTRAINTS WHICH IPSO FACTO COME WITHIN
THE CONDEMNATION OF THE ACT. 

SINCE THE PRICE CONTROL EXERCISED BY THE DEFENDANTS ENTAILED THE SAME
CONSEQUENCES AS THOSE FLOWING FROM AN AGREEMENT BY A DOMINANT GROUP IN
AN INDUSTRY TO SELL AT UNIFORM MINIMUM PRICES, THE FACT THAT THE
MACHINERY OF PRICE CONTROL WAS DIFFERENT IS IMMATERIAL. 

THE COURT BELOW ASSUMED THAT THE COMBINATION WAS TO ELIMINATE A
COMPETITIVE EVIL, AND IT SAID THAT THE TRENTON POTTERIES CASE DID NOT
BAR DEFENSE OF THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RESTRAINT UPON THIS GROUND. 
THE FORMER CONCLUSION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE JURY'S FACTUAL
DETERMINATION, AND THE LATTER RESULTED FROM FAILURE TO APPRECIATE THAT
IN THE TRENTON POTTERIES CASE DEFENSE OF REASONABLENESS UPON THE VERY
GROUND MENTIONED WAS PRESENTED AND REJECTED. 

THE BELIEF THAT THE PRESENT COMBINATION DESTROYED COMPETITION ONLY AS
TO THE GASOLINE WHICH THE DEFENDANTS PURCHASED FROM THE INDEPENDENT
REFINERS IS ERRONEOUS.  THE JURY'S FINDINGS, MADE UPON AMPLE EVIDENCE,
THAT THE DEFENDANTS INTENDED TO, POSSESSED THE POWER TO, AND DID, RAISE
AND FIX SPOT MARKET PRICES, ESTABLISH THAT THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF
THE COMBINATION WAS TO RENDER THE ENTIRE SPOT MARKET A RIGGED,
ARTIFICIAL, AND NONCOMPETITIVE MARKET, IN WHICH PRICE WAS NOT THE
PRODUCT OF A FREE PLAY OF COMPETITIVE FORCES, BUT WAS THE PRODUCT OF
PURPOSEFUL CONTROL, ATTAINED THROUGH COMBINATION.  THE DESTRUCTION OF
COMPETITION WAS THEREFORE AS WIDE AND AS BROAD AS THE MARKET ITSELF. 

IN A LENGTHY TRIAL, INVOLVING A WIDE RANGE OF INQUIRY AND A GREAT
MASS OF EVIDENCE, A NEW TRIAL WILL NOT BE ORDERED ON TECHNICAL ERRORS
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE WHICH DO NOT AFFECT MATTERS OF
SUBSTANCE. 

EXCLUDED EVIDENCE RELATING TO CONDITIONS IN THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY
WAS MERELY CUMULATIVE.  EXCLUDED EVIDENCE RELATING TO ENCOURAGEMENT OF
OR ACQUIESCENCE IN DEFENDANT'S ACTIVITIES BY GOVERNMENT OFFICERS WAS
INDIRECT, REMOTE, AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL, AND CONCERNED A LARGELY
IRRELEVANT ISSUE.  EXCLUDED EVIDENCE OFFERED TO SHOW THAT GASOLINE
PRICES DURING THE CONSPIRACY PERIOD WERE NOT ARTIFICIALLY HIGH OR
NONCOMPETITIVE WAS ONLY REMOTELY RELATED TO THE REAL ISSUES IN THE CASE
AND ITS ADMISSION WOULD HAVE RAISED COLLATERAL FACTUAL ISSUES TENDING
TO CONFUSE THE JURY AND UNDULY PROLONG THE TRIAL. 

ALL OF THE GOVERNMENT'S IMPORTANT WITNESSES WERE CLOSELY ALLIED WITH
THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS AND WERE EVASIVE AND HOSTILE.  OVER 84 PER
CENT. OF THE ATTEMPTS TO REFRESH THEIR RECOLLECTION BY REFERENCE TO
GRAND JURY TESTIMONY FAILED, AND NO AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY OF ANY
IMPORTANCE WAS ELICITED IN THIS WAY.  REFUSAL TO ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL
TO INSPECT THE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT WAS NOT REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

ATTEMPTED REFRESHMENT BY READING FROM A TRANSCRIPT NOT AUTHENTICATED
WAS NOT ERROR.  THE TRIAL COURT DULY WARNED THE JURY TO IGNORE THE
GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AND IT EXERCISED CLOSE SUPERVISION OVER THE MANNER
IN WHICH THIS TESTIMONY WAS USED. 

IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS NOT STRICTLY
CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE EVENTS TO WHICH IT RELATED. 

THE CULLING FROM ARGUMENT OF GREAT LENGTH OF THE REMARKS MOST LIKELY
TO APPEAR OBJECTIONABLE AND THE ASSEMBLAGE OF THESE REMARKS, ISOLATED
FROM THEIR CONTEXT, GIVE A TOTALLY MISLEADING IMPRESSION OF THE EFFECT
PRODUCED UPON THE JURY BY THE ARGUMENT AS A WHOLE.  CLEARLY THERE WAS
NOT HERE THAT "PRONOUNCED AND PERSISTENT" MISCONDUCT OF COUNSEL WHICH,
AT LEAST IF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WAS WEAK, WILL BE
ASSUMED TO HAVE PREJUDICED THE CAUSE OF THE ACCUSED. 

SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE REMARKS NOW ALLEGED TO BE PREJUDICIAL EITHER
WERE NOT OBJECTED TO AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE OR CORRECTIVE ACTION
WAS TAKEN BY THE TRIAL COURT. 

WHEN PRODUCERS AGREE TO SELL THEIR PRODUCT AT UNIFORM PRICES, THEIR
SALES ARE ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY AND GIVE THE COURT IN A
DISTRICT WHERE SALES ARE MADE JURISDICTION TO TRY THE OFFENSE.  UNITED
STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, 403-404.  THE
DEFENDANTS' SALES IN THE TRIAL DISTRICT AT THE ARTIFICIALLY RAISED AND
MAINTAINED PRICES ARE LIKEWISE ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS CONSPIRACY
AND GAVE THE COURT THERE JURISDICTION TO TRY THE OFFENSE. 

THE CHARGE OF THE INDICTMENT AGAINST RESPONDENTS IS SEPARATE FROM,
AND INDEPENDENT OF, THE CHARGE AGAINST THE TRADE JOURNAL DEFENDANTS,
THAT THEY GUILTILY PARTICIPATED BY PUBLISHING FALSE SPOT MARKET
PRICES.  THIS CHARGE CONSTITUTES ONLY A SUBORDINATE MEANS FOR THE
EFFECTUATION OF THE CONSPIRACY AND IS A NONESSENTIAL ALLEGATION SINCE
SEVERAL OTHER MEANS WERE ALLEGED AND PROVED. 

THE PROGRAM FOR CONCERTED BUYING BY MAJORS OF GASOLINE OF INDEPENDENT
REFINERS IS THE PRINCIPAL MEANS FOR EFFECTUATING THE CONSPIRACY SET
FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT. 

THERE WAS NO MATERIAL VARIANCE BETWEEN THE INDICTMENT AND THE PROOF. 

THE DISTRICT COURT'S AWARD OF A NEW TRIAL TO ANOTHER CORPORATE
DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF RETROACTIVELY INVALIDATING THE
JURY'S VERDICT AGAINST RESPONDENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED STANDARD
OF INDIANA'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT.  ITS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
WAS GRANTED UPON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS "GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE"
THAT IT HAD NOT HAD "AN ADEQUATE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION" OF ITS
DEFENSE.  THESE RULINGS CONSTITUTED AN ADJUDICATION THAT THE EVIDENCE
WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE JURY IN FINDING THAT STANDARD OF INDIANA
WAS A PARTY TO THE CONSPIRACY.  IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THAT WHEN THE
JURY, IN PASSING UPON THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE DEFENDANTS TO
RAISE AND FIX PRICES, DID SO IN THE LIGHT OF STANDARD OF INDIANA BEING
A PARTY TO THE CONSPIRACY, THE JURY'S DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE OF
POWER WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ADEQUATE AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS TO
ALL MATTERS INVOLVED IN ITS DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE AND THE JURY'S
DETERMINATION WAS NOT ONLY FREE FROM FUNDAMENTAL ERROR, IT WAS FREE
FROM ERROR OF ANY KIND. 

THE GROUND UPON WHICH STANDARD OF INDIANA WAS GRANTED A NEW TRIAL
WOULD SEEM TO BE A DOUBTFUL ONE AND IT WAS CERTAINLY ONE WHICH INVOLVED
EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION VESTED IN TRIAL COURTS IN PASSING UPON
MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL.  SINCE RESPONDENTS' CLAIM TO A NEW TRIAL RESTS
ON THE FACT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DETERMINED THAT STANDARD OF INDIANA
WAS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AND SINCE THIS WAS A PURELY DISCRETIONARY
RULING, RESPONDENTS' CLAIM TO A NEW TRIAL, WHICH CAN NOT BE SUPERIOR TO
THE CLAIM ON WHICH IT RESTS, MUST LIKEWISE LIE WITHIN THE REALM OF
DISCRETION.  NOTHING IS BETTER SETTLED THAN THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE
TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION IN PASSING UPON A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WILL
NOT BE REVIEWED BY AN APPELLATE COURT UNLESS THE TRIAL COURT
ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE MOTION
OR OF THE GROUNDS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT THEREOF. 

RESPONDENTS DID NOT PRESENT TO THE DISTRICT COURT THIS GROUND UPON
WHICH THEY NOW URGE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO NEW TRIALS.  THEIR
FAILURE BARS THEM FROM OBTAINING REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE COURT. 

ON NO LESS THAN TWELVE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTED
THE JURY TO RETURN VERDICTS OF GUILTY IF IT FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENTS
HAD CONTRIBUTED IN ANY DEGREE TO THE RISE IN GASOLINE PRICES.  IT WILL
BE NOTED THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH WHETHER THE
RESPONDENTS MAINTAINED PRICES AT CONTROLLED LEVELS, OR WHETHER THEY
SUBSTITUTED AN AGREED-ON PRICE FOR A COMPETITIVE PRICE.  THE SOLE TEST
OF LEGALITY WHICH THE INSTRUCTIONS LAY DOWN IS WHETHER THE PURPOSE OR
EFFECT OF THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS WAS TO RAISE PRICES TO ANY EXTENT. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT "THE DEFENDANTS  ...  OFFERED EVIDENCE
DESIGNED TO SHOW (1) THAT THEY DID NOT COMBINE TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE
OF CONTROLLING PRICES; (2) THAT THEIR PURCHASING ACTIVITIES WERE
CONFINED TO DISTRESS MATERIAL, THE REMOVAL OF WHICH DID NOT SUPPRESS
NORMAL COMPETITION ON THE SPOT MARKETS; ...  "  OBVIOUSLY, THE
ELIMINATION OF A COMPETITIVE ABUSE SUCH AS DISTRESS GASOLINE MAY TEND
TO STABILIZE THE INDUSTRY AND TO PRODUCE FAIRER PRICE LEVELS.  THE
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT, THEREFORE, REQUIRED A FINDING OF
GUILTY EVEN THOUGH THE JURY BELIEVED THAT THE RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES
HAD BEEN LIMITED TO THE ELIMINATION OF DISTRESS GASOLINE AND THAT THE
REMOVAL OF SUCH GASOLINE "DID NOT SUPPRESS NORMAL COMPETITION ON THE
SPOT MARKETS." 

THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT CONCERTED ACTION TO ELIMINATE
ABUSES WHICH DISTORT THE NORMAL PLAY OF COMPETITION IS NOT TO BE
CONDEMNED MERELY BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENT MAY BE
TO STABILIZE OR RAISE PRICES.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO.,
221 U.S. 106; UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., 226 U.S. 61;
NASH V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 373, 376; AMERICAN COLUMN & LUMBER CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 377; CHARLES A. RAMSAY CO. V. ASSOCIATED
BILL POSTERS, 260 U.S. 501; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S.
1; MAPLE FLOORING MANUFACTURERS ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563;
CEMENT MANUFACTURERS PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588,
603, 604; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231, 238;
WINDOW GLASS MFRS.  ASSN.  V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 403, 413;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 175, 179; APPALACHIAN
COALS V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE LEGALITY OF A COMBINATION SUCH AS IS HERE
PRESENTED CAN BE DETERMINED ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCE SHOWING "THE
FACTS PECULIAR TO THE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE RESTRAINT IS APPLIED; ITS
CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE RESTRAINT WAS IMPOSED; THE NATURE OF THE
RESTRAINT, AND ITS EFFECT, ACTUAL OR PROBABLE.  THE HISTORY OF THE
RESTRAINT, THE EVIL BELIEVED TO EXIST, THE REASON FOR ADOPTING THE
PARTICULAR REMEDY, THE PURPOSE OR END SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED ...  "
CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231, 238. 

THE TRIAL COURT IN THIS CASE ERRED REPEATEDLY IN EXCLUDING EVIDENCE
OFFERED BY THE RESPONDENTS WHICH WAS CLEARLY RELEVANT UNDER THE ABOVE
RULE.  IN MANY CASES THE EVIDENCE WAS NECESSARY TO SHOW THE BACKGROUND
OF THE INDUSTRY AND THE REASONS FOR THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS.  IN OTHERS
IT BORE DIRECTLY UPON THE QUESTION OF WHAT WAS THEIR PURPOSE.  IN
OTHERS IT TENDED TO PROVE THAT THE PRICE OF GASOLINE WAS NOT, AS
ALLEGED BY THE GOVERNMENT, ARBITRARY AND NONCOMPETITIVE DURING THE
INDICTMENT PERIOD.  IN MANY INSTANCES THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY NOT ONLY AS DIRECT PROOF OF THE MATTERS IN
QUESTION, BUT IN ORDER TO REBUT INFERENCES WHICH THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT
TO DRAW FROM FRAGMENTARY EVIDENCE. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT "THERE WAS A WEALTH OF EVIDENCE FROM
WHICH OPPOSING FACTUAL INFERENCES COULD BE DRAWN."  UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT THE JURY HAVE BEFORE IT ALL OF THE
SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THE PROPER INFERENCES
DEPENDED. 

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN USING AND PERMITTING
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL TO USE ALLEGED TRANSCRIPTS OF TESTIMONY BEFORE THE
GRAND JURY IN THE EXAMINATION OF IMPORTANT WITNESSES.  THE WITNESSES
UPON WHOM THE GOVERNMENT PRINCIPALLY RELIED TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE WERE
EMPLOYEES OF VARIOUS OF THE RESPONDENTS.  GOVERNMENT COUNSEL ENDEAVORED
CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL, BY READING FROM AND REFERRING TO
CERTAIN "ALLEGED GRAND JURY MINUTES," TO PERSUADE THE JURY THAT THESE
WITNESSES WERE UNDER PRESSURE TO AVOID INCRIMINATING THEIR EMPLOYERS. 
THIS PERSISTENT EFFORT HAD A THREEFOLD PURPOSE AND EFFECT:  (1) TO
MAGNIFY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ANY TESTIMONY OF THESE WITNESSES
DETRIMENTAL TO THE DEFENDANTS; (2) TO SUGGEST THE EXISTENCE OF
ADDITIONAL FACTS NOT COVERED BY ANY TESTIMONY AND EVEN MORE DETRIMENTAL
TO THE DEFENDANTS; AND (3) TO PREJUDICE THE RESPONDENTS BY PERSUADING
THE JURY THAT THEY WOULD SUBORN PERJURY TO AVOID DISCOVERY OF THEIR
ALLEGED UNLAWFUL ACTS.    THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED RESPONDENTS THE
RIGHT TO INSPECT THE ALLEGED TRANSCRIPTS OF TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND
JURY TO DETERMINE THE ACCURACY OF THE ALLEGED QUOTATIONS AND THE
STATEMENTS OF GOVERNMENT COUNSEL WITH RESPECT THERETO. 

THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY PERMITTED GOVERNMENT COUNSEL TO READ FROM
ALLEGED GRAND JURY TESTIMONY AND FROM NOTES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE
FROM GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED NOR
THEIR ACCURACY SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED. 

THE COURT REPEATEDLY READ AND PERMITTED GOVERNMENT COUNSEL TO READ
FROM THE ALLEGED TRANSCRIPTS OF TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY LED THE JURY TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH
ALLEGED GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.  IN
SOME INSTANCES IT CAN BE SHOWN FROM THE RECORD THAT STATEMENTS SO READ
FROM THE ALLEGED TRANSCRIPTS WERE NOT TRUE. 

THE COURT REPEATEDLY PERMITTED GOVERNMENT COUNSEL TO READ IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE JURY ALLEGED GRAND JURY TESTIMONY FOR THE PURPORTED
PURPOSE OF REFRESHING THE WITNESS'S RECOLLECTION, ALTHOUGH IT APPEARED
FROM THE RECORD THAT SUCH ALLEGED TESTIMONY WAS NOT GIVEN
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE OCCURRENCE TO WHICH IT RELATED. 

IN THEIR CLOSINGS TO THE JURY, GOVERNMENT COUNSEL MADE ARGUMENTS
WHICH PLAINLY CONSTITUTED APPEALS TO PASSION AND CLASS DISTINCTION, ALL
TENDING TO INDUCE THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE RECORD EVIDENCE AND TO BASE
THEIR VERDICT UPON SUCH IMPROPER APPEALS. 

IN ADDITION GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATING TO
THE JURY THAT THE ENTIRE TESTIMONY OF A KEY WITNESS FOR THE RESPONDENTS
WAS UNWORTHY OF BELIEF, RESORTED TO ASSERTIONS OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
WHICH NOT ONLY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, BUT WERE NOT CORRECT. 

THE GRANTING OF MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIALS TO NON-APPEALING DEFENDANTS
REQUIRED THE GRANTING OF SIMILAR MOTIONS TO RESPONDENTS. 

THE POSSESSION OF THE POWER TO RAISE OR AFFECT MARKET PRICES
ARBITRARILY WAS A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE. 

BY THEIR VERDICT OF JANUARY 22, 1938, THE JURY FOUND THAT 16
CORPORATIONS AND 30 INDIVIDUALS HAD CONSPIRED, AS CHARGED, AND THAT
THEY COLLECTIVELY POSSESSED THE POWER TO EXECUTE THE CONSPIRACY. 
THEREAFTER, ON JULY 19, 1938, THE COURT DISCHARGED ONE CORPORATION AND
10 INDIVIDUALS AND GRANTED NEW TRIALS TO 3 CORPORATIONS AND 15
INDIVIDUALS.  ONE OF THE CORPORATIONS GRANTED A NEW TRIAL, STANDARD OF
INDIANA, ALONE POSSESSED SUCH POWER AS WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY
GROUP TO RAISE PRICES IN THE MIDWESTERN AREA WITHOUT ITS AGREEMENT AND
COOPERATION. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THE RESPONDENTS
POSSESSED THE POWER TO RAISE OR AFFECT PRICES ARBITRARILY, NEVER
RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION OF THE JURY.  THE JURY'S FINDING THAT THE
ENTIRE GROUP POSSESSED SUCH POWER BY NO MEANS CARRIED THE IMPLICATION
THAT, IF PERMITTED, THE JURY WOULD LIKEWISE HAVE FOUND THAT
RESPONDENTS, ACTING ALONE, POSSESSED SUCH POWER.  MOREOVER, THE ERROR
CAN NOT BE CURED BY POINTING TO SOME EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD HAVE
SUPPORTED SUCH A FINDING, IF MADE.  THERE MUST BE A JURY FINDING, NOT A
FINDING BY THE COURT, UPON THIS ISSUE. 

THERE WAS A FATAL VARIANCE BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT
AND THE PROOF.  THE GOVERNMENT FAILED COMPLETELY TO ESTABLISH THE
ALLEGATION THAT THE RESPONDENTS (1) BOUGHT GASOLINE AT PRICES HIGHER
THAN THOSE PAID BY JOBBERS IN THE COMPETITIVE SPOT MARKET, AND (2)
FRAUDULENTLY MISREPRESENTED AND PUBLISHED SUCH PRICES IN THE MARKET
JOURNAL QUOTATIONS AS PRICES PAID BY JOBBERS.  THE PROOF AFFIRMATIVELY
SHOWED THE CONTRARY. 

THE RECORD CONTAINS NO SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT THE
COMBINATION EITHER IN PURPOSE OR EFFECT UNREASONABLY RESTRAINED TRADE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN LAW. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT FOR SEVERAL YEARS PRIOR TO THE INDICTMENT
PERIOD THE DISTRESS OF THE OIL INDUSTRY WAS SO ACUTE AS TO CALL FOR
REMEDIAL CONCERTED ACTION.  IT ALSO SHOWS THAT THIS CONDITION WAS
RECOGNIZED NOT ONLY BY THE INDUSTRY, BUT BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENTS.  THERE WAS NO DISPUTE AS TO THESE FACTS. 

THE SITUATION WAS CAUSED PRIMARILY BY TWO ABNORMAL AND DESTRUCTIVE
COMPETITIVE PRACTICES, RESULTING IN SURPLUS CRUDE OIL AND SURPLUS
GASOLINE AS A DISTRESS PRODUCT. 

FACED WITH THESE CONDITIONS THE RESPONDENTS ENGAGED IN A VOLUNTARY
COOPERATIVE EFFORT TO REMOVE ONE OF THESE COMPETITIVE EVILS - DISTRESS
GASOLINE.  THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED AND AGREED UPON WAS
THAT THE MAJOR COMPANIES WOULD PURCHASE FROM INDEPENDENT REFINERS THE
LATTER'S SURPLUS GASOLINE AT GOING MARKET PRICES. 

THE COURT BELOW ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS A JURY QUESTION
SOLELY BECAUSE THE PLAN WAS "PLACED IN OPERATION WITH THE RESULTS
REVEALED."  A PLAN OR AGREEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN PUT INTO OPERATION MAY
BE AS UNOBJECTIONABLE AS ONE WHICH IS STILL EXECUTORY.  IN EITHER CASE
THE QUESTION ON APPEAL IS WHETHER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE AS
CONSISTENT WITH THE INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS AS WITH THEIR GUILT. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ONLY ACTS DONE WITHIN THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF WISCONSIN IN THIS CASE WERE (A) THE EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS WITH
JOBBERS WHEREUNDER THE PRICE WAS DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO THE SPOT
TANK CAR MARKET QUOTATIONS IN THE MARKET JOURNALS; (B) DELIVERY OF
GASOLINE TO JOBBERS UNDER SUCH CONTRACTS; AND (C) SALES TO RETAIL
DEALERS AND CONSUMERS AT PRICES WHICH WERE AFFECTED BY PRICES ON THE
SPOT TANK CAR MARKET. 

AN OVERT ACT MUST BE AN ACT DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE AGENCY
CREATED BY THE ILLEGAL "PARTNERSHIP" OR CONSPIRACY AGREEMENT. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AGREEMENT AMONG THE
RESPONDENTS CONTEMPLATED ANY RESTRICTION UPON THEIR FREEDOM IN SELLING
GASOLINE WITHIN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. 

THE MERE REMOVAL OF DISTRESS GASOLINE FROM THE COMPETITIVE MARKET
WOULD OBVIOUSLY RESULT IN A MORE NORMAL PRICE, NOT BECAUSE OF THE
ABSENCE OF COMPETITION, BUT BY REASON OF IT.  THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY
IS THAT THIS WAS ALL THE RESPONDENTS HOPED TO ACCOMPLISH, AND THE
RECORD SHOWS THAT IN FACT THIS WAS ALL THAT RESULTED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS  FN1  WERE CONVICTED BY A JURY,  FN2 23 F.SUPP.  937,
UNDER AN INDICTMENT CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI
TRUST ACT,  FN3  26 STAT. 209; 50 STAT. 693.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.  105 F.2D 809.  THE CASE
IS HERE ON A PETITION AND CROSS-PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, BOTH OF WHICH
WE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES RAISED.  308
U.S. 540. 

I. THE INDICTMENT. 

THE INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED IN DECEMBER 1936 IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.  IT CHARGES THAT
CERTAIN MAJOR OIL COMPANIES,  FN4  SELLING GASOLINE IN THE MID-WESTERN
AREA  FN5  (WHICH INCLUDES THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN), (1)
"COMBINED AND CONSPIRED TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARTIFICIALLY
RAISING AND FIXING THE TANK CAR PRICES OF GASOLINE" IN THE "SPOT
MARKETS" IN THE EAST TEXAS  FN6  AND MID-CONTINENT  FN7  FIELDS; (2)
"HAVE ARTIFICIALLY RAISED AND FIXED SAID SPOT MARKET TANK CAR PRICES OF
GASOLINE AND HAVE MAINTAINED SAID PRICES AT ARTIFICIALLY HIGH AND NON
COMPETITIVE LEVELS, AND AT LEVELS AGREED UPON AMONG THEM AND HAVE
THEREBY INTENTIONALLY INCREASED AND FIXED THE TANK CAR PRICES OF
GASOLINE CONTRACTED TO BE SOLD AND SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS
AFORESAID IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA"; (3) "HAVE ARBITRARILY," BY REASON
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PREVAILING FORM OF JOBBER CONTRACTS WHICH MADE
THE PRICE TO THE JOBBER DEPENDENT ON THE AVERAGE SPOT MARKET PRICE,
"EXACTED LARGE SUMS OF MONEY FROM THOUSANDS OF JOBBERS WITH WHOM THEY
HAVE HAD SUCH CONTRACTS IN SAID MID-WESTERN AREA"; AND (4) "IN TURN
HAVE INTENTIONALLY RAISED THE GENERAL LEVEL OF RETAIL PRICES PREVAILING
IN SAID MID-WESTERN AREA." 

THE MANNER AND MEANS OF EFFECTUATING SUCH CONSPIRACY ARE ALLEGED IN
SUBSTANCE AS FOLLOWS: DEFENDANTS, FROM FEBRUARY 1935 TO DECEMBER 1936
"HAVE KNOWINGLY AND UNLAWFULLY ENGAGED AND PARTICIPATED IN TWO
CONCERTED GASOLINE BUYING PROGRAMS" FOR THE PURCHASE "FROM INDEPENDENT
REFINERS IN SPOT TRANSACTIONS OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF GASOLINE IN THE
EAST TEXAS AND MID-CONTINENT FIELDS AT UNIFORM, HIGH, AND AT TIMES
PROGRESSIVELY INCREASED PRICES."  THE EAST TEXAS BUYING PROGRAM IS
ALLEGED TO HAVE EMBRACED PURCHASES OF GASOLINE IN SPOT TRANSACTIONS
FROM MOST OF THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD, WHO WERE
MEMBERS OF THE EAST TEXAS REFINERS' MARKETING ASSOCIATION, FORMED IN
FEBRUARY 1935 WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND APPROVAL OF SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS
"FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING AND FACILITATING THE SALE OF GASOLINE TO
DEFENDANT MAJOR OIL COMPANIES."  IT IS ALLEGED THAT ARRANGEMENTS WERE
MADE AND CARRIED OUT FOR ALLOTTING ORDERS FOR GASOLINE RECEIVED FROM
DEFENDANTS AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THAT ASSOCIATION; AND THAT SUCH
PURCHASES AMOUNTED TO MORE THAN 50% OF ALL GASOLINE PRODUCED BY THOSE
INDEPENDENT REFINERS.  THE MID-CONTINENT BUYING PROGRAM IS ALLEGED TO
HAVE INCLUDED "LARGE AND INCREASED PURCHASES OF GASOLINE" BY DEFENDANTS
FROM INDEPENDENT REFINERS LOCATED IN THE MID-CONTINENT FIELDS PURSUANT
TO ALLOTMENTS AMONG THEMSELVES.  THOSE PURCHASES, IT IS CHARGED, WERE
MADE FROM INDEPENDENT REFINERS WHO WERE ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN OF THE
DEFENDANTS AT MONTHLY MEETINGS OF A GROUP REPRESENTING DEFENDANTS.  IT
IS ALLEGED THAT THE PURCHASES IN THIS BUYING PROGRAM AMOUNTED TO NEARLY
50% OF ALL GASOLINE SOLD BY THOSE INDEPENDENTS.  AS RESPECTS BOTH THE
EAST TEXAS AND THE MID-CONTINENT BUYING PROGRAMS, IT IS ALLEGED THAT
THE PURCHASES OF GASOLINE WERE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS WHICH
DEFENDANTS WOULD HAVE PURCHASED BUT FOR THOSE PROGRAMS; THAT AT THE
INSTANCE OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS THESE INDEPENDENT REFINERS CURTAILED
THEIR PRODUCTION OF GASOLINE. 

THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS SELLING IN THESE PROGRAMS WERE NAMED AS CO
CONSPIRATORS, BUT NOT AS DEFENDANTS. 

CERTAIN MARKET JOURNALS - CHICAGO JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, PLATT'S
OILGRAM, NATIONAL PETROLEUM NEWS - WERE MADE DEFENDANTS.  FN8  THEIR
PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSPIRACY IS ALLEGED AS FOLLOWS:  THAT THEY HAVE
BEEN "THE CHIEF AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES" THROUGH WHICH THE
WRONGFULLY RAISED PRICES "HAVE AFFECTED THE PRICES PAID BY JOBBERS,
RETAIL DEALERS, AND CONSUMERS FOR GASOLINE IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA,"
THAT THEY "KNOWINGLY PUBLISHED AND CIRCULATED AS SUCH PRICE QUOTATIONS
THE WRONGFULLY AND ARTIFICIALLY RAISED AND FIXED PRICES FOR GASOLINE
PAID BY" DEFENDANTS IN THESE BUYING PROGRAMS, WHILE "REPRESENTING THE
PRICE QUOTATIONS PUBLISHED BY THEM" TO BE GASOLINE PRICES "PREVAILING
IN SPOT SALES TO JOBBERS IN TANK CAR LOTS" AND WHILE "KNOWING AND
INTENDING THEM TO BE RELIED ON AS SUCH BY JOBBERS AND TO BE MADE THE
BASIS OF PRICES TO JOBBERS." 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ARE
ALLEGED AS FOLLOWS:  THAT MOST OF DEFENDANT MAJOR OIL COMPANIES HAVE
SOLD LARGE QUANTITIES OF GASOLINE IN TANK CAR LOTS TO JOBBERS IN THAT
DISTRICT AT THE "ARTIFICIALLY RAISED AND FIXED AND NON-COMPETITIVE
PRICES"; THAT THEY HAVE "SOLICITED AND TAKEN CONTRACTS AND ORDERS" FOR
GASOLINE IN THAT DISTRICT; AND THAT THEY HAVE REQUIRED RETAIL DEALERS
AND CONSUMERS THEREIN "TO PAY ARTIFICIALLY INCREASED PRICES FOR
GASOLINE" PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY. 

THE METHODS OF MARKETING AND SELLING GASOLINE IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA
ARE SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT IN SOME DETAIL.  SINCE WE HEREAFTER
DEVELOP THE FACTS CONCERNING THEM, IT WILL SUFFICE AT THIS POINT TO
SUMMARIZE THEM BRIEFLY.  EACH DEFENDANT MAJOR OIL COMPANY OWNS,
OPERATES OR LEASES RETAIL SERVICE STATIONS IN THIS AREA.  IT SUPPLIES
THOSE STATIONS, AS WELL AS INDEPENDENT RETAIL STATIONS, WITH GASOLINE
FROM ITS BULK STORAGE PLANTS.  ALL BUT ONE SELL LARGE QUANTITIES OF
GASOLINE TO JOBBERS IN TANK CAR LOTS UNDER TERM CONTRACTS.  IN THIS
AREA THESE JOBBERS EXCEED 4,000 IN NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTE ABOUT 50% OF
ALL GASOLINE DISTRIBUTED TO RETAIL SERVICE STATIONS THEREIN, THE BULK
OF THE JOBBERS' PURCHASES BEING MADE FROM THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES.  THE
PRICE TO THE JOBBERS UNDER THOSE CONTRACTS WITH DEFENDANT COMPANIES IS
MADE DEPENDENT ON THE SPOT MARKET PRICE, PURSUANT TO A FORMULA
HEREINAFTER DISCUSSED.  AND THE SPOT MARKET TANK CAR PRICES OF GASOLINE
DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY INFLUENCE THE RETAIL PRICES IN THE AREA.  IN
SUM, IT IS ALLEGED THAT DEFENDANTS BY RAISING AND FIXING THE TANK CAR
PRICES OF GASOLINE IN THESE SPOT MARKETS COULD AND DID INCREASE THE
TANK CAR PRICES AND THE RETAIL PRICES OF GASOLINE SOLD IN THE MID
WESTERN AREA.  THE VULNERABILITY OF THESE SPOT MARKETS TO THAT TYPE OF
MANIPULATION OR STABILIZATION IS EMPHASIZED BY THE ALLEGATION THAT SPOT
MARKET PRICES PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNALS WERE THE RESULT OF SPOT SALES
MADE CHIEFLY BY INDEPENDENT REFINERS OF A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF
THE GASOLINE SOLD IN THAT AREA - VIRTUALLY ALL GASOLINE SOLD IN TANK
CAR QUANTITIES IN SPOT MARKET TRANSACTIONS IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA
BEING SOLD BY INDEPENDENT REFINERS, SUCH SALES AMOUNTING TO LESS THAN
5% OF ALL GASOLINE MARKETED THEREIN. 

SO MUCH FOR THE INDICTMENT. 

II.  BACKGROUND OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. 

EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED (OR RESPONDENTS MADE OFFERS OF PROOF) SHOWING
OR TENDING TO SHOW THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS PRECEDING THE COMMENCEMENT
OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY IN FEBRUARY 1935.  AS WE SHALL DEVELOP LATER,
THESE FACTS WERE IN THE MAIN RELEVANT TO CERTAIN DEFENSES WHICH
RESPONDENTS AT THE TRIAL UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO INTERPOSE TO THE
INDICTMENT. 

BEGINNING ABOUT 1926 THERE COMMENCED A PERIOD OF PRODUCTION OF CRUDE
OIL IN SUCH QUANTITIES AS SERIOUSLY TO AFFECT CRUDE OIL AND GASOLINE
MARKETS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  OVERPRODUCTION WAS WASTEFUL,
REDUCED THE PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF THE OIL FIELDS AND DROVE THE PRICE
OF OIL DOWN TO LEVELS BELOW THE COST OF PRODUCTION FROM PUMPING AND
STRIPPER  FN9  WELLS.  WHEN THE PRICE FALLS BELOW SUCH COST, THOSE
WELLS MUST BE ABANDONED.  ONCE ABANDONED, SUBSURFACE CHANGES MAKE IT
DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO BRING THOSE WELLS BACK INTO PRODUCTION. 
SINCE SUCH WELLS CONSTITUTE ABOUT 40% OF THE COUNTRY'S KNOWN OIL
RESERVES, CONSERVATION REQUIRES THAT THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL BE
MAINTAINED AT A LEVEL WHICH WILL PERMIT SUCH WELLS TO BE OPERATED.  AS
OKLAHOMA AND KANSAS WERE ATTEMPTING TO REMEDY THE SITUATION THROUGH
THEIR PRORATION LAWS, THE LARGEST OIL FIELD IN HISTORY WAS DISCOVERED
IN EAST TEXAS.  THAT WAS IN 1930.  THE SUPPLY OF OIL FROM THIS FIELD
WAS SO GREAT THAT AT ONE TIME CRUDE OIL SANK TO 10 OR 15 CENTS A
BARREL, AND GASOLINE WAS SOLD IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD FOR 2 1/8[ A
GALLON.  ENFORCEMENT BY TEXAS OF ITS PRORATION LAW WAS EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT.  ORDERS RESTRICTING PRODUCTION WERE VIOLATED, THE OIL
UNLAWFULLY PRODUCED BEING KNOWN AS "HOT OIL" AND THE GASOLINE
MANUFACTURED THEREFROM, "HOT GASOLINE."  HOT OIL SOLD FOR SUBSTANTIALLY
LOWER PRICES THAN THOSE POSTED FOR LEGAL OIL.  HOT GASOLINE THEREFORE
COST LESS AND AT TIMES COULD BE SOLD FOR LESS THAN IT COST TO
MANUFACTURE LEGAL GASOLINE.  THE LATTER, DEPRIVED OF ITS NORMAL
OUTLETS, HAD TO BE SOLD AT DISTRESS PRICES.  THE CONDITION OF MANY
INDEPENDENT REFINERS USING LEGAL CRUDE OIL WAS PRECARIOUS.  IN SPITE OF
THEIR UNPROFITABLE OPERATIONS THEY COULD NOT AFFORD TO SHUT DOWN, FOR
IF THEY DID SO THEY WOULD BE APT TO LOSE THEIR OIL CONNECTIONS IN THE
FIELD AND THEIR REGULAR CUSTOMERS.  HAVING LITTLE STORAGE CAPACITY THEY
HAD TO SELL THEIR GASOLINE AS FAST AS THEY MADE IT.  AS A RESULT THEIR
GASOLINE BECAME "DISTRESS" GASOLINE - GASOLINE WHICH THE REFINER COULD
NOT STORE, FOR WHICH HE HAD NO REGULAR SALES OUTLETS AND WHICH
THEREFORE HE HAD TO SELL FOR WHATEVER PRICE IT WOULD BRING.  SUCH SALES
DROVE THE MARKET DOWN. 

IN THE SPRING OF 1933 CONDITIONS WERE ACUTE.  THE WHOLESALE MARKET
WAS BELOW THE COST OF MANUFACTURE.  AS THE MARKET BECAME FLOODED WITH
CHEAP GASOLINE, GASOLINE WAS DUMPED AT WHATEVER PRICE IT WOULD BRING. 
ON JUNE 1, 1933, THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL WAS 25[ A BARREL; THE TANK CAR
PRICE OF REGULAR GASOLINE WAS 2 5/8[ A GALLON.  IN JUNE 1933 CONGRESS
PASSED THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT (48 STAT. 195).  SEC. 9(C)
OF THAT ACT AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO FORBID THE INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN SHIPMENT OF PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS PRODUCED OR WITHDRAWN
FROM STORAGE IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAWS.  BY EXECUTIVE ORDER THE
PRESIDENT ON JULY 11, 1933, FORBADE SUCH SHIPMENTS.  ON AUGUST 19,
1933, A CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY WAS
APPROVED.  FN10  THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WAS DESIGNATED AS
ADMINISTRATOR OF THAT CODE.  HE ESTABLISHED A PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARD TO "ADVISE WITH AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS" TO HIM.  A PLANNING AND
COORDINATION COMMITTEE WAS APPOINTED, OF WHICH RESPONDENT CHARLES E.
ARNOTT, A VICEPRESIDENT OF SOCONY-VACUUM, WAS A MEMBER, TO AID IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CODE.  IN ADDRESSING THAT COMMITTEE IN THE FALL
OF 1933 THE ADMINISTRATOR SAID:  "OUR TASK IS TO STABILIZE THE OIL
INDUSTRY UPON A PROFITABLE BASIS."  CONSIDERABLE PROGRESS WAS MADE. 
THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL WAS A DOLLAR A BARREL NEAR THE END OF SEPTEMBER
1933, AS A RESULT OF THE VOLUNTARY ACTION OF THE INDUSTRY,  FN11 BUT,
ACCORDING TO RESPONDENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR'S POLICY
AND DESIRE.  IN APRIL 1934 AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE WAS ADOPTED UNDER
WHICH AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO BALANCE THE SUPPLY OF GASOLINE WITH THE
DEMAND BY ALLOCATING THE AMOUNT OF CRUDE OIL WHICH EACH REFINER COULD
PROCESS WITH THE VIEW OF CREATING A FIRMER CONDITION IN THE MARKET AND
THUS INCREASING THE PRICE OF GASOLINE.  FN12  THIS AMENDMENT ALSO
AUTHORIZED THE PLANNING AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE, WITH THE APPROVAL
OF THE PRESIDENT, TO MAKE SUITABLE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
GASOLINE FROM NON-INTEGRATED OR SEMI-INTEGRATED REFINERS AND THE RESALE
OF THE SAME THROUGH ORDERLY CHANNELS.  THEREAFTER FOUR BUYING PROGRAMS
WERE APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.  FN13  THESE PERMITTED THE MAJOR
COMPANIES TO PURCHASE DISTRESS GASOLINE FROM THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS. 
STANDARD FORMS OF CONTRACT WERE PROVIDED.  THE EVIL AIMED AT WAS, IN
PART AT LEAST, THE PRODUCTION OF HOT OIL AND HOT GASOLINE.  THE
CONTRACTS (TO AT LEAST ONE OF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS A PARTY) WERE
MADE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT
AND THE CODE AND BOUND THE PURCHASING COMPANY TO BUY FIXED AMOUNTS OF
GASOLINE AT DESIGNATED PRICES  FN14 ON CONDITION THAT THE SELLER SHOULD
ABIDE BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE.  ACCORDING TO THE 1935 ANNUAL
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, THESE BUYING PROGRAMS WERE NOT
SUCCESSFUL AS "THE PRODUCTION OF GASOLINE FROM 'HOT OIL' CONTINUED,
STOCKS OF GASOLINE MOUNTED, WHOLESALE PRICES FOR GASOLINE REMAINED
BELOW PARITY WITH CRUDE-OIL PRICES, AND IN THE EARLY FALL OF 1934 THE
INDUSTRY APPROACHED A SERIOUS COLLAPSE OF THE WHOLESALE MARKET."  FN15
RESTORATION OF THE PRICE OF GASOLINE TO PARITY WITH CRUDE OIL AT ONE
DOLLAR PER BARREL WAS NOT REALIZED. 

THE FLOW OF HOT OIL OUT OF EAST TEXAS CONTINUED.  REFINERS IN THE
FIELD COULD PROCURE SUCH OIL FOR 35[ OR LESS A BARREL AND MANUFACTURE
GASOLINE FROM IT FOR 2 OR 2 1/2[ A GALLON.  THIS COMPETITION OF THE
CHEAP HOT GASOLINE DROVE THE PRICE OF LEGAL GASOLINE DOWN BELOW THE
COST OF PRODUCTION.  THE PROBLEM OF DISTRESS GASOLINE ALSO PERSISTED. 
THE DISPARITY BETWEEN THE PRICE OF GASOLINE AND THE COST OF CRUDE OIL
WHICH HAD BEEN AT $1 PER BARREL SINCE SEPTEMBER 1933 CAUSED LOSSES TO
MANY INDEPENDENT REFINERS, NO MATTER HOW EFFICIENT THEY WERE.  IN
OCTOBER 1934 THE ADMINISTRATOR SET UP A FEDERAL TENDER BOARD AND ISSUED
AN ORDER MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO SHIP CRUDE OIL OR GASOLINE OUT OF EAST
TEXAS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE UNLESS IT WERE ACCOMPANIED BY A
TENDER ISSUED BY THAT BOARD CERTIFYING THAT IT HAD BEEN LEGALLY
PRODUCED OR MANUFACTURED.  PRICES ROSE SHARPLY.  BUT THE IMPROVEMENT
WAS ONLY TEMPORARY AS THE ENFORCEMENT OF SEC. 9(C) OF THE ACT WAS
ENJOINED IN A NUMBER OF SUITS.  ON JANUARY 7, 1935, THIS COURT HELD
SEC. 9(C) TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293
U.S. 388.  FOLLOWING THAT DECISION THERE WAS A RENEWED INFLUX OF HOT
GASOLINE INTO THE MID-WESTERN AREA AND THE TANK CAR MARKET FELL. 

MEANWHILE THE RETAIL MARKETS HAD BEEN SWEPT BY A SERIES OF PRICE
WARS.  THESE PRICE WARS AFFECTED ALL MARKETS - SERVICE STATION, TANK
WAGON, AND TANK CAR.  EARLY IN 1934 THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD
TRIED TO DEAL WITH THEM - BY NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MARKETING
COMPANIES AND PERSUADING INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES TO RAISE THE PRICE LEVEL
FOR A PERIOD.  ON JULY 9, 1934, THAT BOARD ASKED RESPONDENT ARNOTT,
CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE'S MARKETING
COMMITTEE N16, IF HE WOULD HEAD UP A VOLUNTARY, COOPERATIVE MOVEMENT TO
DEAL WITH PRICE WARS.  ACCORDING TO ARNOTT, HE POINTED OUT THAT IN
ORDER TO STABILIZE THE RETAIL MARKET IT WAS NECESSARY TO STABILIZE THE
TANK CAR MARKET THROUGH ELIMINATION OF HOT OIL AND DISTRESS GASOLINE. 
FN17  ON JULY 20, 1934, THE ADMINISTRATOR WROTE ARNOTT, DESCRIBED THE
DISTURBANCE CAUSED BY PRICE WARS AND SAID: 

"UNDER ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3 OF THE CODE IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
PLANNING AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE TO COOPERATE WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION AS A PLANNING AND FAIR PRACTICE AGENCY FOR THE
INDUSTRY.  I AM, THEREFORE, REQUESTING YOU, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
MARKETING COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING AND COORDINATION COMMITTEE, TO TAKE
ACTION WHICH WE DEEM NECESSARY TO RESTORE MARKETS TO THEIR NORMAL
CONDITIONS IN AREAS WHERE WASTEFUL COMPETITION HAS CAUSED THEM TO
BECOME DEPRESSED.  THE NUMBER AND EXTENT OF THESE SITUATIONS WOULD MAKE
IT IMPRACTICAL FOR THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD ACTING ALONE TO
DEAL WITH EACH SPECIFIC SITUATION.  THEREFORE, I AM REQUESTING AND
AUTHORIZING YOU, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE MARKETING COMMITTEE, TO DESIGNATE
COMMITTEES FOR EACH LOCALITY WHEN AND AS PRICE WARS DEVELOP, WITH
AUTHORITY TO CONFER AND TO NEGOTIATE AND TO HOLD DUE PUBLIC HEARINGS
WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAINING THE ELEMENTS OF CONFLICT THAT ARE PRESENT,
AND IN A COOPERATIVE MANNER TO STABILIZE THE PRICE LEVEL TO CONFORM TO
THAT NORMALLY PREVAILING IN CONTIGUOUS AREAS WHERE MARKETING CONDITIONS
ARE SIMILAR.  ANY ACTIVITIES OF YOUR COMMITTEE MUST, OF COURSE, BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE 2 OF SUB-SECTION (A) OF
ARNOTT APPOINTED A GENERAL STABILIZATION COMMITTEE WITH HEADQUARTERS IN
WASHINGTON AND A REGIONAL CHAIRMAN IN EACH REGION.  OVER FIFTY STATE
AND LOCAL COMMITTEES WERE SET UP.  THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD
WORKED CLOSELY WITH ARNOTT AND THE COMMITTEES UNTIL THE END OF THE CODE
NEAR THE MIDDLE OF 1935.  THE EFFORT (FIRST LOCAL, THEN STATE-WIDE, AND
FINALLY REGIONAL) WAS TO ELIMINATE PRICE WARS BY NEGOTIATION AND BY
PERSUADING SUPPLIERS TO SEE TO IT THAT THOSE WHO BOUGHT FROM THEM SOLD
AT A FAIR PRICE.  IN THE FIRST WEEK OF DECEMBER 1934, ARNOTT HELD A
MEETING OF THE GENERAL STABILIZATION COMMITTEE IN CHICAGO AND A SERIES
OF MEETINGS ON THE NEXT FOUR OR FIVE DAYS ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF
MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRY FROM THE MIDDLE WEST.  THESE MEETINGS WERE SAID
TO HAVE BEEN HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL IN ELIMINATION OF MANY PRICE WARS. 
ARNOTT REPORTED THE RESULTS TO MEMBERS OF THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARD ON DECEMBER 18, 1934, AND STATED THAT HE WAS GOING TO HAVE A
FOLLOW-UP MEETING IN THE NEAR FUTURE.  IT WAS AT THAT NEXT MEETING THAT
THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY WAS LAID. 

III.  THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. 

THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN ANY FORMAL CONTRACT OR
AGREEMENT.  IT IS TO BE PIECED TOGETHER FROM THE TESTIMONY OF MANY
WITNESSES AND THE CONTENTS OF OVER 1,000 EXHIBITS, EXTENDING THROUGH
THE 3,900 PRINTED PAGES OF THE RECORD.  WHAT FOLLOWS IS BASED ALMOST
ENTIRELY ON UNEQUIVOCAL TESTIMONY OR UNDISPUTED CONTENTS OF EXHIBITS,
ONLY OCCASIONALLY ON THE IRRESISTIBLE INFERENCES FROM THOSE FACTS.  A.
FORMATION OF THE MID-CONTINENT BUYING PROGRAM. 

THE NEXT MEETING OF THE GENERAL STABILIZATION COMMITTEE WAS HELD IN
CHICAGO ON JANUARY 4, 1935, AND WAS ATTENDED BY ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL
RESPONDENTS, BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CORPORATE RESPONDENTS, AND BY
OTHERS.  REPRESENTATIVES OF INDEPENDENT REFINERS, PRESENT AT THE
MEETING, COMPLAINED OF THE FAILURE OF THE PRICE OF REFINED GASOLINE TO
REACH A PARITY WITH THE CRUDE OIL PRICE OF $1 A BARREL.  AND COMPLAINTS
BY THE INDEPENDENTS OF THE DEPRESSING EFFECT ON THE MARKET OF HOT AND
DISTRESS GASOLINE WERE REPORTED.  VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED TO THE EFFECT
THAT "IF WE WERE GOING TO HAVE GENERAL STABILIZATION IN RETAIL MARKETS,
WE MUST HAVE SOME SORT OF A FIRM MARKET IN THE TANK CAR MARKET."  AS A
RESULT OF THE DISCUSSION ARNOTT APPOINTED A TANK CAR STABILIZATION
COMMITTEE  FN19  TO STUDY THE SITUATION AND MAKE A REPORT, OR, TO USE
THE LANGUAGE OF ONE OF THOSE PRESENT, "TO CONSIDER WAYS AND MEANS OF
ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING AN ACTIVE AND STRONG TANK CAR MARKET ON
GASOLINE."  THREE DAYS AFTER THIS COMMITTEE WAS APPOINTED, THIS COURT
DECIDED PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, SUPRA.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THERE WAS
EVIDENCE THAT FOLLOWING THAT DECISION THERE WAS A RENEWED INFLUX OF HOT
GASOLINE INTO THE MID-WESTERN AREA WITH A CONSEQUENT FALLING OFF OF THE
TANK CAR MARKET PRICES. 

THE FIRST MEETING OF THE TANK CAR COMMITTEE WAS HELD FEBRUARY 5,
1935, AND THE SECOND ON FEBRUARY 11, 1935.  AT THESE MEETINGS THE
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY WAS FORMED, THE SUBSTANCE OF WHICH, SO FAR AS IT
PERTAINED TO THE MID-CONTINENT PHASE, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

IT WAS ESTIMATED THAT THERE WOULD BE BETWEEN 600 AND 700 TANK CARS OF
DISTRESS GASOLINE PRODUCED IN THE MID-CONTINENT OIL FIELD EVERY MONTH
BY ABOUT 17 INDEPENDENT REFINERS.  THESE REFINERS, NOT HAVING REGULAR
OUTLETS FOR THE GASOLINE, WOULD BE UNABLE TO DISPOSE OF IT EXCEPT AT
DISTRESS PRICES.  ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PROPOSED AND DECIDED THAT CERTAIN
MAJOR COMPANIES (INCLUDING THE CORPORATE RESPONDENTS) WOULD PURCHASE
GASOLINE FROM THESE REFINERS.  THE COMMITTEE WOULD ASSEMBLE EACH MONTH
INFORMATION AS TO THE QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF THIS DISTRESS GASOLINE. 
EACH OF THE MAJOR COMPANIES WAS TO SELECT ONE (OR MORE) OF THE
INDEPENDENT REFINERS HAVING DISTRESS GASOLINE AS ITS "DANCING PARTNER,"
FN20  AND WOULD ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR PURCHASING ITS DISTRESS
SUPPLY.  IN THIS MANNER BUYING POWER WOULD BE COORDINATED, PURCHASES
WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY PLACED, AND THE RESULTS WOULD BE MUCH SUPERIOR TO
THE PREVIOUS HAPHAZARD PURCHASING.  THERE WERE TO BE NO FORMAL
CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS TO PURCHASE THIS GASOLINE, EITHER BETWEEN THE
MAJOR COMPANIES OR BETWEEN THE MAJORS AND THE INDEPENDENTS.  RATHER IT
WAS AN INFORMAL GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING WHEREBY EACH
UNDERTOOK TO PERFORM HIS SHARE OF THE JOINT UNDERTAKING.  PURCHASES
WERE TO BE MADE AT THE "FAIR GOING MARKET PRICE." 

A MECHANICAL SUB-COMMITTEE  FN21  WAS APPOINTED TO FIND PURCHASERS
FOR ANY NEW DISTRESS GASOLINE WHICH MIGHT APPEAR BETWEEN THE MONTHLY
MEETINGS OF THE TANK CAR STABILIZATION COMMITTEE AND TO HANDLE DETAILED
PROBLEMS ARISING DURING THESE PERIODS.  IT WAS AGREED THAT ANY SUCH
ATTEMPT TO STABILIZE THE TANK CAR MARKET WAS HOPELESS UNTIL THE FLOW OF
HOT GASOLINE WAS STOPPED.  BUT IT WAS EXPECTED THAT A BILL PENDING
BEFORE CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF HOT GASOLINE WOULD
SOON BE ENACTED WHICH WOULD DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH THAT PROBLEM. 
ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO PUT ANY PROGRAM INTO OPERATION UNTIL
THIS BILL HAD BEEN ENACTED AND BECAME OPERATIVE.  IT WAS LEFT TO
RESPONDENT ARNOTT TO GIVE THE SIGNAL FOR PUTTING THE PROGRAM INTO
OPERATION AFTER THIS HAD OCCURRED.    THE CONNALLY ACT (49 STAT. 30)
BECAME LAW ON FEBRUARY 22, 1935.  THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY UNDER THIS ACT
WAS THE FEDERAL TENDER BOARD WHICH WAS APPOINTED ABOUT MARCH 1ST.  IT
ISSUED ITS FIRST TENDERS MARCH 4TH.  ON MARCH 1ST RESPONDENTS ARNOTT
AND ASHTON EXPLAINED THE BUYING PROGRAM TO A GROUP OF MID-CONTINENT
INDEPENDENT REFINERS IN KANSAS CITY, WHO EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO
COOPERATE AND WHO APPOINTED A COMMITTEE TO ATTEND A MEETING OF THE TANK
CAR STABILIZATION COMMITTEE IN ST. LOUIS ON MARCH 5TH TO LEARN MORE
ABOUT THE DETAILS.  THIS MEETING WAS HELD WITH THE COMMITTEE OF THE
INDEPENDENTS PRESENT AT ONE OF THE SESSIONS.  AT A LATER SESSION THAT
DAY THE FINAL DETAILS OF THE MID-CONTINENT BUYING PROGRAM WERE WORKED
OUT, INCLUDING AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE "DANCING PARTNERS" AMONG THE MAJOR
COMPANIES.  FN22  ON MARCH 6TH ASHTON TELEPHONED ARNOTT AND TOLD HIM
WHAT HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AT THE ST. LOUIS MEETING.  LATER THE SAME
DAY ARNOTT TOLD ASHTON BY TELEPHONE THAT THE PROGRAM SHOULD BE PUT INTO
OPERATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, SINCE THE FEDERAL TENDER BOARD SEEMED TO
BE CLEANING UP THE HOT OIL SITUATION IN EAST TEXAS.  ASHTON ADVISED
MCDOWELL, CHAIRMAN OF THE MECHANICAL SUB-COMMITTEE, OF ARNOTT'S
INSTRUCTIONS.  AND ON MARCH 7TH THAT COMMITTEE WENT INTO ACTION.  THEY
DIVIDED UP THE MAJOR COMPANIES; EACH COMMUNICATED WITH THOSE ON HIS
LIST, ADVISED THEM THAT THE PROGRAM WAS LAUNCHED, AND SUGGESTED THAT
THEY GET IN TOUCH WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE "DANCING PARTNERS."  BEFORE THE
MONTH WAS OUT ALL COMPANIES ALLEGED TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE PROGRAM
(EXCEPT ONE OR TWO) MADE PURCHASES; 757 TANK CARS WERE BOUGHT FROM ALL
BUT THREE OF THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS WHO WERE NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT
AS SELLERS. 

B. THE MID-CONTINENT BUYING PROGRAM IN OPERATION. 

NO SPECIFIC TERM FOR THE BUYING PROGRAM WAS DECIDED UPON, BEYOND THE
FIRST MONTH.  BUT IT WAS STARTED WITH THE HOPE OF ITS CONTINUANCE FROM
MONTH TO MONTH.  AND IN FACT IT DID GO ON FOR OVER A YEAR, AS WE SHALL
SEE. 

THE CONCERTED ACTION UNDER THIS PROGRAM TOOK THE FOLLOWING FORM: 

THE TANK CAR STABILIZATION COMMITTEE HAD A.V. BOURQUE, SECRETARY OF
THE WESTERN PETROLEUM REFINERS' ASSOCIATION,  FN23  MAKE A MONTHLY
SURVEY, SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF DISTRESS GASOLINE WHICH EACH INDEPENDENT
REFINER WOULD HAVE DURING THE MONTH.  FROM MARCH 1935 THROUGH FEBRUARY
1936 THAT COMMITTEE MET ONCE A MONTH.  AT THESE MEETINGS THE SURVEYS
SHOWING THE AMOUNT AND LOCATION OF DISTRESS GASOLINE WERE PRESENTED AND
DISCUSSED.  THEY USUALLY REVEALED THAT FROM 600 TO 800 TANK CARS OF
DISTRESS GASOLINE WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE DURING THE MONTH.  EACH MEMBER
OF THE COMMITTEE PRESENT WOULD INDICATE HOW MUCH HIS COMPANY WOULD BUY
AND FROM WHOM.  THOSE COMPANIES WHICH WERE NOT REPRESENTED AT THE
MEETINGS WERE APPROACHED BY THE MECHANICAL SUB-COMMITTEE; "WORD WAS
GOTTEN TO THEM AS TO THE AMOUNT OF GASOLINE THAT IT WAS FELT THEY COULD
TAKE IN THAT MONTH."  ALSO, AS WE HAVE STATED, THE MECHANICAL SUB
COMMITTEE WOULD ENDEAVOR TO FIND PURCHASERS FOR ANY NEW DISTRESS
GASOLINE WHICH APPEARED BETWEEN THE MEETINGS OF THE TANK CAR
STABILIZATION COMMITTEE.  IT WOULD REPORT SUCH NEW SURPLUSES TO
BOURQUE.  THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MECHANICAL SUB-COMMITTEE WERE APPARENTLY
NOT RESTRICTED MERELY TO DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION TO THE BUYERS. 
ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TESTIFIED THAT HE URGED THE MAJORS TO BUY MORE
DISTRESS GASOLINE.  THROUGHOUT, PERSUASION WAS APPARENTLY USED TO THE
END THAT ALL DISTRESS GASOLINE WOULD BE TAKEN BY THE MAJORS AND SO KEPT
FROM THE TANK CAR MARKETS.  AS THE PROGRAM PROGRESSED, MOST OF THE
MAJOR COMPANIES CONTINUED TO BUY FROM THE SAME "DANCING PARTNERS" WITH
WHOM THEY HAD STARTED. 

ONE OF THE TASKS OF THE MECHANICAL SUB-COMMITTEE WAS TO KEEP ITSELF
INFORMED AS TO THE CURRENT PRICES OF GASOLINE AND TO USE ITS PERSUASION
AND INFLUENCE TO SEE TO IT THAT THE MAJORS PAID A FAIR GOING MARKET
PRICE AND DID NOT "CHISEL" ON THE SMALL REFINERS.  IT DID SO.  AT ITS
MEETINGS DURING THE SPRING OF 1935 THE QUESTION OF THE FAIR GOING
MARKET PRICE WAS DISCUSSED.  FOR EXAMPLE, JACOBI, A MEMBER OF THE SUB
COMMITTEE, TESTIFIED THAT AT THE MEETING OF MARCH 14, 1935, "THE
SUBCOMMITTEE  ...  ARRIVED AT WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS A FAIR MARKET PRICE
FOR THE WEEK FOLLOWING," VIZ. 3 3/4[ AND 4 3/4[.  FN24  JACOBI TERMED
THESE PRICES ARRIVED AT BY THE SUB-COMMITTEE AS THE "RECOMMENDED
PRICES."  HE MADE IT A PRACTICE OF RECOMMENDING THESE PRICES TO THE
MAJOR COMPANIES WITH WHICH HE COMMUNICATED.  ACCORDING TO HIS
TESTIMONY, THOSE "RECOMMENDATIONS" WERE REPRESENTED BY HIM TO BE NOT
THE SUB-COMMITTEE'S BUT HIS OWN IDEA.  MCDOWELL TESTIFIED THAT HE NEVER
MADE ANY SUCH PRICE RECOMMENDATIONS BUT IF ASKED WOULD TELL THE
PURCHASING COMPANIES WHAT HIS OWN COMPANY WAS PAYING FOR GASOLINE. 
FN25  UP TO JUNE 7, 1935, PRICE "RECOMMENDATIONS" WERE MADE FIVE OR
SEVEN TIMES, EACH TIME THE "RECOMMENDED" PRICES CONSTITUTING A PRICE
ADVANCE OF 1/8[ OR 1/4[ OVER THE PREVIOUS "RECOMMENDATION."  NO MORE
PRICE "RECOMMENDATIONS" WERE MADE IN 1935.  IN JANUARY 1936 THERE WAS
AN ADVANCE IN THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL.  THE MEMBERS OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE
DISCUSSED THE PRICE SITUATION AND CONCLUDED THAT AN ADVANCE OF 1/2[ A
GALLON OF GASOLINE PURCHASED UNDER THE PROGRAM SHOULD BE MADE.  JACOBI
MADE THAT "RECOMMENDATION" TO THE COMPANIES ON HIS LIST. 

WE SHALL DISCUSS LATER THE EFFECT OF THIS BUYING PROGRAM ON THE
MARKET. 

THE MAJOR COMPANIES REGULARLY REPORTED TO BOURQUE, THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MID-CONTINENT INDEPENDENT REFINERS,
THE VOLUME OF THEIR PURCHASES UNDER THE PROGRAM AND THE PRICES PAID. 
REPRESENTATIVES OF ONE OF THE CORPORATE RESPONDENTS REPEATEDLY
CHARACTERIZED ITS PURCHASES UNDER THE PROGRAM AS "QUOTAS,"
"OBLIGATIONS," OR "ALLOCATIONS."  THEY SPOKE OF ONE OF ITS "DANCING
PARTNERS" UNDER THE BUYING PROGRAM AS "ONE OF THE BABIES PLACED IN OUR
LAP LAST SPRING WHEN THIS THING WAS INAUGURATED."  AND THEY STATED THAT
"WE DON'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE AS TO WHOSE MATERIAL WE ARE TO TAKE, WHEN WE
PURCHASE OUTSIDE THIRD GRADE GASOLINE IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUYING
PROGRAM COMMITTEE'S OPERATIONS.  ON SUCH PURCHASES, WE HAVE REFINERIES
'ASSIGNED' TO US."  THIS WAS DOUBTLESS LAYMEN'S, NOT LAWYERS',
LANGUAGE.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ANY
BINDING COMMITMENT TO PURCHASE; THE PLAN WAS WHOLLY VOLUNTARY; THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO INDICATE THAT A PARTICIPANT WOULD BE PENALIZED
FOR FAILURE TO COOPERATE.  BUT THOUGH THE ARRANGEMENT WAS INFORMAL, IT
WAS NONETHELESS EFFECTIVE, AS WE SHALL SEE.  AND, AS STATED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THERE DID APPEAR TO BE AT LEAST A MORAL
OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED AT THE FAIR MARKET PRICES
"RECOMMENDED."  THAT ALONE WOULD SEEM TO EXPLAIN WHY SOME OF THE MAJOR
COMPANIES CANCELLED OR DECLINED TO ENTER INTO PROFITABLE DEALS FOR THE
EXCHANGE OF GASOLINE WITH OTHER COMPANIES IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS BUYING PROGRAM.  RESPONDENT SKELLY OIL CO. APPARENTLY LOST AT
LEAST SOME OF ITS PIPE-LINE TRANSPORTATION PROFIT OF 3/16[ A GALLON "ON
EVERY CAR OF GASOLINE" PURCHASED BY IT IN THE BUYING PROGRAM.  AND BOTH
THAT COMPANY AND RESPONDENT WADHAMS OIL CO. CONTINUED TO MAKE PURCHASES
OF GASOLINE UNDER THE PROGRAM ALTHOUGH THEY WERE UNABLE THEN TO DISPOSE
OF IT. 

UP TO JUNE 1935, THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE
MECHANICAL SUB-COMMITTEE WERE CHARGED TO AND PAID BY THE PLANNING AND
COORDINATION COMMITTEE OF THE CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY.  ON MAY 27, 1935, THIS COURT HELD IN SCHECHTER
POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, THAT THE CODE-MAKING
AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT WAS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER
THE TANK CAR STABILIZATION COMMITTEE HELD A MEETING TO DISCUSS THEIR
FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION.  IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE BUYING PROGRAM SHOULD
CONTINUE.  ACCORDINGLY, THAT COMMITTEE CONTINUED TO MEET EACH MONTH
THROUGH FEBRUARY 1936.  THE PROCEDURE AT THESE MEETINGS WAS ESSENTIALLY
THE SAME AS AT THE EARLIER ONES.  GRADUALLY THE BUYING PROGRAM WORKED
ALMOST AUTOMATICALLY, AS CONTACTS BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER BECAME WELL
ESTABLISHED.  THE MECHANICAL SUB-COMMITTEE MET AT IRREGULAR INTERVALS
UNTIL DECEMBER 1935.  THEREAFTER IT CONDUCTED ITS WORK ON THE
TELEPHONE. 

C. FORMATION AND NATURE OF THE EAST TEXAS BUYING PROGRAM. 

IN THE MEETINGS WHEN THE MID-CONTINENT BUYING PROGRAM WAS BEING
FORMULATED IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE TO
TAKE THE EAST TEXAS SURPLUS GASOLINE OFF THE MARKET SO THAT IT WOULD
NOT BE A "DISTURBING INFLUENCE IN THE STANDARD OF INDIANA TERRITORY." 
THE REASON WAS THAT WEAKNESS IN EAST TEXAS SPOT MARKET PRICES MIGHT
MAKE EAST TEXAS GASOLINE COMPETITIVE WITH MID-CONTINENT GASOLINE IN THE
MID-WESTERN AREA AND THUS AFFECT MID-CONTINENT SPOT MARKET PRICES.  THE
TANK CAR RATE ON GASOLINE SHIPMENTS FROM THE EAST TEXAS FIELD TO POINTS
IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA WAS ABOUT 1/8[ A GALLON HIGHER THAN FROM THE
MID-CONTINENT FIELD.  WITH EAST TEXAS SPOT MARKET PRICES MORE THAN 1/8[
A GALLON BELOW MID-CONTINENT SPOT MARKET PRICES, THERE MIGHT WELL BE A
RESULTING DEPRESSING EFFECT ON THE MID-CONTINENT SPOT MARKET PRICES. 
FN26 

EARLY IN 1935 THE EAST TEXAS REFINERS' MARKETING ASSOCIATION WAS
FORMED TO DISPOSE OF THE SURPLUS GASOLINE MANUFACTURED BY THE EAST
TEXAS REFINERS.  THE OCCASION FOR THE FORMATION OF THIS ASSOCIATION WAS
THE STOPPAGE OF THE SHIPMENT OF HOT OIL AND GASOLINE AS A CONSEQUENCE
OF A TEXAS LAW ENACTED IN DECEMBER 1934.  AS LONG AS THESE REFINERS HAD
OPERATED ON CHEAP HOT OIL THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO COMPETE FOR BUSINESS
THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE WEST.  IF THEY USED LEGAL CRUDE AT A DOLLAR A
BARREL, THEIR COSTS WOULD INCREASE.  THEIR SHIFT FROM A HOT OIL TO A
LEGAL OIL BASIS NECESSITATED A CHANGE IN THEIR MARKETING METHODS.  THEY
WERE ALREADY SUPPLYING JOBBERS AND DEALERS OF TEXAS WITH ALL THE
GASOLINE THEY COULD USE.  HENCE, THEIR PROBLEM WAS TO FIND ADDITIONAL
MARKETS FOR THE SURPLUS GASOLINE WHICH THEY MANUFACTURED FROM LEGAL
CRUDE.  THE ASSOCIATION WAS TO ACT AS THE SALES AGENCY FOR THOSE
SURPLUSES.  SHIPMENTS NORTH WOULD BE AGAINST THE FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL. 
THEREFORE, WITHOUT REGULAR OUTLETS FOR THIS SURPLUS GASOLINE THEY WOULD
HAVE BEEN FORCED TO DUMP IT ON THE MARKET AT DISTRESS PRICES.  THEIR
PLAN WAS TO PERSUADE THE MAJOR COMPANIES IF POSSIBLE TO BUY MORE EAST
TEXAS GASOLINE AND TO PURCHASE IT THROUGH THE ASSOCIATION WHICH WOULD
ALLOCATE IT AMONG ITS MEMBERS WHO HAD SURPLUSES.  NEIL BUCKLEY, A BUYER
FOR CITIES SERVICE EXPORT CORPORATION IN TULSA, WAS RECOMMENDED BY ONE
OF THE INDEPENDENTS AS THE CONTACT MAN.  BUCKLEY UNDERTOOK THE JOB. 
FN27 

THUS IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE MAJOR COMPANIES CAUSED THE
ASSOCIATION TO BE FORMED.  BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SERVICES OF THE
ASSOCIATION WERE UTILIZED IN CONNECTION WITH A BUYING PROGRAM BY
DEFENDANT COMPANIES.  THE RECORD IS QUITE VOLUMINOUS ON THE ACTIVITIES
OF BUCKLEY IN GETTING THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORS TO THE ASSOCIATION'S
PROGRAM.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT HE ENCOUNTERED MANY DIFFICULTIES, MOST
OF THEM DUE TO THE SUSPICION AND MISTRUST OF THE MAJORS AS A RESULT OF
THE EARLIER HOT OIL RECORD OF THE EAST TEXAS INDEPENDENTS.  HIS INITIAL
TASK WAS TO CONVINCE THE MAJORS OF THE GOOD FAITH OF THE EAST TEXAS
INDEPENDENTS.  MANY CONFERENCES WERE HAD.  ARNOTT GAVE HELP TO
BUCKLEY.  THUS, ON MARCH 1, 1935, ARNOTT WIRED A SMALL GROUP OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF MAJOR COMPANIES, WHO WERE BUYERS AND USERS OF EAST
TEXAS GASOLINE, INVITING THEM TO ATTEND A MEETING IN NEW YORK CITY ON
MARCH 6TH "TO HEAR OUTCOME MY MEETING WITH EAST TEXAS REFINERS AND TO
CONSIDER FUTURE ACTION SURPLUS GASOLINE THIS AND OTHER GROUPS THAT IS
AWAITING OUR DECISION  ...  MATTER OF EXTREME IMPORTANCE."  THE PROBLEM
WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT MEETING  FN28  BUT RELIABLE INFORMATION WAS
LACKING AS TO THE PROBABLE AMOUNT OF DISTRESS GASOLINE, THE SIZE OF THE
INDEPENDENTS' FEDERAL ALLOCATIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT SUCH GASOLINE WAS
GOING TO BE MANUFACTURED WITHIN THOSE ALLOCATIONS.  ACCORDINGLY ARNOTT
APPOINTED A COMMITTEE TO ATTEND THE MEETING OF THE DISTRICT ALLOCATORS
FN29  ON MARCH 13TH AND TO OBTAIN THE INFORMATION.  THAT INFORMATION
WAS OBTAINED AND A SCHEDULE WAS PREPARED SHOWING THE PROBABLE AMOUNT OF
SURPLUS GASOLINE IN EAST TEXAS AND THE GULF, THE NAMES OF THE REGULAR
BUYERS IN THOSE AREAS, AND THE AMOUNTS THEY MIGHT TAKE.  ARNOTT, ON
MARCH 14TH, BY TELEGRAPH CALLED ANOTHER MEETING IN NEW YORK CITY FOR
THE NEXT DAY, SAYING "THE QUESTION OF SURPLUS GASOLINE WHICH HAS BEEN
UNDER CONSIDERATION MUST BE FINALIZED TOMORROW."  AT THAT MEETING
SOMEONE (APPARENTLY A REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENT SINCLAIR) "AROSE
WITH A SLIP OF PAPER IN HIS HAND AND STATED THAT IT HAD BEEN SUGGESTED"
THAT EACH OF 12 TO 15 MAJOR COMPANIES "TAKE SO MUCH GASOLINE" FROM EAST
TEXAS, "THE AMOUNTS BEING READ OFF AS TO WHAT EACH COMPANY WOULD
TAKE."  NOTHING DEFINITE WAS DECIDED AT THE MEETING.  BUCKLEY CONTINUED
HIS EFFORTS, TALKING WITH ARNOTT AND REPRESENTATIVES OF OTHER MAJORS. 
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND FROM THE RECORD THE EXACT POINT OF
CRYSTALLIZATION OF A BUYING PROGRAM.  BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT AS A RESULT
OF BUCKLEY'S AND ARNOTT'S EFFORTS AND OF THE DISCUSSIONS AT THE VARIOUS
MEETINGS VARIOUS MAJOR COMPANIES DID COME INTO LINE AND THAT A
CONCERTED BUYING PROGRAM WAS LAUNCHED.  THE CORRESPONDENCE OF EMPLOYEES
OF SOME OF THE MAJORS THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD IN QUESTION IS REPLETE WITH
REFERENCES SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING:  "BUYING PROGRAM IN EAST TEXAS"; "OUR
ALLOCATION OF FIVE CARS PER DAY"; "A GENERAL BUYING MOVEMENT"; "REGULAR
WEEKLY PURCHASES FROM THE EAST TEXAS GROUP"; "ALLOCATIONS AND
PURCHASES" IN THE EAST TEXAS FIELD; AND THE LIKE. 

IN 1935 THE EAST TEXAS REFINERS NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT SOLD
285,592,188 GALLONS OF GASOLINE.  OF THIS CERTAIN DEFENDANT COMPANIES
FN30  BOUGHT 40,195,754 GALLONS OR 14.07%.  IN THE SAME YEAR ALL
INDEPENDENT REFINERS IN EAST TEXAS SOLD 378,920,346 GALLONS -
PRACTICALLY ALL OF IT ON THE SPOT MARKET.  OF THIS AMOUNT THOSE
DEFENDANT COMPANIES PURCHASED 12.03% OR 45,598,453 GALLONS.  OF THE
8,797 TANK CARS PURCHASED BY ALL DEFENDANTS (EXCEPT SINCLAIR) FROM
MARCH 1935 THROUGH APRIL 1936 FROM INDEPENDENT REFINERS IN THE EAST
TEXAS FIELD, 2,412 TANK CARS WERE PURCHASED BY THE PRESENT CORPORATE
RESPONDENTS.    EVERY MONDAY MORNING THE SECRETARY OF THE EAST TEXAS
ASSOCIATION ASCERTAINED FROM EACH MEMBER THE AMOUNT OF HIS FORTHCOMING
WEEKLY SURPLUS GASOLINE AND THE PRICE HE WANTED.  HE USED THE CONSENSUS
OF OPINION AS THE ASKING PRICE.  HE WOULD CALL THE MAJOR COMPANIES;
THEY WOULD CALL HIM.  HE EXCHANGED MARKET INFORMATION WITH THEM. 
ORDERS RECEIVED FOR LESS THAN THE ASKING PRICE WOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY
THE ASSOCIATION; RATHER THE SECRETARY WOULD REFER THE BUYER TO ONE OF
THE INDEPENDENTS WHO MIGHT SELL AT THE LOWER PRICE.  VERY FEW CARS WERE
PURCHASED THROUGH THE ASSOCIATION BY OTHERS THAN THE MAJOR OIL
COMPANIES.  FN31  THE MAJORS BOUGHT ABOUT 7,000 TANK CARS THROUGH THE
ASSOCIATION IN 1935 AND ABOUT 2,700 TANK CARS IN THE FIRST FOUR MONTHS
OF 1936.  AND IN 1935 THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSOCIATION PLACED AN
ADDITIONAL 1,000 TANK CARS BY BRINGING THE PURCHASERS AND THE
INDEPENDENT REFINERS TOGETHER.  THE PURCHASES IN 1935 IN EAST TEXAS
WERE, WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS, EITHER AT THE LOW OR SLIGHTLY BELOW THE
LOW QUOTATION IN PLATT'S OILGRAM, FOLLOWING IT CLOSELY AS THE MARKET
ROSE IN MARCH, APRIL, AND MAY, 1935; THEY CONFORMED TO THE MARKET AS IT
FLATTENED OUT INTO MORE OR LESS OF A PLATEAU THROUGH THE BALANCE OF
1935 WITH A LOW FOR THIRD GRADE GASOLINE OF 4 5/8[.  THIS WAS
CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY OF THE BUYING PROGRAM.  FOR THE MAJORS WERE
REQUESTED TO PURCHASE AT THE "FAIR, GOING MARKET PRICE."  FN32  AND IT
IS CLEAR THAT THIS EAST TEXAS BUYING PROGRAM WAS, AS WE HAVE SAID,
SUPPLEMENTARY OR AUXILIARY TO THE MID-CONTINENT PROGRAM.  AS STATED IN
MARCH 1935 IN AN INTER-COMPANY MEMORANDUM OF ONE OF THE MAJORS:  "  ...
WITH EAST COAST REFINERS HAVING A PROGRAM TO PURCHASE SURPLUS EAST
TEXAS GASOLINE OVER THE NEXT FOUR MONTHS, WE FEEL THAT STILL FURTHER
ADVANCES CAN BE MADE IN THE TANK CAR MARKET AND A RESULTANT INCREASE IN
THE SERVICE STATION PRICE." 

D. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY. 

AS A RESULT OF THESE BUYING PROGRAMS IT WAS HOPED AND INTENDED THAT
BOTH THE TANK CAR AND THE RETAIL MARKETS WOULD IMPROVE.  THE CONCLUSION
IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT DEFENDANTS' PURPOSE WAS NOT MERELY TO RAISE THE
SPOT MARKET PRICES BUT, AS THE REAL AND ULTIMATE END, TO RAISE THE
PRICE OF GASOLINE IN THEIR SALES TO JOBBERS AND CONSUMERS IN THE MID
WESTERN AREA.  THEIR AGREEMENT OR PLAN EMBRACED NOT ONLY BUYING ON THE
SPOT MARKETS BUT ALSO, AT LEAST BY CLEAR IMPLICATION, AN UNDERSTANDING
TO MAINTAIN SUCH IMPROVEMENTS IN MID-WESTERN PRICES AS WOULD RESULT
FROM THOSE PURCHASES OF DISTRESS GASOLINE.  THE LATTER OBVIOUSLY WOULD
BE ACHIEVED BY SELLING AT THE INCREASED PRICES, NOT BY PRICE CUTTING. 
ANY OTHER UNDERSTANDING WOULD HAVE BEEN WHOLLY INCONSISTENT WITH AND
CONTRARY TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BROAD STABILIZATION EFFORTS WHICH
WERE UNDER WAY.  IN ESSENCE THE RAISING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SPOT
MARKET PRICES WERE BUT THE MEANS ADOPTED FOR RAISING AND MAINTAINING
PRICES TO JOBBERS AND CONSUMERS.  THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE AGREEMENT WAS
INDICATED BY ARNOTT BEFORE A GROUP OF THE INDUSTRY ON MARCH 13, 1935. 
HE DESCRIBED THE PLAN AS ONE "WHEREBY THIS WHOLE STABILIZATION EFFORT
OF MARKETS, THE HOLDING UP OF NORMAL SALES MARKET STRUCTURES, THE
QUESTION OF THE REALIZATION OF REFINERIES, THE WORKING TOGETHER OF
THOSE TWO GREAT GROUPS IN ORDER THAT WE MAY BALANCE THIS WHOLE PICTURE
AND IN ORDER THAT WE MAY INTEREST A GREAT MANY BUYERS IN THIS SO-CALLED
SURPLUS OR HOMELESS GASOLINE, CAN BE DONE ALONG ORGANIZED LINES.   ...
"  CERTAINLY THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING BY THE JURY
THAT SUCH WERE THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE PLAN. 

BUT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS, AS
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, INDUCED THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS TO CURTAIL
THEIR PRODUCTION. 

E. MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION METHODS. 

BEFORE DISCUSSING THE EFFECT OF THESE BUYING PROGRAMS, SOME
DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS OF MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTING GASOLINE IN
THE MID-WESTERN AREA DURING THE INDICTMENT PERIOD IS NECESSARY. 

THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES SOLD ABOUT 83% OF ALL GASOLINE SOLD IN THE
MID-WESTERN AREA DURING 1935.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, MAJOR COMPANIES, SUCH
AS MOST OF THE DEFENDANTS, ARE THOSE WHOSE OPERATIONS ARE FULLY
INTEGRATED - PRODUCING CRUDE OIL, HAVING PIPE LINES FOR SHIPMENT OF THE
CRUDE TO ITS REFINERIES, REFINING CRUDE OIL, AND MARKETING GASOLINE AT
RETAIL AND AT WHOLESALE.  DURING THE GREATER PART OF THE INDICTMENT
PERIOD THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES OWNED AND OPERATED MANY RETAIL SERVICE
STATIONS  FN33  THROUGH WHICH THEY SOLD ABOUT 20% OF THEIR MID-WESTERN
GASOLINE IN 1935 AND ABOUT 12% DURING THE FIRST SEVEN MONTHS OF 1936. 
STANDARD OIL COMPANY (INDIANA)  FN34  WAS KNOWN DURING THIS PERIOD AS
THE PRICE LEADER OR MARKET LEADER THROUGHOUT THE MID-WESTERN AREA.  IT
WAS CUSTOMARY FOR RETAIL DISTRIBUTORS, WHETHER INDEPENDENT OR OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY MAJOR COMPANIES, TO FOLLOW STANDARD'S POSTED RETAIL
PRICES.  ITS POSTED RETAIL PRICE IN ANY GIVEN PLACE IN THE MID-WESTERN
AREA WAS DETERMINED BY COMPUTING THE MID-CONTINENT SPOT MARKET PRICE
AND ADDING THERETO THE TANK CAR FREIGHT RATE FROM THE MID-CONTINENT
FIELD, TAXES AND 5 1/2[.  THE 5 1/2[ WAS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE
CUSTOMARY 2[ JOBBER MARGIN AND 3 1/2[ SERVICE STATION MARGIN.  IN THIS
MANNER THE RETAIL PRICE STRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THE MID-WESTERN AREA
DURING THE INDICTMENT PERIOD WAS BASED IN THE MAIN ON MID-CONTINENT
SPOT MARKET QUOTATIONS,  FN35  OR, AS STATED BY ONE OF THE WITNESSES
FOR THE DEFENDANTS, THE SPOT MARKET WAS A "PEG TO HANG THE PRICE
STRUCTURE ON." 

ABOUT 24% OF DEFENDANT COMPANIES' SALES IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA IN
1935 WERE TO JOBBERS, WHO PERFORM THE FUNCTION OF MIDDLEMEN OR
WHOLESALERS.  SINCE 1925 JOBBERS WERE PURCHASING LESS OF THEIR GASOLINE
ON THE SPOT TANK CAR MARKETS AND MORE UNDER LONG TERM SUPPLY CONTRACTS
FROM MAJOR COMPANIES AND INDEPENDENT REFINERS.  THESE CONTRACTS USUALLY
RAN FOR A YEAR OR MORE AND COVERED ALL OF THE JOBBER'S GASOLINE
REQUIREMENTS DURING THE PERIOD.  THE PRICE WHICH THE JOBBER WAS TO PAY
OVER THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT WAS NOT FIXED; BUT A FORMULA FOR ITS
COMPUTATION WAS INCLUDED.  ABOUT 80% OR MORE OF DEFENDANT COMPANIES'
JOBBER CONTRACTS PROVIDED THAT THE PRICE OF GASOLINE SOLD THEREUNDER
SHOULD BE THE MID-CONTINENT SPOT MARKET PRICE ON THE DATE OF SHIPMENT. 
THIS SPOT MARKET PRICE WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY AVERAGING THE HIGH AND
LOW SPOT MARKET QUOTATIONS REPORTED IN THE CHICAGO JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
AND PLATT'S OILGRAM OR BY AVERAGING THE HIGH AND LOW QUOTATIONS
REPORTED IN THE JOURNAL ALONE.  THE CONTRACTS ALSO GAVE THE JOBBER A
WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY GUARANTEED MARGIN BETWEEN THE PRICE HE HAD TO PAY
FOR THE GASOLINE AND THE NORMAL PRICE TO SERVICE STATIONS - CUSTOMARILY
A 2[ MARGIN.  FN36 

THERE IS NO CENTRAL EXCHANGE OR MARKET PLACE FOR SPOT MARKET
TRANSACTIONS.  EACH SALE IS THE RESULT OF INDIVIDUAL BARGAINING BETWEEN
A REFINER AND HIS CUSTOMERS, SALES UNDER LONG-TERM CONTRACTS NOT BEING
INCLUDED.  IT IS A "SPOT" MARKET BECAUSE SHIPMENT IS TO BE MADE IN THE
IMMEDIATE FUTURE - USUALLY WITHIN TEN OR FIFTEEN DAYS.  SALES ON THE
SPOT TANK CAR MARKETS ARE EITHER SALES TO JOBBERS OR CONSUMERS, SALES
BY ONE REFINER TO ANOTHER NOT BEING INCLUDED.  FN37 THE PRICES PAID BY
JOBBERS AND CONSUMERS IN THE VARIOUS SPOT MARKETS ARE PUBLISHED DAILY
IN THE TRADE JOURNALS, PLATT'S OILGRAM AND CHICAGO JOURNAL OF
COMMERCE.  IN THE CASE OF THE OILGRAM THESE PRICES ARE OBTAINED BY A
MARKET CHECKER WHO DAILY CALLS REFINERS IN THE VARIOUS REFINERY AREAS
(MAJOR COMPANIES AS WELL AS INDEPENDENTS) AND ASCERTAINS THE QUANTITY
AND PRICE OF GASOLINE WHICH THEY HAVE SOLD TO JOBBERS IN SPOT SALES. 
FN38  AFTER CHECKING THE PRICES SO OBTAINED AGAINST OTHER SOURCES OF
INFORMATION (SUCH AS BROKERS' SALES) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE VOLUME
OF SALES REPORTED AT EACH PRICE, HE DETERMINES THE LOWEST AND HIGHEST
PRICES AT WHICH GASOLINE IS BEING SOLD TO JOBBERS IN SUBSTANTIAL
QUANTITIES ON THE SPOT MARKET.  FN39  THUS, IF HE FINDS THAT
SUBSTANTIAL SALES ARE REPORTED AT 5 1/8[, 5 1/4[ AND 5 3/8[, THE
OILGRAM REPORTS A PRICE RANGE OF 5 1/8-5 3/8[.  THE RESULT IS PUBLISHED
IN THE OILGRAM THAT SAME DAY.  FN40  THE CHICAGO JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
PUBLISHES SIMILAR QUOTATIONS THE DAY AFTER THE SALES ARE REPORTED.  AND
ITS QUOTATIONS COVER SALES TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS AS WELL AS TO
JOBBERS.  BUT IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT EITHER JOURNAL HAD PUBLISHED PRICES
PAID BY A MAJOR COMPANY AS A PRICE PAID BY JOBBERS ON THE TANK CAR
MARKET. 

F. THE SPOT MARKET PRICES DURING THE BUYING PROGRAM. 

IN 1935 THE 14 INDEPENDENT MID-CONTINENT REFINERS NAMED IN THE
INDICTMENT SOLD 377,988,736 GALLONS OF GASOLINE.  OF THAT OUTPUT, THE
CORPORATE RESPONDENTS PURCHASED ABOUT 56,200,000 GALLONS OR
APPROXIMATELY 15%  FN41  AND THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES WHO WENT TO TRIAL,
ABOUT 17%.  THE MONTHLY PURCHASES OF ALL DEFENDANT COMPANIES FROM MID
CONTINENT INDEPENDENTS FROM MARCH 1935 TO APRIL 1936 USUALLY RANGED
BETWEEN 600 AND 900 TANK CARS AND IN A FEW MONTHS SOMEWHAT EXCEEDED
THOSE AMOUNTS. 

MAJOR COMPANY BUYING BEGAN UNDER THE MID-CONTINENT PROGRAM ON MARCH
7, 1935.  DURING THE WEEK BEFORE THAT BUYING COMMENCED THE MID
CONTINENT SPOT MARKET FOR THIRD GRADE GASOLINE ROSE 3/8[. THE LOW
QUOTATION ON THIRD GRADE GASOLINE WAS 3 1/2[ ON MARCH 6, 1935.  IT ROSE
TO 4 3/4[ EARLY IN JUNE.  THAT ADVANCE WAS EVIDENCED BY TEN SUCCESSIVE
STEPS.  THE MARKET ON THIRD GRADE GASOLINE THEN LEVELLED OUT ON A
PLATEAU WHICH EXTENDED INTO JANUARY 1936, EXCEPT FOR A TEMPORARY
DECLINE IN THE LOW QUOTATION LATE IN 1935.  BY THE MIDDLE OF JANUARY
THE LOW AGAIN HAD RISEN, THIS TIME TO 5 1/4[.  IT HELD SUBSTANTIALLY AT
THAT POINT UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY 1936.  BY THE END OF FEBRUARY
IT HAD DROPPED TO 5[.  IT THEN LEVELLED OFF AT THAT LOW AND REMAINED
THERE INTO MAY 1936 WHEN THE LOW DROPPED FIRST TO 4 7/8[ AND THEN TO 4
3/4[.  IT STAYED THERE UNTIL THE FIRST WEEK IN JULY 1936.  THE LOW THEN
ROSE TO 4 7/8[, MAINTAINED THAT LEVEL UNTIL MID-AUGUST, THEN STARTED TO
DROP UNTIL BY SUCCESSIVE STEPS IT HAD DECLINED TO 4 1/2[ BEFORE THE
MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER.  IT STAYED THERE UNTIL EARLY OCTOBER WHEN IT ROSE
TO 4 5/8[, CONTINUING AT THAT LEVEL UNTIL MIDDLE NOVEMBER WHEN IT ROSE
TO 4 3/4[.  THE LOW REMAINED AT SUBSTANTIALLY THAT POINT THROUGHOUT THE
BALANCE OF 1936. 

DURING 1935, AS THE MID-CONTINENT SPOT MARKET FOR THIRD GRADE
GASOLINE WAS RISING, SO WAS THE EAST TEXAS SPOT MARKET.  AND WHEN IN
JUNE 1935 THE FORMER LEVELLED OFF FOR THE BALANCE OF THE YEAR AT A LOW
OF 4 3/4[, THE LATTER  FN42  LEVELLED OFF, AS WE HAVE SEEN, AT A LOW OF
4 5/8[. 

DURING THIS PERIOD THERE WERE COMPARABLE MOVEMENTS ON THE MID
CONTINENT SPOT MARKET FOR REGULAR GASOLINE.  FROM A LOW OF 4 3/8[ ON
MARCH 7, 1935, IT ROSE TO A LOW OF 5 5/8[ EARLY IN JUNE, THAT ADVANCE
BEING EVIDENCED BY NINE SUCCESSIVE STEPS.  AS IN THE CASE OF THIRD
GRADE GASOLINE, THE MARKET FOR REGULAR GASOLINE THEN LEVELLED OUT ON A
PLATEAU WHICH EXTENDED INTO JANUARY 1936.  BY THE MIDDLE OF JANUARY THE
LOW HAD RISEN TO 6 1/8[.  IT HELD AT THAT POINT UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF
FEBRUARY 1936.  BY THE END OF FEBRUARY IT HAD DROPPED TO 5 7/8[.  IT
ROSE TO 6[ IN THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, LEVELLED OFF AT THAT LOW AND
REMAINED THERE INTO AUGUST 1936.  BY MID-AUGUST IT STARTED TO DROP -
REACHING 5 1/2[ IN SEPTEMBER, GOING TO 5 5/8[ IN OCTOBER AND TO 5 3/4[
IN NOVEMBER, WHERE IT STAYED THROUGH THE BALANCE OF 1936. 

THESE PLATEAUS ARE CLEARLY SHOWN BY A CHART OF THE MARKET JOURNALS'
QUOTATIONS.  BUT THAT DOES NOT OF COURSE MEAN THAT ALL SALES ON THE
SPOT MARKET WERE MADE BETWEEN THE HIGH AND THE LOW DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE QUOTATIONS OF THE MARKET JOURNALS
MERELY INDICATED THE RANGE OF PRICES (USUALLY AN EIGHTH) WITHIN WHICH
THE BULK OF THE GASOLINE WAS BEING SOLD.  HENCE ACTUAL SALES TOOK PLACE
ABOVE THE HIGH AND BELOW THE LOW.  THUS BETWEEN JUNE AND DECEMBER 1935
WHILE THE LOW FOR THIRD GRADE GASOLINE REMAINED SUBSTANTIALLY AT 4 3/4[
AND THE HIGH AT 4 7/8[ JOBBERS' AND CONSUMERS' PURCHASES N43 RANGED
FROM 4 3/8[ TO 5 1/8[.  A SIMILAR CONDITION EXISTED AS RESPECTS REGULAR
GASOLINE. 

PURCHASES BY THE MAJOR COMPANIES LIKEWISE DID NOT ALWAYS FALL WITHIN
THE RANGE OF THESE QUOTATIONS.  IN FACT, BETWEEN 85 AND 90% OF THEIR
PURCHASES FROM THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS WERE MADE AT PRICES WHICH WERE
AT OR BELOW THE LOW QUOTATIONS IN THE MARKET JOURNALS.  FN44  THERE
WERE FEW SUCH PURCHASES ABOVE THE HIGH AND NOT A SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE
AT THE HIGH.  FN45 

G. JOBBER AND RETAIL PRICES DURING THE BUYING PROGRAMS. 

THAT THE SPOT MARKET PRICES CONTROLLED PRICES OF GASOLINE SOLD BY THE
MAJORS TO THE JOBBERS IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA DURING THE INDICTMENT
PERIOD IS BEYOND QUESTION.  FOR, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE VAST MAJORITY OF
JOBBERS' SUPPLY CONTRACTS DURING THAT PERIOD CONTAINED PRICE FORMULAE
WHICH WERE DIRECTLY DEPENDENT ON THE MID-CONTINENT SPOT MARKET PRICES. 
FN46  HENCE, AS THE LATTER ROSE, THE PRICES TO THE JOBBERS UNDER THOSE
CONTRACTS INCREASED. 

THERE WAS ALSO AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT THE SPOT MARKET PRICES
SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED THE RETAIL PRICES IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA DURING
THE INDICTMENT PERIOD.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, STANDARD OF INDIANA WAS KNOWN
DURING THIS PERIOD AS THE PRICE OR MARKET LEADER THROUGHOUT THIS AREA. 
IT WAS CUSTOMARY FOR THE RETAILERS TO FOLLOW STANDARD'S POSTED RETAIL
PRICES, WHICH HAD AS THEIR ORIGINAL BASE THE MID-CONTINENT SPOT MARKET
PRICE.  STANDARD'S POLICY WAS TO MAKE CHANGES IN ITS POSTED RETAIL
PRICE ONLY WHEN THE SPOT MARKET BASE WENT UP OR DOWN AT LEAST 3/10[ A
GALLON AND MAINTAINED THAT CHANGE FOR A PERIOD OF 7 DAYS OR MORE.  FN47
STANDARD'S NET REDUCTION IN POSTED PRICES FOR THE 6 MONTHS PRECEDING
MARCH 1935 WAS 1.9[ PER GALLON.  FROM MARCH 1935 TO JUNE 1935 ITS
POSTED RETAIL PRICES WERE ADVANCED 3/10[ FOUR TIMES.    RETAIL PRICES
IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA KEPT CLOSE STEP WITH MID-CONTINENT SPOT MARKET
PRICES DURING 1935 AND 1936, THOUGH THERE WAS A SHORT LAG BETWEEN
ADVANCES IN THE SPOT MARKET PRICES AND THE CONSEQUENT RISES IN RETAIL
PRICES.  FN48  THIS WAS TRUE IN GENERAL BOTH OF THE SUBNORMAL N49 AND
NORMAL RETAIL PRICES.  TO BE SURE, WHEN THE TANK CAR SPOT MARKET
LEVELLED OUT ON A PLATEAU FROM JUNE TO THE END OF 1935, THERE WAS NOT
QUITE THE SAME EVENNESS IN THE HIGHER PLATEAU OF THE AVERAGE RETAIL
PRICES.  FOR THERE WERE DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION LARGE NUMBERS OF
RETAIL PRICE CUTS IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE MID-WESTERN AREA, THOUGH THEY
DIMINISHED SUBSTANTIALLY DURING THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF 1935.  YET THE
AVERAGE SERVICE STATION PRICE  FN50  (LESS TAX) HAVING REACHED 13.26[
BY THE MIDDLE OF APRIL (FROM 12.56[ NEAR THE FIRST OF MARCH) NEVER ONCE
FELL BELOW THAT AMOUNT; ADVANCED REGULARLY TO 13.83[ BY THE MIDDLE OF
JUNE; DECLINED TO 13.44[ IN AUGUST; AND AFTER AN INCREASE TO 13.60[
DURING THE LAST OF THE SUMMER REMAINED AT 13.41[ DURING THE BALANCE OF
1935 EXCEPT FOR A MINOR INTERMEDIATE DROP.  IN SUM, THE CONTOURS OF THE
RETAIL PRICES CONFORMED IN GENERAL TO THOSE OF THE TANK CAR SPOT
MARKETS.  THE MOVEMENTS OF THE TWO WERE NOT JUST SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE;
THEY WERE STRIKINGLY SIMILAR.  IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE TANK CAR
SPOT MARKET PRICES CONTROLLED THE RETAIL PRICES IN THIS AREA, THERE WAS
SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT THEY INFLUENCED THEM -
SUBSTANTIALLY AND EFFECTIVELY.  AND IN THIS CONNECTION IT WILL BE
RECALLED THAT WHEN THE BUYING PROGRAM WAS FORMULATED IT WAS IN PART
PREDICATED ON THE PROPOSITION THAT A FIRM TANK CAR MARKET WAS NECESSARY
FOR A STABILIZATION OF THE RETAIL MARKETS.  AS REPORTED BY ONE WHO
ATTENDED THE MEETING ON FEBRUARY 5, 1935, WHERE THE BUYING PROGRAM WAS
BEING DISCUSSED:  "IT WAS GENERALLY ASSUMED THAT ALL COMPANIES WOULD
COME INTO THE PICTURE SINCE A STABLE RETAIL MARKET REQUIRES A HIGHER
TANK CAR MARKET." 

IV.  OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGEDLY RELEVANT TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN
THE INDICTMENT. 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES WERE DEVELOPED AT THE TRIAL BY
TESTIMONY OR OTHER EVIDENCE OR WERE EMBRACED IN OFFERS OF PROOF MADE BY
RESPONDENTS. 

A. ALLEGED KNOWLEDGE AND ACQUIESCENCE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

SUCH OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS AS WERE INCLUDED IN RESPONDENTS' OFFERS
OF PROOF WERE NOT SOUGHT TO BE PROVED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IMMUNITY
FROM PROSECUTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  FOR ADMITTEDLY THE
AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT NECESSARY FOR
SUCH IMMUNITY  FN51  HAD NOT BEEN OBTAINED.  RATHER RESPONDENTS' OFFERS
OF PROOF WERE MADE IN ORDER TO SHOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH,
RESPONDENTS ARGUE, SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO JUDGE
THE PURPOSE, EFFECT AND REASONABLENESS OF THEIR ACTIVITIES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE BUYING PROGRAM. 

ARNOTT TESTIFIED THAT ON JANUARY 8 OR 9, 1935, HE REPORTED THE
APPOINTMENT OF THE TANK CAR STABILIZATION COMMITTEE TO OFFICIALS OF THE
PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD WHO, HE SAID, EXPRESSED GREAT INTEREST
IN IT.  A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE LATE IN JANUARY 1935 ADVISED THE
CHAIRMAN OF THAT BOARD OF THE "NECESSITY FOR ACTION IN GETTING TANK CAR
PRICES UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE."  THE CHAIRMAN REPLIED THAT "THE TANK
CAR SITUATION IN RELATION TO THE PRICE OF CRUDE IS ONE ABOUT WHICH WE
HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT.  HOW TO BRING ABOUT A CORRECTION IS THE STUMBLING
BLOCK."  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT AT LEAST GENERAL INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE MEETINGS OF THE TANK CAR STABILIZATION COMMITTEE WAS
GIVEN A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOARD IN FEBRUARY 1935.  IN MARCH 1935
THE CODE AUTHORITIES, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, ASKED THE
MAJOR COMPANIES TO CURTAIL THEIR MANUFACTURE OF GASOLINE DURING THAT
MONTH BY 1,400,000 BARRELS.  THE PURPOSE WAS SAID TO BE TO AID THE
SMALL REFINERS BY FORCING THE MAJORS TO BUY PART OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS
FROM THEM.  A VOLUNTARY CURTAILMENT OF SOME 960,000 BARRELS WAS MADE. 

ON MARCH 12, 1935, ARNOTT SAW THE CHAIRMAN AND AT LEAST ONE OTHER
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOARD.  AMONG OTHER THINGS THE BUYING PROGRAMS
WERE DISCUSSED.  ARNOTT DID NOT ASK FOR THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THESE
PROGRAMS NOR ITS "BLESSING."  A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOARD TESTIFIED
THAT ARNOTT TOLD THEM THAT HE WAS CONDUCTING THOSE BUYING PROGRAMS "ON
HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY."  ARNOTT DENIED THIS.  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD ASKED ARNOTT IF THE PROGRAMS VIOLATED THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS. 
ARNOTT SAID HE DID NOT BELIEVE THEY DID AND DESCRIBED WHAT HIS GROUP
WAS DOING.  ARNOTT TESTIFIED THAT HE FELT THAT THE BOARD THOUGHT THE
PROGRAM WAS SOUND AND HOPED IT WOULD WORK; AND THAT IF HE HAD THOUGHT
THEY DISAPPROVED, HE WOULD HAVE DISCONTINUED HIS ACTIVITIES.  THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE THAT THE BOARD TOLD ARNOTT TO DISCONTINUE THE PROGRAM.  BUT
ON MARCH 13, 1935, ARNOTT IN ADDRESSING THE DISTRICT ALLOCATORS'
MEETING SAID, RESPECTING THESE BUYING PROGRAMS: 

"I AM PERFECTLY CONSCIOUS THAT WE HAVE MADE OTHER EFFORTS AT TIMES TO
HAVE THIS QUESTION DEALT WITH.  IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN DONE IN GROUP FORM. 
THAT HAS INVOLVED AGREEMENTS, GROUP AGREEMENTS.  THOSE OF US WHO HAVE
HAD ANYTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER WITH THE WHOLE NATIONAL PICTURE, WHO HAVE
COME TO WASHINGTON AND HAVE HAD ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THE PAB AND
EVENTUALLY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, KNOW JUST HOW LONG THAT ROAD IS,
AND FOR SOME GOOD REASON OR FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON OR FOR NO REASON AT
ALL THOSE AGREEMENTS SEEM TO HAVE DISAPPEARED; THOSE OUTSTANDING
ATTEMPTS - AND THEY WERE REALLY SINCERE AND WORTHY ATTEMPTS - HAVE
DISAPPEARED IN A SORT OF CLOUD OF MYSTERY, AND I DON'T THINK I, FOR
ONE, OR ANYBODY ELSE CAN TELL YOU JUST WHERE THEY HAVE GONE - THEY ARE
OUT OF OUR MINDS, THEY ARE COMPLETED, THEY ARE FINISHED, AND WE ARE NOT
INTERESTED." 

RESPONDENTS ALSO OFFERED TO PROVE THAT A COMMITTEE OF THE INDUSTRY
(THE BLAZER COMMITTEE) APPOINTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR TO STUDY THE
CONDITION OF THE SMALL UNITS IN THE INDUSTRY, MADE A REPORT TO HIM IN
MARCH 1935 WHICH STATED, INTER ALIA, AS A RECOMMENDATION: 

"WE KNOW OF NOTHING, APART FROM CONTINUED IMPROVEMENT IN CRUDE
PRODUCTION CONTROL, WHICH WOULD BE SO HELPFUL TO THE TANK-CAR PRICE OF
GASOLINE AT THIS TIME AS THE SUBSTANTIAL BUYING OF DISTRESS GASOLINE BY
MAJOR COMPANIES.  WE UNDERSTAND A PROGRAM OF THIS SORT IS BEING
CONSIDERED BY THE INDUSTRY NOW IN CONNECTION WITH A BROAD STABILIZATION
PROGRAM.  WE THEREFORE URGE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR GIVE IT HIS APPROVAL
AND ACTIVE SUPPORT."  FN52  THEY ALSO OFFERED A MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH
22, 1935, FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD TO
THE ADMINISTRATOR FN53  COMMENTING ON THE ABOVE REPORT AND MAKING THE
FOLLOWING SUGGESTION:  "WE BELIEVE SUCCESS IN CODE ADMINISTRATION,
ASSUMING THAT IT IS TO CONTINUE, REQUIRES THAT SOME OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE SHOULD BE ADOPTED; E.G., WE HAVE ENCOURAGED
STABILIZATION EFFORTS DESIGNED AT THIS TIME TO AID THE INDEPENDENT
REFINER,  ...  " 

ON APRIL 2, 1935, THE ADMINISTRATOR WROTE ARNOTT, REFERRED TO HIS
LETTER OF JULY 20, 1934 AND STATED, INTER ALIA:  "THE MATTER THAT AT
PRESENT CONCERNS ME IS THE NECESSITY OF COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE BASIC LAW.  IN AUTHORIZING THE FORMULATION OF A STABILIZATION
PROGRAM, I NECESSARILY CONDITIONED THE AUTHORITY GRANTED, BY PROVIDING
THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE 2 OF SUBSECTION (A) OF SECTION 3 OF THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT SHOULD BE OBSERVED.  I KNOW YOU WILL
APPRECIATE THAT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SUPPLYING COMPANIES WHICH MIGHT BE
IN CONFLICT WITH THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRE
SPECIFIC APPROVAL AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION IF COMPANIES ARE TO RECEIVE
THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT. 

"I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TEMPORARY CHARACTER OF A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS
AND THE NEED FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION HAS MADE FORMALIZED AGREEMENTS
IMPRACTICABLE AND IN A NUMBER OF INSTANCES THEY MAY BE UNNECESSARY. 
HOWEVER, WHEN THE UNDERSTANDINGS ARRIVED AT AS BASES OF SOLUTION OF
PRICE WARS AFFECTING THE INDUSTRY OVER A CONSIDERABLE AREA ARE INTENDED
TO OPERATE OVER A DEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME OR INVOLVE SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGES IN THE POLICY OF THE VARIOUS SUPPLYING COMPANIES MADE ONLY IN
CONSIDERATION OF SIMILAR ACTION ON THE PART OF OTHER COMPANIES, IT IS
NECESSARY THAT THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED BY THE RECOVERY ACT BE FOLLOWED
IN ORDER THAT THE ARRANGEMENT BE LEGAL.  IF ANY SUCH AGREEMENTS HAVE
BEEN MADE I SHOULD LIKE A REPORT AS TO THEM.  IF THEY REQUIRE APPROVAL
TO BE EFFECTIVE  ...  I SHOULD BE GLAD TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THEM
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT." 

ON APRIL 22, 1935, THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD WROTE A LETTER
TO ARNOTT IMPOSING THREE CONDITIONS ON GENERAL STABILIZATION WORK:  (1)
THERE SHOULD BE NO STABILIZATION MEETING WITHOUT A REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE BOARD BEING PRESENT; (2) EVERY ELEMENT IN THE INDUSTRY SHOULD BE
HEARD FROM BEFORE ANY DECISIONS WERE MADE; (3) NO GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
SHOULD BE GIVEN UNDER THE JULY 20, 1934 LETTER.  A MEETING OF ARNOTT'S
COMMITTEE AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WAS HELD ON MAY 8, 1935.  A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BOARD TESTIFIED THAT THEY CALLED ARNOTT "ON THE
CARPET TO REQUEST HIM TO EXPLAIN" TO THEM "WHAT HE HAD BEEN DOING." 
ARNOTT'S GROUP CONSIDERED THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE BOARD QUITE
IMPOSSIBLE.  THE BOARD ASSIGNED TWO OF ITS STAFF TO WORK THE PROBLEM
OUT WITH ONE OF ARNOTT'S MEN.  ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY OF ONE OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BOARD AT THAT MEETING, ARNOTT DID NOT ASK FOR
THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE BUYING PROGRAMS - NOTHING BEING SAID "ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER, ABOUT APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL."  AND HE TESTIFIED
THAT ARNOTT IN SUBSTANCE WAS TOLD AT THAT MEETING BY THE BOARD'S
CHAIRMAN THAT THE LETTER OF JULY 20, 1934, FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR TO
ARNOTT (QUOTED SUPRA P. 175) DID NOT GIVE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT ANY
BUYING PROGRAM; FN54  AND THAT ARNOTT SAID HE WAS NOT RELYING ON THAT
LETTER FOR APPROVAL.  ARNOTT, HOWEVER, TESTIFIED THAT HE RECALLED NO
SUCH STATEMENT MADE BY THE BOARD'S CHAIRMAN.  APPARENTLY, HOWEVER,
ARNOTT, IN ANSWER TO QUESTIONS, GAVE A GENERAL EXPLANATION OF THE
BUYING PROGRAMS, STATING THAT THE MAJORS WERE CONTINUING INFORMALLY TO
BUY; THAT THERE WAS NO POOL; THAT NO ONE WAS OBLIGED TO MAKE PURCHASES;
THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO LIFT FROM INDEPENDENT REFINERS DISTRESS
GASOLINE WHICH WAS BURDENING THE MARKET.  FN55 

RESPONDENTS ALSO OFFERED TO PROVE THAT ON MAY 14, 1935, THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD ASKED ARNOTT TO UNDERTAKE TO
STABILIZE THE PENNSYLVANIA REFINERY MARKET IN THE WAY THAT HE HAD
STABILIZED THE MID-CONTINENT REFINERY MARKET; THAT IN CONNECTION WITH
THIS REQUEST THE BOARD EVINCED SUPPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE MID
CONTINENT BUYING PROGRAM; AND THAT ARNOTT UNDERTOOK TO DO WHAT HE COULD
IN THE MATTER AND CALLED A MEETING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA REFINERS FOR MAY
28, 1935.  APPARENTLY THE SCHECHTER DECISION TERMINATED THAT
UNDERTAKING. 

RESPONDENTS ALSO OFFERED PORTIONS OF A FINAL REPORT  FN56  PREPARED
BY THE MARKETING DIVISION OF THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD WHICH
DISCUSSED THE WORK OF THE GENERAL STABILIZATION COMMITTEE FN57  SAYING,
INTER ALIA:  "ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT WAS THE TANK-CAR COMMITTEE,
WHICH ATTEMPTED TO GET THE TANK-CAR MARKET RAISED MORE IN LINE WITH THE
PRICE OF CRUDE RECOVERY COST ON THE THEORY THAT A FIRM TANK-CAR MARKET
WAS ESSENTIAL TO A STABILIZED RETAIL STRUCTURE."  AND RESPONDENTS
OFFERED TESTIMONY OF A MEMBER OF THE BOARD BEFORE A SENATE COMMITTEE IN
1937 RESPECTING THE "BUYING POOL EFFORTS, THAT BEGAN IN DECEMBER OF
1933 AND CONTINUED FROM THEN ON DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE
PETROLEUM CODE."  THAT TESTIMONY WAS:  "IT WAS AN EFFORT OF THE
DEPARTMENT AND THE INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEES TO BRING ABOUT THE NORMAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GASOLINE PRICES AND CRUDE OIL PRICES, IN ORDER TO
PERMIT THE INDEPENDENT, NON-INTEGRATED REFINER TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE
WITHOUT LOSS." 

IN SUM, RESPONDENTS BY THIS AND SIMILAR EVIDENCE OFFERED TO ESTABLISH
THAT THE PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD KNEW OF THE BUYING PROGRAMS AND
ACQUIESCED IN THEM.  AND RESPONDENTS BY THOSE FACTS, TOGETHER WITH
THOSE DISCUSSED UNDER II, SUPRA, UNDERTOOK TO SHOW THAT THEIR
OBJECTIVES UNDER THE BUYING PROGRAMS WERE IN LINE WITH THOSE OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CODE:  TO KEEP THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL AT A
MINIMUM OF $1 A BARREL; TO RESTORE THE WHOLESALE PRICE LEVEL OF
GASOLINE AT THE REFINERY TO A PARITY WITH CRUDE OIL; TO STABILIZE
RETAIL PRICES AT A NORMAL SPREAD BETWEEN THE REFINERY PRICE AND THE
RETAIL PRICE. 

B. OTHER FACTORS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE RISE IN
THE SPOT MARKET. 

RESPONDENTS DO NOT CONTEND THAT THE BUYING PROGRAMS WERE NOT A FACTOR
IN THE PRICE RISE AND IN THE STABILIZATION OF THE SPOT MARKETS DURING
1935 AND 1936.  BUT THEY DO CONTEND THAT THEY WERE RELATIVELY MINOR
ONES, BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF OTHER ECONOMIC FORCES SUCH AS THE
FOLLOWING: 

1. CONTROL OF PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL. 

UNDER THE CODE AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME TO BALANCE THE
PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL WITH THE CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND FOR GASOLINE. 
MONTHLY ESTIMATES OF GASOLINE CONSUMPTION WOULD BE MADE BY THE BUREAU
OF MINES.  THE QUANTITY OF CRUDE OIL NECESSARY TO SATISFY THAT DEMAND
WAS ALSO ESTIMATED, BROKEN DOWN INTO ALLOWABLES FOR EACH STATE, AND
RECOMMENDED TO THE STATES.  AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE STATES
WOULD APPROXIMATELY CONFORM TO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.  AFTER THE CODE
THE OIL STATES CONTINUED THE SAME PRACTICE UNDER AN INTERSTATE COMPACT
WHICH PERMITTED THEM TO AGREE AS TO THE QUANTITIES OF CRUDE OIL WHICH
THEY WOULD ALLOW TO BE PRODUCED.  FN58    2.  CONNALLY ACT. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, THIS LAW WAS ENACTED LATE IN FEBRUARY 1935 AND
BEGAN TO BE EFFECTIVE THE FIRST PART OF MARCH 1935.  PRIOR TO THIS ACT,
CONTROL OF HOT OIL BY THE STATES HAD NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE FOR ANY
EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.  THROUGHOUT 1933 AND 1934 FROM 150,000 TO
200,000 BARRELS OF CRUDE OIL A DAY WERE ESTIMATED TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED
IN EAST TEXAS IN EXCESS OF THE STATE'S ALLOWABLES, MUCH OF IT GOING
INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AFTER THE CONNALLY ACT WENT INTO OPERATION,
NO HOT GASOLINE WENT INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACCORDING TO RESPONDENTS'
EVIDENCE.    3.  $1 CRUDE OIL. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, CRUDE OIL WAS BROUGHT TO A DOLLAR A BARREL NEAR THE
END OF SEPTEMBER 1933.  BEFORE THE CONNALLY ACT, HOWEVER, HOT OIL
FLOODED THE MARKET AT SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER PRICES.  GASOLINE PRODUCED
FROM HOT OIL FORCED THE PRICE OF GASOLINE PRODUCED FROM CRUDE OIL DOWN
BELOW COST.  BUT WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE HOT OIL, FLUCTUATIONS IN
THE PRICE OF CRUDE CEASED.  THIS HAD A STABILIZING EFFECT ON THE PRICE
OF GASOLINE. 

4.  INCREASE IN CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND. 

BEGINNING IN THE SPRING OF 1935 THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR
GASOLINE.  DURING THE WHOLE INDICTMENT PERIOD EVERY MONTH SHOWED AN
INCREASE OVER THE CORRESPONDING MONTH IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.  FOR THE
ENTIRE YEAR OF 1935 CONSUMPTION FOR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE WAS 7% MORE
THAN FOR 1934; THAT FOR 1936 WAS ABOUT 10% OVER 1935 - SUBSTANTIALLY
THE SAME INCREASES TAKING PLACE IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA. 

5.  CONTROL OF INVENTORY WITHDRAWAL AND OF MANUFACTURE OF GASOLINE. 

UNDER THE CODE CRUDE OIL COULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM STORAGE ONLY WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.  ALSO UNDER THE CODE THERE WERE
MANUFACTURING QUOTAS FOR GASOLINE WHICH THROUGH CODE AUTHORITIES WERE
ALLOCATED AMONG THE REFINERS.  IN MARCH 1935, AS WE HAVE SEEN, GASOLINE
INVENTORIES OF THE MAJORS WERE REDUCED BY OVER 900,000 BARRELS THROUGH
A VOLUNTARY CURTAILMENT PROGRAM.  THE DEMAND WAS SO HEAVY THAT THE
INDUSTRY WITHDREW FROM STORAGE AND REFINED OVER 22,000,000 BARRELS OF
CRUDE OIL IN STORAGE IN 1935.  FURTHER, IMPORTS OF CRUDE OIL WERE
LIMITED BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

6.  IMPROVED BUSINESS CONDITIONS. 

THE YEARS 1935 AND 1936 WERE MARKED BY IMPROVING GENERAL BUSINESS
CONDITIONS AND RISING PRICES EVERYWHERE. 

MUCH TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN ON THESE AND RELATED POINTS.  IT WAS
DESIGNED TO SHOW THAT UNDER THE CONDITIONS WHICH EXISTED DURING THE
INDICTMENT PERIOD, STABILITY IN THE MARKET WAS TO BE EXPECTED FROM THE
PLAY OF THESE VARIOUS ECONOMIC FORCES.  FOR IT WAS ARGUED THAT BY
REASON OF THOSE FORCES SUPPLY AND DEMAND WERE BROUGHT INTO A REASONABLE
CONTINUING BALANCE WITH THE RESULTANT STABILIZATION OF THE MARKETS. 
AND THERE WAS MUCH TESTIMONY FROM RESPONDENTS' WITNESSES THAT THE ABOVE
FACTORS AS WELL AS THE BUYING PROGRAMS DID CONTRIBUTE TO PRICE
STABILITY DURING THIS PERIOD.  BUT NO WITNESS ASSUMED TO TESTIFY AS TO
HOW MUCH OF A FACTOR THE BUYING PROGRAM HAD BEEN. 

V. APPLICATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

A. CHARGE TO THE JURY 

THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT
FOR A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATIONS TO ACT TOGETHER TO RAISE THE
PRICES TO BE CHARGED FOR THE COMMODITY WHICH THEY MANUFACTURED WHERE
THEY CONTROLLED A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE
IN THAT COMMODITY.  THE COURT STATED THAT WHERE THE MEMBERS OF A
COMBINATION HAD THE POWER TO RAISE PRICES AND ACTED TOGETHER FOR THAT
PURPOSE, THE COMBINATION WAS ILLEGAL; AND THAT IT WAS IMMATERIAL HOW
REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE THOSE PRICES WERE OR TO WHAT EXTENT THEY HAD
BEEN AFFECTED BY THE COMBINATION.  IT FURTHER CHARGED THAT IF SUCH
ILLEGAL COMBINATION EXISTED, IT DID NOT MATTER THAT THERE MAY ALSO HAVE
BEEN OTHER FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE RAISING OF THE PRICES.  IN
THAT CONNECTION, IT REFERRED SPECIFICALLY TO THE ECONOMIC FACTORS WHICH
WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND WHICH RESPONDENTS CONTENDED WERE
PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRICE RISE AND THE SPOT MARKETS'
STABILITY IN 1935 AND 1936, VIZ. CONTROL OF PRODUCTION, THE CONNALLY
ACT, THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL, AN INCREASE IN CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND, CONTROL
OF INVENTORIES AND MANUFACTURING QUOTAS, AND IMPROVED BUSINESS
CONDITIONS.  THE COURT THEN CHARGED THAT, UNLESS THE JURY FOUND BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PRICE RISE AND ITS CONTINUANCE WERE
"CAUSED" BY THE COMBINATION AND NOT CAUSED BY THOSE OTHER FACTORS,
VERDICTS OF "NOT GUILTY" SHOULD BE RETURNED.  IT ALSO CHARGED THAT
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL WHICH WOULD EXEMPT THE
BUYING PROGRAMS FROM THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT; AND THAT
KNOWLEDGE OR ACQUIESCENCE OF OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THE GOOD
INTENTIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION WOULD NOT GIVE IMMUNITY
FROM PROSECUTION UNDER THAT ACT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THIS CHARGE TO BE REVERSIBLE ERROR,
SINCE IT WAS BASED UPON THE THEORY THAT SUCH A COMBINATION WAS ILLEGAL
PER SE.  IN ITS VIEW RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES WERE NOT UNLAWFUL UNLESS
THEY CONSTITUTED AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  HENCE, SINCE THAT
ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AND SINCE EVIDENCE BEARING ON
IT HAD BEEN EXCLUDED, THAT COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL
SO THAT THE CHARACTER OF THOSE ACTIVITIES AND THEIR EFFECT ON COMPETION
COULD BE DETERMINED.  IN ANSWER TO THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION
RESPONDENTS HERE CONTEND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WAS CORRECT, SINCE THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAD AFFECTED
PRICES ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE COMPETITIVE EVIL OF
DISTRESS GASOLINE BY THE BUYING PROGRAMS HAD PERMITTED PRICES TO RISE
TO A NORMAL COMPETITIVE LEVEL; THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES PROMOTED RATHER
THAN IMPAIRED FAIR COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITIES; AND THEREFORE THAT THEIR
ACTIVITIES HAD NOT UNDULY OR UNREASONABLY RESTRAINED TRADE.  AND THEY
ALSO CONTEND THAT CERTAIN EVIDENCE WHICH WAS OFFERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN
ADMITTED AS BEARING ON THE PURPOSE AND END SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED, THE
EVIL BELIEVED TO EXIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE RESTRAINT AND ITS
EFFECT.  BY THEIR CROSS-PETITION RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE RECORD
CONTAINS NO SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT THE COMBINATION, EITHER
IN PURPOSE OR EFFECT, UNREASONABLY RESTRAINED TRADE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AND THEREFORE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO DIRECTED VERDICTS OF
ACQUITTAL. 

IN UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, THIS COURT
SUSTAINED A CONVICTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT WHERE THE JURY WAS CHARGED
THAT AN AGREEMENT ON THE PART OF THE MEMBERS OF A COMBINATION,
CONTROLLING A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF AN INDUSTRY, UPON THE PRICES WHICH
THE MEMBERS ARE TO CHARGE FOR THEIR COMMODITY IS IN ITSELF AN
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE REASONABLENESS OF
THE PRICES OR THE GOOD INTENTIONS OF THE COMBINING UNITS.  THERE THE
COMBINATION WAS COMPOSED OF THOSE WHO CONTROLLED SOME 82 PER CENT OF
THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTING IN THE UNITED STATES
VITREOUS POTTERY.  THEIR OBJECT WAS TO FIX THE PRICES FOR THE SALE OF
THAT COMMODITY.  IN THAT CASE THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED VARIOUS REQUESTS
TO CHARGE THAT THE AGREEMENT TO FIX PRICES DID NOT ITSELF CONSTITUTE A
VIOLATION OF LAW UNLESS THE JURY ALSO FOUND THAT IT UNREASONABLY
RESTRAINED INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS COURT REVIEWED THE VARIOUS PRICE
FIXING CASES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT BEGINNING WITH UNITED STATES V.
TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, AND UNITED STATES V. JOINT
TRAFFIC ASSN., 171 U.S. 505, AND SAID "  ...  IT HAS SINCE OFTEN BEEN
DECIDED AND ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT UNIFORM PRICE-FIXING BY THOSE
CONTROLLING IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL MANNER A TRADE OR BUSINESS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS PROHIBITED BY THE SHERMAN LAW, DESPITE THE REASONABLENESS
OF THE PARTICULAR PRICES AGREED UPON."  (P. 398.)  THIS COURT POINTED
OUT THAT THE SO-CALLED "RULE OF REASON" ANNOUNCED IN STANDARD OIL CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, AND IN UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO
CO., 221 U.S. 106, HAD NOT AFFECTED THIS VIEW OF THE ILLEGALITY OF
PRICEFIXING AGREEMENTS.  AND IN HOLDING THAT AGREEMENTS "TO FIX OR
MAINTAIN PRICES" ARE NOT REASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE UNDER THE
STATUTE MERELY BECAUSE THE PRICES THEMSELVES ARE REASONABLE, IT SAID
(PP. 397-398): 

"THE AIM AND RESULT OF EVERY PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENT, IF EFFECTIVE, IS
THE ELIMINATION OF ONE FORM OF COMPETITION.  THE POWER TO FIX PRICES,
WHETHER REASONABLY EXERCISED OR NOT, INVOLVES POWER TO CONTROL THE
MARKET AND TO FIX ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE PRICES.  THE REASONABLE
PRICE FIXED TODAY MAY THROUGH ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS CHANGES BECOME THE
UNREASONABLE PRICE OF TOMORROW.  ONCE ESTABLISHED, IT MAY BE MAINTAINED
UNCHANGED BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF COMPETITION SECURED BY THE
AGREEMENT FOR A PRICE REASONABLE WHEN FIXED.  AGREEMENTS WHICH CREATE
SUCH POTENTIAL POWER MAY WELL BE HELD TO BE IN THEMSELVES UNREASONABLE
OR UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS, WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF MINUTE INQUIRY WHETHER
A PARTICULAR PRICE IS REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE AS FIXED AND WITHOUT
PLACING ON THE GOVERNMENT IN ENFORCING THE SHERMAN LAW THE BURDEN OF
ASCERTAINING FROM DAY TO DAY WHETHER IT HAS BECOME UNREASONABLE THROUGH
THE MERE VARIATION OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.  MOREOVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF
EXPRESS LEGISLATION REQUIRING IT, WE SHOULD HESITATE TO ADOPT A
CONSTRUCTION MAKING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL CONDUCT IN
THE FIELD OF BUSINESS RELATIONS DEPEND UPON SO UNCERTAIN A TEST AS
WHETHER PRICES ARE REASONABLE - A DETERMINATION WHICH CAN BE
SATISFACTORILY MADE ONLY AFTER A COMPLETE SURVEY OF OUR ECONOMIC
ORGANIZATION AND A CHOICE BETWEEN RIVAL PHILOSOPHIES." 

IN CONCLUSION THIS COURT EMPHASIZED THAT THE SHERMAN ACT IS NOT ONLY A
PROHIBITION AGAINST THE INFLICTION OF A PARTICULAR TYPE OF PUBLIC
INJURY, BUT ALSO, AS STATED IN STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 226 U.S. 20, 49, A "LIMITATION OF RIGHTS" WHICH MAY BE "PUSHED
TO EVIL CONSEQUENCES AND THEREFORE RESTRAINED." 

BUT RESPONDENTS CLAIM THAT OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AFFORD THEM
ADEQUATE DEFENSES TO THE INDICTMENT.  AMONG THOSE ON WHICH THEY PLACE
RELIANCE ARE APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344;
SUGAR INSTITUTE, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553; MAPLE FLOORING
MFRS.  ASSN.  V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563; CEMENT MFRS.  PROTECTIVE
ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED
STATES, 246 U.S. 231; AND THE AMERICAN TOBACCO AND STANDARD OIL CASES,
SUPRA. 

BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT LINE OF CASES IS APPOSITE.  AS CLEARLY
INDICATED IN THE TRENTON POTTERIES CASE, THE AMERICAN TOBACCO AND
STANDARD OIL CASES HAVE NO APPLICATION TO COMBINATIONS OPERATING
DIRECTLY ON PRICES OR PRICE STRUCTURES. 

AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, IS NOT IN POINT. 

IN THAT CASE CERTAIN PRODUCERS OF BITUMINOUS COAL CREATED AN
EXCLUSIVE SELLING AGENCY FOR THEIR COAL.  THE AGENCY WAS TO ESTABLISH
STANDARD CLASSIFICATIONS AND SELL THE COAL OF ITS PRINCIPALS AT THE
BEST PRICES OBTAINABLE.  THE OCCASION FOR THE FORMATION OF THE AGENCY
WAS THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN SO-CALLED INJURIOUS PRACTICES AND
CONDITIONS IN THE INDUSTRY.  ONE OF THESE WAS THE PROBLEM OF "DISTRESS
COAL" - COAL SHIPPED TO THE MARKET WHICH WAS UNSOLD AT THE TIME OF
DELIVERY AND THEREFORE DUMPED ON THE MARKET IRRESPECTIVE OF DEMAND. 
THE AGENCY WAS TO PROMOTE THE SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF THE MARKETING AND
DISTRIBUTION OF COAL, ITS DEMAND AND CONSUMPTION; TO MAINTAIN AN
INSPECTION AND AN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO DEMONSTRATE TO CUSTOMERS
THE ADVANTAGES OF THIS TYPE OF COAL AND TO PROMOTE AN EXTENSIVE
ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN; TO PROVIDE A RESEARCH DEPARTMENT TO DEMONSTRATE
PROPER AND EFFICIENT METHODS OF BURNING COAL AND THUS TO AID PRODUCERS
IN THEIR COMPETITION WITH SUBSTITUTE FUELS; TO OPERATE A CREDIT
DEPARTMENT DEALING WITH THE RELIABILITY OF PURCHASERS; AND TO MAKE THE
SALE OF COAL MORE ECONOMICAL.  THAT AGENCY WAS ALSO TO SELL ALL THE
COAL OF ITS PRINCIPALS AT THE BEST PRICES OBTAINABLE AND, IF ALL COULD
NOT BE SOLD, TO APPORTION ORDERS UPON A STATED BASIS.  AND, SAVE FOR
CERTAIN STATED EXCEPTIONS, IT WAS TO DETERMINE THE PRICES AT WHICH
SALES WOULD BE MADE WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH ITS PRINCIPALS.  THIS
COURT CONCLUDED THAT SO FAR AS ACTUAL PURPOSE WAS CONCERNED, THE
DEFENDANT PRODUCERS WERE ENGAGED IN A "FAIR AND OPEN ENDEAVOR TO AID
THE INDUSTRY IN A MEASURABLE RECOVERY FROM ITS PLIGHT."  AND IT
OBSERVED THAT THE PLAN DID NOT EITHER CONTEMPLATE OR INVOLVE "THE
FIXING OF MARKET PRICES"; THAT DEFENDANTS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIX THE
PRICE OF COAL IN THE CONSUMING MARKETS; THAT THEIR COAL WOULD CONTINUE
TO BE SUBJECT TO "ACTIVE COMPETITION."  TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE PLAN
WOULD HAVE A TENDENCY TO STABILIZE MARKET PRICES AND TO RAISE THEM TO A
HIGHER LEVEL, THIS COURT REPLIED (P. 374): 

"THE FACT THAT THE CORRECTION OF ABUSES MAY TEND TO STABILIZE A
BUSINESS, OR TO PRODUCE FAIRER PRICE LEVELS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
ABUSES SHOULD GO UNCORRECTED OR THAT COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR TO CORRECT
THEM NECESSARILY CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  THE
INTELLIGENT CONDUCT OF COMMERCE THROUGH THE ACQUISITION OF FULL
INFORMATION OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS MAY PROPERLY BE SOUGHT BY THE
COOPERATION OF THOSE ENGAGED IN TRADE, ALTHOUGH STABILIZATION OF TRADE
AND MORE REASONABLE PRICES MAY BE THE RESULT."  IN DISTINGUISHING THE
TRENTON POTTERIES CASE THIS COURT SAID (P. 375): 

"IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, NO INTENT OR POWER TO
FIX PRICES, ABUNDANT COMPETITIVE OPPORTUNITIES WILL EXIST IN ALL
MARKETS WHERE DEFENDANTS' COAL IS SOLD, AND NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN TO
WARRANT THE CONCLUSION THAT DEFENDANTS' PLAN WILL HAVE AN INJURIOUS
EFFECT UPON COMPETITION IN THESE MARKETS."    THUS IN REALITY THE ONLY
ESSENTIAL THING IN COMMON BETWEEN THE INSTANT CASE AND THE APPALACHIAN
COALS CASE IS THE PRESENCE IN EACH OF SO-CALLED DEMORALIZING OR
INJURIOUS PRACTICES.  THE METHODS OF DEALING WITH THEM WERE QUITE
DIVERGENT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WERE BUYING PROGRAMS OF DISTRESS
GASOLINE WHICH HAD AS THEIR DIRECT PURPOSE AND AIM THE RAISING AND
MAINTENANCE OF SPOT MARKET PRICES AND OF PRICES TO JOBBERS AND
CONSUMERS IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA, BY THE ELIMINATION OF DISTRESS
GASOLINE AS A MARKET FACTOR.  THE INCREASE IN THE SPOT MARKET PRICES
WAS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY A WELL ORGANIZED BUYING PROGRAM ON THAT
MARKET:  REGULAR ASCERTAINMENT OF THE AMOUNTS OF SURPLUS GASOLINE;
ASSIGNMENT OF SELLERS AMONG THE BUYERS; REGULAR PURCHASES AT PRICES
WHICH WOULD PLACE AND KEEP A FLOOR UNDER THE MARKET.  UNLIKE THE PLAN
IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PLAN IN THE APPALACHIAN COALS CASE WAS NOT
DESIGNED TO OPERATE VIS-A-VIS THE GENERAL CONSUMING MARKET AND TO FIX
THE PRICES ON THAT MARKET.  FURTHERMORE, THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF THAT
PLAN ON PRICES WAS NOT ONLY WHOLLY INCIDENTAL BUT ALSO HIGHLY
CONJECTURAL.  FOR THE PLAN HAD NOT THEN BEEN PUT INTO OPERATION.  HENCE
THIS COURT EXPRESSLY RESERVED JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
TAKE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IF, INTER ALIA, IN "ACTUAL OPERATION" THE PLAN
PROVED TO BE "AN UNDUE RESTRAINT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  AND AS WE
HAVE SEEN IT WOULD PER SE CONSTITUTE SUCH A RESTRAINT IF PRICE-FIXING
WERE INVOLVED. 

NOR ARE MAPLE FLOORING MFRS.  ASSN.  V. UNITED STATES AND CEMENT
MFRS.  PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT ALL RELEVANT TO THE
PROBLEM AT HAND.  FOR THE SYSTEMS THERE UNDER ATTACK WERE METHODS OF
GATHERING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION RESPECTING BUSINESS OPERATIONS. 
IT WAS NOTED IN THOSE CASES THAT THERE WAS NOT PRESENT ANY AGREEMENT
FOR PRICE-FIXING.  AND THEY WERE DECIDED, AS INDICATED IN THE TRENTON
POTTERIES CASE, ON THE EXPRESS ASSUMPTION THAT ANY AGREEMENT FOR PRICE
FIXING WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL PER SE.  AND SINCE THAT ELEMENT WAS
LACKING, THE ONLY ISSUES WERE WHETHER OR NOT ON THE PRECISE FACTS THERE
PRESENTED SUCH ACTIVITIES OF THE COMBINATIONS CONSTITUTED UNLAWFUL
RESTRAINTS OF COMMERCE.  A MAJORITY OF THE COURT HELD THAT THEY DID
NOT. 

NOR CAN RESPONDENTS FIND SANCTION IN CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, FOR THE BUYING PROGRAMS HERE UNDER ATTACK.  THAT CASE
INVOLVED A PROHIBITION ON THE MEMBERS OF THE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE
FROM PURCHASING OR OFFERING TO PURCHASE BETWEEN THE CLOSING OF THE
SESSION AND ITS OPENING THE NEXT DAY GRAINS (UNDER A SPECIAL CLASS OF
CONTRACTS) AT A PRICE OTHER THAN THE CLOSING BID.  THE RULE WAS
SOMEWHAT AKIN TO RULES OF AN EXCHANGE LIMITING THE PERIOD OF TRADING,
FOR AS STATED BY THIS COURT THE "RESTRICTION WAS UPON THE PERIOD OF
PRICEMAKING."  NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO SHOW THAT THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT
OF THE RULE WAS TO RAISE OR DEPRESS PRICES.  THE RULE AFFECTED ONLY A
SMALL PROPORTION OF THE COMMERCE IN QUESTION.  AND AMONG ITS EFFECTS
WAS THE CREATION OF A PUBLIC MARKET FOR GRAINS UNDER THAT SPECIAL
CONTRACT CLASS, WHERE PRICES WERE DETERMINED COMPETITIVELY AND OPENLY. 
SINCE IT WAS NOT AIMED AT PRICE MANIPULATION OR THE CONTROL OF THE
MARKET PRICES AND SINCE IT HAD "NO APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON GENERAL MARKET
PRICES," THE RULE SURVIVED AS A REASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

THERE WAS NO DEVIATION FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF THE TRENTON POTTERIES
CASE IN SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  FOR IN THAT CASE SO
CALLED COMPETITIVE ABUSES WERE NOT PERMITTED AS DEFENSES TO VIOLATIONS
OF THE SHERMAN ACT BOTTOMED ON A TRADE ASSOCIATION'S EFFORTS TO CREATE
AND MAINTAIN A UNIFORM PRICE STRUCTURE. 

THUS FOR OVER FORTY YEARS THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY AND WITHOUT
DEVIATION ADHERED TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS ARE
UNLAWFUL PER SE UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT AND THAT NO SHOWING OF SO-CALLED
COMPETITIVE ABUSES OR EVILS WHICH THOSE AGREEMENTS WERE DESIGNED TO
ELIMINATE OR ALLEVIATE MAY BE INTERPOSED AS A DEFENSE.  AND WE
REAFFIRMED THAT WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE IN CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS IN
ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, 458, WHERE WE
SAID: 

"AGREEMENTS FOR PRICE MAINTENANCE OF ARTICLES MOVING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ARE, WITHOUT MORE, UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE THEY ELIMINATE COMPETITION, UNITED STATES V.
TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, AND AGREEMENTS WHICH CREATE
POTENTIAL POWER FOR SUCH PRICE MAINTENANCE EXHIBITED BY ITS ACTUAL
EXERTION FOR THAT PURPOSE ARE IN THEMSELVES UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT,  ...  " 

THEREFORE THE SOLE REMAINING QUESTION ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE IS
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE OF THE TRENTON POTTERIES CASE TO THESE
FACTS. 

RESPONDENTS SEEK TO DISTINGUISH THE TRENTON POTTERIES CASE FROM THE
INSTANT ONE.  THEY ASSERT THAT IN THAT CASE THE PARTIES SUBSTITUTED AN
AGREED-ON PRICE FOR ONE DETERMINED BY COMPETITION; THAT THE DEFENDANTS
THERE HAD THE POWER AND PURPOSE TO SUPPRESS THE PLAY OF COMPETITION IN
THE DETERMINATION OF THE MARKET PRICE; AND THEREFORE THAT THE
CONTROLLING FACTOR IN THAT DECISION WAS THE DESTRUCTION OF MARKET
COMPETITION, NOT WHETHER PRICES WERE HIGHER OR LOWER, REASONABLE OR
UNREASONABLE.  RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS
NO ELIMINATION IN THE SPOT TANK CAR MARKET OF COMPETITION WHICH
PREVENTED THE PRICES IN THAT MARKET FROM BEING MADE BY THE PLAY OF
COMPETITION IN SALES BETWEEN INDEPENDENT REFINERS AND THEIR JOBBER AND
CONSUMER CUSTOMERS; THAT DURING THE BUYING PROGRAMS THOSE PRICES WERE
IN FACT DETERMINED BY SUCH COMPETITION; THAT THE PURCHASES UNDER THOSE
PROGRAMS WERE CLOSELY RELATED TO OR DEPENDENT ON THE SPOT MARKET
PRICES; THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PURCHASES OF DISTRESS
GASOLINE UNDER THOSE PROGRAMS HAD ANY EFFECT ON THE COMPETITIVE MARKET
PRICE BEYOND THAT FLOWING FROM THE REMOVAL OF A COMPETITIVE EVIL; AND
THAT IF RESPONDENTS HAD TRIED TO DO MORE THAN FREE COMPETITION FROM THE
EFFECT OF DISTRESS GASOLINE AND TO SET AN ARBITRARY NON-COMPETITIVE
PRICE THROUGH THEIR PURCHASES, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT POWER TO DO
SO. 

BUT WE DO NOT DEEM THOSE DISTINCTIONS MATERIAL. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE WAS ABUNDANT EVIDENCE THAT THE COMBINATION
HAD THE PURPOSE TO RAISE PRICES.  AND LIKEWISE, THERE WAS AMPLE
EVIDENCE THAT THE BUYING PROGRAMS AT LEAST CONTRIBUTED TO THE PRICE
RISE AND THE STABILITY OF THE SPOT MARKETS, AND TO INCREASES IN THE
PRICE OF GASOLINE SOLD IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA DURING THE INDICTMENT
PERIOD.  THAT OTHER FACTORS ALSO MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THAT RISE AND
STABILITY OF THE MARKETS IS IMMATERIAL.  FOR IN ANY SUCH MARKET
MOVEMENT, FORCES OTHER THAN THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE BUYERS NORMALLY
WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE PRICE RISE AND THE MARKET STABILITY.  SO FAR AS
CAUSE AND EFFECT ARE CONCERNED IT IS SUFFICIENT IN THIS TYPE OF CASE IF
THE BUYING PROGRAMS OF THE COMBINATION RESULTED IN A PRICE RISE AND
MARKET STABILITY WHICH BUT FOR THEM WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.  FOR THIS
REASON THE CHARGE TO THE JURY THAT THE BUYING PROGRAMS MUST HAVE
"CAUSED" THE PRICE RISE AND ITS CONTINUANCE WAS MORE FAVORABLE TO
RESPONDENTS THAN THEY COULD HAVE REQUIRED.  PROOF THAT THERE WAS A
CONSPIRACY, THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO RAISE PRICES, AND THAT IT CAUSED OR
CONTRIBUTED TO A PRICE RISE IS PROOF OF THE ACTUAL CONSUMMATION OR
EXECUTION OF A CONSPIRACY UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

SECONDLY, THE FACT THAT SALES ON THE SPOT MARKETS WERE STILL GOVERNED
BY SOME COMPETITION IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.  FOR IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT
THAT COMPETITION WAS RESTRICTED THROUGH THE REMOVAL BY RESPONDENTS OF A
PART OF THE SUPPLY WHICH BUT FOR THE BUYING PROGRAMS WOULD HAVE BEEN A
FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE GOING PRICES ON THOSE MARKETS.  BUT THE VICE
OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS NOT MERELY THE RESTRICTION OF SUPPLY OF GASOLINE
BY REMOVAL OF A SURPLUS.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THIS WAS A WELL ORGANIZED
PROGRAM.  THE TIMING AND STRATEGIC PLACEMENT OF THE BUYING ORDERS FOR
DISTRESS GASOLINE PLAYED AN IMPORTANT AND SIGNIFICANT ROLE.  BUYING
ORDERS WERE CAREFULLY PLACED SO AS TO REMOVE THE DISTRESS GASOLINE FROM
WEAK HANDS.  PURCHASES WERE TIMED.  SELLERS WERE ASSIGNED TO THE BUYERS
SO THAT REGULAR OUTLETS FOR DISTRESS GASOLINE WOULD BE AVAILABLE.  THE
WHOLE SCHEME WAS CAREFULLY PLANNED AND EXECUTED TO THE END THAT
DISTRESS GASOLINE WOULD NOT OVERHANG THE MARKETS AND DEPRESS THEM AT
ANY TIME.  AND AS A RESULT OF THE PAYMENT OF FAIR GOING MARKET PRICES A
FLOOR WAS PLACED AND KEPT UNDER THE SPOT MARKETS.  PRICES ROSE AND
JOBBERS AND CONSUMERS IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA PAID MORE FOR THEIR
GASOLINE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE PAID BUT FOR THE CONSPIRACY.  COMPETITION
WAS NOT ELIMINATED FROM THE MARKETS; BUT IT WAS CLEARLY CURTAILED,
SINCE RESTRICTION OF THE SUPPLY OF GASOLINE, THE TIMING AND PLACEMENT
OF THE PURCHASES UNDER THE BUYING PROGRAMS AND THE PLACING OF A FLOOR
UNDER THE SPOT MARKETS OBVIOUSLY REDUCED THE PLAY OF THE FORCES OF
SUPPLY AND DEMAND. 

THE ELIMINATION OF SO-CALLED COMPETITIVE EVILS IS NO LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH BUYING PROGRAMS.  THE ELIMINATION OF SUCH
CONDITIONS WAS SOUGHT PRIMARILY FOR ITS EFFECT ON THE PRICE
STRUCTURES.  FAIRER COMPETITIVE PRICES, IT IS CLAIMED, RESULTED WHEN
DISTRESS GASOLINE WAS REMOVED FROM THE MARKET.  BUT SUCH DEFENSE IS
TYPICAL OF THE PROTESTATIONS USUALLY MADE IN PRICE-FIXING CASES. 
RUINOUS COMPETITION, FINANCIAL DISASTER, EVILS OF PRICE CUTTING AND THE
LIKE APPEAR THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY AS OSTENSIBLE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR
PRICE-FIXING.  IF THE SO-CALLED COMPETITIVE ABUSES WERE TO BE APPRAISED
HERE, THE REASONABLENESS OF PRICES WOULD NECESSARILY BECOME AN ISSUE IN
EVERY PRICE-FIXING CASE.  IN THAT EVENT THE SHERMAN ACT WOULD SOON BE
EMASCULATED; ITS PHILOSOPHY WOULD BE SUPPLANTED BY ONE WHICH IS WHOLLY
ALIEN TO A SYSTEM OF FREE COMPETITION; IT WOULD NOT BE THE CHARTER OF
FREEDOM WHICH ITS FRAMERS INTENDED. 

THE REASONABLENESS OF PRICES HAS NO CONSTANCY DUE TO THE DYNAMIC
QUALITY OF BUSINESS FACTS UNDERLYING PRICE STRUCTURES.  THOSE WHO FIXED
REASONABLE PRICES TODAY WOULD PERPETUATE UNREASONABLE PRICES TOMORROW,
SINCE THOSE PRICES WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPERVISION AND READJUSTMENT IN LIGHT OF CHANGED CONDITIONS.  THOSE WHO
CONTROLLED THE PRICES WOULD CONTROL OR EFFECTIVELY DOMINATE THE
MARKET.  AND THOSE WHO WERE IN THAT STRATEGIC POSITION WOULD HAVE IT IN
THEIR POWER TO DESTROY OR DRASTICALLY IMPAIR THE COMPETITIVE SYSTEM. 
BUT THE THRUST OF THE RULE IS DEEPER AND REACHES MORE THAN MONOPOLY
POWER.  ANY COMBINATION WHICH TAMPERS WITH PRICE STRUCTURES IS ENGAGED
IN AN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.  EVEN THOUGH THE MEMBERS OF THE PRICE-FIXING
GROUP WERE IN NO POSITION TO CONTROL THE MARKET, TO THE EXTENT THAT
THEY RAISED, LOWERED, OR STABILIZED PRICES THEY WOULD BE DIRECTLY
INTERFERING WITH THE FREE PLAY OF MARKET FORCES.  THE ACT PLACES ALL
SUCH SCHEMES BEYOND THE PALE AND PROTECTS THAT VITAL PART OF OUR
ECONOMY AGAINST ANY DEGREE OF INTERFERENCE.  CONGRESS HAS NOT LEFT WITH
US THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT PARTICULAR PRICE-FIXING SCHEMES
ARE WISE OR UNWISE, HEALTHY OR DESTRUCTIVE.  IT HAS NOT PERMITTED THE
AGE-OLD CRY OF RUINOUS COMPETITION AND COMPETITIVE EVILS TO BE A
DEFENSE TO PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACIES.  IT HAS NO MORE ALLOWED GENUINE
OR FANCIED COMPETITIVE ABUSES AS A LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH SCHEMES
THAN IT HAS THE GOOD INTENTIONS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION.  IF
SUCH A SHIFT IS TO BE MADE, IT MUST BE DONE BY THE CONGRESS.  CERTAINLY
CONGRESS HAS NOT LEFT US WITH ANY SUCH CHOICE.  NOR HAS THE ACT CREATED
OR AUTHORIZED THE CREATION OF ANY SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN FAVOR OF THE OIL
INDUSTRY.  WHATEVER MAY BE ITS PECULIAR PROBLEMS AND CHARACTERISTICS,
THE SHERMAN ACT, SO FAR AS PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS ARE CONCERNED,
ESTABLISHES ONE UNIFORM RULE APPLICABLE TO ALL INDUSTRIES ALIKE.  THERE
WAS ACCORDINGLY NO ERROR IN THE REFUSAL TO CHARGE THAT IN ORDER TO
CONVICT THE JURY MUST FIND THAT THE RESULTANT PRICES WERE RAISED AND
MAINTAINED AT "HIGH, ARBITRARY AND NONCOMPETITIVE LEVELS."  THE CHARGE
IN THE INDICTMENT TO THAT EFFECT WAS SURPLUSAGE. 

NOR IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE PRICES PAID BY THE COMBINATION WERE NOT
FIXED IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE UNIFORM AND INFLEXIBLE.  PRICE-FIXING
AS USED IN THE TRENTON POTTERIES CASE HAS NO SUCH LIMITED MEANING.  AN
AGREEMENT TO PAY OR CHARGE RIGID, UNIFORM PRICES WOULD BE AN ILLEGAL
AGREEMENT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  BUT SO WOULD AGREEMENTS TO RAISE OR
LOWER PRICES WHATEVER MACHINERY FOR PRICE-FIXING WAS USED.  THAT PRICE
FIXING INCLUDES MORE THAN THE MERE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIFORM PRICES IS
CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE TRENTON POTTERIES CASE ITSELF, WHERE THIS
COURT NOTED WITH APPROVAL SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375,
IN WHICH A DECREE WAS AFFIRMED WHICH RESTRAINED A COMBINATION FROM
"RAISING OR LOWERING PRICES OR FIXING UNIFORM PRICES" AT WHICH MEATS
WILL BE SOLD.  HENCE, PRICES ARE FIXED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
TRENTON POTTERIES CASE IF THE RANGE WITHIN WHICH PURCHASES OR SALES
WILL BE MADE IS AGREED UPON, IF THE PRICES PAID OR CHARGED ARE TO BE AT
A CERTAIN LEVEL OR ON ASCENDING OR DESCENDING SCALES, IF THEY ARE TO BE
UNIFORM, OR IF BY VARIOUS FORMULAE THEY ARE RELATED TO THE MARKET
PRICES.  THEY ARE FIXED BECAUSE THEY ARE AGREED UPON.  AND THE FACT
THAT, AS HERE, THEY ARE FIXED AT THE FAIR GOING MARKET PRICE IS
IMMATERIAL.  FOR PURCHASES AT OR UNDER THE MARKET ARE ONE SPECIES OF
PRICE-FIXING.  IN THIS CASE, THE RESULT WAS TO PLACE A FLOOR UNDER THE
MARKET - A FLOOR WHICH SERVED THE FUNCTION OF INCREASING THE STABILITY
AND FIRMNESS OF MARKET PRICES.  THAT WAS REPEATEDLY CHARACTERIZED IN
THIS CASE AS STABILIZATION.  BUT IN TERMS OF MARKET OPERATIONS
STABILIZATION IS BUT ONE FORM OF MANIPULATION. AND MARKET MANIPULATION
IN ITS VARIOUS MANIFESTATIONS IS IMPLICITLY AN ARTIFICIAL STIMULUS
APPLIED TO (OR AT TIMES A BRAKE ON) MARKET PRICES, A FORCE WHICH
DISTORTS THOSE PRICES, A FACTOR WHICH PREVENTS THE DETERMINATION OF
THOSE PRICES BY FREE COMPETITION ALONE.  RESPONDENTS, HOWEVER, ARGUE
THAT THERE WAS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF GASOLINE WHICH THE
MAJOR COMPANIES WERE BUYING AND THE TREND OF PRICES ON THE SPOT
MARKETS.  THEY POINT TO THE FACT THAT SUCH PURCHASING WAS LIGHTEST
DURING THE PERIOD OF THE MARKET RISE IN THE SPRING OF 1935, AND
HEAVIEST IN THE SUMMER AND EARLY FALL OF 1936 WHEN THE PRICES DECLINED;
AND THAT IT DECREASED LATER IN 1936 WHEN THE PRICES ROSE.  BUT THOSE
FACTS DO NOT MILITATE AGAINST THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE BUYING PROGRAMS
WERE A SPECIES OF PRICE-FIXING OR MANIPULATION.  RATHER THEY ARE WHOLLY
CONSISTENT WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF A FLOOR UNDER THE MARKET OR A
STABLIZATION OPERATION OF THIS TYPE, SINCE THE NEED FOR PURCHASES UNDER
SUCH A PROGRAM MIGHT WELL DECREASE AS PRICES ROSE AND INCREASE AS
PRICES DECLINED. 

AS WE HAVE INDICATED, THE MACHINERY EMPLOYED BY A COMBINATION FOR
PRICE-FIXING IS IMMATERIAL. 

UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT A COMBINATION FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH
THE EFFECT OF RAISING, DEPRESSING, FIXING, PEGGING, OR STABILIZING THE
PRICE OF A COMMODITY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS ILLEGAL PER
SE.  WHERE THE MACHINERY FOR PRICE-FIXING IS AN AGREEMENT ON THE PRICES
TO BE CHARGED OR PAID FOR THE COMMODITY IN THE INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
CHANNELS OF TRADE, THE POWER TO FIX PRICES EXISTS IF THE COMBINATION
HAS CONTROL OF A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE COMMERCE IN THAT COMMODITY. 
WHERE THE MEANS FOR PRICE-FIXING ARE PURCHASES OR SALES OF THE
COMMODITY IN A MARKET OPERATION OR, AS HERE, PURCHASES OF A PART OF THE
SUPPLY OF THE COMMODITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING IT FROM HAVING A
DEPRESSIVE EFFECT ON THE MARKETS, SUCH POWER MAY BE FOUND TO EXIST
THOUGH THE COMBINATION DOES NOT CONTROL A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE
COMMODITY.  IN SUCH A CASE THAT POWER MAY BE ESTABLISHED IF AS A RESULT
OF MARKET CONDITIONS, THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE COMBINATIONS,  THE
TIMING AND THE STRATEGIC PLACEMENT OF ORDERS AND THE LIKE, EFFECTIVE
MEANS ARE AT HAND TO ACCOMPLISH THE DESIRED OBJECTIVE.  BUT THERE MAY
BE EFFECTIVE INFLUENCE OVER THE MARKET THOUGH THE GROUP IN QUESTION
DOES NOT CONTROL IT.  PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS MAY HAVE UTILITY TO
MEMBERS OF THE GROUP THOUGH THE POWER POSSESSED OR EXERTED FALLS FAR
SHORT OF DOMINATION AND CONTROL.  MONOPOLY POWER (UNITED STATES V.
PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525) IS NOT THE ONLY POWER WHICH THE ACT STRIKES DOWN,
AS WE HAVE SAID.  PROOF THAT A COMBINATION WAS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE
OF FIXING PRICES AND THAT IT CAUSED THEM TO BE FIXED OR CONTRIBUTED TO
THAT RESULT IS PROOF OF THE COMPLETION OF A PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACY
UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE ACT.  FN59  THE INDICTMENT IN THIS CASE CHARGED
THAT THIS COMBINATION HAD THAT PURPOSE AND EFFECT.  AND THERE WAS
ABUNDANT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.  HENCE THE EXISTENCE OF POWER ON THE
PART OF MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION TO FIX PRICES WAS BUT A CONCLUSION
FROM THE FINDING THAT THE BUYING PROGRAMS CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO THE
RISE AND STABILITY OF PRICES. 

AS TO KNOWLEDGE OR ACQUIESCENCE OF OFFICERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
LITTLE NEED BE SAID.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS THROUGH UTILIZATION OF THE
PRECISE METHODS HERE EMPLOYED COULD SEEK TO REACH THE SAME OBJECTIVES
SOUGHT BY RESPONDENTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT RESPONDENTS OR ANY OTHER GROUP
MAY DO SO WITHOUT SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.  ADMITTEDLY NO
APPROVAL OF THE BUYING PROGRAMS WAS OBTAINED UNDER THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT PRIOR TO ITS TERMINATION ON JUNE 16, 1935,
(SEC. 2(C)) WHICH WOULD GIVE IMMUNITY TO RESPONDENTS FROM PROSECUTION
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  THOUGH EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE
KNOWN OF THOSE PROGRAMS AND WINKED AT THEM OR TACITLY APPROVED THEM, NO
IMMUNITY WOULD HAVE THEREBY BEEN OBTAINED.  FOR CONGRESS HAD SPECIFIED
THE PRECISE MANNER AND METHOD OF SECURING IMMUNITY.  NONE OTHER WOULD
SUFFICE.  OTHERWISE NATIONAL POLICY ON SUCH GRAVE AND IMPORTANT ISSUES
AS THIS WOULD BE DETERMINED NOT BY CONGRESS NOR BY THOSE TO WHOM
CONGRESS HAD DELEGATED AUTHORITY BUT BY VIRTUAL VOLUNTEERS.  THE METHOD
ADOPTED BY CONGRESS FOR ALLEVIATING THE PENALTIES OF THE SHERMAN ACT
THROUGH APPROVAL BY DESIGNATED PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES N60 WOULD BE
SUPPLANTED BY A FOREIGN SYSTEM.  BUT EVEN HAD APPROVAL BEEN OBTAINED
FOR THE BUYING PROGRAMS, THAT APPROVAL WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED THE
EXPIRATION IN JUNE 1935 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT
APPROVAL.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE BUYING PROGRAM CONTINUED UNABATED
DURING THE BALANCE OF 1935 AND FAR INTO 1936.  AS WE SAID IN UNITED
STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188, 202, "A CONSPIRACY THUS CONTINUED
IS IN EFFECT RENEWED DURING EACH DAY OF ITS CONTINUANCE."  HENCE,
APPROVAL OR KNOWLEDGE AND ACQUIESCENCE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITIES PRIOR TO
JUNE 1935 COULD HAVE NO RELEVANCY TO RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES SUBSEQUENT
THERETO.  THE FACT THAT THE BUYING PROGRAMS MAY HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT
WITH THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES AND ENDS SOUGHT TO BE OBTAINED UNDER THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT IS LIKEWISE IRRELEVANT TO THE LEGALITY
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT OF RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES EITHER PRIOR TO OR
AFTER JUNE 1935.  FOR AS WE HAVE SEEN PRICE-FIXING COMBINATIONS WHICH
LACK CONGRESSIONAL SANCTION ARE ILLEGAL PER SE; THEY ARE NOT EVALUATED
IN TERMS OF THEIR PURPOSE, AIM OR EFFECT IN THE ELIMINATION OF SO
CALLED COMPETITIVE EVILS.  ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT THEY WERE, WOULD SUCH
CONSIDERATIONS HAVE BEEN RELEVANT. 

ACCORDINGLY WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
REVERSING THE JUDGMENTS ON THIS GROUND.  A FORTIORI THE POSITION TAKEN
BY RESPONDENTS IN THEIR CROSS PETITION THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO
DIRECTED VERDICTS OF ACQUITTAL IS UNTENABLE. 

B. RESPONDENTS' OFFERS OF PROOF. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID DISPOSES OF MOST OF THE ERRORS ALLEGED IN EXCLUSION
OF EVIDENCE.  THE OFFERS OF PROOF COVERING THE BACKGROUND AND OPERATION
OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT AND THE PETROLEUM CODE, THE
CONDITION OF THE OIL INDUSTRY, THE ALLEGED ENCOURAGEMENT, COOPERATION
AND ACQUIESCENCE OF THE FEDERAL PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION IN THE BUYING
PROGRAMS AND THE LIKE WERE PROPERLY EXCLUDED, INSOFAR AS THEY BORE ON
THE NATURE OF THE RESTRAINT AND THE PURPOSE OR END SOUGHT TO BE
ATTAINED.  FOR AS WE HAVE SEEN THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RESTRAINT WAS
NOT PROPERLY AN ISSUE IN THE CASE. 

THERE WERE, HOWEVER, OFFERS OF PROOF ALLEGED TO BE RELEVANT TO THE
CAUSE OF THE PRICE RISE AND THE SUBSEQUENT STABILITY OF THE MARKETS
DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION. 

IN ADDITION TO THE FOREGOING OFFERS, RESPONDENTS SOUGHT TO SHOW THAT
THE PRESENCE OF HOT OIL AND HOT GASOLINE HAD GREATLY DEPRESSED THE
MARKET FROM 1932 TO EARLY IN 1935 WHEN THE CONNALLY ACT BECAME
EFFECTIVE, EXCEPT FOR ONE SHORT PERIOD FROM OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 1934;
THAT BEGINNING IN OCTOBER 1934 SHIPMENT OF HOT OIL FROM EAST TEXAS INTO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAD FOR THE FIRST TIME BEEN EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED;
THAT WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS THEREAFTER THE TANK CAR SPOT MARKET
ROSE 1 1/2[ - AN AMOUNT CORRESPONDING TO THE PRICE RISE FROM MARCH TO
JUNE 1935; THAT THE VARIOUS FACTORS WHICH PRIMARILY AFFECT PRICE WERE
ALMOST PRECISELY THE SAME IN THE FALL OF 1934 AS THEY WERE IN THE
SPRING OF 1935; THAT THE PRICE OF GASOLINE HAD BORNE A CONSTANT
RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL FROM JANUARY 1918 TO OCTOBER
1933 - THAT RELATIONSHIP DISAPPEARING WHEN THE PRICE OF HOT OIL FELL
BELOW LEGAL CRUDE BUT REAPPEARING IN OCTOBER 1934, AND AGAIN IN MARCH
1935, WHEN HOT OIL WAS ELIMINATED; THAT GASOLINE PRICES WERE MORE
DEPRESSED THAN THE PRICES OF OTHER COMMODITIES AND THE COST OF LIVING
IN 1933 AND 1934, AND RECOVERED AND ROSE LESS THAN SUCH OTHER PRICES
AND THE COST OF LIVING IN 1935 AND 1936. 

WE THINK THERE WAS NO REVERSIBLE ERROR IN EXCLUSION OF THESE VARIOUS
OFFERS. 

TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO SHOW THAT RESPONDENTS BY
THEIR BUYING PROGRAMS HAD NOT RAISED THE SPOT MARKET PRICES TO AN
ARTIFICIAL AND NON-COMPETITIVE LEVEL, THESE OFFERS OF PROOF WERE
PROPERLY DENIED AS IMMATERIAL.  FOR, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE PRICES AND THE FACT THAT RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES
MERELY REMOVED FROM THE MARKET THE DEPRESSIVE EFFECT OF DISTRESS
GASOLINE WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES. 

AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE OFFERS OF PROOF WERE AIMED AT
ESTABLISHING AND EVALUATING OTHER CONTRIBUTORY CAUSES FOR THE PRICE
RISE AND MARKET STABILITY DURING THE INDICTMENT PERIOD, THEY WERE NOT
IMPROPERLY DENIED.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH
EVIDENCE SHOWING THE CONDITION OF THE OIL INDUSTRY AT THE TIME OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE CODE AND DURING THE CODE PERIOD.  THERE WAS AMPLE
TESTIMONY BEARING ON THE OTHER CAUSAL FACTORS WHICH RESPONDENTS CONTEND
WERE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRICE RISE AND MARKET STABILITY
DURING THE INDICTMENT PERIOD.  MUCH OF THE REFUSED TESTIMONY WAS MERELY
CUMULATIVE IN NATURE.  A TRIAL COURT HAS WIDE DISCRETION IN A SITUATION
OF THAT KIND.  THE TRIAL LASTED ABOUT THREE AND A HALF MONTHS. 
TERMINAL POINTS ARE NECESSARY EVEN IN A CONSPIRACY TRIAL INVOLVING
INTRICATE BUSINESS FACTS AND LEGAL ISSUES.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE
OFFER TO SHOW THE MARKET CONDITIONS LATE IN 1934 WHEN HOT OIL WAS
TEMPORARILY UNDER CONTROL WAS NOT IMPROPERLY DENIED.  THERE WAS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THE DEPRESSIVE MARKET
EFFECT OF HOT OIL.  WHILE THE OFFER WAS NOT WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE
ISSUES, IT WAS CLEARLY COLLATERAL.  THE TRIAL COURT HAS A WIDE RANGE
FOR DISCRETION IN THE EXCLUSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE.  SEE GOLDEN REWARD
MINING CO. V. BUXTON MINING CO., 97 F. 413, 416-417; CHESTERFIELD MFG.
CO. V. LEOTA COTTON MILLS, 194 F. 358, 359.  ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY
SHOWING THE MARKET CONDITIONS LATE IN 1934 WOULD HAVE OPENED AN INQUIRY
INTO CAUSAL FACTORS AS INVOLVED AND INTERRELATED AS THOSE PRESENT
DURING THE INDICTMENT PERIOD.  THAT MIGHT HAVE CONFUSED RATHER THAN
ENLIGHTENED THE JURY.  IN ANY EVENT IT WOULD NOT HAVE ELIMINATED THE
BUYING PROGRAMS AS CONTRIBUTORY CAUSES TO THE MARKET RISE AND STABILITY
IN 1935 AND 1936.  AND IT WOULD HAVE PROLONGED THE INQUIRY AND
PROTRACTED THE TRIAL.  AS ONCE STATED BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, ONE
OBJECTION TO THE INTRODUCTION OF COLLATERAL ISSUES IS A "PURELY
PRACTICAL ONE, A CONCESSION TO THE SHORTNESS OF LIFE."  REEVE V.
DENNETT, 145 MASS. 23, 28; 11 N.E. 938, 944.  AND SEE UNION STOCK YARD
& TRANSIT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 213, 223-224.  SIMILAR REASONS
SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN LIMITING THE INQUIRY INTO
GENERAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ANTEDATING AND DURING THE INDICTMENT
PERIOD.  IN CONCLUSION, WE DO NOT THINK THAT THERE WAS AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION BY THE TRIAL COURT IN THE EXCLUSION OF THE PROFFERED
EVIDENCE.  A GREAT MASS OF EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED, THE RANGE OF INQUIRY
WAS WIDE, THE FACTUAL QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE OIL INDUSTRY AND
RESPONDENTS' ACTIVITIES WERE INTRICATE AND INVOLVED.  IN SUCH A CASE A
NEW TRIAL WILL NOT BE ORDERED FOR ALLEGED ERRORS IN EXCLUSION OF
EVIDENCE WHERE MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE ARE NOT AFFECTED.  SEE UNITED
STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., SUPRA, P. 404. 

VI.  USE OF THE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED
PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN REFUSING TO PERMIT DEFENSE COUNSEL TO INSPECT THE
TRANSCRIPT OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY USED TO REFRESH THE RECOLLECTION OF
CERTAIN WITNESSES CALLED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  RESPONDENTS HERE URGE THAT
THE USE MADE OF THE GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT WAS ERROR BECAUSE (1) THEY
WERE DENIED THE RIGHT TO INSPECT IT, (2) IT HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY
AUTHENTICATED, (3) THE READING OF THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY MUST HAVE
LED THE JURY TO CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY, AND (4)
SUCH TESTIMONY WAS NOT GIVEN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE OCCURRENCES TO
WHICH IT WAS RELATED.  AND IN ALL RESPECTS, RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT
SUCH USE OF THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL. 

THERE WERE ABOUT 90 INSTANCES WHEN THE GOVERNMENT USED THAT
TESTIMONY.  IN PRACTICALLY ALL THOSE CASES, THE WITNESSES WERE
EMPLOYEES OR REPRESENTATIVES OF RESPONDENTS OR FORMER DEFENDANTS, OR
WERE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.  THAT MOST OF THEM WERE HOSTILE
WITNESSES - EVASIVE AND RELUCTANT TO TESTIFY - CLEARLY APPEARS FROM A
READING OF THEIR ENTIRE TESTIMONY.  EACH OF THOSE WITNESSES HAD
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WHICH RETURNED THE INDICTMENT IN THE
CASE.  AT TIMES COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT WOULD STATE TO THE COURT
THAT HE WAS SUPRISED AT THE WITNESS' ANSWER TO A QUESTION AND THAT IT
CONTRADICTED TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.  MORE FREQUENTLY COUNSEL
WOULD ASK THE WITNESS IF HIS MEMORY COULD BE REFRESHED BY HIS GRAND
JURY TESTIMONY.  DURING THE FIRST PART OF THE TRIAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
APPARENTLY READ SOME GRAND JURY TESTIMONY TO TWO WITNESSES FROM HIS
NOTES.  AFTER OBJECTION HAD BEEN MADE, THE COURT INSTRUCTED COUNSEL TO
USE THE TRANSCRIPT.  SOON THEREAFTER, AND EARLY IN THE TRIAL, THE COURT
ADOPTED THE PRACTICE OF INSPECTING THE TRANSCRIPT AND ITSELF SEEKING TO
REFRESH THE WITNESS' RECOLLECTION BY READING FROM HIS PRIOR TESTIMONY. 
AT NO TIME WAS THE TRANSCRIPT SHOWN TO THE WITNESS.  AT ALL TIMES
RESPONDENTS APPROPRIATELY OBJECTED TO THE PRACTICE. 

THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL THE STATED SINGLE REASON FOR THE USE OF SUCH
PRIOR TESTIMONY WAS THE REFRESHMENT OF THE WITNESS' RECOLLECTION. 
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE WERE EVER ALERT TO DENOUNCE THE PRACTICE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT APPEARED THAT GOVERNMENT COUNSEL MIGHT SEEK TO
IMPEACH THE WITNESS.  IN SUCH CASES THE COURT NORMALLY WOULD SUSTAIN
THE OBJECTION OR ADMONISH GOVERNMENT COUNSEL; OR THE QUESTION AND
ANSWER WOULD BE STRICKEN.  IN MANY INSTANCES WHERE SUCH TESTIMONY WAS
USED, THE INCIDENT ENDED BY THE WITNESS MERELY SAYING THAT HIS
RECOLLECTION HAD NOT BEEN REFRESHED.  IN CASE IT HAD BEEN, HE WOULD
STATE WHAT HIS PRESENT RECOLLECTION WAS.  ONLY IN ABOUT ONE-SIXTH OF
THE INSTANCES WAS ANY INCONSISTENCY IN TESTIMONY DEVELOPED.  IN THE
BALANCE, RECOLLECTION WAS EITHER NOT REFRESHED OR THE TESTIMONY WHICH
HAD BEEN GIVEN WAS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS
GRAND JURY TESTIMONY.    DURING THE TRIAL THE COURT TOLD THE JURY: 

"I HAVE USED SOME OF THE TESTIMONY AND READ SOME OF IT FOR THE
PURPOSE ONLY OF REFRESHING THE WITNESSES' MEMORIES, AND MANY TIMES I
HAVE INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO CONFLICT OR NOTHING INCONSISTENT
BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY. 
THE ONLY REASON WE USE THIS TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY OF EACH WITNESS
BEFORE THE GRAND JURY IS TO, IF WE CAN, REFRESH THEIR MEMORIES SO AS TO
ENABLE THEM TO RECALL CORRECTLY WHAT THE FACT IS." 

AND THE COURT MADE A SIMILAR STATEMENT IN ITS CHARGE TO THE JURY. 

AS IN CASE OF LEADING QUESTIONS, ST. CLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 154 U.S.
134, 150, SUCH USE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REFRESHING THE RECOLLECTION OF A WITNESS RESTS IN THE SOUND DISCRETION
OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.  SEE DI CARLO V. UNITED STATES, 6 F.2D 364, 367
368; BOSSELMAN V. UNITED STATES, 239 F. 82, 85; FELDER V. UNITED
STATES, 9 F.2D 872.  HE SEES THE WITNESS, CAN APPRAISE HIS HOSTILITY,
RECALCITRANCE, AND EVASIVENESS OR HIS NEED FOR SOME REFRESHING
MATERIAL, AND CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THE USE OF GRAND JURY MINUTES IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR
REFRESHING HIS RECOLLECTION.  AS ONCE STATED BY JUDGE HOUGH, "THE BALD
FACT THAT THE MEMORY REFRESHING WORDS ARE FOUND IN THE RECORDS OF A
GRAND JURY IS NOT A VALID OBJECTION."  FELDER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
P. 874.  NORMALLY, OF COURSE, THE MATERIAL SO USED MUST BE SHOWN TO
OPPOSING COUNSEL UPON DEMAND, IF IT IS HANDED TO THE WITNESS.  MORRIS
V. UNITED STATES, 149 F. 123, 126; LENNON V. UNITED STATES, 20 F.2D
490, 493-494; WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (2D ED.), SEC. 762.  AND THE REASONS
ARE THAT ONLY IN THAT WAY CAN OPPOSING COUNSEL AVOID THE RISKS OF
IMPOSITION ON AND IMPROPER COMMUNICATION WITH THE WITNESS, AND "DETECT
CIRCUMSTANCES NOT APPEARING ON THE SURFACE" AND "EXPOSE ALL THAT
DETRACTS FROM THE WEIGHT OF TESTIMONY."  SEE 2 WIGMORE, SUPRA, P. 42. 
THE FIRST OF THESE REASONS HAS NO RELEVANCY HERE.  AND AS TO THE
SECOND, NO IRON-CLAD RULE REQUIRES THAT OPPOSING COUNSEL BE SHOWN THE
GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT WHERE IT IS NOT SHOWN THE WITNESS AND WHERE SOME
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE IS ADOPTED TO PREVENT ITS IMPROPER USE.  THAT
AGAIN IS A MATTER WHICH RESTS IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT. 
GRAND JURY TESTIMONY IS ORDINARILY CONFIDENTIAL.  SEE WIGMORE, SUPRA,
SEC. 2362.  BUT AFTER THE GRAND JURY'S FUNCTIONS ARE ENDED, DISCLOSURE
IS WHOLLY PROPER WHERE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE IT.  SEE METZLER V.
UNITED STATES, 64 F.2D 203, 206.  SINCE THERE IS NO INEXORABLE RULE
WHICH UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES ENTITLES THE WITNESS AND HIS COUNSEL TO
SEE THE PRIOR STATEMENT MADE UNDER OATH AND SINCE IN THIS CASE THE
COURT ITSELF EXAMINED AND THUS DIRECTLY CONTROLLED THE USE OF THE GRAND
JURY TESTIMONY, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE REFUSAL TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE IS PER SE REVERSIBLE ERROR.  TO HOLD THAT IT
WAS ERROR IN THE INSTANCES HERE UNDER REVIEW WOULD BE TO FIND ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, WHERE IN FACT WE CONCLUDE FROM THE ENTIRE RECORD ON THIS
PHASE OF THE CASE THAT THE JUDGE SUPERVISED THE PROCEDURE WITH
COMMENDABLE FAIRNESS.  IN SUM, THE SELECTIVE USE OF THIS TESTIMONY AND
THE PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY THE TRIAL JUDGE MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO
SAY THAT HE TRANSCENDED THE LIMITS OF SOUND DISCRETION IN PERMITTING IT
TO BE USED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THE
DEFENSE. 

IF THE RECORD SHOWED THAT THE REFRESHING MATERIAL WAS DELIBERATELY
USED FOR PURPOSES NOT MATERIAL TO THE ISSUES BUT TO AROUSE THE PASSIONS
OF THE JURORS, SO THAT AN OBJECTIVE APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE WAS
UNLIKELY, THERE WOULD BE REVERSIBLE ERROR.  LIKEWISE THERE WOULD BE
ERROR WHERE UNDER THE PRETEXT OF REFRESHING A WITNESS' RECOLLECTION,
THE PRIOR TESTIMONY WAS INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE.  ROSENTHAL V. UNITED
STATES, 248 F. 684, 686.  BUT HERE THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS USED
SIMPLY TO REFRESH THE RECOLLECTION ON MATERIAL FACTS, NEW YORK &
COLORADO MINING SYNDICATE & CO. V. FRASER, 130 U.S. 611, NOT AS
INDEPENDENT AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE.  BATES V. PREBLE, 151 U.S. 149. 
FURTHERMORE, IT WAS NOT USED FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES; AND THE CONTENT
OF THIS REFRESHING MATERIAL RELATED SOLELY TO CONVERSATIONS AND EVENTS
RELEVANT TO THE FORMATION AND EXECUTION OF THE BUYING PROGRAMS.  IN
ADDITION, IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT THE USE OF THIS MATERIAL WAS NOT
PREJUDICIAL.  SO FAR AS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY IS CONCERNED,
THAT PRIOR TESTIMONY WAS EITHER CUMULATIVE OR DEALT ONLY WITH THE
MINUTIAE OF THE CONSPIRACY.  THE RECORD MINUS THAT TESTIMONY CLEARLY
ESTABLISHES ALL THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR PROOF OF THE ILLEGAL
CONSPIRACY.  NO PORTION OF IT WAS DEPENDENT ON THE MINOR FACTS
CONCERNING WHICH THE MEMORY OF THESE WITNESSES WAS REFRESHED.  FN61
HENCE, THE SITUATION IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE CASES WHERE
ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF THE CRIME WERE DEPENDENT ON TESTIMONY ELICITED
IN THAT MANNER OR WHERE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT HUNG IN DELICATE BALANCE
IF THAT TESTIMONY WAS DELETED.  SEE LITTLE V. UNITED STATES, 93 F.2D
401; PUTNAM V. UNITED STATES, 162 U.S. 687.  HENCE ASSUMING, ARGUENDO,
THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN THE USE OF THE PRIOR TESTIMONY, TO ORDER A NEW
TRIAL WOULD BE TO VIOLATE THE STANDARDS OF SEC. 269 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 391), SINCE THE "SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS" OF
RESPONDENTS WERE NOT AFFECTED.  THERE ARE NO VESTED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
IN THE ORDINARY RULES OF EVIDENCE; THEIR OBSERVANCE SHOULD NOT BE
REDUCED TO AN IDLE CEREMONY. 

PUTNAM V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, HELD IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR TO USE
GRAND JURY MINUTES TO REFRESH THE MEMORY OF A WITNESS UNLESS THAT
TESTIMONY WAS CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE OCCURRENCES AS TO WHICH THE
WITNESS WAS TESTIFYING.  THERE THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS
MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE OCCURRENCE.  THIS COURT HELD THAT
BECAUSE OF THAT LAPSE OF TIME THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS. 
WHATEVER MAY BE SAID OF THE PUTNAM CASE ON THE MERITS (SEE WIGMORE,
SUPRA, SEC. 761) IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH AN INFLEXIBLE FOUR-MONTHS'
PERIOD OF LIMITATION.  THERE THE EVENT WAS A SINGLE ISOLATED
CONVERSATION, MOST DAMAGING TO THE DEFENDANT.  HERE THERE WAS A
CONTINUING CONSPIRACY EXTENDING AT LEAST UP TO THE PERIOD WHEN THE
WITNESSES WERE TESTIFYING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.  MUCH OF THE TESTIMONY
RELATED TO EVENTS A YEAR OR MORE OLD.  BUT IN THE MAIN THOSE MATTERS
WERE WOVEN INTO THE CONSPIRACY, RELATED TO EVENTS IN WHICH THE WITNESS
ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED, CONCERNED THE REGULAR BUSINESS MATTERS WITH
WHICH HE WAS FAMILIAR, PERTAINED TO HIS REGULAR EMPLOYMENT, OR
CONSTITUTED ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST.  ON THESE FACTS WE DO NOT
THINK THERE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE TRIAL JUDGE
IN PERMITTING THE TESTIMONY TO BE USED.  MEASURED BY THE TEST OF
WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIOR STATEMENT MADE UNDER OATH WAS REASONABLY
CALCULATED TO REVIVE THE WITNESS' PRESENT RECOLLECTION WITHIN THE RULE
OF THE PUTNAM CASE, THERE CERTAINLY CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ERROR
AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

RESPONDENTS SAY THAT THE MANNER EMPLOYED IN REFRESHING THE
RECOLLECTION OF THE WITNESSES WAS BOUND TO INCULCATE IN THE MINDS OF
THE JURORS THE FEELING THAT THE WITNESSES WERE TESTIFYING FALSELY OR
WERE CONCEALING THE TRUTH.  BUT HERE AGAIN, WE FIND NO REVERSIBLE
ERROR.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, AS WE HAVE SAID, WAS ALERT TO STOP
IMPEACHMENT.  AND IN VIEW OF THE OBVIOUS HOSTILITY AND EVASIVENESS OF
MOST OF THOSE WITNESSES, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE JUDGE TRANSCENDED THE
BOUNDS OF DISCRETION IN PERMITTING THEIR MEMORIES TO BE REFRESHED IN
THIS MANNER.  "AS IS TRUE OF MOST THAT TAKES PLACE IN A TRIAL, THE
RIGHT RESULT IS A MATTER OF DEGREE, AND DEPENDS UPON THE SENSE OF
MEASURE OF THE JUDGE."  SEE UNITED STATES V. FREUNDLICH, 95 F.2D 376,
379. 

VII.  ARGUMENTS TO THE JURY BY GOVERNMENT COUNSEL. 

RESPONDENTS COMPLAIN OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE TO THE JURY BY
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL.  THEIR OBJECTIONS ARE THAT GOVERNMENT COUNSEL (1)
APPEALED TO CLASS PREJUDICE; AND (2) REQUESTED A CONVICTION REGARDLESS
OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION WAS CONVINCED OF RESPONDENTS'
GUILT AND BECAUSE A CONVICTION "WAS THE WISH AND THE DESIRE OF THE
HIGHEST OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES." 

UNDER THE FIRST OF THESE, THEY POINT TO THE OPENING STATEMENT THAT
THIS CONSPIRACY INVOLVED SOME OF THE "BIGGEST MEN" IN THE COUNTRY - BIG
IN THE SENSE OF "CONTROLLING VAST VOLUMES OF FINANCIAL INFLUENCE"; AND
THAT IT IS A "TERRIBLE THING THAT A GROUP OF INFLUENTIAL, WEALTHY
MILLIONAIRES OR BILLIONAIRES SHOULD TAKE OVER THE POWER, TAKE OVER THE
CONTROL, THE POWER TO MAKE PRICES."  AT THE CLOSE OF THOSE OPENING
REMARKS AND ON OBJECTION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL THE COURT COUNSELLED THE
JURY THAT "ANY REFERENCE TO THE WEALTH OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS IS
ENTIRELY IMMATERIAL.  A MAN OF WEALTH HAS JUST AS MUCH STANDING IN A
COURT AS A MAN THAT IS POVERTY STRICKEN." 

BUT RESPONDENTS COMPLAIN THAT IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS THE SAME
MATTER WAS REFERRED TO AGAIN AS FOLLOWS:  "A HUNDRED LAWYERS EMPLOYED -
THE VERY CREAM OF THE AMERICAN BAR, THE VERY BEST LEGAL TALENT THAT
THESE PEOPLE CAN OBTAIN - EVERY ONE OF THEM WORKING NIGHT AND DAY WITH
SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW THE RED HERRING CAN BE DRAWN ACROSS THE CLEAR CUT
ISSUE IN THIS CASE"; THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED "THAT
THESE MORE POWERFUL PEOPLE ARE ABOVE THE LAW AND CAN'T BE REACHED AND
CAN'T BE BROUGHT TO BOOK"; THAT THE "FEAR OF CORPORATE POWER IN
COMBINATION" IS PART OF THE AMERICAN TRADITION AS ILLUSTRATED BY A
SPEECH MADE IN 1873 BY A WISCONSIN JUDGE, WHO SAID:  "THERE IS LOOMING
UP A NEW AND DARK POWER  ...  THE ACCUMULATION OF INDIVIDUAL WEALTH
SEEMS TO BE GREATER THAN IT EVER HAS BEEN SINCE THE DOWNFALL OF THE
ROMAN EMPIRE.  THE ENTERPRISES OF THE COUNTRY ARE ...  COLDLY MARCHING,
NOT FOR ECONOMIC CONQUESTS ONLY, BUT FOR POLITICAL POWER  ...  MONEY IS
TAKING THE FIELD AS AN ORGANIZED POWER.  THE QUESTION WILL ARISE  ...
WHICH SHALL RULE, WEALTH OR MAN?  WHICH SHALL LEAD, MONEY OR
INTELLECT?  WHO SHALL FILL THE PUBLIC STATIONS, EDUCATED AND PATRIOTIC
FREE MEN, OR THE FUTILE SERFS OF CORPORATE CAPITAL?"  BUT AS TO THESE
STATEMENTS NO OBJECTION WAS MADE AT THE TIME BY DEFENSE COUNSEL. 

THERE WERE OTHER SUCH REFERENCES E.G., "MALEFACTORS OF GREAT WEALTH,"
"EAGER, GRASPING MEN" OR CORPORATIONS WHO "TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN
HANDS  ...  WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION FOR THE UNDER-DOG OR THE POOR MAN
...  WE ARE GOING TO STOP IT, AS OUR FOREFATHERS STOPPED IT BEFORE US
AND LEFT THIS COUNTRY WITH US AS IT IS NOW, OR WE ARE GOING DOWN INTO
RUIN AS DID THE ROMAN EMPIRE."  COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE OBJECTED TO
THESE STATEMENTS AS IMPROPER AND PREJUDICIAL.  THE COURT OVERRULED THE
OBJECTIONS STATING IT WOULD DEAL WITH THE MATTER IN ITS CHARGE TO THE
JURY.  IN ITS CHARGE THE COURT WARNED AGAINST CONVICTING A CORPORATION
"SOLELY BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE OR THE EXTENT OF ITS BUSINESS"; THAT IT WAS
"YOUR DUTY TO GIVE THESE CORPORATIONS THE SAME IMPARTIAL CONSIDERATION"
AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR SMALL CORPORATION WOULD RECEIVE; AND INSTRUCTED THE
JURORS NOT TO BE CONCERNED "WITH THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF ANY OF
THESE DEFENDANTS.  WHETHER A MAN BE RICH OR POOR, HE IS ENTITLED TO THE
SAME CONSIDERATION IN THIS COURT." 

ON THIS PHASE OF THE MATTER SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS ARE PERTINENT.  IN
THE FIRST PLACE, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE CANNOT AS A RULE REMAIN
SILENT, INTERPOSE NO OBJECTIONS, AND AFTER A VERDICT HAS BEEN RETURNED
SEIZE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE POINT THAT THE COMMENTS TO THE JURY
WERE IMPROPER AND PREJUDICIAL.  SEE CRUMPTON V. UNITED STATES, 138 U.S.
361, 364.  OF COURSE APPELLATE COURTS "IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MAY, OF
THEIR OWN MOTION, NOTICE ERRORS TO WHICH NO EXCEPTION HAS BEEN TAKEN,
IF THE ERRORS ARE OBVIOUS, OR IF THEY OTHERWISE SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE
FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY OR PUBLIC REPUTATION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS."  SEE
UNITED STATES V. ATKINSON, 297 U.S. 157, 160.  BUT AS WE POINT OUT
HEREAFTER, THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CALL FOR AN INVOCATION
OF THAT RULE ARE NOT PRESENT HERE.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT IS NOT
IMPROPER IN A SHERMAN ACT CASE TO DISCUSS CORPORATE POWER, ITS USE AND
ABUSE, SO LONG AS THOSE STATEMENTS ARE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES AT HAND. 
FOR THAT SUBJECT IS MATERIAL TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THAT ACT.  ITS
PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES ARE CLEARLY LEGITIMATE SUBJECTS FOR DISCUSSION
BEFORE THE JURY.  BUT, THIRDLY, APPEALS TO CLASS PREJUDICE ARE HIGHLY
IMPROPER AND CANNOT BE CONDONED AND TRIAL COURTS SHOULD EVER BE ALERT
TO PREVENT THEM.  SOME OF THE STATEMENTS TO WHICH RESPONDENTS NOW
OBJECT FALL IN THIS CLASS.  THEY WERE, WE THINK, UNDIGNIFIED AND
INTEMPERATE.  THEY DO NOT COMPORT WITH THE STANDARDS OF PROPRIETY TO BE
EXPECTED OF THE PROSECUTOR.  BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO SAY THAT
THESE STATEMENTS CONSTITUTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT
IS HARD FOR US TO IMAGINE THAT THE MINDS OF THE JURORS WOULD BE SO
INFLUENCED BY SUCH INCIDENTAL STATEMENTS DURING THIS LONG TRIAL THAT
THEY WOULD NOT APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE OBJECTIVELY AND DISPASSIONATELY. 
IN THE SECOND PLACE, THIS WAS NOT A WEAK CASE AS WAS BERGER V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 78, WHERE THIS COURT HELD THAT PREJUDICE TO THE
ACCUSED WAS SO HIGHLY PROBABLE AS A RESULT OF THE PROSECUTOR'S IMPROPER
CONDUCT "THAT WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING ITS NON-EXISTENCE."  (P.
89.)  CF. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 279 U.S. 310.  OF COURSE,
APPEALS TO PASSION AND PREJUDICE MAY SO POISON THE MINDS OF JURORS EVEN
IN A STRONG CASE THAT AN ACCUSED MAY BE DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL.  BUT
EACH CASE NECESSARILY TURNS ON ITS OWN FACTS.  AND WHERE, AS HERE, THE
RECORD CONVINCES US THAT THESE STATEMENTS WERE MINOR ABERRATIONS IN A
PROLONGED TRIAL AND NOT CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE OF A PROCEEDING DOMINATED
BY PASSION AND PREJUDICE, REVERSAL WOULD NOT PROMOTE THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.    UNDER THE SECOND OF THESE OBJECTIONS, RESPONDENTS COMPLAIN
OF THE PLEA TO THE JURY NOT TO "LET YOUR GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED
STATES AND ITS CITIZENS AND SOCIETY DOWN," AND THAT GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
"BELIEVE TO THE BOTTOM OF THEIR HEARTS IN THE JUSTICE OF THE CAUSE THAT
THEY ESPOUSE HERE."  NO OBJECTION AT THAT TIME WAS MADE BY DEFENSE
COUNSEL.  BUT THEY DID OBJECT AT THE TRIAL TO THE STATEMENTS BY
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, "  ...  DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT THESE BOYS HERE
(GOVERNMENT COUNSEL)  ...  WOULD BE TRYING TO CONVICT THESE MEN UNLESS
THAT WAS THE WISH AND THE DESIRE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICIALS IN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES?"; "YOU DON'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES WOULD ALLOW FOUR OR FIVE LAWYERS TO COME OUT HERE AND
PROSECUTE THIS CASE AGAINST THEM, AGAINST THEIR WISHES, OR THAT THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WOULD ALLOW US TO DO IT, IF
HE DIDN'T WANT IT DONE?"  THE COURT OVERRULED THE OBJECTIONS STATING,
"I SUPPOSE WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT THEY ARE HERE UNDER THE
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES." 
RESPONDENTS FURTHER COMPLAIN OF THE STATEMENTS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS "SO
OVERWHELMING AND OVERPOWERING THAT IT DOESN'T EVEN LEAVE THE TRACE OR
THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT"; THAT IF "YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THEY ARE NOT
GUILTY ON THIS EVIDENCE, THEN YOU TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY, I WON'T; YOU
GET AN ALIBI, I WON'T"; THAT THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS SPENT
BY THE GOVERNMENT "IN TRYING TO GET BEFORE YOU THE FACTS" SHOULD NOT BE
"THROWN TO THE WINDS" NOR SHOULD THESE MEN "GO CLEAR."  BUT NO
OBJECTION WAS MADE AT THE TIME BY DEFENSE COUNSEL. 

AS RESPECTS THE STATEMENT THAT IT WAS THE "WISH AND THE DESIRE OF THE
HIGHEST OFFICIALS" IN THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE DEFENDANTS CONVICTED, SOME
BACKGROUND SHOULD BE GIVEN.  THIS CAME NEAR THE END OF THE CLOSING
ARGUMENTS.  IN THE OPENING STATEMENT, DURING THE TRIAL, AND IN THE
CLOSING ARGUMENTS THE DEFENSE CONTINUOUSLY EMPHASIZED THE KNOWLEDGE AND
ACQUIESCENCE BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OF THE BUYING PROGRAMS.  AS WE
HAVE NOTED, THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN LINES OF DEFENSE.  FROM THE
BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL TO THE END, THE DEFENSE SOUGHT TO PROVE, NOT
OFFICIAL APPROVAL IN THE LEGAL SENSE, BUT OFFICIAL ACQUIESCENCE OR AT
LEAST CONDONATION.  BALD STATEMENTS WERE MADE THAT RESPONDENTS "WERE
CONDUCTING A PROGRAM WHICH RESULTED FROM THE INSTIGATION AND INDUCEMENT
OF THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF"; AFTER THE SCHECHTER CASE THEY ENDEAVORED TO
"STABILIZE MARKETING PRACTICES" AT THE "INSTANCE OF OFFICIALS OF THE
OIL ADMINISTRATION"; "WHAT WAS DONE BY THESE DEFENDANTS WAS DONE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMPLISHING THE OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES OF THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, AND WAS UNDERTAKEN AT THE REQUEST AND
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, MR.
ICKES, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PETROLEUM CODE"; RESPONDENTS "ACTED TO
CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT AND
INITIATED BY THE GOVERNMENT  ...  THEY WERE OBJECTIVES DEFINED BY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THEY WERE PURPOSES, THE ACCOMPLISHMENT
OF WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HAD BEEN CHARGED, UNDER HIS
OATH, TO SEEK TO OBTAIN"; "WITH ALL THIS BACKING AND ALL THIS HELP FROM
THE GOVERNMENT, AND ALL THIS URGING FROM THE GOVERNMENT, ARE YOU GOING
TO BRAND THESE MEN AS JUST SELFISH INDIVIDUALS?"  ON INNUMERABLE
INSTANCES THE IMPRESSION WAS SOUGHT TO BE CONVEYED BY SUBTLE
INTIMATION, INFERENCE OR SUGGESTION THAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE
BUYING PROGRAMS SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE SHOULDERS OF HIGH GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS.  GOVERNMENT COUNSEL ACCORDINGLY JUSTIFIED HIS STATEMENT ON
THE GROUNDS THAT IT DENIED WHAT THE DEFENSE HAD CONTINUOUSLY STATED,
VIZ., THAT THE BUYING PROGRAMS WERE CONDUCTED WITH THE CONSENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  AT A SUBSEQUENT POINT IN
THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS GOVERNMENT COUNSEL AGAIN REFERRED TO THE MATTER. 
ON OBJECTION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL HE WITHDREW THE STATEMENT.  AND THE
COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO DISREGARD IT, SAYING "THIS PROSECUTION WAS
COMMENCED AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

IN VIEW OF THESE VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE ABOVE
STATEMENTS WERE PREJUDICIAL.  STANDING BY THEMSELVES THEY APPEAR TO BE
HIGHLY IMPROPER.  EVEN AS A REBUTTAL TO THE DEFENSE WHICH HAD BEEN
INTERPOSED THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL, THEY OVERSTEP THE BOUNDS.  BUT IN VIEW
OF THE JUSTIFICATION WHICH RESPONDENTS SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH FOR THEIR
ACTS, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE STATEMENTS WAS CERTAINLY RELEVANT. 
THE FACT THAT GOVERNMENT COUNSEL TRANSGRESSED IN HIS REBUTTAL CERTAINLY
CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE PREJUDICIAL ERROR.  FOR A READING OF THE
ENTIRE ARGUMENT BEFORE THE JURY LEADS TO THE FIRM CONVICTION THAT THE
COMMENTS WHICH RESPONDENTS NOW RELY ON FOR THEIR ASSERTIONS OF ERROR
WERE ISOLATED, CASUAL EPISODES IN A LONG SUMMATION OF OVER 200 PRINTED
PAGES AND NOT AT ALL REFLECTIVE OF THE QUALITY OF THE ARGUMENT AS A
WHOLE. 

RESPONDENTS FURTHER URGE AS PREJUDICIAL ERROR THE ASSERTIONS BY
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE IN CONTRADICTION OF THE RECORD
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING AN IMPORTANT DEFENSE WITNESS.  THE
STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT COUNSEL WAS THAT IN "1935 AND 1936, YOU
COULDN'T GET A ROWBOAT UP THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, NORTH OF WINONA." 
RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT TESTIMONY AS TO NAVIGABILITY OF THAT RIVER WAS
VITALLY MATERIAL AS ESTABLISHING SUCH OUTSIDE COMPETITION AS WOULD HAVE
PREVENTED THEM FROM RAISING PRICES TO ARTIFICIAL AND NON-COMPETITIVE
LEVELS.  BUT SUCH TESTIMONY WAS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT, SINCE THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE PRICES WAS NOT PROPERLY AN ISSUE IN THE CASE. 
FURTHERMORE, WHEN OBJECTION WAS MADE TO THE REMARK, COUNSEL WITHDREW IT
AND THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD IT.  THAT MUST BE DEEMED TO
HAVE CURED THE ERROR IF IT COULD BE CONSIDERED SUCH.  AS STATED IN
DUNLOP V. UNITED STATES, 165 U.S. 486, 498, "IF EVERY REMARK MADE BY
COUNSEL OUTSIDE OF THE TESTIMONY WERE GROUND FOR A REVERSAL,
COMPARATIVELY FEW VERDICTS WOULD STAND." 

VIII.  GRANTING OF NEW TRIALS TO SOME DEFENDANTS. 

RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
IN GRANTING NEW TRIALS TO SOME DEFENDANTS AND DENYING THEM TO
RESPONDENTS. 

THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY THAT IT COULD CONVICT ANY OF THE
DEFENDANTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION AND THAT IT
NEED NOT CONVICT ALL OR NONE.  AS HAS BEEN NOTED, THE JURY FOUND
SIXTEEN CORPORATIONS AND THIRTY INDIVIDUALS GUILTY.  THEREAFTER THE
COURT DISCHARGED ONE CORPORATION AND TEN INDIVIDUALS, AND GRANTED NEW
TRIALS TO THREE CORPORATIONS AND FIFTEEN INDIVIDUALS.  SUCH ACTION LEFT
THE VERDICT STANDING AS TO ONLY TWELVE CORPORATIONS AND FIVE
INDIVIDUALS.  THE TRIAL COURT GAVE AS ITS REASON FOR GRANTING SOME OF
THE DEFENDANTS A NEW TRIAL ITS BELIEF THAT THEY HAD NOT HAD "AN
ADEQUATE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION OF THEIR DEFENSE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT
THAT AS TO SOME OF THEM DIRECT EVIDENCE OF PARTICIPATION WAS LACKING OR
SLIGHT, AND THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE VIEWED AS A WHOLE MAY WELL HAVE
OBSCURED OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN, IN SOME CASES, TO BE
HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE OF INNOCENCE, AND IN ALL CASES ENTITLED TO BE
CONSIDERED AND WEIGHED."  UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL CO., (INDIANA),
23 F.SUPP.  937, 939.  IN DENYING THE MOTIONS OF RESPONDENTS FOR A NEW
TRIAL IT STATED (P. 944) THAT THERE WAS "EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE JURY AND
TO SUSTAIN ITS VERDICT AS TO EVERY ESSENTIAL CHARGE IN THE INDICTMENT"
AS TO THEM.  FN62 

RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT RUNS AS FOLLOWS:  THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY
THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE AND THE POWER OF THE COMBINATION TO RAISE
PRICES WHICH WERE MATERIAL.  HENCE THE FACT THAT THE JURY FOUND THAT
THE ENTIRE GROUP POSSESSED SUCH POWER DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT
THE JURY WOULD HAVE FOUND THAT RESPONDENTS ACTING ALONE POSSESSED SUCH
POWER.  SINCE THE JURY DID NOT CONSIDER THAT ISSUE, IT IS ARGUED THAT
DENIAL OF A NEW TRIAL TO RESPONDENTS VIOLATES THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL.  AND IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTION, RESPONDENTS
INSIST THAT STANDARD OF INDIANA ALONE (ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS GRANTED A
NEW TRIAL) POSSESSED SUCH POWER AS WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO
RAISE PRICES WITHOUT ITS AGREEMENT AND COOPERATION. 

RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT DOES NOT FOCUS SHARPLY THE BASIC AND ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE AND OF THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.  AS WE
HAVE STATED ABOVE, THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THIS INDICTMENT WAS PROVED
ONCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED TO FIX
PRICES THROUGH THE BUYING PROGRAMS AND THAT THOSE PROGRAMS CAUSED OR
CONTRIBUTED TO THE PRICE RISE.  POWER OF THE COMBINATION TO FIX PRICES
WAS THEREFORE BUT A CONCLUSION FROM THE FACT THAT THE COMBINATION DID
FIX PRICES.  HENCE IN THAT POSTURE OF THE CASE, THE ISSUE HERE IS
WHETHER OR NOT THE FINDING OF THE JURY THAT THE BUYING PROGRAMS
AFFECTED PRICES WAS NECESSARILY DEPENDENT ON THE PARTICIPATION IN THOSE
PROGRAMS OF ALL WHO WERE CONVICTED. 

OBVIOUSLY IT WAS NOT.  THE ORDER GRANTING NEW TRIALS IN NO MANNER
IMPEACHED OR QUESTIONED THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE TOTAL SPOT MARKET
PURCHASES MADE BY ALL COMPANIES (WHETHER DEFENDANTS, CO-CONSPIRATORS OR
OTHERS).  CF. BARTKUS V. UNITED STATES, 21 F.2D 425.  IN THEIR EFFORTS
TO PLACE A FLOOR UNDER THE SPOT MARKETS RESPONDENTS ASSUREDLY RECEIVED
BENEFITS AND ASSISTANCE FROM THE PURCHASES MADE BY OTHER COMPANIES. 
AND THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT AND ASSISTANCE RECEIVED DID NOT NECESSARILY
DEPEND ON WHETHER OR NOT THOSE OTHER COMPANIES WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS. 
MARKET MANIPULATORS COMMONLY OBTAIN ASSISTANCE FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF
THE INNOCENT AS WELL AS FROM THOSE OF THEIR ALLIES.  THE FACT THAT THEY
MAY CAPITALIZE ON THE PURCHASES OF OTHERS IS NO MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN
THE FACT THAT THEY MAY GAIN DIRECT OR COLLATERAL BENEFITS FROM MARKET
TRENDS, BULLISH FACTORS OR FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.  AND THE MERE FACT
THAT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT HAVE CHANGED AND THAT STANDARD OF
INDIANA, SAY, MIGHT HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED THE EFFECT OF THE
BUYING PROGRAMS ON PRICES BY A CHANGE IN ITS RETAIL POLICIES WAS AS
IRRELEVANT AS WAS THE CHANCE THAT THE CONNALLY ACT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
REPEALED.  THE EFFECT OF THE CONCERTED ACTIVITIES WAS NOT REBUTTED BY
THE FACT THAT CHANGES IN EVENTS MIGHT HAVE DESTROYED THAT EFFECT. 

NOR DID THE CASE AGAINST RESPONDENTS AUTOMATICALLY FALL WHEN THREE OF
THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS FN63  WERE AWARDED A NEW TRIAL.  WE HAVE HERE
A SITUATION QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHERE THE PARTICIPATION OF THOSE
TO WHOM A NEW TRIAL WAS GRANTED OR AGAINST WHOM THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION WAS REVERSED WAS NECESSARY FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.  SEE GEBARDI V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 112; MORRISON V.
CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 82; KING V. PLUMMER (1902), 2 K.B. 339.  IN THIS
CASE THE CRIME WAS NOT INDIVISIBLE (CF. QUEEN V. GOMPERTZ, 9 A. & E.
(N.S.)  824; FEDER V. UNITED STATES, 257 F. 694) IN THE SENSE THAT THE
EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT WAS NECESSARILY
DEPENDENT ON THE COOPERATION OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WITH RESPONDENTS. 
NOR WAS THE CASE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
PARTICIPATION OF ANY OF THE CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE GRANTED NEW TRIALS
WAS INDISPENSABLE TO THE FINDING OF A CONSPIRACY AMONG THE REST.  AS WE
HAVE SEEN, THE COURT CHARGED THAT THE JURY COULD CONVICT ANY OF THE
DEFENDANTS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION AND THAT IT
NEED NOT CONVICT ALL OR NONE.  IT WAS THE EXISTENCE OF A COMBINATION
AND THE PARTICIPATION IN IT OF ALL OR SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS WHICH WERE
IMPORTANT, NOT THE IDENTITY OF EACH AND EVERY PARTICIPANT.  A
CONSPIRACY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT MAY EMBRACE TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUALS OR
CORPORATIONS.  CONVICTION OF SOME NEED NOT AWAIT THE APPREHENSION AND
CONVICTION OF ALL.  THE ERRONEOUS CONVICTION OF ONE DOES NOT
NECESSARILY REBUT THE FINDING THAT THE OTHERS PARTICIPATED.  THE THEORY
OF THE CHARGE TO THE JURY WAS NOT THAT THE DEFENDANTS MUST BE
CONVICTED, IF AT ALL, AS A BODY; RATHER THE ISSUE OF GUILT WAS
DISTRIBUTIVE; THE IDENTITY OF ALL THE CO-CONSPIRATORS WAS IRRELEVANT. 

IN A SHERMAN ACT CASE, AS IN OTHER CONSPIRACY CASES, THE GRANT OF A
NEW TRIAL TO SOME DEFENDANTS AND ITS DENIAL TO OTHERS IS NOT PER SE
REVERSIBLE ERROR.  AFTER THE JURY'S VERDICT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AS
RESPECTS SOME OF THE ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS, THE REMAINING ONES CANNOT
SEIZE ON THAT ACTION AS GROUNDS FOR THE GRANTING OF A NEW TRIAL TO
THEM, UNLESS THEY CAN ESTABLISH THAT SUCH ACTION WAS SO CLEARLY
PREJUDICIAL TO THEM THAT THE DENIAL OF THEIR MOTIONS CONSTITUTED A
PLAIN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  SEE DUFOUR V. UNITED STATES, 37 APP. D.C.
497, 510-511; STATE V. CHRISTIANSON, 131 MINN. 276, 280; 154 N.W. 1095;
COMMONWEALTH V. BRUNO, 324 PA. 236, 248; 188 A. 320; PEOPLE V. KULAND,
266 N.Y. 1; 193 N.E. 439; BROWNE V. UNITED STATES, 145 F. 1.  THERE IS
A COMPLETE LACK OF ANY SHOWING OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION HERE, FOR NO
PREJUDICE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 

HENCE THIS CASE FALLS WITHIN THE WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE THAT NEITHER
THIS COURT NOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL REVIEW THE ACTION OF A
FEDERAL TRIAL COURT IN GRANTING OR DENYING A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL FOR
ERROR OF FACT, SINCE SUCH ACTION IS A MATTER WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF
THE TRIAL COURT.  FAIRMOUNT GLASS WORKS V. CUB FORK COAL CO., 287 U.S.
474.  CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN NOTED, SUCH AS INSTANCES WHERE THE
TRIAL COURT HAS "ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION MATTERS WHICH
WERE APPROPRIATE TO A DECISION ON THE MOTION."  FAIRMOUNT GLASS WORKS
V. CUB FORK COAL CO., SUPRA, P. 483.  BUT THERE ARE NO SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE.  NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED THAT THE
TRIAL COURT IN DENYING RESPONDENTS' MOTIONS FAILED TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION THE EFFECT OF THE BUYING PROGRAMS ON GASOLINE PRICES IN
THE MID-WESTERN AREA.  IN FACT IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT THE TRIAL COURT
CONSIDERED THAT ISSUE AND RULED THEREON ADVERSELY TO RESPONDENTS.  IT
CONCLUDED IN SUBSTANCE THAT WHOEVER MAY HAVE BEEN ALL THE MEMBERS OF
THE CONSPIRACY, THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE JURY ON THE
NATURE AND EFFECT OF THESE PROGRAMS.    CERTAINLY, DENIAL OF A MOTION
FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW.  MOORE V. UNITED
STATES, 150 U.S. 57, 61-62; J.W. BISHOP CO. V. SHELHORSE, 141 F. 643,
648; O'DONNELL V. NEW YORK TRANSP.  CO., 187 F. 109, 110.  IN SUBSTANCE
NO MORE THAN THAT IS INVOLVED HERE.    IX.  VARIANCE. 

BY THEIR CROSS PETITION RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THERE WAS A FATAL
VARIANCE BETWEEN THE AGREEMENT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT AND THE
AGREEMENT PROVED, WITH A CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF RESPONDENTS' RIGHTS
UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, CERTAIN TRADE JOURNALS WERE MADE DEFENDANTS.  THE
INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THEY WERE "THE CHIEF AGENCIES AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES" THROUGH WHICH THE ILLEGALLY RAISED PRICES AFFECTED
PRICES PAID FOR GASOLINE IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA; THAT THEY "KNOWINGLY
PUBLISHED AND CIRCULATED AS SUCH PRICE QUOTATIONS THE WRONGFULLY AND
ARTIFICIALLY RAISED AND FIXED PRICES FOR GASOLINE PAID BY" DEFENDANTS
IN THE BUYING PROGRAMS, WHILE "REPRESENTING THE PRICE QUOTATIONS
PUBLISHED BY THEM" TO BE GASOLINE PRICES "PREVAILING IN SPOT SALES TO
JOBBERS IN TANK CAR LOTS" AND WHILE "KNOWING AND INTENDING THEM TO BE
RELIED ON AS SUCH BY JOBBERS AND TO BE MADE THE BASIS OF PRICES TO
JOBBERS." 

AT THE CLOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED,
ON MOTION OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS AGAINST ALL TRADE JOURNAL DEFENDANTS
WHO WENT TO TRIAL.  THIS WAS CLEARLY PROPER, AS THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED
EXCULPATED THEM FROM ANY WRONGDOING.  BUT RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE
DEVICE CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT WAS ONE BY WHICH RESPONDENTS WERE TO
PAY HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL SPOT MARKET PRICES FOR THEIR PURCHASES AND
THEN TO SUBSTITUTE IN THE TRADE JOURNAL QUOTATIONS SUCH PRICES FOR THE
LOWER PRICES ACTUALLY PAID BY JOBBERS IN SPOT MARKET SALES.  SINCE
THERE WAS FAILURE OF PROOF ON THIS POINT OF FALSIFICATION, IT IS ARGUED
THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE.  FOR, ACCORDING TO RESPONDENTS, THAT FEATURE
WAS AN INTEGRAL AND ESSENTIAL PART OF THE PLAN AS CHARGED. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THERE WAS NO
VARIANCE.  ANALYSIS OF THE INDICTMENT WHICH WE HAVE SET FORTH, SUPRA,
PP. 166-170, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE CHARGE AGAINST RESPONDENTS WAS
SEPARATE FROM AND INDEPENDENT OF THE CHARGE AGAINST THE TRADE JOURNALS
AND THAT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THOSE JOURNALS CONSTITUTED NOT THE
ONLY MEANS BY WHICH THE CONSPIRACY WAS TO BE EFFECTUATED BUT ONLY ONE
OF SEVERAL MEANS (SUPRA, PP. 167-168).  IN EFFECT, THOSE CHARGES IN THE
INDICTMENT SOUGHT TO CONNECT THE TRADE JOURNALS WITH THE CONSPIRACY AS
AIDERS AND ABETTORS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GIST OF THE INDICTMENT
CHARGED A CONSPIRACY BY DEFENDANTS (1) TO RAISE AND FIX THE SPOT MARKET
PRICES AND (2) THEREBY TO RAISE AND FIX THE PRICES IN THE MID-WESTERN
AREA.  SO FAR AS MEANS AND METHODS OF ACCOMPLISHING THOSE OBJECTIVES
WERE CONCERNED, THE CHARGE OF FALSIFICATION OF THE TRADE JOURNAL
QUOTATIONS WAS AS UNESSENTIAL AS WAS THE CHARGE, LIKEWISE UNPROVED,
THAT DEFENDANTS CAUSED THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS TO CURTAIL THEIR
PRODUCTION.  THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE BUYING PROGRAMS IN RAISING
AND FIXING PRICES WERE IN NO WAY MADE DEPENDENT ON THE UTILIZATION OF
FRAUDULENT TRADE JOURNAL QUOTATIONS.  AS CHARGED, THE TRADE JOURNALS
WERE THE CHIEF INSTRUMENTALITIES BY WHICH THE SPOT MARKET PRICES WERE
CONVERTED INTO PRICES IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA.  HENCE UNDER THIS
INDICTMENT THEY WERE WHOLLY EFFECTIVE FOR RESPONDENTS' PURPOSES, THOUGH
THEY WERE INNOCENT AND THOUGH THEIR QUOTATIONS WERE NOT FALSIFIED AS
CHARGED.  A VARIATION BETWEEN THE MEANS CHARGED AND THE MEANS UTILIZED
IS NOT FATAL.  AND WHERE AN INDICTMENT CHARGES VARIOUS MEANS BY WHICH
THE CONSPIRACY IS EFFECTUATED, NOT ALL OF THEM NEED BE PROVED.  SEE
NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 380.  CF. BOYLE V. UNITED STATES,
259 F. 803, 805. 

X. JURISDICTION OR VENUE. 

THE SIXTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT THE ACCUSED SHALL BE TRIED "BY AN
IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED."  RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN HAD NO JURISDICTION OR VENUE TO TRY THEM
SINCE THE CRIME WAS NOT COMMITTED IN THAT DISTRICT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS HELD TO THE CONTRARY, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING. 

AS WE HAVE NOTED, THE INDICTMENT CHARGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS (1)
CONSPIRED TOGETHER TO RAISE AND FIX THE PRICES ON THE SPOT MARKETS; (2)
RAISED, FIXED, AND MAINTAINED THOSE PRICES AT ARTIFICIALLY HIGH AND NON
COMPETITIVE LEVELS AND "THEREBY INTENTIONALLY INCREASED AND FIXED THE
TANK CAR PRICES OF GASOLINE CONTRACTED TO BE SOLD AND SOLD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS AFORESAID IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA (INCLUDING THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN)"; (3) HAVE "EXACTED LARGE SUMS OF MONEY
FROM THOUSANDS OF JOBBERS" IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA BY REASON OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE PREVAILING FORM OF JOBBER CONTRACTS WHICH MADE THE
PRICE TO THE JOBBER DEPENDENT ON THE AVERAGE SPOT MARKET PRICE; AND (4)
"IN TURN HAVE INTENTIONALLY RAISED THE GENERAL LEVEL OF RETAIL PRICES
PREVAILING IN SAID MID-WESTERN AREA." 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT THE
BUYING PROGRAMS RESULTED IN AN INCREASE OF SPOT MARKET PRICES, OF
PRICES TO JOBBERS AND OF RETAIL PRICES IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA.  AND IT
IS CLEAR THAT CERTAIN CORPORATE RESPONDENTS SOLD GASOLINE DURING THIS
PERIOD IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA AT THE INCREASED PRICES.  THE COURT
CHARGED THE JURY THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY FOUND THAT DEFENDANTS HAD THE
PURPOSE AND POWER TO RAISE THE SPOT MARKET PRICES, THEY MUST ACQUIT THE
DEFENDANTS UNLESS THEY ALSO FOUND AND BELIEVED BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT DEFENDANTS "HAVE ALSO INTENTIONALLY RAISED AND FIXED THE
TANK CAR PRICE OF GASOLINE CONTRACTED TO BE SOLD AND WHICH WAS SOLD IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA, INCLUDING THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN."  IT ALSO CHARGED THAT IT WAS NOT ENOUGH "FOR
THE PROSECUTION TO SHOW AN INCREASE IN THE TANK CAR PRICES OF GASOLINE
WITHIN SAID AREA, BUT YOU MUST ALSO FIND AND BELIEVE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT AND TO A MORAL CERTAINTY THAT THE DEFENDANTS COMBINED
AND CONSPIRED TOGETHER OR WITH OTHERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING AND
FIXING THE SAME AS WELL AS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING AND FIXING THE
TANK CAR PRICES IN SAID SPOT MARKETS, ON ONE OR MORE OF THEM."  IT
FURTHER CHARGED THAT THE JURY IN ORDER TO CONVICT MUST FIND SOME OVERT
ACTS IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN; AND THAT SALES OF GASOLINE
THEREIN BY ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS WOULD CONSTITUTE SUCH OVERT ACTS. 

RESPONDENTS, THOUGH AGREEING THAT THERE WERE SUCH SALES IN THE MID
WESTERN AREA AND THAT THE PRICES ON SUCH SALES WERE AFFECTED BY THE
RISE IN THE SPOT MARKETS, DENY THAT THEY WERE OVERT ACTS IN PURSUANCE
OF THE CONSPIRACY.  RATHER, THEY CONTEND THAT EACH OF SUCH SALES WAS AN
INDIVIDUAL ACT OF A PARTICULAR CONSPIRATOR IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
HIS BUSINESS BY WHICH HE ENJOYED THE RESULTS OF A CONSPIRACY CARRIED
OUT IN ANOTHER DISTRICT.  THAT IS TO SAY, THEY TAKE THE POSITION THAT
THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY WAS LIMITED TO A RESTRAINT OF COMPETITION IN
BUYING AND SELLING ON THE SPOT MARKETS AND INCLUDED NO JOINT AGREEMENT
OR UNDERSTANDING AS RESPECTS SALES IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA.  IN SUPPORT
OF THIS VIEW THEY CITE THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCESSIONS THAT IT "DOES NOT
CLAIM THAT EACH DEFENDANT 'ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT NOT TO SELL
JOBBERS EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH' THE CONTRACT DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH
11 OF THE INDICTMENT"; FN64  AND THAT IT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT
DEFENDANTS WERE "SITTING AROUND A TABLE AND AGREEING ON A UNIFORM
RETAIL PRICE."  AND THEY ASSERT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT
RESPONDENTS AGREED NOT TO SELL GASOLINE IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
WISCONSIN EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF SPOT MARKET PRICES. 

CONSPIRACIES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT ARE ON "THE COMMON LAW FOOTING":
THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE "DOING OF ANY ACT OTHER THAN THE ACT OF
CONSPIRING" AS A CONDITION OF LIABILITY.  NASH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
AT P. 378.  BUT SINCE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE CONSPIRACY WAS
FORMED WITHIN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, THE TRIAL COURT WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION UNLESS SOME ACT PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY TOOK
PLACE THERE.  UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., SUPRA, PP. 402
403, AND CASES CITED.  WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT
THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE OF SUCH OVERT ACTS IN THAT DISTRICT.  THE
FINDING OF THE JURY ON THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  AS WE INDICATED IN OUR DISCUSSION OF THE BUYING
PROGRAMS, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE JURY THAT THE
CONSPIRACY DID NOT END WITH AN AGREEMENT TO MAKE PURCHASES ON THE SPOT
MARKETS; THAT THOSE BUYING PROGRAMS WERE BUT PART OF THE WIDER
STABILIZATION EFFORTS OF RESPONDENTS; THAT THE CHIEF END AND OBJECTIVE
WERE THE RAISING AND MAINTENANCE OF MID-WESTERN PRICES AT HIGHER
LEVELS.  AS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION WOULD REQUIRE A BELIEF THAT RESPONDENTS WERE "ENGAGED IN A
PHILANTHROPIC ENDEAVOR."  THEY OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT.  THE FACT THAT NO
UNIFORM JOBBERS' CONTRACT AND NO UNIFORM RETAIL PRICE POLICY WERE
AGREED UPON IS IMMATERIAL.  THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY WOULD FAIL
IF RESPONDENTS DID NOT BY SOME FORMULA OR METHOD RELATE THEIR SALES IN
THE MID-WESTERN AREA TO THE SPOT MARKET PRICES.  THE OBJECTIVES OF THE
CONSPIRACY WOULD ALSO FAIL IF RESPONDENTS, CONTRARY TO THE PHILOSOPHY
OF ALL THE STABILIZATION EFFORTS, INDULGED IN PRICE CUTTING AND PRICE
WARS.  ACCORDINGLY, SUCCESSFUL CONSUMMATION OF THE CONSPIRACY
NECESSARILY INVOLVED AN UNDERSTANDING OR AGREEMENT, HOWEVER INFORMAL,
TO MAINTAIN SUCH IMPROVEMENTS IN MID-WESTERN PRICES AS WOULD RESULT
FROM THE PURCHASES OF DISTRESS GASOLINE.  THE FACT THAT THAT ENTAILED
NOTHING MORE THAN ADHERENCE TO PRIOR PRACTICE OF RELATING THOSE PRICES
TO THE SPOT MARKET IS OF COURSE IMMATERIAL.  IN SUM, THE CONSPIRACY
CONTEMPLATED AND EMBRACED, AT LEAST BY CLEAR IMPLICATION, SALES TO
JOBBERS AND CONSUMERS IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA AT THE ENHANCED PRICES. 
THE MAKING OF THOSE SALES SUPPLIED PART OF THE "CONTINUOUS COOPERATION"
NECESSARY TO KEEP THE CONSPIRACY ALIVE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. KISSEL,
218 U.S. 601, 607.  HENCE, SALES BY ANY ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS IN THE
MID-WESTERN AREA BOUND ALL.  FOR A CONSPIRACY IS A PARTNERSHIP IN
CRIME; AND AN "OVERT ACT OF ONE PARTNER MAY BE THE ACT OF ALL WITHOUT
ANY NEW AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO THAT ACT."  UNITED STATES V.
KISSEL, SUPRA, P. 608. 

XI.  RESPONDENT MCELROY. 

RESPONDENT MCELROY ARGUES THAT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION RENDERED
AGAINST HIM SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED NOT ONLY
FOR THE REASONS HERETOFORE DISCUSSED, BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY ON THE
GROUNDS THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD ANY
KNOWLEDGE OF AND PARTICIPATED IN THE UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY.  HIS MOTION
FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE WAS DENIED BY THE
TRIAL COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO
ERROR IN SUCH DENIAL.  A QUESTION OF LAW IS THUS RAISED, WHICH ENTAILS
AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF WEIGHING THE
EVIDENCE BUT ONLY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE WAS SOME COMPETENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY FAIRLY TENDING TO SUSTAIN THE
VERDICT.  ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616, 619; TROXELL V.
DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 227 U.S. 434, 444; LANCASTER V. COLLINS, 115
U.S. 222, 225.  WE HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE RECORD FOR EVIDENCE OF
MCELROY'S KNOWLEDGE OF AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSPIRACY.  BUT
WITHOUT BURDENING THE OPINION WITH A DETAILED EXPOSITION OF THE
EVIDENCE ON THIS POINT, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN
THE DENIAL OF HIS MOTION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE INDICTMENT CHARGED 27 CORPORATIONS AND 56 INDIVIDUALS WITH
VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN LAW.  THERE WERE BROUGHT TO TRIAL
26 CORPORATIONS AND 46 INDIVIDUALS.  PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF THE CASE TO
THE JURY THE COURT DISCHARGED, DIRECTED VERDICTS OF ACQUITTAL, OR
DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT AS TO 10 OF THE CORPORATIONS AND 16 OF THE
INDIVIDUALS.  THE JURY RETURNED VERDICTS OF GUILTY AS TO THE REMAINING
16 CORPORATIONS AND 30 INDIVIDUALS.  THEREAFTER THE TRIAL COURT ORDERED
NEW TRIALS AS TO 3 CORPORATIONS AND 15 INDIVIDUALS AND GRANTED JUDGMENT
NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO TO ONE OTHER CORPORATION AND 10 OTHER
INDIVIDUALS.  UNITED STATES V. STONE, 308 U.S. 519.  FOR THE OPINIONS
OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THAT PHASE OF THE CASE, SEE 23 F.SUPP.  937,
938-939; 24 F.SUPP.  575; AND FOR THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, 101 F.2D 870. 

THE RESPONDENTS ARE THE REMAINING 12 CORPORATIONS AND 5 INDIVIDUALS,
VIZ., SOCONY-VACUUM OIL COMPANY, INC., WADHAMS OIL COMPANY, EMPIRE OIL
AND REFINING COMPANY, CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, THE PURE OIL COMPANY,
SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, MID-CONTINENT
PETROLEUM CORPORATION, PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, SKELLY OIL COMPANY,
THE GLOBE OIL & REFINING COMPANY (OKLAHOMA), THE GLOBE OIL & REFINING
COMPANY (ILLINOIS), C.E. ARNOTT, VICE PRESIDENT OF SOCONY-VACUUM, H.T.
ASHTON, MANAGER OF LUBRITE DIVISION OF SOCONY-VACUUM, R. H. MCELROY,
JR., TANK-CAR SALES MANAGER OF PURE OIL, P. E. LAKIN, GENERAL MANAGER
OF SALES OF SHELL, R. W. MCDOWELL, VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF SALES OF
MID-CONTINENT. 

FN2  EACH OF THE CORPORATIONS WAS FINED $5,000; EACH INDIVIDUAL,
$1,000.    FN3  SEC. 1 PROVIDES: 

"EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OR
CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,
OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL:  ...  EVERY
PERSON WHO SHALL MAKE ANY CONTRACT OR ENGAGE IN ANY COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT
EXCEEDING $5,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH
SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT." 

FN4  THE MAJOR OIL COMPANIES, IN THE MAIN, ENGAGE IN EVERY BRANCH OF
THE BUSINESS - OWNING AND OPERATING OIL WELLS, PIPE-LINES, REFINERIES,
BULK STORAGE PLANTS, AND SERVICE STATIONS.  THOSE ENGAGING IN ALL SUCH
BRANCHES ARE MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES; THOSE LACKING FACILITIES
FOR ONE OR MORE OF THOSE BRANCHES ARE SEMI-INTEGRATED.  "INDEPENDENT
REFINERS" DESCRIBES COMPANIES ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN REFINING. 

FN5  ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI,
NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND WISCONSIN. 

FN6  LOCATED IN THE NORTH, EASTERN PART OF TEXAS. 

FN7  DESCRIBED AS INCLUDING OKLAHOMA, THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN
PORTIONS OF TEXAS, THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN PORTIONS OF KANSAS, THE
SOUTHERN PORTION OF ARKANSAS, THE NORTHERN PORTION OF LOUISIANA. 

FN8  TWO INDIVIDUALS CONNECTED WITH THOSE JOURNALS WERE ALSO MADE
DEFENDANTS.  ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS WAS NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL.  AT THE
CLOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED, ON MOTION
OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS AGAINST THE OTHER FOUR TRADE JOURNAL DEFENDANTS. 

FN9  DESCRIBED BY ONE WITNESS AS "WELLS THAT HAVE GOTTEN DOWN TO
LESS THAN 5 BARRELS A DAY, AND IN SOME CASES DOWN TO LESS THAN A BARREL
A DAY, SO THAT THEY ONLY HAVE TO BE PUMPED, SOMETIMES, AN HOUR OR TWO A
DAY TO GET ALL THE OIL THEY WILL PRODUCE AT THAT STAGE OF THE GAME." 

FN10  IT PROVIDED FOR MAXIMUM HOURS OF WORK AND MINIMUM RATES OF PAY;
FORBADE SALES BELOW COST; REQUIRED INTEGRATED COMPANIES TO CONDUCT EACH
BRANCH OF THEIR BUSINESS ON A PROFITABLE BASIS; ESTABLISHED, WITHIN
CERTAIN LIMITS, THE PARITY BETWEEN THE PRICE OF A BARREL OF CRUDE OIL
AND A GALLON OF REFINED GASOLINE AS 18.5 TO 1; AND AUTHORIZED THE
FIXING OF CERTAIN MINIMUM PRICES. 

FN11  AN ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATOR FIXING MINIMUM PRICES NEVER
BECAME EFFECTIVE.  RESPONDENTS ALSO MADE AN OFFER OF PROOF THAT THE
PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD ENDEAVORED, IN THE FALL OF 1933, TO
OBTAIN VOLUNTARY ACTION BY THE LARGER COMPANIES TO ACQUIRE AND HOLD
LARGE STOCKS OF CRUDE OIL, SAID TO BE OVERHANGING THE MARKET AND IN
DANGER OF DEPRESSING THE PRICE OF REFINED GASOLINE.  THE OFFER OF PROOF
INDICATED THAT SOME PURCHASES HAD BEEN MADE BUT DID NOT SHOW THE
EXTENT.  RESPONDENTS OFFERED TO SHOW, THROUGH TESTIMONY OF THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE PLANNING & COORDINATION COMMITTEE, THAT IT WAS THE DESIRE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR THAT CRUDE OIL NOT FALL BELOW $1 A BARREL. 

FN12  THE TESTIMONY OF ONE OF RESPONDENTS' WITNESSES WAS THAT THIS
POLICY CAUSED THE MAJOR COMPANIES TO BUY GASOLINE - IN THE MAIN FROM
SMALL, NON-INTEGRATED REFINERS. 

FN13  JUNE 23, 1934; AUGUST 13, 1934; SEPTEMBER 8, 1934; NOVEMBER 2,
1934.  THEY APPARENTLY WERE SHORT-LIVED, THEIR LEGALITY HAVING BEEN
QUESTIONED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.  LATE IN 1933 THE INDUSTRY
PROPOSED THE FORMATION OF A NATIONAL PETROLEUM AGENCY, OF WHICH TWENTY
THREE OF THE LARGER COMPANIES, INCLUDING MOST OF THE CORPORATE
RESPONDENTS, WERE TO BE MEMBERS, "TO PURCHASE, HOLD AND, IN AN ORDERLY
WAY, DISPOSE OF SURPLUS GASOLINE WHICH THREATENS THE STABILITY OF THE
OIL PRICE STRUCTURE."  SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR A POOL OF NEARLY $9,000,000
WERE OBTAINED.  THE PLAN WAS NEVER PUT INTO OPERATION.  IN MAY 1934
THERE WAS ANOTHER VOLUNTARY PLAN (WHICH WAS ABORTIVE), THE PLANNING &
COORDINATION COMMITTEE ADDRESSED A RESOLUTION TO CERTAIN MAJOR
COMPANIES CALLING UPON EACH TO PURCHASE AN AMOUNT OF GASOLINE IN MAY
EQUAL TO 3% OF THEIR SALES. 

FN14  UNDER THE NOVEMBER 2, 1934 PROGRAM THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT
THE PRICE TO BE PAID FOR THE GASOLINE PURCHASED SHOULD INCREASE 1/4[
PER GALLON WITH EACH 5[ PER BARREL INCREASE IN THE POSTED PRICE OF
CRUDE OIL AND SHOULD DECREASE 1/4[ PER GALLON WITH EACH 5[ PER BARREL
DECREASE IN CRUDE. 

FN15  P. 37.  EXCERPTS FROM THIS REPORT WERE PART OF AN OFFER OF
PROOF BY RESPONDENTS. 

FN16  THE MARKETING COMMITTEE HAD AN EXTENSIVE ORGANIZATION OF
REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL, OR TEMPORARY COMMITTEES, SCATTERED THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VARIOUS MARKETING ELEMENTS IN THE
INDUSTRY. 

FN17  HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE BOARD SAID THAT IT COULD NOT TELL
HIM HOW TO DEAL WITH THE PRICE WARS BUT THAT IT WOULD AUTHORIZE HIM TO
DEAL WITH "THE ELEMENTS (OF) THAT CONFLICT THAT CAUSE THEM." 

FN18  SEC. 3(A) OF THE ACT READ: 

"UPON THE APPLICATION TO THE PRESIDENT BY ONE OR MORE TRADE OR
INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATIONS OR GROUPS, THE PRESIDENT MAY APPROVE A CODE OR
CODES OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE TRADE OR INDUSTRY OR SUBDIVISION
THEREOF, REPRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT OR APPLICANTS, IF THE PRESIDENT
FINDS (1) THAT SUCH ASSOCIATIONS OR GROUPS IMPOSE NO INEQUITABLE
RESTRICTIONS ON ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP THEREIN AND ARE TRULY
REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH TRADES OR INDUSTRIES OR SUBDIVISIONS THEREOF,
AND (2) THAT SUCH CODE OR CODES ARE NOT DESIGNED TO PROMOTE MONOPOLIES
OR TO ELIMINATE OR OPPRESS SMALL ENTERPRISES AND WILL NOT OPERATE TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM, AND WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF
THIS TITLE:  PROVIDED, THAT SUCH CODE OR CODES SHALL NOT PERMIT
MONOPOLIES OR MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT WHERE
SUCH CODE OR CODES AFFECT THE SERVICES AND WELFARE OF PERSONS ENGAGED
IN OTHER STEPS OF THE ECONOMIC PROCESS, NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL
DEPRIVE SUCH PERSONS OF THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD PRIOR TO APPROVAL BY THE
PRESIDENT OF SUCH CODE OR CODES.  THE PRESIDENT MAY, AS A CONDITION OF
HIS APPROVAL OF ANY SUCH CODE, IMPOSE SUCH CONDITIONS (INCLUDING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAKING OF REPORTS AND THE KEEPING OF ACCOUNTS) FOR
THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS, COMPETITORS, EMPLOYEES, AND OTHERS, AND IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND MAY PROVIDE SUCH EXCEPTIONS TO
AND EXEMPTIONS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH CODE, AS THE PRESIDENT IN
HIS DISCRETION DEEMS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY HEREIN
DECLARED." 


"WHILE THIS TITLE IS IN EFFECT (OR IN THE CASE OF A LICENSE, WHILE
AGREEMENT, OR LICENSE APPROVED, PRESCRIBED, OR ISSUED AND IN EFFECT
UNDER THIS TITLE, AND ANY ACTION COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS THEREOF
TAKEN DURING SUCH PERIOD, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ANTITRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FN19  THIS COMMITTEE EVENTUALLY WAS COMPOSED OF RESPONDENTS MCDOWELL,
ASHTON AND LAKIN AND FIVE FORMER DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE EITHER DISCHARGED
OR GRANTED NEW TRIALS. 

FN20  RESPONDENT R. W. MCDOWELL, A VICE PRESIDENT OF MID-CONTINENT,
TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS RESPECTING THE ORIGIN AND MEANING OF THIS TERM: 

"THE PHRASE 'DANCING PARTNERS' CAME UP RIGHT THERE AFTER MR. ASHTON
HAD GONE AROUND THE ROOM.  THERE WERE THESE 7 OR 8 SMALL REFINERS WHOM
NO ONE HAD MENTIONED.  HE SAID THIS SITUATION REMINDED HIM OF THE
DANCES THAT HE USED TO GO TO WHEN HE WAS A YOUNG FELLOW.  HE SAID,
'HERE WE ARE AT A GREAT ECONOMIC BALL.'  HE SAID, 'WE HAVE THESE MAJOR
COMPANIES WHO HAVE TO BUY GASOLINE AND ARE BUYING GASOLINE, AND THEY
ARE THE STRONG DANCERS.'  AND HE SAID, 'THEY HAVE ASKED CERTAIN PEOPLE
TO DANCE WITH THEM.  THEY ARE THE BETTER KNOWN INDEPENDENT REFINERS.' 
HE SAID, 'HERE ARE 7 OR 8 THAT NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW.'  HE SAID, 'THEY
REMIND ME OF THE WALLFLOWERS THAT ALWAYS USED TO BE PRESENT AT THOSE
OLD COUNTRY DANCES.'  HE SAID, 'I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE
JOBS OF THIS COMMITTEE TO INTRODUCE SOME OF THESE WALLFLOWERS TO SOME
OF THE STRONG DANCERS, SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN DANCE.'  AND FROM THAT
SIMILE, OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THE TERM 'DANCING PARTNER'
AROSE." 

FN21  THIS WAS A COMMITTEE OF THREE OF WHICH RESPONDENT MCDOWELL WAS
CHAIRMAN. 

FN22  THE LIST OF THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS HAVING THE DISTRESS
GASOLINE WAS READ AND THE MAJORS MADE THEIR SELECTIONS - SOME ON THE
BASIS OF PRIOR BUSINESS DEALINGS, SOME ON THE BASIS OF PERSONAL
FRIENDSHIPS, SOME BECAUSE OF LOCATION, FREIGHT ADVANTAGES, ETC. 

FN23  PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS NAMED IN THE
INDICTMENT WERE MEMBERS OF THIS ASSOCIATION.  C.M. BOGGS, THE PRESIDENT
OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND A.V. BOURQUE, ITS SECRETARY, WERE NAMED IN THE
INDICTMENT AS DEFENDANTS.  AS TO THE FORMER, A MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL WAS GRANTED; AS TO THE LATTER, THE VERDICT OF THE
JURY WAS SET ASIDE AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED. 

FN24 ON MARCH 15, 1935, JACOBI IN A LETTER TO HIS SUPERIORS WROTE:
"THE WRITER HAS BEEN BUSY THIS WEEK ON TANK CAR STABILIZATION WORK, AND
THUS FAR RESULTS ARE GRATIFYING.  OUR COMMITTEE DECIDED ON A PRICE OF 3
3/4[ FOR THIRD GRADE, AND 4 3/4[ FOR 'Q,' FOR NEXT WEEK.  PURCHASING
COMPANIES, INCLUDING OUR OWN UNITS, ARE PAYING THESE PRICES TODAY." 
"Q" GASOLINE IS REGULAR GASOLINE WITH AN OCTANE RATING OF 68-70. 

FN25  WHAT THE PRACTICE OF THE OTHER MEMBER OF THE MECHANICAL SUB
COMMITTEE WAS IN THIS RESPECT DOES NOT APPEAR. 

FN26  ARNOTT WAS REPORTED AS SAYING:  "EAST TEXAS HAS BEEN A MENACE
TO NOT ONLY THE EASTERN SEABOARD, BUT ITS GASOLINE ALSO HAS FOUND ITS
WAY UP INTO THE MID-CONTINENT AND HAS BEEN COMPETITIVE WITH THE SO
CALLED MID-CONTINENT SUPPLIERS' OR REFINERS' GASOLINE." 

THE NORMAL MARKET FOR GASOLINE REFINED IN EAST TEXAS WAS THE STATE OF
TEXAS AND THE ATLANTIC SEABOARD, REACHED THROUGH TANKER SHIPMENTS FROM
GULF PORTS. 

FN27  BUCKLEY FIRST SECURED THE APPROVAL OF HIS EMPLOYER.  HIS
COMPANY, NOT THE ASSOCIATION, PAID HIS SALARY WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN
THIS WORK; THE ASSOCIATION PAID HIS TRAVEL AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. 

FN28  REPRESENTATIVES OF RESPONDENTS SOCONY-VACUUM, PURE OIL,
SINCLAIR AND PROBABLY OF SHELL WERE PRESENT AS WELL AS REPRESENTATIVES
OF OTHER MAJORS.  THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS PRESENT WERE ARNOTT
AND MCELROY. 

FN29  THEY WERE PART OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING &
COORDINATION COMMITTEE UNDER THE CODE.  AS TO ALLOCATIONS UNDER THE
CODE SEE INFRA, PP. 201 ET SEQ. 

FN30  NOT INCLUDING, INTER ALIA, CITIES SERVICE EXPORT OIL CO.,
LOUISIANA OIL REFINING CORP., TIDE WATER ASSOC. OIL CO., THE TEXAS CO.,
AND GULF REFINING CO., AS RESPECTS WHICH THE INDICTMENT HAD BEEN
DISMISSED. 

FN31  ONLY THREE OF THE CORPORATE RESPONDENTS PURCHASED THROUGH THE
ASSOCIATION. 

FN32  AN INTER-COMPANY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT
PURE OIL WRITTEN IN MAY 1935 STATED:  "PRICES WERE ADVANCED THIS WEEK
IN BOTH REGIONS TO 4 1/2[ AND 4 5/8[-5 3/8[, IN VIEW OF SOME OF THE
REFINERS SQUAWKING BECAUSE OUR BUYING WAS CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN THE
PUBLICATIONS." 

FN33  IT APPEARS THAT, BEGINNING IN 1935 AND INCREASING IN THE LATTER
PART OF 1936, STATE CHAIN STORE LEGISLATION RESULTED IN THE MAJORS
LEASING MANY OF THEIR RETAIL SERVICE STATIONS. 

FN34 A DEFENDANT TO WHOM A NEW TRIAL WAS GRANTED. 

FN35  FURTHER DETAILS OF STANDARD'S POLICY IN POSTING RETAIL PRICES
ARE DISCUSSED, P. 198. 

FN36  THE FOLLOWING IS ILLUSTRATIVE:  THE SPOT MARKET PRICE (COMPUTED
AS INDICATED) WAS TO GOVERN WHEN THAT PRICE PLUS FREIGHT, PLUS 5 1/2[
PER GALLON DID NOT EXCEED THE POSTED SERVICE STATION PRICE, EXCLUSIVE
OF TAX, AT DESTINATION ON DATE OF SHIPMENT.  IN CASE THAT AGGREGATE
FIGURE EXCEEDED THE SERVICE STATION PRICE, THEN THE PRICE TO THE JOBBER
WOULD BE REDUCED BY AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE-HALF OF THE EXCESS.  IN SOME
CASES THE MAJOR COMPANIES ASSUMED THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE. 
THE MARGIN OF 5 1/2[ WAS BASED ON THE SELLER'S DISCOUNT OF 3 1/2[ TO
JOBBERS.  HENCE IF THE SELLER INCREASED OR DECREASED THAT DISCOUNT
GENERALLY THEN THE MARGIN OF 5 1/2[ WOULD BE INCREASED OR DECREASED BY
AN EQUAL OR LIKE AMOUNT.  THE WORDING OF THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS VARIED
BUT THERE WAS GREAT UNIFORMITY IN PRINCIPLE. 

FN37  FOR THIS REASON "SPOT OPEN MARKET" IS FREQUENTLY USED, "OPEN"
MARKET REFERRING TO SALES WHICH ARE NOT MADE ON CONTRACT NOR BASED ON
FUTURE PUBLICATIONS. 

FN38  IN CASE ACTUAL SALES CANNOT BE OBTAINED, HE GETS THE PRICES AT
WHICH THE REFINERS WILL SELL TO JOBBERS IN THAT OPEN SPOT MARKET. 

FN39  MAJOR COMPANIES SELL LITTLE GASOLINE TO JOBBERS ON A SPOT
BASIS.  THE SPOT MARKET PRICES PUBLISHED IN THE TRADE JOURNALS ARE
BASED LARGELY ON SALES BY INDEPENDENT REFINERS. 

FN40  THE NATIONAL PETROLEUM NEWS GIVES THE OILGRAM QUOTATIONS IN
WEEKLY FORM. 

FN41  THAT PERCENTAGE IS APPARENTLY REDUCED TO ABOUT 10.5% IF SALES
OF 29 INDEPENDENT REFINERS (INCLUDING THE 14 NAMED IN THE INDICTMENT)
ARE TAKEN. 

WHAT PERCENTAGE THESE PURCHASES BY RESPONDENTS WERE OF THE MID
CONTINENT SPOT MARKET IN 1935 DOES NOT CLEARLY APPEAR, THE GOVERNMENT'S
ESTIMATE OF ONE-THIRD TO A HALF APPARENTLY BEING SOMEWHAT HIGH. 

FN42  COMPARABLE MOVEMENTS TOOK PLACE IN THE EAST TEXAS SPOT MARKET
FOR REGULAR GASOLINE UNTIL APRIL 21, 1935, WHEN THOSE QUOTATIONS WERE
DISCONTINUED. 

FN43  RESPONDENTS COMPUTED THAT FOR 1935 8% OF THESE PURCHASES OF
THIRD GRADE GASOLINE WERE ABOVE THE HIGH; 10% WERE AT THE HIGH; 7% WERE
BETWEEN THE HIGH AND LOW; 16% WERE BELOW THE LOW. 

FN44  RESPONDENTS' COMPUTATIONS COMPARING THEIR TABULATIONS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S TABULATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

(CHART OMITTED) 

THE GOVERNMENT'S TABULATIONS DEALT WITH 9,204 TANK CARS WHICH
DEFENDANTS (EXCLUDING SINCLAIR) PURCHASED ON A FLAT PRICE BASIS FROM
INDEPENDENT REFINERS IN THE MID-CONTINENT FIELD BETWEEN MARCH 1, 1935
AND APRIL 30, 1936.  RESPONDENTS' TABULATIONS INCLUDED SINCLAIR AND
EXCLUDED SALES BY DEFENDANTS WHO HAD ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED, AND
ELIMINATED OR RECLASSIFIED ALLEGED OMISSIONS OR IMPROPER
CLASSIFICATIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT.    RESPONDENTS' COMPUTATIONS ALSO
SHOW THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF PURCHASES AT PRICES BELOW THE LOW
QUOTATIONS WAS HIGHER DURING THE MARCH-MAY, 1935 PRICE RISE THAN DURING
THE INDICTMENT PERIOD AS A WHOLE, AND THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF PURCHASES
ABOVE THE LOW WAS LOWER DURING THAT PERIOD OF PRICE RISE THAN DURING
THE PERIOD AS A WHOLE. 

FN45  RESPONDENTS' FIGURES WERE:  .7% ABOVE THE HIGH OF THE JOURNAL;
.8% ABOVE THE HIGH OF THE OILGRAM; 3.7% AT THE HIGH OF THE JOURNAL;
6.1% AT THE HIGH OF THE OILGRAM.  APPARENTLY ALL PURCHASES ABOVE THE
HIGH WERE PURCHASES OF THIRD GRADE, NOT REGULAR GASOLINE. 

FN46  ONE GOVERNMENT WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT OUT OF 1,729 CONTRACTS
MADE BY THE DEFENDANT MAJOR OIL COMPANIES WITH JOBBERS IN THE MID
WESTERN AREA DURING 1935, 1,461 PROVIDED THAT THE BASIC PRICE WAS TO BE
DETERMINED "ON THE BASIS OF THE AVERAGE OF THE AVERAGES OF THE HIGH AND
LOW QUOTATIONS OF THE CHICAGO JOURNAL OF COMMERCE AND PLATT'S OILGRAM
ON SPOT MARKET TANK CAR GASOLINE."  DURING 1935 DEFENDANT COMPANIES
SOLD OVER 900,000,000 GALLONS TO JOBBERS IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA OUT OF
TOTAL SALES BY THEM IN THAT AREA OF OVER 4,000,000,000 GALLONS. 

FN47  THESE CHANGES WERE APPARENTLY NOT MADE AUTOMATICALLY, AS THE
FACTOR OF COMPETITION WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 

FN48  A COMPARISON OF MONDAY LOW QUOTATIONS FOR HOUSE BRAND GASOLINE
(OKLAHOMA MARKET) WITH AVERAGE SERVICE STATION PRICES FOR STANDARD'S
REGULAR GRADE GASOLINE (LESS TAXES) FOR 28 CITIES (INCLUDING LA CROSSE
AND MILWAUKEE, WIS.) IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA SHOWS THE LATTER FOLLOWING
THE FORMER UPWARD FROM MARCH TO JUNE 1935 AND IN JANUARY 1936. 

                       OKLAHOMA   SERVICE STATION 

MARCH 4, 1935 .....................  4.375[        12.56[ 

MARCH 11, 1935 ....................  4.625         12.56 

MARCH 18, 1935 ....................  4.750         12.56 

MARCH 25, 1935 ....................  4.750         12.90 

APRIL 1, 1935 .....................  4.875         12.90 

APRIL 8, 1935 .....................  5.000         12.97 

APRIL 15, 1935 ....................  5.125         13.26 

APRIL 22, 1935 ....................  5.250         13.32 

APRIL 29, 1935 ....................  5.250         13.32 

MAY 6, 1935 .......................  5.250         13.56 

MAY 13, 1935 ......................  5.250         13.56 

MAY 20, 1935 ......................  5.375         13.56 

MAY 27, 1935 ......................  5.500         13.56 

JUNE 3, 1935 ......................  5.625         13.56 

JANUARY 6, 1936 ...................  5.625         13.35 

JANUARY 13, 1936 ..................  6.125         13.45 

JANUARY 20, 1936 .................. 6.125         13.93 

JANUARY 27, 1936 ..................  6.125         13.93 

FN49  PRICES BELOW THE NORMAL PRICES WHICH STANDARD POSTED. 

FN50  AVERAGE PRICE (28 CITIES MID-WESTERN AREA) FOR STANDARD'S
REGULAR GASOLINE. 

FN51  SEC. 5 IS SET FORTH, SUPRA, NOTE 18. 

FN52  THAT REPORT WENT ON TO SAY: 

"  ...  WE BELIEVE SUCH A PROGRAM MIGHT BE SUCCESSFUL IN RAISING BOTH
TANK-CAR AND RETAIL PRICES TO THEIR PROPER LEVEL IN RELATIONSHIP TO
CRUDE OIL PRICES. 

"IF HIGHER TANK-CAR PRICES ARE OBTAINED, WE BELIEVE THEY CAN BE
SUSTAINED ONLY BY CORRESPONDING INCREASES IN RETAIL GASOLINE PRICES;
OTHERWISE, THE BURDEN MERELY WOULD BE SHIFTED FROM SMALL REFINERS TO
SMALL MARKETERS, WHO IN MANY INSTANCES HAVE BEEN IN JUST AS MUCH
DISTRESS AS THE REFINERS.  WE FIND THAT ABNORMALLY LOW RETAIL PRICES
CAN DEPRESS TANK-CAR PRICES JUST AS MUCH AS LOW TANK-CAR PRICES CAN
PULL DOWN THE RETAIL PRICE STRUCTURE.  THUS IT APPEARS TO BE ESSENTIAL
THAT BOTH PRICES MOVE UP TOGETHER." 

FN53  THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS REPORTED AS SAYING ABOUT THAT REPORT THAT
IF A PARITY BETWEEN CRUDE OIL PRICES AND GASOLINE PRICES DID NOT COME
SOON HE WOULD CALL A MEETING OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INDUSTRY TO SEE
WHAT COULD BE DONE ABOUT IT.  ON MARCH 30, 1935, ACCORDING TO
RESPONDENTS, THE ADMINISTRATOR WROTE CONCERNING THAT REPORT: 

"CONCERNING THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS, OTHER THAN THOSE IN CALIFORNIA,
IT APPEARS FROM THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL ENTERPRISE THAT
THE OUTSTANDING DIFFICULTY IS DUE TO THE DISPARITY BETWEEN POSTED CRUDE
OIL PRICES AND REFINERY REALIZATIONS.  THIS SITUATION HAS BEEN
DEPLORABLE FOR MANY MONTHS, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT PRESENT
THE ACTIVITY OF THE STABILIZATION COMMITTEES IS HAVING A DISTINCT
EFFECT IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF REFINERY PRICES, AND THAT WERE IT NOT FOR
OLD CONTRACTS, MANY OF WHICH ARE BADLY SHADED WITH RESPECT TO THE
POSTED PRICE, THE INDEPENDENT REFINER IS APPROACHING A NORMAL MARKET
STRUCTURE." 

RESPONDENTS ALSO OFFERED TO PROVE THAT THE BLAZER COMMITTEE ADVISED
THE BOARD IN APRIL 1935 THAT THERE WAS THEN NO OCCASION TO REDUCE CRUDE
OIL PRICES SINCE "WE CONSIDER TANK CAR GASOLINE PRICES NOW ALMOST UP TO
PARITY WITH SUFFICIENT ADDITIONAL ADVANCES ANTICIPATED IN BOTH TANK CAR
AND RETAIL PRICES"; AND EXPRESSED ITS SATISFACTION "WITH THE SUCCESS OF
THE PROGRAM TO STABILIZE TANK-CAR MARKETS." 

FN54  RESPONDENTS OFFERED TO PROVE THAT ARNOTT'S LAWYER ADVISED HIM
ON JULY 31, 1934, THAT ALTHOUGH THE LETTER OF JULY 20, 1934, WAS "NOT
PRECISELY AN APPROVAL" BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF ANY AGREEMENT WHICH GAVE
"COMPLETE PROTECTION" FROM ANY PROSECUTION UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS,
IT NEVERTHELESS WAS "FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES A COMPLETE PROTECTION
TO YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEES TO ENGAGE IN ALL REASONABLE ACTIVITIES TO
RESTORE PRICES TO NORMAL LEVELS." 

FN55  A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING & COORDINATION COMMITTEE MET
WITH THE BOARD ON MAY 10, 1935, TO DISCUSS THE REPORT OF THE BLAZER
COMMITTEE.  THE RECOMMENDATION IN THAT REPORT THAT THE MAJORS BUY
DISTRESS GASOLINE FROM THE INDEPENDENTS WAS DISCUSSED.  ARNOTT
TESTIFIED THAT HIS GROUP TOLD THE BOARD THAT "WE ALREADY HAD BUYING OF
GASOLINE IN EFFECT" TO WHICH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD WAS SAID TO HAVE
REPLIED "THAT IS QUITE SO AND DISPOSES OF THAT PART OF THE REPORT." 

FN56  PREPARED BETWEEN DECEMBER 1935 AND FEBRUARY 1936 AND ISSUED IN
JUNE 1936 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. 

FN57  IN SPEAKING OF THE GENERAL WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE (WHICH AS WE
HAVE NOTED WAS SET UP TO DEAL WITH PRICE WARS) THE REPORT STATED:  "THE
STABILIZATION PROGRAM WAS PERHAPS THE OUTSTANDING DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE
CODE." 

FN58 THIS COMPACT (49 STAT. 939) WAS AUTHORIZED IN FEBRUARY 1935 AND
BECAME EFFECTIVE IN AUGUST 1935. 

FN59  UNDER THIS INDICTMENT PROOF THAT PRICES IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA
WERE RAISED AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMBINATION WAS
ESSENTIAL, SINCE SALES OF GASOLINE BY RESPONDENTS AT THE INCREASED
PRICES IN THAT AREA WERE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH JURISDICTION
IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN.  HENCE WE HAVE NECESSARILY
TREATED THE CASE AS ONE WHERE EXERTION OF THE POWER TO FIX PRICES (I.E.
THE ACTUAL FIXING OF PRICES) WAS AN INGREDIENT OF THE OFFENSE.  BUT
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT BOTH A PURPOSE AND A POWER TO FIX PRICES ARE
NECESSARY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONSPIRACY UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THAT WOULD BE TRUE IF POWER OR ABILITY TO COMMIT AN
OFFENSE WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO CONVICT A PERSON OF CONSPIRING TO
COMMIT IT.  BUT IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A PERSON "MAY BE GUILTY OF
CONSPIRING ALTHOUGH INCAPABLE OF COMMITTING THE OBJECTIVE OFFENSE." 
UNITED STATES V. RABINOWICH, 238 U.S. 78, 86.  AND IT IS LIKEWISE WELL
SETTLED THAT CONSPIRACIES UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON
ANY OVERT ACT OTHER THAN THE ACT OF CONSPIRING.  NASH V. UNITED STATES,
229 U.S. 373, 378.  IT IS THE "CONTRACT, COMBINATION ...  OR CONSPIRACY
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE" WHICH SEC. 1 OF THE ACT STRIKES
DOWN, WHETHER THE CONCERTED ACTIVITY BE WHOLLY NASCENT OR ABORTIVE ON
THE ONE HAND, OR SUCCESSFUL ON THE OTHER.  SEE 

UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, 402.  CF.
RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS' ASSN. V. STATE, 95 MISS.  337; 48 SO. 1021.  AND
THE AMOUNT OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN TRADE INVOLVED IS NOT MATERIAL
(MONTAGUE & CO. V. LOWRY, 193 U.S. 38), SINCE SEC. 1 OF THE ACT BRANDS
AS ILLEGAL THE CHARACTER OF THE RESTRAINT NOT THE AMOUNT OF COMMERCE
AFFECTED.  STEERS V. UNITED STATES, 192 F. 1, 5; PATTERSON V. UNITED
STATES, 222 F. 599, 618-619.  IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS A
CONSPIRACY TO FIX PRICES VIOLATES SEC. 1 OF THE ACT THOUGH NO OVERT ACT
IS SHOWN, THOUGH IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSPIRATORS HAD THE
MEANS AVAILABLE FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THEIR OBJECTIVE, AND THOUGH THE
CONSPIRACY EMBRACED BUT A PART OF THE INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN
THE COMMODITY.  WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE STATUS OF PRICE-FIXING
AGREEMENTS AT COMMON LAW (ALLEN, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE AT COMMON LAW, 23 HARV. L. REV. 531) THE SHERMAN ACT HAS A
BROADER APPLICATION TO THEM THAN THE COMMON LAW PROHIBITIONS OR
SANCTIONS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S.
290, 328.  PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE AIMED AT COMPLETE
ELIMINATION OF PRICE COMPETITION.  THE GROUP MAKING THOSE AGREEMENTS
MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE POWER TO CONTROL THE MARKET.  BUT THE FACT THAT THE
GROUP CANNOT CONTROL THE MARKET PRICES DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT
THE AGREEMENT AS TO PRICES HAS NO UTILITY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMBINATION.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS IS DEPENDENT
ON MANY FACTORS, SUCH AS COMPETITIVE TACTICS, POSITION IN THE INDUSTRY,
THE FORMULA UNDERLYING PRICE POLICIES.  WHATEVER ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION
PARTICULAR PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS MAY BE THOUGHT TO HAVE, THE LAW DOES
NOT PERMIT AN INQUIRY INTO THEIR REASONABLENESS.  THEY ARE ALL BANNED
BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL THREAT TO THE CENTRAL NERVOUS
SYSTEM OF THE ECONOMY.  SEE HANDLER, FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST LAWS - A
SYMPOSIUM (1931), PP. 91 ET SEQ. 

THE EXISTENCE OR EXERTION OF POWER TO ACCOMPLISH THE DESIRED
OBJECTIVE (UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417,
444-451; UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., 274 U.S. 693,
708-709) BECOMES IMPORTANT ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE OFFENSE CHARGED IS
THE ACTUAL MONOPOLIZING OF ANY PART OF TRADE OR COMMERCE IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT.  AN INTENT AND A POWER TO PRODUCE THE RESULT
WHICH THE LAW CONDEMNS ARE THEN NECESSARY.  AS STATED IN SWIFT & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 396, "  ...  WHEN THAT INTENT AND THE
CONSEQUENT DANGEROUS PROBABILITY EXIST, THIS STATUTE, LIKE MANY OTHERS
AND LIKE THE COMMON LAW IN SOME CASES, DIRECTS ITSELF AGAINST THAT
DANGEROUS PROBABILITY AS WELL AS AGAINST THE COMPLETED RESULT."  BUT
THE CRIME UNDER SEC. 1 IS LEGALLY DISTINCT FROM THAT UNDER SEC.
2(UNITED STATES V. MACANDREWS & FORBES CO., 149 F. 836; UNITED STATES
V. BUCHALTER, 88 F.2D 625) THOUGH THE TWO SECTIONS OVERLAP IN THE SENSE
THAT A MONOPOLY UNDER SEC. 2 IS A SPECIES OF RESTRAINT OF TRADE UNDER
SEC. 1.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 59-61;
PATTERSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 620.  ONLY A CONFUSION BETWEEN
THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSES UNDER THOSE TWO SECTIONS (SEE UNITED STATES
V. NELSON, 52 F. 646; UNITED STATES V. PATTERSON, 55 F. 605; CHESAPEAKE
& O FUEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 115 F. 610) WOULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT POWER TO FIX PRICES WAS NECESSARY FOR PROOF OF A PRICE-FIXING
CONSPIRACY UNDER SEC. 1.  CF. STATE V. EASTERN COAL CO., 29 R.I. 254;
70 A. 1; STATE V. SCOLLARD, 126 WASH. 335; 218 P. 224. 

FN60  IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT THE TYPICAL METHOD
ADOPTED BY CONGRESS WHEN IT HAS LIFTED THE BAN OF THE SHERMAN ACT IS
THE SCRUTINY AND APPROVAL OF DESIGNATED PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES.  UNDER
THE N.I.R.A. THIS COULD BE DONE THROUGH THE CODE MACHINERY WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT AS PROVIDED IN SECS. 3(A) AND 5, SUPRA NOTE
18.  UNDER SEC. 407(8) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920(41 STAT. 482;
49 U.S.C. SEC. 5(8)) CARRIERS, INCLUDING CERTAIN EXPRESS COMPANIES,
WHICH WERE CONSOLIDATED PURSUANT TO ANY ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION WERE RELIEVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS.  AND SEE THE MALONEY ACT (SEC. 15A OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934; 52 STAT. 1070) PROVIDING FOR THE FORMATION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF
BROKERS AND DEALERS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION AND ESTABLISHING CONTINUOUS SUPERVISION BY THE COMMISSION
OVER SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES OF SUCH ASSOCIATIONS; AND THE BITUMINOUS COAL
ACT OF 1937(50 STAT. 72), ESPECIALLY SECS. 4 AND 12 - PARTICULARLY AS
THEY RELATE TO THE FIXING OF MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PRICES BY THE
BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION. 

FN61  RESPONDENTS STRONGLY URGE THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE IN THE CASE OF
THE TESTIMONY OF AN EMPLOYEE OF ONE OF THE TRADE JOURNALS.  HIS PRIOR
TESTIMONY INDICATED (1) THAT THE MAJOR COMPANIES WERE BUYING EXACTLY AT
THE JOURNAL QUOTATIONS, SO THAT THE GRAPH OF THOSE QUOTATIONS
REPRESENTED PRICES PAID UNDER THE BUYING PROGRAM; (2) THAT PRICES PAID
BY THE MAJORS "OUTWEIGHED" THE JOBBERS' SALES REPORTED TO HIS
JOURNALS.  AT THE TRIAL HE TESTIFIED THAT THOSE GRAND JURY STATEMENTS
WERE NOT TRUE.  AND THEY WERE NOT.  BUT THOSE MATTERS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL
ISSUES IN THE CASE.  THAT PURCHASES UNDER THE BUYING PROGRAM DID NOT
LEAD THE MARKET UP, THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PURCHASES WERE AT OR
BELOW THE LOW QUOTATIONS, THAT THE VOLUME OF PURCHASES DID NOT
ELIMINATE ALL COMPETITION, THAT THE SPOT MARKET PRICES WERE STILL
DETERMINED BY COMPETITIVE FORCES, THAT THE VOLUME OF PURCHASES UNDER
THE BUYING PROGRAMS WAS RELATIVELY SMALL ARE WHOLLY IMMATERIAL, AS WE
HAVE SEEN. 

FN62  IN THIS CONNECTION THE COURT SAID (P. 944) THAT IT APPEARED
"WITHOUT DISPUTE THAT A CONCERTED BUYING MOVEMENT TOOK PLACE IN THE MID
CONTINENT FIELD"; THAT AS TO ITS CHARACTER AND THE EXISTENCE OF A
CONCERTED EAST TEXAS PROGRAM, THERE WAS "AMPLE EVIDENCE TO TAKE THE
CASE TO THE JURY"; AND THAT THE PROOFS WERE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE
VERDICT AS TO THE CHARGE THAT DEFENDANTS "WERE ABLE TO AND DID
EFFECTUALLY TIE THE JOBBERS' PRICE" IN THE MID-WESTERN AREA TO THE TANK
CAR PRICE IN THE SPOT MARKET.  IT SIGNIFICANTLY ADDED (P. 944):  "IT IS
CLAIMED BY THE DEFENDANTS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONTROL
THE PRICE AS CHARGED, AND THAT INASMUCH AS SOME OF THE LARGE COMPANIES
DID NOT OR HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE MOVEMENT,
THE POWER OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THAT RESPECT WAS INADEQUATE FOR THE
PURPOSE.  THIS DOES NOT FOLLOW, FOR THE REASON THAT LARGE BUYERS BOTH
IN EAST TEXAS AND IN THE MID-CONTINENT FIELDS, WHILE ACTING SEPARATELY,
WERE NEVERTHELESS BUYING FOR THEIR REQUIREMENTS IN THESE FIELDS, AS
THEY HAD ALWAYS DONE AND AS DEFENDANTS HAD EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THEY
WOULD CONTINUE TO DO.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE THUS ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT
THESE BUYINGS WOULD NECESSARILY REDUCE THE AVAILABLE GASOLINE WHICH
THEY PROPOSED TO TAKE OFF THE MARKET JUST AS EFFECTIVELY AS THOUGH
THESE OTHER COMPANIES HAD JOINED IN THE PROGRAM.  THE AMOUNT OF
DISTRESS GASOLINE WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME IN ANY EVENT, AND THE PROOF
SHOWS THAT THE SURPLUS WAS IN FACT A VERY SMALL PART OF THE TOTAL, SO
MUCH SO THAT MOST OF THE DEFENDANTS HAVE SHOWN THAT ITS ACQUISITION IN
ADDITION TO OTHER BUYING DID NOT MATERIALLY INCREASE THEIR
INVENTORIES.  I AM SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN
THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE DEFENDANTS DID HAVE POWER TO
CONTROL THE MARKET, AND THAT THEY DID SO, AS CHARGED." 

FN63  THE QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF THE BUYING PROGRAMS ON MARKET
PRICES OBVIOUSLY CONCERNS ONLY THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS.  THE ONE
CORPORATE DEFENDANT GRANTED AFTER VERDICT, A DIRECTED VERDICT OF
ACQUITTAL WAS THE GLOBE OIL & REFINING CO. (KANSAS).  THE RECORD DOES
NOT SHOW THAT THIS COMPANY MADE ANY SPOT MARKET PURCHASES IN 1935 OR
1936. 

FN64  THE STANDARD FORM OF JOBBER CONTRACT REFERRED TO IN PAR. 11 OF
THE INDICTMENT WAS DESCRIBED THEREIN AS FOLLOWS:  "THE PRICE OF
GASOLINE TO THE JOBBER SHALL BE THE AVERAGE SPOT MARKET PRICE,
DETERMINED BY AVERAGING THE HIGH AND LOW SPOT MARKET PRICES FOR
GASOLINE OF COMPARABLE OCTANE RATING PUBLISHED BY DEFENDANT PLATT'S
OILGRAM, FOR THE TULSA, OKLAHOMA, MARKET, AND BY DEFENDANT CHICAGO
JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ON DATE OF SHIPMENT.  IF THE AVERAGE SPOT MARKET
PRICE PLUS FREIGHT TO DESTINATION SHALL ALLOW THE BUYER A MARGIN OF
LESS THAN 5 1/2[ PER GALLON BELOW THE SERVICE STATION PRICE POSTED BY
DEFENDANT STANDARD OF INDIANA, THEN THE BUYER AND THE SELLER SHALL
SHARE EQUALLY IN THE DEFICIT BELOW A 5 1/2[ MARGIN.  IN CERTAIN STATES
IN WHICH THE STANDARD OF INDIANA HAS RECENTLY DISCONTINUED THE POSTING
OF RETAIL PRICES, SUCH JOBBER MARGINS HAVE BEEN CALCULATED ON THE BASIS
OF A MARGIN OF 2[ BELOW THE DEALER TANK WAGON PRICES POSTED BY THE
STANDARD OF INDIANA (SUCH TANK WAGON PRICES HAVING USUALLY BEEN 3 1/2[
BELOW THE POSTED RETAIL PRICES)." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING: 

I REGRET THAT I AM UNABLE TO AGREE TO THE COURT'S DECISION.  I THINK
THAT FOR VARIOUS REASONS THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT
STAND. 

THE OPINION FULLY AND FAIRLY SETS FORTH THE FACTS PROVED AT THE
TRIAL, AND TO ITS STATEMENT NOTHING NEED BE ADDED.  SOME OF THE REASONS
FOR MY INABILITY TO AGREE WITH THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS FOLLOW: 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIED FOR VENUE IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UPON THE COMMISSION IN THAT DISTRICT OF OVERT ACTS IN AID OF THE
ALLEGED COMMON ENTERPRISE.  I THINK THE INDICTMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE, AND
THE EVIDENCE FAILS TO DISCLOSE, THE COMMISSION OF ANY SUCH ACT IN THE
DISTRICT OF TRIAL.  I AGREE WITH THE DISSENTING JUDGE IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR THIS REASON. 

PARAGRAPH 17 OF THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT THE SPOT MARKET TANK CAR
PRICES OF GASOLINE SUBSTANTIALLY INFLUENCE THE RETAIL PRICES. 

PARAGRAPH 18 IS THE ONLY ONE THAT DEFINES THE CHARGED CONSPIRACY.  IT
ALLEGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS AND OTHERS, KNOWING THE FACTS PLEADED BY
WAY OF INDUCEMENT (INCLUDING THE FACT THAT RETAIL PRICES FOLLOW SPOT
MARKET TANK CAR PRICES), "COMBINED AND CONSPIRED TOGETHER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ARTIFICIALLY RAISING AND FIXING THE TANK CAR PRICES OF
GASOLINE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED SPOT MARKETS, AND, AS INTENDED BY THEM,
DEFENDANTS HAVE ARTIFICIALLY RAISED AND FIXED SUCH SPOT MARKET TANK CAR
PRICES OF GASOLINE AND HAVE MAINTAINED SUCH PRICES AT ARTIFICIALLY HIGH
AND NON-COMPETITIVE LEVELS AND AT LEVELS AGREED UPON AMONG THEM AND
HAVE THEREBY INTENTIONALLY INCREASED AND FIXED THE TANK CAR PRICES OF
GASOLINE CONTRACTED TO BE SOLD, AND SOLD, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS
AFORESAID IN THE MIDWESTERN AREA (INCLUDING THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
WISCONSIN),  ... "  IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE
ARBITRARILY, DUE TO THE FORM OF THEIR CONTRACT FN1  WITH JOBBERS,
EXACTED LARGE SUMS OF MONEY FROM JOBBERS AND, IN TURN, HAVE
INTENTIONALLY RAISED THE GENERAL LEVEL OF RETAIL PRICES IN THE
MIDWESTERN AREA (INCLUDING THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN). 

THE SOLE AND ONLY CONSPIRACY CHARGED IS THE AGREEMENT ARTIFICIALLY TO
RAISE AND FIX SPOT MARKET TANK CAR PRICES OF GASOLINE IN THE MID
CONTINENT FIELD. 

PARAGRAPH 19 IS DEVOTED TO THE MEANS BY WHICH THE CONSPIRACY THUS
DESCRIBED WAS "EFFECTUATED."  THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS
RESPECT IS DESCRIBED AS THEIR ENGAGING AND PARTICIPATING IN TWO
CONCERTED GASOLINE BUYING PROGRAMS, ONE, THE EAST TEXAS BUYING PROGRAM,
AND THE OTHER THE MID-CONTINENT BUYING PROGRAM, FOR THE PURCHASE BY
EACH OF THEM FROM INDEPENDENT REFINERS IN SPOT TRANSACTIONS OF LARGE
QUANTITIES OF GASOLINE IN THE EAST TEXAS AND MID-CONTINENT FIELDS. 

AFTER DESCRIBING THESE BUYING PROGRAMS IN SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS, THE
INDICTMENT, IN PARAGRAPH 25, ALLEGES THAT THE CONSPIRACY "HAS OPERATED
AND HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN PART WITHIN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
WISCONSIN."  THE METHOD OF ITS OPERATION IN THAT DISTRICT IS DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS: "IN PURSUANCE OF SAID COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY, DEFENDANT
MAJOR OIL COMPANIES (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF STANDARD OF INDIANA AND
GULF) HAVE CONTRACTED TO SELL AND HAVE SOLD AND HAVE DELIVERED LARGE
QUANTITIES OF GASOLINE IN TANK CAR LOTS TO JOBBERS WITHIN SAID DISTRICT
AT THE ARTIFICIALLY RAISED AND FIXED AND NON-COMPETITIVE PRICES
AFORESAID AND HAVE ARBITRARILY EXACTED FROM JOBBERS WITHIN SAID
DISTRICT LARGE SUMS OF MONEY.  DEFENDANT MAJOR OIL COMPANIES (WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF GULF) HAVE SOLICITED AND TAKEN CONTRACTS AND ORDERS FOR
SAID GASOLINE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT, SOMETIMES BY SALES REPRESENTATIVES
LOCATED THERE, WHICH DISTRICT HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT MARKET FOR THEIR
PRODUCT AND THEY HAVE REQUIRED RETAIL DEALERS AND CONSUMERS IN SAID
DISTRICTS TO PAY ARTIFICIALLY INCREASED PRICES FOR GASOLINE AS
AFORESAID, ALL BY VIRTUE OF SAID COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY AND
PURSUANT TO THE PURPOSES AND ULTIMATE OBJECTIVES THEREOF." 

THUS, AFTER DESCRIBING THE CONSPIRACY AS ONE TO BUY ON SPOT MARKETS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING THE PRICE OF GASOLINE ON THOSE MARKETS, THE
INDICTMENT PURPORTS TO CHARGE, AS OVERT ACTS, ENTIRELY UNRELATED
TRANSACTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS IN THE RESALE OF GASOLINE TO
JOBBERS AND AT RETAIL IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT ANY OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY
THE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO THE CONSPIRACY WAS MADE IN WISCONSIN.  BUT
IF THE INDICTMENT COULD BEAR THE CONSTRUCTION THAT THE CHARGED
CONSPIRACY INVOLVED AN AGREEMENT AS TO THE TERMS OF RESALE TO JOBBERS
AND RETAILERS, PROOF WAS LACKING TO SUPPORT ANY SUCH ALLEGED
AGREEMENT.  GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, BOTH IN PLEADING AND IN ADMISSIONS AT
TRIAL, SO CONCEDED. 

IN ITS BILL OF PARTICULARS THE GOVERNMENT SAID: 

"THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CLAIM THAT EACH DEFENDANT ENTERED INTO AN
AGREEMENT NOT TO SELL JOBBERS EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH 'THE CONTRACT
DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE INDICTMENT.'" 

AT TRIAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL REPEATEDLY DISAVOWED ANY CHARGE IN THE
INDICTMENT OR ANY CLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT
AMONGST THE DEFENDANTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PRICE AT WHICH GASOLINE
SHOULD BE SOLD TO JOBBERS OR AT RETAIL.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWED, WITHOUT
CONTRADICTION, THAT THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF INDIANA WAS THE MARKET
LEADER IN THIS AREA, AND THAT WHEN IT POSTED ITS PRICE NONE OF THE
OTHER DEFENDANTS COULD SELL AT A HIGHER PRICE.  IT FURTHER SHOWED THAT
AT VARIOUS TIMES STANDARD WAS FORCED TO REDUCE ITS PRICE TO MEET THE
COMPETITION OF OTHERS.  IN THIS CONNECTION GOVERNMENT COUNSEL MADE THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENTS: 

"  ...  WE DO NOT SAY THAT THE STANDARD OF INDIANA WHEN IT POSTS A
RETAIL PRICE FIRST CONSULTS WITH THE OTHER COMPANIES TO FIND OUT WHAT
RETAIL PRICE SHOULD BE POSTED. 

"IF THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE WORRYING ABOUT, IF YOU THINK WE'RE CHARGING
YOU WITH SITTING AROUND A TABLE AND AGREEING ON A UNIFORM RETAIL PRICE,
DON'T WORRY BECAUSE THAT ISN'T WHAT WE ARE CHARGING." 

IN ITS BRIEF IN THIS COURT THE GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE
EFFECT OF THESE CONCESSIONS BY THE STATEMENT THAT THE DEFENDANTS "WERE
NOT FREE TO SELL AS THEY PLEASED IN THE MIDWESTERN AREAS" AND ADDS THAT
"AN OBLIGATION TO ADHERE TO THEIR PRIOR PRICE PRACTICE OF SELLING ON
THE BASIS OF SPOT MARKET PRICES WAS IMPLICIT IN THEIR UNLAWFUL
AGREEMENT."  THIS AMOUNTS TO SAYING THAT THE CONSPIRACY WAS NOT THE ONE
CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT BUT WAS A MUCH MORE AMPLE CONSPIRACY NOT ONLY
TO RAISE THE GENERAL LEVEL OF TANK CAR PRICES ON THE SPOT MARKET BY
PURCHASING ON THAT MARKET BUT TO RAISE, MAINTAIN, AND FIX UNIFORM
RESALE PRICES TO JOBBERS AND RETAILERS.  BUT THIS CONTENTION DOES NOT
AID THE GOVERNMENT FOR THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT TO RAISE,
OR TO MAINTAIN, JOBBER AND RETAIL PRICES, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY,
EVIDENCE THAT COMPETITION IN SUCH SALES EXISTED DURING THE PERIOD IN
QUESTION. 

SITUATIONS ARISE, AND RESULTS ENSUE, FROM THE PROSECUTION OF ANY
AGREEMENT OR CONSPIRACY.  INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS MAY EXPECT BENEFITS TO
FOLLOW FROM THEIR ADHERENCE TO A CONSPIRACY OR AGREEMENT; BUT BENEFITS
OR RESULTS, WHETHER ANTICIPATED OR UNFORESEEN, OCCURRING AFTER
CONSUMMATION OF THE CONSPIRACY, AND BECAUSE OF IT, ARE NOT OVERT ACTS
DONE IN AID AND FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY.  THE AUTHORITIES TO THIS
EFFECT ARE UNIFORM.  FN2 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273
U.S. 392.  THAT CASE IS CLEARLY NOT IN POINT.  THERE THE CONSPIRACY WAS
TO FIX THE PRICES OF THE COMMODITY MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY THE
DEFENDANTS AND TO ADHERE TO THE PRICES SO FIXED.  THIS COURT HELD THAT
A SALE MADE, PURSUANT TO THAT AGREEMENT, IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK AFFORDED VENUE IN THAT DISTRICT OF AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE CASE WOULD BE APPOSITE IF THE PLEADING AND
PROOF IN THE INSTANT CASE WERE OF A CONSPIRACY TO FIX AND MAINTAIN
JOBBER AND RETAIL PRICES AND ADHERENCE TO THE AGREEMENT IN SALES TO
JOBBERS AND RETAILERS.  NEITHER PLEADING NOR PROOF GOES TO ANY SUCH
CONSPIRACY. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION, THE TRIAL COURT
REPEATEDLY CHARGED THAT, IN ORDER TO CONVICT, THE JURY MUST FIND THAT A
COMBINATION EXISTED AND THAT THE COMBINATION AGREED TO, AND HAD THE
POWER TO, RAISE THE TANK CAR SPOT MARKET PRICE OF GASOLINE.  OF COURSE,
THE JURY WAS AT LIBERTY TO FIND THAT ANY NUMBER OF THE DEFENDANTS LESS
THAN ALL FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS NAMED BY THE COURT.  BY ITS VERDICT
THE JURY FOUND THAT THOSE WHO WERE CONVICTED, AS A BODY, (1) POSSESSED
THE POWER TO RAISE THE PRICE AND (2) AGREED SO TO DO.  THE TRIAL COURT
GRANTED A NEW TRIAL TO A NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING STANDARD OF
INDIANA, THE LARGEST MAJOR OIL COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN THE AREA. 

STANDARD WAS GRANTED A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONNECT IT WITH THE CONSPIRACY.  BY REFUSING NEW
TRIALS TO THE OTHER CORPORATE DEFENDANTS THE COURT HAS ENTERED ITS OWN
VERDICT THAT THE OTHERS INVOLVED, EXCLUDING STANDARD, HAD THE POWER,
AND AGREED, TO RAISE THE LEVEL OF SPOT MARKET PRICES IN THE MIDWESTERN
AREA.  THERE IS NO JURY VERDICT TO THAT EFFECT; NO JURY HAS EVER PASSED
UPON THAT QUESTION, BUT AN AFFIRMATIVE FINDING ON THAT QUESTION IS
VITAL TO THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANTS NOW BEFORE US.  TO AFFIRM THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS TO AFFIRM A FINDING OF FACT BY THE TRIAL
JUDGE WITHOUT A JURY AND TO DENY THE RESPONDENTS THE RIGHT TO JURY
TRIAL GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY WERE THAT THEY SHOULD RETURN A
VERDICT OF GUILTY IF THEY FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANTS' ACTIONS HAD IN ANY
DEGREE CONTRIBUTED TO A RISE IN GASOLINE PRICES.  THE DEFENDANTS
INSISTED THAT THE TEST WAS THE EFFECT OF THEIR COMBINATION UPON
COMPETITION, AND THAT THEY COULD NOT BE CONVICTED UNLESS THE JURY FOUND
THAT THEIR AGREEMENT, AND THEIR CONDUCT PURSUANT THERETO, UNREASONABLY
RESTRAINED COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT ALL THE DEFENDANTS AGREED TO, OR
DID, WAS TO ACT IN CONCERT TO ELIMINATE DISTRESS GASOLINE; THAT SUCH
GASOLINE WAS A COMPETITIVE EVIL IN THAT IT TENDED TO IMPAIR OR DESTROY
NORMAL COMPETITION.  THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WHAT THEY
AGREED TO, AND DID, NEITHER FIXED NOR CONTROLLED PRICES NOR
UNREASONABLY AFFECTED NORMAL COMPETITION AND THAT THEIR CONDUCT
AFFECTED PRICES ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THE PURCHASE OF DISTRESS
GASOLINE AT GOING PRICES PERMITTED PRICES TO RISE TO A NORMAL
COMPETITIVE LEVEL.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT, AS CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT, THEY AGREED TO, OR IN FACT DID, FIX PRICES.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS, AS I THINK, CORRECTLY HELD "THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT WAS
ACCOMPLISHED AND AGREED ON WAS THAT THE MAJOR COMPANIES WOULD PURCHASE
FROM THE INDEPENDENT REFINERS THE LATTER'S SURPLUS GASOLINE AT GOING
MARKET PRICES."    I THINK THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE
JURY CHARGED THAT, IN ORDER TO CONVICT THEM, THE JURY MUST FIND THAT,
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS KNEW THE RESULT OF THEIR ACTIVITIES WOULD BE A RISE
IN THE LEVEL OF PRICES, NEVERTHELESS, IF WHAT THEY AGREED TO DO, AND
DID, HAD NO SUBSTANTIAL TENDENCY TO RESTRAIN COMPETITION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN TRANSACTIONS IN GASOLINE THE VERDICT SHOULD BE NOT GUILTY. 

AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THIS COURT, VIOLATION OF THE ANTITRUST ACT
DEPENDS UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIVIDUAL CASES.  FN3  IT IS ALWAYS
POSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH EARLIER DECISIONS BY REFERENCE TO THE FACTS
INVOLVED IN THEM BUT, IN THE COURSE OF DECISION IN THIS COURT, CERTAIN
PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN TO WHICH, I THINK, THE CHARGE OF THE
COURT RAN COUNTER. 

ONE OF THESE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES IS THAT CONCERTED ACTION
TO REMOVE A HARMFUL AND DESTRUCTIVE PRACTICE IN AN INDUSTRY, EVEN
THOUGH SUCH REMOVAL MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF RAISING THE PRICE LEVEL, IS
NOT OFFENSIVE TO THE SHERMAN ACT IF IT IS NOT INTENDED AND DOES NOT
OPERATE UNREASONABLY TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND SUCH ACTION
HAS BEEN HELD NOT UNREASONABLY TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE IF, AS HERE, IT
INVOLVES NO AGREEMENT FOR UNIFORM PRICES BUT LEAVES THE DEFENDANTS FREE
TO COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER IN THE MATTER OF PRICE.  FN4 

NO CASE DECIDED BY THIS COURT HAS HELD A COMBINATION ILLEGAL SOLELY
BECAUSE ITS PURPOSE OR EFFECT WAS TO RAISE PRICES.  THE CRITERION OF
LEGALITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE PURPOSE OR EFFECT OF THE COMBINATION
UNDULY TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE. 

I THINK APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344, A
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY SUSTAINING THE DEFENDANTS' CONTENTION THAT THE
CHARGE FORECLOSED A DEFENSE AVAILABLE TO THEM UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT. 
IT IS SAID THAT THEIR COMBINATION HAD THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF PUTTING
A FLOOR UNDER THE SPOT MARKET FOR GASOLINE.  BUT THAT WAS PRECISELY THE
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE PLAN IN THE APPALACHIAN CASE.  TRUE, THE
MEANS ADOPTED TO OVERCOME THE EFFECT OF THE DUMPING OF DISTRESS
PRODUCTS ON THE MARKET WERE NOT THE SAME IN THE TWO CASES, BUT MEANS
ARE UNIMPORTANT PROVIDED PURPOSE AND EFFECT ARE LAWFUL. 

ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436, IS RELIED UPON,
BUT, IN THAT CASE, AS IN UNITED STATES V. TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273
U.S. 392, MAINTENANCE OF PRICES FIXED BY AGREEMENT WAS INVOLVED.  SO
ALSO IN SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553, CONDEMNED
FEATURES OF THE COMMON PLAN HAD TO DO WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF ANNOUNCED
PRICES AND THE ABSTINENCE FROM SELLING CERTAIN SORTS OF SUGAR.  THE
COMBINATIONS OR AGREEMENTS IN THESE CASES SPECIFICALLY PREVENTED
COMPETITIVE PRICING OR TOOK A COMMODITY OUT OF COMPETITION.  THIS IS
NOT SUCH A CASE. 

AS I THINK, THE ERROR IN THE COURT'S CHARGE IS WELL ILLUSTRATED BY
THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION: 

"IF YOU SHOULD FIND THAT THE DEFENDANTS ACTING TOGETHER, AND THOSE
INDEPENDENT REFINERS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM, DID NOT HAVE THE
POWER TO RAISE THE LEVEL OF SPOT MARKET PRICES IN THE SPOT MARKETS
REFERRED TO IN THE INDICTMENT, OR THAT THEY DID NOT COMBINE FOR THAT
PURPOSE, AND IF YOU SHOULD FIND ALSO THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID
GASOLINE BY THE DEFENDANTS AFFECTED THE SPOT MARKET PRICES ONLY
INDIRECTLY AND INCIDENTALLY, THEN YOU MAY CONSIDER ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEFENDANTS TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THEY WERE INTENDED TO AND DID MERELY ELIMINATE ABUSES WHICH
TENDED TO PRODUCE DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION AND RESTORE COMPETITION TO A
FAIRER BASE AND PRODUCE FAIRER PRICE LEVELS.  IN SUCH EVENT, YOU MAY
CONCLUDE THAT THE PURCHASE OF SUCH GASOLINE IN THE MANNER SHOWN BY THE
EVIDENCE WAS REASONABLE AND BENEFICIAL AND NOT INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE RESTRAINT OF TRADE WAS NOT UNDUE, AND
NOT ILLEGAL, AND YOU MAY ACQUIT THE DEFENDANTS."  (ITALICS SUPPLIED.) 

THIS WAS TO TELL THE JURY THAT, IF THEY FOUND THE COMBINATION HAD
POWER AND PURPOSE TO RAISE THE GENERAL LEVEL OF PRICES, THEY SHOULD
CONVICT WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS' CONCERT OF ACTION
WAS INTENDED MERELY TO REMOVE A SOURCE OF DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION, AND
WITHOUT CONSIDERING WHETHER, AS DEFENDANTS CONTENDED AND SOUGHT TO
PROVE, OTHER FACTORS IN THE INDUSTRY, OVER WHICH THEY HAD NO CONTROL,
LIMITED THEIR POWER TO RAISE PRICES BEYOND A LEVEL WHICH WOULD BE THE
NORMAL RESULT OF THE REMOVAL OF THE ABUSES ENGENDERED BY THE DUMPING OF
DISTRESS GASOLINE. 

I THINK THAT THE CLOSING ADDRESS OF COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT IS
GROUND FOR SETTING ASIDE THE VERDICT. 

IT IS TRUE THAT TO MUCH THAT WAS OBJECTIONABLE IN THAT ADDRESS THE
DEFENDANTS DID NOT OBJECT OR, IF THEY DID, FAILED TO EXCEPT.  HOWEVER,
THEY ASSIGNED ERROR TO THE WHOLE OF IT AND EXCEPTED TO SOME OF THE MORE
EGREGIOUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CANONS OF FAIR COMMENT.  I AM OF OPINION
THAT A SITUATION IS PRESENTED, WHICH REGARDLESS OF THE TECHNICALITIES
OF PROCEDURE, REQUIRES ACTION BY AN APPELLATE COURT.  BUT, IN ANY
EVENT, PORTIONS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF EXCEPTION ALONE REQUIRE A
REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT. 

THE FINAL AND CLOSING ADDRESS COVERS TWENTY-EIGHT PAGES OF THE
RECORD.  ABOUT FIVE REFER TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE.  THE BALANCE
CONSISTS LARGELY OF WHAT THE SPEAKER HIMSELF CHARACTERIZED AS
"CLOWNING" AND PERSONAL REFERENCES TO COUNSEL, PARTIES, THE COURT, AND
OTHER SUBJECTS, THE OBJECT OF WHICH APPARENTLY WAS TO DISTRACT
ATTENTION FROM THE ISSUES. 

AT MANY POINTS COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED BY THE COURT AND
WARNED AGAINST CONTINUANCE OF SUCH TACTICS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID AS TO THIS MATTER: 

"THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO JUSTIFY MUCH OF THE ARGUMENT
AND MISCONDUCT COMPLAINED OF, BUT IT EARNESTLY INSISTS THAT ANY ERROR
COMMITTED IS NOT OF A REVERSIBLE NATURE.  AS THE CASE IS TO BE
REVERSED, THERE SEEMS NO OCCASION FOR US TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IN
THIS RESPECT.  WE SHALL MERELY EXPRESS THE OPINION THAT SOME OF THE
ARGUMENT COMPLAINED OF WAS HIGHLY IMPROPER AND THAT, TAKEN IN
CONNECTION WITH THE MISUSE OF THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, HERETOFORE
DISCUSSED, WOULD PRESENT A VERY SERIOUS OBSTACLE TO THE AFFIRMANCE OF
THE JUDGMENT." 

I SHALL NOT QUOTE THOSE PORTIONS OF THE ADDRESS WHICH ARE QUOTED OR
SUMMARIZED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  IT WILL SUFFICE TO MAKE ADDED
REFERENCE TO SEVERAL PORTIONS. 

ONE OF THE MOST REPREHENSIBLE THINGS A PROSECUTOR CAN DO IS TO
ATTEMPT TO PUT INTO EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY HIS OWN, AND HIS
COLLEAGUES', OPINION AS TO THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANTS HE IS
PROSECUTING.  SUCH A PRACTICE BRINGS BEFORE THE JURY THE UNSWORN
TESTIMONY OF A SWORN OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS FACT LENDS IT
UNDUE AND IMPROPER WEIGHT AND INJECTS AN ELEMENT INTO THE CASE WHICH IS
SO INSIDIOUS AND SO IMPOSSIBLE TO COUNTERACT THAT TRIAL JUDGES, IN MY
EXPERIENCE, HAVE NEVER HESITATED TO WITHDRAW A JUROR AND DECLARE A
MISTRIAL BECAUSE OF THIS VIOLATION OF THE CANONS. 

IN THE CLOSING ADDRESS COUNSEL SAID TO THE JURY: 

"NOW, IF ANYBODY DOUBTS, IF ANYBODY HAS THE LEAST SHADOW OF A DOUBT
ABOUT THE FACT THAT THESE MEN (REFERRING TO GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) BELIEVE
TO THE BOTTOM OF THEIR HEARTS IN THE JUSTICE OF THE CAUSE THAT THEY
ESPOUSE HERE, I CAN DISABUSE THEIR MINDS OF THAT DOUBT AT ANY TIME. 
THEY HAVE BEEN AGGRESSIVE, AND THEY HAVE BEEN FORCEFUL; THEIR MOVEMENTS
HERE HAVE BEEN INTELLIGENT, WELL-TIMED; AND, AS I SAID, THEY HAVE COME
INTO THIS COURT ROOM MORNING AFTER MORNING, WORN AND TIRED ALMOST TO
THE BREAKING POINT.  AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT, I SOME TIMES GOT THE
FEELING, COMING AS THEY DID THEN BEFORE YOU TO PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE
AND THIS CASE, THEY WERE SOMETHING LIKE THE CRUSADERS OF OLD, SAYING
'GOD WILLS IT, GOD WILLS IT.'" 

OBJECTION WAS NOT MADE BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS AT THE TIME OF
THIS STATEMENT BUT WHEN A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR STATEMENT WAS MADE A FEW
MOMENTS LATER OBJECTION WAS NOTED AND EXCEPTION TAKEN.  I THINK,
HOWEVER, THAT THE OFFENSE WAS SO FLAGRANT THAT THE COURT ITSELF SHOULD
HAVE INTERVENED IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY OBJECTION. 

A LITTLE LATER THESE STATEMENTS OCCURRED: 

"NOW, JUST BETWEEN YOURSELVES, DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT THESE BOYS
HERE (INDICATING COUNSEL AT GOVERNMENT TABLE) FIRED WITH THE ENTHUSIASM
OF CRUSADERS, AS I SAY, AND HAVING GIVEN TO THIS CASE EVERY OUNCE OF
MENTAL AND PHYSICAL STRENGTH THEY HAVE, AND I MYSELF HAVE CONTRIBUTED,
ALSO, WOULD BE TRYING TO CONVICT THESE MEN UNLESS THAT WAS THE WISH AND
THE DESIRE OF THE HIGHEST OFFICIALS IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES?" 

AFTER OBJECTION AND EXCEPTION COUNSEL CONTINUED AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOW, JUST WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT IT?  DO YOU THINK THESE ARE THREE
OR FOUR OR FIVE OF THESE YOUNG FELLOWS, AS THEY HAVE BEEN CALLING THEM,
JUST STARTING OUT ON THEIR OWN, RUNNING HOG-WILD?  THESE ARE IMPORTANT
MEN.  I PRESUME YOU ALL KNOW THEY ARE ENGAGED IN A VERY IMPORTANT
BUSINESS, A BUSINESS, THE OPERATION OF WHICH IS ALMOST A NECESSITY IN
THIS COUNTRY TODAY.  YOU DON'T THINK THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES WOULD ALLOW FOUR OR FIVE LAWYERS TO COME OUT HERE AND PROSECUTE
THIS CASE AGAINST THEM, AGAINST THEIR WISHES, OR THAT THE SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WOULD ALLOW US TO DO IT, IF HE DIDN'T
WANT IT DONE?  AND IF HE WANTED IT DONE IT WAS BECAUSE HE BELIEVED, AS
DID THE OTHER MEN IN WASHINGTON, THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF LAW
HERE, SO OUTSTANDING AND SO WITHERING AND FAR-REACHING IN ITS EFFECT
THAT SOMETHING OUGHT TO BE DONE TO STOP IT; AND BY THAT TO TELL THE
PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY THAT YOU CAN'T DO THESE THINGS AND GET AWAY WITH
IT." 

AGAIN THERE WAS OBJECTION AND EXCEPTION. 

COUNSEL DID NOT CONFINE HIMSELF TO TESTIMONY AS TO THE PROSECUTORS'
BELIEF IN THE DEFENDANTS' GUILT BUT, IN ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF AN
IMPORTANT WITNESS FOR DEFENDANTS, ESSAYED TO CONTRADICT THAT TESTIMONY
BY A STATEMENT OF COUNSEL'S OWN KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS.  THE QUOTATION FROM
THE ADDRESS WILL MAKE THE MATTER CLEAR: 

"I WANT TO REFER IN A MOMENT TO SOMETHING THAT MADE AN IMPRESSION ON
ME. 

"YOU KNOW, WE LAWYERS HAVE TO DEPEND - MOST OF US ARE KIND OF TOUGH
GUYS.  WE HAVE OUR OWN WAY OF TALKING ABOUT WITNESSES.  AND ONE THING
THAT WE VERY OFTEN SAY AND TALK ABOUT IS THE THREE CLASSES OF LIARS. 
THERE IS THE PLAIN LIAR, THE DAMN LIAR, AND THE EXPERT WITNESS.  AND OF
ALL OF THEM, THE EXPERT WITNESS IS THE WORST. 

"THERE WERE A FEW OF THEM HERE.  THERE WAS SWENSRUD, THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STANDARD OF OHIO; THERE WAS VAN COVERN, AND I
THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE. 

"BUT I JUST DIDN'T THINK MUCH OF SWENSRUD'S WHOLE TESTIMONY,
ESPECIALLY AFTER I FOUND OUT THAT HE WAS GIVING TESTIMONY THAT THEY
COULD SHIP GASOLINE IN 1935 AND 1936 UP THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO ST.
PAUL.  I HAPPEN TO BE AROUND THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER QUITE A LITTLE, AND
KNOW QUITE A LOT ABOUT IT.  IN 1935 AND 1936, YOU COULDN'T GET A
ROWBOAT UP THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, NORTH OF WINONA - BECAUSE THE
GOVERNMENT WAS PUTTING IN THESE DAMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING THE
NINE-FOOT CHANNEL THAT YOU HAVE READ SO MUCH ABOUT.  THEY HAD CONCRETE
CLEAR ACROSS THE RIVER, SPACED IN SO MANY WAYS, THAT, AS I SAY, YOU
JUST COULDN'T GET A ROWBOAT UP THERE.  WHEN SWENSRUD TALKED ABOUT
GASOLINE GOING UP THAT RIVER, WHERE I KNEW, BECAUSE I LIVED THERE AND
WAS AROUND THERE, THAT IT COULDN'T BE DONE, I JUST THOUGHT - ." 

AFTER OBJECTION AND A REQUEST THAT THE COURT DIRECT THE JURY TO
DISREGARD THE STATEMENT THE COURT RULED: 

"THE JURY MAY DISREGARD IT.  I DIDN'T HEAR IT.  I WAS THINKING ABOUT
SOMETHING ELSE." 

THEREUPON COUNSEL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOW, IF YOU WILL LET ME ALONE A FEW MINUTES, I WILL BE THROUGH.  IF
YOU DON'T, LIKE 'OLD MAN RIVER,' I WILL JUST KEEP ROLLING ALONG.  I
DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. 

"NOW I WAS REFERRING TO THESE WITNESSES WHO KNEW SO MUCH.  THERE WAS
VAN COVERN, SWENSRUD, AND A FELLOW NAMED J. D. MILLER.  HE WAS THE
FELLOW WHO NEVER LOOKED AT ANYBODY, SO YOU COULD CATCH HIS EYE.  THEY
KNEW SO MUCH, IN THE WAY THEY WERE TELLING IT TO YOU, THAT IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE, JUST IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY COULD KNOW AS MUCH AS
THEY SAID THEY DID ABOUT IT.  THEY JUST COVERED TOO MUCH TERRITORY.  I
THINK ALL HISTORY, SACRED AND PROFANE, GIVES US BUT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE
OF A PERSON WHO KNEW EVERYTHING - AND HE WAS NOT ONLY A MAN, BUT HE WAS
GOD.  AND HE GAVE UP HIS LIFE IN A SHAMEFUL DEATH, UPON THE CROSS,
BETWEEN TWO THIEVES." 

     .         .     .         .         . 

IT IS TRUE THAT NO FORMAL EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN BUT THE MATTER WAS
HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL.  THE COURT SHOULD HAVE DEALT WITH IT IN SOME
DEFINITE AND POSITIVE WAY, WHICH HE OMITTED TO DO. 

CONSIDERING WHAT IS SET OUT IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, AND THE
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES I HAVE MADE TO THE ADDRESS, I AM OF OPINION THAT
COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT WAS HIGHLY IMPROPER, AS INDEED THE GOVERNMENT
ADMITS, AND, FURTHER, THAT IT WAS HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL.  I DO NOT THINK
THE COURT TOOK PROPER MEANS TO COUNTERACT THE IMPROPRIETY AND PREJUDICE
THUS CREATED AND I THINK THE ONLY REMEDY AVAILABLE IS TO SET ASIDE A
VERDICT ENSUING UPON SUCH MISCONDUCT.  COMPARE BERGER V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 78, 85, 88, 89. 

FN1  THE FORM AND USE OF THIS CONTRACT IS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 11
OF THE INDICTMENT. 

FN2  LONABAUGH V. UNITED STATES, 179 F. 476; UNITED STATES V. BLACK,
160 F. 431; ROSE V. ST. CLAIR, 28 F.2D 189. 

FN3  SEE MAPLE FLOORING MFRS.  ASSN.  V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563,
579. 

FN4  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106, 178, 180;
UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 226 U.S. 61, 84-85; AMERICAN
COLUMN & LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 377, 400, 417; MAPLE
FLOORING MFRS.  ASSN.  V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 563, 568; APPALACHIAN
COALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344, 362-3, 373-4; SUGAR
INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553, 597-8.    MR. JUSTICE
MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :







PERKINS V. LUKENS STEEL CO., 310 U.S. 113 


NO. 593.  ARGUED APRIL 3, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 29, 1940.  - 70 APP.
D.C. 354 - 107 F.2D 627, REVERSED. 


THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT OF JUNE 30, 1936, REQUIRES THAT ALL CONTRACTS
WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MANUFACTURE OR FURNISHING OF MATERIALS
(IN AMOUNTS EXCEEDING $10,000) SHALL INCLUDE A STIPULATION THAT ALL
PERSONS EMPLOYED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN THE MANUFACTURE OR FURNISHING OF
SUCH MATERIALS WILL BE PAID NOT LESS THAN THE PREVAILING MINIMUM WAGES
"AS DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR  ...  FOR PERSONS EMPLOYED
...  IN THE PARTICULAR OR SIMILAR INDUSTRIES  ...  IN THE LOCALITY." 
PRODUCERS OF IRON AND STEEL SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE SECRETARY OF LABOR,
AND OTHER OFFICIALS AND AGENTS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PURCHASES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, FROM CONTINUING IN EFFECT A WAGE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE
SECRETARY FOR THAT INDUSTRY.  COMPLAINANTS ASSERTED THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY TO THE TERM "LOCALITY" WAS
ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND UNAUTHORIZED BY LAW; AND THAT IF IN ORDER TO
BID ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS THEY MUST ABIDE BY THE WAGE DETERMINATION
THUS MADE, THEY WOULD SUFFER IRREPARABLE LOSS AND DAMAGE, FOR WHICH
THERE WAS NO PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW.  HELD, THAT
THE COMPLAINANTS WERE WITHOUT STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT.  P. 125. 

1.  THE BILL FAILED TO SHOW THAT ANY LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE COMPLAINANTS
WERE INVADED OR THREATENED.  P. 125. 

2.  IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE, DAMAGE RESULTING FROM ACTION BY THE
GOVERNMENT WHICH DOES NOT INVADE ANY RECOGNIZED LEGAL RIGHT IS
IRREMEDIABLE.  P. 125. 

3. THAT THE SECRETARY OF LABOR IS CHARGED WITH AN ERRONEOUS
INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "LOCALITY" IN MAKING THE WAGE DETERMINATION,
IS NO BASIS FOR THE SUIT.  P. 125. 

4.  COMPLAINANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO VINDICATE ANY GENERAL INTEREST
WHICH THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE IN THE SECRETARY'S CONSTRUCTION OR
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  P. 125. 

5.  NEITHER R.S. SEC. 3709, REQUIRING ADVERTISING FOR PROPOSALS IN
RESPECT OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS, NOR THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS
ACT ITSELF, AFFORDS ANY BASIS FOR THE SUIT.  P. 126. 

6.  THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF WAGE
DETERMINATIONS.  P. 128. 

7.  THE ACT VESTS NO RIGHT IN PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS.  P. 127. 

8.  CONGRESS HAS NOT BY THE ACT EXERCISED ANY REGULATORY POWER OVER
PRIVATE BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENT; AND CASES INVOLVING GOVERNMENTAL
REGULATION OF PRIVATE BUSINESS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE.  P. 128. 

9.  THE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT TORTIOUSLY INVADED PRIVATE RIGHTS.  P.
129. 

10.  COMPLAINANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  P.
132. 

11.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMPLAINANTS LACK STANDING TO SUE IS
BASED UPON PRINCIPLES IMPLICIT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF
AUTHORITY IN OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE IMPROPRIETY OF JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW AT THE INSTANCE OF THOSE WHO SHOW NO MORE THAN A
POSSIBLE INJURY TO THE PUBLIC.  P. 132. 

PERKINS, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL. V. LUKENS STEEL CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING A BILL IN EQUITY. 

RESPONDENTS' RIGHT TO BID AND NEGOTIATE FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND
TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT FREE FROM
ILLEGAL INTERFERENCE HAS BEEN UNLAWFULLY INVADED, AND IS FURTHER
THREATENED, BY THE UNLAWFUL ACTION OF PETITIONERS.  THEY HAVE STANDING
TO SUE TO PROTECT SUCH RIGHT AND SUCH BUSINESS RELATIONS. 

THE RIGHT ASSERTED IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED OR AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS; BUT NOT TO UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE BY THIRD PARTIES, INCLUDING
PUBLIC OFFICERS ACTING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY. 

EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS AND TO
SEEK TO SELL THE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES OF THAT BUSINESS, FREE FROM
UNJUSTIFIABLE INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT OR COERCION BY OTHERS.  THE LAW
HAS SEDULOUSLY PROTECTED THAT RIGHT FOR CENTURIES. 

THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN A CUSTOMER FOR MANY YEARS OF ALL RESPONDENTS
SAVE ONE, AND, AT THE DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SUIT, WAS NOT ONLY A PARTY
TO CONTRACTS WITH SEVERAL, BUT A PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMER OF ALL. 

THE RIGHT ASSERTED BY RESPONDENTS IS RECOGNIZED BY R.S. SEC. 3709. 
THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT EMPHASIZES THE IMPLICATIONS OF R.S. SEC.
3709.  BY THAT ACT, CONGRESS SO PREEMPTED THE FIELD OF WAGE PROVISIONS
IN GOVERNMENT SUPPLY CONTRACTS AS CLEARLY TO PROHIBIT OFFICERS FROM
INSERTING IN SUCH CONTRACTS ANY WAGE PROVISIONS UNAUTHORIZED BY THE
ACT. 

RESPONDENTS DO NOT ASSERT THE RIGHT TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IF LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS.  THEY DO ASSERT THE RIGHT TO BID WITHOUT BEING
REQUIRED TO AGREE THAT THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THE DETERMINATION. 

WHETHER THE DETERMINATION BE REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OR ON
GENERAL EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, THE COURT MAY DETERMINE WHETHER
PETITIONERS ARE EXCEEDING THEIR STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN ATTEMPTING TO
ENFORCE THE DETERMINATION AGAINST RESPONDENTS AND WHETHER THE
DETERMINATION IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. 

IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE ACTS OF PETITIONERS INVOLVE "REGULATORY"
OR "NON-REGULATORY" FUNCTIONS, SINCE IN EITHER CASE THE SUIT IS NOT ONE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 

IN A SUIT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH
BUSINESS RELATIONS OR PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS, IT HAS NEVER BEEN SUPPOSED
THAT THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW OF A CERTAINTY THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE
UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE, THE BUSINESS RELATIONS WOULD RIPEN INTO
PROFITABLE CONTRACTS OR THE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS WOULD BECOME CERTAIN
PURCHASERS AT PROFITABLE PRICES.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE PLAINTIFF
SHOW A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF IRREPARABLE INJURY FROM THE UNLAWFUL
INTERFERENCE. 

THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY HELD THAT RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECLARING THE INVALIDITY OF THE DETERMINATION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN EXERCISE OF ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
PURCHASES OF GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES SHALL BE MADE, CONGRESS PASSED THE
PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT OF JUNE 30, 1936.  FN1  BY VIRTUE OF THAT ACT,
SELLERS MUST AGREE TO PAY EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN PRODUCING GOODS SO
PURCHASED "NOT LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGES AS DETERMINED BY THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR TO BE THE PREVAILING MINIMUM WAGES FOR PERSONS
EMPLOYED ON SIMILAR WORK OR IN THE PARTICULAR OR SIMILAR INDUSTRIES OR
GROUPS OF INDUSTRIES CURRENTLY OPERATING IN THE LOCALITY IN WHICH  ...
THE SUPPLIES  ...  ARE TO BE MANUFACTURED OR FURNISHED UNDER SAID
CONTRACT."  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HAS HELD
THAT THE SECRETARY ERRONEOUSLY CONSTRUED THE TERM "LOCALITY" TO INCLUDE
A LARGER GEOGRAPHICAL AREA THAN THE ACT CONTEMPLATES, AND HAS ORDERED
SIX MEMBERS OF THE CABINET INCLUDING THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE
DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT AND ALL OTHER OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PURCHASES NECESSARY IN THE OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT TO
ABIDE BY OR GIVE EFFECT TO THE WAGE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE SECRETARY
FOR THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY EITHER AS TO THE COMPLAINING COMPANIES
OR ANY OTHERS.  IN THIS VITAL INDUSTRY, BY ACTION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE ACT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED AND
INOPERATIVE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. 

WE MUST, THEREFORE, DECIDE WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT, UPON COMPLAINT OF
INDIVIDUAL IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURERS, MAY RESTRAIN THE SECRETARY AND
OFFICIALS WHO DO THE GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASING FROM CARRYING OUT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE WAGE DETERMINATION BY THE SECRETARY, NOT MERELY AS
APPLIED TO PARTIES BEFORE THE COURT, BUT AS TO ALL OTHER MANUFACTURERS
IN THIS ENTIRE NATION-WIDE INDUSTRY.  INVOLVING, AS IT DOES, THE
MARKING OF BOUNDARIES OF PERMISSIBLE JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO
ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES, THIS PROBLEM CAN BEST BE
UNDERSTOOD AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF WHAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT ACTED: 

JULY 11, 1938, ALL THE IRON AND STEEL COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES
WERE GIVEN NOTICE THAT THE SECRETARY CONTEMPLATED PROCEEDINGS FOR
DETERMINING THE MINIMUM PREVAILING WAGE FOR THEIR INDUSTRY.  ON THE
25TH AND 26TH OF THAT MONTH, HEARINGS WERE HAD BEFORE THE PUBLIC
CONTRACTS BOARD ALSO FUNCTIONING UNDER THE ACT.  MANY COMPANIES, AND
ALL OF THOSE INVOLVED HERE, WERE REPRESENTED IN THE HEARINGS. 
COMPANIES FROM THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES FILED BRIEFS AND SUBMITTED
INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS, AND THESE PRODUCERS WHO ARE PARTIES HERE
HAD NOTICE OF AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE VARIOUS STAGES OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.  AFTER THE HEARING, TIME FOR FILING OF BRIEFS WAS
ALLOWED.  FOLLOWING INVESTIGATION OF TESTIMONY, EXHIBITS, LETTERS,
TELEGRAMS, BRIEFS, DATA FROM THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, AND
ARGUMENTS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH LABOR AND INDUSTRY ITSELF, THE
BOARD, OCTOBER 27, 1938, MADE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS: (A), ACCEPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF INDUSTRY AND LABOR,
THE BOARD ADOPTED - WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS - THE DEFINITION OF THE STEEL
INDUSTRY PREVIOUSLY IN EFFECT UNDER THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY
ACT; (B), "THE BASE RATES PAID TO THE WORKERS CLASSIFIED AS COMMON
LABORERS" WERE UTILIZED AS A BASIS FOR FINDING THE MINIMUM WAGE
PREVAILING IN THE INDUSTRY AND A COMMON LABORER WAS DEFINED AS "ONE WHO
PERFORMS PHYSICAL OR MANUAL LABOR OF A GENERAL CHARACTER AND SIMPLE
NATURE, REQUIRING NO SPECIAL TRAINING, JUDGMENT NOR SKILL"; (C), THE
VIEW THAT MUNICIPALITIES BE TREATED AS THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIMIT OF A
"LOCALITY" AND THAT DIFFERENT MINIMUM PREVAILING WAGE STANDARDS BE
ADOPTED FOR SMALL AS DISTINGUISHED FROM LARGER COMPANIES, WAS
REJECTED.  THE BOARD POINTED OUT THAT "THE MAIN CHANNELS OF TRADE IN
THE INDUSTRY TAKE THEIR COURSE FAR BEYOND THE CONFINES OF LOCAL
PRODUCING AREAS"; THAT "CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENT OF MILES ON THE MAP TO
OUTLINE THE MARKETING AREAS OF THE IRON AND STEEL PRODUCERS" WAS
UNSUITABLE; THAT "GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION DOES NOT LIMIT THE EFFORTS OF
IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURERS TO SECURE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS"; THAT "THE
WORKERS BEING PAID WAGES BELOW THE BASE RATES ARE EMPLOYED IN LARGE,
MEDIUM AND SMALL SIZE COMPANIES AND IN PLANTS LOCATED IN ALL PARTS OF
THE COUNTRY"; AND THAT IN FIXING A "LOCALITY" ALL THESE FACTORS AS WELL
AS GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS WERE RELEVANT. 

THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD SUGGESTED TWO LOCALITIES, ONE FOR THE
SOUTHERN STATES AND ANOTHER FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE STEEL PRODUCING
STATES.  ONE MEMBER DISAGREED AND INSISTED UPON FOUR LOCALITIES
THROUGHOUT THE NATION, BUT NOTED THAT "THE BOARD IS AGREED ON ALL THE
ESSENTIAL FACTS BEFORE IT IN THE CASE."  HE RECOGNIZED THAT "THE LAW
...  PERMITS THE DIVISION OF THE COUNTRY INTO LOCALITIES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING MINIMUM WAGES.  NO RULE IS LAID DOWN TO DEFINE
THE EXTENT OF ANY LOCALITIES  ...  A TOO MINUTE CONCEPT OF LOCALITY
WOULD OBVIOUSLY NULLIFY THE LAW, FOR EACH PLANT MUST NECESSARILY OCCUPY
A DIFFERENT LOCALE OR SITE FROM EVERY OTHER.  TO REDUCE THE
INTERPRETATION OF LOCALITY TO ITS MOST MINUTE POINT WOULD BE TO FIND A
MINIMUM WAGE PREVAILING IN EACH PLANT  ...  WHEN WE DEPART FROM THIS
INTERPRETATION WE ARE IMMEDIATELY THROWN UPON JUDGMENT.  ...  OBVIOUSLY
WE MUST LOOK FOR WAGE PATTERNS OR UNIFORMITIES.  ...  AGAIN JUDGMENT
MUST BE RELIED UPON FOR THE ANSWER."  EXCEPTING TO THE BOARD'S
RECOMMENDATIONS, THE COMPANIES NOW BEFORE THIS COURT URGED THAT THE
SECRETARY MAKE A FINDING OF MINIMUM PREVAILING WAGES WITH "LOCALITY"
GIVEN THE CONNOTATION OF A SUBDIVISION OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES AS
ORIGINALLY PROVIDED IN THE BACON-DAVIS ACT.  FN2 

ON DECEMBER 20, 1938, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR, ACTING FOR
THE SECRETARY, HEARD ARGUMENTS AND RECEIVED BRIEFS BOTH FROM INDUSTRY
AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  HE DID NOT ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
BOARD IN FULL, BUT INSTEAD DIVIDED THE INDUSTRY OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY
INTO SIX "LOCALITIES," PROCEEDING, HOWEVER, UPON THE VIEW THAT TO
CONSTRUE "LOCALITY" TO MEAN SMALL POLITICAL DIVISIONS OF THE STATES, AS
THE BACON-DAVIS ACT HAD DONE IN EXPRESS TERMS, WOULD RENDER "EFFECTIVE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT  ...  ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE."  IT WAS POINTED OUT
THAT "THIS NARROWLY RESTRICTED CONSTRUCTION OF THE WORD 'LOCALITY'  ...
IS CONTRARY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO
BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT," AND THAT
WHILE CONGRESS HAD CLOSELY FOLLOWED THE LANGUAGE OF THE DAVIS-BACON ACT
IN SOME RESPECTS, IT HAD "CAREFULLY AVOIDED THE USE OF THE MORE
NARROWLY RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE OF 'CITY, TOWN, VILLAGE OR OTHER CIVIL
SUBDIVISION.'"  IN THE TWENTY-TWO PRECEDING WAGE DETERMINATIONS UNDER
THIS ACT THE SECRETARY'S ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM HAD
BEEN - WITH A SOLE EXCEPTION - THAT OF GEOGRAPHIC AREAS NO SMALLER THAN
THOSE DETERMINED FOR THE STEEL INDUSTRY.  FN3  THE DETERMINATION IN
QUESTION WAS MADE JANUARY 16, 1939, BUT WAS NOT MADE OPERATIVE UNTIL
MARCH 1, 1939, "IN ORDER THAT INDUSTRY MAY MAKE NECESSARY READJUSTMENTS
TO COMPLY WITH THE DECISION." 

IN THEIR BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, THESE
SEVEN PRODUCERS OF IRON AND STEEL (RESPONDENTS HERE) SOUGHT TO ENJOIN
AS INDIVIDUALS AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, THE SECRETARIES OF THE
LABOR, TREASURY, WAR, NAVY, AND INTERIOR DEPARTMENTS, THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL, THE DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DIVISION OF
PUBLIC CONTRACTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THEIR "OFFICERS,
AGENTS, ASSISTANTS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES AND ATTORNEYS, AND ANY
ONE ASSOCIATED WITH OR ACTING IN CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH THEM, OR
ANY OF THEM, AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE AND EACH OF THEM, AND THEIR
OFFICERS," ETC.  THE SEVEN COMPANIES NAMED AS COMPLAINANTS BY THE BILL
DID NOT MERELY PRAY RELIEF FOR THEMSELVES AGAINST THE SECRETARY'S WAGE
DETERMINATION BUT INSISTED THAT ALL THESE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BE
RESTRAINED FROM REQUIRING THE STATUTORY STIPULATION AS TO MINIMUM WAGES
IN CONTRACTS WITH ANY OTHER STEEL AND IRON MANUFACTURERS THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DECLINED TO INTERFERE SO SWEEPINGLY WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, EVEN IN THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
WHICH IT GRANTED.  ITS ORDER RAN ONLY AGAINST THE SECRETARIES OF LABOR
AND THE NAVY, AND SPECIFICALLY LIMITED ITS BENEFITS TO BUT THREE OF THE
COMPLAINING COMPANIES.  RECITALS IN THE ORDER INDICATE THAT ONLY THE
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY HAD ACTUALLY SOLICITED BIDS AND THAT ONLY THOSE
THREE COMPANIES WERE "DESIROUS OF BIDDING."  AFTER HEARING, THIS ORDER
WAS DISSOLVED AND THE COURT GRANTED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, INADEQUACY OF THE COMPLAINT, LACK OF STANDING
TO SUE, AND BECAUSE THE SUIT WAS ONE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT
ITS CONSENT.  FN4  A STAY PENDING APPEAL WAS DENIED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JUSTICE
EDGERTON DISSENTING, BY TEMPORARY INJUNCTION GRANTED THE SWEEPING
PRAYER THAT ALL THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND AGENTS DESIGNATED IN THE
BILL BE RESTRAINED FROM CONTINUING IN EFFECT THE DETERMINATION MADE BY
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR.  BY MOTION FOR REARGUMENT, THE RESTRAINED
OFFICIALS, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEYS OF THE GOVERNMENT, ASKED THAT THE
INJUNCTION BE CLARIFIED SO AS TO BE "RESTRICTED TO ENJOINING
ENFORCEMENT OF THE DETERMINATION AGAINST PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING
...  AND  ...  NOT BE EXTENDED TO OTHER BIDDERS, NOT PARTIES TO THIS
ACTION, AND WHO, FOR ALL THAT APPEARS, MAY DESIRE TO ABIDE BY THE
DETERMINATION."  IN THE SAME MOTION, THE GOVERNMENT ASKED THAT
EMPLOYEES WHO MIGHT BE IRREPARABLY INJURED BE PROTECTED BY "A BOND OR
OTHER SECURITY TO PAY THE MINIMUM WAGES IF THE APPELLANTS DO NOT
EVENTUALLY SUCCEED IN THIS CASE."  FN5  THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO ACTION
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THIS MOTION OR ON A SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO
DISSOLVE THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.  FN6  BUT THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION,
RENDERING THE ACT WHOLLY INOPERATIVE AS TO THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
WAS KEPT IN EFFECT AND, REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT, THE COURT OF
APPEALS, JUSTICE EDGERTON AGAIN DISSENTING, REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
THAT RELIEF AS PRAYED IN THE BILL BE GRANTED.  FN7    IN OUR JUDGMENT
THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOES
BEYOND ANY CONTROVERSY THAT MIGHT HAVE EXISTED BETWEEN THE COMPLAINING
COMPANIES AND THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.  THE BENEFITS OF ITS
INJUNCTION, AND OF THAT ORDERED BY IT, WERE NOT LIMITED TO THE
POTENTIAL BIDDERS IN THE "LOCALITY," HOWEVER CONSTRUED, IN WHICH THE
RESPONDENTS DO BUSINESS.  ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WITH DUTIES TO
PERFORM UNDER THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT HAVE BEEN RESTRAINED FROM
APPLYING THE WAGE DETERMINATION OF THE SECRETARY TO BIDDERS THROUGHOUT
THE NATION WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO ANY PROCEEDING, WHO WERE NOT BEFORE
THE COURT AND WHO HAD SOUGHT NO RELIEF. 

AS A RESULT OF THIS JUDICIAL ACTION, FEDERAL OFFICIALS HAD NO
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO MAKE CONTRACTS FOR IMPERATIVELY NEEDED
SUPPLIES FOR THE WAR AND NAVY DEPARTMENTS WITHOUT INCLUSION OF THE
STIPULATION WHICH CONGRESS HAD REQUIRED.  THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT, SO
FAR AS THE STEEL INDUSTRY IS CONCERNED, HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FOR MORE
THAN A YEAR, WITH NO BOND OR SECURITY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST
IN THE MAINTENANCE OF WAGE STANDARDS CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS, SHOULD
THE SUSPENSION ULTIMATELY APPEAR UNWARRANTED OR UNAUTHORIZED.  HERE,
AND BELOW, THE GOVERNMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE RIGHT OF THE JUDICIARY TO
TAKE SUCH ACTION, ALLEGING THAT IT CONSTITUTES AN UNWARRANTED
INTERFERENCE WITH DELIBERATE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND WITH EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATION VITAL TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF GOVERNMENTAL ENDS, AT THE
INSTANCE OF PARTIES WHOSE RIGHTS THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT INVADED AND WHO
HAVE NO STANDING IN COURT TO ATTACK THE SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION.  THE
MANIFESTLY FAR-REACHING IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS THUS RAISED
PROMPTED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  FN8 

OF THE SIX "LOCALITIES" INTO WHICH THE SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION
DIVIDED THE STEEL INDUSTRY, RESPONDENTS DO BUSINESS IN THAT CONSISTING
OF OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, DELAWARE, MARYLAND, KENTUCKY, NEW JERSEY, NEW
YORK, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE,
MAINE, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND A PART OF WEST VIRGINIA.  FN9
THEIR STATED GRIEVANCE WAS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE TERM
"LOCALITY" BY THE SECRETARY AMOUNTED TO "A PLAIN ERROR OF LAW IN
INTERPRETING THE ACT,  ...  AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IN PURPORTING  ...  TO
DETERMINE THE PREVAILING MINIMUM WAGES FOR PERSONS EMPLOYED IN THE
MANUFACTURE  ...  OF THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY IN THE SIX SO-CALLED
'LOCALITIES' SET FORTH IN THIS DETERMINATION (THE SECRETARY) ACTED
ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY AND WHOLLY WITHOUT WARRANT OR AUTHORITY IN
LAW."  IN PARTICULAR THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED - 

RESPONDENTS HAD BEEN SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS TO AGENTS OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR MANY YEARS; THEY WISHED TO CONTINUE TO BID ON GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS; THEIR MINIMUM WAGES HAD RANGED FROM 53[ TO 56 1/2[ PER HOUR;
IF REQUIRED TO PAY THE 62 1/2[ PER HOUR MINIMUM RATE DETERMINED BY THE
SECRETARY THERE WAS GRAVE DANGER THAT THEY WOULD BE UNABLE SUCCESSFULLY
TO COMPETE WITH OTHERS FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS; THEY HAD A LEGAL RIGHT
TO BID FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS FREE FROM ANY OBLIGATION TO ABIDE BY
THE MINIMUM WAGE DETERMINATION BECAUSE OF ALLEGED ILLEGAL
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF "LOCALITY"; AND IF DENIED THE RIGHT TO
BID WITHOUT PAYING THEIR EMPLOYEES THIS MINIMUM WAGE THEY WOULD SUFFER
"IRREPARABLE AND IRRECOVERABLE DAMAGES" FOR WHICH THE LAW PROVIDED NO
"PLAIN, ADEQUATE OR COMPLETE REMEDY." 

IN STAYING THE EFFECT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAGE DETERMINATION, THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT "THE WORD
LOCALITY IS ONE OF SOMEWHAT INDEFINITE MEANING" REQUIRING THE SECRETARY
TO EXERCISE JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION "WITHIN THE PROPER LIMITS OF THE
MEANING OF LOCALITY," BUT HELD THAT THE SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION IN
THIS CASE WENT "SO FAR BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE PROPER APPLICATION OF THE
WORDS AS TO DEFEAT ITS MEANING AND TO CONSTITUTE AN ATTEMPT ARBITRARILY
TO DISREGARD THE STATUTORY MANDATE." 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT NO LEGAL RIGHTS OF RESPONDENTS WERE SHOWN TO
HAVE BEEN INVADED OR THREATENED IN THE COMPLAINT UPON WHICH THE
INJUNCTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS BASED.  IT IS BY NOW CLEAR THAT
NEITHER DAMAGE NOR LOSS OF INCOME IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE ACTION OF
GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS NOT AN INVASION OF RECOGNIZED LEGAL RIGHTS, IS IN
ITSELF A SOURCE OF LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
LEGISLATION RECOGNIZING IT AS SUCH.  FN10  IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR IS CHARGED WITH AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE
TERM "LOCALITY" AS AN ELEMENT IN HER WAGE DETERMINATION.  NOR CAN
RESPONDENTS VINDICATE ANY GENERAL INTEREST WHICH THE PUBLIC MAY HAVE IN
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT BY THE SECRETARY AND WHICH MUST BE LEFT TO
THE POLITICAL PROCESS.  RESPONDENTS, TO HAVE STANDING IN COURT, MUST
SHOW AN INJURY OR THREAT TO A PARTICULAR RIGHT OF THEIR OWN, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
LAW.  FN11  THEY CLAIM A STANDING BY ASSERTING THAT THEY HAVE
PARTICULAR RIGHTS UNDER AND EVEN APART FROM STATUTE TO BID AND
NEGOTIATE FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS FREE FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE
DETERMINATION MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR THEIR INDUSTRY. 
RESPONDENTS POINT TO SEC. 3709 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AND TO THE
PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT ITSELF. 

BENEFIT THAT ITS CONTRACTS BE MADE AFTER PUBLIC ADVERTISING.  FN12  IT
WAS NOT ENACTED FOR THE PROTECTION OF SELLERS AND CONFERS NO
ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS UPON PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS.  FN13  "THE UNITED STATES
NEEDS THE PROTECTION OF PUBLICITY, FORM, REGULARITY OF RETURNS AND
AFFIDAVIT (REVISED STATS., SECS. 3709, 3718-3724, 3745-3747), IN ORDER
TO PREVENT POSSIBLE FRAUDS UPON IT BY OTHERS.  A PRIVATE PERSON NEEDS
NO SUCH PROTECTION AGAINST A WRITTEN UNDERTAKING SIGNED BY HIMSELF. 
THE DUTY IS IMPOSED UPON THE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT UPON
HIM."  FN14  THAT DUTY IS OWING TO THE GOVERNMENT AND TO NO ONE ELSE. 

LIKE PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES, THE GOVERNMENT ENJOYS THE
UNRESTRICTED POWER TO PRODUCE ITS OWN SUPPLIES, TO DETERMINE THOSE WITH
WHOM IT WILL DEAL, AND TO FIX THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON WHICH IT
WILL MAKE NEEDED PURCHASES.  FN15  ACTING THROUGH ITS AGENTS AS IT MUST
OF NECESSITY, THE GOVERNMENT MAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING ITS OWN
HOUSE IN ORDER LAY DOWN GUIDE POSTS BY WHICH ITS AGENTS ARE TO PROCEED
IN THE PROCUREMENT OF SUPPLIES, AND WHICH CREATE DUTIES TO THE
GOVERNMENT ALONE.  IT HAS DONE SO IN THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT.  THAT
ACT DOES NOT DEPART FROM BUT INSTEAD EMBODIES THE TRADITIONAL PRINCIPLE
OF LEAVING PURCHASES NECESSARY TO THE OPERATION OF OUR GOVERNMENT TO
ADMINISTRATION BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, WITH ADEQUATE
RANGE OF DISCRETION FREE FROM VEXATIOUS AND DILATORY RESTRAINTS AT THE
SUITS OF PROSPECTIVE OR POTENTIAL SELLERS.  IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A
BESTOWAL OF LITIGABLE RIGHTS UPON THOSE DESIROUS OF SELLING TO THE
GOVERNMENT; IT IS A SELF-IMPOSED RESTRAINT FOR VIOLATION OF WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT - BUT NOT PRIVATE LITIGANTS - CAN COMPLAIN.  THUS, A WAGE
DETERMINATION BY THE SECRETARY CONTEMPLATES NO CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
PARTIES AND NO FIXING OF PRIVATE RIGHTS; THE PROCESS OF ARRIVING AT A
WAGE DETERMINATION CONTAINS NO SEMBLANCE OF THESE ELEMENTS WHICH GO TO
MAKE UP A LITIGABLE CONTROVERSY AS OUR LAW KNOWS THE CONCEPT.  FN16
COURTS HAVE NEVER REVIEWED OR SUPERVISED THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH AN
EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITY EVEN WHERE EXECUTIVE DUTIES "REQUIRE AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW."  FN17  JUDICIAL RESTRAINT OF THOSE WHO
ADMINISTER THE GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASING WOULD CONSTITUTE A BREAK WITH
SETTLED JUDICIAL PRACTICE AND A DEPARTURE INTO FIELDS HITHERTO WISELY
AND HAPPILY APPORTIONED BY THE GENIUS OF OUR POLITY TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. 

THIS ACT'S PURPOSE WAS TO IMPOSE OBLIGATIONS UPON THOSE FAVORED WITH
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS AND TO OBVIATE THE POSSIBILITY THAT ANY PART OF OUR
TREMENDOUS NATIONAL EXPENDITURES WOULD GO TO FORCES TENDING TO DEPRESS
WAGES AND PURCHASING POWER AND OFFENDING FAIR SOCIAL STANDARDS OF
EMPLOYMENT.  AS STATED IN THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY ON THE BILL,  FN18  "THE OBJECT OF THE BILL IS TO REQUIRE
PERSONS HAVING CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT TO CONFORM TO CERTAIN
LABOR CONDITIONS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACTS AND THUS TO
ELIMINATE THE PRACTICE UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS COMPELLED TO DEAL
WITH SWEAT SHOPS." 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE ACT INDICATING ANY INTENTION TO ABANDON A
PRINCIPLE ACTED UPON SINCE THE NATION'S FOUNDING UNDER WHICH THE
LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS HAVE EXERCISED COMPLETE AND FINAL
AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR GOVERNMENT PURCHASES.  THE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND REPORTS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEASURE BY
ITS SPONSORS DISCLOSE NO PURPOSE TO INVOKE JUDICIAL SUPERVISION OVER
AGENTS CHOSEN BY CONGRESS TO PERFORM THESE DUTIES.  AND SECS. 4 AND 5
DO NOT SUBJECT A WAGE DETERMINATION TO SUCH REVIEW.  PROVISION FOR
HEARINGS AND FINDINGS BY THE SECRETARY WITH RESPECT TO DECISIONS UPON
BREACHES OF STIPULATIONS BY CONTRACTORS, ONCE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE,
IS INDICATIVE OF A LACK OF INTENTION TO CREATE ANY RIGHTS FOR
PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS BEFORE A PURCHASE IS CONCLUDED. 

THE ACT DOES NOT REPRESENT AN EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF REGULATORY
POWER OVER PRIVATE BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENT.  FN19  IN THIS LEGISLATION
CONGRESS DID NO MORE THAN INSTRUCT ITS AGENTS WHO WERE SELECTED AND
GRANTED FINAL AUTHORITY TO FIX THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT WILL PERMIT GOODS TO BE SOLD TO IT.  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
IS UNDER A DUTY TO OBSERVE THOSE INSTRUCTIONS JUST AS A PURCHASING
AGENT OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION MUST OBSERVE THOSE OF HIS PRINCIPAL.  IN
BOTH INSTANCES PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS FOR CONTRACTS DERIVE NO ENFORCEABLE
RIGHTS AGAINST THE AGENT FOR AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE
PRINCIPAL'S AUTHORIZATION.  FOR ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF HIS
INSTRUCTIONS, GIVEN FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF THE PRINCIPAL, THE AGENT IS
RESPONSIBLE TO HIS PRINCIPAL ALONE BECAUSE HIS MISCONSTRUCTION VIOLATES
NO DUTY HE OWES TO ANY BUT HIS PRINCIPAL.  THE SECRETARY'S
RESPONSIBILITY IS TO SUPERIOR EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. 
RESPONDENTS HAVE NO STANDING IN COURT TO ENFORCE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OR
TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE SECRETARY'S COMPLIANCE WITH
THE ACT.  FN20  THAT RESPONDENTS SOUGHT TO VINDICATE SUCH A PUBLIC
RIGHT OR INTEREST IS MADE APPARENT BOTH BY THEIR PRAYER THAT THE
DETERMINATION BE SUSPENDED AS TO THE ENTIRE STEEL INDUSTRY AND BY THE
EXTENT OF THE INJUNCTION GRANTED. 

THE CONTESTED ACTION OF THE RESTRAINED OFFICIALS DID NOT INVADE
PRIVATE RIGHTS IN A MANNER AMOUNTING TO A TORTIOUS VIOLATION.  ON THE
CONTRARY, RESPONDENTS IN EFFECT SEEK THROUGH JUDICIAL ACTION TO
INTERFERE WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT MAY DISPATCH ITS OWN
INTERNAL AFFAIRS.  AND IN ATTEMPTED SUPPORT OF THE INJUNCTION GRANTED
THEY CITE MANY CASES INVOLVING CONTESTED GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF THE
CONDUCT OF PRIVATE BUSINESS.  FN21  THEIR CITED CASES, HOWEVER, ALL
RELATE TO PROBLEMS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE INHERENT IN THE IMPOSITION OF
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT UPON AGENTS ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S OWN SUPPLIES. 

THE GOVERNMENT CAN SUPPLY ITS NEEDS BY ITS OWN MANUFACTURING OR BY
PURCHASE.  AND CONGRESS CAN AS IT ALWAYS HAS, EITHER DO THE PURCHASING
OF THE GOVERNMENT'S GOODS AND SUPPLIES ITSELF, OR IT CAN ENTRUST ITS
AGENTS WITH FINAL POWER TO DO SO AND MAKE THESE AGENTS RESPONSIBLE ONLY
TO IT. FN22  COURTS SHOULD NOT, WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT DONE SO, SUBJECT
PURCHASING AGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT TO THE DELAYS NECESSARILY INCIDENT TO
JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AT THE INSTANCE OF POTENTIAL SELLERS, WHICH WOULD BE
CONTRARY TO TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICE AND WOULD CREATE A NEW
CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL CONTROVERSIES.  A LIKE RESTRAINT APPLIED TO
PURCHASING BY PRIVATE BUSINESS WOULD BE WIDELY CONDEMNED AS AN
INTOLERABLE BUSINESS HANDICAP.  IT IS, AS BOTH CONGRESS AND THE COURTS
HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED, ESSENTIAL TO THE EVEN AND EXPEDITIOUS
FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PURCHASING
MACHINERY BE UNHAMPERED.  THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
THE ARMY FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS,  FN23  AND BY STATUTE CONTRACTS FOR
THE PURCHASE OF DEPARTMENTAL SUPPLIES ARE IN GENERAL LIMITED TO ONE
YEAR.  FN24  THESE PROHIBITIONS EMPHASIZE THE GRAVE IMPORTANCE OF
LEAVING THE RESTRAINT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASING AGENTS TO CONGRESS
AND THEIR EXECUTIVE SUPERIORS. 

THE RECORD HERE DISCLOSES THE "CONFUSION AND DISORDER"  FN25  THAT
CAN RESULT FROM THE DELAYS NECESSARILY INCIDENT TO JUDICIAL SUPERVISION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE DEVELOPED TO MEET PRESENT DAY NEEDS OF
GOVERNMENT AND CAPABLE OF OPERATING EFFICIENTLY AND FAIRLY TO BOTH
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INTERESTS.  IN THE APPROPRIATE WORDS OF MR. JUSTICE
SUTHERLAND, "THE BARE SUGGESTION OF SUCH A RESULT, WITH ITS ATTENDANT
INCONVENIENCES, GOES FAR TO SUSTAIN THE CONCLUSION WHICH WE HAVE
REACHED, THAT A SUIT OF THIS CHARACTER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED."  FN26
FOR MORE THAN A YEAR, CABINET OFFICERS AND THEIR SUBORDINATES HAVE BEEN
ENJOINED FROM MAKING THE SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM WAGES
EFFECTIVE.  MEANWHILE, IRON AND STEEL WERE NEEDED FOR THE ARMY AND
NAVY.  IN ORDER THAT THE MILITARY PROGRAM COULD PROCEED, THE DECLARED
POLICY OF THE CONGRESS WAS ABANDONED UNDER JUDICIAL COMPULSION AND
CONTRACTS WITHOUT A MINIMUM WAGE STIPULATION HAVE BEEN AWARDED FOR MORE
THAN $65,000,000.00 WORTH OF IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS SINCE THE
INJUNCTION ISSUED.  FN27  IF THE GENERAL LAW PERMITS PROSPECTIVE
BIDDERS TO CHALLENGE EACH WAGE DETERMINATION OF THE SECRETARY IN THE
COURTS, BY A LIKE TOKEN ALL EMPLOYEES AFFECTED COULD OBTAIN JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  SUCH A POSSIBILITY PLACES IN BOLD RELIEF THOSE CONDITIONS
WHICH LED CONGRESS TO PROCEED IN THIS ACT UPON THE BELIEF, TO WHICH WE
HAVE RECENTLY ALLUDED,  FN28  THAT "LEGISLATURES ARE ULTIMATE GUARDIANS
OF THE LIBERTIES AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE IN QUITE AS GREAT A DEGREE
AS THE COURTS."  FN29    THE CASE BEFORE US MAKES IT FITTING TO
REMEMBER THAT "THE INTERFERENCE OF THE COURTS WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF
THE ORDINARY DUTIES OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT,
WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE OF NOTHING BUT MISCHIEF; AND WE ARE QUITE SATISFIED
THAT SUCH A POWER WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE GIVEN TO THEM."  FN30 

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE BILL AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS IN ERROR IN FINDING
RESPONDENTS WITH STANDING TO BRING THIS ACTION, IN ORDERING THE
SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION RESTRAINED AND IN HOLDING RESPONDENTS
ENTITLED TO DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  FN31 

OUR DECISION THAT THE COMPLAINING COMPANIES LACK STANDING TO SUE DOES
NOT REST UPON A MERE FORMALITY.  WE REST IT UPON REASONS DEEPLY ROOTED
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISIONS OF AUTHORITY IN OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT AND THE IMPROPRIETY OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW AT
THE INSTANCE OF THOSE WHO SHOW NO MORE THAN A MERE POSSIBLE INJURY TO
THE PUBLIC.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THAT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE BILL IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 2036. 

FN2  46 STAT. 1494. 

FN3  2 FED. REG. 233, 1333, 1335, 1336, 1337, 1338, 1339, 2960, 2976;
3 FED. REG. 64, 224, 257, 889, 1613, 895, 901, 1612, 1153, 2371, 2370,
2537, 3043; 4 FED. REG. 4005. 

FN4  THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED WITHOUT OPINION. 

FN5  SECTIONS OF THE PUBLIC CONTRACTS ACT PROVIDE THAT "BREACH OR
VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS AND STIPULATIONS IN ANY
CONTRACT FOR THE PURPOSES SET FORTH  ...  SHALL RENDER THE PARTY
RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR LIABLE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, IN ADDITION TO DAMAGES FOR ANY OTHER BREACH OF SUCH
CONTRACT,  ...  A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF ANY DEDUCTIONS, REBATES,
REFUNDS, OR UNDERPAYMENT OF WAGES DUE TO ANY EMPLOYEE ENGAGED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF SUCH CONTRACT; ...  ANY SUMS OF MONEY DUE TO THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA BY REASON OF ANY VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE
REPRESENTATIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF SAID CONTRACT SET FORTH IN SECTION
1 HEREOF MAY BE WITHHELD FROM ANY AMOUNTS DUE ON ANY SUCH CONTRACTS OR
MAY BE RECOVERED IN SUITS BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEREOF.  ALL SUMS WITHHELD OR
RECOVERED AS DEDUCTIONS, REBATES, REFUNDS, OR UNDERPAYMENTS OF WAGES
SHALL BE HELD IN A SPECIAL DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AND SHALL BE PAID, ON ORDER
OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, DIRECTLY TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN PAID
LESS THAN MINIMUM RATES OF PAY AS SET FORTH IN SUCH CONTRACTS AND ON
WHOSE ACCOUNT SUCH SUMS WERE WITHHELD OR RECOVERED; ...  " 

FN6  THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO CLARIFY AND RESTRICT THE TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION AND FOR SECURITY WAS FILED MARCH 29, 1939; THE MOTION TO
DISSOLVE THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS FILED APRIL 13, 1939.  NO
SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION OF THESE MOTIONS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS DISCLOSED IN THE RECORD.  AUGUST 4, 1939, AFTER
ARGUMENT ON THE MERITS, THAT COURT OF APPEALS, PER CURIAM, JUSTICE
EDGERTON DISSENTING, ANNOUNCED THAT THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WOULD BE
KEPT IN EFFECT, THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WOULD BE
REVERSED AND THAT THE GROUNDS FOR ENJOINING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ACT WOULD BE SET OUT IN AN OPINION "TO BE FILED SHORTLY."  THE OPINION
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS CAME DOWN OCTOBER 3, 1939; JUSTICE EDGERTON
FILED A SEPARATE OPINION IN DISSENT. 

FN7  107 F.2D 627. 

FN8  309 U.S. 643. 

FN9  THE REMAINING FIVE LOCALITIES ARE:  1, LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS,
MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA, OKLAHOMA, TEXAS,
ALABAMA, TENNESSEE, GEORGIA, VIRGINIA, AND A PART OF WEST VIRGINIA; 2,
WASHINGTON, OREGON AND CALIFORNIA; 3, MONTANA, IDAHO, NEVADA, WYOMING,
NEW MEXICO, UTAH, COLORADO AND ARIZONA; 4, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA,
NEBRASKA, KANSAS, MINNESOTA, IOWA, MISSOURI AND THE AREA IN AND ABOUT
EAST SAINT LOUIS, ILLINOIS; 5, WISCONSIN, ILLINOIS (EXCEPT THE AREA IN
AND ABOUT EAST SAINT LOUIS, ILLINOIS), MICHIGAN AND INDIANA. 

FN10  TENNESSEE ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 306
U.S. 118, 137-8; ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464;
MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447. 

FN11  STEARNS V. WOOD, 236 U.S. 75, 78; FAIRCHILD V. HUGHES, 258 U.S.
126, 129. 

FN12  R.S. 3709(41 U.S.C. 5) PROVIDES:  "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
BY LAW ALL PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES, IN ANY OF
THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND PURCHASES OF INDIAN SUPPLIES,
EXCEPT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, SHALL BE MADE BY ADVERTISING A SUFFICIENT
TIME PREVIOUSLY FOR PROPOSALS RESPECTING THE SAME, WHEN THE PUBLIC
EXIGENCIES DO NOT REQUIRE THE IMMEDIATE DELIVERY OF THE ARTICLES, OR
PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE.  WHEN IMMEDIATE DELIVERY OR PERFORMANCE IS
REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC EXIGENCY, THE ARTICLES OR SERVICE REQUIRED MAY
BE PROCURED BY OPEN PURCHASE OR CONTRACT, AT THE PLACES AND IN THE
MANNER IN WHICH SUCH ARTICLES ARE USUALLY BOUGHT AND SOLD, OR SUCH
SERVICES ENGAGED, BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS." 

FN13  CF. GOLDBERG V. DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. NEW YORK & PORTO RICO S.S. CO., 239 U.S. 88,
92, 93; AMERICAN SMELTING & REFINING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 259 U.S. 75,
78.  CF. COLORADO PAVING CO. V. MURPHY, 78 F. 28(C.C.A.8TH).  SEE 38
OP. ATT.  GEN.  555, 557.  BIDDERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTEST THE
AWARD OF CONTRACTS AS BIDDERS OR IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CITIZENS
GENERALLY.  O'BRIEN V. CARNEY, 6 F.SUPP.  761; B.F. CUMMINGS CO. V.
BURLESON, 40 APP. D.C. 500; CHAMPION COATED PAPER CO. V. JOINT
COMMITTEE ON PRINTING, 47 APP. D.C. 141; CF. STRONG V. UNITED STATES, 6
CT. CLS. 135.  AND THE VIEW THAT BIDDERS HAVE NO STANDING IN THE COURTS
HAS BEEN GENERALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, THE INTER
DEPARTMENTAL BOARD ON CONTRACTS OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET AS WELL AS
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.  HEARING BEFORE THE COMM. ON THE
JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 71ST CONG., 2ND SESS., ON H.R.
5568, SERIAL 4, PART 1, PP. 16-22, 26-27; SENATE REPORT 433, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN15  ATKIN V. KANSAS, 191 U.S. 207; ELLIS V. UNITED STATES, 206 U.S.
246; HEIM V. MCCALL, 239 U.S. 175; CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
RAYMOND CO., 263 U.S. 565. 

FN16  NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 319,
320. 

FN17  UNITED STATES EX REL. DUNLAP V. BLACK, 128 U.S. 40, 48; CF.
BUTTE, A. & P. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 127, 136, 142, 143. 

FN18  HOUSE REPORT NO. 2946, 74TH CONG., 2ND SESS. 

FN19  CF. EX PARTE WILLIAMS, 277 U.S. 267, 269, 272; GREAT NORTHERN
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 172, 180. 

FN20  CF. GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 271 U.S.
228, 230.  SEE ALSO NOTE 10. 

FN21  SEE, E.G., UTAH FUEL CO. V. COAL COMM'N, 306 U.S. 56, 58;
SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177; WAITE V. MACY, 246
U.S. 606; AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S.
94; GEGIOW V. UHL, 239 U.S. 3; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; PIERCE V.
SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510. 

FN22  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 172, 182;
WORK V. RIVES, 267 U.S. 175; BUTTE, A. & P. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
290 U.S. 127; UNITED STATES V. BABCOCK, 250 U.S. 328; LOUISIANA V.
MCADOO, 234 U.S. 627; ADAMS V. NAGLE, 303 U.S. 532, 540-1. 

FN23  ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 12. 

FN24  41 U.S.C. 13. 

FN25  CF. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY IN DECATUR V. PAULDING, 14 PET.
497, 516. 

FN26  MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 487. 

FN27  BULLETINS NOS. 75 TO 176, INCLUSIVE, OF THE DIVISION OF PUBLIC
CONTRACTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. 

FN28  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING
CO., 309 U.S. 134, 146. 

FN29  MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. MAY, 194 U.S. 267, 270. 

FN30  DECATUR V. PAULDING, SUPRA, AT 516. 

FN31  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 240-1. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :





















WARREN V. PALMER, 310 U.S. 132 


NO. 643.  ARGUED MARCH 29, APRIL 1, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 29, 1940.  -
108 F.2D 164, AFFIRMED. 


WHERE A RAILROAD SYSTEM, IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, INCLUDES A LEASED LINE, OPERATED AT A LOSS AND
WHICH CAN NOT BE OPERATED BY ITS OWNER, AND WHERE, BY ORDER OF THE
COURT THE TRUSTEES HAVE REJECTED THE LEASE BUT HAVE CONTINUED TO
OPERATE THE LEASED ROAD FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR, PURSUANT TO SEC.
77(C)(6), THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE
DEFICIT CHARGEABLE TO THE LESSOR AND TO IMPOSE A FIRST LIEN ON THE
LEASED PROPERTY TO SECURE IT, AND TO DO THIS AFTER PROCEEDINGS FOR
REORGANIZATION OF THE LESSOR COMPANY UNDER SEC. 77 HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED
IN ANOTHER DISTRICT WHERE THE LEASED LINE IS SITUATE.  P. 140. 

WARREN ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. PALMER ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 645, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE ORDER FIXED THE AMOUNT OF A DEFICIT ARISING
FROM THE OPERATION OF A LEASED LINE AND DECLARED IT A FIRST LIEN ON THE
LEASED PROPERTY.  ONLY THE QUESTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S
JURISDICTION TO DO THIS WAS BROUGHT HERE. 

THE PROPERTY OF THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO
ADMINISTRATION WITHIN THE CONNECTICUT COURT'S BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION. 
EVEN THOUGH THAT COURT MAY HAVE HAD POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, AND
EVEN THOUGH SEC. 77 STILL TURNS UPON POSSESSION IN PART, THE
JURISDICTION RESULTING FROM POSSESSION IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN
THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THIS CASE. 

PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO THE DEBTOR IS NOT SUBJECT TO
ADMINISTRATION IN THE DEBTOR'S BANKRUPTCY.  THIS APPLIES TO THE
LESSOR'S INTEREST IN THE LEASED PROPERTY. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN SEC. 77 WHICH EXTENDS THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT TO ADMINISTER PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF A DEBTOR
WHICH THE DEBTOR DOES NOT OWN.  THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE COULD NOT BE
REORGANIZED BY THE CONNECTICUT COURT. 

SERVE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR IMPLYING THAT THE CONNECTICUT COURT WOULD
HAVE CORRELATIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
PERFORMANCE OF THAT DUTY.  THE DUTY TO OPERATE THE RAILROAD EXISTED
INDEPENDENTLY OF SEC. 77.  THAT SECTION GAVE THE NEW HAVEN A MEANS OF
ESCAPING THE EXISTING BURDEN, BUT ON TERMS WHICH THE NEW HAVEN HAS NOT
SEEN FIT TO FOLLOW.  THERE IS NOTHING IN SEC. 77(C)(6) WHICH SUGGESTS
THAT THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ACCOUNT IN THIS CASE IS THE EXCLUSIVE
PREROGATIVE OF THE CONNECTICUT COURT. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE CONNECTICUT COURT IS NOT AIDED BY ITS STATUS
AS A RECEIVERSHIP COURT.  A RECEIVERSHIP COURT DOES NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION OVER PROPERTY BEYOND ITS TERRITORIAL LIMITS.  THE
MASSACHUSETTS COURT HERE IS NOT A MERE ANCILLARY COURT IN THE NEW HAVEN
REORGANIZATION OF THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE. 

THE CLAIM IS ONE WHICH HAS GROWN UP WHOLLY IN EQUITY PROCEEDINGS. 
THE RESPONDENTS MUST TAKE IT SUBJECT TO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITATIONS ON
THE CONNECTICUT COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ACT AS AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP
COURT. 

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE AND ITS PROPERTY
IS NOW VESTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS.  THIS WOULD SEEM
TO FOLLOW FROM THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SEC. 77(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
WHICH GIVES THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED. 

CONGRESS DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THE UNIFIED REORGANIZATION OF RAILROAD
SYSTEMS. 

IF THE NEW HAVEN CLAIM CAN PROPERLY BE LIQUIDATED BY THE CONNECTICUT
COURT, AND THE RANK OF THE LIEN FIXED BY THE CONNECTICUT COURT, THEN
THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT HAS ONLY A PERFUNCTORY JURISDICTION OVER "THE
NEW ALLOCATION OF INTERESTS IN" THE BOSTON & PROVIDENCE PROPERTY.  IT
MUST DISPOSE OF ALL ITS DEBTOR'S PROPERTY ON THE SAY-SO OF ANOTHER
COURT. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE CONNECTICUT COURT CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED ON THE
GROUND THAT IT FIRST TOOK OVER THE RES.  THERE ARE MANY CASES IN WHICH
IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A BANKRUPTCY COURT SUPERSEDES A JURISDICTION
WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED BY ANOTHER COURT.  ONLY BY RECOGNIZING
THE PARAMOUNT JURISDICTION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT CAN THE PURPOSE
OF CONGRESS TO ACHIEVE A UNIFIED DISPOSITION OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE BE
OBTAINED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE RAILROAD CORPORATION IN 1888 LEASED ITS
PROPERTY, A LINE OF ROAD RUNNING BETWEEN BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE, FOR 99
YEARS TO THE OLD COLONY RAILROAD.  IT HAS CONTINUED AS A SEPARATE
CORPORATION, RECEIVING AND DISTRIBUTING ITS RENT, AND IS NOT A
SUBSIDIARY OR AFFILIATE OF THE NEW HAVEN OR THE OLD COLONY.  IN 1899
THE OLD COLONY LEASED ITS LINES, INCLUDING ITS LEASEHOLD IN THE BOSTON
AND PROVIDENCE, TO THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD FOR 99
YEARS.  THE NEW HAVEN OPERATED ITS OWN AND THE LEASED PROPERTY UNTIL IT
WAS PUT INTO REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CONNECTICUT ON OCTOBER 23, 1935.  THE TRUSTEES
OF THE NEW HAVEN OPERATED THE OLD COLONY UNDER THE LEASE UNTIL THEY
REJECTED THE LEASE BY ORDER OF THE COURT ON JUNE 2, 1936.  NEXT DAY THE
OLD COLONY FILED UNDER SEC. 77 IN THE SAME CONNECTICUT COURT AS A
SUBSIDIARY DEBTOR, THE COURT APPOINTED THE TRUSTEES OF THE NEW HAVEN
TRUSTEES OF THE OLD COLONY, AND ON JUNE 18, 1936, THE COURT ORDERED THE
NEW HAVEN TRUSTEES TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE THE OLD COLONY AS AN INTEGRAL
PART OF THE NEW HAVEN, THE OPERATION BEING FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE OLD
COLONY.  THE ORDER PROVIDED THAT, IN THE EVENT LEASES OF THE OLD COLONY
WERE LATER REJECTED, PAYMENTS FOR OPERATING THE LEASED PROPERTY AND
PAYMENTS OF RENT UNDER THE LEASE WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR AND COULD BE RECOVERED FROM THE LEASED PROPERTY
PRIOR TO ANY MORTGAGE OR LIEN THEREON.  ON JULY 19, 1938, THE COURT
DIRECTED THE TRUSTEES OF THE OLD COLONY TO REJECT THE LEASE OF THE
BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE AND TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF THE ROAD FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE PURSUANT TO SEC. 77(C)(6).  ON
AUGUST 4, 1938, THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE WAS PUT INTO REORGANIZATION
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS.  PREVIOUSLY THE SYSTEM HAD BEEN
OPERATING AT A LOSS AND THE TRUSTEES OF THE NEW HAVEN AND THE OLD
COLONY ASKED THE CONNECTICUT COURT TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE
DEFICIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE FOR THE PERIOD FROM
JUNE 4, 1936, TO DECEMBER 31, 1937, AND TO DECLARE THAT AMOUNT A LIEN
ON THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF THE NEW HAVEN AND THE OLD
COLONY.  ON JANUARY 16, 1939, THE CONNECTICUT COURT DECIDED THAT IT HAD
JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE REQUESTED LIEN ON THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE,
ALTHOUGH THAT ROAD WAS UNDER REORGANIZATION IN ANOTHER BANKRUPTCY
COURT, AND ON APRIL 20, 1939, THE COURT ENTERED AN ORDER FIXING THE
AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIT AND DECLARING IT A FIRST LIEN ON THE PROPERTY OF
THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HOLDING THAT
THE CONNECTICUT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE LIEN, AFFIRMED
THE ORDER OF JANUARY 16, 1939, BUT CONCLUDED THAT THE BOSTON AND
PROVIDENCE HAD BEEN GIVEN NO CHANCE TO BE HEARD ON THE MERITS OF THE
QUESTION AND REMANDED THE LATER ORDER FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE
"EXISTENCE AND AMOUNT OF THE OBLIGATION."  FN2 

THE OBLIGATION ON WHICH THE CLAIMED LIEN IS BASED ARISES, SO THE
TRUSTEES OF THE NEW HAVEN AND THE OLD COLONY CONTEND, FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE UNDER SEC. 77(C)(6) BY THE OLD
COLONY FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE.  PETITIONERS DENY
THAT 77(C)(6) WAS PROPERLY INVOKED AND CLAIM THAT THE DEFICIT IS NOT
CHARGEABLE TO THEM.  THIS PHASE OF THE CONTROVERSY IS NOT BEFORE US,
FOR PETITIONERS HAVE BROUGHT HERE ONLY THE QUESTION OF THE CONNECTICUT
COURT'S JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIT CHARGEABLE
TO THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE AND TO IMPOSE A LIEN ON ITS PROPERTY TO
SECURE IT.  IF THE CONNECTICUT COURT HAS THAT JURISDICTION, IT WILL
DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFICIT IS CHARGEABLE TO THE BOSTON AND
PROVIDENCE WHEN IT DETERMINES THE "EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF THE
OBLIGATION" PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF REMAND OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE CONTROVERSY HAS SUBSTANCE BECAUSE OF THE CONTENTION OF THE
TRUSTEES FOR THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE THAT, AS THE COURT CHARGED WITH
THE REORGANIZATION OF THAT ROAD (THE MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT) HAS
"EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" UNDER SEC. 77(A) "OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS
PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED," THE CONNECTICUT COURT CANNOT CONSIDER THE
CLAIMS OF THE NEW HAVEN AND OLD COLONY TRUSTEES FOR OPERATING DEFICITS
OR IMPOSE A LIEN ON THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE PROPERTY TO SECURE THEM. 

THE LEASE OF THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE TO THE OLD COLONY IS THE TYPE
OF LEASE COVERED BY THE ORDER OF JUNE 18, 1936, BY WHICH THE TRUSTEES
OF OLD COLONY WERE AUTHORIZED TO CHARGE OPERATING DEFICITS AGAINST THE
LESSOR IN THE EVENT OF SUBSEQUENT DISAFFIRMANCE OF THE LEASE. 

RAILROAD REORGANIZATION IN BANKRUPTCY IS A FIELD COMPLETELY WITHIN
THE AMBIT OF THE BANKRUPTCY POWERS OF CONGRESS.  FN3  UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION CONGRESS LIKEWISE HAS EXERCISED ITS
POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF INTERSTATE RAILROADS
SUCH AS PETITIONER.  FN4  THE FACT THAT THE OPERATOR OPERATES UNDER A
LEASE DOES NOT AFFECT THE FORCE OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE OPERATION
MUST CONTINUE UNTIL A CERTIFICATE PERMITTING ABANDONMENT IS ISSUED BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION N5.  THE JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
WORK COOPERATIVELY IN REORGANIZATIONS.  FN6 PROVISION IS MADE BY THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN7  FOR THE OPERATION OF LEASED PROPERTY ON
SURRENDER.  IT IS UNDER THIS SUBSECTION THAT RESPONDENT CLAIMS TO HAVE
BECOME ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT SOUGHT IN THE MOTION FOR ALLOWANCE AND
LIEN.  THIS SUBSECTION MODIFIES PRO TANTO THE RULE OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT FOR OPERATION. 

THE PROPERTY OF THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF
THE TRUSTEES OF THE NEW HAVEN AND THE OLD COLONY AND REMAINED THERE
DURING THE ENTIRE TIME COVERED BY THE CLAIM.  THESE ROADS WERE LESSEES
OF THE PROPERTY AND DEBTORS UNDER SEC. 77 IN THE CONNECTICUT COURT.  IT
IS IMMATERIAL WHAT TITLE THE DEBTORS HAD, WHETHER A LEASE OR A FEE. 
THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY COVERED BY THE LEASE WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
CONNECTICUT COURT BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 77(A).  FN8  BY
VIRTUE OF SUBDIVISIONS 77(C)(10) AND 77(C)(6)  FN9  IT IS CLEAR THAT
LEASEHOLDS ARE IN SOME INSTANCES TO BE OPERATED BY THE LESSEE'S
TRUSTEES. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD "UPON PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL APPLICATION" THAT
COURTS HAVING CUSTODY OF PROPERTY OR A FUND HAVE THE POWER "TO REQUIRE
THAT EXPENSES WHICH HAVE CONTRIBUTED EITHER TO THE PRESERVATION OR
CREATION OF THE FUND IN ITS CUSTODY SHALL BE PAID BEFORE A GENERAL
DISPOSITION AMONG THOSE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT."  FN10  SUCH A POWER
REPOSES IN ANY COURT CHARGED WITH CUSTODY OF PROPERTY.  IT IS AN IN REM
JURISDICTION SPRINGING FROM POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS
NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT THE COURT MAY ADEQUATELY CARE FOR THE
PROPERTY.  THUS A COURT HAVING CUSTODY OF A SHIP IS ABLE TO SECURE
WHARFAGE BY VIRTUE OF ITS POWER TO DECREE A PREFERENTIAL PAYMENT.  FN11
AND HERE THE COURT IS ABLE TO CARRY OUT THE OPERATION OF THE BOSTON
AND PROVIDENCE BY PROMISING OR GRANTING A LIEN TO THOSE WHO CARRY OUT
THE OPERATION. 

IF THE CONNECTICUT COURT HAS POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND OPERATED
IT UNDER SEC. 77(C)(6) FOR ITS OWNERS, COULD IT FIX A LIEN ON THE
PROPERTY AFTER ANOTHER BANKRUPTCY COURT TOOK THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
PROPERTY?  BY SEC. 77(C)(6) RAILROADS IN REORGANIZATION WHICH HAD BEEN
OPERATING LINES UNDER LEASE WERE ALLOWED TO REJECT THE LEASE BUT
REQUIRED TO CONTINUE OPERATION OF THE LEASED LINES IF THE LESSOR HAD NO
ABILITY TO OPERATE.  THUS CONGRESS RECOGNIZED THE POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE
OF THE SITUATION NOW BEFORE US AND EVINCED A DESIRE THAT RAIL SERVICE
SHOULD NOT IN SUCH A CASE BE INTERRUPTED.  IN VIEW OF THE PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE OF RAIL SERVICE, WE THINK THIS SUBSECTION REPRESENTS AN
INTENTION TO GIVE THE COURT CHARGED WITH OPERATION THE FULLEST ABILITY
TO SECURE THE NECESSITIES OF OPERATION - AN INTENTION TO GIVE THE
OPERATING COURT POWER TO PROMISE THOSE HAVING THE MATERIALS, MEN AND
EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR OPERATION A FIRST LIEN ON THE ROAD TO SECURE
PAYMENT FOR THE OPERATION.  FN12  THIS IN NO WAY IMPAIRS THE OPERATION
OF SEC. 77(A) WHICH GRANTS TO THE MASSACHUSETTS COURT, "DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND FOR THE PURPOSES
THEREOF," "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY
WHEREVER LOCATED."  THE "PURPOSES" OF SEC. 77 INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A "FAIR AND EQUITABLE"  FN13  PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  THE
MASSACHUSETTS COURT IS LEFT WITH JURISDICTION TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, BUT
IS BOUND TO RECOGNIZE THE PRIORITY OF THE LIEN DECLARED BY THE
CONNECTICUT COURT.  BY SEC. 77(C)(6) THE CONNECTICUT COURT WAS GIVEN
JURISDICTION SO LONG AS IT CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE ROAD TO GRANT A
LIEN FOR OPERATING EXPENSES PRIOR TO ANY EXISTING CLAIMS AGAINST THE
ROAD.  THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE CONNECTICUT COURT
HAD JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE LIEN SOUGHT BY RESPONDENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  11 U.S.C. SEC. 205. 

FN2  108 F.2D 164. 

FN3  CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648,
667-675. 

FN4  INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SEC. 1(18), AS AMENDED 49 U.S.C. SEC.
1(18): 

"EXTENSION OR ABANDONMENT OF LINES; CERTIFICATE REQUIRED.   -  ...
AND NO CARRIER BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER SHALL ABANDON ALL OR
ANY PORTION OF A LINE OF RAILROAD, OR THE OPERATION THEREOF, UNLESS AND
UNTIL THERE SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSION A
CERTIFICATE THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
PERMIT OF SUCH ABANDONMENT."    FN5  CF. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAYS
RECEIVERS PROPOSED ABANDONMENT, 202 I.C.C. 543; NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO.
RECEIVERS ABANDONMENT, 221 I.C.C. 258; MECK AND MASTEN, RAILROAD LEASES
AND REORGANIZATION:  I, 49 YALE L.J. 626. 

FN6  PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79, 87, NOTE 14. 

FN7  SEC. 77(C)(6).  "IF A LEASE OF A LINE OF RAILROAD IS REJECTED,
AND IF THE LESSEE, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE, SHALL ELECT NO
LONGER TO OPERATE THE LEASED LINE, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE LESSOR
AT THE END OF A PERIOD TO BE FIXED BY THE JUDGE TO BEGIN THE OPERATION
OF SUCH LINE, UNLESS THE JUDGE, UPON THE PETITION OF THE LESSOR, SHALL
DECREE AFTER HEARING THAT IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICABLE AND CONTRARY TO THE
PUBLIC INTEREST FOR THE LESSOR TO OPERATE THE SAID LINE, IN WHICH EVENT
IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE LESSEE TO CONTINUE OPERATION ON OR FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF THE LESSOR UNTIL THE ABANDONMENT OF SUCH LINE IS AUTHORIZED
BY THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED." 

FN8  THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 309 U.S. 478; EX PARTE
BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610; CF. ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & T. CO., 282 U.S. 734;
GREEN V. FINNEGAN REALTY CO., 70 F.2D 465, 466(C.C.A.5TH); IN RE
CHAMBERS, CALDER & CO., 98 F. 865(D.R.I.). 

FN9  SEC. 77(C)(10).  "THE JUDGE MAY DIRECT THE DEBTOR OR THE TRUSTEE
OR TRUSTEES TO KEEP SUCH RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS, IN ADDITION TO THE
ACCOUNTS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION, AS WILL PERMIT OF SUCH A
SEGREGATION AND ALLOCATION, AS THE NECESSITIES OF THE CASE MAY REQUIRE,
OF THE EARNINGS AND EXPENSES BETWEEN AND TO THE DIVISIONS AND PARTS OF
THE RAILROAD OR OTHER PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR WHICH ARE SEPARATELY
SUBJECT TO THE LIENS OF THE VARIOUS MORTGAGES OR DEEDS OF TRUST, OR ARE
SEPARATELY SUBJECT TO LEASE, AND MAY REFER TO THE COMMISSION FOR ITS
RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER HEARINGS THEREON IF THE PARTIES SHALL SO REQUEST
AND/OR THE COMMISSION DETERMINE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE, AS TO THE
METHOD OR FORMULA BY WHICH SUCH SEGREGATION AND ALLOCATION SHALL BE
MADE; AND THEREAFTER SUCH SEGREGATION AND ALLOCATION MAY BE MADE AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE DEBTOR'S ESTATE."  SEE NOTE 7. 

FN10  NEW YORK DOCK CO. V. THE POZNAN, 274 U.S. 117, 120, 121. 

FN11  IBID. 

FN12  IT MAY BE NOTED THAT CONGRESS DID NOT ADOPT THE RULE OF GROSS
V. IRVING TRUST CO., 289 U.S. 342, IN THIS SITUATION.  IN THE GROSS
CASE PROPERTY OF A DEBTOR HAD BEEN IN THE CUSTODY OF A STATE
RECEIVERSHIP COURT PRIOR TO THE DEBTOR'S ADJUDICATION IN ORDINARY
BANKRUPTCY.  IT WAS HELD THAT BECAUSE OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S
PARAMOUNT JURISDICTION THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF THE RECEIVERSHIP
HAD TO BE PROVED IN BANKRUPTCY AND COULD NOT BE DECLARED A LIEN BY THE
RECEIVERSHIP COURT ON PROPERTY IN ITS CUSTODY. 

FN13  SEC. 77(E). 
..END :


















WYOMING V. COLORADO, 309 U.S. 572 


NO. 10, ORIGINAL, OCTOBER TERM, 1935.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 26, 27, 1940.  -
DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940. 


1.  THE DECREE OF THIS COURT IN THE LITIGATION BETWEEN WYOMING AND
COLORADO OVER THE LARAMIE RIVER LIMITS THE QUANTITY OF WATER WHICH
COLORADO MAY DIVERT FROM THE STREAM TO A MAXIMUM OF 39,750 ACRE FEET
PER ANNUM.  P. 576. 

2.  SO LONG AS THIS MAXIMUM IS NOT EXCEEDED, COLORADO REMAINS FREE TO
DETERMINE, BY HER LAWS AND ADJUDICATIONS, HOW THE WATER DIVERTED SHALL
BE DISTRIBUTED AND USED BY AND AMONG HER WATERUSERS.  PP. 579 ET SEQ. 

3.  THAT PORTION OF THE WATER ALLOCATED TO COLORADO WHICH WAS ALLOWED
ON THE BASIS OF THE "MEADOW LAND APPROPRIATIONS" WAS LIMITED BY THE
DECREE OF THIS COURT TO 4,250 ACRE FEET MEASURED AT THE POINT OF
DIVERSION FROM THE STREAM, THIS QUANTITY BEING DEEMED SUFFICIENT WHEN
THE WATER IS RIGHTLY AND NOT WASTEFULLY APPLIED.  P. 578. 

COLORADO'S CLAIM OF A RIGHT TO CONTINUE APPLYING MUCH LARGER
QUANTITIES TO THE MEADOWLAND IRRIGATION UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
GREATER PART OF THE WATER SO APPLIED RETURNS TO THE STREAM THROUGH
SURFACE DRAINAGE AND PERCOLATION, SO THAT THE PART ACTUALLY CONSUMED
DOES NOT EXCEED 4,250 ACRE FEET, WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN FIXING
THAT LIMIT TO THE MEADOW LAND APPROPRIATIONS. 

4.  UPON AN APPLICATION TO HAVE COLORADO ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT FOR
HAVING WITHDRAWN MORE WATER FROM THE LARAMIE RIVER THAN THE 39,750 ACRE
FEET LIMITED BY THIS COURT'S DECREE, A DEFENSE UPON THE GROUND THAT
WYOMING WAS NOT INJURED IS INADMISSIBLE.  P. 581. 

5.  COLORADO, BEING CHARGED WITH HAVING MADE EXCESSIVE WITHDRAWALS OF
WATER FROM THE LARAMIE RIVER, IN CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT'S DECREE,
ADDUCED PROOF BY AFFIDAVITS, THAT THE WITHDRAWALS, MADE THROUGH THE
MEADOWLAND DITCHES, WERE ACQUIESCED IN BY WYOMING OFFICIALS, FOR THE
REASON THAT A GREAT PORTION OF THE WATER SO DIVERTED RETURNED TO THE
RIVER TO BE USED DOWNSTREAM BY WYOMING APPROPRIATORS.  WYOMING
PRESENTED AFFIDAVITS TO THE CONTRARY.  HELD:  THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF ALL
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS THAT THERE WAS UNCERTAINTY
AND ROOM FOR MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED IN EXTENUATION;
BUT IN THE FUTURE THERE WILL BE NO GROUND FOR ANY POSSIBLE
MISAPPREHENSION BASED UPON VIEWS OF THE EFFECT OF THE MEADOWLAND
DIVERSIONS OR OTHERWISE WITH RESPECT TO THE DUTY OF COLORADO TO KEEP
HER TOTAL DIVERSIONS FROM THE LARAMIE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES WITHIN
THE LIMIT FIXED BY THE DECREE.  P. 581. 

WYOMING V. COLORADO. 

UPON A PETITION OF THE STATE OF WYOMING PRAYING THAT THE STATE OF
COLORADO BE ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT FOR HAVING DIVERTED WATER FROM THE
LARAMIE RIVER IN EXCESS OF THE QUANTITY ALLOWED BY THE DECREE OF THIS
COURT; AND UPON RETURNS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE
TO AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.  SEE POST, P. 627. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATE OF WYOMING SOUGHT LEAVE TO FILE ITS PETITION FOR A RULE
REQUIRING THE STATE OF COLORADO TO SHOW CAUSE WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE
ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATION OF THE DECREE IN THIS SUIT,
RESTRAINING DIVERSIONS OF WATER FROM THE LARAMIE RIVER.  259 U.S. 419,
496; 260 U.S. 1; 286 U.S. 494; 298 U.S. 573. 

IN RESPONSE, COLORADO ASKED THAT EVIDENCE BE TAKEN TO DETERMINE THE
AMOUNT OF RETURN FLOW TO THE LARAMIE RIVER FROM THE DIVERSIONS AT THE
HEADGATES OF MEADOWLAND DITCHES AND THAT COLORADO HAVE CREDIT
THEREFOR.  THIS MATTER HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN FRAMING ITS
DECREE (298 U.S. PP. 581, 582) AND THE MOTION WAS DENIED.  LEAVE WAS
GRANTED TO WYOMING TO FILE ITS PETITION AND COLORADO WAS DIRECTED TO
SHOW CAUSE ACCORDINGLY. 

TWO RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF COLORADO, ONE BY THE
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE SETTING FORTH HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER DIRECTING THE
WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND APPOINTING
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE STATE, AND ANOTHER RETURN BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO CHALLENGES THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNOR TO
SUPERSEDE HIM.  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE MATERIAL MATTERS PRESENTED,
WE FIND NO SUCH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO RETURNS AS TO REQUIRE US TO
DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY. 

WYOMING CHARGES THAT FROM MAY 1, 1939, TO JUNE 18, 1939, COLORADO
DIVERTED FROM THE LARAMIE RIVER 39,865.43 ACRE FEET, THAT IS, SOMEWHAT
IN EXCESS OF THE TOTAL OF 39,750 ACRE FEET ALLOCATED TO COLORADO BY OUR
DECREE; THAT THEREUPON, AND ON JUNE 19, 1939, COLORADO CLOSED THE
HEADGATES OF THE VARIOUS DITCHES INVOLVED; THAT ON JUNE 22, 1939, IN
VIOLATION OF THE DECREE, COLORADO OPENED THE HEADGATES AND PERMITTED
THE DIVERSION BETWEEN JUNE 22, 1939, AND JULY 11, 1939, OF 12,673 ACRE
FEET IN EXCESS OF THE 39,750 ACRE FEET ALLOWED; AND THAT IN PARTICULAR,
WITH RESPECT TO MEADOWLAND DITCHES, COLORADO PERMITTED THE DIVERSION
BETWEEN MAY 1, 1939, AND JULY 11, 1939, OF 24,775 ACRE FEET ABOVE THE
4250 ACRE FEET (MEASURED AT THE HEADGATES) SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED FOR THE
MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATIONS.  298 U.S. P. 586. 

IN DEFENSE, COLORADO CONTENDS THAT THE MEADOWLAND DIVERSIONS IN
EXCESS OF 4250 ACRE FEET WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLORADO LAW AND WERE
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECREE OF THIS COURT UNTIL A DIVERSION BY
COLORADO FROM THE LARAMIE RIVER FOR ALL PURPOSES REACHED THE ALLOCATED
TOTAL OF 39,750; THAT THE DIVERSION OF AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN THAT
TOTAL DURING THE PERIOD ABOVE SPECIFIED WAS WITH THE ACQUIESCENCE OF
WYOMING; AND THAT WYOMING HAS NOT BEEN INJURED. 

COLORADO PLEDGES THAT HEREAFTER ITS OFFICIALS WILL ADMINISTER THE
FLOW OF THE LARAMIE RIVER IN THAT STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLORADO
LAWS AND ADJUDICATION DECREES UNTIL A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 39,750 ACRE FEET,
MEASURED AT THE HEADGATES, HAS BEEN DIVERTED, AND, WHEN THAT TOTAL HAS
BEEN REACHED IN ANY YEAR, COLORADO CAN AND WILL CLOSE THE HEADGATES AND
KEEP THEM CLOSED DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE IRRIGATION SEASON. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE DIVERSION OF MORE THAN 4250
ACRE FEET FOR THE MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATIONS SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A
VIOLATION OF OUR DECREE, IF THE AGGREGATE DIVERSIONS IN COLORADO DO NOT
EXCEED THE TOTAL ALLOWED, COLORADO PRESENTS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THAT STATE FOR THE COUNTY OF LARAMIE, ENTERED
FEBRUARY 2, 1939, IN THE SUIT OF ADELRICK BENZIGER V. THE WATER SUPPLY
& STORAGE COMPANY, ET AL. THAT SUIT WAS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE
MEADOWLAND LAND APPROPRIATORS IN COLORADO, AND THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE
OTHER APPROPRIATORS IN THAT STATE WHOSE RESPECTIVE APPROPRIATIONS HAD
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CONSIDERATION IN THE SUIT IN THIS COURT.  OUR
RULINGS WERE EXAMINED BY THE STATE COURT WHICH CONCLUDED THAT THEY WERE
INTENDED TO, AND DID, DETERMINE ONLY THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE TWO
STATES TO DIVERT THE WATERS OF THE LARAMIE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
AND THAT IT WAS NOT OUR PURPOSE TO WITHDRAW THE APPROPRIATIONS AND
WATER CLAIMS IN COLORADO FROM THE OPERATION OF ITS LOCAL LAWS OR TO
RESTRICT THE UTILIZATION OF THE WATERS IN ANY WAY "NOT AFFECTING THE
RIGHTS OF THE STATE OF WYOMING AND HER WATER CLAIMANTS."  ACCORDINGLY
THE STATE COURT HELD THAT THE FIXING IN OUR DECREE OF THE MEADOWLAND
APPROPRIATIONS WAS INTENDED ONLY TO BEAR UPON THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF
THE STATES AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN ADJUDICATION OF THE RELATIVE
RIGHTS OF THE DECREED APPROPRIATIONS IN COLORADO; HENCE, THAT SO LONG
AS THE AGGREGATE OF THE WATER DIVERTED IN COLORADO DOES NOT EXCEED THE
TOTAL OF 39,750 ACRE FEET ACCREDITED TO THE COLORADO APPROPRIATIONS, AS
STATED, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF COLORADO.  IN THAT VIEW THE
COURT ADJUDGED THAT THE MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATORS AND THE DEFENDANT
APPROPRIATORS WERE ENTITLED TO DIVERT ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
PRIORITIES UNTIL THEY REACHED THE AMOUNT OF 39,750 ACRE FEET, AND THAT
WHEN THAT AMOUNT HAD BEEN DIVERTED "ALL HEADGATES ARE TO BE CLOSED FOR
THE BALANCE OF THE SEASON." 

A REVIEW OF OUR DECISIONS CONFIRMS THE CONSTRUCTION THUS PLACED UPON
THEM.  SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN 1911 TO PREVENT A PROPOSED DIVERSION IN
COLORADO OF THE WATERS OF THE LARAMIE RIVER, AN INTERSTATE STREAM. 
VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN, THE CASE WAS THRICE ARGUED, AND A FINAL
DECISION WAS RENDERED IN 1922.  259 U.S. 419.  AFTER AN ELABORATE
CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE REGION AND THE PRINCIPLES
APPLICABLE TO A DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES,
THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT AS BOTH STATES HAD ADOPTED THE DOCTRINE OF
APPROPRIATION, IT WAS EQUITABLE TO APPLY THAT DOCTRINE AND TO DETERMINE
THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF PRIORITY.  THE COURT
EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE FLOW OF THE STREAM, ITS
VARIATIONS, AND OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS, AND FOUND THAT THE AVAILABLE
SUPPLY - 288,000 ACRE FEET - WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE WYOMING
APPROPRIATIONS AND ALSO THE PROPOSED COLORADO APPROPRIATION.  THE COURT
FOUND THAT THERE WERE SOME EXISTING COLORADO APPROPRIATIONS ENTITLED TO
PRECEDENCE OVER MANY OF THOSE IN WYOMING.  THESE INCLUDED 18,000 ACRE
FEET FOR WHAT WAS KNOWN AS THE SKYLINE DITCH AND 4250 ACRE FEET FOR
MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATORS.  THESE WERE NOT TO BE DEDUCTED, AS THE
288,000 ACRE FEET WAS THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY AFTER THEY WERE SATISFIED. 
THE PROPOSED COLORADO APPROPRIATION WHICH WAS IN CONTROVERSY IN THE
SUIT WAS THAT KNOWN AS THE LARAMIE-POUDRE TUNNEL DIVERSION, A PART OF
AN IRRIGATION PROJECT KNOWN AS THE LARAMIE-POUDRE PROJECT.  THE
EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THE WYOMING APPROPRIATIONS HAVING PRIORITIES
SENIOR TO THE ONE IN COLORADO, AND WHICH WERE DEPENDENT ON THE
AVAILABLE SUPPLY ABOVE SPECIFIED, REQUIRED 272,500 ACRE FEET. 
DEDUCTING THAT FROM THE AVAILABLE 288,000 ACRE FEET THERE REMAINED
15,500 ACRE FEET WHICH WERE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED APPROPRIATION IN
COLORADO.  ACCORDINGLY A DECREE WAS ENTERED ENJOINING THE DEFENDANTS
FROM DIVERTING MORE THAN 15,500 ACRE FEET ANNUALLY FROM THE LARAMIE
RIVER THROUGH THE LARAMIE-POUDRE PROJECT.  THE DECREE PROVIDED THAT IT
SHOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE RIGHT OF COLORADO, OR OF ANYONE RECOGNIZED BY
HER AS ENTITLED THERETO, TO CONTINUE TO DIVERT 18,000 ACRE FEET THROUGH
THE SKYLINE DITCH AND 4250 ACRE FEET THROUGH THE MEADOWLAND
APPROPRIATIONS.  259 U.S. PP. 496, 497.  SOON AFTER, THIS DECREE WAS
MODIFIED SO AS NOT TO PREJUDICE A DIVERSION BY COLORADO FOR THE WILSON
SUPPLY DITCH (260 U.S. 1), A DIVERSION WHICH AMOUNTED TO 2000 ACRE
FEET.  298 U.S. P. 580.  IN THIS WAY THE TOTAL ALLOWED TO COLORADO
AMOUNTED TO 39,750 ACRE FEET. 

IN 1931, WYOMING BROUGHT ANOTHER SUIT IN THIS COURT, ALLEGING THAT
COLORADO WAS PERMITTING EXCESSIVE DIVERSIONS AND SEEKING THE PROTECTION
AND QUIETING OF WYOMING'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FORMER DECREE.  WYOMING
ASKED PROVISION FOR ACCURATELY MEASURING AND RECORDING THE QUANTITIES
OF WATER DIVERTED AND ALSO AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING EXCESSIVE
DIVERSIONS, IF IT WERE HELD THAT THE FORMER DECREE RELATED ONLY TO THE
DIVERSION BY THE LARAMIE-POUDRE TUNNEL APPROPRIATION.  MOTION TO
DISMISS THE BILL WAS DENIED.  WE HELD THAT THE FORMER DECREE SHOULD BE
TAKEN AS DETERMINING THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE TWO STATES, INCLUDING
THEIR RESPECTIVE CITIZENS, TO DIVERT AND USE THE WATERS OF THE LARAMIE
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES; THAT THE LIMITED INJUNCTION DID NOT WARRANT AN
INFERENCE THAT IT MARKED "THE LIMITS OF WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE
DECIDED," BUT THAT THE DECREE DID DEFINE THE QUANTITY OF WATER WHICH
COLORADO AND HER APPROPRIATORS MIGHT DIVERT "FROM THE INTERSTATE STREAM
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES AND THUS WITHHOLD FROM WYOMING AND HER
APPROPRIATORS."  286 U.S. 494, 506-508. 

FINAL HEARING WAS HAD AND THE CASE WAS DECIDED IN 1936.  298 U.S.
573.  WYOMING CONTENDED THAT WHILE THE DECREE FIXED THE AMOUNT OF THE
DIVERSIONS UNDER THE MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATIONS IN COLORADO AT 4250 ACRE
FEET, THE ACTUAL DIVERSIONS HAD RANGED FROM 36,000 TO 62,000 ACRE
FEET.  COLORADO ANSWERED THAT THE GREATER PART OF THIS WATER WAS
RETURNED TO THE STREAM THROUGH SURFACE DRAINAGE AND PERCOLATION AND
THAT THE PART ACTUALLY CONSUMED DID NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT WHICH THE
DECREE ALLOWED.  THE COURT SAID THAT THE AMOUNT OF 4250 ACRE FEET HAD
BEEN FIXED AS THE MEASURE OF THE MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATIONS BECAUSE IT
WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT FOR THAT PURPOSE "WHEN THE WATER IS RIGHTLY AND
NOT WASTEFULLY APPLIED."  THE COURT REFERRED TO THE WASTEFUL PROCESS
THAT HAD BEEN USED.  IT WAS SAID THAT WHEN WATER IS SO APPLIED A
CONSIDERABLE PORTION ULTIMATELY FINDS ITS WAY BACK INTO THE STREAM, BUT
THAT IT WAS ALSO TRUE "THAT A MATERIAL PERCENTAGE OF THE WATER IS LOST
BY EVAPORATION AND OTHER NATURAL PROCESSES AND THERE IS NO WAY OF
DETERMINING WITH EVEN APPROXIMATE CERTAINTY HOW MUCH OF THE WATER
RETURNS TO THE STREAM."  THE COURT THEN HELD THAT THE DECREE REFERRED
TO THE WATER TAKEN FROM THE STREAM "AT THE POINT OF DIVERSION, AND NOT
TO THE VARIABLE AND UNCERTAIN PART OF IT THAT IS CONSUMPTIVELY USED." 
AS IT WAS PLAINLY SHOWN THAT DIVERSIONS WERE BEING MADE UNDER THE
MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATIONS IN QUANTITIES LARGELY IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT
FIXED IN THE DECREE, AN INJUNCTION ISSUED FORBIDDING FURTHER DEPARTURES
FROM THE DECREE IN THAT REGARD.  ID., PP. 581, 582. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUEST FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING WYOMING TO
INSTALL MEASURING DEVICES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF
WATER DIVERTED IN COLORADO, THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE PROBLEM OF
MEASURING AND RECORDING THE DIVERSIONS WAS A DIFFICULT ONE AND THE HOPE
WAS EXPRESSED THAT THE TWO STATES BY COOPERATIVE EFFORTS WOULD FIND A
SATISFACTORY SOLUTION.  LEAVE WAS GRANTED TO WYOMING TO MAKE A LATER
APPLICATION IF THE STATES WERE UNABLE TO AGREE.  ID., PP. 585, 586.  IT
SEEMS THAT MEASURING DEVICES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. 

WHILE AN INJUNCTION WAS THUS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO DIVERSIONS FOR
THE MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATIONS IN EXCESS OF 4250 ACRE FEET, THIS WAS
MANIFESTLY UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT COLORADO WAS OTHERWISE USING THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF WATER ALLOCATED TO THAT STATE.  THAT IT WAS NOT
INTENDED TO RESTRICT COLORADO IN DETERMINING THE USE OF THE WATER OF
THE RIVER, ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAWS AND ADJUDICATIONS, PROVIDED THE
DIVERSIONS DID NOT EXCEED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF 39,750 ACRE FEET TO
WHICH COLORADO WAS ENTITLED, IS CLEAR FROM THE RULING UPON ANOTHER
BRANCH OF THE CASE.  IT APPEARED THAT THE DIVERSION FOR THE SKYLINE
DITCH HAD BEEN ABOVE THE AMOUNT ALLOWED THEREFOR, BUT THAT OTHER
DIVERSIONS WERE LESS, SO THAT, ELIMINATING THE EXCESSIVE MEADOWLAND
DIVERSIONS, THE AGGREGATE ALLOWANCE TO THE STATE WOULD NOT BE
EXCEEDED.  HENCE THE COURT FOUND THAT IT MUST CONSIDER COLORADO'S
CONTENTION "THAT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE DECREE, SHE LAWFULLY MAY PERMIT
DIVERSIONS UNDER ANY OF THE RECOGNIZED APPROPRIATIONS IN EXCESS OF ITS
ACCREDITED QUANTITY, SO LONG AS THE TOTAL DIVERSIONS UNDER ALL DO NOT
EXCEED THE AGGREGATE OF THE QUANTITIES ACCREDITED TO THEM SEVERALLY." 
ID., P. 583. 

THE COURT NOTED THAT IN BOTH COLORADO AND WYOMING WATER RIGHTS WERE
TRANSFERABLE AND THAT THE USE OF THE WATER MAY BE CHANGED FROM THE
IRRIGATION OF ONE TRACT TO THE IRRIGATION OF ANOTHER, IF THE CHANGE
DOES NOT INJURE OTHER APPROPRIATORS; THAT THESE RULES WERE BUT
INCIDENTAL TO THE DOCTRINE OF APPROPRIATION, PREVAILING IN BOTH STATES,
UPON WHICH THE DECREE HAD BEEN BASED.  THE COURT OBSERVED THAT IT WAS
NOT ITS PURPOSE "TO WITHDRAW WATER CLAIMS DEALT WITH THEREIN FROM THE
OPERATION OF LOCAL LAWS RELATING TO THEIR TRANSFER OR TO RESTRICT THEIR
UTILIZATION IN WAYS NOT AFFECTING THE RIGHTS OF ONE STATE AND HER
CLAIMANTS AS AGAINST THE OTHER STATE AND HER CLAIMANTS."  IT WAS FOUND
THAT THE DIVERSIONS THROUGH THE TRANSMOUNTAIN DITCHES HAD BEEN MADE
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OWNERS OF THE WATER RIGHTS AND WITH THE FULL
SANCTION OF COLORADO, AND HENCE THE SITUATION WAS NOT DIFFERENT FROM
WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE OWNERS OF OTHER CLAIMS HAD FORMALLY
TRANSFERRED PARTS OF THEIR WATER RIGHTS TO THE SKYLINE OWNERS.  THE
COURT SAID:  "BUT THE SKYLINE OWNERS ARE NOW PERMITTED BY THE OWNERS OF
THE OTHER CLAIMS AND BY COLORADO TO TAKE AND USE PART OF THE WATERS
INCLUDED IN THOSE CLAIMS.  WYOMING AND HER CLAIMANTS ARE IN NO WAY
INJURED BY THIS.  NO DEPARTURE FROM THE DECREE IS INVOLVED.  THE THING
WHICH THE DECREE RECOGNIZES AND CONFIRMS IS 'THE RIGHT OF THE STATE OF
COLORADO, OR OF ANYONE RECOGNIZED BY HER AS DULY ENTITLED THERETO,  ...
TO DIVERT AND TAKE' THE WATER INCLUDED IN THE DESIGNATED
APPROPRIATIONS."  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN
THE SKYLINE DITCH DIVERSIONS DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN INFRACTION OF THE
DECREE.  ID., PP. 584, 585. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF THIS RULING, AS APPLIED TO THE
TRANSMOUNTAIN APPROPRIATIONS WHICH DIVERTED THE WATER OF THE LARAMIE
RIVER TO ANOTHER WATERSHED, WOULD CERTAINLY ALSO APPLY TO THE
MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE SAME WATERSHED, WHERE PART OF THE
WATER DIVERTED MAY FIND ITS WAY BACK TO THE STREAM.  THE LIMITATION OF
THE MEADOWLAND APPROPRIATIONS TO 4250 ACRE FEET WAS TO KEEP THE
DIVERSIONS IN COLORADO WITHIN THE AMOUNT ALLOWED TO THAT STATE, NOT TO
PREVENT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WATER THUS ALLOWED, ACCORDING TO
COLORADO LAWS, WHERE THERE WAS NO INFRACTION OF THE RIGHTS OF WYOMING
AND HER WATER CLAIMANTS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DECREE IS NOT VIOLATED IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL SENSE
SO LONG AS COLORADO DOES NOT DIVERT FROM THE LARAMIE RIVER AND ITS
TRIBUTARIES MORE THAN 39,750 ACRE FEET PER ANNUM. 

IN 1939, HOWEVER, COLORADO DIVERTED MORE THAN THAT TOTAL AMOUNT. 
APPARENTLY NO QUESTION HAD BEEN RAISED BY WYOMING AS TO THE DIVERSIONS
IN 1937 AND 1938.  IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT WHEN THE DIVERSIONS IN 1939
REACHED 39,865.43 ACRE FEET ON JUNE 19TH, COLORADO CLOSED THE HEADGATES
OF THE VARIOUS APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THAT STATE.  BUT WYOMING ALLEGES
THAT COLORADO WRONGFULLY PERMITTED THE HEADGATES TO BE REOPENED ON JUNE
22D AND TO REMAIN OPEN UNTIL JULY 11TH, THUS PERMITTING THE DIVERSION
OF 12,673 ACRE FEET IN EXCESS OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT ALLOWED TO
COLORADO, DESPITE WYOMING'S PROTEST.  THAT THERE WAS THIS EXCESSIVE
DIVERSION IS NOT CONTROVERTED. 

COLORADO INSISTS THAT WYOMING HAS NOT BEEN INJURED.  BUT SUCH A
DEFENSE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE.  AFTER GREAT CONSIDERATION, THIS COURT FIXED
THE AMOUNT OF WATER FROM THE LARAMIE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES TO WHICH
COLORADO WAS ENTITLED.  COLORADO IS BOUND BY THE DECREE NOT TO PERMIT A
GREATER WITHDRAWAL AND, IF SHE DOES SO, SHE VIOLATES THE DECREE AND IS
NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE ANY QUESTION AS TO INJURY TO WYOMING WHEN THE
LATTER INSISTS UPON HER ADJUDICATED RIGHTS.  IF NOTHING FURTHER WERE
SHOWN, IT WOULD BE OUR DUTY TO GRANT THE PETITION OF WYOMING AND TO
ADJUDGE COLORADO IN CONTEMPT FOR HER VIOLATION OF THE DECREE. 

BUT COLORADO INSISTS THAT THE DIVERSION OF MORE THAN THE ALLOCATED
TOTAL DURING THE SEASON OF 1939 WAS WITH WYOMING'S ACQUIESCENCE.  THAT
IS THE SOLE AVAILABLE DEFENSE.  TO SUPPORT IT, COLORADO HAS PRESENTED
AFFIDAVITS SHOWING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AN ASSOCIATION OF MEADOWLAND
APPROPRIATORS AND THE SPECIAL HYDROGRAPHER OF WYOMING AND ALSO STATING
THAT AT A CONFERENCE IN THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF COLORADO ON JULY
1, 1939, THE OFFICERS OF WYOMING SAID THAT THEY HAD NO OBJECTION TO
CONTINUED DIVERSIONS BEING MADE THROUGH THE MEADOWLAND DITCHES FOR THE
REASON THAT A GREAT PORTION OF THE WATER SO DIVERTED RETURNED TO THE
LARAMIE RIVER TO BE USED DOWNSTREAM BY WYOMING APPROPRIATORS.  WYOMING
PRESENTS AFFIDAVITS TO THE CONTRARY, SETTING FORTH HER DEMANDS.  IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO REVIEW IN DETAIL THE POINTS IN CONTROVERSY.  IN THE
LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE THINK IT SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS THAT
THERE WAS A PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY AND ROOM FOR MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH
MAY BE CONSIDERED IN EXTENUATION.  IN THE FUTURE THERE WILL BE NO
GROUND FOR ANY POSSIBLE MISAPPREHENSION BASED UPON VIEWS OF THE EFFECT
OF THE MEADOWLAND DIVERSIONS OR OTHERWISE WITH RESPECT TO THE DUTY OF
COLORADO TO KEEP HER TOTAL DIVERSIONS FROM THE LARAMIE RIVER AND ITS
TRIBUTARIES WITHIN THE LIMIT FIXED BY THE DECREE. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED, THE PETITION OF WYOMING IS DENIED, THE COSTS
TO BE EQUALLY DIVIDED.  PETITION DENIED. 
..END :







WESTERN UNION CO. V. NESTER, 309 U.S. 582 


NO. 597.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 106 F.2D
587, REVERSED. 


A TELEGRAPH COMPANY UNDERTOOK TO TRANSMIT A MONEY ORDER, THE CONTRACT
PROVIDING THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR DELAY OR NON
PAYMENT, THOUGH DUE TO NEGLIGENCE, "BEYOND THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS, AT WHICH AMOUNT THE RIGHT TO HAVE THIS MONEY ORDER PROMPTLY
AND CORRECTLY TRANSMITTED AND PROMPTLY AND FULLY PAID IS HEREBY
VALUED."  HELD, THAT THE SUM SPECIFIED WAS NOT INTENDED TO PRESCRIBE A
DEFINITE LIABILITY (LIQUIDATED DAMAGES), BUT IS A LIMITATION UPON THE
MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE RECOVERY FOR ACTUAL LOSS OR DAMAGE PROPERLY ALLEGED
AND SHOWN BY EVIDENCE.  P. 587. 

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. NESTER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 643, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST A TELEGRAPH COMPANY IN AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF A MONEY ORDER
CONTRACT.  25 F.SUPP.  478. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, NESTER AND CHARLES, ARE PARTNERS IN MINING OPERATIONS
NEAR ARAMECINA, REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS.  SEPTEMBER 1, 1937, AT LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, PETITIONER, THE TELEGRAPH COMPANY, IN THE ORDINARY
COURSE OF BUSINESS, RECEIVED FROM NESTER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS
FOR TRANSMISSION BY UNREPEATED MESSAGE AND DELIVERY TO CHARLES AT
ARAMECINA.  IT FAILED SO TO DO. 

IN A "COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF DUTY" FILED AGAINST
PETITIONER IN THE DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA,
RESPONDENTS CLAIMED THE FAILURE TO DELIVER RESULTED FROM GROSS
NEGLIGENCE AND THAT AS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE THEY SUFFERED SPECIFIED
LOSSES AMOUNTING TO $7,600.  FOR THAT SUM THEY ASKED JUDGMENT. 

PETITIONER DENIED LIABILITY AND AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ALLEGED - 

"THE MONEY ORDER REFERRED TO IN THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WAS
DELIVERED TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEFENDANTS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE
STANDARD MONEY ORDER CONTRACT OF THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A
COPY OF WHICH IS HERETO ANNEXED." 

IT IS NOT NOW DENIED THAT THIS STANDARD FORM HAD BEEN DULY FILED WITH
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND WAS TREATED BY THE PARTIES AS
A STATEMENT OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM.  CERTAIN OF THE CONDITIONS
CONTAINED THEREIN ARE PRINTED BELOW.  FN1 

THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION HERE ARISES OUT OF THE FOLLOWING
CONDITION - 

"IN ANY EVENT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR DELAY,
NON-PAYMENT OR UNDERPAYMENT OF THIS MONEY ORDER, WHETHER BY REASON OF
NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF ITS AGENTS OR SERVANTS OR OTHERWISE, BEYOND
THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, AT WHICH AMOUNT THE RIGHT TO HAVE THIS
MONEY ORDER PROMPTLY AND CORRECTLY TRANSMITTED AND PROMPTLY AND FULLY
PAID IS HEREBY VALUED, UNLESS A GREATER VALUE IS STATED IN WRITING ON
THE FACE OF THIS APPLICATION AND AN ADDITIONAL SUM PAID OR AGREED TO BE
PAID BASED ON SUCH VALUE EQUAL TO ONE-TENTH OF ONE PER CENT THEREOF." 

THE CAUSE WAS TRIED BY THE COURT WITHOUT A JURY UPON THE PLEADINGS
AND EVIDENCE.  IT FOUND AS MATTER OF FACT 

"THAT IT IS NOT TRUE THAT BY REASON OF THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT,
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, TO TRANSMIT AND TO DELIVER AND TO PAY
PROMPTLY SAID MONEY ORDER AS AFORESAID, THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFERED
DAMAGES IN THE SUM OF SEVENTY-SIX HUNDRED ($7,600.00) DOLLARS; THE
COURT FINDS, HOWEVER, THAT BY REASON OF SUCH FAILURE, THE PLAINTIFFS
HAVE SUFFERED AND SUSTAINED DAMAGES, LOSS AND INJURY IN THE SUM OF FIVE
HUNDRED ($500.00) DOLLARS." 

EVIDENTLY IT WAS NOT INTENDED BY THIS FINDING TO DECLARE ACTUAL
DAMAGES HAD BEEN SHOWN, AS RESPONDENTS' COUNSEL SUGGEST.  AFTER
POINTING OUT THE LACK OF ANY EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL LOSS RESULTING FROM THE
ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT'S OPINION ASSERTS - "SO THAT, ASSUMING
THAT THE ACTION IS IN TORT, THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL PROOF OF ANY OF THE
SPECIAL DAMAGES CLAIMED.  HOWEVER, THE PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT WITHOUT
REDRESS." 

THE COURT FOUND AS MATTER OF LAW "THAT THE CONDITION ON THE
APPLICATION FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF THE MONEY ORDER FILED BY THE
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION LIMITING ITS LIABILITIES TO FIVE HUNDRED ($500) DOLLARS IS A
VALID UNDERTAKING.  THAT PAUL NESTER AND JUAN CHARLES, CO-PARTNERS
PLAINTIFF ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($500.00) AGAINST THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY  ...  WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THEIR RIGHT TO SUE FOR AND RECOVER THE ONE HUNDRED AND
FIFTY ($150) DOLLARS" ACCEPTED FOR TRANSMISSION. 

THE CONDITION RELATIVE TO LIABILITY FOR $500.00, QUOTED ABOVE, WAS
CONSTRUED BY THE TRIAL COURT AS "A PROVISION FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES,
WHICH ENTITLED THE SENDER TO RECOVERY OF THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF OR WITHOUT ANY OFFER OF
PROOF."  AND IT SAID, "HENCE ALTHOUGH WE ARE UNABLE TO AWARD TO THE
PLAINTIFFS THE SPECIAL DAMAGES THEY ASK, THEY ARE ENTITLED, UNDER THE
FACTS ALLEGED AND PROVED, TO THE SUM STIPULATED AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
IN THE CONTRACT.  ...  HERE THE PLAINTIFFS, UNDER THE FACTS ALLEGED IN
THE COMPLAINT AND PROVED AT THE TRIAL, HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES ENTITLED
TO RECOVERY, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE UNABLE TO PROVE THE DAMAGES THEY
SOUGHT."  25 F.SUPP.  478. 

THE JUDGMENT AGAINST PETITIONER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  106 F.2D 587.  THE OPINION THERE DECLARES - 

"APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE PROVISION IN THE MONEY ORDER BLANK WAS A
PART OF THE TARIFF FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND
AS SUCH LIMITED THE DAMAGES RECOVERABLE TO THE ACTUAL DAMAGE, NOT
EXCEEDING $500, AND THAT WITHOUT ACTUAL DAMAGE THERE COULD BE NO
RECOVERY.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS ONE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE
PROVISION, NOT OF VALIDITY THEREOF." 

ALSO - "HERE, THE PROVISION IN QUESTION HAS A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
CLAUSE - 'THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES  ...  BEYOND THE
SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS.'  THE PROVISION ALSO CONTAINED A CLAUSE BY
WHICH IT WAS AGREED THAT 'THE RIGHT TO HAVE THIS MONEY ORDER PROMPTLY
AND CORRECTLY TRANSMITTED AND PROMPTLY AND FULLY PAID IS HEREBY VALUED'
AT $500.  ALTHOUGH APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE CLAUSE MEANS THAT SUCH
RIGHT IS VALUED AT NOT 'BEYOND THE SUM OF' $500, THE CLAUSE DOES NOT SO
STATE.  IT STATES THAT SUCH RIGHT IS VALUED AT $500." 

"WHEN NESTER DELIVERED THE $150 TO APPELLANT, HE HAD THE RIGHT TO
HAVE THE MONEY TRANSMITTED WITHOUT UNREASONABLE DELAY (WESTERN U.
TELEG.  CO. V. CROVO, 220 U.S. 354) AND DELIVERED TO CHARLES.  MOORE V.
NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE, 270 U.S. 593.  BECAUSE OF APPELLANT'S ACTS,
THAT RIGHT WAS DESTROYED, AND NESTER IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER ITS VALUE,
WHICH THE PARTIES AGREED WAS $500." 

BY ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI THE TELEGRAPH COMPANY PRESENTS A
SINGLE QUESTION - "DOES THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY PROVISION IN
PETITIONER'S MONEY ORDER TARIFF - WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS
THAT IN ITS TELEGRAPH TARIFF - CONSTITUTE A LIQUIDATED DAMAGE PROVISION
WHICH WOULD AUTOMATICALLY MAKE PETITIONER LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN THE
FIXED SUM OF $500, IN CASE OF DEFAULT IN SERVICE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
OR NOT THE SENDER HAD SUSTAINED ANY ACTUAL DAMAGE, OR IS THE PROVISION
RATHER ONE WHICH FIXES A MAXIMUM LIMIT WITHIN WHICH DAMAGES MAY BE
PROVED?" 

WE THINK THE PROVISION IN QUESTION WAS NOT INTENDED TO PRESCRIBE A
DEFINITE LIABILITY (LIQUIDATED DAMAGES), BUT IS A LIMITATION UPON THE
MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE RECOVERY FOR ACTUAL LOSS OR DAMAGE PROPERLY ALLEGED
AND SHOWN BY EVIDENCE.  THE COURTS BELOW ERRED IN RULING OTHERWISE. 

CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN RULED IN WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V.
ESTEVE BROS. & CO. (1921), 256 U.S. 566; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V.
CZIZEK (1924), 264 U.S. 281; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. PRIESTER
(1928), 276 U.S. 252, THE VALIDITY OF THE CONDITION BEFORE US IS NOT
OPEN TO SERIOUS DOUBT; AND VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY AND
EVIDENT PURPOSE IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AS IMPOSING A LIMITATION UPON
THE AMOUNT WHICH MAY BE RECOVERED.  SEE, UNREPEATED MESSAGE CASE, 44
I.C.C. 670, 675, AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY IN TRANSMITTING
TELEGRAMS, 61 I.C.C. 541, 550. 

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONDITION APPROVED BELOW WOULD PERMIT A
RECOVERY OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SUM DEPOSITED FOR
TRANSMISSION AND WITHOUT REQUIRING THE SENDER TO SHOW ANY LOSS
WHATSOEVER.  A MERE FAILURE TO TRANSMIT A SMALL SUM DEPOSITED WITH THE
COMPANY MIGHT IMPOSE A HEAVY AND UTTERLY UNREASONABLE BURDEN UPON THE
COMMON CARRIER ALTHOUGH THE PATRON HAD SUFFERED NO LOSS.  THIS DOES NOT
HARMONIZE WITH THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO IMPOSE JUST AND
REASONABLE RATES. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED HAS BEEN RULED UPON BY TWO
INTERMEDIATE COURTS.  MIAZZA V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. (1935), 50
GA. APP. 521; 178 S.E. 764; AND WERNICK V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
(1937), 290 ILL. APP. 569, 573-574; 9 N.E.2D 72, 74.  IN THE FIRST THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO A COMPLAINT WHICH
DEFINITELY SOUGHT TO RECOVER FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
FOR FAILURE PROPERLY TO TRANSMIT A MESSAGE.  THE OPINION IN THE SECOND
CAUSE WELL SAID - 

"ALTHOUGH THIS PARTICULAR CLAUSE HAS BEEN A PART OF THE RULES,
REGULATIONS, CLASSIFICATIONS AND TARIFFS OF THE TELEGRAPH COMPANY SINCE
1921, IT HAS NEVER BEEN INTERPRETED AS A LIQUIDATED DAMAGE PROVISION,
AND NO CASES ARE CITED WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY SUCH AN INTERPRETATION. 
READING THE AGREEMENT AS A WHOLE, AS IT MUST BE READ UNDER THE
FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE
HISTORICAL REASONS FOR CHANGING THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
TELEGRAPH COMPANIES AND THEIR PATRONS THROUGH FEDERAL LEGISLATION, AND
THE EFFECT THEREOF AS STATED BY THE COURT IN WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH
CO. V. ESTEVE BROS. & CO. AND THE PRIESTER CASE, SUPRA, WE THINK THE
COURT WAS UNWARRANTED IN INTERPRETING THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED AS A
LIQUIDATED DAMAGE CLAUSE.  IN SO DOING, IT EVIDENTLY FAILED TO CONSIDER
THE INTENT, PURPOSE AND MEANING OF THE ENTIRE CLAUSE, AND CONSIDERED
ONLY THE WORDS 'AT WHICH AMOUNT THE RIGHT  ...  IS HEREBY VALUED.'  THE
FAIR INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION AS A WHOLE MUST NECESSARILY GIVE
EFFECT TO THE PLAINLY EXPRESSED CLAUSES WHICH PRECEDE AND FOLLOW THE SO
CALLED LIQUIDATED DAMAGE PROVISION, STATING THAT 'IN ANY EVENT, THE
COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR DELAY, NONPAYMENT OR
UNDERPAYMENT OF THIS MONEY ORDER, WHETHER BY REASON OF NEGLIGENCE ON
THE PART OF ITS AGENTS, SERVANTS, OR OTHERWISE, BEYOND THE SUM OF $500
...  , UNLESS A GREATER VALUE IS STATED IN WRITING ON THE FACE OF THIS
APPLICATION AND AN ADDITIONAL SUM PAID OR AGREED TO BE PAID, BASED ON
SUCH VALUE, EQUAL TO ONE-TENTH OF 1 PER CENT THEREOF.'  THE PROVISION,
WHEN READ IN ITS ENTIRETY, WAS CLEARLY INTENDED TO FIX, NOT A DEFINITE
LIABILITY, BUT A MAXIMUM LIABILITY OR AGREED VALUATION UPON WHICH THE
RATE TO BE PAID FOR THE SHIPMENT OR CARRIAGE IS TO BE COLLECTED." 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED.  THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN HARMONY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "MONEY ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 

"DOMESTIC ORDERS WILL BE CANCELED AND REFUND MADE TO THE SENDER IF
PAYMENT CANNOT BE EFFECTED WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER RECEIPT AT PAYING
OFFICE (ELLIS ISLAND, N.Y., EXCEPTED).  ORDERS PAYABLE AT ELLIS ISLAND
WILL BE CANCELED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF FIVE DAYS. 

"IN THE CASE OF A FOREIGN ORDER THE FOREIGN EQUIVALENT OF THE SUM
NAMED IN THE ORDER WILL BE PAID AT THE RATE OF EXCHANGE ESTABLISHED BY
THE COMPANY OR ITS AGENTS ON THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER. 

"IN THE CASE OF A FOREIGN ORDER THE EQUIVALENT, IN THE CURRENCY OF
THE COUNTRY OF PAYMENT, OF THE SUM NAMED WILL BE PURCHASED PROMPTLY;
AND IF FOR ANY REASON PAYMENT CANNOT BE EFFECTED, REFUND WILL BE MADE
BY THE COMPANY AND WILL BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPOSITOR ON THE BASIS OF
THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH FOREIGN CURRENCY IN AMERICAN FUNDS, AT NEW
YORK, ON THE DATE WHEN NOTICE OF CANCELATION IS RECEIVED THERE BY THE
COMPANY FROM ABROAD. 

"WHEN THE COMPANY HAS NO OFFICE AT DESTINATION AUTHORIZED TO PAY
MONEY, IT SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DEFAULT BEYOND ITS OWN LINES, BUT
SHALL BE THE AGENT OF THE SENDER, WITHOUT LIABILITY, AND WITHOUT
FURTHER NOTICE, TO CONTRACT ON THE SENDER'S BEHALF WITH ANY OTHER
TELEGRAPH OR CABLE LINE, BANK OR OTHER MEDIUM, FOR THE FURTHER
TRANSMISSION AND FINAL PAYMENT OF THIS ORDER. 

"IN ANY EVENT, THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR DELAY,
NONPAYMENT OR UNDERPAYMENT OF THIS MONEY ORDER, WHETHER BY REASON OF
NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF ITS AGENTS OR SERVANTS OR OTHERWISE, BEYOND
THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, AT WHICH AMOUNT THE RIGHT TO HAVE THIS
MONEY ORDER PROMPTLY AND CORRECTLY TRANSMITTED AND PROMPTLY AND FULLY
PAID IS HEREBY VALUED, UNLESS A GREATER VALUE IS STATED IN WRITING ON
THE FACE OF THIS APPLICATION AND AN ADDITIONAL SUM PAID OR AGREED TO BE
PAID BASED ON SUCH VALUE EQUAL TO ONE-TENTH OF ONE PER CENT THEREOF. 

"IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMPANY ACCEPTS A CHECK, DRAFT OR OTHER
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT TENDERED IN PAYMENT OF A MONEY ORDER, ITS
OBLIGATION TO EFFECT PAYMENT OF THE MONEY ORDER, SHALL BE CONDITIONAL
AND SHALL CEASE AND DETERMINE IN CASE SUCH CHECK, DRAFT OR OTHER
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT SHALL FOR ANY REASON BECOME UNCOLLECTIBLE, AND IN
ANY EVENT THE SENDER OF THIS MONEY ORDER HEREBY AGREES TO HOLD THE
TELEGRAPH COMPANY HARMLESS FROM ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE INCURRED BY REASON
OR ON ACCOUNT OF ITS HAVING SO ACCEPTED ANY CHECK, DRAFT OR NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT TENDERED IN PAYMENT OF THIS ORDER. 

"ALL MESSAGES INCLUDED IN MONEY ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
TERMS:  ... 

"THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR MISTAKES OR DELAYS IN THE
TRANSMISSION OR DELIVERY, OR FOR NON-DELIVERY, OF ANY MESSAGE RECEIVED
FOR TRANSMISSION AT THE UNREPEATED-MESSAGE RATE BEYOND THE SUM OF FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS; NOR FOR MISTAKES OR DELAYS IN THE TRANSMISSION OR
DELIVERY, OR FOR NON-DELIVERY, OF ANY MESSAGE RECEIVED FOR TRANSMISSION
AT THE REPEATED-MESSAGE RATE BEYOND THE SUM OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS,
UNLESS SPECIALLY VALUED; NOR IN ANY CASE FOR DELAYS ARISING FROM
UNAVOIDABLE INTERRUPTION IN THE WORKING OF ITS LINES; NOR FOR ERRORS IN
CIPHER OR OBSCURE MESSAGES." 
..END :











YONKERS V. DOWNEY, 309 U.S. 590 


NO. 542.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 29, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940 - 106 F.2D
69, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO LOWER COURTS ACCEPTED HERE, TO THE
EFFECT THAT WITHDRAWALS OF DEPOSITS FROM A NATIONAL BANK WERE MADE WHEN
THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE BANK WOULD BE UNABLE TO REPAY ITS
DEPOSITORS IN DUE COURSE, AND WITH INTENT TO PREFER.  P. 595. 

2.  NATIONAL BANKS HAVE NO IMPLIED POWER TO PLEDGE ASSETS AS SECURITY
FOR DEPOSITS.  P. 595. 

3. RESCISSION BY A NATIONAL BANK OF AN UNAUTHORIZED PLEDGE SECURING
DEPOSITS IS NOT CONDITIONED UPON RETURN OF THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED.  P.
595. 

4.  THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1930, PERMITS NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS
TO GIVE SECURITY FOR DEPOSITS OF PUBLIC MONEY OF A STATE OR ANY
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF "OF THE SAME KIND AS IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW
OF THE STATE IN WHICH SUCH AN ASSOCIATION IS LOCATED IN THE CASE OF
OTHER BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE."  HELD, THAT SUCH PLEDGES ARE
NOT "AUTHORIZED" BY THE LAW OF A STATE (NEW YORK) WHICH FORBIDS THEM AS
ULTRA VIRES, THOUGH IT CONDITIONS RESCISSION UPON REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS
MADE IN RELIANCE UPON THEM.  P. 597. 

YONKERS V. DOWNEY, RECEIVER.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 543, CONDON, MAYOR, ET AL. V. DOWNEY, RECEIVER;
NO. 544, CONDON, MAYOR, ET AL. V. DOWNEY, RECEIVER; AND NO. 545,
YONKERS, TRUSTEE, V. DOWNEY, RECEIVER, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 308
U.S. 547, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CETIORARI, 308 U.S. 547, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF RECOVERIES BY A
RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK OF DEPOSITS WITHDRAWN FROM IT WHILE
INSOLVENT.  THE CASE WAS TRIED TO THE COURT WITHOUT A JURY.  23
F.SUPP.  1018. 

EVEN THOUGH THE BANK WAS INSOLVENT, THE CITY WAS ENTITLED TO HOLD THE
SECURITY UNTIL PAYMENT OF ITS DEPOSITS IN FULL.  SINCE THAT IS JUST
WHAT THE CITY DID, THE DEPOSITS CAN NOT BE RECOVERED FROM IT. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF A FEDERAL STATUTE ON THE EFFECT OF AN ULTRA VIRES
PLEDGE BY A NATIONAL BANK, THAT EFFECT WOULD BE ASCERTAINED BY APPLYING
THE RULE THAT QUESTIONS OF ULTRA VIRES ARE GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF
INCORPORATION AND QUESTIONS OF THE EFFECT OF THE ULTRA VIRES ACTS, BY
THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE ACTS ARE DONE.  RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW
OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 166, SUBDIVISION C. OF THE COMMENT. 

THE EFFECT OF THE SILENCE OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT ON THE SUBJECT
WOULD BE, THEREFORE, THAT NATIONAL BANKS AND STATE BANKS WOULD COMPETE
ON AN EQUAL FOOTING IN SO FAR AS THE EFFECT OF ULTRA VIRES ACTS WAS
CONCERNED.  THE PRESCRIBING OF A SPECIAL STATUTORY RULE FOR THE
NATIONAL BANKS WOULD BE A DEPARTURE FROM THE TRADITIONAL CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY TOWARD PLACING THE NATIONAL BANKS ON EQUALITY WITH THE STATE
BANKS.  LEWIS V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 292 U.S. 559, 564. 

THE STATE LAW ALWAYS GOVERNS THE TRANSACTIONS OF NATIONAL BANKS
EXCEPT WHERE IN CONFLICT WITH SOME PARAMOUNT FEDERAL LAW.  NATIONAL
BANK V. COMMONWEALTH, 9 WALL.  353, 362; LEWIS V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT
CO., 292 U.S. 559, 564.  THUS, IF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT IS TO OVERRIDE
THE LAW OF NEW YORK AS TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ULTRA VIRES PLEDGE, IT
MUST NOT ONLY INDICATE A GENERAL POLICY OF CONGRESS THAT AN ULTRA VIRES
ACT OF A NATIONAL BANK SHALL BE WITHOUT FORCE OR EFFECT BUT ALSO
INDICATE THAT CONGRESS HAS ACTUALLY SUPPLANTED THE STATE LAW ON THE
SUBJECT.  NOTHING IN THE NATIONAL BANK ACT INDICATES EITHER OF THOSE
THINGS.  THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ULTRA VIRES ACT OF A
NATIONAL BANK ARE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE IT OCCURS. 
SECURITY NATIONAL BANK V. ST. CROIX POWER CO., 117 WIS. 211. 

THE LIEN ON THE SECURITY AROSE WHEN THE SECURITY WAS TAKEN, LONG
BEFORE INSOLVENCY, AND SUCH A LIEN, ALTHOUGH CREATED BY STATE LAW, IS
EFFECTIVE AS APPLIED TO NATIONAL BANKS.  SCOTT V. ARMSTRONG, 146 U.S.
499, 510. 

THE NEW YORK LAW AS TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEDGE WAS
INCORPORATED IN THE NATIONAL BANK ACT BY REFERENCE IN THE ACT OF JUNE
25, 1930. 

CORPORATIONS HAVE POWER TO PERFORM CERTAIN ACTS WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF
THEIR POWERS.  FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MOTT IRON WORKS, 258 U.S. 240;
PULLMAN'S PALACE-CAR CO. V. CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO., 171 U.S. 138;
STATE BANK OF COMMERCE V. STONE, 261 N.Y. 175.  IN OTHER WORDS, A
CORPORATION HAS DE FACTO POWERS TO ACCEPT THE LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS
THRUST UPON IT BY THE LOCAL LAW AS CONSEQUENCES OF THE ATTEMPTED
EXERCISE OF DISAPPROVED POWERS.  EVERY TIME A COURT OF THE STATE OF
INCORPORATION HOLDS A CORPORATION FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ULTRA
VIRES ACT, IT HOLDS THAT THE CORPORATION IS "AUTHORIZED" TO ACCEPT
THEM.  THE COURT BELOW WAS WRONG IN LIMITING THE EXPRESSION "AUTHORIZED
SECURITY" TO SECURITY AUTHORIZED DE JURE. 

ANY HESITATION THAT ONE MAY HAVE ABOUT APPLYING THE WORD "AUTHORIZED"
TO DE FACTO POWERS OF A CORPORATION ARISES FROM OUR HABITUAL
ASSOCIATION OF AUTHORIZATION WITH THE LEGISLATURE.  SINCE THESE POWERS
TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF ULTRA VIRES ACTS ARE USUALLY GIVEN BY
JUDICIAL DECISION, THEY DO NOT GENERALLY FIT INTO THE CLASS OF POWERS
AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE.  HERE, HOWEVER, BY HYPOTHESIS, CONGRESS
HAS TREATED THESE POWERS TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF ULTRA VIRES ACTS
AS THE SUBJECT OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION SO THAT THE WORD "AUTHORIZED" IS A
NATURAL ONE FOR CONGRESS TO APPLY TO THEM. 

THE DEPOSITS PAID OUT UPON CHECKS OF THE CITY BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER
TOOK OVER THE BANK CAN NOT BE RECOVERED BY THE RECEIVER EVEN IF THE
SECURITY IS UNENFORCEABLE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY THESE COMPANION SUITS, BEGUN DURING 1936, THE RECEIVER OF THE
FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF YONKERS ("THE BANK"), SEEKS TO
RECOVER FIFTY PER CENTUM OF DEPOSITS WITHDRAWN BY PETITIONERS FROM THE
ASSOCIATION WHILE INSOLVENT.  THUS, IT IS SAID, THEY OBTAINED UNLAWFUL
PREFERENCES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT.  FN1  FROM
CORPORATE ASSETS, GENERAL CREDITORS HAVE BEEN PAID DIVIDENDS AMOUNTING
TO FIFTY PER CENTUM OF THEIR CLAIMS - FORTY, DECEMBER, 1933; TEN,
NOVEMBER, 1937. 

THE BANK WAS LOCATED IN NEW YORK.  IN EACH CAUSE THE POINTS OF LAW
AND FACT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE.  IT WILL SUFFICE TO CONSIDER THEM AS
PRESENTED BY THE RECORD IN NO. 542. 

PETITIONER'S DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK, MARCH 4, 1933, AMOUNTED TO
$277,000.  TO SECURE THIS AND OTHER SMALLER PUBLIC ONES, BONDS OF THE
ASSOCIATION TOTALLING $535,000 WERE IN PLEDGE. 

THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK PROCLAIMED SATURDAY, MARCH 4TH AND MONDAY,
MARCH 6TH, 1933, BANK HOLIDAYS.  LATER THE PRESIDENT AND THE GOVERNOR
EXTENDED SUCH HOLIDAYS THROUGH MARCH 9TH.  THE BANK WAS NOT OPENED FOR
UNRESTRICTED BUSINESS AFTER MARCH 3RD.  A CONSERVATOR, APPOINTED MARCH
20TH, REMAINED IN CONTROL UNTIL JANUARY 23, 1934, WHEN A RECEIVER TOOK
CHARGE. 

BETWEEN MARCH 9TH AND 20TH, 1933, PETITIONER WITHDREW DEPOSITS
AMOUNTING TO $89,000; BETWEEN MARCH 20TH AND 28TH, $67,000.  ON THE
LATTER DAY, UNDER DIRECTION OF THE CONSERVATOR, PETITIONER'S REMAINING
DEPOSITS WERE PAID AND THE BANK RETOOK THE PLEDGED BONDS. 

A JURY HAVING BEEN WAIVED THE CAUSE WAS TRIED TO THE COURT UPON
PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE.  AMONG OTHER THINGS IT FOUND - 

THE PLEDGE OF ASSETS BY THE BANK TO SECURE THE DEPOSITS WAS ULTRA
VIRES AND UNLAWFUL. 

THE BANK WAS INSOLVENT MARCH 6TH, 1933, AND AS OF THAT DAY THE RIGHTS
OF CREDITORS BECAME FIXED. 

THE PAYMENTS OF DEPOSITS TO PETITIONER WERE NOT ALLOWED BY ANY
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION OR EXECUTIVE ORDER.  THEY WERE MADE
VOLUNTARILY UNDER MISTAKE OF LAW BY AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES AND
ARE RECOVERABLE.  ALSO THEY WERE MADE WITH INTENT TO GIVE PETITIONER
PREFERENCE OVER OTHER CREDITORS. 

NO STATUTE OF NEW YORK CONFERS UPON STATE BANKS GENERAL POWER TO
PLEDGE ASSETS TO SECURE DEPOSITS.  THEY HAVE NO SUCH POWER UNDER THE
COMMON LAW OF NEW YORK. 

JUDGMENT WENT FOR THE RECEIVER FOR FIFTY PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNTS
WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER AFTER MARCH 9, 1933, WITH INTEREST, ETC. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THIS ACTION.  106 F.2D 69.  IT
HELD ALL WITHDRAWALS AFTER MARCH 9TH OCCURRED WHEN THE FACTS INDICATED
THE BANK WOULD BE UNABLE TO PAY DEPOSITORS IN DUE COURSE AND THAT
ADEQUATE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF AN INTENT TO
PREFER.  WE FIND NO REASON TO DISREGARD THESE FINDINGS BY TWO COURTS
AND ACCEPT THEM AS CORRECT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FURTHER HELD NATIONAL BANKS HAVE NO
IMPLIED POWER TO PLEDGE ASSETS TO SECURE DEPOSITS; THAT HERE THE BANK
WAS NOT EMPOWERED SO TO DO BY THE ACT JUNE 25, 1930; FN2 THAT THE
PLEDGE MIGHT BE RESCINDED WITHOUT RETURN BY THE RECEIVER OF THE SUMS
WITHDRAWN.  WITH THESE CONCLUSIONS WE AGREE. 

UNLESS EMPOWERED BY THE ACT JUNE 25, 1930 OR CONCERNING FEDERAL FUNDS
(NOT HERE CLAIMED) AS IN INLAND WATERWAYS CORP. V. YOUNG, ANTE, P. 517,
NATIONAL BANKS MAY NOT SECURE DEPOSITS BY PLEDGE OF ASSETS. 

TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245, 253-255, AND
MARION V. SNEEDEN, 291 U.S. 262, AUTHORITATIVELY INTERPRETED THE
NATIONAL BANKING ACT AND APPROVED THE VIEW THAT UNDER THIS, A NATIONAL
BANK POSSESSES NO INHERENT POWER TO SECURE DEPOSITS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE,
BY PLEDGING ASSETS, AND THAT SUCH A PLEDGE IS BOTH ULTRA VIRES AND
CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY.  "THE MEASURE OF THEIR POWERS IS THE
STATUTORY GRANT; AND POWERS NOT CONFERRED BY CONGRESS ARE DENIED." 
ALSO, THAT IN CASE OF INSOLVENCY, ASSETS SO PLEDGED, MAY BE RECLAIMED
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE DEPOSITS.  "TO PERMIT THE PLEDGE WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT WITH MANY PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT WHICH ARE
DESIGNED TO ENSURE, IN CASE OF DISASTER, UNIFORMITY IN THE TREATMENT OF
DEPOSITORS AND A RATABLE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS."  THE RESULT IN THESE
CAUSES WAS NOT INFLUENCED BY CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL LAW. 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE SUGGESTION OF COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER THAT THE
CITED OPINIONS MERELY DECLARE A PLEDGE OF ASSETS ULTRA VIRES AND LEAVE
THE CONSEQUENCES TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE IT
OCCURS.  THIS VIEW IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPINIONS
NOR WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT THERE POINTED
OUT. 

UNDER THE COMMON LAW AS INTERPRETED IN NEW YORK, PLEDGE OF SECURITIES
BY A STATE BANK TO SECURE DEPOSITS IS "CONTRARY TO LAW AND BEYOND THE
POWER AND AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE OFFICERS."  ALTHOUGH FORBIDDEN, SUCH
A PLEDGE WILL NOT BE SET ASIDE UNLESS DEPOSITS MADE IN RELIANCE UPON IT
ARE FIRST REPAID.  STATE BANK OF COMMERCE V. STONE, 261 N.Y. 175, 187
188; 184 N.E. 750; CITY OF MOUNT VERNON V. MOUNT VERNON TRUST CO., 270
N.Y. 400, 406; 1 N.E.2D 825. 

THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1930 PERMITS NATIONAL BANKS TO GIVE SECURITY FOR
PUBLIC DEPOSITS "OF THE SAME KIND AS IS AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW OF THE
STATE IN WHICH SUCH ASSOCIATION IS LOCATED IN THE CASE OF OTHER BANKING
INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE."  COUNSEL MAINTAIN THAT WITHIN THE FAIR
INTENDMENT OF THIS, STATE BANKS IN NEW YORK ARE "AUTHORIZED" TO PLEDGE
BONDS TO SECURE PUBLIC DEPOSITS.  THEY RELY UPON THE RULINGS OF THE
LOCAL COURTS, IN THE CAUSES LAST CITED, CONCERNING CONDITIONS WHICH
MUST BE MET BEFORE AN ULTRA VIRES ACT WILL BE SET ASIDE. 

THEY SUBMIT THAT CORPORATIONS HAVE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT THE RESULT OF
THEIR ACTIONS.  "THAT THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN
ULTRA VIRES ACT IS ITSELF A POWER."  FURTHER, THAT "'GIVING' A POWER IS
BUT ANOTHER WORD FOR 'AUTHORIZING' ITS EXERCISE."  HENCE, THE ARGUMENT
SEEMS TO RUN, AS A STATE BANK MAY HOLD THE FRUIT OF A PLEDGE UNTIL
RETURN OF THE THING PLEDGED, THEREFORE, IT IS "AUTHORIZED BY LAW" TO
MAKE A PLEDGE THUS CONDITIONED. 

IN THIS PROCESSION, OBVIOUSLY, DIFFERENT MEANINGS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO
THE WORD "POWER" AND IT IS CONFUSED WITH "CAPACITY" AND "AUTHORITY." 
IN ONE SENSE, EVERY CORPORATION HAS "POWER" TO DO WRONG, ALSO
"CAPACITY" TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF WRONG-DOING.  BUT NO
CORPORATION HAS AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE AN INHIBITION OR GO BEYOND THE
LIMITS OF ITS CHARTER.  AUTHORIZATION TO DO A FORBIDDEN THING CANNOT BE
INFERRED FROM CAPACITY TO ACCEPT THE PRESCRIBED CONSEQUENCES.  THE LAW
FORBADE LOCAL INSTITUTIONS TO MAKE PLEDGES SUCH AS THE ONE HERE IN
QUESTION. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENTS MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TITLE 12 U.S.C. - 

SEC. 91.  "ALL TRANSFERS OF THE NOTES, BONDS, BILLS OF EXCHANGE, OR
OTHER EVIDENCES OF DEBT OWING TO ANY NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, OR
OF DEPOSITS TO ITS CREDIT; ALL ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGES, SURETIES ON
REAL ESTATE, OR OF JUDGMENTS OR DECREES IN ITS FAVOR; ALL DEPOSITS OF
MONEY, BULLION, OR OTHER VALUABLE THING FOR ITS USE, OR FOR THE USE OF
ANY OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS OR CREDITORS; AND ALL PAYMENTS OF MONEY TO
EITHER, MADE AFTER THE COMMISSION OF AN ACT OF INSOLVENCY, OR IN
CONTEMPLATION THEREOF, MADE WITH A VIEW TO PREVENT THE APPLICATION OF
ITS ASSETS IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THIS CHAPTER, OR WITH A VIEW TO
THE PREFERENCE OF ONE CREDITOR TO ANOTHER, EXCEPT IN PAYMENT OF ITS
CIRCULATING NOTES, SHALL BE UTTERLY NULL AND VOID; AND NO ATTACHMENT,
INJUNCTION, OR EXECUTION, SHALL BE ISSUED AGAINST SUCH ASSOCIATION OR
ITS PROPERTY BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUIT, ACTION, OR PROCEEDING,
IN ANY STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPAL COURT."  (R.S. SEC. 5242.) 

SEC. 194.  "FROM TIME TO TIME, AFTER FULL PROVISION HAS BEEN FIRST
MADE FOR REFUNDING TO THE UNITED STATES ANY DEFICIENCY IN REDEEMING THE
NOTES OF SUCH ASSOCIATION, THE COMPTROLLER SHALL MAKE A RATABLE
DIVIDEND OF THE MONEY SO PAID OVER TO HIM BY SUCH RECEIVER ON ALL SUCH
CLAIMS AS MAY HAVE BEEN PROVED TO HIS SATISFACTION OR ADJUDICATED IN A
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, AND, AS THE PROCEEDS OF THE ASSETS OF
SUCH ASSOCIATION ARE PAID OVER TO HIM, SHALL MAKE FURTHER DIVIDENDS ON
ALL CLAIMS PREVIOUSLY PROVED OR ADJUDICATED; AND THE REMAINDER OF THE
PROCEEDS, IF ANY, SHALL BE PAID OVER TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SUCH
ASSOCIATION, OR THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, IN PROPORTION TO THE STOCK
BY THEM RESPECTIVELY HELD."  (R.S. SEC. 5236.) 

FN2  ACT JUNE 25, 1930, C. 604, 46 STAT. 809; 12 U.S.C., SEC. 90 - 

"ALL NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS, DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, SHALL BE DEPOSITARIES OF PUBLIC MONEY,
UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY; AND THEY
MAY ALSO BE EMPLOYED AS FINANCIAL AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT; AND THEY
SHALL PERFORM ALL SUCH REASONABLE DUTIES, AS DEPOSITARIES OF PUBLIC
MONEY AND FINANCIAL AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS MAY BE REQUIRED OF
THEM.  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL REQUIRE THE ASSOCIATIONS
THUS DESIGNATED TO GIVE SATISFACTORY SECURITY, BY THE DEPOSIT OF UNITED
STATES BONDS AND OTHERWISE, FOR THE SAFEKEEPING AND PROMPT PAYMENT OF
THE PUBLIC MONEY DEPOSITED WITH THEM, AND FOR THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
OF THEIR DUTIES AS FINANCIAL AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT:  PROVIDED, THAT
THE SECRETARY SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST OF JANUARY OF EACH YEAR, MAKE
A PUBLIC STATEMENT OF THE SECURITIES REQUIRED DURING THAT YEAR FOR SUCH
DEPOSITS.  AND EVERY ASSOCIATION SO DESIGNATED AS RECEIVER OR
DEPOSITARY OF THE PUBLIC MONEY SHALL TAKE AND RECEIVE AT PAR ALL OF THE
NATIONAL CURRENCY BILLS, BY WHATEVER ASSOCIATION ISSUED, WHICH HAVE
BEEN PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT FOR INTERNAL REVENUE, OR FOR LOANS OR
STOCKS:  PROVIDED, THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL DISTRIBUTE
THE DEPOSITS HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, EQUITABLY
BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT STATES AND SECTIONS. 

"ANY ASSOCIATION MAY, UPON THE DEPOSIT WITH IT OF PUBLIC MONEY OF A
STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, GIVE SECURITY FOR THE
SAFEKEEPING AND PROMPT PAYMENT OF THE MONEY SO DEPOSITED, OF THE SAME
KIND AS IS AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH SUCH ASSOCIATION
IS LOCATED IN THE CASE OF OTHER BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE." 
..END :























MAURER V. HAMILTON, 309 U.S. 598 


NO. 380.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1940.  REARGUED MARCH 27, 28, 1940.  -
DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 336 PA. 17 -  7 A.2D 466, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE PROHIBITING THE OPERATION ON THE HIGHWAYS
OF THE STATE OF ANY VEHICLE CARRYING ANY OTHER VEHICLE "ABOVE THE CAB
OF THE CARRIER VEHICLE OR OVER THE HEAD OF THE OPERATOR OF SUCH CARRIER
VEHICLE," AND APPLIED TO INTERSTATE CARRIERS, HELD CONSISTENT WITH DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN THE ABSENCE
OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  P. 603. 

2.  THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO
DEPRIVE THE STATE OF POWER TO IMPOSE THIS REGULATION UPON VEHICLES
MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 604, ET SEQ. 

3.  SECTION 204 OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT EMPOWERS THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO "SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT" OF MOTOR VEHICLES
OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT ITS
AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF VEHICLES IS EXPRESSLY
LIMITED IN SEC. 225 TO INVESTIGATION AND REPORT ON THE NEED OF
REGULATION.  P. 607. 

4.  "SIZES AND WEIGHT" IN THE MEANING OF SEC. 225 INCLUDES THE SIZE
AND WEIGHT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND ITS LOAD.  P. 610. 

5.  THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE "SIZES AND WEIGHT" OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, LEFT WITH THE STATES BY SEC. 225 OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER
ACT, IS NOT RESTRICTED TO OVER-ALL MEASUREMENTS AND GROSS WEIGHT, BUT
INCLUDES PARTICULAR DIMENSIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND THEIR LOADS AND
THE WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD, WHICH AFFECT SAFETY AS WELL AS THE
WEAR AND TEAR OF THE HIGHWAYS.  P. 610. 

6. THE PENNSYLVANIA REGULATION IS AN EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POWER TO
PROTECT THE SAFE AND CONVENIENT USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS, WHICH IT WAS THE
PURPOSE OF SEC. 225 TO RESERVE TO THE STATE FROM THE GRANT OF
REGULATORY POWER TO THE COMMISSION.  P. 611. 

7. IN ORDINARY SPEECH THE LOAD OF A VEHICLE IS NOT SPOKEN OF AS A
PART OF ITS EQUIPMENT.  P. 612. 

8.  EVEN IF THE PHRASE "OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT" IN SEC. 204 COULD BE
TAKEN, WHEN STANDING ALONE, AS INCLUDING THE WEIGHT AND SIZE OF LOADS,
IT CAN NOT BE SO TAKEN WHEN READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESERVATION OF
SEC. 225 OF "SIZES AND WEIGHT" FROM THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE
COMMISSION.  P. 612. 

9.  CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION TO DISPLACE LOCAL LAWS IN THE EXERCISE OF
THE COMMERCE POWER IS NOT TO BE INFERRED UNLESS CLEARLY INDICATED.  P.
614. 

MAURER ET AL., TRADING AS MAURER & MYERS AUTO CONVOY, V. HAMILTON,
SECRETARY OF REVENUE OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT IN AN
ACTION TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE REGULATION OF MOTOR
VEHICLES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER A STATUTE OF PENNSYLVANIA
PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OVER ITS HIGHWAYS OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLE
CARRYING ANY OTHER VEHICLE OVER THE HEAD OF THE OPERATOR OF SUCH
CARRIER VEHICLE, IS SUPERSEDED BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED
BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF
1935, 49 STAT. 543, 49 U.S.C. SECS. 301-327, APPLICABLE TO COMMON AND
CONTRACT CARRIERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

APPELLANTS, CO-PARTNERS ENGAGED AS COMMON CARRIERS IN THE BUSINESS OF
TRANSPORTING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE NEW AUTOMOBILES UPON MOTOR TRUCKS
SPECIALLY CONSTRUCTED FOR THAT PURPOSE, BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE
PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURTS TO ENJOIN APPELLEES, STATE OFFICERS, FROM
ENFORCING AGAINST APPELLANTS SEC. 1033(C) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA VEHICLE
CODE, EFFECTIVE JUNE 29, 1937, 75 P.S. 642, WHICH PROHIBITS THE
OPERATION ON THE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF ANY VEHICLE CARRYING ANY
OTHER VEHICLE "ABOVE THE CAB OF THE CARRIER VEHICLE OR OVER THE HEAD OF
THE OPERATOR OF SUCH CARRIER VEHICLE."  FN1  TWO OTHER LIKE SUITS
BROUGHT BY MOTOR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN LIKE TRANSPORTATION INTERSTATE
WERE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE PRESENT SUIT. 

AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH THERE WAS EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW
THAT THE TRANSPORTATION BY APPELLANTS OVER THE STATE HIGHWAYS OF CARS
PLACED ABOVE THE CAB OF THE TRANSPORTING VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO THE
DRIVER AND TO THE PUBLIC, THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE LOCATION OF
MOTOR VEHICLES OVER THE CAB OF THE CARRIER RENDERED ITS OPERATION
DANGEROUS ON THE CURVES AND GRADES OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HIGHWAYS.  IT
FOUND THAT SUCH LOCATION OF THE CARRIED CAR ABOVE THE DRIVER RAISES THE
CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE LOADED CAR ABOVE THAT WHICH IS NORMAL IN
TRUCKING OPERATIONS, PLACES EXCESSIVE WEIGHT ON THE FRONT AXLES AND
TIRES, OBSCURES THE VISION OF THE DRIVER OF THE CARRIER CAR, WITH THE
RESULTS THAT IT INCREASES THE DIFFICULTY OF STEERING THE LOADED CAR,
ADVERSELY AFFECTS BRAKING, PARTICULARLY ON CURVES, AND AFFECTS THE
BALANCE OF THE LOADED CAR SO AS TO MAKE ITS USE ON THE HIGHWAYS
DANGEROUS. 

IT ALSO FOUND THAT IN CASE OF COLLISION OR LOSS OF CONTROL THE
OVERHEAD CAR HAS A TENDENCY TO FLY OFF THE CAB, IN CONSEQUENCE OF
WHICH, IN NUMEROUS CASES, SERIOUS INJURY HAD RESULTED TO THE OPERATOR
OF THE TRUCK OR TO THE COLLIDING CAR AND ITS OCCUPANTS, OR BOTH, AND
THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE OVERHEAD CAR AND ITS INTERFERENCE WITH THE
DRIVER'S VISION CAUSES HIM TO DRIVE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD IN
ORDER TO AVOID OVERHEAD OBSTRUCTIONS.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE
STATE STATUTE WAS A SAFETY REGULATION OF MOTORCARS USING THE HIGHWAYS
OF THE STATE AND THAT, AS APPLIED TO APPELLANTS, IT INFRINGED NEITHER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION NOR THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND GAVE JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT.  ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA CONFIRMED THE
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND AFFIRMED THE DECREE.  336 PA. 17; 7
A.2D 466.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344. 

BEFORE THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, HAD
PROMULGATED REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1936, WITH RESPECT TO "SAFETY
OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT" OF COMMON AND CONTRACT MOTOR CARRIERS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  THESE REGULATIONS CONTAINED
NO PROVISIONS SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE TO CARS CARRIED OVER THE CAB OF
THE CARRIER VEHICLE.  ON MARCH 11, 1939, WHILE THE PRESENT CAUSE WAS
PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN "CAR OVER CAB OPERATIONS," 12 M.C.C. 127,
ISSUED ITS REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PRACTICE OF THE CAR OVER
CAB METHOD OF TRANSPORTATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, IN WHICH IT ANNOUNCED
ITS CONCLUSION THAT 

"THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO TESTIMONY WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT THE
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, USED IN TRANSPORTING NEW AUTOMOBILES, AND
WHICH ARE SO CONSTRUCTED THAT ONE OF THE AUTOMOBILES BEING TRANSPORTED
EXTENDS IN WHOLE OR IN PART OVER THE CAB, IS UNSAFE.  ON THE CONTRARY,
THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS IN WHICH
VEHICLES OF THIS TYPE ARE INVOLVED IS LESS THAN THE COUNTRY'S AVERAGE
FOR ALL TRUCKS.  WE FIND NO REASONS OF RECORD WHY THE OPERATIONS OF
SUCH VEHICLES SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN.  THE SAFETY REGULATIONS HERETOFORE
PRESCRIBED BY US, OF COURSE, APPLY TO THESE AS WELL AS OTHER VEHICLES
OPERATED BY COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  THE OPERATIONS OF VEHICLES SO EQUIPPED ARE THEREFORE
PERMITTED BY THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR
CHANGE."  (P. 132.)  FN2 

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THIS ACTION
OF THE COMMISSION, BUT CONCLUDED THAT THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO
ENACT SEC. 1033(C) OF THE VEHICLE CODE WAS UNIMPAIRED BY FEDERAL ACTION
UNDER THE COMMERE CLAUSE FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, ENACTED BY CONGRESS, DID NOT PURPORT TO
WITHDRAW FROM THE STATE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MAKE THE REGULATION
EMBODIED IN THAT SECTION, AND FOR A SECOND REASON, WHICH WE FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER, THAT IN ANY CASE THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION
IN DECLINING TO ADOPT ANY RULE OR REGULATION WITH RESPECT TO THE CAR
OVER CAB PRACTICE OF INTERSTATE COMMON AND CONTRACT MOTOR CARRIERS
COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A MANDATE TO SUCH CARRIERS TO CONTINUE THE
PRACTICE DESPITE STATE REGULATION PROHIBITING IT. 

APPELLANTS ASSAIL THE STATE STATUTE ON THE GROUNDS THAT EVEN THOUGH
IT IS UNAFFECTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT IT
NEVERTHELESS INFRINGES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THAT IN ANY CASE THE STATUTE IS
SUPERSEDED BY THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION IN CONFORMITY TO THE
MOTOR CARRIER ACT. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.  THE
PRESENT RECORD LAYS A FIRM FOUNDATION FOR THE EXERCISE OF STATE
REGULATORY POWER, UNLESS THE STATE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THAT POWER BY
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO SUBSTITUTE ITS
JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE AS TO THE NEED AND PROPRIETY
OF THE STATE REGULATION.  THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE STATE POWER, IN
THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS
HIGHWAYS BY VEHICLES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS SO RECENTLY
BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REVIEW THE
AUTHORITIES NOW, OR TO RESTATE THE STANDARDS WHICH DEFINE THE STATE
POWER TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS ADAPTED TO PROMOTE SAFETY UPON ITS
HIGHWAYS AND TO INSURE THEIR CONSERVATION AND CONVENIENT USE BY THE
PUBLIC.  SEE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S.
177.  JUDGED BY THESE STANDARDS WE CAN FIND NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE IS NOT SUCH A REGULATION OR THAT IT IS A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OR THAT IT INFRINGES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IF
CONGRESS HAS NOT AUTHORIZED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO
PROMULGATE A CONFLICTING RULE. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE MORE SERIOUS QUESTION WHETHER CONGRESS, BY THE
ENACTMENT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, AS A REGULATION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HAS UNDERTAKEN TO DEPRIVE THE STATE OF THE POWER
TO IMPOSE THE PRESENT REGULATION UPON VEHICLES MOVING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT EMBARKED ON THE REGULATION OF A TYPE OF INTERSTATE TRAFFIC
MANY OF WHOSE REGULATORY PROBLEMS BEAR LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO THOSE OF
OTHER SYSTEMS OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUBJECTED TO
CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL.  THEY PRESENTED DIFFICULTIES AND COMPLEXITIES
DIFFERING FROM AND FAR EXCEEDING THOSE OF ANY EARLIER REGULATIONS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  OUR MOST EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE HAD BEEN IN THE
NATIONAL REGULATION OF RAIL CARRIERS, OPERATING OVER ROADS AND WITH
ROLLING STOCK PRIVATELY OWNED AND CONTROLLED, WITH STANDARDS OF
ROADBED, OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY, AND WITH THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC ON EACH ROAD SUBJECT TO A
SINGLE UNIFIED CONTROL. 

REGULATION OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OVER THE HIGHWAYS OF THE UNITED
STATES INVOLVES A FAR MORE VARIED AND COMPLEX UNDERTAKING.  THE
HIGHWAYS OF THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN BUILT BY THE STATES WITH SUBSTANTIAL
FINANCIAL AID FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOME
OF THEM.  FN3 THEY ARE STATE OWNED, AND, IN GENERAL, ARE OPEN IN EACH
STATE TO USE BY PRIVATELY OWNED AND CONTROLLED MOTOR VEHICLES OF WIDELY
DIFFERENT CHARACTER AS RESPECTS WEIGHT, SIZE, AND EQUIPMENT.  FN4 THE
WIDTH, GRADES, CURVES, WEIGHT-BEARING CAPACITY, SURFACING AND OVERHEAD
OBSTRUCTIONS OF THE HIGHWAYS DIFFER WIDELY IN THE FORTY-EIGHT DIFFERENT
STATES AND IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF EACH STATE.  THERE ARE LIKE
VARIATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONGESTION OF TRAFFIC.  STATE REGULATION,
DEVELOPED OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO THE SAFE AND
CONVENIENT USE OF THE HIGHWAYS AND THEIR CONSERVATION WITH REFERENCE TO
VARYING LOCAL NEEDS AND CONDITIONS. 

ASSUMPTION OF NATIONAL CONTROL INVOLVED PROBLEMS OF PECULIAR
DIFFICULTY AND DELICACY.  APART FROM REGULATIONS OF INTERSTATE MOTOR
TRAFFIC HAVING COMMERCIAL AIMS AND INVOLVING ROUTES, SCHEDULES, RATES
AND THE LIKE, ANY REGULATION ON A NATIONAL SCALE, WHATEVER ITS EXTENT,
HAS AN INTIMATE AND VITAL RELATION TO THE CONSERVATION OF HIGHWAYS
WHICH BELONG TO THE STATES, AND TO THEIR SAFE AND CONVENIENT USE BY THE
GENERAL PUBLIC IN BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE TRAFFIC.  OUR ENTIRE
EXPERIENCE WITH THE GROWTH OF AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC AND ITS REGULATION BY
THE STATES TEACHES THAT IN ANY FORM OF NON-COMMERCIAL REGULATION,
SAFETY IS A DOMINANT CONSIDERATION.  MOTOR VEHICLES ARE DANGEROUS
MACHINES WHOSE OPERATION IS ATTENDED BY SERIOUS HAZARD TO PERSONS AND
PROPERTY.  HESS V. PAWLOSKI, 274 U.S. 352, 356.  IN 1934, THE YEAR
BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, THERE WERE 36,000
REPORTED DEATHS FROM MOTORCAR ACCIDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES.  FN5
EXCESSIVE SPEED, DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES, NEGLIGENT DRIVING, SIZE, WEIGHT
AND LOADING OF CARS IN CONJUNCTION WITH LOCAL CONDITIONS OF TRAFFIC AND
OF THE HIGHWAYS, CONTRIBUTED IN VARYING DEGREES TO THIS RECORD OF
DISASTER. 

IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THIS HISTORY AND BACKGROUND THAT WE MUST
APPRAISE AND APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935. 
THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT, SEC. 202(A), IS TO PRESERVE AND FOSTER
THE ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF AN EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM.  THE POWER TO REGULATE, WHICH IT CONFERS ON THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, EXTENDS IN SOME MEASURE TO SAFETY REGULATIONS. 

"IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION - (1) TO REGULATE COMMON
CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE AS PROVIDED IN THIS PART, AND TO THAT END THE
COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO
CONTINUOUS AND ADEQUATE SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS,
UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS, PRESERVATION OF
RECORDS, QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND
SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT." 

SUBDIVISION (2) IMPOSES A LIKE DUTY UPON THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE
"CONTRACT CARRIERS."  SUBDIVISION (3) IMPOSES THE DUTY 

"TO ESTABLISH FOR PRIVATE CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE, IF
NEED THEREFOR IS FOUND, REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE SAFETY OF
OPERATION, AND TO THAT END PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS
OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT." 


"THE COMMISSION IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT ON THE
NEED FOR FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE SIZES AND WEIGHT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
AND COMBINATIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND OF THE QUALIFICATIONS AND
MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF ALL MOTOR CARRIERS AND PRIVATE
CARRIERS OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE; ...  " 

THE WORDS OF THIS SECTION INDICATE, AS ITS HISTORY DEMONSTRATES, THAT
IT WAS INTENDED TO RESERVE FROM THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE COMMISSION
THE REGULATION OF "SIZES AND WEIGHT OF MOTOR VEHICLES."  UNLIKE SEC.
204(A)(3), WHICH MAKES IT THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION "IF NEED THEREFOR
IS FOUND" TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE SAFETY OF
OPERATION AND TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT FOR "PRIVATE CARRIERS
OF PROPERTY," SEC. 225 IMPOSES NO DUTY AND CONFERS NO AUTHORITY ON THE
COMMISSION TO REGULATE THE SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES.  FN6
ITS AUTHORITY IS LIMITED TO INVESTIGATION AND REPORT OF THE NEED OF
SUCH REGULATION.  FN7 

THE BILL CONTAINING THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 204 AND 225 WHICH WE HAVE
QUOTED, WAS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION AND
ITS ADOPTION WAS RECOMMENDED IN HIS 1934 REPORT TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, WHICH TRANSMITTED THE REPORT AND PROPOSED BILL TO
THE SENATE WITH ITS FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.  SEN. DOC. NO. 152, 73RD
CONG., 2D SESS.  THE REPORT MADE NO MENTION OF THE SCOPE, PURPOSE OR
MEANING OF SEC. 225, OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT, P. 49, THAT IT PROVIDES
FOR "INVESTIGATION AND REPORT TO CONGRESS OF THE NEED, IF ANY, FOR
FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES."  THE
REPORT REFERRED, P. 32, TO THE FACTS THAT THE STATES REGULATE
EXTENSIVELY THE LENGTH, WIDTH, HEIGHT AND SPEED OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AND
THEIR MAXIMUM GROSS WEIGHTS AND REQUIRE THAT THEY "BE EQUIPPED WITH A
VARIETY OF SAFETY APPLIANCES"; THAT THESE REGULATIONS "ARE DESIGNED IN
PART TO PROTECT THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC IN ITS USE OF
THE HIGHWAYS AND IN PART TO PROTECT THE HIGHWAYS FROM EXCESSIVE WEAR
AND TEAR," AND THAT THE "REQUIREMENTS AS TO GROSS WEIGHTS, LENGTHS, AND
WIDTHS OF VEHICLES ARE OFTEN GROUNDED IN STATE POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO
THE DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS," WITH RESPECT TO THEIR WEIGHT SUSTAINING
CAPACITY AND THEIR CURVES.  IN TESTIFYING AT THE HEARINGS UPON THE BILL
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE COORDINATOR
EXPLAINED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 225 BY STATING: 

"WITH RESPECT TO SIZE AND WEIGHT OF VEHICLES  ...  WE DO NOT
UNDERTAKE IN THIS BILL TO COVER THAT SITUATION EXCEPT TO PROVIDE FOR A
THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF IT BY THE COMMISSION WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO
CONGRESS BECAUSE THERE IS INVOLVED NOT ONLY A QUESTION OF FACT AS TO
WHAT THE REGULATION SHOULD BE, BUT ALSO AS TO HOW FAR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS POWER TO INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER
OF THE STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF THEIR HIGHWAYS.  THEY HAVE THE
RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR HIGHWAYS AGAINST UNSAFE OR UNREASONABLE USE, BUT
WHETHER OR NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN COME IN AND INTERFERE WITH IT
I CANNOT SAY AT THIS TIME."  HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 1629, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., (1935) P. 92. 
FN8 

AGAIN, PAGE 61, HE REFERRED TO "SIZES AND WEIGHTS" AS "AN EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT MATTER FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CONVENIENCE."  THIS COURT HAS ALSO HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT THAT THE
SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF AUTOMOBILES HAVE AN IMPORTANT RELATION TO THE SAFE
AND CONVENIENT USE OF THE HIGHWAYS, WHICH ARE MATTERS OF STATE
CONTROL.  SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY
DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA.  IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PURPORT OF SEC.
225 IS TO RESERVE "SIZES AND WEIGHT" FROM THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE
COMMISSION, QUITE AS MUCH WHEN RELATED TO SAFETY AS WHEN RELATED TO
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, PENDING INVESTIGATION AND REPORT BY THE
COMMISSION OF THE NEED FOR SUCH REGULATION, AND FURTHER CONSIDERATION
OF THE MATTER BY CONGRESS.  SUCH HAS BEEN THE UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION OF
SEC. 225 BY COURTS HAVING OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SUBJECT.  FN9 

ON THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US IT WAS CONCEDED THAT THE "SIZE AND WEIGHT
OF MOTOR VEHICLES," OF WHICH SEC. 225 SPEAKS, MUST BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE
THE SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND THEIR LOADS.  THIS IS
EVIDENT BOTH BECAUSE AN INVESTIGATION OF SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, APART FROM THEIR LOAD, WOULD BE USELESS SO FAR AS THE MAJOR
PROBLEMS OF SAFETY AND USE OF THE HIGHWAYS ARE CONCERNED AND BECAUSE,
AS PRESENTLY WILL APPEAR, THE STATE REGULATION OF SIZES AND WEIGHTS TO
BE INVESTIGATED HAS FROM THE BEGINNING INCLUDED SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF
THE LOADED VEHICLE.  THE POWER OF THE STATES TO REGULATE THE SIZES AND
WEIGHTS OF LOADED MOTOR VEHICLES WAS THUS LEFT UNDISTURBED.  SUCH OTHER
COURTS AS HAVE HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE MATTER IN THE CASES ALREADY
NOTED HAVE ARRIVED AT THE SAME CONCLUSION.  FN10 

BUT THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE IS A
REGULATION OF "SIZE AND WEIGHT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 225, OR
WHETHER IT IS A REGULATION OF "SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT,"
WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE BY SEC. 204(1)(2).  PERUSAL
OF THE PRESENT RECORD CAN LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT IN BOTH A TECHNICAL AND A
PRACTICAL SENSE SEC. 1033(C) IS A REGULATION OF WEIGHT AND SIZE OF THE
LOADED MOTOR VEHICLE, AND THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE INTENDED IT
TO BE SUCH.  FN11  BY PROVIDING THAT THE CARRIED CAR SHALL NOT BE
LOADED ABOVE THE CAB, THE STATUTE SETS PRACTICAL LIMITS TO THE HEIGHT
OF THE LOADED CAR AND PRECLUDES ITS PROJECTION BEYOND THE CAB OF THE
CARRIER CAR AND INTO THE LINE OF VISION OF ITS DRIVER.  IT IS ALSO A
RESTRICTION ON WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOADED CAR AND IN ITS AMENDED
FORM SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS PLACING THE "WEIGHT" OF THE CARRIED CAR
ABOVE THE DRIVER.  FN12  THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAS DECLARED
THAT SUCH ARE THE PURPOSES OF SUBSECTION (C), IN ORDER TO AVOID THE
SAFETY HAZARDS RESULTING FROM IMPROPER WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION AND THE
HEIGHT OF THE CARRIED CAR AT A POINT WHERE IT CANNOT BE OBSERVED BY THE
DRIVER.  AS INTERPRETED AND APPLIED BY THE STATE COURT, WE CAN NOT
REGARD THE REGULATION AS OTHER THAN AN EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POWER TO
PROTECT THE SAFE AND CONVENIENT USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS THROUGH THE CONTROL
OF SIZE AND WEIGHT OF MOTOR VEHICLES PASSING OVER THEM, WHICH IT WAS
THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 225 TO RESERVE TO THE STATE FROM THE GRANT OF
REGULATORY POWER TO THE COMMISSION.  BEING THUS RESERVED WE THINK IT IS
UNAFFECTED BY THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION BY SEC. 204 TO
REGULATE "SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT." 

THE COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT IN "CAR OVER CAB OPERATIONS," SUPRA,
GAVE NO CONSIDERATION TO THE EXTENT OF ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 204, TO
MAKE SAFETY REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE CAR OVER CAB PRACTICE OR TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA RESTRICTION IS IN FACT AND IN
PRACTICAL OPERATION A WEIGHT AND SIZE REGULATION, OR WHETHER THE
AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS IS RESERVED TO THE STATES BY SEC.
225.  THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY IN
THE CASE OF COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS IS DEFINED BY SEC. 204(A)(1)
AND (2), WHICH MAKES IT THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO REGULATE "SAFETY
OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT."  IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS AUTHORITY THE
COMMISSION HAS MADE NO REGULATION CONCERNING SIZES AND WEIGHT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES OR THEIR LOADS.  BUT IN A BRIEF FILED IN THIS CAUSE IT
CONTENDS THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO REGULATE SAFETY OF EQUIPMENT.  IN ORDINARY
SPEECH THE LOAD OF A VEHICLE IS NOT SPOKEN OF AS A PART OF ITS
EQUIPMENT.  IN THE MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS, PROMULGATED BY THE
COMMISSION, SAFETY OF EQUIPMENT IS TREATED AS SYNONYMOUS WITH OR THE
EQUIVALENT OF PARTS AND ACCESSORIES OF MOTOR CARS AFFECTING SAFETY. 
THE UNIFORM ACT REGULATING MOTOR CAR TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAYS, WHICH WAS
RECOMMENDED BY THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE AND HIGHWAY SAFETY IN
1930 AND 1934, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO IN THE REPORT OF THE COORDINATOR,
PLACED ALL SIZE AND WEIGHT REGULATIONS IN A SINGLE "ARTICLE XVI, SIZE,
WEIGHT AND LOAD," SEPARATE FROM THE ARTICLES CONTAINING PROVISIONS
RELATING TO THE SPEED, DRIVING AND MOVEMENT OF MOTOR CARS AND FROM
"ARTICLE XV, EQUIPMENT," WHICH WAS CONFINED TO AUTOMOBILE PARTS AND
ACCESSORIES AND THEIR INSPECTION.  FN13 

BUT EVEN THOUGH THE PHRASE "OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT" OF MOTOR CARS
COULD BE TAKEN, WHEN STANDING ALONE, AS INCLUDING THE WEIGHT AND SIZE
OF THEIR LOADS, WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT IT CANNOT BE SO TAKEN WHEN READ
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESERVATION IN SEC. 225 OF "SIZES AND WEIGHTS"
FROM THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE COMMISSION.  AS THE REPORT OF THE
COORDINATOR AND THE LEGISLATION IN THE SEVERAL STATES SHOWS, AND AS
THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED, SEE SPROLES V. BINFORD, SUPRA; SOUTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, THE SIZES AND WEIGHTS
OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND THEIR LOADS PRESENT SAFETY PROBLEMS WHICH ARE
SPECIAL AND DISTINCT FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN THE DRIVING AND MOVEMENT OF
CARS ORDINARILY KNOWN AS THEIR OPERATION, AND FROM THEIR PARTS AND
ACCESSORIES ORDINARILY REFERRED TO AS MOTOR CAR EQUIPMENT.  AS WE HAVE
SEEN, ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE RESERVATION MADE IN SEC. 225 WAS TO
GIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER STUDY AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION
OF THE RELATION OF SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF MOTOR CARS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
AND CONVENIENCE, AS WELL AS TO ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND USE SO THAT THE
COMMISSION AND CONGRESS MIGHT BE ADVISED WHAT THE REGULATION OF THESE
SAFETY FACTORS SHOULD BE AND HOW FAR CONGRESS SHOULD INTERFERE WITH
THEIR REGULATION BY THE STATES. 

THE COUZENS BILL, S. 2793, SEC. 2(A)(1)(2), 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.,
DISCUSSED IN THE 1934 REPORT OF THE COORDINATOR, AUTHORIZED THE
COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO "SAFETY
OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING THE WEIGHT, LENGTH, WIDTH AND
HEIGHT OF MOTOR VEHICLES USED BY SUCH CARRIERS)."  THIS PROPOSAL WAS
NOT ADOPTED AND IN THE BILL RECOMMENDED BY THE COORDINATOR AND THE
COMMISSION IN 1934 AND ENACTED AS THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, THE
PARENTHETICAL CLAUSE IN THE PROVISION AUTHORIZING REGULATION OF SAFETY
OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT AS IT APPEARED IN THE COUZENS BILL, WAS
TRANSFERRED TO SEC. 225, WHERE IT APPEARED AS "SIZES AND WEIGHT OF
MOTOR VEHICLES," FEDERAL REGULATION OF WHICH WAS RESERVED TO AWAIT THE
FUTURE ACTION OF CONGRESS.  THE CLAUSE WHICH WAS THUS RESORTED TO IN
THE EARLIER BILL TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS OF SIZES AND WEIGHT IN THE
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE "SAFETY OF OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT" WAS BY ITS
TRANSFER TO SEC. 225 OF THE ACT OF 1935 SIMILARLY MADE THE MEANS OF
WITHHOLDING FROM THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE COMMISSION REGULATIONS OF
SIZES AND WEIGHT AFFECTING SAFETY. 

AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION TO
DISPLACE LOCAL LAWS IN THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER IS NOT, IN
GENERAL, TO BE INFERRED UNLESS CLEARLY INDICATED BY THOSE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE PERSUASIVE OF THE STATUTORY PURPOSE.  THIS IS
ESPECIALLY THE CASE WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH ARE CONCERNED.  KELLY
V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 10-14; H.P. WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306
U.S. 79, 85 AND CASES CITED.  THERE ARE OTHER COGENT REASONS WHY THE
RESERVATION MADE BY SEC. 225 CANNOT BE GIVEN A NARROW CONSTRUCTION. 
THE HESITANCY MANIFESTED BY CONGRESS, UNTIL THE ADOPTION OF THE 1935
ACT, TO INTERFERE WITH THE STATE HIGHWAY REGULATIONS AND ITS FAILURE
THEN TO FOLLOW EARLIER AND MORE FAR-REACHING PROPOSALS ARE PERSUASIVE
AGAINST SUCH A CONSTRUCTION.  FN14  A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION BY THE
COMMISSION WHICH THE STATUTE AUTHORIZED WAS NECESSARY NOT ONLY TO
DETERMINE THE IMPORTANCE OF SIZES AND WEIGHT "FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE," BUT ALSO TO RESOLVE THE UNCERTAINTY OF
THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE BILL AND PRESUMABLY OF CONGRESS "AS TO THE FACTS
WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATTER" AND "AS TO WHAT THE REGULATION SHOULD
BE."  S. DOC. NO. 152, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS., P. 61.  THE EXTENT TO
WHICH CONGRESS SHOULD, IF AT ALL, CURTAIL STATE REGULATION, COULD BE
DETERMINED ONLY WHEN THOSE DOUBTS WERE RESOLVED. 

A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME WAS REQUIRED FOR PREPARATION FOR THE
INVESTIGATION AND FOR BRINGING IT TO A CONCLUSION.  THE INVESTIGATION
WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED IN NOVEMBER 1937, EX PARTE NO. M.C. 15, HAS NOT
YET PROCEEDED BEYOND THE PRELIMINARY STAGE OF GATHERING INFORMATION. 
IT COULD NOT BE ASSUMED THAT IN THE MEANTIME A RAPIDLY CHANGING
INDUSTRY WOULD NOT PRODUCE NEW TYPES OF VEHICLES INVOLVING NEW PROBLEMS
OF THE RELATION OF SIZES AND WEIGHT TO SAFETY SUCH AS ARE INVOLVED IN
THE PRESENT CASE.  A CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESERVATION MADE IN SEC. 225
IS NOT TO BE FAVORED WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE STATES OF AUTHORITY TO
MAKE SAFETY REGULATIONS OF SIZES AND WEIGHT BEFORE CONGRESS WAS
INFORMED BY A FULL INVESTIGATION AND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
NATURE OF THE REGULATIONS, BOTH THOSE IN FORCE AND THOSE WHICH ARE
NEEDED, AND WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPETING DEMANDS FOR NATIONAL
UNIFORMITY AND FOR ACCOMMODATION TO LOCAL CONDITIONS, REGULATION OF
SIZES AND WEIGHT CAN BE BEST PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION, BY THE STATE
LEGISLATURES, OR BY A DIVIDED AUTHORITY.  FOR THESE REASONS WE THINK
THAT THE RESERVATION OF STATE POWER BY SEC. 225 IS NOT RESTRICTED TO
THE PARTICULAR PROBLEMS OF WEIGHT AND SIZE WHICH THE TRAFFIC HAD
DEVELOPED AT THE MOMENT WHEN THE ACT WAS PASSED, OR WHICH WERE THEN
KNOWN TO THE COMMISSION, IN ADVANCE OF THE INVESTIGATION WHICH WAS TO
ASCERTAIN THE FACTS, WHAT THE REGULATION SHOULD BE AND HOW FAR
REGULATIONS OF SIZES AND WEIGHTS SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATES. 

SIZES AND WEIGHTS WHICH AFFECT SAFETY, NOT EXCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF
LOCAL CONDITIONS, AS WELL AS THOSE WHICH AFFECT WEAR AND TEAR OF THE
HIGHWAYS WERE TO BE THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION, AND IT IS THE SUBJECT
OF INVESTIGATION WHICH DEFINES THE RESERVATION FROM THE COMMISSION'S
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE.  HENCE THE PHRASE "SIZES AND WEIGHT" IN SEC.
225, WHEN SAFETY IS CONCERNED, IS NOT TO BE NARROWLY LIMITED TO THE
OVERALL LENGTH, WIDTH AND HEIGHT OF THE LOADED CARS AND TO THEIR GROSS
WEIGHT.  FOR AS WE HAVE SEEN, DISTRIBUTION OF WEIGHT AND DIMENSIONS OF
LOAD OR PARTICULAR PARTS OF IT IN CONNECTION WITH LOCAL CONDITIONS OF
CURVES, GRADES AND OVERHEAD OBSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAYS, HAVE AN
IMPORTANT RELATION TO SAFETY.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE INVESTIGATION
CONGRESS MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT THE REGULATION OF GROSS WEIGHTS AND
DIMENSIONS, CONCEDEDLY LEFT TO THE STATES, COULD NOT BE CONVENIENTLY OR
WISELY SEPARATED FROM REGULATION OF WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION AND PARTICULAR
DIMENSIONS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE REPORT OF THE COORDINATOR PRESENTING THE BILL FOR
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION PARTICULARIZED GROSS WEIGHT AND OVERALL DIMENSIONS
AS A COMMON SUBJECT OF REGULATION BY THE STATES AND AS A REASON FOR
MAKING THE INVESTIGATION.  BUT WE FIND NOTHING IN THE REPORT, OR IN HIS
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE, OR ELSEWHERE IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, TO SHOW THAT IT WAS INTENDED BY SEC. 225 TO CONFINE STATE
POWER TO REGULATION OF SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF AUTOMOBILES AND THEIR LOADS
TO GROSS WEIGHTS AND OVERALL DIMENSIONS.  THE BILL AS PROPOSED AND AS
ENACTED DID NOT SPECIFY ANY SUCH LIMITATION OF "SIZES AND WEIGHT," AND
IT WAS WELL KNOWN THAT STATE SIZE AND WEIGHT REGULATIONS THEN IN FORCE
OR PROPOSED WERE NOT SO RESTRICTED.    SCHEDULE B OF THE 1934 REPORT OF
THE COORDINATOR DISCLOSED, PAGE 213, THAT STATE REGULATION WAS THEN
CONCERNED WITH DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD WEIGHT BY AXLE AND WHEEL WEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS.  THE WEIGHT PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM ACT PROPOSED BY THE
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STATE AND HIGHWAY SAFETY IN 1930 AND 1934,
CONTAINED GROSS WEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND AXLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS WHICH
INVOLVED DISTRIBUTION OF WEIGHT OF THE LOADED CAR.  THE PRELIMINARY
REPORT (NO. 1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, BUREAU OF MOTOR
CARRIERS OF APRIL, 1940, P. 71, NOTES VARIOUS STATE REGULATIONS FIXING
AXLE WEIGHT OR WHEEL WEIGHT LIMITATIONS, SOMETIMES WITH AND SOMETIMES
WITHOUT A GROSS WEIGHT LIMITATION, AND STATES THAT THE COMBINATION OF
THESE FACTORS "IS BASICALLY INTENDED TO CONTROL NOT ONLY TOTAL GROSS
WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE AND ITS LOAD BUT ALSO DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOAD ON
THE VEHICLE." 

THE PROPOSED UNIFORM ACT ALSO CONTAINED PROVISIONS, IN "ARTICLE XVI,
SIZE, WEIGHT AND LOAD" (SEC. 78(E) OF THE 1930 DRAFT; SEC. 142(D) OF
THE 1934 DRAFT), FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OR LOCATION OF LOAD AND ITS
PARTICULAR DIMENSIONS, INDEPENDENTLY OF GROSS WEIGHT AND OVERALL
MEASUREMENTS.  THEY DIRECTED THAT "THE LOAD UPON ANY VEHICLE  ...
SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN THREE FEET BEYOND THE FRONT WHEELS OF SUCH
VEHICLE OR THE FRONT BUMPER OF SUCH VEHICLE IF IT IS EQUIPPED WITH SUCH
A BUMPER."  REPORT NO. 1 OF THE COMMISSION INDICATES THAT THIS
PROVISION HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN TWENTY-THREE STATES AND THAT THREE STATES
PROHIBIT ANY SUCH PROJECTION OF LOAD.  AS ALREADY NOTED, THE PRESENT
PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE REGULATING CAR OVER CAB OPERATION HAS BEEN ENACTED
IN SUBSTANCE IN WEST VIRGINIA.  FN15 

READING THE WORDS OF SEC. 225 IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, AND MINDFUL OF THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS OF THE TRAFFIC AND THE
PROBLEMS OF STATE REGULATION TO WHICH THE SECTION MUST BE APPLIED, AND
OF ITS OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONGRESS SHOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE
STATES THEIR POWER TO REGULATE SIZES AND WEIGHT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE PHRASE AS USED IN THE STATUTE IS RESTRICTED TO
OVERALL MEASUREMENTS OR GROSS WEIGHT, OR THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE
PARTICULAR DIMENSIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND THEIR LOADS AND THE
DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD, WHICH AFFECT SAFETY AS WELL AS THE WEAR AND TEAR
OF THE HIGHWAYS.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE NOW BEFORE
US IS A WEIGHT AND SIZE REGULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 225, AND
IS WITHIN THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE RESERVED BY THAT
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "(C)  NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE A VEHICLE ON THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS
COMMONWEALTH CARRYING ANY OTHER VEHICLE, ANY PART OF WHICH IS ABOVE THE
CAB OF THE CARRIER VEHICLE OR OVER THE HEAD OF THE OPERATOR OF SUCH
CARRIER VEHICLE." 

AFTER THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE, BUT BEFORE THE DECREE
IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THIS SECTION WAS AMENDED TO READ: 

"(C) NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE A VEHICLE ON THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS
COMMONWEALTH CARRYING ANY OTHER VEHICLE, THE WEIGHT OF WHICH IS
DIRECTLY ABOVE THE CAB OF THE CARRIER VEHICLE OR DIRECTLY OVER THE HEAD
OF THE OPERATOR OF SUCH CARRIER VEHICLE."  ACT NO. 400 OF JUNE 27,
1939. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN ITS OPINION, CONSIDERED THIS
AMENDMENT AND CONCLUDED THAT THE STATUTE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE
AMENDMENT APPLIED TO THE VEHICLES USED BY APPELLANTS AND WAS DIRECTED
AT THE SAME EVILS, AND THAT NO ESSENTIAL CHANGE WAS MADE BY THE
AMENDMENT, A CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE ADOPT.  THE SUPREME COURT ALSO
CONCLUDED THAT AS THE AMENDMENT NAMED NO DATE WHEN IT WAS TO TAKE
EFFECT IT WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE SOME TWO MONTHS LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 1,
1939, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 4 OF THE STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ACT OF MAY
28, 1937, P.L. 1019, 1020. 

FN2  THE REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION STATES, PAGE
133, THAT IN THIS PROCEEDING "THE ONLY EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED BY OR ON
BEHALF OF CARRIERS ENGAGED IN THE TYPE OF OPERATION UNDER
INVESTIGATION," THAT THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE PROCEEDING AND THAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE INVITED THE
ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSION TO THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN IN THE
PRESENT SUIT, BUT THAT SUCH EVIDENCE WAS NOT MADE A PART OF THE RECORD
IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY IT.
THE COMMISSION, SO FAR AS THE REPORT DISCLOSES, GAVE NO CONSIDERATION
TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF PLACING THE CARRIED CAR ABOVE THE CAB OF THE
MOTOR CARRIER WHEN ACCIDENTS DO IN FACT OCCUR, TO THE EFFECT OF THE
WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMBINATION WHEN USED ON HIGHWAYS OF GRADES
AND CURVES OVER WHICH PETITIONERS OPERATE IN PENNSYLVANIA, AND ITS
TENDENCY TO CAUSE THE DRIVER OF THE COMBINATION TO HOLD TO THE MIDDLE
OF THE ROAD TO AVOID INJURY TO THE CARRIED CAR ON THE TREE-LINED
HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE, ALL OF WHICH WERE DEEMED BY THE STATE COURTS IN
THE PRESENT CASE TO HAVE AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON SAFETY. 

FN3  FOR THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FEDERAL AID, SEE HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 2793, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1932), P. 217.  SEE ALSO NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. WALTERS, 294
U.S. 405, 417. 

FN4  IT IS ESTIMATED THAT 85 PER CENT OF ALL TRUCKS ARE PRIVATELY
OWNED AND OPERATED, AND THAT OVER 200,000 SEPARATE TRUCKS WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL REGULATION.  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON S. 2793, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
223; S. DOC. 152, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 28(1934); HEARINGS BEFORE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ON H.R. 5262, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. (1935), P. 156, ET SEQ. 

FN5  ACCIDENT FACTS (1936) PUBLISHED BY NATIONAL SAFETY COUNSEL,
INC. 

FN6  CF. COORDINATION OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION, 182 I.C.C. 263, 387,
RECOMMENDATION 11. 

FN7  ON NOVEMBER 8, 1937, THE COMMISSION ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION 

"IN THE MATTER OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE SIZES AND WEIGHT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES AND COMBINATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES USED BY COMMON AND CONTRACT
CARRIERS  ...  AND PRIVATE CARRIERS.  ... 

"1.  TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A REPORT UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 225 ON THE NEED FOR FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE SIZES AND
WEIGHT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND COMBINATIONS THEREOF. 

"2.  TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 204 OF THE ACT AS TO THE SIZES AND
WEIGHT OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND COMBINATIONS THEREFOR INSOFAR AS THEY
AFFECT THE SAFETY OF OPERATION." 

THE COMMISSION IS NOW ENGAGED IN MAKING ITS INVESTIGATION AND HAS
MADE NO REPORT OF ITS FINDINGS OR CONCLUSIONS.  REPORT NO. 1, A
PRELIMINARY STUDY AS YET UNPUBLISHED (APRIL, 1940), MADE BY THE BUREAU
OF MOTOR CARRIERS, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IS DEVOTED TO AN
ANALYSIS OF STATE LIMITATIONS OF SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES. 

FN8  ON PAGE 61 OF THE REPORT THE COORDINATOR STATED:  "BUT ON THIS
QUESTION OF SIZES AND WEIGHT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, WHICH IS AN EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT MATTER FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE,
THERE IS NOT ONLY THE QUESTION HERE AS TO WHAT THOSE SIZES AND WEIGHTS
OUGHT TO BE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND ROAD USE, BUT
THERE IS ALSO THE LEGAL QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CAN EXERCISE POWER OVER THE MATTER, OR WHETHER IT IS A MATTER
EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATES.  IT WAS BECAUSE OF
DOUBTS NOT ONLY AS TO THE FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THAT MATTER, BUT ALSO
TO THE LAW THAT PROVISIONS WERE MADE FOR THIS INVESTIGATION." 

THE COMMITTEE REPORTS MAKE NO COMMENT ON SEC. 225.  SEE S. REPT. NO.
482, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; H. REPT. NO. 1645, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN9  L. & L. FREIGHT LINES V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 17 F.SUPP. 
13(1936); BARNWELL BROS. V. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPT., 17
F.SUPP.  803(1937); WERNER TRANSPORTATION CO. V. HUGHES, 19 F.SUPP. 
425(1937); HOUSTON & NORTH TEXAS FREIGHT LINES V. PHARES, 19 F.SUPP. 
420(1937); MORRISON V. STATE, 133 TEX. CR. APP. 141; 109 S.W.2D
205(1937); YELLOW CAB TRANSIT CO. V. TUCK, 115 S.W.2D 455(TEX.  CIV. 
APP. 1938); SEE H.P. WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79(1939). 

UPON THE APPEAL IN SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS.,
SUPRA, TO THE SUPREME COURT, RESPONDENTS ABANDONED THEIR CONTENTION IN
THE TRIAL COURT THAT POWER TO REGULATE THE LOADED WEIGHT AND SIZE OF
MOTOR VEHICLES HAD NOT BEEN WITHHELD FROM THE COMMISSION BY SEC. 225. 
303 U.S. 177. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA. 

FN11  IN ADDITION TO SUBSECTION (C) OF SEC. 1033, WHICH IN ITS
AMENDED FORM IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO THE LOCATION OF THE "WEIGHT"
OF THE CARRIED CAR, THE SECTION CONTAINS THREE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS WHICH
AFFECT SIZE AND WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOADED VEHICLE.  SUBSECTION
(A) PROHIBITS THE OPERATION OF VEHICLES "HAVING TWO LEVELS FOR THE
CARRIAGE OF OTHER VEHICLES."  SUBDIVISION (B) PROHIBITS OPERATION OF
VEHICLES CARRYING OTHER VEHICLES ANY PART OF WHICH IS MORE THAN 115
INCHES FROM THE GROUND; AND SUBDIVISION (D) PROHIBITS THE OPERATION OF
VEHICLES CARRYING ANY OTHER VEHICLE "ANY AXLE OF WHICH IS MORE THAN 3
FEET HIGHER THAN ANY OTHER AXLE ON SUCH CARRYING VEHICLE."  SUBSECTIONS
(A), (B) AND (D) DO NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL JANUARY 1, 1942.  WEST
VIRGINIA HAS A STATUTE CONTAINING SIMILAR PROVISIONS.  CH. 88, ACTS OF
W. VA., 1939. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN13  SEE UNIFORM ACT REGULATING TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAYS, IV, NATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON STREET AND HIGHWAY SAFETY (1930), 38, 49; UNIFORM ACT
REGULATING TRAFFIC ON HIGHWAYS, V, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (1934), 23, 35. 

FN14  PRIOR TO THE 70TH CONGRESS, THE BILLS FOR FEDERAL REGULATION
CONTAINED NO PROVISIONS OF ANY KIND RELATING TO SIZE AND WEIGHT. 
BEGINNING WITH THE 70TH CONGRESS THE BILLS ALMOST UNIFORMLY PROVIDED
THAT INTERSTATE CARRIERS SHOULD REMAIN SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATIONS
RELATING "TO THE MAINTENANCE, PROTECTION, SAFETY, OR USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS THEREIN, WHICH DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MOTOR VEHICLES USED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THE RAYBURN BILL WHICH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION APPROVED, CONTAINED SUCH A CLAUSE (S. DOC. 152, 73D
CONG., 2ND SESS., 25).  ONLY THE COUZENS BILL (S. 2793, 72D CONG., 1ST
SESS.) AFFIRMATIVELY PRESCRIBED FEDERAL REGULATION.  THE DILL BILL (S.
3171, 73D CONG., 2D SESS.) AND S. 1629, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., WHICH
WAS FINALLY ENACTED AS THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, ENVISAGED THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH REGULATION OF SIZE AND WEIGHTS BUT ONLY AFTER A REPORT TO
CONGRESS.  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THESE BILLS SEE KAUPER, FEDERAL
REGULATION OF MOTOR CARRIERS, 33 MICH. L. REV. 239, 240-243, NOTES 128,
129, 132. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 11, SUPRA.
..END :



















UNION LAND BANK V. BYERLY, 310 U.S. 1 


NO. 579.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 106 F.2D
576, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF
AUGUST 28, 1935, AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, MADE IN A PROCEEDING
FOR COMPOSITION AND EXTENSION, AND PERMITTING A SHERIFF'S SALE TO BE
MADE, SUBJECT TO CONFIRMATION, UNDER A DECREE OF FORECLOSURE PREVIOUSLY
ENTERED IN A STATE COURT, WAS ERRONEOUS IF NOT GRANTED ON PETITION AND
AFTER HEARING AND REPORT BY THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, BUT WAS NOT
VOID AND COULD NOT BE ATTACKED COLLATERALLY IN A STATE COURT.  P. 7. 

2.  JURISDICTION OF A STATE COURT IN FORECLOSURE, SUSPENDED BY THE
INSTITUTION OF A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AGAIN
ATTACHED UPON DISMISSAL OF THE BANKRUPTCY CASE AND EMPOWERED THE STATE
COURT TO CONFIRM A FORECLOSURE SALE PREVIOUSLY MADE AND TO ORDER A
SHERIFF'S DEED.  P. 8. 

3.  REINSTATEMENT UNDER THE ACT OF 1935, SUPRA, OF A PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 75(S) PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED, DID NOT INVALIDATE A SHERIFF'S SALE
AND DEED WHICH WERE CONFIRMED AND AUTHORIZED BY A STATE COURT ACTING
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION DURING THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE DISMISSAL OF
THE BANKRUPTCY CASE AND THE MOTION TO REINSTATE IT.  P. 8. 

4.  THERE IS NO OCCASION TO REFER A CAUSE UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
PROPERTY WHICH, BY REASON OF FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS ALREADY
CONSUMMATED IN A STATE COURT, NO LONGER BELONGS TO THE DEBTOR.  P. 10. 

UNION JOINT STOCK LAND BANK OF DETROIT V. BYERLY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING THE DISTRICT
COURT IN BANKRUPTCY WHICH, IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75(S), DENIED
REHEARING OF AN ORDER OF DISCLAIMER AND REFUSED TO REFER THE CAUSE TO A
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SEPTEMBER 1, 1932, THE PETITIONER INSTITUTED A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MADISON COUNTY,
OHIO.  THE CAUSE WAS PROSECUTED TO JUDGMENT AND ADVERTISEMENT WAS MADE
OF A SHERIFF'S SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO TAKE PLACE NOVEMBER 24, 1934. 

NOVEMBER 19, 1934, THE RESPONDENT FILED HIS PETITION IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,  FN1  AND
THE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS IN THE FORECLOSURE
SUIT UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. 

NOVEMBER 23, 1934, THE DISTRICT COURT, ON APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER, WITHOUT REFERENCE OF THE MATTER TO A CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER, MODIFIED THE RESTRAINING ORDER TO PERMIT THE SALE OF THE
PREMISES AS ADVERTISED BUT ENJOINED ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS,
PARTICULARLY CONFIRMATION OF THE SALE OR EXECUTION OF SHERIFF'S DEED. 

NOVEMBER 24, 1934, THE SHERIFF, AS PERMITTED BY THE MODIFICATION OF
THE RESTRAINING ORDER, HELD THE SALE AS ADVERTISED.  THE PETITIONER BID
THE PROPERTY IN AND THE SHERIFF MADE RETURN OF THE SALE. 

DECEMBER 14, 1934, THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THE RESPONDENT'S
PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND ORDERED A REFERENCE TO
A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER.  THE LATTER REPORTED THAT NO AGREEMENT
COULD BE REACHED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND HIS CREDITORS. 

FEBRUARY 11, 1935, THE RESPONDENT ABANDONED PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (R) OF SEC. 75 AND FILED AN AMENDED PETITION TO BE
ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT PURSUANT TO SEC. 75(S).  FN2 

MAY 27, 1935, THIS COURT HELD CERTAIN FEATURES OF SEC. 75(S)
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295
U.S. 555. 

AUGUST 26, 1935, ON THE APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENT, THE DISTRICT
COURT ORDERED THAT, BECAUSE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 75(S),
THE RESPONDENT'S PETITION AND AMENDED PETITION BE DISMISSED AND THAT
THE CASE BE TERMINATED. 

AUGUST 28, 1935, SEC. 75 WAS AMENDED  FN3  TO MEET THE DECISION IN
LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, SUPRA.  THE ACT, AS SO AMENDED, PROVIDED IN
PARAGRAPH 5 OF SEC. 75(S): 

"THIS ACT SHALL BE HELD TO APPLY TO ALL EXISTING CASES NOW PENDING IN
ANY FEDERAL COURT, UNDER THIS ACT, AS WELL AS TO FUTURE CASES; AND ALL
CASES THAT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY ANY CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER,
REFEREE, OR COURT BECAUSE OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDING THE
FORMER SUBSECTION (S) UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SHALL BE PROMPTLY REINSTATED,
WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL FILING FEES OR CHARGES." 

SEPTEMBER 10, 1935, THE SHERIFF'S SALE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMON
PLEAS COURT.  SUBSEQUENTLY THIS ACTION WAS, ON APPEAL BY RESPONDENT,
AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MADISON COUNTY. 

SEPTEMBER 11, 1935, THE SHERIFF'S DEED WAS DELIVERED TO THE
PETITIONER AND WAS RECORDED. 

SEPTEMBER 24, 1935, THE RESPONDENT MOVED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF HIS BANKRUPTCY CASE.  THE MOTION WAS GRANTED BUT
APPARENTLY NO AMENDED PETITION HAS BEEN FILED NOR ANY ADJUDICATION
ENTERED UNDER SEC. 75(S). 

MAY 8, 1936, THE PETITIONER MOVED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ORDER OF
DISCLAIMER OF THE REAL ESTATE IN QUESTION. 

OCTOBER 22, 1936, AN ORDER OF DISCLAIMER WAS ENTERED.  OCTOBER 26 A
PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND WAS ENTERTAINED
BY THE COURT. 

APRIL 17, 1937, THE RESPONDENT MOVED THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE
PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY BE REFERRED TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER
PURSUANT TO SEC. 75(S). 

MAY 6, 1937, THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE RESPONDENT'S PETITION
FOR A REHEARING OF THE ORDER OF DISCLAIMER. 

MAY 8, 1937, THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE MOTION OF THE
RESPONDENT TO REFER THE CAUSE TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER. 

MAY 27, 1937, THE RESPONDENT PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN
APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM THE ORDER DENYING HIS
PETITION FOR REHEARING OF THE ORDER OF DISCLAIMER AND FROM THE ORDER
DENYING HIS MOTION TO REFER THE CAUSE TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER
AND, ON THE SAME DATE, THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED AN APPEAL. 

JUNE 3, 1937, THE RESPONDENT PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND, JUNE 7,
1937, LEAVE WAS GRANTED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, HOLDING THAT, AT THE TIME OF FILING HIS NEW PETITION UNDER SEC.
75, AS AMENDED, THE RESPONDENT HAD A PROPERTY RIGHT - A RIGHT OF
REDEMPTION - IN THE MORTGAGED PREMISES, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CUT OFF BY
THE SALE AND ITS CONFIRMATION IN THE STATE COURT, AND THAT THE CAUSE
SHOULD BE REFERRED TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER AND PROSECUTED BEFORE
HIM.  FN4  ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED, AS THE ACTION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT MODIFYING THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND PERMITTING A
SALE OF THE MORTGAGED PREMISES WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
AND, IF NOT, IT IS BINDING UPON THE RESPONDENT SINCE HE FAILED TO
EXCEPT TO OR APPEAL FROM IT. 

THE PETITIONER FURTHER ASSERTS THAT THE RESPONDENT'S PROCUREMENT OF
THE TERMINATION OF THE ORIGINAL BANKRUPTCY CASE AMOUNTED TO A WAIVER OF
ANY IRREGULARITY WHICH OCCURRED WHILE THE PROCEEDING WAS PENDING AND
PRECLUDED THE RESPONDENT FROM OBJECTING TO SUCH IRREGULARITY.  FURTHER,
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE SALE MADE BY THE SHERIFF DID NOT CHANGE
THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE DEBTOR AND HIS PROPERTY SINCE HIS RIGHT OF
REDEMPTION, UNDER OHIO LAW, REMAINED UNTIL CONFIRMATION OF THE SALE BY
THE STATE COURT; AND, ALTHOUGH THAT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
WHILE THE ORIGINAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS PENDING, IT REGAINED SUCH
JURISDICTION BY THE TERMINATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY CASE, AND HAD
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER, WHEN THE
DECREE OF CONFIRMATION WAS ENTERED.  THE CLAIM IS THAT THE DECREE OF
CONFIRMATION CANNOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUES THAT THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 75, IN FORCE AT THE TIME THE SALE WAS MADE, RENDERED VOID THE
DISTRICT COURT'S PERMISSION TO MAKE THE SALE AND THE SHERIFF'S ACTION
IN MAKING IT; AND THAT CONFIRMATION OR DELIVERY OF A DEED CAN GIVE NO
VALIDITY TO SUCH VOID ACTION, WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD,
THEREFORE, HAVE DISREGARDED. 

FIRST.  THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN PERMITTING THE HOLDING OF
THE SALE WAS NOT VOID BUT VOIDABLE; AND THE SALE MADE PURSUANT THERETO
WAS NOT VOID. 

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, PROVIDED: 

"(E)  ...  AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND PRIOR TO THE
CONFIRMATION OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION
PROPOSAL BY THE COURT, THE COURT SHALL EXERCISE SUCH CONTROL OVER THE
PROPERTY OF THE FARMER AS THE COURT DEEMS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
FARMER AND HIS CREDITORS." 

"(N)  THE FILING OF A PETITION PLEADING FOR RELIEF UNDER THIS SECTION
SHALL SUBJECT THE FARMER AND HIS PROPERTY, WHEREVER LOCATED, TO THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS
POWERS OF THE COURT, THE TITLE, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF ITS OFFICERS, THE
DUTIES OF THE FARMER, AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND
OF ALL PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE FARMER AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE COURTS, SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A
VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF
ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE FARMER'S PETITION OR
ANSWER WAS FILED." 

"(O)  EXCEPT UPON PETITION MADE TO AND GRANTED BY THE JUDGE AFTER
HEARING AND REPORT BY THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS SHALL NOT BE INSTITUTED, OR IF INSTITUTED AT ANY TIME PRIOR
TO THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER THIS SECTION, SHALL NOT BE
MAINTAINED, IN ANY COURT OR OTHERWISE, AGAINST THE FARMER OR HIS
PROPERTY, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION UNDER THIS
COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION PROPOSAL BY THE COURT:" 

     . .         .         .         . 

"(6)  SEIZURE, DISTRESS, SALE, OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER AN
EXECUTION OR UNDER ANY LEASE, LIEN, CHATTEL MORTGAGE, CONDITIONAL SALE
AGREEMENT, CROP PAYMENT AGREEMENT, OR MORTGAGE." 

THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (P) AS IT WAS WHEN THE PETITION WAS
FILED HAVE NO APPLICATION.  THAT SUBSECTION WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
AUGUST 28, 1935, SUPRA, TO PROVIDE "THE PROHIBITIONS OF SUBSECTION (O)
SHALL APPLY TO ALL JUDICIAL AND OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OR
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ANY OFFICIAL  ...  "  THIS AMENDMENT WAS MADE
AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE BANKRUPTCY CASE. 

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND HIS PROPERTY VESTED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT ON THE FILING OF THE PETITION.  UP TO THAT TIME
JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY WAS IN THE STATE
COURT.  WITHOUT ACTION BY THE DISTRICT COURT THE STATE COURT COULD NOT
HAVE PROCEEDED FURTHER.  FN5  BUT WITHOUT CHANGING THE STATUS OF THE
DEBTOR'S RIGHT OF REDEMPTION THE FEDERAL COURT GAVE PERMISSION TO THE
STATE OFFICER TO HOLD THE SALE.  THE SALE WAS, HOWEVER, INCOMPLETE
UNTIL CONFIRMATION BY THE COURT.  FN6  UNTIL CONFIRMED IT AMOUNTED TO
AN UNACCEPTED OFFER TO PURCHASE.  NO SALE WAS CONSUMMATED WHILE THE
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS PENDING. 

IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (O), IT WAS ERROR FOR THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PRELIMINARY STEPS REQUIRED BY
THAT SUBSECTION, TO PERMIT THE SHERIFF TO HOLD THE SALE.  FN7 BUT THE
COURT HAD JURISDICTION IN THE PREMISES.  ERROR COMMITTED BY IT IN THE
EXERCISE OF THAT JURISDICTION COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BY APPEAL FROM
ITS ORDER.  FN8  THE STATE COURT AND ITS OFFICER, THE SHERIFF, WERE
ENTITLED, IN VIEW OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S PLENARY JURISDICTION OVER THE
DEBTOR AND HIS PROPERTY, TO RELY UPON THE ORDER GRANTING PERMISSION TO
MAKE THE SALE.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT LOSE JURISDICTION BY
ERRONEOUSLY CONSTRUING OR APPLYING PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE UNDER
WHICH IT ADMINISTERED THE BANKRUPT ESTATE.  ITS ORDER WAS VOIDABLE, BUT
NOT VOID, AND WAS NOT TO BE DISREGARDED OR ATTACKED COLLATERALLY IN THE
STATE COURT.  FN9 

SECOND.  THE TERMINATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING RESTORED THE
JURISDICTION AND POWER OF THE STATE COURT AND ITS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN THE FORECLOSURE SUIT WERE NOT SUBJECT TO ATTACK IN THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT. 

ALTHOUGH THE STATE COURT'S JURISDICTION WAS SUPERSEDED BY THAT OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, IT AGAIN ATTACHED UPON THE DISMISSAL OF THE
BANKRUPTCY CASE, AND, THENCEFORWARD, AS RESPECTS THE FORECLOSURE SUIT,
AND THE STATE COURT'S PROCEDURE, IT WAS AS IF NO BANKRUPTCY CASE HAD
EVER EXISTED.  WITH JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER,
THE STATE COURT ENTERED A DECREE CONFIRMING THE SALE AND AUTHORIZING A
DEED, THE SHERIFF EXECUTED HIS DEED, WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED, AND THE
PETITIONER WENT INTO POSSESSION AS PURCHASER OF THE MORTGAGED
PREMISES.  THEREAFTER THE RESPONDENT MOVED FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE
BANKRUPTCY CASE AND HIS MOTION WAS GRANTED.  IN THE INTERIM, NO
BANKRUPTCY CAUSE WAS PENDING AND THE STATE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO
PROCEED AS IT DID. 

WE CANNOT ASSENT TO THE VIEW ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT THE
AMENDMENT TO SEC. 75 OF AUGUST 28, 1935, AUTOMATICALLY REINSTATED THE
EARLIER PROCEEDING WHICH HAD BEEN DISMISSED; OR THAT THE MOTION TO
REINSTATE THE PROCEEDING OPERATED BY RELATION TO CLOSE THE GAP OF
TWENTY-NINE DAYS BETWEEN THE DISMISSAL OF THE ORIGINAL BANKRUPTCY CASE,
AND THE STATE COURT'S ACTION IN CONFIRMING THE SALE, AND TO DEPRIVE THE
LATTER OF JURISDICTION TO ACT IN THE INTERIM.  THE AMENDATORY ACT
MERELY AUTHORIZED THE REINSTATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAD BEEN
DISMISSED.  THE CASE IS ANALOGOUS TO ONE WHEREIN A STATE COURT
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND DEED DELIVERED TO THE
SHERIFF'S VENDEE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER SEC. 75.  FN10
THE PROVISION FOR THE REINSTATEMENT, UPON THE DEBTOR'S MOTION, OF A
PROCEEDING THERETOFORE DISMISSED AND FINALLY TERMINATED, CANNOT AFFECT
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT CONDUCTING THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING
WHEN NO BANKRUPTCY CAUSE WAS PENDING. 

WAYNE UNITED GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., 300 U.S. 131,
RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT, IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH OUR DECISION. 
THERE A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY FILED UNDER SEC. 77B WAS DISMISSED BY
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, NOT ON MOTION OF THE BANKRUPT BUT AT THE INSTANCE
OF MORTGAGE CREDITORS AND OVER THE BANKRUPT'S OBJECTION.  IN DUE TIME A
PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS FILED.  WITH NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THIS
PETITION FOR REHEARING, AND THAT IT WOULD BE SET FOR HEARING BEFORE THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, THE CREDITORS TOOK FURTHER STEPS IN A FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDING PENDING IN A STATE COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERTAINED
THE PETITION FOR REHEARING AND AN AMENDED PETITION.  THE CREDITORS WHO
WERE PROSECUTING THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURT APPEARED
AND WERE HEARD IN OPPOSITION.  IN ENTERTAINING THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT GOOD CAUSE EXISTED FOR VACATION
OF ITS ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE CAUSE; THAT THE
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING HAD BEEN SEASONABLY PRESENTED, AND THAT NO
RIGHTS HAD VESTED IN RELIANCE UPON ITS EARLIER ORDER OF DISMISSAL WHICH
WOULD BE DISTURBED BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER.  THE PETITION WAS
DISMISSED, THE DEBTOR APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND WAS
GRANTED A SUPERSEDEAS.  FROM AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION BY THE DISTRICT COURT THE
DEBTOR SOUGHT CERTIORARI FROM THIS COURT.  THE STATE COURT IN WHICH THE
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS PENDING HAD FULL NOTICE OF ALL OF THESE
FACTS WHEN IT PROCEEDED TO CONSUMMATE THE FORECLOSURE SALE.  WE HELD
THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO RIGHTS WERE ACQUIRED UNDER THE STATE
COURT PROCEEDINGS SINCE TERMINATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY CASE DID NOT
OCCUR UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE EFFORTS IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND
ON APPEAL TO REVERSE THE DECREE OF DISMISSAL. 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS RIGHT IN REFUSING TO REFER THE REINSTATED
CAUSE TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER.  SINCE THE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND TITLE HAD PASSED THEREUNDER PRIOR TO
THE FILING OF THE DEBTOR'S PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN A VAIN THING TO REFER THE CAUSE TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY WHICH NO LONGER BELONGED TO THE DEBTOR. 
FN11  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO PASS UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO
ENTER AN ORDER OF DISCLAIMER.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE COURT'S ACTION
IN REFUSING TO REFER THE CAUSE TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER WAS
JUSTIFIED.  THAT ORDER WE THINK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SAID THAT, EVEN WHERE TITLE HAS PASSED FROM THE MORTGAGOR IN
FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FILING OF THE PETITION, THE DEBTOR
SHOULD BE, IF HE SO REQUESTS, ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT SO THAT A TRUSTEE
MAY, IF SO ADVISED, CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE.  HERE, HOWEVER,
THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF ANY INFIRMITY IN THE PETITIONER'S TITLE SAVE
THAT THE SALE WAS MADE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  BUT THAT SALE WAS MADE UNDER LEAVE OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT AND IT WAS WITHIN THE STATE COURT'S JURISDICTION, WHEN NO
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS PENDING, TO CONFIRM THE SALE AND ORDER
DELIVERY OF A DEED.  IF IT ERRED IN THAT RESPECT ITS ACTION WAS SUBJECT
TO CORRECTION BY APPEAL BUT NOT SUBJECT TO ATTACK IN A COLLATERAL
PROCEEDING.  THE FACT IS THAT THE DEBTOR APPEALED FROM THE CONFIRMATION
OF THE SALE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MADISON COUNTY, OHIO, WHICH
AFFIRMED THE DECREE OF THE COMMON PLEAS COURT.  AN ISSUE OF FRAUD
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PRACTICED UPON THE DEBTOR TO OBTAIN HIS WITHDRAWAL
OF HIS ORIGINAL BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS THERE FINALLY DECIDED AGAINST
HIM. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, C. 204, 47 STAT. 1467, 1470. 

FN2  SUBSECTION (S) WAS ADDED TO SEC. 75 BY THE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1934,
C. 869, 48 STAT. 1289. 

FN3  ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935, C. 792, 49 STAT. 942. 

FN4  BYERLY V. UNION JOINT STOCK LAND BANK, 106 F.2D 576. 

FN5  KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433. 

FN6  BASSETT V. DANIELS, 10 OH. ST. 617, 619; REED V. RADIGAN, 42 OH.
ST. 292, 294. 

FN7  KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, SUPRA. 

FN8  COMPARE JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BARTELS, 308
U.S. 180. 

FN9  THOMPSON V. TOLMIE, 2 PET. 157, 163; VOORHEES V. BANK OF UNITED
STATES, 10 PET. 449; FLORENTINE V. BARTON, 2 WALL.  210; COOPER V.
REYNOLDS, 10 WALL.  308; MCNITT V. TURNER, 16 WALL.  352, 366; SIMMONS
V. SAUL, 138 U.S. 439; NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R. CO., 147 U.S.
165, 173; INSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 150 U.S. 512. 

FN10  SEE WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 502, 508. 

FN11  COMPARE WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY,
DISSENTING. 

WE BELIEVE THAT TO DENY THIS FARMER THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT BECAUSE
THE PURCHASE BY THE MORTGAGEE AT THE SHERIFF'S SALE WAS CONFIRMED
DURING THE SHORT INTERVAL BETWEEN THE DISMISSAL OF HIS PETITION AND ITS
REINSTATEMENT, WOULD BE LARGELY TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 

AFTER THE ORIGINAL SUBSECTION (S) OF THE FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT WAS
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT, MAY 27, 1935,
FN1  THIS FARMER'S PETITION WAS DISMISSED, AUGUST 26, 1935.  A SCANT
TWO DAYS AFTER THE DISMISSAL, AUGUST 28, CONGRESS ENACTED THE PRESENT
FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT DESIGNED TO SUPPLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCY AND
PROVIDING THAT ALL CASES DISMISSED BECAUSE OF THAT DECISION "BE
PROMPTLY REINSTATED."  FN2  AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND EVEN
BEFORE DISMISSAL, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ALLOWED THIS FARMER'S PROPERTY
TO BE SOLD BY THE SHERIFF UNDER FORECLOSURE IN THE STATE COURT.  AND IT
IS ADMITTED THAT THE ORDER PURPORTING TO PERMIT THE SALE WAS ERRONEOUS
BECAUSE ENTERED IN DISREGARD OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (O). 
FN3  THE OHIO STATE COURT CONFIRMED THE SHERIFF'S SALE, SEPTEMBER 10,
1935, A DATE PRIOR TO THE LAPSE OF THE THIRTY DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH
AN APPEAL WOULD LIE FROM AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL.  FN4 

INSTEAD OF APPEALING, THE FARMER, WITHIN THE THIRTY DAY PERIOD,
PRAYED RELIEF FROM THE DISMISSAL DECREE BY REINSTATEMENT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT ITSELF.  IN HIS APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT, HE
ALLEGED THAT DISMISSAL OF HIS PETITION HAD BEEN INDUCED BY THE
DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE MORTGAGEE-BANK, THAT HE HAD NO
NOTICE OF THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SHERIFF'S SALE UNTIL SEVERAL DAYS
AFTER IT TOOK PLACE AND THAT HE WISHED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF SEC. 75 AS
AMENDED AUGUST 28.  UPON THE PRAYER "THAT HIS ...  PROCEEDING  ...  BE
REINSTATED AS OF THE DATE OF ITS  ... DISMISSAL," THE CASE WAS
REINSTATED.  WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT EITHER THE POWER OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT TO REINSTATE OR THE REINSTATEMENT WHICH WAS IN FACT
GRANTED, IS QUESTIONED. 

UNTIL DISPOSITION OF THE FARMER'S PETITION, HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE
PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF THE ACT, AND THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAD
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF HIS PROPERTY.  FN5  DISMISSAL OF THE
PROCEEDING DID NOT CONSTITUTE ITS FINAL DISPOSITION WHERE REINSTATEMENT
WAS AVAILABLE.  CERTAINLY, THIS MUST HOLD TRUE AT LEAST FOR THE PERIOD
OF TIME AFTER DISMISSAL DURING WHICH THE FARMER HAD A STATUTORY RIGHT
TO APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION.  FN6  OTHERWISE, EVEN
APPEAL MIGHT BE WHOLLY UNAVAILING AND FUTILE.  WHEN A COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY REINSTATES A CASE PREVIOUSLY RETIRED FROM THE DOCKET, AS
THIS FARMER'S CASE WAS REINSTATED, THE COURT RECONSIDERS THE CAUSE ON
THE MERITS UPON THE ORIGINAL AS WELL AS ANY SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONS
UNLESS RIGHTS HAVE "INTERVENED WHICH WOULD RENDER IT INEQUITABLE TO
RECONSIDER THE MERITS."  WAYNE GAS CO. V. OWENS CO., 300 U.S. 131, 137,
138.  WE FIND NO INTERVENING EQUITIES HERE. 

IN THE WAYNE CASE, A CORPORATE REORGANIZATION IN 77B WAS DISMISSED
AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE DISMISSAL A STATE COURT CONFIRMED A FORECLOSURE
SALE OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN DECREED PRIOR TO THE
FILING OF THE 77B PROCEEDING.  AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD
DENIED THE DEBTOR'S PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF AN APPEAL AND THE TIME
FOR APPEAL AS OF RIGHT HAD EXPIRED, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT REINSTATED THE
PROCEEDING AND REHEARD THE CASE UPON THE MERITS.  THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION WAS AGAIN FOUND WANTING AND THE COURT ENTERED A SECOND
ORDER OF DISMISSAL.  THE DEBTOR'S APPEAL FROM THE SECOND DISMISSAL WAS
IN TURN DISMISSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE GROUND THAT
LACK OF POWER IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN BANKRUPTCY RENDERED THE ORDER OF
REINSTATEMENT - AS WELL AS THE SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL - VOID.  FN7 

WHEN THE CASE REACHED HERE, ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE FORECLOSURE
PURCHASER WERE IN SUBSTANCE THOSE UPON WHICH WE ARE NOW ASKED TO
REVERSE THE COURT BELOW - THAT THE FIRST ORDER OF DISMISSAL HAD
TERMINATED THE CAUSE (SO THAT AN APPEAL NOT TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF
ITS ENTRY WAS NOT TIMELY); AND THAT THE STATE COURT'S CONFIRMATION OF
SALE, AFTER DISMISSAL, HAD FINALLY DIVESTED THE BANKRUPT OF ALL TITLE
TO ITS FORECLOSED PROPERTY LEAVING NO PROPERTY FOR ADMINISTRATION BY
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT (AND THE CONTROVERSY WAS THEREFORE MOOT). 

THIS COURT DENIED THESE CONTENTIONS, AND HELD THAT THE DISMISSAL HAD
NOT TERMINATED THE PROCEEDING; THAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS NOT MOOT AND
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD PROPERLY FOUND THAT NO INTERVENING RIGHTS
HAD ACCRUED TO DIVEST THE DEBTOR OF ITS PROPERTY FORECLOSED SUBSEQUENT
TO THE DISMISSAL IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT; THAT THE REHEARING HAD BEEN
SOUGHT IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH DUE DILIGENCE AND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS HAD ERRED IN NOT PASSING UPON THE MERITS OF A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION WHICH INCLUDED THE PROPERTY SOLD UNDER THE STATE COURT'S
ORDER.  THE DECISION HERE THUS APPROVED THE EXERCISE OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR WHICH,
AFTER DISMISSAL, HAD BEEN BOUGHT IN THE STATE COURT FORECLOSURE BY
CREDITORS WHO WERE PARTIES TO THE 77B PROCEEDINGS AND WHO "WENT FORWARD
WITH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT, LOOKING TO A SALE OF THE
DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT A REHEARING MIGHT BE
GRANTED  ...  "  ID., 135. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS NOT REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ITS FINDING THAT NO RIGHTS COGNIZABLE IN EQUITY HAD
INTERVENED AS A RESULT OF THE STATE COURT FORECLOSURE.  INSTEAD, THE
REMAND WENT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  AND THAT
COURT PROPERLY CONSTRUED THE MANDATE TO REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF THE
MERITS OF THE DEBTOR'S PLAN WHICH ASSUMED OWNERSHIP IN THE DEBTOR OF
THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY UPON WHICH FORECLOSURE HAD BEEN ATTEMPTED. 
FN8 

SO HERE, AS IN THE WAYNE CASE, STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO
DISMISSAL, BUT WHILE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS COULD BE HAD IN BANKRUPTCY,
DID NOT DIVEST THE DEBTOR OF HIS PROPERTY; THERE "WAS NO ABUSE OF SOUND
DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE MOTION (FOR REINSTATEMENT) AND RECONSIDERING
THE CAUSE"; THE DISTRICT COURT IN BANKRUPTCY HAD "THE POWER, FOR GOOD
REASON, TO REVISE ITS JUDGMENTS (OF DISMISSAL AND TO REINSTATE) UPON
SEASONABLE APPLICATION AND BEFORE RIGHTS  ...  (HAD) VESTED ON THE
FAITH OF ITS ACTION."  ID., 137, 138.  AND ITS GENERAL POWER TO DO SO,
AT LEAST DURING THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR TAKING AN APPEAL,  FN9  WAS
REINFORCED BY RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIFIC STATUTORY RIGHT OF
REINSTATEMENT IN THE AMENDED 75(S), WHICH SPRANG INTO BEING ONLY TWO
DAYS AFTER DISMISSAL OF THIS FARMER'S PETITION.  PARALLELING THE
SITUATION PRESENTED BY THE WAYNE CASE, NOT ONLY WAS THE MORTGAGEE
PURCHASER HERE A PARTY TO THE 75 PROCEEDING, BUT THE STATE COURT ITSELF
MAY BE SAID TO HAVE ACTED WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THE DISMISSAL - OF WHICH
IT WAS NOTIFIED - DID NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE LAST STEP IN THE
FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDING.  CF. ID., 135. 

HERE, THE ONLY ASSERTED RIGHTS WHICH INTERVENED AGAINST THIS FARMER
DEBTOR WERE NOT THOSE OF A BONA FIDE PURCHASER.  THE PURCHASER WAS THE
MORTGAGEE WHO WAS A PARTY TO THE SEC. 75 PROCEEDING AND WHO RELIED - AT
LEAST IN PART - ON AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ADMITTEDLY
ERRONEOUS BECAUSE CONTRARY TO THE FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT, AND RENDERED AT
THE MORTGAGEE'S INSTIGATION.  THEREFORE, THE MORTGAGEE-PURCHASER IS NOT
ENTITLED TO RELY UPON THE STATUS ACQUIRED BY IT IN THE STATE COURT
AFTER DISMISSAL "AS PRECLUDING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION"
FOR COMPOSITION.  CF. ID., 135.  TO DECIDE OTHERWISE THAN THAT THE
DISMISSAL HERE DID NOT DEPRIVE THE FARMER-DEBTOR OF THE RIGHT TO
PROCEED - BEFORE RIGHTS HAVE VESTED - BY REINSTATEMENT TO OBTAIN THE
BENEFITS OF THE ACT, IS TO PERMIT DISMISSAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
FARMER'S CREDITORS AND WITHOUT THE FARMER'S KNOWLEDGE TO PROVE A READY
MEANS OF CIRCUMVENTING THE ACT.  FN10  TITLE TO A FARMER'S PROPERTY
ACQUIRED IN THE MANNER PURSUED BY PETITIONER CANNOT LIMIT THE POWER OF
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO AFFORD THE PROTECTION OF AND TO ENFORCE THIS
REMEDIAL LEGISLATION. 

FN1  LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555. 

FN2  SEC. 75(S)(5). 

FN3  AS WE VIEW THE EFFECT OF REINSTATEMENT, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S ORDER WAS NOT MERELY
ERRONEOUS, BUT VOID. 

FN4  11 U.S.C. 47, 48. 

FN5  KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433. 

FN6  "AN APPEAL IS A PROCEEDING IN THE ORIGINAL CAUSE AND THE SUIT IS
PENDING UNTIL THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF.  ...  WHEN THE FINAL JUDGMENT
WAS REACHED IT DETERMINED THE RIGHTS OF  ...  (THE PARTIES) AB INITIO,
...  "  MACKENZIE V. ENGELHARD CO., 266 U.S. 131, 142-143.  "WHERE A
DECREE HAS NOT BEEN ENROLLED, OR WHERE IT IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION
UPON MOTION, OR WHERE THE COURT MIGHT GRANT A REHEARING, OR WHERE AN
APPEAL MIGHT BE TAKEN, OR WHERE THE COSTS HAD NOT BEEN TAXED, OR WHERE
NO EXECUTION HAD ISSUED - IT NOT BEING IN CONDITION TO ISSUE EXECUTION
THE CASE COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE REACHED THAT STAGE WHERE IT COULD
BE SAID IT WAS NOT PENDING IN THAT COURT."  BRANNON V. KENTUCKY, 162
KY. 350, 357-8; 172 S.W. 703, 706.  CF. STATE V. TUGWELL, 19 WASH. 238;
52 P. 1056; 43 L.R.A. 717; BLOOM V. PEOPLE, 23 COLO. 416; 48 P. 519;
STATE EX REL. ANDREU V. CANFIELD, 40 FLA. 36, 44; 23 SO. 591; BROWN V.
CAMPBELL, 100 CAL. 635, 646; 35 P. 433; EX PARTE HOWLAND, 3 OKLA. CRIM.
142; 104 P. 927; ANN. CAS. 1912A, 840. 

FN7  84 F.2D 965. 

FN8  WAYNE GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., 91 F.2D 827. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 6, SUPRA. 

FN10  CF. IN RE PRICE, 99 F.2D 691, 694. 
..END :







U.S. V. SAN FRANCISCO, 310 U.S. 16 


NO. 587.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 106 F.2D
569, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE RAKER ACT OF DECEMBER 19, 1913, WHICH GRANTED TO THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CERTAIN LANDS AND RIGHTS OF WAY IN THE
HETCH-HETCHY VALLEY FOR USE BY THE CITY IN CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING
A MEANS OF SUPPLYING WATER FOR THE DOMESTIC PURPOSES OF THE CITY AND
OTHER PUBLIC BODIES, AND IN ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM FOR GENERATION AND
SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY, HELD: 

THAT SEC. 6 PROHIBITS THE CITY FROM TRANSFERRING TO A PUBLIC UTILITY
THE RIGHT TO SELL ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCED BY THE CITY UNDER THE GRANT,
IN ADDITION TO FORBIDDING SALE OF THE POWER ITSELF AS A COMMODITY FOR
RESALE.  P. 20. 

CONGRESS CLEARLY INTENDED TO REQUIRE - AS A CONDITION OF ITS GRANT -
SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER EXCLUSIVELY BY SAN FRANCISCO AND OTHER
MUNICIPAL AGENCIES DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS IN THE BELIEF THAT CONSUMERS
WOULD THUS BE AFFORDED POWER AT CHEAP RATES IN COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE
POWER COMPANIES.  P. 26. 

2.  THE CITY, INSTEAD OF SELLING THE POWER PRODUCED UNDER THE GRANT
DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS AT PRICES FIXED BY ITSELF, DELIVERED IT UNDER A
CONTRACT, FOR A FIXED COMPENSATION, TO A PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATION,
WHICH, IN TURN, SOLD IT TO CONSUMERS IN THE CITY AND ELSEWHERE, ALONG
WITH POWER PRODUCED BY ITSELF, AT THE RATES FIXED FROM TIME TO TIME BY
THE STATE RAILROAD COMMISSION.  HELD THAT THE CONTRACT IS IN VIOLATION
OF THE ACT, AND CAN NOT BE DEFENDED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE CITY HAS A
RIGHT TO SELL THROUGH THE CORPORATION AS ITS AGENT.  P. 28. 

3.  THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 6 ARE NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION
OF THE RIGHT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO REGULATE DISTRIBUTION OF
ELECTRICITY, AND ARE NOT MERE COVENANTS SUBJECT TO ALLEGED EQUITABLE
DEFENSES, BUT ARE CONDITIONS WHICH CONGRESS, IN VIRTUE OF ITS POWER
OVER THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, WAS AUTHORIZED TO ATTACH TO THE GRANT.  P. 28. 

4.  IN DISPOSING OF RIGHTS TO DEVELOP HYDROELECTRIC POWER IN THE
PUBLIC LANDS, CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE LIMITATIONS DESIGNED TO AVOID
MONOPOLY AND TO BRING ABOUT A WIDE-SPREAD DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS.  P.
30. 

5.  A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED
STATES PURSUANT TO THE MANDATE OF THE GRANTING ACT, TO ENFORCE ITS
PROVISIONS BY AN INJUNCTION IS COGNIZABLE IN EQUITY.  P. 30. 

6.  IN SUCH A SUIT, THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO ENJOIN PLAIN VIOLATIONS
OF THE ACT IS NOT MEASURED BY A BALANCING OF EQUITIES BUT BY THE POLICY
OF THE STATUTE.  P. 31. 

7.  A FORMER ERRONEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 6 OF THE
ACT (SINCE ABANDONED) AS FORBIDDING NO MORE THAN SALE OF POWER FOR
RESALE, HELD INEFFECTUAL.  P. 31. 

8.  THE UNITED STATES IS NOT ESTOPPED BY ACTS OF ITS OFFICERS IN
SANCTIONING AN AGREEMENT NOT PERMITTED BY LAW.  P. 32. 

UNITED STATES V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 642, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE OF
INJUNCTION COMMANDING THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO CEASE
DISPOSING OF ITS ELECTRIC POWER TO A PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATION, OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, TO CEASE FURTHER USE OF LANDS AND RIGHTS GRANTED TO IT
BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS, FOR GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY THE RAKER ACT OF DECEMBER 19, 1913,  FN1  CONGRESS GRANTED THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,  FN2  SUBJECT TO EXPRESS CONDITIONS,
CERTAIN LANDS AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK AND STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST.  THE ACT IN TERMS
DECLARED THAT THIS, KNOWN AS THE "HETCH-HETCHY" GRANT, WAS INTENDED FOR
USE BY THE CITY BOTH IN CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING A MEANS OF
SUPPLYING WATER FOR THE DOMESTIC PURPOSES OF THE CITY AND OTHER PUBLIC
BODIES, AND IN ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM "FOR GENERATION AND SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY." 

UPON APPLICATION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, THE UNITED STATES
BROUGHT THIS SUIT  FN3  IN EQUITY CHARGING THE CITY WITH DISPOSING OF
POWER THROUGH THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, A PRIVATE UTILITY, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 6 OF THE GRANTING ACT.  SECTION 6 PROVIDES "THAT THE
GRANTEE (THE CITY) IS PROHIBITED FROM EVER SELLING OR LETTING TO ANY
CORPORATION OR INDIVIDUAL, EXCEPT A MUNICIPALITY OR A MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT OR IRRIGATION DISTRICT, THE RIGHT TO SELL OR SUBLET THE WATER
OR THE ELECTRIC ENERGY SOLD OR GIVEN TO IT OR HIM BY THE GRANTEE:
PROVIDED, THAT THE RIGHTS HEREBY GRANTED SHALL NOT BE SOLD, ASSIGNED,
OR TRANSFERRED TO ANY PRIVATE PERSON, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION, AND
IN CASE OF ANY ATTEMPT TO SO SELL, ASSIGN, TRANSFER, OR CONVEY, THIS
GRANT SHALL REVERT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES." 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE CITY WAS VIOLATING SEC. 6 BY
THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF HETCH-HETCHY POWER THROUGH THE PACIFIC GAS
& ELECTRIC COMPANY, A PRIVATE UTILITY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE CITY WAS
REQUIRED BY INJUNCTION ALTERNATIVELY TO DISCONTINUE SUCH DISPOSAL OF
THE POWER OR CEASE FURTHER USE OF THE LANDS AND RIGHTS GRANTED IT UNDER
THE ACT FOR GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY.  FN4  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,  FN5  FINDING THAT THE PRIVATE
UTILITY WAS MERELY ACTING AS THE CITY'S AGENT IN THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF HETCH-HETCHY POWER AND HOLDING THAT SEC. 6 DOES NOT
PROHIBIT SUCH SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THAT POWER BY A PRIVATE
UTILITY. 

HERE, AS IN THE COURTS BELOW, THE CITY HAS DEFENDED THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION BY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY OF POWER ORIGINATING AT
HETCH-HETCHY UPON THE GROUNDS THAT SUCH DISPOSITION DOES NOT VIOLATE
THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 6; THAT IMPOSITION OF THESE PROHIBITIONS WAS
NOT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS; AND THAT IF SEC. 6
IS VALID AND HAS BEEN VIOLATED, THE UNITED STATES IS NOT ENTITLED TO
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN EQUITY. 

FIRST.  PROHIBITIONS OF SECTION 6.  - IN THE CITY'S VIEW, SEC. 6 DOES
NOT PRECLUDE PRIVATE UTILITIES FROM ALL PARTICIPATION IN THE ULTIMATE
SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF HETCH-HETCHY POWER.  THE CITY INSISTS THAT THE
HETCH-HETCHY POWER TO A PRIVATE UTILITY FOR RESALE TO CONSUMERS AND
THEREFORE PERMITS CONSIGNMENT OF THE POWER TO THE COMPANY, AS AGENT OF
THE CITY, FOR SALE AND DISTRIBUTION.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSITION RESTS UPON THE CLAIM THAT PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY IS
NOT IN REALITY SELLING AND DISTRIBUTING HETCH-HETCHY POWER AS CONSIGNEE
AND AGENT BUT AS PURCHASER FOR RESALE; THAT THE GRANT TO THE CITY WAS
MADE UPON THE MANDATORY CONDITION THAT THIS POWER BE SOLD SOLELY AND
EXCLUSIVELY BY THE CITY DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS AND WITHOUT PRIVATE
PROFIT IN ORDER TO BRING IT INTO DIRECT COMPETITION WITH ADJACENT
PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES; AND THAT SEC. 6 NOT ONLY WITHHOLDS THE RIGHT
OF SELLING FOR RESALE BUT ALSO PROHIBITS THE CITY "FROM EVER SELLING OR
LETTING" TO ANY PRIVATE CORPORATION "THE RIGHT TO SELL OR SUBLET THE
...  ELECTRIC ENERGY SOLD OR GIVEN TO IT  ...  " BY THE CITY.  THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, ITS BACKGROUND AND ITS HISTORY REQUIRE THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN SEC. 6 BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

FROM ITS PROVISIONS,  FN6 IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ACT CONDITIONS THE
GRANT UPON AND CONTEMPLATES THE DEVELOPMENT, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
ELECTRICAL POWER BY THE CITY ITSELF "FOR MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL USE"
ON A SCALE TO BE GRADUALLY STEPPED UP OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.  "THE ...
GRANTEE SHALL DEVELOP AND USE HYDROELECTRIC POWER FOR THE USE OF ITS
PEOPLE AND SHALL  ... SELL OR SUPPLY SUCH POWER FOR IRRIGATION,
PUMPING, OR OTHER BENEFICIAL USE."  THE "RIGHT TO SELL OR SUBLET THE
...  ELECTRIC ENERGY" SO GENERATED BY THE CITY CANNOT, AS A CONSEQUENCE
OF SEC. 6, BE SOLD OR LET.  AND IN CASE OF ANY ATTEMPT TO "SELL,
ASSIGN, TRANSFER, OR CONVEY (THE RIGHTS GRANTED), THIS GRANT SHALL
REVERT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES." 

FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE CONGRESSMAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE APPLICATION
OF THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 6 SPECIFICALLY TO ELECTRIC ENERGY,  FN7  IT
IS CLEAR THAT AS ENACTED SEC. 6 WAS UNDERSTOOD TO PROHIBIT THE CITY
FROM TRANSFERRING TO A PRIVATE UTILITY THE RIGHT TO SELL HETCH-HETCHY
POWER (THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION) AND NOT MERELY TO FORBID SALE OF
POWER AS A COMMODITY FOR RESALE, AS THE CITY WOULD HAVE US HOLD: 

"MR. TAYLOR OF COLORADO.  WE HAVE GOT TO LET THE MUNICIPALITY SELL TO
INDIVIDUALS OR CONSUMERS. 

"MR. THOMSON OF ILLINOIS.  YES; BUT NOT THE RIGHT TO SELL SOME ONE
ELSE THE POWER. 

"MR. TAYLOR OF COLORADO.  SUPPOSING THAT SAN FRANCISCO SELLS A
CERTAIN BLOCK, YOU MAY SAY, OF ITS POWER TO ALAMEDA.  HAS NOT ALAMEDA
GOT THE RIGHT TO RESELL THAT TO ITS INHABITANTS? 

"MR. THOMSON OF ILLINOIS.  MR. CHAIRMAN, IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL HIS ATTENTION TO THE
FACT THAT THE SUBJECT OF SALE AS PRINTED IN THIS SECTION IS NOT THE
POWER OR THE WATER, BUT THE RIGHT TO SELL THE POWER OR THE WATER. 

"  ... 

"MR. RAKER.  THAT (THE WORD "INDIVIDUAL") REALLY IS INTENDED TO COVER
ANY PERSON WHO MIGHT ATTEMPT TO BUY THIS ELECTRIC POWER OR RIGHT.  I
THINK IT WOULD COVER EVERYBODY OUTSIDE OF A CORPORATION, THE INTENTION
BEING TO PREVENT ANYBODY GETTING IN AND GETTING A RIGHT AND SUB-LETTING
IT."  FN8 

IN ITS REPORT ON THE BILL, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS STATED
THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 6 "ACQUIESCED IN BY THE GRANTEE, WAS
DESIGNED TO PREVENT ANY MONOPLY OR PRIVATE CORPORATION FROM HEREAFTER
OBTAINING CONTROL OF THE WATER SUPPLY OF SAN FRANCISCO."  FN9 

FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES ON THE PASSAGE OF THE RAKER ACT CAN BE
READ A COMMON UNDERSTANDING BOTH ON THE PART OF SPONSORS OF THE BILL
AND ITS OPPONENTS THAT THE GRANT WAS TO BE SO CONDITIONED AS TO REQUIRE
MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTION OF SUPPLYING HETCH-HETCHY WATER
AND ELECTRIC POWER DIRECTLY TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS, AND TO PROHIBIT
SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THAT POWER AND WATER BY ANY PRIVATE CORPORATION
OR INDIVIDUAL.  FN10  ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, THE FOLLOWING TOOK
PLACE BETWEEN THE BILL'S AUTHOR AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES: 

"MR. SUMNERS.  DOES SAN FRANCISCO OWN ITS OWN LIGHTING PLANT NOW? 

"MR. KAHN.  NO; IT DOES NOT. 

"MR. RAKER.  I UNDERSTAND IT DOES NOT. 

"MR. KAHN.  IT DOES NOT OWN ITS OWN WATER SUPPLY. 

ITS PRESENT WATER SUPPLY IS FURNISHED BY A PRIVATE COMPANY. 

"MR. RAKER.  THE SPRING VALLEY WATER SYSTEM. 

"MR. SUMNERS.  IS IT THE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL TO HAVE SAN FRANCISCO
SUPPLY ELECTRIC POWER AND WATER TO ITS OWN PEOPLE? 

"MR. RAKER.  YES. 

"MR. SUMNERS.  OR TO SUPPLY THESE CORPORATIONS, WHICH WILL IN TURN
SUPPLY THE PEOPLE? 

"MR. RAKER.  UNDER THIS BILL IT IS TO SUPPLY ITS OWN INHABITANTS
FIRST.  ...  "  FN11 

THESE VIEWS WERE IN ACCORD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE THEN
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AS SET OUT IN THE REPORT OF THE PUBLIC LANDS
COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE: 

"I THINK THAT IT IS VERY PROPER THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD
USE WHATEVER POWER IT HAS OVER THE PUBLIC LANDS, OVER THE PARKS, AND
OVER THE FORESTS, TO COMPEL THE FULLEST USE OF THESE WATERS, AND
INDIRECTLY TO REQUIRE THROUGH ITS POWER TO MAKE CONDITIONS, THE LOWEST
POSSIBLE RATE FOR CONSUMERS."  FN12 

THE THEME - OF AN INTENT TO REQUIRE PUBLIC UTILIZATION OF HETCH
HETCHY POWER INDEPDENDENTLY OF PRIVATE UTILITIES - RECURRED AT A LATER
STAGE OF THE DEBATE IN THE HOUSE: 

"MR. GRAY.  ... 

"AS I UNDERSTAND THE BILL, IT PROVIDES FOR THE FURNISHING OF WATER,
AND ALSO FOR POWER FOR COMMERCIAL USE.  ... 

"  ...  IF THESE WORKS HERE ARE TO BE CONTRUCTED TO SERVE THE
BASENESS OF COMMERCIALISM, IT IS THE VILEST OF ALL VANDALISM.  MY
SUGGESTION HERE TO YOU IS TO STRIKE OUT OF THIS BILL ALL THE COMMERCIAL
PROFIT.  ... 

"MR. KENT (A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA DELEGATION AND A SUPPORTER OF
THE MEASURE).  MR. CHAIRMAN, I SHOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM INDIANA (MR. GRAY) THAT THIS BILL IS STRICTLY DRAWN IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF SELFISH GAIN, AND THAT NO
CORPORATION OR INDIVIDUAL CAN OBTAIN ANY BENEFIT WHATSOEVER FROM THIS
BILL.  IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA."  FN13 

IN THE SENATE, SENATOR THOMAS, A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE REPORTING
THE BILL, SAID: 

"  ...  SAN FRANCISCO NEEDS ELECTRIC POWER, AND CALIFORNIA NEEDS
DEVELOPMENT IN ELECTRIC POWER JUST AS MUCH AS SHE NEEDS OWNERSHIP IN
WATER,  ... 

"  ...  SHE IS ANXIOUS TO EXTEND HER SPHERES OF MUNICIPAL USEFULNESS,
BUT SHE IS IN THE GRIP OF A POWER MONOPOLY AS WELL AS THAT OF THE
SPRING VALLEY CO. 

"  ...  THIS SCHEME APPEALS TO ME, MR. PRESIDENT, SO FAR AS THE POWER
IS CONCERNED, BECAUSE THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO AS A MUNICIPALITY WILL
BE THE OWNER OF IT, THE MANUFACTURER, THE DISTRIBUTOR OF IT."  FN14 

AND THE WORDS OF SENATOR NORRIS, ALSO A MEMBER OF THE REPORTING
COMMITTEE AND A LEADING SPONSOR OF THE BILL, ON THE DAY OF ITS FINAL
PASSAGE THROUGH THE SENATE, ILLUMINATE JUST WHAT THE RAKER ACT WAS
INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH: 

"  ...  I SAID THAT I WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL TO A GREAT EXTENT FOR
THE REASON THAT IT DEVELOPED THIS POWER.  THIS POWER WILL COME INTO
COMPETITION WITH THE VARIOUS WATERPOWER COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA, AND
THERE ARE LOTS OF THEM THERE. 

"  ...  THIS PROPOSITION IS TO HARNESS THAT POWER AND TO PUT IT TO
PUBLIC USE NOT TO GIVE IT TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION.  ... 

"HERE IS AN INSTANCE WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GIVE IT DIRECTLY TO THE
PEOPLE, IF WE PASS THIS BILL.  IT IS GOING TO COME INTO COMPETITION
WITH POWER COMPANIES AND CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE, OR WILL HAVE, IF THIS
BILL IS DEFEATED, ALMOST A MONOPOLY NOT ONLY IN SAN FRANCISCO BUT
THROUGHOUT THE GREATER PORTION OF CALIFORNIA. 

"  ... 

"THESE MAKE IN ALL, AS I HAVE COUNTED THEM, 18 CORPORATIONS
CONTROLLING THE POWER IN THE VICINITY OF SAN FRANCISCO THAT ARE UNDER
THE CONTROL OF THIS ONE CORPORATION.  (PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY.) 

"  ...  WHEN YOU SUM THEM ALL UP YOU WILL FIND THAT THEY OWN
PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE HYDROELECTRIC POWER OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AND THIS BILL, IF PASSED, WILL BRING INTO COMPETITION WITH THEM ONE OF
THE GREATEST UNITS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF POWER THAT HAS EVER BEEN
DEVELOPED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.  IT MEANS COMPETITION. 

"  ...  CONSERVATION DOES NOT MEAN DEALING OUT THESE RESOURCES TO
PRIVATE CAPITAL FOR GAIN.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ACCUSE THOSE
CORPORATIONS OF DOING ANY WRONG; BUT HERE WILL BE AN INSTANCE WHERE THE
CHEAPEST POWER ON EARTH WILL BE DEVELOPED AND WHERE IT WILL BE SOLD AT
COST."  FN15 

OPPONENTS OF THE BILL THEMSELVES RECOGNIZED THAT ITS REGULATORY
CONDITIONS WERE DESIGNED TO INSURE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER FROM HETCH
HETCHY THROUGH A MUNICIPAL SYSTEM IN SAN FRANCISCO.  BEFORE FINAL
PASSAGE IN THE SENATE, OPPOSITION HAD PRACTICALLY NARROWED DOWN TO THE
POWER PROVISIONS OF THE MEASURE,  FN16  AND THESE PROVISIONS
CONTEMPLATED A PUBLICLY OWNED AND OPERATED POWER SYSTEM.  FN17
IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE VOTE IN THE SENATE, SENATOR MCCUMBER, OPPOSED TO
THE POWER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 6, OFFERED A SWEEPING AMENDMENT WHICH
WOULD HAVE OMITTED THAT SECTION AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO
THE GENERATION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF HETCH-HETCHY POWER.  FN18  BUT
HIS AMENDMENT WAS DEFEATED.  FN19  AND DESPITE THIS ARTICULATE
OPPOSITION TO THE POLICY EMBODIED IN ITS POWER FEATURES, THE ACT WAS
PASSED. 

TO LIMIT THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 6 OF THE ACT NARROWLY TO SALES OF
POWER FOR RESALE WITHOUT MORE, AS THE CITY ASKS, WOULD PERMIT EVASION
AND FRUSTRATION OF THE PURPOSE OF THE LAWMAKERS.  CONGRESS CLEARLY
INTENDED TO REQUIRE - AS A CONDITION OF ITS GRANT - SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF HETCH-HETCHY POWER EXCLUSIVELY BY SAN FRANCISCO AND
MUNICIPAL AGENCIES DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS IN THE BELIEF THAT CONSUMERS
WOULD THUS BE AFFORDED POWER AT CHEAP RATES IN COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE
POWER COMPANIES, PARTICULARLY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY.  IT IS
NOT THE OFFICE OF THE COURTS TO PASS UPON THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT
BELIEF OR THE EFFICACY OF THE MEASURES CHOSEN FOR PUTTING IT INTO
EFFECT.  SELECTION OF THE EMPHATICALLY EXPRESSED PURPOSE EMBODIED IN
THIS ACT WAS THE APPROPRIATE BUSINESS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.    THE
ADMITTED FACTS SHOWN BY THIS RECORD REQUIRED THE DISTRICT COURT TO FIND
- AS IT DID - THAT THE CITY WAS VIOLATING SEC. 6 IN PERMITTING SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF HETCH-HETCHY POWER BY THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY.  NOW, AS IT HAS BEEN DOING SINCE CONTRACTING WITH THE CITY IN
1925, THE COMPANY SELLS AND DISTRIBUTES THAT POWER AS FOLLOWS: 

POWER GENERATED IN THE CITY'S PLANT IS TRANSMITTED TO THE COMPANY AT
NEWARK, ABOUT THIRTY-FIVE MILES FROM SAN FRANCISCO.  THERE THE POWER IS
DELIVERED TO THE COMPANY'S SUB-STATION AND THEREAFTER IS UNDER THE
COMPANY'S COMPLETE CONTROL.  THE COMPANY DISTRIBUTES AND SELLS THIS
POWER TO ITS CUSTOMERS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND ELSEWHERE EXACTLY AS IT
HANDLES OTHER POWER WHICH IT GENERATES, BUYS OR OWNS.  CONSUMERS OF THE
POWER ARE BILLED BY AND PAY THE COMPANY.  THE CITY BUYS HETCH-HETCHY
POWER FROM THE COMPANY EXACTLY AS DO OTHER CONSUMERS.  THE CITY
RECEIVES MONTHLY PAYMENTS FROM THE COMPANY ON A FIXED BASIS SET OUT IN
THE CONTRACT.  THE PRICE RECEIVED BY THE CITY HAS REMAINED CONSTANT
FROM 1925 TO DATE ALTHOUGH RATES TO THE CONSUMERS HAVE VARIED IN THE
INTERIM.  IN THE EVENT OF THE REFUSAL, FAILURE OR INABILITY OF THE
COMPANY TO TAKE THE AVAILABLE OUTPUT OF THE CITY'S PLANT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE AGREEMENT, THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY WHICH THE CITY COULD HAVE
DELIVERED IS THE BASIS OF MAKING THE MONTHLY PAYMENT, AND THE COMPANY
MUST PAY FOR POWER DELIVERED TO IT WHETHER ACTUALLY DISPOSED OF BY
RESALE OR NOT.  THE RATE PAID BY CONSUMERS FOR THE HETCH-HETCHY POWER
IS NOT FIXED BY THE CITY, AS IT COULD BE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
CALIFORNIA,  FN20  BUT IS FIXED BY THE STATE RAILROAD COMMISSION JUST
AS THE PRICE OF ALL OTHER POWER SOLD BY THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY IN CALIFORNIA IS FIXED. 

THUS, IN BRIEF, THE CITY DOES NOT ITSELF DISTRIBUTE AND SELL THE
POWER DIRECTLY TO CONSUMERS; IT HAS NOT PROVIDED COMPETITION WITH THE
PRIVATE POWER COMPANY; AND IT HAS TRANSFERRED THE RIGHT TO SELL AND
DISTRIBUTE THE POWER TO A PRIVATE POWER COMPANY IN VIOLATION OF THE
EXPRESS PROHIBITION OF SEC. 6 OF THE ACT. 

TERMINOLOGY OF CONSIGNMENT OF POWER, RATHER THAN OF TRANSFER BY SALE,
AND VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF THE POWER COMPANY AS THE CITY'S AGENT OR
CONSIGNEE, ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO TAKE THE ACTIONS OF THE PARTIES UNDER
THE CONTRACT OUT OF SEC. 6.  CONGRESS, IN EFFECT TRUSTEE OF PUBLIC
LANDS FOR ALL THE PEOPLE, HAS BY THIS ACT SOUGHT TO PROTECT AND CONTROL
THE DISPOSITION OF A SECTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  THE CITY HAS IN
FACT FOLLOWED A COURSE OF CONDUCT WHICH CONGRESS, BY SEC. 6, HAS
FORBIDDEN.  MERE WORDS AND INGENUITY OF CONTRACTUAL EXPRESSION,
WHATEVER THEIR EFFECT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, CANNOT BY DESCRIPTION MAKE
PERMISSIBLE A COURSE OF CONDUCT FORBIDDEN BY LAW.  WHEN WE LOOK BEHIND
THE WORD DESCRIPTION OF THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE POWER
COMPANY TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE, WE SEE THAT THE CITY HAS - CONTRARY
TO THE TERMS OF SEC. 6 - ABDICATED ITS CONTROL OVER THE SALE AND
ULTIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF HETCH-HETCHY POWER.  THERE REMAIN ONLY THE
DETERMINATIONS WHETHER THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 6 ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
AND CAN BE ENFORCED IN EQUITY. 

SECOND.  THE PROHIBITIONS OF SEC. 6 ARE CHALLENGED BY THE CITY AS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON
THE GROUND THAT THEY ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE MANNER IN WHICH
ELECTRICITY SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN SAN FRANCISCO.  AND THE CITY
THEREFORE INSISTS THAT THESE PROHIBITIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS
COVENANTS IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE UNITED STATES.  UPON
THIS PREMISE, THE CITY HAS ARGUED HERE, AS IT DID IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THAT ALLEGED EQUITABLE DEFENSES RENDER THE COVENANTS
UNENFORCEABLE. 

WHEN THE RAKER BILL WAS BEFORE CONGRESS, THE CITY FILED WITH THE
PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE A BRIEF AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL.  CITING AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING THIS COURT'S OPINIONS, AND
LEGISLATIVE PRECEDENTS, THE CITY SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS THAT AS GRANTEE
IT WOULD BE BOUND BY AND AS GRANTOR CONGRESS WAS EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE
"THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE HETCH-HETCHY BILL."  FN21  AFTER
PASSAGE OF THE BILL THE CITY ACCEPTED THE GRANT BY FORMAL ORDINANCE,
ASSENTED TO ALL THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE GRANT, CONSTRUCTED THE
REQUIRED POWER AND WATER FACILITIES, AND UP TO DATE HAS UTILIZED THE
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND BENEFITS GRANTED BY CONGRESS.  NOW, THE CITY
SEEKS TO RETAIN THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT WHILE ATTACKING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ONE OF ITS IMPORTANT CONDITIONS.  FN22 

ARTICLE 4, SEC. 3, CL. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "THE
CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO DISPOSE OF AND MAKE ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE TERRITORY AND OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO
THE UNITED STATES."  THE POWER OVER THE PUBLIC LAND THUS ENTRUSTED TO
CONGRESS IS WITHOUT LIMITATIONS.  FN23  "AND IT IS NOT FOR THE COURTS
TO SAY HOW THAT TRUST SHALL BE ADMINISTERED.  THAT IS FOR CONGRESS TO
DETERMINE."  FN24  THUS, CONGRESS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMIT THE
DISPOSITION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TO A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH ITS VIEWS
OF PUBLIC POLICY.  AND THE POLICY TO GOVERN DISPOSAL OF RIGHTS TO
DEVELOP HYDROELECTRIC POWER IN SUCH PUBLIC LANDS MAY, IF CONGRESS
CHOOSES, BE ONE DESIGNED TO AVOID MONOPOLY AND TO BRING ABOUT A WIDE
SPREAD DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS.  THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT HETCH
HETCHY POWER BE PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED DOES NOT REPRESENT AN EXERCISE OF
A GENERAL CONTROL OVER PUBLIC POLICY IN A STATE BUT INSTEAD ONLY AN
EXERCISE OF THE COMPLETE POWER WHICH CONGRESS HAS OVER PARTICULAR
PUBLIC PROPERTY ENTRUSTED TO IT.  FN25 

THIRD.  FINALLY, ON THE BASIS OF NUMEROUS OBJECTIONS TO THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENT, ASSIGNED AS ERRORS IN THE COURT BELOW AND PRESSED
HERE, THE CITY DENIES THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT - UPON A BALANCING OF
EQUITIES - TO RELIEF BY INJUNCTION EVEN IF THE PRESENT DISPOSITION OF
HETCH-HETCHY POWER BE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 

HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL THESE OBJECTIONS, WE ARE
SATISFIED THAT THIS CASE DOES NOT CALL FOR A BALANCING OF EQUITIES OR
FOR THE INVOCATION OF THE GENERALITIES OF JUDICIAL MAXIMS IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER AN INJUNCTION SHOULD HAVE ISSUED.  THE CITY IS
AVAILING ITSELF OF VALUABLE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND YET PERSISTS IN VIOLATING THE VERY CONDITIONS UPON WHICH
THOSE BENEFITS WERE GRANTED.  CONGRESS PROVIDED "THAT THE GRANTEE
(CITY) SHALL AT ALL TIMES COMPLY WITH AND OBSERVE ON ITS PART ALL THE
CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THIS ACT, AND IN THE EVENT THAT THE SAME ARE
NOT REASONABLY COMPLIED WITH AND CARRIED OUT BY THE GRANTEE, UPON
WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IT IS MADE THE DUTY
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES TO COMMENCE
ALL NECESSARY SUITS OR PROCEEDINGS IN THE PROPER COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING AND CARRYING OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  PURSUANT TO THIS LEGISLATIVE MANDATE, THE
PRESENT SUIT WAS INSTITUTED TO ENFORCE COVENANTS EXACTED FROM A GRANTEE
OF RIGHTS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BY A CONGRESS SYMPATHETIC WITH THE LOCAL
NEEDS OF SAN FRANCISCO BUT ALSO JEALOUS OF ITS OWN RESPONSIBILITY TO
DISPOSE OF SUCH RIGHTS IN A MANNER DEEMED BY IT MOST LIKELY TO RENDER
THEIR BENEFITS WIDESPREAD.  THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINES RELIED ON DO NOT
MILITATE AGAINST THE CAPACITY OF A COURT OF EQUITY AS A PROPER FORUM IN
WHICH TO MAKE A DECLARED POLICY OF CONGRESS EFFECTIVE.  INJUNCTION TO
PROHIBIT CONTINUED USE - IN VIOLATION OF THAT POLICY - OF PROPERTY
GRANTED BY THE UNITED STATES, AND TO ENFORCE THE GRANTEE'S COVENANTS,
IS BOTH APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY.  FN26 

A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE CITY'S ARGUMENT RESTS UPON ITS CLAIM THAT
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IN THE PERIOD FROM 1913 TO 1937
CONSTRUED SEC. 6 TO FORBID NO MORE THAN SALE OF POWER FOR RESALE.  WE
ARE ASKED TO ACCEPT THESE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS.  AND IN
ADDITION THE CITY SUGGESTS THAT CONDUCT OF THE DEPARTMENT, OF WHICH
THESE INTERPRETATIONS WERE A PART, IS SUFFICIENT TO CREATE AN ESTOPPEL
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT AT ANY TIME EVER DID
MORE THAN MERELY TO TOLERATE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF HETCH-HETCHY
POWER BY THE COMPANY AS A TEMPORARY EXPEDIENT IS DOUBTFUL.  CERTAIN IT
IS, HOWEVER, THAT IN 1935 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR DECLARED THE
CITY'S DISPOSITION OF THE POWER THROUGH THE COMPANY TO BE A VIOLATION
OF SEC. 6, DEMANDED DISCONTINUANCE OF THIS VIOLATION WITHOUT SUCCESS
AND THEREAFTER INSTIGATED THIS PROCEEDING.  WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE
CONTENTION THAT ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS - SUCH AS THOSE HERE RELIED ON -
CAN THWART THE PLAIN PURPOSE OF A VALID LAW.  AS TO ESTOPPEL, IT IS
ENOUGH TO REPEAT THAT "  ...  THE UNITED STATES IS NEITHER BOUND NOR
ESTOPPED BY ACTS OF ITS OFFICERS OR AGENTS IN ENTERING INTO AN
ARRANGEMENT OR AGREEMENT TO DO OR CAUSE TO BE DONE WHAT THE LAW DOES
NOT SANCTION OR PERMIT."  FN27 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED AND WE REMAND THE CASE TO IT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  C. 4, 38 STAT. 242. 

FN2  THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IS A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
OF CALIFORNIA AND WILL BE REFERRED TO HERE AS THE CITY. 

FN3  SECTION 9(U) OF THE ACT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:  "PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE GRANTEE SHALL AT ALL TIMES COMPLY WITH AND OBSERVE ON
ITS PART ALL THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THIS ACT, AND IN THE EVENT
THAT THE SAME ARE NOT REASONABLY COMPLIED WITH AND CARRIED OUT BY THE
GRANTEE, UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IT IS
MADE THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES
TO COMMENCE ALL NECESSARY SUITS OR PROCEEDINGS IN THE PROPER COURT
HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING AND CARRYING
OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  38 STAT. 250. 

FN4  23 F.SUPP.  40.  THE DISTRICT COURT STATED:  "IN ORDER THAT THE
CITY MAY FACE ITS PROBLEM AND COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION
6 OF THE RAKER ACT, THE COURT WILL MAKE ITS INJUNCTION ISSUABLE
FORTHWITH, BUT EFFECTIVE SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUE."  P.
53. 

FN5  106 F.2D 569. 

FN6  SEE SEC. 9(M). 

FN7  50 CONG. REC., PART 4, P. 3906.  MR. THOMSON OF ILLINOIS WAS A
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE THAT CONSIDERED AND REPORTED THE BILL. 

FN8  ID., P. 3999. 

FN9  H.R. NO. 41, 63RD CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11. 

FN10  REFERENCE TO CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES MAY BE MADE TO ESTABLISH A
COMMON AGREEMENT UPON THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF AN ACT.  STANDARD OIL CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 50; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. RALADAM
CO., 283 U.S. 643, 650; HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S.
602, 625. 

FN11  50 CONG. REC., PART 4, P. 3905. 

FN12  HOUSE REPORTS, VOL. 1, NOS. 17-92, 63RD CONG., 1ST SESS., 1913,
P. 25. 

FN13  50 CONG. REC., PART 4, P. 3991.  SEE ALSO 69 CONG. REC., PART
9, PP. 9239 ET SEQ. 

FN14  51 CONG. REC., PART 1, PP. 126, 136. 

FN15  51 CONG. REC., PART 1, PP. 343, 344, 347.  SENATOR PITTMAN, ONE
OF THE BILL'S SPONSORS AND A MEMBER OF THE REPORTING COMMITTEE, STATED
THAT THE BILL PROVIDED "ABSOLUTELY THAT NEITHER THIS WATER NOR THIS
POWER CAN EVER FALL INTO THE HANDS OF A MONOPOLY."  50 CONG. REC., PART
6, P. 5473. 

FN16  SEE, E.G., VIEWS OF SENATOR SMOOT, WHO OPPOSED THE MEASURE:  "
...  I WAS OPPOSED TO THE REGULATIONS THAT WERE PUT IN THIS BILL, AND
THAT IS WHAT I WAS OPPOSED TO MORE THAN ANY OTHER THING.  I WANTED THE
QUESTION OF REGULATIONS TAKEN OUT OF THE CONTROVERSY AND THE BILL
REPORTED TO THE SENATE WITHOUT THOSE REGULATIONS IN IT. 

"  ... 

"MR. PRESIDENT, I DO NOT THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE ANY MISUNDERSTANDING
ABOUT THIS MATTER.  THE SENATOR HIMSELF, I THINK, WILL ADMIT THAT THE
PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF THIS BILL IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF POWER,
...  " 

"  ...  I WILL, MOREOVER, SAY THAT IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE REASON
SAN FRANCISCO WANTS THIS PARTICULAR DAM SITE IS FOR THE POWER THAT SHE
THINKS CAN BE DEVELOPED CHEAPER THAN FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE, AND AT THE
SAME TIME GET A LARGE SUPPLY OF WATER.  THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION." 
51 CONG. REC., PART 1, PP. 304, 314, 360. 

FN17  "THE PEOPLE WHO RIDE ON STREET CARS, THE PEOPLE WHO USE
ELECTRIC LIGHTS, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW USING GAS, THOSE WHO EVENTUALLY
WILL USE COAL FOR PURPOSES OF HEAT, AND THOSE WHO USE WATER FOR WASHING
PURPOSES WILL ALL RECEIVE ALL THE BENEFIT THERE IS IN THIS LEGISLATION
WITHOUT ANY RAKE-OFF BY ANY CORPORATION OR MONOPOLY."  SENATOR NORRIS,
51 CONG. REC., PART 1, P. 347. 

FN18  SENATOR CLARK, OF WYOMING, ALSO OPPOSED TO THE POWER PROVISION
OF THE BILL, SAID WITH REFERENCE TO SENATOR MCCUMBER'S AMENDMENT:  "
...  THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA (MR. MCCUMBER) HAS PREPARED AN
AMENDMENT TO THE BILL WHICH ACCOMPLISHES ALL THE PURPOSES WHICH THE
PROPONENTS OF THE BILL CLAIM ARE DESIRED, LEAVING OUT THE OBJECTIONABLE
FEATURES, WHICH HAVE NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE WATER SUPPLY OF
THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO."  51 CONG. REC., PART 1, P. 184. 

FN19  ID., PP. 383, 384, 385. 

FN20  UNDER ART. XII, SEC. 23 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
MUNICIPALITIES ARE EXEMPT FROM RATE REGULATION BY THE STATE
COMMISSION.  SEE PASADENA V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 183 CAL. 526; 192 P.
25; WATER USERS ASSN. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 188 CAL. 437; 205 P.
682. 

FN21  H.R. NO. 41, 63RD CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 41.  SIMILAR VIEWS WERE
ENTERTAINED IN CONGRESS UPON THE EFFECT OF THE CONDITIONS.  SEE, E.G.,
SENATOR WALSH OF MONTANA:  "WE ARE MAKING A GRANT OF RIGHTS IN THE
PUBLIC LANDS TO THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND WE MAY IMPOSE JUST
EXACTLY SUCH CONDITIONS AS WE SEE FIT, AND SAN FRANCISCO CAN TAKE THE
GRANT WITH ALL THOSE CONDITIONS OR IT CAN LET IT ALONE."  51 CONG.
REC., PART 1, P. 69.    FN22  CF. DANIELS V. TEARNEY, 102 U.S. 415,
421; GRAND RAPIDS & INDIANA RY. CO. V. OSBORN, 193 U.S. 17, 29; WALL V.
PARROT SILVER & COPPER CO., 244 U.S. 407, 411; ST. LOUIS CO. V.
PRENDERGAST CO., 260 U.S. 469, 473; BOOTH FISHERIES V. INDUSTRIAL
COMMISSION, 271 U.S. 208, 211. 

FN23  UNITED STATES V. GRATIOT, 14 PET. 526, 537. 

FN24  LIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 523, 537. 

FN25  CF. ELLIS V. UNITED STATES, 206 U.S. 246, 256; SEE RUDDY V.
ROSSI, 248 U.S. 104. 

FN26  CF. OREGON & CALIFORNIA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 393,
436, 438.    FN27  UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S.
389, 409. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :












VEIX V. SIXTH WARD ASSN., 310 U.S. 32 


NO. 567.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 123 N.J.L.
356 - 8 A.2D 350, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ON APPEAL UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(A) FROM A JUDGMENT OF A STATE
COURT SUSTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE, THIS COURT
DOES NOT CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF LATER AMENDATORY STATUTES WHICH
WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE STATE COURT IN ITS OPINION.  P. 36. 

2.  FOR THE SAKE OF SAFEGUARDING THE SOLVENCY OF BUILDING AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, A STATE LEGISLATURE MAY,
INDEPENDENTLY OF EMERGENCY AND CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION, RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, EXISTING
UNDER STATUTORY REGULATIONS IN FORCE WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THEIR
CERTIFICATES, TO WITHDRAW OR RECOVER BY SUIT THE AMOUNTS OF THEIR
CERTIFICATES.  P. 38. 

3.  WHEN THE PLAINTIFF PURCHASED HIS CERTIFICATES, THE STATUTES OF
NEW JERSEY PERMITTED HIM TO WITHDRAW UPON WRITTEN NOTICE AND PROVIDED
THAT WITHDRAWALS SHOULD BE PAID IN THE ORDER IN WHICH NOTICES WERE
RECEIVED, AT LEAST ONE-HALF OF THE RECEIPTS IN ANY MONTH BEING ASSIGNED
TO THIS PURPOSE; IF NOT PAID IN SIX MONTHS, THE SHAREHOLDER COULD
RECOVER WITHDRAWAL VALUE BY SUIT.  THE AMENDATORY ACT, HERE SUSTAINED,
DEFINED THE RECEIPTS FROM ONE-HALF OF WHICH WITHDRAWALS WERE TO BE
SATISFIED; PROVIDED THAT IF IN ANY MONTH THE FUNDS PAYABLE FOR
WITHDRAWALS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL WITHDRAWING MEMBERS, THEY WERE
TO RECEIVE $500 EACH IN THE ORDER OF PRIORITY UNTIL THE FUND FOR
WITHDRAWALS WAS EXHAUSTED; WITHDRAWAL PAYMENTS WERE SUBORDINATED TO
PAYMENT OF MATURED SHARES; AND SO LONG AS THE FUNDS OF AN ASSOCIATION
WERE APPLIED AS REQUIRED BY THE AMENDMENT, NO MEMBER COULD SUE FOR THE
WITHDRAWAL VALUE OF HIS SHARES.  PP. 34-36. 

VEIX V. SIXTH WARD BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF NEWARK. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN
THE SUIT BROUGHT BY VEIX AGAINST THE BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION TO
RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF HIS PAID UP SHARES WITH INTEREST. 

WHEN A RIGHT HAS ARISEN UNDER A CONTRACT OF WHICH A STATUTE IS AN
INTEGRAL PART, THE REPEAL OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT AFFECT THAT CONTRACT,
OR AFFECT AN ACTION FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  TREIGLE V. ACME HOMESTEAD
ASSN., 297 U.S. 189; COOMBES V. GETZ, 285 U.S. 434; ETTOR V. TACOMA,
228 U.S. 148; PACIFIC MAIL S.S. CO. V. JOLIFFE, 69 U.S. 450; BEDFORD V.
EASTERN BUILDING & LOAN ASSN., 181 U.S. 227. 

EXECUTORY AS WELL AS EXECUTED CONTRACTS ARE PROTECTED FROM
IMPAIRMENT.  FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87; FARRINGTON V. TENNESSEE, 95
U.S. 679. 

IT IS THE DUTY OF COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER EXERCISE OF THE POLICE
POWER IS REASONABLE.  LEGISLATURES MAY NOT IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE
UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE UPON THE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OR THE
PURSUIT OF USEFUL ACTIVITIES.  HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL,
290 U.S. 398; TREIGLE V. ACME HOMESTEAD ASSN., SUPRA; NEBBIA V. NEW
YORK, 297 U.S. 502; WASHINGTON EX REL. SEATTLE TITLE TRUST CO. V.
ROBERGE, 278 U.S. 116. 

THE LEGISLATION IN QUESTION BEARS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE
PUBLIC WELFARE AND IS UNJUST AND DISCRIMINATORY, AND THE MEANS ADOPTED
BY THE SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION ARE NOT REASONABLY ADAPTED TO THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS ALLEGED PURPOSE. 

TO DELEGATE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISCRETIONARY POWER TO ALLOCATE
ALL OF THE INCOME TO RESERVES INDEFINITELY, IS UNREASONABLE AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

TO DELEGATE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISCRETIONARY POWER TO PREVENT
WITHDRAWALS INDEFINITELY, IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE DIRECTORS THEMSELVES ARE SUBSTANTIAL
SHAREHOLDERS.  EUBANK V. RICHMOND, 226 U.S. 137; WASHINGTON EX REL.
SEATTLE TITLE TRUST CO. V. ROBERGE, 278 U.S. 116. 

LEGISLATION WHICH DELEGATES TO PRIVATE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF
BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS THE UNLIMITED DISCRETIONARY POWER TO
SUSPEND THE PRIOR LAWS REGARDING WITHDRAWALS, BY MEANS OF AN ARTIFICIAL
DEFINITION OF "NET RECEIPTS," IS UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1928 AND 1929 APPELLANT PURCHASED PREPAID SHARES OF THE APPELLEE,
A NEW JERSEY BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, PAYING THE PAR VALUE OF
$200 PER SHARE.  AT THAT TIME THE APPLICABLE NEW JERSEY STATUTES
PROVIDED THAT SHARES IN SUCH AN ASSOCIATION COULD BE WITHDRAWN BY
GIVING SUCH WRITTEN NOTICE AS THE CONSTITUTION OR BY-LAWS OF THE
ASSOCIATION PROVIDED, NOT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS; THAT WITHDRAWALS SHOULD BE
PAID IN THE ORDER IN WHICH NOTICES WERE RECEIVED, WITH NOT MORE THAN
ONE-HALF OF THE RECEIPTS OF ANY MONTH BEING REQUIRED TO BE USED FOR
PAYMENT OF WITHDRAWALS, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
UNTIL THE OLDEST UNPAID CLAIM OF WITHDRAWAL HAD BEEN ON FILE FOR SIX
MONTHS; THAT NO PAYMENT SHOULD BE POSTPONED FOR LONGER THAN SIX MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE; AND THAT ANY MEMBER WHO HAD GIVEN NOTICE COULD
SUE AND RECOVER THE WITHDRAWAL VALUE IF IT WAS NOT PAID WITHIN SIX
MONTHS OF THE NOTICE.  FN1 

ON APRIL 22, 1932, THESE STATUTES WERE AMENDED IN FOUR RESPECTS:  (1)
"TOTAL RECEIPTS" OF AN ASSOCIATION, ONE-HALF OF WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO
BE USED FOR THE PAYMENT OF WITHDRAWALS AND WHICH HAD NOT BEEN
PREVIOUSLY DEFINED, WERE DEFINED AS INCOME ON AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS,
DUES ON SHARES OF THE ASSOCIATION WHICH WERE PLEDGED WITH IT TO SECURE
LOANS, AND REPAYMENTS FROM LOANS; (2) IF IN ANY ONE MONTH THE FUNDS
REQUIRED TO BE PAYABLE FOR WITHDRAWALS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL
REQUESTED WITHDRAWALS, WITHDRAWING MEMBERS WERE TO RECEIVE $500 EACH IN
THE ORDER OF PRIORITY UNTIL THE FUND FOR WITHDRAWALS WAS EXHAUSTED; (3)
NO WITHDRAWALS WERE TO BE PAID IF THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT OF
MATURED SHARES WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL MATURED SHARES, THE PAYMENT
OF WHICH HAD BEEN REQUESTED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER MATURITY; (4) SO
LONG AS THE FUNDS OF AN ASSOCIATION WERE APPLIED AS REQUIRED BY THE
AMENDMENT, NO MEMBER WHO HAD FILED HIS WITHDRAWAL NOTICE SHOULD HAVE A
RIGHT TO SUE FOR THE WITHDRAWAL VALUE OF HIS SHARES.  FN2 

IN 1935 ANOTHER AMENDMENT WAS PASSED PROVIDING THAT ONE-THIRD OF THE
"NET RECEIPTS" OF AN ASSOCIATION WERE TO BE PAYABLE FOR WITHDRAWALS,
WITH "NET RECEIPTS" DEFINED AS MONIES, OTHER THAN BORROWED MONIES,
RECEIVED BY THE ASSOCIATION LESS OPERATING EXPENSES, PAYMENTS ON
CREDITOR OBLIGATIONS, PAYMENTS FOR PROTECTING THE PROPERTY OF THE
ASSOCIATION AND RESERVES FOR ANY OF THESE PURPOSES.  AT THE SAME TIME
PAYMENT OF WITHDRAWALS IN THE ORDER IN WHICH NOTICES HAD BEEN RECEIVED
WAS CONTINUED BUT THE PAYMENTS WERE LIMITED TO $50 PER MEMBER. 

MINOR AMENDMENTS, NOT PERTINENT HERE, WERE ADDED IN 1936 AND IN 1937
THE STATUTES, AS THEY STOOD IN 1936 WITH SOME IMMATERIAL CHANGES, WERE
CARRIED INTO A GENERAL REVISION OF NEW JERSEY'S STATUTE LAW. 

ON AUGUST 17, 1932, AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE 1932 AMENDMENT,
APPELLANT FILED A WRITTEN NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL WITH RESPONDENT.  IN
1939, HE BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT FOR THE WITHDRAWAL VALUE
OF HIS SHARES, CLAIMING THAT, IN SO FAR AS ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS
REFERRED TO ALTERED THE STATUTES IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE
OF THE SHARES, THE AMENDMENTS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE
CONTRACTS CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE ALLEGATIONS SHOW THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS
SOLVENT AT THE TIME OF NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND HAS REMAINED SOLVENT. 
THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT.  THE COURT OF ERRORS
AND APPEALS AFFIRMED.  123 N.J.L. 356; 8 A.2D 350. 

THE RULING WAS BASED SQUARELY ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT OF
1932.  THE LATER ACTS WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN THE OPINION EXCEPT BY
POINTING OUT THAT THE ACT OF 1932 WOULD BE FOUND IN THE 1937 REVISION. 
THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICAL CODE.  AS
THIS SECTION GIVES A REVIEW TO THIS COURT ONLY OF STATE STATUTES HELD
VALID BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE AGAINST AN ATTACK FOR REPUGNANCY
TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WE DEEM OURSELVES LIMITED TO
THE ACT OF 1932.  FN3  THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICABILITY TO WITHDRAWALS
OF STATUTES ON THE SUBJECT WHICH WERE PASSED SUBSEQUENT TO THE NOTICE
OF WITHDRAWAL IS NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS OPINION.  FN4 

THE NEW JERSEY STATUTES CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BUILDING AND
LOAN ASSOCIATIONS REACH BACK MANY YEARS PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF THESE
SHARES.  BEGINNING IN 1903 GENERAL REGULATORY ACTS WERE PASSED AT
INTERVALS WITH SECTIONS DIRECTED AT THE MODE OF WITHDRAWAL.  FN5  THE
FORM OF THESE STATUTES AND THE JUDICIAL NOTICE BY THE COURT OF ERRORS
AND APPEALS IN THE BUCSI CASE OF THE IMPORTANCE TO THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY OF BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS MAKES CLEAR THAT IN DEALING IN
1932 WITH THE PROBLEM OF WITHDRAWALS THE LEGISLATURE WAS FACED WITH THE
THREAT OF WRECKED ASSOCIATIONS AND THE CONSEQUENT FURTHER DEPRESSION OF
REAL ESTATE VALUES THROUGHOUT ITS AREA.  WHILE THE ACT OF 1932 NOW
UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT EMERGENCY LEGISLATION, THE DANGERS OF UNRESTRICTED
WITHDRAWALS THEN BECAME APPARENT.  IT WAS PASSED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
TO PROTECT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE ECONOMIC WELFARE
OF THE STATE.  IT IS ALSO PLAIN THAT THE 1932 ACT WAS ONE OF A LONG
SERIES REGULATING THE MANY INTEGRATED PHASES OF THE BUILDING AND LOAN
BUSINESS SUCH AS FORMATION, MEMBERSHIP, POWERS, INVESTMENTS, REPORTS,
LIQUIDATIONS, FOREIGN ASSOCIATIONS AND EXAMINATIONS.  WE ARE DEALING
HERE WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE TO THE CREDIT
SYSTEM OF THE STATE.  FN6 

WITH INSTITUTIONS OF SUCH IMPORTANCE TO ITS ECONOMY, THE STATE
RETAINS POLICE POWERS ADEQUATE TO AUTHORIZE THE ENACTMENT OF STATUTES
REGULATING THE WITHDRAWAL OF SHARES.  FN7  UNQUESTIONABLY FOR THE
FUTURE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1932 ACT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE.  FN8  WE
THINK THEY WERE EQUALLY EFFECTIVE AS TO SHARES BOUGHT PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE I,
SEC. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT "NO STATE SHALL  ...  PASS ANY  ...
LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS  ...  "  THIS IS SO BECAUSE
THE OBLIGATION OF THE ASSOCIATION TO RESPOND TO THE APPLICATION FOR
WITHDRAWAL WAS SUBJECT TO THE PARAMOUNT POLICE POWER.  BEGINNING WITH
THE 1903 ACT THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY HAS LAID DOWN SPECIFICALLY BY
STATUTE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WITHDRAWAL.  THE CHARTER, BY-LAWS AND
MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE CEASED TO DETERMINE WITHDRAWAL RIGHTS.  (SEE
NOTE 5, SUPRA.) IT WAS WHILE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS WERE IN EFFECT THAT
PETITIONER PURCHASED HIS SHARES.  WHEN HE PURCHASED INTO AN ENTERPRISE
ALREADY REGULATED IN THE PARTICULAR TO WHICH HE NOW OBJECTS, HE
PURCHASED SUBJECT TO FURTHER LEGISLATION UPON THE SAME TOPIC.  FN9 

IN HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATION V. BLAISDELL  FN10  THIS COURT
CONSIDERED THE AUTHORITY RETAINED BY THE STATE OVER CONTRACTS "TO
SAFEGUARD THE VITAL INTERESTS OF ITS PEOPLE."  THE RULE THAT ALL
CONTRACTS ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THIS PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY WAS THERE
REITERATED.  SUCH AUTHORITY IS NOT LIMITED TO HEALTH, MORALS AND
SAFETY.  FN11  IT EXTENDS TO ECONOMIC NEEDS AS WELL.  FN12  UTILITY
RATE CONTRACTS GIVE WAY TO THIS POWER,  FN13  AS DO CONTRACTUAL
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.  FN14 

THE CASES CITED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH MAKE REPEATED REFERENCE TO
THE EMERGENCY EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE QUESTIONED
STATUTES.  MANY OF THE ENACTMENTS WERE TEMPORARY IN CHARACTER.  WE ARE
HERE CONSIDERING A PERMANENT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.  SO FAR AS THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE IS CONCERNED, IS THIS SIGNIFICANT?  WE THINK NOT. 
"EMERGENCY DOES NOT CREATE (CONSTITUTIONAL) POWER, EMERGENCY MAY
FURNISH THE OCCASION FOR THE EXERCISE OF POWER."  FN15  WE THINK OF
EMERGENCIES AS SUDDENLY ARISING AND QUICKLY PASSING.  THE EMERGENCY OF
THE DEPRESSION MAY HAVE CAUSED THE 1932 LEGISLATION, BUT THE WEAKNESS
IN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM BROUGHT TO LIGHT BY THAT EMERGENCY REMAINS.  IF
THE LEGISLATURE COULD ENACT THE LEGISLATION AS TO WITHDRAWALS TO
PROTECT THE ASSOCIATIONS IN THAT EMERGENCY, WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE
NEW STATUS SHOULD NOT CONTINUE.  WHEN THE 1932 ACT WAS PASSED
COMMERCIAL AND SAVINGS BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES AND BUILDING AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS WERE SUFFERING HEAVY WITHDRAWALS.  THE LIQUID PORTION OF
THEIR ASSETS WERE BEING RAPIDLY DRAINED OFF BY THEIR CUSTOMERS, LEAVING
THE LONG TERM INVESTMENTS AND DEPRECIATED ASSETS AS AN INADEQUATE
SOURCE FOR PAYMENT OF THE REMAINING LIABILITIES.  AN ACCELERATION OR A
CONTINUANCE OF THIS TENDENCY TO WITHDRAW AVAILABLE FUNDS THREATENED A
QUICK END TO THE ABILITY OF THE INSTITUTIONS TO MEET EVEN NORMAL
DEMANDS.  SUCH THREATENED INSOLVENCY DEMANDS LEGISLATION FOR ITS
CONTROL IN THE SAME WAY THAT LIQUIDATION AFTER INSOLVENCY DOES.  SUCH
LEGISLATION MAY BE CLASSED AS EMERGENCY IN ONE SENSE BUT IT NEED NOT BE
TEMPORARY.  FN16 

THIS POWER OF THE STATE TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS BY STATUTORY
ENACTMENTS AFFECTING CONTRACT RIGHTS, WITHOUT A VIOLATION OF THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS ANALOGOUS TO THE POWER OFTEN
RESERVED TO AMEND CHARTERS.  UNDER THIS RESERVED POWER, IT IS HELD THAT
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN A STOCKHOLDER OR CERTIFICATE HOLDER AND THE
CORPORATION MAY BE VARIED WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE CONTRACT EXISTING
BETWEEN THE CORPORATION AND ITS STOCKHOLDER OR MEMBER.  FN17  THE
CONTRACT RIGHTS CONSIDERED IN COOMBES V. GETZ  FN18  AROSE FROM A
CONTRACT BETWEEN A THIRD PARTY AND THE CORPORATION.  AND THE POWER
RESERVED AGAINST THE CORPORATION AND ITS MEMBERS WAS DEEMED TO BE
INEFFECTIVE AGAINST A STRANGER TO THE RESERVATION. 

APPELLANT RELIES UPON TREIGLE V. ACME HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION N19 AS A
DETERMINATIVE PRECEDENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE WITHDRAWAL
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION AND APPELLANT WERE CONTRACTUAL AND
SECURE FROM IMPAIRMENT BY THE STATUTORY EXERCISE OF THE PARAMOUNT
POLICE POWER OF THE STATE.  IN THAT CASE STATUTORY CHANGES AS TO THE
RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL, SIMILAR TO THESE INVOLVED HERE, HAD BEEN MADE
AFTER THE PURCHASE OF THE SHARES.  THE ENACTMENT IN THE TREIGLE CASE
OCCURRED AFTER NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL.  FROM ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
LOUISIANA BUILDING AND LOAN SITUATION AT THE TIME OF THE LEGISLATION
ATTACKED IN THE TREIGLE CASE THIS COURT REACHED THE FACTUAL CONCLUSION
THAT THE WITHDRAWAL AMENDMENT TO THE BUILDING AND LOAN STATUTES WAS
DIRECTED MERELY TOWARD A PRIVATE RIGHT AND NOT DEEMED IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST. 

IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THIS COURT WAS CAREFUL TO POINT OUT IN THE
TREIGLE CASE  FN20  THAT WHERE THE POLICE POWER IS EXERCISED "FOR AN
END WHICH IS IN FACT PUBLIC" CONTRACTS MUST YIELD TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT
OF THAT END.  FN21 

CERTAINLY THE PROTECTION OF BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AGAINST
THE CATASTROPHE OF EXCESSIVE WITHDRAWAL IS, TODAY, WITHIN LEGISLATIVE
POWER. 

SEPARATE CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTION TO THE LEGISLATION UNDER THE
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SEEMS WHOLLY UNNECESSARY.  AFFIRMED.    FN1  LAWS OF N.J., 1925, C. 65,
SEC. 52. 

FN2  LAWS OF N.J., 1932, C. 102. 

FN3  CF. BUCSI V. LONGWORTH B. & L. ASSN., 119 N.J.L. 120; 194 A.
857, WHERE THE SAME COURT DEALT WITH STATUTES ENACTED AFTER NOTICE OF
WITHDRAWAL. 

FN4  CF. CARPENTER V. WABASH RY. CO., ANTE, P. 23. 

FN5  BUCSI V. LONGWORTH B. & L. ASSN., 119 N.J.L. 120, 124; 194 A.
857; LAWS OF N.J., 1903, C. 218, SEC. 38; LAWS OF N.J., 1925, C. 65,
SEC. 49; LAWS OF N.J., 1932, C. 102; REVISED STATUTES OF N.J., 1937,
17:12-49, 12-53.    FN6  HOPKINS FEDERAL SAVINGS ASSN. V. CLEARY, 296
U.S. 315, 328; CF. PIQUET, BUILDING & LOAN ASSOCIATIONS IN NEW JERSEY,
CC. II, VI AND X. 

FN7  DILLINGHAM V. MCLAUGHLIN, 264 U.S. 370; NOBLE STATE BANK V.
HASKELL, 219 U.S. 104; DOTY V. LOVE, 295 U.S. 64. 

FN8  STOCKHOLDERS V. STERLING, 300 U.S. 175, AND CASES CITED. 

FN9  RAST V. VAN DEMAN & LEWIS, 240 U.S. 342, 363; SEMLER V. DENTAL
EXAMINERS, 294 U.S. 608, 610. 

FN10  290 U.S. 398, 434 ET SEQ. 

FN11  STONE V. MISSISSIPPI, 101 U.S. 814, 819; DOUGLAS V. KENTUCKY,
168 U.S. 488, 497-99; BEER CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 97 U.S. 25, 32, 33;
MUGLER V. KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623, 664, 665; FERTILIZING CO. V. HYDE PARK,
97 U.S. 659, 667; BUTCHERS' UNION CO. V. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S.
746, 750; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. NEBRASKA, 170 U.S. 57, 70, 74;
TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. MILLER, 221 U.S. 408, 414; ATLANTIC COAST LINE R.
CO. V. GOLDSBORO, 232 U.S. 548, 558; MANIGAULT V. SPRINGS, 199 U.S.
473. 

FN12  SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 390; STEPHENSON V. BINFORD,
287 U.S. 251, 276; HENDERSON CO. V. THOMPSON, 300 U.S. 258, 266;
PATTERSON V. STANOLIND CO., 305 U.S. 376. 

FN13  UNION DRY GOODS CO. V. GEORGIA P.S. CORP., 248 U.S. 372;
MIDLAND REALTY CO. V. KANSAS CITY POWER CO., 300 U.S. 109. 

FN14  MARCUS BROWN CO. V. FELDMAN, 256 U.S. 170; LEVY LEASING CO. V.
SIEGEL, 258 U.S. 242. 

FN15  HOME BLDG. & L. ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, SUPRA, 426. 

FN16  CF. W.B. WORTHEN CO. V. THOMAS, 292 U.S. 426, 432. 

FN17  WRIGHT V. MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 193 U.S. 657, 663;
POLK V. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASSN., 207 U.S. 310, 325; STOCKHOLDERS
V. STERLING, 300 U.S. 175, 183. 

FN18  285 U.S. 434. 

FN19  297 U.S. 189. 

FN20  ID., 197. 

FN21  CF. INDIANA EX REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, 303 U.S. 95, 108. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :















COLORADO BANK V. BEDFORD, 310 U.S. 41 


NO. 719.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 3, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 105
COLO. 373; 98 P.2D 1120, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THIS CASE IS APPEALABLE UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(A), BECAUSE A
STATE STATUTE AFFECTING NATIONAL BANKS WAS UPHELD BY A STATE COURT OVER
THE OBJECTION OF CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL LAW AND CONSTITUTION.  P.
47. 

2.  NATIONAL BANKS ARE AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT A SAFE-DEPOSIT
BUSINESS.  PP. 49-50. 

3.  IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS, A STATE LAW
LAYING A PERCENTAGE TAX ON THE USERS OF THE SAFETY-DEPOSIT SERVICES OF
BANKS MEASURED BY THE BANKS' CHARGES FOR THE SERVICES, AND REQUIRING
THE BANKS TO COLLECT THE TAXES, ACCOUNT FOR THEM TO THE STATE AND
INCLUDE THEM IN THEIR BILLS FOR THE SERVICES, BUT ALLOWING THEM CREDIT
ON FUTURE TAXES FOR TAXES PAID ON ACCOUNTS EVENTUALLY FOUND WORTHLESS,
HELD VALID AS APPLIED TO A NATIONAL BANK.  P. 52. 

4.  REQUIRING A NATIONAL BANK TO COLLECT AND REMIT THE TAX DOES NOT
IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY.  P.
53. 

COLORADO NATIONAL BANK OF DENVER V. BEDFORD. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ENTERED IN A
SUIT BY BEDFORD, TREASURER, AGAINST THE BANK. 

NATIONAL BANKS MAY BE TAXED ONLY AS PERMITTED BY CONGRESS, AND R.S.
SEC. 5219, AS AMENDED, MEASURES THAT PERMISSION.  MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316; BANK V. BENNETT, 284 U.S. 239. 

THE SAFE-DEPOSIT BUSINESS OF A NATIONAL BANK IS A PART OF ITS
NATIONALLY CHARTERED BANKING BUSINESS, AND IS A BANKING FUNCTION.  BANK
V. DEARING, 91 U.S. 29; R.S. SEC. 5136, AS AMENDED; R.S. SEC. 5228;
NATIONAL BANK V. GRAHAM, 100 U.S. 699; BANK OF CALIFORNIA V. PORTLAND,
157 ORE.  203. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF TAX IMMUNITY EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO THE
TANGIBLE PROPERTY, SHARES, AND INCOME OF A NATIONAL BANK, BUT ALSO TO
ALL OF ITS NATIONALLY CHARTERED FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING ITS SAFE-DEPOSIT
BUSINESS.  THE CASE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE IN WHICH AN
IMPLIED IMMUNITY MAY BE CLAIMED OR ASSERTED; AND THE TAX IS PROHIBITED
EVEN THOUGH IT BE PAID OR PAYABLE BY THE USER OF THE BANK'S SERVICES. 
FEDERAL LAND BANK V. CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374; PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS'
LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21; BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK V. COMMISSION, 297
U.S. 209; STATE TAX COMMISSION V. BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK, 174 MD.
403. 

THE EXPRESS EXEMPTION IN SEC. 7(A) OF THE TAX ACT FROM TAXATION OF
SAFE-DEPOSIT SERVICES, SHOULD BE APPLIED SO AS TO AVOID
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, BECAUSE BY THE ACT AND DECISIONAL LAW THE BANK IS
THE "TAXPAYER."  NEW ORLEANS V. HOUSTON, 119 U.S. 265; OPINION OF THE
JUSTICES, 88 N.H. 500; IN RE ATLAS TELEVISION CO., 273 N.Y. 51; DOBY V.
TAX COMMISSION, 234 ALA. 150; COVINGTON V. TAX COMMISSION, 257 KY. 84. 

ASSUMING THAT THE BANK IS NOT THE TAXPAYER AND THE TAX BURDEN IS NOT
UNLAWFUL, NEVERTHELESS THE OTHER BURDENS WHICH THE ACT THEN IMPOSES
UPON THE BANK, AS THE PERFORMER OF NATIONAL BANKING FUNCTIONS, RENDER
THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE ACT SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED AS
MAKING THE PERFORMER OF SERVICES THE TAXPAYER, AND AS EXEMPTING ALL
INTRA VIRES NATIONAL BANKING SERVICES FROM TAXATION.  IN RE OPINION OF
THE JUSTICES, SUPRA; ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578; CLEMENT
NATIONAL BANK V. VERMONT, 231 U.S. 120. 

THE TREASURER'S APPLICATION OF THE ACT IS DISCRIMINATORY.  BEDFORD V.
JOHNSON, 102 COLO. 203. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL INVOLVES THE VALIDITY OF THE PUBLIC REVENUE SERVICE TAX
ACT OF COLORADO.  FN1  THE ACT, SEC. 5, IMPOSES UPON THE SERVICES
SPECIFIED IN THE ACT, A PERCENTAGE TAX BASED UPON THE VALUE OF THE
SERVICES RENDERED OR PERFORMED BY ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO ITS
PROVISIONS. 

SERVICES RENDERED BY "BANKS, FINANCE COMPANIES, TRUST COMPANIES AND
DEPOSITORIES  ..."  THE PERSON RENDERING THE SERVICES "SHALL BE LIABLE
AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT  ..."  SEC. 6.  HE
IS REQUIRED TO REMIT ALL TAXES COLLECTED AND DUE THE STATE FROM HIM TO
THE TREASURER LESS THREE PER CENT TO COVER THE EXPENSE OF THE SERVICE. 
UNDER SEC. 6(B) PERSONS RENDERING OR PERFORMING THE SERVICES ARE
REQUIRED "AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE, (TO) ADD THE TAX IMPOSED  ...  TO THE
VALUE OF SERVICES OR CHARGES SHOWING SUCH TAX AS A SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT ITEM AND WHEN ADDED SUCH TAX SHALL CONSTITUTE A PART OF SUCH
VALUE OF SERVICE OR CHARGE, SHALL BE A DEBT FROM THE USER TO THE PERSON
RENDERING OR PERFORMING SERVICE UNTIL PAID, AND SHALL BE RECOVERABLE AT
LAW IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER DEBTS."  BY SUBSECTION (D) THE PERSON
RENDERING THE SERVICE IS FORBIDDEN TO HOLD OUT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
THAT HE WILL ASSUME OR ABSORB THE TAX.  BY SEC. 7 THE USER MAY RECOVER
ILLEGALLY COLLECTED TAXES.  WHERE SERVICES ARE RENDERED WHICH BECOME A
PART OF AN ARTICLE SUBJECT TO A SALES TAX, THE SERVICES ARE EXEMPT AND
THE PERSON PERFORMING THE SERVICE RECOVERS WHERE THEY ARE ILLEGALLY
ASSESSED.  SEC. 3.  BY SEC. 12, ALL SUMS PAID BY THE USER AS TAXES ARE
PUBLIC MONEY AND TRUST FUNDS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO.  IT IS MADE A
MISDEMEANOR, SEC. 17, FOR ANY PERSON RENDERING OR PERFORMING SERVICES
TO REFUSE TO MAKE THE RETURNS REQUIRED.  THE STATE TREASURER IS MADE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ACT AND GIVEN AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REGULATIONS. 
SEC. 19.  THE USUAL SEPARABILITY CLAUSE IS CONTAINED IN THE ACT.  SEC.
22. 

THE DEFINITIONS OF THE ACT APPEAR IN SEC. 2.  BY ITS SUBSECTION (C)
THE TERM "SERVICES RENDERED OR PERFORMED" IS DEFINED AS THOSE RENDERED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION BY A PERSON COVERED BY THE ACT FOR THE
ULTIMATE USER THEREOF. 

"THE TERM 'USER' SHALL MEAN THE PERSON FOR WHOM OR FOR WHOSE BENEFIT
SERVICES ARE RENDERED OR PERFORMED."  BY SUBSECTION (E) TAXPAYER IS
DEFINED AS "ANY PERSON OBLIGATED TO ACCOUNT TO THE STATE TREASURER FOR
TAXES COLLECTED OR TO BE COLLECTED OR DUE THE STATE UNDER THE TERMS OF
THIS ACT."  SUBSECTION (H) PROVIDES FOR A CREDIT ON FUTURE TAXES OF A
TAX PAID ON ACCOUNTS EVENTUALLY FOUND WORTHLESS. 

UNDER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE TREASURER ON THE PUBLIC
REVENUE SERVICE TAX ACT, THE SERVICE TAX IS CONSTRUED AS INVALID AS
APPLIED TO SO-CALLED BANKING SERVICES.  FN2 

UNDER RULE 27, HOWEVER, SUCH SERVICE AS THE FURNISHING OF SAFETY
VAULTS BY DEPOSITORIES OR BANKS IS HELD TO COME WITHIN THE ACT, AND THE
TWO PER CENT TAX APPLIES TO THE CHARGES MADE FOR THIS SERVICE.  THESE
REGULATIONS WERE APPROVED BY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT
AND THAT JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED IN ALL PARTICULARS BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF COLORADO. 

WHILE SEC. 4(A) MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO RENDER THE
DEFINED SERVICES WITHOUT "FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A LICENSE THEREFOR,"
THE TREASURER DEMANDS NO LICENSE FEES FROM A NATIONAL BANK.  SUCH
EXCEPTION WAS HELD PROPER BY THE LOWER COURT.  FN3 

THE APPELLANT HERE, THE COLORADO NATIONAL BANK, WAS A NATIONAL
BANKING CORPORATION DULY ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE NATIONAL
BANKING ACT.  THE BANK OPERATED A SAFE-DEPOSIT SERVICE UNDER ITS OWN
NAME AND IN THE BUILDING AND VAULTS USED FOR ITS OTHER BANKING
ACTIVITIES.  THE RENTALS RECEIVED FOR THE USE OF THAT PORTION OF ITS
VAULTS UTILIZED FOR SAFE-DEPOSIT BOXES WERE REPORTED TO THE COMPTROLLER
OF THE CURRENCY AS INCOME IN THE BANK; THE FIXTURES EMPLOYED IN THE
BUSINESS ARE PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE BANK AND ARE SUPERVISED BY THE
COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY. 

THE APPELLEE BEDFORD, AS TREASURER OF THE STATE OF COLORADO AND
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SERVICE TAX ACT, DEMANDED PAYMENT FROM APPELLANT
BANK OF TWO PER CENT OF THE VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE BANK
TO ITS SAFE DEPOSIT BOX CUSTOMERS.  THE BANK REFUSED PAYMENT AND THE
TREASURER BROUGHT THIS ACTION UNDER THE UNIFORM DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS
ACT (COLORADO STAT. ANNO., 1935, C. 93, SECS. 78-79) FOR A DECLARATION
OF RIGHTS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE BANK ARE
TAXABLE PURSUANT TO THE SERVICE TAX ACT.  THE BANK ANSWERED CLAIMING
THE STATE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO IT WAS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES; SETTING UP THE IMMUNITY OF NATIONAL
BANKS FROM STATE TAXATION EXCEPT AS PERMITTED BY R.S. SEC. 5219; FN4
CLAIMING THAT THE SAFE-DEPOSIT BUSINESS OF NATIONAL BANKS WAS
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS AND THEREFORE WAS PART OF ITS FEDERALLY
AUTHORIZED BUSINESS, IMMUNE FROM TAXATION WHETHER THE BANK OR THE USER
OF ITS SERVICES IS THE TAXPAYER.  THE BANK FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN
THOUGH IT IS NOT THE TAXPAYER AND THE TAX BURDEN AS SUCH IS NOT
UNLAWFUL, THE BURDEN OF COLLECTION, REPORT AND VISITATION MATERIALLY
INTERFERE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS NATIONAL BANKING FUNCTIONS.  A
GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE ANSWER WAS FILED. 

THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED THE BANK.  THE SUPREME COURT FIRST AFFIRMED
BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT AND THEN ON REHEARING REVERSED  FN5  AND
REMANDED THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED A
SECOND JUDGMENT DECLARING AS PRAYED BY THE TREASURER WHICH JUDGMENT WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE FORMER DECISION. 

(1)  THIS APPEAL IS HERE UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THE
TREASURER MAKES THE POINT THAT AS THE FEDERAL QUESTION RAISED WAS THE
IMMUNITY TO THE EXACTION OF THE BANK AS A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY
WITHDRAWN FROM STATE TAXATION BY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, THE
DETERMINATION THAT THE TAX WAS ON A NON-BANKING ACTIVITY FOREIGN TO ITS
FEDERAL CHARACTER AND ON THE USER OF THE SERVICES ELIMINATED THE
NECESSITY OF A DECISION ON THE FEDERAL QUESTION.  AS THE STATUTE WAS
HELD VALID AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO THAT
THE MANNER OF STATE TAXATION OF NATIONAL BANKS MUST ACCORD WITH R.S.
SEC. 5219 AND MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH FEDERAL FUNCTIONS,  FN6 IT SEEMS
CLEAR THE FEDERAL QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AS TESTED
BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WAS NECESSARILY
INVOLVED AND DECIDED.  THIS GIVES THIS COURT JURISDICTION OF THE
APPEAL.  FN7 

GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK,  FN8  RELIED UPON BY THE TREASURER,
DEALT WITH THE RIGHT TO REMOVE TO A FEDERAL COURT  FN9  BECAUSE THE
CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE UNDER THE FEDERAL LAWS,  FN10  BUT THE ISSUE HERE
IS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WHERE A STATE STATUTE IS HELD VALID AGAINST A
DEFENSE OF REPUGNANCY TO THE SAME LAWS.  FN11  THE DIFFERENCE IS
BROUGHT OUT IN THE GULLY CASE, WHERE IT IS SAID:  "IF THERE WERE NO
FEDERAL LAW PERMITTING THE TAXATION OF SHARES IN NATIONAL BANKS, A SUIT
TO RECOVER SUCH A TAX WOULD NOT BE ONE ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES, THOUGH THE BANK WOULD HAVE THE AID OF THE
CONSTITUTION WHEN IT CAME TO ITS DEFENSE."  FN12 

(2)  THE GENESIS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM OF NATIONAL BANKS IS THE
NATIONAL BANK ACT OF JUNE 3, 1864.  FN13  IT WAS CALLED "AN ACT TO
PROVIDE A NATIONAL CURRENCY, SECURED BY A PLEDGE OF UNITED STATES BONDS
AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CIRCULATION AND REDEMPTION THEREOF."  FROM THIS
ACT, CORRELATED WITH THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT,  FN14  THERE HAS
DEVELOPED THE PRESENT NATIONWIDE BANKING FACILITIES.  R.S. SEC. 5153
MAKES THESE ASSOCIATIONS THE DEPOSITORIES OF PUBLIC MONEY.  THOUGH THE
NATIONAL BANKS' USEFULNESS AS AN AGENCY TO PROVIDE FOR CURRENCY HAS
DIMINISHED MARKEDLY, THEIR IMPORTANCE AS GENERAL BANKERS SHOWS A
CONSTANT GROWTH.  FN15  WE MAY ASSUME THAT NATIONAL BANKS POSSESS ONLY
THE POWERS CONFERRED BY CONGRESS.  FN16  THESE ARE SET OUT IN R.S. SEC.
5136 AS FREQUENTLY AMENDED AND INCLUDE "ALL SUCH INCIDENTAL POWERS AS
SHALL BE NECESSARY TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING," WITH THE
PROVISO "THAT IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE SAFE
DEPOSIT BUSINESS THE ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT INVEST IN THE CAPITAL STOCK
OF A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAW OF ANY STATE TO CONDUCT A SAFE
DEPOSIT BUSINESS IN AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF 15 PER CENTUM OF THE CAPITAL
STOCK OF THE ASSOCIATION ACTUALLY PAID IN AND UNIMPAIRED AND 15 PER
CENTUM OF ITS UNIMPAIRED SURPLUS."  FN17  WE HAVE RECENTLY FOUND THE
AUTHORITY TO SECURE FEDERAL FUNDS WITHIN THESE INCIDENTAL POWERS,
COUPLED WITH A LONG CONTINUED PRACTICE RECOGNIZED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF
THE CURRENCY.  FN18  THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT SPECIAL DEPOSITS IS RECOGNIZED
BY THE BANKING ACT.  FN19  THESE ARE MONIES AND OTHER VALUABLES THE
IDENTICAL DEPOSITS OF WHICH ARE KEPT, PRESERVED AND RETURNED IN KIND. 
IT DIFFERS LITTLE IF AT ALL FROM A SAFE-DEPOSIT BUSINESS.  THE LANGUAGE
OF THE PROVISO OF SEC. 24, JUST QUOTED, IS THE LANGUAGE SUITABLE TO
IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON A RECOGNIZED POWER, NOT THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
BE USED IN CREATING A NEW POWER.  AS THE LIMITATION ON THE POWER TO
INVEST IN REAL ESTATE PROTECTED IN A MEASURE CUSTOMERS AND STOCKHOLDERS
FROM RISKY INVESTMENTS,  FN20  THE BANKS' OWN INVESTMENT IN SAFETY
DEPOSIT FACILITIES EVIDENTLY DID NOT SEEM TO CONGRESS TO REQUIRE THE
SAME REGULATION AS THE PURCHASE OF STOCK IN A SAFE-DEPOSIT
CORPORATION.  A SUBSIDIARY SAFE-DEPOSIT CORPORATION WOULD GIVE PRIORITY
TO THE CREDITORS OF THE SUBSIDIARY OVER THE DEPOSITORS AND OTHER
CREDITORS OF THE BANK ITSELF.  THE OBVIOUS FACT, KNOWN TO ALL, IS THAT
NATIONAL BANKS DO AND FOR MANY YEARS HAVE CARRIED ON A SAFE-DEPOSIT
BUSINESS.  STATE BANKS, QUITE USUALLY, ARE GIVEN THE POWER TO CONDUCT A
SAFE-DEPOSIT BUSINESS.  FN21  WE AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT BANK THAT
SUCH A GENERALLY ADOPTED METHOD OF SAFEGUARDING VALUABLES MUST BE
CONSIDERED A BANKING FUNCTION AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS.  FN22 

(3)  WE MAY ASSUME, AS DID THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO, THAT THE
TAX IS INVALID IF LAID UPON THE BANK AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF
GOVERNMENT IN THE INCIDENTS REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING SECTION; FN23
THAT ITS BANKING OPERATIONS ARE FREE FROM STATE TAXATION EXCEPT AS
CONGRESS MAY PERMIT; FN24  THAT CONGRESS PERMITS THE TAXATION ONLY OF
SHARES AND REAL ESTATE; FN25  AND THAT CONGRESS MAY INTERVENE TO
PROTECT ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES FROM ANY OTHER TAX WHICH THREATENS THEIR
USEFULNESS.  FN26 

CONGRESS HAS NOT LEGISLATED AGAINST TAXATION OF THE CUSTOMERS OF
NATIONAL BANKS.  THIS COURT HAS APPROVED A TAX ASSESSED UPON THE
DEPOSITS OF CUSTOMERS OF NATIONAL BANKS.  FN27  BY SEC. 6 OF THE
COLORADO ACT THE "PERSON RENDERING OR PERFORMING SERVICES SHALL BE
LIABLE" FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX IMPOSED.  BUT AS SUBSECTION (B) OF
THAT SAME SECTION REQUIRES THE TAX PAID TO BE ADDED TO THE CHARGES FOR
SERVICE "AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ITEM" AND MAKES IT A DEBT FROM THE
USER OF THE SERVICES UNTIL PAID, THE TAX IS UPON THE USER OF THE SAFE
DEPOSIT BOXES, NOT UPON THE BANK.  FURTHERMORE, AS BY SEC. 2(H) CREDIT
IS GIVEN TO THE BANK FOR TAXES PAID ON ACCOUNTS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND
WORTHLESS AND THE BANK IS IN A POSITION TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF BOX
RENTALS AND TAXES IN ADVANCE, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR A BANK EVER TO
HAVE SADDLED UPON IT ANY PART OF THE TAX BURDEN.    IN NATIONAL BANK V.
COMMONWEALTH  FN28  THIS COURT DETERMINED A SIMILAR QUESTION IN FAVOR
OF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE TAX.  THE CASE WAS DECIDED IN 1869.  AT
THAT TIME THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE  FN29  READ:  "SEC.  41.  ...
PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT ALL
THE SHARES IN ANY OF THE SAID ASSOCIATIONS, HELD BY ANY PERSON  ...
FROM BEING INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SUCH
PERSON  ...  IN THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES IMPOSED BY OR UNDER STATE
AUTHORITY AT THE PLACE WHERE SUCH BANK IS LOCATED, AND NOT ELSEWHERE. 
..." 

THE STATUTE OF KENTUCKY LAID A TAX OF FIFTY CENTS ON EACH SHARE.  THE
SAME STATUTE ENACTED: "THE CASHIER OF A BANK, WHOSE STOCK IS TAXED,
SHALL, ON THE FIRST DAY IN JULY OF EACH YEAR, PAY INTO THE TREASURY THE
AMOUNT OF TAX DUE.  IF SUCH TAX BE NOT PAID, THE CASHIER AND HIS
SURETIES SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE SAME, AND TWENTY PER CENT. UPON THE
AMOUNT; AND THE SAID BANK OR CORPORATION SHALL THEREBY FORFEIT THE
PRIVILEGES OF ITS CHARTER." 

A NATIONAL BANK REFUSED PAYMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IT AS A BANK WAS
NOT SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION.  IT WAS DECIDED THAT THIS WAS A TAX ON
SHARES, THAT THE STATE IN A LEGAL PROCEEDING AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDER
COULD HAVE GARNISHEED THE BANK AND THAT BECAUSE THE BANK WAS A FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITY WAS NO REASON FOR NOT REQUIRING IT TO COLLECT AND PAY
OVER THE MONEY FROM THE SHAREHOLDER.  A SIMILAR TAX WAS UPHELD IN DES
MOINES BANK V. FAIRWEATHER.  FN30 

THE PERSON LIABLE FOR THE TAX, PRIMARILY, CANNOT ALWAYS BE SAID TO BE
THE REAL TAXPAYER.  THE TAXPAYER IS THE PERSON ULTIMATELY LIABLE FOR
THE TAX ITSELF.  FN31  THE FUNDS WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THE STATE CAME
FROM THE ASSETS OF THE USER, NOT FROM THOSE OF THE FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITY, THE BANK.  FN32  THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT HOLDS THE
USER IS THE TAXPAYER.  FN33  THE DETERMINATION OF THE STATE COURT AS TO
THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX HAS GREAT WEIGHT WITH US AND, WHEN IT FOLLOWS
LOGICALLY THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, AS HERE, IS CONTROLLING.  FN34  AS
THE USER DIRECTLY FURNISHES THE FUNDS FOR THE TAX, NOT AS AN ULTIMATE
CONSUMER WITH A TRANSFERRED BURDEN BUT BY SEC. 12 OF THE ACT AS THE
RESPONSIBLE OBLIGOR, WE CONCLUDE THE TAX IS UPON HIM, NOT UPON THE
BANK.  THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES DO NOT FORBID SUCH
A TAX. 

(4)  THE TAX BEING A PERMISSIBLE TAX ON CUSTOMERS OF THE BANK, IT IS
SETTLED BY OUR PRIOR DECISIONS THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS REQUIRING
COLLECTION AND REMISSION OF THE TAXES DO NOT IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BURDEN ON A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY.  FN35 ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE
SINCE THE BANK UNDER THE COLORADO ACT IS ALLOWED THREE PER CENT OF THE
TAX FOR THE FINANCIAL BURDEN PUT UPON IT BY THE OBLIGATION TO COLLECT. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SESSION LAWS OF COLORADO, 1937, C. 240, P. 1144.  THE ACT WAS
AMENDED AND REENACTED MAY 1, 1939.  SESSION LAWS OF COLORADO, 1939, C.
158, P. 526.  THIS LATER ACT IS NOT MATERIAL IN THIS APPEAL. 

FN2  RULES AND REGULATIONS, PUBLIC REVENUE SERVICE TAX ACT OF 1937,
NO. 10, REPUBLISHED OCTOBER 27, 1937. 

FN3  BEDFORD V. COLORADO BANK, 104 COLO. 311, 315; 91 P.2D 469. 

FN4 12 U.S.C. SEC. 548. 

"THE LEGISLATURE OF EACH STATE MAY DETERMINE AND DIRECT, SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE MANNER AND PLACE OF TAXING ALL THE
SHARES OF NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS LOCATED WITHIN ITS LIMITS.  THE
SEVERAL STATES MAY (1) TAX SAID SHARES, OR (2) INCLUDE DIVIDENDS
DERIVED THEREFROM IN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF AN OWNER OR HOLDER THEREOF,
OR (3) TAX SUCH ASSOCIATIONS ON THEIR NET INCOME, OR (4) ACCORDING TO
OR MEASURED BY THEIR NET INCOME, PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE
COMPLIED WITH: 

"1.  (A)  THE IMPOSITION BY ANY STATE OF ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE FOUR
FORMS OF TAXATION SHALL BE IN LIEU OF THE OTHERS, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (C) OF THIS CLAUSE." 

FN5  BEDFORD V. COLORADO BANK, SUPRA. 

FN6  IBID. 

FN7  CALIFORNIA POWDER WORKS V. DAVIS, 151 U.S. 389, 393; INDIANA EX
REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, 303 U.S. 95, 98; CF. OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V.
OWENSBORO, 173 U.S. 664; CLEMENT NATIONAL BANK V. VERMONT, 231 U.S.
120; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374. 

FN8  299 U.S. 109. 

FN9  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 28. 

FN10  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 24. 

FN11  JUDICIAL CODE, 237(A). 

FN12  299 U.S. AT 115. 

FN13  13 STAT. 99, 100. 

FN14  38 STAT. 251. 

FN15  APRIL 6, 1940, TREASURY DAILY STATEMENT SHOWS $172,081,172 IN
NATIONAL BANK NOTES OUTSTANDING ON MARCH 1, 1940.  COMPARE WITH
$1,122,452,661 OUTSTANDING OCTOBER 31, 1914.  REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER
OF CURRENCY, 1935, P. 833.  ON MARCH 1, 1940, THERE WAS OUTSTANDING
OVER $5,000,000,000 IN FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. 

THE NUMBER OF NATIONAL BANKS AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1938, IS 5247, CAPITAL
ACCOUNTS (CAPITAL SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS) $3,305,575,000, AND
DEPOSITS $27,103,881,000.  REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY,
1938. 

FN16  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245, 253; MARION
V. SNEEDEN, 291 U.S. 262. 

FN17  12 U.S.C. SEC. 24. 

FN18  INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION V. YOUNG, 309 U.S. 517. 

FN19  R.S. 5228, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 133. 

FN20  12 U.S.C. SEC. 29: 

"A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION MAY PURCHASE, HOLD, AND CONVEY REAL
ESTATE FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES, AND FOR NO OTHERS: 

"FIRST.  SUCH AS SHALL BE NECESSARY FOR ITS ACCOMMODATION IN THE
TRANSACTION OF ITS BUSINESS." 

FN21  PATON'S DIGEST, 1926, VOL. 2, P. 2246, LISTS 24 STATES AND
TERRITORIES WHICH AUTHORIZE THEIR BANKS TO CONDUCT A SAFE-DEPOSIT
BUSINESS.  FOR EXAMPLE, MAINE, ACT OF 1923, C. 144, SEC. 6, (V),
AUTHORIZES SAVINGS BANKS TO "OWN, MAINTAIN AND LET SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES
AND VAULTS."  OHIO, GEN. CODE (1921), SEC. 710-109, EMPOWERS BANKS TO
LET OUT SAFE-DEPOSIT BOXES.  CALIFORNIA, GEN. LAWS (1923), ACT 652,
SEC. 30, ANY BANK MAY CONDUCT A SAFE-DEPOSIT DEPARTMENT, BUT SHALL NOT
INVEST MORE THAN ONE TENTH OF ITS CAPITAL AND SURPLUS IN SUCH SAFE
DEPOSIT DEPARTMENT. 

FN22  THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO FIRST APPEARED IN AN ACT TO FURTHER
AMEND THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT ENACTED
FEBRUARY 25, 1927, 44 STAT. 1224, SEC. 2(B).  ONLY IMMATERIAL VERBAL
CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE FIRST ADOPTION. 

REFERRING TO THIS PROVISO THE HOUSE REPORT SAID:  "THE SECOND PROVISO
REGULATES THE SAFE-DEPOSIT BUSINESS OF NATIONAL BANKS AND PROHIBITS
THEM FROM INVESTING AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF 15 PER CENT OF CAPITAL AND
SURPLUS IN A CORPORATION ORGANIZED TO CONDUCT A SAFE-DEPOSIT BUSINESS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE BANK.  THIS IS A BUSINESS WHICH IS REGULARLY
CARRIED ON BY NATIONAL BANKS AND THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IS ALSO
PRIMARILY REGULATIVE."  H. REP. NO. 83, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 4. 

FN23  CF. OSBORN V. U.S. BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738, 862; OWENSBORO NATIONAL
BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173 U.S. 664, 668; BANK OF CALIFORNIA V. RICHARDSON,
248 U.S. 476, 483.  ALSO SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE CO., 255 U.S. 180,
212. 

FN24  FARMERS' & MECHANICS' NATIONAL BANK V. DEARING, 91 U.S. 29;
EASTON V. IOWA, 188 U.S. 220; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 262
U.S. 366 

FN25  R.S. SEC. 5219; OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173 U.S.
664, 668, 676. 

FN26  PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21, AND CASES
CITED; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 160; FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. MISSOURI, 263 U.S. 640, 656. 

FN27  CLEMENT NATIONAL BANK V. VERMONT, 231 U.S. 120, 133. 

FN28  9 WALL.  353. 

FN29  13 STAT. 111. 

FN30  263 U.S. 103, 111; CF. GULLY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 299 U.S.
109, 116. 

FN31  STAHMANN V. VIDAL, 305 U.S. 61. 

FN32  HELVERING V. THERRELL, 303 U.S. 218, 225. 

FN33  BEDFORD V. COLORADO BANK, 104 COLO. 311, 319; 91 P.2D 469; CF.
BEDFORD V. HARTMAN BROTHERS, 104 COLO. 190, 194; 89 P.2D 584. 

FN34  CLEMENT NATIONAL BANK V. VERMONT, 231 U.S. 120, 134. 

FN35  NATIONAL BANK V. COMMONWEALTH, 9 WALL.  353; DES MOINES BANK V.
FAIRWEATHER, 263 U.S. 103, 111; CF. WAITE V. DOWLEY, 94 U.S. 527;
MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, 93; CODE OF IOWA, 1931, SEC.
5093A (5); FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62, 68; MCGOLDRICK
V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL CO., 309 U.S. 33. 
..END :



OSBORN V. OZLIN, 310 U.S. 53 


NO. 592.  ARGUED MARCH 27, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 29
F.SUPP.  71, AFFIRMED. 


AS TO CASUALTY AND SURETY RISKS IN VIRGINIA, INSURED AGAINST BY
CORPORATIONS AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THAT STATE, A VIRGINIA LAW
REQUIRES THAT THE INSURANCE SHALL BE "THROUGH REGULARLY CONSTITUTED AND
REGISTERED RESIDENT AGENTS OR AGENCIES OF SUCH COMPANIES"; AND THAT
SUCH RESIDENT AGENTS SHALL RECEIVE "THE USUAL AND CUSTOMARY COMMISSIONS
ALLOWED ON SUCH CONTRACTS," AND MAY NOT SHARE MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF A
COMMISSION WITH A NON-RESIDENT LICENSED BROKER.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THE REGULATION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY WITHIN THE POWER OF THE
STATE, EVEN THOUGH ONE EFFECT OF IT MAY BE TO INCREASE THE COST OF
"MASTER" POLICIES NEGOTIATED BY BROKERS IN OTHER STATES, THROUGH WHICH
AN ASSURED MAY OBTAIN A REDUCED RATE AND COMMISSION BY POOLING ALL OF
HIS RISKS, IN AND OUT OF VIRGINIA, IN ONE CONTRACT.  PP. 62-65. 

2.  AS A BASIS FOR THIS LEGISLATION, THE LEGISLATURE WAS ENTITLED TO
ACT ON THE BELIEF, 

(1)  THAT, BY REQUIRING PARTICIPATION BY RESPONSIBLE RESIDENT AGENTS,
IT WOULD LESSEN THE DIFFICULTY OF ENFORCING THE VIRGINIA SYSTEM OF
INSURANCE REGULATION AND DETECT UNLAWFUL REBATING.  P. 63. 

(2)  THAT THE LIMITATION ON SHARING OF AGENTS' COMMISSIONS WOULD
ASSURE THE USE OF RESIDENT AGENTS FOR THE PROCURING AND "SERVICING" OF
POLICIES COVERING LOCAL RISKS - FUNCTIONS WHICH, WHEN ADEQUATELY
PERFORMED, BENEFIT THE COMPANY, THE PRODUCER, AND THE ASSURED, AND, BY
MINIMIZING THE RISKS OF CASUALTY AND LOSS, REDOUND TO THE BENEFIT OF
THE COMMUNITY.  P. 64. 

(3)  THAT THE AGENCY SYSTEM IN VIEW IS BETTER CALCULATED TO FURTHER
THESE ENDS THAN OTHER MODES OF "PRODUCTION."  P. 64. 

3.  THE REGULATIONS ARE WELL WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE OVER
INSURANCE AGAINST LOCAL RISKS.  P. 66. 

OSBORN ET AL. V. OZLIN ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
A BILL TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE REGULATING INSURANCE IN
VIRGINIA. 

A STATE CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY NOT REGULATE OR PENALIZE THE MAKING,
BEYOND ITS BORDERS, OF CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE OR SURETY UPON PERSONS OR
PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE.  HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO.
V. DELTA & PINE LAND CO., 292 U.S. 143; FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V.
TAFOYA, 270 U.S. 426; AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. DUNKEN, 266 U.S. 389; ST.
LOUIS COTTON COMPRESS CO. V. ARKANSAS, 260 U.S. 346; ALLGEYER V.
LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578.  SEE, ALSO, BOSEMAN V. CONNECTICUT GENERAL
LIFE INS. CO., 301 U.S. 196; HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397; NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. HEAD, 234 U.S. 149.  DISTINGUISHING BOTHWELL V.
BUCKBEE, MEARS CO., 275 U.S. 274. 

UNDER THIS STATUTE NO CONTRACT OF INSURANCE COVERING RISKS IN OTHER
STATES AND INCLUDING VIRGINIA RISKS CAN BE MADE ANYWHERE EXCEPT WITHIN
THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.  SEC. 4226-A. 

THE CONTRACTS DO NOT REQUIRE OR CONTEMPLATE ANY ILLEGAL ACT WITHIN
THE STATE.  VIRGINIA HAS NOT ATTEMPTED EITHER TO REGULATE OR PROHIBIT
THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH CONTRACTS.  THE PLAINTIFFS ARE LICENSED TO DO
BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA, AND NO ACT OF PERFORMING OR SERVICING A CONTRACT
OF INSURANCE THEREIN IS PROHIBITED TO THEM BY ANY VIRGINIA STATUTE. 

MANY OF THE CONTRACTS ARE ACCIDENT POLICIES AND FIDELITY BONDS
SIMILAR TO THE CONTRACTS CONSIDERED IN THE BOSEMAN AND DELTA & PINE
LAND CASES, SUPRA.  THESE NEITHER REQUIRE NOR CONTEMPLATE PERFORMANCE
OR SERVICE IN VIRGINIA.  YET THE STATUTE MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THESE AND OTHERS, SUCH AS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION POLICIES, WHICH DO
CALL FOR SERVICE WITHIN THE STATE.  IT IS NOT PERFORMANCE AND SERVICE
WITHIN THE STATE WHICH VIRGINIA ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE AND THE STATUTE IS
NOT TO BE JUSTIFIED ON THE ASSERTED BASIS OF ASSISTANCE OF SUCH
REGULATION. 

DISTINGUISHING TAX CASES:  EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR.  SOCIETY V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 238 U.S. 143 AND COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS V.
COLLECTOR, 275 U.S. 87.  CF., GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V.
GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412. 

IT IS APPARENT FROM SECS. 4226(A) AND 4222(A) THAT PLAINTIFFS' AGENTS
WHO ARE NON-RESIDENTS OF VIRGINIA AND WHO ARE COMPENSATED BY
COMMISSIONS FALL WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF NON-RESIDENT
BROKERS, AND THAT, TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE
ATTEMPT TO PROHIBIT THE PLAINTIFFS FROM ISSUING CONTRACTS PRODUCED
OUTSIDE THE STATE BY THE PLAINTIFFS' AGENTS DULY AUTHORIZED AND
APPOINTED IN THE STATE WHERE LICENSED, UNLESS SUCH AGENT BE ALSO
LICENSED BY VIRGINIA AFTER THE PAYMENT OF A TAX. 

IN THUS REGULATING AND PRESCRIBING THE PERSONS WHOM THE PLAINTIFFS
MAY SELECT AND APPOINT TO REPRESENT THEM IN OTHER STATES, AND IN
PROHIBITING THE PLAINTIFFS FROM MAKING CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE OR SURETY
PRODUCED BY THEIR AGENTS IN OTHER STATES UNLESS SUCH AGENTS SHALL HAVE
BEEN LICENSED BY VIRGINIA, THAT STATE IS GIVING TO ITS LAWS EXTRA
TERRITORIAL OPERATION, AND IS DENYING TO THE PLAINTIFFS DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. TAFOYA, 270 U.S. 426. 

IF THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY AN OUT-OF-STATE AGENT OR BROKER
WHO HAS BEEN LICENSED BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, THE RESIDENT AGENT MAY,
IN HIS DISCRETION, PAY TO THE ACTUAL PRODUCER AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING
50% OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY HIM.  IT FOLLOWS THAT IF THE OUT-OF
STATE PRODUCER HAS NOT BEEN LICENSED BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, THE
RESIDENT AGENT CAN NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT TO HIM.  THUS THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER THE RESIDENT AGENT IS TO RECEIVE THE FULL COMMISSIONS OR ONLY
50% OF THEM IS TO BE DETERMINED NOT BY THE AMOUNT OR VALUE OF HIS
SERVICES, BUT BY THE ADVENTITIOUS AND UNRELATED QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
OUT-OF-STATE PRODUCER WHO BROUGHT THE BUSINESS TO THE COMPANY WAS OR
WAS NOT LICENSED BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A
STATUTORY PROVISION IMPOSING ANY DUTIES OR RESPONSIBILITIES UPON THE
RESIDENT AGENT, THIS REQUIREMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THERE IS NO
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE REQUIRED COMPENSATION AND THE
VALUE OF THE SERVICES CERTAIN TO BE RENDERED BY THE RECIPIENT TO THE
CORPORATION WHICH IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS.  CF., WEST COAST
HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379, 396; MOREHEAD V. NEW YORK, 298 U.S.
587, 622-623; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. DODGE, 246 U.S. 357, 382.  FOR
THE SIMPLE TASK OF COUNTERSIGNING - WRITING HIS NAME - HE RECEIVES THE
STATUTORY COMPENSATION.  AND THE TASK WHICH HE MUST PERFORM THE COURT
BELOW CHARACTERIZED - AND THE CHARACTERIZATION CAN HARDLY BE DISPUTED -
AS PERFUNCTORY. 

THE UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION
WHICH THE STATUTE REQUIRES WILL BE GROSSLY EXCESSIVE. 

THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH A STATUTE ARBITRARILY
REQUIRING EXCESSIVE PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN RETURN FOR THE POSSIBILITY
OF SOME SERVICES BEING RENDERED, HIGHLY SPECULATIVE IN CHARACTER AND
WHOLLY UNDESIRED. 

NOTHING IN O'GORMAN & YOUNG, INC. V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 282 U.S.
251, SUPPORTS A STATUTE REQUIRING LARGE PAYMENTS, ARBITRARY IN AMOUNT,
TO BE PAID BY THE CORPORATE PLAINTIFFS TO AGENTS FOR PROBLEMATICAL
SERVICES,  - PARTICULARLY WHERE THE PAYMENTS, AS THE COURT BELOW FOUND,
WILL INEVITABLY INCREASE THE EXPENSES OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND
THE COST OF INSURANCE TO THE PUBLIC.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OPERATES
TO PROHIBIT THE BOLD EXPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY BY A STATE. 

THE PROHIBITION OF SEC. 4222(A) AGAINST SALARIED AGENTS
COUNTERSIGNING DEPRIVES THE CORPORATE PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR PROPERTY AND
THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND DENIES THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID. 
SMITH V. TEXAS, 233 U.S. 630; LOUISVILLE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. COLEMAN,
277 U.S. 32. 

THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS WERE, PRIOR TO JUNE 21, 1938, LICENSED
INSURANCE AGENTS IN VIRGINIA AND THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE NOT NOW SO
LICENSED IS BECAUSE THEY ARE SALARIED EMPLOYEES. 

THE REGULATIONS ARE RESTRICTED TO ACTS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND
ITS AGENTS PERFORMED WITHIN THE STATE, PURSUANT TO AND AS A CONSEQUENCE
OF THE NEGOTIATION OF THE CONTRACT OUTSIDE OF THE STATE. 

THE FACT THAT A VIRGINIA CONTRACT IS NEGOTIATED AND MADE OUTSIDE THE
STATE DOES NOT IMPAIR VIRGINIA'S JURISDICTION TO REGULATE THE INSURANCE
COMPANY'S ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE STATE IN CONNECTION WITH OR
PURSUANT TO SUCH CONTRACT. 

ALL CASUALTY AND SURETY POLICIES AND CONTRACTS COVERING VIRGINIA
RISKS REQUIRE OR CONTEMPLATE ACTS OF PERFORMANCE IN VIRGINIA. 

THE MAKING OUTSIDE OF VIRGINIA OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT WHICH
CONTEMPLATES, REQUIRES, OR PERMITS THE DOING BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF ACTS IN VIRGINIA, CONSTITUTES, AS A MATTER OF LAW, AN EXERCISE OF
THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN INSURANCE BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA. 

THE MAKING OUTSIDE OF VIRGINIA OF A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE INVOLVING
AN EXERCISE OF A FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY'S LICENSE RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE
OF DOING BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA, BRINGS THE CONTRACT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION AND REGULATORY POLICE POWER OF VIRGNIA. 

VIRGINIA MAY PROHIBIT THE DOING IN VIRGINIA BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY
LICENSEE OF ANY ACT IN CONNECTION WITH OR IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A
VIRGNIA CONTRACT MADE BY IT OUTSIDE THE STATE IN VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA
LAWS, BY THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE OR BY REVOCATION OF SAID COMPANY'S
LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE BECAUSE OF MAKING SUCH CONTRACT IN
VIOLATION OF HER LAWS. 

THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED BY THE CHALLENGED
LEGISLATION ARE LEGITIMATE AND PROPER, AND THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO THAT
END ARE NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS BUT ARE REASONABLE AND
APPROPRIATELY ADAPTED THERETO. 

THE BRANCH MANAGER APPELLANTS HAVE NO STANDING IN COURT TO COMPLAIN
OF THE STATUTORY REGULATION REQUIRING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO MAKE
INSURANCE CONTRACTS THROUGH REGULARLY CONSTITUTED VIRGINIA RESIDENT
AGENTS, HAVE THEM COUNTERSIGN THE POLICIES AND PAY THEM THE USUAL
PRODUCER'S COMMISSION. 

THE STATUTORY CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES OF STOCK
INSURANCE COMPANIES IS REASONABLE. 

THIS CASE IS NOT CONTROLLED BY HARTFORD STEAM BOILER CO. V. HARRISON,
301 U.S. 459. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS HAVE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF A VIRGINIA STATUTE
REGULATING THE INSURANCE OF VIRGINIA RISKS AND HAVE BROUGHT THIS SUIT
TO ENJOIN STATE OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING IT.  ITS RELEVANT PROVISIONS,
COPIED IN THE MARGIN,  FN1  FORBID CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE OR SURETY BY
COMPANIES AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THAT COMMONWEALTH "EXCEPT
THROUGH REGULARLY CONSTITUTED AND REGISTERED RESIDENT AGENTS OR
AGENCIES OF SUCH COMPANIES."  SEC. 4222, C. 218, ACTS OF 1938.  SUCH
RESIDENT AGENTS "SHALL BE ENTITLED TO AND SHALL RECEIVE THE USUAL AND
CUSTOMARY COMMISSIONS ALLOWED ON SUCH CONTRACTS," AND MAY NOT SHARE
MORE THAN HALF OF THIS COMMISSION WITH A NON-RESIDENT BROKER.  SEC.
4226-A.  DISOBEDIENCE OF THESE PROVISIONS (FROM WHICH LIFE, TITLE AND
MARINE COMPANIES ARE EXEMPTED) MAY ENTAIL A FINE OR REVOCATION OF THE
CORPORATE LICENSE IN VIRGINIA, OR BOTH.  A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES, CONVENED UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 380, DISMISSED APPELLANTS' BILL ON THE BASIS OF ELABORATE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, SET FORTH IN AN OPINION BY
CIRCUIT JUDGE SOPER.  29 F.SUPP.  71.  FROM THIS DECREE THE CASE COMES
HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

THE BILL WAS BROUGHT BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS AUTHORIZED TO DO
CASUALTY AND SURETY BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA, AND BY SOME OF THEIR SALARIED
EMPLOYEES.  IT IS THEIR CLAIM THAT THE STATUTE DEPRIVES THEM OF RIGHTS
PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE EXACT
NATURE OF THESE CLAIMS WILL APPEAR MORE CLEARLY IN THE SETTING OF THE
ILLUMINATING FINDINGS BELOW WHICH MAY HERE BE ABBREVIATED. 

THE "PRODUCTION" OF INSURANCE - "PRODUCTION" BEING INSURANCE JARGON
FOR OBTAINING BUSINESS - IS, IN THE MAIN, CARRIED ON BY TWO GROUPS,
AGENTS AND BROKERS.  THOUGH BOTH ARE PAID BY COMMISSION, THE DIFFERENT
WAYS IN WHICH THE TWO GROUPS PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS HAVE IMPORTANT
PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES IN THE CONDUCT OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, AND
HENCE IN ITS REGULATION.  THE AGENT IS TIED TO HIS COMPANY.  BUT HIS
ABILITY TO "PRODUCE" BUSINESS DEPENDS UPON THE CONFIDENCE OF THE
COMMUNITY IN HIM.  HE MUST THEREFORE CULTIVATE THE GOOD WILL AND SENSE
OF DEPENDENCE OF HIS CLIENTS.  HE MAY FINANCE THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS;
HE FREQUENTLY ASSISTS IN THE FILING AND PROSECUTION OF CLAIMS; HE ACTS
AS MEDIATOR BETWEEN INSURER AND ASSURED IN THE DIVERSE SITUATIONS WHICH
ARISE.  THE BROKER, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS AN INDEPENDENT MIDDLEMAN, NOT
TIED TO A PARTICULAR COMPANY.  HE MEETS MORE SPECIALLY THE NEEDS OF
LARGE CUSTOMERS, USING THEIR CONCENTRATED BARGAINING POWER TO OBTAIN
THE MOST FAVORABLE TERMS FROM COMPETING COMPANIES.  HIS ACTIVITIES,
BEING LARGELY CONFINED TO THE BIG COMMERCIAL CENTERS, TAKE PLACE MOSTLY
OUTSIDE VIRGINIA. 

A POLICY, WHETHER "PRODUCED" BY BROKER OR AGENT, MUST BE "SERVICED" -
AN INSURANCE TERM FOR ASSISTANCE RENDERED A CUSTOMER IN MINIMIZING HIS
RISKS.  TO THIS END THE COMPANIES EXERT THEMSELVES DIRECTLY, BUT THE
"PRODUCER" MAY RENDER ADDITIONAL SERVICE.  ONLY TO A LIMITED EXTENT CAN
RISKS BE MINIMIZED AT LONG RANGE; LOCAL ACTIVITY IS ESSENTIAL.  WHEN
THE CONTRACT IS "PRODUCED" BY A NON-RESIDENT BROKER THE "SERVICING"
FUNCTION IS NORMALLY PERFORMED BY THE COMPANY EXCLUSIVELY.  WHEN THE
"PRODUCER" IS A RESIDENT AGENT, THE CASE IS ORDINARILY OTHERWISE.  FOR
THIS, AS WELL AS FOR OTHER REASONS, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NON-RESIDENT
BROKERS PREFER TO NEGOTIATE THEIR CONTRACTS COVERING VIRGINIA RISKS
WITH COMPANIES AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THAT COMMONWEALTH. 

THESE BASIC ELEMENTS IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS ATTAIN SPECIAL
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE CASE OF ENTERPRISES OPERATING NOT ONLY IN VIRGINIA
BUT IN OTHER STATES AS WELL.  FOR THEM THE BROKERAGE SYSTEM OFFERS THE
ATTRACTIONS OF LARGE-SCALE PRODUCTION.  THROUGH WHAT IS KNOWN AS A
MASTER OR "HOTCHPOTCH" POLICY, THE ASSURED MAY OBTAIN A CHEAPER RATE BY
POOLING ALL HIS RISKS, WHETHER IN OR OUT OF VIRGINIA.  THIS WHOLESALE
INSURANCE MAY FURNISH NOT ONLY A REDUCED RATE BUT A REDUCED COMMISSION
TO THE CUSTOMER.  THESE ARE ADVANTAGES WHICH NATURALLY DRAW THE
VIRGINIA BUSINESS OF INTERSTATE ENTERPRISES AWAY FROM LOCAL AGENTS IN
VIRGINIA TO THE GREAT INSURANCE CENTERS. 

IN AFFECTING THE COST OF THESE MASTER POLICIES, SAY THE APPELLANTS,
VIRGINIA IS INTRUDING UPON BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BEYOND ITS BORDERS. 
NOT ONLY IS A LICENSED COMPANY FORBIDDEN TO WRITE INSURANCE EXCEPT
THROUGH A RESIDENT AGENT, BUT THE AGENT CANNOT RETAIN LESS THAN ONE
HALF OF THE CUSTOMARY COMMISSION ALLOWED ON SUCH A CONTRACT FOR WHAT
MAY, SO FAR AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW ARE CONCERNED, BE NO MORE
THAN THE PERFUNCTORY SERVICE OF COUNTERSIGNING THE POLICY. 

BUT THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER WHAT VIRGINIA HAS DONE WILL RESTRICT
APPELLANTS' FREEDOM OF ACTION OUTSIDE VIRGINIA BY SUBJECTING THE
EXERCISE OF SUCH FREEDOM TO FINANCIAL BURDENS.  THE MERE FACT THAT
STATE ACTION MAY HAVE REPERCUSSIONS BEYOND STATE LINES IS OF NO
JUDICIAL SIGNIFICANCE SO LONG AS THE ACTION IS NOT WITHIN THAT DOMAIN
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. COMM'N, 294
U.S. 532; ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412. 
COMPARE EQUITABLE LIFE SOCIETY V. PENNSYLVANIA, 238 U.S. 143.  IT IS
EQUALLY IMMATERIAL THAT SUCH STATE ACTION MAY RUN COUNTER TO THE
ECONOMIC WISDOM EITHER OF ADAM SMITH OR OF J. MAYNARD KEYNES, OR MAY BE
ULTIMATELY MISCHIEVOUS EVEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF AVOWED STATE
POLICY.  OUR INQUIRY MUST BE MUCH NARROWER.  IT IS WHETHER VIRGINIA HAS
TAKEN HOLD OF A MATTER WITHIN HER POWER, OR HAS REACHED BEYOND HER
BORDERS TO REGULATE A SUBJECT WHICH WAS NONE OF HER CONCERN BECAUSE THE
CONSTITUTION HAS PLACED CONTROL ELSEWHERE.  COMPARE WALLACE V. HINES,
253 U.S. 66, 69. 

VIRGINIA HAS NOT SOUGHT TO PROHIBIT THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS BEYOND
HER BORDERS.  SHE MERELY CLAIMS THAT HER INTEREST IN THE RISKS WHICH
THESE CONTRACTS ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT WARRANTS THE KIND OF CONTROL
SHE HAS HERE IMPOSED.  THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT TO BE JUDGED BY
ABSTRACTING AN ISOLATED CONTRACT WRITTEN IN NEW YORK FROM THE ORGANIC
WHOLE OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, THE EFFECT OF THAT BUSINESS ON
VIRGINIA, AND VIRGINIA'S REGULATION OF IT. 

A NETWORK OF LEGISLATION CONTROLS THE SURETY AND CASUALTY BUSINESS IN
VIRGINIA.  INSOLVENT COMPANIES MAY NOT ENGAGE IN IT.  VIRGINIA CODE,
SEC. 4180.  NEITHER COMPANIES NOR AGENTS MAY GIVE REBATES.  SEC. 4222
C.  RATES FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY AND SURETY
CONTRACTS ARE DETERMINED BY ITS CORPORATION COMMISSION.  SECS.
1887(75), 4326-A-1, 4350-3.  THE DIFFICULTY OF ENFORCING THESE
REGULATIONS, SO THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, MAY BE INCREASED IF POLICIES
COVERING VIRGINIA RISKS ARE "PRODUCED" WITHOUT PARTICIPATION BY
RESPONSIBLE LOCAL AGENTS.  REBATES EVADING LOCAL RESTRICTION MAY BE
GRANTED UNDER COVER OF BUSINESS DONE OUTSIDE THE STATE.  CONTRARIWISE,
IF RESIDENT VIRGINIA AGENTS ARE MADE NECESSARY CONDUITS FOR INSURANCE
ON VIRGINIA RISKS NOW INCLUDED IN MASTER POLICIES, THE STATE MAY HAVE
BETTER MEANS OF ACQUIRING ACCURATE INFORMATION FOR THE EFFECTUATION OF
MEASURES WHICH IT DEEMS PROTECTIVE OF ITS INTERESTS.  FN2 

IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT NOT LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF THE
CUSTOMARY COMMISSION BE RETAINED BY THE RESIDENT AGENT IS A BALD
EXACTION FOR WHAT MAY BE NO MORE THAN THE PERFUNCTORY SERVICE OF
COUNTERSIGNING POLICIES.  THE SHORT ANSWER TO THIS IS THAT THE STATE
MAY RELY ON THIS EXACTION AS A MODE OF ASSURING THE ACTIVE USE OF
RESIDENT AGENTS FOR PROCURING AND "SERVICING" POLICIES COVERING
VIRGINIA RISKS.  THESE FUNCTIONS, WHEN ADEQUATELY PERFORMED, BENEFIT
NOT ONLY THE COMPANY, THE PRODUCER, AND THE ASSURED.  BY MINIMIZING THE
RISKS OF CASUALTY AND LOSS, THEY REDOUND IN A PERVASIVE WAY TO THE
BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY.  FN3  AT LEAST VIRGINIA MAY SO HAVE
BELIEVED.  AND SHE MAY ALSO HAVE CONCLUDED THAT AN AGENCY SYSTEM, SUCH
AS THIS LEGISLATION WAS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE, IS BETTER CALCULATED TO
FURTHER THESE DESIRABLE ENDS THAN OTHER MODES OF "PRODUCTION."  FN4
WHEN THESE BELIEFS ARE EMPHASIZED BY LEGISLATION EMBODYING SIMILAR
NOTIONS OF POLICY IN A DOZEN STATES,  FN5  IT WOULD SAVOR OF
INTOLERANCE FOR US TO SUGGEST THAT A LEGISLATURE COULD NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTERTAIN THE VIEWS WHICH THE LEGISLATION ADOPTS. 
COMPARE PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. V. CHEEK, 259 U.S. 530, 537. 

THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE, IS WHOLLY UNLIKE THOSE INSTANCES IN
WHICH A "SO-CALLED RIGHT IS USED AS PART OF A SCHEME TO ACCOMPLISH A
FORBIDDEN RESULT."  FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. TAFOYA, 270 U.S. 426,
434.  FOR IT IS CLEAR THAT VIRGINIA HAS A DEFINABLE INTEREST IN THE
CONTRACTS SHE SEEKS TO REGULATE AND THAT WHAT SHE HAS DONE IS VERY
DIFFERENT FROM THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS UPON APPELLANTS' PRIVILEGE
OF ENGAGING IN LOCAL BUSINESS WHICH WOULD BRING WITHIN THE ORBIT OF
STATE POWER MATTERS UNRELATED TO ANY LOCAL INTERESTS.  IT IS NOT OUR
PROVINCE TO MEASURE THE SOCIAL ADVANTAGE TO VIRGINIA OF REGULATING THE
CONDUCT OF INSURANCE COMPANIES WITHIN HER BORDERS INSOFAR AS IT AFFECTS
VIRGINIA RISKS.  GOVERNMENT HAS ALWAYS HAD A SPECIAL RELATION TO
INSURANCE.  THE WAYS OF SAFEGUARDING AGAINST THE UNTOWARD
MANIFESTATIONS OF NATURE AND OTHER VICISSITUDES OF LIFE HAVE LONG BEEN
WITHDRAWN FROM THE BENEFITS AND CAPRICES OF FREE COMPETITION.  FN6  THE
STATE MAY FIX INSURANCE RATES, GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. LEWIS, 233
U.S. 389; IT MAY REGULATE THE COMPENSATION OF AGENTS, O'GORMAN & YOUNG
V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 282 U.S. 251; IT MAY CURTAIL DRASTICALLY THE
AREA OF FREE CONTRACT, NATIONAL INS. CO. V. WANBERG, 260 U.S. 71. 
STATES HAVE CONTROLLED THE EXPENSES OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, NEW YORK
INSURANCE LAW, CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW YORK, C. 28, SEC. 244, AND
WISCONSIN STATUTES, SEC. 201.21; AND SEE REPORT OF JOINT (ARMSTRONG)
INSURANCE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE (N.Y.)  PP. 403-18(1906).  THEY HAVE
ALSO PROMOTED INSURANCE THROUGH SAVINGS BANKS; SEE BERMAN, THE
MASSACHUSETTS SYSTEM OF SAVINGS BANK LIFE INSURANCE, BULLETIN NO. 615,
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, AND NEW YORK LAWS OF 1938, C. 471.  IN
THE LIGHT OF ALL THESE EXERTIONS OF STATE POWER IT DOES NOT SEEM
POSSIBLE TO DOUBT THAT THE STATE COULD, IF IT CHOSE, GO INTO THE
INSURANCE BUSINESS, JUST AS IT CAN OPERATE WAREHOUSES, FLOUR MILLS, AND
OTHER BUSINESS VENTURES, GREEN V. FRAZIER, 253 U.S. 233, OR MIGHT TAKE
"THE WHOLE BUSINESS OF BANKING UNDER ITS CONTROL," NOBLE STATE BANK V.
HASKELL, 219 U.S. 104, 113.  IF THE STATE, AS TO LOCAL RISKS, COULD
THUS PREEMPT THE FIELD OF INSURANCE FOR ITSELF, IT MAY STAY ITS
INTERVENTION SHORT OF SUCH A DRASTIC STEP BY INSISTING THAT ITS OWN
RESIDENTS SHALL HAVE A SHARE IN DEVISING AND SAFEGUARDING PROTECTION
AGAINST ITS LOCAL HAZARDS.  LA TOURETTE V. MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465.  ALL
THESE ARE QUESTIONS OF POLICY NOT FOR US TO JUDGE.  FOR IT CAN NEVER BE
EMPHASIZED TOO MUCH THAT ONE'S OWN OPINION AS TO THE WISDOM OF A LAW
MUST BE WHOLLY EXCLUDED WHEN ONE IS DOING ONE'S JUDICIAL DUTY.  THE
LIMIT OF OUR INQUIRY IS REACHED WHEN WE CONCLUDE THAT VIRGINIA HAS
EXERTED ITS POWERS AS TO MATTERS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF HER CONTROL. 

IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION WE HAVE BEEN DULY MINDFUL OF THE CASES
URGED UPON US BY APPELLANTS.  IN ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578,
APART FROM THE DOUBTS THAT HAVE BEEN CAST UPON THE OPINION IN THAT
CASE, THE STATE ATTEMPTED TO PENALIZE THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS BY ITS
RESIDENTS OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS WITH COMPANIES WHICH HAD NEVER SUBJECTED
THEMSELVES TO LOCAL CONTROL.  THUS THE STATUTE WAS THOUGHT TO BE
DIRECTED NOT AT THE REGULATION OF INSURANCE WITHIN THE STATE, BUT AT
THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS WITHOUT.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED IN ST. LOUIS
COMPRESS CO. V. ARKANSAS, 260 U.S. 346; BUT SEE THE REFINED
DISTINCTIONS DRAWN IN COMPANIA DE TABACOS V. COLLECTOR, 275 U.S. 87. 
IN FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. TAFOYA, SUPRA, THE COURT FOUND THAT NEW
MEXICO HAD EXCEEDED ITS POWER BY FORBIDDING "THE PAYMENT OF ANY
EMOLUMENT OF ANY NATURE TO ANY (NON-RESIDENT) FOR THE OBTAINING,
PLACING OR WRITING OF ANY POLICY COVERING RISKS IN NEW MEXICO."  THE
COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT THIS STATUTE WENT "BEYOND ANY LEGITIMATE
INTEREST OF THE STATE,  ...  " IBID. AT 435, BUT CAREFULLY WITHHELD ITS
JUDGMENT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A LATER NEW MEXICO STATUTE NOT UNLIKE
THE VIRGINIA LAW HERE UNDER REVIEW.  FN7 

THE DECREE MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE VIRGINIA STATUTE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 4222.  ...  (A)  INSURANCE COMPANIES, LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO
DO BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, EXCEPT LIFE, TITLE AND OCEAN MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANIES, SHALL NOT MAKE CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE OR SURETY ON
PERSONS OR PROPERTY HEREIN, EXCEPT THROUGH REGULARLY CONSTITUTED AND
REGISTERED RESIDENT AGENTS OR AGENCIES OF SUCH COMPANIES; NO CONTRACT
OF INSURANCE OR SURETY COVERING PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN THIS STATE,
EXCEPT CONTRACTS OF LIFE, TITLE AND OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE AND EXCEPT
TEMPORARY BINDERS COVERING OTHER FORMS OF INSURANCE SHALL BE WRITTEN,
ISSUED OR DELIVERED BY ANY SUCH AUTHORIZED INSURANCE COMPANY, OR ANY OF
ITS REPRESENTATIVES, UNLESS SUCH CONTRACT IS DULY COUNTERSIGNED IN
WRITING BY A RESIDENT AGENT OR AGENCY OF SUCH COMPANY; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT THE COUNTERSIGNATURE OF AN INSURANCE AGENCY SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED VALID UNLESS SUCH COUNTERSIGNATURE BE ATTESTED TO IN WRITING
BY A REGULARLY CONSTITUTED AND REGISTERED RESIDENT AGENT OF SUCH
COMPANY. 

"NO STATE AGENT, SPECIAL AGENT, COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE, SALARIED
OFFICER, MANAGER OR OTHER SALARIED REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY LEGALLY
AUTHORIZED INSURANCE COMPANY, EXCEPT A MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SHALL
COUNTERSIGN ANY CONTRACT OF INSURANCE OR SURETY, OR ANY RENEWAL
THEREOF, COVERING PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN THIS STATE, EXCEPT CONTRACTS
OF LIFE, TITLE AND OCEAN MARINE INSURANCE; PROVIDED THAT THIS SECTION
SHALL NOT APPLY TO RAILROAD COMPANIES AND OTHER COMMON CARRIERS ENGAGED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

     .         . .         .         . 

"SECTION 4226-A.  ...  NO RESIDENT AGENT OR AGENCY MAY WRITE,
COUNTERSIGN, ISSUE OR DELIVER ANY CONTRACT OF INSURANCE OR SURETY UPON
PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN THIS STATE UNLESS THERE SHALL BE COLLECTED AT
THE TIME THE CONTRACT IS WRITTEN, ISSUED OR DELIVERED, OR WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER, THE FULL PREMIUM ON SUCH CONTRACT, AND THE
RESIDENT AGENT OR AGENCY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO AND SHALL RECEIVE THE
USUAL AND CUSTOMARY COMMISSIONS ALLOWED ON SUCH CONTRACTS, PROVIDED
THAT SUCH RESIDENT AGENT OR AGENCY MAY WRITE SUCH CONTRACTS AT THE
REQUEST ONLY OF SUCH OTHER RESIDENT AGENTS OR AGENCIES, WHEN SUCH AGENT
OR AGENCIES ARE PROPERLY LICENSED TO TRANSACT THE CLASS OF BUSINESS
INVOLVED IN SUCH EXCHANGE, AND LICENSED NON-RESIDENT INSURANCE BROKERS
WHO MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO BROKER SUCH CONTRACTS, AND ON EXCHANGE
OF BUSINESS BETWEEN RESIDENT AGENTS OR AGENCIES IN VIRGINIA AND
LICENSED NON-RESIDENT INSURANCE BROKERS IN OTHER STATES THE RESIDENT
AGENT OR AGENCY IN VIRGINIA MAY ALLOW OR PAY TO SUCH LICENSED NON
RESIDENT INSURANCE BROKERS, A COMMISSION NOT EXCEEDING FIFTY PER CENTUM
OF THE RESIDENT AGENT'S OR AGENCY'S COMMISSION ALLOWED ON SUCH
BUSINESS." 

FN2  WHERE OUT-OF-STATE "PRODUCTION" ACTUALLY LEADS TO REBATING IN
DEFIANCE OF SEC. 4222-C, THERE WOULD SEEM LITTLE DOUBT OF A SUBSTANTIAL
BASIS FOR VIRGINIA'S CONTENTION THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF PARTICIPATION
BY A RESIDENT AGENT WILL MAKE THE ILLEGAL PRACTICES MORE SUSCEPTIBLE OF
DETECTION AND CONTROL.  CF. LA TOURETTE V. MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465. 
VIRGINIA HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE MASTER POLICY MAKES IT POSSIBLE
FOR THE COMPANIES TO REDUCE THEIR RATES BELOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE
LAW, AND TO ATTRIBUTE THE REDUCTIONS TO RISKS IN OTHER STATES WITH
REQUIREMENTS LESS STRINGENT THAN THOSE OF VIRGINIA.  APPELLANTS
STRENUOUSLY CONTEND THAT NO LAW OF VIRGINIA PROHIBITS THE REDUCTION OF
RATES FOR OUT-OF-STATE RISKS TO COMPENSATE FOR THE HIGHER RATES WHICH
MIGHT BE REQUIRED BY VIRGINIA AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ILLEGAL
PRACTICE IN THIS CONNECTION WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF A RESIDENT AGENT
COULD AID IN UNCOVERING.  THIS ARGUMENT, IF MET ON THE MERITS, WOULD
LEAD US INTO THE PARTICULARITIES OF VIRGINIA'S RATE LAWS.  IT IS ENOUGH
TO SAY THAT EVEN IF THESE PRACTICES ARE NOT ILLEGAL, VIRGINIA MAY HAVE
A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN DISCOVERING THE EXTENT OF THEIR PREVALENCE IN
ORDER TO DEVISE, IF SHE SO CHOOSES, EFFECTIVE LAWS TO PREVENT THEM. 

FN3  SEE HARDY, RISK AND RISK-BEARING, PP. 9-28, 66-67; KULP,
CASUALTY INSURANCE, PP. 188-91, 467-68; MICHELBACHER, CASUALTY
INSURANCE PRINCIPLES, PP. 448-78, 583-84; CROBAUGH AND REDDING,
CASUALTY INSURANCE, PP. 17-20; HUEBNER, FOREWORD TO MODERN INSURANCE
TENDENCIES, 157 ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL
SCIENCE, PP. 3-4; BURNS, SERVICE OF CASUALTY INSURANCE, 15TH ANNUAL
MEETING, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, P. 4. 

FN4  "THE BROKER IS NOT REQUIRED TO RENDER ANY TECHNICAL SERVICE
BEYOND THE PLACING OF BUSINESS."  MICHELBACHER, CASUALTY INSURANCE
PRINCIPLES, P. 403.  COMPARE ID., PP. 401-402; HUEBNER, PROPERTY
INSURANCE, PP. 81-96; PROCEEDINGS, 73RD ANNUAL MEETING, NATIONAL BOARD
OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS, P. 123; CLARK, ELLIS AND FLETCHER, THE SERVICE OF
THE BROKER TO THE ASSURED IN LIABILITY INSURANCE, HOWE READINGS IN
INSURANCE, NO. 18.  BUT EVEN IF THE BROKER DOES "SERVICE" THE CONTRACT,
HIS ACTIVITIES WILL TAKE PLACE IN VIRGINIA, AND WILL AFFECT THE WELFARE
OF THOSE INSIDE VIRGINIA WHO MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE INCIDENCE OF THOSE
RISKS WHICH THE "SERVICING" FUNCTION TENDS TO REDUCE.  IF THIS BE TRUE,
IT IS VIRGINIA'S CONCERN AND NOT OURS TO PREFER THE AGENCY TO THE
BROKERAGE METHOD OF "PRODUCTION." 

FN5  ALABAMA CODE, SEC. 8379; KANSAS, GENERAL STATUTE (SUPP.), C. 40,
SEC. 246; LOUISIANA, ACTS OF 1918, NO. 153; MARYLAND, ANNOTATED CODE,
ART. 48A, SEC. 65; MISSISSIPPI, CODE, SEC. 5205; MONTANA, LAWS OF 1937,
C. 95; OKLAHOMA, STATUTES ANN., TITLE 36, SECS. 126, 142, 249; SOUTH
CAROLINA, CODE, SEC. 7972; SOUTH DAKOTA, CODE, SEC. 31.2218;
WASHINGTON, REV. STATUTES, SEC. 7080; WISCONSIN, STATUTES, SEC. 201.44;
WYOMING, REV. STATUTES, C. 57, SEC. 203. 

FN6  SEE GEPHART, PRINCIPLES OF INSURANCE, PP. 233-55; DAWSON,
INSURANCE LEGISLATION (1895); ABSTRACT OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA IN
RELATION TO INSURANCE COMPANIES, ETC., ISSUED BY THE AUDITOR OF PUBLIC
ACCOUNTS (1878); PATTERSON, THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER IN THE UNITED
STATES. 

FN7  HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V. DELTA CO., 292 U.S. 143, RESTING ON
HOME INS. CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397, HELD THAT THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT
VALIDLY MADE IN TENNESSEE COULD NOT BE SUBSEQUENTLY ENLARGED BY
MISSISSIPPI AS TO A CONDITION OF "SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE" WHEN SUIT WAS
LATER BROUGHT ON THE POLICY IN MISSISSIPPI, SIMPLY BECAUSE "THE
INTEREST INSURED WAS IN MISSISSIPPI WHEN THE OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY
...  MATURED, AND IT WAS  ...  (THE COMPANY'S) DUTY TO MAKE PAYMENT
THERE."  292 U.S. AT 149.  AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO
MISSISSIPPI HAD NO INTEREST IN THE RISK COVERED.  THE COURT FELT THAT,
EVEN AT THE TIME OF SUIT, "PERFORMANCE AT MOST INVOLVED ONLY THE CASUAL
PAYMENT OF MONEY IN MISSISSIPPI," IBID. AT 150, AND THAT WAS AN
INTEREST SO SUBORDINATE TO THAT OF TENNESSEE THAT THE LATTER WAS
ENTITLED TO HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY.  NO QUESTION WAS THUS INVOLVED
TOUCHING THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO REGULATE COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS
WITHIN ITS BORDERS AS TO CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE COVERING LOCAL RISKS. 
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING:    I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE
DECISION IN THIS CASE.  I THINK IT SANCTIONS AN EXERTION OF POWER BY
VIRGINIA OVER TRANSACTIONS BEYOND HER JURISDICTION. 

VIRGINIA MAY, OF COURSE, REGULATE THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS OF
INSURANCE WITHIN HER BORDERS.  SHE MAY REQUIRE SUCH CONTRACTS TO EMBODY
SPECIFIED PROVISIONS.  SHE MAY REGULATE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE
CONTRACTS IN HER COURTS.  SHE MAY SUPERVISE AND CONDITION THE
ACTIVITIES OF REGISTERED FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANIES, AGENTS OR BROKERS
WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH.  THE STATUTE IN QUESTION HAS NO SUCH PURPOSE. 

THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE STATUTE ARE TO COMPEL AN INSURANCE
COMPANY WHICH IS A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE, AND WHICH NEGOTIATES A
CONTRACT OF INSURANCE WITH AN AGENT OR BROKER WITHIN SUCH OTHER STATE,
TO PAY A RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA FOR A SERVICE NOT RENDERED BY HIM, BUT
RENDERED BY ANOTHER IN ANOTHER STATE.  BY FORCE OF THE STATUTE A
VIRGINIA AGENT MUST COUNTERSIGN A CONTRACT NEGOTIATED OUTSIDE OF
VIRGINIA WITH AN ASSURED WHOSE RESIDENCE IS OUTSIDE OF VIRGINIA, WHICH
CONTRACT OF INSURANCE WAS NEGOTIATED BY AN AGENT OR BROKER LIVING
OUTSIDE OF VIRGINIA.  THE COUNTERSIGNING VIRGINIA AGENT MUST BE PAID
ONE-HALF THE USUAL COMMISSION, EVEN THOUGH THE BROKER OR AGENT WHO
PRODUCED THE BUSINESS IS LICENSED AS A NON-RESIDENT BROKER BY VIRGINIA,
ALTHOUGH THE ONLY SERVICE SUCH VIRGINIA AGENT IS REQUIRED TO RENDER
AND, IN MANY CASES ALL HE DOES RENDER, IS THE MERE COUNTERSIGNATURE OF
THE POLICY.  WITH RESPECT TO THIS SITUATION THE COURT BELOW SAID: 

"WE DO NOT OVERLOOK THE PECULIAR SITUATION OF THE NON-RESIDENT
ASSURED WHO FORM NO PART OF THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC WHICH THE STATE DESIRES
TO PROTECT.  UNDOUBTEDLY THEIR BUSINESS METHODS WILL BE DISTURBED BY
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE.  IT IS CONTENDED, NOT WITHOUT MERIT,
THAT THEY HAVE NO NEED FOR THE SERVICES OF THE RESIDENT COMMISSION
AGENTS, AND THAT IN FACT, THE LATTER CANNOT ASSUME THE FUNCTION OF
PRODUCING AGENTS IN THEIR BEHALF WITHOUT HARMFULLY INTRUDING THEMSELVES
INTO CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS AFFAIRS.  MOREOVER, IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT
THESE AFFAIRS ARE SO IMPORTANT AND SO WIDESPREAD IN THEIR SCOPE AS TO
BE BEYOND THE TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL OF THE AVERAGE VIRGINIA
AGENT, AND THAT THE INTERESTS OF THE NON-RESIDENT ASSUREDS CAN BE BEST
LOOKED AFTER BY THE BROKERS AT THE GREAT CENTERS OF POPULATION WHERE
THE HEAD OFFICES OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND OF THE ASSUREDS ARE
LOCATED, AND IN VIRGINIA BY THE ENGINEERING AND CLAIM PERSONNEL OF THE
COMPANIES.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPENSATION REQUIRED
BY THE STATUTE TO BE PAID TO THE VIRGINIA AGENTS WILL INCREASE THE COST
OF THE BUSINESS." 

THE PLAIN EFFORT OF VIRGINIA IS TO COMPEL A NONRESIDENT TO PAY A
RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA FOR SERVICES WHICH THE LATTER DOES NOT IN FACT
RENDER AND IS NOT REQUIRED TO RENDER.  THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING FORMER
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ARE AT WAR WITH THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SUCH
ASSERTED POWER.  FN1 

FN1  ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V.
HEAD, 234 U.S. 149; AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. DUNKEN, 266 U.S. 389;
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. TAFOYA, 270 U.S. 426; HOME INS. CO. V. DICK,
281 U.S. 397; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. DELTA & PINE LAND
CO., 292 U.S. 143; BOSEMAN V. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO., 301
U.S. 196. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :







HELVERING V. FULLER, 310 U.S. 69 


NO. 427.  ARGUED MARCH 26, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 105 F.2D
903, AFFIRMED. 


IN COMPLIANCE WITH A SEPARATION AGREEMENT APPROVED BY A DECREE OF
DIVORCE IN NEVADA, THE HUSBAND CREATED AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST, OF SHARES
OF STOCK, TO CONTINUE FOR TEN YEARS, DURING WHICH PERIOD ALL TRUST
INCOME WAS TO BE USED FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE WIFE, OR
IN CASE OF HER PRIOR DECEASE, THEN FOR THE CHILDREN; OR IN CASE OF
THEIR PRIOR DECEASE, THEN FOR THE HEIRS OF THE WIFE OR AS SHE SHOULD
PROVIDE IN HER WILL.  AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TEN YEAR PERIOD THE
TRUST PROPERTY WAS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO HER OUTRIGHT.  THE HUSBAND
RETAINED "EXCLUSIVE VOTING POWER" OF THE SHARES DURING THE TERM OF THE
TRUST.  POWER TO SELL THE STOCK VESTED JOINTLY IN HIM, THE WIFE, AND
THE CORPORATE TRUSTEE, AND COULD BE EXERCISED ONLY IN CASE ALL THREE
AGREED IN WRITING.  THOSE THREE HAD THE POWER TO INVEST AND REINVEST
THE PROCEEDS AND TO DISBURSE, WITHHOLD, AND ACCUMULATE THE PRINCIPAL OF
THE TRUST AT THEIR DISCRETION, SUCH POWER OVER THE INCOME BEING VESTED
IN THE WIFE AND CORPORATE TRUSTEE.  HELD: 

1.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE HUSBAND IS TAXABLE ON THE TRUST INCOME
UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932 IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE FACT
THAT AN INDEPENDENT UNDERTAKING ON HIS PART TO MAKE CERTAIN WEEKLY
PAYMENTS TO HIS WIFE, NOT SECURED BY THE TRUST, WAS CONTAINED IN THE
SAME INSTRUMENT WITH THE TRUST AGREEMENT.  P. 73. 

2.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928, SEC. 24(A)(1), AND
1932, SEC. 24, AND TREASURY REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE NONDEDUCTIBILITY
OF "FAMILY EXPENSES" AND OF "ALIMONY" IMPLY THE NECESSITY FOR AN
EXAMINATION OF THE LOCAL LAW TO DETERMINE THE MARITAL STATUS AND THE
OBLIGATIONS WHICH HAVE SURVIVED A DIVORCE.  P. 74. 

3.  UNDER THE LAW OF NEVADA, THE DECREE AND THE TRUST AGREEMENT, NO
POWER OF MODIFICATION HAVING BEEN RESERVED, OPERATED TO DISCHARGE, PRO
TANTO, THE HUSBAND'S DUTY OF SUPPORT; AND UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS SUPRA,
HE WAS NOT TAXABLE ON THE TRUST INCOME.  P. 75. 

4.  WHETHER THE TRUST AGREEMENT LEFT THE HUSBAND SUFFICIENT INTEREST
IN OR CONTROL OVER THE SHARES TO MAKE HIM THE OWNER OF THE CORPUS FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, IS A QUESTION NOT RAISED OR
PASSED UPON IN THIS CASE.  P. 76. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. FULLER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 644, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 37 B.T.A. 1333, SUSTAINING A DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE RAISES THE QUESTION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH INCOME
PAID TO THE TAXPAYER'S DIVORCED WIFE UNDER A TRUST, THE PROVISIONS OF
WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE DIVORCE DECREE, IS TAXABLE TO HIM.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE ASSERTED MISAPPLICATION BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE RULE OF DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S.
1, TO THESE FACTS: 

ON JULY 25, 1930, RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE, RESIDING IN CONNECTICUT,
ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DIVORCE WHICH PROVIDED,
INTER ALIA, FOR THE CREATION BY HIM OF A TRUST OF 60,380 SHARES OF
CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF THE FULLER BRUSH CO. THE TRUST WAS IRREVOCABLE
AND WAS TO CONTINUE FOR TEN YEARS.  DURING THAT PERIOD ALL TRUST INCOME
WAS TO BE USED FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE WIFE, OR IN CASE
OF HER PRIOR DECEASE, THEN FOR THE CHILDREN; OR IN CASE OF THEIR PRIOR
DECEASE, THEN FOR THE HEIRS OF THE WIFE OR AS SHE SHOULD PROVIDE IN HER
WILL.  AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TEN YEAR PERIOD THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS
TO BE TRANSFERRED TO HER OUTRIGHT.  THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR OTHER
PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS, FOR CONTROL AND CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN, AND FOR
WAIVER BY RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST EACH OTHER
ARISING OUT OF THE MARITAL RELATION.  IT ALSO CONTAINED AN AGREEMENT ON
THE PART OF RESPONDENT TO PAY THE WIFE $40 PER WEEK FOR FIVE YEARS,
AND, IF AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD HIS ANNUAL NET INCOME EXCEEDED BY THE
AMOUNT OF THE WEEKLY PAYMENTS THE SUM OF $60,000, TO CONTINUE THOSE
WEEKLY PAYMENTS FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS OR FOR SUCH PORTION
THEREOF AS HIS ANNUAL NET INCOME EXCEEDED THE ABOVE SUM. 

THE WIFE REPAIRED TO RENO, NEVADA, AND OBTAINED A DIVORCE DECREE ON
NOVEMBER 12, 1930, WHICH "ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT SAID
AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT ON OR
ABOUT THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF JULY, 1930, BE AND THE SAME HEREBY IS
APPROVED."  ON DECEMBER 22, 1930, RESPONDENT CREATED THE TRUST PROVIDED
FOR IN THE AGREEMENT.  FN1  THE CORPORATE TRUSTEE THEREUNDER RECEIVED
FROM THE FULLER BRUSH CO. ALL THE DIVIDENDS AND INCOME FROM THE
TRUSTEED SHARES DURING 1931, 1932 AND 1933 AND DISBURSED THEM ALL FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE DIVORCED WIFE.  ON THE FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO
INCLUDE THOSE AMOUNTS IN HIS TAX RETURNS FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION, THE
COMMISSIONER ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES.  THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS, 37 B.T.A. 1333, SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER,
WERE REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  105 F.2D 903. 

I. THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT BUT THAT RESPONDENT IS TAXABLE ON THE $40
WEEKLY PAYMENT TO THE WIFE.  THAT IS A CONTINUING PERSONAL OBLIGATION
FALLING WITHIN THE RULE OF DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, AS A RESULT OF
WHICH THOSE PAYMENTS ARE TAXABLE TO HIM, NOT TO THE WIFE.  GOULD V.
GOULD, 245 U.S. 151.  BUT THAT FACT DOES NOT MAKE THE INCOME FROM THE
TRUST ALSO TAXABLE TO HIM.  ALTHOUGH THE PROVISIONS FOR THE WEEKLY
PAYMENTS AND FOR THE TRUST AGREEMENT WERE EMBODIED IN THE SAME
SEPARATION AGREEMENT, THEY WERE NOT SO INTERRELATED OR INTERDEPENDENT
AS TO MAKE THE TRUST A SECURITY FOR THE WEEKLY PAYMENTS.  FUNCTIONALLY
THEY WERE AS INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER AS WERE THE OTHER PROPERTY
SETTLEMENTS FROM EITHER OF THEM. 

II.  PETITIONER DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THAT, SO FAR AS THE TRUST AGREEMENT IS CONCERNED, THE
NEVADA COURT RETAINED NO POWER TO ALTER OR MODIFY THE DIVORCE DECREE. 
IT SEEMS TO BE ADMITTED THAT UNDER NEVADA LAW THE WIFE'S ALLOWANCE ONCE
MADE IS FINAL, SWEENEY V. SWEENEY, 42 NEV. 431; 179 P. 638, UNLESS THE
DECREE ITSELF EXPRESSLY RESERVES THE POWER TO MODIFY IT, LEWIS V.
LEWIS, 53 NEV. 398; 2 P.2D 131, OR UNLESS THE DECREE APPROVES A
SETTLEMENT WHICH IN TURN PROVIDES FOR A MODIFICATION.  ASELTINE V.
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 57 NEV. 269; 62 P.2D 701.  HERE NO SUCH
POWER WAS RESERVED IN THE DECREE OR IN THE TRUST AGREEMENT APPROVED BY
THE DECREE.  NOR DID RESPONDENT UNDERWRITE THE PRINCIPAL OR INCOME FROM
THE TRUST OR ANY PART THEREOF OR MAKE ANY COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENT OR
OTHERWISE, RESPECTING THEM, BEYOND HIS PROMISE TO TRANSFER THE
SECURITIES TO A TRUSTEE.  BUT PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE RULE OF
DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, SHOULD NONETHELESS APPLY SINCE THE DECREE
RECOGNIZED THE HUSBAND'S PREEXISTING DUTY TO SUPPORT AND DEFINED THAT
DUTY AS COEXTENSIVE WITH WHAT THE PARTIES HAD THEMSELVES ARRANGED, AND
SINCE THE HUSBAND SIMPLY CARVED OUT FUTURE INCOME FROM PROPERTY WHICH
HE THEN OWNED AND DEVOTED IT IN ADVANCE TO THE DISCHARGE OF HIS
OBLIGATION. 

WE TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW.  IF RESPONDENT HAD NOT PLACED THE SHARES OF
STOCK IN TRUST BUT HAD TRANSFERRED THEM OUTRIGHT TO HIS WIFE AS PART OF
THE PROPERTY SETTLEMENT, THERE SEEMS TO BE NO DOUBT THAT INCOME
SUBSEQUENTLY ACCRUED AND PAID THEREON WOULD BE TAXABLE TO THE WIFE, NOT
TO HIM.  UNDER THE PRESENT STATUTORY SCHEME THAT CASE WOULD BE NO
DIFFERENT FROM ONE WHERE ANY DEBTOR, VOLUNTARILY OR UNDER THE
COMPULSION OF A COURT DECREE, TRANSFERS SECURITIES, A FARM, AN OFFICE
BUILDING, OR THE LIKE, TO HIS CREDITOR IN WHOLE OR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF
HIS DEBT.  CERTAINLY IT COULD NOT BE CLAIMED THAT INCOME THEREAFTER
ACCRUING FROM THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE DEBTOR'S
INCOME TAX RETURN.  IF THE DEBTOR RETAINED NO RIGHT OR INTEREST IN AND
TO THE PROPERTY, HE WOULD CEASE TO BE THE OWNER FOR PURPOSES OF THE
FEDERAL REVENUE ACTS.  SEE HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331.  TO
HOLD THAT A DIFFERENT RESULT NECESSARILY OBTAINS WHERE THE TRANSFER IS
MADE OR THE TRUST IS CREATED AS PART OF A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT ATTENDANT
ON A DIVORCE WOULD BE TO HOLD THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL INCOME
TAX THE MARITAL OBLIGATION OF THE HUSBAND TO SUPPORT HIS WIFE CANNOT BE
DISCHARGED.  BUT WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN BE DEPENDS ON STATE LAW.  FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, LOCAL LAW DETERMINES THE STATUS OF THE PARTIES AND
THEIR PROPERTY AFTER A DECREE DISSOLVING THE MATRIMONIAL BONDS.  SEE
BARRETT V. FAILING, 111 U.S. 523.  AND WHILE THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS
TO BE GIVEN A UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION OF NATIONAL APPLICATION, CONGRESS
FREQUENTLY HAS MADE IT DEPENDENT ON STATE LAW.  SEE THOMAS V. PERKINS,
301 U.S. 655, 659, AND CASES CITED.  IN THE INSTANT SITUATION, AN
INQUIRY INTO STATE LAW SEEMS INESCAPABLE.  FOR THE PROVISIONS IN THE
REVENUE ACTS  FN2  AND REGULATIONS  FN3  CONCERNING THE NON
DEDUCTIBILITY OF "FAMILY EXPENSES" AND OF "ALIMONY" DO NOT ILLUMINATE
THE PROBLEM BEYOND IMPLYING THE NECESSITY FOR AN EXAMINATION OF LOCAL
LAW TO DETERMINE THE MARITAL STATUS AND THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH HAVE
SURVIVED A DIVORCE.  THE NEVADA CASES TELL US THAT UNDER SUCH A DECREE
AS WAS ENTERED HERE THE OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT WAS PRO TANTO DISCHARGED
AND ENDED.  AND THE TRUST AGREEMENT CONTAINS NO CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKING
BY RESPONDENT, CONTINGENT OR OTHERWISE, FOR SUPPORT OF THE WIFE.  HENCE
WE CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT'S PERSONAL OBLIGATION IS NOT A
CONTINUING ONE BUT HAS BEEN DISCHARGED PRO TANTO.  TO HOLD THAT IT WAS
NOT WOULD BE TO FIND SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS IRREVOCABLE
TRUST AND AN OUTRIGHT TRANSFER OF THE SHARES TO THE WIFE, WHERE IN
TERMS OF LOCAL DIVORCE LAW WE CAN SEE ONLY ATTENUATED ONES.  THIS IS
NOT TO IMPLY THAT CONGRESS LACKS AUTHORITY TO DESIGN A DIFFERENT
STATUTORY SCHEME APPLYING UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE TAXATION OF INCOME
OF THE SO-CALLED ALIMONY TRUSTS.  A SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE STATUTE TAXING
TO THE GRANTOR INCOME FROM A TRUST APPLIED TO THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS
UPON INSURANCE POLICIES ON HIS LIFE WAS UPHELD IN BURNET V. WELLS, 289
U.S. 670.  BUT THE REACH OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER IS ONE THING; AN
INTERPRETATION OF A FEDERAL REVENUE ACT BASED ON LOCAL DIVORCE LAW,
QUITE ANOTHER. 

FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE STATED, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT LOCAL LAW AND THE
TRUST HAVE GIVEN THE RESPONDENT PRO TANTO A FULL DISCHARGE FROM HIS
DUTY TO SUPPORT HIS DIVORCED WIFE AND LEAVE NO CONTINUING OBLIGATION,
CONTINGENT OR OTHERWISE.  HENCE UNDER HELVERING V. FITCH, 309 U.S. 149,
INCOME TO THE WIFE FROM THIS TRUST IS TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME
ACCRUING FROM PROPERTY AFTER A DEBTOR HAS TRANSFERRED THAT PROPERTY TO
HIS CREDITOR IN FULL SATISFACTION OF HIS OBLIGATIONS.  FN4 

III.  ONE OTHER OBSERVATION IS PERTINENT.  THOUGH THE DIVORCE DECREE
EXTINGUISHES THE HUSBAND'S PREEXISTING DUTY TO SUPPORT THE WIFE, AND
THOUGH NO PROVISION OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT PLACES SUCH OBLIGATION ON
HIM, THAT AGREEMENT MAY NEVERTHELESS LEAVE HIM WITH SUFFICIENT INTEREST
IN OR CONTROL OVER THE TRUST AS TO MAKE HIM THE OWNER OF THE CORPUS FOR
PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, RESPONDENT DID RETAIN CONSIDERABLE CONTROL OVER THE
TRUSTEED SHARES.  BUT THAT WAS NOT THE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE
DEFICIENCY BY THE COMMISSIONER.  IT WAS NOT PASSED UPON BY THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AMONG THE ERRORS TO BE URGED OR THE REASONS
FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.  NOR DID PETITIONER BRIEF OR ARGUE THE POINT
HERE.  HENCE WE DO NOT PASS ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE OF
HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, SUPRA, TO THESE FACTS.  CF. HELVERING V. WOOD,
309 U.S. 344.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TRUST AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT HE WAS TO TRANSFER THE 60,380
SHARES OF STOCK ON THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY FROM HIMSELF PERSONALLY TO
HIMSELF AS TRUSTEE AND THEN TO DELIVER THE CERTIFICATE FOR SUCH SHARES
TO THE CORPORATE TRUSTEE.  THIS WAS DONE.  ALSO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE TRUST RESPONDENT EXECUTED A DIVIDEND ORDER AGAINST
THE SHARES DIRECTING THE FULLER BRUSH CO. TO PAY ALL DIVIDENDS TO THE
CORPORATE TRUSTEE.  RESPONDENT WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE COMPANY AND
DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION WAS ITS PRESIDENT.  IT HAD OUTSTANDING
ONLY ONE CLASS OF VOTING STOCK, VIZ. CLASS A COMMON.  THE AMOUNT
OUTSTANDING DURING THESE YEARS VARIED BETWEEN 172,000 AND 186,000
SHARES.  RESPONDENT OWNED 60,380 SHARES WHICH TOGETHER WITH THE 60,380
SHARES UNDER THE TRUST CONSTITUTED MORE THAN A MAJORITY OF THAT CLASS
OF STOCK.  BY TERMS OF THE TRUST RESPONDENT RETAINED "EXCLUSIVE VOTING
POWER" OF THE TRUSTEED SHARES DURING THE TERM OF THE TRUST.  IF HE DIED
BEFORE ITS TERMINATION, THE VOTING POWER WOULD PASS TO THE WIFE. 
DURING THAT PERIOD POWER TO SELL THE STOCK WAS VESTED JOINTLY IN HIM,
THE WIFE, AND THE CORPORATE TRUSTEE AND COULD BE EXERCISED ONLY IN CASE
ALL THREE AGREED IN WRITING.  IN CASE OF SUCH A SALE, THOSE THREE HAD
THE POWER TO INVEST AND REINVEST THE PROCEEDS.  THEY ALSO WERE GIVEN
THE POWER TO DISBURSE, WITHHOLD, AND ACCUMULATE THE PRINCIPAL OF THE
TRUST AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION, SUCH POWER OVER THE INCOME BEING VESTED
IN THE WIFE AND THE CORPORATE TRUSTEE. 

FN2  REVENUE ACT OF 1928(45 STAT. 791) SEC. 24(A)(1).  THE SAME
PROVISION APPEARS IN SEC. 24 OF THE 1932 ACT (47 STAT. 169). 

FN3  TREASURY REG. 74, ARTS. 83, 281, PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1928
ACT.  THE SAME PROVISIONS APPEAR IN TREASURY REG. 77, ARTS. 83, 281,
PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1932 ACT. 

FN4  SEE PAUL, FIVE YEARS WITH DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 53 HARV. L. REV.
1. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING: 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE IS MADE TO TURN UPON THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE LAW OF THE TAXPAYER'S RESIDENCE WITHDRAWS DIVORCE
SETTLEMENTS FROM THE CONTINUING SUPERVISION AND SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION
OF THE COURTS.  TWO TRUSTS, BOTH IRREVOCABLE, IN WORDS PRECISELY THE
SAME, DRAWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MAINTENANCE FOR A FORMER WIFE,
RECOGNIZED OR APPROVED BY DIVORCE DECREES IDENTICAL IN FORM, ARE TO
HAVE DIFFERENT TAX RESULTS UPON THE SETTLOR.  IF INCOME TAXES ARE
PREDOMINANTLY IMPORTANT, PROSPECTIVE DIVORCES MUST LOCATE IN THE STATES
WHERE THE FINALITY OF THE SETTLEMENT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED.  COMPARE
DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS,  FN1  HELVERING V. FITCH  FN2 AND HELVERING V.
LEONARD  FN3  WITH THIS CASE.  THE REASON GIVEN TO SUPPORT SUCH A
CONCLUSION IS THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE SETTLOR FOR TAXES ON TRUST
INCOME IS BASED ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SETTLOR MAY BE CALLED UPON
FOR ADDITIONAL SUMS IN THE FUTURE.  IF THE OBLIGATION CONTINUES, THE
TAX LIABILITY CONTINUES.  IF THE OBLIGATION IS ENDED, THE TAX LIABILITY
IS ENDED.  IN DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS CONTINUED LIABILITY EXISTED.  IT DOES
NOT SEEM TO ME, HOWEVER, THAT THIS CONTINUING LIABILITY WAS THE REAL
BASIS FOR THE DOUGLAS DECISION.  THE BASIS FOR THAT DECISION WAS THE
PRIOR APPROPRIATION, BY THE CREATION OF THE TRUST, OF FUTURE INCOME TO
MEET AN OBLIGATION OF THE TAXPAYER.  THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS FROM PAGES
EIGHT AND NINE SHOW THE FOUNDATION FOR THE CONCLUSION: 

"WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE (AND THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT THE PROVISION HERE WENT BEYOND THOSE LIMITS) THE COURT
HAD FULL AUTHORITY TO MAKE AN ALLOWANCE TO THE WIFE OUT OF HER
HUSBAND'S PROPERTY AND TO SET UP A TRUST TO GIVE EFFECT TO THAT
ALLOWANCE."           .         .         .         .         . 

"UPON THE PREEXISTING DUTY OF THE HUSBAND THE DECREE PLACED A
PARTICULAR AND ADEQUATE SANCTION, AND IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER THE
OBLIGATION TO DEVOTE THE INCOME IN QUESTION, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF THE
TRUST, TO THE USE OF HIS DIVORCED WIFE." 

     .  .         .         .         . 

"THE CREATION OF A TRUST BY THE TAXPAYER AS THE CHANNEL FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THE INCOME TO THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OBLIGATION LEAVES THE
NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION UNALTERED.  ...  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NET
INCOME OF THE TRUST FUND, WHICH WAS PAID TO THE WIFE UNDER THE DECREE,
STANDS SUBSTANTIALLY ON THE SAME FOOTING AS THOUGH HE HAD RECEIVED THE
INCOME PERSONALLY AND HAD BEEN REQUIRED BY THE DECREE TO MAKE THE
PAYMENT DIRECTLY."  THE FITCH CASE WAS THE FIRST TO RELY EXPLICITLY
UPON THE FINALITY OF THE SETTLEMENT.  IT PUSHED THE IDEA TO THE POINT
THAT THE BURDEN WAS UPON THE SETTLOR TO DEMONSTRATE THE CLEAR FINALITY
OF THE LOCAL SETTLEMENT.  THIS COURT THERE REFUSED TO DRAW ITS OWN
CONCLUSION AS TO WHAT THE LOCAL LAW WAS, EVEN THOUGH NUMEROUS STATE
CASES TOUCHED UPON THE SUBJECT.  IN HELVERING V. LEONARD, THIS COURT
CONTINUES TO APPLY THE FINALITY RULE.  IT INTERPRETS THE LOCAL LAW AND
FINDS THAT WHILE "MERE PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS  ...  MAY NOT BE MODIFIED"
THE STATE JUDICIAL RESERVE POWER MAY BE EXERCISED WHERE "THE PROVISION
IN THE SEPARATE AGREEMENT, APPROVED BY THE DECREE" IS FOR SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE.  WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE THE TAXABILITY OF THE
SETTLOR DEPENDS NOT ONLY ON THE "CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF" OF THE
FINALITY OF THE DECREE BUT THE ABILITY TO PRODUCE THAT PROOF DEPENDS
UPON THE SKILL OF THE DRAFTSMAN OF THE SETTLEMENT.  FINE DISTINCTIONS
ARE NECESSARY IN REASONING BUT MOST UNDESIRABLE IN A NATIONAL TAX
SYSTEM. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM TO SAY THAT IF THE STOCK HAD BEEN
TRANSFERRED OUTRIGHT TO THE WIFE THE HUSBAND WOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR
THE TAX.  IF THE STOCK HAD BEEN KEPT BY THE HUSBAND AND DIVIDENDS PAID
AS ALIMONY, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN LIABLE.  FN4  EITHER ANALOGY MIGHT BE
LOGICALLY FOLLOWED IN THE TRUST SITUATION BUT THE CHOICE OF TAXABILITY
OF TRUST INCOME WAS MADE IN DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS.  THAT CASE DETERMINES
THE "GENERAL RULE."  FN5 

IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE ORIGINAL OBLIGATION OF THE HUSBAND TO
SUPPORT A DIVORCED WIFE DEPENDS UPON STATE LAW AND TO THAT EXTENT THAT
THE STATE LAW IS APPLICABLE TO THE DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY UNDER THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX ACT.  BUT THAT NECESSARY RELIANCE UPON LOCAL LAW
NEED BE CARRIED NO FARTHER THAN THE DETERMINATION OF OBLIGATION TO
SUPPORT.  ONCE THAT IS DETERMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE THEORY OF
CONSTRUCTIVE RECEIPT OF INCOME TO DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION WOULD COME
INTO PLAY AND WOULD BE NATIONWIDE IN EXTENT. 

THE OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT EXISTS PRIOR TO THE DIVORCE DECREE.  IT IS
ENDED IN NEVADA ONLY UPON GETTING THE COURT'S APPROVAL TO AN
ARRANGEMENT WHICH PERMITS THE CREATION OF A FUND TO MEET FROM YEAR TO
YEAR THE OBLIGATION FROM WHICH THE NEVADA LAW THEN AND ONLY THEN
RELEASES THE SETTLOR HUSBAND.  FN6  IT IS BY THE COURT'S APPROVAL THAT
THE CONTINUING OBLIGATION IS DISCHARGED.  GRANTING THAT A LUMP SUM
PAYMENT WOULD TERMINATE BOTH THE MARITAL AND THE TAX LIABILITY, THE
CREATION OF A TRUST, APPROVED BY THE COURT, FOR CONTINUOUS PAYMENTS IN
LIEU OF ALIMONY SEEMS TO BRING THE TRUST INCOME MUCH CLOSER TO ALIMONY
THAN TO THE SITUATION OF A FINAL SETTLEMENT BY LUMP SUM PAYMENT. 

THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THIS PRESENT CASE WHERE THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT SHOWS THAT THE HUSBAND RETAINED VOTING POWER OVER THE STOCK
PLACED IN TRUST.  60,380 SHARES OF CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF THE FULLER
BRUSH COMPANY, THE ONLY CLASS OF VOTING STOCK, WAS PLACED IN THE
TRUST.  AN EQUAL AMOUNT WAS RETAINED BY THE TAXPAYER.  THE AGGREGATE
WAS A MAJORITY OF THE TOTAL OF VOTING STOCK OUTSTANDING.  THIS POWER,
RETAINED TO THE SETTLOR, IS OF WEIGHT IN DETERMINING THAT THE PRESENT
TRUST IS MORE NEARLY AKIN TO AN AGREEMENT TO PAY ALIMONY THAN IT IS TO
A SATISFACTION OF AN OBLIGATION BY AN UNRESTRICTED TRANSFER. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  296 U.S. 1. 

FN2  309 U.S. 149. 

FN3  POST, P. 80. 

FN4  GOULD V. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151. 

FN5  HELVERING V. FITCH, 309 U.S. 149, 156. 

FN6  NEVADA COMPILED LAWS, 1929, SECS. 9463 AND 9465. 
..END :

















HELVERING V. LEONARD, 310 U.S. 80 


NO. 426.  ARGUED MARCH 26, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 105 F.2D
900, REVERSED. 


A SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE SUPPORT OF A WIFE EMBRACED A
TRUST AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE HUSBAND CONTRIBUTED TO THE CORPUS
SECURITIES AND CASH, INCLUDING CORPORATE BONDS THE PAYMENT OF THE
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF WHICH HE GUARANTEED.  THE TRUST COULD BE
AMENDED BY THE HUSBAND AND WIFE JOINTLY, AND THE HUSBAND RETAINED A
LIMITED POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN BANK STOCK WHICH
WAS PART OF THE CORPUS.  OTHERWISE THE TRUST WAS IRREVOCABLE AND THE
HUSBAND RETAINED NO RIGHT TO EITHER THE CORPUS OR THE INCOME.  A
SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF THE TRUST INCOME WAS TO BE PAID TO EACH OF THREE
CHILDREN; THE REMAINDER TO THE WIFE; AND UPON HER DEATH, THE CORPUS WAS
TO BE HELD FOR THE CHILDREN.  THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT ALSO OBLIGATED
THE HUSBAND TO PAY TO THE WIFE ANNUALLY A CERTAIN ADDITIONAL SUM FOR
THE SUPPORT OF HERSELF AND THE CHILDREN, SUBJECT TO REDUCTION UPON
APPLICATION TO A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.  THE ARRANGEMENT WAS
APPROVED BY A DECREE OF DIVORCE IN NEW YORK.  HELD: 

1.  THE PORTION OF THE TRUST INCOME WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE
GUARANTEED BONDS WAS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE HUSBAND, UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1928.  P. 84. 

BY THE HUSBAND'S GUARANTEE OF PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST
OF THE BONDS, A PERSONAL OBLIGATION, THOUGH CONTINGENT, CONTINUED TO
EXIST PRO TANTO; AND THE RULE OF DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1, IS
APPLICABLE. 

2.  OTHER TRUST INCOME ALSO WAS TAXABLE TO THE HUSBAND, FOR THE
REASON THAT HE DID NOT SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF SHOWING BY CLEAR AND
CONVINCING PROOF THAT THE NEW YORK COURT LACKED POWER AFTER THE DIVORCE
TO ADD TO HIS PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS IN ANY EVENTUALITY.  HELVERING V.
FITCH, 309 U.S. 149.  P. 85. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. LEONARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 309 U.S. 644, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 36 B.T.A. 563, ASSESSING A DEFICIENCY IN
INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE QUESTION OF THE TAXABILITY TO THE GRANTOR
UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928(45 STAT. 791) OF INCOME FROM A SO-CALLED
ALIMONY TRUST WHICH IS PAYABLE TO HIS DIVORCED WIFE.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE PROBABLE CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH
DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1, AND HELVERING V. FITCH, 309 U.S. 149. 

IN 1928 RESPONDENT'S WIFE INSTITUTED SUIT IN NEW YORK FOR AN ABSOLUTE
DIVORCE.  ON JUNE 4, 1929, WHILE THAT SUIT WAS PENDING, RESPONDENT AND
HIS WIFE ENTERED INTO A SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND, TOGETHER WITH A
CORPORATE TRUSTEE, EXECUTED A TRUST AGREEMENT.  UNDER THE LATTER
RESPONDENT CONTRIBUTED SECURITIES AND CASH OF $650,000, WHICH INCLUDED
$400,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF 6% FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OF AN OIL
COMPANY.  RESPONDENT GUARANTEED THE "PAYMENT WHEN DUE OF THE PRINCIPAL
AND INTEREST" ON THOSE BONDS; AND ON NOTICE OF ANY DEFAULT IN THE
PAYMENT OF ANY INTEREST ON OR PRINCIPAL OF THEM, HE AGREED TO
SUBSTITUTE CASH OR SECURITIES WITH A "MARKET VALUE EQUAL TO" THE
PRINCIPAL, AND CASH SUFFICIENT TO COVER ANY ACCRUED INTEREST.  FN1  THE
TRUST WAS IRREVOCABLE  FN2 EXCEPT THAT (1) IT COULD BE AMENDED BY
RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE; FN3  AND (2) RESPONDENT RETAINED A LIMITED
POWER OF SUBSTITUTION AS RESPECTS CERTAIN BANK STOCK WHICH WAS PART OF
THE CORPUS.  THE TRUSTEE AGREED TO USE "REASONABLE EFFORTS TO CONSULT"
WITH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO "THE CHARACTER OF THE INVESTMENTS"
THOUGH IT WAS NOT BOUND TO FOLLOW HIS ADVICE.  RESPONDENT RETAINED NO
RIGHT TO EITHER THE CORPUS OR THE INCOME, OR ANY PART THEREOF, EXCEPT
AS INDICATED ABOVE.  THE NET INCOME WAS TO BE PAID AS FOLLOWS:  $5000 A
YEAR TO EACH OF THREE CHILDREN; THE REMAINING AMOUNT TO THE WIFE DURING
HER LIFE FOR HER MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, AND IN HER SOLE DISCRETION
FOR THE SUPPORT, MAINTENANCE AND EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN.  ON DEATH
OF THE WIFE, THE CORPUS WAS TO BE HELD FOR THE CHILDREN. 

THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT INCORPORATED THE TRUST AGREEMENT BY
REFERENCE; STATED THAT THE WIFE'S INCOME FROM THE TRUST AND FROM OTHER
PROPERTY RECEIVED FROM THE HUSBAND WOULD AGGREGATE $30,000 A YEAR;
PROVIDED THAT RESPONDENT WOULD PAY HIS WIFE AN ADDITIONAL $35,000 EACH
YEAR DURING HER LIFE SO THAT HER AGGREGATE NET INCOME FOR THE
MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF HERSELF AND THE CHILDREN WOULD APPROXIMATE
$65,000 A YEAR, AND WOULD FURTHER PAY ANY "EXTRAORDINARY MEDICAL OR
SURGICAL EXPENSES" INCURRED BY THE WIFE OR ON BEHALF OF THE CHILDREN
UNTIL THEY ATTAINED THE AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS; STATED THAT IN THE
EVENT THAT RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO PAY THE ABOVE $35,000 BECAME
IMPAIRED, HE MIGHT APPLY TO ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION FOR A
REDUCTION OF HIS OBLIGATION TO NOT LESS THAN $10,000 A YEAR; MADE OTHER
PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS; PROVIDED FOR CARE AND CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN;
RELEASED DOWER, ETC. 

THE DECREE OF DIVORCE BECAME FINAL IN OCTOBER 1929.  IT "APPROVED AND
AFFIRMED AND MADE A PART OF THE JUDGMENT HEREIN" THE SEPARATION
AGREEMENT (WHICH AS WE HAVE SAID INCORPORATED THE TRUST AGREEMENT)
"PROVIDING FOR THE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PLAINTIFF," AND IN
ADDITION DIRECTED RESPONDENT TO PAY HER $35,000 A YEAR FOR THE REST OF
HER LIFE.  FROM JUNE 4, 1929 TO DECEMBER 31, 1929, THE TRUSTEE RECEIVED
$16,191.34 AS DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY.  IT
DISTRIBUTED $5200 TO THE WIFE AND $2083.33 TO EACH OF THREE CHILDREN,
LEAVING AN UNDISTRIBUTED BALANCE FOR THAT PERIOD OF ABOUT $4700. 
RESPONDENT DID NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THAT INCOME IN HIS RETURN FOR 1929. 
THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
HELD THAT ONLY THE AMOUNTS ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTED TO RESPONDENT'S WIFE
AND MINOR CHILDREN WERE TAXABLE TO HIM.  36 B.T.A. 563.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT, THOUGH TAXABLE ON
INCOME PAYABLE TO HIS MINOR CHILDREN, WAS NOT TAXABLE ON INCOME PAYABLE
TO THE WIFE.  105 F.2D 900. 

HERE, AS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IT WAS URGED BY THE
PETITIONER THAT THIS ALIMONY TRUST WAS MERELY SECURITY FOR RESPONDENT'S
CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HIS WIFE AND, THEREFORE, THAT THE
TRUST INCOME PAYABLE TO HER WAS TAXABLE TO HIM UNDER THE RULE OF
DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA.  IN SUPPORT OF THAT POSITION IT WAS URGED,
INTER ALIA, THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION WAS NOT
DISCHARGED SINCE THE NEW YORK COURT RETAINED THE POWER TO MODIFY THE
DECREE; AND THAT THE PROMISE BY RESPONDENT TO PAY THE WIFE $35,000(OR
IN NO EVENT LESS THAN $10,000) A YEAR CONVERTED THE TRUST INTO AT LEAST
PARTIAL SECURITY FOR THE TOTAL ALLOWANCE TO HER.  IN EITHER OF SUCH
EVENTS THE RULE OF DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, WOULD APPLY.  SEE
HELVERING V. FITCH, SUPRA.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, HOWEVER,
DECIDED THESE TWO QUESTIONS ADVERSELY TO PETITIONER.  BUT THERE IS ONE
MATTER NOT TOUCHED ON BY THAT COURT WHICH WE THINK IS DETERMINATIVE OF
ONE PHASE OF THE CASE. 

THE TRUST AGREEMENT CONTAINS AN EXPRESS PERSONAL OBLIGATION OF
RESPONDENT IN THE FORM OF A GUARANTEE OF PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND
INTEREST ON $400,000 OF THE 6% BONDS WHICH WERE PART OF THE TRUST
CORPUS.  TO BE SURE, THAT PERSONAL OBLIGATION WAS CONTINGENT.  BUT WE
DO NOT DEEM THAT TO BE MATERIAL.  WE RECENTLY STATED IN HELVERING V.
FITCH, SUPRA, P. 156, THAT UNDER THIS STATUTORY SCHEME ESCAPE FROM THE
RULE OF DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, MAY BE HAD ONLY ON "CLEAR AND
CONVINCING PROOF" THAT "LOCAL LAW AND THE ALIMONY TRUST HAVE GIVEN THE
DIVORCED HUSBAND A FULL DISCHARGE AND LEAVE NO CONTINUING OBLIGATION
HOWEVER CONTINGENT."  WHATEVER MAY BE THE CORRECT VIEW ON THE OTHER
ASPECTS OF THE CASE, THE GUARANTEE WAS SUCH A CONTINUING OBLIGATION. 
THE FACT THAT THE WIFE OR OTHER BENEFICIARIES LOOKED PRIMARILY TO THE
TRUST AND ONLY SECONDARILY TO RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENT OF $24,000
ANNUALLY, THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT'S OBLIGATION MIGHT BE ENFORCEABLE BY
THE TRUSTEE, THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT MIGHT NEVER HAVE TO MAKE GOOD ON
HIS PROMISE ARE BESIDE THE POINT.  THE EXISTENCE OF WHOLLY CONTINGENT
OBLIGATIONS, WHETHER CONTRACTUAL OR OTHERWISE, IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT
THE RESULTS REACHED IN DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA.  FOR IN THAT CASE IT
WAS MANIFEST THAT AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION AND APPROVAL OF THE TRUST
THE DIVORCE COURT MIGHT NEVER EXERCISE ITS RESERVED POWER TO REVISE OR
ALTER THE DECREE AND THE HUSBAND MIGHT NEVER HAVE TO MAKE GOOD ON HIS
PROMISE TO MAKE UP DEFICIENCIES IN THE ESTIMATED TRUST INCOME. 
LIKEWISE IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DIVORCE DECREE
AND THE ALIMONY TRUST GAVE RESPONDENT AN ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE FROM HIS
PRIOR OBLIGATION.  SO FAR AS THE GUARANTEE ALONE IS CONCERNED, THEY
PERMITTED HIS PREEXISTING UNCONDITIONAL DUTY TO BE TRANSFORMED INTO A
LIMITED CONTINGENT ONE.  BUT NONETHELESS THEY PLACED A SPECIFIC AND
ADEQUATE SANCTION ON THAT DUTY, SO THAT RESPONDENT'S PERSONAL
OBLIGATION WOULD NOT BE FULLY DISCHARGED AT LEAST UNTIL COMPLETE
PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON THE 6% BONDS HAD BEEN MADE. 
THUS IN EFFECT, IF NOT IN FORM, THE TRUST AGREEMENT WAS SECURITY FOR
HIS CONTINUING OBLIGATION WHICH WOULD BE DISCHARGED AT LEAST PRO TANTO
AS INCOME FROM THOSE BONDS WAS RECEIVED BY THE TRUSTEE.  HENCE THE CASE
IN SUBSTANCE IS THE SAME AS THOSE WHERE PURSUANT TO CONTRACT OR
ARRANGEMENT AN OBLIGATION IS DISCHARGED BY ANOTHER FOR THE TAXPAYER'S
BENEFIT; SEE OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716; UNITED
STATES V. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD, 279 U.S. 732; OR WHERE THE TAXPAYER
CREATES A TRUST, THE INCOME OF WHICH IS APPLIED TO THE DISCHARGE OF HIS
DEBT.  SEE HELVERING V. BLUMENTHAL, 296 U.S. 552.  HERE, AS THERE, THE
TAXPAYER RECEIVED A BENEFIT BY THE PAYMENTS.  THE CATALOGUE OF BENEFITS
IS NOT DEPLETED WHEN PRIMARY OBLIGATIONS ARE DISCHARGED.  FOR THESE
REASONS THAT PORTION OF THE TRUST INCOME WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM THE
GUARANTEED BONDS WAS CLEARLY TAXABLE TO RESPONDENT. 

APPARENTLY, HOWEVER, A PORTION OF THAT INCOME WAS RECEIVED FROM OTHER
TRUST PROPERTY.  BUT WE THINK THAT WAS ALSO TAXABLE TO RESPONDENT
THOUGH FOR ANOTHER REASON. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE DIVORCE DECREE APPROVED, AFFIRMED AND MADE PART
OF THE JUDGMENT THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR THE "SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE" OF THE WIFE.  HER MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT WERE SECURED NOT
ONLY BY THE TRUST AGREEMENT AND OTHER PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS BUT ALSO BY
THE PERSONAL OBLIGATION OF THE HUSBAND TO CONTRIBUTE AN ANNUAL SUM. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW THE TERMS OF
THE TRUST WOULD NOT BE CHANGED "UNLESS THE WIFE CAN DISAFFIRM IT FOR
FRAUD, OVERREACHING, OR THE LIKE," CITING GALUSHA V. GALUSHA, 116 N.Y.
635; 22 N.E. 1114; 138 N.Y. 272; 33 N.E. 1062; CAIN V. CAIN, 188 APP.
DIV. 780; 177 N.Y.S. 178; HAMLIN V. HAMLIN, 224 APP. DIV. 168; 230
N.Y.S. 51.  IF THE CASE WAS HERE ON APPLICATION OF LOCAL LAW UNDER THE
RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, WE WOULD NOT BE INCLINED
TO DISTURB THAT FINDING.  BUT IT IS NOT.  HERE RESPONDENT IS SEEKING TO
ESCAPE ONE OF THE NORMAL INCIDENTS OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  FOR THAT
PURPOSE HE INVOKES THE AID OF NEW YORK LAW.  IN HELVERING V. FITCH,
SUPRA, WE STATED THAT WHERE THE DIVORCED HUSBAND DESIRES TO AVOID THE
GENERAL RULE EXPRESSED IN DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, HE CARRIES A
DISTINCT BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING NOT BY MERE INFERENCE AND CONJECTURE
BUT BY "CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF" THAT LOCAL LAW AND THE ALIMONY
TRUST HAVE GIVEN HIM A FULL DISCHARGE.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT RESPONDENT
HAS SUSTAINED THAT BURDEN. 

AS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IT DOES SEEM CLEAR THAT
MERE PROPERTY SETTLEMENTS, THOUGH INCORPORATED INTO THE DECREE, MAY NOT
BE MODIFIED PURSUANT TO THE RESERVED STATUTORY POWERS OF THE COURT,
CONTAINED IN N.Y. CIVIL PRAC.  ACT SECS. 1155, 1170.  SEE CAIN V. CAIN,
SUPRA; GOLDFISH V. GOLDFISH, 193 APP. DIV. 686; 184 N.Y.S. 512. 
SCHNITZER V. BUERGER, 237 APP. DIV. 622; 262 N.Y.S. 385.  NEVERTHELESS
THESE SETTLEMENTS MAY BE REMADE BY THE COURT NOT ONLY WHERE AN ORDINARY
CONTRACT MAY BE SET ASIDE BUT ALSO WHERE THEY ARE UNFAIR, INEQUITABLE
AND UNJUST.  HAMLIN V. HAMLIN, SUPRA.  CF. TIRRELL V. TIRRELL, 232 N.Y.
224; 133 N.E. 569.  AS STATED BY THE COURT IN THE HAMLIN CASE (224 APP.
DIV. AT P. 171) THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT "SUCH CONTRACTS BE NOT ONLY
FREE FROM TAINT OF ACTUAL FRAUD OR COERCION BUT ALSO FAIR AND
REASONABLY SUFFICIENT HAVING REGARD TO THE STATION IN LIFE AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTIES."  MORE IMPORTANT TO THIS CASE, HOWEVER,
ARE KUNKER V. KUNKER, 230 APP. DIV. 641; 246 N.Y.S. 118 AND HOLAHAN V.
HOLAHAN, 234 APP. DIV. 572; 255 N.Y.S. 693.  THEY MAKE IT PLAIN THAT
THE COVENANTS OF A SEPARATION AGREEMENT ARE NOT "AN INSUPERABLE
OBSTACLE TO OBTAINING RELIEF BY MODIFICATION OF THE ALLOWANCES." 
HOLAHAN V. HOLAHAN, SUPRA, P. 574.  CF. SEVERANCE V. SEVERANCE, 260
N.Y. 432; 183 N.E. 909.  THE RESERVED POWER APPARENTLY MAY BE EXERCISED
WHERE THE PROVISION IN THE SEPARATE AGREEMENT, APPROVED BY THE DECREE,
IS FOR SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE (KUNKER V. KUNKER AND HOLAHAN V.
HOLAHAN, SUPRA) BUT NOT WHERE IT IS IN SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF
OWNERSHIP TO SPECIFIED PROPERTY.  GOLDFISH V. GOLDFISH AND SCHNITZER V.
BUERGER, SUPRA.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND THE
TRUST AGREEMENT HERE IN QUESTION SPECIFICALLY RELATE TO AND WERE
DESIGNED TO AFFORD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE WIFE.  UNLIKE THE
PURPOSE OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT IN SCHNITZER V. BUERGER, SUPRA, THE
PURPOSE HERE APPARENTLY WAS NOT TO COMPOSE ANY CONTROVERSIES OVER THE
SECURITIES.  WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE COURT RETAINED THE POWER TO
REQUIRE RESPONDENT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO THE WIFE IN CASE,
SAY, ALL THE SECURITIES IN TRUST TURNED OUT TO BE WORTHLESS.  ALL WE DO
HOLD IS THAT RESPONDENT HAS NOT SHOWN BY "CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF"
THAT THE COURT LACKS THE POWER TO ADD TO HIS PERSONAL OBLIGATIONS IN
ANY SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  REVERSED. 

FN1 NO EXTENSION OF THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST ON
THESE BONDS WAS TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE WIFE AND WITHOUT
THE EXTENSION OF THE GUARANTEE OF RESPONDENT OR HIS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE. 

FN2  EXCEPT ON DISCONTINUANCE OR DISMISSAL OF THE DIVORCE ACTION. 

FN3  IT WAS SO AMENDED THREE TIMES BUT IN RESPECTS NOT MATERIAL
HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THE RESULT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE
DISSENT IN HELVERING V. FULLER, ANTE, P. 76. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :



THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 310 U.S. 88 


NO. 514.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 29, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940.  - 28
ALA. APP. 527 - 189 SO. 913, REVERSED. 


A STATUTE OF ALABAMA MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, "WITHOUT A JUST
CAUSE OR LEGAL EXCUSE," TO GO NEAR TO OR "LOITER" ABOUT ANY PLACE OF
LAWFUL BUSINESS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF, OR WITH THE INTENTION OF,
INFLUENCING OR INDUCING OTHER PERSONS NOT TO BUY FROM, DEAL WITH, OR BE
EMPLOYED AT SUCH PLACE OF BUSINESS; OR TO "PICKET" A PLACE OF LAWFUL
BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPEDING, INTERFERING WITH, OR INJURING
SUCH BUSINESS.  AS CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS OF THE STATE, THE STATUTE
FORBIDS THE PUBLICIZING OF FACTS CONCERNING A LABOR DISPUTE, WHETHER BY
PRINTED SIGN, BY PAMPHLET, BY WORD OF MOUTH, OR OTHERWISE, IN THE
VICINITY OF THE BUSINESS INVOLVED; AND THIS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
NUMBER OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITY, THE PEACEFUL CHARACTER OF
THEIR CONDUCT, THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE, OR THE ACCURACY OR RESTRAINT
OF THE LANGUAGE USED IN IMPARTING THE INFORMATION.  UPON A COMPLAINT
SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, AND UPON EVIDENCE OF
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO PICKETING OF A PLACE OF BUSINESS IN CONNECTION
WITH A LABOR DISPUTE, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF "LOITERING AND
PICKETING AS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT."  THE STATUTE WAS CHALLENGED AS
VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS.  HELD: 

1.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS, SECURED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE UNITED STATES, IS SECURED TO ALL
PERSONS BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE STATES. 
P. 95. 

2.  WHEN ABRIDGMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS IS CLAIMED, IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE
COURTS TO "WEIGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES" AND "APPRAISE THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF
THE REASONS ADVANCED" IN SUPPORT OF THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS.  P.
96. 

3.  THE STATUTE MUST BE JUDGED UPON ITS FACE.  P. 96. 

(A)  THE CHARGES WERE FRAMED IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND THE
FINDING WAS GENERAL; IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE
EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED A CONVICTION BASED UPON DIFFERENT AND
MORE PRECISE CHARGES.  P. 96. 

(B)  THE VERY EXISTENCE OF A PENAL STATUTE SUCH AS THAT HERE, WHICH
DOES NOT AIM SPECIFICALLY AT EVILS WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF STATE
CONTROL, BUT SWEEPS WITHIN ITS AMBIT OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT IN ORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTE AN EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE
PRESS, RESULTS IN A CONTINUOUS AND PERVASIVE RESTRAINT OF ALL FREEDOM
OF DISCUSSION THAT MIGHT REASONABLY BE REGARDED AS WITHIN ITS PURVIEW. 
ONE CONVICTED UNDER SUCH A STATUTE DOES NOT HAVE TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN
OF SHOWING THAT THE STATE COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY HAVE WRITTEN A
DIFFERENT AND SPECIFIC STATUTE COVERING THE PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES IN
WHICH HE IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED.  P. 97. 

(C)  WHERE REGULATIONS OF THE LIBERTY OF FREE DISCUSSION ARE
CONCERNED, THERE ARE SPECIAL REASONS FOR OBSERVING THE RULE THAT IT IS
THE STATUTE, AND NOT THE ACCUSATION OR THE EVIDENCE UNDER IT, WHICH
PRESCRIBES THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT AND WARNS AGAINST
TRANSGRESSION.  P. 98. 

4.  THE STATUTE IS INVALID ON ITS FACE.  P. 101. 

(A)  FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS EMBRACES AT THE LEAST THE
LIBERTY TO DISCUSS PUBLICLY AND TRUTHFULLY ALL MATTERS OF PUBLIC
CONCERN WITHOUT PREVIOUS RESTRAINT OR FEAR OF SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT. 
P. 101. 

(B)  THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FACTS OF A LABOR
DISPUTE MUST BE REGARDED AS WITHIN THAT AREA OF FREE DISCUSSION WHICH
IS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 102. 

(C)  ALTHOUGH THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO
MODIFICATION OR QUALIFICATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT THE STATE IN DEALING WITH THE EVILS ARISING FROM INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTES MAY IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS
FREELY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS WHICH ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  P.
103. 

(D)  WHILE THE STATE MAY TAKE ADEQUATE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE PEACE
AND TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY, THE LIVES, AND THE PROPERTY OF ITS PEOPLE,
YET NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF DESTRUCTION OF LIFE OR PROPERTY, OR
INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY, CAN BE THOUGHT TO BE INHERENT IN THE
ACTIVITIES OF EVERY PERSON WHO APPROACHES THE PREMISES OF AN EMPLOYER
AND PUBLICIZES THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE.  P. 105. 

(E)  THERE IS NOT HERE INVOLVED ANY QUESTION OF PICKETING EN MASSE,
OR OTHERWISE CONDUCTED, WHICH MIGHT OCCASION SUCH IMMINENT AND
AGGRAVATED DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY INTERESTS AS TO JUSTIFY A STATUTE
NARROWLY DRAWN TO COVER THE PRECISE SITUATION OUT OF WHICH THE DANGER
ARISES.  P. 105. 

(F)  THAT IT APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE PROSCRIBED ACTIVITIES ARE ENGAGED
IN AT THE SCENE OF A LABOR DISPUTE, CAN NOT JUSTIFY THE STATUTE.  P.
106. 

THORNHILL V. ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 547, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
UNDER A PENAL STATUTE OF ALABAMA.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENIED A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT.  GITLOW
V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652. 

PETITIONER WAS NOT CONVICTED FOR HIS WORDS ALONE.  HIS CONVICTION
RESTED UPON THE FACT THAT HE HAD GATHERED WITH OTHERS IN A PICKET LINE
FOR THE PURPOSE, NOT OF ADVANCING THE PICKETERS' INTERESTS, BUT OF
WILFULLY INJURING THE COMPANY. 

IF A PERSON SPEAKS IN SUPPORT OF HIS OWN RIGHTS AND FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ADVANCING HIS OWN CAUSE, THERE IS NO OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 3448.  NOR
IS ASSEMBLY FOR THE LAWFUL PURPOSE OF PEACEFUL ACTION PROHIBITED.  IF,
ON THE OTHER HAND, A MEMBER OF A PICKET SPEAKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INJURING ANOTHER OR IF THE PICKET ASSEMBLES UNLAWFULLY AND IN A
THREATENING MANNER, THE SPEAKING AND ASSEMBLING BECOME UNLAWFUL.  SEE
ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 281; GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE
CO., 221 U.S. 418, 439. 

WHETHER PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED HIM BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS WHICH
APPEAR OF RECORD.  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52; AIKERS V.
WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. 

PETITIONER WAS A MEMBER OF A PICKET LINE LOCATED VERY CLOSE TO THE
PLACE OF BUSINESS OF HIS FORMER EMPLOYER AND WAS A MEMBER OF A GROUP OF
PICKETERS CONSISTING OF A RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER - CONSIDERING THE
LOCATION OF THE PICKET AND THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OF THE PLANT.  IT
WAS NOT A "PEACEFUL PICKET" BUT AN OFFENSIVE AND UNJUSTIFIABLE
ANNOYANCE CALCULATED TO BRING ABOUT PUBLIC DISTURBANCE AND BREACHES OF
THE PEACE.  PETITIONER, BEING THE CHAMPION OF ONLY HIS OWN RIGHTS, CAN
NOT BE HEARD TO ASSAIL AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL A STATUTE WHICH DID NOT
PROHIBIT HIM FROM STRIKING, OR FROM PRESENTING TO OTHERS HIS SIDE OF
THE CONTROVERSY, BUT BARRED HIM ONLY FROM ACTS INHERENTLY WRONG. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, BYRON THORNHILL, WAS CONVICTED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
TUSCALOOSA COUNTY, ALABAMA, OF THE VIOLATION OF SEC. 3448 OF THE STATE
CODE OF 1923.  FN1  THE CODE SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 3448.  LOITERING OR PICKETING FORBIDDEN.  - ANY PERSON OR
PERSONS, WHO, WITHOUT A JUST CAUSE OR LEGAL EXCUSE THEREFOR, GO NEAR TO
OR LOITER ABOUT THE PREMISES OR PLACE OF BUSINESS OF ANY OTHER PERSON,
FIRM, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE, ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL
BUSINESS, FOR THE PURPOSE, OR WITH THE INTENT OF INFLUENCING, OR
INDUCING OTHER PERSONS NOT TO TRADE WITH, BUY FROM, SELL TO, HAVE
BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH, OR BE EMPLOYED BY SUCH PERSONS, FIRM,
CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION, OR WHO PICKET THE WORKS OR PLACE OF
BUSINESS OF SUCH OTHER PERSONS, FIRMS, CORPORATIONS, OR ASSOCIATIONS OF
PERSONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HINDERING, DELAYING, OR INTERFERING WITH OR
INJURING ANY LAWFUL BUSINESS OR ENTERPRISE OF ANOTHER, SHALL BE GUILTY
OF A MISDEMEANOR; BUT NOTHING HEREIN SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM
SOLICITING TRADE OR BUSINESS FOR A COMPETITIVE BUSINESS." 

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST PETITIONER, WHICH IS SET OUT IN THE MARGIN,
FN2  IS PHRASED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE VERY WORDS OF THE STATUTE.  THE
FIRST AND SECOND COUNTS CHARGE THAT PETITIONER, WITHOUT JUST CAUSE OR
LEGAL EXCUSE, DID "GO NEAR TO OR LOITER ABOUT THE PREMISES" OF THE
BROWN WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY WITH THE INTENT OR PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING
OTHERS TO ADOPT ONE OF ENUMERATED COURSES OF CONDUCT.  IN THE THIRD
COUNT, THE CHARGE IS THAT PETITIONER "DID PICKET" THE WORKS OF THE
COMPANY "FOR THE PURPOSE OF HINDERING, DELAYING OR INTERFERING WITH OR
INJURING (ITS) LAWFUL BUSINESS."  PETITIONER DEMURRED TO THE COMPLAINT
ON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT SEC. 3448 WAS REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THAT IT DEPRIVED HIM OF "THE RIGHT
OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLAGE," "THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH," AND "THE
RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REDRESS."  THE DEMURRER, SO FAR AS THE RECORD
SHOWS, WAS NOT RULED UPON, AND PETITIONER PLEADED NOT GUILTY.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT THEN PROCEEDED TO TRY THE CASE WITHOUT A JURY, ONE NOT
BEING ASKED FOR OR DEMANDED.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE CASE FOR THE STATE,
PETITIONER MOVED TO EXCLUDE ALL THE TESTIMONY TAKEN AT THE TRIAL ON THE
GROUND THAT SEC. 3448 WAS VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OVERRULED THE MOTION, FOUND PETITIONER
"GUILTY OF LOITERING AND PICKETING AS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT," AND
ENTERED JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT
OF APPEALS, WHICH CONSIDERED THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND SUSTAINED
THE SECTION ON THE AUTHORITY OF TWO PREVIOUS DECISIONS IN THE ALABAMA
COURTS.  FN4  O'ROURKE V. BIRMINGHAM, 27 ALA. APP. 133; 168 SO. 206,
CERT. DENIED, 232 ALA. 355; 168 SO. 209; HARDIE-TYNES MFG. CO. V.
CRUISE, 189 ALA. 66; 66 SO. 657.  A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS DENIED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI
GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  308 U.S.
547. 

THE PROOFS CONSIST OF THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES FOR THE
PROSECUTION.  FN5  IT APPEARS THAT PETITIONER ON THE MORNING OF HIS
ARREST WAS SEEN "IN COMPANY WITH SIX OR EIGHT OTHER MEN" "ON THE PICKET
LINE" AT THE PLANT OF THE BROWN WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY.  SOME WEEKS
PREVIOUSLY A STRIKE ORDER HAD BEEN ISSUED BY A UNION, APPARENTLY
AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WHICH HAD AS MEMBERS
ALL BUT FOUR OF THE APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES OF THE PLANT. 
SINCE THAT TIME A PICKET LINE WITH TWO PICKET POSTS OF SIX TO EIGHT MEN
EACH HAD BEEN MAINTAINED AROUND THE PLANT TWENTY-FOUR HOURS A DAY.  THE
PICKET POSTS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ON COMPANY PROPERTY, "ON A PRIVATE
ENTRANCE FOR EMPLOYEES, AND NOT ON ANY PUBLIC ROAD."  ONE WITNESS
EXPLAINED THAT PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES LIVE ON COMPANY
PROPERTY AND GET THEIR MAIL FROM A POST OFFICE ON COMPANY PROPERTY AND
THAT THE UNION HOLDS ITS MEETINGS ON COMPANY PROPERTY.  NO DEMAND WAS
EVER MADE UPON THE MEN NOT TO COME ON THE PROPERTY.  THERE IS NO
TESTIMONY INDICATING THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE UNION AND
THE PRESERVING COMPANY, OR THE COURSE OF EVENTS WHICH LED TO THE
ISSUANCE OF THE STRIKE ORDER, OR THE NATURE OF THE EFFORTS FOR
CONCILIATION. 

THE COMPANY SCHEDULED A DAY FOR THE PLANT TO RESUME OPERATIONS.  ONE
OF THE WITNESSES, CLARENCE SIMPSON, WHO WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE UNION,
ON REPORTING TO THE PLANT ON THE DAY INDICATED, WAS APPROACHED BY
PETITIONER WHO TOLD HIM THAT "THEY WERE ON STRIKE AND DID NOT WANT
ANYBODY TO GO UP THERE TO WORK."  NONE OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES SAID
ANYTHING TO SIMPSON, WHO TESTIFIED:  "NEITHER MR. THORNHILL NOR ANY
OTHER EMPLOYEE THREATENED ME ON THE OCCASION TESTIFIED TO.  MR.
THORNHILL APPROACHED ME IN A PEACEFUL MANNER, AND DID NOT PUT ME IN
FEAR; HE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE MAD."  "I THEN TURNED AND WENT BACK TO
THE HOUSE, AND DID NOT GO TO WORK."  THE OTHER WITNESS, J. M. WALDEN,
TESTIFIED:  "AT THE TIME MR. THORNHILL AND CLARENCE SIMPSON WERE
TALKING TO EACH OTHER, THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE PRESENT, AND I HEARD NO
HARSH WORDS AND SAW NOTHING THREATENING IN THE MANNER OF EITHER MAN." 
FN6  FOR ENGAGING IN SOME OR ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES, PETITIONER WAS
ARRESTED, CHARGED, AND CONVICTED AS DESCRIBED. 

FIRST.  THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS, WHICH ARE SECURED BY
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE AMONG
THE FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WHICH ARE SECURED TO ALL
PERSONS BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY A STATE. 
FN7 

THE SAFEGUARDING OF THESE RIGHTS TO THE ENDS THAT MEN MAY SPEAK AS
THEY THINK ON MATTERS VITAL TO THEM AND THAT FALSEHOODS MAY BE EXPOSED
THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF EDUCATION AND DISCUSSION IS ESSENTIAL TO FREE
GOVERNMENT.  THOSE WHO WON OUR INDEPENDENCE HAD CONFIDENCE IN THE POWER
OF FREE AND FEARLESS REASONING AND COMMUNICATION OF IDEAS TO DISCOVER
AND SPREAD POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TRUTH.  NOXIOUS DOCTRINES IN THOSE
FIELDS MAY BE REFUTED AND THEIR EVIL AVERTED BY THE COURAGEOUS EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHT OF FREE DISCUSSION.  ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
OF THE PRESS, HOWEVER, IMPAIRS THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
THAT ARE ESSENTIAL TO EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CORRECTING
ERROR THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF POPULAR GOVERNMENT.  COMPARE UNITED
STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 152-153N.  MERE
LEGISLATIVE PREFERENCE FOR ONE RATHER THAN ANOTHER MEANS FOR COMBATTING
SUBSTANTIVE EVILS, THEREFORE, MAY WELL PROVE AN INADEQUATE FOUNDATION
ON WHICH TO REST REGULATIONS WHICH ARE AIMED AT OR IN THEIR OPERATION
DIMINISH THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS SO NECESSARY TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.  IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT, WHEN
THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THESE RIGHTS IS CLAIMED TO BE ABRIDGED, THE
COURTS SHOULD "WEIGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES" AND "APPRAISE THE
SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE REASONS ADVANCED" IN SUPPORT OF THE CHALLENGED
REGULATIONS.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 162. 

SECOND.  THE SECTION IN QUESTION MUST BE JUDGED UPON ITS FACE. 

THE FINDING AGAINST PETITIONER WAS A GENERAL ONE.  IT DID NOT SPECIFY
THE TESTIMONY UPON WHICH IT RESTED.  FN8  THE CHARGES WERE FRAMED IN
THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND SO MUST BE GIVEN A LIKE CONSTRUCTION.  THE
COURTS BELOW EXPRESSED NO INTENTION OF NARROWING THE CONSTRUCTION PUT
UPON THE STATUTE BY PRIOR STATE DECISIONS.  FN9  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE,
THERE IS NO OCCASION TO GO BEHIND THE FACE OF THE STATUTE OR OF THE
COMPLAINT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE EVIDENCE, TOGETHER
WITH THE PERMISSIBLE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM IT, COULD EVER SUPPORT
A CONVICTION FOUNDED UPON DIFFERENT AND MORE PRECISE CHARGES. 
"CONVICTION UPON A CHARGE NOT MADE WOULD BE SHEER DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS."  DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 362; STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 367-368.  THE STATE URGES THAT PETITIONER MAY
NOT COMPLAIN OF THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS BUT HIS OWN.  IT WOULD
NOT FOLLOW THAT ON THIS RECORD PETITIONER COULD NOT COMPLAIN OF THE
SWEEPING REGULATIONS HERE CHALLENGED. 

THERE IS A FURTHER REASON FOR TESTING THE SECTION ON ITS FACE.  PROOF
OF AN ABUSE OF POWER IN THE PARTICULAR CASE HAS NEVER BEEN DEEMED A
REQUISITE FOR ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE PURPORTING
TO LICENSE THE DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S.
147, 162-165; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 516; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
303 U.S. 444, 451.  THE CASES WHEN INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR
FACTS INDICATE THAT THE RULE IS NOT BASED UPON ANY ASSUMPTION THAT
APPLICATION FOR THE LICENSE WOULD BE REFUSED OR WOULD RESULT IN THE
IMPOSITION OF OTHER UNLAWFUL REGULATIONS.  FN10  RATHER IT DERIVES FROM
AN APPRECIATION OF THE CHARACTER OF THE EVIL INHERENT IN A LICENSING
SYSTEM.  THE POWER OF THE LICENSOR AGAINST WHICH JOHN MILTON DIRECTED
HIS ASSAULT BY HIS "APPEAL FOR THE LIBERTY OF UNLICENSED PRINTING" IS
PERNICIOUS NOT MERELY BY REASON OF THE CENSURE OF PARTICULAR COMMENTS
BUT BY REASON OF THE THREAT TO CENSURE COMMENTS ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC
CONCERN.  IT IS NOT MERELY THE SPORADIC ABUSE OF POWER BY THE CENSOR
BUT THE PERVASIVE THREAT INHERENT IN ITS VERY EXISTENCE THAT
CONSTITUTES THE DANGER TO FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION.  SEE NEAR V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 713.  ONE WHO MIGHT HAVE HAD A LICENSE FOR THE
ASKING MAY THEREFORE CALL INTO QUESTION THE WHOLE SCHEME OF LICENSING
WHEN HE IS PROSECUTED FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE IT.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496.  A LIKE THREAT IS INHERENT
IN A PENAL STATUTE, LIKE THAT IN QUESTION HERE, WHICH DOES NOT AIM
SPECIFICALLY AT EVILS WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF STATE CONTROL BUT,
ON THE CONTRARY, SWEEPS WITHIN ITS AMBIT OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT IN
ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES CONSTITUTE AN EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR
OF THE PRESS.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A STATUTE, WHICH READILY LENDS
ITSELF TO HARSH AND DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT BY LOCAL PROSECUTING
OFFICIALS, AGAINST PARTICULAR GROUPS DEEMED TO MERIT THEIR DISPLEASURE,
RESULTS IN A CONTINUOUS AND PERVASIVE RESTRAINT ON ALL FREEDOM OF
DISCUSSION THAT MIGHT REASONABLY BE REGARDED AS WITHIN ITS PURVIEW. 
FN11  IT IS NOT ANY LESS EFFECTIVE OR, IF THE RESTRAINT IS NOT
PERMISSIBLE, LESS PERNICIOUS THAN THE RESTRAINT ON FREEDOM OF
DISCUSSION IMPOSED BY THE THREAT OF CENSORSHIP.  FN12  AN ACCUSED,
AFTER ARREST AND CONVICTION UNDER SUCH A STATUTE, DOES NOT HAVE TO
SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE STATE COULD NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY HAVE WRITTEN A DIFFERENT AND SPECIFIC STATUTE COVERING
HIS ACTIVITIES AS DISCLOSED BY THE CHARGE AND THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED
AGAINST HIM.  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 155, 162-163.  WHERE
REGULATIONS OF THE LIBERTY OF FREE DISCUSSION ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE
SPECIAL REASONS FOR OBSERVING THE RULE THAT IT IS THE STATUTE, AND NOT
THE ACCUSATION OR THE EVIDENCE UNDER IT, WHICH PRESCRIBES THE LIMITS OF
PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT AND WARNS AGAINST TRANSGRESSION.  STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 155,
162-163.  COMPARE LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451.    THIRD.
SINGLE INDIVIDUAL FROM WALKING SLOWLY AND PEACEFULLY BACK AND FORTH ON
THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE PREMISES OF AN EMPLOYER, WITHOUT
SPEAKING TO ANYONE, CARRYING A SIGN OR PLACARD ON A STAFF ABOVE HIS
HEAD STATING ONLY THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER DID NOT EMPLOY UNION MEN
AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR; FN13  THE PURPOSE OF
THE DESCRIBED ACTIVITY WAS CONCEDEDLY TO ADVISE CUSTOMERS AND
PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS OF THE RELATIONSHIP EXISTING BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER
AND ITS EMPLOYEES AND THEREBY TO INDUCE SUCH CUSTOMERS NOT TO PATRONIZE
THE EMPLOYER.  O'ROURKE V. BIRMINGHAM, 27 ALA. APP. 133; 168 SO. 206,
CERT. DENIED, 232 ALA. 355; 168 SO. 209.  FN14  THE STATUTE AS THUS
AUTHORITATIVELY CONSTRUED AND APPLIED LEAVES ROOM FOR NO EXCEPTIONS
BASED UPON EITHER THE NUMBER OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE PROSCRIBED
ACTIVITY, THE PEACEFUL CHARACTER OF THEIR DEMEANOR, THE NATURE OF THEIR
DISPUTE WITH AN EMPLOYER, OR THE RESTRAINED CHARACTER AND THE
ACCURATENESS OF THE TERMINOLOGY USED IN NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC OF THE
FACTS OF THE DISPUTE. 

THE NUMEROUS FORMS OF CONDUCT PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 3448 ARE SUBSUMED
UNDER TWO OFFENSES:  THE FIRST EMBRACES THE ACTIVITIES OF ALL WHO
"WITHOUT JUST CAUSE OR LEGAL EXCUSE" "GO NEAR TO OR LOITER ABOUT THE
PREMISES" OF ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INFLUENCING OR INDUCING OTHERS TO ADOPT ANY OF CERTAIN ENUMERATED
COURSES OF ACTION; THE SECOND, ALL WHO "PICKET" THE PLACE OF BUSINESS
OF ANY SUCH PERSON "FOR THE PURPOSE OF HINDERING, DELAYING OR
INTERFERING WITH OR INJURING ANY LAWFUL BUSINESS OR ENTERPRISE OF
ANOTHER."  FN15  IT IS APPARENT THAT ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE OFFENSES
COMPREHENDS EVERY PRACTICABLE METHOD WHEREBY THE FACTS OF A LABOR
DISPUTE MAY BE PUBLICIZED IN THE VICINITY OF THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF
AN EMPLOYER.  THE PHRASE "WITHOUT JUST CAUSE OR LEGAL EXCUSE" DOES NOT
IN ANY EFFECTIVE MANNER RESTRICT THE BREADTH OF THE REGULATION; THE
WORDS THEMSELVES HAVE NO ASCERTAINABLE MEANING EITHER INHERENT OR
HISTORICAL.  COMPARE LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451, 453-455. 
FN16  THE COURSES OF ACTION, LISTED UNDER THE FIRST OFFENSE, WHICH AN
ACCUSED - INCLUDING AN EMPLOYEE - MAY NOT URGE OTHERS TO TAKE,
COMPREHENDS THOSE WHICH IN MANY INSTANCES WOULD NORMALLY RESULT FROM
MERELY PUBLICIZING, WITHOUT ANNOYANCE OR THREAT OF ANY KIND, THE FACTS
OF A LABOR DISPUTE.  AN INTENTION TO HINDER, DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH A
LAWFUL BUSINESS, WHICH IS AN ELEMENT OF THE SECOND OFFENSE, LIKEWISE
CAN BE PROVED MERELY BY SHOWING THAT OTHERS REACTED IN A WAY NORMALLY
EXPECTABLE OF SOME UPON LEARNING THE FACTS OF A DISPUTE.  FN17  THE
VAGUE CONTOURS OF THE TERM "PICKET" ARE NOWHERE DELINEATED.  FN18
EMPLOYEES OR OTHERS, ACCORDINGLY, MAY BE FOUND TO BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW
OF THE TERM AND CONVICTED FOR ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES IDENTICAL WITH
THOSE PROSCRIBED BY THE FIRST OFFENSE.  IN SUM, WHATEVER THE MEANS USED
TO PUBLICIZE THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE, WHETHER BY PRINTED SIGN, BY
PAMPHLET, BY WORD OF MOUTH OR OTHERWISE, ALL SUCH ACTIVITY WITHOUT
EXCEPTION IS WITHIN THE INCLUSIVE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE SO LONG AS
IT OCCURS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SCENE OF THE DISPUTE. 

FOURTH.  WE THINK THAT SEC. 3448 IS INVALID ON ITS FACE. 

THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION
EMBRACES AT THE LEAST THE LIBERTY TO DISCUSS PUBLICLY AND TRUTHFULLY
ALL MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN WITHOUT PREVIOUS RESTRAINT OR FEAR OF
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT.  FN19  THE EXIGENCIES OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD AND
THE EFFORTS TO SECURE FREEDOM FROM OPPRESSIVE ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPED
A BROADENED CONCEPTION OF THESE LIBERTIES AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPLY THE
PUBLIC NEED FOR INFORMATION AND EDUCATION WITH RESPECT TO THE
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OF THE TIMES.  FN20  THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS IN ITS
LETTER SENT TO THE INHABITANTS OF QUEBEC (OCTOBER 26, 1774) REFERRED TO
THE "FIVE GREAT RIGHTS" AND SAID:  "THE LAST RIGHT WE SHALL MENTION,
REGARDS THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CONSISTS,
BESIDES THE ADVANCEMENT OF TRUTH, SCIENCE, MORALITY, AND ARTS IN
GENERAL, IN ITS DIFFUSION OF LIBERAL SENTIMENTS ON THE ADMINISTRATION
OF GOVERNMENT, ITS READY COMMUNICATION OF THOUGHTS BETWEEN SUBJECTS,
AND ITS CONSEQUENTIAL PROMOTION OF UNION AMONG THEM, WHEREBY OPPRESSIVE
OFFICERS ARE ASHAMED OR INTIMIDATED, INTO MORE HONOURABLE AND JUST
MODES OF CONDUCTING AFFAIRS."  JOURNAL OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS,
1904 ED., VOL. I, PP. 104, 108.  FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION, IF IT WOULD
FULFILL ITS HISTORIC FUNCTION IN THIS NATION, MUST EMBRACE ALL ISSUES
ABOUT WHICH INFORMATION IS NEEDED OR APPROPRIATE TO ENABLE THE MEMBERS
OF SOCIETY TO COPE WITH THE EXIGENCIES OF THEIR PERIOD. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OUR TIMES THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
CONCERNING THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE MUST BE REGARDED AS WITHIN THAT
AREA OF FREE DISCUSSION THAT IS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  HAGUE
V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 155, 162
63.  SEE SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468, 478.  IT IS
RECOGNIZED NOW THAT SATISFACTORY HOURS AND WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS
IN INDUSTRY AND A BARGAINING POSITION WHICH MAKES THESE POSSIBLE HAVE
AN IMPORTANCE WHICH IS NOT LESS THAN THE INTERESTS OF THOSE IN THE
BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY DIRECTLY CONCERNED.  THE HEALTH OF THE PRESENT
GENERATION AND OF THOSE AS YET UNBORN MAY DEPEND ON THESE MATTERS, AND
THE PRACTICES IN A SINGLE FACTORY MAY HAVE ECONOMIC REPERCUSSIONS UPON
A WHOLE REGION AND AFFECT WIDESPREAD SYSTEMS OF MARKETING.  THE MEREST
GLANCE AT STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON THE SUBJECT DEMONSTRATES THE
FORCE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT LABOR RELATIONS ARE NOT MATTERS OF MERE
LOCAL OR PRIVATE CONCERN.  FREE DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS IN
INDUSTRY AND THE CAUSES OF LABOR DISPUTES APPEARS TO US INDISPENSABLE
TO THE EFFECTIVE AND INTELLIGENT USE OF THE PROCESSES OF POPULAR
GOVERNMENT TO SHAPE THE DESTINY OF MODERN INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY.  THE
ISSUES RAISED BY REGULATIONS, SUCH AS ARE CHALLENGED HERE, INFRINGING
UPON THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVELY TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THE
FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE ARE PART OF THIS LARGER PROBLEM.  WE CONCUR IN
THE OBSERVATION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT IN
SENN'S CASE (301 U.S. AT 478): "MEMBERS OF A UNION MIGHT, WITHOUT
SPECIAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION BY A STATE, MAKE KNOWN THE FACTS OF A
LABOR DISPUTE, FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION." 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES TO CONDUCT
THEIR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND TO COMPETE WITH OTHERS FOR A SHARE IN THE
PRODUCTS OF INDUSTRY ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR QUALIFICATION IN
THE INTERESTS OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THEY EXIST.  FN21  THIS IS BUT AN
INSTANCE OF THE POWER OF THE STATE TO SET THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE
CONTEST OPEN TO INDUSTRIAL COMBATANTS.  SEE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN 254
U.S. AT 488.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE IN DEALING WITH THE
EVILS ARISING FROM INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES MAY IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS FREELY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS WHICH ARE
MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  A CONTRARY CONCLUSION COULD BE USED TO
SUPPORT ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS CONCERNING
ALMOST EVERY MATTER OF IMPORTANCE TO SOCIETY. 

THE RANGE OF ACTIVITIES PROSCRIBED BY SEC. 3448, WHETHER
CHARACTERIZED AS PICKETING OR LOITERING OR OTHERWISE, EMBRACES NEARLY
EVERY PRACTICABLE, EFFECTIVE MEANS WHEREBY THOSE INTERESTED - INCLUDING
THE EMPLOYEES DIRECTLY AFFECTED - MAY ENLIGHTEN THE PUBLIC ON THE
NATURE AND CAUSES OF A LABOR DISPUTE.  THE SAFEGUARDING OF THESE MEANS
IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SECURING OF AN INFORMED AND EDUCATED PUBLIC OPINION
WITH RESPECT TO A MATTER WHICH IS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  IT MAY BE THAT
EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE MEANS OF ADVANCING PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE MAY
PERSUADE SOME OF THOSE REACHED TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING INTO
ADVANTAGEOUS RELATIONS WITH THE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT WHICH IS THE
SCENE OF THE DISPUTE.  EVERY EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON MATTERS THAT ARE
IMPORTANT HAS THE POTENTIALITY OF INDUCING ACTION IN THE INTERESTS OF
ONE RATHER THAN ANOTHER GROUP IN SOCIETY.  BUT THE GROUP IN POWER AT
ANY MOMENT MAY NOT IMPOSE PENAL SANCTIONS ON PEACEFUL AND TRUTHFUL
DISCUSSION OF MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST MERELY ON A SHOWING THAT
OTHERS MAY THEREBY BE PERSUADED TO TAKE ACTION INCONSISTENT WITH ITS
INTERESTS.  ABRIDGMENT OF THE LIBERTY OF SUCH DISCUSSION CAN BE
JUSTIFIED ONLY WHERE THE CLEAR DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE EVILS ARISES UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFORDING NO OPPORTUNITY TO TEST THE MERITS OF IDEAS BY
COMPETITION FOR ACCEPTANCE IN THE MARKET OF PUBLIC OPINION.  FN22  WE
HOLD THAT THE DANGER OF INJURY TO AN INDUSTRIAL CONCERN IS NEITHER SO
SERIOUS NOR SO IMMINENT AS TO JUSTIFY THE SWEEPING PROSCRIPTION OF
FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION EMBODIED IN SEC. 3448. 

THE STATE URGES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTE IS THE
PROTECTION OF THE COMMUNITY FROM THE VIOLENCE AND BREACHES OF THE
PEACE, WHICH, IT ASSERTS, ARE THE CONCOMITANTS OF PICKETING.  THE POWER
AND THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO TAKE ADEQUATE STEPS TO PRESERVE THE PEACE
AND TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY, THE LIVES, AND THE PROPERTY OF ITS
RESIDENTS CANNOT BE DOUBTED.  BUT NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE OR PROPERTY, OR INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY,
OR BREACH OF THE PEACE CAN BE THOUGHT TO BE INHERENT IN THE ACTIVITIES
OF EVERY PERSON WHO APPROACHES THE PREMISES OF AN EMPLOYER AND
PUBLICIZES THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE INVOLVING THE LATTER.  WE ARE
NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH PICKETING EN MASSE OR OTHERWISE CONDUCTED WHICH
MIGHT OCCASION SUCH IMMINENT AND AGGRAVATED DANGER TO THESE INTERESTS
AS TO JUSTIFY A STATUTE NARROWLY DRAWN TO COVER THE PRECISE SITUATION
GIVING RISE TO THE DANGER.  COMPARE AMERICAN FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY
COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 205.  SECTION 3448 IN QUESTION HERE DOES NOT AIM
SPECIFICALLY AT SERIOUS ENCROACHMENTS ON THESE INTERESTS AND DOES NOT
EVIDENCE ANY SUCH CARE IN BALANCING THESE INTERESTS AGAINST THE
INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY AND THAT OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN FREEDOM OF
DISCUSSION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN. 

IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT SEC. 3448 IS LIMITED OR RESTRICTED IN
ITS APPLICATION TO SUCH ACTIVITY AS TAKES PLACE AT THE SCENE OF THE
LABOR DISPUTE.  "(THE) STREETS ARE NATURAL AND PROPER PLACES FOR THE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION AND OPINION; AND ONE IS NOT TO HAVE THE
EXERCISE OF HIS LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION IN APPROPRIATE PLACES ABRIDGED ON
THE PLEA THAT IT MAY BE EXERCISED IN SOME OTHER PLACE."  SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 161, 163; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 515-16. 
FN23  THE DANGER OF BREACH OF THE PEACE OR SERIOUS INVASION OF RIGHTS
OF PROPERTY OR PRIVACY AT THE SCENE OF A LABOR DISPUTE IS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY IMMINENT IN ALL CASES TO WARRANT THE LEGISLATURE IN
DETERMINING THAT SUCH PLACE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE RANGE OF
ACTIVITIES OUTLAWED BY SEC. 3448.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PETITIONER WAS FIRST CHARGED AND CONVICTED IN THE INFERIOR COURT
OF TUSCALOOSA COUNTY AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR FIFTY-NINE DAYS
IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF A FINE OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND COSTS.  UPON
APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, ANOTHER COMPLAINT WAS FILED AND A TRIAL DE
NOVO WAS HAD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL PRACTICE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
SENTENCED PETITIONER, UPON HIS CONVICTION, TO IMPRISONMENT FOR SEVENTY
THREE DAYS IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF A FINE OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND
COSTS. 

FN2  "1.  THE STATE OF ALABAMA, BY ITS SOLICITOR, COMPLAINS OF BYRON
THORNHILL THAT, WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS
PROSECUTION HE DID WITHOUT JUST CAUSE OR LEGAL EXCUSE THEREFOR, GO NEAR
TO OR LOITER ABOUT THE PREMISES OR PLACE OF BUSINESS OF ANOTHER PERSON,
FIRM, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE, TO-WIT:  THE BROWN WOOD
PRESERVING COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL BUSINESS,
FOR THE PURPOSE OR WITH THE INTENT OF INFLUENCING OR INDUCING OTHER
PERSONS NOT TO TRADE WITH, BUY FROM, SELL TO, HAVE BUSINESS DEALINGS
WITH, OR BE EMPLOYED BY THE SAID BROWN WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY, INC., A
CORPORATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HINDERING, DELAYING, OR INTERFERING
WITH OR INJURING THE LAWFUL BUSINESS OR ENTERPRISE OF THE SAID BROWN
WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION. 

"2.  (THE SECOND COUNT IS IDENTICAL WITH THE FIRST, EXCEPT THAT THE
LAST CLAUSE, CHARGING A PURPOSE TO HINDER, DELAY, OR INTERFERE, ETC.,
WITH THE LAWFUL BUSINESS OF THE PRESERVING COMPANY, IS OMITTED.) 

"3.  THE STATE OF ALABAMA, BY ITS SOLICITOR, COMPLAINS OF BYRON
THORNHILL THAT, WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS
PROSECUTION HE DID PICKET THE WORKS OR PLACE OF BUSINESS OF ANOTHER
PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE, TO-WIT, THE BROWN
WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
HINDERING, DELAYING, OR INTERFERING WITH OR INJURING THE LAWFUL
BUSINESS OR ENTERPRISE OF THE SAID BROWN WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY, INC.,
A CORPORATION." 

FN3  THE PETITIONER ALSO MOVED TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY ON THE GROUND
THAT IT WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION.  UPON BEING ASKED BY
THE COURT WHETHER HE INSISTED ON THIS GROUND, HOWEVER, COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER STATED THAT THE ONLY QUESTION HE WANTED TO RAISE WAS THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE. 

FN4  THE COURT OF APPEALS STATED:  "IT SEEMS CLEAR ENOUGH THAT THE
EVIDENCE ADDUCED UPON THE TRIAL WAS SUFFICIENT TO BRING APPELLANT'S
ACTIONS, FOR WHICH HE WAS BEING PROSECUTED, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
PROHIBITION IMPLIED IN SAID STATUTE. 

"SO, AS CONCEDED BY ABLE COUNSEL HERE REPRESENTING APPELLANT, 'THE
ONLY QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY VEL NON
OF SECTION 3448 OF THE CODE OF ALABAMA OF 1923.'" 

FN5  NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.    FN6  SIMPSON
AND WALDEN ARE NOT IN ENTIRE ACCORD WITH RESPECT TO THE NUMBER OF
PERSONS PRESENT DURING THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN SIMPSON AND
PETITIONER.  A POSSIBLE INFERENCE FROM SIMPSON'S TESTIMONY, CONSIDERED
BY ITSELF, IS THAT PETITIONER WAS IN THE COMPANY OF SIX OR EIGHT OTHERS
WHEN THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE.  THIS DIFFERENCE IS NOT MATERIAL IN
OUR VIEW OF THE CASE. 

FN7  SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147, 160; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303
U.S. 444, 450; DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN
PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 244; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 707;
STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368; GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268
U.S. 652, 666.  SEE PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 326-327.    FN8
THE TRIAL COURT MERELY FOUND PETITIONER "GUILTY OF LOITERING AND
PICKETING AS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT." 

FN9  THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED MERELY THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION UNDER SEC. 3448.  SEE NOTE 4,
SUPRA.  IT THEN SUSTAINED THE JUDGMENT IN RELIANCE UPON O'ROURKE V.
BIRMINGHAM, 27 ALA. APP. 133; 168 SO. 206, CERT. DENIED, 232 ALA. 355;
168 SO. 209; AND HARDIE-TYNES MFG. CO. V. CRUISE, 189 ALA. 66; 66 SO.
657. 

FN10  COMPARE ELECTRIC BOND CO. V. COMM'N, 303 U.S. 419; SMITH V.
CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553, 562; GUNDLING V. CHICAGO, 177 U.S. 183, 186;
LEHON V. ATLANTA, 242 U.S. 53, 55, 56; HALL V. GEIGER-JONES CO., 242
U.S. 539, 553, 554. 

FN11  THE RECORD IN THE CASE AT BAR PERMITS THE INFERENCE THAT, WHILE
PICKETING HAD BEEN CARRIED ON FOR SEVERAL WEEKS, WITH SIX TO EIGHT MEN
AT EACH OF TWO PICKET POSTS, SEC. 3448 WAS NOT ENFORCED AGAINST ANYONE
OTHER THAN PETITIONER, THE UNION PRESIDENT, AND THEN ONLY AFTER HIS
CONVERSATION WITH SIMPSON WHO THEREUPON RETURNED HOME RATHER THAN
REPORT FOR WORK. 

FN12  A DISTINGUISHED COMMENTATOR HAS OBSERVED THAT "THE LIBERTY OF
THE PRESS MIGHT BE RENDERED A MOCKERY AND A DELUSION, AND THE PHRASE
ITSELF A BYWORD, IF, WHILE EVERY MAN WAS AT LIBERTY TO PUBLISH WHAT HE
PLEASED, THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES MIGHT NEVERTHELESS PUNISH HIM FOR
HARMLESS PUBLICATIONS."  2 COOLEY, CONST. LIM., 8TH ED., P. 885.  SEE
MADISON'S REPORT ON THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS, 4 ELL.  DEB., 2D ED.,
1876, P. 569; ADDRESS ON THE CONDUCT OF THE MARYLAND CONVENTION OF
1788, 2 ID., P. 552. 

FN13  THE EMPLOYER IN FACT HAD LOCKED OUT ITS UNION STAGEHANDS AND
WAS WORKING OTHERS NOT REGULARLY EMPLOYED AS STAGEHANDS IN ADMITTED
VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT. 

FN14  ACCUSED THERE ASSERTED THAT THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 3448 TO THE
PARTICULAR FACTS OF HIS CASE DEPRIVED HIM OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO HIM
BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS PASSED UPON THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DECIDED IT ADVERSELY TO THE CONTENTIONS OF
ACCUSED. 

FN15  THERE IS A PROVISO THAT "NOTHING HEREIN SHALL PREVENT ANY
PERSON FROM SOLICITING TRADE OR BUSINESS FOR A COMPETITIVE BUSINESS." 

FN16  SO FAR AS THE PHRASE MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN MEANING BY THE STATE
COURTS IT APPARENTLY GRANTS AUTHORITY TO THE COURT AND THE JURY TO
CONSIDER DEFENSIVE MATTER BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE ACCUSED, DEPENDING FOR
ITS SUFFICIENCY NOT UPON RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION BUT UPON THE
PECULIAR FACTS OF EACH CASE.  SEE OWENS V. STATE, 74 ALA. 401; BAILEY
V. STATE, 161 ALA. 75; 49 SO. 886; FOLMAR V. STATE, 19 ALA. APP. 435;
97 SO. 768.  COMPARE O'ROURKE V. BIRMINGHAM, 27 ALA. APP. 133; 168 SO.
206, CERT. DENIED, 232 ALA. 355; 168 SO. 209. 

FN17  THE ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE AT BAR TO SHOW THAT THE
ACTIVITY OF PETITIONER WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE NECESSARY INTENT OR
PURPOSE IS THE FACT THAT ONE OTHER EMPLOYEE, AFTER TALKING WITH
PETITIONER, REFRAINED FROM REPORTING FOR WORK AS PLANNED.  THERE IS
EVIDENCE HERE THAT THE OTHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACQUAINTED WITH THE FACTS
PRIOR TO HIS CONVERSATION WITH PETITIONER.  THE STATE CONCEDES,
HOWEVER, THAT UNDER SEC. 3448 EVERYONE MUST BE DEEMED TO INTEND THE
NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTS.  SEE JACOBS V. STATE, 17
ALA. APP. 396; 85 SO. 837; REED V. STATE, 18 ALA. APP. 371; 92 SO. 513;
WEEKS V. STATE, 24 ALA. APP. 198; 132 SO. 870, CERT. DENIED, 222 ALA.
442; 132 SO. 871; WORRELL V. STATE, 24 ALA. APP. 313; 136 SO. 737,
CERT. DENIED, 223 ALA. 425; 136 SO. 738. 

FN18  SEE HELLERSTEIN, PICKETING LEGISLATION AND THE COURTS (1931),
10 NO. CAR.  L. REV. 158, 186N.:  "A PICKETER MAY:  (1) MERELY OBSERVE
WORKERS OR CUSTOMERS.  (2) COMMUNICATE INFORMATION, E.G., THAT A STRIKE
IS IN PROGRESS, MAKING EITHER TRUE, UNTRUE OR LIBELOUS STATEMENTS.  (3)
PERSUADE EMPLOYEES OR CUSTOMERS NOT TO ENGAGE IN RELATIONS WITH THE
EMPLOYER:  (A) THROUGH THE USE OF BANNERS, WITHOUT SPEAKING, CARRYING
TRUE, UNTRUE OR LIBELOUS LEGENDS; (B) BY SPEAKING, (I) IN A CALM,
DISPASSIONATE MANNER, (II) IN A HEATED, HOSTILE MANNER, (III) USING
ABUSIVE EPITHETS AND PROFANITY, (IV) YELLING LOUDLY, (V) BY PERSISTING
IN MAKING ARGUMENTS WHEN EMPLOYEES OR CUSTOMERS REFUSE TO LISTEN; (C)
BY OFFERING MONEY OR SIMILAR INDUCEMENTS TO STRIKE BREAKERS.  (4)
THREATEN EMPLOYEES OR CUSTOMERS:  (A) BY THE MERE PRESENCE OF THE
PICKETER; THE PRESENCE MAY BE A THREAT OF, (I) PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, (II)
SOCIAL OSTRACISM, BEING BRANDED IN THE COMMUNITY AS A "SCAB," (III) A
TRADE OR EMPLOYEES' BOYCOTT, I.E., PREVENTING WORKERS FROM SECURING
EMPLOYMENT AND REFUSING TO TRADE WITH CUSTOMERS, (IV) THREATENING
INJURY TO PROPERTY; (B) BY VERBAL THREATS.  (5) ASSAULTS AND USE OF
VIOLENCE.  (6) DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY.  (7) BLOCKING OF ENTRANCES AND
INTERFERENCE WITH TRAFFIC. 

"THE PICKETER MAY ENGAGE IN A COMBINATION OF ANY OF THE TYPES OF
CONDUCT ENUMERATED ABOVE.  THE PICKETING MAY BE CARRIED ON SINGLY OR IN
GROUPS; IT MAY BE DIRECTED TO EMPLOYEES ALONE OR TO CUSTOMERS ALONE OR
TO BOTH.  IT MAY INVOLVE PERSONS WHO HAVE CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYER
OR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT OR BOTH." 

FN19  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283
U.S. 697; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S.
496; SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147. 

FN20  SEE DUNIWAY, THE DEVELOPMENT OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN
MASSACHUSETTS, P. 123 ET SEQ.; TYLER, LITERARY HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN
REVOLUTION, PASSIM; 2 BANCROFT, HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, P. 261;
SCHOFIELD, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN THE UNITED STATES (1914), 9 PROC.
AM. SOCIOL.  SOC.  67, 76, 80. 

FN21  SEE, E.G., SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468; ETHYL
GASOLINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 436; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS CO., 308 U.S. 241; WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; DORCHY V.
KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306; EASTERN STATES RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS ASSN. V.
UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600; AIKENS V. WISCONSIN, 195 U.S. 194; HOLDEN
V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366. 

FN22  SEE MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN 249 U.S. AT 52; 250 U.S. AT 630. 

FN23  THE FACT THAT THE ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED
AND CONVICTED TOOK PLACE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE PRESERVING
COMPANY IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  PETITIONER AND THE OTHER EMPLOYEES
WERE NEVER TREATED AS TRESPASSERS, ASSUMING THAT THEY COULD BE WHERE
THE COMPANY OWNS SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE TOWN.  SEE P. 94,
SUPRA.  AND SEC. 3448, IN ANY EVENT, MUST BE TESTED UPON ITS FACE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :























CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106 


NO. 667.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 29, MARCH 1, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL 22, 1940. 
- REVERSED. 


A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO CARRY OR
DISPLAY ANY SIGN, BANNER OR BADGE IN THE VICINITY OF ANY PLACE OF
BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING OTHERS TO REFRAIN FROM BUYING OR
WORKING THERE, OR FOR ANY PERSON TO "LOITER" OR "PICKET" IN THE
VICINITY OF ANY PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, ANTE, P.
88. 

CARLSON V. CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UNDER AN ANTI
PICKETING ORDINANCE. 

THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT ABRIDGE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS.  A
STATE MAY, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER, PLACE REASONABLE
REGULATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS UPON SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES IN
THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC PEACE.  WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357;
GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652; SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S.
47.  THE LIMITED REGULATION IMPOSED BY THIS ORDINANCE IS REASONABLY
CALCULATED TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC WELFARE. 

PICKETING IN ITS VERY NATURE IS INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE, AS
TENDING TO BREACHES OF THE PEACE.  ELKIND & SONS V. RETAIL CLERKS
INTERNATIONAL PROTECTIVE ASSN., 169 A. 494; PIERCE V. STABLEMEN'S
UNION, 156 CAL. 70; LOCAL UNION V. STATHAKIS, 135 ARK. 86; ST. GERMAIN
V. BAKERY UNION, 97 WASH. 282; LYLE V. LOCAL 452, 174 TENN. 222; KEITH
THEATRE V. VACHON, 187 A. 692; TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312; THOMAS
V. INDIANAPOLIS, 195 IND. 440.  SEE, ALSO, THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, 189
SO. 913; HARDIE-TYNES MFG. CO. V. CRUISE, 189 ALA. 66; WATTERS V.
INDIANAPOLIS, 191 IND. 671; EX PARTE STOUT, 82 TEX. CR. REP. 316;
PEOPLE V. GIDALY, 3 CAL. SUPP. 125. 

PUBLIC BENEFITS RESULT FROM THE ORDINANCE:  REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS
FROM THE PUBLIC SIDEWALKS, STREETS AND HIGHWAYS.  FIFTH AVENUE COACH
CO. V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 221 U.S. 467; DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S.
43; FREND V. UNITED STATES, 100 F.2D 691. 

ALSO, BY PREVENTING THE CONGREGATION OF PARTISANS UNDER TENSE
CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE SCENE OF A LABOR DISPUTE, OPENLY DECLARING THEIR
PARTISANSHIP AND DISAPPROVAL OF THE CONDUCT OF OTHERS, AN OCCASION OF
VIOLENCE IS REMOVED. 

AND THE ORDINANCE PROTECTS BUSINESS AND THOSE RIGHTFULLY EMPLOYED. 
PUBLIC TRANQUILITY IS PRESERVED.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE
OF THE RIGHT TO PICKET.  THE ONLY RIGHT GUARANTEED IS A RIGHT TO
DISSEMINATE THE FACTS CONCERNING A LABOR DISPUTE WITHOUT ABUSIVE AND
ARBITRARY RESTRICTION. 

APPELLANT MUST MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING THAT THE ORDINANCE IN SOME
WAY HAS CAUSED AN ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE
EXERCISE OF HIS INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLAGE IS NOT
ABRIDGED.  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496; PRESSER V. ILLINOIS, 116 U.S.
282. 

DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH, AND ADMITTED, "CARRYING SIGNS AND BANNERS"
IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.  THIS IS A SPECIFIC ACT CLEARLY
DEFINED.  EVEN IF THE TERM "PICKETING" WERE TOO BROAD OR TOO VAGUE,
NEVERTHELESS UNDER THE SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 3, THE USE OF SUCH TERM
WILL NOT INVALIDATE THE PART DEFINING THE SPECIFIC ACT OF WHICH
APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED.  DISTINGUISHING SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON, 308
U.S. 147; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S.
496; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242; DEJONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 355;
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S.
357; STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S.
697; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233; CRANDALL V. NEVADA,
73 U.S. 35; SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468; RENO V. SECOND
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 95 P.2D 994; PEOPLE V. HARRIS, 91 P.2D 989. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER REGULATIONS EMBODIED IN A
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS
SECURED AGAINST STATE INVASION BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN1 


"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, IN OR UPON ANY PUBLIC STREET,
HIGHWAY, SIDEWALK, ALLEY OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACE IN THE COUNTY OF SHASTA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO LOITER IN FRONT OF, OR IN THE VICINITY OF, OR
TO PICKET IN FRONT OF, OR IN THE VICINITY OF, OR TO CARRY, SHOW OR
DISPLAY ANY BANNER, TRANSPARENCY, BADGE OR SIGN IN FRONT OF, OR IN THE
VICINITY OF, ANY WORKS, OR FACTORY, OR ANY PLACE OF BUSINESS OR
EMPLOYMENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING OR INFLUENCING, OR ATTEMPTING
TO INDUCE OR INFLUENCE, ANY PERSON TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING ANY SUCH
WORKS, OR FACTORY, OR PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR EMPLOYMENT, OR FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INDUCING OR INFLUENCING, OR ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE OR
INFLUENCE, ANY PERSON TO REFRAIN FROM PURCHASING OR USING ANY GOODS,
WARES, MERCHANDISE, OR OTHER ARTICLES, MANUFACTURED, MADE OR KEPT FOR
SALE THEREIN, OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING OR INFLUENCING, OR
ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE OR INFLUENCE, ANY PERSON TO REFRAIN FROM DOING OR
PERFORMING ANY SERVICE OR LABOR IN ANY WORKS, FACTORY, PLACE OF
BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENT, OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING, THREATENING
OR COERCING, OR ATTEMPTING TO INTIMIDATE, THREATEN OR COERCE ANY PERSON
WHO IS PERFORMING, SEEKING OR OBTAINING SERVICE OR LABOR IN ANY SUCH
WORKS, FACTORY, PLACE OF BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENT."  FN2 

APPELLANT WAS ONE OF A GROUP OF TWENTY-NINE MEN ENGAGED IN
"PICKETING" ON U.S. HIGHWAY 99 IN FRONT OF THE DELTA TUNNEL PROJECT IN
SHASTA COUNTY.  "THE PICKETING CONSISTED OF WALKING (ON THE EDGE OF THE
HIGHWAY NEAREST THE PROJECT) A DISTANCE OF 50 TO 100 FEET IN A GENERAL
NORTHERLY DIRECTION, THEN TURNING AROUND AND RETRACING STEPS AND
CONTINUING AS BEFORE  ...  ALL OF THE WALKING IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PICKETING  ...  WAS DONE OFF THE PAVED PORTION OF THE HIGHWAY AND ON
THE GRAVELLED PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THAT IS, ON PUBLIC
PROPERTY."  SOME OF THE PICKETS CARRIED SIGNS, SIMILAR TO THOSE
DESCRIBED IN THE MARGIN,  FN3  IN SUCH A MANNER THAT WORKERS ON THE
PROJECT AND PERSONS GOING ALONG THE HIGHWAY IN EITHER DIRECTION COULD
READ THEM.  THE SIGN CARRIED BY APPELLANT BORE THE LEGEND:  "THIS JOB
IS UNFAIR TO CIO."  THESE ACTIVITIES OCCURRED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:30
AND 9:00 A.M.  DURING THIS PERIOD VEHICLES AND PERSONS PASSED FREELY
WITHOUT ANY MOLESTATION OR INTERFERENCE THROUGH THE PICKET LINE FROM
THE HIGHWAY TO THE PROJECT AND FROM THE PROJECT TO THE HIGHWAY, AND THE
TRAFFIC OF PERSONS AND AUTOMOBILES ALONG THE HIGHWAY WAS NOT
OBSTRUCTED.  APPELLANT DID NOT THREATEN OR INTIMIDATE OR COERCE ANYONE,
DID NOT MAKE ANY LOUD NOISES AT ANY TIME, AND WAS PEACEFUL AND ORDERLY
IN HIS DEMEANOR.  THE PICKETS COMMITTED NO ACTS OF VIOLENCE, AND THERE
WAS NO BREACH OF THE PEACE. 

THE COUNTY OFFICERS ARRESTED APPELLANT AND CHARGED THAT HE DID
"LOITER, PICKET, AND DISPLAY SIGNS AND BANNERS IN A PUBLIC PLACE AND IN
AND UPON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY IN FRONT OF, AND IN THE VICINITY OF THE DELTA
TUNNEL PROJECT  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING AND INFLUENCING
PERSONS TO REFRAIN FROM DOING AND PERFORMING SERVICES AND LABOR" AT THE
PROJECT IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.  THE JUSTICE'S COURT OF TOWNSHIP
NUMBER NINE FOUND HIM "GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE SHASTA COUNTY ANTI
PICKETING LAW," RENDERED JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY, AND IMPOSED SENTENCE. 
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SHASTA COUNTY AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  THAT COURT
UPHELD THE ORDINANCE, OVER APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, ON
THE AUTHORITY OF A PRIOR DECISION.  FN4  THE CASE COMES HERE ON
APPEAL.  FN5 

OUR DECISION IN THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, ANTE, P. 88, GOES FAR TOWARD
SETTLING THE ISSUES PRESENTED HERE.  UNDER THAT DECISION, SEC. 2 OF THE
ORDINANCE IN QUESTION IS TO BE JUDGED UPON ITS FACE.  FN6 

DISPLAY ANY SIGN OR BANNER OR BADGE IN THE VICINITY OF ANY PLACE OF
BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING OR ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE ANY PERSON
TO REFRAIN FROM PURCHASING MERCHANDISE OR PERFORMING SERVICES OR
LABOR.  IT LIKEWISE MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO LOITER OR
PICKET IN THE VICINITY OF ANY PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR A SIMILAR PURPOSE. 
THE TERMS "LOITER" AND "PICKET" ARE NOT DEFINED EITHER IN THE ORDINANCE
OR IN AUTHORITATIVE STATE DECISIONS.  THEREFORE, THEY MUST BE JUDGED AS
COVERING ALL THE ACTIVITIES EMBRACED BY THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE
CARRYING OF SIGNS IN THE VICINITY OF A LABOR DISPUTE FOR THE PURPOSE
MENTIONED.  FN7  THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT PROSCRIBE THE CARRYING OF SIGNS
IN OTHER PLACES OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING OR ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE
OTHERS TO ADOPT COURSES OF ACTION NOT RELATED TO LABOR DISPUTES.  IT
CONTAINS NO EXCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TRUTHFULNESS AND RESTRAINT
OF THE INFORMATION CONVEYED OR THE NUMBER OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE
ACTIVITY.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES PROOF OF A PURPOSE TO
PERSUADE OTHERS NOT TO BUY MERCHANDISE OR PERFORM SERVICES.  SUCH A
PURPOSE COULD BE FOUND IN THE CASE OF NEARLY EVERY PERSON ENGAGED IN
PUBLICIZING THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE; EVERY EMPLOYEE OR MEMBER OF A
UNION WHO ENGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITY IN THE VICINITY OF A PLACE OF
BUSINESS COULD BE FOUND DESIROUS OF ACCOMPLISHING SUCH OBJECTIVES;
DISINTERESTED PERSONS (WHO MIGHT BE HIRED TO CARRY SIGNS) APPEAR TO BE
A POSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY, EXCEPTION.  FN8  IN BRIEF, THE ORDINANCE DOES
NOT REGULATE ALL CARRYING OF SIGNS, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, PROSCRIBES
THE CARRYING OF SIGNS ONLY IF BY PERSONS DIRECTLY INTERESTED WHO
APPROACH THE VICINITY OF A LABOR DISPUTE TO CONVEY INFORMATION ABOUT
THE DISPUTE. 

THE SWEEPING AND INEXACT TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE DISCLOSE THE THREAT
TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH INHERENT IN ITS EXISTENCE.  IT CANNOT BE THOUGHT
TO DIFFER IN ANY MATERIAL RESPECT FROM THE STATUTE HELD VOID IN
THORNHILL'S CASE.  THE CARRYING OF SIGNS AND BANNERS, NO LESS THAN THE
RAISING OF A FLAG, IS A NATURAL AND APPROPRIATE MEANS OF CONVEYING
INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283
U.S. 359.  FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN OUR OPINION IN THORNHILL V.
ALABAMA, SUPRA, PUBLICIZING THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE IN A PEACEFUL
WAY THROUGH APPROPRIATE MEANS, WHETHER BY PAMPHLET, BY WORD OF MOUTH OR
BY BANNER, MUST NOW BE REGARDED AS WITHIN THAT LIBERTY OF COMMUNICATION
WHICH IS SECURED TO EVERY PERSON BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
ABRIDGMENT BY A STATE. 

THE POWER AND DUTY OF THE STATE TO TAKE ADEQUATE STEPS TO PRESERVE
THE PEACE AND PROTECT THE PRIVACY, THE LIVES, AND THE PROPERTY OF ITS
RESIDENTS CANNOT BE DOUBTED.  BUT THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION HERE
ABRIDGES LIBERTY OF DISCUSSION UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTING NO CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE EVILS WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE AREA OF
STATE CONTROL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES ADOPTED UNDER
STATE AUTHORITY CONSTITUTE STATE ACTION AND ARE WITHIN THE PROHIBITION
OF THE AMENDMENT."  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 450; SCHNEIDER V.
STATE, 308 U.S. 147. 

FN2  SECTION 1 DECLARES THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON "TO
MAKE ANY LOUD OR UNUSUAL NOISE, OR TO SPEAK IN A LOUD OR UNUSUAL TONE,
OR TO CRY OUT OR PROCLAIM, FOR THE PURPOSES OF INDUCING OR INFLUENCING,
OR ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE OR INFLUENCE, ANY PERSON" TO REFRAIN FROM
ENTERING, OR PURCHASING MERCHANDISE FROM, OR PERFORMING ANY SERVICE IN,
ANY PLACE OF BUSINESS.  THE STATE DID NOT CHARGE THAT THIS SECTION WAS
VIOLATED. 

FN3  FOUR SIGNS WERE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS TYPICAL.  THEY WERE OF
WHITE CARD BOARD, APPROXIMATELY 14 X 22 INCHES IN SIZE, AND WERE TACKED
UPON A STICK SOME 34 INCHES LONG, 1 1/2 INCHES WIDE AND 1/4 INCH
THICK.  BLACK PAINTED LETTERS, RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 1/2 INCHES TO 5
INCHES IN HEIGHT, SPELLED OUT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING LEGENDS ON EACH
SIGN:  "DON'T BE A SCAB," "SHASTA TUNNEL AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS LOCAL
#260," "CIO PICKET LINE," "THIS JOB UNFAIR TO CIO." 

FN4  APPELLANT, PRIOR TO TRIAL, MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT UPON A
NUMBER OF GROUNDS, AMONG WHICH WAS THE CONTENTION THAT SEC. 2 OF THE
ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN ABRIDGING HIS "FREEDOM
OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF PRESS, AND FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY."  THE SAME
OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BY DEMURRER, BY FURTHER MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT, AND BY MOTION IN ARREST OF JUDGMENT. 

FN5  THERE IS NO FURTHER APPEAL ALLOWED IN THE STATE COURTS. 

FN6  WE DO NOT DECIDE WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE SEPARABILITY PROVISION
(SEC. 3), THE STATE COURTS MIGHT CULL OUT FROM SEC. 2 PARTICULAR
CLAUSES WHICH, STANDING ALONE, COULD BE SUSTAINED. 

FN7  SEE THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, ANTE, P. 101, N. 18. 

FN8  EVEN THEY WOULD BE COVERED UNDER A CONSTRUCTION MAKING PURPOSE
SYNONYMOUS WITH INTENT.  SEE THORNHILL V. ALABAMA, ANTE, P. 100, N.
17. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :















WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS, 309 U.S. 569 


NOS. 2, 3 AND 4, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED MARCH 25, 26, 1940.  - DECIDED APRIL
3, 1940. 


SPECIAL MASTER APPOINTED TO MAKE SUMMARY INQUIRY AND SPEEDY REPORT AS
TO CONDITION OF THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY DUE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF
UNTREATED SEWAGE, THE EFFECT UPON THE HEALTH OF INHABITANTS OF
COMMUNITIES BORDERING THE WATERWAY, AND THE REMEDIAL OR AMELIORATING
MEASURES AVAILABLE TO THE STATE OF ILLINOIS WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN
DIVERSION OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN.  P. 571. 

WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA V. ILLINOIS AND THE
SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO. 

MICHIGAN V. ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ET AL. 

NEW YORK V. ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO ET AL. 

UPON PETITION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS FOR A TEMPORARY MODIFICATION
OF THE DECREE RESTRICTING DIVERSION OF WATER OF THE GREAT LAKES-ST.
LAWRENCE SYSTEM OR WATERSHED THROUGH THE CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL, AND
THE RETURN OF THE PLAINTIFF STATES IN RESPONSE TO A RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE.  SEE ALSO, ORDER ON P. 636, POST. 

PER CURIAM. 

BY THE DECREE OF APRIL 21, 1930(281 U.S. 179, 696), THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS AND THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO WERE ENJOINED FROM
DIVERTING ON AND AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1938, ANY OF THE WATERS OF THE
GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE SYSTEM OR WATERSHED THROUGH THE CHICAGO
DRAINAGE CANAL OR OTHERWISE IN EXCESS OF THE ANNUAL AVERAGE OF 1500
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND IN ADDITION TO DOMESTIC PUMPAGE.  THAT DATE WAS
FIXED AS AFFORDING ADEQUATE TIME, UPON A LIBERAL ESTIMATE, FOR THE
COMPLETION OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT, TOGETHER
WITH CONTROLLING WORKS TO PREVENT REVERSALS OF THE CHICAGO RIVER IN
TIMES OF STORM. 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS NOW SEEKS A TEMPORARY MODIFICATION OF THE
DECREE SO AS TO PERMIT AN INCREASE OF THE DIVERSION TO NOT MORE THAN
5000 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, IN ADDITION TO DOMESTIC PUMPAGE, UNTIL
DECEMBER 31, 1942.  THE STATE SUBMITS ITS PETITION, NOT ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF CHICAGO OR THE SANITARY DISTRICT, BUT AT THE INSTANCE OF
CERTAIN COMMUNITIES BORDERING ON THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY, INCLUDING
LOCKPORT AND JOLIET.  THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION ARE THAT THE
SYSTEM FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED AND WILL NOT BE
COMPLETED UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR 1942, AND THAT, IN CONSEQUENCE,
THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF UNTREATED SEWAGE INTO THE STREAM, AN
"OBNOXIOUS, NOISOME, FILTHY, UNSANITARY AND DANGEROUS CONDITION TO
PUBLIC HEALTH" EXISTS ALONG THE SANITARY DISTRICT CANAL AND THE
ILLINOIS WATERWAY. 

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT HAS PROVIDED ALL
POSSIBLE MEANS AT ITS COMMAND FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SEWAGE
TREATMENT SYSTEM AS REQUIRED BY THE DECREE AS SPECIFICALLY ENLARGED IN
1933(289 U.S. 395, 710).  NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE HAS BEEN PRESENTED FOR THE
DELAY.  NOR HAS THE STATE SUBMITTED APPROPRIATE PROOF THAT THE
CONDITIONS COMPLAINED OF CONSTITUTE A MENACE TO THE HEALTH OF THE
INHABITANTS OF THE COMPLAINING COMMUNITIES OR THAT THE STATE IS NOT
ABLE TO PROVIDE SUITABLE MEASURES TO REMEDY OR AMELIORATE THE ALLEGED
CONDITIONS WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM LAKE
MICHIGAN IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE COMPLAINANT STATES AS
ADJUDGED BY THIS COURT. 

IN ORDER, HOWEVER, THAT THE COURT MAY BE SATISFIED AS TO THE ACTUAL
CONDITION OF THE ILLINOIS WATERWAY BY REASON OF THE INTRODUCTION OF
UNTREATED SEWAGE, AND AS TO THE ACTUAL EFFECT, IF ANY, OF THAT
CONDITION UPON THE HEALTH OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMPLAINING
COMMUNITIES, AND ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE FEASIBILITY OF REMEDIAL OR
AMELIORATING MEASURES AVAILABLE TO THE STATE OF ILLINOIS WITHOUT AN
INCREASE IN THE DIVERSION OF WATER FROM LAKE MICHIGAN, THE COURT
APPOINTS A SPECIAL MASTER TO MAKE A SUMMARY INQUIRY AS TO SUCH
CONDITION, EFFECT AND MEASURES, AND TO REPORT TO THIS COURT WITH ALL
CONVENIENT SPEED. 
..END :





















SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN CORP., 309 U.S. 390 


NO. 482.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 9, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 106
F.2D 45, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THAT CLAUSE OF SEC. 25(B) OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT WHICH AUTHORIZES
RECOVERY FROM AN INFRINGER, "IN LIEU OF ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PROFITS," OF
"SUCH DAMAGES AS TO THE COURT SHALL APPEAR TO BE JUST," IS INAPPLICABLE
WHERE THE ONLY MATTER IN QUESTION IS THE APPORTIONMENT OF PROFITS
ESTABLISHED.  P. 399. 

2.  THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 25(B) OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, IN AWARDING TO A
COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR AGAINST AN INFRINGER "ALL THE PROFITS WHICH THE
INFRINGER SHALL HAVE MADE FROM SUCH INFRINGEMENT," IS TO PROVIDE JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE WRONG - NOT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY BY GIVING TO THE
COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR PROFITS WHICH ARE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
INFRINGEMENT.  P. 399. 

3.  WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROFITS MADE BY A COPYRIGHT INFRINGER
ARE ATTRIBUTABLE IN PART TO USE OF COPYRIGHT MATERIAL, BUT IN PART TO
WHAT THE INFRINGER HIMSELF SUPPLIED, AND WHERE THE EVIDENCE PROVIDES A
FAIR BASIS OF DIVISION, SO AS TO GIVE THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR ALL THE
PROFITS THAT CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM THE USE THAT BELONGED
TO HIM, THE PROFITS WILL BE APPORTIONED ACCORDINGLY.  CALLAGHAN V.
MYERS, 128 U.S. 617, AND BELFORD V. SCRIBNER, 144 U.S. 488,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 399-402. 

4.  PRINCIPLES GOVERNING APPORTIONMENT OF PROFITS IN PATENT
INFRINGEMENT CASES APPLY TO CASES OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.  P. 402. 

5.  IN APPORTIONMENT OF PROFITS BETWEEN COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR AND
INFRINGER, WHERE MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE, ALL THAT IS
REQUIRED IS A REASONABLE APPROXIMATION, WHICH MAY BE ATTAINED WITH THE
AID OF EXPERT TESTIMONY.  P. 403. 

6.  THE AMENDMENT OF THE PATENT LAW (R.S. SEC. 4921; ACT OF FEBRUARY
18, 1922) WHICH EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZES THE USE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN
ESTABLISHING DAMAGES OR PROFITS FROM PATENT INFRINGEMENT, DID NOT
ENLARGE IN THAT RESPECT THE RULES ALREADY APPLIED IN COURTS OF EQUITY;
AND THE FACT THAT THE COPYRIGHT LAW WAS NOT SIMILARLY AMENDED DOES NOT
DETRACT FROM THE JURISDICTION TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE OF EXPERTS IN
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CASES WHENEVER FOUND COMPETENT.  P. 405. 

7.  EVEN IN A CASE OF DELIBERATE PLAGIARISM, THE COPYRIGHT OWNER,
UPON AN EQUITABLE ACCOUNTING OF PROFITS, CAN HAVE ONLY SUCH PROFITS AS
WERE DUE TO THE INFRINGEMENT.  TO AWARD MORE WOULD BE TO INFLICT AN
UNAUTHORIZED PENALTY.  P. 405. 

8.  WHERE THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT IN THE PRODUCTION OF A MOTION
PICTURE, WHICH WAS EXHIBITED AT GREAT PROFIT, MATERIAL HAD BEEN
DELIBERATELY LIFTED FROM A COPYRIGHTED PLAY, BUT THAT MUCH THE GREATER
PART OF THE PROFITS WAS DUE TO THE ACTORS, SCENERY, SKILL IN
PRODUCTION, EXPENSES, ETC., SUPPLIED AND PAID FOR BY THE INFRINGERS, AN
APPORTIONMENT, WITH THE AID OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, RESULTED IN AWARDING
ONE-FIFTH TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETORS.  P. 406. 

SHELDON ET AL. V. METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 545, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE, 26
F.SUPP.  134, WHICH AWARDED TO THE PRESENT PETITIONERS ALL OF THE NET
PROFITS DERIVED BY THE RESPONDENTS FROM A MOTION PICTURE INFRINGING THE
PETITIONERS' COPYRIGHT.  NO QUESTION OF BURDEN OF PROOF WAS INVOLVED. 

THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO FOLLOW THE STATUTE.  CALLAGHAN V. MYERS,
128 U.S. 617; BELFORD V. SCRIBNER, 144 U.S. 488; DAM V. LASHELLE, 175
F. 902.  THE INFRINGEE IS ENTITLED TO "ALL THE PROFITS." 

APPORTIONMENT IN TRADEMARK CASES IS "INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE." 
HAMILTON-BROWN SHOE CO. V. WOLF BROS., 240 U.S. 251.  SEE, ALSO, GRAHAM
V. PLATT, 40 CAL. 593, 598.  THIS COURT REFUSED TO APPLY ANALOGIES OF
PATENT TO TRADEMARK CASES, NOTWITHSTANDING WESTINGHOUSE V. WAGNER, 225
U.S. 604, OR DOWAGIAC MFG. CO. V. MINNESOTA PLOW CO., 235 U.S. 641. 

APART FROM THE FACT THAT BOTH A PATENT AND A COPYRIGHT ARE STATUTORY
MONOPOLIES THERE IS NOTHING IN COMMON BETWEEN THEM. 

TWO AUTHORS WORKING INDEPENDENTLY COULD CONCEIVABLY WRITE THE SAME
WORK.  BOTH WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A VALID COPYRIGHT.  THERE CAN BE A
PLURALITY OF COPYRIGHTS.  DYMOW V. BOLTON, 11 F.2D 690, 691; SHELDON V.
METRO GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP., 81 F.2D 49, 54. 

A PATENT IS INVALIDATED BY REASON OF PRIOR ART OR ANTICIPATION; BUT A
COPYRIGHT, AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 6, MAY BE HAD ON THE REWRITING OF WORKS
IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 

"PUBLIC DOMAIN," REFERS TO THOSE WORKS UPON WHICH COPYRIGHT HAS
EXPIRED OR WHICH HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED WITHOUT ITS PROTECTION, AND ARE
THEREFORE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO MAKE COPIES THEREOF.  THE COURT BELOW
CONFUSES THIS.  IT SAYS "THE PLAINTIFFS WORKED OVER OLD MATERIAL.  THE
GENERAL SKELETON WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DEMESNE."  IT APPARENTLY
MADE NO EXPRESS APPORTIONMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS STATEMENT; BUT IF IT
DID THE ERROR IS AGGRAVATED. 

RESPONDENTS ARE CHARGED WITH HAVING COPIED, NOT THE TRIAL OF MADELEINE
SMITH, BUT OUR DRAMATIZATION OF IT. 

THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL INSPIRED THE WRITING OF THE PLAY DOES NOT
DIMINISH PETITIONERS' RIGHTS AGAINST RESPONDENTS FOR HAVING COPIED. 
EMERSON V. DAVIES, 8 FED. CAS. 615, 620; MACMILLAN V. COOPER, 40 T.L.R.
186; BLEISTEIN V. DONALDSON, 188 U.S. 238, 250; JEWELERS' CIRCULAR PUB.
CO. V. KEYSTONE PUB. CO., 281 F. 83, 88. 

THE QUESTION IN A PATENT SUIT IS:  DOES THE DEVICE IMPINGE UPON THE
BOUNDS OF THE PATENT OWNER'S GRANT?  THE QUESTION IN A COPYRIGHT SUIT
IS:  HAS ONE WORK BEEN "COPIED" FROM ANOTHER?  IF THE WORK IS PROPERLY
PROTECTED BUT COPIED THE RECOVERY FOLLOWS UNDER THE STATUTE.  CF.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. V. WAGNER ELECTRIC & MFG. CO., 225
U.S. 604, 614. 

IF INDUSTRY CAN COPY THE WORK OF AN AUTHOR; ESCAPE THE HAZARD OF AN
INJUNCTION BECAUSE THE ARM OF EQUITY IS NOT QUICK ENOUGH TO STOP THE
WRONG BEFORE IT HAS RUN; AND AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF CRUSHING LITIGATION
RETAIN 80% OF THE GAINS, THERE IS LITTLE INCENTIVE LEFT FOR INDUSTRY TO
CONSULT WITH OR MAKE CONTRACTS WITH AUTHORS. 

THE LAW WAS DESIGNED AS A DETERRENT TO PLAGIARISM - THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER WAS GIVEN "ALL THE PROFITS" BE THEY GREAT OR SMALL.  THE LAW WAS
NOT DESIGNED WITH REGARD TO THE ULTIMATE POSITION OF THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER - HIS RECOVERY TO BE VARIED WITH THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS.  THE
DESIGN OF THE LAW WAS TO DEPRIVE THE WRONGDOER OF ALL PROFITS - NOT ALL
PROFITS IF THE INFRINGEMENT IS A FINANCIAL FAILURE, AND 20% OF THE
PROFITS IF THE INFRINGEMENT IS A SUCCESS. 

GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THERE SHOULD BE APPORTIONMENT, THE BASIS USED
BY THE COURT BELOW HAS NEVER BEEN RECOGNIZED EVEN IN THE FIELD OF
PATENTS. 

APPORTIONMENT IN PATENT LAW CAN NOT REST UPON THE SKILL, SCIENCE AND
ENDEAVOR WHICH WENT INTO THE MAKING OF THE INFRINGING DEVICE BUT MUST
REST UPON SOME SEPARABLE ITEM OF A DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT CHARACTER. 
CLARK V. JOHNSON, 199 F. 116, 122. 

AN APPORTIONMENT ON THE BASIS USED BELOW IS MERELY AN APPORTIONMENT
FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS USED IN MANUFACTURING THE INFRINGING COPY, THE
COST OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED AS AN ITEM OF EXPENSE. 

IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE INFRINGING COPY IS GOOD, BAD OR
INDIFFERENT.  BOTH THE INFRINGER AND THE INFRINGEE ALIKE HAVE TO ABIDE
BY THE RESULT OF THE TAKING.  TILGHMAN V. PROCTOR, 125 U.S. 138, 140;
CROSBY VALVE V. CONSOLIDATED VALVE CO., 141 U.S. 441; ELIZABETH V. AM.
NICHOLSON PAVEMENT CO., 97 U.S. 126, 138; LIVINGSTON V. WOODSWORTH, 15
HOW.  559. 

THE BASIS OF THE APPORTIONMENT BELOW IS FOUNDED ON THE BRAND OF
TALENT AND SKILL USED BY THE INFRINGER IN THE MAKING OF THE COPY.  WE
CALL THIS NOTHING MORE THAN AN APPORTIONMENT ON A LABOR AND MATERIAL
BASIS.  IT IS MERELY AN ITEM OF COST TO BE ALLOWED BEFORE ARRIVING AT
THE FIGURE OF PROFIT, BUT NOT A BASIS UPON WHICH TO APPORTION THAT
PROFIT. 

BUT THE COURT BELOW, NOT ONLY ALLOWED THE COST OF THE LABOR AND
MATERIAL, BUT ALLOWED RESPONDENTS TO SHARE IN THE PROFITS TO THE EXTENT
OF 80%.  SUCH TREATMENT IS NEVER FOUND IN PATENT CASES.  DUPLATE
CORPORATION V. TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS CO., 298 U.S. 448, 457; CONROY V.
PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. 199 F. 427, 430, 431; CHRISTENSEN V.
NATIONAL BRAKE & ELECTRIC CO., 10 F.2D 856, 866; AFF'D 38 F.2D 721;
CERT. DEN.  282 U.S. 864. 

IF THERE WERE TO BE AN APPORTIONMENT BASED UPON THE ANALOGY OF
PATENTS, IT SHOULD BE BY A SEGREGATION OF THE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM
THE ADDED NON-COPYRIGHTED PORTION. 

IN PATENT CASES, THE PROFITS MAY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO OTHER PORTIONS OF
THE MACHINE BECAUSE THE UNPATENTED PORTION MAY STILL STAND AS A USEFUL
MASS AND BE VIEWED IN ITS DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT CHARACTER.  CLARK V.
JOHNSON, 199 F. 116; GARRETSON V. CLARK, 111 U.S. 120. 

THE COURTS DO NOT CONSIDER WHAT PORTION OF THE PROFIT MAY BE ASCRIBED
TO THE DEFENDANT'S GOOD WORKMANSHIP IN INFRINGING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE PATENT.  CLARK V. JOHNSON, SUPRA. 

IT FOLLOWS FROM THE DECISION BELOW THAT THE RIGHT GRANTED TO THE
COPYRIGHT OWNER TO RECOVER "ALL THE PROFITS" UNDER THE ACT DOES NOT
EXTEND TO THE VERY GOOD OR GLORIFIED COPIES OF HIS WORK, BUT ONLY TO
THOSE INFERIOR OR MEDIOCRE COPIES WHERE THE PROFITS ARE NOT VERY
GREAT.  THE WRONGDOER, IF HE IS SKILLFUL, IS TO BE CREDITED WITH A
SHARE OF THE SPOILS.  SEE, STEARNS-ROGER MFG. CO. V. RUTH, 87 F.2D 35,
39; CHRISTENSEN V. NATIONAL BRAKE & ELECTRIC CO., 10 F.2D 856, 866. 

AN INFRINGER IN AN ACCOUNTING FOR PROFITS IS VIEWED AS A TRUSTEE EX
MALEFICIO.  HAMILTON-BROWN SHOE CO. V. WOLF BROS. CO., 240 U.S. 251,
259; WESTINGHOUSE V. WAGNER, 225 U.S. 604, 618, 619; ROOT V. RAILWAY
CO., 105 U.S. 189; WALES V. WATERBURY MFG. CO., 101 F. 126; WESTERN
GLASS CO. V. SCHMERTZ WIRE GLASS CO., 226 F. 730, 735.  HE MAY RETAIN
NO BENEFIT FROM HIS WRONG.  DUPLATE CORP. V. TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS CO.,
298 U.S. 448, 457; CROSBY STEAM GAGE & VALVE CO. V. CONSOLIDATED SAFETY
VALVE CO., 141 U.S. 441. 

THIS COURT IN SOFTENING THE PREVIOUS HARD AND FAST "ALTERNATIVE RULE"
OF GARRETSON V. CLARK, 111 U.S. 120, AS RESPECTS BURDEN OF PROOF, BY
ITS DECISIONS IN WESTINGHOUSE CO. V. WAGNER, 225 U.S. 604, AND DOWAGIAC
MFG. CO. V. MINNESOTA PLOW CO., 235 U.S. 641, HAS RESTRICTED ITS
APPLICATION TO THOSE CASES WHERE THE INFRINGEMENT WAS NOT DONE IN BAD
FAITH. 

SEE, UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V. FOX TYPEWRITER CO., 220 F. 880, 886;
BRENNAN & CO. V. DOWAGIAC MFG. CO., 162 F. 472, 476; DOWAGAIC MFG. CO.
V. SUPERIOR DRILL CO., 162 F. 479; HART V. TEN EYCK, 2 JOHNS CH. 62,
108; LUPTON V. WHITE, 15 VES.  JR. 432-440. 

THE PAYMENT OF $922,141.09 TO MESSRS.  MAYER, RUBIN AND THALBERG, IN
ADDITION TO SALARIES OF $130,000, $104,000 AND $208,000 RESPECTIVELY IN
THE YEAR 1932, IS A DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS AND IS NOT PROPERLY ALLOWED
AS COST.  LEE V. MALLEABLE IRON RANGE CO., 247 F. 795, 798. 

THE STATUTE WAS FRAMED (1) TO PUNISH THE INFRINGER, AND (2) TO
COMPENSATE THE COPYRIGHT OWNER FOR HIS LOSS.  PROVIDENCE RUBBER CO. V.
GOODYEAR, 76 U.S. 788, 804; DEAN V. MASON, 20 HOW.  198; ROOT V.
RAILWAY CO., 105 U.S. 189, 207; FERRIS V. FROHMAN, 223 U.S. 424, 437;
LARSON CO. V. WRIGLEY CO., 277 U.S. 97. 

A DELIBERATE TRESPASSER IS NOT ENTITLED TO COST.  BOLLES WOODENWARE
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 106 U.S. 432; GUFFEY V. SMITH, 237 U.S. 101;
WILLIAMSON V. CHICAGO MILL & LUMBER CORP., 59 F.2D 918; PITTSBURGH &
WEST VIRGINIA GAS CO. V. PENTRESS GAS CO., 7 A.L.R. 901; 100 S.E. 296;
RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW ON RESTITUTION, SEC. 158 AT PAGE 632. 

THE "IN LIEU OF" PROVISION IN SEC. 25(B) IS NOT INVOLVED HERE.  IT
MEANS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROFITS THE COURT HAS DISCRETION TO FIX
SUCH DAMAGES AS MAY BE JUST.  DOUGLAS V. CUNNINGHAM, 294 U.S. 207, 209;
DAVILLA V. BRUNSWICK-BALKE-COLLENDER CO., 94 F.2D 567; HENDRICKS V.
THOMAS, 242 F. 37, 41; DAM V. LASHELLE, 175 F. 902, 911. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE WHETHER, IN COMPUTING AN AWARD OF PROFITS
AGAINST AN INFRINGER OF A COPYRIGHT, THERE MAY BE AN APPORTIONMENT SO
AS TO GIVE TO THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT ONLY THAT PART OF THE PROFITS
FOUND TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE USE OF THE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM WHAT THE INFRINGER HIMSELF HAS SUPPLIED, AND, IF SO,
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE AFFORDS A PROPER BASIS FOR THE APPORTIONMENT
DECREED IN THIS CASE. 

PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT CHARGED INFRINGEMENT OF THEIR PLAY "DISHONORED
LADY" BY RESPONDENTS' MOTION PICTURE "LETTY LYNTON," AND SOUGHT AN
INJUNCTION AND AN ACCOUNTING OF PROFITS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT, FOUND AND ENJOINED THE INFRINGEMENT AND
DIRECTED AN ACCOUNTING.  81 F.2D 49.  THEREUPON THE DISTRICT COURT
CONFIRMED WITH SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS THE REPORT OF A SPECIAL MASTER
WHICH AWARDED TO PETITIONERS ALL THE NET PROFITS MADE BY RESPONDENTS
FROM THEIR EXHIBITIONS OF THE MOTION PICTURE, AMOUNTING TO
$587,604.37.  26 F.SUPP.  134, 136.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN APPORTIONMENT AND FIXING
PETITIONERS' SHARE OF THE NET PROFITS AT ONE-FIFTH.  106 F.2D 45, 51. 
IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION, WHICH APPEARS TO BE ONE OF
FIRST IMPRESSION IN THE APPLICATION OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  DECEMBER 4, 1939. 

PETITIONERS' PLAY "DISHONORED LADY" WAS BASED UPON THE TRIAL IN
SCOTLAND, IN 1857, OF MADELEINE SMITH FOR THE MURDER OF HER LOVER,  - A
CAUSE CELEBRE INCLUDED IN THE SERIES OF "NOTABLE BRITISH TRIALS" WHICH
WAS PUBLISHED IN 1927.  THE PLAY WAS COPYRIGHTED AS AN UNPUBLISHED WORK
IN 1930, AND WAS PRODUCED HERE AND ABROAD.  RESPONDENTS TOOK THE TITLE
OF THEIR MOTION PICTURE "LETTY LYNTON" FROM A NOVEL OF THAT NAME
WRITTEN BY AN ENGLISH AUTHOR, MRS. BELLOC LOWNDES, AND PUBLISHED IN
1930.  THAT NOVEL WAS ALSO BASED UPON THE STORY OF MADELEINE SMITH AND
THE MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS WERE BOUGHT BY RESPONDENTS.  THERE HAD BEEN
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS IN PETITIONERS' PLAY, AND
THE PRICE HAD BEEN FIXED AT $30,000, BUT THESE NEGOTIATIONS FELL
THROUGH. 

AS THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND, RESPONDENTS IN PRODUCING THE MOTION
PICTURE IN QUESTION WORKED OVER OLD MATERIAL; "THE GENERAL SKELETON WAS
ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DEMENSE.  A WANTON GIRL KILLS HER LOVER TO FREE
HERSELF FOR A BETTER MATCH; SHE IS BROUGHT TO TRIAL FOR THE MURDER AND
ESCAPES."  BUT NOT CONTENT WITH THE MERE USE OF THAT BASIC PLOT,
RESPONDENTS RESORTED TO PETITIONERS' COPYRIGHTED PLAY.  THEY WERE NOT
INNOCENT OFFENDERS.  FROM COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS, THE COURT OF APPEALS
CONCLUDED THAT THEY HAD "DELIBERATELY LIFTED THE PLAY"; THEIR
"BORROWING WAS A DELIBERATE PLAGIARISM."  IT IS FROM THAT STANDPOINT
THAT WE APPROACH THE QUESTIONS NOW RAISED. 

RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE MATERIAL TAKEN BY INFRINGEMENT
CONTRIBUTED IN BUT A SMALL MEASURE TO THE PRODUCTION AND SUCCESS OF THE
MOTION PICTURE.  THEY SAY THAT THEY THEMSELVES CONTRIBUTED THE MAIN
FACTORS IN PRODUCING THE LARGE NET PROFITS; THAT IS, THE POPULAR
ACTORS, THE SCENERY, AND THE EXPERT PRODUCERS AND DIRECTORS.  BOTH
COURTS BELOW HAVE SUSTAINED THIS CONTENTION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT THOUGHT IT "PUNITIVE AND UNJUST" TO AWARD ALL THE
NET PROFITS TO PETITIONERS.  THE COURT SAID THAT, IF THAT WERE DONE,
PETITIONERS WOULD RECEIVE THE PROFITS THAT THE "MOTION PICTURE STARS"
HAD MADE FOR THE PICTURE "BY THEIR DRAMATIC TALENT AND THE DRAWING
POWER OF THEIR REPUTATIONS."  "THE DIRECTORS WHO SUPERVISED THE
PRODUCTION OF THE PICTURE AND THE EXPERTS WHO FILMED IT ALSO
CONTRIBUTED IN PILING UP THESE TREMENDOUS NET PROFITS."  THE COURT
THOUGHT AN ALLOWANCE TO PETITIONERS OF 25 PER CENT. OF THESE PROFITS
"COULD BE JUSTLY FIXED AS A LIMIT BEYOND WHICH COMPLAINANTS WOULD BE
RECEIVING PROFITS IN NO WAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE USE OF THEIR PLAY IN
THE PRODUCTION OF THE PICTURE."  BUT, THOUGH HOLDING THESE VIEWS, THE
DISTRICT COURT AWARDED ALL THE NET PROFITS TO PETITIONERS, FEELING
BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN DAM V. KIRK LA SHELLE
CO., 175 F. 902, 903, A DECISION WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS NOW
OVERRULED.    THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS SATISFIED THAT BUT A SMALL PART
OF THE NET PROFITS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INFRINGEMENT, AND, FULLY
RECOGNIZING THE DIFFICULTY IN FINDING A SATISFACTORY STANDARD, THE
COURT DECIDED THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN APPORTIONMENT AND THAT IT COULD
FAIRLY BE MADE.  THE COURT WAS RESOLVED "TO AVOID THE ONE CERTAINLY
UNJUST COURSE OF GIVING THE PLAINTIFFS EVERYTHING, BECAUSE THE
DEFENDANTS CANNOT WITH CERTAINTY COMPUTE THEIR OWN SHARE."  THE COURT
WOULD NOT DENY "THE ONE FACT THAT STANDS UNDOUBTED," AND, MAKING THE
BEST ESTIMATE IT COULD, IT FIXED PETITIONERS' SHARE AT ONE-FIFTH OF THE
NET PROFITS, CONSIDERING THAT TO BE A FIGURE "WHICH WILL FAVOR THE
PLAINTIFFS IN EVERY REASONABLE CHANCE OF ERROR." 

FIRST.  PETITIONERS INSIST FUNDAMENTALLY THAT THERE CAN BE NO
APPORTIONMENT OF PROFITS IN A SUIT FOR A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT; THAT
IT IS FORBIDDEN BOTH BY THE STATUTE AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 
WE FIND THIS BASIC ARGUMENT TO BE UNTENABLE. 

THE COPYRIGHT ACT IN SEC. 25(B)  FN1  PROVIDES THAT AN INFRINGER
SHALL BE LIABLE - 

"(B)  TO PAY TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR SUCH DAMAGES AS THE
COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR MAY HAVE SUFFERED DUE TO THE INFRINGEMENT, AS WELL
AS ALL THE PROFITS WHICH THE INFRINGER SHALL HAVE MADE FROM SUCH
INFRINGEMENT,  ...  OR IN LIEU OF ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PROFITS, SUCH
DAMAGES AS TO THE COURT SHALL APPEAR TO BE JUST,  ...  " 

WE AGREE WITH PETITIONERS THAT THE "IN LIEU" CLAUSE IS NOT APPLICABLE
HERE, AS THE PROFITS HAVE BEEN PROVED AND THE ONLY QUESTION IS AS TO
THEIR APPORTIONMENT. 

PETITIONERS STRESS THE PROVISION FOR RECOVERY OF "ALL" THE PROFITS,
BUT THIS IS PLAINLY QUALIFIED BY THE WORDS "WHICH THE INFRINGER SHALL
HAVE MADE FROM SUCH INFRINGEMENT."  THIS PROVISION IN PURPOSE IS
COGNATE TO THAT FOR THE RECOVERY OF "SUCH DAMAGES AS THE COPYRIGHT
PROPRIETOR MAY HAVE SUFFERED DUE TO THE INFRINGEMENT."  THE PURPOSE IS
THUS TO PROVIDE JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE WRONG, NOT TO IMPOSE A
PENALTY BY GIVING TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR PROFITS WHICH ARE NOT
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INFRINGEMENT. 

PRIOR TO THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909, THERE HAD BEEN NO STATUTORY
PROVISION FOR THE RECOVERY OF PROFITS, BUT THAT RECOVERY HAD BEEN
ALLOWED IN EQUITY BOTH IN COPYRIGHT AND PATENT CASES AS APPROPRIATE
EQUITABLE RELIEF INCIDENT TO A DECREE FOR AN INJUNCTION.  STEVENS V.
GLADDING, 17 HOW.  447, 455.  THAT RELIEF HAD BEEN GIVEN IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING EQUITY JURISDICTION, NOT TO INFLICT
PUNISHMENT BUT TO PREVENT AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT BY ALLOWING INJURED
COMPLAINANTS TO CLAIM "THAT WHICH, EX AEQUO ET BONO, IS THEIRS, AND
NOTHING BEYOND THIS."  LIVINGSTON V. WOODWORTH, 15 HOW.  546, 560.  SEE
ROOT V. RAILWAY CO., 105 U.S. 189, 194, 195.  STATUTORY PROVISION FOR
THE RECOVERY OF PROFITS IN PATENT CASES WAS ENACTED IN 1870.  FN2  THE
PRINCIPLE WHICH WAS APPLIED BOTH PRIOR TO THIS STATUTE AND LATER WAS
THUS STATED IN THE LEADING CASE OF TILGHMAN V. PROCTOR, 125 U.S. 136,
146: 

"THE INFRINGER IS LIABLE FOR ACTUAL, NOT FOR POSSIBLE GAINS.  THE
PROFITS, THEREFORE, WHICH HE MUST ACCOUNT FOR, ARE NOT THOSE WHICH HE
MIGHT REASONABLY HAVE MADE, BUT THOSE WHICH HE DID MAKE, BY THE USE OF
THE PLAINTIFF'S INVENTION; OR, IN OTHER WORDS, THE FRUITS OF THE
ADVANTAGE WHICH HE DERIVED FROM THE USE OF THAT INVENTION, OVER WHAT HE
WOULD HAVE HAD IN USING OTHER MEANS THEN OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND
ADEQUATE TO ENABLE HIM TO OBTAIN AN EQUALLY BENEFICIAL RESULT.  IF
THERE WAS NO SUCH ADVANTAGE IN HIS USE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S INVENTION,
THERE CAN BE NO DECREE FOR PROFITS, AND THE PLAINTIFF'S ONLY REMEDY IS
BY AN ACTION AT LAW FOR DAMAGES." 

IN PASSING THE COPYRIGHT ACT, THE APPARENT INTENTION OF CONGRESS WAS
TO ASSIMILATE THE REMEDY WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOVERY OF PROFITS TO
THAT ALREADY RECOGNIZED IN PATENT CASES.  NOT ONLY IS THERE NO
SUGGESTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE AWARD OF PROFITS SHOULD BE
GOVERNED BY A DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE IN COPYRIGHT CASES BUT THE CONTRARY
IS CLEARLY INDICATED BY THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE BILL.  AS TO SEC.
25(B) THE HOUSE COMMITTEE SAID:  FN3 

"SECTION 25 DEALS WITH THE MATTER OF CIVIL REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT
OF A COPYRIGHT.  ...  THE PROVISION THAT THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR MAY
HAVE SUCH DAMAGES AS WELL AS THE PROFITS WHICH THE INFRINGER SHALL HAVE
MADE IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME PROVISION FOUND IN SECTION 4921 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES RELATING TO REMEDIES FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS. 
THE COURTS HAVE USUALLY CONSTRUED THAT TO MEAN THAT THE OWNER OF THE
PATENT MIGHT HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER, WHICHEVER WAS THE GREATER.  AS SUCH
A PROVISION WAS FOUND BOTH IN THE TRADE-MARK AND PATENT LAWS, THE
COMMITTEE FELT THAT IT MIGHT BE PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THE COPYRIGHT
LAWS." 

WE SHALL PRESENTLY CONSIDER THE DOCTRINE WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
UPON EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES WITH RESPECT TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF PROFITS
IN CASES OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT.  WE NOW OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE COPYRIGHT ACT WHICH PRECLUDES THE APPLICATION OF A SIMILAR
DOCTRINE BASED UPON THE SAME EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES IN CASES OF COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT. 

NOR DO THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT PRECLUDE THAT COURSE.  PETITIONERS
INVOKE THE CASES OF CALLAGHAN V. MYERS, 128 U.S. 617, AND BELFORD V.
SCRIBNER, 144 U.S. 488.  IN THE CALLAGHAN CASE, THE COPYRIGHT OF A
REPORTER OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS WAS SUSTAINED WITH RESPECT TO THE
PORTIONS OF THE BOOKS OF WHICH HE WAS THE AUTHOR, ALTHOUGH HE HAD NO
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT IN THE JUDICIAL OPINIONS.  ON AN ACCOUNTING FOR THE
PROFITS MADE BY AN INFRINGER, THE COURT ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION FROM THE
SELLING PRICE OF THE ACTUAL AND LEGITIMATE MANUFACTURING COST.  WITH
REFERENCE TO THE PUBLISHED MATTER TO WHICH THE COPYRIGHT DID NOT
EXTEND, THE COURT FOUND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THE PROFITS ON THAT
FROM THE PROFITS ON THE OTHER.  AND IN VIEW OF THAT IMPOSSIBILITY, THE
DEFENDANT, BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BLENDING OF THE LAWFUL WITH THE
UNLAWFUL, HAD TO ABIDE THE CONSEQUENCES, AS IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO HAS
WRONGFULLY PRODUCED A CONFUSION OF GOODS.  A SIMILAR IMPOSSIBILITY WAS
ENCOUNTERED IN BELFORD V. SCRIBNER, A CASE OF A COPYRIGHT OF A BOOK
CONTAINING RECIPES FOR THE HOUSEHOLD.  THE INFRINGING BOOKS WERE
LARGELY COMPILATIONS OF THESE RECIPES, "THE MATTER AND LANGUAGE" BEING
"THE SAME AS THE COMPLAINANT'S IN EVERY SUBSTANTIAL SENSE," BUT SO
DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE DEFENDANTS' BOOKS THAT IT WAS "ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THE ONE FROM THE OTHER."  THE COURT RULED THAT
WHEN THE COPYRIGHTED PORTIONS ARE SO INTERMINGLED WITH THE REST OF THE
PIRATICAL WORK "THAT THEY CANNOT WELL BE DISTINGUISHED FROM IT," THE
ENTIRE PROFITS REALIZED BY THE DEFENDANTS WILL BE GIVEN TO THE
PLAINTIFF. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THESE CASES DO NOT DECIDE THAT NO
APPORTIONMENT OF PROFITS CAN BE HAD WHERE IT IS CLEAR THAT ALL THE
PROFITS ARE NOT DUE TO THE USE OF THE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, AND THE
EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A FAIR BASIS OF DIVISION SO AS TO
GIVE TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR ALL THE PROFITS THAT CAN BE DEEMED TO
HAVE RESULTED FROM THE USE OF WHAT BELONGED TO HIM.  BOTH THE COPYRIGHT
ACT AND OUR DECISIONS LEAVE THE MATTER TO THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF
THE EQUITY JURISDICTION UPON AN ACCOUNTING TO DETERMINE THE PROFITS
"WHICH THE INFRINGER SHALL HAVE MADE FROM SUCH INFRINGEMENT." 

SECOND.  THE ANALOGY FOUND IN CASES OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT IS
PERSUASIVE.  THERE ARE MANY CASES IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF'S PATENT
COVERS ONLY A PART OF A MACHINE AND CREATES ONLY A PART OF THE
PROFITS.  THE PATENTED INVENTION MAY HAVE BEEN USED IN COMBINATION WITH
ADDITIONS OR VALUABLE IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY THE INFRINGER AND EACH MAY
HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROFITS.  IN ELIZABETH V. PAVEMENT CO., 97 U.S.
126, 142, CITED IN THE CALLAGHAN AND BELFORD CASES, SUPRA, IT HAD BEEN
RECOGNIZED THAT IF A SEPARATION OF DISTINCT PROFIT DERIVED FROM SUCH
ADDITIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS WAS SHOWN, AN APPORTIONMENT MIGHT BE HAD. 
SEE GARRETSON V. CLARK, 111 U.S. 120, 121.  THE SUBJECT WAS ELABORATELY
DISCUSSED IN THE CASE OF WESTINGHOUSE CO. V. WAGNER CO., 225 U.S. 604,
WHERE IT WAS DISTINCTLY RULED THAT "IF PLAINTIFF'S PATENT ONLY CREATED
A PART OF THE PROFITS, HE IS ONLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER THAT PART OF THE
NET GAINS."  THERE, THE COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTION OF BURDEN
OF PROOF.  IT WAS SAID THAT THE PLAINTIFF SUING FOR PROFITS WAS UNDER
THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THEY HAD BEEN MADE.  THE DEFENDANT HAD
SUBMITTED EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT IT HAD ADDED NON-INFRINGING AND
VALUABLE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE MAKING OF PROFITS;
AND THE PLAINTIFF IN REPLY HAD INSISTED THAT THESE ADDITIONS HAD MADE
NO SUCH CONTRIBUTION.  BUT ASSUMING, AS HAD BEEN FOUND, THAT THE
ADDITIONS WERE NON-INFRINGING AND VALUABLE IMPROVEMENTS, AND A PRIMA
FACIE CASE OF CONTRIBUTION TO PROFITS THUS APPEARING, THE BURDEN OF
APPORTIONMENT WOULD REST UPON THE PLAINTIFF.  BUT IN THAT RELATION IT
HAD STILL TO BE CONSIDERED THAT THE ACT OF THE DEFENDANT HAD MADE IT
"NOT MERELY DIFFICULT BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF
APPORTIONMENT" AND IN SUCH CASE, AS THE "INSEPARABLE PROFIT MUST BE
GIVEN TO THE PATENTEE OR INFRINGER," THE LAW PLACED THE LOSS ON THE
WRONGDOER. 

THE QUESTION OF BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT ARISE IN THE INSTANT CASE,
AS HERE THE DEFENDANTS VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED THAT BURDEN AND THE COURT
BELOW HAS HELD THAT IT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED.  WHAT IS APPOSITE, HOWEVER,
IS THE RULING IN THE WESTINGHOUSE CASE AS TO APPORTIONMENT AND THE SORT
OF EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UPON THAT QUESTION.  THE COURT POINTED TO THE
DIFFICULTIES OF WORKING OUT AN ACCOUNT OF PROFITS AND THOUGHT THAT THE
PROBLEM WAS ANALOGOUS TO THAT PRESENTED WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO
SEPARATE INTERSTATE FROM INTRASTATE EARNINGS AND EXPENSES IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER AN INTRASTATE RATE IS CONFISCATORY.  THE COURT
OBSERVED THAT "WHILE RECOGNIZING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF REACHING A
CONCLUSION THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY EXACT," THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED, IN
ADDITION TO OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE, "THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS AS TO
THE RELATIVE COST OF DOING A LOCAL AND THROUGH BUSINESS."  CHICAGO, M.
& ST. P. RY. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 176 U.S. 167, 178.  THE COURT THOUGHT
THAT "WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE IN AN EFFORT TO SEPARATE COSTS MAY ALSO BE
DONE IN A PATENT CASE WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO SEPARATE PROFITS." 

THE PRINCIPLE AS TO APPORTIONMENT OF PROFITS WAS CLEARLY STATED IN
THE CASE OF DOWAGIAC CO. V. MINNESOTA CO., 235 U.S. 641,  - A CASE
WHICH RECEIVED GREAT CONSIDERATION.  THE COURT THERE SAID: 

"WE THINK THE EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH SHOWING THAT THE INVENTION WAS
MERITORIOUS AND MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE VALUE OF THE INFRINGING
DRILLS AS MARKETABLE MACHINES, MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEIR VALUE WAS NOT
ENTIRELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INVENTION, BUT WAS DUE IN A SUBSTANTIAL
DEGREE TO THE UNPATENTED PARTS OR FEATURES.  THE MASTERS AND THE COURTS
BELOW SO FOUND AND WE SHOULD HESITATE TO DISTURB THEIR CONCURRING
CONCLUSIONS UPON THIS QUESTION OF FACT, EVEN HAD THE EVIDENCE BEEN LESS
CLEAR THAN IT WAS. 

"IN SO FAR AS THE PROFITS FROM THE INFRINGING SALES WERE ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE PATENTED IMPROVEMENTS THEY BELONGED TO THE PLAINTIFF, AND IN SO
FAR AS THEY WERE DUE TO OTHER PARTS OR FEATURES THEY BELONGED TO THE
DEFENDANTS.  BUT AS THE DRILLS WERE SOLD IN COMPLETED AND OPERATIVE
FORM THE PROFITS RESULTING FROM THE SEVERAL PARTS WERE NECESSARILY
COMMINGLED.  IT WAS ESSENTIAL THEREFORE THAT THEY BE SEPARATED OR
APPORTIONED BETWEEN WHAT WAS COVERED BY THE PATENT AND WHAT WAS NOT
COVERED BY IT, FOR, AS WAS SAID IN WESTINGHOUSE CO. V. WAGNER CO.,
SUPRA (225 U.S. 615): 'IN SUCH CASE, IF PLAINTIFF'S PATENT ONLY CREATED
A PART OF THE PROFITS, HE IS ONLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER THAT PART OF THE
NET GAINS.'"  ID., 646. 

IN THE DOWAGIAC CASE, WE AGAIN REFERRED TO THE DIFFICULTY OF MAKING
AN EXACT APPORTIONMENT AND AGAIN OBSERVED THAT MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS
WAS NOT POSSIBLE.  WHAT WAS REQUIRED WAS ONLY "REASONABLE
APPROXIMATION" WHICH USUALLY MAY BE ATTAINED "THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF
EXPERTS AND PERSONS INFORMED BY OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE."  TESTIMONY
OF THIS CHARACTER WAS SAID TO BE "GENERALLY HELPFUL AND AT TIMES
INDISPENSABLE IN THE SOLUTION OF SUCH PROBLEMS."  THE RESULT TO BE
ACCOMPLISHED "IS A RATIONAL SEPARATION OF THE NET PROFITS SO THAT
NEITHER PARTY MAY HAVE WHAT RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO THE OTHER."  ID., P.
647. 

WE SEE NO REASON WHY THESE PRINCIPLES SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN
COPYRIGHT CASES.  PETITIONERS CITE OUR DECISION IN THE TRADE-MARK CASE
OF HAMILTON-BROWN SHOE CO. V. WOLF BROS. CO., 240 U.S. 251, BUT THE
COURT THERE, RECOGNIZING THE RULINGS IN THE WESTINGHOUSE AND DOWAGIAC
CASES, FOUND ON THE FACTS THAT AN APPORTIONMENT OF PROFITS WAS
"INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE."  THE BURDEN CAST UPON THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT
BEEN SUSTAINED. 

IN 1922, SOME YEARS AFTER THE DOWAGIAC DECISION, AND IN HARMONY WITH
IT, CONGRESS AMENDED SEC. 70 OF THE PATENT LAW  FN4  SO AS TO PROVIDE
EXPRESSLY THAT IF "DAMAGES OR PROFITS ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF
CALCULATION AND DETERMINATION WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, THE COURT MAY,
ON EVIDENCE TENDING TO ESTABLISH THE SAME, IN ITS DISCRETION, RECEIVE
OPINION OR EXPERT TESTIMONY, WHICH IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE COMPETENT
AND ADMISSIBLE, SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE TO
THIS CHARACTER OF TESTIMONY."  THE AMENDMENT, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
THE RECEPTION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, RECOGNIZED AND CANNOT BE DEEMED TO
ENLARGE THE RULES ALREADY APPLIED IN COURTS OF EQUITY, AND THE FACT
THAT THE COPYRIGHT LAW WAS NOT SIMILARLY AMENDED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
TO DETRACT FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO RECEIVE SIMILAR
EVIDENCE IN COPYRIGHT CASES WHENEVER IT IS FOUND TO BE COMPETENT. 
PETITIONERS STRESS THE POINT THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF
DELIBERATE PLAGIARISM, BUT WE PERCEIVE NO GROUND FOR SAYING THAT IN
AWARDING PROFITS TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR AS A MEANS OF
COMPENSATION, THE COURT MAY MAKE AN AWARD OF PROFITS WHICH HAVE BEEN
SHOWN NOT TO BE DUE TO THE INFRINGEMENT.  THAT WOULD BE NOT TO DO
EQUITY BUT TO INFLICT AN UNAUTHORIZED PENALTY.  TO CALL THE INFRINGER A
TRUSTEE EX MALEFICIO MERELY INDICATES "A MODE OF APPROACH AND AN
IMPERFECT ANALOGY BY WHICH THE WRONGDOER WILL BE MADE TO HAND OVER THE
PROCEEDS OF HIS WRONG."  LARSON CO. V. WRIGLEY CO., 277 U.S. 97, 99,
100.  HE IS IN THE POSITION OF ONE WHO HAS CONFUSED HIS OWN GAINS WITH
THOSE WHICH BELONG TO ANOTHER.  WESTINGHOUSE CO. V. WAGNER CO., SUPRA,
P. 618.  HE "MUST YIELD THE GAINS BEGOTTEN OF HIS WRONG."  DUPLATE
CORP. V. TRIPLEX CO., 298 U.S. 448, 457.  WHERE THERE IS A COMMINGLING
OF GAINS, HE MUST ABIDE THE CONSEQUENCES, UNLESS HE CAN MAKE A
SEPARATION OF THE PROFITS SO AS TO ASSURE TO THE INJURED PARTY ALL THAT
JUSTLY BELONGS TO HIM.  WHEN SUCH AN APPORTIONMENT HAS BEEN FAIRLY
MADE, THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR RECEIVES ALL THE PROFITS WHICH HAVE BEEN
GAINED THROUGH THE USE OF THE INFRINGING MATERIAL AND THAT IS ALL THAT
THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES AND EQUITY SANCTIONS. 

BOTH COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD IN THIS CASE THAT BUT A SMALL PART OF THE
PROFITS WERE DUE TO THE INFRINGEMENT, AND, ACCEPTING THAT FACT AND THE
PRINCIPLE THAT AN APPORTIONMENT MAY BE HAD IF THE EVIDENCE JUSTIFIES
IT, WE PASS TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL
APPORTIONMENT WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED. 

THIRD.  THE CONTROLLING FACT IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE
APPORTIONMENT WAS THAT THE PROFITS HAD BEEN DERIVED, NOT FROM THE MERE
PERFORMANCE OF A COPYRIGHTED PLAY, BUT FROM THE EXHIBITION OF A MOTION
PICTURE WHICH HAD ITS DISTINCTIVE PROFIT-MAKING FEATURES, APART FROM
THE USE OF ANY INFRINGING MATERIAL, BY REASON OF THE EXPERT AND
CREATIVE OPERATIONS INVOLVED IN ITS PRODUCTION AND DIRECTION.  IN THAT
ASPECT THE CASE HAS A CERTAIN RESEMBLANCE TO THAT OF A PATENT
INFRINGEMENT, WHERE THE INFRINGER HAS CREATED PROFITS BY THE ADDITION
OF NON-INFRINGING AND VALUABLE IMPROVEMENTS.  AND, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT
PLAINLY APPEARED THAT WHAT RESPONDENTS HAD CONTRIBUTED ACCOUNTED FOR BY
FAR THE LARGER PART OF THEIR GAINS. 

RESPONDENTS HAD STRESSED THE FACT THAT, ALTHOUGH THE NEGOTIATIONS HAD
NOT RIPENED INTO A PURCHASE, THE PRICE WHICH HAD BEEN SET FOR THE
MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS IN "DISHONORED LADY" HAD BEEN BUT $30,000.  AND
RESPONDENTS' WITNESSES CITED NUMEROUS INSTANCES WHERE THE VALUE,
ACCORDING TO SALES, OF MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS HAD BEEN PUT AT RELATIVELY
SMALL SUMS.  BUT THE COURT BELOW REJECTED AS A CRITERION THE PRICE PUT
UPON THE MOTION PICTURE RIGHTS, AS A BARGAIN HAD NOT BEEN CONCLUDED AND
THE INFERENCES WERE TOO DOUBTFUL.  THE COURT ALSO RULED THAT
RESPONDENTS COULD NOT COUNT THE EFFECT OF "THEIR STANDING AND
REPUTATION IN THE INDUSTRY."  THE COURT PERMITTED RESPONDENTS TO BE
CREDITED "ONLY WITH SUCH FACTORS AS THEY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR; THE
ACTORS, THE SCENERY, THE PRODUCERS, THE DIRECTORS AND THE GENERAL
OVERHEAD." 

THE TESTIMONY SHOWED QUITE CLEARLY THAT IN THE CREATION OF PROFITS
FROM THE EXHIBITION OF A MOTION PICTURE, THE TALENT AND POPULARITY OF
THE "MOTION PICTURE STARS" GENERALLY CONSTITUTES THE MAIN DRAWING POWER
OF THE PICTURE, AND THAT THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WHERE THE TITLE OF THE
PICTURE IS NOT IDENTIFIED WITH ANY WELL-KNOWN PLAY OR NOVEL.  HERE, IT
APPEARED THAT THE PICTURE DID NOT BEAR THE TITLE OF THE COPYRIGHTED
PLAY AND THAT IT WAS NOT PRESENTED OR ADVERTISED AS HAVING ANY
CONNECTION WHATEVER WITH THE PLAY.  IT WAS ALSO SHOWN THAT THE PICTURE
HAD BEEN "SOLD," THAT IS, LICENSED TO ALMOST ALL THE EXHIBITORS AS
IDENTIFIED SIMPLY WITH THE NAME OF A POPULAR MOTION PICTURE ACTRESS
BEFORE EVEN THE TITLE "LETTY LYNTON" WAS USED.  IN ADDITION TO THE
DRAWING POWER OF THE "MOTION PICTURE STARS," OTHER FACTORS IN CREATING
THE PROFITS WERE FOUND IN THE ARTISTIC CONCEPTIONS AND IN THE EXPERT
SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION OF THE VARIOUS PROCESSES WHICH MADE POSSIBLE
THE COMPOSITE RESULT WITH ITS ATTRACTIVENESS TO THE PUBLIC. 

UPON THESE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS, WITH ELABORATION OF DETAIL,
RESPONDENTS' EXPERT WITNESSES GAVE THEIR VIEWS AS TO THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THE USE OF THE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL HAD CONTRIBUTED TO THE
PROFITS IN QUESTION.  THE UNDERLYING FACTS AS TO THE FACTORS IN
SUCCESSFUL PRODUCTION AND EXHIBITION OF MOTION PICTURES WERE ABUNDANTLY
PROVED, BUT, AS THE COURT BELOW RECOGNIZED, THE ULTIMATE ESTIMATES OF
THE EXPERT WITNESSES WERE ONLY THE EXPRESSION "OF THEIR VERY DECIDED
OPINIONS."  THESE WITNESSES WERE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT THAT THE PORTION
OF THE PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE USE OF THE COPYRIGHTED PLAY IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DISCLOSED WAS VERY SMALL.  THEIR ESTIMATES GIVEN IN
PERCENTAGES OF RECEIPTS RAN FROM FIVE TO TWELVE PER CENT; THE ESTIMATE
APPARENTLY MOST FAVORED WAS TEN PER CENT AS THE LIMIT.  ONE FINALLY
EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE PLAY CONTRIBUTED NOTHING.  THERE WAS NO
REBUTTAL.  BUT THE COURT BELOW WAS NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT THE EXPERTS'
TESTIMONY "AT ITS FACE VALUE."  THE COURT FELT THAT IT MUST MAKE AN
AWARD "WHICH BY NO POSSIBILITY SHALL BE TOO SMALL."  DESIRING TO GIVE
PETITIONERS THE BENEFIT OF EVERY DOUBT, THE COURT ALLOWED FOR THE
CONTRIBUTION OF THE PLAY TWENTY PER CENT. OF THE NET PROFITS. 

PETITIONERS ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO COMPLAIN THAT THE AMOUNT THUS
ALLOWED BY THE COURT WAS GREATER THAN THE EXPERT EVIDENCE WARRANTED. 
NOR IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR ATTACK, AND WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT ANY
ATTACK IS MADE, UPON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE EXPERTS.  BY VIRTUE OF
AN EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE, THEY HAD AN INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL
PERTINENT FACTS RELATING TO THE PRODUCTION AND EXHIBITION OF MOTION
PICTURES.  NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THE TESTIMONY AFFORDED NO BASIS FOR A
FINDING.  WHAT WE SAID IN THE DOWAGIAC CASE IS EQUALLY TRUE HERE,  -
THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED IS NOT MATHEMATICAL EXACTNESS BUT ONLY A
REASONABLE APPROXIMATION.  THAT, AFTER ALL, IS A MATTER OF JUDGMENT;
AND THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WHO ARE INFORMED BY OBSERVATION AND
EXPERIENCE MAY BE NOT ONLY HELPFUL BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, MAY BE
INDISPENSABLE.  EQUITY IS CONCERNED WITH MAKING A FAIR APPORTIONMENT SO
THAT NEITHER PARTY WILL HAVE WHAT JUSTLY BELONGS TO THE OTHER. 
CONFRONTED WITH THE MANIFEST INJUSTICE OF GIVING TO PETITIONERS ALL THE
PROFITS MADE BY THE MOTION PICTURE, THE COURT IN MAKING AN
APPORTIONMENT WAS ENTITLED TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE EXPERIENCE OF THOSE
BEST QUALIFIED TO FORM A JUDGMENT IN THE PARTICULAR FIELD OF INQUIRY
AND COME TO ITS CONCLUSION AIDED BY THEIR TESTIMONY.  WE SEE NO GREATER
DIFFICULTY IN THE ADMISSION AND USE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN SUCH A CASE
THAN IN THE COUNTLESS CASES INVOLVING VALUES OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN
WHICH SUCH TESTIMONY OFTEN FORMS THE SOLE BASIS FOR DECISION. 

PETITIONERS ALSO COMPLAIN OF DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED IN THE COMPUTATION OF
THE NET PROFITS.  THESE CONTENTIONS INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHICH
HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BELOW UPON THE EVIDENCE AND WE FIND NO GROUND FOR
DISTURBING THE COURT'S CONCLUSIONS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 4, 1909, SEC. 25, 35 STAT. 1081, AS AMENDED BY ACT
OF AUGUST 24, 1912, 37 STAT. 489.  17 U.S.C., SEC. 25(B). 

FN2  ACT OF JULY 8, 1870, SEC. 55, 16 STAT. 198, 206; R.S. 4921. 

FN3  HOUSE REPORT NO. 2222, 60TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 15.  SEE, ALSO,
SENATE REPORT NO. 1108, 60TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 15. 

FN4  ACT OF FEBRUARY 18, 1922, SEC. 8, 42 STAT. 392, AMENDING R.S.
4921.  35 U.S.C. 70. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














HELVERING V. PRICE, 309 U.S. 409 


NO. 559.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 6, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 106
F.2D 336, REVERSED. 


A TAXPAYER, KEEPING ACCOUNTS UPON A CASH BASIS, IS NOT ENTITLED TO
DEDUCT, AS A LOSS SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, REVENUE ACT, 1932,
SEC. 23(E), A PAYMENT MADE IN DISCHARGE OF HIS LIABILITY TO A BANK ON A
GUARANTY, BUT MADE BY SUBSTITUTING HIS NEW NOTE TO THE BANK FOR HIS
EARLIER ONE, OF THE SAME AMOUNT.  P. 412. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. PRICE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 548, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1932 CLAIMED A DEDUCTION FOR
A LOSS UPON A CONTRACT OF GUARANTY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED
THE COMMISSIONER IN REFUSING TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION, AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  106 F.2D 336.  BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED
CONFLICT WITH ECKERT V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 140, JENKINS V. BITGOOD,
C.C.A.2D, 101 F.2D 17, AND FERRIS V. COMMISSIONER, C.C.A.2D, 102 F.2D
985, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 548. 

THE FACTS AS FOUND MAY BE THUS SUMMARIZED:  IN 1929 THE ATLANTIC BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA, WAS MERGED WITH THE
NORTH CAROLINA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY.  THE LATTER ACCEPTED
CONDITIONALLY CERTAIN ASSETS OF THE ATLANTIC BANK CALLED "A" ASSETS,
AND CERTAIN OTHER ASSETS, CALLED "B" ASSETS, WERE PLEDGED TO THAT BANK
WITH AUTHORITY TO CHARGE AGAINST THEM ANY LOSSES WHICH MIGHT BE
ESTABLISHED IN REALIZING UPON THE "A" ASSETS.  RESPONDENT AND THREE
OTHER STOCKHOLDERS OF THE ATLANTIC BANK EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT OF
GUARANTY, TO THE EFFECT THAT IF THE NORTH CAROLINA BANK FAILED TO
REALIZE A CERTAIN SUM FROM THE "A" ASSETS WITHIN TWO YEARS THEY WOULD
MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY IN AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING $500,000.  THE
AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT ANY SUM REALIZED FROM THE "B" ASSETS WAS TO BE
APPLIED FIRST TO ANY LOSSES OCCURRING IN THE "A" ASSETS AND THEN TO THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FOUR GUARANTORS.  THE PERIOD FOR REALIZING UPON
THE "A" ASSETS WAS EXTENDED UNTIL SEPTEMBER, 1932. 

IN JUNE, 1931, THE NORTH CAROLINA BANK ADVISED THE GUARANTORS THAT
THE "B" ASSETS WERE NOT IN SUCH SHAPE THAT THE BANK COULD USE THEM TO
THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR BANKING PURPOSES AND REQUESTED THE GUARANTORS
TO PUT THEIR GUARANTY INTO A BANKABLE FORM SO THAT IT COULD BE USED BY
THE BANK TO OBTAIN CREDIT.  RESPONDENT ACCORDINGLY GAVE TO THE BANK HIS
NOTE FOR $125,000 AND ENDORSED THE NOTE OF C. W. GOLD, ANOTHER
GUARANTOR, FOR A LIKE AMOUNT AND ASSIGNED CERTAIN SECURITIES TO THE
BANK AS COLLATERAL FOR THE PAYMENT OF HIS GUARANTY.  THE BANK AGREED
THAT RESPONDENT'S ULTIMATE LIABILITY SHOULD NOT EXCEED $250,000.  AT
THE END OF 1931, THE GUARANTY AGREEMENT WAS STILL IN EFFECT.  THE "B"
ASSETS WERE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTION.  NO DEMAND HAD BEEN
MADE UPON RESPONDENT.  WHILE IT WAS KNOWN THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME LOSS
TO THE GUARANTORS, IT WAS NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN IN 1931 WHAT THE LOSS
WOULD BE, AND THE GUARANTORS HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE
A SUBSTANTIAL REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE "B" ASSETS OF ANY LOSSES. 

IN THE EARLY PART OF 1932, FINANCIAL CONDITIONS BEING WORSE, THE BANK
CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO COLLECT UPON THE GUARANTY AND CALLED
UPON RESPONDENT TO MAKE A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF HIS OBLIGATIONS. 
ACCORDINGLY, IN MARCH, 1932, RESPONDENT MADE HIS NOTE TO THE BANK FOR
$250,000 AND RECEIVED BACK THE TWO NOTES.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
FOUND THAT BOTH RESPONDENT AND THE BANK CONSIDERED THIS TO BE A FINAL
PAYMENT OF THE TWO NOTES WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN UNDER THE GUARANTY.  THE
BANK RETAINED THE SAME COLLATERAL FOR THE $250,000 NOTE THAT IT HAD
PREVIOUSLY HELD, AND IN DECEMBER, 1932, RESPONDENT SUBSTITUTED THEREFOR
CERTAIN SECURITIES OF HIS OWN. 

RESPONDENT CLAIMED A LOSS IN 1932 IN THE AMOUNT OF $125,000, THAT IS,
FOR HIS ONE-HALF OF THE GUARANTY.  HE DID NOT THEN CLAIM A LOSS ON THE
OTHER ONE-HALF BECAUSE HE STILL HAD A CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE OF GOLD
(WHO HAD DIED IN 1932) FOR REIMBURSEMENT.  FOR THAT ONE-HALF,
REPRESENTING GOLD'S PART OF THE GUARANTY, RESPONDENT CLAIMED A LOSS IN
1933 AND THAT DEDUCTION IS NOT HERE INVOLVED. 

RESPONDENT KEPT HIS ACCOUNTS UPON A CASH BASIS.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS RULED THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION OF
$125,000 IN 1932, UPON THE GROUND THAT "HE MADE NO OUTLAY OF CASH" IN
THE PURPORTED PAYMENT; HE HAD SATISFIED HIS LIABILITY AS GUARANTOR "BY
A SHIFTING OF THE FORM OF HIS LIABILITY."  HIS LOSS WOULD BE DEDUCTIBLE
"IN THE YEAR IN WHICH HE PAYS THE NOTE." 

RESPONDENT INSISTS INITIALLY THAT THE TRANSACTION IN 1932 WAS
CONSIDERED BY THE PARTIES AS CONSTITUTING A PAYMENT OF RESPONDENT'S
LIABILITY UNDER THE GUARANTY, AND THAT THIS PAYMENT IS A FACT FOUND BY
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND IS NOT OPEN TO REVIEW.  BUT THE FINDINGS
OF THE BOARD DISCLOSE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION, AND ITS LEGAL EFFECT IN
THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 23(E) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AS TO THE
DEDUCTION OF LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, WAS REVIEWABLE
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  ITS DECISION ON THAT POINT IS
REVIEWABLE HERE. 

BOTH THE COMMISSIONER AND THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS RELIED UPON OUR
DECISION IN ECKERT V. BURNET, SUPRA.  IN THAT CASE, THE TAXPAYER'S
RETURN WAS ON THE CASH BASIS, AND THE QUESTION WAS AS TO A CLAIM OF
DEDUCTION FOR THE YEAR 1925.  THE TAXPAYER AND HIS PARTNER WERE JOINT
ENDORSERS OF NOTES ISSUED BY A CORPORATION THEY HAD FORMED.  IN 1925,
IN SETTLEMENT OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR AN ASCERTAINED AMOUNT, THEY MADE A
JOINT NOTE FOR THE AMOUNT DUE TO THE BANK THAT HELD THE CORPORATION'S
PAPER, "RECEIVED THE OLD NOTES, MARKED PAID, AND DESTROYED THEM."  WE
AFFIRMED THE RULING THAT THE DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. 

THE COURT BELOW CONSIDERED THAT DECISION AS DEFINITE AUTHORITY ONLY
FOR THE HOLDING THAT A LOSS OF THE SORT SET FORTH WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE
UNDER THE "BAD DEBT" PROVISION OF THE STATUTE.  THAT INDEED WAS STATED
IN THE OPINION AS THE TAXPAYER'S CLAIM.  BUT THE TAXPAYER HAD ALSO
PRESENTED HERE AS AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND THE THEORY OF A LOSS SUSTAINED
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, A GROUND WHICH THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAD
CONSIDERED AND HELD TO BE UNTENABLE.  17 B.T.A. 263, 265, 266.  AND THE
GOVERNMENT ARGUED BOTH QUESTIONS.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CONTEND THAT
THE TAXPAYER MIGHT NOT AT SOME TIME BE ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION "EITHER
ON ACCOUNT OF A BAD DEBT OR FOR A BUSINESS LOSS"; THE "SOLE QUESTION IN
DISPUTE WAS WHETHER HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION IN 1925, THE YEAR
IN WHICH HIS NOTE WAS GIVEN, OR IN THE LATER YEAR IN WHICH THE
TAXPAYER'S LIABILITY ON THE NOTE IS ACTUALLY LIQUIDATED BY PAYMENT." 

THE REASONING OF THIS COURT WAS BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER BOTH ASPECTS OF
THE CASE.  WE SAID: 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF A RETURN UPON A CASH BASIS, THERE WAS NO LOSS IN
1925.  AS HAPPILY STATED BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THE PETITIONER
'MERELY EXCHANGED HIS NOTE UNDER WHICH HE WAS PRIMARILY LIABLE FOR THE
CORPORATION'S NOTES UNDER WHICH HE WAS SECONDARILY LIABLE, WITHOUT ANY
OUTLAY OF CASH OR PROPERTY HAVING A CASH VALUE.'  A DEDUCTION MAY BE
PERMISSIBLE IN THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH THE PETITIONER PAYS CASH.  THE
PETITIONER SAYS THAT IT WAS DEFINITELY ASCERTAINED IN 1925 THAT THE
PETITIONER WOULD SUSTAIN THE LOSSES IN QUESTION.  SO IT WAS, IF THE
PETITIONER ULTIMATELY PAYS HIS NOTE." 

WE THINK THAT THIS DECISION IS CONTROLLING IN THE INSTANT CASE.  AS
THE RETURN WAS ON THE CASH BASIS, THERE COULD BE NO DEDUCTION IN THE
YEAR 1932, UNLESS THE SUBSTITUTION OF RESPONDENT'S NOTE IN THAT YEAR
CONSTITUTED A PAYMENT IN CASH OR ITS EQUIVALENT.  THERE WAS NO CASH
PAYMENT AND UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF THE ECKERT CASE THE GIVING OF THE
TAXPAYER'S OWN NOTE WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF CASH TO ENTITLE THE
TAXPAYER TO THE DEDUCTION. 

RESPONDENT URGES THAT HIS NOTE WAS SECURED, BUT THE COLLATERAL WAS
NOT PAYMENT.  IT WAS GIVEN TO SECURE RESPONDENT'S PROMISE TO PAY, AND
IF THAT PROMISE TO PAY WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE DEDUCTION
UNTIL THE PROMISE WAS MADE GOOD BY ACTUAL PAYMENT, THE GIVING OF
SECURITY FOR PERFORMANCE DID NOT TRANSFORM THE PROMISE INTO THE PAYMENT
REQUIRED TO CONSTITUTE A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS IN THE TAXABLE YEAR.  SEE
JENKINS V. BITGOOD, 101 F.2D 17, 19. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :









MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP., 309 U.S. 414 


NO. 473.  REARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 281
N.Y. 647 - 22 N.E.2D 480, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 601 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 ON
IMPORTATION OF CRUDE PETROLEUM IS BY FORCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THAT
WHICH IN TURN INCORPORATED, BY REFERENCE, CUSTOMS REGULATIONS RELATING
TO THE ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE IN BONDED MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSES FOR
EXPORTATION OR DISPOSITION AS SHIPS' STORES; SECTION 630 OF THE REVENUE
ACT (AMENDMENT OF 1933) EXEMPTS FROM TAX ANY ARTICLE SOLD FOR USE AS
FUEL, SHIPS' STORES, ETC., ON VESSELS ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN FOREIGN
TRADE, AND, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TARIFF ACT, PROVIDES THAT
ARTICLES MANUFACTURED FROM IMPORTED ARTICLES AND LADEN FOR USE ON
VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE UNDER CUSTOMS REGULATIONS ARE TO BE
DUTY FREE AND CONSIDERED OR HELD TO BE EXPORTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DRAWBACK PROVISIONS OF SEC. 601 OF THE REVENUE ACT AND SEC. 309(B) OF
THE TARIFF ACT.  P. 423. 

2.  UNDER THESE PROVISIONS, OIL IMPORTED IN BOND IN THE CRUDE FORM
INTO A STATE, CONVERTED INTO FUEL OIL IN A BONDED WAREHOUSE, AND
WITHDRAWN DUTY FREE FOR SALE FOR FUEL TO A VESSEL ENGAGED IN FOREIGN
TRADE, IS FROM THE TIME OF IMPORTATION UNTIL THE MOMENT OF LADING ON
THE VESSEL, SEGREGATED FROM THE COMMON MASS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE
STATE AND SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF FEDERAL CUSTOMS
OFFICIALS.  P. 425. 

3.  A CUSTOMS REGULATION PROVIDING THAT "IMPORTED GOODS IN A BONDED
WAREHOUSE ARE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES" WAS INCORPORATED IN THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 BY
REFERENCE, AND WHEN APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, STATES
ONLY WHAT IS IMPLICIT IN THE CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF COMMERCE
PRESENTLY INVOLVED.  PP. 426, 429. 

4.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, READ WITH THOSE OF THE
TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AND WITH OTHER STATUTES AND REGULATIONS, AFFORD A
COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR THE REGULATION OF THE IMPORTATION OF CRUDE
PETROLEUM AND OF ITS CONTROL WHILE IN THE COURSE OF MANUFACTURE IN BOND
INTO FUEL OIL AND ITS DELIVERY AS SHIPS' STORES TO VESSELS IN FOREIGN
COMMERCE, ALL CALCULATED TO INSURE THE DEVOTION OF THE MANUFACTURED OIL
EXCLUSIVELY TO THAT PURPOSE.  P. 426. 

5.  THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS TAKEN TOGETHER OPERATE AS
REGULATIONS OF FOREIGN COMMERCE.  P. 427. 

6.  THE PURPOSE OF THE EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX LAID UPON IMPORTATION
OF CRUDE PETROLEUM WHEN IT OR ITS PRODUCT IS USED AS SHIPS' STORES BY
VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE IS, FIRST, TO ENCOURAGE IMPORTATION
OF CRUDE OIL FOR SUCH USE AND THUS TO ENABLE AMERICAN REFINERS TO MEET
FOREIGN COMPETITION AND TO RECOVER TRADE WHICH HAD BEEN LOST BY THE
IMPOSITION OF THE TAX, AND, SECONDLY, TO PROMOTE FOREIGN COMMERCE
THROUGH THE SALE OF TAX-FREE FUEL TO VESSELS ENGAGED IN IT. P. 427. 

7.  THE ADOPTION OF THESE MEANS OF REGULATING AND PROMOTING FOREIGN
COMMERCE WAS WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  P. 427. 

8.  THE LAYING OF A DUTY ON IMPORTS, ALTHOUGH AN EXERCISE OF THE
TAXING POWER, IS ALSO AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO REGULATE FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  THE EXEMPTION OF IMPORTS FROM THE DUTY OR THE ALLOWANCE OF A
DRAWBACK WHEN THEY ARE DEVOTED TO PARTICULAR PURPOSES OR USES, OR WHEN
THEY ARE EXPORTED OR OTHERWISE SENT OUT OF THE COUNTRY, IS LIKEWISE A
REGULATION OF FOREIGN COMMERCE.  P. 428. 

9.  NEW YORK CITY SALES TAX IMPOSED ON SALES TO VESSELS ENGAGED IN
FOREIGN COMMERCE OF FUEL OIL MANUFACTURED FROM IMPORTED CRUDE PETROLEUM
IN BOND, HELD INVALID AS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
REGULATION OF THE COMMERCE.  PP. 423-428. 

MCGOLDRICK, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, V. GULF OIL CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 545, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
REVERSING A RULING OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK WHICH
APPLIED THE CITY SALES TAX TO FUEL OIL SOLD IN BOND TO VESSELS ENGAGED
IN FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS DISMISSED, ANTE, P. 2,
BECAUSE IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW DID NOT REST UPON AN
ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  A PETITION FOR REHEARING BASED ON AN
AMENDED REMITTITUR OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, 282 N.Y. 612; 25
N.E.2D 392, WAS GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL VACATED, AND THE
CAUSE RESTORED TO THE DOCKET FOR REARGUMENT, POST, P. 692.  SEE 256
APP. DIV. 207, 9 N.Y.S.2D 544. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AGAINST STATE TAXATION OF IMPORTS IS NOT
CONTRAVENED BY A SALES TAX (1) IMPOSED AFTER THE IMPORTED GOODS HAVE,
THROUGH PROCESSING, UNDERGONE A RADICAL CHANGE, AND (2) IMPOSED NOT ON
THE IMPORTER BUT ON THE PURCHASER AFTER THE GOODS HAVE LEFT THE BONDED
WAREHOUSE.  GULF FISHERIES CO. V. MACINERNEY, 276 U.S. 124; H. P. HOOD
& SONS V. COMMONWEALTH, 235 MASS. 572, 576-577; STANDARD OIL CO. V.
COMBS, 96 IND. 179; ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. STANDARD OIL CO., 275 U.S.
257, 267; WARING V. MAYOR OF MOBILE, 8 WALL.  110; LOW V. AUSTIN, 13
WALL.  29; MAY V. NEW ORLEANS, 178 U.S. 496; DIST'G SOUTHERN PACIFIC
TERMINAL CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 219 U.S. 498, 526. 

DOES REMOVING PETROLEUM FROM AN OCEAN-GOING TANKER AND STORING IT ON
SHORE BREAK THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE?  SEE:  MEXICAN PETROLEUM CORP. V.
SOUTH PORTLAND, 121 ME. 128, 134-135; MEXICAN PETROLEUM CORP. V.
LOUISIANA TAX COMM'N, 173 LA. 604, 616; PHILIPPINE REFINING CORP. V.
CONTRA COSTA, 24 CAL. APP.2D 665, 669; GALVESTON V. MEXICAN PETROLEUM
CORP., 15 F.2D 208. 

WHEN THE IMPORTED PRODUCT HAS BEEN PROCESSED AND BROKEN DOWN INTO
DIVERS PRODUCTS AND SOLD, IT IS NO LONGER AN IMPORT.  NEW YORK EX REL.
BURKE V. WELLS, 208 U.S. 14, 24. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SEC. 630 WAS ADDED TO THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932 SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION, INFERABLE FROM THE TEXT ITSELF, THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO INTERFERE WITH STATE POWERS OF TAXATION. 

CONFERS AN EXEMPTION, AND REFLECTS THE CONCLUSION OF CONGRESS THAT THE
ORIGINAL 1932 ACT DID MORE HARM THAN GOOD.  IN RESCINDING ITS FORMER
ACTION, CONGRESS HAS SIMPLY REFRAINED FROM TAXING THIS PARTICULAR
COMMODITY.  HOW CAN IMPOSING AND THEN LIFTING A TAX BE REGULATION, WHEN
NONACTION AB INITIO WOULD NOT BE SUCH? 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF A STATUTE CAN NOT AFFECT ITS INTERPRETATION
WHEN THE MEANING IS CLEAR.  KUEHNER V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 445,
449.  EXTRANEOUS AIDS ARE ONLY ADMISSIBLE TO SOLVE DOUBT.  WISCONSIN
RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 589. 
MOREOVER, THE CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS RELIED ON BY RESPONDENT GIVE NO
HINT OF INTENT TO AFFECT STATE TAXATION. 

AN INTENTION TO SUPERSEDE STATE TAX LAWS IS NOT TO BE LEFT TO
INFERENCE AND CONJECTURE.  SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533; WELCH
CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79, 85; GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL.
O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, 479-480; PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79,
83-84.  SEE ALSO FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION V. BURR, 309 U.S. 242. 

THE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS EXTENDED THE FEDERAL REGULATORY POWER TO A
GIVEN INDUSTRY WILL NOT SUPPORT AN INFERENCE OF INTENTION TO REMOVE IT
FROM THE STATE TAXING POWER.  FEDERAL COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. V.
MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17, 22-23; MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1; NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 35. 

THE PROPOSITION THAT CONGRESS CAN DECLARE A LOCAL TRANSACTION TO BE A
PART OF FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND COMPEL THE STATE TO KEEP HANDS OFF, IS
UNSANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  SEE
PIPE LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548, 560-561. 

"EXPORTS" IS A CONSTITUTIONAL TERM AND IS TO BE GIVEN ITS ORDINARY
MEANING.  CONGRESS CAN NOT ENLARGE THE CONCEPT AND THEREBY CURTAIL THE
TAXING POWERS OF THE STATES.  CF., THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 142 U.S.
471, 477; RIBBLE, STATE AND NATIONAL CONTROL OVER COMMERCE, P. 232. 

THE IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION ENJOYED BY BONDED GOODS IS NO
GREATER THAN THAT WHICH SUCH GOODS ENJOY BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPORT-EXPORT
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

STATES FURNISH POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION TO GOODS IN BONDED
WAREHOUSES, AND THE OWNERS OF SUCH GOODS REMAIN UNDER A CORRELATIVE
DUTY TO PAY STATE TAXES,  - EXCEPTING GOODS IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES. 
SEE THOMPSON V. KENTUCKY, 209 U.S. 340, 347. 

THE OWNER COULD HAVE PAID THE TAX, AND ON PROOF THAT THE OIL HAD BEEN
SOLD AS SEA STORES COULD HAVE APPLIED FOR A DRAWBACK.  THAT WOULD NOT
HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE STATE'S POWER.  IT IS UNREASONABLE TO REGARD
THAT POWER AS PRESENT OR ABSENT ACCORDING TO THE METHOD OF GAINING
FEDERAL TAX EXEMPTION SELECTED BY THE OWNER. 

THE LANGUAGE OF ART. 942(D) AS TO STATE TAXATION IS AN ELLIPTIC AND
INFELICITOUS ABSTRACT OF THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE DOCTRINE.  NOTE THE
MARGINAL CITATIONS ACCOMPANYING IT.  LOW V. AUSTIN, 13 WALL.  29;
BLOUNT V. MUNROE, 60 GA. 61; CLARKE V. CLARKE, 3 WOODS 408; STATE V.
PINCKNEY, 44 SO. CAR.  LAW 474. 

THE OIL CAME TO SUCH A STOP AS SUBJECTED IT TO STATE TAXATION.  COE
V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517, 527, 528; GENERAL OIL CO. V. CRAIN, 209 U.S.
211, 230-231; BACON V. ILLINOIS, 227 U.S. 504, 515-516; SUSQUEHANNA
COAL CO. V. SOUTH AMBOY, 208 U.S. 665, 669; MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290
U.S. 1, 9.  CF., MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S.
33. 

THE TAX IS NOT A FORBIDDEN BURDEN ON FOREIGN COMMERCE, SINCE (1) THE
FUEL OIL DOES NOT BECOME AN INSTRUMENT OF COMMERCE UNTIL AFTER THE
INCIDENCE OF THE TAX, AND (2) THE TAX IS NON-DISCRIMINATORY.  MOREOVER,
SINCE THE FUEL OIL CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN NEW YORK CITY AND PASSED INTO
THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER'S HANDS IN NEW YORK CITY, THE POSSIBILITY OF
MULTIPLE TAXATION IS ABSENT. 

THE STATUS OF THE OIL IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF GASOLINE SOLD TO
INTERSTATE AIRPLANES.  EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT, INC. V. TAX COMMISSION,
285 U.S. 147; EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, INC., 289 U.S. 249.  SEE
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 267. 

THAT THE OIL WAS TO BE USED EVENTUALLY TO PROPEL VESSELS IN FOREIGN
COMMERCE IS IMMATERIAL, FOR AT THE MOMENT OF TAXATION THAT COMMERCE HAD
NOT YET BEGUN.  MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., 309 U.S.
33.  CF., SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167.  DIST'G
HELSON V. KENTUCKY, 279 U.S. 245. 

GOODS TAKEN ON BOARD AS SHIPS' STORES ARE NOT DEEMED "EXPORTED." 
SWAN & FINCH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 190 U.S. 143.  SEE ALSO UNITED
STATES V. CHAVEZ, 228 U.S. 525; DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 183 U.S. 151;
UNITED STATES V. HILL, 34 F.2D 133; KENNEDY V. UNITED STATES, 95 F.
127; WEST INDIA OIL CO. V. SANCHO, 108 F.2D 144. 

IF SEA STORES WERE EXPORTS, THE ADDITION OF SEC. 630 TO THE REVENUE
ACT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARY, EXEMPTION HAVING BEEN CONFERRED BY
SEC. 313 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930. 

THE TAX IS NOT SELECTIVE, BUT EQUAL.  IT DOES NOT AIM AT OR
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY PHASES OF THE EXPORT TRADE.  IN PECK & CO. V.
LOWE, 247 U.S. 165, 173, THE COURT UPHELD A TAX ON AN EXPORTER'S NET
INCOME. 

THE TAX IS BASED ON THE SALE OF SOMETHING WHICH NEVER WAS EITHER AN
EXPORT, OR A SYMBOL FOR AN EXPORT, OR PART OF THE PROCESSES OF
EXPORTATION.  CF., TURPIN V. BURGESS, 117 U.S. 504, 507. 

THE EXEMPTION ATTACHES TO THE EXPORT AND NOT TO THE ARTICLE BEFORE
ITS EXPORTATION. 

THE TAX AFFECTS FOREIGN COMMERCE ONLY INCIDENTALLY AND REMOTELY. 

THE VICE OF THE ARGUMENT FOR STATUTORY RATIFICATION OF ART. 942(D) OF
THE REGULATIONS IS THAT THE ALLUSIONS IN THE STATUTES TO THE
REGULATIONS ARE SPECIFIC RATHER THAN GENERAL, AND EVIDENCE NO INTENT TO
RATIFY A REGULATION LIKE ART. 942(D). 

CONGRESS ITSELF MUST HAVE REGARDED FUEL OIL SOLD FOR SHIPS' STORES AS
NOT AN EXPORT, FOR IT HAS IMPOSED TAXES THEREON, THOUGH HAVING NO MORE
POWER THAN THE STATES TO TAX EXPORTS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK DETERMINED THAT RESPONDENT
WAS SUBJECT TO A NEW YORK CITY TAX LAID UPON SALES IN 1934 AND 1935 OF
FUEL OIL MANUFACTURED IN NEW YORK CITY, FROM CRUDE PETROLEUM, WHICH HAD
BEEN IMPORTED FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO NEW YORK, AND THERE SOLD AND
DELIVERED AS SHIPS' STORES TO VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE. 
UPON CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE COMPTROLLER'S DETERMINATION, THE
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE TAXING
STATUTE AS APPLIED INFRINGED THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE FOREIGN
COMMERCE WHICH IT HAD EXERCISED BY STATUTES REGULATING THE CONTROL AND
DISPOSITION OF THE IMPORTED OIL.  256 APP. DIV. 207; 9 N.Y.S.2D 544. 

THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION, 281 N.Y. 647;
22 N.E.2D 480, BUT BY ITS AMENDED REMITTITUR DECLARED THAT THE
AFFIRMANCE WAS UPON THE GROUND, AND NONE OTHER, THAT THE TAX AS APPLIED
VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I,
SEC. 8, CLAUSE 3, ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, CLAUSE 2, WHICH COMMANDS THAT NO
STATE SHALL LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, AND
ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2, MAKING THE "CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF  ...  THE SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND."  FN1  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI UPON A PETITION WHICH
CHALLENGED THE SEVERAL GROUNDS OF DECISION AS DEFINED BY THE AMENDED
REMITTITUR OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BEING OF
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

THE TAXING ENACTMENT, LOCAL LAW NO. 24 OF 1934(PUBLISHED AS LOCAL LAW
NO. 25) IS THAT OF THE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF CHAPTER 815 OF THE NEW YORK LAWS OF
1933, AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 873 OF NEW YORK LAWS OF 1934.  ITS DETAILS
WERE RECENTLY DISCUSSED IN OUR OPINION IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE
COAL MINING CO., ANTE, P. 33, AND IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REPEAT THEM
HERE.  IT SUFFICES TO SAY THAT IT LAYS A TAX ON PURCHASERS FOR
CONSUMPTION OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AT THE RATE OF 2 PER CENT. OF
THE SALES PRICE.  THE TAX IS CONDITIONED UPON EVENTS OCCURRING WITHIN
THE STATE, EITHER TRANSFER OF TITLE OR POSSESSION OF THE PURCHASED
PROPERTY, OR AN AGREEMENT WITHIN THE STATE, "CONSUMMATED THERE" FOR THE
TRANSFER OF TITLE OR POSSESSION.  THE DUTY OF COLLECTING THE TAX AND
PAYING IT OVER TO THE COMPTROLLER IS IMPOSED ON THE SELLER, WHO MUST
PAY IT WHETHER HE COLLECTS IT OR NOT, IN ADDITION TO THE DUTY IMPOSED
UPON THE BUYER TO PAY THE TAX TO THE COMPTROLLER WHEN NOT SO
COLLECTED. 

THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  IN 1934 AND 1935 RESPONDENT'S
PREDECESSOR IMPORTED CRUDE PETROLEUM FROM VENEZUELA AND MADE CUSTOMS
ENTRY OF IT FOR ITS OWN MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSE IN NEW YORK CITY,
PURSUANT TO ITS BONDS KNOWN AS "PROPRIETOR'S MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSE
BOND, CLASS 6," GIVEN TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE WAREHOUSE LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES AND TREASURY REGULATIONS.  THE BONDS WERE GIVEN FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING THE IMPORTER, UNDER STATUTES OF THE UNITED
STATES AND TREASURY REGULATIONS, TO BRING THE PETROLEUM INTO THE UNITED
STATES, TO MANUFACTURE IT WHILE IN BOND INTO FUEL OIL AND THEN TO
WITHDRAW IT FOR EXPORT OR OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSE FREE OF THE IMPORT DUTY
WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAYABLE.  THE BONDS WERE CONDITIONED, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, UPON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE
CUSTODY AND SAFEKEEPING OF THE IMPORTED MERCHANDISE AND ITS PRODUCTS
HELD IN BOND, AND TO ITS LAWFUL WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WAREHOUSE UNDER
PERMIT OF THE COLLECTOR OF THE CUSTOMS WITHIN THE TIME PERMITTED BY
LAW. 

THE TAX IN QUESTION WAS LAID ON THE SALE OF BUNKER "C" FUEL OIL,
MANUFACTURED IN RESPONDENT'S BONDED WAREHOUSE FROM THE IMPORTED OIL AND
DELIVERED ALONGSIDE FOREIGN BOUND VESSELS IN NEW YORK CITY WHICH
PURCHASED THE OIL AS SHIPS' STORES FOR CONSUMPTION AS FUEL IN
PROPELLING THEM IN FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE TAX IMPOSED ON THE PURCHASER FOR
CONSUMPTION OF THE FUEL OIL AFTER IT HAD BEEN CHANGED RADICALLY BY
MANUFACTURE FROM THE IMPORTED OIL, AND AFTER IT HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM
THE BONDED WAREHOUSE, IS NOT A PROHIBITED TAX ON IMPORTS AND DOES NOT
CONTRAVENE ANY POLICY WHICH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE
SANCTIONED. 

FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE MAY ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT HAD THE
CRUDE OIL NOT BEEN IMPORTED IN BOND IT WOULD, UPON ITS MANUFACTURE,
HAVE BECOME A PART OF THE COMMON MASS OF PROPERTY IN THE STATE AND SO
WOULD HAVE LOST ITS DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER AS AN IMPORT AND ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY AS SUCH FROM STATE TAXATION.  SEE GULF
FISHERIES CO. V. MACINERNEY, 276 U.S. 124, 126; WARING V. THE MAYOR, 8
WALL.  110; MAY V. NEW ORLEANS, 178 U.S. 496; NEW YORK EX REL. BURKE V.
WELLS, 208 U.S. 14.  RESPONDENT RESTS ITS ARGUMENT ON DIFFERENT
CONSIDERATIONS GROWING OUT OF THE CONTROL OVER THE FOREIGN COMMERCE
INVOLVED IN THE IMPORTATION OF THE OIL AND ITS ULTIMATE DISPOSITION AS
SHIPS' STORES OF VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE, WHICH CONGRESS
HAS EXERCISED IN PURSUANCE OF A NATIONAL POLICY WITH WHICH, IT IS
INSISTED, THE TAX CONFLICTS.  EXPRESSION OF THIS POLICY, IT IS URGED,
IS TO BE FOUND IN THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, READ IN LIGHT OF
THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, EXEMPTING THE IMPORTED OIL FROM FEDERAL
TAXATION, OTHERWISE IMPOSED, IF IT IS SOLD FOR USE AS FUEL ON VESSELS
ENGAGED IN THE FOREIGN TRADE, AND IN THE MEASURES TAKEN IN STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS TO MAKE THAT POLICY EFFECTIVE BY SEGREGATING THE OIL UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF CUSTOMS OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE TIME OF
ITS IMPORTATION UNTIL IT IS DELIVERED TO THE PURCHASING VESSEL.    THE
PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 LAYING A TAX ON THE IMPORTATION
OF CRUDE PETROLEUM AND GRANTING EXEMPTIONS, AND THE RELATED PROVISIONS
OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AND THE APPLICABLE TREASURY REGULATIONS
SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION. 

LAYS A TAX "WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPORTATION" OF CRUDE PETROLEUM OF ONE
HALF CENT PER GALLON UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY TREATIES OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND SEC. 601(B) DECLARES THAT THE TAX IMPOSED "SHALL BE
LEVIED, ASSESSED, COLLECTED, AND PAID IN THE SAME MANNER AS A DUTY
IMPOSED BY THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AND SHALL BE TREATED FOR THE PURPOSES
OF ALL PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE CUSTOMS REVENUE AS A DUTY
IMPOSED BY SUCH ACT.  ...  " SECTION 630 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,
ADDED BY AMENDMENT OF JUNE 16, 1933, 48 STAT. 256, DECLARES THAT NO TAX
UNDER SEC. 601 SHALL BE LAID "UPON ANY ARTICLE SOLD FOR USE AS FUEL
SUPPLIES, SHIPS' STORES  ...  OR  ...  EQUIPMENT ON VESSELS  ...
ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN FOREIGN TRADE  ...  " AND PROVIDES THAT "ARTICLES
MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED WITH THE USE OF ARTICLES UPON THE IMPORTATION
OF WHICH TAX HAS BEEN PAID UNDER THIS TITLE, IF LADEN FOR USE AS
SUPPLIES ON SUCH VESSELS SHALL BE HELD TO BE EXPORTED FOR THE PURPOSES"
OF THE DRAWBACK PROVISION OF SEC. 601(B). 

AUTHORIZES THE WITHDRAWAL, DUTY FREE, UNDER REGULATIONS OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OF ARTICLES FROM BONDED MANUFACTURING
WAREHOUSES, FOR SUPPLIES TO VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES ENGAGED IN
FOREIGN TRADE AND DIRECTS THAT NO SUCH ARTICLE SHALL BE LANDED AT ANY
PORT OR PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS POSSESSIONS.  BY VIRTUE OF
THE TERMS ALREADY NOTED OF SECS. 601 AND 630 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932, THESE PROVISIONS WERE EXTENDED TO ARTICLES SOLD FOR FUEL TO
VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN TRADE, AND THE PROVISIONS OF STATUTES AND
REGULATIONS RELATING TO WITHDRAWAL FROM MANUFACTURING BONDED WAREHOUSES
FN2  FOR EXPORT WERE THUS EXTENDED TO SIMILAR WITHDRAWALS OF FUEL OIL
FOR DISPOSITION AS SHIPS' STORES.  FN3 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE TAX IMPOSED ON IMPORTATION OF CRUDE
PETROLEUM BY SEC. 601 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 IS, BY FORCE OF ITS
OWN PROVISIONS TO BE TREATED AS A DUTY IMPOSED BY THE TARIFF ACT OF
1930, WHICH, IN TURN, HAS INCORPORATED, BY REFERENCE, CUSTOMS
REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE ENTRY OF MERCHANDISE IN BONDED
MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSES, ITS MANUFACTURE THERE AND ITS WITHDRAWAL FROM
BONDED WAREHOUSES FOR EXPORTATION OR DISPOSITION AS SHIPS' STORES; FN4
THAT SEC. 630, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEC. 601(B) AND THE RELATED
PROVISIONS OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930(SEC.  309(B)) PROVIDES THAT
ARTICLES MANUFACTURED FROM IMPORTED ARTICLES AND LADEN FOR USE ON
VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE UNDER CUSTOMS REGULATIONS ARE TO BE
DUTY FREE AND CONSIDERED OR HELD AS EXPORTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
DRAWBACK PROVISIONS OF BOTH SEC. 601 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AND
SEC. 309(B) OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930. 

FROM THE TIME OF IMPORTATION UNTIL THE MOMENT WHEN THE BUNKER "C" OIL
IS LADEN ON VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN TRADE, THE IMPORTED PETROLEUM
AND ITS PRODUCT, THE FUEL OIL, IS SEGREGATED FROM THE COMMON MASS OF
GOODS AND PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE, AND IS SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION
AND CONTROL OF FEDERAL CUSTOMS OFFICERS.  FN5  IT CANNOT LAWFULLY BE
REMOVED FROM THE MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSE EXCEPT FOR DELIVERY FOR USE AS
FUEL TO A VESSEL ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE AND IT CANNOT LAWFULLY BE
DIVERTED FROM SUCH DESTINATION AND USE AND CANNOT, AFTER DELIVERY TO
THE VESSEL, BE LANDED IN THE UNITED STATES.  THROUGHOUT, THE OIL IS
SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF RESPONDENT'S BONDS THAT IT SHALL REMAIN
UNDER SUCH SUPERVISION AND CONTROL AND SHALL NOT BE DIVERTED FROM ITS
ULTIMATE DESTINATION AS SHIPS' STORES. 

ARTICLE 942 OF THE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS OF 1931 PROVIDES THAT
"MERCHANDISE IN BONDED WAREHOUSE IS NOT SUBJECT TO LEVY, ATTACHMENT, OR
OTHER PROCESS OF A STATE COURT  ..."  AND THAT "IMPORTED GOODS IN
BONDED WAREHOUSE ARE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES."  THESE REGULATIONS, CONTINUED IN CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
OF 1937, ART. 940, APPEARED AS ART. 731, REGULATIONS OF 1915, AND ART.
850 OF REGULATIONS OF 1923.  THEY WERE THUS IN FORCE WHEN THE TARIFF
ACT OF 1930 WAS ADOPTED AND WERE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, CF.
MCCAUGHN V. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE CO., 283 U.S. 488, 492, BY THE PROVISIONS
OF SECS. 309, 311, ALREADY NOTED, WHICH ALSO ADOPTED THE EARLIER
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1351, TITLE 26, U.S.C., R.S. SEC. 3433, AND DECLARED
THAT ARTICLES MANUFACTURED FROM IMPORTED MATERIALS IN BONDED WAREHOUSE
SHOULD BE PLACED THERE UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, READ WITH THOSE OF THE
TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AND WITH THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS WHICH WE HAVE
MENTIONED, THUS AFFORD A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR THE REGULATION OF THE
IMPORTATION OF THE CRUDE PETROLEUM AND OF ITS CONTROL WHILE IN THE
COURSE OF MANUFACTURE IN BOND INTO FUEL OIL AND ITS DELIVERY AS SHIPS'
STORES TO VESSELS IN FOREIGN COMMERCE, ALL CALCULATED TO INSURE THE
DEVOTION OF THE MANUFACTURED OIL EXCLUSIVELY TO THAT PURPOSE. 

THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS TAKEN TOGETHER OPERATE AS REGULATIONS OF
FOREIGN COMMERCE, AS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS THEY WERE INTENDED
TO DO.  THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, OF WHICH SEC. 601 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932 IS IN EFFECT A PART, IS ENTITLED, "AN ACT TO PROVIDE REVENUE, TO
REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES, TO ENCOURAGE INDUSTRIES OF
THE UNITED STATES, TO PROTECT AMERICAN LABOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." 
THE OBVIOUS TENDENCY OF THE EXEMPTION, FROM THE TAX LAID UPON
IMPORTATION OF CRUDE PETROLEUM, WHEN IT OR ITS PRODUCT IS USED AS
SHIPS' STORES BY VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE IS TO ENCOURAGE
IMPORTATION OF THE CRUDE OIL FOR SUCH USE AND THUS TO ENABLE AMERICAN
REFINERS TO MEET FOREIGN COMPETITION AND TO RECOVER TRADE WHICH HAD
BEEN LOST BY THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX.  THAT TENDENCY, AND THE
TENDENCY OF THE SALE OF TAX-FREE FUEL TO VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN
COMMERCE TO PROMOTE THE COMMERCE, WERE CONSIDERATIONS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT BY CONGRESS IN FIXING THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, AND ITS
ADOPTION AS A MEANS OF REGULATING AND PROMOTING FOREIGN COMMERCE WAS
WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  BOARD OF TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES,
289 U.S. 48. 

THAT SUCH WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT LEGISLATION IS CONFIRMED BY
ITS HISTORY.  SENATE REPORT NO. 58, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS., ON THE BILL
WHICH WAS ENACTED AS SEC. 630 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, EXEMPTING
FUEL PLACED ON VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM THE TAX,
DECLARED, PAGE 3: "IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL ENABLE THE
AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS TO COMPETE MORE FAVORABLY WITH THEIR FOREIGN
COMPETITORS FOR THIS BUSINESS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF REVENUE,
SINCE THE EFFECT OF THE PRESENT LAW IS TO FORCE PURCHASES ABROAD."  IT
ADDED THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR DRAWBACK OF THE TAX ON IMPORTATION "ALSO
RELIEVES AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS FROM A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE."  FROM
STATEMENTS MADE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE BY THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL
IT APPEARS THAT ONE PURPOSE OF THE EXEMPTION WAS TO INCREASE THE TRADE
IN FUEL OIL IN AMERICAN PORTS WHICH HAD BEEN LOST THROUGH PURCHASE OF
FUEL IN FOREIGN PORTS BY VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE FOLLOWING
THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX BY SEC. 601(C)(4).  77 CONG. REC., PART III,
3212-3214. 

THE LAYING OF A DUTY ON IMPORTS, ALTHOUGH AN EXERCISE OF THE TAXING
POWER, IS ALSO AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO REGULATE FOREIGN COMMERCE,
HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 394, 411; BOARD OF TRUSTEES V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 58.  THE EXEMPTION OF IMPORTS FROM THE DUTY OR
THE ALLOWANCE OF A DRAWBACK WHEN THEY ARE DEVOTED TO PARTICULAR
PURPOSES OR USES, OR WHEN THEY ARE EXPORTED OR OTHERWISE SENT OUT OF
THE COUNTRY, IS LIKEWISE A REGULATION OF FOREIGN COMMERCE, SEE GIBBONS
V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 201, 202; GROVES V. SLAUGHTER, 15 PET. 449,
505.  CUSTOMS REGULATIONS TO INSURE THE DEVOTION OF THE IMPORTS TO THE
INTENDED USE ARE LIKEWISE WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER SINCE SUCH
REGULATIONS ARE NOT ONLY NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT THE
REVENUE, BUT ARE MEANS TO THE DESIRED END, THE REGULATION OF FOREIGN
COMMERCE BY INSURING THAT THE PARTICULAR CLASS OF EXEMPTED IMPORTS ARE
USED FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE EXEMPTION IS ALLOWED. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS, WHETHER THE PRESENT TAX CONFLICTS WITH THE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY ADOPTED BY THE ACTS OF CONGRESS WHICH WE HAVE
DISCUSSED.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE EXEMPTION AND DRAWBACK PROVISIONS WERE
DESIGNED, AMONG OTHER PURPOSES, TO RELIEVE THE IMPORTER OF THE IMPORT
TAX SO THAT HE MIGHT MEET FOREIGN COMPETITION IN THE SALE OF FUEL AS
SHIPS' STORES.  IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT END CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR THE
SEGREGATION OF THE IMPORTED MERCHANDISE FROM THE MASS OF GOODS WITHIN
THE STATE, PRESCRIBED THE PROCEDURE TO INSURE ITS USE FOR THE INTENDED
PURPOSE, AND BY REFERENCE CONFIRMED AND ADOPTED CUSTOMS REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBING THAT THE MERCHANDISE, WHILE IN BONDED WAREHOUSE, SHOULD BE
FREE FROM STATE TAXATION.  IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF THE COMMERCE WOULD FAIL IF THE STATE WERE
FREE AT ANY STAGE OF THE TRANSACTION TO IMPOSE A TAX WHICH WOULD LESSEN
THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE CONFERRED ON THE IMPORTER BY CONGRESS, AND
WHICH MIGHT EQUAL OR EXCEED THE REMITTED IMPORT DUTY.  SEE, PEOPLE V.
COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE, 107 U.S. 59, 63.  THE CONGRESSIONAL
REGULATION, READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSE, IS TANTAMOUNT TO A
DECLARATION THAT IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE
ENDS, THE IMPORTED MERCHANDISE SHALL NOT BECOME A PART OF THE COMMON
MASS OF TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE, PENDING ITS DISPOSITION AS
SHIPS' STORES AND SHALL NOT BECOME SUBJECT TO THE STATE TAXING POWER. 
THE CUSTOMS REGULATION PRESCRIBING THE EXEMPTION FROM STATE TAXATION,
WHEN APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, STATES ONLY WHAT IS
IMPLICIT IN THE CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF COMMERCE PRESENTLY
INVOLVED.  THE STATE TAX IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MUST FAIL AS AN
INFRINGEMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF THE COMMERCE.  SINNOT
V. DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227; PEOPLE V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE
TRANSATLANTIQUE, SUPRA, 63; CF. KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 9,
10. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE TAX UPON THE SALE OF THE
OIL AS SHIPS' STORES TO VESSELS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN COMMERCE IS IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AN IMPOST ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, OR A DUTY
OF TONNAGE PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, CLAUSES 2 AND 3 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CERTIORARI WHICH HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES DECEMBER 4, 1939, 308 U.S. 545, BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF
THE REMITTITUR BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, WAS DISMISSED JANUARY
15, 1940, ANTE, P. 2, ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT
STATEMENT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT IT HAD ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT
OF THE TAX SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
THE COURT WAS UNABLE TO FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF
THE STATE DID NOT REST UPON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  ON MOTION
FOR REHEARING, BASED ON THE AMENDED REMITTITUR OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS, ON FEBRUARY 5, 1940, VACATED AND THE CAUSE
RESTORED TO THE DOCKET, POST, P. 692. 

FN2 ARTICLE 829 OF THE CUSTOMS REGULATIONS OF 1929, IN FORCE WHEN THE
TARIFF ACT OF 1930 WAS ENACTED AND CONTINUED AS ARTICLE 921 OF CUSTOMS
REGULATIONS OF 1931, AND AS ARTICLE 919 OF CUSTOMS REGULATIONS OF 1937,
DEFINES CLASS 6 WAREHOUSES AS THOSE "FOR THE MANUFACTURE IN BOND,
SOLELY FOR EXPORTATION, OF ARTICLES MADE IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF
IMPORTED MATERIALS.  ...  " 

FN3  SECTION 311 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, 46 STAT. 691, UNDER WHICH
RESPONDENT'S CLASS 6 BONDED WAREHOUSE WAS ESTABLISHED AND OPERATED,
PROVIDED FOR THE MANUFACTURE IN SUCH WAREHOUSE OF ARTICLES MADE FROM
IMPORTED MATERIALS AND INTENDED FOR EXPORTATION FREE OF DUTY UNDER SUCH
REGULATIONS AS THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY MIGHT PRESCRIBE, AND ALSO
DECLARED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 1351 OF TITLE 26, U.S.C. (SEC.
3433 OF THE REVISED STATUTES) SHOULD, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, APPLY TO
SUCH BONDED MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSES.  SECTION 1351 PROVIDES FOR THE
MANUFACTURE IN BONDED WAREHOUSE OF ARTICLES FROM IMPORTED MATERIALS
UNDER SUCH RULES AS THE SECRETARY MAY PRESCRIBE AND UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF THE PROPER CUSTOMS OFFICER, AND DIRECTS THAT NO ARTICLE SO
MANUFACTURED IN A BONDED WAREHOUSE "SHALL BE TAKEN THEREFROM EXCEPT FOR
EXPORTATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PROPER OFFICER HAVING CHARGE
THEREOF  ...  WHOSE CERTIFICATE DESCRIBING THE ARTICLES  ...  SHALL BE
RECEIVED BY THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS IN CANCELLATION OF THE BONDS, OR
RETURN OF THE AMOUNT OF FOREIGN IMPORT DUTIES."  SEE ARTICLES 455, 457,
AND 960 OF THE 1931 CUSTOMS REGULATIONS. 

FN4  SEE ARTICLES 455 TO 461, CUSTOMS REGULATIONS OF 1931, CF.
ARTICLES 410-414, REGULATIONS OF 1915; ARTICLES 433-437, REGULATIONS OF
1923 AND ARTICLES 464-470 OF THE 1937 REGULATIONS. 

FN5  SEE CH. 16, TRANSPORTATION IN BOND AND MERCHANDISE IN TRANSIT;
CH. 17, CUSTOMS WAREHOUSES AND CONTROL OF MERCHANDISE THEREIN, 1931
CUSTOMS REGULATIONS.    MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





















MCGOLDRICK V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE, 309 U.S. 430 


NO. 44.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 279 N.Y.
192 - 280 ID. 691 - 18 N.E.2D 28 - 21 N.E.2D 199, REVERSED. 


1.  APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY SALES TAX TO SALES OF FUEL OIL,
CONTRACTED FOR IN NEW YORK CITY AND PERFORMED AFTER SHIPMENT FROM NEW
JERSEY BY DELIVERY TO THE PURCHASER'S VESSELS IN NEW YORK HARBOR, HELD
NOT TO HAVE IMPOSED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., ANTE, P. 33.  P. 431. 

2.  UPON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF A STATE COURT ADJUDGING A STATUTE OF
THE STATE INVALID BY AN ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, THIS COURT WILL NOT ENTERTAIN OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE STATUTE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT, WHICH
WERE NOT PRESENTED TO OR CONSIDERED BY THE STATE COURT; BUT WILL
REVERSE THE JUDGMENT, LEAVING THE STATE COURTS FREE TO DECIDE ANY
FEDERAL QUESTION REMAINING UNDECIDED HERE WHICH MAY BE RAISED IN
CONFORMITY WITH THEIR OWN PROCEDURE.  P. 433. 

MCGOLDRICK, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, V. COMPAGNIE GENERALE
TRANSATLANTIQUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 620, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS, 254
APP. DIV. 237, 4 N.Y.S.2D 661, SETTING ASIDE AS IN VIOLATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION A TAX LEVIED BY THE CITY OF
NEW YORK ON SALES OF FUEL OIL. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING
CO., ANTE, P. 33, BROUGHT HERE TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE NEW YORK
STATE SUPREME COURT THAT THE NEW YORK CITY TAX LAID UPON SALES OF GOODS
FOR CONSUMPTION, IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

UPON CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A DETERMINATION BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK THAT RESPONDENT WAS SUBJECT TO A NEW YORK CITY TAX
UPON SALES TO IT OF FUEL OIL IN 1934 AND 1935, THE APPELLATE DIVISION
OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE TAXING STATUTE AS APPLIED
DID SO INFRINGE.  254 APP. DIV. 237; 4 N.Y.S.2D 661.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED, 279 N.Y. 192; 18 N.E.2D 28, WITH OPINION, ON THE
SINGLE GROUND THAT THE TAX WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY REASON OF ITS EFFECT
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND BY ITS AMENDED REMITTITUR THE COURT STATED
THAT THE AFFIRMANCE WAS ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE TAX VIOLATED THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  280 N.Y. 691; 21 N.E.2D 199.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
307 U.S. 620, UPON A PETITION WHICH ASSAILED THE DETERMINATION OF THE
STATE COURT THAT THE TAX WAS A PROHIBITED BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE QUESTION BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE TAXING ACT ARE SET OUT IN OUR OPINION
IN THE BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING COMPANY CASE, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED
HERE.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOUND FACTS NOT CHALLENGED HERE AS
FOLLOWS:  APPELLANT, A CORPORATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE, OWNS
VESSELS AND OPERATES THEM IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS AND
FREIGHT BETWEEN THE PORT OF NEW YORK AND FRANCE, AND OTHER FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.  IT IS AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS AND MAINTAINS AN OFFICE IN
NEW YORK CITY, WHERE IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS IT MAKES PURCHASES
OF FUEL OIL FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE OPERATION OF ITS VESSELS, FROM THE
STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, WHICH ALSO MAINTAINS AN OFFICE AND
CARRIES ON BUSINESS IN THE CITY.  THAT COMPANY ENTERS INTO LONG-TERM
CONTRACTS WITH THE RESPONDENT, NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED IN THE CITY, FOR
THE SALE TO RESPONDENT OF ITS REQUIREMENTS OF FUEL OIL AS ORDERED, TO
BE DELIVERED ALONGSIDE RESPONDENT'S VESSELS IN NEW YORK HARBOR.  ALL
THE SALES PRESENTLY INVOLVED WERE OF OIL STORED BY THE STANDARD OIL
COMPANY IN ITS TANKS IN NEW JERSEY, WHICH AS ORDERED WAS TRANSPORTED BY
BARGE TO RESPONDENT'S VESSELS IN NEW YORK CITY WHERE IT WAS DELIVERED. 

THE OIL THUS TRANSPORTED AND DELIVERED TO RESPONDENT WAS OF TWO
TYPES.  ONE, "BONDED FUEL OIL," IS REFINED OIL IMPORTED BY THE STANDARD
OIL COMPANY FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND STORED IN BOND IN NEW JERSEY
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF IMPORT DUTIES, PURSUANT TO THE REVENUE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES WHICH AUTHORIZE RELEASE FROM THE BOND UPON DELIVERY OF
THE OIL TO A FOREIGN STEAMSHIP FOR EXPORT OR USE AS FUEL BY THE
VESSEL.  THE OTHER TYPE, KNOWN AS "DRAWBACK OIL," IS THE PRODUCT OF
CRUDE OIL IMPORTED FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES BY THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY
AND REFINED AT ITS NEW JERSEY PLANT.  AN IMPORT DUTY IS PAID UPON THE
OIL, BUT UPON DELIVERY OF THE REFINED OIL TO A FOREIGN STEAMSHIP FOR
EXPORT, OR FOR USE AS FUEL ON THE VESSEL, THE IMPORTER IS ENTITLED
UNDER THE REVENUE LAWS TO A REFUND OR DRAWBACK ON THE DUTY PAID.  19
U.S.C. SECS. 1309, 1313, 46 STAT. 690, 693. 

SO FAR AS THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS CONCERNED, OUR DECISION SUSTAINING IT IN THE BERWIND-WHITE
COAL MINING COMPANY CASE IS CONTROLLING, AND THE JUDGMENT MUST BE
REVERSED, UNLESS THE STATE OF THE RECORD IS SUCH AS TO ENTITLE
RESPONDENT TO ASSAIL THE TAX UPON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS NOT URGED OR
DECIDED IN THE STATE COURTS. 

RESPONDENT'S PETITION TO THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE
DETERMINATION OF THE COMPTROLLER SET OUT THAT THE TAX "WAS ASSESSED
UPON THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID ON TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE" AND THAT THE CITY WAS "WITHOUT POWER TO IMPOSE SAID TAX ON
SAID TRANSACTIONS BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES," SPECIFYING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND
ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, CLAUSE 2, PROHIBITING "IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS
OR EXPORTS."  NO MENTION WAS MADE OF ANY APPLICABLE STATUTE OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

RESPONDENT'S BRIEF AND ARGUMENT HERE ADVANCE AS REASONS IN SUPPORT OF
THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT IN ITS FAVOR THAT THE BONDED OIL AND
DRAWBACK OIL, AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY TO RESPONDENT, RETAINED THEIR
CHARACTER AS IMPORTS, AND THAT THEY WERE THEN IN PROCESS OF BEING
EXPORTED, SO THAT THE TAX IMPOSED UPON THE DELIVERY TO THE PURCHASER IS
A PROHIBITED IMPOST OR DUTY ON IMPORTS AND EXPORTS. 

RESPONDENT CONCEDES BY ITS BRIEF THAT THE CONTENTIONS IT NOW MAKES
WERE NOT ARGUED IN THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, AND DOES NOT DENY
PETITIONER'S ASSERTION HERE THAT RESPONDENT STATED IN ITS BRIEF IN THE
APPELLATE DIVISION, "THE COURT NEED GIVE NO ATTENTION TO THEM," AND
THAT BY ITS BRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEALS RESPONDENT EXPLICITLY LIMITED
ITS PRESENTATION OF THE CASE TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE POINT. 
WHETHER, UNDER THE PRACTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT WAS IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES FREE TO ASK DECISION OF THESE QUESTIONS THERE, WE ARE
NOT ADVISED.  BUT IN ANY EVENT THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT THEY
WERE PRESENTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE
IN WHICH DECISION COULD HAVE BEEN HAD WHOSE DECISION WE REVIEW, AND IT
SHOWS THAT THAT COURT CONSIDERED AND PASSED UPON ONLY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE QUESTION. 

BY VIRTUE OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ADDRESSED TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHICH THE STATE COURT DECIDED, THIS COURT HAS
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE.  AND RESPONDENT, IN URGING DECISION HERE OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS NOT PRESSED IN THE STATE COURT, RELIES ON
THE FAMILIAR RULE OF APPELLATE COURT PROCEDURE IN FEDERAL COURTS THAT,
WITHOUT A CROSS-PETITION OR APPEAL, A RESPONDENT OR APPELLEE MAY
SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR UPON GROUNDS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
UPON WHICH THE COURT BELOW RESTED ITS DECISION.  UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO., 265 U.S. 425, 435; LANGNES V. GREEN, 282
U.S. 531.  SEE CENTRAL KENTUCKY NATURAL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION,
290 U.S. 264, 269. 

BUT IT IS ALSO THE SETTLED PRACTICE OF THIS COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF
ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION, THAT IT IS ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, AND
THEN ONLY IN CASES COMING FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS, THAT IT CONSIDERS
QUESTIONS URGED BY A PETITIONER OR APPELLANT NOT PRESSED OR PASSED UPON
IN THE COURTS BELOW.  BLAIR V. OESTERLEIN CO., 275 U.S. 220, 225;
DUIGNAN V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 195, 200.  IN CASES COMING HERE FROM
STATE COURTS IN WHICH A STATE STATUTE IS ASSAILED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
THERE ARE REASONS OF PECULIAR FORCE WHICH SHOULD LEAD US TO REFRAIN
FROM DECIDING QUESTIONS NOT PRESENTED OR DECIDED IN THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE WHOSE JUDICIAL ACTION WE ARE CALLED UPON TO REVIEW.  APART
FROM THE RELUCTANCE WITH WHICH EVERY COURT SHOULD PROCEED TO SET ASIDE
LEGISLATION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON GROUNDS NOT PROPERLY PRESENTED, DUE
REGARD FOR THE APPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP OF THIS COURT TO STATE COURTS
REQUIRES US TO DECLINE TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE
VALIDITY OF STATE STATUTES NOT URGED OR CONSIDERED THERE.  IT IS FOR
THESE REASONS THAT THIS COURT, WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE
HAS BEEN UPHELD IN THE STATE COURT, CONSISTENTLY REFUSES TO CONSIDER
ANY GROUNDS OF ATTACK NOT RAISED OR DECIDED IN THAT COURT.  DEWEY V.
DES MOINES, 173 U.S. 193; KEOKUK & HAMILTON BRIDGE CO. V. ILLINOIS, 175
U.S. 626, 633; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 362, 363; NEW YORK
EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 317. 

LIKE CONSIDERATIONS, WE THINK, REQUIRE US TO REFUSE TO ENTERTAIN SUCH
NEW GROUNDS OF ATTACK AS A SUPPORT FOR A STATE JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN THE
EXERCISE OF OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF STATE
COURTS WE SHOULD HOLD OURSELVES FREE TO SET ASIDE OR REVISE THEIR
DETERMINATIONS ONLY SO FAR AS THEY ARE ERRONEOUS AND ERROR IS NOT TO BE
PREDICATED UPON THEIR FAILURE TO DECIDE QUESTIONS NOT PRESENTED. 
SIMILARLY THEIR ERRONEOUS JUDGMENTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY SHOULD NOT
BE AFFIRMED HERE ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS WHICH SUITORS HAVE FAILED TO
URGE BEFORE THEM, OR WHICH, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS THERE, HAVE
BEEN ABANDONED. 

UPON THE REMAND OF THIS CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION, THE STATE COURTS WILL BE FREE TO DECIDE
ANY FEDERAL QUESTION REMAINING UNDECIDED HERE WHICH, IN CONFORMITY WITH
THEIR OWN PROCEDURE, MAY BE RAISED FOR DECISION THERE, AND THE REMAND
WILL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FURTHER PRESENTATION OF ANY SUCH
QUESTION TO THIS COURT.  REVERSED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCUR IN THE VIEW THAT THE
QUESTIONS RELATING TO FOREIGN COMMERCE ARE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE US IN
THIS CASE, BUT THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT, HOLDING THAT
THE TAX AS HERE LAID PLACES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SHOULD BE AFFIRMED UPON THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE DISSENTING
OPINION IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., ANTE, P. 59. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






















ETHYL GASOLINE CORP. V. U.S., 309 U.S. 436 


NO. 536.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 4, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 27
F.SUPP.  959, AFFIRMED. 


A CORPORATION OWNING A PATENT FOR A POISONOUS FLUID COMPOUND
CONTAINING LEAD, WHICH, WHEN MIXED WITH THE GASOLINE USED AS FUEL IN
HIGH COMPRESSION INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES, ADDS GREATLY TO THEIR
EFFICIENCY, AND OWNING ALSO A PATENT CLAIMING THE FUEL MIXTURE AND
ANOTHER CLAIMING A METHOD OF USING IT, MANUFACTURED THE FLUID AND SOLD
IT, WITHOUT ROYALTY, UNDER A LICENSING SYSTEM, TO NEARLY ALL OF THE
LEADING MANUFACTURERS OF GASOLINE IN THE COUNTRY, ONE OF WHICH OWNED
HALF OF THE PATENTEE'S CAPITAL STOCK.  THESE REFINERS MIXED THE FLUID
WITH THEIR GASOLINE AND SOLD THE RESULTING PATENTED FLUID IN GREAT
QUANTITIES TO JOBBERS, WHO IN TURN SOLD IT TO RETAILERS AND CONSUMERS. 
UNDER THE LICENSE SYSTEM:  REFINERS COULD NOT SELL TO JOBBERS OTHER
THAN THOSE LICENSED BY THE PATENTEE, AND MUST MAINTAIN A CERTAIN PRICE
DIFFERENTIAL; THEY MUST CONFORM TO PUBLIC HEALTH REGULATIONS IN MIXING
THE FUEL AND TO CONDITIONS TOUCHING THEIR USE OF THE PATENTEE'S
CORPORATE NAME AND TRADEMARK OR TRADE-NAMES; A JOBBER COULD SELL,
WITHIN A SPECIFIED TERRITORY ONLY, THE LEAD-TREATED GASOLINE SOLD HIM
BY A DESIGNATED LICENSED REFINER, GENERALLY THE ONE THROUGH WHOM HE
MUST APPLY FOR HIS LICENSE; HE MUST MAKE MONTHLY REPORTS TO THE
PATENTEE, WITH A LIST OF ALL PLACES OF SALE; MUST COMPLY WITH HEALTH
REGULATIONS AS TO THE HANDLING OF THE FUEL; MUST POST AND DISTRIBUTE
NOTICES CONCERNING SUCH HANDLING AS REQUIRED BY THE PATENTEE; MUST
PERMIT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF EMPLOYEES; MUST ABSTAIN FROM
ADULTERATION OR DILUTION OF THE FUEL; AND MUST COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS
AS TO THE USE OF THE PATENTEE'S NAME OR TRADE-NAME.  THE PATENTEE
RESERVED THE RIGHT TO CANCEL JOBBERS' LICENSES AT WILL.  THIS LICENSING
SYSTEM AFFECTED AND CONTROLLED THE BUSINESS OF MOST OF THOSE ENGAGED IN
MANUFACTURING MOTOR FUEL IN THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING NEARLY ALL THE
LEADING OIL COMPANIES AND MOST OF THE JOBBERS.  THE GREATER PART OF THE
TREATED GASOLINE WAS SOLD AND TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, MUCH
OF IT BEING DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE LICENSED JOBBERS.  THE PATENTEE
MADE A PRACTICE OF ASCERTAINING, THROUGH INVESTIGATIONS BY ITS AGENTS,
WHAT JOBBERS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MARKET POLICIES AND POSTED
PRICES OF THE MAJOR OIL COMPANIES, AND BY REJECTION OF APPLICATIONS FOR
LICENSES, AND IN OTHER WAYS, CREATED A BELIEF AMONG REFINERS AND
JOBBERS THAT UNDER ITS LICENSING SYSTEM, JOBBERS MUST YIELD SUCH
COMPLIANCE.  THE PATENTEE THUS BUILT UP A COMBINATION CAPABLE OF USE,
AND ACTUALLY USED, AS A MEANS OF SUPPRESSING COMPETITION AMONG JOBBERS
AND CONTROLLING THEIR PRICES.  IT WAS CONCEDED THAT IF THIS CONTROL OF
THE MARKET HAD BEEN ACQUIRED WITHOUT AID OF THE PATENTS, BUT WHOLLY BY
CONTRACTS WITH REFINERS AND JOBBERS, IT WOULD INVOLVE VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  HELD: 

(1) A PATENTEE MAY NOT, BY ATTACHING A CONDITION TO HIS LICENSE,
ENLARGE HIS MONOPOLY AND THUS ACQUIRE SOME OTHER WHICH THE STATUTE AND
THE PATENT TOGETHER DID NOT GIVE.  P. 455. 

(2)  BY THE AUTHORIZED SALES OF THE FUEL BY REFINERS TO JOBBERS, THE
PATENT MONOPOLY OVER IT IS EXHAUSTED, AND AFTER THE SALE NEITHER THE
PATENTEE NOR THE REFINERS MAY LONGER RELY ON THE PATENTS TO EXERCISE
ANY CONTROL OVER THE PRICE AT WHICH THE FUEL MAY BE RESOLD.  P. 457. 

(3)  AGREEMENTS FOR MAINTAINING PRICES OF ARTICLES MOVING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE, WITHOUT MORE, UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT BECAUSE THEY ELIMINATE COMPETITION; AND
AGREEMENTS WHICH CREATE POWER OF SUCH PRICE MAINTENANCE, EXHIBITED BY
ITS ACTUAL EXERTION FOR THAT PURPOSE, ARE IN THEMSELVES UNLAWFUL
RESTRAINTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 458. 

(4)  THE USE BY THE CORPORATION OF THE JOBBER LICENSING SYSTEM IN
BUILDING UP A COMBINATION CAPABLE OF USE AND ACTUALLY USED AS A MEANS
OF CONTROLLING JOBBERS' PRICES AND OF CONTROLLING COMPETITION AMONG
THEM, FOR WHICH IT COULD NOT LAWFULLY CONTRACT, EXTENDS BEYOND ITS
PATENT MONOPOLY AND IS A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  P. 458. 

(5)  THE PATENT MONOPOLY OF ONE INVENTION MAY NO MORE BE ENLARGED FOR
THE EXPLOITATION OF THE MONOPOLY OF ANOTHER THAN FOR THE EXPLOITATION
OF AN UNPATENTED ARTICLE, OR FOR THE EXPLOITATION OR PROMOTION OF A
BUSINESS NOT EMBRACED WITHIN THE PATENT.  P. 459. 

(6)  SUCH INTEREST AS THE PATENTEE IN THIS CASE HAS IN PROTECTING THE
HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUEL,
AND IN PREVENTING ADULTERATION, DETERIORATION AND DILUTION OF THE FUEL
IN THE HANDS OF THE JOBBERS, MAY BE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED WITHOUT RESORT
TO THE JOBBER LICENSE DEVICE.  P. 459. 

(7)  SINCE THE UNLAWFUL CONTROL OVER THE JOBBERS WAS ESTABLISHED AND
MAINTAINED BY RESORT TO THE LICENSING DEVICE, THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY
SUPPRESSED IT, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN, OR MIGHT BE, USED FOR SOME
LAWFUL PURPOSES.  P. 461. 

ETHYL GASOLINE CORPORATION ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING THE APPELLANT
CORPORATION AND ITS OFFICERS FROM GRANTING LICENSES TO JOBBERS, TO SELL
AND DISTRIBUTE ITS PATENTED LEADTREATED MOTOR FUEL, AND FROM ENFORCING
PROVISIONS IN LICENSES TO OIL REFINERS RESTRICTING THEIR SALE OF THE
FUEL TO LICENSED JOBBERS.  THE SUIT WAS BY THE GOVERNMENT, UNDER THE
SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT. 

APPELLANT HAS THE RIGHT UNDER ITS PRODUCT AND METHOD PATENTS TO
LICENSE JOBBERS HANDLING ITS PATENTED FUEL.  A PATENTEE MAY IMPOSE ANY
CONDITIONS UPON THE SALE OF THE PATENTED PRODUCT BY ITS LICENSEES WHICH
ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FOR
SECURING FINANCIAL RETURN FROM THE PATENT.  RUBBER CO. V. GOODYEAR, 9
WALL.  788, 799; BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70; ASPINWALL
MFG. CO. V. GILL, 32 F. 697; MITCHELL V. HAWLEY, 16 WALL.  544; UNITED
STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, 490; GENERAL TALKING
PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO., 304 U.S. 175; 305 U.S. 124;
STRAIGHT SIDE BASKET CORP. V. WEBSTER BASKET CO., 4 F.SUPP.  644; 10
F.SUPP.  171; 82 F.2D 245; VULCAN MFG. CO. V. MAYTAG CO., 73 F.2D 136. 

WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THAT OF THE PATENTEE
COMBINE TO REQUIRE THE EARLY, ECONOMICAL, AND WIDESPREAD USE OF THE
INVENTION THROUGH THE LICENSING OF OTHERS TO MANUFACTURE, ANY
REASONABLE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE LICENSOR TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF
THE PATENTED PRODUCT MADE BY HIS LICENSEES, TO ACHIEVE ITS READY
IDENTIFICATION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE PUBLIC, AND TO PREVENT ITS USE IN
A DANGEROUS MANNER, ARE PROPER.  REASONABLENESS IS DETERMINED NOT BY
HINDSIGHT BUT BY THE FACTS CONFRONTING THE PATENTEE IN THE BEGINNING. 
UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, 490; BEMENT V.
NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186 U.S. 70. 

MEASURED BY THESE CRITERIA, THE SECURING OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
SURGEON GENERAL'S HEALTH REGULATIONS WAS A SINE QUA NON TO MARKETING
THE PATENTED PRODUCT.  AND PROTECTION OF QUALITY - THROUGH TRADEMARK
IDENTIFICATION AND PREVENTION OF ADULTERATION, DILUTION, OR
DETERIORATION OF THE SPECIFIED STANDARD - WAS ESSENTIAL TO SECURING
WIDE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE.  THERE APPEARS TO BE NO DISPUTE THAT APPELLANT
MAY LAWFULLY RESTRICT ITS REFINER-LICENSEES TO SELLING ONLY TO JOBBERS
WHO COMPLY WITH PRECISELY THE SAME CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE SEPARATE
JOBBER LICENSES.  THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE IS ILLEGALITY IN
APPELLANT, THROUGH LICENSING JOBBERS, DOING DIRECTLY WHAT IT CAN
ADMITTEDLY DO INDIRECTLY. 

UNDER ITS METHOD PATENT APPELLANT HAS AN UNQUESTIONABLE RIGHT TO
LICENSE JOBBERS.  IT HAS A LIKE RIGHT UNDER ITS PRODUCT PATENT AS
WELL.  CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27, AND LEITCH
MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458, DISTINGUISHED.  THE CONDITIONS IN
THE JOBBER LICENSES ARE REASONABLE AND RELATED TO SECURING RETURN FROM
THESE PATENTS.  THEIR USE MAY BE QUESTIONED ONLY AS TO WHETHER THEY
WERE NECESSARY OR WHETHER THEY WERE ABUSED.  BY ANY REALISTIC APPRAISAL
OF THE COMMERCIAL SITUATION THEY WERE CLEARLY NECESSARY.  CF., COCA
COLA CO. V. THE KOKE CO., 254 U.S. 143, 146; COCA-COLA CO. V. BENNETT,
238 F. 513; COCA-COLA CO. V. BUTLER & SONS, 229 F. 224; STANDARD OIL
CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 273 F. 478, 482; AFF'D 261 U.S. 463;
MENENDEZ V. HOLT, 128 U.S. 514, 520; RALSTON PURINA CO. V. SANIWAX
PAPER CO., 26 F.2D 941, 943, 944; YALE ELECTRIC CORP. V. ROBERTSON, 26
F.2D 972, 974. 

THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CHARGE THAT THROUGH THREAT OF
CANCELLATION THEY WERE USED TO SECURE MAINTENANCE OF REFINERS' PRICES. 

REFUSAL IN A FEW CASES TO LICENSE PRICE-CUTTING JOBBERS TO HANDLE THE
PATENTED PRODUCT ARE NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD ANY ACTUAL EFFECT UPON TRADE
- THEY DID NOT RESULT IN PRICE MAINTENANCE, IN LESSENING THE NUMBER OF
JOBBERS, OR IN ANY EFFECT UPON ANY JOBBER, COMMUNITY, OR THE PUBLIC. 
JUSTIFICATION OF SUCH REFUSAL IS FOUND IN THE PATENTEE'S INTEREST IN
PREVENTING THE PATENTED PRODUCT BEING DEALT IN BY THOSE WHO WILL IMPAIR
ITS GOOD WILL AND WHO ARE MORE LIKELY TO DILUTE, ADULTERATE, OR
SUBSTITUTE.  EVEN ON UNPATENTED ARTICLES THIS JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN
JUDICIALLY SANCTIONED, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN PERMITTING A
MANUFACTURER BY EXPRESS CONTRACT TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST PRICE
CUTTERS HAS COME TO BE WIDELY RECOGNIZED BY FEDERAL AND STATE
ENACTMENTS.  SEE, OLD DEARBORN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS
CORP., 299 U.S. 183.  THE INTEREST OF A NON-MANUFACTURING PATENTEE IS
AS GREAT.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE
PATENTS, PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE HISTORY OF THE PETROLEUM
INDUSTRY, MAKE CLEAR THE REASONABLENESS OF APPELLANT'S ACTION.  SINCE
ITS JUSTIFICATION IN REFUSING TO PERMIT ITS PRODUCT TO BE HANDLED BY A
FEW NOTORIOUS PRICE CUTTERS WAS REASONABLE, ITS OCCASIONAL REFUSALS OF
A LICENSE FOR THIS REASON WERE NOT AN UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 
CEMENT MFRS.  PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 588, 605;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 179; UNITED STATES V.
COLGATE & CO., 250 U.S. 300, 307; EASTERN STATES RETAIL LUMBER DEALERS
ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600, 604.  CF., FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. RAYMOND CO., 263 U.S. 565, 573; AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 9 F.2D 570; AFF'D 274 U.S. 543; WM. FILENE'S
SONS CO. V. FASHION ORIGINATORS' GUILD, 90 F.2D 556; DR. MILES MEDICAL
CO. V. PARK, 220 U.S. 373, 412; MEYERSON V. HURLBUT, 98 F.2D 232;
BOSTON STORE V. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO., 246 U.S. 8, 27-28; PALMOLIVE
CO. V. FREEDMAN, (1928) CH. 264; COLUMBIA GRAPHOPHONE CO. V. THOMAS, 41
REP. PAT.  CAS.  294; DUNHILL, LTD. V. GRIFFITHS BROS., 51 REP. PAT. 
CAS.  93. 

EVEN IF APPELLANT'S REFUSAL TO LICENSE A FEW JOBBERS WERE
UNJUSTIFIED, THE DECREE ENTERED WAS IMPROPER AND AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.  SUGAR INSTITUTE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 553, 602.  CF.,
UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL CO., 173 F. 177, 192.  THE LOWER COURT
RECOGNIZED APPELLANT'S LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN INSURING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE SURGEON GENERAL'S HEALTH REGULATIONS AND IN PROTECTING THE
TRADEMARK, GOOD WILL, AND REPUTATION OF THE PATENTED PRODUCT.  THE ONLY
PRACTICE IT FOUND UNLAWFUL WAS THE EXCLUSION OF PRICE CUTTERS. 

ABOLISHING THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF JOBBER LICENSES WAS NOT NECESSARY TO
ENJOIN THIS PRACTICE SINCE AN ADEQUATE, SELF-POLICING DECREE COULD HAVE
READILY BEEN ENTERED.  THE SCOPE OF THE DECREE THUS EXCEEDED THE PROOF
OF ANY UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.  SEE, BLISS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 248 U.S.
37, 48; AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184;
WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526.  CF., HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307
U.S. 496.  MOREOVER, ITS DRASTIC PROVISIONS WILL FORECLOSE THE
PROTECTION OF APPELLANT'S ADMITTEDLY LEGITIMATE AND ESSENTIAL
INTERESTS.  CF., COCA-COLA CO. V. BENNETT, 238 F. 513.  THE DISTRICT
COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT JOBBER LICENSES WERE NOT NECESSARY IS BASED ON
ASSUMPTIONS UNWARRANTED AND CONTRADICTED BY THE RECORD.  DIST'G
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CASE, 298 U.S. 131, 140.  THERE IS NO
SUPPORT FOR ITS VIEW THAT THE MERE REPORTING OF VIOLATION TO REFINER
LICENSEES WILL BE EFFECTIVE.  NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT
OTHER METHODS ARE POSSIBLE TO PREVENT DILUTION, ADULTERATION, OR
SUBSTITUTION, OR TO INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH HEALTH REGULATIONS.  THE
DECREE, THEREFORE, DRASTICALLY IMPAIRS APPELLANT'S PRESENT ABILITY
SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY TO MARKET ITS PATENTED PRODUCT.  MORE THAN THIS,
IT SERIOUSLY HAMPERS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PATENTS AND LIMITS THE
RETURN FROM THEM DURING THEIR REMAINING LIFE.  FOR IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT
IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY CONTROLS AND PUBLIC
HEALTH SAFEGUARDS WILL BE FAR GREATER.  AS IT STANDS, EVEN UPON THE
VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER COURT THAT JOBBERS MAY NOT BE REFUSED LICENSES
BECAUSE OF A PRIOR HISTORY OF PRICE CUTTING, THE DECREE IS A
CUMBERSOME, DRASTIC, AND UNJUSTIFIABLE SOLUTION. 

APPELLANT, THROUGH THE USE OF ITS LICENSING SYSTEM, HAS COMBINED WITH
123 REFINERS PRODUCING ALL OF THE LEAD-TREATED GASOLINE SOLD IN THE
UNITED STATES TO EXCLUDE FROM THE BUSINESS OF HANDLING SUCH GASOLINE
ALL JOBBERS EXCEPT THOSE LICENSED BY APPELLANT.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT
APPELLANT HAS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS UNCONTROLLED DISCRETION, EXCLUDED
JOBBERS FROM THE MARKET AND HAS FIXED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH
MUST BE MET BY THOSE JOBBERS WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER
THE MARKET.  THE COMBINATION RESTRAINS TRADE BECAUSE IT EMPOWERS
APPELLANT TO DECIDE WHO SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE MARKET AND ON
WHAT TERMS AND CONDITIONS THE PERMISSION TO DO SO SHALL BE GRANTED. 
PARAMOUNT FAMOUS PICTURES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30; UNITED
STATES V. FIRST NATIONAL PICTURES, INC., 282 U.S. 44; INTERSTATE
CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208, 226-229.  SEE, ALSO, DR. MILES
MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S. 373, 408; UNITED STATES V.
BRIMS, 272 U.S. 549; EASTERN STATES LUMBER ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234
U.S. 600. 

APPELLANT'S LICENSING SYSTEM ALSO VIOLATES THE ANTITRUST LAWS BECAUSE
ITS BASIC PURPOSE HAS BEEN TO COMPEL JOBBERS TO MAINTAIN RESALE PRICES
OF GASOLINE.  APPELLANT REFUSES LICENSES TO JOBBERS WHO, IN ITS
JUDGMENT, ARE NOT LIKELY TO MAINTAIN THE MARKETING POLICIES AND PRICE
POLICIES OF THE MAJOR OIL COMPANIES.  LICENSEES BELIEVE THEY MUST
COMPLY WITH SUCH POLICIES IN ORDER TO RETAIN THEIR LICENSES. 
APPELLANT, THROUGH ITS FIELD REPRESENTATIVES, INVESTIGATES THE
MARKETING PRACTICES OF JOBBERS WHOM IT LICENSES AND HAS EXERTED DIRECT,
SUBSTANTIAL, AND EXTRAORDINARY INFLUENCE OVER THE PRICE POLICIES OF THE
INDIVIDUAL JOBBERS.  THIS KIND OF ARRANGEMENT IS CLEARLY ILLEGAL UNDER
THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  DR. MILES MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS., 220 U.S.
373; EASTERN STATES LUMBER ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600;
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. BEECH-NUT CO., 257 U.S. 44; UNITED STATES V.
TRENTON POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392; INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED
STATES, 306 U.S. 208. 

APPELLANT'S LICENSING SYSTEM MUST BE JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF ITS
OWNERSHIP OF PATENTS.  HOWEVER, AN ANALYSIS OF APPELLANT'S BUSINESS
DEMONSTRATES THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO ASSUME COMPLETE CONTROL
OVER THE MARKETING OF LEAD-TREATED GASOLINE THROUGH THE USE OF ITS
PATENTS.  APPELLANT'S BUSINESS IS THE MANUFACTURING OF THE PATENTED
FLUID WHICH IS USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH MOTOR FUEL.  WHEN IT
SELLS THE FLUID TO REFINERS IT RECEIVES ALL THE PECUNIARY REWARD WHICH
IT SEEKS FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF ITS PATENT RIGHTS.  HAVING THUS CHOSEN
TO OBTAIN THE REWARD FOR ITS INVENTION THROUGH THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE
OF THE FLUID, APPELLANT HAS NO RIGHT TO CONTROL THE MARKETING BY ITS
CUSTOMERS OF MOTOR FUEL CONTAINING THE FLUID.  ADAMS V. BURKE, 17
WALL.  453; HOBBIE V. JENNISON, 149 U.S. 355.  SEE ALSO KENDALL V.
WINSOR, 21 HOW.  322, 327-328; MOTION PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM
CO., 243 U.S. 502, 510-511; KEELER V. STANDARD FOLDING BED CO., 157
U.S. 659; BAUER V. O'DONNELL, 229 U.S. 1; STRAUS V. VICTOR TALKING
MACHINE CO., 243 U.S. 490; BOSTON STORE V. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO.,
246 U.S. 8.  CF., BOBBS-MERRILL CO. V. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339; DR. MILES
MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S. 373, 404-405. 

THE APPELLANT IS NOT ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN ANY FINANCIAL RETURN FROM
THE MIXING AND USE PATENTS.  IT IS ATTEMPTING TO USE THEM SOLELY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DOMINATING THE MARKETING OF LEAD-TREATED GASOLINE IN THE
UNITED STATES.  THIS IS AN IMPROPER USE OF THE PATENT PRIVILEGE.  THE
RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A PATENTEE CAN NOT EXTEND HIS CONTROL
OVER SUBJECT MATTER WHICH LIES OUTSIDE OF THE PATENT PRIVILEGE BY
MERELY INCLUDING SUCH SUBJECT MATTER IN HIS PATENT CLAIMS.  MOTION
PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 234 U.S. 502; CARBICE CORP. V.
AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27; LEITCH MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO., 302
U.S. 458; AMERICAN LECITHIN CO. V. WARFIELD CO., 105 F.2D 207; PHILAD
CO. V. LECHLER LABORATORIES, 107 F.2D 747. 

A PATENTEE IS ENTITLED ONLY TO IMPOSE SUCH RESTRICTIONS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SALE OF A PATENTED ARTICLE AS ARE NORMALLY AND REASONABLY
ADAPTED TO SECURE PECUNIARY REWARD FOR THE PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY.  UNITED
STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476.  RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED
UNDER THIS RULE MUST BE TESTED BY AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF
REASONABLENESS.  GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, SUPRA, 489, 490; KENDALL V.
WINSOR, 21 HOW.  322, 327-328; MOTION PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM
CO., 243 U.S. 502, 510-511. 

PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH IS NOT THE REAL REASON FOR THE
LICENSING SCHEME.  IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT REFINERS AND JOBBERS
ARE NOT AS ZEALOUS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AS IS APPELLANT OR THAT
THEY WOULD BEHAVE IN A RECKLESS OR IMPROPER MANNER IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE LICENSING SCHEME. 

THE LICENSING SYSTEM IS NOT NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE DILUTION,
ADULTERATION, AND DETERIORATION OF MOTOR FUEL CONTAINING THE FLUID. 
ETHYL GASOLINE CONSTITUTES ONLY ABOUT 6 PER CENT OF ALL LEAD-TREATED
MOTOR FUEL.  FURTHERMORE, THE PRODUCT WHICH APPELLANT FEARS MAY BE
ADULTERATED IS IN REALITY THE PRODUCT OF THE REFINERS.  THE LATTER HAVE
A DIRECT INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF THIS PRODUCT AND
APPELLANT'S INTEREST IS TOO REMOTE TO JUSTIFY ITS LICENSING SYSTEM. 
SEE, DR. MILES MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S. 373, 407. 
THE PRIVILEGES FLOWING FROM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TRADEMARK CAN BE NO
GREATER THAN THOSE COVERED BY APPELLANT'S PATENTS, AND CANNOT JUSTIFY
THE LICENSING SYSTEM.  COCA-COLA CO. V. BENNETT, 238 F. 513; COCA-COLA
CO. V. BUTLER & SONS, 229 F. 224; AND COCA-COLA CO.V. KOKE CO., 254
U.S. 143, DISTINGUISHED.  SEE MANUFACTURING CO. V. TRAINER, 101 U.S.
51; LAWRENCE MFG. CO. V. TENNESSEE MFG. CO., 138 U.S. 537; COLUMBIA
MILL CO. V. ALCORN, 150 U.S. 460; BOURJOIS & CO. V. KATZEL, 260 U.S.
689; DOVER STAMPING CO. V. FELLOWS, 40 N.E. 105.    THAT IT IS
NECESSARY FOR APPELLANT TO MAINTAIN RESALE PRICES OF MOTOR FUEL, CANNOT
JUSTIFY THE LICENSING SYSTEM, FOR THAT IS THE VERY THING WHICH MAKES
ITS SCHEME ILLEGAL.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP., 272 U.S.
476, IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE APPELLANT DOES NOT MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCT
UPON WHICH IT SEEKS TO FIX THE PRICE. 

IN STRIKING DOWN THE ENTIRE JOBBER LICENSING SCHEME THE COURT BELOW
GRANTED PROPER AND EFFECTIVE RELIEF.  NO OTHER DECREE WOULD SUFFICE TO
ASSURE JOBBERS THAT THEY WERE COMPLETELY FREE OF DOMINATION AND FREE TO
ENGAGE IN THE COMPETITION WHICH IS PROTECTED BY THE ANTITRUST LAWS.  A
DECREE WHICH PERMITTED APPELLANT TO RETAIN THE LICENSING SYSTEM IN ANY
FORM WOULD INVITE ABUSES THROUGH SECRECY AND CONCEALMENT.  THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED CONTINUALLY TO POLICE A LICENSING
PLAN WHICH PRESENTS INHERENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR MISUSE.  LOCAL 167 V.
UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 299; GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO.,
221 U.S. 418, 438-439; PURITY EXTRACT CO. V. LYNCH, 226 U.S. 192, 201. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN
NEW YORK, TO RESTRAIN APPELLANT, ETHYL GASOLINE CORPORATION, A DELAWARE
CORPORATION, AND THE OTHER APPELLANTS, WHO ARE ITS OFFICERS, FROM
GRANTING LICENSES, UNDER PATENTS CONTROLLED BY IT, TO JOBBERS TO SELL
AND DISTRIBUTE LEAD-TREATED MOTOR FUEL, AND FROM ENFORCING PROVISIONS
IN LICENSES TO OIL REFINERS WHICH RESTRICT THEIR SALE OF THE MOTOR FUEL
TO THE LICENSED JOBBERS, AS VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT. 
26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1, AS AMENDED AUGUST 17, 1937, 50 STAT.
693.  THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND FROM ITS DECISION
IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT THE CASE COMES HERE ON DIRECT APPEAL UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 OF THE EXPEDITING ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1903, AS
AMENDED 36 STAT. 1167, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29; SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, AS AMENDED 43 STAT. 938, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED ON AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS WHICH WAS
INCORPORATED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND, EXCEPT AS NOTED,
THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE FACTS.  THE APPELLANT CORPORATION IS
ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF A PATENTED FLUID COMPOUND
CONTAINING TETRAETHYL LEAD, A POISONOUS SUBSTANCE, WHICH, WHEN ADDED TO
GASOLINE USED AS A MOTOR FUEL, INCREASES THE EFFICIENCY OF HIGH
PRESSURE COMBUSTION ENGINES IN WHICH THE FUEL IS CONSUMED.  THE ETHYL
CORPORATION OWNS TWO PATENTS COVERING THE COMPOSITION OF THE FLUID, NO.
1,592,954 OF JULY 20, 1926, AND NO. 1,668,022 OF MAY 1, 1928.  IT HAS A
THIRD PATENT, NO. 1,573,846 OF FEBRUARY 23, 1926, CLAIMING A MOTOR FUEL
PRODUCED BY MIXING GASOLINE WITH THE PATENT FLUID COMPOUND, WHICH IS
CLAIMED ALSO BY THE TWO PATENTS FIRST MENTIONED.  IT ALSO HAS A PATENT,
NO. 1,787,419, OF DECEMBER 30, 1930, CLAIMING A METHOD OF USING FUEL
CONTAINING THE PATENTED FLUID IN COMBUSTION MOTORS.  THE CORPORATION
MANUFACTURES AND SELLS THE PATENTED FLUID TO OIL REFINERS, SOLELY FOR
USE IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE IMPROVED TYPE OF MOTOR FUEL.  IT ISSUES
LICENSES UNDER ITS PATENTS TO REFINERS AND TO JOBBERS OF MOTOR FUEL ON
TERMS AND CONDITIONS PRESENTLY TO BE NOTED, BUT IT DOES NOT CHARGE OR
RECEIVE ANY ROYALTY FOR ITS LICENSES.  IT DERIVES ITS PROFIT SOLELY
FROM THE SALE OF THE PATENTED ETHYL FLUID TO ITS REFINER LICENSEES. 

THE LICENSING AGREEMENTS. 

APPELLANT GRANTS LICENSES UNDER ITS PATENTS TO MOST OF THE LARGE OIL
REFINING COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES, TO MANUFACTURE, SELL AND
DISTRIBUTE MOTOR FUEL CONTAINING THE PATENTED FLUID.  THE LICENSES
PROVIDE THAT APPELLANT WILL SELL TO THE LICENSEES THEIR REQUIREMENTS OF
THE PATENTED FLUID.  THEY PROHIBIT THE LICENSEES FROM SELLING THE
MANUFACTURED PRODUCT TO ANY EXCEPT TO OTHER LICENSED REFINERS, TO
JOBBERS LICENSED BY APPELLANT AND TO RETAIL DEALERS AND CONSUMERS. 
THEY REQUIRE THE LICENSED REFINERS TO MIX THE PATENTED FLUID WITH THE
GASOLINE AT THEIR REFINERIES WITH EQUIPMENT APPROVED BY APPELLANT AND
IN CONFORMITY TO REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE SURGEON GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODY HAVING JURISDICTION.  THE
REFINERS AGREE TO IMPOSE OBLIGATIONS ON ALL PURCHASERS TO CONFORM TO
SUCH HEALTH REGULATIONS AND TO REQUIRE THEM TO IMPOSE LIKE OBLIGATIONS
ON THOSE TO WHOM THEY SELL.  THE REFINERS AGREE, UPON NOTICE BY
APPELLANT, TO DISCONTINUE SALES TO OTHER REFINERS OR JOBBERS WHOSE
LICENSES APPELLANT HAS CANCELLED.  THE LICENSES ALSO PROVIDE FOR THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THE FLUID TO BE USED IN THE GASOLINE; AND THAT,
WITHIN THAT LIMIT, THE LICENSEES' REGULAR OR "BEST NON-PREMIUM"
GASOLINE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM OCTANE RATING OF 70  FN1  AND SHALL BE
SOLD AS THE NEXT HIGHEST PRICED MOTOR FUEL OF THE LICENSEE BELOW THE
LICENSEE'S ETHYL GASOLINE, WHICH SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OCTANE RATING OF
76 AND SHALL BE SOLD AT A CERTAIN FIXED PRICE DIFFERENTIAL ABOVE THE
AVERAGE NET SALES PRICE OF THE LICENSEES' BEST NON-PREMIUM GRADE OF
COMMERCIAL GASOLINE.  THE LICENSES FURTHER PROVIDE THE CONDITIONS UNDER
WHICH THE NAME OF THE ETHYL CORPORATION AND ITS TRADEMARK OR TRADE
NAMES MAY BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADVERTISING AND SALE OF THE
PATENTED MOTOR FUEL.  FN2 

JOBBERS ARE GENERALLY REQUIRED BY APPELLANT TO APPLY FOR LICENSES
THROUGH THE REFINERS FROM WHOM THEY EXPECT TO PURCHASE THE MOTOR FUEL. 
THE LICENSES TO JOBBERS PURPORT TO GRANT THE RIGHT TO SELL AND DELIVER
TO RETAIL DEALERS AND CONSUMERS WITHIN A SPECIFIED TERRITORY REGULAR
AND ETHYL GASOLINE, MANUFACTURED AND SOLD BY A DESIGNATED LICENSED
REFINER.  FN3  THE LICENSED JOBBERS ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH APPELLANT
MONTHLY WITH A LIST OF ALL PLACES AT WHICH THE MOTOR FUEL IS SOLD UNDER
THE LICENSES.  THEY AGREE TO COMPLY WITH HEALTH REGULATIONS RELATING TO
THE HANDLING OF THE MOTOR FUEL PROMULGATED BY THE SURGEON GENERAL OR
OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY; TO POST AND DISTRIBUTE ANY NOTICES
CONCERNING THE HANDLING OF SUCH FUEL AS REQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT; TO
PERMIT PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF EMPLOYEES, AND TO REQUIRE CUSTOMERS
PURCHASING FOR RESALE TO ASSUME SIMILAR OBLIGATIONS.  ADULTERATION AND
DILUTION OF MOTOR FUEL DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE LICENSES IS PROHIBITED,
AND REQUIREMENTS SIMILAR TO THOSE CONTAINED IN REFINER LICENSES ARE
IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF APPELLANT'S CORPORATE NAME AND TRADE
NAMES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADVERTISING AND SALE OF THE MOTOR FUEL. 
APPELLANT IS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE JOBBERS' LICENSES AT ANY
TIME FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THEIR TERMS, AND EITHER PARTY MAY
CANCEL, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE, ON THIRTY DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE. 

EFFECT OF THE LICENSING AGREEMENTS ON THE OIL INDUSTRY. 

THE LICENSING SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY APPELLANT AFFECTS AND CONTROLS
THE BUSINESS OF THE MAJOR PART OF THOSE ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND
DISTRIBUTING MOTOR FUEL OIL IN THE UNITED STATES.  APPELLANT ISSUES
LICENSES TO 123 REFINERS, INCLUDING EVERY LEADING OIL COMPANY, EXCEPT
ONE, THE SUN OIL COMPANY, WHICH DOES NOT GENERALLY DO BUSINESS THROUGH
JOBBERS.  THEY REFINE 88% OF ALL GASOLINE SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES,
AND THE GASOLINE PROCESSED BY THEM UNDER THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS IS 70%
OF ALL THE GASOLINE THUS SOLD, AND 85% OF ALL GASOLINE PROCESSED TO
OBTAIN A HIGH OCTANE RATING. 

ANY JOBBER IN THE UNITED STATES DESIRING TO SELL LEAD-TREATED
GASOLINE MUST SECURE A LICENSE FROM THE ETHYL CORPORATION, REVOCABLE AT
ITS WILL, BEFORE IT CAN PROCURE THE GASOLINE FROM LICENSED REFINERS. 
OF THE 12,000 JOBBERS DOING BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES APPROXIMATELY
11,000 ARE LICENSED BY APPELLANT.  THE JOBBER MUST PROCURE A NEW
LICENSE ON CHANGING HIS SOURCE OF SUPPLY.  THE GREATER PART OF ALL
GASOLINE TREATED WITH THE PATENTED FLUID IS SOLD AND TRANSPORTED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS SOLD IN PART THROUGH WHOLESALE AND RETAIL
OUTLETS OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE REFINERS AND IN PART TO INDIVIDUAL
RETAILERS AND CONSUMERS.  A LARGE VOLUME AND A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE
WHOLE IS DISTRIBUTED THROUGH LICENSED JOBBERS TO WHOM IT IS DELIVERED
AT THEIR BULK STORAGE PLANTS THROUGH THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

BY THEIR TERMS, THE LICENSING AGREEMENTS SERVE TO EXCLUDE ALL
UNLICENSED JOBBERS FROM THE MARKET, AND IN THE PARTICULARS ALREADY
MENTIONED, AND IN OTHERS PRESENTLY TO BE DISCUSSED, THEY CONTROL THE
CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF LICENSED JOBBERS IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
PATENTED MOTOR FUEL AND ENABLE APPELLANT AT WILL TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM
THE BUSINESS.  THE REFINERS' LICENSES ALSO IN TERMS PLACE RESTRAINTS ON
THE SALES PRICE OF REFINERS BY ESTABLISHING THE PRESCRIBED DIFFERENTIAL
BETWEEN REGULAR AND ETHYL GASOLINE.  FROM THIS AND FROM THE OTHER
STIPULATED FACTS THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE CONTROL ACQUIRED
THROUGH THE LICENSING AGREEMENTS OVER THE REFINERS AND JOBBERS HAS BEEN
USED BY APPELLANTS TO CONTROL THE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE JOBBERS AND
PARTICULARLY TO MAINTAIN RESALE PRICES OF THE PATENTED MOTOR FUEL IN
UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS
CONTENTION IT RELIES UPON THE LONG ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF APPELLANT TO
REFUSE TO GRANT LICENSES TO JOBBERS WHO CUT PRICES OR REFUSE TO CONFORM
TO THE MARKETING POLICIES AND POSTED PRICES OF THE MAJOR REFINERIES OR
THE MARKET LEADERS AMONG THEM. 

DECISION BELOW AND CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS. 

THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE INDEFINITE LANGUAGE OF
THE STIPULATION IT WAS PERHAPS A PERMISSIBLE, THOUGH NOT A NECESSARY,
CONCLUSION THAT AN AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF
PRICES EXISTED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE JOBBER LICENSEES.  BUT IT
CONSIDERED IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE, SINCE IT FOUND THAT THE
APPELLANT'S LICENSING PRACTICES AFFECTING THE JOBBERS, IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE AGREEMENTS AND COOPERATION OF THE LICENSED REFINERS, HAD BEEN
USED BY APPELLANT AS THE MEANS OF EXCLUDING FROM THE MARKET THE
UNLICENSED JOBBERS WHO DO NOT CONFORM TO THE MARKET POLICIES AND POSTED
GASOLINE PRICES ADOPTED BY THE MAJOR OIL COMPANIES OR THE MARKET
LEADERS AMONG THEM, AND THAT APPELLANT USES THE CONTROL THUS
ESTABLISHED TO COERCE ADHERENCE TO THOSE POLICIES AND PRICES GENERALLY
BY THE LICENSED JOBBERS, AND THAT THIS RESTRICTION UPON THE INDUSTRY
EFFECTED THROUGH THE LICENSE CONTRACTS WITH REFINERS AND JOBBERS WAS
NOT WITHIN APPELLANT'S PATENT MONOPOLY, AND OPERATED UNREASONABLY TO
RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE PROCESSED GASOLINE. 

IT CONCLUDED THAT THE LICENSING SYSTEM WAS NOT, AS APPELLANT ARGUES,
NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF SUCH LEGITIMATE INTERESTS AS THE
PATENTEE HAD IN THE PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY OF THE TREATED GASOLINE
SOLD UPON THE MARKET, AND ITS USE BY THE JOBBERS WITH SAFETY TO THE
PUBLIC HEALTH.  APPELLANTS WERE ACCORDINGLY ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING OR
ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE, OR INCLUDING IN ANY SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT,
PROVISIONS THAT REFINERS SHALL SELL LEAD-TREATED GASOLINE ONLY TO
LICENSED JOBBERS, AND FROM REQUIRING OR ATTEMPTING TO REQUIRE JOBBERS
TO SECURE LICENSES, AND FROM ENFORCING OR ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OUTSTANDING JOBBER LICENSES.  THE DECREE ALSO
DECLARED THE JOBBER LICENSES ILLEGAL AND REQUIRED APPELLANT TO NOTIFY
THE JOBBERS THAT THE LICENSES HAVE BEEN CANCELLED. 

APPELLANT, INSISTING THAT IT DOES NOT USE THE JOBBERS' LICENSING
SYSTEM TO MAINTAIN PRICES, MAKES TWO PRINCIPAL ATTACKS ON THE DECREE. 
IT URGES THAT THE LICENSING OF THE REFINERS AND JOBBERS, THE RESTRAINTS
UPON THE SALE OF THE PATENTED FUEL BY THE REFINERS, AND THE
RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON THE JOBBERS, ARE ALL REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR
THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF APPELLANT'S PATENTS AND FOR INSURING A
FINANCIAL RETURN FROM THEM, AND ARE THEREFORE WITHIN ITS PATENT
MONOPOLY.  IN ANY CASE, IT IS SAID THAT THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE
REFINERS' AND JOBBERS' LICENSES ARE APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLY ADAPTED
TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT AND FOR THE PROTECTION
OF THE PUBLIC IN ITS USE OF A PRODUCT CONTAINING A DANGEROUS POISON,
AND BOTH ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE MARKET FOR THE
PATENTED FUEL, ON WHICH THE MARKET FOR APPELLANT'S PATENTED FLUID
DEPENDS.  AND SINCE THE JOBBERS' LICENSES ARE A NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE MEANS OF PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF APPELLANT AND THE
PUBLIC IN THE QUALITY AND SAFE USE OF THE PATENTED PRODUCT, IT IS
ARGUED THAT THE DECREE ABOLISHING THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF JOBBERS' LICENSES
WENT FURTHER THAN WAS NECESSARY OR PROPER TO PREVENT SUCH RESTRAINT AS
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN EXERTED ON THE JOBBERS WITH RESPECT TO PRICES AND
MARKETING POLICIES. 

RELATION OF THE LICENSING AGREEMENTS TO PRICE MAINTENANCE. 

FOR THE MOMENT WE MAY LAY TO ONE SIDE THE PARTICULAR RESTRICTIONS
ENUMERATED IN THE CONTRACTS OF THE REFINERS WITH JOBBERS, AND TURN TO
THE RELATION OF APPELLANT'S LICENSING POLICY TO THE MAINTENANCE OF
PRICE POLICIES BY THE JOBBERS.  WHILE THE TRIAL COURT FOUND NO CONTRACT
OR AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTS TO PRESCRIBE RESALE PRICES OR TO EXACT ANY
PRICE POLICY OF THE JOBBERS, THE STIPULATION OF FACTS SHOWS THAT
APPELLANT, THROUGH ITS PATENTS, ITS CONTRACTS, AND ITS LICENSING
POLICY, HAS ACQUIRED THE POWER TO EXCLUDE AT WILL FROM PARTICIPATION IN
THE NATIONWIDE MARKET FOR LEAD-TREATED MOTOR FUEL ALL OF THE 12,000
MOTOR FUEL JOBBERS OF THE COUNTRY, BY REFUSING TO LICENSE ANY OF THE
1,000 UNLICENSED JOBBERS, OR BY CANCELLING, AS IT MAY AT WILL, THE
LICENSES OF ANY OF THE 11,000 LICENSED JOBBERS.  THIS WE ASSUME, FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES, IT COULD LAWFULLY DO BY VIRTUE OF THE POWER CONFERRED
BY ITS PATENT TO EXCLUDE ANY OR ALL OTHERS FROM SELLING THE PATENTED
PRODUCT.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT CAN LAWFULLY EXERCISE THAT
POWER IN SUCH MANNER AS TO CONTROL THE PATENTED COMMODITY IN THE HANDS
OF THE LICENSED JOBBERS WHO HAD PURCHASED IT, OR THEIR ACTIONS WITH
RESPECT TO IT IN WAYS NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY; AND
CONSPICUOUS AMONG SUCH CONTROLS WHICH THE SHERMAN LAW PROHIBITS AND THE
PATENT LAW DOES NOT SANCTION IS THE REGULATION OF PRICES AND THE
SUPPRESSION OF COMPETITION AMONG THE PURCHASERS OF THE PATENTED
ARTICLES.  THAT APPELLANT, BY THE PLAN AND SCOPE OF ITS LICENSING
POLICY, HAS ACQUIRED VAST POTENTIAL POWER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT END CANNOT
BE DOUBTED.  AND WE THINK THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL
COURT THAT APPELLANT HAS EXERCISED THAT POWER CONTINUOUSLY FOR A
CONSIDERABLE PERIOD AS A MEANS OF CONTROL OVER THE PRICE POLICIES OF
THE LICENSED JOBBERS. 

FROM THE STIPULATION OF FACTS, IT APPEARS THAT SINCE 1929 APPELLANT
HAS PURSUED THE PRACTICE OF INVESTIGATING, THROUGH FIELD AGENTS, THE
"BUSINESS ETHICS" OF JOBBERS APPLYING FOR LICENSES, AND OF REJECTING
SUCH APPLICATIONS UPON THE ADVERSE REPORT OF THE AGENT.  APPELLANT
ADMITS THAT THE PHRASE "BUSINESS ETHICS" IS USED TO DENOTE COMPLIANCE
WITH "MARKETING POLICIES AND PREVAILING PRICES OF THE PETROLEUM
INDUSTRY," WHICH ARE THE "MARKETING POLICIES AND POSTED PRICES OF THE
MAJOR OIL COMPANIES OR THE MARKET LEADERS AMONG THEM."  AMONG THESE IS
THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY WHICH OWNS ONE-HALF OF THE
CAPITAL STOCK OF THE APPELLANT.  FN4  WHILE NOT ALL APPLICANTS WHO HAVE
FAILED TO MAINTAIN PRICES AND MARKETING POLICIES HAVE BEEN REJECTED,
THE RECORD LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE USE OF ITS DOMINANT
POSITION IN THE TRADE TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PRICES AND MARKETING
POLICIES OF JOBBERS IN A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF CASES AND WITH SUFFICIENT
CONTINUITY TO MAKE ITS ATTITUDE TOWARD PRICE CUTTING A PERVASIVE
INFLUENCE IN THE JOBBING TRADE. 

IN MANY INSTANCES, ALTHOUGH NOT IN ALL, AN ADVERSE REPORT BY THE
INVESTIGATOR AS TO THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS ETHICS HAS BEEN THE SOLE
GROUND FOR REJECTING HIS APPLICATION, AND APPELLANT ADMITS THAT THE
GREATER NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN DENIED WERE
REJECTED BECAUSE OF SUCH AN ADVERSE REPORT.  IN THE CASES IN WHICH
LICENSES HAVE BEEN REFUSED, SOMETHING LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF THE
REJECTED APPLICANTS WERE LATER GRANTED LICENSES ON THEIR ASSURANCE THAT
THEIR MARKETING PRACTICES WOULD BE CHANGED.  THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
REJECTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THAT STANDARD DOES NOT APPEAR,
FOR APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO KEEP ANY RECORD OF THE GROUND OF REJECTION
OF APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES, ADMITTEDLY BECAUSE IT IS RELUCTANT TO
PRESERVE IN ITS RECORDS "THE EXTENT TO WHICH MAINTENANCE OF PRICES AND
MARKETING POLICIES BY JOBBERS ENTERED INTO THE GRANTING OF LICENSES." 

JOBBERS' LICENSES DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CANCELLED BECAUSE OF
FAILURES TO MAINTAIN POLICIES OR PRICES OF THE MAJOR OIL COMPANIES
WHENEVER THEY HAVE OCCURRED, BUT IT IS AN ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF
APPELLANT TO INVESTIGATE THE BUSINESS ETHICS OF LICENSED JOBBERS IN
ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THEY MAINTAIN THE MARKETING PRICES, POLICIES
AND PRACTICES PREVAILING OR OSTENSIBLY PREVAILING IN THE INDUSTRY. 
REPRESENTATIVES OF APPELLANT HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT NOT IN EVERY
CASE, REPORTED A JOBBER TO HIS SUPPLIER OR REFINER FOR NOT MAINTAINING
THE MARKETING POLICIES OF THE LATTER, AND IN SOME CASES THEY HAVE
UNITED IN PERSUADING THE JOBBER TO MEND HIS WAYS.  APPELLANT HAS
GENERALLY REQUIRED EACH LICENSED JOBBER TO PURCHASE ALL HIS TREATED
FUEL FROM A SINGLE REFINER AND IN SOME INSTANCES HAS REFUSED A LICENSE
TO JOBBERS WHO WISHED TO CHANGE THEIR SOURCE OF SUPPLY FROM ONE
LICENSED REFINER TO ANOTHER. 

THESE LONG-CONTINUED PRACTICES HAVE HAD THE EFFECT UPON THE INDUSTRY
NATURALLY TO BE EXPECTED.  LARGE NUMBERS OF REFINERS AND THE MAJORITY
OF JOBBERS BELIEVE THAT THE JOBBERS MUST MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED BUSINESS
ETHICS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN LICENSES, AND A NUMBER OF LICENSED JOBBERS
BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED BY APPELLANT'S LICENSING PRACTICES TO
MAINTAIN PRICES AND ABIDE BY THE MARKETING PRACTICES OF THE MAJOR OIL
COMPANIES.  APPELLANT, IN ITS PRINTED INSTRUCTIONS TO FIELD
REPRESENTATIVES AS TO THE MANNER OF CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS OF
LICENSED JOBBERS, AFTER POINTING OUT THAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE JOBBER BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE LICENSE IS TO
INSURE THAT HE "WILL NOT RESORT TO UNETHICAL METHODS IN COMPETING WITH
OUR OTHER LICENSED JOBBERS AND REFINERS," AND AFTER DESCRIBING THE
METHODS OF CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION,  FN5 SUMS UP THE RESULT AS
FOLLOWS:  "WE HAVE, THROUGH THESE SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS, BEEN
ABLE TO CORRECT THE ETHYL PICTURE TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT, AND HAVE
SUCCEEDED IN ELIMINATING FROM OUR JOBBER LISTS SOME OF OUR FORMER
ACCOUNTS WHO WERE NOT A CREDIT TO US AS LICENSEES OF THE ETHYL GASOLINE
CORPORATION." 

SCOPE OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY. 

IT IS NOT DENIED, AND COULD NOT WELL BE, THAT IF APPELLANT'S
COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL OF THE MARKET IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LEAD
TREATED GASOLINE, AS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD, HAD BEEN ACQUIRED WITHOUT
AID OF THE PATENTS, BUT WHOLLY BY THE CONTRACTS WITH REFINERS AND
JOBBERS, SUCH CONTROL WOULD INVOLVE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
PARAMOUNT FAMOUS CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30, 43; UNITED STATES
V. FIRST NATIONAL PICTURES, 282 U.S. 44.  CF. FREY & SON V. CUDAHY
PACKING CO., 256 U.S. 208; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. BEECH-NUT
PACKING CO., 257 U.S. 441.  AND SO WE TURN TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
PATENTS AND THE PATENT LAW TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE MONOPOLY WHICH THEY
HAVE GIVEN APPELLANT AFFORDS A LAWFUL BASIS FOR THE CONTROL OVER THE
MARKETING OF MOTOR FUEL WHICH THE RECORD DISCLOSES.  CF. UNITED STATES
V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476.  IN CONSIDERING THAT QUESTION WE
ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS, WHICH IS NOT QUESTIONED HERE. 

THE PATENT LAW CONFERS ON THE PATENTEE A LIMITED MONOPOLY, THE RIGHT
OR POWER TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHERS FROM MANUFACTURING, USING, OR SELLING
HIS INVENTION.  R.S. SEC. 4884, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 40.  THE EXTENT OF THAT
RIGHT IS LIMITED BY THE DEFINITION OF HIS INVENTION, AS ITS BOUNDARIES
ARE MARKED BY THE SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS OF THE PATENT.  MOTION
PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 243 U.S. 502, 510.  HE MAY
GRANT LICENSES TO MAKE, USE OR VEND, RESTRICTED IN POINT OF SPACE OR
TIME, OR WITH ANY OTHER RESTRICTION UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE GRANTED
PRIVILEGE, SAVE ONLY THAT BY ATTACHING A CONDITION TO HIS LICENSE HE
MAY NOT ENLARGE HIS MONOPOLY AND THUS ACQUIRE SOME OTHER WHICH THE
STATUTE AND THE PATENT TOGETHER DID NOT GIVE. 

HE MAY NOT, BY VIRTUE OF HIS PATENT, CONDITION HIS LICENSE SO AS TO
TIE TO THE USE OF THE PATENTED DEVICE OR PROCESS THE USE OF OTHER
DEVICES, PROCESSES OR MATERIALS WHICH LIE OUTSIDE OF THE MONOPOLY OF
THE PATENT LICENSED; MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG.
CO., SUPRA; CARBICE CORPORATION V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27,
31; LEITCH MANUFACTURING CO. V. BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458; CF. UNITED
SHOE MACHINERY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451, 462; INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 131, 140; OR
CONDITION THE LICENSE SO AS TO CONTROL CONDUCT BY THE LICENSEE NOT
EMBRACED IN THE PATENT MONOPOLY, STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 226 U.S. 20; INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208,
228-230; OR UPON THE MAINTENANCE OF RESALE PRICES BY THE PURCHASER OF
THE PATENTED ARTICLE.  ADAMS V. BURKE, 17 WALL.  453; BOBBS-MERRILL CO.
V. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339; DR. MILES MEDICAL CO. V. JOHN D. PARK & SONS
CO., 220 U.S. 373; BAUER & CIE V. O'DONNELL, 229 U.S. 1; STRAUS V.
VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO., 243 U.S. 490; BOSTON STORE V. AMERICAN
GRAPHOPHONE CO., 246 U.S. 8; CF. UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
SUPRA, 485. 

APPELLANT, AS PATENTEE, POSSESSES EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO MAKE AND SELL
THE FLUID AND ALSO THE LEAD-TREATED MOTOR FUEL.  BY ITS SALES TO
REFINERS IT RELINQUISHES ITS EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE THE PATENTED FLUID;
AND IT RELINQUISHES TO THE LICENSED JOBBERS ITS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO
SELL THE LEAD-TREATED FUEL BY PERMITTING THE LICENSED REFINERS TO
MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE FUEL TO THEM.  AND BY THE AUTHORIZED SALES OF
THE FUEL BY REFINERS TO JOBBERS THE PATENT MONOPOLY OVER IT IS
EXHAUSTED, AND AFTER THE SALE NEITHER APPELLANT NOR THE REFINERS MAY
LONGER RELY ON THE PATENTS TO EXERCISE ANY CONTROL OVER THE PRICE AT
WHICH THE FUEL MAY BE RESOLD.  ADAMS V. BURKE, SUPRA; BOBBS-MERRILL CO.
V. STRAUS, SUPRA; BAUER & CIE V. O'DONNELL, SUPRA; MOTION PICTURE
PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., SUPRA. 

THE PICTURE HERE REVEALED IS NOT THAT OF A PATENTEE EXERCISING ITS
RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SELL OR TO PERMIT HIS LICENSEE TO SELL THE PATENTED
PRODUCTS TO PRICE-CUTTERS.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250
U.S. 300 WITH UNITED STATES V. A. SCHRADER'S SON, 252 U.S. 85.  A VERY
DIFFERENT SCENE IS DEPICTED BY THE RECORD.  IT IS ONE IN WHICH
APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THE MARKETING OF THE PATENTED FUEL IN VAST
AMOUNTS ON A NATIONWIDE SCALE THROUGH THE 11,000 JOBBERS AND AT THE
SAME TIME, BY THE LEVERAGE OF ITS LICENSING CONTRACTS RESTING ON THE
FULCRUM OF ITS PATENTS, IT HAS BUILT UP A COMBINATION CAPABLE OF USE,
AND ACTUALLY USED, AS A MEANS OF CONTROLLING JOBBERS' PRICES AND
SUPPRESSING COMPETITION AMONG THEM.  IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT THIS ATTEMPTED
REGULATION OF PRICES AND MARKET PRACTICES OF THE JOBBERS WITH RESPECT
TO THE FUEL PURCHASED, FOR WHICH APPELLANT COULD NOT LAWFULLY CONTRACT,
CANNOT BE LAWFULLY ACHIEVED BY ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS OR COMBINATIONS
THROUGH THE MANIPULATION OF WHICH THE SAME RESULTS ARE REACHED BY THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER WHICH THEY GIVE TO CONTROL THE ACTION OF THE
PURCHASERS.  SUCH CONTRACTS OR COMBINATIONS WHICH ARE USED TO OBSTRUCT
THE FREE AND NATURAL FLOW IN THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF
TRADE EVEN IN A PATENTED ARTICLE, AFTER IT IS SOLD BY THE PATENTEE OR
HIS LICENSEE, ARE A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. BEECH-NUT CO., SUPRA, 453; UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA; VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO. V. KEMENY, 271 F. 810,
817; CF. UNITED STATES V. A. SCHRADER'S SON, SUPRA.  AGREEMENTS FOR
PRICE MAINTENANCE OF ARTICLES MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE,
WITHOUT MORE, UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN
ACT BECAUSE THEY ELIMINATE COMPETITION, UNITED STATES V. TRENTON
POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, AND AGREEMENTS WHICH CREATE POTENTIAL
POWER FOR SUCH PRICE MAINTENANCE EXHIBITED BY ITS ACTUAL EXERTION FOR
THAT PURPOSE ARE IN THEMSELVES UNLAWFUL RESTRAINTS WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE SHERMAN ACT, WHICH IS NOT ONLY A PROHIBITION AGAINST THE
INFLICTION OF A PARTICULAR TYPE OF PUBLIC INJURY BUT "A LIMITATION OF
RIGHTS WHICH MAY BE PUSHED TO EVIL CONSEQUENCES AND THEREFORE
RESTRAINED."  STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 49;
AMERICAN COLUMN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 377, 400; UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN LINSEED OIL CO., 262 U.S. 371; UNITED STATES V. TRENTON
POTTERIES CO., SUPRA, 397, 398. 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH APPELLANT'S DOMINION OVER THE JOBBERS' BUSINESS
GOES BEYOND ITS PATENT MONOPOLY, IS EMPHASIZED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES
HERE PRESENT THAT THE PRICES AND MARKET PRACTICES SOUGHT TO BE
ESTABLISHED ARE NOT THOSE PRESCRIBED BY APPELLANT-PATENTEE, BUT BY THE
REFINERS.  APPELLANT NEITHER OWNS NOR SELLS THE PATENTED FUEL NOR
DERIVES ANY PROFIT THROUGH ROYALTIES OR OTHERWISE FROM ITS SALE.  IT
HAS CHOSEN TO EXPLOIT ITS PATENTS BY MANUFACTURING THE FLUID COVERED BY
THEM AND BY SELLING THAT FLUID TO REFINERS FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE
OF MOTOR FUEL.  SUCH BENEFITS AS RESULT FROM CONTROL OVER THE MARKETING
OF THE TREATED FUEL BY THE JOBBERS ACCRUE PRIMARILY TO THE REFINERS AND
INFIRECTLY TO APPELLANT, ONLY IN THE ENJOYMENT OF ITS MONOPOLY OF THE
FLUID SECURED UNDER ANOTHER PATENT.  THE LICENSING CONDITIONS ARE THUS
NOT USED AS A MEANS OF STIMULATING THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
FINANCIAL RETURNS OF THE PATENTED INVENTION WHICH IS LICENSED, BUT FOR
THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE REFINERS AND THE
EXPLOITATION OF A SECOND PATENT MONOPOLY NOT EMBRACED IN THE FIRST. 
THE PATENT MONOPOLY OF ONE INVENTION MAY NO MORE BE ENLARGED FOR THE
EXPLOITATION OF A MONOPOLY OF ANOTHER, SEE STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THAN FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF AN UNPATENTED
ARTICLE, UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; CARBICE
CORPORATION V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., SUPRA; LEITCH MANUFACTURING CO.
V. BARBER CO., SUPRA; AMERICAN LECITHIN CO. V. WARFIELD CO., 105 F.2D
207, OR FOR THE EXPLOITATION OR PROMOTION OF A BUSINESS NOT EMBRACED
WITHIN THE PATENT.  INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 228
230. 

PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND QUALITY OF PRODUCT. 

THE TRIAL COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT SUCH INTEREST AS APPELLANT HAS IN
PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISTRIBUTION
OF THE FUEL, AND IN PREVENTING ADULTERATION, DETERIORATION AND DILUTION
OF THE MOTOR FUEL IN THE HANDS OF THE JOBBERS MAY BE ADEQUATELY
PROTECTED WITHOUT RESORT TO THE JOBBER LICENSE DEVICE WHICH HAS BEEN
AND IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR OTHER AND ILLICIT PURPOSES.  COMPARE
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 139,
140.  THIS CONCLUSION IS, WE THINK, AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  THE
PRECAUTIONS TAKEN TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE HANDLING OF THE
MOTOR FUEL BY JOBBERS AND SERVICE STATIONS INCLUDE THE HEALTH
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON JOBBERS BY THE REFINERS INCLUDED IN THEIR
CONTRACTS WITH JOBBERS, INSPECTIONS, MORE OR LESS PERFUNCTORY, BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF APPELLANT, AND THE POSTING BY JOBBERS AND
DISTRIBUTORS OF NOTICES SUPPLIED BY APPELLANT STATING THAT THE FUEL
CONTAINS LEAD AND IS FOR USE AS A MOTOR FUEL ONLY.  THESE ACTIVITIES
ARE NOT INTERFERED WITH BY THE DECREE.    THERE IS NO AUTHENTIC
INSTANCE OF INJURY RESULTING FROM THE HANDLING OF LEAD-TREATED
GASOLINE, AFTER ITS MANUFACTURE, ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS LEAD CONTENT. 
EXTENSIVE EXPERT STUDY, CARRIED ON UNDER DIRECTION OF APPELLANT OVER A
PERIOD OF YEARS, DETAILED IN THE RECORD, RESULTED IN A REPORT THAT THE
RISK ARISING FROM THE ABSORPTION OF LEAD THROUGH THE SKIN IN THE
HANDLING OF THE LEAD-TREATED FUEL IS SO SMALL AS TO BE NEGLIGIBLE, AND
THAT THE USE OF THE FUEL MADE IN CONFORMITY TO THE REFINERS' LICENSES
HAS NOT CAUSED OR PRODUCED ANY DANGERS OR HAZARDS TO HEALTH. 

THE AVOIDANCE OF SUCH DANGERS AS THERE MAY BE IN THE HANDLING OF THE
MOTOR FUEL BY JOBBERS AND DISTRIBUTORS IS PLAINLY NOT BEYOND CONTROL BY
PUBLIC HEALTH REGULATIONS, AND WOULD SEEM, AS THE DISTRICT COURT
THOUGHT, TO BE AMPLY SECURED, IN ANY CASE, THROUGH THE SELF-INTEREST OF
THE REFINERS IN REQUIRING THE PURCHASERS OF THEIR GASOLINE TO TAKE
PROPER HEALTH PRECAUTIONS INCLUDING THE POSTING OF NOTICES WHICH
APPELLANT SUPPLIES AND BY THE CONTINUANCE OF APPELLANT'S INSPECTION,
ALL OF WHICH ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE DECREE.  IT IS LIKEWISE APPARENT
THAT THE INTEREST THE APPELLANT HAS IN PREVENTING DILUTION,
ADULTERATION AND DETERIORATION OF THE TREATED GASOLINE IN THE HANDS OF
THE JOBBERS MAY BE SIMILARLY PROTECTED WITHOUT CONTINUED RESORT TO
JOBBER LICENSES, WHICH IS PRECLUDED BY REASON OF THEIR USE AND THE
DANGER OF THEIR CONTINUED USE FOR OTHER AND ILLEGAL PURPOSES. 

SINCE THE UNLAWFUL CONTROL OVER THE JOBBERS WAS ESTABLISHED AND
MAINTAINED BY RESORT TO THE LICENSING DEVICE, THE DECREE RIGHTLY
SUPPRESSED IT EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN OR MIGHT CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR
SOME LAWFUL PURPOSES.  THE COURT WAS BOUND TO FRAME ITS DECREE SO AS TO
SUPPRESS THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICES AND TO TAKE SUCH REASONABLE MEASURES AS
WOULD PRECLUDE THEIR REVIVAL.  LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S.
293; WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526, 532.  IT COULD, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, CONSIDER WHETHER THAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED
EFFECTIVELY WITHOUT DISESTABLISHING THE LICENSING SYSTEM, AND WHETHER
THERE WERE COUNTERVAILING REASONS FOR CONTINUING IT AS A NECESSARY OR
PROPER MEANS FOR APPELLANT TO CARRY OUT OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES.  SINCE
THE COURT RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THESE REASONS WERE WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL
WEIGHT, IT PROPERLY SUPPRESSED THE MEANS BY WHICH THE UNLAWFUL
RESTRAINT WAS ACHIEVED.  LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 299, 300;
CF. MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501, 513. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE UTILITY OF LEAD-TREATED GASOLINE FOR USE IN HIGH COMPRESSION
ENGINES IS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF OCTANE NUMBERS, AN ARBITRARY SCALE OF
MEASUREMENT INDICATING THE RELATIVE DEGREE OF COMPRESSION TO WHICH THE
FUEL MAY BE SUBJECTED WITHOUT CAUSING "KNOCK" IN THE ENGINE, WHICH IS
PREVENTED OR REDUCED BY THE USE OF THE FUEL.  THE OCTANE RATING OF
MOTOR FUEL INCREASES WITH THE AMOUNT OF THE PATENTED FLUID ADDED TO THE
GASOLINE WHICH, IN ANY CASE, IS SMALL.  APPELLANT'S LICENSES TO
REFINERS AUTHORIZE THE MANUFACTURE OF GASOLINE OF HIGH OCTANE RATING,
68 OR MORE, OF TWO CLASSES, "REGULAR," IN WHICH THERE IS ONE PART OF
TETRAETHYL LEAD TO 4200 PARTS OF GASOLINE, AND "ETHYL GASOLINE," IN
WHICH THERE IS ONE PART OF TETRAETHYL LEAD TO 1700 PARTS OF GASOLINE. 

FN2  THE NAME OF THE ETHYL CORPORATION AND ITS TRADEMARK OR TRADE
NAMES "ETHYL" AND "Q" MAY NOT BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ADVERTISING AND SALE OF REGULAR GASOLINE.  ALL THE LICENSEES, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, WHICH MARKETS THE
PRODUCT UNDER THE NAME "ESSO," ARE REQUIRED TO USED THE WORD "ETHYL" IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ETHYL GASOLINE. 

FN3  THE ONLY OBLIGATION WHICH THE LICENSOR ASSUMES TOWARD THE
JOBBERS IS TO DEFEND THEM AGAINST PATENT AND TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
SUITS. 

FN4  THE REMAINDER IS OWNED BY GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY. 

FN5  THE INVESTIGATOR IS REMINDED IN THE FIELD REPRESENTATIVE MANUAL
THAT THE QUESTION AS TO "BUSINESS ETHICS" "CAN BE ANSWERED ONLY IF THE
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE HAS OBTAINED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO BE SURE OF
HIS OPINION."  "ETHICS OF THE JOBBER IS BASED ON THE TERRITORY IN WHICH
HE IS MARKETING AND THE CONDITIONS SURROUNDING THE SALE OF GASOLINE BY
OTHER ETHYL GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS.  CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN, IF POSSIBLE,
TO FIND OUT THE INSTIGATOR OF ANY PRACTICES WHICH TEND TO UNFAIR
COMPETITION.  BUSINESS ETHICS IS A RELATIVE QUALITY AND NO HARD AND
FAST RULE CAN BE GIVEN TO GOVERN ALL CASES.  INFORMATION GIVEN TO FIELD
REPRESENTATIVES AND PICKED UP IN THE VARIOUS CONTACTS SHOULD BE WEIGHED
CAREFULLY BEFORE A FINAL DECISION IS REACHED.  ONE OF THE THREE WORDS,
'GOOD,' 'QUESTIONABLE,' OR 'UNETHICAL' IS TO BE USED IN ANSWERING THIS
QUESTION." 

IN JANUARY, 1935 THE QUESTION AS TO "BUSINESS ETHICS" WAS ELIMINATED
FROM THE FORM REPORT OF FIELD AGENTS.  BUT BUSINESS ETHICS HAS SINCE
CONTINUED TO BE ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS OF INVESTIGATION AND, AS
BEFORE, THE RESULT OF THE FIELD AGENT'S INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN INCLUDED
IN HIS REPORT AND HIS RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN GENERALLY ACCEPTED AND
ACTED UPON BY HIS SUPERIORS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :



HELVERING V. BRUUN, 309 U.S. 461 


NO. 479.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 105
F.2D 442, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE, UPON TERMINATION OF A LEASE, THE LESSOR REPOSSESSED THE
REAL ESTATE AND IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING A NEW BUILDING ERECTED BY THE
LESSEE, AN INCREASE IN VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE NEW BUILDING WAS
TAXABLE UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 AS INCOME OF THE LESSOR IN THE
YEAR OF REPOSSESSION.  P. 467. 

2.  HEWITT REALTY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 880, AND DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT DEALING WITH THE TAXABILITY VEL NON OF STOCK DIVIDENDS,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 468. 

3.  EVEN THOUGH THE GAIN IN QUESTION BE REGARDED AS INSEPARABLE FROM
THE CAPITAL, IT IS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME IN SEC. 22(A)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932; AND, UNDER THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, MAY BE
TAXED WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT AMONGST THE STATES.  P. 468. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. BRUUN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 544, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF
A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

THAT GAIN FROM CAPITAL BE TAXABLE AS INCOME, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT
THERE BE A GROWTH OR INCREMENT OF VALUE WHICH IS SEPARABLE FROM THE
CAPITAL AND AVAILABLE FOR THE OWNER'S BENEFIT AND DISPOSAL.  EISNER V.
MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 207; UNITED STATES V. PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156,
168-169; MERCHANTS LOAN & TRUST CO. V. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509, 519
520; TAFT V. BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470, 482; UNITED STATES V. SAFETY CAR
HEATING & L. CO., 297 U.S. 88, 99.  IT MUST BE CASH OR READILY
REDUCIBLE TO CASH.  BURNET V. LOGAN, 283 U.S. 404, 413-414;
COMMISSIONER V. WOOD, 107 F.2D 390, 395; CHAMPLIN V. COMMISSIONER, 71
F.2D 23, 29; SCHOENHEIT V. LUCAS, 44 F.2D 476, 479-480; MOUNT V.
COMMISSIONER, 48 F.2D 550, 552; BOURN V. MCLAUGHLIN, 19 F.2D 148, 150. 
OTHERWISE, A CAPITAL TAX AND NOT AN INCOME TAX RESULTS.  KOSHLAND V.
HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441, 445-446; GOODRICH V. EDWARDS, 255 U.S. 527,
535. 

A BUILDING ERECTED UPON THE PREMISES BY THE LESSEE ATTACHES TO AND
BECOMES A PART OF THE REALTY EITHER AT THE TIME OF ITS ERECTION,
HOLTGREVE V. SOBOLEWSKI, 326 MO. 412, 422; SEE, HAVENS V. FIRE INS.
CO., 123 MO. 403, 419; CLIMER V. WALLACE, 28 MO. 556-559, OR UPON
TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, SHELTON V. JONES, 66 OKLA. 83; HUGHES V.
KERSHOW, 42 COLO. 210.  IT IS SIMPLY AN INCREMENT OF VALUE IN THE
PROPERTY, NOT UNLIKE THE RESULT OF A GOOD BARGAIN, AND DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME.  PALMER V. COMMISSIONER, 305 U.S. 63, 68-69;
ROSE V. TRUST CO., 28 F.2D 767, 776, 778; COMMISSIONER V. VANVORST, 59
F.2D 677, 680; TAPLIN V. COMMISSIONER, 41 F.2D 454; ROSSHEIM V.
COMMISSIONER, 92 F.2D 247, 249; OMAHA NATIONAL BANK V. COMMISSIONER, 75
F.2D 434, 436; EVERHART V. COMMISSIONER, 26 B.T.A. 318; GEESEMAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 38 B.T.A. 258, 264, ACQUIESCED IN BY THE COMMISSIONER,
C.B. 1939-1, P. 13. 

THESE PRINCIPLES HAVE OFTEN BEEN ACCEPTED AND APPLIED ADVERSELY TO
THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION.  M.E. BLATT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S.
267; COMMISSIONER V. CENTER INVESTMENT CO., 108 F.2D 190; COMMISSIONER
V. WOOD, 107 F.2D 869; HELVERING V. BRUUN, 105 F.2D 442; NICHOLAS V.
FIFTEENTH STREET INVESTMENT CO., 105 F.2D 289; DOMINICK V. UNITED
STATES, 24 F.SUPP.  829; ENGLISH V. BITGOOD, 21 F.SUPP.  641; STAPLES
V. UNITED STATES, 21 F.SUPP.  737; HILGENBERG V. UNITED STATES, 21
F.SUPP.  453; HEWITT REALTY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 880; CRYAN V.
WARDELL, 263 F. 248; MILLER V. GEARIN, 258 F. 225.  CONTRA, THE COURT
OF CLAIMS IN M.E. BLATT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 23 F.SUPP.  461, AND THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY IN KENTUCKY BLOCK
COAL CO. V. LUCAS, 4 F.SUPP.  266, BOTH OF WHICH WERE OVERRULED BY THIS
COURT IN M.E. BLATT CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAS ALSO CONSISTENTLY HELD LIKEWISE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CONTROVERSY HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE PETITIONER'S ASSERTION THAT THE
RESPONDENT REALIZED TAXABLE GAIN FROM THE FORFEITURE OF A LEASEHOLD,
THE TENANT HAVING ERECTED A NEW BUILDING UPON THE PREMISES.  THE COURT
BELOW HELD THAT NO INCOME HAD BEEN REALIZED.  FN1  INCONSISTENCY OF THE
DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS MADE NO INDEPENDENT FINDINGS.  THE CAUSE WAS
SUBMITTED UPON A STIPULATION OF FACTS.  FROM THIS IT APPEARS THAT ON
JULY 1, 1915, THE RESPONDENT, AS OWNER, LEASED A LOT OF LAND AND THE
BUILDING THEREON FOR A TERM OF NINETY-NINE YEARS. 

THE LEASE PROVIDED THAT THE LESSEE MIGHT, AT ANY TIME, UPON GIVING
BOND TO SECURE RENTALS ACCRUING IN THE TWO ENSUING YEARS, REMOVE OR
TEAR DOWN ANY BUILDING ON THE LAND, PROVIDED THAT NO BUILDING SHOULD BE
REMOVED OR TORN DOWN AFTER THE LEASE BECAME FORFEITED, OR DURING THE
LAST THREE AND ONE-HALF YEARS OF THE TERM.  THE LESSEE WAS TO SURRENDER
THE LAND, UPON TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, WITH ALL BUILDINGS AND
IMPROVEMENTS THEREON. 

IN 1929 THE TENANT DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED THE EXISTING BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTED A NEW ONE WHICH HAD A USEFUL LIFE OF NOT MORE THAN FIFTY
YEARS.  JULY 1, 1933, THE LEASE WAS CANCELLED FOR DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF
RENT AND TAXES AND THE RESPONDENT REGAINED POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND
BUILDING. 

THE PARTIES STIPULATED "THAT AS AT SAID DATE, JULY 1, 1933, THE
BUILDING WHICH HAD BEEN ERECTED UPON SAID PREMISES BY THE LESSEE HAD A
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF $64,245.68 AND THAT THE UNAMORTIZED COST OF THE
OLD BUILDING, WHICH WAS REMOVED FROM THE PREMISES IN 1929 TO MAKE WAY
FOR THE NEW BUILDING, WAS $12,811.43, THUS LEAVING A NET FAIR MARKET
VALUE AS AT JULY 1, 1933, OF $51,434.25, FOR THE AFORESAID NEW BUILDING
ERECTED UPON THE PREMISES BY THE LESSEE." 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS, THE PETITIONER DETERMINED THAT IN 1933
THE RESPONDENT REALIZED A NET GAIN OF $51,434.25.  THE BOARD OVERRULED
HIS DETERMINATION AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE BOARD'S
DECISION. 

THE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND JUDICIAL DECISION IN
RESPECT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED HAS NOT BEEN UNIFORM.  IN 1917 THE
TREASURY RULED THAT THE ADJUSTED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED UPON
LEASED PREMISES IS INCOME TO THE LESSOR UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE
LEASE.  FN2 THE RULING WAS INCORPORATED IN TWO SUCCEEDING EDITIONS OF
THE TREASURY REGULATIONS.  FN3  IN 1919 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD IN MILLER V. GEARIN, 258 F. 225, THAT THE
REGULATION WAS INVALID AS THE GAIN, IF TAXABLE AT ALL, MUST BE TAXED AS
OF THE YEAR WHEN THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE COMPLETED.  FN4 

THE REGULATIONS WERE ACCORDINGLY AMENDED TO IMPOSE A TAX UPON THE
GAIN IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS, MEASURED BY THEIR
ANTICIPATED VALUE AT THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE AND DISCOUNTED FOR
THE DURATION OF THE LEASE.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE REGULATIONS PERMITTED THE
LESSOR TO SPREAD THE DEPRECIATED VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE
REMAINING LIFE OF THE LEASE, REPORTING AN ALIQUOT PART EACH YEAR, WITH
PROVISION THAT, UPON PREMATURE TERMINATION, A TAX SHOULD BE IMPOSED
UPON THE EXCESS OF THE THEN VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE AMOUNT
THERETOFORE RETURNED.  FN5 

IN 1935 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT DECIDED
IN HEWITT REALTY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 880, THAT A LANDLORD
RECEIVED NO TAXABLE INCOME IN A YEAR, DURING THE TERM OF THE LEASE, IN
WHICH HIS TENANT ERECTED A BUILDING ON THE LEASED LAND.  THE COURT,
WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THE LESSOR NEED NOT RECEIVE MONEY TO BE TAXABLE,
BASED ITS DECISION THAT NO TAXABLE GAIN WAS REALIZED IN THAT CASE ON
THE FACT THAT THE IMPROVEMENT WAS NOT PORTABLE OR DETACHABLE FROM THE
LAND, AND IF REMOVED WOULD BE WORTHLESS EXCEPT AS BRICKS, IRON, AND
MORTAR.  IT SAID (P. 884):  "THE QUESTION AS WE VIEW IT IS WHETHER THE
VALUE RECEIVED IS EMBODIED IN SOMETHING SEPARATELY DISPOSABLE, OR
WHETHER IT IS SO MERGED IN THE LAND AS TO BECOME FINANCIALLY A PART OF
IT, SOMETHING WHICH, THOUGH IT INCREASES ITS VALUE, HAS NO VALUE OF ITS
OWN WHEN TORN AWAY." 

THIS DECISION INVALIDATED THE REGULATIONS THEN IN FORCE.  FN6 

IN 1938 THIS COURT DECIDED M.E. BLATT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S.
267.  THERE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE, LANDLORD AND
TENANT MUTUALLY AGREED THAT EACH SHOULD MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE DEMISED PREMISES AND THAT THOSE MADE BY THE TENANT SHOULD BECOME
AND REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE LANDLORD.  THE COMMISSIONER VALUED THE
IMPROVEMENTS AS OF THE DATE THEY WERE MADE, ALLOWED DEPRECIATION
THEREON TO THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASEHOLD, DIVIDED THE DEPRECIATED
VALUE BY THE NUMBER OF YEARS THE LEASE HAD TO RUN, AND FOUND THE
LANDLORD TAXABLE FOR EACH YEAR'S ALIQUOT PORTION THEREOF.  HIS ACTION
WAS SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ADDED VALUE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED RENTAL ACCRUING
OVER THE PERIOD OF THE LEASE; THAT THE FACTS FOUND BY THE COURT OF
CLAIMS DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS TO THE
VALUE TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE IMPROVEMENTS AFTER A USE THROUGHOUT THE
TERM OF THE LEASE; AND THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED, ANY
ENHANCEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE REALTY IN THE TAX YEAR WAS NOT INCOME
REALIZED BY THE LESSOR WITHIN THE REVENUE ACT. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM THE BLATT
AND HEWITT CASES; BUT THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT GAIN WAS
REALIZED WHEN THE RESPONDENT, THROUGH FORFEITURE OF THE LEASE, OBTAINED
UNTRAMMELED TITLE, POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE PREMISES, WITH THE
ADDED INCREMENT OF VALUE ADDED BY THE NEW BUILDING, RUNS COUNTER TO THE
DECISION IN THE MILLER CASE AND TO THE REASONING IN THE HEWITT CASE. 

THE RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE REALTY,  - A CAPITAL ASSET AT THE
DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE,  - REMAINED SUCH THROUGHOUT THE
TERM AND AFTER ITS EXPIRATION; THAT IMPROVEMENTS AFFIXED TO THE SOIL
BECAME PART OF THE REALTY INDISTINGUISHABLY BLENDED IN THE CAPITAL
ASSET; THAT SUCH IMPROVEMENTS CANNOT BE SEPARATELY VALUED OR TREATED AS
RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WERE ON THE LAND AT THE
DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE; THAT THEY ARE, THEREFORE, IN THE
SAME CATEGORY AS IMPROVEMENTS ADDED BY THE RESPONDENT TO HIS LAND, OR
ACCRUALS OF VALUE DUE TO EXTRANEOUS AND ADVENTITIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. 
SUCH ADDED VALUE, IT IS ARGUED, CAN BE CONSIDERED CAPITAL GAIN ONLY
UPON THE OWNER'S DISPOSITION OF THE ASSET.  THE POSITION IS THAT THE
ECONOMIC GAIN CONSEQUENT UPON THE ENHANCED VALUE OF THE RECAPTURED
ASSET IS NOT GAIN DERIVED FROM CAPITAL OR REALIZED WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AND MAY NOT, THEREFORE, BE TAXED WITHOUT
APPORTIONMENT. 

WE HOLD THAT THE PETITIONER WAS RIGHT IN ASSESSING THE GAIN AS
REALIZED IN 1933. 

WE MIGHT REST OUR DECISION UPON THE NARROW ISSUE PRESENTED BY THE
TERMS OF THE STIPULATION.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHAT KIND OF A BUILDING
WAS ERECTED BY THE TENANT OR WHETHER THE BUILDING WAS READILY REMOVABLE
FROM THE LAND.  IT IS NOT STATED WHETHER THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE
BETWEEN THE BUILDING REMOVED AND THAT ERECTED IN ITS PLACE ACCURATELY
REFLECTS AN INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDING CONSIDERED AS A
SINGLE ESTATE IN LAND.  ON THE FACTS STIPULATED, WITHOUT MORE, WE
SHOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF THE
CORRECTNESS OF THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION HAS BEEN OVERBORNE. 

THE RESPONDENT INSISTS, HOWEVER, THAT THE STIPULATION WAS INTENDED TO
ASSERT THAT THE SUM OF $51,434.25 WAS THE MEASURE OF THE RESULTING
ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE OF THE REAL ESTATE AT THE DATE OF THE CANCELLATION
OF THE LEASE.  THE PETITIONER SEEMS NOT TO CONTEST THIS VIEW.  EVEN
UPON THIS ASSUMPTION WE THINK THAT GAIN IN THE AMOUNT NAMED WAS
REALIZED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE YEAR OF REPOSSESSION. 

THE RESPONDENT CAN NOT SUCCESSFULLY CONTEND THAT THE DEFINITION OF
GROSS INCOME IN SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932  FN7  IS NOT
BROAD ENOUGH TO EMBRACE THE GAIN IN QUESTION.  THAT DEFINITION FOLLOWS
CLOSELY THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.  ESSENTIALLY THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION
IS THAT THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT PERMIT THE TAXATION OF SUCH GAIN WITHOUT
APPORTIONMENT AMONGST THE STATES.  HE RELIES UPON WHAT WAS SAID IN
HEWITT REALTY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, AND UPON EXPRESSIONS FOUND IN
THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT DEALING WITH THE TAXABILITY OF STOCK
DIVIDENDS TO THE EFFECT THAT GAIN DERIVED FROM CAPITAL MUST BE
SOMETHING OF EXCHANGEABLE VALUE PROCEEDING FROM PROPERTY, SEVERED FROM
THE CAPITAL, HOWEVER INVESTED OR EMPLOYED, AND RECEIVED BY THE
RECIPIENT FOR HIS SEPARATE USE, BENEFIT, AND DISPOSAL.  FN8  HE
EMPHASIZES THE NECESSITY THAT THE GAIN BE SEPARATE FROM THE CAPITAL AND
SEPARATELY DISPOSABLE.  THESE EXPRESSIONS, HOWEVER, WERE USED TO
CLARIFY THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN ORDINARY DIVIDEND AND A STOCK
DIVIDEND.  THEY WERE MEANT TO SHOW THAT IN THE CASE OF A STOCK
DIVIDEND, THE STOCKHOLDER'S INTEREST IN THE CORPORATE ASSETS AFTER
RECEIPT OF THE DIVIDEND WAS THE SAME AS AND INSEVERABLE FROM THAT WHICH
HE OWNED BEFORE THE DIVIDEND WAS DECLARED.  WE THINK THEY ARE NOT
CONTROLLING HERE. 

WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT ECONOMIC GAIN IS NOT ALWAYS TAXABLE AS INCOME,
IT IS SETTLED THAT THE REALIZATION OF GAIN NEED NOT BE IN CASH DERIVED
FROM THE SALE OF AN ASSET.  GAIN MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY, PAYMENT OF THE TAXPAYER'S INDEBTEDNESS, RELIEF FROM A
LIABILITY, OR OTHER PROFIT REALIZED FROM THE COMPLETION OF A
TRANSACTION.  FN9  THE FACT THAT THE GAIN IS A PORTION OF THE VALUE OF
PROPERTY RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYER IN THE TRANSACTION DOES NOT NEGATIVE
ITS REALIZATION. 

HERE, AS A RESULT OF A BUSINESS TRANSACTION, THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED
BACK HIS LAND WITH A NEW BUILDING ON IT, WHICH ADDED AN ASCERTAINABLE
AMOUNT TO ITS VALUE.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RECOGNITION OF TAXABLE
GAIN THAT HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEVER THE IMPROVEMENT BEGETTING THE GAIN
FROM HIS ORIGINAL CAPITAL.  IF THAT WERE NECESSARY, NO INCOME COULD
ARISE FROM THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY; WHEREAS SUCH GAIN HAS ALWAYS BEEN
RECOGNIZED AS REALIZED TAXABLE GAIN.  JUDGMENT REVERSED.    FN1
HELVERING V. BRUUN, 105 F.2D 442. 

FN2  T.D. 2442, 19 TREAS. DEC. INT. REV. 25. 

FN3  REGULATIONS 33(1918 ED.)  ART.  4, P50; REGULATIONS 45(2D 1919
ED.)  ART.  48. 

FN4  THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 250 U.S. 667. 

FN5  T.D. 3062, 3 CUM. BULL.  109; REGULATIONS 45(1920 ED.), ART. 48;
REGULATIONS 62, 65, AND 69, ART. 48; REGULATIONS 86, 94, AND 101, ART.
22(A) - 13. 

FN6  THE HEWITT CASE WAS FOLLOWED IN HILGENBERG V. UNITED STATES, 21
F.SUPP.  453; STAPLES V. UNITED STATES, 21 F.SUPP.  737, AND ENGLISH V.
BITGOOD, 21 F.SUPP.  641. 

FN7  C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, 178. 

FN8  SEE EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 207; UNITED STATES V.
PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156, 169. 

FN9  CULLINAN V. WALKER, 262 U.S. 134; MARR V. UNITED STATES, 268
U.S. 536; OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716; UNITED
STATES V. KIRBY LUMBER CO., 284 U.S. 1; HELVERING V. AMERICAN CHICLE
CO., 291 U.S. 426; UNITED STATES V. HENDLER, 303 U.S. 564. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS IN THE RESULT IN VIEW OF THE TERMS OF THE
STIPULATION OF FACTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














COMMISSION V. SANDERS RADIO STATION, 309 U.S. 470 


NO. 499.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 70 APP.
D.C. 297 - 106 F.2D 321, REVERSED. 


1.  A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION AS TO THE FUNCTION AND POWERS OF THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WAS RAISED IN THIS CASE AND, ON THE
RECORD, IS OPEN HERE.  P. 473. 

2.  RESULTING ECONOMIC INJURY TO A RIVAL STATION IS NOT, IN AND OF
ITSELF, AND APART FROM CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST,
OR NECESSITY, AN ELEMENT WHICH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MUST WEIGH, AND AS TO WHICH IT MUST MAKE FINDINGS, IN PASSING ON AN
APPLICATION FOR A BROADCASTING LICENSE.  P. 473. 

3.  A LICENSEE OF A BROADCASTING STATION, OVER WHOSE OBJECTION - OF
ECONOMIC INJURY TO HIS STATION - THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION GRANTED
A PERMIT FOR THE ERECTION OF A RIVAL STATION, IS, UNDER SEC. 402(B)(2)
OF THE ACT, A "PERSON AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE INTERESTS ARE ADVERSELY
AFFECTED" BY THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION, AND ENTITLED TO APPEAL
THEREFROM.  P. 476. 

4.  AN ORDER OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION GRANTING A PERMIT TO
ERECT A BROADCASTING STATION HELD SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS.  P. 477. 

5.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE APPELLATE COURT THAT THE COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION HAD NOT USED AS EVIDENCE CERTAIN DATA AND REPORTS IN ITS
FILES - WHICH AN INTERVENING PARTY HAD BEEN DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO
INSPECT - ACCEPTED HERE.  P. 478. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. SANDERS BROTHERS RADIO STATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 546, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH SET ASIDE AN
ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION GRANTING A PERMIT TO
ERECT A BROADCASTING STATION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE TOOK THIS CASE TO RESOLVE IMPORTANT ISSUES OF SUBSTANCE AND
PROCEDURE ARISING UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED. 
FN1 

JANUARY 20, 1936, THE TELEGRAPH HERALD, A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN
DUBUQUE, IOWA, FILED WITH THE PETITIONER AN APPLICATION FOR A
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO ERECT A BROADCASTING STATION IN THAT CITY.  MAY
14, 1936, THE RESPONDENT, WHO HAD FOR SOME YEARS HELD A BROADCASTING
LICENSE FOR, AND HAD OPERATED, STATION WKBB AT EAST DUBUQUE, ILLINOIS,
DIRECTLY ACROSS THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FROM DUBUQUE, IOWA, APPLIED FOR A
PERMIT TO MOVE ITS TRANSMITTER AND STUDIOS TO THE LAST NAMED CITY AND
INSTAL ITS STATION THERE.  AUGUST 18, 1936, RESPONDENT ASKED LEAVE TO
INTERVENE IN THE TELEGRAPH HERALD PROCEEDING, ALLEGING IN ITS PETITION,
INTER ALIA, THAT THERE WAS AN INSUFFICIENCY OF ADVERTISING REVENUE TO
SUPPORT AN ADDITIONAL STATION IN DUBUQUE AND INSUFFICIENT TALENT TO
FURNISH PROGRAMS FOR AN ADDITIONAL STATION; THAT ADEQUATE SERVICE WAS
BEING RENDERED TO THE COMMUNITY BY STATION WKBB AND THERE WAS NO NEED
FOR ANY ADDITIONAL RADIO OUTLET IN DUBUQUE AND THAT THE GRANTING OF THE
TELEGRAPH HERALD APPLICATION WOULD NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY.  INTERVENTION WAS PERMITTED AND BOTH
APPLICATIONS WERE SET FOR CONSOLIDATED HEARING. 

THE RESPONDENT AND THE TELEGRAPH HERALD OFFERED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
OF THEIR RESPECTIVE APPLICATIONS.  THE RESPONDENT'S PROOF SHOWED THAT
ITS STATION HAD OPERATED AT A LOSS; THAT THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE SERVED
BY THE TELEGRAPH HERALD WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT SERVED BY
THE RESPONDENT AND THAT, OF THE ADVERTISERS RELIED ON TO SUPPORT THE
TELEGRAPH HERALD STATION, MORE THAN HALF HAD USED THE RESPONDENT'S
STATION FOR ADVERTISING. 

AN EXAMINER REPORTED THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE TELEGRAPH HERALD
SHOULD BE DENIED AND THAT OF THE RESPONDENT GRANTED.  ON EXCEPTIONS OF
THE TELEGRAPH HERALD, AND AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT, THE BROADCASTING
DIVISION OF PETITIONER MADE AN ORDER GRANTING BOTH APPLICATIONS,
RECITING THAT "PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY WOULD BE
SERVED" BY SUCH ACTION.  THE DIVISION PROMULGATED A STATEMENT OF THE
FACTS AND OF THE GROUNDS OF DECISION, RECITING THAT BOTH APPLICANTS
WERE LEGALLY, TECHNICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY QUALIFIED TO UNDERTAKE THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION; THAT THERE WAS NEED IN DUBUQUE AND
THE SURROUNDING TERRITORY FOR THE SERVICES OF BOTH STATIONS, AND THAT
NO QUESTION OF ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO STATIONS WAS
INVOLVED.  A REHEARING WAS DENIED AND RESPONDENT APPEALED TO THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THAT COURT ENTERTAINED THE
APPEAL AND HELD THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES WHICH THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE
TRIED WAS THAT OF ALLEGED ECONOMIC INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT'S STATION
BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL STATION AND THAT THE COMMISSION
HAD ERRED IN FAILING TO MAKE FINDINGS ON THAT ISSUE.  IT DECIDED THAT,
IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDINGS, THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN GRANTING
THE TELEGRAPH HERALD PERMIT MUST BE SET ASIDE AS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS.  FN2 

THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS ARE THAT UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT
ECONOMIC INJURY TO A COMPETITOR IS NOT A GROUND FOR REFUSING A
BROADCASTING LICENSE AND THAT, SINCE THIS IS SO, THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT
A PERSON AGGRIEVED, OR WHOSE INTERESTS WERE ADVERSELY AFFECTED, BY THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 402(B) OF THE ACT WHICH
AUTHORIZES APPEALS FROM THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS. 

THE RESPONDENT ASSERTS THAT THE PETITIONER IN ARGUMENT BELOW
CONTENTED ITSELF WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD FAILED TO
PRODUCE EVIDENCE REQUIRING A FINDING OF PROBABLE ECONOMIC INJURY TO IT.
IT IS CONSEQUENTLY INSISTED THAT THE PETITIONER IS NOT IN A POSITION
HERE TO DEFEND ITS FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH FINDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT IT
IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE ACT TO CONSIDER ANY SUCH ISSUE.  BY ITS PETITION
FOR REHEARING IN THE COURT BELOW, THE COMMISSION MADE CLEAR ITS
POSITION AS NOW ADVANCED.  THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW, AND THE
CHALLENGE MADE IN PETITION FOR REHEARING AND HERE BY THE COMMISSION,
RAISE A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION AS TO THE FUNCTION AND POWERS OF THE
COMMISSION AND WE THINK THAT, ON THE RECORD, IT IS OPEN HERE. 

FIRST.  WE HOLD THAT RESULTING ECONOMIC INJURY TO A RIVAL STATION IS
NOT, IN AND OF ITSELF, AND APART FROM CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY, AN ELEMENT THE PETITIONER MUST
WEIGH, AND AS TO WHICH IT MUST MAKE FINDINGS, IN PASSING ON AN
APPLICATION FOR A BROADCASTING LICENSE. 

COMMISSION, IF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY WILL BE
SERVED THEREBY, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL GRANT TO
ANY APPLICANT THEREFOR A STATION LICENSE PROVIDED FOR BY THIS ACT." 
THIS MANDATE IS GIVEN MEANING AND CONTOUR BY THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF
THE STATUTE AND THE SUBJECT MATTER WITH WHICH IT DEALS.  FN3  THE ACT
CONTAINS NO EXPRESS COMMAND THAT IN PASSING UPON AN APPLICATION THE
COMMISSION MUST CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF COMPETITION WITH AN EXISTING
STATION.  WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THE SUBJECT MUST
DEPEND UPON THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS INTENDED
TO EFFECTUATE THAT PURPOSE. 

THE GENESIS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND THE NECESSITY FOR THE
ADOPTION OF SOME SUCH REGULATORY MEASURE IS A MATTER OF HISTORY.  THE
NUMBER OF AVAILABLE RADIO FREQUENCIES IS LIMITED.  THE ATTEMPT BY A
BROADCASTER TO USE A GIVEN FREQUENCY IN DISREGARD OF ITS PRIOR USE BY
OTHERS, THUS CREATING CONFUSION AND INTERFERENCE, DEPRIVES THE PUBLIC
OF THE FULL BENEFIT OF RADIO AUDITION.  UNLESS CONGRESS HAD EXERCISED
ITS POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO BRING ABOUT ALLOCATION OF
AVAILABLE FREQUENCIES AND TO REGULATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF TRANSMISSION
EQUIPMENT THE RESULT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE EFFECTIVE USE
OF THESE FACILITIES BY ANYONE.  THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN
RESPECT OF BROADCASTING WAS THE ALLOCATION AND REGULATION OF THE USE OF
RADIO FREQUENCIES BY PROHIBITING SUCH USE EXCEPT UNDER LICENSE. 

IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO COMMUNICATION BY TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH,
WHICH THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT RECOGNIZES AS A COMMON CARRIER ACTIVITY
AND REGULATES ACCORDINGLY IN ANALOGY TO THE REGULATION OF RAIL AND
OTHER CARRIERS BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,  FN4  THE ACT
RECOGNIZES THAT BROADCASTERS ARE NOT COMMON CARRIERS AND ARE NOT TO BE
DEALT WITH AS SUCH.  FN5  THUS THE ACT RECOGNIZES THAT THE FIELD OF
BROADCASTING IS ONE OF FREE COMPETITION.  THE SECTIONS DEALING WITH
BROADCASTING DEMONSTRATE THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT, IN ITS REGULATORY
SCHEME, ABANDONED THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE COMPETITION, AS IT HAS DONE IN
THE CASE OF RAILROADS,  FN6  IN RESPECT OF WHICH REGULATION INVOLVES
THE SUPPRESSION OF WASTEFUL PRACTICES DUE TO COMPETITION, THE
REGULATION OF RATES AND CHARGES, AND OTHER MEASURES WHICH ARE
UNNECESSARY IF FREE COMPETITION IS TO BE PERMITTED. 

AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF PUBLIC INTERST AND CONVENIENCE AFFECTING THE
ISSUE OF A LICENSE IS THE ABILITY OF THE LICENSEE TO RENDER THE BEST
PRACTICABLE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY REACHED BY HIS BROADCASTS.  THAT
SUCH ABILITY MAY BE ASSURED THE ACT CONTEMPLATES INQUIRY BY THE
COMMISSION, INTER ALIA, INTO AN APPLICANT'S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS TO
OPERATE THE PROPOSED STATION.  FN7 

BUT THE ACT DOES NOT ESSAY TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS OF THE LICENSEE. 
THE COMMISSION IS GIVEN NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF THE PROGRAMS, OF
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT OR OF POLICY.  IN SHORT, THE BROADCASTING FIELD IS
OPEN TO ANYONE, PROVIDED THERE BE AN AVAILABLE FREQUENCY OVER WHICH HE
CAN BROADCAST WITHOUT INTERFERENCE TO OTHERS, IF HE SHOWS HIS
COMPETENCY, THE ADEQUACY OF HIS EQUIPMENT, AND FINANCIAL ABILITY TO
MAKE GOOD USE OF THE ASSIGNED CHANNEL. 

THE POLICY OF THE ACT IS CLEAR THAT NO PERSON IS TO HAVE ANYTHING IN
THE NATURE OF A PROPERTY RIGHT AS A RESULT OF THE GRANTING OF A
LICENSE.  LICENSES ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE YEARS' DURATION,
MAY BE REVOKED, AND NEED NOT BE RENEWED.  THUS THE CHANNELS PRESENTLY
OCCUPIED REMAIN FREE FOR A NEW ASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER LICENSEE IN THE
INTEREST OF THE LISTENING PUBLIC. 

PLAINLY IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO PROTECT A LICENSEE
AGAINST COMPETITION BUT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.  CONGRESS INTENDED TO
LEAVE COMPETITION IN THE BUSINESS OF BROADCASTING WHERE IT FOUND IT, TO
PERMIT A LICENSEE WHO WAS NOT INTERFERING ELECTRICALLY WITH OTHER
BROADCASTERS TO SURVIVE OR SUCCUMB ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY TO MAKE HIS
PROGRAMS ATTRACTIVE TO THE PUBLIC. 

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE QUESTION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN A
PROPOSED STATION AND ONE OPERATING UNDER AN EXISTING LICENSE IS TO BE
ENTIRELY DISREGARDED BY THE COMMISSION, AND, INDEED, THE COMMISSION'S
PRACTICE SHOWS THAT IT DOES NOT DISREGARD THAT QUESTION.  IT MAY HAVE A
VITAL AND IMPORTANT BEARING UPON THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT
ADEQUATELY TO SERVE HIS PUBLIC; IT MAY INDICATE THAT BOTH STATIONS -
THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED - WILL GO UNDER, WITH THE RESULT THAT A
PORTION OF THE LISTENING PUBLIC WILL BE LEFT WITHOUT ADEQUATE SERVICE;
IT MAY INDICATE THAT, BY A DIVISION OF THE FIELD, BOTH STATIONS WILL BE
COMPELLED TO RENDER INADEQUATE SERVICE.  THESE MATTERS, HOWEVER, ARE
DISTINCT FROM THE CONSIDERATION THAT, IF A LICENSE BE GRANTED,
COMPETITION BETWEEN THE LICENSEE AND ANY OTHER EXISTING STATION MAY
CAUSE ECONOMIC LOSS TO THE LATTER.  IF SUCH ECONOMIC LOSS WERE A VALID
REASON FOR REFUSING A LICENSE THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE COMMISSION'S
FUNCTION IS TO GRANT A MONOPOLY IN THE FIELD OF BROADCASTING, A RESULT
WHICH THE ACT ITSELF EXPRESSLY NEGATIVES,  FN8  WHICH CONGRESS WOULD
NOT HAVE CONTEMPLATED WITHOUT GRANTING THE COMMISSION POWERS OF CONTROL
OVER THE RATES, PROGRAMS, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS OF
BROADCASTING. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT ECONOMIC INJURY TO AN EXISTING STATION IS NOT A
SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT ELEMENT TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE
COMMISSION IN DETERMINING WHETHER IT SHALL GRANT OR WITHHOLD A
LICENSE. 

SECOND.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT, BECAUSE THE LICENSEE OF A STATION
CANNOT RESIST THE GRANT OF A LICENSE TO ANOTHER, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
RESULTING COMPETITION MAY WORK ECONOMIC INJURY TO HIM, HE HAS NO
STANDING TO APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION GRANTING THE
APPLICATION. 

APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1) BY AN APPLICANT FOR A LICENSE
OR PERMIT, OR (2) "BY ANY OTHER PERSON AGGRIEVED OR WHOSE INTERESTS ARE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY ANY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION GRANTING OR
REFUSING ANY SUCH APPLICATION." 

THE PETITIONER INSISTS THAT AS ECONOMIC INJURY TO THE RESPONDENT WAS
NOT A PROPER ISSUE BEFORE THE COMMISSION IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT SEC.
402(B) WAS INTENDED TO GIVE THE RESPONDENT STANDING TO APPEAL, SINCE
ABSENCE OF RIGHT IMPLIES ABSENCE OF REMEDY.  THIS VIEW WOULD DEPRIVE
SUBSECTION (2) OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT. 

CONGRESS HAD SOME PURPOSE IN ENACTING SEC. 402(B)(2).  IT MAY HAVE
BEEN OF OPINION THAT ONE LIKELY TO BE FINANCIALLY INJURED BY THE ISSUE
OF A LICENSE WOULD BE THE ONLY PERSON HAVING A SUFFICIENT INTEREST TO
BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT ERRORS OF LAW IN THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN GRANTING THE LICENSE.  IT IS WITHIN THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONFER SUCH STANDING TO PROSECUTE AN APPEAL.  FN9 

WE HOLD, THEREFORE, THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD THE REQUISITE STANDING TO
APPEAL AND TO RAISE, IN THE COURT BELOW, ANY RELEVANT QUESTION OF LAW
IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. 

THIRD.  EXAMINATION OF THE FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF DECISION SET FORTH
BY THE COMMISSION DISCLOSES THAT THE FINDINGS WERE SUFFICIENT TO COMPLY
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY INVOLVED IN THE ISSUE OF THE PERMIT.  IN ANY
EVENT, IF THE FINDINGS WERE NOT AS DETAILED UPON THIS SUBJECT AS MIGHT
BE DESIRABLE, THE ATTACK UPON THEM IS NOT THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS
NOT SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTED BUT ONLY THAT THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE
RESPONDENT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED.  WE FIND NO REASON FOR ABROGATING
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER FOR LACK OF ADEQUATE FINDINGS. 

FOURTH.  THE RESPONDENT HERE RENEWS A CONTENTION MADE IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE COMMISSION USED AS EVIDENCE CERTAIN DATA
AND REPORTS IN ITS FILES WITHOUT PERMITTING THE RESPONDENT, AS
INTERVENOR BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE OPPORTUNITY OF INSPECTING THEM. 
THE COMMISSION DISAVOWS THE USE OF SUCH MATERIAL AS EVIDENCE IN THE
CAUSE AND THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS FOUND THE DISAVOWAL VERACIOUS AND
SUFFICIENT.  WE ARE NOT DISPOSED TO DISTURB ITS CONCLUSION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 19, 1934, C. 652, 48 STAT. 1064; ACT OF JUNE 5,
1936, C. 511, 49 STAT. 1475; ACT OF MAY 20, 1937, C. 229, 50 STAT. 189,
47 U.S.C. 151, ET SEQ.    FN2  SANDERS BROTHERS RADIO STATION V.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 70 APP. D.C. 297; 106 F.2D 321. 

FN3  RADIO COMMISSION V. NELSON BROS. CO., 289 U.S. 266, 285. 

FN4  SEE TITLE II, SECS. 201-221, 47 U.S.C. SECS. 201-221. 

FN5  SEE SEC. 3(H), 47 U.S.C. SEC. 153(H). 

FN6  COMPARE TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S.
266, 277; CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258.    FN7  SEE SEC. 308(B),
47 U.S.C. SEC. 308(B). 

FN8  SEE SEC. 311, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 311, RELATING TO UNFAIR COMPETITION
AND MONOPOLY. 

FN9  COMPARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R.
CO., 288 U.S. 14, 23-25. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :













THOMPSON V. MAGNOLIA CO., 309 U.S. 478 


NO. 481.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 106
F.2D 217, REVERSED. 


IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR MISSOURI, RIGHTS IN OIL
UNDERLYING THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE RAILROAD IN ILLINOIS WERE CLAIMED BY
THE TRUSTEE AND BY OTHERS ADVERSELY.  THE TRUSTEE HAD POSSESSION OF THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDS UNDER CLAIM OF FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP.  HELD: 

1.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAD SUMMARY JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THE
QUESTION OF TITLE.  P. 481. 

2.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING
THAT THE UNDERLYING OIL BE EXTRACTED AND MARKETED, TO PREVENT
IRREPARABLE LOSS TO THE ESTATE BY ITS BEING DRAINED OFF THROUGH WELLS
ON ADJACENT LANDS, AND THAT THE NET PROCEEDS THEREOF BE IMPOUNDED,
PENDING DETERMINATION AS TO THE RIGHTFUL OWNER.  P. 482. 

3.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FEE TO THE RIGHT-OF
WAY LANDS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE STATE COURTS OF ILLINOIS, AND THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT SHOULD ORDER THE TRUSTEE TO PROCEED ACCORDINGLY.  P.
483. 

THOMPSON, TRUSTEE, V. MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 630, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH REVERSED AN ORDER
OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND DIRECTED DISMISSAL OF A PETITION TO THAT
COURT BY A TRUSTEE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A RICH OIL FIELD WAS DISCOVERED IN ILLINOIS IN 1938.  THEREUPON, THIS
DISPUTE AROSE BETWEEN A TRUSTEE OF A RAILROAD IN REORGANIZATION UNDER
SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (11 U.S.C. 205) AND OTHER CLAIMANTS AS TO
THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DRILL FOR AND CAPTURE FUGITIVE OIL UNDER THE
RAILROAD'S RIGHT OF WAY TRAVERSING THE NEWLY DISCOVERED FIELD.  THE
TRUSTEE ASSERTS FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LANDS WITH
CONSEQUENT RIGHT TO REDUCE THE UNDERLYING OIL TO POSSESSION. 
RESPONDENTS DENY THE TRUSTEE'S ALLEGED TITLE OR THAT HE HAS ANY
INTEREST IN THE LAND BEYOND A MERE EASEMENT - A LIMITED RIGHT TO USE
THE SURFACE FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES ONLY.  THEY ALLEGE THAT OWNERSHIP OF
THE FEE IS IN OTHERS, FROM WHOM THEY HAVE OBTAINED OIL LEASES.  THIS
DETERMINATIVE QUESTION OF FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP CAN BE DECIDED ONLY BY
INTERPRETATION, UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, OF INSTRUMENTS GRANTING THE
RAILROAD ITS RIGHT OF WAY. 

THE QUESTIONS HERE ARE WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS SUMMARY
JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE OWNERSHIP OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LANDS, AND
WHETHER THAT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING THE FUGITIVE OIL
CAPTURED AND ITS PROCEEDS IMPOUNDED PENDING ADJUDICATION OF THE
OWNERSHIP. 

PETITIONER IS TRUSTEE OF THE MISSOURI-ILLINOIS RAILROAD CO., A
SUBSIDIARY OF THE MISSOURI-PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., IN PROCESS OF
REORGANIZATION IN THE SAME PROCEEDING WITH THE PARENT COMPANY IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.  THE
TRUSTEE PETITIONED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT "  ...  FOR DETERMINATION OF
TITLE AND FOR ADVICE AND DIRECTIONS RESPECTING CERTAIN PROPOSED OIL
OPERATIONS ON RIGHT-OF-WAY NEAR SALEM, ILLINOIS."  AND HIS PETITION
ALLEGED THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY LANDS HAD BEEN "FENCED AND USED BY
TRUSTEE AND HIS PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, AND WITH
ACTUAL VISIBLE AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION ACQUIRED UNDER CLAIM OF TITLE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CLAIMS OF TITLE OF ANY OTHER OWNER FOR AT LEAST
TWENTY YEARS PRIOR TO INSTITUTION OF THESE PROCEEDINGS"; THAT BY REASON
OF THIS ADVERSE POSSESSION AND VARIOUS CONVEYANCES AND DECREES OF
RECORD, THE TRUSTEE HAD TITLE TO THE LANDS AND A RIGHT TO THE OIL
THEREUNDER; THAT NUMEROUS WELLS HAD BEEN DUG IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE
RIGHT OF WAY AND WITHOUT PROMPT ACTION TO REMOVE THE OIL UNDER THE
RIGHT OF WAY IT WOULD BE DRAINED INTO WELLS ON ADJACENT LANDS AND ITS
VALUE FOREVER LOST TO THE STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS OF THE RAILROAD. 
THE PRAYER SOUGHT NOTICE TO CLAIMANTS OF RIGHTS TO THE OIL TO APPEAR
AND SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE "ESTOPPED AND ENJOINED FROM
ASSERTING ANY FURTHER TITLE IN AND TO THE LAND ...  UPON WHICH SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY IS LOCATED OR TO THE MINERAL, OIL OR GAS DEPOSITS IN AND
UNDER ...  (THE) RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EXTRACTED THEREFROM"; AND THAT,
PENDING "DETERMINATION OF ADVERSE CLAIMS TO TITLE," THE TRUSTEE BE
AUTHORIZED TO HAVE WELLS DRILLED, OIL CAPTURED AND SOLD, AND THE
PROCEEDS, LESS COST OF PRODUCTION, IMPOUNDED AND HELD FOR THE ACCOUNT
OF THE RIGHTFUL OWNER AS MIGHT BE THEREAFTER DETERMINED BY THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

ALTHOUGH THEY ADMITTED THAT THE RAILROAD "HAD BEEN IN POSSESSION OF
THE  ...  PREMISES" USING THEM FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND TRACKS, RESPONDENTS
DENIED BOTH THAT THE TRUSTEE OWNED THE FEE AND THAT THE RAILROAD HAD
BEEN, OR THAT THE TRUSTEE WAS, IN ADVERSE POSSESSION OF THE OIL AND
OTHER MINERALS UNDER THE RIGHT OF WAY. 

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOUND THAT THE TRUSTEE WAS IN "ACTUAL POSSESSION
OF THE PROPERTY  ...  , UNDER ASSERTION OF CLAIM TO FEE SIMPLE TITLE
THERETO"; THAT THE COURT ACCORDINGLY HAD JURISDICTION; AND THAT
IMMEDIATE ACTION WAS NECESSARY "TO CONSERVE THE OIL SUPPLY UNDERLYING
THE PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTIES IN INTEREST AS THEIR
RIGHTS, TITLE, AND INTEREST THERETO MAY HEREAFTER BE DETERMINED BY THIS
COURT."  THE TRUSTEE WAS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE FOR WELLS,
PRODUCTION AND SALE OF OIL, WITH THE PROCEEDS - LESS EXPENSES - TO BE
IMPOUNDED PENDING ADJUDICATION OF OWNERSHIP. 

UPON CONSIDERATION OF ILLINOIS LAW, WHICH ADMITTEDLY MUST GOVERN, THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE TRUSTEE'S
PETITION, CONCLUDING THAT, AS INTERPRETED UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, THE
INSTRUMENTS RELIED ON BY THE TRUSTEE CONVEYED AN EASEMENT ONLY AND THAT
THE TRUSTEE'S POSSESSION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LANDS UNDER AN ERRONEOUS
CLAIM OF FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP WAS NOT SUCH POSSESSION OF THE OIL AND
GAS AS TO GIVE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT SUMMARY JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP.  FN1  CONVEYANCES OF RIGHTS OF WAY IN ILLINOIS
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE HERE IN DISPUTE HAVE BEEN HELD BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, IN WHICH ILLINOIS IS LOCATED,
TO CONVEY A FEE SIMPLE TITLE UNDER THAT STATE'S LAW.  FN2  BECAUSE OF
THIS CONFLICT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT'S ASSERTED SUMMARY JURISDICTION, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN3 

FIRST.  BANKRUPTCY COURTS HAVE SUMMARY JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE
CONTROVERSIES RELATING TO PROPERTY OVER WHICH THEY HAVE ACTUAL OR
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION.  AND THE TEST OF THIS JURISDICTION IS NOT
TITLE IN BUT POSSESSION BY THE BANKRUPT AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF
THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.  FN4  HERE, THE TRUSTEE SUCCEEDED TO THE
PHYSICAL POSSESSION, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LANDS
WHICH THE RAILROAD HAD ENJOYED AT THE TIME OF BANKRUPTCY.  IN FACT,
HOWEVER, NO ONE HAD, WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED, PHYSICAL POSSESSION
OF THE FUGITIVE OIL APART FROM THE LANDS UNDER WHICH IT LAY.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS HAS SAID, "THE GRANT OF OIL AND GAS IS A
GRANT OF SUCH OIL AND GAS AS THE GRANTEE MAY FIND, AND HE IS NOT VESTED
WITH ANY ESTATE IN THE OIL OR GAS UNTIL IT IS ACTUALLY FOUND."  FN5
AND THIS ENTIRE CONTROVERSY CAN ONLY BE RESOLVED BY SOLUTION OF THE
PRIMARY QUESTION OF FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP.  THE PARTIES AGREE THAT IF
OWNERSHIP OF THE RIGHT OF WAY LANDS IS IN THE TRUSTEE HE HAS THE RIGHT
TO CAPTURE THE UNDERLYING OIL, AND IF NOT, THAT THE TRUSTEE HAS NO SUCH
RIGHT.  THUS, THE RIGHT TO THE DISPUTED OIL NECESSARILY HINGES UPON
WHERE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FEE TO THESE LANDS LIES.  AND POSSESSION OF
THOSE LANDS UNDER CLAIM OF FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP BY THE RAILROAD AND
LATER BY THE TRUSTEE WAS AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE DISTRICT COURT'S
SUMMARY JURISDICTION.  AS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED IN LITIGATION INVOLVING
ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS SAME REORGANIZATION, THE JURISDICTION THUS
ACQUIRED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT "EXTENDS  ...  TO THE ADJUDICATION OF
QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE TITLE."  EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610, 616. 

SECOND.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IT WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEE TO PROTECT ALL INTERESTS
SO FAR AS IT APPEARED POSSIBLE TO DO SO - BY PRESERVING THE OIL, FROM
WASTE AND DEPLETION, THROUGH ITS EXTRACTION AND SALE WITH THE NET
PROCEEDS TO BE IMPOUNDED UNTIL FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE CONTROVERSY
OVER TITLE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LANDS. 

THE VERIFIED PETITION AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OFFERED A BASIS FOR THE
DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT SUCH STEPS WERE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
ESTATE'S POSSIBLE INTEREST IN THE OIL UNDER THE RIGHT OF WAY.  NO OTHER
METHOD HAS BEEN SUGGESTED WHEREBY SUCH PROTECTION AGAINST IRREPARABLE
LOSS TO THE ESTATE OF THE WANDERING AND VAGRANT OIL  FN6  COULD HAVE
BEEN BETTER AFFORDED.  THE  "... MALLEABLE PROCESSES OF COURTS IN
BANKRUPTCY GIVE ASSURANCE OF A REMEDY THAT CAN BE MOULDED AND ADJUSTED
TO THE NEEDS OF THE OCCASION."  STEELMAN V. ALL CONTINENT CO., 301 U.S.
278, 290. 

THIRD.  A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAS AN EXCLUSIVE AND NONDELEGABLE
CONTROL OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN ESTATE IN ITS POSSESSION.  FN7
BUT THE PROPER EXERCISE OF THAT CONTROL MAY, WHERE THE INTERESTS OF THE
ESTATE AND THE PARTIES WILL BEST BE SERVED, LEAD THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
TO CONSENT TO SUBMISSION TO STATE COURTS OF PARTICULAR CONTROVERSIES
INVOLVING UNSETTLED QUESTIONS OF STATE PROPERTY LAW AND ARISING IN THE
COURSE OF BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION.  FN8  AND, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE, WE CONCLUDE THAT IT IS DESIRABLE TO HAVE THE LITIGATION
PROCEED IN THE STATE COURTS OF ILLINOIS.  FN9  AN ORDER TO THE TRUSTEE
TO PROCEED IN THE ILLINOIS COURTS FOR A DECISION ON THE OWNERSHIP OF
THE FEE TO THE RIGHT OF WAY LANDS WILL BE COMPARABLE TO ONE IN WHICH
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, PRESERVING THE STATUS QUO THE WHILE, ORDERS A
TRUSTEE TO DETERMINE IN A PLENARY STATE COURT SUIT THE LEGAL RIGHT TO
PROPERTY ALLEGED BY THE TRUSTEE TO HAVE BEEN FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRED
BY THE BANKRUPT.  FN10  DECISION WITH WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY IS HERE FACED CALLS FOR INTERPRETATION OF INSTRUMENTS OF
CONVEYANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ILLINOIS LAW.  NEITHER STATUTES NOR
DECISIONS OF ILLINOIS HAVE BEEN POINTED TO WHICH ARE CLEARLY
APPLICABLE.  AND THE DIFFICULTIES OF DETERMINING JUST WHAT SHOULD BE
THE DECISION UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE ARE PERSUASIVELY INDICATED BY
THE DIFFERENT RESULTS REACHED BY THE TWO CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL THAT
HAVE ATTEMPTED THE DETERMINATION.  UNLESS THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO THE
STATE COURTS, UPON SUBSEQUENT DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
IT MAY APPEAR THAT RIGHTS IN LOCAL PROPERTY OF PARTIES TO THIS
PROCEEDING HAVE - BY THE ACCIDENT OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION - BEEN
DETERMINED CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE STATE, WHICH IN SUCH MATTERS IS
SUPREME.  FN11 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT PROVIDES FOR
ADJUDICATION OF THE DISPUTED OWNERSHIP IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO MODIFY ITS
ORDER SO AS TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SUBMISSION OF THE QUESTION OF FEE
SIMPLE OWNERSHIP OF THE RIGHT OF WAY TO THE ILLINOIS STATE COURTS. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  106 F.2D 217. 

FN2  CARTER OIL CO. V. WELKER, 112 F.2D 299. 

FN3  308 U.S. 630. 

FN4  HARRIS V. AVERY BRUNDAGE CO., 305 U.S. 160, 162, 163 AND NOTES
4, 5 AND 6. 

FN5  POE V. ULREY, 233 ILL. 56, 62; 84 N.E. 46, 48. 

FN6  SEE POE V. ULREY, SUPRA, 62. 

FN7  ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & T. CO., 282 U.S. 734. 

FN8  ID., 739; SEE, IN RE SCHULTE UNITED, INC., 49 F.2D 264; SEE,
E.G., FOUST V. MUNSON LINES, 299 U.S. 77(BANKRUPTCY COURT'S DENIAL OF
PERMISSION FOR SUIT IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST DEBTOR IN 77B, HELD ABUSE OF
DISCRETION); TEXAS V. DONOGHUE, 302 U.S. 284(REFUSAL OF PERMISSION FOR
A STATE TO TRY IN A STATE COURT ITS CLAIM - BASED ON ALLEGED FORFEITURE
- TO OIL HELD BY TRUSTEE IN 77B, ABUSE OF DISCRETION).  5 REMINGTON ON
BANKRUPTCY, 4TH ED., SECS. 2045, 2370. 

FN9  CF. EX PARTE BALDWIN, SUPRA, 619. 

FN10  CF. STEELMAN V. ALL CONTINENT CO., 301 U.S. 278.  SEE SCOTT V.
GILLESPIE, 103 KAN. 745; 176 P. 132, CERT. DEN.  249 U.S. 606(TRUSTEE
ORDERED INTO STATE COURT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WILL TO DETERMINE ESTATE,
IF ANY, TAKEN THEREUNDER BY BANKRUPT). 

FN11  CF. ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






















KERSH LAKE DIST. V. JOHNSON, 309 U.S. 485 


NO. 595.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 198 ARK.
743 - 131 S.W.2D 620, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A DECISION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE AS TO THE JURISDICTION,
UNDER THE STATE LAW, OF AN INFERIOR COURT OF THE STATE, IS BINDING
HERE.  P. 489. 

2.  IN A SUIT IN A STATE COURT OF ARKANSAS BROUGHT BY THE
COMMISSIONERS OF A DRAINAGE DISTRICT OF THAT STATE TO COLLECT DRAINAGE
TAXES, THE SUIT HAVING BEEN INSTITUTED PURSUANT TO A FEDERAL COURT
DECREE COMPELLING EXTENSION AND COLLECTION OF SUCH TAXES TO SATISFY
CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT, PRIOR STATE
CHANCERY COURT DECREES ADJUDGING A LANDOWNER'S DRAINAGE TAXES FULLY
PAID AND HIS LANDS FREE FROM ANY FURTHER LIABILITY THEREFOR WERE
TREATED AS RES JUDICATA.  HELD: 

(1)  CERTIFICATE HOLDERS WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, EVEN
THOUGH THEY WERE NOT PARTIES TO AND HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CHANCERY COURT
PROCEEDINGS.  PP. 490-491. 

THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS WERE CHARGED WITH NOTICE OF AND BOUND BY
RELEVANT STATUTES OF THE STATE IN EXISTENCE WHEN THE CERTIFICATES WERE
ISSUED.  THOSE STATUTES PROVIDED FOR DETERMINATION OF PROPORTIONATE
LIABILITIES OF LANDS IN THE DISTRICT BY CHANCERY PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONERS AND LANDOWNERS, WITH NO REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE TO
CREDITORS OF THE DISTRICT.  THE COMMISSIONERS AS PARTIES TO THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE CHANCERY COURT HAD APPROPRIATELY ASSERTED THE LIEN
FOR BENEFIT OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, AND THE LATTER ARE BOUND BY THE
DECREES. 

(2)  ISSUES OF FRAUD AND COLLUSION IN THIS CASE RAISE NO QUESTIONS
WHICH THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE WAS NOT COMPETENT FINALLY TO
DECIDE; AND THE DECISION OF THAT COURT THAT NO FRAUD OR COLLUSION WAS
SHOWN IS ACCEPTED HERE.  P. 492. 

(3)  IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT WAS EMPOWERED TO
REPRESENT THE LANDOWNERS WHEN THE EXTENSION OF TAXES AS A WHOLE WAS
ORDERED, THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGMENT DID NOT FORECLOSE PERSONAL DEFENSES
WHICH INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS MIGHT PLEAD IN SUITS FOR COLLECTION; AND
THE REFUSAL OF THE STATE COURT TO ACCEPT THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGMENT AS
DETERMINATIVE OF THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER'S LIABILITY DID NOT DENY FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT TO SUCH JUDGMENT.  P. 492. 

KERSH LAKE DRAINAGE DISTRICT ET AL. V. JOHNSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 642, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE AGAINST
A LANDOWNER IN A SUIT TO ENFORCE COLLECTION OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT
TAXES. 

A STATE COURT MAY NOT ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF A TAX ORDERED BY A
FEDERAL COURT TO BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING A
JUDGMENT RENDERED THEREIN.  RIGGS V. JOHNSON COUNTY, 6 WALL.  166;
UNITED STATES V. COUNCIL OF KEOKUK, 6 WALL.  514; SUPERVISORS V.
DURANT, 9 WALL.  415; MAYOR V. LORD, 9 WALL.  409; HAWLEY V. FAIRBANKS,
108 U.S. 543; GAINES V. SPRINGER, 46 ARK. 502. 

THE COURT BELOW DENIED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE
FEDERAL COURT.  THE PLEA THAT THE STATE COURT INJUNCTIONS BARRED THE
COLLECTION OF THE TAXES HAD BEEN OVERRULED BY THE FEDERAL COURT.  ART.
IV, SEC. 1; PARAGRAPH 2 OF ART. VI OF THE CONST.; R.S. SEC. 905;
CHANDLER V. PEKETZ, 297 U.S. 609; STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165;
KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS V. MEYER, 265 U.S. 30-33; HANCOCK NATIONAL BANK V.
FARNUM, 176 U.S. 640; METCALF V. WATERTOWN, 153 U.S. 671; DUPASSEUR V.
ROCHEREAU, 21 WALL.  130, 134; CRESCENT CITY CO. V. BUTCHERS' UNION,
120 U.S. 141, 146; PITTSBURGH RAILWAY CO. V. LONG ISLAND L. & T. CO.,
172 U.S. 493, 507; DES MOINES NAV. & R. CO. V. IOWA HOMESTEAD CO., 123
U.S. 552, 559; EMBRY V. PALMER, 107 U.S. 3, 10. 

THE PLAINTIFFS WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW BY THE RULING THAT JUDGMENTS IN SUITS OF WHICH THE CREDITORS HAD NO
NOTICE COULD BE PLEADED IN BAR OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT. 
MOREOVER, THE SUITS IN THE STATE COURT WERE COLLUSIVE.  THE CHIEF
BENEFICIARIES WERE THE COMMISSIONERS THEMSELVES, WHO TOOK NO APPEAL,
ALTHOUGH THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAD MANY TIMES DECIDED THAT THE
BENEFITS BORE INTEREST, AND WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE REVERSED.  WINDSOR V.
MCVEIGH, 93 U.S. 274; HAGAR V. RECLAMATION DIST. NO. 108, 111 U.S. 701;
OCHOA V. HERNANDEZ, 230 U.S. 139; SCOTT V. MCNEAL, 154 U.S. 34; HALE V.
FINCH, 104 U.S. 261; WABASH RAILROAD V. ADELBERT COLLEGE, 208 U.S. 39;
EMPIRE V. DARLINGTON, 101 U.S. 87; BROOKLYN V. INSURANCE CO., 99 U.S.
362. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

KERSH LAKE DRAINAGE DISTRICT WAS ORGANIZED, IN 1912, UNDER THE
GENERAL DRAINAGE LAW OF ARKANSAS.  FN1  AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF
BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO EACH OF THE TRACTS OF LAND EMBRACED IN THE
DISTRICT WAS DULY MADE, UPON THE BASIS OF WHICH ANNUAL LEVIES WERE
EXTENDED AGAINST EACH TRACT.  AND THE DISTRICT ISSUED INTEREST BEARING
CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS IN PAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION WORK DONE FOR
IT BY CONTRACT. 

RESPONDENT JOHNSON, A LANDOWNER IN THE DISTRICT, BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST
THE DISTRICT AND ITS COMMISSIONERS IN THE LINCOLN CHANCERY COURT OF THE
STATE OF ARKANSAS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THAT HE HAD FULLY PAID THE
SHARE OF BENEFIT TAXES APPORTIONED TO HIS LAND AND WAS THEREFORE
ENTITLED UNDER ARKANSAS LAW TO HAVE HIS LAND DECLARED FREE FROM ANY
FURTHER DRAINAGE TAX LIABILITY.  IN 1931, THAT STATE COURT RENDERED ITS
FINAL DECREE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE LIEN OF THE DISTRICT FOR SUCH TAXES
HAD ALREADY BEEN "FULLY SATISFIED AND RELEASED," AND ENJOINED FURTHER
EXTENSION OF DRAINAGE TAXES AGAINST HIS LANDS.  IN 1932, THE SAME STATE
COURT RENDERED A LIKE DECREE IN FAVOR OF W.A. FISH AND OTHER NAMED
LANDOWNERS OF THE DISTRICT. 

NOVEMBER 1, 1935, A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DISTRICT WAS OBTAINED BY
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
ARKANSAS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN2 TO ENFORCE THEIR
JUDGMENT, THESE CREDITORS THEN INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION TO REQUIRE THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY CLERKS TO EXTEND DRAINAGE BENEFIT TAXES FOR THE
DISTRICT UPON THEIR TAX BOOKS; TO REQUIRE COUNTY OFFICIALS TO COLLECT
THESE TAXES; AND TO PROVIDE THAT "IF ANY PROPERTY OWNERS FAIL TO PAY
THEIR DRAINAGE TAX THE DEFENDANT, KERSH LAKE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, AND ITS
COMMISSIONERS BE REQUIRED TO INSTITUTE SUIT FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE
DELINQUENT TAXES, AND TO PROSECUTE THE SAME WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO A
CONCLUSION, AND TO SEE THAT THE DELINQUENT LANDS ARE SOLD PROMPTLY
UNDER THE DECREES OF FORECLOSURE,  ...  "  ANSWERING, THE DISTRICT SET
UP AMONG OTHER DEFENSES THAT "A LARGE NUMBER OF TRACTS OF LAND IN THE
DISTRICT HAVE FULLY PAID THE ENTIRE VALUE OF ASSESSED BENEFITS AGAINST
SAID LANDS AND THAT SAID PROPERTY OWNERS OBTAINED A DECREE IN THE
LINCOLN CHANCERY COURT IN THE CASE OF W.A. FISH, ET AL. V. KERSH LAKE
DRAINAGE DISTRICT ON JUNE 15, 1932, ENJOINING AND RESTRAINING THE
COMMISSIONERS OF THE DEFENDANT DISTRICT FROM LEVYING OR EXTENDING ANY
TAX AGAINST THOSE LANDS, THE ASSESSED BENEFITS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FULLY
PAID." 

THE DISTRICT COURT DECREED THAT A MANDATORY INJUNCTION ISSUE
COMPELLING THE "COUNTY CLERKS AND COUNTY COLLECTORS TO PERFORM THEIR
DUTIES IN THE COLLECTION OF THE DRAINAGE TAXES UPON THE LANDS IN SUIT";
THAT THERE BE EXTENDED TAXES "OF SIX AND ONE-HALF PER CENT OF THE
BENEFITS ASSESSED AGAINST EACH TRACT OF LAND  ...  UNTIL THE WHOLE OF
THIS DECREE HAS BEEN SATISFIED"; THAT THE "COMMISSIONERS  ...  BE
REQUIRED TO INSTITUTE SUITS FOR THE COLLECTION OF ALL DELINQUENT TAXES
OF SAID DISTRICT, AND TO PROSECUTE THE SAME WITH DUE DILIGENCE TO A
CONCLUSION,  ...  "; AND THAT "THE SAID COMMISSIONERS ARE DEEMED
RECEIVERS OF THIS COURT  ..."  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  FN3 

PURSUANT TO THIS MANDATORY INJUNCTION, THE DRAINAGE TAXES WERE
EXTENDED ON THE TAX BOOKS BUT RESPONDENT JOHNSON AND OTHER LANDOWNERS
IN WHOSE FAVOR THE DECREES OF THE LINCOLN CHANCERY COURT HAD BEEN
RENDERED, REFUSED TO PAY.  SUIT FOR COLLECTION WAS FILED AGAINST THEIR
LANDS IN THE LINCOLN CHANCERY COURT BY THE COMMISSIONERS.  IN RELIANCE
UPON THE 1931 AND 1932 STATE CHANCERY COURT DECREES AS FINAL
DETERMINATIONS THAT THE ASSESSMENTS APPORTIONED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
TRACTS OF LANDS HAD BEEN DISCHARGED, PLEAS OF RES JUDICATA WERE
INTERPOSED BY THE LANDOWNERS.  REFERRING TO THIS ANSWER OF THE
LANDOWNERS, THE COMMISSIONERS AMENDED THEIR COMPLAINT AND ALLEGED (1)
THAT THE STATE COURT DECREES OF 1931 AND 1932 WERE VOID BECAUSE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS HAD NOT BEEN MADE PARTIES, AND (2) THAT THE
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS' JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DISTRICT AND THE MANDATORY
INJUNCTION DECREE OF THE FEDERAL COURT WERE "RES JUDICATA OF ALL THE
QUESTIONS  ...  RAISED BY THE" LANDOWNERS.  THE TRIAL COURT DECIDED
AGAINST THE LANDOWNERS, BUT THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS REVERSED AND
HELD THAT THE UNAPPEALED CHANCERY COURT DECREES IN 1931 AND 1932
AMOUNTED TO CONCLUSIVE ADJUDICATIONS THAT THE PARTICULAR LANDS HERE
INVOLVED WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR NO FURTHER BENEFIT TAXES, THUS SUSTAINING
THE LANDOWNERS' PLEAS OF RES JUDICATA.  FN4 

FIRST.  THE UNAPPEALED 1931 AND 1932 DECREES OF THE LINCOLN CHANCERY
COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. 

AS STATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, THE GENERAL JURISDICTION
OF THE LINCOLN CHANCERY COURT, UNDER THE STATE LAW, TO RENDER THE 1931
AND 1932 DECREES IS "ACKNOWLEDGED,"  FN5  AND THIS DETERMINATION BY THE
STATE'S HIGHEST COURT IS BINDING UPON US.  HOWEVER, PETITIONERS'
ARGUMENT IS THAT THESE DECREES WERE VOID BECAUSE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS
WERE NOT MADE PARTIES IN AND HAD NO NOTICE OF THE CHANCERY
PROCEEDINGS.  THEREFORE, THEY CONTEND THAT IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE
STATE COURT DECREES AND TREATING THEM AS RES JUDICATA IN THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING THE COURT BELOW DEPRIVED CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THEIR
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  FN6  PETITIONERS ALSO ADD THE CONTENTION THAT THE 1932
STATE COURT DECREE WAS "COLLUSIVE AS A MATTER OF LAW." 

ALTHOUGH THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT WAS NOT IN TERMS LEGISLATIVELY
DECLARED TO BE A CORPORATION, ITS POWERS AND LIMITATIONS WERE SIMILAR
TO THOSE OF CORPORATIONS AND ITS COMMISSIONERS WERE COMPARABLE TO
CORPORATE DIRECTORS.  FN7  AMONG THE DUTIES OF THE COMMISSIONERS - AS
PROVIDED BY THE VERY STATUTE UPON WHICH THE CERTIFICATES INVOLVED HERE
REST - WERE THOSE OF PROTECTING AND ENFORCING CREDITORS' RIGHTS ON
OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT.  FN8  AND THE COMMISSIONERS IN 1931
AND 1932 LITIGATED WITH THE LANDOWNERS THE DISPUTED QUESTION OF
PROPORTIONATE AMOUNTS OF TAXES DUE THE DISTRICT BY VIRTUE OF DRAINAGE
BENEFITS RECEIVED BY THE PARTICULAR TRACTS HERE IN QUESTION. 

WHEN THESE CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED, PURCHASERS WERE CHARGED WITH
NOTICE OF AND BOUND BY ARKANSAS STATUTES IN EXISTENCE WHEN, AND
PURSUANT TO WHICH, THE DEBT WAS CONTRACTED AND WHICH PROVIDED FOR
DETERMINATION OF THE PROPORTIONATE LIABILITIES OF LANDS IN THE DISTRICT
BY CHANCERY PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS AND LANDOWNERS WITH
NO REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE TO CREDITORS OF THE DISTRICT.  FN9  THUS, THE
VERY STATUTORY PLAN FROM WHICH THE CERTIFICATE OBLIGATIONS SPRANG
CONTEMPLATED THAT THE COMMISSIONERS SHOULD REPRESENT THE COLLECTIVE AND
CORPORATE INTERESTS OF THE DISTRICT, IN LITIGATION BETWEEN THE DISTRICT
AND A LANDOWNER INVOLVING MATTERS PERSONAL TO THE LANDOWNER. 

THESE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO BE MADE PARTIES IN THE
LINCOLN CHANCERY PROCEEDINGS, JUST AS IN PRACTICE CREDITORS OF A
CORPORATION ARE NOT, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATUTE, MADE PARTIES
IN A SUIT BETWEEN A STOCKHOLDER AND THE CORPORATION TO DETERMINE
LIABILITY ON A STOCK SUBSCRIPTION, BETWEEN THE CORPORATION AND A THIRD
PERSON TO RECOVER CORPORATE ASSETS, OR IN A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THE
CORPORATION BY CREDITORS, STOCKHOLDERS OR OFFICERS.  IT HAS BEEN HELD
THAT BONDHOLDERS ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO AND ARE BOUND BY THE
DECREE - EVEN IF ADVERSE TO THEIR INTERESTS - IN LITIGATION WHEREIN AN
INDENTURE TRUSTEE UNDER A BOND ISSUE IS A PARTY AND EXERCISES IN GOOD
FAITH AND WITHOUT NEGLECT HIS CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT AND
ASSERT THE LIEN SECURING THE ISSUE.  FN10  AND SO ARE THESE PETITIONERS
BOUND BY THE DECREES IN THE CHANCERY SUIT IN WHICH THE COMMISSIONERS AS
PARTIES APPROPRIATELY ASSERTED THE LIEN FOR BENEFIT OF CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS - UNLESS THERE WAS FRAUD OR COLLUSION. 

IT IS SUFFICIENT TO STATE AS TO THIS CONTENTION THAT THE ISSUES OF
FRAUD AND COLLUSION RAISE NO QUESTIONS WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS WAS NOT COMPETENT FINALLY TO DECIDE.  AND THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS POINTS OUT THAT UNDER CONTROLLING ARKANSAS LAW THE CHANCERY
DECREES "COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE ON APPEAL OR BY DIRECT ACTION
TO ANNUL THEM ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD, AND AS WE HAVE SAID NO APPEALS
WERE TAKEN, AND NO FRAUD ON THE COURT IN WHICH THE DECREES WERE
RENDERED, IS REFLECTED BY THIS RECORD."  FN11 

BUT PETITIONERS NEVERTHELESS INSIST THAT THE STATE COURT'S CHANCERY
DECREES CANNOT AVAIL THE LANDOWNERS BECAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENTS
OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 

SECOND.  THE JUDGMENTS OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. 

PETITIONERS PLEADED THE FINAL JUDGMENTS OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
AS CONCLUSIVE ADJUDICATIONS OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE LANDOWNERS'
DEFENSE BASED UPON THE CHANCERY DECREES.  THE REFUSAL OF THE COURT
BELOW TO ACCEPT THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENTS AS DETERMINATIVE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS' LIABILITIES CONSTITUTED, PETITIONERS CLAIM, A
DENIAL OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THOSE FEDERAL JUDGMENTS.  WITH THIS
CONTENTION WE DO NOT AGREE. 

IN ORDER THAT THE DISTRICT MIGHT BE AFFORDED A BASIS FOR SUITS IN THE
STATE COURTS TO RECOVER TAXES WITH WHICH TO PAY THE JUDGMENT AGAINST
IT, THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED A MANDATORY INJUNCTION REQUIRING COUNTY
OFFICIALS TO EXTEND ON THEIR BOOKS DRAINAGE TAXES AGAINST ALL THE LANDS
IN THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE, INCLUDING THOSE HERE INVOLVED.  THIS
PRELIMINARY TO STATE COURT SUITS IN WHICH THE ACTUAL RESPECTIVE
LIABILITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS COULD BE DETERMINED WAS
PERFORMED, AND THEREBY THIS PROVISION OF THE INJUNCTION WAS CARRIED
OUT.  THE COMMISSIONERS WERE ALSO ENJOINED TO FILE AND PROSECUTE SUITS
IN THE STATE COURTS TO COLLECT ALL SUCH TAXES THAT WERE DELINQUENT. 
THIS WAS DONE.  IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE DISTRICT WAS EMPOWERED TO
REPRESENT THE LANDOWNERS WHEN THE EXTENSION OF TAXES AS A WHOLE WAS
ORDERED, BY ITS MANDATORY INJUNCTION THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ATTEMPT
TO FORECLOSE THE STATE COURT FROM HEARING ALL MATTERS OF PERSONAL
DEFENSE WHICH INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS MIGHT PLEAD IN THE SUITS FOR
COLLECTION.  INSTEAD, THE DISTRICT COURT APPROPRIATELY LEFT FOR THE
STATE COURT'S DETERMINATION ANY SUCH PERSONAL DEFENSES AVAILABLE UNDER
ARKANSAS LAW.  FN12  AND HERE THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HAS
SUSTAINED AS PERSONAL DEFENSES THE DECREES OF PAYMENT AND DISCHARGE
OBTAINED BY INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS IN ARKANSAS COURTS OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION.  ACCORDINGLY, PETITIONERS MISCONSTRUE ENTIRELY THE DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN ARGUING THAT UNLESS ITS INJUNCTION IS CARRIED
OUT WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE PRIOR STATE COURT DECREES, INJUNCTIONS
BY A STATE COURT WILL BE PERMITTED TO OBSTRUCT THE EXECUTION OF A
FEDERAL COURT'S JUDGMENT.  FN13  IN VIEW OF OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND THE FACT THAT ITS MANDATES HAVE BEEN FULLY
CARRIED OUT, IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER THE EXISTENCE OR
PRESENT VITALITY OF THE DOCTRINE SAID TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CASES
RELIED UPON BY PETITIONERS.  FN14    THE SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENTS WAS NO MORE THAN A DETERMINATION THAT A
TOTAL BALANCE WAS STILL DUE THE COMPLAINING CERTIFICATE HOLDERS BY THE
DISTRICT; THAT DRAINAGE TAXES SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THIS BALANCE
SHOULD BE EXTENDED ON THE PROPER COUNTY TAX BOOKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ARKANSAS LAW; AND THAT SUITS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS BE FILED FOR
JUDICIAL ASCERTAINMENT OF THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARES OF THE TOTAL. 
NEITHER THE ADJUDICATION OF THE TOTAL LIABILITY NOR THE ORDER FOR
EXTENSION OF DRAINAGE TAXES ON THE LOCAL TAX BOOKS WAS AN ADJUDICATION
OF THE VARYING PROPORTIONATE LIABILITIES OF THE RESPECTIVE LANDOWNERS. 
DETERMINATION OF THESE LIABILITIES WAS PROPERLY LEFT FOR THE STATE
COURT.  A DECREED TOTAL LIABILITY FOR THE DISTRICT WAS STILL CONSISTENT
WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT "WHEN THE PROPORTION (TAXABLE AGAINST A
PARTICULAR TRACT) IS ASCERTAINED AND PAID, IT IS NO LONGER OR FURTHER
LIABLE.  IT IS DISCHARGED.  THE RESIDUE OF THE TAX IS TO BE OBTAINED
FROM OTHER SOURCES."  FN15 

THESE LANDOWNERS WERE NEITHER SERVED WITH PROCESS NOR HEARD IN EITHER
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS' SUIT AGAINST THE DISTRICT OR THE MANDATORY
INJUNCTION PROCEEDING.  NO RELIEF AGAINST THEM AS INDIVIDUALS WAS
EITHER SOUGHT OR ADJUDGED.  THE COMMISSIONERS DID REPRESENT ALL
LANDOWNERS IN UNSUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS' SUIT
FOR AN ADJUDICATION OF THE TOTAL COLLECTIVE CORPORATE OBLIGATION OF THE
DISTRICT AS AN ENTITY.  IN THE PRESENT SUIT THE LANDOWNERS HAVE NOT
ASSERTED, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS HAS NOT UPHELD, ANY ATTACK
UPON THAT JUDGMENT, WHICH MIGHT BE VALID ALTHOUGH UNCOLLECTIBLE AGAINST
THE DISTRICT OR ANY INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS.  FN16 THE FACT THAT THE
COMMISSIONERS, IN THE INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE DISTRICT,
UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTED TO INTERPOSE DEFENSES PECULIAR AND PERSONAL TO
THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS CANNOT FORECLOSE THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS,
WHO WERE NOT PRESENT, FROM THEREAFTER PLEADING A DEFENSE OTHERWISE
VALID.  CERTAINLY, THE DECREE IN THE INJUNCTION SUIT IN THE FEDERAL
COURT WOULD NOT PREVENT AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER FROM SUBSEQUENTLY
INTERPOSING THE DEFENSE THAT HIS PROPERTY WAS NOT IN FACT INCLUDED
WITHIN THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT.  FN17  COGNATE PERSONAL DEFENSES, SUCH AS
THE ONE THAT A LANDOWNER'S PROPORTIONATE DRAINAGE TAX LIABILITY HAS
BEEN DECLARED BY THE JUDGMENT OF A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL TO HAVE BEEN
"ASCERTAINED AND PAID," WERE NOT FORECLOSED BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT'S JUDGMENTS. 

THE JUDGMENTS OF THE FEDERAL COURT WERE NOT DENIED FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACTS OF ARK. 1909, P. 829. 

FN2  85 F.2D 643. 

FN3  92 F.2D 783. 

FN4  198 ARK. 743; 131 S.W.2D 620; 132 S.W.2D 658. 

FN5  CF. PROTHO V. WILLIAMS, 147 ARK. 535, 547; 229 S.W. 38. 

FN6  BECAUSE OF THIS AND THE FURTHER CONTENTION THAT THE SUPREME
COURT OF ARKANSAS HAD DENIED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENTS OF
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

FN7  SEE, E.G., REFERENCE TO "THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS," ACTS OF ARK.
1909, P. 849. 

FN8  THE ACT OF 1909 SET UP DETAILED STANDARDS FOR CREATION AND
CONTROL OF THE DISTRICT; PROVIDED FOR MANAGEMENT OF DISTRICT AFFAIRS BY
A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS UNDER OUTLINED SUPERVISION BY ARKANSAS COURTS;
AND INTRUSTED THE COMMISSIONERS WITH THE CONDUCT AND CONTROL OF
LITIGATION FOR THE COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF UNPAID BENEFITS
AGAINST LANDS IN THE DISTRICT.  SUCH LITIGATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE
CONDUCTED IN THE STATE CHANCERY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY
WHERE THE PARTICULAR LANDS WERE LOCATED; AND THE LANDS COVERED BY THE
1931-1932 LINCOLN CHANCERY COURT DECREES WERE LOCATED IN LINCOLN
COUNTY.  ARKANSAS ACTS 1909, P. 829. 

FN9  REES V. CITY OF WATERTOWN, 19 WALL.  107, 120; UNITED STATES V.
COUNTY OF MACON, 99 U.S. 582, 590. 

FN10  ELWELL V. FOSDICK, 134 U.S. 500, 512, 513; RICHTER V. JEROME,
123 U.S. 233, 246-7. 

FN11  198 ARK. 743, 753; 131 S.W.2D 620, 625; 132 S.W.2D 658. 

FN12  CF. ARKANSAS V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO., 269 U.S. 172,
176; CHANDLER V. PEKETZ, 297 U.S. 609, 611. 

FN13  PETITIONERS RELY UPON RIGGS V. JOHNSON COUNTY, 6 WALL.  166;
UNITED STATES V. COUNCIL OF KEOKUK, ID., 514; THE MAYOR V. LORD, 9
WALL.  409; THE SUPERVISORS V. DURANT, ID., 415; HAWLEY V. FAIRBANKS,
108 U.S. 543. 

FN14  BUT SEE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 78 AND RUHLIN V.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., ID., 202, 205. 

FN15  REES V. CITY OF WATERTOWN, SUPRA, 119-20. 

FN16  BARKLEY V. LEVEE COMMISSION, 93 U.S. 258, 265-6. 

FN17  OCEAN BEACH HEIGHTS, INC. V. BROWN-CRUMMER INVESTMENT CO., 302
U.S. 614.  CF. NORMANDY BEACH DEV.  CO. V. UNITED STATES, 69 F.2D 105. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. SHAW, 309 U.S. 495 


NO. 570.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 290
MICH. 311 - 287 N.W. 477, REVERSED. 


1.  A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MAY BE BROUGHT ONLY WITH CONSENT
GIVEN, AND IN THE COURTS DESIGNATED, BY STATUTE.  P. 500. 

2.  THE UNITED STATES, BY FILING A CLAIM AGAINST AN ESTATE IN A STATE
PROBATE PROCEEDING, DOES NOT SUBJECT ITSELF TO A BINDING, THOUGH NOT
ENFORCIBLE, ASCERTAINMENT AND ALLOWANCE OF A CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST
ITSELF, IN EXCESS OF SET-OFF.  THE THEKLA, 266 U.S. 328,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 501-504. 

3.  BY TAKING OVER THE ASSETS OF THE FLEET CORPORATION AND ASSUMING
ITS OBLIGATIONS, THE UNITED STATES DID NOT WAIVE ITS IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
IN A STATE COURT ON A COUNTER-CLAIM BASED ON THE CORPORATION'S BREACH
OF CONTRACT.  P. 505. 

UNITED STATES V. SHAW, ADMINISTRATOR DE BONIS NON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 548, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE IN
PROBATE HOLDING THE UNITED STATES INDEBTED TO A DECEDENT'S ESTATE ON A
COUNTER-CLAIM. 

THE PROBATE COURT'S ORDER IS A JUDICIAL ASCERTAINMENT OR
DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OWING AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A MONEY
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  UNITED STATES V. ECKFORD, 6 WALL. 
487; THE GLORIA, 286 F. 188.  CF., UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY BANK,
83 F.2D 236, CERT. DEN.  299 U.S. 563; S.C. 4 F.SUPP.  417. 

THE ORDER WAS PROPER UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  UNITED
STATES V. THE THEKLA, 266 U.S. 328. 

THE UNITED STATES VOLUNTARILY ENTERED A STATE COURT HAVING
JURISDICTION IN REM OVER THE RES OF AN ESTATE AND ASSERTED, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL STATUTORY PRACTICE, A CLAIM AGAINST THE RES.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE SAME LOCAL
PRACTICE, A COUNTER-CLAIM WAS DULY ASSERTED AND IT WAS THEREAFTER
UPHELD ON THE MERITS.  THERE IS NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACT
OF JOINING IN SUIT IN THE ONE CASE AND THE ACT OF ENTRY INTO COURT FOR
ASSERTION OF CLAIM IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THEKLA IS
APPLICABLE TO PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN MODERN COURTS
OF LAW, EQUITY AND ADMIRALTY.  SEE AMERICAN PROPELLER CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 300 U.S. 475; UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 83 F.2D 236;
CERT. DEN.  299 U.S. 563; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S.
126; THE GLORIA, 286 F. 188, 200; DEXTER AND CARPENTER V. KUNGLIG
JARNVAGSSTYRELLSEN, 43 F.2D 708; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN DITCH ASSN.,
2 F.SUPP.  868; UNITED STATES V. STANDARD OIL CO., 21 F.2D 655; THE
BARBARA CATES, 17 F. 244; UNITED STATES V. EAST, 80 F.2D 134; UNITED
STATES V. MOSCOW-IDAHO SEED CO., 14 F.SUPP.  135; UNITED STATES V.
EQUITABLE TRUST CO., 283 U.S. 745. 

CF., DANFORTH V. UNITED STATES, 102 F.2D 5; 308 U.S. 271. 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION DEALT WITH IN THE
THEKLA, A LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY IS LIKE A BILL FOR AN ACCOUNT, GOLDTHWAIT
V. DAY, 149 MASS. 185, 187; AND EVEN MORE LIKE A CLAIM AGAINST THE RES
OF AN ESTATE IN CHARGE OF A COURT, FOOTE V. FOOTE, 61 MICH. 192. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE THEKLA HAS SINCE AIDED DECISION IN UNITED STATES
V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 83 F.2D 236; CERT. DEN.  299 U.S. 563; AMERICAN
PROPELLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 476; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 134; UNITED STATES V. U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY
CO., 106 F.2D 804.  SEE KEIFER & KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORP., 306 U.S. 381. 

IMMUNITY FROM AFFIRMATIVE JUDGMENT OR JUDICIAL ASCERTAINMENT IN THIS
CASE, IF ANY, WAS WAIVED WHEN THE UNITED STATES, HAVING ALREADY TAKEN A
GENERAL ASSIGNMENT OF ASSETS AND RECEIVABLES FROM THE FLEET
CORPORATION, DISSOLVED THE LATTER AND ASSUMED ITS OBLIGATIONS, BY THE
ACT OF JUNE 29, 1936. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1918 SYDNEY C. MCLOUTH CONTRACTED TO CONSTRUCT NINE TUGS FOR THE
UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORATION.  ON MAY 24,
1920, THE CONTRACT WAS CANCELLED AND THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING THAT MCLOUTH WAS TO KEEP AS BAILEE
CERTAIN MATERIALS FURNISHED HIM FOR USE IN BUILDING THE TUGS AND THAT
THE FLEET CORPORATION WAS TO ASSUME CERTAIN OF MCLOUTH'S SUBCONTRACTS
AND COMMITMENTS.  AMONG THE COMMITMENTS ASSUMED WAS A CONTRACT OF
MCLOUTH'S TO PURCHASE LUMBER FROM THE INGRAM-DAY LUMBER COMPANY.  THE
LUMBER COMPANY OBTAINED A JUDGMENT AGAINST MCLOUTH FOR $42,789.96 FOR
BREACH OF THIS CONTRACT,  FN1  AND, MCLOUTH HAVING DIED IN 1923, FILED
ITS CLAIM ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE PROBATE COURT OF ST. CLAIR COUNTY,
MICHIGAN.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE UNITED STATES OBTAINED A JUDGMENT OF
$40,165.48 AGAINST MCLOUTH'S ADMINISTRATOR, 

FN2  REPRESENTING DAMAGES FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE MATERIALS LEFT
WITH MCLOUTH AS BAILEE, AND CLAIM ON THIS JUDGMENT WAS FILED IN THE
PROBATE COURT.  THE ADMINISTRATOR, RESPONDENT HERE, HAVING PRESENTED
WITHOUT SUCCESS THE LUMBER COMPANY'S JUDGMENT TO THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING
OFFICE,  FN3 SOUGHT TO SET OFF THAT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.  THE PROBATE COURT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED
STATES AND DENIED THE SET-OFF, BUT ITS RULING AS TO THE SET-OFF WAS
REVERSED ON APPEAL TO THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT.  FN4  THE
ADMINISTRATOR THEN PETITIONED THE PROBATE COURT TO GRANT STATUTORY
JUDGMENT OF THE BALANCE DUE THE ESTATE.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE CLAIM
OF THE UNITED STATES, WITH INTEREST, AMOUNTED TO $49,442.41 AND THE
LUMBER COMPANY'S CLAIM TO $73,071.38 AND "ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
ASCERTAINED" THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS INDEBTED TO THE ESTATE FOR THE
DIFFERENCE, $23,628.97, "AND THAT SUCH INDEBTEDNESS BE AND THE SAME IS
HEREBY ALLOWED AS AND DETERMINED TO BE A PROPER CLAIM WHICH IS OWING TO
SAID ESTATE BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."  THE PROBATE COURT'S
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL.  FN5 

ON THIS CERTIORARI WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
UNITED STATES BY FILING A CLAIM AGAINST AN ESTATE IN A STATE COURT
SUBJECTS ITSELF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL STATUTORY PRACTICE, TO A
BINDING, THOUGH NOT IMMEDIATELY ENFORCEABLE, ASCERTAINMENT AND
ALLOWANCE BY THE STATE COURT OF A CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST ITSELF. 

BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS OF OTHER FEDERAL COURTS AS TO THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN THE IMPORTANT FEDERAL FIELD OF CROSS-CLAIMS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,  FN6  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN7  UNITED
STATES V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY  FN8  INVOLVES THIS
QUESTION. 

THE STATUTE OF MICHIGAN UNDER WHICH THIS ASCERTAINMENT OF
INDEBTEDNESS WAS MADE, SO FAR AS PERTINENT, IS SET OUT IN THE
FOOTNOTE.  FN9  THERE IS NO CONTENTION ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT THAT
THE JUDGMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES EVEN IN THE
LIMITED SENSE OF STATUTORY DIRECTION TO REPORT THE JUDGMENT TO CONGRESS
AS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT  FN10  OR THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT.  FN11
EXECUTION AGAINST PROPERTY OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES SUBJECTED TO SUCH
PROCEDURE BY STATUTE IS SOMETIMES ALLOWED.  FN12  THE POSITION TAKEN IS
THAT THE PROBATE COURT JUDGMENT IS A "FINAL DETERMINATION" OF THE
RIGHTS OF THE LITIGANTS, HOWSOEVER SUCH RIGHTS MAY LATER BECOME
IMPORTANT.  WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH THE MANNER OF COLLECTION. 
SUCH WAS THE HOLDING OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.  FN13 

THE STATE PROCEDURE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE BALANCE AGAINST OR
IN FAVOR OF AN ESTATE, WHICH WAS EMPLOYED HERE, WAS THE RECOGNIZED
METHOD OF CLOSING AN ESTATE AT THE TIME OF THE PROBATE JUDGMENT.  THE
PROBATE JUDGE WAS EMPOWERED TO ACT AS COMMISSIONER UNDER THE STATUTE
QUOTED ABOVE.  FN14  HIS DECISION UNREVIEWED WAS CONSIDERED FINAL. 
FN15  THE DETERMINATION OF THE PROBATE COURT BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES
WAS ENFORCEABLE WITHOUT REEXAMINATION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT.  FN16 EVEN
THE RIGHT TO EXECUTION IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO A COMPLETE JUDICIAL
PROCESS.  FN17  THE ORDER ENTERED WAS A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE
AMOUNTS DUE THE ESTATE BY THE UNITED STATES ON THIS CLAIM AND CROSS
CLAIM IF THE PROBATE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO RENDER THE ORDER AGAINST
THE PETITIONER. 

WHETHER THAT JURISDICTION EXISTS DEPENDS UPON THE EFFECT OF THE
VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO THE MICHIGAN COURT BY THE UNITED STATES OF ITS
CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE.  AS A FOUNDATION FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THAT
QUESTION WE MAY LAY THE POSTULATE THAT WITHOUT SPECIFIC STATUTORY
CONSENT, NO SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  FN18  NO
OFFICER BY HIS ACTION CAN CONFER JURISDICTION.  FN19  EVEN WHEN SUITS
ARE AUTHORIZED THEY MUST BE BROUGHT ONLY IN DESIGNATED COURTS.  FN20
THE REASONS FOR THIS IMMUNITY ARE IMBEDDED IN OUR LEGAL PHILOSOPHY. 
THEY PARTAKE SOMEWHAT OF DIGNITY AND DECORUM, SOMEWHAT OF PRACTICAL
ADMINISTRATION, SOMEWHAT OF THE POLITICAL DESIRABILITY OF AN
IMPREGNABLE LEGAL CITADEL WHERE GOVERNMENT AS DISTINCT FROM ITS
FUNCTIONARIES MAY OPERATE UNDISTURBED BY THE DEMANDS OF LITIGANTS.  A
SENSE OF JUSTICE HAS BROUGHT A PROGRESSIVE RELAXATION BY LEGISLATIVE
ENACTMENTS OF THE RIGOR OF THE IMMUNITY RULE.  AS REPRESENTATIVE
GOVERNMENTS ATTEMPT TO AMELIORATE INEQUALITIES AS NECESSITIES WILL
PERMIT, PREROGATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT YIELD TO THE NEEDS OF THE
CITIZEN.  BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1797, AND ITS SUCCESSOR LEGISLATION,
AS INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT, CROSS-CLAIMS ARE ALLOWED TO THE AMOUNT OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT VOLUNTARILY SUES.  FN21
SPECIALLY DESIGNATED CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MAY BE SUED UPON
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR THE DISTRICT COURTS UNDER THE TUCKER ACT. 
FN22  SPECIAL GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES, SET APART AS CORPORATIONS OR
INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES, HAVE BEEN MADE SUABLE FREELY.  WHEN AUTHORITY IS
GIVEN, IT IS LIBERALLY CONSTRUED.  FN23 AS TO THESE MATTERS NO
CONTROVERSY EXISTS. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THIS IMMUNITY EXTENDS, HOWEVER, ONLY TO ORIGINAL
SUITS; THAT WHEN A SOVEREIGN VOLUNTARILY SEEKS THE AID OF THE COURTS
FOR COLLECTION OF ITS INDEBTEDNESS IT TAKES THE FORM OF A PRIVATE
SUITOR AND THEREBY SUBJECTS ITSELF TO THE FULL JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT.  THE PRINCIPLE OF A SINGLE ADJUDICATION IS STRESSED, AS IS THE
NECESSITY FOR A COMPLETE EXAMINATION INTO THE CROSS-CLAIM, DESPITE
ATTENDANT DISLOCATION OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS BY THE APPEARANCE OF
IMPORTANT OFFICERS AT DISTANT POINTS AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AS
EVIDENCE, TO JUSTIFY THE ALLOWANCE OF AN OFFSET TO THE GOVERNMENT'S
CLAIM.  FN24  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT SURPRISE IS NOT INVOLVED AS NO
CROSS-CLAIM MAY BE PROVEN UNTIL AFTER SUBMISSION TO AND REFUSAL BY THE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICERS.  FN25  RESPONDENT FURTHER INSISTS THAT
HIS POSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE THEKLA  FN26  AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS
QUOTING ITS LANGUAGE.  FN27  EMPHASIS IS PLACED UPON THE FACT THAT
THESE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS ARE IN REM OR QUASI IN REM  FN28  AS WERE THE
LIBELS IN ADMIRALTY IN THE THEKLA. 

IT IS NOT OUR RIGHT TO EXTEND THE WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY MORE
BROADLY THAN HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE CONGRESS.  WE, OF COURSE,
INTIMATE NO OPINION AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF FURTHER CHANGES.  THAT IS
IMMATERIAL.  AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF COMPLETE IMMUNITY WE FIND NO
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION MODIFYING THE IMMUNITY RULE IN FAVOR OF CROSS
ACTIONS BEYOND THE AMOUNT NECESSARY AS A SET-OFF. 

THE THEKLA TURNS UPON A RELATIONSHIP CHARACTERISTIC OF CLAIMS FOR
COLLISION IN ADMIRALTY BUT ENTIRELY ABSENT IN CLAIMS AND CROSS-CLAIMS
IN SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES.  THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A SUIT FOR DAMAGES IN
COLLISION IS NOT THE VESSEL LIBELLED BUT THE COLLISION.  LIBELS AND
CROSS-LIBELS FOR COLLISION ARE ONE LITIGATION AND GIVE RISE TO ONE
LIABILITY.  FN29  IN EQUAL FAULT, THE ENTIRE DAMAGE IS DIVIDED.  AS A
CONSEQUENCE WHEN THE UNITED STATES LIBELS THE VESSEL OF ANOTHER FOR
COLLISION DAMAGES AND A CROSS-LIBEL IS FILED, IT IS NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE THE CROSS-LIBEL AS WELL AS THE ORIGINAL LIBEL TO REACH A
CONCLUSION AS TO LIABILITY FOR THE COLLISION.  THAT CONCLUSION MUST BE
STATED IN TERMS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGES.  IN THE THEKLA OPINION
THE CASES OF ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
FN30  AND NASSAU SMELTING WORKS V. UNITED STATES  FN31  WERE CITED IN
SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT THAT "  ...  GENERALLY SPEAKING A CLAIM THAT
WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN CANNOT BE
ASSERTED AS A COUNTERCLAIM."  THIS COURT THEN SAID:  "WE DO NOT QUALIFY
THE FOREGOING DECISIONS IN ANY WAY."  IN THE SMELTING CASE THIS COURT
HAD SAID, TWO WEEKS BEFORE, ON A CERTIFICATE AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONSIDER A COUNTERCLAIM: 

"THE OBJECTION TO A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IS FUNDAMENTAL,
WHETHER IT BE IN THE FORM OF AN ORIGINAL ACTION OR A SET-OFF OR A
COUNTERCLAIM.  JURISDICTION IN EITHER CASE DOES NOT EXIST UNLESS THERE
IS SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY FOR IT.  NOR IS THERE DOUBT THAT
THE QUESTION IS ONE WHICH INVOLVES THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT AS A FEDERAL COURT UNDER THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR
THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS REGARD IS WHOLLY
DEPENDENT ON SUCH STATUTES."  FN32 

THERE IS LITTLE INDICATION IN THE FACTS OR LANGUAGE OF THE THEKLA TO
INDICATE AN INTENTION TO PERMIT GENERALLY UNLIMITED CROSS-CLAIMS. 
QUOTATIONS FROM THE THEKLA IN LATER OPINIONS OF THIS COURT ARE USED TO
ILLUSTRATE PROBLEMS ENTIRELY APART FROM THE ONE UNDER CONSIDERATION
HERE.  FN33 

THE SUGGESTION THAT THE ORDER OF THE PROBATE COURT IS IN REALITY NOT
A JUDGMENT BUT ONLY A "JUDICIAL ASCERTAINMENT" OF CREDITS DOES NOT
AFFECT OUR CONCLUSION.  NO JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IS MORE
THAN THAT.  BUT SUCH AN ENTRY, IF WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE COURT
PASSING THE ORDER, WOULD BE RES JUDICATA OF THE ISSUE OF INDEBTEDNESS. 
FN34  THE SUGGESTION SPRINGS FROM THE OPINION IN UNITED STATES V.
ECKFORD.  FN35  THESE WORDS THERE APPEAR: 

"WITHOUT EXTENDING THE ARGUMENT, WE ADOPT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THIS
COURT IN THE CASE OF DE GROOT V. UNITED STATES, (5 WALL.  432) DECIDED
AT THE LAST TERM, THAT WHEN THE UNITED STATES IS PLAINTIFF AND THE
DEFENDANT HAS PLEADED A SET-OFF, WHICH THE ACTS OF CONGRESS HAVE
AUTHORIZED HIM TO DO, NO JUDGMENT CAN BE RENDERED AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE JUDICIALLY ASCERTAINED THAT, ON STRIKING
A BALANCE OF JUST DEMANDS, THE GOVERNMENT IS INDEBTED TO THE DEFENDANT
IN AN ASCERTAINED AMOUNT."    THE COURT HAD JUST WRITTEN THAT NO ACTION
COULD BE SUSTAINED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT CONSENT AND THAT TO
PERMIT A DEMAND IN SET-OFF TO BECOME THE FOUNDATION OF A JUDGMENT WOULD
BE THE SAME THING AS SUSTAINING THE PROSECUTION OF A SUIT.  FN36 THE
LANGUAGE QUOTED ABOVE MEANS NO MORE THAN THAT NO JUDGMENT MAY BE
ENTERED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT EVEN THOUGH THE COURT HAS ASCERTAINED,
THROUGH ITS PROCESSES, THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY INDEBTED TO THE
DEFENDANTS.  THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO A DISMISSAL OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM. 

IN THE ECKFORD CASE THIS COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE LITIGATION AT A
MORE ADVANCED STAGE THAN THE PRESENT LITIGATION HAS REACHED.  THE
UNITED STATES HAD SUED ECKFORD'S EXECUTORS ON HIS BOND IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  THEY PLEADED A SET-OFF, A
BALANCE WAS FOUND IN THEIR FAVOR AND A JUDGMENT ENTERED THAT THE
EXECUTORS WERE ENTITLED TO BE PAID THE AMOUNT FOUND.  SUIT IN THE COURT
OF CLAIMS WAS INSTITUTED BY THE EXECUTORS, THE RECORD WAS PROVEN, OVER
OBJECTION, AND JUDGMENT ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.  CONSEQUENTLY A REVERSAL
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS THE ONLY STEP NECESSARY.  THIS COURT DID NOT
DEAL WITH THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT.  FN37 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED RESPONDENT'S FURTHER ARGUMENT THAT SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY WAS WAIVED WHEN THE UNITED STATES TOOK POSSESSION OF THE
ASSETS OF ITS AGENT THE FLEET CORPORATION PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF
THIS ACTION, AND LATER, BUT PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE PROBATE JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM, ASSUMED THE CORPORATION'S OBLIGATIONS BY THE ACT OF JUNE
29, 1936.  FN38  WE SEE NOTHING IN THESE TRANSACTIONS WHICH INDICATES
AN INTENTION TO WAIVE THE IMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE STATE
COURTS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  INGRAM-DAY CO. V. MCLOUTH, 275 U.S. 471. 

FN2  SHAW V. UNITED STATES, 75 F.2D 175. 

FN3 THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1797, 1 STAT. 512, 514, AS AMENDED, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 774, PROVIDES THAT IN "SUITS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES AGAINST
INDIVIDUALS, NO CLAIM FOR A CREDIT SHALL BE ADMITTED  ...  EXCEPT SUCH
AS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE FOR
ITS EXAMINATION, AND TO HAVE BEEN BY IT DISALLOWED.  ...  " 

FN4  IN RE MCLOUTH'S ESTATE, 281 MICH. 191; 274 N.W. 759. 

FN5  290 MICH. 311; 278 N.W. 477. 

FN6  CF. UNITED STATES V. ECKFORD, 6 WALL.  484; THE THEKLA, 266 U.S.
328.  IN RE PATTERSON-MACDONALD SHIPBUILDING CO., 293 F. 192(C.C.A. 9),
CERTIORARI DENIED, SUB NOM. MCLEAN V. AUSTRALIA, 264 U.S. 582. 
ROUMANIA V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 250 F. 341(C.C.A. 2), CERTIORARI
DENIED, 246 U.S. 663; UNITED STATES V. NIPISSING MINES CO., 206 F. 431,
434(C.C.A. 2); ADAMS V. UNITED STATES, 3 CT. CLS. 312, 333; PETERSON V.
UNITED STATES, 26 CT. CLS. 93, 98.  UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY
BANK, 83 F.2D 236(C.C.A. 2), CERTIORARI DENIED, 299 U.S. 563; AMERICAN
PROPELLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 475; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 126. 

FN7  308 U.S. 548. 

FN8  POST, P. 506. 

FN9  COMPILED LAWS OF MICHIGAN (1929), C. 266, SEC. 15682: 

"SET-OFFS IN SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS.  SEC. 9.  WHEN A CREDITOR AGAINST
WHOM THE DECEASED HAD CLAIMS SHALL PRESENT A CLAIM TO THE
COMMISSIONERS, THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR SHALL EXHIBIT THE CLAIMS
OF THE DECEASED IN OFFSET TO THE CLAIMS OF THE CREDITOR, AND THE
COMMISSIONERS SHALL ASCERTAIN AND ALLOW THE BALANCE AGAINST OR IN FAVOR
OF THE ESTATE, AS THEY SHALL FIND THE SAME TO BE; BUT NO CLAIM BARRED
BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHALL BE ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONERS IN
FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THE ESTATE, AS A SET-OFF OR OTHERWISE." 

FN10  31 U.S.C. SEC. 226. 

FN11  46 U.S.C. SEC. 1113. 

FN12  FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION V. BURR, ANTE, P. 242. 

FN13  290 MICH. 311; 287 N.W. 477. 

FN14  3 COMP. LAWS MICH. (1929), SEC. 15681. 

FN15  FLYNN V. LORIMER'S ESTATE, 141 MICH. 707; 105 N.W. 37. 

FN16  SHURBUN V. HOOPER, 40 MICH. 503. 

FN17  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 263;
FLYNN V. LORIMER'S ESTATE, 141 MICH. 707; 105 N.W. 37. 

FN18  KANSAS V. UNITED STATES, 204 U.S. 331; UNITED STATES V.
THOMPSON, 98 U.S. 486, 489, 490; BUCHANAN V. ALEXANDER, 4 HOW.  20. 

FN19  STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255, 270; CARR V. UNITED STATES,
98 U.S. 433, 437. 

FN20  MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 388. 

FN21  1 STAT. 512, 514; R.S. SEC. 951; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 774.  UNITED
STATES V. WILKINS, 6 WHEAT.  135, 144. 

FN22  28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(20), 250. 

FN23  KEIFER & KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306 U.S. 381;
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION V. BURR, SUPRA. 

FN24  UNITED STATES V. WILKINS, SUPRA. 

FN25  28 U.S.C. SEC. 774. 

FN26  266 U.S. 328. 

FN27  SEE NOTE 33, INFRA. 

FN28  UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK CO., 296 U.S. 463, 477;
MONTGOMERY V. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE, 284 MICH. 430. 

FN29  BOWKER V. UNITED STATES, 186 U.S. 135, 139. 

FN30  245 U.S. 493, 504, 505. 

FN31  266 U.S. 101. 

FN32  ID., 106. 

FN33  AMERICAN PROPELLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 475, 478;
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 126, 134. 

FN34  WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 553, 564. 

FN35  6 WALL.  484, 491. 

FN36  CF. REESIDE V. WALKER, 11 HOW.  272, 290. 

FN37  CF. SCHAUMBURG V. UNITED STATES, 103 U.S. 667. 

FN38  49 STAT. 1987: 

"SEC. 203.  THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD MERCHANT FLEET
CORPORATION SHALL CEASE TO EXIST AND SHALL STAND DISSOLVED.  ALL THE
RECORDS, BOOKS, PAPERS, AND CORPORATE PROPERTY OF SAID DISSOLVED
CORPORATION SHALL BE TAKEN OVER BY THE COMMISSION.  ALL EXISTING
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE DISSOLVED CORPORATION SHALL BE ASSUMED
BY THE UNITED STATES.  ANY SUIT AGAINST THE DISSOLVED CORPORATION
PENDING IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE DEFENDED BY THE
COMMISSION UPON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND ANY JUDGMENT OBTAINED AGAINST THE DISSOLVED
CORPORATION IN ANY SUCH PENDING SUIT SHALL BE REPORTED TO CONGRESS IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 226, TITLE 31, U.S.C.  FOR REPORTING
JUDGMENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. U.S. FIDELITY CO., 309 U.S. 506 


NO. 569.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 106
F.2D 804, REVERSED. 


IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE UNITED
STATES FILED A CLAIM IN BEHALF OF THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW NATIONS. 
THE COURT ALLOWED IT BUT ALLOWED THE DEBTOR'S CROSS-CLAIM FOR A LARGER
AMOUNT AND DECREED THE BALANCE IN FAVOR OF THE DEBTOR AGAINST THE
NATIONS TO BE "COLLECTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW."  THE VALIDITY
OF THE JUDGMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SATISFIED THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM WAS
CONCEDED.  IN ANOTHER SUIT IN OKLAHOMA BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
INDIAN NATIONS AGAINST THE SURETY ON A BOND GIVEN BY THE DEBTOR, THE
DEBTOR PLEADED THE FORMER JUDGMENT AS RES JUDICATA AND ASKED FOR A
DETERMINATION OF ACCOUNTS.  HELD: 

1.  THE INDIAN NATIONS AND THE UNITED STATES ACTING FOR THEM ARE
EXEMPT FROM SUITS AND ALSO FROM CROSS SUITS, EXCEPT WHEN AUTHORIZED,
AND IN THE COURTS DESIGNATED, BY ACT OF CONGRESS.  P. 512. 

2.  THE JUDGMENT, IN SO FAR AS IT UNDERTAKES TO FIX A CREDIT AGAINST
THE INDIAN NATIONS, IS VOID AND CAN NOT BE GIVEN THE EFFECT OF RES
JUDICATA IN OTHER LITIGATION.  P. 512. 

3.  THE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF INDIAN NATIONS
IN TUTELAGE CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY OFFICIAL FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE
JURISDICTION OR TO APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
STATUTORY CONSENT TO THE SUIT, THE JUDGMENT IS SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL
ATTACK.  CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DIST. V. BAXTER STATE BANK, 308 U.S.
371, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 513. 

4.  WHERE A JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ENTERED BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, QUESTIONS AS TO PARTIES
ARE GOVERNED BY THE CONFORMITY ACT.  P. 516. 

SEMBLE THAT UNDER THE PROCEDURE OF OKLAHOMA A PRINCIPAL IN A BOND,
THOUGH HE CAN NOT COMPEL HIS ADMISSION AS A PARTY DEFENDANT IN A SUIT
AGAINST THE SURETY, BECOMES SUCH, IN EFFECT, IF ALLOWED WITHOUT
OBJECTION TO FILE HIS INTERVENING PETITION. 

5.  UNDER THE ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, WHICH PROVIDED THAT WHERE SUIT
IS BROUGHT IN ANY UNITED STATES COURT IN THE INDIAN TERRITORY BY OR ON
BEHALF OF ANY OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES TO RECOVER MONEYS CLAIMED TO
BE DUE AND OWING SUCH TRIBE, THE PARTY DEFENDANTS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT
TO SET UP AND HAVE ADJUDICATED CLAIMS AGAINST THE TRIBE, AND THAT ANY
BALANCE THAT MAY BE FOUND DUE BY THE TRIBE SHALL BE PAID BY THE
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF ITS FUNDS, ETC., THE QUESTION WHO
ARE "DEFENDANTS" IS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  P. 516. 

UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 548, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, 24 F.SUPP. 
961, WHICH, IN RELIANCE UPON A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, REJECTED A CLAIM MADE BY THE UNITED
STATES ON BEHALF OF THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW NATIONS AND ALLOWED
AGAINST THEM A COUNTER-CLAIM OF INTERVENERS. 

THE COUNTERCLAIM IS NOT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES BUT THE TRIBES. 
UNITED STATES V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO., 305 U.S. 415; FOLK V. UNITED
STATES, 233 F. 177; UNITED STATES V. FT. SMITH & WESTERN RY. CO., 195
F. 211. 

THE FEDERAL COURT IN MISSOURI HAD JURISDICTION TO RENDER AN
AFFIRMATIVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TRIBES.  ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, SEC.
18; C. 1876, 34 STAT. 137, 144, CONSIDERED WITH STATUTES CONFERRING
JURISDICTION ON THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

A TRANSITORY ACTION IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES MUST BE BROUGHT
IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT RESIDES. 

CONGRESS HAS CONSENTED TO AN AFFIRMATIVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TRIBES,
AND ANY RIGHT TO HAVE THE CLAIM CONFINED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF
OKLAHOMA WAS WAIVED BY CONTESTING THE CLAIM IN MISSOURI.  DIST'G
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 245 U.S. 493.  SEE,
PEORIA & PEKIN UNION R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 528, 535;
RICHARDSON V. FAJARDO SUGAR CO., 241 U.S. 44, 47. 

THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE COURT IN
MISSOURI MAY NOT BE ASSAILED COLLATERALLY.  CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE
DIST. V. BAXTER STATE BANK, 308 U.S. 371; STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S.
165. 

WHEN THE CLAIM OF THE TRIBES WAS SUBMITTED TO THE MISSOURI COURT THE
UNITED STATES AND THE TRIBES WERE LITIGANTS LIKE ANY OTHER SUITOR. 
RICHARDSON V. FAJARDO SUGAR CO., 241 U.S. 44; PORTO RICO V. RAMOS, 232
U.S. 627; FOLK V. UNITED STATES, 233 F. 177.  THE TRIBES AS NOW
CONSTITUTED ARE NOT SOVEREIGNS IMMUNE FROM SUIT.  THE DEFENSE OF
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY WAS WAIVED. 

AS THE COURT IN MISSOURI HAD JURISDICTION, ITS JUDGMENT WAS BINDING
IN THE OKLAHOMA SUIT.  DIST'G UNITED STATES V. ECKFORD, 6 WALL.  484. 
WHEN SUING ON BEHALF OF THE TRIBES, THE UNITED STATES HAS NO GREATER
RIGHT THAN THEY.  FOLK V. UNITED STATES, 233 F. 177; UNITED STATES V.
FT. SMITH & WESTERN RY. CO., 195 F. 211. 

THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT IN MISSOURI WAS ONE TO WHICH ITS
JURISDICTION WOULD EXTEND BETWEEN ORDINARY LITIGANTS, AS THE SUIT AROSE
UNDER THE LAWS AND TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES, JUD.  CODE 24(1), 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(1). 

THE CASE WAS IN EQUITY, SO WHETHER THE RIGHT TO COUNTER-CLAIM BE
PROCEDURAL OR SUBSTANTIVE (SEE THE GLORIA, 286 F. 188), THE DEFENDANT
COULD INTERPOSE IT AND OBTAIN AN AFFIRMATIVE JUDGMENT.  EQUITY RULE
30. 

THE TREND OF MODERN AUTHORITIES IS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE
AUTHORITY TO RENDER A JUDGMENT AND THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER ITS
ENFORCEMENT.  THE GLORIA, 286 F. 188; THE NEWBATTLE, 10 PROB.  DIV. 
33; UNITED STATES V. NUESTRA SENORA DE REGLA, 108 U.S. 92; THE PAQUETE
HABANA, 189 U.S. 453; UNITED STATES V. THE THEKLA, 266 U.S. 328;
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 126; DEXTER AND CARPENTER
V. KUNGLIG JARNVAGSSTYRELLSEN, 43 F.2D 705; RUSSIA V. BANKERS' TRUST
CO., 4 F.SUPP.  417, AFFIRMED UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF
NEW YORK, 83 F.2D 236, CERT. DEN.  299 U.S. 563. 

WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED IN MISSOURI THE CLAIM THERETOFORE
EXISTING WAS MERGED IN IT. WYCOFF V. EPWORTH HOTEL CO., 146 MO. APP.
554. 

THE INTERVENERS CAME IN AS PARTY DEFENDANTS, WITHOUT OBJECTION, AND
THEIR CLAIM WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT OF 1906. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI BRINGS TWO QUESTIONS HERE FOR REVIEW:  (1) IS A
FORMER JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON A CROSS-CLAIM, WHICH WAS
ENTERED WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY, FIXING A BALANCE OF INDEBTEDNESS
TO BE COLLECTED AS PROVIDED BY LAW, RES JUDICATA IN THIS LITIGATION FOR
COLLECTION OF THE BALANCE; AND (2) AS THE CONTROVERTED FORMER JUDGMENT
WAS ENTERED AGAINST THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW NATIONS, APPEARING BY THE
UNITED STATES, DOES THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906,
AUTHORIZING ADJUDICATION OF CROSS DEMANDS BY DEFENDANTS IN SUITS ON
BEHALF OF THESE NATIONS, PERMIT THE FORMER CREDIT, OBTAINED BY THE
PRINCIPAL IN A BOND GUARANTEED BY THE SOLE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT HERE, TO
BE SET UP IN THE PRESENT SUIT.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED  FN1  BECAUSE OF
PROBABLE CONFLICT, ON THE FIRST QUESTION, BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT BELOW
AND ADAMS V. UNITED STATES FN2  AND BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE IN UNITED STATES V. ECKFORD  FN3
RELATING TO THE JUDICIAL ASCERTAINMENT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE
GOVERNMENT ON STRIKING A BALANCE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WHERE CROSS
CLAIMS ARE INVOLVED.  A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR QUESTION ARISES IN UNITED
STATES V. SHAW.  FN4  THE SECOND QUESTION WAS TAKEN BECAUSE ITS
SOLUTION IS INVOLVED IN CERTAIN PHASES OF THIS LITIGATION. 

THE UNITED STATES, ACTING FOR THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW NATIONS,
LEASED SOME COAL LANDS TO THE KANSAS AND TEXAS COAL COMPANY, WITH THE
RESPONDENT UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY ACTING AS SURETY
ON A BOND GUARANTEEING PAYMENT OF THE LEASE ROYALTIES.  BY VARIOUS
ASSIGNMENTS THE LEASES BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE CENTRAL COAL AND COKE
COMPANY, AS SUBSTITUTED LESSEE, THE GUARANTY COMPANY REMAINING AS
SURETY.  THE CENTRAL COAL AND COKE COMPANY WENT INTO RECEIVERSHIP IN
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, AND THE UNITED STATES FILED A CLAIM
FOR THE INDIAN NATIONS FOR ROYALTIES DUE UNDER THE LEASES.  ANSWERING
THIS CLAIM, THE CENTRAL COAL AND COKE COMPANY DENIED THAT ANY ROYALTIES
WERE OWING AND CLAIMED CREDITS AGAINST THE NATIONS FOR $11,060.90.  BY
ORDER OF THE COURT, REORGANIZATION OF THE COAL COMPANY UNDER SEC. 77B
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS INSTITUTED AND THE TRUSTEE TOOK POSSESSION
FROM THE RECEIVERS.  IN THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS THE CLAIM OF THE
NATIONS WAS ALLOWED FOR $2,000, THE DEBTOR'S CROSS-CLAIM WAS ALLOWED
FOR $11,060.90, AND THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 19, 1936, DECREED A BALANCE
OF $9,060.90 IN FAVOR OF THE DEBTOR, TO BE "COLLECTED IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED BY LAW."  NO REVIEW OF THIS JUDGMENT OF THE MISSOURI DISTRICT
COURT WAS EVER SOUGHT. 

ON DECEMBER 24, 1935, THE UNITED STATES, ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON
BEHALF OF THE INDIAN NATIONS, FILED THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA AGAINST THE GUARANTY COMPANY, AS SURETY ON THE
ROYALTY BOND, FOR THE SAME ROYALTIES INVOLVED IN THE MISSOURI
PROCEEDINGS.  AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE MISSOURI DISTRICT COURT, THE
GUARANTY COMPANY PLEADED THAT JUDGMENT AS A BAR TO RECOVERY BY THE
UNITED STATES.  THE TRUSTEE OF CENTRAL COAL AND COKE COMPANY, AND THE
CENTRAL COAL AND COKE CORPORATION, WHICH HAD TAKEN OVER CERTAIN
INTERESTS IN THE ASSETS OF THE COAL COMPANY, ALLEGED BY A PETITION FOR
LEAVE TO INTERVENE, AND, UPON ITS ALLOWANCE WITHOUT OBJECTION, BY AN
INTERVENING PETITION, THAT THEY WERE NECESSARY AND PROPER PARTIES
BECAUSE EACH HAD AN INTEREST IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE MISSOURI COURT;
THEY PLEADED THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT AS DETERMINATIVE AND PLEADED THE
MERITS OF THE COUNTERCLAIMS BY SETTING UP THE FACTS WHICH SUPPORTED THE
JUDGMENT; THEY ASKED FOR A DECREE THAT THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT WAS VALID,
FOR A DETERMINATION OF ACCOUNTS BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND THE INDIAN
NATIONS, AND FOR ALL OTHER PROPER RELIEF.  REPLYING TO THE ANSWER OF
THE SURETY AND THE PETITION OF THE INTERVENERS, THE UNITED STATES
PLEADED THAT THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT WAS VOID AS TO THE INTERVENERS'
CROSS-CLAIMS BECAUSE THE COURT WAS "WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO RENDER THE
JUDGMENT" AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND DENIED THE CROSS-CLAIMS ON THE
MERITS.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT BARRED
THE CLAIM AGAINST THE SURETY AND ENTITLED THE INTERVENERS TO A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE INDIAN NATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE BALANCE FOUND BY THE
MISSOURI COURT.  THIS JUDGMENT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
FN5 

A. - BY CONCESSION OF THE GOVERNMENT THE VALIDITY OF SO MUCH OF THE
MISSOURI JUDGMENT AS SATISFIES THE INDIAN NATIONS' CLAIM AGAINST THE
LESSEE IS ACCEPTED.  THIS CONCESSION IS UPON THE THEORY THAT A
DEFENDANT MAY, WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY, RECOUP ON A COUNTERCLAIM AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PRINCIPAL CLAIM.  FN6 

B. - WE ARE OF THE VIEW, HOWEVER, THAT THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT IS VOID
IN SO FAR AS IT UNDERTAKES TO FIX A CREDIT AGAINST THE INDIAN NATIONS. 
IN UNITED STATES V. SHAW  FN7  WE HOLD THAT CROSS-CLAIMS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES ARE JUSTICIABLE ONLY IN THOSE COURTS WHERE CONGRESS HAS
CONSENTED TO THEIR CONSIDERATION.  PROCEEDINGS UPON THEM ARE GOVERNED
BY THE SAME RULES AS DIRECT SUITS.  IN THE MISSOURI PROCEEDINGS IN
CORPORATE REORGANIZATION, THE UNITED STATES, BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES FOR THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW NATIONS, FILED
A CLAIM ON BEHALF OF THE INDIAN NATIONS.  THIS IT IS AUTHORIZED TO DO.
FN8  NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY GRANTED JURISDICTION TO THE MISSOURI COURT
TO ADJUDICATE A CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  FN9  THE PUBLIC
POLICY WHICH EXEMPTED THE DEPENDENT AS WELL AS THE DOMINANT
SOVEREIGNTIES FROM SUIT WITHOUT CONSENT  FN10  CONTINUES THIS IMMUNITY
EVEN AFTER DISSOLUTION OF THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT.  THESE INDIAN NATIONS
ARE EXEMPT FROM SUIT WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.  FN11 IT IS
AS THOUGH THE IMMUNITY WHICH WAS THEIRS AS SOVEREIGNS PASSED TO THE
UNITED STATES FOR THEIR BENEFIT, AS THEIR TRIBAL PROPERTIES DID. 
POSSESSING THIS IMMUNITY FROM DIRECT SUIT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION IT
POSSESSES A SIMILAR IMMUNITY FROM CROSS-SUITS.  THIS SEEMS NECESSARILY
TO FOLLOW IF THE PUBLIC POLICY WHICH PROTECTS A QUASI-SOVEREIGNTY FROM
JUDICIAL ATTACK IS TO BE MADE EFFECTIVE.  THE CONGRESS HAS MADE
PROVISION FOR CROSS-SUITS AGAINST THE INDIAN NATIONS BY DEFENDANTS. 
FN12 THIS PROVISION, HOWEVER, IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO "ANY UNITED STATES
COURT IN THE INDIAN TERRITORY."  AGAINST THIS CONCLUSION RESPONDENTS
URGE THAT AS THE RIGHT TO FILE THE CLAIM AGAINST THE DEBTOR WAS
TRANSITORY, THE RIGHT TO SET UP THE CROSS-CLAIM PROPERLY FOLLOWED THE
MAIN PROCEEDING.  FN13 THE DESIRABILITY FOR COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL
ISSUES BETWEEN PARTIES MUST, WE THINK, YIELD TO THE PRINCIPLE OF
IMMUNITY.  THE SOVEREIGNTY POSSESSING IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED
TO DEFEND AGAINST CROSS-ACTIONS AWAY FROM ITS OWN TERRITORY OR IN
COURTS NOT OF ITS OWN CHOICE, MERELY BECAUSE ITS DEBTOR WAS UNAVAILABLE
EXCEPT OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE SOVEREIGN'S CONSENT.  THIS
REASONING IS PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE TO INDIAN NATIONS WITH THEIR
UNUSUAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION AND PECULIAR PROBLEMS. 

BUT, IT IS SAID THAT THERE WAS A WAIVER OF IMMUNITY BY A FAILURE TO
OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE MISSOURI DISTRICT COURT OVER THE
CROSS-CLAIM.  IT IS A COROLLARY TO IMMUNITY FROM SUIT ON THE PART OF
THE UNITED STATES AND THE INDIAN NATIONS IN TUTELAGE THAT THIS IMMUNITY
CANNOT BE WAIVED BY OFFICIALS.  IF THE CONTRARY WERE TRUE, IT WOULD
SUBJECT THE GOVERNMENT TO SUIT IN ANY COURT IN THE DISCRETION OF ITS
RESPONSIBLE OFFICERS.  THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.  FN14 

THE REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS IMMUNITY MAY NOT BE WAIVED
GOVERN LIKEWISE THE QUESTION OF RES JUDICATA.  AS NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN
FROM THIS MISSOURI JUDGMENT, IT IS SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK ONLY IF
VOID.  IT HAS HERETOFORE BEEN SHOWN THAT THE SUABILITY OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE INDIAN NATIONS, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR BY CROSS-ACTION,
DEPENDS UPON AFFIRMATIVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY.  CONSENT ALONE GIVES
JURISDICTION TO ADJUDGE AGAINST A SOVEREIGN.  ABSENT THAT CONSENT, THE
ATTEMPTED EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER IS VOID.  THE FAILURE OF OFFICIALS
TO SEEK REVIEW CANNOT GIVE FORCE TO THIS EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER. 
PUBLIC POLICY FORBIDS THE SUIT UNLESS CONSENT IS GIVEN, AS CLEARLY AS
PUBLIC POLICY MAKES JURISDICTION EXCLUSIVE BY DECLARATION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY.  FN15  CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER
STATE BANK  FN16  IS INAPPLICABLE WHERE THE ISSUE IS THE WAIVER OF
IMMUNITY. 

IN THE CHICOT COUNTY CASE NO INFLEXIBLE RULE AS TO COLLATERAL
OBJECTION IN GENERAL TO JUDGMENTS WAS DECLARED.  WE EXPLICITLY LIMITED
OUR EXAMINATION TO THE EFFECT OF A SUBSEQUENT INVALIDATION OF THE
APPLICABLE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE UPON AN EXISTING JUDGMENT IN
BANKRUPTCY.  FN17  TO THIS EXTENT THE CASE DEFINITELY EXTENDED THE AREA
OF ADJUDICATIONS THAT MAY NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF COLLATERAL ATTACK.  NO
EXAMINATION WAS MADE OF THE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SUCH OBJECTION OF
NUMEROUS GROUPS OF JUDGMENTS CONCERNING STATUS,  FN18  EXTRA
TERRITORIAL ACTION OF COURTS,  FN19  OR STRICTLY JURISDICTIONAL AND
QUASI-JURISDICTIONAL FACTS.  FN20  NO SOLUTION WAS ATTEMPTED OF THE
LEGAL RESULTS OF A COLLISION BETWEEN THE DESIRABLE PRINCIPLE THAT
RIGHTS MAY BE ADEQUATELY VINDICATED THROUGH A SINGLE TRIAL OF AN ISSUE
AND THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION,
HOWEVER, THAT WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE ACTION THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY
SHOULD PREVAIL.    C. - THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT IS
VOID DETERMINES THIS REVIEW.  THERE IS LEFT IN THE CASE, HOWEVER, AN
ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE SECOND QUESTION UPON WHICH
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  THE INTERVENING PETITION SET UP THE FACTS
SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE INTERVENERS AGAINST THE INDIAN NATIONS.  AN
ISSUE WAS MADE AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE MISSOURI CONTROVERSY STIPULATED
FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT CASE.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT
DETERMINED THAT THE MISSOURI JUDGMENT WAS VALID, NO FINDING OR
CONCLUSION APPEARED IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE
MERITS.  RESPONDENTS MADE NO OBJECTION TO THIS OMISSION BUT CALL
ATTENTION TO IT IN THEIR BRIEF.  ON A NEW TRIAL THIS ISSUE OBVIOUSLY
WILL BE IMPORTANT.    IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE
CROSS-CLAIM CANNOT BE LIQUIDATED IN THIS PROCEEDING FOR THE REASON THAT
BY THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THIS SUIT IS BROUGHT, THE RIGHT TO SET UP A
CROSS-CLAIM IS LIMITED TO "PARTY DEFENDANTS."  FN21  RESPONDENTS' REPLY
THAT AS THEY WERE ADMITTED AS INTERVENERS WITHOUT OBJECTION, AS THEY
HAVE AN INTEREST IN CROSS-CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE SAME TRANSACTIONS
WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPAL SUIT, AND AS ONE OF THEM IS A
PRINCIPAL LIABLE FOR ANY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SURETY, THEY
ARE TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES DEFENDANTS UNDER SEC. 18 OF THE ACT OF
APRIL 26, 1906. 

AS THIS JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CIVIL
RULES, PROCEDURE AS TO PARTIES WAS GOVERNED BY THE CONFORMITY ACT. 
FN22  APPARENTLY UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW THE PRINCIPAL IN THE BOND COULD NOT
COMPEL ITS ADMISSION AS A PARTY DEFENDANT.  FN23  AS THE GOVERNMENT DID
NOT OBJECT TO THE ORDER FILING THE INTERVENING PETITION, WE ASSUME IT
PROPERLY FILED AND THAT THE TRUSTEE FOR THE COAL COMPANY WAS ACTUALLY A
DEFENDANT.  THE NAME USED IS IMMATERIAL. 

WHETHER THE COAL COMPANY WAS SUCH A DEFENDANT AS WAS MEANT BY SEC. 18
RAISES OTHER QUESTIONS.  SINCE THEY DEPEND UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF
THE FEDERAL STATUTE THEY ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY FEDERAL, NOT OKLAHOMA,
LAW.  FN24  AS THE EXTENT AND CHARACTER OF THE INTEREST OF THE ASSIGNEE
COAL CORPORATION IN THE UNLIQUIDATED CLAIMS OF THE COMPANY DO NOT
APPEAR FROM THE RECORD, WE DO NOT PASS UPON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
COMPANY DEFENDANT HAS ANY CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST THE INDIAN NATIONS, AFTER
SATISFACTION OF THE INDIAN NATIONS' CLAIM AGAINST IT OR WHETHER, IF
THERE IS SUCH A CLAIM, OWNED JOINTLY WITH THE CORPORATION, IT IS A
CLAIM THE COMPANY MAY ENFORCE AS DEFENDANT UNDER SEC. 18. 

THE CAUSE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  308 U.S. 548. 

FN2  3 CT. CLS. 312. 

FN3  6 WALL.  484. 

FN4  ANTE, P. 495. 

FN5  106 F.2D 804. 

FN6  BULL V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 247, 261. 

FN7  ANTE, P. 495. 

FN8  HECKMAN V. UNITED STATES, 224 U.S. 413, 442; MULLEN V. UNITED
STATES, 224 U.S. 448, 451; UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432. 
THESE CASES DISCUSS, ALSO, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
AND THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW NATIONS.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V.
CHOCTAW ETC. NATIONS, 179 U.S. 494, 532; CHOCTAW NATION V. UNITED
STATES, 119 U.S. 1, 28. 

ACT OF JUNE 7, 1897, 30 STAT. 62, 83; ATOKA AGREEMENT, 30 STAT. 495,
505; ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1447; ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, 34
STAT. 137, 144.  UNDER SEC. 28 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, THE TRIBAL
EXISTENCE OF THE CHICKASAW AND CHOCTAW NATIONS IS CONTINUED AS MODIFIED
BY THAT AND OTHER ACTS. 

FN9  CF. UNITED STATES V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO., 305 U.S. 415. 

FN10  CF. CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA, 5 PET. 1. 

FN11  TURNER V. UNITED STATES, 248 U.S. 354, 358; ADAMS V. MURPHY,
165 F. 304, 308; THEBO V. CHOCTAW TRIBE OF INDIANS, 66 F. 372. 

FN12  ACT OF APRIL 26, 1906, SEC. 18, 34 STAT. 137, 144, 148. 

FN13  CF. FIDELITY INS., TRUST AND S.D. CO. V. MECHANICS' SAV. BANK,
97 F. 297, 303. 

FN14  MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382, 388 AND CASES CITED;
MUNRO V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 36, 41; FINN V. UNITED STATES, 123
U.S. 227, 232. 

FN15 KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433. 

FN16  308 U.S. 371. 

FN17  SEE THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE OPENING STATEMENT AND THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH OF DIVISION SECOND.  308 U.S. 374, 376. 

FN18  ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14. 

FN19  FALL V. EASTIN, 215 U.S. 1. 

FN20  NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R. CO., 147 U.S. 165; CF. JOHNSON
V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458. 

FN21  34 STAT. 137, SEC. 18: 

     .         .         .         .   . 

"WHERE SUIT IS NOW PENDING, OR MAY HEREAFTER BE FILED IN ANY UNITED
STATES COURT IN THE INDIAN TERRITORY, BY OR ON BEHALF OF ANY ONE OR
MORE OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES TO RECOVER MONEYS CLAIMED TO BE DUE
AND OWING TO SUCH TRIBE, THE PARTY DEFENDANTS TO SUCH SUIT SHALL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO SET UP AND HAVE ADJUDICATED ANY CLAIM IT MAY HAVE AGAINST
SUCH TRIBE; AND ANY BALANCE THAT MAY BE FOUND DUE BY ANY TRIBE OR
TRIBES SHALL BE PAID BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF ANY
FUNDS OF SUCH TRIBE OR TRIBES UPON THE FILING OF THE DECREE OF THE
COURT WITH HIM." 

FN22  R.S. 914; SAWIN V. KENNY, 93 U.S. 289; UNITED MINE WORKERS V.
CORONADO CO., 259 U.S. 344, 382. 

FN23  FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. SHERMAN MACHINE & IRON WORKS, 62
OKLA. 29. 

FN24  BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343,
AND DEITRICK V. GREANEY, ANTE, P. 190. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





INLAND WATERWAYS CORP. V. YOUNG, 309 U.S. 517 


NO. 6.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 69 APP.
D.C. 268 - 100 F.2D 678, REVERSED. 


A NATIONAL BANK MAY PLEDGE ASSETS TO SECURE DEPOSITS OF GOVERNMENT
FUNDS MADE BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES EVEN THOUGH THE DEPOSITS MAY NOT BE
"PUBLIC MONEY" WITHIN SEC. 45 OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT.  P. 523. 

THE POWER IS TO BE IMPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT
POLICY AND IS SUPPORTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE. 

INLAND WATERWAYS CORP. ET AL. V. YOUNG, RECEIVER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 626, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS
RECOVERED BY THE RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK AGAINST CERTAIN PUBLIC
AGENCIES AND OFFICIALS. 

NATIONAL BANKS HAVE NO POWER TO PLEDGE THEIR ASSETS TO SECURE
DEPOSITS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  TEXAS &
PACIFIC RY. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245, 253; MARION V. SNEEDEN, 291 U.S.
262; LEWIS V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 292 U.S. 559. 

THE ONLY PLEDGES WHICH THE ACT OF 1864 PERMITS ARE PLEDGES EXACTED BY
AND MADE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO SECURE DEPOSITS OF PUBLIC
MONEY UNDER HIS CONTROL.  AND IF PUBLIC MONEY IS DEPOSITED IN A
NATIONAL BANK DESIGNATED AS A GOVERNMENT DEPOSITORY, AND INSUFFICIENT
SECURITY TAKEN, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO PRIORITY UPON INSOLVENCY OF THE
BANK, BUT SHARES IN ITS LIQUIDATION EQUALLY WITH OTHER DEPOSITORS. 
COOK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445, 448. 

THE DEPOSITS WERE NOT PUBLIC MONEY WITHIN SEC. 75 OF THE NATIONAL
BANK ACT.  THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 45
OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT.  O'CONNOR V. RHODES, 79 F.2D 146, 150.  THE
PLEDGE IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 16, 1933. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE CAN NOT SUPPLY LACK OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY
AUTHORITY TO LEGALIZE THE PLEDGE.  MARION V. SNEEDEN, 291 U.S. 262,
269.  NOR CAN CUSTOM OR USAGE.  SEE TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. V. POTTORFF,
291 U.S. 245, 255. 

THE ATTEMPTED PLEDGE OF THE BANK'S ASSETS TO SECURE CANAL ZONE
DEPOSITS WAS VOID, AND NO TITLE PASSED THEREBY TO THE INTENDED
PLEDGEE.  RESPONDENT THEREFORE MAY RECOVER THE PROPERTY FROM THE PERSON
IN POSSESSION, SINCE THERE IS NO LAWFUL STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR ITS
RETENTION.  THE RIGHT TO RECOVER CAN NOT BE DEFEATED ON THE GROUND THAT
THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE SECRETARY'S SUCCESSOR. 

NATIONAL BANKS HAVE NO POWER TO PLEDGE THEIR ASSETS TO SECURE
DEPOSITS OF THE MERCHANT FLEET CORPORATION OR THE INLAND WATERWAYS
CORPORATION.  THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLIANCE BY THOSE AGENCIES WITH SEC.
45 OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT.  THE DEPOSITS WERE LAWFUL AND NO
RELATIONSHIP OF TRUSTEE AND CESTUI QUE TRUST WAS CREATED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER A NATIONAL BANK MAY PLEDGE ASSETS
TO SECURE DEPOSITS OF FUNDS MADE BY GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, EVEN THOUGH
THEY MAY NOT BE "PUBLIC MONEY" WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 45 OF THE
NATIONAL BANKING ACT, 13 STAT. 99, 113, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 90. 

THE DEPOSITS IN QUESTION WERE MADE WITH THE COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK
BY THREE SEPARATE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - BY THE INLAND WATERWAYS
CORPORATION AND THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD MERCHANT FLEET
CORPORATION,  FN1  AND BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR ON BEHALF OF THE PANAMA
CANAL ZONE.  AFTER THE BANK'S INSOLVENCY THE PRESENT SUIT WAS
INSTITUTED BY THE RECEIVER, RESPONDENT HERE, FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE
PLEDGED ASSETS OR THEIR PROCEEDS TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT IN EXCESS
OF THE DIVIDENDS PAID TO THE GENERAL DEPOSITORS.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE OUT PORTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS'
ANSWERS ASSERTING THE VALIDITY OF THE PLEDGES.  THE PETITIONERS STOOD
THEIR GROUND, AND DECREES PRO CONFESSO FOR THE RESPONDENT FOLLOWED. 
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFFIRMED, 69 APP.
D.C. 268; 100 F.2D 678, AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 626,
BECAUSE THE CONTROVERSY RAISED MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT. 

AT THE THRESHOLD WE ARE MET BY TWO RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT,
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245, AND MARION V.
SNEEDEN, 291 U.S. 262.  IN VIEW OF THE THOROUGH CONSIDERATION WHICH
THESE TWO CASES RECEIVED AND THE ADDED WEIGHT WHICH THEY DERIVE FROM
THE AUTHORITY, IN THE FIELD OF BANKING, OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, THE
WRITER OF THE OPINIONS, WE START WITH FULL ACCEPTANCE OF WHAT THEY
DECIDED. 

THE POTTORFF CASE HELD THAT A NATIONAL BANK WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
PLEDGE ITS ASSETS AS SECURITY FOR PRIVATE DEPOSITS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH PLEDGES, THE GENERAL POLICY OF THE ACT
AND PRINCIPLES OF SOUND BANKING PRACTICE WERE DRAWN UPON TO ESTABLISH
THE PROHIBITION.  TO ALLOW THE WITHDRAWAL OF ASSETS OF THE BANK FROM
GENERAL AVAILABILITY WOULD IMPAIR THE BANK'S LIQUIDITY - ITS ABILITY TO
MEET UNEXPECTED DEMANDS BY DEPOSITORS - AND THEREBY RESTRICT THE
NATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM AS A RELIABLE INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL FINANCE. 
IN THE SNEEDEN CASE THE BANKING STANDARDS RELIED UPON IN THE POTTORFF
CASE WERE APPLIED LIKEWISE TO DENY TO NATIONAL BANKS POWER TO PLEDGE
THEIR ASSETS AS SECURITY FOR DEPOSITS BY STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES EXCEPT WHERE PERMISSION IS GIVEN BY THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1930,
46 STAT. 809, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 90.  FN2 

BUT THE FUNCTION OF NATIONAL BANKS AS DEPOSITARIES OF FEDERAL FUNDS
WAS NOT BEFORE THE COURT IN THE POTTORFF AND SNEEDEN CASES, AND THE
POWER OF THE BANKS IN RELATION TO SUCH FUNDS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DECIDED THERE.  THAT POWER IS THE EXACT ISSUE HERE.  THE SOLUTION OF
THIS PROBLEM, HOWEVER, MUST BE FOUND BY APPLICATION OF THOSE STANDARDS
FOR JUDGMENT WHICH WERE DECISIVE IN THE FORMER CASES.  IN OTHER WORDS,
THE HISTORY AND PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE AND THE TRADITIONAL POLICY OF
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN UTILIZING THE NATIONAL BANKS AS FISCAL
AGENCIES MUST GIVE MEANING TO THE SILENCE OF THE ACT. 

CONGRESS HAS NECESSARILY BEEN CONCERNED FROM THE BEGINNING TO PROVIDE
APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDS.  ONE OF THE MOTIVES IN THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ITS
AVAILABILITY AS A SAFE DEPOSITARY FOR SUCH FUNDS.  THEY WERE KEPT THERE
UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THAT BANK'S CHARTER IN 1811.  THEREAFTER AND
UNTIL THE SECOND BANK OF THE UNITED STATES WAS CHARTERED, GOVERNMENT
MONIES WERE KEPT IN STATE BANKS.  THESE DEPOSITS WERE WITHOUT SECURITY,
AND AS A CONSEQUENCE SEVERE LOSSES FOLLOWED THE FINANCIAL DISLOCATION
WHICH CAME WITH THE WAR OF 1812.  THIS EXPERIENCE LED THE GOVERNMENT TO
EXACT SECURITY, AND LOSSES BECAME NEGLIGIBLE.  PHILLIPS, METHODS OF
KEEPING THE PUBLIC MONIES OF THE UNITED STATES, PP. 6-20; H. REP. NO.
358, 21 CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. 3, P. 12; IV MCMASTER, HISTORY OF THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, P. 295 ET SEQ.; III AMERICAN STATE PAPERS,
FINANCE, P. 11.  THE SECOND BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, ESTABLISHED
PARTLY TO SERVE AS A GOVERNMENT DEPOSITARY, KEPT MOST OF THE FEDERAL
FUNDS UNTIL THEIR WITHDRAWAL IN 1833 BY SECRETARY TANEY.  BUT AS A
CONDITION TO THEIR DEPOSIT IN VARIOUS STATE BANKS AFTER 1833, TANEY,
ACTING UPON THE EARLIER EXPERIENCE OF THE TREASURY UNDER SECRETARIES
GALLATIN AND CRAWFORD, EXACTED APPROPRIATE SECURITY.  FN3  BY THE ACT
OF JUNE 23, 1836, 5 STAT. 52, CONGRESS TRANSLATED TREASURY PRACTICE
INTO LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  IT THEREBY BECAME THE SECRETARY'S DUTY,
WHENEVER WISDOM DICTATED, TO REQUIRE COLLATERAL FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDS. 
AS A RESULT SECURITY WAS DEMANDED OF ALMOST ALL THE DEPOSITARIES. 
PHILLIPS, OP. CIT., P. 63.  THE PANIC OF 1837 BROUGHT ANOTHER
MODIFICATION.  GOVERNMENT MONIES WERE HELD BY THE LOCAL COLLECTORS AND
BY THE TREASURY ITSELF, AND A LITTLE LATER DEPOSITED IN THE NEW SUB
TREASURY.  BUT IN 1841 THE OLD METHOD OF DEPOSIT IN STATE BANKS WAS
RESUMED UNDER THE PRACTICE WHICH HAD BEEN INTRODUCED IN 1833.  EXEC.
DOC. NO. 123, 27TH CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 2; PHILLIPS, OP. CIT., P. 113. 
THIS ARRANGEMENT - THAT IS, DEPOSITS SECURED BY COLLATERAL - CONTINUED
UNTIL THE SUB-TREASURY ACT OF 1846, 9 STAT. 59, LED TO THE WITHDRAWAL
OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS FROM PRIVATE BANKS.  THE SUB-TREASURY SYSTEM
PERSISTED UNTIL THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MODERN NATIONAL BANKING
SYSTEM. 

THE POLICY OF SECURING GOVERNMENT DEPOSITS THUS ANTEDATES THE
NATIONAL BANKING ACT.  IT WAS THE PRACTICAL RESPONSE TO DISASTROUS
EXPERIENCE.  IT BEGAN WITHOUT ANY STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, AND WAS
CONTINUED BOTH WITH AND WITHOUT SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL SANCTION.  LONG
PRACTICE AND CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL LODGED IN THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY AUTHORITY TO TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO SAFEGUARD THE NATION
AGAINST LOSS OF ITS FUNDS.  THE INTEGRITY OF GOVERNMENT MONIES WAS
NATURALLY CONSIDERED AN OBJECT OF GREAT NATIONAL IMPORTANCE, THE
ATTAINMENT OF WHICH PROPERLY BELONGED TO THOSE ENTRUSTED WITH THEIR
DISPOSITION. 

IT IS AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND THAT THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT OF 1864
MUST BE PROJECTED, INTENDED AS IT WAS TO PROVIDE FACILITIES FOR THE
DEPOSIT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS.  CONGRESS WAS ALIVE TO THE TREASURY'S
EXPERIENCE WITH DEPOSITS, SECURED AND UNSECURED, DURING THE PRECEDING
DECADES, TOGETHER WITH THE POLICY WHICH HAD EVOLVED FROM THAT
EXPERIENCE.  CONG. GLOBE, 37TH CONG., 3RD SESS., PT. I, PP. 843-45. 
THE BANKING SYSTEM WHICH CONGRESS THUS ESTABLISHED EMBODIED A BLEND OF
GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE PURPOSES.  SEE MERCANTILE BANK V. NEW YORK,
121 U.S. 138, 154; DAVIS, THE ORIGIN OF THE NATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM, S.
DOC. NO. 582, 61ST CONG., 2ND SESS. 

BY SEC. 45 OF THE ACT, CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY COMMANDED THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY TO EXACT SECURITY FOR "PUBLIC MONIES" DEPOSITED BY HIM
IN NATIONAL BANKS.  R.S. SEC. 5153(12 U.S.C. SEC. 90).  WE READ THIS AS
AN EXACTION OF DUTY FROM THE SECRETARY AS TO MONIES SUBJECT TO HIS
CONTROL, SEE COOK COUNTY NAT. BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445, 449,
AND NOT AS A LIMITATION UPON THE POWER OF THE BANK TO GIVE SECURITY
WHEN IT MAY BE REQUIRED BY OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND AGENCIES
CHARGED WITH THE CUSTODY OF FEDERAL FUNDS.  PLACING SEC. 45 IN THE
SETTING OF ITS HISTORY, WE DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE READ IN A
NIGGARDLY SPIRIT, AS THOUGH IT EXPRESSED A GINGERLY DEPARTURE FROM
PUBLIC POLICY.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS A MANIFESTATION OF HISTORIC
NATIONAL PRACTICE, WHICH IS TO BE GIVEN SCOPE CONSONANT WITH THE REASON
FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT.  COMPARE KEIFER & KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORP., 306 U.S. 381.  BY A SERIES OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY COMMANDS,
CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THE POWER OF NATIONAL BANKS TO GIVE SECURITY
FOR DEPOSITS OF A GOVERNMENTAL NATURE BY LAYING UPON VARIOUS AGENCIES,
CHARGED WITH THE CUSTODY OF SUCH FUNDS, A DUTY TO EXACT COLLATERAL. 
SEE SEC. 61 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 30 STAT. 562; SEC. 9 OF THE POSTAL
SAVINGS ACT, 36 STAT. 816; AND ACTS RELATING TO INSOLVENT BANK FUNDS,
39 STAT. 121; PORTO RICAN FUNDS, 39 STAT. 951; GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS,
40 STAT. 291 AND INDIAN MONIES, 40 STAT. 591.  WITH ONE EXCEPTION ALL
THESE SPECIAL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAIN TO FUNDS HELD BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO SUPPOSE THAT
WHAT CONGRESS HAS COMMANDED WITH RESPECT TO FUNDS HELD BY ITS AGENCIES
IN AN IMMEDIATE FIDUCIARY CAPACITY, IT WOULD DEEM A VIOLATION OF LAW IF
DONE WITH RESPECT TO FUNDS BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES
ITSELF.  WHAT MAY BE INIMICAL TO THE PRIVATE ASPECTS OF THE NATIONAL
BANKING SYSTEM, AND THEREFORE ULTRA VIRES, HAS NO SUCH RELEVANCE TO THE
PUBLIC ASPECT OF NATIONAL BANKS, AND TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BY THOSE CHARGED WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS
GUARDIANSHIP. 

SO FAR AS THE POWERS OF A NATIONAL BANK TO PLEDGE ITS ASSETS ARE
CONCERNED, THE FORM WHICH GOVERNMENT TAKES - WHETHER IT APPEARS AS THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, THE SECRETARY OF WAR, OR THE INLAND
WATERWAYS CORPORATION - IS WHOLLY IMMATERIAL.  THE MOTIVES WHICH LEAD
GOVERNMENT TO CLOTHE ITS ACTIVITIES IN CORPORATE FORM ARE ENTIRELY
UNRELATED TO THE PROBLEM OF SAFEGUARDING GOVERNMENTAL DEPOSITS, AND
THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF ULTRA VIRES.  COMPARE SKINNER &
EDDY CORP. V. MCCARL, 275 U.S. 1, 8.  FN4  THE TRUE NATURE OF THESE
MODERN DEVICES FOR CARRYING OUT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IS RECOGNIZED IN
OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS WHEN REALITIES BECOME DECISIVE.  COMPARE CLALLAM
COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 341; EMERGENCY FLEET CORP. V. WESTERN
UNION, 275 U.S. 415.  THE FUNDS OF THESE CORPORATIONS ARE, FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES, GOVERNMENT FUNDS; THE LOSSES, IF LOSSES THERE BE,
ARE THE GOVERNMENT'S LOSSES.  COMPARE U.S. GRAIN CORP. V. PHILLIPS, 261
U.S. 106, 113.  SEE SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL REPORT, U.S. SHIPPING BOARD,
1933, PP. 88-89, FOR SUMMARY OF LOSSES BORNE BY TREASURY ON BEHALF OF
THE MERCHANT FLEET CORPORATION, AND COMPARE ANNUAL REPORT, INLAND
WATERWAYS CORPORATION, 1936, PP. 16-22. 

THE POLICY UNDERLYING CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION AND REFLECTED IN THE
HISTORY OF GOVERNMENTAL DEPOSITS IS CONFIRMED BY THE EXPLICIT
RECOGNITION OF THAT OFFICIAL IN WHOM IS CENTERED OVERSIGHT OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT.  S. DOC. 175, 73RD CONG.,
2ND SESS.  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, TO BE SURE, MUST HIMSELF
MOVE WITHIN THE ORBIT OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT.  ILLEGALITY CANNOT
ATTAIN LEGITIMACY THROUGH PRACTICE.  BUT WHEN LEGALITY ITSELF IS IN
DISPUTE - WHEN CONGRESS HAS SPOKEN AT BEST WITH AMBIGUOUS SILENCE - A
LONG CONTINUED PRACTICE PURSUED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPTROLLER
OF THE CURRENCY IS MORE PERSUASIVE THAN CONSIDERATIONS OF ABSTRACT
CONFLICT BETWEEN SUCH A PRACTICE AND PURPOSES ATTRIBUTED TO CONGRESS. 
MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN AGENCIES HAVE THOUGHT IT THEIR DUTY TO SAFEGUARD
DEPOSITS IN NEARLY A HUNDRED BANKS BY TRANSACTIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE
BEFORE US.  THIS PRACTICE HAD THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPTROLLER BECAUSE
HE BELIEVED IT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT.  EVEN
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, WHEN THE TEXT IS DOUBTFUL, MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY
USAGE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. MIDWEST OIL CO., 236 U.S. 459, 473.  WHEN
DEALING WITH SUCH NECESSARILY ARGUMENTATIVE CONCEPTS AS THOSE OF WHICH
THE LAW OF ULTRA VIRES IS SO LARGELY COMPOSED, THE RESPONSIBLE AND
PERVASIVE PRACTICE OF PUBLIC OFFICERS BENT ON SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC
INTERESTS OUGHT TO CARRY THE DAY EVEN WERE THE ISSUE MORE IN DOUBT THAN
WE BELIEVE IT TO BE.    DEEMING THE CHALLENGED PLEDGES TO HAVE BEEN
VALIDLY MADE, WE THINK PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT.  IT IS
THEREFORE UNNECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER THE OTHER ARGUMENTS HERE URGED
IN THEIR BEHALF.  THE JUDGMENTS BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  BOTH THESE CORPORATIONS ARE WHOLLY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

FN2  LEWIS V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 292 U.S. 559, INVOLVED MERELY
THE APPLICATION OF THE SNEEDEN DOCTRINE TO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
PRESENTED BY GEORGIA LEGISLATION IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL BANKS SITUATED
IN THAT STATE.  THE LEWIS CASE, LIKE THE POTTORFF AND SNEEDEN CASES,
DID NOT BRING INTO ISSUE THE POWER OF NATIONAL BANKS WITH REFERENCE TO
FEDERAL DEPOSITS.  OF COURSE, THE LEWIS CASE NEITHER PROFESSED TO
ENLARGE, NOR COULD IT, THE SCOPE OF THE POTTORFF AND SNEEDEN
DECISIONS. 

FN3  THESE CONDITIONS, INCORPORATED IN CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE TREASURY
AND THE BANKS, REQUIRED COLLATERAL TO BE PLEDGED FOR ALL DEPOSITS IN
EXCESS OF ONE-HALF THE BANK'S PAID-IN CAPITAL.  IN ADDITION THE
TREASURY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO DEMAND ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHENEVER IT
WAS THOUGHT PRUDENT.  EXEC. DOC. NO. 2, 23RD CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. 1,
P. 36; PHILLIPS, OP. CIT., PP. 53-55; GIRARD, THE INDEPENDENT TREASURY,
P. 17. 

FN4  SEE MCDAIRMID, GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND FEDERAL FUNDS, 31 AM.
POL.  SCIENCE REV. 1095; FEDERAL CORPORATIONS AND CORPORATE AGENCIES,
16 HARV. BUS.  REV.  436.  THE CORPORATIONS, OF COURSE, PERFORM
"GOVERNMENTAL" FUNCTIONS.  GRAVES V. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE
DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING: 

THE COURT BELOW FOLLOWED AND APPLIED THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245, MARION V. SNEEDEN,
291 U.S. 262, AND LEWIS V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 292 U.S. 559. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THOSE CASES PRESENTED THE QUESTION WHETHER NATIONAL
BANKS ARE AUTHORIZED TO GIVE SECURITY FOR PRIVATE DEPOSITS AND THOSE OF
STATE AGENCIES.  BUT THE BASIS OF EACH OF THE DECISIONS WAS THAT
NATIONAL BANKS ARE WITHOUT POWER TO PLEDGE ASSETS AS SECURITY FOR ANY
DEPOSITS, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS LEGISLATIVE SANCTION. 
PARADOXICALLY, THE OPINION OF THE COURT, WHILE RECOGNIZING THE
AUTHORITY, IN THE FIELD OF BANKING, OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, WHO
ANNOUNCED THE OPINIONS IN ALL THREE CASES FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT,
REJECTS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE OPINIONS.  WHEREAS IN THE
LEWIS CASE MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS ANNOUNCED IN PLAIN TERMS THAT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION, A NATIONAL BANK HAS "NO POWER TO MAKE
ANY PLEDGE TO SECURE DEPOSITS EXCEPT THE FEDERAL DEPOSITS SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED FOR BY ACTS OF CONGRESS," THE OPINION OF THE COURT SPELLS OUT
SUCH POWER DESPITE "THE SILENCE OF THE ACT." 

IN THE TEXAS & PACIFIC AND MARION CASES THE OPINIONS POINT OUT THAT
WHENEVER CONGRESS HAS INTENDED THAT SECURITY SHOULD BE TAKEN FOR
DEPOSITS OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS SPECIFIC AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GRANTED.  FN1
THAT WHAT WAS THUS SAID BY MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO
THE DECISIONS AND WAS THE DELIBERATE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT IS
EVIDENCED BY HIS STATEMENT IN LEWIS V. FIDELITY CO., AT P. 564: 

"IN TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245, AND MARION V.
SNEEDEN, 291 U.S. 262, ...  WE HELD THAT A NATIONAL BANK HAD, PRIOR TO
THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1930, NO POWER TO MAKE ANY PLEDGE TO SECURE
DEPOSITS EXCEPT THE FEDERAL DEPOSITS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY ACTS
OF CONGRESS." 

NOW IT IS SAID THAT THESE CASES INCORRECTLY STATE THE GOVERNING
PRINCIPLE.  THAT PRINCIPLE IS NOW SAID TO BE THAT CONGRESS CANNOT HAVE
INTENDED TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF BANKS TO GIVE SECURITY IN CASES
WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN CHARGE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS HAVE DEEMED
IT APPROPRIATE THAT SECURITY SHOULD BE GIVEN.  IN OTHER WORDS, DESPITE
THE WITHHOLDING OF ANY GRANT OF POWER TO INSTITUTIONS WHOSE POWERS ARE
ONLY THOSE GRANTED,  FN2  A POWER IS SPELLED OUT. 

THE ATTEMPT TO BUTTRESS THE IMPLICATION OF THE POWER FROM THE FACT
THAT FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE HERETOFORE EXACTED SECURITY, AND THAT THE
COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY HAS BEEN OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH PLEDGES WERE
NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT, IS ANSWERED BY WHAT WAS SAID IN MARION V.
SNEEDEN (P. 269): 

"COMPTROLLERS OF THE CURRENCY KNEW THAT THIS WAS BEING DONE; AND THEY
ASSUMED THAT THE BANKS HAD POWER SO TO DO.  BUT THE ASSUMPTION WAS
ERRONEOUS." 

I THINK THAT AS THE COURT OF APPEALS FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE RIGHTLY
APPLIED IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, P. 257, NOTE 11; MARION
V. SNEEDEN, P. 268. 

FN2  "THE MEASURE OF THEIR POWERS IS THE STATUTORY GRANT; AND POWERS
NOT CONFERRED BY CONGRESS ARE DENIED."  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
POTTORFF, P. 253. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :























WOODRING V. WARDELL, 309 U.S. 527 


NO. 5.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 11, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 69
APP. D.C. 280 - 100 F.2D 690, REVERSED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CASE LAST PRECEDING. 

WOODRING, SECRETARY OF WAR, ET AL. V. WARDELL, RECEIVER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 626, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED BY THE RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. 

THERE IS NO CONGRESSIONAL POLICY GIVING PREFERENCE TO GOVERNMENT
DEPOSITS.  THOUGH CONGRESS GAVE CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST
INSOLVENTS PRIORITY OVER ALL OTHERS, THE RULE IS INAPPLICABLE TO CLAIMS
AGAINST INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANKS. 

THE GENERAL POWER GIVEN TO NATIONAL BANKS TO SECURE PUBLIC DEPOSITS
RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO PUBLIC MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES.  WHENEVER
CONGRESS DESIGNED TO AUTHORIZE THE SECURING OF DEPOSITS OF FUNDS WHICH,
STRICTLY SPEAKING, MIGHT NOT BE UNITED STATES PUBLIC MONEY, IT HAS DONE
SO BY A SPECIFIC ACT. 

IT WAS RECOGNIZED AT THE TIME THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE, AND SINCE,
THAT THEY DID NOT CONSTITUTE PUBLIC MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES AND DID
NOT FALL UNDER ANY STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE SECURING OF DEPOSITS IN
NATIONAL BANKS. 

THE PLEDGES ADMITTEDLY WERE NOT MADE UNDER U.S.C., TITLE 12, SEC.
90. 

THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ACT OF CONGRESS, AND NO RULE OR REGULATION
HAVING THE EFFECT OF SUCH AN ACT, AUTHORIZING THE PLEDGE OF SECURITIES
BY NATIONAL BANKS TO SECURE DEPOSITS OF CANAL ZONE MONEY ORDER FUNDS. 

THE LACK OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY CAN NOT BE SUPPLIED EITHER BY CUSTOM
OR USAGE, OR BY THE SANCTION AND APPROVAL OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE
CURRENCY OR OTHER EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. 

BEING UNAUTHORIZED, THE PLEDGE WAS VOID, AND NEITHER THE PLEDGEES,
THE CANAL ZONE, NOR THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED ANY RIGHT OR INTEREST IN
THE ILLEGALLY PLEDGED BONDS OR THE PROCEEDS THEREOF, WHICH REMAINED THE
PROPERTY OF THE BANK.  AND THE RECEIVER IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE
PROPERTY. 

SINCE THE POSSESSION OF PETITIONERS DERIVES FROM A VOID ACT, THEIR
POSSESSION IS PERSONAL, NOT OFFICIAL, AND A SUIT AGAINST THEM IS NOT A
SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 

THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT APPLY, BECAUSE THE UNITED
STATES, HAVING NO INTEREST IN THE FUND SOUGHT TO BE RECOVERED, IS NOT
AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO THE SUIT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO INLAND WATERWAYS CORP. V. YOUNG, ANTE, P.
517.  THE DISTRICT NATIONAL BANK PLEDGED SOME OF ITS ASSETS TO SECURE
DEPOSITS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR ON BEHALF OF THE PANAMA CANAL
ZONE.  THE BANK BECAME INSOLVENT IN 1933, AND THE PLEDGED ASSETS WERE
SOLD.  RESPONDENT, THE BANK'S RECEIVER, BROUGHT THIS ACTION TO RECOVER
THAT PART OF THE PROCEEDS WHICH REPRESENTED AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF
DIVIDENDS PAID TO THE ORDINARY DEPOSITORS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
THAT THE PLEDGES WERE ULTRA VIRES AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
RESPONDENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  69 APP. D.C. 280; 100 F.2D
690. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN INLAND WATERWAYS CORP. V. YOUNG, ANTE, WE
ARE OF OPINION THAT THE PLEDGES GIVEN BY THE BANK WERE VALID, AND THAT
THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS,
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THEIR DISSENTING OPINION IN INLAND
WATERWAYS CORP. V. YOUNG, ANTE, P. 525, DISSENT HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED AND MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE
DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :

















WHITNEY V. TAX COMMISSION, 309 U.S. 530 


NO. 541.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 29, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  -
281 N.Y. 297 - 22 N.E.2D 379, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF NEW YORK, AMENDING THE 1930 ESTATE TAX LAW, OPERATES TO
REQUIRE INCLUSION IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF COMPUTING THE ESTATE TAX, OF PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE
DECEDENT EXERCISED AFTER 1930 BY WILL A NON-GENERAL POWER OF
APPOINTMENT CREATED PRIOR TO THAT YEAR.  THE STATUTE REACHES SUCH
TRANSFERS UNDER POWERS OF APPOINTMENT AS UNDER THE PREVIOUS STATUTE
ESCAPED TAXATION.  HELD: 

1.  THE INCLUSION IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF A DECEDENT OF PROPERTY NEVER
OWNED BY HER BUT APPOINTED BY HER WILL UNDER A LIMITED POWER WHICH
COULD NOT BE EXERCISED IN FAVOR OF THE DECEDENT, HER CREDITORS, OR HER
ESTATE, DID NOT DENY DUE PROCESS TO THOSE WHO INHERITED THE DECEDENT'S
PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH, BECAUSE THE TAX RATE WAS PROGRESSIVE, THE NET
AMOUNT THEY INHERITED FROM HER WAS LESS THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE
APPOINTED PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE.  P. 540. 

2.  CONSIDERING THE HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE, THE FACTS
THAT IT APPLIES ONLY TO SPECIAL POWERS OF APPOINTMENT CREATED PRIOR TO
1930 AND EXERCISED THEREAFTER, AND THAT OTHER SPECIAL POWERS ARE TAXED
IN THE ESTATE OF THE DONOR RATHER THAN THAT OF THE DONEE, DOES NOT
RENDER IT VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  BINNEY V. LONG, 299 U.S. 280, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 541. 

WHITNEY ET AL., EXECUTORS, ET AL. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION OF NEW
YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE SURROGATE'S COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A NEW YORK ESTATE TAX. 

AN ESTATE TAX WHICH REQUIRES INCLUSION IN THE DECEDENT'S TAXABLE
ESTATE OF PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH SHE EXERCISED ONLY A LIMITED
POWER OF APPOINTMENT, WHICH SHE WAS PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISING FOR THE
BENEFIT OF HERSELF, HER CREDITORS OR HER ESTATE, AND WHICH PROPERTY
NEVER AT ANY TIME BELONGED TO HER, CONSTITUTES AN ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS ALLOCATION OF THE TAX BURDEN. 

AN ESTATE TAX MAY PROPERLY INCLUDE IN ITS MEASURE PROPERTY NOT
TECHNICALLY OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AT DEATH IF THE DECEDENT STOOD IN A
RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY WHICH MIGHT FAIRLY BE REGARDED AS THE
EQUIVALENT OF OWNERSHIP.  BULLEN V. WISCONSIN, 240 U.S. 625; LESER V.
BURNET, 46 F.2D 756.  BUT THE ASSUMPTION OF SUCH A RELATIONSHIP IN THIS
CASE IS ERRONEOUS AND ARBITRARY. 

THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DECEDENT EXERCISED
A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT IS VALID BECAUSE A GENERAL POWER GIVES
THE GRANTEE OF THE POWER THE SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT OF OWNERSHIP, SINCE
HE IS FREE TO EXERCISE IT IN FAVOR OF HIS CREDITORS AND THUS USE THE
PROPERTY FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT.  FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V.
MCCAUGHN, 34 F.2D 600, 604; CERT. DEN., 280 U.S. 602; MORGAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78; CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 278
U.S. 327; HELVERING V. PARKER, 84 F.2D 838; PENNSYLVANIA CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 79 F.2D 295; CERT. DEN., 296 U.S. 651; LEVY'S ESTATE V.
COMMISSIONER, 65 F.2D 412; MCKELVY V. COMMISSIONER, 82 F.2D 395;
BALLARD V. HELBURN, 9 F.SUPP.  812; AFF'D 85 F.2D 613; T.D. 4729, MARCH
18, 1937; REG. 80, ART. 25. 

THE NECESSITY OF PREVENTING EVASION OR AVOIDANCE OF THE TAX PERMITS
THE INCLUSION OF PROPERTY ONCE OWNED BY THE DECEDENT IN CASES WHERE THE
TRANSACTION AS A WHOLE MAY FAIRLY BE REGARDED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR A
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION.  UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S. 102, 116
117; REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339; HELVERING V. CITY
BANK CO., 296 U.S. 85; PORTER V. COMMISSIONER, 288 U.S. 436; TYLER V.
UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497; UNITED STATES V. JACOBS, 306 U.S. 363;
HELVERING V. HELMHOLZ, 296 U.S. 93; HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S.
106.  NOT SO, HOWEVER, WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS NEVER BELONGED TO THE
DECEDENT. 

WHERE THE DECEDENT HAS NEVER HAD ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY IN QUESTION, EITHER AT DEATH OR AT ANY PREVIOUS TIME, THE
INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY IN HIS TAXABLE ESTATE DENIES DUE PROCESS. 
THE TAX IN SUCH A CASE CAN BE BASED ONLY UPON AN ARBITRARY ASSUMPTION
WHICH IS UNFOUNDED IN FACT.  HEINER V. DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312; HOEPER V.
TAX COMMISSION, 284 U.S. 206; SCHLESINGER V. WISCONSIN, 270 U.S. 230;
NICHOLS V. COOLIDGE, 274 U.S. 531; FREW V. BOWERS, 12 F.2D 625. 

THE FACT THAT A LEGACY TAX MIGHT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE RECEIPT
OF THIS PROPERTY BY THE APPOINTEES DOES NOT JUSTFY THE PRESENT TAX. 
SEE NICHOLS V. COOLIDGE, 274 U.S. 531, 541; SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL,
276 U.S. 260, 270-1; COOLIDGE V. LONG, 282 U.S. 582, 608, 609, 631-2;
CF., KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 49, 77; Y.M.C.A. V. DAVIS, 264
U.S. 47, 50; EDWARDS V. SLOCUM, 264 U.S. 61, 62-3. 

IN EXERCISING THE SPECIAL POWER IN TRUST GRANTED TO HER IN THE WILL
OF HER HUSBAND, THE DECEDENT WAS MERELY ACTING AS HER HUSBAND'S
FIDUCIARY AGENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISPOSITION OF HIS PROPERTY. 
THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE DECEDENT PERFORMED HER FIDUCIARY FUNCTION
WITH REFERENCE TO HER HUSBAND'S PROPERTY BY MEANS OF THE SAME
INSTRUMENT BY WHICH SHE DISPOSED OF HER OWN PROPERTY DOES NOT JUSTIFY
INCLUDING HER HUSBAND'S PROPERTY IN THE MEASURE OF A TAX ON THE
TRANSMISSION OF HER ESTATE. 

THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IMPOSES A MORE EXACTING REQUIREMENT OF
FAIRNESS THAN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312;
LA BELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 377, 392. 

THE STATUTE HERE DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN THE ESTATES OF DECEDENTS WHO
HAVE EXERCISED NON-BENEFICIAL POWERS OF APPOINTMENT AND THOSE WHO HAVE
NOT. 

AN ESTATE PRECISELY LIKE THAT OF THE DECEDENT, SO FAR AS ANY PROPERTY
IN WHICH THE DECEDENT HAD EVER HAD ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST IS
CONCERNED, WOULD PAY ONLY $360,000 IN ESTATE TAX, WHEREAS DECEDENT'S
ESTATE MUST PAY $1,212,000. 

THOSE WHO SUCCEED TO THE DECEDENT'S OWN PROPERTY MUST PAY ABOUT
$165,000 MORE THAN IF THE APPOINTED PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED. 
SUCH IS THE EFFECT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROGRESSIVE RATE SCALE. 

THERE IS NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT.  AIR
WAY ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CORP. V. DAY, 266 U.S. 71; SMITH V. CAHOON, 283
U.S. 553; IOWA-DES MOINES NATIONAL BANK V. BENNETT, 284 U.S. 239. 

THE CLASSIFICATION WAS NOT OCCASIONED BY LOCAL CONDITIONS KNOWN TO
THE LEGISLATURE; THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THE OPERATION OF ANY PRESUMPTION
BASED UPON THE LEGISLATURE'S GREATER KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CONDITIONS. 

THE COURT WILL NOT INDULGE PURE CONJECTURE TO JUSTIFY THE
DISCRIMINATION.  GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO. V. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150, 154;
BINNEY V. LONG, 299 U.S. 280, 294. 

THE ONLY SUGGESTION AS TO A POSSIBLE REASON OF POLICY JUSTIFYING THE
DISCRIMINATION, IS THAT THE 1932 AMENDMENT WAS REQUIRED TO PREVENT THE
ESCAPE OF THE PROPERTY HERE INVOLVED FROM ALL DEATH TAXATION THROUGH
THE INADVERTENT REPEAL, BY THE ESTATE TAX LAW, OF THE OLD LEGACY TAX
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE UPON THE EXERCISE, AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ESTATE TAX LAW, OF THE POWERS THERETOFORE CREATED.  THIS
WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED NOTHING MORE THAN THE RESTORATION OF THE TAX WHICH
HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY REPEALED; IT COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF
A NEW AND DIFFERENT TAX BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUS AND ARBITRARY FACTUAL
ASSUMPTION AND PRODUCING THE OPPRESSIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT SET
FORTH. 

IT WILL NOT DO TO URGE THAT IT WAS EASIER TO IMPOSE THE NEW ESTATE
TAX THAN TO RESTORE THE OLD LEGACY TAX.  EVEN IF THERE WERE ANY FACTUAL
BASIS FOR SUCH A CLAIM, IT IS CLEAR THAT SUCH AN ATTEMPTED
JUSTIFICATION WOULD NOT MEET WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS COURT.  STEWART
DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294 U.S. 550, 559-60. 

THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE ONLY TO NON-GENERAL POWERS OF
APPOINTMENT CREATED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 1930, CONSTITUTES AN ADDITIONAL
GROUND OF INVALIDITY UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  IT IS CLEAR
THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF SUBDIVISION 7-A DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE POWER
OF APPOINTMENT INVOLVED WAS CREATED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1, 1930, IN WHICH
CASE SUBDIVISION 7-A MAY APPLY, OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, 1930, IN WHICH
CASE SUBDIVISION 7-A CAN NEVER APPLY. 

SUCH A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT, BASED SOLELY ON THE DATE WHEN THE
POWER WAS CREATED, CONSTITUTES AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS
CLASSIFICATION VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  BINNEY V.
LONG, 299 U.S. 290. 

THAT THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES AN ESTATE TAX RATHER THAN A LEGACY
TAX, MERELY SERVES TO AGGRAVATE THE DISCRIMINATION.  UNDER THE
MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE, THE AGGREGATION OF THE APPOINTIVE PROPERTY WITH
OTHER PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE GRADUATED RATE PROVISIONS WAS
ONLY AN AGGREGATION WITH OTHER PROPERTY GOING TO THE SAME BENEFICIARY. 
IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EFFECT OF APPLYING SUBDIVISION 7-A HAS BEEN TO
AGGREGATE THE APPOINTIVE PROPERTY WITH ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTY
COMPRISING THE DECEDENT'S TAXABLE ESTATE, NOT ONLY THE PROPERTY GOING
TO THE SAME BENEFICIARIES, BUT ALSO ALL OF THE PROPERTY GOING TO
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BENEFICIARIES. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CORNELIUS VANDERBILT DIED IN 1899.  BY HIS WILL HE ESTABLISHED A
TRUST TO ISSUE A DESIGNATED ANNUAL INCOME TO HIS WIFE.  UPON HER DEATH,
MRS. VANDERBILT WAS ALSO GIVEN THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF THIS FUND AMONG
FOUR OF THEIR CHILDREN, IN SUCH PROPORTIONS AS SHE MIGHT CHOOSE.  IN
DEFAULT OF HER EXERCISE OF THIS DISCRETIONARY POWER, THE FUND WAS TO GO
TO THE CHILDREN EQUALLY.  MRS. VANDERBILT DIED IN 1934, AND BY HER WILL
AVAILED HERSELF OF THE POWER.  THE TAXING AUTHORITIES OF NEW YORK
INCLUDED THE VALUE OF THIS TRUST FUND IN HER GROSS ESTATE, AND ON THIS
BASIS COMPUTED MRS. VANDERBILT'S ESTATE TAX.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
NEW YORK, FINDING THAT THE APPLICABLE NEW YORK LEGISLATION HAD BEEN
PROPERLY CONSTRUED BY THE TAX COMMISSION, SUSTAINED ITS VALIDITY.  281
N.Y. 297; 22 N.E.2D 379.  THE RESULT OF THIS DECISION IS TO REDUCE THE
AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE BENEFICIARIES OF MRS.
VANDERBILT'S INDEPENDENT PROPERTY BELOW WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD THE
TAX BEEN ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF THAT PROPERTY WITHOUT THE INCLUSION
OF THE TRUST FUND WHICH CAME FROM HER HUSBAND.  THESE BENEFICIARIES,
AND THE EXECUTORS OF THE WILL, CLAIM THAT THE EXACTION THUS SANCTIONED
BY NEW YORK VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. 

THE CONTESTED STATUTE, NEW YORK LAWS OF 1932, CH. 320, DERIVES
MEANING AS AN INCIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF NEW YORK'S PRESENT SYSTEM OF
DEATH TAXES.  THAT SYSTEM HAD ITS BEGINNING IN 1885.  THE ORIGINAL ACT
TAXED INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS DERIVED UPON DEATH RATHER THAN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE ESTATE.  LAWS OF 1885, CH. 483.  UNDER THIS
LEGISLATION, THE TRANSMISSION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO POWERS OF
APPOINTMENT, EITHER GENERAL OR SPECIAL, WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE ESTATE OF
THE DONOR.  MATTER OF STEWART, 131 N.Y. 274; 30 N.E. 184; AND THE
SUBSEQUENT EXERCISE OF THE POWER WAS NOT TAXED.  MATTER OF HARBECK, 161
N.Y. 211; 55 N.E. 850.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE AWKWARDNESS INCIDENT TO THIS
TREATMENT OF APPOINTIVE PROPERTY LED TO AN AMENDMENT WHEREBY ALL
PROPERTY PASSING UNDER POWERS OF APPOINTMENT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE
DONEE, NOT TO THE DONOR.  LAWS OF 1897, CH. 284.  THIS WAS THE NEW YORK
LAW WHEN CORNELIUS VANDERBILT DIED.  IN 1930, EXPERIENCE WITH THE
LEGACY TAX IN NEW YORK AND ELSEWHERE LED TO A SHIFT IN THE BASIS FOR
IMPOSING DEATH DUTIES.  ACTING UPON THE RESULTS OF AN INQUIRY INTO THE
DEFECTS AND INADEQUACIES OF A TAXING SYSTEM BORN OF OTHER TIMES AND
CALCULATED TO MEET DIFFERENT NEEDS, NEW YORK IN 1930 SUPPLANTED HER
SYSTEM WHICH TAXED THE INDIVIDUAL LEGATEE'S PRIVILEGE OF SUCCESSION BY
ONE WHICH MEASURED THE LEVY BY THE SIZE OF THE TOTAL ESTATE.  LAWS OF
1930, CH. 710.  UNDER THIS LEGISLATION, PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A POWER OF
APPOINTMENT - WHETHER GENERAL OR SPECIAL - IS INCLUDED IN THE DONOR'S
GROSS ESTATE.  IF THE POWER IS GENERAL, ITS LATER EXERCISE SWEEPS THE
APPOINTIVE PROPERTY INTO THE DONEE'S GROSS ESTATE ALSO. 

AS IS APT TO HAPPEN IN EXTENSIVE LEGISLATIVE READJUSTMENTS DEALING
WITH COMPLEX PROBLEMS, THE EFFECT OF THE CHANGE IN 1930 UPON SOME OF
THE MORE SPECIALIZED SITUATIONS COMING WITHIN THE GENERAL POLICY WAS
OVERLOOKED.  POWERS CREATED BETWEEN 1885 AND 1897 HAD BEEN TAXABLE AT
THE DONOR'S DEATH.  SPECIAL POWERS CREATED AFTER 1897 AND EXERCISED
BEFORE 1930 HAD BEEN TAXED AT THE DONEE'S DEATH.  POWERS CREATED AND
EXERCISED AFTER 1930 WERE INCLUDED IN THE DONOR'S ESTATE.  BUT POWERS
CREATED AFTER 1897 AND NOT EXERCISED BEFORE 1930 WERE OUTSIDE THE
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK.  THUS AN UNINTENDED IMMUNITY FROM THE INCIDENCE
OF TAXATION HAD BEEN GIVEN TO SPECIAL POWERS OF APPOINTMENT CREATED
AFTER 1897 BUT NOT EXERCISED BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE 1930
LEGISLATION.  WHEN EXPERIENCE DISCLOSED THIS OMISSION, THE LEGISLATURE
REMOVED IT IN 1932.  THE AMENDMENT OF THAT YEAR, WHICH IS COPIED IN THE
MARGIN,*  INCLUDED IN THE DONEE'S GROSS ESTATE APPOINTIVE PROPERTY
WHICH WAS NOT TAXABLE AT THE DONOR'S DEATH BUT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXABLE
UNDER THE SUPERSEDED STATUTORY PROVISION OF 1897.  IT IS UNDER THIS
AMENDMENT THAT NEW YORK HAS IMPOSED THE TAX HERE ASSAILED.  THIS BRINGS
US TO A CONSIDERATION OF APPELLANTS' CLAIMS. 

*THE AMENDMENT PROVIDED THAT THERE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE INTERESTS OF WHICH THE FOLLOWING WAS PART OF
THE ENUMERATION OF DEFINED CATEGORIES: 

"7-A.  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A POWER OF
APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY THE DECEDENT (A) BY WILL, OR (B) BY DEED
EXECUTED IN CONTEMPLATION OF, OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION
OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER, HIS DEATH, EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE
FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH  ...
PROVIDED THAT THE TRANSFER OF SUCH PROPERTY IS NOT OR WAS NOT SUBJECT
TO A DEATH TAX IN THE ESTATE OF THE GRANTOR OF SUCH POWER BUT WOULD
HAVE BEEN SO TAXABLE EXCEPT FOR A STATUTE PROVIDING THAT THE TAX ON THE
TRANSFER OF SUCH PROPERTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED IN THE ESTATE OF THE
GRANTEE OF SUCH POWER IN THE EVENT OF THE EXERCISE THEREOF." 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS MEASURE WAS THUS SUMMARIZED IN THE
OPINION OF SURROGATE FOLEY: "AN EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM OF THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION PREPARED AT THE TIME OF THE DRAFTING AND INTRODUCTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BILL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE SURROGATE BY CONSENT OF THE
PARTIES.  IT IS ILLUMINATIVE OF THE REASONS WHICH LED TO THE ENACTMENT
OF NEW SUBDIVISION 7-A. THE STATE TAX COMMISSION POINTED OUT THAT THE
EXISTING LAW IN 1932, PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION,
PERMITTED THE FUND TO ESCAPE TAXATION IN BOTH THE ESTATE OF THE GRANTOR
AND THE ESTATE OF THE GRANTEE OF THE POWER.  IT WAS STATED IN REFERENCE
TO THE MEASURE:  'THIS BILL PROVIDES THAT PROPERTY TRANSFERRED BY THE
EXERCISE OF A SPECIAL OR LIMITED POWER OF APPOINTMENT SHALL BE INCLUDED
IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT ESTATE
TAX IN THE EVENT IT IS NOT TAXABLE OR HAS NOT BEEN TAXED IN THE ESTATE
OF THE GRANTOR OF THE POWER AND THUS INSURES THAT ONE DEATH TAX WILL BE
IMPOSED UPON SUCH PROPERTY.'"  MATTER OF VANDERBILT, 163 MISC. (N.Y.) 
667, 676; 297 N.Y.S. 554, 565.    AS AGAINST THIS ATTEMPT BY THE STATE
TO DEVISE A HARMONIOUS TAXING SYSTEM, APPELLANTS URGE THAT NEW YORK
EXACTS AN UNJUSTIFIABLY HEAVIER ESTATE TAX FROM THE BENEFICIARIES OF
MRS. VANDERBILT'S UNRESTRICTED PROPERTY BECAUSE IN THE ACCOUNTING OF
HER ESTATE PROPERTY WAS INCLUDED OF WHICH SHE WAS NOT THE "BENEFICIAL
OWNER."  ATTACKING THE 1932 ACT FROM ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW, THEY CLAIM
THAT NEW YORK HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DRAW A TAXING LINE BETWEEN SPECIAL
POWERS CREATED PRIOR TO 1930 AND THOSE ESTABLISHED THEREAFTER. 

LARGE CONCEPTS LIKE "PROPERTY" AND "OWNERSHIP" CALL FOR CLOSE
ANALYSIS, ESPECIALLY WHEN TAX LEGISLATION IS UNDER SCRUTINY.  MRS.
VANDERBILT, TO BE SURE, HAD, IN THE CONVENTIONAL USE OF THAT TERM, NO
"BENEFICIAL INTEREST" IN THE PROPERTY WHICH SHE TRANSFERRED THROUGH THE
EXERCISE OF HER POWER OF APPOINTMENT.  SHE COULD NOT, THAT IS TO SAY,
USE THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST HERSELF OR APPOINT IT TO HER ESTATE; NOR
COULD SHE HAVE APPLIED IT TO HER CREDITORS.  THESE QUALIFICATIONS UPON
MRS. VANDERBILT'S POWER OVER THE APPOINTIVE PROPERTY HAD A SIGNIFICANCE
DURING HER LIFETIME WHICH DEATH TRANSMUTED.  FOR WHEN THE END COMES,
THE POWER THAT PROPERTY GIVES, NO MATTER HOW ABSOLUTELY IT MAY HAVE
BEEN HELD, ALSO COMES TO AN END - EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE POWER TO
DETERMINE ITS SUCCESSION AND ENJOYMENT MAY BE PROJECTED BEYOND THE
GRAVE.  BUT THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER IS PRECISELY THE PRIVILEGE WHICH
THE STATE CONFERS AND UPON WHICH IT SEIZES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A
TAX.  IT IS NOT THE DECEDENT'S ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY - THE
"BENEFICIAL INTEREST" - WHICH IS THE OCCASION FOR THE TAX, NOR EVEN THE
ACQUISITION OF SUCH ENJOYMENT BY THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES. 
PRESUMABLY THE POLICY BEHIND ESTATE TAX LEGISLATION LIKE THAT OF NEW
YORK IS THE DIVERSION TO THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMUNITY OF A PORTION OF
THE TOTAL CURRENT OF WEALTH RELEASED BY DEATH. 

IN MAKING THIS DIVERSION, THE STATE IS NOT CONFINED TO THAT KIND OF
WEALTH WHICH WAS, IN COLLOQUIAL LANGUAGE, "OWNED" BY A DECEDENT BEFORE
DEATH, NOR EVEN TO THAT OVER WHICH HE HAD AN UNRESTRICTED POWER OF
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT ONE PERSON ACQUIRES
ECONOMIC INTERESTS IN PROPERTY THROUGH THE DEATH OF ANOTHER PERSON,
EVEN THOUGH SUCH ACQUISITION IS IN PART THE AUTOMATIC CONSEQUENCE OF
DEATH OR RELATED TO THE DECEDENT MERELY BECAUSE OF HIS POWER TO
DESIGNATE TO WHOM AND IN WHAT PROPORTIONS AMONG A RESTRICTED CLASS THE
BENEFITS SHALL FALL. 

THE BOOKS ARE REPLETE WITH RECOGNITION OF THESE GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 
THUS THE FULL VALUE OF PROPERTY MAY BE TAXED AS PART OF A DECEDENT'S
GROSS ESTATE EVEN THOUGH HELD BY HIM MERELY AS A TENANT BY THE
ENTIRETY, TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497; LIKEWISE THE FULL VALUE
OF PROPERTY IN WHICH THE DECEDENT WAS ONLY A JOINT TENANT MAY BE TAXED
TO HIS ESTATE, UNITED STATES V. JACOBS, 306 U.S. 363.  IN NEITHER OF
THESE INSTANCES WAS THERE AN EXACT EQUATION BETWEEN THE "BENEFICIAL
INTEREST" OWNED BY THE DECEDENT JUST BEFORE HIS DEATH AND THAT BY WHICH
THE TAX WAS MEASURED.  AGAIN, THIS COURT FOUND NO DIFFICULTY IN
SUSTAINING A TAX ON THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY CONVEYED IN TRUST BY A
DECEDENT DURING HIS LIFE, ALTHOUGH HE HAD DIVESTED HIMSELF OF ALL
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE CORPUS AND HAD ONLY RESERVED THE POWER TO
CHANGE BENEFICIARIES, EXCLUDING, HOWEVER, HIMSELF AND HIS ESTATE FROM
THE RANGE OF CHOICE.  PORTER V. COMMISSIONER, 288 U.S. 436.  THE
ATTEMPT TO DIFFERENTIATE THE TIE THAT BINDS THESE CASES BY TREATING THE
INTER VIVOS TRANSFERS IN THESE DECISIONS AS MERE SUBSTITUTIONS FOR
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS, DISREGARDS THE EMPHASIS IN THESE CASES ON
THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF DEATH IN BRINGING ABOUT A SHIFT IN ECONOMIC
INTEREST, AND THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO FASTEN ON THAT SHIFT AS
THE OCCASION FOR A TAX.  THIS BROADER BASE IS EMPHASIZED, FOR INSTANCE,
BY THE FACT THAT IN THE PORTER CASE THE DECEDENT HAD DIVESTED HIMSELF
OF ALL "BENEFICIAL INTEREST" IN THE TRUST PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE
OF THE TAXING ACT BY WHICH THE TRUST WAS INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF HIS
GROSS ESTATE. 

A PERSON MAY BY HIS DEATH BRING INTO BEING GREATER INTERESTS IN
PROPERTY THAN HE HIMSELF HAS EVER ENJOYED, AND THE STATE MAY TURN
ADVANTAGES THUS REALIZED INTO A SOURCE OF REVENUE, AS ILLUSTRATED BY
EARLIER CASES DEALING WITH SPECIAL POWERS OF APPOINTMENT THAT ALSO CAME
HERE FROM NEW YORK.  ORR V. GILMAN, 183 U.S. 278; CHANLER V. KELSEY,
205 U.S. 466.  IN THESE CASES, TO BE SURE, A LEGACY TAX WAS ASSAILED -
A TAX, THAT IS, MEASURED BY THE SPECIFIC INTERESTS WHICH THE
BENEFICIARIES OF THE POWER RECEIVED.  HERE, THE GRIEVANCE IS ASSERTED
MORE PARTICULARLY BY THOSE SUCCEEDING TO MRS. VANDERBILT'S FREE
PROPERTY.  BUT IF DEATH MAY BE MADE THE OCCASION FOR TAXING PROPERTY IN
WHICH THE DECEDENT HAD NO "BENEFICIAL INTEREST," THEN THE MEASUREMENT
OF THAT TAX BY THE DECEDENT'S TOTAL WEALTH-DISPOSING POWER IS MERELY AN
EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHAT THE STATE SHALL
TAKE IN RETURN FOR ALLOWING THE TRANSFER.  THE ADOPTION OF THIS MEASURE
MAY, OF COURSE, IN THE CASE OF A GRADUATED TAX, BURDEN INDIVIDUAL
BENEFICIARIES BEYOND WHAT THEY WOULD BEAR IF THE SAME TAX RATE WERE
APPLIED TO THE VALUE OF THE UNRESTRICTED PROPERTY OF THE DECEDENT AND
THE PROPERTY OVER WHICH HE HAD BUT A RESTRICTED CONTROL WERE EXCLUDED. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO PREVENT LEGISLATURES
FROM DEVISING DEATH DUTIES HAVING THIS EFFECT, NOR TO AUTHORIZE COURTS
TO DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO DO SO. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE ILLUSTRATE THE PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MAY INDUCE A LEGISLATURE TO TREAT RESTRICTED AND
UNRESTRICTED PROPERTY AS A TAXING UNIT.  THE POTENTIAL INTERESTS OF THE
BENEFICIARIES OF MRS. VANDERBILT'S FREE PROPERTY ARE INTERTWINED WITH
THEIR INTERESTS IN THE APPOINTIVE PROPERTY.  THE DISPOSITIONS WHICH SHE
WAS FREE TO MAKE UNDER HER POWER OF APPOINTMENT SERVED TO ENHANCE HER
FREEDOM WITH RESPECT TO HER OWN PROPERTY.  HOW MRS. VANDERBILT WOULD
HAVE DISTRIBUTED HER INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY IF SHE HAD POSSESSED NO
CONTROL OVER THAT LEFT BY HER HUSBAND IS SPECULATIVE.  BUT IT IS
CERTAINLY WITHIN THE AREA OF LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT TO ASSUME THAT
SPECIAL POWERS OF APPOINTMENT ARE ORDINARILY DESIGNED FOR ENDS SIMILAR
TO THOSE IN THE PRESENT CASE - NAMELY, TO ENLARGE THE DONEE'S RANGE OF
BOUNTY, HOWEVER NARROWLY RESTRICTED THE ENLARGEMENT MAY BE, TO A CIRCLE
OF BENEFICIARIES CLOSELY RELATED TO, IF NOT IDENTICAL WITH, THOSE WHOM
THE DONEE WOULD BE NATURALLY DISPOSED TO FAVOR.  TO THE EXTENT THAT
THIS IS TRUE, THERE IS COMPENSATION FOR THOSE WHO MAY SUCCEED TO THE
DONEE'S INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY, AND WHO MUST PAY A LARGER TAX, BECAUSE THE
APPOINTIVE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE.  THE LEGISLATURE
CAN HARDLY PARTICULARIZE THE INSTANCES AND DRAW UP A TARIFF OF
COMPENSATIONS, AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT THE PROVINCE OF COURTS TO MAKE
THE ATTEMPT.  IT SUFFICES THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS SEEN FIT TO FRAME A
GENERAL ENACTMENT DRAWN ON LINES NOT OFFENSIVE TO EXPERIENCE AND AIMED
AT CURING A REVEALED INEQUALITY IN THE STATE'S TAXING SYSTEM. 

APPELLANTS VAINLY SEEK TO DRAW STRENGTH FROM SCHLESINGER V.
WISCONSIN, 270 U.S. 230; HOEPER V. TAX COMMISSION, 284 U.S. 206; AND
HEINER V. DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312.  THE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION TO WHICH
THESE CASES GAVE RISE ARE NOT HERE RELEVANT. 

BUT THERE REMAINS THE CLAIM OF APPELLANTS THAT IN DRAWING THE LINE
BETWEEN SPECIAL POWERS CREATED BEFORE 1930 AND THOSE HAVING A LATER
ORIGIN, NEW YORK RAN AFOUL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  THE BRIEF
SUMMARY WE HAVE GIVEN OF THE HISTORY OF THIS LEGISLATION SEEMS A
SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO THE CHARGE OF PROSCRIBED DISCRIMINATION.  TO HAVE
CONTINUED THE COMPLETE IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION WHICH THE 1930
LEGISLATION HAD UNINTENTIONALLY CONFERRED UPON SPECIAL POWERS OF
APPOINTMENT CREATED BEFORE ITS PASSAGE WAS DEEMED BY NEW YORK TO HAVE
RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL INEQUALITY.  THE CORRECTION OF SUCH INEQUALITY
IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE EQUALITY COMMANDED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
IN THE AGE-OLD BUT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TASK OF TAPPING NEW SOURCES
OF REVENUE, NOTHING MAY MORE LEGITIMATELY ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF
FINANCIAL STATESMEN THAN OPPORTUNITIES TO REACH PROPERTY WHICH HAS
ENJOYED IMMUNITY FROM TAX BURDENS BORNE BY OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED. 
WATSON V. STATE COMPTROLLER, 254 U.S. 122; WELCH V. HENRY, 305 U.S.
134. 

ACCEPTANCE OF BINNEY V. LONG, 299 U.S. 280, WOULD NOT CONSTRAIN US TO
HOLD DIFFERENTLY.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONFRONTING THE NEW YORK
LEGISLATURE, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS POINTED OUT, THE DISCRIMINATION
AFFECTING SPECIAL POWERS WAS NOT BASED UPON WHAT WAS DEEMED IN THE
BINNEY CASE TO BE A DATE "ARBITRARILY SELECTED BUT IS A LOGICAL
SOLUTION BY THE LEGISLATURE OF A PROBLEM WHICH IT WAS REQUIRED TO
MEET."  281 N.Y. AT 317.  ALL SPECIAL POWERS, WHETHER CREATED BEFORE OR
AFTER 1930, ARE TAXED IN NEW YORK.  IN ONE CASE, THEY ARE TAXED TO THE
DONOR'S ESTATE; IN THE OTHER - SINCE THE SAME TREATMENT WOULD BE
MANIFESTLY IMPRACTICABLE - TO THE DONEE'S.  DIFFERENCES IN
CIRCUMSTANCES BEGET APPROPRIATE DIFFERENCES IN LAW.  THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE WAS NOT DESIGNED TO COMPEL UNIFORMITY IN THE FACE OF
DIFFERENCE.  MADDEN V. KENTUCKY, ANTE, P. 83. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS
INDISTINGUISHABLE IN PRINCIPLE FROM BINNEY V. LONG, 299 U.S. 280, AND
THAT, ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION OF THIS
CASE. 
..END :





PUERTO RICO V. RUBERT CO., 309 U.S. 543 


NO. 582.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 8, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 106
F.2D 754, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 39 OF THE ORGANIC ACT FOR PUERTO RICO, 48
U.S.C. SEC. 752, THAT "EVERY CORPORATION HEREAFTER AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE
IN AGRICULTURE SHALL BY ITS CHARTER BE RESTRICTED TO THE OWNERSHIP AND
CONTROL OF NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND" IS ENFORCIBLE BY
PROCEEDINGS OF QUO WARRANTO AUTHORIZED BY THE LOCAL LEGISLATURE UNDER
SEC. 37 OF THE ORGANIC ACT, 48 U.S.C. SEC. 821, WHICH PROVIDES THAT
"THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY SHALL EXTEND TO ALL MATTERS OF A LEGISLATIVE
CHARACTER NOT LOCALLY INAPPLICABLE  ...  "  P. 548. 

2.  SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF PUERTO RICO IS NOT ONE OF "THE
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION OF JUD. 
CODE SEC. 256 WHICH VESTS IN "THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...
EXCLUSIVE OF THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES" JURISDICTION OF ALL
SUITS "FOR PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES INCURRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES."  P. 550. 

PUERTO RICO V. RUBERT HERMANOS, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 642, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO SUSTAINING A PROCEEDING IN QUO WARRANTO. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE IN CONTROVERSY IS A MATTER OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO
PUERTO RICO AND INVOLVES THE POWER OF ITS LEGISLATURE TO ENFORCE
CONGRESSIONAL POLICIES AFFECTING THE ISLAND.  WE THEREFORE BROUGHT THE
CASE HERE ON A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.  106 F.2D 754.  THAT COURT HAD
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, 53 P.R.
779(SPANISH EDITION) SUSTAINING A PROCEEDING IN QUO WARRANTO BROUGHT
AGAINST RESPONDENT. 

THE PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO
UNDER JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE LOCAL LEGISLATURE.  THE
SUBSTANCE OF TWO MEASURES, ENACTED IN 1935, AND SET OUT BELOW,
AUTHORIZED THE GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO TO BRING A QUO WARRANTO
PROCEEDING IN ITS SUPREME COURT AGAINST ANY CORPORATION VIOLATING
FEDERAL LAW.  FN1  ACCORDINGLY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ISLAND
BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED IN
1927 UNDER PUERTO RICO'S CORPORATION LAW.  THE GRAVAMEN OF THE SUIT WAS
ALLEGED DEFIANCE BY RESPONDENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTION IMPOSED
UPON "EVERY CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN AGRICULTURE ...  TO THE
OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND." 
THIS RESTRICTION, ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT, EMBODIED "THE PUBLIC
POLICY OF THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO" FIRST DECLARED BY CONGRESS IN ITS
JOINT RESOLUTION OF MAY 1, 1900, 31 STAT. 715, SUPPLEMENTING THE
FORAKER ACT OF APRIL 12, 1900, 31 STAT. 77.  FN2  THIS LIMITATION UPON
THE CORPORATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND WAS CONTINUED WHEN CONGRESS IN 1917
REVISED THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF PUERTO RICO'S GOVERNMENT IN
WHAT IS THE EXISTING ORGANIC ACT, SEC. 39 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1917,
39 STAT. 951, 964(48 U.S.C. SEC. 752). 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY DERIVES FROM THE FACT THAT CONGRESS AFFIXED
NO DIRECT CONSEQUENCES TO DISOBEDIENCE OF ITS LAND POLICY FOR PUERTO
RICO.  THE MAIN ISSUE PRESENTED HERE IS WHETHER PUERTO RICO'S
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY HAS POWER TO GRAFT SUCH CONSEQUENCES UPON THE
CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION.  THIS WAS THE ISSUE AS THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO CONCEIVED IT, AND WE ARE NOT DISPOSED TO DEAL WITH IT
DIFFERENTLY.  IT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE DISSENTING JUDGE IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS THAT THE SUPREME COURT'S JUDGMENT MAY BE SUPPORTED BY
CONSTRUING THE 1935 LEGISLATION AS A MEANS OF ENFORCING THE LOCAL LAND
POLICY - IDENTIC, TO BE SURE, WITH THAT DECLARED BY CONGRESS - EMBODIED
IN THE 1911 CORPORATION LAW OF PUERTO RICO.  TO DO SO, HOWEVER, WOULD
TAKE US INTO NICETIES OF PLEADING AND OF LOCAL LAW WHICH WERE NOT
CANVASSED BY THE INSULAR COURT.  SUCH A COURSE WOULD BE PECULIARLY
GRATUITOUS WHEN THE ISSUE WHICH THE LOCAL COURT IN FACT DECIDED IS
EASILY RESOLVED. 

IN THE SETTING OF THE TRADITIONAL RELATION BETWEEN THE BROAD OUTLINES
DESIGNED BY CONGRESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF TERRITORIES AND THE POWERS
OF LOCAL LEGISLATURES TO MOVE FREELY WITHIN THOSE OUTLINES, THE
DIFFICULTIES CONJURED UP AGAINST THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE PUERTO RICAN
COURT RAPIDLY EVAPORATE.  THE OBJECTIONS URGED AGAINST IT ILLUSTRATE
VIVIDLY THE POWER OF SUBTLE ARGUMENT TO GIVE AN APPEARANCE OF
DIFFICULTY TO WHAT IS RELATIVELY SIMPLE.  THE BREADTH OF LOCAL AUTONOMY
REPOSED BY CONGRESS IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY WAS ELUCIDATED TOO
RECENTLY AND TOO THOROUGHLY IN PUERTO RICO V. SHELL CO., 302 U.S. 253,
TO CALL FOR REPETITION HERE.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE OPINION IN
THAT CASE UNDERLINED THE FULLNESS OF SCOPE WHICH CONGRESS GAVE TO
PUERTO RICO WHEN IT PROVIDED BY SEC. 37 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF 1917 THAT
"THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY SHALL EXTEND TO ALL MATTERS OF A LEGISLATIVE
CHARACTER NOT LOCALLY INAPPLICABLE  ...  " 39 STAT. 964, 48 U.S.C. SEC.
821.  DRAWING ON THE PRACTICE OF CONGRESS IN ITS TREATMENT OF
TERRITORIES THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, AND ASSIMILATING THAT PRACTICE INTO
THE PUERTO RICAN SITUATION, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT "THE GRANT OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER IN RESPECT OF LOCAL MATTERS, CONTAINED IN SEC. 32 OF
THE FORAKER ACT AND CONTINUED IN FORCE BY SEC. 37 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF
1917, IS AS BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE AS LANGUAGE COULD MAKE IT."  302
U.S. AT 261. 

SURELY NOTHING MORE IMMEDIATELY TOUCHES THE LOCAL CONCERN OF PUERTO
RICO THAN LEGISLATION GIVING EFFECT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RESTRICTION ON
CORPORATE LAND HOLDINGS.  THIS POLICY WAS BORN OF THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF
A CONGESTED POPULATION LARGELY DEPENDENT UPON THE LAND FOR ITS
LIVELIHOOD.  FN3 IT WAS ENUNCIATED AS SOON AS CONGRESS BECAME
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WELFARE OF THE ISLAND'S PEOPLE, WAS RETAINED
AGAINST VIGOROUS ATTEMPTS TO MODIFY IT,  FN4  AND WAS REAFFIRMED WHEN
CONGRESS ENLARGED PUERTO RICO'S POWERS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT.  SURELY
CONGRESS MEANT ITS ACTION TO HAVE SIGNIFICANCE BEYOND MERE EMPTY
WORDS.  TO TREAT THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF THE
RESTRICTION AS AN IMPLIED BAR AGAINST LOCAL ENFORCEMENT MEASURES IS TO
IMPUTE TO CONGRESS A DOG-IN-THE-MANGER ATTITUDE BORDERING ON
DISINGENUOUSNESS.  WE REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS WAS BENT ON THE
ELABORATE FUTILITY OF A BRUTUM FULMEN.  WHAT WAS SAID IN ANOTHER
CONTEXT, TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 569, IS
APPOSITE HERE:  "THE DEFINITE PROHIBITION WHICH CONGRESS INSERTED IN
THE ACT CANNOT THEREFORE BE OVERRIDDEN IN THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED IT TO BE IGNORED.  AS THE PROHIBITION WAS APPROPRIATE TO THE
AIM OF CONGRESS, AND IS CAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE
THAT ENFORCEMENT WAS CONTEMPLATED."  THE SUGGESTION THAT ENFORCEMENT
MIGHT COME ONLY THROUGH QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES IS EQUALLY RECKLESS. 

A MUCH MORE RATIONAL EXPLANATION, CONSISTENT WITH THE ORGANIC
RELATION BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IS AT HAND.  AS THE
ULTIMATE LEGISLATIVE GUARDIAN OF THE ISLAND'S WELFARE, CONGRESS
CONFINED THE LEGISLATURE'S DISCRETION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE FIVE
HUNDRED-ACRE RESTRICTION.  HOW THIS POLICY WAS TO BE REALIZED WAS FOR
PUERTO RICO TO SAY.  "LOCAL AUTHORITIES MAY ASCERTAIN FACTS AND DECIDE
QUESTIONS UPON WHICH DEPENDS APPROPRIATE EXERTION OF THE POWER MUCH
MORE CONVENIENTLY THAN MAY THE CONGRESS."  PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V.
HAVEMEYER, 296 U.S. 506, 515-16. 

IT IS ADMITTED, AS INDEED IN VIEW OF THE SHELL CASE IT COULD NOT BE
DENIED, THAT THE REMEDY HERE PURSUED WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IF THAT BODY HAD ADOPTED THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY
IN A SUBSTANTIVE STATUTE OF ITS OWN.  BUT RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE
SAME RESULT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY INVESTING THE INSULAR COURTS WITH
JURISDICTION DIRECTLY TO ENFORCE THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.  SUCH
USELESS INDIRECTION IS COMPELLED NEITHER BY THE ORGANIC ACT NOR BY ANY
GENERAL CONSIDERATION UNDERLYING THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER BETWEEN
CONGRESS AND THE INSULAR LEGISLATURE.  SO LONG AS THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY ACTS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK WHICH CONGRESS HAS SET UP IT MERELY
AVAILS ITSELF OF THE POWER CONFERRED IN SEC. 37 OF THE ORGANIC ACT.  IT
HAS DONE SO HERE. 

THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION AN OBJECTION BASED ON SEC. 256 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 371).  THAT SECTION VESTS IN "THE COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  EXCLUSIVE OF THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL
STATES" JURISDICTION OF ALL SUITS "FOR PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES
INCURRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  WHETHER A LAW PASSED BY
CONGRESS IS A "LAW OF THE UNITED STATES" DEPENDS ON THE MEANING GIVEN
TO THAT PHRASE BY ITS CONTEXT.  A LAW FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
THOUGH ENACTED BY CONGRESS, WAS HELD TO BE NOT A "LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 250 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  AMERICAN
SECURITY CO. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 224 U.S. 491.  LIKEWISE, WE HOLD
THAT SEC. 39 OF THE ORGANIC ACT IS NOT ONE OF "THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 256.  SECTION 39 IS PECULIARLY
CONCERNED WITH LOCAL POLICY CALLING FOR LOCAL ENFORCEMENT FROM WHICH
LOCAL COURTS SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED BY A STATUTORY PROVISION PLAINLY
DESIGNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF POLICIES HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. 

OTHER OBJECTIONS URGED AT THE BAR AND IN RESPONDENT'S BRIEF DO NOT
CALL FOR PARTICULAR MENTION.  ON THE ONLY QUESTIONS NOW BEFORE US, WE
THINK THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO ACTED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF POWER
VALIDLY CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.  FN5  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST THEREFORE BE REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT NO. 33 OF JULY 22, 1935, LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, SPECIAL
SESSION, 1935, P. 418, PROVIDING: 

"SECTION 1.  - THERE IS HEREBY CONFERRED UPON THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF ALL
QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO MAY
HEREAFTER INSTITUTE FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 752,
TITLE 48, UNITED STATES CODE, AND FOR THAT PURPOSE IT IS PROVIDED THAT
THE VIOLATION OF SAID PROVISIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO
INSTITUTE A PROCEEDING OF THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO. 

"SECTION 2.  - ALL LAWS OR PARTS OF LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH ARE
HEREBY REPEALED. 

"SECTION 3.  - THIS ACT, BEING OF AN URGENT CHARACTER, SHALL TAKE
EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AFTER ITS APPROVAL." 

ACT NO. 47 OF AUGUST 7, 1935, LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, SPECIAL SESSION,
1935, PP. 530-32, PROVIDING: 

"SECTION 1.  - SECTION 2 OF AN ACT ENTITLED 'AN ACT ESTABLISHING QUO
WARRANTO PROCEEDINGS,' APPROVED MARCH 1, 1902, IS HEREBY AMENDED AS
FOLLOWS: 

"'SECTION 2.  - IN CASE ANY PERSON SHOULD USURP, OR UNLAWFULLY HOLD
OR EXECUTE ANY PUBLIC OFFICE OR SHOULD UNLAWFULLY MAKE USE OF ANY
FRANCHISE, OR LIKEWISE SHALL HOLD ANY OFFICE IN ANY CORPORATION CREATED
BY AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, OR ANY PUBLIC OFFICER
SHALL HAVE DONE OR SUFFERED ANY ACT WHICH, BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LAW, INVOLVES A FORFEITURE OF HIS OFFICE, OR ANY ASSOCIATION OR NUMBER
OF PERSONS SHALL ACT WITHIN PUERTO RICO AS A CORPORATION, WITHOUT BEING
LEGALLY INCORPORATED, OR ANY CORPORATION DOES OR OMITS ANY ACT WHICH
AMOUNTS TO A SURRENDER OR FORFEITURE OF ITS RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AS A
CORPORATION, OR EXERCISES RIGHTS NOT CONFERRED BY LAW, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, OR ANY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICT COURT,
EITHER ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE OR AT THE INSTANCE OF ANOTHER PERSON, MAY
FILE BEFORE ANY DISTRICT COURT OF PUERTO RICO A PETITION FOR AN
INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF
PUERTO RICO; OR WHENEVER ANY CORPORATION, BY ITSELF OR THROUGH ANY
OTHER SUBSIDIARY OR AFFILIATED ENTITY OR AGENT, EXERCISES RIGHTS,
PERFORMS ACTS, OR MAKES CONTRACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE EXPRESS
PROVISIONS OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF PUERTO RICO OR OF ANY OF ITS STATUTES,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, EITHER ON HIS OWN
INITIATIVE OR AT THE INSTANCE OF ANOTHER PERSON, MAY FILE BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO A PETITION FOR AN INFORMATION IN THE
NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO; AND IF
FROM THE ALLEGATIONS SUCH COURT SHALL BE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS
PROBABLE GROUND FOR THE PROCEEDING, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE PETITION
AND ORDER THE INFORMATION ACCORDINGLY.  WHERE IT APPEARS TO THE COURT
THAT THE SEVERAL RIGHTS OF DIVERS PARTIES TO THE SAME OFFICE OR
FRANCHISE MAY PROPERLY BE DETERMINED ON THE SAME PROCEEDING, THE COURT
MAY GIVE LEAVE TO JOIN ALL SUCH PERSONS IN THE SAME PETITION, IN ORDER
TO TRY THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO SUCH OFFICE OR FRANCHISE.' 

"'WHEN ANY CORPORATION BY ITSELF OR THROUGH ANY OTHER SUBSIDIARY OR
AFFILIATED ENTITY OR AGENT IS UNLAWFULLY HOLDING, UNDER ANY TITLE, REAL
ESTATE IN PUERTO RICO, THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO MAY, AT ITS OPTION,
THROUGH THE SAME PROCEEDINGS, INSTITUTE IN ITS BEHALF THE CONFISCATION
OF SUCH PROPERTY, OR THE ALIENATION THEREOF AT PUBLIC AUCTION, WITHIN A
TERM OF NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS COUNTING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH FINAL
SENTENCE IS RENDERED. 

"'IN EVERY CASE, ALIENATION OR CONFISCATION SHALL BE THROUGH THE
CORRESPONDING INDEMNITY AS ESTABLISHED IN THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN.'" 

FN2  SEC. 3 OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDES: 

"NO CORPORATION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF BUYING
AND SELLING REAL ESTATE OR BE PERMITTED TO HOLD OR OWN REAL ESTATE
EXCEPT SUCH AS MAY BE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ENABLE IT TO CARRY OUT
THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS CREATED, AND EVERY CORPORATION HEREAFTER
AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN AGRICULTURE SHALL BY ITS CHARTER BE RESTRICTED
TO THE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED ACRES OF
LAND; AND THIS PROVISION SHALL BE HELD TO PREVENT ANY MEMBER OF A
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE FROM BEING IN ANY WISE INTERESTED IN
ANY OTHER CORPORATION ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE.  CORPORATIONS, HOWEVER,
MAY LOAN FUNDS UPON REAL ESTATE SECURITY, AND PURCHASE REAL ESTATE WHEN
NECESSARY FOR THE COLLECTION OF LOANS, BUT THEY SHALL DISPOSE OF REAL
ESTATE SO OBTAINED WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER RECEIVING THE TITLE. 
CORPORATIONS NOT ORGANIZED IN PORTO RICO, AND DOING BUSINESS THEREIN,
SHALL BE BOUND BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SO FAR AS THEY ARE
APPLICABLE."    WHETHER THE RESTRICTION OPERATES DIRECTLY AS A
LIMITATION UPON THE POWERS OF THE CORPORATION OR MERELY AS A LIMITATION
UPON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY'S POWER TO CONFER CORPORATE PRIVILEGES,
ITS EFFECT IS TO RENDER CORPORATE LAND OWNERSHIP IN EXCESS OF THE
PRESCRIBED ACREAGE UNLAWFUL.  SEE THE OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
WICKERSHAM, 28 OP. A.G. 258, 260-261. 

FN3  SEE GAYER, HOMAN AND JAMES, THE SUGAR ECONOMY OF PUERTO RICO,
PP. 97-132; DIFFIE, PORTO RICO:  A BROKEN PLEDGE, PP. 45-88; FLEAGLE,
SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN PORTO RICO, PP. 19-27; HANSON, PLANNING PROBLEMS AND
ACTIVITIES IN PUERTO RICO (REPORT TO NATIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE,
1936).  COMPARE CLARK, ETC., PORTO RICO AND ITS PROBLEMS, PP. 495-500,
628 ET SEQ. 

FN4  SEE H.R. 23,000, 61ST CONG.; H. REP. NO. 750, 61ST CONG., 2D
SESS.; S. REP. NO. 920, 61ST CONG., 3D SESS.; 45 CONG. REC. 6861 ET
SEQ., 7220 ET SEQ., 7584 ET SEQ., 7604 ET SEQ., 8177 ET SEQ.; 46 CONG.
REC. 2644. 

FN5  THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, AS
A PART OF THE POWER TO GRANT RELIEF ANCILLARY TO THE MAIN PROCEEDING
FOR FORFEITURE OF THE CORPORATE PRIVILEGES, WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
AUTHORITY VALIDLY CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE 1935 LEGISLATION.  COMPARE
ILLINOIS V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 33 F. 721.  SEE HIGH,
EXTRAORDINARY LEGAL REMEDIES, SECS. 745-762. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION OF THIS
CASE. 
..END :


















MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO., 309 U.S. 551 


NO. 500.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 205 MINN.
443 - 286 N.W. 360, VACATED. 


THE GROUNDS OF A STATE COURT DECISION, HOLDING A GRADUATED TAX ON
GROSS INCOME FROM CHAIN STORES UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BEING OBSCURE AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO REVIEW BEING THEREFORE IN DOUBT, THE
JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SO
THAT THE STATE AND FEDERAL QUESTIONS MAY BE CLEARLY SEPARATED.  P.
555. 

MINNESOTA V. NATIONAL TEA CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 547, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS
GRANTING REFUNDS OF TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1933 MINNESOTA ENACTED A CHAIN STORE TAX (L. 1933, C. 213) ONE
ITEM OF WHICH WAS A TAX ON GROSS SALES.  SEC. 2(B).  THE GROSS SALES
TAX WAS GRADUATED:  ONE-TWENTIETH OF ONE PER CENT WAS APPLIED ON THAT
PORTION OF GROSS SALES NOT IN EXCESS OF $100,000; AND LARGER
PERCENTAGES WERE APPLIED AS THE VOLUME OF GROSS SALES INCREASED, UNTIL
ONE PER CENT WAS EXACTED ON THAT PORTION OF GROSS SALES IN EXCESS OF
$1,000,000.  RESPONDENTS (CHAIN STORES CONDUCTING RETAIL BUSINESSES IN
MINNESOTA) PAID UNDER PROTEST THE GROSS SALES TAX DEMANDED BY THE
MINNESOTA TAX COMMISSION FOR THE YEARS 1933 AND 1934 AND THEREAFTER
SUED IN THE STATE COURT FOR REFUNDS.  FN1  JUDGMENTS GRANTING REFUNDS
WERE AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA, 205 MINN. 443; 286
N.W. 360.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN STEWART DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294
U.S. 550 AND VALENTINE V. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO., 299 U.S.
32, WHICH CASES, IT WAS ASSERTED, CONTROLLED THE DECISION BELOW. 

AT THE THRESHOLD OF AN INQUIRY INTO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STEWART
AND VALENTINE CASES TO THESE FACTS, WE ARE MET WITH A QUESTION WHICH IS
DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT PETITION.  THAT IS THE QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA DISCUSSED NOT ONLY THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION BUT ALSO ART. 9, SEC. 1 OF THE MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION
WHICH PROVIDES:  "TAXES SHALL BE UNIFORM UPON THE SAME CLASS OF
SUBJECTS  ...  "  IT SAID THAT "THESE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL AND
STATE CONSTITUTIONS IMPOSE IDENTICAL RESTRICTIONS UPON THE LEGISLATIVE
POWER OF THE STATE IN RESPECT TO CLASSIFICATION FOR PURPOSES OF
TAXATION."  FN2  IT STATED THAT THE "QUESTION IS  ...  WHETHER THE
IMPOSITION OF A GRADUATED GROSS SALES TAX UPON ALL THOSE ENGAGED IN
CONDUCTING CHAIN STORES IS DISCRIMINATORY AS BETWEEN SUCH OWNERS, THUS
VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF UNIFORMITY."  IT QUOTED THE
CONCLUSION OF THE LOWER MINNESOTA COURT THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED BOTH
THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  IT THEN ADVERTED BRIEFLY TO
THREE OF ITS FORMER DECISIONS WHICH HAD INTERPRETED ART. 9, SEC. 1 OF
THE MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION AND QUOTED FROM ONE OF THEM.  FN3  IT MERELY
ADDED:  "SO MUCH FOR OUR OWN CASES"; AND PROCEEDED AT ONCE TO A
DISCUSSION OF CASES BASED SOLELY ON THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  WHILE ITS DISCUSSION OF ART. 9, SEC. 1 OF THE
MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION WAS IN GENERAL TERMS, ITS ANALYSIS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO CHAIN STORE TAXATION. 
IT DISTINGUISHED DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH HELD THAT THE NUMBER OF
STORES IN A GIVEN CHAIN AFFORDS AN APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION
FOR IMPOSITION OF PROGRESSIVELY HIGHER TAXES.  FN4 IT THEN STATED THAT
THE "PRECISE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED" HAD BEEN DIRECTLY PASSED UPON
ADVERSELY TO THE STATE'S CONTENTION IN FIVE CASES:  STEWART DRY GOODS
CO. V. LEWIS, SUPRA; VALENTINE V. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.,
SUPRA; ED. SCHUSTER & CO. V. HENRY, 218 WIS. 506; 261 N.W. 20; LANE
DRUG STORES, INC. V. LEE, 11 F.SUPP.  672; GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA
CO. V. HARVEY, 107 VT. 215; 177 A. 423.  IT ADDED THAT THE TAX HERE
INVOLVED WAS ON ALL FOURS WITH THAT STRUCK DOWN BY THIS COURT IN
STEWART DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, SUPRA.  IT QUOTED WITH APPROVAL FROM
THE OPINION IN ED. SCHUSTER & CO. V. HENRY, SUPRA.  AND IT CONCLUDED
WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: 

"WE THINK THE FIVE CASES TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED HAVE SO DEFINITELY
AND FINALLY DISPOSED OF THE LEGAL PROBLEM PRESENTED AS TO MAKE IT
NEEDLESS FOR US TO ANALYZE OR DISCUSS THE GREAT NUMBER OF OTHER TAX
CASES WHERE THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WAS INVOLVED.  THESE BEING
THE ONLY CASES TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED DIRECTLY DECIDING
THE QUESTION PRESENTED WE ARE OF OPINION THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW THEM AND
THAT IT IS OUR DUTY SO TO DO."  FN5 

RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE COURT HELD THE STATUTE INVALID FOR
VIOLATION NOT ONLY OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION BUT ALSO OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION.  HENCE THEY SEEK TO INVOKE THE FAMILIAR RULE THAT WHERE A
JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT RESTS ON TWO GROUNDS, ONE INVOLVING A FEDERAL
QUESTION AND THE OTHER NOT, THIS COURT WILL NOT TAKE JURISDICTION.  FOX
FILM CORP. V. MULLER, 296 U.S. 207; LYNCH V. NEW YORK EX REL. PIERSON,
293 U.S. 52; NEW YORK CITY V. CENTRAL SAVINGS BANK, 306 U.S. 661.  IN
SUPPORT OF THIS POSITION THEY POINT TO THE COURT'S DISCUSSION OF THE
MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION AND TO THE FACT THAT THE SYLLABUS STATES THAT
SUCH A TAX IS VIOLATIVE OF BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS. 
FN6  BUT AS TO THE LATTER WE ARE NOT REFERRED TO ANY MINNESOTA
AUTHORITY WHICH, AS IN SOME STATES,  FN7  MAKES THE SYLLABI THE LAW OF
THE CASE.  AND AS TO THE FORMER THE OPINION IS QUITE INCONCLUSIVE.  FOR
THE OPINION AS A WHOLE LEAVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THE COURT PROBABLY
FELT CONSTRAINED TO RULE AS IT DID BECAUSE OF THE FIVE DICISIONS WHICH
IT CITED AND WHICH HELD SUCH GROSS SALES TAXES UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY
REASON OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THAT IS AT LEAST THE MEANING, IF
THE WORDS USED ARE TAKEN LITERALLY.  FOR IF, AS STATED BY THE COURT,
THE "PRECISE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED" WAS RULED BY THOSE FIVE CASES,
THAT QUESTION WAS A FEDERAL ONE.  AND IN THAT CONNECTION IT IS PERHAPS
SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COURT STATED NOT ONLY THAT IT "SHOULD FOLLOW"
THOSE DECISIONS BUT THAT "IT IS OUR DUTY SO TO DO." 

ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE PRECISE GROUNDS FOR THE DECISION.  THAT IS
SUFFICIENT REASON FOR US TO DECLINE AT THIS TIME TO REVIEW THE FEDERAL
QUESTION ASSERTED TO BE PRESENT, HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14,
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE POLICY OF NOT PASSING UPON QUESTIONS OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL NATURE WHICH ARE NOT CLEARLY NECESSARY TO A DECISION OF
THE CASE. 

BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD DISMISS THE PETITION.  THIS
COURT HAS FREQUENTLY HELD THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE
JURISDICTION IT HAS THE POWER NOT ONLY TO CORRECT ERRORS OF LAW IN THE
JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW BUT ALSO TO MAKE SUCH DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AS
JUSTICE REQUIRES.  STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511;
PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600.  THAT PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED TO
CASES COMING FROM STATE COURTS WHERE SUPERVENING CHANGES HAD OCCURRED
SINCE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT, WHERE THE RECORD FAILED ADEQUATELY TO
STATE THE FACTS UNDERLYING A DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION, AND
WHERE THE GROUNDS OF THE STATE DECISION WERE OBSCURE.  HONEYMAN V.
HANAN, SUPRA, AND CASES THERE CITED.  THAT PRINCIPLE WAS ALSO APPLIED
IN STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, SUPRA, WHERE IT WAS SAID P. 514: 

"  ...  IF THE STATE COURT DID IN FACT INTEND ALTERNATIVELY TO BASE
ITS DECISION UPON THE STATE STATUTE AND UPON AN IMMUNITY IT THOUGHT
GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT, THESE TWO
GROUNDS ARE SO INTERWOVEN THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
JUDGMENT RESTS UPON AN INDEPENDENT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW." 
THE PROCEDURE IN THOSE CASES WAS TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND TO REMAND
THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, SO THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION MIGHT
BE DISSECTED OUT OR THE STATE AND FEDERAL QUESTIONS CLEARLY SEPARATED. 

IN THIS TYPE OF CASE WE DEEM IT ESSENTIAL THAT THIS PROCEDURE BE
FOLLOWED.  IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE STATE COURT EMPLOYED THE DECISIONS
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MERELY AS PERSUASIVE AUTHORITIES FOR ITS
INDEPENDENT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  IF THAT WERE
TRUE, WE WOULD HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW.  STATE TAX COMMISSION V.
VAN COTT, SUPRA.  ON THE OTHER HAND WE CANNOT BE CONTENT WITH A
DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION WHERE THERE IS STRONG INDICATION, AS HERE,
THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS JUDICIALLY CONSTRUED CONTROLLED THE
DECISION BELOW. 

IF A STATE COURT MERELY SAID THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS
CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT, IS THE "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" TO WHICH
OBEDIENCE MUST BE GIVEN, OUR JURISDICTION WOULD SEEM TO BE
INESCAPABLE.  AND THAT WOULD FOLLOW THOUGH THE STATE COURT MIGHT HAVE
GIVEN, IF IT HAD CHOSEN, A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION TO AN IDENTICAL
PROVISION IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  BUT THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT
DID NOT TAKE SUCH AN UNEQUIVOCAL POSITION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT DID
NOT DECLARE ITS INDEPENDENCE OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, WHEN THE
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AVOWEDLY HAD IDENTITY OF SCOPE WITH THE
RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN THE LATTER RESPECT
THIS CASE DIFFERS FROM NEW YORK CITY V. CENTRAL SAVINGS BANK, SUPRA.
THE CASES IN WHICH THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS PROFESSES TO GO ON
BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAUSES CLEARLY REST UPON AN
ADEQUATE NONFEDERAL GROUND.  FOR THAT COURT HAS RULED THAT ITS OWN
CONCEPTION OF DUE PROCESS GOVERNS, THOUGH THE SAME PHRASE IN THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN DIFFERENT SCOPE BY DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT.  SEE IVES V. SOUTH BUFFALO RY. CO., 201 N.Y. 271, 317;
94 N.E. 431.  THE INSTANT CASE THEREFORE PRESENTS AN INTERMEDIATE
SITUATION TO WHICH AN APPLICATION OF THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN STATE
TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, SUPRA, IS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE. 

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS COURT NOT INDULGE IN NEEDLESS DISSERTATIONS
ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  IT IS FUNDAMENTAL THAT STATE COURTS BE LEFT
FREE AND UNFETTERED BY US IN INTERPRETING THEIR STATE CONSTITUTIONS. 
BUT IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT THAT AMBIGUOUS OR OBSCURE ADJUDICATIONS BY
STATE COURTS DO NOT STAND AS BARRIERS TO A DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT
OF THE VALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF STATE ACTION. 
INTELLIGENT EXERCISE OF OUR APPELLATE POWERS COMPELS US TO ASK FOR THE
ELIMINATION OF THE OBSCURITIES AND AMBIGUITIES FROM THE OPINIONS IN
SUCH CASES.  ONLY THEN CAN WE ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT OUR JURISDICTION
TO REVIEW SHOULD BE INVOKED.  ONLY BY THAT PROCEDURE CAN THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRIKING DOWN OR UPHOLDING STATE LEGISLATION BE
FAIRLY PLACED.  FOR NO OTHER COURSE ASSURES THAT IMPORTANT FEDERAL
ISSUES, SUCH AS HAVE BEEN ARGUED HERE, WILL REACH THIS COURT FOR
ADJUDICATION; THAT STATE COURTS WILL NOT BE THE FINAL ARBITERS OF
IMPORTANT ISSUES UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; AND THAT WE WILL NOT
ENCROACH ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION OF THE STATES.  THIS IS NOT
A MERE TECHNICAL RULE NOR A RULE FOR OUR CONVENIENCE.  IT TOUCHES THE
DIVISION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN STATE COURTS AND THIS COURT AND IS OF
EQUAL IMPORTANCE TO EACH.  ONLY BY SUCH EXPLICITNESS CAN THE HIGHEST
COURTS OF THE STATES AND THIS COURT KEEP WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS. 

FOR THESE REASONS WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 
JUDGMENT VACATED. 

FN1  EXTRA SESS. L. 1933-1934, C. 16, SEC. 1.  RESPONDENTS ALSO PAID
UNDER PROTEST THAT PORTION OF THE CHAIN STORE TAX WHICH WAS BASED UPON
THE NUMBER OF STORES WITHIN THE STATE.  L. 1933, C. 213, SEC. 2(A). 
THAT ITEM OF THE COMPOSITE TAX WAS UPHELD BY THE LOWER COURT IN
MINNESOTA FROM WHICH NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN. 

THE GROSS SALES FEATURE OF THE 1933 CHAIN STORE TAX WAS ELIMINATED IN
1937.  EXTRA SESS. L. 1937, C. 93. 

FN2  205 MINN., P. 447.  THE COURT HERE CITED REED V. BJORNSON, 191
MINN. 254; 253 N.W. 102. 

FN3  THIS REFERENCE TO MINNESOTA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WAS LIMITED TO
THE FOLLOWING: 

"OUR CASES HOLD (AND THAT IS THE GENERAL RULE) THAT THE LEGISLATURE
'HAS A WIDE DISCRETION IN CLASSIFYING PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
TAXATION, BUT THE CLASSIFICATION MUST BE BASED ON DIFFERENCES WHICH
FURNISH A REASONABLE GROUND FOR MAKING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
SEVERAL CLASSES.  THE DIFFERENCES MUST NOT BE SO WANTING IN SUBSTANCE
THAT THE CLASSIFICATION RESULTS IN PERMITTING ONE TO ESCAPE A BURDEN
IMPOSED ON ANOTHER UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND
CONDITIONS.  THE RULE OF UNIFORMITY, ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION,
REQUIRES THAT ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED SHALL BE TREATED ALIKE.'  STATE V.
MINNESOTA FARMERS MUT. INS. CO., 145 MINN. 231, 234, 176 N.W. 756, 757;
STATE EX REL. MUDEKING V. PARR, 109 MINN. 147, 152, 123 N.W. 408, 134
A.S.R. 759; IN RE IMPROVEMENT OF THIRD STREET, 185 MINN. 170, 240 N.W.
355." 

FN4  STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS V. JACKSON, 283 U.S. 527; LOUIS
K. LIGGETT CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. 517; FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S.
87; GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412. 

FN5  205 MINN., P. 451. 

FN6  BY STATUTE THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO PREPARE THE SYLLABUS. 
MASON'S MINN. STATS. 1927, SEC. 134. 

FN7  SEE STATE V. HAUSER, 101 OHIO ST. 404, 407; 131 N.E. 66; HART V.
ANDREWS, 103 OHIO ST. 218, 221; 132 N.E. 846; THACKERY V. HELFRICH, 123
OHIO ST. 334, 336; 175 N.E. 449. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, DISSENTING:    I THINK THAT SOUND PRINCIPLE
GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF OUR JURISDICTION REQUIRES THE DISMISSAL OF
THE WRIT.  I SEE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
HELD THAT THE TAX IN QUESTION WAS LAID IN VIOLATION OF THE UNIFORMITY
CLAUSE OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  NOT ONLY IS THAT SHOWN, AS IT SEEMS
TO ME, FROM THE COURT'S DISCUSSION OF THAT QUESTION, BUT IT
CONCLUSIVELY APPEARS FROM THE SYLLABUS WHICH DEFINITELY STATES THAT THE
TAX IS "VIOLATIVE OF ART. 9, SEC. 1, OF OUR STATE CONSTITUTION."  205
MINN. 443; 286 N.W. 360.  MINNESOTA REQUIRES THAT IN ALL CASES DECIDED
BY THE SUPREME COURT IT SHALL GIVE ITS DECISION IN WRITING, "TOGETHER
WITH HEADNOTES, BRIEFLY STATING THE POINTS DECIDED."  MASON'S MINN.
STAT., SEC. 134.  IN OBEDIENCE TO THE STATUTE, THE COURT HAS THUS GIVEN
EXPLICITLY IN ITS SYLLABUS ITS OWN DELIBERATE CONSTRUCTION OF WHAT IT
HAS DECIDED. 

THE DECISION THUS RESTED UPON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LONG-ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 
FOX FILM CORP. V. MULLER, 296 U.S. 207, 210. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE RECORD LEAVES US IN UNCERTAINTY AS TO
WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DETERMINED BY THE STATE COURT.  HONEYMAN V.
HANAN, 300 U.S. 14, 23, 26; STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S.
511.  NOR HAVE THERE BEEN SUPERVENING CHANGES SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE
JUDGMENT.  GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO. V. DENNIS, 224 U.S. 503, 507;
PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600, 607.  I FIND NO WARRANT FOR
VACATING THE JUDGMENT ON EITHER OF THESE GROUNDS. 

THE FACT THAT PROVISIONS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS MAY
BE SIMILAR OR EVEN IDENTICAL DOES NOT JUSTIFY US IN DISTURBING A
JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT WHICH ADEQUATELY RESTS UPON ITS APPLICATION
OF THE PROVISION OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTION.  THAT THE STATE COURT MAY BE
INFLUENCED BY THE REASONING OF OUR OPINIONS MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.  THE
STATE COURT MAY BE PERSUADED BY MAJORITY OPINIONS IN THIS COURT OR IT
MAY PREFER THE REASONING OF DISSENTING JUDGES, BUT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
STATE COURT UPON THE APPLICATION OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTION REMAINS A
JUDGMENT WHICH WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW.  WHETHER IN THIS
CASE WE THOUGHT THAT THE STATE TAX WAS REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION OR CONSISTENT WITH IT, THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT
THAT THE TAX VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION WOULD STILL STAND.  IT
CANNOT BE SUPPOSED THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA IS NOT FULLY
CONSCIOUS OF ITS INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUE THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE STATE, WHATEVER REASONS IT MAY ADDUCE IN SO DOING.  AS THE
MINNESOTA COURT SAID IN REED V. BJORNSON, 191 MINN. 254, 257; 253 N.W.
102, 104, AFTER REFERRING TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, "OUR INTERPRETATION OF OUR OWN CONSTITUTION IS OF COURSE
FINAL." 

THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE IS DIRECTLY WITHIN OUR RECENT AND
UNANIMOUS RULING IN NEW YORK CITY V. CENTRAL SAVINGS BANK, 306 U.S.
661.  IN THAT CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK HAD DECIDED THAT A
STATE STATUTE WAS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION, THAT CLAUSE BEING THE SAME AS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH THE COURT HELD HAD ALSO BEEN VIOLATED. 
280 N.Y. 9, 10; 19 N.E.2D 659.  WE DECLINED JURISDICTION UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT IN APPLYING THE STATE
CONSTITUTION RESTED UPON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND, DESPITE THE
RELIANCE UPON OUR DECISIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :


















TRADESMENS BANK V. TAX COMM'N, 309 U.S. 560 


NO. 596.  SUBMITTED MARCH 6, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 25, 1940.  - 185
OKLA. 656 - 95 P.2D 121, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY AUTHORIZE STATE TAXATION OF THE
FRANCHISES OF NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS.  P. 564. 

2.  R.S. SEC. 5219, AS AMENDED MARCH 25, 1926, AUTHORIZES STATE
TAXATION OF NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS - IN ADDITION TO OTHER
METHODS THERETOFORE AUTHORIZED - "ACCORDING TO OR MEASURED BY THEIR NET
INCOME," INCLUDING "THE ENTIRE NET INCOME RECEIVED FROM ALL SOURCES,"
SUBJECT ONLY TO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AS TO THE RATE.  AS AMENDED IN
1935, AN OKLAHOMA STATUTE IMPOSING ON SUCH ASSOCIATIONS A TAX MEASURED
BY NET INCOME, CONTAINED A PROVISION EXPRESSLY INCLUDING IN GROSS
INCOME (FROM WHICH THE NET INCOME WAS COMPUTED) INTEREST FROM TAX
EXEMPT FEDERAL SECURITIES, WHICH THERETOFORE HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY
EXCLUDED.  HELD, A TAX UNDER THE OKLAHOMA STATUTE, THE MEASURE OF WHICH
INCLUDED DIVIDENDS ON FEDERAL RESERVE BANK STOCK AND INTEREST ON TAX
EXEMPT FEDERAL SECURITIES, WAS AUTHORIZED BY R.S. SEC. 5219, AND
VALID.  P. 565. 

3.  THAT THE OKLAHOMA STATUTE, IN PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTING TAXES ON
NET INCOME OF CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS,
EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES INTEREST FROM TAX-EXEMPT FEDERAL SECURITIES, DOES
NOT RENDER IT VIOLATIVE OF THE RESTRICTION IN R.S. SEC. 5219 THAT "THE
RATE SHALL NOT BE HIGHER THAN  ...  THE HIGHEST OF THE RATES  ...
ASSESSED UPON MERCANTILE, MANUFACTURING, AND BUSINESS CORPORATIONS
DOING BUSINESS" WITHIN THE STATE, WHERE, CONSIDERING THE STATE'S TAX
STRUCTURE AS A WHOLE, NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATIONS RESULTS.  P. 567. 

THAT A FEW INDIVIDUAL CORPORATIONS, OUT OF A CLASS OF SEVERAL
THOUSAND WHICH ORDINARILY BEAR THE SAME OR A HEAVIER TAX BURDEN, MAY
SUSTAIN A LIGHTER TAX THAN THAT IMPOSED ON NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATIONS, IS NOT PROOF OF DISCRIMINATION. 

4.  THE RESTRICTIONS PLACED BY R.S. SEC. 5219 ON THE PERMITTED
METHODS OF TAXATION ARE DIRECTED AT SYSTEMS OF STATE TAXATION WHICH IN
PRACTICAL OPERATION DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS
OR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS AS A CLASS.  P. 567. 

TRADESMENS NATIONAL BANK OF OKLAHOMA CITY V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT DENYING RECOVERY OF TAXES
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY EXACTED. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE FROM A JUDGMENT
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA, DENYING RECOVERY OF TAXES ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN EXACTED FROM APPELLANT, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, IN
VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF R.S. 5219 AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

ART. 6,  FN1  LAYS A TAX UPON EVERY NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION
LOCATED OR DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE "ACCORDING TO, OR MEASURED
BY, ITS NET INCOME" AT THE RATE OF SIX PER CENTUM.  SECTION 17 PROVIDES
FOR A SIMILAR TAX UPON STATE BANKS AND MORRIS PLAN COMPANIES. 

THE NET INCOME USED AS THE MEASURE OF THE TAX UNDER SECS. 16 AND 17
IS DETERMINED BY SUBTRACTING FROM GROSS INCOME, AS DEFINED IN SEC. 18,
CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SEC. 9.  SECTION 18 DEFINES GROSS INCOME
FOR THE PURPOSES OF "NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS, STATE BANKS, TRUST
COMPANIES AND OTHER FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS," SEC. 8(C).  IT
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES IN GROSS INCOME "INTEREST UPON THE OBLIGATIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR ITS POSSESSIONS, OR UPON SECURITIES ISSUED UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE INCOME FROM WHICH IS TAX
FREE." 

ALL OTHER TYPES OF CORPORATIONS ARE TAXED AT THE FLAT RATE OF SIX PER
CENTUM UPON THE NET INCOME ALLOCABLE TO BUSINESS TRANSACTED WITHIN THE
STATE, SEC. 6.  NET INCOME FOR THIS PURPOSE IS DETERMINED BY MAKING
CERTAIN SPECIFIED DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME, SECS. 7, 9, WHICH IS
DEFINED EXPRESSLY SO AS TO EXCLUDE INTEREST ON TAX-IMMUNE FEDERAL
SECURITIES, SEC. 8(B)(4). 

THE APPELLEE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, IN ASSESSING APPELLANT'S TAX
FOR THE YEAR 1936 UNDER SEC. 16, INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME THE DIVIDENDS
RECEIVED BY APPELLANT ON STOCK OWNED BY IT IN A FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
AND THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON BONDS AND NOTES ISSUED PURSUANT TO ACTS OF
CONGRESS DECLARING THE INCOME FROM SUCH SECURITIES TAX EXEMPT.  FN2
THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY APPELLANT TO RECOVER THAT PORTION OF
THE TAX, PAID UNDER PROTEST, WHICH RESULTED FROM INCLUDING SUCH
DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST IN THE COMPUTATION. 

R.S. 5219, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 548, COPIED IN THE MARGIN,  FN3  AUTHORIZES
FOUR ALTERNATIVE METHODS WHEREBY A STATE MAY IMPOSE A TAX ON NATIONAL
BANKING ASSOCIATIONS LOCATED WITHIN ITS LIMITS.  METHOD NUMBERED (4)
PROVIDES FOR A TAX ON SUCH ASSOCIATIONS "ACCORDING TO, OR MEASURED BY"
"THE ENTIRE NET INCOME RECEIVED FROM ALL SOURCES" SUBJECT ONLY TO
CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AS TO THE RATE.  THIS METHOD WAS ADDED TO THE
THREE PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED UNDER R.S. 5219 BY AN AMENDMENT OF MARCH
25, 1926, C. 88, 44 STAT. 223.  THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE AMENDMENT IS
CONFIRMED BY ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWING BEYOND DOUBT THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO AUTHORIZE A FRANCHISE TAX MEASURED BY NET INCOME INCLUDING
INTEREST ON TAX-IMMUNE FEDERAL SECURITIES.  FN4 

OKLAHOMA IN THE 1935 ACT EXPRESSLY FOLLOWED AND ADOPTED THE METHOD
THUS AUTHORIZED IN THE AMENDMENT.  SEE FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. OKLAHOMA
TAX COMMISSION, 185 OKLA. 98; 90 P.2D 438.  SUBSECTION (B) OF SEC. 16
EXPRESSLY DECLARES THAT THE STATE THEREBY ADOPTS METHOD NUMBERED (4)
AUTHORIZED BY R.S. 5219, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 548. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE A STATE TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE
FRANCHISE OF A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION CAN NOT NOW BE DOUBTED. 
VAN ALLEN V. ASSESSORS, 3 WALL.  573.  COMPARE KEIFER & KEIFER V.
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306 U.S. 381, 389; HELVERING V. GERHARDT,
304 U.S. 405, 411-412N; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229, 234
235.  ANY IMMUNITY ATTACHING TO THE FRANCHISE BY VIRTUE OF R.S. 5219 AS
IT READ PRIOR TO THE 1926 AMENDMENT, COMPARE PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS'
LOAN CORP., 308 U.S. 21, COULD BE WITHDRAWN BY CONGRESS AND THE
FRANCHISE SUBJECTED TO STATE TAXING POWER, JUST AS NATIONAL BANK SHARES
WERE SO SUBJECTED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 3, 1864.  VAN ALLEN V. ASSESSORS,
3 WALL.  573.  SEE DES MOINES NATIONAL BANK V. FAIRWEATHER, 263 U.S.
103; PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 260 U.S. 702. 

THE POWER OF A STATE TO LEVY A TAX ON A LEGITIMATE SUBJECT, SUCH AS A
FRANCHISE, MEASURED BY NET ASSETS OR NET INCOME INCLUDING TAX-EXEMPT
FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES OR THEIR INCOME IS LIKEWISE WELL SETTLED. 
SOCIETY FOR SAVINGS V. COITE, 6 WALL.  594; PROVIDENT INSTITUTION V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 6 WALL.  611; HOME INSURANCE CO. V. NEW YORK, 134 U.S.
594; EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379.  THUS STATE LAWS
TAXING THE SHAREHOLDERS OF NATIONAL BANKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.S. 5219
ON THE FULL NET VALUE OF THEIR SHARES, ALTHOUGH THE BANKS OWNED TAX
EXEMPT FEDERAL SECURITIES, HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY UPHELD.  DES MOINES
NATIONAL BANK V. FAIRWEATHER, 263 U.S. 103; PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK V.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 260 U.S. 702; VAN ALLEN V. ASSESSORS, 3 WALL. 
573.  THE RULE THAT A TAX UPON A LEGITIMATE SUBJECT, MEASURED BY NET
INCOME, INCLUDING THAT FROM TAX-IMMUNE FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES, IS
NOT AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE IMMUNITY, WAS AFFIRMED IN FLINT V. STONE
TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 147, 165, AND FOLLOWED IN EDUCATIONAL FILMS
CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379.  COMPARE PACIFIC CO. V. JOHNSON, 285 U.S.
480, 490.  THE TAX-IMMUNITY CONFERRED ON THE SECURITIES OWNED BY
APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE ANY GREATER IN EXTENT THAN THAT
CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL SECURITIES INCLUDED IN THE MEASURE OF THE
TAXES SUSTAINED IN THE CITED CASES. 

IDENTICAL WITH THE CORRESPONDING SECTIONS OF THE 1935 ACT, BUT SEC. 18
OF THE PRIOR ACT CONTAINED A PROVISION EXPRESSLY EXCLUDING FROM GROSS
INCOME THE INTEREST ON TAX-IMMUNE FEDERAL SECURITIES. 

APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE ACT OF 1935, BY EXPRESSLY INCLUDING IN
THE MEASURE OF THE TAX THE INTEREST ON FEDERAL SECURITIES WHICH BEFORE
HAD BEEN EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM THE MEASURE, MUST BE REGARDED NOT AS A
VALID FRANCHISE TAX BUT AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEVY ON THE TAX-IMMUNE
INCOME ITSELF.  IN SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION, ITS MAIN RELIANCE IS PLACED
UPON OUR DECISION IN MACALLEN V. MASSACHUSETTS, 279 U.S. 620. 

A SIMILAR CONTENTION WAS URGED AGAINST THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX
MEASURED BY NET INCOME, INCLUDING TAX-EXEMPT INCOME ON STATE BONDS,
WHICH WAS UPHELD IN PACIFIC CO. V. JOHNSON, 285 U.S. 480.  IN REJECTING
THE CLAIM, THE HOLDING IN THE MACALLEN CASE WAS REFERRED TO AS FOLLOWS
(285 U.S. AT 494):  "THERE THE COMMONWEALTH, WHICH HAD LONG IMPOSED A
TAX ON CORPORATE FRANCHISES MEASURED BY TAXABLE INCOME OF THE
CORPORATION, AMENDED ITS STATUTES SO AS TO ADD THE INCOME FROM TAX
EXEMPT BONDS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO THE MEASURE OF THE TAX.  IT
WAS HELD THAT THIS CHANGE OF TAXATION POLICY, EMBODIED IN THE STATUTE
AND 'ADOPTED AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN SO DECLARED IN PRECISE WORDS FOR THE
VERY PURPOSE OF SUBJECTING THESE SECURITIES PRO TANTO TO THE BURDEN OF
THE TAX,' WAS INVALID.  THUS THE LEGISLATIVE ABANDONMENT OF A POLICY
WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCRIMINATED IN FAVOR OF TAX-EXEMPT SECURITIES
WAS TREATED AS A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM, AND THE TAX, ALTHOUGH IN
FACT NON-DISCRIMINATORY, WAS CONDEMNED AS ANALOGOUS TO THE
DISCRIMINATORY TAX HELD INVALID IN THE MILLER CASE (MILLER V.
MILWAUKEE, 272 U.S. 713)."  SEE ALSO EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD,
282 U.S. 379, 392-393. 

IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE OKLAHOMA TAX IN QUESTION HERE WAS AIMED AT
TAX-EXEMPT FEDERAL SECURITIES IN THE MANNER THUS DISCLOSED AND
CONDEMNED IN THE MACALLEN CASE.  THE HISTORY OF THE OKLAHOMA
LEGISLATION ON THIS SUBJECT DISCLOSES ONLY THAT IT SOUGHT TO CHANGE ITS
POLICY PURSUANT TO THE EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION CONFERRED BY R.S. 5219. 
IT HAS EFFECTED ITS PURPOSE BY INCLUDING WITHIN THE MEASURE OF ITS
FRANCHISE TAX ON NATIONAL BANKS THE ENTIRE NET INCOME WITHOUT RESPECT
TO SOURCE AND WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TAX-EXEMPT FEDERAL
SECURITIES.  SEE FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, 185
OKLA. 98; 90 P.2D 438. 

WE DO NOT NOW DECIDE JUST WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, WOULD BRING A
SITUATION WITHIN THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THE MACALLEN CASE, ASSUMING THAT
CASE STILL HAS VITALITY.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO HOLD, AS WE DO, THAT THE
STATUTE IN THE INSTANT CASE MEETS THE TEST STATED IN PACIFIC CO. V.
JOHNSON, VIZ: "SINCE THE MERE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO DO THAT
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS CANNOT DEPRIVE LEGISLATION OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY,  ...  THE PRESENT ACT MUST BE JUDGED BY ITS
OPERATION RATHER THAN BY THE MOTIVES WHICH INSPIRED IT.  AS IT OPERATES
TO MEASURE THE TAX ON THE CORPORATE FRANCHISE BY THE ENTIRE NET INCOME
OF THE CORPORATION, WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN INCOME WHICH IS
EXEMPT AND THAT WHICH IS NOT, THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT OF ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY." 

APPELLANT FINALLY CONTENDS THAT THE TAX HERE IN QUESTION VIOLATES THE
RESTRICTION IN R.S. 5219 THAT "THE RATE SHALL NOT BE HIGHER THAN  ...
THE HIGHEST OF THE RATES  ...  ASSESSED UPON MERCANTILE, MANUFACTURING,
AND BUSINESS CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS" WITHIN THE STATE.  FN5 

A CONSIDERATION OF THE COURSE OF JUDICIAL DECISION ON R.S. 5219 AND
ITS PREDECESSORS CAN LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE VARIOUS RESTRICTIONS IT
PLACES ON THE PERMITTED METHODS OF TAXATION ARE DESIGNED TO PROHIBIT
ONLY THOSE SYSTEMS OF STATE TAXATION WHICH DISCRIMINATE IN PRACTICAL
OPERATION AGAINST NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS OR THEIR SHAREHOLDERS
AS A CLASS.  COMPARE FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. HARTFORD, 273 U.S. 548;
AMOSKEAG SAVINGS BANK V. PURDY, 231 U.S. 373; COVINGTON V. FIRST
NATIONAL BANK, 198 U.S. 100; LIONBERGER V. ROUSE, 9 WALL.  468.  THUS
IT IS NOT A VALID OBJECTION TO A TAX ON NATIONAL BANK SHARES THAT OTHER
MONEYED CAPITAL IN THE STATE OR SHARES OF STATE BANKS ARE TAXED AT A
DIFFERENT RATE OR ASSESSED BY A DIFFERENT METHOD UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT
THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT RESULTS IN FACT IN A DISCRIMINATION
UNFAVORABLE TO THE HOLDERS OF THE SHARES OF NATIONAL BANKS.  AMOSKEAG
SAVINGS BANK V. PURDY, 231 U.S. 373; COVINGTON V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK,
198 U.S. 100.  FN6  WE THINK THE SAME PURPOSE TO PREVENT ACTUAL
DISCRIMINATION BUT TO ALLOW THE STATES CONSIDERABLE FREEDOM IN WORKING
OUT AN EQUITABLE TAX SYSTEM IS DISCERNABLE IN THE PARTICULAR
RESTRICTION UPON WHICH APPELLANT RELIES. 

THE RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE RAISED BY APPELLANT THUS TURNS UPON AN
EXAMINATION OF THE WHOLE TAX STRUCTURE OF THE STATE.  COUNSEL HAVE
STIPULATED THAT SIX THOUSAND BUSINESS AND MERCANTILE CORPORATIONS, IN
ADDITION TO PAYING THE INCOME TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 6 ON SIX PER CENTUM
OF THEIR NET INCOME, FILED A CORPORATION LICENSE TAX RETURN FOR THE
YEAR 1936 AND PAID A TAX BASED ON ONE DOLLAR PER ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS
OF THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL STOCK EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE, AND THAT
THE GOVERNMENT BONDS HELD BY EACH WERE INCLUDED AS CAPITAL IN THE
MEASURE OF THE FRANCHISE TAX.  THEY FURTHER STIPULATED THAT ONLY THIRTY
SEVEN OF THESE SIX THOUSAND CORPORATIONS OWNED GOVERNMENT BONDS AND
THAT, IN THE CASE OF ALL BUT THREE, THE FRANCHISE TAXES PAID EXCEEDED
THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE UNDER THE INCOME TAX
IMPOSED BY SEC. 6 HAD THEIR GROSS INCOME, CONTRARY TO THE FACT,
INCLUDED THE INTEREST DERIVED FROM THE BONDS.  IN ADDITION TO THE
FOREGOING TAXES, SO IT IS STIPULATED, EACH OF THESE CORPORATIONS PAID
AN AD VALOREM TAX ON ITS MONEYED CAPITAL. 

THIS BRIEF SURVEY SUFFICES TO SHOW THAT, CONSIDERING ALL THE TAXES
IMPOSED UPON BUSINESS AND MERCANTILE CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS IN THE
STATE, THE SCHEME OF TAXATION ADOPTED BY OKLAHOMA DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS.  DISCRIMINATION IS NOT SHOWN
MERELY BECAUSE A FEW INDIVIDUAL CORPORATIONS, OUT OF A CLASS OF SEVERAL
THOUSAND WHICH ORDINARILY BEAR THE SAME OR A HEAVIER TAX BURDEN, MAY
SUSTAIN A LIGHTER TAX THAN THAT IMPOSED ON NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATIONS.  COMPARE AMOSKEAG SAVINGS BANK V. PURDY, 231 U.S. 373, AT
393; LIONBERGER V. ROUSE, 9 WALL.  468.  JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
ESTABLISHED POLICY OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SUBJECT, THE 1935
OKLAHOMA TAXING STATUTE CANNOT BE HELD TO VIOLATE THE PROVISIONS OF
R.S. 5219. 

THE OTHER CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND
FOUND TO BE WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TEXT OF SEC. 16 READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  IN LIEU OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTION 6, EVERY NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATION LOCATED OR DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA, SHALL ANNUALLY, PAY TO THIS STATE, A TAX ACCORDING TO, OR
MEASURED BY, ITS NET INCOME, TO BE COMPUTED IN THE MANNER HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED, AT THE FOLLOWING RATES UPON THE BASIS OF ITS ENTIRE NET
INCOME FOR THE NEXT PRECEDING FISCAL OR CALENDAR YEAR: 

"SIX (6%) PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT OF THE NET INCOME AS HEREIN
PROVIDED. 

"(B)  THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA IS HEREBY ADOPTING METHOD NUMBERED (4),
AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 5219, U.S. REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED.  THE TAX
IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL TAXES
IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, OR ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF, ON THE
PROPERTY OF ANY ASSOCIATION LIABLE TO TAX HEREUNDER; PROVIDED, THAT
NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO EXEMPT THE REAL PROPERTY
OF NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS FROM TAXATION TO THE SAME EXTENT,
ACCORDING TO ITS VALUE, AS OTHER REAL PROPERTY IS TAXED."           .
 .         .         .         . 

FN2  THE STIPULATION OF FACTS SHOWS THAT THE INTEREST USED IN THE
COMPUTATION OF THE TAX WAS DERIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF
SECURITIES:  U.S. TREASURY NOTES; U.S. TREASURY BONDS; BONDS OF THE
FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT; JOINT STOCK LAND BANK BONDS; HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORPORATION BONDS; AND FEDERAL LAND BANK BONDS. 

FN3  "THE LEGISLATURE OF EACH STATE MAY DETERMINE AND DIRECT, SUBJECT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE MANNER AND PLACE OF TAXING ALL
THE SHARES OF NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS LOCATED WITHIN ITS LIMITS. 
THE SEVERAL STATES MAY (1) TAX SAID SHARES, OR (2) INCLUDE DIVIDENDS
DERIVED THEREFROM IN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF AN OWNER OR HOLDER THEREOF,
OR (3) TAX SUCH ASSOCIATIONS ON THEIR NET INCOME, OR (4) ACCORDING TO
OR MEASURED BY THEIR NET INCOME, PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE
COMPLIED WITH: 

"1. (A)  THE IMPOSITION BY ANY STATE OF ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE FOUR
FORMS OF TAXATION SHALL BE IN LIEU OF THE OTHERS, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (C) OF THIS CLAUSE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  IN CASE OF A TAX ON OR ACCORDING TO OR MEASURED BY THE NET
INCOME OF AN ASSOCIATION, THE TAXING STATE MAY, EXCEPT IN CASE OF A TAX
ON NET INCOME, INCLUDE THE ENTIRE NET INCOME RECEIVED FROM ALL SOURCES,
BUT THE RATE SHALL NOT BE HIGHER THAN THE RATE ASSESSED UPON OTHER
FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS NOR HIGHER THAN THE HIGHEST OF THE RATES
ASSESSED BY THE TAXING STATE UPON MERCANTILE, MANUFACTURING, AND
BUSINESS CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN ITS LIMITS: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"3.  NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO EXEMPT THE REAL PROPERTY OF
ASSOCIATIONS FROM TAXATION IN ANY STATE OR IN ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF,
TO THE SAME EXTENT, ACCORDING TO ITS VALUE, AS OTHER REAL PROPERTY IS
TAXED." 

FN4  67 CONG. REC. 5760-5762, 5822-5823, 6082-6089. 

FN5  NO CLAIM IS MADE THAT STATE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS RECEIVE MORE
FAVORABLE TREATMENT THAN NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS.  SECTIONS 17,
18 AND 8(C) SHOW THAT THE TAX IMPOSED ON SUCH STATE INSTITUTIONS IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF THE TAX LEVIED BY SEC. 16 ON NATIONAL BANKS. 

FN6  SEE ALSO DAVENPORT BANK V. DAVENPORT BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 123
U.S. 83; MERCANTILE BANK V. NEW YORK, 121 U.S. 138; DES MOINES V.
FAIRWEATHER, 263 U.S. 103. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :













PARAMINO CO. V. MARSHALL, 309 U.S. 370 


NO. 271.  ARGUED JANUARY 30, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 11, 1940.  - 27
F.SUPP.  823, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A PRIVATE ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH, AFTER AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION
FOR DISABILITY MADE BY A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S &
HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT HAD BECOME FINAL BY EXPIRATION OF THE
TIME FOR REVIEW, AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION
COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE ORDER AND ISSUE A NEW ONE, WHEREUPON THERE WAS
AWARDED ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR DISABILITY CONTINUING BEYOND THE
DATE AS OF WHICH BY THE PRIOR ORDER IT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE TERMINATED,
HELD, AS TO THE EMPLOYER AND INSURANCE CARRIER, NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 374, 378. 

2.  THE ACT WAS VALIDLY ENACTED BY CONGRESS TO CURE A DEFECT IN
ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPED IN THE HANDLING OF A CLAIM COMPENSABLE UNDER
THE LONGSHOREMEN'S & HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.  P. 379. 

3.  THE ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS OF PRIVATE ACTS, EXCEPT BILLS OF
ATTAINDER AND GRANTS OF NOBILITY, IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 380. 

4.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT SHOULD BE READ INTO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, AND THAT THE ACT DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION, IS REJECTED.  PP.
379-380. 

5.  THE ACT IS NOT INVALID AS AN ENCROACHMENT BY CONGRESS ON THE
JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  P. 381. 

PARAMINO LUMBER CO. ET AL. V. MARSHALL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES UPHOLDING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A SPECIAL ACT OF CONGRESS AND DISMISSING
LIBELS IN TWO CASES CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING. 

THE ACT GRANTS TO CLARK SPECIAL PRIVILEGES NOT ACCORDED TO OTHER
LONGSHOREMEN SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND DENIES TO APPELLANTS THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

DUE PROCESS HAS THE SAME MEANING IN THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS.  TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 100, 101; UNITED
STATES V. ARMSTRONG, 265 F. 683, 690; HEINER V. DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312,
326; BARTLETT TRUST CO. V. ELLIOTT, 30 F.2D 700, 701; HIBBEN V. SMITH,
191 U.S. 310, 325. 

DUE PROCESS REQUIRES EQUAL TREATMENT OF ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, AND PROTECTS AGAINST ARBITRARY CLASSIFICATION AND
DISCRIMINATION BY CONGRESS.  HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516, 535,
536; UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. YOUNT, 267 F.
861, 863; LEEPER V. TEXAS, 139 U.S. 462; GIOZZA V. TIERNAN, 148 U.S.
657, 662; BANK OF COLUMBIA V. OKELEY, 4 WH. 235, 244; CALDWELL V.
TEXAS, 137 U.S. 692, 697; SOUTHERN BELL T. & T. CO. V. CALHOUN, 287 F.
381, 384; UNITED STATES V. BALLARD, 12 F.SUPP.  321, 326; WALLACE V.
CURRIN, 95 F.2D 856, 867; PRYOR V. WESTERN PAVING CO., 184 P. 88, 90;
VANZANT V. WADDEL, 2 YERG.  260, 269, 270; SIMS V. RIVES, 84 F.2D 871,
878; SEE, ALSO, MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581; BARCLAY V. EDWARDS, 267
U.S. 442, 450.  CF. TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 331, 332. 

THE DUE PROCESS PROVISION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS BROAD ENOUGH IN
ITS SCOPE AND PURPOSE TO INCLUDE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WILLOUGHBY ON THE
CONSTITUTION, 2D ED., (1929) PP. 1928, 1929; STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION,
5TH ED., (1891) PP. 705, 706. 

THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS HOWEVER BENEFICENT ITS PURPOSE. 

THE COMPENSATION AWARD WAS A FINAL ADJUDICATION VESTING PROPERTY
RIGHTS.  A VALID, FINAL JUDGMENT VESTS PROPERTY RIGHTS NOT ALTERABLE BY
SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION. 

UNITED STATES V. PETERS, 5 CRANCH 115, 136; MCCULLOUGH V. VIRGINIA,
172 U.S. 102, 125; MEMPHIS V. UNITED STATES, 97 U.S. 293, 297; HOYT
METAL CO. V. ATWOOD, 289 F. 453, 454, 455; GILMAN V. TUCKER, 28 N.E.
1040. 

A COMPENSATION ORDER UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT IS A FINAL
DETERMINATION OF "PRIVATE RIGHT, THAT IS, OF THE LIABILITY OF ONE
INDIVIDUAL TO ANOTHER UNDER THE LAW AS DEFINED."  CROWELL V. BENSON,
285 U.S. 22, 51.  AN AWARD EMBODIES THE LIABILITY IMPOSED BY THE ACT;
AND THE DUTY TO ABIDE BY IT IS JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE. 

SUBJECT ONLY TO THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW AND MODIFICATION,
AN AWARD IS A FINAL DETERMINATION OF ALL QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE
LITIGATION AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES FIXED THEREIN ARE
UNALTERABLE.  SHUGARD V. HOAGE, 89 F.2D 796; MILLE V. MCMANIGAL, 69
F.2D 644; ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORP. V. MARSHALL, 71 F.2D 235; CAMPBELL
V. LOWE, 10 F.SUPP.  288; DIDIER V. CRESCENT WHARF & WAREHOUSE CO., 15
F.SUPP.  91; GLOBE STEVEDORING CO. V. PETERS, 57 F.2D 256; BULCZAK V.
INDEPENDENT PIER CO., 17 F.SUPP.  973; UNITED FRUIT CO. V. PILLSBURY,
55 F.2D 369.  SEE, ALSO, TWINE V. LOCKE, 68 F.2D 712. 

IN WILLIAMS V. NORRIS, 12 WH. 117, THE PRIVATE ACT WAS REMEDIAL
ONLY. 

ASSUMING THAT THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO FILE A CLAIM FOR THE REOPENING
OF AN AWARD AND FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IS IN THE NATURE OF A
CONTINUING CAUSE OF ACTION (COMPARE MATTSON V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
INDUSTRIES, 293 U.S. 151), THE TIME LIMITATION IS INSEPARABLE FROM THE
RIGHT.  YOUNG V. HOAGE, 90 F.2D 395; AYERS V. PARKER, 15 F.SUPP.  447;
KOBILKIN V. PILLSBURY, 103 F.2D 667. 

THE LAPSE OF THE TIME LIMIT ON SUCH STATUTORY CAUSES OF ACTION NOT
ONLY BARS THE REMEDY BUT DESTROYS THE LIABILITY AS WELL, AND AN ACT OF
THE LEGISLATURE REVIVING THEM CONSTITUTES A DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  DANZER & CO. V. GULF & SHIP ISLAND R. CO.,
268 U.S. 633; PENINSULA PRODUCE EXCHANGE V. NEW YORK, P. & N.R. CO.,
137 A. 350; AFF'D 276 U.S. 599.  SEE, ALSO, NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V.
LAZARUS, 278 F. 900, 904; WENATCHEE PRODUCE CO. V. GREAT NORTHERN RY.
CO., 271 F. 784, 785. 

THE ACT ATTEMPTS TO CREATE A NEW SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CLARK AND IS NOT MERELY AN AMENDMENT TO THE LONGSHOREMEN'S ACT. 

ALTHOUGH RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF A STATUTE IN AND OF ITSELF
AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR INVALIDATING IT, THE VICE OF THIS ACT IS ITS
ATTEMPT TO ATTACH TO CLOSED TRANSACTIONS NEW LIABILITIES AND
OBLIGATIONS.  WEBSTER V. COOPER, 14 HOW.  488; BARNITZ V. BEVERLY, 163
U.S. 118; BRADLEY V. LIGHTCAP, 195 U.S. 1; ETTOR V. TACOMA, 288 U.S.
148; OCHOA V. HERNANDEZ Y MORALES, 230 U.S. 139.  SEE, ALSO, DASH V.
VAN KLEEK, 7 JOHNS.  477.  PROPERTY RIGHTS VESTED UNDER EXISTING
STATUTES MAY NOT BE DESTROYED BY REPEAL THEREOF.  UNITED STATES V.
KENDALL, 263 F. 126; ARNOLD & MURDOCK CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 145
N.E. 342; DOW V. NORRIS, 4 N.H. 16. 

A FURTHER INFIRMITY IS THAT THE ACT ARBITRARILY TAKES PROPERTY FROM
ONE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND GIVES IT TO ANOTHER.  MISSOURI PACIFIC R.
CO. V. NEBRASKA, 164 U.S. 403; RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R.
CO., 295 U.S. 330; DUNCAN & CO. V. WALLACE, 21 F.SUPP.  295, 308. 

THE ACT IS AN ATTEMPTED USURPATION BY CONGRESS OF JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS.  IT IS JUDICIAL IN NATURE AND AUTHORIZES A READJUDICATION
BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARISING OUT OF PAST
TRANSACTIONS. 

LEGISLATIVE GRANT OF A NEW TRIAL, REHEARING OR FURTHER DETERMINATION
IN A CAUSE WHICH HAS PROCEEDED TO FINAL ADJUDICATION UNDER EXISTING
STATUTES IS AN ATTEMPTED EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER.  MERRILL V.
SHERBURNE, 1 N.H. 199; PETITION OF SIBLERUD, 182 N.W. 168, 169; UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 V. FOSTER LUMBER CO., 286 P. 774, 775; POCONO
PINES HOTELS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 73 CT. CLS. 447, 499; SEE, ALSO,
CASIERI'S CASE, 190 N.E. 118; ROLES SHINGLE CO. V. BERGERSON, 19 P.2D
94.  CONGRESS POSSESSES NO JUDICIAL POWER.  KILBOURN V. THOMPSON, 103
U.S. 168. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
IS VIOLATED BY A PRIVATE ACT OF CONGRESS DIRECTING A REVIEW OF AN ORDER
FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT  FN1  AFTER THERE HAD BEEN A FINAL AWARD BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER AND AFTER THE TIME FOR REVIEW OF THE AWARD HAD EXPIRED. 

ON JANUARY 17, 1931, THE APPELLEE CLARK FELL AND FRACTURED A RIB
WHILE WORKING ON THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AS A
LONGSHOREMAN FOR THE APPELLANT PARAMINO LUMBER COMPANY.  THE OTHER
APPELLANT, THE UNION INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANTON, LTD., IS THE
INSURANCE CARRIER OF THE LUMBER COMPANY UNDER THE COMPENSATION ACT. 
THE FALL HAVING DISABLED CLARK, THE APPELLANTS VOLUNTARILY PAID HIM
COMPENSATION.  THEN, ON CLARK'S APPLICATION, HEARINGS WERE HAD UNDER
THE COMPENSATION ACT WHICH RESULTED IN A DETERMINATION ON AUGUST 26,
1931, BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THAT CLARK HAD BEEN WHOLLY DISABLED
FROM THE DATE OF HIS FALL TO JULY 4, 1931, THAT ON THE LATTER DATE HE
HAD RECOVERED FROM THE DISABILITY, AND THAT HE HAD BEEN PAID BY
APPELLANTS ALL THE COMPENSATION DUE HIM.  NO PROCEEDINGS BEING BROUGHT
TO REVIEW THIS AWARD, IT BECAME FINAL IN THIRTY DAYS.  FN2  ALMOST FIVE
YEARS LATER, THE CONGRESS PASSED A PRIVATE ACT ORDERING THE
COMPENSATION COMMISSION TO REVIEW CLARK'S CASE AND TO ISSUE A NEW
ORDER, THE PROVISIONS IN THE COMPENSATION ACT LIMITING TIME FOR
REVIEWING AWARDS "TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  FN3  THE
INFORMATION WHICH LED THE HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES ON CLAIMS TO
RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF THE ACT FN4  INDICATED THAT CLARK HAD FIRST BEEN
TREATED BY HIS EMPLOYER'S PHYSICIAN WHO OPERATED ON HIS TWELFTH RIB AND
REPORTED THAT AN EXAMINATION OF THE ELEVENTH RIB SHOWED A FIRM UNION AT
THE SITE OF THE FRACTURE OF THAT RIB.  ON THE BASIS OF THIS REPORT THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CONCLUDED THAT CLARK HAD RECOVERED AND TERMINATED
HIS COMPENSATION.  BUT CLARK'S PAIN CONTINUED, AND WITHIN FOUR MONTHS
OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S ORDER X-RAYS TAKEN BY OTHER PHYSICIANS
DISCLOSED THAT THE FRACTURE OF THE ELEVENTH RIB WAS UNUNITED, AND IN
ORDER TO GIVE CLARK RELIEF AN OPERATION FUSING THE BONE FRAGMENTS HAD
TO BE PERFORMED.  AFTER THIS THE RIB HEALED, BUT IN MARCH, 1935, THE
PHYSICIAN WHO PERFORMED THE SECOND OPERATION REPORTED THAT CLARK WAS
STILL EXPERIENCING PAIN IN THE REGION OF HIS INJURY.  SINCE THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE AFTER HE MADE HIS ORDER,
AND SINCE THE TIME FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW EXPIRED PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE
OPERATION ON THE ELEVENTH RIB, CLARK HAD NO OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE ACT
TO HAVE HIS COMPENSATION READJUSTED.  FN5 

AFTER AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT BY APPELLANTS TO ENJOIN A HEARING UNDER
THE PRIVATE ACT,  FN6  A HEARING WAS HAD AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
ISSUED A NEW AWARD GRANTING CLARK COMPENSATION FOR TOTAL DISABILITY
FROM THE DATE OF THE PRIOR AWARD, JULY 4, 1931, TO JANUARY 5, 1939. 
APPELLANTS BROUGHT TWO ACTIONS AGAINST CLARK AND THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER SEEKING INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE OPERATION OF THE PRIVATE
ACT THROUGH PROHIBITION OF ANY FURTHER STEPS UNDER THE NEW AWARD.  THE
FIRST BILL WAS FRAMED AS AN INDEPENDENT SUIT IN EQUITY; THE SECOND
SOUGHT RELIEF UNDER THE SECTION OF THE COMPENSATION ACT PROVIDING FOR
"INJUNCTION PRECEEDINGS" TO REVIEW AWARDS MADE UNDER THE ACT.  FN7
UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937,  FN8  A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS
CONVENED AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DULY NOTIFIED.  THE CAUSES HAVING
BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE ADMIRALTY SIDE OF THE COURT AND CONSOLIDATED
FOR ALL PURPOSES, THE APPELLEES FILED EXCEPTIONS CLAIMING THAT THE
APPELLANTS HAD FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE COURT UPHELD THE
VALIDITY OF THE SPECIAL ACT AND SUSTAINED THE APPELLEE'S EXCEPTIONS. 
FN9 

BY DIRECT APPEAL THE APPELLANTS CHALLENGE THE DECREE BELOW,
CONTENDING THAT THE PRIVATE ACT VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLANTS IS THAT THE ORIGINAL AWARD
WAS AN ADJUDICATION ON WHICH FURTHER REVIEW WAS BARRED PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF THE PRIVATE ACT; THAT THEREBY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WERE
FINALLY DETERMINED, THE DEPRIVATION OF WHICH TOOK FROM APPELLANTS A
SUBSTANTIVE IMMUNITY FROM FURTHER CLAIMS OF CLARK AND CREATED IN CLARK
NEW SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS. 

AN AWARD UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION
ACT DETERMINES THE LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER TO EMPLOYEE.  FN10  BUT WE DO
NOT AGREE THAT THE IMMUNITY OBTAINED BY THE LAPSE OF THE TIME FOR
REVIEW IS THE TYPE OF IMMUNITY WHICH PROTECTS ITS BENEFICIARY FROM
RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING REVIEW OF THE CLAIM.  THIS PRIVATE
ACT DOES NOT SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT, CREATE A NEW RIGHT OF ACTION OR
DIRECT THE ENTRY OF AN AWARD.  THE HEARING PROVIDED FOR IS SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL ACT FOR LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' COMPENSATION.  IT DOES NOT OPERATE TO CREATE NEW OBLIGATIONS
WHERE NONE EXISTED BEFORE.  IT IS AN ACT TO CURE A DEFECT IN
ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPED IN THE HANDLING OF A COMPENSABLE CLAIM.  IF
THE CONTINUING INJURY HAD BEEN KNOWN DURING THE PERIOD OF COMPENSATION,
PAYMENTS OF THE SAME AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE AWARD AUTHORIZED BY THIS ACT
WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE EMPLOYEE.  FN11  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE
SEE NO VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 

THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THIS CONCLUSION IS ILLUSTRATED BY GRAHAM &
FOSTER V. GOODCELL.  FN12 THERE A RETROACTIVE ACT OF THE CONGRESS
BARRED RECOVERY BY TAXPAYERS OF PAYMENTS FOR TAXES, PROPERLY OWING BUT
COLLECTION OF WHICH WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION.  AT THE TIME OF THE
ENACTMENT OF THE CONTROVERTED STATUTE, THE TAXPAYER HAD A RIGHT TO
RECOVER THE PAYMENT.  LIMITATION HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO RUN IN FAVOR OF
THE TAXPAYER UNDER A MISTAKE OF LAW.  THIS COURT UPHELD THE LEGISLATION
AS CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A CURATIVE ACT
TO REMEDY MISTAKES IN ADMINISTRATION WHERE THE REMEDY "CAN BE APPLIED
WITHOUT INJUSTICE."  FN13 

RIGHTS OBTAINED BY AN ATTACHING CREDITOR WERE SUBJECTED TO THE EQUITY
OF A PRIOR MORTGAGE, INVALID BECAUSE IMPROPERLY RECORDED, BY A
SUBSEQUENT ACT IN MCFADDIN V. EVANS-SNIDER-BUEL COMPANY.  FN14  THIS
COURT REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT SUCH A RETROACTIVE STATUTE
DEPRIVED THE HOLDER OF THE ATTACHMENT LIEN, WITH NOTICE OF THE PRIOR
EQUITY, OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  FN15 EVEN MORE RECENTLY IN
CARPENTER V. WABASH RAILWAY COMPANY,  FN16  WE UPHELD AS VALID AND
APPLICABLE AN ACT GRANTING PRIORITY TO RAILROAD EMPLOYEES FOR DAMAGES
FOR PERSONAL INJURIES OVER OTHER CLAIMANTS IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS. 
THE ACT THERE IN QUESTION WAS PASSED WHILE CERTIORARI WAS PENDING IN
THIS COURT FROM A CONTRARY DECISION UPON PRIORITY WHICH WE ASSUMED TO
BE CORRECT.  THIS RULING RESULTED FROM THE "SUPERIOR EQUITIES" OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  FN17 

IT IS UNIMPORTANT WHETHER THE CLAIM PERSISTED AFTER THE BAR  FN18  OR
ENDED WITH THE RUNNING OF LIMITATION.  FN19  TO CURE A FAULT OF
ADMINISTRATION CONGRESS MAY VALIDLY ENACT THIS ACT.    IT IS URGED BY
APPELLANT, HOWEVER, THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT SHOULD BE READ INTO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  IF SO READ, IT IS ARGUED, THIS PRIVATE ACT VIOLATES THE
RULE OF EQUAL PROTECTION.  THIS CONCLUSION, HOWEVER, WE FIND
UNTENABLE.  PRIVATE ACTS, AS SUCH, ARE NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  THAT INSTRUMENT CONTAINS NO PROVISION AGAINST PRIVATE
ACTS ENACTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXCEPT FOR A PROHIBITION OF
BILLS OF ATTAINDER AND GRANTS OF NOBILITY.  FN20  IT TOOK AN ACT OF
CONGRESS TO OUTLAW THEM IN THE TERRITORIES,  FN21  EVEN THOUGH THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT IS APPLICABLE TO THE TERRITORIES.  FN22  THE STATES
HAVE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF PRIVATE ACTS.  FN23
THE CONSTITUTIONS OF MANY OF THE STATES, UNLIKE THE FEDERAL, FORBID
PRIVATE LEGISLATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN24 

NOR CAN WE SAY THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS AN EXCURSION OF THE CONGRESS
INTO THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  FN25  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  33 U.S.C. SECS. 901-50. 

FN2  44 STAT. 1436, SEC. 21; 33 U.S.C., SEC. 921. 

FN3  49 STAT., PT. 2, P. 2244.  THE ACT IN FULL READS: 

"THAT IN THE CASE OF JOHN T. CLARK, OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, WHOSE
DISABILITY COMPENSATION UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS'
COMPENSATION ACT OF MARCH 4, 1927, WAS TERMINATED AS OF JULY 5, 1931,
BY A COMPENSATION ORDER FILED AUGUST 26, 1931, THE EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION COMMISSION BE, AND IT IS HEREBY, AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED
TO REVIEW SUCH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN
RESPECT OF SUCH CLAIMS IN SECTION 19 OF SAID ACT, AND IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SUCH SECTION TO ISSUE A NEW COMPENSATION ORDER WHICH MAY
TERMINATE, CONTINUE, INCREASE, OR DECREASE SUCH COMPENSATION, THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 21 AND 22 OF THE SAID ACT, AS AMENDED, TO THE
CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING:  PROVIDED, THAT SUCH NEW ORDER SHALL NOT
AFFECT ANY COMPENSATION PAID UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE PRIOR ORDER." 

FN4  S. REP. NO. 1645, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 1892, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.  THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEES IS ATTACHED TO
BOTH REPORTS AND INCLUDES STATEMENTS BY THE DOCTORS WHO EXAMINED, X
RAYED, AND OPERATED ON CLARK AFTER THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S ORDER;
LETTERS FROM THE COMPENSATION COMMISSION DISCUSSING THE HISTORY OF THE
CASE; AND A LETTER FROM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO THE SPONSOR OF THE
ACT, CONGRESSMAN ZIONCHECK, RELATING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S
PARTICIPATION IN THE CASE. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 2 SUPRA.  SECTION 22 OF THE COMPENSATION ACT (33 U.S.C.
SEC. 922), ALLOWING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO ISSUE AN AMENDED AWARD
"ON THE GROUND OF A CHANGE IN CONDITIONS OR BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE IN A
DETERMINATION OF FACT BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER," WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO
CLARK BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF HIS DISCOVERY OF HIS CONTINUED DISABILITY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COULD ONLY TAKE SUCH ACTION "DURING THE TERM OF
AN AWARD."  44 STAT. 1437.  ON MAY 26, 1934, THE SECTION WAS AMENDED
(48 STAT. 807) TO ALLOW NEW AWARDS BECAUSE OF CHANGED CONDITIONS TO BE
MADE "AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT
OF COMPENSATION."  HAD THIS BEEN IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF CLARK'S
INJURY, PRESUMABLY IT WOULD HAVE AFFORDED HIM A REMEDY FOR A NEW AWARD,
BUT WHEN IT WAS PASSED MORE THAN A YEAR HAD EXPIRED FROM THE LAST
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION. 

FN6  95 F.2D 203. 

FN7  44 STAT. 1436, SEC. 21; 33 U.S.C. SEC. 921. 

FN8 50 STAT. 752, SEC. 3; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A. 

FN9  PARAMINO LUMBER CO. V. MARSHALL, 27 F.SUPP.  823; DISCUSSED IN
COMMENT, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PRIVATE ACTS OF CONGRESS (1940) 49
YALE L.J. 712. 

FN10  CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN12  282 U.S. 409. 

FN13  SEE THE CASES CITED TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION:  FORBES BOAT
LINE V. BOARD OF COMM'RS, 258 U.S. 338; UNITED STATES V. HEINSZEN &
CO., 206 U.S. 370; TIACO V. FORBES, 228 U.S. 549; SEE ALSO SWAYNE &
HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 302. 

FN14  185 U.S. 505, 511. 

FN15  SEE INDEPENDENT PIER CO. V. NORTON, 12 F.SUPP.  974, WHERE THE
AMENDMENT OF MAY 26, 1934, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 922, CONSTRUED AS EXTENDING
THE TIME FOR REVIEW OF AN AWARD UNDER LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT FOR ONE YEAR RETROACTIVELY AS TO A FINAL
AWARD, WAS HELD WITHIN DUE PROCESS.  SEE ALSO PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING
& BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 18 HOW.  421. 

FN16  ANTE, P. 23. 

FN17  CF. DANFORTH V. GROTON WATER CO., 178 MASS. 472; 59 N.E. 1033;
DUNBAR V. BOSTON & PROVIDENCE RAILROAD, 181 MASS. 383, 386; 63 N.E.
916; ROBINSON V. ROBINS DRY DOCK & REPAIR CO., 238 N.Y. 271; 144 N.E.
579.  BUT SEE FOR CRITICISM WOODWARD V. CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO., 180
MASS. 599, 603; 62 N.E. 1051; ZICCARDI'S CASE, 287 MASS. 588, 591; 192
N.E. 29; CASIERI'S CASE, 286 MASS. 50; 190 N.E. 118. 

FN18  CAMPBELL V. HOLT, 115 U.S. 620. 

FN19  WILLIAM DANZER CO. V. GULF & S.I.R. CO., 268 U.S. 633. 

FN20  ART. I, SEC. 9, CLS. 3 AND 8. 

FN21  24 STAT. 170; CF. MAYNARD V. HILL, 125 U.S. 190. 

FN22  FARRINGTON V. TOKUSHIGE, 273 U.S. 284, 299. 

FN23  STATE COURTS HAVE DEALT WITH THIS QUESTION AS A MATTER OF THE
NECESSITY OF EQUALITY IN DUE PROCESS BEFORE AND AFTER THE PASSAGE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HOLDEN V. JAMES, 11 MASS. 396; STATE V.
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD, 94 MONT. 386; 23 P.2D 253; MATTER OF DECKER
V. POUVAILSMITH CORP., 252 N.Y. 1, 7; 168 N.E. 442; ROLES SHINGLE CO.
V. BERGERSON, 142 ORE.  131; 19 P.2D 94; REISER V. WILLIAM TELL SAVING
FUND ASSN., 39 PA. 137, 146; STATE BANK V. COOPER, 2 YERG.  (TENN.) 
599, 605, 606; TATE'S EXECUTORS V. BELL, 4 YERG.  (TENN.)  202;
FISHER'S NEGROES V. DABBS, 6 YERG.  (TENN.)  119; CF. 2 COOLEY,
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (8TH ED.)  809. 

FN24  THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS AGAINST THE ENACTMENT OF SPECIAL
LEGISLATION IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF ALL THE STATES EXCEPT CONNECTICUT,
MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT.  THE FOLLOWING ARE TYPICAL
PROVISIONS:  (1) "THE LEGISLATURE SHALL NOT PASS LOCAL OR SPECIAL LAWS
CONCERNING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ENUMERATED CASES,  ...  "; FOLLOWED BY
AN ENUMERATION OF PROSCRIBED SUBJECTS WHICH IS CONCLUDED WITH THE
CATCHALL, "WHERE A GENERAL LAW CAN BE MADE APPLICABLE."  SEE CAL.
CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 25; KY. CONST., SEC. 59.  (2)  "ALL LAWS, OF A
GENERAL NATURE, SHALL HAVE A UNIFORM OPERATION THROUGHOUT THE STATE. 
...  "  SEE OHIO CONST., ART. II, SEC. 26.  (3) "NO SPECIAL, PRIVATE,
OR LOCAL LAW  ...  SHALL BE ENACTED IN ANY CASE WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR
BY A GENERAL LAW.  ...  "  SEE ALA. CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 105.  (4)
"THE LEGISLATURE SHALL HAVE NO POWER TO SUSPEND ANY GENERAL LAW FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL.  ...  "  SEE TENN. CONST., ART.
XI, SEC. 8.  OFTEN THERE WILL BE MORE THAN ONE PROVISION IN A
CONSTITUTION.  THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS AND DECISIONS UNDER THEM ARE
DISCUSSED IN CLOE AND MARCUS, SPECIAL AND LOCAL LEGISLATION (1936) 24
KY. L.J. 351, AND BINNEY, RESTRICTIONS UPON LOCAL AND SPECIAL
LEGISLATION, P. 127, ET SEQ. 

FN25  JOHANNESSEN V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 227, 241. 

THE STATE CASES CITED BY APPELLANTS UPON THE QUESTION OF THE INVASION
OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY INVOLVE STATUTES AFFECTING JUDICIAL JUDGMENTS
RATHER THAN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND ARE THEREFORE INAPPLICABLE: 

SANDERS V. CABANISS, 43 ALA. 173; TRUSTEES FUND V. BAILEY, 10 FLA.
238; DORSEY V. DORSEY, 37 MD. 64; STATE EX REL. FLINT V. FLINT; 61
MINN. 539; 63 N.W. 1113; PETITION OF SIBLERUD, 148 MINN. 347; 182 N.W.
168; MERRILL V. SHERBURNE, 1 N.H. 199; MATTER OF GREENE, 166 N.Y. 485;
60 N.E. 183; DE CHASTELLUX V. FAIRCHILD, 15 PA. 18; TAYLOR & CO. V.
PLACE, 4 R.I. 324; IN RE HANDLEY'S ESTATE, 15 UTAH 212; 49 P. 829;
RATCLIFFE V. ANDERSON, 31 GRATT.  105(VA.); MARPOLE V. CATHER'S ADM'R,
78 VA. 239; DAVIS V. MENASHA, 21 WIS. 491. 

COMPARE JONES V. MEHAN, 175 U.S. 1; PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING &
BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 18 HOW.  421; POCONO PINES ASSEMBLY HOTELS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 73 CT. CLS. 447. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















DICKINSON CO. V. COWAN, 309 U.S. 382 


NO. 386.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 11, 1940.  - 104
F.2D 771, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN APPEAL TAKEN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE "CHANDLER ACT"
(SEPTEMBER 22, 1938), FROM AN ORDER GRANTING AN ALLOWANCE FOR SERVICES,
PREVIOUSLY ENTERED IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, IS GOVERNED BY THE CHANDLER ACT.  P. 383. 

2.  SECTION 276(C)(2) OF THE CHANDLER ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF CH. X OF THAT ACT (THE SUCCESSOR TO SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT), SHALL APPLY TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS "TO THE EXTENT THAT
THE JUDGE SHALL DEEM THEIR APPLICATION PRACTICABLE" RELATES SOLELY TO
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND HAS NO APPLICATION TO APPELLATE
PROCEEDINGS.  P. 383. 

3.  APPEALS FROM ORDERS MAKING OR REFUSING TO MAKE ALLOWANCES OF
COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER CH. X OF THE CHANDLER ACT MAY BE
HAD ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 384. 

DICKINSON INDUSTRIAL SITE, INC. V. COWAN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 543, TO REVIEW A DECISION DENYING A MOTION TO
DISMISS AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTING AN
ALLOWANCE FOR SERVICES IN A REORGANIZATION UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (48 STAT. 912) WAS CONFIRMED ON FEBRUARY 23, 1938. 
RESPONDENTS ARE MEMBERS OF A BONDHOLDERS' COMMITTEE WHO SOUGHT AN
ALLOWANCE IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS.  ON OCTOBER 26, 1938, THEY WERE AWARDED
$2,000 FOR SERVICES RENDERED, $20,000 HAVING BEEN ASKED.  ON NOVEMBER
25, 1938, THEY PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL FROM THAT ORDER.  THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED.  PETITIONER MOVED TO
DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD NO
JURISDICTION TO ALLOW IT, THE ARGUMENT BEING THAT RESPONDENTS HAD AN
APPEAL AS OF RIGHT WHICH COULD ONLY BE TAKEN BY FILING A NOTICE OF
APPEAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MODIFIED THE ORDER BY INCREASING THE
ALLOWANCE TO $10,000.  104 F.2D 771.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
A CONFLICT OF THAT RULING WITH LONDON V. O'DOUGHERTY, 102 F.2D 524,
WHICH HELD THAT APPEALS FROM COMPENSATION ORDERS INVOLVING $500 OR MORE
COULD BE HAD AS A MATTER OF RIGHT UNDER THE CHANDLER ACT (52 STAT.
840). 

FIRST.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CHANDLER ACT, WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1938(SEC.  7),
WERE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL.  WE THINK THAT FOLLOWS FROM SEC. 6(B)
OF THE ACT WHICH STATES THAT "EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS
AMENDATORY ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT SHALL GOVERN
PROCEEDINGS SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE IN CASES PENDING WHEN IT TAKES
EFFECT; ...  "  WHERE, AS HERE, APPEAL IS TAKEN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEARLY "PRACTICABLE" TO APPLY THE NEW APPEAL
PROVISIONS.  CONTRARY TO RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION, SEC. 276(C)(2) IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO APPEALS.  IT PROVIDES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CH. X (THE
SUCCESSOR TO SEC. 77B) SHALL APPLY TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS "TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE JUDGE SHALL DEEM THEIR APPLICATION PRACTICABLE" WHERE
THE PETITION IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WAS APPROVED MORE THAN THREE MONTHS
BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT.  BUT THAT RELATES
SOLELY TO PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE "JUDGE" REFERRED TO
IN THAT SECTION MEANS A "JUDGE OF A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY."  SEC. 1(20). 
SUCH COURT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  SEC. 1(10). 
HENCE THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW APPEAL PROVISIONS TO THIS TYPE OF CASE
IS NOT DEPENDENT ON A DETERMINATION OF PRACTICABILITY BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE UNDER SEC. 276(C)(2). 

SECOND.  PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE COULD BE
TAKEN AS A MATTER OF RIGHT REQUIRES AN ANALYSIS OF SEC. 24 AND SEC. 250
OF THE CHANDLER ACT.  SEC. 24 PROVIDES IN PART: 

"A.  THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IN
VACATION, IN CHAMBERS, AND DURING THEIR RESPECTIVE TERMS, AS NOW OR AS
THEY MAY BE HEREAFTER HELD, ARE HEREBY INVESTED WITH APPELLATE
JURISDICTION FROM THE SEVERAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS IN PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY, EITHER INTERLOCUTORY OR
FINAL, AND IN CONTROVERSIES ARISING IN PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY, TO
REVIEW, AFFIRM, REVISE, OR REVERSE, BOTH IN MATTERS OF LAW AND IN
MATTERS OF FACT:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE JURISDICTION UPON APPEAL
FROM A JUDGMENT ON A VERDICT RENDERED BY A JURY, SHALL EXTEND TO
MATTERS OF LAW ONLY:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT WHEN ANY ORDER, DECREE, OR
JUDGMENT INVOLVES LESS THAN $500, AN APPEAL THEREFROM MAY BE TAKEN ONLY
UPON ALLOWANCE OF THE APPELLATE COURT. 

"B.  SUCH APPELLATE JURISDICTION SHALL BE EXERCISED BY APPEAL AND IN
THE FORM AND MANNER OF AN APPEAL." 

SEC. 250 PROVIDES: 

"APPEALS MAY BE TAKEN IN MATTERS OF LAW OR FACT FROM ORDERS MAKING OR
REFUSING TO MAKE ALLOWANCES OF COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT, AND MAY,
IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED FOR APPEALS BY THIS ACT, BE
TAKEN TO AND ALLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INDEPENDENTLY OF
OTHER APPEALS IN THE PROCEEDING, AND SHALL BE SUMMARILY HEARD UPON THE
ORIGINAL PAPERS." 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT CONGRESS BY SEC. 24 CREATED A SINGLE TEST -
THE AMOUNT OF THE ORDER APPEALED FROM - FOR DETERMINING WHETHER LEAVE
TO APPEAL WAS NECESSARY AND THAT THE WORDS "ALLOWED BY" IN SEC. 250
REFER TO APPEALS FROM ORDERS OF ALLOWANCES OF LESS THAN $500. 

OUR VIEW, HOWEVER, IS THAT APPEALS FROM ALL ORDERS MAKING OR REFUSING
TO MAKE ALLOWANCES OF COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER CH. X OF THE
CHANDLER ACT MAY BE HAD ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS. 

UNDER SEC. 77B (C)(9) IT WAS PROVIDED THAT "APPEALS FROM ORDERS
FIXING SUCH ALLOWANCES MAY BE TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER APPEALS IN THE PROCEEDING AND SHALL BE HEARD
SUMMARILY."  AND IT WAS HELD BY THIS COURT IN SHULMAN V. WILSON
SHERIDAN HOTEL CO., 301 U.S. 172, THAT THOSE APPEALS COULD NOT BE HAD
AS A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT ONLY IN THE DISCRETION OF THE APPELLATE COURT
AS PROVIDED IN FORMER SEC. 24(B).  THAT WAS THE WAY THE MATTER STOOD
WHEN SEC. 250 WAS DRAFTED.  THE HISTORY OF THAT SECTION  FN1  SHOWS
THAT IT WAS DERIVED FROM SEC. 77B (C)(9).  BUT, SIGNIFICANTLY, THE
WORDS "AND ALLOWED BY" WERE ADDED - WORDS NOT PRESENT IN SEC. 77B
(C)(9).  THE RESULT PLAINLY WAS (1) TO CARRY OVER INTO THE NEW ACT THE
RULE OF SHULMAN V. WILSON-SHERIDAN HOTEL CO., SUPRA, AND (2) TO SET
APART IN A SEPARATE SECTION THE PROVISIONS FOR APPEALS FROM THAT TYPE
OF ORDER SO AS TO MAKE THOSE APPEALS NO LONGER DEPENDENT ON SEC. 24,
WHICH HAD BECOME A STORM CENTER FOR THE REVISIONISTS.  FN2  IF THE
HOUSE DID NOT INTEND THE LATTER RESULT, THEN THE ADDITION OF THE WORDS
"AND ALLOWED BY" WERE WHOLLY NEEDLESS, AS UNDER THE HOUSE REVISION OF
SEC. 24 APPEALS FROM COMPENSATION ORDERS WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCRETIONARY
WITH THE APPELLATE COURT.  FN3 

HENCE UNDER THE HOUSE BILL AS IT REACHED THE SENATE, IT SEEMS CLEAR
THAT NO SUCH APPEALS COULD BE HAD AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.  IN THE SENATE
THE PRESENT SEC. 24 WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE HOUSE PROVISION; BUT THE
PRESENT SEC. 250 WAS NOT ALTERED IN ANY RESPECT MATERIAL HERE.  IT IS
CLEAR FROM THE SENATE HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORT THAT THE SENATE WAS
INTERESTED ONLY IN THE ELIMINATION FROM SEC. 24 OF THE OLD DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN "CONTROVERSIES ARISING IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS" AND
"PROCEEDINGS" IN BANKRUPTCY.  FN4  THERE WAS NOT THE SLIGHTEST
INTIMATION OF ANY DISSATISFACTION WITH THE RULE OF SHULMAN V. WILSON
SHERIDAN HOTEL CO., SUPRA, OR WITH SEC. 250 AS IT PASSED THE HOUSE.  TO
BE SURE, THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT IS SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS.  FN5  BUT
IT IS PERHAPS SIGNIFICANT THAT THAT REPORT IN COMMENTING ON SEC. 24
STATED NOT THAT IT "ABOLISHED" BUT THAT IT "PRACTICALLY ABOLISHED" THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN APPEALS AS OF RIGHT AND APPEALS BY LEAVE OF THE
APPELLATE COURTS. 

MORE IMPORTANT, HOWEVER, IS THE MATTER OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  TO
HOLD THAT AN APPEAL FROM A COMPENSATION ORDER IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 24
THE WORDS "TAKEN TO AND ALLOWED BY" IN SEC. 250 MUST BE READ "TAKEN TO
OR ALLOWED BY."  ONLY THEN CAN APPEALS FROM COMPENSATION ORDERS
INVOLVING LESS THAN $500 BE GOVERNED BY "ALLOWED BY" AND APPEALS FROM
ALL OTHER SUCH ORDERS BE GOVERNED BY "TAKEN TO."  IN THE FACE OF THE
FOREGOING HISTORY WE DO NOT BELIEVE WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN SUBSTITUTING
"OR" FOR "AND."  THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF IT IS SOMEWHAT EMPHASIZED BY
THE HISTORY OF "TAKEN TO" WHICH IN SHULMAN V. WILSON-SHERIDAN HOTEL
CO., SUPRA, WAS HELD NOT TO PERMIT AN APPEAL AS OF RIGHT.  IT IS
FURTHER EMPHASIZED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY. 

THE HISTORY OF FEES IN CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS CONTAINS MANY SORDID
CHAPTERS.  ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 77B WAS TO PLACE THOSE FEES
UNDER MORE EFFECTIVE CONTROL.  FN6  BUTTRESSING THAT CONTROL WAS SEC.
77B (C)(9) WHICH, TOGETHER WITH FORMER SEC. 24(B), MADE APPEALS FROM
COMPENSATION ORDERS DISCRETIONARY WITH THE APPELLATE COURT.  WE SHOULD
NOT DEPART FROM THAT POLICY IN ABSENCE OF A CLEAR EXPRESSION FROM
CONGRESS OF ITS DESIRE FOR A CHANGE.  FEE CLAIMANTS ARE EITHER OFFICERS
OF THE COURT OR FIDUCIARIES,  FN7  SUCH AS MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES, WHOSE
CLAIMS FOR ALLOWANCE FROM THE ESTATE ARE BASED ONLY ON SERVICE RENDERED
TO AND BENEFITS RECEIVED BY THE ESTATE.  FN8 ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE
INVOLVES AN EXERCISE OF SOUND DISCRETION BY THE COURT BASED ON THAT
STATUTORY STANDARD.  UNLIKE APPEALS FROM OTHER ORDERS, APPEALS FROM
COMPENSATION ORDERS THEREFORE NORMALLY INVOLVE ONLY ONE QUESTION OF LAW
- ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  THESE FACTORS NOT ONLY EMPHASIZE THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SEPARATE TREATMENT BY CONGRESS OF APPEALS FROM
COMPENSATION ORDERS; THEY REINFORCE THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 250
WHICH RESTRICTS THESE APPEALS.  FOR CERTAINLY IT SEEMS SOUND POLICY TO
REQUIRE FIDUCIARIES TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF INEQUITABLE
TREATMENT IN ORDER TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT.  TO ALLOW
THESE APPEALS AS A MATTER OF RIGHT IS TO ENCOURAGE AN UNSEEMLY PARADE
TO THE APPELLATE COURTS AND TO ADD TO THE TIME AND EXPENSE OF
ADMINISTRATION.  WE WILL NOT RESOLVE ANY AMBIGUITIES IN FAVOR OF THAT
ALTERNATIVE. 

WHETHER OR NOT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN MODIFYING THE
ORDER SO AS TO GRANT RESPONDENTS AN INCREASED ALLOWANCE WAS NOT RAISED
IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND HENCE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED HERE. 
HELIS V. WARD, 308 U.S. 365.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  S. REP. NO. 1916, 75TH CONG., 3RD SESS., P. 38. 

FN2  H.R. HEARINGS ON H.R. 6439(H.R. 8046), 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
PP. 79-80, 213-218, 222-223, 240-241, 405-406; S. HEARINGS ON H.R.
8046, 75TH CONG., 2ND SESS., PP. 53-54, 60, 103-108.  AND SEE H.R. REP.
NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 22. 

FN3  THIS IS MADE CLEAR BY COMPARISON OF SEC. 250 WITH SEC. 24 AS
THEY PASSED THE HOUSE. 

SEC. 250 THEN READ: 

"APPEALS IN MATTERS OF LAW OR FACT FROM ORDERS MAKING OR REFUSING TO
MAKE ALLOWANCES OF COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT MAY, IN THE MANNER AND
WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED FOR APPEALS BY THIS ACT, BE TAKEN TO AND
ALLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER APPEALS
IN THE PROCEEDING, AND SHALL BE SUMMARILY HEARD UPON THE ORIGINAL
PAPERS." 

SEC. 24 A AND B THEN READ: 

"A.  THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IN
VACATION, IN CHAMBERS, AND DURING THEIR RESPECTIVE TERMS, AS NOW OR AS
THEY MAY BE HEREAFTER HELD, ARE HEREBY INVESTED WITH APPELLATE
JURISDICTION FROM THE SEVERAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS (1) OF CONTROVERSIES ARISING IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
UNDER THIS ACT IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IN SUITS AT
LAW OR IN EQUITY; (2) TO SUPERINTEND AND REVISE, IN MATTER OF LAW AND
FACT, THE PROCEEDINGS OF SUCH INFERIOR COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY IN THE
FOLLOWING CASES:  (A) A JUDGMENT ADJUDGING OR REFUSING TO ADJUDGE A
PERSON A BANKRUPT; (B) A JUDGMENT APPROVING OR DISMISSING A PETITION
FILED BY OR AGAINST A DEBTOR UNDER CHAPTER X OF THIS ACT; (C) A
JUDGMENT GRANTING OR DENYING A DISCHARGE; (D) A JUDGMENT CONFIRMING OR
REFUSING TO CONFIRM AN ARRANGEMENT OR PLAN; (E) A JUDGMENT ALLOWING OR
REJECTING A DEBT, CLAIM, OR INTEREST OF $500 OR OVER; AND (F) A
JUDGMENT ALLOWING OR DISMISSING AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER UPON A
BANKRUPT OR OTHER PERSON TO DELIVER OR TURN OVER PROPERTY TO THE
MARSHAL, OR TO THE RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE; AND (3) TO
SUPERINTENDENT AND REVISE, IN MATTER OF LAW ONLY, THE PROCEEDINGS IN
ALL OTHER CASES OF SUCH INFERIOR COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY. 

"B.  SUCH APPELLATE JURISDICTION SHALL BE EXERCISED BY APPEAL AND IN
THE FORM AND MANNER OF AN APPEAL:  PROVIDED, THAT IN THE CASES
SPECIFIED IN SUBDIVISION A (3) OF THIS SECTION, SUCH APPEALS SHALL BE
ALLOWED IN THE DISCRETION OF THE APPELLATE COURT:  AND PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT WHERE, WITHIN THE TIME LIMITED FOR TAKING APPEALS, AN
APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN AS OF RIGHT INSTEAD OF BY ALLOWANCE OF THE
APPELLATE COURT, THE APPELLATE COURT MAY IN ITS DISCRETION ALLOW SUCH
APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE FINAL DETERMINATION WITH THE SAME EFFECT AS
IF IT HAD BEEN DULY ALLOWED, WHEN TAKEN, AND WHERE, WITHIN THE TIME
LIMITED FOR TAKING APPEALS, AN APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ALLOWANCE OF
THE APPELLATE COURT INSTEAD OF AS OF RIGHT, THE APPELLATE COURT MAY IN
ITS DISCRETION ENTERTAIN AND DETERMINE SUCH APPEAL WITH THE SAME EFFECT
AS IF IT HAD BEEN DULY TAKEN AS OF RIGHT." 

FN4  S. REP., SUPRA NOTE 1, P. 4, COMMENTED AS FOLLOWS ON THE PRESENT
SEC. 24: 

"THE HOUSE BILL MAKES CERTAIN AMENDMENTS IN THE SECTIONS OF THE ACT
(24-25) RELATIVE TO APPEALS, BUT PRESERVES THE EXISTING DISTINCTION
BETWEEN APPEALS AS OF RIGHT AND APPEALS BY LEAVE OF THE APPELLATE
COURTS.  THE AMENDMENT PRESENTED BY THE COMMITTEE PRACTICALLY ABOLISHES
THIS DISTINCTION.  UNDER IT, APPEALS MAY BE MADE AS OF RIGHT IN ALL
CASES INVOLVING $500 OR MORE.  IN CONTROVERSIES OF LESS THAN THIS
AMOUNT, APPEALS MAY BE TAKEN ONLY UPON ALLOWANCE BY THE APPELLATE
COURT.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT WILL EXTEND BOTH TO
MATTERS OF LAW AND OF FACT, EXCEPT THAT IN AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT ON
A VERDICT RENDERED BY A JURY THE JURISDICTION WILL EXTEND TO MATTERS OF
LAW ONLY.  THE REMOVAL OF THE TROUBLESOME DISTINCTION WILL BE A SERVICE
TO BOTH BENCH AND BAR.  IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE THE PROPER
PROCEDURE UNDER THE PRESENT LAW AND FREQUENTLY APPEALS ARE TAKEN IN
BOTH WAYS IN ORDER TO BE CERTAIN.  THE HOUSE BILL SEEKS TO REMEDY THIS
CONDITION BY PROVIDING THAT IN THE EVENT OF MISTAKE THE APPELLATE COURT
MAY CONSIDER THE APPEAL AS PROPERLY TAKEN AND PROCEED TO A
DETERMINATION OF THE CASE.  YOUR COMMITTEE BELIEVES IT IS MUCH BETTER
TO ELIMINATE THE DISTINCTION ALTOGETHER." 

THE TESTIMONY OF REUBEN G. HUNT BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE IS
PARTICULARLY ILLUMINATING ON THIS POINT OF CONTROVERSY.  S. HEARINGS,
SUPRA, NOTE 2, P. 53.  SEE ALSO HUNT, APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS
TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS IN BANKRUPTCY CASES, 42 COMM. L.
JOURN.  (1937). 

FN5  THAT REPORT STATES THAT THE PRESENT SEC. 24 "PRACTICALLY
ABOLISHES" THE DISTINCTION "BETWEEN APPEALS AS OF RIGHT AND APPEALS BY
LEAVE OF THE APPELLATE COURTS."  ID., SUPRA, NOTE 4.  AND THE COMMITTEE
IN COMMENTING ON SEC. 250 MERELY SAYS: 

"SECTION 250, DERIVED FROM SECTION 77B (C)(9), IS INTENDED TO
FACILITATE APPEALS FROM THE GRANT OR REFUSAL OF AN ALLOWANCE OF
COMPENSATION.  THESE ARE TO BE DISPOSED OF WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF A
PRINTED RECORD."  ID., P. 38. 

FN6  H.R. REP. NO. 194, 73RD CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 1. 

FN7  THE FIDUCIARY STATUS OF SUCH CLAIMANTS IS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED
IN THE CHANDLER ACT.  SEC. 249 PROVIDES IN PART: 

"NO COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ANY COMMITTEE
OR ATTORNEY, OR OTHER PERSON ACTING IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN A
REPRESENTATIVE OR FIDUCIARY CAPACITY, WHO AT ANY TIME AFTER ASSUMING TO
ACT IN SUCH CAPACITY HAS PURCHASED OR SOLD SUCH CLAIMS OR STOCK, OR BY
WHOM OR FOR WHOSE ACCOUNT SUCH CLAIMS OR STOCK HAVE, WITHOUT THE PRIOR
CONSENT OR SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL OF THE JUDGE, BEEN OTHERWISE ACQUIRED OR
TRANSFERRED." 

FN8  SEC. 243. 
..END :




















NAT. LICORICE CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 309 U.S. 350 


NO. 272.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1940.  - DECIDED MARCH 4, 1940.  - 104 F.2D
655, AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. 


1.  SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUSTAINS A FINDING BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD THAT A PARTICULAR UNION WAS THE CHOICE OF A MAJORITY OF
EMPLOYEES, AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL, AT A TIME WHEN THEIR
EMPLOYER REFUSED TO DEAL WITH IT AS REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES WHO
WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  P. 357. 

2.  EMPLOYEES IN A PLANT AGREED INDIVIDUALLY WITH THE EMPLOYER NOT TO
STRIKE OR TO DEMAND A CLOSED SHOP OR A SIGNED AGREEMENT WITH ANY UNION,
ALSO FOR ARBITRATION AS TO WAGES AND HOURS, BUT THAT THE QUESTION OF
THE PROPRIETY OF AN EMPLOYEE'S DISCHARGE SHOULD IN NO EVENT BE ONE FOR
ARBITRATION OR MEDIATION.  THE CONTRACTS WERE PROCURED WITH THE AID OF
A COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES WHICH WAS CREATED FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND
DOMINATED, BY THE EMPLOYER, AND RETAINED THEREAFTER NO FUNCTION OTHER
THAN THAT OF JOINING THE EMPLOYER IN SELECTION OF AN ARBITRATOR. 
HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT AND WERE APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS FOR THE REMEDIAL ACTION OF
THE BOARD AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10 OF THE ACT.  P. 359. 

(2)  AN ORDER OF THE BOARD PRECLUDING THE EMPLOYER FROM TAKING ANY
BENEFIT OF THE CONTRACTS AND FROM CARRYING OUT ANY OF THEIR PROVISIONS
THE EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD BE TO INFRINGE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE ACT,
WAS VALID, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYEES WHO MADE THE CONTRACTS WERE NOT
PARTIES TO THE BOARD'S PROCEEDING.  P. 361. 

(3)  SUCH ORDER DOES NOT FORECLOSE THE EMPLOYEES FROM TAKING ANY
ACTION TO SECURE AN ADJUDICATION UPON THE CONTRACTS, NOR PREJUDGE THEIR
RIGHTS IN THE EVENT OF SUCH ADJUDICATION.  P. 365. 

(4)  SECTION 10(A) AND (C) OF THE ACT COMMITS TO THE BOARD THE
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED AND, WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED IN THAT SECTION, TO
DETERMINE WHAT ACTION THE EMPLOYER MUST TAKE TO REMOVE OR AVOID THEIR
CONSEQUENCES.  P. 365. 

(5)  A PROVISION OF THE ORDER, REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO POST NOTICE
THAT THE CONTRACTS WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES (WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO
THE PROCEEDINGS) ARE "VOID AND OF NO EFFECT," SHOULD BE MODIFIED SO AS
TO SAY IN LIEU THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE MADE IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT,
AND THAT THE EMPLOYER WILL NO LONGER OFFER, SOLICIT, ENTER INTO,
CONTINUE, ENFORCE, OR ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE SUCH CONTRACTS WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES; BUT THIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ASSERTION BY THE EMPLOYEES
OF ANY LEGAL RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE ACQUIRED UNDER SUCH CONTRACTS.  P.
367. 

(6)  THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH VIOLATIONS WHICH THOUGH
NOT SET UP IN THE CHARGE INVOKING ITS ACTION, SEC. 10(B), ARE
CONTINUATIONS OF VIOLATIONS THERE ALLEGED, OF THE SAME CLASS AND FOR
THE SAME OBJECTS.  P. 367. 

NATIONAL LICORICE CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 535, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APART FROM THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AN ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE QUESTIONS OF IMPORTANCE PRESENTED
FOR OUR DECISION ARE WHETHER THE BOARD HAS AUTHORITY TO ORDER AN
EMPLOYER NOT TO ENFORCE CONTRACTS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES, FOUND TO HAVE
BEEN PROCURED IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND TO
CONTAIN PROVISIONS VIOLATING THAT ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EMPLOYEES
AS PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING; AND WHETHER THE BOARD HAS AUTHORITY TO
MAKE ITS ORDER RELATING TO THE CONTRACTS, ALTHOUGH THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES FOUND TO AFFECT THE CONTRACTS WERE NOT SET UP IN THE CHARGE
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT ISSUED ITS COMPLAINT. 

ON AUGUST 2, 1937, THE BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 405, A LABOR ORGANIZATION, AFFILIATED
WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, LODGED WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD AN AMENDED CHARGE, ALLEGING THAT PETITIONER HAD ENGAGED
IN CERTAIN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  AFTER A COMPLAINT BY THE BOARD CHARGING PETITIONER WITH
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES HAD BEEN SERVED OCTOBER 7, 1937, AND AFTER
HEARINGS, THE BOARD FOUND JURISDICTIONAL FACTS, WHICH NEED NOT BE
REPEATED, AND OTHER FACTS WHICH MAY BE SHORTLY SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:
PETITIONER IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF LICORICE
PRODUCTS WHICH IT SELLS AND SHIPS IN COMMERCE, EMPLOYING AT ITS
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, PLANT ABOUT ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY PRODUCTION
EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT EARLY IN JULY, 1937, THE UNION BEGAN
TO SECURE SIGNATURES OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES TO APPLICATIONS FOR
MEMBERSHIP; THAT ON JULY 14, 1937, NINETY-NINE OF PETITIONER'S ONE
HUNDRED AND FORTY EMPLOYEES HAD SIGNED APPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP,
DESIGNATING THE UNION AS THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING; THAT THE NUMBER HAD INCREASED TO ONE HUNDRED AND NINE ON
JULY 19TH OR 20TH.  ON THAT DATE A MEETING WAS HELD BETWEEN
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION AND OFFICERS OF PETITIONER, AT WHICH THE
UNION DEMANDS WERE PRESENTED.  THE NEGOTIATIONS CAME TO NOTHING AND
WERE PROMPTLY FOLLOWED BY AN UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORT ON THE PART OF
PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVES TO CIRCULATE AMONG THE EMPLOYEES A
PETITION, NOMINATING A COMMITTEE TO ACT AS THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE. 

ON JULY 29TH A SECOND MEETING TOOK PLACE BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE UNION AND THE PRESIDENT AND OTHER OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY, AT WHICH
THE PETITIONER DECLINED TO RECOGNIZE THE UNION AS THE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES, AND DECLARED THAT IT WOULD
NEGOTIATE WITH THE UNION ONLY AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS
MEMBERS.  THE MEETING ADJOURNED WITHOUT REACHING ANY AGREEMENT.  ON
AUGUST 2ND THE EMPLOYEES WENT OUT ON STRIKE.  THE PLANT WAS CLOSED AND
NOT REOPENED UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE STRIKE ON AUGUST 25TH.  AUGUST
5TH HAD BEEN AGREED UPON FOR A THIRD MEETING, AND ON THE EVENING OF
AUGUST 2ND, AFTER THE STRIKE HAD BEGUN, THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES WROTE
TO PETITIONER STATING THAT THE UNION WAS READY TO MEET WITH PETITIONER
AT ANY TIME OR PLACE WHICH IT WOULD DESIGNATE "IN ORDER TO MEDIATE THE
DISPUTE AND THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARRIVE AT A MUTUALLY
SATISFACTORY AGREEMENT."  PETITIONER REPLIED, DECLARING THAT IT
BELIEVED THE UNION HAD CALLED THE STRIKE.  IT CANCELLED THE MEETING OF
AUGUST 5TH AND ASSERTED THAT IT WOULD NOT "SET ANY FURTHER TIME FOR
NEGOTIATIONS UNTIL WE HAVE A LETTER FROM YOU INFORMING US AS TO WHETHER
OR NOT THIS STRIKE WAS INSTIGATED, ORDERED OR APPROVED BY YOUR UNION OR
OFFICIALS OF THE UNION."  REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION DENIED THAT IT
HAD CALLED THE STRIKE.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE STRIKE WAS THE RESULT
OF SPONTANEOUS ACTION BY THE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF DISSATISFACTION WITH
THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE UNION AND PETITIONER. 

ON AUGUST 27TH AFTER THE PLANT WAS REOPENED, PETITIONER SENT A LETTER
TO EACH EMPLOYEE REQUESTING HIM TO RETURN TO WORK ON AUGUST 30TH.  ON
THE SAME DAY PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE MET WITH THREE EMPLOYEES WHO
STATED THAT THEY WERE ANXIOUS TO RETURN TO WORK, AND ASKED WHETHER THEY
COULD HAVE THEIR OWN COMMITTEE AND BARGAIN WITH PETITIONER.  THEY WERE
INFORMED THAT IF THEY COULD OBTAIN THE AUTHORIZATION OF A MAJORITY OF
THE EMPLOYEES, PETITIONER WOULD DEAL WITH THEM.  THEREAFTER,
PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT, AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THE THREE, PREPARED A
FORM OF LETTER DESIGNATING A COMMITTEE OF WORKERS AS THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES AND REVOKING THE AUTHORITY
TO ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION.  THE LETTER WAS SIGNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND ONE HUNDRED AND TEN OTHER EMPLOYEES, AND RETURNED TO
PETITIONER ON SEPTEMBER 9TH. 

AT A MEETING WITH THE COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 10TH PETITIONER'S
PRESIDENT RENEWED PROPOSALS FOR A CONTRACT, WHICH HE HAD MADE AT THE
MEETINGS WITH THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES ON JULY 20TH AND JULY 29TH,
STIPULATING FOR A FIVE PER CENT. WAGE INCREASE, TIME AND A HALF FOR
OVERTIME, AND ONE WEEK'S VACATION WITH PAY.  THE COMMITTEE'S ONLY
REQUEST RELATED TO PAY FOR HOLIDAYS AND A REDUCTION OF THE TERM ON THE
CONTRACT FROM FIVE TO THREE YEARS, WHICH WAS GRANTED WITH SOME
MODIFICATION.  AS FINALLY AGREED UPON THE CONTRACT PURPORTS TO BE MADE
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER, THE COMMITTEE AND "EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE
EMPLOYEES."  FN1  PETITIONER FURNISHED THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WITH
MIMEOGRAPHED COPIES OF THE AGREEMENT, TELLING THEM TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE
BEST OF THEIR ABILITY TO THE EMPLOYEES, AND GIVING EXPLICIT
INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS WERE TO
BE EXECUTED.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY BY A NUMBER OF WITNESSES THAT
PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT INFORMED THE EMPLOYEES THAT HE WOULD NOT
"PROTECT THEIR JOBS AND THEY WOULD NOT GET FIVE PER CENT.  IF THEY DID
NOT SIGN THE AGREEMENT."  ONE GROUP OF FOURTEEN EMPLOYEES ASKED FOR
REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMITTEE AND WERE REFERRED TO PETITIONER'S
PRESIDENT, WHO, IN REFUSING THE REQUEST, INFORMED THEM THAT "THE
COMMITTEE HAD BEEN PICKED ALREADY.  THERE IS ENOUGH RIGHT NOW ON THE
COMMITTEE."  THE CONTRACT IS STATED TO BE DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE AND UNDER IT THE COMMITTEE AS
SUCH HAS NO RIGHTS OR DUTIES.  IT WAS SIGNED BY THE COMMITTEE AND ONE
HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN EMPLOYEES.  THE COMMITTEE APPEARS TO HAVE
FUNCTIONED ONLY SO LONG AS IT WAS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE INDIVIDUAL
SIGNATURES ON THE CONTRACT.  THE BENEFITS OF THE CONTRACT WERE LIMITED
TO THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO SIGNED.  IN RETURN THE SIGNERS RELINQUISHED THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE, THE RIGHT TO DEMAND A CLOSED SHOP OR SIGNED AGREEMENT
WITH ANY UNION.  THE CONTRACT ALSO CONTAINED PROVISIONS FOR ARBITRATION
AS TO RATE OF WAGES AND THE NUMBER OF REGULAR HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT PER
WEEK BY AN ARBITRATOR DESIGNATED BY AND MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE TO
PETITIONER AND THE COMMITTEE, BUT PROVIDED THAT THE "QUESTION AS TO THE
PROPRIETY OF AN EMPLOYEE'S DISCHARGE IS IN NO EVENT TO BE ONE FOR
ARBITRATION OR MEDIATION.  ...  " 

FROM THESE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS OF FACT THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT
PETITIONER, BY REFUSING TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION ON JULY
20TH AND JULY 29TH AND THEREAFTER, HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(5) OF THE ACT; THAT PETITIONER,
BY COERCING AND INTIMIDATING EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS
TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND BY PERSUADING AND
COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES TO REFRAIN FROM BECOMING MEMBERS OF THE UNION
AND TO SIGN INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT, HAD ENGAGED IN AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT, AND
THAT BY INITIATING, SPONSORING AND DOMINATING A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF
ITS EMPLOYEES, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING COMMITTEE, IT HAD ENGAGED IN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(1) AND (2) OF THE
ACT.  THE BOARD'S ORDER DIRECTED PETITIONER TO DESIST FROM DOMINATING
AND INTERFERING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
COMMITTEE, FROM RECOGNIZING THE COMMITTEE AS REPRESENTING PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES, FROM GIVING EFFECT TO PETITIONER'S CONTRACTS WITH THE
COMMITTEE AND WITH THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, AND FROM REFUSING TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION.  AS AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF, DESIGNED
TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE ACT AS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10(C), THE
BOARD ORDERED PETITIONER TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, ON REQUEST, WITH THE
UNION; TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM THE COMMITTEE; TO INFORM THE
COMMITTEE AND EMPLOYEES WHO HAD CONTRACTED INDIVIDUALLY THAT "SUCH
CONTRACT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION" OF THE ACT; THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE
RELIEVED FROM ALL OBLIGATIONS UNDER IT; THAT PETITIONER WILL "NO LONGER
DEMAND ITS PERFORMANCE" AND TO POST APPROPRIATE NOTICES. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, UPON PETITION OF THE
BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER, DIRECTED THAT IT BE ENFORCED EXCEPT
FOR A MODIFICATION OF THAT PART OF THE ORDER WHICH DIRECTED THAT
PETITIONER RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN WITH THE UNION.  THE ORDER OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTED THAT THIS PART OF THE BOARD'S ORDER BE
CONDITIONED UPON A DETERMINATION IN AN ELECTION THAT THE UNION IS STILL
THE CHOICE AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES.  104 F.2D 655. 

UPON A PETITION WHICH CHALLENGED THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO MAKE
SO MUCH OF ITS ORDER AS RELATED TO THE CONTRACTS WITH PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT MAKING THE EMPLOYEES PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI OCTOBER 9, 1939, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND
BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED MISAPPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261 AND
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305 U.S.
197.  OF LESSER MOMENT ARE QUESTIONS, ALSO RAISED BY THE PETITION,  FN2
WHETHER THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE UNION WAS STILL THE AUTHORIZED
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF A MAJORITY OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES, IS
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND, IF NOT, WHETHER THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY DIRECTED THE BOARD TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE UNION STILL REPRESENTS A MAJORITY OF PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES, AND, FINALLY, WHETHER THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD IS
LIMITED TO SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AS ARE SET UP IN THE CHARGE
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD SO AS TO PRECLUDE ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE
CREATION OF THE ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE AND PETITIONER'S CONTRACTS WITH
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES INVOLVED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, SINCE BOTH
OCCURRED AFTER THE CHARGE WAS LODGED WITH THE BOARD AND AFTER ITS
COMPLAINT WAS SERVED ON PETITIONER. 

1.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT PETITIONER, ON JULY 20TH AND 29TH, 1937, AND
THEREAFTER, REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVE (THE UNION) OF A MAJORITY OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  IF WE
ASSUME, AS PETITIONER ARGUES, THAT A MAJORITY OF ITS EMPLOYEES HAD
FREELY REVOKED THEIR DESIGNATION OF THE UNION AS BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE AND CHOSEN IN ITS STEAD THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
COMMITTEE, THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT MILITATE AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF
THE BOARD THAT THE UNION REPRESENTED THE EMPLOYEES DURING JULY AND
AUGUST WHEN THE PETITIONER REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH IT, NOR DO THEY
RELIEVE PETITIONER FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS REFUSAL TO BARGAIN,
WHICH WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 

SINCE THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD,
THERE IS NO OCCASION HERE TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE IN DETAIL. 
CINCINNATI, H. & D. RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 206 U.S.
142, 154; ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
206 U.S. 441, 456.  IT IS ENOUGH, WITH THE FINDINGS NOT CHALLENGED,
THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT BY JULY 20TH ONE HUNDRED AND NINE OF
PETITIONER'S ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY EMPLOYEES HAD SIGNED APPLICATIONS
FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION, DESIGNATING IT AS THE APPLICANT'S
REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND THAT ON THAT DATE
NEGOTIATION BEGAN BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES
WHICH WAS CONTINUED UNTIL AUGUST.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ATTEMPTS BY
PETITIONER BETWEEN THAT DATE AND JULY 20TH TO CIRCULATE A PETITION
AMONG ITS EMPLOYEES NOMINATING A COMMITTEE TO ACT AS THEIR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE FAILED.  A FEW EMPLOYEES SIGNED.  THEN, A
NUMBER CANCELLED THEIR SIGNATURES.  THE PETITION WAS RETURNED TO THE
PETITIONER'S SUPERINTENDENT AND WAS DESTROYED BY AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE COMPANY.  THERE IS TESTIMONY THAT AT THE MEETING WITH THE UNION
REPRESENTATIVES ON JULY 29TH PETITIONER'S PRESIDENT DECLINED TO
RECOGNIZE THE UNION AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE
EMPLOYEES, AND DECLARED THAT HE WOULD NEGOTIATE WITH IT ONLY AS THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION MEMBERS, REFUSING TO BARGAIN
WITH IT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES, A PLAIN VIOLATION
OF THE ACT.  SECS. 8(5), 9(A).  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY PETITIONER'S
REFUSAL, ON AUGUST 2ND, TO NEGOTIATE WITH UNION REPRESENTATIVES.  THERE
WAS ALSO EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE BOARD COULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE
NEGOTIATIONS ON JULY 20TH AND JULY 29TH WERE NOT ENTERED INTO BY THE
PETITIONER IN GOOD FAITH, AND WERE BUT THINLY DISGUISED REFUSALS TO
TREAT WITH THE UNION REPRESENTATIVES.    IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE
ALREADY NOTED OF THE CHOICE OF THE UNION AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
BY A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES BETWEEN JULY 14TH AND 20TH, OF THE
COMPLETE FAILURE OF PETITIONER'S EFFORTS TO DISTURB THAT REPRESENTATION
BETWEEN THE 20TH AND THE 29TH, THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT THE UNION WAS THE CHOICE AS
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF APPELLANT'S EMPLOYEES DURING JULY AND IN
AUGUST, AT LEAST UNTIL THE 5TH, WHEN PETITIONER REFUSED TO TREAT WITH
THE UNION. 

AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR, THE BARGAINING COMMITTEE AND THE CONTRACTS
OBTAINED THROUGH ITS MEDIATION WERE BOTH THE PRODUCTS OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES, AND THE COMMITTEE, UNDER THE BOARD'S ORDER, WAS NOT ENTITLED
TO RECOGNITION AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES.  SUCH
INJURY, IF ANY, AS THE PETITIONER MIGHT HAVE SUFFERED FROM THE BOARD'S
ORDER REQUIRING IT TO RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN WITH THE UNION, IS AVOIDED
BY THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THIS PART OF THE ORDER BE
CONDITIONED UPON A DETERMINATION BY AN ELECTION THAT THE UNION IS STILL
THE CHOICE OF A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD HAS NOT
PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI AND DOES NOT COMPLAIN OF THIS DIRECTION. 

2.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI DOES NOT ASSAIL THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD THAT PETITIONER'S OFFICIALS INITIATED THE ORGANIZATION OF THE
COMMITTEE, AND THAT IT "SPONSORED AND DOMINATED THE FORMATION OF THE
COMMITTEE AND THEREAFTER DOMINATED ITS ADMINISTRATION AND CONTRIBUTED
SUPPORT TO IT."  WE SHALL NOT RE-EXAMINE THOSE ISSUES HERE, MORE THAN
TO SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSES THAT THE PURPOSE OF CREATING THE
COMMITTEE WAS TO SECURE THE CONTRACTS AND BY THE CONTRACTS THE
COMMITTEE WAS LEFT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER FUNCTION TO PERFORM EXCEPT TO
JOIN WITH THE EMPLOYER IN CHOOSING AN ARBITRATOR FOR THE ARBITRATION OF
SPECIFIED LABOR DISPUTES. 

BUT THE PETITION RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, VIOLATE THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AND IT CHALLENGES THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD BECAUSE OF
THE ABSENCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, AS PARTIES, TO MAKE ANY ORDER
RESPECTING THE CONTRACTS.  THE CONTRACTS, AS THE BOARD FOUND, WERE NOT
ONLY PROCURED THROUGH THE MEDIATION OF A COMPANY-DOMINATED LABOR
ORGANIZATION, BUT THEY WERE THE MEANS ADOPTED TO "ELIMINATE THE UNION
AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENCY OF ITS EMPLOYEES."  WE THINK IT
PLAIN ALSO THAT BY THEIR TERMS THEY IMPOSED ILLEGAL RESTRAINTS UPON THE
EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY GUARANTEED BY
SECS. 7 AND 8 OF THE ACT. 

BY THE CONTRACT EACH EMPLOYEE AGREED NOT "TO DEMAND A CLOSED SHOP OR
A SIGNED AGREEMENT BY HIS EMPLOYER WITH ANY UNION."  THIS PROVISION
FORECLOSED THE EMPLOYEE FROM BARGAINING FOR A CLOSED SHOP OR A SIGNED
AGREEMENT WITH THE EMPLOYER, FREQUENT SUBJECTS OF NEGOTIATION BETWEEN
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, SEE CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, 236 ET SEQ.; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
SANDS MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332, 342; CF. VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 553, 555, NOTE 7.  IN ADDITION THE
RESTRICTION UPON THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO ASK A SIGNED AGREEMENT
EXTENDING ONLY TO AGREEMENTS WITH "ANY UNION" IS IN PLAIN CONFLICT WITH
THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE ACT TO ENCOURAGE THE PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, SEE SEC. 1, SINCE IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS BY FORBIDDING SIGNED CONTRACTS WITH LABOR UNIONS WHILE IT
PERMITS THEM WITH THE INDIVIDUAL WORKERS.  SEE CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO.
V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, 236. 

IT LIKEWISE FORESTALLS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH RESPECT TO
DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES, FIRST PROVIDING THAT A DISCHARGED EMPLOYEE MAY
SUBMIT TO THE EMPLOYER FACTS INDICATING THAT HIS DISCHARGE WAS
UNREASONABLE AND THEN STIPULATING THAT THE "QUESTION AS TO THE
PROPRIETY OF AN EMPLOYEE'S DISCHARGE IS IN NO EVENT TO BE ONE FOR
ARBITRATION OR MEDIATION."  THE EFFECT OF THIS CLAUSE WAS TO
DISCOURAGE, IF NOT FORBID, ANY PRESENTATION OF THE DISCHARGED
EMPLOYEE'S GRIEVANCES TO APPELLANT THROUGH A LABOR ORGANIZATION OR HIS
CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES, OR IN ANY WAY EXCEPT PERSONALLY. 

SINCE THE CONTRACTS WERE THE FRUITS OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
STIPULATED FOR THE RENUNCIATION BY THE EMPLOYEES OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED
BY THE ACT, AND WERE A CONTINUING MEANS OF THWARTING THE POLICY OF THE
ACT, THEY WERE APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE REMEDIAL ACTION
OF THE BOARD AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10 OF THE ACT.  NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, INC., SUPRA, 265;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK
CO., 308 U.S. 241.  HENCE THE BOARD WAS FREE BY ITS ORDER TO DIRECT
THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD TAKE NO BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACTS UNLESS IT
WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ACT BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL SIGNERS OF THE
CONTRACTS HAD NOT BEEN MADE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING.  IT IS URGED
THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT, THE BOARD
WAS POWERLESS TO DECLARE IT VOID AND OF NO EFFECT AS TO THOSE
EMPLOYEES, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY IT COULD MAKE NO ORDER FORBIDDING
PETITIONER TO MAKE USE OF THE CONTRACTS AS THE MEANS OF DEFEATING THE
POLICY AND PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 

CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, IS
NOT DECISIVE OF THIS QUESTION.  THERE, PAGE 236, AFTER POINTING OUT
THAT THE BOARD'S "POWER TO COMMAND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REMEDIAL, NOT
PUNITIVE, AND IS TO BE EXERCISED IN THE AID OF THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO
RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS AND AS A MEANS OF REMOVING OR AVOIDING THE
CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION WHERE THOSE CONSEQUENCES ARE OF A KIND TO
THWART THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT," DECISION WAS RESTED SPECIFICALLY ON
THE GROUND THAT "HERE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A FINDING THAT THE
CONTRACTS WITH THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS WERE A CONSEQUENCE OF THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FOUND BY THE BOARD OR THAT THESE CONTRACTS IN
THEMSELVES THWART ANY POLICY OF THE ACT OR THAT THEIR CANCELLATION
WOULD IN ANY WAY MAKE THE ORDER TO CEASE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICES ANY
MORE EFFECTIVE." 

IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF ANY TRIBUNAL TO
MAKE A BINDING ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS IN PERSONAM OF PARTIES NOT
BROUGHT BEFORE IT BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S.
714; RIVERSIDE & DAN RIVER COTTON MILLS V. MENEFEE, 237 U.S. 189; CF.
ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 298 U.S. 558, 571, 572.  FOR THAT REASON THERE
IS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER NOW HOW FAR THE CONTRACT RIGHTS, IF ANY, OF
THE EMPLOYEES MAY BE PASSED UPON BY THE BOARD AND THEIR EXERCISE
RESTRICTED BY ITS ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN
MADE PARTIES.  AS THE BOARD'S POWER CAN BE EFFECTIVELY EXERCISED ONLY
UPON PETITIONER, THE EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND HEARING ONLY
IF THE STATUTE REQUIRES THEM TO BE MADE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING. 
CONSEQUENTLY THE ONLY QUESTION WE ARE CALLED ON TO DECIDE IS WHETHER,
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE EXERCISE OF THE BOARD'S
AUTHORITY IS SUCH A DEPARTURE FROM ACCEPTED MODES OF PROCEDURE AS
RIGHTLY TO BE REGARDED AS BEYOND THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE BOARD BY
SEC. 10 OF THE ACT. 

THE PROCEEDING AUTHORIZED TO BE TAKEN BY THE BOARD UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS NOT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF PRIVATE RIGHTS. 
AMALGAMATED UTILITY WORKERS V. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO., ANTE, P. 261;
H. REPT. NO. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., COMMITTEE ON LABOR, P. 24;
CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KLESNER, 280 U.S. 19.  IT HAS FEW OF
THE INDICIA OF A PRIVATE LITIGATION AND MAKES NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE
PRESENCE IN IT OF ANY PRIVATE PARTY OTHER THAN THE EMPLOYER CHARGED
WITH AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  THE BOARD ACTS IN A PUBLIC CAPACITY TO
GIVE EFFECT TO THE DECLARED PUBLIC POLICY OF THE ACT TO ELIMINATE AND
PREVENT OBSTRUCTIONS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY ENCOURAGING COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND BY PROTECTING THE "EXERCISE BY WORKERS OF FULL FREEDOM
OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION, AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.  ...  "  SEC. 1.  THE IMMEDIATE OBJECT
OF THE PROCEEDING IS TO PREVENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHICH, AS
DEFINED BY SECS. 7, 8, ARE PRACTICES TENDING TO THWART THE DECLARED
POLICY OF THE ACT.  TO THAT END THE BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO ORDER THE
EMPLOYER TO DESIST FROM SUCH PRACTICES, AND BY SEC. 10(C) IT IS GIVEN
AUTHORITY TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE REMEDIAL ACTION AS WILL EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, SUPRA. 

IN A PROCEEDING SO NARROWLY RESTRICTED TO THE PROTECTION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC RIGHTS, THERE IS LITTLE SCOPE OR NEED FOR THE
TRADITIONAL RULES GOVERNING THE JOINDER OF PARTIES IN LITIGATION
DETERMINING PRIVATE RIGHTS.  ORDINARILY WHERE THE RIGHTS INVOLVED IN
LITIGATION ARISE UPON A CONTRACT, COURTS REFUSE TO ADJUDICATE THE
RIGHTS OF SOME OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT IF THE OTHERS ARE NOT
BEFORE IT.  SHIELDS V. BARROW, 17 HOW.  130, 140; CARROLL V. NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO., 94 F.2D 333; CF. WATERMAN V. CANAL-LOUISIANA BANK CO.,
215 U.S. 33, 48.  SUCH A JUDGMENT OR DECREE WOULD BE FUTILE IF
RENDERED, SINCE THE CONTRACT RIGHTS ASSERTED BY THOSE PRESENT IN THE
LITIGATION COULD NEITHER BE DEFINED, AIDED NOR ENFORCED BY A DECREE
WHICH DID NOT BIND THOSE NOT PRESENT. 

BUT DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS MAY APPLY EVEN IN PRIVATE LITIGATION
WHERE THE RIGHTS ASSERTED ARISE INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY CONTRACT WHICH AN
ADVERSE PARTY MAY HAVE MADE WITH ANOTHER, NOT A PARTY TO THE SUIT, EVEN
THOUGH THEIR ASSERTION MAY AFFECT THE ABILITY OF THE FORMER TO FULFILL
HIS CONTRACT.  THE RIGHTS ASSERTED IN THE SUIT AND THOSE ARISING UPON
THE CONTRACT ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE, SO THAT THE COURT MAY, IN A
PROPER CASE, PROCEED TO JUDGMENT WITHOUT JOINING OTHER PARTIES TO THE
CONTRACT, SHAPING ITS DECREE IN SUCH MANNER AS TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS
OF THOSE NOT BEFORE IT.  GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE RY., 260
U.S. 261, 285, 286; AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY CO. V. INTERBOROUGH
RAPID TRANSIT CO., 10 F.SUPP.  512, 515, AFF'D 76 F.2D 1002; FIDELITY &
DEPOSIT CO. V. MONTANA, 92 F.2D 693, 698; BROGDEX CO. V. FOOD MACHINERY
CO., 92 F.2D 787, 789; COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INS. CO. V. LAWHEAD, 62 F.2D
928, 931, 932; CF. HAMILTON V. SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO., 49 F. 412;
HOWE V. HOWE & OWEN BALL BEARING CO., 154 F. 820, 828; ALCAZAR
AMUSEMENT CO. V. MUDD & COLLEY AMUSEMENT CO., 204 ALA. 509; 86 SO. 209;
E.L. HUSTING CO. V. COCA-COLA CO., 194 WIS. 311; 216 N.W. 833; NOKOL
CO. V. BECKER, 318 MO. 292; 300 S.W. 1108. 

HERE THE RIGHT ASSERTED BY THE BOARD IS NOT ONE ARISING UPON OR
DERIVED FROM THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE
BOARD ASSERTS A PUBLIC RIGHT VESTED IN IT AS A PUBLIC BODY, CHARGED IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH THE DUTY OF PREVENTING UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES.  THE PUBLIC RIGHT AND THE DUTY EXTEND NOT ONLY TO THE
PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY THE EMPLOYER IN THE FUTURE, BUT
TO THE PREVENTION OF HIS ENJOYMENT OF ANY ADVANTAGE WHICH HE HAS GAINED
BY VIOLATION OF THE ACT, WHETHER IT BE A COMPANY UNION OR AN UNLAWFUL
CONTRACT WITH EMPLOYEES, AS THE MEANS OF DEFEATING THE STATUTORY POLICY
AND PURPOSE.  OBVIOUSLY EMPLOYERS CANNOT SET AT NAUGHT THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT BY INDUCING THEIR WORKMEN TO AGREE NOT TO DEMAND
PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTIES WHICH IT IMPOSES OR BY INSISTING, MORE THAN
IN A PRIVATE LITIGATION, THAT THE EMPLOYER'S OBEDIENCE TO THE ACT
CANNOT BE COMPELLED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE WORKERS WHO HAVE THUS
RENOUNCED THEIR RIGHTS. 

THE BOARD'S ORDER RUNS ONLY AGAINST PETITIONER.  IT DIRECTS THAT IT
SHALL CEASE RECOGNIZING THE COMMITTEE AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OF
THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH PETITIONER CONCERNING
GRIEVANCES, LABOR DISPUTES, WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT OR
CONDITIONS OF WORK; THAT IT SHALL NOT "GIVE EFFECT" TO THE CONTRACTS
WITH ITS EMPLOYEES; THAT IT NOTIFY EACH EMPLOYEE THAT THE CONTRACT
VIOLATES THE ACT AND THAT PETITIONER "IS THEREFORE OBLIGED TO
DISCONTINUE SUCH CONTRACT AS A TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT; AND THE
EMPLOYEES ARE RELEASED FROM ITS OBLIGATIONS AND THE RESPONDENT
(PETITIONER HERE) WILL NO LONGER DEMAND ITS PERFORMANCE," AND THAT IT
"WILL NO LONGER OFFER, SOLICIT, ENTER INTO, CONTINUE, ENFORCE OR
ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE SUCH CONTRACTS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES." 

THE EFFECT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, AS WE CONSTRUE IT, IS TO PRECLUDE
THE PETITIONER FROM TAKING ANY BENEFIT OF THE CONTRACTS WHICH WERE
PROCURED THROUGH VIOLATION OF THE ACT AND WHICH ARE THEMSELVES
CONTINUING MEANS OF VIOLATING IT, AND FROM CARRYING OUT ANY OF THE
CONTRACT PROVISIONS, THE EFFECT OF WHICH WOULD BE TO INFRINGE THE
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IT DOES NOT
FORECLOSE THE EMPLOYEES FROM TAKING ANY ACTION TO SECURE AN
ADJUDICATION UPON THE CONTRACTS, NOR PREJUDGE THEIR RIGHTS IN THE EVENT
OF SUCH ADJUDICATION.  WE DO NOT NOW CONSIDER THEIR NATURE AND EXTENT. 
IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY HERE THAT IT WILL NOT BE OPEN TO ANY TRIBUNAL
TO COMPEL THE EMPLOYER TO PERFORM THE ACTS, WHICH, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS
BOUND HIMSELF BY CONTRACT TO DO THEM, WOULD VIOLATE THE BOARD'S ORDER
OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH ANY PART OF IT. SECTION 10(A) AND (C) OF THE
ACT COMMITS TO THE BOARD THE EXCLUSIVE POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED AND TO DETERMINE THE ACTION THE
EMPLOYER MUST TAKE TO REMOVE OR AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE.    IN THESE RESPECTS THE ORDER DOES NOT GO BEYOND THOSE
IN SUITS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT, WHERE THE INJUNCTION WAS BROAD ENOUGH TO PREVENT THE
OFFENDER FROM CARRYING OUT CONTRACTS WITH PERSONS NOT PARTIES TO THE
SUITS.  UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 258 U.S. 451,
456; PARAMOUNT FAMOUS CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30; INTERSTATE
CIRCUIT, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208, 220.  SIMILARLY, IN
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE ORDER RESTRAINING
UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION MAY PRECLUDE THE PERFORMANCE OF
OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS BY THE OFFENDER.  SUCH ORDERS HAVE NEVER BEEN
CHALLENGED BECAUSE THE HOLDERS OF THE CONTRACTS WERE NOT MADE PARTIES. 
E.G. BUTTERICK CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 4 F.2D 910; Q.R.S.
MUSIC CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 12 F.2D 730; J.W. KOBI CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 23 F.2D 41.  CF. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
BEECH-NUT CO., 257 U.S. 441.  IN VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION NO. 40, SUPRA, 539, 540; 11 F.SUPP.  621, 623, THE EFFECT OF
THE DECREE WAS TO ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO DEAL EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE
FEDERATION, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD A CONTRACT WITH AN ASSOCIATION
NOT A PARTY TO THE SUIT, FOUND TO BE A DOMINATED LABOR ORGANIZATION. 
IN EVERY CASE THE THIRD PERSONS WERE LEFT FREE TO ASSERT SUCH LEGAL
RIGHTS AS THEY MIGHT HAVE ACQUIRED UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS.  BUT IN ALL,
THE PUBLIC RIGHT WAS VINDICATED BY RESTRAINING THE UNLAWFUL ACTIONS OF
THE DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH THE RESTRAINT PREVENTED HIS PERFORMANCE OF
THE CONTRACTS. 

AS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT CONTEMPLATES NO MORE THAN THE
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHTS WHICH IT CREATES AND DEFINES, AND AS
THE BOARD'S ORDER IS DIRECTED SOLELY TO THE EMPLOYER AND IS INEFFECTIVE
TO DETERMINE ANY PRIVATE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES AND LEAVES THEM FREE
TO ASSERT SUCH LEGAL RIGHTS AS THEY MAY HAVE ACQUIRED UNDER THEIR
CONTRACTS, IN ANY APPROPRIATE TRIBUNAL, WE THINK THEY ARE NOT
INDISPENSABLE PARTIES FOR PURPOSES OF THE BOARD'S ORDER AND THE STATUTE
DOES NOT REQUIRE THEIR PRESENCE AS PARTIES TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING
AND THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF THE BOARD'S DISCRETION IN ITS FAILURE TO MAKE
THEM PARTIES.  FN3  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER NOW TO WHAT EXTENT OR
BY WHAT PROCEDURE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MAKE THE EMPLOYEES PARTIES
TO A PROCEEDING PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD IN THE EVENT THAT IT UNDERTOOK
TO MAKE AN ORDER DIRECTED TO THE EMPLOYEES FORECLOSING ANY ASSERTED
RIGHTS UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE
ACT.  COMPARE THE PROCEDURE USED IN NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261
U.S. 184, 197. 

THE BOARD'S ORDER TO POST NOTICES REQUIRES THE NOTICE TO ANNOUNCE
THAT THE CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYEES ARE "VOID AND OF NO EFFECT."  IN
ORDER THAT THE NOTICE MAY MORE ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION OF THE BOARD AND THAT MISINTERPRETATION OF ITS ACTION MAY BE
AVOIDED, THE ORDER APPEALED FROM SHOULD BE SO MODIFIED AS TO OMIT THE
QUOTED WORDS AND DIRECT THAT CLAUSE (3) OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, NUMBERED
2(D) SPECIFYING THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTICE, READ AS FOLLOWS: 

(3)  THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN
THE RESPONDENT AND SOME OF ITS EMPLOYEES WERE MADE BY THE RESPONDENT IN
VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT; AND THAT THE RESPONDENT
WILL NO LONGER OFFER, SOLICIT, ENTER INTO, CONTINUE, ENFORCE, OR
ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE SUCH CONTRACTS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES; BUT THIS IS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ASSERTION BY THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY LEGAL RIGHTS
THEY MAY HAVE ACQUIRED UNDER SUCH CONTRACTS. 

3.  THE AMENDED CHARGE, WHICH INITIATED THE PRESENT PROCEEDING
PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(B) OF THE ACT, WAS LODGED WITH THE BOARD BY THE
UNION ON AUGUST 2, 1937, BEFORE PETITIONER HAD SUCCEEDED IN ORGANIZING
THE COMMITTEE AND IN SECURING THE SIGNATURES OF ITS EMPLOYEES TO THE
CONTRACTS, BUT AFTER PETITIONER'S UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT IN JULY TO DEAL
WITH ITS EMPLOYEES INDEPENDENTLY OF THE UNION.  THE CHARGE, IN ADDITION
TO OTHER UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES NOT NOW MATERIAL, ALLEGED THAT
PETITIONER HAD "COERCED AND ATTEMPTED TO COERCE ITS EMPLOYEES INTO
SIGNING INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS WITH THE SAID COMPANY; IN THAT THE SAID
COMPANY HAS CALLED MEETINGS OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND HAS COMPELLED SAID
EMPLOYEES TO ATTEND SAID MEETINGS, AND HAS ATTEMPTED TO COMPEL SAID
EMPLOYEES TO FORM COMMITTEES, NOT OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE SAID COMPANY; ...  " 

THE COMPLAINT ELABORATED THE CHARGE WITH PARTICULARITY, SETTING FORTH
THAT PETITIONER HAD FORMED AND INITIATED A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, DOMINATED AND INTERFERED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THAT
ORGANIZATION, AND HAD CONTINUED TO DO SO DOWN TO THE DATE OF THE
COMPLAINT, OCTOBER 2, 1937; THAT PETITIONER "HAS MADE SIGNING OF
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT"; AND THAT BY THESE AND
OTHER ACTS PETITIONER "IS INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, AND COERCING
ITS EMPLOYEES IN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE
ACT." 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE CHARGE IS A JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITE
TO THE COMPLAINT AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT THEY ARE
RESTRICTED TO THE SPECIFIC UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE
CHARGE.  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HOPWOOD RETINNING CO.,
98 F.2D 97.  IT ARGUES THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD THERE
WAS A FATAL DEPARTURE FROM THE CHARGE INSOFAR AS THE BOARD'S FINDING
AND ORDER ARE CONCERNED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT ORGANIZATION OF THE
COMMITTEE AND THE SIGNING OF THE EMPLOYEES' CONTRACTS.  THE ARGUMENT IS
ADDRESSED ONLY TO WANT OF POWER IN THE BOARD AND RAISES NO QUESTION OF
UNFAIRNESS TO PETITIONER IN THE PREPARATION AND PROSECUTION OF HIS
CASE. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER NOW HOW FAR THE STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT OF A CHARGE AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A COMPLAINT
EXCLUDES FROM THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS MATTERS EXISTING WHEN THE
CHARGE WAS FILED, BUT NOT INCLUDED IN IT.  WHATEVER RESTRICTIONS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF A CHARGE MAY BE THOUGHT TO PLACE UPON SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS BY THE BOARD, WE CAN FIND NO WARRANT IN THE LANGUAGE OR
PURPOSES OF THE ACT FOR SAYING THAT IT PRECLUDES THE BOARD FROM DEALING
ADEQUATELY WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHICH ARE RELATED TO THOSE
ALLEGED IN THE CHARGE AND WHICH GROW OUT OF THEM WHILE THE PROCEEDING
IS PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE VIOLATIONS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
AND FOUND BY THE BOARD WERE BUT A PROLONGATION OF THE ATTEMPT TO FORM
THE COMPANY UNION AND TO SECURE THE CONTRACTS ALLEGED IN THE CHARGE. 
ALL ARE OF THE SAME CLASS OF VIOLATIONS AS THOSE SET UP IN THE CHARGE
AND WERE CONTINUATIONS OF THEM IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAME OBJECTS.  THE
BOARD'S JURISDICTION HAVING BEEN INVOKED TO DEAL WITH THE FIRST STEPS,
IT HAD AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THOSE WHICH FOLLOWED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
THOSE ALREADY TAKEN.  WE THINK THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY HELD THAT "THE
BOARD WAS WITHIN ITS POWER IN TREATING THE WHOLE SEQUENCE AS ONE." 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS OTHER POINTS RAISED BY THE
PETITIONER.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THEM AND FIND THEM WITHOUT MERIT. 

THE ORDER BELOW WILL BE MODIFIED AS DIRECTED BY THIS OPINION AND AS
SO MODIFIED IT WILL BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AN OFFICER OF PETITIONER ADMITTED THAT HE HAD CONSULTED WITH THE
BROOKLYN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN FORMING THE CONTRACTS.  THE CONTRACTS
INVOLVED HERE FOLLOW THE "BALLEISEN FORMULA," SAID TO BE DEVISED BY
L.L. BALLEISEN, INDUSTRIAL SECRETARY OF THE CHAMBER.  THE CONTRACT
"EXECUTED BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND EACH WORKMAN INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT AS
A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES, AS
PROVIDED BY THE ACT," NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HOPWOOD
RETINNING CO., 98 F.2D 97, 100, HAS BEEN HELD TO VIOLATE THE ACT IN
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HOPWOOD RETINNING CO., SUPRA;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. AMERICAN MFG. CO., 106 F.2D 61, 66;
MATTER OF ATLAS BAG & BURLAP CO., 1 N.L. R.B. 292; MATTER OF CATING
ROPE WORKS, INC., 4 N.L.R.B. 1100; MATTER OF METROPOLITAN ENGINEERING
CO., 4 N.L.R.B. 542; MATTER OF DAVID E. KENNEDY, INC., 6 N.L.R.B. 699;
MATTER OF ART CRAYON, INC., 7 N.L.R.B. 102; MATTER OF EASTERN FOOTWEAR
CORP., 8 N.L.R.B. 1245; MATTER OF AMERICAN NUMBERING MACHINE CO., 10
N.L.R.B. 536; MATTER OF CENTRE BRASS WORKS, INC., 10 N.L.R.B. 1060;
MATTER OF FANNY FARMER CANDY SHOPS, INC., 10 N.L.R.B. 288; MATTER OF
NATIONAL METER CO., 11 N.L.R.B. 320. 

FN2 PETITIONER'S BRIEF ASSAILS THE BOARD'S ORDER ON NUMEROUS GROUNDS
NOT SET UP IN HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  WE LIMIT OUR REVIEW TO THE
QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY RAISED IN THE PETITION.  RULE 38.  SEE GENERAL
PICTURES CO. V. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO., 304 U.S. 175, 177, 178. 

FN3  ORDERS OF THE BOARD HAVE BEEN UPHELD WHICH DIRECT THE EMPLOYER
TO CEASE GIVING EFFECT TO SUCH CONTRACTS, ALTHOUGH NO NOTICE WAS GIVEN
TO THE COMPANY-DOMINATED LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OR THE EMPLOYEES. 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HOPWOOD RETINNING CO., 98 F.2D 97,
99, 100; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. EAGLE MFG. CO., 99 F.2D 930;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. RONNI PARFUM, INC., 104 F.2D 1017;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. STACKPOLE CARBON CO., 105 F.2D 167,
169; TITAN METAL MFG. CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 106 F.2D
254.  CONTRA:  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. COWELL PORTLAND CEMENT
CO., 108 F.2D 198; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. STERLING ELECTRIC
MOTORS, INC., 109 F.2D 194; 5 LABOR RELATIONS REPORTER 600. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS: 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND I SEE NO REASON OR OCCASION FOR THE
MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER.  FOR AS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
THE BOARD HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO PASS ON THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYEES
UNDER THOSE CONTRACTS.  NOR HAS ANY EMPLOYEE URGED, HERE OR BELOW, THAT
THE ORDER AFFECTS HIS CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OR CASTS A CLOUD ON THEM. 
WHETHER THE EMPLOYEES WOULD BE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
SHOULD THE BOARD IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT
UNDERTAKE TO NULLIFY THEIR RIGHTS IS A QUESTION ON WHICH WE WANT TO
RESERVE DECISION UNTIL THE BOARD PASSES ON IT AND UNTIL IT IS PUT IN
ISSUE BY PERSONS WHO HAVE A STANDING TO RAISE IT.
..END :










SOUTH CHICAGO CO. V. BASSETT, 309 U.S. 251 


NO. 262.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  - 104
F.2D 522, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN PROVIDING BY THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' ACT FOR
PAYMENT BY EMPLOYERS OF COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES OR DEATH SUFFERED BY
EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN MARITIME EMPLOYMENT ON VESSELS IN NAVIGABLE
WATERS, CONGRESS EXERTED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO MODIFY THE
ADMIRALTY LAW.  P. 256. 

2.  THE CLASSIFICATION EXCEPTING FROM THE ACT A "MASTER OR MEMBER OF
A CREW OF ANY VESSEL," SEC. 3(A)(1), WAS WITHIN THAT POWER.  P. 256. 

3.  THE ACT APPLIES TO THOSE WHO SERVE ON VESSELS AS LABORERS, WHOSE
WORK IS OF THE SORT PERFORMED BY LONGSHOREMEN AND HARBOR WORKERS, AND
WHO ARE THUS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NATURALLY AND
PRIMARILY ON BOARD TO AID IN NAVIGATION.  P. 257. 

4.  IN SO FAR AS THE DECISION WHETHER AN INJURED EMPLOYEE WAS OR WAS
NOT A "MEMBER OF THE CREW" TURNS ON A QUESTION OF FACT, THE AUTHORITY
TO DETERMINE IS CONFERRED BY THE ACT ON THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AND
HIS FINDING, IF SUSTAINED BY EVIDENCE, IS CONCLUSIVE AND MUST BE
ACCEPTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT ATTEMPTING A NEW TRIAL.  P.
257. 

5.  THE LEGAL MEANING OF THE WORD "CREW" MUST BE DETERMINED WITH
REFERENCE TO THE CONTEXT AND PURPOSE OF THE PARTICULAR STATUTE IN WHICH
THE WORD IS USED.  P. 258. 

6.  THE FACT THAT THE BOAT'S CAPTAIN, TO MAKE UP THE COMPLEMENT OF
"DECKHANDS" REQUIRED BY A CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION, INCLUDED THE
EMPLOYEE WHOSE STATUS UNDER THIS ACT IS IN QUESTION DOES NOT FIX HIS
STATUS AS THAT OF A MEMBER OF THE CREW.  THE QUESTION CONCERNS HIS
ACTUAL DUTIES.  P. 260. 

7.  EVIDENCE HELD SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING BY A DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER THAT THE PERSON ON ACCOUNT OF WHOSE DEATH COMPENSATION WAS
CLAIMED UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ACT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE CREW.  P.
260. 

SOUTH CHICAGO COAL & DOCK CO. ET AL. V. BASSETT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 532, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT VACATING AN AWARD UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR
WORKERS' ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

JOHN SCHUMANN, AN EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER, SOUTH CHICAGO COAL & DOCK
COMPANY, WAS DROWNED WHILE SERVING HIS EMPLOYER ON A VESSEL IN
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.  HIS WIDOW WAS AWARDED
COMPENSATION BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UNDER THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
HARBOR WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT.  FN1  THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOUND
THAT DECEDENT WAS PERFORMING SERVICES ON THE VESSEL AS A LABORER AND
FELL FROM THE VESSEL INTO THE WATER.  THE EMPLOYER AND ITS SURETY
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
AWARD, CONTENDING THAT DECEDENT WAS EMPLOYED AS A MEMBER OF THE CREW
AND HENCE THAT COMPENSATION WAS NOT PAYABLE.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED A TRIAL DE NOVO AND FINDING THAT THE DECEDENT WAS A MEMBER OF
THE CREW VACATED THE AWARD. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS SIMILAR TO THAT HEARD BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; THAT THE
FACTS WERE NOT IN DISPUTE; THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IN REVIEWING THE
FINDING OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WAS PRECLUDED FROM WEIGHING THE
EVIDENCE, BEING REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE RECORD AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER
THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDING.  HOLDING
THAT THERE WAS SUCH EVIDENCE, THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND DIRECTED THE DISMISSAL OF THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT.  104 F.2D 522.  BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH A
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN THE CASE OF
MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. LAWSON, 94 F.2D 190, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
308 U.S. 532. 

THE STATUTE PROVIDES SPECIFICALLY IN SEC. 3 AS TO "COVERAGE," THAT NO
COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF THE DISABILITY OR DEATH OF
A "MASTER OR MEMBER OF A CREW OF ANY VESSEL."  FN2  AND THESE PERSONS
WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM EMPLOYEE.  SEC. 2(3). 
FN3 

IT APPEARS THAT THE VESSEL WAS A LIGHTER OF 312 NET TONS USED FOR
FUELING STEAMBOATS AND OTHER MARINE EQUIPMENT.  IT WAS LICENSED TO
OPERATE IN THE CALUMET RIVER AND HARBOR AND IN THE INDIANA RIVER AND
HARBOR.  THE COURT OF APPEALS THUS SUMMARIZED ITS OPERATIONS:  "IT
SUPPLIED COAL TO OTHER VESSELS ON THEIR ORDER, EACH OPERATION CONSUMING
ONLY A COUPLE OF HOURS.  IT HAD NO SLEEPING OR EATING QUARTERS.  ITS
CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION REQUIRED THAT 'INCLUDED IN THE ENTIRE CREW
HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED AND DESIGNATED THERE MUST BE 1 LICENSED MASTER
AND PILOT, 1 LICENSED CHIEF ENGINEER, THREE SEAMEN, 1 FIREMAN'.  IF
DECEASED WERE COUNTED AS A MEMBER OF THE CREW, THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF
THE SHIP WAS PRESENT.  OTHERWISE NOT."  THE CAPTAIN TESTIFIED BEFORE
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THAT HE HAD FIVE MEN ON THE BOAT WITH HIM, ONE
ENGINEER, FIREMAN AND THREE "DECKHANDS," THE DECEDENT BEING ONE OF THE
LATTER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DESCRIBED HIS CHIEF TASK AS "FACILITATING
THE FLOW OF COAL FROM HIS BOAT TO THE VESSEL BEING FUELED - REMOVING
OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FLOW WITH A STICK.  HE PERFORMED SUCH ADDITIONAL
TASKS AS THROWING THE SHIP'S ROPE IN RELEASING OR MAKING THE BOAT
FAST.  HE PERFORMED NO NAVIGATION DUTIES.  HE OCCASIONALLY DID SOME
CLEANING OF THE BOAT.  HE DID NO WORK WHILE THE BOAT WAS EN ROUTE FROM
DOCK TO THE VESSEL TO BE FUELED."  THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT IT
SIGNIFICANT THAT HIS ONLY DUTY RELATING TO NAVIGATION WAS THE
INCIDENTAL TASK OF THROWING THE SHIP'S LINE; THAT HIS PRIMARY DUTY WAS
TO FREE THE COAL IF IT STUCK IN THE HOPPER WHILE BEING DISCHARGED INTO
THE FUELED VESSEL WHILE BOTH BOATS WERE AT REST; THAT HE HAD NO DUTIES
WHILE THE BOAT WAS IN MOTION; THAT HE WAS PAID AN HOURLY WAGE; THAT HE
HAD NO "ARTICLES"; THAT HE SLEPT AT HOME AND BOARDED OFF SHIP; THAT HE
WAS CALLED VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING EACH DAY AS HE WAS WANTED; THAT
WHILE HE HAD WORKED ONLY THREE WEEKS, AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE
THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN RETAINED FOR YEARS TO COME, HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS
SOMEWHAT AKIN TO TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT. 

IN NOGUEIRA V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 281 U.S. 128, WE HAD
OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND
HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT.  ITS GENERAL SCHEME WAS TO PROVIDE
COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN MARITIME EMPLOYMENT, EXCEPT AS
STATED, FOR DISABILITY OR DEATH RESULTING FROM INJURY OCCURRING UPON
THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE RECOVERY THROUGH
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS MIGHT NOT VALIDLY BE PROVIDED BY
STATE LAW.  WE HAD HELD THAT ONE ENGAGED AS A STEVEDORE IN LOADING A
SHIP LYING IN PORT IN NAVIGABLE WATERS WAS PERFORMING A MARITIME
SERVICE AND THAT THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES WERE MATTERS
WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.  ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO. V. IMBROVEK,
234 U.S. 52.  BUT THE COURT HAD ALSO HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF A
LONGSHOREMAN WHO WAS INJURED ON THE LAND, ALTHOUGH ENGAGED IN UNLOADING
A VESSEL, THE LOCAL LAW GOVERNED AND HENCE THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAW OF THE STATE APPLIED.  STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION V. NORDENHOLT
CORPORATION, 259 U.S. 263.  THE DISTINCTION HAD THUS BEEN MAINTAINED
BETWEEN INJURIES ON LAND AND THOSE SUFFERED BY PERSONS ENGAGED IN
MARITIME EMPLOYMENT ON A VESSEL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.  AS TO THE LATTER,
NO DOUBT WAS ENTERTAINED OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO MODIFY THE
ADMIRALTY LAW AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT BY EMPLOYERS OF
COMPENSATION.  FN4  AND IN THUS PROVIDING, CONGRESS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY TO DEFINE THE CLASSES OF SUCH EMPLOYEES WHO SHOULD RECEIVE
COMPENSATION AND TO EXCLUDE THOSE DESCRIBED IN SEC. 3.  NOGUEIRA V. NEW
YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., SUPRA. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE EXCEPTION NOW BEFORE US THROWS LIGHT
UPON THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS.  FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ENTITLED
TO COMPENSATION, THE REMEDY UNDER THE ACT IS EXCLUSIVE.  SEC. 5.  FN5
THIS MADE INAPPLICABLE TO SUCH EMPLOYEES THE PROVISION OF SEC. 33 OF
THE MERCHANTS MARINE ACT (CALLED THE JONES ACT) WHICH CARRIED TO
"SEAMEN" AT THEIR ELECTION THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  FN6  THE BILL, WHICH BECAME THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, WAS AT ONE STAGE
AMENDED SO AS TO INCLUDE A MASTER AND MEMBERS OF A CREW OF A VESSEL
OWNED BY A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN7  THEY PREFERRED HOWEVER
TO REMAIN OUTSIDE THE COMPENSATION PROVISIONS AND THUS TO RETAIN THE
ADVANTAGES OF THEIR ELECTION UNDER THE JONES ACT, AND THE BILL WAS
CHANGED ACCORDINGLY SO AS TO EXEMPT "SEAMEN."  THEN, IN ITS FINAL
PASSAGE, THE WORDS "A MASTER OR MEMBER OF A CREW" WERE SUBSTITUTED FOR
"SEAMEN."  FN8  WE THINK THAT THIS SUBSTITUTION HAS AN IMPORTANT
SIGNIFICANCE HERE.  FOR WE HAD HELD THAT LONGSHOREMEN ENGAGED ON A
VESSEL AT A DOCK IN NAVIGABLE WATERS, IN THE WORK OF LOADING OR
UNLOADING, WERE "SEAMEN."  INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY,
272 U.S. 50; NORTHERN COAL CO. V. STRAND, 278 U.S. 142.  AND, ALSO,
THAT SUCH SEAMEN IF INJURED ON A VESSEL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS, UNLIKE ONE
INJURED ON LAND, COULD NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A STATE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205.  WE
THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS IN FINALLY ADOPTING THE PHRASE "A
MASTER OR MEMBER OF A CREW" IN MAKING ITS EXCEPTION, INTENDED TO LEAVE
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION ALL THOSE VARIOUS SORTS OF LONGSHOREMEN AND
HARBOR WORKERS WHO WERE PERFORMING LABOR ON A VESSEL  FN9  AND TO WHOM
STATE COMPENSATION STATUTES WERE INAPPLICABLE.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE DECEDENT IN THIS INSTANCE FELL WITHIN THAT CLASS. 

SO FAR AS THE DECISION THAT THIS EMPLOYEE, WHO WAS AT WORK ON THIS
VESSEL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS WHEN HE SUSTAINED HIS INJURIES, WAS OR WAS
NOT "A MEMBER OF A CREW" TURNS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT, THE AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE SUCH QUESTIONS HAS BEEN CONFIDED BY CONGRESS TO THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER.  FN10  HENCE THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY RULED THAT
HIS FINDING, IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, WAS CONCLUSIVE AND
THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT WAS
SO SUPPORTED AND, IF SO, TO GIVE IT EFFECT WITHOUT ATTEMPTING A
RETRIAL.  WE HAVE SO HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE
FINDING OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THAT AN INJURY TO AN EMPLOYEE AROSE
"OUT OF AND IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT," VOEHL V. INDEMNITY
INSURANCE CO., 288 U.S. 162, 166; AS TO THE FINDING OF THE DEPENDENCY
OF A CLAIMANT FOR COMPENSATION, L'HOTE V. CROWELL, 286 U.S. 528, THE
ADMIRAL PEOPLES, 295 U.S. 649, 653, 654; AND AS TO THE FINDING THAT THE
EMPLOYEE HAD COMMITTED SUICIDE AND HENCE THAT COMPENSATION WAS NOT
PAYABLE, DEL VECCHIO V. BOWERS, 296 U.S. 280, 287.  IN THE DEL VECCHIO
CASE THE QUESTION WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCEPTION
MADE BY PARAGRAPH (B) OF SEC. 3 WITH RESPECT TO "COVERAGE," AND WE SEE
NO REASON FOR A DIFFERENT VIEW AS TO THE APPLICATION OF PARAGRAPH
(A)(1) OF THE SAME SECTION. 

PETITIONERS URGE THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DECEDENT WAS A MEMBER
OF A "CREW" WAS A QUESTION OF LAW.  THAT IS, THAT UPON THE UNDISPUTED
FACTS THE DECEDENT MUST BE HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW TO HAVE BEEN A
MEMBER OF A "CREW" AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A LONGSHOREMAN OR LABORER AT
WORK UPON THE VESSEL.  WE ARE UNABLE SO TO CONCLUDE. 

THE WORD "CREW" DOES NOT HAVE AN ABSOLUTELY UNVARYING LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE.  AS MR. JUSTICE STORY SAID IN UNITED STATES V. WINN, 3
SUMN.  209,  FN11  THE GENERAL SENSE OF THE WORD CREW IS "EQUIVALENT TO
SHIP'S COMPANY" WHICH WOULD EMBRACE ALL THE OFFICERS AS WELL AS THE
COMMON SEAMEN.  BUT IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LAWS UPON MARITIME
SUBJECTS SOMETIMES USED THE WORD CREW IN THAT GENERAL SENSE AND
"SOMETIMES IN OTHER SENSES, MORE LIMITED AND RESTRAINED."  "IT IS
SOMETIMES USED TO COMPREHEND ALL PERSONS COMPOSING THE SHIP'S COMPANY,
INCLUDING THE MASTER; SOMETIMES TO COMPREHEND THE OFFICERS AND COMMON
SEAMEN, EXCLUDING THE MASTER; AND SOMETIMES TO COMPREHEND THE COMMON
SEAMEN ONLY, EXCLUDING THE MASTER AND OFFICERS."  IT WAS THEREFORE
DEEMED NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE CONTEXT OF THE PARTICULAR USE OF THE
TERM AND THE OBJECT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ENACTMENT UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  IN THE BOUND BROOK, 146 F. 160, 164, IT WAS SAID THAT
"WHEN THE 'CREW' OF A VESSEL IS REFERRED TO, THOSE PERSONS ARE
NATURALLY AND PRIMARILY MEANT WHO ARE ON BOARD HER AIDING IN HER
NAVIGATION, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE NATURE OF THE ARRANGEMENT UNDER
WHICH THEY ARE ON BOARD."  JUDGE HOUGH IN THE BUENA VENTURA, 243 F.
797, 799, THOUGHT THAT STATEMENT WAS A FAIR SUMMARY, AND IN HIS VIEW
ONE WHO SERVED THE SHIP "IN HER NAVIGATION" WAS A MEMBER OF THE
"CREW."  ID., P. 800.  SEE, ALSO, SENECA GRAVEL CO. V. MCMANIGAL, 65
F.2D 779.  RECENTLY, IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF THE JONES ACT TO
"ANY SEAMAN," WE ADVERTED TO THE "RANGE OF VARIATION" IN THE USE OF THE
WORD "CREW," AND IT WAS AGAIN EMPHASIZED THAT WHAT CONCERNED US IN THAT
CASE, WHICH HAD RELATION TO THE STATUS OF A "MASTER," WAS "NOT THE
SCOPE OF THE CLASS OF SEAMEN AT OTHER TIMES AND IN OTHER CONTEXTS."  WE
SAID THAT OUR CONCERN THERE WAS "TO DEFINE THE MEANING FOR THE PURPOSE
OF A PARTICULAR STATUTE WHICH MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE MISCHIEF
TO BE CORRECTED AND THE END TO BE ATTAINED."  WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293
U.S. 155, 158. 

THAT IS OUR CONCERN HERE IN CONSTRUING THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE - THE
LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT - WITH APPROPRIATE
REGARD TO ITS DISTINCTIVE AIM.  WE FIND LITTLE AID IN CONSIDERING THE
USE OF THE TERM "CREW" IN OTHER STATUTES HAVING OTHER PURPOSES.  THIS
ACT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, WAS TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR A CLASS OF
EMPLOYEES AT WORK ON A VESSEL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS WHO, ALTHOUGH THEY
MIGHT BE CLASSED AS SEAMEN (INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY,
SUPRA), WERE STILL REGARDED AS DISTINCT FROM MEMBERS OF A "CREW."  THEY
WERE PERSONS SERVING ON VESSELS, TO BE SURE, BUT THEIR SERVICE WAS THAT
OF LABORERS, OF THE SORT PERFORMED BY LONGSHOREMEN AND HARBOR WORKERS
AND THUS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE EMPLOYEES ON THE VESSEL WHO ARE
NATURALLY AND PRIMARILY ON BOARD TO AID IN HER NAVIGATION.  SEE DE WALD
V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 71 F.2D 810; DIOMEDE V. LOWE, 87 F.2D 296;
MOORE DRY DOCK CO. V. PILLSBURY, 100 F.2D 245. 

REGARDING THE WORD "CREW" IN THIS STATUTE AS REFERRING TO THE LATTER
CLASS, WE THINK THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER.  THE FACT THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION CALLED FOR
THREE "DECKHANDS" AND THAT THE CAPTAIN INCLUDED THE DECEDENT TO MAKE UP
THAT COMPLEMENT IS NOT CONTROLLING.  THE QUESTION CONCERNS HIS ACTUAL
DUTIES.  THESE DUTIES, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID, DID NOT PERTAIN TO
NAVIGATION, ASIDE FROM THE INCIDENTAL TASK OF THROWING THE SHIP'S ROPE
OR MAKING THE BOAT FAST, A SERVICE OF THE SORT WHICH COULD READILY BE
PERFORMED OR AIDED BY A HARBOR WORKER.  WHAT THE COURT CONSIDERED AS
SUPPORTING THE FINDING OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WAS THAT THE PRIMARY
DUTY OF THE DECEDENT WAS TO FACILITATE THE FLOW OF COAL TO THE VESSEL
BEING FUELED, THAT HE HAD NO DUTIES WHILE THE BOAT WAS IN MOTION, THAT
HE SLEPT AT HOME AND BOARDED OFF SHIP AND WAS CALLED EACH DAY AS HE WAS
WANTED AND WAS PAID AN HOURLY WAGE.  WORKERS OF THAT SORT ON HARBOR
CRAFT MAY APPROPRIATELY BE REGARDED AS "IN THE POSITION OF LONGSHOREMEN
OR OTHER CASUAL WORKERS ON THE WATER."  SCHEFFLER V. MORAN TOWING CO.,
68 F.2D 11, 12.  EVEN IF IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE EVIDENCE PERMITTED
CONFLICTING INFERENCES, WE THINK THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S RULING.    THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  44 STAT. 1424; 33 U.S.C. AND U.S.C. SUPP. IV, SECS. 901, ET
SEQ.    FN2  THE ENTIRE TEXT OF SEC. 3 IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 3.  COVERAGE.  - (A)  COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAYABLE UNDER THIS
CHAPTER IN RESPECT OF DISABILITY OR DEATH OF AN EMPLOYEE, BUT ONLY IF
THE DISABILITY OR DEATH RESULTS FROM AN INJURY OCCURRING UPON THE
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (INCLUDING ANY DRYDOCK) AND IF
RECOVERY FOR THE DISABILITY OR DEATH THROUGH WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT VALIDLY BE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW.  NO COMPENSATION
SHALL BE PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF THE DISABILITY OR DEATH OF - 

"(1)  A MASTER OR MEMBER OF A CREW OF ANY VESSEL, NOR ANY PERSON
ENGAGED BY THE MASTER TO LOAD OR UNLOAD OR REPAIR ANY SMALL VESSEL
UNDER EIGHTEEN TONS NET; OR 

"(2)  AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY AGENCY
THEREOF OR OF ANY STATE OR FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, OR OF ANY POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION THEREOF. 

"(B)  NO COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAYABLE IF THE INJURY WAS OCCASIONED
SOLELY BY THE INTOXICATION OF THE EMPLOYEE OR BY THE WILLFUL INTENTION
OF THE EMPLOYEE TO INJURE OR KILL HIMSELF OR ANOTHER."  33 U.S.C. 903. 

FN3  33 U.S.C. 902(3). 

FN4  SEE WARING V. CLARKE, 5 HOW.  441, 457, 458; THE LOTTAWANNA, 21
WALL.  558, 577; BUTLER V. BOSTON STEAMSHIP CO., 130 U.S. 527, 556,
557; IN RE GARNETT, 141 U.S. 1, 14; ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO. V. IMBROVEK,
234 U.S. 52, 60, 62; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. JENSEN, 244 U.S. 205, 215;
WASHINGTON V. DAWSON & CO., 264 U.S. 219, 227, 228; PANAMA RAILROAD CO.
V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375, 386, 388; NOGUEIRA V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R.
CO., 281 U.S. 128, 138. 

FN5  33 U.S.C. 905. 

FN6  41 STAT. 1007. 

FN7  HOUSE REP. NO. 1767, 69TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1, 2, 20. 

FN8  CONG. REC., 69TH CONG., 2D SESS., VOL. 68, PT. 5, PP. 5402,
5403, 5908; NOGUEIRA V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 281 U.S. 128, 136. 

FN9  EXCEPT WHERE THEY ARE ENGAGED "TO LOAD OR UNLOAD OR REPAIR ANY
SMALL VESSEL UNDER EIGHTEEN TONS NET."  SEC. 3(A)(1), 33 U.S.C.
903(A)(1). 

FN10  33 U.S.C. 919(A), 921. 

FN11  28 FED. CAS. 733, CASE NO. 16,740. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























AMALGAMATED WORKERS V. EDISON CO., 309 U.S. 261 


NO. 342.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  - 106
F.2D 991, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE AUTHORITY TO APPLY TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO HAVE AN EMPLOYER ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT FOR
FAILURE TO OBEY A DECREE ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD LIES EXCLUSIVELY IN THE BOARD ITSELF, ACTING AS A
PUBLIC AGENCY.  A LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS NO STANDING TO MAKE SUCH AN
APPLICATION IN VIRTUE OF HAVING FILED THE CHARGES UPON WHICH THE
BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED.  P. 269. 

AMALGAMATED UTILITY WORKERS (C.I.O.)  V. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF
NEW YORK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 541, TO REVIEW THE DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR
A CONTEMPT ORDER. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDERED THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON
COMPANY OF NEW YORK AND ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES TO DESIST FROM CERTAIN
LABOR PRACTICES FOUND TO BE UNFAIR AND TO TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER, AND ITS DECREE, AS MODIFIED, WAS AFFIRMED BY
THIS COURT.  305 U.S. 197.  PETITIONER, AMALGAMATED UTILITY WORKERS,
BROUGHT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO
HAVE THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES
ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF
THE DECREE. 

THE BOARD, IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION, ASSERTED ITS WILLINGNESS TO
PARTICIPATE IN AN INVESTIGATION TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ACTS IN VIOLATION
OF THE DECREE HAD BEEN COMMITTED AND SUGGESTED THAT THE COURT DIRECT
SUCH INVESTIGATION AS MIGHT BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED THE APPLICATION UPON THE GROUND THAT
PETITIONER HAD "NO STANDING TO PRESS A CHARGE OF CIVIL CONTEMPT, IF
CONTEMPT HAS BEEN COMMITTED."  THE COURT HELD THAT UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT "THE BOARD IS THE PROPER PARTY TO APPLY TO THE
COURT FOR AN ORDER OF ENFORCEMENT AND TO PRESENT TO THE COURT CHARGES
THAT THE COURT'S ORDER HAS NOT BEEN OBEYED."  106 F.2D 991.  IN VIEW OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN RELATION TO THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  308 U.S.
541. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT  FN1
"CREATES PRIVATE RIGHTS"; THAT THE ACT RECOGNIZES THE RIGHTS OF LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS; AND THAT IT GIVES THE PARTIES UPON WHOM THESE RIGHTS ARE
CONFERRED STATUS IN THE COURTS FOR THEIR VINDICATION.  IN SUPPORT OF
ITS ALLEGED STANDING, PETITIONER URGES THAT UNDER ITS FORMER NAME
(UNITED ELECTRICAL AND RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA) IT FILED WITH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CHARGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENT
COMPANIES, AND THAT IT WAS UPON THESE CHARGES THAT THE BOARD ISSUED ITS
COMPLAINT AND HELD THE HEARING WHICH RESULTED IN THE ORDER IN
QUESTION.  ALSO, THAT PETITIONER WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHERE THE COMPANIES HAD
MOVED TO SET ASIDE THE BOARD'S ORDER AND THE BOARD HAD MOVED TO ENFORCE
IT; AND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD ALSO BEEN HEARD IN THIS COURT IN THE
CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS FOR REVIEW OF THE DECREE OF ENFORCEMENT. 

PETITIONER INVOKES THE STATEMENT IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF "FINDINGS
AND POLICY," WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT OF THE DENIAL BY EMPLOYERS OF
THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, AND IN
PARTICULAR THE PROVISION OF SEC. 7  FN2  THAT "EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR
OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION." 

NEITHER THIS PROVISION, NOR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT, CAN
PROPERLY BE SAID TO HAVE "CREATED" THE RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION OR OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES' OWN
CHOOSING.  IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 33, 34, WE OBSERVED THAT THIS RIGHT IS A FUNDAMENTAL
ONE; THAT EMPLOYEES "HAVE AS CLEAR A RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND SELECT THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES" AS THE EMPLOYER HAS "TO ORGANIZE
ITS BUSINESS AND SELECT ITS OWN OFFICERS AND AGENTS"; THAT
DISCRIMINATION AND COERCION "TO PREVENT THE FREE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT
OF EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND REPRESENTATION" WAS A PROPER
SUBJECT FOR CONDEMNATION BY COMPETENT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.  WE NOTED
THAT "LONG AGO" WE HAD STATED THE REASON FOR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS,  -
THAT THROUGH UNITED ACTION EMPLOYEES MIGHT HAVE "OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL ON
AN EQUALITY WITH THEIR EMPLOYER," REFERRING TO WHAT WE HAD SAID IN
AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRICITY CENTRAL COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184,
209.  AND IN RECOGNITION OF THIS RIGHT, WE CONCLUDED THAT CONGRESS
COULD SAFEGUARD IT IN THE INTEREST OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SEEK TO
MAKE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE ACTION "AN INSTRUMENT OF PEACE RATHER THAN
OF STRIFE."  TO THAT END CONGRESS ENACTED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT. 

TO ATTAIN ITS OBJECT CONGRESS CREATED A PARTICULAR AGENCY, THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, AND ESTABLISHED A SPECIAL PROCEDURE. 
THE AIM, CHARACTER AND SCOPE OF THAT SPECIAL PROCEDURE ARE
DETERMINATIVE OF THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US.  WITHIN THE RANGE OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO DETERMINE WHAT REMEDY IT
WOULD PROVIDE, THE WAY THAT REMEDY SHOULD BE SOUGHT, THE EXTENT TO
WHICH IT SHOULD BE AFFORDED, AND THE MEANS BY WHICH IT SHOULD BE MADE
EFFECTIVE. 

CONGRESS DECLARED THAT CERTAIN LABOR PRACTICES SHOULD BE UNFAIR, BUT
IT PRESCRIBED A PARTICULAR METHOD BY WHICH SUCH PRACTICES SHOULD BE
ASCERTAINED AND PREVENTED.  BY THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE ACT, THE BOARD
WAS MADE THE EXCLUSIVE AGENCY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  SECTION 10(A)
PROVIDES:  FN3 

"THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, TO PREVENT ANY
PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (LISTED IN SECTION 8)
AFFECTING COMMERCE.  THIS POWER SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE, AND SHALL NOT BE
AFFECTED BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT OR PREVENTION THAT HAS BEEN
OR MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT, CODE, LAW, OR OTHERWISE." 

THE ACT THEN SETS FORTH A DEFINITE AND RESTRICTED COURSE OF
PROCEDURE.  A CHARGE OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE MAY BE PRESENTED TO
THE BOARD, BUT THE PERSON OR GROUP MAKING THE CHARGES DOES NOT BECOME
THE ACTOR IN THE PROCEEDING.  IT IS THE BOARD, AND THE BOARD ALONE OR
ITS DESIGNATED AGENT, WHICH HAS POWER TO ISSUE ITS COMPLAINT AGAINST
THE PERSON CHARGED WITH THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  IF COMPLAINT IS
ISSUED, THERE MUST BE A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OR A MEMBER THEREOF OR
ITS AGENT.  THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE COMPLAINT IS ISSUED MAY ANSWER
AND PRODUCE TESTIMONY.  OTHER PERSONS MAY BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE AND
PRESENT TESTIMONY, BUT ONLY IN THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD, OR ITS
MEMBER OR AGENT CONDUCTING THE HEARING.  SEC. 10(B).  FN4  THE HEARING
IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE BOARD.  THE DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT
THE PERSON NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT HAS ENGAGED OR IS ENGAGING IN THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE RESTS WITH THE BOARD.  IF THE BOARD IS OF THE
OPINION THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HAS BEEN SHOWN, THE BOARD MUST
STATE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND ISSUE ITS "CEASE AND DESIST" ORDER WITH
SUCH AFFIRMATIVE REQUIREMENTS AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE
ACT.  SEC. 10(C).  FN5 

SO FAR, IT IS APPARENT THAT CONGRESS HAS ENTRUSTED TO THE BOARD
EXCLUSIVELY THE PROSECUTION OF THE PROCEEDING BY ITS OWN COMPLAINT, THE
CONDUCT OF THE HEARING, THE ADJUDICATION AND THE GRANTING OF
APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  THE BOARD AS A PUBLIC AGENCY ACTING IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, NOT ANY PRIVATE PERSON OR GROUP, NOT ANY EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF
EMPLOYEES, IS CHOSEN AS THE INSTRUMENT TO ASSURE PROTECTION FROM THE
DESCRIBED UNFAIR CONDUCT IN ORDER TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

WHEN THE BOARD HAS MADE ITS ORDER, THE BOARD ALONE IS AUTHORIZED TO
TAKE PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE IT.  FOR THAT PURPOSE THE BOARD IS
EMPOWERED TO PETITION THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR A DECREE OF
ENFORCEMENT.  THE COURT IS TO PROCEED UPON NOTICE TO THOSE AGAINST WHOM
THE ORDER RUNS AND WITH APPROPRIATE HEARING.  IF THE COURT, UPON
APPLICATION BY EITHER PARTY, IS SATISFIED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
SHOULD BE TAKEN, IT MAY ORDER THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER OR AGENT, TO TAKE
IT.  THE BOARD MAY THEN MODIFY ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND MAKE NEW
FINDINGS.  THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THE COURT IS EXCLUSIVE AND
ITS DECREE IS FINAL SAVE AS IT MAY BE REVIEWED IN THE CUSTOMARY
MANNER.  SEC. 10(E).  FN6  AGAIN, THE ACT GIVES NO AUTHORITY FOR ANY
PROCEEDING BY A PRIVATE PERSON OR GROUP, OR BY ANY EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF
EMPLOYEES, TO SECURE ENFORCEMENT OF THE BOARD'S ORDER.  THE VINDICATION
OF THE DESIRED FREEDOM OF EMPLOYEES IS THUS CONFIDED BY THE ACT, BY
REASON OF THE RECOGNIZED PUBLIC INTEREST, TO THE PUBLIC AGENCY THE ACT
CREATES.  PETITIONER EMPHASIZES THE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED TO PRIVATE
PERSONS BY SEC. 10(F).  FN7  BUT THAT OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO A PERSON
AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD WHICH HAS GRANTED OR DENIED IN
WHOLE OR IN PART THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  THAT IS, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY
AFFORDED TO CONTEST A FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD, NOT TO ENFORCE IT.  THE
PROCEDURE ON SUCH A CONTEST BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
ASSIMILATED TO THAT PROVIDED IN SEC. 10(E) WHEN THE BOARD SEEKS AN
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  BUT THAT ASSIMILATION DOES NOT CHANGE THE
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 10(F), WHICH SEEKS NOT TO REQUIRE
COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER BUT TO OVERTURN IT. 

WHAT CONGRESS SAID AT THE OUTSET, THAT THE POWER OF THE BOARD TO
PREVENT ANY UNFAIR PRACTICE AS DEFINED IN THE ACT IS EXCLUSIVE, IS THUS
FULLY CARRIED OUT AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING.  THE TEXT OF THE
ACT IS SO CLEAR IN THIS RESPECT THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT UPON
ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  BUT THIS PUTS IN A STRONG LIGHT THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT.  IN THE SENATE, THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
LABOR IN ITS REPORT ON THE BILL SAID:  FN8 

"SECTION 10(A) GIVES THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND REDRESS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, AND, TAKEN
IN CONJUNCTION WITH SECTION 14, ESTABLISHES CLEARLY THAT THIS BILL IS
PARAMOUNT OVER OTHER LAWS THAT MIGHT TOUCH UPON SIMILAR SUBJECT
MATTERS.  THUS IT IS INTENDED TO DISPEL THE CONFUSION RESULTING FROM
DISPERSION OF AUTHORITY AND TO ESTABLISH A SINGLE PARAMOUNT
ADMINISTRATIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL AMERICAN LAW REGARDING COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING." 

AND THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN ITS
REPORT STATED:  FN9 

"THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED, ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN
PRACTICE LISTED IN SECTION 8 'AFFECTING COMMERCE', AS THAT TERM IS
DEFINED IN SECTION 2(7).  THIS POWER IS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE BOARD
AND IS NOT TO BE AFFECTED BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT OR
PREVENTION.  THE BOARD IS THUS MADE THE PARAMOUNT AGENCY FOR DEALING
WITH THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES DESCRIBED IN THE BILL." 

AFTER REFERRING TO THE SUITABLE ADAPTATION OF THE BOARD'S ORDERS TO
THE NEEDS OF PARTICULAR CASES, AND ESPECIALLY TO THE POWER TO REINSTATE
EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY, THE COMMITTEE CONTINUED: 

"NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION IS CONTEMPLATED.  ESSENTIALLY THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES LISTED ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN, BY THEIR NATURE
AND CONSEQUENCES, PRESENT OR POTENTIAL; THE PROCEEDING IS IN THE NAME
OF THE BOARD, UPON THE BOARD'S FORMAL COMPLAINT.  THE FORM OF
INJUNCTIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE ORDER IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE
OF THE BILL TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH ARE BY
THE LAW DECLARED TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WEAL." 

IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, THE COMMITTEES WERE CAREFUL TO SAY THAT
THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY THE BILL WAS ANALOGOUS TO THAT SET UP BY THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, SEC. 5,  FN10  WHICH WAS DEEMED TO BE
"FAMILIAR TO ALL STUDENTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW."  THAT PROCEDURE,
WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE PRESCRIBED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM PROVISIONS INTENDED TO AFFORD REMEDIES TO PRIVATE
PERSONS, WAS FULLY DISCUSSED BY THIS COURT IN FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
V. KLESNER, 280 U.S. 19, 25, WHERE IT WAS SAID: 

"SECTION 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE
PRIVATE PERSONS WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY FOR PRIVATE WRONGS.  THE
FORMAL COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT IN THE COMMISSION'S NAME; THE PROSECUTION
IS WHOLLY THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT; AND IT BEARS THE ENTIRE EXPENSE OF
THE PROSECUTION.  A PERSON WHO DEEMS HIMSELF AGGRIEVED BY THE USE OF AN
UNFAIR METHOD OF COMPETITION IS NOT GIVEN THE RIGHT TO INSTITUTE BEFORE
THE COMMISSION A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ALLEGED WRONGDOER.  NOR MAY THE
COMMISSION AUTHORIZE HIM TO DO SO.  HE MAY OF COURSE BRING THE MATTER
TO THE COMMISSION'S ATTENTION AND REQUEST IT TO FILE A COMPLAINT.  BUT
A DENIAL OF HIS REQUEST IS FINAL.  AND IF THE REQUEST IS GRANTED AND A
PROCEEDING IS INSTITUTED, HE DOES NOT BECOME A PARTY TO IT OR HAVE ANY
CONTROL OVER IT." 

THAT SORT OF PROCEDURE CONCERNING UNFAIR COMPETITION WAS CONTRASTED
WITH THAT PROVIDED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IN RELATION TO UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION.  WE SAID THAT "IN THEIR BEARING UPON PRIVATE RIGHTS"
THEY ARE "WHOLLY DISSIMILAR."  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IMPOSES UPON
THE CARRIER MANY DUTIES AND CREATES IN THE INDIVIDUAL CORRESPONDING
RIGHTS.  FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE RIGHT IT AFFORDS "A PRIVATE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY."  THE INTERESTED PERSON CAN FILE AS OF RIGHT A
COMPLAINT BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE CARRIER IS
REQUIRED TO MAKE ANSWER.  WE SAID THAT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
"CONTAINS NO SUCH FEATURES."  ID., P. 26.  THE PRESENT ACT, DRAWN IN
ANALOGY TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, CONTAINS NO SUCH
FEATURES.    AS CONGRESS HAS IN THIS INSTANCE CREATED A PUBLIC AGENCY
ENTRUSTED BY THE TERMS OF ITS CREATION WITH THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY FOR
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, DECISIONS DEALING WITH
THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS ARISING UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT  FN11  CANNOT
BE REGARDED AS APPOSITE.  TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 569, 570; VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 543, 544.    WE THINK THAT THE
PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT CONFERRING EXCLUSIVE
POWER UPON THE BOARD TO PREVENT ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AS DEFINED,
- A POWER NOT AFFECTED BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF "PREVENTION THAT HAS BEEN
OR MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT, CODE, LAW, OR OTHERWISE" -
NECESSARILY EMBRACES EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S DECREE DIRECTING ENFORCEMENT.  THE DECREE
IN NO WAY ALTERS, BUT CONFIRMS, THE POSITION OF THE BOARD AS THE
ENFORCING AUTHORITY.  IT IS THE BOARD'S ORDER ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC
THAT THE COURT ENFORCES.  IT IS THE BOARD'S RIGHT TO MAKE THAT ORDER
THAT THE COURT SUSTAINS.  THE BOARD SEEKS ENFORCEMENT AS A PUBLIC
AGENT, NOT TO GIVE EFFECT TO A "PRIVATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY."  BOTH
THE ORDER AND THE DECREE ARE AIMED AT THE PREVENTION OF THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE.  IF THE DECREE OF ENFORCEMENT IS DISOBEYED, THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE IS STILL NOT PREVENTED.  THE BOARD STILL REMAINS AS THE
SOLE AUTHORITY TO SECURE THAT PREVENTION.  THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE TO
THAT END IS TO ASK THE COURT TO PUNISH THE VIOLATION OF ITS DECREE AS A
CONTEMPT.  AS THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE THE ORDER AT THE
SUIT OF ANY PRIVATE PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS, WE THINK IT IS CLEAR
THAT THE COURT CANNOT ENTERTAIN A PETITION FOR VIOLATION OF ITS DECREE
OF ENFORCEMENT SAVE AS THE BOARD PRESENTS IT.  AS THE CONFERENCE REPORT
UPON THE BILL STATED,  FN12  IN CASE THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IS
RESUMED, "THERE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD AN EXISTING
COURT DECREE TO SERVE AS A BASIS FOR CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS." 

THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. 151, ET SEQ. 

FN2  29 U.S.C. 157. 

FN3  29 U.S.C. 160(A). 

FN4  29 U.S.C. 160(B). 

FN5  29 U.S.C. 160(C). 

FN6  29 U.S.C. 160(E). 

FN7  29 U.S.C. 160(F). 

FN8  SEN. REP. NO. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 15. 

FN9  H.R. REP. NO. 972, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 21. 

FN10  38 STAT. 719, 15 U.S.C. 45. 

FN11  45 U.S.C. 151.  SEE 50 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1089, 1090. 

FN12  CONFERENCE REPORT, CONG. REC., 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PT. 9, P.
10,299. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CAUSE. 
..END :











MINNESOTA V. PROBATE COURT, 309 U.S. 270 


NO. 394.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 7, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  -
205 MINN. 545 - 287 N.W. 297, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER A MINNESOTA STATUTE A PERSON MAY BE SUBJECTED TO A PROCEEDING
AKIN TO LUNACY PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO HIS RESTRAINT IF PROVEN TO BE
OF A "PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY."  IN A PROHIBITION PROCEEDING THE STATE
SUPREME COURT CONSTRUED THE STATUTE AS INTENDED TO INCLUDE THOSE
PERSONS WHO, BY A HABITUAL COURSE OF MISCONDUCT IN SEXUAL MATTERS, HAVE
EVIDENCED AN UTTER LACK OF POWER TO CONTROL THEIR SEXUAL IMPULSES AND
WHO, AS A RESULT, ARE LIKELY TO ATTACK OR OTHERWISE INFLICT INJURY,
LOSS, PAIN OR OTHER EVIL ON THE OBJECTS OF THEIR UNCONTROLLED AND
UNCONTROLLABLE DESIRE; AND UPHELD THE STATUTE AND QUASHED THE
ALTERNATIVE WRIT.  UPON APPEAL HERE, HELD: 

1.  THIS COURT MUST ACCEPT THE STATE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION.  P. 273. 

2.  THE WORD "INCLUDE" AS USED IN THAT COURT'S OPINION, WILL BE TAKEN
AS DEFINING THE ENTIRE CLASS OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE STATUTE APPLIES AND
NOT AS DESCRIBING MERELY A PORTION OF A LARGER CLASS.  PP. 273-274. 

3.  THE STATUTE, SO CONSTRUED, IS NOT TOO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE TO
CONSTITUTE VALID LEGISLATION.  P. 274. 

4.  THE OBJECTION THAT IT DENIES THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
BECAUSE OF UNREASONABLE CLASSIFICATION, IS UNTENABLE.  P. 274. 

THE LEGISLATURE IS FREE TO RECOGNIZE DEGREES OF HARM AND MAY CONFINE
ITS RESTRICTIONS TO THOSE CLASSES OF CASES WHERE THE NEED IS DEEMED TO
BE CLEAREST. 

5.  IN ITS PROCEDURAL ASPECT, THE STATUTE IS NOT INVALID ON ITS
FACE.  P. 275. 

6.  PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS THAT ARE BASED UPON POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS
OF THE STATUTE IN THE PROGRESS OF THE CAUSE WHICH HAVE NOT AS YET BEEN
PASSED UPON BY THE STATE COURT, ARE PREMATURE.  P. 277. 

MINNESOTA EX REL. PEARSON V. PROBATE COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT QUASHING AN ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF PROHIBITION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, CHARLES EDWIN PEARSON, PETITIONED THE SUPREME COURT OF
MINNESOTA FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION COMMANDING THE PROBATE COURT OF
RAMSEY COUNTY, AND ITS JUDGE, TO DESIST FROM PROCEEDING AGAINST HIM AS
A "PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY" UNDER CHAPTER 369 OF THE LAWS OF MINNESOTA
OF 1939.  A PROCEEDING UNDER THE STATUTE HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN THE
PROBATE COURT FOR THE COMMITMENT OF APPELLANT AND AN ORDER FOR HIS
PRODUCTION AND EXAMINATION HAD BEEN ISSUED. 

APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  AFTER HEARING UPON AN ALTERNATIVE WRIT, THE SUPREME
COURT OVERRULED THESE CONTENTIONS AND QUASHED THE WRIT.  205 MINN. 545;
287 N.W. 297.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL.  JUD.  CODE, SEC. 237(A);
28 U.S.C. 344(A). 

THE STATUTE, IN SEC. 1, DEFINES THE TERM "PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY"
AS MEANING "THE EXISTENCE IN ANY PERSON OF SUCH CONDITIONS OF EMOTIONAL
INSTABILITY, OR IMPULSIVENESS OF BEHAVIOR, OR LACK OF CUSTOMARY
STANDARDS OF GOOD JUDGMENT, OR FAILURE TO APPRECIATE THE CONSEQUENCES
OF HIS ACTS, OR A COMBINATION OF ANY SUCH CONDITIONS, AS TO RENDER SUCH
PERSON IRRESPONSIBLE FOR HIS CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO SEXUAL MATTERS AND
THEREBY DANGEROUS TO OTHER PERSONS." 

PROVIDED, THE LAWS RELATING TO INSANE PERSONS, OR THOSE ALLEGED TO BE
INSANE, SHALL APPLY WITH LIKE FORCE TO PERSONS HAVING, OR ALLEGED TO
HAVE, A PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY.  THERE IS A PROVISO THAT BEFORE
PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED THE FACTS SHALL FIRST BE SUBMITTED TO THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY WHO IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT GOOD CAUSE EXISTS SHALL
PREPARE A PETITION TO BE EXECUTED BY A PERSON HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE
FACTS AND SHALL FILE IT WITH THE JUDGE OF THE PROBATE COURT OF THE
COUNTY IN WHICH THE "PATIENT" HAS HIS "SETTLEMENT OR IS PRESENT."  THE
PROBATE JUDGE SHALL SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR HEARING AND FOR EXAMINATION
OF THE "PATIENT."  THE JUDGE MAY EXCLUDE THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM
ATTENDANCE.  THE "PATIENT" MAY BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND THE COURT
MAY APPOINT COUNSEL FOR HIM IF HE IS FINANCIALLY UNABLE TO OBTAIN SUCH
ASSISTANCE.  THE "PATIENT" IS ENTITLED TO COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR THE
ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES IN HIS BEHALF.  THE COURT MUST APPOINT TWO DULY
LICENSED DOCTORS OF MEDICINE TO ASSIST IN THE EXAMINATION.  THE
PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE REDUCED TO WRITING AND MADE PARTS OF THE COURT'S
RECORDS.  FROM A FINDING OF THE EXISTENCE OF PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY,
THE "PATIENT" MAY APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT. 

AFTER SETTING FORTH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH GOVERNED ITS
DETERMINATION, THE STATE COURT CONSTRUED THE STATUTE IN THESE WORDS: 

"APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE CASE BEFORE US, IT CAN REASONABLY
BE SAID THAT THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 1 OF THE ACT IS INTENDED TO INCLUDE
THOSE PERSONS WHO, BY AN HABITUAL COURSE OF MISCONDUCT IN SEXUAL
MATTERS, HAVE EVIDENCED AN UTTER LACK OF POWER TO CONTROL THEIR SEXUAL
IMPULSES AND WHO, AS A RESULT, ARE LIKELY TO ATTACK OR OTHERWISE
INFLICT INJURY, LOSS, PAIN OR OTHER EVIL ON THE OBJECTS OF THEIR
UNCONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLABLE DESIRE.  IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE TO
APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE TO EVERY PERSON GUILTY OF SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT NOR EVEN TO PERSONS HAVING STRONG SEXUAL PROPENSITIES.  SUCH
A DEFINITION WOULD NOT ONLY MAKE THE ACT IMPRACTICABLE OF ENFORCEMENT
AND, PERHAPS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS APPLICATION, BUT WOULD ALSO BE AN
UNWARRANTED DEPARTURE FROM THE ACCEPTED MEANING OF THE WORDS DEFINED." 

THIS CONSTRUCTION IS BINDING UPON US. ANY CONTENTION THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION IS CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF THE ACT IS UNAVAILING HERE. 
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS APPELLANT
RAISES WE MUST TAKE THE STATUTE AS THOUGH IT READ PRECISELY AS THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAS INTERPRETED IT.  KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS V.
MEYER, 265 U.S. 30, 32; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. BLODGETT, 287 U.S. 509,
513; HICKLIN V. CONEY, 290 U.S. 169, 172; GEORGIA RAILWAY & ELECTRIC
CO. V. DECATUR, 295 U.S. 165, 170.  MOREOVER, AS IT WAS THE MANIFEST
PURPOSE OF THE COURT TO DETERMINE DEFINITELY THE MEANING OF THE ACT, WE
ACCEPT THE VIEW PRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE AT THIS
BAR, THAT THE COURT USED THE WORD "INCLUDE" AS DEFINING THE ENTIRE
CLASS OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE STATUTE APPLIES AND NOT AS DESCRIBING
MERELY A PORTION OF A LARGER CLASS.  IN ADVANCE OF A DECISION BY THE
STATE COURT APPLYING THE STATUTE TO PERSONS OUTSIDE THAT DEFINITION, WE
SHOULD NOT ADOPT A CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISION WHICH MIGHT RENDER IT
OF DOUBTFUL VALIDITY.  STEPHENSON V. BINFORD, 287 U.S. 251, 277. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE DESTROYS THE CONTENTION THAT IT IS
TOO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE TO CONSTITUTE VALID LEGISLATION.  THERE MUST
BE PROOF OF A "HABITUAL COURSE OF MISCONDUCT IN SEXUAL MATTERS" ON THE
PART OF THE PERSONS AGAINST WHOM A PROCEEDING UNDER THE STATUTE IS
DIRECTED, WHICH HAS SHOWN "AN UTTER LACK OF POWER TO CONTROL THEIR
SEXUAL IMPULSES," AND HENCE THAT THEY "ARE LIKELY TO ATTACK OR
OTHERWISE INFLICT INJURY, LOSS, PAIN OR OTHER EVIL ON THE OBJECTS OF
THEIR UNCONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLABLE DESIRE."  THESE UNDERLYING
CONDITIONS, CALLING FOR EVIDENCE OF PAST CONDUCT POINTING TO PROBABLE
CONSEQUENCES ARE AS SUSCEPTIBLE OF PROOF AS MANY OF THE CRITERIA
CONSTANTLY APPLIED IN PROSECUTIONS FOR CRIME.  NASH V. UNITED STATES,
229 U.S. 373, 377; FOX V. WASHINGTON, 236 U.S. 273, 277, 278;
OMAECHEVARRIA V. IDAHO, 246 U.S. 343, 348; UNITED STATES V. WURZBACH,
280 U.S. 396, 399.  APPELLANT'S CRITICISMS ARE DRAWN FROM HIS
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE AND FIND NO WARRANT IN THE STATUTE AS THE
STATE COURT HAS CONSTRUED IT. 

EQUALLY UNAVAILING IS THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE DENIES
APPELLANT THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  THE ARGUMENT PROCEEDS ON
THE VIEW THAT THE STATUTE HAS SELECTED A GROUP WHICH IS A PART OF A
LARGER CLASS.  THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, IS WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE A CLASS OF THE GROUP IT DID SELECT.  THAT IS,
WHETHER THERE IS ANY RATIONAL BASIS FOR SUCH A SELECTION.  WE SEE NO
REASON FOR DOUBT UPON THIS POINT.  WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE COULD HAVE
GONE FARTHER IS NOT THE QUESTION.  THE CLASS IT DID SELECT IS
IDENTIFIED BY THE STATE COURT IN TERMS WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE
PERSONS WITHIN THAT CLASS CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS ELEMENT IN THE
COMMUNITY WHICH THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS DISCRETION COULD PUT UNDER
APPROPRIATE CONTROL.  AS WE HAVE OFTEN SAID, THE LEGISLATURE IS FREE TO
RECOGNIZE DEGREES OF HARM, AND IT MAY CONFINE ITS RESTRICTIONS TO THOSE
CLASSES OF CASES WHERE THE NEED IS DEEMED TO BE CLEAREST.  IF THE LAW
"PRESUMABLY HITS THE EVIL WHERE IT IS MOST FELT, IT IS NOT TO BE
OVERTHROWN BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER INSTANCES TO WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN APPLIED."  LINDSLEY V. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61, 78
79; MILLER V. WILSON, 236 U.S. 373, 384; SEMLER V. DENTAL EXAMINERS,
294 U.S. 608, 610, 611; WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379,
400. 

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER, APART FROM DEFINITION AND
CLASSIFICATION, THE PROCEDURE AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE ADEQUATELY
SAFEGUARDS THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS EMBRACED IN THE CONCEPTION OF DUE
PROCESS.  IN THIS RELATION IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT APPELLANT HAS
CHALLENGED THE PROCEEDING IN LIMINE BY SEEKING TO PREVENT THE PROBATE
JUDGE FROM ENTERTAINING IT.  TO SUPPORT SUCH A CHALLENGE, THE STATUTE
IN ITS PROCEDURAL ASPECT MUST BE FOUND TO BE INVALID ON ITS FACE AND
NOT BY REASON OF SOME PARTICULAR APPLICATION INCONSISTENT WITH DUE
PROCESS.  IN THAT LIGHT THE ARGUMENT ON THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE ALSO
FAILS. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE FACTS MUST FIRST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY WHO MUST BE SATISFIED THAT GOOD CAUSE EXISTS.  HE THEN DRAWS A
PETITION WHICH MUST BE "EXECUTED BY A PERSON HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE
FACTS."  THE PROBATE JUDGE MUST SET THE MATTER FOR HEARING AND FOR
EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON PROCEEDED AGAINST.  PROVISION IS MADE FOR HIS
REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL AND FOR COMPELLING THE PRODUCTION OF
WITNESSES IN HIS BEHALF.  THE COURT MUST APPOINT TWO LICENSED DOCTORS
OF MEDICINE TO ASSIST IN THE EXAMINATION.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THESE
DOCTORS MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY EXPERT IN THIS TYPE OF CASES MERELY
INVITES CONJECTURE.  THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT QUALIFIED MEDICAL
MEN ARE USUALLY AVAILABLE.  LAWS AS TO PROCEEDINGS WHERE PERSONS ARE
ALLEGED TO BE INSANE ARE MADE APPLICABLE.  APPELLANT SAYS THAT THE
PATIENT CANNOT BE RELEASED ON BAIL.  THE STATE CONTESTS THIS, INSISTING
THAT HE MAY BE SO RELEASED PENDING HEARING OR ON APPEAL, POINTING TO
MASON'S MINNESOTA STATUTES, 1938 SUPPLEMENT, SEC. 8992-178.  APPELLANT
CONTENDS THAT IF THE COURT FINDS THE PATIENT TO BE WITHIN THE STATUTE,
HE MUST BE COMMITTED "FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE TO AN ASYLUM FOR THE
DANGEROUSLY INSANE."  MASON'S MINN. STAT., 1938 SUPP., SEC. 8992-176. 
THE STATE ALSO CONTESTS THIS CONCLUSION, MAINTAINING THAT THE
COMMITMENT IS WITHOUT TERM AND SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE PATIENT, OR
ANY ONE INTERESTED IN HIM, TO PETITION THE COMMITTING COURT FOR RELEASE
AT ANY TIME.  MASON'S MINN. STAT., 1938 SUPP., SEC. 8992-143; LAWS OF
1935, CHAP. 72, SEC. 143; AS AMENDED BY LAWS OF 1939, CHAP. 270, SEC.
8.  THE STATUTE GIVES A RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM THE FINDING OF THE PROBATE
JUDGE UPON COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN SPECIFIED PROVISIONS OF THE
MINNESOTA LAWS.  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THIS EXCLUDES OTHER PROVISIONS
OF LAWS RELATING TO APPEALS IN INSANITY CASES.  AGAIN, APPELLANT'S
POSITION IS CONTESTED BY THE STATE UPON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO
EXPRESS LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND THAT
OTHER PROVISIONS GOVERNING APPELLATE PROCEDURE APPLY.  THESE VARIOUS
PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS, AND OTHERS SUGGESTED BY APPELLANT, DO NOT APPEAR
TO HAVE BEEN PASSED UPON BY THE STATE COURT. 

WE FULLY RECOGNIZE THE DANGER OF A DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS IN
PROCEEDINGS DEALING WITH PERSONS CHARGED WITH INSANITY OR, AS HERE,
WITH A PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY AS DEFINED IN THE STATUTE, AND THE
SPECIAL IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THE BASIC INTERESTS OF LIBERTY IN A
CLASS OF CASES WHERE THE LAW THOUGH "FAIR ON ITS FACE AND IMPARTIAL IN
APPEARANCE" MAY BE OPEN TO SERIOUS ABUSES IN ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
MAY BE IMPOSED UPON IF THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PERSONS CHARGED
ARE NOT ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS.  BUT
WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER SUCH ABUSES HERE, FOR NONE HAVE
OCCURRED.  THE APPLICABLE STATUTES ARE NOT PATENTLY DEFECTIVE IN ANY
VITAL RESPECT AND WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME, IN ADVANCE OF A DECISION BY THE
STATE COURT, THAT THEY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO DEPRIVE APPELLANT
OF THE DUE PROCESS TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  PLYMOUTH COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 531, 546;
UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165, 186, 187; STEPHENSON V.
BINFORD, SUPRA.  ON THE CONTRARY, WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE MINNESOTA
COURTS WILL PROTECT APPELLANT IN EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT HE
POSSESSES.  HIS PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS ARE PREMATURE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 
..END :
























HELVERING V. KEHOE, 309 U.S. 277 


NO. 419.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 8, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  -
105 F.2D 552, REVERSED. 


A CONCLUSION OF FACT BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BINDS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 279. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. KEHOE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 543, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING A RULING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT KEHOE, IN 1926, MADE AN INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1925 AND
PAID THE AMOUNT COMPUTED THEREON.  IN 1927, AFTER INQUIRY CONCERNING
HIS AFFAIRS, THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED AND COLLECTED AN ADDITIONAL
SUM.  RESPONDENT WAIVED APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND BECAME
PARTY TO A CLOSING AGREEMENT UNDER SEC. 1106(B) REVENUE ACT 1926,  FN1
APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY JANUARY 27, 1928. 

IN 1932 THE COMMISSIONER UNDERTOOK TO SET ASIDE THIS AGREEMENT AND
MADE A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS,
ALSO A FIFTY PER CENT PENALTY.  RESPONDENT APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS WHERE HE MAINTAINED THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE PROOF TO SUPPORT THE
ASSESSMENT.  THE BOARD HELD THE COMMISSIONER HAD ADEQUATELY SUSTAINED
THE BURDEN OF SHOWING FRAUD OR MALFEASANCE OR MISREPRESENTATION OF
FACT, AND DID NOT ERR IN SETTING THE AGREEMENT ASIDE. 

THE MATTER THEN WENT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD CIRCUIT,
WHICH RULED THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION
AND JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD.  THE FACTS ARE MUCH DISCUSSED IN A MAJORITY
AND DISSENTING OPINION, 105 F.2D 552.  ANOTHER NARRATION OF THEM SEEMS
UNNECESSARY. 

UNDER THE RULE OFTEN ANNOUNCED, THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS IS TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND DECLARE THE RESULT AS TO MATTERS
PROPERLY BEFORE IT.  UPON REVIEW THE COURT MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS
JUDGMENT OF THE FACTS FOR THAT OF THE BOARD.  WHEN THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION OF THE LATTER THIS MUST BE
ACCEPTED.  HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131; GENERAL UTILITIES
CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 200, 206; ELMHURST CEMETERY CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 37, 40. 

HERE, UPON EVIDENCE WHICH WE THINK IS SUBSTANTIAL (THE DISSENTING
MEMBER OF THE COURT BELOW HELD THE SAME VIEW), THE BOARD FOUND FRAUD IN
FACT WHICH AFFECTED THE CLOSING AGREEMENT, AND THAT THE COMMISSIONER
PROPERLY SET THE CONTRACT ASIDE.  THE COURT BELOW SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED
THIS FINDING OF FACT.  AS IT FAILED SO TO DO THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT
MUST BE REVERSED.  THE RULING OF THE BOARD IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FEBRUARY 26, 1926, C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, 113 - 

"SEC. 1106(B).  IF AFTER A DETERMINATION AND ASSESSMENT IN ANY CASE
THE TAXPAYER HAS PAID IN WHOLE ANY TAX OR PENALTY, OR ACCEPTED ANY
ABATEMENT, CREDIT, OR REFUND BASED ON SUCH DETERMINATION AND
ASSESSMENT, AND AN AGREEMENT IS MADE IN WRITING BETWEEN THE TAXPAYER
AND THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, THAT SUCH
DETERMINATION AND ASSESSMENT SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE, THEN
(EXCEPT UPON A SHOWING OF FRAUD OR MALFEASANCE OR MISREPRESENTATION OF
FACT MATERIALLY AFFECTING THE DETERMINATION OR ASSESSMENT THUS MADE)(1)
THE CASE SHALL NOT BE REOPENED OR THE DETERMINATION AND ASSESSMENT
MODIFIED BY ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
(2) NO SUIT, ACTION, OR PROCEEDING TO ANNUL, MODIFY, OR SET ASIDE SUCH
DETERMINATION OR ASSESSMENT SHALL BE ENTERTAINED BY ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES." 
..END :



RUSSELL V. TODD, 309 U.S. 280 


NO. 329.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  - 104
F.2D 169, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE SHAREHOLDERS' LIABILITY, "EQUALLY AND RATABLY," FOR THE DEBTS
OF A JOINT STOCK LAND BANK, UNDER SEC. 16 OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT,
IS ENFORCEABLE ONLY BY A SINGLE REPRESENTATIVE SUIT IN EQUITY IN BEHALF
OF ALL THE CREDITORS, IN WHICH THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF INSOLVENCY,
AND THE RATABLE SHARES OF THE CONTRIBUTION BY SHAREHOLDERS, CAN BE
ASCERTAINED AND AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION MADE OF THE FUND RECOVERED. 
P. 285. 

THE SUIT IS NOT ANY THE LESS IN EQUITY BECAUSE IT TURNS OUT THAT THE
LIABILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS EQUALS THE FULL PAR-VALUE OF THEIR
STOCK.  P. 286. 

2.  THE TEST OF THE INADEQUACY OF THE LEGAL REMEDY PREREQUISITE TO
RESORT TO A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY IS THE LEGAL REMEDY WHICH FEDERAL
RATHER THAN STATE COURTS AFFORD.  P. 286. 

THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY, AS DETERMINED BY THAT
TEST, IS NEITHER ENLARGED NOR DIMINISHED BY THE NAMES GIVEN TO REMEDIES
OR THE DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN THEM BY STATE PRACTICE. 

3.  THE RULES OF DECISION ACT EMBRACES RULES ESTABLISHED BY JUDICIAL
DECISION AS WELL AS STATUTORY RULES, BUT DOES NOT APPLY TO SUITS IN
EQUITY.  P. 287. 

4.  EQUITY PROVIDES ITS OWN RULE OF LIMITATIONS THROUGH THE DOCTRINE
OF LACHES, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MADE APPLICABLE
TO EQUITY SUITS.  P. 287. 

5.  WHEN CONSONANT WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, FEDERAL COURTS OF
EQUITY APPLY AS THEIR OWN THE LOCAL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE
TO EQUITABLE CAUSES OF ACTION.  P. 288. 

6.  EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO STATE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO SIMILAR
EQUITABLE DEMANDS, WHEN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT IS
CONCURRENT WITH THAT AT LAW, OR THE SUIT IS BROUGHT IN AID OF A LEGAL
RIGHT, EQUITY WILL WITHHOLD ITS REMEDY IF THE LEGAL RIGHT IS BARRED BY
THE LOCAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  P. 289. 

7.  WHERE THE FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION IS EXCLUSIVE AND IS NOT
EXERCISED IN AID OF A LEGAL RIGHT, STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
BARRING ACTIONS AT LAW ARE INAPPLICABLE; AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
STATE STATUTE BARRING THE EQUITABLE REMEDY IN LIKE CASES, THE FEDERAL
COURT IS REMITTED TO AND APPLIES THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES AS
CONTROLLING.  P. 289. 

8.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTROLLING ACT OF CONGRESS, FEDERAL COURTS
OF EQUITY, IN ENFORCING RIGHTS ARISING UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES, WILL,
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE RULES OF DECISION ACT, ADOPT AND APPLY LOCAL
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS WHICH ARE APPLIED TO LIKE CAUSES OF ACTION BY
THE STATE COURTS.  P. 293. 

9.  SEC. 49 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, BARRING IN THREE
YEARS ACTIONS AGAINST DIRECTORS OR STOCKHOLDERS OF MONEYED CORPORATIONS
OR BANKING ASSOCIATIONS TO ENFORCE A LIABILITY CREATED BY THE COMMON
LAW OR BY STATUTE, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURTS
AS INAPPLICABLE TO SUITS WHERE THE REMEDY IS EXCLUSIVELY EQUITABLE. 
HELD, THAT THE PRESENT EQUITABLE CAUSE OF ACTION GIVEN BY SEC. 16 OF
THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT IS NOT BARRED BY THE THREE YEAR STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THAT SECTION.  PP. 290, 293. 

10.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH FEDERAL COURTS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THEM BY CONGRESS TO ADMINISTER EQUITABLE
REMEDIES, ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW STATE STATUTES AND DECISIONS AFFECTING
THOSE REMEDIES, IS NOT CONSIDERED.  P. 294. 

RUSSELL ET AL., CO-PARTNERS, V. TODD ET AL., CO-PARTNERS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 541, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE, 1
F.SUPP.  788; 20 ID. 930, 936, WHICH OVERRULED A PLEA OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE PLAINTIFFS IN A SUIT TO ENFORCE
SHAREHOLDERS' LIABILITY FOR DEBTS OF AN INSOLVENT JOINT STOCK LAND
BANK. 

THE THREE-YEAR LIMITATION BARS THE ACTION. 

NO DISTINCTION IS MADE BETWEEN ACTIONS IN EQUITY AND THOSE AT LAW. 
CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 49; WRIGHT V. RUSSELL, 269 N.Y. 683; REISMAN
V. HALL, 257 APP. DIV. 892; NETTLES V. CHILDS, 281 N.Y. 636; SCHRAM V.
COTTON, 281 N.Y. 499.  THE TEN-YEAR LIMITATION IS INAPPLICABLE. 

UNDER NEW YORK LAW LACHES ALONE IS NOT A DEFENSE AGAINST A CLAIM OF
RIGHT.  POLLITZ V. WABASH R. CO., 207 N.Y. 113.  LACHES NOW SUBSISTS IN
NEW YORK AS AN EQUITABLE DEFENSE ONLY, IN CASES WHERE THE FAVOR OR
DISCRETION OF THE COURT IS SOUGHT, AND SERVES TO SHORTEN, BUT NEVER TO
EXTEND, THE TIME LIMITED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  GROESBECK V.
MORGAN, 206 N.Y. 385, 389; CALHOUN V. MILLARD, 121 N.Y. 69, 82;
GOLDBERG V. BERRY, 231 APP.  DIV. 165, 170; COGHLAN V. COGHLAN &
SHUTTLEWORTH, INC., 226 APP. DIV. 764.  THE CONCEPT OF LACHES
SUPPLANTING LIMITATIONS AND THUS EXTENDING THE PERIOD IN WHICH AN
ACTION WOULD OTHERWISE BE BARRED BY THE STATUTE HAS BEEN SINCE AT LEAST
1848 UTTERLY FOREIGN TO THE LAW OF NEW YORK.  A FIXED LIMITATION OF
TIME HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON EVERY REMEDY, LEGAL AND EQUITABLE.  GILMORE
V. HAM, 142 N.Y. 1.  THE NEW YORK COURTS HAVE APPLIED THESE LIMITATIONS
STRICTLY, AND HAVE REFUSED TO VARY THEM EVEN IN CASES OF HARDSHIP. 
SCHMIDT V. MERCHANTS DISPATCH CO., 270 N.Y. 287; MATTER OF CITY OF NEW
YORK, 239 N.Y. 220, 225; ERICKSON V. MACY, 236 N.Y. 412, 415; GILMORE
V. HAM, SUPRA; ENGEL V. FISCHER, 102 N.Y. 400; STREETER V. GRAHAM &
NORTON CO., 263 N.Y. 39. 

LACHES IS A MATTER OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW.  IT AFFECTS THE RIGHT, NOT
MERELY THE REMEDY.  TO APPLY SUCH A DOCTRINE OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW IN A
STATE WHERE IT IS NO LONGER RECOGNIZED, TO GOVERN CLAIMS OF RIGHT, IS A
PLAIN VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64,
AND RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 202.  THE DOCTRINE OF
LACHES RELIED UPON BELOW IS BASED UPON THE THEORY OF A GENERAL FEDERAL
EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, AND MUST FALL WITH IT. 

INDEPENDENTLY OF THE NEW YORK RULE, EXISTING FEDERAL PRECEDENTS
REQUIRED THE APPLICATION TO THIS CASE OF LIMITATIONS, RATHER THAN
LACHES, BY REASON OF THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF LAW AND EQUITY. 

JURISDICTION HEREIN LIES PRIMARILY AT LAW BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT
MONEY IS THE MEASURE OF THE LIABILITY IMPOSED UPON PETITIONERS BY THE
STATUTE, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 812.  WEEKS V. LOVE, 50 N.Y. 568, 570; VAN HOOK
V. WHITLOCK, 3 PAIGE CH. 409, 416, 417.  TRUE, THE STATUTE IMPOSES
LIABILITY UPON THE SHAREHOLDERS "EQUALLY AND RATABLY, AND NOT ONE FOR
ANOTHER."  IN SOME CASES THIS LANGUAGE MIGHT BE DEEMED TO REQUIRE AN
ACCOUNTING AMONG ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE
PROPORTIONATE PAYMENT OF HIS LIABILITY BY EACH, BUT ANY SUCH
POSSIBILITY IS EXCLUDED HERE BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT REQUIRED
IS 100%.  EACH OF THE DEFENDANT SHAREHOLDERS WAS LIABLE IN FULL. 

UNDER NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 195, WHICH AT THE INCEPTION
OF THIS ACTION WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFFS UNDER THE CONFORMITY
ACT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 724, THE PLAINTIFFS COULD HAVE STATED A
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM AT LAW IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ALL THE CREDITORS, WITHOUT RESORT TO EQUITY.  MCKENZIE V. L'AMOUREUX,
11 BARB.  516; KIRK V. YOUNG, 2 ABB.  PR. 453; CHERRY V. HOWELL, 4
F.SUPP.  597, 599. 

THE ONLY REASON ADDUCED FOR MAINTAINING THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF
EQUITY IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE RECEIVER OF A JOINT STOCK LAND BANK CAN
NOT HIMSELF SUE TO ENFORCE THE SHAREHOLDERS' STATUTORY LIABILITY. 
WHEELER V. GREENE, 280 U.S. 49. 

THE JURISDICTION OF EQUITY HEREIN IS AT MOST CONCURRENT AND DOES NOT
AFFECT THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AT LAW.  CURTIS V.
CONNLY, 257 U.S. 260; MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 184 U.S. 71; MORGAN V.
HAMLET, 113 U.S. 449. 

THIS COURT HAS APPLIED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AT LAW TO EQUITABLE
ACTIONS IN FORM INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRESENT.  POLLARD V. BAILEY,
20 WALL.  520; TERRY V. LITTLE, 101 U.S. 216; CARROL V. GREEN, 92 U.S.
509; GODFREY V. TERRY, 97 U.S. 171; CLARKE V. BOORMAN'S EXECUTORS, 18
WALL.  493, 505, 506; BACON V. HOWARD, 20 HOW.  22, 26; BOONE COUNTY V.
BURLINGTON R. CO., 139 U.S. 684, 692; PEARSALL V. SMITH, 149 U.S. 231,
237; WILSON V. KOONTZ, 7 CRANCH 202, 205-6. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION DECISIVE OF THIS CASE IS WHETHER, IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN
THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NEW YORK TO ENFORCE THE STATUTORY
LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS OF A JOINT STOCK LAND BANK FOR ITS DEBTS, THE
COURT RIGHTLY DECLINED TO APPLY THE THREE-YEAR STATE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. 

RESPONDENTS TODD, WORK AND WEISS, COPARTNERS, IN BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND OTHER CREDITORS OF THE INSOLVENT OHIO JOINT STOCK LAND BANK OF
CINCINNATI, OHIO, BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN NEW
YORK AGAINST PETITIONERS, COPARTNERS, TO ENFORCE THEIR LIABILITY AS
RECORD SHAREHOLDERS OF THE BANK UNDER SEC. 16 OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN
ACT, 39 STAT. 374, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 812.  PETITIONERS, AMONG OTHER
DEFENSES, PLEADED THE NEW YORK THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  SEC.
49(4) N.Y. CIVIL PRACTICE ACT.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, AS IS
CONCEDED HERE, THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED APRIL 6, 1928; THAT
PLAINTIFFS IN THE SUIT HAD NOTICE OF ITS ACCRUAL ON APRIL 15, 1928, AND
THAT THE SUIT WAS COMMENCED THREE YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS LATER, ON
DECEMBER 16, 1931.  IT OVERRULED THE PLEA OF LIMITATIONS AND GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS.  1 F.SUPP.  788; 20 F.SUPP.  930, 936.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, 104 F.2D 169. 

BOTH COURTS, HOLDING THAT THE SUIT WAS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE EQUITY
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, RULED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES AND NOT
THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS APPLICABLE, AND HELD THAT
RESPONDENTS HAD NOT BEEN GUILTY OF LACHES.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 308
U.S. 541, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW YORK
STATUTE, UPON A PETITION WHICH CHALLENGED THE DECISION BELOW AS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT APPLYING THE THREE-YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A SUIT TO ENFORCE THE LIABILITY OF
STOCKHOLDERS OF A STATE BANK IN PLATT V. WILMOT, 193 U.S. 602; CF. AS
TO LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS OF NATIONAL BANKS, MCDONALD V. THOMPSON,
184 U.S. 71; MCCLAINE V. RANKIN, 197 U.S. 154. 

SHAREHOLDERS OF EVERY JOINT STOCK LAND BANK "SHALL BE HELD INDIVIDUALLY
RESPONSIBLE, EQUALLY AND RATABLY, AND NOT ONE FOR ANOTHER, FOR ALL  ...
DEBTS  ...  OF SUCH BANK TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF STOCK OWNED BY
THEM AT THE PAR VALUE THEREOF.  ...  "  UNLIKE THE COMPARABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT, R.S. SECS. 5151, 5234, 12 U.S.C.
SECS. 63, 192, WHICH AUTHORIZE THE RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK TO
ENFORCE THE LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK
ASSESSED AGAINST THEM BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, THIS SECTION
OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT CONFERS NO POWER ON THE RECEIVER OF A FARM
LOAN BANK TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT ON THE STOCKHOLDERS OF AN INSOLVENT
BANK OR TO MAINTAIN A SUIT TO ENFORCE THEIR LIABILITY.  WHEELER V.
GREENE, 280 U.S. 49; CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302 U.S. 500, 502;
BRUSSELBACK V. CAGO CORPORATION, 85 F.2D 20. 

AS THE LIABILITY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AS PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION IS
TO PAY "EQUALLY AND RATABLY," THE SOLE REMEDY IS BY PLENARY
REPRESENTATIVE SUIT BROUGHT IN EQUITY IN BEHALF OF ALL CREDITORS OF THE
BANK, IN WHICH THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF INSOLVENCY, AND THE RATABLE
SHARES OF THE CONTRIBUTION BY SHAREHOLDERS CAN BE ASCERTAINED AND AN
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION MADE OF THE FUND RECOVERED.  BUT THIS AMOUNT
CANNOT BE DETERMINED AND ITS DISTRIBUTION EFFECTED WITHOUT RESORT TO
THE PROCEDURES TRADITIONALLY EMPLOYED BY EQUITY UPON A BILL FOR AN
ACCOUNTING AND FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF A FUND BROUGHT INTO ITS
CUSTODY.  NO STOCKHOLDER IS LIABLE FOR MORE THAN HIS PROPORTION OF THE
DEBTS NOT EXCEEDING THE PAR VALUE OF HIS STOCK.  HIS PROPORTION CAN BE
ASCERTAINED ONLY UPON AN ACCOUNTING OF THE DEBTS AND OF THE STOCK AND A
PRO RATA DISTRIBUTION OF THE LIABILITY AMONG THE SHAREHOLDERS AND OF
THE PROCEEDS OF RECOVERY AMONG THE CREDITORS.  SUCH A SUIT DURING ITS
PROGRESS AND AT ITS CONCLUSION BY A FINAL DECREE OF DISTRIBUTION
REQUIRES THE EXERCISE OF POWERS WHICH ARE PECULIARLY THOSE OF A COURT
OF EQUITY TO BRING BEFORE IT IN A SINGLE SUIT ALL THE NECESSARY PARTIES
TO ASCERTAIN THEIR RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES, AND TO ADJUST AND SETTLE
THEM BY ITS DECREES.  POLLARD V. BAILEY, 20 WALL.  520; TERRY V.
LITTLE, 101 U.S. 216; RICHMOND V. IRONS, 121 U.S. 27; CHRISTOPHER V.
BRUSSELBACK, SUPRA. 

WHEN THE RECEIVER OR OFFICER PERFORMING LIKE FUNCTIONS IS AUTHORIZED
BY STATUTE TO ASSESS THE SHAREHOLDERS, THE ASSESSMENT IS BINDING ON
THEM BY REASON OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE CORPORATION, AND EACH
SHAREHOLDER THEN BECOMES LIABLE IN A SUIT AT LAW FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE
ASSESSMENT.  SEE CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, SUPRA, 503, AND CASES
CITED.  IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THERE IS A DIVERGENCE BETWEEN THE
PROCEDURE FOR RECOVERING ASSESSMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS OF NATIONAL BANKS,
AND THAT FOR ENFORCING THE LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS IN A FEDERAL LAND
BANK.  IN THE LATTER CASE THERE IS NO LEGAL REMEDY, THE RELIEF BEING
AFFORDED EXCLUSIVELY IN EQUITY.  THE TEST OF THE INADEQUACY OF THE
LEGAL REMEDY PREREQUISITE TO RESORT TO A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY IS THE
LEGAL REMEDY WHICH FEDERAL RATHER THAN STATE COURTS AFFORD.  DI
GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE ASSN., 296 U.S. 64; ATLAS LIFE
INSURANCE CO. V. SOUTHERN, INC., 306 U.S. 563.  AND THE JURISDICTION OF
FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY, AS DETERMINED BY THAT TEST, IS NEITHER
ENLARGED NOR DIMINISHED BY THE NAMES GIVEN TO REMEDIES OR THE
DISTINCTION MADE BETWEEN THEM BY STATE PRACTICE.  STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS
S.W. RY. CO., 284 U.S. 530, 534. 

THE PRESENT SUIT IS NOT ANY THE LESS IN EQUITY BECAUSE IT TURNS OUT
THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS EQUALS THE FULL PAR-VALUE OF
THEIR STOCK.  THE AMOUNT OF THE LIABILITY COULD NOT BE DETERMINED AND
ASSESSED WITHOUT AN ACCOUNTING OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, AND
DISTRIBUTION COULD NOT BE EFFECTED AMONG CREDITORS WITHOUT RESORT TO
THE POWER TRADITIONALLY THAT OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO MAKE ITS
DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES EFFECTIVE THROUGH ITS
DECREES IN PERSONAM.  HERE THE DECREE DIRECTS PAYMENT INTO COURT OF THE
AMOUNT FOUND TO BE DUE, FOR DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE CREDITORS IN
CONFORMITY TO THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. 

THE SUIT BEING IN EQUITY, BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, THE
QUESTION DECISIVE OF THIS CASE IS WHAT LAPSE OF TIME WILL BAR RECOVERY
IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THE
RULES OF DECISION ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO SUITS IN EQUITY.  SECTION 34 OF
THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, 28 U.S.C. 725, DIRECTING THAT THE "LAWS OF
THE SEVERAL STATES" "SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF DECISION" IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, APPLIES ONLY TO THE RULES OF DECISION IN
"TRIALS AT COMMON LAW" IN SUCH COURTS, BUT APPLIES AS WELL TO RULES
ESTABLISHED BY JUDICIAL DECISION IN THE STATES AS THOSE ESTABLISHED BY
STATUTE.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

FROM THE BEGINNING, EQUITY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS MADE APPLICABLE TO EQUITY SUITS, HAS PROVIDED ITS OWN RULE
OF LIMITATIONS THROUGH THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, THE PRINCIPLE THAT
EQUITY WILL NOT AID A PLAINTIFF WHOSE UNEXCUSED DELAY, IF THE SUIT WERE
ALLOWED, WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT.  WAGNER V. BAIRD, 7
HOW.  234, 258; STEARNS V. PAGE, 7 HOW.  819, 828, 829; PHILIPPI V.
PHILIPPE, 115 U.S. 151, 157; UNITED STATES V. BEEBE, 127 U.S. 338;
CURTNER V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 662, 676; ALSOP V. RIKER, 155 U.S.
448, 460; ABRAHAM V. ORDWAY, 158 U.S. 416, 420.  IN THE APPLICATION OF
THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES IT RECOGNIZED THAT PREJUDICE MAY ARISE FROM
DELAY ALONE, SO PROLONGED THAT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF EVENTS EVIDENCE
IS LOST OR OBSCURED; AND THE ENGLISH COURT OF CHANCERY EARLY ADOPTED
THE RULE, FOLLOWED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, THAT SUITS TO ASSERT
EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN REAL ESTATE WILL, WITHOUT MORE, BE BARRED AFTER
THE LAPSE OF TWENTY YEARS WHEN EJECTMENT OR THE RIGHT OF ENTRY FOR THE
ASSERTION OF A COMPARABLE LEGAL INTEREST IN THE LAND WOULD BE BARRED. 
ELMENDORF V. TAYLOR, 10 WHEAT.  152, 173; HOVENDEN V. LORD ANNESLY, 2
SCH.  & LEF.  607.  AND WHERE RESORT WAS HAD TO EQUITY IN AID OF A
LEGAL RIGHT, EQUITY, FOLLOWING THE LAW, WOULD REFUSE ITS AID IF THE
LEGAL RIGHT HAD BEEN BARRED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 
CARROL V. GREEN, 92 U.S. 509; GODDEN V. KIMMELL, 99 U.S. 201, 210; WOOD
V. CARPENTER, 101 U.S. 135; PHILIPPI V. PHILIPPE, SUPRA; MCDONALD V.
THOMPSON, SUPRA; POMEROY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE (4TH ED.), SEC. 1441 AND
CASES CITED.    IN FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES WAS
EARLY SUPPLEMENTED BY THE RULE THAT WHEN THE QUESTION IS OF LAPSE OF
TIME BARRING RELIEF IN EQUITY, SUCH COURTS, EVEN THOUGH NOT REGARDING
THEMSELVES AS BOUND BY STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, WILL
NEVERTHELESS, WHEN CONSONANT WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, ADOPT AND APPLY
AS THEIR OWN, THE LOCAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE
EQUITABLE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE CASE
IS HEARD.  BACON V. HOWARD, 20 HOW.  22, 26; CLARKE V. BOORMAN'S
EXECUTORS, 18 WALL.  493, 505, 506; BOONE COUNTY V. BURLINGTON & M.R.R.
CO., 139 U.S. 684, 692; PEARSALL V. SMITH, 149 U.S. 231, 233, 237;
BENEDICT V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 250 U.S. 321.  FN1    EVEN THOUGH THERE
IS NO STATE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO SIMILAR EQUITABLE DEMANDS, WHEN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT IS CONCURRENT WITH THAT AT LAW, OR
THE SUIT IS BROUGHT IN AID OF A LEGAL RIGHT, EQUITY WILL WITHHOLD ITS
REMEDY IF THE LEGAL RIGHT IS BARRED BY THE LOCAL STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  IT THUS STAYS ITS HAND IN AID OF A LEGAL RIGHT WHICH,
UNDER THE RULES OF DECISION ACT, WOULD BE UNENFORCIBLE IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS OF LAW AS WELL AS IN THE STATE COURTS.  WILSON V. KOONTZ, 7
CRANCH 202, 205-6; MICHOUD V. GIROD, 4 HOW.  503, 561; STEARNS V. PAGE,
7 HOW.  819; CLARKE V. BOORMAN'S EXECUTORS, SUPRA, 505; CARROL V.
GREEN, SUPRA; GODFREY V. TERRY, 97 U.S. 171, 176, 180; BAKER V.
CUMMINGS, 169 U.S. 189; METROPOLITAN BANK V. ST. LOUIS DISPATCH CO.,
149 U.S. 436; MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, SUPRA; HUGHES V. REED, 46 F.2D 435;
CF. WAGNER V. BAIRD, 7 HOW.  234; GODDEN V. KIMMELL, SUPRA; WOOD V.
CARPENTER, SUPRA. 

BUT WHERE THE EQUITY JURISDICTION IS EXCLUSIVE AND IS NOT EXERCISED
IN AID OR SUPPORT OF A LEGAL RIGHT, STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
BARRING ACTIONS AT LAW ARE INAPPLICABLE, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
STATE STATUTE BARRING THE EQUITABLE REMEDY IN LIKE CASES, THE FEDERAL
COURT IS REMITTED TO AND APPLIES THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES AS
CONTROLLING.  WAGNER V. BAIRD, SUPRA, 258; BADGER V. BADGER, 2 WALL. 
87, 94-5; KIRBY V. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN R. CO., 120 U.S. 130,
139; METROPOLITAN BANK V. ST. LOUIS DISPATCH CO., SUPRA, 448; SPEIDEL
V. HENRICI, 120 U.S. 377, 386, 387; SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. BOGERT,
250 U.S. 483, WHERE NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS PLEADED, 244 F. 61,
65. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE
DOCTRINE OF LACHES AND NOT THE LOCAL THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
IS CONTROLLING.  THE PRESENT SUIT BEING, AS WE HAVE SEEN AND AS THE
COURT BELOW HELD, EXCLUSIVELY OF EQUITABLE COGNIZANCE, IN THAT IT IS
NOT PREDICATED UPON ANY LEGAL CAUSE OF ACTION, THE STATUTE IS NOT ONE
WHICH A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY WILL ADOPT AND APPLY AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR OR A SUPPLEMENT TO ITS OWN DOCTRINE OF LACHES, UNLESS IT IS APPLIED
TO LIKE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE STATE COURTS. 

THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN LESS THAN FOUR YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE
OF ACTION HAD ACCRUED, AND IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS
NOT BARRED UNLESS BY THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE.  SECTION 49 OF THE CIVIL
PRACTICE ACT PROVIDES THAT "THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS MUST BE COMMENCED
WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS ACCRUED:   ...  (4) AN
ACTION AGAINST A DIRECTOR OR STOCKHOLDER OF A MONEYED CORPORATION, OR
BANKING ASSOCIATION  ...  TO ENFORCE A LIABILITY CREATED BY THE COMMON
LAW OR BY STATUTE.  THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT DEEMED TO HAVE ACCRUED
UNTIL THE DISCOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFF OF THE FACTS UNDER WHICH  ...  THE
LIABILITY WAS CREATED."  THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THIS STATUTE IS
A BAR TO ACTIONS AT LAW AND HAS SO APPLIED IT IN SUITS TO RECOVER
ASSESSMENTS ON SHAREHOLDERS OF A BANK.  SEE PLATT V. WILMOT, SUPRA. 

RESPONDENTS, ADMITTING THAT THE STATUTE IS A BAR TO SUITS AT LAW,
ARGUE THAT IT IS INAPPLICABLE TO SUITS IN EQUITY AND THAT WHEN THE
REMEDY AT LAW IS SO INADEQUATE THAT RESORT MUST BE HAD TO REMEDIES
WHICH ARE TRADITIONALLY EQUITABLE, THE LIMITATION IS NOT THAT OF THE
THREE-YEAR BUT OF THE TEN-YEAR STATUTE, WHICH IS MADE APPLICABLE TO ALL
ACTIONS FOR WHICH NO LIMITATION IS OTHERWISE SPECIALLY PRESCRIBED. 
SEC. 53, N.Y. CIVIL PRACTICE ACT. 

AT THE OUTSET WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH THOSE CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT
IN MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, AND THE STATE COURTS  FN2  HAVE
RECOGNIZED AND APPLIED THE STATUTORY BAR TO AN ACTION AT LAW TO EQUITY
SUITS BROUGHT IN AID OF THE LEGAL RIGHT TO RECOVER AN ASSESSMENT UPON
STOCKHOLDERS.  BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, THOSE CASES ARE REFERABLE TO THE
DOCTRINE ACCEPTED AND APPLIED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY THAT
EQUITY DOES NOT GIVE RELIEF PREDICATED ON A LEGAL RIGHT WHICH THE
STATUTE HAS BARRED. 

HERE THE JURISDICTION BEING EXCLUSIVELY IN EQUITY TO ENFORCE RIGHTS
COGNIZABLE ONLY IN EQUITY, STATUTES BARRING LEGAL CAUSES OF ACTION, AS
WE HAVE SEEN, ARE NOT CONTROLLING AND WE TURN TO THE ARGUMENT OF
PETITIONERS THAT THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE IS A BAR AS WELL TO SUCH SUITS
BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE SUITS IN WHICH IT IS
NECESSARY TO RESORT TO REMEDIES WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY OR TRADITIONALLY
EQUITABLE. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION THUS RAISED APPEARS NOT TO HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  IN MENCHER V. RICHARDS, 256 APP. DIV.
280; 9 N.Y.S.2D 990, WHICH WAS A STOCKHOLDERS' SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST
DIRECTORS OF A MONEYED CORPORATION FOR AN ACCOUNTING FOR PROFITS GAINED
THROUGH THEIR MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE, THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE DID NOT APPLY.  IT
POINTED OUT THAT THE STATUTE RELATES ONLY TO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR WHICH
A MONEY JUDGMENT WILL SUFFICE AND NOT TO SUITS WHICH, ALTHOUGH
SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, REQUIRE RESORT TO THE
EQUITABLE REMEDY FOR AN ACCOUNTING, AND THAT AS TO THEM THE TEN-YEAR
STATUTE APPLIES.  IN SO CONSTRUING THE STATUTE, IT FOLLOWED THE RULINGS
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT UNDER THE NEW YORK STATUTORY SCHEME OF
LIMITATIONS, SUITS IN EQUITY BROUGHT AGAINST CORPORATE DIRECTORS FOR AN
ACCOUNTING FOR WANT OF AN ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY ARE GOVERNED BY THE TEN
YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND NOT STATUTES FIXING A SHORTER PERIOD OF
LIMITATIONS WHICH WOULD BE APPLICABLE IF THE SUIT WERE AT LAW.  HANOVER
FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. MORSE DRY DOCK & REPAIR CO., 270 N.Y. 86; 200
N.E. 589; POTTER V. WALKER, 276 N.Y. 15; 11 N.E.2D 335.  FN3  CF.
GILMORE V. 142 N.Y. 1; 36 N.E. 826; TREADWELL V. CLARK, 190 N.Y. 51; 82
N.E. 505. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITIVE RULING BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE, WE ACCEPT THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE
REASONING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS UPON WHICH IT RESTS AS PERSUASIVE
THAT THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO SUITS LIKE THE PRESENT
WHERE THE REMEDY IS EXCLUSIVELY EQUITABLE.  SEE WICHITA ROYALTY CO. V.
CITY BANK, 306 U.S. 103, 107. 

WE TAKE IT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTROLLING ACT OF CONGRESS
FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY, IN ENFORCING RIGHTS ARISING UNDER STATUTES OF
THE UNITED STATES, WILL WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE RULES OF DECISION ACT
ADOPT AND APPLY LOCAL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS WHICH ARE APPLIED TO LIKE
CAUSES OF ACTION BY THE STATE COURTS.  CF. MASON V. UNITED STATES, 260
U.S. 545; JACKSON COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343.  IN THUS
GIVING EFFECT TO STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AS A SUBSTITUTE OR
SUPPLEMENT FOR THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, IT MUST APPEAR WITH
REASONABLE CERTAINTY THAT THERE IS A STATE STATUTE APPLICABLE TO LIKE
CAUSES OF ACTION.  AS THAT DOES NOT APPEAR HERE WITH RESPECT TO THE
THREE-YEAR STATUTE, THE COURT BELOW RIGHTLY DECLINED TO GIVE EFFECT TO
THAT STATUTE AND AS IT FOUND THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT BARRED BY
LACHES, IT RIGHTLY GAVE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS. 

PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW, LACHES IS NOT A DEFENSE TO
ACTIONS LIKE THE PRESENT AND THAT IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISIONS IN ERIE
R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA, RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., 304
U.S. 202, FEDERAL COURTS IN THE EXERCISE OF THE EQUITY JURISDICTION
CONFERRED UPON THEM BY SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41,
ARE NO LONGER FREE TO APPLY A DIFFERENT RULE.  BUT IN THIS CASE LACHES
HAS NOT BEEN HELD TO BE A DEFENSE AND THE COURT HAS NOT DECLINED TO
GIVE EFFECT TO A STATE STATUTE SHOWN TO BE APPLICABLE.  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE EXTENT TO WHICH
FEDERAL COURTS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THEM BY
CONGRESS TO ADMINISTER EQUITABLE REMEDIES, ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW STATE
STATUTES AND DECISIONS AFFECTING THOSE REMEDIES.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BUT FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE NOT ALWAYS HELD THEMSELVES
BOUND TO FOLLOW LOCAL STATUTES WHICH IN ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THEY
COULD ADOPT AND APPLY BY ANALOGY.  IN EACH CASE THE REFUSAL HAS BEEN
PLACED UPON THE GROUND OF SPECIAL EQUITABLE DOCTRINES, MAKING IT
INEQUITABLE TO APPLY THE STATUTE.  LACHES MAY BAR EQUITABLE REMEDY
BEFORE THE LOCAL STATUTE HAS RUN.  ALSOP V. RIKER, 155 U.S. 448, 460,
461; ABRAHAM V. ORDWAY, 158 U.S. 416; PATTERSON V. HEWITT, 195 U.S.
309, 318, ET SEQ.; BADGER V. BADGER, 2 CLIFFORD 137, 154; LEMOINE V.
DUNKLIN COUNTY, 51 F. 487, 492; KELLEY V. BOETTCHER, 85 F. 55, 62;
POOLER V. HYNE, 213 F. 154, 159.  ON THE OTHER HAND, TIME HAS BEEN HELD
TO BE NO BAR TO AN EQUITABLE SUIT FOR A TRUSTEE'S ACCOUNTING.  MICHOUD
V. GIROD, 4 HOW.  503, 561; CF. BADGER V. BADGER, 2 WALL.  87, 92;
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. BOGERT, 250 U.S. 483.  FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY
HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THEMSELVES OBLIGATED TO APPLY LOCAL STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS WHEN THEY CONFLICT WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, AS WHERE THEY
APPLY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S IGNORANCE OF HIS RIGHTS BECAUSE
OF THE FRAUD OR INEQUITABLE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT.  MICHOUD V.
GIROD, SUPRA, 561; MEADER V. NORTON, 11 WALL.  442; BAILEY V. GLOVER,
21 WALL.  342, 348; KIRBY V. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN R. CO., 120
U.S. 130; RUGAN V. SABIN, 53 F. 415, 420; STEVENS V. GRAND CENTRAL
MINING CO., 133 F. 28; JOHNSON V. WHITE, 39 F.2D 793. 

FN2  SCHRAM V. COTTON, 281 N.Y. 499; 24 N.E.2D 305; NETTLES V.
CHILDS, 281 N.Y. 636; 22 N.E.2D 477; 255 APP. DIV. 849; 7 N.Y.S.2D
1021; WRIGHT V. RUSSELL, 245 APP. DIV. 708; 281 N.Y.S. 994; 155 MISC.
877; 280 N.Y.S. 614; LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIED, 269 N.Y. 683; REISMAN V.
HALL, 257 APP. DIV. 892; 12 N.Y.S.2D 442, A FORTIORI SUITS AT LAW IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS TO RECOVER ASSESSMENTS UPON STOCKHOLDERS OF BANKS
ARE BARRED BY THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE.  PLATT V. WILMOT, 193 U.S. 602;
HOBBS V. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, 96 F. 396; SEATTLE NATIONAL BANK V.
PRATT, 103 F. 62; PLATT V. HUNGERFORD, 116 F. 771; WHITMAN V. ATKINSON,
130 F. 759; RAMSDEN V. GATELY, 142 F. 912. 

FN3  IN HANOVER FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. MORSE DRY DOCK & REPAIR CO.,
270 N.Y. 86; 200 N.E. 590, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECLARED (PP. 89, 90): 

"IN AN ACTION IN EQUITY THE TEN-YEAR LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY SECTION
53 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE ACT IS APPLICABLE UNLESS, IN A PARTICULAR
ACTION, A PARTY HAS A CHOICE OF TWO REMEDIES, ONE AT LAW, THE OTHER IN
EQUITY, BOTH COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE, AND HE SELECTS THE ACTION IN
EQUITY.  IN THAT EVENT THE PARTY WHOSE CAUSE OF ACTION WOULD BE BARRED
UNDER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE, IF HE SHOULD ELECT TO PROCEED AT LAW, MAY
NOT ENLARGE THIS TIME BY ELECTING TO PROCEED IN EQUITY.  SUCH IS THE
RULE WHERE THE REMEDIES ARE CONCURRENT.  (RUNDLE V. ALLISON, 34 N.Y.
180; KEYS V. LEOPOLD, 241 N.Y. 189; 149 N.E. 828; CLARKE V. BOORMAN'S
EXECUTORS, 85 U.S. 493.) 

"THE EXCEPTION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASES OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION,
HOWEVER, IF A PARTY'S REMEDY AT LAW IS INADEQUATE AND IMPERFECT AND HE
IS REQUIRED TO GO INTO EQUITY TO PROCURE COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE RELIEF. 
(RUNDLE V. ALLISON, SUPRA; MANN V. FAIRCHILD, 14 BARB.  548.) 

"IF RELIEF MAY BE HAD AT LAW IN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AND IN EQUITY
FOR RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD WITH A RECONVEYANCE
OF LAND AND AN ACCOUNTING FOR PROFITS, THE ACTION IN EQUITY IS SUBJECT
TO THE TEN-YEAR LIMITATION THOUGH THE ACTION FOR DAMAGES IS BARRED
UNDER THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE.  (SCHENCK V. STATE LINE TELEPHONE CO., 238
N.Y. 308; 144 N.E. 592.)" 

IN POTTER V. WALKER, 276 N.Y. 15; 11 N.E.2D 335, THE COURT SAID (PP.
25, 26): 

"IN RESPECT TO THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION BY WHICH IS SOUGHT TO RECOVER
PROFITS RECEIVED BY DIRECTORS BY REASON OF WRONGFUL ACTS, AN ACTION AT
LAW WOULD NOT AFFORD ADEQUATE RELIEF.  TO THE EXTENT THAT AN ACCOUNTING
IS NECESSARY, THE RIGHT AND THE REMEDY MUST NECESSARILY BE OF AN
EQUITABLE NATURE.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION IS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY RIGHT
IN APPLYING THE TEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS TO SUCH CAUSES OF
ACTION.  (CIV. PRAC.  ACT, SEC. 53; HANOVER FIRE INS. CO. V. MORSE DRY
DOCK & REPAIR CO., 270 N.Y. 86.)" 

WRIGHT V. RUSSELL, 269 N.Y. 683, 245 APP. DIV. 708; 281 N.Y.S. 994;
155 MISC. 877; 280 N.Y.S. 614, AND REISMAN V. HALL, 257 APP. DIV. 892;
12 N.Y.S.2D 442, CITED BY PETITIONER, DO NOT QUALIFY THIS DOCTRINE. 
THERE, ALTHOUGH REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS WERE BROUGHT, THE ILLINOIS
CONSTITUTION UNDER WHICH THE LIABILITY AROSE HAD BEEN INTERPRETED AS
PERMITTING ACTIONS AT LAW, GOLDEN V. CERVENKA, 278 ILL. 409; 116 N.E.
273.  SINCE THE LEGAL ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED WITHIN THREE YEARS,
THE COURT, AS IN MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 184 U.S. 71, AND CONSISTENTLY
WITH POTTER V. WALKER, SUPRA, APPLIED THE SAME PERIOD TO THE EQUITABLE
ACTION FOUNDED UPON IT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
REVERSED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION OF CLARK, J.,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















FISCHER V. PAULINE OIL CO., 309 U.S. 294 


NO. 239.  SUBMITTED DECEMBER 12, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  -
185 OKLA. 108 - 90 P.2D 411, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A STATE SUPREME COURT BASES ITS JUDGMENT EXCLUSIVELY UPON
ITS CONSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE, EXPRESSLY DECLINING TO CONSIDER
AN ALTERNATIVE LOCAL GROUND, THE JUDGMENT IS REVIEWABLE BY THIS COURT. 
P. 296. 

2.  SECTION 67(F) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT DOES NOT INTEND THAT AN
ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY SHALL OPERATE AUTOMATICALLY, AND
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE TRUSTEE, TO DISCHARGE AN
EXECUTION LIEN OBTAINED WITHIN FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE
PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.  P. 300. 

THE SECTION IS INTENDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS OF THE BANKRUPT
AND, THEREFORE, DOES NOT AVOID LIENS AS AGAINST ALL THE WORLD BUT ONLY
AS AGAINST THE TRUSTEE AND THOSE CLAIMING UNDER HIM, OR AS RESPECTS THE
BANKRUPT'S EXEMPT PROPERTY.  P. 301. 

3.  A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY APPEARED IN A STATE COURT AND
UNSUCCESSFULLY OBJECTED TO THE CONFIRMATION OF A SALE ON EXECUTION OF
PROPERTY THAT HAD BELONGED TO THE DEBTOR, UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
EXECUTION LIEN HAD BEEN DISCHARGED BY FORCE OF SEC. 67(F) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  HELD THAT THE DECISION AGAINST HIM, FROM WHICH HE DID
NOT APPEAL, WAS BINDING, AS TO THAT QUESTION, AGAINST THE TRUSTEE AND
AGAINST ONE WHO LATER APPLIED FOR, AND WITH THE TRUSTEE'S ACQUIESCENCE
OBTAINED, CONFIRMATION BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF A SALE OF THE SAME
PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN MADE TO HIM BY THE DEBTOR'S ASSIGNEE FOR
CREDITORS.  P. 303. 

FISCHER V. PAULINE OIL & GAS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 509, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DIRECTED FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE TO AN OIL AND
GAS LEASE, TO RECOVER MATERIALS, MACHINERY, ETC., AND FOR DAMAGES. 
PLAINTIFF RELIED ON A SHERIFF'S SALE, CONFIRMED BY A STATE COURT;
DEFENDANT ON A SALE BY AN ASSIGNEE FOR CREDITORS, CONFIRMED BY A COURT
OF BANKRUPTCY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN APPEAL TAKEN IN THIS CASE WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 
1925(43 STAT. 936, 937).  TREATING THE PAPERS WHEREON THE APPEAL WAS
ALLOWED AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS REQUIRED BY SEC.
237(C), JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED (43 STAT. 936, 938), WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 509, BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
OKLAHOMA  FN1  IS BASED UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 67(F) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898,  FN2E WHICH RAISES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
CONCERNING THE OPERATION OF THE SECTION, NOT SETTLED BY DECISION OF
THIS COURT, ON WHICH STATE COURTS HAVE REACHED CONFLICTING
CONCLUSIONS. 

THE PETITIONER BROUGHT ACTION TO QUIET HIS TITLE TO AN OIL AND GAS
LEASE AND TO GAIN POSSESSION OF THE LEASED PREMISES TOGETHER WITH
MATERIALS, MACHINERY, TOOLS, AND APPLIANCES THEREON, AND FOR MESNE
PROFITS, AND DAMAGES.  HIS CLAIM WAS BASED ON A SHERIFF'S DEED
CONSUMMATING AN EXECUTION SALE UNDER A JUDGMENT ENTERED UPON AN AWARD
OF THE STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION AGAINST GERALDINE OIL COMPANY.  THE
RESPONDENT'S TITLE WAS DERIVED THROUGH A CONVEYANCE BY AN ASSIGNEE FOR
THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS OF THE SAME COMPANY, CONFIRMED BY A BANKRUPTCY
COURT.  THE RESPONDENT CROSS-PETITIONED FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING THE
SHERIFF'S SALE TO PETITIONER VOID AND QUIETING RESPONDENT'S TITLE.  THE
TRIAL COURT DIRECTED A VERDICT FOR PETITIONER AND ENTERED JUDGMENT
THEREON, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED. 

AUGUST 30, 1934, THE COMMISSION MADE AN AWARD TO ONE RAINBOLT AGAINST
SNYDER, AS EMPLOYER, AND GERALDINE OIL COMPANY, AS OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY.  FOR PAYMENT OF THE AWARD GERALDINE OIL COMPANY WAS
SECONDARILY LIABLE. 

OCTOBER 11, 1934, GERALDINE OIL COMPANY, BEING INSOLVENT, ASSIGNED
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO A TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. 

DECEMBER 8, 1934, THE AWARD IN FAVOR OF RAINBOLT WAS FILED OF RECORD
IN A STATE DISTRICT COURT AND BECAME A JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT. 

JANUARY 21, 1935, THE ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS SOLD THE
PROPERTY TO THE RESPONDENT. 

SEPTEMBER 13, 1935, EXECUTION ISSUED ON THE RAINBOLT JUDGMENT, AND,
SEPTEMBER 17TH, THE SHERIFF LEVIED ON THE PROPERTY AS PROPERTY OF THE
GERALDINE OIL CO. THE EXECUTION WAS ISSUED ON THE THEORY THAT THE
ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS WAS INVALID, AND THE PROPERTY,
THEREFORE, REMAINED THAT OF THE ASSIGNOR.  FN3 

OCTOBER 24, 1935, GERALDINE OIL COMPANY WAS ADJUDGED A VOLUNTARY
BANKRUPT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR WESTERN
OKLAHOMA. 

NOVEMBER 12, 1935, THE SHERIFF SOLD THE PROPERTY, PURSUANT TO THE
EXECUTION, AND THE PETITIONER BOUGHT IT.  A NOTICE OF THE ADJUDICATION
IN BANKRUPTCY WAS READ AT THE SALE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PETITIONER. 
ON THE SAME DAY THE SHERIFF MADE RETURN OF THE SALE TO THE COURT OUT OF
WHICH THE EXECUTION ISSUED. 

NOVEMBER 21, 1935, THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FILED IN THAT COURT HIS
OBJECTIONS TO THE CONFIRMATION OF THE SHERIFF'S SALE, ALLEGING, INTER
ALIA, THAT GERALDINE OIL COMPANY WAS INSOLVENT WHEN RAINBOLT OBTAINED
JUDGMENT AND HAD BEEN SO EVER SINCE; THAT THE COMPANY HAD BEEN
ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF THE SECURING OF THE LIEN
UNDER THE EXECUTION, AND THAT, BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 67(F) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE LIEN WAS ABSOLUTELY VOID. 

MARCH 28, 1936, THE COURT ORDERED THAT THE SALE BE CONFIRMED AND
GRANTED THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AN EXCEPTION TO ITS ACTION.  THE
LATTER GAVE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA, BUT IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HE PERFECTED AN APPEAL.  THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION
WAS ENTERED OF RECORD APRIL 22, 1936. 

JUNE 4, 1936, THE RESPONDENT PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY MADE TO THE
RESPONDENT BY THE ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS ON JANUARY 21,
1935.  THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OBJECTED, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDREW
HIS OBJECTIONS AND THE REFEREE MADE AN ORDER CONFIRMING THE SALE.  THE
ASSIGNEE THEN PAID TO THE TRUSTEE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM
FROM THE RESPONDENT AS PURCHASER AT THE ASSIGNEE'S SALE.  IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT THE PETITIONER HAD NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION OR WAS PRESENT
AT THE HEARING. 

JUNE 10, 1936, THE SHERIFF DELIVERED A DEED TO THE PETITIONER AS
PURCHASER AT THE EXECUTION SALE. 

BOTH PETITION AND ANSWER ALLEGE THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS IN POSSESSION
OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME SUIT WAS BROUGHT, AND WE MAY ASSUME THAT
THE PETITIONER NEVER WAS IN POSSESSION. 

THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ENTRY OF THE COMMISSION'S AWARD IN THE
STATE COURT MADE IT A JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT; THAT SUCH JUDGMENT DID
NOT CONSTITUTE A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY OF GERALDINE OIL COMPANY IN
QUESTION; AND THAT NO LIEN WAS ACQUIRED UNTIL THE LEVY OF EXECUTION ON
SEPTEMBER 17, 1935, ABOUT A MONTH PRIOR TO THE ADJUDICATION OF THE
COMPANY AS A BANKRUPT. 

THE RESPONDENT ASSERTED THAT, AS THE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RAINBOLT
WAS NOT A LIEN WHEN GERALDINE OIL COMPANY ASSIGNED FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS, OR WHEN THE ASSIGNEE SOLD THE PROPERTY TO THE RESPONDENT,
ITS TITLE MUST PREVAIL; AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE SAME RESULT
MUST FOLLOW FROM THE FACT THAT SINCE THE LIEN OF THE LEVY WAS OBTAINED
LESS THAN FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY, IT WAS VOIDED BY SEC. 67(F). 

THE SUPREME COURT STATED THAT, IF EITHER OF THESE CONTENTIONS WERE
SOUND, THE PETITIONER COULD NOT PREVAIL.  IT EXPRESSLY DECLINED TO
CONSIDER THE EFFICACY OF THE SALE BY THE ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS TO PASS TITLE TO THE RESPONDENT CLEAR OF THE LIEN OF THE
SUBSEQUENT LEVY, AND RESTED ITS DECISION UPON ITS VIEW OF THE EFFECT OF
SEC. 67(F).  SINCE THE JUDGMENT IS BASED EXCLUSIVELY UPON A FEDERAL
GROUND, WE HAVE JURISDICTION. 


"ALL LEVIES, JUDGMENTS, ATTACHMENTS, OR OTHER LIENS, OBTAINED THROUGH
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A PERSON WHO IS INSOLVENT, AT ANY TIME WITHIN
FOUR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY AGAINST
HIM,  ...  SHALL BE DEEMED NULL AND VOID IN CASE HE IS ADJUDGED A
BANKRUPT, AND THE PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THE LEVY, JUDGMENT, ATTACHMENT,
OR OTHER LIEN,  ...  SHALL BE DEEMED WHOLLY DISCHARGED AND RELEASED
FROM THE SAME, AND SHALL PASS TO THE TRUSTEE AS A PART OF THE ESTATE OF
THE BANKRUPT, UNLESS THE COURT SHALL, ON DUE NOTICE, ORDER THAT THE
RIGHT UNDER SUCH LEVY, JUDGMENT, ATTACHMENT, OR OTHER LIEN SHALL BE
PRESERVED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE; AND THEREUPON THE SAME MAY
PASS TO AND SHALL BE PRESERVED BY THE TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
ESTATE AS AFORESAID.  AND THE COURT MAY ORDER SUCH CONVEYANCE AS SHALL
BE NECESSARY TO CARRY THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION INTO EFFECT:
PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL HAVE THE EFFECT TO
DESTROY OR IMPAIR THE TITLE OBTAINED BY SUCH LEVY, JUDGMENT,
ATTACHMENT, OR OTHER LIEN, OF A BONA FIDE PURCHASER FOR VALUE WHO SHALL
HAVE ACQUIRED THE SAME WITHOUT NOTICE OR REASONABLE CAUSE FOR
INQUIRY." 

THE COURT HELD THAT THE SECTION, PROPRIO VIGORE, NULLIFIED THE LIEN
OF THE LEVY SO THAT THE PROPERTY PASSED TO THE TRUSTEE DISCHARGED
THEREOF, AND CONCLUDED THAT, SINCE, AT THE TIME OF THE SHERIFF'S SALE,
THE PROPERTY WAS DISCHARGED OF THE LIEN, THE SALE, AND THE DEED
DELIVERED PURSUANT TO IT, WERE VOID; AND, AS A TRUSTEE'S SALE WOULD
PASS TITLE CLEAR OF THE LIEN, THE SAME RESULT WOULD FOLLOW FROM THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT'S VALIDATION, WITH THE TRUSTEE'S CONSENT, OF THE
ASSIGNEE'S SALE PREVIOUSLY MADE. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE COURT WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT, BY
FORCE OF SEC. 67(F), THE ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY AUTOMATICALLY
DISCHARGED THE LIEN OF THE LEVY, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY ACTION ON THE PART
OF THE TRUSTEE.  EXPRESSIONS SUPPORTING THIS VIEW MAY BE FOUND IN CASES
DECIDED BY FEDERAL COURTS,  FN4  AND STATEMENTS SQUINTING IN THE SAME
DIRECTION HAVE BEEN MADE BY THIS COURT.  FN5  IN NONE OF THESE
INSTANCES, HOWEVER, WAS THE LITIGATION BETWEEN THIRD PARTIES, OR
BETWEEN THE LIENOR OR ONE CLAIMING TITLE UNDER AN EXECUTION SALE, AND
AN OPPONENT DERIVING TITLE FROM THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY.  IN ALL OF
THEM A BANKRUPTCY RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE INSTITUTED ACTION IN THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT OR SOME OTHER COURT, OR BECAME A PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE LIEN WAS ACQUIRED, TO AVOID THE LIEN, OR THE
BANKRUPT BROUGHT SUIT TO AVOID THE LIEN AS TO PROPERTY SET APART TO HIM
AS EXEMPT IN THE BANKRUPTCY CASE. 

SOME STATE COURTS HAVE DEFINITELY HELD THAT THE ADJUDICATION OPERATES
AUTOMATICALLY TO NULLIFY THE LIEN, WHICH MUST BE TREATED AS VOID
WHENEVER AND WHEREVER DRAWN INTO QUESTION, EITHER IN A DIRECT OR A
COLLATERAL PROCEEDING, AND WHETHER THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAS TAKEN
THE PROPERTY INTO HIS POSSESSION OR ABANDONED IT.  FN6 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS SAID IN TAUBEL-SCOTT-KITZMILLER CO. V. FOX,
264 U.S. 426, 429:  "FOR THE STATUTE DOES NOT, AS A MATTER OF
SUBSTANTIVE LAW, DECLARE VOID EVERY LIEN OBTAINED THROUGH LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY."  THE COURT THERE POINTED OUT THAT A NUMBER OF ISSUES OF
FACT MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE IT CAN BE DETERMINED THAT THE LIEN IS
VOID.  AND, IN PIGG & SON V. UNITED STATES, 81 F.2D 334, 337, IT WAS
HELD THAT LIENS OBTAINED IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF
THE FILING OF THE PETITION ARE NOT VOID, BUT VOIDABLE IN A PROPER SUIT,
AND THAT THE PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THE LIEN DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PASS
TO THE TRUSTEE, DISCHARGED OF THE LIEN. 

IN CONNELL V. WALKER, 291 U.S. 1, 3, THIS COURT INDICATED THAT THE
OPERATION OF SEC. 67(F) IS NOT AUTOMATIC, SINCE THE TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY HAS AN ELECTION EITHER TO AVOID THE LIEN, OR TO BE
SUBROGATED TO IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE. 

A NUMBER OF STATE COURTS HAVE HELD, AND WE THINK RIGHTLY, THAT THE
THEREFORE, DOES NOT AVOID LIENS AS AGAINST ALL THE WORLD BUT ONLY AS
AGAINST THE TRUSTEE AND THOSE CLAIMING UNDER HIM.  FN7  IT IS SETTLED,
HOWEVER, THAT NOT ONLY MAY THE TRUSTEE AVOID THE LIEN (TAUBEL-SCOTT
KITZMILLER CO. V. FOX, SUPRA; CONNELL V. WALKER, SUPRA), BUT THAT THE
BANKRUPT MAY ASSERT ITS INVALIDITY AS RESPECTS PROPERTY SET APART TO
HIM AS EXEMPT IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING.  CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V.
HALL, 229 U.S. 511.  BUT THE LIEN IS NOT AVOIDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
BANKRUPT SAVE AS TO HIS EXEMPT PROPERTY OR NULLIFIED AS RESPECTS OTHER
LIENORS OR THIRD PARTIES.  FN8 

ALTHOUGH SEC. 67(F) UNEQUIVOCALLY DECLARES THAT THE LIEN SHALL BE
DEEMED NULL AND VOID, AND THE PROPERTY AFFECTED BY IT SHALL BE DEEMED
WHOLLY DISCHARGED AND RELEASED, THE SECTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS
SO ONLY UNDER SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.  AT THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE
LIEN THE BANKRUPT MUST HAVE BEEN INSOLVENT; THE LIEN MUST HAVE BEEN
ACQUIRED WITHIN FOUR MONTHS OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY; AND THE PROPERTY AFFECTED MUST NOT HAVE BEEN SOLD TO A BONA
FIDE PURCHASER.  FURTHERMORE, THE LIEN IS PRESERVED IF THE TRUSTEE
ELECTS TO ENFORCE IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE.  THESE CONDITIONS
CREATE ISSUES OF FACT WHICH, AS BETWEEN THE TRUSTEE, OR ONE CLAIMING
UNDER HIM, AND THE LIENOR, OR ONE CLAIMING BY VIRTUE OF THE LIEN, THE
PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE DETERMINED JUDICIALLY.  THE COURSES OPEN
TO THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898 WERE TO PROCEED TO HAVE
THE LIEN DECLARED VOID, BY PLENARY SUIT,  FN9  OR BY INTERVENTION IN
THE COURT WHERE IT WAS OBTAINED,  FN10  OR BY APPLYING, IN THE
BANKRUPTCY CAUSE, TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT,  FN11  AS MIGHT BE
APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TRUSTEE INTERVENED IN THE STATE COURT AND
OPPOSED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE EXECUTION SALE ON THE GROUND THAT SEC.
67(F) HAD AVOIDED AND DISCHARGED THE LIEN OF THE LEVY.  THE ISSUE WAS
DECIDED AGAINST HIM AND HE DID NOT APPEAL.  LATER, WHEN THE RESPONDENT,
WHO HAD PURCHASED AT THE ASSIGNEE'S SALE, ASKED THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO
CONFIRM THAT SALE, THE TRUSTEE WITHDREW HIS OBJECTIONS TO CONFIRMATION
AND ACCEPTED FROM THE ASSIGNEE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM THE
RESPONDENT AS PURCHASER AT THE LATTER'S SALE.  THE TRUSTEE'S
ACQUIESCENCE IN THE CONFIRMATION OF THE SALE TO THE RESPONDENT WOULD
SEEM TO BE AT LEAST A TACIT ASSERTION THAT THE LEVY OF THE EXECUTION
DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN ENCUMBRANCE UPON RESPONDENT'S TITLE.  BUT WE
THINK, IF IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRUSTEE'S CONDUCT COULD AMOUNT TO
AN ELECTION TO AVOID THE LIEN, IT CAN HAVE NO SUCH EFFECT HERE, IN VIEW
OF THE PRIOR DECISION AGAINST HIM ON THAT ISSUE IN THE STATE COURT. 
WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE TRUSTEE, HAVING RAISED THE ISSUE IN THE
STATE COURT, WAS BOUND BY THE FINAL DECISION OF THAT TRIBUNAL.  THE
ESTOPPEL OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT EXTENDED NOT ONLY TO HIM
BUT TO THE RESPONDENT AS HIS TRANSFEREE.  THIS CONCLUSION REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT. 

WE DO NOT PASS UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TITLE OF THE RESPONDENT,
DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO IT BY THE ASSIGNEE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF CREDITORS, IS, BY VIRTUE OF THAT SALE, SUPERIOR TO THE TITLE
OF THE PETITIONER.  THIS IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW WHICH THE COURT
BELOW REMAINS FREE TO DECIDE.    THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  PAULINE OIL & GAS CO. V. FISCHER, 185 OKLA. 108; 90 P.2D 411. 

FN2  11 U.S.C. SEC. 107(F).  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 67(F) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898 ARE NOW CARRIED OVER INTO, MODIFIED AND
CLARIFIED BY CHAPTER VII, SEC. 67A, (1), (2), (3) AND (4) OF THE
CHANDLER ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938, 52 STAT. 840, 875.  THE QUESTION HERE
PRESENTED, HOWEVER, MAY ARISE UNDER THE LATER ACT. 

FN3  SEE WELLS V. GUARANTY STATE BANK, 56 OKLA, 688; 156 P. 896;
FIRST STATE BANK V. BRADSHOW, 174 OKLA. 268; 51 P.2D 514. 

FN4 IN RE TUNE, 115 F. 906; IN RE BEALS, 116 F. 530; IN RE FEDERAL
BISCUIT CO., 214 F. 221, 224. 

FN5  CLARKE V. LARREMORE, 188 U.S. 486, 488; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO.
V. HALL, 229 U.S. 511, 514; LEHMAN STERN & CO. V. S. GUMBEL & CO., 236
U.S. 448, 454. 

FN6  MOHR & SONS V. MATTOX, 120 GA. 962; 48 S.E. 410; HOBBS V.
THOMPSON, 160 ALA. 360; 49 SO. 787; FINNEY V. KNAPP CO., 145 GA. 400;
89 S.E. 413; GREENBERGER V. SCHWARTZ, 261 PA. 265; 104 A. 573;
ARCHENHOLD CO. V. SCHAEFER, 205 S.W. 139(TEX.  CIV.  APP.); MORRIS
FERTILIZER CO. V. JACKSON, 27 GA. APP. 567; 110 S.E. 219; MACK V.
RELIANCE INS. CO., 52 R.I. 402; 161 A. 134; WHITTAKER V. BACON, 17
TENN. APP. 97; 65 S.W.2D 1083; BANK OF GARRISON V. MALLEY, 103 TEX.
562; 131 S.W. 1064.  COMPARE, KELLOGG-MACKAY-CAMERON CO. V. SCHMIDT
BAKING CO., 101 ILL. APP. 209; KEYSTONE BREWING CO. V. SCHERMER,
SCHERMER, 241 PA. 361; 88 A. 657; LAMB V. KELLEY, 97 W. VA. 409; 125
S.E. 102. 

FN7  FRAZEE V. NELSON, 179 MASS. 456; 61 N.E. 40; SWANEY V. HASARA,
164 MINN. 416; 205 N.W. 274; HUTCHINS V. CANTU, 66 S.W. 138(TEX.  CIV. 
APP.); EQUITABLE CREDIT CO. V. MILLER, 164 GA. 49; 137 S.E. 771;
NEUGENT GARMENT CO. V. U.S. FIDELITY & G. CO., 202 WIS. 93; 230 N.W.
69. 

FN8  SEE THE CASES IN NOTE 7, SUPRA, AND MCCARTY V. LIGHT, 155 APP.
DIV. 36; 139 N.Y.S. 853; TRAVIS V. BIXLER CO., 20 CAL. APP.2D 279; 66
P.2D 1263; DANBY MILLINERY CO. V. DOGAN, 47 TEX. CIV. APP. 323; 105
S.W. 337; SMITH V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 76 COLO. 34; 227 P. 826; TAYLOR
V. BUSER, 167 N.Y. SUPP. 887. 

FN9  SEE TAUBEL-SCOTT-KITZMILLER CO. V. FOX, SUPRA. 

FN10  11 U.S.C. SEC. 29(B).  SEE LEHMAN STERN & CO. V. S. GUMBEL &
CO., 236 U.S. 448; ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & TIMBER CO., 282 U.S. 734. 

FN11  CLARKE V. LARREMORE, 188 U.S. 486.  THE CHANDLER ACT, SEC. 67A
(4), 52 STAT. 876, VESTS SUMMARY JURISDICTION IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
TO HEAR AND DETERMINE, AFTER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES IN INTEREST, ALL
QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



GERMANTOWN TRUST CO. V. COMM'R, 309 U.S. 304 


NO. 462.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  - 106
F.2D 139, REVERSED. 


A TRUST COMPANY, WHICH HELD AND ADMINISTERED A FUND ENABLING ITS
PATRONS TO INVEST SMALL AMOUNTS IN SECURITIES, FILED WITH A COLLECTOR
FOR THE DISTRICT WHERE IT CONDUCTED ITS BUSINESS A FIDUCIARY RETURN
SETTING FORTH THE GROSS INCOME OF THE FUND, DEDUCTIONS, NET INCOME,
ETC. - ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO THE CALCULATION OF ANY TAX THAT
MIGHT BE DUE,  - AND ATTACHED A LIST OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE FUND
AND THEIR SHARES OF THE INCOME.  THE BENEFICIARIES INCLUDED THESE
SHARES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL RETURNS.  THE COMMISSIONER MADE AN
ADDITIONAL RETURN FOR THE FUND AND ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY WHICH THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SET ASIDE AS TOO LATE.  HELD: 

1.  THE VENUE FOR REVIEW WAS IN THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH THE FIDUCIARY
RETURN WAS FILED.  REV. ACT, 1926, SEC. 1002(A), AS AMENDED BY THE REV.
ACT, 1932, SEC. 519.  P. 308. 

2.  THE ASSESSMENT WAS BARRED UNDER THE REV. ACT, 1932, SEC. 276(A),
TWO YEARS AFTER THE FIDUCIARY RETURN WAS FILED.  P. 309. 

3.  SEC. 275(C), PROVIDING A FOUR YEAR LIMITATION IF A CORPORATION
MAKES "NO RETURN OF THE TAX IMPOSED," AND SEC. 276(A), PROVIDING THAT
IN CASE OF FAILURE TO FILE A RETURN THE TAX MAY BE ASSESSED "AT ANY
TIME,"  - ARE INAPPLICABLE.  P. 309. 

GERMANTOWN TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 544, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HOLDING AN INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT
BARRED BY LIMITATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED BY THAT OF 1934, AND OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1932, RELATING TO THE VENUE OF PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND SETTING LIMITATIONS UPON THE ASSESSMENT
OF INCOME TAX. 

THE PETITIONER IS A TRUST COMPANY, DOING A GENERAL BUSINESS AS SUCH,
INCLUDING ADMINISTERING TRUST ESTATES AND ACTING AS AGENT FOR THE
CUSTODY, HANDLING, AND MANAGEMENT OF ITS CLIENTS' INVESTMENTS.  IN 1930
IT CREATED, BY AN APPROPRIATE INSTRUMENT, A FUND TO AFFORD THOSE FOR
WHOM IT ACTED THE ADVANTAGE OF INVESTING SMALL AMOUNTS IN SECURITIES AT
MINIMUM EXPENSE AND WITH OPPORTUNITY OF READY LIQUIDATION.  THE FUND
HAS SINCE BEEN MANAGED ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.  IN THE
COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION THE PETITIONER HAS PAID TO THE PARTICIPANTS
THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES OF INCOME FROM THE INVESTED PRINCIPAL, AND HAS
FILED FIDUCIARY RETURNS OF INCOME ON TREASURY FORM 1041, INTENDED FOR
USE BY TRUSTEES. 

MARCH 15, 1933, THE PETITIONER, AS TRUSTEE, FILED SUCH A RETURN, FOR
THE CALENDAR YEAR 1932, WITH THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE
FIRST DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AT PHILADELPHIA.  THE RETURN ACCURATELY
SET FORTH THE GROSS INCOME, THE DEDUCTIONS, AND THE NET INCOME,  - IN
SHORT ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY TO THE CALCULATION OF ANY TAX WHICH
MIGHT BE DUE,  - AND ATTACHED A LIST OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE FUND,
AND THEIR SHARES OF THE INCOME.  NO CORPORATION INCOME TAX RETURN WAS
FILED ON TREASURY FORM 1120.  THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE FUND, WHO WERE
REQUIRED TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL RETURNS FOR THE YEAR 1932, INCLUDED IN
THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS, FILED ON OR BEFORE MARCH 15, 1933, THEIR
SHARES OF INCOME. 

SEPTEMBER 17, 1936, PURSUANT TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF A TREASURY
AGENT THAT THE FUND BE TAXED AS A CORPORATION,  FN1  THE RESPONDENT
PREPARED FROM THE FORM 1041 RETURN, A SUBSTITUTE CORPORATION RETURN ON
FORM 1120, COVERING THE YEAR 1932, AND, ON FEBRUARY 27, 1937, GAVE
NOTICE OF A CONSEQUENT DEFICIENCY OF TAX. 

THE PETITIONER CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR
REDETERMINATION, ASSERTING THAT IT WAS TAXABLE AS A TRUST AND NOT AS AN
ASSOCIATION AND THAT ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF THE ASSERTED
DEFICIENCY WAS BARRED BY THE EXPIRATION OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE ITS
RETURN WAS FILED.  THE BOARD HELD THE ASSESSMENT BARRED. 

THE RESPONDENT PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT TO REVIEW THE BOARD'S DECISION.  THAT COURT HELD THAT THE
VENUE PROVISION OF SEC. 1002(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED
BY SEC. 519 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934,  FN2  EMPOWERED IT TO ENTERTAIN
THE PETITION, AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF A DEFICIENCY WAS NOT BARRED BY
SECS. 275 AND 276 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,  FN3  THE APPLICABLE

THE PETITIONER SOUGHT CERTIORARI ON THE GROUND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS' DECISION THAT THE FIDUCIARY RETURN IT HAD FILED WAS A
RETURN WHICH GOVERNED VENUE UNDER SEC. 1002, AS AMENDED, BUT NO RETURN
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 275(C), CONFLICTS WITH A DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  FN5  BECAUSE OF THE
CONFLICT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT AGREE THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT IN
HOLDING THE RETURN IN QUESTION WAS SUCH A RETURN AS FIXED THE VENUE OF
THE PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT, WHERE THE RETURN WAS
FILED.  WE CONCUR IN THIS VIEW. 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE FIDUCIARY RETURN FILED ON FORM 1041
WAS A RETURN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 275(A), WHICH LIMITS THE TIME
FOR ASSESSMENT TO TWO YEARS AFTER THE FILING OF THE RETURN.  THE
RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE RETURN WAS "NO RETURN OF THE TAX" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 275(C), AND, THEREFORE, THE FOUR-YEAR LIMITATION
SPECIFIED IN THAT SECTION APPLIES. 

AS THE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY WAS GIVEN MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE
FILING OF THE FIDUCIARY RETURN, AND WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE FILING OF
THE LAST RETURN BY ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE FUND, DECISION TURNS UPON
WHICH SUBSECTION GOVERNS. 

WE HOLD THAT THE RETURN WAS A RETURN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
275(A) AND THAT THE PETITIONER CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE MADE NO RETURN SO
AS TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN SEC. 275(C). 

FIRST.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IF THE RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER
WAS SUCH AS TO CREATE VENUE OF THE PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW IN THE COURT
BELOW, IT WAS ALSO A RETURN UNDER THE TERMS OF SEC. 275(A), SO THAT THE
TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THAT SECTION IS APPLICABLE. 

THE RETURN WAS A FIDUCIARY RETURN.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE
PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE FUND WAS A FIDUCIARY AND WAS BOUND TO FILE
SUCH A RETURN.  FN6  IT CONTAINED ALL OF THE DATA FROM WHICH A TAX
COULD BE COMPUTED AND ASSESSED ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT PURPORT TO STATE ANY
AMOUNT DUE AS TAX.  SECTION 1002(A), AS AMENDED, SUPRA, CONFERS VENUE
UPON THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH WAS MADE "THE RETURN OF
THE TAX IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE LIABILITY ARISES."  SECTION 275(A)
PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNT OF TAX MUST BE ASSESSED WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER
"THE RETURN WAS FILED."  SECTION 275(C) FIXES A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS
FOR ASSESSMENT "IF A CORPORATION MAKES NO RETURN OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY
THIS TITLE," BUT EACH SHAREHOLDER RETURNS HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE
NET INCOME. 

WE THINK THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTIONS IS SUCH THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID
THE FIDUCIARY RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER WAS A RETURN OF THE TAX IN
RESPECT OF WHICH THE LIABILITY ARISES BUT WAS NO RETURN OF THE TAX
IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE. 

THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT THE TWO SECTIONS HAVE SEPARATE AIMS; THAT
THE VENUE PROVISION WAS INSERTED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF TAXPAYERS, SO
THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO LITIGATE IN COURTS FAR FROM THEIR
DOMICILE, WHEREAS THE LIMITATION SECTIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
DESIGNATION OF A FORUM.  CONCEDING THAT THIS IS TRUE, IT REMAINS THAT,
IF THE RETURN IN QUESTION COMPLIES WITH THE ONE DESCRIPTION, IT EQUALLY
COMPLIES WITH THE OTHER.  WE FIND NO ADEQUATE REASON FOR ATTRIBUTING A
DIFFERENT MEANING TO THE TWO PHRASES. 

SECOND.  SECTION 275(C) IS INAPPLICABLE.  SECTIONS 275 AND 276 SET UP
A COMPLETE SCHEME OF LIMITATIONS ON ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TAXES. 
THE RETURN.  SECTION 276(A) PROVIDES THAT THERE SHALL BE NO PERIOD OF
LIMITATIONS IF A FALSE RETURN, OR NO RETURN, BE FILED.  IF THE STATUTE
WENT NO FURTHER, AND IF THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS CORRECT THAT, IN
THIS CASE, THE TAXPAYER WAS A CORPORATION AND FILED NO RETURN AS SUCH,
THEN THERE WOULD BE NO PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS WHATEVER.  THIS WAS THE
SITUATION UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924.  FN7 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DEMONSTRATES THAT SEC. 275(C) WAS ADOPTED TO
SET A PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS WHERE NO RETURN IS FILED BY THE ASSOCIATION
BUT RETURNS ARE FILED ONLY BY THE MEMBERS.  IN OTHER WORDS, SUBSECTION
(C) WAS ADOPTED TO LIMIT, RATHER THAN TO ENLARGE, THE TIME FOR
ASSESSMENT IN SUCH A CASE.  FN8 

THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION IS THAT WHERE A FIDUCIARY, IN GOOD FAITH,
MAKES WHAT IT DEEMS THE APPROPRIATE RETURN, WHICH DISCLOSES ALL OF THE
DATA FROM WHICH THE TAX, TREATED AS ONE IMPOSED UPON AN ASSOCIATION
(CLASSIFIED AS A CORPORATION UNDER THE STATUTE), CAN BE COMPUTED, SUCH
A RETURN IS TO BE DEEMED NO RETURN.  WE THINK THIS VIEW INADMISSIBLE. 

IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PETITIONER, WHETHER TREATED AS A
CORPORATION OR NOT, MADE NO RETURN OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE. 
ITS RETURN MAY HAVE BEEN INCOMPLETE IN THAT IT FAILED TO COMPUTE A TAX,
BUT THIS DEFECT FALLS SHORT OF RENDERING IT NO RETURN WHATEVER.  FN9 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 1111(A)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 289:
"THE TERM 'CORPORATION' INCLUDES ASSOCIATIONS  ..."  SEE MORRISSEY V.
COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344. 

FN2  "SEC.  1002.  (A)  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION
(B)(RELATING TO VENUE BY STIPULATION), SUCH DECISION MAY BE REVIEWED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH IS LOCATED THE
COLLECTOR'S OFFICE TO WHICH WAS MADE THE RETURN OF THE TAX IN RESPECT
OF WHICH THE LIABILITY ARISES OR, IF NO RETURN WAS MADE, THEN BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  44 STAT. 9, 110; 48
STAT. 680, 760; 26 U.S.C. 641(B). 

FN3  "SEC.  275.  PERIOD OF LIMITATION UPON ASSESSMENT AND
COLLECTION. 

"EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 276 - 

"(A)  GENERAL RULE.  - THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAXES IMPOSED BY THIS
TITLE SHALL BE ASSESSED WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE RETURN WAS FILED,
AND NO PROCEEDING IN COURT WITHOUT ASSESSMENT FOR THE COLLECTION OF
SUCH TAXES SHALL BE BEGUN AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH PERIOD. 

     . .         .         .         . 

"(C)  CORPORATION AND SHAREHOLDER.  - IF A CORPORATION MAKES NO
RETURN OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE, BUT EACH OF THE SHAREHOLDERS
INCLUDES IN HIS RETURN HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE NET INCOME OF THE
CORPORATION, THEN THE TAX OF THE CORPORATION SHALL BE ASSESSED WITHIN
FOUR YEARS AFTER THE LAST DATE ON WHICH ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER'S RETURN
WAS FILED." 

"SEC. 276.  SAME - EXCEPTIONS. 

"(A)  FALSE RETURN OR NO RETURN.  - IN THE CASE OF A FALSE OR
FRAUDULENT RETURN WITH INTENT TO EVADE TAX OR OF A FAILURE TO FILE A
RETURN THE TAX MAY BE ASSESSED, OR A PROCEEDING IN COURT FOR THE
COLLECTION OF SUCH TAX MAY BE BEGUN WITHOUT ASSESSMENT, AT ANY TIME." 
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 237. 

FN4  COMMISSIONER V. GERMANTOWN TRUST CO., 106 F.2D 139. 

FN5  COMMISSIONER V. ROOSEVELT & SON INV. FUND, 89 F.2D 706. 

FN6  REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 214. 

FN7  REVENUE ACT OF 1924, SECS. 277(A)(1) AND 278(A); 43 STAT. 253,
299. 

FN8  THE PROVISION WAS FIRST INSERTED AS SEC. 277(A)(5) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 9, 58.  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS ON THE
CONGRESS, SUSTAIN, RATHER THAN NEGATIVE, THE VIEW THAT THE SECTION WAS
INTENDED TO IMPOSE A PERIOD OF LIMITATION WHERE ONE HAD NOT THERETOFORE
EXISTED.  SEE H. REP. NO. 1, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 11; S. REP. NO.
52, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 28.  COMPARE HEARINGS, COMMITTEE ON WAYS
AND MEANS OF THE HOUSE, 73RD CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 146. 

FN9  ZELLERBACH PAPER CO. V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 172, 180;
COMMISSIONER V. STETSON & ELLISON CO., 43 F.2D 553; UNITED STATES V.
TILLINGHAST, 69 F.2D 718; MABEL ELEVATOR CO., 2 B.T.A. 517; ABRAHAM
WERBELOVSKY, 8 B.T.A. 442, 446; ESTATE OF F. M. STEARNS, 16 B.T.A. 889;
J. R. BREWER, 17 B.T.A. 704. 
..END :










MAYO V. CANNING CO., 309 U.S. 310 


NO. 270.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  - 28
F.SUPP.  44, REVERSED. 


CANNERS OF CITRUS FRUITS OPERATING IN FLORIDA, SOME OF THEM DOMICILED
IN OTHER STATES, SUED TO ENJOIN AN OFFICIAL FROM ENFORCING AN ORDER
MADE UNDER COLOR OF A FLORIDA STATUTE AND PURPORTING TO FIX THE PRICE
TO BE PAID THE GROWER FOR GRAPEFRUIT, THE BILL ALLEGING
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE, INVALIDITY OF THE ORDER FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, AND THREAT OF IRREPARABLE
INJURY.  HELD: 

1.  THAT, UPON APPLICATION UNDER JUD.  CODE, SEC. 266, HEARD UPON THE
BILL, AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS NOT WHETHER THE ACT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL;
NOR WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH ITS REQUIREMENTS, IF VALID;
BUT WAS WHETHER THE SHOWING MADE RAISED SERIOUS QUESTIONS, UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE STATE LAW, AND DISCLOSED THAT ENFORCEMENT
OF THE ACT, PENDING FINAL HEARING, WOULD INFLICT IRREPARABLE DAMAGES
UPON THE COMPLAINANTS.  P. 316. 

THE COURT SHOULD HAVE CONFINED ITSELF TO THOSE ISSUES.  EXPRESSIONS
OF OPINION ON THE ULTIMATE MERITS WERE PREMATURE. 

2.  IT IS OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE TO A PROPER REVIEW IN THE
GRANTING OR REFUSING OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THAT THERE BE EXPLICIT
FINDINGS OF FACT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 52(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  P. 316. 

3.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE BILL FAILED TO STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO
RAISE A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED FOR PROMPT DECISION BY MOTION TO
DISMISS.  P. 317. 

4.  THE BILL RAISES QUESTIONS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE, AND AS
TO WHETHER IT HAS EVER BEEN PUT IN OPERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS
TERMS, THAT PRECLUDE A JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL.  P. 318. 

5.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE ACT FIXES PRICES IS, IN ITSELF,
INSUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE IT; AND ALLEGATION OF THAT FACT DOES NOT
RAISE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTIONS.  P. 318. 

6.  NONRESIDENT PLAINTIFFS MAY BE ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT
BEFORE ONE DISTRICT JUDGE, UPON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDITIONS OF THE
STATUTE WERE NOT OFFICIALLY COMPLIED WITH, EVEN THOUGH IT BE FOUND THAT
THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED.  P.
318. 

MAYO, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE OF FLORIDA, ET AL. V. LAKELAND
HIGHLANDS CANNING CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM AN INTERLOCUTORY DECREE OF INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLEES, CORPORATIONS OF FLORIDA AND OTHER STATES, AND
INDIVIDUALS, ENGAGED IN THE CANNING OF CITRUS FRUITS IN THAT STATE,
FILED THEIR BILL IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN FLORIDA AGAINST
NATHAN MAYO, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE OF FLORIDA, PRAYING
INJUNCTIONS, TEMPORARY AND FINAL, TO RESTRAIN HIM FROM CANCELLING THEIR
LICENSES AS CITRUS FRUIT DEALERS, FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THEM A
REGULATION MADE PURSUANT TO A STATE STATUTE, AND FROM INTERFERING WITH
THE CONDUCT OF THEIR BUSINESS BY REASON OF THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE STATUTE. 

ON PRESENTATION OF THE BILL AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF, THE
COURT ISSUED A RESTRAINING ORDER AND CONVENED A COURT OF THREE JUDGES. 
THE FLORIDA CITRUS COMMISSION WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS A
DEFENDANT.  AFTER HEARING ON AFFIDAVITS, FILED BY APPELLEES AND
APPELLANT MAYO, AND, ON EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE APPELLEES, THE COURT
GRANTED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PENDING FINAL HEARING.  FN1  THE
COMMISSIONER AND THE INTERVENOR HAVE APPEALED. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GRAPEFRUIT CANNING INDUSTRY IN
THE STATE, AND ASSERTS THAT THE APPELLEES, IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR
BUSINESS, PACKED OVER SIXTY PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL GRAPEFRUIT AND
GRAPEFRUIT JUICE CANNED IN THE STATE IN SEASONS PRIOR TO THAT OF 1938
1939.  IT RECITES THE ADOPTION BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE GROWERS' COST
GUARANTEE ACT (CHAP. 16862 OF THE ACTS OF 1935) WHICH, AFTER DECLARING
THAT THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF CITRUS FRUIT IS A PARAMOUNT
INDUSTRY OF THE STATE, UPON WHICH THE PROSPERITY OF THE STATE LARGELY
DEPENDS, AND ASSIGNING REASONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRY AND
THE MAINTENANCE OF PRICES COMMENSURATE WITH THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF
CITRUS FRUIT, AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, IN HIS
DISCRETION, WITH THE CONSENT AND ADVICE OF THE GOVERNOR, TO DECLARE THE
EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY IN THE INDUSTRY; AND PROVIDES THAT, IF HE
DOES SO, THEN,  - UPON PETITION OF OWNERS OR CONTROLLERS OF FIFTY PER
CENT. OR MORE OF THE PRODUCING ACREAGE OF CITRUS FRUIT, AND, UPON
PROCUREMENT BY THE FLORIDA CITRUS COMMISSION FROM PRODUCERS, SHIPPERS,
OR HANDLERS, NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, OF BINDING
AGREEMENTS TO CONFORM THERETO AND ABIDE BY ITS TERMS,  - THE COMMISSION
SHALL DETERMINE AND RECORD ANNUALLY THE AVERAGE REASONABLE COST, PER
STANDARD PACKED BOX, OF PRODUCING CITRUS FRUIT.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES
THAT, THEREUPON, EVERY CONTRACT WITH A GROWER FOR THE PURCHASE OF FRUIT
IS TO BE HELD TO REQUIRE THE PURCHASER TO PAY THE GROWER A PRICE PER
BOX EQUAL TO SUCH ASCERTAINED AND RECORDED COST; AND CONTINUES:  "ANY
CONTRACT, PLAN, SCHEME OR DEVICE WHEREBY IT SHALL BE ATTEMPTED TO
PRECLUDE THE GROWER FROM RECOVERING SUCH COST OF PRODUCTION SHALL TO
THAT EXTENT BE HELD TO BE UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICY OF
THIS STATE, BUT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS AND PARTICULARS CONTRACTS OF SALE
...  SHALL BE VALID AND BINDING AND THE TERMS THEREOF SHALL MEASURE
THE RIGHTS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES."  BY ITS TERMS THE ACT IS TO
APPLY TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE VARIETIES OF CITRUS FRUIT. 

THE COMPLAINT FURTHER REFERS TO THE BOND AND LICENSE ACT (CHAP.
16860, LAWS OF FLORIDA, 1935, AS AMENDED BY CHAP. 17777, ACTS OF 1937),
WHICH REQUIRES EVERY DEALER (WHICH TERM INCLUDES PROCESSORS OF CITRUS
FRUIT) TO TAKE A LICENSE AND PROVIDES THAT IF THE COMMISSIONER
DETERMINES THAT ANY DEALER HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF ANY
APPLICABLE ACT HE MAY SUSPEND OR REVOKE THE LICENSE OF THE OFFENDER. 
OPERATION AS A DEALER WITHOUT LICENSE IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT THE PACKING SEASON FOR CANNING CITRUS PRODUCTS
IN FLORIDA BEGINS ABOUT NOVEMBER 1ST OF EACH YEAR AND CONTINUES UNTIL
JUNE OR JULY OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR; THAT PREPARATIONS FOR CANNING
INCLUDE THE ORDERING OF CANS, LABELS, CONTRACTING FOR PURCHASE OF
FRUIT, SECURING LABOR, PLANNING OF FACTORY OPERATIONS, AND OBTAINING
ORDERS FOR THE PRODUCT. 

IT IS ALLEGED THAT, UNDER THE GROWERS' COST GUARANTEE ACT, THE
APPELLANT MAYO, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, WITH THE CONSENT AND
ADVICE OF THE GOVERNOR, DECLARED AN EMERGENCY IN THE CITRUS INDUSTRY ON
JANUARY 13, 1939, AND THAT THE CITRUS COMMISSION PASSED A RESOLUTION
JANUARY 16, 1939, RECITING THAT MORE THAN FIFTY PER CENT. OF THE OWNERS
OR CONTROLLERS OF PRODUCING ACREAGE OF GRAPEFRUIT IN THE STATE HAVE
REQUESTED THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF
GRAPEFRUIT, FIXING THE COST PER STANDARD PACKED BOX AT THIRTY-TWO CENTS
FOR THE SEASON 1938-1939, AND DECREEING THAT EVERY CONTRACT WITH A
GROWER SHALL BE HELD TO REQUIRE THAT THE PURCHASER SHALL, IN ANY EVENT,
PAY THE GROWER THE AMOUNT SO FIXED AS THE COST OF PRODUCTION. 

THE BILL STATES THAT THE EXPECTED PACK OF GRAPEFRUIT FOR THE SEASON
1938-39 WAS LARGE, BUT THAT, DUE TO THE REGULATION, THE OUTPUT OF THE
CANNED PRODUCT HAS BEEN LESS, BY TWO MILLION CASES, THAN THAT OF THE
PREVIOUS SEASON; THAT, SINCE JANUARY 19, 1939, EACH OF APPELLEES HAS
BEEN OFFERED QUANTITIES OF GRAPEFRUIT BY FLORIDA GROWERS, AT PRICES
RANGING FROM TWELVE CENTS PER BOX FOR FRUIT TO BE PROCESSED INTO JUICE,
TO TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER BOX FOR FRUIT TO BE CANNED INTO SECTIONS OR
HEARTS, AND THAT, BUT FOR THE REGULATION IN QUESTION, EACH COULD, AND
WOULD, HAVE PURCHASED SUCH FRUIT, CANNED THE SAME, AND SOLD THE CANNED
PRODUCT AT A LARGE PROFIT; THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE REGULATION, MUCH OF
THE FRUIT REMAINS UNSOLD AND IS SPOILING. 

THE BILL FURTHER ASSERTS THAT MANY GROWERS OWN THEIR OWN CANNING
PLANTS AND MAY, THEREFORE, PROCESS THEIR FRUIT WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO
THE BURDEN OF THE COST GUARANTEE LAW; AND THAT MANY GROWERS, WITH LIKE
IMMUNITY, PROCESS THEIR FRUIT THROUGH COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS TO
WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT APPLY THE COST PRICE PROVISIONS OF THE
LAW AND REGULATIONS. 

ACCORDING TO THE BILL A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE FLORIDA CANNED FRUIT
IS SOLD IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE AND MUCH OF IT COMPETES WITH
THAT PRODUCED IN OTHER STATES WHICH BRINGS LOWER PRICES, AND,
CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPELLEES CANNOT PAY THIRTY-TWO CENTS PER BOX AND
SELL IN COMPETITION WITH FRUIT ELSEWHERE PROCESSED. 

IT IS FURTHER AVERRED THAT ONE OF THE APPELLEES HAD MADE BINDING
CONTRACTS OF PURCHASE PRIOR TO ISSUE OF THE REGULATION, THE OBLIGATION
OF WHICH HAS BEEN IMPAIRED THEREBY. 

AFTER ALLEGING THAT EACH APPELLEE HAS A LARGE INVESTMENT; THAT THE
PAYMENT OF THIRTY-TWO CENTS PER BOX WOULD RENDER IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM
TO SELL THEIR PROCESSED GRAPEFRUIT EXCEPT AT A LOSS; THAT THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATION WILL CAUSE THEM LARGE LOSSES AND
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE; THAT IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION THE
COMMISSIONER WILL REVOKE THEIR LICENSES, AND THAT, IF HE SHOULD DO SO,
THEY WILL BE COMPELLED TO SUSPEND BUSINESS OR SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO
RISK OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT UNDER THE BOND AND LICENSE ACT, THE BILL
CHARGES THAT THE GROWERS' COST GUARANTEE LAW, AS ADMINISTERED AND AS
APPLIED TO THEM, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AS ILLEGALLY ATTEMPTING
TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS VIOLATING THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN
COOPERATIVES AND THE COMPLAINANTS, AS TAKING THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, AND AS IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.  THE BILL
ALSO CHALLENGES THE REGULATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED
TO ASCERTAIN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, THAT FIFTY PER CENT. OF THE
OWNERS OR CONTROLLERS OF ACREAGE HAD REQUESTED REGULATION AND ALSO
FAILED TO OBSERVE THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO MAKING ANY ORDER, NAMELY,
THAT ALL PERSONS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHOULD
EXECUTE BINDING AGREEMENTS TO BE GOVERNED THEREBY. 

AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND DECREE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION NO
ANSWER OR MOTION TO DISMISS HAD BEEN FILED.  THE COURT IN ITS OPINION
STATED THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAD APPEARED AND, THOUGH THEY HAD NOT FILED
ANSWERS, ARGUED THE CASE "AND REQUESTED THE COURT TO PASS ON ALL
QUESTIONS PRESENTED, AND ESPECIALLY ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT
INVOLVED." 

THE COURT IN ITS OPINION, AFTER A RUNNING COMMENTARY, CONCLUDED:  "WE
FIND THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL."  THE COURT THEN WENT ON TO SAY THAT
THERE WAS NO PROOF BEFORE IT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD PROCURED
AGREEMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT, FROM SHIPPERS OR HANDLERS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND THAT, WHILE THIS FACT MIGHT
NOT RENDER THE ACT VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT REQUIRED AN
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE COMMISSION FROM ENFORCING THE PRICES FIXED. 
AN INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED TO REMAIN IN FORCE UNTIL FINAL HEARING. 

WE THINK THE COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN THUS DEALING WITH THE
CASE UPON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.  THE QUESTION BEFORE IT WAS
NOT WHETHER THE ACT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL; WAS NOT
WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAD COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT,
IF VALID, BUT WAS WHETHER THE SHOWING MADE RAISED SERIOUS QUESTIONS,
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE STATE LAW, AND DISCLOSED THAT
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, PENDING FINAL HEARING, WOULD INFLICT
IRREPARABLE DAMAGES UPON THE COMPLAINANTS. 

THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE OPINION ARE NOT, IN ANY
PROPER SENSE, FINDINGS OF FACT UPON THESE VITAL ISSUES.  STATEMENTS OF
FACT ARE MINGLED WITH ARGUMENTS AND INFERENCES FOR WHICH WE FIND NO
SUFFICIENT BASIS EITHER IN THE AFFIDAVITS OR THE ORAL TESTIMONY. 

IT IS OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE TO A PROPER REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF A
COURT IN GRANTING OR REFUSING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION THAT THERE
SHOULD BE FAIR COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 52(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.  FN2 

THE APPELLANTS COMPLAIN THAT THE COURT'S OPINION DECIDES A QUESTION
WHICH WAS NOT OPEN ON THE HEARING AND PREJUDICES THEIR POSITION ON
FINAL HEARING; THAT THE DECISION GOES BEYOND THE QUESTION OF A PRIMA
FACIE SHOWING MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
AND PROCEEDS UPON ASSUMPTIONS OF FACT NOT SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE
WHICH APPELLANTS COULD HAVE NEGATIVED BY PROOF ADDUCED AT FINAL
HEARING.  THE APPELLEES INSIST THAT IN HOLDING THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
THE COURT DID SO ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF TEMPORARY RELIEF AND THAT ITS
CONCLUSION IN THIS RESPECT CAN HAVE NO EFFECT UPON THE ULTIMATE
DECISION OF THE CAUSE UPON THE MERITS.  NEVERTHELESS, THE PARTIES HAVE
ESSAYED, IN VIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE COURT BELOW, TO ARGUE IN THIS
COURT THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE, WHEREAS, IF
THE COURT BELOW HAD CONFINED ITSELF TO THE ISSUE PRESENTED, NAMELY,
WHETHER THE PROOFS WARRANTED THE ENTRY OF AN INJUNCTION PENDING A
DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER QUESTIONS PRESENTED, THE
PARTIES COULD EITHER HAVE OBTAINED A TRIAL ON THE MERITS LONG BEFORE AN
APPEAL FROM THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER COULD BE HEARD IN THIS CASE OR, IF
AN APPEAL FROM THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER HAD BEEN PERFECTED HERE, WOULD
HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED IN ARGUMENT TO THE QUESTION WHETHER, UPON PROPER
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, THE COURT HAD ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
GRANTING OR REFUSING AN INJUNCTION.  FN3 

MOREOVER, IF APPELLANTS CONCEIVED THEMSELVES AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION
OF THE COURT UPON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, THEY WERE ENTITLED
TO HAVE EXPLICIT FINDINGS OF FACT UPON WHICH THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COURT WAS BASED.  SUCH FINDINGS ARE OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY TO THE
INTELLIGENT AND ORDERLY PRESENTATION AND PROPER DISPOSITION OF AN
APPEAL. 

THE APPELLANTS INSIST THAT THE BILL FAILS TO STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT
TO RAISE A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
THE STATUTE.  THEY COULD HAVE MADE THIS POINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY
A MOTION TO DISMISS AND OBTAINED A PROMPT DECISION ON IT.  THEY OMITTED
SO TO DO. 

THE RECORD DOES NOT WARRANT A JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL.  THE COMPLAINT
RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND
VIOLATION OF THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT.  IT FURTHER RAISES QUESTIONS
AS TO WHETHER THE ACT HAS EVER BEEN PUT INTO OPERATION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ITS TERMS. 

THE APPELLEES' PRINCIPAL ATTACK UPON THE STATUTE, BASED UPON THE
CONSTITUTION, CENTERS ON ITS REGULATION OF PRICES.  THE MERE FACT THAT
THE ACT FIXES PRICES IS, IN ITSELF, INSUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE IT; FN4
AND ALLEGATION OF THAT FACT DOES NOT RAISE SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
QUESTIONS.  THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN ACT FIXING PRICES IS CONSTITUTIONAL
WOULD REQUIRE THE DENIAL OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, EXCEPT IN
EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS.  FINDINGS TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION AGAINST
CONSTITUTIONALITY WOULD NEED TO BE UNEQUIVOCAL. 

SOME OF THE COMPLAINANTS ARE CORPORATIONS OF STATES OTHER THAN
FLORIDA, AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL, WHICH WERE NOT DENIED,
SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE AN AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IN EXCESS OF $3,000 WITH
RESPECT TO EACH COMPLAINANT.  IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISSION'S ALLEGED
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE, IT MAY BE THAT THESE COMPLAINANTS
ARE ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT ALTHOUGH NOT ENTITLED TO A HEARING
BEFORE A THREE JUDGE COURT, EVEN THOUGH IT BE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO
SUBSTANCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED.    THE LEGISLATION
REQUIRING THE CONVENING OF A COURT OF THREE JUDGES IN CASES SUCH AS
THIS WAS INTENDED TO INSURE THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF A CHALLENGED
STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE SUSPENDED BY INJUNCTION EXCEPT UPON A CLEAR AND
PERSUASIVE SHOWING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY AND IRREPARABLE INJURY. 
CONGRESS INTENDED THAT, IN THIS CLASS OF SUITS, PROMPT HEARING AND
DECISION SHALL BE AFFORDED THE PARTIES SO THAT THE STATES SHALL BE PUT
TO THE LEAST POSSIBLE INCONVENIENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR
LAWS.    BOTH THE COURT BELOW AND THE APPELLANTS ARE IN PART
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INEXCUSABLE DELAY IN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 
WE ARE ADVISED THAT SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE INJUNCTION THE DEFENDANTS
HAVE ANSWERED THE BILL, AND THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON WHY THE CASE
CANNOT PROMPTLY BE FINALLY HEARD AND DECIDED UPON THE MERITS.  WE
REVERSE THE DECREE AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE COURT BELOW WITH
INSTRUCTIONS THAT, IF THE MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS
PRESSED, THE PARTIES, IF THEY DESIRE IT, MAY BE AFFORDED A FURTHER
HEARING, AND ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE COURT SHALL BE UPON FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS FOUNDED UPON THE EVIDENCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE
52(A) OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  28 F.SUPP.  44. 

FN2  COMPARE HOME TELEPHONE & TELEG.  CO. V. KUYKENDALL, 265 U.S.
206; RAILROAD COMMISSION V. MAXCY, 281 U.S. 82; PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N
V. WISCONSIN TELEPHONE CO., 289 U.S. 67; INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. UNITED
STATES, 304 U.S. 55; BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S.
194; POLK COMPANY V. GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. CORRICK, 298 U.S. 435, 437. 

FN4  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO
OPERATIVE, 307 U.S. 533, 569.  COMPARE MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG
FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION OF THE CASE SEEMS TO ME TO BE REQUIRED. 

CITRUS FRUIT OCCUPIES A CENTRAL AND INDEED PERVASIVE ROLE IN THE
ECONOMY OF FLORIDA.  THAT STATE'S WELL-BEING IS DEPENDENT ON THE
CULTIVATION OF THE CITRUS CROP, ITS PACKING, TRANSPORTATION, FINANCING
AND EXPORTATION.  THE APPROPRIATENESS OF REGULATIONS TO BE ADOPTED FOR
THE CITRUS FRUIT INDUSTRY IS THUS PECULIARLY A MATTER FOR THE
LEGISLATURE OF FLORIDA IN WHOSE KEEPING IS THE SHAPING OF THAT STATE'S
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY.  IN NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, THIS
COURT RECOGNIZED PRICE CONTROL AS ONE OF THE MEANS OPEN TO A STATE FOR
THE PROTECTION OF ITS WELFARE.  UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307
U.S. 533.  CF. WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379.  THE
ALLOWABLE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION TO ATTAIN PRICE STABILITY
FINDS OBVIOUS OCCASION IN THE CASE OF A COMMODITY AS BASIC TO A STATE'S
ECONOMY AS CITRUS FRUIT IS TO THAT OF FLORIDA.  CERTAINLY NEITHER IN
THE BILL NOR IN THE COURT'S OPINION IS A REASON VOUCHSAFED TO TAKE THE
PRESENT SUIT OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE NEBBIA DOCTRINE.  THE WISDOM OF
SUCH A POLICY - ITS EFFICACY TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED ENDS - IS OF COURSE
NOT OUR CONCERN. 

THE PRICE LEVEL HERE CHALLENGED WAS NOT HASTILY OR CRUDELY FIXED.  IT
WAS THE RESULT OF AN APPROVED MODERN METHOD FOR DEALING WITH THE
COMPLEXITIES OF SUCH A PROBLEM.  THE PRICE WAS NOT FIXED DIRECTLY BY
STATUTE.  IT WAS ASCERTAINED UNDER APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS BY A BODY
ESTABLISHED TO CARRY INTO APT RESULT THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY FOR
ASSURING "THE GROWER RETURNS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE COST OF PRODUCTION. 
...  "  LAWS OF FLORIDA, 1935, C. 16862.  THE FLORIDA CITRUS COMMISSION
ON JANUARY 16, 1939, FIXED MINIMUM PRICES FOR GRAPEFRUIT, THEREBY
ESTABLISHING WHAT IS COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS A "FLOOR" FOR THE MARKET, SO
AS TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTIVE PLAY OF BLIND ECONOMIC FORCES. 

THIS ACTION WAS THEREUPON COMMENCED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, NOT BY ANY OF THE GROWERS BUT BY SOME
CANNERS, APPELLEES HERE.  ON MARCH 23, 1939, THEY SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND OTHER STATE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING
THE FIXED MINIMUM PRICES.  THEY CLAIMED THAT THESE DEPRIVED THEM OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BUY IN A CHEAPER MARKET - THE CHEAPNESS OF COMPETITION
INDIFFERENT TO ANY BUT IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES.  THEY CLAIMED
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE AND ASKED FOR BOTH A TEMPORARY AND A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.  ON APRIL 28, 1939, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH IN THIS
COURT'S OPINION, THE DISTRICT COURT DECLARED THE STATUTE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  THERE WERE
NO FINDINGS - AND THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NONE ON THIS RECORD - TAKING
THE STATUTE OUT OF THE DOCTRINE ANNOUNCED IN THE NEBBIA CASE.  FN1
CERTAINLY A CONSUMER HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BUY AS CHEAPLY AS
AN UNREGULATED INDUSTRY WOULD, UNDER ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCES, BE
COMPELLED TO SELL. 

PURSUANT TO THE DELAYS INEVITABLE IN A LITIGATION LIKE THE PRESENT,
AN ORDER ALLOWING APPEAL WAS NOT GRANTED UNTIL JULY 3, AND THE CASE WAS
FILED HERE ON AUGUST 7, WHERE IN DUE COURSE IT WAS REACHED FOR ARGUMENT
ON JANUARY 12, 1940.  AS A RESULT, THE INJUNCTION EFFECTIVELY SUSPENDED
THE OPERATION OF THE FLORIDA LAW DURING THE WHOLE MARKETING SEASON,
ALTHOUGH THIS COURT NOW FINDS THAT THE INJUNCTION SHOULD NEVER HAVE
BEEN GRANTED. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOW LET THIS BILL HANG OVER NEXT YEAR'S
CROP.  WE OUGHT NOT TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR
SUCH UNJUSTIFIABLE ATTEMPTS TO SET ASIDE A STATE LAW BY ALLOWING THEM
TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN RESULT EVEN THOUGH LEGALLY ERRONEOUS.  WE OUGHT TO
APPLY WHAT WAS CHARACTERIZED IN MASSACHUSETTS STATE GRANGE V. BENTON,
272 U.S. 525, 527, AS "THE IMPORTANT RULE, WHICH WE DESIRE TO
EMPHASIZE, THAT NO INJUNCTION OUGHT TO ISSUE AGAINST OFFICERS OF A
STATE CLOTHED WITH AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE LAW IN QUESTION, UNLESS IN
A CASE REASONABLY FREE FROM DOUBT AND WHEN NECESSARY TO PREVENT GREAT
AND IRREPARABLE INJURY."  EVEN IF THE PRESENT BILL IS TAKEN AT FACE
VALUE, IT DOES NOT MAKE OUT "A CASE REASONABLY FREE FROM DOUBT."  THE
WITHDRAWAL OF THE INJUNCTION FROM INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSIES MADE BY THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS IN NO SMALL PART DUE TO THE BELIEF BY CONGRESS
THAT EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN THAT THE USE OF A LEGAL REMEDY DEVISED FOR A
SIMPLE SITUATION MIGHT IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT BECOME A
PERVERSION OF THAT REMEDY.  CONGRESS HAS ALSO GIVEN INDICATION IN SEC.
266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 380) OF ITS CONCERN OVER THE
MISUSE OF THE INJUNCTION, FASHIONED FOR SETTLING AN ORDINARY CLASH OF
PRIVATE INTERESTS, TO RESTRAIN THE MACHINERY OF A STATE IN CARRYING OUT
SOME VITAL STATE POLICY. 

THE SUPERVISORY POWER OF THIS COURT OVER THE DISTRICT COURTS BECOMES
ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE IN EQUITY SUITS.  WE OUGHT TO FEEL FREE TO APPLY
THE TRADITIONAL POWERS OF THE CHANCELLOR ON APPEAL TO ACT AS THOUGH THE
SUIT WERE BEFORE HIM DE NOVO.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE
IRRIGATION CO., 184 U.S. 416, 423.  THE PRESENT CASE DEMANDS THAT WE
ENFORCE THE "IMPORTANT RULE" OF MASSACHUSETTS STATE GRANGE V. BENTON,
SUPRA. 

INASMUCH AS THE FLORIDA STATUTE IS OBVIOUSLY CONSTITUTIONAL, THE BILL
DOES NOT RAISE A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION AND THE DISTRICT COURT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN IT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEES WHO
ARE CITIZENS OF FLORIDA.  AS TO THEM, THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL. 

SOME OF THE APPELLEES, HOWEVER, ARE CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES, AND
AMONG THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL, IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE
REQUISITE TO GIVE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION, ARE THOSE OF FAILURE BY THE
STATE OFFICIALS TO COMPLY WITH SOME OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH APPELLEES
ASSERT TO BE INDISPENSABLE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A VALID PRICE-FIXING
ORDER UNDER THE STATUTE.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE MERITS OF THESE
CONTENTIONS, IN ANY EVENT THEY DO NOT TOUCH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE STATUTE OR THE ORDER, AND SO SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE CANNOT
BE INVOKED FOR THEIR ADJUDICATION.  AS TO THESE APPELLEES, THE JUDGMENT
BELOW SHOULD BE VACATED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
ANY PROCEEDINGS THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE BEFORE A SINGLE JUDGE.  BUT
COMPARE GILCHRIST V. INTERBOROUGH CO., 279 U.S. 159. 

FN1  APPELLEES ALSO ATTACKED THE FLORIDA STATUTE BECAUSE OF ITS
PROVISIONS EXEMPTING CO-OPERATIVE AND GROWER-OWNED CANNERIES.  THIS
ATTACK, HOWEVER, MUST FAIL UNDER OUR DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK
ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533.  APPELLEES' CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE IS
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS LIKEWISE WITHOUT
SUBSTANCE.  SLIGH V. KIRKWOOD, 237 U.S. 52; MILK BOARD V. EISENBERG
CO., 306 U.S. 346.  NOR IS THERE SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR APPELLEES'
CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF
ANY CONTRACTS THEY MAY HAVE PREVIOUSLY MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF
GRAPEFRUIT AT A PRICE LOWER THAN THAT FIXED UNDER THE STATUTE.  SEE,
E.G., UNION DRY GOODS CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE CORP., 248 U.S.
372.  CF. KNOX V. LEE, 12 WALL.  457, 550-51. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN IN THESE VIEWS. 
..END :













COBBLEDICK V. UNITED STATES, 309 U.S. 323 


NO. 571.  ARGUED JANUARY 30, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  - 107
F.2D 975, AFFIRMED. 


AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING A MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA
DUCES TECUM REQUIRING ONE TO APPEAR WITH PAPERS AND TESTIFY BEFORE A
GRAND JURY IS NOT A "FINAL DECISION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF JUD.  CODE
SEC. 128(A).  PP. 324, 330. 

COBBLEDICK ET AL. V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 572, BRAWNER ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, AND NO. 573,
PALMUTH ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 547, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS DISMISSING, FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION, APPEALS FROM ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
DUCES TECUM. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, ANNOUNCED BY THE
CHIEF JUSTICE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DENIED
MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONERS AND
DIRECTING THEM TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS BEFORE A UNITED STATES
GRAND JURY AT THE JULY, 1939, TERM OF THAT COURT.  FROM THE DENIAL OF
THESE MOTIONS PETITIONERS SOUGHT REVIEW BY WAY OF APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, 107 F.2D 975.  THAT COURT FOUND
ITSELF TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS.  WE
BROUGHT THE CASES HERE, 308 U.S. 547, BECAUSE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
DECISION BELOW AND THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT, IN RE CUDAHY PACKING CO., 104 F.2D 658.  THE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY - AND THE SOLE QUESTION RAISED IN ALL THREE CASES - VITALLY
CONCERNS THE EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER AN ORDER DENYING A MOTION TO QUASH A SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM DIRECTING A WITNESS TO APPEAR BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS INCLUDED
WITHIN THOSE "FINAL DECISIONS" IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH ALONE THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL ARE AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW BY SEC. 128(A) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 225).  FN1 

FINALITY AS A CONDITION OF REVIEW IS AN HISTORIC CHARACTERISTIC OF
FEDERAL APPELLATE PROCEDURE.  IT WAS WRITTEN INTO THE FIRST JUDICIARY
ACT  FN2  AND HAS BEEN DEPARTED FROM ONLY WHEN OBSERVANCE OF IT WOULD
PRACTICALLY DEFEAT THE RIGHT TO ANY REVIEW AT ALL.  FN3  SINCE THE
RIGHT TO A JUDGMENT FROM MORE THAN ONE COURT IS A MATTER OF GRACE AND
NOT A NECESSARY INGREDIENT OF JUSTICE, CONGRESS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING
HAS, BY FORBIDDING PIECEMEAL DISPOSITION ON APPEAL OF WHAT FOR
PRACTICAL PURPOSES IS A SINGLE CONTROVERSY, SET ITSELF AGAINST
ENFEEBLING JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.  THEREBY IS AVOIDED THE OBSTRUCTION
TO JUST CLAIMS THAT WOULD COME FROM PERMITTING THE HARASSMENT AND COST
OF A SUCCESSION OF SEPARATE APPEALS FROM THE VARIOUS RULINGS TO WHICH A
LITIGATION MAY GIVE RISE, FROM ITS INITIATION TO ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.  TO
BE EFFECTIVE, JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION MUST NOT BE LEADEN-FOOTED.  ITS
MOMENTUM WOULD BE ARRESTED BY PERMITTING SEPARATE REVIEWS OF THE
COMPONENT ELEMENTS IN A UNIFIED CAUSE.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY
ARE ESPECIALLY COMPELLING IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. 
NOT UNTIL 1889 WAS THERE REVIEW AS OF RIGHT IN CRIMINAL CASES.  FN4  AN
ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO SCRUPULOUS OBSERVANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARDS.  BUT ENCOURAGEMENT OF DELAY IS FATAL TO THE VINDICATION OF
THE CRIMINAL LAW.  BEARING THE DISCOMFITURE AND COST OF A PROSECUTION
FOR CRIME EVEN BY AN INNOCENT PERSON IS ONE OF THE PAINFUL OBLIGATIONS
OF CITIZENSHIP.  THE CORRECTNESS OF A TRIAL COURT'S REJECTION EVEN OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM MADE BY THE ACCUSED IN THE PROCESS OF PROSECUTION
MUST AWAIT HIS CONVICTION BEFORE ITS RECONSIDERATION BY AN APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL.  COGEN V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 221. 

IN THUS DENYING TO THE APPELLATE COURTS THE POWER TO REVIEW RULINGS
AT NISI PRIUS, GENERALLY, UNTIL AFTER THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN
CONCLUDED, CONGRESS HAS SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE THE EFFECTIVE CONDUCT OF
LITIGATION.  FOR PURPOSES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, FINALITY - THE IDEA
UNDERLYING "FINAL JUDGMENTS AND DECREES" IN THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789
AND NOW EXPRESSED BY "FINAL DECISIONS" IN SEC. 128 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
- IS NOT A TECHNICAL CONCEPT OF TEMPORAL OR PHYSICAL TERMINATION.  IT
IS THE MEANS FOR ACHIEVING A HEALTHY LEGAL SYSTEM.  AS AN INSTRUMENT OF
SUCH POLICY THE REQUIREMENT OF FINALITY WILL BE ENFORCED NOT ONLY
AGAINST A PARTY TO THE LITIGATION BUT AGAINST A WITNESS WHO IS A
STRANGER TO THE MAIN PROCEEDING.  NEITHER A PARTY NOR A NON-PARTY
WITNESS WILL BE ALLOWED TO TAKE TO THE UPPER COURT A RULING WHERE THE
RESULT OF REVIEW WILL BE "TO HALT IN THE ORDERLY PROGRESS OF A CAUSE
AND CONSIDER INCIDENTALLY A QUESTION WHICH HAS HAPPENED TO CROSS THE
PATH OF SUCH LITIGATION  ...  "  MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, IN SEGUROLA V.
UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 106, 112.  THIS IS SO DESPITE THE FACT THAT A
WITNESS WHO IS A STRANGER TO THE LITIGATION COULD NOT BE PARTY TO AN
APPEAL TAKEN AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MAIN CAUSE.  SUCH WAS THE RULING
IN ALEXANDER V. UNITED STATES, 201 U.S. 117.  IN THAT CASE, WITNESSES
WERE DIRECTED TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS BEFORE A SPECIAL EXAMINER
DESIGNATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT TO HEAR TESTIMONY IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY
THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE THE SHERMAN LAW.  UPON REFUSAL TO SUBMIT
THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR IN THE SUBPOENA, THE UNITED STATES PETITIONED
THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE.  THE PETITION WAS
GRANTED, AND APPEALS WERE THEN ALLOWED TO THIS COURT.  THESE APPEALS
WERE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  THE GROUNDS OF THE DECISION
ARE BEST INDICATED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPINION: 

"IN A CERTAIN SENSE FINALITY CAN BE ASSERTED OF THE ORDERS UNDER
REVIEW, SO, IN A CERTAIN SENSE, FINALITY CAN BE ASSERTED OF ANY ORDER
OF A COURT.  AND SUCH AN ORDER MAY COERCE A WITNESS, LEAVING TO HIM NO
ALTERNATIVE BUT TO OBEY OR BE PUNISHED.  IT MAY HAVE THE EFFECT AND THE
SAME CHARACTERISTIC OF FINALITY AS THE ORDERS UNDER REVIEW, BUT FROM
SUCH A RULING IT WILL NOT BE CONTENDED THERE IS AN APPEAL.  LET THE
COURT GO FURTHER AND PUNISH THE WITNESS FOR CONTEMPT OF ITS ORDER, THEN
ARRIVES A RIGHT OF REVIEW, AND THIS IS ADEQUATE FOR HIS PROTECTION
WITHOUT UNDULY IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF THE CASE  ...  THIS POWER TO
PUNISH BEING EXERCISED THE MATTER BECOMES PERSONAL TO THE WITNESS AND A
JUDGMENT AS TO HIM.  PRIOR TO THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INTERLOCUTORY IN
THE ORIGINAL SUIT."  201 U.S. AT 121-22. 

WE MUST NOW DECIDE WHETHER THE SITUATION OF A WITNESS SUMMONED TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS BEFORE A GRAND JURY IS SO DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE
WITNESS IN THE ALEXANDER CASE THAT THE SOUND CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY
CONTROLLING THERE SHOULD NOT GOVERN HERE.  THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF
MAKES THE GRAND JURY A PART OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  IT MUST INITIATE
PROSECUTION FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT FEDERAL CRIMES.  IT DOES SO UNDER
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE COURT TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED AND TO
WHICH, FROM TIME TO TIME, IT REPORTS ITS FINDINGS.  THE PROCEEDING
BEFORE A GRAND JURY CONSTITUTES "A JUDICIAL INQUIRY," HALE V. HENKEL,
201 U.S. 43, 66, OF THE MOST ANCIENT LINEAGE.  SEE WILSON V. UNITED
STATES, 221 U.S. 361.  THE DURATION OF ITS LIFE, FREQUENTLY SHORT, IS
LIMITED BY STATUTE.  IT IS NO LESS IMPORTANT TO SAFEGUARD AGAINST UNDUE
INTERRUPTION THE INQUIRY INSTITUTED BY A GRAND JURY THAN TO PROTECT
FROM DELAY THE PROGRESS OF THE TRIAL AFTER AN INDICTMENT HAS BEEN
FOUND.  OPPORTUNITY FOR OBSTRUCTING THE "ORDERLY PROGRESS" OF
INVESTIGATION SHOULD NO MORE BE ENCOURAGED IN ONE CASE THAN IN THE
OTHER.  THAT A GRAND JURY PROCEEDING HAS NO DEFINED LITIGANTS AND THAT
NONE MAY EMERGE FROM IT, IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.  THE WITNESS'
RELATION TO THE INQUIRY IS NO DIFFERENT IN A GRAND JURY PROCEEDING THAN
IT WAS IN THE ALEXANDER CASE.  WHATEVER RIGHT HE MAY HAVE REQUIRES NO
FURTHER PROTECTION IN EITHER CASE THAN THAT AFFORDED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT UNTIL THE WITNESS CHOOSES TO DISOBEY AND IS COMMITTED FOR
CONTEMPT.  SEE HALE V. HENKEL, SUPRA, AND WILSON V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.  AT THAT POINT THE WITNESS' SITUATION BECOMES SO SEVERED FROM
THE MAIN PROCEEDING AS TO PERMIT AN APPEAL.  TO BE SURE, THIS TOO MAY
INVOLVE AN INTERRUPTION OF THE TRIAL OR OF THE INVESTIGATION.  BUT NOT
TO ALLOW THIS INTERRUPTION WOULD FOREVER PRECLUDE REVIEW OF THE
WITNESS' CLAIM, FOR HIS ALTERNATIVES ARE TO ABANDON THE CLAIM OR
LANGUISH IN JAIL. 

THIS ANALYSIS OF FINALITY IS ILLUSTRATED BY PERLMAN V. UNITED STATES,
247 U.S. 7.  FN5  THERE, EXHIBITS OWNED BY PERLMAN AND IMPOUNDED IN
COURT DURING A PATENT SUIT WERE, ON MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, DIRECTED TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE A GRAND JURY.  PERLMAN
PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT TO PROHIBIT THIS USE, INVOKING A
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE.  THIS PETITION WAS DENIED AND PERLMAN SOUGHT
REVIEW HERE.  THE UNITED STATES CLAIMED THAT THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS "NOT FINAL" BUT MERELY INTERLOCUTORY AND THEREFORE NOT
REVIEWABLE BY THIS COURT.  WE REJECTED THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION.  TO
HAVE HELD OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE RENDERED PERLMAN "POWERLESS TO AVERT THE
MISCHIEF OF THE ORDER  ...  " 247 U.S. AT 13.  PERLMAN'S EXHIBITS WERE
ALREADY IN THE COURT'S POSSESSION.  IF THEIR PRODUCTION BEFORE THE
GRAND JURY VIOLATED PERLMAN'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THEN HE COULD
PROTECT THAT RIGHT ONLY BY A SEPARATE PROCEEDING TO PROHIBIT THE
FORBIDDEN USE.  TO HAVE DENIED HIM OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW ON THE THEORY
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER WAS INTERLOCUTORY WOULD HAVE MADE THE
DOCTRINE OF FINALITY A MEANS OF DENYING PERLMAN ANY APPELLATE REVIEW OF
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.  DUE REGARD FOR EFFICIENCY IN LITIGATION MUST
NOT BE CARRIED SO FAR AS TO DENY ALL OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPEAL
CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTES.  FN6 

ONE CLASS OF CASES DEALING WITH THE DUTY OF WITNESSES TO TESTIFY
PRESENTS DIFFERENTIATING CIRCUMSTANCES.  THESE CASES HAVE ARISEN UNDER
SEC. 12 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WHEREBY A PROCEEDING MAY BE
BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO COMPEL TESTIMONY FROM PERSONS WHO HAVE
REFUSED TO MAKE DISCLOSURES BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
FN7  IN THESE CASES THE ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTING THE
WITNESS TO ANSWER HAVE BEEN HELD FINAL AND REVIEWABLE.  INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N V. BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447; HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N, 211 U.S. 407; ELLIS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 237
U.S. 434.  SUCH CASES WERE DULY CONSIDERED IN THE ALEXANDER CASE, AND
DEEMED TO REST "ON STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO THE
PROCEEDINGS AT BAR, AND, WHILE THERE MAY BE RESEMBLANCES TO THE LATTER,
THERE ARE ALSO DIFFERENCES."  201 U.S. AT 121.  THE DIFFERENCES WERE
THOUGHT CONTROLLING.  APPEAL FROM AN ORDER UNDER SEC. 12 WAS AGAIN HERE
IN THE ELLIS CASE, SUPRA, FULLY ARGUED IN THE BRIEFS, AND AGAIN
DIFFERENTIATED FROM A SITUATION LIKE THAT IN THE ALEXANDER CASE.  "NO
DOUBT" WAS FELT THAT AN APPEAL LAY FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S DIRECTION
TO TESTIFY.  "IT IS THE END OF A PROCEEDING BEGUN AGAINST THE WITNESS"
WAS THE PITHY EXPRESSION FOR THIS TYPE OF CASE.  237 U.S. AT 442.  AND
IT IS A SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR TREATING THESE CONTROVERSIES
DIFFERENTLY FROM THOSE ARISING OUT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS UNRELATED TO
ANY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.  THE DOCTRINE OF FINALITY IS A PHASE OF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY WITHIN THE JUDICIAL HIERARCHY.  BUT A
PROCEEDING LIKE THAT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT MAY
BE DEEMED SELF-CONTAINED, SO FAR AS THE JUDICIARY IS CONCERNED - AS
MUCH SO AS AN INDEPENDENT SUIT IN EQUITY IN WHICH APPEAL WILL LIE FROM
AN INJUNCTION WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF WAITING FOR DISOBEDIENCE.  AFTER
THE COURT HAS ORDERED A RECUSANT WITNESS TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, THERE REMAINS NOTHING FOR IT TO DO.  NOT ONLY IS THIS TRUE
WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTICULAR WITNESS WHOSE TESTIMONY IS SOUGHT; THERE
IS NOT, AS IN THE CASE OF A GRAND JURY OR TRIAL, ANY FURTHER JUDICIAL
INQUIRY WHICH WOULD BE HALTED WERE THE OFFENDING WITNESS PERMITTED TO
APPEAL.  THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT ANCILLARY TO
ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.  SO FAR AS THE COURT IS CONCERNED, IT IS
COMPLETE IN ITSELF. 

WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY TO SAY MORE IN SUSTAINING THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 128(A) PROVIDES THAT, "THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL
SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BY APPEAL FINAL DECISIONS. 
...  "  SIMILAR LANGUAGE WAS USED IN THE ACT OF 1891, C. 517, 26 STAT.
828. 

FN2  SECS. 21, 22, 25 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, 1 STAT. 73,
83-85.  FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, ENGLISH AND
AMERICAN, OF THE FINALITY CONCEPT, SEE CRICK, THE FINAL JUDGMENT AS A
BASIS FOR APPEAL, 41 YALE L. J. 539. 

FN3  SEE SEC. 129 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 227, DEALING
WITH APPEALS FROM INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS, APPEALS FROM INTERLOCUTORY
DECISIONS IN RECEIVERSHIP CASES AND FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECREES
DETERMINING RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES IN ADMIRALTY LITIGATION. 

FN4 SEE UNITED STATES V. MORE, 3 CRANCH 159.  ONLY BY CERTIFICATE OF
DIVISION OF OPINION IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS COULD REVIEW BE OBTAINED. 
SEE CURTIS, JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, 82.  BY THE ACT
OF 1889 REVIEW AS OF RIGHT WAS ALLOWED IN CAPITAL CASES.  25 STAT. 655,
656.  FOR THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL APPEAL SEE UNITED STATES V.
SANGES, 144 U.S. 310, 319-22. 

FN5  COMPARE GO-BART CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344.    FN6
BURDEAU V. MCDOWELL, 256 U.S. 465, IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR ANALYSIS.  IN
THAT CASE PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
RECOVERY OF DOCUMENTS HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR USE BEFORE A GRAND
JURY.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND THE GOVERNMENT
APPEALED.  IN THIS COURT THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS TREATED
AS FINAL, AND HENCE SUBJECT TO REVIEW.  BUT THE PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS THERE INVOLVED WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH
MUST GOVERN HERE.  IN BURDEAU V. MCDOWELL THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS ITSELF AN INTERRUPTION OF THE GRAND JURY'S INQUIRY; APPEAL BY
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HALT THE "ORDERLY PROGRESS" OF THE INQUIRY. 

FN7  25 STAT. 858; 49 U.S.C. SEC. 12. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THESE CASES. 
..END :











HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, 309 U.S. 331 


NO. 383.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  - 105
F.2D 586, REVERSED. 


1.  A HUSBAND WHO DECLARED HIMSELF TRUSTEE OF CERTAIN SECURITIES FOR
THE TERM OF FIVE YEARS, TO PAY TO HIS WIFE THE INCOME ACCRUING DURING
THAT PERIOD, BUT RETAINED IN HIMSELF THE RIGHT TO ACCUMULATE INCOME,
AND, WITH INSIGNIFICANT EXCEPTIONS, THE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE
PRINCIPAL FUND - ITS CONVERSION, INVESTMENT, REINVESTMENT, ETC. - AND
THE REVERSION OF THE CORPUS AT THE END OF THE TERM, MAY PROPERLY BE
FOUND BY THE FEDERAL TAXING AUTHORITIES TO BE OWNER OF THE FUND, WITHIN
THE INTENT OF SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE TRUST, AND TAXABLE ON THE TRUST INCOME AS PART OF HIS PERSONAL
INCOME.  P. 335. 

WHERE THE BENEFITS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RETAINED BLEND SO
IMPERCEPTIBLY WITH THE NORMAL CONCEPTS OF FULL OWNERSHIP, IT CAN NOT BE
SAID THAT THE TRIERS OF FACT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN THEY FOUND
THAT THE HUSBAND WAS THE OWNER OF THE CORPUS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC.
22(A).  P. 336. 

2.  THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934
INDICATES THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO USE THE FULL MEASURE OF ITS TAXING
POWER WITHIN THE DEFINABLE CATEGORIES SPECIFIED THEREIN.  P. 337. 

3.  WHETHER THE CREATOR OF A TRUST MAY STILL BE TREATED UNDER SEC.
22(A) AS THE OWNER OF THE CORPUS, IS NOT DETERMINED BY TECHNICALITIES
OF THE LAW OF TRUSTS AND CONVEYANCES, BUT MUST DEPEND ON ANALYSIS OF
THE TERMS OF THE TRUST AND ON ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDANT ON ITS
CREATION AND OPERATION.  P. 334. 

WHERE THE GRANTOR IS THE TRUSTEE, AND THE BENEFICIARIES MEMBERS OF
HIS FAMILY GROUP, SPECIAL SCRUTINY IS NECESSARY, LEST WHAT IS IN
REALITY BUT ONE ECONOMIC UNIT BE INCREASED TO TWO OR MORE BY DEVICES
WHICH, THOUGH VALID UNDER STATE LAW, ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE UNDER SEC.
22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT.  P. 335. 

4.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS MADE SPECIFIC PROVISION IN SEC. 166 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934 FOR REVOCABLE TRUSTS BUT FAILED TO ADOPT A TREASURY
RECOMMENDATION THAT SIMILAR SPECIFIC TREATMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN INCOME
FROM SHORT TERM TRUSTS, DID NOT SUBTRACT THE LATTER FROM SEC. 22(A). 
P. 337. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 542, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (38 B.T.A. 1532), SUSTAINING A
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. CLIFFORD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1934 RESPONDENT DECLARED HIMSELF TRUSTEE OF CERTAIN SECURITIES
WHICH HE OWNED.  ALL NET INCOME FROM THE TRUST WAS TO BE HELD FOR THE
"EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT" OF RESPONDENT'S WIFE.  THE TRUST WAS FOR A TERM OF
FIVE YEARS, EXCEPT THAT IT WOULD TERMINATE EARLIER ON THE DEATH OF
EITHER RESPONDENT OR HIS WIFE.  ON TERMINATION OF THE TRUST THE ENTIRE
CORPUS WAS TO GO TO RESPONDENT, WHILE ALL "ACCRUED OR UNDISTRIBUTED NET
INCOME" AND "ANY PROCEEDS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH NET INCOME" WAS
TO BE TREATED AS PROPERTY OWNED ABSOLUTELY BY THE WIFE.  DURING THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE TRUST RESPONDENT WAS TO PAY OVER TO HIS WIFE THE
WHOLE OR SUCH PART OF THE NET INCOME AS HE IN HIS "ABSOLUTE DISCRETION"
MIGHT DETERMINE.  AND DURING THAT PERIOD HE HAD FULL POWER (A) TO
EXERCISE ALL VOTING POWERS INCIDENT TO THE TRUSTEED SHARES OF STOCK;
(B) TO "SELL, EXCHANGE, MORTGAGE, OR PLEDGE" ANY OF THE SECURITIES
UNDER THE DECLARATION OF TRUST "WHETHER AS PART OF THE CORPUS OR
PRINCIPAL THEREOF OR AS INVESTMENTS OR PROCEEDS AND ANY INCOME
THEREFROM, UPON SUCH TERMS AND FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION" AS RESPONDENT IN
HIS "ABSOLUTE DISCRETION MAY DEEM FITTING"; (C) TO INVEST "ANY CASH OR
MONEY IN THE TRUST ESTATE OR ANY INCOME THEREFROM" BY LOANS, SECURED OR
UNSECURED, BY DEPOSITS IN BANKS, OR BY PURCHASE OF SECURITIES OR OTHER
PERSONAL PROPERTY "WITHOUT RESTRICTION" BECAUSE OF THEIR "SPECULATIVE
CHARACTER" OR "RATE OF RETURN" OR ANY "LAWS PERTAINING TO THE
INVESTMENT OF TRUST FUNDS"; (D) TO COLLECT ALL INCOME; (E) TO
COMPROMISE, ETC., ANY CLAIMS HELD BY HIM AS TRUSTEE; (F) TO HOLD ANY
PROPERTY IN THE TRUST ESTATE IN THE NAMES OF "OTHER PERSONS OR IN MY
OWN NAME AS AN INDIVIDUAL" EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED.  EXTRAORDINARY
CASH DIVIDENDS, STOCK DIVIDENDS, PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF UNEXERCISED
SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS, OR ANY ENHANCEMENT, REALIZED OR NOT, IN THE VALUE
OF THE SECURITIES WERE TO BE TREATED AS PRINCIPAL, NOT INCOME.  AN
EXCULPATORY CLAUSE PURPORTED TO PROTECT HIM FROM ALL LOSSES EXCEPT
THOSE OCCASIONED BY HIS "OWN WILFUL AND DELIBERATE" BREACH OF DUTIES AS
TRUSTEE.  AND FINALLY IT WAS PROVIDED THAT NEITHER THE PRINCIPAL NOR
ANY FUTURE OR ACCRUED INCOME SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR THE DEBTS OF THE
WIFE; AND THAT THE WIFE COULD NOT TRANSFER, ENCUMBER, OR ANTICIPATE ANY
INTEREST IN THE TRUST OR ANY INCOME THEREFROM PRIOR TO ACTUAL PAYMENT
THEREOF TO HER. 

IT WAS STIPULATED THAT WHILE THE "TAX EFFECTS" OF THIS TRUST WERE
CONSIDERED BY RESPONDENT THEY WERE NOT THE "SOLE CONSIDERATION"
INVOLVED IN HIS DECISION TO SET IT UP, AS BY THIS AND OTHER GIFTS HE
INTENDED TO GIVE "SECURITY AND ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE" TO HIS WIFE AND
CHILDREN.  IT WAS ALSO STIPULATED THAT RESPONDENT'S WIFE HAD
SUBSTANTIAL INCOME OF HER OWN FROM OTHER SOURCES; THAT THERE WAS NO
RESTRICTION ON HER USE OF THE TRUST INCOME, ALL OF WHICH INCOME WAS
PLACED IN HER PERSONAL CHECKING ACCOUNT, INTERMINGLED WITH HER OTHER
FUNDS, AND EXPENDED BY HER ON HERSELF, HER CHILDREN AND RELATIVES; THAT
THE TRUST WAS NOT DESIGNED TO RELIEVE RESPONDENT FROM LIABILITY FOR
FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND THAT AFTER EXECUTION OF THE TRUST HE
PAID LARGE SUMS FROM HIS PERSONAL FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSES. 

RESPONDENT PAID A FEDERAL GIFT TAX ON THIS TRANSFER.  DURING THE YEAR
1934 ALL INCOME FROM THE TRUST WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE WIFE WHO INCLUDED
IT IN HER INDIVIDUAL RETURN FOR THAT YEAR.  THE COMMISSIONER, HOWEVER,
DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY IN RESPONDENT'S RETURN FOR THAT YEAR ON THE
THEORY THAT INCOME FROM THE TRUST WAS TAXABLE TO HIM.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS SUSTAINED THAT REDETERMINATION.  38 B.T.A. 1532.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  105 F.2D 586.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE TO THE REVENUE OF THE USE OF SUCH SHORT TERM
TRUSTS IN THE REDUCTION OF SURTAXES. 

SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, INCLUDES AMONG
"GROSS INCOME" ALL "GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED  ...  FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY
SOURCE WHATEVER."  THE BROAD SWEEP OF THIS LANGUAGE INDICATES THE
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO USE THE FULL MEASURE OF ITS TAXING POWER WITHIN
THOSE DEFINABLE CATEGORIES.  CF. HELVERING V. MIDLAND MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE CO., 300 U.S. 216.  HENCE OUR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
SHOULD BE CONSONANT WITH THAT PURPOSE.  TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS,
NICETIES OF THE LAW OF TRUSTS OR CONVEYANCES, OR THE LEGAL
PARAPHERNALIA WHICH INVENTIVE GENIUS MAY CONSTRUCT AS A REFUGE FROM
SURTAXES SHOULD NOT OBSCURE THE BASIC ISSUE.  THAT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE
GRANTOR AFTER THE TRUST HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED MAY STILL BE TREATED,
UNDER THIS STATUTORY SCHEME, AS THE OWNER OF THE CORPUS.  SEE BLAIR V.
COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 12.  IN ABSENCE OF MORE PRECISE STANDARDS OR
GUIDES SUPPLIED BY STATUTE OR APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS,  FN1  THE ANSWER
TO THAT QUESTION MUST DEPEND ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE TERMS OF THE TRUST
AND ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDANT ON ITS CREATION AND OPERATION.  AND
WHERE THE GRANTOR IS THE TRUSTEE AND THE BENEFICIARIES ARE MEMBERS OF
HIS FAMILY GROUP, SPECIAL SCRUTINY OF THE ARRANGEMENT IS NECESSARY LEST
WHAT IS IN REALITY BUT ONE ECONOMIC UNIT BE MULTIPLIED INTO TWO OR MORE
FN2  BY DEVICES WHICH, THOUGH VALID UNDER STATE LAW, ARE NOT
CONCLUSIVE SO FAR AS SEC. 22(A) IS CONCERNED. 

IN THIS CASE WE CANNOT CONCLUDE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT RESPONDENT
CEASED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE CORPUS AFTER THE TRUST WAS CREATED. 
RATHER, THE SHORT DURATION OF THE TRUST, THE FACT THAT THE WIFE WAS THE
BENEFICIARY, AND THE RETENTION OF CONTROL OVER THE CORPUS BY RESPONDENT
ALL LEAD IRRESISTIBLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT CONTINUED TO BE
THE OWNER FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 22(A). 

SO FAR AS HIS DOMINION AND CONTROL WERE CONCERNED IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT
THE TRUST DID NOT EFFECT ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.  IN SUBSTANCE HIS
CONTROL OVER THE CORPUS WAS IN ALL ESSENTIAL RESPECTS THE SAME AFTER
THE TRUST WAS CREATED, AS BEFORE.  THE WIDE POWERS WHICH HE RETAINED
INCLUDED FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES MOST OF THE CONTROL WHICH HE AS AN
INDIVIDUAL WOULD HAVE.  THERE WERE, WE MAY ASSUME, EXCEPTIONS, SUCH AS
HIS DISABILITY TO MAKE A GIFT OF THE CORPUS TO OTHERS DURING THE TERM
OF THE TRUST AND TO MAKE LOANS TO HIMSELF.  BUT THIS DILUTION IN HIS
CONTROL WOULD SEEM TO BE INSIGNIFICANT AND IMMATERIAL, SINCE CONTROL
OVER INVESTMENT REMAINED.  IF IT BE SAID THAT SUCH CONTROL IS THE TYPE
OF DOMINION EXERCISED BY ANY TRUSTEE, THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE.  WE HAVE AT
BEST A TEMPORARY REALLOCATION OF INCOME WITHIN AN INTIMATE FAMILY
GROUP.  SINCE THE INCOME REMAINS IN THE FAMILY AND SINCE THE HUSBAND
RETAINS CONTROL OVER THE INVESTMENT, HE HAS RATHER COMPLETE ASSURANCE
THAT THE TRUST WILL NOT EFFECT ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN HIS ECONOMIC
POSITION.  IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE THAT RESPONDENT FELT HIMSELF THE
POORER AFTER THIS TRUST HAD BEEN EXECUTED OR, IF HE DID, THAT IT HAD
ANY RATIONAL FOUNDATION IN FACT.  FOR AS A RESULT OF THE TERMS OF THE
TRUST AND THE INTIMACY OF THE FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP RESPONDENT RETAINED
THE SUBSTANCE OF FULL ENJOYMENT OF ALL THE RIGHTS WHICH PREVIOUSLY HE
HAD IN THE PROPERTY.  THAT MIGHT NOT BE TRUE IF ONLY STRICTLY LEGAL
RIGHTS WERE CONSIDERED.  BUT WHEN THE BENEFITS FLOWING TO HIM
INDIRECTLY THROUGH THE WIFE ARE ADDED TO THE LEGAL RIGHTS HE RETAINED,
THE AGGREGATE MAY BE SAID TO BE A FAIR EQUIVALENT OF WHAT HE PREVIOUSLY
HAD.  TO EXCLUDE FROM THE AGGREGATE THOSE INDIRECT BENEFITS WOULD BE TO
DEPRIVE SEC. 22(A) OF CONSIDERABLE VITALITY AND TO TREAT AS IMMATERIAL
WHAT MAY BE HIGHLY RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CREATION OF SUCH
FAMILY TRUSTS.  FOR WHERE THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD HAS INCOME IN
EXCESS OF NORMAL NEEDS, IT MAY WELL MAKE BUT LITTLE DIFFERENCE TO HIM
(EXCEPT INCOME-TAX-WISE) WHERE PORTIONS OF THAT INCOME ARE ROUTED - SO
LONG AS IT STAYS IN THE FAMILY GROUP.  IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ALL
IMPORTANT FACTOR MIGHT BE RETENTION BY HIM OF CONTROL OVER THE
PRINCIPAL.  WITH THAT CONTROL IN HIS HANDS HE WOULD KEEP DIRECT COMMAND
OVER ALL THAT HE NEEDED TO REMAIN IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FINANCIAL
SITUATION AS BEFORE.  OUR POINT HERE IS THAT NO ONE FACT IS NORMALLY
DECISIVE BUT THAT ALL CONSIDERATIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE KIND WE
HAVE MENTIONED ARE RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP AND ARE
APPROPRIATE FOUNDATIONS FOR FINDINGS ON THAT ISSUE.  THUS, WHERE, AS IN
THIS CASE, THE BENEFITS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RETAINED BLEND SO
IMPERCEPTIBLY WITH THE NORMAL CONCEPTS OF FULL OWNERSHIP, WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE TRIERS OF FACT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN THEY FOUND THAT
THE HUSBAND WAS THE OWNER OF THE CORPUS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC.
22(A).  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO TREAT THE WIFE AS A COMPLETE
STRANGER; TO LET MERE FORMALISM OBSCURE THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF
FAMILY SOLIDARITY; AND TO FORCE CONCEPTS OF OWNERSHIP TO BE FASHIONED
OUT OF LEGAL NICETIES WHICH MAY HAVE LITTLE OR NO SIGNIFICANCE IN SUCH
HOUSEHOLD ARRANGEMENTS. 

THE BUNDLE OF RIGHTS WHICH HE RETAINED WAS SO SUBSTANTIAL THAT
RESPONDENT CANNOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN THAT HE IS THE "VICTIM OF
DESPOTIC POWER WHEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION HE IS TREATED AS OWNER
ALTOGETHER."  SEE DUPONT V. COMMISSIONER, 289 U.S. 685, 689. 

WE SHOULD ADD THAT LIABILITY UNDER SEC. 22(A) IS NOT FORECLOSED BY
REASON OF THE FACT THAT CONGRESS MADE SPECIFIC PROVISION IN SEC. 166
FOR REVOCABLE TRUSTS, BUT FAILED TO ADOPT THE TREASURY RECOMMENDATION
IN 1934, HELVERING V. WOOD, POST, P. 344, THAT SIMILAR SPECIFIC
TREATMENT SHOULD BE ACCORDED INCOME FROM SHORT TERM TRUSTS.  SUCH
CHOICE, WHILE RELEVANT TO THE SCOPE OF SEC. 166, HELVERING V. WOOD,
SUPRA, CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE SUBTRACTED FROM SEC. 22(A) WHAT WAS
ALREADY THERE.  RATHER, ON THIS EVIDENCE IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE
CHOICE WAS BETWEEN A GENERALIZED TREATMENT UNDER SEC. 22(A) OR SPECIFIC
TREATMENT UNDER A SEPARATE PROVISION  FN3 (SUCH AS WAS ACCORDED
REVOCABLE TRUSTS UNDER SEC. 166); NOT BETWEEN TAXING OR NOT TAXING
GRANTORS OF SHORT TERM TRUSTS.  IN VIEW OF THE BROAD AND SWEEPING
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 22(A), A SPECIFIC PROVISION COVERING SHORT TERM TRUSTS
MIGHT WELL DO NO MORE THAN TO CARVE OUT OF SEC. 22(A) A DEFINED GROUP
OF CASES TO WHICH A RULE OF THUMB WOULD BE APPLIED.  THE FAILURE OF
CONGRESS TO ADOPT ANY SUCH RULE OF THUMB FOR THAT TYPE OF TRUST MUST BE
TAKEN TO DO NO MORE THAN TO LEAVE TO THE TRIERS OF FACT THE INITIAL
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE THE GRANTOR
REMAINS THE OWNER FOR PURPOSES OF SEC. 22(A). 

IN VIEW OF THIS RESULT WE NEED NOT EXAMINE THE CONTENTION THAT THE
TRUST DEVICE FALLS WITHIN THE RULE OF LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111 AND
BURNET V. LEININGER, 285 U.S. 136, RELATING TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE
INCOME; OR THAT RESPONDENT IS LIABLE UNDER SEC. 166, TAXING GRANTORS ON
THE INCOME OF REVOCABLE TRUSTS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED HERE ART. 166-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS
86 PROMULGATED UNDER SEC. 166 OF THE 1934 ACT AND IN 1936 AMENDED (T.D.
4629) SO AS TO REST ON SEC. 22(A) ALSO, SINCE THE TAX IN QUESTION AROSE
PRIOR TO THAT AMENDMENT. 

FN2  SEE PAUL, THE BACKGROUND OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1937, 5 UNIV. 
CHIC.  L. REV. 41. 

FN3  AS TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF A SPECIFIC STATUTORY FORMULA OVER MORE
GENERALIZED TREATMENT SEE VOL. I, REPORT, INCOME TAX CODIFICATION
COMMITTEE (1936), A COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE CHANCELLOR OF THE
EXCHEQUER IN 1927.  IN DISCUSSING REVOCABLE SETTLEMENTS THE COMMITTEE
STATED, P. 298: 

"THIS AND THE THREE FOLLOWING CLAUSES REPRODUCE SECTION 20 OF THE
FINANCE ACT, 1922, AN ENACTMENT WHICH HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MUCH
LITIGATION, IS UNSATISFACTORY IN MANY RESPECTS, AND IS PLAINLY
INADEQUATE TO FULFIL THE APPARENT INTENTION TO PREVENT AVOIDANCE OF
LIABILITY TO TAX BY REVOCABLE DISPOSITIONS OF INCOME OR OTHER DEVICES. 
WE THINK THE MATTER ONE WHICH IS WORTHY OF THE ATTENTION OF
PARLIAMENT." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT DISREGARDS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT
LEGISLATION IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE JUDICIARY BUT OF CONGRESS. 

IN EVERY REVENUE ACT FROM THAT OF 1916 TO THE ONE NOW IN FORCE A
DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE BETWEEN INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS AND INCOME FROM
PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST.  FN1  IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE TO DEFINE INCOME
OF INDIVIDUALS, AND, IN SEPARATE SECTIONS, UNDER THE HEADING "ESTATES
AND TRUSTS," TO PROVIDE THAT THE TAX IMPOSED UPON INDIVIDUALS SHALL
APPLY TO THE INCOME OF ESTATES OR OF ANY KIND OF PROPERTY HELD IN
TRUST.  A TRUST IS A SEPARATE TAXABLE ENTITY.  THE TRUST HERE IN
QUESTION IS A TRUE TRUST.    WHILE THE EARLIER ACTS WERE IN FORCE
CREATORS OF TRUSTS RESERVED POWER TO REPOSSESS THE TRUST CORPUS.  IT
BECAME COMMON ALSO TO ESTABLISH TRUSTS UNDER WHICH, AT THE GRANTOR'S
DISCRETION, ALL OR PART OF THE INCOME MIGHT BE PAID TO HIM, AND TO SET
UP TRUSTS TO PAY LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS UPON POLICIES ON THE GRANTOR'S
LIFE.  THE SITUATION WAS ANALOGOUS TO THAT NOW PRESENTED.  THE
TREASURY, INSTEAD OF ASKING THIS COURT, UNDER THE GUISE OF
CONSTRUCTION, TO AMEND THE ACT, WENT TO CONGRESS FOR NEW LEGISLATION. 
CONGRESS PROVIDED, BY SEC. 219(G)(H) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924, THAT
IF THE GRANTOR SET UP SUCH A LIFE INSURANCE TRUST, OR ONE UNDER WHICH
HE COULD DIRECT THE PAYMENT OF THE TRUST INCOME TO HIMSELF, OR HAD THE
POWER TO REVEST THE PRINCIPAL IN HIMSELF DURING ANY TAXABLE YEAR, THE
INCOME OF THE TRUST, FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR, WAS TO BE TREATED AS HIS. 
FN2 

AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THESE AMENDMENTS TAXPAYERS RESORTED TO THE
CREATION OF REVOCABLE TRUSTS WITH A PROVISION THAT MORE THAN A YEAR'S
NOTICE OF REVOCATION SHOULD BE NECESSARY TO TERMINATION.  SUCH A TRUST
WAS HELD NOT TO BE WITHIN THE TERMS OF SEC. 219(G) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1924, BECAUSE NOT REVOCABLE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR.  FN3 

AGAIN, WITHOUT SEEKING AMENDMENT IN THE GUISE OF CONSTRUCTION FROM
THIS COURT, THE TREASURY APPLIED TO CONGRESS, WHICH MET THE SITUATION
BY ADOPTING SEC. 166 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, WHICH PROVIDED THAT,
IN THE CASE OF A TRUST UNDER WHICH THE GRANTOR RESERVED THE POWER AT
ANY TIME TO REVEST THE CORPUS IN HIMSELF, THE INCOME OF THE TRUST
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THAT OF THE GRANTOR. 

THE TREASURY HAD ASKED THAT THERE SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THAT ACT
A PROVISION TAXING TO THE GRANTOR INCOME FROM SHORT TERM TRUSTS.  AFTER
THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE HAD RENDERED A REPORT ON THE
PROPOSED BILL, THE TREASURY, UPON EXAMINATION OF THE REPORT, SUBMITTED
A STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE CONTAINING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS; AMONGST OTHERS, THE FOLLOWING:  "(6)  THE INCOME FROM SHORT
TERM TRUSTS AND TRUSTS WHICH ARE REVOCABLE BY THE CREATOR AT THE
EXPIRATION OF A SHORT PERIOD AFTER NOTICE BY HIM SHOULD BE MADE TAXABLE
TO THE CREATOR OF THE TRUST."  CONGRESS ADOPTED AN AMENDMENT TO COVER
THE ONE SITUATION BUT DID NOT ACCEPT THE TREASURY'S RECOMMENDATION AS
TO THE OTHER.  FN4  THE STATUTE, AS BEFORE, CLEARLY PROVIDED THAT THE
INCOME FROM A SHORT TERM IRREVOCABLE TRUST WAS TAXABLE TO THE TRUST, OR
THE BENEFICIARY, AND NOT TO THE GRANTOR. 

THE REGULATIONS UNDER SEC. 166 OF THE ACT OF 1932 CONTAINED NO
SUGGESTION THAT TERM TRUSTS WERE TAXABLE TO THE CREATOR THOUGH, IF THE
PETITIONER IS RIGHT, THEY WOULD BE EQUALLY SO UNDER THAT ACT AS UNDER
LATER ONES.  THUS THOUGH THE TREASURY REALIZED THAT IRREVOCABLE SHORT
TERM TRUSTS DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 166, INSTEAD OF GOING
TO CONGRESS FOR AMENDMENT OF THE LAW IT COMES HERE WITH A PLEA FOR
INTERPRETATION WHICH IS IN EFFECT SUCH AMENDMENT. 

ITS CLAIM, IN SUPPORT OF THIS EFFORT, THAT A REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN
THE GRANTOR IS A "POWER TO REVEST" THE CORPUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 166 SO AS TO RENDER THE INCOME TAXABLE TO THE GRANTOR IS PLAINLY
UNTENABLE.  FN5  THAT THEORY WAS FIRST ADVANCED IN A REGULATION ISSUED
UNDER THE 1934 ACT,  FN6  BUT WAS ABANDONED MARCH 7, 1936, WHEN THE
REGULATION WAS REVISED TO READ SUBSTANTIALLY IN ITS PRESENT FORM.  FN7
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD A POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER IS NOT THE
"POWER TO REVEST" DESCRIBED IN SEC. 166.  FN8  THE PETITIONER
ACQUIESCED IN THE DECISION.  FN9  THE TREASURY THEREAFTER RULED THAT A
GRANTOR WAS NOT TAXABLE ON THE INCOME OF A TRUST WHERE HE HAD RETAINED
A REVERSIONARY INTEREST.  FN10 

I THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION HAS NOT BEEN
CONSISTENT AND THAT REENACTMENT OF SEC. 166 IS, THEREFORE, NOT A
RATIFICATION BY CONGRESS OF THE PRESENT CONSTRUCTION. 

THE REVISED REGULATIONS INDICATING THAT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THE
SEPARATE TAXABILITY OF THE TRUST MAY BE IGNORED ARE SAID TO REST ON
SEC. 166, AND ALSO ON SEC. 22(A) WHICH DEFINES INCOME.  THE REGULATION
IS NOT ONLY WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE STATUTE BUT CONTRARY TO THE ENTIRE
STATUTORY SCHEME AND, AS IT NOW STANDS, IS VAGUE AND MEANINGLESS, AS
RESPECTS THE TAXABILITY TO THE GRANTOR OF INCOME FROM AN IRREVOCABLE
TERM TRUST. 

TO CONSTRUE EITHER SEC. 166 OR SEC. 22(A) OF THE STATUTE AS
JUSTIFYING TAXATION OF THE INCOME TO RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE IS, IN MY
JUDGMENT, TO WRITE INTO THE STATUTE WHAT IS NOT THERE AND WHAT CONGRESS
HAS OMITTED TO PLACE THERE. 

IF JUDGES WERE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE THEY MIGHT WELL VOTE TO
AMEND THE ACT SO AS TO TAX SUCH INCOME IN ORDER TO FRUSTRATE AVOIDANCE
OF TAX BUT, AS JUDGES, THEY EXERCISE A VERY DIFFERENT FUNCTION.  THEY
OUGHT TO READ THE ACT TO COVER NOTHING MORE THAN CONGRESS HAS
SPECIFIED.  COURTS OUGHT NOT TO STOP LOOPHOLES IN AN ACT AT THE BEHEST
OF THE GOVERNMENT, NOR RELIEVE FROM WHAT THEY DEEM A HARSH PROVISION
PLAINLY STATED, AT THE BEHEST OF THE TAXPAYER.  RELIEF IN EITHER CASE
SHOULD BE SOUGHT IN ANOTHER QUARTER. 

NO SUCH DICTUM AS THAT CONGRESS HAS IN THE INCOME TAX LAW ATTEMPTED
TO EXERCISE ITS POWER TO THE FULLEST EXTENT WILL JUSTIFY THE EXTENSION
OF A PLAIN PROVISION TO AN OBJECT OF TAXATION NOT EMBRACED WITHIN IT.
IF THE CONTRARY WERE TRUE, THE COURTS MIGHT SUPPLY WHATEVER THEY
CONSIDERED A DEFICIENCY IN THE SWEEP OF A TAXING ACT.  I CANNOT
CONSTRUE THE COURT'S OPINION AS ATTEMPTING LESS. 

THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER IS IN TRUTH ASKING US TO LEGISLATE IN
THIS CASE IS EVIDENT FROM THE FORM OF THE EXISTING REGULATION AND FROM
THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED.  THE IMPORTANT PORTION OF THE REGULATION READS
AS FOLLOWS:  "IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE GRANTOR IS IN SUBSTANCE THE
OWNER OF THE CORPUS, THE ACT HAS ITS OWN STANDARD, WHICH IS A
SUBSTANTIAL ONE, DEPENDENT NEITHER ON THE NICETIES OF THE PARTICULAR
CONVEYANCING DEVICE USED, NOR ON THE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION WHICH THE
LAW OF PROPERTY GIVES TO THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TRANSFERRED TO THE
TRUSTEES OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST.  IN THAT DETERMINATION, AMONG
THE MATERIAL FACTORS ARE:  THE FACT THAT THE CORPUS IS TO BE RETURNED
TO THE GRANTOR AFTER A SPECIFIC TERM; THE FACT THAT THE CORPUS IS OR
MAY BE ADMINISTERED IN THE INTEREST OF THE GRANTOR; THE FACT THAT THE
ANTICIPATED INCOME IS BEING APPROPRIATED IN ADVANCE FOR THE CUSTOMARY
EXPENDITURES OF THE GRANTOR OR THOSE WHICH HE WOULD ORDINARILY AND
NATURALLY MAKE; AND ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BEARING ON THE IMPERMANENCE
AND INDEFINITENESS WITH WHICH THE GRANTOR HAS PARTED WITH THE
SUBSTANTIAL INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP IN THE CORPUS." 

IN HIS BRIEF THE PETITIONER SAYS: 

"ON THE OTHER HAND, THE INCOME OF A LONG TERM IRREVOCABLE TRUST WHICH
COMMITTED THE POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE CORPUS TO AN INDEPENDENT
TRUSTEE WOULD NOT LIKELY BE TAXED TO THE SETTLOR MERELY BECAUSE OF A
REVERSIONARY INTEREST.  THE QUESTION HERE, AS IN MANY OTHER TAX
PROBLEMS, IS SIMPLY ONE OF DEGREE.  THE GRANTOR'S LIABILITY TO TAX MUST
DEPEND UPON WHETHER HE RETAINS SO MANY OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF OWNERSHIP
AS TO REQUIRE THAT HE BE TREATED AS THE OWNER FOR TAX PURPOSES, OR
WHETHER HE HAS GIVEN UP THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER
THE TRUST PROPERTY. 

"UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION OF PRECISELY WHERE THE LINE
SHOULD BE DRAWN BETWEEN THOSE IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS WHICH DEPRIVE THE
GRANTOR OF COMMAND OVER THE TRUST PROPERTY AND THOSE WHICH LEAVE IN HIM
THE PRACTICAL EQUIVALENT OF OWNERSHIP IS, IN OUR VIEW, A MATTER
PECULIARLY FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX LAW." 

IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION TO DRAW ANY SUCH LINE AS THE ARGUMENT
SUGGESTS.  THAT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF CONGRESS.  AS FAR BACK AS 1922,
PARLIAMENT AMENDED THE BRITISH INCOME TAX ACT, SO THAT THERE WOULD BE
NO DISPUTE AS TO WHAT SHORT TERM TRUST INCOME SHOULD BE TAXABLE TO THE
GRANTOR, BY MAKING TAXABLE TO HIM ANY INCOME WHICH, BY VIRTUE OF ANY
DISPOSITION, IS PAYABLE TO, OR APPLICABLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF, ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR A PERIOD WHICH CANNOT EXCEED SIX YEARS.  FN11 

IF SOME SHORT TERM TRUSTS ARE TO BE TREATED AS NONEXISTENT FOR INCOME
TAX PURPOSES, IT IS FOR CONGRESS TO SPECIFY THEM. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1916, 39 STAT. 756, SEC. 2(A)(B); REVENUE ACT OF
1918, 40 STAT. 1057, SEC. 213(A), SEC. 219; REVENUE ACT OF 1921, 42
STAT. 227, SEC. 213(A), SEC. 219; REVENUE ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 253,
SEC. 213(A), SEC. 219; REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 9, SEC. 213(A),
SEC. 219; REVENUE ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT. 791, SEC. 22(A), SECS. 161 TO
169, INCL.; REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, SEC. 22(A), SECS. 161 TO
169 INCL.; REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, SEC. 22(A), SECS. 161 TO
167, INCL.; REVENUE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1648, SEC. 22(A), SECS. 161
TO 167, INCL. 

FN2  SEE CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376; BURNET V. WELLS, 289 U.S.
670. 

FN3  LEWIS V. WHITE, 56 F.2D 390; 61 F.2D 1046; LANGLEY V.
COMMISSIONER, 61 F.2D 796; COMMISSIONER V. GROSVENOR, 85 F.2D 2; FABER
V. UNITED STATES, 1 F.SUPP.  859. 

FN4  HEARINGS ON H.R. 7835, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 151; H. REP. NO.
1385, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., P. 24. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 74 F.2D 360; CORNING V.
COMMISSIONER, 104 F.2D 329. 

FN6  REGULATIONS 86, ART. 166-1. 

FN7  T.D. 4629, C.B. XV-1, 140. 

FN8  DOWNS V. COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 1129. 

FN9  C.B. 1938-1, P. 9. 

FN10  I.T. 3238, C.B. XVII-2, P. 204. 

FN11  12 AND 13 GEO. 5, CH. 17, SEC. 20, L.R. STATUTES, VOL. 60, P.
373.  THOUGH THE PROVISION HAS BEEN THOUGHT UNSATISFACTORY, THE
SUGGESTION MADE FOR IMPROVEMENT IS THAT THE MATTER BE BROUGHT BEFORE
PARLIAMENT FOR ACTION. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















HELVERING V. WOOD, 309 U.S. 344 


NO. 384.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1940.  - 104
F.2D 1013, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 166 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, PROVIDING THAT THE INCOME
FROM A TRUST SHALL BE TAXABLE TO THE GRANTOR WHERE "AT ANY TIME THE
POWER TO REVEST IN THE GRANTOR TITLE TO ANY PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE
TRUST IS VESTED" IN HIM IS INAPPLICABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH POWER,
THOUGH THE TERM OF THE TRUST BE SHORT AND THE CORPUS WILL SOON REVERT
TO THE GRANTOR.  A MERE REVERSION IS NOT A POWER TO REVEST WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 166.  P. 347. 

2.  HAVING INVOKED BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND THE COURT
BELOW THE COMPARATIVELY NARROW PROVISIONS OF SEC. 166 OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1934, TO SUSTAIN THE TAX IN QUESTION, AND HAVING EXPRESSLY
WAIVED RELIANCE ON ANY OTHER SECTION, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE MAY NOT RESORT HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME TO THE BROADER
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 22(A).  P. 348. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. WOOD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 543, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (37 B.T.A. 1065), WHICH REVERSED A
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, LIKE HELVERING V. CLIFFORD, ANTE, P. 331, IS HERE ON
CERTIORARI, THE PROBLEMS IN THE TWO CASES BEING THE SAME IN CERTAIN
ESSENTIAL RESPECTS.  IN APRIL 1931 RESPONDENT, WHO OWNED TWENTY-FIVE
SHARES OF STOCK OF BOOK-OF-THE-MONTH CLUB, INC., MADE HIMSELF TRUSTEE
OF THOSE SHARES UNDER AN AGREEMENT WHICH WAS TO EXPIRE IN THREE YEARS
FN1  OR EARLIER ON THE DEATH OF EITHER HIM OR HIS WIFE.  BY THE TRUST
HE WAS TO "HOLD, INVEST, AND REINVEST" THE SHARES, TO "COLLECT THE NET
INCOME THEREFROM" AND TO PAY IT TO HIS WIFE.  HE HAD THE POWER TO
"RETAIN" THE STOCK OR TO "SELL" IT OR "ANY PART THEREOF" AT SUCH "TIME
AND ON SUCH TERMS" AS HE SHOULD "DEEM PROPER."  FN2  IT WAS PROVIDED
THAT HIS POWER OF INVESTMENT OR REINVESTMENT OF "ANY OF THE PROPERTY OR
MONEYS HELD IN TRUST" WAS NOT TO BE RESTRICTED BY ANY LAW GOVERNING
INVESTMENTS BY TRUSTEES.  HE WAS ALSO GIVEN POWER TO "FIX AND
DETERMINE" THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THE TRUST AND
TO DETERMINE "WHETHER ANY PROPERTY OR MONEY RECEIVED OR HELD IN TRUST
SHALL BE TREATED AS CAPITAL OR INCOME, AND THE MODE IN WHICH ANY
EXPENSE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXECUTION OF THE TRUST IS TO BE BORNE AS
BETWEEN CAPITAL AND INCOME," WITH THE PROVISO, HOWEVER, THAT STOCK
DIVIDENDS AND SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS SHOULD BE TREATED AS PRINCIPAL.  HE
WAS PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING ANY COMMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO PRINCIPAL
OR INCOME; AND AN EXCULPATORY CLAUSE PURPORTED TO PROTECT HIM AGAINST
ANY LOSS EXCEPT THAT OCCASIONED BY HIS WILFUL MISCONDUCT.  HE HAD THE
POWER TO APPOINT A SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE.  FN3  ON TERMINATION OF THE
TRUST "ALL PROPERTY THEN HELD IN TRUST" WAS TO GO TO HIM.  THE TRUST
CONTAINED NO POWER OF REVOCATION NOR ANY POWER TO REVEST IN THE GRANTOR
AT ANY TIME, PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TERMINATION, TITLE TO ANY PART OF THE
CORPUS. 

DURING 1934 RESPONDENT PAID OVER TO HIS WIFE $8,750, WHICH WAS THE
ENTIRE INCOME FROM THE TRUST FOR THAT YEAR.  SHE INCLUDED IT IN HER
INCOME TAX RETURN.  THE COMMISSIONER, BEING OF THE OPINION THAT THE
INCOME WAS TAXABLE TO RESPONDENT, DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY IN HIS 1934
RETURN.  RESPONDENT APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHICH HELD
THAT PETITIONER WAS IN ERROR (37 B.T.A. 1065).  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED (104 F.2D 1013) ON THE AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES V.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 74 F.2D 360. 

PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE TRUST INCOME IS TAXABLE TO RESPONDENT
EITHER UNDER SEC. 166 OR SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934(48 STAT.
680) OR BOTH. 

BY SEC. 166 THE INCOME FROM A TRUST IS TAXABLE TO THE GRANTOR WHERE
"AT ANY TIME THE POWER TO REVEST IN THE GRANTOR TITLE TO ANY PART OF
THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST IS VESTED" IN HIM OR IN ANY PERSON "NOT HAVING
A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH PART OF THE
CORPUS OR THE INCOME THEREFROM."  FN4  PETITIONER HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO
ESTABLISH THAT UNDER NEW YORK LAW, WHICH GOVERNS THIS TRUST, RESPONDENT
HAD THE POWER TO REVOKE IT PRIOR TO THE END OF THE TERM.  BUT IN HIS
CONTENTION THAT THE TRUST HERE INVOLVED IS COVERED BY SEC. 166,
PETITIONER POINTS OUT THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A
REVOCABLE TRUST AND ONE CERTAIN TO BE TERMINATED SOON.  AND HE ARGUES
THAT IT WOULD NOT BE SENSIBLE TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS A PURPOSE TO IMPOSE
THE TAX WHEN THE GRANTOR HAS AN EXECUTORY POWER TO REVEST TITLE IN
HIMSELF BUT TO WITHHOLD THE TAX WHEN THE GRANTOR, BY PROVISIONS IN THE
TRUST DEED, HAS ALREADY EXERCISED THAT POWER. 

OUR DIFFICULTY LIES NOT IN AN INABILITY TO SEE THE SIMILARITY OF
THOSE SITUATIONS BUT IN BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT CONGRESS TREATED THEM
THE SAME UNDER SEC. 166.  A POWER TO REVEST OR REVOKE MAY IN ECONOMIC
FACT BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A REVERSION.  BUT AT LEAST IN THE LAW OF
ESTATES THEY ARE BY NO MEANS SYNONYMOUS.  FOR, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE
POWER TO REVEST OR TO REVOKE AN EXISTING ESTATE IS DISCRETIONARY WITH
THE DONOR; A REVERSION IS THE RESIDUE LEFT IN THE GRANTOR ON
DETERMINATION OF A PARTICULAR ESTATE.  SEE TIFFANY, REAL PROPERTY (2ND
ED.)  SEC.  129 ET SEQ., SEC. 316 ET SEQ. CONGRESS SEEMS TO HAVE DRAWN
SEC. 166 WITH THAT DISTINCTION IN MIND, FOR MERE REVERSIONS ARE NOT
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED.  WHETHER AS A MATTER OF POLICY SUCH NICE
DISTINCTIONS SHOULD BE PERPETUATED IN A TAX LAW BY SELECTING ONE TYPE
OF TRUST BUT NOT THE OTHER FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT IS NOT FOR US.  WE
HAVE ONLY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CARRYING OUT THE CONGRESSIONAL
MANDATE.  AND WHERE CONGRESS HAS DRAWN A DISTINCTION, HOWEVER NICE, IT
IS NOT PROPER FOR US TO OBLITERATE IT.  THAT SEEMS TO US TO BE THE CASE
HERE.  WHETHER WISELY OR NOT, CONGRESS CONFINED SEC. 166 TO TRUSTS
WHERE THERE WAS A "POWER TO REVEST."  THE PROBLEM OF INTERPRETATION
UNDER SEC. 166 IS THEREFORE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THAT UNDER SEC.
22(A).  THE FORMER IS NARROWLY CONFINED TO A SPECIAL CLASS; THE LATTER
BY BROAD, SWEEPING LANGUAGE IS ALL INCLUSIVE.  HELVERING V. CLIFFORD,
SUPRA. ACCORDINGLY, THE WIDE RANGE FOR DEFINITION AND SPECIFICATION
UNDER THE LATTER IS LACKING UNDER SEC. 166.  AND SO FAR AS SEC. 166 IS
CONCERNED NO APPARENT OR LURKING AMBIGUITY REQUIRES OR PERMITS US TO
DIVINE A BROADER PURPOSE THAN THAT EXPRESSED.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
CORROBORATES THIS CONCLUSION.  WHEN THE 1934 ACT WAS BEFORE THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE, THE TREASURY RECOMMENDED THAT INCOME FROM SHORT TERM TRUSTS
AND FROM REVOCABLE TRUSTS SHOULD BE TAXABLE TO THE CREATOR.  FN5 THE
CONGRESS ADOPTED THE LATTER  FN6  BY AN APPROPRIATE AMENDMENT TO SEC.
166; BUT IT DID NOT SELECT THE FORMER FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT.  WHEN SUCH
CLEAR CHOICE OF IDEAS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE DRAFTING OF A SPECIFIC
PROVISION OF THE LAW, ITS LANGUAGE MUST BE TAKEN AT ITS FACE VALUE. 
SEC. 166 IS THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS TRUST SINCE RESPONDENT IS
GIVEN NO POWER TO RECALL THE CORPUS.  HE OR HIS ESTATE GETS IT AT THE
END OF THE TERM, ON THE DEATH OF HIS WIFE, OR ON HIS OWN DEATH -
WHICHEVER IS THE EARLIEST. 

FOR A WHOLLY DIFFERENT REASON, PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT BASED ON SEC.
22(A) MUST FAIL.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS PURPORTED TO PLACE ITS
DECISION SOLELY ON SEC. 166 AND SEC. 167 OF THE ACT.  PETITIONER IN HIS
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED ONLY SEC. 166 AND SEC. 167,
NOT SEC. 22(A).  IN HIS BRIEF BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
PETITIONER EXPRESSLY WAIVED RELIANCE UPON ANY SECTION OTHER THAN SEC.
166.  THOUGH PETITIONER IN HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI RELIED ON SEC.
22(A), RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION THERETO TOOK THE POSITION THAT THAT
POINT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER HERE AS IT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW. 
IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, ESPECIALLY THE EXPRESS WAIVER BELOW, WE DO NOT
THINK THAT PETITIONER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ADD HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME
ANOTHER STRING TO HIS BOW.  AS WE HAVE INDICATED, THE ISSUES UNDER SEC.
166 AND SEC. 22(A) ARE NOT COTERMINOUS.  THOUGH BOTH DEAL WITH CONCEPTS
OF OWNERSHIP, THE RANGE OF INQUIRY UNDER THE LATTER IS BROAD, UNDER THE
FORMER CONFINED.  TO OPEN HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND IN FACE OF THE
EXPRESS DISCLAIMER AN INQUIRY INTO THE BROADER FIELD IS NOT ONLY TO
DEPRIVE THIS COURT OF THE ASSISTANCE OF A DECISION BELOW BUT TO PERMIT
A SHIFT TO GROUND WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAD EVERY REASON TO THINK WAS
ABANDONED IN THE EARLIER STAGES OF THIS LITIGATION.  FN7  SEE BURNET V.
COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., 287 U.S. 415, 418.  IT IS NOT APPARENT
WHY A LESS STRICT RULE IS NECESSARY IN ORDER ADEQUATELY TO PROTECT THE
REVENUE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN 1932 THE TERM WAS EXTENDED TO FIVE YEARS FROM APRIL, 1931. 

FN2  HIS RIGHT TO SELL WAS SUBJECT TO A COLLATERAL AGREEMENT, NOT
MATERIAL HERE, WITH ONE SCHERMAN, GRANTING SCHERMAN A PREEMPTIVE RIGHT
IN CASE RESPONDENT DECIDED TO SELL. 

FN3  NO SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE WAS, HOWEVER, APPOINTED, RESPONDENT
CONTINUING TO ACT AS TRUSTEE UNTIL TERMINATION OF THE TRUST IN 1936. 

FN4  SEC. 166 READS IN FULL: 

"WHERE AT ANY TIME THE POWER TO REVEST IN THE GRANTOR TITLE TO ANY
PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST IS VESTED - 

"(1)  IN THE GRANTOR, EITHER ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY PERSON
NOT HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE DISPOSITION OF SUCH
PART OF THE CORPUS OR THE INCOME THEREFROM, OR 

"(2)  IN ANY PERSON NOT HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE
DISPOSITION OF SUCH PART OF THE CORPUS OR THE INCOME THEREFROM, THEN
THE INCOME OF SUCH PART OF THE TRUST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE
NET INCOME OF THE GRANTOR." 

FN5  REVENUE REVISION, 1934, HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS &
MEANS, H.R. 73RD CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 151.  THE RECOMMENDATION READ:
"THE INCOME FROM SHORT-TERM TRUSTS AND TRUSTS WHICH ARE REVOCABLE BY
THE CREATOR AT THE EXPIRATION OF A SHORT PERIOD AFTER NOTICE BY HIM
SHOULD BE MADE TAXABLE TO THE CREATOR OF THE TRUST." 

FN6  CONFERENCE REP. NO. 1385, H.R. 73RD CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 24: 

"UNDER EXISTING LAW, THE INCOME FROM A REVOCABLE TRUST IS TAXABLE TO
THE GRANTOR ONLY WHERE SUCH GRANTOR (OR A PERSON NOT HAVING A
SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE INTEREST IN THE TRUST) HAS THE POWER WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR TO REVEST IN THE GRANTOR TITLE TO ANY PART OF THE CORPUS
OF THE TRUST.  UNDER THE TERMS OF SOME TRUSTS, THE POWER TO REVOKE
CANNOT BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR, EXCEPT UPON ADVANCE NOTICE
DELIVERED TO THE TRUSTEE DURING THE PRECEDING TAXABLE YEAR.  IF THIS
NOTICE IS NOT GIVEN WITHIN THE PRECEDING TAXABLE YEAR, THE COURTS HAVE
HELD THAT THE GRANTOR IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER EXISTING LAW TO INCLUDE THE
TRUST INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN HIS RETURN.  THE SENATE AMENDMENTS
REQUIRE THE INCOME FROM TRUSTS OF THIS TYPE TO BE REPORTED BY THE
GRANTOR.  THE HOUSE RECEDES." 

FN7  ART. 166-1 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, ORIGINALLY PROMULGATED
UNDER SEC. 166, WAS NOT PROMULGATED UNDER SEC. 22(A) UNTIL 1936(T.D.
4629), TWO YEARS AFTER THE TAX LIABILITY HERE IN ISSUE OCCURRED.  HENCE
WE DO NOT HAVE A CASE OF RELIANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT ON A REGULATION
WHICH DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN QUESTION RESTED ON TWO LEGS, ONE OF
WHICH WAS SEC. 22(A). 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :







MCCARROLL V. DIXIE LINES, 309 U.S. 176 


NO. 138.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 1940.  - 101
F.2D 572, AFFIRMED. 


A STATE TAX ALLOCATED TO HIGHWAY PURPOSES AND IMPOSED ON EACH GALLON
OF GASOLINE, ABOVE TWENTY, BROUGHT INTO THE STATE BY ANY MOTOR VEHICLE
FOR USE AS FUEL IN SUCH VEHICLE, HELD A FORBIDDEN BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AS APPLIED TO GASOLINE CARRIED BY INTERSTATE MOTOR BUSES
THROUGH THE STATE FOR USE AS FUEL IN THE COURSE OF THEIR INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION BEYOND THE STATE LINE.  P. 180. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPOSITION IS NOT COMPENSATION FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING THE STATE HIGHWAYS. 

MCCARROLL, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES OF ARKANSAS, V. DIXIE GREYHOUND
LINES, INC. 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE WHICH REVERSED THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
IN DENYING AN INJUNCTION AND IN DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT TO
RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE GASOLINE TAX, 22 F.SUPP.  985, AND
WHICH DIRECTED THAT COURT TO ENTER A DECREE OF INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN ARKANSAS STATUTE  FN1  PROHIBITS ENTRY INTO THE STATE OF ANY
AUTOMOBILE OR TRUCK "CARRYING OVER TWENTY (20) GALLONS OF GASOLINE IN
THE GASOLINE TANK OF SUCH AUTOMOBILE OR TRUCK OR IN AUXILIARY TANKS OF
SAID TRUCKS TO BE USED AS MOTOR FUEL IN SAID TRUCK OR MOTOR VEHICLES
UNTIL THE STATE TAX THEREON (SIX AND ONE-HALF CENTS PER GALLON)  FN2
HAS BEEN PAID." 

APPELLEE, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, OPERATES PASSENGER BUSSES PROPELLED
BY GASOLINE MOTORS, FROM MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE ACROSS ARKANSAS TO ST.
LOUIS, MISSOURI, AND IN REVERSE.  THE ROUTE BETWEEN THESE POINTS
APPROXIMATES 342 MILES - 3 IN TENNESSEE, 78 IN ARKANSAS, 261 IN
MISSOURI.  LIKE BUSSES PLY BETWEEN MEMPHIS AND POINTS WITHIN AND BEYOND
ARKANSAS, AND IN REVERSE.  IT IS ONLY NECESSARY NOW TO CONSIDER THE
FACTS CONNECTED WITH OPERATION OF THE MEMPHIS-ST. LOUIS LINE.  THEY ARE
TYPICAL. 

EACH BUS CONSUMES ABOUT ONE GALLON OF GASOLINE FOR EVERY FIVE MILES
TRAVERSED.  SIXTY-EIGHT GALLONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE JOURNEY FROM
MEMPHIS TO ST. LOUIS - UNDER ONE IN TENNESSEE, SIXTEEN IN ARKANSAS,
FIFTY-ONE IN MISSOURI.  THE PRACTICE IS TO PLACE IN THE BUS TANK AT
MEMPHIS THE SIXTY-EIGHT GALLONS OF GASOLINE COMMONLY REQUIRED FOR THE
TRIP; ALSO TEN MORE TO MEET ANY EMERGENCY.  THUS UPON ARRIVAL AT THE
ARKANSAS LINE THE TANK CONTAINS SOME SEVENTY-SEVEN GALLONS OF WHICH
SIXTEEN PROBABLY WILL BE CONSUMED WITHIN THAT STATE.  AS A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO ENTRY THERE, APPELLANT - REVENUE OFFICER OF THE STATE -
DEMANDS THAT EACH BUS PAY SIX AND ONE-HALF CENTS UPON EVERY GALLON OF
THIS GASOLINE ABOVE TWENTY, AND THREATENS ENFORCEMENT. 

BY A BILL IN THE DISTRICT COURT, APPELLEE UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST THIS THREATENED ACTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS EIGHTH CIRCUIT TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW. 

AFTER ACCEPTING AS CORRECT THE RULING IN SPARLING V. REFUNDING BOARD,
189 ARK. 189, 199; 71 S.W.2D 182, 186, THAT THE TAX IMPOSED WAS NOT
UPON PROPERTY BUT ON THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE HIGHWAYS, AND HAD BEEN
DEFINITELY ALLOCATED TO HIGHWAY PURPOSES, THE LATTER COURT SAID - 

"THE APPELLANT DOES NOT NOW CONTEND THAT THE TAX OF WHICH IT
COMPLAINS MAY NOT BE IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF ARKANSAS WITH RESPECT TO
GASOLINE CONSUMED OR TO BE CONSUMED UPON THE HIGHWAYS OF ARKANSAS, AS
COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS, BUT IT DOES CONTEND THAT THAT
STATE MAY NOT IMPOSE A TAX UPON GASOLINE WHICH IS CARRIED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FOR USE IN MISSOURI OR TENNESSEE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD
CONSTITUTE A DIRECT AND UNREASONABLE BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

"REDUCED TO ITS LOWEST POSSIBLE TERMS, THE QUESTION FOR DECISION, WE
THINK, IS WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX UPON GASOLINE CARRIED, FOR
USE IN OTHER STATES, IN THE FUEL TANK OF A MOTOR VEHICLE TRAVELING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CAN BE SUSTAINED.  THAT THE TAX IS A DIRECT BURDEN
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CANNOT BE CONTROVERTED." 

"IF IT IS TO BE SUSTAINED AT ALL WITH RESPECT TO GASOLINE TO BE USED
IN OTHER STATES, IT MUST BE SUSTAINED UPON THE THEORY THAT THE METHOD
EMPLOYED FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX CONSTITUTES A FAIR
MEASURE FOR ASCERTAINING THE COMPENSATION WHICH LAWFULLY MAY BE EXACTED
BY ARKANSAS FROM THE APPELLANT FOR THE USE WHICH IT MAKES OF THE
HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE." 

"WHILE WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW THE USE OF STATE HIGHWAYS BY A CARRIER
CAN BE ROUGHLY MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF GASOLINE WHICH THAT CARRIER
USES TO MOVE ITS VEHICLES OVER THE HIGHWAYS, WE ARE UNABLE TO
COMPREHEND HOW THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS OF ONE STATE CAN APPROPRIATELY
BE MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF GASOLINE CARRIED IN THE FUEL TANK OF AN
INTERSTATE CARRIER FOR USE UPON THE HIGHWAYS OF ANOTHER STATE."  101
F.2D 572, 574. 

ALSO, IT DECLARED THE POINT IN ISSUE IS RULED BY INTERSTATE TRANSIT,
INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183, 186, WHICH HELD INVALID A TAX LAID BY
TENNESSEE'S LEGISLATURE ON THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING A BUS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE NOT IMPOSED SOLELY AS COMPENSATION FOR THE
USE OF HIGHWAYS OR TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF REGULATING MOTOR TRAFFIC. 

FINALLY, IT REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT AND DIRECTED ENTRY OF A
DECREE THERE ENJOINING APPELLANT "FROM ENFORCING THE CHALLENGED TAX
AGAINST IT (THE APPELLEE) WITH RESPECT TO ALL GASOLINE IN THE FUEL
TANKS OF ITS INTERSTATE BUSSES WHICH IS BEING CARRIED THROUGH ARKANSAS
FOR USE IN OTHER STATES." 

THIS ACTION WE APPROVE. 

THE OFTEN ANNOUNCED RULE IS THAT WHILE GENERALLY A STATE MAY NOT
DIRECTLY BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY TAXATION SHE MAY REQUIRE ALL WHO
USE HER ROADS TO MAKE REASONABLE COMPENSATION THEREFOR.  HENDRICK V.
MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610, 622; INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY,
SUPRA, 185, 186; BINGAMAN V. GOLDEN EAGLE WESTERN LINES, 297 U.S. 626,
628. 

HERE, THE REVENUE OFFICER DEMANDED PAYMENT OF APPELLEE ON ACCOUNT OF
GASOLINE TO BE IMMEDIATELY TRANSPORTED OVER THE ROADS OF ARKANSAS FOR
CONSUMPTION BEYOND.  IF, CONSIDERING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS
IMPOSITION REASONABLY CAN BE REGARDED AS PROPER COMPENSATION FOR USING
THE ROADS IT IS PERMISSIBLE.  BUT THE FACTS DISCLOSED ARE INCOMPATIBLE
WITH THAT VIEW.  A FAIR CHARGE COULD HAVE NO REASONABLE RELATION TO
SUCH GASOLINE.  THAT COULD NOT BE EVEN ROUGHLY COMPUTED BY CONSIDERING
ONLY THE CONTENTS OF THE TANK.  MOREOVER, WE FIND NO PURPOSE TO EXACT
FAIR COMPENSATION ONLY FROM ALL WHO MAKE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS.  TWENTY
GALLONS OF GASOLINE ORDINARILY WILL PROPEL A BUS ACROSS THE STATE AND
IF ONLY THAT MUCH IS IN THE TANK AT THE BORDER NO CHARGE WHATEVER IS
MADE.  EVIDENTLY LARGE USE WITHOUT COMPENSATION IS PERMISSIBLE AND EASY
TO OBTAIN. 

THE POINT HERE INVOLVED HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSED.  OUR OPINIONS ABOVE
REFERRED TO AND OTHERS THERE CITED DEFINE THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES. 
THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY IS WITHIN THOSE APPROVED BY INTERSTATE TRANSIT,
INC. V. LINDSEY, SUPRA.  NEITHER HICKLIN V. CONEY, 290 U.S. 169, NOR
BINGAMAN V. GOLDEN EAGLE WESTERN LINES, SUPRA, RELIED UPON BY
APPELLANT'S COUNSEL, PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, SANCTIONS A DIFFERENT VIEW. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT 67 GENERAL ASSEMBLY ARKANSAS, APPROVED MARCH 2, 1933 - 

"SECTION 1.  ON AND AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT IT SHALL BE A
VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR ANY PERSON, CO-PARTNERSHIP OR COMPANY TO DRIVE
OR CAUSE TO BE DRIVEN INTO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS ANY AUTOMOBILE OR
TRUCK CARRYING OVER TWENTY (20) GALLONS OF GASOLINE IN THE GASOLINE
TANK OF SUCH AUTOMOBILE OR TRUCK OR IN AUXILIARY TANKS OF SAID TRUCKS
TO BE USED AS MOTOR FUEL IN SAID TRUCK OR MOTOR VEHICLES UNTIL THE
STATE TAX THEREON HAS BEEN PAID. 

"SECTION 2.  ANY PERSON, CO-PARTNERSHIP OR COMPANY VIOLATING THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON
CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE FINED IN ANY SUM NOT EXCEEDING ONE HUNDRED
($100) DOLLARS.  EACH LOAD CARRIED INTO THE STATE SHALL CONSTITUTE A
SEPARATE OFFENSE. 

"SECTION 3.  ALL LAWS AND PARTS OF LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH ARE
HEREBY REPEALED.  IT IS ASCERTAINED THAT THIS ACT IS NECESSARY TO
BETTER ENFORCE THE GASOLINE COLLECTION LAWS AND SAID ACT BEING
NECESSARY FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRESERVATION OF THE PUBLIC PEACE, HEALTH
AND SAFETY, AN EMERGENCY IS HEREBY DECLARED TO EXIST AND THIS ACT SHALL
TAKE EFFECT AND BE IN FULL FORCE FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE." 

FN2  ACT 11 EXTRAORDINARY SESSIONS ARKANSAS, APPROVED FEBRUARY 12,
1934 - 

"SECTION 22.  PARAGRAPH (C) OF SECTION 1 OF ACT NO. 63 OF THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY, APPROVED FEBRUARY 25, 1931, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"'(C) THERE IS HEREBY LEVIED A PRIVILEGE OR EXCISE TAX OF SIX AND ONE
HALF CENTS ON EACH GALLON OF MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL AS DEFINED IN THIS ACT,
SOLD OR USED IN THIS STATE OR PURCHASED FOR SALE OR USE IN THIS
STATE.'" 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING: 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE REED, AND I AGREE
WITH MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, BUT WE THINK A WORD SHOULD BE SAID OF
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE TAX IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION MAY BE
TAKEN AS A FAIR MEASURE OF RESPONDENT'S USE OF THE HIGHWAYS. 

SINCE THE SUBJECT TAXED, GASOLINE INTRODUCED INTO THE STATE IN THE
TANK OF A VEHICLE, FOR USE SOLELY IN PROPELLING IT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IS IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION EXCEPT FOR A LIMITED STATE
PURPOSE, THE EXACTION OF A REASONABLE CHARGE FOR THE USE OF ITS
HIGHWAYS, IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE TAX WHEN COLLECTED IS EXPENDED UPON
THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS.  IT MUST APPEAR ON THE FACE OF THE STATUTE OR BE
DEMONSTRABLE THAT THE TAX AS LAID IS MEASURED BY OR HAS SOME FAIR
RELATIONSHIP TO THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS FOR WHICH THE CHARGE IS MADE. 
SPROUT V. CITY OF SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 170; INTERSTATE TRANSIT,
INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183, 186; BINGAMAN V. GOLDEN EAGLE WESTERN
LINES, 297 U.S. 626, 628; MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407; INGELS V.
MORF, 300 U.S. 290, 294. 

WHILE THE PRESENT TAX, LAID ON GASOLINE IN THE TANK IN EXCESS OF
TWENTY GALLONS, ADMITTEDLY HAS NO NECESSARY OR APPARENT RELATIONSHIP TO
ANY USE OF THE HIGHWAYS INTRASTATE, APPELLANT ARGUES THAT, AS APPLIED
TO THE RESERVE GASOLINE IN EACH OF APPELLEE'S VEHICLES, THE TAX EITHER
IS, OR WITH A REDUCTION OF THE RESERVES WOULD BE, SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT TO A TAX WHICH THE STATE COULD LAY, BUT HAS NOT, ON THE
GASOLINE CONSUMED WITHIN THE STATE.  THAT COULD BE TRUE ONLY IN CASE
THE TAXED GASOLINE, SAID TO BE RESERVED FOR THE EXTRASTATE JOURNEY,
WERE BY CHANCE OR DESIGN OF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AMOUNT AS THAT
CONSUMED INTRASTATE. 

THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TAX AND HIGHWAY USE DOES NOT IN FACT
EXIST AS THE BUSINESS IS NOW CONDUCTED, IS DEMONSTRATED BY APPELLANT'S
SHOWING THAT ON ALL OF APPELLEE'S ROUTES, TAKEN TOGETHER, THE TAXED
GASOLINE WHICH IS RESERVED FOR EXTRASTATE USE IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE
THAN THAT CONSUMED ON THOSE ROUTES WITHIN THE STATE.  IN THREE THE
TAXED RESERVE IN EXCESS OF THE TWENTY GALLONS EXEMPTION IS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE AMOUNT OF THE INTRASTATE CONSUMPTION. 
BUT ON THE FOURTH ROUTE THE TAXED RESERVE ON BUSSES MOVING IN ONE
DIRECTION IS MORE THAN FOUR TIMES THAT CONSUMED WITHIN THE STATE.  IN
THE OTHER IT IS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME.  WITH THE THREE SCHEDULED TRIPS
DAILY EACH WAY ON THE MEMPHIS-ST. LOUIS ROUTE, THE EXCESS OF THE
GASOLINE TAXED OVER THAT CONSUMED IN THE STATE IS MORE THAN 150 GALLONS
PER DAY.  IN NO CASE DOES IT APPEAR THAT THE AMOUNT OF TAXED GASOLINE
HAS ANY RELATION TO THE SIZE OR WEIGHT OF VEHICLES. 

IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SUCH A TAX WHOSE EQUIVALENCE TO A FAIR CHARGE
FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS, WHEN NOT FORTUITOUS, IS ATTAINED ONLY BY
APPELLEE'S ABANDONMENT OF SOME OF THE COMMERCE WHICH IS TAXED, HAS ANY
SUCH FAIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS BY APPELLEE AS WOULD
SERVE TO RELIEVE THE STATE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST
THE TAXATION OF PROPERTY MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  A TAX SO
VARIABLE IN ITS REVENUE PRODUCTION WHEN COMPARED WITH THE TAXPAYER'S
INTRASTATE MOVEMENT CANNOT BE THOUGHT TO BE "LEVIED ONLY AS
COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS."  INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V.
LINDSEY, SUPRA, 186.  JUSTIFICATION OF THE TAX, AS A COMPENSATION
MEASURE, BY TREATING IT AS THE EQUIVALENT OF ONE WHICH COULD BE LAID ON
GASOLINE CONSUMED WITHIN THE STATE MUST FAIL BECAUSE THE STATUTE ON ITS
FACE AND IN ITS APPLICATION DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE COMMERCE BY
MEASURING THE TAX BY THE CONSUMPTION OF GASOLINE MOVING AND USED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH OCCURS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  SEE FARGO V.
MICHIGAN, 121 U.S. 230, 241; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305
U.S. 434, 438. 

IT IS NO ANSWER TO THE CHALLENGE TO THE LEVY TO SAY THAT BY ALTERING
THE AMOUNT OF THE GASOLINE BROUGHT INTO THE STATE FOR EXTRASTATE
CONSUMPTION APPELLEE COULD SO MODERATE THE TAX THAT IT WOULD BEAR A
FAIR RELATION TO THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS WITHIN THE STATE.  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THE STATE IS WITHOUT POWER TO REGULATE THE
AMOUNT OF GASOLINE CARRIED INTERSTATE IN APPELLEE'S TANKS.  IT CANNOT
BE SAID, IF THAT WERE MATERIAL, THAT THE AMOUNT CARRIED IS NOT
APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN WHICH APPELLEE IS ENGAGED
AND IT CAN HARDLY BE SUPPOSED THAT THE STATE COULD COMPEL APPELLEE TO
PURCHASE THERE ALL THE GASOLINE WHICH IT USES INTRASTATE UPON AN
INTERSTATE JOURNEY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A CONVENIENT MEANS OF LAYING
AND COLLECTING A TAX FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS.  THERE ARE WAYS
ENOUGH IN WHICH THE STATE CAN TAKE ITS LAWFUL TOLL WITHOUT ANY
SUPPRESSION OF THE COMMERCE WHICH IT TAXES.  IN LAYING AN EXACTION AS A
MEANS OF COLLECTING COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS THE STATE
MUST TAX THE COMMERCE AS IT IS DONE, AND NOT AS IT MIGHT BE DONE IF THE
STATE COULD CONTROL IT.  APPELLANT CANNOT JUSTIFY AN UNLAWFUL EXACTION
BY INSISTING THAT IT WOULD BE LAWFUL IF THE TAXPAYER WERE TO RELINQUISH
SOME OF THE COMMERCE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS FROM STATE
INTERFERENCE.    MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, AND MR.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

WE TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW.  MEASURED BY THE OFTREPEATED JUDICIAL RULE
THAT EVERY ENACTMENT OF A LEGISLATURE CARRIES A PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY, THE ARKANSAS TAX HAS NOT, IN OUR OPINION, BEEN
SHOWN TO BE BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT "CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO  ...
REGULATE COMMERCE  ... AMONG THE STATES."  "IN CASE OF REAL DOUBT, A
LAW MUST BE SUSTAINED."  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN INTERSTATE CONSOLIDATED
RY. CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 207 U.S. 79, 88.  FN1  CONGRESS, SOLE
CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPOSITORY OF POWER OVER THAT COMMERCE, HAS
ENACTED NO REGULATION PROHIBITING ARKANSAS FROM LEVYING A TAX - ON
GASOLINE IN EXCESS OF TWENTY GALLONS BROUGHT INTO THE STATE - IN RETURN
FOR THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS.  GASOLINE TAXES ARE WIDELY UTILIZED FOR
BUILDING AND MAINTAINING PUBLIC ROADS, AND THE PROCEEDS OF THIS
ARKANSAS TAX ARE PLEDGED TO THAT END.  ARKANSAS CAN LEVY A GALLONAGE
TAX ON ANY GASOLINE WITHDRAWN FROM STORAGE WITHIN THE STATE AND PLACED
IN THE TANKS OF THIS CARRIER'S VEHICLES "NOTWITHSTANDING THAT ITS
ULTIMATE FUNCTION IS TO GENERATE MOTIVE POWER FOR CARRYING ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, 289 U.S. 249,
252.  THE PRESENT TAX AIMS AT CARRIERS WHO WOULD ESCAPE SUCH TAXATION,
UNLESS WE ARE TO REQUIRE ARKANSAS TO SHAPE ITS TAXES TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CARRIER. 

THE COST ENTAILED BY THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF MODERN
HIGHWAYS CREATES FOR THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES ONE OF THEIR LARGEST
FINANCIAL PROBLEMS.  A MAJOR PHASE OF THIS PROBLEM IS THE PROPER
APPORTIONMENT OF THE FINANCIAL BURDEN BETWEEN THOSE WHO USE A STATE'S
HIGHWAYS FOR TRANSPORTATION WITHIN ITS BORDERS AND THOSE WHO DO SO IN
THE COURSE OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  STRIKING A FAIR BALANCE
INVOLVES INCALCULABLE VARIANTS AND THEREFORE IS BESET WITH
PERPLEXITIES.  THE MAKING OF THESE EXACTING ADJUSTMENTS IS THE BUSINESS
OF LEGISLATION - THAT OF STATE LEGISLATURES AND OF CONGRESS.  THIS
COURT HAS BUT A LIMITED RESPONSIBILITY IN THAT STATE LEGISLATION MAY
HERE BE CHALLENGED IF IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
IS HOSTILE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF AUTHORITY.  MCGOLDRICK V.
BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., ANTE, P. 33. 

ARKANSAS' TAX HITS THE BIG, HEAVY BUSSES AND TRUCKS WHICH, IT IS WELL
ESTABLISHED, ENTAIL MOST SERIOUS WEAR AND TEAR UPON ROADS.  HAD
ARKANSAS EXPRESSLY DECLARED THE CHALLENGED STATUTE TO BE A MEANS OF
WORKING OUT A FAIR CHARGE UPON THESE HEAVY VEHICLES FOR COST AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE ROADS THEY TRAVEL IN THE STATE, THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE MEANS EMPLOYED AND THESE ALLOWABLE ENDS - HOWEVER CRUDE AND
AWKWARD - WOULD HAVE BEEN RENDERED MORE EXPLICIT, BUT NOT MADE MORE
EVIDENTLY A MATTER OF POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION, AND THEREFORE NOT FOR
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  CERTAINLY, THE STATE HAD POWER TO IMPOSE FLAT
FEES OR TAXES GRADUATED ACCORDING TO GASOLINE USED, HORSEPOWER, WEIGHT
AND CAPACITY OR MILEAGE, AND YET THOSE TAXES WOULD NOT MEASURE WITH
EXACT PRECISION THE TAXPAYERS' USE OF ARKANSAS HIGHWAYS.  FN2  IT IS
NOT FOR US TO MEASURE THE REFINEMENTS OF FISCAL DUTIES WHICH A STATE
MAY EXACT FROM THESE HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES.  FN3 

THIS CASE AGAIN ILLUSTRATES THE WISDOM OF THE FOUNDERS IN PLACING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CONGRESS.  THE PRESENT
PROBLEM IS NOT LIMITED TO ARKANSAS, BUT IS OF NATIONAL MOMENT. 
MAINTENANCE OF OPEN CHANNELS OF TRADE BETWEEN THE STATES WAS NOT ONLY
OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE WHEN OUR CONSTITUTION WAS FRAMED; IT REMAINS
TODAY A COMPLEX PROBLEM CALLING FOR NATIONAL VIGILANCE AND REGULATION. 

OUR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE OPINIONS JUST ANNOUNCED DOES NOT ARISE FROM
A BELIEF THAT FEDERAL ACTION IS UNNECESSARY TO BRING ABOUT APPROPRIATE
UNIFORMITY IN REGULATIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  INDEED, STATE
LEGISLATION RECENTLY BEFORE THIS COURT INDICATES QUITE THE CONTRARY. 
FOR INSTANCE, WE SUSTAINED THE RIGHT OF SOUTH CAROLINA - IN THE ABSENCE
OF CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION - TO REGULATE THE WIDTH AND WEIGHT OF
INTERSTATE TRUCKS USING HER HIGHWAYS, EVEN THOUGH THE UNASSAILED
FINDINGS SHOWED THAT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD
THEREBY BE BARRED FROM THE STATE.  SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS.  FN4  WE DID NOT THEREBY APPROVE THE DESIRABILITY OF
SUCH STATE REGULATIONS.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.  WE
DID DECIDE THAT "COURTS DO NOT SIT AS LEGISLATURES, EITHER STATE OR
NATIONAL.  THEY CANNOT ACT AS CONGRESS DOES WHEN, AFTER WEIGHING ALL
THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS, STATE AND NATIONAL, IT DETERMINES WHEN AND
HOW MUCH THE STATE REGULATORY POWER SHALL YIELD TO THE LARGER INTERESTS
OF NATIONAL COMMERCE."  FN5  AS BOTH THE UNION AND THE STATES ARE MORE
AND MORE DEPENDENT UPON THE EXERCISE OF THEIR TAXING POWERS FOR
CARRYING ON GOVERNMENT, IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT THAT
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN STATE AND NATIONAL POWERS SHOULD NOT BE
FOUND WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT FOUND THEM, UNLESS CONFLICT IS ESTABLISHED
BY DEMONSTRABLE CONCRETENESS.  SEE HAMMOND V. SCHAPPI BUS LINE, 275
U.S. 164. 

EVEN UNDER THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED BY THE MAJORITY - THAT ARKANSAS
MAY NOT MEASURE HER TAX BY GASOLINE CARRIED IN APPELLEE'S TANKS FOR USE
IN OTHER STATES - THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT STAND. 

ARKANSAS ADMITTEDLY HAS POWER TO TAX APPELLEE UPON GASOLINE USED
WITHIN HER BORDERS, AND NEED NOT, OF COURSE, EXTEND TO APPELLEE ANY
EXEMPTION FOR A RESERVE.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT APPELLEE'S BUSSES
TRAVEL 1188.8 MILES EACH DAY OVER ARKANSAS HIGHWAYS.  THE TRIAL JUDGE
FOUND, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING, THAT THESE BUSSES
USE ABOUT ONE GALLON OF GASOLINE FOR EVERY FIVE MILES TRAVELED.  THUS,
APPELLEE USES ABOUT 237.76 GALLONS OF GASOLINE A DAY IN ARKANSAS, UPON
WHICH THE TAX OF 6.5 CENTS PER GALLON USED WOULD AMOUNT TO $15.45 A
DAY. 

APPELLEE'S BUSSES TRAVEL FOUR DIFFERENT ROUTES, TWO FROM MEMPHIS
THROUGH ARKANSAS TO MISSOURI, AND TWO FROM MEMPHIS TO CITIES IN
ARKANSAS.  ON THE TRIPS TO MISSOURI THE TAX NOW EXACTED BY ARKANSAS IS
GREATER THAN WOULD BE A TAX ON THE GASOLINE ACTUALLY USED IN ARKANSAS. 
BUT ON THE TRIPS FROM MEMPHIS INTO ARKANSAS AND BACK, THE TAX EXACTED,
BECAUSE OF THE 20-GALLON EXEMPTION, IS LESS THAN WOULD BE A TAX ON THE
GASOLINE USED IN ARKANSAS. 

AS APPELLANT POINTS OUT IN HIS BRIEF, WHEN ALL THE ROUTES ARE TAKEN
TOGETHER, THE DAILY TAX WHICH ARKANSAS WOULD COLLECT IF APPELLEE
CARRIED ONLY ENOUGH GASOLINE TO COMPLETE EACH TRIP WOULD ONLY AMOUNT TO
$13.00 - ACTUALLY $2.45 LESS THAN A TAX ON GASOLINE CONSUMED IN
ARKANSAS. 

THIS AMOUNT - $2.45 - EQUALS THE PRESENT TAX ON 37 GALLONS OF
GASOLINE.  APPELLEE'S BUSSES ENTER ARKANSAS 13 TIMES EACH DAY.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT APPELLEE MAY CARRY A RESERVE OF ALMOST THREE GALLONS ON
EACH TRIP AND STILL PAY NO MORE THAN THE TAX WHICH, AS THE MAJORITY
ASSUMES, ARKANSAS COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSE ON THE GASOLINE
ACTUALLY CONSUMED ON HER OWN ROADS.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO
SHOW THAT A GREATER RESERVE IS NECESSARY.  AN INTERSTATE CARRIER HAS NO
ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO FIX THE SIZE AND CHARACTER OF ITS EQUIPMENT USED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE NECESSITIES OF THE
ENTERPRISE AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATES THROUGH WHICH THE CARRIER
OPERATES.  FN6  EXACTIONS BY SUCH STATES MAY WELL BE DESIGNED TO
OPERATE UPON THE QUANTITY OF GASOLINE RESERVES FOR CONSIDERATIONS
ANALOGOUS TO THOSE WHICH HAVE CALLED INTO BEING STATE REGULATIONS OF
THE SIZE, WEIGHT AND NUMBER OF THE VEHICLES THEMSELVES.  AND A STATE
TAX WHICH MAY INDUCE A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF RESERVE PREVIOUSLY
CARRIED IS NO MORE TO BE CONDEMNED ON THAT SOLE GROUND ALONE THAN IS A
STATE LAW ACTUALLY PROHIBITING VEHICLES ABOVE A CERTAIN SIZE OR
WEIGHT.  THAT THIS REDUCTION MAY BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO A TAX RATHER THAN
TO A REGULATORY MEASURE EXPRESSLY PASSED IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC
SAFETY SHOULD NOT BE CONTROLLING.  PARTICULARLY IS THIS SO WHEN THE
PROCEEDS OF THE TAX ARE UTILIZED EXCLUSIVELY FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES AND
THE TAX ITSELF IS DIRECTED TO GASOLINE USED, JUST AS OTHER EQUIPMENT IS
USED, IN THE COURSE OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS AND INVOLVES NO
MANIFESTATION OF HOSTILITY TO - OR LEVY UPON - GASOLINE CARRIED AS A
COMMODITY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS PRESUMABLY SAFE TO RELY ON
APPELLEE'S SELF-INTEREST TO WORK OUT ANY SCHEDULES OF REFUELING AT ITS
VARIOUS STORAGE FACILITIES NECESSITATED BY CHANGES IN RESERVES
CARRIED.  WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT APPELLEE IS ABLE TO ATTACK THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS TAX ON THE GROUND THAT AS TO OTHERS IT MIGHT
OPERATE DIFFERENTLY AND SERVE TO BURDEN THE USE OF GASOLINE IN OTHER
STATES.  FN7  IT IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THAT WE ARE NOT PASSING
UPON A STATUTE AS SUCH BUT UPON THE INCIDENCE OF THIS STATUTE IN THE
SINGLE CONCRETE SITUATION PRESENTED BY A SPECIFIC OBJECTOR ON THIS
SPECIFIC RECORD.  THE VERY FACT THAT SUCH NICETIES OF CALCULATION HAVE
TO BE INDULGED IN AS THE CONCURRING OPINION FINDS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH THE MISCHIEF OF THE STATUTE, MAKES MANIFEST THE "REAL DOUBT"
OF ANY SHOWING OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY AND INDICATES THAT A BURDEN OF
CALCULATION AND SPECULATION IS ASSUMED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION WHICH SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES AND THE
CONGRESS. 

JUDICIAL CONTROL OF NATIONAL COMMERCE - UNLIKE LEGISLATIVE
REGULATIONS - MUST FROM INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
TREAT THE SUBJECT BY THE HIT-AND-MISS METHOD OF DECIDING SINGLE LOCAL
CONTROVERSIES UPON EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION LIMITED BY THE NARROW RULES
OF LITIGATION.  SPASMODIC AND UNRELATED INSTANCES OF LITIGATION CANNOT
AFFORD AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE CREATION OF INTEGRATED NATIONAL RULES
WHICH ALONE CAN AFFORD THAT FULL PROTECTION FOR INTERSTATE COMMERCE
INTENDED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  WE WOULD, THEREFORE, LEAVE THE QUESTIONS
RAISED BY THE ARKANSAS TAX FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONGRESS IN A NATION
WIDE SURVEY OF THE CONSTANTLY INCREASING BARRIERS TO TRADE AMONG THE
STATES.  UNCONFINED BY "THE NARROW SCOPE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS"  FN8
CONGRESS ALONE CAN, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY CONSTITUTIONAL
CONTROL OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NOT ONLY CONSIDER WHETHER SUCH A TAX
AS NOW UNDER SCRUTINY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR
NATIONAL ECONOMY, BUT CAN ALSO ON THE BASIS OF FULL EXPLORATION OF THE
MANY ASPECTS OF A COMPLICATED PROBLEM DEVISE A NATIONAL POLICY FAIR
ALIKE TO THE STATES AND OUR UNION.  DIVERSE AND INTERACTING STATE LAWS
MAY WELL HAVE CREATED AVOIDABLE HARDSHIPS.  SEE, COMPARATIVE CHARTS OF
STATE STATUTES ILLUSTRATING BARRIERS TO TRADE BETWEEN STATES, WORKS
PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION, MAY, 1939; PROCEEDINGS, THE NATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON INTERSTATE TRADE BARRIERS, THE COUNCIL OF STATE
GOVERNMENTS, 1939.  BUT THE REMEDY, IF ANY IS CALLED FOR, WE THINK IS
WITHIN THE AMPLE REACH OF CONGRESS. 

FN1  CF. OGDEN V. SAUNDERS, 12 WHEAT.  213, 270; BUTLER V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 10 HOW.  402; BOOTH V. ILLINOIS, 184 U.S. 425; HENDERSON
BRIDGE CO. V. HENDERSON CITY, 173 U.S. 592, 606, 615; SOUTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 195. 

FN2  INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, 276 U.S. 245; CARLEY &
HAMILTON V. SNOOK, 281 U.S. 66; CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. V. WOODRING, 286
U.S. 352; HICKLIN V. CONEY, 290 U.S. 169; AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA
COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285; MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407. 

FN3  IF THE STATE HAD THE POWER TO LEVY THE TAX, ABSENT CONGRESSIONAL
PROSCRIPTION, IT LIKEWISE HAD THE POWER TO EXTEND THE GRACE OF
EXEMPTION TO USERS OF ITS HIGHWAYS OF LESS TANK CAPACITY OR GASOLINE
LOAD THAN APPELLEE.  CF. CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. V. WOODRING, SUPRA, 370
3; SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 396; AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA
COMM'N, SUPRA, 289, 292-3. 

FN4  303 U.S. 177, 190. 

FN5  ID., 190. 

FN6  SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177. 

FN7  BOURJOIS, INC. V. CHAPMAN, 301 U.S. 183, 190; MONAMOTOR OIL CO.
V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, 96; SEE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS,
ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 347. 

FN8  SEE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, DISSENTING, PENNSYLVANIA V.
WHEELING & BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 13 HOW.  518, 592. 
..END :






DEITRICK V. GREANEY, 309 U.S. 190 


NO. 246.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 1940.  - 103
F.2D 83, REVERSED. 


1.  A RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTING CREDITORS, MAY COMPEL
PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE KNOWINGLY GIVEN TO THE BANK BY ONE OF ITS
DIRECTORS AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SHARES OF ITS OWN STOCK ILLEGALLY
PURCHASED AND RETAINED BY THE BANK, THE NOTE HAVING BEEN DELIVERED UPON
THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS NOT TO BE PAID AND THAT THE BANK WAS TO
RETAIN ITS INTEREST IN THE STOCK.  P. 196. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT IN PROHIBITING THE PURCHASE BY A
BANK OF ITS OWN STOCK IS TO PREVENT IMPAIRMENT OF ITS CAPITAL RESOURCES
AND CONSEQUENT INJURY TO CREDITORS IN THE EVENT OF INSOLVENCY.  THE
PROVISIONS REQUIRING PERIODIC EXAMINATIONS AND REPORTS ARE DESIGNED TO
INSURE PROMPT DISCOVERY OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND PROMPT REMEDIAL
ACTION BY THE COMPTROLLER.  THESE PURPOSES WOULD BE DEFEATED AND THE
COMMAND OF THE STATUTE NULLIFIED IF A DIRECTOR OR OFFICER, OR ANY OTHER
BY HIS CONNIVANCE, COULD PLACE IN THE BANK'S PORTFOLIO HIS OBLIGATION
GOOD ON ITS FACE, AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR ITS STOCK ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED, AND
IF HE REMAINED FREE TO SET UP THAT THE OBLIGATION WAS, IN EFFECT,
FICTITIOUS, INTENDED ONLY TO AID IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE INJURY AT
WHICH THE STATUTE IS AIMED. 

2.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE BANK'S OFFICERS WERE PARTICIPANTS IN
THE ILLEGAL TRANSACTION, AND THAT THE RECEIVER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT
CREDITORS WERE DECEIVED OR SPECIFICALLY INJURED AS THE RESULT OF THE
ILLEGAL CONTRACT.  RANKIN V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 208 U.S. 541 AND
DEITRICK V. STANDARD SURETY CO., 303 U.S. 471, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 198. 

3.  JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF ACTS
CONDEMNED BY THE NATIONAL BANK ACT INVOLVES DECISION OF A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  P. 200. 

DEITRICK, RECEIVER, V. GREANEY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 535, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED IN PART
A JUDGMENT RECOVERED IN A SUIT BY THE RECEIVER TO COLLECT AN ASSESSMENT
UPON SHARES OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK, AND TO COLLECT A PROMISSORY
NOTE FOUND AMONG ITS ASSETS. 

THE RECEIVER MAY NOT RECOVER FROM THE MAKER OF AN ACCOMMODATION NOTE
GIVEN TO THE BANK, AT ITS REQUEST, AND TAKEN BY THE BANK FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONCEALING ITS OWNERSHIP OF SHARES OF ITS OWN STOCK
PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED BY IT IN VIOLATION OF LAW.  RANKIN V. CITY NATIONAL
BANK, 208 U.S. 541; DEITRICK V. STANDARD SURETY & CASUALTY CO., 303
U.S. 471; YATES CENTER NATIONAL BANK V. LAUBER, 240 F. 237; CUTLER V.
FRY, 240 F. 238; YATES CENTER NATIONAL BANK V. SCHAEDE, 240 F. 240;
ANDRESEN V. KAERCHER, 38 F.2D 462.  LIABILITY OF THE MAKER CAN NOT BE
PREDICATED MERELY ON THE FACT THAT HE WAS A DIRECTOR OF THE BANK. 

FEDERAL LAW GOVERNS THE VALIDITY AND ENFORCIBILITY OF THE NOTE IN
SUIT.  AUTEN V. U.S. NATIONAL BANK, 174 U.S. 125; JENNINGS V. U.S.
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 294 U.S. 216. 

THE DECISION BELOW IS ALSO IN ACCORD WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS
DECISIONS.  SALEM TRUST CO. V. DEERY, 289 MASS. 431; GREAT BARRINGTON
SAVINGS BANK V. DAY, 288 MASS. 181; QUINCY TRUST CO. V. WOODBURY, 13
N.E.2D 377.  DISTINGUISHING PRUDENTIAL TRUST CO. V. MOORE, 245 MASS.
311, AND INTERNATIONAL TRUST CO. V. WATTENDORF, 256 MASS. 323. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER A RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK
MAY COMPEL PAYMENT OF A PROMISSORY NOTE KNOWINGLY GIVEN TO THE BANK BY
ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS AS A SUBSTITUTE, AMONG ITS ASSETS, FOR SHARES OF
ITS OWN STOCK ILLEGALLY PURCHASED AND RETAINED BY THE BANK BUT WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS TO RETAIN ITS INTEREST IN THE STOCK AND THAT
THE NOTE WAS NOT TO BE PAID. 

PETITIONER, RECEIVER APPOINTED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY FOR
THE BOSTON-CONTINENTAL BANK, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, BROUGHT
SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT, A DIRECTOR OF THE BANK, AND OTHERS, IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS TO COLLECT AN ASSESSMENT UPON SHARES
OF STOCK IN THE INSOLVENT BANK AND TO RECOVER ON RESPONDENT'S
PROMISSORY NOTE, FOUND BY THE RECEIVER AMONG ITS ASSETS. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE BOSTON NATIONAL BANK, PREDECESSOR OF
THE INSOLVENT BANK, HAD ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE, 190 SHARES OF ITS
OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK IN VIOLATION OF R.S. SEC. 5201, 12 U.S.C.
SEC. 83, WHICH DECLARES THAT "NO ASSOCIATION SHALL  ...  BE THE
PURCHASER OR HOLDER OF ANY SUCH SHARES"; FN1  THAT RESPONDENT AS A
MEANS OF CONCEALING THE ILLEGAL ACQUISITION OF THE STOCK AND OF
ENABLING THE BANK TO RETAIN ITS OWNERSHIP OF THE STOCK, PREVAILED UPON
HIS CO-DEFENDANT KARNOW TO EXECUTE AN ACCOMMODATION NOTE, PAYABLE TO
THE BANK, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN ANOTHER BANK TO THE
CREDIT OF RESPONDENT WHO THEN PAID THEM TO THE BOSTON NATIONAL BANK FOR
THE 190 SHARES OF STOCK WHICH WERE THEN TRANSFERRED TO THE RESPONDENT
ON THE BOOKS OF THE BANK. 

FOLLOWING A RENEWAL OF THE KARNOW NOTE RESPONDENT TRANSFERRED THE
SHARES TO HIM ON THE BOOKS OF THE BANK AND UPON CONSOLIDATION OF THE
BOSTON WITH THE CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK, TO FORM THE BOSTON
CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK OF WHICH PETITIONER LATER BECAME RECEIVER,
NEW SHARES OF THE CONSOLIDATED BANK WERE ISSUED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
OLD.  PART OF THEM WERE SOLD AND THE PROCEEDS USED IN REDUCTION OF THE
KARNOW NOTE.  RESPONDENT THEN GAVE TO THE BANK HIS OWN NOTE FOR THE
BALANCE, IN SUBSTITUTION FOR KARNOW'S NOTE, AND CAUSED THE REMAINING
SHARES TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE NAME OF MAHONEY, ALSO A DEFENDANT IN
THE SUIT, WITHOUT INFORMING HIM OF THE TRANSFER. 

THE COURT FOUND THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS DEVISED AND CARRIED
OUT BY RESPONDENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING THE BANK'S OWNERSHIP OF
THE STOCK BY OSTENSIBLY REMOVING THE SHARES OF STOCK FROM ITS ASSETS
AND CARRYING THE SUCCESSIVE NOTES IN THEIR STEAD AS RECEIVABLES ON THE
BOOKS OF THE BANK WITH A SECRET AGREEMENT THAT THE STOCK SHOULD BE HELD
FOR THE BOSTON AND LATER FOR THE BOSTON-CONTINENTAL BANK WITHOUT
LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE MAKER OF THE NOTE.  THE COURT FOUND
LIABILITY OF RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT UPON THE SHARES HELD BY
MAHONEY FOR HIS ACCOUNT, CONCLUDED THAT HE WAS ESTOPPED TO DENY
LIABILITY ON THE NOTE AND DECREED ACCORDINGLY THAT RESPONDENT ALONE
SHOULD PAY THE STOCK ASSESSMENT AND THE AMOUNT DUE ON THE NOTE, 23
F.SUPP.  758. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT REVERSED SO MUCH OF THE
DECREE AS ALLOWED RECOVERY ON THE NOTE.  103 F.2D 83.  IT CONFIRMED THE
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT.  BUT IT HELD THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
THEY DETAILED DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE OF WANT OF CONSIDERATION TO
THE DEMAND OF THE RECEIVER, MORE THAN TO THAT OF THE BANK ITSELF. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 535, ON PETITION OF THE RECEIVER
BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT AND OF THE CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH
THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, IN FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK V. CROTHERS, 289 F. 777, AND THAT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN BOHNING
V. CALDWELL, 10 F.2D 298. 

THE NATIONAL BANK ACT CONSTITUTES "BY ITSELF A COMPLETE SYSTEM FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL BANKS."  COOK COUNTY
NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445, 448.  IN ADDITION TO THE
AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC BANKING BUSINESS THE ACT CONTAINS
NUMEROUS PROVISIONS DESIGNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE BANK'S
DEPOSITORS AND OTHER CREDITORS.  IT ESTABLISHES MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL WITH WHICH A BANK MAY BEGIN BUSINESS, R.S.
SEC. 5138, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 51, AND MAKES SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SECURING
THE PAYMENT INTO THE BANK OF THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL, R.S. SECS. 5140,
5141, 12 U.S.C. SECS. 53, 54.  IT PROHIBITS THE PURCHASE BY A BANK OF
ITS OWN SHARES OF STOCK AND THEIR RETENTION WHEN PURCHASED, R.S. SEC.
5201, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 83.  IMPAIRMENT OF CAPITAL OF AN ASSOCIATION
THROUGH ITS WITHDRAWAL BY PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS OR OTHERWISE IS
PROHIBITED, R.S. SEC. 5204, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 56.  ANY BANK WHOSE CAPITAL
HAS BECOME IMPAIRED IS REQUIRED UNDER DIRECTION OF THE COMPTROLLER TO
MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY BY ASSESSMENT OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS AND IN THE
EVENT OF ITS FAILURE TO DO SO A RECEIVER MAY BE APPOINTED TO WIND UP
ITS BUSINESS, R.S. SEC. 5205, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 55. 

TO INSURE PERFORMANCE OF THESE DUTIES AND AS A SAFEGUARD TO CREDITORS
AND THE PUBLIC, VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BY ANY DIRECTOR
OR OFFICER OF THE BANK OR BY ANY PERSON AIDING OR ABETTING HIM, IS MADE
A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, R.S. SEC. 5209, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 592, AND IN THE
EVENT OF SUCH A VIOLATION, THE ASSOCIATION MAY BE REQUIRED TO FORFEIT
ALL ITS RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, R.S. SEC. 5239, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 93. 
FURTHER, BY R.S. SEC. 5240, 12 U.S.C. SECS. 481, 484, THE COMPTROLLER
OF THE CURRENCY IS REQUIRED TO APPOINT EXAMINERS WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE
AFFAIRS OF EVERY BANK AT LEAST TWICE IN EACH CALENDAR YEAR WITH POWER
TO ADMINISTER OATHS AND EXAMINE OFFICERS AND AGENTS OF THE BANK UNDER
OATH AND WHO "SHALL MAKE A FULL AND DETAILED REPORT" OF THE BANK TO
HIM.  BY R.S. SEC. 5211, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 161, EVERY ASSOCIATION IS
REQUIRED TO MAKE TO THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY NOT LESS THAN THREE
REPORTS EACH YEAR EXHIBITING IN DETAIL AND UNDER APPROPRIATE HEADS THE
RESOURCES AND LIABILITIES OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND THE COMPTROLLER IS
GIVEN POWER TO CALL FOR SPECIAL REPORTS WHENEVER, IN HIS JUDGMENT, THE
SAME ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A FULL AND COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF
THE CONDITION OF THE REPORTING BANK. 

THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF PROHIBITING THE PURCHASE BY A BANK OF ITS OWN
STOCK IS TO PREVENT THE IMPAIRMENT OF ITS CAPITAL RESOURCES AND THE
CONSEQUENT INJURY TO ITS CREDITORS IN THE EVENT OF INSOLVENCY.  THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT REQUIRING PERIODIC EXAMINATIONS AND REPORTS AND
THE POWERS OF THE COMPTROLLER ARE DESIGNED TO INSURE PROMPT DISCOVERY
OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT AND IN THAT EVENT PROMPT REMEDIAL ACTION BY
THE COMPTROLLER.  THESE PURPOSES WOULD BE DEFEATED AND THE COMMAND OF
THE STATUTE NULLIFIED IF A DIRECTOR OR OFFICER OR ANY OTHER BY HIS
CONNIVANCE COULD PLACE IN THE BANK'S PORTFOLIO HIS OBLIGATION GOOD ON
ITS FACE, AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR ITS STOCK ILLEGALLY ACQUIRED, AND IF HE
REMAINED FREE TO SET UP THAT THE OBLIGATION WAS, IN EFFECT, FICTITIOUS,
INTENDED ONLY TO AID IN THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE INJURY AT WHICH THE
STATUTE IS AIMED. 

HERE, RESPONDENT, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNLAWFUL PURPOSE TO
CONCEAL THE PRESENCE OF THE STOCK AMONG THE BANK'S ASSETS, GAVE IN
EXCHANGE FOR IT, FIRST ANOTHER'S NOTE AND THEN HIS OWN, KNOWING THAT IT
WAS TO BE AVAILED OF AS AN APPARENTLY VALID AND LAWFUL ASSET SO AS TO
FORESTALL THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER THE STATUTE FOR THE UNLAWFUL
PURCHASE.  THE NOTES WERE THUS CARRIED AS RECEIVABLES ON THE BOOKS OF
THE BANK FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS, RESPONDENT'S OWN NOTE OR
RENEWALS OF IT BEING LODGED WITH THE BANK FROM MAY 4, 1931 UNTIL THE
BANK CLOSED ITS DOORS IN DECEMBER, 1931. 

IF THE MATTER WERE OF IMPORTANCE WE COULD NOT ASSUME, IN THE ABSENCE
OF PROOF, THAT THE BANK EXAMINERS DID NOT PERFORM THEIR STATUTORY DUTY
OR THAT RESPONDENT'S NOTE WAS NOT AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE THE
EFFECTIVE MEANS OF CONCEALING THE IMPAIRMENT OF THE BANK'S CAPITAL
STRUCTURE AND PREVENTING RESORT TO THE REMEDIES FOR IT WHICH THE
STATUTE AFFORDS.  BUT IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE
RESPONDENT, AFTER PLACING HIS NOTE AMONG THE BANK'S RECEIVABLES IN
SUBSTITUTION FOR THE SHARES OF STOCK, AS THE MEANS OF AVOIDING THE
CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, MAY NOT NOW TAKE THE BENEFIT
OF THE SECRET AND ILLEGAL AGREEMENT THAT HIS NOTE EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES
OF DECEIVING THE BANK EXAMINERS WAS TO BE REGARDED AS A NULLITY.  IF
RESPONDENT WERE FREE TO SET UP THE UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT AS A DEFENSE AND
THUS CAST THE LOSS FROM THE UNLAWFUL STOCK PURCHASE ON THE CREDITORS OF
THE BANK IN RECEIVERSHIP, HE WOULD BE ENABLED TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF
THE STATUTE BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF AN AGREEMENT WHICH IT CONDEMNS AS
UNLAWFUL.  THAT, WE THINK, THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW. 

IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF THE WIDEST APPLICATION THAT EQUITY WILL NOT
PERMIT ONE TO RELY ON HIS OWN WRONGFUL ACT, AS AGAINST THOSE AFFECTED
BY IT BUT WHO HAVE NOT PARTICIPATED IN IT, TO SUPPORT HIS OWN ASSERTED
LEGAL TITLE OR TO DEFEAT A REMEDY WHICH EXCEPT FOR HIS MISCONDUCT WOULD
NOT BE AVAILABLE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. DUNN, 268 U.S. 121, 133;
INDEPENDENT COAL & COKE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 640, 648. 
APPLIED IN CASES LIKE THE PRESENT, THE RULE THAT THE ILLEGAL AGREEMENT
MAY NOT BE SET UP TO DEFEAT THE OBLIGATION OF THE NOTE IS SOMETIMES
DENOMINATED AN EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL.  FN2  LYONS V. WESTWATER, 181 F.
681; 193 F. 817; FEDERAL RESERVE BANK V. CROTHERS, 289 F. 777; BOHNING
V. CALDWELL, 10 F.2D 298; CERT. DEN., 271 U. S. 663; UTLEY V. CLARKE,
16 F.SUPP.  435; IGLEHART V. TODD, 203 IND. 427; 178 N.E. 685; DENNY V.
FISHTER, 238 KY. 127; 36 S.W.2D 864; PRUDENTIAL TRUST CO. V. MOORE, 245
MASS. 311; 139 N.E. 645; LONGLEY V. COONS, 244 APP. DIV. 391; 280
N.Y.S. 17; AFF'D 268 N.Y. 712; 198 N.E. 571; BAY PARKWAY NAT. BANK V.
SHALOM, 270 N.Y. 172; 200 N.E. 685; SEE FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. SMITH,
132 PA. SUPER.  73; 200 A. 215. 

IN A STRICT AND TECHNICAL SENSE AN ESTOPPEL ARISES ONLY WHEN A
MISREPRESENTATION HAS PREJUDICED ANOTHER WHO HAS RELIED UPON IT.  FOR
THAT REASON COURTS HAVE SOMETIMES HELD THAT ONE IN THE POSITION OF
RESPONDENT IS NOT ESTOPPED TO SET UP THE AGREEMENT AGAINST THE BANK OR
THE RECEIVER EITHER BECAUSE IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT THE BANK WAS
DECEIVED BY THE CONCEALMENT AND MISREPRESENTATION OR BECAUSE INJURY TO
CREDITORS WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE RESULTED FROM THEM, CF. PETERSON V.
TILLINGHAST, 192 F. 287; CUTLER V. FRY, 240 F. 238; FIRST STATE BANK V.
MORTON, 146 KY. 287, 293; 142 S.W. 694; QUINCY TRUST CO. V. WOODBURY,
1938 MASS. ADV.  SH. 475; 13 N.E.2D 377; AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORP. V.
SCANDIA AMERICAN BANK, 184 MINN. 68; 237 N.W. 823.  BUT STATED MORE
PRECISELY, THE DOCTRINE WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED IS NOT STRICTLY
THAT OF ESTOPPEL AS THUS DEFINED.  IT IS A PRINCIPLE WHICH DERIVES ITS
FORCE FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RESPONDENT'S ACT, APART FROM ITS
POSSIBLE INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES TO CREDITORS, IS ITSELF A VIOLATION OF
THE STATUTE; AND THAT THE STATUTE, READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSES
AND POLICY, PRECLUDES RESORT TO THE VERY ACTS WHICH IT CONDEMNS, AS THE
MEANS OF THWARTING THOSE PURPOSES BY VISITING ON THE RECEIVER AND
CREDITORS WHOM HE REPRESENTS THE BURDEN OF THE BANK'S UNLAWFUL
PURCHASE.  PAULY V. O'BRIEN, 69 F. 460; NIBLACK V. FARLEY, 286 ILL.
536; 122 N.E. 160; IGLEHART V. TODD, SUPRA, 442; 178 N.E. 685; CEDAR
STATE BANK V. OLSON, 116 KAN. 320, 323; 226 P. 995; DENNY V. FISHTER,
SUPRA; PARKER V. PARKER, 287 MICH. 49; 282 N.W. 897; GERMAN-AMERICAN
FINANCE CORP. V. MERCHANTS' & MFRS.  STATE BANK, 177 MINN. 529; 225
N.W. 891; VALLELY V. DEVANEY, 49 N.D. 1107; 194 N.W. 903; BAY PARKWAY
NAT. BANK V. SHALOM, SUPRA; MOUNT VERNON TRUST CO. V. BERGOFF, 272 N.Y.
192, 196; 5 N.E.2D 196; PUTNAM V. CHASE, 106 ORE.  440; 212 P. 365. 
SEE SCHMID V. HAINES, 115 N.J.L. 271; 178 A. 801.  WILLISTON ON
CONTRACTS (REV. ED.)  SEC.  1632; ZOLLMAN, BANKS AND BANKING, SEC.
4783.    SINCE IT IS BY VIRTUE OF THE STATUTE THAT RESPONDENT'S
AGREEMENT IS UNLAWFUL AND THAT THE BENEFIT OF IT AS A DEFENSE TO THE
NOTE IS DENIED; AND AS THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS TO PROTECT
CREDITORS OF THE BANK FROM THE HAZARD OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT LIKE THE
PRESENT, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE BANK'S OFFICERS WERE PARTICIPANTS IN
THE ILLEGAL TRANSACTION, TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S.
245; CITY OF MARION V. SNEEDEN, 291 U.S. 262; AWOTIN V. ATLAS EXCHANGE
NATIONAL BANK, 295 U.S. 209, OR THAT THE RECEIVER HAS NOT SHOWN THAT
THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN DECEIVED OR SPECIFICALLY INJURED AS THE RESULT
OF THE ILLEGAL CONTRACT.  CF. MOUNT VERNON TRUST CO. V. BERGOFF, SUPRA,
196.  IT IS THE EVIL TENDENCY OF THE PROHIBITED ACTS AT WHICH THE
STATUTE IS AIMED, AND ITS AID, IN CONDEMNATION OF THEM, AND IN
PREVENTING THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH THE ACT WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT, MAY
BE INVOKED BY THE RECEIVER REPRESENTING THE CREDITORS FOR WHOSE BENEFIT
THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED. 

RANKIN V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 208 U.S. 541 AND DEITRICK V. STANDARD
SURETY CO., 303 U.S. 471, ON WHICH RESPONDENT RELIES, DO NOT CALL FOR
ANY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  BECAUSE OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS OBITER IN THE
OPINION IN THE RANKIN CASE, IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AS CONTROLLING IN A
NUMBER OF CASES RESEMBLING THE PRESENT, BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT,  FN3  AND IN ONE CASE IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.  FN4  IN
CASES ALREADY CITED, COURTS OF APPEALS IN OTHER CIRCUITS HAVE REACHED A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  IT WAS TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT THAT WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  THE RANKIN CASE WAS TRIED BELOW AND DECIDED HERE UPON THE
CONCESSION OF COUNSEL THAT THE TRANSACTION INVOLVED WAS NOT ILLEGAL,
208 U.S. 547.  HERE IT IS THE REACH OF THE STATUTE MAKING RESPONDENT'S
ACTS ILLEGAL AND AFFORDING PROTECTION FROM THEM TO THE CREDITORS WHICH
GOVERNS OUR DECISION. 

IN THE DEITRICK CASE, SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST A SURETY COMPANY, ON
ITS SURETY BONDS, BY A BANK'S RECEIVER NOT ALLEGED TO REPRESENT ANY
INNOCENT CREDITORS WHO WERE INJURED BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIANCE ON THE
BOND.  THE COMPANY'S AGENT, AS ALLEGED AND AS FOUND BY THE TWO COURTS
BELOW, HAD, TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BANK'S PRESIDENT, EXECUTED AND
DELIVERED THE BONDS TO THE BANK WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AND WITHOUT THE
COMPANY'S KNOWLEDGE OR AUTHORITY, ALL IN COLLUSION WITH THE BANK'S
OFFICERS IN A FRAUDULENT CONSPIRACY TO DECEIVE THE BANK EXAMINER.  THE
COMPANY INSISTED THAT AS IT WAS THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF ITS AGENT'S
UNAUTHORIZED ACTS IN CARRYING OUT THE CONSPIRACY IT COULD NOT BE
CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM ON THE THEORY OF ESTOPPEL OR OF
ITS OWN PARTICIPATION IN THE ILLEGAL TRANSACTION.  BECAUSE OF THIS
STATE OF THE PLEADINGS AND OF THE RECORD, THE COURT FOUND ITSELF UNABLE
TO HOLD THAT THE NATIONAL BANK ACT IMPOSED LIABILITY ON THE SURETY
COMPANY.  THE DECISION OF THIS COURT WAS RESTED SPECIFICALLY, AS WAS
THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BELOW, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PLEADINGS HAD LIMITED THE RECEIVER'S DEMAND TO THE RIGHT OF THE BANK TO
RECOVER UPON THE BOND PROCURED BY THE FRAUD OF ITS OFFICERS.  THIS WAS
SHOWN, THE COURT DECLARED, BY THE FAILURE OF THE PLEADINGS TO ALLEGE
ANY WRONGFUL ACT FOR WHICH THE COMPANY WAS CHARGEABLE OR WHICH WAS
INJURIOUS TO CREDITORS.  IT SAID, PAGE 480, THAT THE RECEIVER "MAKES NO
SUGGESTION OF A PURPOSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COMPANY TO MISLEAD
CREDITORS OR OTHERS, MAKES NO ALLEGATIONS OF DAMAGE EXCEPT THAT
SUSTAINED BY THE BANK.  HE SETS UP NO FACTS WHICH COULD RENDER
UNCONSCIONABLE A DENIAL OF LIABILITY UPON THE BOND BECAUSE OF THE
AGENT'S FRAUD OBVIOUSLY INDUCED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK."  WE DID
NOT DECIDE THAT IN AN ACTION AGAINST ONE WHO, LIKE RESPONDENT, IS
ALLEGED AND PROVED TO BE A PARTICIPANT IN THE ILLEGAL TRANSACTION, HE
CAN BE HEARD TO SET UP THE DEFENSE OF HIS ILLEGAL ACTION TO DEFEAT THE
STATUTORY POLICY AIMED AT THE PROTECTION OF CREDITORS. 

A POINT MUCH DISCUSSED IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT, UPON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT LOCAL LAW WILL GUIDE OUR DECISION, SEE ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS,
304 U.S. 64, IS WHETHER, BY MASSACHUSETTS LAW RESPONDENT IS PRECLUDED
FROM SETTING UP THE ILLEGALITY OF THE TRANSACTION AS A DEFENSE TO HIS
NOTE.  BUT IT IS THE FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH CONDEMNS AS UNLAWFUL
RESPONDENT'S ACTS.  THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF
THIS CONDEMNATION, THOUGH LEFT BY THE STATUTE TO JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION, ARE NEVERTHELESS TO BE DERIVED FROM IT AND THE FEDERAL
POLICY WHICH IT HAS ADOPTED, SEE, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
JACKSON COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 343, AND CASES CITED.  WE
HAVE RECENTLY HELD THAT THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES WHICH FLOW FROM ACTS CONDEMNED AS UNLAWFUL BY THE NATIONAL
BANK ACT INVOLVES DECISION OF A FEDERAL, NOT A STATE QUESTION.  AWOTIN
V. ATLAS EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "NO ASSOCIATION SHALL MAKE ANY LOAN OR DISCOUNT ON THE SECURITY
OF THE SHARES OF ITS OWN CAPITAL STOCK, NOR BE THE PURCHASER OR HOLDER
OF ANY SUCH SHARES, UNLESS SUCH SECURITY OR PURCHASE SHALL BE NECESSARY
TO PREVENT LOSS UPON A DEBT PREVIOUSLY CONTRACTED IN GOOD FAITH; AND
STOCK SO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHALL, WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE TIME
OF ITS PURCHASE, BE SOLD OR DISPOSED OF AT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SALE; OR,
IN DEFAULT THEREOF, A RECEIVER MAY BE APPOINTED TO CLOSE UP THE
BUSINESS OF THE ASSOCIATION, ACCORDING TO SECTION FIFTY-TWO HUNDRED AND
THIRTY-FOUR (12 U.S.C. SEC. 192)." 

FN2  IN A NUMBER OF CASES IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE INDIRECT BENEFIT
OF THE TRANSACTION TO THE OBLIGOR AS A CREDITOR OR SHAREHOLDER OF THE
BANK IS SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION TO SUPPORT RECOVERY.  SEE NEW V. PAGE,
144 MD. 606; 125 A. 403; HURD V. KELLEY, 78 N.Y. 588; STATE EX REL.
LATTANNER V. HILLS, 94 OHIO ST. 171; 113 N.E. 1045; FIRST NATIONAL BANK
V. BOXLEY, 129 OKLA. 159; 264 P. 184; ARTHUR V. BROWN, 91 S.C. 316; 74
S.E. 652.  BUT WHETHER THE LIABILITY IS SUSTAINED ON THIS GROUND OR
THAT OF ESTOPPEL IT IS APPARENT THAT THE STATUTORY POLICY OF PROTECTION
TO CREDITORS UNDERLIES BOTH.  SEE BRANNAN, NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW
(6TH ED.)  459. 

FN3  YATES CENTER NATIONAL BANK V. SCHAEDE, 240 F. 240, 241; HOOKWAY
V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 36 F.2D 166; ANDRESEN V. KAERCHER, 38 F.2D
462.  CF. CUTLER V. FRY, 240 F. 238; KEYES V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
ABERDEEN, 20 F.2D 678. 

FN4  PETERSON V. TILLINGHAST, 192 F. 287. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING: 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON THE AUTHORITY OF DEITRICK
V. STANDARD SURETY & CASUALTY CO., 303 U.S. 471, DECIDED MARCH 28,
1938.  THAT CASE FOLLOWED AND REAFFIRMED THE PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED IN
RANKIN V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 208 U.S. 541, THAT WHERE THE RECEIVER OF
A NATIONAL BANK SUES TO RECOVER ON A CHOSE IN ACTION WHICH WAS AN ASSET
OF THE BANK, HIS RIGHTS RISE NO HIGHER THAN THOSE OF THE BANK, EVEN
THOUGH THE OBLIGATION WAS GIVEN TO DECEIVE CREDITORS OR THE BANK
EXAMINER.  THE DOCTRINE OF THE RANKIN CASE HAS BEEN APPLIED IN SUITS BY
RECEIVERS OF NATIONAL BANKS FOR MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS.  FN1 

DEITRICK V. STANDARD SURETY & CASUALTY COMPANY IS ON ALL FOURS WITH
THE PRESENT CASE.  THERE THE VERY ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES NOW RELIED
UPON AND CITED ON BEHALF OF THIS PETITIONER WERE PRESSED WITHOUT
AVAIL. 

IN THE EARLIER CASE THE SAME RECEIVER BROUGHT ACTIONS AT LAW TO
RECOVER ON SURETY BONDS AS ASSETS OF THE BANK.  THE FACTS WERE THAT THE
BANK HELD WORTHLESS NOTES, KNOWN TO ITS PRESIDENT TO BE SUCH.  TO GIVE
A FALSE APPEARANCE OF WORTH TO THESE ASSETS HE CONSPIRED WITH THE AGENT
OF A SURETY COMPANY TO PROCURE SURETY BONDS GUARANTEEING PAYMENT OF THE
NOTES, TO BE USED AS "WINDOW DRESSING" AND TO BE SHOWN TO THE BANK
EXAMINERS IF THEY SHOULD ASK TO SEE THE COLLATERAL FOR THE NOTES.  THE
BANK WAS AFTERWARDS EXAMINED AND, AS A RESULT OF THE EXAMINERS' REPORT,
ADDITIONAL CAPITAL WAS SUBSCRIBED.  WE MAY ASSUME THEY SAW THE BONDS. 
THE BANK REMAINED OPEN FOR A PERIOD AND DEPOSITS CONTINUED TO BE MADE. 
LATER THE COMPTROLLER DETERMINED THE BANK WAS INSOLVENT AND A RECEIVER
WAS APPOINTED. 

IN HIS DECLARATION IN EACH ACTION THE RECEIVER ALLEGED HIS
APPOINTMENT, RECITED THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE SURETY BOND TO
THE BANK AND ATTACHED A COPY OF IT.  HE ALLEGED THAT THE NOTE OR NOTES
IN QUESTION IN EACH CASE WAS OR WERE IN DEFAULT AND THAT THE SURETY WAS
LIABLE ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF ITS BOND.  THE SURETY COMPANY ANSWERED
IN EACH CASE SETTING UP THAT NO CONSIDERATION WAS PAID FOR THE GIVING
OF THE BOND AND THAT IT WAS AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD THAT NO LIABILITY WAS
TO ENSUE FROM THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY.  FN2 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE SURETY COMPANY AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN3  THAT COURT, AFTER STATING THAT
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT WAS THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BANK, HELD THAT
THE RECEIVER WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE BANK'S CREDITORS; THAT HE STOOD IN
NO BETTER POSITION THAN THE BANK; THAT ALL DEFENSES OPEN TO THE SURETY
COMPANY AS AGAINST THE BANK WERE OPEN AS AGAINST THE RECEIVER; THAT THE
SUIT WAS MERELY ONE TO RECOVER ASSETS OF THE BANK AND THAT THE
DECLARATIONS STATED NO CAUSE OF ACTION OTHER THAN THAT ARISING FROM THE
CONTRACT OF SURETYSHIP.  THE COURT CALLED ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT
THE PLEADINGS CONTAINED NO ALLEGATION THAT THE RECEIVER BASED HIS
ACTION ON ANY ALLEGED DECEPTION OF, OR INJURY TO, CREDITORS OF THE BANK
AND NO ALLEGATION THAT THE RECEIVER WAS SUING ON BEHALF OF CREDITORS,
AND HELD THAT, UPON THE PLEADINGS, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE RECEIVER TO
URGE THAT HE REPRESENTED CREDITORS.  IT REFUSED TO DECIDE WHETHER, ON
DIFFERENT PLEADINGS, THE RECEIVER COULD RECOVER IF HE ALLEGED AND
PROVED INJURY RESULTING TO CREDITORS FROM THE TRANSACTION. 

THIS COURT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUNDS STATED BY THE COURT
BELOW, CITING AND RELYING ON RANKIN V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA. 

THE SURETY ALSO PLEADED THAT ITS AGENT HAD EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY IN
ISSUING THE BONDS, AS THE BANK'S PRESIDENT KNEW.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DID NOT PASS UPON THIS DEFENSE, SINCE IT HELD THE RECEIVER
COULD NOT RECOVER EVEN IF THE SURETY COMPANY HAD AUTHORIZED THE GIVING
OF THE BONDS.  IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, THE SURETY'S CONTENTION
THAT IT WAS NOT BOUND BY ITS AGENT'S UNAUTHORIZED ACT WAS MENTIONED BUT
WAS NOT CONSIDERED OR DISCUSSED AS A GROUND OF DECISION.  THE SOLE
BASIS OF THE DECISION IS STATED AS FOLLOWS: 

"AN EXAMINATION OF THE PLEADINGS MAKES IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE
RECEIVER UNDERTOOK TO SET UP RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY THE INSOLVENT BANK
THROUGH DULY EXECUTED CONTRACTS BETWEEN IT AND THE SURETY COMPANY.  HE
MAKES NO SUGGESTION OF A PURPOSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COMPANY TO MISLEAD
CREDITORS OR OTHERS; MAKES NO ALLEGATIONS OF DAMAGE EXCEPT THAT
SUSTAINED BY THE BANK.  HE SETS UP NO FACTS WHICH WOULD RENDER
UNCONSCIONABLE A DENIAL OF LIABILITY UPON THE BOND BECAUSE OF THE
AGENT'S FRAUD OBVIOUSLY INDUCED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK.  IN THIS
STATE OF THE PLEADINGS THE RECEIVER MAY NOT HAVE JUDGMENT; HE CANNOT
RELY ON SOMETHING NOT COMPLAINED OF, NOR CAN HE HAVE DAMAGES BECAUSE OF
SUPPOSED DECEPTIONS WHICH THE PLEADINGS FAIL TO SUGGEST." 

AFTER SO STATING THE COURT REFERS TO THE RANKIN CASE AND SAYS:  "WE
ADHERE TO THE DOCTRINE THERE APPROVED AND REGARD IT AS DECISIVE OF THE
PRESENT CAUSE." 

TURNING TO THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACTS ARE THESE:  THE BANK HAD
ACQUIRED SHARES OF ITS OWN STOCK ILLEGALLY.  SUCH SHARES, SO HELD, WERE
INADMISSIBLE ASSETS.  THE BANK'S PRESIDENT, KNOWING THAT SUCH
ACQUISITION OF ITS OWN STOCK WAS AN ILLEGAL DISSIPATION OF ITS CAPITAL,
WORKED OUT AN OSTENSIBLE SALE OF THE STOCK FOR A NOTE WHICH IT WAS
UNDERSTOOD WAS TO BE PLACED AMONGST THE ASSETS OF THE BANK FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DECEIVING THE EXAMINERS.  THE NOTE WAS WITHOUT CONSIDERATION
AND THE UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE COLLECTED.  IT WAS, OF
COURSE, UNENFORCEABLE BY THE BANK.  SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN
THE BANK.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE EXAMINERS SAW THE NOTE.  AFTER
THE COMPTROLLER HAD FOUND THE BANK INSOLVENT AND APPOINTED A RECEIVER,
THAT OFFICER FILED A BILL AGAINST THE MAKER OF THE NOTE, FIRST, TO
COLLECT AN ASSESSMENT FROM HIM AS OWNER OF THE STOCK AND, SECOND, TO
RECOVER THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE NOTE, WITH INTEREST.  IN THIS BILL HE
ALLEGED HIS APPOINTMENT AS RECEIVER, THE ACQUISITION OF THE STOCK BY
THE BANK, AND THE PLACING OF IT IN STRAW NAMES, THE GIVING OF THE NOTE
FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE STOCK; AND CLAIMED "THE UNPAID PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF SAID NOTE  ...  TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON, IS DUE THE
PLAINTIFF ...  "  HIS PRAYERS WERE FOR A DECREE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE
ASSESSMENT AND FOR THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WITH INTEREST, OF THE NOTE. 

THE ANSWER OUTLINED THE TRUE TRANSACTION, ASSERTED THAT THE
DEFENDANT'S NOTE WAS AN ACCOMMODATION NOTE, THAT NO CONSIDERATION
PASSED FOR IT, AND THERE COULD, THEREFORE, BE NO RECOVERY UPON IT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A DECREE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT
AND FOR THE PRINCIPAL OF THE NOTE WITH INTEREST.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
AFFIRMED AS TO THE ASSESSMENT BUT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT UPON THE NOTE. 

HERE, AS IN THE EARLIER CASE, THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT ANY
CREDITORS WERE DECEIVED; NONE OF ANY LOSS TO THE CREDITORS RESULTING
FROM THE GIVING OF THE NOTE; NONE THAT THE RECEIVER SUED ON BEHALF OF
CREDITORS, AND NO CAUSE OF ACTION ASSERTED SAVE ONE TO RECOVER UPON THE
NOTE AS AN ASSET OF THE BANK.  HERE, AS IN THE EARLIER CASE, THE
RECEIVER HAS URGED UPON THIS COURT THAT HE DOES REPRESENT CREDITORS;
THAT THE PUBLIC POLICY EVIDENCED BY THE NATIONAL BANK ACT DISABLES THE
DEFENDANT, IN VIEW OF THE INTENDED DECEPTION, FROM ASSERTING THE LACK
OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE NOTE.  HERE, IN CONTRAST TO THE EARLIER CASE,
THE COURT ACCEPTS THE VIEW WHICH WAS THERE REJECTED BECAUSE NOT WITHIN
THE ISSUES TENDERED.    IN DEITRICK V. STANDARD SURETY & CASUALTY CO.,
SUPRA, THE RECEIVER URGED UPON THIS COURT THE VERY CONTENTIONS WHICH HE
AGAIN ADVANCED IN THE INSTANT CASE; CITED IN SUPPORT OF THOSE
CONTENTIONS NUMEROUS AUTHORITIES WHICH HE NOW CITES, WHICH ARE RELIED
UPON IN THE OPINION NOW ANNOUNCED; SOUGHT TO HAVE THIS COURT ADOPT THE
PROPOSITION, NOW AFFIRMED BY THE OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE, THAT THE
DEFENDANT WAS LIABLE ON THE SURETY BOND BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC POLICY
EVIDENCED IN THE NATIONAL BANK ACT WHICH, BROADLY SPEAKING, ESTOPPED
THE SURETY TO SET UP, AS AGAINST THE RECEIVER, APPOINTED PURSUANT TO
THE NATIONAL BANKING LAW, A WRONG AGAINST THAT LAW IN WHICH IT HAD
PARTICIPATED.  FN4  HIS CONTENTIONS WERE HELD TO BE UNAVAILING IN VIEW
OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION HE HAD PLEADED. 

IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, IT IS APPARENT THAT, UNDER THE GUISE
OF DISTINGUISHING THE EARLIER CASE, THE COURT IN FACT OVERRULES IT. 

FN1  PETERSON V. TILLINGHAST, 192 F. 287, 289; SKUD V. TILLINGHAST,
195 F. 1, 5; CUTLER V. FRY, 240 F. 238; YATES CENTER NATIONAL BANK V.
SCHAEDE, 240 F. 240; KEYES V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 20 F.2D 678, 686;
HOOKWAY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 36 F.2D 166, 170; KAERCHER V. CITIZENS'
NATIONAL BANK, 57 F.2D 58; VARDEN V. FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 13
F.SUPP.  159, 161; DRAKE V. MOORE, 14 F.SUPP.  89, 90; SEABORN V. RENO
NATIONAL BANK, 20 F.SUPP.  835, 838; FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORP. V.
PENDLETON, 29 F.SUPP.  779, 781. 

FN2  THE SURETY COMPANY ALSO FILED BILLS SEEKING CANCELLATION OF EACH
OF THE BONDS AND, IN HIS ANSWERS, THE RECEIVER REITERATED HIS AVERMENT
THAT THE SURETY COMPANY OWED HIM THE AMOUNTS STIPULATED IN THE BONDS,
AND ASKED JUDGMENT FOR SUCH AMOUNTS. 

FN3  90 F.2D 862. 

FN4  OUT OF SIXTY-EIGHT PAGES OF ARGUMENT IN PETITIONER'S BRIEF
THIRTY-NINE WERE DEVOTED TO THIS CONTENTION; AND EVERY PROPOSITION NOW
RELIED UPON TO SUSTAIN THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT WAS ADVANCED IN THAT
BRIEF. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :










LABOR BOARD V. WATERMAN S.S. CO., 309 U.S. 206 


NO. 193.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 1940.  - 103
F.2D 157, REVERSED. 


1.  CERTIORARI GRANTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WHICH THE COURT BELOW DECLINED TO ENFORCE AS BASED ON MERE SUSPICION. 
PP. 207-209. 

2.  THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT THAT "THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD, AS TO
THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL  ...  BE CONCLUSIVE," MUST
BE SCRUPULOUSLY OBEYED BY THE COURTS.  P. 208. 

3.  AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT MAY SUBSIST THROUGH MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE OWNER OF A VESSEL AND MEMBERS OF ITS CREW AFTER ITS RETURN
FROM A FOREIGN VOYAGE AND AFTER THE CREW, APPEARING WITH THE MASTER
BEFORE A SHIPPING COMMISSIONER, HAVE BEEN PAID OFF AND "DISCHARGED" AND
HAVE EXECUTED WITH THE MASTER A MUTUAL RELEASE OF "ALL CLAIMS FOR WAGES
IN RESPECT OF PAST VOYAGE OR ENGAGEMENT," AS PROVIDED BY 46 U.S.C.
SECS. 564, 641, 644.  P. 211. 

4.  A CONTRACT BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND A LABOR UNION FOR PREFERENTIAL
TREATMENT OF THE LATTER IN FILLING VACANCIES HELD NOT TO REQUIRE THE
FORMER TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR HAVING JOINED ANOTHER
UNION.  P. 213. 

5.  IN FORBIDDING AN EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE'S TENURE OF
EMPLOYMENT OR ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE OF UNION
ACTIVITY OR AFFILIATION, SEC. 8(1)(3) OF THE LABOR ACT EMBRACES ALL
ELEMENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP WHICH IN FACT CUSTOMARILY
ATTEND EMPLOYMENT AND WITH RESPECT TO WHICH AN EMPLOYER'S
DISCRIMINATION MAY AS READILY BE THE MEANS OF INTERFERING WITH
EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AS IF THESE ELEMENTS WERE PRECISE
TERMS OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.  P. 218. 

6.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT EMPLOYMENT IS
AT WILL AND TERMINABLE AT ANY TIME BY EITHER PARTY.  P. 219. 

7.  THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD: 

(1) THAT, BY CUSTOM RECOGNIZED BY THE RESPONDENT SHIP COMPANY, CREWS
OF SHIPS RETURNED FROM ABROAD, NOTWITHSTANDING EXPIRATION OF THEIR
SHIPPING ARTICLES, HAVE, UNLESS DISCHARGED FOR CAUSE, A CONTINUING
TENURE OR RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR EMPLOYER ENTITLING THEM TO RE-SIGN
FOR FUTURE VOYAGES.  P. 213. 

(2)  THAT THE EMPLOYMENT OR "TENURE" OF CREWS AND OF TWO LICENSED
OFFICERS WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE OF THEIR AFFILIATIONS WITH A UNION
OTHER THAN THAT WITH WHICH THE EMPLOYER HAD MADE A PREFERENTIAL
CONTRACT.  P. 220. 

(3)  THAT PENDING AN ELECTION DIRECTED BY THE BOARD TO PERMIT THE
SHIPS' CREWS TO SELECT THEIR BARGAINING AGENCIES, THE EMPLOYER HAD
INTERFERED WITH ITS EMPLOYEES' FREE RIGHT TO SELECT A UNION OF THEIR
OWN CHOOSING UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE ACT BY REFUSING TO GRANT SHIPS' PASSES
TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RIVAL UNION, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ISSUING
PASSES TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION HAVING THE PREFERENTIAL
CONTRACT.  P. 224. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 534, TO REVIEW A DECISION DECLINING TO ENFORCE
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND SETTING IT ASIDE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT BELOW, UPON PETITION OF RESPONDENT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF
THE LABOR BOARD, DECIDED THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SAID THE ORDER WAS BASED ON MERE SUSPICION, AND
DECLINED TO ENFORCE IT.  WHETHER THE COURT PROPERLY REACHED THAT
CONCLUSION IS THE SINGLE QUESTION HERE. 

WE DO NOT ORDINARILY GRANT CERTIORARI TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS BASED
SOLELY ON QUESTIONS OF FACT.  IN ITS PETITION, HOWEVER, THE BOARD
EARNESTLY CONTENDED THAT THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD
PRESENTED "CLEAR AND OVERWHELMING PROOF" THAT THE WATERMAN STEAMSHIP
COMPANY HAD BEEN GUILTY OF A MOST FLAGRANT MASS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
ITS EMPLOYEES IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND
THAT THE COURT HAD UNWARRANTEDLY INTERFERED WITH THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION GRANTED THE BOARD BY CONGRESS.  THE BOARD'S PETITION ALSO
CHARGED THAT THE PRESENT WAS ONE OF A SERIES OF DECISIONS IN WHICH THE
COURT BELOW HAD FAILED "TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PROVISION OF THE ACT THAT
THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL
BE CONCLUSIVE."  FN1 

IN THAT ACT, CONGRESS PROVIDED, "THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE
FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  FN2  IT IS OF
PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE THAT COURTS NOT ENCROACH UPON THIS EXCLUSIVE POWER
OF THE BOARD IF EFFECT IS TO BE GIVEN THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO
APPLY AN ORDERLY, INFORMED AND SPECIALIZED PROCEDURE TO THE COMPLEX
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS ARISING IN THE SOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTES.  AS IT DID IN SETTING UP OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES,
CONGRESS HAS LEFT QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH ARISE BEFORE THE BOARD - BUT
NOT MORE - ULTIMATELY TO THE TRADITIONAL REVIEW OF THE JUDICIARY.  NOT
BY ACCIDENT, BUT IN LINE WITH A GENERAL POLICY, CONGRESS HAS DEEMED IT
WISE TO ENTRUST THE FINDING OF FACTS TO THESE SPECIALIZED AGENCIES.  IT
IS ESSENTIAL THAT COURTS REGARD THIS DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY WHICH
CONGRESS AS A MATTER OF POLICY HAS EMBODIED IN THE VERY STATUTE FROM
WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS DERIVED ITS JURISDICTION TO ACT.  AND
THEREFORE CHARGES BY PUBLIC AGENCIES CONSTITUTIONALLY CREATED - SUCH AS
THE BOARD - THAT THEIR DULY CONFERRED JURISDICTION HAS BEEN INVADED SO
THAT THEIR STATUTORY DUTIES CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY FULFILLED, RAISE
QUESTIONS OF HIGH IMPORTANCE.  FOR THIS REASON WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
FN3 

RESPONDENT, WATERMAN STEAMSHIP COMPANY, OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, IS
ENGAGED IN MARITIME TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THIS COUNTRY, EUROPE, AND
THE WEST INDIES.  UPON COMPLAINT MADE BY THE NATIONAL MARITIME UNION, A
LABOR ORGANIZATION AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATION, THE BOARD HELD HEARINGS AND FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD, AT
MOBILE, LAID UP THE SHIPS "BIENVILLE" (27 DAYS) AND "FAIRLAND" (7 DAYS)
FOR DRY-DOCKING AND REPAIRS, AND HAD, IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT: 

(A)  DISCHARGED AND REFUSED TO REINSTATE, BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP IN
THE N.M.U., THE ENTIRE UNLICENSED CREW AND THE CHIEF STEWARD, EDMUND J.
PELLETIER, OF THE STEAMSHIP "BIENVILLE," AND ALL BUT THREE OF THE CREW
OF THE STEAMSHIP "FAIRLAND"; 

(B)  DISCHARGED AND REFUSED TO REINSTATE C.J. O'CONNOR, SECOND
ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF THE "AZALEA CITY" BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIVITIES IN
REPRESENTING AGGRIEVED MEMBERS OF THE MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL
ASSOCIATION, A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF LICENSED SHIP PERSONNEL AFFILIATED
WITH THE C.I.O.; 

(C)  AND, PENDING AN ELECTION DIRECTED BY THE BOARD TO PERMIT THE
SHIPS' CREWS TO SELECT THEIR BARGAINING AGENCIES, HAD INTERFERED WITH
ITS EMPLOYEES' FREE RIGHT TO SELECT A UNION OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING UNDER
SEC. 7 OF THE ACT BY REFUSING TO GRANT SHIPS' PASSES TO REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE C.I.O. AFFILIATE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ISSUING PASSES TO
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEAMEN'S UNION AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.  FN4 

THE BOARD'S ORDER IN QUESTION WAS BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS. 

A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE MASS DISCHARGE
OF THE CREWS OF THE "BIENVILLE" AND THE "FAIRLAND" NECESSITATES INITIAL
REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL LAWS GOVERNING ENGAGEMENT OF SEAMEN FOR
FOREIGN VOYAGES.  THERE IS PROVISION, 46 U.S.C. 564, THAT A MASTER OF
ANY VESSEL BOUND FROM THE UNITED STATES TO FOREIGN PORTS (WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT PERTINENT) "SHALL, BEFORE HE PROCEEDS ON SUCH VOYAGE,
MAKE AN AGREEMENT, IN WRITING OR IN PRINT, WITH EVERY SEAMAN WHOM HE
CARRIES TO SEA AS ONE OF THE CREW  ...  "  THIS WRITTEN AGREEMENT,
COMMONLY REFERRED TO IN MARITIME CIRCLES AS ARTICLES, MUST SPECIFY THE
NATURE AND DURATION OF THE INTENDED VOYAGE OR ENGAGEMENT; THE PORT OR
COUNTRY AT WHICH THE VOYAGE WILL TERMINATE; THE NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION
OF THE CREW AND THEIR EMPLOYMENTS; THE TIME EACH SEAMAN MUST BE ON
BOARD TO BEGIN WORK AND THE CAPACITY IN WHICH HE IS TO SERVE; WAGES;
PROVISIONS TO BE FURNISHED EACH SEAMAN; REGULATIONS TO WHICH THE SEAMAN
WILL BE SUBJECTED ON BOARD SUCH AS FINES, SHORT ALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS
OR OTHER LAWFUL PUNISHMENTS FOR MISCONDUCT; AND STIPULATIONS OF ANY
ADVANCE AND ALLOTMENT OF THE SEAMAN'S WAGES.  AND THE PROVISIONS OF 46
U.S.C. 567-8 IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR CARRYING SEAMEN IN SHIPS' CREWS ON
FOREIGN VOYAGES WITHOUT ENTERING INTO THE REQUIRED ARTICLES.  ALL
SEAMEN "DISCHARGED IN THE UNITED STATES FROM MERCHANT VESSELS ENGAGED
IN VOYAGES  ...  TO ANY FOREIGN PORT  ...  SHALL BE DISCHARGED AND
RECEIVE THEIR WAGES IN THE PRESENCE OF A DULY AUTHORIZED SHIPPING
COMMISSIONER ...  "  ID. 641.  THE MASTER AND EACH SEAMAN SHALL "IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE SHIPPING COMMISSIONER, ...  SIGN A MUTUAL RELEASE OF
ALL CLAIMS FOR WAGES IN RESPECT OF THE PAST VOYAGE OR ENGAGEMENT"; THE
RELEASE MUST BE RECORDED IN A BOOK WHICH SHALL BE KEPT BY THE
COMMISSIONER, AND SUCH RELEASE "SHALL OPERATE AS A MUTUAL DISCHARGE AND
SETTLEMENT OF ALL DEMANDS FOR WAGES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ...  , ON
ACCOUNT OF WAGES, IN RESPECT OF THE PAST VOYAGE OR ENGAGEMENT."  ID.,
644. 

RESPONDENT, THE WATERMAN COMPANY, HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT WHEN
THE CREWS OF THE "BIENVILLE" AND "FAIRLAND" RECEIVED THEIR WAGES AND
SIGNED OFF STATUTORY ARTICLES IN MOBILE, ALL TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT AND
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP OF THESE MEN WERE AT AN END.  FROM THIS
PREMISE, THE COMPANY INSISTS THAT VACANCIES WERE CREATED AS THE MEN
SIGNED OFF AND, UNDER AN OUTSTANDING CONTRACT WITH THE I.S.U.,
PREFERENCE IN FILLING THESE VACANCIES HAD TO BE GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF THE
I.S.U. UNLESS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS WERE TO BE VIOLATED.  FN5
HOWEVER, THE BOARD CONTENDS THAT THE SIGNING OFF OF ARTICLES WHEN THE
SHIP'S VOYAGE ENDED AT MOBILE SERVED ONLY TO END EMPLOYMENT "IN RESPECT
OF THE PAST VOYAGE OR ENGAGEMENT" AND, THEREFORE, IT PROCEEDED TO
EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS, AFTER COMPLETION
OF THE VOYAGES IN QUESTION OF THE "BIENVILLE" AND "FAIRLAND," A
CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP, TENURE, TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT
BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND ITS MEN.  THE ACT PROVIDES  FN6  THAT 

"IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER - TO INTERFERE
WITH  ...  (THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELFORGANIZATION). 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY
TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP
IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:  ..." 

THE PROTECTION TO SEAMEN EMBODIED IN THE FEDERAL STATUTES WHICH HAVE
BEEN REFERRED TO HAS EXISTED IN SOME FORM SINCE THE EARLIEST DAYS OF
THE NATION.  FN7  THIS STATUTORY PLAN WAS NEVER INTENDED TO FORBID THE
PARTIES FROM MUTUALLY UNDERTAKING TO ASSURE A CREW THE RIGHT TO
CONTINUE AS EMPLOYEES AND TO RE-SIGN IF IT DESIRES AFTER SIGNING OFF
ARTICLES AT A VOYAGE'S END.  THE DESIGN WAS TO PROTECT SEAMEN FROM
BEING CARRIED TO SEA AGAINST THEIR WILL; TO PREVENT MISTREATMENT AS TO
WAGES AND TO ASSURE AGAINST HARSH APPLICATION OF THE IRON LAW OF THE
SEA DURING VOYAGES.  FN8  THE BOARD, THEREFORE, PROPERLY HEARD EVIDENCE
AS TO WHETHER THE CREWS OF THE "BIENVILLE" AND "FAIRLAND" HAD, UNLESS
DISCHARGED FOR CAUSE, A CONTINUING TENURE OR RELATIONSHIP ENTITLING
THEM TO RE-SIGN WHEN THE TEMPORARY LAY-UPS OF THEIR SHIPS ENDED.  IF,
AS THE BOARD FOUND, THERE WERE SUCH CONTINUING TENURE AND CUSTOMARY
TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, OF COURSE NO VACANCIES OCCURRED WHEN
THE MEN OF THE "BIENVILLE" AND THE "FAIRLAND" SIGNED OFF ARTICLES IN
MOBILE.  AND RESPONDENT'S CONTRACT WITH THE I.S.U., WHICH ONLY PROVIDED
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF THE I.S.U. (A.F. OF L.)  IN FILLING
VACANCIES, DID NOT REQUIRE THE COMPANY TO DISCHARGE THE N.M.U.
(C.I.O.)  MEN FROM THESE SHIPS. 

IF, THEREFORE, THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
FINDINGS THAT THESE CREWS HAD A CONTINUING RIGHT TO AND CUSTOMARY
TENURE, TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT
EVEN THOUGH THEIR SHIPS WERE TEMPORARILY LAID UP, AND THAT THIS
RELATIONSHIP WAS TERMINATED BY THE COMPANY BECAUSE OF THE CREWS' C.I.O.
AFFILIATION, THE COURT BELOW WAS REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S
ORDER. 

EVIDENCE AS TO THE CONTINUING TENURE, AND CONDITIONS AND RELATION OF
EMPLOYMENT.  ON THE BASIS OF NINE TO TEN YEARS AT SEA, ONE WITNESS
TESTIFIED THAT A SHIP'S CREW IS CUSTOMARILY KEPT ON WHEN SHE GOES INTO
DRY DOCK AND IS LAID UP FOR TEMPORARY REPAIRS; AND THAT BOTH THE
WATERMAN COMPANY AND THE UNIONS HAD OBSERVED THAT CUSTOM.  ANOTHER,
WITH A BACKGROUND OF TEN YEARS EXPERIENCE AT SEA, IN VISITING SOME
FIFTY SHIPS IN DRY DOCK AT MOBILE DURING THE PRECEDING FEW MONTHS HAD
LEARNED OF FORTY-NINE WHICH HAD NOT LAID OFF THEIR ENTIRE CREWS BUT HAD
KEPT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THEIR CREWS WORKING ABOARD SHIPS; THE
FIFTIETH HAD LAID OFF ITS ENTIRE CREW AFTER GOING INTO DRY DOCK, BUT
"THE COMPANY KEPT THE JOBS OPEN."  HE KNEW OF ONE VESSEL THAT HAD
REMAINED "IN DRY DOCK FOR A PERIOD OF FORTY-FIVE DAYS AND MAINTAINED
ITS CREW DURING THAT PERIOD," SEVERAL WHICH HAD DONE SO RECENTLY FOR
THIRTY-DAY PERIODS, AND MANY FOR PERIODS "FROM FIVE TO TEN DAYS,
FIFTEEN DAYS."  HE HAD HIMSELF BEEN A MEMBER OF A CREW MAINTAINED IN
ITS ENTIRETY WHILE HIS SHIP WAS IN DRY DOCK FOR TWENTY-TWO DAYS. 

AN OILER AND DECK ENGINEER, WITH EIGHT YEARS IN THE SERVICE, HAD BEEN
ON A WATERMAN SHIP WHICH, AS RECENTLY AS 1936, SPENT SIX DAYS IN
REPAIRS, KEEPING ITS CREW ON; AND HAD "KNOWN THEM TO STAY ON FIFTEEN OR
TWENTY DAYS AND CONTINUE WORKING THAT LONG."  ASKED WHAT OBLIGATION AN
EMPLOYER OWES A SAILOR AFTER THE LATTER RETURNS FROM A FOREIGN VOYAGE,
COMPLETES HIS CONTRACT UNDER THE SHIP'S ARTICLES, IS PAID OFF AND
DISCHARGED BEFORE A SHIPPING COMMISSIONER, HE ANSWERED "IF MY SERVICES
ARE SATISFACTORY AND MY WORK EFFICIENT, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAY ON
THAT SHIP, IF I HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO BE DISCHARGED FOR.  WHY
SHOULDN'T I MAKE ANOTHER TRIP?  ...  Q. IS IT TRUE TO STATE THAT A
SEAMAN'S JOB IS STILL EXISTENT, ALTHOUGH HE MAY NOT BE DRAWING PAY
WHILE THE BOAT IS TIED UP FOR REPAIRS?  A. YES, SIR.  Q. THERE IS NO
VACANCY IN HIS JOB?  A. NO; THERE IS NO VACANCY." 

THE CHIEF STEWARD OF THE "BIENVILLE," EMPLOYED BY WATERMAN SINCE 1934
AND A SEAMAN SINCE 1918, TESTIFIED THAT CREWS OF SHIPS IN DRY DOCK -
TIED UP FOR REPAIRS FOR A FEW DAYS - "HAVE TO DO THEIR WORK AND GET
PAID FOR IT BY THE WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION" AND UNLESS THEY QUIT
OR ARE FIRED "FOR CAUSE" THERE IS NO VACANCY.  THE GIVING OF A
DISCHARGE ACCORDING TO THE SHIP'S ARTICLES, HE UNDERSTOOD "TO BE A
TERMINATION OF THE VOYAGE, BUT NOT A TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT." 

ALTHOUGH AT SEA BUT THREE YEARS, A FIREMAN AND OILER TESTIFIED THAT
HE HAD BEEN RE-SIGNED, UPON THE TERMINATION OF ARTICLES, AFTER EACH OF
FOURTEEN TRIPS ON A SINGLE SHIP, FROM SOUTHERN PORTS INCLUDING MOBILE,
HAD BEEN KEPT AS A MEMBER OF A CREW ON A SHIP IN FOR REPAIRS NINE DAYS
AND HAD "KNOWN OF ONE SHIP THAT WAS LAID UP (FOR LACK OF CARGO) FOR
FIVE WEEKS AND THE CREW WENT BACK." 

A MARINE FIREMAN, OILER AND WATERTENDER, AT SEA SINCE 1922, HAD BEEN
ON A WATERMAN SHIP IN FOR REPAIRS TEN OR TWELVE DAYS, THE CREW OF WHICH
WAS RETAINED ONLY IN PART, BUT THOSE LAID OFF "WERE NOTIFIED WHEN THE
SHIP WENT INTO COMMISSION THEY CAN GO OUT AGAIN."  HE "WAS ON ONE
(SHIP) THAT STAYED TWO MONTHS IN DRY DOCK  ...  JUST PART OF THE CREW
...  (WERE KEPT ON, BUT) THE WHOLE CREW WAS THERE FOR THEIR JOBS WHEN
SHE WAS COMMISSIONED AGAIN."  HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF A MASS DISCHARGE OF
AN ENTIRE CREW SUCH AS OCCURRED ON THE "BIENVILLE" AND "FAIRLAND."  IN
PART, THE TESTIMONY OF THIS FORMER I.S.U. MEMBER WAS:  "Q.  DO THE
UNIONS CONSIDER THAT THERE IS NO VACANCY UNTIL A MAN RESIGNS?  A. YES;
THEY DO NOT FIGURE IT IS ANY VACANCY UNTIL THEY CALL THE (UNION) HALL
FOR ANOTHER MAN." 

A SEAMAN IN THE EMPLOY OF THE WATERMAN COMPANY INTERMITTENTLY SINCE
1924, HAD BEEN ON A WATERMAN BOAT WHICH KEPT ITS WHOLE CREW DURING SIX
OR SEVEN DAYS IN DRY DOCK.  IT HAD BEEN HIS EXPERIENCE THAT A CREW WAS
KEPT ON SHIPS IN DRY DOCK OR BEING REPAIRED, UNLESS A SHIP WAS TO BE
LAID UP INDEFINITELY, I.E., FOR TWO OR THREE MONTHS, IN WHICH EVENT
ONLY A SKELETON CREW WOULD BE MAINTAINED.  BUT, HE ADDED, THE WATERMAN
COMPANY ITSELF FOLLOWS THE CUSTOM OF "CALLING BACK TO THE SHIP" MEN WHO
HAVE BEEN LAID OFF INDEFINITELY AND "ARE STILL AROUND," AND MEN
STANDING IDLY BY WITHOUT PAY AT THE END OF A VOYAGE STILL REGARD
THEMSELVES IN THE EMPLOY OF THE SHIPOWNER.    ONE WITNESS HAD SERVED AS
A FIREMAN ON A WATERMAN SHIP THAT SPENT THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE FIRST OF
NOVEMBER AND THANKSGIVING OF 1932 IN DRY DOCK AND UNDERGOING REPAIRS;
SHE KEPT "APPROXIMATELY ALL OF" HER CREW ABOARD SHIP WORKING DURING
THIS PERIOD; A FEW WERE PERMITTED TO GO HOME IN THE INTERIM, BUT
RETURNED WHEN SHE STARTED HER VOYAGE.  ON ANOTHER OCCASION, HE
TESTIFIED, THE SAME WATERMAN BOAT STAYED IN DRY DOCK ABOUT SIXTY DAYS,
RETAINING APPROXIMATELY THE ENTIRE CREW; ALTHOUGH AFTER FIVE DAYS IN
DRY DOCK HE WAS CALLED OUT OF TOWN TO APPEAR AS A WITNESS, HE LATER GOT
HIS JOB BACK.  IN HIS CAPACITY AS A SHIPYARD WORKER IN WHICH HE WAS
EMPLOYED AT MOBILE AT THE TIME OF THIS HEARING, THIS SAME WITNESS
OBSERVED "WE HAVE BOATS COMING IN FROM TWENTY-FIVE UP TO THIRTY DAYS
...  AND THE CREW WORKS IN THERE, AND THEY MAY WANT TO LAY OFF PART OF
THE CREW, OR WORK A MAJOR PART, OR MAYBE THEY WILL BE DISCHARGED, BUT
THOSE THAT WANT TO GO BACK, THEIR JOBS IS OPEN IF THEY WISH THEM."  OF
SOME SIX HUNDRED SHIPS HE HAD SEEN OR WORKED ON IN DRY DOCK OR BEING
REPAIRED, HE HAD SEEN BUT ONE COMPLETE DISCHARGE OF AN ENTIRE CREW, BUT
EVEN THAT CREW WERE TOLD THEY COULD COME BACK "IF THEY WANTED THEIR
JOBS."  ACCORDING TO HIS UNDERSTANDING AND THAT OF SEAMEN AS HE KNEW
IT, ARTICLES WERE "PROTECTION TO THE SEAMEN BY THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT FOR A CERTAIN VOYAGE, AND TO A CERTAIN PORT, OR YOUR FINAL
PORT OF DISCHARGE OR FIRST LOADING PORT.  THAT IS A TERMINATION OF THE
ARTICLES TO THE SEAMAN, BUT NOT THE END OF THE EMPLOYMENT." 

A WITNESS WHO HAD WORKED FOR THE WATERMAN COMPANY SINCE 1929, WHO HAD
BEEN A MARINE ENGINEER FOR FOURTEEN YEARS, AND AT SEA TWENTY YEARS,
TESTIFIED THAT A CREW WHICH IS LAID OFF IS CUSTOMARILY RE-EMPLOYED WHEN
A SHIP EMERGES FROM DRY DOCK, UNLESS LAID OFF "FOR CAUSE."  A WATERMAN
SHIP, ON WHICH HE HAD BEEN AT THE TIME SERVING, LAID UP IN MOBILE FROM
DECEMBER, 1936, TO ABOUT JANUARY 25, 1937, "AND THE ENGINEERS WERE KEPT
ON HER, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THE FIREMEN AND WATERTENDERS
AND OILERS WERE KEPT ON THERE." 

THE EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE WATERMAN COMPANY RECALLED THAT
RECENTLY THE CREW OF ONLY ONE OTHER VESSEL GOING IN FOR REPAIRS HAD
BEEN DISCHARGED, AND THAT THIS PARTICULAR CREW ALSO HAD BEEN AFFILIATED
WITH THE N.M.U. (C.I.O.).  OF THE SEVERAL WATERMAN VESSELS WHICH HE
MENTIONED AS HAVING BEEN PUT UP IN MOBILE FOR DRY-DOCKING OR REPAIRS
DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, HE COULD NOTE ONLY THE ONE THAT HAD NOT KEPT
ITS ENTIRE CREW (OTHER THAN THE "BIENVILLE" AND "FAIRLAND"); THE ONE
OTHER CREW THAT WAS DISCHARGED EN MASSE, HE ADMITTED, WAS THE ONE OTHER
ALSO AFFILIATED WITH THE C.I.O. 

THE WITNESS WHO HAD BEEN CAPTAIN OF THE "FAIRLAND" WHEN SHE WENT INTO
DRY DOCK, HAD SERVED THE WATERMAN COMPANY CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 1924, WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF ONE YEAR, IN CAPACITIES RANGING FROM ORDINARY SEAMAN
TO SHIP'S MASTER.  YET, IN ALL HIS EXPERIENCE WITH THE COMPANY, HE HAD
NEVER HEARD OF A SHIP IN DRY DOCK THAT HAD LAID OFF HER ENTIRE CREW. 
AND WATERMAN'S PORT CAPTAIN, A VETERAN OF TWENTY-FOUR YEARS, HAD TAKEN
PERHAPS A HALF DOZEN OF WATERMAN SHIPS INTO DRY DOCK, NEVER STAYING
MORE THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS IN DRY DOCK BUT WITH A TOTAL OF EIGHT TO
TEN DAYS IN PORT, AND HIS CREWS WERE NEVER LAID OFF; HE PREFERRED TO
RETAIN A CREW FOR A SUCCEEDING VOYAGE. 

IN THE VERY CONTRACT WHICH THE WATERMAN COMPANY MADE WITH THE I.S.U.
THERE ARE TERMS PROVIDING THAT "IN HOME PORT, ALL MEN MAY BE REQUIRED
TO WORK EIGHT (8) HOURS DAILY  ...  (WITH PROVISION FOR OVERTIME)." 
AND THE SECTION OF THE CONTRACT COVERING PREFERENCE FOR I.S.U. MEN
"SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE DISCHARGE OF ANY EMPLOYEE WHO
MAY NOT DESIRE TO JOIN THE (I.S.U.)  ...  " THAT THE CONTRACT
CONTEMPLATED AN EMPLOYMENT INDEPENDENT OF THE ARTICLES AND SUBJECT TO
TERMINATION IN A MANNER OTHER THAN BY THE MERE EXPIRATION OF ARTICLES,
IS APPARENT FROM THE PROVISION THAT "NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL
PREVENT  ...  (THE COMPANY) FROM DISCHARGING ANY MEMBER OF THE CREW WHO
IS NOT SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY." 

ALL THE EVIDENCE ON THIS ISSUE WHICH THE BOARD HAD BEFORE IT HAS, OF
COURSE, NOT BEEN SET OUT.  IN SUMMARY, IT IS GLARINGLY APPARENT THAT
MEN WHO HAD IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES FOLLOWED THE SEA IN THE AGGREGATE FOR
ROUGHLY A HUNDRED YEARS, OFFERED TESTIMONY THAT A SEAMAN'S TENURE AND
RELATIONSHIP TO HIS SHIP AND EMPLOYER ARE NOT TERMINATED BY THE MERE
EXPIRATION OF ARTICLES WHEN HIS SHIP LAYS UP IN DRY DOCK OR FOR
REPAIRS, AND THAT THE WATERMAN COMPANY - AND MARITIME PEOPLE GENERALLY
HAVE RECOGNIZED AND FOLLOWED THIS CUSTOM.  EVEN THE WATERMAN COMPANY'S
EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT COULD CITE ONLY ONE INSTANCE IN THE COMPANY'S
RECENT PAST IN WHICH THIS CUSTOM HAD BEEN DEPARTED FROM, BUT THAT
PARTICULAR MASS FIRING OF THE CREW OF A SHIP HEADED FOR A TEMPORARY LAY
UP WAS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ONLY C.I.O. CREW, OTHER THAN THOSE OF THE
"BIENVILLE" AND "FAIRLAND," WITH WHICH THE WATERMAN COMPANY APPARENTLY
HAD BEEN ASKED TO DEAL.  AND THE MASTER OF THE "FAIRLAND," WITH
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMPANY'S PRACTICE REACHING BACK TO 1924, HAD
NEVER HEARD OF "ANOTHER CASE WHERE THE ENTIRE CREW WAS LAID OFF." 

IN THE WORDS OF THE ACT, AN EMPLOYER CANNOT TERMINATE HIS
EMPLOYEES'"TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT"
FN9  BECAUSE OF UNION ACTIVITY OR AFFILIATION.  THESE WORDS ARE NOT
LIMITED SO AS TO OUTLAW DISCRIMINATION ONLY WHERE THERE IS IN EXISTENCE
A FORMAL CONTRACT OR RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE.  THEY EMBRACE, AS WELL, ALL ELEMENTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONSHIP WHICH IN FACT CUSTOMARILY ATTEND EMPLOYMENT AND WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH AN EMPLOYER'S DISCRIMINATION MAY AS READILY BE THE
MEANS OF INTERFERING WITH EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AS IF
THESE ELEMENTS WERE PRECISE TERMS OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT. 
THE ACT, AS HAS BEEN SAID, RECOGNIZES THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE
EMPLOYMENT FOR NORMAL REASONS.  FN10  NO OBSTACLE OF LEGAL PRINCIPLE
BARRED THE BOARD FROM FINDING THAT THERE WAS, EVEN AFTER THE SHIPS WERE
TEMPORARILY LAID UP, A RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYMENT OR TENURE BETWEEN THE
WATERMAN COMPANY AND ITS MEN.  THAT THERE MAY BE A TENURE OR TERM OF
EMPLOYMENT DETERMINABLE AT WILL IS A RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF LAW.  FN11
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT EMPLOYMENT IS AT
WILL AND TERMINABLE AT ANY TIME BY EITHER PARTY.  FN12  A LARGE PART OF
ALL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT IS OF THIS NATURE.  FOR ILLUSTRATION, FACTORY
WORKERS ARE CUSTOMARILY EMPLOYED AT WILL, WITHOUT OBLIGATION OF
EMPLOYER OR EMPLOYED TO CONTINUE THE RELATIONSHIP WHEN THE DAY'S WORK
IS DONE; OR, IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT FIXING SALARY OR WAGES PER UNIT
OF SERVICE, AT SO MUCH PER DAY, WEEK OR MONTH, THERE MAY BE AN
INDEFINITE EMPLOYMENT TERMINABLE BY EITHER PARTY AT THE END OF ANY UNIT
PERIOD.  BUT WHEN SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY CONTINUED IN THEIR
EMPLOYMENT WITH RECOGNITION OF THEIR PREFERENTIAL CLAIMS TO THEIR JOBS,
IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THEIR WHOLESALE DISCHARGE AT THE END OF THE
DAY OR OTHER UNIT PERIOD, IN ORDER TO FAVOR ONE UNION OVER ANOTHER,
WOULD BE DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO THE "TENURE" OR "CONDITION" OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  AND EMPLOYEES UNDER SUCH
TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT AS THESE SEAMEN WERE, HAVE A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY
THE ACT THAT THEY WILL NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF AFFILIATION WITH A
PARTICULAR UNION. 

SINCE THE BOARD JUSTIFIABLY FOUND THAT AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
PROTECTED BY THE ACT CONTINUED AFTER THE "BIENVILLE" AND "FAIRLAND"
WERE TEMPORARILY LAID UP, IT BECOMES UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE
ADDITIONAL FINDING OF THE BOARD THAT THE "DATES AND DURATION OF THE
PARTICULAR LAY-UPS WERE ARRANGED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING IT POSSIBLE
TO DISCHARGE THE CREWS BECAUSE THEY HAD JOINED THE N.M.U." 

THE SOLE QUESTION REMAINING IS WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD THAT THE EMPLOYMENT OR TENURE OF THE CREWS AND OF
O'CONNOR AND PELLETIER WERE TERMINATED BECAUSE THEY HAD JOINED OR
ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE C.I.O. 

EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF C.I.O. AFFILIATION.  ABOUT JULY
1, 1937, THE ENTIRE CREW OF THE "BIENVILLE" AND ALL BUT THREE OF THE
"FAIRLAND," PREVIOUSLY I.S.U. (A.F. OF L.), JOINED THE N.M.U. (C.I.O.) 
IN TAMPA, FLORIDA.  SUCH ACTION HAD BEEN DECIDED ON IN JUNE BY THE CREW
OF THE "BIENVILLE" WHILE SHE WAS IN LE HAVRE, FRANCE AFTER THE CREW OF
THE "BIENVILLE" CHANGED TO THE C.I.O. AT TAMPA AND BEFORE SHE REACHED
MOBILE, THE AF. OF L. REPRESENTATIVE AT TAMPA INFORMED THE A.F. OF L.
REPRESENTATIVE AT MOBILE, BY TELEPHONE, THAT THE CHANGE HAD TAKEN
PLACE.  AND THE MOBILE A.F. OF L. REPRESENTATIVE "AT THAT TIME"
NOTIFIED THE WATERMAN COMPANY OF THE CHANGE.  INTERVENING SCHEDULED
STOPS OF THE "BIENVILLE" WERE CANCELLED BY A MEMORANDUM PURPORTING TO
HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ON JULY 1 AND ORDERING HER TO MOBILE TO "GO ON
INACTIVE STATUS FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT TWENTY DAYS."  THE PORT CAPTAIN
OF THE WATERMAN COMPANY, WHO SIGNED THIS MEMORANDUM, STATED THAT IT WAS
WRITTEN ON JULY 1, "TO THE BEST OF  ...  (HIS) KNOWLEDGE."  HE ADDED
THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN UNTIL AFTER THE "BIENVILLE" WAS ON HER
RETURN VOYAGE FROM LE HAVRE.  THAT WAS AFTER THE SHIP'S CREW HAD, IN
ASSEMBLY, DETERMINED TO TURN C.I.O.  NO SUCH CANCELLATION WAS DIRECTED
TO THE "FAIRLAND."  THE "FAIRLAND," HE TESTIFIED, WAS LAID UP BECAUSE
PERIODIC REPAIRS "WERE DUE."  ON THE OTHER HAND, HER MASTER HAD NO
KNOWLEDGE OF ANY CONTEMPLATED LAY-UP UNTIL SHE REACHED MOBILE, AND
UNDERSTOOD, ACCORDING TO ADVICE GIVEN HIM, THAT SHE WAS LAID UP BECAUSE
"SHE WAS BEHIND SCHEDULE  ...  AND THEY PUT HER BACK TO THE NEXT
SAILING."  THE WATERMAN PORT CAPTAIN THOUGHT SHE WAS LAID UP BECAUSE
REPAIRS "WERE DUE"; HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS
BEHIND SCHEDULE.  HER MASTER'S TESTIMONY SHOWED, "Q. THE LAYING UP
PLAN, THEN, HAD BEEN SOMETHING THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN TAMPA? 

"NO, SIR. 

"Q.  IT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER YOU SAILED FROM
TAMPA AND BEFORE YOU CAME TO MOBILE, IS THAT RIGHT? 

"A.  YES." 

THE "FAIRLAND" IS EQUIPPED WITH RADIO. 

THE SHIPS WERE IN MOBILE BY JULY 6.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT A
MEMBER OF THE CREW OF THE "BIENVILLE," ON THE SIXTH, WAS ASKED BY THE
EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY WHY THE CHANGE OF UNIONS WAS
MADE AND WAS TOLD BY THAT OFFICIAL "A MAN HAS TO USE HIS OWN HEAD." 
THIS SAME WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT SEVERAL OF THE DISCHARGED CREW WERE
GIVEN SOME WORK ASHORE AND THAT "ON A SATURDAY AFTERNOON WE COLLECTED
THREE DAYS PAY, THEY HELD BACK TWO DAYS IN THE WEEK, AND ABOUT THREE
O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON THE FIRST ASSISTANT CAME AROUND THERE AND I
WAS WORKING ON SOME SAFETY VALVES ON THE BOILERS, AND  ...  (THE
ASSISTANT PORT ENGINEER OF WATERMAN COMPANY) SAID, 'WELL, I GOT A
CHANCE TO FIRE YOU AT LAST,' AND I SAID, 'WHAT IS THAT?'  AND HE SAID,
'WELL, YOU CAN GET THE REST OF YOUR MONEY WHEN YOU ARE FINISHED,' AND I
SAID, 'WHAT'S THE MATTER, AREN'T WE GOING TO SAIL THE SHIP?'  AND HE
SAID, 'NO, NOT UNLESS YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER PLACE,' AND I SAID,
'WHAT OTHER PLACE?'  AND HE SAID, 'THE I.S.U.'" 

PELLETIER, THE STEWARD ON THE "BIENVILLE" WORKED FOR WATERMAN FROM
1934 UNTIL DISCHARGED AFTER JOINING THE N.M.U. (C.I.O.).  WHEN THE
"BIENVILLE" ARRIVED AT MOBILE, WATERMAN'S PORT STEWARD WENT TO THE
BOAT, AND TALKED WITH THE MATE, WHO INFORMED HIM THAT SOME OF THE MEN
HAD JOINED THE N.M.U.  ACCORDING TO THE PORT STEWARD'S TESTIMONY, HE
THEN ASKED THE MATE, "HOW IS THE STEWARD'S DEPARTMENT?"  AND THE MATE
REPLIED, "WELL SOME OF THEM JOINED THE N.M.U.  ...  AND LATER ON I (THE
PORT STEWARD) FOUND THE STEWARD IN HIS ROOM.  ...  I ASKED PELLETIER
DID HE JOIN THE N.M.U. AND HE SAID 'YES', AND I SAID 'WHAT ABOUT THE
REST OF YOUR CREW?'  AND HE SAID 'WELL, THEY ALL DID.'  I ASKED HIM DID
THEY HAVE ANY REASON FOR IT, AND HE SAID, 'YES, EVERYBODY DID', SO I
SAID 'ALL RIGHT' AND I LEFT THE SHIP."  HE RETURNED TO THE COMPANY'S
OFFICE.  TWO HOURS LATER, HE CAME BACK TO THE SHIP, CHARGED PELLETIER
WITH INCOMPETENCY AND DISCHARGED HIM.  PELLETIER TESTIFIED THAT THE
PORT STEWARD, WHEN TOLD THAT THE CREW AND PELLETIER HAD TURNED N.M.U.
SAID, "WELL I HAVE GOT ORDERS TO LAY YOU ALL OFF."  PELLETIER HAD BEEN
PROMOTED JUST PRIOR TO THE VOYAGE IN QUESTION.  A NEW I.S.U. MAN WAS
PUT ON TO FINISH UP HIS WORK AND REMAINED ON AS WATCHMAN PRACTICALLY
THE FULL TIME THE "BIENVILLE" WAS LAID UP. 

ALTHOUGH HER CAPTAIN HAD, PRIOR TO THE COMING ABOARD OF A COMPANY
OFFICIAL, EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO KEEP THE "FAIRLAND'S" CREW, AS ONE OF
HER CREW TESTIFIED, THE CREW WAS INFORMED BY THIS OFFICIAL THAT THEY
COULD NOT SAIL, "BUT IF YOU TAKE YOUR BOOKS AND GIVE THEM TO  ...  THE
I.S.U. YOU CAN KEEP YOUR JOBS"; ANOTHER WATERMAN OFFICIAL "TOLD ME I
COULD NOT SAIL ON ANY WATERMAN STEAMSHIP AS LONG AS I WAS AN N.M.U.
MAN."  ACCORDING TO THIS WITNESS, HE HAD LEFT HIS CLOTHES ON THE
"FAIRLAND" AND SLEPT ABOARD SHIP WHEN SHE WAS IN DRY DOCK WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING HE WOULD RE-SIGN; HE WAS, HOWEVER, ORDERED OFF THE SHIP. 

AN ENGINEER ON THE WATERMAN VESSEL "AZALEA CITY," EIGHT YEARS WITH
THE COMPANY, O'CONNOR, A MEMBER OF THE M.E.B.A., (ALSO AFFILIATED WITH
THE C.I.O.)  TESTIFIED THAT HE ACTED AS SPOKESMAN FOR OTHER ENGINEERS
ON HIS SHIP IN COMPLAINING ABOUT WORKING CONDITIONS, HOURS OF
EMPLOYMENT AND RATES OF PAY; WHEN HE DISCUSSED THE COMPLAINT WITH THE
COMPANY'S REPRESENTATIVE, DURING JULY, HE WAS TOLD TO TAKE A VACATION
AND LEFT THE SHIP ON A PROMISE OF A MORE DESIRABLE JOB; NEITHER THE
VACATION, THE PROMISED JOB, NOR RE-EMPLOYMENT OF ANY KIND WAS EVER
GIVEN HIM.  WATERMAN'S EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT HAD NEVER HAD AN
ENGINEER ACT IN SUCH A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY RELATIVE TO ASSERTED
VIOLATIONS OF A UNION CONTRACT.  AND THE ASSISTANT PORT ENGINEER STATED
THAT IT WAS THE CUSTOM TO CALL A MAN OF O'CONNOR'S RANK WHEN NOT ON
VACATION; THAT O'CONNOR HAD BEEN PROMISED AND THEN DENIED A VACATION,
BUT HAD NOT BEEN CALLED ALTHOUGH WORK HAD BEEN AVAILABLE; AND, IN
ADDITION THAT O'CONNOR HAD IN CONVERSATION WITH HIM ASKED "WOULD
WATERMAN GIVE ME EMPLOYMENT."    THE EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE
COMPANY WOULD NOT "UNTIL THE ACTUAL TIME CAME" ANSWER THE QUERY WHETHER
HE WOULD REINSTATE THE N.M.U. MEN EVEN IF THERE WERE NO CONTRACT WITH
THE I.S.U.  HE STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A WIRE FROM THE BOARD'S
REGIONAL DIRECTOR AT NEW ORLEANS ON JULY 7, RECOMMENDING AND INSISTING
ON REINSTATEMENT OF N.M.U. MEN DISMISSED AT MOBILE, AND DID NOT DENY
THAT HE HAD FIRST TOLD THE DIRECTOR THAT HIS REASON FOR NOT WORKING
N.M.U. MEN WAS THE EXISTENCE OF THE I.S.U. CONTRACT.  HE ADMITTED,
HOWEVER, THAT LATER ON THE SAME DAY HIS DECISION THAT THE MEN WERE
REMOVED BECAUSE THE VESSELS WERE LAYING UP WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN
APPARENT CHANGE OF HIS OWN MIND. 

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THE DISCHARGED N.M.U. MEN WERE AGAIN TREATED
WITH DISCRIMINATION IN THE ALLOTMENT OF REPAIR WORK ON THE "BIENVILLE"
AND "FAIRLAND"; AND WERE LAID OFF IN A BLOCK EVEN FROM THIS WORK - ALL
TENDED TO BUTTRESS AND ILLUMINATE THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE TENURE
OF EMPLOYMENT OF THESE MEN OF THE "BIENVILLE" AND "FAIRLAND" WAS CUT
SHORT BECAUSE THEY HAD EXERCISED THEIR LAWFUL RIGHT TO JOIN THE C.I.O.
ONE OF THE MEN WHO WAS GIVEN TEMPORARY REPAIR WORK - SUBSEQUENT TO THE
BOARD'S TELEGRAM OF THE SEVENTH - TESTIFIED: 

"Q.  WHILE YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE N.M.U., DID YOU EVER WEAR YOUR
N.M.U. BADGE OR BUTTON? 

"A.  YES, SIR; I USED TO WEAR IT ON MY CAP, ON THE DOCK WHILE I WAS
WORKING DOWN THERE. 

"Q.  WAS THERE ANYTHING EVER SAID TO YOU AT THE WATERMAN STEAMSHIP
ABOUT WEARING IT? 

"A.  MR. INGRAM TOLD ME I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT MARITIME UNION
BUTTON OFF IF I WANTED TO STAY AROUND THERE, AND I TOOK IT OFF, AND PUT
IT IN MY POCKET." 

FROM ALL THIS EVIDENCE, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL
SUPPORT FOR THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT THE CREWS, O'CONNOR AND PELLETIER
ALL LOST THEIR JOBS BECAUSE OF C.I.O. AFFILIATION AND ACTIVITIES. 

EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION AS TO SHIPS' PASSES.   - THE BOARD FOUND
"THAT THE RESPONDENT, BY ISSUING PASSES TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
I.S.U. AND REFUSING TO GRANT SUCH PASSES TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
N.M.U. FOR THE SAME PURPOSE AND UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS, HAD
INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE
OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7 OF THE ACT."  FN13  AN ELECTION
TO PERMIT A CHOICE OF BARGAINING AGENCY BY THE CREWS HAS BEEN DIRECTED
BUT HAS NOT BEEN HELD PENDING TERMINATION OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDING. 
FN14 

UPON THIS ISSUE OF DISCRIMINATION CONCERNING PASSES, N.M. U.'S
REPRESENTATIVE TESTIFIED THAT THE COMPANY'S EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT,
ABOUT SEPTEMBER 24 OR 25, 1937, REFUSED HIS REQUEST "FOR PASSES FOR THE
ELECTION OF THE N.L.R.B."  BECAUSE OF THE I.S.U. CONTRACT.  BUT NO
PROVISION OF THE I.S.U. CONTRACT REFERRED TO SHIPS' PASSES FOR
REPRESENTATIVES OF OTHER UNIONS.  THE RESPONDENT'S ATTORNEY TOOK THE
POSITION THAT N.M.U. REPRESENTATIVES WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED ON BOARD
UNDER ANY CONDITIONS.  TESTIFYING THAT I.S.U. REPRESENTATIVES WERE
PERMITTED ABOARD THE "BIENVILLE" AT ALL TIMES TO CONTACT THE MEN,
PELLETIER "DID NOT RECOLLECT SEEING ANYONE WITH THEM."  WATERMAN'S
EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT WHO POINTED OUT THAT I.S.U. DELEGATES WERE
GIVEN PASSES ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, SUCH AS TAKING OUT INSURANCE FOR
DELEGATES GOING ABOARD, DID NOT KNOW WHETHER IN FACT THERE HAD BEEN
COMPLIANCE BY THE I.S.U. WITH THE CONDITIONS.  HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD
ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS, JULY 13, TO PERMIT I.S.U. REPRESENTATIVES ABOARD
SHIP ONLY TO COLLECT DUES.  BUT HE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE STILL
PERMITTED TO CONTACT MEMBERS.  THE MASTER OF THE "FAIRLAND" STATED THAT
HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE INSTRUCTIONS OF JULY 13 UNTIL AUGUST; AND THAT
EVEN AFTER THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE PUT IN EFFECT, HE PERMITTED I.S.U.
REPRESENTATIVES TO BOARD SHIP UNACCOMPANIED; HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY
SAID TO THE MEN, WHETHER THEY BROUGHT LITERATURE ABOARD OR WHETHER THEY
RESTRICTED THEMSELVES TO THE COLLECTION OF DUES.  ALTHOUGH ALWAYS
PRESENT AT THE PAYING OFF AND SIGNING OFF OF ARTICLES, WHEN THE I.S.U.
REPRESENTATIVES COLLECTED DUES, THE COMPANY'S PORT CAPTAIN "DID NOT PAY
ANY STRICT ATTENTION WHATEVER TO WHAT THEY WERE DOING."  ASKED WHETHER
HE KNEW WHAT THESE REPRESENTATIVES DID AT SUCH TIMES, HE REPLIED, "I
DID NOT FOLLOW THEM AROUND TO SEE WHAT THEY WERE DOING." 

ENOUGH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO ESTABLISH THE REASONS FOR THE BOARD'S
DECISION THAT IF THE COMPANY WAS TO PERMIT ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR CONTACT
WITH THE MEN, A FAIR ELECTION REQUIRED THAT EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES BE
GIVEN TO BOTH THE C.I.O. AND THE A.F. OF L. THE CONTROL OF THE ELECTION
PROCEEDING, AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE STEPS NECESSARY TO CONDUCT
THAT ELECTION FAIRLY WERE MATTERS WHICH CONGRESS ENTRUSTED TO THE BOARD
ALONE.  FN15  INTERFERENCE IN THOSE MATTERS CONSTITUTED ERROR ON THE
PART OF THE COURT BELOW. 

ALL OF THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT MUCH OF WHAT HAS BEEN RELATED WAS
UNCONTRADICTED AND UNDENIED BY EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE COMPANY AND BY
THE TESTIMONY OF ITS OFFICERS.  WE HAVE ONLY DELINEATED FROM THIS
RECORD OF MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED PAGES THE BASIS OF OUR CONCLUSION THAT
ALL OF THE BOARD'S FINDINGS, FAR FROM RESTING ON MERE SUSPICION, ARE
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS'
FAILURE TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER RESULTED FROM THE SUBSTITUTION OF
ITS JUDGMENT ON DISPUTED FACTS FOR THE BOARD'S JUDGMENT,  - AND POWER
TO DO THAT HAS BEEN DENIED THE COURTS BY CONGRESS.  WHETHER THE COURT
WOULD REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION AS THE BOARD FROM THE CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE IS IMMATERIAL AND THE COURT'S DISAGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD
COULD NOT WARRANT THE DISREGARD OF THE STATUTORY DIVISION OF AUTHORITY
SET UP BY CONGRESS. 

THE CAUSE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH
DIRECTIONS TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. BELL OIL & GAS CO., 98 F.2D 406, REHEARING DENIED 98 F.2D
870(ALSO, 91 F.2D 509; 98 F.2D 405; 99 F.2D 56); PENINSULAR &
OCCIDENTAL S.S. CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 98 F.2D 411,
CERTIORARI DENIED, 305 U.S. 653; GLOBE COTTON MILLS V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 103 F.2D 91. 

FN2  49 STAT. 449, SEC. 10(E). 

FN3  308 U.S. 534.  CF. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V.
POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., ANTE, P. 134. 

FN4  IN OUTLINE, THE BOARD ORDERED THE WATERMAN COMPANY TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM ISSUING SHIPS' PASSES TO THE A.F. OF L. ON A FAVORED BASIS
AS COMPARED TO THE C.I.O.; FROM DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN C.I.O.
AFFILIATES BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ITS MEMBERS; AND FROM INTERFERING
WITH ITS EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND FREE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  IT AFFIRMATIVELY ORDERED THE COMPANY TO GRANT EQUAL PASSES
TO THE C.I.O. AND THE A.F. OF L., IF GRANTED TO EITHER; TO MAKE WHOLE
AND OFFER FULL REINSTATEMENT TO THOSE EMPLOYEES FOUND TO HAVE SUFFERED
DISCRIMINATION; AND TO POST APPROPRIATE NOTICES ON THE WATERMAN
VESSELS. 

FN5  IN PART, THAT CONTRACT READS:  "SECTION 1.  IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND
AGREED THAT AS VACANCIES OCCUR, MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEAMEN'S
UNION OF AMERICA, WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE GIVEN
PREFERENCE OF EMPLOYMENT, IF THEY CAN SATISFACTORILY QUALIFY TO FILL
THE RESPECTIVE POSITIONS; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SECTION SHALL
NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE DISCHARGE OF ANY EMPLOYEE WHO MAY NOT
DESIRE TO JOIN THE UNION, OR TO APPLY TO PROMPT RESHIPMENT, OR ABSENCE
DUE TO ILLNESS OR ACCIDENT."  ONLY THE DISCHARGE OF PELLETIER IS
CLAIMED BY THE COMPANY TO HAVE BEEN DUE TO INCOMPETENCY.  THE COURT
BELOW HELD THAT O'CONNOR HAD TAKEN A VACATION AND WAS NOT DISCHARGED,
AND WAS THUS ENTITLED TO VACATION PAY AND REINSTATEMENT; THE BOARD HAD
ORDERED THAT O'CONNOR BE MADE WHOLE "FOR ANY LOSS OF PAY" SUFFERED AS A
RESULT OF THE COMPANY'S ACTS WHICH THE BOARD FOUND HAD BEEN
DISCRIMINATORY. 

FN6  49 STAT. 449, 452, SECS. 7, 8. 

FN7  SEE 1 STAT. 131. 

FN8  SEE LENT TRAFFIC CO. V. GOULD, 2 F.2D 554, 556; UNITED STATES V.
WESTWOOD, 266 F. 696, 697; THE OCCIDENTAL (D.C.), 101 F. 997.  AS TO
THE HISTORY OF THIS LEGISLATION, SEE UNITED STATES V. THE BRIG GRACE
LATHROP, 95 U.S. 527. 

FN9  SEC. 8, (1), (3). 

FN10  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., 301
U.S. 1, 45. 

FN11  SEE, E.G., ALABAMA MILLS V. SMITH, 237 ALA. 296; 186 SO. 699;
PEACOCK V. VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO., 221 ALA. 680; 130 SO. 411;
GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. SUMMERS, 25 ALA. APP. 404; 148 SO.
332; CERT. DEN., 226 ALA. 635; 148 SO. 333.  CF. U.S. FIDELITY &
GUARANTY CO. V. MILLONAS, 206 ALA. 147; 89 SO. 732; 29 A.L.R. 520. 

FN12  CF. MORGAN V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 78; LYETH V. HOEY, 305
U.S. 188, 193. 

FN13  THE BOARD ORDERED, AS TO SHIPS' PASSES, THAT THE COMPANY 

"CEASE AND DESIST: 

"FROM REFUSING TO ISSUE PASSES TO AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
NATIONAL MARITIME UNION OF AMERICA IN EQUAL NUMBERS AND UNDER THE SAME
CONDITIONS AS IT GRANTS PASSES TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INTERNATIONAL
SEAMEN'S UNION OF AMERICA OR ITS SUCCESSORS; ...  " 

FN14  SEE 12 N.L.R.B. 766, 767, 769. 

FN15  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FALK CORPORATION, 308 U.S. 453. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227 


NO. 195.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 12, 1940.  - 136
FLA. 568 - 187 SO. 156, REVERSED. 


1.  CONVICTIONS OF MURDER OBTAINED IN THE STATE COURTS BY USE OF
COERCED CONFESSIONS ARE VOID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 228. 

2.  THIS COURT IS NOT CONCLUDED BY THE FINDING OF A JURY THAT A
CONFESSION BY ONE CONVICTED IN A STATE COURT OF MURDER WAS VOLUNTARY,
BUT DETERMINES THAT QUESTION FOR ITSELF FROM THE EVIDENCE.  P. 228. 

3.  CONFESSIONS OF MURDER PROCURED BY REPEATED INQUISITIONS OF
PRISONERS WITHOUT FRIENDS OR COUNSELLORS PRESENT, AND UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES CALCULATED TO INSPIRE TERROR, HELD COMPULSORY.  PP. 238
241. 

CHAMBERS ET AL. V. FLORIDA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 541, TO REVIEW CONVICTIONS OF MURDER UPON THE
QUESTION WHETHER CONFESSIONS USED IN THE TRIAL WERE IN VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE GRAVE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, GRANTED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS,  FN1  IS WHETHER PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH CONFESSIONS
WERE UTILIZED, AND WHICH CULMINATED IN SENTENCES OF DEATH UPON FOUR
YOUNG NEGRO MEN IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FAILED TO AFFORD THE SAFEGUARD
OF THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
FN2 

FIRST.  THE STATE OF FLORIDA CHALLENGES OUR JURISDICTION TO LOOK
BEHIND THE JUDGMENTS BELOW CLAIMING THAT THE ISSUES OF FACT UPON WHICH
PETITIONERS BASE THEIR CLAIM THAT DUE PROCESS WAS DENIED THEM HAVE BEEN
FINALLY DETERMINED BECAUSE PASSED UPON BY A JURY.  HOWEVER, USE BY A
STATE OF AN IMPROPERLY OBTAINED CONFESSION MAY CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN3
SINCE PETITIONERS HAVE SEASONABLY ASSERTED THE RIGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION TO HAVE THEIR GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF A CAPITAL CRIME
DETERMINED WITHOUT RELIANCE UPON CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BY MEANS
PROSCRIBED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WE
MUST DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY WHETHER PETITIONERS' CONFESSIONS WERE SO
OBTAINED, BY REVIEW OF THE FACTS UPON WHICH THAT ISSUE NECESSARILY
TURNS.  FN4 

SECOND.  THE RECORD SHOWS - 

ABOUT NINE O'CLOCK ON THE NIGHT OF SATURDAY, MAY 13, 1933, ROBERT
DARSEY, AN ELDERLY WHITE MAN, WAS ROBBED AND MURDERED IN POMPANO,
FLORIDA, A SMALL TOWN IN BROWARD COUNTY ABOUT TWELVE MILES FROM FORT
LAUDERDALE, THE COUNTY SEAT.  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
FLORIDA AFFIRMING PETITIONERS' CONVICTION FOR THIS CRIME STATED THAT
"IT WAS ONE OF THOSE CRIMES THAT INDUCED AN ENRAGED COMMUNITY  ..." 
FN5  AND, AS THE DISSENTING JUDGE POINTED OUT, "THE MURDER AND ROBBERY
OF THE ELDERLY MR. DARSEY  ...  WAS A MOST DASTARDLY AND ATROCIOUS
CRIME.  IT NATURALLY AROUSED GREAT AND WELL JUSTIFIED PUBLIC
INDIGNATION."  FN6 

BETWEEN 9:30 AND 10 O'CLOCK AFTER THE MURDER, PETITIONER CHARLIE
DAVIS WAS ARRESTED, AND WITHIN THE NEXT TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FROM TWENTY
FIVE TO FORTY NEGROES LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING PETITIONERS
WILLIAMSON, CHAMBERS, AND WOODWARD, WERE ARRESTED WITHOUT WARRANTS AND
CONFINED IN THE BROWARD COUNTY JAIL, AT FORT LAUDERDALE.  ON THE NIGHT
OF THE CRIME, ATTEMPTS TO TRAIL THE MURDERERS BY BLOODHOUNDS BROUGHT J.
T. WILLIAMS, A CONVICT GUARD, INTO THE PROCEEDINGS.  FROM THEN UNTIL
CONFESSIONS WERE OBTAINED AND PETITIONERS WERE SENTENCED, HE TOOK A
PROMINENT PART.  ABOUT 11 P.M. ON THE FOLLOWING MONDAY, MAY 15, THE
SHERIFF AND WILLIAMS TOOK SEVERAL OF THE IMPRISONED NEGROES, INCLUDING
WILLIAMSON AND CHAMBERS, TO THE DADE COUNTY JAIL AT MIAMI.  THE SHERIFF
TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE TAKEN THERE BECAUSE HE FELT A POSSIBILITY OF
MOB VIOLENCE AND "WANTED TO GIVE PROTECTION TO EVERY PRISONER  ...  IN
JAIL."  EVIDENCE OF PETITIONERS WAS THAT ON THE WAY TO MIAMI A
MOTORCYCLE PATROLMAN DREW UP TO THE CAR IN WHICH THE MEN WERE RIDING
AND THE SHERIFF "TOLD THE COP THAT HE HAD SOME NEGROES THAT HE - (WAS)
TAKING DOWN TO MIAMI TO ESCAPE A MOB."  THIS STATEMENT WAS NOT DENIED
BY THE SHERIFF IN HIS TESTIMONY AND WILLIAMS DID NOT TESTIFY AT ALL;
WILLIAMS APPARENTLY HAS NOW DISAPPEARED.  UPON ORDER OF WILLIAMS,
PETITIONER WILLIAMSON WAS KEPT IN THE DEATH CELL OF THE DADE COUNTY
JAIL.  THE PRISONERS THUS SPIRITED TO MIAMI WERE RETURNED TO THE FORT
LAUDERDALE JAIL THE NEXT DAY, TUESDAY. 

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE EVIDENCE OF BOTH THE STATE AND PETITIONERS THAT
FROM SUNDAY, MAY 14, TO SATURDAY, MAY 20, THE THIRTY TO FORTY NEGRO
SUSPECTS WERE SUBJECTED TO QUESTIONING AND CROSS QUESTIONING (WITH THE
EXCEPTION THAT SEVERAL OF THE SUSPECTS WERE IN DADE COUNTY JAIL OVER
ONE NIGHT).  FROM THE AFTERNOON OF SATURDAY, MAY 20, UNTIL SUNRISE OF
THE 21ST, PETITIONERS AND POSSIBLY ONE OR TWO OTHERS UNDERWENT
PERSISTENT AND REPEATED QUESTIONING.  THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SAID
THE QUESTIONING "WAS IN PROGRESS SEVERAL DAYS AND ALL NIGHT BEFORE THE
CONFESSIONS WERE SECURED" AND REFERRED TO THE LAST NIGHT AS AN "ALL
NIGHT VIGIL."  THE SHERIFF WHO SUPERVISED THE PROCEDURE OF CONTINUED
INTERROGATION TESTIFIED THAT HE QUESTIONED THE PRISONERS "IN THE DAY
TIME ALL THE WEEK," BUT DID NOT QUESTION THEM DURING ANY NIGHT BEFORE
THE ALL NIGHT VIGIL OF SATURDAY, MAY 20, BECAUSE AFTER HAVING
"QUESTIONED THEM ALL DAY  ...  (HE) WAS TIRED."  OTHER EVIDENCE OF THE
STATE WAS "THAT THE OFFICERS OF BROWARD COUNTY WERE IN THAT JAIL ALMOST
CONTINUALLY DURING THE WHOLE WEEK QUESTIONING THESE BOYS, AND OTHER
BOYS, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS" CASE. 

THE PROCESS OF REPEATED QUESTIONING TOOK PLACE IN THE JAILER'S
QUARTERS ON THE FOURTH FLOOR OF THE JAIL.  DURING THE WEEK FOLLOWING
THEIR ARREST AND UNTIL THEIR CONFESSIONS WERE FINALLY ACCEPTABLE TO THE
STATE'S ATTORNEY IN THE EARLY DAWN OF SUNDAY, MAY 21ST, PETITIONERS AND
THEIR FELLOW PRISONERS WERE LED ONE AT A TIME FROM THEIR CELLS TO THE
QUESTIONING ROOM, QUIZZED, AND RETURNED TO THEIR CELLS TO AWAIT ANOTHER
TURN.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, THE PRISONERS AT NO TIME DURING THE WEEK WERE
PERMITTED TO SEE OR CONFER WITH COUNSEL OR A SINGLE FRIEND OR
RELATIVE.  WHEN CARRIED SINGLY FROM HIS CELL AND SUBJECTED TO
QUESTIONING, EACH FOUND HIMSELF, A SINGLE PRISONER, SURROUNDED IN A
FOURTH FLOOR JAIL ROOM BY FOUR TO TEN MEN, THE COUNTY SHERIFF, HIS
DEPUTIES, A CONVICT GUARD, AND OTHER WHITE OFFICERS AND CITIZENS OF THE
COMMUNITY. 

THE TESTIMONY IS IN CONFLICT AS TO WHETHER ALL FOUR PETITIONERS WERE
CONTINUALLY THREATENED AND PHYSICALLY MISTREATED UNTIL THEY FINALLY, IN
HOPELESS DESPERATION AND FEAR OF THEIR LIVES, AGREED TO CONFESS ON
SUNDAY MORNING JUST AFTER DAYLIGHT.  BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS CERTAIN
THAT BY SATURDAY, MAY 20TH, FIVE DAYS OF CONTINUED QUESTIONING HAD
ELICITED NO CONFESSION.  ADMITTEDLY, A CONCENTRATION OF EFFORT -
DIRECTED AGAINST A SMALL NUMBER OF PRISONERS INCLUDING PETITIONERS - ON
THE PART OF THE QUESTIONERS, PRINCIPALLY THE SHERIFF AND WILLIAMS, THE
CONVICT GUARD, BEGAN ABOUT 3:30 THAT SATURDAY AFTERNOON.  FROM THAT
HOUR ON, WITH ONLY SHORT INTERVALS FOR FOOD AND REST FOR THE
QUESTIONERS - "THEY ALL STAYED UP ALL NIGHT."  "THEY BRING ONE OF THEM
AT A TIME BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS  ...  UNTIL THEY CONFESSED."  AND
WILLIAMS WAS PRESENT AND PARTICIPATING THAT NIGHT, DURING THE WHOLE OF
WHICH THE JAIL COOK SERVED COFFEE AND SANDWICHES TO THE MEN WHO
"GRILLED" THE PRISONERS. 

SOMETIME IN THE EARLY HOURS OF SUNDAY, THE 21ST, PROBABLY ABOUT 2:30
A.M., WOODWARD APPARENTLY "BROKE" - AS ONE OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES PUT
IT - AFTER A FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MINUTE PERIOD OF QUESTIONING BY
WILLIAMS, THE SHERIFF AND THE CONSTABLE "ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER." 
THE STATE'S ATTORNEY WAS AWAKENED AT HIS HOME, AND CALLED TO THE JAIL. 
HE CAME, BUT WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE CONFESSION OF WOODWARD WHICH HE
TOOK DOWN IN WRITING AT THAT TIME, AND SAID SOMETHING LIKE "TEAR THIS
PAPER UP, THAT ISN'T WHAT I WANT, WHEN YOU GET SOMETHING WORTH WHILE
CALL ME."  FN7  THIS SAME STATE'S ATTORNEY CONDUCTED THE STATE'S CASE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT BELOW AND ALSO MADE HIMSELF A WITNESS, BUT DID NOT
TESTIFY AS TO WHY WOODWARD'S FIRST ALLEGED CONFESSION WAS
UNSATISFACTORY TO HIM.  THE SHERIFF DID, HOWEVER: 

"A. NO, IT WASN'T FALSE, PART OF IT WAS TRUE AND PART OF IT WASN'T;
MR. MAIRE (THE STATE'S ATTORNEY) SAID THERE WASN'T ENOUGH.  IT WASN'T
CLEAR ENOUGH. 

"  ... 

"Q.  ...  WAS THAT VOLUNTARILY MADE AT THAT TIME? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  IT WAS VOLUNTARILY MADE THAT TIME? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER IT SUFFICIENT? 

"A.  MR. MAIRE. 

"Q.  MR. MAIRE TOLD YOU THAT IT WASN'T SUFFICIENT, SO YOU KEPT ON
QUESTIONING HIM UNTIL THE TIME YOU GOT HIM TO MAKE A FREE AND VOLUNTARY
CONFESSION OF OTHER MATTERS THAT HE HADN'T INCLUDED IN THE FIRST? 

"A.  NO, SIR, WE QUESTIONED HIM THERE AND WE CAUGHT HIM IN LIES. 

"Q.  CAUGHT ALL OF THEM TELLING LIES? 

"A.  CAUGHT EVERY ONE OF THEM LYING TO US THAT NIGHT, YES, SIR. 

"Q.  DID YOU TELL THEM THEY WERE LYING? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  JUST HOW WOULD YOU TELL THEM THAT? 

"A.  JUST LIKE I AM TALKING TO YOU. 

"Q.  YOU SAID 'JACK, YOU TOLD ME A LIE'? 

"A.  YES, SIR," 

AFTER ONE WEEK'S CONSTANT DENIAL OF ALL GUILT, PETITIONERS "BROKE." 

JUST BEFORE SUNRISE, THE STATE OFFICIALS GOT SOMETHING "WORTHWHILE"
FROM PETITIONERS WHICH THE STATE'S ATTORNEY WOULD "WANT"; AGAIN HE WAS
CALLED; HE CAME; IN THE PRESENCE OF THOSE WHO HAD CARRIED ON AND
WITNESSED THE ALLNIGHT QUESTIONING, HE CAUSED HIS QUESTIONS AND
PETITIONERS' ANSWERS TO BE STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED.  THESE ARE THE
CONFESSIONS UTILIZED BY THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE JUDGMENTS UPON WHICH
PETITIONERS WERE SENTENCED TO DEATH.  NO FORMAL CHARGES HAD BEEN
BROUGHT BEFORE THE CONFESSIONS.  TWO DAYS THEREAFTER, PETITIONERS WERE
INDICTED, WERE ARRAIGNED AND WILLIAMSON AND WOODWARD PLEADED GUILTY;
CHAMBERS AND DAVIS PLEADED NOT GUILTY.  LATER THE SHERIFF, ACCOMPANIED
BY WILLIAMS, INFORMED AN ATTORNEY WHO PRESUMABLY HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO
DEFEND DAVIS THAT DAVIS WANTED HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY WITHDRAWN.  THIS
WAS DONE, AND DAVIS THEN PLEADED GUILTY.  WHEN CHAMBERS WAS TRIED, HIS
CONVICTION RESTED UPON HIS CONFESSION AND TESTIMONY OF THE OTHER THREE
CONFESSORS.  THE CONVICT GUARD AND THE SHERIFF "WERE IN THE COURT ROOM
SITTING DOWN IN A SEAT."  AND FROM ARREST UNTIL SENTENCED TO DEATH,
PETITIONERS WERE NEVER - EITHER IN JAIL OR IN COURT - WHOLLY REMOVED
FROM THE CONSTANT OBSERVATION, INFLUENCE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THOSE
WHOSE PERSISTENT PRESSURE BROUGHT ABOUT THE SUNRISE CONFESSIONS. 

THIRD.  THE SCOPE AND OPERATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN
FRUITFUL SOURCES OF CONTROVERSY IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.  FN8
HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF ITS HISTORICAL SETTING AND THE WRONGS WHICH CALLED
IT INTO BEING, THE DUE PROCESS PROVISION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT -
JUST AS THAT IN THE FIFTH - HAS LED FEW TO DOUBT THAT IT WAS INTENDED
TO GUARANTEE PROCEDURAL STANDARDS ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE, THEN AND
THEREAFTER,  FN9  TO PROTECT, AT ALL TIMES, PEOPLE CHARGED WITH OR
SUSPECTED OF CRIME BY THOSE HOLDING POSITIONS OF POWER AND AUTHORITY. 
TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS HAD IMMEMORIALLY UTILIZED DICTATORIAL CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE AND PUNISHMENT TO MAKE SCAPEGOATS OF THE WEAK, OR OF HELPLESS
POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, OR RACIAL MINORITIES AND THOSE WHO DIFFERED, WHO
WOULD NOT CONFORM AND WHO RESISTED TYRANNY.  THE INSTRUMENTS OF SUCH
GOVERNMENTS WERE, IN THE MAIN, TWO.  CONDUCT, INNOCENT WHEN ENGAGED IN,
WAS SUBSEQUENTLY MADE BY FIAT CRIMINALLY PUNISHABLE WITHOUT
LEGISLATION.  AND A LIBERTY LOVING PEOPLE WON THE PRINCIPLE THAT
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENTS COULD NOT BE INFLICTED SAVE FOR THAT WHICH PROPER
LEGISLATIVE ACTION HAD ALREADY BY "THE LAW OF THE LAND" FORBIDDEN WHEN
DONE.  BUT EVEN MORE WAS NEEDED.  FROM THE POPULAR HATRED AND
ABHORRENCE OF ILLEGAL CONFINEMENT, TORTURE AND EXTORTION OF CONFESSIONS
OF VIOLATIONS OF THE "LAW OF THE LAND" EVOLVED THE FUNDAMENTAL IDEA
THAT NO MAN'S LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY BE FORFEITED AS CRIMINAL
PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THAT LAW UNTIL THERE HAD BEEN A CHARGE
FAIRLY MADE AND FAIRLY TRIED IN A PUBLIC TRIBUNAL FREE OF PREJUDICE,
PASSION, EXCITEMENT, AND TYRANNICAL POWER.  THUS, AS ASSURANCE AGAINST
ANCIENT EVILS, OUR COUNTRY, IN ORDER TO PRESERVE "THE BLESSINGS OF
LIBERTY," WROTE INTO ITS BASIC LAW THE REQUIREMENT, AMONG OTHERS, THAT
THE FORFEITURE OF THE LIVES, LIBERTIES OR PROPERTY OF PEOPLE ACCUSED OF
CRIME CAN ONLY FOLLOW IF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS OF DUE PROCESS HAVE BEEN
OBEYED.  FN10 

THE DETERMINATION TO PRESERVE AN ACCUSED'S RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS SPRANG IN LARGE PART FROM KNOWLEDGE OF THE HISTORICAL TRUTH
THAT THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIME COULD NOT BE
SAFELY ENTRUSTED TO SECRET INQUISITORIAL PROCESSES.  THE TESTIMONY OF
CENTURIES, IN GOVERNMENTS OF VARYING KINDS OVER POPULATIONS OF
DIFFERENT RACES AND BELIEFS, STOOD AS PROOF THAT PHYSICAL AND MENTAL
TORTURE AND COERCION HAD BROUGHT ABOUT THE TRAGICALLY UNJUST SACRIFICES
OF SOME WHO WERE THE NOBLEST AND MOST USEFUL OF THEIR GENERATIONS.  THE
RACK, THE THUMBSCREW, THE WHEEL, SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, PROTRACTED
QUESTIONING AND CROSS QUESTIONING, AND OTHER INGENIOUS FORMS OF
ENTRAPMENT OF THE HELPLESS OR UNPOPULAR HAD LEFT THEIR WAKE OF
MUTILATED BODIES AND SHATTERED MINDS ALONG THE WAY TO THE CROSS, THE
GUILLOTINE, THE STAKE AND THE HANGMAN'S NOOSE.  AND THEY WHO HAVE
SUFFERED MOST FROM SECRET AND DICTATORIAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALMOST
ALWAYS BEEN THE POOR, THE IGNORANT, THE NUMERICALLY WEAK, THE
FRIENDLESS, AND THE POWERLESS.  FN11 

THIS REQUIREMENT - OF CONFORMING TO FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS OF
PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS - WAS MADE OPERATIVE AGAINST THE STATES BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  WHERE ONE OF SEVERAL ACCUSED HAD LIMPED INTO
THE TRIAL COURT AS A RESULT OF ADMITTED PHYSICAL MISTREATMENT INFLICTED
TO OBTAIN CONFESSIONS UPON WHICH A JURY HAD RETURNED A VERDICT OF
GUILTY OF MURDER, THIS COURT RECENTLY DECLARED, BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI,
THAT "IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF METHODS MORE REVOLTING TO
THE SENSE OF JUSTICE THAN THOSE TAKEN TO PROCURE THE CONFESSIONS OF
THESE PETITIONERS, AND THE USE OF THE CONFESSIONS THUS OBTAINED AS THE
BASIS FOR CONVICTION AND SENTENCE WAS A CLEAR DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS." 
FN12    HERE, THE RECORD DEVELOPS A SHARP CONFLICT UPON THE ISSUE OF
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND MISTREATMENT, BUT SHOWS, WITHOUT CONFLICT, THE
DRAGNET METHODS OF ARREST ON SUSPICION WITHOUT WARRANT, AND THE
PROTRACTED QUESTIONING AND CROSS QUESTIONING OF THESE IGNORANT YOUNG
COLORED TENANT FARMERS BY STATE OFFICERS AND OTHER WHITE CITIZENS, IN A
FOURTH FLOOR JAIL ROOM, WHERE AS PRISONERS THEY WERE WITHOUT FRIENDS,
ADVISERS OR COUNSELORS, AND UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES CALCULATED TO BREAK THE
STRONGEST NERVES AND THE STOUTEST RESISTANCE.  JUST AS OUR DECISION IN
BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI WAS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE CONFESSIONS WERE
THE RESULT OF COMPULSION, SO IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ADMITTED
PRACTICES WERE SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE STATEMENT THAT "THE UNDISPUTED
FACTS SHOWED THAT COMPULSION WAS APPLIED."  FN13 

FOR FIVE DAYS PETITIONERS WERE SUBJECTED TO INTERROGATIONS
CULMINATING IN SATURDAY'S (MAY 20TH) ALL NIGHT EXAMINATION.  OVER A
PERIOD OF FIVE DAYS THEY STEADILY REFUSED TO CONFESS AND DISCLAIMED ANY
GUILT.  THE VERY CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THEIR CONFINEMENT AND THEIR
QUESTIONING WITHOUT ANY FORMAL CHARGES HAVING BEEN BROUGHT, WERE SUCH
AS TO FILL PETITIONERS WITH TERROR AND FRIGHTFUL MISGIVINGS.  FN14
SOME WERE PRACTICAL STRANGERS IN THE COMMUNITY; THREE WERE ARRESTED IN
A ONE-ROOM FARM TENANT HOUSE WHICH WAS THEIR HOME; THE HAUNTING FEAR OF
MOB VIOLENCE WAS AROUND THEM IN AN ATMOSPHERE CHARGED WITH EXCITEMENT
AND PUBLIC INDIGNATION.  FROM VIRTUALLY THE MOMENT OF THEIR ARREST
UNTIL THEIR EVENTUAL CONFESSIONS, THEY NEVER KNEW JUST WHEN ANY ONE
WOULD BE CALLED BACK TO THE FOURTH FLOOR ROOM, AND THERE, SURROUNDED BY
HIS ACCUSERS AND OTHERS, INTERROGATED BY MEN WHO HELD THEIR VERY LIVES
SO FAR AS THESE IGNORANT PETITIONERS COULD KNOW - IN THE BALANCE.  THE
REJECTION OF PETITIONER WOODWARD'S FIRST "CONFESSION," GIVEN IN THE
EARLY HOURS OF SUNDAY MORNING, BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND WANTING,
DEMONSTRATES THE RELENTLESS TENACITY WHICH "BROKE" PETITIONERS' WILL
AND RENDERED THEM HELPLESS TO RESIST THEIR ACCUSERS FURTHER.  TO PERMIT
HUMAN LIVES TO BE FORFEITED UPON CONFESSIONS THUS OBTAINED WOULD MAKE
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW A MEANINGLESS
SYMBOL. 

WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT METHODS
SUCH AS THOSE UNDER REVIEW ARE NECESSARY TO UPHOLD OUR LAWS.  FN15  THE
CONSTITUTION PROSCRIBES SUCH LAWLESS MEANS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE END. 
AND THIS ARGUMENT FLOUTS THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT ALL PEOPLE MUST STAND
ON AN EQUALITY BEFORE THE BAR OF JUSTICE IN EVERY AMERICAN COURT. 
TODAY, AS IN AGES PAST, WE ARE NOT WITHOUT TRAGIC PROOF THAT THE
EXALTED POWER OF SOME GOVERNMENTS TO PUNISH MANUFACTURED CRIME
DICTATORIALLY IS THE HANDMAID OF TYRANNY.  UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM, COURTS STAND AGAINST ANY WINDS THAT BLOW AS HAVENS OF REFUGE
FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE SUFFER BECAUSE THEY ARE HELPLESS, WEAK,
OUTNUMBERED, OR BECAUSE THEY ARE NON-CONFORMING VICTIMS OF PREJUDICE
AND PUBLIC EXCITEMENT.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW, PRESERVED FOR ALL BY OUR
CONSTITUTION, COMMANDS THAT NO SUCH PRACTICE AS THAT DISCLOSED BY THIS
RECORD SHALL SEND ANY ACCUSED TO HIS DEATH.  NO HIGHER DUTY, NO MORE
SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY, RESTS UPON THIS COURT, THAN THAT OF TRANSLATING
INTO LIVING LAW AND MAINTAINING THIS CONSTITUTIONAL SHIELD DELIBERATELY
PLANNED AND INSCRIBED FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERY HUMAN BEING SUBJECT TO
OUR CONSTITUTION - OF WHATEVER RACE, CREED OR PERSUASION. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WAS IN ERROR AND ITS JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED. 

FN1  308 U.S. 541. 

FN2  PETITIONERS WILLIAMSON, WOODWARD AND DAVIS PLEADED GUILTY OF
MURDER AND PETITIONER CHAMBERS WAS FOUND GUILTY BY A JURY; ALL WERE
SENTENCED TO DEATH, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AFFIRMED.  111
FLA. 707, 151 SO. 499; 152 SO. 437.  UPON THE ALLEGATION THAT, UNKNOWN
TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE CONFESSIONS ON WHICH THE JUDGMENTS AND
SENTENCES OF DEATH WERE BASED WERE NOT VOLUNTARY AND HAD BEEN OBTAINED
BY COERCION AND DURESS, THE STATE SUPREME COURT GRANTED LEAVE TO
PRESENT A PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS TO THE BROWARD COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, 111 FLA. 707; 152 SO. 437.  THE CIRCUIT COURT DENIED THE
PETITION WITHOUT TRIAL OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY IT AND THE STATE SUPREME
COURT REVERSED AND ORDERED THE ISSUES SUBMITTED TO A JURY.  117 FLA.
642; 158 SO. 153.  UPON A VERDICT ADVERSE TO PETITIONERS, THE CIRCUIT
COURT RE-AFFIRMED THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES.  AGAIN, THE
STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE ISSUE OF FORCE, FEAR OF
PERSONAL VIOLENCE AND DURESS HAD BEEN PROPERLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY,
BUT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ALLEGING THAT THE
CONFESSIONS AND PLEAS "WERE NOT IN FACT FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE"
HAD NOT BEEN CLEARLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  123 FLA. 734, 737; 167 SO.
697, 700.  A CHANGE OF VENUE, TO PALM BEACH COUNTY, WAS GRANTED, A JURY
AGAIN FOUND AGAINST PETITIONERS AND THE BROWARD CIRCUIT COURT ONCE MORE
REAFFIRMED THE JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES OF DEATH.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
FLORIDA, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, AFFIRMED, 136 FLA. 568; 187 SO. 156. 
WHILE THE PETITION THUS SEEKS REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES OF
DEATH RENDERED IN THE BROWARD CIRCUIT COURT AND REAFFIRMED IN THE PALM
BEACH CIRCUIT COURT, THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US CONSISTS SOLELY OF THE
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (ON WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS) IN PLAM BEACH
COUNTY COURT WHEREIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE OBTAINING OF
PETITIONERS' ALLEGED CONFESSIONS WERE PASSED ON BY A JURY. 

FN3  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278. 

FN4  PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354, 358; NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294
U.S. 587, 590. 

FN5 136 FLA. 568, 572; 187 SO. 156, 157. 

FN6  ID., 574. 

FN7  A CONSTABLE OF THE COMMUNITY, TESTIFYING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
INCIDENT, SAID IN PART: 

"Q.  WERE YOU THERE WHEN MR. MAIRE (STATE'S ATTORNEY) TALKED TO
WALTER WOODWARD THE FIRST TIME HE CAME OVER THERE? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  TAKE HIS CONFESSION DOWN IN WRITING? 

"A.  YES. 

"  ... 

"Q.  IF HE MADE A CONFESSION WHY DID YOU ALL KEEP ON QUESTIONING HIM
ABOUT IT.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHAT HE SAID THAT TIME WASN'T WHAT YOU
WANTED HIM TO SAY, WAS IT? 

"A.  IT WASN'T WHAT HE SAID THE LAST TIME. 

"Q.  IT WASN'T WHAT YOU WANTED HIM TO SAY, WAS IT? 

"A.  WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS ALL CORRECT. 

"  ... 

"Q.  WHAT PART OF IT DID YOU THINK WASN'T CORRECT.  WOULD YOU SAY
WHAT HE TOLD YOU THERE AT THAT TIME WAS FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"  ... 

"Q.  WHAT HE FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY TOLD YOU IN THE WAY OF A
CONFESSION AT THAT TIME, IT WASN'T WHAT YOU WANTED? 

"A.  IT DIDN'T MAKE UP LIKE IT SHOULD. 

"Q.  WHAT MATTER DIDN'T MAKE UP? 

"A.  THERE WAS SOME THINGS HE TOLD US THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLE BE
TRUE. 

"  ... 

"Q.  WHAT DID MR. MAIRE SAY ABOUT IT AT THAT TIME; DID YOU HEAR MR.
MAIRE SAY AT THIS TIME 'TEAR THIS PAPER UP, THAT ISN'T WHAT I WANT,
WHEN YOU GET SOMETHING WORTH WHILE CALL ME,' OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT? 

"A.  SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT. 

"Q.  THAT DID HAPPEN THAT NIGHT? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"Q.  THAT WAS IN THE PRESENCE OF WALTER WOODWARD? 

"A.  YES, SIR." 

AND PETITIONER WOODWARD TESTIFIED ON THIS SUBJECT AS FOLLOWS: 

"A.  ...  I WAS TAKEN OUT SEVERAL TIMES ON THE NIGHT OF THE 20TH  ...
SO I STILL DENIED IT. ... 

"  ... 

"A.  HE SAID I HAD TOLD LIES AND KEPT HIM SITTING UP ALL THE WEEK AND
HE WAS TIRED AND IF I DIDN'T COME ACROSS I WOULD NEVER SEE THE SUN
RISE. 

"  ... 

"A.  ...  THEN I WAS TAKEN BACK TO THE PRIVATE CELL.  ...  AND
SHORTLY AFTER THAT THEY COME BACK, SHORTLY AFTER THAT, TWENTY OR TWENTY
FIVE MINUTES, AND BRING ME OUT.  ...  I (TOLD WILLIAMS) IF HE WOULD
SEND FOR THE STATE ATTORNEY HE COULD TAKE DOWN WHAT I SAID, I SAID SEND
FOR HIM AND I WILL TELL HIM WHAT I KNOW.  SO HE SENT FOR MR. MAIRE SOME
TIME DURING SATURDAY NIGHT, MUST HAVE BEEN AROUND ONE OR TWO O'CLOCK IN
THE NIGHT, IT WAS AFTER MIDNIGHT, AND SO HE SENT FOR MR. MAIRE, I
DIDN'T KNOW MR. MAIRE THEN, BUT I KNOW HIM NOW BY HIS FACE. 

"  ... 

"A.  WELL HE COME IN AND SAID 'THIS BOY GOT SOMETHING TO TELL ME' AND
CAPTAIN WILLIAMS SAYS 'YES, HE IS READY TO TELL YOU.'  ... 

"  ... 

"  ...  MR. MAIRE HAD A PEN AND A BOOK TO TAKE DOWN WHAT I TOLD HIM,
WHICH HE SAID HAD TO BE ON THE TYPEWRITER, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY
TYPEWRITER, I SAW HIM WITH A PEN AND BOOK, SO WHETHER IT WAS SHORTHAND
OR REGULAR WRITING I DON'T KNOW, BUT HE TOOK IT DOWN WITH PEN.  AFTER I
TOLD HIM MY STORY HE SAID IT WAS NO GOOD, AND HE TORE IT UP.  ... 

"  ... 

"Q.  WHAT WAS IT MR. MAIRE SAID? 

"A.  HE TOLD THEM IT WASN'T NO GOOD, WHEN THEY GOT SOMETHING OUT OF
ME HE WOULD BE BACK.  IT WAS LATE HE HAD TO GO BACK AND GO TO BED. 

"  ... 

"A.  ...  I WASN'T IN THE CELL LONG BEFORE THEY COME BACK.  ... 

"  ... 

"Q.  HOW LONG WAS THAT FROM THE TIME YOU WAS BROUGHT INTO THAT ROOM
UNTIL MR. MAIRE LEFT THERE? 

"A.  SOMETHING LIKE TWO OR THREE HOURS, I GUESS, BECAUSE IT WAS
AROUND SUNRISE WHEN I WENT INTO THE ROOM. 

"Q.  HAD YOU SLEPT ANY THAT NIGHT, WALTER? 

"A.  NO, SIR.  I WAS WALKED ALL NIGHT, NOT CONTINUALLY, BUT I DIDN'T
HAVE NO TIME TO SLEEP EXCEPT IN SHORT SPACES OF THE NIGHT. 

"  ... 

"Q.  WHEN MR. MAIRE GOT THERE IT WAS AFTER DAYLIGHT? 

"A.  YES, SIR. 

"  ... 

"Q.  WHY DID YOU SAY TO THEM THAT MORNING ANYTHING AFTER YOU WERE
BROUGHT INTO THE ROOM? 

"A.  BECAUSE I WAS SCARED,  ...  " 

FN8  THERE HAVE BEEN LONG-CONTINUED AND CONSTANTLY RECURRING
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AS TO WHETHER GENERAL LEGISLATIVE ACTS
REGULATING THE USE OF PROPERTY COULD BE INVALIDATED AS VIOLATING THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94
U.S. 113, 125, DISSENT 136-154; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.R. CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 134 U.S. 418, DISSENT 461-466.  AND THERE HAS BEEN A CURRENT
OF OPINION - WHICH THIS COURT HAS DECLINED TO ADOPT IN MANY PREVIOUS
CASES - THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO MAKE SECURE
AGAINST STATE INVASION ALL THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
PROTECTED FROM FEDERAL VIOLATION BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS (AMENDMENTS I TO
VIII).  SEE, E.G., TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 98-9, MR.
JUSTICE HARLAN, DISSENTING, 114; MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581, DISSENT
606; O'NEIL V. VERMONT, 144 U.S. 323, DISSENT 361; PALKO V.
CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 326; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496. 

FN9  CF. WEEMS V. UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 349, 372, 373, AND DISSENT
SETTING OUT (P. 396) ARGUMENT OF PATRICK HENRY, 3 ELLIOT, DEBATES,
447. 

FN10  AS ADOPTED, THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED, "THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL NOT BE SUSPENDED, UNLESS WHEN IN CASES OF
REBELLION OR INVASION THE PUBLIC SAFETY MAY REQUIRE IT."  (ART. I, SEC.
9.)  "NO BILL OF ATTAINDER OR EX POST FACTO LAW SHALL BE PASSED" (ID.),
"NO STATE SHALL  ...  PASS ANY BILL OF ATTAINDER, OR EX POST FACTO
LAW.  ...  "  (ID., SEC. 10), AND "NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF
TREASON UNLESS ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT,
OR ON CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT" (ART. III, SEC. 3).  THE BILL OF RIGHTS
(AMEND.  I TO VIII).  CF. MAGNA CARTA, 1297(25 EDW.  1); THE PETITION
OF RIGHT, 1627(3 CAR.  1, C. 1.); THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT, 1640(16 CAR. 
1, C. 10.), AN ACT FOR (THE REGULATING) THE PRIVIE COUNCELL AND FOR
TAKING AWAY THE COURT COMMONLY CALLED THE STAR CHAMBER; STAT. (1661) 13
CAR.  2, STAT. 1, C. 1(TREASON); THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1688)(1 WILL.  &
MAR. SESS. 2, C. 2.); ALL COLLECTED IN "HALSBURY'S STAT. OF ENG."
(1929) VOL. 3. 

FN11  "IN ALL THIRD DEGREE CASES, IT IS REMARKABLE TO NOTE THAT THE
CONFESSIONS WERE TAKEN FROM 'MEN OF HUMBLE STATION IN LIFE AND OF A
COMPARATIVELY LOW DEGREE OF INTELLIGENCE, AND MOST OF THEM APPARENTLY
TOO POOR TO EMPLOY COUNSEL AND TOO FRIENDLESS TO HAVE ANY ONE ADVISE
THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS.'"  FILAMOR, "THIRD DEGREE CONFESSION," 13 BOMBAY
L.J., 339, 346.  "THAT THE THIRD DEGREE IS ESPECIALLY USED AGAINST THE
POOR AND UNINFLUENTIAL IS ASSERTED BY SEVERAL WRITERS, AND CONFIRMED BY
OFFICIAL INFORMANTS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS."  IV NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, REPORTS, (1931) CH. 3, P. 159.  CF.
MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 82, 95. 

FN12  297 U.S. 278, 286. 

FN13  SEE ZIANG SUNG WAN V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 1, 16.  THE
DISSENTING JUDGE BELOW NOTED, 136 FLA. 568, 576; 187 SO. 156, 159,
THAT, IN A PRIOR APPEAL OF THIS SAME CASE, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
HAD SAID:  "EVEN IF THE JURY TOTALLY DISBELIEVED THE TESTIMONY OF THE
PETITIONERS, THE TESTIMONY OF SHERIFF WALTER CLARK, AND ONE OR TWO OF
THE OTHER WITNESSES INTRODUCED BY THE STATE, WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW
THAT THESE CONFESSIONS WERE ONLY MADE AFTER SUCH CONSTANTLY REPEATED
AND PERSISTENT QUESTIONING AND CROSS-QUESTIONING ON THE PART OF THE
OFFICERS AND ONE J. T. WILLIAMS, A CONVICT GUARD, AT FREQUENT INTERVALS
WHILE THEY WERE IN JAIL, OVER A PERIOD OF ABOUT A WEEK, AND CULMINATING
IN AN ALL-NIGHT QUESTIONING OF THE PETITIONERS SEPARATELY IN
SUCCESSION, THROUGHOUT PRACTICALLY ALL OF SATURDAY NIGHT, UNTIL
CONFESSIONS HAD BEEN OBTAINED FROM ALL OF THEM, WHEN THEY WERE ALL
BROUGHT INTO A ROOM IN THE JAILER'S QUARTERS AT 6:30 ON SUNDAY MORNING
AND MADE THEIR CONFESSIONS BEFORE THE STATE ATTORNEY, THE OFFICERS,
SAID J. T. WILLIAMS, AND SEVERAL DISINTERESTED OUTSIDERS, THE
CONFESSIONS, IN THE FORM OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, BEING TAKEN DOWN BY
THE COURT REPORTER, AND THEN TYPEWRITTEN. 

"UNDER THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN NICKELS V. STATE, 90 FLA. 659, 106
SO. 479; DAVIS V. STATE, 90 FLA. 317, 105 SO. 843; DEITERLE V. STATE,
98 FLA. 739, 124 SO. 47; MATHIEU V. STATE, 101 FLA. 94, 133 SO. 550,
THESE CONFESSIONS WERE NOT LEGALLY OBTAINED."  123 FLA. 734, 741; 167
SO. 697, 700.    FN14  CF. THE STATEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
ARKANSAS, BELL V. STATE, 180 ARK. 79, 89; 20 S.W.2D 618, 622:  "THIS
NEGRO BOY WAS TAKEN, ON THE DAY AFTER THE DISCOVERY OF THE HOMICIDE
WHILE HE WAS AT HIS USUAL WORK, AND PLACED IN JAIL.  HE HAD HEARD THEM
WHIPPING SWAIN IN THE JAIL; HE WAS TAKEN FROM THE JAIL TO THE
PENITENTIARY AT LITTLE ROCK AND TURNED OVER TO THE WARDEN, CAPTAIN
TODHUNTER, WHO WAS REQUESTED BY THE SHERIFF TO QUESTION HIM.  THIS
TODHUNTER PROCEEDED TO DO, DAY AFTER DAY, AN HOUR AT A TIME.  THERE
BELL WAS, AN IGNORANT COUNTRY BOY SURROUNDED BY ALL OF THOSE THINGS
THAT STRIKE TERROR TO THE NEGRO HEART; ...  "  SEE MUNSTERBERG, ON THE
WITNESS STAND, (1927) 137 ET SEQ. 

FN15  THE POLICE PRACTICES HERE EXAMINED ARE TO SOME DEGREE
WIDESPREAD THROUGHOUT OUR COUNTRY.  SEE REPORT OF COMM. ON LAWLESS
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW (AMER.  BAR ASS'N) 1 AMER.  JOURN.  OF POL. 
SCI., 575; NOTE 43 H.L.R. 617; IV NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT, SUPRA, CH. 2, SEC. 4.  YET OUR NATIONAL RECORD FOR
CRIME DETECTION AND CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPARES POORLY WITH THAT
OF GREAT BRITAIN WHERE SECRET INTERROGATION OF AN ACCUSED OR SUSPECT IS
NOT TOLERATED.  SEE, REPORT OF COMM. ON LAWLESS ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW,
SUPRA, 588; 43 H.L.R., SUPRA, 618.  IT HAS EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE
USE OF THE "THIRD DEGREE" HAS LOWERED THE ESTEEM IN WHICH
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS HELD BY THE PUBLIC AND HAS ENGENDERED AN
ATTITUDE OF HOSTILITY TO AND UNWILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE WITH THE POLICE
ON THE PART OF MANY PEOPLE.  SEE, IV NATIONAL COMMISSION, ETC., SUPRA,
P. 190.  AND, AFTER SCHOLARLY INVESTIGATION, THE CONCLUSION HAS BEEN
REACHED "THAT SUCH METHODS, ASIDE FROM THEIR BRUTALITY, TEND IN THE
LONG RUN TO DEFEAT THEIR OWN PURPOSE; THEY ENCOURAGE INEFFICIENCY ON
THE PART OF THE POLICE."  GLUECK, CRIME AND JUSTICE, (1936) 76.  SEE IV
NATIONAL COMMISSION, ETC., SUPRA, 5; CF. 4 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, (2D ED.) 
SEC. 2251.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ACCUSED BE BROUGHT PROMPTLY BEFORE
A MAGISTRATE HAS BEEN SOUGHT BY SOME AS A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF
FOSTERING LAW ENFORCEMENT WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE LIBERTIES AND
PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL.  2 WIG., SUPRA, SEC. 851, IV
NATIONAL COMMISSION, ETC., SUPRA, 5. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















F.H.A. V. BURR, 309 U.S. 242 


NO. 354.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, FEBRUARY 1, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 12,
1940.  - 289 MICH. 91 - 286 N.W. 169, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT, AS AMENDED, WHICH PROVIDES THAT
THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL, IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN OF
ITS TITLES, "BE AUTHORIZED, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, TO SUE AND BE
SUED IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, STATE OR FEDERAL," THE
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION IS SUBJECT TO BE GARNISHED, UNDER STATE
LAW, FOR MONEYS DUE TO AN EMPLOYEE; BUT ONLY THOSE FUNDS WHICH HAVE
BEEN PAID OVER TO THE ADMINISTRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 1 OF THE
ACT AND WHICH ARE IN ITS POSSESSION, SEVERED FROM TREASURY FUNDS AND
TREASURY CONTROL, ARE SUBJECT TO EXECUTION.  PP. 249-250. 

2.  WAIVERS BY CONGRESS OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IN THE
CASE OF SUCH FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY. 
P. 245. 

3.  THE WORDS "SUE AND BE SUED" IN THEIR NORMAL CONNOTATION EMBRACE
ALL CIVIL PROCESS INCIDENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT OR CONTINUANCE OF LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS.  GARNISHMENT AND ATTACHMENT COMMONLY ARE PART AND PARCEL
OF THE PROCESS, PROVIDED BY STATUTE, FOR THE COLLECTION OF DEBTS.  P.
245. 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, REGION NO. 4, V. BURR, DOING BUSINESS
AS SECRETARIAL SERVICE BUREAU. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 541, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION IN A GARNISHMENT
PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS WHETHER THE FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION IS SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT FOR MONEYS DUE TO AN
EMPLOYEE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN HELD THAT IT
WAS.  289 MICH. 91; 286 N.W. 169.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN VIEW OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM AND THE CONFUSED STATE OF THE AUTHORITIES ON
THE RIGHT TO GARNISHEE RECENTLY CREATED AGENCIES OR CORPORATIONS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN1 

IN 1930 RESPONDENT OBTAINED FINAL JUDGMENT IN MICHIGAN AGAINST ONE
HEFFNER AND ONE BROOKS.  IN 1938 PETITIONER WAS SERVED WITH A WRIT OF
GARNISHMENT ISSUED BY THE MICHIGAN COURT.  FN2 PETITIONER APPEARED AND
FILED AN ANSWER AND DISCLOSURE STATING THAT BROOKS WAS NO LONGER
CONNECTED WITH IT DUE TO HIS DEATH SUBSEQUENT TO SERVICE OF THE WRIT
BUT ADMITTING THAT IT OWED BROOKS AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH $71.11.  ITS
ANSWER FURTHER ASSERTED THAT IT WAS "AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT AND IS, THEREFORE, NOT SUBJECT TO GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS." 
ON MOTION OF RESPONDENT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED AGAINST PETITIONER FOR THE
AMOUNT OF ITS INDEBTEDNESS TO BROOKS AND EXECUTION WAS ALLOWED
THEREUNDER.  ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN THAT JUDGMENT
WAS AFFIRMED. 

THE PROBLEM HERE IS UNLIKE THAT IN BUCHANAN V. ALEXANDER, 4 HOW.  20,
WHERE CREDITORS OF SEAMEN OF THE FRIGATE CONSTITUTION WERE NOT ALLOWED
TO ATTACH THEIR WAGES IN THE HANDS OF A DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THAT RULING WAS DERIVED FROM THE PRINCIPLE THAT
THE UNITED STATES CANNOT BE SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  THERE NO CONSENT
WHATSOEVER TO "SUE AND BE SUED" HAD BEEN GIVEN.  HERE THE SITUATION IS
DIFFERENT.  SEC. 1 OF TITLE I OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT (ACT OF JUNE
27, 1934, C. 847; 48 STAT. 1246) AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT "TO CREATE A
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, ALL OF THE POWER OF WHICH SHALL BE
EXERCISED BY A FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR."  THAT SECTION WAS
AMENDED IN 1935(ACT OF AUGUST 23, 1935, C. 614; 49 STAT. 684, 722) BY
ADDING THERETO THE PROVISION THAT "THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL, IN CARRYING
OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE AND TITLES II AND III, BE AUTHORIZED,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, TO SUE AND BE SUED IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, STATE OR FEDERAL." 

SINCE CONSENT TO "SUE AND BE SUED" HAS BEEN GIVEN BY CONGRESS, THE
PROBLEM HERE MERELY INVOLVES A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT
GARNISHMENT COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT AUTHORIZATION.  NO QUESTION
AS TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO WAIVE THE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY IS
PRESENT.  FOR THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS HAS FULL POWER TO
ENDOW THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY
FROM SUIT OR TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT MAY BE SUBJECTED TO
THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229;
KEIFER & KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 306 U.S. 381. 

AS INDICATED IN KEIFER & KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP.,
SUPRA, WE START FROM THE PREMISE THAT SUCH WAIVERS BY CONGRESS OF
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY IN CASE OF SUCH FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES SHOULD
BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED.  THIS POLICY IS IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT
DISFAVOR OF THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, AS
EVIDENCED BY THE INCREASING TENDENCY OF CONGRESS TO WAIVE THE IMMUNITY
WHERE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATIONS ARE CONCERNED.  KEIFER & KEIFER
V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., SUPRA.  HENCE, WHEN CONGRESS
ESTABLISHES SUCH AN AGENCY, AUTHORIZES IT TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCIAL AND
BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH THE PUBLIC, AND PERMITS IT TO "SUE AND BE
SUED," IT CANNOT BE LIGHTLY ASSUMED THAT RESTRICTIONS ON THAT AUTHORITY
ARE TO BE IMPLIED.  RATHER IF THE GENERAL AUTHORITY TO "SUE AND BE
SUED" IS TO BE DELIMITED BY IMPLIED EXCEPTIONS, IT MUST BE CLEARLY
SHOWN THAT CERTAIN TYPES OF SUITS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY
OR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME,  FN3  THAT AN IMPLIED RESTRICTION OF THE
GENERAL AUTHORITY IS NECESSARY TO AVOID GRAVE INTERFERENCE WITH THE
PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, OR THAT FOR OTHER REASONS IT
WAS PLAINLY THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO USE THE "SUE AND BE SUED" CLAUSE
IN A NARROW SENSE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH SHOWING, IT MUST BE PRESUMED
THAT WHEN CONGRESS LAUNCHED A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY INTO THE COMMERCIAL
WORLD AND ENDOWED IT WITH AUTHORITY TO "SUE OR BE SUED," THAT AGENCY IS
NOT LESS AMENABLE TO JUDICIAL PROCESS THAN A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE UNDER
LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE. 

CLEARLY THE WORDS "SUE AND BE SUED" IN THEIR NORMAL CONNOTATION
EMBRACE ALL CIVIL PROCESS INCIDENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT OR CONTINUANCE
OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.  GARNISHMENT AND ATTACHMENT COMMONLY ARE PART AND
PARCEL OF THE PROCESS, PROVIDED BY STATUTE, FOR THE COLLECTION OF
DEBTS.  FN4  IN MICHIGAN A WRIT OF GARNISHMENT IS A CIVIL PROCESS AT
LAW, IN THE NATURE OF AN EQUITABLE ATTACHMENT.  SEE POSSELIUS V. FIRST
NATIONAL BANK, 264 MICH. 687; 251 N.W. 429.  BUT HOWEVER IT MAY BE
DENOMINATED, WHETHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE,  FN5  AND WHENEVER IT MAY BE
AVAILABLE, WHETHER PRIOR TO  FN6  OR AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT,  FN7
GARNISHMENT IS A WELL-KNOWN REMEDY AVAILABLE TO SUITORS.  TO SAY THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO INCLUDE SUCH CIVIL PROCESS IN THE WORDS "SUE
AND BE SUED" WOULD IN GENERAL DEPRIVE SUITS OF SOME OF THEIR EFFICACY. 
HENCE, IN ABSENCE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ASSUME THAT WHEN
CONGRESS AUTHORIZED FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED
TO "SUE AND BE SUED" IT USED THOSE WORDS IN THEIR USUAL AND ORDINARY
SENSE.  FN8  STATE DECISIONS BARRING GARNISHMENT AGAINST A PUBLIC BODY
THOUGH IT MAY "SUE AND BE SUED"  FN9  ARE NOT PERSUASIVE HERE AS THEY
REFLECT PURELY LOCAL POLICIES CONCERNING MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES AND
THE LIKE, AND INVOLVE CONSIDERATIONS NOT GERMANE TO THE PROBLEM OF
AMENABILITY TO SUIT OF THE MODERN FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS STRENGTHENED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE MANY
RECENTLY CREATED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES OR CORPORATIONS.  IT SHOWS THAT
IN BUT FEW INSTANCES WAS A PROVISO ADDED TO THE "SUE AND BE SUED"
CLAUSE PROHIBITING GARNISHMENT OR ATTACHMENT.  FN10  THE FACT THAT IN
THE RUN OF RECENT STATUTES NO SUCH EXCEPTIONS WERE MADE AND THAT IN
ONLY A FEW OF THEM WERE ANY SPECIAL PROHIBITIONS INCLUDED ADDS
CORROBORATIVE WEIGHT TO OUR CONCLUSION THAT SUCH CIVIL PROCESS WAS
INTENDED. 

UP TO THIS POINT, HOWEVER, PETITIONER DOES NOT RAISE ITS MAJOR
OBJECTIONS.  RATHER IT GROUNDS ITS CLAIM TO IMMUNITY FROM GARNISHMENT
LARGELY ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND ON MATTERS OF POLICY.  AS TO THE
FORMER, IT RELIES HEAVILY ON THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORITY TO "SUE AND BE
SUED" EXCLUDES CASES UNRELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OWN DUTIES OR
LIABILITIES SINCE THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE "ADMINISTRATOR SHALL,
IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE (TITLE I) AND TITLES II
AND III" BE AUTHORIZED TO "SUE AND BE SUED."  PETITIONER THEREFORE
CONTENDS THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSENTED TO A SUIT AGAINST THE
ADMINISTRATOR ONLY WHERE THE PLAINTIFF IS A PARTY TO A TRANSACTION WITH
HIM WHICH IN TURN IS RELATED TO "CARRYING OUT" THE PROVISIONS OF THOSE
TITLES.  TITLE I CONTAINS THE ONLY PROVISIONS MATERIAL HERE.  SEC. 1
GAVE THE ADMINISTRATOR, INTER ALIA, AUTHORITY TO APPOINT SUCH OFFICERS
AND EMPLOYEES "AS HE MAY FIND NECESSARY"; TO "PRESCRIBE THEIR
AUTHORITIES, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND TENURE AND FIX THEIR
COMPENSATION, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER LAWS APPLICABLE
TO THE EMPLOYMENT OR COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE
UNITED STATES"; AND TO "MAKE SUCH EXPENDITURES (INCLUDING EXPENDITURES
FOR PERSONAL SERVICES AND RENT AT THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT AND ELSEWHERE,
FOR LAW BOOKS AND BOOKS OF REFERENCE, AND FOR PAPER, PRINTING, AND
BINDING) AS ARE NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE AND
TITLES II AND III, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW
GOVERNING THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS."  SEC. 2 GAVE LIMITED
AUTHORITY TO THE ADMINISTRATOR TO INSURE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS; SEC.
3, AUTHORITY TO MAKE LOANS TO SUCH INSTITUTIONS.  SINCE THE
ADMINISTRATOR COULD BE SUED, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, IN "CARRYING
OUT" THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE I, IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR THAT SUCH SUITS AS
WERE BASED ON EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS MADE PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED BY SEC. 1 WERE PERMITTED.  ACCORDINGLY, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT
BROOKS, WHOSE CLAIM  FN11  WAS GARNISHEED BY RESPONDENT, COULD HAVE
SUED ON THAT CLAIM AND OBTAINED THE BENEFIT OF THAT CIVIL PROCESS WHICH
WAS AVAILABLE IN THE APPROPRIATE STATE OR FEDERAL PROCEEDING.  FEDERAL
LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, SUPRA.  TO ALLOW RESPONDENT TO REACH THAT CLAIM
THROUGH A WRIT OF GARNISHMENT IS THEREFORE NOT TO ENLARGE PETITIONER'S
LIABILITY NOR TO ADD ONE IOTA TO THE SCOPE OF SEC. 1.  FOR THE END
RESULT IS SIMPLY TO ALLOW A SUIT FOR THE COLLECTION OF A CLAIM ON WHICH
CONGRESS EXPRESSLY MADE PETITIONER SUABLE.  THE MERE CHANGE IN THE
PAYEE DOES NOT MAKE THE SUIT UNRELATED TO THE DUTIES AND LIABILITIES OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SEC. 1. 

BUT PETITIONER STRONGLY URGES CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY AGAINST THIS
CONCLUSION AND STRESSES THE HEAVY BURDENS WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSED ON
SUCH GOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTALITIES IF GARNISHMENT WERE PERMITTED.  IT
ASSERTS THAT THE TASK OF PREPARING ANSWERS, DISCLOSURES AND RETURNS TO
NUMEROUS GARNISHMENT PROCESSES IN THE COURTS OF EACH OF THE STATES
WOULD APPRECIABLY IMPEDE THE FEDERAL FUNCTIONS OF SUCH AN AGENCY.  IT
POINTS TO VARIOUS STATE LEGISLATION REGULATING AND RESTRICTING
GARNISHMENT AGAINST PUBLIC BODIES AND CONCLUDES THAT IF IMMUNITY OF
PUBLIC BODIES FROM GARNISHMENT IS TO BE ABROGATED, IT SHOULD BE DONE BY
LEGISLATION SO THAT THE REMEDY COULD BE APPROPRIATELY MOLDED TO FIT THE
NEEDS OF GOVERNMENT. 

IN OUR VIEW, HOWEVER, THE BRIDGE WAS CROSSED WHEN CONGRESS ABROGATED
THE IMMUNITY BY THIS "SUE AND BE SUED" CLAUSE.  AND NO SUCH GRAVE
INTERFERENCE WITH THE FEDERAL FUNCTION HAS BEEN SHOWN TO LEAD US TO
IMPLY THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT IT
SAID.  HENCE, CONSIDERATIONS OF CONVENIENCE, COST AND EFFICIENCY  FN12
WHICH HAVE BEEN URGED HERE ARE FOR CONGRESS WHICH, AS WE HAVE SAID, HAS
FULL AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH RESTRICTIONS ON THE "SUE AND BE SUED"
CLAUSE AS SEEM TO IT APPROPRIATE OR NECESSARY. 

THERE IS SOME POINT MADE OF THE FACT THAT SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST
THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION RATHER THAN AGAINST THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  BUT WHEN THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES SUITS BY OR AGAINST THE
ADMINISTRATOR "IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY" WE CONCLUDE THAT THAT PERMITS
ACTIONS BY OR AGAINST THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR ACTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION, SINCE BY EXPRESS TERMS OF THE ACT ALL OF THE POWERS OF
THE LATTER "SHALL BE EXERCISED" BY HIM.  HENCE ACTION BY HIM IN THE
NAME OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE ACTION IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY. 

PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT EXECUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED UNDER
THE JUDGMENT.  THE ACT PERMITS THE ADMINISTRATOR "TO SUE AND BE SUED IN
ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, STATE OR FEDERAL."  WHETHER BY
MICHIGAN LAW EXECUTION UNDER SUCH A JUDGMENT MAY BE HAD IS, LIKE THE
AVAILABILITY OF GARNISHMENT, FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, SUPRA, A
STATE QUESTION.  AND SO FAR AS THE FEDERAL STATUTE IS CONCERNED,
EXECUTION IS NOT BARRED, FOR IT WOULD SEEM TO BE PART OF THE CIVIL
PROCESS EMBRACED WITHIN THE "SUE AND BE SUED" CLAUSE.  THAT DOES NOT,
OF COURSE, MEAN THAT ANY FUNDS OR PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES CAN BE
HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS JUDGMENT.  CLAIMS AGAINST A CORPORATION ARE
NORMALLY COLLECTIBLE ONLY FROM CORPORATE ASSETS.  THAT IS TRUE HERE. 
CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THAT ALL SUCH CLAIMS AGAINST THE
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED "SHALL BE PAID
OUT OF FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE BY THIS ACT."  SEC. 1.  HENCE THOSE FUNDS,
AND ONLY THOSE, ARE SUBJECT TO EXECUTION.  THE RESULT IS THAT ONLY
THOSE FUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN PAID OVER TO THE FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 1 AND WHICH ARE IN ITS
POSSESSION, SEVERED FROM TREASURY FUNDS AND TREASURY CONTROL, ARE
SUBJECT TO EXECUTION.  SINCE NO CONSENT TO REACH GOVERNMENT FUNDS HAS
BEEN GIVEN, EXECUTION THEREON WOULD RUN COUNTER TO BUCHANAN V.
ALEXANDER, SUPRA.  TO CONCLUDE OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO ALLOW PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WHERE IT HAD NOT WAIVED ITS IMMUNITY.  THIS
RESTRICTION ON EXECUTION MAY AS A PRACTICAL MATTER DEPRIVE IT OF
UTILITY, SINCE FUNDS OF PETITIONER APPEAR TO BE DEPOSITED WITH THE
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND PAYMENTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS ARE
MADE THROUGH THE CHIEF DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE TREASURY.  FN13  BUT
THAT IS AN INHERENT LIMITATION, UNDER THIS STATUTORY SCHEME, ON THE
LEGAL REMEDIES WHICH CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED.  AND SINCE RESPONDENT
OBTAINS ITS RIGHT TO SUE FROM CONGRESS, IT NECESSARILY MUST TAKE IT
SUBJECT TO SUCH RESTRICTIONS AS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED.  THE FACT THAT
EXECUTION MAY PROVE FUTILE IS ONE OF THE NOTORIOUS INCIDENTS OF
LITIGATION, AS IS THE FACT THAT EXECUTION IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE
ADJUNCT OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  FN14  AFFIRMED.    FN1  GARNISHMENT
OF WAGES DUE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD MERCHANT
FLEET CORPORATION WAS DISALLOWED IN MCCARTHY V. UNITED STATES SHIPPING
BOARD MERCHANT FLEET CORP., 60 APP. D.C. 311; 53 F.2D 923.  CONTRA:
HAINES V. LONE STAR SHIPBUILDING CO., 268 PA. 92; 110 A. 788.  AS TO
THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, A SIMILAR CONFLICT OF DECISIONS HAS
ARISEN.  THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT SEE HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORP. V. HARDIE & CAUDLE, 171 TENN. 43; 100 S.W.2D 238.  AND SEE
MANUFACTURER'S TRUST CO. V. ROSS, 252 APP. DIV. 292; 299 N.Y.S. 398. 
THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT SEE CENTRAL MARKET, INC. V. KING, 132
NEB. 380; 272 N.W. 244; GILL V. REESE, 53 OH. APP. 134; 4 N.E.2D 273;
MCAVOY V. WEBER, 198 WASH. 370; 88 P.2D 448. 

FN2  MICH. STAT. ANN. (1938) SEC. 27, 1855 ET SEQ. 

FN3  CF. PORTO RICO V. ROSALY, 227 U.S. 270. 

FN4  SEE SHINN, ATTACHMENT & GARNISHMENT, CHS.  I, XXIII.  AS TO
GARNISHMENT OF WAGE CLAIMS, SEE STURGES & COOPER, CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
AND WAGE EARNER BANKRUPTCIES, 42 YALE L. JOURN.  487, 503 ET SEQ. 

FN5  CF. WILLIAMS V. T.R. SWEAT & CO., 103 FLA. 461; 137 SO. 698;
CAMPAGNA V. AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC CO., 293 ILL. APP. 437; 12 N.E.2D 695,
WITH COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST, INC. V. WILLIAM FRANKFURTH HARDWARE
CO., 179 WIS. 21; 190 N.W. 1004; DIAMOND CORK CO. V. MAINE JOBBING CO.,
116 ME. 67; 100 A. 7. 

FN6  COL. CODE CIV. PROC., CH. 7, SEC. 129; DEERING'S CALIF. CODE
CIV. PROC., SEC. 543. 

FN7  N.Y. CIV. PRAC.  ACT, SEC. 684; PURDON'S PENN.  STAT.  SEC.
2994.  IN MICHIGAN NO GARNISHMENT FOR MONEY OWING THE PRINCIPAL
DEFENDANT ON ACCOUNT OF LABOR PERFORMED BY HIM SHALL BE COMMENCED UNTIL
AFTER JUDGMENT HAS BEEN OBTAINED AGAINST SUCH PRINCIPAL DEFENDANT. 
MICH. STAT. ANN., SEC. 27.1855. 

FN8  IN WESTON V. CITY COUNCIL OF CHARLESTON, 2 PET. 449, 464, CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL IN DEFINING THE WORD "SUIT," AS USED IN THE 25TH
REVIEW ON ENUMERATED CONDITIONS A "FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE IN ANY SUIT
IN THE HIGHEST COURT OF LAW OR EQUITY OF A STATE IN WHICH A DECISION IN
THE SUIT COULD BE HAD" (43 STAT. 937), SAID: 

"THE TERM IS CERTAINLY A VERY COMPREHENSIVE ONE, AND IS UNDERSTOOD TO
APPLY TO ANY PROCEEDING IN A COURT OF JUSTICE, BY WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL
PURSUES THAT REMEDY IN A COURT OF JUSTICE, WHICH THE LAW AFFORDS HIM. 
THE MODES OF PROCEEDING MAY BE VARIOUS, BUT IF A RIGHT IS LITIGATED
BETWEEN PARTIES IN A COURT OF JUSTICE, THE PROCEEDING BY WHICH THE
DECISION OF THE COURT IS SOUGHT, IS A SUIT." 

FN9  CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. V. ANDALUSIA, 218 ALA. 511; 119 SO.
236; DUVALL COUNTY V. CHARLESTON LUMBER CO., 45 FLA. 256, 265; 33 SO.
531; CHICAGO V. HASLEY, 25 ILL. 595. 

FN10  AS RESPECTS THE FORTY GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS LISTED IN KEIFER
& KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., SUPRA, PP. 390-391, WHERE
CONGRESS INCLUDED THE AUTHORITY TO "SUE AND BE SUED," EXPRESS
PROHIBITION AGAINST ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT WAS PROVIDED IN ONLY TWO
INSTANCES.  THEY ARE THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION (52 STAT.
72, 73) AND THE FARMERS' HOME CORPORATION (50 STAT. 527). 

FN11  WHILE THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BROOKS HAD BEEN "CONNECTED" WITH
THE PETITIONER IT DOES NOT SHOW THE NATURE OF THE DEBT DUE HIM.  THE
BRIEF WHICH PETITIONER FILED BELOW, HOWEVER, RECITED THAT BROOKS WAS AN
EMPLOYEE; AND NO DEFENSE WAS INTERPOSED THAT THE CLAIM DID NOT ARISE
UNDER TITLE I OF THE ACT. 

FN12  CF. FORTAS, WAGE ASSIGNMENTS IN CHICAGO, 42 YALE L. JOURN. 
526; NUGENT, HAMM, JONES, WAGE EXECUTIONS FOR DEBT, BULL.  NO. 622,
BUREAU OF LAB.  STATISTICS, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR. 

FN13  FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT, FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION (1938), P.
157. 

FN14  SEE NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249,
263; COMMONWEALTH FINANCE CORP. V. LANDIS, 261 F. 440, 443-444.  CF.
PAUCHOGUE LAND CORP. V. LONG ISLAND STATE PARK COMM'N, 243 N.Y. 15; 152
N.E. 451; NEW SOUTH WALES V. BARDOLPH, 52 COMMONWEALTH L. REP. 455. 

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















U.S. V. NATIONAL SURETY CORP., 309 U.S. 165 


NO. 236.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 10, 1940.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 5, 1940.  -
103 F.2D 450, AFFIRMED. 


A PRIVATE USER OF THE MAILS MAY NOT, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES, BRING SUIT ON THE BOND OF A POSTMASTER
(IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS THE SOLE OBLIGEE) FOR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM MISDELIVERY OF MAIL.  P. 169. 

UNITED STATES FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF MIDLAND LOAN FINANCE CO. V.
NATIONAL SURETY CORP. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 534, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 23 F.SUPP.  411, DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN AN
ACTION ON A POSTMASTER'S BOND. 

IF A POSTMASTER STANDS IN A RELATIONSHIP TOWARD PRIVATE MAIL-USERS
AKIN TO THAT OF CLERKS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS TOWARDS PRIVATE SUITORS,
THE RIGHT TO RECOVER IS ESTABLISHED BY HOWARD V. UNITED STATES, 184
U.S. 676. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOND STATUTE, 39 U.S.C. SEC. 34, CONFERS BENEFITS
UPON USERS OF THE MAILS, AS WELL AS UPON THE GOVERNMENT. 

THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS THE SOLE OBLIGEE IS NOT CONTROLLING. 
HOWARD V. UNITED STATES, 184 U.S. 676, 687; UNITED STATES V. GLOBE
INDEMNITY CO., 26 F.2D 191; UNITED STATES V. BELL, 135 F. 336; IN RE
WALKER GRAIN CO., 3 F.2D 872, 874; DIST'G DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V.
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 271 F. 383. 

THE STATUTE PERMITS A BOND NORMALLY SUFFICIENT TO COVER BOTH THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE MAIL-USERS.  THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THE PENALTY.  THE
GOVERNMENT MAY EXACT A NEW BOND IF A RECOVERY ON AN EXISTING BOND
DIMINISHES SECURITY FOR THE FUTURE.  POSTAL LAWS AND REGS., 1932, SEC.
414. 

LIABILITY ON AN OFFICIAL BOND IS CO-EXTENSIVE WITH THE LIABILITY OF
THE OFFICER HIMSELF.  NATIONAL SURETY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 129 F. 70;
GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 208 F. 534; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 133 F. 1019. 

IF THE GOVERNMENT, AS BAILEE, MAY SUE A THIRD PERSON WHO WRONGFULLY
DEALS WITH THE SUBJECT OF BAILMENT, OR HIS SURETY, THEN THE SENDER OF A
LETTER, AS BAILOR, IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME REMEDY.  NEW JERSEY STEAM
NAV. CO. V. BOSTON MERCHANTS BANK, 6 HOW.  344. 

PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO SUE IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES DERIVES
FROM THE FACT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED MAIL-USERS SHOULD BE BENEFICIARIES
OF THE BOND, AND PRESCRIBED NO OTHER REMEDY.  HOWARD V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER PETITIONER, A PRIVATE USER OF THE
MAILS, MAY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ANY OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES
BRING SUIT ON THE BOND OF AN ACTING POSTMASTER FOR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM MISDELIVERY OF MAIL.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA DISMISSING PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT. 
FN1  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI  FN2  BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH A
DECISION OF THIS COURT  FN3  AND BECAUSE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE POSTAL LAWS WAS INVOLVED. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
AUTOMOBILE FINANCING IN MINNEAPOLIS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH IT
PURCHASED FROM AUTOMOBILE DEALERS THE INSTALLMENT NOTES OF BUYERS
SECURED BY THEIR SALES CONTRACTS.  A DEALER LIVING AT MONTGOMERY,
MINNESOTA, WHERE THE RESPONDENT MALONE WAS ACTING POSTMASTER, IS
ALLEGED TO HAVE PUT INTO OPERATION A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD PETITIONER BY
SELLING IT FORGED NOTES AND CONTRACTS, WHICH HE SENT PETITIONER ALONG
WITH A FICTITIOUS LIST OF CREDIT REFERENCES.  PETITIONER, BEFORE
PURCHASING, FOLLOWED ITS USUAL PRACTICE OF MAILING LETTERS OF INQUIRY
TO THE REFERENCES, AND AFTER PURCHASING MAILED PAYMENT BOOKS, INSURANCE
CERTIFICATES, AND RECEIPTS TO THE PURPORTED MAKERS OF THE NOTES.  THE
DEALER PERSUADED THE ACTING POSTMASTER MALONE, ALLEGEDLY IN VIOLATION
OF THE POSTAL REGULATIONS,  FN4  TO TURN OVER TO HIM ALL LETTERS THAT
ARRIVED IN MONTGOMERY IN PETITIONER'S ENVELOPES.  THEN HE SENT FORGED
REPLIES TO PETITIONER'S LETTERS AND MADE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS OUT OF
THE MONEY WHICH PETITIONER HAD PAID HIM IN BUYING THE NOTES.  THE
DEALER THUS DEFRAUDED THE FINANCE COMPANY OF SOME $34,000.  THE
RESPONDENT MALONE, ON TAKING OFFICE AS ACTING POSTMASTER, HAD EXECUTED
A BOND FOR $16,000 TO THE UNITED STATES AS SOLE OBLIGEE WITH THE
RESPONDENT SURETY CORPORATION AS SURETY.  THE CONDITION OF THE BOND
WAS: 

"THAT IF THE SAID PATRICK J. MALONE SHALL ON AND AFTER THE DATE HE
TOOK CHARGE OF THE POST OFFICE FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE ALL DUTIES AND
TRUSTS IMPOSED ON HIM AS ACTING POSTMASTER EITHER BY LAW OR BY THE
REGULATIONS OF THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, AND SHALL PERFORM ALL DUTIES
AS FISCAL AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT IMPOSED ON HIM BY LAW OR BY
REGULATION OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT MADE IN CONFORMITY WITH LAW, AND
SHALL ALSO PERFORM ALL DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED UPON OR REQUIRED
OF HIM BY LAW, OR BY REGULATION MADE PURSUANT TO LAW, IN CONNECTION
WITH THE POSTAL SAVINGS SYSTEM, THEN THIS OBLIGATION SHALL BE VOID;
OTHERWISE, OF FORCE." 

IN ITS COMPLAINT, WITHOUT ALLEGING SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION FROM THE
UNITED STATES TO SUE, PETITIONER ASKED JUDGMENT ON THE BOND FOR THE
DEFAULTS OF MALONE AS POSTMASTER.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE TESTIMONY AT THE
TRIAL MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WERE MADE BY RESPONDENTS AND THE
DISTRICT JUDGE RESERVED JUDGMENT.  AFTER A JURY VERDICT FOR PETITIONER
THE MOTIONS WERE GRANTED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND
THAT A PRIVATE USER OF THE MAILS CANNOT MAINTAIN SUCH AN ACTION AS IS
HERE ALLEGED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE OBLIGEE IN
THE BOND, AND THAT NO CONSENT WAS GIVEN EITHER BY THE STATUTES,
EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION, OR BY ANY APPROPRIATE OFFICER OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

THE RESPONDENT GAVE A STATUTORY BOND IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN ENACTMENT
OF THE CONGRESS FOR THE PURPOSES SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE.  FN5  AS THE
BOND IS PART OF AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF POSTAL REGULATIONS, THE
DETERMINATION OF THE PARTIES AUTHORIZED TO SUE UPON IT IS A FEDERAL
QUESTION GOVERNED BY FEDERAL LAW.  FN6 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THERE WAS NO CONSENT AND THAT
SUCH CONSENT IS NECESSARY.  CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO OCCASION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE BOND WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT PRIVATE USERS OF THE
MAIL FROM ALL LOSS OR DAMAGE, HOWEVER CONSEQUENTIAL, OCCASIONED BY THE
POSTMASTER. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THE ONLY EFFORT MADE TO SECURE CONSENT OF AN OFFICER
WAS A REQUEST TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR AUTHORITY TO SUE.  THIS WAS
REFUSED.  WHETHER AS A MATTER OF RIGHT A THIRD PARTY MAY SUE ON THE
INSTRUMENT FOR LOSS COVERED BY AN OFFICIAL BOND RUNNING ONLY TO THE
STATUTORY OBLIGEE DEPENDS UPON THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY
WHICH REQUIRED THE BOND.  THIS INTENTION MAY BE EVIDENCED BY EXPRESS
STATUTORY LANGUAGE OR BY IMPLICATION.  THIS WAS THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON V. YOUNG.  FN7  THERE A BOND HAD BEEN GIVEN
TO THE CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, A MUNICIPALITY, BY THE MANAGER OF A
LOTTERY "TRULY AND IMPARTIALLY TO EXECUTE" HIS DUTIES.  WITHOUT THE
CITY'S CONSENT, THE HOLDER OF A WINNING TICKET SUED ON THE BOND.  THIS
COURT SAID: 

"NO PERSON WHO IS NOT THE PROPRIETOR OF AN OBLIGATION, CAN HAVE A
LEGAL RIGHT TO PUT IT IN SUIT, UNLESS SUCH RIGHT BE GIVEN BY THE
LEGISLATURE; AND NO PERSON CAN BE AUTHORIZED TO USE THE NAME OF
ANOTHER, WITHOUT HIS ASSENT GIVEN IN FACT, OR BY LEGAL INTENDMENT." 

IN HOWARD V. UNITED STATES  FN8  THIS COMMENT WAS MADE UPON THE YOUNG
DECISION: 

"THAT CASE UNDOUBTEDLY IS AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT,
GENERALLY SPEAKING, AN OBLIGATION TAKEN UNDER LEGISLATIVE SANCTION
CANNOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE SO PROVIDING, BE PUT IN SUIT IN THE
NAME OF THE OBLIGEE, THE PROPRIETOR OF THE OBLIGATION, WITHOUT HIS
CONSENT."  FN9  SUCH OFFICIAL BONDS ARE OFTEN PART OF A GENERAL
STATUTORY PLAN FOR THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES.  WHILE ALL
THE ACTIVITIES OF A GOVERNMENT OF COURSE CONFER BENEFITS ON ITS
CITIZENS, FREQUENTLY THE BENEFITS ARE INCIDENTAL AND UNENFORCEABLE. 
FN10  IN THE CASE OF AN OFFICIAL BOND, EVEN IF ITS BENEFITS ARE NOT
INCIDENTAL, IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY IS OF THE OPINION
THAT ACTIONS ON THE BOND SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE GOVERNMENT IN ORDER
TO SECURE UNIFIED ADMINISTRATION OF CLAIMS. 

WE HAVE RECOGNIZED A SIMILAR NEED FOR A SINGLE CONTROL IN REGARD TO A
SALE BOND REQUIRED BY A DISTRICT COURT IN AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP.  THIS
COURT IN MUNROE V. RAPHAEL  FN11  HAD BEFORE IT AN INJUNCTION GRANTED
BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UPON THE MOTION OF ITS RECEIVER TO RESCIND
A CONSENT TO SUE AND FORBID FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN A SUIT IN A STATE
COURT IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES UPON A SALE BOND OF THE ESTATE
IN RECEIVERSHIP.  THE SALE BOND HAD BEEN GIVEN FOR ASSETS PURCHASED
FROM THE RECEIVER.  IT RAN TO THE UNITED STATES ONLY AND GUARANTEED THE
PAYMENT OF A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF INDEBTEDNESS TO ALL CREDITORS OF THE
ESTATE.  THE SUIT HAD BEEN INSTITUTED IN THE STATE COURT BY ONE
CREDITOR, WITH PERMISSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OBTAINED PRIOR TO THE
RECEIVER'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION.  THIS COURT UPHELD THE INJUNCTION ON
THE THEORY THAT THE BOND, A PART OF THE ESTATE, REMAINED WITHIN THE
CONTROL OF THE COURT AND THAT TO ENSURE RATABLE PAYMENTS TO ALL
CREDITORS ONE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO CARRY ON THE LITIGATION.  IN
THE OPINION, IT WAS DECLARED:  "CERTAINLY NO CREDITOR COULD BRING A
SUIT IN HIS OWN NAME ON THE BOND, FOR HIS SHARE OF THE PURCHASE MONEY. 
NOR COULD HE INSTITUTE SUCH AN ACTION WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT."  FN12 

PETITIONER'S ATTACK IS POINTED AT THE APPLICATION OF THE CONSENT RULE
RATHER THAN AT THE RULE ITSELF.  WHILE WITH SOME OTHER OFFICIAL BONDS
CONSENT IS GIVEN BY EXPRESS PROVISION,  FN13  NONE IS GIVEN IN THE
POSTMASTER BOND STATUTE.  PETITIONER URGES THAT CONSENT BY IMPLICATION
IS GIVEN.  ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE WORDS "LEGAL INTENDMENT" IN THE
QUOTATION FROM CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON V. YOUNG AND TO A COMMENT UPON
THE YOUNG CASE IN THE HOWARD CASE THAT THESE WORDS SHOW THAT "CONSENT
MAY, UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN  ..." 
FN14  THESE EXPRESSIONS ARE USED TO BASE AN ARGUMENT THAT THE STATUTES
AND REGULATIONS OF THE POSTAL SERVICE ESTABLISH CONSENT BY INTENDMENT. 
THE PRECEDENT CHIEFLY RELIED UPON FOR THIS POSITION IS THE HOWARD
CASE.  THIS WAS A SUIT, WITHOUT EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
ON A BOND OF A CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ALLEGING BREACH BY FAILURE
TO PAY OVER MONEY DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK IN SETTLEMENT OF PRIOR
LITIGATION.  THE BOND WAS A STATUTORY BOND NAMING THE UNITED STATES AS
SOLE OBLIGEE AND ASSURING THAT THE CLERK WOULD FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE
DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE.  THIS COURT ANALYZED THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
AND THE "PECULIAR RELATION" OF THE CLERK TO THE COURT TO DETERMINE THE
INTENDMENT OF THE CONGRESS AS TO THE STANDING OF THE PRIVATE LITIGANT
TO SUE ON CLERKS' BONDS.  CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT "THE
GREAT MASS OF LITIGATION  ...  HAS ALWAYS BEEN BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS,"
FN15  THAT "THE PRACTICE OF A CENTURY" REQUIRED A RULING THAT THE BOND
COVERED THEM AND THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID OF THE CLERK'S BOND, AS IT
WAS SAID OF THE LOTTERY BOND, THAT IT WAS GIVEN PRIMARILY FOR THE
GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.  THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT EVEN THOUGH
"GENERALLY SPEAKING  ...  IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE" THE OBLIGATION
CANNOT BE PUT IN SUIT IN THE NAME OF THE OBLIGEE WITHOUT HIS CONSENT,
THE FACTORS OF CUSTOM, SIMILARITY OF GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE USE OF
THE COURTS AND THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE ABSENCE OF WORDS
DECLARATORY OF INTENTION, EVIDENCED AN INTENDMENT TO PERMIT SUIT
WITHOUT CONSENT ON THE CLERK'S BOND.  "IN OUR OPINION, CONGRESS
INTENDED THAT THE REQUIRED BOND SHOULD PROTECT PRIVATE SUITORS AS WELL
AS THE UNITED STATES, AND THEREFORE, NO STATUTE FORBIDDING IT, A
PRIVATE SUITOR MAY BRING AN ACTION THEREON FOR HIS BENEFIT IN THE NAME
OF THE OBLIGEE, THE UNITED STATES.  SUCH MUST BE HELD TO BE THE LEGAL
INTENDMENT OF EXISTING STATUTORY PROVISIONS."  FN16 

WE CONCLUDE IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, HOWEVER, THAT CIRCUMSTANCES,
PRACTICE, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS COMBINE TO FORBID READING INTO THIS
SITUATION A "LEGAL INTENDMENT" TO PERMIT SUIT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
THE UNITED STATES.  ASSUMING THE BOND DECLARED UPON HERE IS INTENDED TO
COVER THE USERS OF MAIL SERVICE, ITS BENEFICIARIES ARE LEGION IN
COMPARISON WITH THE USERS OF A COURT'S DEPOSITORY.  MOREOVER, THE
UNITED STATES HAS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A POSTMASTER'S BOND. 
THE STATUTORY DUTIES OF A POSTMASTER REQUIRE HIM TO ACT AS A FISCAL
OFFICER FOR THE GOVERNMENT AT HIS OFFICE.  HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR POSTAL
SAVINGS DEPOSITS, MONEY ORDERS, STAMPS, AND SALARY DISBURSEMENTS AS
WELL AS FOR THE PROPERTY OF THE SERVICE, BUILDINGS, MAIL BAGS AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT.  FN17  SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WEIGH AGAINST A HOLDING THAT THE
CONGRESS INTENDED TO LET A PRIVATE USER OF THE MAILS, WRONGED BY THE
PRINCIPAL OF A POSTMASTER'S BOND, SUE WHEREVER HE MIGHT FIND DEFENDANTS
AND GAIN FOR HIMSELF SUCH PRIORITY ON THE BOND AS VIGILANCE COULD
OBTAIN.  FN18 

APPARENTLY IT IS NOT CUSTOMARY FOR THE UNITED STATES TO CONSENT TO
SUIT BY MAIL USERS UPON POSTMASTERS' BONDS.  NO CASE HAS BEEN CALLED TO
OUR ATTENTION WHERE SUCH PERMISSION HAS BEEN GRANTED THOUGH THE
REQUIREMENT FOR A BOND HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1825.  FN19  RARELY
HAS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL SOUGHT RECOVERY.  FN20  THE CONTENTION OF
PETITIONER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SUPPORTED BY ANY CONTINUED
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE UNITED STATES HAS
UNDERTAKEN REPEATEDLY AND SUCCESSFULLY TO RECOVER ON THE BONDS FOR THE
LOSSES OF MAIL USERS.  RECOVERY HAS BEEN ALLOWED ON THE THEORY OF A
SUIT BY A BAILEE FOR LOSS OF PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION.  FN21    THERE
ARE OVER 44,000 POST OFFICES UNDER THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT  FN22
AND IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MILLIONS OF ITEMS OF MAIL GO THROUGH
THEM EACH YEAR.  IT IS RATHER OBVIOUS THAT NUMEROUS CLAIMS, MANY OF
THEM FOR SMALL AMOUNTS, ARE LIKELY TO ARISE IN THE COURSE OF MANY
TRANSACTIONS.  FN23  UNDER THE DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS THERE IS A
FAIRLY COMPLETE ADMINISTRATIVE FORMULA FOR HANDLING THESE CLAIMS FROM
DISCOVERY TO SATISFACTION.  FN24  THESE FACTS, ALONG WITH THE
SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE BONDS, CONVINCE US THAT
THE CONGRESS INTENDED THAT CLAIMS ON THE BONDS WOULD BE HANDLED THROUGH
THE GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN THROUGH VARIOUS SUITS BY INDIVIDUALS. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  103 F.2D 450, AFFIRMING 23 F. SUPP 411. 

FN2  308 U.S. 534. 

FN3  HOWARD V. UNITED STATES, 184 U.S. 676. 

FN4  POSTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS (1932), SEC. 777.  "MAIL MATTER
SHOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE PERSON ADDRESSED OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS
WRITTEN ORDER  ...  " 

"2.  WHEN A PERSON REQUESTS DELIVERY TO HIM OF THE MAIL OF ANOTHER,
CLAIMING THAT THE ADDRESSEE HAS VERBALLY GIVEN HIM AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE
IT, THE POSTMASTER, IF HE DOUBTS THE AUTHORITY, MAY REQUIRE IT TO BE IN
WRITING, SIGNED AND FILED IN HIS OFFICE.  ...  " 

FN5  39 U.S.C. SEC. 34, POSTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SEC. 410: 

"EVERY POSTMASTER, BEFORE ENTERING UPON THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE,
SHALL GIVE BOND, WITH GOOD AND APPROVED SECURITY, AND IN SUCH PENALTY
AS THE POSTMASTER GENERAL SHALL DEEM SUFFICIENT, CONDITIONED FOR THE
FAITHFUL DISCHARGE OF ALL DUTIES AND TRUSTS IMPOSED ON HIM EITHER BY
LAW OR THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT." 

FN6  JAMES STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, ANTE, P. 94. 

FN7  10 WHEAT.  406, 409. 

FN8  184 U.S. 676, 691. 

FN9  CF. UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES LINES CO., 24 F.SUPP.  427;
MOODY V. MEGEE, 31 F.2D 117; UNITED STATES EX REL. BRUMBERG BROS. V.
GLOBE INDEMNITY CO., 26 F.2D 191, 193; IDAHO GOLD REDUCTION CO. V.
CROGHAN, 6 IDAHO 471, 473; 56 P. 164; UNITED STATES V. GRISWOLD, 8
ARIZ. 453, 456; 76 P. 596. 

FN10  GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. HOME WATER SUPPLY CO., 226 U.S.
220, 231. 

FN11  288 U.S. 485. 

FN12  IBID. AT 488; SEE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO USE OF LANGELLOTTI V.
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 50 APP. D.C. 309; 271 F. 383. 

FN13  40 U.S.C. SEC. 270A-D (LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN MAY SUE ON BOND
OF CONTRACTOR FOR GOVERNMENT BUILDING); 22 U.S.C. SEC. 103("ANY PERSON
INJURED" MAY SUE ON BOND OF CONSUL); 22 U.S.C. SEC. 78(SAME AS TO BONDS
OF CONSULAR OFFICERS ACTING AS ADMINISTRATORS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES); 22
U.S.C. SECS. 170, 171(SAME AS TO BONDS OF MARSHALS OF CONSULAR COURTS);
28 U.S.C. SECS. 496, 500(SAME AS TO BONDS OF U.S. MARSHALS); 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 78(H)(SAME AS TO BONDS OF REFEREES, TRUSTEES AND DESIGNATED
DEPOSITORIES IN BANKRUPTCY); 7 U.S.C. SECS. 247, 249(SAME AS TO BONDS
OF WAREHOUSEMEN UNDER THE WAREHOUSE ACT). 

FN14  184 U.S. 676, 691. 

FN15  ID., P. 687. 

FN16  ID., P. 692. 

FN17  POSTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SECS. 105-06, 443, 1626, 1408,
1426, 1430(21), 137, 235, 1866-70. 

FN18  IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS LEGISLATION THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT
ENTITLED TO PRIORITY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. STATE BANK OF NORTH
CAROLINA, 6 PET. 29, 35; MELLON V. MICHIGAN TRUST CO., 271 U.S. 236,
239; UNITED STATES V. KNOTT, 298 U.S. 544, 547. 

THE FIRST STATUTE PERMITTING PRIVATE SUITS ON PUBLIC CONTRACTORS'
BONDS TO THE UNITED STATES MADE NO PROVISION FOR GOVERNMENT PRIORITY. 
28 STAT. 278.  BY A LATER AMENDMENT PRIVATE SUITS WERE FORBIDDEN UNTIL
SIX MONTHS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT AND SETTLEMENT OF THE
CONTRACTORS' ACCOUNTS AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS GIVEN PRIORITY.  33 STAT.
811; SEE ILLINOIS SURETY CO. V. PEELER, 240 U.S. 214, 217.  THE PRESENT
STATUTE REQUIRES TWO BONDS, ONE FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND A SECOND FOR
LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN.  40 U.S.C. SEC. 270A-D. 

FN19  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1825, 4 STAT. 103. 

FN20  CF. WILE V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 6 ALASKA 48;
IDAHO GOLD REDUCTION CO. V. CROGHAN, 6 IDAHO 471; 56 P. 164. 

FN21  NATIONAL SURETY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 129 F. 70(C.C.A. 8);
AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 133 F. 1019(C.C.A. 5); UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 163 F. 228(C.C.A. 4); UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN SURETY CO., 155 F. 941(N.D. ILL.); GIBSON V. UNITED STATES,
208 F. 534(C.C.A. 1); UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 229 F. 397(C.C.A. 8); UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 246 F. 433(C.C.A. 9); UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 247 F. 16(C.C.A. 6); UNITED STATES V.
GRISWOLD, 8 ARIZ. 453; 76 P. 596. 

FN22  REPORT OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, 1939, P. 126. 

FN23  COMPARE THE DEPARTMENT'S EXPERIENCE WITH CLAIMS ON DOMESTIC
INSURED MAIL DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1939.  PAYMENTS
WERE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH 113,846 CLAIMS, AND THE AVERAGE PAYMENT
AMOUNTED TO ONLY $3.87.  REPORT OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, 1939, P.
120. 

FN24  POSTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SEC. 816: 

"THE LOSS, RIFLING, DAMAGE, WRONG DELIVERY OF, OR DEPREDATION UPON
REGISTERED OR OTHER MAIL, AND THE FAILURE TO COLLECT OR REMIT C.O.D.
FUNDS SHALL BE INVESTIGATED BY THE CHIEF INSPECTOR, WHO SHALL ASCERTAIN
THE FACTS. 

"2.  WHEN THE CHIEF INSPECTOR FINDS THAT THE FACTS ASCERTAINED IN
CONNECTION WITH SUCH AN INVESTIGATION ESTABLISH THE RESPONSIBILITY, BY
REASON OF FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE, OF A POSTAL EMPLOYEE OR MAIL CONTRACTOR
OR AN AGENT OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF, THE CHIEF INSPECTOR SHALL DEMAND THE
AMOUNT OF THE LOSS FROM SUCH EMPLOYEE OR CONTRACTOR. 

     .         .         .       .         . 

"6.  IF FULL RECOVERY IS NOT MADE AND THE CHIEF INSPECTOR DETERMINES
THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE HAD, HE SHALL PRESENT THE FACTS TO
THE SOLICITOR FOR THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT FOR ADVICE AS TO THE
ADVISABILITY OF SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES FOR RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT
INVOLVED.  UPON RECEIPT OF THE REPLY OF THE SOLICITOR THE CHIEF
INSPECTOR SHALL, IF HE DEEM PROPER, PREPARE THE REQUEST OF THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL UPON THE SOLICITOR OF THE TREASURY FOR SUIT. 

"7.  ALL AMOUNTS RECOVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL
BE PAID TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE SENDERS OR OWNERS OF THE MAIL
AS THEIR INTERESTS SHALL APPEAR." 
..END :



YEARSLEY V. ROSS CONSTR. CO., 309 U.S. 18 


NO. 156.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 4, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 103
F.2D 589, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CONTRACTOR WORKING FOR IMPROVEMENT OF RIVER NAVIGATION IN
CONFORMITY WITH A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZED BY A VALID
ACT OF CONGRESS, IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY RESULTING TO PRIVATE RIPARIAN
LAND, EVEN THOUGH WHAT IS SO DONE AMOUNTS TO A TAKING OF PROPERTY BY
THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 20. 

WHERE AN AGENT OR OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT PURPORTING TO ACT ON ITS
BEHALF HAS BEEN HELD TO BE LIABLE FOR HIS CONDUCT CAUSING INJURY TO
ANOTHER, THE GROUND OF LIABILITY HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE EITHER THAT HE
EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY OR THAT IT WAS NOT VALIDLY CONFERRED. 

2.  FOR A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE COURSE OF AUTHORIZED
NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT, THE GOVERNMENT IMPLIEDLY PROMISES TO PAY JUST
COMPENSATION, RECOVERABLE BY SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE
COURT OF CLAIMS.  P. 21. 

3.  THE REMEDY THUS AFFORDED IS PLAIN AND ADEQUATE, AND SATISFIES THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF TAKING IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE
AMENDMENT.  PP. 21, 22. 

YEARSLEY ET AL. V. W.A. ROSS CONSTRUCTION CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 538, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED BY THE PRESENT PETITIONERS IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES TO THEIR RIPARIAN LANDS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS ACTION, BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURT OF NEBRASKA AND REMOVED TO
THE FEDERAL COURT, PETITIONERS SOUGHT TO RECOVER DAMAGES UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE RESPONDENT COMPANY HAD BUILT DIKES IN THE MISSOURI
RIVER AND, USING LARGE BOATS WITH PADDLES AND PUMPS TO PRODUCE
ARTIFICIAL EROSION, HAD WASHED AWAY A PART OF PETITIONERS' LAND. 
RESPONDENT ALLEGED IN DEFENSE THAT THE WORK WAS DONE PURSUANT TO A
CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE SECRETARY OF WAR AND THE SUPERVISION OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS OF
THE UNITED STATES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING THE NAVIGATION OF THE
MISSOURI RIVER, AS AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  PETITIONERS IN
REPLY ALLEGED THAT THE CONTRACT DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THE TAKING OF THEIR
LAND WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION AND THAT THE ACTS OF THE CONTRACTOR
RESULTED IN THE DESTRUCTION OF PETITIONERS' PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF
THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

PETITIONERS HAD JUDGMENT WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  103 F.2D 589.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  308 U.S. 538.  THE
GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN PERMITTED TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED
"THAT TWO DIKES BUILT IN THE RIVER ABOVE, AND ONE DIKE BUILT OPPOSITE,
THEIR (PETITIONERS') LAND HAD DIVERTED THE CHANNEL OR THE CURRENT OF
THE RIVER FROM THE IOWA SHORE TO THE NEBRASKA SHORE" AND THAT AS A
RESULT THE "ACCRETION LAND" OF PETITIONERS "TO THE EXTENT OF PERHAPS 95
ACRES HAD BEEN ERODED AND CARRIED AWAY."  THERE WAS EVIDENCE TENDING TO
SHOW THAT IN EXTENDING THE DIKE OPPOSITE PETITIONERS' LAND, THE
CONTRACTOR, "APPARENTLY TO KEEP OPEN AN ADEQUATE CHANNEL FOR NAVIGATION
BETWEEN THE END OF THE DIKE AND THE SHORE," HAD ACCELERATED THE EROSION
"BY USING THE PADDLE WHEELS OF ITS STEAMBOATS TO INCREASE THE ACTION OF
THE CURRENT."  BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID,
THAT THIS "PADDLE WASHING" HAD DONE" ANYTHING MORE THAN HASTEN THE
INEVITABLE."  THE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO FOUND IT TO BE UNDISPUTED "THAT
THE WORK WHICH THE CONTRACTOR HAD DONE IN THE RIVER BED WAS ALL
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF IMPROVING THE NAVIGATION OF THIS NAVIGABLE RIVER."  IT IS
ALSO CONCEDED THAT THE WORK THUS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED BY THE
GOVERNMENTAL OFFICERS WAS PERFORMED PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF
JANUARY 21, 1927, 44 STAT. 1010, 1013. 

IN THAT VIEW, IT IS CLEAR THAT IF THIS AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT THE
PROJECT WAS VALIDLY CONFERRED, THAT IS, IF WHAT WAS DONE WAS WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS, THERE IS NO LIABILITY ON THE PART OF
THE CONTRACTOR FOR EXECUTING ITS WILL.  SEE MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN
LAND & IMPROVEMENT CO., 18 HOW.  272, 283; LAMAR V. BROWNE, 92 U.S.
187, 199; THE PAQUETE HABANA, 189 U.S. 453, 465.  WHERE AN AGENT OR
OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT PURPORTING TO ACT ON ITS BEHALF HAS BEEN HELD
TO BE LIABLE FOR HIS CONDUCT CAUSING INJURY TO ANOTHER, THE GROUND OF
LIABILITY HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE EITHER THAT HE EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY OR
THAT IT WAS NOT VALIDLY CONFERRED.  PHILADELPHIA COMPANY V. STIMSON,
223 U.S. 605, 619, 620.  SEE UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196, 220,
221; NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R. CO., 147 U.S. 165, 171, 172;
TINDAL V. WESLEY, 167 U.S. 204, 222; SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141,
152; AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S. 94,
108, 110. 

PETITIONERS PRESENT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE BUILDING OF THE DIKES
AND THE EROSION OF THEIR LAND, BECAUSE OF THE CONSEQUENT DIVERSION OF
THE CURRENT OF THE RIVER, CONSTITUTED A TAKING OF THEIR PROPERTY FOR
WHICH COMPENSATION MUST BE MADE.  WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO PASS
UPON THAT QUESTION, FOR IF THE AUTHORIZED ACTION IN THIS INSTANCE DOES
CONSTITUTE A TAKING OF PROPERTY FOR WHICH THERE MUST BE JUST
COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS IMPLIEDLY
PROMISED TO PAY THAT COMPENSATION AND HAS AFFORDED A REMEDY FOR ITS
RECOVERY BY A SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  28 U.S.C. 250.  UNITED
STATES V. GREAT FALLS MANUFACTURING CO., 112 U.S. 645, 656, 657; GREAT
FALLS MANUFACTURING CO. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 124 U.S. 581, 600; UNITED
STATES V. LYNAH, 188 U.S. 445, 465, 466; TEMPEL V. UNITED STATES, 248
U.S. 121, 129, 130; HURLEY V. KINCAID, 285 U.S. 95, 104, 105.  "THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT ENTITLE HIM (THE OWNER) TO BE PAID IN ADVANCE
OF THE TAKING" AND THE STATUTE AFFORDS A PLAIN AND ADEQUATE REMEDY. 
HURLEY V. KINCAID, SUPRA.  IT FOLLOWS THAT AS THE GOVERNMENT IN SUCH A
CASE PROMISES JUST COMPENSATION AND PROVIDES A COMPLETE REMEDY, ACTION
WHICH CONSTITUTES THE TAKING OF PROPERTY IS WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER AND THERE IS NO GROUND FOR HOLDING ITS AGENT LIABLE WHO IS SIMPLY
ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY THUS VALIDLY CONFERRED.  THE ACTION OF THE
AGENT IS "THE ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT."  UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, SUPRA. 

THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED UNDER THE STATUTE PROVIDING
COMPENSATION FOR THE USE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PATENTED INVENTIONS
WITHOUT LICENSE OF THE OWNER.  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, 36 STAT. 423.  IN
CROZIER V. KRUPP, 224 U.S. 290, 305, THE COURT SAID:  "THE ADOPTION BY
THE UNITED STATES OF THE WRONGFUL ACT OF AN OFFICER IS OF COURSE AN
ADOPTION OF THE ACT WHEN AND AS COMMITTED, AND CAUSES SUCH ACT OF THE
OFFICER TO BE, IN VIRTUE OF THE STATUTE, A RIGHTFUL APPROPRIATION BY
THE GOVERNMENT, FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS PROVIDED."  IN VIEW OF LATER
DECISIONS LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THAT STATUTE (CRAMP & SONS V. CURTIS
TURBINE CO., 246 U.S. 28; MARCONI WIRELESS TELEGRAPH CO. V. SIMON, 246
U.S. 46), CONGRESS AMENDED THE STATUTE SO AS TO INSURE COMPLETE
COMPENSATION BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THUS IT OPERATED TO RELIEVE THE
CONTRACTOR FROM LIABILITY OF EVERY KIND "FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF
PATENTS IN MANUFACTURING ANYTHING FOR THE GOVERNMENT."  THE PROVISION
FOR THE RECOVERY FROM THE UNITED STATES OF "ENTIRE" COMPENSATION
"EMPHASIZED THE EXCLUSIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE CHARACTER OF THE REMEDY
PROVIDED."  RICHMOND SCREW ANCHOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 331,
343. 

SO, IN THE CASE OF A TAKING BY THE GOVERNMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR
PUBLIC USE SUCH AS PETITIONERS ALLEGE HERE, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT
THE REMEDY TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS AS
COMPREHENSIVE AS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND HENCE IT
EXCLUDES LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S REPRESENTATIVES LAWFULLY ACTING
ON ITS BEHALF IN RELATION TO THE TAKING. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THERE HAS BEEN NO
TAKING OF PETITIONERS' LANDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TOOK THAT VIEW, HOLDING THAT
PETITIONERS HAD SUSTAINED MERELY "CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FROM THE
DEFLECTION OF WATERS BY REASON OF STRUCTURES LAWFULLY CONSTRUCTED IN
AID OF NAVIGATION."  PETITIONERS, AS WE HAVE SAID, COMBAT THIS RULING. 
WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO REVIEW IT OR THE AUTHORITIES CITED BY THE
PARTIES AND THE GOVERNMENT IN THAT RELATION, FOR PETITIONERS' CLAIM,
RESTING UPON THE THEORY THAT THERE HAS BEEN A "TAKING," HAS BEEN FOUND
UNTENABLE, AND THERE IS NO CONTENTION, OR BASIS FOR ONE, THAT IF THE
CONTRACTOR WAS ACTING FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN PROSECUTING ITS WORK IN AID
OF NAVIGATION WITHOUT THE TAKING OF PROPERTY, THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE ASSERTED LIABILITY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN REVERSING THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED BUT UPON THE GROUNDS STATED IN THIS
OPINION.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :





CARPENTER V. WABASH RY. CO., 309 U.S. 23 


NO. 230.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 103
F.2D 996, VACATED. 


1.  APPLICABLE LEGISLATION ENACTED WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING FOR
REVIEW WILL BE ENFORCED BY THE APPELLATE COURT.  P. 26. 

2.  THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 77(N) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, APPROVED AUG.
11, 1939, AND PROVIDING THAT "  ...  IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS OF
RAILROAD CORPORATIONS NOW OR HEREAFTER PENDING IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES OF A RAILROAD
CORPORATION ...  SHALL BE PREFERRED AND PAID OUT OF THE ASSETS OF SUCH
RAILROAD CORPORATION AS OPERATING EXPENSES OF SUCH RAILROAD," HELD
APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AND WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS.  P. 27. 

3.  CLAIMS OF SUPERIOR EQUITIES MAY BE ACCORDED PRIORITY OF PAYMENT
FROM THE EARNINGS OF A RAILROAD IN AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP, ALTHOUGH
THEY AROSE PRIOR TO THE RECEIVERSHIP.  CONGRESS MAY DETERMINE
REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION OF CLAIMS AS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY BECAUSE OF
SUPERIOR EQUITIES IN RECEIVERSHIP CASES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 27. 

4.  IN AN EQUITY RAILROAD RECEIVERSHIP CASE, WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT
DENIED A PETITION TO INTERVENE WITH A CLAIM OF PRIORITY OF PAYMENT FOR
A JUDGMENT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES RECOVERED BEFORE THE EQUITY PROCEEDING
WAS BEGUN, HELD THAT, INASMUCH AS THE ACT OF AUG. 11, 1939, SUPRA, IS
EXPLICIT AND MANDATORY AND AS THE DISTRICT COURT HAS NO DISCRETION TO
ACT CONTRARY TO ITS TERMS, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO REMAND TO THAT COURT
IN ORDER THAT IT MAY RECONSIDER THE CLAIM UNDER THAT ACT AND DECIDE
WHETHER THE INTERVENTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE STAGE REACHED BY THE
PROCEEDINGS; BUT THAT THE COURT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE.  P. 29. 

CARPENTER V. WABASH RAILWAY CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 539, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WHICH DENIED A PETITION TO INTERVENE IN A RAILROAD
RECEIVERSHIP CASE.  THE REVIEW HERE WAS LIMITED TO THE RIGHT OF THE
PETITIONER TO INTERVENE IN ORDER TO ASSERT PRIORITY OF A CLAIM BASED ON
PERSONAL INJURIES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN FEBRUARY, 1931, PETITIONER RECOVERED A JUDGMENT IN THE STATE COURT
OF MISSOURI FOR $15,000 AGAINST THE WABASH RAILWAY COMPANY FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BY THAT COMPANY.  ON
APPEAL, THE JUDGMENT REDUCED TO $10,000 WAS AFFIRMED. 

IN DECEMBER, 1931, ON A COMPLAINT IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY A CREDITOR OF
THE WABASH RAILWAY COMPANY IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN MISSOURI, SETTING
FORTH ITS FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND THAT ITS UNDISPUTED LIABILITIES
EXCEEDED THE ACTUAL VALUE OF ITS ASSETS, RECEIVERS WERE APPOINTED. 
SUITS BROUGHT BY MORTGAGE TRUSTEES WERE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE FIRST
SUIT.  A SPECIAL MASTER WAS APPOINTED TO TAKE PROOF OF CLAIMS AND IT
APPEARS THAT IN JANUARY, 1936, THE MASTER ALLOWED PETITIONER'S CLAIM AS
AN UNSECURED CLAIM WITHOUT LIEN OR PRIORITY. 

IN JANUARY, 1938, PETITIONER ASKED LEAVE TO FILE A PETITION SEEKING
TERMINATION OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ON VARIOUS GROUNDS NOT IMPORTANT HERE. 
AMONG OTHER THINGS, PETITIONER THEN ALLEGED THAT THE MASTER'S RULING
WAS ERRONEOUS AND THAT THE CLAIM WAS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY.  IN DENYING
THAT PETITION, THE DISTRICT COURT CONSIDERED THIS CONTENTION AND HELD
THAT THE "STATUS AND CLASSIFICATION OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM AS AN
UNSECURED CLAIM WHICH IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY LIEN OR PRIORITY OF
PAYMENT OVER ANY OTHER UNSECURED CLAIM" HAD BEEN "CORRECTLY AND FINALLY
DETERMINED IN THIS CAUSE" AND THAT PETITIONER WAS "ESTOPPED FROM
ASSERTING A CLAIM FOR PREFERENCE AND PRIORITY OF PAYMENT."  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND IN DOING
SO PASSED UPON THAT QUESTION.  THE COURT SAID THAT NO STATUTE OF
MISSOURI AND NO DECISIONS OF ITS COURTS HAD BEEN SHOWN WHICH PROVIDED
OR HELD THAT CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURIES BY EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY AS OPERATING EXPENSES.  CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF
PETITIONER THAT THE WABASH RAILWAY COMPANY WAS AN INDIANA CORPORATION
OPERATING IN THAT STATE AND IN OHIO AND THAT THE LAWS OF THOSE STATES
ACCORDED PRIORITY TO HIS CLAIM, THE COURT THOUGHT THAT, EVEN IF SO,
"THAT SITUATION CAN HAVE NO EFFECT UPON THE OPERATION AND EFFECT OF
THIS MISSOURI JUDGMENT."  THE COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT WHILE BY
SUBSECTION (N) OF SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES OF A RAILROAD CORPORATION ARE ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY, THAT PROVISION APPLIED EXPRESSLY TO PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY
AND THE PRESENT CASE AT THIS STAGE IS AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP.  AND,
APART FROM THAT, THE COURT CONSIDERED PETITIONER FORECLOSED FROM
ASSERTING SUCH RIGHTS IN THIS SUIT, APPROVING THE RULING OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THAT RESPECT.  103 F.2D 996. 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED ON JULY 26, 1939.  SUBSEQUENTLY, BY
ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED AUGUST 11, 1939, 53 STAT. 1406, SUBSECTION (N)
OF SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS AMENDED SO AS TO APPLY TO EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIPS AND THUS TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, AND IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS OF
RAILROAD CORPORATIONS NOW OR HEREAFTER PENDING IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES OF A RAILROAD
CORPORATION, CLAIMS OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED EMPLOYEES
OF A RAILROAD CORPORATION, ARISING UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, AND
CLAIMS NOW OR HEREAFTER PAYABLE BY SURETIES UPON SUPERSEDEAS, APPEAL,
ATTACHMENT, OR GARNISHMENT BONDS, EXECUTED BY SURETIES WITHOUT
SECURITY, FOR AND IN ANY ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST SUCH RAILROAD
CORPORATION OR TRUSTEES APPOINTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, SHALL BE
PREFERRED AND PAID OUT OF THE ASSETS OF SUCH RAILROAD CORPORATION AS
OPERATING EXPENSES OF SUCH RAILROAD." 

PETITIONER THEN PRESENTED A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HIS
APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI, DIRECTING OUR ATTENTION TO THIS STATUTE,
AND IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION RAISED BY THE AMENDMENT,
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE RIGHT OF THE
PETITIONER TO INTERVENE IN ORDER TO ASSERT PRIORITY.  308 U.S. 539. 

FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE, WE MAY ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE
DETERMINATION OF THE COURT BELOW WAS CORRECT UPON THE RECORD BEFORE IT
AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW AS IT THEN STOOD.  BUT IT IS OUR DUTY TO
CONSIDER THE AMENDED STATUTE AND TO DECIDE THE QUESTION IN HARMONY WITH
ITS PROVISIONS, IF FOUND TO BE APPLICABLE.  THE CONTROLLING RULE WAS
THUS STATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN UNITED STATES V. SCHOONER
PEGGY, 1 CRANCH 103, 110: 

"IT IS IN THE GENERAL TRUE THAT THE PROVINCE OF AN APPELLATE COURT IS
ONLY TO INQUIRE WHETHER A JUDGMENT WHEN RENDERED WAS ERRONEOUS OR NOT. 
BUT IF, SUBSEQUENT TO THE JUDGMENT, AND BEFORE THE DECISION OF THE
APPELLATE COURT, A LAW INTERVENES AND POSITIVELY CHANGES THE RULE WHICH
GOVERNS, THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED, OR ITS OBLIGATION DENIED.  ...  IN
SUCH A CASE THE COURT MUST DECIDE ACCORDING TO EXISTING LAWS, AND IF IT
BE NECESSARY TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT, RIGHTFUL WHEN RENDERED, BUT WHICH
CANNOT BE AFFIRMED BUT IN VIOLATION OF LAW, THE JUDGMENT MUST BE SET
ASIDE." 

SEE, ALSO, DINSMORE V. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO., 183 U.S. 115, 120;
CROZIER V. KRUPP, 224 U.S. 290, 302; GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO. V. DENNIS,
224 U.S. 503, 506; WATTS, WATTS & CO. V. UNIONE AUSTRIACA, 248 U.S. 9,
21. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMENDED STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO THIS
PROCEEDING.  THE STATUTE APPLIES TO "EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS OF RAILROAD
CORPORATIONS NOW  ...  PENDING IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES." 
THIS IS SUCH A CASE.  THE STATUTE APPLIES TO "CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES OF A RAILROAD CORPORATION."  THIS IS SUCH A
CLAIM.  THE STATUTE SAYS THAT A CLAIM OF THAT SORT "SHALL BE PREFERRED
AND PAID OUT OF THE ASSETS OF SUCH RAILROAD CORPORATION AS OPERATING
EXPENSES OF SUCH RAILROAD."  THIS IS A DIRECT REQUIREMENT GOVERNING THE
ACTION OF THE COURT IN THIS CAUSE. 

WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPOSE
THIS REQUIREMENT.  WE HAVE HELD THAT EARNINGS, WHILE A RAILROAD IS IN
POSSESSION OF THE COURT AND OPERATED BY ITS RECEIVERS, "ARE NOT
NECESSARILY AND EXCLUSIVELY THE PROPERTY OF THE MORTGAGEES" BUT ARE
SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS WHICH HAVE SUPERIOR EQUITIES AS THESE
MAY BE FOUND TO EXIST.  FOSDICK V. SCHALL, 99 U.S. 235; HALE V. FROST,
99 U.S. 389, 392.  CLAIMS HAVING SUCH EQUITIES MAY BE ACCORDED PRIORITY
IN PAYMENT ALTHOUGH THEY AROSE PRIOR TO THE RECEIVERSHIP.  MILTENBERGER
V. LOGANSPORT RAILWAY CO., 106 U.S. 286; BURNHAM V. BOWEN, 111 U.S.
776; UNION TRUST CO. V. ILLINOIS MIDLAND RY. CO., 117 U.S. 434.  IT IS
MANIFEST THAT THE REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION OF CLAIMS AS ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY BECAUSE OF SUPERIOR EQUITIES MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF
DETERMINATION BY CONGRESS IN PROVIDING FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS
IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  SEE KUEHNER V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S.
445, 451, 452.  IN THIS VIEW, THE PROVISION OF SUBSECTION (N) OF SEC.
77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF AUGUST
11, 1939, WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SEVENTH
CIRCUIT IN WISE V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. (90 F.2D 312) WITH
RESPECT TO CERTAIN UNSECURED SURETY BONDS, AND BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS FOR INJURIES TO
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES.  CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST CO. V. WILLIAMS, 95
F.2D 210; THOMPSON V. SIRATT, 95 F.2D 214. 

WE SEE NO GROUND FOR A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE AMENDMENT IN RELATION TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF
ASSETS IN THE CASE OF AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP.  AND THE FACT THAT THE
PROVISION AS TO THE LATTER IS INCLUDED IN A SECTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY
STATUTE DOES NOT DEROGATE FROM ITS CONTROLLING AUTHORITY AS AN
EXPRESSION OF THE WILL OF CONGRESS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT HAS RECENTLY HELD THIS PROVISION AS TO EQUITY
RECEIVERSHIPS TO BE APPLICABLE AND VALID IN RELATION TO CLAIMS FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES SUSTAINED BY EMPLOYEES OF THIS RAILROAD CORPORATION. 
AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. WABASH RAILWAY CO., 107 F.2D 685.  WE THINK THE
CONCLUSION IS SOUND. 

IT IS URGED IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT UNLESS AND
UNTIL THE DISTRICT COURT UPON PROPER APPLICATION HAS PASSED UPON THE
QUESTION AS TO EXTENDING THE TIME FOR FILING PETITIONER'S CLAIM UNDER
THE AMENDED STATUTE, THE QUESTION OF ITS PRIORITY IS NOT PROPERLY
BEFORE THIS COURT; THAT PETITIONER HAS NOT ASKED THE DISTRICT COURT TO
PASS UPON THAT QUESTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE AMENDED STATUTE.  BUT WHEN
THE ACT OF AUGUST 11, 1939, WAS PASSED, THE CASE WAS BEFORE THIS COURT
UPON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED, AND IN ORDER
PROPERLY TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE WE ARE BOUND, AS ALREADY STATED, TO
CONSIDER AND APPLY THE AMENDED STATUTE.  THEN, THE ARGUMENT IS PRESSED
THAT, AT LEAST, WE SHOULD REMAND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN
ORDER THAT IT MAY DETERMINE WHETHER THE CLAIM FOR PREFERENCE AND
PAYMENT UNDER THE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED.  IT IS SAID THAT
SUCH APPLICATIONS MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF EXISTING
CIRCUMSTANCES, OR OF THE STAGE WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE REACHED, AS,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN RELATION TO STEPS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN CARRYING
OUT PLANS FOR REORGANIZATION. 

WE FIND NO PROVISION IN THE STATUTE FOR THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A
DISCRETION BY THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE
STATUTE REFERS ARE PENDING AND THE CLAIMS ARE WITHIN THE STATUTE. 
THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE PRESENT PROCEEDING HAD BEEN TERMINATED
PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE AMENDMENT OR THAT IT IS NOT NOW PENDING. 
THE STATUTE IS EXPLICIT AND MANDATORY AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAS NO
DISCRETION TO ACT CONTRARY TO ITS TERMS.  THE STATUTE SAYS THAT THE
DESCRIBED CLAIMS "SHALL BE PREFERRED AND PAID OUT OF THE ASSETS OF SUCH
RAILROAD CORPORATION AS OPERATING EXPENSES OF SUCH RAILROAD." 
PETITIONER'S CLAIM IS WITHIN THE CLASS DESCRIBED AND SHOULD BE
PREFERRED AND PAID ACCORDINGLY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO ALLOW PETITIONER'S
CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISION.  JUDGMENT VACATED. 
..END :
















BELL TEL. CO. V. UTILITY COMM'N, 309 U.S. 30 


NO. 252.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940. 


1.  WHEN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS REFUSED APPEAL FROM AN
ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AFFIRMING A RATE ORDER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT IS FROM THE JUDGMENT
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT.  P. 31. 

2.  IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS, IT CAN NOT BE
SAID THAT A STATE COURT DENIES DUE PROCESS WHEN ON APPROPRIATE HEARING
IT DETERMINES THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF THE
VIOLATION OF STATE LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDUCT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS. 
P. 32. 

3.  WHERE THERE IS NO CLAIM OF CONFISCATION, THE STATE AUTHORITY IS
COMPETENT TO ESTABLISH INTRASTATE TELEPHONE RATES AND IN SO DOING TO
DECIDE WHAT CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION WITH RESPECT TO
INTRASTATE TRAFFIC.  P. 32. 

BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA V. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSION. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  APPEAL FROM 135 PA.
SUPER.  CT. 218; 5 A.2D 410, DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL
FEDERAL QUESTION. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, BY ORDER OF MARCH 15,
1938, REQUIRED APPELLANT, THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
TO REVISE ITS INTRASTATE TOLL RATES FOR DISTANCES EXCEEDING 36 MILES SO
AS TO CONFORM TO RATES CHARGED BY THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH
COMPANY FOR COMPARABLE DISTANCES FOR INTERSTATE SERVICES.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND, AFTER FULL HEARING, THAT THE RATES CHARGED FOR LONG
DISTANCE SERVICE IN PENNSYLVANIA WERE HIGHER THAN THE INTERSTATE RATES
FOR THE SAME FACILITIES FOR A LIKE OR GREATER DISTANCE, AND CONSTITUTED
AN UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTRASTATE PATRONS IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 304 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA OF MAY 28, 1937,
P.L. 1053.  ON APPEAL, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AFFIRMED THE
ORDER.  135 PA. SUPER.  CT. 218; 5 A.2D 410.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA REFUSED APPEAL.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT.  SEE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 250 U.S. 566. 

APPELLANT EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED BELOW, AND ALSO HERE, RAISING THE
QUESTION OF CONFISCATION.  ITS CONTENTIONS ARE (1) THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IS WHOLLY WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE AND THUS
CONSTITUTES A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT; (2) THAT THE ORDER BASED ON DISCRIMINATION ONLY, AND
PRESCRIBING RATES NOT FOUND TO BE REASONABLE AND DEPRIVING APPELLANT OF
CONSIDERABLE REVENUE, IS ARBITRARY AND HENCE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS;
AND (3) THAT THE ORDER IS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE RATES AND IMPOSES
A DIRECT BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

AS TO THE FIRST CONTENTION, IT APPEARS THAT THE STATE COURT HEARD THE
APPEAL JUDICIALLY AND DECIDED THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING THE
FINDING OF THE COMMISSION OF UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION IN THE
TRANSACTION OF ITS INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A STATE COURT DENIES
DUE PROCESS WHEN ON APPROPRIATE HEARING IT DETERMINES THAT THERE IS
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A FINDING OF THE VIOLATION OF STATE LAW WITH
RESPECT TO THE CONDUCT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS.  THE CONTENTION THAT SUCH A
DECISION IS ERRONEOUS DOES NOT PRESENT A FEDERAL QUESTION.  ARROWSMITH
V. HARMONING, 11, U.S. 194, 196; BONNER V. GORMAN, 213 U.S. 86, 91;
AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. KENTUCKY, 273 U.S. 260, 273. 

AS TO THE SECOND CONTENTION, WHERE THERE IS NO CLAIM OF CONFISCATION,
THE STATE AUTHORITY IS COMPETENT TO ESTABLISH INTRASTATE RATES AND IN
SO DOING TO DECIDE WHAT CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION WITH
RESPECT TO INTRASTATE TRAFFIC.  SEE STONE V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO.,
116 U.S. 307, 325; PORTLAND RAILWAY, L. & P. CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 229 U.S. 397, 410; LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 287, 304, 305; WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, 294 U.S. 63, 70. 

FINALLY, IT APPEARS THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER RELATED EXCLUSIVELY
TO INTRASTATE TRAFFIC AND THAT THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE RATES. 

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION. 
DISMISSED. 
..END :













MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE CO., 309 U.S. 33 


NO. 475.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 281
N.Y. 610, 670 - 22 N.E.2D 173, 764, REVERSED. 


1.  BY CONTRACTS OF SALE MADE, THROUGH A SALES OFFICE IN THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, WITH PUBLIC UTILITY AND STEAMSHIP COMPANIES IN THAT CITY, A
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION AGREED TO SELL AND DELIVER TO THEM LARGE
QUANTITIES OF COAL OF SPECIFIED GRADES (SAID TO POSSESS UNIQUE
QUALITIES) PRODUCED AT ITS PENNSYLVANIA MINES.  THE COAL MOVED BY RAIL
TO JERSEY CITY AND THENCE BY BARGE TO THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND WAS
THERE DELIVERED TO THE PURCHASERS' PLANTS OR STEAMSHIPS.  HELD, THAT
THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX BY NEW YORK CITY ON THE PURCHASERS OF THE COAL,
MEASURED BY THE SALES PRICE, AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE TAX BE
COLLECTED BY THE SELLER, DO NOT INFRINGE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 42 ET SEQ. 

THE TAX IS 2% OF THE RECEIPTS UPON EVERY SALE, FOR CONSUMPTION, OF
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY, "SALE" BEING DEFINED AS "ANY
TRANSFER OF TITLE OR POSSESSION OR BOTH  ...  IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY
MEANS WHATSOEVER FOR A CONSIDERATION OR ANY AGREEMENT THEREFOR."  THE
TAX IS UPON THE BUYER, THE SELLER BEING LIABLE ONLY IF HE FAILS TO
COLLECT AND PAY OVER.  IT IS CONDITIONED UPON TRANSFER OF TITLE OR
POSSESSION OR AN AGREEMENT THEREFOR, CONSUMMATED IN THE STATE. 

2.  CONSIDERING THE NECESSITY OF RECONCILING THE COMPETING
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS, THAT COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES SHALL NOT BE
UNDULY IMPEDED BY STATE ACTION, AND THAT THE POWER TO LAY TAXES FOR THE
SUPPORT OF STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT BE UNDULY CURTAILED, THE COURT
FINDS NO ADEQUATE GROUND FOR SAYING THAT THIS TAX IS A REGULATION
WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
FORBIDS.  P. 49. 

3.  THE TAX AS HERE APPLIED IS NOT OPEN TO THE OBJECTIONS THAT IT IS
AIMED AT OR DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR THAT IT IS
LAID UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR THAT IT IS A TAX
UPON INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR ITS GROSS EARNINGS, OR UPON
MERCHANDISE IN THE COURSE OF AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY.  P. 48. 

THE ONLY RELATION OF THE TAX TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARISES FROM THE
FACT THAT, IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TRANSFER OF POSSESSION TO THE
PURCHASER WITHIN THE STATE, THE MERCHANDISE HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN ITS EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IT DOES
NOT DIFFER FROM TAXES ON THE "USE" OF PROPERTY WHICH HAS JUST BEEN
MOVED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR ON STORAGE OR WITHDRAWAL FOR USE, OR A
PROPERTY TAX ON GOODS AFTER ARRIVAL. 

4.  THERE IS NO VALID DISTINCTION IN THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A TAX
ON PROPERTY - THE SUM OF ALL THE RIGHTS AND POWERS INCIDENT TO
OWNERSHIP - AND A TAX ON THE EXERCISE OF SOME OF ITS CONSTITUENT
ELEMENTS.  P. 52. 

5.  THE BURDEN AND EFFECT OF THE TAX ARE NO GREATER WHEN THE PURCHASE
ORDER OR CONTRACT PRECEDES THAN WHEN IT FOLLOWS THE INTERSTATE
SHIPMENT.  P. 54. 

6.  ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489, HAS BEEN
NARROWLY LIMITED TO FIXED-SUM LICENSE TAXES IMPOSED ONLY ON THE
BUSINESS OF SOLICITING ORDERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS TO BE SHIPPED
INTERSTATE.  P. 57. 

7.  THE TAX BEING CONDITIONED UPON A LOCAL ACTIVITY - DELIVERY OF
GOODS WITHIN THE STATE UPON THEIR PURCHASE FOR CONSUMPTION - IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTION APPLICABLE TO A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH EXACTS TRIBUTE FOR THE COMMERCE CARRIED ON
BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE.  ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN,
304 U.S. 307, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 57. 

8.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TAXING STATUTE IS INTENDED TO APPLY
WHERE CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASE MADE IN NEW YORK CITY CALL FOR DELIVERY
OUTSIDE OF THE STATE IS A QUESTION FOR THE STATE COURT.  P. 58. 

MCGOLDRICK, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL
MINING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 546, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
SUSTAINING A SALES TAX ASSESSED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK. 

FROM WHATEVER ANGLE THE PROBLEM IS APPROACHED, THE BURDEN AND EFFECT
OF THE TAX ARE THE SAME, WHETHER IMPOSED UPON A SALE OF GOODS PRODUCED
OR STORED WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE. 

IF WE ARE CORRECT IN THAT ANALYSIS, THE TAX MUST BE SUSTAINED, FOR IF
ITS EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS IDENTICAL WITH ITS EFFECT UPON
LOCAL COMMERCE, IT CAN NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

A STATE TAXING STATUTE CAN BE INVALIDATED UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
ONLY IF IT SUBJECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO SUCH A BURDEN AS IS
TANTAMOUNT TO AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE
COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1. 
WHETHER IT DOES INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A QUESTION OF
FACT.  HUMP HAIRPIN CO. V. EMMERSON, 258 U.S. 290, 295; KANSAS CITY RY.
CO. V. KANSAS, 240 U.S. 227, 233. 

THE GOODS BROUGHT IN BY THE "STRANGER FROM AFAR" STAND UPON EXACTLY
THE SAME FOOTING, SO FAR AS THIS TAX IS CONCERNED, AS THOSE OF THE
LOCAL MERCHANT.  TRUE, HE MAY HAVE BEEN TAXED BY HIS HOME STATE OR EVEN
BY THE VARIOUS STATES WHICH HE TRAVERSED ON HIS WAY TO THE MARKET. 
BUT, UNDER THE RULINGS OF THIS COURT HE CAN HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED ONLY TO
SUCH TAXES AS WERE EITHER IMPOSED UPON LOCAL EVENTS IN THE OTHER
STATES, OR APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF HIS BUSINESS DONE
IN SUCH STATES. 

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHETHER THE MERCHANT BRINGS THE ACTUAL
GOODS TO THE MARKET PLACE WITH HIM, OR WHETHER HE SELLS FROM SAMPLES? 
THE PURCHASER WILL NOT BE INFLUENCED BY THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE
WAREHOUSE, FACTORY OR MINE MAY BE LOCATED.  EVEN THOUGH HE MAY INSIST
UPON THE PRODUCT OF A PARTICULAR NAMED FACTORY OR MINE, IT IS
IMMATERIAL WHETHER THAT FACTORY OR MINE IS LOCATED IN UPSTATE NEW YORK
OR IN PENNSYLVANIA.  HIS SOLE CONCERN IS TO GET THE PARTICULAR PRODUCT
WHICH HE WANTS, AT THE LOWEST PRICE. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE TAX AT BAR IS HELD VOID, THE EFFECT UPON
COMMERCE BECOMES IMMEDIATELY APPARENT.  NO LOCAL MERCHANT WILL MAKE ANY
SALES AT ALL IF SIMILAR GOODS ARE OFFERED BY HIS COMPETITORS FROM OTHER
STATES; FOR EVERY PURCHASER WILL PASS HIM BY TO SEEK THE VENDOR WHOSE
GOODS ARE FREE FROM TAX. 

SUCH A RESULT IS REPUGNANT TO EVERY PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY BETWEEN THE
CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL STATES INHERENT IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

THE PRESENT TAX IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE "USE TAX," RECENTLY
SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT.  FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306
U.S. 62; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167; PACIFIC TEL.
& TEL. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 182. 

A TAX IMPOSED UPON A LOCAL ACTIVITY, OR IMPOSED ON AN INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION BEFORE THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT HAS COMMENCED OR AFTER IT
HAS COME TO REST, IS VALID BECAUSE IT CAN NOT BE IMPOSED IN MORE THAN
ONE STATE.  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459; WESTERN LIVE
STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250; COVERDALE V. PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S.
604; GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY, 286 U.S. 472. 

THE TAX HERE IS UPON THE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION FOR USE OR
CONSUMPTION, A LOCAL EVENT WHICH CAN TAKE PLACE IN ONLY A SINGLE
STATE.  IT IS IMPOSED NOT UPON THE SELLER BUT UPON LOCAL BUYERS, WHO
CAN NOT BE TAXED IN ANY OTHER STATE.  WILOIL CORP. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294
U.S. 169; UTAH POWER CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165; COVERDALE CASE,
SUPRA. 

THE IMPOSITION BY ANOTHER STATE OF A TAX ON THE SELLER UPON THE SAME
TRANSACTION WOULD NOT IMPOSE A BURDEN OF MULTIPLE TAXATION MERELY
BECAUSE THE COMMERCE IS BEING DONE, SINCE SUCH A TAX COULD ALSO BE
IMPOSED UPON LOCAL SELLERS.  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA;
GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY, SUPRA; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V.
WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249; ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307; GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434. 

PRACTICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE TAX AT
BAR BE SUSTAINED. 

IT MAY BE NOTED THAT NO TAXES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED BY OTHER STATES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  CF. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167, 172. 

THE BURDEN OF THE IMAGINARY TAXES SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENT, IF THEY
ARE VALID IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, WOULD EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF THE NEW YORK
TAX AND WOULD BE EQUALLY BORNE BY SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS OF LOCAL
ORIGIN.  IF NOT VALID IN THEIR OWN RIGHT, A DECISION SUSTAINING THE
PRESENT TAX WOULD NOT OPEN THE DOOR TO THEIR IMPOSITION. 

A TAX DIRECTED IN TERMS OR IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS SUCH, THEREBY DISCRIMINATING IN FAVOR OF LOCAL
COMMERCE, IS INVALID.  WALLING V. MICHIGAN, 116 U.S. 446; WEBBER V.
VIRGINIA, 103 U.S. 344; WELTON V. MISSOURI, 91 U.S. 275; COOK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 97 U.S. 566; BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419. 

A TAX UPON INTERSTATE SALES, EVEN THOUGH LAID EQUALLY UPON LOCAL
SALES, VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IF IT IS MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE
GROSS RECEIPTS WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT TO THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON
WITHIN THE STATE; FOR IF THE TAX WERE UPHELD, EACH STATE INVOLVED IN
THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT COULD WITH EQUAL RIGHT IMPOSE A TAX SIMILARLY
MEASURED UPON THE SAME TRANSACTIONS.  GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V.
HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434; ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307;
WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 255-6; FISHER'S
BLEND STATION V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650; PHILADELPHIA &
SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326; CASE OF THE STATE
FREIGHT TAX, 15 WALL.  232. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, A NONDISCRIMINATORY LOCAL TAX LAID UPON THE
OWNERSHIP OR THE USE OF PROPERTY PURCHASED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
VALID EVEN THOUGH MEASURED BY THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY, SINCE
THE EVENTS OR ACTIVITIES UPON WHICH THE TAX IS IMPOSED ARE PURELY
LOCAL, OCCURRING AFTER INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS COME TO AN END. 
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167; FELT & TARRANT MFG.
CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62; PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V.
GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 182; HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577;
MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86.  SIMILARLY, A LOCAL TAX LAID
UPON AN EVENT OR ACTIVITY, SUCH AS MANUFACTURING OR STORAGE AND
WITHDRAWAL, COMPLETED WITHIN THE TAXING STATE BEFORE THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BEGINS, IS VALID THOUGH MEASURED BY THE SALE PRICE OF THE
PROPERTY.  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459; EDELMAN V.
BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, INC., 289 U.S. 249; EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT, INC.
V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 285 U.S. 147. 

THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE EXTENDS TO TRANSACTIONS IN
WHICH INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF GOODS IS CONTEMPLATED AND REQUIRED.  WARE
& LELAND V. MOBILE COUNTY, 209 U.S. 405; BANKER BROS. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 169; GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. V. CURRY, 308 U.S.
513, AFFIRMING, 189 SO. 186. 

THE SALES TAX HERE WAS HELD INVALID AS APPLIED TO INTERSTATE SALES BY
THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS.  MATTER OF NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. V.
TAYLOR, 276 N.Y. 208; CERT. DEN.  303 U.S. 656; MATTER OF WEST
PUBLISHING CO. V. TAYLOR, 276 N.Y. 535; CERT. DEN.  303 U.S. 656.  THE
HIGHEST COURT OF MICHIGAN HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME PRINCIPLES.  MONTGOMERY
WARD & CO. V. FRY, 277 MICH. 260; 269 N.W. 166. 

IN THE CASE AT BAR DIRECT SHIPMENT FROM SELLER TO BUYER WAS
CONTEMPLATED AND REQUIRED.  EACH SALE WAS AN INTEGRATED WHOLE AND MAY
NOT BE BROKEN DOWN INTO A SUCCESSION OF LOCAL EVENTS IN AN EFFORT TO
DIVORCE EACH COMPONENT EVENT (HERE THE TRANSFER OF TITLE AND
POSSESSION, OR THE MAKING OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE) FROM THE INTERSTATE
TRANSACTION AND TO TREAT IT AS SOMETHING PURELY LOCAL AND SO OUTSIDE
THE SCOPE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

THE MEASURE OF THE TAX IS THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALES,
WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT TO ACTIVITIES OR EVENTS OCCURRING WITHIN THE
STATE OR CITY OF NEW YORK.  IF, AS WE MAINTAIN, THESE SALES (INCLUDING
AS THEIR INTEGRAL PARTS THE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACTS,
THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS AND THE TRANSFER OF TITLE) ARE
INTERSTATE SALES AND FULLY WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, THEN THE FINAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE MEASURE OF THE TAX IS
SUCH THAT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THE
TRANSACTIONS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE RISK OF MULTIPLE TAX BURDENS, THE
AGGREGATE OF WHICH WOULD WORK A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SUCH
TRANSACTIONS, AND MIGHT EVEN DESTROY THEM ENTIRELY.  WESTERN LIVE STOCK
V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 255. 

THE TRANSACTIONS HERE INVOLVED CONSTITUTE A STEADY STREAM OF
BITUMINOUS COAL FLOWING DAILY IN LARGE QUANTITIES FROM THE NATURAL
SOURCE OF THE COAL AT THE SELLER'S MINES IN PENNSYLVANIA, THROUGH NEW
JERSEY TO THE SHIPS AND PLANTS OF THE BUYERS AT NEW YORK TIDEWATER. 
THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF THESE TRANSACTIONS, CARRIED ON IN THE SAME
MANNER WITHOUT VARIATION FOR OVER FORTY YEARS, WAS REQUIRED BY THE
PRACTICAL NECESSITIES OF THE BUSINESS, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BOTH THE
BUYER AND THE SELLER, AND WAS AS FAR FROM A DEVICE FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF
TAXES AS ANYTHING COULD BE. 

THE PRESENT CASE IS ONE IN WHICH THE PURCHASER REQUIRES A SPECIAL
BRAND OF COAL, IN LARGE QUANTITIES, THE ONLY SOURCE OF WHICH IS THE
PRODUCER'S OWN MINES IN PENNSYLVANIA.  THE PRODUCER SELLS DIRECTLY TO
THE CONSUMERS IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH, AS A MATTER OF PRACTICAL
NECESSITY BOTH FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE PRODUCING SELLER AND THE
PURCHASER, REQUIRE THE SHIPMENT OF THE COAL FROM THE SELLER'S MINES
DIRECTLY TO THE PURCHASER.  HERE THERE IS ONLY ONE TRANSACTION, NAMELY,
THE INTERSTATE SALE; THIS IS NOT A CASE OF A DEALER WHO BUYS OUTSIDE
THE STATE AND SELLS LOCALLY.  HERE THERE IS NOTHING ARTIFICIAL IN THE
INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION; THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF
THE TRANSACTION IS THE ESSENCE OF IT.  CF. SUPERIOR OIL CO. V.
MISSISSIPPI, 280 U.S. 390. 

THE DELIVERY AND TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TERMINUS
CAN NOT BE DIVORCED FROM THE TRANSPORTATION AND TREATED AS A PURELY
LOCAL ACTIVITY, FOR IT IS PHYSICALLY A PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF
THE GOODS.  THE DELIVERIES WERE COMPLETE, AND TITLE PASSED TO THE
PURCHASERS ONLY WHEN RESPONDENT'S BARGES CAME ALONGSIDE THE PURCHASERS'
PLANTS OR STEAMSHIPS; UNLOADING WAS DONE BY THE PURCHASERS. 

THE UNLOADING IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WITHIN
THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. V.
STATE TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S. 90. 

NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE ARE INDISPENSABLE
INCIDENTS OF THE INTERSTATE SALE, WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 437;
REAL SILK HOSIERY MILLS V. PORTLAND, 268 U.S. 325; DAVIS V. VIRGINIA,
236 U.S. 697; REARICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 203 U.S. 507; BRENNAN V.
TITUSVILLE, 153 U.S. 289; ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120
U.S. 489.  SEE ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 311. 

THE DOCTRINE THAT INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS MUST BE RID OF THE DANGER
OF MULTIPLE BURDENS IMPOSED BY DIFFERENT STATES WOULD BE MEANINGLESS IF
IT WERE LIMITED IN ITS APPLICATION TO MULTIPLE TAXES UPON THE SAME
COMPONENT EVENT AND THE SAME PERSON.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PROHIBITS
ONE STATE FROM IMPOSING A TAX UPON AN EVENT WHICH OCCURS IN ANOTHER
STATE OR UPON A PERSON RESIDENT IN ANOTHER STATE; THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE TRANSACTIONS IN THAT RESPECT.  WHEN
THERE IS A DANGER THAT LOCAL TAXES MAY BE IMPOSED BY MORE THAN ONE
STATE UPON DIFFERENT PHASES OF AN INTEGRATED INTERSTATE TRANSACTION,
THEN THE FACT THAT SUCH TAXES WILL BECOME CUMULATIVE BURDENS UPON THE
TRANSACTION AND THUS CREATE TRADE BARRIERS BETWEEN THE STATES OR
DESTROY THE COMMERCE ENTIRELY MAKES IT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO BRING
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE INTO PLAY. 

WHETHER THE TAX IS PAYABLE BY THE BUYER, OR THE SELLER, OR THE
CARRIER, OR THE STEVEDORE, IS UNIMPORTANT; THE ECONOMIC BURDEN UPON THE
TRANSACTION IS THE SAME, SINCE THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX WILL BE REFLECTED
EITHER IN AN INCREASED COST OF THE GOODS TO THE BUYER OR A DECREASED
PROFIT TO THE SELLER. 

THE BUSINESS IN WHICH THE PURCHASER IS ENGAGED IS IMMATERIAL, AS THIS
IS NOT A TAX UPON HIS BUSINESS BUT UPON AN INTERSTATE TRANSACTION IN
WHICH HE PARTICIPATES.  GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305
U.S. 434, 441; WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250,
260-1; FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650. 

THE PRINCIPLE OF ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, AND GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, IS THAT A TAX UPON
INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS MAY NOT BE IMPOSED BY ANY STATE IF IT IS
MEASURED BY ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS, BUT MAY BE IMPOSED ONLY IF THE
MEASURE OF THE TAX IS A FAIR PROPORTION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS ALLOCATED
TO THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON WITHIN THE STATE. 

THE USE TAX CASES ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE.  THE DIFFERENCE IS ONE
OF SUBSTANCE, A DIFFERENCE IN THE CHOICE OF THE THING TAXED.  SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167, 177. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.    THE QUESTION
FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE NEW YORK CITY TAX LAID UPON SALES OF GOODS
FOR CONSUMPTION, AS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT, INFRINGES THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

UPON CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A DETERMINATION BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK THAT RESPONDENT WAS SUBJECT TO NEW YORK CITY SALES TAX
IN THE SUM OF $176,703, THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME
COURT HELD THAT THE TAXING STATUTE AS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT DOES SO
INFRINGE, 255 APP. DIV. 961; 8 N.Y.S.2D 668, ON THE AUTHORITY OF MATTER
OF NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. V. TAYLOR, 276 N.Y. 208; 11 N.E.2D 881,
CERT. DEN., 303 U.S. 656; MATTER OF COMPAGNIE GENERALE TRANSATLANTIQUE
V. MCGOLDRICK, 279 N.Y. 192; 18 N.E.2D 28.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED WITHOUT OPINION, 281 N.Y. 610, BUT ITS AMENDED
REMITTITUR DECLARED THAT THE AFFIRMANCE WAS UPON THE SOLE GROUND THAT
THE TAXING STATUTE AS APPLIED VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, ID. 670. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 546, THE QUESTION PRESENTED BEING OF
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, UPON A PETITION WHICH CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THE
STATE COURT AS NOT IN ACCORD WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN
BANKER BROTHERS V. PENNSYLVANIA, 222 U.S. 210; WILOIL CORPORATION V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 169. 

CHAPTER 815 OF THE NEW YORK LAWS OF 1933, AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 873
OF THE NEW YORK LAWS OF 1934, AUTHORIZED THE CITY OF NEW YORK, FOR A
LIMITED PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE PRESENT TAX WAS LAID, "TO ADOPT AND
AMEND LOCAL LAWS IMPOSING IN  ...  (THE) CITY ANY TAX  ...  WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS OR WOULD HAVE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE."  IT
DIRECTED THAT "A TAX IMPOSED HEREUNDER SHALL HAVE APPLICATION ONLY
WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS" OF THE CITY; AND THAT "THIS ACT SHALL
NOT AUTHORIZE THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX ON ANY TRANSACTION ORIGINATING
AND/OR CONSUMMATED OUTSIDE OF THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF  ...  (THE)
CITY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SOME ACT BE NECESSARILY PERFORMED WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSACTION WITHIN SUCH LIMITS."  IT REQUIRED THE
REVENUES FROM THE TAX TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF. 

PURSUANT TO THIS AUTHORITY THE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK ADOPTED LOCAL LAW NO. 24 OF 1934(PUBLISHED AS LOCAL LAW NO. 25),
SINCE ANNUALLY RENEWED, WHICH LAID A TAX UPON PURCHASERS FOR
CONSUMPTION OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY GENERALLY (EXCEPT FOODS AND
DRUGS FURNISHED ON PRESCRIPTION), OF UTILITY SERVICES IN SUPPLYING GAS,
ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE SERVICE, ETC., AND OF MEALS CONSUMED IN
RESTAURANTS.  BY SEC. 2 THE TAX WAS FIXED AT "TWO PERCENTUM UPON THE
AMOUNT OF THE RECEIPTS FROM EVERY SALE IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK," "SALE"
BEING DEFINED BY SEC. 1(E) AS "ANY TRANSFER OF TITLE OR POSSESSION, OR
BOTH  ...  IN ANY MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER FOR A CONSIDERATION
OR ANY AGREEMENT THEREFOR."  ANOTHER CLAUSE OF SEC. 2  FN1 COMMANDS
THAT THE TAX "SHALL BE PAID BY THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDOR, FOR AND ON
ACCOUNT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK."  BY THE SAME CLAUSE THE VENDOR, WHO
IS AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT THE TAX, IS REQUIRED TO CHARGE IT TO THE
PURCHASER, SEPARATELY FROM THE SALES PRICE; AND IS MADE LIABLE, AS AN
INSURER, FOR ITS PAYMENT TO THE CITY.  BY SECS. 4 AND 5 THE VENDOR IS
REQUIRED TO KEEP RECORDS AND FILE RETURNS SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF THE
RECEIPTS FROM SALES AND THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX.  IN EVENT OF ITS
NONPAYMENT TO THE SELLER THE BUYER IS REQUIRED, WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS
AFTER HIS PURCHASE, TO FILE A TAX RETURN AND TO PAY THE TAX TO THE
COMPTROLLER, WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 2 TO SET UP A PROCEDURE FOR THE
COLLECTION OF THE TAX FROM THE PURCHASER.  PURCHASES FOR RESALE ARE
EXEMPT FROM THE TAX, AND A PURCHASER WHO PAYS THE TAX AND LATER RESELLS
IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND. 

THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF THE TAX, BOTH IN FORM AND IN SUBSTANCE, IS
THUS LAID UPON THE BUYER, FOR CONSUMPTION, OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY, AND MEASURED BY THE SALES PRICE.  ONLY IN EVENT THAT THE
SELLER FAILS TO PAY OVER TO THE CITY THE TAX COLLECTED OR TO CHARGE AND
COLLECT IT AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES, IS THE BURDEN CAST ON HIM.  IT IS
CONDITIONED UPON EVENTS OCCURRING WITHIN THE STATE, EITHER TRANSFER OF
TITLE OR POSSESSION OF THE PURCHASED PROPERTY, OR AN AGREEMENT WITHIN
THE STATE, "CONSUMMATED" THERE, FOR THE TRANSFER OF TITLE, OR
POSSESSION.  THE DUTY OF COLLECTING THE TAX AND PAYING IT OVER TO THE
COMPTROLLER IS IMPOSED ON THE SELLER IN ADDITION TO THE DUTY IMPOSED
UPON THE BUYER TO PAY THE TAX TO THE COMPTROLLER WHEN NOT SO
COLLECTED.  SUCH, IN SUBSTANCE, HAS BEEN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE BY THE STATE COURTS.  MATTER OF ATLAS TELEVISION CO., 273 N.Y.
51; 6 N.E.2D 94; MATTER OF MERCHANTS REFRIGERATING CO. V. TAYLOR, 275
N.Y. 113; 9 N.E.2D 799; MATTER OF KESBEC, INC. V. MCGOLDRICK, 278 N.Y.
293; 16 N.E.2D 288. 

RESPONDENT, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, IS ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION
OF COAL OF SPECIFIED GRADES, SAID TO POSSESS UNIQUE QUALITIES, FROM ITS
MINES WITHIN THAT STATE AND IN SELLING IT TO CONSUMERS AND DEALERS.  IT
MAINTAINS A SALES OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY AND SELLS ANNUALLY TO ITS
CUSTOMERS 1,500,000 TONS OF ITS PRODUCT, OF WHICH APPROXIMATELY
1,300,000 TONS ARE DELIVERED BY RESPONDENT TO SOME TWENTY PUBLIC
UTILITY AND STEAMSHIP COMPANIES.  THE COAL MOVES BY RAIL FROM MINE TO
DOCK IN JERSEY CITY, THENCE IN MOST INSTANCES BY BARGE TO THE POINT OF
DELIVERY.  ALL THE SALES CONTRACTS WITH THE NEW YORK CUSTOMERS IN
QUESTION WERE ENTERED INTO IN NEW YORK CITY, AND WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS,
PRESENTLY TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY, CALL FOR DELIVERY OF THE COAL BY
RESPONDENT BY BARGE, ALONGSIDE THE PURCHASERS' PLANTS OR STEAMSHIPS. 
IN MANY INSTANCES THE PRICE OF THE COAL WAS STATED TO BE SUBJECT TO ANY
INCREASE OR DECREASE OF MINING COSTS INCLUDING WAGES, AND OF RAILROAD
RATES BETWEEN THE MINES AND THE JERSEY CITY TERMINAL TO WHICH THE COAL
WAS TO BE SHIPPED.  ALL THE DELIVERIES, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS ALREADY
NOTED, WERE MADE WITHIN NEW YORK CITY, AND ALL SUCH ARE CONCEDEDLY
SUBJECT TO THE TAX EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT INFRINGES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

POWER  ...  TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, AND AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES.  ...  "  IN IMPOSING TAXES FOR STATE PURPOSES A STATE
IS NOT EXERCISING ANY POWER WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS CONFERRED UPON
CONGRESS.  IT IS ONLY WHEN THE TAX OPERATES TO REGULATE COMMERCE
BETWEEN THE STATES OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS TO AN EXTENT WHICH INFRINGES
THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON CONGRESS, THAT THE TAX CAN BE SAID TO
EXCEED CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  SEE GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1,
187; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177,
185.  FORMS OF STATE TAXATION WHOSE TENDENCY IS TO PROHIBIT THE
COMMERCE OR PLACE IT AT A DISADVANTAGE AS COMPARED OR IN COMPETITION
WITH INTRASTATE COMMERCE, AND ANY STATE TAX WHICH DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
THE COMMERCE, ARE FAMILIAR EXAMPLES OF THE EXERCISE OF STATE TAXING
POWER IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER, BECAUSE OF ITS OBVIOUS REGULATORY
EFFECT UPON COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.  FN2 

BUT IT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO RELIEVE THOSE
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THEIR JUST SHARE OF STATE TAX
BURDENS, MERELY BECAUSE AN INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT OF THE
TAX IS AN INCREASE IN THE COST OF DOING THE BUSINESS, WESTERN LIVE
STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250, 254.  NOT ALL STATE TAXATION IS TO BE
CONDEMNED BECAUSE, IN SOME MANNER, IT HAS AN EFFECT UPON COMMERCE
BETWEEN THE STATES, AND THERE ARE MANY FORMS OF TAX WHOSE BURDENS, WHEN
DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE PLAY OF ECONOMIC FORCES, AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, WHICH NEVERTHELESS FALL SHORT OF THE REGULATION OF THE
COMMERCE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION LEAVES TO CONGRESS.  A TAX MAY BE
LEVIED ON NET INCOME WHOLLY DERIVED FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN3  NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION OF THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS NOT PROHIBITED.  FN4  THE LIKE TAXATION OF PROPERTY, SHIPPED
INTERSTATE, BEFORE ITS MOVEMENT BEGINS,  FN5  OR AFTER IT ENDS,  FN6
IS NOT A FORBIDDEN REGULATION.  AN EXCISE FOR THE WAREHOUSING OF
MERCHANDISE PREPARATORY TO ITS INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OR UPON ITS USE,
FN7  OR WITHDRAWAL FOR USE,  FN8  BY THE CONSIGNEE AFTER THE INTERSTATE
JOURNEY HAS ENDED IS NOT PRECLUDED.  NOR IS TAXATION OF A LOCAL
BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE
TRANSPORTATION OR INTERCOURSE WHICH IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FORBIDDEN
MERELY BECAUSE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR
INTERCOURSE IS INDUCED OR OCCASIONED BY SUCH BUSINESS, OR IS
PREREQUISITE TO IT.  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, SUPRA, 253, AND
CASES CITED. 

IN FEW OF THESE CASES COULD IT BE SAID WITH ASSURANCE THAT THE LOCAL
TAX DOES NOT IN SOME MEASURE AFFECT THE COMMERCE OR INCREASE THE COST
OF DOING IT.  BUT IN THEM AS IN OTHER INSTANCES OF CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION SO AS TO INSURE THE HARMONIOUS OPERATION OF POWERS
RESERVED TO THE STATES WITH THOSE CONFERRED UPON THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, COURTS ARE CALLED UPON TO RECONCILE COMPETING
CONSTITUTIONAL DEMANDS, THAT COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES SHALL NOT BE
UNDULY IMPEDED BY STATE ACTION, AND THAT THE POWER TO LAY TAXES FOR THE
SUPPORT OF STATE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT BE UNDULY CURTAILED.  SEE
WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123, 131; BROWN V. HOUSTON, 114 U.S. 622;
GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 225, 227; SOUTH
CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA; FORD MOTOR CO. V.
BEAUCHAMP, 308 U.S. 331; CF. METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514,
523, ET SEQ.; BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS OF JACKSON COUNTY V. UNITED
STATES, 308 U.S. 343. 

CERTAIN TYPES OF TAX MAY, IF PERMITTED AT ALL, SO READILY BE MADE THE
INSTRUMENT OF IMPEDING OR DESTROYING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS PLAINLY TO
CALL FOR THEIR CONDEMNATION AS FORBIDDEN REGULATIONS.  SUCH ARE THE
TAXES ALREADY NOTED WHICH ARE AIMED AT OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
COMMERCE OR IMPOSE A LEVY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING IT, OR TAX
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR COMMUNICATION OR THEIR GROSS EARNINGS, OR
LEVY AN EXACTION ON MERCHANDISE IN THE COURSE OF ITS INTERSTATE
JOURNEY.  EACH IMPOSES A BURDEN WHICH INTRASTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT
BEAR, AND MERELY BECAUSE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS BEING DONE PLACES IT AT
A DISADVANTAGE IN COMPARISON WITH INTRASTATE BUSINESS OR PROPERTY IN
CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH THAT IF THE ASSERTED POWER TO TAX WERE SUSTAINED,
THE STATES WOULD BE LEFT FREE TO EXERT IT TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
NATIONAL COMMERCE. 

THE PRESENT TAX AS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT IS WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH CONSEQUENCES.  EQUALITY IS ITS THEME, CF. HENNEFORD V. SILAS
MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 583.  IT DOES NOT AIM AT OR DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS LAID UPON EVERY PURCHASER, WITHIN
THE STATE, OF GOODS FOR CONSUMPTION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY HAVE
BEEN TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ITS ONLY RELATION TO THE
COMMERCE ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TRANSFER OF
POSSESSION TO THE PURCHASER WITHIN THE STATE, WHICH IS THE TAXABLE
EVENT REGARDLESS OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF PASSING TITLE, THE
MERCHANDISE HAS BEEN TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND BROUGHT TO
ITS JOURNEY'S END.  SUCH A TAX HAS NO DIFFERENT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE THAN A TAX ON THE "USE" OF PROPERTY WHICH HAS JUST BEEN MOVED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SUSTAINED IN MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292
U.S. 86; HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., SUPRA; FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO.
V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S.
167, OR THE TAX ON STORAGE OR WITHDRAWAL FOR USE BY THE CONSIGNEE OF
GASOLINE, SIMILARLY SUSTAINED IN GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY, 286 U.S.
472; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249; EDELMAN
V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, 289 U.S. 249, OR THE FAMILIAR PROPERTY TAX ON
GOODS BY THE STATE OF DESTINATION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR INTERSTATE
JOURNEY.  BROWN V. HOUSTON, SUPRA; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED,
192 U.S. 500. 

IF, AS GUIDES TO DECISION, WE LOOK TO THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM DISCRIMINATORY OR
DESTRUCTIVE STATE ACTION, AND AT THE SAME TIME TO THE PURPOSE OF THE
STATE TAXING POWER UNDER WHICH INTERSTATE COMMERCE ADMITTEDLY MUST BEAR
ITS FAIR SHARE OF STATE TAX BURDENS, AND TO THE NECESSITY OF JUDICIAL
RECONCILIATION OF THESE COMPETING DEMANDS, WE CAN FIND NO ADEQUATE
GROUND FOR SAYING THAT THE PRESENT TAX IS A REGULATION WHICH, IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBIDS.  FN9
THIS COURT HAS UNIFORMLY SUSTAINED A TAX IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF THE
BUYER UPON A SALE OF GOODS, IN SEVERAL INSTANCES IN THE "ORIGINAL
PACKAGE," EFFECTED BY DELIVERY TO THE PURCHASER UPON ARRIVAL AT
DESTINATION AFTER AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY, BOTH WHEN THE LOCAL SELLER HAS
PURCHASED THE GOODS EXTRA-STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESALE, WOODRUFF V.
PARHAM, SUPRA; HINSON V. LOTT, 8 WALL.  148; BANKER BROS. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA; WILOIL CORP. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA; GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC CO. V. CURRY, 308 U.S. 513; 238 ALA. 116; 189 SO. 186, AND
WHEN THE EXTRA-STATE SELLER HAS SHIPPED THEM INTO THE TAXING STATE FOR
SALE THERE.  HINSON V. LOTT, SUPRA; SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262
U.S. 506.  IT HAS LIKEWISE SUSTAINED A FIXED-SUM LICENSE TAX IMPOSED ON
THE AGENT OF THE INTERSTATE SELLER FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF SELLING
MERCHANDISE BROUGHT INTO THE TAXING STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE. 
HOWE MACHINE CO. V. GAGE, 100 U.S. 676; EMERT V. MISSOURI, 156 U.S.
296; KEHRER V. STEWART, 197 U.S. 60; BACCUS V. LOUISIANA, 232 U.S. 334;
WAGNER V. COVINGTON, 251 U.S. 95. 

THE ONLY CHALLENGE MADE TO THESE CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES IS BY
REFERENCE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL "BURDENS" ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE MADE IN
GENERAL STATEMENTS WHICH ARE INAPPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE TORN
FROM THEIR SETTING IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS AND SPEAK OF STATE REGULATIONS
OR TAXES OF A DIFFERENT KIND LAID IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THOSE
WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED.  SEE FOR EXAMPLE, GALVESTON, H. &
S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS, SUPRA; COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE CO.,
294 U.S. 384; FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650. 
OTHERS WILL PRESENTLY BE DISCUSSED.  BUT UNLESS WE ARE NOW TO REJECT
THE PLAIN TEACHING OF THIS LINE OF SALES TAX DECISIONS, EXTENDING BACK
FOR MORE THAN SEVENTY YEARS FROM GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. V. CURRY, SUPRA,
DECIDED THIS TERM, TO WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, SUPRA, THE PRESENT TAX MUST
BE UPHELD.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE RULING OF THESE DECISIONS DOES NOT
REST ON PRECEDENT ALONE.  IT HAS THE SUPPORT OF REASON AND OF A DUE
REGARD FOR THE JUST BALANCE BETWEEN NATIONAL AND STATE POWER.  IN
SUSTAINING THESE TAXES ON SALES EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY WERE NOT SO LAID, MEASURED OR CONDITIONED AS TO
AFFORD A MEANS OF OBSTRUCTION TO THE COMMERCE OR OF DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST IT, AND THAT THE EXTENSION OF THE IMMUNITY OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE CONTENDED FOR WOULD BE AT THE EXPENSE OF STATE TAXING POWER BY
WITHHOLDING FROM TAXATION PROPERTY AND TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE STATE
WITHOUT THE GAIN OF ANY NEEDED PROTECTION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, SUPRA, 137, 140; HINSON V. LOTT, SUPRA, 152;
SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, SUPRA, 513, 514, 521; WILOIL CORP. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 174; CF. BROWN V. HOUSTON, SUPRA; HENNEFORD V.
SILAS MASON CO., SUPRA, 583.  FN10 

APART FROM THESE MORE FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WE THINK ARE
OF CONTROLLING FORCE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, WE CAN
FIND NO ADEQUATE BASIS FOR DISTINGUISHING THE PRESENT TAX LAID ON THE
SALE OR PURCHASE OF GOODS UPON THEIR ARRIVAL AT DESTINATION AT THE END
OF AN INTERSTATE JOURNEY FROM THE TAX WHICH MAY BE LAID IN LIKE FASHION
ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF.  THAT THE LATTER IS A PERMISSIBLE TAX HAS LONG
BEEN ESTABLISHED BY AN UNWAVERING LINE OF AUTHORITY.  BROWN V. HOUSTON,
SUPRA; COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517; PITTSBURGH & SOUTHERN COAL CO. V.
BATES, 156 U.S. 577; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED, SUPRA, 520;
GENERAL OIL CO. V. CRAIN, 209 U.S. 211; BACON V. ILLINOIS, 227 U.S.
504.  AS WE HAVE OFTEN POINTED OUT, THERE IS NO DISTINCTION IN THIS
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A TAX ON PROPERTY, THE SUM OF ALL THE RIGHTS AND
POWERS INCIDENT TO OWNERSHIP, AND THE TAXATION OF THE EXERCISE OF SOME
OF ITS CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V.
WALLACE, SUPRA, 267, 268; HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., SUPRA, 582; CF.
BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124, 136-138.  IF COAL SITUATED AS THAT
IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS, BEFORE ITS DELIVERY, SUBJECT TO A STATE
PROPERTY TAX, SEE BROWN V. HOUSTON, SUPRA; PITTSBURGH & SOUTHERN COAL
CO. V. BATES, SUPRA, TRANSFER OF POSSESSION OF THE COAL UPON A SALE IS
EQUALLY TAXABLE, SEE WILOIL CORP. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 175, JUST AS
WAS THE STORAGE OR USE OF THE PROPERTY IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HELD
TAXABLE IN NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, SUPRA; HENNEFORD
V. SILAS MASON CO., SUPRA. 

RESPONDENT, POINTING TO THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND TO ITS
CONTRACTS WHICH CONTEMPLATE THE SHIPMENT OF THE COAL INTERSTATE UPON
ORDERS OF THE NEW YORK CUSTOMERS, INSISTS THAT A DISTINCTION IS TO BE
TAKEN BETWEEN A TAX LAID ON SALES MADE, WITHOUT PREVIOUS CONTRACT,
AFTER THE MERCHANDISE HAS CROSSED THE STATE BOUNDARY, AND SALES, THE
CONTRACTS FOR WHICH WHEN MADE CONTEMPLATE OR REQUIRE THE TRANSPORTATION
OF MERCHANDISE INTERSTATE TO THE TAXING STATE.  ONLY THE SALES IN THE
STATE OF DESTINATION IN THE LATTER CLASS OF CASES, IT IS SAID, ARE
PROTECTED FROM TAXATION BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, A QUALIFICATION WHICH
RESPONDENT CONCEDES IS A SALUTARY LIMITATION UPON THE REACH OF THE
CLAUSE SINCE ITS USE IS THUS PRECLUDED AS A MEANS OF AVOIDING STATE
TAXATION OF MERCHANDISE TRANSPORTED TO THE STATE IN ADVANCE OF THE
PURCHASE ORDER OR CONTRACT OF SALE. 

BUT WE THINK THIS DISTINCTION IS WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF REASON OR
AUTHORITY.  A VERY LARGE PART, IF NOT MOST OF THE MERCHANDISE SOLD IN
NEW YORK CITY, IS SHIPPED INTERSTATE TO THAT MARKET.  IN THE CASE OF
PRODUCTS LIKE COTTON, CITRUS FRUITS AND COAL, NOT TO MENTION MANY
OTHERS WHICH ARE CONSUMED THERE IN VAST QUANTITIES, ALL HAVE CROSSED
THE STATE LINE TO SEEK A MARKET, WHETHER IN FULFILLMENT OF A CONTRACT
OR NOT.  THAT IS EQUALLY THE CASE WITH OTHER GOODS SENT FROM WITHOUT
THE STATE TO THE NEW YORK MARKET, WHETHER THEY ARE BROUGHT INTO
COMPETITION WITH LIKE GOODS PRODUCED WITHIN THE STATE OR NOT.  WE ARE
UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE PRESENT TAX, LAID GENERALLY UPON ALL SALES TO
CONSUMERS WITHIN THE STATE, SUBJECTS THE COMMERCE INVOLVED WHERE THE
GOODS SOLD ARE BROUGHT FROM OTHER STATES, TO ANY GREATER BURDEN OR
AFFECTS IT MORE, IN ANY ECONOMIC OR PRACTICAL WAY, WHETHER THE PURCHASE
ORDER OR CONTRACT PRECEDES OR FOLLOWS THE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT.  SINCE
THE TAX APPLIES ONLY IF A SALE IS MADE, AND IN EITHER CASE THE OBJECT
OF INTERSTATE SHIPMENT IS A SALE AT DESTINATION, THE DETERRENT EFFECT
OF THE TAX WOULD SEEM TO BE THE SAME ON BOTH.  RESTRICTION OF THE SCOPE
OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE SO AS TO PREVENT RECOURSE TO IT AS A MEANS OF
CURTAILING STATE TAXING POWER SEEMS AS SALUTARY IN THE ONE CASE AS IN
THE OTHER. 

TRUE, THE DISTINCTION HAS THE SUPPORT OF A STATEMENT OBITER IN
SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, SUPRA, 515, AND SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN TACITLY
RECOGNIZED IN WARE & LELAND V. MOBILE COUNTY, 209 U.S. 405, 412, AND
BANKER BROS. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, ALTHOUGH IN EACH CASE A TAX ON
THE SALE OF GOODS BROUGHT INTO THE STATE FOR SALE WAS UPHELD.  BUT WE
HAVE SUSTAINED THE TAX WHERE THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THE AGREEMENT
FOR SALE PLAINLY CONTEMPLATED THE SHIPMENT INTERSTATE IN FULFILMENT OF
THE CONTRACT.  WILOIL CORPORATION V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 173; GRAYBAR
ELECTRIC CO. V. CURRY, SUPRA.  IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT HAS
UPHELD A PROPERTY TAX ON THE MERCHANDISE TRANSPORTED, AMERICAN STEEL &
WIRE CO. V. SPEED, SUPRA; GENERAL OIL CO. V. CRAIN, SUPRA; SEE BACON V.
ILLINOIS, SUPRA, 515, 516; UPON ITS USE, MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON,
SUPRA; FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER, SUPRA, AND UPON ITS STORAGE;
CF. GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY, SUPRA; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V.
WALLACE, SUPRA.  TAXATION OF PROPERTY OR THE EXERCISE OF A POWER OVER
IT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ITS PREVIOUSLY CONTEMPLATED SHIPMENT
INTERSTATE HAS BEEN SIMILARLY SUSTAINED.  COE V. ERROL, SUPRA; BACON V.
ILLINOIS, SUPRA; FEDERAL COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S.
17.  FOR REASONS ALREADY INDICATED ALL SUCH TAXES UPON PROPERTY OR THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF OWNERSHIP STAND IN NO DIFFERENT RELATION TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND HAVE NO DIFFERENT EFFECT UPON IT THAN HAS THE
PRESENT SALES TAX UPON GOODS WHOSE SHIPMENT INTERSTATE INTO THE TAXING
STATE WAS CONTEMPLATED WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO. 

IT IS ALSO URGED THAT THE CONCLUSION WHICH WE REACH IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE LONG LINE OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT FOLLOWING ROBBINS V.
SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489, WHICH HAVE HELD INVALID,
LICENSE TAXES TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE SOUGHT TO TAX THE OCCUPATION
OF SOLICITING ORDERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS TO BE SHIPPED INTO THE
TAXING STATE.  IN SOME INSTANCES THE TAX APPEARED TO BE AIMED AT
SUPPRESSION OR PLACING AT A DISADVANTAGE THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS WHEN
BROUGHT INTO COMPETITION WITH COMPETING INTRASTATE SALES.  SEE ROBBINS
V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, SUPRA, 498; CALDWELL V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 187 U.S. 622, 632.  FN11  IN ALL, THE STATUTE, IN ITS
PRACTICAL OPERATION, WAS CAPABLE OF USE, THROUGH INCREASE IN THE TAX,
AND IN FACT OPERATED TO SOME EXTENT TO PLACE THE MERCHANT THUS DOING
BUSINESS INTERSTATE AT A DISADVANTAGE IN COMPETITION WITH UNTAXED SALES
AT RETAIL STORES WITHIN THE STATE.  WHILE A STATE, IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY BY TAXATION SUPPRESS OR CURTAIL ONE TYPE OF
INTRASTATE BUSINESS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF ANOTHER TYPE OF COMPETING
BUSINESS WHICH IS LEFT UNTAXED, SEE PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
SEATTLE, 291 U.S. 619, 625, AND CASES CITED, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE SIMILARLY AFFECTED BY THE PRACTICAL
OPERATION OF A STATE TAXING STATUTE.  COMPARE HAMMOND PACKING CO. V.
MONTANA, 233 U.S. 331, MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, WITH
SCHOLLENBERGER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 171 U.S. 1; ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY
TAXING DISTRICT, SUPRA; SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163.  IT IS
ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE RULE OF ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY
TAXING DISTRICT, SUPRA, HAS BEEN NARROWLY LIMITED TO FIXED-SUM LICENSE
TAXES IMPOSED ON THE BUSINESS OF SOLICITING ORDERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
GOODS TO BE SHIPPED INTERSTATE, COMPARE ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING
DISTRICT, SUPRA, WITH FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 145
U.S. 1; SEE HOWE MACHINE CO. V. GAGE, SUPRA; WAGNER V. COVINGTON,
SUPRA; AND THAT THE ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE COMMERCE OF SUCH
A TAX IS WHOLLY WANTING IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

FINALLY, IT IS SAID THAT THE VICE OF THE PRESENT TAX IS THAT IT IS
MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THUS IN
EFFECT REACHES FOR TAXATION THE COMMERCE CARRIED ON BOTH WITHIN AND
WITHOUT THE TAXING STATE.  ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S.
307; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA; CF. WESTERN LIVE STOCK
V. BUREAU, SUPRA, 260.  IT IS TRUE THAT A STATE TAX UPON THE OPERATIONS
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE MEASURED EITHER BY ITS VOLUME OR THE GROSS
RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM IT HAS BEEN HELD TO INFRINGE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE,
BECAUSE THE TAX IF SUSTAINED WOULD EXACT TRIBUTE FOR THE COMMERCE
CARRIED ON BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TAXING STATE, AND WOULD LEAVE
EACH STATE THROUGH WHICH THE COMMERCE PASSES FREE TO SUBJECT IT TO A
LIKE BURDEN NOT BORNE BY INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK
V. BUREAU, SUPRA, 255; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA, 439. 

IN ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA, 311, 312, A TAX ON GROSS
RECEIPTS, SO FAR AS LAID BY THE STATE OF THE SELLER UPON THE RECEIPTS
FROM SALES OF GOODS MANUFACTURED IN THE TAXING STATE AND SOLD IN OTHER
STATES, WAS HELD INVALID BECAUSE THERE THE COURT FOUND THE RECEIPTS
DERIVED FROM ACTIVITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
THE RECEIPTS FROM ACTIVITIES WHOLLY INTRASTATE, WERE INCLUDED IN THE
MEASURE OF THE TAX, THE SALES PRICE, WITHOUT SEGREGATION OR
APPORTIONMENT.  IT WAS POINTED OUT, PAGES 310, 311 AND 312, THAT HAD
THE TAX BEEN CONDITIONED UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE TAXPAYER'S FRANCHISE
OR ITS PRIVILEGE OF MANUFACTURING IN THE TAXING STATE, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN SUSTAINED, DESPITE ITS INCIDENTAL EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
SINCE THE TAXPAYER'S LOCAL ACTIVITIES OR PRIVILEGES WERE SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT SUCH A TAX, AND THAT IT COULD FAIRLY BE MEASURED BY THE SALES
PRICE OF THE GOODS.  COMPARE AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS,
250 U.S. 459, WITH CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292.  SEE
WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, SUPRA, 257-259; CF. BASS, RATCLIFF &
GRETTON V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 266 U.S. 271, 280; EDUCATIONAL FILMS
CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, 387-8; PACIFIC CO. V. JOHNSON, 285 U.S.
480. 

THE RATIONALE OF THE ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. CASE DOES NOT CALL FOR
CONDEMNATION OF THE PRESENT TAX.  HERE THE TAX IS CONDITIONED UPON A
LOCAL ACTIVITY, DELIVERY OF GOODS WITHIN THE STATE UPON THEIR PURCHASE
FOR CONSUMPTION.  IT IS AN ACTIVITY WHICH, APART FROM ITS EFFECT ON THE
COMMERCE, IS SUBJECT TO THE STATE TAXING POWER.  THE EFFECT OF THE TAX,
EVEN THOUGH MEASURED BY THE SALES PRICE, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, NEITHER
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NOR OBSTRUCTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE MORE THAN
NUMEROUS OTHER STATE TAXES WHICH HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN SUSTAINED AS
INVOLVING NO PROHIBITED REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IN TWO INSTANCES ALREADY NOTED, RESPONDENT'S CONTRACTS WITH AUSTIN,
NICHOLS & CO. AND WITH THE NEW ENGLAND STEAMSHIP COMPANY CALL FOR
DELIVERY OF THE COAL AT POINTS OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK, IN THE ONE CASE
F.O.B. AT THE MINES IN PENNSYLVANIA, AND IN THE OTHER AT THE PIER IN
JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY, AND DELIVERIES WERE MADE ACCORDINGLY. 

RESPONDENT ASKED THE STATE COURTS TO RULE THAT THE TAXING ACT DID NOT
APPLY TO THESE TRANSACTIONS, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THE ENABLING STATUTE
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS THE CITY FROM IMPOSING A TAX UPON "ANY TRANSACTION
ORIGINATING AND/OR CONSUMMATED OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE
CITY."  SEE MATTER OF GUNTHER'S SONS V. MCGOLDRICK, 279 N.Y. 148; 18
N.E.2D 12.  THIS QUESTION THE STATE COURTS LEFT UNANSWERED, THE COURT
OF APPEALS RESTING ITS DECISION WHOLLY ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND. 

UPON THE REMAND OF THIS CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION, THE STATE COURT WILL BE FREE TO DECIDE
THE STATE QUESTION, AND THE REMAND WILL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
FURTHER PRESENTATION TO THIS COURT OF ANY FEDERAL QUESTION REMAINING
UNDECIDED HERE, IF THE STATE COURT SHALL DETERMINE THAT THE TAXING
STATUTE IS APPLICABLE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "UPON EACH TAXABLE SALE OR SERVICE THE TAX TO BE COLLECTED SHALL
BE STATED AND CHARGED SEPARATELY FROM THE SALE PRICE OR CHARGE FOR
SERVICE AND SHOWN SEPARATELY ON ANY RECORD THEREOF, AT THE TIME WHEN
THE SALE IS MADE OR EVIDENCE OF SALE ISSUED OR EMPLOYED BY THE VENDOR
AND SHALL BE PAID BY THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDOR, FOR AND ON ACCOUNT OF
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND THE VENDOR SHALL BE LIABLE FOR THE COLLECTION
OR THE SERVICE RENDERED; AND THE VENDOR SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHT IN
RESPECT TO COLLECTING THE TAX FROM THE PURCHASER, OR IN RESPECT TO NON
PAYMENT OF THE TAX BY THE PURCHASER, AS IF THE TAX WERE A PART OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY OR SERVICE AND PAYABLE AT THE TIME OF
THE SALE." 

FN2  DESPITE MECHANICAL OR ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTIONS SOMETIMES TAKEN
BETWEEN THE TAXES DEEMED PERMISSIBLE AND THOSE CONDEMNED, THE DECISIONS
APPEAR TO BE PREDICATED ON A PRACTICAL JUDGMENT AS TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF
THE TAX BEING USED TO PLACE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT A COMPETITIVE
DISADVANTAGE.  SEE GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217,
227.  LICENSE TAXES REQUIRING A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO PAY A FEE OF A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK HAVE
BEEN REJECTED BECAUSE OF THE DANGER THAT EACH STATE IN WHICH THE
CORPORATION DOES BUSINESS MAY IMPOSE A SIMILAR TAX, MEASURED BY ITS
INTERSTATE BUSINESS IN ALL, WESTERN UNION V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1;
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. O'CONNOR, 223 U.S. 280; LOONEY V. CRANE
CO., 245 U.S. 178; INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S.
135, AND HAVE ONLY BEEN SUSTAINED WHEN APPORTIONED TO THAT PART OF THE
CAPITAL THOUGHT TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN INTRASTATE ACTIVITY.  NATIONAL
LEATHER CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 277 U.S. 413; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V.
SHARTEL, 279 U.S. 429; FORD MOTOR CO. V. BEAUCHAMP, 308 U.S. 331. 
PRIVILEGE TAXES REQUIRING A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR FROM OTHER ACTIVITIES IN CARRYING ON THE
MOVEMENT OF THAT COMMERCE, WHICH IF SUSTAINED COULD BE IMPOSED WHEREVER
THE INTERSTATE ACTIVITY OCCURS, HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN FOR SIMILAR
REASONS.  FARGO V. MICHIGAN, 121 U.S. 230; PHILADELPHIA & S. STEAMSHIP
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326; LELOUP V. MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640;
GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, CF. GWIN, WHITE &
PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434.  FIXED-SUM LICENSE FEES, REGARDLESS
OF THE AMOUNT, FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON THE COMMERCE, HAVE BEEN
THOUGHT LIKELY TO BE USED TO OVERBURDEN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, MCCALL
V. CALIFORNIA, 136 U.S. 104; CRUTCHER V. KENTUCKY, 141 U.S. 47; BARRETT
V. NEW YORK, 232 U.S. 14; TEXAS TRANSPORTATION & TERMINAL CO. V. NEW
ORLEANS, 264 U.S. 150.  TAXATION OF ARTICLES IN COURSE OF THEIR
MOVEMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SIMILARLY FORECLOSED.  CASE OF STATE
FREIGHT TAX, 13 WALL.  232; CHAMPLAIN REALTY CO. V. BRATTLEBORO, 260
U.S. 366; HUGHES BROS. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 272 U.S. 469; CARSON PETROLEUM
CO. V. VIAL, 279 U.S. 95.  SEE HENDERSON, THE POSITION OF FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 117; POWELL, INDIRECT
ENCROACHMENT ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY BY THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES, 31
HARV. L. REV. 321, 572, 721, 932; 32 HARV. L. REV. 234, 374, 634, 902. 
LYING BACK OF THESE DECISIONS IS THE RECOGNIZED DANGER THAT, TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE BURDEN FALLS ON ECONOMIC INTERESTS WITHOUT THE STATE,
IT IS NOT LIKELY TO BE ALLEVIATED BY THOSE POLITICAL RESTRAINTS WHICH
ARE NORMALLY EXERTED ON LEGISLATION WHERE IT AFFECTS ADVERSELY
INTERESTS WITHIN THE STATE.  SEE ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING
DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489, 499; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL
BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 185, NOTE 2; CF. MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT. 
316; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 412. 

FN3  UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321; UNDERWOOD
TYPEWRITER CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113; ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
V. DAUGHTON, 262 U.S. 413; MATSON NAVIGATION CO. V. STATE BOARD, 297
U.S. 441. 

FN4  ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. OHIO, 165 U.S. 194; WELLS FARGO & CO. V.
NEVADA, 248 U.S. 165; ST. LOUIS & E. ST. L. RY. CO. V. MISSOURI, 256
U.S. 314; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. WATTS, 260 U.S. 519. 

FN5  COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517; BACON V. ILLINOIS, 227 U.S. 504;
HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 245; MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290
U.S. 1.  CF. HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284. 

FN6  BROWN V. HOUSTON, 114 U.S. 622; PITTSBURGH & SOUTHERN COAL CO.
V. BATES, 156 U.S. 577; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED, 192 U.S.
500; GENERAL OIL CO. V. CRAIN, 209 U.S. 211. 

FN7  FEDERAL COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17;
CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584. 

FN8  EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 285 U.S. 147; GREGG
DYEING CO. V. QUERY, 286 U.S. 472; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V.
WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249; EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, 289 U.S. 249. 

FN9  THE IMPOSITION ON THE SELLER OF THE DUTY TO INSURE COLLECTION OF
THE TAX FROM THE PURCHASER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SEE
MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, SUPRA; FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V.
GALLAGHER, SUPRA. 

FN10  IN ALL OF THESE CASES, EXCEPT HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO.,
SUPRA, THE TAXED SALE WAS OF MERCHANDISE IN THE "ORIGINAL PACKAGE,"
ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE DOCTRINE HAD BEEN THOUGHT TO BE A
"POSITIVE AND ABSOLUTE" LIMITATION ON THE EXERCISE OF STATE POWER. 
AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED, 192 U.S. 500, 521.  THE DOCTRINE
ORIGINATED IN BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419, WHERE A DISCRIMINATORY
TAX ON IMPORTS WAS INVOLVED.  IT WAS OVERTHROWN AS TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHEN THE COURT FOUND THAT IT WOULD BE UNJUST TO PERMIT THE
MERCHANT WHO ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO ESCAPE A TAX WHICH THE
STATE HAD LEVIED ON THE SALE OF GOODS AFTER THEIR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT,
BUT WITH EQUAL JUSTICE ON ALL MERCHANTS.  WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL. 
123; HINSON V. LOTT, 8 WALL.  148.  AFTER ITS SUPPOSED RECRUDESCENCE IN
LEISY V. HARDIN, 135 U.S. 100, THE OPINIONS OF JUSTICE MILLER IN
WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, SUPRA, AND OF JUSTICE BRADLEY IN BROWN V. HOUSTON,
114 U.S. 622, WERE EXPLAINED BY CHIEF JUSTICE (THEN JUSTICE) WHITE IN
AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED, SUPRA, AT 521, AS THE RECOGNITION
BY THE COURT THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT WHETHER "INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS
TO BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING COMPLETELY TERMINATED," BUT WHETHER A
PARTICULAR EXERTION OF TAXING POWER BY A STATE "SO OPERATED UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO AMOUNT TO A REGULATION THEREOF, IN CONFLICT
WITH THE PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON CONGRESS."  HE POINTED OUT
THAT THE COURT IN THESE CASES "CONCEDED THAT THE GOODS WHICH WERE TAXED
HAD NOT COMPLETELY LOST THEIR CHARACTER AS INTERSTATE COMMERCE SINCE
THEY HAD NOT BEEN SOLD IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGE.  AS, HOWEVER, THEY HAD
ARRIVED AT THEIR DESTINATION, WERE AT REST IN THE STATE, WERE ENJOYING
THE PROTECTION WHICH THE LAWS OF THE STATE AFFORDED, AND WERE TAXED
WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION LIKE ALL OTHER PROPERTY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE
TAX DID NOT AMOUNT TO A REGULATION IN THE SENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
ALTHOUGH ITS LEVY MIGHT REMOTELY AND INDIRECTLY AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  CF. CARDOZO, J., IN BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 526. 

"THE TEST OF THE 'ORIGINAL PACKAGE,' WHICH CAME INTO OUR LAW WITH
BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419, IS NOT INFLEXIBLE AND FINAL FOR THE
TRANSACTIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHATEVER MAY BE ITS VALIDITY FOR
COMMERCE WITH OTHER COUNTRIES.  CF. WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, SUPRA; ANGLO
CHILEAN NITRATE SALES CORP. V. ALABAMA, 288 U.S. 218, 226.  THERE ARE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH MERCHANDISE, TRANSPORTED FROM ANOTHER STATE, WILL BE
TREATED AS A PART OF THE GENERAL MASS OF PROPERTY AT THE STATE OF
DESTINATION THOUGH STILL IN THE ORIGINAL CONTAINERS.  THIS IS SO, FOR
ILLUSTRATION, WHERE MERCHANDISE SO CONTAINED IS SUBJECTED TO A NON
DISCRIMINATORY PROPERTY TAX WHICH IT BEARS EQUALLY WITH OTHER
MERCHANDISE PRODUCED WITHIN THE STATE.  SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262
U.S. 506; TEXAS CO. V. BROWN, 258 U.S. 466, 475; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE
CO. V. SPEED, 192 U.S. 500.  ...  'A STATE TAX UPON MERCHANDISE BROUGHT
IN FROM ANOTHER STATE, OR UPON ITS SALES, WHETHER IN ORIGINAL PACKAGES
OR NOT, AFTER IT HAS REACHED ITS DESTINATION AND IS IN A STATE OF REST,
IS LAWFUL ONLY WHEN THE TAX IS NOT DISCRIMINATING IN ITS INCIDENCE
AGAINST THE MERCHANDISE BECAUSE OF ITS ORIGIN IN ANOTHER STATE.' 
SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, SUPRA, AT P. 516.  CF. BOWMAN V. CHICAGO &
N.W. RY. CO., 125 U.S. 465, 491; ...  IN BRIEF, THE TEST OF THE
ORIGINAL PACKAGE IS NOT AN ULTIMATE PRINCIPLE.  IT IS AN ILLUSTRATION
OF A PRINCIPLE.  PENNSYLVANIA GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 225
N.Y. 397, 403; 122 N.E. 260.  IT MARKS A CONVENIENT BOUNDARY AND ONE
SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE SAVE IN EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS.  WHAT IS ULTIMATE
IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONE STATE IN ITS DEALINGS WITH ANOTHER MAY NOT
PLACE ITSELF IN A POSITION OF ECONOMIC ISOLATION.  FORMULAS AND
CATCHWORDS ARE SUBORDINATE TO THIS OVERMASTERING REQUIREMENT." 

FN11  WHEN THE ROBBINS CASE WAS DECIDED, SIXTEEN STATES REQUIRED THE
PAYMENT OF LICENSE TAXES BY SOME KINDS OF DRUMMERS.  FOR CITATIONS OF
THE STATUTES, SEE, LOCKHART, SALES TAX IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 52 HARV.
L. REV. 617, 621.  MORE RECENTLY IT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED THAT ALMOST 800
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES DIRECTED AT DRUMMERS WERE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE
OF EMBARRASSING THIS COMPETITION WITH LOCAL MERCHANTS.  HEMPHILL, THE
HOUSE TO HOUSE CANVASSER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 60 AM. L. REV. 641. 
THE COURT WAS COGNIZANT OF THIS TREND, SEE ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY
TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489, 498.  FOLLOWING THIS DECISION 19 SUCH
TAXES WERE DECLARED INVALID.  CARSON V. MARYLAND, 120 U.S. 502; ASHER
V. TEXAS, 128 U.S. 129; STOUTENBURGH V. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141; BRENNAN
V. TITUSVILLE, 153 U.S. 289; STOCKARD V. MORGAN, 185 U.S. 27; CALDWELL
V. NORTH CAROLINA, 187 U.S. 622; CRENSHAW V. ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 389;
ROGERS V. ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 401; STEWART V. MICHIGAN, 232 U.S. 665;
DAVIS V. VIRGINIA, 236 U.S. 697; REAL SILK HOSIERY MILLS V. PORTLAND,
268 U.S. 325.  READ IN THEIR PROPER HISTORICAL SETTING THESE CASES MAY
BE SAID TO SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THIS KIND OF A TAX IS LIKELY TO BE
USED "AS AN INSTRUMENT OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE," SEE DISANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34, 39. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, DISSENTING. 

THE PRESSURE OF MOUNTING OUTLAYS HAS LED THE STATES TO SEEK NEW
SOURCES OF REVENUE, AND WE HAVE GONE FAR IN SUSTAINING STATE POWER TO
TAX PROPERTY AND TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO THEIR JURISDICTION DESPITE
INCIDENTAL OR INDIRECT EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT HITHERTO
WE HAVE ALSO MAINTAINED THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATES CANNOT LAY A
DIRECT TAX UPON THAT COMMERCE.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF NEW YORK HAS DECIDED UNANIMOUSLY THAT THE TAX AS HERE
APPLIED IS SUCH A TAX AND GOES BEYOND THE LIMIT OF STATE POWER.  281
N.Y. 610.  SEE, ALSO, MATTER OF NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. V. TAYLOR,
276 N.Y. 208; 11 N.E.2D 881.  I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

THE CASE IS ONE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ITS MOST OBVIOUS FORM.  THE
BERWIND-WHITE COMPANY IS A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION ENGAGED IN MINING
COAL IN THAT STATE.  IT HAS A SALES OFFICE IN NEW YORK.  ITS COAL IS
MINED FROM TWO VEINS KNOWN AS "B SEAM" AND "C PRIME SEAM."  THE COAL IS
SOLD TO NEW YORK CONSUMERS FOR PLANTS AND STEAMSHIPS.  THE CONTRACTS OF
SALE CALL FOR COAL FROM THE SELLER'S MINES IN PENNSYLVANIA, MOST OF IT
BEING OF THE "B SEAM" SORT.  THE CONTRACTS ARE GENERALLY FOR A
SPECIFIED PERIOD, ORDERS BEING GIVEN AS COAL IS NEEDED.  THE PURCHASERS
NOTIFY THE MINING COMPANY OF THEIR REQUESTS, WHEREUPON THE COAL IS
MINED TO MEET THE ORDERS, TWO DAYS BEING ALLOWED FOR MINING AND FIVE
FOR TRANSPORTATION.  THE COAL IS TRANSPORTED FROM THE MINES BY RAILROAD
TO A PIER IN JERSEY CITY WHERE THE SELLER'S BARGES TAKE THE COAL AND
BRING IT ALONGSIDE THE PURCHASERS' PLANT OR STEAMSHIP WHERE DELIVERY IS
MADE, THE PURCHASERS DOING THE UNLOADING.  THERE WERE TWO PURCHASERS
WHO TOOK DELIVERY OUTSIDE NEW YORK. 

THE TAX IS TWO PER CENT OF THE ENTIRE PURCHASE PRICE.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS HAS DESCRIBED THE TAX AS "TWO PER CENT UPON RECEIPTS FROM EVERY
SALE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY SOLD WITHIN THE CITY."  MATTER OF
SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. V. MCGOLDRICK, 279 N.Y. 184, 187; 18 N.E.2D 25. 
THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT AS TO THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX IN THIS INSTANCE. 
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY HAS ASSESSED THE TAX AGAINST THE SELLER,
THE BERWIND-WHITE COMPANY.  THE STATUTE REQUIRES THE SELLER, UNDER
PENALTY, TO FILE A RETURN OF ITS SALES AND TO PAY THE TAX.  TO ENFORCE
THE PAYMENT, THE PROPERTY OF THE SELLER MAY BE LEVIED UPON UNDER A
COMPTROLLER'S WARRANT.  IT IS THE TAX SO LAID THAT THE CITY NOW
DEMANDS.  IN THE MATTER OF ATLAS TELEVISION CO., 273 N.Y. 51, 57, 58; 6
N.E.2D 94, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE CONTENTION THAT THE
SELLER WAS REQUIRED ONLY TO COLLECT THE TAX AS THE AGENT OF THE CITY
COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AND HENCE IT WAS DECIDED THAT IN CASE OF THE
SELLER'S INSOLVENCY THE CITY WAS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OF PAYMENT.  THE
COURT SAID:  "THE DUTY OF PAYMENT TO THE CITY IS LAID UPON THE VENDOR,
NOT THE PURCHASER.  HIS LIABILITY IS NOT MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT
ACTUALLY COLLECTED FROM THE PURCHASER BUT BY THE RECEIPTS REQUIRED TO
BE INCLUDED IN SUCH RETURN.  (SEC. 6.)  HE MUST PAY THE TAX EVEN IF
FAILURE TO COLLECT IS DUE TO NO FAULT OF HIS OWN."  THIS STATEMENT WAS
REPEATED IN MATTER OF MERCHANTS REFRIGERATING CO. V. TAYLOR, 275 N.Y.
113, 118; 9 N.E.2D 799, AND WHILE IT WAS THERE SAID THAT THE ATLAS CASE
DID NOT HOLD THAT THE SALES TAX WAS "IMPOSED" ON THE VENDOR, STILL THE
COURT AGAIN RULED THAT THE VENDOR "IS UNDER A DUTY TO PAY THE TAX TO
THE CITY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE VENDOR COLLECTS IT FROM THE
PURCHASER."  ID., P. 124.  IF THE VENDOR MUST PAY THE TAX WHETHER OR
NOT HE CAN RECOUP THE AMOUNT FROM THE PURCHASER, AND THE TAX, AS HERE,
IS ASSESSED AGAINST THE VENDOR, IT WOULD SEEM INADMISSIBLE TO DEFEND
THE TAX UPON THE GROUND THAT IT IS A TAX UPON THE PURCHASER.  FROM ANY
POINT OF VIEW, THE TAX NOW CONTESTED IS LAID UPON INTERSTATE SALES. 

IN CONFIDING TO CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
THE AIM WAS TO PROVIDE A FREE NATIONAL MARKET,  - TO PULL DOWN AND
PREVENT THE RE-ERECTION OF STATE BARRIERS TO THE FREE INTERCOURSE
BETWEEN THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES.  THAT FREE INTERCOURSE WAS DEEMED,
AND HAS PROVED, TO BE ESSENTIAL TO OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE IMPAIRED.  AS WE RECENTLY SAID IN BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511,
522:  "IMPOSTS AND DUTIES UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE PLACED BEYOND
THE POWER OF A STATE, WITHOUT THE MENTION OF AN EXCEPTION, BY THE
PROVISION COMMITTING COMMERCE OF THAT ORDER TO THE POWER OF THE
CONGRESS.  ... 'IT IS THE ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE OF THIS COURT THAT A
STATE MAY NOT, IN ANY FORM OR UNDER ANY GUISE, DIRECTLY BURDEN THE
PROSECUTION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS'." 

UNDOUBTEDLY THE PROBLEM OF MAINTAINING THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN
STATE AND NATIONAL POWER HAS BEEN A MOST DIFFICULT ONE.  WE HAVE
RECOGNIZED THE POWER OF THE STATE TO MEET LOCAL EXIGENCIES IN
PROTECTING HEALTH AND SAFETY AND PREVENTING FRAUD, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN
THE CASE OF QUARANTINE, PILOTAGE AND INSPECTION LAWS, ALTHOUGH
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS INVOLVED; THAT IS, UNTIL CONGRESS IN
THE EXERCISE OF ITS PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY DISPLACES SUCH LOCAL
REQUIREMENTS.  FN1  WE HAVE ALSO RECOGNIZED THE POWER OF THE STATE TO
TAX PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY HAS COME
FROM ANOTHER STATE, WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS ENDED
AND THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BECOME A PART OF THE COMMON MASS WITHIN THE
STATE.  WE HAVE SUSTAINED THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO IMPOSE
OCCUPATION TAXES WHEN THEY WERE DEEMED TO BE SO MEASURED OR APPORTIONED
AS TO RELATE APPROPRIATELY TO THE PRIVILEGE OF TRANSACTING AN
INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  THE APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES HAS LED TO
CLOSE DISTINCTIONS.  FN2  BUT THAT FACT WOULD SEEM TO PRESENT NO GOOD
REASON FOR SWEEPING AWAY THE PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHERE
THE STATE LAYS A DIRECT TAX UPON THAT COMMERCE AS IN THIS CASE. 

WE HAVE SAID IN A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS, THAT THE STATE CANNOT TAX
INTERSTATE COMMERCE EITHER BY LAYING THE TAX UPON THE BUSINESS WHICH
CONSTITUTES SUCH COMMERCE OR THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN IT, OR UPON
THE RECEIPTS, AS SUCH, DERIVED FROM IT.  FN3  THE SAME PRINCIPLE HAS
BEEN DECLARED IN RECENT CASES.  IN FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX
COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650, 655, WE SAID:  "AS APPELLANT'S INCOME IS
DERIVED FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE TAX, MEASURED BY APPELLANT'S
GROSS INCOME, IS OF A TYPE WHICH HAS LONG BEEN HELD TO BE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  THERE, A STATE
OCCUPATION TAX UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE OWNER OF A RADIO STATION
FROM BROADCASTING PROGRAMS TO LISTENERS WITHIN AND BEYOND THE STATE WAS
HELD INVALID.  IT WAS SAID TO BE ENOUGH THAT THE TAX WAS LEVIED ON
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE PROPRIETOR'S "ENTIRE OPERATIONS, WHICH INCLUDE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  ID., P. 656.  IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, A TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF
ADVERTISING BY A TRADE JOURNAL WAS SUSTAINED BECAUSE IN THE LAST
ANALYSIS THE TAX, LIKE THAT UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF MANUFACTURING WITHIN
THE STATE, WAS UPON THE CARRYING ON OF A LOCAL BUSINESS IN THE
PREPARING, PRINTING AND PUBLISHING A MAGAZINE.  ID., P. 258.  SOON
AFTER, WE HELD IN ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 311,
THAT A STATE TAX COULD NOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED TO THE GROSS
RECEIPTS DERIVED BY AN INDIANA CORPORATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
THROUGH THE SALE OF ITS PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED IN INDIANA TO CUSTOMERS
IN OTHER STATES.  AND, BUT A YEAR AGO, IN GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V.
HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 435, 436, 438, WE HELD INVALID A STATE TAX
MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE BUSINESS OF MARKETING FRUIT
SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE STATE OF PRODUCTION TO PLACES
IN OTHER STATES WHERE THE SALES AND DELIVERIES WERE MADE AND THE
PROCEEDS COLLECTED.  IF THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US IS CONTROLLED BY
PRECEDENT, THE RESULT WOULD SEEM TO BE CLEAR. 

IN RELATION TO THE PRESENT TRANSACTION, IT WOULD HARDLY BE CONTENDED
THAT NEW YORK COULD TAX THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE COAL FROM
PENNSYLVANIA TO NEW YORK OR A CONTRACT FOR THAT TRANSPORTATION.  BUT
THE MOVEMENT OF THE COAL FROM THE ONE STATE TO THE OTHER WAS DEFINITELY
REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTS OF SALE AND THESE SALES MUST BE REGARDED AS
AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE CONTEMPLATED BY THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 188.  THE TAX ON THE
GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE SELLER FROM THESE SALES WAS MANIFESTLY AN
IMPOSITION UPON THE SALES THEMSELVES.  WHETHER THE TAX BE SMALL OR
LARGE, IT IS PLAINLY TO THE EXTENT OF IT A BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE; AND AS IT IS IMPOSED IMMEDIATELY UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
THAT COMMERCE, IT IS A DIRECT BURDEN.  AND, AS WE HAVE OFTEN SAID,
WHERE WHAT IS TAXED IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE, THE
SIZE OF THE TAX LIES WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE STATE, AND NOT OF
THIS COURT.  A. MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, 45.  SEE, ALSO,
ALASKA FISH CO. V. SMITH, 255 U.S. 44, 48. 

HOW THEN CAN THE LAYING OF SUCH A BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BE
JUSTIFIED?  IT IS URGED THAT THERE IS A TAXABLE EVENT WITHIN THE
STATE.  THAT EVENT IS SAID TO BE THE DELIVERY OF THE COAL.  BUT HOW CAN
THAT EVENT BE DEEMED TO BE TAXABLE BY THE STATE?  THE DELIVERY IS BUT
THE NECESSARY PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE.  LIKE THE SHIPMENT
FROM THE MINES, IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION. 
IT IS SAID THAT TITLE TO THE COAL PASSES TO THE PURCHASER ON DELIVERY. 
BUT THE PLACE WHERE THE TITLE PASSES HAS NOT BEEN REGARDED AS THE TEST
OF THE INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF A SALE.  WE HAVE FREQUENTLY DECIDED THAT
WHERE A COMMODITY IS MINED OR MANUFACTURED IN ONE STATE AND IN
PURSUANCE OF CONTRACTS OF SALE IS DELIVERED FOR TRANSPORTATION TO
PURCHASERS IN ANOTHER STATE, THE MERE FACT THAT THE SALE IS F.O.B. CARS
IN THE SELLER'S STATE AND THE PURCHASER PAYS THE FREIGHT DOES NOT MAKE
THE SALE OTHER THAN INTERSTATE.  FN4  AND WHEN, AS HERE, THE BUYER IN
AN INTERSTATE SALE TAKES DELIVERY IN HIS OWN STATE, THAT DELIVERY IN
COMPLETION OF THE SALE IS AS PROPERLY IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION AS IS
THE TRANSPORTATION TO THE PURCHASER'S DOCK OR VESSEL.  MOREOVER, EVEN
IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN A STATE TAX BY REASON OF SUCH DELIVERY
WITHIN THE STATE, THERE WOULD STILL BE NO GROUND FOR SUSTAINING A TAX
UPON THE WHOLE OF THE INTERSTATE TRANSACTION OF WHICH THE DELIVERY IS
ONLY A PART, AS IN THE CASE OF A TAX UPON THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS. 

PETITIONER STRONGLY INSISTS THAT IN SUBSTANCE THE TAX HERE SHOULD BE
REGARDED AS THE SAME AS A USE TAX THE VALIDITY OF WHICH THIS COURT HAS
SUSTAINED.  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577; SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167.  BUT IN THE HENNEFORD CASE, MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO, IN SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, WAS MOST CAREFUL TO SHOW
THAT THE USE TAX WAS UPHELD BECAUSE IT WAS IMPOSED AFTER INTERSTATE
COMMERCE HAD COME TO AN END.  IN MAKING THIS DISTINCTION, THE COURT
CLEARLY RECOGNIZED THAT A TAX IMPOSED DIRECTLY UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WOULD BE BEYOND THE STATE'S POWER, AND THE TAX WAS SUSTAINED AS ONE
UPON PROPERTY WHICH HAD COME TO REST WITHIN THE STATE AND LIKE OTHER
PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION.  THE COURT SAID:  "THE TAX IS
NOT UPON THE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT UPON THE PRIVILEGE
OF USE AFTER COMMERCE IS AT AN END.  ...  THE PRIVILEGE OF USE IS ONLY
ONE ATTRIBUTE, AMONG MANY, OF THE BUNDLE OF PRIVILEGES THAT MAKE UP
PROPERTY OR OWNERSHIP."  ID., P. 582.  AND LATER, IN PUGET SOUND CO. V.
STATE TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90, 92, 94, MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO IN
DELIVERING THE OPINION OF THE COURT, AFTER SHOWING THAT THE BUSINESS OF
THE COMPANY, SO FAR AS IT CONSISTED OF THE LOADING AND DISCHARGE OF
CARGOES BY LONGSHOREMEN SUBJECT TO ITS OWN CONTROL, WAS INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE, CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE WAS "NOT AT LIBERTY TO TAX
THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING IT BY EXACTING IN RETURN THEREFOR A PERCENTAGE
OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS."  HE OBSERVED THAT "DECISIONS TO THAT EFFECT ARE
MANY AND CONTROLLING."  THE FACT THAT A USE TAX, SUSTAINED AS A TAX
UPON AN ATTRIBUTE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE STATE, MAY HAVE AN INCIDENTAL OR INDIRECT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND THUS IN THE OPINION OF COMMENTATORS MAY TEND TO
DISCOURAGE INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS, IS CERTAINLY NO EXCUSE FOR GOING
FURTHER AND UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF STATES WHICH, LOOKING WITH A
JEALOUS EYE UPON THE FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ATTEMPT TO LAY A
DIRECT TAX UPON THAT COMMERCE. 

THE POINT WAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR
THE COURT IN GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 227,
WHEN HE REFERRED TO THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN TAXATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE, WHICH HAD LONG BEEN
UPHELD, AND TAXATION OF INTERSTATE BUSINESS, WHICH HAD BEEN CONDEMNED. 
HE OBSERVED THAT "WHEN A LEGISLATURE IS TRYING SIMPLY TO VALUE
PROPERTY, IT IS LESS LIKELY TO ATTEMPT TO OR EFFECT INJURIOUS
REGULATION THAN WHEN IT IS AIMING DIRECTLY AT THE RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  ACCORDINGLY A STATE TAX UPON GROSS RECEIPTS
WHICH INCLUDED RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE BUSINESS WAS HELD INVALID. 

THE GROUND MOST STRONGLY ASSERTED FOR SUSTAINING THE TAX IN THE
PRESENT CASE IS THAT IT IS NON-DISCRIMINATORY.  UNDOUBTEDLY A STATE TAX
MAY BE BAD BECAUSE IT IS SO LAID AS TO INVOLVE A HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT DOES IT FOLLOW THAT A STATE MAY LAY A
DIRECT TAX UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE IT IS FREE TO TAX ITS OWN
COMMERCE IN A SIMILAR WAY?  THUS, A STATE MAY TAX INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION, BUT IT MAY NOT TAX INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THE
STATE MAY TAX INTRASTATE SALES,  FN5  BUT CAN THE STATE TAX INTERSTATE
SALES IN ORDER TO PROMOTE ITS LOCAL BUSINESS?  IT WOULD SEEM TO BE
EXTRAORDINARY IF A STATE COULD ESCAPE THE RESTRICTION AGAINST DIRECT
IMPOSITIONS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY FIRST LAYING EXACTIONS UPON ITS
OWN TRADE AND THEN INSISTING THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE ITS LOCAL POLICY
COMPLETELY EFFECTIVE IT MUST BE ALLOWED TO LAY SIMILAR EXACTIONS UPON
INTERSTATE TRADE.  THAT WOULD APPARENTLY AFFORD A SIMPLE METHOD FOR
EXTENDING STATE POWER INTO WHAT HAS HITHERTO BEEN REGARDED AS A
FORBIDDEN FIELD.  MOREOVER, IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE
STATE TO PROMOTE DOMESTIC TRADE IN A GIVEN COMMODITY.  THE STATE MAY
SEEK BY ITS TAXING SCHEME TO RESTRICT SUCH TRADE AND THE MERE
EQUIVALENCY OF A TAX UPON DOMESTIC BUSINESS WOULD NOT PREVENT THE
INJURIOUS EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS.  SEE A. MAGNANO CO. V.
HAMILTON, SUPRA. 

SO, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT A TAX DISCRIMINATING AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS NECESSARILY INVALID, IT HAS LONG BEEN HELD BY THIS COURT IN
THE INTEREST OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF THAT COMMERCE THAT A
DIRECT TAX UPON IT IS NOT SAVED BECAUSE THE SAME OR A SIMILAR TAX IS
LAID ALSO UPON INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  THE COURT DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH
THAT QUESTION IN ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S.
489, 497, SAYING:  "INTERSTATE COMMERCE CANNOT BE TAXED AT ALL, EVEN
THOUGH THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX SHOULD BE LAID ON DOMESTIC COMMERCE, OR
THAT WHICH IS CARRIED ON SOLELY WITHIN THE STATE."  SEE, ALSO, COONEY
V. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE CO., 294 U.S. 384, 393, 394.  AND VERY
RECENTLY, IN ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA, P. 312, WHERE A
TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM INTERSTATE SALES WAS HELD
INVALID, WE SAID EXPLICITLY:  "THE OPINION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT
STRESSES THE GENERALITY AND NONDISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER OF THE
EXACTION, BUT IT IS SETTLED THAT THIS WILL NOT SAVE THE TAX IF IT
DIRECTLY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

WE HAVE DIRECTED ATTENTION TO A VICE IN IMPOSING DIRECT TAXES UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THAT SUCH TAXES MIGHT BE IMPOSED WITH EQUAL
RIGHT BY EVERY STATE WHICH THE COMMERCE TOUCHES.  THIS HAS BEEN
OBSERVED WITH RESPECT TO TAXES UPON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE
TRANSACTIONS.  IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, SUPRA, P.
256, WE SAID:  "THE MULTIPLICATION OF STATE TAXES MEASURED BY THE GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS WOULD SPELL THE DESTRUCTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RENEW THE BARRIERS TO INTERSTATE TRADE WHICH IT
WAS THE OBJECT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REMOVE."  SEE, ALSO, GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA.  BUT PETITIONER HAS INSISTED THAT
IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO DANGER OF MULTIPLE TAXATION IN THAT NEW
YORK PUTS ITS TAX UPON AN EVENT WHICH CANNOT OCCUR IN ANY OTHER STATE. 
OF COURSE THE DELIVERY OF THE COAL IN NEW YORK IS AN EVENT WHICH CANNOT
OCCUR IN ANOTHER STATE.  JUST AS NEW YORK CANNOT TAX THE SHIPMENT OF
COAL FROM THE MINES IN PENNSYLVANIA OR THE TRANSSHIPMENT OF THE COAL IN
NEW JERSEY, SO NEITHER PENNSYLVANIA NOR NEW JERSEY CAN TAX THE DELIVERY
IN NEW YORK.  PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT MISSES THE POINT AS TO THE DANGER
OF MULTIPLE TAXATION IN RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE SHIPMENT,
THE TRANSSHIPMENT AND THE DELIVERY OF THE COAL ARE BUT PARTS OF A
UNITARY INTERSTATE TRANSACTION.  THEY ARE INTEGRAL PARTS OF AN
INTERSTATE SALE.  IF, BECAUSE OF THE DELIVERY IN NEW YORK, THAT STATE
CAN TAX THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE, WHY CANNOT PENNSYLVANIA BY
REASON OF THE SHIPMENT OF THE COAL IN THAT STATE TAX THE GROSS RECEIPTS
THERE?  THAT WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT, AS THE SELLER IS A PENNSYLVANIA
CORPORATION AND, IN FACT, IN MANY, IF NOT IN MOST, INSTANCES, THE
PURCHASE PRICE OF THE GOODS SHIPPED TO NEW YORK IS THERE RECEIVED.  THE
POINT IS NOT THAT THE DELIVERY IN NEW YORK IS AN EVENT WHICH CANNOT BE
TAXED BY OTHER STATES, BUT THAT THE AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK TO IMPOSE A
TAX ON THAT DELIVERY CANNOT PROPERLY BE RECOGNIZED WITHOUT ALSO
RECOGNIZING THE AUTHORITY OF OTHER STATES TO TAX THE PARTS OF THE
INTERSTATE TRANSACTION WHICH TAKE PLACE WITHIN THEIR BORDERS.  IF NEW
YORK CAN TAX THE DELIVERY, PENNSYLVANIA CAN TAX THE SHIPMENT AND NEW
JERSEY THE TRANSSHIPMENT.  AND THE LATTER STATES, RESPECTIVELY, WOULD
BE AS MUCH ENTITLED TO TAX THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALES AS WOULD
NEW YORK.  EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE
INTERSTATE SALES COULD BE APPORTIONED SO THAT EACH STATE COULD TAX SUCH
PORTION OF THE RECEIPTS AS COULD BE DEEMED TO RELATE TO THE PART OF THE
TRANSACTION WITHIN ITS TERRITORY, STILL THIS WOULD NOT HELP NEW YORK
HERE, AS THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT AT APPORTIONMENT.  THE TAXATION OF
THE GROSS RECEIPTS IN NEW YORK, ON ANY APPROPRIATE VIEW OF WHAT
PERTAINS TO THE INTERSTATE SALES, WOULD SEEM CLEARLY TO INVOLVE THE
DANGER OF MULTIPLE TAXATION TO WHICH WE HAVE ADVERTED IN RECENT
DECISIONS. 

DOUBTLESS MUCH CAN BE SAID AS TO THE DESIRABILITY OF A COMPREHENSIVE
SYSTEM OF TAXATION THROUGH THE COOPERATION OF THE UNION AND THE STATES
SO AS TO AVOID THE DIFFERENTIATIONS WHICH BESET THE APPLICATION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THUS TO PROTECT BOTH STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS
BY A JUST AND GENERAL SCHEME FOR RAISING REVENUES.  HOWEVER IMPORTANT
SUCH A POLICY MAY BE, IT IS NOT A MATTER FOR THIS COURT.  WE HAVE THE
DUTY OF MAINTAINING THE IMMUNITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS CONTEMPLATED
BY THE CONSTITUTION.  THAT IMMUNITY STILL REMAINS AN ESSENTIAL BUTTRESS
OF THE UNION; AND A FREE NATIONAL MARKET, SO FAR AS IT CAN BE PRESERVED
WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO STATE POWER OVER THE SUBJECTS WITHIN STATE
JURISDICTION, IS NOT LESS NOW THAN HERETOFORE A VITAL CONCERN OF THE
NATIONAL ECONOMY.    THE TAX AS HERE APPLIED IS OPEN TO THE SAME
OBJECTION AS A TARIFF UPON THE ENTRANCE OF THE COAL INTO THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, OR A STATE TAX UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN INTERSTATE
BUSINESS, AND IN MY VIEW IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED WITHOUT ABANDONING
PRINCIPLES LONG ESTABLISHED AND A HOST OF PRECEDENTS SOUNDLY BASED. 

FN1  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 403
411. 

FN2  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 254
257. 

FN3  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 400; STATE FREIGHT TAX CASE,
15 WALL.  232; ROBBINS V. SHELBY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489;
PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN MAIL S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326;
LELOUP V. MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640; MCCALL V. CALIFORNIA, 136 U.S. 104;
BRENNAN V. TITUSVILLE, 153 U.S. 289; GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V.
TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1;
PULLMAN CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 56; MEYER V. WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223
U.S. 298; CRENSHAW V. ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 389; CREW-LEVICK CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292; SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S. 506,
515; FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650, 655; PUGET
SOUND CO. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90; ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO.
V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 311; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305
U.S. 434, 439. 

FN4  SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 520; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. CLARK
COAL CO., 238 U.S. 456, 465, 468; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S.
238, 320; SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 463. 

FN5  WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123; SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON,
262 U.S. 506, 515, 516; WILOIL CORP. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 169,
175. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

..END :






MCGOLDRICK V. FELT & TARRANT CO., 309 U.S. 70 


NO. 45.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 279
N.Y. 678, 280 ID. 688 - 281 ID. 608, 669, REVERSED. 


SALES OF MERCHANDISE FOR WHICH ORDERS WERE TAKEN WITHIN THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE VENDORS IN OTHER STATES, AND
DELIVERY OF WHICH, FOLLOWING SUCH APPROVAL, WAS MADE TO PURCHASERS IN
THAT CITY, EITHER BY DIRECT INTERSTATE SHIPMENT, OR BY INTERSTATE
SHIPMENT TO THE VENDOR'S NEW YORK CITY AGENCY AND DELIVERY BY THE AGENT
TO THE PURCHASER AFTER INSPECTION, TESTS, AND ADJUSTMENTS,  - HELD
CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO THE NEW YORK CITY SALES TAX, ON THE
AUTHORITY OF MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING CO., ANTE, P. 33. 
P. 76. 

MCGOLDRICK, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, V. FELT & TARRANT
MFG. CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 474, MCGOLDRICK, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, V. A.H. DUGRENIER, INC., ET AL., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 308
U.S. 545, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 620, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS SETTING ASIDE TAX
LEVIES.  SEE ALSO, 254 APP. DIV. 246; 255 ID. 961; 4 N.Y.S.2D 615; 8
N.Y.S.2D 667. 

A STATE TAX IS VOID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ONLY IF IN SOME WAY IT
INTERFERES WITH THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES.  THAT IS A QUESTION OF FACT.  EACH STATUTE MUST BE
JUDGED UPON ITS OWN FACTS.  HUMP HAIRPIN CO. V. EMMERSON, 258 U.S. 290,
295; GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY, 286 U.S. 472, 481; WESTERN LIVE STOCK
V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 259.  CF. GRAVES V. N.Y. EX REL.
O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466. 

THIS COURT HAS RECENTLY SUSTAINED A STATE TAX IN A CASE INVOLVING ONE
OF THESE RESPONDENTS, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTICAL IN EVERY RESPECT
WITH THOSE HERE PRESENTED.  FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306
U.S. 62, 64-66.  CF. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT BOTH THE CALIFORNIA AND THE NEW YORK TAXES ARE
UPON THE CONSUMER, BASED UPON HIS ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR
CONSUMPTION.  THE NEW YORK TAX IS AS MUCH A "USE" TAX AS THE CALIFORNIA
TAX, AND THE CALIFORNIA TAX IS AS MUCH A "SALES" TAX AS THE NEW YORK
TAX.  BOTH ARE TAXES ON THE CONSUMER, BOTH REQUIRE COLLECTION BY THE
VENDOR, AND BOTH ARE OTHERWISE IDENTICAL IN SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE. 

UPON THE FACTS, THIS CASE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE RECENT CASE
OF GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. V. CURRY, 308 U.S. 513. 

THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS FOR THE GOODS IN THESE TWO CASES MAY HAVE
BEEN ACCEPTED AT THE HOME OFFICE OF THE SELLERS IN OTHER STATES, DOES
NOT SUBJECT THE TRANSACTIONS TO THE DANGER OF A GREATER BURDEN THAN
THAT BORNE BY THE LOCAL TRANSACTIONS. 

THE ORDER IS MADE IN ONE STATE AND THE ACCEPTANCE TAKES PLACE IN
ANOTHER.  NEITHER ACTIVITY HAS ANY REALISTIC PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIP TO
ANY LOCALITY.  THE PURCHASER MIGHT SEND HIS ORDER BY MAIL DIRECTLY TO
ILLINOIS OR MASSACHUSETTS INSTEAD OF DELIVERING IT TO THE SELLER'S
LOCAL AGENT IN NEW YORK; OR THE SELLER MIGHT SEND THE ORDER BACK TO ITS
AGENT IN NEW YORK, WITH ITS APPROVAL, TO BE ACCEPTED IN NEW YORK BY ITS
AGENT.  ALL OF THESE ARE COMMON BUSINESS PRACTICES.  NO PART OF THE
MAKING OF THE 

BY ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AND BY DECISION OF THE STATE COURT,
MERE CONTRACTS OF SALE OR THE TRANSFER OF TITLE WITHOUT TRANSFER OF
POSSESSION ARE NOT TAXED.  MATTER OF GUNTHER'S SONS V. MCGOLDRICK, 279
N.Y. 148.  THE TAX IS IMPOSED ONLY UPON LOCAL TRANSFERS OF TITLE AND
POSSESSION TO PURCHASERS. 

THE RULE AGAINST MULTIPLE TAXATION HAS APPLICATION ONLY WHERE THE
VALIDATION OF A PARTICULAR TAX WOULD NECESSARILY COMPEL THE VALIDATION
OF AN IDENTICAL TAX UPON THE IDENTICAL COUNTERPART OF THE IDENTICAL
TRANSACTION WHEN IMPOSED BY ANOTHER STATE.  THE FACT THAT SOME
DIFFERENT TAX MIGHT BE IMPOSED UPON A DIFFERENT TAXPAYER AND UPON A
DIFFERENT PHASE OF THE SAME TRANSACTION BY ANOTHER STATE, DOES NOT
SUBJECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE DANGER OF A BURDEN OF MULTIPLE
TAXATION NOT BORNE BY LOCAL COMMERCE.  THE REASON IS THAT IF SUCH TAX
IS VALID ITS BURDEN EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX
AT BAR, AND IS A BURDEN WHICH WILL BE EQUALLY BORNE BY LOCAL COMMERCE. 

AN APPORTIONED TAX ON THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS WOULD BE IDENTICAL IN
EFFECT WITH AN APPORTIONED GROSS RECEIPTS TAX.  EACH STATE WHERE SOME
PART OF THE ACTIVITY TOOK PLACE COULD IMPOSE AN APPORTIONED TAX UPON
THE TRANSACTION, AND LOCAL TRANSACTIONS WOULD BEAR THE SAME BURDEN AS
INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS. 

THE SALES WERE NOT LOCAL AND ARE THEREFORE NOT INTENDED TO BE TAXED
BY THE NEW YORK LAW.  MATTER OF NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. V. TAYLOR,
276 N.Y. 208, 213-214, CERT. DEN., SUB NOM. MCGOLDRICK V. NATIONAL CASH
REGISTER CO., 303 U.S. 656. 

TAXATION OF THE SALES IS PROHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  CASES
SUPRA. 

SEE:  ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489; STEWART
V. MICHIGAN, 232 U.S. 665; DOZIER V. ALABAMA, 218 U.S. 124; BRENNAN V.
TITUSVILLE, 153 U.S. 289; REARICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 203 U.S. 507;
CRENSHAW V. ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 389; CALDWELL V. NORTH CAROLINA, 187
U.S. 622; CHENEY BROS. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S. 147; ALPHA CEMENT CO.
V. MASSACHUSETTS, 268 U.S. 203. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE PROTECTS ALL CONTRACTS, NEGOTIATIONS AND SALES OF
GOODS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V.
PACIFIC STATES PAPER TRADE ASSN., 273 U.S. 52, 64; REAL SILK MILLS V.
PORTLAND, 268 U.S. 325, 333; ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT,
120 U.S. 489; STEWART V. MICHIGAN, 232 U.S. 665. 

WHERE GOODS ARE PURCHASED IN ONE STATE FOR TRANSPORTATION TO ANOTHER,
THE "COMMERCE" INCLUDES THE PURCHASE QUITE AS MUCH AS IT DOES THE
TRANSPORTATION.  CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 10. 

WHERE COMMODITIES ARE BOUGHT FOR USE BEYOND STATE LINES, THE SALE IS
A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND BOTH THE BUYING AND SELLING ARE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO STATE REGULATION.  UNITED
STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533, 569; DAHNKE-WALKER MILLING
CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282, 290, 291; LEMKE V. FARMER'S GRAIN CO.,
258 U.S. 50, 54-55; SHAFER V. FARMER'S GRAIN CO., 268 U.S. 189, 198
199; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. PACIFIC STATES PAPER TRADE ASSN., 273 U.S.
52, 64; KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1, 20; SONNEBORN V. CURETON, 262 U.S.
506; WARE & LELAND V. MOBILE COUNTY, 209 U.S. 405; HIGHLAND FARMS DAIRY
V. AGNEW, 300 U.S. 608, 615. 

A STATE CAN NOT LAY A TAX ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ANY FORM.  COONEY
V. MOUNTAIN STATES T. & T. CO., 294 U.S. 384, 392; HELSON V. KENTUCKY,
279 U.S. 245, 249; ALPHA CEMENT CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 268 U.S. 203;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601; GWIN, WHITE
& PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 437; FOSTER PACKING CO. V.
HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 1, 10. 

THE NEW YORK CITY TAX, BY ERRONEOUS ADMINISTRATION, BECOMES A BURDEN
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE TAX IN THIS
CASE WAS IMPOSED UPON AND COLLECTED FROM A FOREIGN MANUFACTURER AND NOT
FROM A LOCAL PURCHASER IN NEW YORK CITY.  THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAYABLE BY
THE MANUFACTURER TO THE CITY DEPENDS ENTIRELY UPON THE AMOUNT OF
INTERSTATE BUSINESS DONE, NAMELY, 2% ON ALL GROSS SALES MADE IN NEW
YORK CITY.  IT IS THEREFORE A DIRECT CHARGE ON INTERSTATE BUSINESS AND
A BURDEN ON SUCH COMMERCE.  ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 311
312; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434; ANGLO
CHILEAN CORP. V. ALABAMA, 288 U.S. 218. 

THERE IS ALSO THE RISK OF MULTIPLE TAXATION.  GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE,
INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, 439-440. 

WHEN THE CITY OF NEW YORK COMPELS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, WHICH IS
NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, TO ACT AS A COLLECTING
AGENCY FOR THE CITY, COMPELS IT TO FILE RETURNS, TO MAKE REPORTS, AND
TO INCUR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL COSTS AND EXPENSES, THE CITY IS
ATTEMPTING TO EXERCISE ITS SOVEREIGN POWERS BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION. 
THAT IT CAN NOT DO WITHOUT BURDENING INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

INVALIDATION OF THIS TAX WOULD NOT CAUSE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEW
YORK MANUFACTURERS AND MERCHANTS. 

THE ORDERS FOR THE MACHINES WERE DIRECTED TO THE MANUFACTURER IN
ILLINOIS, AND THERE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED.  A MACHINE BY SERIAL NUMBER
WAS APPROPRIATED TO EACH ORDER IN ILLINOIS AND SHIPPED TO THE PURCHASER
IN NEW YORK.  THE PURCHASER WAS BILLED FROM CHICAGO AND REMITTED
DIRECTLY TO CHICAGO.  THUS THE ELEMENTS OF LOCAL SALES ARE LACKING. 

TESTING OF THE MACHINES BEFORE DELIVERY TO CUSTOMERS WAS IN
FURTHERANCE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  DOZIER V. ALABAMA, 218 U.S. 124;
REARICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 203 U.S. 507; CALDWELL V. NORTH CAROLINA, 187
U.S. 622; AND CRENSHAW V. ARKANSAS, 227 U.S. 289. 

THE TAX IS VIOLATIVE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAUSE IT IMPOSES A
DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE BURDEN UPON TRANSACTIONS CONSTITUTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TAX IS SOME INTEGRAL PART OF
THE PROCESS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE STATE TAX IS BAD WITHOUT REGARD
TO DISCRIMINATION.  UPON THIS POINT THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE
BEEN CONSISTENT FROM ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S.
489, TO THE RECENT DECISIONS IN ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307,
AND GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434.  U.S. GLUE
CO. V. TOWN OF OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321, 328; OZARK PIPE LINE CORP. V.
MONIER, 266 U.S. 555, 568(DISSENT); NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V.
WALLACE, 288 U.S. 267; COVERDALE V. ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA PIPE LINE CO.,
303 U.S. 604; CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292; SPALDING &
BROS. V. EDWARDS, 262 U.S. 66, 69; COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TEL. CO.,
294 U.S. 384, 393. 

THE TAX IS VIOLATIVE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAUSE IT EXPOSES THE
MANUFACTURER TO THE DANGER OF DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE SAME TRANSACTION. 
THE CONTRACT OF SALE WAS MADE IN MASSACHUSETTS AND IT IS BEYOND THE
POSSIBILITY OF DISPUTE THAT IT WOULD BE TAXABLE THERE. 

AS AN ECONOMIC FACT THE TAX IS DISCRIMINATORY AS AGAINST RESIDENTS OF
OTHER STATES AND TENDS SUBSTANTIALLY TO DISCOURAGE THE SALE OF VENDING
MACHINES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IF A STATE WERE FREE TO TAX THE SALE OF GOODS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
PROVIDED ONLY THAT IT TAXED ITS OWN IDENTICAL GOODS AT THE SAME RATE,
THE POWER COULD EASILY BE USED TO EXCLUDE GOODS OF A TYPE NOT LOCALLY
MANUFACTURED IN ORDER TO GIVE AN ADVANTAGE TO LOCAL MANUFACTURERS OF
GOODS WHICH COULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THEM. 

FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62, IS NOT ANALOGOUS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE COMPANION CASES TO MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING
CO., ANTE, P. 33.  AS IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER
THE NEW YORK CITY TAX LAID UPON SALES OF GOODS FOR CONSUMPTION AS
APPLIED TO RESPONDENTS INFRINGES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

UPON CERTIORARI TO REVIEW DETERMINATIONS BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, THAT EACH OF THE RESPONDENTS WAS SUBJECT TO THE TAX,
THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT SET THE LEVY
ASIDE.  MATTER OF FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. TAYLOR, 254 APP. DIV. 246;
4 N.Y.S.2D 615; MATTER OF A.H. DUGRENIER, INC., 255 APP. DIV. 961; 8
N.Y.S.2D 667.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT OPINION, AFFIRMED
THE JUDGMENT IN EACH CASE, 279 N.Y. 678; 18 N.E.2D 311; 281 N.Y. 608;
22 N.E.2D 172, BUT BY ITS AMENDED REMITTITUR DECLARED THAT THE
AFFIRMANCE WAS UPON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE TAX INFRINGED THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, 280 N.Y. 688; 281 N.Y. 669.  THE
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE TAXING ACT ARE SET OUT IN OUR OPINION IN THE
BERWIND-WHITE COMPANY CASE AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. 

RESPONDENT, FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, WITH
ITS FACTORY AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THAT STATE, MANUFACTURES
AND SELLS ADDING AND CALCULATING MACHINES KNOWN AS COMPTOMETERS.  IT
MAINTAINS AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY, FROM WHICH ITS AGENTS SOLICIT IN
THE CITY ORDERS FOR COMPTOMETERS, WHICH ARE FORWARDED TO THE ILLINOIS
OFFICE FOR APPROVAL.  IF ACCEPTED EACH ORDER IS FILLED BY ALLOCATING TO
IT THE PURCHASED COMPTOMETER DESIGNATED BY ITS SERIAL NUMBER.  IT IS
INVOICED TO THE PURCHASER AND SHIPPED TO THE NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
RESPONDENT'S SALES AGENT, WHERE IT IS INSPECTED, TESTED AND ADJUSTED,
AND THEN DELIVERED TO THE PURCHASER.  REMITTANCES ARE MADE BY THE
PURCHASER DIRECT TO THE ILLINOIS OFFICE.  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS IN
SOLICITING AND FILLING ORDERS SO FAR AS NOW MATERIAL IS THAT OF THE
SAME COMPANY, DESCRIBED IN FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306
U.S. 62. 

RESPONDENT, DUGRENIER, INC., A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION WITH ITS
FACTORY AND PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THAT STATE, IS ENGAGED IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF AUTOMATIC VENDING MACHINES.  THEY ARE SOLD
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES BY AN EXCLUSIVE SALES AGENT, THE
RESPONDENT STEWART & MCGUIRE, INC., HAVING AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY. 
THE SALES IN THE CITY, WHEN NOT OF MACHINES LOCATED AT THE NEW YORK
OFFICE, ARE EFFECTED THROUGH SOLICITATIONS OF ORDERS BY THE AGENT,
WHICH TAKES FROM THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER A SIGNED ORDER OR A CONTRACT
FOR A CONDITIONAL SALE ON PARTIAL PAYMENT, WHICH IS FORWARDED BY THE
AGENT TO THE MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE.  IF ACCEPTED THERE THE ORDER IS
FILLED BY SHIPPING THE PURCHASED MACHINE BY RAIL OR TRUCK DIRECT TO THE
PURCHASER IN NEW YORK CITY, WHO PAYS THE FREIGHT. 

IN BOTH CASES THE TAX WAS IMPOSED ON ALL THE SALES OF MERCHANDISE FOR
WHICH ORDERS WERE TAKEN WITHIN THE CITY AND POSSESSION OF WHICH WAS
TRANSFERRED TO THE PURCHASER THERE.  DECISION IN BOTH IS CONTROLLED BY
OUR DECISION IN THE BERWIND-WHITE COMPANY CASE.  FOR REASONS STATED AT
LENGTH IN THE OPINION IN THAT CASE THE TAX SO LAID DOES NOT INFRINGE
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE JUDGMENTS WILL BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED.    THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, AND MR. JUSTICE
ROBERTS DISSENT FROM THE JUDGMENTS IN THESE CASES UPON THE GROUNDS
STATED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN MCGOLDRICK V. BERWIND-WHITE COAL
MINING CO., ANTE, P. 59. 
..END :













MORGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 309 U.S. 78 


NO. 210.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 5, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 103
F.2D 636, AFFIRMED. 


A DECEDENT IN WISCONSIN EXERCISED A POWER OF APPOINTMENT OVER PROPERTY
HELD IN TRUSTS CREATED UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE.  THE TRUSTS
EMPOWERED THE TRUSTEES TO WITHHOLD FROM ANY BENEFICIARY, PROPERTY WHICH
IN THEIR JUDGMENT WOULD BE DISSIPATED OR BE IMPROVIDENTLY HANDLED, AND
GAVE DIRECTIONS FOR DISPOSITION, IN SUCH EVENT, OF WHAT WAS WITHHELD. 
HELD: 

1.  THAT THE POWER EXERCISED WAS A "GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT"
WITHIN SEC. 302(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, WHATEVER ITS
CHARACTERIZATION - WHETHER "GENERAL" OR "SPECIAL" - BY THE WISCONSIN
LAW.  P. 80. 

STATE LAW CREATES LEGAL INTERESTS AND RIGHTS.  THE FEDERAL REVENUE
ACTS DESIGNATE WHAT INTERESTS OR RIGHTS, SO CREATED, SHALL BE TAXED. 

2.  THE TERM "GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT," AS USED IN THE FEDERAL
REVENUE ACTS, APPLIES WHERE THE DONEE MAY APPOINT TO ANY PERSON HE
CHOOSES, INCLUDING HIS OWN ESTATE OR HIS CREDITORS.  P. 81. 

THIS ACCORDS WITH COMMON ACCEPTATION AND WITH ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION APPROVED BY CONGRESSIONAL RE-ENACTMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS
CONSTRUED. 

3.  ASSUMING THAT THE TRUSTEES COULD WITHHOLD THE APPOINTED PROPERTY
FROM AN APPOINTEE, THE POWER MUST STILL BE HELD GENERAL.  THE IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATION IS THE BREADTH OF THE CONTROL IN THE DONEE OF THE POWER,
WHATEVER THE NATURE OR EXTENT OF THE APPOINTEE'S INTEREST.  P. 82. 

MORGAN, EXECUTOR, V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 534, TO REVIEW AN AFFIRMANCE BY THE COURT BELOW
OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (36 B.T.A. 588), APPROVING A
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE TOOK THIS CASE BECAUSE IT RAISES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION AS TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC. 302(F), AMENDED BY THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC. 803(B).  FN1 

THE QUESTION IS TO WHAT EXTENT AND IN WHAT SENSE THE LAW OF THE
DECEDENT'S DOMICILE GOVERNS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A POWER OF
APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY HIM IS A GENERAL POWER WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE STATUTE. 

THE PETITIONER IS THE EXECUTOR OF ELIZABETH S. MORGAN WHO WAS THE
DONEE OF TWO POWERS OF APPOINTMENT OVER PROPERTY HELD IN TWO TRUSTS
CREATED BY HER FATHER BY WILL AND BY DEED.  THE PERSONS NAMED ARE, OR
WERE, AT DEATH, CITIZENS OF WISCONSIN.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO RECITE THE
TERMS OF THE TRUSTS.  SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT UNDER EACH, PROPERTY
REMAINING IN THE TRUSTEES' HANDS FOR ELIZABETH S. MORGAN WAS GIVEN AT
HER DEATH, TO THE APPOINTEE OR APPOINTEES NAMED IN HER WILL, WITH GIFTS
OVER IN CASE SHE FAILED TO APPOINT.  UNDER BOTH TRUSTS, IF IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE TRUSTEES, PROPERTY GOING TO ANY BENEFICIARY WOULD BE
DISSIPATED FOR ANY REASON, OR IMPROVIDENTLY HANDLED, THE TRUSTEES WERE
TO WITHHOLD ANY PART OF SUCH PROPERTY; WITH DIRECTIONS FOR DISPOSITION,
IN SUCH EVENT, OF WHAT WAS WITHHELD.  THE DECEDENT APPOINTED IN FAVOR
OF HER HUSBAND. 

THE COMMISSIONER RULED THAT THE VALUE OF THE APPOINTED PROPERTY
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE AND DETERMINED A TAX
DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS APPROVED HIS ACTION.  FN2  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE BOARD'S DECISION.  FN3 

ALTHOUGH, UNDER THE LAW OF WISCONSIN, THE DECEDENT COULD HAVE
APPOINTED ANYONE TO RECEIVE THE TRUST PROPERTY, INCLUDING HER ESTATE
AND HER CREDITORS, THE PETITIONER URGES THAT, BY STATUTE AND DECISION,
WISCONSIN HAS DEFINED AS SPECIAL A POWER SUCH AS SHE HELD.  FN4  THE
RESPONDENT URGES THAT THIS IS NOT A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE
LAW.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, SINCE WE HOLD THAT
THE POWERS ARE GENERAL WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE REVENUE ACT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THEY MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS SPECIAL BY THE LAW OF
WISCONSIN. 

STATE LAW CREATES LEGAL INTERESTS AND RIGHTS.  THE FEDERAL REVENUE
ACTS DESIGNATE WHAT INTERESTS OR RIGHTS, SO CREATED, SHALL BE TAXED. 
OUR DUTY IS TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS USED TO SPECIFY THE
THING TAXED.  IF IT IS FOUND IN A GIVEN CASE THAT AN INTEREST OR RIGHT
CREATED BY LOCAL LAW WAS THE OBJECT INTENDED TO BE TAXED, THE FEDERAL
LAW MUST PREVAIL NO MATTER WHAT NAME IS GIVEN TO THE INTEREST OR RIGHT
BY STATE LAW.  FN5 

NONE OF THE REVENUE ACTS HAS DEFINED THE PHRASE "GENERAL POWER OF
APPOINTMENT."  THE DISTINCTION USUALLY MADE BETWEEN A GENERAL AND A
SPECIAL POWER LIES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT, UNDER THE FORMER, THE
DONEE MAY APPOINT TO ANYONE, INCLUDING HIS OWN ESTATE OR HIS CREDITORS,
THUS HAVING AS FULL DOMINION OVER THE PROPERTY AS IF HE OWNED IT;
WHEREAS, UNDER THE LATTER, THE DONEE MAY APPOINT ONLY AMONGST A
RESTRICTED OR DESIGNATED CLASS OF PERSONS OTHER THAN HIMSELF.  FN6 

WE SHOULD EXPECT, THEREFORE, THAT CONGRESS HAD THIS DISTINCTION IN
MIND WHEN IT USED THE ADJECTIVE "GENERAL."  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
INDICATES THAT THIS IS SO.  FN7  THE TREASURY REGULATIONS HAVE PROVIDED
THAT A POWER IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE, IF THE DONEE MAY
APPOINT TO ANY PERSON.  FN8 

WITH THESE REGULATIONS OUTSTANDING CONGRESS HAS SEVERAL TIMES
REENACTED SEC. 302(F), AND HAS THUS ADOPTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION.  THAT CONSTRUCTION IS IN ACCORD WITH THE OPINION OF
SEVERAL FEDERAL COURTS.  FN9 

THE PETITIONER CLAIMS, HOWEVER, THAT THE DECISION BELOW IS IN
CONFLICT WITH TWO BY OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL.  FN10  THE
CONTENTION IS BASED ON CERTAIN PHRASES FOUND IN THE OPINIONS.  WE THINK
IT CLEAR THAT, IN BOTH CASES, THE COURTS EXAMINED THE LOCAL LAW TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER A POWER WOULD BE CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT TO
PERMIT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE DONEE, HIS ESTATE OR HIS CREDITORS, AND
ON THE BASIS OF THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION DETERMINED WHETHER THE
POWER WAS GENERAL WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE FEDERAL ACT. 

AS THE DECEDENT IN THIS CASE COULD HAVE APPOINTED TO HER ESTATE, OR
TO HER CREDITORS, WE HOLD THAT SHE HAD A GENERAL POWER WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 302(F).  THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
AUTHORITIES ON WHICH THE PETITIONER RELIES,  FN11  HOLDING THAT, IN THE
APPLICATION OF A FEDERAL REVENUE ACT, STATE LAW CONTROLS IN DETERMINING
THE NATURE OF THE LEGAL INTEREST WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAD IN THE PROPERTY
OR INCOME SOUGHT TO BE REACHED BY THE STATUTE. 

THE PETITIONER'S SECOND POSITION IS THAT, INASMUCH AS THE TRUSTEES
HAD AN UNFETTERED DISCRETION TO WITHHOLD PRINCIPAL OR INCOME FROM ANY
BENEFICIARY, THEY COULD EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION AS RESPECTS ANY
APPOINTEE OF THE DECEDENT.  THIS FACT, THEY SAY, RENDERS THE POWER A
SPECIAL ONE.  ASSUMING THAT THE TRUSTEES COULD WITHHOLD THE APPOINTED
PROPERTY FROM AN APPOINTEE, WE THINK THE POWER MUST STILL BE HELD
GENERAL.  THE QUANTUM OR CHARACTER OF THE INTEREST APPOINTED, OR THE
CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE TERMS OF THE TRUST UPON ITS ENJOYMENT, DO NOT
RENDER THE POWERS IN QUESTION SPECIAL WITHIN THE PURPORT OF SEC.
302(F).  THE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IS THE BREADTH OF THE CONTROL THE
DECEDENT COULD EXERCISE OVER THE PROPERTY, WHATEVER THE NATURE OR
EXTENT OF THE APPOINTEE'S INTEREST. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  44 STAT. 9, 71, 47 STAT. 169, 279; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 411. 

"SEC. 302.  THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL
PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED
 

     .         .         .      .         . 

"(F)  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY PROPERTY PASSING UNDER A GENERAL POWER OF
APPOINTMENT EXERCISED BY THE DECEDENT (1) BY WILL, OR (2) BY DEED
EXECUTED IN CONTEMPLATION OF OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION
OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH,  ...  EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE
SALE FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH;
..." 

FN2  36 B.T.A. 588. 

FN3  103 F.2D 636. 

FN4  "SEC.  232.05:  GENERAL POWER.  A POWER IS GENERAL WHEN IT
AUTHORIZES THE ALIENATION IN FEE, BY MEANS OF A CONVEYANCE, WILL, OR
CHARGE OF THE LANDS EMBRACED IN THE POWER, TO ANY ALIENEE WHATEVER. 

"232.06.  SPECIAL POWER.  A POWER IS SPECIAL:  (1)  WHEN THE PERSON OR
CLASS OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE DISPOSITION OF THE LANDS UNDER THE POWER
TO BE MADE ARE DESIGNATED.  (2)  WHEN THE POWER AUTHORIZES THE
ALIENATION BY MEANS OF A CONVEYANCE, WILL, OR CHARGE OF A PARTICULAR
ESTATE OR INTEREST LESS THAN A FEE." 

SEE WILL OF ZWEIFEL, 194 WIS. 428; 216 N.W. 840; CAWKER V. DREUTZER,
197 WIS. 98; 221 N.W. 401. 

FN5  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110; BANKERS COAL CO. V. BURNET,
287 U.S. 308, 310; PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 555; THOMAS V.
PERKINS, 301 U.S. 655, 659; HEINER V. MELLON, 304 U.S. 271, 279; LYETH
V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 193. 

FN6  SUGDEN ON POWERS (8TH ED.), P. 394; FARWELL ON POWERS (2D ED.),
P. 7. 

FN7  HOUSE REP. NO. 767, 65TH CONG., 2ND SESS., PP. 21-22. 

FN8  REGULATIONS 63(1922 ED.), ART. 25; REGULATIONS 68(1924 ED.),
ART. 24; REGULATIONS 70(1926 AND 1929 EDS.), ART. 24; REGULATIONS
80(1934 ED.), ART. 24. 

FN9  FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST CO. V. MCCAUGHN, 34 F.2D 600;
STRATTON V. UNITED STATES, 50 F.2D 48; OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 73 F.2D 970; JOHNSTONE V. COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 55. 

FN10  WHITLOCK-ROSE V. MCCAUGHN, 21 F.2D 164; LESER V. BURNET, 46
F.2D 756. 

FN11  POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101; FREULER V. HELVERING, 291 U.S.
35; BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5; LANG V. COMMISSIONER, 304 U.S.
264. 
..END :








MADDEN V. KENTUCKY, 309 U.S. 83 


NO. 92.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 277
KY. 343 - 126 S.W.2D 463, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATUTE BY WHICH A STATE TAXED DEPOSITS IN BANKS OUTSIDE OF THE
STATE AT FIFTY CENTS PER HUNDRED DOLLARS AND DEPOSITS IN BANKS WITHIN
THE STATE AT TEN CENTS PER HUNDRED DOLLARS, HELD CONSISTENT WITH THE
DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION AND PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSES OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 86. 

2.  IN TAXATION, EVEN MORE THAN IN OTHER FIELDS, LEGISLATURES POSSESS
THE GREATEST FREEDOM IN CLASSIFICATION.  THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY CAN BE OVERCOME ONLY BY THE MOST EXPLICIT
DEMONSTRATION THAT A CLASSIFICATION IS A HOSTILE AND OPPRESSIVE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PARTICULAR PERSONS AND CLASSES.  P. 87. 

3.  THE TREATMENT ACCORDED THE TWO KINDS OF DEPOSITS IN THIS CASE MAY
HAVE RESULTED FROM THE DIFFERENCES IN THE DIFFICULTIES AND EXPENSES OF
TAX COLLECTION.  P. 89. 

4.  THE RIGHT TO CARRY OUT AN INCIDENT TO A TRADE, BUSINESS OR
CALLING, SUCH AS THE DEPOSIT OF MONEY IN BANKS, IS NOT A PRIVILEGE OF
NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP, PROTECTED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, EXPOUNDED;
COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, IN PART OVERRULED.  P. 90. 

MADDEN, EXECUTOR, V. KENTUCKY, BY REEVES, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION OF A
DECEDENT'S BANK DEPOSITS, IN A SUIT AGAINST THE EXECUTOR OF HIS WILL IN
THE NAME OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. 

THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
ABRIDGED BY THIS STATUTE.  COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404; PENDLETON
V. COMMONWEALTH, 110 VA. 229; CAMPBELL V. WATSON, 62 N.J. EQ. 396; CF.
THOMPSON V. RIGGS, 5 WALL.  663, 680. 

IF CONVENIENCE IN COLLECTION JUSTIFIES A MORE BURDENSOME TAX UPON
BUSINESS DONE OR PROPERTY HELD OUTSIDE THE STATE, THEN THE STATE MAY
(1) REQUIRE ITS CITIZENS TO PAY A HIGHER RATE OF INCOME TAX ON BUSINESS
DONE OUTSIDE THE STATE; (2) REQUIRE HIGHER INHERITANCE TAXES TO BE PAID
ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ITS CITIZENS AND SITUATED OUTSIDE THE STATE; (3)
REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF TAXES AT A HIGHER RATE ON BONDS OF CORPORATIONS
ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF OTHER STATES, ON THE GROUND THAT IT COULD
REQUIRE REPORTS TO BE MADE BY CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER ITS OWN
LAWS; AND (4) REQUIRE HIGHER TAXES TO BE PAID UPON INDEBTEDNESS OWING
TO ITS CITIZENS BY NON-RESIDENT DEBTORS.  THE VICE OF SUCH
DISCRIMINATION IS THAT IT PENALIZES THE CITIZEN FOR ENGAGING IN
BUSINESS IN OTHER STATES. 

STATE LEGISLATION WHICH UNDERTAKES TO LOCALIZE MODERN BANKING,
DESTROYS ITS NATIONAL FUNCTION AND UTILITY. 

THE TAX CAN NOT (CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT) BE
JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE HOPED THEREBY TO
INCREASE THE BUSINESS OF LOCAL BANKS OR TO STIMULATE BUSINESS WITHIN
THE STATE.  COLGATE CASE, SUPRA. 

IN GREAT A. & P. TEA CO. V. KENTUCKY TAX COMM'R, 278 KY. 367, THE
KENTUCKY COURT SAID THAT THE ACT MUST BE CONSIDERED STRICTLY AS A
REVENUE MEASURE. 

THE STATUTE DENIES TO THE EXECUTOR THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
AND DEPRIVES HIM OF HIS LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW. 

FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION, THE SITUS OF THE DEPOSITS IN BANKS OUTSIDE
THE STATE IS AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE TAXPAYER, AS IN THE CASE OF
DEPOSITS IN BANKS WITHIN THE STATE.  THUS, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN
THE LOCATION OF THE TAXABLE PROPERTY. 

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS THE RESIDENCE OF THE DEBTOR
BANKS.  THE SITUATION IS THE SAME AS IF KENTUCKY REQUIRED ITS CITIZENS
TO PAY TAXES OF A GROSSLY DISCRIMINATORY RATE UPON ALL OBLIGATIONS
OWING TO ITS CITIZENS BY NON-RESIDENT DEBTORS. 

THE DIFFERENCE (FIVE FOLD) IS SO GREAT AS TO MANIFEST AN INTENTION
ABSOLUTELY TO PROHIBIT ALL DEPOSITS IN BANKS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  CF.
ROYSTER GUANO CO. V. VIRGINIA, 253 U.S. 412, 415. 

BUT IF THE DISCRIMINATION CAN BE JUSTIFIED UPON THE GROUND OF
CONVENIENCE, THEN THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL INHIBITION AGAINST A STATE
TAX AT A DISCRIMINATORY OR PROHIBITIVE RATE ON DEPOSITS IN NATIONAL
BANKS WITHIN THAT STATE, OR A TAX ON DEPOSITS IN CITY BANKS AT A HIGHER
RATE THAN THAT APPLIED TO DEPOSITS IN COUNTRY BANKS, OR A TAX AT A
LOWER RATE ON INTANGIBLE PROPERTY OWNED BY DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS THAN
ON THAT OWNED BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  SEE LOUISVILLE GAS CO. V.
COLEMAN, 277 U.S. 32; ROYSTER GUANO CO. V. VIRGINIA, SUPRA; ALLGEYER V.
LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL  FN1 BROUGHT HERE UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY SUSTAINING THE
VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF THAT STATE AGAINST AN ATTACK BY THE APPELLANT
ON THE GROUND OF ITS BEING REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS, EQUAL
PROTECTION, AND PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER A STATE STATUTE WHICH IMPOSES ON ITS CITIZENS AN
ANNUAL AD VALOREM TAX ON THEIR DEPOSITS IN BANKS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE
AT THE RATE OF FIFTY CENTS PER HUNDRED DOLLARS AND AT THE SAME TIME
IMPOSES ON THEIR DEPOSITS IN BANKS LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE A SIMILAR
AD VALOREM TAX AT THE RATE OF TEN CENTS PER HUNDRED DOLLARS IS
OBNOXIOUS TO THE STATED CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE KENTUCKY STATUTES FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION
APPEAR IN THE NOTE BELOW.  FN2 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY IN THIS CASE
CONSTRUES THE EXCEPTION IN SEC. 4019, LIMITING THE TAX ON BANK DEPOSITS
TO ONE-TENTH OF ONE PER CENT, AS APPLICABLE ONLY TO DEPOSITORS IN LOCAL
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF KENTUCKY OR UNDER
THE NATIONAL BANKING LAWS.  THIS INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAWS IS OF
COURSE ACCEPTED BY US.  FN3 

JOHN E. MADDEN DIED IN NOVEMBER, 1929, A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF
FAYETTE COUNTY, KENTUCKY.  ON SEVERAL PRIOR ASSESSMENT DATES, JULY 1 IN
KENTUCKY, MR. MADDEN HAD ON DEPOSIT IN NEW YORK BANKS A CONSIDERABLE
AMOUNT OF FUNDS.  THESE DEPOSITS HAD NOT BEEN REPORTED FOR THE PURPOSES
OF TAXATION IN KENTUCKY.  THAT STATE BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST MR. MADDEN'S
EXECUTOR TO HAVE THESE DEPOSITS ASSESSED AS OMITTED PROPERTY AND TO
RECOVER AN AD VALOREM TAX OF 50 CENTS PER HUNDRED DOLLARS AS OF JULY 1
OF EACH YEAR, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AND PENALTIES.  THE EXECUTOR USED
AS ONE DEFENSE AGAINST THIS CLAIM THE CONTENTION THAT A TAX ON DEPOSITS
IN BANKS OUTSIDE OF KENTUCKY AT A HIGHER RATE THAN THE TAX UPON BANK
DEPOSITS WITHIN KENTUCKY WOULD ABRIDGE DECEDENT'S PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS
PROPERTY RIGHT AND THE LIBERTY TO KEEP MONEY ON DEPOSIT OUTSIDE OF
KENTUCKY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND DENY TO HIM EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS PASSED UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BECAUSE OF
THE DIFFERENCE IN TAXING RATE BETWEEN KENTUCKY DEPOSITS AND OUT-OF
STATE DEPOSITS.  IT APPROVED THE CLASSIFICATION AS PERMISSIBLE UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES AND REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE
ARGUMENT THAT ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTES VIOLATED THE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE. 

I. CLASSIFICATION.  - THE BROAD DISCRETION AS TO CLASSIFICATION
POSSESSED BY A LEGISLATURE IN THE FIELD OF TAXATION HAS LONG BEEN
RECOGNIZED.  FN4  THIS COURT FIFTY YEARS AGO CONCLUDED THAT "THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS NOT INTENDED TO COMPEL THE STATE TO ADOPT AN
IRON RULE OF EQUAL TAXATION,"  FN5  AND THE PASSAGE OF TIME HAS ONLY
SERVED TO UNDERSCORE THE WISDOM OF THAT RECOGNITION OF THE LARGE AREA
OF DISCRETION WHICH IS NEEDED BY A LEGISLATURE IN FORMULATING SOUND TAX
POLICIES.  TRADITIONALLY CLASSIFICATION HAS BEEN A DEVICE FOR FITTING
TAX PROGRAMS TO LOCAL NEEDS AND USAGES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE AN EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TAX BURDEN.  IT HAS, BECAUSE OF THIS, BEEN POINTED
OUT THAT IN TAXATION, EVEN MORE THAN IN OTHER FIELDS, LEGISLATURES
POSSESS THE GREATEST FREEDOM IN CLASSIFICATION.  FN6  SINCE THE MEMBERS
OF A LEGISLATURE NECESSARILY ENJOY A FAMILIARITY WITH LOCAL CONDITIONS
WHICH THIS COURT CANNOT HAVE, THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY CAN
BE OVERCOME ONLY BY THE MOST EXPLICIT DEMONSTRATION THAT A
CLASSIFICATION IS A HOSTILE AND OPPRESSIVE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
PARTICULAR PERSONS AND CLASSES.  FN7  THE BURDEN IS ON THE ONE
ATTACKING THE LEGISLATIVE ARRANGEMENT TO NEGATIVE EVERY CONCEIVABLE
BASIS WHICH MIGHT SUPPORT IT.  FN8 

PAYING PROPER REGARD TO THE SCOPE OF A LEGISLATURE'S POWERS IN THESE
MATTERS, THE INSUBSTANTIALITY OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT HE HAS BEEN
DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY THE CLASSIFICATION IS
AT ONCE APPARENT.  WHEN THESE STATUTES WERE ADOPTED IN 1917 DURING A
GENERAL REVISION OF KENTUCKY'S TAX LAWS, THE CHIEF PROBLEM FACING THE
LEGISLATURE WAS THE FORMULATION OF AN ENFORCEABLE SYSTEM OF INTANGIBLE
TAXATION.  FN9  BY PLACING THE DUTY OF COLLECTION ON LOCAL BANKS, THE
TAX ON LOCAL DEPOSITS WAS MADE ALMOST SELF-ENFORCING.  THE TAX ON
DEPOSITS OUTSIDE THE STATE, HOWEVER, STILL RESEMBLED THAT ON
INVESTMENTS IN WATSON V. STATE COMPTROLLER, THE COLLECTION OF WHICH WAS
SAID TO DEPEND "EITHER UPON (THE TAXPAYER'S) WILL OR UPON THE VIGILANCE
AND DISCRETION OF THE LOCAL ASSESSORS."  FN10  HERE AS IN THE WATSON
CASE THE CLASSIFICATION MAY HAVE BEEN "FOUNDED IN 'THE PURPOSES AND
POLICY OF TAXATION.'"  THE TREATMENT ACCORDED THE TWO KINDS OF DEPOSITS
MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM THE DIFFERENCES IN THE DIFFICULTIES AND EXPENSES
OF TAX COLLECTION.  FN11 

II.  PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.  - THE APPELLANT PRESSES URGENTLY
UPON US THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES  FN12
FORBIDS THE ENFORCEMENT BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY OF THIS
ENACTMENT WHICH IMPOSES UPON THE TESTATOR TAXES FIVE TIMES AS GREAT ON
MONEY DEPOSITED IN BANKS OUTSIDE THE STATE AS IT DOES ON MONEY OF
OTHERS DEPOSITED IN BANKS WITHIN THE STATE.  THE PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY
WHICH APPELLANT CONTENDS IS ABRIDGED IS THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS
BEYOND THE LINES OF THE STATE OF HIS RESIDENCE, A RIGHT CLAIMED AS
APPERTAINING TO NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP. 

THERE IS NO OCCASION TO ATTEMPT AGAIN AN EXPOSITION OF THE VIEWS OF
THIS COURT AS TO THE PROPER LIMITATIONS OF THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE.  THERE IS A VERY RECENT DISCUSSION IN HAGUE V.
C.I.O.  FN13  THE APPELLANT PURPORTS TO ACCEPT AS SOUND THE POSITION
STATED AS THE VIEW OF ALL THE JUSTICES CONCURRING IN THE HAGUE
DECISION.  THIS POSITION IS THAT THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE
PROTECTS ALL CITIZENS AGAINST ABRIDGEMENT BY STATES OF RIGHTS OF
NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AS DISTINCT FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL OR NATURAL RIGHTS
INHERENT IN STATE CITIZENSHIP.  FN14  THIS COURT DECLARED IN THE
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES  FN15 THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS WELL AS
THE THIRTEENTH AND FIFTEENTH WERE ADOPTED TO PROTECT THE NEGROES IN
THEIR FREEDOM.  THIS ALMOST CONTEMPORANEOUS INTERPRETATION EXTENDED THE
BENEFITS OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE TO OTHER RIGHTS WHICH
ARE INHERENT IN NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BUT DENIED IT TO THOSE WHICH
SPRING FROM STATE CITIZENSHIP.  FN16  IN APPLYING THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLE THIS COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE RIGHT TO OPERATE AN
INDEPENDENT SLAUGHTER-HOUSE,  FN17  TO SELL WINE ON TERMS OF EQUALITY
WITH GRAPE GROWERS  FN18  AND TO OPERATE BUSINESSES FREE OF STATE
REGULATION  FN19 WERE NOT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROTECTED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AND A STATE INHERITANCE TAX STATUTE WHICH
LIMITED EXEMPTIONS TO CHARITABLE CORPORATIONS WITHIN THE STATE WAS HELD
NOT TO INFRINGE ANY RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE.  FN20  THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO LIST COMPLETELY
THE RIGHTS WHICH ARE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE, THOUGH IT HAS POINTED OUT
THE TYPE OF RIGHTS PROTECTED.  FN21  WE THINK IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE
RIGHT TO CARRY OUT AN INCIDENT TO A TRADE, BUSINESS OR CALLING  FN22
SUCH AS THE DEPOSIT OF MONEY IN BANKS IS NOT A PRIVILEGE OF NATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP. 

IN THE STATES, THERE REPOSES THE SOVEREIGNTY TO MANAGE THEIR OWN
AFFAIRS EXCEPT ONLY AS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OTHERWISE
PROVIDE.  WITHIN THESE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS THE POWER OF THE STATE
OVER TAXATION IS PLENARY.  AN INTERPRETATION OF THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE WHICH RESTRICTS THE POWER OF THE STATES TO MANAGE
THEIR OWN FISCAL AFFAIRS IS A MATTER OF GRAVEST CONCERN TO THEM.  FN23
IT IS ONLY THE EMPHATIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROPERLY
MAY LEAD THE FEDERAL COURTS TO SUCH A CONCLUSION. 

APPELLANT RELIES UPON COLGATE V. HARVEY  FN24  AS A PRECEDENT TO
SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESENT STATUTE IS NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS
OF PERMISSIBLE CLASSIFICATION AND VIOLATES THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE.  IN VIEW OF OUR CONCLUSIONS, WE LOOK UPON THE
DECISION IN THAT CASE AS REPUGNANT TO THE LINE OF REASONING ADOPTED
HERE.  AS A CONSEQUENCE, COLGATE V. HARVEY MUST BE AND IS OVERRULED. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE ACT OF JANUARY 31, 1928, 45 STAT. 54. 

FN2  CARROLL'S KENTUCKY STATUTES, BALDWIN'S REVISION, 1930, SEC.
4019A-10, P. 2052(KY. ACTS, 1924, CH. 116, SEC. 3) PROVIDES: 

"ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION FOR STATE PURPOSES SHALL BE SUBJECT
ALSO TO TAXATION IN THE COUNTY, CITY, SCHOOL, OR OTHER TAXING DISTRICT
IN WHICH SAME HAS A TAXABLE SITUS, EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF
PROPERTY WHICH SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION FOR STATE PURPOSES ONLY: 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(4)  MONEY IN HAND, NOTES, BONDS, ACCOUNTS AND OTHER CREDITS,
WHETHER SECURED BY MORTGAGE, PLEDGE, OR OTHERWISE, OR UNSECURED, AND
SHARES OF STOCK; ...  " 

CARROLL'S KENTUCKY STATUTES, BALDWIN'S REVISION 1930, SEC. 4019, P.
2048(KY. ACTS 1924, CH. 116, SEC. 1, P. 402, AS REENACTED IN KY. ACTS
1926, CH. 164, P. 739), PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"AN ANNUAL AD VALOREM TAX FOR STATE PURPOSES OF THIRTY CENTS (30[)
CENTS UPON EACH $100) SHALL BE PAID ANNUALLY UPON THE AMOUNT OF
DIRECTED TO BE ASSESSED FOR TAXATION, AS PROVIDED BY LAW AND FIFTY
CENTS (50[) UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) OF VALUE OF ALL
OTHER PROPERTY DIRECTED TO BE ASSESSED FOR TAXATION, AS PROVIDED BY
LAW, SHALL BE PAID BY THE OWNER, PERSON OR CORPORATION ASSESSED; EXCEPT
A TAX AT THE RATE OF ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT (0.1%)(I.E., 10 CENTS
UPON EACH $100) SHALL BE PAID ANNUALLY UPON THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN
ANY BANK, TRUST COMPANY, OR COMBINED BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ORGANIZED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE, OR IN ANY NATIONAL BANK OF THIS STATE AS
NOW PROVIDED BY LAW; ...  "    FN3  ST. LOUIS S.W. RY. CO. V. ARKANSAS,
235 U.S. 350, 362; STORAASLI V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 57, 62. 

FN4  NEW YORK RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573, AND
CASES THERE CITED. 

FN5  BELL'S GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 134 U.S. 232, 237. 

FN6  CITIZENS' TELEPHONE CO. V. FULLER, 229 U.S. 322, 329.    FN7
SEE THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN LOUISVILLE GAS & ELECTRIC
CO. V. COLEMAN, 277 U.S. 32, 42, 46-47. 

FN8  LINDSLEY V. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61, 78-79. 

FN9  BECAUSE OF A PROHIBITION IN THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION OF 1891
AGAINST CLASSIFICATION IN TAXATION, THE STATE AND ITS POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS TAXED INTANGIBLES AT THE SAME RATE AS OTHER PROPERTY. 
THIS RESULTED IN A TOTAL TAX OF ABOUT $2.65 PER HUNDRED DOLLARS ON
INTANGIBLES, A TAX WHICH IN THE CASE OF BANK DEPOSITS ALMOST EQUALED
THE INTEREST ON DEPOSITS.  THE HIGH RATE LED TO WIDESPREAD EVASION OF
THE TAX BY CONCEALMENT OF INTANGIBLES; WITH BANK DEPOSITS THIS TOOK THE
FORM OF WITHDRAWALS FOR DEPOSITS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  THE UNEQUAL BURDEN
WHICH THIS EVASION PLACED ON OTHER FORMS OF PROPERTY LED TO AGITATION
FOR REFORM AS EARLY AS 1908.  TWO SPECIAL TAX COMMISSIONS REPORTED ON
THE NEED FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND A GENERAL TAX REFORM. 
AFTER AN AMENDMENT PERMITTING CLASSIFICATION WAS ADOPTED IN 1916, A
THIRD COMMITTEE MADE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR REVISION, AND MOST OF THE
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ADOPTED AT A SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN 1917. 
SEE THE MESSAGE OF GOVERNOR STANLEY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1917,
KENTUCKY SENATE JOURNAL OF 1917, P. 13.  IN GENERAL THE REVISION TOOK
THE FORM OF A DRASTIC LOWERING OF THE RATES ON INTANGIBLES.  AN EVEN
LOWER RATE WAS PLACED ON BANK DEPOSITS AND ALMOST COMPLETE COLLECTION
ASSURED BY PLACING THE DUTY OF COLLECTION ON THE BANKS. 

THE STUDIES WHICH LED TO THE GENERAL REVISION OF 1917 MAY BE FOUND IN
REPORT OF THE KENTUCKY TAX COMMISSION FOR 1909; REPORT OF THE SPECIAL
TAX COMMISSION OF KENTUCKY FOR 1912-14; REPORT OF THE KENTUCKY TAX
COMMISSION FOR 1916.  A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE WORKINGS OF THE
REVISED SYSTEM HAS BEEN MADE BY DR. SIMEON E. LELAND.  THE TAXATION OF
INTANGIBLES IN KENTUCKY, BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH,
COLLEGE OF COMMERCE, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, VOL. 1, NO. 1(1929). 

FN10  254 U.S. 122, 124. 

FN11  CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495, 511. 

FN12  THE 14TH AMENDMENT, SEC. 1, PROVIDES: 

"ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO
THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE
STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE.  NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW
WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES; ...  " 

FN13  307 U.S. 496.  THE PRIOR CASES ARE COLLECTED IN NOTE 2 OF THE
DISSENTING OPINION IN COLGATE V. HARVEY (296 U.S. 404, 445) AND NOTE 1
OF MR. JUSTICE STONE'S OPINION IN THE HAGUE CASE (307 U.S. 496, 520). 

FN14 MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS' OPINION, AT P. 512:  "ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN
HELD THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CREATED NO RIGHTS IN CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, BUT MERELY SECURED EXISTING RIGHTS AGAINST STATE
ABRIDGEMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RIGHT PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO
DISCUSS THESE TOPICS, AND TO COMMUNICATE RESPECTING THEM, WHETHER
ORALLY OR IN WRITING, IS A PRIVILEGE INHERENT IN CITIZENSHIP OF THE
UNITED STATES WHICH THE AMENDMENT PROTECTS." 

MR. JUSTICE STONE'S OPINION, AT P. 519-21:  "HENCE THERE IS NO
OCCASION  ...  TO REVIVE THE CONTENTION, REJECTED BY THIS COURT IN THE
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, THAT THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED
STATES CITIZENSHIP, PROTECTED BY THAT CLAUSE, EXTEND BEYOND THOSE WHICH
ARISE OR GROW OUT OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS TO THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. 

"THAT SUCH IS THE LIMITED APPLICATION OF THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE SEEMS NOW TO BE CONCEDED BY MY BRETHREN." 

FN15  16 WALL.  36, AT 71-72: 

"WE REPEAT, THEN, IN THE LIGHT OF THIS RECAPITULATION OF EVENTS,
ALMOST TOO RECENT TO BE CALLED HISTORY, BUT WHICH ARE FAMILIAR TO US
ALL; AND ON THE MOST CASUAL EXAMINATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF THESE
AMENDMENTS, NO ONE CAN FAIL TO BE IMPRESSED WITH THE ONE PERVADING
PURPOSE FOUND IN THEM ALL, LYING AT THE FOUNDATION OF EACH, AND WITHOUT
WHICH NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN SUGGESTED; WE MEAN THE FREEDOM
OF THE SLAVE RACE, THE SECURITY AND FIRM ESTABLISHMENT OF THAT FREEDOM,
AND THE PROTECTION OF THE NEWLY-MADE FREEMAN AND CITIZEN FROM THE
OPPRESSIONS OF THOSE WHO HAD FORMERLY EXERCISED UNLIMITED DOMINION OVER
HIM.  ... 

"  ...  AND SO, IF OTHER RIGHTS ARE ASSAILED BY THE STATES WHICH
PROPERLY AND NECESSARILY FALL WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THESE ARTICLES,
THAT PROTECTION WILL APPLY THOUGH THE PARTY INTERESTED MAY NOT BE OF
AFRICAN DESCENT.  BUT WHAT WE DO SAY, AND WHAT WE WISH TO BE UNDERSTOOD
IS, THAT IN ANY FAIR AND JUST CONSTRUCTION OF ANY SECTION OR PHRASE OF
THESE AMENDMENTS, IT IS NECESSARY TO LOOK TO THE PURPOSE WHICH WE HAVE
SAID WAS THE PERVADING SPIRIT OF THEM ALL, THE EVIL WHICH THEY WERE
DESIGNED TO REMEDY, AND THE PROCESS OF CONTINUED ADDITION TO THE
CONSTITUTION UNTIL THAT PURPOSE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, AS FAR
AS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CAN ACCOMPLISH IT." 

FN16  IDEM, 78-79. 

FN17  SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, SUPRA. 

FN18  COX V. TEXAS, 202 U.S. 446; CF. BARTEMEYER V. IOWA, 18 WALL. 
129; CROWLEY V. CHRISTENSEN, 137 U.S. 86; GIOZZA V. TIERNAN, 148 U.S.
657; CRANE V. CAMPBELL, 245 U.S. 304. 

FN19  HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366; WILMINGTON STAR MINING CO. V.
FULTON, 205 U.S. 60; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. COMMERCIAL MILLING
CO., 218 U.S. 406; ROSENTHAL V. NEW YORK, 226 U.S. 260; PRUDENTIAL INS.
CO. V. CHEEK, 259 U.S. 530. 

FN20  BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ILLINOIS, 203 U.S. 553; CF. FERRY V.
SPOKANE, P. & S. RY. CO., 258 U.S. 314. 

FN21  THEY HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED AS "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ARISING
OUT OF THE NATURE AND ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT,
AND GRANTED OR SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  IN
RE KEMMLER, 136 U.S. 436, 448.  SEE ALSO SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, SUPRA,
AT 79-80; UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 552; WILLIAMS V.
FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, 274; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 97. 

FN22  CF. TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 94. 

FN23  TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, 92. 

FN24  296 U.S. 404. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES CONCURS IN THE RESULT UPON THE GROUND, AS
STATED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY, THAT THE CLASSIFICATION
ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE RESTED UPON A REASONABLE BASIS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED.  FOUR YEARS AGO IN
COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE AND THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROHIBIT SUCH A DISCRIMINATION AS RESULTS FROM THE
STATUTE NOW UNDER REVIEW.  I ADHERE TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE
OPINION OF THE COURT IN THAT CASE, AND THINK IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN
THIS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :

















STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, 309 U.S. 94 


NO. 251.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 254
APP. DIV. 892 - 5 N.Y.S.2D 260, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(A) AND THE ACT OF JANUARY 31, 1928, THIS
COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT
OF LAST RESORT, SUSTAINING A RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR ACCIDENTAL DEATH,
WHICH NECESSARILY UPHOLDS A STATE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE DAMAGES WERE
AWARDED AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT, IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE LOCUS IN
QUO - A POST-OFFICE SITE - IT VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION AS TO AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUCH PLACES.  P.
97. 

2.  UPON THE TRANSFER FROM A STATE TO THE UNITED STATES OF EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF A SITE FOR A POSTOFFICE, THE STATE LAWS IN EFFECT AT
THE TIME CONTINUE IN FORCE AS FEDERAL LAWS, SAVE AS THEY MAY BE
INAPPROPRIATE TO THE CHANGED SITUATION OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE
NATIONAL PURPOSE, AND SAVE AS CONGRESS MAY HAVE PROVIDED OTHERWISE.  P.
99. 

3.  SECTION 241(4) OF THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW, WHICH REQUIRES THE
PLANKING-OVER OF FLOOR BEAMS ON WHICH IRON OR STEEL WORK IS BEING
ERECTED IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, REMAINED IN FORCE AS TO THE POST
OFFICE SITE IN NEW YORK CITY AFTER THE ACQUISITION OF THE SITE BY THE
UNITED STATES, AND WAS APPLICABLE TO A CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN
CONSTRUCTING THE POST OFFICE UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  P.
100. 

THE FACT THAT THE LABOR LAW CONTAINS NUMEROUS ADMINISTRATIVE AND
OTHER PROVISIONS INAPPLICABLE IN THE CHANGED SITUATION DOES NOT RENDER
SEC. 241(4) INAPPLICABLE. 

4.  THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SAFETY REQUIREMENT OF BOARDING-OVER THE
STEEL TIERS MAY SLIGHTLY INCREASE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MAKE THE REQUIREMENT INAPPLICABLE TO THE POSTOFFICE
SITE.  P. 104. 

5.  WHILE THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING CONTRACT IS IN A SENSE THE MEANS BY
WHICH THE UNITED STATES SECURES THE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS POST OFFICE,
THE CONTRACTOR IN CARRYING OUT THE CONTRACT HAS NOT THE IMMUNITY OF A
GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY.  P. 105. 

6.  A CONTRACT FOR THE BUILDING OF A POST-OFFICE IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK PROVIDED THAT "STATE OR MUNICIPAL BUILDING REGULATIONS DO NOT
APPLY TO WORK INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT'S LOT LINES," THE SENTENCE QUOTED
BEING IN A SECTION OF THE CONTRACT RELATING TO "LICENSES, PERMITS,
ETC."  HELD THAT THE INTENTION WAS TO RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM
PROVISIONS OF THE CITY BUILDING CODE RELATING TO TYPES OF MATERIAL,
FIRE HAZARDS AND THE LIKE.  P. 105. 

JAMES STEWART & CO. V. SADRAKULA, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, ENTERED ON
REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, 280 N.Y. 651, 730; 20 N.E.2D
1015; 21 N.E.2D 217, AND SUSTAINING AN AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR ACCIDENTAL
DEATH. 

UPON TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, CERTAIN STATE LAWS, TERMED MUNICIPAL,
GOVERNING THE PERSONAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS IN THEIR
RELATIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER, REMAIN EFFECTIVE, UNLESS THEY CONFLICT WITH
THE POLITICAL CHARACTER, INSTITUTIONS OR CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THAT RULE, BORROWED FROM INTERNATIONAL LAW, RESULTS FROM THE
NECESSITY OF AVOIDING THE ALTERNATIVE THAT, UNTIL ACTION BY CONGRESS,
THERE WOULD BE NO LAW THERE FOR THE PROTECTION OF SUCH RIGHTS. 
AMERICAN INS. CO. V. CANTER, 1 PET. 511, 541; CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO.
V. MCGLINN, 114 U.S. 542, 546, 547; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V.
CHILES, 214 U.S. 274, 277, 278; VILAS V. MANILA, 220 U.S. 345;
ARLINGTON HOTEL CO. V. FANT, 278 U.S. 439; HALLECK, INTERNATIONAL LAW,
C. 34, SEC. 14; 38 COL. L. REV., P. 133. 

IMPLICIT IN SUCH RULE IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT LAWS WHICH THUS CONTINUE
IN FORCE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE NEW GOVERNMENT AS ITS OWN.  SUCH
ADOPTION SHOULD BE ONLY PRESUMED OF LAWS WHICH ARE CLEARLY WITHIN THE
PURPOSE OF THE RULE AND WHICH, WHEN APPLIED, WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

THE NEW YORK LABOR LAW IS A COMPREHENSIVE CODE OF REGULATIONS
DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, WELFARE AND PERSONAL SAFETY OF THOSE
ENGAGED IN MANY DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS.  ARTICLE 10, OF WHICH SEC. 241
IS PART, RELATES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS.  IN NEW YORK CITY,
ITS ENFORCEMENT IS ENTRUSTED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINGS, A
MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL, WHO IS ALSO CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
CITY BUILDING CODE, A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE WHICH HAS THE FORCE OF A
STATUTE.  THAT OFFICIAL IS EMPOWERED TO ENTER UPON ALL PREMISES IN
WHICH SUCH WORK IS BEING CONDUCTED, REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH THE
LABOR LAW AND THE BUILDING CODE, AND, IF HE DEEM IT NECESSARY, STOP ALL
WORK MEANWHILE. 

THOSE PROVISIONS FOR ITS EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
CLEARLY DISTINGUISH THIS STATUTE FROM THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED
AS "MUNICIPAL."  CROOK V. OLD POINT COMFORT, 54 F.2D 669; MCCARTHY V.
PACKARD CO., 105 APP. DIV. 436; 182 N.Y. 555. 

EXERCISE OF SUCH EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN FEDERAL TERRITORY WOULD
CLEARLY INFRINGE UPON FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY.  ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283
U.S. 423, 451, 452; EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, 388,
389; OKLAHOMA CITY V. SANDERS, 94 F.2D 323, 326; UNITED STATES V. SAN
FRANCISCO BRIDGE CO., 88 F. 891, 894, 895. 

MAY IT THEN BE REASONABLY INFERRED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
INTENDED THAT THIS STATUTE SHOULD BE EVEN PARTIALLY EFFECTIVE IN ITS
TERRITORY?  CF. MURRAY V. JOE GERRICK & CO., 291 U.S. 315, 319. 

EVEN THOUGH ITS EXECUTIVE PROVISIONS BE DEEMED ELIMINATED, THE
MANDATES OF THE STATUTE, AS APPLIED HEREIN, ARE NOT "MUNICIPAL," BUT
"POLITICAL." 

THE ONLY BUILDING TO WHICH THE STATUTE COULD APPLY WAS TO BE
CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES.  COMPLETE
CONTROL OF ITS CONSTRUCTION WAS VESTED IN THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
BY CONGRESS.  40 U.S.C. SECS. 285, 341, 342. 

THE STATUTE IS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE IN ITS ENTIRETY IN
FEDERAL TERRITORY, AND ITS MANDATES ARE SUCH THAT THEIR ADOPTION
THEREIN SHOULD NOT BE PRESUMED.  SUCH PRESUMPTION WOULD SEEM CONTRARY
TO THE INTENT OF CONGRESS, AS EVIDENCED BY ITS FAILURE TO ENACT SEVERAL
BILLS FOR THE ADOPTION OF STATE SAFETY LAWS IN ALL FEDERAL PROJECTS. 

APPELLANT'S CONTRACT WAS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND, AS APPLIED HEREIN, THE STATE STATUTE CONFLICTED AND INTERFERED
WITH THAT CONTRACT AND ITS PERFORMANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
YORK AWARDING DAMAGES FOR ACCIDENTAL DEATH.  AS A STATUTE OF THE STATE
NECESSARILY WAS SUSTAINED AGAINST A CONTENTION THAT ITS APPLICATION TO
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS TO
THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER A POST-OFFICE SITE
PURCHASED WITH THE CONSENT OF NEW YORK,  FN1  THIS COURT HAS
JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AND THE ACT OF
JANUARY 31, 1928. 

THE ISSUE OF LAW INVOLVED IS WHETHER AN EXISTING PROVISION OF A STATE
STATUTE REQUIRING THE PROTECTION OF PLACES OF WORK IN THE MANNER
SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE  FN2  REMAINS EFFECTIVE AS A STATUTE OF THE
UNITED STATES APPLICABLE TO THE PARTICULAR PARCEL AFTER THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ACQUIRES EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF A PARCEL OF REALTY ON
WHICH WORK IS BEING DONE. 

THE DECEDENT, AN EMPLOYEE OF A RIGGING COMPANY, A SUB-CONTRACTOR
ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW YORK POST OFFICE, FELL FROM AN
UNPLANKED TIER OF STEEL BEAMS DOWN A BAY AND WAS KILLED.  IN AN ACTION
OF TORT AGAINST THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, HIS ADMINISTRATRIX NARROWED THE
SCOPE OF THE CHARGES OF NEGLIGENCE UNTIL VIOLATION OF THE QUOTED SUB
THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS THE NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO PLANK
THE BEAMS AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMED
FN3  ON THE GROUND THAT THE LABOR LAW PROVISION CONTINUED EFFECTIVE
OVER THE POST-OFFICE SITE AFTER THE TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS BY AN ORDER OF REMITTITUR, 21 N.E.2D 217, ALSO
AFFIRMED ON THE SAME GROUND WITH A STATEMENT THAT IN ITS AFFIRMANCE IT
NECESSARILY PASSED UPON THE VALIDITY AND APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 241(4)
OF THE LABOR LAW UNDER ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  280 N.Y.
651, 730; 20 N.E.2D 1015; 21 N.E.2D 217. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE RECORD SHOW INDUBITABLY
THAT A DETERMINATIVE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS DECIDED.  FN4  THE CONCLUSION
AS TO THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF EXISTING STATE STATUTORY REGULATIONS IN
THE PROTECTION OF WORKMEN IN CEDED FEDERAL AREAS MAKES IT SUBSTANTIAL. 
FN5  THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM THE APPEAL ARE DENIED.  FN6 

IF THE QUOTED PROVISION OF THE LABOR LAW IS OPERATIVE EVEN THOUGH
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION HAD ALREADY VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES, IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION HAD ACTUALLY
PASSED TO THE UNITED STATES.  THE STATE COURTS ASSUMED THAT FEDERAL
SOVEREIGNTY WAS COMPLETE THROUGH CONSENT BY THE STATE AND WE MAKE THE
SAME ASSUMPTION.  DOES THE ACCEPTANCE OF SOVEREIGNTY BY THE UNITED
STATES HAVE THE EFFECT OF DISPLACING THIS SUB-SECTION OF THE NEW YORK
LABOR LAW?  WE THINK IT DID NOT.  THE SUB-SECTION CONTINUES AS A PART
OF THE LAWS OF THE FEDERAL TERRITORY. 

IT IS NOW SETTLED THAT THE JURISDICTION ACQUIRED FROM A STATE BY THE
UNITED STATES WHETHER BY CONSENT TO THE PURCHASE OR BY CESSION MAY BE
QUALIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENTS REACHED BY THE RESPECTIVE
GOVERNMENTS.  FN7  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT COMMAND THAT EVERY VESTIGE
OF THE LAWS OF THE FORMER SOVEREIGNTY MUST VANISH.  ON THE CONTRARY ITS
LANGUAGE HAS LONG BEEN INTERPRETED SO AS TO PERMIT THE CONTINUANCE
UNTIL ABROGATED OF THOSE RULES EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE SURRENDER OF
SOVEREIGNTY WHICH GOVERN THE RIGHTS OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE TERRITORY
TRANSFERRED.  FN8  THIS ASSURES THAT NO AREA HOWEVER SMALL WILL BE LEFT
WITHOUT A DEVELOPED LEGAL SYSTEM FOR PRIVATE RIGHTS.  IN CHICAGO, R.I.
& P.R. CO. V. MCGLINN, SUPRA, A KANSAS STATUTE RELATING TO RECOVERY
AGAINST A RAILROAD FOR THE INJURY TO LIVESTOCK ON ITS RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE CESSION TO THE UNITED STATES OF EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER FORT LEAVENWORTH MILITARY RESERVATION.  IT WAS HELD
THAT THE STATUTE WAS CARRIED OVER INTO THE LAW COVERING THE
RESERVATION.  CONVERSELY, IN ARLINGTON HOTEL CO. V. FANT, SUPRA, AN
ARKANSAS STATUTE RELIEVING INNKEEPERS, PASSED AFTER CESSION OF HOT
SPRINGS RESERVATION, WAS HELD UNAVAILING AS A DEFENSE TO A RESERVATION
INNKEEPER'S COMMON-LAW LIABILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARKANSAS LAW BEFORE
THE CESSION.  SUCH HOLDINGS ASSIMILATE THE LAWS OF THE FEDERAL
TERRITORY, WHERE THE CONGRESS HAS NOT LEGISLATED OTHERWISE, TO THE LAWS
OF THE SURROUNDING STATE. 

THE CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED IN CERTAIN INSTANCES THE DESIRABILITY OF
SUCH SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE MUNICIPAL LAWS OF THE STATE AND THOSE OF
THE FEDERAL PARCEL.  SINCE ONLY THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE
TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION CONTINUES IN FORCE, FUTURE STATUTES OF THE
STATE ARE NOT A PART OF THE BODY OF LAWS IN THE CEDED AREA. 
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IS NECESSARY TO KEEP IT CURRENT.  CONSEQUENTLY AS
DEFECTS BECOME APPARENT LEGISLATION IS ENACTED COVERING CERTAIN
PHASES.  THIS OCCURRED AS TO RIGHTS OF ACTION FOR ACCIDENTAL DEATH BY
NEGLIGENCE OR WRONGFUL ACT.  FN9 AFTER THIS STATUTE WAS HELD
INAPPLICABLE TO CLAIMS UNDER STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS FURTHER
LEGISLATION UNDERTOOK TO EXTEND THE PROVISIONS OF THOSE ACTS TO THE
PLACES UNDER FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY.  FN10  WITH GROWING FREQUENCY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEAVES LARGELY UNIMPAIRED THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OVER NATIONAL RESERVATIONS OR PROPERTIES.  FN11
WHILE EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION ATTACHES, STATE COURTS ARE WITHOUT
POWER TO PUNISH FOR CRIMES COMMITTED ON FEDERAL PROPERTY.  FN12  THIS
HAS MADE NECESSARY THE LEGISLATION WHICH GIVES FEDERAL COURTS
JURISDICTION OVER THESE CRIMES.  FN13  THE TENDENCY TOWARD A UNIFORMITY
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AND SURROUNDING STATE TERRITORY HAS CAUSED A SERIES
OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTS ADOPTING THE STATE CRIMINAL LAWS.  FN14  THROUGH
THESE CONCESSIONS OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT WORKS COOPERATIVELY
TOWARDS HARMONIOUS ADJUSTMENT. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR LAW CONTAIN NUMEROUS
ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER PROVISIONS WHICH CANNOT BE RELEVANT TO THE
FEDERAL TERRITORY.  THE LABOR LAW DOES HAVE A NUMBER OF ARTICLES.  FN15
OBVIOUSLY MUCH OF THEIR LANGUAGE IS DIRECTED AT SITUATIONS THAT CANNOT
ARISE IN THE TERRITORY.  WITH THE DOMESTICATION IN THE EXCISED AREA OF
THE ENTIRE APPLICABLE BODY OF STATE MUNICIPAL LAW MUCH OF THE STATE LAW
MUST NECESSARILY BE INAPPROPRIATE.  SOME SECTIONS AUTHORIZE QUASI
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND MAY WELL HAVE NO
VALIDITY IN THE FEDERAL AREA.  IT IS NOT A QUESTION HERE OF THE
EXERCISE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY IN FEDERAL TERRITORY.  FN16
WE DO NOT AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT BECAUSE THE LABOR LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE
AS A WHOLE, IT FOLLOWS THAT NONE OF ITS SECTIONS ARE.  WE HAVE HELD IN
COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK COMPANY FN17  THAT THE SECTIONS OF A
CALIFORNIA STATUTE WHICH LEVIED EXCISES ON SALES OF LIQUOR IN YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK WERE ENFORCEABLE IN THE PARK, WHILE SECTIONS OF THE SAME
STATUTE PROVIDING REGULATION OF THE PARK LIQUOR TRAFFIC THROUGH
LICENSES WERE UNENFORCEABLE.  FN18 

BUT THE AUTHORITY OF STATE LAWS OR THEIR ADMINISTRATION MAY NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE CARRYING OUT OF A NATIONAL PURPOSE.  FN19  WHERE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE LAW WOULD HANDICAP EFFORTS TO CARRY OUT THE
PLANS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE ENACTMENT MUST, OF COURSE, GIVE
WAY.  FN20 

MAY IT BE SAID THAT THE CONTINUED APPLICATION OF SEC. 241 OF THE
LABOR LAW  FN21  WILL INTERFERE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING
UPON THIS SITE?  THIS IS LIKE OTHER SQUARES IN THE CITY.  THERE ARE, OF
COURSE, DIFFERENTIATIONS BECAUSE OF ITS OWNERSHIP, BUT OWNERSHIP AS
SUCH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.  IT IS TRUE THAT
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE SAFETY REQUIREMENT OF BOARDING OVER THE STEEL
TIERS MAY SLIGHTLY INCREASE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT,
BUT SUCH AN INCREASE IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE NEW YORK STATUTE.  IN ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT THAT
A SIMILAR INCREASED COST FROM TAXATION WOULD "MAKE IT DIFFICULT OR
IMPOSSIBLE" FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN THE SERVICE IT NEEDS, WE SAID
IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO. FN22  THAT SUCH A CONTENTION "IGNORES
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE THEREWITH THROUGH
ANY ATTEMPTED STATE ACTION."  SUCH A SAFETY REQUIREMENT IS AKIN TO THE
SAFETY PROVISIONS OF MARYLAND LAW WHICH IN BALTIMORE & ANNAPOLIS
RAILROAD CO. V. LICHTENBERG  FN23  WERE HELD APPLICABLE TO TRUCKS OF AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR TRANSPORTING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES UNDER A
CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES. 

FINALLY THE POINT IS MADE THAT A PROVISION REQUIRING BOARDING OVER OF
OPEN STEEL TIERS IS A DIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS IS
SAID TO FOLLOW FROM THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE POST OFFICE IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  AS A
COROLLARY TO THIS ARGUMENT, ERROR IS ASSIGNED TO THE REFUSAL OF THE
TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT IN EVIDENCE A CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE APPELLANT READING, "STATE OR MUNICIPAL BUILDING
REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO WORK INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT'S LOT LINES." 
FN24 WHILE, OF COURSE, IN A SENSE THE CONTRACT IS THE MEANS BY WHICH
THE UNITED STATES SECURES THE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS POST OFFICE,
CERTAINLY THE CONTRACTOR IN THIS INDEPENDENT OPERATION DOES NOT SHARE
ANY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY.  FN25  NOR DO WE THINK THERE WAS ERROR IN
REFUSING TO ADMIT THE CLAUSE OF THE CONTRACT AS TO BUILDING
REGULATIONS.  THE QUOTED SENTENCE IS IN A SECTION OF THE CONTRACT
RELATING TO "LICENSES, PERMITS, ETC."  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS
INTENDED TO RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PROVISIONS AS TO TYPES OF
MATERIAL, FIRE HAZARDS AND THE LIKE, WHICH ARE COVERED BY THE NEW YORK
CITY BUILDING CODE.    SUCH A SAFETY REGULATION AS SEC. 241(4) OF THE
NEW YORK LABOR LAW PROVIDES IS EFFECTIVE IN THE FEDERAL AREA, UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS THE CONGRESS MAY OTHERWISE PROVIDE.  FN26  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17:    "THE CONGRESS SHALL
HAVE POWER  ...  TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION  ...  OVER ALL
PLACES PURCHASED BY THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN
WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE ERECTION OF FORTS, MAGAZINES,
ARSENALS, DOCK-YARDS, AND OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS; ...  " 

FN2  NEW YORK LABOR LAW SEC. 241 READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 241.  PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR
DEMOLITION WORK.  ALL CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS, WHEN CONSTRUCTING OR
DEMOLISHING BUILDINGS, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"4.  IF THE FLOOR BEAMS ARE OF IRON OR STEEL, THE ENTIRE TIER OF IRON
OR STEEL BEAMS ON WHICH THE STRUCTURAL IRON OR STEEL WORK IS BEING
ERECTED SHALL BE THOROUGHLY PLANKED OVER TO NOT LESS THAN SIX FEET
BEYOND SUCH BEAMS, EXCEPT SPACES REASONABLY REQUIRED FOR PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRON OR STEEL WORK, FOR RAISING OR LOWERING OF
MATERIAL OR FOR STAIRWAYS AND ELEVATOR SHAFTS DESIGNATED BY THE PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS." 

FN3  254 APP. DIV. 892. 

FN4  HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14, 19; WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297 U.S.
431, 435; CF. MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP., ANTE, P. 2. 

FN5  MILHEIM V. MOFFAT TUNNEL DIST., 262 U.S. 710, 716. 

FN6  CF. MASON CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 186, 197; MURRAY V.
GERRICK & CO., 291 U.S. 315-16. 

FN7  COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518, 529-30; JAMES V.
DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 147-49. 

FN8  MURRAY V. GERRICK & CO., 291 U.S. 315, 318; ARLINGTON HOTEL CO.
V. FANT, 278 U.S. 439, 445, 446, 454; CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V.
MCGLINN, 114 U.S. 542, 546-47. 

FN9  45 STAT. 54, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 457(1928); SEE MURRAY V. GERRICK &
CO., 291 U.S. 315, 319; H.R. REP. NO. 369, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 69
CONG. REC. 1486. 

FN10  49 STAT. 1938, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 290(1936); SEE H.R. REP. NO. 2656,
74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN11  30 STAT. 668(1898)(JURISDICTION RECEDED TO STATES OVER PLACES
PURCHASED FOR BRANCHES OF SOLDIERS' HOMES); 49 STAT. 668, 16 U.S.C.
SEC. 465(1935)(WAIVER OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR HISTORIC SITES); 49
STAT. 2025, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 421(1936)(SAME FOR SLUM-CLEARANCE AND LOW
COST HOUSING PROJECTS); 49 STAT. 2035(1936)(SAME FOR RESETTLEMENT AND
RURAL REHABILITATION); 50 STAT. 888, SEC. 13(B), 42 U.S.C. SEC.
1413(B)(1937)(SAME FOR ACQUISITIONS OF U.S. HOUSING AUTHORITY). 

FN12  BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19, 29; UNITED STATES V. UNZEUTA,
281 U.S. 138; UNITED STATES V. CORNELL, FED. CAS. NO. 14,867;
COMMONWEALTH V. CLARY, 8 MASS. 72; PEOPLE V. HILLMAN, 246 N.Y. 467; 159
N.E. 400. 

FN13  JUDICIAL CODE SECS. 24, 27. 

FN14  R.S. 5391; 30 STAT. 717(1898); 35 STAT. 1145(1909); 48 STAT.
152(1933); 49 STAT. 394(1935). 

FN15  ARTICLE (1) SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS; (2) THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR; (3) REVIEW BY INDUSTRIAL BOARD AND COURT; (4) EMPLOYMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FEMALES; (5) HOURS OF LABOR; (6) PAYMENT OF WAGES; (7)
GENERAL PROVISIONS; (8) PUBLIC WORK; (8-A) GRADE CROSSING ELIMINATION
WORK; HOURS AND WAGES; (9) IMMIGRANT LODGING HOUSES; (10) BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION AND REPAIR WORK; (11) FACTORIES; (12) BAKERIES
AND MANUFACTURE OF FOOD PRODUCTS; (13) MANUFACTURE IN TENEMENT HOUSES;
(14) MERCANTILE AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS; (15) MINES AND TUNNELS;
QUARRIES; COMPRESSED AIR; (16) EXPLOSIVES; (17) PUBLIC SAFETY; (18)
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS; LAWS REPEALED; WHEN TO TAKE EFFECT. 

FN16  WE DO NOT THEREFORE NEED TO CONSIDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.  NEW YORK LABOR LAW SEC. 242.  CF. OKLAHOMA
CITY V. SANDERS, 94 F.2D 323(C.C.A. 10).  IN THIS CASE AN INJUNCTION
WAS OBTAINED IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING A CITY AND CERTAIN
OF ITS OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING ORDINANCES RELATING TO LICENSES, BONDS
AND INSPECTIONS BY DAILY ARRESTS ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATIONS OF THESE
ORDINANCES BY A CONTRACTOR DOING CONSTRUCTION WORK ON A LOWCOST HOUSING
PROJECT.  THE DECREE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFTER
CONSIDERATION OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1936 WHICH READS THAT "THE
ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF ANY REAL PROPERTY  ...  IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY LOW-COST HOUSING  ...  PROJECT  ...  SHALL NOT BE
HELD TO DEPRIVE ANY STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF OF ITS CIVIL
AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN AND OVER SUCH PROPERTY  ...  "  EXCEPT AS
AFFECTED BY THE ACT JUST QUOTED IN PART, THE AREA WAS FEDERAL TERRITORY
THROUGH A CONSENT STATUTE.  THE COURT, SPEAKING OF THE RECESSION,
SAID: 

"IT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE THAT THE STATE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXERT
POLICE POWER THERE THROUGH APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES RELATING
TO LICENSES, BONDS, AND INSPECTIONS IN THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION
THEREON OF BUILDINGS BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, NO SUCH
LEGISLATIVE INTENT OR DESIRE BEING INDICATED BY THE ACT." 

IT ALSO QUOTED WITH APPROVAL AN EXCERPT FROM AN OPINION OF THE
DIRECTOR, LEGAL DIVISION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC
WORKS: 

"I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MAY NOT SUPERVISE THE WORK OF A CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK ON PROPERTY
OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES OF A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES." 

FN17  304 U.S. 518, 532. 

FN18  WE DO NOT OVERLOOK THE LANGUAGE IN MURRAY V. GERRICK & CO., 291
U.S. 315, 319, CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION BY APPELLANT: 

"IF IT WERE HELD THAT BENEFICIARIES MAY SUE, PURSUANT TO THE
COMPENSATION LAW, WE SHOULD HAVE THE INCONGRUOUS SITUATION THAT THIS
LAW IS IN PART EFFECTIVE AND IN PART INEFFECTIVE WITHIN THE AREA UNDER
THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."  THAT QUOTATION HAD
REFERENCE TO A CONTENTION THAT THE DEPENDENTS OF AN EMPLOYEE, KILLED ON
FEDERAL TERRITORY WITHIN A STATE, MIGHT CLAIM COMPENSATION AS
BENEFICIARIES UNDER A STATE COMPENSATION ACT.  THE COMPENSATION FUND,
COLLECTED AND ADMINISTERED BY STATE OFFICERS, WAS NOT EFFECTIVE IN
FEDERAL TERRITORY.  CF. ATKINSON V. TAX COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 20, 25. 
AS THE FUND WAS NOT AUGMENTED BY ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE FEDERAL
CONTRACTOR, THE COURT HELD THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF THE STATE
COMPENSATION ACT DID NOT APPLY. 

FN19  PITTMAN V. HOME OWNERS' CORP., 308 U.S. 21; ATKINSON V. TAX
COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 20, 23; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S.
134, 147, 161; UNITED STATES V. UNZEUTA, 281 U.S. 138, 142; OHIO V.
THOMAS, 173 U.S. 276, 283; FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, 114 U.S.
525, 531; KOHL V. UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 367, 371-72; THOMSON V.
PACIFIC RAILROAD, 9 WALL.  579, 591. 

FN20  ANDERSON V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 102 NEB. 578, AS COMMENTED
UPON IN UNITED STATES V. UNZEUTA, 281 U.S. 138, 144. 

FN21  NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN22  302 U.S. 134, 160, 161. 

FN23  176 MD. 383; 4 A.2D 734, APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION, SUB NOM. UNITED STATES V. BALITIMORE &
ANNAPOLIS R. CO., 308 U.S. 525. 

FN24  THE ENTIRE SECTION READS: 

"22.  PERMITS.  THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WITHOUT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE
GOVERNMENT OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED LICENSES, PERMITS, ETC.  THIS APPLIES TO
WORK OUTSIDE THE LOT LINES, THE USE OF STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, THE
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AND TRAFFIC, CONNECTIONS TO UTILITY SERVICE LINES,
ETC. STATE OR MUNICIPAL BUILDING REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO WORK
INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT'S LOT LINES." 

FN25  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 152; HELVERING V.
PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376, 385. 

FN26  38 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 341, 348, 349, IS NOT TO
THE CONTRARY.  IT DECLARED THAT SEC. 2 OF A NEVADA CONSENT STATUTE WAS
CLEARLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  THE SECTION READ: 

"IN THE ERECTION OF SUCH FEDERAL BUILDING BY CONTRACT OR OTHERWISE,
OR IN CASE OF ANY SUBSEQUENT RECONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION OF SUCH
BUILDING, IT IS HEREBY RESERVED AND PROVIDED THAT THE STATE LABOR LAWS,
THE STATE LABOR SAFETY LAWS AND THE STATE HEALTH LAWS, SHALL APPLY TO
ALL PERSONS, FIRMS, ASSOCIATIONS OR CORPORATIONS HAVING CONTRACTS FOR
SUCH CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION AS TO ALL PROVISIONS CONTAINED
THEREIN, AND NO CONTRACTOR HAVING ANY SUCH CONTRACT SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT TO CLAIM TO BE OR TO DECLARE HIMSELF TO BE A GOVERNMENT
INSTRUMENTALITY." 

THE OPINION HOWEVER FURTHER STATED: 

"IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN WHAT HAS BEEN SAID
CONCERNING SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE NEVADA STATUTE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
DOCTRINE THAT STATE LAWS REGULATING PRIVATE CIVIL RIGHTS (AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM STATE CRIMINAL LAWS  ...  ) CONTINUE IN FORCE, AS
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, ON LANDS CEDED BY CONSENT OF THE STATE TO
THE UNITED STATES, IF NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAWS OF THE NEW
SOVEREIGNTY OR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LAND IS ACQUIRED, UNTIL
SUPERSEDED BY LAWS ENACTED BY THE UNITED STATES.  ...  THE DIFFICULTY
WITH SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE NEVADA ACT IS THAT THEY DO NOT MERELY
OCCUPY A VACANT FIELD UNTIL FILLED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - THEY
WITHHOLD AND RESERVE JURISDICTION, PRESENT AND FUTURE, OVER THE MATTERS
SPECIFIED IN THEM, HOWSOEVER INCONSISTENT WITH EXISTING OR FUTURE LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  THAT PRECLUDES EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FROM
VESTING IN THE UNITED STATES." 
..END :





















HELVERING V. HALLOCK, 309 U.S. 106 


NO. 110.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 102
F.2D 1 - 103 ID. 834, REVERSED.  - 104 F.2D 1011, AFFIRMED. 


1.  DECEDENT IN HIS LIFETIME CREATED A TRUST PROVIDING THAT THE INCOME
FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY SHOULD BE PAID TO HIS WIFE DURING HER LIFETIME,
THAT UPON HIS DEATH, IF SHE SURVIVED HIM, THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST
SHOULD GO TO HER OR TO OTHER NAMED BENEFICIARIES, BUT THAT UPON HER
DEATH, IF HE SURVIVED, THE PROPERTY SHOULD REVERT TO HIMSELF.  THE WIFE
SURVIVED.  HELD, THAT THE VALUE OF THE REMAINDER INTEREST SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE UNDER SEC. 302(C) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS A TRANSFER INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER THE GRANTOR'S DEATH.  KLEIN V.
UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 231, FOLLOWED; HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS TRUST
CO., 296 U.S. 39, AND BECKER V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., IBID. 48,
OVERRULED.  PP. 110-115. 

2.  THE TESTATOR BY TRUST DEED ESTABLISHED A FUND IN TRUST TO PAY THE
INCOME TO HIS WIFE DURING HER LIFE AND TO HIMSELF SHOULD HE SURVIVE
HER; AND UPON THE DEATH OF THE SURVIVOR, IF THE TRUST HAD NOT THEN BEEN
MODIFIED OR REVOKED, TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE SETTLOR'S ESTATE. 
THERE WAS A FURTHER PROVISION GIVING TO THE SETTLOR AND HIS WIFE
JOINTLY DURING THEIR LIVES, AND TO EITHER OF THEM AFTER THE DEATH OF
THE OTHER, POWER TO MODIFY, ALTER OR REVOKE THE TRUST, WHICH WAS NOT
EXERCISED.  THE WIFE SURVIVED THE HUSBAND.  HELD, THAT THE VALUE OF THE
INTEREST WHICH THE HUSBAND HAD RESERVED TO HIMSELF WAS PROPERLY
INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS ESTATE UNDER SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926.  P. 116. 

3.  SECTION 302(C) DEALS NOT WITH PROPERTY TECHNICALLY PASSING AT
DEATH BUT WITH INTERESTS THERETOFORE CREATED.  THE TAXABLE EVENT IS A
TRANSFER INTER VIVOS.  BUT THE MEASURE OF THE TAX IS THE VALUE OF THE
TRANSFERRED PROPERTY AT THE TIME WHEN DEATH BRINGS IT INTO ENJOYMENT. 
P. 110. 

4.  THE STATUTE TAXES NOT MERELY THOSE INTERESTS WHICH ARE DEEMED TO
PASS AT DEATH ACCORDING TO REFINED TECHNICALITIES OF THE LAW OF
PROPERTY.  IT ALSO TAXES INTER VIVOS TRANSFERS THAT ARE CLOSELY AKIN TO
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS.  P. 112. 

5. THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS LEGISLATION
(SEC. 302(C), SUPRA) IS THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO INCLUDE IN THE
GROSS ESTATE INTER VIVOS GIFTS WHICH MAY BE RESORTED TO AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR A WILL, IN MAKING DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY OPERATIVE AT DEATH.  TO
EFFECTUATE THIS PURPOSE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS APPLICABLE TO TAXATION
PREVAIL, AND NOT THE NICETIES OF THE ART OF CONVEYANCING.  P. 114. 

6.  STARE DECISIS IS A PRINCIPLE OF POLICY AND NOT A MECHANICAL
FORMULA OF ADHERENCE TO THE LATEST DECISION, HOWEVER RECENT AND
QUESTIONABLE, WHEN SUCH ADHERENCE INVOLVES COLLISION WITH A PRIOR
DOCTRINE MORE EMBRACING IN ITS SCOPE, INTRINSICALLY SOUNDER, AND
VERIFIED BY EXPERIENCE.  P. 118. 

7.  IN THE CASE AT BAR THE DECISIONS NOW RELIED UPON BY THE TAXPAYERS
BUT OVERRULED BY THE COURT, WERE MADE AFTER THE MAKING OF THE
SETTLEMENTS, AND AFTER THE DEATH OF THE SETTLORS, OUT OF WHICH THE
TAXES ACCRUED.  P. 119. 

8.  THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF THIS COURT TO RE-EXAMINE AN UNTENABLE OR
UNDESIRABLE CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY ITSELF UPON A REVENUE PROVISION ARE
NOT IMPEDED BY THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS AND OF THE TREASURY TO TAKE
STEPS TO AVOID SUCH CONSTRUCTION THROUGH LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT.  P.
119. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. HALLOCK ET AL.,
TRUSTEES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 111, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. HALLOCK, EXECUTRIX, AND NO. 112, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, V. SQUIRE, SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKS OF OHIO, ALSO ON WRITS OF
CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 532, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT, - ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1939; NO. 183, ROTHENSIES, COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, V. HUSTON, ADMINISTRATOR, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 308
U.S. 538, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT,  -
ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 14, 1939; AND NO. 399, BRYANT ET AL., EXECUTORS, V.
HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 308
U.S. 543, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT,  -
ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1939. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 532, TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS INVOLVING FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES. 

IN NOS. 110-112, THE JUDGMENTS BELOW AFFIRMED DECISIONS OF THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS, 34 B.T.A. 575, WHICH HAD SET ASIDE DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENTS. 

IN NO. 183, THE TAXPAYER HAD PAID UNDER PROTEST AND HAD RECOVERED BY
SUIT, FROM THE COLLECTOR, A JUDGMENT WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS. 

IN NO. 399, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 36 B.T.A. 669, AFFIRMING A
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES RAISE THE SAME QUESTION, NAMELY, WHETHER TRANSFERS OF
PROPERTY INTER VIVOS MADE IN TRUST, THE PARTICULARS OF WHICH WILL LATER
APPEAR, ARE WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926.  FN1  THEY WERE HEARD IN SUCCESSION AND MAY BE DECIDED TOGETHER. 
IN EACH CASE THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE INCLUDED THE TRUST
PROPERTY IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE.  IN NOS. 110, 111 AND 112 HIS
DETERMINATION WAS REVERSED BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 34 B.T.A. 575,
AND THE BOARD WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT, 102 F.2D 1.  IN NO. 183, THE TAXPAYER PAID UNDER
PROTEST, SUCCESSFULLY SUED FOR RECOVERY IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND HIS JUDGMENT WAS SUSTAINED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, 103 F.2D 834.  IN NO.
399, THE COMMISSIONER WAS IN PART SUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS, 36 B.T.A. 669, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE BOARD, 104 F.2D 1011. 

NEITHER HERE NOR BELOW DOES THE ISSUE TURN ON THE UNGLOSSED TEXT OF
SEC. 302(C).  IN ITS ENFORCEMENT, TREASURY AND COURTS ALIKE ENCOUNTER
THREE RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, KLEIN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S.
231, HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 39, AND BECKER V. ST.
LOUIS TRUST CO., IBID. 48.  BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH LOWER
COURTS HAVE FOUND IN APPLYING THE DISTINCTIONS MADE BY THESE CASES AND
THE SEEMING DISHARMONY OF THEIR RESULTS, WHEN JUDGED BY THE CONTROLLING
PURPOSES OF THE ESTATE TAX LAW, WE BROUGHT THE CASES HERE.  ALL INVOLVE
DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY BY WAY OF TRUST IN WHICH THE SETTLEMENT
PROVIDES FOR RETURN OR REVERSION OF THE CORPUS TO THE DONOR UPON A
CONTINGENCY TERMINABLE AT HIS DEATH.  WHETHER THE TRANSFER MADE BY THE
DECEDENT IN HIS LIFETIME IS "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH" BY REASON OF THAT WHICH HE RETAINED,
IS THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM.  WE MUST PUT TO ONE SIDE QUESTIONS THAT
ARISE UNDER SECTIONS OF THE ESTATE TAX LAW OTHER THAN SEC. 302(C) -
WITH INTERESTS THERETOFORE CREATED.  THE TAXABLE EVENT IS A TRANSFER
INTER VIVOS.  BUT THE MEASURE OF THE TAX IS THE VALUE OF THE
TRANSFERRED PROPERTY AT THE TIME WHEN DEATH BRINGS IT INTO ENJOYMENT. 

WE TURN TO THE CASES WHICH BEGET THE DIFFICULTIES.  IN KLEIN V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, DECIDED IN 1931, THE DECEDENT DURING HIS LIFETIME
HAD CONVEYED LAND TO HIS WIFE FOR HER LIFETIME, "AND IF SHE SHALL DIE
PRIOR TO THE DECEASE OF SAID GRANTOR THEN AND IN THAT EVENT SHE SHALL
BY VIRTUE HEREOF TAKE NO GREATER OR OTHER ESTATE IN SAID LANDS AND THE
REVERSION IN FEE IN AND TO THE SAME SHALL IN THAT EVENT REMAIN VESTED
IN SAID GRANTOR,  ..."  THE INSTRUMENT FURTHER PROVIDED, "UPON
CONDITION AND IN THE EVENT THAT SAID GRANTEE SHALL SURVIVE THE SAID
GRANTOR, THEN AND IN THAT CASE ONLY THE SAID GRANTEE SHALL BY VIRTUE OF
THIS CONVEYANCE TAKE, HAVE, AND HOLD THE SAID LANDS IN FEE SIMPLE,
..."  THE TAXPAYER CONTENDED THAT THE DECEDENT HAD RESERVED A MERE
"POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER" AND THAT SUCH A "REMOTE INTEREST,"  FN2
EXTINGUISHABLE UPON THE GRANTOR'S DEATH, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING
THE CONVEYANCE WITHIN THE RECKONING OF THE TAXABLE ESTATE.  THIS COURT
HELD OTHERWISE.  IT REJECTED FORMAL DISTINCTIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAW
OF REAL PROPERTY AS IRRELEVANT CRITERIA IN THIS FIELD OF TAXATION. 
"NOTHING IS TO BE GAINED," IT WAS SAID, "BY MULTIPLYING WORDS IN
RESPECT OF THE VARIOUS NICETIES OF THE ART OF CONVEYANCING OR THE LAW
OF CONTINGENT AND VESTED REMAINDERS.  IT IS PERFECTLY PLAIN THAT THE
DEATH OF THE GRANTOR WAS THE INDISPENSABLE AND INTENDED EVENT WHICH
BROUGHT THE LARGER ESTATE INTO BEING FOR THE GRANTEE AND EFFECTED ITS
TRANSMISSION FROM THE DEAD TO THE LIVING, THUS SATISFYING THE TERMS OF
THE TAXING ACT AND JUSTIFYING THE TAX IMPOSED."  KLEIN V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AT 234. 

THE INESCAPABLE RATIONALE OF THIS DECISION, RENDERED BY A UNANIMOUS
COURT, WAS THAT THE STATUTE TAXES NOT MERELY THOSE INTERESTS WHICH ARE
DEEMED TO PASS AT DEATH ACCORDING TO REFINED TECHNICALITIES OF THE LAW
OF PROPERTY.  IT ALSO TAXES INTER VIVOS TRANSFERS THAT ARE TOO MUCH
AKIN TO TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME
EXCISE.  BY BRINGING INTO THE GROSS ESTATE AT HIS DEATH THAT WHICH THE
SETTLOR GAVE CONTINGENTLY UPON IT, THIS COURT FASTENED ON THE VITAL
FACTOR.  IT REFUSED TO SUBORDINATE THE PLAIN PURPOSES OF A MODERN
FISCAL MEASURE TO THE WHOLLY UNRELATED ORIGINS OF THE RECONDITE
LEARNING OF ANCIENT PROPERTY LAW.  SURELY THE KLEIN DECISION WAS NOT
INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE THE BELIEF THAT A CHANGE MERELY IN THE PHRASING
OF A GRANT WOULD SERVE TO CREATE A JUDICIALLY COGNIZABLE DIFFERENCE IN
THE SCOPE OF SEC. 302(C), ALTHOUGH THE GRANTOR RETAINED IN HIMSELF THE
POSSIBILITY OF REGAINING THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY UPON PRECISELY THE
SAME CONTINGENCY.  THE TEACHING OF THE KLEIN CASE IS EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE.  FN3 

IN 1935 THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES CAME HERE.  A RATIONAL APPLICATION
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE KLEIN CASE TO THE SITUATIONS NOW BEFORE US
CALLS FOR SCRUTINY OF THE PARTICULARS IN THE ST. LOUIS CASES IN ORDER
TO EXTRACT THEIR RELATION TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE EARLIER DECISION. 

IN HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., SUPRA, THE DECEDENT HAD CONVEYED
PROPERTY IN TRUST, THE INCOME OF WHICH WAS TO BE PAID TO HIS DAUGHTER
DURING HER LIFE, BUT AT HER DEATH "IF THE GRANTOR STILL BE LIVING, THE
TRUSTEE SHALL FORTHWITH  ...  TRANSFER, PAY, AND DELIVER THE ENTIRE
ESTATE TO THE GRANTOR, TO BE HIS ABSOLUTELY."  BUT "IF THE GRANTOR BE
THEN NOT LIVING" THEN THE INCOME WAS TO BE DEVOTED TO THE SETTLOR'S
WIFE IF SHE WERE LIVING, AND UPON THE DEATH OF BOTH DAUGHTER AND WIFE,
IF HE WERE NOT LIVING, THE TRUST PROPERTY WAS TO GO TO THE DAUGHTER'S
CHILDREN, OR IF SHE LEFT NONE, TO THE GRANTOR'S NEXT OF KIN. 

IN BECKER V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., SUPRA, THE DECEDENT HAD DECLARED
HIMSELF TRUSTEE OF PROPERTY WITH THE INCOME TO BE ACCUMULATED OR, AT
HIS DISCRETION, TO BE PAID OVER TO HIS DAUGHTER DURING HER LIFE.  THE
INSTRUMENT FURTHER PROVIDED THAT "IF THE SAID BENEFICIARY SHOULD DIE
BEFORE MY DEATH, THEN THIS TRUST ESTATE SHALL THEREUPON REVERT TO ME
AND BECOME MINE IMMEDIATELY AND ABSOLUTELY, OR  ...  IF I SHOULD DIE
BEFORE HER DEATH, THEN THIS PROPERTY SHALL THEREUPON BECOME HERS
IMMEDIATELY AND ABSOLUTELY  ..." 

ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE KLEIN CASE THE COMMISSIONER HAD INCLUDED IN
THE TAXABLE ESTATES THE GIFTS TO WHICH, IN THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES,
THE GRANTOR'S DEATH HAD GIVEN DEFINITIVE MEASURE.  IF THE WIFE HAD
PREDECEASED THE SETTLOR IN THE KLEIN CASE, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
REPOSSESSED OF HIS PROPERTY.  HIS WIFE'S INTERESTS WERE FREED FROM THIS
CONTINGENCY BY THE HUSBAND'S PRIOR DEATH, AND BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT OF
HIS DEATH THIS COURT SWEPT THE GIFT INTO THE GROSS ESTATE.  SO IN
HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., THE GRANTOR WOULD HAVE BECOME
REPOSSESSED OF THE GRANTED CORPUS HAD HIS DAUGHTER PREDECEASED HIM. 
BUT HE PREDECEASED HER AND BY THAT EVENT HER INTEREST RIPENED TO FULL
DOMINION.  THE SAME ANALYSIS APPLIES TO THE BECKER CASE.  IN ALL THREE
SITUATIONS THE RESULT AND EFFECT WERE THE SAME.  THE EVENT WHICH GAVE
TO THE BENEFICIARIES A DOMINION OVER PROPERTY WHICH THEY DID NOT HAVE
PRIOR TO THE DONOR'S DEATH WAS AN ACT OF NATURE OUTSIDE THE GRANTOR'S
"CONTROL, DESIGN OR VOLITION."  296 U.S. 39, 43.  BUT IT WAS NO MORE
AND NO LESS "FORTUITOUS," SO FAR AS THE GRANTOR'S "CONTROL, DESIGN OR
VOLITION" WAS CONCERNED, IN THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES THAN IT WAS IN
THE KLEIN CASE.  IN NONE OF THE THREE CASES DID THE DOMINION OVER
PROPERTY WHICH FINALLY CAME TO THE BENEFICIARY FALL BY VIRTUE OF THE
GRANTOR'S WILL, EXCEPT BY HIS PROVISION THAT HIS OWN DEATH SHOULD
ESTABLISH SUCH FINAL AND COMPLETE DOMINION.  AND YET A MERE DIFFERENCE
IN PHRASING THE CIRCUMSTANCE BY WHICH IDENTIC INTERESTS IN PROPERTY
WERE BROUGHT INTO BEING - VARYING FORMS OF WORDS IN THE CREATION OF THE
SAME WORLDLY INTERESTS - WAS FOUND SUFFICIENT TO EXCLUDE THE ST. LOUIS
TRUST SETTLEMENTS FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE KLEIN DOCTRINE. 

FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COURT SAW NO DIFFERENCE.  THEY RELIED ON THE
GOVERNING PRINCIPLE OF SEC. 302(C) THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO INCLUDE IN
THE GROSS ESTATE INTER VIVOS GIFTS "WHICH MAY BE RESORTED TO, AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR A WILL, IN MAKING DISPOSITIONS OF PROPERTY OPERATIVE AT
DEATH."  296 U.S. AT 46.  TO EFFECTUATE THIS PURPOSE PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS APPLICABLE TO TAXATION AND NOT THE "NICETIES OF THE ART
OF CONVEYANCING" WERE THEIR TOUCHSTONE.  "HAVING IN MIND," SAID THE
DISSENTERS, "THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE AND THE BREADTH OF ITS LANGUAGE
IT WOULD SEEM TO BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE WHAT PARTICULAR CONVEYANCERS'
DEVICE - WHAT PARTICULAR STRING - THE DECEDENT SELECTED TO HOLD IN
SUSPENSE THE ULTIMATE DISPOSITION OF HIS PROPERTY UNTIL THE MOMENT OF
HIS DEATH.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER A TAXABLE TRANSFER BECOMES COMPLETE
ONLY AT DEATH WE LOOK TO SUBSTANCE, NOT TO FORM  ...  HOWEVER WE LABEL
THE DEVICE IT IS BUT A MEANS BY WHICH THE GIFT IS RENDERED INCOMPLETE
UNTIL THE DONOR'S DEATH."  296 U.S. AT 47.  FOR THE MAJORITY IN THE ST.
LOUIS TRUST COMPANY CASES, THESE PRACTICALITIES HAD LESS SIGNIFICANCE
THAN THE FORMAL CATEGORIES OF PROPERTY LAW.  THE GRANTOR'S DEATH, THE
MAJORITY SAID, IN HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS TRUST CO., "SIMPLY PUT AN END
TO WHAT, AT BEST, WAS A MERE POSSIBILITY OF A REVERTER BY EXTINGUISHING
IT - THAT IS TO SAY, BY CONVERTING WHAT WAS MERELY POSSIBLE INTO AN
UTTER IMPOSSIBILITY."  296 U.S. 39, 43.  THIS WAS PRECISELY THE MODE OF
ARGUMENT WHICH HAD BEEN REJECTED IN KLEIN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

WE ARE NOW ASKED TO ACCEPT ALL THREE DECISIONS AS CONSTITUTING A
COHERENT BODY OF LAW, AND TO APPLY THEIR DISTINCTIONS TO THE TRUSTS
BEFORE US. 

IN NOS. 110, 111 AND 112(HELVERING V. HALLOCK) THE DECEDENT IN 1919
CREATED A TRUST UNDER A SEPARATION AGREEMENT, GIVING THE INCOME TO HIS
WIFE FOR LIFE, WITH THIS FURTHER PROVISION: 

"IF AND WHEN ANNE LAMSON HALLOCK SHALL DIE THEN AND IN SUCH EVENT
...  THE WITHIN TRUST SHALL TERMINATE AND SAID TRUSTEE SHALL  ...  PAY
PARTY OF THE FIRST PART IF HE THEN BE LIVING ANY ACCRUED INCOME THEN
REMAINING IN SAID TRUST FUND AND SHALL  ...  DELIVER FORTHWITH TO PARTY
OF THE FIRST PART, THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SAID TRUST FUND.  IF AND IN THE
EVENT SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART SHALL NOT BE LIVING THEN AND IN SUCH
EVENT PAYMENT AND DELIVERY OVER SHALL BE MADE TO LEVITT HALLOCK AND
HELEN HALLOCK, RESPECTIVELY SON AND DAUGHTER OF THE PARTY OF THE FIRST
PART SHARE AND SHARE ALIKE  ..."  WHEN THE SETTLOR DIED IN 1932, HIS
DIVORCED WIFE, THE LIFE BENEFICIARY, SURVIVED HIM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE TRUST INSTRUMENT HAD CONVEYED THE "WHOLE
INTEREST" OF THE DECEDENT, SUBJECT ONLY TO A "CONDITION SUBSEQUENT,"
WHICH LEFT HIM NOTHING "EXCEPT A MERE POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER." 
COMMISSIONER V. HALLOCK, 102 F.2D 1, 3-4. 

IN NO. 183(ROTHENSIES V. HUSTON) THE DECEDENT BY AN ANTE-NUPTIAL
AGREEMENT IN 1925 CONVEYED PROPERTY IN TRUST, THE INCOME TO BE PAID TO
HIS PROSPECTIVE WIFE DURING HER LIFE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
DISPOSITION OF THE PRINCIPAL: 

"IN TRUST IF THE SAID RAE SPEKTOR SHALL DIE DURING THE LIFETIME OF
SAID GEORGE F. UBER TO PAY OVER THE PRINCIPAL AND ALL ACCUMULATED
INCOME THEREOF UNTO THE SAID GEORGE F. UBER IN FEE, FREE AND CLEAR OF
ANY TRUST. 

"IN TRUST IF THE SAID RAE SPEKTOR AFTER THE MARRIAGE SHALL SURVIVE
THE SAID GEORGE F. UBER TO PAY OVER THE PRINCIPAL AND ALL ACCUMULATED
INCOME UNTO THE SAID RAE SPEKTOR - THEN RAE UBER - IN FEE, FREE AND
CLEAR OF ANY TRUST."    MRS. UBER OUTLIVED HER HUSBAND, WHO DIED IN
1934.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DEEMED BECKER V. ST. LOUIS TRUST
CO. CONTROLLING AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF THE TRUST CORPUS IN THE GROSS
ESTATE. 

FINALLY, IN NO. 399(BRYANT V. HELVERING), THE TESTATOR PROVIDED FOR
THE PAYMENT OF TRUST INCOME TO HIS WIFE DURING HER LIFE AND UPON HER
DEATH TO THE SETTLOR HIMSELF IF HE SHOULD SURVIVE HER.  THE INSTRUMENT,
WHICH WAS EXECUTED IN 1917, CONTINUED: 

"UPON THE DEATH OF THE SURVIVOR OF SAID IDA BRYANT AND THE PARTY OF
THE FIRST PART, UNLESS THIS TRUST SHALL HAVE BEEN MODIFIED OR REVOKED
AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, TO CONVEY, TRANSFER, AND PAY OVER THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST FUND TO THE EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS OF THE
ESTATE OF THE PARTY HERETO OF THE FIRST PART." 

THERE WAS A FURTHER PROVISION GIVING TO THE DECEDENT AND HIS WIFE
JOINTLY DURING THEIR LIVES, AND TO EITHER OF THEM AFTER THE DEATH OF
THE OTHER, POWER TO MODIFY, ALTER OR REVOKE THE INSTRUMENT.  THE WIFE
SURVIVED THE HUSBAND, WHO DIED IN 1930.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
ALLOWED THE COMMISSIONER TO INCLUDE IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE ONLY
THE VALUE OF A "VESTED REVERSIONARY INTEREST" WHICH THE BOARD HELD THE
GRANTOR HAD RESERVED TO HIMSELF.  ON APPEAL BY THE TAX-PAYER, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THIS DETERMINATION. 

THE TERMS OF THESE GRANTS DIFFER IN DETAIL FROM ONE ANOTHER, AS ALL
THREE DIFFER FROM THE FORMULAS OF CONVEYANCE USED IN THE KLEIN AND ST.
LOUIS TRUST CASES.  IT THEREFORE BECOMES IMPORTANT TO INQUIRE WHETHER
THE TECHNICAL FORMS IN WHICH INTERESTS CONTINGENT UPON DEATH ARE CAST
SHOULD CONTROL OUR DECISION.  IF SO, IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE DIFFERING TERMS OF CONVEYANCE NOW IN ISSUE APPROXIMATE MORE
CLOSELY THOSE USED IN THE KLEIN CASE AND ARE THEREFORE GOVERNED BY IT,
OR HAVE A GREATER VERBAL RESEMBLANCE TO THOSE THAT SAVED THE TAX IN THE
ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES.  SUCH AN ESSAY IN LINGUISTIC REFINEMENT WOULD
STILL FURTHER EMBARRASS EXISTING INTRICACIES.  IT MIGHT DEMONSTRATE
VERBAL INGENUITY, BUT IT COULD HARDLY STRENGTHEN THE RATIONAL
FOUNDATIONS OF LAW.  THE LAW OF CONTINGENT AND VESTED REMAINDERS IS
FULL OF CASUISTRIES.  THERE ARE GREAT DIVERSITIES AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES AS TO THE CONVEYANCING SIGNIFICANCE OF LIKE GRANTS; SOMETIMES IN
THE SAME STATE THERE ARE CONFLICTING LINES OF DECISION, ONE SERIES
IGNORING THE OTHER.  ATTEMPTS BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL TO ADMINISTER SEC. 302(C) BY REFERENCE TO
THESE DISTINCTIONS ABUNDANTLY ILLUSTRATE THE INEVITABLE CONFUSION.  FN4
ONE OF THE CASES AT BAR, NO. 399, REVEALS VIVIDLY THE SNARES WHICH
INEVITABLY AWAIT AN ATTEMPT TO BASE ESTATE TAX LAW ON THE "NICETIES OF
THE ART OF CONVEYANCING."  IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASCERTAINMENT OF ITS
OWN DEATH DUTIES, THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT DEFINED
THE NATURE OF THE INTEREST WHICH THE DECEDENT IN THAT CASE RETAINED
AFTER HIS INTER VIVOS TRANSFER.  BRYANT V. HACKETT, 118 CONN. 233; 171
A. 664.  AND YET THE NATURE OF THAT INTEREST UNDER CONNECTICUT LAW AND
THE SCOPE OF THE CONNECTICUT COURT'S ADJUDICATION OF THAT INTEREST WERE
MADE THE SUBJECT OF LIVELY CONTROVERSY BEFORE US.  THE IMPORTATION OF
THESE DISTINCTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES FROM THE LAW OF PROPERTY INTO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE TAX PRECLUDES A FAIR AND WORKABLE TAX
SYSTEM.  ESSENTIALLY THE SAME INTERESTS, JUDGED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW
OF WEALTH, WILL BE TAXABLE OR NOT, DEPENDING UPON ELUSIVE AND SUBTLE
CASUISTRIES WHICH MAY HAVE THEIR HISTORIC JUSTIFICATION BUT POSSESS NO
RELEVANCE FOR TAX PURPOSES.  FN5  THESE UNWITTY DIVERSITIES OF THE LAW
OF PROPERTY DERIVE FROM MEDIEVAL CONCEPTS AS TO THE NECESSITY OF A
CONTINUOUS SEISIN.  FN6  DISTINCTIONS WHICH ORIGINATED UNDER A FEUDAL
ECONOMY WHEN LAND DOMINATED SOCIAL RELATIONS ARE PECULIARLY IRRELEVANT
IN THE APPLICATION OF TAX MEASURES NOW SO LARGELY DIRECTED TOWARD
INTANGIBLE WEALTH. 

OUR REAL PROBLEM, THEREFORE, IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE ARE TO ADHERE
TO A HARMONIZING PRINCIPLE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 302(C), OR
WHETHER WE ARE TO MULTIPLY GOSSAMER DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE PRESENT
CASES AND THE THREE EARLIER ONES.  FREED FROM THE DISTINCTIONS
INTRODUCED BY THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES, THE KLEIN CASE FURNISHES SUCH
A HARMONIZING PRINCIPLE.  DOES, THEN, THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
COMPEL US TO ACCEPT THE DISTINCTIONS MADE IN THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES
AS STARTING POINTS FOR STILL FINER DISTINCTIONS SPUN OUT OF THE
TENUOSITIES OF SURVIVING FEUDAL LAW?  WE THINK NOT.  WE THINK THE KLEIN
CASE REJECTED THE PRESUPPOSITION OF SUCH DISTINCTIONS FOR THE FISCAL
JUDGMENTS WHICH SEC. 302(C) DEMANDS. 

WE RECOGNIZE THAT STARE DECISIS EMBODIES AN IMPORTANT SOCIAL POLICY. 
IT REPRESENTS AN ELEMENT OF CONTINUITY IN LAW, AND IS ROOTED IN THE
PSYCHOLOGIC NEED TO SATISFY REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS.  BUT STARE DECISIS
IS A PRINCIPLE OF POLICY AND NOT A MECHANICAL FORMULA OF ADHERENCE TO
THE LATEST DECISION, HOWEVER RECENT AND QUESTIONABLE, WHEN SUCH
ADHERENCE INVOLVES COLLISION WITH A PRIOR DOCTRINE MORE EMBRACING IN
ITS SCOPE, INTRINSICALLY SOUNDER, AND VERIFIED BY EXPERIENCE. 

NOR HAVE WE IN THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES RULES OF DECISION AROUND
WHICH, BY THE ACCRETION OF TIME AND THE RESPONSE OF AFFAIRS,
SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS HAVE ESTABLISHED THEMSELVES.  NO SUCH CONJUNCTION
OF CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRES PERPETUATION OF WHAT WE MUST REGARD AS THE
DEVIATIONS OF THE ST. LOUIS TRUST DECISIONS FROM THE KLEIN DOCTRINE. 
WE HAVE NOT BEFORE US INTERESTS CREATED OR MAINTAINED IN RELIANCE ON
THOSE CASES.  WE DO NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT THE INEVITABLY EMPIRIC
PROCESS OF CONSTRUING TAX LEGISLATION SHOULD GIVE RISE TO AN ESTOPPEL
AGAINST THE RESPONSIBLE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  BUT IT IS A
FACT THAT IN ALL THE CASES BEFORE US THE SETTLEMENTS WERE MADE AND THE
SETTLORS DIED BEFORE THE ST. LOUIS TRUST DECISIONS. 

NOR DOES WANT OF SPECIFIC CONGRESSIONAL REPUDIATIONS OF THE ST. LOUIS
TRUST CASES SERVE AS AN IMPLIED INSTRUCTION BY CONGRESS TO US NOT TO
RECONSIDER, IN THE LIGHT OF NEW EXPERIENCE, WHETHER THOSE DECISIONS, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE KLEIN CASE, MAKE FOR DISSONANCE OF DOCTRINE.  IT
WOULD REQUIRE VERY PERSUASIVE CIRCUMSTANCES ENVELOPING CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE TO DEBAR THIS COURT FROM REEXAMINING ITS OWN DOCTRINES.  TO
EXPLAIN THE CAUSE OF NON-ACTION BY CONGRESS WHEN CONGRESS ITSELF SHEDS
NO LIGHT IS TO VENTURE INTO SPECULATIVE UNREALITIES.  FN7  CONGRESS MAY
NOT HAVE HAD ITS ATTENTION DIRECTED TO AN UNDESIRABLE DECISION; AND
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT AS TO THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES IT HAD,
EVEN BY ANY BILL THAT FOUND ITS WAY INTO A COMMITTEE PIGEON-HOLE. 
CONGRESS MAY NOT HAVE HAD ITS ATTENTION SO DIRECTED FOR ANY NUMBER OF
REASONS THAT MAY HAVE MOVED THE TREASURY TO STAY ITS HAND.  BUT
CERTAINLY SUCH INACTION BY THE TREASURY CAN HARDLY OPERATE AS A
CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, THROUGH ACQUIESCENCE, TANTAMOUNT
TO AN ESTOPPEL BARRING REEXAMINATION BY THIS COURT OF DISTINCTIONS
WHICH IT HAD DRAWN.  FN8  VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS OF PARLIAMENTARY
TACTICS AND STRATEGY MIGHT BE SUGGESTED AS REASONS FOR THE INACTION OF
THE TREASURY AND OF CONGRESS, BUT THEY WOULD ONLY BE SUFFICIENT TO
INDICATE THAT WE WALK ON QUICKSAND WHEN WE TRY TO FIND IN THE ABSENCE
OF CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION A CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLE. 

THIS COURT, UNLIKE THE HOUSE OF LORDS,  FN9  HAS FROM THE BEGINNING
REJECTED A DOCTRINE OF DISABILITY AT SELF-CORRECTION.  WHATEVER ELSE
MAY BE SAID ABOUT WANT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO MODIFY BY LEGISLATION
THE RESULT IN THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES, IT WILL HARDLY BE URGED THAT
THE REASON WAS CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THOSE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE
ST. LOUIS TRUST AND THE KLEIN CASES TO WHICH FOUR MEMBERS OF THIS COURT
COULD NOT GIVE ASSENT.  BY IMPUTING TO CONGRESS A HYPOTHETICAL
RECOGNITION OF COHERENCE BETWEEN THE KLEIN AND THE ST. LOUIS TRUST
CASES, WE CANNOT EVADE OUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECONSIDERING IN THE
LIGHT OF FURTHER EXPERIENCE, THE VALIDITY OF DISTINCTIONS WHICH THIS
COURT HAS ITSELF CREATED.  OUR PROBLEM THEN IS NOT THAT OF REJECTING A
SETTLED STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  THE REAL PROBLEM IS WHETHER A
PRINCIPLE SHALL PREVAIL OVER ITS LATER MISAPPLICATIONS.  SURELY WE ARE
NOT BOUND BY REASON OR BY THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT UNDERLIE STARE
DECISIS TO PERSEVERE IN DISTINCTIONS TAKEN IN THE APPLICATION OF A
STATUTE WHICH, ON FURTHER EXAMINATION, APPEAR CONSONANT NEITHER WITH
THE PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE NOR WITH THIS COURT'S OWN CONCEPTION OF IT.
WE THEREFORE REJECT AS UNTENABLE THE DIVERSITIES TAKEN IN THE ST.
LOUIS TRUST CASES IN APPLYING THE KLEIN DOCTRINE - UNTENABLE BECAUSE
THEY DRASTICALLY EAT INTO THE PRINCIPLE WHICH THOSE CASES PROFESSED TO
ACCEPT AND TO WHICH WE ADHERE. 

IN NOS. 110, 111, 112 AND 183, THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED. 

IN NO. 399, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 803 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, 279: 

"THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR
PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED - 

     .         .         .      .         . 

"(C)  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS
AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, IN CONTEMPLATION OF
OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS
DEATH, OR OF WHICH HE HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, UNDER WHICH HE HAS RETAINED FOR HIS LIFE OR FOR ANY PERIOD
NOT ASCERTAINABLE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO HIS DEATH OR FOR ANY PERIOD
WHICH DOES NOT IN FACT END BEFORE HIS DEATH (1) THE POSSESSION OR
ENJOYMENT OF, OR THE RIGHT TO THE INCOME FROM, THE PROPERTY, OR (2) THE
RIGHT, EITHER ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY PERSON, TO DESIGNATE THE
PERSONS WHO SHALL POSSESS OR ENJOY THE PROPERTY OR THE INCOME
THEREFROM; EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  ANY TRANSFER OF A MATERIAL
PART OF HIS PROPERTY IN THE NATURE OF A FINAL DISPOSITION OR
DISTRIBUTION THEREOF, MADE BY THE DECEDENT WITHIN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO
HIS DEATH WITHOUT SUCH CONSIDERATION, SHALL, UNLESS SHOWN TO THE
CONTRARY, BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THIS TITLE." 

FN2  PETITIONER'S BRIEF, KLEIN V. UNITED STATES, PP. 11-13. 

FN3  SOME INDICATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF KLEIN V. UNITED STATES UPON
THE LOWER COURTS MAY BE FOUND IN SARGENT V. WHITE, 50 F.2D 410 AND
UNION TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 54 F.2D 152, CERT. DENIED, 286 U.S.
547.  CF. COMMISSIONER V. SCHWARZ, 74 F.2D 712. 

FN4  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ATTEMPTS BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS TO
DEAL WITH THE PECULIARITIES OF NEW YORK LAW IN THE FIELD OF VESTED AND
CONTINGENT REMAINDERS.  ELIZABETH B. WALLACE, 27 B.T.A. 902; LOUIS C.
RAEGNER, JR., 29 B.T.A. 1243.  IN BOTH OF THESE CASES LIMITATIONS WHICH
WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN "CONTINGENT" AT "COMMON LAW" WERE HELD TO BE
"VESTED" UNDER THE NEW YORK STATUTORY RULE.  CF. COMMISSIONER V.
SCHWARZ, 74 F.2D 712; FLORA M. BONNEY, 29 B.T.A. 45. 

FN5  CF. LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188, 194.  SEE PAUL, THE EFFECT ON
FEDERAL TAXATION OF LOCAL RULES OF PROPERTY IN SELECTED STUDIES IN
FEDERAL TAXATION (2ND SERIES), PP. 23-28; DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW -
TAXATION, 47 HARV. L. REV. 1209, 1238-41; NOTE, 49 HARV. L. REV. 462. 

FN6  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, FEARNE, CONTINGENT REMAINDERS, (4TH AM. ED.),
PP. 3-241; GRAY, RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES (2ND ED.), PP. 99-118; VII
HOLDSWORTH, HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 81 ET SEQ.; 1 SIMES, FUTURE
INTERESTS, SECS. 64-96.  THE CONFUSION APT TO BE ENGENDERED BY JUDICIAL
FORAYS INTO THIS FIELD IS WELL ILLUSTRATED BY THE USE OF THE TERM
"POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER" BY THE MAJORITY IN HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS
UNION TRUST CO. "A POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER" IS TRADITIONALLY DEFINED AS
THE INTEREST REMAINING IN A GRANTOR WHO HAS CONVEYED A DETERMINABLE
FEE.  THE DEFINITION HAS NOT BEEN THOUGHT TO HAVE ANY RELATION TO THE
REVERSIONARY INTEREST OF A GRANTOR WHO HAS TRANSFERRED EITHER A VESTED
OR CONTINGENT REMAINDER IN FEE.  SEE GRAY, RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES
(2ND ED.), SECS. 13-51. 

FN7  WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ESTATE TAX LAW TO
WHICH OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT GAVE RISE.  THUS BY SEC. 805 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936, C. 690, 49 STAT. 1648, CONGRESS UNDID THE
CONSTRUCTION WHICH THIS COURT GAVE THE ESTATE TAX LAW IN ANOTHER
CONNECTION BY A DECISION RENDERED ON THE SAME DAY AS WERE THE ST. LOUIS
TRUST CASES.  CF. WHITE V. POOR, 296 U.S. 98.  THIS CASE AROSE UNDER
SEC. 302(D) AND NOT SEC. 302(C).  BUT, IN ANY EVENT, THE FACT OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IN DEALING WITH ONE PROBLEM WHILE SILENT ON THE
DIFFERENT PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES, DOES NOT IMPLY
CONTROLLING ACCEPTANCE BY CONGRESS OF THOSE CASES. 

BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, C. 454, 46 STAT. 1516,
CONGRESS DISPLACED THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THIS COURT PUT UPON SEC.
302(C) IN THOSE CASES WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE RESERVATION BY A
DECEDENT OF A LIFE ESTATE IN PROPERTY CONVEYED INTER VIVOS, DID NOT
CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT POSTPONEMENT OF THE REMAINDER TO BRING IT INTO
THE GRANTOR'S GROSS ESTATE.  MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238; BURNET V.
NORTHERN TRUST CO., 283 U.S. 782; MORSMAN V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 783;
MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 784.  THE SPECULATIVE ARGUMENTS THAT MAY
BE DRAWN FROM AD HOC LEGISLATION AFFECTING ONE SET OF DECISIONS AND THE
WANT OF SUCH LEGISLATION TO MODIFY ANOTHER SET OF DECISIONS DEALING
WITH A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THOUGH COGNATE PROBLEM ARE WELL ILLUSTRATED
BY THIS REMEDIAL AMENDMENT.  FOR IT MAY BE URGED WITH CONSIDERABLE
PLAUSIBILITY THAT IN 1931 CONGRESS HAD IN PRINCIPLE ALREADY REJECTED
THE GENERAL ATTITUDE UNDERLYING THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES, AS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT IN THOSE CASES THE MAJORITY, IN PART AT
LEAST, RELIED UPON THE CONGRESSIONALLY DISCARDED MAY V. HEINER
DOCTRINE.    WHATEVER MAY BE THE SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE THAT RE
ENACTMENT OF A STATUTE IMPLIEDLY ENACTS A SETTLED JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION
PLACED UPON THE RE-ENACTED STATUTE, THAT DOCTRINE HAS NO RELEVANCE TO
THE PRESENT PROBLEM.  SINCE THE DECISIONS IN THE ST. LOUIS TRUST CASES,
CONGRESS HAS NOT RE-ENACTED SEC. 302(C).  THE AMENDMENTS THAT CONGRESS
MADE TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 302 IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER
SITUATIONS THAN THOSE NOW BEFORE THE COURT, WERE MADE WITHOUT RE
ENACTING SEC. 302(C).  NOR HAS CONGRESS, UNDER ANY RATIONAL CANONS OF
LEGISLATIVE SIGNIFICANCE, BY ITS COMPILATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS
TO FORM THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1939, 53 STAT. 1, IMPLIEDLY
ENACTED INTO LAW A PARTICULAR DECISION WHICH, IN THE LIGHT OF LATER
EXPERIENCE, IS SEEN TO CREATE CONFUSION AND CONFLICT IN THE APPLICATION
OF A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNAL REVENUE LEGISLATION. 

HERE, UNLIKE THE SITUATION IN SUCH CASES AS NATIONAL LEAD CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 252 U.S. 140, 146-47, AND MURPHY OIL CO. V. BURNET, 287
U.S. 299, 302-3, WE HAVE NO CONJUNCTION OF LONG, UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION AND SUBSEQUENT RE-ENACTMENTS OF AN AMBIGUOUS STATUTE TO
GIVE GROUND FOR IMPLYING LEGISLATIVE ADOPTION OF SUCH CONSTRUCTION. 
SEE PREFACE, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 53 STAT. III; COMPARE SMILEY V.
HOLM, 285 U.S. 355, 373, AND WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155, 161. 

FN8  SINCE THE TREASURY HAS AMENDED ITS REGULATIONS IN AN EFFORT TO
CONFORM ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE TO THE COMPULSIONS OF THE ST. LOUIS
TRUST CASES, IT CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BOUND ITSELF BY THIS CHANGE. 
ART. 17, REG. 80(1937 ED.), P. 42.  CF. ESTATE OF SANFORD V.
COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 39. 

FN9  LONDON STREET TRAMWAYS CO. V. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL, (1898) A.C.
375.  BUT THE RULE IS OTHERWISE IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL.  READ V. BISHOP
OF LINCOLN, (1892) A.C. 644, 655.  FOR THE ROLE OF PRECEDENT IN ENGLISH
LAW, SEE, INTER ALIA, 2 YORKE, LIFE OF LORD CHANCELLOR HARDWICKE, PP.
425, 498; GOODHART, PRECEDENT IN ENGLISH AND CONTINENTAL LAW, 50 L.Q.
REV. 40; HOLDSWORTH, CASE LAW, IBID. 180; LORD WRIGHT IN WESTMINSTER
COUNCIL V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., (1936) A.C. 511, 562-63; ALLEN, LAW IN THE
MAKING, 3RD ED., PP. 224 ET SEQ. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS IN THE RESULT UPON THE GROUND THAT EACH OF
THESE CASES IS CONTROLLED BY OUR DECISION IN KLEIN V. UNITED STATES,
283 U.S. 231. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

THERE IS CERTAINLY A DISTINCTION IN FACT BETWEEN THE TRANSACTION
CONSIDERED IN KLEIN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 231, AND THOSE UNDER
REVIEW IN HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 39, AND
BECKER V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 48.  THE COURTS, THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, AND THE TREASURY HAVE FOUND NO DIFFICULTY IN
OBSERVING THE DISTINCTION IN SPECIFIC CASES.  I BELIEVE IT IS ONE OF
SUBSTANCE, NOT MERELY OF TERMINOLOGY, AND NOT DEPENDENT ON THE NICETIES
OF CONVEYANCING OR RECONDITE DOCTRINES OF ANCIENT PROPERTY LAW. 

BUT IF I AM WRONG IN THIS, I STILL THINK THE JUDGMENTS IN NOS. 110
112, AND 183 SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AND THAT IN 399 SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
THE RULE OF INTERPRETATION ADOPTED IN THE ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST COMPANY
CASES SHOULD NOW BE FOLLOWED FOR TWO REASONS:  FIRST, THAT RULE WAS
INDICATED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AS THE ONE APPLICABLE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DISCLOSED, AS EARLY AS 1927; WAS PROGRESSIVELY
DEVELOPED AND APPLIED BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS, AND THIS COURT, UP TO THE DECISION OF MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283
U.S. 784, IN 1931; AND HAS SINCE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THOSE TRIBUNALS IN
NOT LESS THAN FIFTY CASES.  IT OUGHT NOT TO BE SET ASIDE AFTER SUCH A
HISTORY.  SECONDLY.  THE RULE WAS NOT CONTRARY TO ANY TREASURY
REGULATION; WAS, INDEED, IN ACCORD WITH SUCH REGULATIONS AS THERE WERE
ON THE SUBJECT; WAS SUBSEQUENTLY EMBODIED IN A SPECIFIC REGULATION,
AND, WITH THIS BACKGROUND, CONGRESS HAS THREE TIMES REENACTED THE LAW
WITHOUT AMENDING SEC. 302(C) IN RESPECT OF THE MATTER HERE IN ISSUE. 
THE SETTLED DOCTRINE, THAT REENACTMENT OF A STATUTE SO CONSTRUED,
WITHOUT ALTERATION, RENDERS SUCH CONSTRUCTION A PART OF THE STATUTE
ITSELF, SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED BUT OBSERVED. 

1.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 LAYS A TAX UPON THE TRANSFER OF THE NET
ESTATE OF A DECEDENT.  THAT ESTATE IS DEFINED TO EMBRACE THE VALUE OF
ALL HIS PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE (LESS
CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS), AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.  FN1  AS THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT STATED IN ITS EARLIEST REGULATIONS:  "THE STATUTE ALSO
INCLUDES ONLY PROPERTY RIGHTS EXISTING IN THE DECEDENT IN HIS LIFETIME
AND PASSING TO HIS ESTATE."  FN2  IN ALL THE TREASURY REGULATIONS, FROM
THE EARLIEST TO THE ONE NOW IN FORCE, APPLICABLE TO THE RELEVANT
A DECEDENT THE TREASURY HAS USED THIS LANGUAGE:  FN3 

"THE VALUE OF A VESTED REMAINDER SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS
ESTATE.  NOTHING SHOULD BE INCLUDED, HOWEVER, ON ACCOUNT OF A
CONTINGENT REMAINDER WHERE (IN THE CASE) THE CONTINGENCY DOES NOT
HAPPEN IN THE LIFETIME OF THE DECEDENT, AND THE INTEREST CONSEQUENTLY
LAPSES AT HIS DEATH."  THE NEXT SENTENCE:  "NOR SHOULD ANYTHING BE
INCLUDED ON ACCOUNT OF A LIFE ESTATE IN THE DECEDENT," HAS BEEN
REPEATED IN SUBSTANCE IN THE CORRESPONDING ARTICLE OF ALL SUBSEQUENT
REGULATIONS. 

IF BY THE WILL OF HIS GRANDMOTHER, A IS GIVEN A LIFE ESTATE, WITH
REMAINDER TO ANOTHER, HIS EXECUTOR IS NOT BOUND TO RETURN ANYTHING ON
ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE ESTATE BECAUSE, IN RESPECT OF IT, NOTHING PASSES ON
A'S DEATH.  THE ESTATE SIMPLY CEASES.  THE TREASURY HAS NEVER CONTENDED
THE CONTRARY.  IF, HOWEVER, A'S GRANDMOTHER GAVE A LIFE ESTATE TO B,
AND THE REMAINDER TO A, A HAS SOMETHING WHICH, AT HIS DEATH, WILL PASS
TO SOMEONE ELSE UNDER HIS WILL, OR UNDER THE INTESTATE LAWS.  THE
STATUTE PLAINLY TAXES THE VALUE OF THE INTEREST THUS TRANSFERRED AT A'S
DEATH. 

IF A'S GRANDMOTHER, BY HER WILL, GAVE INTERESTS IN SUCCESSION TO
SPECIFIC PERSONS AND THEN PROVIDED THAT IF A SHOULD OUTLIVE ALL THESE
PERSONS THE PROPERTY SHOULD PASS TO HIM, A WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO
RECEIVE AND ENJOY THE PROPERTY.  IF HE DID SO RECEIVE IT, IT WOULD PASS
AS PART OF HIS ESTATE.  IF HE DIED BEFORE THE OTHER BENEFICIARIES NAMED
BY HIS GRANDMOTHER HIS DEATH WOULD DEPRIVE HIM OF THAT CHANCE.  THE
CHANCE WOULD NOT PASS TO ANYONE ELSE.  NO TAX WOULD BE LAID ON THE
SUPPOSED VALUE OF HIS CONTINGENT INTEREST OR CHANCE, BECAUSE THE CHANCE
CANNOT, AT HIS DEATH, PASS BY HIS WILL, OR THE INTESTATE LAWS, TO
ANOTHER.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE GOVERNMENT HAS EVER DENIED THIS. 

SUBSECTION (C) OF SEC. 302 LAYS DOWN NO DIFFERENT RULE RESPECTING
SIMILAR INTERESTS CREATED BY IRREVOCABLE DEED OR AGREEMENT OF THE
DECEDENT.  THE SUBSECTION DIRECTS THAT THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE
GROSS ESTATE THE VALUE, AT THE TIME OF THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, OF ANY
INTEREST IN PROPERTY OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A
TRANSFER "INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR
AFTER HIS DEATH" (EXCLUDING SALES FOR ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION). 

A TRANSFER CAN ONLY TAKE EFFECT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE,
BY THE SHIFTING OF POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT FROM THE DECEDENT TO LIVING
PERSONS.  THE FACT THAT THE TERMS OF THE GIFT BRING ABOUT SOME OTHER
EFFECT AT THE DECEDENT'S DEATH IS IMMATERIAL.  THE FACT THAT SOMETHING
MAY HAPPEN IN RESPECT OF THE BENEFICIAL ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY
CONDITIONED UPON THE DECEDENT'S DEATH IS IRRELEVANT SO LONG AS THAT
SOMETHING IS NOT THE SHIFTING OF POSSESSION OR BENEFICIAL ENJOYMENT
FROM THE DECEDENT.  THIS IS MADE CLEAR BY REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST
CO., 278 U.S. 339, 347. 

IF A MAKES A PRESENT IRREVOCABLE TRANSFER IN TRUST, CONDITIONED THAT
HE SHALL RECEIVE THE INCOME FOR LIFE AND, AT HIS DEATH, THE PRINCIPAL
SHALL GO TO B, B IS AT ONCE LEGALLY INVESTED WITH THE PRINCIPAL.  A'S
LIFE ESTATE CEASES AT HIS DEATH.  NOTHING THEN PASSES.  THERE IS NO TAX
IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRANSFER ANY MORE THAN THERE
WOULD BE IN THE CASE OF A SIMILAR LIFE ESTATE GIVEN A BY HIS
GRANDMOTHER.  (THIS IS MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238.)  IF, ON THE OTHER
HAND, A CREATES AN ESTATE FOR YEARS OR FOR LIFE IN B, RETAINING THE
REMAINING BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY FOR HIMSELF, AND, WHETHER
BY THE TERMS OF THE GRANT, OR BY THE TERMS OF A'S WILL, OR UNDER THE
INTESTATE LAW, THAT REMAINDER PASSES TO SOMEONE ELSE AT HIS DEATH, SUCH
PASSAGE RENDERS THE TRANSFER TAXABLE.  (THIS IS KLEIN V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.)  IF WHAT A DOES IS TO TRANSFER HIS PROPERTY IRREVOCABLY, WITH
PROVISION THAT IT SHALL BE ENJOYED SUCCESSIVELY BY VARIOUS PERSONS FOR
LIFE AND THEN GO ABSOLUTELY TO A NAMED PERSON, BUT THAT IF HE, A, SHALL
OUTLIVE THAT PERSON, THE PROPERTY SHALL COME BACK TO HIM, AND A DIES IN
THE LIFETIME OF THE PERSON IN QUESTION, A HAS MERELY LOST THE CHANCE
THAT THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY MAY REVERT TO HIM.  THAT
CHANCE CANNOT PASS UNDER HIS WILL OR UNDER THE INTESTATE LAWS.  AS
THERE IS NO TRANSFER WHICH CAN BECOME EFFECTIVE AT HIS DEATH BY THE
SHIFTING OF ANY INTEREST FROM HIM, NO TAX IS IMPOSED.  (THIS IS
MCCORMICK V. BURNET, SUPRA, AND HELVERING V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST
COMPANY, SUPRA.) 

2.  THESE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES WERE INDICATED AS EARLY AS 1927  FN4
AND WERE THEREAFTER DEVELOPED, IN APPLICATION TO SPECIFIC CASES, IN A
CONSISTENT LINE OF AUTHORITIES. 

IN MAY V. HEINER, SUPRA, IT WAS HELD THAT A TRANSFER IN TRUST UNDER
WHICH THE INCOME WAS PAYABLE TO THE TRANSFEROR'S HUSBAND FOR HIS LIFE
AND, AFTER HIS DEATH, TO THE TRANSFEROR DURING HER LIFE, WITH REMAINDER
TO HER CHILDREN, WAS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX AS A TRANSFER INTENDED TO TAKE
EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER DEATH.  THIS COURT SAID
(P. 243): 

"...  AT THE DEATH OF MRS. MAY NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY HELD UNDER
THE TRUST DEED PASSED FROM HER TO THE LIVING; TITLE THERETO HAD BEEN
DEFINITELY FIXED BY THE TRUST DEED.  THE INTEREST THEREIN WHICH SHE
POSSESSED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO HER DEATH WAS OBLITERATED BY THAT
EVENT." 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE TREASURY'S
STATEMENT, SUPRA, THAT SUCH AN INTEREST LAPSES AT DEATH. 

THAT DECISION IS INDISTINGUISHABLE IN PRINCIPLE FROM THE ST. LOUIS
UNION TRUST COMPANY CASES AND THE INSTANT CASES; AND WHAT WAS THERE
SAID SERVES TO DISTINGUISH THE KLEIN CASE. 

MCCORMICK V. BURNET FOLLOWED MAY V. HEINER.  THE COURT THERE HELD THAT
NEITHER A RESERVATION BY THE GRANTOR OF A LIFE ESTATE WITH REMAINDERS
OVER, NOR A PROVISION FOR A REVERTER IN CASE ALL THE BENEFICIARIES
SHOULD DIE IN THE LIFETIME OF THE GRANTOR, MADE THE GIFTS TRANSFERS
INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER THE
GRANTOR'S DEATH.  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE COMMISSIONER
URGED THAT THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF THE TRUST ESTATE TO THE SETTLOR
IN CASE SHE SURVIVED ALL THE BENEFICIARIES RENDERED THE TRANSFER
TAXABLE.  THAT COURT DEALT AT LENGTH WITH THE POINT AND SUSTAINED HIS
VIEW.  (43 F.2D 277, 279.)  THE COMMISSIONER MADE THE SAME CONTENTION
IN THIS COURT, BUT IT WAS OVERRULED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF MAY V.
HEINER. 

THEN CAME THE TWO ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST COMPANY CASES, DECIDED UPON
THE AUTHORITY OF MAY V. HEINER AND MCCORMICK V. BURNET.  FINALLY, THE
MCCORMICK CASE WAS FOLLOWED IN BINGHAM V. UNITED STATES, 296 U.S. 211. 

SINCE THE OPINION OF THE COURT APPEARS TO TREAT THE ST. LOUIS CASES
AS THE ORIGIN OF THE PRINCIPLE THERE ANNOUNCED, IT IS IMPORTANT TO
EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT THE RULE HAD BEEN SETTLED BY THIS COURT AS
EARLY AS 1930; AND TO NOTE OTHER DECISIONS RENDERED PRIOR TO THE ST.
LOUIS CASES.  IN SEVEN, INTERVENING BETWEEN MAY V. HEINER AND THE ST.
LOUIS CASES, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION AS
THAT ANNOUNCED IN THE ST. LOUIS CASES.  FN5  THE BOARD'S ACTION WAS
AFFIRMED IN FOUR OF THEM.  FN6  FOUR OTHER DECISIONS BY CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS WERE TO THE SAME EFFECT.  FN7  IN PRACTICALLY ALL, RELIANCE
WAS PLACED UPON SHUKERT V. ALLEN, REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY,
MAY V. HEINER, AND MCCORMICK V. BURNET, OR SOME OF THEM.  THUS, WHEN
THE QUESTION CAME BEFORE THIS COURT AGAIN IN THE ST. LOUIS CASES, THERE
WAS A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF AUTHORITY FOLLOWING AND APPLYING THE HEINER
AND MCCORMICK CASES. 

SINCE THE ST. LOUIS CASES WERE DECIDED, THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH THEY
WENT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY APPLIED BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND THE
COURTS.  THE BOARD HAS FOLLOWED THE CASES IN NO LESS THAN SEVENTEEN
INSTANCES.  FN8 

THE RECORD IS THE SAME IN THE COURTS.  THE ST. LOUIS CASES HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWED IN FOURTEEN CASES.  FN9  IN SOME OF THESE THE GOVERNMENT HAS
SOUGHT REVIEW IN THIS COURT BUT IN NONE, EXCEPT THOSE NOW PRESENTED,
HAS IT ASKED THE COURT TO OVERRULE THOSE DECISIONS. 

IF THERE EVER WAS AN INSTANCE IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
SHOULD GOVERN, THIS IS IT. ASIDE FROM THE OBVIOUS HARDSHIP INVOLVED IN
TREATING THE TAXPAYERS IN THE PRESENT CASES DIFFERENTLY FROM MANY
OTHERS WHOSE CASES HAVE BEEN DECIDED OR CLOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
SETTLED RULE, THERE ARE THE WEIGHTIER CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE JUDGMENTS
NOW RENDERED DISAPPOINT THE JUST EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE WHO HAVE ACTED
IN RELIANCE UPON THE UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BY THIS AND
ALL OTHER FEDERAL TRIBUNALS; AND THAT, TO UPSET THESE PRECEDENTS NOW,
MUST NECESSARILY SHAKE THE CONFIDENCE OF THE BAR AND THE PUBLIC IN THE
STABILITY OF THE RULINGS OF THE COURTS AND MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR
INFERIOR TRIBUNALS TO ADJUDICATE CONTROVERSIES IN RELIANCE ON THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  TO NULLIFY MORE THAN FIFTY DECISIONS, FIVE OF
THEM BY THIS COURT, SOME OF WHICH HAVE STOOD FOR A DECADE, IN ORDER TO
CHANGE A MERE RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, SEEMS TO ME AN ALTOGETHER
UNWISE AND UNJUSTIFIED EXERTION OF POWER.  AS I SHALL POINT OUT, THERE
IS NO NECESSITY FOR SUCH ACTION BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN, AND STILL IS OPEN
TO CONGRESS TO CHANGE THE RULE BY AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE, IF IT DEEMS
SUCH ACTION NECESSARY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.    3.  SECTION 301 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926 IMPOSES A TAX UPON THE VALUE OF THE NET ESTATE OF A
DECEDENT.  SECTION 302 PROVIDES THE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF
THE GROSS ESTATE.  SUBSECTIONS (C)(D)(E)(F) AND (G) REQUIRE INCLUSION
IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF INTERESTS WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT BE HELD NOT TO
FORM A PART OF THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE OR NOT TO PASS FROM HIM TO OTHERS
AT HIS DEATH.  THESE SUBSECTIONS SWEEP SUCH INTERESTS INTO THE GROSS
ESTATE IN ORDER TO FORESTALL TAX AVOIDANCE.  SECTION 302(C) WAS THE
SUCCESSOR OF ANALOGOUS SECTIONS IN EARLIER ACTS AND THE PREDECESSOR OF
SIMILAR SECTIONS IN LATER ACTS.  FN10  THE SUBSECTION HAS BEEN AMENDED
IN SUCCESSIVE REVENUE ACTS.  AS A RESULT OF THE TREASURY'S EXPERIENCE
IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW, CONGRESS HAS FROM TIME TO TIME THOUGHT
IT NECESSARY TO EXTEND THE SCOPE OF THE SUBSECTION IN THE INTEREST OF
MORE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION.  WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS SUCH
EXTENSION IS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY FOR CONGRESS ALONE.  FN11 

IT IS FAMILIAR PRACTICE FOR CONGRESS TO AMEND A STATUTE TO OBVIATE A
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN IT BY THE COURTS.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC.
302(C) DEMONSTRATES THAT CONGRESS HAS ELECTED NOT TO MAKE SUCH AN
AMENDMENT TO MEET THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON IT BY THIS COURT IN THE
ST. LOUIS CASES. 

MAY V. HEINER WAS DECIDED IN 1930.  THE TREASURY WAS DISSATISFIED
WITH THE DECISION AND IN THREE LATER CASES ATTACKED THE RULING, AMONGST
THEM MCCORMICK V. BURNET.  THE COURT ANNOUNCED ITS JUDGMENTS IN THESE
CASES ON MARCH 2, 1931, REAFFIRMING MAY V. HEINER.  ON THE FOLLOWING
DAY CONGRESS ADOPTED A JOINT RESOLUTION AMENDING SEC. 302(C) TO TAX A
TRANSFER WITH RESERVATION OF A LIFE ESTATE TO THE GRANTOR, BUT, IN SO
DOING, IT OMITTED TO DEAL WITH A CONTINGENT INTEREST RESERVED TO THE
GRANTOR OR THE POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER REMAINING IN HIM, INVOLVED IN
BOTH HEINER AND MCCORMICK.  SEE HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303, 308-9. 
THE OMISSION IS SIGNIFICANT. 

IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT IN THE HASTE OF PREPARING AND PASSING THE
AMENDMENT THE POINT WAS OVERLOOKED.  BUT THE JOINT RESOLUTION WAS
REENACTED BY SEC. 803 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,  FN12 WITHOUT ANY
ALTERATION TO COVER THE POINT.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934  FN13  AMENDED
SEC. 302(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 BUT DID NOT CHANGE SEC. 302(C)
AS IT THEN STOOD. 

THE DAY THE ST. LOUIS CASES WERE DECIDED, THIS COURT ANNOUNCED ITS
OPINION IN WHITE V. POOR, 296 U.S. 98, CONSTRUING SEC. 302(D) OF THE
ACT OF 1926.  IN ORDER TO MAKE THE SECTION APPLY TO SUCH A SITUATION AS
WAS DISCLOSED IN THAT CASE  FN14  THE CONGRESS, ON JUNE 22, 1936, BY
THE ACT OF 1936, FN15  AMENDED IT TO PRECLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION THE
COURT HAD GIVEN IT.  AGAIN CONGRESS LET SEC. 302(C) STAND AS BEFORE AND
AS CONSTRUED IN THE ST. LOUIS CASES.  THREE REVENUE ACTS HAVE SINCE
BEEN ADOPTED,  FN16  IN NONE OF WHICH HAS THE WORDING OF SEC. 302(C)
BEEN ALTERED.  IF THERE IS ANY LIFE IN THE DOCTRINE OFTEN ANNOUNCED
THAT REENACTMENT OF A STATUTE AS UNIFORMLY CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS IS
AN ADOPTION BY CONGRESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN IT, THIS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OUGHT TO BE CONCLUSIVE THAT THE STATUTE, AS IT NOW STANDS,
MEANS WHAT THIS COURT HAS SAID IT MEANS. 

LITTLE WEIGHT CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE
TREASURY HAS NOT APPLIED TO CONGRESS FOR ALTERATION OF THE SECTION
BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY OF WORDING A SATISFACTORY AMENDMENT.  A
MOMENT'S REFLECTION WILL SHOW THAT IT WOULD BE EASY TO PHRASE SUCH AN
AMENDMENT.  WHATEVER THE REASON FOR THE FAILURE TO AMEND SEC. 302(C),
WHETHER HESITANCY ON THE PART OF THE TREASURY TO RECOMMEND SUCH ACTION,
OR THE SATISFACTION OF CONGRESS WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PUT UPON THE
CONSTRUCTION PLAIN FOR ALL TO READ. 

4.  AS SHOWN BY THE MATTER ABOVE QUOTED FROM THE TREASURY REGULATIONS
AFFECTING THE ESTATE TAX, FN17  A CONTINGENT INTEREST IS NOT TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE ESTATE.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS CONSTRUCTION,
ESTATE TAX PROVISIONS WERE REENACTED OR AMENDED IN 1921, 1924, 1926,
1928, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1936 AND 1937. 

AT THE BAR, COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT STATED THAT IT HAD ALWAYS BEEN
THE VIEW OF THE TREASURY THAT THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION APPLIED ONLY TO
SEC. 302(A) AND HAD NO APPLICATION TO SEC. 302(C).  BUT WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED WITH WHAT THE TREASURY THOUGHT ABOUT THE MATTER.  THE
REGULATIONS WERE ISSUED TO GUIDE TAXPAYERS IN COMPLYING WITH THE ACT. 
TO CONTRADICT EACH OTHER, BUT THE LATTER WAS TO SUPPLEMENT THE FORMER. 
THE GROSS ESTATE WAS TO BE COMPUTED ACCORDING TO THE SECTION AS A
WHOLE.  IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE TAXPAYER WAS EXPECTED TO
DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN A CONTINGENT INTEREST OF A DECEDENT UNDER THE WILL
OF HIS GRANDMOTHER AND A SIMILAR INTEREST UNDER AN ABSOLUTE DEED
EXECUTED BY HIM INTER VIVOS.  IF THE ONE DID NOT PASS FROM THE DECEDENT
AT DEATH NEITHER DID THE OTHER. 

AFTER THE DECISIONS IN THE ST. LOUIS CASES, THE TREASURY RENDERED ITS
REGULATIONS EVEN MORE EXPLICIT.  IN REGULATIONS 80(REVISED),
PROMULGATED OCTOBER 26, 1937, A NEW ARTICLE 17 WAS INSERTED WHICH IS: 

"THE STATUTORY PHRASE, 'A TRANSFER  ...  INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN
POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH,' INCLUDES A TRANSFER BY
THE DECEDENT  ...  WHEREBY AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE BENEFICIAL TITLE
TO THE PROPERTY  ...  OR THE LEGAL TITLE THERETO  ...  REMAINED IN THE
DECEDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH AND THE PASSING THEREOF WAS SUBJECT
TO THE CONDITION PRECEDENT OF HIS DEATH.  ... 

"ON THE OTHER HAND, IF, AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER, THERE REMAINED
IN THE DECEDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH NO TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE
TRANSFERRED PROPERTY, THEN NO PART OF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE INCLUDED IN
THE GROSS ESTATE MERELY BY REASON OF A PROVISION IN THE INSTRUMENT OF
TRANSFER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS TO REVERT TO THE DECEDENT
UPON THE PREDECEASE OF SOME OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS OR THE HAPPENING OF
SOME OTHER EVENT." 

IF THERETOFORE DOUBT COULD HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED, IT THEN MUST HAVE
VANISHED.  AND WITH THIS REGULATION IN FORCE, CONGRESS REENACTED SEC.
302(C) AS SO INTERPRETED. 

WHAT, THEN, IS TO BE SAID OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT REENACTMENT OF A
STATUTE WHICH THE TREASURY, BY ITS REGULATIONS, HAS INTERPRETED IN A
GIVEN SENSE IS AN EMBODIMENT OF THE INTERPRETATION IN THE LAW AS
REENACTED?  SURELY THE PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE AVOIDED, AS THE GOVERNMENT
ARGUES, BECAUSE THE TREASURY FELT BOUND SO TO INTERPRET SEC. 302(C) BY
REASON OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS.  THAT FACT SHOULD MAKE APPLICATION OF
THE PRINCIPLE THE MORE URGENT. 

FN1  SECS. 33-303, 44 STAT. 69-72. 

FN2  REGULATIONS 37, ART. 12(1917). 

FN3  REGULATIONS 37, ART. 12; REGULATIONS 63, ART. 11; REGULATIONS
68, ART. 11; REGULATIONS 80, ART. 11. 

FN4  SHUKERT V. ALLEN, 273 U.S. 545. 

FN5  WHEELER V. COMMISSIONER, 20 B.T.A. 695; DUKE V. COMMISSIONER, 23
B.T.A. 1104; PEABODY V. COMMISSIONER, 24 B.T.A. 787; DUNHAM V.
COMMISSIONER, 26 B.T.A. 286; TAYLOR V. COMMISSIONER, 27 B.T.A. 220;
WALLACE V. COMMISSIONER, 27 B.T.A. 902; BONNEY V. COMMISSIONER, 29
B.T.A. 45. 

FN6  COMMISSIONER V. DUKE, 62 F.2D 1057(AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY
DIVIDED COURT, 290 U.S. 591); COMMISSIONER V. WALLACE, 71 F.2D 1002;
COMMISSIONER V. DUNHAM, 73 F.2D 752; COMMISSIONER V. BONNEY, 75 F.2D
1008. 

FN7  COMMISSIONER V. AUSTIN, 73 F.2D 758; TAIT V. SAFE DEPOSIT &
TRUST CO., 74 F.2D 851; TAIT V. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO., 78 F.2D 534;
HELVERING V. HELMHOLZ, 64 APP. D.C. 114; 75 F.2D 245.  I HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO FIND ONLY ONE CASE DECIDED CONTRA:  COMMISSIONER V. SCHWARZ, 74 F.2D
712. 

FN8  TAFT V. COMMISSIONER, 33 B.T.A. 671; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 33 B.T.A. 1225; KNEELAND V. COMMISSIONER, 34 B.T.A. 816;
KIENBUSCH V. COMMISSIONER, 34 B.T.A. 1248; SCHNEIDER V. COMMISSIONER,
35 B.T.A. 183; VAN SICKLEN V. COMMISSIONER, 35 B.T.A. 306; PATTERSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 407; RUSHMORE V. COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 480;
BRYANT V. COMMISSIONER, 36 B.T.A. 669; WETHERILL V. COMMISSIONER, 36
B.T.A. 1259; MITCHELL V. COMMISSIONER, 37 B.T.A. 1; STONE V.
COMMISSIONER, 38 B.T.A. 51; THE GEORGE D. HARTER BANK V. COMMISSIONER,
38 B.T.A. 387; WHITE V. COMMISSIONER, 38 B.T.A. 593; DONNELLY V.
COMMISSIONER, 38 B.T.A. 1234; PYEATT V. COMMISSIONER, 39 B.T.A. 774;
DRAVO V. COMMISSIONER, 40 B.T.A. 309. 

FN9  OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 15 F.SUPP.  417; MYERS V.
MAGRUDER, 15 F.SUPP.  488; CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 28
F.SUPP.  947; COMMISSIONER V. BROOKS, 87 F.2D 1000; BULLARD V.
COMMISSIONER, 90 F.2D 144; WELCH V. HASSETT, 90 F.2D 833; UNITED STATES
V. NICHOLS, 92 F.2D 704; MACKAY V. COMMISSIONER, 94 F.2D 558;
COMMISSIONER V. GROSSE, 100 F.2D 37; COMMISSIONER V. HALLOCK, 102 F.2D
1; COMMISSIONER V. KAPLAN, 102 F.2D 329; ROTHENSIES V. CASSELL, 103
F.2D 834; CORNING V. COMMISSIONER, 104 F.2D 329; RHEINSTROM V.
COMMISSIONER, 105 F.2D 642. 

FN10  REVENUE ACT OF 1916, SEC. 202(B), 39 STAT. 756, 777; REVENUE
ACT OF 1918, SEC. 402(C), 40 STAT 1057, 1097; REVENUE ACT OF 1924, SEC.
302(C), 43 STAT. 253, 304; REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SEC. 803(A), 47 STAT.
169, 279; INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1939, SEC. 811(C), 53 STAT., PART 1,
1, 121. 

FN11  HELVERING V. CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 85. 

FN12  47 STAT. 169, 279. 

FN13  48 STAT. 680, 752. 

FN14  HOUSE REPORT ON H.R. 12793. 

FN15  49 STAT. 1648, 1744. 

FN16  REVENUE ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 813; REVENUE ACT OF 1938, 52
STAT. 447; INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 53 STAT., PART 1, P. 1. 

FN17  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :












FEDERAL COMM'N V. BROADCASTING CO., 309 U.S. 134 


NO. 265.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 70
APP. D.C. 157 - 105 F.2D 36, REVERSED. 


1.  A LOWER COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF ITS OWN MANDATE DOES NOT BIND
THIS COURT.  P. 141. 

2.  THE OPINION DISCUSSES THE DIFFERENCES OF ORIGIN AND FUNCTION
BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES, AND THE RELATION
OF THE ONE TO THE OTHER IN MATTERS OF SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE WHERE
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS ARE SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW ON ERRORS OF
LAW.  P. 141. 

3.  UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, THE COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, IN PASSING UPON AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
BROADCASTING STATION, MUST JUDGE BY THE STANDARD OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE,
INTEREST, AND NECESSITY.  PP. 137, 145. 

4.  THE ACT EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT RULES OF PROCEDURE
APPLICABLE IN ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE GRANTING OF AN APPLICATION FOR A
PERMIT TO ERECT A BROADCASTING STATION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  P. 138. 

5.  UNDER THIS ACT, UPON REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION DENYING AN
APPLICATION FOR SUCH A PERMIT, THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO CORRECT
ERRORS OF LAW AND UPON REMAND THE COMMISSION IS BOUND TO ACCEPT SUCH
CORRECTION.  P. 145. 

6.  BUT WHERE THE COMMISSION DENIED AN APPLICATION FOR SUCH A PERMIT
AND UPON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THE RULING WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF ERROR OF LAW AND THE CASE SENT BACK
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, THE COMMISSION WAS FREE TO RECONSIDER THE
APPLICATION TOGETHER WITH OTHER APPLICATIONS, FILED SUBSEQUENTLY, TO
DETERMINE WHICH, ON A COMPARATIVE BASIS, WOULD BEST SERVE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST; AND THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY BY ITS MANDATE
AND BY WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO FORBID THIS AND TO REQUIRE A REHEARING OF
THE FIRST APPLICATION ON THE RECORD AS ORIGINALLY MADE.  P. 145. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 535, TO REVIEW AN ORDER WHICH GRANTED A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS REQUIRING THE ABOVE-NAMED COMMISSION AND ITS MEMBERS (A) TO
SET ASIDE ITS ORDER DENYING AN APPLICATION OF THE PRESENT RESPONDENT
AND ASSIGNING IT FOR REHEARING, WITH OTHER APPLICATIONS FOR THE SAME
BROADCASTING FACILITIES; AND (B) TO HEAR AND RECONSIDER THE
RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD AS ORIGINALLY MADE
UP WHEN ITS APPLICATION WAS FIRST DECIDED ADVERSELY BY THE COMMISSION
AND BROUGHT BEFORE THAT COURT ON APPEAL.  SEE 98 F.2D 288. 

THE PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
PERMITS ARE CONSIDERED IS SUCH THAT, IF A PERMIT SHOULD BE ISSUED TO
THE RESPONDENT, THE FACILITIES COULD NOT LATER BE TAKEN AWAY BY THE
COMMISSION AND GIVEN TO ANOTHER APPLICANT WITHOUT A HEARING HELD FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER SUCH ACTION WOULD BE PROPER. 
RICHMOND DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. COMMISSION, 35 F.2D 883. 

THE APPLICANT WHO, UNDER THE COMMISSION'S RULES, BECOMES ENTITLED TO
BE HEARD FIRST AND WHO PROCEEDS TO MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IS
ENTITLED TO A GRANT WITHOUT WAITING FOR LATER APPLICANTS TO BE HEARD
AND CONSIDERED.  FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON BROS. BOND & MORTGAGE
CO., 289 U.S. 266, 285; COURIER POST PUBLISHING CO. V. COMMISSION, 104
F.2D 213, 218; HEITMEYER V. COMMISSION, 95 F.2D 91, 100; RIO GRANDE
IRRIGATION & C. CO. V. GILDERSLEEVE, 174 U.S. 603, 609; WEIL V. NEARY,
278 U.S. 161, 169; COLONIAL BROADCASTERS, INC. V. FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N, 105 F.2D 781, 783; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282
U.S. 194, 215; BEAUMONT, S.L. & W.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 74;
COMMISSION RULE 106.4. 

THE COMMISSION MAY NOT OUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT HAVING
STATUTORY POWER OF REVIEW BY SETTING UP, SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE DECISION
OF THE COURT ON QUESTIONS OF LAW, A NEW PROCEDURE INVOLVING A NEW
RECORD, OTHER ISSUES AND OTHER PARTIES.  FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD,
305 U.S. 364, 368, 372; IN RE SANFORD FORK & TOOL CO., 160 U.S. 247;
DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V. RELLSTAB, 276 U.S. 1; BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 781; SIBBALD V. UNITED STATES, 12 PET.
488, 492; BARBER ASPHALT PAVING CO. V. MORRIS, 132 F. 945, 954;
ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 136; IN RE
POTTS, 166 U.S. 263, 267; AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TEL. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 299 U.S. 232; COMMUNICATIONS ACT, 1934. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS THE SAME POWER TO ISSUE MANDAMUS TO PROTECT
ITS JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE AS IT DOES IN CASES ON APPEAL FROM THE
DISTRICT COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY BEFORE RESORTING
TO THE COURT BELOW, AND IT HAS NO PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY AT
LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT BELOW ISSUED A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AND, BECAUSE IMPORTANT ISSUES OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ARE INVOLVED, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  308 U.S.
535.  WE ARE CALLED UPON TO ASCERTAIN AND ENFORCE THE SPHERES OF
AUTHORITY WHICH CONGRESS HAS GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION AND THE COURTS,
RESPECTIVELY, THROUGH ITS SCHEME FOR THE REGULATION OF RADIO
BROADCASTING IN THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, C. 652, 48 STAT. 1064,
AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 20, 1937, C. 229, 50 STAT. 189; 47 U.S.C.
SEC. 151. 

ADEQUATE APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS PRESENTLY TO BE SUMMARIZED
REQUIRES THAT THEY BE SET IN THEIR LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK.  IN ITS
ESSENTIALS THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 DERIVES FROM THE FEDERAL
RADIO ACT OF 1927, C. 169, 44 STAT. 1162, AS AMENDED, 46 STAT. 844.  BY
THIS ACT CONGRESS, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE NATIONAL INTEREST INVOLVED
IN THE NEW AND FAR-REACHING SCIENCE OF BROADCASTING, FORMULATED A
UNIFIED AND COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR THE INDUSTRY.  FN1  THE
COMMON FACTORS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE VARIOUS STATUTES BY WHICH
CONGRESS HAD SUPERVISED THE DIFFERENT MODES OF COMMUNICATION LED TO THE
CREATION, IN THE ACT OF 1934, OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.  BUT
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION HAVE REMAINED SUBSTANTIALLY UNALTERED
SINCE 1927. 

CONGRESS MOVED UNDER THE SPUR OF A WIDESPREAD FEAR THAT IN THE
ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL THE PUBLIC INTEREST MIGHT BE
SUBORDINATED TO MONOPOLISTIC DOMINATION IN THE BROADCASTING FIELD.  TO
AVOID THIS CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR A SYSTEM OF PERMITS AND LICENSES. 
LICENSES WERE NOT TO BE GRANTED FOR LONGER THAN THREE YEARS. 
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, TITLE III, SEC. 307(D).  NO LICENSE WAS TO
BE "CONSTRUED TO CREATE ANY RIGHT, BEYOND THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND
PERIODS OF THE LICENSE."  IBID., SEC. 301.  IN GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING
PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATIONS, AND IN GRANTING, DENYING,
MODIFYING OR REVOKING LICENSES FOR THE OPERATION OF STATIONS, "PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY" WAS THE TOUCHSTONE FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.  WHILE THIS CRITERION IS AS
CONCRETE AS THE COMPLICATED FACTORS FOR JUDGMENT IN SUCH A FIELD OF
DELEGATED AUTHORITY PERMIT, IT SERVES AS A SUPPLE INSTRUMENT FOR THE
EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE EXPERT BODY WHICH CONGRESS HAS CHARGED TO
CARRY OUT ITS LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  NECESSARILY, THEREFORE, THE
SUBORDINATE QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURE IN ASCERTAINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST,
WHEN THE COMMISSION'S LICENSING AUTHORITY IS INVOKED - THE SCOPE OF THE
INQUIRY, WHETHER APPLICATIONS SHOULD BE HEARD CONTEMPORANEOUSLY OR
SUCCESSIVELY, WHETHER PARTIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN ONE
ANOTHER'S PROCEEDINGS, AND SIMILAR QUESTIONS - WERE EXPLICITLY AND BY
IMPLICATION LEFT TO THE COMMISSION'S OWN DEVISING, SO LONG, OF COURSE,
AS IT OBSERVES THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS DESIGNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF
PRIVATE AS WELL AS PUBLIC INTEREST.  IBID., TITLE I, SEC. 4(J). 
UNDERLYING THE WHOLE LAW IS RECOGNITION OF THE RAPIDLY FLUCTUATING
FACTORS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE EVOLUTION OF BROADCASTING AND OF THE
CORRESPONDING REQUIREMENT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS POSSESS
SUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST ITSELF TO THESE FACTORS.  THUS, IT IS
HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT THAT ALTHOUGH INVESTMENT IN BROADCASTING STATIONS
MAY BE LARGE, A LICENSE MAY NOT BE ISSUED FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS;
AND IN DECIDING WHETHER TO RENEW THE LICENSE, JUST AS IN DECIDING
WHETHER TO ISSUE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE COMMISSION MUST JUDGE BY
THE STANDARD OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY."  THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT IS NOT DESIGNED PRIMARILY AS A NEW CODE FOR THE
ADJUSTMENT OF CONFLICTING PRIVATE RIGHTS THROUGH ADJUDICATION.  RATHER
IT EXPRESSES A DESIRE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO MAINTAIN, THROUGH
APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL, A GRIP ON THE DYNAMIC ASPECTS OF
RADIO TRANSMISSION.  FN2 

AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE FALL INTO
PROPER PERSPECTIVE.  IN MAY, 1936, THE POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING COMPANY,
RESPONDENT HERE, SOUGHT FROM THE COMMISSION A PERMIT UNDER SEC. 319
IBID., TITLE III, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BROADCASTING STATION AT
POTTSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA.  THE COMMISSION DENIED THIS APPLICATION ON
TWO GROUNDS:  (1) THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS FINANCIALLY DISQUALIFIED; AND
(2) THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY REPRESENT LOCAL INTERESTS
IN THE COMMUNITY WHICH THE PROPOSED STATION WAS TO SERVE.  FROM THIS
DENIAL OF ITS APPLICATION RESPONDENT APPEALED TO THE COURT BELOW.  THAT
TRIBUNAL WITHHELD JUDGMENT ON THE SECOND GROUND OF THE COMMISSION'S
DECISION, FOR IT DID NOT DEEM THIS TO HAVE CONTROLLED THE COMMISSION'S
JUDGMENT.  BUT, FINDING THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION REGARDING THE
RESPONDENT'S LACK OF FINANCIAL QUALIFICATION TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON AN
ERRONEOUS UNDERSTANDING OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW, THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED THE DECISION AND ORDERED THE "CAUSE  ...  REMANDED TO THE  ...
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
VIEWS EXPRESSED."  POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO. V. FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 69 APP. D.C. 7; 98 F.2D 288. 

FOLLOWING THIS REMAND, RESPONDENT PETITIONED THE COMMISSION TO GRANT
ITS ORIGINAL APPLICATION.  INSTEAD OF DOING SO, THE COMMISSION SET FOR
ARGUMENT RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION ALONG WITH TWO RIVAL APPLICATIONS FOR
THE SAME FACILITIES.  THE LATTER APPLICATIONS HAD BEEN FILED
SUBSEQUENTLY TO THAT OF RESPONDENT AND HEARINGS HAD BEEN HELD ON THEM
BY THE COMMISSION IN A CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDING, BUT THEY WERE STILL
UNDISPOSED OF WHEN THE RESPONDENT'S CASE RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION. 
WITH THREE APPLICATIONS FOR THE SAME FACILITIES THUS BEFORE IT, AND THE
FACTS REGARDING EACH HAVING THERETOFORE BEEN EXPLORED BY APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURE, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THAT ALL THREE BE SET DOWN FOR
ARGUMENT BEFORE IT TO DETERMINE WHICH, "ON A COMPARATIVE BASIS" "IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION WILL BEST SERVE PUBLIC INTEREST."  AT THIS
STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, RESPONDENTS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED FROM THE
COURT OF APPEALS THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS NOW UNDER REVIEW.  THAT WRIT
COMMANDED THE COMMISSION TO SET ASIDE ITS ORDER DESIGNATING
RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION "FOR HEARING ON A COMPARATIVE BASIS" WITH THE
OTHER TWO, AND "TO HEAR AND RECONSIDER THE APPLICATION" OF THE
POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING COMPANY "ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD AS
ORIGINALLY MADE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINIONS" OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN THE ORIGINAL REVIEW (69 APP. D.C. 7; 98 F.2D 288), AND IN
THE MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS.  POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO. V. FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 70 APP. D.C. 157; 105 F.2D 36. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS INVOKED AGAINST THE COMMISSION THE FAMILIAR
DOCTRINE THAT A LOWER COURT IS BOUND TO RESPECT THE MANDATE OF AN
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND CANNOT RECONSIDER QUESTIONS WHICH THE MANDATE
HAS LAID AT REST.  SEE IN RE SANFORD FORK & TOOL CO., 160 U.S. 247, 255
56.  THAT PROPOSITION IS INDISPUTABLE, BUT IT DOES NOT TELL US WHAT
ISSUES WERE LAID AT REST.  COMPARE SPRAGUE V. TICONIC BANK, 307 U.S.
161.  NOR IS A COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SCOPE OF ITS OWN MANDATE
NECESSARILY CONCLUSIVE.  TO BE SURE THE COURT THAT ISSUES A MANDATE IS
NORMALLY THE BEST JUDGE OF ITS CONTENT, ON THE GENERAL THEORY THAT THE
AUTHOR OF A DOCUMENT IS ORDINARILY THE AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETER OF ITS
PURPOSES.  BUT IT IS NOT EVEN TRUE THAT A LOWER COURT'S INTERPRETATION
OF ITS MANDATE IS CONTROLLING HERE.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. MORGAN,
307 U.S. 183. 

THEREFORE, WE WOULD NOT BE FORECLOSED BY THE INTERPRETATION WHICH THE
COURT OF APPEALS GAVE TO ITS MANDATE, EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN DIRECTED TO A
LOWER COURT. 

A MUCH DEEPER ISSUE, HOWEVER, IS HERE INVOLVED.  THIS WAS NOT A
MANDATE FROM COURT TO COURT BUT FROM A COURT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY.  WHAT IS IN ISSUE IS NOT THE RELATIONSHIP OF FEDERAL COURTS
INTER SE - A RELATIONSHIP DEFINED LARGELY BY THE COURTS THEMSELVES -
BUT THE DUE OBSERVANCE BY COURTS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF AUTHORITY MADE
BY CONGRESS AS BETWEEN ITS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AND THE REVIEWING
POWER WHICH IT HAS CONFERRED UPON THE COURTS UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  A REVIEW BY A FEDERAL COURT OF THE ACTION OF A LOWER
COURT IS ONLY ONE PHASE OF A SINGLE UNIFIED PROCESS.  BUT TO THE EXTENT
THAT A FEDERAL COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACT,
THERE IS SUPERIMPOSED UPON THE ENFORCEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY
THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL A DIFFERENT PROCESS FROM THAT OUT OF
WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNDER REVIEW ENSUED.  THE TECHNICAL
RULES DERIVED FROM THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS FORMING
A HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM ARE TAKEN OUT OF THEIR ENVIRONMENT WHEN
MECHANICALLY APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONGRESSIONAL
POWER, EXERCISED THROUGH A DELEGATED AGENCY, CAN BE CONTROLLED WITHIN
THE LIMITED SCOPE OF "JUDICIAL POWER" CONFERRED BY CONGRESS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION. 

COURTS, LIKE OTHER ORGANISMS, REPRESENT AN INTERPLAY OF FORM AND
FUNCTION.  THE HISTORY OF ANGLO-AMERICAN COURTS AND THE MORE OR LESS
NARROWLY DEFINED RANGE OF THEIR STAPLE BUSINESS HAVE DETERMINED THE
BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIAL PROCEDURE, THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, AND
THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF APPELLATE REVIEW.  MODERN ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNALS ARE THE OUTGROWTH OF CONDITIONS FAR DIFFERENT FROM THOSE. 
FN3  TO A LARGE DEGREE THEY HAVE BEEN A RESPONSE TO THE FELT NEED OF
GOVERNMENTAL SUPERVISION OVER ECONOMIC ENTERPRISE - A SUPERVISION WHICH
COULD EFFECTIVELY BE EXERCISED NEITHER DIRECTLY THROUGH SELF-EXECUTING
LEGISLATION NOR BY THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.  THAT THIS MOVEMENT WAS
NATURAL AND ITS EXTENSION INEVITABLE, WAS A QUARTER CENTURY AGO THE
OPINION OF EMINENT SPOKESMEN OF THE LAW.  FN4  PERHAPS THE MOST
STRIKING CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS MOVEMENT HAS BEEN THE INVESTITURE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES WITH POWER FAR EXCEEDING AND DIFFERENT FROM THE
CONVENTIONAL JUDICIAL MODES FOR ADJUSTING CONFLICTING CLAIMS - MODES
WHEREBY INTERESTED LITIGANTS DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY AND
DETERMINE THE DATA ON WHICH THE JUDICIAL JUDGMENT IS ULTIMATELY BASED. 
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES HAVE POWER THEMSELVES TO INITIATE INQUIRY, OR,
WHEN THEIR AUTHORITY IS INVOKED, TO CONTROL THE RANGE OF INVESTIGATION
IN ASCERTAINING WHAT IS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN RELATION TO THE NEEDS OF VAST REGIONS AND SOMETIMES THE
WHOLE NATION IN THE ENJOYMENT OF FACILITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION,
COMMUNICATION AND OTHER ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES.  FN5  THESE
DIFFERENCES IN ORIGIN AND FUNCTION PRECLUDE WHOLESALE TRANSPLANTATION
OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, TRIAL, AND REVIEW WHICH HAVE EVOLVED FROM
THE HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE OF COURTS.  THUS, THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED
THAT BODIES LIKE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, INTO WHOSE MOULD
CONGRESS HAS CAST MORE RECENT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, "SHOULD NOT BE
TOO NARROWLY CONSTRAINED BY TECHNICAL RULES AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
PROOF," INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25, 44,
SHOULD BE FREE TO FASHION THEIR OWN RULES OF PROCEDURE AND TO PURSUE
METHODS OF INQUIRY CAPABLE OF PERMITTING THEM TO DISCHARGE THEIR
MULTITUDINOUS DUTIES.  FN6  COMPARE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261
U.S. 184.  TO BE SURE, THE LAWS UNDER WHICH THESE AGENCIES OPERATE
PRESCRIBE THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FAIR PLAY.  THEY REQUIRE THAT INTERESTED
PARTIES BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING AND THAT JUDGMENT MUST
EXPRESS A REASONED CONCLUSION.  BUT TO ASSIMILATE THE RELATION OF THESE
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AND THE COURTS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOWER
AND UPPER COURTS IS TO DISREGARD THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSES OF THE
MOVEMENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION AND AT THE SAME TIME TO
DISREGARD THE TRADITIONAL SCOPE, HOWEVER FARREACHING, OF THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS.  UNLESS THESE VITAL DIFFERENTIATIONS BETWEEN THE FUNCTIONS OF
JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ARE OBSERVED, COURTS WILL STRAY
OUTSIDE THEIR PROVINCE AND READ THE LAWS OF CONGRESS THROUGH THE
DISTORTING LENSES OF INAPPLICABLE LEGAL DOCTRINE. 

UNDER THE RADIO ACT OF 1927 AS ORIGINALLY PASSED, THE COURT OF
APPEALS WAS AUTHORIZED IN REVIEWING ACTION OF THE RADIO COMMISSION TO
"ALTER OR REVISE THE DECISION APPEALED FROM AND ENTER SUCH JUDGMENT AS
TO IT MAY SEEM JUST."  SEC. 16 OF THE RADIO ACT OF 1927, 44 STAT.
1169.  THEREBY THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS CONSTITUTED "A SUPERIOR AND
REVISING AGENCY IN THE SAME FIELD" AS THAT IN WHICH THE RADIO
COMMISSION ACTED.  FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 281
U.S. 464, 467.  SINCE THE POWER THUS GIVEN WAS ADMINISTRATIVE RATHER
THAN JUDICIAL, THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT COULD NOT BE
INVOKED.  FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA.  TO LAY
THE BASIS FOR REVIEW HERE, CONGRESS AMENDED SEC. 16 SO AS TO TERMINATE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  C. 788, 46 STAT.
844.  IN "SHARP CONTRAST WITH THE PREVIOUS GRANT OF AUTHORITY" THE
COURT WAS RESTRICTED TO A PURELY JUDICIAL REVIEW.  "WHETHER THE
COMMISSION APPLIES THE LEGISLATIVE STANDARDS VALIDLY SET UP, WHETHER IT
ACTS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED OR GOES BEYOND IT, WHETHER ITS
PROCEEDINGS SATISFY THE PERTINENT DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS, WHETHER, IN
SHORT, THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH FIX THE
PROVINCE OF THE COMMISSION AND GOVERN ITS ACTION, ARE APPROPRIATE
QUESTIONS FOR JUDICIAL DECISION."  FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON BROS.
CO., 289 U.S. 266, 276. 

ON REVIEW THE COURT MAY THUS CORRECT ERRORS OF LAW AND ON REMAND THE
COMMISSION IS BOUND TO ACT UPON THE CORRECTION.  FEDERAL POWER COMM'N
V. PACIFIC CO., 307 U.S. 156.  BUT AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IN
WHICH IS IMBEDDED A LEGAL QUESTION OPEN TO JUDICIAL REVIEW DOES NOT
IMPLIEDLY FORECLOSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, AFTER ITS ERROR HAS BEEN
CORRECTED, FROM ENFORCING THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTED TO ITS
CHARGE.  CF. FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 364. 

THE COMMISSION'S RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL TIMES IS TO MEASURE
APPLICATIONS BY THE STANDARD OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR
NECESSITY."  THE COMMISSION ORIGINALLY FOUND RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE OF AN ERRONEOUS VIEW
REGARDING THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THE COURT OF APPEALS LAID BARE THAT
ERROR, AND, IN COMPELLING OBEDIENCE TO ITS CORRECTION, EXHAUSTED THE
ONLY POWER WHICH CONGRESS GAVE IT.  AT THIS POINT THE COMMISSION WAS
AGAIN CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF JUDGING THE APPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF
"PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY."  THE FACT THAT IN ITS
FIRST DISPOSITION THE COMMISSION HAD COMMITTED A LEGAL ERROR DID NOT
CREATE RIGHTS OF PRIORITY IN THE RESPONDENT, AS AGAINST THE LATER
APPLICANTS, WHICH IT WOULD NOT HAVE OTHERWISE POSSESSED.  ONLY CONGRESS
COULD CONFER SUCH A PRIORITY.  IT HAS NOT DONE SO.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS CANNOT WRITE THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY INTO THE STATUTE AS AN
INDIRECT RESULT OF ITS POWER TO SCRUTINIZE LEGAL ERRORS IN THE FIRST OF
AN ALLOWABLE SERIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.  SUCH AN IMPLICATION
FROM THE CURTAILED REVIEW ALLOWED BY THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT IS AT WAR
WITH THE BASIC POLICY UNDERLYING THE STATUTE.  IT WOULD MEAN THAT FOR
PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE CONTINGENCIES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW AND OF
LITIGATION, RATHER THAN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WOULD BE DECISIVE FACTORS
IN DETERMINING WHICH OF SEVERAL PENDING APPLICATIONS WAS TO BE
GRANTED. 

IT IS, HOWEVER, URGED UPON US THAT IF ALL MATTERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION REMAIN OPEN FOR DETERMINATION ON REMAND AFTER REVERSAL, A
SUCCESSION OF SINGLE DETERMINATIONS UPON SINGLE LEGAL ISSUES IS
POSSIBLE WITH RESULTING DELAY AND HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT.  IT IS
ALWAYS EASY TO CONJURE UP EXTREME AND EVEN OPPRESSIVE POSSIBILITIES IN
THE EXERTION OF AUTHORITY.  BUT COURTS ARE NOT CHARGED WITH GENERAL
GUARDIANSHIP AGAINST ALL POTENTIAL MISCHIEF IN THE COMPLICATED TASKS OF
GOVERNMENT.  THE PRESENT CASE MAKES TIMELY THE REMINDER THAT
"LEGISLATURES ARE ULTIMATE GUARDIANS OF THE LIBERTIES AND WELFARE OF
THE PEOPLE IN QUITE AS GREAT A DEGREE AS THE COURTS."  MISSOURI, K. &
T. RY. CO. V. MAY, 194 U.S. 267, 270.  CONGRESS WHICH CREATES AND
SUSTAINS THESE AGENCIES MUST BE TRUSTED TO CORRECT WHATEVER DEFECTS
EXPERIENCE MAY REVEAL.  INTERFERENCE BY THE COURTS IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF HABITS OF RESPONSIBILITY IN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES.  ANGLO-AMERICAN COURTS AS WE NOW KNOW THEM ARE THEMSELVES IN
NO SMALL MEASURE THE PRODUCT OF A HISTORIC PROCESS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISSOLVE THE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND TO DISMISS RESPONDENT'S PETITION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FOR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT OF 1927, SEE H. REP. NO.
464, S. REP. NO. 772, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; 67 CONG. REC. 5473-5504,
5555-86; 5645-47; 12335-59; 12480, 12497-12508, 12614-18; 68 CONG. REC.
2556-80, 2750-51, 2869-82, 3025-39, 3117-34, 3257-62, 3329-36, 3569-71,
4109-55.  A SUMMARY OF THE OPERATION OF PREVIOUS REGULATORY LAWS MAY BE
FOUND IN HERRING AND GROSS, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, PP. 239-45. 

FN2  SINCE THE BEGINNING OF REGULATION UNDER THE ACT OF 1927
COMPARATIVE CONSIDERATIONS HAVE GOVERNED THE APPLICATION OF STANDARDS
OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY" LAID DOWN BY THE LAW. 
"  ...  THE COMMISSION DESIRES TO POINT OUT THAT THE TEST - 'PUBLIC
INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY' - BECOMES A MATTER OF A
COMPARATIVE AND NOT AN ABSOLUTE STANDARD WHEN APPLIED TO BROADCASTING
STATIONS.  SINCE THE NUMBER OF CHANNELS IS LIMITED AND THE NUMBER OF
PERSONS DESIRING TO BROADCAST IS FAR GREATER THAN CAN BE ACCOMMODATED,
THE COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE FROM AMONG THE APPLICANTS BEFORE IT WHICH
OF THEM WILL, IF LICENSED, BEST SERVE THE PUBLIC.  IN A MEASURE,
PERHAPS, ALL OF THEM GIVE MORE OR LESS SERVICE.  THOSE WHO GIVE THE
LEAST, HOWEVER, MUST BE SACRIFICED FOR THOSE WHO GIVE THE MOST.  THE
EMPHASIS MUST BE FIRST AND FOREMOST ON THE INTEREST, THE CONVENIENCE,
AND THE NECESSITY OF THE LISTENING PUBLIC, AND NOT ON THE INTEREST,
CONVENIENCE, OR NECESSITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL BROADCASTER OR THE
ADVERTISER."  SECOND ANNUAL REPORT, FEDERAL RADIO COMMISSION, 1928, PP.
169-70. 

FN3  SEE MAITLAND, THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND, PP. 415-18;
LANDIS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, PASSIM. 

FN4  SEE, FOR INSTANCE, THE ADDRESS OF ELIHU ROOT AS PRESIDENT OF THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION: 

"THERE IS ONE SPECIAL FIELD OF LAW DEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS MANIFESTLY
BECOME INEVITABLE.  WE ARE ENTERING UPON THE CREATION OF A BODY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW QUITE DIFFERENT IN ITS MACHINERY, ITS REMEDIES, AND
ITS NECESSARY SAFEGUARDS FROM THE OLD METHODS OF REGULATION BY SPECIFIC
STATUTES ENFORCED BY THE COURTS.  ...  THERE WILL BE NO WITHDRAWAL FROM
THESE EXPERIMENTS.  WE SHALL GO ON; WE SHALL EXPAND THEM, WHETHER WE
APPROVE THEORETICALLY OR NOT, BECAUSE SUCH AGENCIES FURNISH PROTECTION
TO RIGHTS AND OBSTACLES TO WRONG DOING WHICH UNDER OUR NEW SOCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS CANNOT BE PRACTICALLY ACCOMPLISHED BY THE OLD AND
SIMPLE PROCEDURE OF LEGISLATURES AND COURTS AS IN THE LAST
GENERATION."  41 A.B.A. REP. 355, 368-69. 

FN5 SEE UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225; HERRING, PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST, PASSIM. 

FN6  THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION'S RULES OF PRACTICE, RULE 106.4,
PROVIDED THAT "THE COMMISSION WILL, SO FAR AS PRACTICABLE, ENDEAVOR TO
FIX THE SAME DATE  ...  FOR HEARING ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH  ...
PRESENT CONFLICTING CLAIMS  ...  EXCEPTING, HOWEVER, APPLICATIONS FILED
AFTER ANY SUCH APPLICATION HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR HEARING." 
RESPONDENT CONTENDS, AND THE COURT BELOW SEEMED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS
RULE BOUND THE COMMISSION TO GIVE RESPONDENT A NON-COMPARATIVE
CONSIDERATION BECAUSE ITS APPLICATION HAD BEEN SET DOWN FOR HEARING
BEFORE THE LATER AND RIVAL APPLICATIONS WERE FILED.  THE COMMISSION
INTERPRETS THIS RULE SIMPLY AS GOVERNING THE ORDER IN WHICH
APPLICATIONS SHALL BE HEARD, AND NOT TOUCHING UPON THE ORDER IN WHICH
THEY SHALL BE ACTED UPON OR THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY SHALL BE
CONSIDERED.  THAT INTERPRETATION IS BINDING UPON THE COURTS.  A.T. & T.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :








FLY V. HEITMEYER, 309 U.S. 146 


NO. 316.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 70
APP. D.C. 162 - 105 F.2D 41, REVERSED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CASE LAST PRECEDING. 

FLY ET AL. V. HEITMEYER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON MARCH 25, 1935, HEITMEYER, RESPONDENT HERE, APPLIED FOR A PERMIT
FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 319 OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, C. 652, 48 STAT. 1089, 47 U.S.C. 319, TO
CONSTRUCT A BROADCASTING STATION AT CHEYENNE, WYOMING.  HIS APPLICATION
AND A COMPETING ONE WERE HEARD BY AN EXAMINER.  THE COMMISSION, ON MAY
1, 1936, DENIED RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT HE WAS
FINANCIALLY DISQUALIFIED.  HE APPEALED TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS
REVERSED.  HEITMEYER V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 68 APP. D.C.
180; 95 F.2D 91.  TO PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION, THE CASE
WAS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION. 

AFTER HEITMEYER'S APPEAL TWO OTHER APPLICATIONS FOR THE SAME
FACILITIES WERE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION.  FOLLOWING INTERMEDIATE
LITIGATION, NEEDLESS HERE TO RECOUNT, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THAT
RESPONDENT'S CASE BE REOPENED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PENDING RIVAL
APPLICATIONS.  BEFORE THIS HEARING COULD BE HAD, RESPONDENT OBTAINED
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE COMMISSION
TO RESTRICT CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPLICATION TO THE RECORD ORIGINALLY
BEFORE IT.  MCNINCH V. HEITMEYER, 70 APP. D.C. 162; 105 F.2D 41. 
BECAUSE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW WERE INVOLVED, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  308 U.S. 540. 

THIS CASE IS CONTROLLED BY OUR DECISION IN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION V. POTTSVILLE BROADCASTING CO., ANTE, P. 134. 

THE ONLY RELEVANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CASES IS THAT HERE THE
COMMISSION PROPOSED ON REMAND NOT ONLY TO RECONSIDER RESPONDENT'S
APPLICATION ON ORAL ARGUMENT WITH SUBSEQUENTLY FILED RIVAL
APPLICATIONS, BUT TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND TAKE NEW EVIDENCE ON THE
COMPARATIVE ABILITY OF THE VARIOUS APPLICANTS TO SATISFY "PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE, INTEREST, OR NECESSITY."  BUT THE COMMISSION'S DUTY WAS TO
APPLY THE STATUTORY STANDARD IN DECIDING WHICH OF THE APPLICANTS WAS TO
RECEIVE A PERMIT AFTER IT FELL INTO LEGAL ERROR AS WELL AS BEFORE.  IF,
IN THE COMMISSION'S JUDGMENT, NEW EVIDENCE WAS NECESSARY TO DISCHARGE
ITS DUTY, THE FACT OF A PREVIOUSLY ERRONEOUS DENIAL SHOULD NOT,
ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED IN THE POTTSVILLE CASE, ANTE,
BAR IT FROM ACCESS TO THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR CORRECT JUDGMENT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISSOLVE THE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND TO DISMISS RESPONDENT'S PETITION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :

















HELVERING V. FITCH, 309 U.S. 149 


NO. 243.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 8, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 103
F.2D 702, REVERSED. 


1.  A HUSBAND, CREATING A TRUST FOR THE SUPPORT OF HIS WIFE, FROM WHOM
HE WAS SEPARATED, AND IN SETTLEMENT OF A SUIT BROUGHT BY HER FOR
MAINTENANCE, TRANSFERRED TO A TRUSTEE IN IOWA CERTAIN PREMISES AND A
LEASE THEREON.  A STIPULATED AMOUNT OF THE INCOME WAS TO BE PAID
MONTHLY TO THE WIFE, AND THE TRUST WAS IRREVOCABLE.  THE HUSBAND
RESERVED NO INTEREST IN THE TRUST ESTATE (OTHER THAN A LIFE INTEREST IN
THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE WIFE), AND DID NOT
UNDERTAKE TO MAKE GOOD ANY DEFICIENCIES IN PAYMENTS TO THE WIFE.  THE
ARRANGEMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY AN IOWA COURT IN A DECREE OF
DIVORCE.  HELD, A DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH TRUST INCOME TO THE WIFE (IN
1933) WAS INCLUDIBLE AS INCOME OF THE HUSBAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  PP. 150, 156. 

2.  THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT AMOUNTS PAID TO A DIVORCED WIFE UNDER A
DECREE FOR ALIMONY ARE NOT REGARDED AS INCOME OF THE WIFE BUT AS PAID
IN DISCHARGE OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATION OF THE HUSBAND TO SUPPORT, WHICH
IS MADE SPECIFIC BY THE DECREE.  DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1.  P.
151. 

3.  THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE PRESENT CASE WAS NOT WITHIN
THE GENERAL RULE COULD BE SUSTAINED ONLY BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF,
HERE LACKING, THAT THE EFFECT OF THE IOWA LAW, THE TRUST, AND THE
DIVORCE DECREE WAS A FULL AND COMPLETE DISCHARGE OF THE OBLIGATION OF
THE TAXPAYER FOR THE SUPPORT OF HIS WIFE.  P. 156. 

4.  QUERY WHETHER UNDER THE IOWA DIVORCE LAW THE COURT RETAINED POWER
TO MODIFY ITS DECREE BY REALLOCATING THE INCOME FROM THE TRUST PROPERTY
AS BETWEEN THE HUSBAND AND WIFE.  P. 155. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. FITCH. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 535, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 37 B.T.A. 1330, SUSTAINING A DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER CLAIMED THAT AN AMOUNT OF $7,128 DISTRIBUTED IN 1933 UNDER
A SO-CALLED ALIMONY TRUST TO RESPONDENT'S DIVORCED WIFE SHOULD HAVE
BEEN INCLUDED IN RESPONDENT'S TAXABLE INCOME FOR THAT YEAR.  THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS AGREED AND FOUND A DEFICIENCY, 37 B.T.A. 1330.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, 103 F.2D 702. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE ASSERTED FAILURE OF THAT COURT
CORRECTLY TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IN DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296
U.S. 1. 

THE SO-CALLED ALIMONY TRUST IN QUESTION WAS CREATED A FEW YEARS
BEFORE THE DIVORCE, WHILE RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE WERE SEPARATED, AND
IN SETTLEMENT OF A SUIT BROUGHT BY HER FOR SEPARATE MAINTENANCE. 
CERTAIN PREMISES (A HAIR TONIC FACTORY AND A LONG TERM LEASE THEREON)
WERE TRANSFERRED TO A TRUSTEE TO HOLD TITLE, COLLECT RENTS AND AFTER
DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES TO PAY THE WIFE $600 A MONTH DURING HER LIFE AND
THE BALANCE TO RESPONDENT FOR HIS LIFE.  FN1  ON THE DEATH OF EITHER
RESPONDENT OR HIS WIFE THE DECEASED'S SHARE OF THE INCOME WAS TO BE
PAID TO THEIR CHILDREN.  FN2  THE TRUST WAS TO CONTINUE AT LEAST
FIFTEEN YEARS.  ON THE DEATH OF BOTH RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE THE
PRINCIPAL WAS TO BE PAID OVER TO THEIR CHILDREN.  THE TRUST WAS
IRREVOCABLE.  AND WHILE RESPONDENT COVENANTED TO PAY OFF CERTAIN
ENCUMBRANCES ON THE TRUST PROPERTY, HE DID NOT UNDERWRITE IN WHOLE OR
IN PART THE $600 MONTHLY PAYMENTS TO HIS WIFE. 

IN 1925 SHE FILED SUIT FOR A DIVORCE IN AN IOWA COURT.  A PROPERTY
SETTLEMENT WAS AGREED UPON WHICH INCLUDED THE TRUST AGREEMENT AND, IN
ADDITION, PROVIDED FOR A TRANSFER TO HER BY RESPONDENT OF CERTAIN
SHARES OF STOCK AND CASH.  FN3  THE DIVORCE DECREE CONFIRMED THE
PROPERTY AND ALIMONY SETTLEMENT.  FN4 

THE GENERAL RULE IS CLEAR.  "AMOUNTS PAID TO A DIVORCED WIFE UNDER A
DECREE FOR ALIMONY ARE NOT REGARDED AS INCOME OF THE WIFE BUT AS PAID
IN DISCHARGE OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT, WHICH IS MADE
SPECIFIC BY THE DECREE."  DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, P. 8.  IT IS
PLAIN THAT THERE THE ALIMONY TRUST, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE DIVORCE
DECREE, WAS MERELY SECURITY FOR A CONTINUING OBLIGATION OF THE TAXPAYER
TO SUPPORT HIS DIVORCED WIFE.  THAT WAS MADE EVIDENT NOT ONLY BY HIS
AGREEMENT TO MAKE UP ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE $15,000 ANNUAL SUM TO BE
PAID HER UNDER THE TRUST.  IT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE POWER OF THE
MINNESOTA DIVORCE COURT SUBSEQUENTLY TO ALTER AND REVISE ITS DECREE AND
THE PROVISIONS MADE THEREIN FOR THE WIFE'S BENEFIT.  LIKEWISE
CONSISTENT WITH THE USE OF THE ALIMONY TRUST AS A SECURITY DEVICE WAS
THE PROVISION THAT ON DEATH OF THE DIVORCED WIFE THE CORPUS OF THE
TRUST WAS TO BE TRANSFERRED BACK TO THE TAXPAYER.  RESPONDENT INSISTS
THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO WHICH THE
INCOME OF THE ALIMONY TRUST IS APPLIED BUT RATHER THAT THE PROPERTY AND
ALIMONY SETTLEMENT APPROVED BY THE IOWA COURT EFFECTED AN ABSOLUTE
DISCHARGE OF ANY DUTY OR OBLIGATION ON HIS PART TO SUPPORT HIS DIVORCED
WIFE.  IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS NO COVENANT OR GUARANTEE TO MAKE UP ANY
DEFICIENCY IN THE MONTHLY PAYMENT TO HIS DIVORCED WIFE, AS THERE WAS IN
THE DOUGLAS CASE.  AND UNLIKE THAT ALIMONY TRUST, THE INSTANT ONE,
THOUGH GRANTING THE TAXPAYER A PARTICIPATION IN THE INCOME, IRREVOCABLY
ALIENATES THE CORPUS.  OTHER INDICIA OF THE USE OF THIS ALIMONY TRUST
AS A SECURITY DEVICE FOR ANY CONTINUING OBLIGATION OF RESPONDENT ARE
ALLEGED TO BE ABSENT BY REASON OF THE LACK OF POWER IN THE IOWA COURT
TO MODIFY THE DECREE CONFIRMING THE PROPERTY AND ALIMONY SETTLEMENT. 

THE IOWA STATUTE PROVIDES:  "WHEN A DIVORCE IS DECREED, THE COURT MAY
MAKE SUCH ORDER IN RELATION TO THE CHILDREN, PROPERTY, PARTIES, AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE PARTIES AS SHALL BE RIGHT.  SUBSEQUENT CHANGES MAY
BE MADE BY IT IN THESE RESPECTS WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES RENDER THEM
EXPEDIENT."  FN5 

ADMITTEDLY THE COURT UNDER THAT STATUTE HAS THE POWER TO MODIFY
PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL DECREE FOR THE CONTINUED SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE WIFE.  FN6  AND IT LIKEWISE SEEMS WELL SETTLED BY A
LONG LINE OF IOWA CASES THAT WHERE THE ORIGINAL DECREE MAKES NO
PROVISION FOR ALIMONY, THERE IS NO POWER SUBSEQUENTLY TO MODIFY THE
DECREE SO AS TO PROVIDE IT.  FN7  AND, RESPONDENT CONTENDS, WHERE
ALIMONY IS ALLOWED IN A LUMP SUM OR A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT IS RATIFIED
BY THE DECREE, THE COURT RETAINS NO POWER TO MODIFY. 

SPAIN V. SPAIN, 177 IOWA 249; 158 N.W. 529, AND MCCOY V. MCCOY, 191
IOWA 973; 183 N.W. 377, ON WHICH RESPONDENT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS PLACE RELIANCE ARE NOT IN POINT SINCE THOSE DIVORCE DECREES,
UNLIKE THE INSTANT ONE, MADE NO PROVISION FOR ALIMONY.  IN SPAIN V.
SPAIN, SUPRA, THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA SPECIFICALLY RESERVED THE
QUESTION OF THE POWER TO MODIFY A DIVORCE DECREE INVOLVING A PROPERTY
SETTLEMENT.  AS TO THAT IT SAID (PP. 260-261):  "AS TO AN AWARD IN
GROSS, OR A DIVISION OF THE PROPERTY, BASED UPON AN EQUITABLE
APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY OF EITHER OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE
DIVORCE IS GRANTED, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO SPEAK, FOR THAT MATTER IS
NOT IN THE CASE." 

LIKEWISE BARISH V. BARISH, 190 IOWA 493; 180 N.W. 724, CITED BELOW
AND URGED HERE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION, IS OF LITTLE AID,
FOR IN SPITE OF A STRONG CONCURRING OPINION THAT THE COURT HAD NO POWER
TO MODIFY AN ALLOWANCE OF "GROSS" OR "PERMANENT" ALIMONY, THE MAJORITY
APPLIED THE STATUTE AND CONCLUDED (P. 501) "WHATEVER THE EXTENT OF THE
POWER OF THE COURT MAY BE TO MAKE SUCH INCREASE, IT IS ALWAYS SLOW TO
EXERCISE SUCH POWER, EXCEPT IN THE PRESENCE OF EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS ARE NOT PRESENT HERE."  TO BE SURE, THERE IS THE
FOLLOWING STRONG STATEMENT IN KRAFT V. KRAFT, 193 IOWA 602, 607; 187
N.W. 449:  "WE ARE INCLINED TO THE VIEW THAT, WHERE ALIMONY IS ALLOWED
IN A LUMP SUM, AS PERMANENT ALIMONY, OR WHERE THERE IS A DIVISION OF
THE REAL PROPERTY OF THE PARTIES, AS PERMANENT ALIMONY, THE STATUTE
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE A CHANGE THEREIN, EXCEPT FOR SUCH REASONS WHICH
WOULD JUSTIFY THE SETTING ASIDE OR CHANGING OF A DECREE IN ANY OTHER
CASE; THAT THE PARTY AWARDED PERMANENT ALIMONY IS NOT ENTITLED TO
PERMANENT ALIMONY AND SUPPORT BOTH  ..."  AND IN CARR V. CARR, 185 IOWA
1205; 171 N.W. 785, 787, THAT COURT STATED, P. 1211: "ALIMONY IS
ALLOWED IN LIEU OF DOWER AND THE PRIOR DUTY OF SUPPORT, AND A REVIEW OF
THE DECREE AWARDING OR REFUSING SAME CAN BE HAD ONLY FOR SUCH FRAUD OR
MISTAKE AS WOULD AUTHORIZE THE SETTING ASIDE OR MODIFICATION OF ANY
OTHER DECREE."  IN THAT CASE THE DIVORCE DECREE REQUIRED THE HUSBAND,
INTER ALIA, TO CONVEY CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TO A TRUSTEE FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF THE WIFE TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR FIVE YEARS,
DURING WHICH TIME THE INCOME WAS TO BE PAID OVER TO THE WIFE AND AT THE
END THEREOF THE TRUSTEE, ON DEMAND, WAS TO CONVEY THE PROPERTY TO HER. 
MEANWHILE, THE TRUSTEE HAD THE POWER TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT NOT LESS
THAN $100 AN ACRE.  SHORTLY BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE FIVE-YEAR
PERIOD, THE DIVORCED HUSBAND FILED A CROSS-PETITION IN THE DIVORCE SUIT
ASKING FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE TRUST IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIS FORMER
WIFE FROM HER OWN EXTRAVAGANCE AND HER INEXPERIENCE IN BUSINESS
AFFAIRS.  APPARENTLY THE RELIEF ASKED WAS NOT BASED ON THE IOWA STATUTE
GIVING THE COURT POWER TO MAKE SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN THE DIVORCE DECREE
"WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES RENDER THEM EXPEDIENT."  FOR THE COURT STATED THAT
THE MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE WAS SOUGHT ON THE GROUNDS (1) THAT THE
DONOR OF THE TRUST WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE IT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ITS TERMS AND THE REAL PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS CREATED; AND (2)
THAT, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, HE WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE A GUARDIAN OF THE
PROPERTY APPOINTED. 

HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, MUCH OF THE WEIGHT WHICH RESPONDENT ACCORDS
KRAFT V. KRAFT AND CARR V. CARR, SUPRA, SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DISSIPATED
BY MCNARY V. MCNARY, 206 IOWA 942; 221 N.W. 580.  IN THAT CASE THE
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA HAD SQUARELY BEFORE IT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR
NOT UNDER THE FOREGOING STATUTE A DECREE OF PERMANENT ALIMONY AWARDING
PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY TO THE WIFE COULD BE ALTERED.  THE COURT
AFTER STATING THAT IT KNEW OF NO CASE WHERE SUCH A DECREE HAD BEEN
SUBSEQUENTLY MODIFIED, ADDED (P. 946):  "THIS QUESTION IS NOT ARGUED BY
THE PARTIES, AND WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO MAKE A PRONOUNCEMENT
THEREON."  AND, SIGNIFICANTLY, IT PROCEEDED TO APPLY THE STATUTE AND
FINDING THAT ITS CONDITIONS HAD NOT BEEN SATISFIED, IT DENIED THE
RELIEF ASKED BY THE DIVORCED HUSBAND. 

ON THIS STATE OF THE IOWA AUTHORITIES WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE AS TO THE
POWER OF THE IOWA COURT TO MODIFY ALIMONY AWARDED IN A LUMP SUM OR A
PROPERTY SETTLEMENT RATIFIED BY A DIVORCE DECREE.  TO BE SURE, KRAFT V.
KRAFT, SUPRA, INVOLVED SOME FEATURES COMMON TO THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE
THE WIFE WAS TO RECEIVE THE INCOME OF $4,000 TO BE PLACED IN TRUST BY
THE HUSBAND OR, UNTIL HE PLACED IT IN TRUST, 5 PER CENT ON THAT
AMOUNT.  BUT THE REFUSAL TO MODIFY THAT DECREE WAS NOT PLACED SQUARELY,
OR EVEN LARGELY, ON THE LACK OF POWER TO DO SO BUT ON OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES.  FURTHERMORE, THE UNCERTAINTY CREATED BY MCNARY V.
MCNARY, SUPRA, MAKES PERHAPS FOR EVEN GREATER UNCERTAINTY WHERE AN
ALIMONY TRUST OF THE KIND HERE INVOLVED IS CONCERNED.  AT LEAST
RESPONDENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A NECESSARY IDENTITY IN TREATMENT OF
TRANSFERS OF PERSONAL OR REAL PROPERTY ON THE ONE HAND AND ALLOWANCE OF
INCOME OUT OF THIS KIND OF ALIMONY TRUST ON THE OTHER.  EVEN ON THE
AUTHORITY OF KRAFT V. KRAFT, SUPRA, RESPONDENT HAS NOT CLEARLY SHOWN
THAT IN IOWA DIVORCE LAW THE COURT HAS LOST ALL JURISDICTION TO ALTER
OR REVISE THE AMOUNT OF INCOME PAYABLE TO THE WIFE FROM AN ENTERPRISE
WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN TRUST.  FOR ALL THAT WE KNOW IT MIGHT RETAIN
THE POWER TO REALLOCATE THE INCOME FROM THAT PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH IT
LACKED THE POWER TO ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM THE CORPUS OR TO TAP OTHER
SOURCES OF INCOME.  FN8  IF IT DID HAVE SUCH POWER, THEN IT COULD BE
SAID THAT A DECREE APPROVING AN ALIMONY TRUST OF THE KIND HERE INVOLVED
MERELY PLACED UPON THE PRE-EXISTING DUTY OF THE HUSBAND A PARTICULAR
AND SPECIFIED SANCTION.  IN THAT EVENT, THE CASE WOULD BE LITTLE
DIFFERENT FROM ONE WHERE THE HUSBAND WAS DIRECTED TO MAKE SPECIFIED
PAYMENTS TO THE DIVORCED WIFE.  AND WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE RULE OF
DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA, SHOULD NOT THEN APPLY. 

ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID TO SHOW THAT RESPONDENT HAS NOT SUSTAINED THE
BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THAT HIS CASE FALLS OUTSIDE THE GENERAL RULE
EXPRESSED IN DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, SUPRA.  IF WE WERE TO CONCLUDE THAT
THIS CASE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE WE WOULD BE ACTING LARGELY ON
CONJECTURE AS TO IOWA LAW.  THAT WE CANNOT DO.  FOR IF SUCH A RESULT IS
TO OBTAIN, IT MUST BE BOTTOMED ON CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF, AND NOT
ON MERE INFERENCES AND VAGUE CONJECTURES, THAT LOCAL LAW AND THE
ALIMONY TRUST HAVE GIVEN THE DIVORCED HUSBAND A FULL DISCHARGE AND
LEAVE NO CONTINUING OBLIGATION HOWEVER CONTINGENT.  ONLY IN THAT EVENT
CAN INCOME TO THE WIFE FROM AN ALIMONY TRUST BE TREATED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACTS THE SAME AS INCOME ACCRUING FROM PROPERTY AFTER A DEBTOR
HAS TRANSFERRED THAT PROPERTY TO HIS CREDITOR IN FULL SATISFACTION OF
HIS OBLIGATION - UNLESS OF COURSE CONGRESS DECIDES OTHERWISE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. 

FN1  RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE SEPARATED IN 1917.  IN 1919 RESPONDENT
PURCHASED A HOME FOR HIS WIFE, FURNISHED IT FOR HER, AND GAVE HER AN
AUTOMOBILE.  IN THE SAME YEAR F.W. FITCH CO. WAS INCORPORATED AND
ACQUIRED THE ASSETS OF A PREDECESSOR PARTNERSHIP IN EXCHANGE FOR 2,000
OF ITS SHARES.  OF THESE SHARES 1860 WERE ISSUED TO RESPONDENT AND 10
TO HIS WIFE.  SHE WAS ALSO AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, WITH
A MONTHLY SALARY OF $300. 

WHEN THE SEPARATE MAINTENANCE SUIT WAS SETTLED IN 1923, RESPONDENT
LEASED CERTAIN PREMISES, OWNED BY HIM, TO THE F.W. FITCH CO. FOR 99
YEARS, AT AN ANNUAL RENTAL OF $12,000.  THESE PREMISES AND THAT LEASE
WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE TRUSTEE.  UPON CREATION OF THE TRUST THE WIFE
CEASED TO BE AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF F.W. FITCH CO. AND RECEIVED NO
FURTHER SALARY FROM IT. 

FN2  NO QUESTION OF MINOR CHILDREN IS HERE INVOLVED, THE YOUNGEST OF
THE FOUR CHILDREN HAVING BECOME OF AGE IN 1927. 

FN3  600 SHARES OF STOCK OF F.W. FITCH CO. AND $23,500. 

FN4  "IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, THAT THE
PLAINTIFF, LETTIE S. FITCH, BE, AND SHE IS HEREBY, DIVORCED FROM THE
DEFENDANT, FRED W. FITCH, ABSOLUTELY; ...  THAT THE TRUST AGREEMENT
WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN THE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AS HAVING BEEN ENTERED
INTO BETWEEN THESE PARTIES ON OR ABOUT THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 1923  ...
BE, AND THE SAME IS HEREBY RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED BY THE COURT; AND
THAT THE PROPERTY AND ALIMONY SETTLEMENT MADE BY THE PARTIES BE, AND IT
IS HEREBY CONFIRMED BY THE COURT."    FN5  SEC. 10481, IOWA CODE. 

FN6  SEE CORL V. CORL, 217 IOWA 812; 253 N.W. 125; JUNGER V. JUNGER,
215 IOWA 636; 246 N.W. 659; BOQUETTE V. BOQUETTE, 215 IOWA 990; 247
N.W. 255; TONEY V. TONEY, 213 IOWA 398; 239 N.W. 21; MORRISON V.
MORRISON, 208 IOWA 1384; 227 N.W. 330. 

FN7  SPAIN V. SPAIN, 177 IOWA 249; 158 N.W. 529; MCCOY V. MCCOY, 191
IOWA 973; 183 N.W. 377; HANDSAKER V. HANDSAKER, 223 IOWA 462; 272 N.W.
609; DUVALL V. DUVALL, 215 IOWA 24; 244 N.W. 718; DOEKSON V. DOEKSON,
202 IOWA 489; 210 N.W. 545. 

FN8  CF. SHAW V. SHAW, 59 ILL. APP. 268.    MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS
IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :



ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 309 U.S. 157 


NO. 222.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 29, 1940.  - 205
MINN. 621 - 286 N.W. 359, AFFIRMED. 


1.  MINNESOTA IMPOSED ON RAILROADS A PROPERTY TAX MEASURED BY GROSS
EARNINGS FROM OPERATIONS WITHIN THE STATE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE
RECORDS, EARNINGS FROM INTERCHANGE OF FREIGHT CARS WERE APPORTIONED TO
MINNESOTA ACCORDING TO A FORMULA.  THE REPORTING ROAD WAS CHARGED WITH
THAT PROPORTION OF THE BALANCE OWING FROM EACH USER OF ITS CARS WHICH
THE USER'S MINNESOTA REVENUE FREIGHT-CAR MILEAGE WAS OF THE USER'S
SYSTEM CAR MILEAGE; AND WAS PERMITTED TO DEDUCT THAT PROPORTION OF THE
BALANCE OWING TO OTHER ROADS FOR USE OF THEIR CARS WHICH ITS MINNESOTA
FREIGHT-CAR MILEAGE WAS OF ITS SYSTEM CAR MILEAGE.  THE NET CREDITS
WERE ASCERTAINED ANNUALLY AND THE TAX IMPOSED THEREON.  AS APPLIED TO A
RAILROAD WHOSE MINNESOTA MILEAGE WAS SMALL COMPARED TO ITS SYSTEM
MILEAGE, AND WHOSE DEDUCTIONS WERE SMALL COMPARED WITH ROADS HAVING
EXTENSIVE MILEAGES WITHIN THE STATE, HELD THAT THE TAX FORMULA WAS
CONSISTENT WITH EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 161,
164. 

2.  THE RATIO OF MINNESOTA REVENUE FREIGHT-CAR MILEAGE TO SYSTEM CAR
MILEAGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF ASCERTAINING WHAT
PAYMENTS REPRESENT USE IN MINNESOTA.  P. 161. 

3.  THAT THE APPORTIONMENT MAY NOT RESULT IN MATHEMATICAL EXACTITUDE
IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT.  P. 161. 

4.  OBJECTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT RAILROAD TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
TAX, THAT BY THE FORMULA IT IS PERMITTED TO DEDUCT ONLY A SMALL
FRACTION OF ITS DEBIT BALANCES COMPARED WITH OTHER ROADS HAVING
EXTENSIVE MILEAGE IN THE STATE, AND THAT THOUGH IT HAS ONLY 30 MILES OF
TRACK IN THE STATE IT MUST PAY A TAX WHILE OTHERS WITH HUNDREDS OF
MILES MAY PAY NONE - EXAMINED AND REJECTED.  PP. 162-163. 

5.  THE FACT THAT THE RAILROADS NOT OWNING OR OPERATING LINES WITHIN
THE STATE ARE NOT TAXED ON THEIR INCOME FROM THE USE OF THEIR CARS
WITHIN THE STATE BY OTHER RAILROADS DOES NOT PRODUCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ROADS WHICH HAVE SUBJECTED THEMSELVES TO THE
STATE'S JURISDICTION AND ENJOY THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN BUSINESS
THERE.  P. 163. 

6.  DOUBLE TAXATION, SHORT OF CONFISCATION OR PROCEEDINGS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON OTHER GROUNDS, IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 164. 

7. THE TAX HAS A FAIR RELATION TO PROPERTY EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE,
ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY BE USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 164. 

8.  A RECOMPUTATION BY THE STATE OF TAXES PAYABLE UNDER A STATUTE
WHICH WAS IN FORCE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PERIOD IN QUESTION IS NOT SUCH
RETROACTIVITY AS DEPRIVES OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 164. 

9.  WHETHER THE CREDITS HERE TAXED ARE INCLUDIBLE AS "GROSS EARNINGS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATE STATUTE IS A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW, IN
RESPECT OF WHICH THIS COURT DEFERS TO THE STATE COURT'S
INTERPRETATION.  P. 165. 

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. V. MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE RAILROAD COMPANY
IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE STATE TO RECOVER ADDITIONAL TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MINNESOTA IMPOSES ON EVERY RAILROAD COMPANY OWNING OR OPERATING LINES
WITHIN ITS BORDERS A FIVE PER CENT TAX ON GROSS EARNINGS DERIVED FROM
ITS OPERATION WITHIN THE STATE.  THIS TAX, PAYABLE IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER
TAXES,  FN1  HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT, IN VARIOUS APPLICATIONS,
AS A PROPERTY TAX.  FN2  IN THIS CASE, WHICH IS HERE ON APPEAL (28
U.S.C. SEC. 344A) FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
(205 MINN. 1, 621; 284 N.W. 360; 286 N.W. 359), APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT
THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED TO IT VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

APPELLANT, AN ILLINOIS RAILROAD CORPORATION, OWNS NO LINES IN
MINNESOTA BUT OPERATES LEASED LINES WITH 30.15 MILES OF TRACKAGE IN
THAT STATE.  FN3  IT OWNS OR OPERATES ABOUT 5,000 MILES IN OTHER
STATES.  THE ITEM OF GROSS EARNINGS WHICH THE STATE SEEKS HERE TO TAX
ARISES OUT OF DEBTS AND CREDITS FOR EXCHANGE OF FREIGHT CARS WHICH
APPELLANT MAKES WITH OTHER RAILROADS, THE USING ROAD BEING CHARGED $1
PER DAY PER CAR.  DURING THE YEARS HERE INVOLVED APPELLANT HAD CREDITS
IN ITS FAVOR FOR SUCH USE OF ITS CARS BY OTHER ROADS OPERATING IN
MINNESOTA OF $17,427,862; AND DEBITS OWING SUCH ROADS OF $14,924,508,
LEAVING A NET CREDIT BALANCE IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT OF $2,503,353. 
THESE DEBITS AND CREDITS REPRESENTED USE OF CARS IN OTHER STATES AS
WELL AS IN MINNESOTA.  IN ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE AND ACCURATE RECORDS
THEIR USE WAS APPORTIONED TO MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING
FORMULA: 

EACH REPORTING ROAD WAS CHARGED WITH SUCH PERCENTAGE OF THE CREDIT
BALANCE OWING FROM EACH USING RAILROAD AS WAS DETERMINED BY
ASCERTAINING THE RATIO OF EACH USING RAILROAD'S MINNESOTA REVENUE
FREIGHT CAR MILES TO ITS SYSTEM CAR MILES. 

EACH REPORTING ROAD WAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR SUCH PERCENTAGE OF THE DEBIT
BALANCE OWING EACH OTHER ROAD AS WAS DETERMINED BY ASCERTAINING THE
RATIO OF THE REPORTING RAILROAD'S MINNESOTA REVENUE FREIGHT CAR MILES
TO ITS SYSTEM CAR MILES. 

THE CREDIT AND DEBIT BALANCES WERE COMPUTED AND APPORTIONED ANNUALLY;
AND THE NET CREDITS WERE THEN ASCERTAINED, TO WHICH THE STATUTORY TAX
OF 5 PER CENT WAS APPLIED. 

THUS FOR THE YEAR 1922 APPELLANT HAD CREDIT BALANCES OF $691,433.97
OWING FROM 13 OTHER ROADS.  THEIR MINNESOTA REVENUE FREIGHT CAR MILES
VARIED FROM 2.3% TO 100% OF THEIR SYSTEM CAR MILES, MAKING MINNESOTA'S
PROPORTION OF THE CREDIT BALANCES $95,359.49.  FOR THE SAME YEAR
APPELLANT HAD DEBIT BALANCES FROM FREIGHT CAR HIRE OWING TO 8 OTHER
ROADS OF $215,863.05.  APPELLANT'S MINNESOTA REVENUE FREIGHT CAR MILES
WERE ONLY 0.11% OF ITS SYSTEM CAR MILES FOR THAT YEAR.  HENCE, IT WAS
PERMITTED TO DEDUCT ONLY 0.11% OF $215,863.05 OR $237.43, LEAVING
$95,122.06 TO WHICH THE TAX WAS APPLICABLE.  ON SIMILAR COMPUTATIONS
FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SEVEN YEARS THE TAX FOR WHICH THE STATE
BROUGHT SUIT TOTALLED $26,414.59. 

APPELLANT'S CONTENTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS THAT THE
STATUTE AS APPLIED IN THE FOREGOING FORMULA DENIES IT EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAW AND DUE PROCESS.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT CONTENTION IS
TENABLE. 

FIRST AS TO THE CREDIT BALANCES.  THESE REPRESENT PAYMENTS TO
APPELLANT FOR USE OF ITS FREIGHT CARS BY OTHER ROADS WHICH OPERATE IN
MINNESOTA.  MINNESOTA DOES NOT SEEK TO REACH ALL OF THOSE RECEIPTS.  AS
THE STATUTE REACHES ONLY REVENUES DERIVED FROM OPERATIONS IN THE STATE,
THE FORMULA EFFECTS AN APPORTIONMENT.  CERTAINLY THE RATIO OF MINNESOTA
REVENUE FREIGHT CAR MILES TO SYSTEM CAR MILES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
STATUTORY SCHEME OF ASCERTAINING WHAT PAYMENTS REPRESENT USE IN
MINNESOTA.  THAT THE APPORTIONMENT MAY NOT RESULT IN MATHEMATICAL
EXACTITUDE IS CERTAINLY NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT.  FN4  ROUGH
APPROXIMATION RATHER THAN PRECISION IS, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE NORM
IN ANY SUCH TAX SYSTEM.  FN5 

SECOND AS TO THE DEBIT BALANCES.  AS WE HAVE SAID, APPELLANT IS NOT
TAXED ON ALL OF ITS CREDIT BALANCES BUT ONLY ON THAT PORTION WHICH
ACCRUES AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF ITS CARS BY OTHERS IN MINNESOTA. 
HENCE IT IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE FORMULA TO DEDUCT ALL OF ITS DEBIT
BALANCES BUT ONLY THE PORTION THEREOF WHICH IT PAYS OTHERS FOR THE USE
OF THEIR CARS IN MINNESOTA.  CERTAINLY IF APPELLANT RECEIVES $50,000
FROM ONE ROAD FOR USE OF APPELLANT'S CARS IN MINNESOTA AND PAYS ANOTHER
ROAD $50,000 FOR APPELLANT'S USE OF THAT ROAD'S CARS OUTSIDE OF
MINNESOTA, IT CANNOT REALISTICALLY BE SAID THAT NO PART OF THE $50,000
RECEIVED BY APPELLANT HAS A MINNESOTA ORIGIN.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
WHOLE $50,000 PAID APPELLANT DERIVES FROM USE OF ITS CARS IN
MINNESOTA.  FOR MINNESOTA THEN TO LAY A TAX ON THE WHOLE AMOUNT (AS IT
DOES UNDER THIS FORMULA) IS TO EXERCISE A JURISDICTION WHICH
CONSTITUTIONALLY IS HERS.  SIMILARLY TO PERMIT UNDER THE FORMULA A
DEDUCTION OF ONLY THOSE DEBIT BALANCES OWING BY VIRTUE OF THE USE BY
APPELLANT IN MINNESOTA OF CARS OF OTHER ROADS RESULTS IN DETERMINING A
NET CREDIT BALANCE FOR ITS MINNESOTA ACTIVITY OF RENTING OUT AND
BORROWING FREIGHT CARS.  TO HOLD THAT THAT NET CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
BE TAXED BY MINNESOTA BUT MUST BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS
MADE BY APPELLANT FOR ITS USE OF CARS IN OTHER STATES WOULD BE TO
DEPRIVE MINNESOTA OF HER JURISDICTION OVER PROPERTY WITHIN HER
BORDERS.  FN6 FOR AS APPELLANT'S CARS MOVE OVER TRACKS OF OTHER ROADS
IN MINNESOTA AND AS CARS OF OTHER ROADS MOVE OVER ITS TRACKS IN
MINNESOTA, CERTAIN CREDITS AND DEBITS ACCRUE.  TO SAY THAT THE
RESULTANT NET CREDIT BALANCE DOES NOT DERIVE WHOLLY FROM OPERATIONS
WITHIN MINNESOTA IS TO DENY THE FACT. 

BUT THE NUB OF APPELLANT'S OBJECTION SEEMS TO REST ON THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  MOST OF ITS CONTENTIONS
COME BACK TO THE POINT THAT IT HAS ONLY 30 ODD MILES OF TRACKS IN THE
STATE.  ON THIS PHASE, APPELLANT MAKES TWO POINTS.  FIRST, AS COMPARED
WITH OTHER ROADS HAVING EXTENSIVE MILEAGE IN MINNESOTA, IT IS PERMITTED
TO DEDUCT ONLY A SMALL FRACTION (BETWEEN 0.1% AND 0.13%) OF ITS DEBIT
BALANCES.  SECOND, IT IS PENALIZED FOR HAVING NOMINAL TRACKAGE IN
MINNESOTA, FOR ROADS WITH NO TRACKAGE IN THE STATE PAY NO TAX ON THESE
ITEMS THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL REVENUES FROM RENTALS OF CARS
FOR USE IN MINNESOTA. 

WE HAVE IN SUBSTANCE ALREADY DEALT WITH THE FIRST OF THESE
CONTENTIONS.  ALL ROADS OPERATING IN MINNESOTA ARE TAXED ON PRECISELY
THE SAME, NOT ON DIFFERENT BASES.  SO FAR AS THE PRESENT INCIDENCE OF
THE STATUTE IS CONCERNED, THE TAX IS LAID ON THE NET CREDIT BALANCES
FROM THE BUSINESS OF RENTING AND BORROWING CARS USED IN MINNESOTA.  THE
FACT THAT APPELLANT RECEIVES A LARGER NET THAN OTHERS FROM ITS
MINNESOTA ACTIVITY OF RENTING AND BORROWING CARS AND HENCE MUST PAY A
LARGER TAX DOES NOT MEAN THAT MINNESOTA HAS OVERSTEPPED HER
CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS.  APPELLANT IS NOT SINGLED OUT FOR SPECIAL
TREATMENT.  FN7  IT IS NOT TAXED ON ONE FORMULA; THE OTHERS, ON
ANOTHER.  THEY ARE ALL TAXED PURSUANT TO THE SAME FORMULA; AND THE
FORMULA IS ADAPTED TO ASCERTAINMENT OF VALUE OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN
MINNESOTA.  AND APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE TAX IS DISCRIMINATORY
BECAUSE IT HAS ONLY 30 MILES OF TRACK YET MUST PAY A TAX, WHILE OTHERS
WITH HUNDREDS OF MILES MAY PAY NONE, IS BESIDE THE POINT.  THE BUSINESS
TAXED IS NOT ADEQUATELY MEASURED BY TRACKAGE ALONE.  THOUGH APPELLANT
HAS BUT FEW MILES OF TRACK IN THE STATE, NEVERTHELESS ITS CARS ARE
CONSTANTLY MOVING OVER OTHER LINES IN MINNESOTA.  THAT PRODUCES
REVENUE.  A TAX ON THAT REVENUE CERTAINLY BEARS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO
APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN THE STATE WHICH NO COMPUTATION BASED ON
TRACKAGE CAN ALTER. 

AS TO APPELLANT'S SECOND OBJECTION UNDER THIS HEAD, LITTLE NEED BE
SAID.  COMPANIES NOT OWNING OR OPERATING ROADS WITHIN THE STATE ARE NOT
REACHED BY THIS TAX STATUTE; ROADS THAT DO, ARE.  THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT
DISCRIMINATION IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  APPELLANT HAS SUBJECTED
ITSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF MINNESOTA.  THOSE DOING LIKEWISE ARE
SIMILARLY TREATED BY THE STATE, AS ARE DOMESTIC COMPANIES ENGAGED IN
THAT BUSINESS.  THE FACT THAT THAT ENTAILS BURDENS IS A PART OF THE
PRICE FOR ENJOYMENT OF THE PRIVILEGES WHICH MINNESOTA EXTENDS.  FN8 

APPELLANT MAKES SOME POINT OF DOUBLE TAXATION.  BUT THE FLAW IN THAT
ARGUMENT IS EXPOSED BY THE FAMILIAR DOCTRINE, APTLY PHRASED BY MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES, THAT THE "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NO MORE FORBIDS DOUBLE
TAXATION THAN IT DOES DOUBLING THE AMOUNT OF A TAX; SHORT OF
CONFISCATION OR PROCEEDINGS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON OTHER GROUNDS."  FN9 

APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION BASED ON THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS
BEEN ADEQUATELY ANSWERED IN THE PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
SUSTAINING OTHER TAXES LEVIED UNDER THIS STATUTE.  FN10  THE RIGHT OF A
STATE TO TAX PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH IT IS USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS
WELL SETTLED.  AND CERTAINLY IF SUCH TAX HAS A FAIR RELATION TO THE
PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN THE STATE (AS THIS TAX CLEARLY DOES) IT CANNOT BE
SAID TO RUN AFOUL OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST STATE TAXATION ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AS CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER ONCE SAID ON THAT POINT,
"  ...  BY WHATEVER NAME THE EXACTION MAY BE CALLED, IF IT AMOUNTS TO
NO MORE THAN THE ORDINARY TAX UPON PROPERTY OR A JUST EQUIVALENT
THEREFOR, ASCERTAINED BY REFERENCE THERETO, IT IS NOT OPEN TO ATTACK AS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION."  FN11 

AS TO APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF RETROACTIVITY, LITTLE NEED BE SAID.  WE
HAVE HERE AT MOST A MERE RECOMPUTATION BY THE STATE OF TAXES PAYABLE
UNDER A STATUTE WHICH WAS EXISTENT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PERIOD IN
QUESTION.  NEGLECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS, MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE
LAW, LACK OF ADEQUATE MACHINERY, HAVE NEVER BEEN CONSTITUTIONAL
BARRIERS TO A STATE REACHING BACKWARD FOR TAXES.  FN12  HENCE THE CASE
FALLS FAR SHORT OF TYPES OF RETROACTIVE TAX LEGISLATION WHICH HAVE
REPEATEDLY BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT,  FN13  IN RECOGNITION OF THE
PRINCIPLE THAT LIABILITY FOR RETROACTIVE TAXES IS "ONE OF THE NOTORIOUS
INCIDENTS OF SOCIAL LIFE."  FN14  CERTAINLY WHERE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD IS AFFORDED, AS HERE, THERE CAN BE NO COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.  FN15 

IN CONCLUSION, APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CREDITS HERE TAXED ARE "GROSS EARNINGS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  BUT ON SUCH MATTERS OF CONSTRUCTION
WE DEFER TO THE STATE COURT'S INTERPRETATION.  FN16  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 2246, MASON'S MINN. STATS. 1927, PROVIDES IN PART: 

"EVERY RAILROAD COMPANY OWNING OR OPERATING ANY LINE OF RAILROAD
SITUATED WITHIN OR PARTLY WITHIN THIS STATE, SHALL, DURING THE YEAR
1913 AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, PAY INTO THE TREASURY OF THE STATE, IN
LIEU OF ALL TAXES, UPON ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THIS STATE OWNED OR
OPERATED FOR RAILWAY PURPOSES, BY SUCH COMPANY, INCLUDING EQUIPMENT,
APPURTENANCES, APPENDAGES AND FRANCHISES THEREOF, A SUM OF MONEY EQUAL
TO FIVE PER CENT OF THE GROSS EARNINGS DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF
SUCH LINE OF RAILWAY WITHIN THIS STATE." 

SEC. 2247 DEFINES "GROSS EARNINGS" AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE TERM 'THE GROSS EARNINGS DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF SUCH LINE
OF RAILWAY WITHIN THIS STATE,' AS USED IN SECTION 1 OF THIS ACT IS
HEREBY DECLARED AND SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN, ALL EARNINGS ON
BUSINESS BEGINNING AND ENDING WITHIN THE STATE, AND A PROPORTION, BASED
UPON THE PROPORTION OF THE MILEAGE WITHIN THE STATE TO THE ENTIRE
MILEAGE OVER WHICH SUCH BUSINESS IS DONE, OF EARNINGS ON ALL INTERSTATE
BUSINESS PASSING THROUGH, INTO OR OUT OF THE STATE." 

FN2  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 278 U.S. 503; CUDAHY PACKING
CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450; UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA,
223 U.S. 335. 

FN3  THESE ARE OPERATED UNDER A 47 YEAR LEASE BEGINNING JULY 1, 1904,
FROM THE DUBUQUE & SIOUX CITY RAILROAD CO. 

FN4  CF. ROWLEY V. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO., 293 U.S. 102,
109. 

FN5  CF. DANE V. JACKSON, 256 U.S. 589, 598-599. 

FN6  SEE POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. ADAMS, 155 U.S. 688, 696. 

FN7  SEE SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. WATTS, 260 U.S. 519; AMERICAN SUGAR
REFINING CO. V. LOUISIANA, 179 U.S. 89. 

FN8  SEE ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 302 U.S. 22, 31. 

FN9  FT. SMITH LUMBER CO. V. ARKANSAS, 251 U.S. 532, 533. 

FN10  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA; CUDAHY PACKING CO. V.
MINNESOTA; AND UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN11  POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. ADAMS, SUPRA NOTE 6, P. 697. 

FN12  FLORIDA CENTRAL & PENINSULAR R.R. CO. V. REYNOLDS, 183 U.S.
471; WHITE RIVER LUMBER CO. V. ARKANSAS, 279 U.S. 692. 

FN13  SEATTLE V. KELLEHER, 195 U.S. 351; WAGNER V. BALTIMORE, 239
U.S. 207. 

FN14  SEATTLE V. KELLEHER, SUPRA NOTE 13, P. 360; LEAGUE V. TEXAS,
184 U.S. 156. 

FN15  KENTUCKY UNION CO. V. KENTUCKY, 219 U.S. 140, 154. 

FN16  CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY V. ILLINOIS, 188 U.S. 662, 674;
STORAASLI V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 57, 62. 
..END :













MILLER V. HATFIELD, 309 U.S. 1 


NO. 237.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1940.  - 101
F.2D 748, REVERSED. 


UPON FINDING THAT A NECESSARY PARTY TO AN APPEAL IS ABSENT, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD SUSTAIN A MOTION OF THE APPELLANT FOR A
CITATION TO BRING HIM IN, NOT DISMISS THE APPEAL. 

MILLER V. HATFIELD, TRUSTEE IN FARMER DEBTOR BANKRUPTCY, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED BY A FARMER-DEBTOR PURSUANT TO SEC. 75
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  UNDER AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, APPROVING
AN ORDER OF THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, PETITIONER'S FARM WAS SOLD
TO ONE OF THE COTRUSTEES OF A MORTGAGE UPON THE PROPERTY AND THE SALE
WAS CONFIRMED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

A PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS DENIED.  UPON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, THAT COURT FOUND THAT THE PURCHASER AT THE SALE WAS
NOT A PARTY TO THE APPEAL AND DISMISSED IT.  PETITIONER SOUGHT A
REHEARING UPON THE GROUND THAT THE PURCHASER HAD ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE
APPEAL AND HAD APPEARED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS JOINING IN AN OBJECTION
TO AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR FILING THE RECORD AND ALSO SEEKING
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER OR AN ADDITIONAL SUPERSEDEAS BOND. 
PETITIONER ALSO ASKED THAT IF IT BE CONSIDERED THAT THE PURCHASER WAS
NOT ALREADY BEFORE THE COURT, A CITATION SHOULD BE ISSUED TO BRING HIM
IN.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED BOTH APPLICATIONS.  CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED, 308 U.S. 534. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS
ERRONEOUS.  IF THE COURT DEEMED THE PURCHASER TO BE A NECESSARY PARTY
AND NOT BEFORE THE COURT, THE MOTION TO ISSUE A CITATION TO HIM SHOULD
HAVE BEEN GRANTED.  R.S. 954, 28 U.S.C. 777.  DODGE V. KNOWLES, 114
U.S. 430, 438; KNICKERBOCKER LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. PENDLETON, 115 U.S.
339; IN RE KNOX-POWELL-STOCKTON CO., 97 F.2D 61. 

THE DECREE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 
..END :








MCGOLDRICK V. GULF OIL CORP., 309 U.S. 2 


NO. 473.  ARGUED JANUARY 2, 3, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1940. 


JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT CAN NOT BE
ENTERTAINED IF IT DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR THAT THE DECISION DID
NOT REST UPON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND. 

MCGOLDRICK, COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, V. GULF OIL CORP.* 

*REHEARING GRANTED, FEB. 5, 1940, SEE POST, P. 692. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK.  CERTIORARI, 308 U.S.
545, TO REVIEW 281 N.Y. 647; 22 N.E.2D 480, DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THROUGH ITS COMPTROLLER, ASSESSED A TAX AGAINST
RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO SALES OF OIL MANUFACTURED IN THAT CITY IN A
BONDED MANUFACTURING WAREHOUSE, CLASS 6, ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE
CUSTOMS LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CRUDE OIL HAVING BEEN IMPORTED
FROM VENEZUELA AND THE SALES OF THE MANUFACTURED OIL HAVING BEEN MADE
TO SUPPLY FUEL TO VESSELS ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE
APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION OF THE
COMPTROLLER CONSIDERING THE TAX TO BE A BURDEN UPON FOREIGN COMMERCE. 
256 APP. DIV. 207.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE
APPELLATE DIVISION, WITHOUT OPINION.  281 N.Y. 647.  CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED, 308 U.S. 545. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT BY THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT
IT ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX SOLELY BECAUSE OF VIOLATION OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT THE DECISION OF
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE DID NOT REST UPON AN ADEQUATE NON
FEDERAL GROUND.  JUD.  CODE, SEC. 237(B), 28 U.S.C. 344(B).  LYNCH V.
NEW YORK, 293 U.S. 52; HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14; NEW YORK CITY V.
CENTRAL SAVINGS BANK, 306 U.S. 661. 

THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS DISMISSED FOR THE WANT OF JURISDICTION. 
DISMISSED. 
..END :












REAL ESTATE TITLE CO. V. U.S., 309 U.S. 13 


NO. 229.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1940.  - DECIDED JANUARY 15, 1940.  - 102
F.2D 582, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SEC. 23(K), AND TREASURY REGULATIONS
74, ART. 206, A DEDUCTION FOR OBSOLESCENCE IS NOT ALLOWED FOR A PLANT
WHICH HAS NOT FUNCTIONALLY DEPRECIATED BUT WHICH IS A NEEDLESS
DUPLICATION ACQUIRED IN A VOLUNTARY BUSINESS CONSOLIDATION, AND WHICH
THE MANAGEMENT DESIRES TO ELIMINATE, PREFERRING ANOTHER WHICH IS ALSO
ADEQUATE BUT WHICH CAN BE OPERATED WITH FEWER EMPLOYEES.  PP. 15-17. 

REAL ESTATE-LAND TITLE & TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 308 U.S. 539, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT FOR A REFUND OF INCOME
TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, WAS FORMED IN OCTOBER 1927 AS
A RESULT OF A STATUTORY CONSOLIDATION OR MERGER OF THREE COMPANIES. 
TWO OF THE CONSTITUENT COMPANIES OWNED TITLE SEARCH PLANTS WHICH WERE
AMONG THE ASSETS ACQUIRED BY PETITIONER AS A RESULT OF THE
CONSOLIDATION.  WHILE IT WAS KNOWN THAT TWO TITLE PLANTS WOULD BE
ACQUIRED ON THE CONSOLIDATION, THERE WAS AT THAT TIME NO DEFINITE PLAN
FOR THEIR DISPOSITION.  BUT AN IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION WAS MADE AND IT
WAS DECIDED TO STORE ONE OF THE PLANTS IN ORDER TO EFFECT ECONOMIES OF
OPERATION.  THAT WAS DONE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE
CONSUMMATION OF THE CONSOLIDATION.  ABOUT TWO MONTHS THEREAFTER IT WAS
DECIDED THAT THE PLANT RETAINED IN USE WAS ADEQUATE AND THAT THE ONE IN
STORAGE WOULD NOT BE NEEDED.  ALTHOUGH FOR A BRIEF PERIOD SOME SLIGHT
USE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE OF THE STORED PLANT,  FN1  IT WAS NOT
KEPT UP TO DATE BY THE ADDITION OF CURRENT RECORDINGS.  AS A RESULT IT
HAD ONLY A SALVAGE VALUE BY OCTOBER 31, 1928.  MEANWHILE, NEGOTIATIONS
FOR ITS SALE HAD BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL. 

IN THIS ACTION PETITIONER SEEKS A REFUND OF INCOME TAXES FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1928, BASED ON THE REFUSAL OF THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO ALLOW A DEDUCTION FOR OBSOLESCENCE OF
THIS PLANT.  IT HAD BEEN CARRIED ON THE BOOKS OF THE CONSTITUENT
COMPANY AT $275,000 AND WAS BROUGHT INTO THE CONSOLIDATION AT
$800,000.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HOWEVER, FOUND THAT ITS VALUE ON MARCH
1, 1913, WAS $1,000,000; ON OCTOBER 31, 1928, $125,000 - MAKING AN
ACTUAL LOSS OF $875,000, WHICH THAT COURT ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION FOR
OBSOLESCENCE FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR 1928.  IT ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED A
REFUND.  THAT JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
(102 F.2D 582).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE ASSERTED CONFLICT
OF THAT DECISION WITH CROOKS V. KANSAS CITY TITLE & TRUST CO., 46 F.2D
928. 

SEC. 23(K) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928(45 STAT. 791) ALLOWS AS A
DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME A "REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR THE EXHAUSTION,
WEAR AND TEAR OF PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, INCLUDING A
REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR OBSOLESCENCE."  ADMITTEDLY, IF THE DEDUCTION
IS ALLOWED UNDER THIS PROVISION IT MUST BE FOR OBSOLESCENCE, AS THERE
HAS BEEN NO EXHAUSTION, WEAR OR TEAR OF THE TITLE PLANT WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT.  NOW IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE POPULAR SENSE A THING
WHICH IS OBSOLETE IS ONE WHICH IS NO LONGER USED, A MEANING WHICH GIVES
COLOR TO PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION SINCE THERE IS NO QUESTION
THAT THE TITLE PLANT HERE INVOLVED IS NO LONGER UTILIZED TO ANY DEGREE
WHATSOEVER.  BUT THE TERM "ALLOWANCE FOR OBSOLESCENCE," AS USED IN THE
ACT AND IN THE TREASURY REGULATIONS, HAS A NARROWER OR MORE TECHNICAL
MEANING THAN THAT DERIVED FROM THE COMMON, DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF
OBSOLETE.  THE TREASURY REGULATIONS  FN2  STATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH AN ALLOWANCE FOR OBSOLESCENCE OF PHYSICAL PROPERTY MAY BE
ALLOWED, VIZ, WHERE SUCH PROPERTY IS "BEING EFFECTED BY ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS THAT WILL RESULT IN ITS BEING ABANDONED AT A FUTURE DATE
PRIOR TO THE END OF ITS NORMAL USEFUL LIFE, SO THAT DEPRECIATION
DEDUCTIONS ALONE ARE INSUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE COST (OR OTHER BASIS)
AT THE END OF ITS ECONOMIC TERM OF USEFULNESS."  THIS COURT, WITHOUT
UNDERTAKING A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION, HAS HELD THAT OBSOLESCENCE FOR
PURPOSES OF THE REVENUE ACTS "MAY ARISE FROM CHANGES IN THE ART,
SHIFTING OF BUSINESS CENTERS, LOSS OF TRADE, INADEQUACY, SUPERSESSION,
PROHIBITORY LAWS AND OTHER THINGS WHICH, APART FROM PHYSICAL
DETERIORATION, OPERATE TO CAUSE PLANT ELEMENTS OR THE PLANT AS A WHOLE
TO SUFFER DIMINUTION IN VALUE."  UNITED STATES CARTRIDGE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 284 U.S. 511, 516.  SEE ALSO BURNET V. NIAGARA FALLS BREWING
CO., 282 U.S. 648, 654.  SUCH SPECIFIC EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE THE TYPE OF
"ECONOMIC CONDITIONS" WHOSE EFFECT ON PHYSICAL PROPERTY IS RECOGNIZED
AS OBSOLESCENCE BY THE TREASURY REGULATIONS.  OTHERS COULD BE MENTIONED
WHICH SIMILARLY CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE RELENTLESS MARCH OF PHYSICAL
PROPERTY TO THE JUNK PILE.  BUT IN GENERAL, OBSOLESCENCE UNDER THE ACT
CONNOTES FUNCTIONAL DEPRECIATION, AS IT DOES IN ACCOUNTING AND
ENGINEERING TERMINOLOGY.  FN3 MORE THAN NON-USE OR DISUSE IS NECESSARY
TO ESTABLISH IT.  FN4  TO BE SURE, REASONS OF ECONOMY MAY CAUSE A
MANAGEMENT TO DISCARD A TITLE PLANT EITHER WHERE IT HAS BECOME OUTMODED
BY IMPROVED DEVICES OR WHERE IT IS ACQUIRED AS A DUPLICATE AND
THEREFORE IS USELESS.  BUT NOT EVERY DECISION OF MANAGEMENT TO ABANDON
FACILITIES OR TO DISCONTINUE THEIR USE GIVES RISE TO A CLAIM FOR
OBSOLESCENCE.  FOR OBSOLESCENCE UNDER THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE
OPERATIVE CAUSE OF THE PRESENT OR GROWING USELESSNESS ARISE FROM
EXTERNAL FORCES WHICH MAKE IT DESIRABLE OR IMPERATIVE THAT THE PROPERTY
BE REPLACED.  WHAT THOSE OPERATIVE CAUSES MAY BE WILL BE DEPENDENT ON A
WIDE VARIETY OF FACTUAL SITUATIONS.  "NEW AND MODERN METHODS" APPEAR TO
HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE REAL CAUSES OF ABANDONMENT OF THE TITLE PLANT IN
CROOKS V. KANSAS CITY TITLE & TRUST CO., SUPRA.  SUFFICE IT HERE TO SAY
THAT NO SUCH EXTERNAL CAUSES ARE PRESENT, FOR THE RECORD SHOWS LITTLE
MORE THAN THE DESIRE OF A MANAGEMENT TO ELIMINATE ONE PLANT WHICH WAS A
NEEDLESS DUPLICATION OF ANOTHER BUT WHICH FUNCTIONALLY WAS ADEQUATE. 
FN5  THE FACT THAT FEWER EMPLOYEES WERE REQUIRED TO OPERATE THE ONE
RETAINED THAN THE ONE DISCARDED IS INCONCLUSIVE HERE.  FOR THIS IS NOT
THE CASE OF ACQUISITION OF A NEW PLANT TO TAKE THE PLACE OF ONE
OUTMODED OR LESS EFFICIENT.  RATHER THE CONCLUSION IS IRRESISTIBLE THAT
THE PLANT WAS DISCARDED ONLY AS A PROXIMATE RESULT OF PETITIONER'S
VOLUNTARY ACTION IN ACQUIRING EXCESS CAPACITY. 

IN VIEW OF THIS CONCLUSION, WE DO NOT REACH RESPONDENT'S FURTHER
OBJECTIONS TO ALLOWANCE OF THIS CLAIM ON GROUNDS OF OBSOLESCENCE. 

BUT PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT IN ANY EVENT IT HAS ABANDONED THE PLANT
AND HENCE IS ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION UNDER SEC. 23(F) OF THE 1928 ACT
WHICH ALLOWS A CORPORATION TO DEDUCT "LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR AND NOT COMPENSATED FOR BY INSURANCE OR OTHERWISE." 
WHETHER PETITIONER HAS SATISFIED THOSE REQUIREMENTS WE DO NOT DECIDE,
FOR ITS CLAIM FOR REFUND WAS BASED EXCLUSIVELY AND SOLELY ON THE GROUND
THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO AN ALLOWANCE FOR OBSOLESCENCE.  HENCE, IN
ABSENCE OF A WAIVER BY THE GOVERNMENT, TUCKER V. ALEXANDER, 275 U.S.
228, OR A PROPER AMENDMENT, PETITIONER IS PRECLUDED IN THIS SUIT FROM
RESTING ITS CLAIM ON ANOTHER GROUND.  UNITED STATES V. FELT & TARRANT
MFG. CO., 283 U.S. 269.  THERE HAS BEEN NO AMENDMENT AND THERE ARE NO
FACTS ESTABLISHING A WAIVER. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  EVIDENCE OF USE SUBSEQUENT TO THE CONSOLIDATION OR MERGER IS
QUITE TENUOUS, THE ONLY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OCCURRING IMMEDIATELY PRIOR
TO THE ACTUAL CONSUMMATION OF THE CONSOLIDATION ON OCTOBER 31, 1927. 

FN2  TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, ART. 206, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1928, PROVIDES IN FULL: 

"WITH RESPECT TO PHYSICAL PROPERTY THE WHOLE OR ANY PORTION OF WHICH
IS CLEARLY SHOWN BY THE TAXPAYER AS BEING AFFECTED BY ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS THAT WILL RESULT IN ITS BEING ABANDONED AT A FUTURE DATE
PRIOR TO THE END OF ITS NORMAL USEFUL LIFE, SO THAT DEPRECIATION
DEDUCTIONS ALONE ARE INSUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE COST (OR OTHER BASIS)
AT THE END OF ITS ECONOMIC TERM OF USEFULNESS, A REASONABLE DEDUCTION
FOR OBSOLESCENCE, IN ADDITION TO DEPRECIATION, MAY BE ALLOWED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS OBTAINING WITH RESPECT TO EACH ITEM OF
PROPERTY CONCERNING WHICH A CLAIM FOR OBSOLESCENCE IS MADE.  NO
DEDUCTION FOR OBSOLESCENCE WILL BE PERMITTED MERELY BECAUSE, IN THE
OPINION OF A TAXPAYER, THE PROPERTY MAY BECOME OBSOLETE AT SOME LATER
DATE.  THIS ALLOWANCE WILL BE CONFINED TO SUCH PORTION OF THE PROPERTY
ON WHICH OBSOLESCENCE IS DEFINITELY SHOWN TO BE SUSTAINED AND CAN NOT
BE HELD APPLICABLE TO AN ENTIRE PROPERTY UNLESS ALL PORTIONS THEREOF
ARE AFFECTED BY THE CONDITIONS TO WHICH OBSOLESCENCE IS FOUND TO BE
DUE."  SEE ALSO BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN "F," JANUARY,
1931. 

FN3  KESTER, ADVANCED ACCOUNTING (3RD ED. 1933) CH. 10; HATFIELD,
ACCOUNTING (1927) CH. V; SALIERS, DEPRECIATION PRINCIPLES AND
APPLICATIONS (3RD ED. 1939) CH. 4; KESTER, DEPRECIATION (1924);
TRANSACTIONS, AMER.  SOC.  C.E., VOL. 81, P. 1527(1917); MARSTON & AGG,
ENGINEERING VALUATION (1936) PP. 83-85. 

FN4  2 PAUL & MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, SEC. 20.114. 

FN5  ACCORDING TO PETITIONER'S OWN WITNESSES, THE DISCARDED PLANT WAS
A "MORE COMPLETE PLANT THAN ANY OTHER PLANT IN THE CITY"; AND IT HAD A
"BACKGROUND WHICH WENT ALL THE WAY BACK TO WILLIAM PENN." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :
















HIGGINS V. SMITH, 308 U.S. 473 


NO. 146.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1940.  - 102
F.2D 456, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 23(E) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AUTHORIZING IN THE
COMPUTATION OF INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR, NO DEDUCTIBLE LOSS OCCURS UPON A SALE BY THE TAXPAYER TO
A CORPORATION WHOLLY OWNED BY HIM.  P. 476. 

2.  THE CONTENTION THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS INCONSISTENT WITH PRIOR
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS AND UNFAIR TO THE TAXPAYER -
EXAMINED AND REJECTED.  P. 478. 

3.  FROM THE FACT THAT SEC. 24(A)(6) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934
PROVIDES EXPLICITLY THAT LOSSES DETERMINED BY SALES TO CORPORATIONS
CONTROLLED BY THE TAXPAYER ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT
THE LAW FORMERLY WAS OTHERWISE.  P. 479. 

4.  CLAIMS OF ERROR PREJUDICIAL TO THE TAXPAYER, ARISING OUT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S RULINGS ON EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, HELD WITHOUT MERIT. 
P. 480. 

HIGGINS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. SMITH. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 536, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL, ON CROSS-APPEALS,
OF A JUDGMENT IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY A TAXPAYER FOR REFUND OF A SUM PAID
AS INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CERTIORARI WAS ALLOWED  FN1  FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT  FN2  ON ACCOUNT OF AN ASSERTED
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V. GRIFFITHS.  FN3 

THE ISSUE CONSIDERED HERE IS WHETHER A TAXPAYER UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT A LOSS ARISING FROM
THE SALE OF SECURITIES TO A CORPORATION WHOLLY OWNED BY THE TAXPAYER. 
THE STATUTE INVOLVED IS SEC. 23(E) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  FN4 

THE INNISFAIL CORPORATION WAS WHOLLY OWNED BY THE TAXPAYER, MR.
SMITH.  IT WAS ORGANIZED IN 1926 UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW JERSEY.  THE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION WERE SUBORDINATES OF THE
TAXPAYER.  ITS TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED ON UNDER HIS DIRECTION AND
WERE RESTRICTED LARGELY TO OPERATIONS IN BUYING SECURITIES FROM OR
SELLING THEM TO THE TAXPAYER.  WHILE ITS ACCOUNTS WERE KEPT COMPLETELY
SEPARATE FROM THOSE OF THE TAXPAYER, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT INNISFAIL
WAS HIS CORPORATE SELF.  AS DEALINGS BY A CORPORATION OFFERED
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCOME AND ESTATE TAX SAVINGS, INNISFAIL WAS CREATED
TO GAIN THESE ADVANTAGES FOR ITS STOCKHOLDER.  ONE OF ITS FIRST ACTS
WAS TO TAKE OVER AN OPTION BELONGING TO THE TAXPAYER FOR THE
ACQUISITION BY EXCHANGE OF A BLOCK OF CHRYSLER COMMON STOCK.  THROUGH
MUTUAL TRANSACTIONS IN BUYING AND SELLING SECURITIES, AND RECEIVING
DIVIDENDS, THE BALANCE OF ACCOUNTS BETWEEN INNISFAIL AND THE TAXPAYER
RESULTED, ON DECEMBER 29, 1932, IN AN INDEBTEDNESS FROM HIM TO
INNISFAIL OF NEARLY $70,000.  ON THAT DATE, AS A PARTIAL PAYMENT ON
THIS INDEBTEDNESS, A NUMBER OF SHARES OF STOCK WERE SOLD TO THE
CORPORATION BY THE TAXPAYER AT MARKET.  THE SECURITIES SOLD HAD COST
THE TAXPAYER MORE THAN THE PRICE CHARGED TO THE CORPORATION, AND IN
CARRYING OUT THE TRANSACTION THE TAXPAYER HAD IN MIND THE TAX
CONSEQUENCES TO HIMSELF. 

IN COMPUTING HIS NET TAXABLE INCOME FOR 1932, THE TAXPAYER DEDUCTED
AS A LOSS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF THESE SECURITIES AND THEIR
SALE PRICE TO HIS WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATION.  THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE RULED AGAINST THE CLAIM, WHEREUPON RESPONDENT PAID THE
TAX AND BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR REFUND IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  THE CASE WAS TRIED BEFORE
A JURY AND THE VERDICT WAS ADVERSE TO THE TAXPAYER'S CLAIM THAT THE
PURPORTED SALES OF THESE SECURITIES TO INNISFAIL MARKED THE REALIZATION
OF LOSS ON THEIR PURCHASE.  ON APPEAL THE JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED AND THE
CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL.  IT WAS THE
OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE FACTS AS DETAILED ABOVE, AS A
MATTER OF LAW, ESTABLISHED THE TRANSFER OF THE SECURITIES TO INNISFAIL
AS AN EVENT DETERMINING LOSS. 

UNDER SEC. 23(E) DEDUCTIONS ARE PERMITTED FOR LOSSES "SUSTAINED
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR."  THE LOSS IS SUSTAINED WHEN REALIZED BY A
COMPLETED TRANSACTION DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT.  FN5  IN THIS CASE THE
JURY WAS INSTRUCTED TO FIND WHETHER THESE SALES BY THE TAXPAYER TO
INNISFAIL WERE ACTUAL TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY "OUT OF MR. SMITH AND INTO
SOMETHING THAT EXISTED SEPARATE AND APART FROM HIM" OR WHETHER THEY
WERE TO BE REGARDED AS SIMPLY "A TRANSFER BY MR. SMITH'S LEFT HAND,
BEING HIS INDIVIDUAL HAND, INTO HIS RIGHT HAND, BEING HIS CORPORATE
HAND, SO THAT IN TRUTH AND FACT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER AT ALL."  THE
JURY AGREED THE LATTER SITUATION EXISTED.  THERE WAS SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE OF THE TAXPAYER'S CONTINUED DOMINATION AND CONTROL OF THE
SECURITIES, THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP IN THE INNISFAIL CORPORATION, TO
SUPPORT THIS VERDICT, EVEN THOUGH OWNERSHIP IN THE SECURITIES HAD
PASSED TO THE CORPORATION IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER WAS THE SOLE
STOCKHOLDER.  INDEED THIS DOMINATION AND CONTROL IS SO OBVIOUS IN A
WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATION AS TO REQUIRE A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION THAT NO
LOSS IN THE STATUTORY SENSE COULD OCCUR UPON A SALE BY A TAXPAYER TO
SUCH AN ENTITY. 

IT IS CLEAR AN ACTUAL CORPORATION EXISTED.  NUMEROUS TRANSACTIONS
WERE CARRIED ON BY IT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.  IT PAID TAXES, STATE AND
NATIONAL, FRANCHISE AND INCOME.  BUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CORPORATION IS ONLY ONE INCIDENT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE AN ACTUAL SALE
TO IT UNDER THE REVENUE ACT.  TITLE, WE SHALL ASSUME, PASSED TO
INNISFAIL BUT THE TAXPAYER RETAINED THE CONTROL.  THROUGH THE CORPORATE
FORMS HE MIGHT MANIPULATE AS HE CHOSE THE EXERCISE OF SHAREHOLDER'S
RIGHTS IN THE VARIOUS CORPORATIONS, ISSUERS OF THE SECURITIES, AND
COMMAND THE DISPOSITION OF THE SECURITIES THEMSELVES.  THERE IS NOT
ENOUGH OF SUBSTANCE IN SUCH A SALE FINALLY TO DETERMINE A LOSS. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING GREGORY V.
HELVERING  FN6  FINDS EXPRESSION IN THE RULE CALLING FOR A REALISTIC
APPROACH TO TAX SITUATIONS.  AS SO BROAD AND UNCHALLENGED A PRINCIPLE
FURNISHES ONLY A GENERAL DIRECTION, IT IS OF LITTLE VALUE IN THE
SOLUTION OF TAX PROBLEMS.  IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GREGORY CASE IS
VIEWED AS A PRECEDENT FOR THE DISREGARD OF A TRANSFER OF ASSETS WITHOUT
A BUSINESS PURPOSE BUT SOLELY TO REDUCE TAX LIABILITY, IT GIVES SUPPORT
TO THE NATURAL CONCLUSION THAT TRANSACTIONS, WHICH DO NOT VARY CONTROL
OR CHANGE THE FLOW OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS, ARE TO BE DISMISSED FROM
CONSIDERATION.  THERE IS NO ILLUSION ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF A TAX
EXACTION.  EACH TAX, ACCORDING TO A LEGISLATIVE PLAN, RAISES FUNDS TO
CARRY ON GOVERNMENT.  THE PURPOSE HERE IS TO TAX EARNINGS AND PROFITS
LESS EXPENSES AND LOSSES.  IF ONE OR THE OTHER FACTOR IN ANY
CALCULATION IS UNREAL, IT DISTORTS THE LIABILITY OF THE PARTICULAR
TAXPAYER TO THE DETRIMENT OR ADVANTAGE OF THE ENTIRE TAX-PAYING GROUP. 
FN7 

THE TAXPAYER CITES BURNET V. COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT COMPANY  FN8
AS A PRECEDENT FOR TREATING THE TAXPAYER AND HIS SOLELY OWNED
CORPORATION AS SEPARATE ENTITIES.  IN THAT CASE THE CORPORATION SOLD
STOCK TO THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER, THE ESTATE OF P.A.B. WIDENER.  THE
TRANSACTION SHOWED A BOOK PROFIT AND THE CORPORATION SOUGHT A RULING
THAT A SALE TO ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER COULD NOT RESULT IN A TAXABLE
PROFIT.  THIS COURT CONCLUDED OTHERWISE AND HELD THE IDENTITY OF
CORPORATION AND TAXPAYER DISTINCT FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION.  FN9  IN
THE COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT COMPANY CASE, THE TAXPAYER, FOR REASONS
SATISFACTORY TO ITSELF VOLUNTARILY HAD CHOSEN TO EMPLOY THE CORPORATION
IN ITS OPERATIONS.  A TAXPAYER IS FREE TO ADOPT SUCH ORGANIZATION FOR
HIS AFFAIRS AS HE MAY CHOOSE AND HAVING ELECTED TO DO SOME BUSINESS AS
A CORPORATION, HE MUST ACCEPT THE TAX DISADVANTAGES.  FN10 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACQUIESCE IN
THE TAXPAYER'S ELECTION OF THAT FORM FOR DOING BUSINESS WHICH IS MOST
ADVANTAGEOUS TO HIM.  THE GOVERNMENT MAY LOOK AT ACTUALITIES AND UPON
DETERMINATION THAT THE FORM EMPLOYED FOR DOING BUSINESS OR CARRYING OUT
THE CHALLENGED TAX EVENT IS UNREAL OR A SHAM MAY SUSTAIN OR DISREGARD
THE EFFECT OF THE FICTION AS BEST SERVES THE PURPOSES OF THE TAX
STATUTE.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD PERMIT THE SCHEMES OF TAXPAYERS TO
SUPERSEDE LEGISLATION IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE TIME AND MANNER OF
TAXATION.  IT IS COMMAND OF INCOME AND ITS BENEFITS WHICH MARKS THE
REAL OWNER OF PROPERTY.  FN11 

SUCH A CONCLUSION, URGES THE RESPONDENT, IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PRIOR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE INCOME TAX LAWS AND CONSEQUENTLY UNFAIR TO
HIM.  HE POINTS TO THE DECISIONS OF FOUR COURTS OF APPEALS WHICH HAVE
HELD LOSSES DETERMINED BY SALES TO CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS ALLOWABLE
FN12  AND FURTHER CALLS ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS HAS CONSISTENTLY REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION.  FN13  BUT THIS
JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE
RESPONDENT.  THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE HAS INSISTENTLY URGED SINCE
FEBRUARY 18, 1930, THE DATE OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS' DECISION IN
JONES V. HELVERING,  FN14 THAT A TRANSFER FROM A TAXPAYER TO A
CONTROLLED CORPORATION WAS INEFFECTIVE TO CLOSE A TRANSACTION FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF LOSS.  EVERY CASE CITED BY RESPONDENT IN THE COURTS OF
APPEALS AND BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND THE GOVERNMENT
SUPPORTING THAT CONTENTION.  THE BOARD'S RULING IN THE JONES CASE WAS
STANDING UNREVERSED AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION HERE INVOLVED,
DECEMBER 29, 1932.  IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE TRANSACTIONS HERE INVOLVED
AND AFTER THE REVERSAL OF THE BOARD IN THE JONES CASE ON APRIL 23,
1934, OR THIS COURT'S REFUSAL OF CERTIORARI ON OCTOBER 8, 1934, THAT
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND THE COURTS OF APPEALS, OVER GOVERNMENT
PROTESTS, RULED IN LINE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE JONES CASE.  IF THE BUREAU'S STAND IN THE
JONES CASE REPRESENTED A CHANGE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, THERE CAN
BE NO DOUBT THAT THE CHANGE OPERATED VALIDLY AT LEAST FROM 1930 ON.
FN15  AFTER THE JONES DEFEAT THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT RELIEF IN CONGRESS
AND AFTER THE JUDGMENT IN COMMISSIONER V. GRIFFITHS, SUPRA, CERTIORARI
HERE ON A CONFLICT IN PRINCIPLE BETWEEN CIRCUITS.  CERTAINLY THERE WAS
NO ACQUIESCENCE BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE TAXPAYER IN
RELYING UPON PRIOR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW.  FN16 

RESPONDENT MAKES THE FURTHER POINT THAT THE PASSAGE OF SEC. 24(A)(6)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 FN17  WHICH EXPLICITLY FORBIDS ANY DEDUCTION
FOR LOSSES DETERMINED BY SALES TO CORPORATIONS CONTROLLED BY THE
TAXPAYER IS CONVINCING PROOF THAT THE LAW WAS FORMERLY OTHERWISE.  THIS
DOES NOT FOLLOW.  AT MOST IT IS EVIDENCE THAT A LATER CONGRESS
CONSTRUED THE 1932 ACT TO RECOGNIZE SEPARABLE TAXABLE IDENTITIES
BETWEEN THE TAXPAYER AND HIS WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATION.  AS THE NEW
PROVISION GOES MUCH FARTHER THAN THE FORMER DECISIONS IN DISREGARDING
TRANSFERS BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY IT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN PASSED TO
EXTEND AS WELL AS CLARIFY THE EXISTING RULE.  THE SUGGESTION IS NOT
SUFFICIENTLY PERSUASIVE TO GIVE VITALITY TO A FUTILE TRANSFER. 

THE TAXPAYER HAS PRESERVED TWO OBJECTIONS TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S
RULINGS ON THE EVIDENCE.  HE CLAIMS THAT EVIDENCE AS TO TRANSACTIONS
BETWEEN THE TAXPAYER AND THE CORPORATION WHICH TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THE
SALE HERE INVOLVED WAS REMOTE AND HIGHLY PREJUDICAL.  WE THINK IT
APPARENT THAT THIS EVIDENCE WAS ENTIRELY RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT ISSUE;
THE HISTORY OF THE TAXPAYER'S RELATIONS WITH THE CORPORATION SHED
CONSIDERABLE LIGHT ON THE ACTUAL EFFECT OF THE SALE IN QUESTION.  THE
SECOND CONTENTION IS THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE CHARGED THE JURY TO GIVE
LESS EFFECT TO THE BOOK ENTRIES OF SMITH AND THE CORPORATION THAN THEY
WERE ENTITLED TO UNDER THE APPLICABLE BOOK ENTRY STATUTE.  FN18 THE
ALLEGED DEPARTURE FROM THE STATUTE HAS BUT DUBIOUS SUPPORT IN THE
RECORD, RESTING ON A SINGLE STATEMENT OF THE JUDGE LIFTED FROM ITS
CONTEXT AS PART OF AN EXTENDED COLLOQUY WITH COUNSEL.  IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF PREJUDICE TO THE
TAXPAYER. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  POST, P. 536. 

FN2  102 F.2D 456. 

FN3  103 F.2D 110, AFFIRMED SUB NOM. GRIFFITHS V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE,
P. 355. 

FN4  47 STAT. 169, 179-80.  "SEC.  23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS
INCOME. 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

     .         .         .     .         . 

"(E)  LOSSES BY INDIVIDUALS.  - SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS PROVIDED
IN SUBSECTION (R) OF THIS SECTION, IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, LOSSES
SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR AND NOT COMPENSATED FOR BY INSURANCE
OR OTHERWISE - 

"(1)  IF INCURRED IN TRADE OR BUSINESS; OR 

"(2)  IF INCURRED IN ANY TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO FOR PROFIT, THOUGH
NOT CONNECTED WITH THE TRADE OR BUSINESS; ..." 

FN5  BURNET V. HUFF, 288 U.S. 156, 161. 

FN6  293 U.S. 465. 

FN7  CF. STONE V. WHITE, 301 U.S. 532, 537. 

FN8  287 U.S. 415. 

FN9  SEE ALSO KLEIN V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 282 U.S. 19; DALTON V.
BOWERS, 287 U.S. 404; BURNET V. CLARK, 287 U.S. 410. 

FN10  CF. EDWARDS V. CHILE COPPER CO., 270 U.S. 452, 456. 

FN11  LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111; CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281U.S. 376;
GRIFFITHS V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 355. 

FN12  JONES V. HELVERING, 63 APP. D.C. 204; 71 F.2D 214(APRIL 23,
1934, REVERSING 18 B.T.A. 1225, DECIDED FEBRUARY 18, 1930), CERT.
DENIED OCTOBER 8, 1934, 293 U.S. 583; COMMISSIONER V. ELDRIDGE, 79 F.2D
629(NOVEMBER 4, 1935, AFFIRMING 30 B.T.A. 1322, DECIDED JULY 31, 1934);
COMMISSIONER V. MCCREERY, 83 F.2D 817(MAY 13, 1936, AFFIRMING B.T.A.
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF JUNE 19, 1935); FOSTER V. COMMISSIONER, 96 F.2D
130(APRIL 18, 1938, AFFIRMING B.T.A. MEMORANDUM OPINION OF DECEMBER 23,
1935); HELVERING V. JOHNSON, 104 F.2D 140(JUNE 1, 1939, AFFIRMING 37
B.T.A. 155, DECIDED JANUARY 21, 1938), AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED
COURT, POST, P. 523.    FN13  DAVID STEWART V. COMMISSIONER, 17 B.T.A.
604; CORRADO & GALIARDI, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, 22 B.T.A. 847; EDWARD
SECURITIES CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER, 30 B.T.A. 918; RALPH
HOCHSTETTER V. COMMISSIONER, 34 B.T.A. 791; JOHN THOMAS SMITH V.
COMMISSIONER, 

FN14  18 B.T.A. 1225, A REHEARING AFFIRMED MAY 26, 1932,
UNPUBLISHED. 

FN15  HELVERING V. WILSHIRE OIL CO., ANTE, P. 90. 

FN16  CF. ESTATE OF SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 39. 

FN17  48 STAT. 680, 691.  "SEC.  24.  ITEMS NOT DEDUCTIBLE. 

"(A)  GENERAL RULE.  - IN COMPUTING NET INCOME NO DEDUCTION SHALL IN
ANY CASE BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF - 

.         .         .         .         . 

"(6)  LOSS FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, (A) BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A FAMILY, OR (B) EXCEPT IN THE CASE
OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN LIQUIDATION, BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND A
CORPORATION IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL OWNS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, MORE
THAN 50 PER CENTUM IN VALUE OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK.  FOR THE PURPOSE
OF THIS PARAGRAPH - (C) AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS OWNING THE
STOCK OWNED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY HIS FAMILY; AND (D) THE FAMILY
OF AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL INCLUDE ONLY HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS (WHETHER
BY THE WHOLE OR HALF BLOOD), SPOUSE, ANCESTORS, AND LINEAL
DESCENDANTS." 

FN18  49 STAT. 1561, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 695. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  TO REVERSE IT IS TO
DISREGARD A RULE RESPECTING THE SEPARATE ENTITY OF CORPORATIONS HAVING
BASIS IN LOGIC AND PRACTICALITY AND WHICH HAS LONG BEEN OBSERVED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE ACTS. 

SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE SYSTEM OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, CAPITAL
GAINS HAVE BEEN TAXED AND CERTAIN CAPITAL LOSSES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS
CREDITS AGAINST SUCH GAINS.  IN ORDER THAT THIS SYSTEM MIGHT BE
PRACTICAL IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY TO SELECT SOME EVENT AS THE CRITERION
OF REALIZATION OF GAIN OR LOSS.  THE REVENUE LAWS HAVE SELECTED THE
TIME OF THE CLOSING OF A CAPITAL TRANSACTION AS THE OCCASION FOR
RECKONING GAIN OR LOSS ON A CAPITAL ASSET.  A TYPICAL METHOD OF CLOSURE
IS A SALE OF THE ASSET. 

AS THE SALE IS VOLUNTARILY MADE BY THE TAXPAYER, HIS DETERMINATION
WHEN HE SHALL SELL AFFECTS HIS CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS.  HE, THEREFORE, IN
A SENSE, COURTOLS THE QUESTION WHETHER, IN A GIVEN TAXABLE YEAR, HE
MUST PAY TAX ON A REALIZED GAIN OR MAY CLAIM CREDIT FOR A REALIZED
LOSS.  OF COURSE SUCH A SALE MUST BE BONA FIDE AND TITLE MUST PASS
ABSOLUTELY.  IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE THE SALE AND TRANSFER WERE SUCH,
AND, AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THERE WAS NOT A SCINTILLA OF
EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY FOR THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION.  A TAXPAYER WHO
PRETENDS HE HAS MADE A SALE WHEN IN FACT HE HAS A SECRET AGREEMENT
WHICH LEAVES HIM STILL, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE OWNER OF THE
THING SOLD, IS BUT COMMITTING A FRAUD UPON THE REVENUE. 

IF THE SALE IS BONA FIDE, IF TITLE IN FACT PASSES IRREVOCABLY TO
ANOTHER, THAT OTHER TAKES AS HIS BASIS, IN RECKONING HIS GAIN AND LOSS,
THE PRICE HE PAID FOR THE ASSET; AND UPON HIS FUTURE DISPOSITION OF IT
THERE WILL BE A NEW RECKONING OF GAIN OR LOSS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH
DISPOSITION.  HERE, IF INNISFAIL EITHER SOLD TO THE RESPONDENT OR TO A
THIRD PARTY IT WOULD HAVE TO RECKON GAIN OR LOSS ON THE SALE.  IF IT
DISTRIBUTED THE ASSET IN LIQUIDATION THE RESPONDENT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
A TAX LIABILITY ON THE RECEIPT OF HIS DIVIDEND.  THE SOLE QUESTION,
THEN, IS WHETHER, AS MATTER OF LAW, A BONA FIDE AND ABSOLUTE SALE TO A
WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATION CAN CONSTITUTE A COMPLETED TRANSACTION,
DETERMINING A LOSS. 

THE PROBLEM AS TO HOW A SALE TO A CORPORATION WHOLLY OWNED OR WHOLLY
CONTROLLED BY AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER IS TO BE TREATED IS NOT A NEW
ONE.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CORPORATIONS AND THE DEALINGS BETWEEN THEM
AND THEIR STOCKHOLDER OR STOCKHOLDERS HAVE LONG BEEN UNDERSTOOD. 
CONGRESS WAS NOT IGNORANT OF THE PROBLEM.  FN1  AT THE OUTSET CONGRESS
MIGHT WELL HAVE ADOPTED THE POLICY THAT A SALE BY THE STOCKHOLDER TO
THE CORPORATION, OR VICE VERSA, SHOULD BE DISREGARDED, AND THE
STOCKHOLDER TREATED AS IN EFFECT THE OWNER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET UNTIL
ITS SALE TO A STRANGER.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WOULD BE A PRACTICAL
POLICY TO RECOGNIZE THE SEPARATE ENTITY OF THE CORPORATION, TO TREAT A
TRANSFER AT CURRENT VALUE FOR ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OCCURRING BETWEEN
IT AND ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER AS CLOSING A TRANSACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RECKONING EITHER GAIN OR LOSS, AND THEN TO TAX THE VENDEE UPON HIS OR
ITS GAIN OR LOSS UPON A SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER BY COMPARISON OF THE BASIS
ON WHICH THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED AND THE AMOUNT REALIZED ON FINAL
DISPOSITION BY THE VENDEE.  IN FACT, THE LATTER COURSE WAS ADOPTED AND
WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED UNTIL 1934 WHEN CONGRESS DEALT WITH THE
SUBJECT. 

THIS COURT, SPEAKING BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SAID, IN KLEIN V. BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS, 282 U.S. 19, 24:  "...  BUT IT LEADS NOWHERE TO CALL A
CORPORATION A FICTION.  IF IT IS A FICTION IT IS A FICTION CREATED BY
LAW WITH INTENT THAT IT SHOULD BE ACTED ON AS IF TRUE.  THE CORPORATION
IS A PERSON AND ITS OWNERSHIP IS A NONCONDUCTOR THAT MAKES IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTRIBUTE AN INTEREST IN ITS PROPERTY TO ITS MEMBERS." 

IN THIS VIEW ASSETS RECEIVED ON THE LIQUIDATION OF A ONE-MAN
CORPORATION CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME TO THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER.  FN2
LIKEWISE, LOSSES SUSTAINED BY A CORPORATION WHOLLY OWNED BY ONE
INDIVIDUAL MAY NOT BE REPORTED AND CLAIMED IN THE INDIVIDUAL TAX RETURN
OF THE LATTER.  FN3 AND THE SOLE STOCHOLDER AND HIS CONTROLLED
CORPORATION MAY NOT TACK SUCCESSIVE PERIODS OF OWNERSHIP TO MAKE UP THE
TWO YEARS REQUIRED FOR AN ASSET TO BECOME, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE, A CAPITAL ASSET.  FN4 

THIS COURT HAS FOUND THAT A TAXABLE GAIN WAS REALIZED IN A CASE WHERE
A WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATION SOLD SECURITIES TO ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER. 
FN5  EVERY ELEMENT APPEARING IN THAT CASE IS PARALLELED HERE, AS A
COMPARISON OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE OPINIONS IN THE TWO CASES WILL
DEMONSTRATE.  THIS COURT SAID, IN THE EARLIER CASE, REFERRING TO THE
CORPORATION:  "THE FACT THAT IT HAD ONLY ONE STOCKHOLDER SEEMS OF NO
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE," AND HELD THE CORPORATION A SEPARATE TAXABLE
ENTITY.  IT IS NOW SAID, HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS NO INEQUITY IN NOT
APPLYING THE SAME RULE TO LOSSES AS TO GAINS BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER WHO
EXERCISES THE OPTION TO CONDUCT A PORTION OF HIS BUSINESS THROUGH THE
INSTRUMENTALITY OF A WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATION DOES SO IN THE FULL
KNOWLEDGE THAT, IF HE DOES, GAINS SHOWN ON SALES BY HIM TO THE
CORPORATION WILL BE TAXED WHEREAS LOSSES ON SUCH SALES WILL NOT BE
ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS.  AS HEREAFTER WILL BE SHOWN, THIS IS NOW TRUE IN
VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT EMBODIED IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 BUT IT WAS
NOT TRUE AS THE LAW STOOD BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THAT AMENDMENT. 

IN 1921 THE TREASURY WAS FIRST CALLED UPON TO DEAL WITH A LOSS
DEDUCTION ARISING OUT OF A SALE TO A WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATION.  IN THAT
YEAR IT PUBLISHED LAW OPINION 1062.  FN6  IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE SALE
WAS BONA FIDE AND PASSED TITLE ABSOLUTELY TO THE CONTROLLED
CORPORATION, EVEN THOUGH THE SALE WAS MADE WITH THE INTENT OF REDUCING
THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE VENDOR IT FELL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS THE
TREASURY FOLLOWED THIS RULE IN ADMINISTERING THE VARIOUS LOSS UPON A
CLOSED TRANSACTION.  SO FAR AS I AM INFORMED, THE TREASURY FOLLOWED
THIS RULE IN ADMINISTERING THE VARIOUS REVENUE ACTS FOR YEARS AFTER IT
WAS ISSUED.  THE FIRST EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN ITS POSITION WAS THE
REFUSAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO RECOGNIZE LOSSES
RESULTING TO TAXPAYERS FROM A BONA FIDE SALE OF BONDS OWNED BY THEM TO
A WHOLLY OWNED CORPORATION AT THE CURRENT MARKET PRICE.  FN7  THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REVERSED THE BOARD IN JONES V. HELVERING, 71
F.2D 214.  THE DECISION WAS RENDERED APRIL 23, 1934.  THE COMMISSIONER
SOUGHT CERTIORARI WHICH WAS DENIED OCTOBER 8, 1934.  FN8  THE SAME
RESULT HAS BEEN REACHED BY THREE OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL.  FN9
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOLLOWED THESE DECISIONS.  FN10  IN THE
MEANTIME THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL HAD DECIDED NUMEROUS CASES WHICH
ARE, IN PRINCIPLE, INDISTINGUISHABLE.  FN11 

THIS COURT HAVING DENIED CERTIORARI IN JONES V. HELVERING, SUPRA,
DECIDED GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465, IN THE FOLLOWING JANUARY. 
IT CITED THE JONES CASE WITH APPROVAL, AT P. 469, SAYING: "...  THE
LEGAL RIGHT OF A TAXPAYER TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF WHAT OTHERWISE
WOULD BE HIS TAXES, OR ALTOGETHER AVOID THEM, BY MEANS WHICH THE LAW
PERMITS, CANNOT BE DOUBTED." 

SO WELL SETTLED HAD THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION BECOME THAT THE
TREASURY DETERMINED TO RECOMMEND THAT CONGRESS AMEND THE STATUTE.  FN12
THE RESULT WAS THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 24(A)(6) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1934.  FN13  THE COMMITTEE REPORTS DISCLOSE THAT CONGRESS THOUGHT IT
NECESSARY TO CHANGE THE STATUTE IN ORDER TO RENDER NONDEDUCTIBLE A LOSS
CLAIMED ON A SALE TO A WHOLLY OWNED OR A CONTROLLED CORPORATION.  FN14
SUBSEQUENT HEARINGS BEFORE THE JOINT COMMISSION ON TAX EVASION AND
AVOIDANCE, 1937, P. 207, INDICATE THE SAME UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF
THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND OF CONGRESS THAT THE RULE OF LAW IN
EFFECT PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT IN 1934 WAS CHANGED BY
THAT LEGISLATION.  THE AMENDMENT LISTS AMONG ITEMS NOT DEDUCTIBLE THE
FOLLOWING: 

"(6)  LOSS FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, (A) BETWEEN MEMBERS OF A FAMILY, OR (B) EXCEPT IN THE CASE
OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN LIQUIDATION, BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND A
CORPORATION IN WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL OWNS, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, MORE
THAN 50 PER CENTUM IN VALUE OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK.  FOR THE PURPOSE
OF THIS PARAGRAPH - (C) AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS OWNING THE
STOCK OWNED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY HIS FAMILY; AND (D) THE FAMILY
OF AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL INCLUDE ONLY HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS (WHETHER
BY THE WHOLE OR HALF BLOOD), SPOUSE, ANCESTORS, AND LINEAL
DESCENDANTS." 

PLAINLY, PRIOR TO 1934, TAXPAYERS WERE JUSTIFIED IN RELYING, FIRST,
UPON THE TREASURY RULING ON THE SUBJECT AND, SECONDLY, UPON THE UNIFORM
DECISIONS OF THE COURTS IN CLAIMING DEDUCTIONS FOR LOSSES ON SALES TO
CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS.  AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE AMENDMENT THEY WERE
ON NOTICE THAT THIS WAS NO LONGER PERMISSIBLE. 

I TURN THEN TO THE SITUATION HERE PRESENTED.  THE CLAIMS OF THIS
TAXPAYER, AS I HAVE SAID, HAD BEEN SUSTAINED FOR PRIOR YEARS BY THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  FN15  THE CONGRESS HAD ENACTED THAT SUBSEQUENT
TO 1934 THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT CLAIM SUCH LOSSES.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE
EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE RESPONDENT'S CASE AND THOSE OF OTHER TAXPAYERS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S PRESENT CONTENTION, THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT OF 1934, NAMELY ON
MARCH 11, 1935, SERVED A NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY UPON THE RESPONDENT
RESPECTING LOSSES CLAIMED IN HIS RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1932 ON SALES TO
INNISFAIL.  THUS THE TREASURY REPUDIATED THE POSITION IT HAD TAKEN IN
ASKING THAT THE LAW BE AMENDED TO COVER CASES OF THIS KIND; REVERSED
ITS POSITION IN ACQUIESCING IN THE ADJUDICATION OF THE RESPONDENT'S TAX
LIABILITY FOR EARLIER YEARS AND SOUGHT, NOW THAT IT HAD OBTAINED AN
AMENDMENT OF THE LAW OPERATING PROSPECTIVELY, TO REACH BACK INTO SUNDRY
UNCLOSED ONES, - THIS ONE AMONGST OTHERS, - AND TO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN
DECISIONS REVERSING THE SETTLED COURSE OF DECISION.  I THINK THIS COURT
SHOULD NOT LEND ITS AID TO THE EFFORT. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT WHERE TAXPAYERS HAVE RELIED UPON A LONG
UNVARYING SERIES OF DECISIONS CONSTRUING AND APPLYING A STATUTE, THE
ONLY APPROPRIATE METHOD TO CHANGE THE RIGHTS OF THE TAXPAYERS IS TO GO
TO CONGRESS FOR LEGISLATION.  IN MY VIEW, THE RESORT TO CONGRESS, ON
THE ONE HAND, FOR AMENDMENT, AND THE APPEAL TO THE COURTS, ON THE
OTHER, FOR A REVERSAL OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICH, IF SUCCESSFUL, WILL
OPERATE UNJUSTLY AND RETROACTIVELY UPON THOSE WHO HAVE ACTED IN
RELIANCE UPON OFT-REITERATED JUDICIAL DECISIONS, ARE WHOLLY
INCONSISTENT. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE COURTS SHOULD NOT DISAPPOINT THE WELL
FOUNDED EXPECTATION OF CITIZENS THAT, UNTIL CONGRESS SPEAKS TO THE
CONTRARY, THEY MAY, WITH CONFIDENCE, RELY UPON THE UNIFORM JUDICIAL
INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE.  THE ACTION TAKEN IN THIS CASE SEEMS TO ME
TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A CITIZEN SAFETY TO CONDUCT HIM AFFAIRS IN
RELIANCE UPON ANY SETTLED BODY OF COURT DECISIONS. 

FN1  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, 196, SEC.
112(B)(5), PROVIDED:  "NO GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE RECOGNIZED IF PROPERTY
IS TRANSFERRED TO A CORPORATION BY ONE OR MORE PERSONS SOLELY IN
EXCHANGE FOR STOCK OR SECURITIES IN SUCH CORPORATION, AND IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE EXCHANGE SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS ARE IN CONTROL OF THE
CORPORATION; ..." 

FN2  FRANCE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 88 F.2D 917; COXE V. HANDY, 24
F.SUPP.  178; JOHN K. GREENWOOD, 1 B.T.A. 291. 

FN3  DALTON V. BOWERS, 287 U.S. 404; MENIHAN V. COMMISSIONER, 79 F.2D
304. 

FN4  WEBBER V. KNOX, 97 F.2D 921. 

FN5  BURNET V. COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., 287 U.S. 415. 

FN6  4 C.B. 168, CITED WITH APPROVAL IN G.C.M. 3008 VII-1 C.B. 235. 

FN7  JONES V. COMMISSIONER, 18 B.T.A. 1225(1930). 

FN8  293 U.S. 583. 

FN9  COMMISSIONER V. ELDRIDGE, 79 F.2D 629(C.C.A. 9); COMMISSIONER V.
MCCREERY, 83 F.2D 817(C.C.A. 9); HELVERING V. JOHNSON, 104 F.2D
140(C.C.A. 8); FOSTER V. COMMISSIONER, 96 F.2D 130(C.C.A. 2); SMITH V.
HIGGINS (THE INSTANT CASE), 102 F.2D 456(C.C.A. 2). 

FN10  DAVID STEWART, 17 B.T.A. 604; CORRADO & GALIARDI, INC., 22
B.T.A. 847; RALPH HOCHSTETTER, 34 B.T.A. 791; JOHN THOMAS SMITH, 40
B.T.A. 387, INVOLVING PRIOR YEARS OF THE TAXPAYER IN THIS CASE.    FN11
LOWA BRIDGE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 39 F.2D 777; TAPLIN V. COMMISSIONER,
41 F.2D 454; COMMISSIONER V. VAN VORST, 59 F.2D 677; MARSTON V.
COMMISSIONER, 75 F.2D 936; ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES,
82 F.2D 61; SAWTELL V. COMMISSIONER, 82 F.2D 221; COMMISSIONER V.
EDWARD SECURITIES CO., 83 F.2D 1007, AFFIRMING 30 B.T.A. 918. 

FN12  IN THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAX EVASION AND
AVOIDANCE, 1937, P. 206, IT APPEARS THAT THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
CONSIDERED THE LAW SO WELL SETTLED THAT HE REFUSED TO APPLY FOR
CERTIORARI IN THE ELDRIDGE CASE, SUPRA, NOTE 9, ALTHOUGH THE TREASURY
RECOMMENDED SUCH ACTION. 

FN13  48 STAT. 680, 691.    FN14  SEE THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, H.R. 704, 73D CONG.,
SECOND SESS., P. 23; SENATE REPORT 588, 73D CONG., SECOND SESS., P. 27;
SEE ALSO THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, REVENUE
REVISION, 1934, P. 134. 

FN15  SUPRA, NOTE 10. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




DEPUTY V. DU PONT, 308 U.S. 488 


NO. 151.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 8, 1940.  - 103
F.2D 257, REVERSED - 22 F.SUPP.  589, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN CALCULATING NET INCOME FOR TAXATION A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS
INCOME IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IF THERE IS CLEAR STATUTORY PROVISION
THEREFOR.  P. 493. 

2.  IN DETERMINING WHAT ARE "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY" EXPENSES OF A
TAXPAYER'S "TRADE OR BUSINESS," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A) UNDER
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, RESORT IS HAD TO THE POPULAR OR RECEIVED
IMPORT OF THOSE WORDS.  P. 493. 

3.  AN ORDINARY EXPENSE IS ONE THAT IS NORMAL, USUAL OR CUSTOMARY; A
TRANSACTION THAT GIVES RISE TO IT MUST BE OF COMMON OR REGULAR
OCCURRENCE IN THE TYPE OF BUSINESS INVOLVED.  P. 495. 

4.  THE FACT THAT AN EXPENSE WOULD BE AN ORDINARY AND COMMON ONE IN
THE COURSE OF ONE BUSINESS DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT SUCH IN
CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER BUSINESS.  P. 495. 

5.  CARRYING CHARGES ON SHORT SALES OF STOCK MADE BY A STOCKHOLDER TO
ASSIST HIS CORPORATION AND PRESERVE HIS INVESTMENT IN IT CAN NOT BE
DEDUCTED AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES OF HIS BUSINESS WHERE IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SECURITIES,
OR THAT STOCKHOLDERS, ENGAGED IN CONSERVING AND ENHANCING THEIR
ESTATES, ORDINARILY ASSIST THEIR CORPORATIONS IN SIMILAR FASHION.  PP.
493 ET SEQ. 

6.  IN ORDER TO AID A PLAN OF HIS CORPORATION TO INCREASE THE
EFFICIENCY OF ITS MANAGEMENT BY SELLING SOME OF ITS STOCK TO EXECUTIVE
EMPLOYEES - THE CORPORATION NOT BEING ABLE LEGALLY TO SELL DIRECTLY -
AND TO THE END THAT BY THE PLAN HIS BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE
CORPORATION MIGHT BE CONSERVED AND ENHANCED, A STOCKHOLDER MADE SHORT
SALES TO THE EXECUTIVES (THE CORPORATION LENDING THEM THE PRICE) AND
BORROWED THE SHARES REQUISITE TO FULFILL HIS CONTRACTS; WHEN THE
BORROWING PERIOD WAS UP HE RESTORED EQUIVALENT SHARES TO THE LENDER BY
BORROWING THEM ELSEWHERE UNDER A CONTRACT WHICH IN TIME OBLIGED HIM TO
PAY TO THE SECOND LENDER (A) A SUM EQUAL TO DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY HIM
ON THE BORROWED SHARES, AND (B) A SUM EQUAL TO THE LENDER'S INCOME TAX
ON SUCH PAYMENTS.  ASSUMING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE STOCKHOLDER IN
CONSERVING AND ENHANCING HIS ESTATE CONSTITUTE A "TRADE" OR "BUSINESS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, HELD: 

(1)  THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING THE
STOCKHOLDER'S INCOME BECAUSE THEY PROXIMATELY RESULTED NOT FROM THE
TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS BUT FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION, AND
BECAUSE THEY WERE NEITHER "ORDINARY" NOR "NECESSARY" EXPENSES OF HIS
BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A).  PP. 494 ET SEQ. 

(2)  SUCH EXPENDITURES WERE NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS "INTEREST PAID OR
ACCRUED  ...  ON INDEBTEDNESS" UNDER SUBSECTION 23(B) OF THE ACT.  P.
497. 

7.  ALTHOUGH AN INDEBTEDNESS IS AN OBLIGATION, AN OBLIGATION IS NOT
NECESSARILY AN "INDEBTEDNESS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(B). 
INTEREST IN ITS USUAL IMPORT IS THE AMOUNT WHICH ONE HAS CONTRACTED TO
PAY FOR THE USE OF BORROWED MONEY.  IN THE BUSINESS WORLD INTEREST ON
INDEBTEDNESS MEANS COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OR FORBEARANCE OF MONEY. 
IT IS ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS HAS USED THE WORDS IN THAT SENSE.  P. 497. 

DEPUTY, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. V. DU PONT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 533, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT RENDERED AGAINST THE PRESENT RESPONDENT IN HIS ACTION TO
RECOVER MONEY COLLECTED AS INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER RESPONDENT IN COMPUTING
HIS TAXABLE NET INCOME FOR THE YEAR 1931 MAY DEDUCT PAYMENTS OF
$647,711.56 MADE BY HIM IN THAT YEAR TO THE DELAWARE REALTY AND
INVESTMENT CO. (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE DELAWARE COMPANY).  THE
DEDUCTION IS SOUGHT EITHER UNDER SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928(45 STAT. 791) AS "ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON" THE "TRADE OR BUSINESS" OF
RESPONDENT; OR UNDER SEC. 23(B) AS "INTEREST PAID OR ACCRUED WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR ON INDEBTEDNESS."  THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE
DEDUCTION AND DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY, WHICH RESPONDENT PAID AND NOW
SEEKS TO RECOVER.  IT IS AGREED THAT IF THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED,
RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT FOR $172,351.64.  THE JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST RESPONDENT, 22 F.SUPP.  589, WAS REVERSED BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 103 F.2D 257.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE ASSERTED INCONSISTENCY OF THAT RULING WITH WELCH V.
HELVERING, 290 U.S. 111, WHICH CONSTRUED THE MEANING OF THE WORDS
"ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES"; AND WITH BURNET V. CLARK, 287 U.S.
410, WHICH LIMITED SUCH DEDUCTIONS TO LOSSES DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH
THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS. 

RESPONDENT'S CLAIM TO THE DEDUCTION AROSE OUT OF THE FOLLOWING
TRANSACTIONS, BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED.  RESPONDENT WAS BENEFICIAL OWNER OF
ABOUT 16% OF THE STOCK OF E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE DU PONT COMPANY).  IN 1919 THE DU PONT COMPANY
CONSTITUTED A NEW EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF NINE YOUNG MEN.  FOR
BUSINESS REASONS, IT THOUGHT IT DESIRABLE THAT THESE MEN HAVE A
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE COMPANY.  ALLEGED LEGAL DIFFICULTIES STOOD IN
THE WAY OF THE DU PONT COMPANY SELLING THEM THE 9,000 SHARES DESIRED. 
FN1  ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENT UNDERTOOK TO SELL THEM 1,000 SHARES EACH. 
BUT SINCE HE DID NOT HAVE READILY AVAILABLE THAT AMOUNT FROM HIS OWN
HOLDINGS,  FN2  HE BORROWED 9,000 SHARES OF THE DU PONT COMPANY FROM
CHRISTIANA SECURITIES COMPANY,  FN3  UNDER AN AGREEMENT WHEREBY HE
AGREED TO RETURN THE STOCK LOANED IN KIND WITHIN TEN YEARS AND IN THE
INTERIM TO PAY TO THE LENDER ALL DIVIDENDS DECLARED AND PAID ON THE
SHARES SO LOANED.  FN4  RESPONDENT THEREUPON SOLD THE SHARES TO THE
NINE EXECUTIVES, THE PURCHASE PRICE BEING FURNISHED BY THE DU PONT
COMPANY.  FN5  IN OCTOBER, 1929 WHEN THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD WAS ABOUT TO
EXPIRE, RESPONDENT DID NOT HAVE AVAILABLE THE NUMBER OF SHARES WHICH HE
WAS OBLIGATED TO RETURN TO CHRISTIANA SECURITIES COMPANY.  FN6
THEREFORE, HE ARRANGED FOR A LOAN FROM THE DELAWARE COMPANY OF THE
NUMBER OF SHARES NECESSARY TO DISCHARGE THAT OBLIGATION.  FN7  UNDER A
CONTRACT WITH THAT COMPANY, RESPONDENT AGREED TO RETURN IN KIND THE
NUMBER OF SHARES LOANED (PLUS ANY INCREASE BY STOCK DIVIDEND OR
OTHERWISE) WITHIN TEN YEARS; TO PAY TO THE DELAWARE COMPANY AN AMOUNT
EQUIVALENT TO ALL DIVIDENDS DECLARED AND PAID ON THE BORROWED SHARES
UNTIL RETURNED; AND TO REIMBURSE THE DELAWARE COMPANY FOR ALL TAXES
ACCURING AGAINST IT BY REASON OF THE AGREEMENT. 

PURSUANT TO THAT AGREEMENT RESPONDENT PAID THE DELAWARE COMPANY IN
1931, THE SUM OF $567,648, BEING AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE DIVIDENDS
RECEIVED BY HIM DURING THAT PERIOD FROM THE DU PONT COMPANY ON THE
BORROWED SHARES; AND THE SUM OF $80,063.56, BEING THE AMOUNT OF THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX IMPOSED UPON THE LENDER BY REASON OF THE FOREGOING
PAYMENTS WHICH IT HAD RECEIVED FROM RESPONDENT.  THESE ARE THE
EXPENDITURES CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION IN THE PRESENT SUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED, ON THE BASIS OF RESPONDENT'S LARGE AND
DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT HOLDINGS AND HIS WIDE FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS
INTERESTS, THAT HIS BUSINESS WAS PRIMARILY THAT OF CONSERVING AND
ENHANCING HIS ESTATE.  THE PETITIONERS CHALLENGE THAT CONCLUSION,
ASSERTING THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH CONSERVING
AND ENHANCING HIS ESTATE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A "TRADE OR BUSINESS"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A) OF THE ACT. 

BUT AS WE VIEW THE CASE IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO PASS ON THAT
CONTENTION AND TO MAKE THE DELICATE DISSECTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE WHICH THAT WOULD ENTAIL.  FOR WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
DEDUCTIONS ARE NOT PERMITTED EITHER WITHIN THE RULE OF BURNET V. CLARK,
OR WELCH V. HELVERING, SUPRA, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE TO ASSUME THAT THE
ACTIVITIES OF RESPONDENT CONSTITUTED A BUSINESS, AS FOUND BY THE
DISTRICT COURT. 

THERE IS NO INTIMATION IN THE RECORD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WHEREBY
THE STOCK WAS BORROWED WERE NOT IN GOOD FAITH OR WERE ENTERED INTO FOR
ANY REASON EXCEPT A BONA FIDE BUSINESS PURPOSE.  NOR IS THERE ANY
SUGGESTION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CAST IN THAT FORM FOR PURPOSES OF
TAX AVOIDANCE.  AND IT IS TRUE THAT AS RESPECTS THE DIVIDENDS RECEIVED
BY RESPONDENT AND PAID OVER TO THE DELAWARE COMPANY, HE WAS LITTLE MORE
THAN A CONDUIT.  BUT ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME DOES NOT
TURN ON GENERAL EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS.  IT "DEPENDS UPON LEGISLATIVE
GRACE; AND ONLY AS THERE IS CLEAR PROVISION THEREFOR CAN ANY PARTICULAR
DEDUCTION BE ALLOWED."  NEW COLONIAL ICE CO. V. HELVERING, 292 U.S.
435, 440.  AND WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION
UNDER WHICH THE DEDUCTION IS SOUGHT, THE GENERAL RULE THAT "POPULAR OR
RECEIVED IMPORT OF WORDS FURNISHES THE GENERAL RULE FOR THE
INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC LAWS," MAILLARD V. LAWRENCE, 16 HOW.  251,
261, IS APPLICABLE. 

BY THOSE STANDARDS THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FALLS FOR TWO REASONS.  IN
THE FIRST PLACE, THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION DO NOT MEET THE TEST
ENUNCIATED IN KORNHAUSER V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 145, SINCE THEY
PROXIMATELY RESULT NOT FROM THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS BUT FROM THE
BUSINESS OF THE DU PONT COMPANY.  THE ORIGINAL TRANSACTIONS HAD THEIR
ORIGIN IN AN EFFORT BY THAT COMPANY TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF ITS
MANAGEMENT BY SELLING ITS STOCK TO CERTAIN OF ITS KEY EXECUTIVES.  THE
RESPONDENT UNDERTOOK TO FURNISH THE NECESSARY STOCK ONLY AFTER THE
COMPANY HAD BEEN ADVISED THAT IT COULD NOT LEGALLY DO SO.  IN THAT
POSTURE OF THE CASE THESE PAYMENTS ARE NO MORE DEDUCTIBLE THAN WERE THE
PAYMENTS MADE BY THE STOCKHOLDER IN BURNET V. CLARK, SUPRA, AS A RESULT
OF HIS ENDORSEMENTS OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF HIS CORPORATION.  THOSE
PAYMENTS WERE DISALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS FROM HIS GROSS INCOME THOUGH
THEY AROSE OUT OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO PRESERVE HIS
INVESTMENT IN THE CORPORATION.  SIMILAR PAYMENTS WERE DISALLOWED IN
DALTON V. BOWERS, 287 U.S. 404.  HENCE, THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION
OUT OF WHICH THE CARRYING CHARGES HERE IN QUESTION AROSE MIGHT BENEFIT
RESPONDENT DOES NOT BRING IT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF HIS ALLEGED BUSINESS
OF CONSERVING AND ENHANCING HIS ESTATE.  THE WELL ESTABLISHED DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT DO NOT PERMIT ANY SUCH BLENDING OF THE CORPORATION'S
BUSINESS WITH THE BUSINESS OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE 1919 AGREEMENT WOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE
DEDUCTIBLE.  AND THE FACT THAT A NEW AND DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE
IN 1929 WITH THE DELAWARE COMPANY DOES NOT ALTER THE CONCLUSION, FOR IT
IS THE ORIGIN OF THE LIABILITY OUT OF WHICH THE EXPENSE ACCRUES WHICH
IS MATERIAL.  OTHERWISE CARRYING CHARGES ON ANY SHORT SALE WHETHER OR
NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE TAXPAYER WOULD BE ALLOWABLE AS
DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES.  THAT CANNOT BE IF THE NOTION OF PROXIMATE RESULT
IMPLICIT IN THE STATUTORY WORDS "EXPENSES PAID OR INCURRED  ...  IN
CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OF BUSINESS" IS TO HAVE ANY VITALITY. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, THESE PAYMENTS WERE NOT "ORDINARY" ONES FOR THE
CONDUCT OF THE KIND OF BUSINESS IN WHICH, WE ASSUME ARGUENDO,
RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THEY WERE "BEYOND
THE NORM OF GENERAL AND ACCEPTED BUSINESS PRACTICE" AND WERE IN FACT
"SO EXTRAORDINARY AS TO OCCUR IN THE LIVES OF ORDINARY BUSINESS MEN NOT
AT ALL" AND IN THE LIFE OF THE RESPONDENT "BUT ONCE."  FN8  CERTAINLY
THERE ARE NO NORMS OF CONDUCT TO WHICH WE HAVE BEEN REFERRED OR OF
WHICH WE ARE COGNIZANT WHICH WOULD BRING THESE PAYMENTS WITHIN THE
MEANING OF ORDINARY EXPENSES FOR CONSERVING AND ENHANCING AN ESTATE. 
WE DO NOT DOUBT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT
RESPONDENT EMBARKED ON THIS PROGRAM TO THE END THAT HIS BENEFICIAL
STOCK OWNERSHIP IN THE DU PONT COMPANY MIGHT BE CONSERVED AND
ENHANCED.  BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE COST TO HIM AN "ORDINARY" EXPENSE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  ORDINARY HAS THE CONNOTATION OF NORMAL,
USUAL, OR CUSTOMARY.  TO BE SURE, AN EXPENSE MAY BE ORDINARY THOUGH IT
HAPPEN BUT ONCE IN THE TAXPAYER'S LIFETIME.  CF. KORNHAUSER V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  YET THE TRANSACTION WHICH GIVES RISE TO IT MUST BE OF
COMMON OR FREQUENT OCCURRENCE IN THE TYPE OF BUSINESS INVOLVED.  WELCH
V. HELVERING, SUPRA, 114.  HENCE, THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR EXPENSE
WOULD BE AN ORDINARY OR COMMON ONE IN THE COURSE OF ONE BUSINESS AND SO
DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(A) DOES NOT NECESSARILY MAKE IT SUCH IN
CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER BUSINESS.  THUS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONE WHO
WAS AN ACTIVE TRADER IN SECURITIES MIGHT TAKE AS DEDUCTIONS CARRYING
CHARGES ON SHORT SALES SINCE SELLING SHORT WAS COMMON IN THAT
BUSINESS.  FN9  BUT THE CARRYING CHARGES ON RESPONDENT'S SHORT SALE IN
THIS CASE CANNOT BE ACCORDED THE SAME PRIVILEGE UNDER SEC. 23(A).  THE
RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT RESPONDENT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN
SECURITIES.  NOR DOES IT SHOW THAT A STOCKHOLDER ENGAGED IN CONSERVING
AND ENHANCING HIS ESTATE ORDINARILY MAKES SHORT SALES OR SIMILARLY
ASSISTS HIS CORPORATION IN FINANCING STOCK PURCHASE PLANS FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ITS EXECUTIVES.  AS STATED IN WELCH V. HELVERING, SUPRA, PP.
113-114:  "...  WHAT IS ORDINARY, THOUGH THERE MUST ALWAYS BE A STRAIN
OF CONSTANCY WITHIN IT, IS NONE THE LESS A VARIABLE AFFECTED BY TIME
AND PLACE AND CIRCUMSTANCE."  ONE OF THE EXTREMELY RELEVANT
CIRCUMSTANCES IS THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PARTICULAR BUSINESS OUT OF
WHICH THE EXPENSE IN QUESTION ACCRUED.  THE FACT THAT AN OBLIGATION TO
PAY HAS ARISEN IS NOT SUFFICIENT.  IT IS THE KIND OF TRANSACTION OUT OF
WHICH THE OBLIGATION AROSE AND ITS NORMALCY IN THE PARTICULAR BUSINESS
WHICH ARE CRUCIAL AND CONTROLLING. 

REVIEW OF THE MANY DECIDED CASES IS OF LITTLE AID SINCE EACH TURNS ON
ITS SPECIAL FACTS.  BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS CLEAR.  AND ON APPLICATION OF
THAT PRINCIPLE TO THESE FACTS, IT SEEMS EVIDENT THAT THE PAYMENTS IN
QUESTION CANNOT BE PLACED IN THE CATEGORY OF THOSE ITEMS OF EXPENSE
WHICH A CONSERVATOR OF AN ESTATE, A CUSTODIAN OF A PORTFOLIO, A
SUPERVISOR OF A GROUP OF INVESTMENTS, A MANAGER OF WIDE FINANCIAL AND
BUSINESS INTERESTS, OR A SUBSTANTIAL STOCKHOLDER IN A CORPORATION
ENGAGED IN CONSERVING AND ENHANCING HIS ESTATE WOULD ORDINARILY INCUR. 
WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT THEY ARE EMBRACED WITHIN THE NORMAL OVERHEAD OR
OPERATING COSTS OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
STOCKHOLDERS OR INVESTORS, IN FURTHERANCE OF ENHANCING AND CONSERVING
THEIR ESTATES, ORDINARILY OR FREQUENTLY LEND SUCH ASSISTANCE TO
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLANS OF THEIR CORPORATIONS.  AND IN ABSENCE OF
SUCH EVIDENCE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR AN ASSUMPTION, IN EXPERIENCE OR
COMMON KNOWLEDGE, THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE TO BE PLACED IN THE SAME
CATEGORY AS TYPICALLY ORDINARY EXPENSES OF SUCH ACTIVITIES, E.G.,
RENTAL OF SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES, COST OF INVESTMENT COUNSEL OR OF
INVESTMENT SERVICES, SALARIES OF SECRETARIES AND THE LIKE.  RATHER
THESE PAYMENTS SEEM TO US TO REPRESENT MOST EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES FOR
THAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY.  THEREFORE, THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION FALLS, AS
DID THE CLAIM OF AN OFFICER OF A CORPORATION WHO PAID ITS DEBTS TO
STRENGTHEN HIS OWN STANDING AND CREDIT.  WELCH V. HELVERING, SUPRA.
AND THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IN THE SENSE
THAT CONSUMMATION OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THE DELAWARE COMPANY WAS
BENEFICIAL TO RESPONDENT'S ESTATE IS OF NO AID.  FOR CONGRESS HAS NOT
DECREED THAT ALL NECESSARY EXPENSES MAY BE DEDUCTED.  THOUGH PLAINLY
NECESSARY THEY CANNOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS THEY ARE ALSO ORDINARY.  WELCH
V. HELVERING, SUPRA. 

WE CONCLUDE THEN ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE THAT AS THE DISTRICT
COURT, ON A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, FOUND THAT THESE
PAYMENTS DID NOT PROXIMATELY RESULT FROM, AND WERE NOT ORDINARY
EXPENSES FOR THE CONDUCT OF, RESPONDENT'S ALLEGED BUSINESS, IT WAS
ERROR FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT FOR
PETITIONERS.  MCCAUGHN V. REAL ESTATE LAND TITLE & TRUST CO., 297 U.S.
606. 

THERE REMAINS RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THESE PAYMENTS ARE
DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SEC. 23(B) AS "INTEREST PAID OR ACCURED  ...  ON
INDEBTEDNESS."  CLEARLY RESPONDENT OWED AN OBLIGATION TO THE DELAWARE
COMPANY.  BUT ALTHOUGH AN INDEBTEDNESS IS AN OBLIGATION, AN OBLIGATION
IS NOT NECESSARILY AN "INDEBTEDNESS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(B). 
NOR ARE ALL CARRYING CHARGES "INTEREST."  IN OLD COLONY R. CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 284 U.S. 552, THIS COURT HAD BEFORE IT THE MEANING OF THE
WORD "INTEREST" AS USED IN THE COMPARABLE PROVISION OF THE 1921 ACT (42
STAT. 227).  IT SAID, P. 560, "...  AS RESPECTS 'INTEREST,' THE USUAL
IMPORT OF THE TERM IS THE AMOUNT WHICH ONE HAS CONTRACTED TO PAY FOR
THE USE OF BORROWED MONEY."  IT THERE REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT IT
MEANT "EFFECTIVE INTEREST" WITHIN THE THEORY OF ACCOUNTING OR THAT
"CONGRESS USED THE WORD HAVING IN MIND ANY CONCEPT OTHER THAN THE
USUAL, ORDINARY AND EVERYDAY MEANING OF THE TERM."  P. 561.  IT REFUSED
TO ASSUME THAT THE CONGRESS USED THE TERM WITH REFERENCE TO "SOME
ESOTERIC CONCEPT DERIVED FROM SUBTLE AND THEORETIC ANALYSIS."  P. 561. 
WE LIKEWISE REFUSE TO MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION HERE.  IT IS NOT ENOUGH,
AS URGED BY RESPONDENT, THAT "INTEREST" OR "INDEBTEDNESS" IN THEIR
ORIGINAL CLASSICAL CONTEXT MAY HAVE PERMITTED THIS BROADER MEANING. 
FN10  WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CONTEXT OF A REVENUE ACT AND WORDS WHICH
HAVE TODAY A WELL-KNOWN MEANING.  IN THE BUSINESS WORLD "INTEREST ON
INDEBTEDNESS" MEANS COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OR FORBEARANCE OF MONEY. 
FN11  IN ABSENCE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, WE ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS HAS USED THESE WORDS IN THAT SENSE.  IN SUM, WE CANNOT
SACRIFICE THE "PLAIN, OBVIOUS AND RATIONAL MEANING" OF THE STATUTE EVEN
FOR "THE EXIGENCY OF A HARD CASE."  SEE LYNCH V. ALWORTH-STEPHENS CO.,
267 U.S. 364, 370. 

PETITIONERS THROUGHOUT HAVE REFERRED TO THESE PAYMENTS BY RESPONDENT
AS BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE.  CF. BONWIT TELLER & CO. V. COMMISSIONER,
53 F.2D 381; HUTTON V. COMMISSIONER, 39 F.2D 459; BING V. HELVERING, 76
F.2D 941.  WHAT APPROPRIATE TREATMENT MAY BE ACCORDED THESE ITEMS OF
COST UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WE DO NOT UNDERTAKE TO SAY, AS
THAT ISSUE IS NOT HERE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AS STATED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, COUNSEL ADVISED THAT THE DU
PONT COMPANY COULD ISSUE STOCK ONLY FOR MONEY PAID, LABOR PERFORMED, OR
REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY ACQUIRED; AND THAT IF THE STOCK WERE TO BE
ISSUED FOR CASH, IT MUST FIRST BE OFFERED TO EXISTING STOCKHOLDERS. 
ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS THE DU PONT COMPANY DID NOT HAVE 9,000 SHARES
OF ITS STOCK, OTHER THAN UNISSUED STOCK; THAT STOCK WAS NOT THEN LISTED
ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE; AND THE OVER-THE-COUNTER MARKET WAS
QUITE INACTIVE.  NINE THOUSAND SHARES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED ON
THIS MARKET WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY RAISING THE PRICE PER SHARE. 

FN2  RESPONDENT HAD AVAILABLE ONLY SEVENTY-FOUR SHARES.  HE HAD A
REVERSIONARY INTEREST IN TWO TRUSTS WHICH HELD 24,000 SHARES.  AND HE
WAS THE OWNER OF 29,125 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF CHRISTIANA SECURITIES
COMPANY OUT OF A TOTAL OF 75,000 SHARES ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING.  THAT
COMPANY WAS THEN THE OWNER OF 183,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF THE DU
PONT COMPANY OUT OF A TOTAL OF 588,542 SHARES ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING. 

FN3 SUPRA, NOTE 2. 

FN4  AS SECURITY RESPONDENT GAVE CHRISTIANA SECURITIES COMPANY 3,800
SHARES OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK.  ALL DIVIDENDS ON THAT STOCK WERE TO BE
PAID TO RESPONDENT. 

FN5  THESE SALES WERE MADE AT THE PRICE OF $320 A SHARE, THAT BEING
APPROXIMATELY THEIR BOOK VALUE.  THE DU PONT COMPANY LOANED TO EACH OF
THE NINE EXECUTIVES THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO PURCHASE HIS 1,000 SHARES. 
THEY PAID RESPONDENT $2,880,000 IN CASH FOR THE 9,000 SHARES. 
ACCORDING TO RESPONDENT'S BRIEF, HE TURNED OVER THIS SUM THROUGH
TRANSACTIONS IN GENERAL MOTORS STOCK WHICH ULTIMATELY YIELDED HIM A
GREAT PROFIT.  SEE DU PONT V. COMMISSIONER, 37 B.T.A. 1198. 

BY MARCH 1921, THE STOCK OF THE DU PONT COMPANY HAD DECLINED IN VALUE
AND THE BARGAIN MADE BY THE EXECUTIVES HAD BECOME A DISADVANTAGEOUS
ONE.  RESPONDENT THEREUPON OFFERED TO TURN OVER 400 SHARES OF THE
CHRISTIANA SECURITIES COMPANY (OF A NET VALUE OF $160,000) TO BE HELD
BY THE DU PONT COMPANY AS ADDITIONAL COLLATERAL ON THE LOAN MADE TO
THESE EXECUTIVES, RESPONDENT TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REDEEM THOSE 400
SHARES BY PAYMENT OF $160,000 ON MATURITY OF THE LOAN, THAT PAYMENT, IF
MADE, TO BE APPLIED TO THE LOAN.  IF RESPONDENT FAILED TO REDEEM THOSE
SHARES, THEY WERE TO BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE EXECUTIVES ON PAYMENT
OF THEIR LOANS.  MEANWHILE DIVIDENDS ON THE 400 SHARES UP TO $8,000 PER
ANNUM WERE TO GO TO THE EXECUTIVES, THE BALANCE TO RESPONDENT WHO WAS,
HOWEVER, TO RETURN HIS PORTION TO THE EXECUTIVES IF HE DID NOT REDEEM
THE STOCK.  THIS OFFER WAS ACCEPTED BY THE EXECUTIVES.  RESPONDENT WHEN
HE PROPOSED IT, STATED THAT HE DID SO "AS A LARGE STOCKHOLDER, AND,
PERHAPS, THE ONE TO BE MOST BENEFITED BY THE RECOVERY IN VALUE OF THE
COMPANY'S SHARES."  HE ALSO STATED THAT HE WANTED THE EXECUTIVES TO BE
"FREE OF WORRY OVER THE UNEXPECTED OUTCOME" OF THE STOCK PURCHASE
PLAN. 

FN6  DUE TO STOCK DIVIDENDS AND SPLIT-UPS RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGATED TO
RETURN TO CHRISTIANA SECURITIES COMPANY 142,212 SHARES TO REPLACE THE
9,000 SHARES WHICH HE HAD BORROWED. 

FN7  RESPONDENT WAS NOT A STOCKHOLDER OF THE DELAWARE COMPANY,
ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THAT HIS BROTHER WAS ONE OF ITS EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS. 

FN8  22 F.SUPP.  589, 597. 

FN9  DART V. COMMISSIONER, 74 F.2D 845.  CF. TERBELL V. COMMISSIONER,
29 B.T.A. 44, AFF'D 71 F.2D 1017, WHERE SUCH CARRYING CHARGES WERE
DISALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SAID, P. 45, "WE
HAVE ONLY THE STIPULATED FACTS AND THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THOSE
FACTS THAT THE DECEDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING SHORT
SALES OR IN DEALING IN SECURITIES GENERALLY." 

FN10  RESPONDENT REFERS TO THE MUTUUM IN ROMAN LAW.  LEDLIE'S SOHM'S
INSTITUTES OF ROMAN LAW (2D ED.), P. 395; HARE, THE LAW OF CONTRACTS,
P. 73. 

FN11  THIS MAKES IRRELEVANT OTHER LINES OF AUTHORITY CITED BY
RESPONDENT WHERE "INTEREST" IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT HAS BEEN USED TO
DESCRIBE DAMAGES OR COMPENSATION FOR THE DETENTION OR USE OF MONEY OR
OF PROPERTY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211, 216;
N.Y. GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, SEC. 370, WHICH PROVIDES, "THE RATE OF
INTEREST UPON THE LOAN OR FORBEARANCE OF ANY MONEY, GOODS, OR THINGS,
IN ACTION  ...  SHALL BE SIX DOLLARS UPON ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS, FOR ONE
YEAR,  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

WHAT THE ACTIVITIES OF A TAXPAYER ARE IS AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
BY TRIERS OF FACT.  WHETHER SUCH ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTE A "TRADE OR
BUSINESS" AS CONCEIVED BY SEC. 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928(45
STAT. 791, 799), IS OPEN FOR DETERMINATION HERE UNFETTERED BY FINDINGS
AND RULINGS BELOW EXCEPT FOR THE WEIGHT OF THE INTRINSIC AUTHORITY OF
ALL LOWER COURT OPINIONS.  TO AVAIL OF THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SEC.
23(A), IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO INCUR EXPENSES IN THE ACTIVE CONCERN OVER
ONE'S OWN FINANCIAL INTEREST.  "...  CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR
BUSINESS," WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SEC. 23(A), INVOLVES HOLDING
ONE'S SELF OUT TO OTHERS AS ENGAGED IN THE SELLING OF GOODS OR
SERVICES.  THIS THE TAXPAYER DID NOT DO.  EXPENSES FOR TRANSACTIONS NOT
CONNECTED WITH TRADE OR BUSINESS, SUCH AS AN EXPENSE FOR HANDLING
PERSONAL INVESTMENTS, ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE.  IT IS OTHERWISE WITH
LOSSES.  SEC. 23(E)(2).  WITHOUT ELABORATING THE REASONS FOR THIS
CONSTRUCTION AND NOT UNMINDFUL OF OPPOSING CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING
APPROPRIATE REGARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, I PREFER TO MAKE THE
CONCLUSION EXPLICIT INSTEAD OF MAKING THE HYPOTHETICAL, LITIGATION
BREEDING ASSUMPTION THAT THIS TAXPAYER'S ACTIVITIES, FOR WHICH EXPENSES
WERE SOUGHT TO BE DEDUCTED, DID CONSTITUTE A "TRADE OR BUSINESS." 

MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS IN THESE VIEWS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS: 

I FEEL CONSTRAINED TO STATE MY VIEWS, NOT BECAUSE THIS CASE RAISES
ANY IMPORTANT ISSUE OF LAW WHICH SHOULD BE SETTLED BY THIS COURT; BUT,
ON THE CONTRARY, BECAUSE I THINK IT PRESENTS A QUESTION THE ANSWER TO
WHICH DEPENDS SOLELY UPON THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  DECISION
OF THE CONTROVERSY CANNOT BE HELPFUL IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
REVENUE ACTS OR SET ANY IMPORTANT PRECEDENT.  I THINK THE WRIT SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THAT IT NOW SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS
IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  THE AMOUNT OF TAXES INVOLVED OR THE INSISTENCE
OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF THE
LAW TO THE FACTS ARE NOT ADEQUATE REASONS FOR REVIEW.  THERE IS NO
DISPUTE AS TO PRINCIPLE AND NO CONFLICT WITH ANY CASE IN THE
APPLICATION OF ANY PRINCIPLE. 

THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT IS TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS OF DECISION AND TO
SETTLE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF LAW.  THE DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THIS
COURT TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF LOWER FEDERAL COURTS WAS NOT INTENDED TO
BE EXERCISED IN EVERY CASE WHERE THOSE COURTS HAVE ADJUDICATED THE
CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES, WHICH INVOLVES NO IMPORTANT
PRINCIPLE OF LAW AND NO CONFLICT OF DECISION AMONGST THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  OUR RULES ADOPTED TO CARRY OUT THE POLICY OF THE STATUTES
GRANTING THE POWER TO BRING CASES HERE BY CERTIORARI HAVE APPRISED THE
BAR AND THE PUBLIC THAT WE WILL NOT TAKE CASES FULLY HEARD AND
ADJUDICATED BELOW FOR THE MERE PURPOSE OF REEXAMINING THE CORRECTNESS
OF THE RESULT.  (SEE RULE 38, PAR. 5.) 

THE DOMINANT PURPOSE EVIDENCED BY THE INCOME TAX STATUTES IS TO TAX
NET INCOME.  THE POLICY IS TO CREDIT AGAINST GROSS INCOME THE EXPENSES
OF THE BUSINESS WHICH BEGETS EARNINGS.  THE TAXPAYER IS ENTITLED TO
DEDUCT THAT WHICH HE REASONABLY AND IN GOOD FAITH EXPENDED IN THE
EFFORT TO REALIZE A PROFIT.  THE REVENUE ACTS HAVE ALWAYS CHARACTERIZED
DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES AS THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES OF THE
BUSINESS, INCURRED AND PAID DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THE OPINION
ASSUMES THAT THE EXPENDITURE HERE IN QUESTION WAS NECESSARY IN THE
CONDUCT OF THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS BUT HOLDS THAT IT WAS NOT AN
ORDINARY EXPENSE OF THAT BUSINESS.  OBVIOUSLY WHAT IS AN ORDINARY
EXPENSE OF A GIVEN BUSINESS MUST DEPEND UPON THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF
THE BUSINESS, THE NATURE AND OCCASION OF THE EXPENDITURE, AND OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WILL EMERGE IN EACH SPECIFIC CASE.  NECESSARILY
THE DECISION OF ONE CASE WILL HAVE SLIGHT, IF ANY, BEARING UPON THE
PROPER DECISION OF ANOTHER.  IF THIS COURT IS TO TAKE UNDER REVIEW
EVERY DISPUTE IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT AND A TAXPAYER DIFFER AS TO
WHETHER A GIVEN EXPENDITURE IS AN ORDINARY OR AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSE
OF THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS WE SHALL BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION OF
MYRIAD CASES, EACH TURNING UPON ITS OWN FACTS, WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY
LIGHT TO THE TAXPAYERS FOR THEIR FUTURE GUIDANCE.  I THINK THIS IS THE
RESULT OF THE COURT'S OPINION.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT THE
EXPENDITURE OCCURRED BUT ONCE IN THE TAXPAYER'S EXPERIENCE DOES NOT
RENDER IT EXTRAORDINARY.  IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT IT IS
A LARGE TRANSACTION DOES NOT RENDER IT EXTRAORDINARY.  WHAT THE OPINION
DOES, IN THE UPSHOT, IS TO CANVASS ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND REACH, AS
I THINK, A CONCLUSION BASED SOLELY UPON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS
SINGLE CASE.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY WARNED THE BAR AND THE PUBLIC THAT
THIS WE WILL NOT DO BECAUSE WE DO NOT SIT FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE. 

AN ADDED REASON FOR REFUSING TO DECIDE THE CASE IS THE ADMISSION THAT
THE TREASURY AND THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN YEARS PAST HAVE HELD A
SIMILAR EXPENSE INCURRED IN EARLIER YEARS AN EXPENSE OF THE TAXPAYER'S
BUSINESS.  IN A MATTER RESTING SO MUCH IN JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION AS
THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT IS ORDINARY AND WHAT EXTRAORDINARY
EXPENDITURE IN A BUSINESS THE WEIGHT OF A CONTINUED ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION IS OF PECULIAR IMPORTANCE; AND WE OUGHT NOT NOW DEPART
FROM THE RULE LONG OBSERVED THAT SUCH PRACTICE IS ENTITLED TO HIGH
CONSIDERATION AT THE HANDS OF THE COURTS AND SHOULD NOT BE OVERTURNED
UNLESS CLEARLY WRONG AND FOR THE MOST COGENT REASONS. 

SINCE THE CASE HAS BEEN TAKEN AND CONSIDERED ON THE MERITS I THINK
THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  I NEED ADD LITTLE TO THE
OPINION OF JUDGE MARIS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH WHICH I
AGREE.  THE TAXPAYER BORROWED STOCK IN ORDER TO SELL IT FOR CASH TO
OTHERS.  HIS CONTRACT OBLIGATED HIM EITHER TO RETURN THE STOCK OR TO
PAY THE CARRYING CHARGES TO THE LENDER.  WHAT HE PAID WAS NOT
TECHNICALLY INTEREST BUT IT WAS AN EXPENSE NECESSARY TO HIS OBTAINING
AND USING THE STOCK.  HE HAD SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES:  TO PAY THE ANNUAL
CARRYING CHARGES, OR TO DEFAULT, AND, IN THAT CASE, TO GO INTO THE
MARKET TO BUY THE STOCK AND RETURN IT TO THE LENDER OR TO PAY THE
LENDER THE VALUE THEREOF. 

WHAT WAS THERE EXTRAORDINARY ABOUT THIS TRANSACTION AS COMPARED WITH
THE BORROWING OF ANY COMMODITY OTHER THAN STOCK FOR A BUSINESS REASON
AND WITH A BUSINESS PURPOSE?  IN THE CONDUCT OF EVERY BUSINESS
SITUATIONS ARISE WHICH MUST BE MET.  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT SUCH A
SITUATION HAD NOT THERETOFORE ARISEN, OR THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS THE
FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS EXPERIENCE, DOES NOT
RENDER IT EXTRAORDINARY IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THE STATUTE USES THE
TERM.  THE LIMITATION PLACED BY CONGRESS UPON THE TYPES OF EXPENDITURES
MADE DEDUCTIBLE WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT EVASION OF PAYMENT OF TAX ON
TRUE NET INCOME, WHICH CONFESSEDLY WAS NOT A MOTIVE IN THE PRESENT
INSTANCE.  I THINK THAT UNDER THE GUISE OF ENFORCING THE PLAIN MANDATE
OF THE STATUTE THE COURT IS REALLY READING INTO THE LAW WHAT IS NOT
THERE AND WHAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO PLACE THERE. 

TO SUGGEST, EVEN BY INDIRECTION, THAT PERCHANCE THE TAXPAYER'S
EXPENDITURE MAY BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS, IN MY JUDGMENT,
TO KEEP THE WORD OF PROMISE TO THE EAR AND BREAK IT TO THE HOPE.  IN MY
VIEW THE CARRYING CHARGE OF THE TAXPAYER'S LOAN WAS EITHER AN ORDINARY
EXPENSE OF HIS BUSINESS OR IT WAS NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE UNDER ANY
PROVISION OF THE STATUTE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
























CHICOT COUNTY DIST. V. BANK, 308 U.S. 371 


NO. 122.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - 103
F.2D 847, REVERSED. 


1.  BONDHOLDERS OF A STATE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, WHO WERE PARTIES TO A
PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MAY 24, 1934, FOR A RE
ADJUSTMENT OF ITS INDEBTEDNESS, AND WHO DID NOT THEN QUESTION THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT STATUTE, BUT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE FOR RETIREMENT OF THEIR BONDS WITHIN A TIME
LIMITED, ARE ESTOPPED, BY THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA, FROM RAISING
THAT QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IN A SUBSEQUENT ACTION ON THEIR
BONDS, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, IN THE MEANTIME, IN ANOTHER CASE, COMING
FROM ANOTHER DISTRICT, THIS COURT HAD DECLARED THE ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  PP. 374-375. 

2.  THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, INCLUDING THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING AS
A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, THOUGH THEIR JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO THAT
PRESCRIBED BY ACTS OF CONGRESS, ARE NEVERTHELESS COURTS WITH AUTHORITY,
WHEN PARTIES ARE BROUGHT BEFORE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE CAUSE AND FOR THIS PURPOSE TO CONSTRUE
AND APPLY THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THEY ARE ASKED TO ACT.  THEIR
DETERMINATIONS OF SUCH QUESTIONS, WHILE OPEN TO DIRECT REVIEW, MAY NOT
BE ASSAILED COLLATERALLY.  P. 376. 

3.  RES JUDICATA MAY BE PLEADED AS A BAR, NOT ONLY AS RESPECTS
MATTERS ACTUALLY PRESENTED TO SUSTAIN OR DEFEAT THE RIGHT ASSERTED IN
THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS, BUT ALSO AS RESPECTS ANY OTHER AVAILABLE
MATTER WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THAT END.  P. 378. 

CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER STATE BANK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 532, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AN ACTION ON BONDS OF A DRAINAGE
DISTRICT. 

MR. G. W. HENDRICKS FOR RESPONDENTS, MADE THE FOLLOWING CITATIONS:
ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY WATER IMPROVEMENT DIST., 298 U.S. 513;
MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243 U.S. 90; CHICAGO, I. & L.R. CO. V. HACKETT, 228
U.S. 559; NORTON V. SHELBY CO., 118 U.S. 425; SECURITY SAVINGS BANK V.
CONNELL, 200 N.W. 8; SERVONITZ V. STATE, 113 N.W. 277; METZGER MOTOR
CAR CO. V. PARROTT, 233 U.S. 36; BLACK ON JUDGMENTS, SEC. 216; FREEMAN
ON JUDGMENTS, (5TH ED.)  VOL.  1, P. 733; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 11 AM.
JUR.  SEC.  148, "EFFECT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES"; RANKIN V.
SCHOFIELD, 81 ARK. 463; TOWNSLEY-MYRICK DRY GOODS CO. V. FULLER, 58
ARK. 186; PITCOCK V. STATE, 91 ARK. 534; ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304
U.S. 64. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DIVISION OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TO RECOVER ON
FOURTEEN BONDS OF $1,000 EACH, WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED IN 1924 BY THE
PETITIONER, CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ORGANIZED UNDER STATUTES
OF ARKANSAS,  FN1  AND HAD BEEN IN DEFAULT SINCE 1932. 

IN ITS ANSWER, PETITIONER PLEADED A DECREE OF THE SAME DISTRICT COURT
IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY PETITIONER TO EFFECT A PLAN OF
READJUSTMENT OF ITS INDEBTEDNESS UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 24, 1934, FN2
PROVIDING FOR "MUNICIPAL-DEBT READJUSTMENTS."  THE DECREE RECITED THAT
A PLAN OF READJUSTMENT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE HOLDERS OF MORE THAN
TWO-THIRDS OF THE OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS AND WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE;
THAT TO CONSUMMATE THE PLAN AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT
PETITIONER HAD ISSUED AND SOLD NEW SERIAL BONDS TO THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $193,500 AND THAT THESE NEW BONDS
WERE VALID OBLIGATIONS; THAT, ALSO WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT, THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION HAD PURCHASED OUTSTANDING
OBLIGATIONS OF PETITIONER TO THE AMOUNT OF $705,087.06 WHICH HAD BEEN
DELIVERED IN EXCHANGE FOR NEW BONDS AND CANCELED; THAT CERTAIN PROCEEDS
HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THAT THE DISBURSING
AGENT HAD FILED HIS REPORT SHOWING THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION HAD PURCHASED ALL THE OLD BONDS OF PETITIONER OTHER THAN
THE AMOUNT OF $57,449.30.  THE DECREE PROVIDED FOR THE APPLICATION OF
THE AMOUNT PAID INTO COURT TO THE REMAINING OLD OBLIGATIONS OF
PETITIONER, THAT SUCH OBLIGATIONS MIGHT BE PRESENTED WITHIN ONE YEAR,
AND THAT UNLESS SO PRESENTED THEY SHOULD BE FOREVER BARRED FROM
PARTICIPATING IN THE PLAN OF READJUSTMENT OR IN THE FUND PAID INTO
COURT.  EXCEPT FOR THE PROVISION FOR SUCH PRESENTATION, THE DECREE
CANCELED THE OLD BONDS AND THE HOLDERS WERE ENJOINED FROM THEREAFTER
ASSERTING ANY CLAIM THEREON. 

PETITIONER PLEADED THIS DECREE, WHICH WAS ENTERED IN MARCH, 1936, AS
RES JUDICATA.  RESPONDENTS DEMURRED TO THE ANSWER.  THEREUPON THE
PARTIES STIPULATED FOR TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWED RESPONDENTS' OWNERSHIP OF THE BONDS IN SUIT AND
THAT RESPONDENTS HAD NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDING FOR DEBT READJUSTMENT. 
THE RECORD OF THAT PROCEEDING, INCLUDING THE FINAL DECREE, WAS
INTRODUCED.  THE DISTRICT COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS AND THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  103 F.2D 847.  THE DECISION WAS
PLACED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE DECREE WAS VOID BECAUSE, SUBSEQUENT TO
ITS ENTRY, THIS COURT IN A PROCEEDING RELATING TO A MUNICIPAL DISTRICT
IN TEXAS HAD DECLARED THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
ACTED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY DISTRICT, 298
U.S. 513.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  OCTOBER 9, 1939. 

THE COURTS BELOW HAVE PROCEEDED ON THE THEORY THAT THE ACT OF
CONGRESS, HAVING BEEN FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WAS NOT A LAW; THAT
IT WAS INOPERATIVE, CONFERRING NO RIGHTS AND IMPOSING NO DUTIES, AND
HENCE AFFORDING NO BASIS FOR THE CHALLENGED DECREE.  NORTON V. SHELBY
COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425, 442; CHICAGO, I. & L. RY. CO. V. HACKETT, 228
U.S. 559, 566.  IT IS QUITE CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH BROAD STATEMENTS
AS TO THE EFFECT OF A DETERMINATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE
TAKEN WITH QUALIFICATIONS.  THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF A STATUTE, PRIOR TO
SUCH A DETERMINATION, IS AN OPERATIVE FACT AND MAY HAVE CONSEQUENCES
WHICH CANNOT JUSTLY BE IGNORED.  THE PAST CANNOT ALWAYS BE ERASED BY A
NEW JUDICIAL DECLARATION.  THE EFFECT OF THE SUBSEQUENT RULING AS TO
INVALIDITY MAY HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN VARIOUS ASPECTS,  - WITH
RESPECT TO PARTICULAR RELATIONS, INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE, AND
PARTICULAR CONDUCT, PRIVATE AND OFFICIAL.  QUESTIONS OF RIGHTS CLAIMED
TO HAVE BECOME VESTED, OF STATUS, OF PRIOR DETERMINATIONS DEEMED TO
HAVE FINALITY AND ACTED UPON ACCORDINGLY, OF PUBLIC POLICY IN THE LIGHT
OF THE NATURE BOTH OF THE STATUTE AND OF ITS PREVIOUS APPLICATION,
DEMAND EXAMINATION.  THESE QUESTIONS ARE AMONG THE MOST DIFFICULT OF
THOSE WHICH HAVE ENGAGED THE ATTENTION OF COURTS, STATE AND FEDERAL,
AND IT IS MANIFEST FROM NUMEROUS DECISIONS THAT AN ALL-INCLUSIVE
STATEMENT OF A PRINCIPLE OF ABSOLUTE RETROACTIVE INVALIDITY CANNOT BE
JUSTIFIED.  FN3  WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO REVIEW THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF
CASES IN WHICH THE CONSEQUENCES OF A RULING AGAINST VALIDITY HAVE BEEN
DETERMINED IN RELATION TO THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF PAST
TRANSACTIONS, WE APPROPRIATELY CONFINE OUR CONSIDERATION TO THE
QUESTION OF RES JUDICATA AS IT NOW COMES BEFORE US. 

FIRST.  APART FROM THE CONTENTION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE LATER
DECISION AS TO CONSTITUTIONALITY, ALL THE ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO
CONSTITUTE THE DEFENSE OF RES JUDICATA ARE PRESENT.  IT APPEARS THAT
THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO BRING ABOUT A PLAN OF
READJUSTMENT WERE CONDUCTED IN COMPLETE CONFORMITY TO THE STATUTE.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED THAT NO QUESTION HAD BEEN RAISED AS
TO THE REGULARITY OF THE COURT'S ACTION.  THE ANSWER IN THE PRESENT
SUIT ALLEGED THAT THE PLAINTIFFS (RESPONDENTS HERE) HAD NOTICE OF THE
PROCEEDING AND WERE PARTIES, AND THE EVIDENCE WAS TO THE SAME EFFECT,
SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE IN THAT RESPECT.  AS PARTIES, THESE
BONDHOLDERS HAD FULL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE
PROCEEDING, NOT ONLY AS TO ITS REGULARITY, OR THE FAIRNESS OF THE
PROPOSED PLAN OF READJUSTMENT, OR THE PROPRIETY OF THE TERMS OF THE
DECREE, BUT ALSO AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE
PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT AND THE PLAN PUT INTO EFFECT.  APPARENTLY NO
QUESTION OF VALIDITY WAS RAISED AND THE CAUSE PROCEEDED TO DECREE ON
THE ASSUMPTION BY ALL PARTIES AND THE COURT ITSELF THAT THE STATUTE WAS
VALID.  THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO REVIEW THE DECREE.  IF THE GENERAL
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE DEFENSE OF RES JUDICATA ARE APPLICABLE, THESE
BONDHOLDERS, HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF
INVALIDITY, WERE NOT THE LESS BOUND BY THE DECREE BECAUSE THEY FAILED
TO RAISE IT.  CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, 94 U.S. 351, 352; CASE V.
BEAUREGARD, 101 U.S. 688, 692; BALTIMORE STEAMSHIP CO. V. PHILLIPS, 274
U.S. 316, 319, 325; GRUBB V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 281 U.S. 470,
479. 

SECOND.  THE ARGUMENT IS PRESSED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS SITTING
AS A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, WITH THE LIMITED JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY
STATUTE, AND THAT, AS THE STATUTE WAS LATER DECLARED TO BE INVALID, THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PROCEEDING AND
HENCE ITS DECREE IS OPEN TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  WE THINK THE ARGUMENT
UNTENABLE.  THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS ARE ALL COURTS OF LIMITED
JURISDICTION, THAT IS, WITH ONLY THE JURISDICTION WHICH CONGRESS HAS
PRESCRIBED.  BUT NONE THE LESS THEY ARE COURTS WITH AUTHORITY, WHEN
PARTIES ARE BROUGHT BEFORE THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
DUE PROCESS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN THE CAUSE AND FOR THIS PURPOSE TO CONSTRUE AND APPLY THE
STATUTE UNDER WHICH THEY ARE ASKED TO ACT.  THEIR DETERMINATIONS OF
SUCH QUESTIONS, WHILE OPEN TO DIRECT REVIEW, MAY NOT BE ASSAILED
COLLATERALLY. 

IN THE EARLY CASE OF M'CORMICK V. SULLIVANT, 10 WHEAT.  192, WHERE IT
WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DECREE OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DID NOT
SHOW THAT THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
STATES AND HENCE THAT THE SUIT WAS CORAM NON JUDICE AND THE DECREE
VOID, THIS COURT SAID:  "BUT THIS REASON PROCEEDS UPON AN INCORRECT
VIEW OF THE CHARACTER AND JURISDICTION OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THEY ARE ALL OF LIMITED JURISDICTION; BUT THEY ARE NOT,
ON THAT ACCOUNT, INFERIOR COURTS, IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE OF THOSE
WORDS, WHOSE JUDGMENTS, TAKEN ALONE, ARE TO BE DISREGARDED.  IF THE
JURISDICTION BE NOT ALLEGED IN THE PROCEEDINGS, THEIR JUDGMENTS AND
DECREES ARE ERRONEOUS, AND MAY, UPON A WRIT OF ERROR, OR APPEAL, BE
REVERSED FOR THAT CAUSE.  BUT THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE NULLITIES."  ID.,
P. 199.  SEE, ALSO, SKILLERN'S EXECUTORS V. MAY'S EXECUTORS, 6 CRANCH
267; DES MOINES NAVIGATION CO. V. IOWA HOMESTEAD CO., 123 U.S. 552,
557, 559; DOWELL V. APPLEGATE, 152 U.S. 327, 340; EVERS V. WATSON, 156
U.S. 527, 533; CUTLER V. HUSTON, 158 U.S. 423, 430, 431.  THIS RULE
APPLIES EQUALLY TO THE DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN
BANKRUPTCY, THAT IS, PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER A STATUTE OF CONGRESS
PASSED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE BANKRUPTCY POWER.  THE COURT HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON ITS OWN JURISDICTION AND ITS DECREE SUSTAINING
JURISDICTION AGAINST ATTACK, WHILE OPEN TO DIRECT REVIEW, IS RES
JUDICATA IN A COLLATERAL ACTION.  STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165, 171,
172. 

WHATEVER THE CONTENTION AS TO JURISDICTION MAY BE, WHETHER IT IS THAT
THE BOUNDARIES OF A VALID STATUTE HAVE BEEN TRANSGRESSED, OR THAT THE
STATUTE ITSELF IS INVALID, THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IS STILL ONE
FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  IF THE CONTENTION IS ONE AS TO VALIDITY,
THE QUESTION IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE STANDING OF THE
PARTY WHO SEEKS TO RAISE THE QUESTION AND OF ITS PARTICULAR
APPLICATION.  IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE
SITUATION OF PETITIONER, CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT, IS DIFFERENT
FROM THAT OF THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT BEFORE THE COURT IN THE ASHTON
CASE.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT IT IS NOT A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS BUT AN AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE
DISTRICT.  SEE DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 7 OF POINSETT COUNTY V. HUTCHINS,
184 ARK. 521; 42 S.W.2D 996.  FN4  WE DO NOT REFER TO THAT PHASE OF THE
CASE AS NOW DETERMINATIVE BUT MERELY AS ILLUSTRATING THE SORT OF
QUESTION WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CALLED UPON TO
RESOLVE HAD THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS IN THE PRESENT
APPLICATION BEEN RAISED.  AS THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY WAS ONE WHICH HAD
TO BE DETERMINED BY A JUDICIAL DECISION, IF DETERMINED AT ALL, NO
REASON APPEARS WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS DETERMINABLE BY THE
DISTRICT COURT LIKE ANY OTHER QUESTION AFFECTING ITS JURISDICTION. 
THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT IF THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE STATUTE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN RAISED AND DECIDED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
IN THE PROCEEDING TO EFFECT A PLAN OF DEBT READJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STATUTE, THAT DETERMINATION WOULD HAVE BEEN FINAL SAVE AS IT
WAS OPEN TO DIRECT REVIEW UPON APPEAL.  STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, SUPRA.  FN5 

THE REMAINING QUESTION IS SIMPLY WHETHER RESPONDENTS, HAVING FAILED
TO RAISE THE QUESTION IN THE PROCEEDING TO WHICH THEY WERE PARTIES AND
IN WHICH THEY COULD HAVE RAISED IT AND HAD IT FINALLY DETERMINED, WERE
PRIVILEGED TO REMAIN QUIET AND RAISE IT IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT.  SUCH A
VIEW IS CONTRARY TO THE WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT RES JUDICATA MAY BE
PLEADED AS A BAR, NOT ONLY AS RESPECTS MATTERS ACTUALLY PRESENTED TO
SUSTAIN OR DEFEAT THE RIGHT ASSERTED IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDING, "BUT
ALSO AS RESPECTS ANY OTHER AVAILABLE MATTER WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED TO THAT END."  GRUBB V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, SUPRA;
CROMWELL V. COUNTY OF SAC, SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT NO. 405, EXTRA.  SESS., GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF ARKANSAS,
APPROVED FEBRUARY 20, 1920, AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 432 OF 1921, AND
GENERAL DRAINAGE LAW OF ARKANSAS, APPROVED MAY 27, 1909. 

FN2  48 STAT. 798.  ORIGINALLY THIS PROVISION WAS LIMITED TO TWO
YEARS BUT IT WAS EXTENDED TO JANUARY 1, 1940, BY ACT APPROVED APRIL 10,
1936, 49 STAT. 1198. 

FN3  SEE FIELD, "THE EFFECT OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE"; 42 YALE
LAW JOURNAL 779; 45 YALE LAW JOURNAL 1533; 48 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1271;
25 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW 210. 

FN4  SEE DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 2 V. MERCANTILE-COMMERCE BANK, 69 F.2D
138; IN RE DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 7, 21 F.SUPP.  798. 

FN5  SEE, ALSO, MILLER V. TYLER, 58 N.Y. 477, 480; DRINKARD V. ODEN,
150 ALA. 475, 477, 478; 43 SO. 578; PULASKI AVENUE, 220 PA. 276, 279,
280; 69 A. 749; PEOPLE V. RUSSEL, 283 ILL. 520, 524; 119 N.E. 617; BECK
V. STATE, 196 WIS. 242, 250; 219 N.W. 197. 
..END :




















POSTAL S.S. CORP. V. EL ISLEO, 308 U.S. 378 


NO. 73.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - 101
F.2D 4, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER RULES II AND VII OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISING INSPECTORS,
WHEN TWO STEAMSHIPS ARE ON CROSSING COURSES, THE PRIVILEGED VESSEL HAS
NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO KEEP HER COURSE AND SPEED, REGARDLESS OF DANGER
INVOLVED; HER RIGHT TO MAINTAIN HER PRIVILEGE ENDS WHEN THERE IS DANGER
OF COLLISION; AND, IN THE PRESENCE OF THAT DANGER, BOTH VESSELS MUST BE
STOPPED AND BACKED IF NECESSARY, UNTIL SIGNALS FOR PASSING WITH SAFETY
HAVE BEEN MADE AND UNDERSTOOD.  P. 382. 

2.  THESE RULES SHOULD BE CONSTRUED WITH ARTICLE 27, AND ARE NOT
ESSENTIALLY INCONSISTENT WITH ARTICLES 19-23, OF THE INLAND RULES
ESTABLISHED BY ACT OF JUNE 7, 1897, C. 4, SEC. 2, 30 STAT. 103, 33
U.S.C. 157, AND ARE VALID.  PP. 385, 388. 

POSTAL STEAMSHIP CORP. V. EL ISLEO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 74, POSTAL STEAMSHIP CORP. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 532, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF DECREES OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN ADMIRALTY, 20 F.SUPP.  373, WHICH DISMISSED A LIBEL
BROUGHT BY THE PRESENT PETITIONER AND AWARDED DAMAGES TO THE
RESPONDENT, IN A COLLISION CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STEAMER EASTERN GLADE, OWNED BY PETITIONER, COLLIDED WITH THE
STEAMER EL ISLEO, OWNED BY RESPONDENT, IN THE WATERS OF BALTIMORE
HARBOR.  EACH OWNER FILED A LIBEL AGAINST THE VESSEL OF THE OTHER.  THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE EASTERN GLADE WAS SOLELY AT FAULT (20
F.SUPP.  373) AND DECREES DISMISSING PETITIONER'S SUIT AND AWARDING
DAMAGES TO RESPONDENT WERE AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
101 F.2D 4.  IN THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS INVOLVED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION
OF MARITIME LAW WHICH HAD NOT BEEN, AND SHOULD BE, SETTLED BY THIS
COURT, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

THAT QUESTION IS SAID TO ARISE FROM RULINGS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF RULES II AND VII OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISING INSPECTORS FN1  IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS.  FN2  SEE THE FULTON, 54 F.2D 467,
468. 

THE FACTS ARE THUS STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS: 

"THE COLLISION OCCURRED IN THE WATERS OF BALTIMORE HARBOR NEAR THE
JUNCTION OF CURTIS BAY CHANNEL WITH FORT MCHENRY CHANNEL.  THE LATTER
IS ABOUT 600 FEET WIDE AND RUNS IN A NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION TOWARDS
BALTIMORE; THE FORMER, RUNNING NEARLY EAST AND WEST, COMES INTO FORT
MCHENRY CHANNEL FROM THE WEST BUT DOES NOT CROSS IT.  THE NIGHT WAS
CLEAR, THE TIDE EBB, AND A 15 MILE BREEZE WAS BLOWING FROM THE
NORTHWEST.  THE STEAMSHIP EASTERN GLADE, LIGHT, WAS BOUND OUT OF CURTIS
BAY CHANNEL AND WAS INTENDING TO TURN LEFT INTO FORT MCHENRY CHANNEL
AND PROCEED TO BALTIMORE.  THE STEAMER EL ISLEO, LADEN WITH 1,000 TONS
OF STEEL ORE, ALSO BOUND FOR BALTIMORE, WAS PROCEEDING UP FORT MCHENRY
CHANNEL AT FULL SPEED - ABOUT EIGHT MILES THROUGH THE WATER, AS SHE WAS
WORKING ONLY ONE BOILER.  WHEN THE VESSELS SIGHTED EACH OTHER THEY WERE
MORE THAN A MILE APART, THE EL ISLEO BEING ABOUT FOUR POINTS ON THE
STARBOARD BOW OF THE EASTERN GLADE.  THE LATTER STOPPED HER ENGINES AND
SHORTLY THEREAFTER SOUNDED A TWO BLAST SIGNAL TO INDICATE, AS HER
MASTER SAYS, THAT HIS COURSE WAS TO THE LEFT AND UP FORT MCHENRY
CHANNEL.  EL ISLEO ANSWERED THE TWO BLAST SIGNAL WITH AN ALARM FOLLOWED
BY ONE BLAST TO INDICATE THAT SHE WOULD KEEP HER COURSE AND SPEED. 
CAPTAIN KORN OF EL ISLEO TESTIFIED THAT THE EASTERN GLADE RESPONDED
WITH FOUR BLASTS FOLLOWED BY ONE, WHILE HER CAPTAIN SAYS SHE RESPONDED
WITH THREE BLASTS TO INDICATE THAT SHE WAS REVERSING HER ENGINES.  EL
ISLEO KEPT ON UNTIL SHE REACHED A BUOY JUST OPPOSITE CURTIS BAY
CHANNEL, WHEN, BELIEVING COLLISION IMMINENT, SHE PUT HER RUDDER HARD
RIGHT AND SWUNG OUT OF FORT MCHENRY CHANNEL TO HER STARBOARD.  THE
EASTERN GLADE, ALTHOUGH HER MASTER TESTIFIED THAT HE INTENDED TO HOLD
BACK IN CURTIS BAY CHANNEL UNTIL EL ISLEO HAD PASSED THE JUNCTION, CAME
CLEAR ACROSS FORT MCHENRY CHANNEL AND BROUGHT HER STEM INTO CONTACT
WITH THE PORT SIDE OF EL ISLEO ABOUT AMIDSHIPS.  THE PLACE OF COLLISION
WAS EAST OF FORT MCHENRY CHANNEL.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT DETERMINE
HOW FAR TO THE EAST, BUT MCDONALD TESTIFIED IT WAS ABOUT 200 YARDS." 

AFTER REFERRING TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE VESSELS WERE ON CROSSING
COURSES AS THE DISTRICT COURT HAD HELD, OR WHETHER THE SITUATION WAS
ONE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS PETITIONER CONTENDED, THE COURT OF
APPEALS CONTINUED: 

"IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT EL ISLEO'S COURSE UP FORT MCHENRY CHANNEL
WAS ALWAYS APPARENT TO THE EASTERN GLADE.  BUT THE LATTER'S COURSE WAS
NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT TO EL ISLEO; WHEN THE EASTERN GLADE SHOULD
REACH THE END OF CURTIS BAY CHANNEL, SHE MIGHT TURN LEFT, SHE MIGHT
TURN RIGHT, OR SHE MIGHT CONCEIVABLY, THOUGH IMPROBABLY, CROSS FORT
MCHENRY CHANNEL, SINCE THERE WAS WATER ENOUGH TO THE EAST OF THAT
CHANNEL, ALTHOUGH NEITHER PIER, PORT NOR ANCHORAGE TO WHICH SHE MIGHT
BE BOUND APPEARS ON THE CHART.  WHEN, HOWEVER, SHE SOUNDED HER TWO
BLAST SIGNAL, SHE INDICATED AN INTENTION EITHER TO CROSS THE BOWS OF EL
ISLEO BY PROCEEDING ACROSS FORT MCHENRY CHANNEL, OR TO TURN TO THE LEFT
AND PROCEED UP THAT CHANNEL.  THE FORMER ALTERNATIVE WOULD CLEARLY
RESULT IN CROSSING COURSES; THE LATTER WOULD RESULT IN CONVERGING
COURSES, SINCE THE EASTERN GLADE'S COURSE, IF PROJECTED, WOULD CARRY
HER INTO THE STARBOARD LANE OF FORT MCHENRY CHANNEL, UNLESS SHE
VIOLATED HER DUTY BY GOING UP ON THE WRONG SIDE.  SUCH CONVERGING
COURSES INVOLVE THE VERY RISK THAT RESULTED IN THE COLLISION, AND THE
RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE VESSELS ARE GOVERNED BY ARTICLES 19, 22 AND 23
OF THE INLAND RULES, 33 U.S.C.A., SECS. 204, 207, 208.  ...
ACCORDINGLY, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS RIGHT IN TREATING THE SITUATION AS
ONE OF CROSSING COURSES." 

THE ARTICLES OF THE INLAND RULES ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS  FN3
PROVIDE: 

"ART. 19.  WHEN TWO STEAM-VESSELS ARE CROSSING, SO AS TO INVOLVE RISK
OF COLLISION, THE VESSEL WHICH HAS THE OTHER ON HER OWN STARBOARD SIDE
SHALL KEEP OUT OF THE WAY OF THE OTHER. 

"ART. 21.  WHERE, BY ANY OF THESE RULES, ONE OF THE TWO VESSELS IS TO
KEEP OUT OF THE WAY, THE OTHER SHALL KEEP HER COURSE AND SPEED. 

"ART. 22.  EVERY VESSEL WHICH IS DIRECTED BY THESE RULES TO KEEP OUT
OF THE WAY OF ANOTHER VESSEL SHALL, IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
ADMIT, AVOID CROSSING AHEAD OF THE OTHER. 

"ART. 23.  EVERY STEAM-VESSEL WHICH IS DIRECTED BY THESE RULES TO
KEEP OUT OF THE WAY OF ANOTHER VESSEL SHALL, ON APPROACHING HER, IF
NECESSARY, SLACKEN HER SPEED, OR STOP OR REVERSE." 

APPLYING THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AND VIEWING THE SITUATION AS ONE
OF "CROSSING COURSES," THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT NO FAULT
APPEARED IN THE NAVIGATION OF EL ISLEO, THE "PRIVILEGED VESSEL."  THE
FAULT OF THE EASTERN GLADE WAS FOUND TO BE GLARING AND ALONE SUFFICIENT
TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DISASTER. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT CONTEST THE RULING THAT THE EASTERN GLADE WAS AT
FAULT BUT INSISTS THAT EL ISLEO WAS ALSO AT FAULT.  PETITIONER ARGUES
THAT EL ISLEO VIOLATED RULES II AND VII OF THE SUPERVISING INSPECTORS,
PURPORTING TO HAVE BEEN ADOPTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATUTE. 
FN3 THESE RULES ARE AS FOLLOWS:  FN4 

"RULE II.  STEAM VESSELS ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE WHAT HAS BECOME
TECHNICALLY KNOWN AMONG PILOTS AS 'CROSS SIGNALS,' THAT IS, ANSWERING
ONE WHISTLE WITH TWO, AND ANSWERING TWO WHISTLES WITH ONE. 

"RULE VII.  WHEN TWO STEAM VESSELS ARE APPROACHING EACH OTHER AT
RIGHT ANGLES OR OBLIQUELY SO AS TO INVOLVE RISK OF COLLISION, OTHER
THAN WHEN ONE STEAM VESSEL IS OVERTAKING ANOTHER, THE STEAM VESSEL
WHICH HAS THE OTHER ON HER OWN PORT SIDE SHALL HOLD HER COURSE AND
SPEED; AND THE STEAM VESSEL WHICH HAS THE OTHER ON HER OWN STARBOARD
SIDE SHALL KEEP OUT OF THE WAY OF THE OTHER BY DIRECTING HER COURSE TO
STARBOARD SO AS TO CROSS THE STERN OF THE OTHER STEAM VESSEL, OR, IF
NECESSARY TO DO SO, SLACKEN HER SPEED OR STOP OR REVERSE. 

"IF FROM ANY CAUSE THE CONDITIONS COVERED BY THIS SITUATION ARE SUCH
AS TO PREVENT IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE WITH EACH OTHER'S SIGNALS, THE
MISUNDERSTANDING OR OBJECTION SHALL BE AT ONCE MADE APPARENT BY BLOWING
THE DANGER SIGNAL, AND BOTH STEAM VESSELS SHALL BE STOPPED AND BACKED
IF NECESSARY, UNTIL SIGNALS FOR PASSING WITH SAFETY ARE MADE AND
UNDERSTOOD." 

PETITIONER SAYS THAT THESE RULES ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
STATUTE AND HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW; THAT THEY PROVIDE IN SUBSTANCE "THAT
WHERE THE SO-CALLED PRIVILEGED VESSEL IN A CROSSING SITUATION RECEIVES
AN UNACCEPTABLE PROPOSAL TO CROSS AHEAD, THE PRIVILEGED VESSEL MAY NOT
MAINTAIN HER COURSE AND SPEED UNTIL COLLISION BECOMES IMMINENT BUT MUST
AT ONCE SOUND DANGER SIGNALS AND STOP AND BACK IF NECESSARY UNTIL A
SAFE PASSAGE HAS BEEN AGREED UPON."  HENCE, IT IS ARGUED, THAT EL ISLEO
WAS REQUIRED TO "STOP, AND REVERSE IF NECESSARY," WHEN THE EASTERN
GLADE SOUNDED HER TWO-BLAST SIGNAL, AND THAT THE ONLY QUESTION HERE IS
AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE INSPECTORS' REQUIREMENTS. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 19-23
GOVERN; THAT IT WAS NOT ONLY THE PRIVILEGE BUT THE DUTY OF EL ISLEO TO
"KEEP HER COURSE AND SPEED"; THAT IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE
SUPERVISING INSPECTORS TO MODIFY THAT AFFIRMATIVE DUTY; THAT EL ISLEO
WAS NOT BOUND TO AGREE TO THE TWO-BLAST SIGNAL FROM THE EASTERN GLADE;
THAT THE SIGNALS HAD BEEN MADE AND WERE UNDERSTOOD BY EACH VESSEL AND
THE COLLISION WAS DUE TO THE MISCALCULATION OF THE MASTER OF THE
EASTERN GLADE; AND THAT IF THERE WERE ANY ERRORS IN EL ISLEO'S
NAVIGATION THEY WERE ERRORS IN EXTREMIS FOR WHICH SHE IS NOT LIABLE. 

THE INSPECTORS' PROHIBITION AGAINST "CROSS SIGNALS," FOUND IN RULE
II, WAS ORIGINALLY APPLICABLE TO "VESSELS APPROACHING EACH OTHER FROM
OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS"  FN5  BUT WAS AMENDED SO THAT ITS TERMS APPLY TO
CROSSING SITUATIONS AS WELL.  FN6  THE FULTON, SUPRA.  BUT THE COURT OF
APPEALS IN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS INVOLVING CROSSING SITUATIONS HAS
DISREGARDED THE INSPECTORS' RULE AND HAS "EXONERATED A VESSEL WHICH
PRESSED HER STATUTORY PRIVILEGE BY CROSSING THE SIGNAL AND HOLDING HER
COURSE AND SPEED."  FN7  ID.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REVIEW THE MANY
CASES WHICH THE PRESENT PARTIES CITE, AS THE COURT ITSELF HAS
SUMMARIZED ITS POSITION: 

"OUR REASONING HAS BEEN, THAT, AS THE STATUTE (INLAND RULES) ARTICLE
21(33 U.S.C.A., SEC. 206), PUTS A DUTY UPON THE PRIVILEGED SHIP TO KEEP
HER COURSE AND SPEED, NO RULE CAN BE VALID WHICH AFFECTS TO RELIEVE HER
OF IT, AND THAT SHE MAY ANNOUNCE HER DETERMINATION TO INSIST BY
CROSSING THE FIRST SIGNAL.  THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN TOO LONG AND TOO
REPEATEDLY ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW ANY QUESTION NOW, BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT
THE INSPECTORS HAVE NEVER ASSENTED TO IT."  ID. 

ALTHOUGH THE COURT OF APPEALS, AFTER MAKING THIS STATEMENT IN THE
FULTON, SAID THAT, AS THE COURT WAS THEN CONSTITUTED, IT COULD NOT SEE
ANY NECESSARY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE INSPECTORS' RULE AND THE
STATUTE, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT "UNLESS THE SUPREME COURT CHOOSES
FINALLY TO SETTLE THE WHOLE MATTER OTHERWISE," IT HAD NO OPTION "IN
CROSSING SITUATIONS" AND WOULD "CONTINUE TO DISREGARD THE RULE."  THE
FULTON, HOWEVER, PRESENTED A "HEAD-ON SITUATION," AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS, FEELING THAT IT WAS NOT COMMITTED IN SUCH A CASE, DECIDED THAT
THE STEAMSHIP THERE IN QUESTION WAS "AT FAULT FOR CROSSING THE
SIGNAL."  ID., P. 469. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS AGAIN REFERRED TO THE RULE
AS ESTABLISHED IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT, "THAT IN A CROSSING SITUATION THE
PRIVILEGED VESSEL MAY 'CROSS' THE SIGNAL OF THE BURDENED VESSEL AND
HOLD HER COURSE AND SPEED UNTIL IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THE BURDENED
VESSEL EITHER CANNOT OR WILL NOT KEEP OUT OF THE WAY."  AND THE COURT
OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THIS RULE WAS CRITICISED IN THE FULTON, IT WAS
THOUGHT TO BE "TOO FIRMLY ESTABLISHED TO BE DEPARTED FROM UNTIL THE
SUPREME COURT SPEAKS."  THE COURT ADDED THAT IT STILL ADHERED TO THAT
VIEW.  101 F.2D, P. 6. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE SUPERVISING INSPECTORS HAD NO INTENTION TO
DEPART FROM THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THEY CLAIMED AUTHORITY TO MAKE
THEIR REGULATIONS.  AND ARTICLES 19-23 OF THE STATUTE ARE TO BE READ IN
THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 27 WHICH HAS THE FOLLOWING CONTROLLING
QUALIFICATION: 

"ART. 27.  IN OBEYING AND CONSTRUING THESE RULES DUE REGARD SHALL BE
HAD TO ALL DANGERS OF NAVIGATION AND COLLISION, AND TO ANY SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY RENDER A DEPARTURE FROM THE ABOVE RULES
NECESSARY IN ORDER TO AVOID IMMEDIATE DANGER." 

MOREOVER, THE INSPECTORS EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZE AND FOLLOW THE STATUTE
IN PROVIDING IN RULE VII, FIRST PARAGRAPH, THAT "THE STEAM VESSEL WHICH
HAS THE OTHER ON HER OWN PORT SIDE SHALL HOLD HER COURSE AND SPEED; AND
THE STEAM VESSEL WHICH HAS THE OTHER ON HER OWN STARBOARD SIDE SHALL
KEEP OUT OF THE WAY OF THE OTHER BY DIRECTING HER COURSE TO STARBOARD
SO AS TO CROSS THE STERN OF THE OTHER STEAM VESSEL, OR, IF NECESSARY TO
DO SO, SLACKEN HER SPEED OR STOP OR REVERSE."  THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF
RULE VII, PROVIDING FOR THE STOPPAGE AND BACKING OF BOTH VESSELS IF
NECESSARY "UNTIL SIGNALS FOR PASSING WITH SAFETY ARE MADE AND
UNDERSTOOD," WAS CLEARLY INTENDED TO APPLY TO THE DANGEROUS SITUATION
ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 27 OF THE STATUTE. 

THE GROUNDS FOR CRITICISING THE RULINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN DISREGARDING THE INSPECTORS' REQUIREMENT CANNOT
BE BETTER STATED THAN IN THE COURT'S OWN LANGUAGE IN THE FULTON.  AFTER
REFERRING TO ITS FORMER DECISIONS, BY WHICH IT FELT ITSELF BOUND, THE
COURT OBSERVED THAT "CONCEDEDLY THERE COMES A TIME WHEN THE PRIVILEGED
VESSEL MUST YIELD"; THAT THERE IS NEVER A "RIGHT OF WAY INTO
COLLISION"; THAT THE POINT AT BEST "IS ONE OF DEGREE"; AND THAT IF THE
QUESTION WERE RES INTEGRA THE INSPECTORS' RULE WOULD BE HELD VALID. 
THE COURT CONTINUED:  "THE INSPECTORS APPARENTLY BELIEVE THAT IN THE
GREATER NUMBER OF CASES IT WILL CONDUCE TO COLLISION TO ALLOW A PILOT
TO KEEP ON IN THE FACE OF A PROPOSAL BY THE APPROACHING VESSEL THAT SHE
PUT HERSELF ACROSS HIS BOWS.  TRUE, THE PROPOSER OFTEN WILL NOT ACT
WITHOUT CONSENT; BUT IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT PRUDENCE FORBIDS
SPECULATION AS TO WHETHER HE HAS STILL TIME OR DISPOSITION TO KEEP OUT
OF THE WAY.  AGAIN AND AGAIN CASES ARISE IN WHICH THE PROPOSAL IS
REPEATED, THE VESSELS COMING NEARER ALL THE TIME; SOMETIMES IT IS
REPEATED EVEN AFTER IT HAS BEEN CROSSED BY A REFUSAL.  NO SUBSTANTIAL
INTEREST IS AT STAKE EXCEPT TO ESCAPE COLLISION WHICH WILL CERTAINLY BE
AVOIDED IF BOTH STOP."  STOPPING "IS MORE LIKELY TO AVOID DISASTER THAN
GOING ON IN THE TEETH OF WHAT IS AT LEAST A PROPOSAL, AND MAY BE A
DECLARATION."  SO, THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THE SITUATION WAS A PROPER
ONE "FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE INSPECTORS' FUNCTION IN PROVIDING FOR
CASES NOT COVERED EXPLICITLY."  THE COURT COULD NOT SEE "ANY CONFLICT
WITH THE STATUTE, UNLESS THAT BE READ WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS PURPOSE." 
FOR ARTICLES 19 AND 21 "DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SIGNALS AT ALL"; AND "IF ONE
IS GIVEN PROPOSING A DANGEROUS COURSE," THE COURT THOUGHT IT "TOO
VERBAL AND RIGID AN INTERPRETATION TO SAY THAT THE PRIVILEGED VESSEL IS
INEVITABLY STILL BOUND; AT LEAST OFFICIALS, VESTED WITH GENERAL
AUTHORITY, ARE NOT HELPLESS TO MEET THE SITUATION BY A RULE."  AND
AFTER NOTING THAT ARTICLE 27 OF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZED A DEPARTURE "TO
AVOID IMMEDIATE DANGER," THE COURT POSED THE QUESTION - "CAN IT BE THAT
THOUGH VESSELS THEMSELVES MAY SO DEPART, THE INSPECTORS MAY NOT SAY
THAT A SITUATION LIKELY TO BE DANGEROUS SHALL BE TREATED AS SUCH?" 

WE ARE IN ACCORD WITH THE CRITICISM THUS EFFECTIVELY EXPRESSED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF ITS ESTABLISHED RULE, AND WE THINK THAT THE COURT
SHOULD BE RELIEVED OF ITS ASSUMED OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW ITS FORMER
DECISIONS HOLDING THE INSPECTORS' REQUIREMENT INVALID.  WE THINK THAT
INSPECTORS' RULE II SHOULD BE READ IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR RULE VII
AND THAT BOTH SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY
PROVISION IN ARTICLE 27. 

THE PLAIN PURPOSE OF THE INSPECTORS' RULES IS TO MINIMIZE THE DANGER
OF COLLISION.  THE SO-CALLED PRIVILEGED VESSEL HAS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO
KEEP HER COURSE AND SPEED REGARDLESS OF THE DANGER INVOLVED IN THAT
ACTION.  HER RIGHT TO MAINTAIN HER PRIVILEGE ENDS WHEN THERE IS DANGER
OF COLLISION AND IN THE PRESENCE OF THAT DANGER BOTH VESSELS MUST BE
"STOPPED AND BACKED IF NECESSARY, UNTIL SIGNALS FOR PASSING WITH SAFETY
ARE MADE AND UNDERSTOOD." 

IN THE QUOGUE, 47 F.2D 873, WHERE THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SECOND
CIRCUIT HAD BEFORE IT A "HEAD-ON SITUATION," THE COURT CONDEMNED A
VESSEL "FOR CROSSING SIGNALS AND INSISTING UPON HER RIGHTS."  THAT
VESSEL WAS THE TRANSFER AND THE RIGHT INSISTED UPON WAS THAT OF PORT TO
PORT PASSAGE.  THE FAULT OF THE OTHER VESSEL, THE QUOGUE, IN
UNDERTAKING TO CROSS THE BOW OF THE TRANSFER WAS FOUND TO BE "MOST
GLARING," BUT THE TRANSFER WAS ALSO HELD AT FAULT BECAUSE HER MASTER
WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACTING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE QUOGUE WOULD NOT
CARRY OUT THE MANEUVER INDICATED BY HER SIGNALS UNLESS HE CONSENTED. 
HE DID NOT "REVERSE AS PROMPTLY AS HE SHOULD," FOR WHEN THE DANGEROUS
SITUATION WAS PRESENTED "HE WAS NOT PRIVILEGED TO CONTINUE ON HIS
COURSE ON THE CHANCE THAT THE OTHER VESSEL WOULD CHANGE HER ANNOUNCED
PURPOSE IF HE REFUSED TO CONSENT."  THE COURT OF APPEALS APTLY SAID:
"IT IS A HARD RULE WHICH REQUIRES A MASTER WHEN HE SEES ANOTHER VESSEL
ABOUT TO CROSS HIS BOW WITH WANTON DISREGARD OF HIS RIGHTS TO STOP AND
ALLOW THE ARROGANT USURPER TO PURSUE HIS WRONGFUL COURSE.  BUT SAFETY
IS BETTER THAN PRIDE; AND HOWEVER SLIGHT THE HOPE THAT RULES TO PROMOTE
SAFETY WILL BE OBSERVED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHATEVER COURTS MAY
SAY, THE VESSELS MUST BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO THEIR LEGAL DUTIES." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE FULTON CONSIDERED THESE OBSERVATIONS IN
THE QUOGUE TO BE PERTINENT, AND WE THINK THAT THEY ARE PERTINENT TO A
DANGEROUS SITUATION ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH CROSSING COURSES.  WE
SEE NO SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR A DISTINCTION IN UPHOLDING AND APPLYING
THE INSPECTORS' REQUIREMENTS IN SUCH CASES. 

WE DEAL SIMPLY WITH THE QUESTION PRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE INSPECTORS' RULES HERE IN QUESTION.  WE HOLD THESE
RULES ARE NOT ESSENTIALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE AND ARE VALID,
BOTH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE INSPECTORS' RULES BEING DESIGNED
TO PROMOTE SAFETY IN SITUATIONS FRAUGHT WITH DANGER.  WE DO NOT PASS,
OR INTIMATE ANY OPINION, UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE,
AS IT IS THE APPROPRIATE PROVINCE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO DEAL WITH
THESE.  AS THE COURT OF APPEALS APPARENTLY DID NOT CONSIDER THE CONDUCT
OF EL ISLEO IN THE LIGHT OF THE INSPECTORS' REQUIREMENTS, BUT THOUGHT,
UNDER THE COMPULSION OF ITS FORMER DECISION, THAT IT MUST DISREGARD
THOSE REQUIREMENTS, WE THINK THAT THE CAUSE SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE
COURT OF APPEALS TO BE DECIDED BY IT, FREE OF THAT COMPULSION. 

TO AFFORD THAT FREEDOM WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENTS AND REMAND. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  "PILOT RULES FOR CERTAIN INLAND WATERS," ETC., EFFECTIVE, AS
AMENDED, MAY 1, 1912. 

FN2  INLAND RULES, ACT OF JUNE 7, 1897, ARTS. 19, 21-23, 27, 30 STAT.
101, 102; 33 U.S.C. 204, 206-208, 212. 

FN3  ACT OF JUNE 7, 1897, C. 4, SEC. 2, 30 STAT. 102; 33 U.S.C. 157. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN5  SEE RULE III, "PILOT RULES FOR ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC COAST INLAND
WATERS," EDITION OCTOBER 23, 1906. 

FN6  SEE RULE II, EDITION JULY 1, 1907; EDITION MAY 1, 1912. 

FN7  IN THE FULTON, 54 F.2D, P. 468, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
CITED TO THIS EFFECT THE JOHN KING, 49 F. 469; THE CYGNUS, 142 F. 85;
THE TRANSFER NO. 15, 145 F. 503; THE JOHN H. STARIN, 162 F. 146; THE
MONTAUK, 180 F. 697; THE ASHLEY, 221 F. 423. 
..END :






HAGGAR CO. V. HELVERING, 308 U.S. 389 


NO. 176.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - 104
F.2D 24, REVERSED. 


1.  A LITERAL READING WHICH LEADS TO ABSURD RESULTS WILL BE AVOIDED
WHEN THE STATUTE CAN BE GIVEN A REASONABLE APPLICATION CONSISTENT WITH
ITS WORDS AND PURPOSE.  P. 394. 

2.  SECTIONS 215 AND 216 OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT
IMPOSE ON DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS AN ANNUAL CAPITAL STOCK TAX AND AN
ANNUAL TAX ON PROFITS IN EXCESS OF 12 1/2 PER CENT OF THE CAPITAL
STOCK, BOTH CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL STOCK
AS DECLARED BY THE CORPORATION'S RETURN FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE
TAX IS IMPOSED, "WHICH DECLARATION OF VALUE CAN NOT BE AMENDED."  FOR
ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR THE ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE SHALL BE THE ORIGINAL
DECLARED VALUE AS CHANGED BY CERTAIN PRESCRIBED CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS. 
HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW THE TAXPAYER TO FIX FOR ITSELF THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAXABLE BASE WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE AMOUNT THUS FIXED
FOR THE FIRST TAXABLE YEAR SHALL BE ACCEPTED, WITH ONLY SUCH CHANGES AS
THE STATUTE PROVIDES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE CAPITAL STOCK
AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES IN THE LATER YEARS.  P. 394. 

(2)  THE PHRASE "FIRST RETURN" MEANS A RETURN FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN
WHICH THE TAXPAYER EXERCISES THE PRIVILEGE OF FIXING ITS CAPITAL STOCK
VALUE FOR TAX PURPOSES.  P. 395. 

(3)  THIS INCLUDES A TIMELY AMENDED RETURN FOR THAT YEAR.  P. 396. 

3.  A TREASURY REGULATION WHICH CHANGES AN EARLIER CONSTRUCTION OF A
STATUTE WITHOUT SERVING ANY GOVERNMENTAL CONVENIENCE OR PURPOSE OR
EMBODYING RESULTS OF SPECIALIZED DEPARTMENTAL KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE,
AND WHICH CONTRADICTS THE STATUTORY PURPOSES AND THE PLAIN MEANING OF
ITS WORDS, WILL NOT BE FOLLOWED.  P. 398. 

4.  AN AMENDMENT OF A STATUTE PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRECLUDING
FOR THE FUTURE AN EARLIER ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION, HELD NOT AN
ADOPTION OF THAT CONSTRUCTION AS THE ONE INTENDED BY THE ORIGINAL
ENACTMENT.  P. 398. 

5.  SEMBLE THAT RETROACTIVE DECLARATIONS OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT,
PREJUDICIAL TO THOSE WHO HAVE ACTED UNDER AN EARLIER STATUTE WHOSE
CONSTRUCTION SEEMS CLEAR, OUGHT NOT TO BE IMPLIED MORE THAN THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENTION TO GIVE RETROACTIVE OPERATION TO A NEW STATUTE. 
P. 400. 

HAGGAR COMPANY V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 533, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 38 B.T.A. 141, APPROVING A DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DECISION IN THIS CASE TURNS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER A CAPITAL STOCK
TAX RETURN FILED PURSUANT TO SEC. 215 OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 195, 207, MAY BE AMENDED WITHIN THE TIME
FIXED FOR FILING THE RETURN. 

INTERRELATED TAXES ON DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS, NAMELY AN ANNUAL CAPITAL
STOCK TAX AND AN ANNUAL TAX ON PROFITS IN EXCESS OF 12 1/2 PER CENT OF
THE CAPITAL STOCK, CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL
STOCK AS FIXED BY THE CORPORATION'S RETURN FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH
THE TAX IS IMPOSED. 

RESPECT TO CARRYING ON OR DOING BUSINESS FOR ANY PART OF THE TAXABLE
YEAR AT THE RATE OF "$1 FOR EACH $1,000 OF THE ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE
OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK."  SECTION 215(F) PROVIDES THAT "FOR THE FIRST
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 IN RESPECT OF WHICH A TAX IS IMPOSED BY THIS
VALUE, AS DECLARED BY THE CORPORATION IN ITS FIRST RETURN UNDER THIS
OF ITS LAST INCOME-TAX TAXABLE YEAR ENDING AT OR PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF
THE YEAR FOR WHICH THE TAX IS IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION.  ...  FOR ANY
SUBSEQUENT YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, THE ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE IN THE CASE
OF A DOMESTIC CORPORATION SHALL BE THE ORIGINAL DECLARED VALUE" AS
CHANGED BY CERTAIN PRESCRIBED CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS OCCASIONED BY
INCREASES AND DECREASES OF CAPITAL OCCURRING AFTER "THE DATE AS OF
WHICH THE ORIGINAL DECLARED VALUE WAS DECLARED."  SECTION 216(A)
IMPOSES AN ANNUAL TAX UPON SO MUCH OF THE NET INCOME OF A CORPORATION
TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 215(A) AS IS IN EXCESS OF 12 1/2 PER CENT OF THE
"ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK  ...  AS OF THE CLOSE OF
THE PRECEDING INCOME-TAX TAXABLE YEAR (OR AS OF THE DATE OF
ORGANIZATION IF IT HAD NO PRECEDING INCOME-TAX TAXABLE YEAR)  ..." 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT BY SEC. 215(A) AND (F) THE DECLARED VALUE OF
CAPITAL STOCK WHICH IS MADE THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF BOTH TAXES IS
NOT REQUIRED TO CONFORM EITHER TO THE ACTUAL OR TO THE NOMINAL CAPITAL
OF THE TAXPAYING CORPORATION; AND THAT THE DECLARED VALUE FOR THE FIRST
TAXABLE YEAR, WITH THE ADDITION OR SUBTRACTION OF SPECIFIED ITEMS OF
SUBSEQUENT CAPITAL GAINS OR LOSSES IS MADE THE BASIS OF THE COMPUTATION
OF BOTH TAXES IN LATER YEARS.  THE TAXPAYER IS THUS LEFT FREE TO
DECLARE ANY VALUE OF CAPITAL STOCK FOR ITS FIRST TAXABLE YEAR WHICH IT
MAY ELECT, BUT SINCE THE DECLARED VALUE FOR THE FIRST YEAR IS A
CONTROLLING FACTOR FOR THE COMPUTATION OF TAXES FOR LATER YEARS, THE
STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE DECLARATION ONCE MADE CANNOT BE AMENDED. 
BECAUSE OF THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION, INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE
DECLARED VALUE OF CAPITAL, AND OF THE CORRESPONDING TAX, PRODUCES, AS
THE CASE MAY BE, A DECREASE OR AN INCREASE IN THE TAX ON EXCESS
PROFITS. 

IN AUGUST, 1933, PETITIONER, A TEXAS CORPORATION, MISTAKENLY
BELIEVING THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO STATE THE PAR VALUE OF ITS ISSUED
CAPITAL STOCK IN ITS TAX RETURN, FILED A TIMELY RETURN FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 1933, DECLARING THE VALUE OF ITS ENTIRE CAPITAL STOCK
TO BE $120,000 AND PAID THE TAX OF $120.  THE DATE FOR FILING RETURNS
FOR THAT YEAR HAVING BEEN EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER 29, 1933, T.D. 4368,
4386, PETITIONER BEFORE THAT DATE FILED AN AMENDED RETURN, DECLARING
THE VALUE OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK TO BE $250,000.  ON MARCH 15, 1934,
PETITIONER FILED ITS INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX RETURN FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 1933.  THE COMMISSIONER, HAVING REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE
AMENDED CAPITAL STOCK RETURN, GAVE NOTICE OF A DEFICIENCY IN THE EXCESS
PROFITS TAX CALCULATED UPON THE BASIS OF THE CAPITAL STOCK VALUE OF
$120,000 AS DECLARED IN PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL RETURN. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER'S CAPITAL STOCK
AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX SHOULD BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF $120,000
CAPITAL STOCK VALUE AS ORIGINALLY STATED INSTEAD OF $250,000 STOCK
VALUE DECLARED IN ITS AMENDED RETURN, FOUND A DEFICIENCY, AND ENTERED
ITS ORDER ACCORDINGLY.  38 B.T.A. 141.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED, HOLDING THAT SEC. 215(F) BY ITS TERMS
PRECLUDED ANY AMENDMENT OF THE TAX RETURN FOR THE FIRST YEAR EVEN
THOUGH MADE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING THE RETURN.  104 F.2D
24.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI OCTOBER 9, 1939, TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT OF
THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT IN GLENN V. OERTEL CO., 97 F.2D 495, AND THAT OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS IN PHILADELPHIA BREWING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 27 F.SUPP.  583. 

THE COMMISSIONER FOUNDS HIS ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISION BELOW
UPON A LITERAL READING OF THE INTRODUCTORY SENTENCE OF SEC. 215(F)
ALREADY QUOTED, WHICH, HE ARGUES, PRECLUDES EVEN A TIMELY AMENDMENT OF
THE TAX RETURN FOR THE FIRST YEAR, AND UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND
CONGRESSIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE.  HE INSISTS THAT THE
PHRASE "FIRST RETURN" IN THE CLAUSE "DECLARED VALUE SHALL BE THE VALUE
AS DECLARED BY THE CORPORATION IN ITS FIRST RETURN UNDER THIS SECTION
(WHICH DECLARATION OF VALUE CANNOT BE AMENDED)," MEANS THE FIRST PAPER
FILED BY THE TAXPAYER AS A RETURN, AND THAT THESE WORDS PLAINLY FORBID
ANY AMENDMENT OF THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE CAPITAL STOCK, EVEN THOUGH
MADE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING THE RETURN. 

IN MAKING THESE CONTENTIONS THE COMMISSIONER CONCEDES THAT THE AMOUNT
OF THE DECLARED VALUE OF CAPITAL FIXED FOR THE FIRST YEAR IS A MATTER
OF INDIFFERENCE TO THE GOVERNMENT SINCE THE STATUTE LEAVES THE TAXPAYER
FREE TO DECLARE ANY AMOUNT WHICH ITS FANCY MAY CHOOSE AND THAT FOR ANY
REDUCTION IN CAPITAL STOCK EFFECTED BY THE DECLARATION OF A LOW VALUE
OF THE CAPITAL STOCK THERE IS AN ACCOMPANYING INCREASE IN EXCESS
PROFITS TAXES.  HE CONCEDES THAT IF PETITIONER HAD FILED BUT A SINGLE
RETURN ON THE DATE OF FILING THE AMENDED RETURN, STATING THE VALUE OF
THE CAPITAL STOCK AS $250,000 INSTEAD OF $120,000, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD
HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED BY THE TAXPAYER'S DECLARATION AND THAT IT HAS LONG
BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT, IN THE CASES OF OTHER TYPES OF TAX
TO ACCEPT AN AMENDED RETURN, FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR FILING
RETURNS, AS THE RETURN OF THE TAXPAYER FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR.  HE
CONCEDES ALSO, AS HE LOGICALLY MUST, THAT THE ARGUMENT LEADS TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT A MISTAKE IN THE DECLARATION OF VALUE WHETHER OF LAW OR
OF FACT, HOWEVER SERIOUS AND EXCUSABLE, CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY A TIMELY
AMENDMENT OF THE RETURN. 

ALL STATUTES MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR PURPOSE.  A
LITERAL READING OF THEM WHICH WOULD LEAD TO ABSURD RESULTS IS TO BE
AVOIDED WHEN THEY CAN BE GIVEN A REASONABLE APPLICATION CONSISTENT WITH
THEIR WORDS AND WITH THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  HAWAII V. MANKICHI, 190
U.S. 197; UNITED STATES V. KATZ, 271 U.S. 354; SORRELLS V. UNITED
STATES, 287 U.S. 435, 446; BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, 285;
ARMSTRONG CO. V. NU-ENAMEL CORP., 305 U.S. 315, 332-3.  HERE THE
PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE IS UNMISTAKABLE.  IT IS TO ALLOW THE TAXPAYER TO
FIX FOR ITSELF THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXABLE BASE FOR PURPOSES OF
COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK TAX, BUT WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE
AMOUNT THUS FIXED FOR THE FIRST TAXABLE YEAR SHALL BE ACCEPTED, WITH
ONLY SUCH CHANGES AS THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COMPUTING THE CAPITAL STOCK AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES IN LATER YEARS. 
CONGRESS THUS AVOIDED THE NECESSITY OF PRESCRIBING A FORMULA FOR
ARRIVING AT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF CAPITAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING
EXCESS PROFITS TAXES, WHICH HAD BEEN FOUND PRODUCTIVE OF MUCH
LITIGATION UNDER EARLIER TAXING ACTS, SEE SEN. REP. 52, 69TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 11-12; CF. RAY CONSOLIDATED COPPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 268
U.S. 373, 376.  AT THE SAME TIME IT GUARDED AGAINST LOSS OF REVENUE TO
THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH UNDERSTATEMENTS OF CAPITAL, BY PROVIDING FOR AN
INCREASE IN EXCESS PROFITS TAX UNDER SEC. 216 ENSUING FROM SUCH
UNDERSTATEMENTS. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT NONE OF THESE PURPOSES WOULD HAVE BEEN THWARTED AND
NO INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN HARMED HAD THE
COMMISSIONER, IN CONFORMITY TO ESTABLISHED DEPARTMENTAL PRACTICE,
ACCEPTED THE PETITIONER'S AMENDED DECLARATION.  IT IS EQUALLY PLAIN
THAT BY ITS REJECTION PETITIONER HAS BEEN DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
A DECLARATION OF CAPITAL STOCK VALUE WHICH IT WAS THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE
OF THE STATUTE TO GIVE, AND THAT DENIAL IS FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN
THAT THE DECLARATION APPEARED IN AN AMENDED INSTEAD OF AN UNAMENDED
RETURN.  WE THINK THAT THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, FAIRLY READ IN THE
LIGHT OF THE PURPOSE, DISCLOSED BY ITS OWN TERMS, REQUIRE NO SUCH HARSH
AND INCONGRUOUS RESULT. 

RETURNS.  IT SPEAKS OF "DECLARED VALUE" FOR THE FIRST TAX YEAR AND
PROVIDES THAT THE "DECLARATION OF VALUE" CANNOT BE AMENDED.  THE
"DECLARATION OF VALUE" IS THAT OF THE CORPORATION IN ITS "FIRST RETURN
UNDER THIS SECTION."  THE "FIRST RETURN" AS THE CONTEXT SHOWS IS THE
RETURN FOR THE FIRST TAX YEAR OF THE TAXPAYER AND THE CHARACTERIZATION
OF THE RETURN AS "FIRST" IS OBVIOUSLY USED TO DISTINGUISH THE RETURN
MADE FOR THE FIRST YEAR FROM THE RETURN "FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR" IN
WHICH THE "ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE" IS REQUIRED BY THE SAME SECTION TO
CONFORM TO A FORMULA BASED ON THE "DECLARED VALUE" FOR THE FIRST YEAR
AND WHICH, FOR THAT REASON, "CANNOT BE AMENDED." 

"FIRST RETURN" THUS MEANS A RETURN FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE
TAXPAYER EXERCISES THE PRIVILEGE OF FIXING ITS CAPITAL STOCK VALUE FOR
TAX PURPOSES, AND INCLUDES A TIMELY AMENDED RETURN FOR THAT YEAR.  A
TIMELY AMENDED RETURN IS AS MUCH A "FIRST RETURN" FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FIXING THE CAPITAL STOCK VALUE IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO RETURNS FOR
SUBSEQUENT YEARS, AS IS A SINGLE RETURN FILED BY THE TAXPAYER FOR THE
FIRST TAX YEAR.  GLENN V. OERTEL CO., SUPRA; PHILADELPHIA BREWING CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; SEE ALSO, SIMILARLY CONSTRUING THE PHRASE
"FIRST RETURN" UNDER SEC. 114(B)(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48
STAT. 680, 710; C.H. MEAD COAL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 106 F.2D 388, 390;
CF. PACIFIC NATIONAL CO. V. WELCH, 304 U.S. 191, 194.  THUS READ THE
STATUTE GIVES FULL EFFECT TO ITS OBVIOUS PURPOSES AND TO THE EVIDENT
MEANING OF ITS WORDS.  TO CONSTRUE "FIRST RETURN" AS MEANING THE FIRST
PAPER FILED AS A RETURN, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PAPER CONTAINING A
TIMELY AMENDMENT, WHICH, WHEN FILED IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE RETURN FOR
THE YEAR FOR WHICH IT IS FILED, IS TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSES OF THE
STATUTE BY DISSOCIATING THE PHRASE FROM ITS CONTEXT AND FROM THE
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE IN VIOLATION OF THE MOST ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. 

ARTICLE 24 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 64(1933 ED.), UNDER SEC. 215(F) OF
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, IN FORCE WHEN THE PETITIONER
FILED ITS AMENDED RETURN, DID NOT CALL FOR ANY DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION
FROM THAT WHICH WE HAVE INDICATED IS THE CORRECT ONE.  THE ARTICLE MADE
NO MENTION OF THE "FIRST RETURN."  IT POINTED OUT MERELY THAT THE
ORIGINAL DECLARED VALUE WOULD BE THE BASIS OF THE TAX FOR THE FIRST AND
LATER YEARS, AND STATED "THIS VALUE ONCE HAVING BEEN DECLARED MAY NOT
SUBSEQUENTLY BE CHANGED EITHER BY THE CORPORATION OR BY THE
COMMISSIONER."  THIS EVIDENTLY REFERS TO THE PARENTHETICAL CLAUSE OF
SEC. 215(F) "WHICH DECLARATION CANNOT BE AMENDED" WHICH PHRASE
CONCEDEDLY DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN EFFECTIVE DECLARATION OF VALUE IN A
TIMELY AMENDED RETURN.  FN1 

REENACTED AS SECS. 701 AND 702 OF THE 1934 REVENUE ACT, 48 STAT. 680,
769, 770.  THAT ACT, SEC. 703, AMENDED THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY
ACT SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CAPITAL STOCK TAX AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX
IMPOSED BY SECS. 215 AND 216 OF THE ACT LAST MENTIONED SHOULD NOT APPLY
RESPECTIVELY TO ANY TAXPAYER IN ANY YEAR EXCEPT THE YEARS ENDING JUNE
30, 1933 AND JUNE 30, 1934.  THE AMENDED REGULATIONS 64(1934 ED.),
RELATING TO SECS. 701 AND 702 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, ARE PREFACED
WITH THE STATEMENT "IT MUST CONSTANTLY BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THESE
REGULATIONS RELATE ONLY TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 701 OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1934.  WITH RESPECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 215 OF THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT CONSULT REGULATIONS 64, EDITION OF
1933."  THIS WARNING WAS REPEATED IN REGULATIONS 64, 1936 EDITION,
UNDER THE CORRESPONDING SECS. 105 AND 106 OF THE 1935 REVENUE ACT, 49
STAT. 1014, 1017-1019. 

SINCE THE REGULATIONS UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS FOR 1934 AND 1935 ARE
THUS MADE INAPPLICABLE TO THE TAXPAYER'S STOCK RETURN UNDER THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1933,
THEY ARE WITHOUT FORCE FOR PRESENT PURPOSES EXCEPT AS THEY ARE
PERSUASIVE COMMENTARIES ON THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 215(F)
OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT WHICH WAS CARRIED FORWARD INTO
LATER REVENUE ACTS.  ARTICLE 41(D) OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 64,
PUBLISHED UNDER THE 1934 ACT, DECLARED THAT "FIRST RETURN MEANS THE
FIRST CAPITAL STOCK TAX RETURN FILED BY A CORPORATION FOR ITS FIRST
TAXABLE YEAR," A DEFINITION WHICH WAS CONTINUED IN ARTICLE 44 OF
REGULATIONS 64(1936 ED.), UNDER THE CORRESPONDING SEC. 105 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1935.  ARTICLE 44 OF THE LATTER REGULATION FOR THE FIRST
TIME INFORMED TAXPAYERS THAT AN EFFECTIVE DECLARATION OF VALUE FOR THE
FIRST TAX YEAR COULD NOT BE MADE IN A TIMELY AMENDED RETURN, SAYING, "A
SUBSEQUENT RETURN DECLARING A DIFFERENT VALUE, EVEN THOUGH FILED BEFORE
THE EXPIRATION OF THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, IS THEREFORE NOT ACCEPTABLE
UNDER THE STATUTE." 

ON THE ARGUMENT THE COMMISSIONER ADMITTED THAT THIS RULING SERVED NO
ADMINISTRATIVE OR GOVERNMENTAL CONVENIENCE OR PURPOSE APART FROM
COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUPPOSED COMMAND OF THE STATUTE.  THERE IS THUS A
COMPLETE ABSENCE OF THOSE REASONS WHICH ORDINARILY LEAD COURTS TO GIVE
PERSUASIVE FORCE TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION AND WHICH JUSTIFY
THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF IT IN PREFERENCE TO THEIR OWN.  THE REGULATIONS
HAVE NOT BEEN CONSISTENT IN THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE AND DO
NOT EMBODY THE RESULTS OF ANY SPECIALIZED DEPARTMENTAL KNOWLEDGE OR
EXPERIENCE.  CF. BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280 U.S. 327, 336; ESTATE OF SANFORD
V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 39.  NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE GOVERNMENT, WILL BE
PREJUDICED BY ITS REJECTION, AND AS WE HAVE SAID THE CONSTRUCTION FLIES
IN THE FACE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE AND THE PLAIN MEANING OF ITS
WORDS.  JUDICIAL OBEISANCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION CANNOT BE PRESSED
SO FAR. 

IT IS SAID THAT CONGRESS, BY THE CHANGE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE
CAPITAL STOCK PROVISIONS ADOPTED IN THE 1938 REVENUE ACT HAS ATTRIBUTED
TO THE EARLIER STATUTE THE SAME MEANING AS THAT ASCRIBED TO IT BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  IT IS FAMILIAR DOCTRINE THAT CONGRESS, BY
REENACTING A SECTION OF THE REVENUE ACT WITHOUT CHANGE, APPROVES AND
ADOPTS A CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF IT.  BUT HERE THE
ARGUMENT IS THAT BY AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE SUCH
A CONSTRUCTION IN THE FUTURE, CONGRESS HAS ALSO DECLARED THAT THE
DEPARTMENTAL CONSTRUCTION WAS THAT INTENDED BY THE EARLIER CONGRESS
WHICH ENACTED THE STATUTE. 

CHANGES IN THE CAPITAL STOCK AND EXCESS PROFITS TAX PROVISIONS,
PRESCRIBED THAT THE "ADJUSTED DECLARED VALUE" SHOULD BE DETERMINED WITH
RESPECT TO THREE YEAR PERIODS, BEGINNING WITH THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30,
1938, AND DENOMINATED THE FIRST YEAR OF EACH PERIOD A "DECLARATION
YEAR."  SECTION 601(F)(2) PROVIDED THAT THE DECLARED CAPITAL STOCK
VALUE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX SHALL BE THE VALUE AS DECLARED BY THE
CORPORATION "IN ITS RETURN FOR SUCH DECLARATION YEAR (WHICH DECLARATION
OF VALUE CANNOT BE AMENDED)."  SINCE, UNDER THE NEW LEGISLATION, THE
RETURN FOR THE DECLARATION YEAR FOR EACH THREE-YEAR PERIOD AND NOT THAT
FOR THE FIRST TAX YEAR OF THE TAXPAYER IS CONTROLLING, THERE WAS NO
OCCASION FOR REPEATING THE PHRASES "FIRST YEAR" AND "FIRST RETURN"
WHICH HAD APPEARED IN THE EARLIER LEGISLATION AND THE NEW SECTION
DROPPED FROM THE STATUTE THE WORDS WHICH HAD GIVEN RISE TO THE EARLIER
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  THIS WAS POINTED OUT BY THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDING THE AMENDMENT,  FN2  STATING THAT THE
CHANGE WOULD SERVE TO PERMIT THE TAXPAYER TO AMEND ITS DECLARATION BY
TIMELY AMENDMENT OF THE RETURN FOR THE DECLARATION YEAR AND ADDING,
"DENIAL OF ALL OPPORTUNITY FOR CORRECTION APPEARS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE." 

IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS WAS AWARE THROUGH ITS COMMITTEES OF
THE CHANGE IN THE REGULATIONS WHICH IN 1936 HAD CONSTRUED THE STATUTE
AS PRECLUDING AN EFFECTIVE DECLARATION IN A TIMELY AMENDED RETURN, AND
OF THE LITIGATION THEN PENDING IN THIS CASE AND IN GLENN V. OERTEL CO.,
SUPRA, IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENTAL CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN CHALLENGED AS
"UNDULY RESTRICTIVE."  IN THE FACE OF THE LEGISLATIVE EXPRESSION OF
DISSATISFACTION WITH THE EARLIER STATUTE AS CONSTRUED, CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE TO DECLARE THAT SUCH WAS THE INTENDED MEANING IS NOT TO BE
INFERRED MERELY FROM THE FACT THAT THE AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR THE
FUTURE SAID NOTHING AS TO THE PAST.  IF WE ARE TO DRAW INFERENCES IT
WOULD SEEM AS PROBABLE THAT CONGRESS WAS CONTENT TO LEAVE THE PROBLEMS
OF THE PAST TO BE SOLVED BY THE COURTS WHERE THEY WERE THEN PENDING,
RATHER THAN TO PRECLUDE THEIR SOLUTION THERE.  ACTION SO AMBIGUOUS IN
ITS IMPLICATIONS AS TO THE PAST IS WANTING IN THAT CERTAINTY AND
EVIDENT PURPOSE WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY ITS ACCEPTANCE AS A LEGISLATIVE
DECLARATION OF WHAT AN EARLIER CONGRESS HAD INTENDED RATHER THAN AN
EFFORT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WHICH HAD BEEN RENDERED DUBIOUS BY
UNWARRANTED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  CF. JORDAN V. ROCHE, 228 U.S.
436, 445; HELVERING V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 292 U.S. 455; NOBLE V.
OKLAHOMA CITY, 297 U.S. 481, 492.  RETROACTIVE DECLARATIONS OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT, PREJUDICIAL TO THOSE WHO HAVE ACTED UNDER AN
EARLIER STATUTE WHOSE CONSTRUCTION SEEMS CLEAR, IT WOULD SEEM, OUGHT
NOT TO BE IMPLIED MORE THAN THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION TO GIVE
RETROACTIVE OPERATION TO A NEW STATUTE.  SEE HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S.
303, 314 AND CASES CITED; CF. NOBLE V. OKLAHOMA CITY, SUPRA.
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES IN ITS BRIEF THAT THE PARENTHETICAL
CLAUSE "WHICH DECLARATION CANNOT BE AMENDED" CONTINUED IN THE CAPITAL
STOCK TAX SECTION, SEC. 601, OF THE 1938 REVENUE ACT, 52 STAT. 447,
565, DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN EFFECTIVE DECLARATION OF VALUE IN A TIMELY
AMENDED RETURN FOR THE FIRST TAX YEAR.  IF THE PHRASE "FIRST RETURN" IN
SEC. 215(F) HAD THAT EFFECT, THEN THE PARENTHETICAL PHRASE CONCEDEDLY
PROHIBITING AMENDMENTS IN TAX RETURNS OF LATER YEARS WOULD HAVE BEEN
SUPERFLUOUS. 

FN2  "THE NEW SECTION ALSO ALLEVIATES THE RIGID PROVISION OF SECTION
105(F) OF THE 1935 ACT THAT THE VALUATION SHALL BE AS DECLARED BY THE
CORPORATION IN ITS 'FIRST' RETURN.  ERRORS OF CALCULATION OR OTHER
ERRORS SOMETIMES OCCUR IN FIRST RETURNS, AND DENIAL OF ALL OPPORTUNITY
FOR CORRECTION APPEARS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE WORD
'FIRST' AS IT APPEARS THE SECOND TIME IN SECTION 105(F) OF THE 1935
ACT, AS AMENDED, IS ELIMINATED FROM THE CORRESPONDING LANGUAGE
APPEARING IN SUBSECTION (F)(2) OF THE NEW SECTION.  THIS WILL SERVE TO
GIVE A CORPORATION THE RIGHT, SO LONG AS IT ACTS WITHIN THE TIME
ALLOWED FOR FILING ITS RETURN (INCLUDING THE LAST DAY OF ANY EXTENSION
PERIOD) FOR THE YEAR FOR WHICH A DECLARATION OF VALUE IS REQUIRED, TO
FILE SUBSEQUENT RETURNS FOR THAT YEAR SHOWING A DIFFERENT VALUATION,
THE VALUATION SHOWN BY THE LAST TIMELY RETURN BEING BINDING."  H. REPT.
1860, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 75TH CONG., 3RD SESS., P. 62. 
..END :







A.F. OF L. V. LABOR BOARD, 308 U.S. 401 


NO. 70.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 8, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - 70
APP. D.C. 62 - 103 F.2D 933, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CERTIFICATION BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, UNDER SEC.
9(C) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THAT A PARTICULAR
ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS IS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE EMPLOYEES IN A DESIGNATED UNIT, IS NOT AN ORDER REVIEWABLE BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR A CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS UNDER SEC. 10(F) OF THE ACT.  P. 403. 

2.  THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR COURT REVIEW OF SUCH CERTIFICATIONS
EXCEPT AS INCIDENTAL TO REVIEW OF AN ORDER RESTRAINING AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, UNDER SEC. 10.  PP. 404, 407. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER AN INDEPENDENT SUIT MAY BE MAINTAINED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE SUCH A CERTIFICATION UPON THE GROUND THAT
IT IS CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE AND INFLICTS IRREPARABLE INJURY IS NOT
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  P. 412. 

3.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS NOT INFRINGED BY WITHHOLDING FROM
FEDERAL COURTS JURISDICTION WHICH THEY NEVER POSSESSED.  P. 411. 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 531, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION A PETITION TO REVIEW THE CERTIFICATION BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OF AN ORGANIZATION OF LONGSHOREMEN AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF WORKERS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION DECISIVE OF THIS CASE IS WHETHER A CERTIFICATION BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNDER SEC. 9(C) OF THE WAGNER ACT, 49
STAT. 449, 453, 29 U.S.C., SUPP. IV, SECS. 151-166, THAT A PARTICULAR
LABOR ORGANIZATION OF LONGSHORE WORKERS IS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A DESIGNATED UNIT, COMPOSED OF
NUMEROUS EMPLOYERS OF LONGSHORE WORKERS AT PACIFIC COAST PORTS, IS
REVIEWABLE BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY THE
PROCEDURE SET UP IN SEC. 10(F) OF THE ACT. 

PETITIONERS, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, AND ITS
AFFILIATE, PACIFIC COAST DISTRICT INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
ASSOCIATION NO. 38, ARE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, BOTH AFFILIATED WITH THE
PETITIONER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR (A.F. OF L.).  IN JANUARY,
1938, THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, DISTRICT
NO. 1, A LABOR ORGANIZATION AFFILIATED WITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATION (C.I.O.)  PETITIONED THE BOARD FOR AN INVESTIGATION
CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION OF LONGSHOREMEN ON THE PACIFIC COAST, AND
THAT THE BOARD CERTIFY THE NAME OF THE APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIVE FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 9(C) OF THE WAGNER ACT. 

THE BOARD DIRECTED AN INVESTIGATION WITH APPROPRIATE HEARINGS, AND A
CONSOLIDATION OF THE PROCEEDING FOR PURPOSES OF HEARING WITH TWO OTHER
PROCEEDINGS ALREADY INITIATED BY LOCALS OF THE LONGSHOREMEN'S UNION. 
PETITIONERS WERE MADE PARTIES TO THE CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS AND
PARTICIPATED IN THE HEARINGS, AT THE CONCLUSION OF WHICH THE BOARD MADE
ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND OF LAW AND CERTIFIED THAT THE WORKERS WHO DO
LONGSHORE WORK IN THE PACIFIC COAST PORTS FOR THE EMPLOYERS WHICH ARE
MEMBERS OF FIVE DESIGNATED EMPLOYER ASSOCIATIONS OF PACIFIC COAST
SHIPOWNERS OR OF WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS, CONSTITUTE A UNIT APPROPRIATE
FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
9(B) OF THE ACT.  IT ALSO CERTIFIED THAT THE C.I.O. AFFILIATE,
LONGSHOREMEN'S UNION, DISTRICT NO. 1, IS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL THE WORKERS IN SUCH UNIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT.  IN THE MATTER OF SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC
COAST, 7 N.L.R.B. 1002. 

THE EFFECT OF THE CERTIFICATION, AS PETITIONER ALLEGES, IS THE
INCLUSION IN A SINGLE UNIT, FOR BARGAINING PURPOSES, OF ALL OF THE
LONGSHORE EMPLOYEES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYER ASSOCIATIONS DOING
BUSINESS AT THE WEST COAST PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO DESIGNATE
THE C.I.O. AFFILIATE AS THEIR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE SO THAT IN THE
CASE OF SOME PARTICULAR EMPLOYERS, THEIR WORKERS WHO ARE NOT ORGANIZED
OR REPRESENTED BY THE C.I.O. AFFILIATE HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF
OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOICE. 
ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE A.F. OF L. ASSERT
THAT THEY HAVE IN FACT BEEN SELECTED AS BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES BY A
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYERS, PETITIONERS
ALLEGE THAT THEY HAVE NEVERTHELESS BEEN PREVENTED FROM ACTING IN THAT
CAPACITY BY THE BOARD'S DESIGNATION OF THE C.I.O. AFFILIATE AS THE
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES. 

THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BEGUN BY PETITION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS SET FORTH, IN
ADDITION TO THE FACTS ALREADY DETAILED, THAT THEY WERE AGGRIEVED BY THE
"DECISION AND ORDER OF CERTIFICATION OF THE BOARD" IN THAT THE
CERTIFICATE IS CONTRARY TO FACT AND TO LAW; THAT THE WAGNER ACT DOES
NOT CONTEMPLATE OR AUTHORIZE "THE DESIGNATION BY THE BOARD OF AN
EMPLOYEE UNIT CONSTITUTING ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF DIFFERENT EMPLOYERS IN
DIFFERENT AND DISTANT GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRICTS OF THE UNITED STATES." 
THE PETITION PRAYED THAT THE "ORDER OF CERTIFICATION" BE SET ASIDE, IN
SO FAR AS IT ATTEMPTS TO DESIGNATE A SINGLE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE FOR LONGSHORE EMPLOYEES OF MANY EMPLOYERS ON THE PACIFIC
COAST AND DENIES TO A MAJORITY OF THE LONGSHORE EMPLOYEES OF A SINGLE
EMPLOYER THE RIGHT TO SELECT ONE OF THE PETITIONERS AS THEIR EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE PETITION AS NOT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ORDERS OF THE BOARD CONFERRED UPON IT BY SEC. 10
OF THE WAGNER ACT.  103 F.2D 933.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI OCTOBER 9,
1939, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED AND TO
RESOLVE AN ALLEGED CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, IN INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 105 F.2D 598. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, LIKE THE SEVERAL
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, IS WITHOUT THE JURISDICTION OVER ORIGINAL
SUITS CONFERRED ON DISTRICT COURTS BY SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS
AMENDED.  28 U.S.C., SEC. 41.  SUCH JURISDICTION AS IT HAS, TO REVIEW
DIRECTLY THE ACTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, IS SPECIALLY CONFERRED
BY LEGISLATION RELATING SPECIFICALLY TO THE DETERMINATIONS OF SUCH
AGENCIES MADE SUBJECT TO REVIEW, AND PRESCRIBING THE MANNER AND EXTENT
OF THE REVIEW.  HERE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE WAGNER ACT, SEC. 10(F),
WHICH GIVES A RIGHT OF REVIEW TO "ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL ORDER
OF THE BOARD," DETERMINES THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE REVIEW BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS. 

THE SINGLE ISSUE WHICH WE ARE NOW CALLED ON TO DECIDE IS WHETHER THE
CERTIFICATION BY THE BOARD IS AN "ORDER" WHICH, BY RELATED PROVISIONS
OF THE STATUTE, IS MADE REVIEWABLE UPON PETITION TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OR IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE TO A CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  THE QUESTION IS DISTINCT FROM ANOTHER MUCH ARGUED AT THE
BAR, WHETHER PETITIONERS ARE PRECLUDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE WAGNER
ACT FROM MAINTAINING AN INDEPENDENT SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT TO SET
ASIDE THE BOARD'S ACTION BECAUSE CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE, AND BECAUSE
IT INFLICTS ON PETITIONERS AN ACTIONABLE INJURY OTHERWISE IRREPARABLE. 

BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE WAGNER ACT THE BOARD IS GIVEN TWO PRINCIPAL
FUNCTIONS TO PERFORM.  ONE, DEFINED BY SEC. 9, WHICH AS ENACTED IS
HEADED "REPRESENTATIVES AND ELECTIONS," IS THE CERTIFICATION, AFTER
APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION AND HEARING, OF THE NAME OR NAMES OF
REPRESENTATIVES, FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, OF AN APPROPRIATE UNIT OF
EMPLOYEES.  THE OTHER, DEFINED BY SEC. 10, WHICH AS ENACTED IS HEADED
"PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES," IS THE PREVENTION BY THE
BOARD'S ORDER AFTER HEARING AND BY A FURTHER APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING IN
COURT, OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ENUMERATED IN SEC. 8.  ONE OF THE
OUTLAWED PRACTICES IS THE REFUSAL OF AN EMPLOYER TO BARGAIN WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYEES.  SEC. 8(5). 

CERTIFICATION INVOLVES, UNDER SEC. 9(B), DECISION BY THE BOARD
WHETHER "THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
SHALL BE THE EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT UNIT, PLANT UNIT, OR SUBDIVISION
THEREOF," AND THE ASCERTAINMENT BY THE BOARD UNDER SEC. 9(C) OF THE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE WHO, UNDER SEC. 9(A) MUST BE "DESIGNATED OR
SELECTED  ...  BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT APPROPRIATE
FOR SUCH (BARGAINING) PURPOSES."  THE BOARD IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 9(C)
"WHENEVER A QUESTION AFFECTING COMMERCE ARISES CONCERNING THE
REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES" TO INVESTIGATE "SUCH CONTROVERSY" AND TO
CERTIFY THE NAMES OF THE APPROPRIATE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES.  IN
CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION IT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE
HEARING UPON DUE NOTICE "AND MAY TAKE A SECRET BALLOT OF EMPLOYEES, OR
UTILIZE ANY OTHER SUITABLE METHOD" OF ASCERTAINING SUCH
REPRESENTATIVES.  BY SEC. 9(D) WHENEVER AN ORDER OF THE BOARD IS MADE
PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(C) DIRECTING ANY PERSON TO CEASE AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE AND THERE IS A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER
BY A COURT THE BOARD'S "CERTIFICATION AND THE RECORD OF SUCH
INVESTIGATION" IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD
REQUIRED TO BE FILED UNDER SEC. 10(E) OR (F), AND THE DECREE OF THE
COURT ENFORCING, MODIFYING OR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IS
TO BE MADE AND ENTERED UPON THE PLEADINGS, TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS
SET FORTH IN THE TRANSCRIPT. 

IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SEC. 9, WHICH IS COMPLETE IN ITSELF, MAKES NO
PROVISION, IN TERMS, FOR REVIEW OF A CERTIFICATION BY THE BOARD AND
AUTHORIZES NO USE OF THE CERTIFICATION OR OF THE RECORD IN A
CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING, EXCEPT IN THE SINGLE CASE WHERE THERE IS A
PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OR REVIEW OF AN ORDER RESTRAINING AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE AS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10(C).  IN THAT EVENT THE RECORD
IN THE CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING IS INCLUDED IN THE RECORD BROUGHT UP ON
REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S ORDER RESTRAINING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  IT
THEN BECOMES A PART OF THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE DECREE OF THE
REVIEWING COURT IS TO BE BASED. 

ALL OTHER PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF ANY ACTION OF THE BOARD ARE FOUND
IN SEC. 10 WHICH AS ITS HEADING INDICATES RELATES TO THE PREVENTION OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  NOWHERE IN THIS SECTION IS THERE MENTION OF
INVESTIGATIONS OR CERTIFICATIONS AUTHORIZED AND DEFINED BY SEC. 9. 
IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (LISTED IN SECTION 8) AFFECTING
COMMERCE."  SECTION 10(B) PRESCRIBES THE PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD WHEN
ANY PERSON IS CHARGED WITH ENGAGING IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND
REQUIRES THAT THE PERSON SO CHARGED SHALL BE SERVED WITH A COMPLAINT
AND NOTICE OF HEARING BY THE BOARD WITH OPPORTUNITY TO FILE AN ANSWER
AND BE HEARD.  SECTION 10(C) DIRECTS THE BOARD, IF IT IS OF OPINION, AS
THE RESULT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT, THAT ANY PERSON NAMED IN THE
COMPLAINT HAS ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE "TO ISSUE" "AN ORDER"
DIRECTING THAT PERSON TO CEASE THE PRACTICE AND COMMANDING APPROPRIATE
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  IF THE BOARD IS OF OPINION THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IT IS DIRECTED "TO ISSUE" "AN ORDER" DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT.  SECTION 10(E) AUTHORIZES A PETITION TO THE APPROPRIATE
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS BY THE BOARD FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER
PROHIBITING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE
BOARD IN SEC. 10(F) WHICH IS CONTROLLING IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING. 
THAT SUBDIVISION  FN1  APPEARS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF SEC. 10.  ALL THE
OTHER SUBDIVISIONS RELATE EXCLUSIVELY TO PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PREVENTION
OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  BOTH THEY AND SUBDIVISION (F) ARE SILENT AS
TO THE PROCEEDINGS OR CERTIFICATIONS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 9.  SECTION
10(F), PROVIDING FOR REVIEW, SPEAKS ONLY OF A "FINAL ORDER OF THE
BOARD."  IT GIVES A RIGHT TO REVIEW TO PERSONS AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL
ORDER UPON PETITION TO A COURT OF APPEALS IN THE CIRCUIT "WHEREIN THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN QUESTION WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN
OR WHEREIN SUCH PERSON RESIDES OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS, OR IN THE COURT
OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA."  IT DIRECTS THAT THE ORDER
SHALL BE REVIEWED ON THE ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE THE BOARD "INCLUDING THE
PLEADINGS AND TESTIMONY" UPON WHICH THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF WAS
ENTERED, ALTHOUGH NO COMPLAINT OR OTHER PLEADING IS MENTIONED BY SEC. 9
RELATING TO REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS AND CERTIFICATES.  SUBDIVISION
(F) PROVIDES THAT UPON PETITION FOR REVIEW BY AN AGGRIEVED PERSON "THE
COURT SHALL PROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION
BY THE BOARD UNDER SUBDIVISION (E)," AND IT IS GIVEN THE SAME
JURISDICTION "TO GRANT TO THE BOARD SUCH TEMPORARY RELIEF OR
RESTRAINING ORDER AS IT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER, AND IN LIKE MANNER TO
MAKE AND ENTER A DECREE ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS SO
MODIFIED, OR SETTING ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE
BOARD."  SEE, FORD MOTOR CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305
U.S. 364, 369. 

IN ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN ITS
TRUE MEANING, WE ATTRIBUTE LITTLE IMPORTANCE TO THE FACT THAT THE
CERTIFICATION DOES NOT ITSELF COMMAND ACTION.  ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATIONS WHICH ARE NOT COMMANDS MAY FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES
DETERMINE RIGHTS AS EFFECTIVELY AS THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT, AND MAY BE
REEXAMINED BY COURTS UNDER PARTICULAR STATUTES PROVIDING FOR THE REVIEW
OF "ORDERS."  SEE ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S.
125, 130, 135, ET SEQ.; FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT
CO., 307 U.S. 156.  WE MUST LOOK RATHER TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE,
READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSE AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE "ORDER" FOR WHICH THE REVIEW IN COURT IS
PROVIDED, IS CONTRASTED WITH FORMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DIFFERENTLY
DESCRIBED AS A PURPOSEFUL MEANS OF EXCLUDING THEM FROM THE REVIEW
PROVISIONS. 

HERE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF THE ACT EMPHASIZES,
FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN "ORDER" OF THE BOARD
RESTRAINING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND A CERTIFICATION IN
REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS.  THE ONE AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10 MAY BE
REVIEWED BY THE COURT ON PETITION OF THE BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER, OR OF A PERSON AGGRIEVED, IN CONFORMITY TO THE PROCEDURE LAID
DOWN IN SEC. 10, WHICH SAYS NOTHING OF CERTIFICATIONS.  THE OTHER,
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 9, IS NOWHERE SPOKEN OF AS AN ORDER, AND NO
PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED FOR ITS REVIEW APART FROM AN ORDER PROHIBITING
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  THE EXCLUSION OF REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS
FROM THE REVIEW SECURED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(F) IS EMPHASIZED
BY THE CLAUSES OF SEC. 9(D), WHICH PROVIDE FOR CERTIFICATION BY THE
BOARD OF A RECORD OF A REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING ONLY IN THE CASE WHEN
THERE IS A PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD RESTRAINING AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  THE STATUTE ON ITS FACE THUS INDICATES A
PURPOSE TO LIMIT THE REVIEW AFFORDED BY SEC. 10 TO ORDERS OF THE BOARD
PROHIBITING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, A PURPOSE AND A CONSTRUCTION WHICH
ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY CONFIRMS. 

UPON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL WHICH WAS ENACTED AS THE WAGNER
ACT, CONGRESS HAD POINTEDLY BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION THE EXPERIENCE
UNDER PUBLIC RESOLUTION 44 OF JUNE 19, 1934, 48 STAT. 1183.  THAT
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PREDECESSOR
OF RESPONDENT, "TO ORDER AND CONDUCT ELECTIONS" BY EMPLOYEES OF ANY
EMPLOYER TO DETERMINE WHO WERE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FOR BARGAINING
PURPOSES.  SECTION 2 PROVIDED THAT ANY ORDER OF THE BOARD SHOULD BE
REVIEWED IN THE SAME MANNER AS ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  THE REPORTS OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES UPON THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE WAGNER ACT
REFER TO THE LONG DELAYS IN THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY RESOLUTION 44,
RESULTING FROM APPLICATIONS TO THE FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS FOR REVIEW
OF ORDERS FOR ELECTIONS.  FN2  AND IN CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 9(D) THE COMMITTEE REPORTS WERE EMPHATIC IN THEIR DECLARATION THAT
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL FOR COURT REVIEW DID NOT EXTEND TO
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 9 EXCEPT AS INCIDENTAL TO REVIEW OF AN ORDER
RESTRAINING AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 10.  FN3  THE BILL WAS
SIMILARLY EXPLAINED ON THE SENATE FLOOR BY THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN WHO
DECLARED:  "IT PROVIDES FOR REVIEW IN THE COURTS ONLY AFTER THE
ELECTION HAS BEEN HELD AND THE BOARD HAS ORDERED THE EMPLOYER TO DO
SOMETHING PREDICATED UPON THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION."  79 CONG. REC.,
7658.  THE CONCLUSION IS UNAVOIDABLE THAT CONGRESS, AS THE RESULT OF A
DELIBERATE CHOICE OF CONFLICTING POLICIES, HAS EXCLUDED REPRESENTATION
CERTIFICATIONS OF THE BOARD FROM THE REVIEW BY FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
AUTHORIZED BY THE WAGNER ACT EXCEPT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED IN
SEC. 9(D). 

AN ARGUMENT, MUCH PRESSED UPON US, IS, IN EFFECT, THAT CONGRESS WAS
MISTAKEN IN ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 9(C), WITH REVIEW ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS MADE
UNDER SEC. 10(C) DIRECTING THE EMPLOYER TO DO SOMETHING "PROVIDES AN
APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARD AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD," HOUSE REP., P. 23,
AND THAT "THIS PROVIDES A COMPLETE GUARANTEE AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION
BY THE BOARD," SEN. REP., P. 14.  IT SEEMS TO BE THOUGHT THAT THIS
FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR A COURT REVIEW IS PRODUCTIVE OF PECULIAR
HARDSHIPS, WHICH WERE PERHAPS NOT FORESEEN IN CASES WHERE THE INTERESTS
OF RIVAL UNIONS ARE AFFECTED.  FN4  BUT THESE ARE ARGUMENTS TO BE
ADDRESSED TO CONGRESS AND NOT THE COURTS.  THE ARGUMENT TOO THAT
CONGRESS HAS INFRINGED DUE PROCESS BY WITHHOLDING FROM FEDERAL
APPELLATE COURTS A JURISDICTION WHICH THEY NEVER POSSESSED IS SIMILARLY
WITHOUT FORCE.  SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 596; SEE IN RE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 304 U.S. 486, 495. 

THE BOARD ARGUES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE WAGNER ACT, PARTICULARLY
SEC. 9(D), HAVE FORECLOSED REVIEW OF ITS CHALLENGED ACTION BY
INDEPENDENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, SUCH AS WAS ALLOWED UNDER OTHER
ACTS PROVIDING FOR A LIMITED COURT REVIEW IN SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO
CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177, AND IN UTAH FUEL CO. V. NATIONAL
BITUMINOUS COAL COMM'N, 306 U.S. 56; CF. MYERS V. BETHLEHEM
SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41.  BUT THAT QUESTION IS NOT PRESENTED
FOR DECISION BY THE RECORD BEFORE US.  ITS ANSWER INVOLVES A
DETERMINATION WHETHER THE WAGNER ACT, IN SO FAR AS IT HAS GIVEN LEGALLY
ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS, HAS DEPRIVED THE DISTRICT COURTS OF SOME PORTION OF
THEIR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 
IT CAN BE APPROPRIATELY ANSWERED ONLY UPON A SHOWING IN SUCH A SUIT
THAT UNLAWFUL ACTION OF THE BOARD HAS INFLICTED AN INJURY ON THE
PETITIONERS FOR WHICH THE LAW, APART FROM THE REVIEW PROVISIONS OF THE
WAGNER ACT, AFFORDS A REMEDY.  THIS QUESTION CAN BE PROPERLY AND
ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED ONLY WHEN IT IS BROUGHT TO US FOR REVIEW UPON A
SUITABLE RECORD.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "(F)  ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD
GRANTING OR DENYING IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE RELIEF SOUGHT MAY OBTAIN A
REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN ANY CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN THE CIRCUIT WHEREIN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN QUESTION WAS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN OR WHEREIN SUCH PERSON RESIDES OR
TRANSACTS BUSINESS, OR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, BY FILING IN SUCH COURT A WRITTEN PETITION PRAYING THAT THE
ORDER OF THE BOARD BE MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE.  A COPY OF SUCH PETITION
SHALL BE FORTHWITH SERVED UPON THE BOARD, AND THEREUPON THE AGGRIEVED
PARTY SHALL FILE IN THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE
PROCEEDING, CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD, INCLUDING THE PLEADING AND
TESTIMONY UPON WHICH THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF WAS ENTERED AND THE
FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD.  UPON SUCH FILING, THE COURT SHALL
PROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION BY THE
BOARD UNDER SUBSECTION (E), AND SHALL HAVE THE SAME EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO GRANT TO THE BOARD SUCH TEMPORARY RELIEF OR RESTRAINING
ORDER AS IT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER, AND IN LIKE MANNER TO MAKE AND ENTER
A DECREE ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS SO MODIFIED, OR SETTING
ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BOARD; AND THE FINDINGS OF
THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL IN LIKE
MANNER BE CONCLUSIVE." 

FN2  "WEAKNESSES IN EXISTING LAW.  ...  (6)  OBSTACLES TO ELECTIONS. 
- UNDER PUBLIC RESOLUTION 44, ANY ATTEMPT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO CONDUCT
AN ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY BE CONTESTED AB INITIO IN THE
COURTS, ALTHOUGH SUCH ELECTION IS IN REALITY MERELY A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION OF FACT.  THIS MEANS THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE DELAYED
INDEFINITELY BEFORE IT TAKES THE FIRST STEP TOWARD INDUSTRIAL PEACE. 
AFTER ALMOST A YEAR NOT A SINGLE CASE, IN WHICH A COMPANY HAS CHOSEN TO
CONTEST AN ELECTION ORDER OF THE BOARD, HAS REACHED DECISION IN ANY
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS."  SEN. REP. NO. 573, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND LABOR, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 5, 6. 

AFTER REFERRING TO THE PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW UNDER PUBLIC RESOLUTION
44, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE DECLARED:  "THE WEAKNESS OF THIS PROCEDURE IS
THAT UNDER THE PROVISION FOR REVIEW OF ELECTION ORDERS EMPLOYERS HAVE A
MEANS OF HOLDING UP THE ELECTION FOR MONTHS BY AN APPLICATION TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  ...  AT THE PRESENT TIME 10 CASES FOR REVIEW
OF THE BOARD'S ELECTION ORDERS ARE PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS.  ONLY THREE HAVE BEEN ARGUED AND NONE HAVE BEEN DECIDED." 
HOUSE REP., NO. 1147, COMMITTEE ON LABOR, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 6. 

FN3  "THERE IS NO MORE REASON FOR COURT REVIEW PRIOR TO AN ELECTION
THAN FOR COURT REVIEW PRIOR TO A HEARING.  BUT IF SUBSEQUENTLY THE
BOARD MAKES AN ORDER PREDICATED UPON THE ELECTION, SUCH AS AN ORDER TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, THEN THE ENTIRE
ELECTION PROCEDURE BECOMES PART OF THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE ORDER OF
THE BOARD IS BASED, AND IS FULLY REVIEWABLE BY AN AGGRIEVED PARTY IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 10.  AND THIS
REVIEW WOULD INCLUDE WITHIN ITS SCOPE THE ACTION OF THE BOARD IN
DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR PURPOSES OF THE ELECTION.  THIS
PROVIDES A COMPLETE GUARANTEE AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION BY THE BOARD." 
SEN. REP. 573, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 14. 

"AS PREVIOUSLY STATED IN THIS REPORT, THE EFFICACY OF PUBLIC
RESOLUTION 44 HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED BY THE PROVISION FOR
COURT REVIEW OF ELECTION ORDERS PRIOR TO THE HOLDING OF THE ELECTION. 
REVIEW PRIOR TO THE HOLDING OF THE ELECTION, AND PROVIDES AN EXCLUSIVE,
COMPLETE, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY WHENEVER AN ORDER OF THE BOARD MADE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(C) IS BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON FACTS
CERTIFIED FOLLOWING AN ELECTION OR OTHER INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO
INVESTIGATION PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARD AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD.  SINCE THE CERTIFICATION AND THE RECORD OF THE INVESTIGATION ARE
REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD FILED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(E) OR (F), THE BOARD'S ACTIONS AND
DETERMINATIONS OF FACT AND LAW IN REGARD THERETO WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE
SAME COURT REVIEW AS IS PROVIDED FOR ITS OTHER DETERMINATIONS UNDER
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 23. 

FN4  CONGRESS APPARENTLY RECOGNIZED THAT REPRESENTATION PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 9(C) MIGHT INVOLVE RIVAL UNIONS.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE SAID:
"SECTION 9(C) MAKES PROVISION FOR ELECTIONS TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE
BOARD OR ITS AGENTS OR AGENCIES TO ASCERTAIN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
EMPLOYEES.  THE QUESTION WILL ORDINARILY ARISE AS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE
BONA FIDE ORGANIZATIONS COMPETING TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES, BUT THE
AUTHORITY GRANTED HERE IS BROAD ENOUGH TO TAKE IN THE NOT INFREQUENT
CASE WHERE ONLY ONE SUCH ORGANIZED GROUP IS PRESSING FOR RECOGNITION,
AND ITS CLAIM OF REPRESENTATION IS CHALLENGED."  H. REP. NO. 1147,
COMMITTEE ON LABOR, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 22. 
..END :























LABOR BOARD V. INT. BROTHERHOOD, 308 U.S. 413 


NO. 253.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - 105
F.2D 598, REVERSED. 


A DIRECTION FOR AN ELECTION MADE BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IN A REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 9(C) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER
SEC. 10 OF THE ACT.  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, ANTE, P. 401.  P. 414. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 537, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE ON
APPEAL AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTING AN
ELECTION BY EMPLOYEES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ANTE, P. 401.  THE DECISIVE QUESTION RAISED BY
THE PETITION IS WHETHER A DIRECTION FOR AN ELECTION MADE BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN A REPRESENTATION PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 9(C) OF THE WAGNER ACT, 49 STAT. 449, 453, 29 U.S.C., SUPP. IV,
SECS. 151-166, IS REVIEWABLE BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER SEC.
10(F) OF THE ACT. 

IN FEBRUARY, 1938, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL 876, ONE OF THE RESPONDENTS, AND AN AFFILIATE OF RESPONDENT,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, FILED WITH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE
BOARD A PETITION ASKING AN INVESTIGATION AND THE CERTIFICATION OF A
REPRESENTATIVE, FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, OF THE EMPLOYEES
OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, PURSUANT TO SEC. 9(C) OF THE ACT.  AFTER A
HEARING, IN WHICH THE PETITIONER, THE EMPLOYER, AND THE UTILITY WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AN AFFILIATE OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATION, PARTICIPATED, THE BOARD ISSUED A "DECISION AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION."  9 N.L.R.B. 742.  AT THE ELECTION IN JANUARY, 1939, 2,806
OF THE TOTAL 2,977 EMPLOYEES VOTED.  OF THESE 1,072 VOTED FOR I.B.E.W.
AND 1,164 VOTED FOR U.W.O.C. 

AFTER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND A HEARING THE BOARD FOUND "THAT THE
QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION WHICH HAS ARISEN CAN BEST BE
RESOLVED BY THE HOLDING OF A RUN-OFF ELECTION IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEES IN
THE APPROPRIATE UNIT WILL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR
NOT THEY DESIRE TO BE REPRESENTED BY U.W.O.C."  AND MADE ITS
"DIRECTION" ACCORDINGLY.  11 N.L.R.B. 848. 

CONTENDING THAT THE DIRECTION, CONTRARY TO LAW, EXCLUDES UNION 876
FROM THE BALLOT ON THE RUN-OFF ELECTION, RESPONDENTS PETITIONED THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT TO REVIEW THE DIRECTION UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(F) OF THE ACT.  THAT COURT SET ASIDE THE
DIRECTION AS INFRINGING THE FREE CHOICE BY EMPLOYEES OF THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ASSURED TO THEM
BY SECS. 1, 7, 9(A) AND (C) OF THE WAGNER ACT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
OCTOBER 9, 1939, SO THAT THE CASE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED WITH AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA. 

DECISION HERE IS CONTROLLED BY OUR DECISION IN THAT CASE.  THE
DIRECTION FOR AN ELECTION IS BUT A PART OF THE REPRESENTATION
PROCEEDING AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 9(C) AND IS NO MORE SUBJECT TO REVIEW
UNDER SEC. 10(F) THAN IS A CERTIFICATION WHICH IS THE FINAL STEP IN
SUCH A PROCEEDING AND WHICH WE HAVE JUST HELD CONGRESS HAS EXCLUDED
FROM THE REVIEW AFFORDED BY THAT SUBDIVISION.  REVERSED. 
..END :







LETULLE V. SCOFIELD, 308 U.S. 415 


NO. 63.  ARGUED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - 103
F.2D 20, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A TRANSACTION WHEREBY ONE CORPORATION TRANSFERS ALL OF ITS
PROPERTY TO ANOTHER CORPORATION FOR CASH AND BONDS, OF THE TRANSFEREE,
RETAINING NO OTHER STAKE IN THE ENTERPRISE, IS NOT A TAX-FREE
"REORGANIZATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 112(I) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1928, BUT IS A SALE OR EXCHANGE.  P. 419. 

2.  A RESPONDENT OR AN APPELLEE MAY URGE ANY MATTER APPEARING IN THE
RECORD IN SUPPORT OF A JUDGMENT, BUT HE MAY NOT ATTACK IT, EVEN ON
GROUNDS ASSERTED IN THE COURT BELOW, IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE THIS COURT
REVERSE IT, WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS NOT SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE WHOLE
JUDGMENT, OR OF THAT PORTION WHICH IS ADVERSE TO HIM.  P. 421. 

LETULLE V. SCOFIELD, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 531, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE COLLECTOR FOR TAXES UNLAWFULLY COLLECTED.  THE PLAINTIFF
SUED INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF HIS WIFE'S WILL AND AS HER
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  THE ACTIONS WERE
CONSOLIDATED AND TRIED WITHOUT A JURY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE TOOK THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ALLEGED THAT
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD BASED ITS DECISION ON A POINT NOT
PRESENTED OR ARGUED BY THE LITIGANTS, WHICH THE PETITIONER HAD NEVER
HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET BY THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE. 

THE GULF COAST IRRIGATION COMPANY WAS THE OWNER OF IRRIGATION
PROPERTIES.  PETITIONER WAS ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER.  HE PERSONALLY OWNED
CERTAIN LANDS AND OTHER IRRIGATION PROPERTIES.  NOVEMBER 4, 1931, THE
IRRIGATION COMPANY, THE GULF COAST WATER COMPANY, AND THE PETITIONER,
ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WHICH RECITED THAT THE PETITIONER OWNED ALL
OF THE STOCK OF THE IRRIGATION COMPANY; DESCRIBED THE COMPANY'S
PROPERTIES, AND STATED THAT, PRIOR TO CONVEYANCE TO BE MADE PURSUANT TO
THE CONTRACT, THE IRRIGATION COMPANY WOULD BE THE OWNER OF CERTAIN
OTHER LANDS AND IRRIGATION PROPERTIES.  THESE OTHER LANDS AND
PROPERTIES WERE THOSE WHICH THE PETITIONER INDIVIDUALLY OWNED.  THE
CONTRACT CALLED FOR A CONVEYANCE OF ALL THE PROPERTIES OWNED, AND TO BE
OWNED, BY THE IRRIGATION COMPANY FOR $50,000 IN CASH AND $750,000 IN
BONDS OF THE WATER COMPANY, PAYABLE SERIALLY OVER THE PERIOD JANUARY 1,
1933, TO JANUARY 1, 1944.  THE PETITIONER JOINED IN THIS AGREEMENT AS A
GUARANTOR OF THE TITLE OF THE IRRIGATION COMPANY AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COVENANTING THAT HE WOULD NOT PERSONALLY ENTER INTO THE IRRIGATION
BUSINESS WITHIN A FIXED AREA DURING A SPECIFIED PERIOD AFTER THE
EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT.  THREE DAYS LATER, AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE IRRIGATION COMPANY, THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION WAS
APPROVED, THE MINUTES STATING THAT THE TAXPAYER, "DESIRING ALSO TO
REORGANIZE HIS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES," HAD CONSENTED TO BE A PARTY
TO THE REORGANIZATION.  THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE IRRIGATION COMPANY WAS
INCREASED AND THEREUPON THE TAXPAYER SUBSCRIBED FOR THE NEW STOCK AND
PAID FOR IT BY CONVEYANCE OF HIS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. 

THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TWO CORPORATIONS WAS CARRIED OUT NOVEMBER
18, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE WATER COMPANY BECAME OWNER OF ALL THE
PROPERTIES THEN OWNED BY THE IRRIGATION COMPANY INCLUDING THE PROPERTY
THERETOFORE OWNED BY THE PETITIONER INDIVIDUALLY.  SUBSEQUENTLY ALL OF
ITS ASSETS, INCLUDING THE BONDS RECEIVED FROM THE WATER COMPANY, WERE
DISTRIBUTED TO THE PETITIONER.  THE COMPANY WAS THEN DISSOLVED.  THE
PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE FILED A TAX RETURN AS MEMBERS OF A COMMUNITY IN
WHICH THEY REPORTED NO GAIN AS A RESULT OF THE RECEIPT OF THE
LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND FROM THE IRRIGATION COMPANY.  THE LATTER REPORTED
NO GAIN FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR IN VIRTUE OF ITS RECEIPT OF BONDS AND CASH
FROM THE WATER COMPANY.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ASSESSED
ADDITIONAL TAXES AGAINST THE COMMUNITY, AS INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS, BY
REASON OF THE RECEIPT OF THE LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND, AND AGAINST THE
PETITIONER AS TRANSFEREE OF THE IRRIGATION COMPANY'S ASSETS IN VIRTUE
OF THE GAIN REALIZED BY THE COMPANY ON THE SALE OF ITS PROPERTY.  THE
TAX WAS PAID AND CLAIMS FOR REFUND WERE FILED.  PETITIONER'S WIFE
HAVING DIED HE BROUGHT SUIT INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HER EXECUTOR AND
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY AGAINST THE RESPONDENT TO
RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL TAXES SO ASSESSED.  HE ALLEGED
THAT THE TRANSACTION CONSTITUTED A TAX-EXEMPT REORGANIZATION AS DEFINED
BY THE REVENUE ACT.  FN1  THE RESPONDENT TRAVERSED THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE COMPLAINTS AND THE CAUSES WERE CONSOLIDATED AND TRIED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT A JURY.  THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE
TRANSACTION AMOUNTED MERELY TO A SALE OF ASSETS BY THE PETITIONER AND
THE IRRIGATION COMPANY AND DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION
OF A TAX-FREE REORGANIZATION WAS OVERRULED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR THE PETITIONER. 

THE RESPONDENT APPEALED, ASSERTING ERROR ON THE PART OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IN MATTERS NOT NOW MATERIAL AND ALSO ASSIGNING AS ERROR THE
COURT'S HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTION CONSTITUTED A NONTAXABLE
REORGANIZATION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT, AS THE WATER COMPANY
ACQUIRED SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE PROPERTIES OF THE IRRIGATION COMPANY,
THERE WAS A MERGER OF THE LATTER WITHIN THE LITERAL LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE, BUT HELD THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONSTRUCTION THIS COURT HAS
PUT UPON THE STATUTE, THE TRANSACTION WOULD NOT BE A REORGANIZATION
UNLESS THE TRANSFEROR RETAINED A DEFINITE AND SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN
THE AFFAIRS OF THE TRANSFEREE.  IT THOUGHT THIS REQUIREMENT WAS
SATISFIED BY THE TAKING OF THE BONDS OF THE WATER COMPANY, AND,
THEREFORE, AGREED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT THAT A REORGANIZATION HAD
BEEN CONSUMMATED.  IT ADDED, HOWEVER, "WE FIND A REASON FOR REVERSING
THE JUDGMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ARGUED."  ADVERTING TO THE FACT THAT
THE TRANSFER OF THE PETITIONER'S INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES TO THE
IRRIGATION COMPANY WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCLUDING THEM IN THE
LATTER'S ASSETS TO BE TRANSFERRED IN THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION, THE
COURT SAID THE STATUTE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE REORGANIZATION OF AN
INDIVIDUAL'S BUSINESS OR AFFAIRS, AND THE TRANSACTION WAS A
REORGANIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVENUE ACT AS RESPECTS THE
CORPORATION'S ASSETS OWNED ON NOVEMBER 4, 1931, BUT NOT AS RESPECTS THE
PETITIONER'S INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THE SALE.  IT CONCLUDED:
"ONLY SO MUCH OF THE CONSIDERATION AS REPRESENTS THE PRICE OF THE
PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS OF THE IRRIGATION COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO BE
PROTECTED FROM TAXATION AS ARISING FROM A REORGANIZATION.  IT DOES NOT
APPEAR WHAT THE PROPER APPORTIONMENT IS.  THE BURDEN WAS UPON LETULLE
TO SHOW NOT ONLY THAT HE HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY TAXED, BUT HOW MUCH OF WHAT
WAS COLLECTED FROM HIM WAS ILLEGAL.  THE LATTER HE DID NOT DO.  THE
EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT FOR THE FULL AMOUNT PAID BY
HIM.  IT IS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED, THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS MAY BE HAD
CONSISTENT HEREWITH."  FN2 

THE PETITIONER SOUGHT CERTIORARI ASSERTING THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS HAD DEPARTED FROM THE USUAL AND ACCEPTED COURSE OF JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS BY DECIDING THE CAUSE UPON A GROUND NOT PRESENTED OR ARGUED
AND HENCE HAD DEPRIVED THE PETITIONER OF HIS DAY IN COURT.  THE
RESPONDENT, THOUGH HE HAD CONTENDED BELOW THAT THE TRANSACTION IN
QUESTION DID NOT AMOUNT TO A TAX-FREE STATUTORY REORGANIZATION, DID NOT
FILE A CROSS PETITION ASKING FOR A REVIEW OF THAT PART OF THE JUDGMENT
EXEMPTING FROM TAXATION GAIN TO THE IRRIGATION COMPANY ARISING FROM THE
TRANSFER OF ITS ASSETS OWNED BY IT ON AND PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 4, 1931,
AND THE PART OF THE LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND ATTRIBUTABLE THERETO. 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECIDING THE CASE ON A GROUND NOT
RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS, NOT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT, NOT SUGGESTED OR
ARGUED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND ONE AS TO WHICH THE
PETITIONER HAD NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS EVIDENCE, SINCE
WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE TRANSACTION DID NOT AMOUNT TO A
REORGANIZATION AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER CANNOT COMPLAIN, AS
THE JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT NO TAX-FREE
REORGANIZATION WAS EFFECTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE. 


"(1)  THE TERM 'REORGANIZATION' MEANS (A) A MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION
(INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION OF AT LEAST A MAJORITY OF
THE VOTING STOCK AND AT LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES
OF ALL OTHER CLASSES OF STOCK OF ANOTHER CORPORATION, OR SUBSTANTIALLY
ALL THE PROPERTIES OF ANOTHER CORPORATION)  ..." 

AS THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY STATED, THE SECTION IS NOT TO BE READ
LITERALLY, AS DENOMINATING THE TRANSFER OF ALL THE ASSETS OF ONE
COMPANY FOR WHAT AMOUNTS TO A CASH CONSIDERATION GIVEN BY THE OTHER A
REORGANIZATION.  WE HAVE HELD THAT WHERE THE CONSIDERATION CONSISTS OF
CASH AND SHORT TERM NOTES THE TRANSFER DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A
REORGANIZATION WITHIN THE TRUE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, BUT IS A SALE
UPON WHICH GAIN OR LOSS MUST BE RECKONED.  FN3  WE HAVE SAID THAT THE
STATUTE WAS NOT SATISFIED UNLESS THE TRANSFEROR RETAINED A SUBSTANTIAL
STAKE IN THE ENTERPRISE AND SUCH A STAKE WAS THOUGHT TO BE RETAINED
WHERE A LARGE PROPORTION OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS IN COMMON STOCK OF
THE TRANSFEREE,  FN4  OR WHERE THE TRANSFEROR TOOK CASH AND THE ENTIRE
ISSUE OF PREFERRED STOCK OF THE TRANSFEREE CORPORATION.  FN5  AND,
WHERE THE CONSIDERATION IS REPRESENTED BY A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF
STOCK, AND THE BALANCE IN BONDS, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS
EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER SEC. 112(B)(4) AND 112(G).  FN6 

IN APPLYING OUR DECISION IN THE PINELLAS CASE  FN3  THE COURTS HAVE
GENERALLY HELD THAT RECEIPT OF LONG TERM BONDS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
SHORT TERM NOTES CONSTITUTES THE RETENTION OF AN INTEREST IN THE
PURCHASING CORPORATION.  THERE HAS NATURALLY BEEN SOME DIFFICULTY IN
CLASSIFYING THE SECURITIES INVOLVED IN VARIOUS CASES.  FN7 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE TERM OF THE OBLIGATIONS IS NOT MATERIAL. 
WHERE THE CONSIDERATION IS WHOLLY IN THE TRANSFEREE'S BONDS, OR PART
CASH AND PART SUCH BONDS, WE THINK IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE
TRANSFEROR RETAINS ANY PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN THE ENTERPRISE.  ON THE
CONTRARY, HE BECOMES A CREDITOR OF THE TRANSFEREE; AND WE DO NOT THINK
THAT THE FACT REFERRED TO BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THAT THE
BONDS WERE SECURED SOLELY BY THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED AND THAT, UPON
DEFAULT, THE BONDHOLDER WOULD RETAKE ONLY THE PROPERTY SOLD, CHANGES
HIS STATUS FROM THAT OF A CREDITOR TO ONE HAVING A PROPRIETARY STAKE,
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR IN HOLDING
THAT, AS RESPECTS ANY OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO THE WATER COMPANY,
THE TRANSACTION WAS OTHER THAN A SALE OR EXCHANGE UPON WHICH GAIN OR
LOSS MUST BE RECKONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE
ACT DEALING WITH THE RECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS UPON A SALE OR
EXCHANGE. 

HAD THE RESPONDENT SOUGHT AND BEEN GRANTED CERTIORARI THE
PETITIONER'S TAX LIABILITY WOULD, IN THE VIEW WE HAVE EXPRESSED, BE
SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED OVER THE AMOUNT FOUND DUE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  SINCE THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT DRAWN INTO QUESTION SO MUCH
OF THE JUDGMENT AS EXEMPTS FROM TAXATION GAIN TO THE IRRIGATION COMPANY
ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF ITS ASSETS OWNED BY IT ON AND PRIOR TO
NOVEMBER 4, 1931, AND THE PART OF THE LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND ATTRIBUTABLE
THERETO, WE CANNOT AFFORD HIM RELIEF FROM THAT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT
WHICH WAS ADVERSE TO HIM. 

A RESPONDENT OR AN APPELLEE MAY URGE ANY MATTER APPEARING IN THE
RECORD IN SUPPORT OF A JUDGMENT,  FN8  BUT HE MAY NOT ATTACK IT EVEN ON
GROUNDS ASSERTED IN THE COURT BELOW, IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE THIS COURT
REVERSE IT, WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS NOT SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE WHOLE
JUDGMENT, OR OF THAT PORTION WHICH IS ADVERSE TO HIM.  FN9 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO PROCEED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION AND MANDATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 112(I) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, 45 STAT. 791,
818. 

FN2  103 F.2D 20. 

FN3  PINELLAS ICE & COLD STORAGE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 287 U.S. 462. 

FN4  HELVERING V. MINNESOTA TEA CO., 296 U.S. 378. 

FN5 NELSON CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 374. 

FN6  45 STAT. 816, 818.  SEE HELVERING V. WATTS, 296 U.S. 387. 

FN7  WORCESTER SALT CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 75 F.2D 251; LILIENTHAL V.
COMMISSIONER, 80 F.2D 411, 413; BURNHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 86 F.2D 776;
COMMISSIONER V. KITSELMAN, 89 F.2D 458; COMMISSIONER V. FREUND, 98 F.2D
201; COMMISSIONER V. TYNG, 106 F.2D 55; L. & E. STIRN, INC. V.
COMMISSIONER, 107 F.2D 390. 

FN8  LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, 535-537; HELVERING V. GOWRAN,
302 U.S. 238, 245; TICONIC BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S. 406, 410, NOTE 3. 

FN9  THE STEPHEN MORGAN, 94 U.S. 599; MOUNT PLEASANT V. BECKWITH, 100
U.S. 514, 527; UNITED STATES V. BLACKFEATHER, 155 U.S. 180, 186;
LANDRAM V. JORDAN, 203 U.S. 56, 62; BOTHWELL V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S.
231, 233; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO., 265 U.S. 425,
435; MORLEY CONSTRUCTION CO. V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 300 U.S. 185,
191. 
..END :










TANK CAR CORP. V. TERMINAL CO., 308 U.S. 422 


NO. 129.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 13, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  -
104 F.2D 903, 916, REVERSED. 


A CAR COMPANY LEASED, ON A MONTHLY RENTAL BASIS, TANK CARS TO A
SHIPPER FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE LATTER'S PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE CONTRACT PROVIDING THAT TARIFF CAR-MILEAGE ALLOWANCES
FROM RAILROADS FOR THE USE OF THE CARS SHOULD BE COLLECTED BY THE CAR
COMPANY AND BE CREDITED MONTHLY TO THE RENTAL ACCOUNT OF THE SHIPPER. 
THE TARIFFS CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH ALLOWANCES
DIRECTLY TO THE SHIPPER; AND, UNDER THE CARRIERS' RULES, THEY WERE PAID
IN THIS CASE TO THE CAR COMPANY.  THE CAR COMPANY SUBSEQUENTLY REFUSED
TO PAY TO THE SHIPPER ANY EXCESS OF CAR-MILEAGE ALLOWANCES OVER THE
STIPULATED RENTS, ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD THUS BE PARTICIPATING IN
ILLEGAL REBATING.  THE SHIPPER THEREUPON BROUGHT SUIT IN ASSUMPSIT UPON
THE LEASE TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF SUCH EXCESS.  HELD: 

1.  THE SUIT WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, SINCE
THE ACTION WAS AN CRDINARY ONE IN ASSUMPSIT ON A WRITTEN CONTRACT AND
THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES.  P. 432. 

2.  UPON DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS AND OPERATION OF THE LEASE CONTRACT,
THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES OF THE PARTIES IN THE ABSENCE OF A DECISION BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY UNDER THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT OF THE PRACTICE INVOLVED.  P. 428. 

THE SHIPPER FURNISHED THE CARS AND WAS ENTITLED, UNDER SEC. 15(13) OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, TO A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE THEREFOR.  NO
RULE OR REGULATION OF THE CARRIER MAY PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH
ALLOWANCE TO ANY OTHER PERSON.  THAT THE CAR COMPANY ACTED MERELY AS
COLLECTING AGENT FOR THE SHIPPER DOES NOT TAKE THE CASE OUT OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  THE INQUIRY INTO THE LAWFULNESS OF THE
PRACTICE UNDER THE LEASE IS PECULIARLY WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE
COMMISSION. 

3.  THE CAUSE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BUT SHOULD BE HELD PENDING THE
CONCLUSION OF AN APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, THUS SAVING TO
THE DEFENDANT ANY DEFENSES WHICH IT MAY HAVE.  P. 433. 

GENERAL AMERICAN TANK CAR CORP. V. EL DORADO TERMINAL CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 533, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PETITIONER IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE RESPONDENT UPON A CONTRACT OF
LEASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WAS AN ACTION IN ASSUMPSIT BROUGHT BY THE RESPONDENT TO RECOVER
A SUM ALLEGED TO BE DUE IT BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE TERMS OF A CAR
LEASING AGREEMENT.  THE ANSWER ADMITTED THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT
BUT PLEADED THAT PAYMENT OF THE SUM DEMANDED WOULD AMOUNT TO THE MAKING
OF A REBATE, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ELKINS ACT.  FN1  THE
DISTRICT COURT RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR THE PETITIONER WHICH THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THE RESPONDENT ENTITLED TO THE FULL
AMOUNT CLAIMED.  FN2  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON ACCOUNT OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION INVOLVED AND OF THE ALLEGATION THAT THE
JUDGMENT WAS NOT IN ACCORD WITH PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

THE PETITIONER IS A CORPORATION, UNAFFILIATED WITH ANY RAILROAD,
WHICH OWNS AND LEASES TANK CARS TO RAILROADS AND TO SHIPPERS FOR USE IN
TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE RESPONDENT IS A WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF EL DORADO OIL WORKS, A MANUFACTURER OF COCONUT OIL
OPERATING A PLANT AT BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, AND BROUGHT THE ACTION AS
ASSIGNEE OF THE LATTER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE LEASE. 

SEPTEMBER 28, 1933, THE PETITIONER AND THE OIL WORKS ENTERED INTO AN
AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE FORMER LEASED TO THE LATTER FIFTY TANK CARS
DESIGNATED IN THE CONTRACT AS "PERMANENT CARS," AT A RENTAL OF $27.50
PER CAR PER MONTH.  THE PETITIONER AGREED TO SUPPLY THE OIL WORKS WITH
SUCH ADDITIONAL CARS AS IT MIGHT NEED FOR THE SHIPMENT OF ITS PRODUCTS,
ON A RENTAL BASIS OF $30.00 PER CAR PER MONTH, THESE TO BE ORDERED FROM
TIME TO TIME AS NEEDED AND RETURNED WHEN NO LONGER REQUIRED. 

THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE PETITIONER WOULD COLLECT, AND CREDIT
TO THE RENTAL ACCOUNT OF THE OIL WORKS EACH MONTH, ALL MILEAGE EARNED
BY THE CARS WHILE IN THE OIL WORKS' SERVICE, "ACCORDING TO AND SUBJECT
TO ALL RULES OF THE TARIFFS OF THE RAILROADS."  THE PETITIONER WAS TO
PAY THE COST OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE BUT THE OIL WORKS WAS TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF THE CARS WHILE ON PRIVATELY
OWNED TRACKS. 

THE LEASED CARS WERE USED BY THE OIL WORKS FOR SHIPMENT OF ITS
PRODUCTS.  SUCH USE WAS IMPORTANT TO THE OIL WORKS SINCE THE RAILROADS
SERVING ITS PLANT WERE NOT PREPARED TO FURNISH SHIPPERS A FULL SUPPLY
OF THE KIND OF CARS NEEDED FOR CARRYING THE OILS IN QUESTION.  THE
RAILROAD TARIFFS, THOUGH STATING RATES ON THE OIL WORKS' PRODUCTS WHEN
SHIPPED IN TANK CARS, DISCLAIMED ANY OBLIGATION TO FURNISH CARS OF THE
REQUISITE TYPE. 

THE CARRIERS MAINTAIN TARIFFS APPLICABLE TO THE ALLOWANCES TO BE MADE
TO CAR OWNERS FOR THE USE OF TANK CARS, WHICH PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT OF
ONE AND ONE-HALF CENTS PER CAR MILE LOADED AND EMPTY.  THE TARIFFS ALSO
EMBODY RULES WHICH, DURING PART OF THE PERIOD IN CONTROVERSY, STATED
THAT MILEAGE PAYMENTS WOULD BE MADE ONLY TO THE PARTY WHOSE REPORTING
MARKS APPEARED UPON THE CARS AND DURING PART OF THE PERIOD THAT
"MILEAGE FOR THE USE OF CARS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WILL BE PAID FOR
LOADED AND EMPTY MOVEMENTS ONLY TO THE CAR OWNER - NOT TO A LESSEE." 
THE RULES PRECLUDED PAYMENT OF THE MILEAGE ALLOWANCE TO THE OIL WORKS
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, SINCE THE LEASE STIPULATED THAT
ALL THE LEASED CARS SHOULD BEAR THE REPORTING MARKS OF THE PETITIONER. 

THE PETITIONER COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT UNTIL
JULY 2, 1934, WHEN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION RENDERED ITS
DECISION IN USE OF PRIVATELY OWNED REFRIGERATOR CARS, 201 I.C.C. 323,
IN WHICH IT CONSIDERED THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE ALLOWANCES TO SHIPPERS
EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH CAR OWNERS, WHICH PAYMENTS EXCEEDED THE
TOTAL OF THE AGREED RENTAL FOR THE USE OF THE CARS AND ANY ADDITIONAL
ACTUAL EXPENSES OF THE SHIPPER IN CONNECTION WITH THE CARS.  IN THAT
CASE THE COMMISSION HELD THAT SUCH PAYMENTS OPERATED TO GIVE THE LESSEE
TRANSPORTATION OF HIS PRODUCTS AT LOWER RATES THAN THOSE PAID BY OTHER
SHIPPERS WHO USE CARS FURNISHED BY THE CARRIERS AND THUS AMOUNTED TO A
REBATE FROM THE PUBLISHED TRANSPORTATION RATES.  THE PETITIONER'S
PRACTICE HAD BEEN TO COLLECT THE MILEAGE, DEDUCT THE RENTAL DUE, AND
PAY OVER THE BALANCE MONTHLY.  AFTER THE RENDITION OF THE COMMISSION'S
DECISION THE PETITIONER COLLECTED THE MILEAGE FROM THE RAILROADS,
CREDITED THE OIL WORKS WITH THE RENTAL DUE, RETAINED THE BALANCE, AND
REFUSED TO PAY IT OVER.  THE GROUND OF ITS REFUSAL WAS THAT TO FOLLOW
THE FORMER PRACTICE WOULD RENDER IT A PARTICIPANT IN ILLEGAL REBATING. 

IT WAS DISCLOSED AT TRIAL THAT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE
RESPONDENT'S CLAIM THE MILEAGE ALLOWANCES HAD, IN EVERY MONTH, EXCEEDED
THE RENTALS, LEAVING A SUBSTANTIAL BALANCE WHICH THE RESPONDENT
INSISTED SHOULD BE PAID TO IT.  DURING THE SEVEN MONTH PERIOD FROM
NOVEMBER 1, 1934, TO MAY 31, 1935, THIS BALANCE AMOUNTED TO
$17,614.13. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED THAT PAYMENT TO THE SHIPPER OF ANY
EXCESS OF THE MILEAGE ALLOWANCES OVER STIPULATED RENTS WOULD CONSTITUTE
A REBATE PROHIBITED BY THE ELKINS ACT AND, IN THAT VIEW, HELD THAT THE
RESPONDENT COULD NOT RECOVER.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PERMITTED A
RECOVERY ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 15(13)  FN3  OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AUTHORIZED THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE ALLOWANCES BY RAILROADS
FOR THE USE OF PRIVATE CARS FURNISHED BY SHIPPERS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR OWN COMMODITIES; THAT THE PRACTICE HAD BEEN
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, AND MAXIMUM RATES FIXED BY IT; THAT THE ONE
AND ONE-HALF CENTS PER CAR MILE ALLOWANCE APPEARED IN THE CARRIERS'
PUBLISHED TARIFFS DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT AND WAS, AND WOULD REMAIN
UNTIL ACTION BY THE COMMISSION, THE LEGAL RATE PAYABLE FOR THE USE OF
SUCH CARS; THAT, WHILE IT IS OPEN TO THE COMMISSION TO INQUIRE, ON ITS
OWN MOTION OR ON COMPLAINT, AS TO ANY ABUSES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH
TARIFF MILEAGE ALLOWANCES, UNTIL THE COMMISSION DOES ACT, THE CARRIERS
ARE JUSTIFIED IN CONTINUING TO PAY THE SCHEDULED RATES; THAT THE
SHIPPER IN THIS CASE IS THE FURNISHER OR SUPPLIER OF PRIVATELY OWNED
CARS TO THE CARRIERS, AND THE LEASE AGREEMENT CONSTITUTES THE
PETITIONER A MERE AGENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF THE MILEAGE
ALLOWANCES TO THE SHIPPER; AND THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, THE PAYMENT, BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE SHIPPER, OF ANY EXCESS OF THE MILEAGE EARNINGS IS NOT
A REBATE WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE ELKINS ACT. 

THE PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS WRONG AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT CORRECT.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AS A
FRIEND OF THE COURT, HAS FILED A BRIEF IN WHICH IT CONTENDS, FIRST,
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE
CAUSE, AS THE QUESTION INVOLVED IS ONE PRIMARILY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION BY THE COMMISSION AND, SECONDLY, THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE EXCESS
CREDITS BY THE PETITIONER WOULD RESULT IN PAYMENT OF A PROHIBITED
REBATE TO THE SHIPPER. 

WE HOLD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION BUT THAT, UPON
DISCLOSURE OF THE TERMS AND OPERATION OF THE LEASE CONTRACT, IT SHOULD
NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF THE
PARTIES IN THE ABSENCE OF A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE PRACTICE INVOLVED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

FREIGHT CARS ARE FACILITIES OF TRANSPORTATION, AS DEFINED BY THE
ACT.  FN4  THE RAILROADS ARE UNDER OBLIGATION, AS PART OF THEIR PUBLIC
SERVICE, TO FURNISH THESE FACILITIES UPON REASONABLE REQUEST OF A
SHIPPER,  FN5  AND THEREFORE HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO FURNISH THEM. 
THEY ARE NOT, HOWEVER, UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO OWN SUCH CARS.  THEY MAY,
IF THEY DEEM IT ADVISABLE, LEASE THEM SO AS TO BE IN A POSITION TO
FURNISH THEM ACCORDING TO THE DEMAND OF THE SHIPPING PUBLIC AND, IF THE
CARRIERS DO SO LEASE CARS, THE TERMS ON WHICH THEY OBTAIN THEM ARE NOT
THE SUBJECT OF DIRECT CONTROL BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
FN6  IF THE CARRIERS PAY TOO MUCH FOR THE HIRE OF SUCH CARS THE
COMMISSION MAY, OF COURSE, REFUSE TO ALLOW THEM TO REFLECT SUCH EXCESS
COST IN THEIR TARIFFS.  THE LESSOR OF SUCH CARS TO A RAILROAD, HOWEVER,
IS NOT ITSELF A CARRIER OR ENGAGED IN ANY PUBLIC SERVICE.  THEREFORE
ITS PRACTICES LIE WITHOUT THE REALM OF THE COMMISSION'S COMPETENCE. 

CARS THUS LEASED AND USED BY THE CARRIERS ARE TO BE DISTINGUISHED
FROM SO-CALLED PRIVATE CARS WITH WHICH WE ARE HERE CONCERNED. 
SHIPPERS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO REQUIRE A SPECIALIZED FORM OF FREIGHT
CAR FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR PRODUCTS, MAY, AND DO, OWN CARS ADAPTED
FOR THE PURPOSE.  THEY MAY, AND DO, IN LIEU OF OWNING SUCH FACILITIES,
RENT THEM FROM THE OWNERS.  CAR COMPANIES OWNING A LARGE NUMBER OF A
SPECIAL TYPE OF FREIGHT CAR, SOME AFFILIATES OR SUBSIDIARIES OF
RAILROADS AND OTHERS, LIKE THE PETITIONER, WHOLLY INDEPENDENT AND
FINANCED BY PRIVATE CAPITAL, HAVE, FOR MANY YEARS, BEEN IN THE BUSINESS
OF LEASING CARS TO SHIPPERS.  THE PRACTICE HAS BEEN WELL KNOWN AND WELL
UNDERSTOOD.  IT IS ENTIRELY LAWFUL AND THE COMMISSION HAS SO HELD.  FN7
BUT THE PRACTICE CANNOT MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH (13) OF
SEC. 15,  FN8  WHICH GOVERNS THE PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES FOR PRIVATE
CARS, AND INVESTS THE COMMISSION WITH AUTHORITY TO FIND AND DECLARE
WHAT ALLOWANCES ARE REASONABLE. 

AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS POINTED OUT, DIFFERENT SHIPPERS
MAY HAVE DIFFERING COSTS IN RESPECT OF PRIVATELY OWNED CARS FURNISHED
THE CARRIERS.  NEVERTHELESS, AS THE ALLOWANCES TO BE MADE THEM BY THE
CARRIERS FOR THE USE OF SUCH CARS MUST BE THE SUBJECT OF PUBLISHED
SCHEDULES, FN9  AND MUST BE JUST AND REASONABLE,  FN10  THE COMMISSION
IS COMPELLED TO ASCERTAIN IN THE LIGHT OF PAST AND PRESENT EXPERIENCE A
FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION TO COVER SUCH COSTS AND PRESCRIBE A
UNIFORM RATE WHICH WILL REFLECT SUCH EXPERIENCE.  IT IS INEVITABLE THAT
SOME SHIPPERS MAY BE ABLE TO FURNISH FACILITIES AT LESS THAN THE
PUBLISHED ALLOWANCE WHILE OTHERS MAY FIND THEIR COSTS IN EXCESS OF IT.
THIS FACT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MILITATE AGAINST THE FIXING OF A UNIFORM
RATE APPLICABLE TO SHIPPERS PROPERLY CLASSIFIED BY THE COMMISSION. 
FN11 

FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IT RESULTS THAT THE SHIPPER IN THIS CASE WAS
PERMITTED BY LAW TO FURNISH FREIGHT CARS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF ITS
PRODUCTS AND TO BE PAID A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR PERFORMING THIS
PORTION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE WHICH THE CARRIER WAS BOUND TO RENDER,
AND THAT THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THE AMOUNT AND CONDITIONS OF PAYMENT OF
SUCH ALLOWANCE SHALL BE SET FORTH IN A PUBLISHED TARIFF.  IF THIS IS
NOT DONE, THE SHIPPER MAY COMPLAIN TO THE COMMISSION, TO THE END THAT A
PROPER ALLOWANCE BE ASCERTAINED AND MADE EFFECTIVE BY A SCHEDULE DULY
PUBLISHED.  IN THE PRESENT CASE THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE.  NOR HAS THE
SHIPPER EVER APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION FOR ITS DECISION AS TO WHAT WAS
A PROPER ALLOWANCE FOR THE CARS FURNISHED BY IT. 

AS WE HAVE STATED, THE MILEAGE TARIFFS PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN
RAILWAY ASSOCIATION, WHICH GOVERN THE INSTANT CASE, REQUIRE THAT
PRIVATE CARS BE MARKED WITH SO-CALLED REPORTING MARKS OR INITIALS
TOGETHER WITH A CAR NUMBER.  THESE MARKS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING
RECORDS OF THE CAR'S MOVEMENTS AND MILEAGE.  APPROPRIATE MARKS TO
DESIGNATE PRIVATELY OWNED CARS ARE ASSIGNED BY THE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION
TO THEIR OWNERS.  THE RULES APPEARING IN THE TARIFF DURING A PORTION OF
THE PERIOD IN QUESTION PROVIDED THAT THE MILEAGE FOR THE USE OF CARS OF
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP WOULD BE PAID TO THE CAR OWNER OR TO THE PARTY WHO
HAD ACQUIRED THE CAR OR CARS AS SHOWN BY THE PERMANENT REPORTING
MARKS.  THE LEASE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE CARS SHOULD BEAR THE
REPORTING MARKS OF THE PETITIONER.  THUS THE CARRIER WAS BOUND BY ITS
RULES TO PAY THE ALLOWANCE TO THE PETITIONER.  DURING A PORTION OF THE
TERM IN CONTROVERSY THE RULES PROVIDED THAT MILEAGE COULD BE PAID ONLY
TO THE CAR OWNER, NOT TO A LESSEE.  HERE AGAIN THE RULES PRECLUDED THE
PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCE BY THE CARRIER TO THE SHIPPER. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD, AND WE THINK CORRECTLY, THAT
THE SHIPPER - THE OIL WORKS - FURNISHED THE CARS TO THE CARRIER IN THE
PRESENT INSTANCE.  THE PETITIONER DID NOT.  THE SHIPPER WAS THEN
ENTITLED, UNDER THE PLAIN TERMS OF SEC. 15(13), TO BE PAID BY THE
CARRIER A JUST AND REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR PROVIDING THE FACILITY.  IT
SEEMS CLEAR THAT NO RULE OR REGULATION OF THE CARRIER MAY PROVIDE FOR
THE PAYMENT OF SUCH ALLOWANCE TO ANY OTHER PERSON.  AND WE THINK THE
CONSIDERATION THAT, IN THIS CASE, THE PETITIONER ACTED MERELY AS
COLLECTING AGENT FOR THE SHIPPER, DOES NOT TAKE THE CASE OUT OF THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  IF IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT, WITH RESPECT TO
THE TANK CARS IN QUESTION, THE SHIPPER-LESSEE IS MAKING SUBSTANTIAL
PROFITS ON LEASED CARS, BY REASON OF THE EXCESS OF THE MILEAGE
ALLOWANCES OVER THE RENTALS PAID, IT MIGHT IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE
FACTS BE FOUND THAT THE SHIPPER IS, IN THE RESULT, OBTAINING
TRANSPORTATION AT A LOWER COST THAN OTHERS WHO USE CARS ASSIGNED THEM
BY THE CARRIERS OR OWN THEIR OWN CARS.  THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THAT,
IN THE CASE OF REFRIGERATOR CARS, HELD UNDER SIMILAR LEASES, THIS HAS
BEEN THE CASE.  FN12  THE INQUIRY INTO THE LAWFULNESS OF THE PRACTICE
IS ONE PECULIARLY WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE COMMISSION.  FN13    AS
THE TARIFFS NOW CONTAIN NO PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF CAR MILEAGE
ALLOWANCES BY THE RAILROAD TO THE SHIPPER DIRECTLY, AND AS, UPON THE
FACE OF THINGS AS DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD, THE SHIPPER IS APPARENTLY
REAPING A SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT FROM THE USE OF THE CARS, A CLEAR CASE IS
MADE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT OF THE
COMMISSION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
IN THE RECORD AS TO ANY SPECIFIC ITEMS, SAID THAT THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY
OTHER EXPENSES WHICH THE SHIPPER MUST BEAR OVER AND ABOVE THE ACTUAL
RENTAL PAID.  IF THIS WERE SO, THE REFLECTION OF THOSE EXPENSES, AS
WELL AS THE RENTAL ITSELF, IN THE ALLOWANCE PAID BY THE CARRIER TO THE
SHIPPER FOR THE USE OF THE LATTER'S CARS, WOULD BE A MATTER FOR THE
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND NOT FOR DETERMINATION BY
A COURT.  FN14 

WE HAVE SAID THAT THE COMMISSION INSISTS THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE.  WITH THIS WE DO NOT AGREE.  THE
ACTION WAS AN ORDINARY ONE IN ASSUMPSIT ON A WRITTEN CONTRACT.  THE
COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND OF THE PARTIES.  BUT
IT APPEARED HERE, AS IT DID IN MITCHELL COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO., 230 U.S. 247, THAT THE QUESTION OF THE REASONABLENESS AND LEGALITY
OF THE PRACTICES OF THE PARTIES WAS SUBJECTED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THE POLICY OF THE ACT IS THAT REASONABLE ALLOWANCES AND
PRACTICES, WHICH SHALL NOT OFFEND AGAINST THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE
ELKINS ACT, ARE TO BE FIXED AND SETTLED AFTER FULL INVESTIGATION BY THE
COMMISSION, AND THAT THERE IS REMITTED TO THE COURTS ONLY THE FUNCTION
OF ENFORCING CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COMMISSION'S LAWFUL ORDERS. 

WHEN IT APPEARED IN THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION THAT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM, COMMITTED TO THE COMMISSION, WAS INVOLVED, THE
COURT SHOULD HAVE STAYED ITS HAND PENDING THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION OF THE LAWFULNESS AND REASONABLENESS OF THE PRACTICES
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  THERE SHOULD NOT BE A DISMISSAL, BUT, AS
IN MITCHELL COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., SUPRA, THE CAUSE SHOULD BE
HELD PENDING THE CONCLUSION OF AN APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING.  THUS ANY DEFENSES THE PETITIONER MAY HAVE WILL BE SAVED TO
IT.  FN15 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF FEBRUARY 19, 1903, C. 708, SEC. 1, 32 STAT. 847, AS
AMENDED. 

"(3).  RECEIVING REBATES; ADDITIONAL PENALTY AND RECOVERY THEREOF.  -
ANY PERSON, CORPORATION, OR COMPANY WHO SHALL DELIVER PROPERTY FOR
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION TO ANY COMMON CARRIER, SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 41, 42, OR 43 OF THIS TITLE, OR FOR WHOM AS
CONSIGNOR OR CONSIGNEE, ANY SUCH CARRIER SHALL TRANSPORT PROPERTY FROM
ONE STATE, TERRITORY, OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO ANY OTHER STATE,
TERRITORY, OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR FOREIGN COUNTRY, WHO SHALL
KNOWINGLY BY EMPLOYEE, AGENT, OFFICER, OR OTHERWISE, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, BY OR THROUGH ANY MEANS OR DEVICE WHATSOEVER, RECEIVE OR
ACCEPT FROM SUCH COMMON CARRIER ANY SUM OF MONEY OR ANY OTHER VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION AS A REBATE OR OFFSET AGAINST THE REGULAR CHARGES FOR
TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH PROPERTY, AS FIXED BY THE SCHEDULES OF RATES
PROVIDED FOR IN SAID SECTIONS, SHALL IN ADDITION TO ANY PENALTY
PROVIDED BY SAID SECTIONS FORFEIT TO THE UNITED STATES A SUM OF MONEY
THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SO RECEIVED OR ACCEPTED AND THREE TIMES
THE VALUE OF ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION SO RECEIVED OR ACCEPTED, TO BE
ASCERTAINED BY THE TRIAL COURT; AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED, WHENEVER HE HAS REASONABLE GROUNDS
TO BELIEVE THAT ANY SUCH PERSON, CORPORATION, OR COMPANY HAS KNOWINGLY
RECEIVED OR ACCEPTED FROM ANY SUCH COMMON CARRIER ANY SUM OF MONEY OR
OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION AS A REBATE OR OFFSET AS AFORESAID, TO
INSTITUTE IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION,
A CIVIL ACTION TO COLLECT THE SAID SUM OR SUMS SO FORFEITED AS
AFORESAID; AND IN THE TRIAL OF SAID ACTION ALL SUCH REBATES OR OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS SO RECEIVED OR ACCEPTED FOR A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS PRIOR
TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION, MAY BE INCLUDED THEREIN, AND THE
AMOUNT RECOVERED SHALL BE THREE TIMES THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY, OR
THREE TIMES THE TOTAL VALUE OF SUCH CONSIDERATION, SO RECEIVED OR
ACCEPTED, OR BOTH, AS THE CASE MAY BE."  U.S.C., TIT. 49, SEC. 41(3). 

FN2  104 F.2D 903, 916. 

FN3  U.S.C. TIT. 49, SEC. 15(13). 

FN4  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(3). 

FN5  49 U.S.C. SEC. 1(10)(11); PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. PURITAN COAL
CO., 237 U.S. 121; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. SONMAN SHAFT COAL CO., 242
U.S. 120. 

FN6  ELLIS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 237 U.S. 434. 

FN7  IN THE MATTER OF PRIVATE CARS, 50 I.C.C. 652. 

FN8  ALLOWANCE FOR SERVICE OR FACILITIES FURNISHED BY SHIPPER.  - IF
THE OWNER OF PROPERTY TRANSPORTED UNDER THIS CHAPTER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY RENDERS ANY SERVICE CONNECTED WITH SUCH TRANSPORTATION, OR
FURNISHES ANY INSTRUMENTALITY USED THEREIN, THE CHARGE AND ALLOWANCE
THEREFOR SHALL BE NO MORE THAN IS JUST AND REASONABLE, AND THE
COMMISSION MAY, AFTER HEARING ON A COMPLAINT OR ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE,
DETERMINE WHAT IS A REASONABLE CHARGE AS THE MAXIMUM TO BE PAID BY THE
CARRIER OR CARRIERS FOR THE SERVICES SO RENDERED OR FOR THE USE OF THE
INSTRUMENTALITY SO FURNISHED, AND FIX THE SAME BY APPROPRIATE ORDER,
WHICH ORDER SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AND BE ENFORCED IN
LIKE MANNER AS THE ORDERS ABOVE PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS SECTION.  49
U.S.C. SEC. 15(13). 

FN9  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(1)(7). 

FN10  49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(13), SUPRA, NOTE 9. 

FN11  COMPARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. DIFFENBAUGH, 222 U.S. 42,
45. 

FN12  USE OF PRIVATELY OWNED REFRIGERATOR CARS, 201 I.C.C. 323. 

FN13  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. MERCHANTS ELEVATOR CO., 259 U.S. 285,
290, 291. 

FN14  MITCHELL COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247;
MORRISDALE COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 304. 

FN15  COMPARE MORRISDALE COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S.
304, 314, WHERE NO RIGHTS COULD BE SAVED BY RETAINING THE CAUSE; AND
ST. LOUIS, B. & M. RY. CO. V. BROWNSVILLE DISTRICT, 304 U.S. 295, 301,
WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ASKED TO MAKE AN ORDER WHICH THE
COMMISSION ALONE HAD AUTHORITY TO MAKE. 
..END :


















KALB V. FEUERSTEIN, 308 U.S. 433 


NO. 120.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - 231
WIS. 185, 186 - 285 N.W. 431, REVERSED. 


1.  THE EFFECT OF THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR A COMPOSITION OR
EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT UPON A STATE
COURT'S JURISDICTION OF A PENDING PROCEEDING TO FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE ON
THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, IS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  P. 438. 

2.  THE FILING OF A PETITION BY A FARMER UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY HIS DEBTS,
OPERATES IPSO FACTO AS A STAY ON THE POWER OF A STATE COURT, IN A
PENDING PROCEEDING TO FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE ON HIS PROPERTY, TO PROCEED
WITH FORECLOSURE, TO CONFIRM THE FORECLOSURE SALE, AND TO DISPOSSESS
UNDER IT.  PP. 438, 440. 

3.  THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURT IN THIS CASE IN PROCEEDING
CONTRARIWISE, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, WAS NOT
MERELY ERRONEOUS, BUT WAS IN EXCESS OF ITS AUTHORITY, VOID, AND SUBJECT
TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  AND WHETHER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT
TO PROCEED THUS WAS CONTESTED IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, OR COULD
HAVE BEEN CONTESTED, IS IMMATERIAL.  PP. 438, 440. 

4.  THE LANGUAGE AND THE BROAD POLICY OF THE FEDERAL ACT, AS WELL AS
ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, SUPPORT THIS CONSTRUCTION; AND, AS SO
CONSTRUED, THE ACT WAS WITHIN THE PLENARY POWER OF CONGRESS IN RESPECT
OF THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCY.  PP. 439-441. 

5.  THE LIABILITY IN TORT OF THE STATE COURT JUDGE, THE SHERIFF WHO
EXECUTED THE WRIT OF ASSISTANCE, AND THE MORTGAGEES, FOR SUCH ACTION AS
WAS TAKEN AGAINST THE FARMER-DEBTOR WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW, IS TO
BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE STATE LAW.  P. 443. 

KALB ET UX. V. FEUERSTEIN ET UX.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 121, KALB V. LUCE ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

APPEALS FROM AFFIRMANCES OF JUDGMENTS DISMISSING THE COMPLAINTS IN TWO
CASES.  FOR EARLIER OPINIONS OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT, SEE 228 WIS.
519, 525; 279 N.W. 685, 687; ALSO 280 N.W. 725, 726. 

INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUNDS SUPPORT THE STATE COURT
DECISION. 

THE JUDGE, WHO ACTED IN HIS JUDICIAL CAPACITY; THE SHERIFF, WHO ACTED
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND LITIGANTS, WHO MERELY SOUGHT LEGAL
RIGHTS, ARE IMMUNE FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.  CITING MANY CASES. 

THE COUNTY COURT ORDERS ARE VOIDABLE AND NOT VOID, AND NOT SUBJECT TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK.  BRADLEY V. FISHER, 13 WALL.  335; DOWELL V.
APPLEGATE, 152 U.S. 327; FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS, PP. 718-719.  WISCONSIN
DECISIONS ARE CONTROLLING AND SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION.  DISTINGUISHING
WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 502. 

THE FILING OF THE AMENDED PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 DID NOT EFFECT AN
AUTOMATIC STAY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN THE COUNTY
COURT.  THAT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO CONFIRM THE SALE PREVIOUSLY
MADE. 

THE BANKRUPTCY ACT SUBJECTS TO EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION ONLY
THE FARMER AND PROPERTY NOT IN CONTROL OF SOME OTHER COURT.  IN RE
PRICE, 16 F.SUPP.  836.  DISTINGUISHING WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300
U.S. 440; WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA; ADAIR V. BANK
OF AMERICA ASSN., 303 U.S. 350.  SEE EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610;
STRATON V. NEW, 283 U.S. 318. 

THE CASES CITED BY THE APPELLANTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTION THAT
SEC. 75 IS SELF-EXECUTING DO NOT APPLY.  DISTINGUISHING MAY V.
HENDERSON, 268 U.S. 111; ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & TIMBER CO., 282 U.S.
734; GROSS V. IRVING TRUST CO., 289 U.S. 342; ACME HARVESTER CO. V.
BEEKMAN, 222 U.S. 300. 

THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE REQUIRES RECOGNITION OF THE SALE AND
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS ARE FARMERS.  TWO OF APPELLEES, AS MORTGAGEES, BEGAN
FORECLOSURE ON APPELLANTS' FARM FN1  MARCH 7, 1933, IN THE WALWORTH
(WISCONSIN) COUNTY COURT; JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED APRIL 21,
1933; JULY 20, 1935, THE SHERIFF SOLD THE PROPERTY UNDER THE JUDGMENT;
SEPTEMBER 16, 1935, WHILE APPELLANT ERNEST NEWTON KALB HAD DULY PENDING
FN2  IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT A PETITION FOR COMPOSITION AND EXTENSION
OF TIME TO PAY HIS DEBTS UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (FRAZIER
LEMKE ACT),  FN3  THE WALWORTH COUNTY COURT GRANTED THE MORTGAGEES'
MOTION FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE SHERIFF'S SALE; NO STAY OF THE
FORECLOSURE OR OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACTION TO ENFORCE IT WAS EVER SOUGHT
OR GRANTED IN THE STATE OR BANKRUPTCY COURT; DECEMBER 16, 1935, THE
MORTGAGEES, WHO HAD PURCHASED AT THE SHERIFF'S SALE, OBTAINED A WRIT OF
ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE COURT; AND MARCH 12, 1936, THE SHERIFF
EXECUTED THE WRIT BY EJECTING APPELLANTS AND THEIR FAMILY FROM THE
MORTGAGED FARM. 

THE QUESTIONS IN BOTH NO. 120 AND NO. 121 ARE WHETHER THE WISCONSIN
COUNTY COURT HAD JURISDICTION, WHILE THE PETITION UNDER THE FRAZIER
LEMKE ACT WAS PENDING IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, TO CONFIRM THE SHERIFF'S
SALE AND ORDER APPELLANTS DISPOSSESSED, AND, IF IT DID NOT, WHETHER ITS
ACTION IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT APPEAL IS SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL
ATTACK. 

NO. 120.  AFTER EJECTION FROM THEIR FARM, APPELLANTS BROUGHT AN
ACTION IN EQUITY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WALWORTH COUNTY, WISCONSIN,
AGAINST THE MORTGAGEES WHO HAD PURCHASED AT THE SHERIFF'S SALE, FOR
RESTORATION OF POSSESSION, FOR CANCELLATION OF THE SHERIFF'S DEED AND
FOR REMOVAL OF THE MORTGAGEES FROM THE FARM.  DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE COMPLAINT WAS
DISMISSED.  THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN AFFIRMED.  FN4 

NO. 121 IS A SUIT AT LAW IN THE STATE COURT BY APPELLANT ERNEST
NEWTON KALB AGAINST THE MORTGAGEES, THE SHERIFF AND THE COUNTY COURT
JUDGE WHO CONFIRMED THE FORECLOSURE SALE AND ISSUED THE WRIT OF
ASSISTANCE.  DAMAGES ARE SOUGHT FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF
POSSESSION, FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY, AND FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT.  AS IN
NO. 120, DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
AFFIRMED.  FN5 

IN ITS FIRST OPINION THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN SAID:  "IT IS THE
CONTENTION OF THE PLAINTIFF (MORTGAGOR) THAT THIS STATUTE IS SELF
EXECUTING,  - THAT IS, THAT IT REQUIRES NO APPLICATION TO THE STATE OR
FEDERAL COURT IN WHICH FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING FOR A STAY;
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT IT PROVIDES FOR A STATUTORY AND NOT FOR A JUDICIAL
STAY.  PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PRESENT A QUESTION
WHICH CLEARLY ARISES UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THEREFORE
PRESENT A FEDERAL QUESTION UPON WHICH DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS IS CONTROLLING."  ADDRESSING ITSELF SOLELY TO THIS FEDERAL
QUESTION OF CONSTRUING THE FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT, THE WISCONSIN COURT
DECIDED THAT THE FEDERAL ACT DID NOT ITSELF AS AN AUTOMATIC STATUTORY
STAY TERMINATE THE STATE COURT'S JURISDICTION WHEN THE FARMER FILED HIS
PETITION IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  SINCE THERE HAD BEEN NO JUDICIAL
STAY, IT HELD THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF SALE AND WRIT OF ASSISTANCE WERE
NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 

APPELLEES INSIST, HOWEVER, THAT THE WISCONSIN COURT ON REHEARING
RESTED ITS JUDGMENT ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  IF THAT WERE
THE FACT, WE WOULD NOT, UNDER ACCEPTED PRACTICE, REACH THE STATE
COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  FN6  THE STATEMENT ON
REHEARING RELIED ON AS CONSTITUTING THE NON-FEDERAL GROUND WAS:  "WE
NEED NOT CONSIDER NOR DISCUSS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONGRESS HAS
POWER TO DIVEST THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE COURT WHICH HAS ONCE
ATTACHED.  THAT QUESTION IS NOT PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD.  IT WOULD
SEEM FROM A CONSIDERATION OF SEC. 75 AS AMENDED THAT THE FILING OF THE
PETITION AUTOMATICALLY OPERATED TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION.  IT
IS POSSIBLE THAT THAT STATE OF FACTS IF MADE TO APPEAR WOULD MAKE THE
ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUS BUT THE ORDER WOULD BE WITHIN THE
POWER OF THE COURT TO MAKE.  NO APPEAL HAVING BEEN TAKEN, NO SHOWING
HAVING BEEN MADE IN THE STATE COURT, AN ORDER OF SALE HAVING BEEN
CONFIRMED AND THE PURCHASER PUT IN POSSESSION, THE PLAINTIFF IS IN NO
POSITION TO CLAIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IS VOID." 

BUT IF APPELLANTS ARE RIGHT IN THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE FEDERAL ACT
OF ITSELF, FROM THE MOMENT THE PETITION WAS FILED AND SO LONG AS IT
REMAINED PENDING, OPERATED, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S
CONSENT, TO OUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT SO AS TO STAY ITS
POWER TO PROCEED WITH FORECLOSURE, TO CONFIRM A SALE, AND TO ISSUE AN
ORDER EJECTING APPELLANTS FROM THEIR FARM, THE ACTION OF THE WALWORTH
COUNTY COURT WAS NOT MERELY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS BEYOND ITS POWER, VOID,
AND SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  AND THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE
ACT DID SO OPERATE IS A CONSTRUCTION OF THAT ACT AND A FEDERAL
QUESTION. 

IT IS GENERALLY TRUE THAT A JUDGMENT BY A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION BEARS A PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND IS NOT THEREAFTER
SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  FN7  BUT CONGRESS, BECAUSE ITS POWER
OVER THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCY IS PLENARY, MAY BY SPECIFIC BANKRUPTCY
LEGISLATION CREATE AN EXCEPTION TO THAT PRINCIPLE AND RENDER JUDICIAL
ACTS TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSON OR PROPERTY OF A DEBTOR WHOM THE
BANKRUPTCY LAW PROTECTS NULLITIES AND VULNERABLE COLLATERALLY.  FN8
ALTHOUGH THE WALWORTH COUNTY COURT HAD GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER
FORECLOSURES UNDER THE LAW OF WISCONSIN, FN9  A PEREMPTORY PROHIBITION
BY CONGRESS IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPREME POWER OVER BANKRUPTCY THAT
NO STATE COURT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER A PETITIONING FARMER-DEBTOR OR
HIS PROPERTY, WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE CONFIRMATION OF SALE AND ITS
ENFORCEMENT BEYOND THE COUNTY COURT'S POWER AND NULLITIES SUBJECT TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK.  FN10  THE STATES CANNOT, IN THE EXERCISE OF CONTROL
OVER LOCAL LAWS AND PRACTICE, VEST STATE COURTS WITH POWER TO VIOLATE
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.  FN11  THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS CONGRESS
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO REGULATE BANKRUPTCY AND UNDER THIS POWER CONGRESS
CAN LIMIT THE JURISDICTION WHICH COURTS, STATE OR FEDERAL, CAN EXERCISE
OVER THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF A DEBTOR WHO DULY INVOKES THE
BANKRUPTCY LAW.  IF CONGRESS HAS VESTED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER FARMER-DEBTORS AND THEIR PROPERTY, AND HAS
BY ITS ACT WITHDRAWN FROM ALL OTHER COURTS ALL POWER UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES TO MAINTAIN AND ENFORCE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THEM, ITS ACT IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND WHICH ALL COURTS - STATE
AND FEDERAL - MUST OBSERVE.  THE WISDOM AND DESIRABILITY OF AN
AUTOMATIC STATUTORY OUSTER OF JURISDICTION OF ALL EXCEPT BANKRUPTCY
COURTS OVER FARMER-DEBTORS AND THEIR PROPERTY WERE CONSIDERATIONS FOR
CONGRESS ALONE. 

WE THINK THE LANGUAGE AND BROAD POLICY OF THE FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT
CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO, AND DID DEPRIVE THE
WISCONSIN COUNTY COURT OF THE POWER AND JURISDICTION TO CONTINUE OR
MAINTAIN IN ANY MANNER THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST APPELLANTS
WITHOUT THE CONSENT AFTER HEARING OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN WHICH THE
FARMER'S PETITION WAS THEN PENDING.  FN12 

THE ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED: 

"(N)  THE FILING OF A PETITION  ...  SHALL IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT THE
FARMER AND ALL HIS PROPERTY, WHEREVER LOCATED,  ...  TO THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, INCLUDING  ...  THE RIGHT OR THE EQUITY OF
REDEMPTION WHERE THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION HAS NOT OR HAD NOT EXPIRED,
...  OR WHERE THE SALE HAS NOT OR HAD NOT BEEN CONFIRMED," AND "IN ALL
CASES WHERE, AT THE TIME OF FILING THE PETITION, THE PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION HAS OR HAD NOT EXPIRED,  ...  OR WHERE THE SALE HAS NOT OR
HAD NOT BEEN CONFIRMED,  ...  THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION SHALL BE
EXTENDED OR THE CONFIRMATION OF SALE WITHHELD FOR THE PERIOD NECESSARY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION"; AND 

"(O)  EXCEPT UPON PETITION MADE TO AND GRANTED BY THE JUDGE AFTER
HEARING AND REPORT BY THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS SHALL NOT BE INSTITUTED, OR IF INSTITUTED AT ANY TIME PRIOR
TO THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER THIS SECTION, SHALL NOT BE
MAINTAINED, IN ANY COURT OR OTHERWISE, AGAINST THE FARMER OR HIS
PROPERTY, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION UNDER THIS
COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION PROPOSAL BY THE COURT: 

     .  .         .         .         . 

"(2)  PROCEEDINGS FOR FORECLOSURE OF A MORTGAGE ON LAND, OR FOR
CANCELLATION, RESCISSION, OR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AN AGREEMENT FOR
SALE OF LAND OR FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF LAND; 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"(6)  SEIZURE, DISTRESS, SALE, OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER AN
EXECUTION OR UNDER ANY LEASE, LIEN, CHATTEL MORTGAGE, CONDITIONAL SALE
AGREEMENT, CROP PAYMENT AGREEMENT, OR MORTGAGE. 

"(P)  THE PROHIBITIONS  ...  SHALL APPLY TO ALL JUDICIAL OR OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ANY OFFICIAL, AND
SHALL APPLY TO ALL CREDITORS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, AND TO ALL OF THE
DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, WHEREVER LOCATED.  ALL SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE UNDER
THE SOLE JURISDICTION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT IN BANKRUPTCY, AND
SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF THE DEBTOR FARMER'S CREDITORS, AS PROVIDED
FOR IN SECTION 75 OF THIS ACT." 

THUS CONGRESS REPEATEDLY STATED ITS UNEQUIVOCAL PURPOSE TO PROHIBIT -
IN THE ABSENCE OF CONSENT BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN WHICH A DISTRESSED
FARMER HAS A PENDING PETITION - A MORTGAGEE OR ANY COURT FROM
INSTITUTING, OR MAINTAINING IF ALREADY INSTITUTED, ANY PROCEEDING
AGAINST THE FARMER TO SELL UNDER MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, TO CONFIRM SUCH
A SALE, OR TO DISPOSSESS UNDER IT. 

THIS CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IS MORE APPARENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT'S LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  CLARIFYING AND ALTERING THE
SWEEPING PROVISIONS FOR EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN THE ORIGINAL
ACT,  FN13  CONGRESS MADE SEVERAL IMPORTANT CHANGES IN 1935.  FN14  IT
WAS THEN THAT SUBSECTION (P) WAS AMENDED SO THAT THE PROHIBITIONS IN
SUBSECTION (O) OF ANY STEPS AGAINST A FARMERDEBTOR OR HIS PROPERTY ONCE
HIS PETITION IS FILED WERE MADE SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE "TO ALL
JUDICIAL OR OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
ANY OFFICIAL, AND  ...  TO ALL CREDITORS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, AND TO ALL
OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, WHEREVER LOCATED.  ALL SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE
UNDER THE SOLE JURISDICTION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT IN BANKRUPTCY, AND
SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF THE DEBTOR FARMER'S CREDITORS, AS PROVIDED
FOR IN SECTION 75  ...  " 

AS STATED BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN REPORTING THESE
AMENDMENTS:  "  ...  SUBSECTION (N) BRINGS ALL OF THE BANKRUPT'S
PROPERTY, WHEREVER LOCATED, UNDER THE ABSOLUTE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE.  ANY FARMER WHO TAKES ADVANTAGE
OF THIS ACT OUGHT TO BE WILLING TO SURRENDER ALL HIS PROPERTY TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING HIS DEBTS, AND FOR
THE SAKE OF UNIFORMITY.  ...    "THE AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION (P)
FURTHER CARRIES OUT THE AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION (N), AND PLACES THE
SOLE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE AND OF HIS OBLIGATIONS ALL
IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, WITHOUT EXCEPTION."  FN15 

THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE IS SIMILARLY SET OUT IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE'S REPORT:  "THE AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION (N) IN FACT
CONSTRUES, INTERPRETS, AND CLARIFIES BOTH SUBSECTIONS (N) AND (O) OF
BILL, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT IT WAS THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS, WHEN IT
PASSED SECTION 75, THAT THE FARMER-DEBTOR AND ALL OF HIS PROPERTY
SHOULD COME UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, AND THAT
THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT SHOULD EXTEND TO THE FARMER, PRIOR TO
CONFIRMATION OF SALE, DURING THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION, AND DURING A
MORATORIUM; AND THAT NO PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION
SHOULD BE INSTITUTED, OR IF INSTITUTED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE
PETITION, SHOULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT, OR OTHERWISE."  FN16 

CONGRESS SET UP IN THE ACT AN EXCLUSIVE AND EASILY ACCESSIBLE
STATUTORY MEANS FOR REHABILITATING DISTRESSED FARMERS WHO, AS VICTIMS
OF A GENERAL ECONOMIC DEPRESSION, WERE WITHOUT MEANS TO ENGAGE IN
FORMAL COURT LITIGATION.  TO THIS END, A REFEREE OR CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER WAS PROVIDED FOR EVERY COUNTY IN WHICH FIFTEEN PROSPECTIVE
FARMER-DEBTORS REQUESTED AN APPOINTMENT; AND EXPRESS PROVISION WAS MADE
THAT THESE COMMISSIONERS SHOULD "UPON REQUEST ASSIST ANY FARMER IN
PREPARING AND FILING A PETITION UNDER THIS SECTION AND IN ALL MATTERS
SUBSEQUENT THERETO ARISING UNDER THIS SECTION AND FARMERS SHALL NOT BE
REQUIRED TO BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REHABILITATION, HE WAS RELIEVED - AFTER FILING A
PETITION FOR COMPOSITION AND EXTENSION - OF THE NECESSITY OF LITIGATION
ELSEWHERE AND ITS CONSEQUENT EXPENSE.  THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY
GRANTING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE PETITIONING
FARMER AND ALL HIS PROPERTY WITH COMPLETE AND SELF-EXECUTING STATUTORY
EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER COURTS. 

THE MORTGAGEES WHO SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE MORTGAGE AFTER THE PETITION
WAS DULY FILED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, THE WALWORTH COUNTY COURT THAT
ATTEMPTED TO GRANT THE MORTGAGEES RELIEF, AND THE SHERIFF WHO ENFORCED
THE COURT'S JUDGMENT, WERE ALL ACTING IN VIOLATION OF THE CONTROLLING
ACT OF CONGRESS.  BECAUSE THAT STATE COURT HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF ALL
JURISDICTION OR POWER TO PROCEED WITH THE FORECLOSURE, THE CONFIRMATION
OF THE SALE, THE EXECUTION OF THE SHERIFF'S DEED, THE WRIT OF
ASSISTANCE, AND THE EJECTION OF APPELLANTS FROM THEIR PROPERTY - TO THE
EXTENT BASED UPON THE COURT'S ACTIONS - WERE ALL WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF
LAW.  INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH UNLAWFUL ACTS MUST BE DECIDED
ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE STATE.  WE THEREFORE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS
TO OTHER CONTENTIONS BASED UPON STATE LAW AND RAISED BY APPELLEES IN
SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

CONGRESS MANIFESTED ITS INTENTION THAT THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IN
THE FORECLOSING COURT NEED NOT BE CONTESTED OR EVEN RAISED BY THE
DISTRESSED FARMER-DEBTOR.  THE PROTECTION OF THE FARMERS WAS LEFT TO
THE FARMERS THEMSELVES OR TO THE COMMISSIONERS WHO MIGHT BE LAYMEN, AND
CONSIDERATIONS AS TO WHETHER THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION WAS ACTUALLY
CONTESTED IN THE COUNTY COURT,  FN18  OR WHETHER IT COULD HAVE BEEN
CONTESTED,  FN19  ARE NOT APPLICABLE WHERE THE PLENARY POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER BANKRUPTCY HAS BEEN EXERCISED AS IN THIS ACT. 

THE JUDGMENTS IN BOTH CASES ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN BOTH NO. 120 AND NO. 121, THE COMPLAINTS ALLEGED THAT
APPELLANT KALB AND HIS WIFE EXECUTED THE MORTGAGE.  IN NO. 120 BOTH
KALB AND HIS WIFE WERE ALLEGED TO BE OWNERS OF THE FARM; WHILE IN NO.
121, APPELLANT KALB WAS ALLEGED TO BE THE OWNER. 

FN2  OCTOBER 2, 1934, THE PETITION WAS FILED AND APPROVED.  JUNE 27,
1935, THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED, BUT SEPTEMBER 6, 1935, IT WAS
REINSTATED AND THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS VACATED PURSUANT TO THE
SECOND FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT, 11 U.S.C. 203, SEC. 5. 

FN3  11 U.S.C. 203. 

FN4  231 WIS. 185; 285 N.W. 431. 

FN5  DEMURRER TO ONE COUNT AGAINST THE SHERIFF FOR ASSAULT AND
BATTERY WAS OVERRULED, BUT THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN REVERSED AS
TO THIS COUNT.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT UPHOLDING THE DEMURRER APPEARS
IN KALB V. LUCE, 228 WIS. 519; 279 N.W. 685; 280 N.W. 725.  APPEAL TO
THIS COURT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE NO FINAL JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED. 
305 U.S. 566.  UPON REMAND THE STATE CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSED, THE
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN AFFIRMED, "FOR THE REASONS  ...  STATED" IN
ITS OPINION IN KALB V. LUCE, SUPRA, 231 WIS. 186; 285 N.W. 431, AND THE
APPEALS HERE ARE FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF DISMISSAL. 

FN6  HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14, 18; LYNCH V. NEW YORK EX REL.
PIERSON, 293 U.S. 52, 54; ENTERPRISE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. FARMERS
MUTUAL CANAL CO., 243 U.S. 157, 164; HAMMOND V. JOHNSTON, 142 U.S. 73. 

FN7  CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER STATE BANK, ANTE, P.
371; STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165, 171, 172; DOWELL V. APPLEGATE,
152 U.S. 327, 340. 

FN8  VALLELY V. NORTHERN FIRE INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348, 353-4; AND
COMPARE ELLIOTT V. LESSEE OF PIERSOL, 1 PET. 328, 340; WILLIAMSON V.
BERRY, 8 HOW.  495, 540, 541, 542. 

FN9  LAWS OF WISCONSIN, 1907, CHAP. 234. 

FN10  VALLELY V. NORTHERN FIRE INS. CO., SUPRA, 355; CF. TAYLOR V.
STERNBERG, 293 U.S. 470, 473. 

FN11  HINES V. LOWREY, 305 U.S. 85, 90, 91; DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263
U.S. 22, 24. 

FN12  THAT A STATE COURT BEFORE WHICH A PROCEEDING IS COMPETENTLY
INITIATED MAY - BY OPERATION OF SUPREME FEDERAL LAW - LOSE JURISDICTION
TO PROCEED TO A JUDGMENT UNASSAILABLE ON COLLATERAL ATTACK IS NOT A
CONCEPT UNKNOWN TO OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  SEE MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S.
86.  CF. JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458. 

FN13  47 STAT. 1470, SEC. 75. 

FN14  49 STAT. 942, 943. 

FN15  SENATE REPORT NO. 985, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN16  HOUSE REPORT NO. 1808, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN17  47 STAT. 1473(Q). 

FN18  STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, SUPRA. 

FN19  CHICOT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT V. BAXTER STATE BANK, SUPRA.
..END :








AVERY V. ALABAMA, 308 U.S. 444 


NO. 124.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - 237
ALA. 616 - 188 SO. 391, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE GUARANTEE BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
IN A CRIMINAL CASE, IS NOT SATISFIED BY A FORMAL APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
TO DEFEND THE ACCUSED BUT INCLUDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSULTATION
BETWEEN THEM AND FOR PREPARATION OF THE DEFENSE.  P. 446. 

2.  UPON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF A STATE COURT, THE QUESTION WHETHER
AN ACCUSED HAS BEEN DENIED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THIS COURT UPON AN
INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD.  P. 447. 

3.  UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, HELD THAT DENIAL BY THE TRIAL COURT
OF A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE, MADE BY APPOINTED COUNSEL TO OBTAIN MORE
TIME TO PREPARE THE DEFENSE, DID NOT, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED, DEPRIVE THE ACCUSED OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  P. 450. 

AVERY V. ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 540, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION OF
MURDER. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BIBB
COUNTY, ALABAMA; HE WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED.  FN1  THE SOLE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER IN VIOLATION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT "PETITIONER WAS DENIED THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL,
WITH THE ACCUSTOMED INCIDENTS OF CONSULTATION AND OPPORTUNITY OF
PREPARATION FOR TRIAL," BECAUSE AFTER COMPETENT COUNSEL WERE DULY
APPOINTED THEIR MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE WAS DENIED.  VIGILANT CONCERN
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL LED US TO GRANT CERTIORARI.  FN2 

HAD PETITIONER BEEN DENIED ANY REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL AT ALL, SUCH
A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL WOULD HAVE REQUIRED REVERSAL OF HIS CONVICTION.  FN3  BUT
COUNSEL WERE DULY APPOINTED FOR PETITIONER BY THE TRIAL COURT AS
REQUIRED BOTH BY ALABAMA LAW  FN4  AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

SINCE THE CONSTITUTION NOWHERE SPECIFIES ANY PERIOD WHICH MUST
INTERVENE BETWEEN THE REQUIRED APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND TRIAL, THE
FACT, STANDING ALONE, THAT A CONTINUANCE HAS BEEN DENIED, DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL.  IN THE COURSE OF TRIAL, AFTER DUE APPOINTMENT OF COMPETENT
COUNSEL, MANY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS NECESSARILY ARISE WHICH MUST BE
DECIDED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS THEN PRESENTED AND
CONDITIONS THEN EXISTING.  DISPOSITION OF A REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE IS
OF THIS NATURE AND IS MADE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE
EXERCISE OF WHICH WILL ORDINARILY NOT BE REVIEWED.  FN5 

BUT THE DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY FOR APPOINTED COUNSEL TO CONFER, TO
CONSULT WITH THE ACCUSED AND TO PREPARE HIS DEFENSE, COULD CONVERT THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL INTO A SHAM AND NOTHING MORE THAN A FORMAL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION'S REQUIREMENT THAT AN ACCUSED BE GIVEN
THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  FN6  THE CONSTITUTION'S GUARANTEE OF
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CANNOT BE SATISFIED BY MERE FORMAL APPOINTMENT. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER PETITIONER HAS BEEN DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT LIMIT THE POWER OF THE STATES TO TRY AND DEAL WITH
CRIMES COMMITTED WITHIN THEIR BORDERS,  FN7  AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO
BRING TO THE TEST OF A DECISION OF THIS COURT EVERY RULING MADE IN THE
COURSE OF A STATE TRIAL.  FN8 CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PRESERVATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY, THIS
COURT MUST RESPECT AND IS RELUCTANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE STATES'
DETERMINATION OF LOCAL SOCIAL POLICY.  FN9  BUT WHERE DENIAL OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS ASSERTED, ITS PECULIAR
SACREDNESS  FN10  DEMANDS THAT WE SCRUPULOUSLY REVIEW THE RECORD. 
FN11 

THE RECORD SHOWS - 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED ON AN INDICTMENT FILED IN THE BIBB COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT FOR MURDER ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED IN 1932.  HE WAS
FOUND AND ARRESTED IN PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, SHORTLY BEFORE MARCH
21, 1938.  ON THAT DATE, MONDAY, HE WAS ARRAIGNED AT A REGULAR TERM OF
THE COURT; TWO PRACTICING ATTORNEYS OF THE LOCAL BAR WERE APPOINTED TO
DEFEND HIM; PLEAS OF NOT GUILTY AND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY
WERE ENTERED AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE SET HIS TRIAL FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH
23.  THE CASE WAS NOT REACHED WEDNESDAY, BUT WAS CALLED THURSDAY, THE
24TH, AT WHICH TIME HIS ATTORNEYS FILED A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, ON
THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD NOT HAD SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY SINCE
THEIR APPOINTMENT TO INVESTIGATE AND PREPARE HIS DEFENSE.  AFFIDAVITS
OF BOTH ATTORNEYS ACCOMPANIED THE MOTION. 

ONE ATTORNEY'S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGED THAT HE HAD NOT HAD TIME TO
INVESTIGATE AND PREPARE THE DEFENSE BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN ACTUALLY
ENGAGED IN ANOTHER TRIAL FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AT 2 P.M.,
MONDAY, UNTIL 9 P.M. THAT EVENING; HIS PRESENCE HAD BEEN REQUIRED IN
THE COURT ROOM ON TUESDAY, MARCH 22, DUE TO EMPLOYMENT IN OTHER CASES
SET, BUT NOT ACTUALLY TRIED; HE HAD BEEN DETAINED IN COURT WEDNESDAY,
MARCH 23, WAITING FOR PETITIONER'S CASE TO BE CALLED; BUT AFTER HIS
APPOINTMENT HE HAD TALKED WITH PETITIONER AND "HAD SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO
HIS SANITY." 

THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE OTHER ATTORNEY STATED THAT HE TOO HAD NOT HAD
PROPER TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE PETITIONER'S CASE BECAUSE OF
HIS EMPLOYMENT IN OTHER PENDING CASES, SOME OF WHICH WERE NOT DISPOSED
OF UNTIL TUESDAY AT 4:30 P.M. 

NO RULING ON THE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE APPEARS IN THE RECORD, BUT ON
THURSDAY, THE 24TH, THE TRIAL PROCEEDED BEFORE A JURY. 

THE FOSTER PARENTS OF THE PERSON WHOSE MURDER WAS CHARGED AND ANOTHER
WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT ON THE DAY OF THE KILLING, DECEASED,
PETITIONER'S WIFE FROM WHOM HE WAS THEN SEPARATED, HAD STARTED TO A
NEARBY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE TO GET A WASHTUB WHEN PETITIONER APPROACHED HER
WITH A PISTOL IN HIS RIGHT HAND; WORDS ENSUED; SHE TURNED AND RAN AND
HE SHOT HER TWICE IN THE BACK; SHE FELL AND HE SHOT HER THREE MORE
TIMES.  PETITIONER DENIED THAT THESE WITNESSES WERE AT THE TIME IN A
POSITION TO SEE WHAT OCCURRED.  ADMITTING HE HAD COME SOME THREE MILES
FROM HIS HOME TO SEE HIS WIFE, HE INSISTED THAT HE HAD NO PISTOL BUT
THAT WHEN HE SPOKE TO HER SHE HAD A BUCKET OF WATER AND SOMETHING ELSE;
THEY QUARRELLED; SHE THEN DREW A PISTOL FROM UNDER HER SWEATER AND HE
"GOT TO TUSSLING WITH HER OVER THE PISTOL, TRYING TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM
HER"; "SHOT HER, BEHIND THE SHOULDER, AND THROUGH THE BACK, TUSSLING
WITH HER," AND THEN RAN AWAY.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION IN THE RECORD
THAT THERE WERE ANY WITNESSES TO THE KILLING OTHER THAN THOSE WHO
TESTIFIED.  THE PLEA OF INSANITY APPARENTLY WAS WITHDRAWN.  FN12 

THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF GUILTY WITH THE DEATH PENALTY.  ON THE
SAME DAY, THE 24TH, PETITIONER'S COUNSEL MOVED FOR A NEW TRIAL, SETTING
UP ERROR IN THE FAILURE TO GRANT THE REQUESTED CONTINUANCE.  THIS
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS CONTINUED FROM TIME TO TIME UNTIL JUNE 30.  IN
THE INTERIM, A THIRD ATTORNEY HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER'S SISTER,
AND ON JUNE 30, PETITIONER'S THREE LAWYERS FILED AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, SPECIFICALLY SETTING OUT THAT THE DENIAL OF A
CONTINUANCE HAD DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BY
DENYING HIM "THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL, WITH THE ACCUSTOMED INCIDENTS OF
CONSULTATION AND OPPORTUNITY OF PREPARATION FOR TRIAL." 

WHEN THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS HEARD THE ONLY WITNESSES WERE
PETITIONER'S THREE ATTORNEYS.  THE THIRD ATTORNEY, EMPLOYED BY
PETITIONER'S SISTER, TESTIFIED ONLY THAT HE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED AFTER THE
TRIAL AND VERDICT.  THE TWO ATTORNEYS WHO HAD REPRESENTED PETITIONER AT
THE TRIAL SUBSTANTIALLY REPEATED WHAT THEY HAD SET OUT IN THEIR
ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS.  IN SOME DETAIL THEY TESTIFIED THAT:  THEY HAD
CONFERRED WITH PETITIONER AFTER THEIR APPOINTMENT ON MONDAY, MARCH 21,
BUT HE GAVE THEM NO HELPFUL INFORMATION AVAILABLE AS A DEFENSE OR NAMES
OF ANY WITNESSES; BETWEEN THEIR APPOINTMENT AND THE TRIAL THEY MADE
INQUIRIES OF PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THE PETITIONER
HAD LIVED PRIOR TO THE CRIME WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED AND IN WHICH THE
KILLING OCCURRED AND NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONED, INCLUDING A BROTHER OF
PETITIONER, COULD OFFER INFORMATION OR ASSISTANCE HELPFUL TO THE
DEFENSE; THEY (THE ATTORNEYS) HAD NOT PRIOR TO THE TRIAL CONFERRED WITH
LOCAL DOCTORS, OF WHOM THERE WERE FOUR, AS TO PETITIONER'S MENTAL
CONDITION, HAD NEITHER SUMMONED ANY MEDICAL EXPERTS OR OTHER WITNESSES
NOR ASKED FOR COMPULSORY PROCESS GUARANTEED AN ACCUSED BY THE ALABAMA
CONSTITUTION, ART. 1, SEC. 6.  AND IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES MADE BY THE
TRIAL JUDGE THEY STATED THAT THEY HAD NOT MADE ANY REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF
ABSENCE FROM THE COURT TO MAKE FURTHER INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION. 

THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS OVERRULED. 

UPON APPEAL, THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT GAVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ALTHOUGH NO RULING UPON IT WAS CONTAINED IN THE
RECORD AND CONCLUDED THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD NOT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
IN FAILING TO CONTINUE THE CASE.  FN13 

UNDER THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES APPEARING IN THIS RECORD, WE DO
NOT THINK PETITIONER HAS BEEN DENIED THE BENEFIT OF ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL GUARANTEED TO HIM BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HIS APPOINTED
COUNSEL, AS THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA RECOGNIZED, HAVE PERFORMED
THEIR "FULL DUTY INTELLIGENTLY AND WELL."  NOT ONLY DID THEY PRESENT
PETITIONER'S DEFENSE IN THE TRIAL COURT, BUT IN CONJUNCTION WITH
COUNSEL LATER EMPLOYED, THEY CARRIED AN APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPREME
COURT, AND THEN BROUGHT THE MATTER HERE FOR OUR REVIEW.  THEIR
APPOINTMENT AND THE REPRESENTATION RENDERED UNDER IT WERE NOT MERE
FORMALITIES, BUT PETITIONER'S COUNSEL HAVE - AS WAS THEIR SOLEMN DUTY -
CONTESTED EVERY STEP OF THE WAY LEADING TO FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE
CASE.  PETITIONER HAS THUS BEEN AFFORDED THE ASSISTANCE OF ZEALOUS AND
EARNEST COUNSEL FROM ARRAIGNMENT TO FINAL ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT. 

THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OCCURRED IN A COUNTY
LARGELY RURAL.  THE COUNTY SEAT, WHERE COURT WAS HELD, HAS A POPULATION
OF LESS THAN A THOUSAND.  FN14  INDICTMENTS IN THE BIBB COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, AS IN MOST RURAL COUNTIES THROUGHOUT THE NATION, ARE MOST
FREQUENTLY RETURNED AND TRIALS HAD DURING FIXED TERMS OR SESSIONS OF
COURT.  FN15  AND THESE RURAL "COURT WEEKS" TRADITIONALLY BRING GRAND
AND PETIT JURORS, WITNESSES, INTERESTED PERSONS AND SPECTATORS FROM
EVERY PART OF THE COUNTY INTO THE COUNTY SEAT FOR COURT.  FN16  UNLIKE
METROPOLITAN CENTERS, PEOPLE IN THESE RURAL COUNTIES KNOW EACH OTHER,
AND INFORMATION CONCERNING WITNESSES AND EVENTS IS MORE WIDESPREAD AND
MORE GENERALLY KNOWN THAN IN LARGE CITIES.  BECAUSE THIS WAS SO,
PETITIONER'S ATTORNEYS WERE ABLE TO MAKE THE INQUIRIES DURING COURT
WEEK AT THE COUNTY SEAT, TO WHICH THEY TESTIFIED, AND THAT THEY
APPARENTLY WITHDREW THE PLEA OF INSANITY AFTER THIS INQUIRY IS
SIGNIFICANT.  THAT THE EXAMINATION AND PREPARATION OF THE CASE, IN THE
TIME PERMITTED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, HAD BEEN ADEQUATE FOR COUNSEL TO
EXHAUST ITS EVERY ANGLE IS ILLUMINATED BY THE ABSENCE OF ANY
INDICATION, ON THE MOTION AND HEARING FOR NEW TRIAL, THAT THEY COULD
HAVE DONE MORE HAD ADDITIONAL TIME BEEN GRANTED. 

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE TRIAL
JUDGE, WHO CONCLUDED A FAIRLY CONDUCTED TRIAL BY CAREFULLY SAFEGUARDING
PETITIONER'S RIGHTS IN A CLEAR AND FAIR CHARGE, DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF
HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  THE SUPREME COURT
OF ALABAMA HAVING FOUND THAT PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED THAT RIGHT, ITS
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  237 ALA. 616; 188 SO. 391. 

FN2  POST, P. 540. 

FN3  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45; SEE BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297
U.S. 278, 286. 

FN4  CODE OF ALA., 1923, SEC. 5567. 

FN5  FRANKLIN V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 218 U.S. 161, 168; ISAACS V. UNITED
STATES, 159 U.S. 487, 489; SEE MINDER V. GEORGIA, 183 U.S. 559, 561. 

FN6  CF. POWELL V. ALABAMA, SUPRA; MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86,
91. 

FN7  LEEPER V. TEXAS, 139 U.S. 462, 467-8; UGHBANKS V. ARMSTRONG, 208
U.S. 481, 487; MINDER V. GEORGIA, SUPRA, 562. 

FN8  CF. DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97, 104; WALKER V.
SAUVINET, 92 U.S. 90, 92. 

FN9  GREEN V. FRAZIER, 253 U.S. 233, 239, 240, 242; NEBBIA V. NEW
YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 537-8. 

FN10  CF. LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 146 U.S. 370, 374, 375. 

FN11  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 590; PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306
U.S. 354, 358. 

FN12  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA NOTES:  "COUNSEL
FIRST INTERPOSED A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, AND ANOTHER OF NOT GUILTY BY
REASON OF INSANITY.  BUT UPON THE TRIAL WITHDREW THE LATTER PLEA." 

FN13  AVERY V. ALABAMA, SUPRA. 

FN14  VOL. I, FIFTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1930. 

FN15  THE FIRST CONSTITUTION OF ALABAMA (1819), ART. V, SEC. 7,
PROVIDED FOR THE HOLDING OF A CIRCUIT COURT AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR IN
EACH COUNTY, AND THIS PROVISION CONTINUES IN THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION,
CONST. OF ALA. (1901) ART. VI, SEC. 144.  WHILE IN RECOGNITION OF
MODERN SOCIAL NEEDS (SEE POUND, CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN AMERICA, 1930, PP.
152, 88, 150, 163, 164, 178, 183, 189, 190) CIRCUIT COURTS NOW, BY
STATUTE, ENTERTAIN CAUSES AT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL TIMES (CODE, 1923, SEC.
6667) THE HOLDING OF FORMAL COURT AT SPECIFIC TERMS OR SESSIONS IS
EMPHASIZED IN THE REQUIREMENT THAT EACH CAUSE BE CALLED AT LEAST TWICE
A YEAR AND AS OFTEN AS IS NECESSARY TO SECURE PROMPT TRIALS.  (ID.,
SEC. 6668).  CF. ALA. CIV. CODE, 1907, C. 62, ART. I, SEC. 3234,
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDING FOR HOLDING OF CIRCUIT COURT IN BIBB COUNTY ON
THE FIRST MONDAY BEFORE THE LAST MONDAY IN FEBRUARY AND AUGUST OF EACH
YEAR.  IN GENERAL, THE PRACTICE IN ALABAMA ACCORDS WITH THAT IN ALL
SEC. 5656, ET SEQ., FIXING SPECIFIC TERMS OF DISTRICT COURTS, AND SEC.
5734-5766, FIXING SPECIFIC DATES OF COUNTY COURT TERMS; IDAHO CODE ANN.
(1932) 1-706, ET SEQ., REQUIRING AT LEAST TWO TERMS EACH YEAR FOR THE
DISTRICT COURT IN EACH COUNTY, TO BE FIXED BY COURT ORDER; BURNS
INDIANA STAT. ANN. (1933) 4-332, ET SEQ., FIXING SPECIFIC TERMS OF
CIRCUIT COURTS, 4-407 ET SEQ., AND 4-607, FIXING SPECIFIC TERMS OF
SUPERIOR COURTS; REV. STAT. OF MAINE (1930), C. 91, SEC. 21, P. 1264,
FIXING SPECIFIC TRIAL TERMS FOR SUPERIOR COURTS; MICH. STAT. ANN.
(CALLAGHAN, 1938) SEC. 27.546, ET SEQ., PROVIDING FOR AT LEAST FOUR
TERMS OF CIRCUIT COURT IN EACH COUNTY ORGANIZED FOR JUDICIAL PURPOSES,
AT FIXED TIMES SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY COURT ORDER (SEC. 27.547); CAHILL'S
CONSOL.  LAWS OF NEW YORK (1930), C. 31, SEC. 84, PROVIDING THAT
SPECIAL AND TRIAL TERMS OF SUPREME COURT BE DESIGNATED BY THE APPELLATE
DIVISION (SEE ALSO SEC. 150) AND REQUIRING THAT AT LEAST ONE SPECIAL
TERM AND TWO TRIAL TERMS MUST BE HELD IN EACH COUNTY ANNUALLY, SEC.
148; REV. STAT. OF UTAH (1933), 20-3-6, 20-3-9, REQUIRING AT LEAST
THREE TERMS DURING EACH YEAR FOR THE DISTRICT COURT AT EACH COUNTY
SEAT, AT TIMES TO BE FIXED BY THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICT JUDGES; PUBLIC
LAWS OF VERMONT (1933), SEC. 1374, P. 296, FIXING STATED TERMS FOR
HOLDING COUNTY COURTS.  IN PENNSYLVANIA, COURTS OF QUARTER SESSIONS,
"OF OYER AND TERMINER AND JAIL DELIVERY SHALL BE HOLDEN FOUR TIMES,
ANNUALLY, IN EVERY COUNTY."  17 PURDON'S PENN.  STAT., SECS. 331, 351,
371. 

FN16  THE SYSTEM OF CIRCUIT COURT TERMS CONTINUES TODAY
CHARACTERISTICS TRACEABLE TO THE ORIGINAL ENGLISH ASSIZES.  WHILE
FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS HAVE BEEN DROPPED FROM THE
BUSINESS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO JUSTICES ON EYRE AND LATER TO JUDGES
OF ASSIZE FROM THE TIME OF HENRY II, OUR RURAL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURTS
STILL BEAR THE EARMARKS OF A "GENERAL REVIEW OF THE WHOLE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTRY."  I STEPHEN'S, "HIS.  OF THE CRI.  LAW
OF ENG." (LONDON), PP. 101, 106, 111.  SEE, II ENC.  OF SOC. SCI., 283,
284, IV, 522.  AND THE PRACTICE OF PROMPTLY TRYING AT ANY TERM ALL THE
THEN ACCUSED FINDS ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS IN THE COMMISSIONS OF GAOL
DELIVERY OYER AND TERMINER OF JUDGES ON CIRCUIT OR "ASSIZE."  I
STEPHEN, SUPRA, P. 105, ET SEQ.  THESE JUDGES WERE EMPOWERED "TO TRY
EVERY PRISONER IN THE GAOL, COMMITTED FOR ANY OFFENSE WHATSOEVER." 
THEY PROCEEDED UPON PRIOR INDICTMENTS "AS WELL AS UPON INDICTMENTS
TAKEN BEFORE THEMSELVES."  STUBB'S "CROWN CIRCUIT" (DUBLIN), 2, 5, 7,
9, 10.  "AND THEREFORE IT HATH NEVER BEEN A QUESTION, BUT THAT THE
JUSTICES OF GAOL-DELIVERY MAY TAKE AN INDICTMENT, TRY, AND GIVE
JUDGMENT THE SAME DAY."  2 HALE'S "PLEAS OF THE CROWN" (1ST AMER. 
ED.), 33.  THE SHERIFF WAS COMMANDED TO SEE THAT THE PRISONERS
"TOGETHER WITH THEIR ATTACHMENTS, INDICTMENTI, AND ALL OTHER MUNIMENTS
ANY WAYS CONCERNING THOSE PRISONERS  ...  (BE PRESENT AND THAT) ALL
THEY, WHO WILL PROSECUTE AGAINST THOSE PRISONERS, BE THEN AND THERE TO
PROSECUTE AGAINST THEM, AS SHALL BE JUST."  STUBBS, SUPRA, 4, 5.  SEE 1
HOLDSWORTH'S "HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW" (1927), PP. 49-51, 264 ET SEQ.
..END :







LABOR BOARD V. FALK CORP., 308 U.S. 453 


NO. 460.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 11, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  -
106 F.2D 454, REVERSED. 


IN CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AN EMPLOYER UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE BOARD, UNDER SEC. 10(C), ORDERED THE EMPLOYER
TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM INTERFERENCE WITH AND DOMINATION OF A LABOR
UNION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, TO COMPLETELY DISESTABLISH SUCH UNION, AND TO
POST NOTICES OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER; AND, UNDER SEC.
9(C), DIRECTED AN ELECTION OF A REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ON A BALLOT CONTAINING THE NAMES OF TWO COMPETING UNIONS BUT
OMITTING THE COMPANY UNION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED
ENFORCEMENT, PROVIDING THAT THE EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE FREE AT ANY
ELECTION TO CHOOSE THE COMPANY UNION TO REPRESENT THEM, AND THAT THE
EMPLOYER BE PERMITTED TO ADD TO THE POSTED NOTICES THE QUALIFICATION
THAT THE COMPANY UNION WOULD BE DISESTABLISHED AND UNRECOGNIZED UNTIL
AND UNLESS IT SHOULD BE CHOSEN BY THE EMPLOYEES TO REPRESENT THEM. 
HELD: 

1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS WITHOUT POWER THUS TO MODIFY,
AND WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 9(D) TO REVIEW, THE BOARD'S
DIRECTION OF AN ELECTION.  PP. 458-459. 

2.  THE BOARD'S ORDER THAT THE COMPANY UNION BE COMPLETELY
DISESTABLISHED AND BARRED FROM CONSIDERATION AS AN EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATIVE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS, AND WAS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, WHICH GUARANTEES THE RIGHT OF
EMPLOYEES TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVE.  P. 461. 

3.  MODIFICATION OF THE BOARD'S ORDER BY OMITTING THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE NOTICES TO BE POSTED IN THE PLANT CONTAIN A STATEMENT THAT THE
COMPANY WOULD "CEASE AND DESIST" FROM ITS UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES; AND BY
INCLUSION IN SUCH NOTICE OF ASSURANCES TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT THE
COMPANY UNION WAS ELIGIBLE FOR SELECTION AS THEIR BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE - WAS ERROR.  P. 462. 

4.  THE ORDER OF THE BOARD SHOULD BE ENFORCED WITHOUT MODIFICATION. 
P. 463. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FALK CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 544, TO REVIEW A DECREE MODIFYING AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 6 N.L.R.B. 654, AND GRANTING
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER AS MODIFIED.  SEE ALSO, 102 F.2D 383. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UPON CHARGES FILED BY THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL, AND
TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LODGE NO. 1528, THE LABOR BOARD FOUND
THAT RESPONDENT, AN EMPLOYER CONCEDED TO BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, HAD, IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
INTERFERED WITH ITS EMPLOYEES' FREE RIGHT TO SELF ORGANIZATION AND HAD
FOSTERED AND DOMINATED A COMPANY UNION CALLED THE INDEPENDENT UNION. 
FN1  RESPONDENT WAS ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH INTERFERENCE
AND DOMINATION; TO DISESTABLISH THE COMPANY UNION COMPLETELY, AND TO
POST NOTICES IN ITS PLANT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER.  AT THE
SAME TIME AND IN A PROCEEDING CONSOLIDATED  FN2  WITH THE DETERMINATION
OF THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, THE BOARD, ALSO UPON PETITION OF
AMALGAMATED, DIRECTED AN ELECTION OF A REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ON A BALLOT TO CONTAIN THE AMALGAMATED AND THE OPERATING
ENGINEERS - A PARTICIPANT IN THE CONSOLIDATED HEARING - BUT NOT THE
INDEPENDENT. 

ON PETITION BY THE BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER, THE COURT OF
APPEALS CONCLUDED  FN3  THAT "THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IS VALID AND  ...
ITS PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT  ...  IS  ...  GRANTED."  BUT, OF ITS OWN
VOLITION, THE COURT PROVIDED IN ITS FINAL ORDER "THAT THE  ...
EMPLOYEES SHALL REMAIN FREE TO CHOOSE AT THE COMING ELECTION, OR ANY
FUTURE ELECTION HELD OR CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
...  ACT, THE INDEPENDENT UNION TO REPRESENT THEM IN LABOR RELATION
DEALINGS WITH RESPONDENT"; AND THAT RESPONDENT BE PERMITTED TO ADD TO
THE NOTICES IN ITS PLANT THE QUALIFICATION THAT THE INDEPENDENT WOULD
BE DISESTABLISHED AND UNRECOGNIZED ONLY "UNTIL AND UNLESS ...  (THE)
EMPLOYEES FREELY AND OF THEIR OWN CHOICE SELECT THE INDEPENDENT UNION
AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE.  ..."  FN4 

IN ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THE BOARD CONTENDED THAT THE COURT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A DIRECTION OF ELECTION AND THAT,
APART FROM THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION, THE COURT HAD IMPROPERLY
INTERFERED WITH THE DISCRETION GIVEN THE BOARD BY THE ACT.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.  FN5 

THE FIRST OF THE TWO CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD WAS
BASED UPON THE CHARGE OF THE AMALGAMATED, A LABOR ORGANIZATION, THAT
RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(1),
(2), (3) AND (5) OF THE ACT.  AS ALREADY NOTED, THE BOARD FOUND
RESPONDENT HAD INTERFERED WITH ITS EMPLOYEES' FREE CHOICE OF A
BARGAINING AGENT IN VIOLATION OF 8(1), (2) AND (3).  BECAUSE THERE WAS
NO CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE AMALGAMATED THEN REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF
THE EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD DID NOT SUSTAIN THE CHARGE THAT RESPONDENT'S
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH AMALGAMATED AMOUNTED TO AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE UNDER 8(5). 

THE SECOND PHASE OF THE LABOR BOARD'S ACTION WAS TAKEN PURSUANT TO
SEC. 9(C)  FN6  OF THE ACT, AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO INVESTIGATE AND
ASCERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  AS
EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY SUBSECTION (C), THE BOARD CONDUCTED THIS
INVESTIGATION, ITSELF A DISTINCT PROCEEDING, "IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 10" AND RENDERED ITS "DIRECTION OF ELECTION"
AT THE SAME TIME THE ORDER RELATIVE TO THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WAS
ENTERED "UNDER SECTION 10."  IT WAS THIS "DIRECTION OF ELECTION" THAT
PROVIDED FOR INCLUSION ON THE BALLOT OF AMALGAMATED (C.I.O.)  AND THE
OPERATING ENGINEERS (A.F.L.), BUT OMITTED THE INDEPENDENT.  THE
ELECTION WAS NOT ACTUALLY TO BE HELD UNTIL AFTER THE BOARD WAS
"SATISFIED THAT THE EFFECTS OF THE COMPANY'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
...  (HAD) BEEN DISSIPATED BY" COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER TO CEASE AND
DESIST AND TO DISESTABLISH THE INDEPENDENT. 

WHEN THE BOARD PETITIONED THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS
ORDER AGAINST RESPONDENT, IT FILED A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE
CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS HELD UNDER 9(C) AND 10(C). 

AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND ORDER MADE BY THE
BOARD UNDER 10(C), THE COURT CONSIDERED ITS POWER TO ACT AT AN END IF
NOTHING HAD BEEN BEFORE IT "BUT THE TERMS OF AN ELECTION BY THE
EMPLOYEES ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE."  BUT THE COURT HELD, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, THAT IT DID HAVE JURISDICTION TO ATTACH A CONDITION TO THE
BOARD'S ORDER WHEREBY INDEPENDENT MIGHT BECOME A CANDIDATE IN THE
PROPOSED ELECTION BECAUSE IT WAS "DISPOSING OF A LABOR DISPUTE CASE
WHEREIN THE PROCEEDINGS  ...  (HAD) GONE BEYOND MERE PLANS BY THE BOARD
FOR THE CALLING OF AN ELECTION" AND THEREFORE HAD BEFORE IT "FOR FINAL
DISPOSITION, THE MATTER OF THE SELECTION OF THE BARGAINING AGENT." 
HAVING THUS FOUND JURISDICTION IN ITSELF TO MAKE "FINAL DISPOSITION
...  OF THE SELECTION OF THE BARGAINING AGENT," THE COURT THOUGHT IT
NECESSARY SO TO CONDITION THE BOARD'S ORDER AS TO PREVENT THE
ELIMINATION "FOR ALL TIME (OF) ONE OF THE CANDIDATES - THE INDEPENDENT
UNION." 

RESPONDENT AND THE INTERVENING INDEPENDENT (COMPANY) UNION HERE
CONTEND THAT THE COURT BELOW DID NOT ACTUALLY MODIFY THE BOARD'S
"DIRECTION OF ELECTION," BUT IF DEEMED TO HAVE DONE SO, THE
MODIFICATION WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER EITHER SEC. 9(D) OR SEC. 10(E).  FN7
THEY ALSO SUPPORT THE RESULT BELOW ON THE GROUND THAT, AS THE COURT
BELOW BELIEVED, THE BOARD WAS WITHOUT POWER TO KEEP THE COMPANY UNION -
IF PURGED FROM COMPANY INFLUENCE - FROM THE BALLOT IN A FUTURE ELECTION
TO SELECT A BARGAINING AGENT, BECAUSE SUCH PROSCRIPTION WOULD IMPAIR
THE GUARANTEE IN SEC. 7 OF THE ACT THAT EMPLOYEES MAY BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE. 

FIRST.  WE THINK IT APPARENT THAT THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED BY THE
COURT TO THE BOARD'S ORDER OPERATED AS A MODIFICATION OF THE BOARD'S
DIRECTION THAT INDEPENDENT BE OMITTED FROM THE BALLOT IN THE COMING
ELECTION.  IN CONDITIONING THE BOARD'S ORDER, THE COURT ACTED, AS IT
SAID, "THAT THE COMING ELECTION SHALL BE FREE, UNINFLUENCED BY THE
EMPLOYER, AND UNHAMPERED BY ANY ELECTION ORDER WHICH ELIMINATES (THE
INDEPENDENT) AS A CONTENDER."  IN EFFECT, THE COURT'S QUALIFICATION OF
THE BOARD'S ORDER JUDICIALLY PRONOUNCED - IN ADVANCE OF THE ELECTION -
THAT ELECTION METHODS CONSIDERED "SUITABLE" BY THE COURTS RATHER THAN
BY THE BOARD MUST BE FOLLOWED.  BUT SEC. 9 OF THE ACT VESTS POWER IN
THE BOARD, NOT IN THE COURT, TO SELECT THE METHOD OF DETERMINING WHAT
UNION, IF ANY, EMPLOYEES DESIRE AS A BARGAINING AGENT; TO THIS END, THE
BOARD "MAY TAKE A SECRET BALLOT OF EMPLOYEES, OR UTILIZE ANY OTHER
SUITABLE METHOD TO ASCERTAIN SUCH REPRESENTATIVES." 

NOR CAN AUTHORITY FOR SUCH ANTICIPATORY JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ELECTION
METHODS BE FOUND IN SEC. 9(D) WHICH PERMITS A REVIEW ONLY IN THOSE
CASES IN WHICH THE BOARD MAKES AN ORDER RELATING TO LABOR PRACTICES
FOUND TO BE UNFAIR AS A RESULT OF A PRIOR CERTIFICATION OF A SELECTED
BARGAINING AGENT.  FN8  HERE, THE BOARD'S ORDER THAT THE EMPLOYER CEASE
ITS UNFAIR PRACTICES, DISESTABLISH THE COMPANY UNION AND POST NOTICES
WAS NOT "BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON FACTS CERTIFIED" AS THE RESULT
OF AN ELECTION OR INVESTIGATION MADE BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO SEC.
9(C).  THE PROPOSED ELECTION HERE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN HELD AND
CONSEQUENTLY NO CERTIFICATION OF A PROPER BARGAINING AGENT HAS BEEN
MADE BY THE BOARD.  UNTIL THAT ELECTION IS HELD, THERE CAN BE NO
CERTIFICATION OF A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE AND NO BOARD ORDER - BASED
ON A CERTIFICATION - HAS BEEN OR CAN BE MADE, SO AS TO INVOKE THE
COURT'S POWERS UNDER 9(D). 

THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF THE COURT BELOW LAY IN ITS ASSUMPTION THAT
THERE WAS BEFORE IT "FOR FINAL DISPOSITION, THE MATTER OF THE SELECTION
OF THE BARGAINING AGENT."  THE COURT HAS NO RIGHT TO REVIEW A PROPOSED
ELECTION AND IN EFFECT TO SUPERVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH IT SHALL
THEREAFTER BE CONDUCTED.  FN9  THERE CAN BE NO COURT REVIEW UNDER 9(D)
UNTIL THE BOARD ISSUES AN ORDER AND REQUIRES THE EMPLOYER TO DO
SOMETHING PREDICATED UPON THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION. 

SINCE THIS EMPLOYER HAS NOT BEEN ORDERED BY THE BOARD TO DO ANYTHING
PREDICATED UPON THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION THE COURT HAD NO AUTHORITY
TO ACT UNDER 9(D). 

SECOND.  THE COMPANY AND INDEPENDENT CONTEND, AS THE COURT BELOW
HELD, THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER OF DISESTABLISHMENT - ELIMINATING THE
INDEPENDENT FROM THE COMING ELECTION EVEN THOUGH PURGED OF COMPANY
INFLUENCE - VIOLATES SEC. 7  FN10  OF THE ACT WHICH GUARANTEES THE
RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVES.  ON
THIS PREMISE, THEY ARGUE THAT UNDER THE POWER IN 10(E) TO MODIFY ORDERS
OF THE BOARD, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE COURT BELOW TO ALTER THE BOARD'S
ORDER OF DISESTABLISHMENT SO AS TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEES
TO CHOOSE THE INDEPENDENT IF PURGED OF COMPANY DOMINATION PRIOR TO THE
CONTEMPLATED ELECTION. 

ON THE CONTRARY, THE BOARD REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT FULL
PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT FREELY TO CHOOSE BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVES REQUIRED COMPLETE DISESTABLISHMENT EFFECTING
ELIMINATION OF THE INDEPENDENT AS A CANDIDATE.  THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD, ON WHICH IT REACHED THIS CONCLUSION, IN PART WERE: 

SHORTLY AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT IN
1933,  FN11  RESPONDENT BROUGHT INTO BEING A COMPANY DOMINATED UNION OF
ITS EMPLOYEES CALLED THE "WORKS COUNCIL" WHICH FUNCTIONED UNDER COMPANY
CONTROL UNTIL APRIL, 1937.  AT THAT TIME, THE A.F. OF L. AND THE C.I.O.
WERE MAKING INTENSIVE EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES IN THE
FACE OF RESPONDENT'S HOSTILITY.  AS THE CAMPAIGN OF THE OUTSIDE UNIONS
PROGRESSED, THE COMPANY'S PERSONNEL MANAGER ARRANGED, FOR APRIL 12, THE
FIRST OF FOUR MEETINGS, HELD BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WORKS COUNCIL
DURING WORKING HOURS IN THE COMPANY'S PLANT HOSPITAL; IN THE COURSE OF
THESE MEETINGS THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT THE COMPANY WOULD ADVANCE
THE DATE OF A PROPOSED WAGE INCOME TO INFLUENCE THE EMPLOYEES' CHOICE
OF A UNION, AND THE NECESSITY FOR PROMPT INCORPORATION "BECAUSE THE
C.I.O. WAS WORKING IN THE PLANT" WAS MADE CLEAR; APRIL 18, A MEETING
WAS HELD OFF OF RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY, BUT NO DEFINITE FORM OF
ORGANIZATION WAS DECIDED UPON; APRIL 20, AFTER CONFERRING WITH AN
ATTORNEY WHOM RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT HAD SUGGESTED, THREE EMPLOYEES
INCORPORATED THE INDEPENDENT AND NOTIFIED RESPONDENT THAT IT WAS READY
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY FOR SOME FOUR HUNDRED EMPLOYEES; ON APRIL 23,
RESPONDENT RECOGNIZED THE INDEPENDENT AS THE BARGAINING UNIT FOR ALL
ITS EMPLOYEES UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE THREE INCORPORATORS, WITHOUT
PROOF, THAT THEY REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES. 

IN SUMMARY, THE BOARD STATED THAT RESPONDENT HAD USED THE INDEPENDENT
"AS A CONVENIENT WEAPON TO PREVENT THE EXERCISE OF ITS EMPLOYEES'
RIGHTS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."  AND THE COURT
BELOW, IN APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD, HELD THAT THE TESTIMONY
SHOWED THAT THE COMPANY "EARNESTLY ENDEAVORED TO PREVENT THE UNIONIZING
OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND WHEN THE INEVITABLE BECAME IMMINENT, IT SOUGHT TO
DOMINATE THE FORMATION, ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVITIES OF THE" COMPANY
UNION.  THE EVIDENCE ABUNDANTLY SUPPORTS THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD AND THE COURT BELOW.  FN12 

FROM THESE FINDINGS THE BOARD JUSTIFIABLY DREW THE INFERENCE THAT
THIS COMPANY-CREATED UNION COULD NOT EMANCIPATE ITSELF FROM HABITUAL
SUBSERVIENCE TO ITS CREATOR, AND THAT IN ORDER TO INSURE EMPLOYEES THAT
COMPLETE FREEDOM OF CHOICE GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7, INDEPENDENT MUST BE
COMPLETELY DISESTABLISHED AND KEPT OFF THE BALLOT. 

CONGRESS HAS INTRUSTED THE POWER TO DRAW SUCH INFERENCES TO THE BOARD
AND NOT TO THE COURTS.  FN13  IN ORDER THAT 9(C) MIGHT BE AN EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF SELECTING FREELY CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7, THE BOARD ACTED WITHIN ITS POWER IN
DISESTABLISHING INDEPENDENT SO AS TO BAR IT FROM CONSIDERATION AS AN
EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE.  FN14 

THIRD.  THE COURT ALSO MODIFIED THE BOARD'S ORDER BY OMITTING THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE NOTICES TO BE POSTED IN THE PLANT CONTAIN A
STATEMENT THAT THE COMPANY WOULD "CEASE AND DESIST" FROM ITS UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITIES.  AS STATED IN THE FIRST OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW,  FN15
THE PURPOSE OF THE BOARD IN REQUIRING THE COMPANY TO PUBLISH NOTICES
ASSURING ITS EMPLOYEES THAT IT WOULD "CEASE AND DESIST" HAD BEEN "TO
CONVEY TO THE EMPLOYEES THE KNOWLEDGE OF A GUARANTEE OF AN UNHAMPERED
RIGHT IN THE FUTURE TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN LABOR AFFILIATIONS." 
KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE MEN THAT THE COMPANY WOULD CEASE AND
DESIST FROM HAMPERING, INTERFERING WITH AND COERCING THEM IN SELECTION
OF A BARGAINING AGENT, WHICH THE BOARD FOUND THE COMPANY HAD DONE
SUCCESSFULLY IN THE PAST, WAS ESSENTIAL IF THE EMPLOYEES WERE TO FEEL
FREE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS WITHOUT INCURRING THE COMPANY'S
DISFAVOR.  BUT THE NOTICES AS PERMITTED BY THE COURT'S MODIFYING ORDER
NOT ONLY FAILED TO ASSURE THE MEN THAT THE COMPANY WOULD CEASE ITS
UNLAWFUL AND COERCIVE PRACTICES, BUT - BACKED WITH THE PRESTIGE OF A
FORMAL COURT ORDER - TOLD THE MEN THAT INDEPENDENT, WHILE IN TERMS
DISESTABLISHED FOR THE TIME BEING, WAS STILL AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION BY
THE EMPLOYEES.  THUS THE MODIFIED NOTICES NEITHER RENOUNCED THE
COMPANY'S UNLAWFUL PRACTICES NOR PROMISED THEIR ABANDONMENT, AND LEFT
AS A CANDIDATE THE INDEPENDENT, TOWARD WHICH THE UNRENOUNCED UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY HAD BEEN DIRECTED.  WE THINK THE PLANT
NOTICES AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT'S ORDER FELL FAR SHORT OF CONVEYING
"TO THE EMPLOYEES THE KNOWLEDGE OF A GUARANTEE OF AN UNHAMPERED RIGHT
IN THE FUTURE TO DETERMINE THEIR LABOR AFFILIATIONS."    OTHER
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND FOUND WITHOUT
MERIT. 

THE COURT BELOW COMMITTED ERROR IN MODIFYING THE BOARD'S ORDER. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449, 452, SEC. 8. 

FN2  ID., SEC. 9(C). 

FN3  102 F.2D 383, 390. 

FN4  106 F.2D 454, 456, 457. 

FN5  POST, P. 544. 

FN6  SEC. 9(C), 49 STAT. 453:  "WHENEVER A QUESTION AFFECTING
COMMERCE ARISES CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD
MAY INVESTIGATE SUCH CONTROVERSY AND CERTIFY TO THE PARTIES, IN
WRITING, THE NAME OR NAMES OF THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN
DESIGNATED OR SELECTED.  IN ANY SUCH INVESTIGATION, THE BOARD SHALL
PROVIDE FOR AN APPROPRIATE HEARING UPON DUE NOTICE, EITHER IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 10 OR OTHERWISE, AND MAY
TAKE A SECRET BALLOT OF EMPLOYEES, OR UTILIZE ANY OTHER SUITABLE METHOD
TO ASCERTAIN SUCH REPRESENTATIVES." 

FN7  "SEC.  9. 

"(D)  WHENEVER AN ORDER OF THE BOARD MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(C)
IS BASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART UPON FACTS CERTIFIED FOLLOWING AN
INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (C) OF THIS SECTION, AND THERE IS
A PETITION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OR REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER, SUCH
CERTIFICATION AND THE RECORD OF SUCH INVESTIGATION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD REQUIRED TO BE FILED UNDER
SUBSECTIONS 10(E) OR 10(F), AND THEREUPON THE DECREE OF THE COURT
ENFORCING, MODIFYING, OR SETTING ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF
THE BOARD SHALL BE MADE AND ENTERED UPON THE PLEADINGS, TESTIMONY, AND
PROCEEDINGS SET FORTH IN SUCH TRANSCRIPT. 

"SEC. 10. 

"(E)  THE BOARD SHALL HAVE POWER TO PETITION ANY CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS  ...  WITHIN ANY CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT, RESPECTIVELY, WHEREIN THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN QUESTION OCCURRED OR WHEREIN SUCH PERSON
RESIDES OR TRANSACTS BUSINESS, FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH ORDER AND
FOR APPROPRIATE TEMPORARY RELIEF OR RESTRAINING ORDER, AND SHALL
CERTIFY AND FILE IN THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE
PROCEEDING, INCLUDING THE PLEADINGS AND TESTIMONY UPON WHICH SUCH ORDER
WAS ENTERED AND THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD.  UPON SUCH FILING,
THE COURT SHALL CAUSE NOTICE THEREOF TO BE SERVED UPON SUCH PERSON, AND
THEREUPON SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE PROCEEDING AND OF THE QUESTION
DETERMINED THEREIN, AND SHALL HAVE POWER TO GRANT SUCH TEMPORARY RELIEF
OR RESTRAINING ORDER AS IT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER, AND TO MAKE AND ENTER
UPON THE PLEADINGS, TESTIMONY, AND PROCEEDINGS SET FORTH IN SUCH
TRANSCRIPT A DECREE ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS SO MODIFIED,
OR SETTING ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BOARD.  ...  " 

FN8  AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. LABOR BOARD, ANTE, PP. 406,
409. 

FN9  LABOR BOARD V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD, ANTE, P. 413. 

FN10  SEC. 7:  "EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION,
TO FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION." 

FN11  48 STAT. 195, 198. 

FN12  CF. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 206
U.S. 441, 466. 

FN13  LABOR BOARD V. GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 271; LABOR BOARD
V. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO., ANTE, P. 241. 

FN14  REPORT OF HOUSE COMM. ON LABOR, HOUSE REPORT NO. 1147, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 17-19: "IT IS OF THE ESSENCE THAT THE RIGHTS OF
EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO JOIN OR ASSIST LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED TO A MOCKERY BY THE IMPOSITION OF
EMPLOYERCONTROLLED LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, PARTICULARLY WHERE SUCH
ORGANIZATIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYER
AND HAVE NO POTENTIAL ECONOMIC STRENGTH." 

FN15  THE COURT FIRST AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD,
102 F.2D 383; IT WROTE A SECOND OPINION REJECTING THE BOARD'S OBJECTION
TO THE FINAL DECREE EMBODYING THE DISPUTED CONDITIONS TO THE BOARD'S
ORDER, 106 F.2D 454. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :

















BONET V. TEXAS CO., 308 U.S. 463 


NO. 132.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 2, 1940.  - 102
F.2D 710, REVERSED - 52 P.R. DEC. 658 - 53 ID. 475, AFFIRMED. 


1.  TO WARRANT REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO
RICO ON CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL STATUTES THE ERROR MUST BE MANIFEST; THE
INTERPRETATION MUST BE INESCAPABLY WRONG; THE DECISION MUST BE PATENTLY
ERRONEOUS.  P. 470. 

2.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN OVERRULING THE FOLLOWING
CONCLUSIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, CONSTRUING ISLAND
STATUTES, VIZ., 

(A)  THAT UNDER SEC. 9 OF ACT NO. 102, 1925, AN UNINSURED EMPLOYER
COULD HAVE AN AWARD OF THE WORKMEN'S RELIEF COMMISSION REVIEWED,
INCLUDING THE ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS INSURED.  PP. 465, 471. 

(B)  THAT IN PLACE OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 7 OF THAT ACT FOR
COLLECTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF AWARDS MADE AGAINST UNINSURED
EMPLOYERS, AMENDATORY LEGISLATION HAD SUBSTITUTED COLLECTION BY THE
TREASURER.  PP. 466, 472. 

(C)  THAT THE TREASURER HAD POWER OF DISTRAINT.  PP. 468, 472. 

BONET, TREASURER, V. TEXAS COMPANY (P.R.), INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

REVIEW BY CERTIORARI, POST, P. 538, OF A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WHICH REVERSED THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO IN A
SUIT TO ENJOIN THE TREASURER OF THE ISLAND FROM ENFORCING BY DISTRAINT
ORDERS OF THE PUERTO RICO WORKMEN'S RELIEF COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN A PUERTO RICO COURT TO ENJOIN THE
TREASURER OF PUERTO RICO FROM ENFORCING BY DISTRAINT, ORDERS OF THE
PUERTO RICO WORKMEN'S RELIEF COMMISSION AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR THE
DEATH OF EACH OF THREE LABORERS WHILE IN THE EMPLOY OF RESPONDENT.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO INTERPRETED THE WORKMEN'S ACCIDENT
COMPENSATION ACT OF PUERTO RICO FN1  AS NOT PERMITTING SUCH COLLATERAL
ATTACK ON ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION AND AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT DISMISSING
THE BILL.  52 P.R. DEC. 658, 53 P.R. DEC. 475.  ON APPEAL (43 STAT.
936) THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS VACATED THAT JUDGMENT AND REMANDED
THE CAUSE WITH DIRECTIONS TO ISSUE THE INJUNCTION.  102 F.2D 710.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE ASSERTED VIOLATION BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE WELL ESTABLISHED RULE THAT PUERTO RICAN
TRIBUNALS MUST NOT BE OVERRULED ON THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL STATUTES
IN ABSENCE OF "CLEAR OR MANIFEST ERROR."  BONET V. YABUCOA SUGAR CO.,
306 U.S. 505; 307 U.S. 613. 

THE THEORY UNDERLYING RESPONDENT'S BILL WAS THAT IT WAS AN INSURED
EMPLOYER AND THEREFORE THE AWARDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID OUT OF THE
STATE FUND,  FN2  AND THAT ITS REMEDY AT LAW WAS NOT ADEQUATE.  THE
BILL SO ALLEGED, AND ATTACKED THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ADJUDGING
THAT IT WAS NOT AN INSURED EMPLOYER.  THE CAUSE WAS SUBMITTED, WITHOUT
AN ANSWER, ON A STIPULATION WHICH INCLUDED, INTER ALIA, AN ADMISSION BY
PETITIONER OF "THE ULTIMATE FACTS OF THE BILL, EXCEPT THE CONCLUSIONS
OF FACT OR OF LAW THAT IT MIGHT CONTAIN."  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO
RICO IN EFFECT TREATED THIS STIPULATION AS A DEMURRER AND CONCLUDED
THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT THEREBY ADMITTED THAT RESPONDENT WAS AN INSURED
EMPLOYER.  THIS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION -
CERTAINLY NOT MANIFEST ERROR. 

TREATING THE BILL THEN AS ONE BROUGHT BY AN UNINSURED EMPLOYER, THE
SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO CONSTRUED THE ACT ON TWO POINTS:  (1) THE
RIGHT OF RESPONDENT TO APPEAL; (2) THE POWER OF PETITIONER TO
DISTRAIN. 

RIGHT TO APPEAL.  IT HELD THAT RESPONDENT HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT
LAW UNDER SEC. 9 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDED THAT "THE EMPLOYER MAY
APPEAL FROM ANY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION WHEN SUCH DECISION IS TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE ACCIDENT IS ONE FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS GRANTED UNDER
THIS ACT."  FN3  AND IT INDICATED THAT ON SUCH APPEAL THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT WAS UNINSURED WAS AMONG THE ISSUES WHICH
COULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED.  FN4  THE COMMISSION, HOWEVER, HAD DIRECTED
THE AWARDS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON APRIL 24, 1928, FOR COLLECTION
UNDER SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, A SECTION PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION OF AWARDS
AGAINST UNINSURED EMPLOYERS.  FN5  BUT EIGHT YEARS PASSED AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL MADE NO ATTEMPT TO COLLECT.  RESPONDENT CONTENDED THAT
IT DID NOT APPEAL UNDER SEC. 9 SINCE IT WAS WAITING TO DEFEND, ON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS INSURED, AN ACTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER
SEC. 7.  AND THOUGH A NEW METHOD OF COLLECTION OF SUCH AWARDS WAS
CREATED WITHIN A FEW MONTHS AFTER THESE AWARDS WERE MADE,  FN6
RESPONDENT CONTENDED THAT THE NEW LAW, IN PROVIDING THAT PENDING
LITIGATION WAS NOT TO BE AFFECTED,  FN7  PRESERVED ITS FORMER
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND UNDER SEC. 7.  TO THIS THE SUPREME COURT OF
PUERTO RICO REPLIED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SAVING CLAUSE IN THE NEW
ACT  FN8  WAS MERELY TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF WORKMEN TO COMPENSATION,
NOT TO MAKE THE NEW PROCEDURE INAPPLICABLE TO PENDING CASES IN
CONTRADICTION TO THE WELL SETTLED RULE THAT PROCEDURAL STATUTES ARE
IMMEDIATELY APPLICABLE.  IT ALSO ADDED THAT IN ANY EVENT THE PROCEDURE
OF SEC. 7 HAD NOT SURVIVED THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSION
SINCE BY THE 1935 AMENDMENT THAT PROCEDURE WAS TO BE "FOLLOWED IN SUCH
LITIGATIONS OR CLAIMS, UNTIL THEIR TERMINATION"  FN9  - THE ISSUANCE OF
THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVING TERMINATED THE CASE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE AMENDMENT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISAGREED WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ACT.  IT HELD THAT SEC. 9 GAVE AN APPEAL ONLY TO INSURED EMPLOYERS AND
THAT ONLY SEC. 7 PROVIDED FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS ISSUED AGAINST THOSE WHO
WERE UNINSURED.  IT SAID THAT WHEN SEC. 9 STATED THAT "THE EMPLOYER MAY
APPEAL FROM ANY DECISION OF THE COMMISSION WHEN SUCH DECISION IS TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE ACCIDENT IS ONE FOR WHICH COMPENSATION IS GRANTED UNDER
THIS ACT," IT MEANT THAT ONLY INSURED EMPLOYERS COULD APPEAL SINCE THE
COMPENSATION GRANTED BY THE ACT WAS PAYMENT OUT OF THE STATE FUND. 
FN10  HENCE, IN ITS VIEW, THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION HERE IN QUESTION
WERE "TO THE EFFECT" THAT THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT ONE FOR WHICH
COMPENSATION WAS GRANTED UNDER THE ACT, SINCE THE COMMISSION HAD
ADJUDGED RESPONDENT TO BE UNINSURED.  CONSISTENTLY WITH THAT
CONSTRUCTION IT HELD THAT THE REMEDY OF AN AGGRIEVED UNINSURED EMPLOYER
WAS TO DEFEND ANY SUIT BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 7.  FOR IN ITS VIEW, THE
PROCEDURE UNDER SEC. 7 WAS NOT ABOLISHED BY THE AMENDMENTS, THE
ISSUANCE OF THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION NOT HAVING TERMINATED THE CASE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SAVING CLAUSE QUOTED ABOVE.  ACCORDINGLY, IT
HELD THAT UNLESS PETITIONER WERE RESTRAINED FROM COLLECTING THE AWARDS,
RESPONDENT WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ITS DAY IN COURT. 

POWER OF PETITIONER TO DISTRAIN.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO
CONCLUDED THAT PETITIONER HAD THE POWER TO DISTRAIN BY VIRTUE OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDERS OF
AWARD.  BY THE 1928 AMENDMENTS  FN11  SUMMARY PROCEDURE WAS AUTHORIZED
FOR COLLECTION OF A CLAIM "AS IF IT WERE A TAX LEVIED ON SUCH
PROPERTY."  SEC. 25.  ALTHOUGH THAT PHRASE WAS ELIMINATED BY THE 1935
AMENDMENTS, SEC. 15 OF THE LATTER MADE SUCH CLAIMS "LIENS PREFERRED
OVER ANY OTHER CHARGE OR LIEN FOR TAXES OR ANY OTHER CAUSE" WITH
SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS.  FN12  THE COURT HELD THAT SINCE UNDER BOTH THE
1928 AND 1935 AMENDMENTS PETITIONER HAD THE DUTY TO COLLECT THE CLAIMS
AND SINCE UNDER BOTH THE CLAIM HAD THE STATUS OR LEGAL EFFECT OF A TAX,
THE POWER TO DISTRAIN SURVIVED. 

BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISAGREED WITH THAT CONCLUSION.  IT
REASONED THAT PETITIONER HAD NO POWER TO COLLECT IN THAT MANNER SINCE
BY SEC. 15 OF THE 1935 AMENDMENTS THE PERSON WHO WAS TO "DETERMINE" THE
AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM AND "CERTIFY ITS DECISION" FN13  TO PETITIONER WAS
THE MANAGER OF THE STATE FUND CREATED UNDER THAT LAW.  FN14  THAT
PERSON NOT BEING THE SAME AS THE WORKMEN'S RELIEF COMMISSION WHICH HAD
ISSUED THE ORDERS IN QUESTION, SEC. 15 WAS NOT OPERATIVE AS RESPECTS
RESPONDENT.  THIS REASONING WAS INTERWOVEN WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THAT
COURT THAT THE NEW PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY THE 1928 AND 1935 AMENDMENTS
FN15 DID NOT REACH BACK TO TOUCH PENDING CASES, A RESULT CONTRARY TO
THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, AS WE HAVE NOTED. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, ON THE OTHER HAND, DID NOT REACH
THE PRECISE POINT DETERMINATIVE OF THE POWER OF THE MANAGER OF THE
STATE FUND TO CERTIFY AN AWARD OF THE FORMER WORKMEN'S RELIEF
COMMISSION APPARENTLY BECAUSE IT WAS TACITLY ADMITTED THAT THAT POWER
EXISTED, FN16  IF THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY FORMER SEC. 7 HAD BEEN
ABOLISHED.  BUT HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, IT DID CONCLUDE THAT THE ACT AS
AMENDED, THOUGH NOT CLEAR, WAS DESIGNED TO GIVE THE PETITIONER POWER TO
DISTRAIN AND THAT THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED WAS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. 

FOR OVER SIXTY YEARS THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED THE
DEFERENCE DUE INTERPRETATIONS OF LOCAL LAW BY SUCH LOCAL COURTS UNLESS
THEY APPEARED TO BE CLEARLY WRONG.  FROM SWEENEY V. LOMME, 22 WALL. 
208, DECIDED IN 1874, TO BONET V. YABUCOA SUGAR CO., SUPRA, DECIDED IN
1939, REPEATED ADMONITIONS TO THAT EFFECT HAVE BEEN GIVEN.  THAT RULE
IS FOUNDED ON SOUND POLICY.  FN17  AS THIS COURT RECENTLY STATED,
"ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO AS AN INTEGRAL
PART OF OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM IS WELL SERVED BY A CAREFUL AND
CONSISTENT ADHERENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL POLICY OF
DEFERRING TO THE LOCAL PROCEDURE AND TRIBUNALS OF THE ISLAND."  BONET
V. YABUCOA SUGAR CO., SUPRA, P. 510. 

WE NOW REPEAT ONCE MORE THAT ADMONITION.  AND WE ADD THAT MERE LIP
SERVICE TO THAT RULE IS NOT ENOUGH.  TO REVERSE A JUDGMENT OF A PUERTO
RICAN TRIBUNAL ON SUCH A LOCAL MATTER AS THE INTERPRETATION OF AN ACT
OF THE LOCAL LEGISLATURE, IT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT IF WE OR THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MERELY DISAGREED WITH THAT INTERPRETATION. 
NOR WOULD IT BE ENOUGH THAT THE PUERTO RICAN TRIBUNAL CHOSE WHAT MIGHT
SEEM, ON APPEAL, TO BE THE LESS REASONABLE OF TWO POSSIBLE
INTERPRETATIONS.  AND SUCH JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED
HERE EVEN THOUGH WE FELT THAT OF SEVERAL POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS THAT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS THE MOST REASONABLE ONE.  FOR TO
JUSTIFY REVERSAL IN SUCH CASES, THE ERROR MUST BE CLEAR OR MANIFEST;
THE INTERPRETATION MUST BE INESCAPABLY WRONG; THE DECISION MUST BE
PATENTLY ERRONEOUS. 

MEASURED BY SUCH A TEST THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO
RICO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED.  IN CONCLUDING THAT UNDER SEC. 9 AN
UNINSURED EMPLOYER COULD HAVE AN AWARD OF THE COMMISSION REVIEWED,
INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS INSURED, THE SUPREME COURT
OF PUERTO RICO DID NOT TAKE A PATENTLY ABSURD POSITION.  THE MOST THAT
CAN BE SAID IS THAT THE CONTRARY POSITION IS A TENABLE ONE.  IN HOLDING
THAT THE AMENDMENTS SUBSTITUTED COLLECTION BY THE PETITIONER FOR
COLLECTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EVEN IN CASE OF PENDING CLAIMS, THAT
TRIBUNAL DID NOT COMMIT MANIFEST ERROR.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LATTER
PROCEDURE SURVIVED THE AMENDMENTS IS MERELY ANOTHER POSSIBLE VIEW.  AND
THE DECISION OF THAT TRIBUNAL THAT THE PETITIONER HAD THE POWER TO
DISTRAIN  FN18  CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INESCAPABLY WRONG IN VIEW OF THE
LEGISLATIVE DESIGN TO LEAVE NO HIATUS IN THE STATUTORY SCHEME AS A
RESULT OF CUMULATIVE AMENDMENTS.  THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION, THOUGH IT
MIGHT SEEM WHOLLY REASONABLE, WOULD NOT WARRANT A REVERSAL. 

INTIMATIONS THAT RESPONDENT WAS NOT ACCORDED DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND
THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS INSURED WAS A JURISDICTIONAL
FACT OPEN TO COLLATERAL ATTACK ARE UNTENABLE.  ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF PUERTO RICO, RESPONDENT HAD NOT ONLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD BEFORE THE COMMISSION BUT ALSO A RIGHT OF APPEAL.  THE FACT THAT
THE PERIOD FOR REVIEW BY APPEAL WAS VERY LIMITED AND THAT ON
RESPONDENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW ITS RIGHT TO APPEAL WAS
UNCERTAIN ARE IMMATERIAL.  HERE, AS ON OTHER ASPECTS OF THIS CASE, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO THAT
UNDER THIS STATUTE THE REMEDY OF RESPONDENT AT LAW WAS ADEQUATE IS
OBVIOUSLY ERRONEOUS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT NO. 102, 1925, AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 85, 1928 AND ACT NO.
45, 1935. 

FN2  AS TO THE CREATION OF THAT FUND, SEE SECS. 11, 27 OF ACT NO.
102, 1925. 

FN3  ACT NO. 102, 1925, SEC. 9.  THIRTY DAYS WERE ALLOWED FOR
PERFECTING THE APPEAL.  ID.  A COMPARABLE PROVISION FOR REVIEW IS FOUND
IN ACT NO. 85, 1928, SEC. 15, WHERE TEN DAYS WERE ALLOWED; AND IN ACT
NO. 45, 1935, SEC. 11, WHERE FIFTEEN DAYS ARE GRANTED. 

FN4  THIS POINT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN FIRST DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF PUERTO RICO ON A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BROUGHT BY RESPONDENT TO NULLIFY
THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION HERE INVOLVED.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE
WRIT DID NOT LIE SINCE IT APPLIED ONLY TO REVIEW THE ACTIONS OF
COURTS.  40 P.R.R. 456. 

FN5  SEC. 7 OF ACT NO. 102, 1925, PROVIDED IN PART: 

"IN THE CASE OF AN ACCIDENT TO A LABORER WHILE WORKING FOR AN
EMPLOYER WHO IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW IS UNINSURED, THE WORKMEN'S RELIEF
COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE PROPER COMPENSATION, PLUS EXPENSES INCURRED
BY IT, AND SHALL REPORT THE SAME TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
INSTITUTION OF PROPER ACTION, IN A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION,
AGAINST SAID EMPLOYER TO RECOVER THE AFORESAID SUM; PROVIDED, HOWEVER,
THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL GRANT THE EMPLOYER AS WELL AS THE LABORER IN
THE CASE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, AND SHALL
CONFORM, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO THE PRACTICES OBSERVED BY THE COURTS OF
JUSTICE." 

FN6  ACT NO. 85, 1928, BECAME EFFECTIVE NINETY DAYS AFTER ITS
APPROVAL ON MAY 14, 1928.  SEC. 58.  THIS ACT BY SEC. 7 CREATED AN
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION TO ADMINISTER THE ACT.  AND BY SEC. 25 COLLECTION
OF CLAIMS AGAINST UNINSURED EMPLOYERS WAS PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT TO A LABORER WHILE WORKING FOR AN EMPLOYER
WHO IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW IS UNINSURED, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
SHALL DETERMINE PROPER COMPENSATION, PLUS EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT, AND
SHALL CERTIFY ITS DECISION TO THE TREASURER OF PORTO RICO WHO SHALL
ASSESS SAID COMPENSATION, PLUS EXPENSES, ON THE EMPLOYER AND COLLECT
THEM FROM HIM; AND BOTH SUCH COMPENSATION AND SUCH EXPENSES SHALL
CONSTITUTE A LIEN ON ALL THE PROPERTY OF SAID EMPLOYER, WITH THE SAME
LEGAL EFFECT AND PRIORITY AS IF IT WERE A TAX LEVIED ON SUCH PROPERTY;
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHALL GRANT BOTH THE EMPLOYER
AND THE LABORER IN THE CASE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND TO DEFEND
THEMSELVES, AND HE SHALL CONFORM, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, TO THE PRACTICES
OBSERVED BY THE DISTRICT COURTS."    THIS PROCEDURE, ACCORDING TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, TOOK THE PLACE OF THAT PROVIDED BY SEC. 7
OF THE 1925 ACT, SUPRA, NOTE 5, BY REASON OF SEC. 57, "ALL LAWS OR
PARTS OF LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH ARE HEREBY REPEALED." 

ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1936, THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER
REQUESTING THE PETITIONER TO LEVY AN ATTACHMENT ON PROPERTIES OF
RESPONDENT. 

FN7  ACT NO. 85, 1928, SEC. 48, PROVIDED:  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT SHALL IN NO WAY AFFECT PENDING LITIGATION RELATIVE TO WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION UNDER PREVIOUS LAWS." 

FN8  ACT NO. 45, 1935, SEC. 34, ALSO PROVIDED: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL IN NO WAY AFFECT PENDING
LITIGATIONS OR CLAIMS RELATIVE TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION UNDER PREVIOUS
LAWS.  THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN SUCH LITIGATIONS OR CLAIMS, UNTIL
THEIR TERMINATION, SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS IN FORCE ON THE
DATE OF THE ACCIDENT, AND THE WORKMEN SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SUCH SUM OF
MONEY AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY SAID LAWS." 

FN9  SUPRA, NOTE 8. 

FN10  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFERRED TO SEC. 2 OF THE 1925 ACT
WHICH PROVIDED IN PART: 

"THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO EVERY EMPLOYER WHO EMPLOYS ANY LABORER OR
EMPLOYEE WHOSE WAGES DO NOT EXCEED THE SUM OF FIFTEEN HUNDRED (1,500)
DOLLARS COMPUTED ANNUALLY; PROVIDED, THAT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS ACT, COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAID TO INJURED LABORERS WHO BECOME
DISABLED OR WHO LOSE THEIR LIVES THROUGH ACCIDENTS ORIGINATING FROM ANY
ACT OR FUNCTION INHERENT IN THEIR WORK OR EMPLOYMENT AND OCCURRING
DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF OR FROM
OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES OR DEATH DUE TO SUCH OCCUPATION CONTRACTED IN ANY
WORK PERFORMED BY ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE INSULAR
GOVERNMENT, PAYABLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT TRUST FUND." 

FN11  SUPRA, NOTE 6. 

FN12  SEC. 15 OF ACT NO. 45, 1935, PROVIDED IN PART: 

"IN CASE OF AN ACCIDENT TO A WORKMAN OR EMPLOYEE WHILE WORKING FOR AN
EMPLOYER WHO, IN VIOLATION OF LAW, IS NOT INSURED, THE MANAGER OF THE
STATE FUND SHALL DETERMINE THE PROPER COMPENSATION PLUS THE EXPENSES IN
THE CASE, AND SHALL CERTIFY ITS DECISION TO THE TREASURER OF PUERTO
RICO WHO SHALL COLLECT FROM THE EMPLOYER SUCH COMPENSATION AND
EXPENSES, BOTH OF WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN ON ALL THE PROPERTY OF
THE EMPLOYER; PROVIDED, THAT SAID COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES ARE HEREBY
DECLARED TO BE LIENS PREFERRED OVER ANY OTHER CHARGE OR LIEN FOR TAXES
OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MORTGAGE CREDITS, CROP
LOANS, AND PROPERTY TAXES ON THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY FOR THREE YEARS
AND THE CURRENT YEAR, BURDENING THE PROPERTY OF THE EMPLOYER WHEN IT IS
ATTACHED TO SECURE THE SAID COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES; ...  " 

FN13  SUPRA, NOTE 12. 

FN14  ACT NO. 45, 1935, SEC. 6. 

FN15  SUPRA, NOTES 6, 12. 

FN16  IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RESPONDENT STATED: 

"AS TAXES CAN BE COLLECTED BY DISTRAINT, IT IS CLEAR THAT UNDER THE
LAW OF 1928 THE COMPENSATIONS, WHICH WERE GIVEN THE SAME LEGAL PRIORITY
AND EFFECT OF TAXES, COULD BE COLLECTED BY DISTRAINT.  BUT THE ACT OF
1935 DOES NOT GIVE THEM SUCH LEGAL EFFECT OR PRIORITY, AND ONLY STATES
THAT THE TREASURER SHALL COLLECT THEM.  THAT BEING THE CASE, IT SHALL
BE TAKEN THAT HE CAN ONLY COLLECT THEM BY AN ORDINARY ACTION." 

FN17  IN DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, 261 U.S. 102, 105-106, ANOTHER PUERTO RICO
CASE, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES OBSERVED: 

"THIS COURT HAS STATED MANY TIMES THE DEFERENCE DUE TO THE
UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOCAL COURTS UPON MATTERS OF PURELY LOCAL
CONCERN.  IT IS ENOUGH TO CITE DE VILLANUEVA V. VILLANUEVA, 239 U.S.
293, 299.  NADAL V. MAY, 233 U.S. 447, 454.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN
DEALING WITH THE DECISIONS OF A COURT INHERITING AND BROUGHT UP IN A
DIFFERENT SYSTEM FROM THAT WHICH PREVAILS HERE.  WHEN WE CONTEMPLATE
SUCH A SYSTEM FROM THE OUTSIDE IT SEEMS LIKE A WALL OF STONE, EVERY
PART EVEN WITH ALL THE OTHERS, EXCEPT SO FAR AS OUR OWN LOCAL EDUCATION
MAY LEAD US TO SEE SUBORDINATIONS TO WHICH WE ARE ACCUSTOMED.  BUT TO
ONE BROUGHT UP WITHIN IT, VARYING EMPHASIS, TACIT ASSUMPTIONS,
UNWRITTEN PRACTICES, A THOUSAND INFLUENCES GAINED ONLY FROM LIFE, MAY
GIVE TO THE DIFFERENT PARTS WHOLLY NEW VALUES THAT LOGIC AND GRAMMAR
NEVER COULD HAVE GOT FROM THE BOOKS." 

FN18  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO ALSO HELD THAT SEC. 243 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, BARRING EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT FOR THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY AFTER FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ENTRY, DOES NOT
APPLY TO ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION COVERING COMPENSATION AWARDS, A
CONSTRUCTION WHICH DOES NOT SEEM TO BE MANIFEST ERROR. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :








BOARD OF COMM'RS V. U.S., 308 U.S. 343 


NO. 14.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1939.  - 100
F.2D 929, REVERSED IN PART. 


AN INDIAN ALLOTMENT WAS BY TREATY STIPULATION AND PROVISIONS OF A
TRUST PATENT, ISSUED UNDER THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT, EXEMPT FROM
TAXATION SO LONG AS THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HOLD IT IN TRUST.  OVER
THE INDIAN'S OBJECTION, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ISSUED TO THE
INDIAN A PATENT IN FEE SIMPLE, WHICH LATER, AFTER LONG AND UNEXCUSED
DELAY, HE CANCELED, BY AUTHORITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  IN THE
MEANTIME THE FEE PATENT HAD BEEN REGISTERED IN THE COUNTY, AND THE
COUNTY AUTHORITIES, IN RELIANCE UPON IT, HAD COLLECTED TAXES UPON THE
LAND.  THEREAFTER, THE UNITED STATES IN AN ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE
INDIAN RECOVERED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COUNTY FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE
TAX PAYMENTS WITH INTEREST.  HELD: 

1.  THE QUESTION WHETHER INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IS NOT
DETERMINED BY A LAW OF THE STATE PRECLUDING RECOVERY OF INTEREST FROM A
COUNTY UPON TAXES ILLEGALLY COLLECTED.  P. 349. 

2.  CONGRESS NOT HAVING SPECIFICALLY DEFINED THE RELIEF TO BE GRANTED
FOR LOSS SUFFERED THROUGH DENIAL OF THE TAX EXEMPTION, REMEDIAL DETAILS
ARE LEFT TO JUDICIAL IMPLICATIONS; AND, SINCE THE ORIGIN OF THE RIGHT
TO BE ENFORCED IS THE TREATY, WHATEVER RULE MAY BE FASHIONED AS TO
INTEREST IS ULTIMATELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES AND
STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 349. 

3.  IN DETERMINING THE QUESTION OF INTEREST HERE PRESENTED, THE COURT
IS GUIDED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF EQUITY AND OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE; AND,
CONFORMABLY TO THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, THE STATE LAW OF INTEREST CAN BE
RESPECTED WITHOUT IMPINGING UPON THE EXEMPTION COMMANDED BY THE
TREATY.  PP. 350, 352. 

4.  IT IS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPLICIT
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY CUTTING ACROSS STATE INTERESTS, BENEFICIARIES OF
FEDERAL RIGHTS ARE NOT TO HAVE A PREFERRED POSITION OVER OTHER
AGGRIEVED TAXPAYERS IN THEIR RELATION WITH THE STATES OR THEIR
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.  P. 352. 

5.  IN GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS BASED UPON QUASI-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
INTEREST (IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORY DIRECTION) IS NOT RECOVERED
ACCORDING TO A RIGID THEORY OF COMPENSATION FOR MONEY WITHHELD, BUT IS
GIVEN OR DENIED IN RESPONSE TO CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS AND EQUITY. 
P. 352. 

6.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WHATEVER MAY BE THE DUTY OF
THE COUNTY TO REPAY THE TAXES WHICH THERE WAS EVERY PRACTICAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR COLLECTING AT THE TIME, THE COUNTY CAN NOT IN
FAIRNESS BE CALLED UPON TO PAY INTEREST FOR THE USE OF THE MONEY.  P.
353. 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF JACKSON, KANSAS, V.
UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 629, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A RECOVERY OF
COUNTY TAXES AND INTEREST. 

A COUNTY AS A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IS NOT LIABLE FOR INTEREST IN THE
ABSENCE OF A POSITIVE STATUTE SO REQUIRING OR AN EXPRESS AGREEMENT TO
PAY.  UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211; UNITED STATES V.
NORTH AMERICAN TRANSP.  & T. CO., 253 U.S. 330-336; SEABOARD AIR LINE
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299-304; GLACIER COUNTY V. UNITED
STATES, 99 F.2D 733; UNITED STATES V. LEWIS COUNTY, 95 F.2D 236; UNITED
STATES V. NEZ PERCE COUNTY, 95 F.2D 232, 238; JACKSON COUNTY V. KAUL,
77 KAN. 715-717; SALT HOUSE V. MCPHERSON CO., 115 KAN. 668; SCHOOL
DISTRICT V. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 127 KAN. 292; KITTRIDGE V. BOYDE, 137
KAN. 241-243. 

THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT, UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, DEMAND INTEREST
ON BEHALF OF AN INDIAN ALLOTTEE AS DAMAGES.  UNITED STATES V. NEZ PERCE
COUNTY, SUPRA; GLACIER COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 6 F.SUPP.  401; UNITED STATES V. BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 13 F.SUPP.  641. 

IF THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE IN ISSUING THE PATENT, OR IF THERE WAS ANY
LACHES IN ATTEMPTING TO SECURE A REFUND OF THE TAXES, IT WAS ON THE
PART OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.  THE COUNTY
OFFICIALS WERE FULLY WARRANTED IN THINKING THAT THE LAND WAS SUBJECT TO
TAXATION FROM THE TIME THE PATENT WAS ISSUED IN 1918 UP UNTIL THE TIME
THE GOVERNMENT, ACTING UNDER THE LONG SUBSEQUENT ACT OF CONGRESS,
CANCELLED IT.  THE SOLE BASIS UPON WHICH THE AUTHORITIES HOLD THAT SUCH
TAXES MUST BE REFUNDED TO THE INDIAN ALLOTTEE IS THAT THEY WERE
COLLECTED DURING THE TIME OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PATENT TO THE ALLOTTEE
WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT HIS OR HER REQUEST.  THE COUNTY WAS FULLY
WARRANTED IN ASSUMING THAT THE GOVERNMENT, THE TRUSTEE OF THE RIGHTS OF
THE INDIAN ALLOTTEE, HAD TAKEN ALL ESSENTIAL STEPS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF
THE ISSUANCE OF THE PATENT.  FOR THE GOVERNMENT NOW TO COME BACK ON THE
COUNTY LONG YEARS AFTER THE TAXES HAD BEEN COLLECTED, AND SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF THE ALLOTTEE, ATTEMPT TO COLLECT INTEREST ON PAYMENTS OF
TAXES WHICH HAD BEEN ASSESSED IN GOOD FAITH BY THE COUNTY IN RELIANCE
UPON A FEE SIMPLE PATENT ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE ALLOTTEE, IS
TO PLACE AN UNWARRANTABLE BURDEN ON THE COUNTY. 

THERE BEING NO STATUTE PROVIDING FOR THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST, THE
DECISIONS OF THE KANSAS COURT THAT INTEREST IS NOT RECOVERABLE AGAINST
THE COUNTY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.  BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S.
261, 287; EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, 386; PROCTER &
GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING CO. V. SHERMAN, 2 F.2D 165; ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 78. 

EVEN UNDER THE FEDERAL COURT RULE AS TO LIABILITY FOR INTEREST, THERE
IS NO LIABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE.  BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 261, 286. 

PUBLIC OFFICERS ARE PRESUMED TO DO THEIR DUTY, AND THERE IS A FURTHER
PRESUMPTION THAT ALL NECESSARY PRELIMINARY STEPS TO THE ISSUANCE OF A
PATENT HAVE BEEN TAKEN.  WRIGHT-BLODGETT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 236 U.S.
397; BOULDIN V. MASSIE, 7 WHEAT.  122; UNITED STATES V. PETERSON, 34
F.2D 245; UNITED STATES V. PORTER FUEL CO., 247 F. 769.  IT WAS
THEREFORE PROPER FOR ANY ONE TO ASSUME THAT THE PATENT HAD BEEN
REGULARLY ISSUED. 

THE EXEMPTION IS A FEDERAL RIGHT AND ITS SCOPE IS DETERMINED BY
FEDERAL LAW.  CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363, 367; UNITED STATES V.
RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432. 

THE EXEMPTION SHOULD BE CONSTRUED BROADLY IN FAVOR OF THE ALLOTTEE. 
UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304 U.S. 111, 116; CARPENTER V. SHAW,
SUPRA.  THE INDIAN IS ENTITLED TO AN OUTRIGHT EXEMPTION FROM ENFORCED
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.  CHOATE V.
TRAPP, 224 U.S. 665; CF. UNITED STATES V. OSAGE COUNTY, 251 U.S. 128,
133.  THIS CLEARLY PRECLUDES THE EXISTENCE OF ANY RIGHT IN TERMS TO
DEMAND FROM THE ALLOTTEE THE UNCOMPENSATED USE OF HER MONEY OR PROPERTY
FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE COUNTY.  CARPENTER V. SHAW, SUPRA; WARD V. LOVE
COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17.  THE CLAIM OF THE ALLOTTEE FOR INTEREST IS MERELY
AN ASSERTION OF THE RIGHT TO BE MADE WHOLE FOR THE ENFORCED USE OF HER
MONEY IN VIOLATION OF THE EXEMPTION. 

FULL RESTITUTION REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST.  BILLINGS V.
UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261, 284-288.  THE DOCTRINE THAT INTEREST DOES
NOT RUN AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN HAS NO BEARING UPON THE SCOPE OF THE
EXEMPTION FROM LOCAL TAXES CONFERRED BY CONGRESS UPON THE ALLOTTEE. 
THIS COURT HAS, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, AFFIRMED OR REINSTATED JUDGMENTS
WHICH ALLOWED INTEREST AGAINST A COUNTY ON TAXES WRONGFULLY COLLECTED
FROM INDIAN ALLOTTEES.  WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, SUPRA; MCCURDY V. UNITED
STATES, 264 U.S. 484. 

FEDERAL COURTS MAY APPLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL PRINCIPLES WHERE
INTEREST IS CLAIMED.  CONCORDIA INS. CO. V. SCHOOL DIST., 282 U.S. 545,
551.  THE STATE LAW, IF CONTRARY, MUST YIELD.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS
OVER THE INDIANS IN KANSAS IS PLENARY.  THE KANSAS INDIANS, 5 WALL. 
737, 755-756; SAGE V. HAMPE, 235 U.S. 99, 106.  CF. UNITED STATES V.
RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432; BUNCH V. COLE, 263 U.S. 250; CARPENTER V. SHAW,
SUPRA.  THE CONFLICT NEED NOT BE DIRECT OR IMMEDIATE; A POSSIBLE
INTERFERENCE WITH THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL LAW MAY RENDER THE STATE
DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE.  SAGE V. HAMPE, SUPRA; CF. TULLOCK V. MULVANE,
184 U.S. 497.  A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES ON BEHALF OF ITS INDIAN
WARDS CAN NOT BE DEFEATED BY EITHER SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL RULES OF
STATE LAW.  CARPENTER V. SHAW, SUPRA; DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22,
24.  NEITHER FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS NOR LOCAL DOCTRINES OF ESTOPPEL BIND
THE UNITED STATES SUING ON BEHALF OF ITS WARD.  CRAMER V. UNITED
STATES, 261 U.S. 219, 234; WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, SUPRA.  THERE CAN BE NO
RELIANCE UPON IMMUNITY TO SUIT.  UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA, 270 U.S.
181; CHICOT COUNTY V. SHERWOOD, 148 U.S. 529. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE TO REVIEW AN AFFIRMANCE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OF A RULING BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF KANSAS ALLOWING INTEREST IN A SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF
TAXES BY THE UNITED STATES ON BEHALF OF AN INDIAN UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
PRESENTLY TO BE STATED.  100 F.2D 929.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF CONFLICTING VIEWS BETWEEN THE NINTH AND THE TENTH CIRCUITS.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. NEZ PERCE COUNTY, IDAHO, 95 F.2D 232.  FN1 

M-KO-QUAH-WAH IS A FULL-BLOODED POTTAWATOMIE INDIAN.  IN HER BEHALF
THE UNITED STATES ASSERTS WHATEVER RIGHTS SHE MAY HAVE FLOWING FROM THE
TREATY OF NOVEMBER 15, 1861, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE
POTTAWATOMIE NATION OF INDIANS, 12 STAT. 1191, AND THE LEGISLATION IN
AID OF IT. THIS TREATY MADE LANDS HELD BY THE UNITED STATES IN TRUST
FOR THE POTTAWATOMIE INDIANS "EXEMPT FROM LEVY, TAXATION, OR SALE  ...
," "UNTIL OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.  ...  "  THE LAND WHICH GAVE RISE
TO THIS CONTROVERSY, SITUATED IN JACKSON COUNTY, KANSAS, WAS PATENTED
UNDER THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT OF FEBRUARY 8, 1887, 24 STAT. 388, 25
U.S.C. SEC. 348.  IN PURSUANCE OF THIS ACT, THE UNITED STATES AGREED TO
HOLD THE LAND FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS UNDER THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE 1861
TREATY, SUBJECT TO EXTENSION AT THE PRESIDENT'S DISCRETION.  TWO TEN
YEAR EXTENSIONS WERE MADE BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, ONE, IN 1918 AND THE
OTHER IN 1928; AND BY THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, THE EXISTING TRUST
PERIODS WERE INDEFINITELY EXTENDED BY CONGRESS.  48 STAT. 984. 

IN THIS LEGISLATIVE SETTING, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN 1918,
OVER THE OBJECTION OF M-KO-QUAH-WAH, CANCELLED HER OUTSTANDING TRUST
PATENT AND IN ITS PLACE ISSUED A FEE SIMPLE PATENT.  THIS WAS DULY
RECORDED IN THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS FOR JACKSON COUNTY.  IN CONSEQUENCE
JACKSON COUNTY IN 1919 BEGAN TO SUBJECT THE LAND TO ITS REGULAR
PROPERTY TAXES.  IT CONTINUED TO DO SO AS LONG AS THIS FEE SIMPLE
PATENT WAS LEFT UNDISTURBED BY THE UNITED STATES.  IN 1927 CONGRESS
AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CANCEL FEE SIMPLE PATENTS
THERETOFORE ISSUED OVER THE OBJECTION OF ALLOTTEES.  IN 1935 THE PATENT
FOR THE LAND IN CONTROVERSY WAS CANCELLED, AND IN THE NEXT YEAR
PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGUN BY THE UNITED STATES AS GUARDIAN OF M-KO-QUAH
WAH TO RECOVER THE TAXES WHICH JACKSON COUNTY HAD COLLECTED, AMOUNTING
TO $1,966.13, WITH INTEREST FROM THE RESPECTIVE DATES OF PAYMENT.  THE
DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED INTEREST AT 6%, AND A VERDICT FOR PRINCIPAL AND
INTEREST, AMOUNTING TO $3,277.49, WAS RETURNED BY THE JURY.  A JUDGMENT
UPON THIS VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
JACKSON COUNTY DOES NOT HERE CONTEST ITS LIABILITY FOR THE PRINCIPAL,
BUT CHALLENGES THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO INTEREST PRIOR TO JUDGMENT. 

THE ISSUE IS UNCONTROLLED BY ANY FORMAL EXPRESSION OF THE WILL OF
CONGRESS.  THE UNITED STATES URGES THAT WE MUST BE INDIFFERENT TO THE
LAW OF THE STATE PERTAINING TO THE RECOVERY OF TAXES IMPROPERLY LEVIED
ON LAND WITHIN IT.  JACKSON COUNTY, ON THE OTHER HAND, URGES THAT THE
LAW OF KANSAS CONTROLS.  IT IS SETTLED DOCTRINE THERE THAT A TAXPAYER
MAY NOT RECOVER FROM A COUNTY INTEREST UPON TAXES WRONGFULLY
COLLECTED.  JACKSON COUNTY V. KAUL, 77 KAN. 715; 96 P. 45. 

WE DEEM NEITHER THE JURISTIC THEORY URGED BY THE GOVERNMENT NOR THAT
OF JACKSON COUNTY ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE SOLUTION OF OUR
PROBLEM.  THE STARTING POINT FOR RELIEF IN THIS CASE IS THE TREATY OF
1861, EXEMPTING M-KO-QUAH-WAH'S PROPERTY FROM TAXATION.  EFFECTUATION
OF THE EXEMPTION IS, OF COURSE, ENTIRELY WITHIN CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL. 
BUT CONGRESS HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR THE PRESENT CONTINGENCY,
THAT IS, THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF RELIEF IN CASE LOSS IS SUFFERED
THROUGH DENIAL OF EXEMPTION.  IT HAS LEFT SUCH REMEDIAL DETAILS TO
JUDICIAL IMPLICATIONS.  SINCE THE ORIGIN OF THE RIGHT TO BE ENFORCED IS
THE TREATY, PLAINLY WHATEVER RULE WE FASHION IS ULTIMATELY ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
DOES NOT OWE ITS AUTHORITY TO THE LAW-MAKING AGENCIES OF KANSAS.  CF.
ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64.  AND SO THE CONCRETE PROBLEM IS
TO DETERMINE THE MATERIALS OUT OF WHICH THE JUDICIAL RULE REGARDING
INTEREST AS AN INCIDENT TO THE MAIN REMEDY SHOULD BE FORMULATED.  IN
ORDINARY SUITS WHERE THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS, AS BETWEEN ITSELF AND A
PRIVATE LITIGANT, TO ENFORCE A MONEY CLAIM ULTIMATELY DERIVED FROM A
FEDERAL LAW, THUS IMPLYING A WISH OF CONGRESS TO COLLECT WHAT IT DEEMED
FAIRLY OWING ACCORDING TO THE TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF ANGLO-AMERICAN
LAW, THIS COURT HAS CHOSEN THAT RULE AS TO INTEREST WHICH COMPORTS BEST
WITH GENERAL NOTIONS OF EQUITY.  UNITED STATES V. SANBORN, 135 U.S.
271, 281; BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261.  INSTEAD OF CHOOSING
A RIGID RULE, THE COURT HAS DRAWN UPON THOSE FLEXIBLE CONSIDERATIONS OF
EQUITY WHICH ARE ESTABLISHED SOURCES FOR JUDICIAL LAW-MAKING. 

BUT THE PRESENT CASE INTRODUCES AN IMPORTANT FACTOR NOT PRESENT IN
FORMER DECISIONS.  THE LITIGATION IS NOT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
A PRIVATE LITIGANT, BUT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION OF A STATE.  IN EFFECT, THEREFORE, WE HAVE ANOTHER ASPECT
OF OUR TASK IN ADJUSTING THE INTERESTS OF TWO GOVERNMENTS WITHIN THE
SAME TERRITORY. 

NOTHING THAT THE STATE CAN DO WILL BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY THE FEDERAL
RIGHT WHICH IS TO BE VINDICATED; BUT IN DEFINING THE EXTENT OF THAT
RIGHT ITS RELATION TO THE OPERATION OF STATE LAWS IS RELEVANT.  THE
STATE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO INVADE THE IMMUNITIES OF INDIANS, NO
MATTER HOW SKILFUL ITS LEGAL MANIPULATIONS.  UNITED STATES V. RICKERT,
188 U.S. 432.  CF. BUNCH V. COLE, 263 U.S. 250.  NOR ARE THE FEDERAL
COURTS RESTRICTED TO THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN STATE COURTS IN
ENFORCING SUCH FEDERAL RIGHTS.  UNITED STATES V. OSAGE COUNTY, 251 U.S.
128; WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17.  NOR MAY THE RIGHT TO RECOVER
TAXES ILLEGALLY COLLECTED FROM INDIANS BE UNDULY CIRCUMSCRIBED BY STATE
LAW.  CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363.  AGAIN, STATE NOTIONS OF LACHES
AND STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS HAVE NO APPLICABILITY TO SUITS BY THE
GOVERNMENT, WHETHER ON BEHALF OF INDIANS OR OTHERWISE.  UNITED STATES
V. MINNESOTA, 270 U.S. 181.  CF. CHESAPEAKE & DELAWARE CANAL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 123.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE IMMUNITY OF THE
SOVEREIGN FROM THESE DEFENSES IS HISTORIC.  UNLESS EXPRESSLY WAIVED, IT
IS IMPLIED IN ALL FEDERAL ENACTMENTS. 

BUT THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST IN INTER-GOVERNMENTAL LITIGATION HAS NO
SUCH ROOTS IN HISTORY.  INDEED, LIABILITY FOR INTEREST IS OF RELATIVELY
RECENT ORIGIN AND THE RATIONALE OF ITS RECOGNITION OR DENIAL IS NOT
ALWAYS CLEAR.  THAT IT IS NOT A CONGENITAL RULE IN OUR LAW IS INDICATED
BY ITS DENIAL IN UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211, ON
GROUNDS OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE."  SINCE CONGRESS HAS, IN THE
LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING THE INDIANS' TAX IMMUNITY, REMAINED SILENT AS
TO RECOVERY OF INTEREST, WE NEED NOT PRESUME THAT IT HAS IMPLIEDLY
FIXED LIABILITY FOR INTEREST IN A SUIT LIKE THE PRESENT.    HAVING LEFT
THE MATTER AT LARGE FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF
FAMILIAR REMEDIES EQUITABLE IN THEIR NATURE, SEE STONE V. WHITE, 301
U.S. 532, 534, CONGRESS HAS LEFT US FREE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATIONS OF "PUBLIC CONVENIENCE."  CF. VIRGINIAN RY.
CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 552.  NOTHING SEEMS TO US MORE
APPROPRIATE THAN DUE REGARD FOR LOCAL INSTITUTIONS AND LOCAL
INTERESTS.  WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF
INDIANS UNDER FEDERAL GUARDIANSHIP AND THE LOCAL REPERCUSSION OF THOSE
RIGHTS.  CONGRESS HAS NOT BEEN HEEDLESS OF THE INTERESTS OF THE STATES
IN WHICH INDIAN LANDS WERE SITUATED, AS REFLECTED BY THEIR LOCAL LAWS. 
SEE, E.G., SEC. 5 OF THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT OF 1887, 24 STAT. 388,
389.  WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER FEDERAL RIGHTS, THE STATE LAW HAS BEEN
ABSORBED, AS IT WERE, AS THE GOVERNING FEDERAL RULE NOT BECAUSE STATE
LAW WAS THE SOURCE OF THE RIGHT BUT BECAUSE RECOGNITION OF STATE
INTERESTS WAS NOT DEEMED INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL POLICY.  SEE BROWN
V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 78; SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 261 U.S. 299.  IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPLICIT LEGISLATIVE POLICY
CUTTING ACROSS STATE INTERESTS, WE DRAW UPON A GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT
THE BENEFICIARIES OF FEDERAL RIGHTS ARE NOT TO HAVE A PRIVILEGED
POSITION OVER OTHER AGGRIEVED TAX-PAYERS IN THEIR RELATION WITH THE
STATES OR THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.  TO RESPECT THE LAW OF INTEREST
PREVAILING IN KANSAS IN NO WISE IMPINGES UPON THE EXEMPTION WHICH THE
TREATY OF 1861 HAS COMMANDED KANSAS TO RESPECT AND THE FEDERAL COURTS
TO VINDICATE. 

ASSUMING, HOWEVER, THAT THE LAW AS TO INTEREST IN GOVERNMENTAL
ACTIONS BASED UPON QUASI-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS BE APPLICABLE, THE
UNITED STATES MUST FAIL HERE.  THE CASES TEACH THAT INTEREST IS NOT
RECOVERED ACCORDING TO A RIGID THEORY OF COMPENSATION FOR MONEY
WITHHELD, BUT IS GIVEN IN RESPONSE TO CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS.  IT
IS DENIED WHEN ITS EXACTION WOULD BE INEQUITABLE.  UNITED STATES V.
SANBORN, 135 U.S. 271, 281; BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261. 

JACKSON COUNTY IN ALL INNOCENCE ACTED IN RELIANCE ON A FEE PATENT
GIVEN UNDER THE HAND OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  EVEN AFTER
CONGRESS IN 1927 AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CANCEL
SUCH A PATENT, IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1935 THAT SUCH CANCELLATION WAS MADE. 
HERE IS A LONG, UNEXCUSED DELAY IN THE ASSERTION OF A RIGHT FOR WHICH
JACKSON COUNTY SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED.  BY VIRTUE OF THE MOST
AUTHORITATIVE SEMBLANCE OF LEGITIMACY UNDER NATIONAL LAW, THE LAND OF M
KO-QUAH-WAH AND THE LANDS OF OTHER INDIANS HAD BECOME PART OF THE
ECONOMY OF JACKSON COUNTY.  FOR EIGHT YEARS AFTER CONGRESS HAD DIRECTED
ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM, THOSE SPECIALLY ENTRUSTED WITH THE
INTRICACIES OF INDIAN LAW DID NOT CALL JACKSON COUNTY'S ACTION INTO
QUESTION.  WHATEVER MAY BE HER UNFORTUNATE DUTY TO RESTORE THE TAXES
WHICH SHE HAD EVERY PRACTICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR COLLECTING AT THE TIME,
NO CLAIM OF FAIRNESS CALLS UPON HER ALSO TO PAY INTEREST FOR THE USE OF
THE MONEY WHICH SHE COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN WAS NOT PROPERLY HERS. 

SUCH IS THIS COURT'S DOCTRINE REGARDING THE IMPOSITION OF INTEREST IN
CASES WHERE THIS COURT HAS FASHIONED ITS OWN DOCTRINE.  IF IT BE SAID
THAT THE DEFAULT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED AGAINST ITS
INDIAN WARDS, A CHOICE HAS TO BE MADE BETWEEN EQUALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS
OF OFFICIAL NEGLECT FROM 1918 UNTIL 1936 IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
INDIAN LAW.  THE LOSS OF INTEREST TO THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF THE
CONDUCT OF ITS OFFICIALS IN THE SANBORN AND BILLINGS CASES, SUPRA, HAD
TO BE BORNE BY THE INNOCENT PUBLIC.  WE THINK AS TO INTEREST HERE, THE
LOSS SHOULD REMAIN WHERE IT HAS FALLEN.  IF THEREBY INDIANS ARE OUT OF
POCKET, THEY SHOULD NOT BE MADE WHOLE BY PUTTING JACKSON COUNTY
UNFAIRLY OUT OF POCKET.  THE APPEAL FOR RELIEF MUST BE MADE ELSEWHERE. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST ACCORDINGLY BE MODIFIED, AND THE CASE IS
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION. 
JUDGMENT MODIFIED. 

FN1  THIS CASE HAS SINCE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE SAME COURT IN UNITED
STATES V. LEWIS COUNTY, IDAHO, 95 F.2D 236, AND GLACIER COUNTY, MONT.,
V. UNITED STATES, 99 F.2D 733. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BLACK. 

CONGRESS HAS TRADITIONALLY TREATED THE INDIAN WARDS OF THE NATION
WITH PARTICULAR SOLICITUDE, FN1  BUT HAS ALSO GRADUALLY EVOLVED A
POLICY LOOKING TO THEIR EVENTUAL ABSORPTION INTO THE GENERAL BODY OF
CITIZENRY.  FN2  THIS POLICY HAS PROGRESSIVELY SUBJECTED INDIANS TO THE
LAWS UNDER WHICH ALL OTHER CITIZENS MUST LIVE IN THE INDIANS' STATES OF
RESIDENCE, IF NOT IN CONFLICT WITH SPECIFIC PROTECTIVE MEASURES OF
CONGRESS.  FN3  HERE, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY AUTHORITY,
CONGRESS BY TREATY EXEMPTED THE LANDS OF THE POTTAWATOMIES FROM
TAXATION.  IT COULD HAVE BY STIPULATION GRANTED THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT TO
RECOVER INTEREST ON ANY TAXES COLLECTED IN VIOLATION OF THE EXEMPTION;
BUT IT DID NOT.  THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO STIPULATE THAT A STATE - AS
HERE - MUST PAY INTEREST TO AN INDIAN WHEN THE STATE LAW PERMITS
INTEREST TO NO ONE,  FN4  IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL
POLICY OF STEADILY EXTENDING THE OPERATION OF THE STATES' LAWS OVER
THEIR RESIDENT INDIANS.  CONGRESS - WITH EXCLUSIVE PLENARY POWER TO
LEGISLATE CONCERNING THE INDIANS - HAS NOT PROVIDED FOR RECOVERY OF
INTEREST FROM KANSAS, AND THE COURTS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
CREATE THE RIGHT. 

THAT CONGRESS CONTENTED ITSELF WITH THE CREATION OF THE RIGHT TO BE
FREE FROM TAXATION - AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A RIGHT TO INTEREST IN A
SUIT FOR REFUND - IS EMPHASIZED BY THE CONCLUSION WHICH WOULD BE
INESCAPABLE WERE THIS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR VIOLATION OF
THE EXEMPTION HERE CONCEDED TO BE BINDING ON IT.  FN5  WITHOUT MORE,
FN6  CONGRESS WOULD THEN - EVEN ON THE BASIS OF THIS CONCESSION - BE
DEEMED TO HAVE REFUSED TO CREATE THE SEPARATE RIGHT TO RECOVER
INTEREST.  FN7 

BECAUSE THE LAWS OF KANSAS DENY INTEREST ON TAX REFUNDS, I CONCUR IN
THE MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW.  FN8 

FN1  LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK, 187 U.S. 553, 564-6, 568; UNITED STATES
V. PELICAN, 232 U.S. 442, 450. 

FN2  CHIPPEWA INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 1, 4; SEE STUART V.
UNITED STATES, 18 WALL.  84, 87; MATTER OF HEFF, 197 U.S. 488, 497-503;
LANE V. MICKADIET, 241 U.S. 201, 210; DICKSON V. LUCK LAND CO., 242
U.S. 371, 375; MCCURDY V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 263, 269. 

FN3  SEE MATTER OF HEFF, SUPRA; LA MOTTE V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S.
570, 579, 580; SPERRY OIL CO. V. CHISHOLM, 264 U.S. 488, 498; LARKIN V.
PAUGH, 276 U.S. 431, 438-9; UNITED STATES V. MCGOWAN, 302 U.S. 535,
539. 

FN4  JACKSON COUNTY V. KAUL, 77 KAN. 717; 96 P. 45. 

FN5  THE GOVERNMENT BASES ITS CONCESSION ON CHOATE V. TRAPP, 224 U.S.
665.  BUT SEE THE CHEROKEE TOBACCO, 11 WALL.  616; WARD V. RACE HORSE,
163 U.S. 504, 511; LONE WOLF V. HITCHCOCK, SUPRA, 566. 

FN6  CF. 26 U.S.C. 1671(A). 

FN7  ANGARICA V. BAYARD, 127 U.S. 251, 260; UNITED STATES V. NORTH
AMERICAN CO., 253 U.S. 330, 336; SMYTHE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 329,
353.  CF. UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211. 

FN8  CF. ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :























GRIFFITHS V. COMMISSIONER, 308 U.S. 355 


NO. 49.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1939.  - 103
F.2D 110, AFFIRMED. 


A TAXPAYER CANNOT ESCAPE OR POSTPONE THE INCOME TAX ON THE PROFIT
DERIVED FROM A SALE OF HIS STOCK BY INTERPOSING AS VENDOR IN THE
TRANSACTION A CORPORATION FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE AND WHOLLY CONTROLLED
BY HIMSELF, WHICH, IN FORM, RECEIVES FROM HIM A CONVEYANCE OF THE
SHARES, TRANSFERS THEM TO THE PURCHASER, RECEIVES THE PURCHASER'S MONEY
AND AGREES TO PAY IT OVER TO THE TAXPAYER IN ANNUAL INSTALMENTS.  P.
357. 

GRIFFITHS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 531, TO REVIEW A DECISION WHICH REVERSED AN
ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 37 B.T.A. 314, OVERRULING A
DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, 103 F.2D 110, REVERSING AN ORDER OF THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS, 37 B. T.A. 314, WHICH HAD OVERRULED A DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE IN PETITIONER'S
INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1933.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, POST, P. 531,
BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW AND THAT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN SMITH V.
HIGGINS, 102 F.2D 456; POST, P. 473. 

THE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED, AND, FOR PURPOSES OF OUR DECISION, MAY BE
THUS ABRIDGED:  IN 1926 GRIFFITHS, THE PETITIONER, PAID ONE LAY
$100,000 FOR SOME STOCK.  THE INVESTMENT WAS UNPROFITABLE, AND THE
UPSHOT OF A COMPLICATED SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS WAS ALLOWANCE TO
GRIFFITHS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS OF $92,500 FOR THE
YEAR 1931 RESULTING FROM A SALE OF THE STOCK BY GRIFFITHS TO A FAMILY
CORPORATION.  THEREAFTER, IN 1932, GRIFFITHS GOT WIND OF THE FACT THAT
LAY HAD DEFRAUDED HIM IN THE 1926 SALE.  NEGOTIATIONS WERE BEGUN FOR A
SETTLEMENT OF GRIFFITHS' CLAIM AGAINST LAY, AND BY JANUARY 1933,
GRIFFITHS' LAWYER HAD DEVISED AN ARRANGEMENT FOR SUCH A SETTLEMENT. 
THE GIST OF THE ARRANGEMENT WAS THIS:  GRIFFITHS WAS TO RE-ACQUIRE THE
SHARES, CONVEY THEM TO A CORPORATION NEWLY CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FURTHERING THE SCHEME AND WHOLLY CONTROLLED BY GRIFFITHS, WHICH IN TURN
WAS TO TRANSFER THE STOCK BACK TO LAY FOR $100,000 TO BE PAID BY HIM,
AND THAT SUM WAS TO BE PAID OVER BY THE CORPORATION TO GRIFFITHS IN
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS FOR FORTY YEARS, WITH INTEREST ON THE DEFERRED
PAYMENTS.  FN1  THE ESSENTIALS OF THIS SCHEME WERE CARRIED OUT.  ITS
PURPOSE - TO DISGUISE BY INTERVENING ELABORATIONS WHAT IN FACT WAS A
RESCISSION OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE BY GRIFFITHS FOR $100,000 - WAS
MADE MORE MANIFEST BY THESE FACTS:  GRIFFITHS PERSONALLY RE-ACQUIRED
AND TRANSFERRED THE SHARES TO LAY WITHOUT REVEALING THE EXISTENCE OF
THE NEW CORPORATION, GAVE LAY A PERSONAL RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST
HIM, AND PERSONALLY RECEIVED FROM LAY THE $100,000 WHICH HE THEN TURNED
OVER TO THE CORPORATION. 

ON THESE FINDINGS THE COMMISSIONER RULED THAT GRIFFITHS, HAVING BEEN
ALLOWED A DEDUCTION FOR LOSS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STOCK PURCHASED FROM
LAY AND HAVING NOW RECOUPED THAT LOSS THROUGH SETTLEMENT OF HIS CLAIM
AGAINST LAY, WAS SUBJECT TO TAX FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE SETTLEMENT IN
1933.  WE THINK THE COMMISSIONER WAS RIGHT, AND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS PROPERLY REVERSED THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 

THE FACTS LEAVE LITTLE SCOPE FOR LEGAL EXPLICATION.  GRIFFITHS HAD A
CLAIM FOR FRAUD AGAINST LAY WHICH, WHEN SATISFIED, WIPED OUT THE LOSS
FOR WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED AN EARLIER DEDUCTION.  HAD SATISFACTION OF
THE CLAIM COME TO HIM WITHOUT ANY CONDUIT, IT WOULD HAVE INDISPUTABLY
BEEN HIS INCOME.  THE CLAIM HAVING BEEN RECOGNIZED BY LAY AND CAST INTO
A FORM REALIZABLE BY GRIFFITHS, A LAWYER'S INGENUITY DEVISED A
TECHNICALLY ELEGANT ARRANGEMENT WHEREBY AN INTRICATE OUTWARD APPEARANCE
WAS GIVEN TO THE SIMPLE SALE FROM GRIFFITHS TO LAY AND THE PASSAGE OF
MONEY FROM LAY TO GRIFFITHS.  THAT WAS THE CRUX OF THE BUSINESS TO
GRIFFITHS, AND THAT IS THE CRUX OF THE BUSINESS TO US. 

WE CANNOT TOO OFTEN REITERATE THAT "TAXATION IS NOT SO MUCH CONCERNED
WITH THE REFINEMENTS OF TITLE AS IT IS WITH ACTUAL COMMAND OVER THE
PROPERTY TAXED - THE ACTUAL BENEFIT FOR WHICH THE TAX IS PAID." 
CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376, 378.  AND IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT
SUCH "COMMAND" MAY BE EXERCISED THROUGH SPECIFIC RETENTION OF LEGAL
TITLE OR THE CREATION OF A NEW EQUITABLE BUT CONTROLLED INTEREST, OR
THE MAINTENANCE OF EFFECTIVE BENEFIT THROUGH THE INTERPOSITION OF A
SUBSERVIENT AGENCY.  CF. GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465.  "A GIVEN
RESULT AT THE END OF A STRAIGHT PATH," THIS COURT SAID IN MINNESOTA TEA
CO. V. HELVERING, 302 U.S. 609, 613, "IS NOT MADE A DIFFERENT RESULT
BECAUSE REACHED BY FOLLOWING A DEVIOUS PATH."  LEGISLATIVE WORDS ARE
NOT INERT, AND DERIVE VITALITY FROM THE OBVIOUS PURPOSES AT WHICH THEY
ARE AIMED, PARTICULARLY IN THE PROVISIONS OF A TAX LAW LIKE THOSE
GOVERNING INSTALLMENT SALES IN SEC. 44 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932. 
TAXES CANNOT BE ESCAPED "BY ANTICIPATORY ARRANGEMENTS AND CONTRACTS
HOWEVER SKILFULLY DEVISED  ...  BY WHICH THE FRUITS ARE ATTRIBUTED TO A
DIFFERENT TREE FROM THAT ON WHICH THEY GREW."  LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S.
111, 115.  WHAT LAY GAVE, GRIFFITHS IN REALITY GOT, AND ON THAT HE MUST
BE TAXED. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  OF THE TOTAL SUM PAID, $15,000 WAS TO BE APPLIED BY THE
CORPORATION IN PAYMENT OF A PERSONAL INDEBTEDNESS OWED BY GRIFFITHS. 
THIS SUM, OF COURSE, WAS CLEARLY INCOME TO PETITIONER.  THE REMAINDER
WAS TO BE PAID IN INSTALLMENTS BY THE CORPORATION TO GRIFFITHS. 
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THESE INSTALLMENTS ALONE ARE TAXABLE TO HIM AS
THEY ARE PAID, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169. 
..END :













BUCKSTAFF CO. V. MCKINLEY, 308 U.S. 358 


NO. 201.  SUBMITTED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1939.  -
198 ARK. 91 - 127 S.W.2D 802, AFFIRMED. 


AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION, ORGANIZED FOR PROFIT AND HAVING ITS ONLY
PLACE OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT RESERVATION KNOWN AS HOT
SPRINGS NATIONAL PARK, MAINTAINED AND OPERATED, UNDER A LONG TERM LEASE
FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, A BATH HOUSE, WHICH IT ERECTED AND
EQUIPPED.  THE OPERATION AND USE OF THE BATH HOUSE FACILITIES WERE
SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. 
THE CORPORATION HAD MORE THAN EIGHT PERSONS IN ITS EMPLOY.  HELD: 

1.  THE CORPORATION WAS NOT AN "INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY ACT; AND WAS NOT,
UNDER SEC. 907, EXEMPT FROM THE TAX IMPOSED BY THAT ACT.  P. 362. 

2.  THE CORPORATION WAS SUBJECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE ARKANSAS
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW - A LAW RECIPROCAL TO, AND INTEGRATED
WITH, THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  P. 363. 

3.  THAT ARKANSAS WAS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS TO IMPOSE THE TAX IS
IMPLIED FROM THE FACT THAT THE CORPORATION IS SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL
TAX AND FROM THE DESIGN OF THE FEDERAL ACT TO PROVIDE A COOPERATIVE
SYSTEM OF STATE AND FEDERAL TAXATION FOR SOCIAL SECURITY, IN WHICH THE
STATES WERE IN EFFECT INVITED TO TAX THE SAME CLASSES OF EMPLOYERS AS
ARE TAXED UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT.  P. 364. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECLARATION TO THE CONTRARY, IT IS A FAIR
PRESUMPTION SEMBLE THAT THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WAS TO HAVE THE STATE
LAW CLOSELY COTERMINOUS WITH ITS OWN. 

4. THE AUTHORITY OF ARKANSAS TO IMPOSE THE TAX IN QUESTION IS MERELY
AN EXTENSION OF THE POWER TO TAX AS PERSONAL PROPERTY ALL STRUCTURES
AND OTHER PROPERTY IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ON THE RESERVATION, CONFERRED
BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891.  PP. 364-365. 

BUCKSTAFF BATH HOUSE CO. V. MCKINLEY, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR OF ARKANSAS, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 508, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT OF A DECREE OF THE LOWER STATE COURT WHICH SUSTAINED A
DEMURRER TO AND DISMISSED A BILL TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF A TAX
IMPOSED UNDER THE ARKANSAS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

EXCISE TAX, EQUAL TO SPECIFIED PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL WAGES PAID, ON
"EVERY EMPLOYER" OF EIGHT OR MORE PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR
"EMPLOYMENT."  BY SEC. 902 THE TAXPAYER MAY CREDIT AGAINST THIS TAX THE
AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS PAID BY HIM INTO AN UNEMPLOYMENT FUND UNDER A
STATE LAW, SUCH CREDIT HOWEVER NOT TO EXCEED 90 PERCENT OF THE TAX AND
TO BE ALLOWED ONLY FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MADE UNDER THE LAWS OF STATES
APPROVED AND CERTIFIED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE STANDARDS PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 903.  BY SEC. 907 THE TERM
"EMPLOYMENT" IS DEFINED TO MEAN "ANY SERVICE, OF WHATEVER NATURE,
PERFORMED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR HIS EMPLOYER"
EXCEPT, INTER ALIA, SERVICE PERFORMED "IN THE EMPLOY OF THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT OR OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES." 

PETITIONER IS AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION, ORGANIZED FOR PROFIT AND WITH
ITS ONLY PLACE OF BUSINESS SITUATED ON THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
RESERVATION KNOWN AS HOT SPRINGS NATIONAL PARK.  IT OPERATES A BATH
HOUSE, WHICH IT ERECTED AND EQUIPPED, UNDER A LONG TERM LEASE FROM THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  BY THE TERMS OF THAT LEASE THE OPERATION
AND USE OF THE BATH HOUSE FACILITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONTROL BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WHICH IN THE MAIN RELATE TO THE NUMBER
OF BATH TUBS WHICH MAY BE USED, THE CHARGES TO THE PUBLIC, THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF EMPLOYEES, THE MAINTENANCE AND CARE OF THE PREMISES,
A PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF AGENTS TO SOLICIT PATRONAGE, AND CONTROL
OVER AN ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF THE LEASE OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN. 

RESPONDENTS ARE OFFICIALS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS CHARGED WITH THE
DUTY OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW,  FN1
AN ACT RECIPROCAL TO, AND INTEGRATED WITH, THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 
FN2  PURSUANT TO THAT ACT RESPONDENTS SOUGHT TO COLLECT FROM PETITIONER
AS AN EMPLOYER THE REQUIRED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1937. 
PETITIONER PAID INTO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES THE TAX REQUIRED
BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT FOR THAT PERIOD.  BUT IT REFUSED TO PAY THE
STATE TAX AND SUED IN THE STATE COURT TO ENJOIN ITS COLLECTION ON THE
GROUNDS, INTER ALIA, THAT IT IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THAT CERTAIN ACTS OF CONGRESS AND STATUTES OF ARKANSAS EXEMPT IT
FROM SUCH TAXATION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED A DECREE
SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO THE BILL AND DISMISSING IT, ON THE GROUNDS
THAT THE ARKANSAS STATUTE WAS APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER AND THAT, ON
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACTS IN QUESTION, PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE THE
CLAIMED IMMUNITY.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE THAT DECISION WAS
ASSERTED TO BE REPUGNANT TO THE ACTS VESTING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
OVER THE HOT SPRINGS RESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION HERE, AS BELOW, IS BASED PRIMARILY ON THE ACT
OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 3, 1891(26 STAT. 842) WHEREBY THE CONSENT OF THE
UNITED STATES WAS GIVEN "FOR THE TAXATION, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPLICABLE TO THE EQUAL TAXATION OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY IN THAT STATE, AS PERSONAL PROPERTY, OF ALL
STRUCTURES AND OTHER PROPERTY IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ON THE HOT SPRINGS
RESERVATION."  FN3  PETITIONER POINTS OUT THAT THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AGAINST WHICH APPROPRIATE CREDITS MAY BE MADE FOR
CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER STATE LAWS IS LAID, AS STATED BY THIS COURT IN
STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 578, "AS A DUTY, AN IMPOST
OR AN EXCISE UPON THE RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT"; AND THAT AS HELD BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS THE TAX IN QUESTION IS "NOT A TAX ON PERSONAL
PROPERTY; NOR IS IT, IN ANY SENSE, A PROPERTY TAX."  THEREFORE,
PETITIONER CONCLUDES THAT THE UNITED STATES DID NOT CONFER ON THE STATE
OF ARKANSAS THE POWER TO IMPOSE SUCH A TAX BUT RETAINS ITS SOVEREIGN
JURISDICTION IN THAT REGARD SINCE THE POWER OF ARKANSAS TO TAX WAS
LIMITED TO THE ENUMERATED PROPERTY TAXES. 

WE AGREE WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS THAT THE STATE HAD
JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE THE TAX IN QUESTION. 

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION BUT THAT PETITIONER IS LIABLE FOR THE TAX
LEVIED BY SEC. 901 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, UNLESS IT IS EXEMPTED BY
THAT PORTION OF SEC. 907 WHICH RELIEVES "AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
UNITED STATES" FROM THAT DUTY.  BUT IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT PETITIONER IS
NOT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, SUCH AN
INSTRUMENTALITY.  THE MERE FACT THAT A PRIVATE CORPORATION CONDUCTS ITS
BUSINESS UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE IT AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE LATTER.  FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
240 U.S. 319.  PETITIONER'S LEASE FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
DID NOT CONVERT IT INTO SUCH AN INSTRUMENTALITY.  PETITIONER "IS
ENGAGED IN ITS OWN BEHALF, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S, IN THE CONDUCT OF A
PRIVATE BUSINESS FOR PROFIT."  SEE FEDERAL COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. V.
MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17, 23.  THOUGH IT ACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S
PERMISSION AND HAS RECEIVED A PRIVILEGE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, IT DOES
NOT EXERCISE THAT PRIVILEGE ON BEHALF OF THE LATTER.  SEE BROAD RIVER
POWER CO. V. QUERY, 288 U.S. 178, 180.  THE CONTROL RESERVED BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR PROTECTION OF A GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM AND THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RETENTION OF THE STATUS OF A
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.  SEE FEDERAL COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. V. MCLEAN,
SUPRA.  THAT CONTROL, BEING WHOLLY SUPERVISORY, IS NOT TO BE
DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE TYPE OF CONTROL WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY
RESERVE OVER ANY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WITHOUT TRANSFORMING HIM INTO
ITS INSTRUMENTALITY.  SEE JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134,
149.  IN EFFECT, PETITIONER CONCEDES THE POINT BY ADMITTING ITS
LIABILITY UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 

THAT PETITIONER IS SUBJECT TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT IS EXTREMELY
RELEVANT TO THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM AT HAND.  FOR THAT ACT LAID THE
FOUNDATION FOR A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE NATION
TO MEET A GRAVE EMERGENCY PROBLEM.  AS POINTED OUT BY THIS COURT IN
STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA, P. 588, THAT ACT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO
FIND A METHOD BY WHICH THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD
"WORK TOGETHER TO A COMMON END."  PRIOR THERETO MANY STATES HAD "HELD
BACK THROUGH ALARM LEST, IN LAYING SUCH A TOLL UPON THEIR INDUSTRIES,
THEY WOULD PLACE THEMSELVES IN A POSITION OF ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE AS
COMPARED WITH NEIGHBORS OR COMPETITORS," ID., P. 588.  THE ACT WAS
DESIGNED THEREFORE TO OPERATE IN A DUAL FASHION - STATE LAWS WERE TO BE
INTEGRATED WITH THE FEDERAL ACT; PAYMENTS UNDER STATE LAWS COULD BE
CREDITED AGAINST LIABILITIES UNDER THE OTHER.  THAT IT WAS DESIGNED SO
AS TO BRING THE STATES INTO THE COOPERATIVE VENTURE IS CLEAR.  THE FACT
THAT IT WOULD OPERATE THOUGH THE STATES DID NOT COME IN DOES NOT ALTER
THE FACT THAT THERE WERE GREAT PRACTICAL INDUCEMENTS FOR THE STATES TO
BECOME COMPONENTS OF A UNITARY PLAN FOR UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.  IT IS
THIS INVITATION BY THE CONGRESS TO THE STATES WHICH IS OF IMPORTANCE TO
THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  FOR CERTAINLY, UNDER THE COORDINATED SCHEME
WHICH THE ACT VISUALIZES, WHEN CONGRESS BROUGHT WITHIN ITS SCOPE
VARIOUS CLASSES OF EMPLOYERS IT IN PRACTICAL EFFECT INVITED THE STATES
TO TAX THE SAME CLASSES.  HENCE, IF THERE WERE ANY DOUBT AS TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATES TO TAX ANY OF THOSE CLASSES IT MIGHT WELL BE
REMOVED BY THAT INVITATION, FOR IN ABSENCE OF A DECLARATION TO THE
CONTRARY, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE A FAIR PRESUMPTION THAT THE PURPOSE OF
CONGRESS WAS TO HAVE THE STATE LAW AS CLOSELY COTERMINOUS AS POSSIBLE
WITH ITS OWN.  TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WAS NOT, THE HOPES FOR A
COORDINATED AND INTEGRATED DUAL SYSTEM WOULD NOT MATERIALIZE. 

HENCE, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, CONGRESS HAS
GIVEN ARKANSAS IMPLIED AUTHORITY TO TAX PETITIONER UNDER ITS
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW SINCE THE CONGRESS HAS INCLUDED UNDER THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT EMPLOYERS SUCH AS PETITIONER.  CLEAR EVIDENCE OF A
CONTRARY INTENTION WOULD, OF COURSE, NEGATIVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE
IMPLIED AUTHORITY.  BUT HERE THERE IS NONE.  THAT CONCLUSION IS
STRENGTHENED BY THE EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF EMPLOYERS FROM THE
SWEEP OF THE FEDERAL ACT.  THUS, THE EXCLUSION OF FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES FROM THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL ACT, AND HENCE FROM THE
COMPLEMENTARY STATE SYSTEMS, EMPHASIZES THE PURPOSE TO EXCLUDE FROM
THIS STATUTORY SYSTEM ONLY THAT WELL DEFINED AND WELL KNOWN CLASS OF
EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE LONG ENJOYED IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION.  HAD IT
BEEN DESIRED TO EXEMPT THE EQUALLY WELL KNOWN CLASS, OF WHICH
PETITIONER IS A MEMBER, SO AS TO SAVE IT FROM RECIPROCAL STATE SYSTEMS,
IT WOULD SEEM THAT AN EQUALLY CLEAR EXCEPTION WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. 

WHETHER THE SAME RESULT WOULD FOLLOW IN CASE THE CESSION ACT HAD
ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN A STATE TO IMPOSE ANY TAX ON PETITIONER WE NEED
NOT DECIDE.  FOR HERE ARKANSAS DID HAVE A PRIOR EXPRESS POWER TO TAX
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.  THE IMPLIED AUTHORITY WHICH WE HERE FIND TO
EXIST IS THEREFORE USED NOT TO OVERRIDE AN EARLIER EXPRESS AUTHORITY
BUT MERELY TO EXTEND IT TO A DEGREE.  FOR IN FINAL ANALYSIS THE
ARKANSAS TAX DOES HAVE SOME RELATION TO THE USE OF PETITIONER'S
PROPERTY.  THE EXISTENCE OF THE IMPLIED AUTHORITY DOES NOT THEREFORE DO
VIOLENCE TO THE EARLIER STATUTORY GRANT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT NO. 155, APPROVED FEBRUARY 26, 1937; POPE'S DIGEST, SECS.
8549 ET SEQ. 

FN2  THE ARKANSAS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW WAS CERTIFIED AND
APPROVED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD UNDER SEC. 903 ON MARCH 9, 1937. 
SEE THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, 1938, P. 175. 

FN3  THE CESSION ACT OF ARKANSAS WAS ACT NO. 30, APPROVED FEBRUARY
21, 1903.  IT "CEDED AND GRANTED" TO THE UNITED STATES "EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION" OVER THE AREA IN QUESTION "TO BE EXERCISED SO LONG AS THE
SAME SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES; PROVIDED, THAT
THIS GRANT OF JURISDICTION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE EXECUTION OF ANY
PROCESS OF THE STATE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, ON ANY PERSON WHO MAY BE ON
SUCH RESERVATION OR PREMISES; PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT THE RIGHT TO TAX
ALL STRUCTURES AND OTHER PROPERTY IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ON THE HOT
SPRINGS RESERVATION ACCORDED THE STATE BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED
MARCH 3, 1901, IS HEREBY RESERVED TO THE STATE OF ARKANSAS."  THIS
CESSION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF APRIL 20, 1904(33 STAT.
187).  AS TO ARKANSAS' ASSERTED RIGHT TO TAX PROPERTY IN THE
RESERVATION PRIOR TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 3, 1891, SEE EX PARTE
GAINES, 56 ARK. 227. 

FOR EARLIER ACTS OF CONGRESS DEALING WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED
STATES TO THE HOT SPRINGS RESERVATION SEE 4 STAT. 505; 20 STAT. 258. 
THE EARLY HISTORY OF CONFLICTING CLAIMS TO THESE HOT SPRINGS IS
REVIEWED IN THE HOT SPRINGS CASES, 92 U.S. 698.  SEE ALSO ARLINGTON
HOTEL CO. V. FANT, 278 U.S. 439. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF
MARCH 3, 1891(26 STAT. 842) IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES CONSENTED "FOR
THE TAXATION  ...  AS PERSONAL PROPERTY, OF ALL STRUCTURES AND OTHER
PROPERTY IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ON THE HOT SPRINGS RESERVATION," SHOULD
BE INTERPRETED TO GIVE CONSENT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ARKANSAS
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW.  COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK & CURRY CO.,
304 U.S. 518, 532, 534. 
..END :



















HELIS V. WARD, 308 U.S. 365 


NO. 68.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 18, 1939.  - 102
F.2D 519, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A SUIT IN EQUITY FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT TO
PURCHASE AN OIL LEASE, THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER A GREATER SUM THAN HAD
BEEN PAID WAS DUE, AND THE DECISIVE QUESTION WAS WHETHER A PARTICULAR
WELL WOULD PRODUCE 3,000 BARRELS OF OIL PER DAY.  AN UMPIRE'S REPORT,
BASED ON TESTS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT, AND ADMITTED IN
EVIDENCE WITHOUT OBJECTION, SHOWED THAT THE WELL WOULD NOT PRODUCE THAT
QUANTITY OF OIL THROUGH A 3/8 INCH CHOKE, BUT WOULD PRODUCE IN EXCESS
OF THAT QUANTITY ON OPEN FLOW.  INTERPRETING THE CONTRACT TO MEAN THAT
THE TEST WAS AS TO THE QUANTITY THE WELL WOULD PRODUCE THROUGH A 3/8
INCH CHOKE, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, INTERPRETING THE CONTRACT TO MEAN THAT THE
TEST WAS WHAT THE WELL WOULD PRODUCE ON OPEN FLOW, REVERSED THE
DISTRICT COURT AND DIRECTED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  HELD,
THAT THE FAILURE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REMAND THE CASE FOR
A NEW TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE THE DEFENDANT OF HIS DAY IN COURT IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  SAUNDERS V. SHAW, 244 U.S. 317,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 369. 

2.  THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED HERE TO URGE THAT A NEW TRIAL
SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ORDER THAT HE MAY ATTACK THE COMPETENCY AND
ACCURACY OF THE UMPIRE'S REPORT, WHEN THAT POINT WAS NOT A GROUND
EITHER OF HIS PETITION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR REHEARING OR
OF HIS PETITION HERE FOR CERTIORARI.  P. 369. 

3.  REVIEW BY CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT IS CONFINED TO THE GROUNDS
UPON WHICH THE WRIT WAS SOUGHT OR GRANTED.  P. 370. 

HELIS V. WARD, EXECUTRIX, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 537, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 20
F.SUPP.  514, DISMISSING A SUIT UPON A CONTRACT. 

WHEN A LITIGANT OBJECTS TO THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AND THE
OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED HE MAY RELY UPON SUCH RULING.  HE NEED NOT
INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE A POINT WHICH THE TRIAL COURT UPON HIS
OBJECTION HAS RULED TO BE IRRELEVANT AND NOT INVOLVED IN THE
LITIGATION.  A LITIGANT IS DEPRIVED OF HIS DAY IN COURT AND OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW WHEN A COURT, EITHER TRIAL OR APPELLATE, DECIDES A CASE
AGAINST HIM UPON A POINT WHICH HE HAS NOT TRIED BECAUSE OF JUSTIFIABLE
RELIANCE UPON A RULING OF THE TRIAL JUDGE. 

THE REAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE HAS NEVER BEEN LITIGATED.  THE TRIAL
JUDGE EXCLUDED ALL EVIDENCE EXCEPT THAT RELATING TO A PARTICULAR POINT
OR ISSUE, AND THAT POINT OR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE APPELLATE
COURT TO BE IMMATERIAL TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONTROVERSY.  SEE
LUTCHER & MOORE LUMBER CO. V. KNIGHT, 217 U.S. 256, 267; SAUNDERS V.
SHAW, 244 U.S. 317; COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK & CURRY CO., 304 U.S. 518;
UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE DAM & IRRIGATION CO., 184 U.S. 416; WILLING
V. BINENSTOCK, 302 U.S. 272; ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64;
FIFTH THIRD NATIONAL BANK V. JOHNSON, 219 F. 89; COLUMBUS GAS & FUEL
CO. V. CITY OF COLUMBUS, 55 F.2D 56; FAULKS V. SCHRIDER, 90 F.2D 370;
HUGHES V. REED, 46 F.2D 435; WILSON V. SPENCER, 261 F. 357; UNDERWOOD
V. COMMISSIONER, 56 F.2D 67; FINEFROCK V. KENOVA MINE CAR CO., 22 F.2D
627; HAMILTON GAS CO. V. WATTERS, 75 F.2D 176. 

PETITIONER BELIEVES HE HAS AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE AND IS CONFIDENT THAT
A RETRIAL OF THIS CAUSE ON THE THEORY ANNOUNCED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WILL RESULT IN JUDGMENT BEING AGAIN RENDERED IN HIS FAVOR. 

THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLATE COURT FOR RENDERING
JUDGMENT HEREIN IS THE WRITTEN REPORT OF A PETROLEUM ENGINEER AND THE
WRITTEN REPORT OF AN EMPLOYEE OF RESPONDENTS.  NEITHER OF THESE REPORTS
WAS OFFERED AS EVIDENCE UPON THE TRIAL AND THEY ARE IN THE RECORD
BECAUSE CONSTITUTING EXHIBITS ANNEXED TO PETITIONER'S PLEADING.  BOTH
REPORTS WOULD, HOWEVER, HAVE BEEN RELEVANT BECAUSE OF DEALING IN PART
WITH TESTS WHICH THE TRIAL COURT RULED TO BE PROPERLY THE SUBJECT OF
PROOF. 

IF THESE REPORTS HAD BEEN OFFERED IN EVIDENCE AND IF THEIR CONTENTS
HAD BEEN RULED RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES PETITIONER WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT
THEY WERE WORTHLESS IN THAT THE CONCLUSIONS OR OPINIONS EXPRESSED
THEREIN WERE FOUNDED ON ERRORS APPARENT UPON THE FACE OF THE REPORTS. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE A
MINERAL LEASE BROUGHT BY RESPONDENTS, AS VENDORS.  THE CONTRACT PRICE
WAS TO BE DETERMINED PURSUANT TO A FORMULA BASED UPON THE PRODUCTION OF
CERTAIN DESIGNATED WELLS ON THE PROPERTY.  THAT PRICE WAS FIXED AT
$300,000 "IF THE AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION OF SAID WELLS FOR A PERIOD OF
FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER COMPLETION IS LESS THAN 3,000 BARRELS EACH,
CALCULATED ON A 3/8-INCH CHOKE ACCORDING TO THE METHODS USUALLY
EMPLOYED IN GAUGING THE CAPACITY OF OIL WELLS."  IN CASE THE
PRODUCTION, CALCULATED IN THAT MANNER, WAS MORE THAN 3,000 BARRELS PER
DAY, THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS FIXED AT $400,000.  THE TEST WAS TO BE MADE
JOINTLY BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENTS AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF
PETITIONER; AND "IN THE EVENT THEY FAIL TO AGREE ON THE PROPER GAUGE,"
IT WAS PROVIDED THAT "JUDGE HARDIN  ...  WILL APPOINT A REPUTABLE
ENGINEER TO ACT AS UMPIRE." 

THE PARTIES FAILED TO AGREE ON THE PROPER GAUGE AND JUDGE HARDIN
APPOINTED W. L. MASSEY, A PETROLEUM ENGINEER, TO MAKE THE TEST.  FN1
MASSEY CONDUCTED A TEST AND SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REPORT, WHICH WITHOUT
OBJECTION WAS ADMITTED AT THE TRIAL.  THAT REPORT STATED THAT ALTHOUGH
"THE WELL WILL NOT MAKE 3,000 BARRELS PER DAY ON SUCH 3/8-INCH CHOKE,"
IT WAS "CAPABLE OF FLOWING MERCHANTABLE OIL AT A RATE MUCH IN EXCESS OF
3,000 BARRELS OF OIL PER DAY ON AN OPEN FLOW, OR THROUGH ANY CHOKE
LARGER THAN A 5/8-INCH CHOKE."  AT THE TRIAL THERE WAS OTHER TESTIMONY
THAT THE PRODUCTION "THROUGH A 3/8-INCH CHOKE" WAS NOT MORE THAN 3,000
BARRELS A DAY.  THE TRIAL COURT HELD THAT THE CONTRACT MEANT THAT THE
WELL WAS TO BE FLOWED THROUGH A 3/8-INCH CHOKE.  ACCORDINGLY IT
DISMISSED THE BILL, SINCE ON THAT INTERPRETATION IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE
PRODUCTION WAS NOT MORE THAN 3,000 BARRELS A DAY AND SINCE PETITIONER
ALREADY HAD PAID $300,000.  ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HELD THAT THE TEST PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT "WAS NOT TO MEASURE THE
PRODUCTION THROUGH A 3/8-INCH CHOKE, BUT TO CALCULATE ON A 3/8-INCH
CHOKE THE AMOUNT THE WELL WAS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING."  IT THEN TURNED TO
THE RECORD AND ASCERTAINED THAT MASSEY, THE UMPIRE APPOINTED PURSUANT
TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, HAD FOUND THAT BY USING THE 3/8-INCH
CHOKE AS A BASE AND "BUILDING UP THEREFROM BY USING OTHER CHOKES TO
DETERMINE PRESSURES AND CONDITIONS" THE WELL WAS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING
MUCH IN EXCESS OF 3,000 BARRELS OF OIL PER DAY.  SINCE THAT CALCULATION
BY MASSEY WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS'
INTERPRETATION OF THE FORMULA IN THE CONTRACT, THAT COURT CONCLUDED
THAT PETITIONER WAS LIABLE TO PAY THE HIGHER AMOUNT PROVIDED IN THE
CONTRACT, $400,000.  IT ACCORDINGLY REVERSED THE JUDGMENT DIRECTING THE
DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS FOR $100,000, THE
BALANCE DUE UNDER THE CONTRACT, WITH INTEREST.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER A NEW TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
GRANTED, ON THE ASSERTION THAT THE FAILURE TO REMAND FOR A NEW TRIAL
DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF HIS DAY IN COURT IN VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF
SAUNDERS V. SHAW, 244 U.S. 317. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED NO ERROR. 

THE FACT THAT THE CASE WAS TRIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS IS NOT PER SE SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE A REMAND FOR A NEW TRIAL
UNDER THE RULE OF SAUNDERS V. SHAW, SUPRA.  THE PRODUCTION OF THE WELL
WAS TESTED BY THE UMPIRE IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT AND THE
RESULTS OF THAT TEST WERE WITHOUT OBJECTION ADMITTED AT THE TRIAL. 
COMPLETE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR APPLICATION OF THE
FORMULA WAS THUS MADE IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY THE PARTIES IN THEIR
CONTRACT.  TO BE SURE, PETITIONER NOW ASSERTS THAT ON A NEW TRIAL HE
WOULD ATTACK THE COMPETENCY AND ACCURACY OF THE UMPIRE'S REPORT -
MATTERS WHICH WERE IMMATERIAL TO THE ISSUES ON THE TRIAL IN VIEW OF THE
FACT THAT IT WAS NOT CONTESTED THAT NO MORE THAN 3,000 BARRELS OF OIL A
DAY COULD BE PRODUCED THROUGH A 3/8-INCH CHOKE.  BUT THE DIFFICULTY
WITH PETITIONER'S POSITION IS THAT HE HAS NOT PRESERVED THAT POINT.  ON
HIS PETITION FOR REHEARING TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, PETITIONER
DID NOT ASK THAT COURT TO ALLOW HIM A NEW TRIAL IN ORDER TO ATTACK THE
UMPIRE'S REPORT.  FN2  NOR WAS THAT THE GROUND UPON WHICH THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI WAS PREDICATED.  FOR REVIEW BY THIS COURT WAS SOUGHT AND
GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD DECIDED THE
MERITS ON FACTS NOT CONTAINED IN THE RECORD AND ON A THEORY WHICH HAD
NEVER BEEN TRIED BY THE LITIGANTS.  THERE WAS NO INTIMATION IN THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI THAT A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN ORDER TO
AFFORD PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTACK THE COMPETENCY AND ACCURACY
OF THE UMPIRE'S REPORT.  IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THIS COURT CONFINES
ITSELF TO THE GROUND UPON WHICH THE WRIT WAS ASKED OR GRANTED, THE
REVIEW HERE BEING NO BROADER THAN THAT SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER.  CLARK
V. WILLIARD, 294 U.S. 211, 216; HELVERING V. TEX-PENN OIL CO., 300 U.S.
481, 498; WASHINGTON, V. & M. COACH CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 301 U.S. 142, 146.  ACCORDINGLY, PETITIONER CANNOT NOW COMPLAIN
THAT HE HAS NOT HAD HIS DAY IN COURT AND HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF DUE
PROCESS OF LAW CONTRARY TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS
NOT CONCERNED WITH MERE AFTERTHOUGHTS.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  JUDGE HARDIN INSTRUCTED MASSEY:  "YOU ARE REQUESTED TO
DETERMINE, FIRST, THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF THREE-EIGHTS (3/8) CHOKE;
SECOND, BY USING THE THREE-EIGHTS (3/8) CHOKE YOU ARE TO CALCULATE THE
OPEN FLOW CAPACITY OF THE WELL." 

FN2  IN ADDITION TO ATTACKING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, PETITIONER MERELY ASSERTED, "YOUR HONORS
HAVE ERRED IN PREDICATING YOUR OPINION UPON FACTS NOT CONTAINED IN THE
RECORD AND UPON FACTS WHICH ARE DISPROVED BY THE RECORD." 
..END :









WEISS V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 321 


NO. 42.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 13, 14, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1939.  -
103 F.2D 348, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 605 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, THAT
"NO PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER SHALL INTERCEPT ANY
COMMUNICATION AND DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE EXISTENCE, CONTENTS,
SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT, OR MEANING OF SUCH INTERCEPTED
COMMUNICATION TO ANY PERSON," APPLIES TO INTRASTATE AS WELL AS TO
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS (OVER WIRES USED FOR BOTH KINDS),
AND BARS ADMISSION IN TRIALS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED
BY INTERCEPTION OF SUCH INTRASTATE TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS.  P. 329. 

2.  AS CONGRESS HAS POWER, WHEN NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO REGULATE INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS, THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE BE LIMITED SO
AS TO EXCLUDE INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS.  P. 327. 

3.  THE BROAD AND INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND CLAUSE OF SEC.
605, QUOTED SUPRA, IS NOT TO BE LIMITED BY CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO
EXCLUDE INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PROTECTION AGAINST
INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE.  P. 329. 

4.  HELD:  EVIDENCE OF INTERCEPTED INTRASTATE TELEPHONE
COMMUNICATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN RECORDED BY STENOGRAPH AND PHONOGRAPH WAS
INADMISSIBLE IN A TRIAL IN THE FEDERAL COURT; AND IT WAS PREJUDICIAL
ERROR FOR THE COURT TO ADMIT SUCH EVIDENCE EITHER BY PERMITTING THE
PARTIES TO THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, WHO HAD TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE,
TO READ THE STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT, OR BY ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO
PUT THE STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPTS AND PHONOGRAPH RECORDS IN EVIDENCE
UPON IDENTIFICATION BY THE PARTIES TO THE CONVERSATION.  THE DIVULGENCE
OF THE COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE WAS NOT "AUTHORIZED
BY THE SENDER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 605.  PP. 329, 331. 

WEISS ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS AND
SENTENCES OF THE PETITIONERS UPON INDICTMENTS FOR USING THE MAILS TO
DEFRAUD AND FOR CONSPIRACY. 

THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT SHOWS ON ITS FACE THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO
APPLY ONLY TO INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS. 

NOR CAN IT BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS THOUGHT IT NECESSARY TO FORBID
THE DIVULGING OF INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
SECRECY OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS, FOR THERE IS NO
DIFFICULTY IN DEALING WITH EACH TYPE OF COMMUNICATIONS SEPARATELY. 
ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT BE SAID THAT INTERCEPTION OF INTERSTATE MESSAGES
COULD NOT EASILY BE PROHIBITED WITHOUT ALSO FORBIDDING INTERCEPTION OF
INTRASTATE MESSAGES PASSING OVER THE SAME LINES, IT IS CLEAR BOTH FROM
THE LANGUAGE USED AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT SEC. 605 DOES NOT
PROHIBIT INTERCEPTION PER SE BUT ONLY INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGING. 

PETITIONERS URGE THAT EVEN IF SEC. 605 DOES NOT OR CAN NOT FORBID THE
INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGING OF INTRASTATE MESSAGES, NEVERTHELESS THE
POLICY AGAINST WIRE-TAPPING SHOULD BE GIVEN EFFECT BY CONSTRUING THE
SUCH A VIEW EITHER IN THE STATUTE OR IN NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302
U.S. 379.  THAT DECISION MERELY GIVES EFFECT TO AN EXPRESS STATUTORY
PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN DISCLOSURES.  IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE
OPINION THAT THIS COURT REGARDED THE STATUTE AS OPERATING ON THE
FEDERAL OFFICERS WHO WERE TESTIFYING, NOT ON THE TRIAL COURT IN THE
ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE. 

THE NARDONE DECISION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ITS FACTS AND NOT EXTENDED
TO INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS.  NINETY-EIGHT PER CENT. OF ALL TELEPHONE
COMMUNICATION IS INTRASTATE, AND SERIOUS PRACTICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL
DIFFICULTIES WILL ARISE IF THE NARDONE DECISION IS EXTENDED TO THIS
WIDE NEW FIELD.  THE IMMUNITY GRANTED BY THE ACT, AS CONSTRUED IN THAT
DECISION, IS BROADER THAN THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT, SINCE NOT EVEN REASONABLE "SEARCHES" ARE PERMISSIBLE.  ALSO,
UNDER THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF SEC. 605, A DEFENDANT MIGHT HAVE SUCH
EVIDENCE EXCLUDED EVEN WHEN OBTAINED BY PRIVATE PERSONS UNCONNECTED
WITH THE GOVERNMENT (CF. BURDEAU V. MCDOWELL, 256 U.S. 465) OR WHERE
THE EVIDENCE WAS SECURED BY INTERCEPTING SOME OTHER PERSON'S MESSAGES
(CF. HALE V. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43; AGNELLO V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S.
20, 35).  IF CONSTITUTIONAL, THE SECTION THUS CONSTRUED WOULD FORBID
EVIDENCE OF INTERCEPTED INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS BY STATE OFFICERS IN
STATE PROSECUTIONS, ALTHOUGH A STATE CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE MAY
SPECIFICALLY MAKE SUCH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE.  SECTION 605 SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED TO AVOID DOUBTS AS TO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY. 

THE CLAUSE PROHIBITS DIVULGING ONLY BY PERSONS "NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE
SENDER."  THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED TO THE TELEPHONE MESSAGES IN THE
TRIAL COURT WERE PARTIES TO THE CONVERSATION.  IT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT
THAT ONE PARTICIPANT IN A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION AUTHORIZES DIVULGENCE
OF THE MESSAGE. 

INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTH OR FIFTH AMENDMENTS.  OLMSTEAD V.
UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, IS CONTROLLING AND SHOULD NOT BE
OVERRULED. 

THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE LAW IN THE PRESENT CASE. 
PEOPLE V. HEBBERD, 96 MISC. 617, 620-621.  EVEN IF THE STATE LAW WERE
VIOLATED, THE EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED UNDER THE COMMON LAW RULE
THAT EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH PROCURED ILLEGALLY, IS, NEVERTHELESS,
ADMISSIBLE. 

SINCE THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WERE INTRODUCED THROUGH THE
TESTIMONY OF PARTIES THERETO, STRICTLY SPEAKING THERE EXISTS IN THE
PRESENT CASE NO QUESTION OF "WIRETAPPING." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED, WITH FIVE OTHERS, IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR USING THE MAILS TO
DEFRAUD AND FOR CONSPIRACY SO TO USE THEM.  FN1  THE ALLEGED SCHEME WAS
TO CHEAT INSURANCE COMPANIES BY INDUCING THEM TO PAY FALSE CLAIMS FOR
DISABILITY, HEALTH, AND ACCIDENT BENEFITS TO THREE OF THE DEFENDANTS,
NELSON, BERGER, AND SPITZ.  THESE THREE PLEADED GUILTY AND TESTIFIED
FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  THREE DEFENDANTS WHO WERE PHYSICIANS, - MESSMAN,
GOLDSTEIN, AND KRUPP - WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE ASSISTED BY FURNISHING
POLICY HOLDERS FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES AND INSTRUCTING THEM HOW TO
SIMULATE ILLNESS.  MESSMAN PLEADED GUILTY AND TESTIFIED FOR THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE OTHER TWO STOOD TRIAL.  TWO LAWYERS, JOSEPH J. WEISS
AND ALFRED L. WEISS, AND AN INVESTIGATOR, GROSS, WERE CHARGED WITH
HAVING FURTHERED THE CLAIMS KNOWING THEM TO BE FALSE.  ALFRED L. WEISS
WAS GRANTED A SEVERANCE; JOSEPH J. WEISS AND GROSS STOOD TRIAL.  EACH
OF THE PETITIONERS WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED.  THE JUDGMENTS WERE
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN2 

THE CONSPIRACY AND SCHEME CHARGED COVERED A PERIOD EXTENDING FROM
JANUARY 15, 1934, TO JULY 30, 1937, THE DATE OF THE INDICTMENT.  THE
PRINCIPAL ISSUE OF FACT WAS WHETHER THE PETITIONERS PARTICIPATED IN
MAKING FALSE CLAIMS WITH GUILTY KNOWLEDGE.  OVER OBJECTION AND
EXCEPTION, THE TRIAL JUDGE ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF SEVENTY-SIX INTERCEPTED
TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS. 

FOR MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FINDING OF THE INDICTMENT TELEPHONE MESSAGES
OVER THE WIRES LEADING INTO THE OFFICES OF WEISS AND MESSMAN IN NEW
YORK CITY, WERE INTERCEPTED.  THE WIRES WERE TAPPED BY A POLICEMAN
ACTING UNDER INSTRUCTIONS OF A UNITED STATES POST OFFICE INSPECTOR. 
THE INTERCEPTED MESSAGES WERE TAKEN STENOGRAPHICALLY AND WERE ALSO
SIMULTANEOUSLY RECORDED ON PHONOGRAPH DISCS BY EMPLOYES OF A DETECTIVE
AGENCY ACTING UNDER THE SAME INSTRUCTIONS.  EACH NIGHT THE RECORDS AND
STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPTS OF COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTED DURING THE DAY
WERE DELIVERED TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE. 
INTERSTATE CALLS WERE MADE FROM WEISS' OFFICE AND THE TAPPED WIRES WERE
THE CONDUITS OF BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS.  EVERY
CALL, WHETHER INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE, TO OR FROM WEISS' OFFICE, WAS
INTERCEPTED AND RECORDED. 

IT APPEARED AT THE TRIAL THAT ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS WHO PLEADED
GUILTY HAD BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE PHONOGRAPHIC RECORDS AND HAD THEN
DECIDED TO PLEAD GUILTY AND BECOME A WITNESS FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 
OTHERS WHO HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION OF THE
RECORDS DID LIKEWISE.  IN THE PREPARATION FOR TRIAL ONE OF THE
DEFENDANTS, WHO WAS TO TESTIFY FOR THE PROSECUTION, HELD A TYPED COPY
OF THE STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IN WHICH HE
HAD PARTICIPATED WHILE A PHONOGRAPHIC RECORD OF THE CONVERSATION WAS
PLAYED TO HIM.  HE CORRECTED THE TYPED MANUSCRIPT TO MAKE IT CONFORM TO
THE WORDS EMITTED FROM THE PHONOGRAPH.  HE THEN MARKED THE PHONOGRAPHIC
RECORD AND THE SCRIPT FOR IDENTIFICATION. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S PROCEDURE AT THE TRIAL IN PROVING THE COMMUNICATIONS
WAS TO CALL AS A WITNESS ONE OF THE DEFENDANTS WHO HAD PLEADED GUILTY,
AND TO HAND HIM A TRANSCRIPT HE HAD MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.  AFTER
HE HAD TESTIFIED THAT, ON A GIVEN DATE, HE HELD A TELEPHONE
CONVERSATION WITH ONE OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, HE WAS ASKED WHETHER HE
COULD REPEAT THE CONVERSATION VERBATIM.  UPON HIS STATING THAT HE COULD
NOT DO SO WITHOUT THE USE OF THE TYPED TRANSCRIPT HE WAS PERMITTED TO
READ IT TO THE JURY.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED THE
IDENTIFIED PHONOGRAPH RECORDS AND TYPEWRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS IN EVIDENCE
AND THEY WERE ADMITTED.  CERTAIN OF THE RECORDS WERE PLAYED TO THE JURY
WHILE EACH JURYMAN HELD A COPY OF THE TYPEWRITTEN TRANSCRIPT OF THE
CONVERSATION.  ALL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS IN QUESTION ARE CONCEDED TO
HAVE BEEN INTRASTATE SAVE ONE WHICH, HOWEVER, WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE
BEEN INTERSTATE. 

THE PETITIONERS' OBJECTIONS TO THE ADMISSION OF THIS EVIDENCE WERE
THAT IT WOULD VIOLATE SEC. 605 OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934; FN3  WOULD VIOLATE THE FOURTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, AND WOULD BE IN THE TEETH OF SEC. 1423, SUBDIVISION 6, OF
THE PENAL LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,  FN4  MAKING WIRE TAPPING A
CRIME. 

BECAUSE OF CONFLICT OF DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL  FN5
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO THE "QUESTION WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT
PROPERLY RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE INTERCEPTED TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS." 
FN6 

IN NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379, IT WAS DECIDED THAT SEC.
605 OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT PROHIBITED THE RECEPTION IN A
FEDERAL COURT OF EVIDENCE OF INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS OBTAINED BY
FEDERAL AGENTS BY TAPPING TELEPHONE WIRES.  THE PETITIONERS ASSERT, AND
THE RESPONDENT DENIES, THAT THE SECTION BARS EVIDENCE OF INTRASTATE
COMMUNICATIONS SIMILARLY OBTAINED.  THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER CLAIMS THAT,
EVEN IF THE SECTION WOULD OTHERWISE BAR THE EVIDENCE, IT DOES NOT HAVE
THAT EFFECT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE OF THE
MESSAGES PUT IN EVIDENCE WERE "AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE SECTION. 

THE SECTION CONSISTS OF FOUR CLAUSES SEPARATED BY SEMICOLONS.  THE
PERTINENT ONE IS THE SECOND: "AND NO PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE
SENDER SHALL INTERCEPT ANY COMMUNICATION AND DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE
EXISTENCE, CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT, OR MEANING OF SUCH
INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION TO ANY PERSON;".  PLAINLY THE INTERDICTION
THUS PRONOUNCED IS NOT LIMITED TO INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMUNICATIONS.  AND, AS CONGRESS HAS POWER, WHEN NECESSARY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO REGULATE INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS,
FN7  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE SCOPE OF THE
STATUTE BE LIMITED SO AS TO EXCLUDE INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS. 

THE PETITIONERS AND THE GOVERNMENT ALIKE REFER TO THE CONTEXT OF THE
CRITICAL CLAUSE, AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT,
THE FORMER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS ARE PROTECTED FROM
INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE, THE LATTER TO PROVE THAT THE LANGUAGE OF
THE ACT MUST BE MORE NARROWLY INTERPRETED TO COVER ONLY INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONERS' VIEW IT IS POINTED OUT THAT EACH
CLAUSE OF SEC. 605 IS COMPLETE IN ITSELF; THAT IN THE FIRST AND THIRD
CLAUSES, WHICH DEAL WITH DIVULGENCE OF MESSAGES BY PERSONS ENGAGED IN
RECEIVING OR TRANSMITTING THEM, THE COMMUNICATIONS ARE SPECIFIED AS
"ANY INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATION," WHEREAS, IN THE SECOND AND
FOURTH CLAUSES, WHICH DEAL WITH INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE OF
COMMUNICATIONS, THE PHRASES USED ARE "ANY COMMUNICATION" AND "SUCH
INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION."  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN
PHRASEOLOGY MUST HAVE SIGNIFICANCE; AND, IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSERTION
THAT THE VARIETY OF EXPRESSION WAS NOT DUE TO INADVERTENCE, THE
PETITIONERS CALL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT SEC. 605 WAS TAKEN OVER
FROM SEC. 27 OF THE RADIO ACT OF 1927,  FN8  WHICH, REFERRING TO RADIO
MESSAGES, USED UNIFORMLY, IN EACH CLAUSE, THE TERM "COMMUNICATION" OR
"MESSAGE" AND NOWHERE QUALIFIED THE DESIGNATION BY THE USE OF THE
PHRASE "IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE." 

THE PETITIONERS FURTHER URGE THAT THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR THE
DISTINCTION IN THE PHRASING OF THE CLAUSES IN SEC. 605 SINCE PERSONS
EMPLOYED BY COMMUNICATION COMPANIES CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN INTERSTATE
AND INTRASTATE MESSAGES WHICH THEY HANDLE, WHEREAS, INASMUCH AS
MESSAGES OF BOTH SORTS PASS INDISCRIMINATELY OVER THE SAME WIRES, THE
INTERCEPTER CANNOT MAKE A SIMILAR DISTINCTION AND THE ONLY PRACTICABLE
WAY TO PROTECT INTERSTATE MESSAGES FROM INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE IS
TO PROHIBIT THE INTERCEPTION OF ALL MESSAGES. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT A READING OF THE WHOLE SECTION MAKES IT
PLAIN THAT TO GIVE THE SECOND CLAUSE THE SCOPE CONTENDED FOR BY THE
PETITIONERS WILL LEAD TO INCONGRUITIES AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE
OPERATION OF THE SECTION.  WE FIND NONE SUCH AS ARE SUFFICIENT TO
COUNTERVAIL WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE SECOND CLAUSE. 

THE GOVERNMENT CORRECTLY ASSERTS THAT THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 WAS TO EXTEND THE JURISDICTION OF THE
EXISTING RADIO COMMISSION TO EMBRACE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
COMMUNICATIONS AS WELL AS THOSE BY RADIO.  WE ARE ASKED TO HOLD THAT IF
CONGRESS HAD INTENDED TO MAKE SO DRASTIC A CHANGE AS TO REGULATE
INTRASTATE AS WELL AS INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION, BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY OF THE ACT AND ITS PHRASEOLOGY WOULD SO INDICATE, WHEREAS THERE
IS NOTHING IN EITHER TO EMPHASIZE ANY SUCH EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.  WE
THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DOES NOT SERVE TO EXPLAIN
THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORDING OF THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF SEC. 605.  IN
MAKING THE ALTERATIONS IN THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE SIMILAR SECTION OF THE
EARLIER ACT THE CONGRESS MUST HAVE HAD SOME PURPOSE.  WE CANNOT
CONCLUDE THAT THE CHANGE IN THE WORDING OF TWO OF THE FOUR CLAUSES OF
THE SECTION WAS INADVERTENT. 

THE GOVERNMENT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE ACT, VIEWED AS A WHOLE,
INDICATES AN INTENT TO REGULATE ONLY INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMUNICATION.  THE TITLE AND SECS. 1 AND 2, WITH A SINGLE EXCEPTION
WHICH SERVES TO EMPHASIZE THE DISTINCTION, EXPRESSLY SO DECLARE.  BUT
WE THINK THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE NOT CONTROLLING IN THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SEC. 605.  THE COMMISSION'S REGULATORY POWERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTIONS HAVE TO DO ONLY WITH INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS. 
BUT SEC. 605 DELEGATES NO FUNCTION AND CONFERS NO POWER UPON THE
COMMISSION.  IT CONSISTS OF PROHIBITIONS, SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATION OF
WHICH ARE FOUND IN SEC. 501.  FN9  WE HOLD THAT THE BROAD AND INCLUSIVE
LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND CLAUSE OF THE SECTION IS NOT TO BE LIMITED BY
CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO EXCLUDE INTRASTATE COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE
PROTECTION AGAINST INTERCEPTION AND DIVULGENCE.    WE COME, THEN, TO
THE GOVERNMENT'S SECOND PROPOSITION, - THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE
INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS WAS "AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CLAUSE.  IT IS TRUE THAT ONE OR BOTH OF THE PARTIES TO
EACH OF THE ADMITTED COMMUNICATIONS ATTESTED IN THE MANNER WE HAVE
INDICATED TO THE INTERCEPTED CONVERSATIONS.  THIS IS SAID TO AMOUNT TO
A CONSENT TO THE DIVULGENCE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND TO SATISFY THE
STATUTE IN THAT RESPECT.  WE THINK THE POSITION IS UNTENABLE.  THE ACT
CONTEMPLATES VOLUNTARY CONSENT AND NOT ENFORCED AGREEMENT TO
PUBLICATION.  THE PARTICIPANTS WERE IGNORANT OF THE INTERCEPTION OF THE
MESSAGES AND DID NOT CONSENT THERETO.  THE CONTENTS OF THE STENOGRAPHIC
TRANSCRIPTS AND PHONOGRAPHIC RECORDS WERE, PRIOR TO THE TRIAL, MADE
AVAILABLE TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS AND UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.  THIS
DIVULGENCE WAS NOT CONSENTED TO BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES TO ANY OF THE
TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DIVULGENCE THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE EMBODIED IN THE
MESSAGES. 

IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT, WHEN SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS PLEADED
GUILTY, ELECTED TO TAKE THE STAND AND TO TESTIFY TO THE CONTENTS OF THE
MESSAGES, THEY GAVE THE AUTHORIZATION CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE.  WE
HAVE ALREADY ADVERTED TO THE METHOD BY WHICH THIS SUPPOSED
AUTHORIZATION WAS OBTAINED.  CERTAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS WHO WERE
PARTICIPANTS IN THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WERE INFORMED OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION OF THE CONTENTS OF THEIR COMMUNICATIONS.  UNDER
THE STRESS OF THIS SITUATION THEY DETERMINED TO TURN STATE'S EVIDENCE. 
MESSMAN'S LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE HAS NOT BEEN REVOKED; HE WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO PLEAD TO THE INDICTMENT; HE WAS PAID A SALARY BY THE
GOVERNMENT, FIRST OF $65.00 PER WEEK AND LATER OF $100.00 PER WEEK,
AMOUNTING, IN THE TOTAL, TO $3,237.12.  NELSON'S SENTENCE WAS
SUSPENDED.  HE WAS PAID A SALARY OF $50.00 PER WEEK.  BERGER'S SENTENCE
WAS SUSPENDED.  SPITZ'S SENTENCE WAS SUSPENDED. 

STATEMENT OF THESE FACTS IS CONVINCING THAT THE SO-CALLED
AUTHORIZATION CONSISTING OF THE AGREEMENT TO TURN STATE'S EVIDENCE, BY
SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS AFTER THEY HAD BEEN APPRIZED OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF
THEIR COMMUNICATIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT'S REPRESENTATIVES, AND IN THE
HOPE OF LENIENCY, WAS NOT THAT INTENDED OR DESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE AND
EMPHASIS THE OFFENSIVE USE WHICH MAY BE MADE OF INTERCEPTED MESSAGES,
WHETHER INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE.  IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO ASSUME THE
INTERDICTION OF THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT SUCH A METHOD OF
PROCURING TESTIMONY. 

WE HOLD THAT SEC. 605 RENDERED THE COMMUNICATIONS INADMISSIBLE, AND
THAT IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO ADMIT THEM EITHER
BY PERMITTING THE DEFENDANTS WHO TURNED STATE'S EVIDENCE TO READ THE
TRANSCRIPTS OR ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO PUT THE TRANSCRIPTS AND
PHONOGRAPHIC RECORDS INTO EVIDENCE UPON IDENTIFICATION BY THE PARTIES
TO THE CONVERSATIONS. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER OR DECIDE THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE
OTHER OBJECTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  UNDER U.S.C. TIT. 18, SECS. 338 AND 88. 

FN2  103 F.2D 348. 

FN3  C. 652, 48 STAT. 1064, 1103; U.S.C. TIT. 47, SEC. 605. 

FN4  THOMPSON'S LAWS OF NEW YORK, 1939, PART I, P. 1909. 

FN5  VALLI V. UNITED STATES, 94 F.2D 687; DIAMOND V. UNITED STATES,
94 F.2D 1012, AND UNREPORTED OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING;
SABLOWSKY V. UNITED STATES, 101 F.2D 183. 

FN6  307 U.S. 621. 

FN7  SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342, 351, 352; UNITED STATES V.
LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70, 75; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 38. 

FN8  ACT OF FEB. 23, 1927, 44 STAT. 1162, 1172. 

FN9  48 STAT. 1100, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 501. 
..END :









FORD MOTOR CO. V. BEAUCHAMP, 308 U.S. 331 


NO. 17.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 17, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1939.  -
100 F.2D 515, AFFIRMED. 


A STATE CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING LOCAL
BUSINESS, MEASURED BY A CHARGE UPON SUCH PROPORTION OF THE OUTSTANDING
CAPITAL STOCK, SURPLUS, AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS OF THE CORPORATION, PLUS
ITS LONG TERM OBLIGATIONS, AS THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM ITS LOCAL
BUSINESS BEAR TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS, HELD
CONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 334. 

THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE LOCAL BUSINESS FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION
WERE APPROXIMATELY $34,000,000; THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS ABOUT
$888,000,000; THE RATIO OF LOCAL TO TOTAL RECEIPTS, 3.85 PER CENT; THE
TOTAL TAXABLE CAPITAL $600,000,000; THE VALUE OF LOCAL ASSETS ABOUT
$3,000,000, WHILE THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ALLOCATED TO THE TAXING
STATE AS A BASE FOR TAXATION BY THE STATUTORY FORMULA WOULD EXCEED
$23,000,000. 

FORD MOTOR CO. V. BEAUCHAMP, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS,
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 628, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE COURT BELOW
OF A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A STATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS PROCEEDING IS THE VALIDITY, AS
APPLIED TO THIS PETITIONER, OF A STATUTE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS LEVYING
AN ANNUAL FRANCHISE TAX ON ALL CORPORATIONS CHARTERED OR AUTHORIZED TO
DO BUSINESS IN TEXAS, MEASURED BY A GRADUATED CHARGE UPON SUCH
PROPORTION OF THE OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK, SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED
PROFITS OF THE CORPORATION, PLUS ITS LONG TERM OBLIGATIONS, AS THE
GROSS RECEIPTS OF ITS TEXAS BUSINESS BEAR TO THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS
FROM ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS  FN1  AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX.  ON ACCOUNT OF AN ALLEGED
PROBABLE CONFLICT WITH THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING CERTAIN DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  FN2  THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF
THE STATUTE APPEAR BELOW.  FN3 

BY ARTICLE 7057B OF THE REVISED CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS ANY
CORPORATION WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY ANY FRANCHISE OR OTHER
PRIVILEGE TAX MAY PAY IT UNDER WRITTEN PROTEST AND BRING SUIT WITHIN A
LIMITED TIME THEREAFTER IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, AGAINST THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH THE DUTY
OF COLLECTING SUCH TAX, THE STATE TREASURER AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
FOR ITS RECOVERY.  THIS SUIT WAS INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES, WESTERN DISTRICT, AUSTIN DIVISION, AGAINST THE STATE
OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE DEFENDANTS.  DEFENDANTS JOINED IN A
DEMURRER ON THE GROUND THAT NO CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SET OUT IN THE
PETITION. 

PETITIONER OWNS AND OPERATES A LARGE MANUFACTORY OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN
MICHIGAN AND ASSEMBLY PLANTS IN TEXAS.  NO PARTS FOR THE AUTOMOBILES
PRODUCED BY PETITIONER ARE MANUFACTURED AT ANY POINT WITHIN TEXAS.  THE
MANUFACTURED PARTS ARE SHIPPED TO PETITIONER'S ASSEMBLY PLANTS IN TEXAS
AND ARE THERE ASSEMBLED.  THE ASSEMBLED VEHICLES ARE SOLD IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE TO VARIOUS DEALERS WHO IN TURN SELL THE VEHICLES TO THE
PUBLIC.  A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF COMPLETED VEHICLES ARE SHIPPED
INTO TEXAS AND LATER SOLD IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE ALONG WITH LARGE
QUANTITIES OF MOTOR PARTS AND ACCESSORIES.  WITHOUT UNDERTAKING TO BE
PRECISE, THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM BUSINESS DONE IN TEXAS FOR THE YEAR IN
QUESTION AMOUNTED TO APPROXIMATELY $34,000,000.  PETITIONER'S TOTAL
GROSS RECEIPTS WERE ABOUT $888,000,000.  THE RATIO OF TEXAS RECEIPTS TO
TOTAL RECEIPTS WAS 3.85  PER CENT.  PETITIONER'S TOTAL TAXABLE CAPITAL
WAS $600,000,000 .  THE VALUE OF ALL ASSETS LOCATED IN TEXAS WAS
SOMEWHAT OVER $3,000,000, WHILE THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ALLOCATED TO
TEXAS AS A BASE FOR TAXATION BY THE STATUTORY FORMULA WOULD BE IN
EXCESS OF $23,000,000. 

FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR BEGINNING MAY 1, 1936, A FRANCHISE TAX WAS
TENDERED TEXAS IN THE SUM OF $1,224, COMPUTED ON THE ACTUAL NET BOOK
VALUE OF ALL OF PETITIONER'S ASSETS IN TEXAS.  ON DEMAND AND UNDER
PROTEST AN ADDITIONAL FRANCHISE TAX AND PENALTY WAS PAID IN THE SUM OF
$7,529, BASED ON THE ALLOCATION TO TEXAS OF CAPITAL AS CALCULATED BY
THE STATUTORY FORMULA.  THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RECOVER THE ALLEGED
UNLAWFUL EXACTION. 

THIS EXACTION, PETITIONER PLEADS, IS CALCULATED FROM A FORMULA THAT
RESULTS IN THE LEVY OF A TAX ON ASSETS USED IN PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE
BUSINESS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT IS
FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE TAX OPERATES TO DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF ITS
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT MUST PAY A TAX ON PROPERTY NEITHER LOCATED NOR
USED WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND ON ACTIVITIES BEYOND THE BORDERS OF
TEXAS. 

THE STATUTE CALLS THE EXCISE A FRANCHISE TAX.  IT IS OBVIOUSLY
PAYMENT FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN TEXAS.  FN4  THERE
IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT THE STATE HAS THE POWER TO MAKE A CHARGE
AGAINST DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN CORPORATIONS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TRANSACT THIS INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  FN5  THE EXPLOITATION BY FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS OF INTRASTATE OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE PROTECTION AND
ENCOURAGEMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFERS A BASIS FOR TAXATION AS
UNRESTRICTED AS THAT FOR DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS.  IN LAYING A LOCAL
PRIVILEGE TAX, THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY MAY PLACE A CHARGE UPON THAT
PRIVILEGE FOR THE PROTECTION AFFORDED.  WHEN THAT CHARGE, AS HERE, IS
BASED UPON THE PROPORTION OF THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN TEXAS, CALCULATED
BY THE PERCENTAGE OF SALES WHICH ARE WITHIN THE STATE, NO PROVISION OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS VIOLATED. 

THE MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE MARKETING OF WHICH THE PRIVILEGE IS USED
ARE CONCEDEDLY SOLD IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  THE TAX HERE LEVIED IS NOT
FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN ANY TRANSACTION ACROSS STATE LINES OR
ACTIVITY CARRIED ON IN ANOTHER STATE.  IT IS MUCH LIKE THAT UPHELD IN
BASS, RATCLIFF & GRETTON V. TAX COMMISSION.  FN6  IN THAT CASE A TAX
WAS LAID FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK DETERMINED,
FOR CORPORATIONS WHICH DID NOT TRANSACT ALL THEIR BUSINESS WITHIN THAT
STATE, BY A PERCENTAGE OF THAT PART OF THE NET INCOME WHICH IS
CALCULATED BY THE PROPORTION WHICH THE AGGREGATE OF SPECIFIED CLASSES
OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE BEARS TO ALL THE PROPERTY OF THE
CORPORATION.  FN7 

IN NATIONAL LEATHER CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS  FN8  THIS COURT UPHELD A
TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN A STATE BY A CORPORATION OF
AN AMOUNT "EQUAL TO FIVE DOLLARS PER THOUSAND UPON THE VALUE OF THE
CORPORATE EXCESS EMPLOYED BY IT WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH."  THIS EXCESS
WAS DEFINED AS "SUCH PROPORTION OF THE FAIR CASH VALUE OF ALL THE
SHARES CONSTITUTING THE CAPITAL STOCK  ...  AS THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS,
BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL, EMPLOYED IN ANY BUSINESS WITHIN THE
COMMONWEALTH  ...  BEARS TO THE VALUE OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF THE
CORPORATION."  THE NATIONAL LEATHER COMPANY, A MAINE CORPORATION, OWNED
THE STOCK OF TWO OTHER MAINE CORPORATIONS.  THEIR PLANTS WERE IN
MASSACHUSETTS.  ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SITUS OF THE STOCK FOLLOWED
THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER, THE TAXPAYER CHALLENGED THE INCLUSION OF THE
MAINE STOCK IN THE BASIS FOR THE LOCAL TAX.  THIS COURT HELD THAT
MASSACHUSETTS WAS FREE TO USE THE STOCK FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE
LOCAL TAX.  SIMILAR METHODS OF DETERMINING PRIVILEGE TAXES WERE LEFT TO
THE STATES IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. SHARTEL  FN9  AND NEW YORK V.
LATROBE.  FN10  THE CONSTITUTION RECOGNIZES THE DUAL INTERESTS OF THE
NATIONAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS AND PERMITS TAXES FOR LOCAL PRIVILEGES
UPON THE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES OF THE FARFLUNG ENTERPRISES WHICH GAIN
LARGE BENEFITS FROM THE NATIONWIDE MARKET, PROTECTED BY THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  WE REJECT PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
STATE TAXATION TURNS ON SO NARROW AN ISSUE AS WHETHER LOCAL ASSETS
RATHER THAN LOCAL GROSS RECEIPTS ARE USED IN A TAXING FORMULA. 

IN A UNITARY ENTERPRISE, PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE STATE, WHEN CORRELATED
IN USE WITH PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE, NECESSARILY AFFECTS THE WORTH OF
THE PRIVILEGE WITHIN THE STATE.  FINANCIAL POWER INHERENT IN THE
POSSESSION OF ASSETS MAY BE APPLIED, WITH FLEXIBILITY, AT WHATEVER
POINT WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE THE MANAGERS OF THE BUSINESS MAY
DETERMINE.  FOR THIS REASON IT IS HELD THAT AN ENTRANCE FEE MAY BE
PROPERLY MEASURED BY CAPITAL WHEREVER LOCATED.  FN11  THE WEIGHT, IN
DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE INTRASTATE PRIVILEGE, GIVEN THE PROPERTY
BEYOND THE STATE BOUNDARIES IS BUT A RECOGNITION OF THE VERY REAL
EFFECT ITS EXISTENCE HAS UPON THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE GRANTED WITHIN
THE TAXING STATE.  THIS WAS RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT IN ATLANTIC &
PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN  FN12  WHERE AN OCCUPATION OR LICENSE TAX
ON CHAIN STORES WAS GRADUATED "ON THE NUMBER OF STORES OR MERCANTILE
ESTABLISHMENTS" INCLUDED UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT "WHETHER OPERATED IN
THIS STATE OR NOT."  WE SAID:  "THE LAW RATES THE PRIVILEGE ENJOYED IN
LOUISIANA ACCORDING TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THAT PRIVILEGE IN THE
LIGHT OF THE ADVANTAGES, THE CAPACITY, AND THE COMPETITIVE ABILITY OF
THE CHAIN'S STORES IN LOUISIANA CONSIDERED NOT BY THEMSELVES, AS IF
THEY CONSTITUTED THE WHOLE ORGANIZATION, BUT IN THEIR SETTING AS
INTEGRAL PARTS OF A MUCH LARGER ORGANIZATION."  FN13  THIS SAME RULE
APPLIES HERE.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO. FN14  CONTAINS NOTHING
CONTRARY TO THIS VIEW.  THE STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE LEVIED A
PRIVILEGE TAX "EQUAL TO TWO PER CENT. OF THE GROSS INCOME OF THE
BUSINESS."  IN SO FAR AS IT WAS UPON RECEIPTS IN OTHER STATES FOR WORK
DONE IN OTHER STATES, IT WAS CONCEDED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE TAXING POWER
OF THE STATUTE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  FORD MOTOR CO. V. CLARK, 100 F.2D 515. 

FN2  306 U.S. 628. 

FN3  "ARTICLE 7084.  AMOUNT OF TAX.   - (A) EXCEPT AS HEREIN
PROVIDED, EVERY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATION HERETOFORE OR
HEREAFTER CHARTERED OR AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN TEXAS, SHALL,  ...
EACH YEAR, PAY  ... A FRANCHISE TAX  ...  , BASED UPON THAT PROPORTION
OF THE OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK, SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS, PLUS
THE AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING BONDS, NOTES AND DEBENTURES, OTHER THAN THOSE
MATURING IN LESS THAN A YEAR FROM DATE OF ISSUE, AS THE GROSS RECEIPTS
FROM ITS BUSINESS DONE IN TEXAS BEARS TO THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS OF
THE CORPORATION FROM ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS, WHICH TAX SHALL BE COMPUTED
AT THE FOLLOWING RATES FOR EACH ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) OR
FRACTIONAL PART THEREOF; ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) TO ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000.00), SIXTY CENTS (60[)  ...  " 

FN4  INVESTMENT SECURITIES CO. V. MEHARG, 115 TEXAS 441; 282 S.W.
802; UNITED NORTH & SOUTH DEVELOPMENT CO. V. HEATH, 78 S.W.2D 650(TEX. 
CIV.  APP.). 

FN5  FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 145 U.S. 1, 21;
AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459; MATSON NAV. CO. V. STATE
BOARD, 297 U.S. 441; WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250;
COVERDALE V. PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604, 608. 

FN6  266 U.S. 271. 

FN7  CF. UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113, 120. 

FN8  277 U.S. 413. 

FN9  279 U.S. 429. 

FN10  279 U.S. 421. 

FN11  ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 302 U.S. 22, 29; CF. KANSAS
CITY, F.S. & M. RY. CO. V. BOTKIN, 240 U.S. 227, 235. 

FN12  301 U.S. 412, 424-425. 

FN13  301 U.S. 425. 

FN14  302 U.S. 134, 139. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT COMPLAINED OF
SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :









NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 338 


NO. 240.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 11, 1939.  - 106
F.2D 41, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A PROSECUTION IN A FEDERAL COURT, EVIDENCE PROCURED BY TAPPING
WIRES IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 IS INADMISSIBLE. 
THIS APPLIES NOT ONLY TO THE INTERCEPTED CONVERSATIONS THEMSELVES BUT
ALSO, BY IMPLICATION, TO EVIDENCE PROCURED THROUGH THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE
GAINED FROM SUCH CONVERSATIONS.  P. 339. 

2.  THE BURDEN IS ON THE ACCUSED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO PROVE TO
THE TRIAL COURT'S SATISFACTION THAT WIRE-TAPPING WAS UNLAWFULLY
EMPLOYED.  P. 341. 

3.  ONCE THAT IS ESTABLISHED, THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST GIVE OPPORTUNITY
TO THE ACCUSED TO PROVE THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE CASE AGAINST
HIM WAS THE RESULT OF THE ILLICIT WIRE-TAPPING.  ID. 

4.  CLAIMS THAT THIS TAINT ATTACHES TO ANY PORTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CASE MUST SATISFY THE TRIAL COURT WITH THEIR SOLIDITY AND
NOT BE MERELY A MEANS OF ELICITING WHAT IS IN THE GOVERNMENT'S
POSSESSION BEFORE ITS SUBMISSION TO THE JURY.  AND IF SUCH A CLAIM IS
MADE AFTER THE TRIAL IS UNDER WAY, THE JUDGE MUST LIKEWISE BE SATISFIED
THAT THE ACCUSED COULD NOT AT AN EARLIER STAGE HAVE HAD ADEQUATE
KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE HIS CLAIM.  P. 342. 

NARDONE ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 539, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTIONS IN
THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER AN INDICTMENT FOR FRAUDS ON REVENUE. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CALLED UPON FOR THE SECOND TIME TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT OF PETITIONERS'
CONVICTIONS UNDER AN INDICTMENT FOR FRAUDS ON THE REVENUE.  IN NARDONE
V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379, THIS COURT REVERSED THE CONVICTIONS ON
THE FIRST TRIAL BECAUSE THEY WERE PROCURED BY EVIDENCE SECURED IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 605 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934(C. 652, 48
STAT. 1064, 1103; 47 U.S.C., SEC. 605).  FOR DETAILS OF THE FACTS
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THAT CASE.  SUFFICE IT HERE TO SAY THAT THIS
EVIDENCE CONSISTED OF INTERCEPTED TELEPHONE MESSAGES, CONSTITUTING "A
VITAL PART OF THE PROSECUTION'S PROOF." 

CONVICTION FOLLOWED A NEW TRIAL, AND "THE MAIN QUESTION" ON THE
APPEAL BELOW IS THE ONLY QUESTION OPEN HERE - NAMELY, "WHETHER THE
(TRIAL) JUDGE IMPROPERLY REFUSED TO ALLOW THE ACCUSED TO EXAMINE THE
PROSECUTION AS TO THE USES TO WHICH IT HAD PUT THE INFORMATION" WHICH
NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, FOUND TO HAVE VITIATED THE ORIGINAL
CONVICTION.  THOUGH CANDIDLY DOUBTFUL OF THE RESULT IT REACHED, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS LIMITED THE SCOPE OF SEC. 605 TO THE PRECISE
CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE FIRST NARDONE CASE, AND RULED
THAT "CONGRESS HAD NOT ALSO MADE INCOMPETENT TESTIMONY WHICH HAD BECOME
ACCESSIBLE BY THE USE OF UNLAWFUL 'TAPS', FOR TO DIVULGE THAT
INFORMATION WAS NOT TO DIVULGE AN INTERCEPTED TELEPHONE TALK."  106
F.2D 41. 

THE ISSUE THUS TENDERED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS THE BROAD
ONE, WHETHER OR NO SEC. 605 MERELY INTERDICTS THE INTRODUCTION INTO
EVIDENCE IN A FEDERAL TRIAL OF INTERCEPTED TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS,
LEAVING THE PROSECUTION FREE TO MAKE EVERY OTHER USE OF THE PROSCRIBED
EVIDENCE.  PLAINLY, THIS PRESENTS A FAR-REACHING PROBLEM IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND WE THEREFORE BROUGHT
THE CASE HERE FOR DISPOSITION. 

ANY CLAIM FOR THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE LOGICALLY RELEVANT IN
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IS HEAVILY HANDICAPPED.  IT MUST BE JUSTIFIED BY
AN OVER-RIDING PUBLIC POLICY EXPRESSED IN THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAW
OF THE LAND.  IN A PROBLEM SUCH AS THAT BEFORE US NOW, TWO OPPOSING
CONCERNS MUST BE HARMONIZED:  ON THE ONE HAND, THE STERN ENFORCEMENT OF
THE CRIMINAL LAW; ON THE OTHER, PROTECTION OF THAT REALM OF PRIVACY
LEFT FREE BY CONSTITUTION AND LAWS BUT CAPABLE OF INFRINGEMENT EITHER
THROUGH ZEAL OR DESIGN.  IN ACCOMMODATING BOTH THESE CONCERNS, MEANING
MUST BE GIVEN TO WHAT CONGRESS HAS WRITTEN, EVEN IF NOT IN EXPLICIT
LANGUAGE, SO AS TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY WHICH CONGRESS HAS
FORMULATED. 

WE ARE HERE DEALING WITH SPECIFIC PROHIBITION OF PARTICULAR METHODS
IN OBTAINING EVIDENCE.  THE RESULT OF THE HOLDING BELOW IS TO REDUCE
THE SCOPE OF SEC. 605 TO EXCLUSION OF THE EXACT WORDS HEARD THROUGH
FORBIDDEN INTERCEPTIONS, ALLOWING THESE INTERCEPTIONS EVERY DERIVATIVE
USE THAT THEY MAY SERVE.  SUCH A READING OF SEC. 605 WOULD LARGELY
STULTIFY THE POLICY WHICH COMPELLED OUR DECISION IN NARDONE V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  THAT DECISION WAS NOT THE PRODUCT OF A MERELY
METICULOUS READING OF TECHNICAL LANGUAGE.  IT WAS THE TRANSLATION INTO
PRACTICALITY OF BROAD CONSIDERATIONS OF MORALITY AND PUBLIC WELL
BEING.  THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE LOGICALLY RELEVANT PROOF WHICH
CONGRESS HAD OUTLAWED, IT OUTLAWED BECAUSE "INCONSISTENT WITH ETHICAL
STANDARDS AND DESTRUCTIVE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY."  302 U.S. 379, 383.  TO
FORBID THE DIRECT USE OF METHODS THUS CHARACTERIZED BUT TO PUT NO CURB
ON THEIR FULL INDIRECT USE WOULD ONLY INVITE THE VERY METHODS DEEMED
"INCONSISTENT WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS AND DESTRUCTIVE OF PERSONAL
LIBERTY."  WHAT WAS SAID IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT IN SILVERTHORNE LUMBER
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 385, 392, IS PERTINENT HERE:  "THE
ESSENCE OF A PROVISION FORBIDDING THE ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE IN A
CERTAIN WAY IS THAT NOT MERELY EVIDENCE SO ACQUIRED SHALL NOT BE USED
BEFORE THE COURT, BUT THAT IT SHALL NOT BE USED AT ALL."  SEE GOULED V.
UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 298, 307.  A DECENT RESPECT FOR THE POLICY OF
CONGRESS MUST SAVE US FROM IMPUTING TO IT A SELF-DEFEATING, IF NOT
DISINGENUOUS PURPOSE. 

HERE, AS IN THE SILVERTHORNE CASE, THE FACTS IMPROPERLY OBTAINED DO
NOT "BECOME SACRED AND INACCESSIBLE.  IF KNOWLEDGE OF THEM IS GAINED
FROM AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE THEY MAY BE PROVED LIKE ANY OTHERS, BUT THE
KNOWLEDGE GAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN WRONG CANNOT BE USED BY IT"
SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS USED DERIVATIVELY.  251 U.S. 385, 392. 

IN PRACTICE THIS GENERALIZED STATEMENT MAY CONCEAL CONCRETE
COMPLEXITIES.  SOPHISTICATED ARGUMENT MAY PROVE A CAUSAL CONNECTION
BETWEEN INFORMATION OBTAINED THROUGH ILLICIT WIRE-TAPPING AND THE
GOVERNMENT'S PROOF.  AS A MATTER OF GOOD SENSE, HOWEVER, SUCH
CONNECTION MAY HAVE BECOME SO ATTENUATED AS TO DISSIPATE THE TAINT.  A
SENSIBLE WAY OF DEALING WITH SUCH A SITUATION - FAIR TO THE INTENDMENT
OF SEC. 605, BUT FAIR ALSO TO THE PURPOSES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW - OUGHT
TO BE WITHIN THE REACH OF EXPERIENCED TRIAL JUDGES.  THE BURDEN IS, OF
COURSE, ON THE ACCUSED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO PROVE TO THE TRIAL
COURT'S SATISFACTION THAT WIRE-TAPPING WAS UNLAWFULLY EMPLOYED.  ONCE
THAT IS ESTABLISHED - AS WAS PLAINLY DONE HERE - THE TRIAL JUDGE MUST
GIVE OPPORTUNITY, HOWEVER CLOSELY CONFINED, TO THE ACCUSED TO PROVE
THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE CASE AGAINST HIM WAS A FRUIT OF THE
POISONOUS TREE.  THIS LEAVES AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE GOVERNMENT TO
CONVINCE THE TRIAL COURT THAT ITS PROOF HAD AN INDEPENDENT ORIGIN. 

DISPATCH IN THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL CAUSES IS ESSENTIAL IN BRINGING
CRIME TO BOOK.  THEREFORE, TIMELY STEPS MUST BE TAKEN TO SECURE
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS OF ILLEGALITY ON THE PART OF AGENTS OF
THE GOVERNMENT IN OBTAINING TESTIMONY.  TO INTERRUPT THE COURSE OF THE
TRIAL FOR SUCH AUXILIARY INQUIRIES IMPEDES THE MOMENTUM OF THE MAIN
PROCEEDING AND BREAKS THE CONTINUITY OF THE JURY'S ATTENTION.  LIKE
MISCHIEF WOULD RESULT WERE TENUOUS CLAIMS SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
TRIAL COURT'S INDULGENCE OF INQUIRY INTO THE LEGITIMACY OF EVIDENCE IN
THE GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION.  SO TO READ A CONGRESSIONAL PROHIBITION
AGAINST THE AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE WOULD BE TO SUBORDINATE
THE NEED FOR RIGOROUS ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TO UNDUE SOLICITUDE FOR
POTENTIAL AND, IT IS TO BE HOPED, ABNORMAL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE LAW BY
THE LAW'S OFFICERS.  THEREFORE CLAIMS THAT TAINT ATTACHES TO ANY
PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE MUST SATISFY THE TRIAL COURT WITH
THEIR SOLIDITY AND NOT BE MERELY A MEANS OF ELICITING WHAT IS IN THE
GOVERNMENT'S POSSESSION BEFORE ITS SUBMISSION TO THE JURY.  AND IF SUCH
A CLAIM IS MADE AFTER THE TRIAL IS UNDER WAY, THE JUDGE MUST LIKEWISE
BE SATISFIED THAT THE ACCUSED COULD NOT AT AN EARLIER STAGE HAVE HAD
ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE HIS CLAIM.  THE CIVILIZED CONDUCT OF
CRIMINAL TRIALS CANNOT BE CONFINED WITHIN MECHANICAL RULES.  IT
NECESSARILY DEMANDS THE AUTHORITY OF LIMITED DIRECTION ENTRUSTED TO THE
JUDGE PRESIDING IN FEDERAL TRIALS, INCLUDING A WELL-ESTABLISHED RANGE
OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION, SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATE REVIEW ON APPEAL, IN
RULING UPON PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS OF FACT.  SUCH A SYSTEM AS OURS MUST,
WITHIN THE LIMITS HERE INDICATED, RELY ON THE LEARNING, GOOD SENSE,
FAIRNESS AND COURAGE OF FEDERAL TRIAL JUDGES. 

WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS CASE ON THE BASIC ISSUE TENDERED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND HAVE NOT INDULGED IN A FINICKING APPRAISAL
OF THE RECORD, EITHER AS TO THE ISSUE OF THE TIME LIMIT OF THE PROPOSED
INQUIRY INTO THE USE TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAD PUT ITS ILLICIT
PRACTICES, OR AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF INDEPENDENT SOURCES FOR THE
GOVERNMENT'S PROOF.  SINCE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT
QUESTION ITS TIMELINESS, WE SHALL NOT.  AND THE HOSTILITY OF THE TRIAL
COURT TO THE WHOLE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY REFLECTED HIS OWN ACCORD WITH
THE RULE OF LAW BY WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED HIM,
AND WHICH WE FIND ERRONEOUS. 

THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REACHED THE PROPER CONCLUSION UPON REASONS THERE ADEQUATELY
STATED AND ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










JOHN HANCOCK INS. CO. V. BARTELS, 308 U.S. 180 


NO. 33.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - 100
F.2D 813, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (R) OF SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT DO NOT
PROVIDE THAT A PETITION FOR COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION SHALL BE DISMISSED
IN THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF THE FINANCIAL
REHABILITATION OF THE DEBTOR, NOR DO THEY WARRANT THE IMPUTATION OF
LACK OF GOOD FAITH TO A FARMER-DEBTOR BECAUSE OF THAT PLIGHT.  P. 184. 

2.  THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS TO AFFORD RELIEF
TO DEBTORS IN ECONOMIC DISTRESS, HOWEVER SEVERE, BY GIVING THEM A
CHANCE TO SEEK AN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR CREDITORS, UNDER SUBSECTIONS (A)
TO (R) AND, FAILING THIS, TO ASK FOR THE OTHER RELIEF AFFORDED BY
SUBSECTION (S).  P. 184. 

THE FARMER-DEBTOR MAY OFFER TO PAY WHAT HE CAN, AND HE IS NOT TO BE
CHARGED WITH BAD FAITH IN TAKING THE COURSE FOR WHICH THE STATUTE
EXPRESSLY PROVIDES. 

3.  SECTION 75(I) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IN PROVIDING THAT BEFORE
CONFIRMING PROPOSALS FOR COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION THE COURT MUST BE
SATISFIED THAT THE OFFER AND ITS ACCEPTANCE ARE IN GOOD FAITH AND HAVE
NOT BEEN MADE OR PROCURED BY FORBIDDEN MEANS OR EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY
THE STATUTE, HITS AT SECRET ADVANTAGES TO FAVORED CREDITORS OR OTHER
IMPROPER OR FRAUDULENT CONDUCT.  P. 185. 

4.  A FARMER-DEBTOR, HAVING FAILED TO OBTAIN THE ACCEPTANCE UNDER
SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (R), BY THE REQUISITE
MAJORITY OF CREDITORS, OF A PROPOSAL FOR COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO PAY HIS DEBTS, FILED HIS AMENDED PETITION UNDER SUBSECTION (S)
PRAYING THAT HE BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT, THAT HIS PROPERTY BE APPRAISED,
THAT HIS EXEMPTIONS BE SET ASIDE, AND THAT HE BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN
POSSESSION OF HIS PROPERTY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COURT.  HELD,
THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO BE SO ADJUDGED AND TO HAVE HIS PROCEEDING FOR
RELIEF ENTERTAINED AND HIS PROPERTY DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT
SUBSECTION; AND THAT THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
PETITION UPON THE GROUND THAT UNDER THE EVIDENCE THERE WAS NO
REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF HIS FINANCIAL REHABILITATION AND BECAUSE IN
THE JUDGE'S OPINION NO OFFER HAD BEEN MADE BY THE DEBTOR WHICH COULD BE
CONSTRUED AS AN OFFER IN GOOD FAITH FOR EXTENSION AND COMPOSITION.  P.
183. 

JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BARTELS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE
DISMISSING THE PETITION OF A FARMER-DEBTOR TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT
UNDER SEC. 75(S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY A FARMER UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE DEBTOR'S PETITION. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THIS ACTION WAS CONTRARY TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE AND DIRECTED THE PROCEEDING TO BE
REINSTATED.  100 F.2D 813.  BECAUSE OF CONFLICT IN THE RULINGS OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, DUE TO THE DIFFERING VIEWS OF
THE JUDGES COMPOSING THE COURT IN THE CASES CITED, FN1  AND BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 617. 

RESPONDENT BARTELS PRESENTED HIS PETITION TO THE DISTRICT COURT ON
DECEMBER 2, 1937, ASKING THAT HE BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EFFECT A
COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY HIS DEBTS UNDER SEC. 75.  THE
COURT REFERRED THE MATTER TO A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, DIRECTING THE
DEBTOR TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AND TO SUBMIT TO SUCH ORDERS
AS MIGHT BE MADE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THAT SECTION.  A MEETING OF THE
CREDITORS WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 21, 1937, AT WHICH THE DEBTOR WAS
PRESENT AND WAS EXAMINED.  IT APPEARED THAT HIS DEBTS AMOUNTED TO ABOUT
$10,000 OF WHICH ABOUT $8,000(INCLUDING INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES)
WAS OWING TO THE JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND WAS
SECURED BY A LIEN UPON HIS HOME.  AS THE DEBTOR WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AN
AGREEMENT WITH A MAJORITY OF HIS CREDITORS IN NUMBER AND AMOUNT, HE
NOTIFIED THE COMMISSIONER THAT HE WOULD APPLY TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT
UNDER SUBSECTION (S) OF SEC. 75.  THAT APPLICATION WAS FILED ON JANUARY
10, 1938.  THE DEBTOR ASKED THAT "HIS PROPERTY BE APPRAISED," THAT "HIS
EXEMPTION BE SET ASIDE TO HIM" AND THAT HE BE PERMITTED "TO RETAIN
POSSESSION OF HIS PROPERTY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COURT."  ON THE
SAME DAY, THE DISTRICT JUDGE ENTERED AN ORDER ADJUDGING THE DEBTOR A
BANKRUPT AND REQUIRING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER
ACTING AS REFEREE UNDER SUBSECTION (S). 

ON MARCH 23, 1938, THE JOHN HANCOCK COMPANY MOVED TO SET ASIDE THE
ADJUDICATION AND TO DISMISS THE DEBTOR'S PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT
THE DEBTOR WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTION (S); THAT HE HAD NOT PRESENTED ANY FEASIBLE PLAN FOR A
COMPOSITION AND EXTENSION OF HIS DEBTS, AND THAT HIS PETITION "WAS NOT
FILED IN GOOD FAITH" OR "WITH ANY HOPE OR EXPECTATION OF WORKING OUT
HIS DEBTS AND PAYING UP HIS DELINQUENCIES BUT APPARENTLY FOR THE SOLE
PURPOSE OF HINDERING AND DELAYING HIS CREDITORS."  THE COMPANY ALSO
ALLEGED THAT AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE REAL PROPERTY HELD BY IT
AS SECURITY THERE WAS NO EQUITY FOR THE DEBTOR AND THAT THE COMPANY
WOULD SUFFER IRREPARABLE LOSS UNLESS THE ADJUDICATION WAS SET ASIDE AND
THE PROCEEDING DISMISSED.  THE DEBTOR DENIED THESE ALLEGATIONS AND
ALLEGED THAT THE LAND ON WHICH THE COMPANY HAD A LIEN WAS WORTH
UNIMPROVED MORE THAN $7,000 AND THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE WORTH $6,000
AND THAT HE THUS HAD A LARGE EQUITY WHICH WOULD BE LOST TO HIM UNLESS
HE OBTAINED THE BENEFITS SOUGHT UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW. 

AT THE HEARING OF THE MOTION ON APRIL 5, 1938, THE COURT RECEIVED THE
EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY.  THEREUPON THE MOTION WAS GRANTED.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE SAID
IN HIS OPINION THAT THE DEBTOR HAD NOT MADE ANY PROPOSAL WHICH COULD BE
CONSTRUED AS A "GOOD FAITH OFFER FOR AN EXTENSION OR COMPOSITION" AND
HENCE THE DEBTOR WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT UNDER
SUBSECTION (S).  THE DISTRICT JUDGE OBSERVED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS
CONFLICTING AS TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND (100 ACRES); THAT, SEPARATING
THE LAND FROM ITS IMPROVEMENTS, CERTAIN OF THE DEBTOR'S WITNESSES
PLACED ITS VALUE AT $70 AN ACRE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS AT $5,000 OR
$6,000, WHILE WITNESSES FOR THE CREDITOR VALUED THE LAND AT ABOUT $40
AN ACRE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS AT ABOUT $2,000.  HE THOUGHT THAT THERE
WAS NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF THE PROPERTY BEING SOLD FOR ENOUGH TO
GIVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL EQUITY TO THE DEBTOR AND ACCORDINGLY FOUND THAT
THERE WAS NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF THE DEBTOR'S FINANCIAL
REHABILITATION.  IN THAT VIEW THE DISTRICT JUDGE CONCLUDED "THAT THE
ORDER ADJUDICATING THE DEBTOR A BANKRUPT UNDER SUBSECTION (S) WAS
IMPROPERLY ENTERED AND SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE CAUSE DISMISSED." 

WE THINK THAT THE DISTRICT JUDGE FAILED TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE OF THE
STATUTE AND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT IN REVERSING
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDERING THE PROCEEDING TO BE REINSTATED. 

SUBSECTION (S) OF SEC. 75 AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935,
FN2  PRESCRIBES A DEFINITE COURSE OF PROCEDURE.  THAT SUBSECTION
APPLIES EXPLICITLY TO A CASE OF A FARMER WHO HAS FAILED TO OBTAIN THE
ACCEPTANCE OF A MAJORITY IN NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF ALL CREDITORS WHOSE
CLAIMS ARE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSAL FOR A COMPOSITION OR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME TO PAY HIS DEBTS.  THAT WAS BARTELS' SITUATION.  PROVISIONS FOR
PROCEEDINGS BY A FARMER TO OBTAIN A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION, WHEN HE
IS INSOLVENT OR UNABLE TO PAY HIS DEBTS AS THEY MATURE, ARE FOUND IN
SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (R) OF SEC. 75.  FOR THAT RELIEF BARTELS HAD
PRESENTED HIS PETITION UNDER SUBSECTION (C) AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
APPROVED THE PETITION AS PROPERLY FILED.  ACCORDING TO THE REPORT OF
THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, TO WHOM THE MATTER WAS REFERRED
ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE, BARTELS HAD APPEARED AT THE MEETING OF THE
CREDITORS AND HAD SUBMITTED TO A DETAILED EXAMINATION CONCERNING HIS
FINANCIAL CONDITION.  HE PROPOSED TO SELL CERTAIN PROPERTY AND TO APPLY
THE PROCEEDS TO THE PAYMENT IN PART OF THE AMOUNTS DUE TO THE JOHN
HANCOCK COMPANY, THE SECURED CREDITOR.  HE SUCCEEDED IN OBTAINING AN
AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN UNSECURED CREDITORS FOR AN EXTENSION BUT THE
SECURED CREDITOR REFUSED CONSENT, AS BARTELS COULD NOT MEET ALL HIS
ARREARS.  BARTELS WAS THUS PRECISELY IN THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN
SUBSECTION (S). 

THE SUBSECTIONS OF SEC. 75 WHICH REGULATE THE PROCEDURE IN RELATION
TO THE EFFORT OF A FARMER-DEBTOR TO OBTAIN A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION
CONTAIN NO PROVISION FOR A DISMISSAL BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF A
REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF THE FINANCIAL REHABILITATION OF THE DEBTOR. 
FN3  NOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THESE SUBSECTIONS WHICH WARRANTS THE
IMPUTATION OF LACK OF GOOD FAITH TO A FARMER-DEBTOR BECAUSE OF THAT
PLIGHT.  THE PLAIN PURPOSE OF SEC. 75 WAS TO AFFORD RELIEF TO SUCH
DEBTORS WHO FOUND THEMSELVES IN ECONOMIC DISTRESS HOWEVER SEVERE, BY
GIVING THEM THE CHANCE TO SEEK AN AGREEMENT WITH THEIR CREDITORS
(SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (R)) AND, FAILING THIS, TO ASK FOR THE OTHER RELIEF
AFFORDED BY SUBSECTION (S).  THE FARMERDEBTOR MAY OFFER TO PAY WHAT HE
CAN, AS BARTELS DID, AND HE IS NOT TO BE CHARGED WITH BAD FAITH IN
TAKING THE COURSE FOR WHICH THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY PROVIDES.  THE ONLY
REFERENCE IN SEC. 75 TO GOOD FAITH IS FOUND IN SUBSECTION (I), WHICH
RELATES SOLELY TO THE CONFIRMATION OF PROPOSALS FOR COMPOSITION OR
EXTENSION WHEN THE COURT MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE OFFER AND ITS
ACCEPTANCE ARE IN GOOD FAITH AND HAVE NOT BEEN MADE OR PROCURED BY
FORBIDDEN MEANS OR EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE.  THAT PROVISION
MANIFESTLY HITS AT SECRET ADVANTAGES TO FAVORED CREDITORS OR OTHER
IMPROPER OR FRAUDULENT CONDUCT. 

AS BARTELS' CASE THUS FELL WITHIN SUBSECTION (S), HE AMENDED HIS
PETITION AND ASKED TO BE ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT AS THAT SUBSECTION
PERMITS.  HE WAS SO ADJUDICATED.  BARTELS THEN ASKED, ALSO AS PROVIDED
IN SUBSECTION (S), THAT HIS PROPERTY BE APPRAISED, THAT HIS EXEMPTIONS
BE SET ASIDE TO HIM AS PROVIDED BY STATE LAW, AND THAT HE BE ALLOWED TO
RETAIN POSSESSION OF HIS PROPERTY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COURT,
THAT IS, SUBJECT TO SUCH ORDERS AS THE COURT MIGHT MAKE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STATUTE.  THE COURT FAILED TO TAKE THAT ACTION.  INSTEAD OF
HAVING THE PROPERTY APPRAISED, THE COURT RECEIVED CONFLICTING TESTIMONY
AS TO VALUE, DISCUSSED THE CHANCES OF THE DEBTOR'S REHABILITATION AND
DISMISSED THE PETITION AND ALL PROCEEDINGS THEREUNDER. 

THE PROCEDURE UNDER SUBSECTION (S) IS INTENDED TO PROTECT ALL
INTERESTS.  IT PROVIDES, IN PARAGRAPH (1), THAT AFTER THE VALUE OF THE
DEBTOR'S PROPERTY HAS BEEN FIXED BY THE PRESCRIBED APPRAISAL, THE
REFEREE SHALL SET ASIDE THE DEBTOR'S UNENCUMBERED EXEMPTIONS AND DIRECT
HIS RETENTION OF POSSESSION OF THE REST OF HIS PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ALL
LIENS AND TO THE COURT'S SUPERVISION AND CONTROL.  UNDER PARAGRAPH (2),
IF THERE HAS BEEN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY CONDITIONS, THE COURT
IS DIRECTED TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE DEBTOR OR HIS PROPERTY
FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, AND DURING THAT TIME THE DEBTOR MAY RETAIN
POSSESSION OF ALL OR PART OF HIS PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE COURT'S
CONTROL, PROVIDED HE PAYS A REASONABLE RENTAL SEMIANNUALLY.  THAT
RENTAL IS TO BE PAID INTO COURT AND IS TO BE USED FIRST FOR THE PAYMENT
OF TAXES AND THE UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY AND THE REMAINDER IS TO BE
DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE CREDITORS AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR.  IF THE
COURT FINDS IT NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE CREDITORS "FROM LOSS BY THE
ESTATE," OR "TO CONSERVE THE SECURITY," THE COURT MAY ORDER ANY
UNEXEMPT PERISHABLE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR, OR ANY UNEXEMPT PERSONAL
PROPERTY NOT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE FARMING OPERATIONS OF THE
DEBTOR, TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SALE, AND THE COURT, IN
ADDITION TO THE PRESCRIBED RENTAL, MAY REQUIRE PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY
THE DEBTOR ON THE PRINCIPAL OF HIS DEBTS IN THE MANNER SET FORTH.  THEN
IT IS PROVIDED, IN PARAGRAPH (3), THAT AT THE END OF THE THREE-YEAR
PERIOD, OR AT ANY TIME BEFORE THAT, THE DEBTOR MAY PAY INTO COURT THE
APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH HE RETAINS POSSESSION,
"INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF ENCUMBRANCES ON HIS EXEMPTIONS, UP TO THE
AMOUNT OF THE APPRAISAL, LESS THE AMOUNT PAID ON PRINCIPAL," FOR
APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION TO HIS CREDITORS.  THERE IS THE PROVISO THAT
UPON THE REQUEST OF ANY CREDITOR, OR OF THE DEBTOR, THE COURT SHALL
CAUSE THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY TO BE REAPPRAISED, OR IN ITS DISCRETION SET
A DATE FOR HEARING, AND THEREAFTER FIX THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE, AND THE DEBTOR SHALL THEN PAY THE VALUE
SO ARRIVED AT INTO COURT, LESS PAYMENTS MADE ON THE PRINCIPAL, FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO HIS CREDITORS.  IN THAT WAY, BY THE ORDER OF THE COURT,
THE DEBTOR MAY REGAIN FULL POSSESSION AND TITLE OF SUCH PROPERTY, THE
ASCERTAINED VALUE OF WHICH HAS THUS BEEN DEVOTED TO THE PAYMENT OF HIS
DEBTS.  THERE IS THE FURTHER PROVISO, FOR THE PROTECTION OF SECURED
CREDITORS, THAT UPON REQUEST IN WRITING BY ANY SECURED CREDITOR THE
COURT SHALL ORDER THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE SECURED CREDITOR HAS A
LIEN TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION.  SEE WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, SUPRA,
PP. 458-461.  THE DEBTOR IS TO HAVE NINETY DAYS TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY
SO SOLD BY PAYING THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH IT WAS SOLD, WITH INTEREST, INTO
COURT, AND HE MAY APPLY FOR HIS DISCHARGE AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT.  IF,
HOWEVER, THE DEBTOR AT ANY TIME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE SECTION OR WITH ANY ORDERS OF THE COURT MADE THEREUNDER, OR IS
UNABLE TO REFINANCE HIMSELF WITHIN THREE YEARS, THE COURT MAY ORDER THE
APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE AND DIRECT THE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT. 

THE SCHEME OF THE STATUTE IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE AN ORDERLY PROCEDURE
SO AS TO GIVE WHATEVER RELIEF MAY PROPERLY BE AFFORDED TO THE
DISTRESSED FARMER-DEBTOR, WHILE PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF HIS
CREDITORS BY ASSURING THE FAIR APPLICATION OF WHATEVER PROPERTY THE
DEBTOR HAS TO THE PAYMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS, THE PRIORITIES AND LIENS OF
SECURED CREDITORS BEING PRESERVED.  SEE WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, SUPRA;
ADAIR V. BANK OF AMERICA ASSN., 303 U.S. 350, 354-357; WRIGHT V. UNION
CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., 304 U.S. 502, 516, 517. 

WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH QUESTIONS WHICH MAY ARISE IN THE
COURSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE STATUTE, BUT MERELY WITH THE
DUTY TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE WHICH THE STATUTE DEFINES AND THE DISTRICT
COURT FAILED TO OBSERVE.  WE HOLD THAT ON HIS AMENDED PETITION INVOKING
SUBSECTION (S) BARTELS WAS ENTITLED TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT AND TO
HAVE HIS PROCEEDING FOR RELIEF ENTERTAINED AND HIS PROPERTY DEALT WITH
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT SUBSECTION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AND DIRECTING THE PROCEEDING TO BE REINSTATED IS
AFFIRMED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTION
TO PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE BAXTER V. SAVINGS BANK OF UTICA, 92 F.2D 404; IN RE
HENDERSON, 100 F.2D 820; WILSON V. ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO., 102
F.2D 365. 

FN2  49 STAT. 943; WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440. 

FN3  WHAT IS SAID UPON THIS POINT IN NOTE 6 IN WRIGHT V. VINTON
BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440, 462, WAS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE OPINION IN THAT
CASE AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 308 U.S. 188 


NO. 397.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - 28
F.2D 177, IN PART, REVERSED. 


1.  A JUDGMENT QUASHING A COUNT UPON THE GROUND OF DUPLICITY IS NOT
APPEALABLE TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  P. 193. 

2.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INDICTMENT BY THE DISTRICT COURT BINDS
THIS COURT ON AN APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  P. 194. 

3.  A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT HOLDING THAT AN INDICTMENT
FAILED TO CHARGE AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT BECAUSE OF
THE EFFECT ON THAT ACT OF LATER STATUTES, HELD A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SHERMAN ACT AND REVIEWABLE UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  P. 195. 

4.  REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED.  WHEN THERE ARE TWO ACTS
UPON THE SAME SUBJECT, EFFECT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO BOTH IF POSSIBLE.  P.
198. 

5.  THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 DOES NOT OPERATE
TO REPEAL THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT IN ITS APPLICATION TO AGREEMENTS
OF PRODUCERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND OTHERS, RESTRICTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IN MILK, WHEN SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE NOT PARTICIPATED IN OR DIRECTED BY
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN PURSUANCE OF THE FORMER ACT.  PP. 196
202. 

WITH RESPECT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES OR
THEIR PRODUCTS, AN AGREEMENT MADE WITH THE SECRETARY AS A PARTY, OR AN
ORDER MADE BY HIM, OR AN ARBITRATION AWARD OR AGREEMENT APPROVED BY
HIM, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE AGRICULTURAL ACT AND
WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE IMMUNITY DESCRIBED BY SECS. 8(B) AND 3(D),
WOULD BE A DEFENSE TO A PROSECUTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE PROSECUTION SOUGHT TO PENALIZE WHAT WAS THUS VALIDLY AGREED
UPON OR DIRECTED BY THE SECRETARY.  FURTHER THAN THAT THE AGRICULTURAL
ACT DOES NOT GO. 

6.  A LICENSE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WITH RESPECT TO
THE MARKETING OF MILK IN A GIVEN AREA IS NOT A DEFENSE TO AN INDICTMENT
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT FOR CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF THAT COMMERCE,
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CONTINUED AFTER THE LICENSE HAD EXPIRED.  P. 202. 

7.  AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT
REGULATING MARKETING OF MILK IS NOT A DEFENSE TO AN INDICTMENT OF
PRODUCERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND OTHERS UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT CHARGING
CONSPIRACIES ENGAGED IN BEFORE THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE ORDER.  P.
202. 

8.  THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT, IN AUTHORIZING PRODUCERS OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING DAIRYMEN, TO ACT TOGETHER IN COLLECTIVELY
PROCESSING, PREPARING FOR MARKET, HANDLING AND MARKETING THEIR
PRODUCTS, IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND TO HAVE MARKETING
AGENCIES IN COMMON AND MAKE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS TO EFFECT THESE
PURPOSES, DID NOT AUTHORIZE A CONSPIRACY OF DAIRYMEN WITH DISTRIBUTORS,
LABOR OFFICIALS, MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND OTHERS, TO MAINTAIN
ARTIFICIAL AND NON-COMPETITIVE PRICES TO BE PAID TO ALL PRODUCERS FOR
ALL FLUID MILK PRODUCED IN ILLINOIS AND NEIGHBORING STATES AND MARKETED
IN THE CHICAGO AREA, WHICH WOULD COMPEL INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS TO
EXACT A LIKE PRICE FROM THEIR CUSTOMERS, AND WOULD CONTROL THE SUPPLY
OF FLUID MILK PERMITTED TO BE BROUGHT TO THE CITY.  P. 203. 

9.  UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT, THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE IS AUTHORIZED TO DETERMINE, SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW,
WHETHER ANY SUCH COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION MONOPOLIZES OR RESTRAINS
INTERSTATE TRADE TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE PRICE OF ANY AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCT IS UNDULY ENHANCED, AND TO ISSUE A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER.  BUT
THIS QUALIFYING PROCEDURE WAS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE, POSTPONE, OR
PREVENT PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT FOR THE PUNISHMENT
OF CONSPIRACIES BY PRODUCERS AND OTHERS SUCH AS ARE DESCRIBED IN THE
LAST PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.  P. 205. 

10.  WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT HAS BASED ITS DECISION ON A PARTICULAR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNDERLYING STATUTE, THE REVIEW HERE UNDER THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT IS CONFINED TO THE QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY OF
THAT CONSTRUCTION.  DISTINGUISHING UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT
CORP., 299 U.S. 304.  P. 206. 

UNITED STATES V. BORDEN COMPANY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINING DEMURRERS AND
DISMISSING AN INDICTMENT CHARGING COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.  AS TO ONE OF THE
COUNTS, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE GOVERNMENT APPEALS FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINING DEMURRERS AND DISMISSING AN INDICTMENT CHARGING COMBINATION
AND CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT. 
28 F.SUPP.  177. 

THE TRADE AND COMMERCE ALLEGED TO BE INVOLVED IS THE TRANSPORTATION
TO THE CHICAGO MARKET OF FLUID MILK PRODUCED ON DAIRY FARMS IN
ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
MILK IN THAT MARKET.  THE GOVERNMENT DIVIDES THE DEFENDANTS INTO FIVE
GROUPS, - (1) DISTRIBUTORS AND ALLIED GROUPS WHICH INCLUDE A NUMBER OF
CORPORATIONS DESCRIBED AS MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS AND THEIR OFFICERS AND
AGENTS, THE ASSOCIATED MILK DEALERS, INC., A TRADE ASSOCIATION OF MILK
DISTRIBUTORS, AND ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS, AND THE MILK DEALERS BOTTLE
EXCHANGE, A CORPORATION CONTROLLED BY THE MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS; (2) THE
PURE MILK ASSOCIATION, A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF MILK PRODUCERS
INCORPORATED IN ILLINOIS, AND ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS; (3) THE MILK
WAGON DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 753, ENGAGED IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MILK IN
CHICAGO, AND CERTAIN LABOR OFFICIALS; (4) MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS,
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH OF CHICAGO AND CERTAIN
SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS; (5) TWO PERSONS WHO ARBITRATED A DISPUTE BETWEEN
THE MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS AND THE PURE MILK ASSOCIATION, FIXING THE PRICE
OF MILK TO BE PAID TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION. 

THE INDICTMENT, WHICH WAS FILED IN NOVEMBER, 1938, CONTAINS FOUR
COUNTS.  THE SEVERAL DEFENDANTS CHALLENGED IT BY DEMURRERS AND MOTIONS
TO QUASH ON VARIOUS GROUNDS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD WITH RESPECT TO
COUNTS ONE, TWO AND FOUR, THAT THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, INCLUDING MILK, ARE REMOVED FROM THE PURVIEW OF
THE SHERMAN ACT BY THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937(50
STAT. 246); ALSO WITH RESPECT TO ALL FOUR COUNTS, ACCORDING TO THE
FORMAL TERMS OF ITS JUDGMENT, THAT THE PURE MILK ASSOCIATION, AS AN
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS, ARE
EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT BY SEC. 6 OF
THE CLAYTON ACT (15 U.S.C. 17), SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD
ACT (7 U.S.C. 291, 292), AND THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT. 
WITH RESPECT TO COUNT THREE, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT IT WAS
DUPLICITOUS, IN THE VIEW THAT IT CHARGED SEVERAL SEPARATE CONSPIRACIES
AND ALSO THAT IT DID NOT DEFINITELY CHARGE A RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

THE JUDGMENT EXPRESSLY OVERRULED THE DEMURRERS AND MOTIONS TO QUASH
SO FAR AS THEY CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SHERMAN ACT OR
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY, AND ALSO SO
FAR AS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN
COUNTS ONE, TWO AND FOUR.  THE COURT ADDED THAT IT OVERRULED ALL THE
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS WHICH IT HAD NOT SPECIFICALLY OVERRULED OR
SUSTAINED.  THE JUDGMENT ENDS BY DISMISSING THE INDICTMENT AS TO ALL
DEFENDANTS. 

THE FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED CONCERNS OUR JURISDICTION.  THE
EXCEPTIONAL RIGHT OF APPEAL GIVEN TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE CRIMINAL
APPEALS ACT IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO THE INSTANCES SPECIFIED.  FN1 THE
PROVISION INVOKED HERE IS THE ONE WHICH PERMITS REVIEW WHERE A DECISION
QUASHING OR SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT OR ANY OF ITS COUNTS
IS BASED UPON THE "CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE
INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED."  THE DECISION BELOW WAS NOT PREDICATED UPON
INVALIDITY OF THE STATUTE. 

THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES GOVERNING OUR REVIEW ARE THESE:  (1)
APPEAL DOES NOT LIE FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH RESTS ON THE MERE
DEFICIENCIES OF THE INDICTMENT AS A PLEADING, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH UNDERLIES THE INDICTMENT.  (2) NOR
WILL AN APPEAL LIE IN A CASE WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT HAS CONSIDERED
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BUT HAS ALSO RESTED ITS DECISION UPON
THE INDEPENDENT GROUND OF A DEFECT IN PLEADING WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO
OUR EXAMINATION.  IN THAT CASE WE CANNOT DISTURB THE JUDGMENT AND THE
QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION BECOMES ABSTRACT.  (3) THIS COURT MUST ACCEPT
THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE INDICTMENT BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS THAT
IS A MATTER WE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO REVIEW.  (4) WHEN THE DISTRICT
COURT HOLDS THAT THE INDICTMENT, NOT MERELY BECAUSE OF SOME DEFICIENCY
IN PLEADING BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CHARGE, DOES NOT
ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED,
THAT IS NECESSARILY A CONSTRUCTION OF THAT STATUTE.  (5) WHEN THE
DISTRICT COURT HAS RESTED ITS DECISION UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
UNDERLYING STATUTE THIS COURT IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO GO BEYOND THE
QUESTION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THAT CONSTRUCTION AND CONSIDER OTHER
OBJECTIONS TO THE INDICTMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL DOES NOT OPEN
THE WHOLE CASE. 

FIRST.  THE FIRST TWO OF THESE PRINCIPLES, AS THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDES, PRECLUDE OUR REVIEW OF THE DECISION BELOW AS TO COUNT THREE. 
FOR THAT COUNT WAS HELD BAD UPON THE INDEPENDENT GROUND THAT IT IS
DEFECTIVE AS A PLEADING, BEING DUPLICITOUS AND ALSO LACKING IN
DEFINITENESS.  UNITED STATES V. KEITEL, 211 U.S. 370, 397-399; UNITED
STATES V. CARTER, 231 U.S. 492, 493; UNITED STATES V. HASTINGS, 296
U.S. 188, 192-194.  THE APPEAL AS TO COUNT THREE MUST BE DISMISSED. 

SECOND.  AFTER A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AVERMENTS OF THE
INDICTMENT, WHICH WAS EXPLICITLY FOUNDED ON SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT,
THE DISTRICT COURT CONSTRUED COUNTS ONE, TWO AND FOUR AS FOLLOWS: 

"COUNT 1 CHARGES A CONSPIRACY 'TO ARBITRARILY FIX, MAINTAIN AND
CONTROL ARTIFICIAL AND NON-COMPETITIVE PRICES TO BE PAID TO ALL
PRODUCERS BY ALL DISTRIBUTORS FOR ALL FLUID MILK PRODUCED ON APPROVED
DAIRY FARMS LOCATED IN THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN AND
WISCONSIN', AND SHIPPED TO CHICAGO." 

"COUNT 2 CHARGES A CONSPIRACY 'TO FIX AND MAINTAIN BY COMMON AND
CONCERTED ACTION, UNIFORM, ARBITRARY AND NON-COMPETITIVE PRICES FOR THE
SALE BY THE DISTRIBUTORS IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO OF FLUID MILK SHIPPED
INTO THE SAID CITY FROM THE STATES OF ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN AND
WISCONSIN.'" 

"COUNT 4 CHARGES A CONSPIRACY 'TO RESTRICT, LIMIT AND CONTROL AND TO
RESTRAIN AND OBSTRUCT THE SUPPLY OF FLUID MILK MOVING IN THE CHANNELS
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE INTO THE CITY OF CHICAGO FROM THE STATES OF
ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN.'" 

THE DISTRICT COURT FURTHER SUMMARIZED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THESE COUNTS
AS TO THE METHODS BY WHICH THE ALLEGED CONSPIRACIES WERE INTENDED TO BE
EFFECTED.  28 F.SUPP.  PP. 179-181.  THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE
INDICTMENT IS BINDING UPON THIS COURT ON THIS APPEAL.  UNITED STATES V.
PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 535, 540; UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250
U.S. 300, 301; UNITED STATES V. SCHRADER'S SON, 252 U.S. 85, 98; UNITED
STATES V. YUGINOVICH, 256 U.S. 450, 461; UNITED STATES V. HASTINGS,
SUPRA, P. 192. 

THIRD.  THE DISTRICT COURT, THUS CONSTRUING COUNTS ONE, TWO AND FOUR,
HELD AS A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE THAT, BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT OF THE LATER
STATUTES, THESE COUNTS DID NOT CHARGE AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THIS WAS NECESSARILY A CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 
UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. BIRDSALL, 233 U.S.
223, 230; UNITED STATES V. KAPP, 302 U.S. 214, 217.  WE ARE NOT
IMPRESSED WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT SIMPLY CONSTRUED THE LATER
STATUTES.  THE EFFECT OF THOSE STATUTES WAS CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE SHERMAN ACT HAS BEEN SO MODIFIED AND LIMITED THAT IT NO
LONGER APPLIES TO SUCH COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES AS ARE CHARGED IN
COUNTS ONE, TWO AND FOUR.  THUS THE SHERMAN ACT WAS NOT THE LESS
CONSTRUED BECAUSE IT WAS CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSEQUENT
LEGISLATION. 

WE HAVE JURISDICTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION THUS PLACED UPON THE SHERMAN ACT IS CORRECT. 

FOURTH.  IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION, THE DISTRICT COURT REFERRED TO
SEC. 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT,
AND THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED IN 1935, AND AS
REENACTED AND AMENDED BY THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF
1937. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAYTON ACT,  FN2  THE COURT SAID IN ITS OPINION:
"BY THAT ACT LABOR, AGRICULTURAL OR HORTICULTURAL COOPERATIVE
ORGANIZATIONS WERE EXCEPTED FROM THE BROAD AND SWEEPING TERMS OF THE
SHERMAN ACT.  SUCH COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS, IN AND OF THEMSELVES,
WERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS."  28 F.SUPP.  183.  BUT
THE COURT DID NOT HOLD THAT, BY THESE PROVISIONS OF THE CLAYTON ACT,
EITHER THE DEFENDANTS PURE MILK ASSOCIATION AND ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS
OR THE DEFENDANTS MILK WAGON DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL 753, AND ITS
OFFICIALS, (ALBEIT THESE ORGANIZATIONS WERE NOT IN THEMSELVES ILLEGAL
COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES) WERE RENDERED IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT FOR THEIR ALLEGED PARTICIPATION IN THE
COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES CHARGED IN COUNTS ONE, TWO AND FOUR OF
THE INDICTMENT.  THE SHERMAN ACT WAS NOT CONSTRUED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT AS HAVING BEEN LIMITED TO THAT EXTENT BY THE CLAYTON ACT. 

THE COURT INVOKED THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT,  FN3  AS ITS JUDGMENT
SHOWS, ONLY IN RELATION TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS, THAT IS, THE PURE MILK
ASSOCIATION, AN AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE OGANIZATION, AND ITS OFFICERS
AND AGENTS.  WE SHALL CONSIDER LATER THE EFFECT OF THAT STATUTE UPON
THE CHARGE AGAINST THOSE DEFENDANTS. 

THE COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS, AND WE THINK
IT MANIFEST THAT THIS RULING IN ITS BEARING UPON COUNTS ONE, TWO AND
FOUR WAS DUE TO THE EFFECT UPON THE SHERMAN ACT WHICH THE COURT
ATTRIBUTED TO THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT.  FN4 

(1).  AS TO THAT ACT, THE COURT SAID: 

"THE COURT HOLDS THAT, BY THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT
THE CONGRESS HAS COMMITTED TO THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, ACTING THROUGH
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, FULL, COMPLETE AND PLENARY POWER OVER THE
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING, IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OF AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTS, INCLUDING MILK. 

"TO WHAT EXTENT HE SHOULD ACT, THE QUANTUM OF REGULATION, IS SOLELY
ONE FOR HIS JUDGMENT AND DECISION.  IF CONDITIONS REQUIRE, HE MUST ACT;
IF THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ACTION, THEN ALL MARKETING CONDITIONS ARE DEEMED
SATISFACTORY AND THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS EFFECTUATED.  NON-ACTION BY
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, IN ANY GIVEN MARKETING AREA, IS
EQUIVALENT TO A DECLARATION THAT THE POLICY OF THE ACT, IN THAT AREA,
IS BEING CARRIED OUT.  IF THE POLICY OF THE ACT, IN ANY GIVEN MILK
AREA, IS BEING VIOLATED IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE TO INTERVENE AND INVOKE THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM BY
THE ACT. 

"IT RESULTS, FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, THAT THE POWER OF REGULATION,
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE MILK INDUSTRY, IN ANY GIVEN MILK SHED,
IS, BY THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, VESTED
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  IT FOLLOWS FURTHER THAT
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE CANNOT BY HIS OWN ACTION, OR INACTION,
DIVEST HIMSELF OF THIS POWER SO LONG AS THE STATUTE REMAINS IN FORCE. 
THE MARKETING OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, INCLUDING MILK, COVERED BY
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT, IS REMOVED FROM THE PURVIEW
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IN OTHER WORDS, SO FAR AS THE MARKETING OF
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, INCLUDING MILK, IS CONCERNED, NO INDICTMENT
WILL LIE UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT."  28 F.SUPP.  P. 187. 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ATTRIBUTES THIS EFFECT TO
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT PER SE, THAT IS, TO ITS
OPERATION IN THE ABSENCE, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SCOPE AND
PARTICULAR EFFECT, OF ANY MARKETING AGREEMENTS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE OR OF ANY ORDERS ISSUED BY HIM PURSUANT TO THE ACT.  IN THE
OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW, THE EXISTENCE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ALTHOUGH UNEXERCISED, WHOLLY DESTROYS THE
OPERATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKETING OF
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CONCLUSION IS ERRONEOUS.  NO
PROVISION OF THAT PURPORT APPEARS IN THE AGRICULTURAL ACT.  WHILE
EFFECT IS EXPRESSLY GIVEN, AS WE SHALL SEE, TO AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS
WHICH MAY VALIDLY BE MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT IN THEIR ABSENCE, AND APART FROM SUCH QUALIFIED
AUTHORIZATION AND SUCH REQUIREMENTS AS THEY CONTAIN, THE COMMERCE IN
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IS STRIPPED OF THE SAFEGUARDS SET UP BY THE
ANTI-TRUST ACT AND IS LEFT OPEN TO THE RESTRAINTS, HOWEVER
UNREASONABLE, WHICH CONSPIRING PRODUCERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND THEIR ALLIES
MAY SEE FIT TO IMPOSE.  WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT SUCH A GRANT OF
IMMUNITY BY VIRTUE OF THE INACTION, OR LIMITED ACTION, OF THE SECRETARY
HAS ANY PLACE IN THE STATUTORY PLAN.  WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO CREATE "SO GREAT A BREACH IN HISTORIC REMEDIES AND
SANCTIONS."  FN5    IT IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT
REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED.  WHEN THERE ARE TWO ACTS UPON
THE SAME SUBJECT, THE RULE IS TO GIVE EFFECT TO BOTH IF POSSIBLE. 
UNITED STATES V. TYNEN, 11 WALL.  88, 92; HENDERSON'S TOBACCO, 11
WALL.  652, 657; GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 286
U.S. 49, 61, 62.  THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO REPEAL "MUST BE
CLEAR AND MANIFEST."  RED ROCK V. HENRY, 106 U.S. 596, 601, 602.  IT IS
NOT SUFFICIENT, AS WAS SAID BY MR. JUSTICE STORY IN WOOD V. UNITED
STATES, 16 PET. 342, 362, 363, "TO ESTABLISH THAT SUBSEQUENT LAWS COVER
SOME OR EVEN ALL OF THE CASES PROVIDED FOR BY (THE PRIOR ACT); FOR THEY
MAY BE MERELY AFFIRMATIVE, OR CUMULATIVE, OR AUXILIARY."  THERE MUST BE
"A POSITIVE REPUGNANCY BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW LAW, AND THOSE
OF THE OLD; AND EVEN THEN THE OLD LAW IS REPEALED BY IMPLICATION ONLY
PRO TANTO TO THE EXTENT OF THE REPUGNANCY."  SEE, ALSO, POSADOS V.
NATIONAL CITY BANK, 296 U.S. 497, 504. 

THE SHERMAN ACT IS A BROAD ENACTMENT PROHIBITING UNREASONABLE
RESTRAINTS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND MONOPOLIZATION OR ATTEMPTS TO
MONOPOLIZE, WITH PENAL SANCTIONS.  THE AGRICULTURAL ACT IS A LIMITED
STATUTE WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS WHICH MAY BE
REGULATED BY OFFICIAL ACTION IN A PRESCRIBED MANNER.  THE AGRICULTURAL
ACT  FN6  DECLARES IT TO BE THE POLICY OF CONGRESS "THROUGH THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
UNDER THIS CHAPTER, TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN SUCH ORDERLY MARKETING
CONDITIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS WILL
ESTABLISH PRICES TO FARMERS AT A LEVEL THAT WILL GIVE AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES A PURCHASING POWER WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES THAT FARMERS
BUY, EQUIVALENT TO THE PURCHASING POWER OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN
THE BASE PERIOD" DESCRIBED.  TO CARRY OUT THAT POLICY A PARTICULAR PLAN
IS SET FORTH.  FARMERS AND OTHERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO RESORT TO THEIR
OWN DEVICES AND TO MAKE ANY AGREEMENTS OR ARRANGEMENTS THEY DESIRE,
REGARDLESS OF THE RESTRAINTS WHICH MAY BE INFLICTED UPON COMMERCE.  THE
STATUTORY PROGRAM TO BE FOLLOWED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ACT REQUIRES
THE PARTICIPATION OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WHO IS TO HOLD
HEARINGS AND MAKE FINDINGS.  THE OBVIOUS INTENTION IS TO PROVIDE FOR
WHAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS IN PARTICULAR INSTANCES
AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED.  THE METHODS WHICH THE
AGRICULTURAL ACT PERMITS TO ATTAIN THAT RESULT ARE TWOFOLD, MARKETING
AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS.  TO GIVE VALIDITY TO MARKETING AGREEMENTS THE
SECRETARY MUST BE AN ACTUAL PARTY TO THE AGREEMENTS.  SEC. 8B.  FN7
THE ORDERS ARE ALSO TO BE MADE BY THE SECRETARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REGULATING THE HANDLING OF THE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY TO WHICH THE
PARTICULAR ORDER RELATES.  SEC. 8C(3)(4).  FN8  THAT THE FIELD COVERED
BY THE AGRICULTURAL ACT IS NOT COTERMINOUS WITH THAT COVERED BY THE
SHERMAN ACT IS MANIFEST FROM THE FACT THAT THE FORMER IS THUS DELIMITED
BY THE PRESCRIBED ACTION PARTICIPATED IN AND DIRECTED BY AN OFFICER OF
GOVERNMENT PROCEEDING UNDER THE AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED BY
CONGRESS.  AS TO AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS NOT THUS AGREED UPON OR
DIRECTED BY THE SECRETARY, THE AGRICULTURAL ACT IN NO WAY IMPINGES UPON
THE PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AND ITS CONDEMNATION
OF PRIVATE ACTION IN ENTERING INTO COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES WHICH
IMPOSE THE PROHIBITED RESTRAINT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE REMAINS
UNTOUCHED. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO LABOR THE POINT, FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ACT
ITSELF EXPRESSLY DEFINES THE EXTENT TO WHICH ITS PROVISIONS MAKE THE
ANTITRUST LAWS INAPPLICABLE.  THAT DEFINITION IS FOUND IN SEC. 8(B)
FN9  OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT CARRIED INTO THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT IN RELATION TO MARKETING AGREEMENTS, AND
PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 

"IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THIS CHAPTER, THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE SHALL HAVE THE POWER, AFTER DUE NOTICE AND
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, TO ENTER INTO MARKETING AGREEMENTS WITH
PROCESSORS, PRODUCERS, ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, AND OTHERS ENGAGED IN
THE HANDLING OF ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY OR PRODUCT THEREOF, ONLY
WITH RESPECT TO SUCH HANDLING AS IS IN THE CURRENT OF INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE OR WHICH DIRECTLY BURDENS, OBSTRUCTS, OR AFFECTS,
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN SUCH COMMODITY OR PRODUCT THEREOF. 
THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BE HELD TO BE IN VIOLATION
OF ANY OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ANY SUCH
AGREEMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE LAWFUL:  PROVIDED, THAT NO SUCH
AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THIS
CHAPTER." 

ANOTHER PROVISION IS FOUND IN SEC. 3(D)  FN10  OF THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT, RELATING TO AWARDS OR AGREEMENTS RESULTING
FROM THE ARBITRATION OR MEDIATION BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE OR BY
A DESIGNATED OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AS
PROVIDED IN SEC. 3(A),  FN11  AND MEETINGS FOR THAT PURPOSE AND AWARDS
OR AGREEMENTS RESULTING THEREFROM WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 3(B).  FN12  SECTION 3(D)
PROVIDES: 

"NO MEETING SO HELD AND NO AWARD OR AGREEMENT SO APPROVED SHALL BE
DEEMED TO BE IN VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

THESE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS REQUIRING OFFICIAL PARTICIPATION AND
AUTHORIZATIONS SHOW BEYOND QUESTION HOW FAR CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE
AGRICULTURAL ACT SHOULD OPERATE TO RENDER THE SHERMAN ACT
INAPPLICABLE.  FN13  IF CONGRESS HAD DESIRED TO GRANT ANY FURTHER
IMMUNITY, CONGRESS DOUBTLESS WOULD HAVE SAID SO. 

AN AGREEMENT MADE WITH THE SECRETARY AS A PARTY, OR AN ORDER MADE BY
HIM, OR AN ARBITRATION AWARD OR AGREEMENT APPROVED BY HIM, PURSUANT TO
THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE AGRICULTURAL ACT AND WITHIN THE TERMS OF
THE DESCRIBED IMMUNITY, WOULD OF COURSE BE A DEFENSE TO A PROSECUTION
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROSECUTION SOUGHT TO
PENALIZE WHAT WAS THUS VALIDLY AGREED UPON OR DIRECTED BY THE
SECRETARY.  FURTHER THAN THAT THE AGRICULTURAL ACT DOES NOT GO. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE WHETHER IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE AN
INDICTMENT UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT BY REASON OF ITS PARTICULAR TERMS
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO DEMURRER, OR TO A MOTION TO QUASH, UPON THE GROUND
THAT THE INDICTMENT RAN AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT OR
ORDER.  WE HAVE NO SUCH SITUATION HERE.  THERE IS INDEED A CONTENTION
THAT THERE WAS A LICENSE (NO. 30) ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE IN 1934, AMENDED IN JANUARY, 1935, AND IN FORCE UNTIL MARCH
2, 1935, WHICH RELATED TO THE MARKETING OF MILK IN THE CHICAGO AREA,
AND HENCE THAT DEFENDANTS OPERATING UNDER THAT LICENSE WERE NOT SUBJECT
TO THE CHARGES OF THE CONSPIRACIES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEGUN IN JANUARY,
1935.  BUT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT ARE THAT THE UNLAWFUL
CONSPIRACIES CONTINUED THROUGHOUT ALL THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN THE
INDICTMENT, THAT IS, UP TO THE TIME OF ITS PRESENTMENT IN NOVEMBER,
1938.  THIS CLEARLY IMPORTS THAT THE CONSPIRACIES WERE OPERATIVE AFTER
THE LICENSE CAME TO AN END AND THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LICENSE.  A
CONSPIRACY THUS CONTINUED IS IN EFFECT RENEWED DURING EACH DAY OF ITS
CONTINUANCE.  UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, 218 U.S. 601, 607, 608; HYDE V.
UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 347, 369; BROWN V. ELLIOTT, 225 U.S. 392, 400. 
IT IS ALSO SAID THAT THERE IS A RECENT MARKETING ORDER UNDER DATE OF
AUGUST 29, 1939,  FN14  WHICH RELATES TO THE CHICAGO MARKETING AREA,
AND HENCE THAT THIS CAUSE IS MOOT.  BUT THAT ORDER AFFECTS A PERIOD
SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME COVERED BY THE INDICTMENT.  THESE CONTENTIONS
ARE UNAVAILING IN RELATION TO THE QUESTION BEFORE US. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT AS REENACTED
AND AMENDED BY THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT AFFORDS NO
GROUND FOR CONSTRUING THE SHERMAN ACT AS INAPPLICABLE TO THE CHARGES
CONTAINED IN COUNTS ONE, TWO AND FOUR. 

(2)  THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT BELOW RIGHTLY HELD
THAT THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT  FN15  HAD MODIFIED THE SHERMAN ACT SO AS
TO EXEMPT THE PURE MILK ASSOCIATION, A COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL
ORGANIZATION, AND ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS, FROM PROSECUTION UNDER THESE
COUNTS. 

AS TO THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT THE COURT SAID: 

"THIS ACT LEGALIZES PRICE FIXING FOR THOSE WITHIN ITS PURVIEW.  TO
THAT EXTENT IT MODIFIES THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT REMOVES FROM THE SHERMAN
ACT THOSE ORGANIZATIONS, COOPERATIVE IN THEIR NATURE, WHICH COME WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT.  PRIOR TO THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD
ACT FARMERS WERE TREATED NO DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHERS UNDER THE ANTITRUST
LAWS, SO FAR AS PRICE FIXING WAS CONCERNED.  ... 

"THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT DOES NOT CONDEMN ANY KIND OF MONOPOLY OR
RESTRAINT OF TRADE, OR ANY PRICE FIXING, UNLESS SUCH MONOPOLY OR PRICE
FIXING UNDULY ENHANCES THE PRICE OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT.  THE ACT
THEN, BY SECTION 2 THEREOF, COMMITS TO AN OFFICER OF THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, THE POWER OF REGULATION AND
VISITATION. 

"UNDER THIS ACT FARMERS ARE FAVORED UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS IN THAT
THEY ARE GIVEN A QUALIFIED RIGHT, FREE FROM ANY CRIMINAL LIABILITY, TO
COMBINE AMONG THEMSELVES TO MONOPOLIZE AND RESTRAIN INTERSTATE TRADE
AND COMMERCE IN FARM PRODUCTS AND TO FIX AND ENHANCE THE PRICE
THEREOF. 

"  ...  THE COURT DEDUCES FROM THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT THAT THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE AND
ORDER, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHETHER OR NOT FARMER COOPERATIVES, IN
THEIR OPERATION, MONOPOLIZE AND RESTRAIN INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE
'TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE PRICE OF ANY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT IS UNDULY
ENHANCED'.  UNTIL THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ACTS, THE JUDICIAL POWER
CANNOT BE INVOKED."  28 F.SUPP., PP. 183, 184. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THAT VIEW.  WE CANNOT FIND IN THE CAPPER
VOLSTEAD ACT, ANY MORE THAN IN THE AGRICULTURAL ACT, AN INTENTION TO
DECLARE IMMUNITY FOR THE COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES CHARGED IN THE
PRESENT INDICTMENT.  SECTION 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, ENACTED IN 1914,
FN16  HAD AUTHORIZED THE FORMATION AND OPERATION OF AGRICULTURAL
ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDED THEY DID NOT HAVE CAPITAL STOCK OR WERE
CONDUCTED FOR PROFIT, AND IT WAS THERE PROVIDED THAT THE ANTITRUST LAWS
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO FORBID MEMBERS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS "FROM
LAWFULLY CARRYING OUT THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTS THEREOF."  THEY WERE NOT
TO BE HELD ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS.  THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT, ENACTED IN
1922,  FN17  WAS MADE APPLICABLE AS WELL TO COOPERATIVES HAVING CAPITAL
STOCK.  THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT APPLIES ARE DEFINED
IN SEC. 1 AS PRODUCERS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, "AS FARMERS, PLANTERS,
RANCHMEN, DAIRYMEN, NUT OR FRUIT GROWERS."  THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO ACT
TOGETHER "IN COLLECTIVELY PROCESSING, PREPARING FOR MARKET, HANDLING,
AND MARKETING IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE" THEIR PRODUCTS.  THEY
MAY HAVE "MARKETING AGENCIES IN COMMON," AND THEY MAY MAKE "THE
NECESSARY CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS TO EFFECT SUCH PURPOSES." 

THE RIGHT OF THESE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS THUS TO UNITE IN PREPARING
FOR MARKET AND IN MARKETING THEIR PRODUCTS, AND TO MAKE THE CONTRACTS
WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THAT COLLABORATION, CANNOT BE DEEMED TO
AUTHORIZE ANY COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY WITH OTHER PERSONS IN RESTRAINT
OF TRADE THAT THESE PRODUCERS MAY SEE FIT TO DEVISE.  IN THIS INSTANCE,
THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED IS NOT THAT OF MERELY FORMING A COLLECTIVE
ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCERS TO MARKET THEIR PRODUCTS BUT A CONSPIRACY, OR
CONSPIRACIES, WITH MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS AND THEIR ALLIED GROUPS, WITH
LABOR OFFICIALS, MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS, AND OTHERS, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
ARTIFICIAL AND NON-COMPETITIVE PRICES TO BE PAID TO ALL PRODUCERS FOR
ALL FLUID MILK PRODUCED IN ILLINOIS AND NEIGHBORING STATES AND MARKETED
IN THE CHICAGO AREA, AND THUS IN EFFECT, AS THE INDICTMENT IS CONSTRUED
BY THE COURT BELOW, "TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS TO EXACT A LIKE
PRICE FROM THEIR CUSTOMERS" AND ALSO TO CONTROL "THE SUPPLY OF FLUID
MILK PERMITTED TO BE BROUGHT TO CHICAGO."  28 F.SUPP.  180-182.  SUCH A
COMBINED ATTEMPT OF ALL THE DEFENDANTS, PRODUCERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND
THEIR ALLIES, TO CONTROL THE MARKET FINDS NO JUSTIFICATION IN SEC. 1 OF
THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT. 

NOR DOES THE COURT BELOW DERIVE ITS LIMITATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT
FROM SEC. 1.  THE PITH OF THE COURT'S CONCLUSION IS THAT UNDER SEC. 2
AN EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO THE DESCRIBED COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATIONS IS VESTED, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, IN THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, AND THAT, UNTIL THE SECRETARY ACTS, THE JUDICIAL POWER TO
ENTERTAIN A PROSECUTION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. 
IN A CASE WHERE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION "MONOPOLIZES" OR RESTRAINS INTERSTATE TRADE "TO
SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE PRICE OF ANY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT IS UNDULY
ENHANCED."  THEREUPON THE SECRETARY IS TO SERVE UPON THE ASSOCIATION A
COMPLAINT, STATING HIS CHARGE WITH NOTICE OF HEARING.  AND IF UPON SUCH
HEARING THE SECRETARY IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSOCIATION
"MONOPOLIZES," OR DOES RESTRAIN INTERSTATE TRADE TO THE EXTENT ABOVE
MENTIONED, HE THEN IS TO ISSUE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE ASSOCIATION "TO
CEASE AND DESIST" THEREFROM.  PROVISION IS MADE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

WE FIND NO GROUND FOR SAYING THAT THIS LIMITED PROCEDURE IS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT, OR HAS THE RESULT OF
PERMITTING THE SORT OF COMBINATIONS AND CONSPIRACIES HERE CHARGED
UNLESS OR UNTIL THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TAKES ACTION.  THAT THIS
PROVISION OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT DOES NOT COVER THE ENTIRE FIELD OF
THE SHERMAN ACT IS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR.  THE SHERMAN ACT AUTHORIZES
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES.  THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT PROVIDES
ONLY FOR A CIVIL PROCEEDING.  THE SHERMAN ACT HITS AT ATTEMPTS TO
MONOPOLIZE AS WELL AS ACTUAL MONOPOLIZATION.  AND SEC. 2 OF THE CAPPER
VOLSTEAD ACT CONTAINS NO PROVISION GIVING IMMUNITY FROM THE SHERMAN ACT
IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROCEEDING BY THE SECRETARY.  WE THINK THAT THE
PROCEDURE UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT IS AUXILIARY AND WAS
INTENDED MERELY AS A QUALIFICATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION GIVEN TO
COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS BY SEC. 1, SO THAT IF THE COLLECTIVE
ACTION OF SUCH PRODUCERS, AS THERE PERMITTED, RESULTS IN THE OPINION OF
THE SECRETARY IN MONOPOLIZATION OR UNDULY ENHANCED PRICES, HE MAY
INTERVENE AND SEEK TO CONTROL THE ACTION THUS TAKEN UNDER SEC. 1.  BUT
AS SEC. 1 CANNOT BE REGARDED AS AUTHORIZING THE SORT OF CONSPIRACIES
BETWEEN PRODUCERS AND OTHERS THAT ARE CHARGED IN THIS INDICTMENT, THE
QUALIFYING PROCEDURE FOR WHICH SEC. 2 PROVIDES IS NOT TO BE DEEMED TO
BE DESIGNED TO TAKE THE PLACE OF, OR TO POSTPONE OR PREVENT,
PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PUNISHING SUCH CONSPIRACIES. 

FIFTH.  HAVING DEALT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY THE COURT BELOW
UPON THE SHERMAN ACT, OUR JURISDICTION ON THIS APPEAL IS EXHAUSTED.  WE
ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO CONSIDER OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE INDICTMENT OR
QUESTIONS WHICH MAY ARISE UPON THE TRIAL WITH RESPECT TO THE MERITS OF
THE CHARGE.  FOR IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
BASED ITS DECISION ON A PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNDERLYING
STATUTE, THE REVIEW HERE UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT IS CONFINED TO
THE QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY OF THAT CONSTRUCTION.  UNITED STATES V.
KEITEL, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. KISSEL, SUPRA, P. 606; UNITED STATES V.
MILLER, 223 U.S. 599, 602; UNITED STATES V. CARTER, SUPRA; UNITED
STATES V. COLGATE & CO., SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. SCHRADER'S SON, SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. HASTINGS, SUPRA.  THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. CURTISS
WRIGHT CORPORATION, 299 U.S. 304, IS NOT OPPOSED, AS THERE THE DECISION
OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT BASED UPON A PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE UNDERLYING STATUTE, BUT UPON ITS INVALIDITY, AND THE JURISDICTION
OF THIS COURT EXTENDED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE RULINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WHICH DEALT WITH THAT QUESTION. 

THE LIMITATION APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE TO THE QUESTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHERMAN ACT DISPOSES OF THE
CONTENTION URGED BY SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS THAT COUNTS TWO AND FOUR DO
NOT SHOW SUCH A DIRECT RESTRAINT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO BRING
THE ACTS CHARGED WITHIN THE STATUTE.  THE DISTRICT COURT SAID IN ITS
OPINION THAT, IN VIEW OF ITS RULINGS (ABOVE DISCUSSED) AS TO COUNTS
ONE, TWO AND FOUR, IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE "WHETHER OR NOT THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE INDICTMENT SHOW THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS OR WAS
NOT RESTRAINED."  28 F.SUPP., P. 187.  IN ITS JUDGMENT THE COURT
FORMALLY OVERRULED ALL OBJECTIONS TO THESE COUNTS SO FAR AS THE
OBJECTIONS RESTED ON THE GROUND THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS NOT
INVOLVED.  IF THESE RULINGS BE TREATED AS DEALING MERELY WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INDICTMENT, THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED HERE.  UNITED
STATES V. PATTEN, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., SUPRA; UNITED
STATES V. HASTINGS, SUPRA.  BUT, APART FROM THAT, THE DISTRICT COURT
CERTAINLY HAS NOT CONSTRUED THE SHERMAN ACT AS INAPPLICABLE UPON THE
GROUND THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT INVOLVED, AND THE QUESTION OF
THE BEARING UPON THAT COMMERCE OF THE ACTS CHARGED IS NOT BEFORE US. 

SIMILARLY, THE CONTENTION OF THE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE LABOR OFFICIALS
THAT THE SHERMAN ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO LABOR UNIONS OR LABOR UNION
ACTIVITIES IS NOT OPEN ON THIS APPEAL.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT
CONSTRUE THE SHERMAN ACT AS INAPPLICABLE TO THESE DEFENDANTS AND THE
GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL, UNDER THE RESTRICTION OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT,
DOES NOT PRESENT THAT QUESTION. 

THE APPEAL AS TO COUNT THREE IS DISMISSED.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED
AS TO COUNTS ONE, TWO AND FOUR, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THIS ACT (18 U.S.C. 682, JUD.  CODE, SEC. 238, 28 U.S.C. 345)
PROVIDES: 

"AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES FROM
THE DISTRICT COURTS DIRECT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN
ALL CRIMINAL CASES, IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES, TO WIT: 

"FROM A DECISION OR JUDGMENT QUASHING, SETTING ASIDE, OR SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO, ANY INDICTMENT, OR ANY COUNT THEREOF, WHERE SUCH DECISION
OR JUDGMENT IS BASED UPON THE INVALIDITY, OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED. 

"FROM A DECISION ARRESTING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR INSUFFICIENCY
OF THE INDICTMENT, WHERE SUCH DECISION IS BASED UPON THE INVALIDITY OR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED. 

"FROM THE DECISION OR JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A SPECIAL PLEA IN BAR, WHEN
THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN JEOPARDY.  ... 

"PENDING THE PROSECUTION AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL IN THE
FOREGOING INSTANCES, THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE ADMITTED TO BAIL ON HIS OWN
RECOGNIZANCE:  PROVIDED, THAT NO APPEAL SHALL BE TAKEN BY OR ALLOWED
THE UNITED STATES IN ANY CASE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A VERDICT IN FAVOR
OF THE DEFENDANT." 

FN2  SECTION 6 OF THE CLAYTON ACT (38 STAT. 730, 15 U.S.C. 17)
PROVIDES: 

"THE LABOR OF A HUMAN BEING IS NOT A COMMODITY OR ARTICLE OF
COMMERCE.  NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE ANTITRUST LAWS SHALL BE CONSTRUED
TO FORBID THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATION OF LABOR, AGRICULTURAL, OR
HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS, INSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF MUTUAL
HELP, AND NOT HAVING CAPITAL STOCK OR CONDUCTED FOR PROFIT, OR TO
FORBID OR RESTRAIN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS FROM
LAWFULLY CARRYING OUT THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTS THEREOF; NOR SHALL SUCH
ORGANIZATIONS, OR THE MEMBERS THEREOF, BE HELD OR CONSTRUED TO BE
ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS OR CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, UNDER THE
ANTITRUST LAWS." 

FN3  42 STAT. 388, 7 U.S.C. 291, 292. 

FN4  THE DISTRICT COURT REFERRED, IN PASSING, TO THE COOPERATIVE
MARKETING ACT OF JULY 2, 1926(44 STAT. 803, 7 U.S.C. 455), AND TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933(48 STAT. 31), AS
AMENDED IN 1935(49 STAT. 750), WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937(50 STAT. 246). 

FN5  SEE GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S.
49, 61. 

FN6  7 U.S.C. SUPP. IV, 602(1). 

FN7  7 U.S.C. SUPP. IV, SEC. 608B. 

FN8  7 U.S.C. SUPP. IV, SEC. 608C (3)(4). 

FN9  7 U.S.C. SUPP. IV, SEC. 608B. 

FN10  50 STAT. 249. 

FN11  50 STAT. 248. 

FN12  50 STAT. 248. 

FN13  SEE 77 CONG. REC., PT. II, P. 1977; PT. III, P. 3117. 

FN14  FEDERAL REGISTER, AUGUST 30, 1939, ORDER NO. 41, VOL. 4, PP.
3764-3768, 3770. 

FN15  42 STAT. 388, 7 U.S.C. 291, 292. 

FN16  38 STAT. 731. 

FN17  42 STAT. 388. 
..END :










CITIES SERVICE CO. V. DUNLAP, 308 U.S. 208 


NO. 28.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 9, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - 100
F.2D 294 - 101 ID. 314, REVERSED. 


A LOCAL RULE OF LAW, ESTABLISHED BY DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURT,
WHICH, ON AN ISSUE OF BONA FIDE PURCHASE WITHOUT NOTICE FOR VALUE,
RESTS THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON HIM WHO ATTACKS THE LEGAL TITLE AND
ASSERTS A SUPERIOR EQUITY, MUST BE FOLLOWED BY THE FEDERAL COURT IN A
SUIT TO QUIET TITLE BROUGHT BY THE LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD.  P. 210. 

THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF PRACTICE IN COURTS OF EQUITY BUT A MATTER OF
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT - A VALUABLE ASSURANCE IN FAVOR OF THE LEGAL TITLE. 

CITIES SERVICE OIL CO. V. DUNLAP ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENTS IN A SUIT BY THE PETITIONER
TO QUIET ITS TITLE TO A PIECE OF LAND. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, ANNOUNCED BY MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES. 

THIS CAUSE IS HERE IN ORDER THAT WE MAY DECIDE WHETHER THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WRONGLY DECLINED TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF THE TEXAS
COURTS PRESCRIBING HOW AND BY WHOM THE FACTS SHOULD BE SHOWN WHERE ONE
PARTY TO A CONTEST CONCERNING OWNERSHIP OF LAND CLAIMS THE LEGAL TITLE
AS BONA FIDE PURCHASER.  WE HAVE CONSIDERED THAT POINT ONLY AND
CONCLUDE THE RULING BELOW WAS ERROR.  IN CONSEQUENCE THE CHALLENGED
JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED.  THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR FINAL
DETERMINATION UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 

PRIOR TO 1899 LOUISA ROGERS OWNED A RECTANGULAR TRACT OF LAND - 320
ACRES - IN GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS.  IN FEBRUARY OF THAT YEAR HER HEIRS -
J. F. ROGERS AND HIS THREE BROTHERS - DIVIDED THIS BY DEEDS, DULY
EXECUTED AND RECORDED.  ONE OF THESE CONVEYED TO J. F. ROGERS SIXTY
EIGHT ACRES OUT OF THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE TRACT, DESCRIBED BY
METES AND BOUNDS.  THE NORTH LINE WAS SAID TO BEGIN AT A SPECIFIED
POINT AND TO RUN THENCE WEST 440 YARDS TO "WILEY DAVIS N.E. CORNER." 
THERE THE BOUNDARY TURNS SOUTH AND RUNS FOR EIGHT HUNDRED AND EIGHTY
YARDS, THENCE EAST, &C.  MEASURED ON THE GROUND, 440 YARDS ENDS SIXTY
SIX FEET EAST OF DAVIS' CORNER.  THIS DISCREPANCY GAVE OCCASION FOR THE
PRESENT CONTROVERSY OVER THE SIXTY-SIX FOOT STRIP LYING BETWEEN A SOUTH
LINE FROM DAVIS' CORNER AND A PARALLEL ONE, SIXTY-SIX FEET TO THE
EAST.  THE INTEREST ASSERTED BY RESPONDENTS RESTS UPON THE THEORY THAT
BY INTENTION THIS WAS LEFT UNDIVIDED. 

IN 1930 J. F. ROGERS' HEIRS GRANTED AN OIL AND GAS LEASE TO ALL LAND
DESCRIBED IN THE 1899 DEED TO HIM.  BY ASSIGNMENTS AND SUCCESSION,
PETITIONER OIL COMPANY BECAME OWNER OF THIS.  THE CONVEYANCES WERE DULY
RECORDED. 

IN 1934 RESPONDENT DUNLAP OBTAINED FROM THE THREE BROTHERS OF J. F.
ROGERS AND HIS HEIRS, A LEASE OF THE MAJOR PART OF THE SIXTY-SIX FOOT
STRIP ABOVE DESCRIBED.  TITLE TO THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSY. 

CLAIMING THAT THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DUNLAP LEASE OF 1934 WAS
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF ITS EARLIER ONE (1930), PETITIONER FILED AN
ORIGINAL BILL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TO REMOVE THE CLOUD. 
DUNLAP AND THE ROGERS APPEARED AND DENIED THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS.  A
CROSS-BILL SET UP THEIR RECORDED DEED AND ALLEGED THAT THE CALL IN THE
1899 DEED TO J. F. ROGERS FOR "DAVIS' NORTHEAST CORNER" WAS INSERTED
THROUGH INADVERTENCE AND MISTAKE; THAT THE DISTANCE CALL CONTROLLED;
THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PARTIES WAS TO ESTABLISH THE WESTERN TERMINUS
OF THE NORTH LINE SIXTY-SIX FEET EAST OF DAVIS' CORNER AND LEAVE A
STRIP ON THE WEST IN COMMON OWNERSHIP. 

PETITIONER DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE CROSS-BILL AND ASSERTED THAT
IT AND ITS PREDECESSORS WERE PURCHASERS OF THE RECORDED LEGAL TITLE FOR
VALUE IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT NOTICE OF MISTAKE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF DUNLAP.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  100 F.2D 294; 101 ID. 314. 

IN THE LATTER COURT PETITIONER MAINTAINED THAT UNDER THE ESTABLISHED
TEXAS RULE, ON AN ISSUE OF BONA FIDE PURCHASER FOR VALUE WITHOUT
NOTICE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON HIM WHO ATTACKS THE LEGAL TITLE AND
ASSERTS A SUPERIOR EQUITY.  IT CITED WHITE V. HIX, (TEXAS) 104 S.W.2D
136, 139-140,  FN1  AND INSISTED THAT ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S.
64, REQUIRED OBSERVANCE OF THE LOCAL RULE. 

THE COURT RECOGNIZED THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEXAS RULE AS CLAIMED BUT
THOUGHT A DIFFERENT AND BETTER ONE WAS GENERALLY APPROVED AND SHOULD BE
FOLLOWED.  IT SAID - 

"IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT IS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT,
SEEKING A DECREE QUIETING ITS TITLE.  IT HAS ENTERED A COURT OF EQUITY,
ASKING EQUITY AND BOUND TO DO EQUITY.  THE DEFENDANTS IN THEIR ANSWER
SET UP A MISTAKE, CORRECTABLE IN EQUITY, IN THE PARTITION DEED MADE TO
COMPLAINANT'S GRANTOR, J. F. ROGERS.  COMPLAINANT REPLIES, DENYING THE
ALLEGED MISTAKE AND ALLEGING ADDITIONALLY IN VERY GENERAL TERMS THAT IT
AND ITS PREDECESSORS IN TITLE PURCHASED IN GOOD FAITH, PAYING VALUE FOR
THE OIL AND GAS LEASE IT HOLDS IN RELIANCE ON THE DEED AS WRITTEN, AND
WITHOUT NOTICE OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLAIM NOW ASSERTED THAT THE CALL FOR
THE WILEY DAVIS NORTHEAST CORNER WAS INSERTED BY MISTAKE.  THERE WAS NO
FURTHER PLEADING." 

"ISSUE STANDS JOINED ON THE NEW FACTS ALLEGED BY THIS COMPLAINANT'S
REPLY CONCERNING ITS PURCHASE FOR VALUE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OR NOTICE. 
IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THESE FACTS OUGHT REASONABLY
TO REST ON THE COMPLAINANT, BOTH BECAUSE IT HAS ALLEGED THEM AND THEY
ARE ESSENTIAL TO ITS SUCCESS, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE PECULIARLY WITHIN
ITS KNOWLEDGE.  ...  WHAT THE COMPLAINANT ITSELF PAID, AND WITH WHAT
KNOWLEDGE, IT OF COURSE KNOWS AND COULD EASILY PROVE.  THERE IS A
FAILURE OF EVIDENCE, NOT ONLY AS TO BONA FIDES AND WANT OF NOTICE, BUT
AS TO WHAT WAS PAID AND TO WHOM, AND WHEN AND HOW; THE DETAILS OF WHICH
THE MAKER OF THIS PLEA HAS FROM THE EARLIEST TIME BEEN HELD BOUND TO
ALLEGE AND, WHEN PUT IN ISSUE, TO PROVE." 

"THIS SEEMS TO US A MATTER OF PRACTICE OR PROCEDURE AND NOT A MATTER
OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW.  THERE IS NO QUESTION AS TO WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF
A BONA FIDE PURCHASER, OR AS TO WHETHER THE FACTS ESTABLISHED MAKE
COMPLAINANT OUT SUCH, BUT ONLY A QUESTION OF HOW AND BY WHOM THE FACTS
SHALL BE SHOWN TO THE COURT.  SUCH MATTERS ARE NOT WITHIN THE DECISION
IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, AND THE CASES FOLLOWING IT." 

"WE HAVE HERE NOT A CASE WHERE A TEXAS STATUTE HAS CREATED THE RIGHT
ASSERTED, OR HAS CREATED A PRESUMPTION, OR IS IN ANY MANNER TO BE
APPLIED AS CONSTRUED IN TEXAS.  THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY WHAT IS THE
PROPER PRACTICE IN COURTS OF EQUITY.  THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN THE
STATE COURTS OF TEXAS, WHERE EQUITY COURTS AS SUCH DO NOT EXIST, IS NOT
CONTROLLING." 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT THE QUESTION PRESENTED WAS ONLY ONE OF
PRACTICE IN COURTS OF EQUITY.  RATHER WE THINK IT RELATES TO A
SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT UPON WHICH THE HOLDER OF RECORDED LEGAL TITLE TO
TEXAS LAND MAY CONFIDENTLY RELY.  PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO THE
PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE LOCAL RULE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
SHOWING IT WAS NOT A BONA FIDE PURCHASER ITS POSITION WAS SUPERIOR TO A
CLAIMANT ASSERTING AN EQUITABLE INTEREST ONLY.  THIS WAS A VALUABLE
ASSURANCE IN FAVOR OF ITS TITLE. 

CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. V. WHITE, 238 U.S. 507, 512, CONSIDERED AN
ANALOGOUS SITUATION AND POINTED OUT THE PRINCIPLE PRESENTLY
APPLICABLE.  PROOF THAT PETITIONER DID NOT PURCHASE FOR VALUE AND IN
GOOD FAITH WAS "PART OF THE VERY SUBSTANCE" OF RESPONDENTS' CAUSE. 

SUNDRY ARGUMENTS ADVANCED HERE TO SUPPORT RESPONDENTS' DEMAND FOR
AFFIRMANCE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ERRONEOUS PRONOUNCEMENT BELOW, WILL BE
MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN THE CAUSE COMES AGAIN BEFORE THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "IT IS THOROUGHLY SETTLED THAT ONE WHO CLAIMS A SUPERIOR
EQUITABLE TITLE TO LAND AS AGAINST ONE WHO HAS PURCHASED FROM THE
HOLDER OF THE LEGAL TITLE MUST SHOW THAT SUCH PURCHASER DID NOT
PURCHASE FOR VALUE OR PURCHASED WITH NOTICE OF THE OUTSTANDING EQUITY. 
TEAGARDEN V. R.B. GODLEY LUMBER CO., 105 TEX. 616, 154 S.W. 973;
COMMONWEALTH B. & L. ASS'N V. HOWARD (TEX. CIV. APP.) 61 S.W.(2D) 546;
MOORE V. HUMBLE OIL & REF. CO. (TEX. CIV. APP.) 85 S.W.(2D) 943, 944;
TARKENTON V. MARSHALL (TEX. CIV. APP.) 91 S.W.(2D) 473.  THE SAME RULE
APPLIES IN FAVOR OF LIEN HOLDERS.  TEXAS LOAN AGENCY V. TAYLOR, 88 TEX.
47, 29 S.W. 1057; MCALPINE V. BURNETT, 23 TEX. 649, 650."  AND SEE
RITCH V. JARVIS, (TEXAS) 64 S.W.2D 831, 834-835. 
..END :





UNION STOCK YARD CO. V. U.S., 308 U.S. 213 


NO. 40.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 13, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  TRANSPORTATION OF LIVESTOCK BY RAIL BEGINS WITH ITS DELIVERY TO
THE CARRIER FOR LOADING ON ITS CARS, AND ENDS ONLY AFTER UNLOADING, FOR
DELIVERY OR TENDER TO THE CONSIGNEE, AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION.  P.
219. 

2.  THE UNION STOCK YARD AND TRANSIT COMPANY OF CHICAGO LOADS AND
UNLOADS LIVESTOCK USING PLATFORMS AND CHUTES WHICH IT OWNS AND WHICH
ARE THE NECESSARY AND ONLY MEANS OF LOADING AND UNLOADING AT ITS YARD,
TO AND FROM WHICH THE LIVESTOCK IS SHIPPED INTERSTATE.  ITS CHARGES TO
THE RAILROADS FOR THESE SERVICES ARE INCLUDED IN THE CHARGES FOR
TRANSPORTATION COLLECTED BY THE RAILROADS FROM THE SHIPPERS.  ITS YARD
IS THE PRINCIPAL RAILROAD TERMINAL IN CHICAGO FOR THE RECEIPT OF
LIVESTOCK IN CARLOAD LOTS.  IT HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO THE PUBLIC AS
PERFORMING THE LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICE, AND PERMITS IT TO BE
PERFORMED BY NO OTHER.  HELD, THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING "TERMINAL
FACILITIES" IN THE PERFORMANCE OF "TRANSPORTATION SERVICE" AND IS A
"COMMON CARRIER  ...  RAILROAD" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT; AND AS SUCH ITS CHARGES ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  P. 219. 

3.  THE STOCK YARD COMPANY IS SUCH A COMMON CARRIER AND IS SUBJECT TO
REGULATION OF ITS RATES UNDER THE ACT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, AS AN
INCIDENT TO THE SERVICE IT RENDERS TO SHIPPERS AND TO THE LINE-HAUL
CARRIERS, IT ACTS AS AGENT OF THE LATTER, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THAT ITS
TERMINAL SERVICE INCLUDES NO RAIL HAUL.  DISTINGUISHING ELLIS V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 237 U.S. 434.  P. 220. 

4.  IN AS MUCH AS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT PLACES THE LOADING AND
UNLOADING FACILITIES AND SERVICES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT BY THE
TERMS OF SEC. 406 OF THE LATTER ENACTMENT.  P. 221. 

5.  TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE STOCK YARD
COMPANY IN LOADING AND UNLOADING LIVESTOCK IS SUCH AS TO BRING IT
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE
PRACTICES BY OTHERS AT OTHER YARDS ARE IRRELEVANT, AND THEIR BEARING ON
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IN THE PRESENT
CIRCUMSTANCES IS HELD TOO REMOTE AND INDECISIVE TO COMPEL A BURDENSOME
INQUIRY BY THE COMMISSION INTO COLLATERAL ISSUES.  P. 222. 

MERE INACTION, THROUGH FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION TO INSTITUTE
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 15(7), IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING AND DOES
NOT IMPLY DECISION AS TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. 

UNION STOCK YARD & TRANSIT CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE DISMISSING A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION FOR DECISION UPON THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER, IN
THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY APPELLANT IN LOADING AND UNLOADING LIVESTOCK
AT ITS STOCKYARDS IN CHICAGO, AND SPECIFIED BY ITS TARIFFS FILED WITH
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IT IS A COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 24 STAT. 379, AS AMENDED IN 1920, 41 STAT.
474, 49 U.S.C., SECS. 1-27. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DECREE OF A DISTRICT
COURT OF THREE JUDGES,  FN1 DISMISSING APPELLANT'S SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN
ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WHICH DIRECTED THE
CANCELLATION OF APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE PROPOSING
CANCELLATION OF ITS RATE SCHEDULES PREVIOUSLY FILED WITH THE
COMMISSION.  CANCELLATION OF LIVESTOCK SERVICES, 227 I.C.C. 716. 
APPELLANT HERE, AS BELOW, ASSAILS THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE GROUND
THAT IN PERFORMING THE SCHEDULED SERVICES APPELLANT IS NOT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION AS DEFINED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT. 

AS APPEARS IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT, APPELLANT WAS INCORPORATED IN
1865 WITH AUTHORITY TO BUILD AND OPERATE A RAILROAD AND A STOCKYARD,
AND WITH POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  ACTING UNDER ITS CHARTER IT
CONSTRUCTED A STOCKYARD IN CHICAGO AND APPROXIMATELY THREE HUNDRED
MILES OF RAILROAD TRACKS, CONSISTING OF A MAIN LINE CONNECTING WITH THE
TRUNK LINES ENTERING CHICAGO AND SWITCHES TO VARIOUS INDUSTRIES LOCATED
ADJACENT TO ITS TRACKS. 

PRIOR TO 1912 IT HAD TRIED VARIOUS METHODS OF OPERATING ITS TRACKS
AND STOCKYARDS.  AT THAT TIME IT DID NOT CONTROL ANY OF ITS RAILROAD
PROPERTIES OTHER THAN PLATFORMS AND FACILITIES FOR LOADING AND
UNLOADING AT ITS YARD.  THE CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY CO., WHICH, WITH
APPELLANT, WAS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE HOLDING COMPANY, OPERATED THE
RAILROAD UNDER A FIFTY-YEAR LEASE, PAYING TO APPELLANT AS RENTAL TWO
THIRDS OF ITS NET PROFITS.  IN THAT YEAR THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT SUIT
TO RESTRAIN APPELLANT AND THE JUNCTION COMPANY FROM FURTHER OPERATIONS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNTIL THEY FILED TARIFFS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 6
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THE LITIGATION RESULTED IN THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT THAT BOTH WERE COMMON CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE
ACT.  UNITED STATES V. UNION STOCK YARD & TRANSIT CO., 226 U.S. 286. 
APPELLANT THEN FILED A RATE SCHEDULE WITH THE COMMISSION SPECIFYING ITS
CHARGES FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING ALL RAIL-BORNE LIVESTOCK, AND
CONTINUED ITS PRACTICE OF PERFORMING SERVICES IN LOADING AND UNLOADING
FROM AND TO ITS LIVESTOCK PENS FOR THE TRUNK LINE RAILROADS, CHARGING
THEM THE SCHEDULED RATES FOR THE SERVICE. 

IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE JUNCTION COMPANY LEASE WAS CANCELLED AND A
NEW ONE EXECUTED, UNDER WHICH APPELLANT LEASED IN PERPETUITY ALL OF ITS
RAILROAD FACILITIES, EXCEPT THOSE USED FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING
LIVESTOCK, AT AN ANNUAL RENTAL OF $600,000 IN LIEU OF A SHARE OF THE
PROFITS.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED IN 1917 BY AN ATTEMPT BY THE STOCKYARD TO
CHARGE SHIPPERS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR THE LOADING AND UNLOADING
SERVICE, WHICH RESULTED IN A REPARATION AWARD BY THE COMMISSION,
SUSTAINED IN ADAMS V. MILLS, 286 U.S. 397.  IN THE SAME YEAR APPELLANT
SOUGHT TO CANCEL ITS TARIFFS ON THE GROUND THAT BY REASON OF THE CHANGE
IN THE LEASE IT WAS NO LONGER A COMMON CARRIER.  THIS CONTENTION WAS
REJECTED BY THE COMMISSION.  LIVESTOCK LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES,
52 I.C.C. 209; 58 I.C.C. 164. 

IN 1922 THE JUNCTION COMPANY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION,
CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 71 I.C.C. 631, 150 I.C.C. 32, SUBLET THE ROAD
FOR NINETY-NINE YEARS, WITH A RENEWAL OPTION, TO THE CHICAGO RIVER &
INDIANA RAILROAD CO., WHOSE CAPITAL STOCK WAS ACQUIRED BY THE NEW YORK
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY.  A RENEWED ATTEMPT BY THE STOCKYARD TO CANCEL
ITS TARIFFS FAILED IN 1935, 213 I.C.C. 330, AND ITS 1937 REPETITION
RESULTED IN THE LIKE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF
THE PRESENT SUIT. 

BY CEASING TO OPERATE OR CONTROL ITS RAILROAD DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
APPELLANT HAS RESTRICTED ITS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO THE LOADING OR
UNLOADING OF LIVESTOCK AS SPECIFIED IN ITS TARIFF.  IT OWNS THE
PLATFORMS AND CHUTES WHICH ARE THE NECESSARY AND ONLY MEANS OF LOADING
AND UNLOADING AT ITS YARD TO AND FROM WHICH THE LIVESTOCK IS SHIPPED
INTERSTATE BY RAIL.  FOR THIS SERVICE IT CHARGES THE RAILROADS THE
SCHEDULED RATES.  LOADING AND UNLOADING ARE INCLUDED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE RENDERED BY THE RAILROADS TO SHIPPERS, THE
CHARGE FOR IT TO SHIPPERS BEING COVERED BY THE LINE-HAUL TARIFFS.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT APPELLANT'S YARD IS THE PRINCIPAL RAILROAD
TERMINAL IN CHICAGO FOR THE RECEIPT OF LIVESTOCK IN CARLOAD LOTS, AND
THAT APPELLANT HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO THE PUBLIC AS PERFORMING THE LOADING
AND UNLOADING SERVICE AND PERMITS IT TO BE PERFORMED BY NO OTHER. 

APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT HAVING DIVESTED ITSELF OF ALL CONTROL AND
PARTICIPATION IN THE OPERATION OF ITS RAILROAD IT IS NO LONGER WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION OVER "COMMON CARRIERS BY RAILROAD,"
CONFERRED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, BUT IS SUBJECT TO REGULATION
BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT
OF 1921, 42 STAT. 159, 7 U.S.C., SECS. 181-229. 

BY SEC. 305 OF THAT ACT RATES AND CHARGES FOR STOCKYARD SERVICES
FURNISHED AT A STOCKYARD OR BY A STOCKYARD OWNER ARE REQUIRED TO BE
JUST AND REASONABLE.  AND BY SECS. 309, 310, THE SECRETARY IS GIVEN
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE SUCH RATES.  BY SEC. 301 STOCKYARD SERVICES ARE
DEFINED AS "SERVICES OR FACILITIES FURNISHED AT A STOCKYARD IN
CONNECTION WITH THE RECEIVING, BUYING OR SELLING  ... MARKETING,
FEEDING, WATERING, HOLDING, DELIVERY, SHIPMENT, WEIGHING, OR HANDLING,
IN COMMERCE, OF LIVESTOCK."  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF LIVESTOCK ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION
OF STOCKYARD SERVICES.  FURTHER, AN IMPORTANT EXCEPTION TO THE BROAD
AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY IS MADE BY SEC. 406, WHICH PROVIDES:
"NOTHING IN THIS CHAPTER SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OR THE JURISDICTION OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, NOR CONFER UPON THE SECRETARY
CONCURRENT POWER OR JURISDICTION OVER ANY MATTER WITHIN THE POWER OR
JURISDICTION OF SUCH COMMISSION."  WE ACCORDINGLY TURN TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF
THE EXCEPTION. 

CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTIONS PRESENTLY TO BE
MENTIONED, WHERE NO JOINT RATE IS INVOLVED, SHALL FILE SCHEDULES OF
RATES SHOWING "THE SEPARATELY ESTABLISHED RATES  ...  APPLIED TO THE
THROUGH TRANSPORTATION" AND REQUIRES THAT THE RATE SCHEDULES SHALL
"STATE SEPARATELY ALL TERMINAL CHARGES ...  AND ALL OTHER CHARGES WHICH
THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE, ALL PRIVILEGES OR FACILITIES GRANTED OR
ALLOWED, AND ANY RULES OR REGULATIONS WHICH IN ANYWISE CHANGE, AFFECT
OR DETERMINE ANY PART OF THE AGGREGATE OF SUCH AFORESAID RATES  ...  OR
THE VALUE OF THE SERVICE RENDERED TO THE PASSENGER, SHIPPER, OR
CONSIGNEE." 

PROVISIONS OF THIS PART SHALL APPLY TO COMMON CARRIERS ENGAGED IN (A)
THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY WHOLLY BY RAILROAD ...  "
THE ROAD IN USE BY ANY COMMON CARRIER OPERATING A RAILROAD  ...  ALL
SWITCHES, SPURS, TRACKS, TERMINALS AND TERMINAL FACILITIES OF EVERY
KIND USED OR NECESSARY IN THE TRANSPORTATION  ...  OF  ...  PERSONS OR
PROPERTY  ...  INCLUDING ALL FREIGHT DEPOTS, YARDS OR GROUNDS USED OR
NECESSARY IN THE TRANSPORTATION OR DELIVERY OF ANY SUCH PROPERTY."  IT
DEFINES THE TERM "TRANSPORTATION" AS INCLUDING "LOCOMOTIVES, CARS,  ...
AND ALL INSTRUMENTALITIES AND FACILITIES OF SHIPMENT OR CARRIAGE
IRRESPECTIVE OF OWNERSHIP, OR OF ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR
THE USE THEREOF, AND ALL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE RECEIPT,
DELIVERY, ELEVATION AND TRANSFER IN TRANSIT  ... AND HANDLING OF
PROPERTY TRANSPORTED."  SECTION 15(5) PROVIDES, "TRANSPORTATION WHOLLY
BY RAILROAD OF ORDINARY LIVESTOCK IN CARLOAD LOTS DESTINED TO OR
RECEIVED AT PUBLIC STOCKYARDS SHALL INCLUDE ALL NECESSARY SERVICE OF
UNLOADING AND RELOADING ENROUTE, DELIVERY AT PUBLIC STOCKYARDS OF
INBOUND SHIPMENTS INTO SUITABLE PENS, AND RECEIPT AND LOADING AT SUCH
YARDS OF OUTBOUND SHIPMENTS, WITHOUT EXTRA CHARGE THEREFOR TO THE
SHIPPER, CONSIGNEE, OR OWNER  ...  " 

WITHOUT THE AID OF THESE STATUTES THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIVESTOCK BY
RAIL WAS HELD TO BEGIN WITH ITS DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER FOR LOADING
ONTO ITS CARS, AND TO END ONLY AFTER UNLOADING FOR DELIVERY OR TENDER
TO THE CONSIGNEE AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION.  COVINGTON STOCK-YARDS
CO. V. KEITH, 139 U.S. 128, 136.  THE SAME RULE HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY
APPLIED SINCE THE STATUTE WAS ADOPTED.  ERIE R. CO. V. SHUART, 250 U.S.
465, 468; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 193,
198, AND CASES CITED; DENVER UNION STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304
U.S. 470; 2 HUTCHISON, CARRIERS, 3D ED. SEC. 510.  APPELLANT IS THUS
ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AND
PROVIDES RAILROAD "TERMINAL FACILITIES" AND SERVICES.  IT IS A
"CARRIER" ENGAGED IN "TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY WHOLLY BY RAILROAD" AS
THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED BY THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE. 

THAT APPELLANT'S STOCKYARD IS A TERMINAL OF THE LINEHAUL CARRIERS,
AND THAT IT PERFORMS THEIR RAILROAD TERMINAL SERVICES WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT WAS RECOGNIZED IN ADAMS V. MILLS, SUPRA, 409, AND
ALSO IN ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THERE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER DIRECTING THE DISCONTINUANCE OF APPELLANT'S YARDAGE
CHARGE TO CONSIGNEES WAS SET ASIDE ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE SERVICE FOR WHICH THE
CHARGE WAS MADE WAS ANY PART OF THE LOADING OR UNLOADING SERVICES, OR
OTHERWISE A SERVICE WHICH THE RAIL CARRIER WAS BOUND TO FURNISH. 

THE STATUTE, IT IS TRUE, DOES NOT PURPORT TO SAY WHEN ONE WHO IS A
RAILROAD CARRIER BECAUSE ENGAGED IN FURNISHING RAILROAD TERMINAL
FACILITIES AND SERVICES, IS TO BE DEEMED A "COMMON CARRIER."  BUT THAT
QUESTION WAS PUT AT REST IN UNITED STATES V. BROOKLYN EASTERN DISTRICT
TERMINAL, 249 U.S. 296.  THERE A LOCAL TERMINAL COMPANY RENDERING
TERMINAL SERVICES AS THE AGENT OF NUMEROUS RAIL CARRIERS, WAS HELD TO
BE ENGAGED IN A PUBLIC OR COMMON CALLING, AND HENCE TO BE A COMMON
CARRIER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HOURS OF SERVICE ACT, 34 STAT. 1415,
WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO ANY COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CF. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL CO. V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N, 219 U.S. 498; UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S.
175, 181; UNITED STATES V. SIOUX CITY STOCK YARDS CO., 162 F. 556. 

IT IS NOT IMPORTANT, AS APPELLANT SEEMS TO THINK, THAT, AS AN
INCIDENT TO THE SERVICE IT RENDERS TO SHIPPERS AND TO THE LINE-HAUL
CARRIERS, IT ACTS AS AGENT OF THE LATTER.  THE CHARACTER OF THE
SERVICE, IN ITS RELATION TO THE PUBLIC, DETERMINES WHETHER THE CALLING
IS A PUBLIC ONE, AND A COMMON CARRIER DOES NOT CEASE TO BE SUCH MERELY
BECAUSE IN RENDERING SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC IT ACTS AS THE AGENT OF
ANOTHER.  UNITED STATES V. BROOKLYN EASTERN DISTRICT TERMINAL, SUPRA,
307.  CONNECTING COMMON CARRIERS FREQUENTLY ACT IN THAT CAPACITY FOR
EACH OTHER WITHOUT LOSING THEIR STATUS AS SUCH. 

NOR IS IT OF WEIGHT THAT THE TERMINAL SERVICE INCLUDES NO RAIL-HAUL
(SEE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 219 U.S. 498)
OR THAT OPERATION AND CONTROL OF THE TERMINAL FACILITIES ARE WHOLLY
SEPARATE FROM THOSE OF ANY RAILROAD.  UNITED STATES V. BROOKLYN EASTERN
DISTRICT TERMINAL, SUPRA, 305.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE LOADING AND
UNLOADING ARE RAIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PERFORMED AT A RAILROAD
TERMINAL AS A COMMON OR PUBLIC CALLING BY ONE WHO, IN RENDERING IT,
ENGAGES IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY BY RAILROAD WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT. 

ELLIS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 237 U.S. 434, ON WHICH APPELLANT
RELIES, DOES NOT HOLD OTHERWISE.  THERE THE COMMISSION SOUGHT A
DISTRICT COURT ORDER TO COMPEL THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES IN A
PROCEEDING, INSTITUTED BY THE COMMISSION OF ITS OWN MOTION, FOR THE
INVESTIGATION OF A CORPORATION WHICH LEASED REFRIGERATOR CARS TO
SHIPPERS AND RAILROADS AND MAINTAINED ICING PLANTS AT WHICH IT ICED THE
CARS, THE RAILROAD PAYING FOR THE ICING SERVICE.  THERE WAS NO
ALLEGATION OR PROOF THAT THE CORPORATION WAS ENGAGED IN A COMMON
CALLING OR HELD ITSELF OUT AS READY OR WILLING TO SUPPLY CARS OR
SERVICES ON REASONABLE REQUEST.  IN HOLDING THAT THE CASE WAS NOT AN
APPROPRIATE ONE FOR THE RELIEF SOUGHT BECAUSE THE COMPANY WAS NOT
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, THE COURT SAID, P. 443:  "IT
IS TRUE THAT THE DEFINITION OF TRANSPORTATION IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT
INCLUDES SUCH INSTRUMENTALITIES AS THE ARMOUR CAR LINES LETS TO THE
RAILROADS, BUT THE DEFINITION IS A PRELIMINARY TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT
THE CARRIER SHALL FURNISH THEM UPON REASONABLE REQUEST, NOT THAT THE
OWNERS AND BUILDERS SHALL BE REGARDED AS CARRIERS, CONTRARY TO THE
TRUTH."    THIS COURT HAS SINCE RECOGNIZED THAT LOADING AND UNLOADING
SERVICES SUCH AS ARE HERE INVOLVED ARE COMMON CARRIER SERVICES PLACED
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; DENVER UNION STOCK
YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 477.  AND UNLESS THE RESTRICTION OF
SEC. 406 OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN FAVOR OF THAT OF THE COMMISSION REFERS TO
SUCH SERVICES, THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION IS NOT APPARENT.  NONE OTHER
IS SUGGESTED.  SEE ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
199.  AS WE THINK THE STATUTE PLAINLY PLACES APPELLANT'S LOADING AND
UNLOADING FACILITIES AND SERVICES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE
COMMISSION, THEY ARE WITHDRAWN FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE BY THE TERMS OF SEC. 406 OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
ACT,  FN2  AND WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION, MUCH
ARGUED AT THE BAR, WHETHER THE SERVICES COULD BE MORE CONVENIENTLY AND
ADVANTAGEOUSLY REGULATED BY THE ONE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY THAN BY THE
OTHER. 

APPELLANT ASKS THAT THE ORDER BE SET ASIDE FOR WANT OF THE "FULL
HEARING" BY THE COMMISSION, REQUIRED BY SEC. 15(7) OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
APPELLANT OFFERED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS TO PROVE THE CONDITIONS
PREVAILING AT STOCKYARDS OTHER THAN APPELLANT'S, AND THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD NOT ASSERTED JURISDICTION OVER LOADING AND UNLOADING
SERVICES PERFORMED AT THOSE YARDS.  APPELLANT STATES THAT THE EVIDENCE
WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT THERE ARE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE OTHER
STOCKYARDS IN THE UNITED STATES UNDER REGULATION BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE,  FN3  WHICH PERFORM LOADING AND UNLOADING SERVICES, FOR
WHICH THE RAILROADS PAY, UNDER CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE
CHICAGO YARD; THAT ALTHOUGH, TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMISSION, THIS
HAS BEEN THE CASE FOR MANY YEARS, IT HAS NOT ASSERTED ITS JURISDICTION
OVER ANY OF THESE YARDS.  THIS, IT IS ARGUED, WOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED A
PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BY THE COMMISSION, RELEVANT AND
MATERIAL TO THE INQUIRY BECAUSE OF THE RULE THAT A SETTLED OR UNIFORM
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBTFUL STATUTE IS OF WEIGHT IN
DETERMINING ITS MEANING.  BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD V. HOOKER, 233 U.S.
97; POCKET VETO CASE, 279 U.S. 655, 688, 689; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 740.  THE EXCLUSION OF THE PROFFERED
EVIDENCE BY THE COMMISSION AND ITS ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAKE A PROPER
RECORD OF THE OFFER, IT IS URGED, HAVE DEPRIVED THE APPELLANT OF A FULL
HEARING. 

WE THINK THE RECORD ADEQUATELY SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSION EXCLUDED THE
OFFERED PROOF AS APPELLANT HAS CHARACTERIZED IT HERE, BUT WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE COMMISSION WAS FREE TO REJECT IT.  THE ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED IN
THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS WHETHER THE SERVICE RENDERED BY APPELLANT AT
ITS CHICAGO STOCKYARD BROUGHT IT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION.  TO THIS ISSUE THE PRACTICES BY OTHERS AT OTHER YARDS ARE
IRRELEVANT AND THEIR BEARING ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS, WE THINK, TOO REMOTE AND
INDECISIVE TO COMPEL A BURDENSOME INQUIRY INTO COLLATERAL ISSUES. 

THE COMMISSION HAS CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT APPELLANT'S LOADING AND
UNLOADING SERVICES ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH
APPEAR OF RECORD TO HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED SINCE 1922.  APPELLANT IS
FREE, AS IT HAS BEEN THROUGHOUT, TO SHOW ANY RULING OR ACTION TAKEN BY
THE COMMISSION INVOLVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE,
ALTHOUGH IT IS PLAIN THAT IN THE FACE OF THE PRESENT RECORD SUCH
RULINGS COULD NOT ESTABLISH A CONSISTENT ACCEPTANCE BY THE COMMISSION
OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH APPELLANT CONTENDS.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO, N.S. & M.R. CO., 288 U.S. 1; CF. ESTATE OF SANFORD V.
HELVERING, ANTE, P. 39.  BUT MERE INACTION, THROUGH FAILURE OF THE
COMMISSION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 15(7), IS NOT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING AND DOES NOT IMPLY DECISION AS TO THE
COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  IF THE FAILURE TO ACT IN THE CASE OF YARDS
OTHER THAN THE PRESENT ONE IS TO BE TAKEN AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE PERSUASIVE HERE, WE WOULD BE FORCED TO
CONCLUDE THAT A JURISDICTION WHICH THE STATUTE HAS PLAINLY CONFERRED
EITHER ON THE SECRETARY OR THE COMMISSION, HAS BEEN LOST, ALTHOUGH,
WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPELLANT, JURISDICTION HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY
ASSERTED BY THE COMMISSION, WHILE THE SECRETARY HAS AS CONSISTENTLY
REMAINED PASSIVE.  THERE IS A PRACTICAL LIMIT TO WHICH INQUIRY INTO
COLLATERAL ISSUES MAY BE EXTENDED IN PURSUIT OF THE TRIVIAL.  WE THINK
THAT LIMIT WAS REACHED HERE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECS. 210 AND 238(4) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED BY THE ACT
OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, C. 229, 43 STAT. 983, 28 U.S.C., SECS. 47A, 345. 

FN2  IF THIS WERE DOUBTFUL, DOUBT WOULD BE REMOVED BY THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.  S. 3944, 66TH CONGRESS, IN PROVIDING A FEDERAL LIVESTOCK
COMMISSION TO REGULATE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS DID NOT CONTAIN SUCH A
SAVING CLAUSE.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE PROPOSED A
SUBSTITUTE BILL GIVING CONTROL OF THE STOCKYARDS TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION BECAUSE "THE COMMISSION ALREADY HAS CONTROL OVER
TRANSPORTATION OF CATTLE, WHICH DOES NOT END UNTIL THEY ARE UNLOADED AT
THE YARDS.  ...  "  H. REPT. 1297, 66TH CONG., 3RD SESS., P. 9. 

IN THE 67TH CONGRESS THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE PROPOSED THE
BILL SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM FINALLY ADOPTED AS THE PACKERS AND
STOCKYARDS ACT, CONTAINING THE SAVING CLAUSE IN FAVOR OF THE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  THE CHAIRMAN IN INTRODUCING THE BILL IN THE HOUSE SAID:
"IT IS PROPOSED TO GIVE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE JURISDICTION OVER
THE PACKERS, STOCKYARDS, COMMISSION MEN, TRADERS, BUYERS, AND SELLERS,
AND ALL ACTIVITIES CONNECTED WITH THE SLAUGHTERING AND MARKETING OF
LIVESTOCK AND LIVE-STOCK PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THAT IS THE
SECRETARY SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION FROM THE TIME THE LIVESTOCK IS
UNLOADED AT THE TERMINAL YARDS AND AFTER IT IS OUT OF THE JURISDICTION
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  UP TO THE TIME OF UNLOADING THE
LIVESTOCK THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
SHIPMENT, DISTRIBUTION, AND OWNERSHIP OF STOCK, REFRIGERATOR CARS, AND
OTHER EQUIPMENT, AND TRANSPORTATION RATES, INCLUDING BELT LINES AND
TERMINAL ROADS."  CONG. REC., VOL. 61, PART 2, P. 1800. 

FN3  THE SECRETARY HAS NOT ASSERTED JURISDICTION OVER THE LOADING AND
UNLOADING SERVICE AT PUBLIC STOCKYARDS.  SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V.
DENVER UNION STOCK YARD CO., BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY DOCKET NO. 450,
P. 10(1937); SEE LETTER TO CHAIRMAN OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
AND FORESTRY, HEARINGS ON S. 2129, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 6. 
..END :






















UNITED STATES V. LOWDEN, 308 U.S. 225 


NO. 343.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - 29
F.SUPP.  9, REVERSED. 


COMMISSION MAY AUTHORIZE CARRIERS TO CONSOLIDATE OR LEASE THEIR
PROPERTIES WHERE IT FINDS THAT THAT ACTION, SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS
AND MODIFICATIONS AS IT SHALL FIND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE, WILL BE
IN HARMONY WITH AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN OF CONSOLIDATION OF
RAILWAY PROPERTIES ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (3) OF THAT
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR AUTHORITY TO LEASE THE ROAD AND
PROPERTIES OF ONE RAILROAD TO ANOTHER WITH CONSEQUENT LARGE SAVINGS IN
THE OPERATING COSTS OF THE ROAD, THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED
LEASE WOULD PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND AUTHORIZED IT UPON
CONDITIONS WHICH IT FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE, VIZ. THAT THE
EMPLOYEES OF THE LEASED ROAD BE COMPENSATED FOR A LIMITED TIME FOR ANY
REDUCTION OF SALARY; THAT DISMISSED EMPLOYEES BE PAID PARTIAL
COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT; AND THAT TRANSFERRED
EMPLOYEES BE PAID MOVING AND TRAVELING EXPENSES INCLUDING LOSSES
INCURRED THROUGH THEIR BEING FORCED TO SELL THEIR HOUSES.  HELD: 

1.  THE TERM "PUBLIC INTEREST" AS USED IN THE STATUTE MAY BE
UNDERSTOOD FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE AS RELATING NOT TO PUBLIC
INTEREST IN GENERAL BUT TO PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MAINTENANCE OF AN
ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  P. 230. 

2.  THE POLICY OF CONSOLIDATING THE RAILWAYS IS SO INTIMATELY RELATED
TO THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAIL TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM THAT THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" IN THE ONE CAN NOT BE DISSOCIATED
FROM THAT IN THE OTHER.  P. 232. 

3.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO AN ORDER
AUTHORIZING A LEASE WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER SEC.
5(4)(B), THE COMMISSION MAY CONSIDER THEIR EFFECT UPON THE NATIONAL
POLICY OF CONSOLIDATION AS WELL AS THEIR MORE IMMEDIATE EFFECT UPON THE
ADEQUACY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  P. 232. 

4.  INTERPRETING THE TERM "PUBLIC INTEREST" NOT IN A GENERAL SENSE
BUT AS MEANING PUBLIC INTEREST IN MAINTAINING AN ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZING A LEASE
UNDER SEC. 5(4)(B) MAY AFFIX REASONABLE CONDITIONS FOR THE COMPENSATION
OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES WHO WILL BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED.  PP. 228, 238. 

5.  IT CANNOT BE SAID AS A MATTER OF LAW, THAT THE PRESCRIBED
CONDITIONS WHOSE JUSTICE AND REASONABLENESS ARE NOT CHALLENGED WILL NOT
ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE STATUTORY SENSE BY FACILITATING THE
NATIONAL POLICY OF RAILROAD CONSOLIDATION AND BY PROMOTING THE ADEQUACY
AND EFFICIENCY OF THE RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BY PREVENTING
INTERRUPTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH LABOR DISPUTES AND BY THEIR
EFFECT ON EMPLOYEE MORALE.  P. 238. 

6.  THE ACT AS SO APPLIED IS WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER.  P. 239. 

7.  THE CARRIER IS NOT DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW IN BEING REQUIRED TO DEVOTE PART OF THE SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE
EXERCISE OF THE LEASING PRIVILEGE TO COMPENSATE EMPLOYEES FOR LOSSES
RESULTING FROM IT.  P. 240. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. LOWDEN ET AL., TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF THE
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY CO., ETC. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH SET
ASIDE CONDITIONS ATTACHED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO AN
ORDER PERMITTING ONE CARRIER TO LEASE ITS RAILROAD TO ANOTHER. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, IN APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A LEASE OF A RAILROAD BY ONE
RAILROAD COMPANY TO ANOTHER, UNDER SEC. 5(4)(B) OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED, (48 STAT. 217, 49 U.S.C., SEC. 5(4)(B) ENACTED
IN SUBSTANCE AS SEC. 407(5)(6) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, 41
STAT. 481), HAS AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE AS A CONDITION OF ITS ORDER,
THAT CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE LESSOR SHALL RECEIVE PARTIAL COMPENSATION
FOR THE LOSS WHICH THEY MAY SUFFER, BY REASON OF THEIR DISCHARGE OR
TRANSFER AS A RESULT OF THE LEASE. 

APPELLEES ARE TRUSTEES OF THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & GULF COMPANY AND
OF THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, BOTH IN
BANKRUPTCY FOR PURPOSES OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THEY APPLIED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR
AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 5(4)(B) TO LEASE THE RAILROAD AND PROPERTIES OF
THE GULF COMPANY TO THEMSELVES AS TRUSTEES OF THE PACIFIC COMPANY AT AN
ANNUAL RENTAL EQUAL TO THE NET OPERATING INCOME OF THE LEASED
PROPERTY.  ON THE APPLICATION, WHICH WAS TWICE HEARD BY THE COMMISSION,
EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED FROM WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE GULF
COMPANY, WHOSE ENTIRE CAPITAL STOCK IS OWNED BY THE PACIFIC COMPANY, IS
OWNER OF SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY-TWO MILES OF RAILROAD IN TEXAS WHICH IT
OPERATES SEPARATELY FROM THE 8,138 MILES OF RAILROAD OF THE PACIFIC
COMPANY; THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED LEASE WAS TO COMBINE THE
OPERATION OF THE TWO LINES IN ORDER TO EFFECT SAVINGS IN OPERATING
COSTS THROUGH THE ELIMINATION OF THE TEXAS ACCOUNTING OFFICES OF THE
GULF COMPANY. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE LEASE WOULD NOT IMPOSE UPON THE PUBLIC
ANY CHANGE IN CONDITIONS AFFECTING TRAIN OPERATION; THAT IT WOULD HAVE
NO EFFECT ON RATES OR ROUTES AND WOULD RESULT IN NO CHANGE OF SERVICE
TO THE PUBLIC.  IT FOUND THAT THE ELIMINATION OF THE TEXAS ACCOUNTING
OFFICES WOULD RESULT IN AN ANNUAL SAVING OF $100,000, SIX OR SEVEN
THOUSAND DOLLARS OF WHICH WOULD ACCRUE TO THE GULF COMPANY AND THE
REMAINDER TO THE PACIFIC COMPANY, TO BE EFFECTED THROUGH THE ULTIMATE
DISMISSAL OF FORTY-NINE OF THE GULF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYEES AND THE
TRANSFER OF TWENTY OTHERS TO THE CHICAGO OFFICES OF THE PACIFIC
COMPANY.  THE COMMISSION ALSO FOUND THAT THE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES
AFFECTED BY THE ELIMINATION OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICE IS ONE OF THE
MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH THE COMMISSION MUST CONSIDER IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 5(4)(B). 

IT ACCORDINGLY AUTHORIZED THE LEASE UPON THE CONDITIONS WHICH IT
FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE:  THAT FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING FIVE
YEARS EACH RETAINED EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR ANY REDUCTION IN
SALARY SO LONG AS HE IS UNABLE, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS SENIORITY RIGHTS
UNDER EXISTING RULES AND PRACTICES TO OBTAIN A POSITION WITH
COMPENSATION EQUAL TO HIS COMPENSATION AT THE DATE OF THE LEASE; THAT
DISMISSED EMPLOYEES UNABLE TO OBTAIN EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT BE PAID
PARTIAL COMPENSATION FOR THE LOSS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT IN SPECIFIED
AMOUNTS AND FOR SPECIFIED PERIODS DEPENDING ON THE LENGTH OF THEIR
SERVICE, AND THAT THE TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES BE PAID THEIR TRAVELING AND
MOVING EXPENSES INCLUDING LOSSES INCURRED THROUGH BEING FORCED TO SELL
THEIR HOMES.  THE MAXIMUM COST OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS, IT
WAS FOUND, WOULD BE $290,000 SPREAD OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, DURING
WHICH THE SAVINGS EFFECTED BY THE LEASE WOULD BE NOT LESS THAN
$500,000.  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED LEASE, WITH THE
SPECIFIED CONDITIONS "WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH AND IN FURTHERANCE OF OUR
PLAN FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROAD PROPERTIES AND WILL PROMOTE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST." 

IN THE PRESENT SUIT, BROUGHT BY APPELLEES, THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THREE JUDGES (URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT.
208, 219, 28 U.S.C., SECS. 45, 47A), GRANTED THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND
DECREED THAT THE CONDITIONS OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER BE SET ASIDE AND
THAT THE COMMISSION BE ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING THEM.  THE CASE COMES
HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C., SEC.
345. 

APPELLEES CONTEND, AS THE DISTRICT COURT HELD, THAT THE COMMISSION
WAS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS TO ATTACH THE
PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS TO ITS ORDER.  CONSEQUENTLY, THEY ARGUE THAT THE
COURTS MAY APPROPRIATELY SET THEM ASIDE AS OF NO EFFECT, LEAVING THE
REMAINDER OF THE ORDER TO STAND AS THE COMMISSION'S UNQUALIFIED
APPROVAL OF THE LEASE, ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION GAVE NO INDICATION THAT
IT WOULD HAVE AUTHORIZED THE LEASE WITHOUT THE CONDITIONS. 

...  OF THE COMMISSION, AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (B), FOR TWO OR MORE
CARRIERS TO CONSOLIDATE OR MERGE THEIR PROPERTIES ...  OR FOR ANY
CARRIER  ...  TO  ...  LEASE  ...  THE PROPERTIES  ...  OF ANOTHER  ...
" SUBDIVISION (B) PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION ON APPLICATION BY THE
CARRIER OR CARRIERS CONCERNED MAY, AFTER HEARING, AUTHORIZE SUCH A
CONSOLIDATION OR LEASE, AND DIRECTS THAT "IF AFTER SUCH HEARING THE
COMMISSION FINDS THAT, SUBJECT TO SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SUCH
MODIFICATIONS AS IT SHALL FIND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE, THE PROPOSED
CONSOLIDATION  ...  (OR) LEASE  ...  WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH AND IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF RAILWAY PROPERTIES
ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (3), AND WILL PROMOTE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, IT MAY ENTER AN ORDER APPROVING  ...  SUCH CONSOLIDATION  ...
(OR) LEASE  ...  UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND WITH THE
MODIFICATIONS SO FOUND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE." 

IN NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12,
WE POINTED OUT THAT THE PHRASE "PUBLIC INTEREST" IN THIS SECTION DOES
NOT REFER GENERALLY TO MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN APART FROM THE PUBLIC
INTEREST IN THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ADEQUATE RAIL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM;
THAT IT IS USED IN A MORE RESTRICTED SENSE DEFINED BY REFERENCE TO THE
PURPOSES OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, OF WHICH THE SECTION IS A
PART AND WHICH, AS HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED IN EARLIER OPINIONS OF THIS
COURT, SOUGHT THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE NEW AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE
COMMISSION TO SECURE A MORE ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM.  SEE NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASES, 261 U.S. 184; DAYTON-GOOSE
CREEK RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO.
V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266, 277.  THUS RESTRICTED, THE
TERM PUBLIC INTEREST "AS USED IN THE STATUTE, IS NOT A MERE GENERAL
REFERENCE TO PUBLIC WELFARE BUT AS SHOWN BY THE CONTEXT AND PURPOSES OF
THE ACT HAS DIRECT RELATION TO ADEQUACY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, TO
ITS ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS OF ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY AND TO APPROPRIATE
PROVISION AND BEST USE OF TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES."  TEXAS V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 522, 531. 

APPELLEES DO NOT CHALLENGE THE COMMISSION'S CONTENTION THAT THE
CONDITIONS ARE GERMANE TO THE TRANSACTION INVOLVED IN THE LEASE BECAUSE
THE PURPOSE OF THE CONDITIONS IS TO MITIGATE THE DIRECT EFFECT OF THE
LEASE UPON THE EMPLOYEES.  SEE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. &
P.R. CO., 282 U.S. 311, 324, 339, 340.  BUT THEY INSIST THAT THE
CONDITIONS WHICH THE COMMISSION IS PERMITTED BY THIS SECTION TO ATTACH
TO ITS ORDER MUST ALSO CONFORM TO THE STANDARD OF PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH
THE STATUTE SETS UP TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION'S ACTION.  FROM THIS
PREMISE THEY ARGUE THAT THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS ARE UNAUTHORIZED
BECAUSE UNRELATED TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ITS STATUTORY SENSE.  THEY
MAINTAIN THAT A CARRIER'S EMPLOYEES, AS SUCH, ARE NOT PART OF THE
PUBLIC WHOSE INTEREST IS TO BE PROMOTED BY THE LEASE, AND THAT THEIR
INTEREST IN KEEPING THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT LOSS OF COMPENSATION IS OF
PRIVATE CONCERN AND NO PART OF THAT PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE MAINTENANCE
OF AN ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH THE STATUTE
CONTEMPLATES. 

ACCEPTING THE PREMISE, AS WE MAY FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, WITHOUT
CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE CONDITIONS IF
JUST AND REASONABLE, NEED NOT BE RELATED TO THE OTHER STATUTORY
STANDARDS, THE ISSUE IS NARROWED TO A SINGLE QUESTION WHETHER WE CAN
SAY, AS MATTER OF LAW, THAT THE GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING OF THE
PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THE EMPLOYEES BY THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS CAN
HAVE NO INFLUENCE OR EFFECT UPON THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ADEQUATE AND
EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH THE STATUTE RECOGNIZES AS A
MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN. 

APPELLEES DO NOT ATTACK THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ARE BASED, AND THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR REVIEW.  HENCE WE ARE FREE TO DISTURB THE
FINDINGS ONLY IF WE CAN SAY THAT THERE CAN BE NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR
THEM.  MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
282; SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 304; ROCHESTER
TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 125, 146.  APPELLEES DO NOT
DENY THAT THE USE OF PART OF THE SAVINGS RESULTING FROM THE LEASE TO
COMPENSATE THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE LOSS WHICH IT WILL OCCASION, IS JUST
AND REASONABLE SO FAR AS THE INTEREST AND RELATIONS OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE ARE CONCERNED; OR THAT THE LEASE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH AND
FURTHER THE COMMISSION'S PLAN FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE RAILROADS AS THE
COMMISSION FOUND.  THEY URGE ONLY THAT THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED CAN HAVE
NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND IN CONSEQUENCE CANNOT IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE
SAID TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE STATUTORY SENSE. 

THE PROPOSED LEASE IN ITS RELATION TO THE TRANSFER OR DISMISSAL OF
EMPLOYEES AND TO AN ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, IS
NOT TO BE VIEWED AS AN ISOLATED TRANSACTION OR APART FROM THE
COMMISSION'S PLAN FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE RAILROADS.  AS A RESULT OF
THE ENACTMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT IN 1920, CONSOLIDATION OF THE
RAILROADS OF THE COUNTRY, IN THE INTEREST OF ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY,
BECAME AN ESTABLISHED NATIONAL POLICY, AND THE EFFECTIVE CONSOLIDATION
OF THE RAILROADS IN CONFORMITY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND TO THE
PLAN OF CONSOLIDATION WHICH THE COMMISSION WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE
BECAME A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE POLICY OF CONSOLIDATION IS SO
INTIMATELY RELATED TO THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT RAIL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT THE "PUBLIC INTEREST" IN THE ONE CANNOT BE
DISSOCIATED FROM THAT IN THE OTHER.  HENCE, IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE
PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER SEC. 5(4)(B) WILL BE PROMOTED BY THE CONDITIONS
OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING A CONSOLIDATION OR LEASE, THE COMMISSION IS
FREE TO CONSIDER THEIR EFFECT UPON THE NATIONAL POLICY OF CONSOLIDATION
AS WELL AS THEIR MORE IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON THE ADEQUACY AND EFFICIENCY
OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 

OBEDIENT TO THE MANDATE OF SEC. 5(2) OF THE ACT THE COMMISSION HAS
PREPARED AND PUBLISHED A PLAN UNDER WHICH IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE
RAILROADS OF THE COUNTRY BE CONSOLIDATED INTO A LIMITED NUMBER OF LARGE
SYSTEMS.  CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROADS, 159 I.C.C. 522, 185 I.C.C. 403. 
BY SEC. 5 OF THE ACT THE BAN ON CONSOLIDATION OF RAILWAY CARRIERS WAS
REMOVED, AND ACTING UNDER IT THE COMMISSION HAS GRANTED AUTHORITY FOR
NUMEROUS CONSOLIDATIONS AND LEASES IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN.  IN THE
PREPARATION AND EXECUTION OF THE PLAN IT SPEEDILY BECAME APPARENT THAT
THE GREAT SAVINGS WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM CONSOLIDATION COULD NOT BE
EFFECTED WITHOUT PROFOUNDLY AFFECTING THE PRIVATE INTERESTS OF THOSE
IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING NATIONWIDE
RAILWAY SYSTEM, THE RAILROAD SECURITY HOLDERS AND EMPLOYEES.  THE
SECURITY HOLDERS ARE USUALLY, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS FAVORABLY AFFECTED BY
ECONOMIES RESULTING FROM CONSOLIDATION.  FN1  BUT THE COMMISSION HAS
ESTIMATED IN ITS REPORT ON UNIFICATION OF THE RAILROADS THAT 75% OF THE
SAVINGS WILL BE AT THE EXPENSE OF RAILROAD LABOR.  NOT ONLY MUST
UNIFICATION RESULT IN WHOLESALE DISMISSALS AND EXTENSIVE TRANSFERS,
INVOLVING EXPENSE TO TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES, BUT IN THE LOSS OF
SENIORITY RIGHTS WHICH, BY COMMON PRACTICE OF THE RAILROADS ARE
RESTRICTED IN THEIR OPERATION TO THOSE MEMBERS OF GROUPS WHO ARE
EMPLOYED AT SPECIFIED POINTS OR DIVISIONS.  IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT
THE STEPS INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF RAILROAD
CONSOLIDATION IN SUCH MANNER AS TO SECURE THE DESIRED ECONOMY AND
EFFICIENCY WILL UNAVOIDABLY SUBJECT RAILROAD LABOR RELATIONS TO SERIOUS
STRESS AND ITS HARSH CONSEQUENCES MAY SO SERIOUSLY AFFECT EMPLOYEE
MORALE AS TO REQUIRE THEIR MITIGATION BOTH IN THE INTEREST OF THE
SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POLICY OF CONSOLIDATION AND
OF THE EFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE INDUSTRY ITSELF,  FN2  BOTH OF WHICH
ARE OF PUBLIC CONCERN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.    ONE MUST
DISREGARD THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF RAILROAD LABOR RELATIONS IN THE UNITED
STATES TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THE JUST AND REASONABLE TREATMENT OF
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES IN MITIGATION OF THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED ON THEM IN
CARRYING OUT THE NATIONAL POLICY OF RAILWAY CONSOLIDATION, HAS NO
BEARING ON THE SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THAT POLICY AND NO
RELATIONSHIP TO THE MAINTENANCE OF AN ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  AS WAS POINTED OUT BY COMMISSIONER EASTMAN IN
HIS CONCURRING OPINION IN THIS CASE THE PROTECTION AFFORDED TO
EMPLOYEES BY THE CHALLENGED CONDITIONS IS SUBSTANTIALLY THAT PROVIDED
IN EVENT OF CONSOLIDATION BY AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO IN MAY, 1936,
BETWEEN 219, THE GREAT MAJORITY, OF THE RAILROAD LINES OF THE COUNTRY,
AND 21 LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  FN3  HE ALSO DIRECTED ATTENTION TO THE
FACT THAT THE COMMITTEE OF SIX, THREE OF WHOM WERE RAILROAD EXECUTIVES,
IN THEIR REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT OF DECEMBER 23, 1938, RECOMMENDED THAT
THE FEDERAL AGENCY PASSING UPON RAILROAD CONSOLIDATION "REQUIRE AS A
PREREQUISITE TO APPROVAL A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT
THE INTERESTS OF  ...  EMPLOYEES,"  FN4  AND THAT THIS REPORT HAD BEEN
APPROVED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS. 

WE CAN HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT THE RAILROADS, IN ENTERING INTO THIS
AGREEMENT AND ENDORSING THIS RECOMMENDATION LEFT OUT OF ACCOUNT THEIR
OWN INTEREST IN THE MAINTENANCE OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OR THAT THEIR
INTEREST IN THIS RESPECT DIFFERS OR IS SEPARABLE FROM THAT OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  IN FACT, BEFORE THIS ACTION BY THE RAILROADS THE
COMMISSION ITSELF HAD TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE WELFARE OF DISMISSED
EMPLOYEES MUST BE CONSIDERED IN PASSING UPON PROPOSED CONSOLIDATIONS,
FN5 AND IN ITS SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT IN 1892 IT DECLARED IN  RECOGNITION
OF THE SAME PRINCIPLE, THAT "RELATIONS EXISTING BETWEEN RAILWAY
CORPORATIONS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE ALWAYS OF PUBLIC INTEREST."  FN6
THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF RAILROADS, IN HIS FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT TO
CONGRESS IN 1936, RECOMMENDED THE ENACTMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM
OF DISMISSAL COMPENSATION, STATING THAT SUCH A SYSTEM "WOULD ENHANCE
THE SAFETY OR EFFICIENCY OF RAILROAD SERVICE."  H. DOC. NO. 394, 74TH
CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 56.  FN7 

THE NOW EXTENSIVE HISTORY OF LEGISLATION REGULATING THE RELATIONS OF
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS PLAINLY EVIDENCES THE AWARENESS OF
CONGRESS THAT JUST AND REASONABLE TREATMENT OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES IS
NOT ONLY AN ESSENTIAL AID TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A SERVICE UNINTERRUPTED
BY LABOR DISPUTES, BUT THAT IT PROMOTES EFFICIENCY, WHICH SUFFERS
THROUGH LOSS OF EMPLOYEE MORALE WHEN THE DEMANDS OF JUSTICE ARE
IGNORED.  TITLE 3 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920,  FN8  WHICH WAS
ENACTED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE PROVISIONS REENACTED IN SUBSTANCE IN
SEC. 5(4)(B), SET UP A "LABOR BOARD" TO DECIDE RAILROAD LABOR DISPUTES
INVOLVING GRIEVANCES, RULES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, AND DECLARED IN
SEC. 301 "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ALL CARRIERS AND THEIR OFFICERS,
EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS, TO EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT AND ADOPT EVERY
AVAILABLE MEANS TO AVOID ANY INTERRUPTION TO THE OPERATION OF ANY
CARRIER GROWING OUT OF ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE CARRIER OR EMPLOYEES OR
SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS."  CONGRESS HAS PASSED SUCCESSIVE MEASURES FOR
ARBITRATION OF RAILROAD DISPUTES BETWEEN RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AND
EMPLOYERS, ALL AIMED AT THE PREVENTION OF INTERRUPTIONS OF RAILROAD
SERVICE THROUGH SUCH DISPUTES, AND CULMINATING IN THE PASSAGE OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 577, AND IN ITS AMENDMENTS IN 1934,
48 STAT. 1185, 45 U.S.C., SECS. 151, 163; TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V.
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAMSHIP CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; VIRGINIAN RY.
CO. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515.  BY THE WAGNER LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF
1935, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C., 151, IT RECOGNIZED AND SOUGHT TO PREVENT
THE INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH MAY ENSUE FROM LABOR
DISPUTES ARISING IN INDUSTRY NOT ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION.  SEE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301
U.S. 1, 42; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601,
604. 

THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT OF 1893, 27 STAT. 531; SEE SOUTHERN RAILWAY
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 222 U.S. 20; THE HOURS OF SERVICE ACT OF 1907, 34
STAT. 1415; SEE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N,
221 U.S. 612, AND THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ACT OF 1908, 35 STAT.
65; SEE SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 51, WERE
DESIGNED MAINLY TO INSURE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES
AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THOSE MEASURES WAS SUSTAINED IN PART ON
THE GROUND THAT THEY FOSTERED THE COMMERCE IN WHICH THE EMPLOYEES WERE
ENGAGED.  IN PASSING THE ADAMSON ACT OF 1916, 39 STAT. 721, FIXING THE
WAGES OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES, CONGRESS THOUGHT THAT IT WAS SAFEGUARDING
THE RAILROADS OF THE COUNTRY FROM INTERRUPTION WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM
LABOR DISPUTES AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT WAS SUSTAINED ON
THAT GROUND.  WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 351.  AND IN THE ACT OF
1934, AS AMENDED IN 1937, 48 STAT. 1283; 50 STAT. 307, 45 U.S.C., SECS.
201, 214, 228(A) TO (R), PROVIDING FOR A RETIREMENT AND PENSION PLAN
FOR RAILROAD EMPLOYEES, CONGRESS DECLARED IN TERMS THAT THE PLAN WAS
ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF "PROMOTING EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY IN
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION." 

IN THE LAST REGULAR SESSION OF CONGRESS, AN ACT TO AMEND THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WAS PASSED BY THE SENATE, S. 2009, 76TH CONG.,
1ST SESS.  THE HOUSE PASSED A SUBSTITUTE BILL EMBODYING EXTENSIVE
CHANGES.  H. REPT. 1217, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  BOTH BILLS ARE NOW IN
CONFERENCE.  BUT BOTH AS PASSED CONTAIN A PROVISION CARRYING INTO
EFFECT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF SIX, SEE S. REPT. 433,
76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 29, BY DIRECTING THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE
"AS A PREREQUISITE TO ITS APPROVAL OF ANY PROPOSED TRANSACTION
(CONSOLIDATION OR LEASE UNDER SEC. 5(4)(B)) A FAIR AND EQUITABLE
ARRANGEMENT TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE EMPLOYEES AFFECTED."  BOTH
BILLS AS ENACTED DECLARE IT "TO BE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY
OF THE CONGRESS  ... TO ENCOURAGE FAIR WAGES AND EQUITABLE WORKING
CONDITIONS, ALL TO THE END OF DEVELOPING, COORDINATING AND PRESERVING A
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM  ...  BY  ...  RAIL  ...  ADEQUATE TO
MEET THE NEEDS OF THE COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  CONGRESS
HAS THUS DECLARED THAT FAIR AND EQUITABLE PROVISION FOR THE
COMPENSATION OF LOSSES THROWN UPON EMPLOYEES AS THE RESULT OF AN
AUTHORIZED CONSOLIDATION OR LEASE PROMOTES THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
POLICY BY DEVELOPING, COORDINATING AND PRESERVING THE RAILROAD
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS RECORD OF PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE AND CONGRESSIONAL
LEGISLATION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE JUST AND REASONABLE CONDITIONS
IMPOSED ON APPELLEES IN THIS CASE WILL NOT PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST
IN ITS STATUTORY MEANING BY FACILITATING THE NATIONAL POLICY OF
RAILROAD CONSOLIDATION; THAT IT WILL NOT TEND TO PREVENT INTERRUPTION
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH LABOR DISPUTES GROWING OUT OF LABOR
GRIEVANCES, OR THAT IT WILL NOT PROMOTE THAT EFFICIENCY OF SERVICE
WHICH COMMON EXPERIENCE TEACHES IS ADVANCED BY THE JUST AND REASONABLE
TREATMENT OF THOSE WHO SERVE.  IN THE LIGHT OF THAT RECORD TOO WE DO
NOT DOUBT THAT CONGRESS, BY ITS CHOICE OF THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF SEC.
5(4)(B) INTENDED AT LEAST TO PERMIT THE COMMISSION, IN AUTHORIZING
RAILROAD CONSOLIDATIONS AND LEASES, TO IMPOSE UPON CARRIERS CONDITIONS
RELATED, AS THESE ARE, TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT
TO FACILITATE RAILROAD CONSOLIDATION, AND TO PROMOTE THE ADEQUACY AND
EFFICIENCY OF THE RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 

THE FACT THAT A BILL HAS RECENTLY BEEN INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS AND
APPROVED BY BOTH ITS HOUSES, REQUIRING AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL RAILWAY
TRANSPORTATION POLICY THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES SUCH AS THE
COMMISSION HAS GIVEN HERE, DOES NOT MILITATE AGAINST THIS CONCLUSION. 
DOUBTS WHICH THE COMMISSION AT ONE TIME ENTERTAINED BUT LATER RESOLVED
IN FAVOR OF ITS AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE THE CONDITIONS, WERE FOLLOWED BY
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF SIX THAT FAIR AND EQUITABLE
ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES BE "REQUIRED."  IT WAS
THIS RECOMMENDATION WHICH WAS EMBODIED IN THE NEW LEGISLATION.  SEN.
REP. NO. 433, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 29.  WE THINK THE ONLY EFFECT
OF THIS ACTION WAS TO GIVE LEGISLATIVE EMPHASIS TO A POLICY AND A
PRACTICE ALREADY RECOGNIZED BY SEC. 5(4)(B) BY MAKING THE PRACTICE
MANDATORY INSTEAD OF DISCRETIONARY, AS IT HAD BEEN UNDER THE EARLIER
ACT. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE STATUTE, AS WE HAVE CONSTRUED IT, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE NOT WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, IN DECLARING
THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF JUNE 27, 1934, 48 STAT. 1283, NOT TO BE
A VALID REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT WAS SAID, AMONG OTHER
REASONS ADVANCED TO SUPPORT THAT CONCLUSION, THAT A COMPULSORY
RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR RAILROAD EMPLOYEES CAN HAVE NO RELATION TO THE
PROMOTION OF EFFICIENCY, ECONOMY OR SAFETY OF RAILROAD OPERATION.  BUT
NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT WAS SAID THERE AND EVEN IF WE WERE DOUBTFUL
WHETHER THE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS MADE HERE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
EMPLOYEES COULD HAVE THE EFFECT WHICH WE HAVE INDICATED UPON RAILROAD
CONSOLIDATION AND UPON THE ADEQUACY AND EFFICIENCY OF THE RAILROAD
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, WE COULD NOT SAY THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL JUDGMENT
THAT THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE A RELATION TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS DEFINED
BY THE STATUTE IS WITHOUT RATIONAL BASIS.  CF. SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY
DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 189, 191; UNITED STATES V.
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 147; PITMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORP., ANTE, P. 21. 

IF WE ARE RIGHT IN OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE STATUTE IS A PERMISSIBLE
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER TO
FOSTER, PROTECT AND CONTROL THE COMMERCE WITH PROPER REGARD FOR THE
WELFARE OF THOSE WHO ARE IMMEDIATELY CONCERNED IN IT, AS WELL AS THE
PUBLIC AT LARGE, IS UNDOUBTED.  SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES,
SUPRA, 47; DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456,
478; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., SUPRA, 147; MULFORD V.
SMITH, 307 U.S. 38.  NOR DO WE PERCEIVE ANY BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THERE
IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS BY A REGULATION OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE, WHICH
EXTENDS TO THE CARRIER A PRIVILEGE RELIEVING IT OF THE COSTS OF
PERFORMANCE OF ITS CARRIER DUTIES, ON CONDITION THAT THE SAVINGS BE
APPLIED IN PART TO COMPENSATE THE LOSS TO EMPLOYEES OCCASIONED BY THE
EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE.  THAT WAS DECIDED IN PRINCIPLE IN DAYTON
GOOSE CREEK RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THERE IT WAS HELD THAT
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT FORBID THE COMPULSORY APPLICATION OF
INCOME, ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PRIVILEGE ENJOYED BY A RAILROAD AS A RESULT
OF COMMISSION ACTION, TO SPECIFIED PURPOSES "IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IN RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION."  SEC. 422(10),
TRANSPORTATION ACT, 41 STAT. 490.  MOREOVER WE CANNOT SAY THAT THIS
LIMITED AND SPECIAL APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE, FULLY RECOGNIZED IN
OUR CASES SUSTAINING WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS, THAT A BUSINESS MAY
BE REQUIRED TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF EMPLOYEE WASTAGE INCIDENT TO ITS
OPERATION, INFRINGES DUE PROCESS.  SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES,
SUPRA; NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. WHITE, 243 U.S. 188; MOUNTAIN TIMBER
CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219; CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. PARRAMORE, 263
U.S. 418.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN SEVERAL CASES THE COMMISSION HAS DISAPPROVED PROPOSALS FOR
CONSOLIDATIONS AND FOR ACQUISITION OF CONTROL BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO
DEAL FAIRLY WITH MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS.  NICKEL PLATE UNIFICATION, 105
I.C.C. 425; UNIFICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN LINES, 124 I.C.C. 401.  IN
OTHERS IT HAS APPROVED THE PROPOSAL ON CONDITION THAT THESE OBJECTIONS
BE REMOVED.  BUFFALO, ROCHESTER & PITTSBURGH R. CO., 158 I.C.C. 779;
BUFFALO & SUSQUEHANNA R. CORP. CONTROL, 162 I.C.C. 656; UPPER COOS R.
CONTROL, 166 I.C.C. 76; SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RY. CO. CONTROL, 166
I.C.C. 90; DENVER & SALT LAKE R. CO. CONTROL, 170 I.C.C. 4; ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. CONTROL, 180 I.C.C. 175.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 282 U.S. 311, 337. 

FN2  ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS STRIKES OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY
CONSOLIDATIONS OF PLANT FACILITIES HAVE THREATENED.  TO AVOID
INTERRUPTION OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AN EMERGENCY BOARD WAS INVOKED
IN 1929 UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926 TO ARBITRATE THE DISPUTE
BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND THE EMPLOYEES OF THE TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY.  THE BOARD AWARDED THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION FOR LOSS FROM
DEPRECIATION OF THE VALUE OF THEIR HOMES (CF. CLAUSE 4 IN THE ORDER
HERE INVOLVED).  THE BOARD, AFTER EXTENSIVE HEARINGS, FOUND THAT SUCH A
REQUIREMENT WAS REASONABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT RAILROADS
THEMSELVES HAD ON SEVERAL PRIOR OCCASIONS COMPENSATED THE EMPLOYEES
AFFECTED.  28 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, 1191(1929).  SEE ALSO 43 MONTHLY
LABOR REVIEW, 867(1936) WHERE DISMISSAL COMPENSATION WAS AGREED UPON IN
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THREAT OF A STRIKE. 

FN3  THE CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC SYSTEM, REPRESENTED HERE BY
APPELLEE, WAS A PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT.  42 MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW
1503(1936); 57 TRAFFIC WORLD 995(1936). 

FN4  REPORT OF COMMITTEE APPOINTED SEPTEMBER 20, 1938, BY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TO SUBMIT RECOMMENDATIONS UPON THE
GENERAL TRANSPORTATION SITUATION (DECEMBER 23, 1938). 

FN5  CONSOLIDATION OF RAILROADS, 185 I.C.C. 403, 427; UNIFICATION OF
LINES IN SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY, 193 I.C.C. 183, 198; ST. PAUL BRIDGE &
TERMINAL RY. CO. CONTROL, 199 I.C.C. 588.  FOR LATER CASES TO THE SAME
EFFECT, SEE ASSOCIATED RAILWAYS COMPANY ACQUISITION AND SECURITIES, 228
I.C.C. 277, 336; LOUISIANA & ARKANSAS RY. CO., MERGER, 230 I.C.C. 156;
LOUISIANA & ARKANSAS RY. CO., CONTROL, 233 I.C.C. 37, 123.    FN6
SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (1892), P. 323. 

FN7  FOR A SIMILAR CONCLUSION, SEE J. DOUGLAS BROWN, ET AL., RAILWAY
LABOR SURVEY, SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL, DIVISION OF INDUSTRY &
TRADE (1933), 1, 94; ROBERTSON, THE STAKE OF RAILROAD LABOR IN THE
TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM, 187 ANN. AM. ACAD.  88(1936). 

FN8  THIS ACT RESULTED FROM THE EXPERIENCES OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
IN OPERATING THE RAILROADS DURING THE WORLD WAR PERIOD.  SHARFMAN, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, VOL. I, P. 181.  THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
RECOGNIZED THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING A LOYAL AND DEVOTED PERSONNEL
IN THE INTEREST OF UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE.  THIRTY-THIRD ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION (1919), P. 4.  IN AGREEMENTS
EXECUTED BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL WITH SEVERAL RAILROAD UNIONS,
PROVISION WAS MADE FOR PROTECTION OF SENIORITY RIGHTS AND FOR FREE
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE EMPLOYEE, HIS FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS (CF.
CLAUSE 3 OF ORDER HERE INVOLVED), WHEN CONSOLIDATIONS OF FACILITIES
WERE ORDERED BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL.  SEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF RAILROADS AND THE BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES
(1920), RULE 77. 
..END :

















LABOR BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS CO., 308 U.S. 241 


NO. 20.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 7, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - 101
F.2D 841, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY CONSIDER ADDITIONAL FACTS, OCCURRING
BEFORE THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD HAD BEEN PROMULGATED, WHICH
THE BOARD IN A SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE CERTIFIED AS PART OF THE
RECORD.  P. 248. 

2.  UPON REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY NOT CONSIDER FACTS CONTAINED IN BRIEFS
FILED IN THE PROCEEDING IN THAT COURT, BUT WHICH ARE NOT A PART OF THE
RECORD CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD.  SUCH FACTS MAY BE ADDED TO THE
CERTIFIED RECORD ONLY IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 10(E) OF THE
ACT.  P. 249. 

3.  A FINDING BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT AN EMPLOYER
HAD DOMINATED, GIVEN FINANCIAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE TO, AND INTERFERED
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, HELD
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 250. 

4.  A PROVISION IN A PLAN FOR THE GOVERNANCE OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION,
WHEREBY THE PLAN MAY NOT BE AMENDED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE
EMPLOYER, DEPRIVES THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPLETE FREEDOM OF ACTION
GUARANTEED TO THEM BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  P. 249. 

5.  AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING AN
EMPLOYER TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM AN ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES
AND TO DISESTABLISH IT - BASED UPON THE BOARD'S FINDING, SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD FOR YEARS DOMINATED AND INTERFERED WITH
THE ORGANIZATION, AND THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION, WARRANTED BY THE RECORD,
THAT BECAUSE OF THAT HISTORY THE ORGANIZATION WAS INCAPABLE OF SERVING
THE EMPLOYEES AS THEIR GENUINE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING - SUSTAINED.  P. 251. 

UPON THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE BOARD WAS AUTHORIZED TO ORDER THE
DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACTS
THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAD OPERATED TO THE APPARENT SATISFACTION OF THE
EMPLOYEES; THAT NO SERIOUS LABOR DISPUTES HAD OCCURRED DURING ITS
EXISTENCE; AND THAT IN A REFERENDUM THE EMPLOYEES HAD SIGNIFIED THEIR
DESIRE FOR ITS CONTINUANCE. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK
CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW A DECREE MODIFYING AND DIRECTING
THE ENFORCEMENT, AS MODIFIED, OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN A CASE DULY INSTITUTED AND HEARD, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD ISSUED AN ORDER,  FN1 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(C)
FN2  OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, REQUIRING THE RESPONDENT,
NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK COMPANY:  (1) TO CEASE AND DESIST
FROM (A) DOMINATING OR OTHERWISE INTERFERING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE, A LABOR ORGANIZATION,  FN3  OR
THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS
EMPLOYES; (B) FROM INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING ITS
EMPLOYES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT GUARANTEED THEM BY SEC. 7  FN4
OF THE ACT.  THE ORDER FURTHER REQUIRED THE COMPANY (2) TO TAKE
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, NAMELY:  (A) TO WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION FROM THE
COMMITTEE AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OF ITS EMPLOYES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEALING WITH THE COMPANY CONCERNING LABOR CONDITIONS AND WAGES, AND
COMPLETELY TO DISESTABLISH THE COMMITTEE AS SUCH REPRESENTATIVE; (B) TO
POST COPIES OF THE ORDER THROUGHOUT THE PLANT; (C) TO MAINTAIN SAID
NOTICES FOR THIRTY DAYS; AND (D) TO NOTIFY THE BOARD'S REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF THE STEPS TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER. 

THE ORDER WAS BASED UPON FINDINGS THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD DOMINATED
AND INTERFERED WITH THE FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMITTEE,
HAD CONTRIBUTED TO IT FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUPPORT, AND WAS STILL
DOMINATING AND INTERFERING WITH THE COMMITTEE, CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(1)
AND (2)  FN5 OF THE ACT.  FN6 

THE COMPANY PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR REVIEW.  THE
BOARD ANSWERED PRAYING THAT THE COURT DISMISS THE COMPANY'S PETITION
AND DECREE ENFORCEMENT.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE BOARD HAD JURISDICTION
OF THE CAUSE, BUT THAT ITS HOLDING THAT THE COMPANY HAD DOMINATED AND
INTERFERED WITH THE FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMMITTEE WAS
WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  THE COURT DECREED THAT SEC. 1(A) AND
(B) AND SEC. 2(B)(C) AND (D) OF THE BOARD'S ORDER SHOULD BE ENFORCED
BUT THAT SEC. 2(A), WHICH REQUIRED THE WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION OF THE
COMMITTEE AND ITS DISESTABLISHMENT AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYES,
SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE ORDER.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  FN7 

THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT PRESS THE CLAIM ADVANCED IN THE COURT BELOW
THAT THE BOARD LACKED JURISDICTION.  THE SOLE ISSUE HERE JOINED IS AS
TO THE PROPRIETY OF THAT PORTION OF THE BOARD'S ORDER WHICH CONSTRAINED
THE RESPONDENT TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION OF THE COMMITTEE AND TO
DISESTABLISH IT AS THE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYES. 
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE REQUIRES THAT WE DETERMINE WHETHER THE BOARD'S
ULTIMATE FINDING OF DOMINATION AND INTERFERENCE BY THE EMPLOYER HAS
SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE. 

THE BOARD'S SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS OF FACT ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF
SERIOUS CONTROVERSY.  THE RESPONDENT ATTACKS THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF
FACT AS UNJUSTIFIED BY THE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS AND FURTHER CONTENDS
THAT THE CONCLUSION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REACHED HAD NOT THE BOARD
IGNORED AND REFUSED TO FIND OTHER RELEVANT FACTS WHICH WERE EITHER
STIPULATED OR PROVED WITHOUT CONTRADICTION. 

THE BOARD'S FINDINGS WERE TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT:  IN 1927, IN
COOPERATION WITH ITS EMPLOYES, THE RESPONDENT PUT INTO EFFECT A PLAN OF
EMPLOYE REPRESENTATION KNOWN AS "REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYES."  THE
PREAMBLE OF THE PLAN STATED THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO GIVE EMPLOYES A
VOICE IN RESPECT OF THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR LABOR AND TO PROVIDE A
PROCEDURE FOR THE PREVENTION AND ADJUSTMENT OF FUTURE DIFFERENCES. 
UNDER THE PLAN THE EMPLOYES WERE TO ELECT REPRESENTATIVES EACH OF WHOM
WAS PAID $100 PER YEAR FOR SERVICES AS SUCH.  NO ONE HOLDING A
SUPERVISORY POSITION WAS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OR TO
VOTE FOR A REPRESENTATIVE.  ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN WAS VESTED IN
CERTAIN JOINT COMMITTEES EACH OF WHICH CONSISTED OF FIVE ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE REPRESENTATIVES CHOSEN FROM
AMONGST THE EMPLOYES BY THE MANAGEMENT.  THERE WAS PROVISION FOR A
MANAGEMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE WHOSE FUNCTION WAS "TO KEEP THE MANAGEMENT
IN TOUCH WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES AND REPRESENT THE MANAGEMENT IN
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEIR OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES."  A PROVISION CALLING
FOR THE ARBITRATION OF DIFFERENCES WAS TO BECOME OPERATIVE ONLY UPON
CONCURRENCE OF THE RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT. 

AMENDMENT OF THE PLAN COULD BE MADE ONLY BY THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF
TWO-THIRDS OF THE FULL MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON RULES OR OF
A MAJORITY OF ALL THE EMPLOYES' REPRESENTATIVES AND ALL THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MANAGEMENT, AT AN ANNUAL CONFERENCE.  THE PLAN
SET FORTH THAT INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES WAS
GUARANTEED BY PERMITTING THEM TO TAKE QUESTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION TO
ANY OF THE SUPERIOR OFFICERS, TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE, AND TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY.  THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF
DUES. 

THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS REVISED IN 1929, 1931, 1934, 1936, AND 1937. 

BY THE 1931 REVISION, WHICH WAS NOT MATERIALLY ALTERED UNTIL 1937, A
GENERAL JOINT COMMITTEE WAS SET UP IN LIEU OF SEVERAL JOINT COMMITTEES
THERETOFORE CONSTITUTED, AND TWO REPRESENTATIVES WERE TO BE ELECTED BY
THE EMPLOYES IN EACH DEPARTMENT WHILE THE RESPONDENT WAS TO APPOINT AN
EQUAL NUMBER OF MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES, A MAJORITY OF EACH CLASS OF
REPRESENTATIVES CONSTITUTING A QUORUM.  THE ANNUAL REMUNERATION TO BE
PAID ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BY THE COMPANY WAS REDUCED TO $60.00.  THE
SECRETARY OF THE GENERAL JOINT COMMITTEE WAS PAID $5.00 MONTHLY BY THE
COMPANY.  AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WAS ALSO ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTED OF
FIVE ELECTED EMPLOYE REPRESENTATIVES AND FIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF
MANAGEMENT. 

ELECTIONS WERE ARRANGED FOR BY THE MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES BUT, IN
SO FAR AS POSSIBLE, WERE CONDUCTED BY THE EMPLOYES THEMSELVES. 

A PROCEDURE WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYE
GRIEVANCES, WHEREBY, IN EVENT OF FAILURE OF SETTLEMENT, NOTICE WAS TO
BE GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY.  UNDER THE REVISED PLAN THE
GENERAL JOINT COMMITTEE MET MONTHLY TO TAKE ACTION UPON MATTERS
PRESENTED BY THE MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE OR BY EMPLOYE
REPRESENTATIVES OR SUBCOMMITTEES; BUT FINALITY OF THE ACTION OF THE
GENERAL JOINT COMMITTEE WAS DEPENDENT UPON APPROVAL BY THE RESPONDENT'S
PRESIDENT.  AMENDMENT OF THE PLAN, WHICH COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY A
TWOTHIRDS VOTE OF THE ENTIRE GENERAL JOINT COMMITTEE, BECAME EFFECTIVE
WHEN APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY. 

THE LAST REVISION MADE IN MAY 1937, AFTER THE VALIDITY OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT HAD BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT,
ORIGINATED IN THE GENERAL JOINT COMMITTEE, ONE-HALF OF WHOSE MEMBERS
REPRESENTED THE INTERESTS OF THE RESPONDENT.  THE AMENDED PLAN WAS
REFERRED TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, SIMILARLY CONSTITUTED, AND TO THE
ELECTED EMPLOYE REPRESENTATIVES, RESPECTIVELY.  AFTER ANNOUNCEMENT BY
THE MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE REVISION WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE
RESPONDENT IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL JOINT COMMITTEE.  THE
PERSONNEL MANAGER, AND THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE RESPONDENT, TOOK PART
IN THE REVISION OF THE PLAN.  THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE TESTIFIED
THAT THIS REVISION WAS UNDERTAKEN IN ORDER TO BRING THE PLAN WITHIN THE
LETTER, AS WELL AS WITHIN THE SPIRIT, OF THE ACT. 

THE TWO PRINCIPAL CHANGES MADE WERE THE ELIMINATION OF PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION BY THE RESPONDENT TO ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
EMPLOYES AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN EMPLOYES' REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE,
COMPOSED SOLELY OF EMPLOYE REPRESENTATIVES ELECTED BY EMPLOYES, FOR THE
FORMER GENERAL JOINT COMMITTEE AND THE JOINT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  THE
REVISED PLAN PROVIDES THAT ACTION OF THE EMPLOYES' REPRESENTATIVE
COMMITTEE "SHALL BE FINAL AND BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON AGREEMENT BY THE
COMPANY"; AND, FURTHER, THAT ANY ARTICLE OF THE PLAN MAY BE AMENDED BY
A VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE; AND
"AMENDMENTS SHALL BE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME SPECIFIED BY THE EMPLOYES'
REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE, UNLESS DISAPPROVED BY THE COMPANY WITHIN
FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER THEIR PASSAGE." 

THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE PERMITS THE PRESENTATION OF A GRIEVANCE TO
THE RESPONDENT'S PERSONNEL MANAGER, OR ITS GENERAL MANAGER, IN THE
EVENT NO SETTLEMENT HAS THERETOFORE BEEN EFFECTED. 

UPON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT, FROM THE
INCEPTION OF THE PLAN IN 1927 UNTIL ITS FINAL REVISION IN 1937, THE
RESPONDENT DOMINATED, ASSISTED, AND INTERFERED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION; AND THAT THE METHOD FOLLOWED FOR AMENDMENT
OF THE PLAN IN 1937, AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINAL REVISION, LEFT THE
COMPANY STILL IN THE POSITION OF DOMINATING AND INTERFERING IN THE
FORMULATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 7 OF THE ACT.  THE BOARD HELD THAT THE COMMITTEE IS, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, INCAPABLE OF SERVING THE EMPLOYES AS THEIR GENUINE
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

THE RESPONDENT CRITICISES SEVERAL OF THE FINDINGS AS WITHOUT SUPPORT
OR CONTRARY TO UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE.  WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER
THESE CONTENTIONS, SINCE, WITHOUT SUCH FINDINGS, THERE WOULD STILL BE A
BASIS IN THE RECORD FOR THE BOARD'S CONCLUSIONS. 

THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT IS THAT THE BOARD IGNORED
UNCONTRADICTED FACTS AND REFUSED TO MAKE FINDINGS RESPECTING THEM.  THE
BOARD REPLIES THAT IT DID NOT IGNORE THESE FACTS, BUT OMITTED TO FIND
THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE IMMATERIAL TO THE PIVOTAL ISSUES IN THE CASE. 
IT IS UNCONTRADICTED THAT LABOR DISPUTES HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN SETTLED
UNDER THE PLAN; THAT SINCE 1927 NO LABOR DISPUTE HAS CAUSED CESSATION
OF ACTIVITIES AT THE RESPONDENT'S PLANT; THAT OVERWHELMING MAJORITIES
OF THE EMPLOYES HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES;
THAT THE COMPANY HAS NEVER OBJECTED TO ITS EMPLOYES JOINING LABOR
UNIONS; THAT NO DISCRIMINATION HAS BEEN PRACTICED AGAINST THEM BECAUSE
OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN OUTSIDE UNIONS; AND THAT NEITHER OFFICIALS NOR
SUPERIOR EMPLOYES NOT ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN THE ELECTION OF EMPLOYES'
REPRESENTATIVES, HAVE INTERFERED, OR ATTEMPTED TO INTERFERE, OR USE ANY
INFLUENCE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

BEFORE THE BOARD'S DECISION AND ORDER HAD BEEN PROMULGATED A
REFERENDUM WAS HELD AT WHICH A SWEEPING MAJORITY OF THE COMPANY'S
EMPLOYES SIGNIFIED, BY SECRET BALLOT, THEIR SATISFACTION WITH THE PLAN
AS REVISED IN 1937 AND THEIR DESIRE FOR ITS CONTINUANCE.  COUNSEL FOR
THE COMMITTEE REQUESTED THE BOARD TO CERTIFY THESE FACTS TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AS PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT.  THE BOARD,
THOUGH NOT BOUND SO TO DO, EMBODIED THESE FACTS IN A SUPPLEMENTARY
CERTIFICATE.  IT NOW TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE ONLY PROPER WAY TO
BRING THESE ADDITIONAL FACTS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE REVIEWING COURT
WOULD HAVE BEEN BY APPLICATION TO THE COURT TO REMAND THE CAUSE FOR
FURTHER FINDINGS, AND AS THIS WAS NOT DONE, THE CERTIFICATE WAS
IRREGULAR AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.  WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE
WITH THIS CONTENTION.  WE THINK THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CANNOT BE
CONVICTED OF ERROR IN ACCEPTING THE BOARD'S SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE. 

THE BOARD URGES THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACTS ON WHICH THE
RESPONDENT RELIES, THE STRUCTURE OF THE COMMITTEE, UNDER THE 1937 PLAN,
RENDERS THE ORGANIZATION INCOMPETENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT; AND FURTHER THAT, IF ITS FUNDAMENTAL LAW
WERE FREE FROM DEFECT, THE HISTORY OF ITS ORGANIZATION AND
ADMINISTRATION WOULD REQUIRE THAT IT BE DISESTABLISHED AS THE
BARGAINING AGENCY OF THE EMPLOYES. 

PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE WAGNER ACT THE PLAN DID NOT RUN COUNTER
TO ANY FEDERAL LAW, EITHER IN CONCEPTION OR ADMINISTRATION.  THE
RESPONDENT, HOWEVER, CONCEDES THAT SUNDRY FEATURES OF THE PLAN, AS THEN
FORMULATED, CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.  BOTH EMPLOYER
AND EMPLOYES SO RECOGNIZED WHEN THEY UNDERTOOK THE REVISION OF 1937 FOR
THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING THE PLAN WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF
THE ACT. 

THE BOARD HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE PROVISIONS EMBODIED IN THE FINAL
REVISION, WHEREBY ACTION OF THE COMMITTEE REQUIRES, FOR ITS
EFFECTIVENESS, THE AGREEMENT OF THE COMPANY, AND WHEREBY AMENDMENT OF
THE PLAN CAN BECOME EFFECTIVE ONLY IF THE COMPANY FAILS TO SIGNIFY ITS
DISAPPROVAL WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS OF ADOPTION, STILL GIVE THE RESPONDENT
SUCH POWER OF CONTROL THAT THE PLAN IS IN THE TEETH OF THE EXPRESSED
POLICY AND THE SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS OF THE ACT.  THE RESPONDENT ARGUES
THAT THESE PROVISIONS AFFECT ONLY THE COMPANY AND NOT THE EMPLOYES;
THAT, IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, THERE IS ALWAYS RESERVED TO THE
EMPLOYER THE RIGHT TO QUALIFY OR TO REJECT THE PROPOSITIONS ADVANCED BY
THE EMPLOYES.  WHATEVER MAY BE SAID OF THE FIRST MENTIONED PROVISION,
THIS EXPLANATION WILL NOT HOLD FOR THE SECOND.  THE PLAN MAY NOT BE
AMENDED IF THE COMPANY DISAPPROVES THE AMENDMENT.  SUCH CONTROL OF THE
FORM AND STRUCTURE OF AN EMPLOYE ORGANIZATION DEPRIVES THE EMPLOYES OF
THE COMPLETE FREEDOM OF ACTION GUARANTEED TO THEM BY THE ACT, AND
JUSTIFIES AN ORDER SUCH AS WAS HERE ENTERED.  THE COURT BELOW, IN ITS
OPINION, STATES IT WAS ADVISED IN A BRIEF AFTER THE HEARING IN THAT
COURT, THAT THE PLAN HAD BEEN AMENDED BY STRIKING OUT THE PROVISIONS IN
QUESTION.  IT CONCLUDES, THEREFORE, THAT THEIR PREVIOUS EXISTENCE IS
IMMATERIAL.  THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY DEPRIVES THE REVIEWING COURT OF
POWER TO CONSIDER FACTS THUS BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION.  THE CASE MUST
BE HEARD ON THE RECORD AS CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD.  THE APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURE TO ADD FACTS TO THE RECORD AS CERTIFIED IS PRESCRIBED IN SEC.
10(E) OF THE ACT. 

BUT WE THINK THAT IF THE RECORD DISCLOSED SUCH AN ALTERATION OF THE
PLAN, THE ORDER OF THE BOARD COULD NOT BE HELD ERRONEOUS.  THE BOARD
HELD THAT, WHERE AN ORGANIZATION HAS EXISTED FOR TEN YEARS AND HAS
FUNCTIONED IN THE WAY THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS FUNCTIONED, WITH A JOINT
CONTROL VESTED IN MANAGEMENT AND MEN, THE EFFECTS OF THE LONG PRACTICE
CANNOT BE ELIMINATED AND THE EMPLOYES RENDERED ENTIRELY FREE TO ACT
UPON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE WITHOUT THE COMPLETE DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE
PLAN.  ON THE RECORD AS MADE WE CANNOT SAY THIS WAS ERROR. 

WHILE THE MEN ARE FREE TO ADOPT ANY FORM OF ORGANIZATION AND
REPRESENTATION WHETHER PURELY LOCAL OR CONNECTED WITH A NATIONAL BODY,
THEIR PURPOSE SO TO DO MAY BE OBSTRUCTED BY THE EXISTENCE AND
RECOGNITION BY THE MANAGEMENT OF AN OLD PLAN OR ORGANIZATION THE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OR OPERATION OF WHICH WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE LAW.  SEC. 10(C) WAS NOT INTENDED TO GIVE THE BOARD
POWER OF PUNISHMENT OR RETRIBUTION FOR PAST WRONGS OR ERRORS.  ACTION
UNDER THAT SECTION MUST BE LIMITED TO THE EFFECTUATION OF THE POLICIES
OF THE ACT.  ONE OF THESE IS THAT THE EMPLOYES SHALL BE FREE TO CHOOSE
SUCH FORM OF ORGANIZATION AS THEY WISH. 

AS POINTED OUT IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA
GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, DISESTABLISHMENT OF A BARGAINING UNIT
PREVIOUSLY DOMINATED BY THE EMPLOYER MAY BE THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY OF
WIPING THE SLATE CLEAN AND AFFORDING THE EMPLOYES AN OPPORTUNITY TO
START AFRESH IN ORGANIZING FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THEIR RELATIONS WITH
THE EMPLOYER.  COMPARE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FANSTEEL
METALLURGICAL CORP., 306 U.S. 240, 262. 

THE COURT BELOW AGREED WITH THE RESPONDENT THAT, AS THE COMMITTEE HAD
OPERATED TO THE APPARENT SATISFACTION OF THE EMPLOYES; AS SERIOUS LABOR
DISPUTES HAD NOT OCCURRED DURING ITS EXISTENCE; AND AS THE MEN AT AN
ELECTION HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE COMMITTEE HAD SIGNIFIED THEIR
DESIRE FOR ITS CONTINUANCE, IT WOULD BE A PROPER MEDIUM AND ONE WHICH
THE EMPLOYER MIGHT CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF LABOR
DISPUTES.  THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE POSITION IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE STATUTE PRECLUDE SUCH A DISPOSITION OF THE CASE.  THE LAW PROVIDES
THAT AN EMPLOYE ORGANIZATION SHALL BE FREE FROM INTERFERENCE OR
DOMINANCE BY THE EMPLOYER.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT, UPON THE UNCONTRADICTED
FACTS, THE BOARD ERRED IN ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW
COULD NOT BE ATTAINED WITHOUT COMPLETE DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE EXISTING
ORGANIZATION WHICH HAD BEEN DOMINATED AND CONTROLLED TO A GREATER OR
LESS EXTENT BY THE RESPONDENT.  IN APPLYING THE STATUTORY TEST OF
INDEPENDENCE IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE PLAN HAD IN FACT NOT ENGENDERED,
OR INDEED HAD OBVIATED, SERIOUS LABOR DISPUTES IN THE PAST, OR THAT ANY
COMPANY INTERFERENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN HAD BEEN
INCIDENTAL RATHER THAN FUNDAMENTAL AND WITH GOOD MOTIVES.  IT WAS FOR
CONGRESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, SUCH A PLAN
SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CONTINUE IN FORCE.  WE THINK THE STATUTE PLAINLY
EVINCES A CONTRARY PURPOSE, AND THAT THE BOARD'S CONCLUSIONS ARE IN
ACCORD WITH THAT PURPOSE. 

THE DECREE MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  8 N.L.R.B. 866. 

FN2  49 STAT. 449, 454; 29 U.S.C. SUPP. IV, SEC. 160(C). 

FN3  THE COMMITTEE WAS GRANTED LEAVE TO INTERVENE, PRODUCED EVIDENCE,
AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ARGUMENT BEFORE THE BOARD, AND WAS HEARD IN THE
COURT BELOW AND IN THIS COURT. 

FN4  49 STAT. 449, 452; 29 U.S.C. SUPP. IV, SEC. 157. 

FN5  49 STAT. 449, 452; 29 U.S.C. SUPP. IV, SEC. 158. 

FN6  THE COMPLAINT ALSO CHARGED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD DISCHARGED
CERTAIN EMPLOYES FOR UNION ACTIVITY AND HAD THUS VIOLATED SEC. 8(3) OF
THE ACT BUT THE BOARD DISMISSED THIS CHARGE. 

FN7  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES,
303 U.S. 261; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL
CORP., 306 U.S. 240. 
..END :





HELVERING V. LAZARUS & CO., 308 U.S. 252 


NO. 56.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - 101
F.2D 728, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN COMPUTING INCOME TAX UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, A TAXPAYER
IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES
USED IN ITS BUSINESS UNDER LEASES FROM A TRUSTEE TO WHOM THE PROPERTIES
HAD BEEN CONVEYED BY THE TAXPAYER IN A TRANSACTION WHICH IN REALITY WAS
A MORTGAGE.  P. 254. 

2.  A FINDING BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT A TRANSACTION BETWEEN
THE TAXPAYER AND A TRUSTEE BANK - IN WRITTEN FORM A TRANSFER OF
OWNERSHIP WITH A LEASE BACK - WAS IN REALITY A MORTGAGE, IS CONCLUSIVE
ON THE COURTS ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT PERMITS CONFLICTING
INFERENCES.  PP. 254-255. 

3.  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ARE EQUITABLE IN
NATURE.  P. 255. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. F. & R. LAZARUS & CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 537, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 32 B.T.A. 633, UPHOLDING A TAXPAYER'S CLAIM
FOR ALLOWANCE OF A DEDUCTION FOR DEPRECIATION IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME
TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN COMPUTING ITS NET TAXABLE INCOME FOR 1930 AND 1931, RESPONDENT
CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THREE BUILDINGS OCCUPIED AND USED IN ITS
BUSINESS AS A DEPARTMENT STORE.  DURING THOSE YEARS, THE LEGAL TITLE TO
TWO OF THESE PROPERTIES AND AN ASSIGNMENT OF A NINETY-NINE YEAR LEASE
TO THE THIRD WERE IN A BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTAIN LAND-TRUST
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS.  THESE PROPERTIES HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE
TRUSTEE BY THE RESPONDENT IN 1928 AND THE TRUSTEE HAD AT THE SAME TIME
LEASED ALL THREE BACK TO RESPONDENT FOR NINETY-NINE YEARS, WITH OPTION
TO RENEW AND PURCHASE.  IN CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION, RESPONDENT INSISTED
THAT THE CAPITAL LOSS FROM WEAR, TEAR, AND EXHAUSTION OF THE BUILDINGS
WAS FALLING UPON IT, THUS ENTITLING IT TO THE STATUTORY ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPRECIATION OF BUILDINGS.  FN1  THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THIS
DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO DEPRECIATION
FOLLOWS LEGAL TITLE.  REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND THE TRUSTEE BANK
WAS IN REALITY A MORTGAGE LOAN AND ORDERED THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED,  FN2
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN3  UPON FACTS WHICH IT
CONSIDERED "IN ALL ESSENTIAL RESPECTS IDENTICAL," THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HELD DEPRECIATION NOT ALLOWABLE.  FN4
BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT RESULTS REACHED BY THE COURTS OF APPEAL, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN5 

THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS AIMED AT NET INCOME DETERMINED FROM GROSS
INCOME LESS ITEMS SUCH AS NECESSARY EXPENSES INCURRED OR CAPITAL
CONSUMED IN EARNING IT.  THUS, THE CONTROLLING STATUTE PERMITS A
TAXPAYER IN COMPUTING NET INCOME TO DEDUCT A "REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR
...  EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR."  WHILE IT MAY MORE OFTEN BE THAT HE
WHO IS BOTH OWNER AND USER BEARS THE BURDEN OF WEAR AND EXHAUSTION OF
BUSINESS PROPERTY IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL, ONE WHO IS NOT THE OWNER
MAY NEVERTHELESS BEAR THE BURDEN OF EXHAUSTION OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT. 
WHERE IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT A LESSEE USING PROPERTY IN A TRADE OR
BUSINESS MUST INCUR THE LOSS RESULTING FROM DEPRECIATION OF CAPITAL HE
HAS INVESTED, THE LESSEE HAS BEEN HELD ENTITLED TO THE STATUTORY
DEDUCTION.  FN6 

HERE, THE TAXPAYER USED BUSINESS PROPERTY IN WHICH IT HAD A
DEPRECIABLE CAPITAL INVESTMENT, PROVIDED IT HAD NOT RECOVERED ITS
INVESTMENT THROUGH A SALE.  THE BOARD IN SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT FOUND THAT
THE INSTRUMENT UNDER WHICH THE TAXPAYER PURPORTED TO CONVEY LEGAL
OWNERSHIP TO THE TRUSTEE BANK WAS IN REALITY GIVEN AND ACCEPTED AS NO
MORE THAN SECURITY FOR A LOAN ON THE PROPERTY; THE "RENT" STIPULATED IN
THE CONCURRENTLY EXECUTED NINETY-NINE YEAR "LEASE" BACK WAS INTENDED AS
A PROMISE TO PAY AN AGREED FIVE PER CENT INTEREST ON THE LOAN; AND THE
"DEPRECIATION FUND" REQUIRED BY THE "LEASE" WAS INTENDED AS AN
AMORTIZATION FUND, DESIGNED TO PAY OFF THE LOAN IN FORTY-EIGHT AND ONE
HALF YEARS.  THESE FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE WHICH PERMITS, AT
MOST, CONFLICTING INFERENCES AND ARE, THEREFORE, CONCLUSIVE HERE.  AND,
UNLESS THE BOARD COMMITTED ERROR OF LAW WE MUST AFFIRM.  FN7 

WE THINK THE BOARD JUSTIFIABLY CONCLUDED FROM ITS FINDINGS THAT THE
TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE TAXPAYER AND THE TRUSTEE BANK, IN WRITTEN FORM
A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP WITH A LEASE BACK, WAS ACTUALLY A LOAN SECURED
BY THE PROPERTY INVOLVED.  GENERAL RECOGNITION HAS BEEN GIVEN THE
"ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE THAT A COURT OF EQUITY WILL TREAT A DEED,
ABSOLUTE IN FORM, AS A MORTGAGE, WHEN IT IS EXECUTED AS SECURITY FOR A
LOAN OF MONEY."  FN8  IN THE FIELD OF TAXATION, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE
LAWS, AND THE COURTS, ARE CONCERNED WITH SUBSTANCE AND REALITIES, AND
FORMAL WRITTEN DOCUMENTS ARE NOT RIGIDLY BINDING.  CONGRESS HAS
SPECIFICALLY EMPHASIZED THE EQUITABLE NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS BY REQUIRING THE BOARD TO ACT "IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE IN COURTS OF EQUITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA."  26 U.S.C. 611. 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIES IN PART UPON SENIOR V. BRADEN, 295 U.S. 422. 
WHATEVER THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT CASE, IT CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION
HERE.  IN THE BRADEN CASE, THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE - HERE CONTROLLING -
OF LOOKING TO EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE BEHIND A TRANSFER ABSOLUTE ON ITS FACE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER ONLY A SECURITY TRANSACTION WAS CONTEMPLATED BY
THE PARTIES, WAS NEITHER INVOKED NOR PASSED UPON. 

JUDGMENT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, 45 STAT. 791, 799-800.  IN
COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS:  ... 

DEPRECIATION. - A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR THE EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND
TEAR OF PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS, INCLUDING A REASONABLE
ALLOWANCE FOR OBSOLESCENCE.  IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY HELD BY ONE PERSON
FOR LIFE WITH REMAINDER TO ANOTHER PERSON, THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE
COMPUTED AS IF THE LIFE TENANT WERE THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
AND SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE LIFE TENANT.  IN THE CASE OF PROPERTY HELD
IN TRUST THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION SHALL BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE
INCOME BENEFICIARIES AND THE TRUSTEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERTINENT
PROVISIONS OF THE INSTRUMENT CREATING THE TRUST, OR, IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH PROVISIONS, ON THE BASIS OF THE TRUST INCOME ALLOCABLE TO EACH. 

FN2  32 B.T.A. 633.  THE BOARD FOUND THE DEPRECIABLE LIFE OF THE
PROPERTY TO BE FIFTY YEARS, INSTEAD OF FORTY AS ORIGINALLY CLAIMED BY
RESPONDENT. 

FN3  101 F.2D 728; CF. COMMISSIONER V. H.F. NEIGHBORS REALTY CO., 81
F.2D 173. 

FN4  CITY NATIONAL BANK BUILDING CO. V. HELVERING, 68 APP. D.C. 344;
98 F.2D 216, 217. 

FN5  POST, P. 537. 

FN6  DUFFY V. CENTRAL R. CO., 268 U.S. 55; APPEAL OF GLADDING DRY
GOODS CO., 2 B.T.A. 336, 338; COGAR V. COMMISSIONER, 44 F.2D 554.  SEE,
BOWMAN CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 59 APP. D.C. 13; 32 F.2D 404, 405; NATIONAL
CITY BANK V. UNITED STATES, 64 C. CLS. 236, CERT. DEN.  276 U.S. 620;
COMMISSIONER V. H.F. NEIGHBORS REALTY CO., SUPRA. 

FN7 26 U.S.C. 641(C). 

FN8  PEUGH V. DAVIS, 96 U.S. 332, 336; HUGHES V. EDWARDS, 9 WHEAT. 
489, 495; RUSSELL V. SOUTHARD, 12 HOW.  139; TEAL V. WALKER, 111 U.S.
242.  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 79 A.L.R. 937. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















U.S. V. SPONENBARGER, 308 U.S. 256 


NO. 72.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 8, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - 101
F.2D 506, REVERSED. 


AN OWNER OF LAND WITHIN THE AREA OF THE BOEUF FLOODWAY, PART OF A
DIVERSION PROJECT EMBRACED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF FLOOD CONTROL
ADOPTED BY THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1928, BROUGHT
SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, ALLEGING THAT THE
FLOOD CONTROL ACT AND OPERATIONS CONTEMPLATED BY AND CARRIED ON
PURSUANT TO IT INVOLVED DAMAGE TO THE LAND AND A TAKING OF IT FOR
PUBLIC USE.  A RIGHT TO JUST COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND
A RIGHT OF RECOVERY UNDER THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT ITSELF WERE ASSERTED. 
THE OWNER'S USE AND POSSESSION OF THE LAND HAD NOT BEEN INTERFERED
WITH; THERE HAD BEEN NO FLOODING OF THE LAND SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE
ACT; AND IT APPEARED THAT THE FLOODWAY PROJECT IN QUESTION HAD BEEN
ABANDONED.  HELD: 

1.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO "TAKING" OF THE LAND
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 265. 

(A)  A FINDING THAT THE PROGRAM OF IMPROVEMENT UNDER THE 1928 ACT HAD
NOT INCREASED THE FLOOD HAZARD TO WHICH THE OWNER'S LAND THERETOFORE
HAD BEEN SUBJECT, WAS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  P. 265. 

(B)  AN UNDERTAKING BY THE GOVERNMENT TO LESSEN THE HAZARD OF DAMAGES
BY FLOODS WHICH WERE INEVITABLE BUT FOR SUCH UNDERTAKING, DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A TAKING OF THOSE LANDS WHICH ARE NOT AFFORDED AS MUCH
PROTECTION AS OTHERS.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION TO A LANDOWNER FOR FLOOD DAMAGE NOT CAUSED IN ANY WISE BY
ACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 265. 

(C)  THE FINDING WAS JUSTIFIED THAT THE BENEFITS ACCRUING TO THE
OWNER'S LAND FROM THE PROGRAM OF THE 1928 ACT OUTWEIGHED ANY DAMAGE
OCCASIONED.  P. 267. 

(D)  THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED BOEUF FLOODWAY WAS A NATURAL
FLOODWAY WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 265. 

(E)  THE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS A TAKING OF THE LAND WHEN THE 1928 ACT
WENT INTO EFFECT AND WORK BEGAN PURSUANT TO IT, BECAUSE THE ACT
INVOLVED AN IMPOSITION OF A SERVITUDE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTENTIONAL
FUTURE FLOODING OF THE PROPOSED FLOODWAY,  - EXAMINED AND REJECTED.  P.
267. 

(F)  THE UNITED STATES DID NOT, BY THE 1928 ACT, ASSUME COMPLETE
CONTROL OVER ALL LEVEES TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATES AND LOCAL
AUTHORITIES.  P. 268. 

(G)  THE OWNER'S "RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE" AGAINST FLOODS THROUGH
LOCALLY BUILT LEVEES WAS NOT TAKEN AWAY.  NONE OF THE LEVEES ON WHICH
THE OWNER HERE COULD RELY WAS "BUILT BY" OR "ACQUIRED BY" THE UNITED
STATES; AND SEC. 14 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899, IS THEREFORE
INAPPLICABLE.  P. 268. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ACT. 

2.  THE LANDS OF THE OWNER IN THIS CASE HAVING BEEN NOT DAMAGED BUT
ACTUALLY BENEFITED, THERE WAS NO RIGHT OF RECOVERY UNDER THE 1928 ACT. 
P. 270. 

UNITED STATES V. SPONENBARGER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 621, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE GOVERNMENT IN A SUIT UNDER THE TUCKER ACT, BROUGHT BY A LANDOWNER
TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR PUBLIC USE. 

THE LANDS IN THE BOEUF FLOODWAY NOW HAVE MORE FLOOD PROTECTION THAN
EVER BEFORE.  RESPONDENT'S LANDS ARE ALMOST CERTAIN TO BE INUNDATED BY
A VERY SEVERE FLOOD, BUT THIS WAS THE CASE BEFORE.  IT WOULD BE A
TRAVESTY UPON THE PRINCIPLE OF "JUST COMPENSATION" TO HOLD THE
GOVERNMENT LIABLE FOR A TAKING BECAUSE OF CONJECTURED FLOOD WATERS
WHEN, FROM 1912 TO 1927, THE LANDS WERE SIX TIMES FLOODED, WHILE FROM
1928 TO 1939 THEY HAVE NOT ONCE BEEN FLOODED, ALTHOUGH THE LATTER
PERIOD INCLUDES THREE GREAT FLOODS. 

RESPONDENT MUST SHOW NOT ONLY THAT THE PROJECT INVOLVED A TAKING OF
HER FLOWAGE RIGHTS, BUT ALSO THAT THE TAKING HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.  THE
FLOODWAY WAS NEVER COMPLETED AND HAS BEEN ABANDONED UNDER AN ACT OF
CONGRESS.  RESPONDENT'S POSITION, IN ESSENCE, IS THAT BECAUSE THE
GOVERNMENT ONCE INTENDED TO LINK THE VARIOUS PROJECTS WITH THE BOEUF
FLOODWAY THE LAND IN THAT FLOODWAY MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN
THOUGH THE PROJECT HAS BEEN ABANDONED.  THIS WOULD IMPOSE AN IMPOSSIBLE
BURDEN UPON FLOOD CONTROL. 

ANY DECREASE IN THE VALUE OF RESPONDENT'S LAND WAS NOT DUE TO ANY ACT
ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES BUT LARGELY TO EXTRANEOUS FACTORS,
SUCH AS THE LOW PRICE OF COTTON, BURDENSOME TAXATION, AND THE FLOOD OF
1927. 

THE PASSAGE OF THE 1928 ACT DID NOT EFFECT A TAKING OF PROPERTY. 
WILLINK V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 572.  NOR DID THE PROCLAMATIONS OF
THE PRESIDENT APPROVING THE PROPOSED POLICY AND METHOD OF FLOOD CONTROL
AND AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF GUIDE LEVEES IN THE BOEUF BASIN. 

THE UNITED STATES HAS POWER TO CONTROL THE HEIGHT OF LEVEES IN THE
INTERESTS OF COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION, WITHOUT LIABILITY TO LANDOWNERS
INJURED THEREBY.  JACKSON V. UNITED STATES, 230 U.S. 1. 

THE WORK DONE BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE INSTANT CASE DID NOT EFFECT
A TAKING.  JACKSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; HUGHES V. UNITED STATES,
230 U.S. 24. 

THE WORK DONE ELSEWHERE ALONG THE RIVER DID NOT EFFECT A TAKING.  THE
PROJECTED BOEUF FLOODWAY WAS A SEPARATE PROJECT INCLUDED IN THE ENTIRE
PLAN.  THERE IS NO DETERMINISTIC DOCTRINE THAT A PLAN TO TAKE
CRYSTALLIZES INTO A COMPLETED TAKING AS SOON AS THE FIRST SHOVELFUL OF
EARTH IS TURNED.  THERE MUST BE AT LEAST WORK WHICH CONSTITUTES AN
ACTUAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS.  A PRESENT APPREHENSION OF A
FUTURE TAKING DOES NOT WARRANT THE RECOVERY OF COMPENSATION.  PEABODY
V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 530; PORTSMOUTH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260
U.S. 327.  UNDER THE RULE OF THOSE CASES, NO "ABIDING PURPOSE" TO TAKE
RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY COULD BE SHOWN IN THIS CASE. 

STATES IN ANY WAY.  IT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES BUT IS MERELY A DIRECTION TO FEDERAL OFFICERS THAT FLOWAGE
RIGHTS MUST BE ACQUIRED BEFORE WATER IS ACTUALLY DIVERTED. 

EVEN IF THE SECTION UNDERTOOK TO ESTABLISH A LIABILITY BEYOND THE
CONSTITUTION, IT WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE HERE.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY UNITE TO SHOW THAT IT RELATES ONLY
TO THE CASE WHERE (1) THERE IS A DELIBERATE DIVERSION, (2) WITH THE
RESULT, OR REASONABLY PREDICTABLE RESULT, (3) THAT ADDITIONAL DAMAGE
WILL RESULT FROM FLOODWATERS WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE PASSED OVER
THE LAND. 

SUCH HAS BEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION. 

THE PLAN ENACTED INTO LAW BY THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF MAY 15, 1928,
IS A SINGLE, COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT, OF WHICH THE BOEUF FLOODWAY IS AN
ESSENTIAL FEATURE.  WHEN WORK BEGAN ON ANY PART IT AFFECTED PROPERTY IN
THE FLOODWAY.  HURLEY V. KINCAID, 285 U.S. 95; UNITED STATES V. HESS,
70 F.2D 142; 71 ID. 78. 

THE BOEUF FLOODWAY IS IN OPERATIVE CONDITION, CERTAIN TO FUNCTION AS
DESIGNED.  THE PROPOSED GUIDE LEVEES, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN BUILT, ARE
UNNECESSARY AND IMMATERIAL TO RESPONDENT'S CAUSE OF ACTION. 

THE BOEUF FLOODWAY IS AN ARTIFICIAL DIVERSION FOR WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE.  ABSOLUTE FEDERAL CONTROL OVER THE FUSE
PLUG LEVEE AUTHORIZED BY THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF MAY 15, 1928, CREATES
THE BOEUF FLOODWAY. 

THE ESTABLISHED PHYSICAL FACTS PROVE A "TAKING" OF RESPONDENT'S
PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE.  ACTUAL PHYSICAL INVASION OF HER LAND
IS IRRELEVANT.  NO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARE INVOLVED.  CITING MANY
AUTHORITIES. 

THE BOEUF SPILLWAY HAS NOT BEEN ABANDONED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT SUED THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TUCKER ACT,  FN1
ALLEGING THAT THE MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1928  FN2  AND
CONSTRUCTION CONTEMPLATED BY THAT ACT INVOLVED AN "INTENTIONAL,
ADDITIONAL, OCCASIONAL FLOODING, DAMAGING AND DESTROYING" OF HER LAND
LOCATED IN DESHA COUNTY, ARKANSAS.  SHE MAINTAINED THAT HER PROPERTY
HAD THUS BEEN TAKEN FOR A PUBLIC USE FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS
REQUIRED TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  FN3  IN
ADDITION, SHE ASSERTED A STATUTORY RIGHT OF RECOVERY UNDER THE ACT
ITSELF.  AFTER FULL HEARING, JUDGMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTERED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN4  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  FN5
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF BOTH THE LEGISLATION AND THE PRINCIPLES
INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN6 

A SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY BEHIND THE MISSISSIPPI FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF
1928 CLARIFIES THE ISSUES HERE.  RESPONDENT'S LAND IS IN THE ALLUVIAL
VALLEY OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.  ALLUVIAL SOIL, RICH IN FERTILITY,
RESULTS FROM DEPOSITS OF MUD AND ACCUMULATIONS PRODUCED BY FLOODS OR
FLOWING WATER.  THUS, FLOODS HAVE GENEROUSLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE
FERTILITY OF THE VALLEY.  HOWEVER, THE FLOODS THAT HAVE GIVEN FERTILITY
HAVE WITH RELENTLESS CERTAINTY UNDERMINED THE SECURITY OF LIFE AND
PROPERTY.  AND OCCUPATION OF THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY OF THE MISSISSIPPI HAS
ALWAYS BEEN SUBJECT TO THIS CONSTANT HAZARD. 

TO ENJOY THE PROMISE OF ITS FERTILE SOIL IN SAFETY HAS, FOR
GENERATIONS, BEEN THE AMBITION OF THE VALLEY'S OCCUPANTS.  AS EARLY AS
1717, SMALL LEVEES WERE ERECTED IN THE VICINITY OF NEW ORLEANS.  UNTIL
1883, PIECEMEAL FLOOD PROTECTION FOR SEPARATE AREAS WAS ATTEMPTED
THROUGH UNCOORDINATED EFFORTS OF INDIVIDUALS, COMMUNITIES, COUNTIES,
DISTRICTS AND STATES.  EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATED THAT THESE DISCONNECTED
LEVEES WERE UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF SAFEGUARDING AN EVER INCREASING PEOPLE
DRAWN TO THE FERTILE VALLEY.  UNDER WHAT WAS CALLED THE EADS PLAN, THE
UNITED STATES ABOUT 1883 UNDERTOOK TO COOPERATE WITH, AND TO COORDINATE
THE EFFORTS OF THE PEOPLE AND AUTHORITIES OF THE VARIOUS RIVER
LOCALITIES IN ORDER TO EFFECT A CONTINUOUS LINE OF LEVEES ALONG BOTH
BANKS OF THE MISSISSIPPI FOR ROUGHLY NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILES -
FROM CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, TO THE GULF OF MEXICO.  FN7  RECURRENT
FLOODS, EVEN AFTER THE EVENTUAL COMPLETION OF THIS TREMENDOUS
UNDERTAKING, LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT LEVEES ALONE, THOUGH
CONTINUOUS, WOULD NOT PROTECT THE VALLEY FROM FLOODS.  AND IN 1927
THERE OCCURRED THE MOST DISASTROUS OF ALL RECORDED FLOODS.  IN
CONGRESSIONAL DISCUSSION OF THE 1928 ACT, IT WAS SAID - AS THE EVIDENCE
HERE DISCLOSES - THAT "THERE WERE STRETCHES OF COUNTRY (IN ARKANSAS)
MILES IN WIDTH AND MILES IN LENGTH IN WHICH ...  EVERY HOUSE, EVERY
BARN, EVERY OUTBUILDING OF EVERY NATURE, EVEN THE FENCES, WERE SWEPT
AWAY.  IT WAS AS DESOLATE AS THIS EARTH WAS WHEN THE FLOOD SUBSIDED." 
FN8  RESPONDENT'S LAND, UNDER FIFTEEN TO TWENTY FEET OF WATER, WAS LEFT
BARE OF BUILDINGS OF ANY KIND IN THIS 1927 FLOOD. 

THE 1928 ACT HERE INVOLVED ACCEPTED THE CONCEPTION - UNDERLYING THE
PLAN OF GENERAL JADWIN OF THE ARMY ENGINEERS - THAT LEVEES ALONE WOULD
NOT PROTECT THE VALLEY FROM FLOODS.  UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE
MIGHT BE FLOODS OF SUCH PROPORTIONS AS TO OVERTOP THE RIVER'S BANKS AND
LEVEES DESPITE ALL THE GOVERNMENT COULD DO, THIS PLAN WAS DESIGNED TO
LIMIT TO PREDETERMINED POINTS SUCH ESCAPES OF FLOODWATERS FROM THE MAIN
CHANNEL.  THE HEIGHT OF THE LEVEES AT THESE PREDETERMINED POINTS WAS
NOT TO BE RAISED TO THE GENERAL HEIGHT OF THE LEVEES ALONG THE RIVER. 
THESE LOWER POINTS FOR POSSIBLE FLOOD SPILLWAYS WERE DESIGNATED "FUSE
PLUG LEVEES."  FLOOD WATERS DIVERTED OVER THESE LOWER "FUSE PLUG
LEVEES" WERE INTENDED TO RELIEVE THE MAIN RIVER CHANNEL AND THEREBY
PREVENT GENERAL FLOODING OVER THE HIGHER LEVEES ALONG THE BANKS. 
ADDITIONAL "GUIDE LEVEES" WERE TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO CONFINE THE
DIVERTED FLOOD WATERS WITHIN LIMITED FLOODWAY CHANNELS LEADING FROM THE
FUSE PLUGS.  THE SUGGESTED FUSE PLUG WHICH RESPONDENT CLAIMS WOULD
DAMAGE HER PROPERTY WAS TO BE AT CYPRESS CREEK, WITHIN TWO TO TWO AND
ONE-HALF MILES OF HER LAND, AND HER LAND LIES IN THE PATH OF THE
PROPOSED FLOODWAY TO STEM FROM THIS PARTICULAR FUSE PLUG. 

THE 1928 ACT PROVIDED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE TEN-YEAR PROGRAM FOR THE
ENTIRE VALLEY, EMBODYING A GENERAL BANK PROTECTION SCHEME, CHANNEL
STABILIZATION AND RIVER REGULATION, ALL INVOLVING VAST EXPENDITURES OF
PUBLIC FUNDS.  HOWEVER, BEFORE ANY PART OF THIS PROGRAM WAS ACTUALLY TO
BE CARRIED OUT, THE ACT REQUIRED EXTENSIVE SURVEYS "TO ASCERTAIN  ...
THE BEST METHOD OF SECURING FLOOD RELIEF IN ADDITION TO LEVEES, BEFORE
ANY FLOOD CONTROL WORKS OTHER THAN LEVEES AND REVETMENTS ARE
UNDERTAKEN."  LANDS INTENDED FOR FLOODWAYS WERE, PENDING COMPLETION OF
THE FLOODWAYS, TO ENJOY THE PROTECTION ALREADY AFFORDED BY LEVEES. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND - 

RESPONDENT'S LAND LIES IN THAT PART OF THE BOEUF BASIN WHICH THE PLAN
OF THE 1928 ACT CONTEMPLATED AS A DIVERSION CHANNEL OR FLOODWAY.  THIS
BASIN HAS ALWAYS BEEN A NATURAL FLOODWAY FOR WATERS FROM THE
MISSISSIPPI,  FN9  AND RESPONDENT'S LANDS, AND OTHER LANDS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY OVERFLOWED BY DEEP WATER DESPITE THE
PRESENCE OF STRONG LEVEES.  FN10  THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT CAUSED ANY
EXCESSIVE FLOOD WATERS TO BE DIVERTED FROM THE MISSISSIPPI THROUGH THE
PROPOSED BOEUF FUSE PLUG (AT CYPRESS CREEK) OR FLOODWAY, AND
RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO ANY SERVITUDE FROM
EXCESSIVE FLOODWATERS, WHICH DID NOT ALREADY EXIST BEFORE 1928.  SHE
STILL ENJOYS THE SAME BENEFITS FROM THE CYPRESS CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM
AS WHEN IT WAS CREATED BEFORE 1928, AND THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM HAS NOT
"IN ANY WISE, NOR TO ANY EXTENT INCREASED THE FLOOD HAZARD THERETO." 
NO WORK WAS EVER COMMENCED OR DONE WITHIN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
BOEUF FLOODWAY, AND THE FUSE PLUG HEADING INTO IT WAS NEVER
ESTABLISHED.  THIS FLOODWAY AS A WHOLE HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND THE
EUDORA FLOODWAY SUBSTITUTED.  HOWEVER, WORK DONE UNDER THE 1928 ACT HAS
SHORTENED THE RIVER BY CUT-OFFS AND DREDGING AND THE RIVER HAS BEEN
LOWERED FIVE OR SIX FEET, WITH THE GREATEST IMPROVEMENT IN THE VICINITY
OF THE PROPOSED FUSE PLUG.  LEVEE PROTECTION TO LANDS SUCH AS
PLAINTIFF'S HAS NOT BEEN REDUCED.  IN FACT, PLAINTIFF'S LAND HAS BEEN
AFFORDED ADDITIONAL PROTECTION BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THIS
GOVERNMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM HAS MATERIALLY REDUCED THE CREST OF THE
RIVER AT ALL TIMES, INCLUDING FLOOD CRESTS, AND HER LAND HAS ALSO BEEN
PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S RECONSTRUCTION OF LEVEES ON THE ARKANSAS
RIVER PURSUANT TO ITS GENERAL PROGRAM.  IN 1935, HER PROPERTY WOULD
HAVE BEEN FLOODED BUT FOR THE WORK DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS
KEPT HER LAND FREE OF OVERFLOW SINCE 1928.  LANDS, SUCH AS
RESPONDENT'S, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY BEHIND LEVEES ALONG THE MAIN STEM OF
THE MISSISSIPPI, ARE LIABLE TO BE INUNDATED AND DESTROYED BY THE
BREAKING OF RIVER FRONT LEVEES AND FROM NATURAL CREVASSING, REGARDLESS
OF THE HEIGHT AND STRENGTH OF THE LEVEE.  LOSS IN MARKET VALUE OF
RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY, SINCE 1927, HAS NOT BEEN CAUSED BY ANY ACTION OF
THE GOVERNMENT, BUT IS DUE TO THE FLOOD OF 1927, THE DEPRESSION AND
OTHER CAUSES UNCONNECTED WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAM UNDER THE 1928
ACT.  THE UNITED STATES HAS IN NO WAY MOLESTED RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION
OR INTERFERED WITH HER RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP.  SHE HAS REMAINED IN
UNINTERRUPTED POSSESSION OF HER PROPERTY OPERATING IT AS A FARM AND
BORROWING MONEY UPON IT AS SECURITY. 

FROM THESE FINDINGS THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW
THAT - 

(1)  RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST TAKING WITHOUT COMPENSATION; 

(2)  UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, RESPONDENT HAD NO STATUTORY RIGHT
OF RECOVERY UNDER THE 1928 ACT ITSELF. 

IN REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DECIDED THAT THE BOEUF FLOODWAY HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT WAS IN OPERATIVE EXISTENCE NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE
PROPOSED GUIDE LEVEES ALONG THE FLOODWAY HAD NOT BEEN BUILT AND LEVEES
ON THE MISSISSIPPI BOTH IMMEDIATELY ABOVE AND BELOW THE PROPOSED FUSE
PLUG HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ABOVE THE HEIGHT OF WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE
FUSE PLUG LEVEE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID THAT "BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PLAN OF FLOOD CONTROL  ...  (RESPONDENT'S LAND) IS
SUBJECTED TO A PLANNED AND PRACTICALLY CERTAIN OVERFLOW IN CASE OF THE
MAJOR FLOODS CONTEMPLATED AND DESCRIBED.  NO ONE CAN FORETELL WHEN SUCH
MAY OCCUR, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY REMAINING UNCERTAINTY.  ...  IF, AND
WHEN, SUCH FLOODS DO OCCUR, SERIOUS DESTRUCTION MUST BE CONCEDED." 
UPON THESE CONCLUSIONS, THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS A TAKING
OF RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY.    FIRST.  THIS RECORD AMPLY SUPPORTS THE
DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE PROGRAM OF IMPROVEMENT UNDER THE 1928
ACT HAD NOT INCREASED THE IMMEMORIAL DANGER OF UNPREDICTABLE MAJOR
FLOODS TO WHICH RESPONDENT'S LAND HAD ALWAYS BEEN SUBJECT.  THEREFORE,
TO HOLD THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH FLOODS WOULD BE TO SAY THAT
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY A LANDOWNER FOR
DAMAGES WHICH MAY RESULT FROM CONJECTURAL MAJOR FLOODS, EVEN THOUGH THE
SAME FLOODS AND THE SAME DAMAGES WOULD OCCUR HAD THE GOVERNMENT
UNDERTAKEN NO WORK OF ANY KIND.  SO TO HOLD WOULD FAR EXCEED EVEN THE
"EXTREMEST"  FN11  CONCEPTION OF A "TAKING" BY FLOODING WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THAT AMENDMENT.  FOR THE GOVERNMENT WOULD THEREBY BE
REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER FOR FLOOD DAMAGES WHICH
IT IN NO WAY CAUSED. 

AN UNDERTAKING BY THE GOVERNMENT TO REDUCE THE MENACE FROM FLOOD
DAMAGES WHICH WERE INEVITABLE BUT FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S WORK DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE THE GOVERNMENT A TAKER OF ALL LANDS NOT FULLY AND WHOLLY
PROTECTED.  WHEN UNDERTAKING TO SAFEGUARD A LARGE AREA FROM EXISTING
FLOOD HAZARDS, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWE COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO EVERY LANDOWNER WHICH IT FAILS TO OR CANNOT PROTECT.  IN
THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS THE DEGREE OF FLOOD PROTECTION TO BE AFFORDED
MUST VARY.  AND IT IS OBVIOUSLY MORE DIFFICULT TO PROTECT LANDS LOCATED
WHERE NATURAL OVERFLOWS OR SPILLWAYS HAVE PRODUCED NATURAL FLOODWAYS. 

THE EXTENT OF SWAMPS AND OVERFLOWED LANDS IN THE BOEUF FLOODWAY AND
THE HISTORY OF RECURRENT FLOODS THAT HAVE PASSED THROUGH IT, SUPPORT
THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED BOEUF FLOODWAY IS A
NATURALLY CREATED FLOODWAY.  AND THE GOVERNMENT'S PROBLEM WAS BY
CHANNEL STABILIZATION, DREDGING, CUT-OFFS OR ANY EFFECTIVE MEANS, TO
PREVENT DIVERSIONS FROM THE MISSISSIPPI AT ALL POINTS IF POSSIBLE.  BUT
IF ALL DIVERSIONS COULD NOT BE PREVENTED, THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO
LIMIT THE FLOODING TO THE LEAST POSSIBLE NUMBER OF NATURAL SPILLWAYS
HEADING INTO NATURAL FLOODWAYS.  IF MAJOR FLOODS MAY SOMETIME IN THE
FUTURE OVERRUN THE RIVER'S BANKS DESPITE - NOT BECAUSE OF - THE
GOVERNMENT'S BEST EFFORTS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT TAKEN RESPONDENT'S
PROPERTY.  AND THIS IS TRUE, ALTHOUGH OTHER PROPERTY MAY BE THE
BENEFICIARY OF THE PROJECT.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SUBJECTED
RESPONDENT'S LAND TO ANY ADDITIONAL FLOODING, ABOVE WHAT WOULD OCCUR IF
THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ACTED; AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT MAKE THE
GOVERNMENT AN INSURER THAT THE EVIL OF FLOODS BE STAMPED OUT
UNIVERSALLY BEFORE THE EVIL CAN BE ATTACKED AT ALL. 

THE FAR REACHING BENEFITS WHICH RESPONDENT'S LAND ENJOYS FROM THE
GOVERNMENT'S ENTIRE PROGRAM PRECLUDES A HOLDING THAT HER PROPERTY HAS
BEEN TAKEN BECAUSE OF THE BARE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME FUTURE MAJOR FLOOD
MIGHT CAUSE MORE WATER TO RUN OVER HER LAND AT A GREATER VELOCITY THAN
THE 1927 FLOOD WHICH SUBMERGED IT TO A DEPTH OF FIFTEEN OR TWENTY FEET
AND SWEPT IT CLEAR OF BUILDINGS.  ENFORCEMENT OF A BROAD FLOOD CONTROL
PROGRAM DOES NOT INVOLVE A TAKING MERELY BECAUSE IT WILL RESULT IN AN
INCREASE IN THE VOLUME OR VELOCITY OF OTHERWISE INEVITABLY DESTRUCTIVE
FLOODS, WHERE THE PROGRAM MEASURED IN ITS ENTIRETY GREATLY REDUCES THE
GENERAL FLOOD HAZARDS, AND ACTUALLY IS HIGHLY BENEFICIAL TO A
PARTICULAR TRACT OF LAND. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST UNCOMPENSATED TAKING OF
PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE IS GROUNDED UPON A CONCEPTION OF THE
INJUSTICE IN FAVORING THE PUBLIC AS AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY
OWNER.  BUT IF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES INFLICT SLIGHT DAMAGE UPON LAND
IN ONE RESPECT AND ACTUALLY CONFER GREAT BENEFITS WHEN MEASURED IN THE
WHOLE, TO COMPENSATE THE LANDOWNER FURTHER WOULD BE TO GRANT HIM A
SPECIAL BOUNTY.  SUCH ACTIVITIES IN SUBSTANCE TAKE NOTHING FROM THE
LANDOWNER.  WHILE THIS COURT HAS FOUND A TAKING WHEN THE GOVERNMENT
DIRECTLY SUBJECTED LAND TO PERMANENT INTERMITTENT FLOODS TO AN OWNER'S
DAMAGE,  FN12  IT HAS NEVER HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT TAKES AN OWNER'S
LAND BY A FLOOD PROGRAM THAT DOES LITTLE INJURY IN COMPARISON WITH FAR
GREATER BENEFITS CONFERRED.  FN13  AND HERE, THE DISTRICT COURT
JUSTIFIABLY FOUND THAT THE PROGRAM OF THE 1928 ACT HAS GREATLY REDUCED
THE FLOOD MENACE TO RESPONDENT'S LAND BY IMPROVING HER PROTECTION FROM
FLOODS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPONDENT'S LAND HAS NOT BEEN
TAKEN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

SECOND.  EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT INTERFERED WITH
RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION AND AS YET HAS CAUSED NO FLOODING OF HER LAND,
FN14  RESPONDENT CLAIMS HER PROPERTY WAS TAKEN WHEN THE 1928 ACT WENT
INTO EFFECT AND WORK BEGAN ON ITS TEN-YEAR PROGRAM BECAUSE THE ACT
ITSELF INVOLVES AN IMPOSITION OF A SERVITUDE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INTENTIONAL FUTURE FLOODING OF THE PROPOSED BOEUF FLOODWAY.  BUT,
ASSUMING FOR PURPOSES OF ARGUMENT THAT IT MIGHT BE SHOWN THAT SUCH
SUPPOSED FUTURE FLOODING WOULD INFLICT DAMAGES GREATER THAN ALL
BENEFITS RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT, STILL THIS CONTENTION AMOUNTS TO NO
MORE THAN THE CLAIM THAT RESPONDENT'S LAND WAS TAKEN WHEN THE STATUTORY
PLAN GAVE RISE TO AN APPREHENSION OF FUTURE FLOODING.  THIS APPREHENDED
FLOODING MIGHT NEVER OCCUR FOR MANY REASONS - ONE OF WHICH IS THAT THE
BOEUF FLOODWAY MIGHT NEVER BE BEGUN OR COMPLETED.  AS PREVIOUSLY
POINTED OUT, THE ACT DIRECTED COMPREHENSIVE SURVEYS BEFORE UTILIZATION
OF ANY MEANS OF FLOOD CONTROL OTHER THAN LEVEES AND REVETMENTS.  IN
GENERAL LANGUAGE IT ADOPTED A PROGRAM RECOMMENDED BY THE CHIEF OF ARMY
ENGINEERS, BUT CONGRESS DID NOT SWEEP INTO THE STATUTE EVERY SUGGESTION
CONTAINED IN THAT RECOMMENDATION. 

SINCE IT ENVISAGED A VAST PROGRAM, THE ACT NATURALLY LEFT MUCH TO THE
DISCRETION OF ITS ADMINISTRATORS AND FUTURE DECISIONS OF CONGRESS. 
FN15  RECOGNIZING THE VALUE OF EXPERIENCE IN FLOOD CONTROL, CONGRESS
AND THE SPONSORS OF THE ACT DID NOT INTEND IT TO FORECLOSE THE
POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING THE PROGRAM'S DETAILS AS TRIAL AND ERROR MIGHT
DEMAND. 

HERE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THOSE CHARGED WITH EXECUTION OF THE PROGRAM OF
THE 1928 ACT ABANDONED THE PROPOSED BOEUF FLOODWAY AND SUBSTITUTED
ANOTHER.  WHATEVER THE ORIGINAL GENERAL PURPOSE OF CONGRESS AS TO THAT
FLOODWAY AND ITS FUSE PLUG AT CYPRESS CREEK, CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS,
REPORTS AND LEGISLATION HAVE APPROVED THEIR ABANDONMENT.  THUS,
RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION AT MOST IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PAY FOR
LAND WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN A FLOODWAY IF THAT FLOODWAY HAD NOT BEEN
ABANDONED.  WE THINK THIS CONTENTION WITHOUT MERIT.  FN16 

THIRD.  RESPONDENT'S "RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE" AGAINST FLOODS THROUGH
LOCALLY BUILT LEVEES HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN AWAY.  THE 1928 ACT DOES NOT
REPRESENT A SELF-EXECUTING ASSUMPTION OF COMPLETE CONTROL OVER ALL
LEVEES TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATES AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES. 
RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT THAT IT DOES RESTS UPON SEC. 9 OF THE ACT MAKING
SEC. 14 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899(33 U.S.C. 408), WHICH FORBIDS
INTERFERENCE WITH LEVEES, "APPLICABLE TO ALL LANDS, WATERS, EASEMENTS
AND OTHER PROPERTY AND RIGHTS ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS (1928) ACT."  BUT SEC. 14 OF THE 1899 ACT RELATES
ONLY TO LEVEES AND OTHER STRUCTURES "BUILT BY THE UNITED STATES," AND
NO LOCAL LEVEES ON WHICH RESPONDENT COULD RELY HAVE AS YET BEEN "BUILT
BY THE UNITED STATES" OR "ACQUIRED  ...  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF" THE
1928 ACT.  IN FACT, A PROPOSAL THAT THE GOVERNMENT ASSUME CONTROL OF
LOCAL LEVEES APPEARED IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE 1928 ACT BUT WAS
STRICKEN OUT BY AMENDMENT.  FN17  AND THE WAR DEPARTMENT, CHARGED WITH
ITS ADMINISTRATION, HAS TREATED THE ACT AS LEAVING LOCAL INTERESTS FREE
TO RAISE PROPOSED FUSE PLUG LEVEES IF THEY WISH.  FN18 

FOURTH.  IT IS ARGUED THAT THE 1928 ACT ITSELF REQUIRES JUDGMENT FOR
RESPONDENT EVEN THOUGH HER PROPERTY WAS NOT "TAKEN" WITHIN THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS ARE - 

"NO LIABILITY OF ANY KIND SHALL ATTACH TO OR REST UPON THE UNITED
STATES FOR ANY DAMAGE FROM OR BY FLOODS OR FLOOD WATERS AT ANY PLACE:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF IN CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT IT
SHALL BE FOUND THAT UPON ANY STRETCH OF THE BANKS OF THE MISSISSIPPI
RIVER IT IS IMPRACTICABLE TO CONSTRUCT LEVEES, EITHER BECAUSE SUCH
CONSTRUCTION IS NOT ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED OR BECAUSE SUCH CONSTRUCTION
WOULD UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE FLOOD CHANNEL, AND LANDS IN SUCH
STRETCH OF THE RIVER ARE SUBJECTED TO OVERFLOW AND DAMAGE WHICH ARE NOT
NOW OVERFLOWED OR DAMAGED BY REASON OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEVEES ON
THE OPPOSITE BANKS OF THE RIVER, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY
OF WAR AND THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE EITHER THE ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP
OF THE LANDS SO SUBJECTED TO OVERFLOW AND DAMAGE OR FLOODAGE RIGHTS
OVER SUCH LANDS. 

"  ...  THE UNITED STATES SHALL PROVIDE FLOWAGE RIGHTS FOR ADDITIONAL
DESTRUCTIVE FLOOD WATERS THAT WILL PASS BY REASON OF DIVERSIONS FROM
THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER:  ... " 

THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY DECIDED THAT "THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEVEES ON
THE OPPOSITE" BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WHICH RESULTED IN
PERMANENTLY FLOODING PROPERTY ACROSS THE RIVER DID NOT AMOUNT TO A
"TAKING" OF THE FLOODED AREA WITHIN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  FN19  WE NEED
NOT HERE DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1928 ACT WOULD
THEMSELVES GRANT A STATUTORY RIGHT TO RECOVER IF RESPONDENT'S LAND HAD
BEEN DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF LEVEES CONSTRUCTED ON THE RIVER'S OPPOSITE
BANK.  FOR SEC. 4 OF THE ACT CONTAINS THE FURTHER SPECIFIC RESERVATION
"THAT IN ALL CASES WHERE THE EXECUTION OF THE FLOOD-CONTROL PLAN HEREIN
ADOPTED RESULTS IN BENEFITS TO PROPERTY SUCH BENEFITS SHALL BE TAKEN
INTO CONSIDERATION BY WAY OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION TO BE
PAID."  ON THIS RECORD IT IS CLEAR THAT RESPONDENT'S LANDS WERE NOT
DAMAGED, BUT ACTUALLY BENEFITED. 

WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS OTHER QUESTIONS PRESENTED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  28 U.S.C. 41(20). 

FN2  C. 569, 45 STAT. 534; 33 U.S.C. 702(A). 

FN3  CF. JACOBS V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 13, 16. 

FN4  21 F.SUPP.  28. 

FN5  101 F.2D 506. 

FN6  307 U.S. 621.  RESPONDENT PRIMARILY CLAIMS THAT GOVERNMENTAL
OPERATIONS UNDER THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT HAVE RESULTED IN TAKING FOR
PUBLIC USE HER LANDS LYING IN THE PROPOSED BOEUF FLOODWAY.  THIS
FLOODWAY WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO COVER A VAST AREA ROUGHLY FIFTEEN
MILES WIDE AND ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE MILES LONG. 

FN7  FOR THE BACKGROUND OF THIS LEGISLATION, SEE JACKSON V. UNITED
STATES, 230 U.S. 1. 

FN8  69 CONG. REC., PART 8, P. 8191. 

FN9  THIS BASIN ALSO WAS FOUND TO BE A FLOODWAY FOR WATERS FROM THE
ARKANSAS AND "FLAT" (WHITE) RIVERS. 

FN10  HER LANDS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FLOODED IN 1912, 1913, 1919,
1921, 1922, 1927. 

FN11  CF. TRANSPORTATION CO. V. CHICAGO, 99 U.S. 635, 642; PUMPELLY
V. GREEN BAY CO., 13 WALL.  166. 

FN12  JACOBS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. CRESS, 243
U.S. 316; UNITED STATES V. LYNAH, 188 U.S. 445; PUMPELLY V. GREEN BAY
CO., SUPRA; CF. SANGUINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 264 U.S. 146. 

FN13 CF. BAUMAN V. ROSS, 167 U.S. 548, 574. 

FN14  CF. MARION & R. VALLEY RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 280,
282, 283. 

FN15  CF. SOUTH CAROLINA V. GEORGIA, 93 U.S. 4, 13.  AS TO WHEN
LEGISLATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SELF-EXECUTING APPROPRIATION, SEE
BAUMAN V. ROSS, 167 U.S. 548, 596-7; WILLINK V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S.
572. 

FN16  WHETHER RECOVERY AT LAW COULD BE HAD UPON A SIMILAR CONTENTION
WAS LEFT OPEN BY HURLEY V. KINCAID, 285 U.S. 95.  CF. PEABODY V. UNITED
STATES, 231 U.S. 530, 539, 540. 

FN17  69 CONG. REC., PART 7, PP. 7114, 7115. 

FN18  COM. DOC. NO. 2, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL, 71ST CONG.,
1ST SESS. 

FN19  JACKSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 22, 23. 
..END :

















DANFORTH V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 271 


NO. 309.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - 102
F.2D 5, 105 F.2D 318, MODIFIED. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 4 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF MAY 15, 1928, THE
SECRETARY OF WAR MAY AGREE TO PURCHASE EASEMENTS FOR FLOWAGE PURPOSES,
SUBJECT TO THE PERFECTING OF THE TITLE THROUGH CONDEMNATION.  P. 282. 

2.  SUCH AN AGREEMENT FIXES THE VALUE IN CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
BROUGHT LATER BY THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE LANDOWNER TO MAKE GOOD
TITLE.  PP. 282-283. 

3.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN SUCH CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
DEPENDS UPON SEC. 4 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT AND NOT UPON THE TUCKER
ACT OR THE GENERAL STATUTE OF CONDEMNATION; THE LAND-OWNER MAY PLEAD AN
AGREEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES AS FIXING THE AMOUNT THAT THE GOVERNMENT
MUST BE ADJUDGED TO PAY AS COMPENSATION.  P. 282. 

4.  JUST COMPENSATION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY TAKEN
FOR PUBLIC USE IS DETERMINED AS OF THE TIME OF THE TAKING.  P. 283. 

5.  UNLESS A TAKING HAS OCCURRED PREVIOUSLY, IN ACTUALITY OR BY A
STATUTORY PROVISION FIXING IT OTHERWISE, THE TIME OF THE TAKING IN
CONDEMNATION UNDER THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF MAY 15, 1928, IS THE TIME
OF THE PAYMENT OF THE MONEY AWARD BY THE UNITED STATES, AND NO INTEREST
IS DUE UPON THE AWARD.  P. 284. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTORY DIRECTION, NO INTEREST ACCRUES BEFORE THE
TAKING. 

6.  FLUCTUATIONS IN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY WHICH OCCUR BY REASON OF
LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING A GOVERNMENTAL PROJECT, OR BY REASON OF THE
BEGINNING OR COMPLETION OF SUCH PROJECT, ARE INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP;
AND A REDUCTION IN VALUE SO OCCURRING CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A
"TAKING" IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  P. 285. 

7.  THE MERE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
PROPERTY CAN NOT CONSTITUTE A TAKING; THE LEGISLATION MAY BE REPEALED
OR MODIFIED, OR APPROPRIATIONS MAY FAIL.  P. 286. 

8.  IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO TAKING BY THE COMMENCEMENT OR
COMPLETION OF A SET-BACK LEVEE (BETWEEN WHICH LEVEE AND A RIVERSIDE
LEVEE THE OWNER'S LAND LAY); NOR BY THE DYNAMITING OF A LEVEE BY ARMY
OFFICERS DURING A FLOOD EMERGENCY (THE LEVEE LATER HAVING BEEN RESTORED
TO ITS PREVIOUS HEIGHT); NOR BY THE RETENTION OF WATER FROM UNUSUAL
FLOODS FOR A SOMEWHAT LONGER PERIOD OR ITS INCREASE IN DEPTH OR
DESTRUCTIVENESS AS AN INCIDENTAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE SET-BACK LEVEE. 
PP. 286-287. 

DANFORTH V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 538, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN A PROCEEDING IN CONDEMNATION UNDER THE
FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF MAY 15, 1928. 

THERE WAS A TAKING WHEN THE SET-BACK LEVEE WAS STARTED (OR AT ANY
RATE WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED) OR WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE FLOOD CONTROL
ACT AND ADOPTED A DEFINITE PLAN OF FLOOD CONTROL. 

THE PLAN CONTEMPLATED THE PRACTICAL TAKING OVER OF THE RIVERSIDE
LEVEE BY THE GOVERNMENT; AND THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT ASSERTED COMPLETE DOMINION OVER IT.  THE PROGRAM OF THE
LEVEE DISTRICT FOR RAISING THE LEVEE WAS HALTED.  APPELLANT'S FREE USE
AND ENJOYMENT OF HIS LANDS AND THE PROPERTY HEREIN INVOLVED WERE
MATERIALLY INTERFERED WITH FROM THE TIME THE WORK BEGAN, IF NOT
BEFORE.  IF AT ANY TIME HE WISHED TO SELL OR DISPOSE OF THE LAND, HE
COULD ONLY DO SO SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND AT A
REDUCED PRICE.  THE SECURITY OF HIS LAND WAS MATERIALLY REDUCED AS SOON
AS THE WORK STARTED.  HIS RIGHT TO HAVE THE LEVEE STAND INTACT, OR TO
BE RAISED AND IMPROVED AS A PROTECTION TO HIS LAND, DISAPPEARED. 

WOULD THE GOVERNMENT PERMIT ANY LEVEE DISTRICT OR ANY GROUP OF
INDIVIDUALS OR ANY PERSON TO BUILD THE RIVERSIDE LEVEE UP TO SIXTY-FIVE
FEET, WHICH WOULD BE A COMPLETE PROTECTION OF THE LAND OF THIS
PETITIONER AND OTHERS SITUATED IN THE FLOODWAY AREA?  WOULD NOT THE
GOVERNMENT IMMEDIATELY INVOKE THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE RIVERS
AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899? 

THOUGH CONGRESS COULD REPEAL THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT PRIOR TO THE TIME
THAT ANYTHING WAS BEGUN PURSUANT TO IT, YET AS SOON AS WORK STARTED
UNDER THE ACT THERE WAS A TAKING OF THE EASEMENT IN QUESTION AND AN
OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPENSATE THE OWNER. 
COULD THE PETITIONER HAVE SOLD THIS LAND FREE AND CLEAR OF THE
SERVITUDE IMPOSED BY THE ACT AT ANY TIME AFTER THE GOVERNMENT BEGAN
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SET-BACK LEVEE?  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ANYBODY BUYING
THE LAND WOULD BUY IT SUBJECT TO THAT SERVITUDE.  THEREFORE, THERE MUST
HAVE BEEN A TAKING. 

EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ANSWER OR COUNTERCLAIM, OR ANY OTHER
PLEADING, THE LANDOWNER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PROVE HIS DAMAGES AND THE
CONTRACT WOULD HAVE BEEN ADMISSIBLE AND BINDING UPON THE PARTIES. 
CHICAGO V. CHICAGO R., 166 U.S. 226; SPRINGFIELD RY. CO. V. CALKINS, 90
MO. 538; 3 S.W. 82; MISSOURI POWER & LIGHT CO. V. CREED, 32 S.W.2D
783. 

THE OFFER TO PURCHASE CAME VOLUNTARILY FROM THE GOVERNMENT AFTER A
THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, AFTER THREE SEPARATE APPRAISALS. 

WHERE THE GOVERNMENT VOLUNTARILY COMES INTO COURT THERE IS
JURISDICTION TO LITIGATE ALL OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES GROWING OUT
OF THE TRANSACTION OR SUBJECT MATTER INVOLVED AND TO DO COMPLETE
JUSTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN THE MATTER.  BULL V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 247.  THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE PETITIONER HAD A SEPARATE
TRANSACTION WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IT IS NOW SEEKING TO ENFORCE IN
THIS SUIT.  IT IS A SITUATION WHERE THE PARTIES BY CONTRACT FIXED THE
DAMAGES OR AGREED UPON THE VALUE OF THE FLOWAGE RIGHTS.  THE CASES
WHICH HOLD THAT PARTIES CAN ONLY SUE THE GOVERNMENT UNDER SOME STATUTE
AUTHORIZING IT, ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT APPLICATION. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE RULE OF THE THEKLA CASE, 266 U.S.
328, APPLIES ONLY IN ADMIRALTY CASES, BUT THIS COURT HAS NOT LIMITED
THE RULE TO ADMIRALTY CASES.  SEE THE PAQUETE HABANA, 189 U.S. 453. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE
PETITIONER'S CONTRACT CLAIM. 

THE UNITED STATES CAN NOT BE SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, EITHER BY
DIRECT SUIT OR BY COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST IT.  NASSAU SMELTING WORKS V.
UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 101, 106; ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N, 245 U.S. 493, 504-505; NORTH DAKOTA-MONTANA W.G.
ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 66 F.2D 573, 577-578, CERT. DEN.  291 U.S. 672;
OWEN V. UNITED STATES, 8 F.2D 992, 993. 

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT LIABLE FOR INTEREST ON A CONTRACT CLAIM
UNLESS EITHER THE CONTRACT ITSELF OR A STATUTE SHOWS A CONTRARY
INTENTION.  SMYTH V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 329, 353; UNITED STATES EX
REL. ANGARICA V. BAYARD, 127 U.S. 251; UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA,
136 U.S. 211; UNITED STATES V. NORTH AMERICAN CO., 253 U.S. 330, 336;
SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299, 304. 

THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT AS YET TAKEN A FLOWAGE EASEMENT OVER
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.  THERE WAS NO TAKING ON THE DATE WHEN THE WORK
BEGAN.  THE EXISTING RIVERSIDE LEVEE HAD NOT BEEN ALTERED AND THUS IT
AFFORDED TO THE PETITIONER'S LAND THE SAME PROTECTION IT HAD FORMERLY
ENJOYED. 

NOTHING HAD BEEN DONE AT THAT TIME TO INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF
OVERFLOW. 

THE PETITIONER HAS NOT BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO PROTECT HIS LAND
AGAINST FLOODS. 

THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1899(C. 425, 30
STAT. 1152; 33 U.S.C. SEC. 408), WHICH FORBID INTERFERENCE WITH LEVEES
AND OTHER STRUCTURES AND WHICH ARE MADE APPLICABLE BY SEC. 9 OF THE
1928 ACT, APPLY ONLY TO LEVEES AND OTHER STRUCTURES BUILT BY THE UNITED
STATES, AND CONSEQUENTLY HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THIS LEVEE, WHICH WAS
BUILT BY LOCAL INTERESTS.  THE RESTORATION OF THE PORTIONS OF THE
RIVERSIDE LEVEE UNLAWFULLY DYNAMITED DURING THE 1937 FLOOD OBVIOUSLY
DID NOT TRANSFORM THE ENTIRE LEVEE, AS PETITIONER CONTENDS, OR EVEN THE
DYNAMITED PORTIONS, INTO A LEVEE "BUILT BY THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE 1899 ACT. 

FURTHERMORE, EVEN IF IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOW
DEPRIVED THE PETITIONER OF HIS RIGHT TO IMPROVE AND RAISE THE LEVEE,
THIS WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A TAKING.  MATTHEWS V. UNITED STATES, 87 CT.
CLS. 662; JACKSON V. UNITED STATES, 230 U.S. 1; HUGHES V. UNITED
STATES, 230 U.S. 24. 

THERE WAS NO TAKING ON THE DATE THE SET-BACK LEVEE WAS VIRTUALLY
COMPLETED.  NOTHING HAD BEEN DONE TO INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE
OVERFLOW.  THE RIVERSIDE LEVEE HAD NOT BEEN ALTERED, AND THE EXISTENCE
OF THE SET-BACK LEVEE WOULD NOT AFFECT THE FREQUENCY OF FLOODING. 

FURTHERMORE, UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT, NOTHING COULD BE
DONE WHICH WOULD SUBJECT PETITIONER'S LAND TO MORE FREQUENT OVERFLOW
UNTIL THE FLOODWAY WAS COMPLETED. 

THE FACT THAT THE SET-BACK LEVEE WOULD CONFINE THE FLOODWATERS DID
NOT CAUSE A TAKING.  ONLY WATERS WHICH HAD ALREADY OVERTOPPED THE
UNREDUCED RIVERSIDE LEVEE WOULD BE CONFINED BY THE SET-BACK; AND THAT
WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A TAKING, BUT MERELY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE.  HUGHES
V. UNITED STATES, 230 U.S. 24; SANGUINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 264 U.S.
146; JACKSON V. UNITED STATES, 230 U.S. 1; BEDFORD V. UNITED STATES,
192 U.S. 217; GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, 166 U.S. 269; CHRISTMAN V.
UNITED STATES, 74 F.2D 112; KIRK V. GOOD, 13 F.SUPP.  1020, APPEAL
DISMISSED UPON STIPULATION, 64 F.2D 1015. 

NO TAKING CAN BE PREDICATED UPON UNAUTHORIZED ACTS OF GOVERNMENT
OFFICERS.  HOOE V. UNITED STATES, 218 U.S. 322; HUGHES V. UNITED
STATES, 230 U.S. 24.  THE LATTER CASE HELD THAT IF THE ACT OF AN
OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES IN DYNAMITING A LEVEE IN AN EMERGENCY WAS
WRONGFUL, IT WAS NOT THE ACT OF THE UNITED STATES AND DID NOT AMOUNT TO
A TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OVERFLOWED AS A RESULT OF THE DYNAMITING. 

SINCE THE PETITIONER'S LAND WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERFLOWED DURING THE
1937 FLOOD REGARDLESS OF THE PROJECT, CLEARLY NO TAKING OCCURRED AT
THAT TIME. 

THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A TAKING.  BARNIDGE V.
UNITED STATES, 101 F.2D 295, 298; KANAKANUI V. UNITED STATES, 244 F.
923; JOHNSON & WIMSATT V. REICHELDERFER, 66 F.2D 217; MILLER V. UNITED
STATES, 57 F.2D 424; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HESS, 35 APP. D.C. 38. 
SINCE THE FUSE-PLUG SECTION CAN NOT BE REDUCED UNTIL THE NECESSARY
FLOWAGE EASEMENTS ARE ACQUIRED, NO TAKING WILL OCCUR UNTIL THE JUDGMENT
IS PAID. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED  FN1  TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT  FN2  AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WHICH AWARDED
TO A PROPERTY OWNER, AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, COMPENSATION IN
CONDEMNATION LESS IN AMOUNT THAN A SUM FIXED BY AN ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN
THE PARTIES PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE CONDEMNATION.  THIS
JUDGMENT PROVIDED FOR PAYMENT OF THE AWARD INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
COURT AND THAT UPON SUCH PAYMENT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE ENTITLED
TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE LANDOWNER,
NO PROVISION WAS MADE AS TO INTEREST.  THE WRIT WAS GRANTED TO
DETERMINE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL LAW AS TO THE EFFECT IN
CONDEMNATION, OF PRIOR AGREEMENTS BY THE UNITED STATES AS TO THE AMOUNT
OF AWARDS AND AS TO THE RUNNING OF INTEREST. 

THIS PROCEEDING AROSE IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING OUT THE PROTECTION
FROM DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS OF THE ALLUVIAL VALLEY OF THE MISSISSIPPI
BETWEEN CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, AND HEAD OF PASSES, LOUISIANA.  THIS
WORK OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT WAS BEGUN UNDER THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF
MAY 15, 1928.  FN3  THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT FOLLOWED THE DISASTROUS
EXPERIENCE WITH THE FLOOD OF 1927 AND WAS BASED UPON A COMPREHENSIVE
REPORT AND PLAN KNOWN AS THE JADWIN PLAN, MAJOR GENERAL EDGAR JADWIN,
THEN CHIEF OF ENGINEERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, BEING IN CHARGE OF
ITS DEVELOPMENT.  FN4  THE PLAN COVERS THE GREAT ALLUVIAL VALLEY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI THROUGH ITS ENTIRE LENGTH FROM THE OHIO TO THE DELTA.  IN
ESSENCE, THE PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY IS BASED UPON A LEVEE SYSTEM WHICH
CONSTRICTS THE WATER TO A MODERATE DEGREE AND ALLOWS IN PERIODS OF
EXTREME FLOODS THE ESCAPE FROM SOME LOWER LEVEES, KNOWN AS FUSE-PLUGS,
OF THE WATER FROM THE MAIN CHANNEL TO BACK WATERS AND FLOODWAYS. 

THE PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE PLAN INVOLVED HERE IS KNOWN AS THE
BIRDS POINT-NEW MADRID FLOODWAY.  PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE FLOOD
CONTROL ACT, THERE WERE LEVEES ALONG THE WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI
BETWEEN BIRDS POINT, MISSOURI, AND NEW MADRID, MISSOURI, WHICH
SUBSTANTIALLY FOLLOWED THE MEANDERINGS OF THE RIVER.  TO GET A GREATER
AREA FOR THE SPREADING OF FLOOD WATERS, THE PLAN PROVIDED FOR A SECOND
LEVEE TO BE SET BACK ABOUT FIVE MILES FROM THE RIVERBANK LEVEE RUNNING
FROM BIRDS POINT TO ST. JOHNS BAYOU, JUST EAST OF NEW MADRID.  NEAR ITS
UPSTREAM CONNECTION WITH THE SET-BACK LEVEE THE PRESENT RIVERBANK LEVEE
WOULD BE LOWERED SOME FIVE FEET BY WHAT IS CALLED A FUSE-PLUG, SO THAT
AT HIGH FLOOD THE WATER WILL BEGIN TO FLOW INTO THE WIDE FLOODWAY
BELOW.  IT IS EXPECTED THAT THIS ENLARGED CHANNEL WILL KEEP ANTICIPATED
FLOODS FROM RISING ABOVE THE LEVEES PROTECTING CAIRO, ILLINOIS.  THE
SET-BACK LEVEE WILL CONFINE ITS DIVERTED WATER TO THE FLOODWAY AREA
BETWEEN THE SET-BACK LEVEE AND THE RIVERSIDE LEVEE AND WILL RETURN THE
WATER TO THE MISSISSIPPI THROUGH A LOWER FUSE-PLUG SECTION WHERE A GAP
IS LEFT IN THE LEVEE SYSTEM TO PERMIT COMPLETE DRAINAGE.  THE LAND
INVOLVED IN THIS CONDEMNATION IS SITUATED IN THIS FLOODWAY IMMEDIATELY
EAST OF THE SET-BACK LEVEE AND ABOUT MIDWAY BETWEEN BIRDS POINT AND NEW
MADRID. 

THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT STIPULATES THAT THE UNITED STATES "SHALL
PROVIDE FLOWAGE RIGHTS FOR ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE FLOOD WATERS THAT
WILL PASS BY REASON OF DIVERSIONS FROM THE MAIN CHANNEL OF THE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER."  THE SAME SECTION AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF WAR
TO "CAUSE PROCEEDINGS TO BE INSTITUTED FOR THE ACQUIREMENT BY
CONDEMNATION OF ANY LANDS, EASEMENTS, OR RIGHTS OF WAY WHICH  ...  ARE
NEEDED IN CARRYING OUT THIS PROJECT.  ...  "  JURISDICTION OF THE
PROCEEDING IS GIVEN TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.  COMMISSIONERS WERE
AUTHORIZED TO VIEW AND VALUE.  IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED:  "WHEN THE
OWNER OF ANY LAND, EASEMENT, OR RIGHT OF WAY SHALL FIX A PRICE FOR THE
SAME WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR IS REASONABLE, HE
MAY PURCHASE THE SAME AT SUCH PRICE; ..."  FN5 

THERE IS THE ADDITIONAL PROVISION IN SEC. 1 OF THIS SAME ACT THAT
"PENDING COMPLETION OF ANY FLOODWAY, SPILLWAY, OR DIVERSION CHANNEL,
THE AREAS WITHIN THE SAME SHALL BE GIVEN THE SAME DEGREE OF PROTECTION
AS IS AFFORDED BY LEVEES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE RIVER CONTIGUOUS TO
THE LEVEE AT THE HEAD OF SAID FLOODWAY." 

CONSTRUCTION WORK BEGAN ON THE SET-BACK LEVEE ON OCTOBER 21, 1929,
AND WAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE ON OCTOBER 31, 1932.  THE RIVERSIDE
LEVEE IS MAINTAINED AT ITS ORIGINAL HEIGHT OF ABOUT 58 FEET AND THE
UPPER FUSE-PLUG, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO ADMIT WATER INTO THE FLOODWAY,
HAS NOT YET BEEN CREATED. 

IN JANUARY, 1937, THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER ATTAINED ITS HIGHEST FLOOD
STAGE IN RECORDED HISTORY.  LATE IN THAT MONTH THE UNITED STATES ARMY
OFFICER IN CHARGE OF MEMPHIS ENGINEERS, DISTRICT NO. 1, DIRECTED A
SUBORDINATE TO PROCEED TO THE AREA AND PLACE THE BIRDS POINT-NEW MADRID
FLOODWAY IN OPERATION.  THESE INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED BY THE OFFICER
IN CHARGE OF THE DISTRICT WITHOUT ORDERS FROM ANY SUPERIOR.  THE
DIRECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT AFTER FLOOD WATERS WERE TRICKLING OVER THE
RIVERSIDE LEVEE INTO THE FLOODWAY AREA THROUGH A NATURAL CREVASSE AND
WHEN PURSUANT TO THESE ORDERS AN ARTIFICIAL CREVASSE WAS CREATED BY
DYNAMITING THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE UPPER FUSE-PLUG SECTION.  LATER
ANOTHER ARTIFICIAL CREVASSE WAS CREATED AND OTHER NATURAL CREVASSES
DEVELOPED.  THROUGH THESE CREVASSES PETITIONER'S LAND WAS FLOODED.  AS
THE RIVER WOULD HAVE REACHED A STAGE SUFFICIENTLY HIGH TO OVERTOP THE
RIVERSIDE LEVEE, EVEN WITH EXTRAORDINARY HIGH-WATER MAINTENANCE, THE
LAND OF THE PETITIONER WOULD HAVE BEEN FLOODED WITHOUT THE CREVASSING. 
THE SET-BACK LEVEE DID CONFINE THE DIVERTED WATER TO THE FLOODWAY.  IT
INCREASED ITS DEPTH AND DESTRUCTIVENESS ON PETITIONER'S LAND.  AFTER
THE FLOOD SUBSIDED, THE RIVERSIDE LEVEE, INCLUDING THE UPPER FUSE-PLUG
INSTITUTION OF THIS ACTION, ORDERS HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF
WAR, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT, TO
PURCHASE THIS TRACT OF LAND.  A LETTER CONTAINING THE OFFER FOR THE
FLOWAGE RIGHTS HERE INVOLVED, DATED JANUARY 14, 1932, HAD BEEN RECEIVED
BY THE PETITIONER AND THE OFFER ACCEPTED BY HIM WITHIN AN AGREED
EXTENSION OF THE LIMITED TIME.  THE LETTER, SO FAR AS PERTINENT, READS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"2.  I AM ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY,
TO OFFER YOU THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE AND 98/100 -
DOLLARS ($31,681.98) FOR A PERPETUAL FLOWAGE EASEMENT AS CONTEMPLATED
BY THE ACT OF MAY 15, 1928, OVER YOUR LAND DESIGNATED AS TRACT NO. 243,
AS INDICATED ON THE INCLOSED PLAT, THIS BEING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT
CAN BE OFFERED YOU UNDER THE ABOVE AUTHORIZATION. 

"3.  SHOULD THIS OFFER BE ACCEPTED, FRIENDLY CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS
WILL BE ENTERED IN COURT, WITH THE REQUEST THAT AN AGREED VERDICT BE
AWARDED IN THE AMOUNT OF THIS OFFER.  PAYMENT CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT
COURT ACTION AS TITLE CANNOT BE CLEARED.  ACCEPTANCE OF THIS OFFER
SHOULD EXPEDITE FINAL SETTLEMENT AND REDUCE LEGAL EXPENSES." 

AFTER ITS ACCEPTANCE, THERE WAS AN ATTEMPTED WITHDRAWAL OF THIS OFFER
BY A LETTER OF JULY 8, 1932, WHICH ADVISED THE OWNER THAT "AFTER A
CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION OF FLOWAGE OVER THESE TRACTS IT WAS
FOUND BY HIGHER AUTHORITY THAT THE PRICES FIRST SUGGESTED COULD NOT BE
PROPERLY RECOMMENDED TO THE COURT." 

AFTER THIS LETTER, A PETITION WAS FILED BY THE UNITED STATES TO
CONDEMN OVER THE LAND HERE IN QUESTION A PERPETUAL RIGHT, POWER
EASEMENT, AND PRIVILEGE TO OVERFLOW, AS CONTEMPLATED BY SAID PROJECT
AND DESCRIBED IN HOUSE DOCUMENT 90.  AFTER THE APPOINTMENT AND REPORT
OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN AWARD, PETITIONER
FILED AN ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM.  IN THE ANSWER HE SET UP THAT PRIOR
TO THE FILING OF THE SUIT A "WRITTEN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT FOR THE
DAMAGES AND FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN EASEMENT" FOR FLOODWAY PURPOSES WAS
MADE BY THE UNITED STATES AND ACCEPTED BY PETITIONER.  PETITIONER
FURTHER ALLEGED AN OFFER OF TITLE TO THE EASEMENT SOUGHT AND A REQUEST
FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE AGREED SUM.  JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
WAS ASKED IN THAT AMOUNT, "WITH INTEREST," TO BE PAID INTO COURT FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE DEFENDANTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE
RIGHTS AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS FOR THE PERPETUAL FLOWAGE EASEMENTS
"UPON PAYMENT INTO COURT" OF THE AGREED SUM.  CHANGING THE DESIGNATION
OF THE PLEADING FROM ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM, THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE
REPEATED AS A COUNTERCLAIM.  THE COURT SUSTAINED A MOTION OF THE UNITED
STATES TO STRIKE THIS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD WAIVED HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT BECAUSE OF
HIS FAILURE TO PLEAD THEM PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
ALLOWING THE CONDEMNATION AND APPOINTING COMMISSIONERS.  SUBSEQUENTLY
THE REPORTS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND COMMISSIONS APPOINTED TO VIEW THE
PROPERTY WERE SET ASIDE FOR REASONS WHICH ARE IMMATERIAL HERE.  TO THE
REPORT OF THE THIRD COMMISSION, AWARDING $17,921.70, THE PETITIONER
RENEWED THE OBJECTION THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
HIM WAS DECISIVE IN FIXING THE AWARD AT $31,681.98; ASKED FOR INTEREST
"FROM SUCH TIME AS THE COURT MAY FIND THAT PLAINTIFF (THE UNITED
STATES) APPROPRIATED THE FLOWAGE EASEMENT IN QUESTION" AND SOUGHT NEW
VIEWERS TO DETERMINE THE AWARD AS CLAIMED BY PETITIONERS OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE THAT THE COURT ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE SUM CLAIMED WITH
APPROPRIATE TERMS TO CREATE THE FLOWAGE EASEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. 

UPON THIS EXCEPTION A HEARING WAS HAD AND FINDINGS AND JUDGMENT
ENTERED CONFIRMING THIS REPORT AND ADJUDGING THE CONDEMNOR THE EASEMENT
SOUGHT UPON PAYMENT OF THE AWARD.  NOTHING APPEARED IN THE ORDER AS TO
INTEREST.  BY ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND IN THE STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED AND REASONS FOR GRANTING THE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI, PETITIONER HAS PRESERVED THE ISSUES OF HIS RIGHT TO
AN AWARD IN THE AGREED AMOUNT AND TO INTEREST FROM THE DATE FOUND TO
MARK THE TAKING FROM HIM OF THE LAND. 

DETERMINATION OF VALUE.  - BY ANSWER AND EXCEPTION TO THE REPORT OF
THE COMMISSIONERS, THE PETITIONER PLEADED THE AGREEMENT ON THE VALUE OF
THE EASEMENT EVIDENCED BY THE LETTER AND ACCEPTANCE REFERRED TO ABOVE. 
THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE "RELEVANCE OF THE CONTRACT  ... AS A
MEASURE OF THE VALUE OF THE EASEMENT IS NOT IN ISSUE; THE PETITIONER
PITCHES HIS CASE SOLELY ON THE PROPOSITION THAT HE CAN ENFORCE THE
CONTRACT."  WITH THIS CONTENTION WE DO NOT AGREE.  IN THE ANSWER, IT IS
TRUE, JUDGMENT IS PRAYED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR THE AGREED
AMOUNT.  BUT A JUDGMENT IS OFFERED TO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
PERPETUAL FLOWAGE EASEMENT UPON PAYMENT OF THE SUM INTO COURT.  IN THE
OBJECTION TO THE COMMISSIONERS' REPORT THE PRAYER IS FOR ENTRY OF A
JUDGMENT IN THE AGREED SUM "AND UPON PAYMENT OF THE SAME THAT THE COURT
DECREE AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF FOR THE SAID
EASEMENT."  WE CONSTRUE THE ACCEPTED OFFER AS AN AGREEMENT TO FIX THE
PRICE AT THE NAMED FIGURE FOR THE EASEMENT SOUGHT.  PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE
LETTER SHOWS CONDEMNATION WAS IN MIND. 

THIS ACTION IS BROUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4 OF THE FLOOD
CONTROL ACT.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE LANDOWNER'S
CONTENTION DEPENDS UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THAT ACT, NOT UPON THE TUCKER
ACT  FN6  OR THE GENERAL STATUTE ON CONDEMNATION.  FN7  WE HAVE NO
DOUBT THAT THE AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE GIVEN TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR IS
SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO AUTHORIZE A PURCHASE OF PETITIONER'S INTEREST IN
LAND SUBJECT TO PERFECTING THE TITLE THROUGH CONDEMNATION.  THE EFFECT
OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT IS TO FIX THE VALUE OF THE EASEMENT WHEN THE
AUTHORITY OF THE COURT IS INVOKED AGAINST A PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT TO
ACQUIRE GOOD TITLE.  FN8  IN DEALING WITH A STIPULATION TO WAIVE A
REQUIREMENT OF FILING A CLAIM FOR TAX REFUND WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, WE HELD SUCH WAIVER ENFORCEABLE IN THE FACE OF A
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR SUCH FILING.  FN9  THE CONVENIENCE OF
PREPARATION FOR TRIAL AND THE INTEREST OF ORDERLY PROCEDURE WAS
DECISIVE THERE.  HERE THE SAME REASONS WITH THE SUPPORTING LANGUAGE AS
TO THE POWER OF PURCHASE LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN STRIKING THE ANSWER AND REFUSING THE MOTION TO DETERMINE THE
VALUE AT THE AGREED PRICE.  FN10  WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE COUNTERCLAIM
AS THE ANSWER COVERS THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF THE DETERMINATION OF VALUE. 

INTEREST. - PETITIONER SEEKS INTEREST ON THE JUDGMENT FROM THE TIME
OF THE TAKING OR APPROPRIATION OF THE FLOWAGE EASEMENT.  PETITIONER
FIXES THIS APPROPRIATION AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE FLOOD
CONTROL ACT OF MAY 15, 1928, ON THE THEORY THAT THE PASSAGE OF THAT ACT
DIMINISHED IMMEDIATELY THE VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THE PLAN
CONTEMPLATED THE ULTIMATE USE OF THE FLOODWAY.  ALTERNATIVELY THE DATE
OF THE TAKING IS FIXED BY PETITIONER AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1929, WHEN WORK
BEGAN ON THE SET-BACK LEVEE OR OCTOBER 31, 1932, WHEN THE SET-BACK
LEVEE WAS COMPLETED. 

THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE.  JUST COMPENSATION IS VALUE AT
THE TIME OF THE TAKING.  THE CONGRESS, IN OTHER SITUATIONS, HAS ADOPTED
THE TIME OF TAKING AS THE DATE FOR DETERMINATION OF VALUE.  FN11  FOR
THE REASON THAT COMPENSATION IS DUE AT THE TIME OF TAKING, THE OWNER AT
THAT TIME, NOT THE OWNER AT AN EARLIER OR LATER DATE, RECEIVES THE
PAYMENT.  FN12  UNLESS A TAKING HAS OCCURRED PREVIOUSLY IN ACTUALITY OR
BY A STATUTORY PROVISION, WHICH FIXES THE TIME OF TAKING BY AN EVENT
SUCH AS THE FILING OF AN ACTION,  FN13  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE
TAKING IN A CONDEMNATION SUIT UNDER THIS STATUTE TAKES PLACE UPON THE
PAYMENT OF THE MONEY AWARD BY THE CONDEMNOR.  NO INTEREST IS DUE UPON
THE AWARD.  UNTIL TAKING, THE CONDEMNOR MAY DISCONTINUE OR ABANDON HIS
EFFORT.  FN14  THE DETERMINATION OF THE AWARD IS AN OFFER SUBJECT TO
ACCEPTANCE BY THE CONDEMNOR AND THUS GIVES TO THE USER OF THE SOVEREIGN
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
VALUATIONS LEAVE THE COST OF COMPLETION WITHIN HIS RESOURCES.  FN15
CONDEMNATION IS A MEANS BY WHICH THE SOVEREIGN MAY FIND OUT WHAT ANY
PIECE OF PROPERTY WILL COST.  "THE OWNER IS PROTECTED BY THE RULE THAT
TITLE DOES NOT PASS UNTIL COMPENSATION HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED AND PAID,
..."  FN16  A REDUCTION OR INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY MAY OCCUR
BY REASON OF LEGISLATION FOR OR THE BEGINNING OR COMPLETION OF A
PROJECT.  SUCH CHANGES IN VALUE ARE INCIDENTS OF OWNERSHIP.  THEY
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A "TAKING" IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE. 

IN BROWN V. UNITED STATES  FN17  THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER INTEREST SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FROM
THE DATE OF SUMMONS, THE DAY FIXED BY THE STATE STATUTE TO DETERMINE
COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES.  IN THAT CASE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDED UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONFORMITY STATUTE WHICH DIRECTS FEDERAL COURTS TO CONFORM
TO STATE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, "AS NEAR AS MAY BE."  FN18  INTEREST,
IT WAS THOUGHT, WAS NOT GOVERNED BY THE CONFORMITY ACT,  FN19 BUT
SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE LAW FROM THE DATE OF
SUMMONS.  THIS CONCLUSION FLOWED FROM THE ACCEPTANCE BY THIS COURT,
WITHOUT QUESTION, OF THE DAY OF SUMMONS AS THE DATE FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF VALUE, THE DAY OF TAKING.  FN20  HERE PROCEEDINGS ARE
UNDER A FLOOD CONTROL ACT PRESCRIBING JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE. 
WHERE THE CONDEMNATION IS FREE FROM STATUTORY DIRECTION, AS HERE, THERE
WOULD BE NO INTEREST BEFORE THE TAKING.  FN21 

THIS LEAVES FOR CONSIDERATION THE CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS A TAKING
BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE LEGISLATION, WHEN WORK BEGAN ON THE SET-BACK
LEVEE OR WHEN THAT LEVEE WAS COMPLETED.  THE MERE ENACTMENT OF
LEGISLATION WHICH AUTHORIZES CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE A
TAKING.  SUCH LEGISLATION MAY BE REPEALED OR MODIFIED, OR
APPROPRIATIONS MAY FAIL.  FN22 

FOR COMPLETION OF THE SET-BACK LEVEE TO AMOUNT TO A TAKING, IT MUST
RESULT IN AN APPROPRIATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE USES OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  FN23  THIS LEVEE IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE.  THE
GOVERNMENT HAS CONDEMNED THE LAND UPON WHICH THE SET-BACK IS BUILT. 
THE TRACT NOW IN LITIGATION LIES BETWEEN THE SET-BACK AND RIVERBANK
LEVEES.  THE GOVERNMENT COULD BECOME LIABLE FOR A TAKING, IN WHOLE OR
IN PART, EVEN WITHOUT DIRECT APPROPRIATION, BY SUCH CONSTRUCTION AS
WOULD PUT UPON THIS LAND A BURDEN, ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED, OF CARING FOR
FLOODS GREATER THAN IT BORE PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION.  THE RIVERBANK
LEVEE AT THE FUSE-PLUG HAS NOT BEEN LOWERED FROM ITS PREVIOUS HEIGHT. 
CONSEQUENTLY THE LAND IS AS WELL PROTECTED FROM DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS AS
FORMERLY.  WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE RETENTION OF WATER FROM UNUSUAL
FLOODS FOR A SOMEWHAT LONGER PERIOD OR ITS INCREASE IN DEPTH OR
DESTRUCTIVENESS BY REASON OF THE SET-BACK LEVEE, HAS THE EFFECT OF
TAKING.  WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THIS IS "AN INCIDENTAL
CONSEQUENCE" OF THE BUILDING OF THE SETBACK LEVEE.  FN24  NOR CAN WE
CONCLUDE THAT A TAKING OCCURRED THROUGH THE ACT OF THE ARMY OFFICERS IN
DYNAMITING THE LEVEE DURING THE EMERGENCY OF THE 1937 FLOOD.  IT WAS
RESTORED TO ITS PREVIOUS HEIGHT.  UP UNTIL THIS TIME, THE PLAN FOR A
FUSE-PLUG TO PERMIT THE ESCAPE OF DESTRUCTIVE FLOOD WATERS WAS NOT IN
EFFECT.  INDEED, THE PETITIONER DISCLAIMS ANY CONTENTION THAT THE
CREVASSING OF THE LEVEE BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS A TAKING.  THE TAKING, HE
URGES, TOOK PLACE BEFORE AND THIS USE IS ONLY EVIDENCE OF THE CONTROL
OBTAINED BY THE PRIOR TAKING.  REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART. 

FN1  POST, P. 538. 

FN2  102 F.2D 5, 105 F.2D 318. 

FN3  45 STAT. 534, 33 U.S.C. SEC. 702A-702M. 

FN4  THE PLAN IS FOUND IN "FLOOD CONTROL IN THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY,"
H.R. DOC. NO. 90, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  REFERENCE IS ALSO MADE IN THE
FLOOD CONTROL ACT TO A PLAN RECOMMENDED BY THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER
COMMISSION AND AUTHORITY IS GRANTED TO ADJUST THE ENGINEERING
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO PLANS. 

FN5  45 STAT. 534, C. 569, SEC. 4. 

FN6  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 24(20), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20). 

FN7  25 STAT. 357. 

FN8  CF. WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 98 F.2D
609(C.C.A.4TH). 

FN9  TUCKER V. ALEXANDER, 275 U.S. 228. 

FN10  CF. JUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 120 F. 637(C.C.A.2D)(U.S. DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S AGREEMENT TO SUBMIT MATTER OF DAMAGES TO ARBITRATION, IN
CONDEMNATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE STATUTE IS BINDING). 

FN11  46 STAT. 1421; 47 STAT. 722, SEC. 305. 

FN12  KINDRED V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 225 U.S. 582, 597; IN ROBERTS
V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 158 U.S. 1, 10, THE PRECEDENTS ARE
COLLECTED. 

FN13  SEE VARIOUS STATUTORY MEANS OF DETERMINING THE TIME OF TAKING
IN NICHOLS, THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN, 1917, SEC. 436. 

FN14  SEE BAUMAN V. ROSS, 167 U.S. 548, 598, 599, WHERE THERE WAS A
STATUTORY PROVISION RELATING TO CONDEMNATION FOR STREETS IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WHICH MADE THE FAILURE OF THE CONGRESS TO
APPROPRIATE, AFTER SIX MONTHS IN SESSION, FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE AWARD
OF DAMAGES AN EVENT WHICH TERMINATED THE PROCEEDINGS.  "THIS
PROVISION," THIS COURT SAID, "SECURES THE OWNERS FROM BEING COMPELLED
TO PART WITH THEIR LANDS WITHOUT RECEIVING JUST COMPENSATION, AND IS
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE LEGISLATURE."  "THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE DAMAGES TO BE ACTUALLY PAID AT ANY
EARLIER TIME; NOR IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND ENTITLED TO INTEREST PENDING
THE PROCEEDINGS."    CF. KANAKANUI V. UNITED STATES, 244 F.
923(C.C.A.9TH); JOHNSON & WIMSATT V. REICHELDERFER, 62 APP. D.C. 237;
66 F.2D 217; BARNIDGE V. UNITED STATES, 101 F.2D 295, 298(C.C.A.8TH). 

FN15  SEE LEWIS, LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN, 3RD ED., SEC. 955. 

FN16  HANSON LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 581, 587.    FN17
263 U.S. 78, 84 ET SEQ. 

FN18  25 STAT. 357. 

FN19  263 U.S. AT 87. 

FN20  263 U.S. AT 85-86:  "IN THESE CASES, THE VALUE FOUND WAS AT THE
TIME OF TAKING OR VESTING OF TITLE AND THE PRESUMPTION INDULGED WAS
THAT THE VALUATION INCLUDED THE PRACTICAL DAMAGE ARISING FROM THE
INABILITY TO SELL OR LEASE AFTER THE BLIGHT OF THE SUMMONS TO CONDEMN. 
WHERE THE VALUATION IS AS OF THE DATE OF THE SUMMONS, HOWEVER, NO SUCH
ELEMENTS CAN ENTER INTO IT AND THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST FROM THAT TIME
IS PRESUMABLY MADE TO COVER INJURY OF THIS KIND TO THE LAND OWNER
PENDING THE PROCEEDINGS."  AT P. 87:  "BUT THE DISPOSITION OF FEDERAL
COURTS SHOULD BE TO ADOPT THE LOCAL RULE IF IT IS A FAIR ONE, AND, AS
ALREADY INDICATED, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SAY THAT WITH THE VALUE FIXED AS
OF THE DATE OF SUMMONS, AND THE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED PROMPTLY
THEREAFTER TO TAKE POSSESSION, INTEREST ALLOWED FROM THE DATE OF THE
SUMMONS IS NOT A PROVISION MAKING FOR JUST COMPENSATION." 

FN21  SHOEMAKER V. UNITED STATES, 147 U.S. 282, 321. 

FN22  WILLINK V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 572; BAUMAN V. ROSS, 167
U.S. 548, 596; UNITED STATES V. SPONENBARGER, ANTE, P. 256. 

FN23  OBVIOUSLY IF THERE WAS NOT A TAKING AT THE COMPLETION OF THE
SETBACK LEVEE, THERE COULD NOT BE A TAKING BY THE BEGINNING OF
CONSTRUCTION. 

FN24  COMPARE BEDFORD V. UNITED STATES, 192 U.S. 217; JACKSON V.
UNITED STATES, 230 U.S. 1; SANGUINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 264 U.S. 146. 

..END :












BRUNO V. UNITED STATES, 308 U.S. 287 


NO. 300.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  - 105
F.2D 921, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER THE ACT OF MARCH 16, 1878, THE ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL CASE IN
THE FEDERAL COURT IS ENTITLED, UPON REQUEST, TO HAVE THE JURY
INSTRUCTED, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT HIS FAILURE TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF TESTIFYING DOES NOT CREATE ANY PRESUMPTION AGAINST HIM AND
MUST NOT BE PERMITTED BY THE JURY TO WEIGH AGAINST HIM.  P. 292. 

2.  REFUSAL TO GRANT SUCH AN INSTRUCTION IS NOT A "TECHNICAL ERROR"
TO BE DISREGARDED UPON REVIEW OR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 391.  P. 293. 

BRUNO V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 536, TO REVIEW ERROR IN THE AFFIRMANCE OF A
CRIMINAL CONVICTION. 

THE REQUESTED CHARGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT. 

SUCH A CHARGE IS MANDATORY UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND 28 U.S.C. SEC. 632. 

AT COMMON LAW, A DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIMSELF.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT INCORPORATED THIS RULE INTO THE
CONSTITUTION.  MCKNIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 115 F. 972, 981, 982. 

HAD THE STATUTE NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT NO PRESUMPTION ARISES
FROM NON-EXERCISE OF THE PRIVILEGE TO TESTIFY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION WOULD HAVE IMPLIED AS MUCH, SO THAT SILENT DEFENDANTS MIGHT
BE PROTECTED FROM ANY HOSTILE COMMENT. 

IF EVERYBODY BELIEVES THAT A PERSON FAILING TO TAKE THE STAND IS
ACTUATED BY FEAR, THEN THE PRIVILEGE OF TESTIFYING CREATES A
PRESUMPTION WHICH EXTINGUISHES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  SECTION 632 HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SO LONG THAT JURORS
TODAY KNOW THAT A DEFENDANT MAY TESTIFY, BUT DO NOT KNOW OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION PROVIDED BY THE RULE AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION.  OBVIOUSLY, THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS
KNOWN TO THE JURY IS BY A CLEAR, CORRECT STATEMENT OF THE APPLICABLE
LAW.  IF THE EYES OF THE JURY SEE THE TAINT OF GUILT ON EVERY DEFENDANT
WHO REMAINS SILENT, THEN THE NECESSITY OF A CHARGE SUCH AS THAT
REQUESTED, IS CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED.  SEE, 4 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE,
PP. 811, 814, 815; STOUT V. UNITED STATES, 227 F. 799; MICHAEL V.
UNITED STATES, 7 F.2D 865; HERSH V. UNITED STATES, 68 F.2D 799; SWENZEL
V. UNITED STATES, 22 F.2D 280. 

THE REQUESTED INSTRUCTION WAS PROPERLY REFUSED.  WILSON V. UNITED
STATES, 149 U.S. 60; REAGAN V. UNITED STATES, 157 U.S. 301, 304-305;
MCKNIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 115 F. 972, 981-983; SWENZEL V. UNITED
STATES, 22 F.2D 280; STOUT V. UNITED STATES, 227 F. 799, 803; MICHAEL
V. UNITED STATES, 7 F.2D 865. 

IN SEVERAL STATES THE STATUTES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUED AS FORBIDDING ALL
REFERENCE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE IN HIS CHARGE TO THE SILENCE OF THE
ACCUSED.  TIMES V. COMMONWEALTH, 25 KY. LAW REP. 1233; HANKS V.
COMMONWEALTH, 248 KY. 203; STATE V. PEARCE, 56 MINN. 226; STATE V.
LONG, 324 MO. 205; MASON V. STATE, 53 OKLA. CR. R. 76; THOMPSON V.
STATE, 88 TEX. CR. 29; KINNEY V. STATE, 36 WYO. 466; CF., STATE V.
FORD, 109 CONN. 490; TUCKER V. STATE, 29 GA. APP. 221. 

IN APPROXIMATELY 42 STATES THERE EXIST STATUTES PROHIBITING ANY
INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN FROM AN ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO TESTIFY.  SEE,
WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, 2D ED., SEC. 488, NOTE 2.  THESE STATUTES PROVIDE
EITHER (1) THAT THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY SHALL NOT
CREATE ANY PRESUMPTION AGAINST HIM, (2) THAT SUCH FAILURE SHALL NOT BE
THE SUBJECT OF COMMENT BY COUNSEL OR BY EITHER COURT OR COUNSEL, OR (3)
CONTAIN BOTH SUCH PROVISIONS.  SEE, 31 MICH. L. REV. 40-43; WIGMORE ON
EVIDENCE, 1934 SUPP. SEC. 2272, NOTE 2.  IN INDIANA (BURNS ANN. STAT.
1926, SEC. 2267), NEVADA (REV. LAWS 1912, SEC. 7161), AND WASHINGTON
(COMP. ST. 1922, SEC. 2148), THE STATUTES SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE THE
TRIAL JUDGE, UPON REQUEST, TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STATUTE. 

IN ENGLAND, THE CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT OF 1898, SEC. 1(ST. 61 & 62,
VICT.  C. 36), PROVIDES THAT THE ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO GIVE EVIDENCE
"SHALL NOT BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF ANY COMMENT BY THE PROSECUTION."  BUT
THE JUDGE IS NOT PREVENTED FROM COMMENTING THEREON.  R. V. RHODES, 1
Q.B. 77, 83(1899); CF., THE KING V. PARKER, 1 K.B. 850(1933). 

SEVERAL STATE COURTS, CONSTRUING THEIR STATUTES, HAVE HELD THAT, UPON
REQUEST, IT IS PROPER FOR THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THE
DEFENDANT'S SILENCE, AND THAT THE REFUSAL TO DO SO IS ERROR, COX V.
STATE, 173 ARK. 1115; PEOPLE V. GREBEN, 352 ILL. 582; STATE V. LANDRY,
85 ME. 95; PEOPLE V. PROVOST, 144 MICH. 17; FUNCHES V. STATE, 125
MISS.  140; STATE V. WALKER, 94 W. VA. 691.  BUT THE FAILURE TO
INSTRUCT, WITHOUT REQUEST, IS NOT ERROR.  BRADLEY V. STATE, 35 ARIZ.
420; PEOPLE V. MITSUNAGA, 91 CAL. APP. 298; STATE V. WILLIAMS, 90 CONN.
126; STATE V. REID, 200 IOWA 892; STATE V. YOUNGER, 70 KAN. 226; STATE
V. LESH, 27 N.D. 165; BOSLEY V. STATE, 69 TEX. CR. 100; STATE V. COMER,
176 WASH. 257. 

THE JURY WILL, DESPITE INSTRUCTION, DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM
THE ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO TESTIFY.  SEE, 31 MICH. L.R. 226, 229; MICHAEL
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, 2D ED., SEC. 2272, P.
901.  A FORTIORI IF THEY ARE REMINDED BY AN INSTRUCTION THAT HE MAY
TESTIFY.  CONSEQUENTLY, REFUSAL TO INSTRUCT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT
HIS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS. 

THE STATUTE IS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO PREVENT THE USE OF ACCUSED'S
FAILURE TO TESTIFY AS AN INFERENCE OF GUILT BY PROHIBITING BOTH COURT
AND PROSECUTOR FROM COMMENTING, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, ON THAT
FACT.  THE ACCUSED IS ONLY PROTECTED FROM HAVING THE FACT OF HIS
SILENCE BEING USED, TO HIS PREJUDICE, AS EVIDENCE OF HIS GUILT, IN
VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO BE SILENT UNTIL HIS GUILT IS ESTABLISHED
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE WHICH
PROTECTS HIM FROM AN UNFAVORABLE INFERENCE WHICH THE JURY MIGHT
NATURALLY DRAW FROM THE EXERCISE OF HIS PRIVILEGE TO REMAIN SILENT. 

NOR IS THERE ANY MERIT IN THE PETITIONER'S ASSERTION THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE OF AN ACCUSED NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO BE A
WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF (FIFTH AMENDMENT) REQUIRES THE GIVING OF THE
INSTRUCTION REQUESTED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

MERE SELF-INCRIMINATION IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IT
IS ONLY WHEN THAT INCRIMINATION BECOMES COMPULSORY THAT THE
PROSCRIPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION BECOMES APPLICABLE.  SINCE, UNDER THE
STATUTE, "IT IS A MATTER OF CHOICE WHETHER HE (THE ACCUSED) BECOME A
WITNESS OR NOT," (REAGAN V. UNITED STATES, 157 U.S. 301, 305) HIS
FAILURE TO EXERCISE SUCH CHOICE CANNOT BE SAID TO INVOLVE SUCH
COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION AS TO REQUIRE AN INSTRUCTION THAT NO
INFERENCE SHALL RESULT BECAUSE OF THE ACCUSED'S ELECTION NOT TO
TESTIFY. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF JERRY BRUNO, WHO, WITH EIGHTY-SEVEN
OTHERS, WAS CONVICTED OF A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE NARCOTIC LAWS, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, DEALT WITH AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN
SUCH A WAY AS TO LEAD US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

SOME OF BRUNO'S CO-DEFENDANTS TOOK THE WITNESS-STAND.  HE DID NOT. 
THE TRIAL COURT GAVE THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY REGARDING
THE ATTITUDE TO BE OBSERVED BY THEM TOWARDS THE ACCUSED AS A WITNESS: 

"IT IS THE PRIVILEGE OF A DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS IF, AND
ONLY WHEN, HE SO ELECTS; AND WHEN HE DOES TESTIFY HIS CREDIBILITY IS TO
BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF HIS INTEREST, WHICH USUALLY IS GREATER
THAN THAT OF ANY OTHER WITNESS, AND IS THEREFORE A MATTER WHICH MAY
SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE CREDENCE THAT SHALL BE GIVEN TO HIS TESTIMONY." 
BRUNO REQUESTED THIS ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTION: 

"THE FAILURE OF ANY DEFENDANT TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND TESTIFY
IN HIS OWN BEHALF, DOES NOT CREATE ANY PRESUMPTION AGAINST HIM; THE
JURY IS CHARGED THAT IT MUST NOT PERMIT THAT FACT TO WEIGH IN THE
SLIGHTEST DEGREE AGAINST ANY SUCH DEFENDANT, NOR SHOULD THIS FACT ENTER
INTO THE DISCUSSIONS OR DELIBERATIONS OF THE JURY IN ANY MANNER." 

THE TRIAL JUDGE DECLINED THIS REQUEST, SAYING "I FEEL THAT I'VE
ALREADY COVERED THAT."  THE EXCEPTION TO THIS DENIAL HAVING BEEN SAVED,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND NO ERROR IN THE REFUSAL, ALTHOUGH
CONFESSING THAT THE GUIDANCE WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN THE JURY "WAS NOT THE
EQUIVALENT OF WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAD REQUESTED," BRUNO V. UNITED
STATES, 105 F.2D 921.  BY THIS, WE TAKE IT, THE COURT BELOW MEANT THAT
THE TOPIC ON WHICH BRUNO PROFFERED AN INSTRUCTION HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED
AT ALL. 

THEREFORE, THE NARROW QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES BRUNO HAD THE INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO HAVE THE JURY TOLD IN
SUBSTANCE WHAT HE ASKED THE JUDGE TO TELL IT.  THE ISSUE IS DETERMINED
BY A PROPER APPLICATION OF THE ACT OF MARCH 16, 1878, 20 STAT. 30, NOW
28 U.S.C. SEC. 632.  FN1 

THAT ACT FREED THE ACCUSED IN A FEDERAL PROSECUTION FROM HIS COMMON
LAW DISABILITY AS A WITNESS.  BUT CONGRESS COUPLED HIS PRIVILEGE TO BE
A WITNESS WITH THE RIGHT TO HAVE A FAILURE TO EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGE
NOT TELL AGAINST HIM.  THE ACCUSED COULD "AT HIS OWN REQUEST BUT NOT
OTHERWISE BE A COMPETENT WITNESS.  AND HIS FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH A
REQUEST SHALL NOT CREATE ANY PRESUMPTION AGAINST HIM."  SUCH WAS THE
COMMAND OF THE LAW-MAKERS.  THE ONLY WAY CONGRESS COULD PROVIDE THAT
ABSTENTION FROM TESTIFYING SHOULD NOT TELL AGAINST AN ACCUSED WAS BY AN
IMPLIED DIRECTION TO JUDGES TO EXERCISE THEIR TRADITIONAL DUTY IN
GUIDING THE JURY BY INDICATING THE CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO THE
LATTER'S VERDICT ON THE FACTS.  SPARF V. UNITED STATES, 156 U.S. 51. 
BY LEGISLATING AGAINST THE CREATION OF ANY "PRESUMPTION" FROM A FAILURE
TO TESTIFY, CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE MEANT TO LEGISLATE AGAINST THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATION OF THE JURY'S MIND.  IT LAID DOWN CANONS OF
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE TO THE EXTENT THAT HIS
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, CERTAINLY WHEN APPROPRIATELY INVOKED, MIGHT
AFFECT THE BEHAVIOR OF JURORS.  CONCEDEDLY THE CHARGE REQUESTED BY
BRUNO WAS CORRECT.  THE ACT OF MARCH 16, 1878, GAVE HIM THE RIGHT TO
INVOKE IT. 

A SUBSIDIARY QUESTION REMAINS FOR DETERMINATION.  IT DERIVES FROM THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1919, 40 STAT. 1181, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 391,  FN2
WHEREBY APPELLATE COURTS ARE UNDER DUTY IN CRIMINAL AS WELL AS IN CIVIL
CASES TO DISREGARD "TECHNICAL ERRORS, DEFECTS, OR EXCEPTIONS WHICH DO
NOT AFFECT THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES."  IS THE DISREGARD OF
THE RIGHT WHICH CONGRESS GAVE TO BRUNO AN ERROR, THE COMMISSION OF
WHICH WE MAY DISREGARD?  WE HOLD NOT.  IT WOULD BE IDLE TO PREDETERMINE
THE SCOPE OF SUCH A REMEDIAL PROVISION AS SEC. 391 BY ANTICIPATING THE
MYRIAD VARIETIES OF RULINGS MADE IN TRIALS AND ATTEMPTING AN ABSTRACT,
INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF "TECHNICAL ERRORS."  SUFFICE IT TO INDICATE,
WHAT EVERY STUDENT OF THE HISTORY BEHIND THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 26, 1919,
KNOWS, THAT THAT ACT WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT MATTERS CONCERNED WITH THE
MERE ETIQUETTE OF TRIALS AND WITH THE FORMALITIES AND MINUTIAE OF
PROCEDURE FROM TOUCHING THE MERITS OF A VERDICT.  OF A VERY DIFFERENT
ORDER OF IMPORTANCE IS THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO INSIST ON A PRIVILEGE
WHICH CONGRESS HAS GIVEN HIM. 

TO THE SUGGESTION THAT IT BENEFITS A DEFENDANT WHO FAILS TO TAKE THE
STAND NOT TO HAVE THE ATTENTION OF THE JURY DIRECTED TO THAT FACT, IT
SUFFICES TO SAY THAT, HOWEVER DIFFICULT IT MAY BE TO EXERCISE
ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST, THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE HIS
OWN CHOICE WHEN AN ACT OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZES HIM TO CHOOSE.  AND WHEN
IT IS URGED THAT IT IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY NOT TO HAVE A
PRESUMPTION ARISE IN THE MINDS OF JURORS AGAINST AN ACCUSED WHO FAILS
TO TESTIFY, THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT CONGRESS LEGISLATED ON A CONTRARY
ASSUMPTION AND NOT WITHOUT SUPPORT IN EXPERIENCE.  IT WAS FOR CONGRESS
TO DECIDE WHETHER WHAT IT DEEMED LEGALLY SIGNIFICANT WAS
PSYCHOLOGICALLY FUTILE.  CERTAINLY, DESPITE THE VAST ACCUMULATION OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL DATA, WE HAVE NOT YET ATTAINED THAT CERTITUDE ABOUT THE
HUMAN MIND WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY US IN DISREGARDING THE WILL OF CONGRESS
BY A DOGMATIC ASSUMPTION THAT JURORS, IF PROPERLY ADMONISHED, NEITHER
COULD NOR WOULD HEED THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE
FAILURE OF AN ACCUSED TO BE A WITNESS IN HIS OWN CAUSE "SHALL NOT
CREATE ANY PRESUMPTION AGAINST HIM." 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DENIED REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN
GRANTED, AND THE JUDGMENT THEREFORE IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 632: "IN THE TRIAL OF ALL INDICTMENTS, INFORMATIONS,
COMPLAINTS, AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PERSONS CHARGED WITH THE
COMMISSION OF CRIMES, OFFENSES, AND MISDEMEANORS, IN THE UNITED STATES
COURTS, TERRITORIAL COURTS, AND COURTS MARTIAL, AND COURTS OF INQUIRY,
IN ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, INCLUDING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE
PERSON SO CHARGED SHALL, AT HIS OWN REQUEST BUT NOT OTHERWISE, BE A
COMPETENT WITNESS.  AND HIS FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH REQUEST SHALL NOT
CREATE ANY PRESUMPTION AGAINST HIM." 

FN2  SECTION 391:  "ALL UNITED STATES COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO
GRANT NEW TRIALS, IN CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A TRIAL BY JURY, FOR
REASONS FOR WHICH NEW TRIALS HAVE USUALLY BEEN GRANTED IN THE COURTS OF
LAW.  ON THE HEARING OF ANY APPEAL, CERTIORARI, OR MOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL, IN ANY CASE, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, THE COURT SHALL GIVE JUDGMENT
AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT, WITHOUT
REGARD TO TECHNICAL ERRORS, DEFECTS, OR EXCEPTIONS WHICH DO NOT AFFECT
THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :




PEPPER V. LITTON, 308 U.S. 295 


NO. 39.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 10, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  -
100 F.2D 830, REVERSED. 


1.  THE OVERRULING BY A STATE COURT OF A MOTION MADE BY THE TRUSTEE OF
A BANKRUPT CORPORATION TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CORPORATION,
WHERE SUCH MOTION WAS BASED EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE
PRACTICE GOVERNING CONFESSION OF JUDGMENTS WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN
OBTAINING THE JUDGMENT, AND UPON THE GROUND THAT THE AGENT PURPORTING
TO ACT FOR THE CORPORATION IN THE MATTER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, DOES NOT
BAR THE TRUSTEE, ACTING IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ON BEHALF OF OTHER
CREDITORS, FROM ATTACKING THE VALIDITY OR PRIORITY OF THE CLAIM
UNDERLYING THE JUDGMENT,  - MATTERS WHICH WERE NOT IN ISSUE AND COULD
NOT HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING.  P. 302. 

2.  COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY, IN PASSING UPON THE VALIDITY AND PRIORITY
OF CLAIMS, EXERCISE EQUITY POWERS AND HAVE NOT ONLY THE POWER BUT THE
DUTY TO DISALLOW OR SUBORDINATE CLAIMS IF EQUITY AND FAIRNESS SO
REQUIRE.  THAT POWER AND DUTY ARE ESPECIALLY CLEAR WHERE THE CLAIM
SEEKING ALLOWANCE ACCRUES TO THE BENEFIT OF AN OFFICER, DIRECTOR OR
STOCKHOLDER OF THE BANKRUPT.  P. 303. 

3.  MERGER OF A CLAIM IN A JUDGMENT DOES NOT CHANGE ITS NATURE IN SO
FAR AS PROVABILITY IN BANKRUPTCY IS CONCERNED; THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY
MAY LOOK BEHIND THE JUDGMENT TO THE ESSENCE OF THE LIABILITY.  P. 305. 

4.  A DOMINANT AND CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER HAS A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO
CREDITORS IN DEALING WITH THE CORPORATION AND WITH THEM, AND WHEN HIS
TRANSACTIONS ARE CHALLENGED MUST PROVE THE GOOD FAITH OF THE
TRANSACTIONS AND THEIR INHERENT FAIRNESS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE
CORPORATION AND THOSE INTERESTED THEREIN.  THIS OBLIGATION IS
ENFORCEABLE BY THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE CORPORATION.  P. 306. 

5.  A DOMINANT OR CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER OR GROUP OF STOCKHOLDERS
ARE FIDUCIARIES, AS ARE DIRECTORS.  THEIR POWERS ARE POWERS IN TRUST. 
P. 306. 

6.  THE DOMINANT AND CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER OF A CORPORATION,
SCHEMING TO DEFRAUD ONE OF ITS CREDITORS, SUED THE CORPORATION ON
ACCUMULATED UNPAID SALARY CLAIMS, THE AMOUNTS OF WHICH WERE FIXED BY
HIMSELF, AND WHICH HE SOUGHT TO COLLECT ONLY WHEN THE CORPORATION WAS
IN FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES; CAUSED THE CORPORATION TO CONFESS JUDGMENT;
USED THE JUDGMENT TO DELAY THE OTHER CREDITOR; LEVIED ON PART OF THE
CORPORATE PROPERTY AND BOUGHT IT IN AT SHERIFF'S SALE FOR MUCH LESS
THAN HIS JUDGMENT OR THE OTHER CLAIM; TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO A
SECOND "ONE-MAN" CORPORATION FOR SIX TIMES WHAT IT COST HIM AT THE
SALE, PAYABLE IN STOCK; CAUSED THE FIRST CORPORATION TO GO INTO
VOLUNTARY BANKRUPTCY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING PAYMENT OF THE
OTHER CREDITOR'S CLAIM; BOUGHT UP OTHER DEBTS; AND PRESENTED HIS
JUDGMENT AS A CLAIM, PREFERRED IN PART, AGAINST THE REMAINING ASSETS OF
THE BANKRUPT.  HELD, THAT THE JUDGMENT CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DISALLOWED BY
THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY EITHER AS A SECURED OR AS AN UNSECURED CLAIM. 
P. 310. 

7.  THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT LIEN WAS PERFECTED MORE THAN FOUR
MONTHS PRECEDING BANKRUPTCY CAN NOT AFFECT THE RESULT.  P. 312. 

PEPPER V. LITTON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 620, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DISALLOWING A CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
TO DISALLOW EITHER AS A SECURED OR AS A GENERAL OR UNSECURED CLAIM A
JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY THE DOMINANT AND CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER OF THE
BANKRUPT CORPORATION ON ALLEGED SALARY CLAIMS.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DISALLOWING THE CLAIM WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS (100 F.2D 830).  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN
APPARENT RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THAT DECISION ON THE POWER OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT TO DISALLOW OR TO SUBORDINATE SUCH CLAIMS IN EXERCISE
OF ITS BROAD EQUITABLE POWERS. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE,
REVEAL A SCHEME TO DEFRAUD CREDITORS REMINISCENT OF SOME OF THE EVILS
WITH WHICH 13 ELIZ.  C. 5 WAS DESIGNED TO COPE.  BUT FOR THE USE OF A
SO-CALLED "ONE-MAN" OR FAMILY CORPORATION, DIXIE SPLINT COAL COMPANY,
OF WHICH RESPONDENT WAS THE DOMINANT AND CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER, THAT
SCHEME FOLLOWED AN ANCIENT PATTERN. 

IN 1931 PEPPER, THE PETITIONER, BROUGHT SUIT IN A STATE COURT IN
VIRGINIA AGAINST DIXIE SPLINT COAL COMPANY AND LITTON, THE RESPONDENT,
FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF ROYALTIES DUE PEPPER UNDER A LEASE.  FN1  WHILE
THIS SUIT WAS PENDING AND IN ANTICIPATION THAT PEPPER WOULD RECOVER,
LITTON CAUSED DIXIE SPLINT COAL COMPANY TO CONFESS A JUDGMENT IN
LITTON'S FAVOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,468.89, REPRESENTING ALLEGED
ACCUMULATED SALARY CLAIMS DATING BACK AT LEAST FIVE YEARS.  THIS WAS
DONE BY P. H. SMITH, SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF DIXIE SPLINT COAL
COMPANY, WHO, ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT, WAS "AN EMPLOYEE OF
LITTON AND SUBSERVIENT TO THE LATTER'S WILL."  THIS WAS ON JUNE 2,
1933.  EXECUTION WAS ISSUED ON THIS JUDGMENT THE SAME DAY BUT NO RETURN
WAS MADE THEREON, LITTON WAITING "QUIETLY UNTIL THE OUTCOME OF THE
PEPPER SUIT WAS DEFINITELY KNOWN."  ON FEBRUARY 19, 1934, PEPPER
OBTAINED A JUDGMENT AGAINST DIXIE SPLINT COAL COMPANY FOR $9,000.  ON
MOTION OF THE COMPANY, EXECUTION ON THE JUDGMENT WAS SUSPENDED FOR
NINETY DAYS TO PERMIT AN APPEAL.  BUT DEFENDANT IN THAT SUIT DID NOT
APPEAL.  FN2  INSTEAD, ON MARCH 19, 1934, WHILE EXECUTION ON THE PEPPER
JUDGMENT WAS SUSPENDED, LITTON CAUSED AN EXECUTION TO ISSUE ON HIS
CONFESSED JUDGMENT AND LEVY TO BE MADE THEREUNDER.  YET LITTON "HAD NO
INTENTION OF TRYING TO SATISFY HIS CONFESSED JUDGMENT" AGAINST HIS
CORPORATION "UNLESS AND UNTIL IT BECAME NECESSARY TO DO SO"; HE WAS
USING IT "ONLY AS A SHIELD AGAINST THE PEPPER DEBT."  THUS, WHEN
EXECUTION AND LEVY WERE MADE MARCH 19, 1934, NO STEPS WERE TAKEN FOR
OVER TWO MONTHS TOWARDS A SALE OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH LEVY HAD BEEN
MADE.  ON MAY 31, 1934, PEPPER CAUSED AN EXECUTION TO ISSUE ON HER
JUDGMENT, AND LEVY WAS MADE JUNE 2, 1934.  ON THIS LATTER DATE THE
SHERIFF "WHO SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN COOPERATING WITH LITTON" ADVERTISED THE
PROPERTY FOR SALE UNDER THE LITTON LEVY MADE IN THE PREVIOUS MARCH.  ON
JUNE 14, 1934, THE SALE WAS HELD AND LITTON BECAME THE PURCHASER OF THE
PROPERTY SOLD AT THE SUM OF $3,200. 

THE NEXT STEP IN THE "PLANNED AND FRAUDULENT SCHEME" WAS THE
FORMATION BY LITTON OF "ANOTHER OF HIS ONE-MAN CORPORATIONS," DIXIE
BEAVER COAL COMPANY, TO WHICH LITTON TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY HE HAD
ACQUIRED AT THE EXECUTION SALE AT A VALUATION OF $20,135.36 TO BE PAID
FOR IN STOCK OF THE NEW COMPANY.  FN3 

ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1934, THE THIRD STEP IN LITTON'S SCHEME WAS TAKEN. 
ON THAT DATE DIXIE SPLINT COAL COMPANY, PURSUANT TO A RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PASSED JUNE 16, 1934, (TWO DAYS AFTER THE LITTON
EXECUTION SALE) FILED A VOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.  THIS STEP,
ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS BELOW WAS "PLAINLY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
AVOIDING PAYMENT OF THE PEPPER DEBT."  THE BANKRUPT AT THAT TIME HAD
$4,500 ON BANK DEPOSIT AND $12,000 IN ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, MOST OF
WHICH WAS GOOD.  THE CASH ON DEPOSIT WAS THEN MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO
PAY ALL CREDITORS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PEPPER.  AND LITTON CAUSED THE
VOLUNTARY PETITION TO BE FILED "FEELING CONFIDENT THAT HIS CONFESSED
JUDGMENT WOULD COVER AND CONSUME" THE REMAINING ASSETS.  ADJUDICATION
FOLLOWED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1934. 

LITTON'S NEXT STEP IN HIS SCHEME TO DEFEAT THE PEPPER CLAIM WAS TO
PURCHASE WAGE CLAIMS AGAINST THE BANKRUPT AND TO CAUSE "IN SOME MANNER"
OTHER CLAIMS TO BE WITHDRAWN.  THIS WAS DONE, ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT
COURT, SO THAT PEPPER MIGHT BE MADE TO APPEAR AS THE ONLY GENERAL
CREDITOR - A SITUATION DESIGNED TO GIVE LITTON A DECIDED TECHNICAL
ADVANTAGE, AS WE SHALL SEE. 

ON JUNE 13, 1934, PEPPER HAD INSTITUTED SUIT IN THE VIRGINIA STATE
COURT TO HAVE THE LITTON JUDGMENT DECLARED VOID.  ON JUNE 15, 1934, THE
DAY FOLLOWING THE SALE UNDER THE LITTON EXECUTION, THE SHERIFF
INSTITUTED AN INTERPLEADER ACTION JOINING LITTON, PEPPER AND THE
CLINCHFIELD COAL CORPORATION AND ALLEGING, INTER ALIA, THAT THAT
CORPORATION HAD A PRIOR LIEN ON ALL THE PROPERTY SOLD FOR A DEBT OF
$2,153.  LITTON AND PEPPER BOTH ANSWERED ADMITTING THE PRIOR LIEN OF
THE CORPORATION, PEPPER ANSWERING "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HER RIGHTS"
ASSERTED IN THE CHANCERY CAUSE TO HAVE THE LITTON JUDGMENT SET ASIDE. 
ON JULY 18, 1934, AN ORDER IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT WAS ENTERED
DIRECTING PAYMENT OF $2,153.00 TO THE CLINCHFIELD COAL CORPORATION. 

THEREAFTER THE TRUSTEE, WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT,
MOVED IN THE STATE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND TO QUASH THE
EXECUTION THEREOF ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS VOID SINCE IT HAD
NOT BEEN CONFESSED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE VIRGINIA STATUTE.  FN4
THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE LITTON JUDGMENT WAS VOID BUT DENIED THE
MOTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE TRUSTEE WAS ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE IT.
THE COURT HELD THAT PEPPER IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT HAD TREATED THE
FUND DERIVED FROM THE EXECUTION SALE UNDER THE LITTON JUDGMENT AS VALID
AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD ELECTED TO RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF THE
JUDGMENT.  SINCE LITTON HAD ACQUIRED, OR CAUSED TO HAVE WITHDRAWN, ALL
THE REMAINING CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE, THE TRUSTEE IN THIS SUIT WAS
REPRESENTING ONLY PEPPER.  THEREFORE, SINCE PEPPER WAS ESTOPPED, SO WAS
THE TRUSTEE.  ON APPEAL THAT JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED ON THOSE GROUNDS. 
SMITH V. LITTON, 167 VA. 263; 188 S.E. 214. 

THEREAFTER THE QUESTION OF THE ALLOWANCE OF THE LITTON JUDGMENT CAME
BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ON EXCEPTIONS PREVIOUSLY MADE BY PEPPER. 
THAT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE DECISION BY THE STATE COURT THAT THE
TRUSTEE WAS ESTOPPED TO ATTACK THE LITTON JUDGMENT THERE, DID NOT
PREVENT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FROM CONSIDERING ITS VALIDITY.  IT
THEREFORE REVIEWED ALL THE FACTS AND CONCLUDED (1) THAT LITTON AND THE
DIXIE SPLINT COAL COMPANY HAD MADE A "DELIBERATE AND CAREFULLY PLANNED
ATTEMPT" TO AVOID "THE PAYMENT OF A JUST DEBT"; (2) THAT LITTON AND THE
DIXIE SPLINT COAL COMPANY WERE "IN REALITY THE SAME"; AND (3) THAT THE
ALLEGED SALARY CLAIMS UNDERLYING THE LITTON JUDGMENT DID NOT REPRESENT
AN "HONEST DEBT" OF THE BANKRUPT CORPORATION, BEING MERELY BOOKKEEPING
ENTRIES FOR THE DOUBLE PURPOSE OF LESSENING INCOME TAXES AND OF
ENABLING LITTON TO APPEAR AS A CREDITOR OF THE CORPORATION IN CASE IT
BECAME FINANCIALLY INVOLVED.  FN5  ACCORDINGLY, THE DISTRICT COURT
DISALLOWED THE LITTON CLAIM EITHER AS A SECURED OR UNSECURED CLAIM AND
DIRECTED THE TRUSTEE TO RECOVER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE THE
PROPERTY OR ITS VALUE WHICH LITTON PURCHASED AT THE EXECUTION SALE ON
JUNE 14, 1934.  ON APPEAL THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THAT
JUDGMENT HOLDING THAT THE DECISION IN THE STATE COURT WAS RES JUDICATA
IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS. 

WE THINK THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR IN REVERSING
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, RES JUDICATA DID NOT PREVENT THE DISTRICT COURT
FROM EXAMINING INTO THE LITTON JUDGMENT AND DISALLOWING OR
SUBORDINATING IT AS A CLAIM.  WHEN THAT CLAIM WAS ATTACKED IN THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT LITTON DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PROCEEDING IN THE STATE
COURT WAS ANYTHING MORE THAN A PROCEEDING UNDER VIRGINIA PRACTICE TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS IRREGULAR
OR VOID UPON ITS FACE.  HE FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE JUDGMENT IN THE
STATE COURT WAS CONCLUSIVE IN HIS FAVOR ON THE VALIDITY OR PRIORITY OF
THE UNDERLYING CLAIM, AS RESPECTS THE OTHER CREDITORS OF THE BANKRUPT
CORPORATION - A DUTY WHICH WAS INCUMBENT ON HIM.  ON THE PLEADINGS IN
THE STATE COURT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING CLAIM WAS NOT IN ISSUE. 
NOR WAS THERE PRESENTED TO THE STATE COURT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR
NOT THE LITTON JUDGMENT MIGHT BE SUBORDINATED TO THE CLAIMS OF OTHER
CREDITORS UPON EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  THE MOTION ON WHICH THAT
PROCEEDING WAS BASED CHALLENGED THE LITTON JUDGMENT ON ONE GROUND ONLY,
VIZ., THAT IT WAS VOID AB INITIO BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CONFESSED BY DIXIE
SPLINT COAL COMPANY IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE VIRGINIA STATUTE AND
BECAUSE P. H. SMITH DID NOT HAVE EITHER AN IMPLIED OR EXPRESS POWER TO
CONFESS IT.  IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE STATE COURT UNDER THE PLEADINGS AND
PRACTICE, THE ONLY DECREE WHICH WAS ASKED OR COULD BE GIVEN IN THE
PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR WAS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE JUDGMENT AS A RECORD
OBLIGATION OF THE BANKRUPT.  IT IS THEREFORE PLAIN THAT THE ISSUE WHICH
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT LATER CONSIDERED WAS NOT AN ISSUE IN THE TRIAL OF
THE CAUSE IN THE STATE COURT AND COULD NOT BE ADJUDICATED THERE.  FN6
HENCE, THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF LITTON TO ESTABLISH THAT THE STATE
JUDGMENT WAS RES JUDICATA PLUS HIS SUBMISSION OF HIS JUDGMENT TO THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR ALLOWANCE (AS A PREFERRED CLAIM TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT WAS SECURED BY THE ALLEGED LIEN AND AS A COMMON CLAIM AS RESPECTS
THE DEFICIENCY) PLAINLY LEFT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WITH FULL AUTHORITY
TO FOLLOW THE COURSE IT TOOK AND TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF LITTON'S
ALLEGED SECURED CLAIM AND THE PRIORITY WHICH SHOULD BE ACCORDED IT IN
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, EVEN
THOUGH WE ASSUME THAT THE ALLEGED SALARY CLAIM ON WHICH THE LITTON
JUDGMENT WAS BASED WAS NOT FICTITIOUS BUT ACTUALLY EXISTED, WE ARE OF
THE OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DISALLOWED OR SUBORDINATED
IT. 

COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY ARE CONSTITUTED BY SECS. 1 AND 2 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (30 STAT. 544) AND BY THE LATTER SECTION ARE INVESTED
"WITH SUCH JURISDICTION AT LAW AND IN EQUITY AS WILL ENABLE THEM TO
EXERCISE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS." 
CONSEQUENTLY THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT FOR MANY PURPOSES "COURTS OF
BANKRUPTCY ARE ESSENTIALLY COURTS OF EQUITY, AND THEIR PROCEEDINGS
INHERENTLY PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY."  LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S.
234, 240.  BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 2 A BANKRUPTCY COURT IS A COURT OF EQUITY
AT LEAST IN THE SENSE THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION
CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE ACT, IT APPLIES THE PRINCIPLES AND RULES OF
EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE.  LARSON V. FIRST STATE BANK, 21 F.2D 936, 938. 
AMONG THE GRANTED POWERS ARE THE ALLOWANCE AND DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS;
FN7  THE COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATES OF BANKRUPTS AND
THE DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSIES IN RELATION THERETO; FN8  THE
REJECTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART "ACCORDING TO THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE"
OF CLAIMS PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED; FN9  AND THE ENTERING OF SUCH JUDGMENTS
"AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS" OF THE
ACT.  FN10  IN SUCH RESPECTS THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
IS EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHER COURTS.  UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY
CO. V. BRAY, 225 U.S. 205, 217. 

THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS HAVE EXERCISED THESE EQUITABLE POWERS IN
PASSING ON A WIDE RANGE OF PROBLEMS ARISING OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION
OF BANKRUPT ESTATES.  FN11  THEY HAVE BEEN INVOKED TO THE END THAT
FRAUD WILL NOT PREVAIL, THAT SUBSTANCE WILL NOT GIVE WAY TO FORM, THAT
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS WILL NOT PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE FROM
BEING DONE.  BY REASON OF THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 THESE
EQUITABLE POWERS ARE TO BE EXERCISED ON THE ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS, A
CONCLUSION WHICH IS FORTIFIED BY SEC. 57(K).  FN12  FOR CERTAINLY IF,
AS PROVIDED IN THE LATTER SECTION, A CLAIM WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED MAY
BE LATER "REJECTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ACCORDING TO THE EQUITIES OF
THE CASE," DISALLOWANCE OR SUBORDINATION IN LIGHT OF EQUITABLE
CONSIDERATIONS MAY ORIGINALLY BE MADE. 

HENCE, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT A BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS FULL POWER TO
INQUIRE INTO THE VALIDITY OF ANY CLAIM ASSERTED AGAINST THE ESTATE AND
TO DISALLOW IT IF IT IS ASCERTAINED TO BE WITHOUT LAWFUL EXISTENCE. 
LESSER V. GRAY, 236 U.S. 70.  AND THE MERE FACT THAT A CLAIM HAS BEEN
REDUCED TO JUDGMENT DOES NOT PREVENT SUCH AN INQUIRY.  AS THE MERGER OF
A CLAIM INTO A JUDGMENT DOES NOT CHANGE ITS NATURE SO FAR AS
PROVABILITY IS CONCERNED, BOYNTON V. BALL, 121 U.S. 457, SO THE COURT
MAY LOOK BEHIND THE JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE
LIABILITY FOR PURPOSES OF PROOF AND ALLOWANCE.  WETMORE V. MARKOE, 196
U.S. 68.  IT MAY ASCERTAIN THE VALIDITY OF LIENS, MARSHAL THEM, AND
CONTROL THEIR ENFORCEMENT AND LIQUIDATION.  ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE &
TIMBER CO., 282 U.S. 734.  AND THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE MAY COLLATERALLY
ATTACK A JUDGMENT OFFERED AS A CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE FOR THE PURPOSE
OF SHOWING THAT IT WAS OBTAINED BY COLLUSION OF THE PARTIES OR IS
FOUNDED UPON NO REAL DEBT.  FN13    THAT EQUITABLE POWER ALSO EXISTS IN
PASSING ON CLAIMS PRESENTED BY AN OFFICER, DIRECTOR, OR STOCKHOLDER IN
THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS OF HIS CORPORATION.  THE MERE FACT THAT AN
OFFICER, DIRECTOR, OR STOCKHOLDER HAS A CLAIM AGAINST HIS BANKRUPT
CORPORATION OR THAT HE HAS REDUCED THAT CLAIM TO JUDGMENT DOES NOT MEAN
THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MUST ACCORD IT PARI PASSU TREATMENT WITH THE
CLAIMS OF OTHER CREDITORS.  ITS DISALLOWANCE OR SUBORDINATION MAY BE
NECESSITATED BY CERTAIN CARDINAL PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE.  A
DIRECTOR IS A FIDUCIARY.  TWIN-LICK OIL CO. V. MARBURY, 91 U.S. 587,
588.  SO IS A DOMINANT OR CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER OR GROUP OF
STOCKHOLDERS.  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. BOGERT, 250 U.S. 483, 492. 
THEIR POWERS ARE POWERS IN TRUST.  SEE JACKSON V. LUDELING, 21 WALL. 
616, 624.  THEIR DEALINGS WITH THE CORPORATION ARE SUBJECTED TO
RIGOROUS SCRUTINY AND WHERE ANY OF THEIR CONTRACTS OR ENGAGEMENTS WITH
THE CORPORATION IS CHALLENGED THE BURDEN IS ON THE DIRECTOR OR
STOCKHOLDER NOT ONLY TO PROVE THE GOOD FAITH OF THE TRANSACTION BUT
ALSO TO SHOW ITS INHERENT FAIRNESS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE
CORPORATION AND THOSE INTERESTED THEREIN.  GEDDES V. ANACONDA COPPER
MINING CO., 254 U.S. 590, 599.  THE ESSENCE OF THE TEST IS WHETHER OR
NOT UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRANSACTION CARRIES THE EARMARKS OF
AN ARM'S LENGTH BARGAIN.  FN14  IF IT DOES NOT, EQUITY WILL SET IT
ASIDE.  WHILE NORMALLY THAT FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION IS ENFORCEABLE
DIRECTLY BY THE CORPORATION, OR THROUGH A STOCKHOLDER'S DERIVATIVE
ACTION,  FN15  IT IS, IN THE EVENT OF BANKRUPTCY OF THE CORPORATION,
ENFORCEABLE BY THE TRUSTEE.  FN16 FOR THAT STANDARD OF FIDUCIARY
OBLIGATION IS DESIGNED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY OF
INTERESTS IN THE CORPORATION  FN17  - CREDITORS AS WELL AS
STOCKHOLDERS. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN PASSING ON ALLOWANCE OF
CLAIMS SITS AS A COURT OF EQUITY.  HENCE THESE RULES GOVERNING THE
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS COME INTO PLAY
ON ALLOWANCE OF THEIR CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
EQUITABLE JURISDICTION THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS THE POWER TO SIFT THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ANY CLAIM TO SEE THAT INJUSTICE OR UNFAIRNESS
IS NOT DONE IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATE.  FN18  AND ITS
DUTY SO TO DO IS ESPECIALLY CLEAR WHEN THE CLAIM SEEKING ALLOWANCE
ACCRUES TO THE BENEFIT OF AN OFFICER, DIRECTOR, OR STOCKHOLDER.  THAT
IS CLEARLY THE POWER AND DUTY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS UNDER THE
REORGANIZATION SECTIONS.  IN TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 306
U.S. 307, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF STANDARD AGAINST ITS
SUBSIDIARY (ADMITTEDLY A CLAIM DUE AND OWING) SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE REORGANIZATION PLAN OF THE SUBSIDIARY ONLY IN
SUBORDINATION TO THE PREFERRED STOCK OF THE SUBSIDIARY.  THIS WAS BASED
ON THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE - THE HISTORY OF SPOLIATION, MISMANAGEMENT,
AND FAITHLESS STEWARDSHIP OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BY STANDARD
TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PUBLIC INVESTORS.  SIMILAR RESULTS HAVE
PROPERLY BEEN REACHED IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  THUS, SALARY
CLAIMS OF OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND STOCKHOLDERS IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF
"ONE-MAN" OR FAMILY CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED OR SUBORDINATED
WHERE THE COURTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED THAT ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIMS WOULD
NOT BE FAIR OR EQUITABLE TO OTHER CREDITORS.  FN19  AND THAT RESULT MAY
BE REACHED EVEN THOUGH THE SALARY CLAIM HAS BEEN REDUCED TO JUDGMENT. 
FN20  IT IS REACHED WHERE THE CLAIM ASSERTED IS VOID OR VOIDABLE
BECAUSE THE VOTE OF THE INTERESTED DIRECTOR OR STOCKHOLDER HELPED BRING
IT INTO BEING OR WHERE THE HISTORY OF THE CORPORATION SHOWS DOMINANCY
AND EXPLOITATION ON THE PART OF THE CLAIMANT.  FN21  IT IS ALSO REACHED
WHERE ON THE FACTS THE BANKRUPT HAS BEEN USED MERELY AS A CORPORATE
POCKET OF THE DOMINANT STOCKHOLDER, WHO, WITH DISREGARD OF THE
SUBSTANCE OR FORM OF CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, HAS TREATED ITS AFFAIRS AS
HIS OWN.  FN22  AND SO-CALLED LOANS OR ADVANCES BY THE DOMINANT OR
CONTROLLING STOCKHOLDER WILL BE SUBORDINATED TO CLAIMS OF OTHER
CREDITORS AND THUS TREATED IN EFFECT AS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE
STOCKHOLDER NOT ONLY IN THE FOREGOING TYPES OF SITUATIONS BUT ALSO
WHERE THE PAID-IN CAPITAL IS PURELY NOMINAL, THE CAPITAL NECESSARY FOR
THE SCOPE AND MAGNITUDE OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY BEING
FURNISHED BY THE STOCKHOLDER AS A LOAN.  FN23 

THOUGH DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIMS WILL BE ORDERED WHERE THEY ARE
FICTITIOUS OR A SHAM,  FN24 THESE CASES DO NOT TURN ON THE EXISTENCE OR
NON-EXISTENCE OF THE DEBT.  RATHER THEY INVOLVE SIMPLY THE QUESTION OF
ORDER OF PAYMENT.  FN25  AT TIMES EQUITY HAS ORDERED DISALLOWANCE OR
SUBORDINATION BY DISREGARDING THE CORPORATE ENTITY.  FN26  THAT IS TO
SAY, IT HAS TREATED THE DEBTOR-CORPORATION SIMPLY AS A PART OF THE
STOCKHOLDER'S OWN ENTERPRISE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE COURSE OF CONDUCT
OF THE STOCKHOLDER.  BUT IN THAT SITUATION AS WELL AS IN THE OTHERS TO
WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED, A SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION MAY BE SIMPLY THE
VIOLATION OF RULES OF FAIR PLAY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE BY THE CLAIMANT; A
BREACH OF THE FIDUCIARY STANDARDS OF CONDUCT WHICH HE OWES THE
CORPORATION, ITS STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS.  HE WHO IS IN SUCH A
FIDUCIARY POSITION CANNOT SERVE HIMSELF FIRST AND HIS CESTUIS SECOND. 
HE CANNOT MANIPULATE THE AFFAIRS OF HIS CORPORATION TO THEIR DETRIMENT
AND IN DISREGARD OF THE STANDARDS OF COMMON DECENCY AND HONESTY.  HE
CANNOT BY THE INTERVENTION OF A CORPORATE ENTITY VIOLATE THE ANCIENT
PRECEPT AGAINST SERVING TWO MASTERS.  FN27  HE CANNOT BY THE USE OF THE
CORPORATE DEVICE AVAIL HIMSELF OF PRIVILEGES NORMALLY PERMITTED
OUTSIDERS IN A RACE OF CREDITORS.  HE CANNOT UTILIZE HIS INSIDE
INFORMATION AND HIS STRATEGIC POSITION FOR HIS OWN PREFERMENT.  HE
CANNOT VIOLATE RULES OF FAIR PLAY BY DOING INDIRECTLY THROUGH THE
CORPORATION WHAT HE COULD NOT DO DIRECTLY.  HE CANNOT USE HIS POWER FOR
HIS PERSONAL ADVANTAGE AND TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AND
CREDITORS NO MATTER HOW ABSOLUTE IN TERMS THAT POWER MAY BE AND NO
MATTER HOW METICULOUS HE IS TO SATISFY TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS.  FOR
THAT POWER IS AT ALL TIMES SUBJECT TO THE EQUITABLE LIMITATION THAT IT
MAY NOT BE EXERCISED FOR THE AGGRANDIZEMENT, PREFERENCE, OR ADVANTAGE
OF THE FIDUCIARY TO THE EXCLUSION OR DETRIMENT OF THE CESTUIS.  WHERE
THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THOSE PRINCIPLES, EQUITY WILL UNDO THE WRONG OR
INTERVENE TO PREVENT ITS CONSUMMATION. 

ON SUCH A TEST THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN DISALLOWING OR
SUBORDINATING LITTON'S CLAIM WAS CLEARLY CORRECT.  LITTON ALLOWED HIS
SALARY CLAIMS TO LIE DORMANT FOR YEARS AND SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THEM ONLY
WHEN HIS DEBTOR CORPORATION WAS IN FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY.  THEN HE USED
THEM SO THAT THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER CREDITOR WERE IMPAIRED.  LITTON AS
AN INSIDER UTILIZED HIS STRATEGIC POSITION FOR HIS OWN PREFERMENT TO
THE DAMAGE OF PEPPER.  LITTON AS THE DOMINANT INFLUENCE OVER DIXIE
SPLINT COAL COMPANY USED HIS POWER NOT TO DEAL FAIRLY WITH THE
CREDITORS OF THAT COMPANY BUT TO MANIPULATE ITS AFFAIRS IN SUCH A
MANNER THAT WHEN ONE OF ITS CREDITORS CAME TO COLLECT HER JUST DEBT THE
BULK OF THE ASSETS HAD DISAPPEARED INTO ANOTHER LITTON COMPANY. 
LITTON, THOUGH A FIDUCIARY, WAS ENABLED BY ASTUTE LEGAL MANOEUVRING TO
ACQUIRE MOST OF THE ASSETS OF THE BANKRUPT NOT FOR CASH OR OTHER
CONSIDERATION OF VALUE TO CREDITORS BUT FOR BOOKKEEPING ENTRIES
REPRESENTING AT BEST MERELY LITTON'S APPRAISAL OF THE WORTH OF LITTON'S
SERVICES OVER THE YEARS. 

THIS ALONE WOULD BE A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE BY THE
DISTRICT COURT OF ITS EQUITABLE POWERS IN DISALLOWING THE LITTON
CLAIM.  BUT WHEN THERE IS ADDED THE EXISTENCE OF A "PLANNED AND
FRAUDULENT SCHEME," AS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT, THE NECESSITY OF
EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST THAT FRAUD BECOMES INSISTENT.  NO MATTER HOW
TECHNICALLY LEGAL EACH STEP IN THAT SCHEME MAY HAVE BEEN, ONCE ITS
BASIC NATURE WAS UNCOVERED IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN
THE EXERCISE OF ITS EQUITY JURISDICTION TO UNDO IT.  OTHERWISE, THE
FIDUCIARY DUTIES OF DOMINANT OR MANAGEMENT STOCKHOLDERS WOULD GO FOR
NAUGHT; EXPLOITATION WOULD BECOME A SUBSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE; AND EQUITY
WOULD BE PERVERTED AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR APPROVING WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED
TO THWART. 

THE FACT THAT LITTON PERFECTED HIS LIEN MORE THAN FOUR MONTHS
PRECEDING BANKRUPTCY IS NO OBSTACLE TO EQUITABLE RELIEF.  IN THE FIRST
PLACE, THAT LIEN WAS BUT A STEP IN A GENERAL FRAUDULENT PLAN WHICH MUST
BE VIEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY.  THE SUBSEQUENT SALE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN
ISOLATED STEP UNCONNECTED WITH THE LONG ANTECEDENT EVENTS, ALL DESIGNED
TO DEFEAT CREDITORS.  BUFFUM V. PETER BARCELOUX CO., 289 U.S. 227, 232
233.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, LITTON IS SEEKING APPROVAL BY THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT OF HIS CLAIM.  THE FOUR MONTHS' PROVISION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
IS CERTAINLY NOT A STATUTORY LIMITATION ON EQUITABLE DEFENSES ARISING
OUT OF A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES BY HIM WHO SEEKS ALLOWANCE OF A
CLAIM. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS WE DO NOT HAVE OCCASION TO DETERMINE
THE LEGITIMACY OF THE "ONE-MAN" CORPORATION AS A BULWARK AGAINST THE
CLAIMS OF CREDITORS.  FN28 

ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED
AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  DURING THIS LITIGATION A. P. PEPPER, THE PLAINTIFF, DIED AND THE
SUIT WAS CONTINUED IN THE NAME OF JEAN MCNEIL PEPPER, AS HIS
EXECUTRIX. 

FN2  PLAINTIFF, HOWEVER, DID APPEAL ON CERTAIN PHASES OF THE CASE. 
SEE PEPPER V. DIXIE SPLINT COAL CO., 165 VA. 179; 181 S.E. 406. 

FN3  THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THIS NEW COMPANY
CERTIFIED THAT IN THEIR OPINION THE PROPERTY "FORMERLY OWNED BY DIXIE
SPLINT COAL COMPANY AND NOW OWNED BY SCOTT LITTON IS WORTH $20,135.36
IN CURRENT MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES AND WE FIX THE VALUE OF THE SAME
AT THIS SUM, WHICH IS TO BE PAID FOR IN STOCK." 

FN4  AT THE FIRST MEETING OF CREDITORS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1934,
THE STRATEGIC POSITION OF LITTON WAS FURTHER IMPROVED BY TWO OTHER
EVENTS WHICH LATER THE DISTRICT COURT QUITE PROPERLY DENOUNCED.  IN THE
FIRST PLACE, P. H. SMITH, SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF DIXIE SPLINT COAL
COMPANY AND THE ONE WHO HAD CAUSED THE ENTRY OF THE LITTON JUDGMENT ON
JUNE 2, 1933, BY CONFESSION AGAINST THE COMPANY, WAS ELECTED TRUSTEE. 
IN THE SECOND PLACE, SMITH WAS AUTHORIZED TO EMPLOY, AND DID IN FACT
EMPLOY, AS ATTORNEY FOR THE TRUSTEE, ONE I. M. QUILLEN.  QUILLEN, OR
HIS FIRM, WAS ATTORNEY FOR DIXIE SPLINT COAL COMPANY.  AS SUCH HE OR
HIS FIRM HAD PREPARED AND FILED THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE
COMPANY.  AND HE APPEARED AT THE FIRST MEETING OF CREDITORS AS COUNSEL
FOR THE BANKRUPT AND YET AT THAT TIME, AS ATTORNEY FOR LITTON, FILED
THE CLAIM OF LITTON FOR $33,468.89 AS A PREFERRED OR SECURED CLAIM. 
AND AT THE TIME THESE APPOINTMENTS WERE MADE THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
PEPPER AND LITTON OVER THE LATTER'S JUDGMENT WAS KNOWN AND RECOGNIZED,
ALTHOUGH FORMAL PROOF OF THE PEPPER CLAIM WAS NOT FILED UNTIL NOVEMBER
8, 1934.  THE GRAVE IMPROPRIETY OF THESE APPOINTMENTS BECAME STRIKING
AS ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE WAS COMMENCED. 

ON OCTOBER 6, 1934, PEPPER MOVED IN HER STATE COURT ACTION TO QUASH
ALL EXECUTION ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING ON THE LITTON JUDGMENT.  QUILLEN,
ATTORNEY FOR THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE, APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE
MOTION, ACTING AS ATTORNEY FOR LITTON, AND CONTENDED THAT THE
INTERVENTION OF BANKRUPTCY HAD DEPRIVED THE STATE COURT OF
JURISDICTION.  THE STATE COURT RESERVED DECISION.  ON OCTOBER 15, 1934,
PEPPER PETITIONED THE REFEREE TO DIRECT THE TRUSTEE TO CONTEST THE
LITTON JUDGMENT IN THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING.  QUILLEN, STATING THAT
HE ACTED AS ATTORNEY FOR LITTON, OPPOSED THE PETITION.  AFTER SOME
DELAY, NEW COUNSEL FOR THE TRUSTEE WERE OBTAINED WHO SOON ASKED THE
COURT FOR AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE A NEW AND INDEPENDENT SUIT IN THE
STATE COURT TO HAVE THE LITTON JUDGMENT DECLARED VOID.  THIS AUTHORITY
WAS GRANTED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, THOUGH CONDEMNING SUCH STEPS, STATED IT DID NOT
SUGGEST THAT SMITH AND QUILLEN WERE ACTING "WITH ANY FRAUDULENT PLAN OR
INTENTION OF UTILIZING THEIR POSITIONS IN AID OF LITTON AND TO THE
DETRIMENT OF THE ESTATE."  YET HE DENOUNCED THE IMPROPRIETY OF SUCH
CONDUCT AND EMPHASIZED THE INCOMPATIBLE AND CONFLICTING POSITIONS WHICH
THESE PERSONS OCCUPIED.  ON THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OF THE CONDUCT OF
QUILLEN, THE DISTRICT COURT APTLY OBSERVED:  "IT IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED
THAT AN ATTORNEY FOR THE BANKRUPT SHOULD NOT BE CHOSEN ATTORNEY FOR THE
TRUSTEE IN ANY CASE.  AND IT IS EVEN MORE EVIDENT THAT AN ATTORNEY WHO
REPRESENTS A CREDITOR WHOSE CLAIM IS UNDER ATTACK SHOULD NOT BE CHOSEN
AS ATTORNEY FOR THE TRUSTEE WHO, ON BEHALF OF OTHER CREDITORS, IS
CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF MAKING THAT ATTACK." 

FN5  THIS CONCLUSION WAS BASED ON THE HISTORY AND NATURE OF THE
CLAIMS FOR SALARY.  LITTON'S ALLEGED CLAIM OF $33,468.89 REPRESENTED
$7,427.25 OWED LITTON AND $26,041.64 OWED P. H. SMITH WHICH THE LATTER
HAD ASSIGNED TO LITTON FOR $1 AND "OTHER CONSIDERATIONS" WHICH LITTON
WAS UNABLE TO RECALL.  AS WE HAVE NOTED, THESE CLAIMS DATE BACK OVER A
NUMBER OF YEARS.  THE REGULAR SALARIES PAID LITTON AND SMITH WERE
ENTERED ON THE CORPORATION'S BOOKS UNDER A "PAYROLL" ACCOUNT; THE
SALARY CLAIMS HERE IN QUESTION WERE CARRIED UNDER SEPARATE ACCOUNTS,
"P. H. SMITH - PERSONAL" AND "SCOTT LITTON - PERSONAL."  NO SUMS WERE
PAID SMITH FROM THAT PERSONAL ACCOUNT.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED
THAT IT WAS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT SMITH, A BOOKKEEPER AND CLERK, WHO HAD
BEEN PAID $2,700 A YEAR, SHOULD, WITH NO CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF HIS
WORK, RECEIVE A SUDDEN INCREASE IN SALARY TO $8,000 A YEAR, EXCEPT UPON
AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS MERELY FOR RECORD PURPOSES AND NOT TO BE
PAID.  THIS CONCLUSION WAS STRENGTHENED BY THE FACT THAT THE $26,041.64
ACCUMULATED FOR OVER FIVE YEARS WITH NO EFFORT ON SMITH'S PART TO
COLLECT IT AND BY THE FACT THAT SHORTLY BEFORE BANKRUPTCY HE ASSIGNED
THE CLAIM TO LITTON FOR A NOMINAL CONSIDERATION.  AS TO THE $7,427.25
ALLEGED TO BE OWED LITTON THE COURT LIKEWISE CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD BEEN
ENTERED ON THE BOOKS FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES AND WAS NOT A "BONA FIDE
OBLIGATION" OF THE COMPANY.  FURTHERMORE, A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THESE
CLAIMS WAS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  ON THE MOST TOLERANT
ASSUMPTION THAT COULD BE MADE, ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THE SALARIES
CREDITED TO LITTON AND SMITH WERE MERELY CONTINGENT OR CONDITIONAL
OBLIGATIONS NOT PROVABLE SINCE THEY WERE INTENDED TO BE PAID ONLY
WHENEVER THE PROFITS OF THE COMPANY PERMITTED.  HENCE THEY WERE NOT
FIXED LIABILITIES ABSOLUTELY OWING.  SEE SEC. 63(A)(1). 

FN6  IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THERE IS AUTHORITY FOR THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE TRUSTEE IS NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDED FROM QUESTIONING A
JUDGMENT IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS MERELY BECAUSE HE ATTACKED IT IN
A STATE COURT PROCEEDING, WHERE THE STATE COURT DID NOT PASS UPON THE
VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING CLAIM.  IN RE JAMES A. BRADY FOUNDRY CO., 3
F.2D 437; GILBERT'S COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY (4TH ED.)  SEC.  1247. 

FN7  SEC. 2(2).  THE SECTIONS ARE CITED AS THEY WERE AT THE TIME OF
THE BANKRUPTCY IN THIS CASE.  BUT THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE CHANDLER
ACT (52 STAT. 840), APPROVED JUNE 22, 1938, ARE NOT MATERIAL SO FAR AS
THE ISSUES HERE INVOLVED ARE CONCERNED. 

FN8  SEC. 2(7). 

FN9 SEC. 57(K). 

FN10  SEC. 2(15). 

FN11  THUS THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS BEEN HELD TO HAVE JURISDICTION
OVER A SUPPLEMENTAL AND ANCILLARY BILL TO ENJOIN A CREDITOR, AFTER
ADJUDICATION AND DISCHARGE OF THE BANKRUPT, FROM PROSECUTING HIS CLAIM
IN A STATE COURT.  LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, SUPRA.  AS A COURT IN EQUITY
IT HAS BEEN HELD TO HAVE THE POWER TO PROTECT THE BANKRUPT ESTATE
AGAINST A FRAUDULENT ASSESSMENT, CROSS V. GEORGIA IRON & COAL CO., 250
F. 438; TO COMPEL EXECUTION OF A DEED TO MAKE THE BANKRUPT'S EQUITABLE
TITLE A COMPLETE LEGAL TITLE, DEARBORN ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO. V.
JONES, 299 F. 432; TO RECOVER ASSETS OF THE ESTATE WHICH HAVE BEEN USED
TO PAY DIVIDENDS UNDER A COMPOSITION ORDER LATER REVERSED, IN RE LILY
KNIT SILK UNDERWEAR CO., 73 F.2D 52.  AND EVEN THOUGH THE ACT PROVIDES
THAT CLAIMS SHALL NOT BE PROVED AGAINST A BANKRUPT ESTATE SUBSEQUENT TO
SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ADJUDICATION, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS EQUITABLE JURISDICTION HAS POWER TO PERMIT CLAIMS TO BE PROVED
THEREAFTER IN ORDER TO PREVENT A FRAUD OR AN INJUSTICE.  WILLIAMS V.
RICE, 30 F.2D 814; IN RE PIERSON, 174 F. 160; LARSON V. FIRST STATE
BANK, SUPRA; BURTON COAL CO. V. FRANKLIN COAL CO., 67 F.2D 796. 

FN12  SECTION 57(K) PROVIDES:  "CLAIMS WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLOWED MAY BE
RECONSIDERED FOR CAUSE AND REALLOWED OR REJECTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
ACCORDING TO THE EQUITIES OF THE CASE, BEFORE BUT NOT AFTER THE ESTATE
HAS BEEN CLOSED." 

FN13  CHANDLER V. THOMPSON, 120 F. 940; IN RE THOMPSON, 276 F. 313;
IN RE CONTINENTAL ENGINE CO., 234 F. 58.  THIS IS OF COURSE IN ABSENCE
OF A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA. 

FN14  THIS COURT SAID IN TWIN-LICK OIL CO. V. MARBURY, SUPRA, P. 590:
"SO, WHEN THE LENDER IS A DIRECTOR, CHARGED, WITH OTHERS, WITH THE
CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE CORPORATION, REPRESENTING
IN THIS REGARD THE AGGREGATED INTEREST OF ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS, HIS
OBLIGATION, IF HE BECOMES A PARTY TO A CONTRACT WITH THE COMPANY, TO
CANDOR AND FAIR DEALING, IS INCREASED IN THE PRECISE DEGREE THAT HIS
REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER HAS GIVEN HIM POWER AND CONTROL DERIVED FROM
THE CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM BY THE STOCKHOLDERS WHO APPOINTED HIM
THEIR AGENT.  IF HE SHOULD BE A SOLE DIRECTOR, OR ONE OF A SMALLER
NUMBER VESTED WITH CERTAIN POWERS, THIS OBLIGATION WOULD BE STILL
STRONGER, AND HIS ACTS SUBJECT TO MORE SEVERE SCRUTINY, AND THEIR
VALIDITY DETERMINED BY MORE RIGID PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY, AND FREEDOM
FROM MOTIVES OF SELFISHNESS." 

FN15  CONVERSE V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CO., 209 MASS. 539; 95 N.E.
929.  DAVENPORT V. DOWS, 18 WALL.  626.  IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT BREACH
OF THAT FIDUCIARY DUTY MAY ALSO GIVE RISE TO DIRECT ACTIONS BY
STOCKHOLDERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT.  STRONG V. REPIDE, 213 U.S. 419.  CF.
GREEN V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO., 24 F.2D 378. 

FN16  SEC. 70(A)(6); MANNING V. CAMPBELL, 264 MASS. 386; 162 N.E.
770; STEPHAN V. MERCHANTS COLLATERAL CORP., 256 N.Y. 418; 176 N.E. 824;
DEAN V. SHINGLE, 198 CAL. 652; 246 P. 1049. 

FN17  SEE WYMAN V. BOWMAN, 127 F. 257, 274; BURNES V. BURNES, 137 F.
781; TEXAS AUTO CO. V. ARBETTER, 1 S.W.2D 334, 339; MCCANDLESS V.
FURLAUD, 296 U.S. 140; JACKSON V. LUDELING, SUPRA, PP. 624 ET SEQ. 

FN18  THUS IN NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. V. DALLEN, 76 F.2D 867, THE
BANKRUPT, PRIOR TO BANKRUPTCY, TURNED IN TO PETITIONER AN OLD CASH
REGISTER AS A CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASE OF A NEW ONE.  PENDING
DELIVERY OF THE NEW MACHINE, PETITIONER LOANED THE BANKRUPT ANOTHER ONE
AND AFTER THE BANKRUPTCY ADJUDICATION SOUGHT TO RECLAIM THE LOANED
MACHINE.  THE COURT AFFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWING
THE RECLAMATION ON CONDITION THAT PETITIONER FIRST DELIVER TO THE
BANKRUPT THE OLD MACHINE OR PAY THE AMOUNT OF ITS AGREED VALUE.  THE
COURT SAID, P. 868, "WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW CASH REGISTER AMOUNTED TO A
BAILMENT LEASE OR A CONDITIONAL SALE.  BANKRUPTCY COURTS MAY APPLY
RULES REGULATING EQUITABLE ACTIONS." 

FN19  IN RE BURNTSIDE LODGE, INC., 7 F.SUPP.  785.  IN THAT CASE THE
COURT SAID, P. 787: 

"THE RELATIONS OF A STOCKHOLDER TO A CORPORATION AND TO THE PUBLIC
REQUIRE GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING IN EVERY TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE
STOCKHOLDER AND THE CORPORATION WHICH MAY INJURIOUSLY AFFECT THE RIGHTS
OF CREDITORS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND A CAREFUL EXAMINATION WILL BE
MADE INTO ALL SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS. 

     .         .         .   .         . 

"IF THE BUSINESS HAD NOT BEEN INCORPORATED AND THE COOKS HAD
CONDUCTED THE ENTERPRISE PERSONALLY, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES IN THE EVENT OF BANKRUPTCY, AND THERE IS NO
COGENT REASON WHY THEY SHOULD BE PAID WHEN THE SAME SERVICE IS RENDERED
AS AN OFFICER AND MANAGER OF A CORPORATION OF THEIR OWN CREATION AND TO
SERVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS.  TO ALLOW CLAIMS UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IN
EFFECT WOULD PERMIT BANKRUPTS TO COLLECT ON CLAIMS AGAINST THEIR OWN
BANKRUPT ESTATE.  IT WOULD GIVE EFFECT TO FORM RATHER THAN TO
SUBSTANCE, TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW RATHER THAN THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE
OF IT." 

FN20  IN RE WENATCHEE-STRATFORD ORCHARD CO., 205 F. 964. 

FN21  IN RE MCCARTHY PORTABLE ELEVATOR CO., 196 F. 247, AFF'D 201 F.
923. 

FN22  IN RE CHAS. K. HORTON, INC., 22 F.SUPP.  905; IN RE KENTUCKY
WAGON MFG. CO., 71 F.2D 802; FORBUSH CO. V. BARTLEY, 78 F.2D 805; CLERE
CLOTHING CO. V. UNION TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, 224 F. 363. 

FN23  ALBERT RICHARDS CO. V. MAYFAIR, INC., 287 MASS. 280; 191 N.E.
430.  CF. ERICKSON V. MINNESOTA & ONTARIO POWER CO., 134 MINN. 209; 158
N.W. 979; ORIENTAL INVESTMENT CO. V. BARCLAY, 64 S.W. 80(TEX.  CIV. 
APP.); JOSEPH R. FOARD CO. V. STATE, 219 F. 827. 

FN24  NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. ISLAND OIL & TRANSPORT CORP., 34 F.2D
655; IN RE H. HICKS & SON, INC., 82 F.2D 277. 

FN25  SEE COMMENT IN 45 YALE L. JOURN.  1471. 

FN26  IN RE OTSEGO WAXED PAPER CO., 14 F.SUPP.  15.  THE COURT SAID,
P. 16, "THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE IS THAT, WHERE A CORPORATION IS SO
ORGANIZED AND CONTROLLED AS TO MAKE IT A MERE INSTRUMENTALITY OR
ADJUNCT OF ANOTHER, AND THE SUBSIDIARY BECOMES BANKRUPT, THE PARENT
CORPORATION CANNOT HAVE ITS CLAIM PAID UNTIL ALL OTHER CLAIMS ARE FIRST
SATISFIED."  SEE ALSO HUNTER V. BAKER MOTOR VEHICLE CO., 225 F. 1006;
HENRY V. DOLLEY, 99 F.2D 94. 

THE SAME RESULT HAS BEEN REACHED IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS.  CENTRAL
VERMONT RY. CO. V. SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND R. CORP., 1 F.SUPP.  1004,
AFF'D 68 F.2D 460; S.G.V. CO. V. S.G.V. CO., 264 PA. 265; 107 A. 721. 

A FORTIORI THAT RESULT IS REACHED WHERE THERE IS A FRAUDULENT
PURPOSE.  E.E. GRAY CORP. V. MEEHAN, 54 F.2D 223. 

FN27  SEE ALEXANDER V. THELEMAN, 69 F.2D 610, 613. 

FN28  ON THIS POINT THE DISTRICT COURT SAID:  "AN EXAMINATION OF THE
FACTS DISCLOSED HERE SHOWS THE HISTORY OF A DELIBERATE AND CAREFULLY
PLANNED ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF SCOTT LITTON AND DIXIE SPLINT COAL
COMPANY TO AVOID THE PAYMENT OF A JUST DEBT.  I SPEAK OF LITTON AND
DIXIE SPLINT COAL COMPANY BECAUSE THEY ARE IN REALITY THE SAME.  IN ALL
THE EXPERIENCE OF THE LAW, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MORE PROLIFIC BREEDER
OF FRAUD THAN THE ONE-MAN CORPORATION.  IT IS A FAVORITE DEVICE FOR THE
ESCAPE OF PERSONAL LIABILITY.  THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES ANOTHER FREQUENT
USE OF THIS FICTION OF CORPORATE ENTITY, WHEREBY THE OWNER OF THE
CORPORATION, THROUGH HIS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER IT, UNDERTAKES TO GATHER
TO HIMSELF ALL OF ITS ASSETS TO THE EXCLUSION OF ITS CREDITORS." 
..END :






















PEARSON V. MCGRAW, 308 U.S. 313 


NO. 69.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 16, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  -
161 ORE.  1 - 86 P.2D 424 - 87 P.2D 766, REVERSED. 


A RESIDENT OF OREGON, OWNING BONDS IN ILLINOIS, HELD FOR HIM BY A
TRUST COMPANY ACTING AS CUSTODIAN AND FINANCIAL AGENT, AND HAVING ALSO
A CHECKING ACCOUNT WITH THE COMPANY, DIRECTED THE COMPANY TO RAISE A
SPECIFIED SUM OF MONEY BY SALE OF BONDS IN ITS HANDS AND BY USE OF HIS
CASH BALANCE, AND TO APPLY THAT SUM TO THE PURCHASE OF AN EQUAL AMOUNT
IN FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES.  WHEN THIS HAD BEEN DONE, AND THE TRUST
COMPANY HAD HELD THE NOTES FOR A FEW DAYS, HE EXECUTED IN OREGON AN
INSTRUMENT BY WHICH, IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, HE MADE A TRANSFER OF
THE NOTES TO THE TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR DESIGNATED
BENEFICIARIES, RESERVING TO HIMSELF NO INTEREST AND NO POWER OF
REVOCATION.  THEREAFTER, THE TRUST COMPANY HELD THE NOTES UNDER THE
TRUST AGREEMENT FOR SEVERAL DAYS, AND THEN USED THEM FROM TIME TO TIME
TO PURCHASE BONDS FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST.  ITS ORIGINAL
ENGAGEMENT AS CUSTODIAN AND AGENT ANTEDATED THE SETTLOR'S DOMICILE IN
OREGON, AND NONE OF THE SECURITIES HANDLED BY THE COMPANY WERE EVER
PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THAT STATE.  HELD, THAT THE SALE OF THE BONDS,
THE PURCHASE OF THE NOTES, AND THEIR TRANSFER TO THE TRUSTEE
CONSTITUTED AN INTEGRATED AND INDIVISIBLE TRANSACTION EFFECTING A
TRANSFER OF INTANGIBLES IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH; AND THAT, WHATEVER
THE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES - WHETHER TANGIBLE OR
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY - A TAX UPON THIS TRANSFER BY THE STATE OF OREGON
WOULD NOT CONTRAVENE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357.  P. 317. 

PEARSON, STATE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF OREGON, V. MCGRAW ET AL.,
EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 531, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED IN PART
AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OREGON IN PROBATE, DETERMINING AN
INHERITANCE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HAYES, RESPONDENTS' DECEDENT, DIED TESTATE IN 1936 AND WAS AT THE
TIME OF HIS DEATH A RESIDENT OF AND DOMICILED IN OREGON.  IN EARLIER
YEARS WHEN HE HAD RESIDED IN THE MIDDLE WEST HE PLACED IN POSSESSION OF
AN ILLINOIS TRUST COMPANY VARIOUS STOCKS, BONDS AND OTHER INTANGIBLES,
WHICH TRUST COMPANY ACTED AS HIS AGENT IN COLLECTING PRINCIPAL AND
INCOME ON THOSE SECURITIES AND IN THE INVESTMENT OF HIS FUNDS.  WHEN
DECEDENT ESTABLISHED A DOMICILE IN OREGON IN 1933, HE CONTINUED THAT
ARRANGEMENT WITH THE ILLINOIS TRUST COMPANY, WITH THE RESULT THAT THOSE
SECURITIES WERE ALWAYS PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN ILLINOIS, NEVER IN
OREGON.  AUGUST 8, 1935, ABOUT SIX MONTHS BEFORE DECEDENT'S DEATH, HE
DIRECTED THE ILLINOIS TRUST COMPANY TO SELL AND LIQUIDATE SUFFICIENT OF
HIS BONDS HELD UNDER THAT AGENCY ARRANGEMENT IN ILLINOIS TO PROCURE A
SUM WHICH, TOGETHER WITH CASH BALANCES IN HIS CHECKING ACCOUNT WITH THE
TRUST COMPANY, WOULD EQUAL $450,000 AND TO PURCHASE THEREWITH, AS HIS
AGENT, FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF THE FACE AMOUNT OF $450,000.  BETWEEN
AUGUST 8, 1935 AND AUGUST 12, 1935, THE ILLINOIS TRUST COMPANY COMPLIED
WITH DECEDENT'S DIRECTIONS  FN1  AND PRIOR TO AUGUST 15, 1935, IT
PURCHASED $450,000 OF FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES AND HELD THEM IN ILLINOIS
AS AGENT FOR DECEDENT FOR A FEW DAYS. 

ON AUGUST 15, 1935, DECEDENT EXECUTED IN OREGON A TRUST AGREEMENT
UNDER WHICH THE ILLINOIS TRUST COMPANY WAS DESIGNATED AS TRUSTEE AND BY
WHICH DECEDENT TRANSFERRED TO IT AS TRUSTEE THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES. 
THAT TRUST WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED RELATIVES AND WAS
IRREVOCABLE.  UNDER IT DECEDENT RETAINED NO INTEREST OR POWER
WHATSOEVER.  THE TRUST COMPANY HELD THOSE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES UNDER
THE TRUST AGREEMENT FOR ABOUT FIVE DAYS.  THEN FROM TIME TO TIME AFTER
AUGUST 19, 1935, THE ILLINOIS TRUST COMPANY USED THE FEDERAL RESERVE
NOTES, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT, TO PURCHASE BONDS
AND OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST.  FN2 

ADMITTEDLY, OREGON HAD JURISDICTION TO TAX BUT FOR THE ALLEGED
PROHIBITION IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, FOR THE STATUTE IN QUESTION
IMPOSED A TAX ON INTANGIBLES AS WELL AS TANGIBLES WHICH PASSED BY DEED
OR GIFT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE DEATH OF THE GRANTOR.  FN3  BUT
THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON HELD THAT THAT CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION
WAS PRESENT SINCE NEITHER THE SECURITIES OR CASH USED TO PURCHASE THE
FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES NOR THE NOTES THEMSELVES WERE EVER IN OREGON BUT
ALWAYS IN ILLINOIS.  THOUGH ADMITTING THAT INTANGIBLES WOULD HAVE BEEN
TAXABLE BY OREGON UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT IN RELIANCE ON
BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1, CONCLUDED THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE
NOTES WERE TANGIBLES.  AND SINCE DECEDENT HAD RETAINED THEM IN ILLINOIS
FOR A FEW DAYS PRIOR TO AUGUST 15, 1935, WITHOUT ANY INTENTION OF
BRINGING THEM TO OREGON, THEY HAD ACQUIRED A SO-CALLED BUSINESS SITUS
IN ILLINOIS WHICH CONSTITUTIONALLY PREVENTED OREGON FROM EXACTING A TAX
FOR THEIR TRANSFER.  FN4  AND THIS CONCLUSION WAS REACHED THOUGH
ADMITTEDLY THE TRANSFER OF THE NOTES UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 15,
1935, WAS MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION INVOLVED AND
OF AN ALLEGED PROBABLE CONFLICT WITH THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING SUCH
DECISIONS AS CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357. 

WE DISAGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON. 
OREGON HAVING JURISDICTION TO TAX BY REASON OF THE STATUTE WAS NOT
DEPRIVED OF IT BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE BELIEVE THAT THE VARIOUS STEPS IN THE
SERIES MUST BE CONSIDERED AS CONSTITUTING BUT ONE INTEGRATED AND
INDIVISIBLE TRANSACTION - A TRANSFER BY DECEDENT OF INTANGIBLES IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.  AND WE REACH THIS RESULT THOUGH EACH STEP IN
THE SERIES WAS REAL AND THOUGH NONE WAS CAMOUFLAGED OR CONCEALED.  FOR
BASICALLY THE SALE OF INTANGIBLES, THE ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL RESERVE
NOTES, AND THEIR TRANSFER UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 15, 1935, WERE
INTERDEPENDENT.  CF. GROMAN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 302
U.S. 82; HELVERING V. BASHFORD, 302 U.S. 454, 458.  FROM DECEDENT'S
POINT OF VIEW, COMPLETION OF THE SERIES OF STEPS WAS NECESSARY FOR
CONSUMMATION OF HIS PROGRAM TO UTILIZE $450,000 OF HIS ESTATE TO
PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN DESIGNATED MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY.  FN5  ANY STEP
SHORT OF THE FINAL TRANSFER WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT.  THE MERE SALE OF
THE INTANGIBLES AND THE ACQUISITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES HAD NO
FUNCTIONAL OR BUSINESS SIGNIFICANCE APART FROM THE AUGUST 15, 1935
TRANSFER.  THAT IS EMPHASIZED HERE BECAUSE THEY CREATED NO LEGAL
RELATIONS AND GAVE RISE TO NO VESTED RIGHTS INTERFERING WITH DECEDENT'S
CONTINUING POWER OF DISPOSITION.  TAKEN AS ISOLATED TRANSACTIONS, THEY
HAVE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE ONLY IN RELATION TO THE THIRD STEP, A
CONCLUSION MADE ESPECIALLY EVIDENT BY THE CLOSE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. 
HENCE, IT IS NO ANSWER TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THE FIRST TWO STEPS WERE NOT
IRREVOCABLE BUT COULD BE RECALLED, THE THIRD STEP WAS NOT A NECESSARY
ONE IN THE SERIES.  FOR THAT IS AS IMMATERIAL AS IS THE REVOCABILITY OF
ANY DONOR'S PLAN TO MAKE A GIFT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH AT ANY MOMENT
PRIOR TO ITS CONSUMMATION.  ADMITTEDLY DECEDENT HAD SUCH A PURPOSE ON
THE TRANSFER OF THE NOTES.  TO HOLD THAT SUCH PURPOSE WAS NOT PRESENT
ON THE SALE OF THE INTANGIBLES WOULD BE TO ISOLATE ONE PART OF THE
TOTAL TRANSACTION AND TO GIVE IT SIGNIFICANCE AND MEANING UTTERLY
INCONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE INTANGIBLES WERE SOLD FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING THE NOTES WHICH, IN TURN, WERE TO BE PLACED UNDER
AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST.  THEREFORE WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE NATURE OF
FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, FOR IN THAT POSTURE OF THE CASE THEIR TAXABILITY
AS SUCH AND IN ISOLATION FROM THE WHOLE TRANSACTION IS NOT IN ISSUE. 

HENCE TO HOLD THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIER TO THE TAX
SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED WOULD BE TO MAKE A FETISH OF FORM.  IT WOULD MAKE
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER TO TAX DEVOID OF ANY REASON OR FUNCTION APART FROM A RITUAL OF
TAX AVOIDANCE.  CF. MINNESOTA TEA CO. V. HELVERING, 302 U.S. 609;
SHOTWELL V. MOORE, 129 U.S. 590.  QUESTIONS OF DUE PROCESS ARE NOT TO
BE TREATED "NARROWLY OR PEDANTICALLY, IN SLAVERY TO FORMS OR PHRASES." 
BURNET V. WELLS, 289 U.S. 670, 677-78. 

ACCORDINGLY, THE TRANSFER WAS TAXABLE ON THE AUTHORITY OF CURRY V.
MCCANLESS, SUPRA, AND RELATED CASES.  FOR CONSTITUTIONALLY THE PROPERTY
WAS "WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE" OF OREGON SINCE THAT
JURISDICTION IS DEPENDENT NOT ON THE PHYSICAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY
IN THE STATE BUT ON CONTROL OVER THE OWNER. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ON THE SALE OF BONDS IN THE OPEN MARKET THE TRUST COMPANY
REALIZED FOR DECEDENT'S ACCOUNT $176,062.01.  ON AUGUST 12, 1935,
DECEDENT BORROWED FROM THE TRUST COMPANY ON A DEMAND NOTE $183,937.99. 
ON THAT DATE DECEDENT HAD A BALANCE IN HIS CHECKING ACCOUNT WITH THE
TRUST COMPANY IN EXCESS OF $90,000.  WITH THE FUNDS SO OBTAINED THE
TRUST COMPANY PURCHASED THE $450,000 OF FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
MENTIONED.  BETWEEN AUGUST 12, 1935, AND AUGUST 29, 1935, THE TRUST
COMPANY, ON DIRECTIONS OF DECEDENT, SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET ADDITIONAL
BONDS HELD BY IT IN THE AGENCY ACCOUNT AND AS PROCEEDS OF THOSE SALES
WERE RECEIVED BY IT, IT PAID OFF THE DEMAND NOTE.  THAT NOTE WAS
ENTIRELY PAID ON AUGUST 29, 1935. 

FN2  NONE OF THE PROPERTY THUS ACQUIRED BY THE TRUSTEE WAS EVER OWNED
BY DECEDENT; THE TRUSTEE DID NOT PURCHASE OR ACQUIRE ANY OF THE BONDS
OR OTHER ASSETS WHICH AT ANY TIME CONSTITUTED A PART OF THE PROPERTY
HELD BY THE TRUSTEE AS AGENT FOR DECEDENT UNDER THE EARLIER
ARRANGEMENT. 

FN3  "ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE, AND ANY
INTEREST THEREIN, WHETHER BELONGING TO THE INHABITANTS OF THIS STATE OR
NOT, AND WHETHER TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHICH SHALL PASS OR VEST  ...
BY DEED, GRANT, BARGAIN, SALE OR GIFT, OR AS AN ADVANCEMENT OR DIVISION
OF HIS OR HER ESTATE MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE DEATH OF THE GRANTOR,
...  TO ANY PERSON OR PERSONS, ...  IN TRUST OR OTHERWISE,  ...  SHALL
BE AND IS SUBJECT TO TAX AT THE RATE HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED IN SECTION
10-603, TO BE PAID TO THE TREASURER OF THE STATE FOR THE USE OF THE
STATE; ...  " (SEC. 10-601, O.C. 1930.) 

FN4  86 P.2D 424, 87 P.2D 766.  IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE OREGON
SUPREME COURT REACHED THIS RESULT BY RELIANCE ON THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THEREUNDER.  WE DO NOT HAVE,
THEREFORE, A CASE WHERE THE STATE COURT WAS MERELY CONSTRUING ITS
STATUTE NOR A CASE WHERE IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DOING
MORE THAN THAT.  CF. STATE TAX COMMISSION V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511. 

FN5  THIS IS IN ACCORD WITH THE TREATMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
OREGON OF "DR. HAYES' PLAN," A "PLAN" WHICH IT FELT COMPELLED TO DIVIDE
INTO SEPARATE STEPS BY REASON OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT DEALING WITH BUSINESS SITUS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CF.
PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE: 

I CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL ON THE GROUND THAT NOTHING IN
THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS TAXATION BY OREGON OF A GIFT BY ITS CITIZEN
OF FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES LOCATED ELSEWHERE. 

WHILE I DO NOT QUESTION THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE A
STATE COULD, IF SO ADVISED, CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX ITS CITIZEN FOR ACTION
TAKEN FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN THE EVASION OF ITS TAXING STATUTES, NO
SUCH QUESTION IS, I THINK, PRESENTED BY THE RECORD.  DISCUSSION OF IT
SEEMS AT MOST TO BE ACADEMIC AND NOT TO RELIEVE US OF THE DUTY OF
DECIDING THE ONLY FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH COULD BY ANY POSSIBILITY BE
SAID TO BE RAISED BY THE RECORD, NAMELY, WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION
PRECLUDES TAXATION OF THE GIFT OF THE BANKNOTES MERELY BECAUSE OF THE
PHYSICAL FACT THAT THEY ARE LOCATED WITHOUT THE STATE. 

IN ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE GIFT OF FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
LOCATED OUTSIDE THE STATE WAS NOT TAXABLE, THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON
NECESSARILY CONSTRUED THE OREGON STATUTE, WHICH IMPOSES A TAX ON GIFTS
OF "ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE  ...  WHETHER
TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE."  THE COURT HAS SAID THAT THE BANKNOTES WERE
NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE BECAUSE THEIR SITUS WAS
ELSEWHERE, AND THAT THE ACTS OF DECEDENT IN AVOIDING THE TAX BY THE
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY HAVING AN EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SITUS WERE NOT
REACHED FOR TAXATION BY STATE LAW.  IF THE COURT DID ANYTHING MORE THAN
RULE THAT THE STATUTE, BY ITS OWN TERMS, DID NOT EXTEND TO THE TAXATION
OF THE GIFT OF THE NOTES BECAUSE THEY WERE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE STATE,
IT HELD THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE OF THAT PHYSICAL FACT
WITHHOLDS, FROM THE STATE, JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY WHICH THE
TAXING STATUTE ASSERTS. 

PETITIONER ASKS US TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT HOLDING IS CORRECT.  HE
IS ENTITLED TO HAVE AN ANSWER.  WE DO NOT RIGHTLY AVOID GIVING THE
ANSWER BY SAYING THAT, BY SOME STATUTE OTHER THAN THAT UNDER REVIEW,
THE STATE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX ITS CITIZEN FOR HIS ACTION IN
AVOIDING THE TAX, BY MAKING THE GIFT IN A FORM OF PROPERTY WHICH IS BY
HYPOTHESIS BEYOND THE TAXING POWER.  IF THE STATE HAS BY ITS STATUTE
UNDERTAKEN TO LAY A TAX ON GIFTS OF BANKNOTES OUTSIDE THE STATE WITHOUT
MORE - AND WE ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION IF IT HAS NOT - NO PURPOSE IS
SERVED BY SAYING TO THE STATE THAT IT COULD HAVE REACHED THE SAME
RESULT BY ANOTHER ROUTE, WHICH, UNDER ITS LAWS, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE
OPEN TO IT. 

AS I AM OF OPINION THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION TO
COMPEL A STATE TO TREAT FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES FOR TAX PURPOSES AS
CHATTELS WERE TREATED IN FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473, AND AS NO
REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED, EVEN IN BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1,
18, FOR A DIFFERENT VIEW, CF. BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586, 591,
THE JUDGMENT SHOULD, I THINK, BE REVERSED UPON THAT GROUND RATHER THAN
UPON A THEORY OF PERMISSIBLE LEGISLATION, OF WHICH APPARENTLY OREGON'S
TAX LAWS DO NOT AVAIL. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AGREES WITH MY VIEWS AS TO OREGON'S POWER TO
TAX THESE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, BUT IS OF OPINION THAT THE RECORD
SUSTAINS THE GROUND TAKEN IN THE COURT'S OPINION. 
..END :























OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V. GAS CO., 309 U.S. 4 


NO. 19.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 1939.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 4, 1939.  OPINION
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING DELIVERED JANUARY 15, 1940.  - 100 F.2D 770,
REVERSED. 


1.  A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF OKLAHOMA,
DESIGNATED AN AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS "IN ANY ACTION IN THE STATE
OF OKLAHOMA."  HELD AMENABLE TO SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN
OKLAHOMA UPON A CAUSE OF ACTION ARISING IN THAT STATE.  NEIRBO CO. V.
BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S. 165.  P. 6. 

2.  A DETERMINATION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA THAT ITS
JUDGMENTS, ON APPEAL FROM RATE ORDERS OF THE CORPORATION COMMISSION,
WERE FORMERLY LEGISLATIVE IN CHARACTER AND THAT THEY CAN NOT BE GIVEN
THE EFFECT OF RES JUDICATA BY THE RETROACTIVE INFLUENCE OF A LATER
DOCTRINE OF THAT COURT CHARACTERIZING SUCH JUDGMENTS AS JUDICIAL,  -
HELD BINDING ON THIS COURT.  P. 7. 

3.  WHERE AN ACTION UPON SUPERSEDEAS BONDS GIVEN BY A GAS COMPANY FOR
THE SECURITY OF ONE OF ITS CONSUMERS IN CONNECTION WITH ITS APPEAL FROM
A RATE ORDER, WAS PENDING IN A STATE COURT AND DEFENDED BY THE
COMPANY'S ANSWER UPON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER VIOLATED THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, HELD THAT A SUBSEQUENT SUIT BY THE COMPANY, ON THE SAME
GROUND, TO ENJOIN THE CONSUMER FROM PROSECUTING THE ACTION COULD NOT BE
ENTERTAINED BY A FEDERAL COURT.  JUD.  CODE, SEC. 265.  P. 8. 

OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. ET AL. V. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. ET AL.* 

*THE ORIGINAL OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED DECEMBER 4, 1939, WHICH,
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING, WAS WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED (308 U.S. 530) BY
THE ONE HERE REPORTED, APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX, POST, P. 703.  FOR
SEPARATE OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MCREYNOLDS AND ROBERTS, JJ.,
DELIVERED DECEMBER 4, 1939, SEE POST, P. 9. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 629, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
ENJOINING THE PROSECUTION OF AN ACTION IN THE STATE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE CONCERNS A RATE CONTROVERSY WHICH HAS BEEN WINDING ITS SLOW
WAY THROUGH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS FOR THIRTEEN YEARS.  FN1  WHILE
THE RELATIONSHIP OF TWO UTILITIES WITH WILSON & CO., A CONSUMER OF
NATURAL GAS, COMPLICATES THE SITUATION, THE LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE US MAY
BE DISPOSED OF AS THOUGH THIS WERE A TYPICAL CASE OF A UTILITY
RESISTING AN ORDER REDUCING ITS RATES.  FN2  OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY (HEREAFTER CALLED GAS & ELECTRIC) APPEALED TO THE OKLAHOMA
SUPREME COURT FROM SUCH AN ORDER BY THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION
COMMISSION.  THE REDUCTION WAS STAYED PENDING THE APPEAL, BUT TO
PROTECT WILSON & CO. AGAINST A POTENTIAL OVERCHARGE, GAS & ELECTRIC
GAVE A SUPERSEDEAS BOND.  GAS & ELECTRIC LOST ITS APPEAL, OKLAHOMA GAS
& ELECTRIC CO. V. WILSON & CO., 146 OKLA. 272, 288 P. 316, AND WILSON &
CO. BROUGHT SUIT ON THE BOND.  THAT SUIT WAS INSTITUTED ON DECEMBER 3,
1931, IN ONE OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF OKLAHOMA.  TO ENJOIN PROSECUTION
OF THE LATTER SUIT GAS & ELECTRIC ON MAY 20, 1932, INVOKED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA.  FN3  AFTER A COMPLICATED SERIES OF MOVES IN BOTH
STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, NOT NECESSARY HERE TO DETAIL, THIS RELIEF WAS
GRANTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1937, AND ON DECEMBER
19, 1938, SUSTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  OKLAHOMA PACKING
CO. V. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 100 F.2D 770.  SINCE THE CASE IN
PART WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE SECOND CIRCUIT'S DECISION IN NEIRBO CO.
V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 103 F.2D 765, AND ALSO PRESENTED NOVEL
ASPECTS OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
306 U.S. 629.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE MERITS OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER. 

AT THE THRESHOLD WE ARE MET BY THE PROCEDURAL OBJECTION, SEASONABLY
MADE, THAT WILSON & CO., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, WAS IMPROPERLY SUED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA.  THE OBJECTION
IS UNAVAILABLE.  PRIOR TO THIS SUIT, WILSON & CO. HAD, AGREEABLE TO THE
LAWS OF OKLAHOMA, DESIGNATED AN AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS "IN ANY
ACTION IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA."  BOTH COURTS BELOW FOUND THIS TO BE
IN FACT A CONSENT ON WILSON & CO.'S PART TO BE SUED IN THE COURTS OF
OKLAHOMA UPON CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING IN THAT STATE.  THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IS, WE HOLD, A COURT OF OKLAHOMA WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THAT CONSENT, AND FOR THE REASONS INDICATED IN NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM
SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S. 165, WILSON & CO. WAS AMENABLE TO SUIT IN
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. 

PETITIONERS FURTHER URGE (1) THAT THEIR PLEA OF RES JUDICATA SHOULD
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED, AND (2) THAT SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL ACT (ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1911, 36 STAT. 1162, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 379, DERIVED FROM SEC. 5
OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1793, 1 STAT. 333, 335), WAS A BAR TO THE SUIT. 

THE CLAIM OF RES JUDICATA IS BASED ON THE PRIOR DETERMINATION IN 1930
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA THAT THE CONTESTED ORDER OF THE
CORPORATION COMMISSION WAS VALID.  OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V.
WILSON & CO., 146 OKLA. 272; 288 P. 316.  THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE
OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF SUCH A DETERMINATION
- WHETHER UNDER THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION IT WAS A "LEGISLATIVE" OR
"JUDICIAL" REVIEW - HAVE FOR A TIME, HOWEVER, BEEN AMBIGUOUS AND
FLUCTUATING.  AFTER THE PRESENT BILL WAS FILED BUT BEFORE THE
CHALLENGED INJUNCTION WAS DECREED, THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT HAD HELD
THAT ITS DECISION IN CASES LIKE THAT OF OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V.
WILSON & CO., WAS A JUDICIAL JUDGMENT.  OKLAHOMA COTTON GINNERS' ASSN.
V. STATE, 174 OKLA. 243; 51 P.2D 327.  BUT, IN COMMUNITY NATURAL GAS
CO. V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 182 OKLA. 137; 76 P.2D 393, DECIDED
AFTER THE DECREE HERE IN ISSUE, THE OKLAHOMA COURT FORMALLY
CHARACTERIZED ITS REVIEW IN CASES PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN THE GINNERS'
CASE AS "LEGISLATIVE," REFUSED TO GIVE THAT DECISION RETROACTIVE
EFFECT, AND THEREFORE DEEMED THE RES JUDICATA DOCTRINE INAPPLICABLE TO
THESE PRIOR REVIEWS.  HENCE, THE PLEA OF RES JUDICATA IN THIS CASE MUST
FAIL, FOR ON THAT ISSUE STATE LAW IS DETERMINATIVE HERE.  UNION &
PLANTERS' BANK V. MEMPHIS, 189 U.S. 71; COVINGTON V. FIRST NATIONAL
BANK, 198 U.S. 100; WRIGHT V. GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO., 216 U.S.
420. 

THERE REMAINS, THEREFORE, THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 265 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  FN4  THAT PROVISION WOULD OPERATE AS A BAR UPON THE
POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN PROCEEDINGS PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT IN
THE STATE COURT ON THE SUPERSEDEAS BOND, IF "THE ONLY THING SOUGHT TO
BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THIS EQUITABLE ACTION" IS TO STAY THE CONTINUANCE OF
THAT ACTION.  SUCH WAS THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE BILL BY THE
EARLIER DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, AND SUCH WAS THIS COURT'S
ASSUMPTION WHEN THE LATTER DECISION CAME HERE ON APPEAL.  OKLAHOMA GAS
& ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 6 F.SUPP.  893, 895; OKLAHOMA
GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386, 389.  THAT
CASE ELIMINATED THE CORPORATION COMMISSION AS PARTY TO THE LITIGATION. 
THE DISTRICT COURT TO WHICH THIS COURT REMANDED THE MATTER SUMMARIZED
GAS & ELECTRIC'S CLAIM BY WAY OF ANSWER TO THE ACTION BROUGHT BY WILSON
& CO. IN THE STATE COURT AS AN ATTACK UPON THE COMMISSION'S ORDER "FOR
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME REASONS AS SET OUT" IN THE PRESENT BILL. 

THE PRESENT SUIT, THEREFORE, IS ONE FOR AN INJUNCTION "TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS" PREVIOUSLY BEGUN IN A STATE COURT.  THE DECREE BELOW IS
THUS WITHIN THE PLAIN INTERDICTION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, AND NOT TAKEN
OUT OF IT BY ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH THIS COURT HAS HERETOFORE
ENGRAFTED UPON A LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS DATING
ALMOST FROM THE BEGINNING OF OUR HISTORY AND EXPRESSING AN IMPORTANT
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY - TO PREVENT NEEDLESS FRICTION BETWEEN STATE AND
FEDERAL COURTS.  COMPARE MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V. ST. BERNARD
MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239; SIMON V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., 236 U.S. 115;
WELLS FARGO & CO. V. TAYLOR, 254 U.S. 175.  SEE WARREN, "FEDERAL AND
STATE COURT INTERFERENCE," 43 HARV. L. REV. 345, 372-77.  THAT THE
INJUNCTION WAS A RESTRAINT OF THE PARTIES AND WAS NOT FORMALLY DIRECTED
AGAINST THE STATE COURT ITSELF IS IMMATERIAL.  HILL V. MARTIN, 296 U.S.
393, 403.  CF. KOHN V. CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CO., 306 U.S. 531. 
STEELMAN V. ALL CONTINENT CORP., 301 U.S. 278, PRESSED UPON US BY
RESPONDENTS AND RELIED UPON BELOW, IS PLAINLY INAPPLICABLE. 

NEITHER RECORD NOR FINDINGS BELOW GIVE ANY OTHER BASIS FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF SAVE THE THREATENED INJURY IMPLIED IN THE STATE COURT LAWSUIT;
AND THAT COULD NOT BE ENJOINED.  THE DECREE BELOW IS REVERSED, WITH
DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  A HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY IS TO BE FOUND IN OKLAHOMA GAS &
ELECTRIC CO. V. WILSON & CO., 146 OKLA. 272; 288 P. 316; OKLAHOMA GAS &
ELECTRIC CO. V. WILSON & CO., 54 F.2D 596; OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 6 F.SUPP.  893; OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V.
OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386; OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V.
WILSON & CO., 178 OKLA. 604; 62 P.2D 703; OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V.
OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 100 F.2D 770. 

FN2  OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. AND OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO., BOTH
ENGAGED IN THE SALE OF NATURAL GAS IN AND ABOUT OKLAHOMA CITY, HAD
AGREED TO A DIVISION OF TERRITORY.  UNDER THAT AGREEMENT, WILSON & CO.
BOUGHT GAS FROM GAS & ELECTRIC.  THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION
FOUND THAT NATURAL GAS HAD HELD ITSELF OUT TO PROVIDE GAS TO INDUSTRIAL
CONSUMERS AT A LOWER RATE THAN THAT AT WHICH WILSON & CO. WAS ABLE TO
BUY FROM GAS & ELECTRIC.  THE COMMISSION THEN ORDERED NATURAL GAS TO
PROVIDE WILSON & CO. WITH ITS GAS AT PREVAILING INDUSTRIAL RATES.  BOTH
NATURAL GAS AND GAS & ELECTRIC RESISTED THE ORDER.  NATURAL GAS
CONTENDED THAT IT HAD NEVER HELD ITSELF OUT TO INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS;
GAS & ELECTRIC CLAIMED THAT IT WAS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVED OF
ITS RIGHT TO SELL TO WILSON & CO. AT THE HIGHER RATE.  IF, PENDING
APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION, THE ORDER WERE NOT STAYED, WILSON & CO.
WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PURCHASE GAS FROM NATURAL GAS AT THE LOWER RATE
AND GAS & ELECTRIC WOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED EITHER TO LOWER ITS RATES TO
MEET THE COMPETITION OR TO LOSE THE BUSINESS. 

FN3  IN 1928 NATURAL GAS COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER; AND SINCE THAT TIME
WILSON & CO. HAS BEEN BUYING GAS AT THE LOWER RATE PRESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSION.  THE SOLE QUESTION NOW INVOLVED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS IS THE
LIABILITY OF GAS & ELECTRIC TO WILSON & CO. FOR ALLEGED OVERCHARGES
BETWEEN 1926 AND 1928.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND SPECIFICALLY THAT THE
CORPORATION COMMISSION HAD MADE NO THREAT TO ENFORCE PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE 1926 ORDER, AND AS TO THE COMMISSION, DECLINED TO
GRANT ANY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.  CF. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V.
OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386, 390. 

FN4  SECTION 265 PROVIDES:  "THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION SHALL NOT BE
GRANTED BY ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY
COURT OF A STATE, EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE SUCH INJUNCTION MAY BE
AUTHORIZED BY ANY LAW RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
ADHERE TO THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THEIR SEPARATE OPINION IN THIS CASE. 

THE SEPARATE OPINION REFERRED TO WAS DELIVERED DECEMBER 4, 1939(SEE
FOOTNOTE, P. 4), AND IS AS FOLLOWS: 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES: 

I CONCUR IN THE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT UPON THE GROUND THAT WILSON
& CO., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, WAS NOT AMENABLE TO SUIT IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT IN OKLAHOMA.  THE QUESTION IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS
THAT PRESENTED IN NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 308 U.S.
165, AND WHAT WAS SAID IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THAT CASE NEED NOT
BE REPEATED HERE.  (SEE, AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE CONSENT UNDER THE
OKLAHOMA STATUTE, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
THE NEIRBO CASE, 103 F.2D 765, 769.) 

BUT IF IT BE GRANTED THAT THE DELAWARE CORPORATION WAS AMENABLE TO
THE PROCESS IN QUESTION, I AM UNABLE TO AGREE THAT THE COMPLAINANTS
SHOULD BE DENIED RELIEF BECAUSE OF THE DEFENSE OF RES JUDICATA.  THE
JUDGMENT TO WHICH THIS EFFECT IS GIVEN WAS RENDERED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF OKLAHOMA IN 1930, SUSTAINING, ON APPEAL, AN ORDER OF THE
CORPORATION COMMISSION REQUIRING GAS TO BE FURNISHED TO WILSON & CO. AT
A SPECIFIED RATE.  OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. WILSON & CO., 146
OKLA. 272; 288 P. 316.  AT THE TIME OF THAT DECISION, THE REVIEW BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA OF SUCH AN ORDER OF THE CORPORATION
COMMISSION WAS CONSIDERED TO BE LEGISLATIVE IN CHARACTER.  OKLAHOMA GAS
CO. V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S. 290, 291; MCALESTER GAS & COKE CO. V.
CORPORATION COMMISSION, 101 OKLA. 268, 270; 224 P. 698; CITY OF POTEAU
V. AMERICAN INDIAN OIL & GAS CO., 159 OKLA. 240, 242, 243; 18 P.2D 523,
IN WHICH THE STATE COURT CITED WITH APPROVAL THE DECISION TO THAT
EFFECT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
V. WILSON & CO., 54 F.2D 596, 598, 599, APPLYING THE OKLAHOMA
DECISIONS.  COMPARE OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING
CO., 292 U.S. 386, 388; CORPORATION COMMISSION V. CARY, 296 U.S. 452,
458.  THE CONTENTION OF THE COMPLAINANTS BEFORE THE STATE COURT WAS
THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER VIOLATED THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  146 OKLA. 272, 281, 288; 288 P. 316.  BUT IN THE VIEW,
AS THEN HELD, THAT THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURT WAS LEGISLATIVE IN
CHARACTER, NO APPEAL LAY TO THIS COURT FROM THE STATE COURT'S
DETERMINATION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION.  PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE
CO., 211 U.S. 210, 226, 227; OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. RUSSELL, SUPRA.
ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPLAINANTS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO
ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

IT WAS NOT UNTIL SEVERAL YEARS LATER (IN 1935) THAT THE OKLAHOMA
SUPREME COURT DECIDED, IN A SUIT BETWEEN OTHER PARTIES, THAT ITS ACTION
IN REVIEWING SUCH AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WAS JUDICIAL AND NOT
LEGISLATIVE IN CHARACTER.  OKLAHOMA COTTON GINNERS' ASSN. V. STATE, 174
OKLA. 243; 51 P.2D 327.  THE MANIFEST INJUSTICE OF HOLDING THAT
COMPLAINANTS ARE BOUND BY THE STATE COURT'S RULING IN 1930 AS A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, WHEN AT THAT TIME UNDER THE STATE COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION THE COMPLAINANTS WERE NOT AT
LIBERTY TO TREAT THE RULING AS A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION AND TO OBTAIN A
REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION BY THIS COURT UPON THAT GROUND, IS NOT
MET, AS IT SEEMS TO ME, BY INVOKING THE GENERAL DOCTRINE OF RES
JUDICATA.    WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT IS RES JUDICATA IS A
QUESTION OF STATE LAW.  THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT BOUND TO GIVE SUCH
DOMESTIC JUDGMENTS ANY GREATER FORCE THAN THAT AWARDED THEM BY THE
COURTS OF THE STATE WHERE RENDERED.  UNION & PLANTERS' BANK V. MEMPHIS,
189 U.S. 71, 75; COVINGTON V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 198 U.S. 100, 109;
WRIGHT V. GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO., 216 U.S. 420, 429.  I THINK
THAT WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO ASSUME THAT THE OKLAHOMA COURT WOULD SO
FAR DEPART FROM THE PLAIN REQUIREMENTS OF JUSTICE AS TO PRECLUDE IN
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES A REVIEW OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION IN A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION.  THE STATE COURT HAS NOT SPOKEN TO THAT EFFECT
AND WHAT THE STATE COURT HAS SAID I THINK CLEARLY IMPORTS THE
CONTRARY. 

THIS APPEARS FROM ITS DECISION IN OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V.
WILSON & CO., 178 OKLA. 604; 63 P.2D 703.  THAT WAS AN ACTION IN THE
STATE COURT ON THE SUPERSEDEAS BOND GIVEN ON THE APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT FROM THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN QUESTION, AND WILSON & CO., THE
PLAINTIFF, HAD JUDGMENT.  THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THAT JUDGMENT AND
DIRECTED A STAY PENDING THE DETERMINATION IN THIS VERY SUIT IN THE
FEDERAL COURT OF THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE SUPREME
COURT EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO ITS DECISION, IN 1935, IN OKLAHOMA COTTON
GINNERS' ASSN. V. STATE, SUPRA, THAT ITS ACTION IN REVIEWING ORDERS OF
THE COMMISSION AFFECTING RATES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CONSTITUTED A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  BUT INSTEAD OF
HOLDING THAT THE RULING IN 1930, UPON THE ORDER NOW UNDER REVIEW,
CONSTITUTED A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THAT ORDER, THE
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY WAS AN OPEN ONE FOR
DETERMINATION BY THE FEDERAL COURT IN THE PRESENT SUIT.  AFTER SAYING
THAT IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTY WITH RESPECT TO THE "RIGHT TO A
JUDICIAL REMEDY IN THE STATE COURTS," THE FEDERAL COURT HAD ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OF THIS SUIT, THE STATE COURT CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM AS THE ONLY CERTAIN METHOD OF
OBTAINING A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER.  THE SUIT WAS A DIRECT ATTACK UPON SUCH ORDER, AND UNTIL ITS
VALIDITY WAS ESTABLISHED IN THAT SUIT, THE STATE COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITH AN ACTION BASED UPON SUCH ORDER.  THIS FOR
THE REASON THAT WHERE DIRECT ATTACK IN EQUITY IS MADE UPON THE ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION, THE DEFENDANTS' LIABILITY ON SUCH ORDER IS NOT FINALLY
DETERMINED JUDICIALLY UNTIL FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE EQUITABLE
ACTION." 

IF UNDER THE STATE LAW AS THUS DECLARED IN OKLAHOMA UPON
CONSIDERATION OF THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, LIABILITY
ON THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS NOT FINALLY DETERMINED JUDICIALLY UNTIL
THE DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION IN THIS EQUITY SUIT, I AM AT A LOSS
TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURT ON THE 1930 APPEAL CAN
BE REGARDED AS RES JUDICATA AND THUS A BAR TO THAT DETERMINATION. 

THE DECREE BELOW ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
APPROPRIATELY FOLLOWED THE DETERMINATION OF ITS INVALIDITY.  THE POINT
THAT THE DECREE SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE FURTHER AND ENJOINED THE
PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION IN THE STATE COURT UPON THE SUPERSEDEAS BOND
IS AT BEST ONLY ONE OF TECHNICAL IMPORTANCE, AS THE STATE COURT ITSELF
ENJOINED SUCH PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF THIS SUIT,
APPARENTLY IN THE VIEW THAT A DETERMINATION HEREIN OF THE INVALIDITY OF
THE ORDER WOULD DISPOSE OF THE MERITS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

..END :











SCHNEIDER V. STATE, 308 U.S. 147 


NO. 11.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 16, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1939.  -
121 N.J.L. 542, 3 A.2D 609 - 33 CAL. APP.2D 747, 85 P.2D 231 - 230 WIS.
131, 283 N.W. 301 - 18 N.E.2D (MASS.) 166, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS SECURED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE UNITED STATES IS SIMILARLY SECURED
TO ALL PERSONS BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY A
STATE.  P. 160. 

2.  IT IS A DUTY OF MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, AS TRUSTEES FOR THE
PUBLIC, TO KEEP THE STREETS OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE
AND PROPERTY - THE PRIMARY PURPOSE TO WHICH THE STREETS ARE DEDICATED;
AND TO THIS END THE CONDUCT OF THOSE WHO USE THEM MAY BE REGULATED; BUT
SUCH REGULATION MUST NOT ABRIDGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY OF THOSE
WHO ARE RIGHTFULLY UPON THE STREETS TO IMPART INFORMATION THROUGH
SPEECH OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE.  ID. 

3.  THE GUARANTY OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS DOES NOT
DEPRIVE A MUNICIPALITY OF POWER TO ENACT REGULATIONS AGAINST STANDING
IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET AND OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC, OR
INTERFERING WITH THE PASSAGE OF PEDESTRIANS IN ORDER TO FORCE THEIR
ACCEPTANCE OF TENDERED LEAFLETS, OR AGAINST THROWING LITERATURE
BROADCAST IN THE STREETS, SINCE SUCH CONDUCT BEARS NO NECESSARY
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK, WRITE, PRINT OR DISTRIBUTE
INFORMATION OR OPINION.  P. 160. 

4.  THE PURPOSE TO KEEP THE STREETS CLEAN AND NEAT IS INSUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY AN ORDINANCE WHICH PROHIBITS A PERSON RIGHTFULLY ON A PUBLIC
STREET FROM HANDING LITERATURE TO ONE WILLING TO RECEIVE IT.  ANY
BURDEN IMPOSED UPON THE CITY AUTHORITIES, IN CLEANING AND CARING FOR
THE STREETS, AS AN INDIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION, RESULTS
FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS. 
P. 162. 

THERE ARE OBVIOUS METHODS OF PREVENTING LITTERING OF THE STREETS,  -
E.G., THE PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WHO ACTUALLY THROW PAPERS ON THE
STREETS. 

5.  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT, IN THE ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDINANCE
FORBIDDING ALL DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE IN THE STREETS, THE
DISTRIBUTOR IS ARRESTED ONLY IF THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE LITERATURE THROW
IT ON THE STREETS, DOES NOT RENDER THE ORDINANCE VALID.  P. 163. 

6.  ORDINANCES FORBIDDING DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATTER ARE NOT MADE
VALID BY LIMITING THEIR OPERATION TO STREETS AND ALLEYS AND LEAVING
OTHER PUBLIC PLACES FREE.  P. 163. 

7. A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SOLICITATION, AND DISTRIBUTION
OF CIRCULARS, BY CANVASSING FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE, UNLESS LICENSED BY THE
POLICE AFTER AN INQUIRY AND DECISION AMOUNTING TO CENSORSHIP, HELD VOID
AS APPLIED TO ONE WHO DELIVERED LITERATURE AND SOLICITED CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE IN THE NAME OF RELIGION.  P. 163. 

SCHNEIDER V. STATE (TOWN OF IRVINGTON).* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 13, KIM YOUNG V. CALIFORNIA, ON APPEAL FROM THE
APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA; NO. 18, SNYDER V. MILWAUKEE, CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF WISCONSIN; AND NO. 29, NICHOLS ET EL. V. MASSACHUSETTS, ON
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WORCESTER COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

TWO OF THESE FOUR CASES CAME UP BY APPEAL, AND TWO BY CERTIORARI, 306
U.S. 628, 629, TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS WHICH UPHELD
CONVICTIONS UNDER MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES FORBIDDING OR REGULATING
DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE IN THE STREETS OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACES.  IN
THREE OF THE CASES THE ACTS CHARGED TOOK PLACE IN THE STREETS.  THE
OTHER WAS A CASE OF CIRCULARS DISTRIBUTED BY HOUSE TO HOUSE
VISITATIONS. 

SINCE THE ORDINANCE IS VALID ON ITS FACE AND PETITIONER FAILED TO
SEEK A PERMIT UNDER IT, SHE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CONTEST ITS VALIDITY IN
ANSWER TO THE CHARGE AGAINST HER, NOR MAY SHE COMPLAIN OF ANTICIPATED
IMPROPER OR INVALID ACTION IN ADMINISTRATION.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303
U.S. 444; SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553; GUNDLING V. CHICAGO, 177 U.S.
183; LEHON V. ATLANTA, 242 U.S. 53. 

THE ORDINANCE, OF ITSELF AND AS APPLIED TO THE ACTS OF THE
PETITIONER, IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND VALID, BECAUSE IT IS A REASONABLE AND
PROPER EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC
WELFARE, TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF
THE PRESS ARE PROPERLY SUBJECT.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444,
DISTINGUISHABLE AND INAPPLICABLE.  SEE HALL V. GEIGER-JONES CO., 242
U.S. 539, 552; PITTSBURGH V. RUFFNER, 134 PA. SUPER.  192; 4 A.2D 224,
228; BARBIER V. CONNOLLY, 113 U.S. 27, 31; MUGLER V. KANSAS, 123 U.S.
623, 664; BERGENFIELD V. MORGAN ET AL., SUP. CT. N.J., MARCH 21, 1934;
DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333, 344; DZIATKIEWICZ V. MAPLEWOOD, 115
N.J.L. 37, 42; LEOLES V. LANDERS, 302 U.S. 656; HERING V. STATE BOARD
OF EDUCATION, 303 U.S. 624; THOMAS V. ATLANTA, 1 S.E.2D 598; HAMILTON
V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 293 U.S. 245, 268. 

THE ORDINANCE, PROHIBITING THE DISTRIBUTION OF HAND-BILLS TO
PEDESTRIANS UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, IS A
REASONABLE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCE UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS
DETERMINED BY ITS REASONABLENESS AS A MEASURE UNDER THE POLICE POWER OF
THE STATE.  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 668; WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 371; FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380, 387; NEW
YORK EX REL. BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63, 72. 

THE WISDOM AND NECESSITY FOR THIS PROHIBITION ARE PRIMARILY FOR THE
CITY COUNCIL TO DETERMINE.  SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 192; PACIFIC STATES BOX & BASKET CO. V.
WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 185; FIFTH AVENUE COACH CO. V. NEW YORK, 221 U.S.
467, 482; SOON HING V. CROWLEY, 113 U.S. 703, 708. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD WHICH TENDS TO SHOW THAT THE
PROHIBITION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBILLS AND DODGERS UPON THE
PUBLIC STREETS WAS NOT A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE POWER OF THE CITY TO "MAKE AND ENFORCE WITHIN ITS
LIMITS ALL SUCH LOCAL, POLICE, SANITARY, AND OTHER REGULATIONS AS ARE
NOT IN CONFLICT WITH GENERAL LAWS."  (CAL. CONST., ART. XI, SEC. 11.) 

AN UNCONTROLLED DISTRIBUTION OF PAPERS OF ANY KIND ON THE STREETS IS
BOUND TO RESULT, MORE OR LESS, IN STOPPAGE OF STORM DRAINS. 

IT WOULD PRESENT AN ANOMALOUS SITUATION IF MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES
COULD, IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND THE GENERAL
WELFARE, ESTABLISH SET-BACK LINES FOR BUILDINGS OR REQUIRE OPEN AREAS
ON EACH LOT, GORIEB V. FOX, 274 U.S. 603; OR REQUIRE THAT CERTAIN
DISTRICTS BE RESTRICTED TO RESIDENCE PURPOSES ONLY, ZAHN V. BOARD OF
PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 274 U.S. 325; OR EVEN PROHIBIT
THE USE OF STREETS FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES, FIFTH AVENUE COACH CO. V.
NEW YORK, 221 U.S. 467, 482; BUT BE WITHOUT POWER TO ADOPT ORDINANCES
TO PREVENT THE STREETS OF THE COMMUNITY FROM BEING LITTERED WITH
TRASH. 

SINCE ABRIDGMENT OF FREE SPEECH IS NOT THE END SOUGHT TO BE ATTAINED
BY THE ORDINANCE, ANY INTERFERENCE WITH SUCH RIGHT IS INCIDENTAL AND
DOES NOT MAKE THE ORDINANCE VOID.  SAN FRANCISCO SHOPPING NEWS CO. V.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, 69 F.2D 879, 892; CERT. DEN.  293 U.S. 606;
SIEROTY V. HUNTINGTON PARK, 111 CAL. APP. 377, 381; PEOPLE V. ST. JOHN,
108 CAL. APP. 779, 784; MILWAUKEE V. KASSEN, 203 WIS. 383, 384; ALMASSI
V. NEWARK, 8 N.J. MISC. 420, 422; 150 A. 217, 218; COMMONWEALTH V.
KIMBALL, 13 N.E.2D 18, 21; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 451. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE EFFECT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF HAND-BILLS,
DODGERS, ETC., ON THE STREETS WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME WHETHER
THEY CONTAIN PRINTED MATTER OF A COMMERCIAL NATURE OR POLITICAL OR
RELIGIOUS MATTER.  MILWAUKEE V. KASSEN, 203 WIS. 383, 385. 

A POLICE REGULATION INTENDED AS SUCH AND NOT OPERATING UNREASONABLY
BEYOND THE OCCASION OF ITS ENACTMENT IS NOT RENDERED INVALID BY THE
FACT THAT IT MAY INCIDENTALLY AFFECT SOME RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  CF. OP. OF ROBERTS, J., IN THE HAGUE CASE, 307 U.S. 496;
STATE V. GIBBES, 171 S.C. 209, 218; PEOPLE V. ALTERIE, 356 ILL. 307,
309; FRANCIS V. PEOPLE, 11 F.2D 860, 865. 

SINCE THE OBJECT OF THE ORDINANCE IS NOT CENSORSHIP OR THE
RESTRICTION OF THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE
ORDINANCE IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE RULE OF "CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER."  SEE, HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242. 

IT IS BESIDE THE ISSUE WHETHER OTHER MEANS MIGHT BE EMPLOYED TO
PREVENT THE LITTERING OF THE CITY STREETS.  UNDER THE POLICE POWER ANY
PRACTICE WHICH TENDS TO ENDANGER THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE
PUBLIC MAY BE PREVENTED.  PURITY EXTRACT CO. V. LYNCH, 226 U.S. 192,
201; HEBE CO. V. SHAW, 248 U.S. 297, 304; EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO.,
272 U.S. 365, 388; MAXCY, INC., V. MAYO, 103 FLA. 552, 577. 

SINCE THE ORDINANCE IS NOT A CENSORSHIP MEASURE, IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO
THE CRITICISM MADE OF THE ORDINANCES INVOLVED IN HAGUE'S CASE, SUPRA,
AND LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444. 

THE DISTINCTION POINTED OUT BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IN THE HAGUE CASE
BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE INVOLVED IN THAT CASE AND THE ONE IN DAVIS V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43, IS THE FEATURE WHICH DISTINGUISHES THE
HAGUE CASE FROM THE CASE AT BAR. 

BY REASON OF THE NATURE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE HAND-BILL, FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

THE ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED UNDER AMPLE AUTHORITY.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN,
303 U.S. 444; PHILADELPHIA V. BRABENDER, 201 PA. 574; 51 A. 374;
MILWAUKEE V. KASSEN, 203 WIS. 383; 234 N.W. 352; SAN FRANCISCO SHOPPING
NEWS CO. V. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, 69 F.2D 879, CERT. DEN., 293 U.S. 606;
IN RE THORNBURG, 9 N.E.2D 516; PEOPLE V. HORWITZ, 27 N.Y. CR. REP. 237;
140 N.Y.S. 437, 439; ALLEN V. MCGOVERN, 169 A. 345; JACOBSON V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11; GOLDBLATT BROS. CORP. V. EAST CHICAGO, 6
N.E.2D 331; MCQUILLIN, MUN.  CORP.  (2D ED.), VOL. 3, SEC. 948. 

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RULES FORMULATED TO
SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND TO PREVENT ABUSE IN THE MANNER OF THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT, AS LONG AS THE RIGHT ITSELF IS NEITHER SUSPENDED
NOR ABROGATED.  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666, 667; WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 371; STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359,
368; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 707, 708; DEJONGE V. OREGON, 299
U.S. 353, 364; FREND V. UNITED STATES, 100 F.2D 691. 

THE MEANS ADOPTED ARE LEGITIMATE AND REASONABLE MEANS OF REGULATION. 

THE ORDINANCE IS A VALID REGULATION UNDER THE POLICE POWER FOR THE
PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC ORDER, AND THE PREVENTION OF MISUSE, BY
LITTERING, OF THE PUBLIC WAYS; AND ITS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS DO NOT
OFFEND AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444; HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S.
496. 

THE CONSTRUCTION BY THE COURT BELOW OF THE WORD "DISTRIBUTION," AS
USED IN THE ORDINANCE, SHOULD BE ADOPTED. 

THE HISTORIC CONCEPT OF LIBERTY OF THE PRESS SET FORTH BY THIS COURT
IN NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, AND LIKE CASES IS NOT AT WAR WITH
THIS REGULATION.  HERE THERE IS NO INTENT TO STOP ALL FREE
DISSEMINATION OF LITERATURE AND OPINION, BUT ONLY SUCH A PARTICULAR
EXERCISE OF IT AS WILL INTERFERE WITH TRAVELERS IN THE PUBLIC WAY.  SEE
OP. OF COURT BELOW.  CF. COMMONWEALTH V. KIMBALL, 13 N.E.2D 18; IN RE
ANDERSON, 69 NEB. 686; MILWAUKEE V. KASSEN, 203 WIS. 383; DAVIS V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FOUR CASES ARE HERE, EACH OF WHICH PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER
REGULATIONS EMBODIED IN A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS SECURED AGAINST STATE INVASION BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN1

                               NO. 13. 

THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 1936, PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 28.00.  'HAND-BILL' SHALL MEAN ANY HAND-BILL, DODGER,
COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING CIRCULAR, FOLDER, BOOKLET, LETTER, CARD,
PAMPHLET, SHEET, POSTER, STICKER, BANNER, NOTICE OR OTHER WRITTEN,
PRINTED OR PAINTED MATTER CALCULATED TO ATTRACT ATTENTION OF THE
PUBLIC." 

"SEC. 28.01.  NO PERSON SHALL DISTRIBUTE ANY HAND-BILL TO OR AMONG
PEDESTRIANS ALONG OR UPON ANY STREET, SIDEWALK OR PARK, OR TO
PASSENGERS ON ANY STREET CAR, OR THROW, PLACE OR ATTACH ANY HAND-BILL
IN, TO, OR UPON ANY AUTOMOBILE OR OTHER VEHICLE." 

THE APPELLANT WAS CHARGED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT WITH A VIOLATION OF
SEC. 28.01.  UPON HIS TRIAL IT WAS PROVED THAT HE DISTRIBUTED HANDBILLS
TO PEDESTRIANS ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND HAD MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED IN
HIS POSSESSION FOR THAT PURPOSE.  JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS ENTERED
AND SENTENCE IMPOSED.  THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  FN2  THAT COURT BEING THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE
STATE AUTHORIZED TO PASS UPON SUCH A CASE, AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS
ALLOWED. 

THE HANDBILL WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS DISTRIBUTING BORE A NOTICE OF A
MEETING TO BE HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF "FRIENDS LINCOLN BRIGADE" AT
WHICH SPEAKERS WOULD DISCUSS THE WAR IN SPAIN.  FN2 

THE COURT BELOW SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCE ON THE GROUND
THAT EXPERIENCE SHOWS LITTERING OF THE STREETS RESULTS FROM THE
INDISCRIMINATE DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBILLS.  FN3  IT HELD THAT THE RIGHT
OF FREE EXPRESSION IS NOT ABSOLUTE BUT SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION
AND THAT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT TRANSGRESS THE BOUNDS OF
REASONABLENESS.  LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, WAS
DISTINGUISHED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDINANCE THERE IN QUESTION
PROHIBITED DISTRIBUTION ANYWHERE WITHIN THE CITY WHILE THE ONE INVOLVED
FORBIDS DISTRIBUTION IN A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF PLACES. 

                             NO. 18. 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, PROVIDES:  "IT IS
HEREBY MADE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON  ...  TO  ...  THROW  ...  PAPER
...  OR TO CIRCULATE OR DISTRIBUTE ANY CIRCULAR, HAND-BILLS, CARDS,
POSTERS, DODGERS, OR OTHER PRINTED OR ADVERTISING MATTER  ...  IN OR
UPON ANY SIDEWALK, STREET, ALLEY, WHARF, BOAT LANDING, DOCK OR OTHER
PUBLIC PLACE, PARK OR GROUND WITHIN THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE.  ...  " 

THE PETITIONER, WHO WAS ACTING AS A PICKET, STOOD IN THE STREET IN
FRONT OF A MEAT MARKET AND DISTRIBUTED TO PASSING PEDESTRIANS HAND
BILLS WHICH PERTAINED TO A LABOR DISPUTE WITH THE MEAT MARKET, SET
FORTH THE POSITION OF ORGANIZED LABOR WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKET, AND
ASKED CITIZENS TO REFRAIN FROM PATRONIZING IT.  SOME OF THE BILLS WERE
THROWN IN THE STREET BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM THEY WERE GIVEN AND IT
RESULTED THAT MANY OF THE PAPERS LAY IN THE GUTTER AND IN THE STREET. 
THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED THE PETITIONER AND CHARGED HIM WITH A
VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE DID NOT ARREST ANY OF THOSE WHO RECEIVED THE
BILLS AND THREW THEM AWAY.  THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT THE ACTION OF THE
OFFICERS ACCORDED WITH A POLICY OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN ENFORCEMENT
OF THE ORDINANCE TO THE EFFECT THAT, WHEN SUCH DISTRIBUTION RESULTED IN
LITTERING OF THE STREETS THE ONE WHO WAS THE CAUSE OF THE LITTERING,
THAT IS, HE WHO PASSED OUT THE BILLS, WAS ARRESTED RATHER THAN THOSE
WHO RECEIVED THEM AND AFTERWARDS THREW THEM AWAY.  THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY
COURT FOUND THE PETITIONER GUILTY AND FINED HIM.  ON APPEAL THE
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT.  FN4 

THE COURT HELD THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE WAS TO PREVENT AN
UNSIGHTLY, UNTIDY, AND OFFENSIVE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALKS.  IT
DISTINGUISHED LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, SUPRA, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
ORDINANCE THERE CONSIDERED MANIFESTLY WAS NOT AIMED AT PREVENTION OF
LITTERING OF THE STREETS.  THE COURT APPROVED THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORDINANCE BY THE POLICE OFFICIALS AND FELT THAT
THIS CONSTRUCTION SUSTAINED ITS VALIDITY.  THE COURT SAID:  "UNLESS AND
UNTIL DELIVERY OF THE HAND-BILLS WAS SHOWN TO RESULT IN A LITTERING OF
THE STREETS THEIR DISTRIBUTION WAS NOT INTERFERED WITH." 
                NO. 29. 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, PROVIDES:  "NO
PERSON SHALL DISTRIBUTE IN, OR PLACE UPON ANY STREET OR WAY, ANY
PLACARD, HANDBILL, FLYER, POSTER, ADVERTISEMENT OR PAPER OF ANY
DESCRIPTION.  ...  " 

THE APPELLANTS DISTRIBUTED IN A STREET LEAFLETS ANNOUNCING A PROTEST
MEETING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE.  THEY DID NOT THROW ANY OF THE LEAFLETS ON THE SIDEWALK OR
SCATTER THEM.  SOME OF THOSE TO WHOM THE LEAFLETS WERE HANDED THREW
THEM ON THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET, WITH THE RESULT THAT SOME THIRTY
WERE LYING ABOUT.    THE APPELLANTS WERE ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH A
VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.  THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WORCESTER COUNTY
RENDERED A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND IMPOSED SENTENCE.  THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OVERRULED EXCEPTIONS.  FN5  THAT COURT HELD THE
ORDINANCE A VALID REGULATION OF THE USE OF THE STREETS AND SOUGHT THUS
TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM THE ONE INVOLVED IN LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN,
SUPRA, WHICH THE COURT SAID WAS NOT SUCH A REGULATION.  REFERRING TO
THE ORDINANCE THE COURT SAID: "IT INTERFERES IN NO WAY WITH THE
PUBLICATION OF ANYTHING IN THE CITY OF WORCESTER, EXCEPT ONLY THAT IT
EXCLUDES THE PUBLIC STREETS AND WAYS FROM THE PLACES AVAILABLE FOR FREE
DISTRIBUTION.  IT LEAVES OPEN FOR SUCH DISTRIBUTION ALL OTHER PLACES IN
THE CITY, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE." 

                               NO. 11. 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF IRVINGTON, NEW JERSEY, PROVIDES:  "NO
PERSON EXCEPT AS IN THIS ORDINANCE PROVIDED SHALL CANVASS, SOLICIT,
DISTRIBUTE CIRCULARS, OR OTHER MATTER, OR CALL FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE IN
THE TOWN OF IRVINGTON WITHOUT FIRST HAVING REPORTED TO AND RECEIVED A
WRITTEN PERMIT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE OR THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF
POLICE HEADQUARTERS."  IT FURTHER ENACTS THAT A PERMIT TO CANVASS SHALL
SPECIFY THE NUMBER OF HOURS OR DAYS IT WILL BE IN EFFECT; THAT THE
CANVASSER MUST MAKE AN APPLICATION GIVING HIS NAME, ADDRESS, AGE,
HEIGHT, WEIGHT, PLACE OF BIRTH, WHETHER OR NOT PREVIOUSLY ARRESTED OR
CONVICTED OF CRIME, BY WHOM EMPLOYED, ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER, CLOTHING
WORN, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT FOR WHICH HE IS CANVASSING; THAT EACH
APPLICANT SHALL BE FINGERPRINTED AND PHOTOGRAPHED; THAT THE CHIEF OF
POLICE SHALL REFUSE A PERMIT IN ALL CASES WHERE THE APPLICATION, OR
FURTHER INVESTIGATION MADE AT THE OFFICER'S DISCRETION, SHOWS THAT THE
CANVASSER IS NOT OF GOOD CHARACTER OR IS CANVASSING FOR A PROJECT NOT
FREE FROM FRAUD; THAT CANVASSING MAY ONLY BE DONE BETWEEN 9 A.M. AND 5
P.M.; THAT THE CANVASSER MUST FURNISH A PHOTOGRAPH OF HIMSELF WHICH IS
TO BE ATTACHED TO THE PERMIT; THAT THE PERMITTEE MUST EXHIBIT THE
PERMIT TO ANY POLICE OFFICER OR OTHER PERSON UPON REQUEST, MUST BE
COURTEOUS TO ALL PERSONS IN CANVASSING, MUST NOT IMPORTUNE OR ANNOY THE
TOWN'S INHABITANTS OR CONDUCT HIMSELF IN AN UNLAWFUL MANNER AND MUST,
AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT, SURRENDER IT AT POLICE HEADQUARTERS. 
PERSONS DELIVERING GOODS, MERCHANDISE, OR OTHER ARTICLES IN THE REGULAR
COURSE OF BUSINESS TO THE PREMISES OF PERSONS ORDERING, OR ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE THE SAME, ARE EXEMPTED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ORDINANCE. 
VIOLATION IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT. 

THE PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH CANVASSING WITHOUT A
PERMIT.  THE PROOFS SHOW THAT SHE IS A MEMBER OF THE WATCH TOWER BIBLE
AND TRACT SOCIETY AND, AS SUCH, CERTIFIED BY THE SOCIETY TO BE ONE OF
"JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES."  IN THIS CAPACITY SHE CALLED FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE
IN THE TOWN AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT AND SHOWED TO THE
OCCUPANTS A SO-CALLED TESTIMONY AND IDENTIFICATION CARD SIGNED BY THE
SOCIETY.  THE CARD STATED THAT SHE WOULD LEAVE SOME BOOKLETS DISCUSSING
PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE PERSON INTERVIEWED; AND THAT, BY CONTRIBUTING A
SMALL SUM, THAT PERSON WOULD MAKE POSSIBLE THE PRINTING OF MORE
BOOKLETS WHICH COULD BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF OTHERS.  THE CARD
CERTIFIED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS AN ORDAINED MINISTER SENT FORTH BY
THE SOCIETY, WHICH IS ORGANIZED TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF GOD'S KINGDOM,
AND CITED PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE WITH RESPECT TO THE OBLIGATION SO TO
PREACH.  THE PETITIONER LEFT, OR OFFERED TO LEAVE, THE BOOKS OR
BOOKLETS WITH THE OCCUPANTS OF THE HOUSES VISITED.  SHE DID NOT APPLY
FOR, OR OBTAIN, A PERMIT PURSUANT TO THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE SHE
CONSCIENTIOUSLY BELIEVED THAT SO TO DO WOULD BE AN ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE
TO THE COMMAND OF ALMIGHTY GOD. 

THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE RECORDER'S COURT.  THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  ON A FURTHER APPEAL THE SUPREME
COURT AFFIRMED.  FN6  THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT.  FN7 

THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER'S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO THE
SOLICITATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT A PERMIT,
AND HELD THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SUCH ACTION A VALID REGULATION,
AIMED AT PROTECTING OCCUPANTS AND OTHERS FROM DISTURBANCE AND ANNOYANCE
AND PREVENTING UNKNOWN STRANGERS FROM VISITING HOUSES BY DAY AND
NIGHT.  IT OVERRULED THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE MEASURE
DENIES OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICTS FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS.  THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS THOUGHT LOVELL V. CITY OF
GRIFFIN, SUPRA, NOT CONTROLLING, SINCE THE ORDINANCE IN THAT CASE
PROHIBITED ALL DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATTER AND WAS NOT LIMITED TO
WAYS WHICH MIGHT BE REGARDED AS CONSISTENT WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF
PUBLIC ORDER OR AS INVOLVING DISORDERLY CONDUCT, MOLESTATION OF
INHABITANTS, OR MISUSE OR LITTERING OF THE STREETS, WHEREAS THE
ORDINANCE HERE INVOLVED IS AIMED AT CANVASSING OR SOLICITING, SUBJECTS
NOT EMBRACED IN THAT CONDEMNED IN THE LOVELL CASE.  THE COURT SAID:  "A
MUNICIPALITY MAY PROTECT ITS CITIZENS AGAINST FRAUDULENT SOLICITATION
AND, WHEN IT ENACTS AN ORDINANCE TO DO SO, ALL PERSONS ARE REQUIRED TO
ABIDE THEREBY.  THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION WAS EVIDENTLY DESIGNED FOR
THAT PURPOSE  ...  " 

THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS SECURED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT
AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY THE UNITED STATES IS SIMILARLY SECURED TO ALL
PERSONS BY THE FOURTEENTH AGAINST ABRIDGMENT BY A STATE.  FN8 

ALTHOUGH A MUNICIPALITY MAY ENACT REGULATIONS IN THE INTEREST OF THE
PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH, WELFARE OR CONVENIENCE, THESE MAY NOT ABRIDGE
THE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THOSE WHO WISH
TO SPEAK, WRITE, PRINT OR CIRCULATE INFORMATION OR OPINION. 

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES, AS TRUSTEES FOR THE PUBLIC, HAVE THE DUTY TO
KEEP THEIR COMMUNITIES' STREETS OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR MOVEMENT OF
PEOPLE AND PROPERTY, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE TO WHICH THE STREETS ARE
DEDICATED.  SO LONG AS LEGISLATION TO THIS END DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY OF ONE RIGHTFULLY UPON THE STREET TO IMPART
INFORMATION THROUGH SPEECH OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE, IT MAY
LAWFULLY REGULATE THE CONDUCT OF THOSE USING THE STREETS.  FOR EXAMPLE,
A PERSON COULD NOT EXERCISE THIS LIBERTY BY TAKING HIS STAND IN THE
MIDDLE OF A CROWDED STREET, CONTRARY TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, AND
MAINTAIN HIS POSITION TO THE STOPPAGE OF ALL TRAFFIC; A GROUP OF
DISTRIBUTORS COULD NOT INSIST UPON A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FORM A
CORDON ACROSS THE STREET AND TO ALLOW NO PEDESTRIAN TO PASS WHO DID NOT
ACCEPT A TENDERED LEAFLET; NOR DOES THE GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH
OR OF THE PRESS DEPRIVE A MUNICIPALITY OF POWER TO ENACT REGULATIONS
AGAINST THROWING LITERATURE BROADCAST IN THE STREETS.  PROHIBITION OF
SUCH CONDUCT WOULD NOT ABRIDGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY SINCE SUCH
ACTIVITY BEARS NO NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP TO THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK,
WRITE, PRINT OR DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION OR OPINION. 

THIS COURT HAS CHARACTERIZED THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THAT OF THE
PRESS AS FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.  FN9  THE PHRASE IS
NOT AN EMPTY ONE AND WAS NOT LIGHTLY USED.  IT REFLECTS THE BELIEF OF
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS LIES AT THE
FOUNDATION OF FREE GOVERNMENT BY FREE MEN.  IT STRESSES, AS DO MANY
OPINIONS OF THIS COURT, THE IMPORTANCE OF PREVENTING THE RESTRICTION OF
ENJOYMENT OF THESE LIBERTIES. 

IN EVERY CASE, THEREFORE, WHERE LEGISLATIVE ABRIDGMENT OF THE RIGHTS
IS ASSERTED, THE COURTS SHOULD BE ASTUTE TO EXAMINE THE EFFECT OF THE
CHALLENGED LEGISLATION.  MERE LEGISLATIVE PREFERENCES OR BELIEFS
RESPECTING MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE MAY WELL SUPPORT REGULATION
DIRECTED AT OTHER PERSONAL ACTIVITIES, BUT BE INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY
SUCH AS DIMINISHES THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS SO VITAL TO THE MAINTENANCE
OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.  AND SO, AS CASES ARISE, THE DELICATE AND
DIFFICULT TASK FALLS UPON THE COURTS TO WEIGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO
APPRAISE THE SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE REASONS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THE
REGULATION OF THE FREE ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS. 

IN LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, SUPRA, THIS COURT HELD VOID AN ORDINANCE
WHICH FORBADE THE DISTRIBUTION BY HAND OR OTHERWISE OF LITERATURE OF
ANY KIND WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CITY MANAGER.  THE OPINION
POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS NOT LIMITED TO OBSCENE AND IMMORAL
LITERATURE OR THAT WHICH ADVOCATED UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, PLACED NO LIMIT ON
THE PRIVILEGE OF DISTRIBUTION IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC ORDER, WAS NOT
AIMED TO PREVENT MOLESTATION OF INHABITANTS OR MISUSE OR LITTERING OF
STREETS, AND WAS WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO TIME OR PLACE OF
DISTRIBUTION.  THE COURT SAID THAT, WHATEVER THE MOTIVE, THE ORDINANCE
WAS BAD BECAUSE IT IMPOSED PENALTIES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS,
WHICH HAD BECOME HISTORICAL WEAPONS IN THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY, BY
SUBJECTING SUCH DISTRIBUTION TO LICENSE AND CENSORSHIP; AND THAT THE
ORDINANCE WAS VOID ON ITS FACE, BECAUSE IT ABRIDGED THE FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS.  SIMILARLY IN HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, AN ORDINANCE WAS
HELD VOID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE IT PROVIDED FOR PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE
CENSORSHIP OF THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY IN
APPROPRIATE PUBLIC PLACES. 

THE LOS ANGELES, THE MILWAUKEE, AND THE WORCESTER ORDINANCES UNDER
REVIEW DO NOT PURPORT TO LICENSE DISTRIBUTION BUT ALL OF THEM
ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT IT IN THE STREETS AND, ONE OF THEM, IN OTHER PUBLIC
PLACES AS WELL. 

THE MOTIVE OF THE LEGISLATION UNDER ATTACK IN NUMBERS 13, 18, AND 29
IS HELD BY THE COURTS BELOW TO BE THE PREVENTION OF LITTERING OF THE
STREETS AND, ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGED OFFENDERS WERE NOT CHARGED WITH
THEMSELVES SCATTERING PAPER IN THE STREETS, THEIR CONVICTIONS WERE
SUSTAINED UPON THE THEORY THAT DISTRIBUTION BY THEM ENCOURAGED OR
RESULTED IN SUCH LITTERING.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE PURPOSE TO KEEP
THE STREETS CLEAN AND OF GOOD APPEARANCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY AN
ORDINANCE WHICH PROHIBITS A PERSON RIGHTFULLY ON A PUBLIC STREET FROM
HANDING LITERATURE TO ONE WILLING TO RECEIVE IT.  ANY BURDEN IMPOSED
UPON THE CITY AUTHORITIES IN CLEANING AND CARING FOR THE STREETS AS AN
INDIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION RESULTS FROM THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS.  THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION DOES NOT DEPRIVE A CITY OF ALL POWER TO
PREVENT STREET LITTERING.  THERE ARE OBVIOUS METHODS OF PREVENTING
LITTERING.  AMONGST THESE IS THE PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WHO ACTUALLY THROW
PAPERS ON THE STREETS. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IN THE ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT OF
THE MILWAUKEE ORDINANCE THE DISTRIBUTOR IS ARRESTED ONLY IF THOSE WHO
RECEIVE THE LITERATURE THROW IT IN THE STREETS, RENDERS IT VALID.  BUT,
EVEN AS THUS CONSTRUED, THE ORDINANCE CANNOT BE ENFORCED WITHOUT
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABRIDGING THE LIBERTY OF FREE SPEECH.  AS WE HAVE
POINTED OUT, THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE IN RESPECT OF CLEANLINESS OF THE
STREETS DOES NOT JUSTIFY AN EXERTION OF THE POLICE POWER WHICH INVADES
THE FREE COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION AND OPINION SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE LOS ANGELES AND WORCESTER ORDINANCES ARE
VALID BECAUSE THEIR OPERATION IS LIMITED TO STREETS AND ALLEYS AND
LEAVES PERSONS FREE TO DISTRIBUTE PRINTED MATTER IN OTHER PUBLIC
PLACES.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE STREETS ARE NATURAL AND PROPER
PLACES FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION AND OPINION; AND ONE IS NOT
TO HAVE THE EXERCISE OF HIS LIBERTY OF EXPRESSION IN APPROPRIATE PLACES
ABRIDGED ON THE PLEA THAT IT MAY BE EXERCISED IN SOME OTHER PLACE. 

WHILE IT AFFECTS OTHERS, THE IRVINGTON ORDINANCE DRAWN IN QUESTION IN
NO. 11, AS CONSTRUED BELOW, AFFECTS ALL THOSE, WHO, LIKE THE
PETITIONER, DESIRE TO IMPART INFORMATION AND OPINION TO CITIZENS AT
THEIR HOMES.  IF IT COVERS THE PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES IT EQUALLY
APPLIES TO ONE WHO WISHES TO PRESENT HIS VIEWS ON POLITICAL, SOCIAL OR
ECONOMIC QUESTIONS.  THE ORDINANCE IS NOT LIMITED TO THOSE WHO CANVASS
FOR PRIVATE PROFIT; NOR IS IT MERELY THE COMMON TYPE OF ORDINANCE
REQUIRING SOME FORM OF REGISTRATION OR LICENSE OF HAWKERS, OR
PEDDLERS.  IT IS NOT A GENERAL ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT TRESPASSING.  IT
BANS UNLICENSED COMMUNICATION OF ANY VIEWS OR THE ADVOCACY OF ANY CAUSE
FROM DOOR TO DOOR, AND PERMITS CANVASSING ONLY SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF
A POLICE OFFICER TO DETERMINE, AS A CENSOR, WHAT LITERATURE MAY BE
DISTRIBUTED FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE AND WHO MAY DISTRIBUTE IT.  THE
APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT TO THAT OFFICER'S JUDGMENT EVIDENCE AS TO HIS
GOOD CHARACTER AND AS TO THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD IN THE "PROJECT" HE
PROPOSES TO PROMOTE OR THE LITERATURE HE INTENDS TO DISTRIBUTE, AND
MUST UNDERGO A BURDENSOME AND INQUISITORIAL EXAMINATION, INCLUDING
PHOTOGRAPHING AND FINGERPRINTING.  IN THE END, HIS LIBERTY TO
COMMUNICATE WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN AT THEIR HOMES DEPENDS UPON
THE EXERCISE OF THE OFFICER'S DISCRETION. 

AS SAID IN LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, SUPRA, PAMPHLETS HAVE PROVED
MOST EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENTS IN THE DISSEMINATION OF OPINION.  AND
PERHAPS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY OF BRINGING THEM TO THE NOTICE OF
INDIVIDUALS IS THEIR DISTRIBUTION AT THE HOMES OF THE PEOPLE.  ON THIS
METHOD OF COMMUNICATION THE ORDINANCE IMPOSES CENSORSHIP, ABUSE OF
WHICH ENGENDERED THE STRUGGLE IN ENGLAND WHICH EVENTUATED IN THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS EMBODIED IN
OUR CONSTITUTION.  TO REQUIRE A CENSORSHIP THROUGH LICENSE WHICH MAKES
IMPOSSIBLE THE FREE AND UNHAMPERED DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS STRIKES AT
THE VERY HEART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES.    CONCEDING THAT
FRAUDULENT APPEALS MAY BE MADE IN THE NAME OF CHARITY AND RELIGION, WE
HOLD A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT, FOR THIS REASON, REQUIRE ALL WHO WISH TO
DISSEMINATE IDEAS TO PRESENT THEM FIRST TO POLICE AUTHORITIES FOR THEIR
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL, WITH A DISCRETION IN THE POLICE TO SAY SOME
IDEAS MAY, WHILE OTHERS MAY NOT, BE CARRIED TO THE HOMES OF CITIZENS;
SOME PERSONS MAY, WHILE OTHERS MAY NOT, DISSEMINATE INFORMATION FROM
HOUSE TO HOUSE.  FRAUDS MAY BE DENOUNCED AS OFFENSES AND PUNISHED BY
LAW.  TRESPASSES MAY SIMILARLY BE FORBIDDEN.  IF IT IS SAID THAT THESE
MEANS ARE LESS EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT THAN BESTOWAL OF POWER ON
POLICE AUTHORITIES TO DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION MAY BE DISSEMINATED FROM
HOUSE TO HOUSE, AND WHO MAY IMPART THE INFORMATION, THE ANSWER IS THAT
CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS SORT DO NOT EMPOWER A MUNICIPALITY TO ABRIDGE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS. 

WE ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS HOLDING THAT COMMERCIAL SOLICITING AND
CANVASSING MAY NOT BE SUBJECTED TO SUCH REGULATION AS THE ORDINANCE
REQUIRES.  NOR DO WE HOLD THAT THE TOWN MAY NOT FIX REASONABLE HOURS
WHEN CANVASSING MAY BE DONE BY PERSONS HAVING SUCH OBJECTS AS THE
PETITIONER.  DOUBTLESS THERE ARE OTHER FEATURES OF SUCH ACTIVITIES
WHICH MAY BE REGULATED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITHOUT PRIOR LICENSING
OR OTHER INVASION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY.  WE DO HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT
THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION, AS APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER'S CONDUCT, IS
VOID, AND SHE CANNOT BE PUNISHED FOR ACTING WITHOUT A PERMIT. 

THE JUDGMENT IN EACH CASE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI IN TWO OF THE CASES, AND NOTED JURISDICTION IN THE OTHERS. 

FN2  33 CAL. APP.2D 747; 85 P.2D 231. 

FN3  ON THE HAND-BILL WERE THE WORDS "ADMISSION 25[ AND 50[."  THE
SUPERIOR COURT ADVERTED TO THESE AND SAID:  "WHATEVER TRAFFIC IN IDEAS
THE FRIENDS LINCOLN BRIGADE MAY HAVE PLANNED FOR THE MEETING, THE CARDS
THEMSELVES SEEM TO FALL WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL
ADVERTISING RATHER THAN THE EXPRESSION OF ONE'S VIEWS.  BUT IF THIS BE
SO, OUR CONCLUSION IS NOT THEREBY CHANGED." 

FN4  230 WIS. 131; 283 N.W. 301. 

FN5  MASS. ADV.  1938, 1969; 18 N.E.2D 166. 

FN6  120 N.J. LAW 460; 200 A. 799. 

FN7  121 N.J. LAW 542; 3 A.2D 609. 

FN8  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274
U.S. 357; STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN
PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233; DEJONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353; HERNDON V.
LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242; LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444.  THERE IS
NO AVERMENT OR PROOF IN ANY OF THE CASES THAT THE APPELLANTS OR
PETITIONERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND IN THE YOUNG CASE,
NO. 13, THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WERE CHALLENGED
ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THEY INFRINGED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CF. NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S.
308, 317; NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. NEBRASKA STATE RY. COMM'N,
297 U.S. 471 AT 473. 

FN9  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., SUPRA, P. 244; DEJONGE V.
OREGON, SUPRA, P. 364; LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, SUPRA, P. 450. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT IN EACH CASE
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :








NEIRBO CO. V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 308 U.S. 165 


NO. 38.  ARGUED OCTOBER 17, 18, 1939 - DECIDED NOVEMBER 22, 1939.  - 103
F.2D 765, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED, WHICH PROVIDES THAT
"NO CIVIL SUIT SHALL BE BROUGHT IN ANY DISTRICT COURT AGAINST ANY
PERSON BY ANY ORIGINAL PROCESS OR PROCEEDING IN ANY OTHER DISTRICT THAN
THAT WHEREOF HE IS AN INHABITANT; BUT WHERE THE JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED
ONLY ON THE FACT THAT THE ACTION IS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
STATES, SUIT SHALL BE BROUGHT ONLY IN THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF
EITHER THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT," MERELY ACCORDS TO THE DEFENDANT
A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE OF OBJECTING TO THE VENUE OF SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST
HIM IN DISTRICTS WHEREIN UNDER THE SECTION HE MAY NOT BE COMPELLED TO
ANSWER.  P. 168. 

2.  THE PRIVILEGE ACCORDED BY SEC. 51 MAY BE LOST BY FAILURE TO
ASSERT IT SEASONABLY, BY FORMAL SUBMISSION IN A CAUSE, OR BY SUBMISSION
THROUGH CONDUCT.  P. 168. 

3.  SUCH SURRENDER OF THE PRIVILEGE MAY BE REGARDED NEGATIVELY AS A
WAIVER OR POSITIVELY AS A CONSENT TO BE SUED.  P. 168. 

4.  A DESIGNATION BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION, IN CONFORMITY WITH A
VALID STATUTE OF A STATE AND AS A CONDITION OF DOING BUSINESS WITHIN
IT, OF AN AGENT UPON WHOM SERVICE OF PROCESS MAY BE MADE, HELD AN
EFFECTIVE CONSENT TO BE SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF THAT STATE.  PP.
170, 174. 

5.  PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF 1887, THE PROVISION WAS THAT "NO CIVIL
SUIT SHALL BE BROUGHT BEFORE EITHER OF SAID COURTS AGAINST ANY PERSON
BY ANY ORIGINAL PROCESS OR PROCEEDING IN ANY OTHER DISTRICT THAN THAT
WHEREOF HE IS AN INHABITANT, OR IN WHICH HE SHALL BE FOUND  ...  "
HELD, THE OMISSION BY THAT AMENDMENT OF THE WORDS "IN WHICH HE SHALL BE
FOUND" WAS NOT INTENDED TO AFFECT THE IMPLICATIONS OF A CONSENT TO BE
SUED AND WAS NOT DIRECTED TOWARD ANY CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF A
CORPORATE LITIGANT.  EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369, AND SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. DENTON, 146 U.S. 202, RECONCILED.  P. 171. 

6.  A STATE CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY REQUIRE A FOREIGN CORPORATION, AS A
CONDITION OF DOING A LOCAL BUSINESS, TO DESIGNATE AN AGENT UPON WHOM
SERVICE OF PROCESS MAY BE MADE.  P. 175. 

7.  THE FINDING IN THIS CASE THAT THE FOREIGN CORPORATION, BY ITS
DESIGNATION UNDER THE STATE LAW OF AN AGENT FOR THE SERVICE OF PROCESS,
HAD CONSENTED TO BE SUED IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, FEDERAL AS WELL AS
STATE, IS NOT A SUBJECTION OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
STATE LAW, BUT A RECOGNITION THAT STATE LEGISLATION AND CONSENT OF
PARTIES MAY BRING ABOUT A STATE OF FACTS WHICH WILL AUTHORIZE THE
FEDERAL COURTS TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF A CASE.  P. 175. 

NEIRBO CO. ET AL. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., LTD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT QUASHING SERVICE OF PROCESS ON THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATION AND DISMISSING AS TO IT THE PETITIONERS' BILL. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT OF AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SETTING ASIDE SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON
BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, LTD. (HEREAFTER CALLED BETHLEHEM)
AND DISMISSING AS TO IT PETITIONERS' BILL, 103 F.2D 765.  THE SUIT WAS
BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND WAS NOT BROUGHT "IN THE DISTRICT
OF THE RESIDENCE OF EITHER THE PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT."  (SEC. 51
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, 24 STAT. 552, AS CORRECTED
BY ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1888, 25 STAT. 433, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 112.)  FN1  WE
TOOK THE CASE, 307 U.S. 619, BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTIES IN
APPLICATION OF SEC. 51, EMPHASIZED BY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE VIEWS BELOW
AND THOSE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 
OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELEC.  CO., 100 F.2D 770.  THE
SOLE QUESTION IN THE CASE IS WHETHER SEC. 51 IS SATISFIED BY THE
DESIGNATION BY A FOREIGN CORPORATION OF AN AGENT FOR SERVICE OF
PROCESS, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW OF A STATE IN WHICH SUIT IS BROUGHT
AGAINST IT IN ONE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR THAT STATE. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS - THEIR POWER TO ADJUDICATE -
IS A GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO THEM BY CONGRESS AND THUS BEYOND THE SCOPE
OF LITIGANTS TO CONFER.  BUT THE LOCALITY OF A LAW SUIT - THE PLACE
WHERE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY MAY BE EXERCISED - THOUGH DEFINED BY
LEGISLATION RELATES TO THE CONVENIENCE OF LITIGANTS AND AS SUCH IS
SUBJECT TO THEIR DISPOSITION.  THIS BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
COURT'S POWER AND THE LITIGANT'S CONVENIENCE IS HISTORIC IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  AFTER A PERIOD OF CONFUSING DEVIATION IT WAS FIRMLY
REESTABLISHED IN GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE RY. CO., 260 U.S.
261, AND LEE V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO., IBID. 653, OVER-RULING EX
PARTE WISNER, 203 U.S. 449, AND QUALIFYING IN RE MOORE, 209 U.S. 490. 
ALL THE PARTIES MAY BE NON-RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT WHERE SUIT IS
BROUGHT.  LEE V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO., SUPRA. SECTION 51 "MERELY
ACCORDS TO THE DEFENDANT A PERSONAL PRIVILEGE RESPECTING THE VENUE, OR
PLACE OF SUIT, WHICH HE MAY ASSERT, OR MAY WAIVE, AT HIS ELECTION." 
COMMERCIAL INS. CO. V. STONE CO., 278 U.S. 177, 179. 

BEING A PRIVILEGE, IT MAY BE LOST.  IT MAY BE LOST BY FAILURE TO
ASSERT IT SEASONABLY, BY FORMAL SUBMISSION IN A CAUSE, OR BY SUBMISSION
THROUGH CONDUCT.  COMMERCIAL INS. CO. V. STONE CO., SUPRA.  WHETHER
SUCH SURRENDER OF A PERSONAL IMMUNITY BE CONCEIVED NEGATIVELY AS A
WAIVER OR POSITIVELY AS A CONSENT TO BE SUED, IS MERELY AN EXPRESSION
OF LITERARY PREFERENCE.  THE ESSENCE OF THE MATTER IS THAT COURTS AFFIX
TO CONDUCT CONSEQUENCES AS TO PLACE OF SUIT CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY
BEHIND SEC. 51, WHICH IS "TO SAVE DEFENDANTS FROM INCONVENIENCES TO
WHICH THEY MIGHT BE SUBJECTED IF THEY COULD BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER IN
ANY DISTRICT, OR WHEREVER FOUND."  GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE
RY. CO., SUPRA, AT 275. 

WHEN THE LITIGANTS ARE NATURAL PERSONS THE CONCEPTIONS UNDERLYING
VENUE PRESENT RELATIVELY FEW PROBLEMS IN APPLICATION.  BUT IN THE CASE
OF CORPORATE LITIGANTS THESE PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS ARE ENMESHED IN THE
WIDER INTRICACIES TOUCHING THE STATUS OF A CORPORATION IN OUR LAW.  THE
CORPORATE DEVICE IS ONE FORM OF ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE, AND WHAT THE LAW
IN EFFECT HAS DONE IS TO ENFORCE RIGHTS AND DUTIES APPROPRIATE FOR
COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY.  CF. UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259
U.S. 344; PUERTO RICO V. RUSSELL & CO., 288 U.S. 476.  IT HAS DONE SO
LARGELY BY ASSIMILATING CORPORATIONS TO NATURAL PERSONS.  THE LONG,
TORTUOUS EVOLUTION OF THE METHODS WHEREBY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS GAINED
ACCESS TO COURTS OR COULD BE BROUGHT THERE, IS THE HISTORY OF JUDICIAL
GROPING FOR A RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE PRACTICAL POSITION ACHIEVED BY
THE CORPORATION IN SOCIETY AND A NATURAL DESIRE TO CONFINE THE POWERS
OF THESE ARTIFICIAL CREATIONS.  FN2 

IT TOOK HALF A CENTURY OF LITIGATION IN THIS COURT FINALLY TO CONFER
ON A CORPORATION, THROUGH THE USE OF A FICTION,  FN3  CITIZENSHIP IN
THE CHARTERING STATE FOR JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES.  COMPARE LAFAYETTE
INS. CO. V. FRENCH, 18 HOW.  404 WITH HOPE INS. CO. V. BOARDMAN, 5
CRANCH 57.  THROUGHOUT, THE MODE OF THOUGHT WAS METAPHORICAL.  THE
CLASSIC DOCTRINE WAS THAT A CORPORATION "MUST DWELL IN THE PLACE OF ITS
CREATION, AND CANNOT MIGRATE TO ANOTHER SOVEREIGNTY."  BANK OF AUGUSTA
V. EARLE, 13 PET. 519, 588.  LOGICALLY APPLIED, THIS THEORY OF NON
MIGRATION PREVENTED SUIT IN A NON-CHARTERING STATE, FOR THE CORPORATION
COULD NOT BE THERE.  FN4  AND SUCH WAS THE PRACTICE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURTS  FN5  UNTIL THE OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE IN EX PARTE
SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369, DISPLACED METAPHOR WITH COMMON SENSE.  THE
ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRACTICE WHICH MR. JUSTICE NELSON  FN6
INITIATED AT CIRCUIT AND THE DECISION IN SCHOLLENBERGER'S CASE WAS NOT
A MATTER OF TECHNICAL LEGAL CONSTRUCTION, BUT A WAY OF LOOKING AT
CORPORATIONS.  MEN'S MINDS HAD BECOME HABITUATED TO CORPORATE
ACTIVITIES WHICH CROSSED STATE LINES.  THE FACT THAT CORPORATIONS DID
DO BUSINESS OUTSIDE THEIR ORIGINATING BOUNDS MADE INTOLERABLE THEIR
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT IN THE STATES OF THEIR ACTIVITIES.  AND SO THEY WERE
REQUIRED BY LEGISLATURES TO DESIGNATE AGENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS IN
RETURN FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING LOCAL BUSINESS.  THAT SERVICE UPON
SUCH AN AGENT, IN CONFORMITY WITH A VALID STATE STATUTE, CONSTITUTED
CONSENT TO BE SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND THEREBY SUPPLANTED THE
IMMUNITY AS TO VENUE, WAS THE RATIONALE OF SCHOLLENBERGER'S CASE. 

TO BE SURE, THAT CASE AROSE UNDER THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1875, 18 STAT.
470, THE LANGUAGE OF WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE ACT OF 1887, NOW SEC. 51
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  THE EARLIER PROVISION WAS AS FOLLOWS:  "AND NO
CIVIL SUIT SHALL BE BROUGHT BEFORE EITHER OF SAID COURTS AGAINST ANY
PERSON BY ANY ORIGINAL PROCESS OR PROCEEDING IN ANY OTHER DISTRICT THAN
THAT WHEREOF HE IS AN INHABITANT, OR IN WHICH HE SHALL BE FOUND  ...  "
THE ACT OF 1887 OMITTED THE WORDS "IN WHICH HE SHALL BE FOUND."  BUT,
OF COURSE, THE PHOENIX AND THE CLINTON INSURANCE COMPANY IN EX PARTE
SCHOLLENBERGER, SUPRA, WERE NOT GEOGRAPHICALLY "FOUND" IN PENNSYLVANIA,
AND CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE SO RECOGNIZED.  THEY WERE "FOUND" IN THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ONLY IN A METAPHORICAL SENSE, BECAUSE
THEY HAD CONSENTED TO BE SUED THERE BY COMPLYING WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA
LAW FOR DESIGNATING AN AGENT TO ACCEPT SERVICE.  NOT LESS THAN THREE
TIMES DOES THE OPINION POINT OUT THAT THE CORPORATION GAVE "CONSENT" TO
BE SUED; AND BECAUSE OF THIS CONSENT THE CHIEF JUSTICE ADDED THAT THE
CORPORATION WAS "FOUND" THERE.  BUT THE CRUX OF THE DECISION IS ITS
RELIANCE UPON TWO EARLIER CASES, RAILROAD COMPANY V. HARRIS, 12 WALL. 
65 AND LAFAYETTE INS. CO. V. FRENCH, 18 HOW.  404, RECOGNIZING THAT
"CONSENT" MAY GIVE "VENUE."  THE PHOENIX AND THE CLINTON INSURANCE
COMPANY CONSENTED NOT TO BE "FOUND" BUT TO BE SUED.  SINCE THE
CORPORATION HAD CONSENTED TO BE SUED IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE, THIS
COURT HELD THAT THE CONSENT EXTENDED TO THE FEDERAL COURTS SITTING IN
THAT STATE.  AS TO DIVERSITY CASES, CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THE FEDERAL
COURTS "COGNIZANCE, CONCURRENT WITH THE COURTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES." 
THE CONSENT, THEREFORE, EXTENDS TO ANY COURT SITTING IN THE STATE WHICH
APPLIES THE LAWS OF THE STATE.  FN7 

THE NOTION THAT THE 1887 AMENDMENT, BY ELIMINATING THE RIGHT TO SUE A
DEFENDANT IN THE DISTRICT "IN WHICH HE SHALL BE FOUND," WAS MEANT TO
AFFECT THE IMPLICATIONS OF A CONSENT TO BE SUED - IMPLICATIONS WHICH
WERE THE BASIS OF THE SCHOLLENBERGER DECISION - DERIVES FROM A
MISAPPLICATION OF THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO CONTRACT DIVERSITY
JURISDICTION, BASED UPON A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
OF THE 1887 AMENDMENT.  FN8  THE DELETION OF "IN WHICH HE SHALL BE
FOUND" WAS NOT DIRECTED TOWARD ANY CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF A CORPORATE
LITIGANT.  THE RESTRICTION WAS DESIGNED TO SHUT THE DOOR AGAINST
SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON A NATURAL PERSON IN ANY PLACE WHERE HE MIGHT BE
CAUGHT.  IT CONFINED SUABILITY, EXCEPT WITH THE DEFENDANT'S CONSENT, TO
THE DISTRICT OF HIS PHYSICAL HABITATION.  INSOFAR AS THE 1887
LEGISLATION SHEDS ANY LIGHT UPON THE STATUS OF A CORPORATE LITIGANT IN
DIVERSITY SUITS, ITS SIGNIFICANCE LIES OUTSIDE THE OMISSION OF THE "HE
SHALL BE FOUND" CLAUSE.  THE FORM IN WHICH THAT ACT PASSED THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES CONTAINED A PROVISION, WHOLLY DISTINCT FROM THE GENERAL
VENUE SECTION, RESTRICTING THE GROWING VOLUME OF LITIGATION DRAWN TO
THE FEDERAL COURTS BY THE FICTION OF CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP.  FN9  IT
PROHIBITED RESORT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
AUTHORIZED TO DO A LOCAL BUSINESS.  THE SENATE REJECTED, AS IT HAD DONE
UPON THREE PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, THIS HOUSE PROPOSAL.  FN10  BUT THE
BILL, AS IT LEFT THE HOUSE, ALSO CONTAINED THE VENUE PROVISION, WITH
ITS OMISSION OF THE "FOUND" CLAUSE.  IT WOULD BE STRANGE INDEED IF THE
HOUSE IN SEC. 1 HAD DEALT WITH THE "VENUE" OF SUITS AGAINST CORPORATE
LITIGANTS WHO, LIKE THOSE INVOLVED IN THE SCHOLLENBERGER CASE, BY SEC.
3 OF THE SAME BILL WERE COMPLETELY BARRED FROM THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IT
WOULD BE STRANGER STILL IF, AFTER PASSING A DRASTIC MEASURE CURTAILING
RESORT BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS, THE HOUSE HAD
ONLY SUCCEEDED IN GIVING DISCRIMINATORY FREEDOM TO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
- DISCRIMINATORY IN THAT, BY NULLIFYING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CONSENT
THROUGH OBEDIENCE TO STATE LAW TO BE SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, IT
WOULD ALLOW A FOREIGN CORPORATE DEFENDANT FREEDOM EITHER TO REMAIN IN
THE STATE COURTS OR TO REMOVE TO A FEDERAL COURT. 

AND SO, AFTER THE ACT OF 1887 AND DESPITE ITS ELIMINATION OF "IN
WHICH HE SHALL BE FOUND" FROM THE ACT OF 1875, LOWER FEDERAL COURTS
CONTINUED TO APPLY THE DOCTRINE OF SCHOLLENBERGER'S CASE BY CONSIDERING
THE DESIGNATION OF AN AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AN EFFECTIVE CONSENT
TO BE SUED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  FN11  THIS PRACTICE IN THE LOWER
FEDERAL COURTS CONTINUED UNTIL 1892, WHEN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
DENTON, 146 U.S. 202, WAS DECIDED.  BUT THAT CASE INVOLVED AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT SITUATION.  THE COURT WAS THERE CONCERNED WITH A TEXAS
STATUTE WHICH NOT MERELY REGULATED PROCEDURE FOR SUIT BUT SOUGHT TO
DENY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THIS COURT
HELD THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS THE TEXAS COURT HAD IN FACT ALREADY
DONE.  FN12  INASMUCH AS THE TEXAS ACT WAS FOUND TO BE VOID, IT "COULD
GIVE NO VALIDITY OR EFFECT TO ANY AGREEMENT OR ACTION OF THE
CORPORATION IN OBEDIENCE TO ITS PROVISIONS."  FN13  TO BE SURE, THE
COURT WENT ON TO INTERPRET THE AGREEMENT "IF VALID"  FN14  AND TO
SUGGEST THAT HAD IT BEEN VALID THE AGREEMENT MIGHT HAVE SUBJECTED THE
CORPORATION TO JURISDICTION "SO LONG AS THE JUDICIARY ACTS OF THE
UNITED STATES ALLOWED IT TO BE SUED IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT WAS
'FOUND.'"  FN15  SUCH, AS WE HAVE SEEN, WAS NOT THE TRUE BASIS OF THE
DECISION IN SCHOLLENBERGER'S CASE.  AS DECISIONS, THE TWO CASES ARE
WHOLLY CONSISTENT.  BUT, DISREGARDING THE SITUATION BEFORE THE COURT IN
THE DENTON CASE - THE ABSENCE OF ANY VALID CONSENT TO BE SUED BECAUSE
OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE STATUTE BY WHICH THE ALLEGED "CONSENT" WAS
OBTAINED - SEVERAL OF THE LOWER COURTS HAVE TAKEN LANGUAGE FROM THE
DENTON OPINION AND HAVE MADE IT GOVERN SITUATIONS WHERE VALID CONSENT
DID EXIST BECAUSE GIVEN IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF A VALID
STATUTE.  FN16  OTHER COURTS HAVE ADHERED TO THE PRACTICE ESTABLISHED
BY SCHOLLENBERGER'S CASE.  FN17  WE DEEM THIS PRACTICE SOUND, AND IT
CONTROLS THE PRESENT CASE. 

IN CONFORMITY WITH WHAT IS NOW SEC. 210 OF THE GENERAL CORPORATION
LAW OF NEW YORK,  FN18 BETHLEHEM DESIGNATED "WILLIAM J. BROWN AS THE
PERSON UPON WHOM A SUMMONS MAY BE SERVED WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW
YORK."  THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF SUCH A DESIGNATION AS PART OF THE
BARGAIN BY WHICH BETHLEHEM ENJOYS THE BUSINESS FREEDOM OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, HAVE BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS,
SPEAKING THROUGH JUDGE CARDOZO:  "THE STIPULATION IS, THEREFORE, A TRUE
CONTRACT.  THE PERSON DESIGNATED IS A TRUE AGENT.  THE CONSENT THAT HE
SHALL REPRESENT THE CORPORATION IS A REAL CONSENT.  HE IS MADE THE
PERSON 'UPON WHOM PROCESS AGAINST THE CORPORATION MAY BE SERVED'.  ...
THE CONTRACT DEALS WITH JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON.  IT DOES NOT
ENLARGE OR DIMINISH JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER.  IT MEANS THAT
WHENEVER JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER IS PRESENT, SERVICE ON THE
AGENT SHALL GIVE JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON."  BAGDON V. PHILADELPHIA &
READING C. & I. CO., 217 N.Y. 432, 436-7.  A STATUTE CALLING FOR SUCH A
DESIGNATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL, AND THE DESIGNATION OF THE AGENT "A
VOLUNTARY ACT."  PENNSYLVANIA FIRE INS. CO. V. GOLD ISSUE MINING CO.,
243 U.S. 93.    IN FINDING AN ACTUAL CONSENT BY BETHLEHEM TO BE SUED IN
THE COURTS OF NEW YORK, FEDERAL AS WELL AS STATE, WE ARE NOT SUBJECTING
FEDERAL PROCEDURE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEW YORK LAW.  WE ARE
RECOGNIZING THAT "STATE LEGISLATION AND CONSENT OF PARTIES MAY BRING
ABOUT A STATE OF FACTS WHICH WILL AUTHORIZE THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF A CASE."  EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, SUPRA,
AT 377.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 112 READS AS FOLLOWS:  "EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS
113 TO 117 OF THIS TITLE, NO PERSON SHALL BE ARRESTED IN ONE DISTRICT
FOR TRIAL IN ANOTHER IN ANY CIVIL ACTION BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT; AND,
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 113 TO 118 OF THIS TITLE, NO CIVIL SUIT
SHALL BE BROUGHT IN ANY DISTRICT COURT AGAINST ANY PERSON BY ANY
ORIGINAL PROCESS OR PROCEEDING IN ANY OTHER DISTRICT THAN THAT WHEREOF
HE IS AN INHABITANT; BUT WHERE THE JURISDICTION IS FOUNDED ONLY ON THE
FACT THAT THE ACTION IS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, SUIT
SHALL BE BROUGHT ONLY IN THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE OF EITHER THE
PLAINTIFF OR THE DEFENDANT." 

FN2  SEE HENDERSON, "THE POSITION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW," PASSIM, AND ESPECIALLY THE ILLUMINATING ANALYSIS,
PP. 163-194. 

FN3  SEE GRAY, "THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE LAW," 184, AND
HENDERSON, OP. CIT. SUPRA, NOTE 2, PP. 50-76. 

FN4  SEE ST. CLAIR V. COX, 106 U.S. 350, 355. 

FN5  "WE ARE AWARE THAT THE PRACTICE IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS GENERALLY
HAS BEEN TO DECLINE JURISDICTION IN THIS CLASS OF SUITS."  96 U.S. 369,
378. 

FN6  DAY V. NEWARK INDIA-RUBBER MFG. CO., 1 BLATCH.  628; FED. CAS.
NO. 3,685; POMEROY V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 4 BLATCH.  120; FED.
CAS. NO. 11,261.  BOTH THESE CASES WERE DECIDED BY MR. JUSTICE NELSON,
ON CIRCUIT. 

FN7  "WHILE THE CIRCUIT COURT MAY NOT BE TECHNICALLY A COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH, IT IS A COURT WITHIN IT; AND THAT, AS WE THINK, IS ALL
THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR."  96 U.S. 369, 377.  SEE
MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V. MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239, 255-56.  CF.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V. CHATTERS, 279 U.S. 320, 329. 

FN8  A COGNATE MISCONCEPTION AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF 1887-88
IN CONTRACTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS UNDERLAY THE
DECISION IN EX PARTE WISNER, 203 U.S. 449, OVERRULED IN LEE V.
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO., 260 U.S. 653, 659. 

FN9  THE CULBERSON BILL, WHICH PASSED THE HOUSE IN 1887, WAS H.R.
2441, 49TH CONG., 1ST SESS. IT PROVIDED IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM THAT THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS SHOULD NOT TAKE "COGNIZANCE OF ANY SUIT" BETWEEN
"A CORPORATION CREATED OR ORGANIZED BY OR UNDER THE LAWS OF ANY STATE
AND A CITIZEN OF ANY STATE IN WHICH SUCH CORPORATION AT THE TIME THE
CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUED MAY HAVE BEEN CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS
AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW CREATING IT.  ...  "  THERE WERE LIKEWISE
PROVISIONS FORBIDDING REMOVAL OF SUCH SUITS TO THE LOWER FEDERAL
COURTS.  SEE 18 CONG. REC. 613; H. REP. NO. 1078, 49TH CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN10  10 CONG. REC. 1304-1305; 14 CONG. REC. 1270; 15 CONG. REC.
4909. 

FN11  RIDDLE V. NEW YORK, L.E. & W.R. CO., 39 F.290(C.C., W.D. PA.,
1889); CONSOLIDATED STORE-SERVICE CO. V. LAMSON CONSOL.  STORE-SERVICE
CO., 41 F. 833(C.C. MASS., 1890) APPROVINGLY CITED IN HAIGHT & FREESE
CO. V. WEISS, 156 F. 328(C.C.A. 1ST, 1907). 

FN12  TEXAS LAND & MORTGAGE CO. V. WORSHAM, 76 TEX. 556. 

FN13  146 U.S. AT 207. 

FN14  146 U.S. AT 207. 

FN15  146 U.S. AT 207.  THE DENTON CASE WAS BASED ON SHAW V. QUINCY
MINING CO., 145 U.S. 444, IN WHICH THERE WAS NO CONSENT DERIVABLE FROM
THE DESIGNATION OF AN AGENT FOR SERVICE.  BOTH OPINIONS WERE WRITTEN BY
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, WHO LATER ACCURATELY DELIMITED THE SCOPE OF THE
HOLDINGS IN BOTH THE SHAW AND THE DENTON CASES.  IN RE KEASBEY &
MATTISON CO., 160 U.S. 221, 229.  THE DECISIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
PRESENT CASE AND IN RE KEASBEY & MATTISON CO., IS THAT IN THE LATTER
CASE THE DESIGNATION UNDER STATE LAW WHICH IS THE BASIS OF CONSENT HAD
IN FACT NOT BEEN MADE.  BUT THE REQUIREMENT OF "RESIDENCE" IN THE ACT
OF 1887 IS AS MUCH SATISFIED BY A CONSENT TO BE SUED AS WAS THE
REQUIREMENT "TO BE FOUND" IN THE 1875 ACT SATISFIED BY SUCH A CONSENT. 

FN16  PLATT V. MASSACHUSETTS REAL ESTATE CO., 103 F. 705(C.C. MASS.,
1900); HAGSTOZ V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 179 F. 569(C.C.E.D. PA., 1910);
BEECH-NUT PACKING CO. V. P. LORILLARD CO., 287 F. 271(S.D. N.Y., 1921);
JONES V. CONSOL.  WAGON CO., 31 F.2D 383, 384(D. IDAHO, 1929); KERFOOT
& CO. V. UNITED DRUG CO., 38 F.2D 671(D. DEL., 1930); STANDARD STOKER
CO. V. LOWER, 46 F.2D 678(D. MD., 1931); MCLEAN V. MISSISSIPPI, 96 F.2D
741(C.C.A.5TH, 1938); GRAY V. RELIANCE INS. CO., 24 F.SUPP.  144(W.D.
LA., 1938); HAMILTON WATCH CO. V. GEORGE W. BORG CO., 27 F.SUPP. 
215(N.D. ILL., 1939); TOULMIN V. JAMES MFG. CO., 27 F.SUPP. 
512(W.D.N.Y., 1939).  CF. HEINE CHIMNEY CO. V. RUST ENGINEERING CO., 12
F.2D 596(C.C.A. 2ND, 1926). 

FN17  SHAINWALD V. DAVIDS, 69 F. 704(N.D. CAL., 1895); DODGE MFG. CO.
V. PATTEN, 23 F.2D 852(D. IND., 1928), AFF'D 60 F.2D 676(C.C.A.7TH,
1932); OKLAHOMA PACKING CO. V. OKLAHOMA GAS & ELEC.  CO., 100 F.2D
770(C.C.A. 10TH, 1938). 

FN18  ORIGINALLY ENACTED AS C. 687, LAWS OF 1892, PP. 1805-1806. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN A CAREFUL AND DISCRIMINATING
OPINION,  FN1  HAS HELD THAT TO DENY THE RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
IT FROM THE SUIT WOULD BE TO DISREGARD THE LONG SETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF
SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AND THE EQUALLY WELL SETTLED APPLICATION
OF THAT SECTION.  I THINK ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

WHATEVER MAY BE SAID IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL ADOPTION OF A
DIFFERENT RULE, IT HAS BEEN THE LAW FOR A CENTURY THAT, AS RESPECTS THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS OVER A CORPORATION IN DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP CASES, THE CORPORATION IS A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF THE
STATE OF INCORPORATION AND OF NO OTHER STATE.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE
COURT'S OPINION TO REPUDIATE THE RULE. 

THE STATUTE WHICH IS NOW SEC. 51 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TOOK ITS
PRESENT FORM IN 1888.  IN 1892 THE COURT HELD, IN SHAW V. QUINCY MINING
CO., 145 U.S. 444, 453, THAT, UNDER THE STATUTE, "A CORPORATION,
INCORPORATED IN ONE STATE ONLY, CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER, IN A
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HELD IN ANOTHER STATE IN WHICH IT
HAS A USUAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, TO A CIVIL SUIT, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY,
BROUGHT BY A CITIZEN OF A DIFFERENT STATE."  THIS CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN
FOLLOWED IN THIS COURT WITHOUT DEVIATION AND WITH PRACTICAL UNANIMITY
BY THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  FN2 

AT THE NEXT TERM, IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. DENTON, 146 U.S. 202,
205, 207, THE RULING WAS REAFFIRMED IN A CASE WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAD
REGISTERED AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION UNDER A STATE LAW AND, AS A
CONDITION OF REGISTRATION, HAD AGREED THAT SERVICE OF PROCESS MIGHT BE
MADE UPON A DESIGNATED AGENT. 

THE EARLIER ACT OF 1875 PROVIDED THAT NO CIVIL SUIT COULD BE BROUGHT
AGAINST A DEFENDANT IN A UNITED STATES COURT "IN ANY OTHER DISTRICT
THAN THAT WHEREOF HE IS AN INHABITANT, OR IN WHICH HE SHALL BE FOUND AT
THE TIME OF SERVING SUCH PROCESS  ...  " 

EX PARTE SCHOLLENBERGER, 96 U.S. 369, APPLIED THAT EARLIER STATUTE. 
THE COURT HELD THAT A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH HAD REGISTERED AND
CONSENTED TO THE SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON A DESIGNATED AGENT HAD THEREBY
AGREED "TO BE FOUND" WITHIN THE STATE AND MIGHT THEREFORE BE IMPLEADED
IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN THE STATE ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT A CITIZEN
OR A RESIDENT OF THE STATE.  THE CASE WAS CITED IN THE OPINIONS IN BOTH
THE SHAW AND THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASES.  IN THE LATTER THE COURT SAID,
REFERRING TO THE FOREIGN CORPORATION'S AGREEMENT AS TO SERVICE:  (PP.
207-8) "IT MIGHT LIKEWISE HAVE SUBJECTED THE CORPORATION TO THE
JURISDICTION OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HELD WITHIN THE
STATE - SO LONG AS THE JUDICIARY ACTS OF THE UNITED STATES ALLOWED IT
TO BE SUED IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND.  ...  BUT SUCH AN
AGREEMENT COULD NOT, SINCE CONGRESS (AS HELD IN SHAW V. QUINCY MINING
CO. ABOVE CITED) HAS MADE CITIZENSHIP OF THE STATE, WITH RESIDENCE IN
THE DISTRICT, THE SOLE TEST OF JURISDICTION IN THIS CLASS OF CASES,
ESTOP THE CORPORATION TO SET UP NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THAT TEST, WHEN
SUED IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES." 

IN RE KEASBEY & MATTISON CO., 160 U.S. 221, THE COURT HELD (P. 228):
"UNDER THE PROVISION OF THAT ACT (THE EARLIER ACT OF 1875), WHICH
ALLOWED A DEFENDANT TO BE SUED IN THE DISTRICT OF WHICH HE WAS AN
INHABITANT, OR IN THAT IN WHICH HE WAS FOUND, A CORPORATION COULD
DOUBTLESS HAVE BEEN SUED EITHER IN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT WAS
INCORPORATED, OR IN ANY DISTRICT IN WHICH IT CARRIED ON BUSINESS AND
HAD A GENERAL AGENT."  FOR THIS STATEMENT THE COURT CITED EX PARTE
SCHOLLENBERGER, SHAW V. QUINCY MINING CO., AND SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
DENTON.  THE OPINIONS IN THE LAST TWO, AND THAT IN THE KEASBEY CASE,
WERE WRITTEN FOR THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE GRAY, WHO SUMMED UP THEIR
EFFECT BY SAYING:  "AND IT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS ACT, A CORPORATION CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED A CITIZEN, AN INHABITANT OR A RESIDENT OF A STATE IN WHICH
IT HAS NOT BEEN INCORPORATED; AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THAT A CORPORATION
INCORPORATED IN A STATE OF THE UNION CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO ANSWER TO A
CIVIL SUIT, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, IN A CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES HELD IN ANOTHER STATE, EVEN IF THE CORPORATION HAS A USUAL PLACE
OF BUSINESS IN THAT STATE." 

THIS INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 51 HAS SINCE REMAINED UNCHANGED. 
CONGRESS MUST HAVE KNOWN OF AND ACQUIESCED IN THE COURTS' CONSTRUCTION
OF THE SECTION, PARTICULARLY AS THERE HAVE BEEN EFFORTS TO AMEND IT,
AND NO ALTERATION HAS BEEN ADOPTED. 

UPON PRINCIPLE, AND UNDER THE AUTHORITIES, THE MERE FACT THAT SERVICE
OF PROCESS VALID UNDER STATE LAW CAN BE HAD ON AN OFFICER OR AGENT OF A
FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE IS IRRELEVANT; FOR
ALTHOUGH THE CORPORATION MAY BE SERVED IN CONFORMITY TO LOCAL LAW, IT
CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TRY ITS CASE IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN THE
STATE.  I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE OPINION OF THE COURT TO HOLD TO THE
CONTRARY. 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT REGISTRATION AND DESIGNATION OF AN AGENT UPON
WHOM SERVICE MAY BE MADE UNDER COMPULSION OF STATE LAW AMOUNTS TO A
WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 51 AS TO VENUE, OR TO A CONSENT TO
BE SUED IN A FEDERAL COURT SITTING WITHIN THE STATE. 

AS HAS BEEN SHOWN BY QUOTATION FROM THE OPINION, THIS CONTENTION WAS
MADE IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. DENTON, SUPRA, AND WAS OVERRULED.  THE
HOLDING WAS ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS OF DECISION.  THE SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CASE SETTLED THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 51, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
HERE DISCLOSED, AND THE DECISION HAS NEVER BEEN QUALIFIED OR
OVERRULED.  THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED THAT
DECISION WITH PRACTICAL UNIFORMITY TO ENABLE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION TO
CONTEST THE VENUE OF SUITS AGAINST IT.  FN3 

I SEE NO REASON AT THIS LATE DAY TO ATTRIBUTE A NEW EFFECT TO THE
STATUTE WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO EXPRESS A VIEW CONTRARY TO
THAT EMBODIED IN THIS COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW; THOUGH THIS
MIGHT AT ANY TIME BE DONE.  THE PRINCIPLE OF STARE DECISIS SEEMS TO ME
TO MAKE AGAINST SUCH A CHANGE. 

THE COURT BELOW HAS ANALYZED THE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATUTE AND HAS
SATISFACTORILY DEMONSTRATED THAT IT DEALS WITH SERVICE OF PROCESS ON
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK.  THE STATE COULD NOT,
BY ITS LAWS, AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS OR THE VENUE OF
SUITS THEREIN,  - A MATTER SOLELY WITHIN THE CONTROL OF CONGRESS. 

FN1  103 F.2D 765. 

FN2  IN RE KEASBEY & MATTISON CO., 160 U.S. 221; MACON GROCERY CO. V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 215 U.S. 501; LADEW V. TENNESSEE COPPER
CO., 218 U.S. 357; MALE V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 240 U.S. 97;
GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE RY. CO., 260 U.S. 261, 271;
SEABOARD RICE MILLING CO. V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 363;
LUCKETT V. DELPARK, INC., 270 U.S. 496; BURNRITE COAL CO. V. RIGGS, 274
U.S. 208, 211.  THE DECISIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE CITED AND
DISCUSSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 103 F.2D 767. 

FN3  SOME OF THE CASES ARE CITED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
ITS OPINION.  103 F.2D 769. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, 308 U.S. 132 


NO. 8.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1939.  - 24
F.SUPP.  924, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OVER THE MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION
AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS, A STATE MAY CONFINE THE BUSINESS OF
TRANSPORTING THEM WITHIN THE STATE TO THOSE WHO ARE LICENSED AS COMMON
CARRIERS, AND MAY ENFORCE THIS BY PENALTY AND CONFISCATION.  P. 138. 

2.  THE STATE POWER TO PROHIBIT ABSOLUTELY, INCLUDES THE LESSER POWER
TO PERMIT MANUFACTURE, SALE, TRANSPORTATION OR POSSESSION, SUBJECT TO
PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT UNREASONABLE AND WHICH SUBSERVE THE
POLICY OF CONFINING THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE ITS EVILS
AND TO SECURE PAYMENT OF REVENUE.  P. 138. 

3.  PROVISIONS OF THE KENTUCKY ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT
FORBIDDING THE CARRIAGE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS BY CARRIERS OTHER THAN
LICENSED COMMON CARRIERS AND FORBIDDING DISTILLERS TO DELIVER TO AN
UNAUTHORIZED CARRIER, ARE NOT INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, OR
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, NOR INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935,
AS APPLIED TO A CONTRACT CARRIER IN AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS OF
TRANSPORTING SUCH LIQUORS, PRODUCED IN KENTUCKY, TO CONSIGNEES IN OTHER
STATES.  PP. 138, 140. 

4.  THE STATE MAY DECLINE TO CONSIDER CERTAIN NOXIOUS THINGS
LEGITIMATE ARTICLES OF COMMERCE, AND INHIBIT THEIR TRANSPORTATION. 
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INTOXICANTS DEPEND ON STATE LAWS AND CEASE IF THE
LIQUOR BECOMES CONTRABAND.  P. 140. 

5.  ALTHOUGH REGULATION BY A STATE MAY IMPOSE SOME BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THIS IS PERMISSIBLE WHEN "AN INSEPARABLE INCIDENT
OF THE EXERCISE OF A LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, WHICH, UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, HAS BEEN LEFT TO THE STATES."  P. 141. 

ZIFFRIN, INC. V. REEVES, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF KENTUCKY, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENYING AN
INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN PUBLIC
OFFICIALS IN KENTUCKY FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THE APPELLANT CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE STATE LIQUOR CONTROL LAW.  THE CASE WAS HEARD BELOW
ON PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND
DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISSOLVE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TO
DISMISS THE AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SINCE MARCH 1933 APPELLANT, AN INDIANA CORPORATION, HAS CONTINUOUSLY
RECEIVED WHISKEY FROM DISTILLERS IN KENTUCKY FOR DIRECT CARRIAGE TO
CONSIGNEES IN CHICAGO.  IT HAS PERMISSION UNDER THE FEDERAL MOTOR
CARRIER ACT, 1935,  FN1  TO OPERATE AS A CONTRACT CARRIER, AND CLAIMS
THE RIGHT TO TRANSPORT WHISKEY AS HERETOFORE, NOTWITHSTANDING
INHIBITIONS OF THE KENTUCKY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL LAW APPROVED
MARCH 7, 1938.  FN2  BY THIS PROCEEDING IT SEEKS TO RESTRAIN OFFICERS
OF THE STATE FROM ENFORCING THE CONTRABAND AND PENAL PROVISIONS OF THAT
ENACTMENT. 

THE BILL CHARGES THAT TO ENFORCE THE CONTROL LAW WOULD IMPAIR
APPELLANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND
DEPRIVE IT OF THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT - THREE JUDGES SITTING -
SUSTAINED A MOTION TO DISMISS.  A DIRECT APPEAL BRINGS THE MATTER
HERE. 

THE STATUTE IS A LONG, COMPREHENSIVE MEASURE (123 SECTIONS) DESIGNED
RIGIDLY TO REGULATE THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES THROUGH MEANS OF LICENSES AND OTHERWISE.  THE MANIFEST
PURPOSE IS TO CHANNELIZE THE TRAFFIC, MINIMIZE THE COMMONLY ATTENDANT
EVILS; ALSO TO FACILITATE THE COLLECTION OF REVENUE.  TO THIS END
MANUFACTURE, SALE, TRANSPORTATION, AND POSSESSION ARE PERMITTED ONLY
UNDER CAREFULLY PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS AND SUBJECT TO CONSTANT CONTROL
BY THE STATE.  EVERY PHASE OF THE TRAFFIC IS DECLARED ILLEGAL UNLESS
DEFINITELY ALLOWED.  THE PROPERTY BECOMES CONTRABAND UPON FAILURE TO
OBSERVE THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND WHENEVER FOUND IN UNAUTHORIZED
POSSESSION. 

TO MANUFACTURE, STORE, SELL, PURCHASE, TRANSPORT OR OTHERWISE IN ANY
MANNER TRAFFIC IN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THIS
ACT, WITHOUT FIRST HAVING PAID TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AT ITS
OFFICE IN FRANKFORT, THE LICENSE TAX REQUIRED BY THIS ACT, AND WITHOUT
FIRST HAVING OBTAINED THE LICENSE REQUIRED BY THIS ACT."  FN3 

MALT LIQUORS IN THE POSSESSION OF ANY ONE NOT ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF
THE SAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  FN4  PEACE OFFICERS ARE
AUTHORIZED TO SEIZE SUCH CONTRABAND AND INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR
FORFEITURE. 

LICENSES ARE AUTHORIZED (SEC. 18(1)-(9))  FN5  FOR DISTILLERS,
RECTIFIERS, VINTNERS, WHOLESALERS, RETAILERS, AND (SEC. 18(7))  FN6
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUORS TO AND FROM ANY POINT IN THE STATE. 
PRIVILEGES WHICH MAY BE EXERCISED UNDER THESE ARE DEFINITELY SET OUT. 

CASE MAY BE, SHALL AUTHORIZE THE HOLDER THEREOF, AT THE PREMISES
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED IN THE LICENSE, TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF
DISTILLER, RECTIFIER, OR VINTNER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS THOSE TERMS
ARE DEFINED IN THIS ACT, AND TO TRANSPORT FOR HIMSELF ONLY ANY
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE WHICH HE IS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE TO
MANUFACTURE OR SELL,  ..."  FN7 

AT WHOLESALE, AND FROM THE LICENSED PREMISES ONLY,  ...  (3) BY
LICENSED DISTILLERS, RECTIFIERS OR VINTNERS FOR EXPORT OUT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH; PROVIDED, NO DISTILLER, RECTIFIER OR VINTNER, SHALL SELL
OR CONTRACT TO SELL, GIVE AWAY OR DELIVER ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO
ANY PERSON, WHO IS NOT DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF HIS
RESIDENCE AND OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF LOCATED IN THE UNITED
STATES, TO RECEIVE AND POSSESS SAID ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; AND IN NO
EVENT SHALL HE SELL OR CONTRACT TO SELL, GIVE AWAY OR DELIVER, ANY OF
HIS PRODUCTS TO ANY RETAILER OR CONSUMER IN KENTUCKY."  FN8 

TRANSPORT DISTILLED SPIRITS AND WINE TO OR FROM THE LICENSED PREMISES
OF ANY LICENSEE UNDER THIS ACT, PROVIDED" ETC.  FN9 SECTION 54(7) - "A
TRANSPORTER'S LICENSE AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 18(7) OF THIS ACT
SHALL BE ISSUED ONLY TO PERSONS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED BY PROPER
CERTIFICATE FROM THE DIVISION OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION IN THE DEPARTMENT
OF BUSINESS REGULATION TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS OF A COMMON CARRIER." 
FN10 

COMPANY SHALL TRANSPORT OR CAUSE TO BE TRANSPORTED ANY DISTILLED
SPIRITS OR WINE, OTHERWISE THAN AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, EXCEPT SUCH
BEVERAGES MAY BE TRANSPORTED BY THE HOLDER OF ANY LICENSE AUTHORIZED BY
FROM THE PREMISES COVERED BY THE LICENSE OF THE PERSON SO TRANSPORTING
DISTILLED SPIRITS OR WINE."  FN11 

A LICENSE MAY ONLY ISSUE (SEC. 33)  FN12  UPON AN APPLICATION WHICH
INCORPORATES (SEC. 36(5)) FN13  A PROMISE THAT "THE APPLICANT WILL IN
ALL RESPECTS AND IN GOOD FAITH CONSCIENTIOUSLY ABIDE BY ALL THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND OF ANY OTHER ACT OR ORDINANCE RELATING TO
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES" ETC. ALSO, (SEC. 37)  FN14  THERE MUST BE A BOND
"CONDITIONED THAT SUCH APPLICANT, IF GRANTED THE LICENSE SOUGHT, WILL
NOT SUFFER OR PERMIT ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT" ETC. 

HAVING BEEN DENIED A COMMON CARRIER'S CERTIFICATE, APPELLANT SOUGHT
AND WAS REFUSED A TRANSPORTER'S LICENSE BECAUSE IT HELD NO SUCH
CERTIFICATE. 

IN SUM, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT SAY:  THE COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT THE
CONTROL LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE REPUGNANT TO THE COMMERCE, DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN
THAT, UNDER PAIN OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES, IT UNDERTAKES TO PREVENT AN
AUTHORIZED INTERSTATE CONTRACT CARRIER FROM CONTINUING AN ESTABLISHED
BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING EXPORTS OF LIQUORS FROM KENTUCKY IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE EXCLUSIVELY.  ALSO:  INTOXICATING LIQUORS ARE LEGITIMATE
ARTICLES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNLESS FEDERAL LAW HAS DECLARED
OTHERWISE.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE INCLUDES BOTH IMPORTATION OF PROPERTY
WITHIN A STATE AND EXPORTATION THEREFROM.  PRIOR TO THE WILSON AND WEBB
KENYON ACTS, AND THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, THE POWERS OF THE STATES
OVER INTOXICANTS IN BOTH OF THESE MOVEMENTS WERE LIMITED BY THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THESE ENACTMENTS RELATE TO IMPORTATIONS ONLY. 
EXPORTS REMAIN, AS ALWAYS, SUBJECT TO THAT CLAUSE.  "ALTHOUGH A STATE
MAY PROHIBIT THE MANUFACTURE OF LIQUOR, IF A STATE PERMITS
DISTILLATION, SALE AND TRANSPORTATION - AS KENTUCKY DOES - THE RULE OF
LAW IS THAT THE STATE MAY NOT ANNEX TO ITS CONSENT TO MANUFACTURE AND
SELL THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BAN UPON CARRIAGE OF INTERSTATE EXPORTS OF
LIQUORS BY CONTRACT CARRIERS." 

THE COURT BELOW REJECTED APPELLANT'S INSISTENCE AND AFFIRMED THE
ASSERTED POWER OF THE STATE.  LIKE CONCLUSIONS WERE APPROVED IN
COMMONWEALTH V. ONE DODGE MOTOR TRUCK, 326 PA. 120; 191 A. 590(123 PA.
SUPERIOR CT. 311; 187 A. 461); CLARK V. STATE EX REL. BOBO, 172 TENN.
429; 113 S.W.2D 374; JEFFERSON COUNTY DISTILLING CO. V. CLIFTON, 249
KY. 815; 61 S.W.2D 645. 

THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT SANCTIONS THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO
LEGISLATE CONCERNING INTOXICATING LIQUORS BROUGHT FROM WITHOUT,
UNFETTERED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  WITHOUT DOUBT A STATE MAY
ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT THE MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICANTS, THEIR
TRANSPORTATION, SALE, OR POSSESSION, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHEN OR WHERE
PRODUCED OR OBTAINED, OR THE USE TO WHICH THEY ARE TO BE PUT.  FURTHER,
SHE MAY ADOPT MEASURES REASONABLY APPROPRIATE TO EFFECTUATE THESE
INHIBITIONS AND EXERCISE FULL POLICE AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THEM. 
CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 242 U.S. 311, 320;
CRANE V. CAMPBELL, 245 U.S. 304, 307; SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 245 U.S. 298, 304; SAMUELS V. MCCURDY, 267 U.S. 188, 197
198. 

HAVING POWER ABSOLUTELY TO PROHIBIT MANUFACTURE, SALE,
TRANSPORTATION, OR POSSESSION OF INTOXICANTS, WAS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR
KENTUCKY TO PERMIT THESE THINGS ONLY UNDER DEFINITELY PRESCRIBED
CONDITIONS?  FORMER OPINIONS HERE MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER
IMPERATIVE.  THE GREATER POWER INCLUDES THE LESS.  SEABOARD AIR LINE
RY. V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA.  THE STATE MAY PROTECT HER PEOPLE AGAINST
EVIL INCIDENT TO INTOXICANTS, MUGLER V. KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623; KIDD V.
PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1; AND MAY EXERCISE LARGE DISCRETION AS TO MEANS
EMPLOYED. 

KENTUCKY HAS SEEN FIT TO PERMIT MANUFACTURE OF WHISKEY ONLY UPON
CONDITION THAT IT BE SOLD TO AN INDICATED CLASS OF CUSTOMERS AND
TRANSPORTED IN DEFINITELY SPECIFIED WAYS.  THESE CONDITIONS ARE NOT
UNREASONABLE AND ARE CLEARLY APPROPRIATE FOR EFFECTUATING THE POLICY OF
LIMITING TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE WELL-KNOWN EVILS, AND SECURE
PAYMENT OF REVENUE.  THE STATUTE DECLARES WHISKEY REMOVED FROM
PERMITTED CHANNELS CONTRABAND SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE SEIZURE.  THIS IS
WITHIN THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE; AND PROPERTY SO CIRCUMSTANCED
CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A PROPER ARTICLE OF COMMERCE.  SLIGH V. KIRKWOOD,
237 U.S. 52, 59; CLASON V. INDIANA, 306 U.S. 439. 

IN EFFECT WE ARE ASKED BY INJUNCTION TO ALLOW A DISTILLER TO DO WHAT
THE STATUTE PROHIBITS - DELIVER TO AN UNAUTHORIZED CARRIER.  ALSO TO
ENABLE A CARRIER TO DO WHAT IT IS PROHIBITED FROM DOING - RECEIVE AND
TRANSPORT WITHIN THE STATE. 

KIDD V. PEARSON, SUPRA:  AN ACT OF THE IOWA LEGISLATURE IN GENERAL
TERMS FORBADE MANUFACTURE OR SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR BUT PERMITTED
THESE FOR MECHANICAL OR OTHER PURPOSES.  AN INJUNCTION WAS APPROVED
WHICH RESTRAINED KIDD FROM OPERATING HIS DISTILLERY ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMED
THE OUTPUT WOULD BE EXPORTED FOR SALE BEYOND THE STATE.  THIS COURT
SAID:  "WHETHER A STATE, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS UNDISPUTED POWER OF
LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, CAN ENACT A STATUTE PROHIBITING WITHIN ITS LIMITS
THE MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES,
IS NOT ANY LONGER AN OPEN QUESTION BEFORE THIS COURT.  ...  THE POLICE
POWER OF A STATE IS AS BROAD AND PLENARY AS ITS TAXING POWER; AND
PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS SUBJECT TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE FORMER SO
LONG AS IT IS WITHIN THE REGULATING RESTRICTIONS OF THE LATTER." 

THE DOCTRINE OF THAT CASE HAS BEEN OFTEN APPLIED.  GEER V.
CONNECTICUT, 161 U.S. 519; RIPPEY V. TEXAS, 193 U.S. 504, 509; HUDSON
COUNTY WATER CO. V. MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349, 357:  "A MAN CANNOT ACQUIRE
A RIGHT TO PROPERTY BY HIS DESIRE TO USE IT IN COMMERCE AMONG THE
STATES.  NEITHER CAN HE ENLARGE HIS OTHERWISE LIMITED AND QUALIFIED
RIGHT TO THE SAME END"; SLIGH V. KIRKWOOD, 237 U.S. 52; STATE BOARD V.
YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59, 63; CLASON V. INDIANA, 306 U.S. 439. 

THE TWO CASES LAST CITED RECOGNIZE THAT THE STATE MAY DECLINE TO
CONSIDER CERTAIN NOXIOUS THINGS LEGITIMATE ARTICLES OF COMMERCE, AND
INHIBIT THEIR TRANSPORTATION.  PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INTOXICANTS DEPEND ON
STATE LAWS AND CEASE IF THE LIQUOR BECOMES CONTRABAND. 

WE CANNOT ACCEPT APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT BECAUSE WHISKEY IS
INTENDED FOR TRANSPORTATION BEYOND THE STATE LINES THE DISTILLER MAY
DISREGARD THE INHIBITIONS OF THE STATUTE BY DELIVERY TO ONE NOT
AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE; THAT THE CARRIER MAY SET AT NAUGHT INHIBITIONS
AND TRANSPORT CONTRABAND WITH IMPUNITY. 

THE POINT SUGGESTED IN RESPECT OF DUE PROCESS IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH
WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE CASES ABOVE REFERRED TO. 

THE RECORD SHOWS NO VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION.  A LICENSED COMMON
CARRIER IS UNDER STRICTER CONTROL THAN AN ORDINARY CONTRACT CARRIER AND
MAY BE ENTRUSTED WITH PRIVILEGES FORBIDDEN TO THE LATTER. 

HERE THE STATE LAW CREATES NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IT IS SUBJECTED TO THE SAME REGULATIONS AS THOSE APPLICABLE
TO INTRASTATE COMMERCE. 

THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935 IS SAID TO SECURE TO APPELLANT THE
RIGHT CLAIMED, BUT WE CAN FIND NOTHING THERE WHICH UNDERTAKES TO
DESTROY STATE POWER TO PROTECT HER PEOPLE AGAINST THE EVILS OF
INTOXICANTS OR TO SANCTION THE RECEIPT AND CONVEYANCE OF ARTICLES
DECLARED CONTRABAND.  THE ACT HAS NO SUCH PURPOSE OR EFFECT. 

THE POWER OF A STATE TO REGULATE HER INTERNAL AFFAIRS NOTWITHSTANDING
THE CONSEQUENT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS MUCH DISCUSSED IN
SOUTH CAROLINA HWY.  DEPT.  V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 189. 
THERE IT WAS AGAIN AFFIRMED THAT ALTHOUGH REGULATION BY THE STATE MIGHT
IMPOSE SOME BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE THIS WAS PERMISSIBLE WHEN "AN
INSEPARABLE INCIDENT OF THE EXERCISE OF A LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, WHICH,
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, HAS BEEN LEFT TO THE STATES."  IN THE ABSENCE
OF CONTROLLING LANGUAGE TO THE CONTRARY - AND THERE IS NONE - THE
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT INTO CONFLICT WITH THIS
REITERATED DOCTRINE.    THE CHALLENGED DECREE MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AUG. 9, 1935, C. 498, 49 STAT. 543; U.S.C. TITLE 49, SEC. 301,
ET SEQ. 

FN2  KENTUCKY ACTS 1938, CH. 2; BALDWIN'S SUPP. TO CARROLL'S STATUTES
1936, CH. 81, SEC. 2554B-97, ET SEQ. 

FN3  BALDWIN'S SUPPLEMENT TO CARROLL'S KENTUCKY STATUTES 1936, SEC.
2554B-150. 

FN4  ID., SEC. 2554B-151.  "THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY IS HEREBY DECLARED
TO BE CONTRABAND:  (1) ANY ILLICIT STILL DESIGNED FOR THE UNLAWFUL
MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS, OR ANY APPARATUS DESIGNED FOR THE
UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURE OF SPIRITUOUS, VINOUS, MALT OR INTOXICATING
LIQUORS.  AN ILLICIT STILL OR APPARATUS DESIGNED FOR THE UNLAWFUL
MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS SHALL INCLUDE (A) AN OUTFIT OR
PARTS OF AN OUTFIT COMMONLY USED, OR INTENDED TO BE USED, IN THE
DISTILLATION OR MANUFACTURE OF SPIRITUOUS, VINOUS OR MALT LIQUORS WHICH
IS NOT DULY REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
FOR THE UNITED STATES, AND THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT SAME IS SO
REGISTERED SHALL BE ON THE DEFENDANT OR DEFENDANTS UNDER CHARGE; (B)
ANY AND ALL MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, IMPLEMENTS, DEVICES, FIREARMS, AND
OTHER PROPERTY USED OR INTENDED FOR USE, DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.  (2) ANY
SPIRITUOUS, VINOUS OR MALT LIQUORS IN THE POSSESSION OF ANY ONE NOT
ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF THE SAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT. 
(3) ANY SPIRITUOUS, VINOUS OR MALT LIQUORS IN THE POSSESSION OF ANY ONE
AND TO WHICH THE REVENUE STAMPS HAVE NOT BEEN AFFIXED AS AND WHEN
REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TAX ACT, SECTIONS
4281C-1 TO AND INCLUDING 4281C-25, CARROLL'S KENTUCKY STATUTES, ONE
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SIX (1936) EDITION.  (4) ANY DISTILLED
SPIRITS, WINE OR MALT BEVERAGE IN A CONTAINER OF A SIZE PROHIBITED BY
LAW OR PROHIBITED THE PARTICULAR PARTY IN WHOSE POSSESSION SAME IS
FOUND.  (5) ANY DISTILLED SPIRITS OR WINE KEPT IN AN UNAUTHORIZED PLACE
WITHIN ANY LICENSED PREMISES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 77 OF THIS
ACT.  (6) ANY MOTOR VEHICLE, WATER OR AIR CRAFT, OR OTHER VEHICLE IN
WHICH ANY PERSON IS ILLEGALLY POSSESSING OR TRANSPORTING ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES." 

FN5  ID., SEC. 2554B-114. 

FN6  ID., SEC. 2554B-114(7). 

FN7  ID., SEC. 2554B-118. 

FN8  ID., SEC. 2554B-119. 

FN9  ID., SEC. 2554B-124. 

FN10  ID., SEC. 2554B-154(7). 

FN11  ID., SEC. 2554B-190. 

FN12  ID., SEC. 2554B-131. 

FN13  ID., SEC. 2554B-134(5). 

FN14  ID., SEC. 2554B-135. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. U.S., 308 U.S. 141 


NO. 25.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 13, 1939.  - 25
F.SUPP.  460, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN OIL COMPANY OWNING AND OPERATING A PIPE LINE THROUGH WHICH IT
TRANSPORTS TO ITS OWN REFINERIES FOR ITS OWN REFINING PURPOSES, PARTLY
ACROSS STATE LINES, OIL WHICH IT PURCHASES FROM PRODUCERS AT THE MOUTHS
OF THEIR WELLS, IS AN INTERSTATE "PIPE-LINE COMPANY" AND A "COMMON
CARRIER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1(1)(B), AND (3), OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, AND UNDER SEC. 19A (A) AND (E) MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION TO FURNISH MAPS, CHARTS AND SCHEDULES OF ITS
PIPE-LINE PROPERTIES, FOR USE IN VALUING SUCH PROPERTIES UNDER THAT

2.  IN SEC. 1(B)(3) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WHICH PROVIDES
THAT THE TERM "COMMON CARRIER" SHALL INCLUDE "ALL PIPE-LINE COMPANIES;
EXPRESS COMPANIES; SLEEPING-CAR COMPANIES; AND ALL PERSONS, NATURAL OR
ARTIFICIAL, ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR TRANSMISSION AS AFORESAID
AS COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE," THE FINAL CLAUSE IS CONJUNCTIVE, NOT A
MODIFIER, AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE GENERALITY OF THE FIRST CLAUSE AS TO
PIPE-LINE COMPANIES.  P. 145. 

3.  THE VALUATION PROVISIONS, SEC. 19A (A) AND (E) ARE SO FAR
SEPARABLE FROM THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THAT IN A SUIT TO
SET ASIDE AN ORDER UNDER THAT SECTION THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PIPE
LINE OWNER IF SUBJECTED TO REGULATION OF ITS RATES, ETC., AS A COMMON
CARRIER WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS DOES NOT
PROPERLY ARISE.  P. 146. 

4.  THE VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 19A (A) AND (E) OF THE ACT
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE EXTENT OF A PIPE-LINE COMPANY'S OPERATIONS. 
ID. 

VALVOLINE OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
DISMISSED A BILL TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE VALVOLINE OIL COMPANY APPEALS  FN1  FROM THE FINAL DECREE OF A
THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT,  FN2  DISMISSING A PETITION TO
ENJOIN AND ANNUL AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE
ORDER, REQUIRING APPELLANT TO FILE WITH THE COMMISSION CERTAIN MAPS,
CHARTS AND SCHEDULES OF ITS PIPE-LINE PROPERTIES FOR USE IN VALUING THE
PROPERTIES UNDER SEC. 19A OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WAS MADE
AFTER A DETERMINATION BY THE COMMISSION THAT APPELLANT WAS "ENGAGED IN
THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL BY PIPE LINE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT
IT IS A COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT." 

THROUGH 1,426 MILES OF PIPE LINE, RUNNING TO 9,020 WELLS IN
PENNSYLVANIA, WEST VIRGINIA AND OHIO, VALVOLINE GATHERS SOME 75,000
BARRELS OF OIL PER MONTH FOR ITS TWO REFINERIES IN PENNSYLVANIA WHICH
MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTED BY VALVOLINE TO THE TRADE.  ALL OF
THIS OIL IS PURCHASED FROM PRODUCERS AT THE WELL, 50 PER CENT
ORIGINATING IN PENNSYLVANIA, 38 PER CENT IN WEST VIRGINIA, AND 12 PER
CENT IN OHIO.  AT THE TIME OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WHICH
IT CHALLENGES HERE, VALVOLINE WAS SELLING SURPLUS OIL, NOT NEEDED IN
ITS OWN OPERATIONS, TO A REFINERY IN PENNSYLVANIA AND TO ANOTHER IN
WEST VIRGINIA, BUT NONE OF THIS CAME FROM OUT OF THE STATE OF THE
REFINERY.  BECAUSE, THUS, IT DOES NOT TRANSPORT INTERSTATE OTHER OIL
THAN THAT WHICH IT PURCHASES AT THE WELL FOR ITS OWN USE, VALVOLINE
CLAIMS THAT IT IS NOT A COMMON CARRIER OF OIL SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, OR, SHOULD IT BE HELD TO COME WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE
STATUTE, THAT THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS TO IT IN THAT THE
PROVISIONS VIOLATE DUE PROCESS BY TAKING THE CARRIER'S PROPERTY FOR
PUBLIC USE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. 

APPELLANT URGES AS REASONS WHY IT IS NOT A COMMON CARRIER WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT THAT ITS PIPE LINES ARE USED
PRIMARILY TO TRANSPORT OIL TO ITS OWN REFINERIES, THAT IT IS NOT
CLOTHED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT THE OIL FLOWING THROUGH ITS LINES
IS NOT IN COMMERCE UNTIL AFTER PREPARATION FOR MARKET, AND THAT, SINCE
THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 19A (A) AND (E) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT IN
REQUIRING VALUATION DATA IS TO FURNISH A BASIS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
TRAFFIC AND RATES, THE REPORT REQUIRED IS THE FIRST STEP IN GENERAL
REGULATION TO WHICH IT IS NOT SUBJECT.  THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT ARE SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN3 

THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY OVER WHETHER APPELLANT IS AN INTERSTATE PIPE
LINE COMPANY.  OBVIOUSLY IT IS.  THE CONTENTIONS ABOVE ARE ADVANCED TO
SHOW IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  SECTION 1(3) DEFINES COMMON CARRIER
TO INCLUDE "ALL PIPE-LINE COMPANIES."  IF THIS DEFINITION IS NOT
LIMITED BY THE SUBSEQUENT CLAUSE "ENGAGED  ...  AS COMMON CARRIERS FOR
HIRE," EXTENDED CONSIDERATION OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS OF A PRIVATE
CARRIER IS UNNECESSARY AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEFINITION IS DECISIVE. 

THE PRACTICE OF COMPELLING PRODUCERS TO SELL AT THE WELL BEFORE
ADMITTING THEIR OIL TO THE LINES WAS WIDELY USED AS A MEANS OF
MONOPOLIZING THE PRODUCT BEFORE THE HEPBURN AMENDMENT IN 1906.  FN4
WHETHER THE OIL SO OWNED AND TRANSPORTED WAS ULTIMATELY USED BY THE
CARRIER IN ITS OWN OPERATIONS OR SOLD TO OTHERS WAS IN THIS CONNECTION
IMMATERIAL.  CERTAINLY ONE WOULD FIND A PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE SOLE
MEANS OF TRANSPORTING THIS COMMODITY FROM THOUSANDS OF WELLS FOR
THOUSANDS OF PRODUCERS.  THIS WAS COVERED BY THE PIPE LINE DECISION. 
THERE IT WAS STATED THAT COMMERCE IS NOT DEPENDENT ON TITLE, "AND THE
FACT THAT THE OILS TRANSPORTED BELONGED TO THE OWNER OF THE PIPE LINE
IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AGAINST THE TRANSPORTATION BEING SUCH COMMERCE."  THE
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AT THE TIME OF THE
PIPE LINE CASES READ: 

THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO ANY PERSON OR PERSONS
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY, EXCEPT WATER
AND EXCEPT NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL GAS, BY MEANS OF PIPE LINES, OR PARTLY
BY PIPE LINES AND PARTLY BY WATER, WHO SHALL BE CONSIDERED AND HELD TO
BE COMMON CARRIERS WITHIN THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT.  THIS
COURT CONSTRUED THAT SECTION TO COVER THOSE WHO WERE COMMON CARRIERS IN
SUBSTANCE EVEN IF NOT IN TECHNICAL FORM AND READ IT THAT THOSE "ENGAGED
IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL  ...  BY MEANS OF PIPE LINES" SHALL BE
TREATED AS COMMON CARRIERS UNDER THE ACT.  THE LAST CLAUSE WAS HELD NOT
"TO CUT DOWN THE GENERALITY" OF THE ACT. 

IN THE PRESENT ACT THERE IS A CHANGE OF LANGUAGE BUT WE PERCEIVE NONE
IN MEANING.  SPEAKING OF THE AMENDMENTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF
1920, WHICH RECAST THE HEPBURN AMENDMENT INTO THE PRESENT FORM, THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE REPORTED THAT THE
LANGUAGE IN SEVERAL RESPECTS, BUT MAKING NO IMPORTANT CHANGES IN
POLICY."  FN5  AS NOW WRITTEN THE SECTION BRINGS RAILROADS UNDER THE
ACT BY MEANS OF THE LAST CLAUSE OF SUBSECTION (3) ONLY.  FN6  THIS
CLAUSE IS A CONJUNCTIVE, NOT A MODIFIER.  IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE
GENERALITY OF THE FIRST CLAUSE AS TO PIPE-LINE COMPANIES. 

THE APPELLANT RELIES UPON THE PIPE LINE CASES TO SHOW THAT THE
PRESENT ACT DOES NOT COVER A PIPE LINE TRANSPORTING OIL FOR ITS OWN
REFINING PURPOSES ONLY.  THE DISCUSSION REFERRED TO IS THAT CONCERNING
THE UNCLE SAM OIL COMPANY.  BUT THAT COMPANY'S PIPE LINE WAS USED FOR
THE "SOLE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING OIL FROM ITS OWN WELLS TO ITS OWN
REFINERY."  THIS WAS HELD NOT TO BE TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE ACT. 
HERE, HOWEVER, IT IS THE PURCHASE FROM MANY SOURCES AND SUBSEQUENT
CARRIAGE THAT DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE STATUTE TO VALVOLINE. 

APPELLANT PRESSES ITS ARGUMENT BEYOND THE QUESTION WHETHER IT COMES
UNDER THE ACT.  IF IT DOES, IT URGES, THE ACT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IN THAT BY THE INVOLUNTARY CHANGE OF STATUS FROM
PRIVATE TO COMMON CARRIER ITS PROPERTY IS TAKEN.  IT LOOKS UPON THE
VARIOUS REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS
INSEPARABLE FROM THE VALUATION PROVISIONS OF SEC. 19A (A) AND (E).  THE
LOSSES FEARED, FROM PRESENT OR FUTURE LEGISLATION OTHER THAN THE
VALUATION PROVISIONS, MAY NEVER OCCUR.  THE DATA REQUIRED BY THE
PRESENT ORDER MAY NEVER BE USED TO FIX RATES.  NO SUCH INFORMATION AS
TO OTHER PIPE LINES HAS BEEN SO USED.  PUBLICITY ALONE MAY GIVE
EFFECTIVE REMEDY TO ABUSES, IF ANY THERE BE.  FN7  THIS LEGISLATION WAS
INTENDED TO FREE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN OIL FROM PRACTICES BELIEVED TO
BE DETRIMENTAL, AND IN THAT CONNECTION ACCESSIBILITY OF VALUATION
INFORMATION TO THE CONGRESS IS ESSENTIAL.  ITS SEPARATE SIGNIFICANCE
BEING APPARENT, WE CONFINE OURSELVES TO SEC. 19A (A) AND (E).  THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH REQUIREMENTS WAS SETTLED BY THE PIPE LINE
CASES AND WE SEE NOTHING THAT EXCEPTS APPELLANT FROM THEIR EFFECT.  THE
SMALLNESS OF THE OPERATION IS IMMATERIAL.  FN8  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 238, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345. 

FN2  38 STAT. 220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47, 47A. 

FN3  SEC. 1.  (1)  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY TO
COMMON CARRIERS ENGAGED IN - 

     .         .         .         .   . 

(B)  THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL OR OTHER COMMODITY, EXCEPT WATER AND
EXCEPT NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL GAS, BY PIPE LINE, OR PARTLY BY PIPE LINE
AND PARTLY BY RAILROAD OR BY WATER - 

FROM ONE STATE  ...  TO ANY OTHER STATE.  ... 

(3)  THE TERM "COMMON CARRIER" AS USED IN THIS CHAPTER SHALL INCLUDE
ALL PIPE-LINE COMPANIES; EXPRESS COMPANIES; SLEEPING-CAR COMPANIES; AND
ALL PERSONS, NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL, ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION (OR
TRANSMISSION) AS AFORESAID AS COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

SEC. 19A.  (A)  THE COMMISSION SHALL, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED,
INVESTIGATE, ASCERTAIN, AND REPORT THE VALUE OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNED
OR USED BY EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER.  ... 

(E)  EVERY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER
SHALL FURNISH TO THE COMMISSION OR ITS AGENTS FROM TIME TO TIME AS THE
COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE MAPS, PROFILES, CONTRACTS, REPORTS OF ENGINEERS,
AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS, RECORDS, AND PAPERS, OR COPIES OF ANY OR ALL
OF THE SAME, IN AID OF SUCH INVESTIGATION AND DETERMINATION OF THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF SAID COMMON CARRIER.  ... 

FN4  34 STAT. 584; SEE 40 CONG. REC. 6365-66; PIPE LINE CASES, 234
U.S. 548, 559. 

FN5  REP. NO. 456, NOV. 10, 1919, TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 10453, 66TH
CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN6  CF. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 298 U.S.
170, 174. 

FN7  II SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 96. 

FN8  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601, 606. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



















MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI, 308 U.S. 1 


NO. - , ORIGINAL.  ARGUED OCTOBER 9, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939. 
- MOTION FOR LEAVE, DENIED. 


1.  TO CONSTITUTE A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO STATES, WITHIN THE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, IT MUST APPEAR THAT THE
COMPLAINING STATE HAS SUFFERED A WRONG THROUGH THE ACTION OF THE OTHER
STATE, FURNISHING GROUND FOR JUDICIAL REDRESS, OR IS ASSERTING A RIGHT
AGAINST THE OTHER STATE WHICH IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT
ACCORDING TO THE ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW OR EQUITY
SYSTEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE.  P. 15. 

2.  A BILL BY ONE STATE AGAINST ANOTHER STATE AND CITIZENS OF THE
OTHER, WHICH ALLEGES THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS ASSESSED A TAX ON THE
TRANSFER BY DEATH OF THE ESTATE OF ONE OF ITS OWN CITIZENS, THE
SATISFACTION OF WHICH DEPENDS UPON RESORT TO INTANGIBLE ASSETS OF THE
DECEDENT CONSISTING OF SECURITIES HELD BY THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, AS
TRUSTEES, IN THE DEFENDANT STATE, AND WHICH ALLEGES THAT THE DEFENDANT
STATE CLAIMS AND WILL EXERCISE A RIGHT TO LEVY A LIKE TAX UPON THE
TRANSFER OF THIS INTANGIBLE PROPERTY, AND WHICH PRAYS TO HAVE THE
RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE TWO STATES ADJUDICATED, AND FOR GENERAL
RELIEF, BUT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY IS SUFFICIENT TO ANSWER THE
CLAIMS OF BOTH STATES AND THAT THE CLAIMS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
BUT INDEPENDENT SO THAT EACH STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY PRESS ITS CLAIM
WITHOUT CONFLICT IN POINT OF LAW OR FACT WITH THE DECISION OF THE
OTHER,  - DOES NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE TWO
STATES.  TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398, DISTINGUISHED.  ID. 

3.  STATE STATUTES PURPORTING TO EXEMPT FROM LOCAL TRANSFER TAX
INTANGIBLE ASSETS OF DECEDENTS WHO, AT DEATH, WERE CITIZENS OF OTHER
STATES WHICH GRANT RECIPROCAL EXEMPTIONS, CREATE NO ENFORCEABLE
OBLIGATION BETWEEN THE STATES ENACTING THEM.  P. 16. 

4.  A STATE MAY NOT INVOKE THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO
ENFORCE THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS.  P. 17. 

5.  FEDERAL JURISDICTION TO RENDER A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DEPENDS ON
THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTROVERSY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  ID. 

6.  A STATE CAN NOT BE BROUGHT INTO COURT BY MAKING ITS CITIZENS
PARTIES TO A SUIT NOT OTHERWISE MAINTAINABLE AGAINST THE STATE.  ID. 

7.  AN ACTION BY A STATE TO RECOVER MONEY FROM CITIZENS OF ANOTHER
STATE WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF FACTS
SHOWING THAT RESORT TO THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IS NECESSARY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE PLAINTIFF STATE.  P. 18. 

IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT MASSACHUSETTS IS
WITHOUT A PROPER AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE MISSOURI COURTS OR THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN MISSOURI.  P. 19. 

8.  CLAUSE 2 OF SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION MERELY
DISTRIBUTES THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY CLAUSE 1.  ID. 

9.  THE ORGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, IN CASES WHERE A STATE IS
A PARTY, REFERS TO THOSE CASES IN WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE GRANT OF
POWER MADE IN ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 1, JURISDICTION MIGHT BE EXERCISED
IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE PARTY, AND AN ORIGINAL SUIT
MIGHT BE INSTITUTED IN ANY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  COHENS V. VIRGINIA,
6 WHEAT.  264.  ID. 

10.  THE OBJECTION THAT THE COURTS IN ONE STATE WILL NOT ENTERTAIN A
SUIT TO RECOVER TAXES DUE TO ANOTHER OR UPON A JUDGMENT FOR SUCH TAXES,
GOES NOT TO THE JURISDICTION BUT TO THE MERITS, AND RAISES A QUESTION
WHICH THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE COMPETENT TO DECIDE.  P. 20. 

MASSACHUSETTS V. MISSOURI ET AL. 

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN ORIGINAL BILL IN THIS COURT AND THE
RETURN TO AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. 

UNDER GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383, DECEDENT'S RIGHT TO REVOKE HAD
THE ATTRIBUTE OF PROPERTY, AND CONTROL OF HER PERSON AND ESTATE AT THE
PLACE OF HER DOMICIL AFFORDED CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF
THE TAX. 

UNDER THAT CASE AND CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357, MISSOURI ALSO
CAN TAX THE TRANSFER, THOUGH WHETHER ITS STATUTES EXERCISE THAT POWER
WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT TRUSTS, IN VIEW OF THE RECIPROCITY
PROVISION OF THE STATUTE, IS ANOTHER QUESTION.  AS THE MASSACHUSETTS
TAX IS IMPOSED UPON THE TRUSTEES, WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF MISSOURI,
MASSACHUSETTS CAN ENFORCE THE TAX ONLY BY RECOURSE TO THE MISSOURI OR
FEDERAL COURTS.  THE TRUSTEES DENY THEIR LIABILITY TO PAY, ON THE
GROUND THAT MASSACHUSETTS HAS NO JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE IT.  THERE
EXISTS, THEREFORE, A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THAT STATE AND CITIZENS OF
MISSOURI. 

THE PURPOSE OF VESTING IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
JURISDICTION OF SUITS BY ONE STATE AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF ANOTHER "WAS
TO ENABLE SUCH CONTROVERSIES TO BE DETERMINED BY A NATIONAL TRIBUNAL,
AND THEREBY TO AVOID THE PARTIALITY, OR SUSPICION OF PARTIALITY, WHICH
MIGHT EXIST IF THE PLAINTIFF STATE WERE COMPELLED TO RESORT TO THE
COURTS OF THE STATE OF WHICH THE DEFENDANTS WERE CITIZENS." 
MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 480, 481; WISCONSIN V. PELICAN
INS. CO., 127 U.S. 265, 289; CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA, 2 DALL.  419, 475;
STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION, SECS. 1638, 1682.  AND IF THE FACTS PRESENT
SUCH A CASE, THE COURT MAY NOT DENY JURISDICTION BECAUSE NUMEROUS
SIMILAR CASES MIGHT "BE BROUGHT WITHIN ITS COGNIZANCE."  MINNESOTA V.
HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373. 

A SUIT AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL TO COLLECT A TAX CLEARLY PRESENTS A
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY DETERMINABLE "ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED DOCTRINES
OF THE COMMON LAW OR EQUITY SYSTEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE."  UNITED STATES
V. CHAMBERLIN, 219 U.S. 250; MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. M.E. WHITE CO., 296
U.S. 268, 271; MEREDITH V. UNITED STATES, 13 PET. 486; DOLLAR SAVINGS
BANK V. UNITED STATES, 19 WALL.  227; UNITED STATES V. PHILADELPHIA &
READING R. CO., 123 U.S. 113. 

A JUDGMENT FOR A TAX IS ONE WHICH IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. M.E. WHITE CO., 296
U.S. 268. 

THE MASSACHUSETTS INHERITANCE TAX IS A STATUTORY LIABILITY QUASI
CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE, SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT BY SUIT.  THE RULE,
ADOPTED IN SOME JURISDICTIONS BUT DENIED IN OTHERS, THAT THE COURTS OF
ONE STATE WILL NOT ENFORCE THE REVENUE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE, HAS BEEN
SEVERELY CRITICIZED (29 COL. L.R. 782; 48 HARV. L.R. 828) AND ITS
VALIDITY IS AN OPEN QUESTION IN THIS COURT.  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. M.E.
WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268, 275; MOORE V. MITCHELL, 281 U.S. 18, 24. 

THE RULE OF WISCONSIN V. PELICAN INS. CO., 127 U.S. 265, SHOULD NOT
BE EXTENDED TO A SUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF REVENUE LAWS.  MILWAUKEE
COUNTY V. M.E. WHITE CO., SUPRA. 

THERE IS PRESENTED A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN MASSACHUSETTS AND MISSOURI. 
IN VIEW OF RECENT DECISIONS (CURRY V. MCCANLESS, SUPRA; GRAVES V.
ELLIOTT, SUPRA; WORCESTER COUNTY CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 299; NEW
JERSEY V. PENNSYLVANIA, 287 U.S. 580) THE STATES, HAVING SURRENDERED
THEIR RIGHTS TO MAKE TREATIES INTER SESE, MUST FIND THEIR ONLY REMEDY
AGAINST DOUBLE TAXATION IN RECIPROCAL LEGISLATION.  FIRST NATIONAL BANK
OF BOSTON V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312, 334; KIDD V. ALABAMA, 188 U.S. 730,
732.  BOTH MASSACHUSETTS AND MISSOURI HAVE RESORTED TO THIS EXPEDIENT. 
MASSACHUSETTS AND ITS RESIDENTS, THEREFORE, ARE ENTITLED TO THE
IMMUNITY OFFERED BY THE MISSOURI STATUTE. 

IF THE EVILS OF MULTIPLE TAXATION ARE TO BE SOLVED BY RECIPROCAL
LEGISLATION OF THE STATES, AS THIS COURT HAS ITSELF SUGGESTED, IT IS
ESSENTIAL THAT THERE BE A FORUM WHERE RECALCITRANT STATES MAY BE
COMPELLED TO OBSERVE THE RECIPROCITY THEIR LEGISLATURES HAVE PROVIDED. 
THE SUPREME COURT IS THE ONLY AVAILABLE FORUM. 

IF THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION UPON EITHER GROUND BUT NOT THE OTHER,
THE JURISDICTION IS NOT LOST BECAUSE OF THE JOINDER OF PARTIES NOT
NECESSARY TO SUCH JURISDICTION. 

THE CONTROVERSIES IN THIS CASE ARE JUSTICIABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE OF A
CIVIL NATURE AND ARISE BETWEEN STATES OF THE UNION AND BETWEEN A STATE
AND CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE.  THEY EXIST NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE
OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS ON DOUBLE TAXATION.  DISTINGUISHING CURRY
V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357; GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383.  BECAUSE
OF THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, AND THE RECIPROCAL EXEMPTION CONTAINED IN
THE LAW OF MISSOURI, THERE CAN HERE BE ONLY ONE TAX, IF IN TRUTH THERE
CAN BE ANY TAX AT ALL.  IN SUCH A SITUATION A CONTROVERSY ARISES
APPROPRIATELY TO BE DECIDED BY A COURT UPON AN ANALOGY TO INTERPLEADER
UNDER THE PRINCIPLE RECENTLY DECIDED BY THIS COURT IN TEXAS V. FLORIDA,
306 U.S. 398. 

CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS AND MISSOURI ARISE
BECAUSE EACH DENIES THE RIGHT OF THE OTHER TO TAX.  A CONTROVERSY
ARISES FROM THE ASSERTION BY MASSACHUSETTS OF THE VALIDITY OF ITS TAX
LAWS IN MISSOURI.  THROUGHOUT THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES
ENGLISH COURTS HAVE ANNOUNCED THE DOCTRINE IN DICTA THAT NO NATION WILL
TAKE NOTICE OF THE REVENUE LAWS OF ANOTHER.  IN AMERICA THE DOCTRINE
HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AND APPLIED IN LUDLOW V. VAN RENSSELAER, 1 JOHNSON
94; MARYLAND V. TURNER, 132 N.Y.S. 173; COLORADO V. HARBECK, 232 N.Y.
71; NEW YORK TRUST CO. V. ISLAND OIL & TRANSPORT CORP., 11 F.2D 698;
MOORE V. MITCHELL, 30 F.2D 600; 281 U.S. 18. 

THIS COURT HAS FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER A STATE MIGHT
HAVE EXTRATERRITORIAL ENFORCEMENT OF ITS REVENUE LAWS IN AN ORIGINAL
ACTION OUTSIDE THE TAXING STATE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SUIT ON A
JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN THE TAXING STATE ON PERSONAL SERVICE.  MOORE V.
MITCHELL, SUPRA; MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. M.E. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268.  THE
ISSUES, AS SUGGESTED BY COLORADO V. HARBECK, 232 N.Y. 71, AND MOORE V.
MITCHELL, SUPRA, GO DEEPER THAN OBJECTIONS TO EXTRATERRITORIAL
COLLECTION.  THEY INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF THE VITALITY OF THE TAXING LAW
ITSELF WHEN SOUGHT TO BE APPLIED TO RAISE OBLIGATIONS AND IMPOSE LIENS
WITHIN THE CONFINES OF ANOTHER STATE.  THE ATTEMPT OF MASSACHUSETTS
HERE IS TO IMPOSE A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY UPON TRUSTEES WHO NEITHER
MADE THEMSELVES AMENABLE TO, NOR SOUGHT THE PROTECTION IN ANY WAY OF,
THE COMMONWEALTH, AND TO REACH OVER INTO MISSOURI IN THE ATTEMPTED
IMPRESSMENT OF A LIEN ON ASSETS HELD IN MISSOURI.  MASSACHUSETTS IS
ATTEMPTING TO BASE HER RIGHT UPON REVENUE LAWS CLAIMED TO HAVE
EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT. 

A CONTROVERSY ARISES FROM THE DENIAL BY MISSOURI OF THE EFFECT OF HER
RECIPROCITY STATUTE.  THE EXTENT OF RECIPROCAL LEGISLATION WAS
COMMENTED UPON IN FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204,
WHERE IT WAS SAID THAT THIRTY-FIVE STATES HAD ALREADY IN SOME FORM
GRANTED RELIEF AGAINST DOUBLE TAXATION. 

IN VIEW OF THE HOLDING IN CURRY V. MCCANLESS, SUPRA, AND GRAVES V.
ELLIOTT, SUPRA, THE NEED FOR RECIPROCAL LEGISLATION TO AVOID THE EVILS
OF DOUBLE TAXATION BECOMES OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE.  SEE, ORR,
"RECIPROCAL EXEMPTIONS FROM INHERITANCE TAXATION," 18 BOSTON UNIVERSITY
LAW REV. 39. 

HAS NOT MASSACHUSETTS AN INTEREST IN THE QUESTION WHETHER MISSOURI
LEGALLY WITHHOLDS THE EXEMPTION GRANTED BY HER STATUTE? 

ENACTMENT OF MUTUAL RECIPROCITY LAWS IS ASSUMPTION OF MUTUAL
OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN THE STATES.  THERE WAS SOMETHING OF THE NATURE OF A
CONTINUING, ALTHOUGH REVOCABLE, OFFER TO OTHER STATES, FOR THE DURATION
OF A RECIPROCITY LAW, TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY OF
CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES, IF THE STATES OF THEIR DOMICILES GRANTED
SIMILAR EXEMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY OF CITIZENS OF THE
LEGISLATING STATE.  THIS WAS NOT MERE COMITY, SINCE IT CONTEMPLATED A
QUID PRO QUO.  THE MISSOURI RECIPROCITY STATUTE WAS MORE THAN A MERE
EXEMPTION LAW.  THE NATURE OF MISSOURI'S OBLIGATION TO MASSACHUSETTS IS
MUCH LIKE THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION EXPRESSED IN SECS. 85 AND 90 OF
THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE'S RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS. 

THE INTEREST OF A STATE SUCH AS MASSACHUSETTS GRANTING AN EXEMPTION
AND CLAIMING RECIPROCITY TRANSCENDS AN INTEREST IN THE INDIVIDUAL
BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO ITS OWN CITIZENS.  FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S.
12, 16.  IT IS A PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH MASSACHUSETTS HAS IN THE
RECIPROCAL EXEMPTIONS UPON WHICH ITS OWN EXEMPTIONS ARE POSTULATED. 
MISSOURI SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED, UNLESS SHE CAN SHOW JUST CAUSE, TO
VIOLATE HER STATUTE WHEN HER CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTIONS IN
MASSACHUSETTS.  THERE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONAL INHIBITION AGAINST THE
SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF THE BENEFIT CONFERRED AT THE DATE OF MRS.
BLAKE'S DEATH.  CITY BANK FARMERS' TRUST CO. V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R.
CO., 253 N.Y. 49.  RECIPROCITY, IT IS BELIEVED, FURNISHES AN EXPEDIENT
OF ACCORD WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE COMPACT CLAUSE; FOR THE OBLIGATION
ARISING OUT OF RECIPROCAL LEGISLATION IS NOT SUCH AS REQUIRES THE
CONSENT OF CONGRESS.  THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE (1) THE OBLIGATION, ALTHOUGH
CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE, IS NOT RESTED UPON MANIFESTATION OF ASSENT SO AS
TO FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF "COMPACT" OR "AGREEMENT" IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, AND (2) NO INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IS
INVOLVED.  VIRGINIA V. TENNESSEE, 148 U.S. 503, 518-519; STEARNS V.
MINNESOTA, 179 U.S. 223, 244-245; UNION BRANCH R. CO. V. EAST TENNESSEE
& GEORGIA R. CO., 14 GA. 327, 339; STATE V. JOSLIN, 116 KANS. 615, 618
619. 

A CONTROVERSY ARISES ON THE PART OF EACH STATE AGAINST THE OTHER BY
REASON OF THE EFFECT OF THE OTHER'S TAX UPON ITS PUBLIC CHARITIES. 

CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THE STATES AND BETWEEN EACH OF THE STATES AND
THE RESPONDENT TRUSTEES ARISE OUT OF THE ATTEMPTS OF EACH STATE TO
COLLECT A TAX UPON THE TRUST PROPERTY IN MISSOURI.  THE SUBJECT MATTER
IS SINGLE.  WITH THE EXISTENCE OF RECIPROCITY, THERE CAN BE NOT MORE
THAN ONE TAX PAYABLE.  THERE BEING NOT MORE THAN A SINGLE LIABILITY,
DAMAGE TO THE RESPONDENT TRUSTEES ARISES FROM THE MULTIPLE ASSERTION OF
CLAIMS.  THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THIS COURT WOULD AVOID A
MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS.  THE EXISTENCE OF CONTROVERSIES CAPABLE OF BEING
INITIATED IN OTHER COURTS PRESUPPOSES THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT. 

A REQUEST FOR AN OPINION DOES NOT PRESENT A CASE OR CONTROVERSY. 
UNITED STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463; TEXAS V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N, 258 U.S. 158; NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328;
MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447. 

MASSACHUSETTS IS ONLY ASKING FOR A DECLARATION OF WHETHER IT, OR
MISSOURI, HAS THE RIGHT TO LEVY AN INHERITANCE TAX, AND "THIS COURT MAY
NOT BE CALLED ON TO GIVE ADVISORY OPINIONS OR TO PRONOUNCE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENTS."  ALABAMA V. ARIZONA, 291 U.S. 286, 291; ASHWANDER V.
T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288, 324; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423;
PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262 U.S. 553. 

THE SUPPOSED DISPUTE IS POLITICAL AND THEREFORE NOT JUSTICIABLE. 
FOWLER V. LINDSEY, 3 DALL.  410; VIRGINIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 11 WALL. 
39; GEORGIA V. STANTON, 6 WALL.  50; MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, SUPRA;
KANSAS V. COLORADO, 185 U.S. 125; RHODE ISLAND V. MASSACHUSETTS, 12
PET. 657. 

THERE IS NO DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTERESTS BETWEEN THE TWO STATES.  THE
TRUST ASSETS ARE FAR MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TOTAL
TAXES CLAIMED BY THEM BOTH.  DISTINGUISHING TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S.
398.  THE CLAIMS OF THE TWO ARE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT, ARE NOT
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE IN ANY WAY, AND MISSOURI HAS NEITHER DONE NOR
THREATENED ANY ACT TENDING TO INTERFERE WITH THE COLLECTION BY
MASSACHUSETTS OF ITS ASSERTED TAX.  MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, 219 U.S.
346. 

MISSOURI IS NOT THREATENING ANY PRIVATE OR PROPERTY RIGHT OF
MASSACHUSETTS.  THE COURT HAS DECLARED THAT ONLY CERTAIN TYPES OF STATE
RIGHTS WILL BE PROTECTED FROM THREATENED INVASION.  OKLAHOMA V.
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 220 U.S. 277; GEORGIA V. STANTON, 6 WALL. 
50, 77; UNITED STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463. 

THE RIGHT TO TAX IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF GENERAL SOVEREIGNTY, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM A PROPERTY RIGHT.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT. 
316, 428; PROVIDENCE BANK V. BILLINGS, 4 PET. 514, 564; CASE OF THE
STATE FREIGHT TAX, 15 WALL.  232, 278; COOLEY ON TAXATION, 3RD ED., P.
7.  AN INVASION BY MISSOURI OF THE MASSACHUSETTS JURISDICTION TO TAX,
WOULD NOT AFFECT A PRIVATE OR PROPERTY RIGHT, AND THEREFORE COULD NOT
PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  WHILE THE PROPERTY RIGHT
REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN RELAXED IN WATER RIGHTS CASES SO AS TO PERMIT A
STATE TO SUE AS PARENS PATRIAE, MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, 180 U.S. 208;
KANSAS V. COLORADO, 185 U.S. 125, SUCH CASES PRESENT NO ANALOGY TO THE
CASE AT BAR. 

MASSACHUSETTS IS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.  OKLAHOMA V.
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 220 U.S. 277; WISCONSIN V. PELICAN INS.
CO., 127 U.S. 265, 287; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288
U.S. 249, 259; OKLAHOMA V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 220 U.S. 290; NEW
HAMPSHIRE V. LOUISIANA, 108 U.S. 76; KANSAS V. UNITED STATES, 204 U.S.
331; FLORIDA V. ANDERSON, 91 U.S. 667; LOUISIANA V. TEXAS, 176 U.S. 1;
NORTH DAKOTA V. MINNESOTA, 263 U.S. 365.    IF THERE IS A SEPARATE
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN A STATE AND CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE, NECESSARY
PARTIES ARE ABSENT, WHOSE JOINDER WOULD OUST THE JURISDICTION. 
CALIFORNIA V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 157 U.S. 228; ARIZONA V.
CALIFORNIA, 298 U.S. 558.  SEE ALSO DISSENTS IN SOUTH DAKOTA V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 192 U.S. 286, 322, AND PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262
U.S. 553, 605.  THE BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE TRUST ARE THE ONLY PERSONS
REALLY INTERESTED IN THE ISSUE FRAMED BY MASSACHUSETTS.  CF. TEXAS V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 258 U.S. 158, 163; MINNESOTA V. NORTHERN
SECURITIES CO., 184 U.S. 199, 246.    THE ALLEGATIONS AFFORD NO
ADEQUATE BASIS FOR RELIEF ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED DOCTRINES OF EQUITY
JURISPRUDENCE.  TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398.  MASSACHUSETTS WAS
FACED WITH NO POSSIBLE RISK OF LOSS FROM ANYTHING THAT MISSOURI MIGHT
DO. 

EVEN IF THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION IT MAY DECLINE TO EXERCISE IT.
COURTS NEED NOT IN EVERY CASE EXERCISE A JURISDICTION WHICH THEY
ADMITTEDLY POSSESS.  THE STATEMENT IN COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT. 
264, REPEATED IN EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 58; HYDE V.
STONE, 20 HOW.  170; CHICOT COUNTY V. SHERWOOD, 148 U.S. 529; AND
MCCLELLAN V. CARLAND, 217 U.S. 268, THAT A COURT CAN NOT DECLINE TO
EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION, IS SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS.  CANADA MALTING
CO. V. PATERSON STEAMSHIPS, 285 U.S. 413; ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO.,
288 U.S. 123; PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176.  CF., DOUGLAS V.
NEW YORK, N.H., & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION CONFERRING JURISDICTION IN CONTROVERSIES
BETWEEN STATES, AND BETWEEN STATES AND CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES, IS NOT
MANDATORY.  IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT CAN PROPERLY BE
USED AS A CONTEMPORANEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS, AMES V. KANSAS, 111 U.S. 449, IT WOULD SEEM THAT "ALL"
CONTROVERSIES WHERE A STATE IS A PARTY, THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE,
WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE READING OF THE WORD "ALL" INTO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION OF CLAUSE 1 DEALING WITH CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN
STATES, ESPECIALLY SINCE CLAUSE 2 APPARENTLY DISTRIBUTES TO THE SUPREME
COURT JURISDICTION IN "ALL" CASES IN WHICH A STATE IS A PARTY. 
HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS DECLINED TO ACCEPT THAT INTERPRETATION, HAS SAID
THAT THE OMISSION IN CLAUSE 1 OF THE WORD "ALL" WAS APPARENTLY
DELIBERATE, AND INTENDED TO BE A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE CLASSES OF CASES
IN CLAUSE 1 WHICH ARE PRECEDED BY THE WORD "ALL," AND THUS THAT THE
JUDICIAL POWER DOES NOT EXTEND TO ALL CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS A PARTY, OR TO ALL CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A STATE AND CITIZENS
OF ANOTHER STATE, BUT RATHER ONLY TO CERTAIN TYPES OF THOSE
CONTROVERSIES.  WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 553; OKLAHOMA V.
GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 220 U.S. 290.  AND IT HAS READ INTO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE CERTAIN CASES NOT EVEN MENTIONED.  THE COURT
HAS APPROVED MR. JUSTICE IREDELL'S DISSENT IN CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA, AND
HAS DECLARED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMPLIED IMMUNITY OF A SOVEREIGN
FROM SUIT MUST BE READ INTO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE, AND THAT ITS
LITERAL CONSTRUCTION IS INADMISSIBLE.  WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; HANS V. LOUISIANA, 134 U.S. 1.  THE COURT HAS ALSO READ INTO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION A PROHIBITION AGAINST SUITS BY A FOREIGN STATE
AGAINST A STATE.  PRINCIPALITY OF MONACO V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 313,
322; OKLAHOMA V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 200 U.S. 290.  IN FACT, IN
WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE COURT SAID THAT THE PHRASE
"CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE A PARTY" IN ARTICLE
III, SEC. 2, CLAUSE 1, WHICH IT PLACED UPON PRECISELY THE SAME FOOTING
AS THE CLAUSE "CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN TWO OR MORE STATES," MUST BE
CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION PUT UPON IT BY
THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT, AS THOUGH IT READ, "CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE
UNITED STATES SHALL BE A PARTY PLAINTIFF OR PETITIONER."  289 U.S.
577.  THE SAME PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN GIVEN AN EVEN BROADER APPLICATION. 
WISCONSIN V. PELICAN INS. CO., 127 U.S. 265, 289; MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS,
180 U.S. 208. 

IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE COURT HAS GRAFTED A FURTHER
EXCEPTION UPON THE EXCEPTION THAT SUITS WHICH WERE NOT JUSTICIABLE
PRIOR TO THE CONSTITUTION WERE NOT MADE JUSTICIABLE BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  HANS V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA.  IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO
OBSERVE THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE JUDICIARY
ACT AS DIFFERENTIATING, ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE ITSELF SUGGESTS NO SUCH
DIFFERENTIATION, BETWEEN SUITS BY A STATE OR THE UNITED STATES, AND
SUITS AGAINST A STATE OR THE UNITED STATES, WAS ARRIVED AT EVEN
ALTHOUGH IN THE VERY LANGUAGE OF THE JUDICIARY ACT, AN EXPRESS
DISTINCTION IS MADE BETWEEN SUITS BY AMBASSADORS AND OTHER FOREIGN
REPRESENTATIVES, AND SUITS AGAINST THEM. 

IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE JUDICIARY ACT WERE TAKEN
LITERALLY IN CONNECTION WITH CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN, FOR EXAMPLE, A
STATE AND CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES, IT WOULD APPEAR TO AUTHORIZE THE
SUPREME COURT TO TAKE JURISDICTION IN EVERY CASE WHERE A STATE AND
CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES ARE ADVERSARY PARTIES.  THE COURT HAS,
HOWEVER, INTERPRETED THIS LANGUAGE SO THAT THE GRANT OF POWER IS ONLY
CONSIDERED AS EXTENDING TO JUSTICIABLE CASES OR CONTROVERSIES, OF A
CIVIL NATURE, IN WHICH A STATE AS PLAINTIFF OR PETITIONER SUES ONLY
CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES.  THUS IF THE COURT CAN READ INTO THE LANGUAGE
OF THE CONSTITUTION CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS WHICH ARE PERHAPS NOT DIRECTLY
SUGGESTED BY ITS TERMS, BUT WHICH ARE DERIVED FROM POSTULATES BEYOND
THE CONFINES OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE AT LIBERTY TO
DECLINE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE, ON GROUNDS EQUALLY
COMPELLING, AND ON POSTULATES EQUALLY BEYOND THE CONFINES OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY LANGUAGE.  CF., THE DISSENTING OPINION OF
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER IN UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, 143 U.S. 621, 648. 

THE COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE.  THIS
PROCEEDING IS NOT OF THE KIND FOR WHICH THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT WAS DESIGNED.  THERE ARE OTHER ENTIRELY ADEQUATE REMEDIES
AVAILABLE TO THE INTERESTED PARTIES.  THERE ARE OTHER REMEDIES IN OTHER
COURTS WHICH ARE ENTIRELY ADEQUATE TO DISPOSE OF ANY POSSIBLE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES INTERESTED IN THIS CASE.  MASSACHUSETTS
SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING A SUIT AGAINST THE TRUSTEES FOR THE COLLECTION
OF ITS TAXES, IN EITHER A MISSOURI STATE COURT OR IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT IN MISSOURI, AND SUCH A SUIT WOULD BE OF A CIVIL NATURE AND WOULD
PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY.  THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT
THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR A TESTING OF THE VALIDITY OF THE MISSOURI
TAX.  THE TRUSTEES COULD SUE TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF THE MISSOURI
TAX ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THEM, EX
PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; OR COULD BRING AN ACTION UNDER THE MISSOURI
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, LAWS OF MISSOURI 1935, PP. 218-220.  AND THE
MISSOURI INHERITANCE TAX LAWS, SEC. 598, R.S. MO., 1929, PERMIT PERSONS
INTERESTED IN THEIR LIABILITY FOR AN INHERITANCE TAX TO BRING SUIT
AGAINST THE STATE TO QUIET TITLE, TO WHICH SUIT THE STATE EXPRESSLY
CONSENTS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ASKS LEAVE TO FILE A BILL OF
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE STATE OF MISSOURI AND CERTAIN CITIZENS OF THAT
STATE.  ON RETURN TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LEAVE SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED, THE RESPONDENTS, WHILE CONTESTING THE CLAIMS OF MASSACHUSETTS,
STATED THAT THEY HAD NO CAUSE TO SHOW.  THE COURT SET THE MOTION FOR
HEARING UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN THE SUIT.  THE COMPLAINANT AND THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
CONTEND THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION AND THE STATE OF MISSOURI NOW
PRESENTS THE CONTRARY VIEW. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR JURISDICTION RESTS UPON TWO GROUNDS, (1) THAT THERE
IS A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO STATES, AND (2) THAT THERE IS A
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN A STATE AND CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE. 
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2. 

THE PROPOSED BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES IN SUBSTANCE THAT MADGE BARNEY
BLAKE, DOMICILED IN MASSACHUSETTS, DIED IN 1935 LEAVING AN ESTATE IN
THAT STATE OF $12,646.02, WHICH HAS THERE BEEN ADMINISTERED, AND THAT
THIS ESTATE WILL BE EXHAUSTED BY COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION AND FEDERAL
TAXES; THAT THE DECEDENT, WHILE DOMICILED IN MASSACHUSETTS, CREATED
THREE TRUSTS OF SECURITIES OF THE VALUE (AT THE TIME OF DEATH) OF
$1,850,789.77, THE TRUSTEES BEING RESIDENTS OF MISSOURI WHERE THE
SECURITIES ARE HELD; THAT IN TWO OF THESE TRUSTS, EMBRACING THE GREATER
PART OF THE SECURITIES, THE SETTLOR HAD RESERVED THE RIGHT OF
REVOCATION; THAT BOTH MASSACHUSETTS AND MISSOURI HAVE INHERITANCE TAX
STATUTES SUBJECTING TO TAXATION PROPERTY PASSING BY DEED, GRANT OR GIFT
MADE OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AFTER THE
DEATH OF THE DONOR; THAT THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE IMPOSES THE TAX UPON
INTANGIBLES ONLY WHEN OWNED BY INHABITANTS OF THAT STATE; THAT THE
MISSOURI STATUTE EXEMPTS FROM THE TAX INTANGIBLES OWNED BY NON
RESIDENTS WHO RESIDE IN STATES EXTENDING RECIPROCAL PROVISIONS TO
RESIDENTS OF MISSOURI; THAT IN THIS INSTANCE BOTH STATES ARE CLAIMING
THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO IMPOSE INHERITANCE TAXES UPON THE TRUST ESTATES;
THAT MISSOURI INTENDS TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE TRUSTEES
AND THE PROPERTY TO THE EXCLUSION OF MASSACHUSETTS; THAT MASSACHUSETTS
HAS TAKEN THE ACTION REQUIRED BY ITS STATUTES TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT
OF THE TAX, AND TO CERTIFY IT TO THE PERSONS BY WHOM IT IS PAYABLE, AND
THAT THERE IS NOW DUE TO MASSACHUSETTS FROM THE RESPONDENT TRUSTEES
$137,000, IF ALL THE TRUST ESTATES ARE TAXABLE, AND $127,000 IF ONLY
THE PROPERTY UNDER THE TWO REVOCABLE TRUSTS IS TAXABLE; AND THAT THE
TAX CANNOT BE COLLECTED FROM ANY PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN MASSACHUSETTS. 

ALLEGING THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE REMEDY SAVE IN THIS COURT SITTING AS
A COURT IN EQUITY, THE COMPLAINANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT MAY ADJUDGE
WHETHER MASSACHUSETTS OR MISSOURI HAS "THE JURISDICTION AND LAWFUL
RIGHT TO IMPOSE TRANSFER, SUCCESSION OR INHERITANCE TAXES" IN RESPECT
OF THE SEVERAL TRANSFERS DESCRIBED AND TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION IN
FAVOR OF MASSACHUSETTS.  THERE IS ALSO A GENERAL PRAYER FOR OTHER
RELIEF BY INJUNCTION OR OTHERWISE AS THE COURT MAY DEEM EXPEDIENT. 

FIRST. - THE PROPOSED BILL OF COMPLAINT DOES NOT PRESENT A
JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE STATES.  TO CONSTITUTE SUCH A
CONTROVERSY, IT MUST APPEAR THAT THE COMPLAINING STATE HAS SUFFERED A
WRONG THROUGH THE ACTION OF THE OTHER STATE, FURNISHING GROUND FOR
JUDICIAL REDRESS, OR IS ASSERTING A RIGHT AGAINST THE OTHER STATE WHICH
IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT ACCORDING TO THE ACCEPTED
PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW OR EQUITY SYSTEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE. 
FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12, 16, 17; TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398,
405.  MISSOURI, IN CLAIMING A RIGHT TO RECOVER TAXES FROM THE
RESPONDENT TRUSTEES, OR IN TAKING PROCEEDINGS FOR COLLECTION, IS NOT
INJURING MASSACHUSETTS.  BY THE ALLEGATIONS, THE PROPERTY HELD IN
MISSOURI IS AMPLY SUFFICIENT TO ANSWER THE CLAIMS OF BOTH STATES AND
RECOVERY BY EITHER DOES NOT IMPAIR THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT THE OTHER
MAY HAVE.  IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THERE IS DANGER OF THE DEPLETION OF A
FUND OR ESTATE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMPLAINANT'S INTEREST.  IT IS NOT
SHOWN THAT THE TAX CLAIMS OF THE TWO STATES ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.  ON
THE CONTRARY, THE VALIDITY OF EACH CLAIM IS WHOLLY INDEPENDENT OF THAT
OF THE OTHER AND, IN THE LIGHT OF OUR RECENT DECISIONS, MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE PRESSED BY EACH STATE WITHOUT CONFLICT IN POINT OF
FACT OR LAW WITH THE DECISION OF THE OTHER.  CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307
U.S. 357; GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383.  THE QUESTION IS THUS A
DIFFERENT ONE FROM THAT PRESENTED IN TEXAS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, WHERE THE
CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION WAS THAT BY THE LAW OF THE SEVERAL STATES
CONCERNED ONLY A SINGLE TAX COULD BE LAID BY A SINGLE STATE, THAT OF
THE DOMICILE.  THIS WAS SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR INVOKING THE EQUITY
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, WHERE IT ALSO APPEARED THAT THERE WAS DANGER
THAT THROUGH SUCCESSFUL PROSECUTION OF THE CLAIMS OF THE SEVERAL STATES
IN INDEPENDENT SUITS ENOUGH OF THE ESTATE WOULD BE ABSORBED TO DEPRIVE
SOME STATE OF ITS LAWFUL TAX.  TEXAS V. FLORIDA, SUPRA, 405, 406, 408,
410. 

MASSACHUSETTS URGES THAT A CONTROVERSY HAS ARISEN OVER THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE RECIPROCAL PROVISIONS OF THE TAX STATUTES OF THE TWO
STATES.  IT IS SAID THAT MISSOURI HAS ENACTED RECIPROCAL LEGISLATION
UNDER WHICH THERE IS EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION THE TRANSFER OF INTANGIBLES
WHERE THE TRANSFEROR AT THE TIME OF DEATH WAS A RESIDENT OF A STATE
WHICH AT THAT TIME DID NOT IMPOSE A TRANSFER OR DEATH TAX IN RESPECT OF
THE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY OF RESIDENTS OF OTHER STATES OR IF THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF RESIDENCE CONTAINED A RECIPROCAL EXEMPTION PROVISION
(MISSOURI REV. STAT. 1929, C. 1, ART. 21, SEC. 576); AND THAT
MASSACHUSETTS SINCE 1927(ST. 1927, C. 156) HAS GRANTED COMPLETE
EXEMPTION FROM THE INHERITANCE TAX TO INTANGIBLE PROPERTY NOT BELONGING
TO ITS INHABITANTS.  MASS. GENERAL LAWS (TER.  ED.)  C. 65, SEC. 1. 
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT MASSACHUSETTS AND ITS RESIDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO
THE IMMUNITY OFFERED BY THE MISSOURI STATUTE. 

BUT, APART FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT OR COMPACT
BETWEEN THE STATES HAVING CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION (CONST.  ART.  1,
SEC. 10, PAR. 3), THE ENACTMENT BY MISSOURI OF THE SO-CALLED RECIPROCAL
LEGISLATION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS CONFERRING UPON MASSACHUSETTS ANY
CONTRACTUAL RIGHT.  EACH STATE HAS ENACTED ITS LEGISLATION ACCORDING TO
ITS CONCEPTION OF ITS OWN INTERESTS.  EACH STATE HAS THE UNFETTERED
RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO REPEAL ITS LEGISLATION.  EACH STATE IS COMPETENT
TO CONSTRUE AND APPLY ITS LEGISLATION IN THE CASES THAT ARISE WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION.  IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE STATUTES OF THE TWO STATES
HAVE BEEN ENACTED WITH A VIEW TO RECIPROCITY IN OPERATION, NOTHING IS
SHOWN WHICH CAN BE TAKEN TO ALTER THEIR ESSENTIAL CHARACTER AS MERE
LEGISLATION AND TO CREATE AN OBLIGATION WHICH EITHER STATE IS ENTITLED
TO ENFORCE AS AGAINST THE OTHER IN A COURT OF JUSTICE.    THE
SUGGESTION THAT RESIDENTS OF MASSACHUSETTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE IMMUNITY
OFFERED BY THE MISSOURI STATUTE IS UNAVAILING, AS MASSACHUSETTS MAY NOT
INVOKE OUR JURISDICTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF SUCH INDIVIDUALS.  OKLAHOMA
V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 220 U.S. 277, 286; OKLAHOMA V. COOK,
304 U.S. 387, 394. 

NOR DOES THE NATURE OF THE SUIT AS ONE TO OBTAIN A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AID THE COMPLAINANT.  TO SUPPORT JURISDICTION TO GIVE SUCH
RELIEF, THERE MUST STILL BE A CONTROVERSY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE
(AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 240, 241) AND AS
BETWEEN THE TWO STATES THERE IS NO SUCH CONTROVERSY HERE. 

SECOND. - COMPLAINANT URGES THAT JURISDICTION MAY BE SUSTAINED IN THE
VIEW THAT THE PROPOSED BILL OF COMPLAINT PRESENTS A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
MASSACHUSETTS AND CITIZENS OF MISSOURI.  THE BILL IS NOT APTLY FRAMED
SO AS TO PRESENT SUCH A CONTROVERSY INDEPENDENTLY OF A CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN THE STATES.  THE BILL EXPRESSLY STATES THE ISSUES PRESENTED AS
BEING (A) WHETHER MASSACHUSETTS OR MISSOURI HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
OVER THE TRANSFERS IN TRUST SO AS TO HAVE THE TAXING POWER, AND (B)
SECONDARILY, WHETHER THE STATE HAVING SUCH JURISDICTION CAN
CONSTITUTIONALLY REACH ONE OF THE TRUSTS IN WHICH THE SETTLOR RESERVED
NO RIGHT OF REVOCATION.  AND THE SPECIFIC RELIEF SOUGHT IS THAT THE
COURT MAY DETERMINE WHICH STATE HAS THE JURISDICTION TO TAX AND MAY
AWARD THAT JURISDICTION TO MASSACHUSETTS AS AGAINST MISSOURI.  IF THE
GRAVAMEN OF THE PROPOSED BILL IS DEEMED TO BE AN ASSERTION OF A
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE STATES, JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE BILL
CANNOT BE SUPPORTED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SHOWING OF SUCH A
CONTROVERSY.  MISSOURI CANNOT BE BROUGHT INTO COURT BY THE EXPEDIENT OF
MAKING ITS CITIZENS PARTIES TO A SUIT OTHERWISE NOT MAINTAINABLE
AGAINST THE STATE. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND GROUND OF INVOKING JURISDICTION, AS AN
INDEPENDENT GROUND, WE ARE VIRTUALLY ASKED TO DISREGARD THE STATED
OBJECTIVE OF THE PROPOSED BILL, TO TREAT IT AS AMENDED SO AS TO EXPUNGE
CLAIMS AGAINST MISSOURI AND TO CONFINE IT TO CLAIMS AGAINST THE
TRUSTEES; TO CONSIDER THE BILL AS NO LONGER ASKING A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT AS TO WHICH STATE HAS POWER TO TAX, AS NOT SEEKING RELIEF IN
THIS COURT "SITTING AS A COURT OF EQUITY," BUT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE
GENERAL PRAYER FOR OTHER RELIEF, AS PRESENTING A SIMPLE ACTION AGAINST
THE TRUSTEES TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX CLAIMED TO BE DUE
MASSACHUSETTS IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY CLAIM OF MISSOURI. 

IF IT BE POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED BILL AS THUS STRIPPED OF
ITS ABORTIVE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MISSOURI AND AS PRESENTING A CAUSE OF
ACTION SO DISTINCT FROM THAT PRIMARILY RELIED UPON, STILL THE
INVOCATION OF OUR JURISDICTION MUST FAIL.  IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SO AS TRULY TO FULFILL THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE
WE NOT ONLY MUST LOOK TO THE NATURE OF THE INTEREST OF THE COMPLAINING
STATE - THE ESSENTIAL QUALITY OF THE RIGHT ASSERTED - BUT WE MUST ALSO
INQUIRE WHETHER RECOURSE TO THAT JURISDICTION IN AN ACTION BY A STATE
MERELY TO RECOVER MONEY ALLEGED TO BE DUE FROM CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES
IS NECESSARY FOR THE STATE'S PROTECTION.  IN OKLAHOMA V. COOK, SUPRA,
WE CALLED ATTENTION TO THE ENORMOUS BURDEN WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSED UPON
THIS COURT IF BY TAKING TITLE TO ASSETS OF INSOLVENT STATE
INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING CLAIMS AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES, A
STATE COULD DEMAND ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO
ENFORCE SUCH CLAIMS.  TO OPEN THIS COURT TO ACTIONS BY STATES TO
RECOVER TAXES CLAIMED TO BE PAYABLE BY CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES, IN THE
ABSENCE OF FACTS SHOWING THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH INTERVENTION, WOULD BE
TO ASSUME A BURDEN WHICH THE GRANT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CANNOT BE
REGARDED AS COMPELLING THIS COURT TO ASSUME AND WHICH MIGHT SERIOUSLY
INTERFERE WITH THE DISCHARGE BY THIS COURT OF ITS DUTY IN DECIDING THE
CASES AND CONTROVERSIES APPROPRIATELY BROUGHT BEFORE IT.  WE HAVE
OBSERVED THAT THE BROAD STATEMENT THAT A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION MUST
EXERCISE IT (SEE COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264, 404) IS NOT
UNIVERSALLY TRUE BUT HAS BEEN QUALIFIED IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE THE
FEDERAL COURTS MAY, IN THEIR DISCRETION, PROPERLY WITHHOLD THE EXERCISE
OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THEM WHERE THERE IS NO WANT OF
ANOTHER SUITABLE FORUM.  CANADA MALTING CO. V. PATERSON CO., 285 U.S.
413, 422; ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 288 U.S. 123, 130, 131. 
GROUNDS FOR JUSTIFYING SUCH A QUALIFICATION HAVE BEEN FOUND IN
"CONSIDERATIONS OF CONVENIENCE, EFFICIENCY AND JUSTICE" APPLICABLE TO
PARTICULAR CLASSES OF CASES.  ROGERS V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., SUPRA.
REASONS NOT LESS COGENT POINT TO THE NEED OF THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND
DISCRETION IN ORDER TO PROTECT THIS COURT FROM AN ABUSE OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO RESORT TO ITS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE ENFORCEMENT
BY STATES OF CLAIMS AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES. 

IN THIS INSTANCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT MASSACHUSETTS IS WITHOUT A
PROPER AND ADEQUATE REMEDY.  CLAUSE 2 OF SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III MERELY
DISTRIBUTES THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY CLAUSE ONE.  LOUISIANA V.
TEXAS, 176 U.S. 1, 16; MONACO V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 313, 321.  THE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, IN CASES WHERE A STATE IS A PARTY,
"REFERS TO THOSE CASES IN WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE GRANT OF POWER MADE
IN THE PRECEDING CLAUSE, JURISDICTION MIGHT BE EXERCISED IN CONSEQUENCE
OF THE CHARACTER OF THE PARTY, AND AN ORIGINAL SUIT MIGHT BE INSTITUTED
IN ANY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS; NOT TO THOSE CASES IN WHICH AN ORIGINAL
SUIT MIGHT NOT BE INSTITUTED IN A FEDERAL COURT."  COHENS V. VIRGINIA,
SUPRA, PP. 398, 399.  WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE CLAIM NOW
URGED, WE ARE NOT ADVISED THAT MISSOURI WOULD CLOSE ITS COURTS TO A
CIVIL ACTION BROUGHT BY MASSACHUSETTS TO RECOVER THE TAX ALLEGED TO BE
DUE FROM THE TRUSTEES.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI AT THIS BAR
ASSERTS THE CONTRARY.  HE SAYS THAT "IT WOULD SEEM THAT MASSACHUSETTS
SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING A SUIT AGAINST THE TRUSTEES FOR THE COLLECTION
OF ITS TAXES IN EITHER A MISSOURI STATE COURT OR IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT IN MISSOURI" AND THAT "SUCH A SUIT WOULD BE OF A CIVIL NATURE AND
WOULD PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CASE OR CONTROVERSY."  WE HAVE SAID THAT
THE OBJECTION THAT THE COURTS IN ONE STATE WILL NOT ENTERTAIN A SUIT TO
RECOVER TAXES DUE TO ANOTHER OR UPON A JUDGMENT FOR SUCH TAXES, IS NOT
RIGHTLY ADDRESSED TO ANY WANT OF JUDICIAL POWER IN COURTS WHICH ARE
AUTHORIZED TO ENTERTAIN CIVIL SUITS AT LAW.  IT GOES "NOT TO THE
JURISDICTION BUT TO THE MERITS," AND RAISES A QUESTION WHICH DISTRICT
COURTS ARE COMPETENT TO DECIDE.  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. M.E. WHITE CO.,
296 U.S. 268, 272. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE PROPOSED BILL OF COMPLAINT IS
DENIED.  MOTION DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










PITTMAN V. HOME OWNER'S CORP., 308 U.S. 21 


NO. 10.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 13, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  -
175 MD. 512 - 2 A.2D 689, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE MARYLAND TAX ON MORTGAGES, GRADED ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF
THE LOAN SECURED AND IMPOSED IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINARY REGISTRATION
FEE AS A CONDITION TO THE RECORDATION OF THE INSTRUMENT, CAN NOT BE
APPLIED TO A MORTGAGE TENDERED FOR RECORD BY THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORPORATION AND SECURING ONE OF ITS LOANS, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT WHICH DECLARE THE CORPORATION TO BE AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT ITS LOANS SHALL BE EXEMPT
FROM ALL STATE AND MUNICIPAL TAXES.  FEDERAL LAND BANK V. CROSLAND, 261
U.S. 374.  P. 29. 

2.  ASSUMING THAT THE CREATION OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION
WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS, THE ACTIVITIES
OF THE CORPORATION THROUGH WHICH THE GOVERNMENT LAWFULLY ACTS MUST BE
REGARDED AS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND ENTITLED TO WHATEVER IMMUNITY
ATTACHES TO THOSE FUNCTIONS WHEN PERFORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF
THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENTS.  P. 32. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CREATE A CORPORATION TO FACILITATE THE
PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IMPLIES A POWER TO PROTECT THE
OPERATIONS THUS VALIDLY AUTHORIZED, WHICH COMES WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE
EXPRESS POWER CONFERRED BY CONST. ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 18, TO MAKE ALL
LAWS NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION ALL POWERS VESTED
BY THE CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT.  IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER
TO PROTECT, CONGRESS HAS THE DOMINANT AUTHORITY WHICH NECESSARILY
INHERES IN ITS ACTION WITHIN THE NATIONAL FIELD. 

PITTMAN, CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BALTIMORE, V. HOME OWNERS'
LOAN CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 628, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE ISSUANCE
OF A MANDAMUS BY BALTIMORE CITY COURT REQUIRING THE CLERK OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF BALTIMORE TO RECORD A MORTGAGE. 

THE TAX IS UNIFORM AND DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE CORPORATION
OR THE UNITED STATES. 

THE TAX IS NOT A BURDEN ON THE CORPORATION SINCE IT COULD BE, AND
CUSTOMARILY IS, PAID BY THE MORTGAGOR. 

IF THE TAX IS PAID BY THE MORTGAGOR, THE EFFECT ON THE CORPORATION OF
COLLECTING THE TAX FROM THE MORTGAGOR, AND THE SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE
COST OF ITS OPERATIONS WHICH THIS MIGHT ENTAIL, ARE SO SPECULATIVE,
REMOTE AND UNCERTAIN AS TO CONSTITUTE NO BURDEN AT ALL IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 436; UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD V. PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5, 30; METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 523-524; WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216, 225;
EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, 391-392; FOX FILM CORP.
V. DOYAL, 286 U.S. 123, 128; INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 288 U.S. 325, 327-328; SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 296 U.S. 113, 127; UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S.
175.  IN ALL OF THESE CASES THE COURT HAS AVOIDED AN EXTENSION OF
IMMUNITY FROM TAX FOR FEAR OF CRIPPLING THE TAXING POWER OF EITHER THE
STATES OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

THE IMMUNITY EXISTS ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PREVENT UNDUE
INTERFERENCE WITH THE OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE TAX
MUST HAVE A DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE EFFECT UPON THE OPERATIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTALITY; IT MUST RESTRICT, RETARD, IMPEDE OR
OBSTRUCT ITS ACTIVITIES. 

WE RELY UPON JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134; SILAS
MASON CO. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 186; ATKINSON V. STATE TAX
COMMISSION, 303 U.S. 20; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303
U.S. 376; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405; ALLEN V. REGENTS OF
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, 304 U.S. 439; AND GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX
REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466.  FROM A READING OF THESE CASES IT IS CLEAR
THAT THE PRESENT TENDENCY IS TO SCRUTINIZE ANY CLAIM TO IMMUNITY AND
ALLOW IT ONLY WHEN IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT, OTHERWISE, AN
UNREASONABLE BURDEN WOULD BE IMPOSED ON A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.  THIS IS
PARTICULARLY TRUE WHERE IMMUNITY WOULD RESULT IN A BENEFIT TO A PRIVATE
PERSON, BUT WHERE THE BURDEN, IF ANY, ON THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IS
REMOTE AND SPECULATIVE. 

THE ACTIVITIES OF THIS CORPORATION ARE SUCH THAT THIS NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAX, LAID UPON IT AS WELL AS UPON PRIVATE AGENCIES
OPERATING IN THE MONEY LENDING FIELD, WOULD NOT RETARD, IMPEDE OR
OBSTRUCT THE OPERATIONS OF THE CORPORATION.  SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED
STATES, 199 U.S. 437; ALLEN V. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA,
304 U.S. 439. 

THE DISTINCTION DRAWN, IN THE CASE OF STATE AGENCIES, BETWEEN THOSE
EXERCISING PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS AND THOSE EXERCISING GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS SEEMS TO COME TO NO MORE THAN THIS:  IN THE ONE CASE IT IS
NOT NECESSARY TO INQUIRE WHETHER A PARTICULAR FEDERAL TAX IS OR IS NOT
A BURDEN, FOR THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, IF A STATE AGENCY IS EXERCISING A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION,
THERE IS IMMUNITY FROM A TAX WHICH IS FOUND UPON INQUIRY TO IMPOSE A
DIRECT AND PALPABLE BURDEN.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE TO BE NOTED IN DEALING
WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES IS THAT THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER THAT ANY OF
THEM MAY NOT BE GOVERNMENTAL AND HENCE IT IS NECESSARY IN EACH CASE TO
INQUIRE WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE TAX IN FACT DOES IMPOSE A DIRECT AND
PALPABLE BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL AGENCY. 

EVEN THOUGH THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION IS A GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY, IT IS STILL NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE
CHALLENGED TAX IMPOSES A DIRECT AND PALPABLE BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL
AGENCY, SO AS TO RETARD, OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE IT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
THE FUNCTIONS DELEGATED TO IT BY CONGRESS.  THE NATURE OF THOSE
FUNCTIONS MUST BE EXAMINED, AND THE BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED FROM IMMUNITY
WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE STATE, WHICH IS COOPERATING WITH
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE ATTAINMENT OF COMMON GOVERNMENTAL ENDS. 

WE CAN NOT CLOSE OUR EYES TO THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
DAILY BROADENING THE SPHERE OF ITS ACTIVITIES.  IT IS CONSTANTLY
SETTING UP AGENCIES WHICH COMPETE WITH PRIVATE AGENCIES ENGAGING IN
SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.  CARRIED FAR ENOUGH, AN IMMUNITY FROM TAX WOULD
DEPRIVE THE STATES OF THEIR SOURCES OF REVENUES.  THIS IS NOT NECESSARY
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
FUNCTIONS DELEGATED TO IT BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933 DOES NOT PURPORT TO CONFER UPON THE
CORPORATION AN IMMUNITY FROM THE MARYLAND TAX. 

IF CONSTRUED TO CONFER THAT IMMUNITY IT IS, TO THAT EXTENT,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID.  CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO CONFER UPON
AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AN IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION
WHICH IS BROADER AND MORE EXTENSIVE THAN THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY.  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466. 

ASSUMING THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION TO ASSIST NEEDY HOME OWNERS BY
REFINANCING MORTGAGES ON THEIR HOMES, IT IS, WE SUBMIT, CLEAR THAT AN
IMMUNITY FROM THE MARYLAND RECORDATION TAX IS NOT NECESSARY OR NEEDFUL
TO PROTECT THE AGENCY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT FUNCTION.  IF AN
IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT A FEDERAL AGENCY IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION DEVOLVED UPON IT BY ACT OF
CONGRESS, THEN ANY TAX WHICH INTERFERES WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
FUNCTION CONSTITUTES A BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL AGENCY.  IF SO, THERE IS
AN IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM THE TAX.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF
THE TAX DOES NOT SO INTERFERE, THEN IT CONSTITUTES NO BURDEN ON THE
AGENCY AND THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM THE TAX. 
BUT IN THIS EVENT THERE WOULD BE NO NECESSITY FOR AN IMMUNITY TO
PROTECT THE FEDERAL AGENCY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS, AND IT WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE NECESSARY FOR CONGRESS TO
GRANT SUCH AN IMMUNITY IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE FEDERAL AGENCY TO CARRY
ON ITS ACTIVITIES.  IF THERE IS NO SUCH NECESSITY, THEN CLEARLY THE
POWER TO GRANT IMMUNITY FROM TAX COULD NOT BE DERIVED FROM THE IMPLIED
POWER OF CONGRESS "TO DO WHATEVER IS NEEDFUL OR APPROPRIATE TO CARRY
OUT THE POWERS DELEGATED TO IT BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION." 

THE IDEA THAT THE CONGRESS HAS SOME POWER, THE LIMITS OF WHICH ARE
NOT DEFINED, TO GRANT AN IMMUNITY FROM A TAX BROADER THAN THE IMPLIED
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION.  IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE
CONCEDE THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO GRANT TO A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY
WHATEVER TAX IMMUNITY IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT AND SAFEGUARD THAT AGENCY
IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS DELEGATED TO IT BY
CONGRESS, WE MERELY CONCEDE THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM
SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE.  IF WE GO BEYOND THIS, THEN WE MUST SAY THAT
THE CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO GRANT NOT MERELY AN IMMUNITY NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THE AGENCY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS,
BUT AN UNLIMITED IMMUNITY.  SUCH A RULE WOULD HAVE DISASTROUS
CONSEQUENCES. 

A STATUTORY DECLARATION OF IMMUNITY MAY THEREFORE BE TREATED AS AN
EXPRESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL OPINION AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR IMMUNITY,
OR AS NEGATIVING ANY IMPLICATION OF A WAIVER OF THE IMMUNITY BY
CONGRESS, OR BOTH.  BUT BEYOND THIS POINT WE SUBMIT THAT THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER IMMUNITY EXISTS IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE DEPENDS UPON WHETHER
IT CAN BE IMPLIED FROM THE CONSTITUTION, AND IN EVERY CASE THIS IS A
JUDICIAL AND NOT A LEGISLATIVE QUESTION. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE HOME
OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CORPORATION
SHARES THE FULL IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION WHICH ATTACHES TO THE
OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.  ITS FUNCTIONS ARE NECESSARILY
"GOVERNMENTAL," SINCE THEY ARE IN EXERCISE OF THE DELEGATED POWERS OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  SINCE IT IS WHOLLY OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, ITS CORPORATE ORGANIZATION DOES NOT AFFECT THE GOVERNMENTAL
NATURE OF ITS ACTIVITIES.  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S.
466, 477. 

CONGRESS HAS FULL POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RECORDATION OF THESE
MORTGAGES SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM OR SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION; AND THE
QUESTION OF TAX IMMUNITY OR LIABILITY IS SIMPLY ONE OF CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT.  HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 411-412.  SUCH WAS THE
DECISION IN FEDERAL LAND BANK V. CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374. 

THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE DECLARED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO BE
"THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND."  IF CONGRESS HAD EXPRESSLY DECLARED THAT
THE RECORDATION OF THESE MORTGAGES SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM STATE TAXATION
THE MARYLAND TAX WOULD FALL, SINCE THE PROVISION COULD NOT BE DECLARED
TO HAVE NO REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENDS PROMOTED BY THE
CORPORATION. 

THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES FROM STATE
TAXATION WAS DEVELOPED SIMPLY AS AN ATTRIBUTE OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 426, 427,
433.  NOT UNTIL COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, DID THE COURT ASCRIBE
IMMUNITY TO THE MORE NEBULOUS IMPLICATIONS OF A FEDERATED
CONSTITUTION.  BUT EVEN AFTER THAT DECISION, AND NOTABLY OF LATE, THE
COURT HAS CONTINUED TO RECOGNIZE THE HISTORIC AND SPECIFIC BASIS FOR
FEDERAL TAX IMMUNITY.  THUS, CONGRESS HAS AN UNDOUBTED POWER TO WAIVE
THE IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE ATTACH.  IN
OTHER CASES, THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CREATE
AN IMMUNITY FOR PRIVATE PERSONS WHO DEALT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND HAVE
HELD THE TAXPAYER LIABLE BECAUSE CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED NO SUCH
IMMUNITY; CORRELATIVELY, THE COURT HAS EXTENDED IMMUNITY TO SUCH
PRIVATE PERSONS BECAUSE CONGRESS HAD DECLARED THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE
SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION.  WITH THESE BROAD POWERS AS TO THE TAX
IMMUNITY EVEN OF PRIVATE PERSONS, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DEAL WITH THE
UNITED STATES, IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT CONGRESS HAS FULL POWER TO
PROVIDE EITHER TAX IMMUNITY OR LIABILITY FOR THE PROPERTY AND
OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF. 

THE ULTIMATE INCIDENCE OF A TAX CAN NOT ORDINARILY BE DETERMINED WITH
CATEGORICAL EXACTNESS.  IN THE CASE OF THE MARYLAND TAX HERE INVOLVED,
IT IS WHOLLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE ON A PRIORI GROUNDS WHETHER THE
ECONOMIC BURDEN WILL ULTIMATELY REST UPON THE CORPORATION OR UPON ITS
BORROWERS.  EVEN IF THE TAX COULD BE PRECISELY ALLOCATED, IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO MEASURE THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT IS AN INTERFERENCE WITH
THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF THE CORPORATION IN PROVIDING CREDIT
RELIEF FOR DISTRESSED HOME OWNERS.  THE DECISION OF THESE QUESTIONS,
IMPOSSIBLE OF EXACT ANSWER, IS COMMITTED TO CONGRESS ALONE. 

THE CONSTITUTION, IN GIVING TO CONGRESS THIS POWER, HAS NOT PLACED
THE STATES IN JEOPARDY.  FROM THE BEGINNING IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT
CONGRESS, BY ITS VERY NATURE, REPRESENTED THE INTERESTS OF THE STATES
AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4
WHEAT.  316, 435-436; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 412-413,
416.  AND IN PRACTICE, CONGRESS HAS MANY TIMES WAIVED AN IMMUNITY WHICH
OTHERWISE WOULD ATTACH TO FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES; INDEED, IN THE
LAST THREE CONGRESSES SOME THIRTY-TWO STATUTES CONTAIN SUCH A WAIVER. 

THE QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS SIMPLY ONE OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION. 
NO PRIVATE PERSON SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION
SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DEALS WITH THE GOVERNMENT; BUT THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF
SHOULD NOT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR CONSENT BE FORCED TO ACCOUNT TO
THE TAX COLLECTOR OF A STATE.  IT WOULD BE ANOMALOUS FOR THE OPERATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES, BUTTRESSED BY THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, TO BE SUBJECT
TO A COMPULSORY EXACTION BY AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN.  THE DELAY AND
ACCOUNTING BURDENS, THE NECESSITY OF OPENING THE GOVERNMENT'S BOOKS TO
NUMEROUS TAX OFFICIALS, AND THE BURDEN OF NUMEROUS AND PROTRACTED
SUITS, WOULD COMBINE TO IMPOSE A STAGGERING OBSTACLE TO THE EFFICIENT
CONDUCT OF THE NATION'S BUSINESS, WHICH REACHES INTO EVERY TAXING
JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES. 

IT IS, WE BELIEVE, BECAUSE OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS THAT SO MARKED A
CONTRAST APPEARS IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH DEAL, ON THE ONE
HAND, WITH THE TAX IMMUNITY OF PRIVATE PERSONS AND, ON THE OTHER HAND,
WITH THAT OF THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  BECAUSE OF THE STRONG REASONS FOR
SUCH AN IMMUNITY AND BECAUSE OF THE UNBROKEN CONSISTENCY OF THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, CONGRESS CAN BE TAKEN TO HAVE INTENDED A
DIFFERENT RULE ONLY WHEN THE WAIVER OF IMMUNITY IS CLEAR.  GRAVES V.
NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466, DEALT WITH THE IMMUNITY OF A
PRIVATE PERSON FROM TAXATION SIMPLY BECAUSE HE CHANCED TO DEAL WITH THE
GOVERNMENT. 

DESTROY THIS NORMAL IMPLICATION OF IMMUNITY; ON THE CONTRARY ITS
LANGUAGE POINTS WITH COMPELLING FORCE TO A CONGRESSIONAL DESIRE FOR
IMMUNITY.  THE FRAGMENTARY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY POINTS TO A SIMILAR
CONCLUSION.  CF., BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK V. TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S.
209.    THE OMISSION OF A SPECIFIC EXEMPTION FOR MORTGAGES, FOUND IN
THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT AND RELIED UPON IN FEDERAL LAND BANK V.
CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374, INDICATES NO DESIRE TO WAIVE THEIR IMMUNITY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION BROUGHT THIS PROCEEDING IN THE
BALTIMORE CITY COURT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS REQUIRING THE CLERK OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF BALTIMORE TO RECORD A MORTGAGE EXECUTED TO THE
CORPORATION UPON THE PAYMENT OF THE ORDINARY RECORDING CHARGE AND
WITHOUT AFFIXING STAMPS FOR THE STATE RECORDING TAX.  DEMURRER TO THE
PETITION WAS OVERRULED, THE CLERK DID NOT AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER, AND MANDAMUS WAS GRANTED.  THE ORDER WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  175 MD. 512; 2 A.2D 689.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  306 U.S. 628. 

THE MARYLAND STATUTE IMPOSES A TAX UPON EVERY MORTGAGE, RECORDED OR
OFFERED FOR RECORD, AT THE RATE OF TEN CENTS FOR EACH $100, OR FRACTION
THEREOF, OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE DEBT SECURED BY THE MORTGAGE. 
FN1  AS THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION IS EXPRESSLY DECLARED TO BE
AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES (HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933,
C. 64, 48 STAT. 128) AND THE MORTGAGE WAS ACQUIRED IN THAT CAPACITY,
THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE TAX AS THUS APPLIED TO BE INVALID. 

THE COURT RELIED UPON OUR DECISION IN FEDERAL LAND BANK V. CROSLAND,
261 U.S. 374.  THE QUESTION THERE RELATED TO A TAX IMPOSED BY ALABAMA
AS A CONDITION FOR THE RECORDING OF A MORTGAGE EXECUTED TO A FEDERAL
LAND BANK.  THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT OF 1916 PROVIDES THAT FIRST
MORTGAGES EXECUTED TO FEDERAL LAND BANKS SHALL BE DEEMED
"INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND AS SUCH
THEY AND THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL,
STATE, MUNICIPAL, AND LOCAL TAXATION."  39 STAT. 360, 380.  WE HELD
THAT THE STATE TAX, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A REASONABLE FEE TO MEET THE
EXPENSES OF THE REGISTRY, CONSTITUTED A GENERAL TAX ON MORTGAGES, USING
THE CONDITION ATTACHED TO REGISTRATION AS A PRACTICAL MODE OF
COLLECTING IT, AND THAT THE TAX ON THE MORTGAGE IN QUESTION WAS BEYOND
THE POWER OF THE STATE. 

PETITIONER SUGGESTS THAT THE CROSLAND CASE MAY BE DISTINGUISHED; THAT
THE ALABAMA TAX WAS IMPOSED ON THE LENDER, WHEREAS THE MARYLAND TAX IS
ON THE PRIVILEGE OF RECORDING THE INSTRUMENT AND THE STATUTE IS SILENT
AS TO THE ONE WHO SHALL PAY THE TAX; ALSO THAT THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN
ACT EXPRESSLY DECLARED THE MORTGAGES OF FEDERAL LAND BANKS TO BE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
THOUGHT THESE DIFFERENCES TO BE IMMATERIAL.  AS TO THE FIRST, THE COURT
RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT IN THE CROSLAND CASE THE PROVISION FOR THE
PAYMENT OF TAX BY THE LENDER WAS REGARDED AS HAVING NO DETERMINING
SIGNIFICANCE.  WE SAID THAT "WHOEVER PAYS IT IT IS A TAX UPON THE
MORTGAGE AND THAT IS WHAT IS FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES."  261 U.S., PP. 378, 379.  HERE, ALSO, THE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON
THE MORTGAGE AND IS GRADED ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN,  FN2
AND THE CONDITION ATTACHED TO THE REGISTRATION IS A PRACTICAL METHOD OF
COLLECTION.  THE RECORDING SOUGHT WAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
INTEREST OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION.  IN FACT, THE MORTGAGE
IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS OFFERED FOR RECORD BY THE CORPORATION AND THE
TAX WAS DEMANDED FROM THE CORPORATION. 

THE SECOND SUGGESTED DISTINCTION RESTS UPON THE TERMS OF THE HOME
OWNERS' LOAN ACT.  THAT PROVIDES  FN3  THAT THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORPORATION, ITS FRANCHISE, CAPITAL, RESERVES AND SURPLUS, AND ITS
LOANS AND INCOME SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM ALL STATE OR MUNICIPAL TAXES. 
THE CRITICAL TERM, IN THE PRESENT RELATION, IS "LOANS."  WE THINK THAT
THIS TERM, IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF THE BROAD
EXEMPTION, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS COVERING THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF
LENDING, THE DEBTS WHICH RESULT THEREFROM AND THE MORTGAGES GIVEN TO
THE CORPORATION AS SECURITY.  THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT REQUIRES THAT
THE LOANS MADE BY THE CORPORATION "SHALL BE SECURED BY A DULY RECORDED
HOME MORTGAGE."  FN4  BOTH THE MORTGAGE AND ITS RECORDATION WERE
INDISPENSABLE ELEMENTS IN THE LENDING OPERATIONS AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS.  WE AGREE WITH THE STATE COURT THAT THERE IS NO SOUND
DISTINCTION WHICH MAKES INAPPLICABLE THE REASONING WHICH WAS DECISIVE
IN THE CROSLAND CASE. 

ALIVE TO THIS CONSIDERATION, PETITIONER ADVANCES A BROADER
CONTENTION, ASKING US TO REVIEW AND OVERRULE THE CROSLAND DECISION AS
BEING OUT OF HARMONY WITH CORRECT PRINCIPLE.  PETITIONER INSISTS THAT
THE TAX IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY; THAT IT DOES NOT IMPOSE A BURDEN UPON
THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION; AND THAT IF THE ACT OF CONGRESS BE
CONSTRUED AS CONFERRING AN IMMUNITY, IT WENT BEYOND THE POWER OF
CONGRESS, AS CONGRESS CANNOT "GRANT AN IMMUNITY OF GREATER EXTENT THAN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY." 

WE ASSUME HERE, AS WE ASSUMED IN GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE,
306 U.S. 466, THAT THE CREATION OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION
WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER AND THAT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE CORPORATION THROUGH WHICH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
LAWFULLY ACTS MUST BE REGARDED AS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND AS
ENTITLED TO WHATEVER IMMUNITY ATTACHES TO THOSE FUNCTIONS WHEN
PERFORMED BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENTS.  MCCULLOCH
V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 421, 422; SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE CO.,
255 U.S. 180, 208, 209; GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, SUPRA.
CONGRESS HAS NOT ONLY THE POWER TO CREATE A CORPORATION TO FACILITATE
THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, BUT HAS THE POWER TO PROTECT
THE OPERATIONS THUS VALIDLY AUTHORIZED.  "A POWER TO CREATE IMPLIES A
POWER TO PRESERVE."  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, P. 426.  THIS POWER
TO PRESERVE NECESSARILY COMES WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE EXPRESS POWER
CONFERRED UPON CONGRESS TO MAKE ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND
PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION ALL POWERS VESTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  CONST. ART. I,
SEC. 8, PAR. 18.  IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER TO PROTECT THE LAWFUL
ACTIVITIES OF ITS AGENCIES, CONGRESS HAS THE DOMINANT AUTHORITY WHICH
NECESSARILY INHERES IN ITS ACTION WITHIN THE NATIONAL FIELD.  THE
SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342, 351, 352.  THE EXERCISE OF THIS
PROTECTIVE POWER IN RELATION TO STATE TAXATION HAS MANY ILLUSTRATIONS. 
SEE, E.G., BANK V. SUPERVISORS, 7 WALL.  26, 31; CHOATE V. TRAPP, 224
U.S. 665, 668, 669; SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE CO., SUPRA, P. 207;
TROTTER V. TENNESSEE, 290 U.S. 354, 356; LAWRENCE V. SHAW, 300 U.S.
245, 249.  IN THIS INSTANCE, CONGRESS HAS UNDERTAKEN TO SAFEGUARD THE
OPERATIONS OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION BY PROVIDING THE
DESCRIBED IMMUNITY.  AS WE HAVE SAID, WE CONSTRUE THIS PROVISION AS
EMBRACING AND PROHIBITING THE TAX IN QUESTION.  SINCE CONGRESS HAD THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ENACT THIS PROVISION, IT IS BINDING UPON
THIS COURT AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.  CONST. ART. VI. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ACT PROVIDES FOR A "TAX ON THE RECORDATION OF INSTRUMENTS IN
WRITING" AS FOLLOWS: 

"A TAX IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON EVERY INSTRUMENT OF WRITING RECORDED OR
OFFERED FOR RECORD WITH THE CLERKS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE
RESPECTIVE COUNTIES, OR THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BALTIMORE
CITY, ON AND AFTER JUNE 1, 1937, TO AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 1939,
INCLUDING MECHANICS LIENS, DEEDS, MORTGAGES (EXCEPT PURCHASE MONEY
MORTGAGES), CHATTEL MORTGAGES, BILLS OF SALE, CONDITIONAL CONTRACTS OF
SALE, LEASES, CONFESSED JUDGMENTS, MAGISTRATES' JUDGMENTS, CROP LIENS,
DEEDS OF TRUST, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF WRITING, SO
RECORDED OR OFFERED FOR RECORD, WHICH CREATE LIENS OR INCUMBRANCES ON
REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, OR CONVEY TITLE TO REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SAID TAX SHALL NOT APPLY TO
ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGES, PURCHASE MONEY MORTGAGES, ABSOLUTE OR PARTIAL
RELEASES, OR ORDERS OF SATISFACTION." 

"THE TAX HEREBY IMPOSED SHALL BE AT THE RATE OF 10[ FOR EACH $100, OR
FRACTIONAL PART THEREOF, OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID OR TO BE
PAID, FOR THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED, IN THE CASE OF INSTRUMENTS
CONVEYING TITLE, AND AT THE RATE OF 10[ FOR EACH $100, OR FRACTIONAL
PART THEREOF, OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE DEBT SECURED, IN THE CASE
OF INSTRUMENTS SECURING A DEBT, OR RESERVING TITLE AS SECURITY FOR A
DEBT." 

"IN ADDITION TO THE TAX HEREBY IMPOSED, THE CLERKS SHALL COLLECT A
CHARGE OF 50[ FOR EACH SUCH INSTRUMENT RECORDED OR OFFERED FOR
RECORD."  ACTS OF 1937, CHAP. 11, CODE OF MARYLAND, ART. 81, SEC. 213. 

THE SAME ACT, IN SEC. 214, PROVIDES FOR THE AFFIXING OF STAMPS TO
COVER THE TAX AND MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO RECORD ANY
WRITTEN INSTRUMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX, AS
STATED. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN3  SECTION 4(C) OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT PROVIDES: "THE BONDS
ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION UNDER THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE EXEMPT, BOTH
AS TO PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, FROM ALL TAXATION (EXCEPT SURTAXES,
ESTATE, INHERITANCE, AND GIFT TAXES) NOW OR HEREAFTER IMPOSED BY THE
UNITED STATES OR ANY DISTRICT, TERRITORY, DEPENDENCY, OR POSSESSION
THEREOF, OR BY ANY STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY, OR LOCAL TAXING
AUTHORITY.  THE CORPORATION, INCLUDING ITS FRANCHISE, ITS CAPITAL,
RESERVES AND SURPLUS, AND ITS LOANS AND INCOME, SHALL LIKEWISE BE
EXEMPT FROM SUCH TAXATION; EXCEPT THAT ANY REAL PROPERTY OF THE
CORPORATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TAXATION TO THE SAME EXTENT, ACCORDING
TO ITS VALUE, AS OTHER REAL PROPERTY IS TAXED."  48 STAT. 128, 130; 12
U.S.C. 1463. 

FN4  SEC. 4(E)(F); 48 STAT. 131; 12 U.S.C. 1463(E)(F). 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



















STANDARD BRANDS V. YEAST CORP., 308 U.S. 34 


NO. 9.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  - 101
F.2D 814, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PATENT NO. 1,449,103, TO HAYDUCK, FOR A PROCESS OF PROPAGATING
YEAST IN A NUTRIENT SOLUTION, WITH AERATION, AND NEUTRALIZATION OF
EXCESS OF THE ACIDITY LIBERATED FROM THE COMPONENTS OF THE SOLUTION, IS
INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION OVER THE PRIOR ART. P. 36. 

2.  PATENT NO. 1,449,105, TO HAYDUCK, FOR A PROCESS OF PROPAGATING
YEAST WITH A RELATIVELY LOW YIELD OF ALCOHOL BY INITIATING THE
PROPAGATION IN A HIGHLY DILUTED PORTION OF THE WORT, AERATING THAT
PORTION, AND ADDING DURING THE PERIOD OF PROPAGATION THE WORT OF HIGHER
CONCENTRATION AT A RATE SUCH THAT THE CONCENTRATION OF THE DILUTED WORT
REMAINS SUBSTANTIALLY CONSTANT, WHEREBY SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE
ALCOHOL WHICH MAY BE FORMED IS ASSIMILATED, - IS INVALID FOR WANT OF
SUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE.  P. 37. 

3.  PATENT NO. 1,449,106, TO HAYDUCK FOR A COMBINATION OF THE
PROCESSES OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TWO PATENTS IS LIKEWISE INVALID - THE
COMBINATION REQUIRES NOTHING BEYOND THE SKILL OF THE ART. P. 38. 

STANDARD BRANDS, INC., V. NATIONAL GRAIN YEAST CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 627, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT HOLDING THREE PATENTS
INVALID ON AN APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT BY WHICH ONE
OF THEM WAS ADJUDGED VALID AND THE OTHERS NOT, 21 F.SUPP.  46. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ORDER WHICH GRANTED THIS WRIT LIMITS OUR CONSIDERATION TO THE
VALIDITY OF HAYDUCK PATENTS NOS. 1,449,103, 1,449,105, 1,449,106.  THEY
RELATE TO PROCESSES FOR MANUFACTURING BAKER'S YEAST AND ARE OWNED BY
THE PETITIONER.  IT WILL BE CONVENIENT TO DESIGNATE THEM BY THE LAST
THREE FIGURES OF THEIR OFFICE NUMBERS - 103, 105, 106. 

ALL THREE PATENTS WERE DECLARED INVALID BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS BELOW, 101 F.2D 814.  IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW JERSEY, 103
HAD BEEN ADJUDGED VALID; 105 AND 106 INVALID, 21 F.SUPP.  46. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND IN TWO CAUSES, (SOPER, J.), HELD THE
PATENTS VALID, FLEISCHMAN YEAST CO. V. FEDERAL YEAST CORP., 8 F.2D 186,
STANDARD BRANDS, INC. V. FEDERAL YEAST CORP., 38 F.2D 329.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH CIRCUIT, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINING 103,
FEDERAL YEAST CORP. V. FLEISCHMANN CO., 13 F.2D 570.  THE PARTIES
ARRIVED AT A SETTLEMENT AND NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE SECOND
JUDGMENT. 

MUCH HAS BEEN WRITTEN RELATIVE TO THESE PATENTS IN THE CAREFULLY
PREPARED OPINIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE.  THEY ADEQUATELY REVEAL THE FACTS
AND POINTS OF LAW INCIDENT TO THE PROLONGED DISPUTATION. 
IRRECONCILABLE VIEWS HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND WE MUST NOW DECIDE WHICH IS
TO BE PREFERRED. 

"YEAST IS A SMALL CELLULAR MICRO-ORGANISM.  IN ITS ORDINARY
SIGNIFICANCE, IT IS A CONGLOMERATE MASS OF INFINITESIMALLY SMALL
CELLS.  IT MULTIPLIES BY SELF PROPAGATION, LIMITED BY THE MEANS OF
SUBSISTENCE, AND THE QUALITY AND YIELD ARE GREATLY AFFECTED BY THE
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PROPAGATION IS CARRIED ON.  YEAST HAS BEEN
MANUFACTURED FOR AT LEAST 50 YEARS BY INOCULATING A WORT; THAT IS, BY
PREPARING A CLEAR LIQUID SOLUTION AND STOCKING IT WITH A SMALL AMOUNT
OF SEED YEAST.  SUCH WORTS INCLUDE SUBSTANCES TO NOURISH THE YEAST
CELLS, AND ARE CALLED YEAST NUTRIENT SOLUTIONS.  ...  THE FIELD FOR
INVESTIGATION AND IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN THE COMPOSITION OF THE NUTRIENT
SOLUTION, AND THE CHARACTER OF THE PROCESS EMPLOYED DURING THE PERIOD
OF GROWTH." 

NUTRIENT SOLUTIONS OFTEN CONTAIN INORGANIC SALTS WHICH ARE BROKEN
DOWN THROUGH THE GROWTH OF THE SEED YEAST.  COMMONLY, THIS BRINGS ABOUT
MARKED ACIDITY.  GROWTH PROGRESSES BEST IN A SLIGHTLY ACID WORT; OVER
ACIDITY RETARDS OR DESTROYS IT; AERATION OF THE WORT ACCELERATES
GROWTH. 

THE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL CONSEQUENT UPON THE GROWTH OF YEAST CELLS HAS
DIRECT RELATION TO THE CONCENTRATION OF THE WORT.  WHEN INTENSIFIED THE
YIELD OF ALCOHOL INCREASES; WHEN LOWERED THERE IS LESS. 

GENERALLY:  PATENT 103 PROPOSES TO NEUTRALIZE ANY DELETERIOUS ACIDITY
IN A WORT WHICH CONTAINS INORGANIC SALT BY ADDING AN ANTACID MATERIAL;
PATENT 105 REQUIRES THE ADDITION OF NUTRIENTS DURING THE GROWTH OF THE
YEAST "AT A RATE SUCH THAT THE YEAST MAY PROPAGATE AND SUBSTANTIALLY
ALL OF THE ALCOHOL WHICH MAY BE FORMED IS ASSIMILATED BY THE YEAST";
PATENT 106 COMBINES THE NEUTRALIZATION IDEA OF 103 WITH THE RATE OF
FEED PROPOSED BY 105. 

CLAIM NO. 1 OF PATENT 103, TYPICAL OF ALL, FOLLOWS - 

"THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING YEAST WHICH COMPRISES PREPARING A YEAST
NUTRIENT SOLUTION AND PROPAGATING YEAST THEREIN WITH AERATION, SAID
YEAST NUTRIENT SOLUTION CONTAINING ESSENTIALLY SUGAR MATERIAL AND YEAST
NOURISHING INORGANIC SALTS FROM WHICH COMPONENTS ARE LIBERATED WHICH
TEND INCREASINGLY TO ACIDIFY THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION DURING PROPAGATION,
AND DURING THE PERIOD OF PROPAGATION NEUTRALIZING THE DELETERIOUS
EXCESS OF SUCH ACIDITY." 

IN RESPECT OF THIS PETITIONER'S COUNSEL MAINTAIN - 

"IT COVERS, RATHER, THE INTEGRAL COORDINATION OF PROPAGATING YEAST
WITH AERATION IN A PREPARED SOLUTION CONTAINING ESSENTIALLY SUGAR
MATERIAL AND YEAST NOURISHING INORGANIC SALTS FROM WHICH RESULTS AN
INCREASING ACIDIFICATION TENDING TO BECOME DELETERIOUS, AND
NEUTRALIZING THE DELETERIOUS EXCESS OF SUCH ACIDITY IN THE SOLUTION
WHILE THE YEAST PROPAGATION IS BEING CONDUCTED." 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BELOW DECLARED - 

"WE THINK THAT IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE USE OF ANTACID OR BASIC
MATERIALS AS NEUTRALIZERS FOR ACIDITY IN RESPECT TO YEAST IS OLD IN THE
ART. ...  WE THINK THAT HAYDUCK HAS SIMPLY SET FORTH A TECHNIQUE WHICH
IS USEFUL IN THE MANUFACTURE OF YEAST UNDER MODERN METHODS.  HAYDUCK'S
DISCLOSURES DO NOT ATTAIN TO THE DIGNITY OF INVENTION.  HIS PROCESS IS
THE RESULT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE SKILL OF THE CALLING, THE APPLICATION
OF AN OLD PRINCIPLE TO A SIMILAR OR ANALOGOUS SUBJECT WITH NO CHANGE IN
THE MANNER OF APPLICATION AND WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT
RESULT." 

AND IT ACCORDINGLY HELD PATENT 103 INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION OVER
THE PRIOR ART. 

CONSIDERING ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERY
FORCEFUL ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY, WE THINK THIS MUST BE ACCEPTED AS
THE BETTER VIEW. 

CLAIM NO. 10, TYPICAL OF PATENT 105, FOLLOWS - 

"A PROCESS OF PROPAGATING YEAST WITH A RELATIVELY LOW YIELD OF
ALCOHOL WHICH COMPRISES, PREPARING A WORT CONTAINING ALL ESSENTIAL
YEAST NUTRIENTS IN SOLUTION, INITIATING PROPAGATION OF YEAST IN A
HIGHLY DILUTED PORTION OF SAID WORT, AERATING THE DILUTED PORTION, AND
SUBSTANTIALLY CONTINUOUSLY ADDING DURING THE PERIOD OF PROPAGATION, THE
WORT OF HIGHER CONCENTRATION AT A RATE SUCH THAT THE CONCENTRATION OF
THE DILUTE WORT REMAINS SUBSTANTIALLY CONSTANT, WHEREBY SUBSTANTIALLY
ALL OF THE ALCOHOL WHICH MAY BE FORMED IS ASSIMILATED." 

OF THIS PATENT COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER SAY - 

IT "IS DIRECTED PARTICULARLY TO THIS PROCEDURAL OR MANIPULATIVE,
RATHER THAN CHEMICAL, ASPECT OF THE OPERATION; I.E., A DIVISION OF THE
WORT INTO TWO PARTS WITH PROPAGATION BEGUN IN A DILUTED FRACTION AND
THE GRADUAL FEEDING IN OF THE CONCENTRATED RESERVE AS STATED.  BY
ADOPTING THIS PERFECTED PROCESS, THE YIELD OF YEAST WAS STILL FURTHER
INCREASED AND THERE WERE ALSO OTHER ACCOMPANYING ADVANTAGES IN
SHORTENED TIME FROM COMMENCEMENT OF THE YEAST PROPAGATION TO THE
HARVESTING OF THE YEAST CROP AND IN ENHANCED QUANTITY OF OUTPUT FROM A
GIVEN SIZED APPARATUS." 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BELOW DECLARED - 

"IT WAS WELL KNOWN TO THE PRIOR ART THAT IF THE CREATION OF ALCOHOL
WAS NOT DESIRED THE NUTRIENT SOLUTION SHOULD CONTAIN A LOW
CONCENTRATION OF SUGAR.  ...  IN OUR OPINION THE PROCESS DESCRIBED BY
HAYDUCK MAY CONSTITUTE A MECHANICAL IMPROVEMENT OVER THE PRIOR ART BUT
IT IS NO MORE THAN THIS.  BUT EVEN IF THE PROCESS DISCLOSED BY HAYDUCK
BE HELD TO CONSTITUTE INVENTION, THE PATENT IS INVALID FOR
INDEFINITENESS AS WAS HELD BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE.  BOTH THE
TIMES AND MANNER IN WHICH THE CONCENTRATED NUTRIENT SOLUTION IS TO BE
ADDED MAY BE ASCERTAINED AS WE HAVE STATED SOLELY BY EXPERIMENTATION. 
THE DISCLOSURE OF THE PATENT IS THEREFORE TOO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE TO
CONSTITUTE INVENTION." 

WITH THIS CONCLUSION WE AGREE. 

AS TO PATENT 106 COUNSEL HAVE STIPULATED - 

"THE PROCESS OF THIS PATENT IS ONE COMBINING THE PROCESS OF PATENT
'103, INCLUDING NEUTRALIZATION, AND THE PROCESS OF PATENT '105,
INCLUDING REGULATED NUTRIENT FEED." 

SINCE PATENT NO. 103 IS INVALID FOR LACK OF INVENTION AND NO. 105
INVALID BECAUSE THE DISCLOSURE IS TOO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE, A CLAIM FOR
PATENT BASED UPON THE MERE UNION OF THE TWO PROCESSES DESCRIBED THEREIN
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED WHERE, AS HERE, THE PROPOSED COMBINATION REQUIRES
NOTHING BEYOND THE SKILL OF THE ART. 

THE CHALLENGED DECREE MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR. JUSTICE STONE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CAUSE. 
..END :
























ESTATE OF SANFORD V. COMM'R, 308 U.S. 39 


NO. 34.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 19, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  -
103 F.2D 81, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A GIFT IN TRUST WITH RESERVATION OF POWER IN THE DONOR TO ALTER
THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY IN ANY WAY NOT BENEFICIAL TO HIMSELF,
IS INCOMPLETE AND DOES NOT BECOME SUBJECT TO GIFT TAX UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1924, SEC. 319, SO LONG AS THE DONOR RETAINS THAT POWER.  P.
41. 

2.  THE FEDERAL GIFT TAX IS SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE ESTATE TAX; THE TWO
ARE IN PARI MATERIA AND MUST BE CONSTRUED TOGETHER.  P. 42. 

AN IMPORTANT PURPOSE OF THE GIFT TAX WAS TO PREVENT, OR COMPENSATE
FOR, AVOIDANCE OF DEATH TAXES.  P. 44. 

3.  THE GIFT TAX STATUTE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE TWO TAXES UPON GIFTS
NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, ONE UPON THE GIFT WHEN A TRUST IS
CREATED OR WHEN THE POWER OF REVOCATION, IF ANY, IS RELINQUISHED, AND
ANOTHER ON THE TRANSFER OF THE SAME PROPERTY AT DEATH BECAUSE THE GIFT
PREVIOUSLY MADE WAS INCOMPLETE.  P. 45. 

4.  TRANSFERS IN TRUST, NOT TAXABLE AS GIFTS BECAUSE THE DONOR HAS
RESERVED POWER TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES, BECOME SUBJECT TO DEATH
TAXES WHEN HE DIES.  P. 46. 

5.  ART. I OF TREAS. REG. 67, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924, WAS NOT
DIRECTED AT RELINQUISHMENTS OF RESERVED POWER TO SELECT NEW
BENEFICIARIES OTHER THAN THE DONOR AND DID NOT PURPORT TO GOVERN CASES
OF RESERVED POWER DIFFERENT FROM OR IN ADDITION TO THE POWER TO REVEST
THE TITLE IN THE DONOR.  P. 48. 

AT MOST THE REGULATION IS AMBIGUOUS AND NOT PERSUASIVE IN DETERMINING
THE TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 

6.  ART. III, REG. 79, AMENDMENT OF 1936 UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1932, WHICH DECLARES THAT A GIFT IS COMPLETE AND SUBJECT TO TAX WHEN
"THE DONOR HAS SO PARTED WITH DOMINION AND CONTROL AS TO LEAVE IN HIM
NO POWER TO CAUSE THE BENEFICIAL TITLE TO BE REVESTED IN HIMSELF," IS
BY ITS TERMS APPLICABLE ONLY TO GIFTS MADE AFTER JUNE 6, 1932, AND IS
OF SIGNIFICANCE HERE ONLY SO FAR AS IT IS DECLARATORY OF THE CORRECT
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1924 ACT.  P. 49. 

7.  A STIPULATION PURPORTING TO REVEAL THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE IN
APPLYING THE GIFT TAX LAW, HELD TOO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE TO AFFORD
BASIS FOR A JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  P. 49. 

8.  A STIPULATION AS TO QUESTIONS OF LAW CAN NOT BIND THE COURT.  P.
51. 

9.  ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE MAY BE PERSUASIVE IN DETERMINING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE OF DOUBTFUL MEANING WHERE THE PRACTICE DOES
NOT CONFLICT WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AND IS NOT SO
INCONSISTENT WITH DECISIONS OF THE COURTS AS TO PRODUCE INCONSISTENCY
AND CONFUSION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.  P. 52. 

BUT THE COURT DOES NOT GIVE EFFECT TO AN UNPUBLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION ON WHICH TAXPAYERS HAVE NOT RELIED, WHICH CONFLICTS WITH
ITS OWN DECISIONS AND WITH A LATER ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE CONFORMING
TO LOWER COURT RULINGS. 

10.  THE REENACTMENT OF THE GIFT TAX STATUTE OF 1924 BY THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1932 WAS NOT A LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY TREASURY REGULATION, RULING OR
DECISION, AND WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE
ADOPTION OF THE LATER ACT.  P. 53.  . 

ESTATE OF SANFORD V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH SUSTAINED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AFFIRMING A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT
BASED ON THE GIFT TAX PROVISION OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS AND ITS COMPANION CASE, RASQUIN V. HUMPHREYS, POST, P. 54,
PRESENT THE SINGLE QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WHETHER IN THE
CASE OF AN INTER VIVOS TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN TRUST, BY A DONOR
RESERVING TO HIMSELF THE POWER TO DESIGNATE NEW BENEFICIARIES OTHER
THAN HIMSELF, THE GIFT BECOMES COMPLETE AND SUBJECT TO THE GIFT TAX
IMPOSED BY THE FEDERAL REVENUE LAWS AT THE TIME OF THE RELINQUISHMENT
OF THE POWER.  CORELATIVE QUESTIONS, IMPORTANT ONLY IF A NEGATIVE
ANSWER IS GIVEN TO THE FIRST ONE, ARE WHETHER THE GIFT BECOMES COMPLETE
AND TAXABLE WHEN THE TRUST IS CREATED OR, IN THE CASE WHERE THE DONOR
HAS RESERVED A POWER OF REVOCATION FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT AND HAS
RELINQUISHED IT BEFORE RELINQUISHING THE POWER TO CHANGE BENEFICIARIES,
WHETHER THE GIFT FIRST BECOMES COMPLETE AND TAXABLE AT THE TIME OF
RELINQUISHING THE POWER OF REVOCATION. 

IN 1913, BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE FIRST GIFT TAX STATUTE OF 1924,
DECEDENT CREATED A TRUST OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF NAMED
BENEFICIARIES, RESERVING TO HIMSELF THE POWER TO TERMINATE THE TRUST IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, OR TO MODIFY IT.  IN 1919 HE SURRENDERED THE POWER TO
REVOKE THE TRUST BY AN APPROPRIATE WRITING IN WHICH HE RESERVED "THE
RIGHT TO MODIFY ANY OR ALL OF THE TRUSTS" BUT PROVIDED THAT THIS RIGHT
"SHALL IN NO WAY BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE ANY RIGHT OR
PRIVILEGE" IN THE DONOR "TO WITHDRAW PRINCIPAL OR INCOME FROM ANY
TRUST."  IN AUGUST, 1924, AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE GIFT TAX
STATUTE, DECEDENT RENOUNCED HIS REMAINING POWER TO MODIFY THE TRUST. 
AFTER HIS DEATH IN 1928, THE COMMISSIONER FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN
HESSLEIN V. HOEY, 91 F.2D 954, IN 1937, RULED THAT THE GIFT BECAME
COMPLETE AND TAXABLE ONLY UPON DECEDENT'S FINAL RENUNCIATION OF HIS
POWER TO MODIFY THE TRUSTS AND GAVE NOTICE OF A TAX DEFICIENCY
ACCORDINGLY. 

THE ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING THE TAX WAS AFFIRMED
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, 103 F.2D 81, WHICH
FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN
HESSLEIN V. HOEY, SUPRA, IN WHICH WE HAD DENIED CERTIORARI, 302 U.S.
756.  IN THE HESSLEIN CASE, AS IN THE HUMPHREYS CASE NOW BEFORE US, A
GIFT IN TRUST WITH THE RESERVATION OF A POWER IN THE DONOR TO ALTER THE
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY IN ANY WAY NOT BENEFICIAL TO HIMSELF, WAS
HELD TO BE INCOMPLETE AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE GIFT TAX UNDER THE 1932
ACT SO LONG AS THE DONOR RETAINED THAT POWER. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN THIS CASE, 307 U.S. 618, AND IN THE
HUMPHREYS CASE, ID. 619, UPON THE REPRESENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT
IT HAS TAKEN INCONSISTENT POSITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION
INVOLVED IN THE TWO CASES AND THAT BECAUSE OF THIS FACT AND OF THE
DOUBT OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION IN THE HESSLEIN CASE DECISION
OF THE QUESTION BY THIS COURT IS DESIRABLE IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE
RESULTANT CONFUSION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 

IT HAS CONTINUED TO TAKE THESE INCONSISTENT POSITIONS HERE, STATING
THAT IT IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHICH CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WILL
BE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT IN POINT OF REVENUE COLLECTED. 
IT ARGUES IN THIS CASE THAT THE GIFT DID NOT BECOME COMPLETE AND
TAXABLE UNTIL SURRENDER BY THE DONOR OF HIS RESERVED POWER TO DESIGNATE
NEW BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUSTS.  IN THE HUMPHREYS CASE IT ARGUES THAT
THE GIFT UPON TRUST WITH POWER RESERVED TO THE DONOR, NOT AFTERWARD
RELINQUISHED, TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES WAS COMPLETE AND TAXABLE WHEN
THE TRUST WAS CREATED.  IT CONCEDES BY ITS BRIEF THAT "A DECISION
FAVORABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT IN EITHER CASE WILL NECESSARILY PRECLUDE A
FAVORABLE DECISION IN THE OTHER." 

IN ASCERTAINING THE CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTES TAXING
GIFTS, IT IS NECESSARY TO READ THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE CLOSELY RELATED
PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE LAWS TAXING TRANSFERS AT DEATH, AS THEY HAVE
BEEN INTERPRETED BY OUR DECISIONS.  SECTION 319 ET SEQ. OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 253, REENACTED AS SEC. 501 ET SEQ. OF THE 1932
ACT, 47 STAT. 169, IMPOSED A GRADUATED TAX UPON GIFTS.  IT SUPPLEMENTED
THAT LAID ON TRANSFERS AT DEATH, WHICH HAD LONG BEEN A FEATURE OF THE
REVENUE LAWS.  WHEN THE GIFT TAX WAS ENACTED CONGRESS WAS AWARE THAT
THE ESSENCE OF A TRANSFER IS THE PASSAGE OF CONTROL OVER THE ECONOMIC
BENEFITS OF PROPERTY RATHER THAN ANY TECHNICAL CHANGES IN ITS TITLE. 
SEE BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, 287.  FOLLOWING THE ENACTMENT
OF THE GIFT TAX STATUTE THIS COURT IN REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO.,
278 U.S. 339(1929) HELD THAT THE RELINQUISHMENT AT DEATH OF A POWER OF
REVOCATION OF A TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS DONOR WAS A TAXABLE
TRANSFER, CF. SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, 276 U.S. 260; CHASE NATIONAL
BANK V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 327; AND SIMILARLY IN PORTER V.
COMMISSIONER, 288 U.S. 436(1933), THAT THE RELINQUISHMENT BY A DONOR AT
DEATH OF A RESERVED POWER TO MODIFY THE TRUST EXCEPT IN HIS OWN FAVOR
IS LIKEWISE A TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
TAXED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 302(D) OF THE 1926 REVENUE ACT
(REENACTING IN SUBSTANCE 302(D) OF THE 1924 ACT) ALTHOUGH ENACTED AFTER
THE CREATION OF THE TRUST.  CF. BULLEN V. WISCONSIN, 240 U.S. 625;
CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357; GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383. 
SINCE IT WAS THE RELINQUISHMENT OF THE POWER WHICH WAS TAXED AS A
TRANSFER AND NOT THE TRANSFER IN TRUST, THE STATUTE WAS NOT
RETROACTIVELY APPLIED.  CF. NICHOLS V. COOLIDGE, 274 U.S. 531;
HELVERING V. HELMHOLZ, 296 U.S. 93, 98. 

THE RATIONALE OF DECISION IN BOTH CASES IS THAT "TAXATION IS NOT SO
MUCH CONCERNED WITH THE REFINEMENTS OF TITLE AS IT IS WITH THE ACTUAL
COMMAND OVER THE PROPERTY TAXED" (SEE CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376,
378; SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, SUPRA, 261; BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM,
SUPRA, 287) AND THAT A RETENTION OF CONTROL OVER THE DISPOSITION OF THE
TRUST PROPERTY, WHETHER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DONOR OR OTHERS, RENDERS
THE GIFT INCOMPLETE UNTIL THE POWER IS RELINQUISHED WHETHER IN LIFE OR
AT DEATH.  THE RULE WAS THUS ESTABLISHED, AND HAS EVER SINCE BEEN
CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE COURT, THAT A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY UPON
TRUST, WITH POWER RESERVED TO THE DONOR EITHER TO REVOKE IT AND
RECAPTURE THE TRUST PROPERTY OR TO MODIFY ITS TERMS SO AS TO DESIGNATE
NEW BENEFICIARIES OTHER THAN HIMSELF IS INCOMPLETE, AND BECOMES
COMPLETE SO AS TO SUBJECT THE TRANSFER TO DEATH TAXES ONLY ON
RELINQUISHMENT OF THE POWER AT DEATH. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, AND OUR ATTENTION
HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTED TO ANYTHING IN ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO SUGGEST
THAT CONGRESS HAD ANY PURPOSE TO TAX GIFTS BEFORE THE DONOR HAD FULLY
PARTED WITH HIS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY GIVEN, OR THAT THE TEST OF THE
COMPLETENESS OF THE TAXED GIFT WAS TO BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THAT TO BE
APPLIED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE DONOR HAS RETAINED AN INTEREST SUCH
THAT IT BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE TAX UPON ITS EXTINGUISHMENT AT
DEATH.  THE GIFT TAX WAS SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE ESTATE TAX.  THE TWO ARE
IN PARI MATERIA AND MUST BE CONSTRUED TOGETHER.  BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM,
SUPRA, 286.  AN IMPORTANT, IF NOT THE MAIN, PURPOSE OF THE GIFT TAX WAS
TO PREVENT OR COMPENSATE FOR AVOIDANCE OF DEATH TAXES BY TAXING THE
GIFTS OF PROPERTY INTER VIVOS WHICH, BUT FOR THE GIFTS, WOULD BE
SUBJECT IN ITS ORIGINAL OR CONVERTED FORM TO THE TAX LAID UPON
TRANSFERS AT DEATH.  FN1 

BY SEC. 319 UPON A GIFT, THE VALUE OF WHICH IS REQUIRED BY ANY
PROVISION OF THE STATUTE TAXING THE ESTATE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS
ESTATE, THE GIFT TAX IS TO BE CREDITED ON THE ESTATE TAX.  THE TWO
TAXES ARE THUS NOT ALWAYS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AS IN THE CASE OF GIFTS
MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WHICH ARE COMPLETE AND TAXABLE WHEN
MADE, AND ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE FOR
PURPOSES OF THE DEATH TAX.  BUT SEC. 322 IS WITHOUT APPLICATION UNLESS
THERE IS A GIFT INTER VIVOS WHICH IS TAXABLE INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY
REQUIREMENT THAT IT SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE.  PROPERTY
TRANSFERRED IN TRUST SUBJECT TO A POWER OF CONTROL OVER ITS DISPOSITION
RESERVED TO THE DONOR IS LIKEWISE REQUIRED BY SEC. 302(D) TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE TRANSFER
IN TRUST IS ALSO TAXABLE AS A GIFT.  THE POINT WAS DECIDED IN THE
GUGGENHEIM CASE WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT A GIFT UPON TRUST, WITH POWER IN
THE DONOR TO REVOKE IT IS NOT TAXABLE AS A GIFT BECAUSE THE TRANSFER IS
INCOMPLETE, AND THAT THE TRANSFER WHETHER INTER VIVOS OR AT DEATH
BECOMES COMPLETE AND TAXABLE ONLY WHEN THE POWER OF CONTROL IS
RELINQUISHED.  WE THINK, AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THE GUGGENHEIM CASE,
SUPRA, 285, THAT THE GIFT TAX STATUTE DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE TWO TAXES
UPON GIFTS NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, ONE UPON THE GIFT WHEN A
TRUST IS CREATED OR WHEN THE POWER OF REVOCATION, IF ANY, IS
RELINQUISHED, AND ANOTHER ON THE TRANSFER OF THE SAME PROPERTY AT DEATH
BECAUSE THE GIFT PREVIOUSLY MADE WAS INCOMPLETE. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE TAXPAYER IN THIS CASE THAT THE
GIFT BECOMES COMPLETE AND TAXABLE UPON THE RELINQUISHMENT OF THE
DONOR'S POWER TO REVOKE THE TRUST CANNOT BE SUSTAINED UNLESS WE ARE TO
HOLD, CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE AND THE REASONING IN THE
GUGGENHEIM CASE, THAT A SECOND TAX WILL BE INCURRED UPON THE DONOR'S
RELINQUISHMENT AT DEATH OF HIS POWER TO SELECT NEW BENEFICIARIES, OR
UNLESS AS AN ALTERNATIVE WE ARE TO ABANDON OUR RULING IN THE PORTER
CASE.  THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUGGEST, EVEN IN ITS ARGUMENT IN THE
HUMPHREYS CASE, THAT WE SHOULD DEPART FROM OUR EARLIER RULINGS, AND WE
THINK IT CLEAR THAT WE SHOULD NOT DO SO BOTH BECAUSE WE ARE SATISFIED
WITH THE REASONING UPON WHICH THEY REST AND BECAUSE DEPARTURE FROM
EITHER WOULD PRODUCE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE LAW AS SERIOUS AND
CONFUSING AS THE INCONSISTENCIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE FROM WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT NOW SEEKS RELIEF. 

THERE ARE OTHER PERSUASIVE REASONS WHY THE TAXPAYER'S CONTENTION
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  BY SECS. 315(B), 324, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY BY
SEC. 510 OF THE 1932 ACT, THE DONEE OF ANY GIFT IS MADE PERSONALLY
LIABLE FOR THE TAX TO THE EXTENT OF THE VALUE OF THE GIFT IF THE TAX IS
NOT PAID BY THE DONOR.  IT CAN HARDLY BE SUPPOSED THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO IMPOSE PERSONAL LIABILITY UPON THE DONEE OF A GIFT OF
PROPERTY, SO INCOMPLETE THAT HE MIGHT BE DEPRIVED OF IT BY THE DONOR
THE DAY AFTER HE HAD PAID THE TAX.  FURTHER, SEC. 321(B)(1) EXEMPTS
FROM THE TAX, GIFTS TO RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, AND EDUCATIONAL
CORPORATIONS AND THE LIKE.  A GIFT WOULD SEEM NOT TO BE COMPLETE, FOR
PURPOSES OF THE TAX, WHERE THE DONOR HAS RESERVED THE POWER TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE DONEES ULTIMATELY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE AND ENJOY
THE PROPERTY ARE OF SUCH A CLASS AS TO EXEMPT THE GIFT FROM TAXATION. 
APART FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WE SHOULD HESITATE TO ACCEPT AS CORRECT
A CONSTRUCTION UNDER WHICH IT COULD PLAUSIBLY BE MAINTAINED THAT A GIFT
IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF CHARITABLE CORPORATIONS IS THEN COMPLETE SO
THAT THE TAXING STATUTE BECOMES OPERATIVE AND THE GIFT ESCAPES THE TAX
EVEN THOUGH THE DONOR SHOULD LATER CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES TO THE NON
EXEMPT CLASS THROUGH EXERCISE OF A POWER TO MODIFY THE TRUST IN ANY WAY
NOT BENEFICIAL TO HIMSELF. 

THE ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
SUPPORTS HERE, BUT ASSAILS IN THE HUMPHREYS CASE, AFFORDS A READY MEANS
OF EVASION OF THE GIFT TAX IS NOT IMPRESSIVE.  IT IS TRUE, OF COURSE,
THAT UNDER IT GIFT TAXES WILL NOT BE IMPOSED ON TRANSACTIONS WHICH FALL
SHORT OF BEING COMPLETED GIFTS.  BUT IF FOR THAT REASON THEY ARE NOT
TAXED AS GIFTS THEY REMAIN SUBJECT TO DEATH TAXES ASSESSED AT HIGHER
RATES, AND THE GOVERNMENT GETS ITS DUE, WHICH WAS PRECISELY THE END
SOUGHT BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE GIFT TAX. 

NOR DO WE THINK THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 219(G) OF THE 1924 ACT
HAVE ANY PERSUASIVE INFLUENCE ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GIFT TAX
PROVISIONS WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED.  ONE PURPOSE OF THE GIFT
TAX WAS TO PREVENT OR COMPENSATE FOR THE LOSS OF SURTAX UPON INCOME
WHERE LARGE ESTATES ARE SPLIT UP BY GIFTS TO NUMEROUS DONEES.  FN2
CONGRESS WAS AWARE THAT DONORS IN TRUST MIGHT DISTRIBUTE INCOME AMONG
SEVERAL BENEFICIARIES, ALTHOUGH THE GIFT REMAINS SO INCOMPLETE AS NOT
TO BE SUBJECT TO THE TAX.  IT DEALT WITH THAT CONTINGENCY IN SEC.
219(G) WHICH TAXES TO THE SETTLOR THE INCOME OF A TRUST PAID TO
BENEFICIARIES WHERE HE RESERVED TO HIMSELF AN UNEXERCISED POWER TO
"REVEST IN HIMSELF TITLE" TO THE TRUST PROPERTY PRODUCING THE INCOME. 
WHETHER THIS SECTION IS TO BE READ AS RELIEVING THE DONOR OF THE INCOME
TAX WHERE THE POWER RESERVED IS TO MODIFY THE TRUST, EXCEPT FOR HIS OWN
BENEFIT, WE DO NOT NOW DECIDE.  IF CONGRESS, IN ENACTING IT, UNDERTOOK
TO DEFINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH A RESERVED POWER OF CONTROL OVER THE
DISPOSITION OF THE INCOME IS EQUIVALENT TO OWNERSHIP OF IT SO AS TO
MARK THE LINE BETWEEN THOSE CASES ON THE ONE HAND WHERE THE INCOME IS
TO BE TAXED TO THE DONOR AND THOSE ON THE OTHER WHERE, BY RELATED
WE DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT THE SECTION PRESENTS ANY QUESTION SO COMPARABLE
TO THAT NOW BEFORE US AS TO AFFECT OUR DECISION.  WE ARE CONCERNED HERE
WITH A QUESTION TO WHICH CONGRESS HAS GIVEN NO ANSWER IN THE WORDS OF
THE STATUTE, AND IT MUST BE DECIDED IN CONFORMITY TO THE COURSE OF
JUDICIAL DECISION APPLICABLE TO A UNIFIED SCHEME OF TAXATION OF GIFTS
WHETHER MADE INTER VIVOS OR AT DEATH.  IF CONGRESS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TAXING INCOME, HAS DEFINED PRECISELY THE AMOUNT OF CONTROL OVER THE
INCOME WHICH IT DEEMS EQUIVALENT TO OWNERSHIP OF IT, THAT DEFINITION IS
CONTROLLING ON THE COURTS EVEN THOUGH WITHOUT IT THEY MIGHT REACH A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, AND EVEN THOUGH RETENTION OF A LESSER DEGREE OF
CONTROL BE DEEMED TO RENDER A TRANSFER INCOMPLETE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
LAYING GIFT AND DEATH TAXES. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE WHICH WE
CONCLUDE IS TO BE DERIVED FROM ITS LANGUAGE AND HISTORY, SHOULD BE
MODIFIED BECAUSE OF THE FORCE OF TREASURY REGULATIONS OR ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE.  ARTICLE I OF REGULATIONS 67, UNDER THE 1924 ACT (ADOPTED
WITHOUT ANY CHANGE OF PRESENT SIGNIFICANCE IN ARTICLE III, REGULATIONS
79, UNDER THE 1932 ACT) PROVIDES THAT THE CREATION OF A TRUST WHERE THE
GRANTOR RETAINS THE POWER TO REVEST IN HIMSELF TITLE TO THE CORPUS OF
THE TRUST DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GIFT SUBJECT TO THE TAX AND DECLARES
THAT "WHERE THE POWER RETAINED BY THE GRANTOR TO REVEST IN HIMSELF
TITLE TO THE CORPUS IS NOT EXERCISED, A TAXABLE TRANSFER WILL BE
TREATED AS TAKING PLACE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH POWER IS
TERMINATED."  PETITIONER URGES THAT THE REGULATION IS IN TERMS
APPLICABLE TO THE TRUST PRESENTLY INVOLVED BECAUSE IT WAS SUBJECT TO A
POWER OF REVOCATION IN FAVOR OF THE DONOR BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE
GIFT TAX WHICH WAS LATER RELINQUISHED.  BUT WE THINK, AS THE COURT
BELOW THOUGHT, THAT THE REGULATION WAS NOT DIRECTED TO THE CASE OF THE
RELINQUISHMENT OF A RESERVED POWER TO SELECT NEW BENEFICIARIES OTHER
THAN THE DONOR AND DID NOT PURPORT TO LAY DOWN ANY RULE FOR CASES WHERE
THERE WAS A RESERVED POWER DIFFERENT FROM OR IN ADDITION TO THE POWER
TO REVEST THE TITLE IN THE DONOR.  AT MOST THE REGULATION IS AMBIGUOUS
AND WITHOUT PERSUASIVE FORCE IN DETERMINING THE TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STATUTE.  BURNET V. CHICAGO PORTRAIT CO., 285 U.S. 1, 16, 20.  THE
AMENDED REGULATION OF 1936 UNDER THE 1932 ACT, ART. III, REG. 79,
REMOVED THE AMBIGUITY BY DECLARING THAT THE GIFT IS COMPLETE AND
SUBJECT TO THE TAX WHEN "THE DONOR HAS SO PARTED WITH DOMINION AND
CONTROL AS TO LEAVE IN HIM NO POWER TO CAUSE THE BENEFICIAL TITLE TO BE
REVESTED IN HIMSELF."  BUT THIS REGULATION IS BY ITS TERMS APPLICABLE
ONLY TO GIFTS MADE AFTER JUNE 6, 1932, AND IS OF SIGNIFICANCE HERE ONLY
SO FAR AS IT IS DECLARATORY OF THE CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1924
ACT. 

PETITIONER ALSO INSISTS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE FOR
WHICH HE CONTENDS IS SUSTAINED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  THAT
PRACTICE IS NOT DISCLOSED BY ANY PUBLISHED TREASURY RULINGS OR
DECISIONS AND OUR ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT IS A
STIPULATION APPEARING IN THE RECORD.  IT STATES THAT IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE GIFT TAX UNDER THE 1924 AND 1932 ACTS AND UNTIL
THE DECISION IN THE HESSLEIN CASE IT WAS "THE UNIFORM PRACTICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE IN ADJUSTING CASES OF THE CHARACTER OF
THAT HERE INVOLVED TO TREAT THE TAXABLE TRANSFER SUBJECT TO GIFT TAX AS
OCCURRING WHEN THE TRANSFEROR RELINQUISHED ALL POWER TO REVEST IN
HIMSELF TITLE TO THE PROPERTY CONSTITUTING THE SUBJECT OF THE
TRANSFER"; AND THAT THREE HUNDRED CASES "OF SUCH CHARACTER" HAVE BEEN
CLOSED OR ADJUSTED IN CONFORMITY TO THIS PRACTICE. 

THIS DEFINITION OF THE PRACTICE APPEARS AS A PART OF A STIPULATION OF
FACTS SETTING FORTH IN SOME 126 PRINTED PAGES THE ORIGINAL TRUST DEED
OF DECEMBER 24, 1913, AND THIRTEEN MODIFICATIONS OF IT BETWEEN THAT
DATE AND THE FINAL RELINQUISHMENT OF THE POWER OF MODIFICATION ON
AUGUST 20, 1924.  THEY REVEAL A VARIED AND EXTENSIVE POWER OF CONTROL
BY THE DONOR OVER THE DISPOSITION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY WHICH SURVIVED
THE RELINQUISHMENT, IN 1919, OF THE POWER OF REVOCATION FOR HIS OWN
BENEFIT, AND WITH WHICH HE FINALLY PARTED AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE GIFT
TAX.  THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PRACTICE AS THAT RESORTED TO IN ADJUSTING
"CASES OF THE CHARACTER OF THAT HERE INVOLVED," PRESUPPOSES SOME
KNOWLEDGE ON OUR PART OF WHAT THE SIGNERS OF THE STIPULATION REGARDED
AS THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE PRESENT CASE WHICH, ALTHOUGH NOT
SPECIFIED BY THE STIPULATION, WERE NECESSARILY EMBRACED IN THE
PRACTICE.  ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, TO BE ACCEPTED AS GUIDING OR
CONTROLLING JUDICIAL DECISION, MUST AT LEAST BE DEFINED WITH SUFFICIENT
CERTAINTY TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE DECISION.  IF RELINQUISHMENT OF
THE POWER OF REVOCATION MENTIONED BY THE STIPULATION WAS OF CONTROLLING
SIGNIFICANCE IN DEFINING THE PRACTICE, THAT CIRCUMSTANCE WAS NOT
PRESENT IN THE HESSLEIN CASE OR IN THE HUMPHREYS CASE.  WHETHER IN ANY
OF THE THREE HUNDRED CASES MENTIONED IN THE STIPULATION THE
RELINQUISHMENT OF THE POWER OF REVOCATION WAS FOLLOWED BY THE
RELINQUISHMENT INTER VIVOS OF A POWER OF CHANGING THE BENEFICIARIES
LIKE THAT IN THIS CASE, DOES NOT APPEAR. 

SUCH A STIPULATED DEFINITION OF THE PRACTICE IS TOO VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE TO AFFORD A PROPER BASIS FOR A JUDICIAL DECISION WHICH
UNDERTAKES TO STATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IN TERMS OF THE
PRACTICE.  MOREOVER, IF WE REGARD THE STIPULATION AS AGREEING MERELY
THAT THE LEGAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE HAVE UNIFORMLY
BEEN SETTLED ADMINISTRATIVELY IN FAVOR OF THE CONTENTION NOW MADE BY
THE PETITIONER, IT INVOLVES CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF THE STIPULATORS, BOTH
WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGAL ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THOSE RESOLVED
BY THE PRACTICE.  WE ARE NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT, AS CONTROLLING,
STIPULATIONS AS TO QUESTIONS OF LAW.  SWIFT & CO. V. HOCKING VALLEY RY.
CO., 243 U.S. 281, 289. 

WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO SAY WHAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE HAS
ACTUALLY BEEN WE MAY, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, MAKE THE ASSUMPTION MOST
FAVORABLE TO THE TAXPAYER IN THIS CASE THAT THE PRACTICE WAS AS STATED
BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS BRIEF IN THE HUMPHREYS CASE, VIZ., THAT UNTIL
THE DECISION IN THE HESSLEIN CASE "THE BUREAU CONSISTENTLY TOOK THE
POSITION THAT THE GIFT TAX APPLIED TO A TRANSFER IN TRUST WHERE THE
GRANTOR RESERVED THE RIGHT TO MODIFY THE TRUST BUT NO RIGHT TO REVEST
TITLE IN HIMSELF." 

BUT THE RECORD HERE SHOWS THAT NO SUCH PRACTICE WAS RECOGNIZED AS
CONTROLLING IN 1935 WHEN THE PRESENT CASE FIRST RECEIVED THE ATTENTION
OF THE BUREAU.  ON FEBRUARY 21, 1935, THE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
GAVE AN OPINION REVIEWING AT LENGTH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND
THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF LAW, AND CONCLUDED ON THE REASONING AND
AUTHORITY OF THE GUGGENHEIM AND PORTER CASES THAT THE GIFT WAS NOT
COMPLETE AND TAXABLE UNTIL THE RELINQUISHMENT IN AUGUST, 1924 OF THE
POWER TO MODIFY THE TRUST BY THE SELECTION OF NEW BENEFICIARIES.  IN
APRIL, 1935, THE MATTER WAS RECONSIDERED AND A NEW OPINION WAS GIVEN
WHICH WAS FINALLY ADOPTED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WHO HAD INTERVENED
IN THE CASE.  THIS OPINION REVERSED THE EARLIER ONE ON THE AUTHORITY OF
THE GUGGENHEIM CASE.  IT WAS AT PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT IN THAT CASE
THE COURT HAD HELD THAT THE RELINQUISHMENT OF THE POWER OF REVOCATION
WAS A TAXABLE GIFT BUT IT MADE NO MENTION OF THE FACT THAT THERE,
UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS NO POWER OF MODIFICATION WHICH
SURVIVED THE RELINQUISHMENT OF THE POWER OF REVOCATION, WHICH WAS
CRUCIAL IN THE PORTER CASE.  NEITHER OPINION RESTED UPON OR MADE ANY
MENTION OF ANY PRACTICE AFFECTING CASES WHERE SUCH A POWER OF
MODIFICATION IS RESERVED.  AFTER THE DECISION IN THE HESSLEIN CASE THE
RULING OF THE BUREAU IN THIS CASE WAS AGAIN REVERSED AND NOTICE OF
DEFICIENCY SENT TO THE TAXPAYER. 

FROM THIS RECORD IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE WAS NO ESTABLISHED
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE BEFORE THE OPINION OF APRIL, 1935,  FN3  AND IF
THE PRACTICE WAS ADOPTED THEN IT WAS BECAUSE OF A MISTAKEN DEPARTMENTAL
RULING OF LAW BASED ON AN OBVIOUS MISINTERPRETATION OF THE DECISIONS IN
THE PORTER AND GUGGENHEIM CASES. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE MAY BE OF PERSUASIVE WEIGHT IN DETERMINING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE OF DOUBTFUL MEANING WHERE THE PRACTICE
DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AND IS NOT SO
INCONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS AS TO PRODUCE
INCONSISTENCY AND CONFUSION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW.  SUCH A
CHOICE, IN PRACTICE, OF ONE OF TWO POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A STATUTE
BY THOSE WHO ARE EXPERT IN THE FIELD AND SPECIALLY INFORMED AS TO
ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS AND CONVENIENCE, TENDS TO THE WISE INTERPRETATION
AND JUST ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAWS.  THIS IS THE MORE SO WHEN RELIANCE
HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE PRACTICE BY THOSE AFFECTED BY IT. 

BUT COURTS ARE NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
A STATUTE REGARDLESS OF CONSEQUENCES, EVEN WHEN DISCLOSED IN THE FORM
OF RULINGS.  SEE HELVERING V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 292 U.S. 455, 468. 
HERE THE PRACTICE HAS NOT BEEN REVEALED BY ANY PUBLISHED RULINGS OR
ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT ON WHICH TAXPAYERS COULD HAVE RELIED.  THE
TAXPAYERS IN THE PRESENT CASES ARE CONTENDING FOR DIFFERENT RULINGS. 
IN HARRIET ROSENAU, 37 B.T.A. 468(1938), AS IN THE HUMPHREYS CASE, THE
TAXPAYER CONTENDED THAT THE DATE WHEN THE POWER TO CHANGE THE
BENEFICIARY IS RENOUNCED IS CONTROLLING.  THE PETITIONER HERE, WHO
CONTENDS THAT THE DATE OF RELINQUISHMENT OF THE POWER OF REVOCATION IS
CONTROLLING, RATHER THAN THE DATE OF SURRENDER OF POWER OF
MODIFICATION, SET UP HIS TRUST AND RELINQUISHED THE POWER OF REVOCATION
BEFORE THE GIFT TAX WAS ENACTED.  THE REENACTMENT OF THE GIFT TAX
STATUTE BY THE 1932 ACT CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE A LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF
THE PRACTICE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY TREASURY REGULATION,
RULING OR DECISION, AND WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED
BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE 1932 ACT.  CF. MCCAUGHN V. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE
CO., 283 U.S. 488, 492; MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 269, 273; HELVERING V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 292 U.S.
455, 468. 

THE VERY PURPOSE SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY JUDICIAL ACCEPTANCE OF
AN ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE WOULD BE DEFEATED IF WE WERE TO REGARD THE
PRESENT PRACTICE AS CONTROLLING.  IF A PRACTICE IS TO BE ACCEPTED
BECAUSE OF THE SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS AND CONVENIENCE, SEE BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280 U.S.
327, 336, THERE IS NO SUCH REASON FOR ITS ACCEPTANCE HERE.  THE
GOVERNMENT BY TAKING NO POSITION CONFESSES THAT IT IS UNABLE TO SAY HOW
ADMINISTRATIVE NEED AND CONVENIENCE WILL BEST BE SERVED.  IF, AS WE
HAVE HELD, WE MAY REJECT AN ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE WHEN IT
CONFLICTS WITH AN EARLIER ONE AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY VALID REASONS,
SEE BURNET V. CHICAGO PORTRAIT CO., 285 U.S. 1, 16, WE SHOULD BE
EQUALLY FREE TO REJECT THE PRACTICE WHEN IT CONFLICTS WITH OUR OWN
DECISIONS.  A CHANGE OF PRACTICE TO CONFORM TO JUDICIAL DECISION, SUCH
AS HAS OCCURRED SINCE THE DECISION IN THE HESSLEIN CASE, OR TO MEET
ADMINISTRATIVE EXIGENCIES, WILL BE ACCEPTED AS CONTROLLING WHEN
CONSISTENT WITH OUR DECISIONS.  MORRISSEY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S.
344, 354.  HERE WE HAVE AN ADDED, AND WE THINK CONCLUSIVE REASON FOR
REJECTING THE EARLIER PRACTICE AND ACCEPTING THE LATER.  THE EARLIER,
BECAUSE IN SHARP CONFLICT WITH OUR OWN DECISIONS, AS WE HAVE ALREADY
INDICATED, CANNOT BE CONTINUED WITHOUT THE PERPETUATION OF
INCONSISTENCY AND CONFUSION COMPARABLE TO THAT OF WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
ASKS TO BE RELIEVED BY OUR DECISION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE GIFT TAX PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924 WERE ADDED BY
AMENDMENTS TO THE REVENUE BILL INTRODUCED ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND
THE SENATE.  CONG. REC., VOL. 65, PART 3, PP. 3118-3119; PART 4, PP.
3170, 3171; PART 8, P. 8094.  THE SPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT IN BOTH
HOUSES URGED THE ADOPTION OF THE BILL AS A "COROLLARY" OR AS
"SUPPLEMENTAL" TO THE ESTATE TAX.  CONG. REC., VOL. 65, PART 3, PP.
3119-3120, 3122; PART.  4, P. 3172; CONG. REC., VOL. 65, PART 8, PP.
8095, 8096. 

THE GIFT TAX OF 1924 WAS REPEALED WHEN CONGRESS, CONCURRENTLY WITH
THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 70,
125, 126, ESTABLISHING A CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION THAT GIFTS WITHIN TWO
YEARS OF DEATH WERE MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH AND THEREFORE
SUBJECT TO THE ESTATE TAX.  A GIFT TAX WAS REENACTED BY SEC. 501 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, SHORTLY AFTER IT WAS DECIDED IN
HEINER V. DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT OF SUCH
A PRESUMPTION VIOLATED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

IN TRUST, WITH POWER OF REVOCATION IN THE DONOR, SHOULD BE TAXED ON
RELINQUISHMENT OF THE POWER.  THIS WAS REPEALED BY SEC. 511 OF THE ACT
OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, BECAUSE BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, HAD
DECLARED THAT SUCH WAS THE LAW WITHOUT SPECIFIC LEGISLATION.  H.R. NO.
704, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS., P. 40; SEN. REP. NO. 558, 73RD CONG., 2D
SESS., P. 50. 

FN2  SEE REFERENCES TO CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, FOOTNOTE 1. 

FN3  IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED IN NOVEMBER, 1937, IN
HESSLEIN V. HOEY (NO. 556), THE GOVERNMENT ASSERTED THAT THE 300 CASES
REFERRED TO IN THE STIPULATION IN THIS CASE HAD BEEN DECIDED SO
RECENTLY THAT THE TIME FOR FILING CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS HAD NOT EXPIRED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE
..END :







RASQUIN V. HUMPHREYS, 308 U.S. 54 


NO. 37.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  - 101
F.2D 1012, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A GIFT IN TRUST RESERVING POWER IN THE DONOR TO CHANGE THE
BENEFICIARIES OTHER THAN HIMSELF IS INCOMPLETE AND NOT SUBJECT TO BE
TAXED AS A GIFT UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  SANFORD V.
COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 39, FOLLOWED.  P. 55. 

2.  ARTICLE III OF TREASURY REGULATION 79(1933 ED.), UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ABOVE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE; AND THE AMENDMENT OF THE REGULATION IN
1936 IS SO PLAINLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATUTE AS TO PRECLUDE ITS
APPLICATION RETROACTIVELY.  ID. 

RASQUIN, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. HUMPHREYS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED FROM THE COLLECTOR IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER MONEY COLLECTED AS
A GIFT TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DECISION IN THIS CASE TURNS ON THE QUESTION, DIFFERING ONLY IN FORM
FROM THAT THIS DAY DECIDED IN SANFORD V. HELVERING, ANTE, P. 39,
WHETHER, IN CASE OF AN INTER VIVOS TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN TRUST,
RESERVING TO THE DONOR POWER TO DESIGNATE NEW BENEFICIARIES OTHER THAN
HIMSELF, THE GIFT BECOMES COMPLETE AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION OF THE
TRUST AND SUBJECT TO THE GIFT TAX IMPOSED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932. 

IN DECEMBER, 1934, RESPONDENT CREATED A TRUST OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR
HIS OWN BENEFIT FOR LIFE, WITH REMAINDERS OVER TO SPECIFIED CLASSES OF
BENEFICIARIES.  BY THE TRUST INDENTURE HE RESERVED TO HIMSELF A POWER
TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST AND TO PRESCRIBE THE
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE NEW BENEFICIARIES SHOULD TAKE AN INTEREST IN
THE TRUST, BUT WITHOUT ANY POWER TO INCREASE HIS OWN BENEFICIAL
INTEREST IN THE TRUST PROPERTY. 

RESPONDENT PAID THE GIFT TAX ASSESSED AGAINST HIM WITH RESPECT TO THE
TRANSFER OF THE REMAINDER INTERESTS UPON CREATION OF THE TRUST, AND
BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER THE TAX AS
ILLEGALLY COLLECTED.  JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 101 F.2D 1012, ON THE
AUTHORITY OF HESSLEIN V. HOEY, 91 F.2D 954.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 307
U.S. 619, SO THAT THIS CASE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED WITH THE SANFORD CASE. 

THE GIFT TAX, SEC. 319 ET SEQ. OF THE 1924 ACT, SO FAR AS NOW
MATERIAL, REAPPEARED IN SEC. 501 ET SEQ. OF THE 1932 ACT, 47 STAT.
169.  OTHER PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE EARLIER ACT WERE REENACTED
WITHOUT CHANGE OF PRESENT MOMENT IN SECS. 501, 510, 801.  THE
APPLICABLE ESTATE TAX PROVISIONS ARE SEC. 302(C)(D) OF THE 1926 ACT, 44
STAT. 40, 71.  SECTION 501(C) OF THE 1932 ACT ADDED A NEW PROVISION
THAT TRANSFERS IN TRUST, WITH POWER OF REVOCATION IN THE DONOR, SHOULD
BE TAXED ON RELINQUISHMENT OF THE POWER.  THIS WAS REPEALED BY SEC. 511
OF THE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, BECAUSE BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288
U.S. 280, HAD DECLARED THAT SUCH WAS THE LAW WITHOUT SPECIFIC
LEGISLATION.  H.R. NO. 704, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS., P. 40; SEN. REP. NO.
558, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS., P. 50. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINION IN THE SANFORD CASE WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE RESERVED POWER IN THE DONOR AT THE TIME OF THE CREATION OF THE
TRUST RENDERED THE GIFT INCOMPLETE AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE GIFT TAX.  AS
POINTED OUT IN OUR OPINION IN THE SANFORD CASE THE TREASURY REGULATION
UNDER THE 1932 ACT, ART. III, REGULATION 79(1933 EDITION), IN FORCE
WHEN THE TRUST WAS CREATED, AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR MODIFICATION OF OUR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  WHATEVER VALIDITY THE AMENDED REGULATION
OF 1936 MAY HAVE IN ITS PROSPECTIVE OPERATION, WE THINK IT IS SO
PLAINLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATUTE AS TO PRECLUDE ITS APPLICATION
RETROACTIVELY SO AS TO SUBJECT TO TAX SUCH TRANSFER AS WAS MADE BY THE
CREATION OF THE TRUST IN 1934.  CF. HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO
CO., 306 U.S. 110.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :


















BOTELER V. INGELS, 308 U.S. 57 


NOS. 15 AND 16.  ARGUED OCTOBER 16, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939. 
100 F.2D 915, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 57(J) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, BARRING ALLOWANCE OF DEBTS
OWING TO FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AS PENALTIES, EXCEPT FOR
THE AMOUNT OF THE PECUNIARY LOSS SUSTAINED ETC., PROHIBITS ALLOWANCE OF
TAX PENALTIES ONLY IF INCURRED BY THE BANKRUPT PRIOR TO BANKRUPTCY.  P.
59. 

2.  PENALTIES ATTACHING UPON NONPAYMENT OF STATE AUTOMOBILE LICENSE
TAXES, WHICH TAXES AND PENALTIES ACCRUED WHILE THE BUSINESS OF A
BANKRUPT ESTATE WAS BEING OPERATED BY A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF LIQUIDATION, ARE ALLOWABLE AGAINST THE BANKRUPT ESTATE BY
VIRTUE OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, WHICH SUBJECTS TRUSTEES AND OTHER
APPOINTEES OF UNITED STATES COURTS, WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT A
BUSINESS, "TO ALL STATE AND LOCAL TAXES APPLICABLE TO SUCH BUSINESS THE
SAME AS IF SUCH BUSINESS WERE CONDUCTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR
CORPORATION.  ...  " P. 60. 

BOTELER, TRUSTEE, V. INGELS, DIRECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF CALIFORNIA,
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 617, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF TWO ORDERS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, WHICH IN EFFECT HELD A BANKRUPT ESTATE NOT LIABLE FOR
PENALTIES ACCRUING UPON NONPAYMENT OF STATE AUTOMOBILE LICENSE TAXES. 
APPEALS FROM THE ORDERS WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR BRIEFING, HEARING, AND
DECISION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; AND THE CASES ARE TREATED
SIMILARLY HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW VEHICLE LICENSE AND REGISTRATION FEES ARE DUE
THE STATE ON JANUARY FIRST OF EACH YEAR; THEY BECOME DELINQUENT WHEN A
VEHICLE IS OPERATED WITHOUT REGISTRATION AND LICENSE; IF THE FEES ARE
NOT PAID WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER DELINQUENCY A PENALTY EQUAL TO THE
FEES ACCRUES; FEES AND PENALTIES ARE PROTECTED BY STATUTORY LIEN ON THE
VEHICLE FROM THE DUE DATE.  FN1 

THE SINGLE QUESTION PRESENTED IS SUFFICIENTLY STATED BY THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI: 

"IS A BANKRUPT'S ESTATE LIABLE TO PENALTIES IMPOSED BY STATE STATUTES
FOR NON-PAYMENT OF AUTOMOBILE LICENSE FEES WHERE LICENSE FEES AND
PENALTIES CLAIMS ACCRUED DURING OPERATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF LIQUIDATION
OF THE BUSINESS OF BANKRUPT'S ESTATE BY THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY?" 

AS TRUSTEES OF A BUSINESS IN BANKRUPTCY, PETITIONER AND HIS
PREDECESSOR CONTINUOUSLY OPERATED UNREGISTERED AND UNLICENSED VEHICLES
ON CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYS, FROM JANUARY FIRST TO FEBRUARY TWENTY-SEVENTH. 
TENDER OF FEES WITHOUT ACCRUED PENALTIES WAS REJECTED BY CALIFORNIA. 
UPON PETITION OF THE TRUSTEE, THE REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY ORDERED THE
VEHICLES SOLD FREE AND CLEAR OF ANY CLAIMS OR LIENS OF THE STATE BUT
PERMITTED CALIFORNIA TO FILE CLAIMS FOR FEES, WITHOUT PENALTIES, WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS OR BE FOREVER BARRED.  THE REFEREE'S ORDER WAS CONFIRMED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH ALSO DIRECTED CALIFORNIA OFFICIALS
(RESPONDENTS HERE) TO ISSUE LICENSES TO THE TRUSTEE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS REVERSED, ORDERING ALTERNATIVELY THAT ACCRUED FEES AND
PENALTIES BE PAID, OR THAT THE VEHICLES BE DISPOSED OF SUBJECT TO THE
LIEN OF THE STATE FOR THE UNPAID TAXES AND PENALTIES.  FN2  COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT,  FN3  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE TRUSTEE INSISTS THAT THE STATE IS BARRED FROM COLLECTING THE
PENALTIES BECAUSE OF SUBDIVISION 57(J) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT  FN4
WHICH PROVIDES: 

"DEBTS OWING TO THE UNITED STATES, A STATE, A COUNTY, A DISTRICT, OR
A MUNICIPALITY AS A PENALTY OR FORFEITURE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED, EXCEPT
FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE PECUNIARY LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE ACT, TRANSACTION,
OR PROCEEDING OUT OF WHICH THE PENALTY OR FORFEITURE AROSE, WITH
REASONABLE AND ACTUAL COSTS OCCASIONED THEREBY AND SUCH INTEREST AS MAY
HAVE ACCRUED THEREON ACCORDING TO LAW." 

RECOGNIZING THAT 57(J) PROHIBITS ALLOWANCE OF TAX PENALTIES ACCRUING
PRIOR TO BANKRUPTCY,  FN5 THE STATE NEVERTHELESS INSISTS THAT THIS
SUBDIVISION DOES NOT EXEMPT THE TRUSTEE FROM STATE LAWS APPLICABLE TO
THE BUSINESS HE OPERATES AFTER BANKRUPTCY.  CALIFORNIA CONSIDERS THE
TRUSTEE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES OF ITS LICENSE AND
REGISTRATION LAWS UNDER AN ACT OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 18, 1934, 48 STAT.
993, READING IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 

"ANY RECEIVER, LIQUIDATOR, REFEREE, TRUSTEE, OR OTHER OFFICERS OR
AGENTS APPOINTED BY ANY UNITED STATES COURT WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY SAID
COURT TO CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS, OR WHO DOES CONDUCT ANY BUSINESS, SHALL,
FROM AND AFTER JUNE 18, 1934, BE SUBJECT TO ALL STATE AND LOCAL TAXES
APPLICABLE TO SUCH BUSINESS THE SAME AS IF SUCH BUSINESS WERE CONDUCTED
BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION; ...  " 

FIRST.  SUBDIVISION 57(J) PROHIBITS ALLOWANCE OF A TAX PENALTY
AGAINST THE BANKRUPT ESTATE ONLY IF INCURRED BY THE BANKRUPT BEFORE
BANKRUPTCY BY REASON OF HIS OWN DELINQUENCY.  AFTER BANKRUPTCY, IT DOES
NOT PURPORT TO EXEMPT THE TRUSTEE FROM THE OPERATION OF STATE LAWS, OR
TO RELIEVE THE ESTATE FROM LIABILITY FOR THE TRUSTEE'S DELINQUENCIES. 
FN6  FOR 57(J) IS A SUBDIVISION OF SEC. 57 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
GOVERNING "PROOF AND ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS."  AND 57(A) MAKES CLEAR THAT
SEC. 57 AS A WHOLE RELATES ONLY TO CLAIMS "JUSTLY OWING FROM THE
BANKRUPT TO THE CREDITOR."  THE FEES AND PENALTIES IN ISSUE WERE
INCURRED BY THE TRUSTEE IN OPERATING THE BANKRUPT BUSINESS, AND THUS
WERE NOT OWED BY THE BANKRUPT TO THE STATE AS A "CREDITOR."  THEREFORE,
REGARDLESS OF OTHER RIGHTS THE STATE MIGHT HAVE, IT COULD NOT FILE
PROOF OF CLAIM FOR THESE FEES AND PENALTIES AS A CREDITOR UNDER SEC.
57.  AND NEITHER THE TAX LIABILITY NOR THE PENALTIES INCURRED BY THE
TRUSTEE AFTER BANKRUPTCY ARE GOVERNED BY THIS SECTION OR ITS
SUBDIVISIONS.  WE MUST LOOK ELSEWHERE THAN TO 57(J) TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY HELD THAT CALIFORNIA MAY ENFORCE ITS
STATUTORY PENALTIES AGAINST THIS ESTATE. 

SECOND.  THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934 DECLARES THAT A TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY CONDUCTING A BUSINESS, AS THIS TRUSTEE WAS, "SHALL  ...  BE
SUBJECT TO ALL STATE AND LOCAL TAXES APPLICABLE TO SUCH BUSINESS THE
SAME AS IF SUCH BUSINESS WERE CONDUCTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR
CORPORATION.    ..."  AS ORIGINALLY OFFERED, THIS ACT APPLIED ONLY TO
RECEIVERS.  FN7  REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WITHOUT AMENDMENT,  FN8  THE BILL WAS AMENDED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR TO
APPLY NOT ONLY TO RECEIVERS BUT TO A "LIQUIDATOR, REFEREE, TRUSTEE OR
OTHER OFFICER OR AGENT."  FN9 

WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER, WITHOUT LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE 1934
ACT, THE FACT THAT A LOCAL BUSINESS IN BANKRUPTCY IS OPERATED BY A
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE MAKES THE BUSINESS IMMUNE FROM STATE LAWS AND VALID
MEASURES FOR THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  CLEARLY, MEANS OF PERMITTING SUCH
IMMUNITY FROM LOCAL LAWS WILL NOT BE READ INTO THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  AT
ANY RATE, CONGRESS HAS HERE WITH VIGOR AND CLARITY DECLARED THAT A
TRUSTEE AND OTHER COURT APPOINTEES WHO OPERATE BUSINESSES MUST DO SO
SUBJECT TO STATE TAXES "THE SAME AS IF SUCH BUSINESS (ES) WERE
CONDUCTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION."  IF BUSINESSES IN
CALIFORNIA NOT CONDUCTED BY A BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE ARE DELINQUENT IN THE
FEES, THEY MUST PAY THE PENALTY.  HOWEVER, PETITIONER'S CONTENTION
WOULD EXEMPT A TRUSTEE OPERATING A BUSINESS IN BANKRUPTCY FROM THIS
DOUBLE TAX LIABILITY WHICH OTHER DELINQUENTS MUST BEAR.  A STATE WOULD
THUS BE ACCORDED THE THEORETICAL PRIVILEGE OF TAXING BUSINESSES
OPERATED BY TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH ALL OTHER
BUSINESSES, BUT WOULD BE DENIED THE TRADITIONAL AND ALMOST UNIVERSAL
METHOD OF ENFORCING PROMPT PAYMENT. 

TAXATION ON AND REGULATION OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ARE MATTERS OF
CONSTANTLY INCREASING IMPORTANCE AND CONCERN TO THE STATES.  THE ACT OF
1934 INDICATES A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO FACILITATE - NOT TO OBSTRUCT
ENFORCEMENT OF STATE LAWS; THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY RECOGNIZED AND
APPLIED THIS CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE AND ITS JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 362, CALIF. STAT. OF 1935, P. 1313, AS AMENDED.  C. 27,
CALIF. STAT. OF 1935, CALIF. VEHICLE CODE, PP. 147, 150, 151. 

FN2  100 F.2D 915.  THE COURT BELOW STATED THAT THE TWO CASES HERE
REVIEWED (NOS. 15, 16) "INVOLVED THE IDENTICAL FACTS, WERE CONSOLIDATED
FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING AND ARE DISPOSED OF IN THIS OPINION."  WE HAVE
FOLLOWED THE SAME COURSE. 

FN3  IN RE MESSENGER'S MERCHANTS LUNCH ROOM, 85 F.2D 1002. 

FN4  C. 6, 11 U.S.C., SEC. 93(J). 

FN5  CF. NEW YORK V. JERSAWIT, 263 U.S. 493, 496. 

FN6  WHETHER THE TRUSTEE MIGHT BE PERSONALLY SURCHARGED BECAUSE HIS
REFUSAL TO PAY THE FEES SUBJECTED THE ESTATE TO THE INCREASED LIABILITY
OF THE PENALTIES, IS NOT PRESENTED. 

FN7  CONG. RECORD, 73RD CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 4037. 

FN8  ID., P. 6067. 

FN9  ID., P. 6656. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













U.S. V. GLENN L. MARTIN CO., 308 U.S. 62 


NO. 30.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 20, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  -
100 F.2D 793, REVERSED. 


1.  A CONTRACT FOR SALE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AIRCRAFT AND AIRCRAFT
MATERIAL, CONTAINED A PROVISION THAT THE STIPULATED PRICES INCLUDED
"ANY FEDERAL TAX HERETOFORE IMPOSED BY THE CONGRESS WHICH IS APPLICABLE
TO THE MATERIAL CALLED FOR" BY THE CONTRACT, AND A PROVISION REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO THE SELLER IN THE EVENT OF IMPOSITION BY
CONGRESS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT OF ANY TAXES WHICH
SHOULD BE "MADE APPLICABLE DIRECTLY UPON PRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, OR
SALE OF THE SUPPLIES CALLED FOR HEREIN AND ARE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR
ON THE ARTICLES OR SUPPLIES HEREIN CONTRACTED FOR  ..."  HELD, THAT
FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES (SUBSEQUENTLY IMPOSED BY CONGRESS) WERE
NOT TAXES OF SUCH CHARACTER AS REQUIRED ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO THE
SELLER UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.  P. 64. 

2.  IT IS UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO CONSIDER WHETHER A TAX PAID
UNDER A STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION STATUTE IS A TAX "IMPOSED BY
CONGRESS."  P. 66. 

UNITED STATES V. GLENN L. MARTIN CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES IN AN ACTION AGAINST IT ON A CONTRACT, 23
F.SUPP.  262. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE CERTAIN AIRCRAFT AND
AIRCRAFT MATERIAL FROM RESPONDENT REQUIRED THE UNITED STATES TO
INCREASE THE STIPULATED PRICE BY THE AMOUNT OF SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES
PAID BY RESPONDENT. 

JUNE 28, 1934, THE WAR DEPARTMENT AND RESPONDENT, A MARYLAND
MANUFACTURER, MADE THE CONTRACT, PROVIDING - 

"IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED TO BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES
HERETO THAT THE PRICES HEREIN STIPULATED INCLUDE ANY FEDERAL TAX
HERETOFORE IMPOSED BY THE CONGRESS WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL
CALLED FOR UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT.  IF ANY SALES TAX,
PROCESSING TAX, ADJUSTMENT CHARGE, OR OTHER TAXES OR CHARGES ARE
IMPOSED OR CHANGED BY THE CONGRESS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS
CONTRACT AND MADE APPLICABLE DIRECTLY UPON PRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, OR
SALE OF THE SUPPLIES CALLED FOR HEREIN AND ARE PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR
ON THE ARTICLES OR SUPPLIES HEREIN CONTRACTED FOR THEN THE PRICE HEREIN
STIPULATED WILL BE INCREASED OR DECREASED ACCORDINGLY AND ANY AMOUNT
DUE THE CONTRACTOR AS RESULT OF SUCH CHANGE WILL BE CHARGED TO THE
GOVERNMENT AND ENTERED ON VOUCHERS AS SEPARATE ITEMS." 

WITH RESPECT TO PAYROLLS OF EMPLOYEES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN
FULFILLING THIS CONTRACT DURING 1936 AND 1937, RESPONDENT PAID $794.03
IN FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES AND $6,943.29 UNDER THE STATE OF
MARYLAND'S UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW.  BOTH THE FEDERAL TAX AND
MARYLAND'S TAX WERE LEVIED "SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS CONTRACT." 
RESPONDENT CLAIMS THAT BOTH THE MARYLAND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
TAXES FN1  AND THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES  FN2  WERE "IMPOSED
...  BY  ...  CONGRESS" AND WERE OF THE TYPE FOR WHICH THE CONTRACT
PROVIDED EXTRA COMPENSATION. 

REJECTING RESPONDENT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT, THE DISTRICT
COURT HELD THAT NO PART OF THE TAXES PAID BY RESPONDENT SERVED TO
INCREASE THE LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT ON ITS CONTRACT.  FN3 THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED  FN4  AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
FN5 

OBVIOUSLY, THE SELLER FIXED ITS STIPULATED PRICES SO AS TO PROVIDE A
MARGIN OF PROFIT OVER FEDERAL TAXES FOR WHICH IT MIGHT AT THE TIME OF
THE CONTRACT BE RESPONSIBLE ON THE PARTICULAR "MATERIAL" SOLD.  THIS
CLEARLY APPEARS FROM THE GOVERNING PROVISIONS'S OPENING DECLARATION
THAT "THE PRICES HEREIN STIPULATED INCLUDE ANY FEDERAL TAX HERETOFORE
IMPOSED BY CONGRESS WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL CALLED FOR
UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT."  BUT, WITHOUT MORE, FUTURE INCREASES
IN FEDERAL TAXES "APPLICABLE TO THE MATERIAL" MIGHT HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY
AFFECTED THE MARGIN OF PROFIT WHICH THE CONTRACT WAS CALCULATED TO
INSURE.  AGAINST THE CONTINGENCY OF INCREASE IN FEDERAL TAXES
APPLICABLE TO THE "MATERIAL" PURCHASED, THE GOVERNMENT UNDERTOOK TO
COMPENSATE THE SELLER FOR PAYMENT OF FUTURE FEDERAL TAXES "ON THE
ARTICLES OR SUPPLIES CONTRACTED FOR" SHOULD CONGRESS LEVY ANY SALES
TAX, PROCESSING TAX OR OTHER TAX "APPLICABLE DIRECTLY UPON PRODUCTION,
MANUFACTURE OR SALE OF THE ARTICLES  ...  CONTRACTED FOR  ..." 

BUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT  FN6  IMPOSES UPON EVERY EMPLOYER "AN
EXCISE TAX WITH RESPECT TO HAVING INDIVIDUALS IN HIS EMPLOY."  AND
EMPLOYMENT IN THAT ACT "MEANS ANY SERVICE, OF WHATEVER NATURE,
PERFORMED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES BY AN EMPLOYEE FOR AN EMPLOYER
..."  WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE.  THIS EXCISE HAS BEEN
REPRESENTED AS ONE LEVIED "UPON THE RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT"  FN7  AND
UPON "THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY"  FN8  AND AS A PAYROLL TAX.  FN9  IT IS NOT
AS TAXES UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF SELLING, MANUFACTURING OR PROCESSING
CHARACTERISTICALLY ARE - MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE TAXED,
OR BY EITHER QUANTITY OR PRICE OF WHAT IS MANUFACTURED, PROCESSED OR
SOLD.  A TAX ON THE PROCESSING OR SALE OF AN ARTICLE, WHILE AN EXCISE,
COMMONLY WOULD BE DENOTED A TAX "ON" THE ARTICLE PROCESSED OR SOLD. 
THE CONTRACT ITSELF SPEAKS OF SUCH TAXES WHICH MAY, IN THE FUTURE, BE
"PAID BY THE CONTRACTOR ON THE ARTICLES OR SUPPLIES CONTRACTED FOR." 
THUS, THIS CONTRACT WAS CONCERNED WITH FEDERAL TAXES "ON" THE GOODS TO
BE PROVIDED UNDER IT, WHATEVER THE OCCASION FOR THE TAXES.  AND A TAX
"ON" THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE - CHARACTERIZED AS A TAX ON
PAYROLLS - IS NOT OF THE TYPE TREATED BY THE CONTRACT AS A TAX "ON" THE
GOODS OR ARTICLES SOLD. 

THE CONTRACT REFERS ONLY TO FEDERAL TAXES, EXISTING OR FUTURE, ON
"MATERIAL," "ARTICLES" OR "SUPPLIES."  AND ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IS
PROVIDED TO OFFSET ONLY FEDERAL TAXES OF THE TYPE OF SALES TAXES AND
PROCESSING TAXES, "APPLICABLE DIRECTLY UPON PRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, OR
SALE" AND ACTUALLY PAID ON SUPPLIES DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNMENT.  SINCE
A TAX ON PAYROLLS, OR ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYMENT, IS NOT - BUT
IN FACT IS DISTINCT FROM - THE TYPE OF TAX "ON" ARTICLES REPRESENTED BY
SALES TAXES AND PROCESSING TAXES, RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WHICH IT SEEKS. 

IN VIEW OF OUR DETERMINATION THAT THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY TAX WAS
NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONTRACT, WE NEED NOT DISCUSS RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION THAT THE TAX PAID UNDER THE MARYLAND UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT WAS A TAX "IMPOSED  ...  BY  ...  CONGRESS." 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  LAWS OF MARYLAND, EXTRAORDINARY SESSION, DEC. 1936, C. 1. 

FN2  49 STAT. 620, 637. 

FN3  23 F.SUPP.  262. 

FN4  100 F.2D 793. 

FN5  307 U.S. 618.  THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI SET OUT
THAT "ALMOST ALL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS SINCE 1933 HAVE CONTAINED
PROVISIONS EITHER IDENTICAL WITH THAT HERE INVOLVED, OR SO SIMILAR AS
TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME QUESTION.  ...  THE WAR DEPARTMENT
ALONE  ...  STATES THAT APPROXIMATELY 4,000 POTENTIAL CLAIMS MAY ARISE
UNDER CONTRACTS WITH LANGUAGE IDENTICAL WITH THAT IN  ...  THE CONTRACT
IN THIS CASE."  THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HAS
INTERPRETED A CONTRACT SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE ONE UNDER
CONSIDERATION AS DENYING REIMBURSEMENT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.  16
COMP. GEN. 790(1937).  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A
FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION. 

FN6  SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, C. 531, 49 STAT. 620, SECS. 804, 210(B). 

FN7  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 578. 

FN8  SEE, CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495, 508. 

FN9  ID., 506, 511. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :








TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MIN. CO., 308 U.S. 66 


NO. 4.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  - 99 F.2D
651, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THIS COURT INQUIRES SUA SPONTE INTO THE QUESTION OF THE FEDERAL
COURT'S JURISDICTION OF THIS CASE UNDER THE INTERPLEADER ACT OF JANUARY
20, 1936, SINCE ITS OWN JURISDICTION IS AFFECTED THEREBY.  P. 70. 

2.  A BILL INTERPLEADING ONE GROUP OF CLAIMANTS, ALL OF WHOM ARE
CITIZENS OF THE SAME STATE, AND ANOTHER GROUP CLAIMING ADVERSELY, ALL
OF WHOM ARE CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE, OF WHICH LATTER STATE THE
COMPLAINANT HIMSELF IS A CITIZEN, SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
INTERPLEADER ACT AS TO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, SINCE THE ACT REQUIRES
DIVERSITY ONLY AS BETWEEN THE CLAIMANTS.  P. 70. 

3.  ART. III, SEC. 2 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, EXTENDING THE
JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONTROVERSIES "BETWEEN CITIZENS
OF DIFFERENT STATES," IS BROAD ENOUGH TO AUTHORIZE THE GRANTING OF
JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL COURT IN SUCH A CASE OF INTERPLEADER.  P.
71. 

4.  THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IS NOT INFRINGED BY JOINDER OF A STATE
COURT JUDGE AND A STATE COURT RECEIVER AS DEFENDANTS IN AN INTERPLEADER
PROCEEDING IN THE FEDERAL COURT, IN WHICH PROCEEDING THE STATE HAS NO
INTEREST AND NEITHER THE JUDGE NOR THE RECEIVER IS ENJOINED BY THE
FINAL DECREE.  P. 74. 

5.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL COURT UNDER THE INTERPLEADER ACT TO
ENJOIN PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING ANY SUIT IN
ANY STATE OR FEDERAL COURT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED, IS
ESSENTIAL TO THE INTERPLEADER JURISDICTION AND IS A VALID EXERCISE OF
THE JUDICIAL POWER.  SECTION 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE - AN EARLIER
STATUTE - FORBIDDING THE FEDERAL COURTS FROM STAYING PROCEEDINGS IN ANY
STATE COURT, IS INAPPLICABLE.  P. 74. 

6.  A FINAL DECREE OF AN IDAHO STATE COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION IN
A SUIT TO DETERMINE THE OWNERSHIP OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, AWARDING THE
PROPERTY TO THE PLAINTIFF AND HOLDING THAT A PROBATE COURT OF
WASHINGTON WHICH HAD AWARDED THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER, UNDER WHOM THE
DEFENDANT CLAIMED, WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER,
HELD, AS TO THE ISSUE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURTS, RES
JUDICATA IN A PROCEEDING IN THE FEDERAL COURT INTERPLEADING THE SAME
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROPERTY.  PP. 75, 78. 

TREINIES V. SUNSHINE MINING CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 624, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE, 19
F.SUPP.  587, ADVERSE TO THE PETITIONER HERE, IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THE
INTERPLEADER ACT.  IN AN EARLIER PHASE OF THE CONTROVERSY, CERTIORARI
TO REVIEW A DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, 57 IDAHO 10; 59 P.2D
1087, WAS DENIED BY THIS COURT, 299 U.S. 615. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT OF CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN AFFIRMING  FN1  A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT OF IDAHO  FN2  UPON A BILL OF INTERPLEADER FILED BY THE
SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, AGAINST EVELYN H.
TREINIES AND OTHER CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, CLAIMANTS TO
CERTAIN STOCK OF THE SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY AND THE DIVIDENDS
THEREFROM, AND KATHERINE MASON AND T. R. MASON, HER HUSBAND, AND OTHER
CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, ADVERSE CLAIMANTS TO THE SAME STOCK AND
DIVIDENDS. 

THE OCCASION FOR THE INTERPLEADER WAS THE EXISTENCE OF INCONSISTENT
JUDGMENTS AS TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SUNSHINE STOCK.  THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, IN ADMINISTERING THE ESTATE OF
AMELIA PELKES, ADJUDGED THAT IT WAS THE PROPERTY OF JOHN PELKES,
ASSIGNOR OF PETITIONER, EVELYN H. TREINIES; AND THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SHOSHONE COUNTY, IDAHO, ADJUDGED THAT THE SAME PROPERTY BELONGED TO
RESPONDENT, KATHERINE MASON.  THEY ARE THE SOLE DISPUTANTS.  OTHER
PARTIES MAY BE DISREGARDED.  ON ACCOUNT OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
JUDGMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE COURTS OF SISTER STATES AND THE ASSERTION
OF THE FAILURE TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO BOTH IN THE
INTERPLEADER ACTION, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE ALLEGED RIGHTS OF THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMANTS AROSE AS FOLLOWS:
AMELIA PELKES, THE WIFE OF JOHN PELKES, DIED TESTATE IN SPOKANE,
WASHINGTON, IN 1922, LEAVING HER HUSBAND AND ONE CHILD, KATHERINE
MASON, THE OFFSPRING OF A FORMER MARRIAGE, AS THE BENEFICIARIES OF HER
WILL.  AS A PART OF HER COMMUNITY ESTATE, THERE WERE 30,598 SHARES OF
SUNSHINE MINING STOCK.  IT WAS CONSIDERED VALUELESS AND WAS NOT
INVENTORIED OR APPRAISED.  THE ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION ASSIGNED A THREE
FOURTHS UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THESE SHARES TO PELKES AND A ONE-FOURTH
TO MRS. MASON, AN OMNIBUS CLAUSE COVERING UNKNOWN PROPERTY.  THE ESTATE
OF MRS. PELKES WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF
DISTRIBUTION.  INSTEAD PELKES AND HIS STEPDAUGHTER, MRS. MASON, DIVIDED
THE INVENTORIED PROPERTY BETWEEN THEMSELVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
WISHES. 

IT IS THE CONTENTION OF PELKES AND HIS ASSIGNEE THAT THIS PARTITION
OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEASE BY MRS. MASON TO
PELKES OF ALL OF HER INTEREST IN THE SHARES OF THE STOCK OF THE
SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, MRS. MASON ASSERTS THAT
PELKES WAS TO HOLD ONE-HALF OF THE AMOUNT OWNED, 15,299 SHARES, IN
TRUST FOR HER. 

IN AUGUST, 1934, MRS. MASON INSTITUTED A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
OF IDAHO FOR SHOSHONE COUNTY AGAINST PELKES, EVELYN H. TREINIES, THE
SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY, AND OTHERS NOT IMPORTANT HERE, ALLEGING THAT
SHE WAS THE OWNER OF 15,299 SHARES OF THE STOCK, THAT THESE HAD BEEN
ACQUIRED BY MISS TREINIES FROM PELKES WITH KNOWLEDGE OF MRS. MASON'S
RIGHTS, AND PRAYING THAT THE TRUST BE ESTABLISHED AND THE STOCK AND
DIVIDENDS BE AWARDED TO HER, MRS. MASON.  IT WAS FINALLY DECREED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT ON AUGUST 18, 1936, AFTER AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF IDAHO,  FN3  THAT THE STOCK AND DIVIDENDS BELONGED TO MRS. MASON. 
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO WAS REFUSED BY THIS COURT. 
FN4 

BEFORE THE ENTRY OF THE FIRST DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF IDAHO,
KATHERINE MASON FILED A PETITION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SPOKANCE
COUNTY, WASHINGTON, IN THE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING AMELIA PELKES'
WILL, TO REMOVE THE EXECUTOR, JOHN PELKES, FOR FAILURE TO FILE HIS
REPORT OF DISTRIBUTION AND FOR DISSIPATION OF THE SUNSHINE STOCK. 
PELKES BY CROSS-PETITION AND PETITION CLAIMED THE STOCK.  THEREUPON
MRS. MASON APPLIED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION AGAINST FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT ON THE
GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION IN THAT COURT TO DETERMINE THE
CONTROVERSY OVER THE STOCK.  THE WRIT WAS REFUSED.  ON MAY 31, 1935, A
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT UPHOLDING IN FULL THE
OWNERSHIP OF PELKES. 

AFTER THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO HAD DECIDED THE IDAHO SUIT AGAINST
PELKES AND MISS TREINIES, THEY FILED IN AUGUST, 1936, A SUIT IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON AGAINST KATHERINE MASON AND OTHERS
ALLEGING THAT THEY WERE THE OWNERS OF THE STOCK, FURTHER ALLEGING THAT
THE IDAHO DECREE WAS INVALID FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, AND ASKING THAT
THEIR TITLE TO THE STOCK BE QUIETED AND THE SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY, A
PARTY TO THIS AND THE IDAHO SUIT, BE COMPELLED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR
OWNERSHIP.  IT WAS AT THIS POINT IN THE LITIGATION THAT THE SUNSHINE
COMPANY FILED THE BILL OF INTERPLEADER NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION. 
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT TO QUIET TITLE WERE ENJOINED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THIS ACTION. 

JURISDICTION. - BEFORE CONSIDERING THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT UNDER
THE ACT OF JANUARY 20, 1936,  FN5  MUST BE DETERMINED.  AS THIS ISSUE
AFFECTS THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, IT IS RAISED ON ITS OWN
MOTION.  FN6  BY THE ACT OF JANUARY 20, 1936, THE DISTRICT COURTS HAVE
JURISDICTION OF SUITS IN EQUITY, INTERPLEADING TWO OR MORE ADVERSE
CLAIMANTS, INSTITUTED BY COMPLAINANTS WHO HAVE PROPERTY OF THE
REQUISITE VALUE CLAIMED BY CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES.  THE SUIT MAY
BE MAINTAINED "ALTHOUGH THE TITLES OR CLAIMS OF THE CONFLICTING
CLAIMANTS DO NOT HAVE A COMMON ORIGIN, OR ARE NOT IDENTICAL, BUT ARE
ADVERSE TO AND INDEPENDENT OF ONE ANOTHER."  PROCESS MAY RUN AT LEAST
THROUGHOUT ALL THE STATES. 

AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT THIS CASE WAS BEGUN BY THE COMPLAINANT, A
CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, IMPLEADING ONE GROUP OF
CLAIMANTS WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THAT SAME STATE AND ANOTHER, THE ADVERSE
GROUP, WHO ARE CITIZENS OF IDAHO.  UNDER THE INTERPLEADER ACT, THIS
IDENTITY OF CITIZENSHIP IS PERMISSIBLE SINCE DIVERSITY ONLY BETWEEN
CLAIMANTS IS REQUIRED.  THE INTERPLEADER ACT IS BASED UPON THE CLAUSE
OF SEC. 2, ARTICLE III, OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EXTENDS THE JUDICAL
POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONTROVERSIES "BETWEEN CITIZENS OF
DIFFERENT STATES."  IS THIS GRANT OF JURISDICTION BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER
THE PRESENT SITUATION? 

THE JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 24, PROVIDES FOR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF
SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES IN
PRECISELY THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE PRESENT WORDING IS
PRACTICALLY THE SAME AS THAT OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875,  FN7  "THE
CIRCUIT COURTS ...  SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL COGNIZANCE  ...  OF ALL SUITS
...  IN WHICH THERE SHALL BE A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF
DIFFERENT STATES," AND THAT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDICIARY ACT OF SEPTEMBER
24, 1789,  FN8  "THE SUIT IS BETWEEN A CITIZEN OF THE STATE WHERE THE
SUIT IS BROUGHT AND A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE."  WITHOUT RULING AS TO
POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT, IT IS HELD BY THIS
COURT THAT THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF THE RESPECTIVE JUDICIARY ACTS
FORBIDS SUITS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS UNLESS ALL THE PARTIES ON ONE SIDE
ARE OF CITIZENSHIP DIVERSE TO THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE.  FN9  FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE INTERPLEADER ACT WE NEED NOT
DECIDE WHETHER THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION, "CONTROVERSIES  ...
BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES," HAVE A DIFFERENT MEANING FROM
THAT GIVEN BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION TO SIMILAR WORDS IN THE JUDICIARY
ACT.  EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE LIMITS THE JUDICIAL POWER
TO CONTROVERSIES WHOLLY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, THAT
REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED HERE.  FN10 

THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS A REAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE
ADVERSE CLAIMANTS.  THEY ARE BROUGHT INTO THE COURT BY THE COMPLAINANT
STAKEHOLDER WHO SIMULTANEOUSLY DEPOSITS THE MONEY OR PROPERTY, DUE AND
INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE, INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT.  THIS WAS DONE
IN THIS CASE.  THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE "COURT SHALL HEAR AND
DETERMINE THE CAUSE AND SHALL DISCHARGE THE COMPLAINANT FROM FURTHER
LIABILITY."  SUCH DEPOSIT AND DISCHARGE EFFECTUALLY DEMONSTRATES THE
APPLICANT'S DISINTERESTEDNESS AS BETWEEN THE CLAIMANTS AND AS TO THE
PROPERTY IN DISPUTE,  FN11 AN ESSENTIAL IN INTERPLEADERS.  FN12  THE
COMPLAINANT IS A PROPER PARTY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN THE ADVERSE CLAIMANTS, CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES.  THEIR
CONTROVERSY COULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY LITIGATION BETWEEN THEM IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO PARTIES, THIS COURT
RULED THAT A REMOVAL OF SEPARABLE CONTROVERSIES TO THE FEDERAL COURT
WAS PERMISSIBLE EVEN THOUGH A PROPER DEFENDANT WAS A CITIZEN OF THE
SAME STATE AS THE PLAINTIFF.  FN13  WE SO HELD AS TO A STAKEHOLDER IN
SALEM CO. V. MANUFACTURERS' CO. FN14 THERE A SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN A
STATE COURT AGAINST THE MANUFACTURERS' COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
AND AGAINST A CO-CITIZEN OF PLAINTIFF, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, THE
INTERNATIONAL TRUST COMPANY.  THE MANUFACTURERS' COMPANY REMOVED AND
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT A REMAND ALLEGING ITS CO-CITIZEN WAS A NECESSARY
PARTY.  THE SUIT WAS TO DETERMINE RIGHTS TO A FUND IN THE CO-CITIZEN'S
HANDS "AND TO HAVE THE SAME PAID TO" THE PLAINTIFF.  THE RIGHT OF
REMOVAL WAS UPHELD ON THE GROUND THAT THE ONLY OBLIGATION OF THE
STAKEHOLDER WAS TO PAY OVER THE MONEY DEPOSITED WITH IT.  IN CRAMER V.
PHOENIX MUT. LIFE INS. CO. FN15  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT, CONSIDERING THAT THE CLAIMANTS WERE THE REAL
CONTESTANTS, CONSTRUED THE INTERPLEADER ACT OF MAY 8TH, 1926,  FN16  TO
GIVE JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL COURT ALTHOUGH THE INTERPLEADER AND
CERTAIN CLAIMANTS WERE CITIZENS OF THE SAME STATE.  THE LANGUAGE AS TO
CITIZENSHIP IS THE SAME AS THAT OF THE ACT HERE INVOLVED.  FN17 

APPLICATION OF INTERPLEADER ACT.  - THE INCLUSION AS DEFENDANTS OF
THE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF
JOHN PELKES, AND A COURT RECEIVER OF THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE IS SAID TO
VIOLATE THE RULE AGAINST A CITIZEN SUING A STATE EMBODIED IN THE
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.  FN18 

WITHOUT ANALYZING ALL THE PLEADINGS, A SHORT ANSWER AGAINST THE
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IS THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE RECEIVER NOR THE
JUDGE IS ENJOINED BY THE FINAL DECREE.  PELKES' ADMINISTRATOR AND MISS
TREINIES ARE ENJOINED FROM FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE WASHINGTON ACTION
TO QUIET TITLE.  THEY ARE THE PARTIES WHOSE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO THE
STOCK ARE SETTLED IN THIS ACTION.  THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAS NO
INTEREST AND NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT OCCURS. 

NEITHER ARE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
APPLICABLE.  THAT SECTION FORBIDS A UNITED STATES COURT FROM STAYING
PROCEEDINGS IN ANY STATE COURT.  THE INTERPLEADER ACT, PASSED
SUBSEQUENTLY, HOWEVER, AUTHORIZES THE ENJOINING OF PARTIES TO THE
INTERPLEADER FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING ANY SUIT IN ANY STATE OR UNITED
STATES COURT ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED.  SUCH AUTHORITY IS
ESSENTIAL TO THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERPLEADER JURISDICTION AND IS A
VALID EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER.  SECTION 265 IS A MERE LIMITATION
UPON THE GENERAL EQUITY POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS AND MAY BE
VARIED BY CONGRESS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL LITIGATION. 
FN19 

RES JUDICATA OF THE IDAHO DECREE.  - ON THE MERITS, PETITIONER'S
OBJECTION TO THE DECREE BELOW IS THAT IT FAILS TO CONSIDER AND GIVE
EFFECT TO THE WASHINGTON JUDGMENT OF MAY 31, 1935, AWARDING THE
PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO PELKES, PETITIONER'S ASSIGNOR.  IT IS
PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THE WASHINGTON JUDGMENT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS
EFFECTIVE IN THIS LITIGATION BECAUSE THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION
OF THE WASHINGTON COURT WAS ACTUALLY LITIGATED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
OF WASHINGTON AND DETERMINED FAVORABLY TO PETITIONER BY THE REFUSAL TO
GRANT A WRIT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE
WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURT IN PROBATE.  THIS FAILURE TO GIVE EFFECT TO
THE JUDGMENT IS SAID TO INFRINGE THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS BASED UPON THE
DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.  THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT DOCTRINE ARISES
FROM A DETERMINATION OF PERTINENT MATTERS BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
IDAHO.  ACCORDINGLY WE TURN TO A DISCUSSION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
ISSUES TENDERED BELOW BY PETITIONER WERE FORECLOSED BY THE DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO OF JULY 23, 1936. 

THE ISSUES TENDERED BY PETITIONER IN THE TRIAL COURT IN THIS
INTERPLEADER PROCEEDING WERE (1) THE INVALIDITY OF THE IDAHO DECREE,
AND (2) THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE WASHINGTON DECREE OF MAY 31, 1935,
AWARDING THE PROPERTY TO PELKES.  BOTH OF THESE ISSUES REST ON
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT COMPLETE JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATE OF
MRS. PELKES' ESTATE WAS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, THAT THE
STOCK WAS AT ALL TIMES A PART OF THAT ESTATE, AND THAT THEREFORE THAT
COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPOSITION OF THE STOCK WAS EXCLUSIVE OF
ALL OTHER COURTS.    THE IDAHO DECREE WAS PLEADED IN THIS PROCEEDING AS
RES JUDICATA OF THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.  THE
PROCEEDINGS IN IDAHO SHOWED A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON AN ALLEGED ORAL
AGREEMENT OF PELKES, MADE IN IDAHO AT THE TIME OF DISTRIBUTION OF MRS.
PELKES' ESTATE, TO HOLD THE SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY STOCK IN TRUST FOR
THE JOINT BENEFIT OF HIMSELF AND MRS. MASON.  ALL PARTIES, INCLUDING
THIS PETITIONER, WERE BEFORE THE COURT AND A DECREE WAS ENTERED
SUSTAINING THE TRUST AND AWARDING THE STOCK AND DIVIDENDS, AS CLAIMED,
TO RESPONDENT, MRS. MASON, WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE MINING COMPANY TO
RECOGNIZE THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE CERTIFICATES AND ADJUDGING A RECOVERY
FOR PRIOR DIVIDENDS AGAINST PELKES AND PETITIONER.  THE IDAHO COURT WAS
A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION.  FN20 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE IDAHO SUIT SETTLED THAT THE STOCK
WAS DISTRIBUTED IN 1923 AND THAT THEREFORE THE IDAHO COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE RIGHTS UNDER THE ALLEGED ORAL TRUST.  IT WAS
FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT THE IDAHO COURT'S INVALIDATION OF THE
WASHINGTON JUDGMENT AND ITS DECREE UPHOLDING MRS. MASON'S CLAIM TO THE
DISPUTED PROPERTY WERE RES JUDICATA IN THIS ACTION.  PETITIONER'S ONLY
GROUND FOR OBJECTION TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE IDAHO DECREE IS RES
JUDICATA RESTS ON THE ARGUMENT THAT BY SUCH RULING BELOW THE "JUDGMENT
OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AFFECTING THE SAME SUBJECT
MATTER AND PARTIES" IS IGNORED. 

IN THE IDAHO PROCEEDING THE WASHINGTON JUDGMENT AWARDING THE STOCK
AND DIVIDENDS TO PELKES WAS PLEADED IN BAR TO MRS. MASON'S SUIT TO
RECOVER THE STOCK.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE WASHINGTON JUDGMENT AS A
BAR DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE COURT WHICH RENDERED IT HAD JURISDICTION,
AFTER AN ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION, TO DEAL WITH SETTLEMENTS OF
DISTRIBUTEES WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSETS OF AN ESTATE.  ON CONSIDERATION
IT WAS DETERMINED IN THE IDAHO PROCEEDING THAT THE WASHINGTON COURT DID
NOT HAVE THIS JURISDICTION AND THAT THE STOCK OF THE MINING COMPANY
BECAME THE PROPERTY OF MRS. MASON.  IN DECLINING TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
WASHINGTON DECREE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE
IDAHO COURT DETERMINED ALSO THE BASIC QUESTION RAISED BY PETITIONER IN
THE INTERPLEADER ACTION.  THE CONTENTION OF PETITIONER IN THE
INTERPLEADER PROCEEDINGS THAT THE IDAHO COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION
OF THE STOCK CONTROVERSY BECAUSE THAT CONTROVERSY WAS IN THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE WASHINGTON PROBATE COURT MUST FALL, BECAUSE OF THE
IDAHO DECISION THAT THE WASHINGTON PROBATE COURT DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION.  THIS IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTION OF THE WASHINGTON
JURISDICTION HAD BEEN ACTUALLY LITIGATED AND DECIDED IN FAVOR OF PELKES
IN THE WASHINGTON PROCEEDINGS.  IF DECIDED ERRONEOUSLY IN THE IDAHO
PROCEEDINGS, THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THAT ERROR WAS IN THOSE (THE IDAHO)
PROCEEDINGS.  WHILE PETITIONER SOUGHT REVIEW FROM THE DECREE OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO BY PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THIS COURT, WHICH
WAS DENIED, NO REVIEW WAS SOUGHT FROM THE FINAL DECREE OF THE IDAHO
DISTRICT COURT OF AUGUST 18, 1936, ON NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON REMITTITUR FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO. 
FN21 

THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT THE ISSUE OF
JURISDICTION VEL NON OF THE WASHINGTON COURT COULD NOT BE RELITIGATED
IN THIS INTERPLEADER.  AS THE IDAHO DISTRICT COURT WAS A COURT OF
GENERAL JURISDICTION, ITS CONCLUSIONS ARE UNASSAILABLE COLLATERALLY
EXCEPT FOR FRAUD OR LACK OF JURISDICTION.  THE HOLDING BY THE IDAHO
COURT OF NO JURISDICTION IN WASHINGTON NECESSARILY DETERMINED THE
QUESTION RAISED HERE AS TO THE IDAHO JURISDICTION AGAINST MISS
TREINIES' CONTENTION.  SHE IS BOUND BY THAT JUDGMENT. 

THE POWER OF THE IDAHO COURT TO EXAMINE INTO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
WASHINGTON COURT IS BEYOND QUESTION.  FN22  EVEN WHERE THE DECISION
AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT IS ERRONEOUS, IT IS A
VALID EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER BY THE SECOND COURT.  FN23 

ONE TRIAL OF AN ISSUE IS ENOUGH."  FN24  THE PRINCIPLES OF RES
JUDICATA APPLY TO QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION AS WELL AS TO OTHER
ISSUES,"  FN25  AS WELL TO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AS OF THE
PARTIES.  FN26  DECREE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  99 F.2D 651. 

FN2  19 F.SUPP.  587. 

FN3  57 IDAHO 10; 59 P.2D 1087. 

FN4  PELKES V. MASON, 299 U.S. 615. 

FN5  49 STAT. 1096, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(26). 

FN6  MANSFIELD, C. & L.M. RY. CO. V. SWAN, 111 U.S. 379, 384. 

FN7  18 STAT. 470. 

FN8  1 STAT. 78. 

FN9  STRAWBRIDGE V. CURTISS, 3 CRANCH 267; CAMP V. GRESS, 250 U.S.
308, 312. 

FN10  CF. CHAFEE, INTERPLEADER IN THE UNITED STATES COURTS, 41 YALE
L.J. 1134, 1141, 1165; AND CHAFEE, THE FEDERAL INTERPLEADER ACT OF
1936, 45 YALE L.J. 963, 973. 

FN11  DIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION TO AVOID
A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS FROM DIVERSE CLAIMANTS WITH CLAIMS CONTESTED BY
THE DEBTOR IS NOT INVOLVED.  CF. DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN INS. ASSN., 296
U.S. 64, 70. 

FN12  SANDERS V. FERTILIZER WORKS, 292 U.S. 190, 200; KILLIAN V.
EBBINGHAUS, 110 U.S. 568, 571. 

FN13  BARNEY V. LATHAM, 103 U.S. 205, 213; CF. PULLMAN CO. V.
JENKINS, 305 U.S. 534, 538. 

FN14 264 U.S. 182, 189. 

FN15  91 F.2D 141, 146.  SEE ALSO MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. LOTT, 275
F. 365, 372(S.D. CAL.); NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. CROSS, 7 F.SUPP. 
130(S.D.N.Y.); CF. EAGLE, STAR AND BRITISH DOMINIONS V. TADLOCK, 14
F.SUPP.  933(S.D. CAL.), REVERSED, 91 F.2D 481(C.C.A. 9); ACKERMAN V.
TOBIN, 22 F.2D 541(C.C.A. 8). 

FN16  44 STAT. 416. 

FN17  WE DO NOT DERERMINE WHETHER THE RULING HERE IS INCONSISTENT
WITH THE CONCLUSION IN THOSE CASES WHERE JURISDICTION WAS RESTED ON
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND CO-CITIZENS WHO ARE
CLAIMANTS.  (MALLERS V. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR.  SOC., 87 F.2D 233(C.C.A.
7), CERT. DENIED, 301 U.S. 685(NEW YORK CORPORATION IMPLEADS ILLINOIS
CLAIMANTS); SECURITY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK V. WALSH, 91 F.2D 481(C.C.A.
9)(ENGLISH CORPORATION IMPLEADS CALIFORNIA CLAIMANTS); PENN MUT. LIFE
INS. CO. V. MEGUIRE, 13 F.SUPP.  967, 971(W.D. KY.)(PENNSYLVANIA
CORPORATION IMPLEADS KENTUCKY CLAIMANTS); TURMAN OIL CO. V. LATHROP, 8
F.SUPP.  870, 872(N.D. OKLA.)(DELAWARE CORPORATION IMPLEADS OKLAHOMA
CLAIMANTS). 

FN18  WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 296, IS
RELIED UPON. 

FN19  SMITH V. APPLE, 264 U.S. 274, 278; DUGAS V. AMERICAN SURETY
CO., 300 U.S. 414, 428. 

FN20  CONSTITUTION OF IDAHO, ART. 5, SEC. 20; IDAHO CODE, 1932, SEC.
1-705. 

FN21  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE IDAHO DETERMINATION
AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE WASHINGTON COURT WAS PROPERLY MADE.  AS
THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH A STATE COURT EXAMINES INTO THE QUESTION OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF A SISTER STATE IS A MATTER WITHIN THE
CONTROL OF THE RESPECTIVE STATES (ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59, 63), IT
NEED ONLY BE ADDED THAT SUCH PROCEDURE IS SUBJECT TO QUESTION ONLY ON
DIRECT APPEAL. 

IT WAS STIPULATED BY ALL PARTIES TO THE IDAHO CAUSE THAT THE IDAHO
COURTS MIGHT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE STATUTES AND DECISIONS OF
WASHINGTON.  SOME CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATING TO
THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT WERE PLEADED AND ADMITTED.  IT
HAS LONG BEEN THE RULE IN IDAHO THAT ITS COURTS DO NOT TAKE JUDICIAL
NOTICE OF THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE AND THAT WITHOUT ALLEGATION AND
EVIDENCE IT WILL BE ASSUMED THE LAWS ARE THE SAME AS THOSE OF IDAHO. 
(MALONEY V. WINSTON BROS. CO., 18 IDAHO 740, 757, 762; 111 P. 1080,
1086; DOUGLAS V. DOUGLAS, 22 IDAHO 336, 343; 125 P. 796; MECHANICS &
METALS NAT. BANK V. PINGREE, 40 IDAHO 118, 129; 232 P. 5; STATE V.
MARTINEZ, 43 IDAHO 180, 192; 59 P.2D 1087; KLEINSCHMIDT V. SCRIBNER, 54
IDAHO 185, 189; 30 P.2D 362).  WHILE NONE OF THESE CASES INVOLVED A
STIPULATION, THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO (57 IDAHO 10;
59 P.2D 1087) DECLARES THE LAW OF THAT JURISDICTION.  IT FOLLOWS FROM
THE IDAHO COURT'S REFUSAL TO LOOK INTO THE STATUTES OF WASHINGTON THAT
THE JURISDICTION OF THE WASHINGTON COURT WAS PRESUMED TO BE GOVERNED BY
IDAHO LAW.  UNDER PROPER PROOF, THE IDAHO COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN
COMPELLED TO EXAMINE THE JURISDICTION OF THE WASHINGTON COURT UNDER
WASHINGTON LAW. 

FN22  OLD WAYNE LIFE ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8, 15; THOMPSON V.
WHITMAN, 18 WALL.  457, 468; ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59, 62. 

FN23  CHICAGO LIFE INS. CO. V. CHERRY, 244 U.S. 25, 30; STOLL V.
GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165, 172; ROCHE V. MCDONALD, 275 U.S. 449, 454. 

FN24  BALDWIN V. TRAVELING MEN'S ASSN., 283 U.S. 522, 525. 

FN25  AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 156, 166. 

FN26  STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, SUPRA, NOTE 23, 172. 

NO DECISION OR STATUTE RELATIVE TO THE REEXAMINATION OF THE DECREE OR
JUDGMENT OF AN IDAHO COURT ON A CONTESTED ISSUE OF JURISDICTION HAS
BEEN FOUND OR CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION.  IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE RULE
HERE EXPRESSED STATES TOO THE LAW OF IDAHO. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















PALMER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 308 U.S. 79 


NO. 7.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  - 101
F.2D 48, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CREDITORS OF A RAILROAD, DEBTOR IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING
UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, PETITIONED THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
AN ORDER DIRECTING THE REORGANIZATION TRUSTEES TO DISCONTINUE CERTAIN
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  THE TRUSTEES HAD PREVIOUSLY APPLIED TO
THE STATE COMMISSION FOR AUTHORITY TO DISCONTINUE THE SAME SERVICE,
WHICH APPLICATION ACCORDED WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE LAW AND WAS
THEN PENDING AND BEING GIVEN ORDERLY HEARING AND CONSIDERATION.  HELD,
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ORDER DISCONTINUANCE OF THE
SERVICE.  P. 88. 

2.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION, SUCH POWER IN THE
DISTRICT COURT MAY NOT BE IMPLIED FROM SEC. 77(A), GRANTING TO THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY
WHEREVER LOCATED," OR SEC. 77(C)(2), PERMITTING THE TRUSTEES, SUBJECT
TO THE CONTROL OF THE COURT, "TO OPERATE THE BUSINESS OF THE DEBTOR." 
P. 85. 

PALMER ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. MASSACHUSETTS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 627, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AUTHORIZING THE TRUSTEES OF A RAILROAD IN REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDINGS TO DISCONTINUE CERTAIN LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. 

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY DIRECT ITS TRUSTEES TO DISCONTINUE
INTRASTATE PASSENGER SERVICE, IRRESPECTIVE OF AUTHORIZATION BY THE
STATE REGULATORY BODY NORMALLY HAVING JURISDICTION, IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE AND REHABILITATE THE PROPERTY OF AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD, AND
TO MAKE AND EFFECT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  CONTINENTAL BANK V. ROCK
ISLAND RY., 294 U.S. 648, 676.  BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 77(A)(C)(1), SEC.
2, SEC. 77(O)(F). 

WHEN CONGRESS OCCUPIES THE FIELD IT PRECLUDES ALL INCONSISTENT STATE
REGULATION, UNLESS SPECIFIC RESERVATIONS OF STATE POWERS ARE MADE. 
COLORADO V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 153, 162-166; TRANSIT COMMISSION V.
UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 360; AND SEE NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257
U.S. 360; AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY CO. V. I.R.T., 10 F.SUPP.  512;
AFFIRMED, 76 F.2D 1002, CERT. DENIED, NEW YORK CITY V. MURRAY, 295 U.S.
760. 

THE POWER OF AN EQUITY COURT TO PROTECT PROPERTY IN ITS CUSTODY, IN
RE TYLER, 149 U.S. 164; WABASH RAILROAD V. ADELBERT COLLEGE, 208 U.S.
94, WAS RECOGNIZED IN CASES UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PRIOR TO THE
ENACTMENT OF SEC. 77.  MURPHY V. HOFMAN CO., 211 U.S. 562; ISAACS V.
HOBBS TIE & T. CO., 282 U.S. 734.  COMPARE EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S.
610; CONTINENTAL BANK V. ROCK ISLAND RY., 294 U.S. 648; BOARD OF
DIRECTORS ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DIST. V. KURN, 91 F.2D 118; 98 F.2D 394;
CRAWFORD V. DULUTH STREET RY. CO., 60 F. 212; IOWA V. OLD COLONY TRUST
CO., 215 F. 307. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 77 SHOWS ITS BROAD PURPOSE TO
FACILITATE AND EXPEDITE INTERSTATE RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS.  CONGRESS
CONFERRED JURISDICTION UPON THE COURT, FREE FROM STATE LAWS AND STATE
REGULATIONS THAT INTERFERE WITH REORGANIZATION. 

R.G.W.R. CO., 23 F.SUPP.  298. 

A RAILROAD CAN NOT ABANDON THE PUBLIC SERVICE WHICH WAS THE CONDITION
UPON WHICH ITS FRANCHISES WERE GRANTED AND STILL RETAIN THEM. 

POWER TO PERMIT OR DENY ABANDONMENT OF SERVICE ON INTRASTATE LINES IS
RESERVED TO THE SEVERAL STATES IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION
DISPLACING THAT POWER.  THIS POWER IS CUSTOMARILY EXERCISED BY STATE
REGULATORY COMMISSIONS. 

EARLIER THAN SEC. 77, NO FEDERAL LEGISLATION DISPLACED THE STATES'
POWER TO PERMIT OR DENY PARTIAL ABANDONMENT OF SERVICE ON LINES
RETAINED BY THE RAILROADS, ALTHOUGH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
WAS EMPOWERED TO AUTHORIZE COMPLETE ABANDONMENT. 

RATHER THAN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT BE THE ARBITER OF CONFLICTING
INTERESTS OF THE RAILROAD AND THE PUBLIC, AND THAT PARTIAL ABANDONMENT
SHALL BE AUTHORIZED ONLY AS A PART OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN, WITH THE
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL. 

FROM THEIR JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHAT SERVICES THE RAILROAD MAY
ABANDON, PENDING CONFIRMATION OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

OCTOBER 23, 1935, OPENED ANOTHER CHAPTER IN THE LONG HISTORY OF THE
VICISSITUDES OF THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY. 
FN1  BY FILING A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT (47 STAT. 1474, AS AMENDED BY 49 STAT. 911 AND 49 STAT.
1969, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205), THE NEW HAVEN INVOKED THE SHELTER OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT.  THERE IT
HAS SINCE REMAINED.  AN EPISODE IN THIS NEW CHAPTER, ALREADY FOUR YEARS
OLD, IS PRESENTED BY THIS CASE.  WE BROUGHT IT HERE, 306 U.S. 627,
BECAUSE IT RAISES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS UNDER THE RAILROAD BANKRUPTCY
LAW, PARTICULARLY WHERE IT INTERSECTS THE REGULATORY SYSTEMS OF THE
STATES.  THE DISTRICT COURT ASSUMED POWER TO SUPPLANT THE RELEVANT
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE - AN AUTHORITY WHICH, APART FROM PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 77, HAS NOT BEEN CONFERRED BY CONGRESS EITHER UPON THE
FEDERAL COURTS OR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT,
CONVERSE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 101 F.2D 48. 

A SUMMARY OF THE FACTS WILL LAY BARE THE LEGAL ISSUES.  ON DECEMBER
28, 1937, THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEES OF THE NEW HAVEN, ACTING UNDER THE
REQUIREMENTS OF MASSACHUSETTS LAW,  FN2  APPLIED TO THAT COMMONWEALTH'S
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR LEAVE TO ABANDON EIGHTY-EIGHT
PASSENGER STATIONS.  FN3  TWENTY-ONE HEARINGS WERE HELD BY THE
DEPARTMENT ON THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THIS APPLICATION.  DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THESE HEARINGS AND BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT HAD TAKEN ANY
ACTION, THE PRESENT LITIGATION WAS INITIATED IN THE NEW HAVEN
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS BY CREDITORS OF THE DEBTOR FOR AN ORDER
DIRECTING THE TRUSTEES TO ABANDON THESE LOCAL SERVICES.  THE TRUSTEES
JOINED IN THE PRAYER, WHILE THE COMMONWEALTH DENIED THE JURISDICTION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT AND ASKED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT
BE ALLOWED TO REACH FRUITION.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE RULED THAT SEC. 77
GAVE HIM THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DISPOSING OF THE PETITION ON ITS MERITS
AND, HAVING TAKEN EVIDENCE, GAVE THE VERY RELIEF FOR WHICH THE TRUSTEES
HAD APPLIED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND WHICH WAS STILL IN PROCESS OF ORDERLY
CONSIDERATION. 

PLAINLY ENOUGH THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO POWER TO DEAL WITH A MATTER
IN THE KEEPING OF STATE AUTHORITIES UNLESS CONGRESS GAVE IT.  AND SO WE
HAVE ONE OF THOSE PROBLEMS IN THE READING OF A STATUTE WHEREIN MEANING
IS SOUGHT TO BE DERIVED NOT FROM SPECIFIC LANGUAGE BUT BY FASHIONING A
MOSAIC OF SIGNIFICANCE OUT OF THE INNUENDOES OF DISJOINTED BITS OF A
STATUTE.  AT BEST THIS IS SUBTLE BUSINESS, CALLING FOR GREAT WARINESS
LEST WHAT PROFESSES TO BE MERE RENDERING BECOMES CREATION AND ATTEMPTED
INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION BECOMES LEGISLATION ITSELF.  ESPECIALLY
IS WARINESS ENJOINED WHEN THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRUCTION IMPLICATES ONE OF
THE RECURRING PHASES OF OUR FEDERALISM AND INVOLVES STRIKING A BALANCE
BETWEEN NATIONAL AND STATE AUTHORITY IN ONE OF THE MOST SENSITIVE AREAS
OF GOVERNMENT. 

TO BE SURE, IN RECENT YEARS CONGRESS HAS FROM TIME TO TIME EXERCISED
AUTHORITY OVER PURELY INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER
WHEN, IN THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS, AN INTERSTATE CARRIER CONSTITUTED,
AS A MATTER OF ECONOMIC FACT, A SINGLE ORGANISM AND COULD NOT
EFFECTIVELY BE REGULATED AS TO SOME OF ITS INTERSTATE PHASES WITHOUT
DRAWING LOCAL BUSINESS WITHIN THE REGULATED SPHERE.  FN4  BUT SUCH
ABSORPTION OF STATE AUTHORITY IS A DELICATE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE
POLICY IN ACHIEVING A WISE ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE NEEDS OF CENTRAL
CONTROL AND THE LIVELY MAINTENANCE OF LOCAL INSTITUTIONS.  FN5
THEREFORE, IN CONSTRUING LEGISLATION THIS COURT HAS DISFAVORED INROADS
BY IMPLICATION ON STATE AUTHORITY AND RESOLUTELY CONFINED RESTRICTIONS
UPON THE TRADITIONAL POWER OF STATES TO REGULATE THEIR LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION TO THE PLAIN MANDATE OF CONGRESS.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES,
230 U.S. 352; CF. KELLY V. WASHINGTON EX REL. FOSS CO., 302 U.S. 1. 

THE DEPENDENCE OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES ON LOCAL RAILROAD SERVICES HAS
FOR DECADES PLACED CONTROL OVER THEIR CURTAILMENT WITHIN THE REGULATORY
AUTHORITIES OF THE STATES.  FN6  EVEN WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT IN
1920 GAVE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION POWER TO PERMIT
ABANDONMENT OF LOCAL LINES WHEN THE OVER-RIDING INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE REQUIRED IT, COLORADO V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 153,  FN7
THIS WAS NOT DEEMED TO CONFER UPON THE COMMISSION JURISDICTION OVER
CURTAILMENTS OF SERVICE AND PARTIAL DISCONTINUANCES.  PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE APPLICATION OF KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY., 94 I.C.C. 691; SEE
PROPOSED ABANDONMENT, MORRIS & ESSEX CO., 175 I.C.C. 49.  IF THIS OLD
AND FAMILIAR POWER OF THE STATES WAS WITHDRAWN WHEN CONGRESS GAVE
DISTRICT COURTS BANKRUPTCY POWERS OVER RAILROADS, WE OUGHT TO FIND
LANGUAGE FITTING FOR SO DRASTIC A CHANGE. 

WE ARE ASKED TO FIND IT IN SEC. 77(A) GRANTING TO THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY WHEREVER
LOCATED,"  FN8  AND IN SEC. 77(C)(2) PERMITTING THE TRUSTEES, SUBJECT
TO THE COURT'S CONTROL, "TO OPERATE THE BUSINESS OF THE DEBTOR."  FN9
IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THE REORGANIZATION OF INSOLVENT RAILROADS, SUCH
BROAD AND GENERAL PROVISIONS DOUBTLESS SUFFICE TO CONFER UPON THE
DISTRICT COURTS POWER APPROPRIATE FOR ADJUSTING PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE
RAILROAD DEBTOR'S ESTATE AND, AS TO SUCH RIGHTS, BEYOND THAT IN
ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  CF. CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I.
& P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT CLAIMED POWER OVER
THE CARRIER'S RELATION TO THE STATE.  IT HAS BECOME THE SETTLED SOCIAL
POLICY BOTH OF THE STATES AND THE NATION TO ENTRUST THE TYPE OF PUBLIC
INTEREST HERE IN QUESTION TO EXPERT ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES BECAUSE OF
"THE NOTION," AS JUDGE LEARNED HAND POINTED OUT BELOW, "THAT A JUDGE IS
NOT QUALIFIED FOR SUCH DUTIES."  FN10 

NOT ONLY IS THERE NO SPECIFIC GRANT OF THE POWER WHICH THE DISTRICT
COURT EXERCISED, BUT THE HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF SEC. 77, THE
CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING CONGRESS IN ITS ENACTMENT, AND THE SCHEME OF
THE LEGISLATION AS DISCLOSED BY ITS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS REJECT THE
CLAIM.  UNTIL THE AMENDMENT OF MARCH 3, 1933, RAILROADS WERE OUTSIDE
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN11  BUT THE LONG HISTORY OF FEDERAL RAILROAD
RECEIVERSHIPS, WITH THE CONFLICTS THEY FREQUENTLY ENGENDERED BETWEEN
THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE PUBLIC, LEFT AN ENDURING CONVICTION THAT A
RAILROAD WAS NOT LIKE AN ORDINARY INSOLVENT ESTATE.  FN12  ALSO AN
INSOLVENT RAILROAD, IT WAS REALIZED, REQUIRED THE OVERSIGHT OF AGENCIES
SPECIALLY CHARGED WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST REPRESENTED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  INDEED, WHEN, IN THE DEPTH OF THE DEPRESSION,
LEGISLATION WAS DEEMED URGENT TO MEET THE GRAVE CRISIS CONFRONTING THE
RAILROADS, THERE WAS A STRONG SENTIMENT IN CONGRESS TO WITHDRAW FROM
THE COURTS CONTROL OVER INSOLVENT RAILROADS AND LODGE IT WITH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN13  CONGRESS STOPPED SHORT OF THIS
REMEDY.  BUT THE WHOLE SCHEME OF SEC. 77 LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS
DID NOT MEAN TO GRANT TO THE DISTRICT COURTS THE SAME SCOPE AS TO
BANKRUPT ROADS THAT THEY MAY HAVE IN DEALING WITH OTHER BANKRUPT
ESTATES. 

THE JUDICIAL PROCESS IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 IS, AS
IT WERE, BRIGADED WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OF THE COMMISSION. 
FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF RATIFICATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE TRUSTEES
APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE COURT'S PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT IS INTERTWINED WITH THAT
OF THE COMMISSION.  FN14  THUS, IN SEC. 77(C) AND SEC. 77(O) THE POWER
OF THE DISTRICT COURTS TO PERMIT ABANDONMENTS IS SPECIFICALLY
CONDITIONED ON AUTHORIZATION OF SUCH ABANDONMENTS BY THE COMMISSION. 
IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL HISTORY OF RAILROAD RECEIVERSHIPS AND THE
EXTENT TO WHICH SEC. 77 MADE JUDICIAL ACTION DEPENDENT ON APPROVAL BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IT WOULD VIOLATE THE TRADITIONAL
RESPECT OF CONGRESS FOR LOCAL INTERESTS AND FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS TO IMPLY POWER IN A SINGLE JUDGE TO DISREGARD STATE LAW OVER
LOCAL ACTIVITIES OF A CARRIER THE GOVERNANCE OF WHICH CONGRESS HAS
WITHHELD EVEN FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, EXCEPT AS PART
OF A COMPLETE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR AN INSOLVENT ROAD.  FN15
ABOUT A FOURTH OF THE RAILROAD MILEAGE OF THE COUNTRY IS NOW IN
BANKRUPTCY.  FN16  THE PETITIONERS ASK US TO SAY THAT DISTRICT JUDGES
IN TWENTY-NINE STATES HAVE EFFECTIVE POWER, IN VIEW OF THE WEIGHT WHICH
OFTEN ATTACHES TO FINDINGS AT NISI PRIUS, TO SET ASIDE THE REGULATORY
SYSTEMS OF THESE TWENTY-NINE STATES WITH ALL THE CONSEQUENCES IMPLIED
FOR THOSE COMMUNITIES.  CONGRESS GAVE NO SUCH POWER. 

ARGUMENTS OF CONVENIENCE AGAINST DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS
POWER HAVE BEEN STRONGLY PRESSED UPON US.  CONTINUANCE OF STATE CONTROL
OVER THESE LOCAL PASSENGER SERVICES WILL, IT IS URGED, IMPAIR THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT'S POWER TO FORMULATE A REORGANIZATION PLAN FOR THE
APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  SUCH EMBARRASSMENTS,
DUE EITHER TO THE TIME REQUIRED FOR EXHAUSTION OF THE ORDERLY STATE
PROCEDURE OR TO THE FINANCIAL LOSSES THAT MAY BE INVOLVED IN THE
CONTINUANCE OF LOCAL SERVICES UNTIL DULY TERMINATED BY THE STATE, MAY
EASILY BE EXAGGERATED.  IT IS NOT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE THAT AFTER FOUR
YEARS NO REORGANIZATION PLAN FOR THE NEW HAVEN HAS YET BEEN EVOLVED. 
PERHAPS IT IS NO LESS TRUE THAT AMENABILITY TO STATE LAWS WILL SERVE AS
INCENTIVE TO THE FORMULATION OF REORGANIZATION PLANS WHICH, ON APPROVAL
BY THE COMMISSION, DO SUPPLANT STATE AUTHORITY.  BUT, IN ANY EVENT,
AGAINST POSSIBLE INCONVENIENCES DUE TO OBSERVANCE OF STATE LAW WE MUST
BALANCE THE FEELINGS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES, THE DISLOCATION OF THEIR
HABITS AND THE OVER-RIDING OF EXPERT STATE AGENCIES BY A SINGLE JUDGE
SITTING, AS IN THIS CASE, IN ANOTHER STATE, REMOVED FROM FAMILIARITY
WITH LOCAL PROBLEMS, AND NOT NECESSARILY GIFTED WITH STATESMAN-LIKE
IMAGINATION THAT TRANSCENDS THE WISDOM OF LOCAL ATTACHMENTS.    OTHER
ARGUMENTS, DRAWN FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 77 AND FROM THE
GENERAL EQUITY POWERS CONFERRED BY SEC. 77(A) AND SEC. (77)(C)(2),
FN17  WERE URGED BUT WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY TO SAY MORE. 

THE DECREE BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BRANDEIS, "FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND
HARTFORD RAILROAD CO."  (1907); THE NEW ENGLAND INVESTIGATION, 27
I.C.C. 560(1913); IN RE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE NEW YORK, NEW
HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD CO., 31 I.C.C. 32(1914); REPORT OF THE
JOINT NEW ENGLAND RAILROAD COMMITTEE TO THE GOVERNORS OF THE NEW
ENGLAND STATES.  (STORROW REPORT.)(1923.) 

FN2  MASS. GEN. LAWS (TER.  ED.)  C. 160, SEC. 128, PROVIDES:  "A
RAILROAD CORPORATION WHICH HAS ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED A PASSENGER
STATION THROUGHOUT THE YEAR FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS AT ANY POINT
UPON ITS RAILROAD SHALL NOT ABANDON SUCH STATION  ...  NOR
SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH THE ACCOMMODATION FURNISHED BY THE STOPPING OF
TRAINS THEREAT AS COMPARED WITH THAT FURNISHED AT OTHER STATIONS ON THE
SAME RAILROAD, EXCEPT WITH THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT (OF
PUBLIC UTILITIES) AFTER NOTICE POSTED IN AND ON SAID STATION FOR A
PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON." 

SEE ALSO MASS. GEN. LAWS (TER.  ED.)  C. 159, SEC. 16, VESTING
GENERAL CONTROL OVER INTRASTATE RAILWAY SERVICES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC UTILITIES. 

FN3  THE APPLICATION ALSO SOUGHT PERMISSION TO EFFECT CERTAIN OTHER
CURTAILMENTS OF PASSENGER SERVICE.  SOME OF THE STATIONS WERE SITUATED
ON THE LINES OF THE NEW HAVEN, MOST OF THEM ON THE LINES OF THE OLD
COLONY RAILROAD, AND SOME ON THE LINES OF THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE
RAILROAD. 

THE NEW HAVEN IN 1893 LEASED FOR 99 YEARS ALL THE PROPERTIES OF THE
OLD COLONY, INCLUDING THE BOSTON AND PROVIDENCE LINES WHICH THE OLD
COLONY HAD LEASED FOR 99 YEARS IN 1888.  ON JUNE 1, 1936, THE NEW HAVEN
TRUSTEES DISAFFIRMED, AS THEY WERE EMPOWERED TO DO UNDER SEC. 77, THE
OLD COLONY LEASE.  AFTER THE DISAFFIRMANCE THE NEW HAVEN OPERATED THE
LINES ON ACCOUNT OF THE OLD COLONY.  ON JUNE 3, 1936, THE OLD COLONY
ITSELF COMMENCED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77.  THE TRUSTEES OF THE NEW
HAVEN WERE THEN APPOINTED TRUSTEES FOR THE OLD COLONY. 

FN4  E.G., THE SHREVEPORT CASES, 234 U.S. 342; RAILROAD COMM'N OF
WISCONSIN V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563.  SEE I SHARFMAN,
"THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION," PP. 82-86, 219-225.  FOR THE
CAREFUL OBSERVANCE OF STATE INTERESTS IN APPLYING THE SHREVEPORT
DOCTRINE, SEE ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 245
U.S. 493 AND FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194. 

FN5  SEE CLARK, "THE RISE OF A NEW FEDERALISM," PASSIM. 

FN6  THE CONTROLLING MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE HAS BEEN IN FORCE SINCE
1911.  BUT MASSACHUSETTS HAS EXERCISED CONTROL OVER ITS RAILROADS
THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY EVER SINCE THE FAMOUS ADAMS COMMISSION
IN 1869.  SEE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS OF
MASSACHUSETTS, PUBLIC DOCUMENT NO. 40, PP. 3-12(1870); HADLEY,
"RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION" (1885 ED.)  PP. 136-139. 

FN7  FOR ILLUSTRATION OF THE SCRUPULOUS REGARD FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY
AND LOCAL INTERESTS SHOWN BY THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
CONTROL OVER ABANDONMENTS, SEE II SHARFMAN, "THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION," PP. 264-269. 

FN8  SECTION 77(A), 47 STAT. 1474, AS AMENDED IN 1935 BY 49 STAT.
911, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(A) PROVIDES SO FAR AS HERE RELEVANT:  "IF THE
PETITION IS SO APPROVED, THE COURT IN WHICH SUCH ORDER IS ENTERED
SHALL, DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND
FOR THE PURPOSES THEREOF, HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND
ITS PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED, AND SHALL HAVE AND MAY EXERCISE IN
ADDITION TO THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS SECTION ALL THE POWERS, NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SECTION, WHICH A FEDERAL COURT WOULD HAVE HAD IF
IT HAD APPOINTED A RECEIVER IN EQUITY OF THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR FOR
ANY PURPOSE." 

FN9  "THE TRUSTEE OR TRUSTEES SO APPOINTED  ...  SHALL HAVE  ...
SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE JUDGE AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION AS PROVIDED  ...  THE POWER TO OPERATE THE BUSINESS OF THE
DEBTOR."  SEC. 77(C)(2), 47 STAT. 1475, AS AMENDED BY 49 STAT. 914-15,
11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(C)(2). 

FN10  SEE CONVERSE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 101 F.2D 48, AT 51. 

FN11  SEE H. REP. NO. 1897, 72D CONGRESS, 2D SESSION, P. 5. 

FN12  SEE CHAPTER XXII "RAILROAD RECEIVERSHIPS" IN I GRESHAM, "THE
LIFE OF WALTER QUINTIN GRESHAM," PP. 366-378; JACOBS "THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND INTERSTATE RAILROAD REORGANIZATIONS," 45 HARV.
L. REV. 855; LOWENTHAL "THE INVESTOR PAYS."  SEE ALSO REMARKS BY
SENATOR WHEELER, AS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
INTRODUCING THE AMENDMENT OF 1935, 79 CONG. REC., PT. 13, P. 13764. 

FN13  SEE 76 CONG. REC., PT. 5, P. 5358(REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE
LAGUARDIA):  "I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ENTIRE REORGANIZATION TAKEN FROM
THE COURTS AND PLACED IN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION."  THE
SUGGESTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RECEIVERSHIPS ORIGINATED WITH THE LATE
CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, WHEN CIRCUIT JUDGE, IN AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.  TAFT, "RECENT CRITICISM OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY," REPORTS OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (1895) 237, 264. 

FN14  SECTION 77(C)(1) REQUIRES THE APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES TO BE
RATIFIED BY THE COMMISSION; SEC. 77(C)(2) GIVES THE COMMISSION
SUPERVISION OVER THE COMPENSATION PAID TO TRUSTEES AND THEIR COUNSEL;
SEC. 77(C)(3) PERMITS THE ISSUANCE OF TRUSTEES' CERTIFICATES ONLY WITH
THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL; SEC. 77(C)(9) PERMITS THE COMMISSION, ON
REQUEST OF THE COURT, TO INVESTIGATE FACTS PERTAINING TO MISMANAGEMENT
OF THE DEBTOR; SEC. 77(C)(10) EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO SET UP
ACCOUNTS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF EARNINGS AMONG THE VARIOUS PORTIONS OF
THE DEBTOR'S LINES; SEC. 77(C)(11) EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO FILE
REPORTS AS TO THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, PROSPECTIVE EARNINGS, ETC., AND
GIVES TO THE FACTS STATED IN SUCH REPORTS A PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS;
SEC. 77(C)(12) GIVES THE COMMISSION SUPERVISION OVER ALLOWANCES FOR THE
EXPENSES OF VARIOUS PARTIES IN INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH THE
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS; SECS. 77(D) AND 77(E) GIVE TO THE
COMMISSION CONTROL OVER ANY PROPOSED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION; SEC. 77(P)
GIVES TO THE COMMISSION CONTROL OVER THE SOLICITATION OF PROXIES OR
DEPOSIT AGREEMENTS. 

SEE ALSO H. REP. NO. 1897, 72D CONGRESS, 2D SESSION, PP. 5-6; H. REP.
NO. 1283, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, PP. 3-5; S. REP. NO. 1336, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESSION, PP. 4-6; REPORT, FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF
TRANSPORTATION, 1934, H. DOC. NO. 89, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESSION, PP. 100
101; 76 CONG. REC., PT. 5, PP. 5108-5110; 79 CONG. REC., PT. 12, P.
13301, PT. 13, PP. 13764, 13767. 

FN15  "UPON CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN, THE DEBTOR AND ANY OTHER
CORPORATION OR CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED OR TO BE ORGANIZED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE PLAN, SHALL HAVE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY
TO, AND SHALL PUT INTO EFFECT AND CARRY OUT THE PLAN AND THE ORDERS OF
THE JUDGE RELATIVE THERETO  ...  THE LAWS OF ANY STATE OR THE DECISION
OR ORDER OF ANY STATE AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  SEC.
77(F). 

THE RECORDS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DISCLOSE THAT EIGHT
PLANS OF REORGANIZATION HAVE THUS FAR BEEN FILED WITH THE DISTRICT
COURT IN THE NEW HAVEN PROCEEDINGS AND TRANSMITTED TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION HAD PROGRESSED
TO THE POINT WHERE AN EXAMINER'S REPORT WAS FILED; BUT THE REPORT WAS
WITHDRAWN FOR FURTHER HEARINGS.  THE PRESENT RECORD FAILS TO SHOW WHAT,
IF ANY, DISPOSITION OF THE OLD COLONY LINES ANY OF THESE PLANS PROPOSED
TO MAKE. 

FN16  ON OCTOBER 23, 1939, THERE WERE 61,292.69 MILES OF RAILROAD IN
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77.  THIS MILEAGE INCLUDES LINES IN
29 STATES. 

FN17  IN RE TYLER, 149 U.S. 164, AND OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT
CITED BY PETITIONERS DEAL WITH ATTEMPTS AT "PHYSICAL INVASION" OF THE
PROPERTIES HELD IN THE CUSTODY OF A FEDERAL COURT.  SEE 149 U.S. AT
182.  SECTION 65 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (36 STAT. 1104, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
124) DECISIVELY INDICATES THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THAT THOSE WHO
OPERATE A BUSINESS UNDER THE CONTROL OF A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD BE
IMMUNE FROM THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THE SEVERAL STATES ANY MORE
THAN THEY ARE FROM THEIR TAXING POWER. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CAUSE. 
..END :
























HELVERING V. WILSHIRE OIL CO., 308 U.S. 90 


NO. 1.  ARGUED OCTOBER 9, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  - 95 F.2D
971, REVERSED. 


1.  AN OIL COMPANY WHICH PURSUANT TO A TREASURY REGULATION ELECTED
IRREVOCABLY TO DEDUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES FROM GROSS INCOME IN
COMPUTING ITS TAXABLE NET INCOME RATHER THAN CHARGE THEM TO CAPITAL
ACCOUNT, AND WHICH MADE THIS ELECTION AT A TIME WHEN TREASURY PRACTICE
UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1921, SEC. 234(A)(9), AND 1924, SEC. 204(C),
REQUIRED THAT "OPERATIVE EXPENSES" BUT NOT EXPENSES OF DEVELOPMENT BE
DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME IN COMPUTING "THE NET INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY" WHICH LIMITS THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE, HAS NO GROUND TO ATTACK
AS RETROACTIVE A LATER REGULATION MADE UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928,
SEC. 114(B)(3), AND LOOKING TO THE FUTURE, WHICH REQUIRES THAT
DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS OPERATIVE, EXPENSES BE DEDUCTED IN THE
COMPUTATION.  P. 97. 

TAX STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.  THE TAXPAYER IN
MAKING ITS ELECTION TOOK THE RISK THAT THE METHOD OF TREATING DEPLETION
MIGHT BE ALTERED BY STATUTE OR AUTHORIZED REGULATION. 

2.  THE CLAIM THAT IT WAS INEQUITABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE TO ALTER
THE REGULATIONS IN THE MANNER ABOVE DESCRIBED AFTER THE TAXPAYER HAD
MADE ITS IRREVOCABLE ELECTION IN ITS RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1925, CAN NOT
BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN 1927, AFTER THE BASIS OF
DEPLETION HAD BEEN CHANGED BY THE ACT OF 1926 FROM A "DISCOVERY VALUE"
TO A PERCENTAGE BASIS, AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A NEW ELECTION AS TO THE
TREATMENT OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES FOR TAXABLE PERIODS ENDING ON OR
AFTER JANUARY 1, 1925, WAS OFFERED BY TREASURY DECISION, OF WHICH THE
TAXPAYER FAILED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE.  P. 97. 

AN OPINION OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY IS CONSIDERED IN
THIS CASE, IN CONNECTION WITH A TREASURY DECISION, AS AFFORDING NOTICE
THAT A CHANGE MIGHT BE MADE IN THE PRACTICE TOUCHING THE TREATMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IN DETERMINING DEPLETION ALLOWANCES FOR OIL
WELLS. 

3.  THE TERM "NET INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY," USED IN THE REVENUE ACTS
OF 1921, 1924, 1926 AND 1928 AS A LIMITATION UPON ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPLETION OF MINES, INCLUDING OIL WELLS, WAS CONSTRUED BY THE TREASURY,
UNDER THE TWO EARLIER STATUTES, AS MEANING GROSS INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY LESS "OPERATING EXPENSES," NOT INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT
EXPENSES.  UNDER THE ACT OF 1926, HOWEVER, (WHICH ADOPTED AN ARBITRARY
PERCENTAGE OF GROSS RECEIPTS, INSTEAD OF "DISCOVERY VALUE," AS THE
BASIS OF DEPLETION ALLOWANCES FOR OIL AND GAS WELLS) THE TREASURY
CHANGED ITS POLICY IN RESPECT OF SUCH DEDUCTIONS AND ALTERED ITS
REGULATION; AND UNDER THE ACT OF 1928, IT PROMULGATED A REGULATION
WHICH REQUIRED THAT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AS WELL AS OPERATING EXPENSES
BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME LIMITATION ON DEPLETION WHERE
THE TAXPAYER HAD ELECTED TO DEDUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IN COMPUTATION
OF TAXABLE NET INCOME.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF THE EARLIER ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE TERM "NET INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY," IMPLIED FROM
THE REENACTMENT IN 1924 OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION OF 1921, CAN NOT BE
ATTRIBUTED ALSO TO THE REENACTMENT OF 1928, IN VIEW OF THE INTERVENING
CHANGE OF TREASURY CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN THE
ACT OF 1926.  P. 99. 

(2)  THE STATEMENT THAT ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION RECEIVES
LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL BY REENACTMENT OF A STATUTORY PROVISION WITHOUT
MATERIAL CHANGE, APPLIES WHERE THE VALIDITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STANDING BY ITSELF MAY BE DUBIOUS OR WHERE AMBIGUITIES IN A STATUTE OR
RULES ARE RESOLVED BY REFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE PRIOR TO
REENACTMENT OF A STATUTE; AND WHERE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE RULE OR
PRACTICE HAS BEEN CHANGED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY THROUGH EXERCISE
OF ITS CONTINUING RULE-MAKING POWER.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A
REGULATION INTERPRETING A PROVISION OF ONE ACT BECOMES FROZEN INTO
ANOTHER ACT MERELY BY REENACTMENT OF THAT PROVISION, SO THAT THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION CAN NOT BE CHANGED PROSPECTIVELY THROUGH
EXERCISE OF APPROPRIATE RULE-MAKING POWERS.  P. 100. 

4.  THE POWER CONFERRED BY SEC. 23(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 TO
MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE COMPUTATION OF DEPLETION ALLOWANCES,
EXTENDS TO THE PERCENTAGE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 114(B)(3), AND
INCLUDES ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE AMBIGUOUS PHRASE "NET
INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY."  P. 101. 

RESTRICTIONS ON THAT POWER SHOULD NOT BE LIGHTLY IMPOSED WHERE THE
INCIDENCE OF SUCH RULES AS ARE PROMULGATED IS PROSPECTIVE ONLY. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. WILSHIRE OIL CO.,
INC.* 

*SEE NO. 2, HELVERING V. BANDINI PETROLEUM CO. AND NO. 3, HELVERING
V. WILSHIRE ANNEX OIL CO., POST, P. 512. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 628, TO REVIEW AN AFFIRMANCE BY THE COURT BELOW
OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (35 B.T.A. 450) REDUCING A
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER RESPONDENT, WILSHIRE OIL
COMPANY, INC., IN COMPUTING ITS NET INCOME FOR THE YEARS 1929 AND 1930
FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE 50 PER CENT LIMITATION ON DEPLETION
ALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 114(B)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928(45 STAT.
791), MAY REFUSE TO TAKE AS DEDUCTIONS CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
EXPENDITURES,  FN1  WHERE IT HAS DEDUCTED THOSE DEVELOPMENT
EXPENDITURES IN COMPUTING ITS TAXABLE NET INCOME FOR THOSE YEARS.  THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD FOR THE RESPONDENT (35 B.T.A. 450) AND THAT
DECISION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING (95 F.2D 971).  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM OF
THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSIONER'S RULE-MAKING POWER AND BECAUSE OF AN
ASSERTED CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH THE DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V.
F.H.E. OIL CO., 102 F.2D 596, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCING OIL AND GAS FROM
ITS VARIOUS PROPERTIES.  IN COMPUTING TAXABLE NET INCOME IN ITS RETURNS
FOR 1929 AND 1930 RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO THE REGULATIONS, DEDUCTED
DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES IN THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS OF $606,051.66 AND
$279,927.04.  BUT IT REFUSED TO MAKE THOSE DEDUCTIONS IN DETERMINING
ITS "NET INCOME  ...  FROM THE PROPERTY" FOR THE SAME YEARS, WHEN
COMPUTING ALLOWABLE DEPLETION UNDER SEC. 114(B)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1928.  FN2 

THAT SECTION PROVIDES: 

"IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION SHALL
BE 27 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR.  SUCH ALLOWANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 PER CENTUM OF THE NET
INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER (COMPUTED WITHOUT ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION) FROM
THE PROPERTY, EXCEPT THAT IN NO CASE SHALL THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE BE
LESS THAN IT WOULD BE IF COMPUTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THIS
PARAGRAPH." 

BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 23 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 COMPANIES LIKE
RESPONDENT WERE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS IN COMPUTING NET INCOME A
"REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION  ...  ACCORDING TO THE PECULIAR
CONDITIONS IN EACH CASE; SUCH REASONABLE ALLOWANCE IN ALL CASES TO BE
MADE UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER,
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY."  PURSUANT TO THAT RULE-MAKING
POWER THE PHRASE "NET INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER (COMPUTED WITHOUT
ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION)" AS USED IN SEC. 114(B)(3) WAS DEFINED BY
TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, ART. 221(I) PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1928 ACT AS
MEANING "GROSS INCOME FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND GAS" LESS CERTAIN
DEDUCTIONS INCLUDING "DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES (IF THE TAXPAYER HAS ELECTED
TO DEDUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES)  ...  BUT EXCLUDING ANY ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPLETION."  FOR 1925 RESPONDENT, HAVING THE OPTION TO TREAT THESE
EXPENSES AS DEDUCTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OR AS CHARGES TO THE
CAPITAL ACCOUNT RETURNABLE THROUGH DEPLETION,  FN3  CHOSE THE FORMER. 

ON THESE FACTS IT WOULD SEEM THAT TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, ART.
221(I) WOULD REQUIRE RESPONDENT TO DEDUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IN
COMPUTING "NET INCOME" AS USED IN SEC. 114(B)(3), SINCE RESPONDENT FELL
CLEARLY WITHIN THE CLASS DESCRIBED THEREIN. 

BUT RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THESE REGULATIONS AS APPLIED TO IT FOR
THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION ARE INVALID.  ITS ARGUMENT RUNS AS
FOLLOWS:  (1)  THE PHRASE "NET INCOME  ...  FROM THE PROPERTY" PRESENT
IN SEC. 114(B)(3) ORIGINATED IN SEC. 234(A)(9) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1921(42 STAT. 227) AND WAS REENACTED WITHOUT CHANGE IN SEC. 204(C) OF
THE 1924 ACT (43 STAT. 253).  IT WAS ALSO CARRIED OVER INTO SEC.
204(C)(2) OF THE 1926 ACT (44 STAT. 9), WHEN CONGRESS ADOPTED THE
PRESENT SO-CALLED PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FORMULA.  SHORTLY AFTER THE
ENACTMENT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, TREASURY REGULATIONS WERE ISSUED
DEFINING NET "INCOME  ...  FROM THE PROPERTY" AS MEANING GROSS INCOME
FROM THE PROPERTY LESS "OPERATING EXPENSES."  FN4  A SIMILAR DEFINITION
WAS GIVEN IN THE TREASURY REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1924.  FN5  THE ADMITTED TREASURY PRACTICE UNDER THOSE TWO ACTS WAS TO
PERMIT NET INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY TO BE COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO
DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES.  HENCE, RESPONDENT ARGUES, THE MEANING OF THE
PHRASE "NET INCOME  ...  FROM THE PROPERTY" HAD ACQUIRED A PLAIN AND
DEFINITE MEANING, KNOWN TO THE CONGRESS; THUS WHEN THAT PHRASE WAS
REENACTED IN THE 1924 ACT, THE CONGRESS INTENDED IT TO HAVE THE MEANING
WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE HAD GIVEN IT.  AND, THE ARGUMENT
CONTINUES, THAT MEANING HAVING BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CONGRESS IN THE 1924
ACT, IT CLUNG TO THE SAME PHRASE IN THE 1926 ACT  FN6  AND IN THE 1928
ACT, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 15, 1929  FN7
NEVER DID UNDERTAKE BY REGULATION OR DECISION TO GIVE THAT PHRASE A
MEANING DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLIED UNDER
THE EARLIER ACTS. 

(2)  SECONDLY, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE FACT THAT IT DEDUCTED
DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IN COMPUTING TAXABLE NET INCOME DOES NOT MEAN THAT
IT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE SAME DEDUCTIONS FOR THE "NET INCOME"
COMPUTATION UNDER SEC. 114(B)(3) FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAD NO FREE
CHOICE IN THE FIRST OF THESE COMPUTATIONS.  IN THAT CONNECTION IT
POINTS OUT THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE THESE DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS
INCOME BY REASON OF ITS ELECTION IN ITS 1925 RETURN TO TREAT THESE
EXPENSES AS DEDUCTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES RATHER THAN AS CHARGES
TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT RETURNABLE THROUGH DEPLETION, AN ELECTION BINDING
FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  IN THAT POSTURE OF THE CASE IT ARGUES THAT
THE ATTEMPTED CHANGE IN THE REGULATIONS HERE INVOLVED HAS A RETROACTIVE
EFFECT, AS APPLIED TO IT, AND WITHDRAWS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT
INDUCEMENTS OFFERED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN CONNECTION WITH THE ELECTION
WHICH RESPONDENT MADE IN ITS 1925 RETURN. 

WE DO NOT THINK THAT RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS TENABLE. 

AS TO RESPONDENT'S CLAIM OF RETROACTIVITY, IT IS TRUE THAT THE
ELECTION MADE IN CONNECTION WITH ITS 1925 RETURN WAS KNOWN TO BE
BINDING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  IT IS LIKEWISE TRUE THAT IT WAS MADE
AT A TIME WHEN TREASURY PRACTICE DID NOT REQUIRE DEDUCTION OF
DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IN MAKING THE COMPUTATION UNDER SEC. 114(B)(3). 
BUT THAT IS NO BASIS FOR A CLAIM OF RETROACTIVITY.  TREASURY
REGULATIONS 74, ART. 221(I) WHICH REQUIRED THE DEDUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT
EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE COMPUTATION UNDER SEC. 114(B)(3) WERE
ISSUED FEBRUARY 15, 1929 UNDER THE 1928 ACT.  THESE REGULATIONS APPLIED
PROSPECTIVELY ONLY AND DID NOT PURPORT TO REACH BACK TO EARLIER YEARS
WHEN THE TAXPAYER RELIED ON A DIFFERENT RULE OR PRACTICE.  TAX STATUTES
AND TAX REGULATIONS NEVER HAVE BEEN STATIC.  EXPERIENCE, CHANGING
NEEDS, CHANGING PHILOSOPHIES INEVITABLY PRODUCE CONSTANT CHANGE IN
EACH.  ONE MAKING AN ELECTION IN THE 1925 RETURN TOOK THE RISK THAT THE
METHOD OF TREATMENT OF DEPLETION MIGHT BE CHANGED BY THE CONGRESS, OR,
WHERE POWER EXISTED, BY THE COMMISSIONER.  ANY OTHER CONCLUSION WOULD
MAKE THE APPLICATION OF CHANGES PURSUANT TO REGULATIONS, THOUGH
PROSPECTIVE, DEPENDENT ON FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH EACH
TAXPAYER MADE SUCH AN ELECTION.  RIGIDITY, AS WELL AS CONFUSION, IN
ADMINISTRATION OF TAX LAWS WOULD BE THE RESULT. 

BUT IN THIS CASE THERE IS ANOTHER ANSWER TO RESPONDENT'S CLAIM THAT
AN INEQUITY RESULTS BY CHANGING THE REGULATIONS AFTER IT HAD MADE ITS
ELECTION IN THE 1925 RETURN.  ON JUNE 18, 1927, THE COMMISSIONER, WITH
THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, ISSUED A TREASURY DECISION  FN8  STATING
THAT "IN VIEW OF THE CHANGE IN THE BASIS FOR DEPLETION PROVIDED BY THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS, TAXPAYERS MAY
MAKE A NEW ELECTION AS TO THE TREATMENT" OF DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES
"FOR TAXABLE PERIODS ENDING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 1925, BUT NOT LATER
THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF THIS DECISION."  TAXPAYERS DESIRING
TO MAKE A NEW ELECTION WERE REQUIRED TO FILE AMENDED RETURNS FOR THE
TAXABLE PERIODS INVOLVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THAT
DECISION.  THUS RESPONDENT, AFTER CONGRESS ADOPTED THE NEW PERCENTAGE
DEPLETION PROVISION, WAS AFFORDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A NEW
ELECTION.  THIS IT DID NOT DO.  TO BE SURE, THAT TREASURY DECISION
CONTAINED NO NOTICE OF ANY PROJECTED CHANGE IN THE MEANING OF "NET
INCOME  ...  FROM PROPERTY" AS USED IN SEC. 114(B)(3).  BUT IN
SEPTEMBER 1927 THERE ISSUED A GENERAL COUNSEL'S MEMORANDUM  FN9  IN
WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT THEREAFTER "IF A TAXPAYER ELECTS TO TREAT
DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES AS ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES
...  IN COMPUTING TAXABLE NET INCOME, SUCH EXPENDITURES MUST BE
DEDUCTED IN DETERMINING THE NET INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY, WHICH AMOUNT
IS USED AS A LIMITATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
BASED ON INCOME."  TO BE SURE, THIS WAS MERELY AN OPINION OF THE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE BUREAU AND DID NOT HAVE THE FORCE OR EFFECT OF A
TREASURY DECISION.  YET IN VIEW OF SUCH RULING, THERE IS NOW NO
REASONABLE BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT WHEN RESPONDENT MADE ITS SECOND
ELECTION IN 1927 IT HAD NO BASIS FOR ASSUMING THAT THE POLICY AS
RESPECTS "NET INCOME  ...  FROM THE PROPERTY" UNDER THE 1926 ACT WAS OR
WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN IT HAD BEEN UNDER THE 1921 AND 1924 ACTS. 
THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS RESPONDENT HAS NO JUST
GROUND OF COMPLAINT.  ON THESE FACTS SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT
RESPONDENT TAKE SUCH BURDENS AS MAY FLOW FROM ITS ELECTION ALONG WITH
THE BENEFITS. 

IRRESPECTIVE OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WE THINK THE REGULATIONS IN
QUESTION WERE VALID.  IT IS TRUE, AS STATED BY RESPONDENT, THAT THE
REGULATIONS UNDER THE 1921 ACT PROVIDED THAT THE "NET INCOME  ...  FROM
THE PROPERTY" SHOULD BE COMPUTED FOR PURPOSE OF THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
WITHOUT REGARD TO DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES.  AND IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT
THAT ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION RECEIVED LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL BY THE
REENACTMENT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION IN THE 1924 ACT, WITHOUT
MATERIAL CHANGE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA-MONTANA OIL CO., 288 U.S.
459, 466.  BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT MEANING SURVIVED BOTH THE
1926 AND THE 1928 ACTS.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE WERE NO COMPARABLE
REGULATIONS UNDER THE 1926 ACT.  FN10  IN FACT, THE COMMISSIONER
UNDERTOOK UNDER THAT ACT TO FOLLOW THE PRACTICE LATER SET FORTH IN THE
REGULATIONS HERE IN QUESTION.  SEE AMBASSADOR PETROLEUM CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 81 F.2D 474.  THOSE FACTS ARE OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE HERE
FOR THEY REFUTE THE SUGGESTION THAT THE CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE 1928
ACT WAS GIVING APPROVAL TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAD
BEEN GIVEN TO COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF EARLIER ACTS BUT WHICH WAS
ABANDONED BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE 1928 ACT.  THE MORE REASONABLE
INFERENCE SEEMS TO BE THAT REENACTMENT OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION BY
THE 1928 ACT AT A TIME WHEN TREASURY POLICY AS RESPECTS ITS
CONSTRUCTION HAD CHANGED DID NOTHING MORE THAN TO RESTORE TO THE PHRASE
"NET INCOME  ...  FROM THE PROPERTY" ITS ORIGINAL AMBIGUITY. 
ACCORDINGLY THAT PHRASE BECAME PECULIARLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO NEW
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION.  HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.,
306 U.S. 110; MORRISSEY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344. 

BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION SEEMS
CLEAR.  THE OFT-REPEATED STATEMENT THAT ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION
RECEIVES LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL BY REENACTMENT OF A STATUTORY PROVISION,
WITHOUT MATERIAL CHANGE (UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA-MONTANA OIL CO.,
SUPRA) COVERS THE SITUATION WHERE THE VALIDITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STANDING BY ITSELF MAY BE DUBIOUS OR WHERE AMBIGUITIES IN A STATUTE OR
RULES ARE RESOLVED BY REFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE PRIOR TO
REENACTMENT OF A STATUTE; AND WHERE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE RULE OR
PRACTICE HAS BEEN CHANGED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY THROUGH EXERCISE
OF ITS CONTINUING RULE-MAKING POWER.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A
REGULATION INTERPRETING A PROVISION OF ONE ACT BECOMES FROZEN INTO
ANOTHER ACT MERELY BY REENACTMENT OF THAT PROVISION, SO THAT THAT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE CHANGED PROSPECTIVELY THROUGH
EXERCISE OF APPROPRIATE RULE-MAKING POWERS.  CF. MORRISSEY V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, AT P. 355.  THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION WOULD NOT ONLY
DRASTICALLY CURTAIL THE SCOPE AND MATERIALLY IMPAIR THE FLEXIBILITY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION; IT WOULD PRODUCE A MOST AWKWARD SITUATION. 
OUTSTANDING REGULATIONS WHICH HAD SURVIVED ONE ACT COULD BE CHANGED
ONLY AFTER A PRE-VIEW BY THE CONGRESS.  IN PREPARATION FOR A NEW
REVENUE ACT THE COMMISSIONER WOULD HAVE TO PREPARE IN ADVANCE NEW
REGULATIONS COVERING OLD PROVISIONS.  THEIR EFFECTIVENESS WOULD HAVE TO
AWAIT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF THE NEW ACT.  THE EFFECT OF SUCH
PROCEDURE, SO FAR AS TIME IS CONCERNED, WOULD BE PRECISELY THE SAME AS
IF THESE NEW REGULATIONS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS FOR APPROVAL. 
SUCH DILUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS WOULD DEPRIVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCESS OF SOME OF ITS MOST VALUABLE QUALITIES - EASE OF ADJUSTMENT TO
CHANGE, FLEXIBILITY IN LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE, SWIFTNESS IN MEETING NEW OR
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.  IT WOULD MAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CUMBERSOME AND SLOW.  KNOWN INEQUITIES IN EXISTING
REGULATIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ADVENT OF A NEW REVENUE ACT. 
PARALYSIS IN EFFORT TO KEEP ABREAST OF CHANGES IN BUSINESS PRACTICES
AND NEW CONDITIONS WOULD REDOUND AT TIMES TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE
REVENUE; AT TIMES TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE TAXPAYER.  LIKEWISE THE
RESULT WOULD BE TO READ INTO THE GRANT OF EXPRESS ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS
AN IMPLIED CONDITION THAT THEY WERE NOT TO BE EXERCISED UNLESS, IN
EFFECT, THE CONGRESS HAD CONSENTED.  WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH
IMPAIRMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
STATUTORY SCHEME WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS DESIGNED. 

THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, ART.
221(I) WERE WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER TO PROMULGATE.  THAT
THEY WERE SEEMS CLEAR BEYOND QUESTION.  WE ARE NOT DEALING HERE, AS WAS
THIS COURT IN HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., SUPRA, WITH
REGULATIONS APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.  THESE ARE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY
ONLY.  THE RULE-MAKING POWER HERE IN QUESTION MAY BE FOUND IN SEC.
23(L) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  THAT SECTION, AFTER PROVIDING THAT
COMPANIES LIKE RESPONDENT WERE ENTITLED, AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING
NET INCOME, TO A "REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION  ...  ACCORDING TO
THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS IN EACH CASE," LAID ESPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE
POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE RULES FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE, BY PROVIDING THAT "SUCH REASONABLE ALLOWANCE IN
ALL CASES IS TO BE MADE UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY
THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY." 

RESPONDENT DOES NOT STRONGLY URGE THAT THE REGULATORY POWER CONFERRED
BY SEC. 23(L) DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PERCENTAGE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
UNDER SEC. 114(B)(3).  RATHER THE CONTENTION SEEMS TO BE THAT TO ALLOW
THE COMMISSIONER BY REGULATION TO CHANGE THE MEASURE OF "NET INCOME
...  FROM THE PROPERTY" FROM TIME TO TIME, ESPECIALLY IN THE MANNER
HERE ATTEMPTED, WOULD BE TO APPROVE A RESULT EQUALLY AS CONTRARY TO THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS AS IF HE HAD ATTEMPTED BY REGULATION TO CHANGE
THE PERCENTAGE FACTORS THEMSELVES.  BUT THE SCOPE OR IMPORTANCE OF THE
CHANGE EFFECTED BY THE REGULATIONS IS IMMATERIAL IF THE POWER TO
PROMULGATE SUCH REGULATIONS EXISTS.  HERE THE CONGRESS HAS NOT
PRESCRIBED A PRECISE FORMULA FREE FROM ALL AMBIGUITY.  THE AMBIGUOUS
PHRASE "NET INCOME  ...  FROM THE PROPERTY" WAS SUSCEPTIBLE OF VARIOUS
MEANINGS AND HENCE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF IT WAS PECULIARLY
APPROPRIATE, AS WE HAVE SAID.  AND THERE WERE SPECIAL REASONS GROWING
OUT OF THE COMPLEX NATURE OF THE DEPLETION PROBLEM AS IT IS TREATED FOR
PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX, FOR REQUIRING THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE
PRECISE THE VAGUE ELEMENTS OF THAT FORMULA.  IN ITS GENERAL ASPECTS
UNDER REVENUE ACTS DEPLETION IS A PROBLEM ON WHICH TAXPAYERS,
GOVERNMENT AND ACCOUNTANTS HAVE EXPRESSED A CONTRARIETY OF OPINIONS. 
FN11  OBFUSCATION IN ATTEMPTED APPLICATION OF ITS PRINCIPLES UNDER
INCOME TAX LAWS HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN THE RESULT.  THE CONGRESS ITSELF,
AS REVEALED IN THE HISTORY OF THE REVENUE ACTS, HAS EXPRESSED VARYING
PHILOSOPHIES.  IN PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF ANY ONE STATUTE THERE ARE
ADMITTEDLY BORDERLINE CASES BETWEEN DEDUCTIBLE BUSINESS EXPENSES AND
NONDEDUCTIBLE CAPITAL OUTLAYS.  ON SPECIFIC FACT SITUATIONS THE CLEAR
LINE BETWEEN DEPLETION, DEPRECIATION, AND OBSOLESCENCE OFTEN BECOMES
BLURRED.  FN12  WHAT THOSE LINES ARE OR SHOULD BE IS FOR THE CONGRESS
AND THE COMMISSIONER.  EXPERIENCE AND NEW INSIGHT CAN BE EXPECTED TO
PRODUCE RATHER CONSTANT CHANGE.  IN SUM, THE HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND
INVOLVED FACTORS ENTERING INTO A PRACTICAL SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF
DEPLETION IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX LAWS POINTS TO THE NECESSITY OF
INTERPRETING SEC. 23(L) SO AS TO STRENGTHEN RATHER THAN TO WEAKEN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS TO DEAL WITH IT EQUITABLY AND REASONABLY.  THESE
CONSIDERATIONS ARE PERSUASIVE HERE NOT ONLY IN REAFFIRMING THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE RULE-MAKING POWER EXISTED, BUT ALSO IN CONCLUDING
THAT RESTRICTIONS ON THAT POWER SHOULD NOT BE LIGHTLY IMPOSED WHERE THE
INCIDENCE OF SUCH RULES AS ARE PROMULGATED IS PROSPECTIVE ONLY. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THESE EXPENDITURES CONSISTED OF SUCH ITEMS AS LABOR, FUEL AND
POWER, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES, TOOL RENTAL, TRUCK AND AUTO HIRE,
REPAIRS TO DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND DEPRECIATION UPON EQUIPMENT USED IN
DRILLING. 

FN2  FOR THE YEAR 1929 THE COMMISSIONER'S COMPUTATIONS WERE AS
FOLLOWS: 

GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTIES..............  $1,001,375.17 

DEDUCTIONS:  PRODUCTION EXPENSE.                  $171,399.03 

DEVELOPMENT 

EXPENSE.......................................     606,051.66 

TOTAL EXPENSES................................     777,450.69 

NET INCOME FROM PROPERTY (COMPUTED 

WITHOUT ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION)..............    $223,924.48 

50 PER CENT OF THAT INCOME....................    $111,962.24 

THE COMMISSIONER LIMITED THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE TO THE LAST
MENTIONED FIGURE SINCE 50 PER CENT OF THE NET INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY
AS THUS COMPUTED WAS LESS THAN 27 1/2 PER CENT OF THE GROSS INCOME. 

UNDER THE TAXPAYERS COMPUTATION, THE NET INCOME FOR DEPLETION
PURPOSES WOULD BE $1,001,375.17 LESS $171,399.03 OR $829,976.14 AND 50
PER CENT THEREOF WOULD NOT BE LESS THAN 27 1/2 PER CENT OF THE GROSS
INCOME. 

FOR THE YEAR 1930 THE COMMISSIONER'S COMPUTATION SHOWED A LOSS OF
$194,869.22.  HE THEREFORE RULED THAT SINCE THE PERCENTAGE DEPLETION
ALLOWANCE WAS LIMITED TO 50 PER CENT OF THE NET INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTIES AND SINCE THE TAXPAYER HAD NO SUCH NET INCOME, NO DEDUCTION
ON ACCOUNT OF PERCENTAGE DEPLETION COULD BE ALLOWED.  THE TAXPAYER
REFUSED, HOWEVER, TO DEDUCT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IN THE APPLICATION OF
THE 50 PER CENT LIMITATION AND CLAIMED A DEPLETION DEDUCTION OF
$42,528.91, ARRIVED AT AS FOLLOWS: 

GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTIES..............    $370,448.72 

DEDUCTIONS:  PRODUCTION EXPENSE...............     285,390.90

   NET INCOME...............................     $85,057.82 

DEPLETION DEDUCTION (50 PER CENT OF NET INCOME)... $42,528.91 

FN3  TREASURY REGULATIONS 69, ART. 223, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1926 PROVIDES THAT "SUCH INCIDENTAL EXPENSES AS ARE PAID FOR
...  DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY MAY AT THE OPTION OF THE TAXPAYER BE
DEDUCTED AS A DEVELOPMENT EXPENSE OR CHARGED TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT
RETURNABLE THROUGH DEPLETION.  ...  AN ELECTION ONCE MADE UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE WILL CONTROL THE TAXPAYER'S RETURNS FOR ALL
SUBSEQUENT YEARS." 

FN4  TREASURY REGULATIONS 62, ART. 201(H). 

FN5  TREASURY REGULATIONS 65, ART. 201(H). 

FN6  RESPONDENT POINTS TO THE REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
ON REVENUE BILL OF 1926(H. REP. NO. 1, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 6):
"THE DISCOVERY DEPLETION DEDUCTION LIMITATION OF AN AMOUNT NOT IN
EXCESS OF 50 PER CENT OF THE NET INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER FROM THE
PROPERTY UPON WHICH DISCOVERY WAS MADE, PROVIDED IN EXISTING LAW, IS
RETAINED IN THIS PROVISION." 

FN7  THE DATE WHEN TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, ART. 221(I), HERE IN
QUESTION, WERE PROMULGATED. 

FN8  TREASURY DECISION 4025, CUM. BUL.  VI-1, P. 75. 

FN9  G.C.M. 2315, CUM. BUL.  VI-2, P. 21. 

FN10  AS RESPECTS DISCOVERY DEPLETION IN THE CASE OF MINES UNDER THE
1926 ACT, PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE UNDER THE 1921 AND 1924 ACTS WERE
RETAINED.  TREASURY REGULATIONS 69, ART. 201(H).  BUT THIS WAS NOT TRUE
AS RESPECTS OIL AND GAS WELLS.  SECTION 204(C)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926 APPLIED THE PERCENTAGE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE EXCLUSIVELY TO "OIL AND
GAS WELLS."  TREASURY REGULATIONS 69, ART. 221, PROVIDED: 

"UNDER SECTION 204(C)(2), IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS, A
TAXPAYER MAY DEDUCT FOR DEPLETION AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 27 1/2 PER CENT OF
THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, BUT SUCH
DEDUCTION SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 PER CENT OF THE NET INCOME OF THE
TAXPAYER (COMPUTED WITHOUT ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION) FROM THE PROPERTY. 
IN NO CASE SHALL THE DEDUCTION COMPUTED UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH BE LESS
THAN IT WOULD BE IF COMPUTED UPON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF THE PROPERTY
OR ITS VALUE AT THE BASIC DATE, AS THE CASE MAY BE.  IN GENERAL, 'THE
PROPERTY,' AS THE TERM IS USED IN SECTION 204(C)(2) AND THIS ARTICLE,
REFERS TO THE SEPARATE TRACTS OR LEASES OF THE TAXPAYER." 

THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DELIMITATION IMPLIED IN THE PERMISSION
TO DEDUCT "OPERATING EXPENSES" PRESENT UNDER THE EARLIER REGULATIONS
DISAPPEARED FROM THE 1926 REGULATIONS IN CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS. 

FN11  2 PAUL & MERTENS, THE LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION (1934),
CH. 21; 47 YALE L. JOURN.  806(1938). 

FN12  SEE FOR EXAMPLE THE ISSUES POSED IN UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA
MONTANA OIL CO., SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :

















F.H.E. OIL CO. V. HELVERING, 308 U.S. 104 


NO. 26.  ARGUED OCTOBER 9, 10, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939.  - 102
F.2D 596, AFFIRMED. 


A REGULATION UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, REQUIRING THAT DEVELOPMENT
AS WELL AS OPERATIVE EXPENSES BE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME FROM OIL
WELLS, IN ASCERTAINING "NET INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY" UNDER SEC.
114(B)(3), SUSTAINED, UPON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. WILSHIRE OIL
CO., ANTE, P. 90. 

F.H.E. OIL CO. V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 618, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW
WHICH REVERSED A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (36 B.T.A. 1327),
REDUCING A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE SAME ISSUE AS IS INVOLVED IN HELVERING V.
WILSHIRE OIL CO., ANTE, P. 90, EXCEPT THAT IT ARISES UNDER THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1932(47 STAT. 169).  IN COMPUTING ITS TAXABLE NET INCOME UNDER
THAT ACT, PETITIONER DEDUCTED CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES AS IT
HAD DONE SINCE ITS ORGANIZATION IN 1925.  BUT IT REFUSED TO TAKE THESE
SAME DEDUCTIONS IN COMPUTING NET INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE
50 PER CENT LIMITATION ON THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE, AS PROVIDED IN SEC.
114(B)(3) OF THE 1932 ACT.  FN1  THAT SECTION, SO FAR AS MATERIAL HERE,
WAS THE SAME AS SEC. 114(B)(3) OF THE 1928 ACT (45 STAT. 791).  AND
TREASURY REGULATIONS 77, ART. 221(H) PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1932 ACT
FN2  DEFINED "NET INCOME  ...  FROM THE PROPERTY" AS USED IN SEC.
114(B)(3) SO AS TO REQUIRE "DEVELOPMENT COSTS" OF THE KIND HERE
INVOLVED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM "GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY."  FN3
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD THAT PETITIONER NEED NOT DEDUCT THESE
DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES IN APPLYING THE 50 PER CENT LIMITATION ON
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE (36 B.T.A. 1327) AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED (102 F.2D 596).  SINCE WE HAVE THIS DAY DECIDED IN HELVERING
V. WILSHIRE OIL CO., SUPRA, THAT COMPARABLE REGULATIONS UNDER THE 1928
ACT WERE LAWFUL, A FORTIORI THOSE HERE INVOLVED ARE VALID AND BINDING
ON PETITIONER.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW WAS THEREFORE RIGHT AND
IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THAT SECTION PROVIDED: 

"IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION SHALL
BE 27 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR, EXCLUDING FROM SUCH GROSS INCOME AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ANY
RENTS OR ROYALTIES PAID OR INCURRED BY THE TAXPAYER IN RESPECT OF THE
PROPERTY.  SUCH ALLOWANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 50 PER CENTUM OF THE NET
INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER (COMPUTED WITHOUT ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION) FROM
THE PROPERTY, EXCEPT THAT IN NO CASE SHALL THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE BE
LESS THAN IT WOULD BE IF COMPUTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THIS
PARAGRAPH." 

FN2  SECTION 23(L) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 PROVIDED: 

"IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

     .         .       .         .         . 

"(L)  DEPLETION.  - IN THE CASE OF MINES, OIL AND GAS WELLS, OTHER
NATURAL DEPOSITS, AND TIMBER, A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION AND
FOR DEPRECIATION OF IMPROVEMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS
IN EACH CASE; SUCH REASONABLE ALLOWANCE IN ALL CASES TO BE MADE UNDER
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY.  ..." 

FN3  TREASURY REGULATIONS 77, ART. 221(H) PROVIDED: 

"'NET INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER (COMPUTED WITHOUT ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPLETION) FROM THE PROPERTY,' AS USED IN SECTION 114(B)(2), (3), AND
(4) AND ARTICLES 221 TO 248, INCLUSIVE, MEANS THE 'GROSS INCOME FROM
THE PROPERTY' AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (G) LESS THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MINERAL PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE DEPLETION IS
CLAIMED AND THE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROCESSES
LISTED IN PARAGRAPH (G) IN SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO THE PRODUCT OF SUCH
PROPERTY, INCLUDING OVERHEAD AND OPERATING EXPENSES, DEVELOPMENT COSTS
PROPERLY CHARGED TO EXPENSE, DEPRECIATION, TAXES, LOSSES SUSTAINED,
ETC., BUT EXCLUDING ANY ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION.  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :












CASE V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER CO., 308 U.S. 106 


NOS. 23 AND 24.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1939.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 6, 1939. 
100 F.2D 963, REVERSED. 


1.  THE QUESTION WHETHER A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION IS "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS A
QUESTION OF LAW.  P. 114. 

2.  WHERE A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION IS NOT FAIR AND EQUITABLE AS A
MATTER OF LAW, IT CAN NOT BE APPROVED BY THE COURT EVEN THOUGH THE
PERCENTAGE OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF SECURITY HOLDERS REQUIRED BY SEC.
77B (F) FOR CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN HAS CONSENTED.  ID. 

3.  THE FACT THAT A GREAT MAJORITY OF THE SECURITY HOLDERS HAVE
APPROVED THE PLAN IS NOT THE TEST OF WHETHER THE PLAN IS A FAIR AND
EQUITABLE ONE.  ID. 

4.  UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS IN EQUITY
REORGANIZATIONS, THE COURT MUST USE ITS OWN INFORMED AND INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT IN EVERY IMPORTANT DETERMINATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.  P. 115. 

5.  WHERE WORDS ARE EMPLOYED IN AN ACT WHICH HAD AT THE TIME A WELL
KNOWN MEANING IN THE LAW, THEY ARE USED IN THAT SENSE UNLESS THE
CONTEXT REQUIRES THE CONTRARY.  ID. 

6.  IT IS A FIXED PRINCIPLE, GOVERNING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT AS WELL AS IN EQUITY REORGANIZATIONS, THAT, TO THE
EXTENT OF THEIR DEBTS, CREDITORS ARE ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE PRIORITY OVER
STOCKHOLDERS AGAINST ALL THE PROPERTY OF AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION,
RELATIVE PRIORITY NOT BEING SUFFICIENT.  P. 115. 

7.  TO ACCORD THE CREDITOR HIS FULL OR ABSOLUTE PRIORITY AGAINST THE
CORPORATE ASSETS WHERE THE DEBTOR IS INSOLVENT, THE STOCKHOLDER'S
PARTICIPATION MUST BE BASED ON A CONTRIBUTION IN MONEY OR IN MONEY'S
WORTH, REASONABLY EQUIVALENT TO THE PARTICIPATION ACCORDED THE
STOCKHOLDER.  PP. 115-122. 

8.  THE AMOUNT OWED BONDHOLDERS BY AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION WAS MORE
THAN FOUR-FOLD THE VALUE OF ITS ASSETS.  A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER
SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT GAVE TO THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS 23 PER
CENT. OF THE ASSETS AND VOTING POWER IN A NEW COMPANY WITHOUT REQUIRING
OF THEM ANY FRESH CONTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL, HELD NOT "FAIR AND
REASONABLE."  P. 122. 

SUCH PARTICIPATION BY THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS CAN NOT BE JUSTIFIED: 

(1)  UPON THE GROUND THAT SOME OF THEM POSSESS A FINANCIAL STANDING
AND INFLUENCE AND CAN PROVIDE A CONTINUITY OF MANAGEMENT BENEFICIAL TO
THE BONDHOLDERS (P. 122); OR 

(2)  UPON THE GROUND THAT IF THE BONDHOLDERS WERE TO FORECLOSE
PRESENTLY THEY WOULD RECEIVE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE APPRAISED
ASSETS (P. 123); OR 

(3)  UPON THE GROUND THAT THE VIRTUAL ABROGATION BY THE PLAN OF AN
EARLIER AGREEMENT DEFERRING FORECLOSURE GAVE TO THE BONDHOLDERS A
VALUABLE CONSIDERATION JUSTIFYING PARTICIPATION BY THE STOCKHOLDERS IN
THE REORGANIZATION (P. 124); OR 

(4)  UPON THE GROUND THAT THE BONDHOLDERS WILL BE AIDED BY
MAINTAINING THE DEBTOR AS A GOING CONCERN AND AVOIDING LITIGATION WITH
THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS.  P. 129. 

9.  AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION, BY INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, NECESSARILY WAIVES
ITS RIGHT TO REMAIN IN UNMOLESTED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE
CORPORATE PROPERTY; AND CONSEQUENTLY A PURPORTED SURRENDER, IN ITS PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION, OF ITS RIGHT, UNDER AN EARLIER AGREEMENT, TO
POSTPONE THE DATE WHEN THE MORTGAGE SECURING ITS BONDS COULD BE
FORECLOSED, FURNISHES NO CONSIDERATION FOR PARTICIPATION BY
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE CORPORATION IN THE ASSETS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE NEW
ONE TO BE FORMED.  P. 124. 

10.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION PRESENTED BY AN
INSOLVENT CORPORATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE," TO MINORITY BONDHOLDERS, THE FACT THAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY
AGREED TO BY THE REQUISITE MAJORITIES OF SECURITY HOLDERS DOES NOT GIVE
IT THE FORCE OF A CONTRACT BINDING ON THE COURT.  P. 125. 

11.  IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, COMPROMISE
OF CLAIMS IS ALLOWABLE IN FITTING CIRCUMSTANCES; BUT THE DISTRICT COURT
IS NOT TO BE INFLUENCED TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION BY THREATS OF LITIGATION ON THE PART OF STOCKHOLDERS. 
P. 129. 

12.  THE CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION OR INCLUSION OF OLD STOCKHOLDERS IN A
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B ARE THE SAME WHETHER THE PETITION BE
VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY.  P. 131. 

13.  FAILURE TO ACCEPT A PLAN PROPOSED DOES NOT FORCE DISMISSAL OR
LIQUIDATION.  UNDER SEC. 77B (C)(8), THE DISTRICT COURT MAY ALLOW TIME
FOR PROPOSAL OF A NEW PLAN WHERE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ONE WHICH IS
FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT CAN NOT BE ADOPTED,
NOR THAT ALL REASONABLE TIME FOR PROPOSAL OF SUCH ALTERNATIVE PLAN HAS
EXPIRED.  P. 131. 

CASE ET AL. V. LOS ANGELES LUMBER PRODUCTS CO., LTD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 307 U.S. 619, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF DECREES OF THE
DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMING A CORPORATE DEBTOR'S AMENDED PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  27 F.SUPP.  501. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES  FN1  PRESENT THE QUESTION OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
STOCKHOLDERS MAY PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B
(48 STAT. 912) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WHERE THE DEBTOR CORPORATION IS
INSOLVENT BOTH IN THE EQUITY AND IN THE BANKRUPTCY SENSE.  BECAUSE OF
THE CONTRARIETY OF TENDENCIES IN PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT
AMONG THE CIRCUITS AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
HOLDING BELOW (100 F.2D 963) AND THAT IN IN RE BARCLAY PARK CORP., 90
F.2D 595, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE DEBTOR IS A HOLDING COMPANY OWNING ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING SHARES
OF THE CAPITAL STOCK (EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN QUALIFYING SHARES HELD BY
DIRECTORS) OF SIX SUBSIDIARIES.  THREE OF THESE HAVE NO ASSETS OF VALUE
TO THE DEBTOR.  TWO HAVE ASSETS OF LITTLE VALUE.  THE DEBTOR'S
PRINCIPAL ASSET CONSISTS OF THE STOCK OF LOS ANGELES SHIPBUILDING AND
DRYDOCK CORPORATION WHICH IS ENGAGED IN SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR
WORK IN CALIFORNIA.  THIS SUBSIDIARY HAS FIXED ASSETS OF $430,000 AND
CURRENT ASSETS OF APPROXIMATELY $400,000.  THIS SUBSIDIARY HAS ONLY
CURRENT DEBTS OF A SMALL AMOUNT, NOT AFFECTED BY THE PLAN.  THE
DEBTOR'S ASSETS OTHER THAN THE STOCK OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES AGGREGATE LESS
THAN $10,000. 

THE DEBTOR'S LIABILITIES  FN2  CONSIST OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF
$3,807,071.88 ON FIRST LIEN MORTGAGE BONDS ISSUED IN 1924 AND MATURING
IN 1944, SECURED BY A TRUST INDENTURE COVERING THE FIXED ASSETS OF LOS
ANGELES SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK CORPORATION (ONE OF THE SUBSIDIARIES)
AND THE CAPITAL STOCK OF ALL OF THE SUBSIDIARIES.  NO INTEREST HAS BEEN
PAID ON THESE BONDS SINCE FEBRUARY 1, 1929.  IN 1930, AS A CONSEQUENCE
OF THE FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT OF THE DEBTOR, A SO-CALLED VOLUNTARY
REORGANIZATION WAS EFFECTED.  TO THAT END, A SUPPLEMENT TO THIS TRUST
INDENTURE WAS EXECUTED, PURSUANT TO A PROVISION THEREIN, WITH THE
CONSENT OF ABOUT 97% OF THE FACE VALUE OF ALL THE OUTSTANDING BONDS,
WHICH REDUCED THE INTEREST FROM 7 1/2% TO 6% AND MADE THE INTEREST
PAYABLE ONLY IF EARNED.  AT THE SAME TIME THE OLD STOCK OF THE DEBTOR
WAS WIPED OUT BY ASSESSMENT AND NEW STOCK ISSUED, DIVIDED INTO CLASS A
AND CLASS B, WITH EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS.  CLASS A STOCK WAS ISSUED TO
SOME OF THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS WHO CONTRIBUTED $400,000 NEW MONEY WHICH
WAS TURNED OVER TO THE LOS ANGELES SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK CORPORATION
AND USED BY IT AS WORKING CAPITAL.  IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS
CONTRIBUTION THE BONDHOLDERS WHO AGREED TO THE MODIFICATION OF THE
INDENTURE LIKEWISE RELEASED THE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW IN FAVOR OF THESE CONTRIBUTORS.  SOME CLASS B STOCK WAS
ISSUED TO BONDHOLDERS IN PAYMENT OF UNPAID INTEREST COUPONS.  FN3  AT
PRESENT THERE ARE OUTSTANDING 57,788 SHARES OF CLASS A STOCK AND 5,112
SHARES OF CLASS B STOCK. 

IN 1937 THE MANAGEMENT PREPARED A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION TO WHICH
OVER 80% OF THE BONDHOLDERS AND OVER 90% OF THE STOCK ASSENTED.  THIS
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, AS WE SHALL DISCUSS HEREAFTER, PROVIDED FOR ITS
CONSUMMATION EITHER ON THE BASIS OF CONTRACT OR IN A SEC. 77B
PROCEEDING, SUCH ELECTION TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.  IN
JANUARY 1938 THE DIRECTORS CHOSE THE LATTER COURSE AND THE DEBTOR
CORPORATION FILED A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, WITH THE PLAN ATTACHED AND RECITING, INTER ALIA, THAT
THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF SECURITY HOLDERS HAD CONSENTED TO IT.  THIS
PLAN AS FILED WAS LATER MODIFIED BY THE DEBTOR, AS WE POINT OUT LATER,
IN A MANNER NOT DEEMED BY US MATERIAL TO THE ISSUES HERE INVOLVED. 
THAT PLAN AS MODIFIED PROVIDES FOR THE FORMATION OF A NEW CORPORATION,
WHICH WILL ACQUIRE THE ASSETS OF LOS ANGELES SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK
CORPORATION,  FN4  AND WHICH WILL HAVE A CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF 1,000,000
SHARES OF AUTHORIZED $1 PAR VALUE VOTING STOCK.  THIS STOCK IS DIVIDED
INTO 811,375 SHARES OF PREFERRED AND 188,625 SHARES OF COMMON.  THE
PREFERRED STOCK WILL BE ENTITLED TO A 5% NON-CUMULATIVE DIVIDEND, AFTER
WHICH THE COMMON STOCK WILL BE ENTITLED TO A SIMILAR DIVIDEND. 
THEREAFTER ALL SHARES OF BOTH CLASSES WILL PARTICIPATE EQUALLY IN
DIVIDENDS.  THE PREFERRED STOCK WILL RECEIVE ON LIQUIDATION A
PREFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF ITS PAR VALUE.  THEREUPON THE COMMON WILL
RECEIVE A SIMILAR PREFERENCE.  THEREAFTER ALL SHARES OF BOTH CLASSES
PARTICIPATE EQUALLY. 

170,000 SHARES OF PREFERRED ARE RESERVED FOR SALE TO RAISE MONEY FOR
REHABILITATION OF THE YARDS.  FN5  641,375 SHARES OF THE PREFERRED ARE
TO BE ISSUED TO THE BONDHOLDERS, 250 SHARES TO BE EXCHANGED FOR EACH
$1000 BOND.  THE CLASS A STOCKHOLDERS WILL RECEIVE THE 188,625 SHARES
OF COMMON STOCK, WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF ANY SUBSCRIPTION OR
ASSESSMENT.  NO PROVISION IS MADE FOR THE OLD CLASS B STOCK.  THE
AGGREGATE PAR VALUE OF THE TOTAL PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK TO BE
ISSUED TO EXISTING SECURITY HOLDERS IS $830,000 - AN AMOUNT WHICH
EQUALS THE GOING CONCERN VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF THE ENTERPRISE. 

THE PLAN WAS ASSENTED TO BY APPROXIMATELY 92.81% OF THE FACE AMOUNT
OF THE BONDS, 99.75% OF THE CLASS A STOCK, AND 90% OF THE CLASS B
STOCK.  PETITIONERS OWN $18,500 FACE AMOUNT OF THE BONDS.  THEY DID NOT
CONSENT TO THE SO-CALLED VOLUNTARY REORGANIZATION IN 1930 WHEREBY THE
TRUST INDENTURE WAS AMENDED.  AND THROUGHOUT THE PRESENT SEC. 77B
PROCEEDINGS THEY APPROPRIATELY OBJECTED THAT THE PLAN WAS NOT FAIR AND
EQUITABLE TO BONDHOLDERS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE DEBTOR WAS INSOLVENT BOTH IN THE
EQUITY SENSE AND IN THE BANKRUPTCY SENSE.  THE LATTER FINDING WAS BASED
UPON "APPRAISAL AND AUDIT REPORTS."  IN THIS CONNECTION THE COURT FOUND
THAT THE TOTAL VALUE OF ALL ASSETS OF LOS ANGELES SHIPBUILDING AND
DRYDOCK CORPORATION WAS $830,000, THOSE ASSETS CONSTITUTING PRACTICALLY
ALL OF THE ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR AND OF ITS VARIOUS SUBSIDIARIES OF ANY
VALUE TO THE ESTATE.  YET IN SPITE OF THIS FINDING, THE COURT, IN THE
ORDERS NOW UNDER REVIEW, CONFIRMED THE PLAN.  AND THE COURT APPROVED IT
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS, WHO HAVE NO EQUITY IN THE
ASSETS OF THE ENTERPRISE, ARE GIVEN 23% OF THE ASSETS AND VOTING POWER
IN THE NEW COMPANY WITHOUT MAKING ANY FRESH CONTRIBUTION BY WAY OF
SUBSCRIPTION OR ASSESSMENT.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, JUSTIFIED INCLUSION OF
THE STOCKHOLDERS IN THE PLAN (1) BECAUSE IT APPARENTLY FELT THAT THE
RELATIVE PRIORITIES OF THE BONDHOLDERS AND STOCKHOLDERS WERE MAINTAINED
BY VIRTUE OF THE PREFERENCES ACCORDED THE STOCK WHICH THE BONDHOLDERS
WERE TO RECEIVE AND THE FACT THAT THE STOCK GOING TO THE BONDHOLDERS
CARRIED 77% OF THE VOTING POWER OF ALL THE STOCK PRESENTLY TO BE ISSUED
UNDER THE PLAN; AND (2) BECAUSE IT WAS ABLE TO FIND THAT THEY HAD
FURNISHED THE BONDHOLDERS CERTAIN "COMPENSATING ADVANTAGES" OR
"CONSIDERATION."  THIS SO-CALLED CONSIDERATION WAS STATED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT IN SUBSTANCE AS FOLLOWS: 

1.  IT WILL BE AN ASSET OF VALUE TO THE NEW COMPANY TO RETAIN THE OLD
STOCKHOLDERS IN THE BUSINESS BECAUSE OF "THEIR FAMILIARITY WITH THE
OPERATION" OF THE BUSINESS AND THEIR "FINANCIAL STANDING AND INFLUENCE
IN THE COMMUNITY"; AND BECAUSE THEY CAN PROVIDE A "CONTINUITY OF
MANAGEMENT." 

2.  IF THE BONDHOLDERS WERE ABLE TO FORECLOSE NOW AND LIQUIDATE THE
DEBTOR'S ASSETS, THEY WOULD RECEIVE "SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE
PRESENT APPRAISED VALUE" OF THE ASSETS. 

3.  BY REASON OF THE SO-CALLED VOLUNTARY REORGANIZATION IN 1930, THE
BONDHOLDERS CANNOT FORECLOSE UNTIL 1944, THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS HAVING
THE RIGHT TO MANAGE AND CONTROL THE DEBTOR UNTIL THAT TIME.  AT LEAST
THE BONDHOLDERS CANNOT NOW FORECLOSE WITHOUT "LONG AND PROTRACTED
LITIGATION" WHICH WOULD BE "EXPENSIVE AND OF GREAT INJURY" TO THE
DEBTOR.  HENCE, THE VIRTUAL ABROGATION OF THE AGREEMENT DEFERRING
FORECLOSURE UNTIL 1944 WAS "THE PRINCIPAL VALUABLE CONSIDERATION"
PASSING TO THE BONDHOLDERS FROM THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS. 

4.  BONDING COMPANIES ARE UNWILLING TO ASSUME THE RISK OF BECOMING
SURETY FOR THE DEBTOR OR ITS PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARY "BECAUSE OF THE
OUTSTANDING BOND ISSUE."  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM WILL
PROVIDE "VALUABLE OPPORTUNITIES" TO THE DEBTOR IF IT IS PREPARED TO
HANDLE THE BUSINESS.  HENCE, THE VALUE TO THE BONDHOLDERS OF
MAINTAINING THE DEBTOR "AS A GOING CONCERN, AND OF AVOIDING LITIGATION,
IS IN EXCESS OF THE VALUE OF THE STOCK BEING ISSUED" TO THE OLD
STOCKHOLDERS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN AFFIRMING THE DECREE CONFIRMING THE
PLAN STATED THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR IT TO DO OTHER THAN ACCEPT
THESE FINDINGS BECAUSE OF A STIPULATION AND THE STATE OF THE RECORD
THEREUNDER.  THAT STIPULATION PROVIDED FOR AN ABBREVIATED RECORD AND
STATED THAT THE DISSENTING BONDHOLDERS INTENDED "TO RAISE QUESTIONS OF
SUBSTANTIVE LAW ONLY."  BUT IT ALSO SPECIFIED AS ERRORS, INTER ALIA,
THE INCLUSION OF STOCKHOLDERS IN A PLAN WHERE THEY HAVE NO EQUITY AND
THE FINDING THAT THE PLAN WAS "FAIR" AND "EQUITABLE."  THEREBY THE
STIPULATION ADEQUATELY RESERVED THE QUESTION OF LAW AS TO WHETHER ON
THESE FACTS THE PLAN WAS FAIR AND EQUITABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
77B.  BUT IN ANY EVENT A STIPULATION DOES NOT FORECLOSE LEGAL
QUESTIONS.  SWIFT & CO. V. HOCKING VALLEY RY. CO., 243 U.S. 281, 289. 

ON THAT QUESTION OF LAW WE THINK THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN
CONFIRMING THE PLAN AND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THAT DECREE.  WE THINK THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW THE PLAN WAS
NOT FAIR AND EQUITABLE. 

AT THE OUTSET IT SHOULD BE STATED THAT WHERE A PLAN IS NOT FAIR AND
EQUITABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW IT CANNOT BE APPROVED BY THE COURT EVEN
THOUGH THE PERCENTAGE OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF SECURITY HOLDERS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 77B (F) FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN HAS CONSENTED. 
IT IS CLEAR FROM A READING OF SEC. 77BF)  FN6  THAT THE CONGRESS HAS
REQUIRED BOTH THAT THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGES OF EACH CLASS OF SECURITY
HOLDERS APPROVE THE PLAN AND THAT THE PLAN BE FOUND TO BE "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE."  THE FORMER IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE LATTER.  THE COURT
IS NOT MERELY A MINISTERIAL REGISTER OF THE VOTE OF THE SEVERAL CLASSES
OF SECURITY HOLDERS.  ALL THOSE INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE ARE ENTITLED
TO THE COURT'S PROTECTION.  ACCORDINGLY THE FACT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THE SECURITY HOLDERS HAVE APPROVED THE PLAN IS NOT THE TEST OF
WHETHER THE PLAN IS A FAIR AND EQUITABLE ONE.  THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE
DECISION OF THIS COURT IN TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 306
U.S. 307, WHICH REVERSED AN ORDER APPROVING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
UNDER SEC. 77B, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE REQUISITE PERCENTAGE OF
THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF SECURITY HOLDERS HAD APPROVED IT, ON THE GROUND
THAT PREFERRED STOCK OF THE DEBTOR CORPORATION WAS INEQUITABLY TREATED
UNDER THE PLAN.  THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION IN SUCH CASES WOULD MAKE THE
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION ON THE ISSUE OF FAIRNESS A MERE FORMALITY AND
WOULD EFFECTIVELY DESTROY THE FUNCTION AND THE DUTY IMPOSED BY THE
CONGRESS ON THE DISTRICT COURTS UNDER SEC. 77B.  THAT FUNCTION AND DUTY
ARE NO LESS HERE THAN THEY ARE IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP REORGANIZATIONS,
WHERE THIS COURT SAID, "EVERY IMPORTANT DETERMINATION BY THE COURT IN
RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS CALLS FOR AN INFORMED, INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT." 
NATIONAL SURETY CO. V. CORIELL, 289 U.S. 426, 436. 

HENCE, IN THIS CASE THE FACT THAT 92.81% IN AMOUNT OF THE BONDS,
99.75% OF THE CLASS A STOCK, AND 90% OF THE CLASS B STOCK HAVE APPROVED
THE PLAN IS AS IMMATERIAL ON THE BASIC ISSUE OF ITS FAIRNESS AS IS THE
FACT THAT PETITIONERS OWN ONLY $18,500 FACE AMOUNT OF A LARGE BOND
ISSUE. 

THE WORDS "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" AS USED IN SEC. 77B (F) ARE WORDS OF
ART WHICH PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF SEC. 77B HAD ACQUIRED A FIXED MEANING
THROUGH JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS IN THE FIELD OF EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP
REORGANIZATIONS.  HENCE, AS IN CASE OF OTHER TERMS OR PHRASES USED IN
THAT SECTION, DUPARQUET HUOT & MONEUSE CO. V. EVANS, 297 U.S. 216, WE
ADHERE TO THE FAMILIAR RULE THAT WHERE WORDS ARE EMPLOYED IN AN ACT
WHICH HAD AT THE TIME A WELL KNOWN MEANING IN THE LAW, THEY ARE USED IN
THAT SENSE UNLESS THE CONTEXT REQUIRES THE CONTRARY.  KECK V. UNITED
STATES, 172 U.S. 434, 446. 

IN EQUITY REORGANIZATION LAW THE TERM "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" INCLUDED,
INTER ALIA, THE RULES OF LAW ENUNCIATED BY THIS COURT IN THE FAMILIAR
CASES OF RAILROAD CO. V. HOWARD, 7 WALL.  392; LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V.
LOUISVILLE, N.A. & C. RY. CO., 174 U.S. 674; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO.
V. BOYD, 228 U.S. 482; KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO. V. CENTRAL UNION
TRUST CO., 271 U.S. 445.  THESE CASES DEALT WITH THE PRECEDENCE TO BE
ACCORDED CREDITORS OVER STOCKHOLDERS IN REORGANIZATION PLANS.  FN7  IN
LOUISVILLE TRUST CO. V. LOUISVILLE, N.A. & C. RY. CO., SUPRA, THIS
COURT REAFFIRMED THE "FAMILIAR RULE" THAT "THE STOCKHOLDER'S INTEREST
IN THE PROPERTY IS SUBORDINATE TO THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS; FIRST OF
SECURED AND THEN OF UNSECURED CREDITORS."  AND IT WENT ON TO SAY THAT
"ANY ARRANGEMENT OF THE PARTIES BY WHICH THE SUBORDINATE RIGHTS AND
INTERESTS OF STOCKHOLDERS ARE ATTEMPTED TO BE SECURED AT THE EXPENSE OF
THE PRIOR RIGHTS OF EITHER CLASS OF CREDITORS COMES WITHIN JUDICIAL
DENUNCIATION" (P. 684).  THIS DOCTRINE IS THE "FIXED PRINCIPLE"
ACCORDING TO WHICH NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, SUPRA, DECIDED
THAT THE CHARACTER OF REORGANIZATION PLANS WAS TO BE EVALUATED.  AND IN
THE LATTER CASE THIS COURT ADDED, "IF THE VALUE OF THE ROAD JUSTIFIED
THE ISSUANCE OF STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR OLD SHARES, THE CREDITORS WERE
ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THAT VALUE, WHETHER IT WAS PRESENT OR
PROSPECTIVE, FOR DIVIDENDS OR ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF CONTROL.  IN EITHER
EVENT IT WAS A RIGHT OF PROPERTY OUT OF WHICH THE CREDITORS WERE
ENTITLED TO BE PAID BEFORE THE STOCKHOLDERS COULD RETAIN IT FOR ANY
PURPOSE WHATEVER."  (P. 508.)  ON THE REAFFIRMATION OF THIS "FIXED
PRINCIPLE" OF REORGANIZATION LAW IN KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO. V.
CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., SUPRA, IT WAS SAID THAT "TO THE EXTENT OF
THEIR DEBTS CREDITORS ARE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER STOCKHOLDERS
AGAINST ALL THE PROPERTY OF AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION" (P. 455).  IN
APPLICATION OF THIS RULE OF FULL OR ABSOLUTE PRIORITY THIS COURT
RECOGNIZED CERTAIN PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT SUCH
RULE DID NOT "REQUIRE THE IMPOSSIBLE AND MAKE IT NECESSARY TO PAY AN
UNSECURED CREDITOR IN CASH AS A CONDITION OF STOCKHOLDERS RETAINING AN
INTEREST IN THE REORGANIZED COMPANY.  HIS INTEREST CAN BE PRESERVED BY
THE ISSUANCE, ON EQUITABLE TERMS, OF INCOME BONDS OR PREFERRED STOCK." 
NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, SUPRA, P. 508.  AND THIS PRACTICAL
ASPECT OF THE PROBLEM WAS FURTHER AMPLIFIED IN KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY.
CO. V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., SUPRA, BY THE STATEMENT THAT "WHEN
NECESSARY, THEY (CREDITORS) MAY BE PROTECTED THROUGH OTHER ARRANGEMENTS
WHICH DISTINCTLY RECOGNIZE THEIR EQUITABLE RIGHT TO BE PREFERRED TO
STOCKHOLDERS AGAINST THE FULL VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE
DEBTOR CORPORATION, AND AFFORD EACH OF THEM FAIR OPPORTUNITY, MEASURED
BY THE EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES, TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THIS RIGHT" (PP. 454
455).  AND IT ALSO RECOGNIZED THE NECESSITY AT TIMES OF PERMITTING THE
INCLUSION OF STOCKHOLDERS ON PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS, EVEN THOUGH THE
DEBTOR COMPANY WAS INSOLVENT.  AS STATED IN KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY.
CO. V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., SUPRA, P. 455:  "GENERALLY, ADDITIONAL
FUNDS WILL BE ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE UNDERTAKING, AND IT MAY
BE IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THEM UNLESS STOCKHOLDERS ARE PERMITTED TO
CONTRIBUTE AND RETAIN AN INTEREST SUFFICIENTLY VALUABLE TO MOVE THEM. 
IN SUCH OR SIMILAR CASES THE CHANCELLOR MAY EXERCISE AN INFORMED
DISCRETION CONCERNING THE PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENT OF THE SEVERAL RIGHTS." 
BUT EVEN SO, PAYMENT OF CASH BY THE STOCKHOLDERS FOR NEW STOCK DID NOT
ITSELF SAVE THE PLAN FROM THE RIGORS OF THE "FIXED PRINCIPLE" OF THE
BOYD CASE, FOR IN THAT CASE THE DECREE WAS STRUCK DOWN WHERE PROVISION
WAS NOT MADE FOR THE UNSECURED CREDITOR AND EVEN THOUGH THE
STOCKHOLDERS PAID CASH FOR THEIR NEW STOCK.  SALES PURSUANT TO SUCH
PLANS WERE VOID, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO FRAUD IN THE DECREE. 
NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, SUPRA, P. 504.  AS THIS COURT THERE
STATED, P. 502, "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN PRINCIPLE IF THE CONTRACT OF
REORGANIZATION, INSTEAD OF BEING EFFECTUATED BY PRIVATE SALE, IS
CONSUMMATED BY A MASTER'S DEED UNDER A CONSENT DECREE." 

THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF EQUITY REORGANIZATIONS THIS FAMILIAR RULE
WAS PROPERLY APPLIED IN PASSING ON OBJECTIONS MADE BY VARIOUS CLASSES
OF CREDITORS THAT JUNIOR INTERESTS WERE IMPROPERLY PERMITTED TO
PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN OR WERE TOO LIBERALLY TREATED THEREIN.  IN SUCH
ADJUDICATIONS THE DOCTRINE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, SUPRA,
AND RELATED CASES, WAS COMMONLY INCLUDED IN THE PHRASE "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" OR ITS EQUIVALENT.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE PHRASE BECAME A
TERM OF ART USED TO INDICATE THAT A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FULFILLED
THE NECESSARY STANDARDS OF FAIRNESS.  THUS THROUGHOUT THE CASES IN THIS
EARLIER CHAPTER OF REORGANIZATION LAW, WE FIND THE WORDS "EQUITABLE AND
FAIR,"  FN8  "FAIR AND EQUITABLE,"  FN9  "FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY
TREATED," FN10  "ADEQUATE AND EQUITABLE,"  FN11  "JUST, FAIR AND
EQUITABLE"  FN12  AND LIKE PHRASES  FN13 USED TO INCLUDE THE "FIXED
PRINCIPLE" OF THE BOYD CASE, ITS ANTECEDENTS AND ITS SUCCESSORS.  HENCE
WE CONCLUDE, AS HAVE OTHER COURTS,  FN14  THAT THAT DOCTRINE IS FIRMLY
IMBEDDED IN SEC. 77B. 

WE COME THEN TO THE LEGAL QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PLAN HERE IN ISSUE
IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT PHRASE AS USED IN SEC.
77B. 

WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.  HERE THE COURT
MADE A FINDING THAT THE DEBTOR IS INSOLVENT NOT ONLY IN THE EQUITY
SENSE BUT ALSO IN THE BANKRUPTCY SENSE.  ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE ASSETS
NOT IN EXCESS OF $900,000, WHILE THE CLAIMS OF THE BONDHOLDERS FOR
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ARE APPROXIMATELY $3,800,000.  HENCE EVEN IF ALL
OF THE ASSETS WERE TURNED OVER TO THE BONDHOLDERS THEY WOULD REALIZE
LESS THAN 25 PERCENT ON THEIR CLAIMS.  YET IN SPITE OF THIS FACT THEY
WILL BE REQUIRED UNDER THE PLAN TO SURRENDER TO THE STOCKHOLDERS 23
PERCENT OF THE VALUE OF THE ENTERPRISE. 

TRUE, THE RELATIVE PRIORITIES OF THE BONDHOLDERS AND THE OLD CLASS A
STOCKHOLDERS ARE MAINTAINED BY VIRTUE OF THE PRIORITIES ACCORDED THE
PREFERRED STOCK WHICH THE BONDHOLDERS ARE TO RECEIVE.  BUT THIS IS NOT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE EXPRESSED IN KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO.
V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., SUPRA, THAT "TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR DEBTS
CREDITORS ARE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY OVER STOCKHOLDERS AGAINST ALL THE
PROPERTY OF AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION," FOR THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT
ASSETS TO PAY THE BONDHOLDERS THE AMOUNT OF THEIR CLAIMS.  NOR DOES
THIS PLAN RECOGNIZE THE "EQUITABLE RIGHT" OF THE BONDHOLDERS "TO BE
PREFERRED TO STOCKHOLDERS AGAINST THE FULL VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR CORPORATION," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RULE
ANNOUNCED IN THAT CASE, SINCE THE FULL VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY IS NOT
FIRST APPLIED TO CLAIMS OF THE BONDHOLDERS BEFORE THE STOCKHOLDERS ARE
ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE.  RATHER IT IS PARTIALLY DIVERTED FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS EVEN THOUGH THE BONDHOLDERS WOULD OBTAIN
LESS THAN 25% PAYMENT IF THEY RECEIVED IT ALL.  UNDER THAT THEORY ALL
CLASSES OF SECURITY HOLDERS COULD BE PERPETUATED IN THE NEW COMPANY
EVEN THOUGH THE ASSETS WERE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY - IN NEW BONDS OR STOCK
- THE AMOUNT OWING SENIOR CREDITORS.  SUCH A RESULT IS NOT TENABLE. 

IT IS, OF COURSE, CLEAR THAT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH
STOCKHOLDERS MAY PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF AN
INSOLVENT DEBTOR.  THIS COURT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, INDICATED AS MUCH IN
NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, SUPRA, AND KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY.
CO. V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., SUPRA.  ESPECIALLY IN THE LATTER CASE
DID THIS COURT STRESS THE NECESSITY, AT TIMES, OF SEEKING NEW MONEY
"ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE UNDERTAKING" FROM THE OLD
STOCKHOLDERS.  FN15 WHERE THAT NECESSITY EXISTS AND THE OLD
STOCKHOLDERS MAKE A FRESH CONTRIBUTION AND RECEIVE IN RETURN A
PARTICIPATION REASONABLY EQUIVALENT TO THEIR CONTRIBUTION, NO OBJECTION
CAN BE MADE.  BUT IF THESE CONDITIONS ARE NOT SATISFIED THE
STOCKHOLDER'S PARTICIPATION WOULD RUN AFOUL OF THE RULING OF THIS COURT
IN KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO. V. CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., SUPRA, THAT
"WHENEVER ASSESSMENTS ARE DEMANDED, THEY MUST BE ADJUSTED WITH THE
PURPOSE OF ACCORDING TO THE CREDITOR HIS FULL RIGHT OF PRIORITY AGAINST
THE CORPORATE ASSETS, SO FAR AS POSSIBLE IN THE EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES"
(P. 456).  IF, HOWEVER, THOSE CONDITIONS WE HAVE MENTIONED ARE
SATISFIED, THE CREDITOR CANNOT COMPLAIN THAT HE IS NOT ACCORDED "HIS
FULL RIGHT OF PRIORITY AGAINST THE CORPORATE ASSETS."  IF THAT WERE NOT
THE TEST, THEN THE CREDITOR'S RIGHTS COULD BE EASILY DILUTED BY
INADEQUATE CONTRIBUTIONS BY STOCKHOLDERS.  TO THE EXTENT OF THE
INADEQUACY OF THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS THE STOCKHOLDERS WOULD BE IN
PRECISELY THE POSITION WHICH THIS COURT SAID IN NORTHERN PACIFIC RY.
CO. V. BOYD, SUPRA, THE STOCKHOLDERS THERE WERE IN, VIZ., "IN THE
POSITION OF A MORTGAGOR BUYING AT HIS OWN SALE" (P. 504). 

IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS WE BELIEVE THAT TO ACCORD "THE
CREDITOR HIS FULL RIGHT OF PRIORITY AGAINST THE CORPORATE ASSETS" WHERE
THE DEBTOR IS INSOLVENT, THE STOCKHOLDER'S PARTICIPATION MUST BE BASED
ON A CONTRIBUTION IN MONEY OR IN MONEY'S WORTH, REASONABLY EQUIVALENT
IN VIEW OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE PARTICIPATION OF THE
STOCKHOLDER. 

THE ALLEGED CONSIDERATION FURNISHED BY THE STOCKHOLDERS IN THIS CASE
FALLS FAR SHORT OF MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 

1.  THE FINDINGS BELOW THAT PARTICIPATION BY THE OLD CLASS A
STOCKHOLDERS WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE BONDHOLDERS BECAUSE THOSE
STOCKHOLDERS HAVE "FINANCIAL STANDING AND INFLUENCE IN THE COMMUNITY"
AND CAN PROVIDE A "CONTINUITY OF MANAGEMENT" CONSTITUTE NO LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW STOCK TO THEM.  SUCH ITEMS ARE
ILLUSTRATIVE OF A HOST OF INTANGIBLES WHICH, IF RECOGNIZED AS ADEQUATE
CONSIDERATION FOR ISSUANCE OF STOCK TO VALUELESS JUNIOR INTERESTS,
WOULD SERVE AS EASY EVASIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FULL OR ABSOLUTE
PRIORITY OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, SUPRA, AND RELATED
CASES.  SUCH ITEMS, ON FACTS PRESENT HERE, ARE NOT ADEQUATE
CONSIDERATION FOR ISSUANCE OF THE STOCK IN QUESTION.  ON THE FACTS OF
THIS CASE THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRANSLATED INTO MONEY'S WORTH
REASONABLY EQUIVALENT TO THE PARTICIPATION ACCORDED THE OLD
STOCKHOLDERS.  THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN THE ASSET COLUMN OF THE BALANCE
SHEET OF THE NEW COMPANY.  THEY REFLECT MERELY VAGUE HOPES OR
POSSIBILITIES.  FN16  AS SUCH, THEY CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF
STOCK TO OTHERWISE VALUELESS INTERESTS.  THE RIGOROUS STANDARDS OF THE
ABSOLUTE OR FULL PRIORITY DOCTRINE OF THE BOYD CASE WILL NOT PERMIT
VALUELESS JUNIOR INTERESTS TO PERPETUATE THEIR POSITION IN AN
ENTERPRISE ON SUCH EPHEMERAL GROUNDS.  FN17 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT'S FURTHER FINDING THAT IF THE BONDHOLDERS WERE
TO FORECLOSE NOW THEY WOULD RECEIVE "SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE
PRESENT APPRAISED VALUE" OF THE ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR CORPORATION IS NO
SUPPORT FOR INCLUSION OF THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS IN THE PLAN.  THE FACT
THAT BONDHOLDERS MIGHT FARE WORSE AS A RESULT OF A FORECLOSURE AND
LIQUIDATION THAN THEY WOULD BY TAKING A DEBTOR'S PLAN UNDER SEC. 77B
CAN HAVE NO RELEVANT BEARING ON WHETHER A PROPOSED PLAN IS "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" UNDER THAT SECTION.  SUBMISSION TO COERCION IS NOT THE
APPLICATION OF "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" STANDARDS.  SUCH A PROPOSITION
WOULD NOT ONLY DRASTICALLY IMPAIR THE STANDARDS OF "FAIR AND EQUITABLE"
AS USED IN SEC. 77B; IT WOULD PERVERT THE FUNCTION OF THAT ACT.  ONE OF
THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 77B WAS TO AVOID THE CONSEQUENCES TO DEBTORS AND
CREDITORS OF FORECLOSURES, LIQUIDATIONS, AND FORCED SALES WITH THEIR
DRASTIC DEFLATIONARY EFFECTS.  FN18  TO HOLD THAT IN A SEC. 77B
REORGANIZATION CREDITORS OF A HOPELESSLY INSOLVENT DEBTOR MAY BE FORCED
TO SHARE THE ALREADY INSUFFICIENT ASSETS WITH STOCKHOLDERS BECAUSE
APART FROM REHABILITATION UNDER THAT SECTION THEY WOULD SUFFER A WORSE
FATE, WOULD DISREGARD THE STANDARDS OF "FAIR AND EQUITABLE"; AND WOULD
RESULT IN IMPAIRMENT OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT RESTORED SOME OF
THE CONDITIONS WHICH THE CONGRESS SOUGHT TO AMELIORATE BY THAT REMEDIAL
LEGISLATION. 

3.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE VIRTUAL ABROGATION
OF THE AGREEMENT DEFERRING FORECLOSURE UNTIL 1944("THE PRINCIPAL
VALUABLE CONSIDERATION" GIVEN TO THE BONDHOLDERS BY THE STOCKHOLDERS)
JUSTIFIED PARTICIPATION BY THE STOCKHOLDERS IN THE PLAN IS LIKEWISE
ERRONEOUS. 

WHAT WERE THE RIGHTS OF THE BONDHOLDERS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL
INDENTURE EXECUTED IN 1930 WE CANNOT DETERMINE.  THAT INDENTURE IS NOT
IN THE ABBREVIATED RECORD BEFORE US.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT FOR
ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE BONDHOLDERS COULD NOT FORECLOSE UNTIL 1944. 
FROM THE FINDINGS BELOW WE CONCLUDE THAT THAT FOLLOWED AS A CONSEQUENCE
OF MAKING INTEREST PAYABLE ONLY IF EARNED.  ON THIS RECORD IT DOES NOT
APPEAR WHETHER OR NOT THERE MIGHT BE OTHER EVENTS OF DEFAULT - SUCH AS
NON-PAYMENT OF SINKING FUNDS - GIVING BONDHOLDERS OR THE TRUSTEE THE
RIGHT TO FORECLOSE OR GIVING BONDHOLDERS OR THE TRUSTEE THE RIGHT TO
ACCELERATE THE MATURITY OF THE BONDS SO THAT SUITS COULD BE BROUGHT
THEREON.  HENCE, WE MUST ASSUME, AS THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND, THAT THE
BONDHOLDERS AND THE TRUSTEE COULD NOT TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY
THROUGH FORECLOSURE OR OTHERWISE UNTIL THE MATURITY OF THE BONDS.  AND
AS A COROLLARY THEREOF WE LIKEWISE ASSUME THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS, AT
LEAST SO FAR AS THE BONDHOLDERS WERE INVOLVED, COULD KEEP THEIR
MANAGEMENT GROUP IN POSSESSION AND CONTROL UNTIL THAT TIME.  AND WE
ASSUME THAT THIS RIGHT OR POWER ON THE PART OF THE STOCKHOLDERS TO KEEP
POSSESSION UNTIL 1944 WAS FOR THEM A THING OF VALUE, THOUGH THERE IS NO
FINDING THAT THE OLD STOCK HAD ANY VALUE, PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE. 

BUT WE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THAT RIGHT SURVIVED THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B.  A DEBTOR AS WELL AS A CREDITOR WHO
INVOKES THE AID OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN REORGANIZATION OR
REHABILITATION UNDER SEC. 77B ASSUMES ALL OF THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH
FLOW FROM THAT JURISDICTION.  ONCE THE PROPERTY IS IN THE HANDS OF THE
COURT PRIVATE RIGHTS AS RESPECT THAT RES ARE SUBJECT TO THE SUPERIOR
DOMINION OF THE COURT AND ARE TO BE ADJUDICATED PURSUANT TO THE
STANDARDS PRESCRIBED BY THE CONGRESS.  AS A RESULT OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS
THE HAND OF ALL EXECUTIONS OR LEVIES MAY BE STAYED.  FN19  THE COURT
ACQUIRES "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS PROPERTY
WHEREVER LOCATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION."  FN20  THE COURT
NEED NOT KEEP THE DEBTOR IN POSSESSION BUT MAY SUBSTITUTE FOR THE OLD
MANAGEMENT A TRUSTEE; OR IF THE OLD MANAGEMENT IS RETAINED IT OPERATES
THE BUSINESS "SUBJECT AT ALL TIMES TO THE CONTROL OF THE JUDGE, AND TO
SUCH LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS AS THE JUDGE MAY
FROM TIME TO TIME IMPOSE AND PRESCRIBE."  FN21  THUS, WHILE THE
PROPERTY REMAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE COURT, AS IT DOES UNTIL DISMISSAL
OR FINAL DECREE ON CONFIRMATION, THE DEBTOR, THOUGH LEFT IN POSSESSION
BY THE JUDGE, DOES NOT OPERATE IT, AS IT DID BEFORE THE FILING OF THE
PETITION, UNFETTERED AND WITHOUT RESTRAINT.  THE CONTROL OF THE COURT
IS THEN PERVASIVE.  FN22  FURTHERMORE, STOCKHOLDERS AND OTHER JUNIOR
INTERESTS MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM ANY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION IF THE COURT
FINDS THAT THE DEBTOR IS INSOLVENT.  IN RE 620 CHURCH STREET BUILDING
CORP., 299 U.S. 24.  AND ON FACTS SUCH AS EXIST HERE, THESE JUNIOR
INTERESTS MUST BE EXCLUDED UNLESS THEY FURNISH ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION
FOR THE INTEREST WHICH THEY OBTAIN IN THE NEW COMPANY.  AND ONCE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT HAS BEEN INVOKED, WHETHER BY THE DEBTOR OR BY
A CREDITOR, THAT PETITIONER CANNOT WITHDRAW AND OUST THE COURT OF
JURISDICTION.  FN23  HE INVOKES THAT JURISDICTION RISKING ALL OF THE
DISADVANTAGES WHICH MAY FLOW TO HIM AS A CONSEQUENCE, AS WELL AS
GAINING ALL OF THE BENEFITS.  ONE OF THOSE DISADVANTAGES FROM THE
VIEWPOINT OF THE DEBTOR AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS IS THE APPROVAL OF A PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION WHICH ELIMINATES THEM COMPLETELY.  FN24  ACCORDINGLY,
RESPONDENT'S ASSERTION IN THIS CASE THAT THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTION OF
THESE STOCKHOLDERS JUSTIFYING THEIR INCLUSION IN THE PLAN WAS THE
WAIVER OF THEIR RIGHT TO DEFER OR PUT OFF FORECLOSURE UNTIL 1944, I.E.,
TO REMAIN IN POSSESSION, DOES NOT STAND ANALYSIS.  THE RIGHT TO REMAIN
IN UNMOLESTED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY WAS NECESSARILY
WAIVED OR ABANDONED ON INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.  WHEN THAT JURISDICTION ATTACHED, THE COURT
RATHER THAN THE STOCKHOLDERS WAS IN CONTROL WITH ALL OF THE POWERS AND
DUTIES WHICH THAT ENTAILED UNDER SEC. 77B.  CERTAINLY THE SURRENDER OF
A RIGHT THUS WAIVED IS NOT ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION FOR THE DILUTION OF
THE BONDHOLDERS' PRIORITIES WHICH THIS PLAN WOULD EFFECT. 

AND THERE IS A FURTHER REASON WHY THIS RESULT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS, IF
THE WILL OF THE CONGRESS AS EXPRESSED IN SEC. 77B IS NOT TO BE THWARTED
AND IF THE INTEGRITY OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS IS TO BE MAINTAINED.  AS WE
HAVE SAID, THIS PLAN HAD ITS ORIGIN IN AN ENDEAVOR ON THE PART OF THE
DEBTOR IN 1937 TO EFFECT A VOLUNTARY REORGANIZATION.  A PLAN WAS
PROPOSED BY THE DEBTOR WHICH WAS THE SAME AS THAT HERE INVOLVED EXCEPT
FOR THE AMOUNT AND NATURE OF THE STOCK TO BE RECEIVED BY THE
BONDHOLDERS.  FN25  THAT PLAN CONTAINED TWO METHODS FOR ITS
CONSUMMATION.  THE FIRST WAS BY MEANS OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRUST
INDENTURE AND A RECAPITALIZATION OF THE DEBTOR, A METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED
IF THE BOARD FELT THAT SUFFICIENT APPROVALS HAD BEEN OBTAINED.  THE
SECOND WAS BY MEANS OF SEC. 77B.  OVER 80% OF THE BONDHOLDERS AND OVER
90% OF THE STOCK APPROVED THE ORIGINAL PLAN.  THEREUPON THE DEBTOR
FILED ITS PETITION IN SEC. 77B.  THEREAFTER, THE DEBTOR FILED A
MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN TO WHICH THE ASSENTS, HERE RELIED UPON, WERE
OBTAINED.  FN26  THUS RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT SINCE THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE BONDHOLDERS AND THE
STOCKHOLDERS BEFORE INSTITUTION OF THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SEC. 77B, THE CONSIDERATION FLOWING FROM THE STOCKHOLDERS HAD BEEN
FURNISHED AND THE INTERESTS OF THE BONDHOLDERS AND STOCKHOLDERS IN THE
ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR HAD BEEN FIXED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE
PETITION.  IN FACT, RESPONDENT FRANKLY INSISTS THAT THE
STOCKHOLDERS'"RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION WAS SECURED BY CONTRACT BEFORE,
AND AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO, THE INSTITUTION OF THE 77B
PROCEEDINGS." 

BUT THE MERE STATEMENT OF THIS PROPOSITION IS ITS OWN REFUTATION.  IF
THE REORGANIZATION COURT WERE BOUND BY SUCH CONVENTIONS OF THE PARTIES,
IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY OUSTED OF IMPORTANT DUTIES WHICH THE ACT PLACES
ON IT.  FEDERAL COURTS ACTING UNDER SEC. 77B WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PLACE
THEIR IMPRIMATUR ON PLANS OF REORGANIZATION WHICH DISPOSED OF THE
ASSETS OF A COMPANY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE STANDARDS OF "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" BUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENTS WHICH THE REQUIRED
PERCENTAGES OF SECURITY HOLDERS HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE.  SUCH PROCEDURE
WOULD DEPRIVE SCATTERED AND UNORGANIZED SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE
PROTECTION WHICH THE CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED THEM UNDER SEC. 77B.  THE
SCOPE OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE COURT WOULD BE DELIMITED BY THE
BARGAIN WHICH REORGANIZERS HAD BEEN ABLE TO MAKE WITH SECURITY HOLDERS
BEFORE THEY ASKED THE INTERCESSION OF THE COURT IN EFFECTUATING THEIR
PLAN.  MINORITIES WOULD HAVE THEIR FATE DECIDED NOT BY THE COURT IN
APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF THE LAND AS PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 77B, BUT BY
THE FORCES UTILIZED BY REORGANIZERS IN PRESCRIBING THE CONDITIONS
PRECEDENT ON WHICH THE BENEFITS OF THE STATUTE COULD BE OBTAINED.  NO
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO ENJOYMENT OF THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 77B CAN BE
PROVIDED EXCEPT BY THE CONGRESS.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO ALLOW
REORGANIZERS TO REWRITE IT SO AS TO BEST SERVE THEIR OWN ENDS.  FN27 

4.  THE HOLDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE VALUE TO THE
BONDHOLDERS OF MAINTAINING THE DEBTOR AS A GOING CONCERN AND OF
AVOIDING LITIGATION WITH THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS JUSTIFIES THE INCLUSION
OF THE LATTER IN THE PLAN IS LIKEWISE ERRONEOUS.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT THAT AVOIDANCE OF LITIGATION WITH THE STOCKHOLDERS GAVE
VALIDITY TO THEIR CLAIM FOR RECOGNITION IN THE PLAN INVOLVES A
MISCONCEPTION OF THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COURT IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS.  WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE STRATEGIC OR NUISANCE VALUE OF SUCH
PARTIES OUTSIDE OF SEC. 77B IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DUTIES OF THE COURT IN
CONFIRMING OR DISAPPROVING A PLAN UNDER THAT SECTION.  IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE COURT TO YIELD TO SUCH
PRESSURES.  IF THE PRIORITIES OF CREDITORS WHICH THE LAW PROTECTS ARE
NOT TO BE DILUTED, IT IS THE CLEAR DUTY OF THE COURT TO RESIST ALL SUCH
ASSERTIONS.  OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT TO INTIMATE THAT COMPROMISE OF
CLAIMS IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SEC. 77B.  THERE FREQUENTLY WILL BE
SITUATIONS INVOLVING CONFLICTING CLAIMS TO SPECIFIC ASSETS WHICH MAY,
IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, BE MORE WISELY SETTLED BY COMPROMISE
RATHER THAN BY LITIGATION.  THUS, AMBIGUITIES IN THE WORDING OF TWO
INDENTURES MAY MAKE PLAUSIBLE THE CLAIM OF ONE CLASS OF CREDITORS TO AN
EXCLUSIVE OR PRIOR RIGHT TO CERTAIN ASSETS AS AGAINST THE OTHER CLASS
IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE LATTER'S CLAIM FLOWS FROM A FIRST
MORTGAGE. 

FN28  CLOSE QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATIONS OF AFTERACQUIRED PROPERTY
CLAUSES IN MORTGAGES, PREFERENCES IN STOCK CERTIFICATES, DIVISIONAL
MORTGAGES AND THE LIKE WILL GIVE RISE TO HONEST DOUBTS AS TO WHICH
SECURITY HOLDERS HAVE FIRST CLAIM TO CERTAIN ASSETS.  SETTLEMENT OF
SUCH CONFLICTING CLAIMS TO THE RES IN THE POSSESSION OF THE COURT IS A
NORMAL PART OF THE PROCESS OF REORGANIZATION.  IN SANCTIONING SUCH
SETTLEMENTS THE COURT IS NOT BOWING TO NUISANCE CLAIMS; IT IS
ADMINISTERING THE PROCEEDINGS IN AN ECONOMICAL AND PRACTICAL MANNER. 
BUT THAT IS NOT THE SITUATION HERE.  AS A RESULT OF THE FILING OF THE
PETITION IN THIS CASE, THE COURT, NOT THE STOCKHOLDERS, ACQUIRED
EXCLUSIVE DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE ESTATE.  HENCE, ANY STRATEGIC
POSITION OCCUPIED BY THE STOCKHOLDERS PRIOR TO THESE PROCEEDINGS
VANISHED ONCE THE COURT INVOKED ITS JURISDICTION.  THREATS BY
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE KIND HERE IN QUESTION ARE MERELY THREATS TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, WHICH JURISDICTION THESE SELFSAME
STOCKHOLDERS INVOKED FOR THEIR BENEFIT WHEN THEY CAUSED THE DEBTOR'S
PETITION TO BE FILED.  CONSEQUENTLY, THESE CLAIMS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS
ARE, AS WE HAVE SAID, ENTITLED TO NO MORE DIGNITY THAN ANY CLAIM BASED
UPON SHEER NUISANCE VALUE. 

IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE FINDING OF THE
COURT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ADMIT THE STOCKHOLDERS TO PARTICIPATION
IN THE PLAN SO AS TO MAINTAIN THE DEBTOR AS A GOING CONCERN AND THUS
PROTECT THE BONDHOLDERS WAS BASED UPON A MISCONCEPTION OF ITS LEGAL
POWERS AND DUTIES.  FOR THE COURT ASSUMED THAT THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO
ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEBTOR'S PLAN WAS A DISMISSAL OF THE PROCEEDING OR A
LIQUIDATION.  BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, NO SPECIAL
PERQUISITES (OF CONSEQUENCE HERE) FLOW TO STOCKHOLDERS BY VIRTUE OF THE
FACT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED BY A VOLUNTARY RATHER THAN AN
INVOLUNTARY PETITION.  THE CRITERIA FOR EXCLUSION OR INCLUSION OF
STOCKHOLDERS IN A PLAN ARE PRECISELY THE SAME IN BOTH SITUATIONS.  IN
PRACTICE IT IS NOT INFREQUENT TO FIND PROCEEDINGS WHICH START WITH A
DEBTOR'S PETITION ENDING UP WITH PLANS OF REORGANIZATION WHICH EXCLUDE
STOCKHOLDERS.  READING HOTEL CORP. V. PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE, 89 F.2D
53.  IN THE SECOND PLACE FAILURE TO ACCEPT THIS PLAN DOES NOT FORCE
DISMISSAL OR LIQUIDATION.  SECTION 77B (C)(8) GIVES THE COURT EXPLICIT
POWERS WHERE "A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION IS NOT PROPOSED OR ACCEPTED
WITHIN SUCH REASONABLE PERIOD AS THE JUDGE MAY FIX" EITHER TO "EXTEND
SUCH PERIOD" OR TO "DISMISS THE PROCEEDING" OR, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT
RELEVANT HERE, TO CAUSE LIQUIDATION, SUCH CHOICE TO BE MADE "AS THE
INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS MAY EQUITABLY REQUIRE." 
ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSAL HAS NOT INFREQUENTLY BEEN PROPERLY DENIED.  IN
RE BUSH TERMINAL CO., 84 F.2D 984.  AND IN THIS CASE THERE HAS BEEN NO
SHOWING THAT A PLAN WHICH IS NOT ONLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE BUT ALSO MEETS
THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ADOPTED NOR THAT ALL
REASONABLE TIME FOR PROPOSAL OF SUCH ALTERNATIVE PLANS HAS EXPIRED. 

WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE PLAN IS NOT FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND THAT
THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE AND IS REVERSED. 

FN1  ONE INVOLVES AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER AND THE OTHER A FINAL ORDER
CONFIRMING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT. 

FN2  OTHER LIABILITIES, NOT MATERIAL HERE, ARE $6,075.94 OF CURRENT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND $496,899.76 DUE THE LOS ANGELES SHIPBUILDING AND
DRYDOCK CORPORATION. 

FN3  A LARGE BLOCK OF CLASS B STOCK WAS ESCROWED UNDER A MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT WITH ONE ARMES TO BE DELIVERED TO HIM WHEN ALL THE BONDS WERE
RETIRED AND THE CLASS A STOCKHOLDERS WERE PAID BACK THEIR $400,000 PLUS
INTEREST IN THE FORM OF DIVIDENDS.  BUT THIS MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WAS
LATER TERMINATED AND THE ESCROWED CLASS B STOCK WAS RETURNED TO THE
DEBTOR AND CANCELLED.  CLASS A STOCK WAS PREFERRED TO CLASS B IN THE
EVENT OF LIQUIDATION TO THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 AND INTEREST. 

FN4  THE ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR, EXCEPT THE CAPITAL STOCK OF TWO
SUBSIDIARIES WHICH HAVE ASSETS OF SOME, THOUGH SLIGHT, VALUE WILL ALSO
BE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW COMPANY.  THE ASSETS OF THESE TWO
SUBSIDIARIES WILL BE LIQUIDATED AND THE PROCEEDS DISTRIBUTED PRO RATA
AMONG BONDHOLDERS.  THE ASSETS OF THE OTHER THREE SUBSIDIARIES WILL
ALSO APPARENTLY BE ACQUIRED BY THE NEW COMPANY. 

FN5  NO UNDERWRITING OF THESE FUNDS IS PROVIDED AND NO DISCLOSURE IS
MADE AS TO HOW THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE TO BE RAISED. 

FN6  IT PROVIDES IN PART:  AFTER HEARING SUCH OBJECTIONS AS MAY BE
MADE TO THE PLAN, THE JUDGE SHALL CONFIRM THE PLAN IF SATISFIED THAT
(1) IT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY IN
FAVOR OF ANY CLASS OF CREDITORS OR STOCKHOLDERS, AND IS FEASIBLE; (2)
IT COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION (B) OF THIS SECTION; (3)
IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION (E),
CLAUSE (1) OF THIS SECTION; ...  " 

FN7  FOR ANALYSES AND REVIEWS OF THESE CASES AS APPLIED TO EQUITY
REORGANIZATIONS OR REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77B AND SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT SEE FRANK, SOME REALISTIC REFLECTIONS ON SOME ASPECTS OF
CORPORATE REORGANIZATION, 19 VA. L. REV. 541; SWAINE, REORGANIZATION OF
CORPORATIONS:  CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS OF THE LAST DECADE, 27 COL. L. REV.
901; SPAETH AND WINKS, THE BOYD CASE AND SECTION 77, 32 ILL. L. REV.
769; BONBRIGHT AND BERGERMAN, TWO RIVAL THEORIES OF PRIORITY RIGHTS OF
SECURITY HOLDERS IN A CORPORATE REORGANIZATION, 28 COL. L. REV. 127;
FRIENDLY, SOME COMMENTS ON THE CORPORATE REORGANIZATION ACT, 48 HARV.
L. REV. 39; 2 GERDES ON CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS, SEC. 1084. 

FN8  JAMESON V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 20 F.2D 808, 815, CERTIORARI
DENIED 275 U.S. 569. 

FN9  FLERSHEM V. NATIONAL RADIATOR CORP., 64 F.2D 847, 852, REV'D 290
U.S. 504. 

FN10  P.R. WALSH TIE & TIMBER CO. V. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO., 280 F.
38, 44. 

FN11  MOUNTAIN STATES POWER CO. V. A.L. JORDAN LUMBER CO., 293 F.
502, 506. 

FN12  ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. V. MCELVAIN, 253 F. 123, 134. 
SEE ALSO GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO., 238 F. 812,
816, 819. 

FN13  NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOYD, SUPRA, SPOKE OF A "FAIR"
OFFER TO THE CREDITOR AND A "JUST REORGANIZATION" AS THE PREREQUISITE
TO VALIDITY OF THE PLAN (P. 508).  KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RY. CO. V.
CENTRAL UNION TRUST CO., SUPRA, SAID THAT THE OFFER TO THE CREDITOR HAD
TO BE "FAIR AND BINDING" (P. 452). 

FN14  SEE IN RE DAY & MEYER, MURRAY & YOUNG, 93 F.2D 657; TELLIER V.
FRANKS LAUNDRY CO., 101 F.2D 561; IN RE PHILADELPHIA & READING COAL &
IRON CO., 105 F.2D 357; IN RE NEW YORK RAILWAYS CORP., 82 F.2D 739,
744; 2 GERDES ON CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS, SEC. 1085.  INTIMATIONS TO
THE CONTRARY, DOWNTOWN INVESTMENT ASSN. V. BOSTON METROPOLITAN
BUILDINGS, INC., 81 F.2D 314, 323-324; IN RE A.C. HOTEL CO., 93 F.2D
841, ARE NOT TENABLE. 

THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF SEC. 77B (IN THOSE RESPECTS WHICH ARE
MATERIAL HERE) IS IN SHARP CONTRAST TO THAT WHICH WAS PROVIDED FOR
COMPOSITIONS UNDER FORMER SEC. 12.  THIS COURT SAID IN CALLAGHAN V.
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP., 297 U.S. 464, 470:  "REORGANIZATIONS NOW
PERMITTED UNDER SEC. 77B PRESENT CERTAIN RESEMBLANCES TO COMPOSITIONS
UNDER SEC. 12, WHICH HAVE BEEN COMMENTED UPON AS SUPPORTING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77 OR SEC.
77B.  ...  BUT SEC. 77B CONTEMPLATES A PROCEDURE AND RESULTS NOT
PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC. 12.  REORGANIZATIONS ARE NOWHERE REFERRED TO IN
THE STATUTE AS COMPOSITIONS."  UNDER SEC. 12(A)(AS IT EXISTED AT THE
TIME SEC. 77B WAS ENACTED) ONLY A "BANKRUPT" COULD OFFER "TERMS OF
COMPOSITION TO HIS CREDITORS."  UNDER SEC. 77B (D) PLANS MAY BE
PROPOSED NOT ONLY BY THE DEBTOR BUT ALSO BY A DESIGNATED PERCENTAGE OF
THE CREDITORS OR, WHERE THE DEBTOR IS NOT FOUND TO BE INSOLVENT, BY A
SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF STOCKHOLDERS.  SECTION 12(D) AS IT THEN EXISTED
PROVIDED THAT THE JUDGE "SHALL CONFIRM A COMPOSITION IF SATISFIED"
INTER ALIA THAT "IT IS FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CREDITORS."  SEE
FLEISCHMANN & DEVINE, INC. V. SAUL WOLFSON DRY GOODS CO., 299 F. 15. 
THE "FAIR AND EQUITABLE" STANDARD EMPLOYED IN SEC. 77B WAS NOT THEN
PRESENT IN SEC. 12.  CONSENT BY THE DEBTOR TO THE COMPOSITION WAS
IMPLICIT IN FORMER SEC. 12(CF. IN RE BRYER, 281 F. 812).  BUT UNDER
SEC. 77B APPROVAL OF A PLAN BY SECURITY HOLDERS WHO HAVE NO EQUITY IN
THE ENTERPRISE IS UNNECESSARY.  IN RE 620 CHURCH STREET BUILDING CORP.,
299 U.S. 24.  THE GENERAL VIEW WAS WELL EXPRESSED IN IN RE DUTCH
WOODCRAFT SHOPS, 14 F.SUPP.  467, 469, "THE PRESERVATION OF BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES MUST NOT BE AT THE EXPENSE OF CREDITORS, AND THE PROVISIONS
OF SECTION 77B SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF TO EFFECT WHAT, IN
FACT, AMOUNTS TO A COMPOSITION UNDER SECTION 12." 

THE CHANDLER ACT, C. 10(52 STAT. 840) APPROVED JUNE 22, 1938, NOW
SUPPLANTS SEC. 77B.  VARIOUS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 77B HAVE BEEN MADE THEREIN.  BUT THE STANDARD OF "FAIR AND
EQUITABLE" AS USED IN SEC. 77B REMAINS UNALTERED AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA
NECESSARY FOR CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  SEC. 221(2). 

FN15  THIS NEW MONEY WAS COMMONLY NECESSARY IN EQUITY REORGANIZATIONS
NOT ONLY TO PROVIDE NEW WORKING CAPITAL BUT ALSO TO PAY DISSENTING
CREDITORS.  SEE WEINER, CONFLICTING FUNCTIONS OF THE UPSET PRICE IN A
CORPORATE REORGANIZATION, 27 COL. L. REV. 132. 

LIKE CONSIDERATIONS ARE RELEVANT IN REORGANIZATIONS UNDER SEC. 77B. 
AS STATED BY THE COURT IN IN RE DUTCH WOODCRAFT SHOPS, 14 F.SUPP.  467,
471: 

"CIRCUMSTANCES MAY EXIST WHERE THE SUCCESS OF AN UNDERTAKING REQUIRES
THAT NEW MONEY BE FURNISHED AND WHERE THE FORMER STOCKHOLDERS ARE THE
ONLY OR MOST FEASIBLE SOURCE OF THE NEW CAPITAL.  IN SUCH INSTANCES,
THE COURT MAY RECOGNIZE AS FAIR AND EQUITABLE A PLAN WHICH INCLUDES
CONTRIBUTIONS OF NEW MONEY BY STOCKHOLDERS, PROVIDED IT SATISFACTORILY
APPEARS THAT FULL RECOGNITION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE VALUE OF CREDITORS'
CLAIMS AGAINST THE PROPERTY." 

FN16  ON COMPARABLE FACTS A LIKE CONCLUSION WAS REACHED IN IN RE
BARCLAY PARK CORP., 90 F.2D 595, WHERE THE COURT SAID, P. 598: 

"IT IS ARGUED THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS REPRESENT THE PRESENT MANAGEMENT
OF THE HOTEL AND THAT THE MANAGEMENT IS VALUABLE AND INDEED NECESSARY
TO THE ENTERPRISE AND THAT THE MANAGER-STOCKHOLDERS WILL 'WALK OUT' IF
THE PROPOSED PLAN DOES NOT GO THROUGH AND LEAVE THE HOTEL TO ITS FATE. 
BUT THERE IS NO BINDING AGREEMENT ON THEIR PART TO REMAIN WHICH MIGHT
AFFORD A JUSTIFICATION FOR GIVING THEM A STOCK INTEREST AND, IF THEIR
MANAGERIAL SKILL IS VITAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE HOTEL, ANY STOCK ISSUED
TO INSURE THE CONTINUANCE OF THEIR RELATION OUGHT TO GO TO THOSE
STOCKHOLDERS WHO ARE OF USE TO THE ENTERPRISE AND AGREE TO ACT IN ITS
BEHALF, AND NOT TO ALL STOCKHOLDERS AS SUCH.  INDEED, THE SUPPOSED
ADVANTAGES OF RETAINING THE EXISTING MANAGEMENT SEEM TO BE A MATTER OF
INFERENCE, IF NOT OF SPECULATION, SUPPORTED BY THE ORAL STATEMENTS OF
ATTORNEYS INSTEAD OF BY TESTIMONY." 

FN17  THIS CONCLUSION IS REEMPHASIZED HERE BY THE FACT THAT NOT ALL
OF THE CLASS A STOCKHOLDERS WHO RECEIVE NEW STOCK ARE PART OF THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE DEBTOR. 

FN18  SEE H.R. REP. NO. 1409, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 38, DEALING
WITH RECENT AMENDMENTS TO THE SECTION; AND H.R. REP. NO. 194, 73RD
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 2, THE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE ORIGINAL ACT. 

FN19  SEC. 77BA), (C)(10).  CF. CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NAT. BANK CO. V.
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648. 

FN20  SEC. 77B (A). 

FN21  SEC. 77B (C). 

FN22  SEE, 1 GERDES ON CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS, C. 9.  THESE POWERS
EMBRACE NOT ONLY THE SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS CONTAINED IN SEC.
77B BUT ALSO "ALL THE POWERS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS SECTION, WHICH
A FEDERAL COURT WOULD HAVE HAD IT APPOINTED A RECEIVER IN EQUITY OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR BY REASON OF ITS INABILITY TO PAY ITS DEBTS AS
THEY MATURE."  SEC. 77B (A).  IN ADDITION, BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 77A THE
DISTRICT COURT, AS A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, HAS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B.  ILLUSTRATIVE OF SPECIFIC POWERS GRANTED BY
SEC. 77B ARE THE POWERS OF THE COURT TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF
CERTIFICATES (SEC. 77B (C)(3)), TO REQUIRE THE FILING OF SCHEDULES AND
REPORTS (SEC. 77B (C)(4)), TO DIRECT REJECTION OF EXECUTORY CONTRACTS
(SEC. 77B (C)(5)), TO CONTROL SALARIES OF OFFICERS AND TO APPROVE
APPOINTMENTS "TO ANY OFFICE" (SEC. 77B (C)).  THE LAST SUBSECTION ALSO
PROVIDES, "IN CASE A TRUSTEE IS NOT APPOINTED, THE DEBTOR SHALL
CONTINUE IN THE POSSESSION OF ITS PROPERTY, AND, IF AUTHORIZED BY THE
JUDGE, SHALL OPERATE THE BUSINESS THEREOF DURING SUCH PERIOD, FIXED OR
INDEFINITE, AS THE JUDGE MAY FROM TIME TO TIME PRESCRIBE, AND SHALL
HAVE ALL THE TITLE TO AND SHALL EXERCISE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, ALL THE POWERS OF A TRUSTEE APPOINTED
PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, SUBJECT AT ALL TIMES TO THE CONTROL OF THE
JUDGE, AND TO SUCH LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS AS
THE JUDGE MAY FROM TIME TO TIME IMPOSE AND PRESCRIBE."  IN THE INSTANT
CASE THE COURT LEFT THE DEBTOR IN POSSESSION, ALLOWING ITS OFFICERS NO
SALARIES BUT ALLOWING SPECIFIED SALARIES TO BE PAID TO DESIGNATED
OFFICERS OF THE PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARY. 

FN23  THE ACT HAS EXPLICIT STANDARDS FOR DISMISSAL (SEC. 77B (C)(8))
WHICH WE DISCUSS HEREAFTER. 

FN24  AS RECOGNIZED IN IN RE 620 CHURCH STREET BUILDING CORP., SUPRA,
SEC. 77B (E)(1) EXPRESSLY TAKES CARE OF THIS CONTINGENCY IN THE
PROVISION THAT ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN BY A MAJORITY OF THE STOCK "SHALL
NOT BE REQUISITE TO THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN BY ANY STOCKHOLDER OR
CLASS OF STOCKHOLDERS (1) IF THE JUDGE SHALL HAVE DETERMINED" INTER
ALIA THAT "THE DEBTOR IS INSOLVENT." 

FN25 UNDER THAT PLAN THE NEW COMPANY WAS TO HAVE AN AUTHORIZED
CAPITAL OF $1,000,000 CONSISTING OF 1,000,000 SHARES OF A PAR VALUE OF
$1.00 PER SHARE, THE BONDHOLDERS GETTING 590,065 OF THE SHARES AND THE
OLD CLASS A STOCKHOLDERS GETTING 239,935 OF THE SHARES.  SHARES GOING
TO THE BONDHOLDERS WERE OF THE SAME CLASS AS THOSE RECEIVED BY
STOCKHOLDERS. 

FN26  THESE ASSENTS WERE APPARENTLY MEASURED BY THE FAILURE OF THE
BONDHOLDERS TO WITHDRAW THEIR CONSENTS WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE
ORIGINAL PLAN, ON RECEIVING COPIES OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION. 

FN27  CF. HOLLISTER V. STEWART, 111 N.Y. 644; 19 N.E. 782, WHERE THE
COURT STRUCK DOWN A VOLUNTARY REORGANIZATION WHICH ATTEMPTED TO BIND
MINORITY BONDHOLDERS.  THE COURT SAID "UNLESS RAILROAD SYNDICATES OR
COMMITTEES ARE TO BE PUT ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION, THE TRUSTEES CANNOT
SET ASIDE AND CHANGE THEIR CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF, OF THEIR OWN
VOLITION, WITHOUT HIS CONSENT."  (P. 660.) 

FN28  THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE ESSENTIALLY THE TYPE OF CASE INVOLVED
IN IN THE MATTER OF DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE CO., DEBTOR, NO.
24131, U.S.D.C.E.D. MICH., CITED TO US BY THE RESPONDENT AND DESCRIBED
IN AN ADVISORY REPORT (CORPORATE REORGANIZATION RELEASE NO. 9)
SUBMITTED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SEC.
172, C. X OF THE CHANDLER ACT.  HOWEVER, THE ACTION OF THE COURT, IF
ANY, ON THE PLAN HAS NOT YET APPEARED IN THE PUBLISHED REPORTS. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :



















COLEMAN V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 433 


NO. 7.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 1938.  REARGUED APRIL 17, 18, 1939.  -
DECIDED JUNE 5, 1939.  - 146 KAN. 390 - 71 P.2D 518, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON SUBMISSION OF A RESOLUTION FOR RATIFICATION OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, KNOWN AS THE CHILD LABOR
AMENDMENT, TWENTY OF THE FORTY SENATORS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS VOTED IN
FAVOR OF ITS ADOPTION AND TWENTY VOTED AGAINST IT.  THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR, THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE SENATE, THEN CAST HIS VOTE IN
FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION, AND LATER IT WAS ADOPTED BY THE OTHER HOUSE OF
THE LEGISLATURE ON A VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF ITS MEMBERS.  THE TWENTY
SENATORS WHO HAD VOTED AGAINST RATIFICATION, CHALLENGING THE RIGHT OF
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR TO CAST THE DECIDING VOTE IN THE SENATE, AND
ALLEGING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT HAD LOST ITS VITALITY BECAUSE OF
PREVIOUS REJECTION BY KANSAS AND OTHER STATES AND FAILURE OF
RATIFICATION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO
COMPEL THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE TO ERASE AN ENDORSEMENT ON THE
RESOLUTION, TO THE EFFECT THAT IT HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE SENATE, AND
TO ENDORSE THEREON THE WORDS "WAS NOT PASSED," AND TO RESTRAIN THE
OFFICERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM SIGNING THE
RESOLUTION AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF KANSAS FROM AUTHENTICATING IT
AND DELIVERING IT TO THE GOVERNOR.  THE STATE ENTERED ITS APPEARANCE
AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT ENTERTAINED THE ACTION, SUSTAINED THE RIGHT
OF THE PLAINTIFFS TO MAINTAIN IT, BUT OVERRULED THEIR CONTENTIONS,
UPHELD THE RATIFICATION, AND DENIED THE WRIT.  HELD: 

(1)  THE QUESTIONS DECIDED WERE FEDERAL QUESTIONS, ARISING UNDER
ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 437. 

(2)  THE COMPLAINING SENATORS, WHOSE VOTES AGAINST RATIFICATION HAVE
BEEN OVERRIDDEN AND VIRTUALLY HELD FOR NAUGHT, ALTHOUGH IF THEY ARE
RIGHT IN THEIR CONTENTIONS THEIR VOTES WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO
DEFEAT RATIFICATION, HAVE A PLAIN, DIRECT AND ADEQUATE INTEREST IN
MAINTAINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR VOTES.  THEY HAVE SET UP AND
CLAIMED A RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES TO HAVE THEIR VOTES GIVEN EFFECT AND THE STATE COURT HAS DENIED
THAT RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE.  P. 438. 

(3)  THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE STATE
COURT BY CERTIORARI, UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 237(B).  P. 438. 

2.  THE COURT BEING EQUALLY DIVIDED IN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE
QUESTION PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, OR IS A POLITICAL
QUESTION, EXPRESSES NO OPINION UPON A CONTENTION THAT THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR OF KANSAS WAS NOT A PART OF THE "LEGISLATURE," AND UNDER
ARTICLE V OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION COULD NOT BE PERMITTED A DECIDING
VOTE ON THE RATIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.  P. 446. 

3.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRECEDENT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE
EFFICACY OF RATIFICATION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION BY A STATE LEGISLATURE WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY REJECTED THE
PROPOSAL, IS HELD A QUESTION FOR THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS, WITH THE
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN THE CONGRESS IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONTROL OVER
THE PROMULGATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT.  P. 447. 

4.  THE LEGISLATURE OF KANSAS HAVING ACTUALLY RATIFIED THE PROPOSED
CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT RESTRAIN THE STATE
OFFICERS FROM CERTIFYING THE RATIFICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
BECAUSE OF AN EARLIER REJECTION, AND THUS PREVENT THE QUESTION FROM
COMING BEFORE THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS.  THERE IS FOUND NO BASIS IN
EITHER CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE FOR SUCH JUDICIAL ACTION.  P. 450. 

5.  R.S. SEC. 205; 5 U.S.C. 160, PRESUPPOSES OFFICIAL NOTICE TO THE
SECRETARY OF STATE WHEN A STATE LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF
RATIFICATION.  NO WARRANT IS SEEN FOR JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
PERFORMANCE OF THAT DUTY.  P. 450. 

6.  THE CONGRESS IN CONTROLLING THE PROMULGATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HAS THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION
WHETHER BY LAPSE OF TIME ITS PROPOSAL OF THE AMENDMENT HAD LOST ITS
VITALITY BEFORE BEING ADOPTED BY THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF LEGISLATURES. 
P. 451. 

7.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER A QUESTION FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF
POLITICAL, NON-JUSTICIABLE QUESTIONS, THE APPROPRIATENESS UNDER OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT OF ATTRIBUTING FINALITY TO THE ACTION OF THE
POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS, AND ALSO THE LACK OF SATISFACTORY CRITERIA FOR A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION, ARE DOMINANT CONSIDERATIONS.  P. 454. 

COLEMAN ET AL. V. MILLER, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF
KANSAS, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 632, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF KANSAS DENYING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, APPLIED FOR IN THAT COURT BY
SENATORS OF THE STATE AND MEMBERS OF ITS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF COMPELLING THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE TO ERASE AN
ENDORSEMENT PURPORTING TO SHOW THAT A RESOLUTION FOR THE RATIFICATION
OF A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HAD PASSED THE SENATE,
AND TO RESTRAIN THE OFFICERS OF THE SENATE AND THE OTHER HOUSE OF THE
LEGISLATURE FROM SIGNING THE RESOLUTION AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF
KANSAS FROM AUTHENTICATING IT AND DELIVERING IT TO THE GOVERNOR. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, ANNOUNCED BY MR.
JUSTICE STONE. 

IN JUNE, 1924, THE CONGRESS PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION, KNOWN AS THE CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT.  FN1  IN JANUARY,
1925, THE LEGISLATURE OF KANSAS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION REJECTING THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION WAS SENT TO
THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN JANUARY, 1937, A
RESOLUTION KNOWN AS "SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3" WAS INTRODUCED
IN THE SENATE OF KANSAS RATIFYING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.  THERE WERE
FORTY SENATORS.  WHEN THE RESOLUTION CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION, TWENTY
SENATORS VOTED IN FAVOR OF ITS ADOPTION AND TWENTY VOTED AGAINST IT.
THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE SENATE, THEN CAST
HIS VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION.  THE RESOLUTION WAS LATER ADOPTED
BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF ITS
MEMBERS. 

THIS ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS WAS THEN BROUGHT IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF KANSAS BY TWENTY-ONE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, INCLUDING THE
TWENTY SENATORS WHO HAD VOTED AGAINST THE RESOLUTION, AND THREE MEMBERS
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TO COMPEL THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
TO ERASE AN ENDORSEMENT ON THE RESOLUTION TO THE EFFECT THAT IT HAD
BEEN ADOPTED BY THE SENATE AND TO ENDORSE THEREON THE WORDS "WAS NOT
PASSED," AND TO RESTRAIN THE OFFICERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM SIGNING THE RESOLUTION AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE
OF KANSAS FROM AUTHENTICATING IT AND DELIVERING IT TO THE GOVERNOR. 
THE PETITION CHALLENGED THE RIGHT OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR TO CAST
THE DECIDING VOTE IN THE SENATE.  THE PETITION ALSO SET FORTH THE PRIOR
REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND ALLEGED THAT IN THE PERIOD FROM
JUNE, 1924, TO MARCH, 1927, THE AMENDMENT HAD BEEN REJECTED BY BOTH
HOUSES OF THE LEGISLATURES OF TWENTY-SIX STATES, AND HAD BEEN RATIFIED
IN ONLY FIVE STATES, AND THAT BY REASON OF THAT REJECTION AND THE
FAILURE OF RATIFICATION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HAD LOST ITS VITALITY. 

AN ALTERNATIVE WRIT WAS ISSUED.  LATER THE SENATE PASSED A RESOLUTION
DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ENTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE STATE AND
TO REPRESENT THE STATE AS ITS INTERESTS MIGHT APPEAR.  ANSWERS WERE
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS OTHER THAN THE STATE AND PLAINTIFFS
MADE THEIR REPLY. 

THE SUPREME COURT FOUND NO DISPUTE AS TO THE FACTS.  THE COURT
ENTERTAINED THE ACTION AND HELD THAT THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR WAS
AUTHORIZED TO CAST THE DECIDING VOTE, THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
RETAINED ITS ORIGINAL VITALITY, AND THAT THE RESOLUTION "HAVING DULY
PASSED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE, THE ACT OF
RATIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY THE LEGISLATURE OF KANSAS WAS
FINAL AND COMPLETE."  THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS ACCORDINGLY DENIED.  146
KAN. 390; 71 P.2D 518.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  303 U.S. 632. 

FIRST.  THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  - OUR AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS CHALLENGED UPON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONERS HAVE
NO STANDING TO SEEK TO HAVE THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT REVIEWED,
AND HENCE IT IS URGED THAT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 
WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THAT VIEW. 

THE STATE COURT HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION; THAT "THE RIGHT OF THE
PARTIES TO MAINTAIN THE ACTION IS BEYOND QUESTION."  FN2  THE STATE
COURT THUS DETERMINED IN SUBSTANCE THAT MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE HAD
STANDING TO SEEK, AND THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO GRANT, MANDAMUS TO
COMPEL A PROPER RECORD OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION.  HAD THE QUESTIONS BEEN
SOLELY STATE QUESTIONS, THE MATTER WOULD HAVE ENDED THERE.  BUT THE
QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE INSTANT CASE AROSE UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND THESE QUESTIONS WERE ENTERTAINED AND DECIDED BY THE
STATE COURT.  THEY AROSE UNDER ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH
ALONE CONFERRED THE POWER TO AMEND AND DETERMINED THE MANNER IN WHICH
THAT POWER COULD BE EXERCISED.  HAWKE V. SMITH (NO. 1), 253 U.S. 221,
227; LESER V. GARNETT, 258 U.S. 130, 137.  WHETHER ANY OR ALL OF THE
QUESTIONS THUS RAISED AND DECIDED ARE DEEMED TO BE JUSTICIABLE OR
POLITICAL, THEY ARE EXCLUSIVELY FEDERAL QUESTIONS AND NOT STATE
QUESTIONS. 

WE FIND THE CASES CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION, THAT
PETITIONERS LACK AN ADEQUATE INTEREST TO INVOKE OUR JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW, TO BE INAPPLICABLE.  FN3  HERE, THE PLAINTIFFS INCLUDE TWENTY
SENATORS, WHOSE VOTES AGAINST RATIFICATION HAVE BEEN OVERRIDDEN AND
VIRTUALLY HELD FOR NAUGHT ALTHOUGH IF THEY ARE RIGHT IN THEIR
CONTENTIONS THEIR VOTES WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT
RATIFICATION.  WE THINK THAT THESE SENATORS HAVE A PLAIN, DIRECT AND
ADEQUATE INTEREST IN MAINTAINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THEIR VOTES. 
PETITIONERS COME DIRECTLY WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE
GOVERNING OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  THEY HAVE SET UP AND CLAIMED A
RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE
THEIR VOTES GIVEN EFFECT AND THE STATE COURT HAS DENIED THAT RIGHT AND
PRIVILEGE.  AS THE VALIDITY OF A STATE STATUTE WAS NOT ASSAILED, THE
REMEDY BY APPEAL WAS NOT AVAILABLE (JUD.  CODE, SEC. 237(A); 28 U.S.C.
344(A)) AND THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY WAS BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI WHICH WE
GRANTED.  JUD.  CODE, SEC. 237(B); 28 U.S.C. 344(B). 

THE CONTENTION TO THE CONTRARY IS ANSWERED BY OUR DECISIONS IN HAWKE
V. SMITH, SUPRA, AND LESER V. GARNETT, SUPRA.  IN HAWKE V. SMITH, THE
PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, SUING AS A "CITIZEN AND ELECTOR OF THE STATE OF
OHIO, AND AS A TAXPAYER AND ELECTOR OF THE COUNTY OF HAMILTON," ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FILED A PETITION FOR
AN INJUNCTION IN THE STATE COURT TO RESTRAIN THE SECRETARY OF STATE
FROM SPENDING THE PUBLIC MONEY IN PREPARING AND PRINTING BALLOTS FOR
SUBMISSION OF A REFERENDUM TO THE ELECTORS ON THE QUESTION OF THE
RATIFICATION OF THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
A DEMURRER TO THE PETITION WAS SUSTAINED IN THE LOWER COURT AND ITS
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE.  THIS COURT ENTERTAINED JURISDICTION AND,
HOLDING THAT THE STATE COURT HAD ERRED IN DECIDING THAT THE STATE HAD
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF THE RATIFICATION TO A
REFERENDUM, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT. 

IN LESER V. GARNETT, QUALIFIED VOTERS IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE STATE COURT TO HAVE THE NAMES OF CERTAIN WOMEN
STRICKEN FROM THE LIST OF QUALIFIED VOTERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE
CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND LIMITED SUFFRAGE TO MEN AND THAT THE
NINETEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HAS NOT BEEN VALIDLY
RATIFIED.  THE STATE COURT TOOK JURISDICTION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PETITION.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  ON THE QUESTION OF OUR JURISDICTION WE SAID: 

"THE PETITIONERS CONTENDED, ON SEVERAL GROUNDS, THAT THE AMENDMENT
HAD NOT BECOME PART OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE TRIAL COURT
OVERRULED THE CONTENTIONS AND DISMISSED THE PETITION.  ITS JUDGMENT WAS
AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE, 139 MD. 46; AND THE CASE
COMES HERE ON WRIT OF ERROR.  THAT WRIT MUST BE DISMISSED; BUT THE
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ALSO DULY FILED, IS GRANTED.  THE
LAWS OF MARYLAND AUTHORIZED SUCH A SUIT BY A QUALIFIED VOTER AGAINST
THE BOARD OF REGISTRY.  WHETHER THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT HAS BECOME
PART OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS THE QUESTION PRESENTED FOR
DECISION." 

AND HOLDING THAT THE OFFICIAL NOTICE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, DULY
AUTHENTICATED, OF THE ACTION OF THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES, WHOSE
ALLEGED RATIFICATIONS WERE ASSAILED, WAS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE SECRETARY
OF STATE AND THAT HIS PROCLAMATION ACCORDINGLY OF RATIFICATION WAS
CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS, WE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE
COURT. 

THAT THE QUESTION OF OUR JURISDICTION IN LESER V. GARNETT WAS DECIDED
UPON DELIBERATE CONSIDERATION IS SUFFICIENTLY SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT
THERE WAS A MOTION TO DISMISS THE WRIT OF ERROR FOR THE WANT OF
JURISDICTION AND OPPOSITION TO THE GRANT OF CERTIORARI.  THE DECISION
IS THE MORE STRIKING BECAUSE ON THE SAME DAY, IN AN OPINION IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING WHICH WAS PREPARED FOR THE COURT BY THE SAME JUSTICE,  FN4
JURISDICTION HAD BEEN DENIED TO A FEDERAL COURT (THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) OF A SUIT BY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,
TAXPAYERS AND MEMBERS OF A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED TO SUPPORT
THE CONSTITUTION, IN WHICH IT WAS SOUGHT TO HAVE THE NINETEENTH
AMENDMENT DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND TO ENJOIN THE SECRETARY OF
STATE FROM PROCLAIMING ITS RATIFICATION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM
TAKING STEPS TO ENFORCE IT. FAIRCHILD V. HUGHES, 258 U.S. 126.  THE
COURT HELD THAT THE PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGED INTEREST IN THE QUESTION
SUBMITTED WAS NOT SUCH AS TO AFFORD A BASIS FOR THE PROCEEDING; THAT
THE PLAINTIFFS HAD ONLY THE RIGHT POSSESSED BY EVERY CITIZEN "TO
REQUIRE THAT THE GOVERNMENT BE ADMINISTERED ACCORDING TO LAW AND THAT
THE PUBLIC MONEYS BE NOT WASTED" AND THAT THIS GENERAL RIGHT DID NOT
ENTITLE A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO BRING SUCH A SUIT AS THE ONE IN QUESTION
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  FN5 IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE A
SITUATION IN WHICH THE ADEQUACY OF THE PETITIONERS' INTEREST TO INVOKE
OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN LESER V. GARNETT COULD HAVE BEEN MORE
SHARPLY PRESENTED. 

THE EFFORT TO DISTINGUISH THAT CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLAINTIFFS
WERE QUALIFIED VOTERS IN MARYLAND, AND HENCE COULD COMPLAIN OF THE
ADMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THOSE ALLEGED NOT TO BE QUALIFIED, IS
FUTILE.  THE INTEREST OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN LESER V. GARNETT AS MERELY
QUALIFIED VOTERS AT GENERAL ELECTIONS IS CERTAINLY MUCH LESS IMPRESSIVE
THAN THE INTEREST OF THE TWENTY SENATORS IN THE INSTANT CASE.  THIS IS
NOT A MERE INTRA-PARLIAMENTARY CONTROVERSY BUT THE QUESTION RELATES TO
LEGISLATIVE ACTION DERIVING ITS FORCE SOLELY FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND THE TWENTY SENATORS WERE NOT ONLY QUALIFIED
TO VOTE ON THE QUESTION OF RATIFICATION BUT THEIR VOTES, IF THE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR WERE EXCLUDED AS NOT BEING A PART OF THE
LEGISLATURE FOR THAT PURPOSE, WOULD HAVE BEEN DECISIVE IN DEFEATING THE
RATIFYING RESOLUTION. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT HAWKE V. SMITH AND LESER V. GARNETT ARE
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES, BUT IN VIEW OF THE WIDE RANGE THE DISCUSSION
HAS TAKEN WE MAY REFER TO SOME OTHER INSTANCES IN WHICH THE QUESTION OF
WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENT INTEREST TO ENABLE ONE TO INVOKE OUR
APPELLATE JURISDICTION HAS BEEN INVOLVED.  THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE
APPLICANT MUST SHOW A LEGAL INTEREST IN THE CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN
MAINTAINED.  IT HAS BEEN APPLIED REPEATEDLY IN CASES WHERE MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS HAVE CHALLENGED STATE LEGISLATION AFFECTING THEIR ALLEGED
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS.  BEING BUT CREATURES OF THE STATE, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS HAVE NO STANDING TO INVOKE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OR THE
PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IN
OPPOSITION TO THE WILL OF THEIR CREATOR.  FN6  BUT THERE HAS BEEN
RECOGNITION OF THE LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONS, FEDERAL AND STATE, TO RESIST THE ENDEAVOR
TO PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATUTES IN RELATION TO WHICH THEY HAVE
OFFICIAL DUTIES.  UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, FN7  THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND COMMISSIONS REPRESENTING INTERESTED
STATES WHICH HAVE INTERVENED, ARE ENTITLED AS "AGGRIEVED PARTIES" TO AN
APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A DECREE SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THOUGH THE UNITED STATES REFUSES TO
JOIN IN THE APPEAL.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R.
& N. CO., 288 U.S. 14.  SO, THIS COURT MAY GRANT CERTIORARI, ON THE
APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, TO REVIEW DECISIONS
SETTING ASIDE ITS ORDERS.  FN8  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CURTIS
PUBLISHING CO., 260 U.S. 568.  ANALOGOUS PROVISIONS AUTHORIZE
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW DECISIONS AGAINST THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD.  FN9  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP.,
301 U.S. 1.  UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. 380), WHERE
AN INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE OF A
STATE OR AN ORDER OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR COMMISSION, UPON THE
GROUND OF INVALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE RIGHT OF
DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM THE DECREE OF THE REQUIRED THREE
JUDGES IS ACCORDED WHETHER THE INJUNCTION BE GRANTED OR DENIED.  HENCE,
IN CASE THE INJUNCTION IS GRANTED, THE STATE BOARD IS ENTITLED TO
APPEAL.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL
BROTHERS, 303 U.S. 177.    THE QUESTION OF OUR AUTHORITY TO GRANT
CERTIORARI, ON THE APPLICATION OF STATE OFFICERS, TO REVIEW DECISIONS
OF STATE COURTS DECLARING STATE STATUTES, WHICH THESE OFFICERS SEEK TO
ENFORCE, TO BE REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, HAS BEEN
CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND OUR JURISDICTION IN THAT CLASS OF CASES HAS
BEEN SUSTAINED.  THE ORIGINAL JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 PROVIDED IN SEC. 25
FN10  FOR THE REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT
"WHERE IS DRAWN IN QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF, OR AN
AUTHORITY EXERCISED UNDER ANY STATE, ON THE GROUND OF THEIR BEING
REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, TREATIES OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND THE DECISION IS IN FAVOUR OF SUCH THEIR VALIDITY"; THAT IS, WHERE
THE CLAIM OF FEDERAL RIGHT HAD BEEN DENIED.  BY THE ACT OF DECEMBER 23,
1914,  FN11  IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THIS COURT MAY REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS SUSTAINING A FEDERAL RIGHT.  THE PRESENT
STATUTE GOVERNING OUR JURISDICTION ON CERTIORARI CONTAINS THE
CORRESPONDING PROVISION THAT THIS COURT MAY EXERCISE THAT JURISDICTION
"AS WELL WHERE THE FEDERAL CLAIM IS SUSTAINED AS WHERE IT IS DENIED." 
JUD.  CODE, SEC. 237(B); 28 U.S.C. 344(B).  THE PLAIN PURPOSE WAS TO
PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY, DEEMED TO BE IMPORTANT AND APPROPRIATE, FOR THE
REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS ON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
HOWEVER THE STATE COURT MIGHT DECIDE THEM.  ACCORDINGLY WHERE THE CLAIM
OF A COMPLAINANT THAT A STATE OFFICER BE RESTRAINED FROM ENFORCING A
STATE STATUTE BECAUSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY IS SUSTAINED BY THE
STATE COURT, THE STATUTE ENABLES THE STATE OFFICER TO SEEK A REVERSAL
BY THIS COURT OF THAT DECISION. 

IN BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1, 7, THE COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSIONER OF CONNECTICUT WHO
SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE
STATE SO FAR AS IT DENIED THE RIGHT CREATED BY ITS STATUTE TO TAX THE
TRANSFER OF CERTAIN SECURITIES, WHICH HAD BEEN PLACED FOR SAFEKEEPING
IN NEW YORK, ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE NOT WITHIN THE TAXING
JURISDICTION OF CONNECTICUT.  ENTERTAINING JURISDICTION, THIS COURT
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT IN THAT RESPECT.  ID., P. 18. 

THE QUESTION RECEIVED MOST CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF
BOYNTON V. HUTCHINSON GAS CO., 291 U.S. 656, WHERE THE SUPREME COURT OF
KANSAS HAD HELD A STATE STATUTE TO BE REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE APPLIED FOR
CERTIORARI.  HIS APPLICATION WAS OPPOSED UPON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD
MERELY AN OFFICIAL INTEREST IN THE CONTROVERSY AND THE DECISIONS WERE
INVOKED UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RELIES IN CHALLENGING OUR
JURISDICTION IN THE INSTANT CASE.  FN12  BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE, AND
CONTRARY TO OUR USUAL PRACTICE, THE COURT DIRECTED ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED, AND AFTER THAT ARGUMENT,
UPON MATURE DELIBERATION, GRANTED THE WRIT.  THE WRIT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
DISMISSED BUT ONLY BECAUSE OF A FAILURE OF THE RECORD TO SHOW SERVICE
OF SUMMONS AND SEVERANCE UPON THE APPELLEES IN THE STATE COURT WHO WERE
NOT PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS HERE.  292 U.S. 601.  THIS DECISION WITH
RESPECT TO THE SCOPE OF OUR JURISDICTION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN LATER
CASES.  IN MOREHEAD V. NEW YORK EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI ON AN APPLICATION BY THE WARDEN OF A CITY PRISON TO
REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE ON HABEAS
CORPUS, RULING THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW OF THE STATE VIOLATED THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THIS COURT DECIDED THE CASE ON THE MERITS.  IN
KELLY V. WASHINGTON EX REL. FOSS CO., 302 U.S. 1, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, ON THE APPLICATION OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES CHARGED WITH
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE LAW RELATING TO THE INSPECTION AND
REGULATION OF VESSELS, TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT
HOLDING THE STATUTE INVALID IN ITS APPLICATION TO NAVIGABLE WATERS.  WE
CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE ACT HAD A PERMISSIBLE FIELD OF OPERATION AND
THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT IN HOLDING THE STATUTE COMPLETELY
UNENFORCEABLE IN DEFERENCE TO FEDERAL LAW WAS REVERSED. 

THIS CLASS OF CASES IN WHICH WE HAVE EXERCISED OUR APPELLATE
JURISDICTION ON THE APPLICATION OF STATE OFFICERS MAY BE SAID TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAVE AN ADEQUATE INTEREST IN THE CONTROVERSY BY
REASON OF THEIR DUTY TO ENFORCE THE STATE STATUTES THE VALIDITY OF
WHICH HAS BEEN DRAWN IN QUESTION.  IN NONE OF THESE CASES COULD IT BE
SAID THAT THE STATE OFFICERS INVOKING OUR JURISDICTION WERE SUSTAINING
ANY "PRIVATE DAMAGE." 

WHILE ONE WHO ASSERTS THE MERE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN AND TAXPAYER OF THE
UNITED STATES TO COMPLAIN OF THE ALLEGED INVALID OUTLAY OF PUBLIC
MONEYS HAS NO STANDING TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
(FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 480, 486, 487), THE COURT HAS
SUSTAINED THE MORE IMMEDIATE AND SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT OF A RESIDENT
TAXPAYER TO INVOKE THE INTERPOSITION OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO ENJOIN AN
ILLEGAL USE OF MONEYS BY A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.  CRAMPTON V.
ZABRISKIE, 101 U.S. 601, 609; FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, SUPRA.  IN HEIM V.
MCCALL, 239 U.S. 175, WE TOOK JURISDICTION ON A WRIT OF ERROR SUED OUT
BY A PROPERTY OWNER AND TAXPAYER, WHO HAD BEEN GIVEN STANDING IN THE
STATE COURT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING ITS DECISION SUSTAINING THE
VALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, OF A STATE STATUTE AS APPLIED
TO CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC WORKS IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO INVOLVE IRREPARABLE LOSS
TO THE CITY AND HENCE TO BE INIMICAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE TAXPAYER. 

IN SMILEY V. HOLM, 285 U.S. 355, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI ON THE
APPLICATION OF ONE WHO WAS AN "ELECTOR," AS WELL AS A "CITIZEN" AND
"TAXPAYER," AND WHO ASSAILED UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION A STATE
STATUTE ESTABLISHING CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.  PASSING UPON THE MERITS
WE HELD THAT THE FUNCTION OF A STATE LEGISLATURE IN PRESCRIBING THE
TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF HOLDING ELECTIONS FOR REPRESENTATIVES IN
CONGRESS UNDER ARTICLE I, SEC. 4, WAS A LAW-MAKING FUNCTION IN WHICH
THE VETO POWER OF THE STATE GOVERNOR PARTICIPATES, IF UNDER THE STATE
CONSTITUTION THE GOVERNOR HAS THAT POWER IN THE COURSE OF THE MAKING OF
STATE LAWS, AND ACCORDINGLY REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT. 
WE TOOK JURISDICTION ON CERTIORARI IN A SIMILAR CASE FROM NEW YORK
WHERE THE PETITIONERS WERE "CITIZENS AND VOTERS OF THE STATE" WHO HAD
SOUGHT A MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW YORK TO
CERTIFY THAT REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS WERE TO BE ELECTED IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS AS DEFINED BY A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OF THE LEGISLATURE.  THERE THE STATE COURT,
CONSTRUING THE PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS CONTEMPLATING
THE EXERCISE OF THE LAW-MAKING POWER, HAD SUSTAINED THE DEFENSE THAT
THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION WAS INEFFECTIVE AS IT HAD NOT BEEN SUBMITTED
TO THE GOVERNOR FOR APPROVAL, AND REFUSED THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS.  WE
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  KOENIG V. FLYNN, 285 U.S. 375. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURSE OF DECISIONS, WE FIND NO DEPARTURE FROM
PRINCIPLE IN RECOGNIZING IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT AT LEAST THE TWENTY
SENATORS WHOSE VOTES, IF THEIR CONTENTION WERE SUSTAINED, WOULD HAVE
BEEN SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT THE RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE CONTROVERSY WHICH,
TREATED BY THE STATE COURT AS A BASIS FOR ENTERTAINING AND DECIDING THE
FEDERAL QUESTIONS, IS SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THE COURT JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THAT DECISION. 

SECOND.  THE PARTICIPATION OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.  - PETITIONERS
CONTEND THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR AND HIS RELATION TO THE SENATE UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION,
AS CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
WAS NOT A PART OF THE "LEGISLATURE" SO THAT UNDER ARTICLE V OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, HE COULD BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A DECIDING VOTE ON
THE RATIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHEN THE SENATE WAS EQUALLY
DIVIDED. 

WHETHER THIS CONTENTION PRESENTS A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY, OR A
QUESTION WHICH IS POLITICAL IN ITS NATURE AND HENCE NOT JUSTICIABLE, IS
A QUESTION UPON WHICH THE COURT IS EQUALLY DIVIDED AND THEREFORE THE
COURT EXPRESSES NO OPINION UPON THAT POINT. 

THIRD.  THE EFFECT OF THE PREVIOUS REJECTION OF THE AMENDMENT AND OF
THE LAPSE OF TIME SINCE ITS SUBMISSION. 

1.  THE STATE COURT ADOPTED THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY TEXT-WRITERS THAT A
STATE LEGISLATURE WHICH HAS REJECTED AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE
CONGRESS MAY LATER RATIFY.  FN13  THE ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THAT VIEW
IS THAT ARTICLE V SAYS NOTHING OF REJECTION BUT SPEAKS ONLY OF
RATIFICATION AND PROVIDES THAT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT SHALL BE VALID AS
PART OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN RATIFIED BY THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES;
THAT THE POWER TO RATIFY IS THUS CONFERRED UPON THE STATE BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND, AS A RATIFYING POWER, PERSISTS DESPITE A PREVIOUS
REJECTION.  THE OPPOSING VIEW PROCEEDS ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT IF
RATIFICATION BY "CONVENTIONS" WERE PRESCRIBED BY THE CONGRESS, A
CONVENTION COULD NOT REJECT AND, HAVING ADJOURNED SINE DIE, BE
REASSEMBLED AND RATIFY.  IT IS ALSO PREMISED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH VIEWS
EXPRESSED BY TEXT-WRITERS,  FN14  THAT RATIFICATION IF ONCE GIVEN
CANNOT AFTERWARDS BE RESCINDED AND THE AMENDMENT REJECTED, AND IT IS
URGED THAT THE SAME EFFECT IN THE EXHAUSTION OF THE STATE'S POWER TO
ACT SHOULD BE ASCRIBED TO REJECTION; THAT A STATE CAN ACT "BUT ONCE,
EITHER BY CONVENTION OR THROUGH ITS LEGISLATURE." 

HISTORIC INSTANCES ARE CITED.  IN 1865, THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS
REJECTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW JERSEY WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RATIFIED
IT, BUT THE QUESTION DID NOT BECOME IMPORTANT AS RATIFICATION BY THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF STATES HAD ALREADY BEEN PROCLAIMED.  FN15  THE
QUESTION DID ARISE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE LEGISLATURES OF GEORGIA, NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH
CAROLINA HAD REJECTED THE AMENDMENT IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1866. 
FN16  NEW GOVERNMENTS WERE ERECTED IN THOSE STATES (AND IN OTHERS)
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF CONGRESS.  FN17  THE NEW LEGISLATURES RATIFIED
THE AMENDMENT, THAT OF NORTH CAROLINA ON JULY 4, 1868, THAT OF SOUTH
CAROLINA ON JULY 9, 1868, AND THAT OF GEORGIA ON JULY 21, 1868.  FN18
OHIO AND NEW JERSEY FIRST RATIFIED AND THEN PASSED RESOLUTIONS
WITHDRAWING THEIR CONSENT.  FN19  AS THERE WERE THEN THIRTY-SEVEN
STATES, TWENTY-EIGHT WERE NEEDED TO CONSTITUTE THE REQUISITE THREE
FOURTHS.  ON JULY 9, 1868, THE CONGRESS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION REQUESTING
THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO COMMUNICATE "A LIST OF THE STATES OF THE
UNION WHOSE LEGISLATURES HAVE RATIFIED THE FOURTEENTH ARTICLE OF
AMENDMENT,"  FN20  AND IN SECRETARY SEWARD'S REPORT ATTENTION WAS
CALLED TO THE ACTION OF OHIO AND NEW JERSEY.  FN21  ON JULY 20TH
SECRETARY SEWARD ISSUED A PROCLAMATION RECITING THE RATIFICATION BY
TWENTY-EIGHT STATES, INCLUDING NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, OHIO AND
NEW JERSEY, AND STATING THAT IT APPEARED THAT OHIO AND NEW JERSEY HAD
SINCE PASSED RESOLUTIONS WITHDRAWING THEIR CONSENT AND THAT "IT IS
DEEMED A MATTER OF DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY WHETHER SUCH RESOLUTIONS ARE
NOT IRREGULAR, INVALID AND THEREFORE INEFFECTUAL."  THE SECRETARY
CERTIFIED THAT IF THE RATIFYING RESOLUTIONS OF OHIO AND NEW JERSEY WERE
STILL IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ATTEMPTED
WITHDRAWAL, THE AMENDMENT HAD BECOME A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN22
ON THE FOLLOWING DAY THE CONGRESS ADOPTED A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
WHICH, RECITING THAT THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES HAVING RATIFIED (THE
LIST INCLUDING NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, OHIO AND NEW JERSEY),
FN23  DECLARED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO BE A PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THAT IT SHOULD BE DULY PROMULGATED AS SUCH BY THE
SECRETARY OF STATE.  ACCORDINGLY, SECRETARY SEWARD, ON JULY 28TH,
ISSUED HIS PROCLAMATION EMBRACING THE STATES MENTIONED IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION AND ADDING GEORGIA.  FN24 

THUS THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT DEALT WITH THE
EFFECT BOTH OF PREVIOUS REJECTION AND OF ATTEMPTED WITHDRAWAL AND
DETERMINED THAT BOTH WERE INEFFECTUAL IN THE PRESENCE OF AN ACTUAL
RATIFICATION.  FN25  WHILE THERE WERE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BECAUSE OF
THE ACTION OF THE CONGRESS IN RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE
REJECTING STATES (NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA), THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES WERE NOT RECITED IN PROCLAIMING RATIFICATION AND THE
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN IN THESE STATES WAS SET FORTH IN THE PROCLAMATION
AS ACTUAL PREVIOUS REJECTIONS BY THE RESPECTIVE LEGISLATURES.  THIS
DECISION BY THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN
ACCEPTED. 

WE THINK THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS HISTORIC PRECEDENT THE QUESTION
OF THE EFFICACY OF RATIFICATIONS BY STATE LEGISLATURES, IN THE LIGHT OF
PREVIOUS REJECTION OR ATTEMPTED WITHDRAWAL, SHOULD BE REGARDED AS A
POLITICAL QUESTION PERTAINING TO THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS, WITH THE
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN THE CONGRESS IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONTROL OVER
THE PROMULGATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION AS NOW RAISED IS WHETHER, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE
OF THE STATE, AS WE HAVE FOUND, HAS ACTUALLY RATIFIED THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT, THE COURT SHOULD RESTRAIN THE STATE OFFICERS FROM CERTIFYING
THE RATIFICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, BECAUSE OF AN EARLIER
REJECTION, AND THUS PREVENT THE QUESTION FROM COMING BEFORE THE
POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS.  WE FIND NO BASIS IN EITHER CONSTITUTION OR
STATUTE FOR SUCH JUDICIAL ACTION.  ARTICLE V, SPEAKING SOLELY OF
RATIFICATION, CONTAINS NO PROVISION AS TO REJECTION.  FN26  NOR HAS THE
CONGRESS ENACTED A STATUTE RELATING TO REJECTIONS.  THE STATUTORY
PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IS AS FOLLOWS: 
"WHENEVER OFFICIAL NOTICE IS RECEIVED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE THAT
ANY AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES HAS
BEEN ADOPTED, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE
SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL FORTHWITH CAUSE THE AMENDMENT TO BE PUBLISHED,
WITH HIS CERTIFICATE, SPECIFYING THE STATES BY WHICH THE SAME MAY HAVE
BEEN ADOPTED, AND THAT THE SAME HAS BECOME VALID, TO ALL INTENTS AND
PURPOSES, AS A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN27 

THE STATUTE PRESUPPOSES OFFICIAL NOTICE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WHEN A STATE LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION.  WE
SEE NO WARRANT FOR JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT
DUTY.  SEE LESER V. GARNETT, SUPRA, P. 137. 

2.  THE MORE SERIOUS QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PROPOSAL BY THE CONGRESS
OF THE AMENDMENT HAD LOST ITS VITALITY THROUGH LAPSE OF TIME AND HENCE
IT COULD NOT BE RATIFIED BY THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE IN 1937.  THE
ARGUMENT OF PETITIONERS STRESSES THE FACT THAT NEARLY THIRTEEN YEARS
ELAPSED BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL IN 1924 AND THE RATIFICATION IN QUESTION. 
IT IS SAID THAT WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED THERE WAS A DEFINITELY
ADVERSE POPULAR SENTIMENT AND THAT AT THE END OF 1925 THERE HAD BEEN
REJECTION BY BOTH HOUSES OF THE LEGISLATURES OF SIXTEEN STATES AND
RATIFICATION BY ONLY FOUR STATES, AND THAT IT WAS NOT UNTIL ABOUT 1933
THAT AN AGGRESSIVE CAMPAIGN WAS STARTED IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT.  IN
REPLY, IT IS URGED THAT CONGRESS DID NOT FIX A LIMIT OF TIME FOR
RATIFICATION AND THAT AN UNREASONABLY LONG TIME HAD NOT ELAPSED SINCE
THE SUBMISSION; THAT THE CONDITIONS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE AMENDMENT
HAD NOT BEEN ELIMINATED; THAT THE PREVALENCE OF CHILD LABOR, THE
DIVERSITY OF STATE LAWS AND THE DISPARITY IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION, WITH
THE RESULTING COMPETITIVE INEQUALITIES, CONTINUED TO EXIST.  REFERENCE
IS ALSO MADE TO THE FACT THAT A NUMBER OF THE STATES HAVE TREATED THE
AMENDMENT AS STILL PENDING AND THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT THERE HAVE BEEN INDICATIONS OF THE SAME VIEW.  FN28  IT IS
SAID THAT THERE WERE FOURTEEN RATIFICATIONS IN 1933, FOUR IN 1935, ONE
IN 1936, AND THREE IN 1937. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT THE CONGRESS IN PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT MAY FIX A
REASONABLE TIME FOR RATIFICATION.  DILLON V. GLOSS, 256 U.S. 368. 
THERE WE SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF THE CONGRESS IN PROVIDING IN THE
PROPOSED EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS
RATIFIED WITHIN SEVEN YEARS.  FN29  NO LIMITATION OF TIME FOR
RATIFICATION IS PROVIDED IN THE INSTANT CASE EITHER IN THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT OR IN THE RESOLUTION OF SUBMISSION.  BUT PETITIONERS CONTEND
THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A LIMITATION BY THE CONGRESS, THE COURT CAN AND
SHOULD DECIDE WHAT IS A REASONABLE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH RATIFICATION MAY
BE HAD.  WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THAT CONTENTION. 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN DILLON V. GLOSS THE COURT SAID THAT NOTHING WAS
FOUND IN ARTICLE V WHICH SUGGESTED THAT AN AMENDMENT ONCE PROPOSED WAS
TO BE OPEN TO RATIFICATION FOR ALL TIME, OR THAT RATIFICATION IN SOME
STATES MIGHT BE SEPARATED FROM THAT IN OTHERS BY MANY YEARS AND YET BE
EFFECTIVE; THAT THERE WAS A STRONG SUGGESTION TO THE CONTRARY IN THAT
PROPOSAL AND RATIFICATION WERE BUT SUCCEEDING STEPS IN A SINGLE
ENDEAVOR; THAT AS AMENDMENTS WERE DEEMED TO BE PROMPTED BY NECESSITY,
THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF PRESENTLY; AND THAT THERE IS
A FAIR IMPLICATION THAT RATIFICATION MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY
CONTEMPORANEOUS IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF STATES TO REFLECT THE WILL OF
THE PEOPLE IN ALL SECTIONS AT RELATIVELY THE SAME PERIOD; AND HENCE
THAT RATIFICATION MUST BE WITHIN SOME REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE
PROPOSAL.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS WERE COGENT REASONS FOR THE DECISION IN
DILLON V. GLOSS THAT THE CONGRESS HAD THE POWER TO FIX A REASONABLE
TIME FOR RATIFICATION.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT, WHENEVER CONGRESS
HAS NOT EXERCISED THAT POWER, THE COURT SHOULD TAKE UPON ITSELF THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF DECIDING WHAT CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE TIME AND
DETERMINE ACCORDINGLY THE VALIDITY OF RATIFICATIONS.  THAT QUESTION WAS
NOT INVOLVED IN DILLON V. GLOSS AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAMILIAR
PRINCIPLE, WHAT WAS THERE SAID MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE POINT
DECIDED. 

WHERE ARE TO BE FOUND THE CRITERIA FOR SUCH A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION?  NONE ARE TO BE FOUND IN CONSTITUTION OR STATUTE.  IN
THEIR ENDEAVOR TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION PETITIONERS' COUNSEL HAVE
SUGGESTED THAT AT LEAST TWO YEARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED; THAT SIX YEARS
WOULD NOT SEEM TO BE UNREASONABLY LONG; THAT SEVEN YEARS HAD BEEN USED
BY THE CONGRESS AS A REASONABLE PERIOD; THAT ONE YEAR, SIX MONTHS AND
THIRTEEN DAYS WAS THE AVERAGE TIME USED IN PASSING UPON AMENDMENTS
WHICH HAVE BEEN RATIFIED SINCE THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS; THAT THREE
YEARS, SIX MONTHS AND TWENTY-FIVE DAYS HAS BEEN THE LONGEST TIME USED
IN RATIFYING.  TO THIS LIST OF VARIABLES, COUNSEL ADD THAT "THE NATURE
AND EXTENT OF PUBLICITY AND THE ACTIVITY OF THE PUBLIC AND OF THE
LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES IN RELATION TO ANY PARTICULAR
PROPOSAL SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION."  THAT STATEMENT IS
PERTINENT, BUT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL MATTERS TO BE EXAMINED AND
WEIGHED.  WHEN A PROPOSED AMENDMENT SPRINGS FROM A CONCEPTION OF
ECONOMIC NEEDS, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY, IN DETERMINING WHETHER A
REASONABLE TIME HAD ELAPSED SINCE ITS SUBMISSION, TO CONSIDER THE
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN THE COUNTRY, WHETHER THESE HAD SO FAR
CHANGED SINCE THE SUBMISSION AS TO MAKE THE PROPOSAL NO LONGER
RESPONSIVE TO THE CONCEPTION WHICH INSPIRED IT OR WHETHER CONDITIONS
WERE SUCH AS TO INTENSIFY THE FEELING OF NEED AND THE APPROPRIATENESS
OF THE PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION.  IN SHORT, THE QUESTION OF A
REASONABLE TIME IN MANY CASES WOULD INVOLVE, AS IN THIS CASE IT DOES
INVOLVE, AN APPRAISAL OF A GREAT VARIETY OF RELEVANT CONDITIONS,
POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC, WHICH CAN HARDLY BE SAID TO BE WITHIN
THE APPROPRIATE RANGE OF EVIDENCE RECEIVABLE IN A COURT OF JUSTICE AND
AS TO WHICH IT WOULD BE AN EXTRAVAGANT EXTENSION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
TO ASSERT JUDICIAL NOTICE AS THE BASIS OF DECIDING A CONTROVERSY WITH
RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF AN AMENDMENT ACTUALLY RATIFIED.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, THESE CONDITIONS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF
THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE QUESTIONS THEY
INVOLVE ARE ESSENTIALLY POLITICAL AND NOT JUSTICIABLE.  THEY CAN BE
DECIDED BY THE CONGRESS WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE AND APPRECIATION
ASCRIBED TO THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE OF THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE PREVAILED DURING THE PERIOD SINCE THE
SUBMISSION OF THE AMENDMENT. 

OUR DECISION THAT THE CONGRESS HAS THE POWER UNDER ARTICLE V TO FIX A
REASONABLE LIMIT OF TIME FOR RATIFICATION IN PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
PROCEEDS UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE QUESTION, WHAT IS A REASONABLE
TIME, LIES WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL PROVINCE.  IF IT BE DEEMED THAT
SUCH A QUESTION IS AN OPEN ONE WHEN THE LIMIT HAS NOT BEEN FIXED IN
ADVANCE, WE THINK THAT IT SHOULD ALSO BE REGARDED AS AN OPEN ONE FOR
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONGRESS WHEN, IN THE PRESENCE OF CERTIFIED
RATIFICATIONS BY THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, THE TIME ARRIVES FOR THE
PROMULGATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT.  THE DECISION BY THE
CONGRESS, IN ITS CONTROL OF THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, OF
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE AMENDMENT HAD BEEN ADOPTED WITHIN A REASONABLE
TIME WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COURTS. 

IT WOULD UNDULY LENGTHEN THIS OPINION TO ATTEMPT TO REVIEW OUR
DECISIONS AS TO THE CLASS OF QUESTIONS DEEMED TO BE POLITICAL AND NOT
JUSTICIABLE.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER A QUESTION FALLS WITHIN THAT
CATEGORY, THE APPROPRIATENESS UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT OF
ATTRIBUTING FINALITY TO THE ACTION OF THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS AND
ALSO THE LACK OF SATISFACTORY CRITERIA FOR A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION ARE
DOMINANT CONSIDERATIONS.  FN30  THERE ARE MANY ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE
FIELD OF OUR CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, WHERE THERE ARE
"CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY, CONSIDERATIONS OF EXTREME MAGNITUDE, AND
CERTAINLY, ENTIRELY INCOMPETENT TO THE EXAMINATION AND DECISION OF A
COURT OF JUSTICE."  WARE V. HYLTON, 3 DALL.  199, 260.  FN31  QUESTIONS
INVOLVING SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS ARE FOUND IN THE GOVERNMENT OF OUR
INTERNAL AFFAIRS.  THUS, UNDER ARTICLE IV, SEC. 4, OF THE CONSTITUTION,
PROVIDING THAT THE UNITED STATES "SHALL GUARANTEE TO EVERY STATE IN
THIS UNION A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT," WE HAVE HELD THAT IT RESTS
WITH THE CONGRESS TO DECIDE WHAT GOVERNMENT IS THE ESTABLISHED ONE IN A
STATE AND WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REPUBLICAN IN FORM.  LUTHER V. BORDEN, 7
HOW.  1, 42.  IN THAT CASE CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY OBSERVED THAT "WHEN THE
SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF A STATE ARE ADMITTED INTO THE COUNCILS
OF THE UNION, THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT UNDER WHICH THEY ARE
APPOINTED, AS WELL AS ITS REPUBLICAN CHARACTER, IS RECOGNIZED BY THE
PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.  AND ITS DECISION IS BINDING ON EVERY
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED IN A
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL."  SO, IT WAS HELD IN THE SAME CASE THAT UNDER THE
PROVISION OF THE SAME ARTICLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF EACH OF THE STATES
"AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE" IT RESTED WITH THE CONGRESS "TO DETERMINE
UPON THE MEANS PROPER TO BE ADOPTED TO FULFIL THIS GUARANTEE."  ID., P.
43.  SO, IN PACIFIC TELEPHONE CO. V. OREGON, 223 U.S. 118, WE
CONSIDERED THAT QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE GUARANTY OF A REPUBLICAN
FORM OF GOVERNMENT HAD LONG SINCE BEEN "DEFINITELY DETERMINED TO BE
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL" AND HENCE THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
GOVERNMENT OF OREGON HAD CEASED TO BE REPUBLICAN IN FORM BECAUSE OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BY WHICH THE PEOPLE RESERVED TO THEMSELVES
POWER TO PROPOSE AND ENACT LAWS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY AND ALSO TO APPROVE OR REJECT ANY ACT OF THAT BODY, WAS A
QUESTION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONGRESS.  IT WOULD BE FINALLY
SETTLED WHEN THE CONGRESS ADMITTED THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE STATE. 

FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE STATED, WHICH WE THINK TO BE AS COMPELLING AS
THOSE WHICH UNDERLAY THE CITED DECISIONS, WE THINK THAT THE CONGRESS IN
CONTROLLING THE PROMULGATION OF THE ADOPTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT HAS THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER BY LAPSE
OF TIME ITS PROPOSAL OF THE AMENDMENT HAD LOST ITS VITALITY PRIOR TO
THE REQUIRED RATIFICATIONS.  THE STATE OFFICIALS SHOULD NOT BE
RESTRAINED FROM CERTIFYING TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE ADOPTION BY
THE LEGISLATURE OF KANSAS OF THE RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION. 

AS WE FIND NO REASON FOR DISTURBING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF KANSAS IN DENYING THE MANDAMUS SOUGHT BY PETITIONERS, ITS JUDGMENT
IS AFFIRMED BUT UPON THE GROUNDS STATED IN THIS OPINION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS AS FOLLOWS (43 STAT.
670): 

"SECTION 1.  THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO LIMIT, REGULATE, AND
PROHIBIT THE LABOR OF PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. 

"SEC. 2.  THE POWER OF THE SEVERAL STATES IS UNIMPAIRED BY THIS
ARTICLE EXCEPT THAT THE OPERATION OF STATE LAWS SHALL BE SUSPENDED TO
THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO GIVE EFFECT TO LEGISLATION ENACTED BY THE
CONGRESS." 

FN2  THE STATE COURT SAID ON THIS POINT: 

"AT THE THRESHOLD WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE QUESTION RAISED BY THE
DEFENDANTS AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFFS TO MAINTAIN THIS ACTION. 
IT APPEARS THAT ON MARCH 30, 1937, THE STATE SENATE ADOPTED A
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO APPEAR FOR THE STATE OF
KANSAS IN THIS ACTION.  IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT ON APRIL 3, 1937, ON
APPLICATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AN ORDER WAS ENTERED MAKING THE
STATE OF KANSAS A PARTY DEFENDANT.  THE STATE BEING A PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDINGS, WE THINK THE RIGHT OF THE PARTIES TO MAINTAIN THE ACTION
IS BEYOND QUESTION.  (G.S. 1935, 75-702; STATE, EX REL. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMN., 135 KAN. 491, 11 P.2D 999.)" 

FN3  SEE CAFFREY V. OKLAHOMA TERRITORY, 177 U.S. 346; SMITH V.
INDIANA, 191 U.S. 138; BRAXTON COUNTY COURT V. WEST VIRGINIA, 208 U.S.
192; MARSHALL V. DYE, 231 U.S. 250; STEWART V. KANSAS CITY, 239 U.S.
14; COLUMBUS & GREENVILLE RY. CO. V. MILLER, 283 U.S. 96. 

FN4  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS. 

FN5  ID., PP. 129, 130.  SEE, ALSO, FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, 262 U.S.
447, 480, 486, 487. 

FN6  PAWHUSKA V. PAWHUSKA OIL CO., 250 U.S. 394; TRENTON V. NEW
JERSEY, 262 U.S. 182; RISTY V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 270 U.S.
378; WILLIAMS V. MAYOR, 289 U.S. 36. 

FN7  ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 219; 28 U.S.C. 47, 47A, 345. 

FN8  15 U.S.C. 45; 28 U.S.C. 348. 

FN9  29 U.S.C. 160(E).  SEE, ALSO, AS TO ORDERS OF FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, 47 U.S.C. 402(E). 

FN10  1 STAT. 73, 85, 86. 

FN11  38 STAT. 790; SEE, ALSO, ACT OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1916, 39 STAT.
726. 

FN12  SEE CASES CITED IN NOTE 3. 

FN13  JAMESON ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS, SECS. 576-581;
WILLOUGHBY ON THE CONSTITUTION, SEC. 329A. 

FN14  JAMESON, OP. CIT., SECS. 582-584; WILLOUGHBY, OP. CIT., SEC.
329A; AMES, "PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION," HOUSE DOC. NO.
353, PT. 2, 54TH CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 299, 300. 

FN15  13 STAT. 774, 775; JAMESON, OP. CIT., SEC. 576; AMES, OP. CIT.,
P. 300. 

FN16  15 STAT. 710. 

FN17  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1867, 14 STAT., P. 428.  SEE WHITE V. HART, 13
WALL.  646, 652. 

FN18  15 STAT. 710. 

FN19  15 STAT. 707. 

FN20  CONG. GLOBE, 40TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 3857. 

FN21  CONG. GLOBE, 40TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4070. 

FN22  15 STAT. 706, 707. 

FN23  15 STAT. 709, 710. 

FN24  15 STAT. 710, 711; AMES, OP. CIT., APP. NO. 1140, P. 377. 

FN25  THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW YORK WHICH HAD RATIFIED THE FIFTEENTH
AMENDMENT IN 1869 ATTEMPTED, IN JANUARY, 1870, TO WITHDRAW ITS
RATIFICATION, AND WHILE THIS FACT WAS STATED IN THE PROCLAMATION BY
SECRETARY FISH OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT, AND NEW YORK WAS
NOT NEEDED TO MAKE UP THE REQUIRED THREE-FOURTHS, THAT STATE WAS
INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF RATIFYING STATES.  16 STAT. 1131; AMES, OP.
CIT., APP. NO. 1284, P. 388.    FN26  COMPARE ARTICLE VII. 

FN27  5 U.S.C. 160.  FROM ACT OF APRIL 20, 1818, SEC. 2; 3 STAT. 439;
R.S. SEC. 205. 

FN28  SEN. REP. 726, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; SEN. REP. 788, 75TH
CONG., 1ST SESS.:  LETTER OF THE PRESIDENT ON JANUARY 8, 1937, TO THE
GOVERNORS OF NINETEEN NON-RATIFYING STATES WHOSE LEGISLATURES WERE TO
MEET IN THAT YEAR, URGING THEM TO PRESS FOR RATIFICATION.  NEW YORK
TIMES, JANUARY 9, 1937, P. 5. 

FN29  40 STAT. 1050.  A SIMILAR PROVISION WAS INSERTED IN THE TWENTY
FIRST AMENDMENT.  UNITED STATES V. CHAMBERS, 291 U.S. 217, 222. 

FN30  SEE WILLOUGHBY, OP. CIT., PP. 1326, ET SEQ.; OLIVER P. FIELD,
"THE DOCTRINE OF POLITICAL QUESTIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS," 8
MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW, 485; MELVILLE FULLER WESTON, "POLITICAL
QUESTIONS," 38 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, 296. 

FN31  SEE, ALSO, UNITED STATES V. PALMER, 3 WHEAT.  610, 634; FOSTER
V. NEILSON, 2 PET. 253, 309; DOE V. BRADEN, 16 HOW.  635, 657;
TERLINDEN V. AMES, 184 U.S. 270, 288. 

CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BLACK, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE
ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS JOIN. 

ALTHOUGH, FOR REASONS TO BE STATED BY MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, WE
BELIEVE THIS CAUSE SHOULD BE DISMISSED, THE RULING OF THE COURT JUST
ANNOUNCED REMOVES FROM THE CASE THE QUESTION OF PETITIONERS' STANDING
TO SUE.  UNDER THE COMPULSION OF THAT RULING,  FN1  MR. JUSTICE
ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS AND I HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN THE DISCUSSION OF OTHER QUESTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE
COURT AND WE CONCUR IN THE RESULT REACHED, BUT FOR SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
REASONS. 

THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS CONGRESS EXCLUSIVE POWER TO CONTROL
SUBMISSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.  FINAL DETERMINATION BY
CONGRESS THAT RATIFICATION BY THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES HAS TAKEN
PLACE "IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS."  FN2  IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT
POWER, CONGRESS, OF COURSE, IS GOVERNED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  HOWEVER,
WHETHER SUBMISSION, INTERVENING PROCEDURE OR CONGRESSIONAL
DETERMINATION OF RATIFICATION CONFORMS TO THE COMMANDS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, CALLS FOR DECISIONS BY A "POLITICAL DEPARTMENT" OF
QUESTIONS OF A TYPE WHICH THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY DESIGNATED
"POLITICAL."  AND DECISION OF A "POLITICAL QUESTION" BY THE "POLITICAL
DEPARTMENT" TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS COMMITTED IT "CONCLUSIVELY
BINDS THE JUDGES, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER OFFICERS, CITIZENS AND SUBJECTS
OF  ...  GOVERNMENT."  FN3  PROCLAMATION UNDER AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS
THAT AN AMENDMENT HAS BEEN RATIFIED WILL CARRY WITH IT A SOLEMN
ASSURANCE BY THE CONGRESS THAT RATIFICATION HAS TAKEN PLACE AS THE
CONSTITUTION COMMANDS.  UPON THIS ASSURANCE A PROCLAIMED AMENDMENT MUST
BE ACCEPTED AS A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, LEAVING TO THE JUDICIARY ITS
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY OF INTERPRETATION.  FN4  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
COURT'S OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE EVEN IMPLIEDLY ASSUMES A POWER TO
MAKE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
OF CONGRESS OVER SUBMISSION AND RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS, WE ARE
UNABLE TO AGREE. 

THE STATE COURT BELOW ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PROPER PROCEDURE IS BEING FOLLOWED BETWEEN SUBMISSION AND FINAL
ADOPTION.  HOWEVER, IT IS APPARENT THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF OR
PRONOUNCEMENTS UPON A SUPPOSED LIMITATION OF A "REASONABLE TIME" WITHIN
WHICH CONGRESS MAY ACCEPT RATIFICATION; AS TO WHETHER DULY AUTHORIZED
STATE OFFICIALS HAVE PROCEEDED PROPERLY IN RATIFYING OR VOTING FOR
RATIFICATION; OR WHETHER A STATE MAY REVERSE ITS ACTION ONCE TAKEN UPON
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT; AND KINDRED QUESTIONS, ARE ALL CONSISTENT ONLY
WITH AN ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER THE AMENDING PROCESS IN THE COURTS.  AND
THIS MUST INEVITABLY EMBARRASS THE COURSE OF AMENDMENT BY SUBJECTING TO
JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE MATTERS THAT WE BELIEVE WERE INTRUSTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION SOLELY TO THE POLITICAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. 

THE COURT HERE TREATS THE AMENDING PROCESS OF THE CONSTITUTION IN
SOME RESPECTS AS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, IN OTHERS AS SUBJECT
TO THE FINAL AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS.  THERE IS NO DISAPPROVAL OF THE
CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN DILLON V. GLOSS,  FN5  THAT THE CONSTITUTION
IMPLIEDLY REQUIRES THAT A PROPERLY SUBMITTED AMENDMENT MUST DIE UNLESS
RATIFIED WITHIN A "REASONABLE TIME."  NOR DOES THE COURT NOW DISAPPROVE
ITS PRIOR ASSUMPTION OF POWER TO MAKE SUCH A PRONOUNCEMENT.  AND IT IS
NOT MADE CLEAR THAT ONLY CONGRESS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DETERMINE
IF THERE IS ANY SUCH IMPLICATION IN ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, THE COURT'S OPINION DECLARES THAT CONGRESS HAS THE
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO DECIDE THE "POLITICAL QUESTIONS" OF WHETHER A STATE
WHOSE LEGISLATURE HAS ONCE ACTED UPON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT MAY
SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSE ITS POSITION, AND WHETHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
SUCH A CASE AS THIS, AN AMENDMENT IS DEAD BECAUSE AN "UNREASONABLE"
TIME HAS ELAPSED.  NO SUCH DIVISION BETWEEN THE POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL
BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT IS MADE BY ARTICLE V WHICH GRANTS POWER OVER
THE AMENDING OF THE CONSTITUTION TO CONGRESS ALONE.  UNDIVIDED CONTROL
OF THAT PROCESS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ARTICLE EXCLUSIVELY AND
COMPLETELY TO CONGRESS.  THE PROCESS ITSELF IS "POLITICAL" IN ITS
ENTIRETY, FROM SUBMISSION UNTIL AN AMENDMENT BECOMES PART OF THE
CONSTITUTION, AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL GUIDANCE, CONTROL OR
INTERFERENCE AT ANY POINT. 

SINCE CONGRESS HAS SOLE AND COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE AMENDING
PROCESS, SUBJECT TO NO JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE VIEWS OF ANY COURT UPON
THIS PROCESS CANNOT BE BINDING UPON CONGRESS, AND INSOFAR AS DILLON V.
GLOSS ATTEMPTS JUDICIALLY TO IMPOSE A LIMITATION UPON THE RIGHT OF
CONGRESS TO DETERMINE FINAL ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT, IT SHOULD BE
DISAPPROVED.  IF CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION THAT AN AMENDMENT HAS BEEN
COMPLETED AND BECOME A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION IS FINAL AND REMOVED
FROM EXAMINATION BY THE COURTS, AS THE COURT'S PRESENT OPINION
RECOGNIZES, SURELY THE STEPS LEADING TO THAT CONDITION MUST BE SUBJECT
TO THE SCRUTINY, CONTROL AND APPRAISAL OF NONE SAVE THE CONGRESS, THE
BODY HAVING EXCLUSIVE POWER TO MAKE THAT FINAL DETERMINATION. 

CONGRESS, POSSESSING EXCLUSIVE POWER OVER THE AMENDING PROCESS,
CANNOT BE BOUND BY AND IS UNDER NO DUTY TO ACCEPT THE PRONOUNCEMENTS
UPON THAT EXCLUSIVE POWER BY THIS COURT OR BY THE KANSAS COURTS. 
NEITHER STATE NOR FEDERAL COURTS CAN REVIEW THAT POWER.  THEREFORE, ANY
JUDICIAL EXPRESSION AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN MERE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
EXCLUSIVE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER THE POLITICAL PROCESS OF AMENDMENT
IS A MERE ADMONITION TO THE CONGRESS IN THE NATURE OF AN ADVISORY
OPINION, GIVEN WHOLLY WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. 

FN1  CF., HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619, 639-40. 

FN2  LESER V. GARNETT, 258 U.S. 130, 137. 

FN3  JONES V. UNITED STATES, 137 U.S. 202, 212; FOSTER V. NEILSON, 2
PET. 253, 309, 314; LUTHER V. BORDEN, 7 HOW.  1, 42; IN RE COOPER, 143
U.S. 472, 503; PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE CO. V. OREGON, 223 U.S. 118;
DAVIS V. OHIO, 241 U.S. 565, 569.  "AND IN THIS VIEW, IT IS NOT
MATERIAL TO INQUIRE, NOR IS IT THE PROVINCE OF THE COURT TO DETERMINE,
WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ("POLITICAL DEPARTMENT") BE RIGHT OR WRONG.  IT
IS ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS,
HE HAD DECIDED THE QUESTION.  HAVING DONE THIS, UNDER THE
RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH BELONG TO HIM, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PEOPLE
AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION.  ...  THIS COURT HAVE LAID DOWN THE RULE,
THAT THE ACTION OF THE POLITICAL BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT IN A MATTER
THAT BELONGS TO THEM, IS CONCLUSIVE."  WILLIAMS V. SUFFOLK INS. CO., 13
PET. 415, 420. 

FN4 FIELD V. CLARK, 143 U.S. 649, 672. 

FN5  256 U.S. 368, 375. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

IT IS THE VIEW OF MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS AND MYSELF THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE NO STANDING IN THIS
COURT. 

IN ENDOWING THIS COURT WITH "JUDICIAL POWER" THE CONSTITUTION
PRESUPPOSED AN HISTORIC CONTENT FOR THAT PHRASE AND RELIED ON
ASSUMPTION BY THE JUDICIARY OF AUTHORITY ONLY OVER ISSUES WHICH ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR DISPOSITION BY JUDGES.  THE CONSTITUTION FURTHER
EXPLICITLY INDICATED THE LIMITED AREA WITHIN WHICH JUDICIAL ACTION WAS
TO MOVE - HOWEVER FAR-REACHING THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACTION WITHIN THAT
AREA - BY EXTENDING "JUDICIAL POWER" ONLY TO "CASES" AND
"CONTROVERSIES."  BOTH BY WHAT THEY SAID AND BY WHAT THEY IMPLIED, THE
FRAMERS OF THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE GAVE MERELY THE OUTLINES OF WHAT WERE
TO THEM THE FAMILIAR OPERATIONS OF THE ENGLISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND ITS
MANIFESTATIONS ON THIS SIDE OF THE OCEAN BEFORE THE UNION.  JUDICIAL
POWER COULD COME INTO PLAY ONLY IN MATTERS THAT WERE THE TRADITIONAL
CONCERN OF THE COURTS AT WESTMINSTER AND ONLY IF THEY AROSE IN WAYS
THAT TO THE EXPERT FEEL OF LAWYERS CONSTITUTED "CASES" OR
"CONTROVERSIES."  IT WAS NOT FOR COURTS TO MEDDLE WITH MATTERS THAT
REQUIRED NO SUBTLETY TO BE IDENTIFIED AS POLITICAL ISSUES.  FN1  AND
EVEN AS TO THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS WHICH WERE THE STAPLE OF JUDICIAL
BUSINESS, IT WAS NOT FOR COURTS TO PASS UPON THEM AS ABSTRACT,
INTELLECTUAL PROBLEMS BUT ONLY IF A CONCRETE, LIVING CONTEST BETWEEN
ADVERSARIES CALLED FOR THE ARBITRAMENT OF LAW.  COMPARE MUSKRAT V.
UNITED STATES, 219 U.S. 346; TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568;
WILLING V. CHICAGO AUDITORIUM ASSN., 277 U.S. 274; NASHVILLE, C. & ST.
L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249. 

AS ABSTRACTIONS, THESE GENERALITIES REPRESENT COMMON GROUND AMONG
JUDGES.  SINCE, HOWEVER, CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF
JUDICIAL POWER ARE NOT MECHANICAL CRITERIA BUT DERIVE FROM CONCEPTIONS
REGARDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS IN THEIR MANIFOLD,
CHANGING GUISES, DIFFERENCES IN THE APPLICATION OF CANONS OF
JURISDICTION HAVE ARISEN FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE COURT'S HISTORY. 
FN2  CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS LEANINGS TOWARD THE SERVICEABILITY OF THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF PUBLIC CONTROVERSIES CLOTHED IN
THE FORM OF PRIVATE LITIGATION INEVITABLY AFFECT DECISIONS.  FOR THEY
INFLUENCE AWARENESS IN RECOGNIZING THE RELEVANCE OF CONCEDED DOCTRINES
OF JUDICIAL SELF-LIMITATION AND RIGOR IN ENFORCING THEM. 

OF ALL THIS, THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY FURNISHES ABUNDANT
ILLUSTRATION.  TWENTY-ONE MEMBERS OF THE KANSAS SENATE AND THREE
MEMBERS OF ITS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BROUGHT AN ORIGINAL MANDAMUS
PROCEEDING IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE TO COMPEL THE SECRETARY
OF ITS SENATE TO ERASE AN ENDORSEMENT ON KANSAS "SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION NO. 3" OF JANUARY 1937, TO THE EFFECT THAT IT HAD BEEN
PASSED BY THE SENATE, AND INSTEAD TO ENDORSE THEREON THE WORDS "NOT
PASSED."  THEY ALSO SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE OFFICERS OF BOTH SENATE AND
HOUSE FROM AUTHENTICATING AND DELIVERING IT TO THE GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE FOR TRANSMISSION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THESE KANSAS LEGISLATORS RESORTED TO THEIR SUPREME COURT CLAIMING THAT
THERE WAS NO LONGER AN AMENDMENT OPEN FOR RATIFICATION BY KANSAS AND
THAT, IN ANY EVENT, IT HAD NOT BEEN RATIFIED BY THE "LEGISLATURE" OF
KANSAS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORGAN FOR SUCH RATIFICATION.  SEE ARTICLE V
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE KANSAS SUPREME COURT
HELD THAT THE KANSAS LEGISLATORS HAD A RIGHT TO ITS JUDGMENT ON THESE
CLAIMS, BUT ON THE MERITS DECIDED AGAINST THEM AND DENIED A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS.  URGING THAT SUCH DENIAL WAS IN DEROGATION OF THEIR RIGHTS
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE LEGISLATORS, HAVING BEEN GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE KANSAS JUDGMENT, 303 U.S. 632, ASK THIS COURT
TO REVERSE IT. 

OUR POWER TO DO SO IS EXPLICITLY CHALLENGED BY THE UNITED STATES AS
AMICUS CURIAE, BUT WOULD IN ANY EVENT HAVE TO BE FACED.  SEE MANSFIELD,
C. & L.M. RY. CO. V. SWAN, 111 U.S. 379, 382.  TO WHOM AND FOR WHAT
CAUSES THE COURTS OF KANSAS ARE OPEN ARE MATTERS FOR KANSAS TO
DETERMINE.  FN3  BUT KANSAS CAN NOT DEFINE THE CONTOURS OF THE
AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND MORE PARTICULARLY OF THIS COURT. 
IT IS OUR ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHO MAY INVOKE OUR
JUDGMENT AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES.  ARE THESE MEMBERS OF THE KANSAS
LEGISLATURE, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ASK US TO ADJUDICATE THE GRIEVANCES
OF WHICH THEY COMPLAIN? 

IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION, AND IT IS BEYOND OUR POWER, TO WRITE LEGAL
ESSAYS OR TO GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS, HOWEVER SOLEMNLY REQUESTED AND
HOWEVER GREAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY.  SEE THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN
SECRETARY OF STATE JEFFERSON AND CHIEF JUSTICE JAY, 3 JOHNSON,
CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC PAPERS OF JOHN JAY, 486-89.  UNLIKE THE ROLE
ALLOWED TO JUDGES IN A FEW STATE COURTS AND TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
CANADA, OUR EXCLUSIVE BUSINESS IS LITIGATION.  FN4  THE REQUISITES OF
LITIGATION ARE NOT SATISFIED WHEN QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY THOUGH
CONVEYED THROUGH THE OUTWARD FORMS OF A CONVENTIONAL COURT PROCEEDING
DO NOT BEAR SPECIAL RELATION TO A PARTICULAR LITIGANT.  THE SCOPE AND
CONSEQUENCES OF OUR DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER EXECUTIVE AND
LEGISLATIVE ACTION SHOULD MAKE US OBSERVE FASTIDIOUSLY THE BOUNDS OF
THE LITIGIOUS PROCESS WITHIN WHICH WE ARE CONFINED.  FN5  NO MATTER HOW
SERIOUSLY INFRINGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION MAY BE CALLED INTO QUESTION,
THIS IS NOT THE TRIBUNAL FOR ITS CHALLENGE EXCEPT BY THOSE WHO HAVE
SOME SPECIALIZED INTEREST OF THEIR OWN TO VINDICATE, APART FROM A
POLITICAL CONCERN WHICH BELONGS TO ALL.  STEARNS V. WOOD, 236 U.S. 75;
FAIRCHILD V. HUGHES, 258 U.S. 126. 

IN THE FAMILIAR LANGUAGE OF JURISDICTION, THESE KANSAS LEGISLATORS
MUST HAVE STANDING IN THIS COURT.  WHAT IS THEIR DISTINCTIVE CLAIM TO
BE HERE, NOT POSSESSED BY EVERY KANSAN?  WHAT IS IT THAT THEY COMPLAIN
OF, WHICH COULD NOT BE COMPLAINED OF HERE BY ALL THEIR FELLOW
CITIZENS?  THE ANSWER REQUIRES ANALYSIS OF THE GRIEVANCES WHICH THEY
URGE.    THEY SAY THAT IT WAS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE KANSAS
LEGISLATURE, NO MATTER WHO VOTED OR HOW, TO RATIFY THE CHILD LABOR
AMENDMENT BECAUSE FOR KANSAS THERE WAS NO CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT TO
RATIFY.  ASSUMING THAT AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE CONGRESS DIES OF
INANITION AFTER WHAT IS TO BE DEEMED A "REASONABLE" TIME, THEY CLAIM
THAT, HAVING BEEN SUBMITTED IN 1924, THE PROPOSED CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT
WAS NO LONGER ALIVE IN 1937.  OR, IF ALIVE, IT WAS NO LONGER SO FOR
KANSAS BECAUSE, BY A PRIOR RESOLUTION OF REJECTION IN 1925, KANSAS HAD
EXHAUSTED HER POWER.  IN NO RESPECT, HOWEVER, DO THESE OBJECTIONS
RELATE TO ANY SECULAR INTEREST THAT PERTAINS TO THESE KANSAS
LEGISLATORS APART FROM INTERESTS THAT BELONG TO THE ENTIRE COMMONALTY
OF KANSAS.  THE FACT THAT THESE LEGISLATORS ARE PART OF THE RATIFYING
MECHANISM WHILE THE ORDINARY CITIZEN OF KANSAS IS NOT, IS WHOLLY
IRRELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE.  ON THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE THE PROBLEM WOULD
BE EXACTLY THE SAME IF ALL BUT ONE LEGISLATOR HAD VOTED FOR
RATIFICATION. 

INDEED THE CLAIM THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS DEAD OR THAT IT WAS NO LONGER
OPEN TO KANSAS TO RATIFY, IS NOT ONLY NOT AN INTEREST WHICH BELONGS
UNIQUELY TO THESE KANSAS LEGISLATORS; IT IS NOT EVEN AN INTEREST
SPECIAL TO KANSAS.  FOR IT IS THE COMMON CONCERN OF EVERY CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IS STILL ALIVE, OR WHETHER
KANSAS COULD BE INCLUDED AMONG THE NECESSARY "THREE-FOURTHS OF THE
SEVERAL STATES." 

THESE LEGISLATORS HAVE NO MORE STANDING ON THESE CLAIMS OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY TO ATTACK "SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3" THAN
THEY WOULD HAVE STANDING HERE TO ATTACK SOME KANSAS STATUTE CLAIMED BY
THEM TO OFFEND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BY AS MUCH RIGHT COULD A MEMBER OF
THE CONGRESS WHO HAD VOTED AGAINST THE PASSAGE OF A BILL BECAUSE MOVED
BY CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUPLES URGE BEFORE THIS COURT OUR DUTY TO CONSIDER
HIS ARGUMENTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. 

CLEARLY A KANSAN LEGISLATOR WOULD HAVE NO STANDING HAD HE BROUGHT
SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT.  CAN THE KANSAS SUPREME COURT TRANSMUTE THE
GENERAL INTEREST IN THESE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS INTO THE INDIVIDUALIZED
LEGAL INTEREST INDISPENSABLE HERE?  NO DOUBT THE BOUNDS OF SUCH LEGAL
INTEREST HAVE A PENUMBRA WHICH GIVES SOME FREEDOM IN JUDGING FULFILMENT
OF OUR JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  THE DOCTRINES AFFECTING STANDING
TO SUE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL NOT BE TREATED AS MECHANICAL
YARDSTICKS IN ASSESSING STATE COURT ASCERTAINMENTS OF LEGAL INTEREST
BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW.  FOR THE CREATION OF A VAST DOMAIN OF LEGAL
INTERESTS IS IN THE KEEPING OF THE STATES, AND FROM TIME TO TIME STATE
COURTS AND LEGISLATORS GIVE LEGAL PROTECTION TO NEW INDIVIDUAL
INTERESTS.  THUS, WHILE THE ORDINARY STATE TAXPAYER'S SUIT IS NOT
RECOGNIZED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, IT AFFORDS ADEQUATE STANDING FOR
REVIEW OF STATE DECISIONS WHEN SO RECOGNIZED BY STATE COURTS.  COYLE V.
SMITH, 221 U.S. 559; HEIM V. MCCALL, 239 U.S. 175. 

BUT IT BY NO MEANS FOLLOWS THAT A STATE COURT RULING ON THE ADEQUACY
OF LEGAL INTEREST IS BINDING HERE.  THUS, IN TYLER V. JUDGES, 179 U.S.
405, THE NOTION WAS REJECTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE SUPREME JUDICIAL
COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS FOUND AN INTEREST OF SUFFICIENT LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE FOR ASSAILING A STATUTE, THIS COURT MUST CONSIDER SUCH
CLAIM.  AGAIN, THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE INTEREST OF A
STATE OFFICIAL IN VINDICATING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
GIVES HIM NO LEGAL STANDING HERE TO ATTACK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
STATE STATUTE IN ORDER TO AVOID COMPLIANCE WITH IT.  SMITH V. INDIANA,
191 U.S. 138; BRAXTON COUNTY COURT V. WEST VIRGINIA, 208 U.S. 192;
MARSHALL V. DYE, 231 U.S. 250; STEWART V. KANSAS CITY, 239 U.S. 14. 
NOR CAN RECOGNITION BY A STATE COURT OF SUCH AN UNDIFFERENTIATED,
GENERAL INTEREST CONFER JURISDICTION ON US. COLUMBUS & GREENVILLE RY.
CO. V. MILLER, 283 U.S. 96, REVERSING MILLER V. COLUMBUS & GREENVILLE
RY., 154 MISS.  317; 122 SO. 366.  CONTRARIWISE, OF COURSE, AN OFFICIAL
HAS A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED DUTY TO ENFORCE A STATUTE WHICH HE IS CHARGED
WITH ENFORCING.  AND SO, AN OFFICIAL WHO IS OBSTRUCTED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY UNDER A STATE STATUTE BECAUSE HIS STATE COURT
FOUND A VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION MAY, SINCE THE ACT
OF DECEMBER 23, 1914, 38 STAT. 790, ASK THIS COURT TO REMOVE THE
FETTERS AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF HIS DUTY IMPOSED BY THE STATE COURT
BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED MISCONCEPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SUCH A
SITUATION IS REPRESENTED BY BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1, AND
SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL INTEREST IN BOYNTON V. HUTCHESON,
291 U.S. 656, CERTIORARI DISMISSED ON ANOTHER GROUND IN 292 U.S. 601. 
FN6 

WE CAN ONLY ADJUDICATE AN ISSUE AS TO WHICH THERE IS A CLAIMANT
BEFORE US WHO HAS A SPECIAL, INDIVIDUALIZED STAKE IN IT.  ONE WHO IS
MERELY THE SELF-CONSTITUTED SPOKESMAN OF A CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF VIEW
CAN NOT ASK US TO PASS ON IT.  THE KANSAS LEGISLATORS COULD NOT BRING
SUIT EXPLICITLY ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO
DETERMINE WHETHER KANSAS COULD STILL VOTE FOR THE CHILD LABOR
AMENDMENT.  THEY CAN NOT GAIN STANDING HERE BY HAVING BROUGHT SUCH A
SUIT IN THEIR OWN NAMES.  THEREFORE, NONE OF THE PETITIONERS CAN HERE
RAISE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE POWER OF THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE TO
RATIFY THE AMENDMENT. 

THIS DISPOSES OF THE STANDING OF THE THREE MEMBERS OF THE LOWER HOUSE
WHO SEEK TO INVOKE THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  THEY HAVE NO
STANDING HERE.  EQUALLY WITHOUT LITIGIOUS STANDING IS THE MEMBER OF THE
KANSAS SENATE WHO VOTED FOR "SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3."  HE
CANNOT CLAIM THAT HIS VOTE WAS DENIED ANY PARLIAMENTARY EFFICACY TO
WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED.  THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION ONLY THE CLAIM
OF THE TWENTY NAY-VOTING SENATORS THAT THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OF
KANSAS, THE PRESIDING OFFICER OF ITS SENATE, HAD, UNDER THE KANSAS
CONSTITUTION, NO POWER TO BREAK THE TIE IN THE SENATORIAL VOTE ON THE
AMENDMENT, THEREBY DEPRIVING THEIR VOTES OF THE EFFECT OF CREATING SUCH
A TIE.  WHETHER THIS IS THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE WHICH SUCH A QUESTION CAN
BE RAISED BY THESE SENATORS MUST BE DETERMINED EVEN BEFORE CONSIDERING
WHETHER THE ISSUE WHICH THEY POSE IS JUSTICIABLE.  FOR THE LATTER
INVOLVES QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER
WHICH SHOULD BE POSTPONED TO PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS OF LEGAL STANDING TO
SUE. 

THE RIGHT OF THE KANSAS SENATORS TO BE HERE IS RESTED ON RECOGNITION
BY LESER V. GARNETT, 258 U.S. 130, OF A VOTER'S RIGHT TO PROTECT HIS
FRANCHISE.  THE HISTORIC SOURCE OF THIS DOCTRINE AND THE REASONS FOR IT
WERE EXPLAINED IN NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536, 540.  THAT WAS AN
ACTION FOR $5,000 DAMAGES AGAINST THE JUDGES OF ELECTIONS FOR REFUSING
TO PERMIT THE PLAINTIFF TO VOTE AT A PRIMARY ELECTION IN TEXAS.  IN
DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTION THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD NO CAUSE OF ACTION
BECAUSE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT WAS POLITICAL, MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES THUS SPOKE FOR THE COURT:  "OF COURSE THE PETITION CONCERNS
POLITICAL ACTION BUT IT ALLEGES AND SEEKS TO RECOVER FOR PRIVATE
DAMAGE.  THAT PRIVATE DAMAGE MAY BE CAUSED BY SUCH POLITICAL ACTION AND
MAY BE RECOVERED FOR IN A SUIT AT LAW HARDLY HAS BEEN DOUBTED FOR OVER
TWO HUNDRED YEARS, SINCE ASHBY V. WHITE, 2 LD. RAYM.  938, 3 ID. 320,
AND HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT."  "PRIVATE DAMAGE" IS THE CLUE
TO THE FAMOUS RULING IN ASHBY V. WHITE, SUPRA, AND DETERMINES ITS SCOPE
AS WELL AS THAT OF CASES IN THIS COURT OF WHICH IT IS THE
JUSTIFICATION.  THE JUDGMENT OF LORD HOLT IS PERMEATED WITH THE
CONCEPTION THAT A VOTER'S FRANCHISE IS A PERSONAL RIGHT, ASSESSABLE IN
MONEY DAMAGES, OF WHICH THE EXACT AMOUNT "IS PECULIARLY APPROPRIATE FOR
THE DETERMINATION OF A JURY," SEE WILEY V. SINKLER, 179 U.S. 58, 65,
AND FOR WHICH THERE IS NO REMEDY OUTSIDE THE LAW COURTS.  "ALTHOUGH
THIS MATTER RELATES TO THE PARLIAMENT," SAID LORD HOLT, "YET IT IS AN
INJURY PRECEDANEOUS TO THE PARLIAMENT, AS MY LORD HALE SAID IN THE CASE
OF BERNARDISTON V. SOAME, 2 LEV.  114, 116.  THE PARLIAMENT CANNOT
JUDGE OF THIS INJURY, NOR GIVE DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR IT:  THEY
CANNOT MAKE HIM A RECOMPENSE."  2 LD. RAYM.  938, 958. 

THE REASONING OF ASHBY V. WHITE AND THE PRACTICE WHICH HAS FOLLOWED
IT LEAVE INTRA-PARLIAMENTARY CONTROVERSIES TO PARLIAMENTS AND OUTSIDE
THE SCRUTINY OF LAW COURTS.  THE PROCEDURES FOR VOTING IN LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLIES - WHO ARE MEMBERS, HOW AND WHEN THEY SHOULD VOTE, WHAT IS
THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF VOTES FOR DIFFERENT PHASES OF LEGISLATIVE
ACTIVITY, WHAT VOTES WERE CAST AND HOW THEY WERE COUNTED - SURELY ARE
MATTERS THAT NOT MERELY CONCERN POLITICAL ACTION BUT ARE OF THE VERY
ESSENCE OF POLITICAL ACTION, IF "POLITICAL" HAS ANY CONNOTATION AT
ALL.  FIELD V. CLARK, 143 U.S. 649, 670, ET SEQ.; LESER V. GARNETT, 258
U.S. 130, 137.  IN NO SENSE ARE THEY MATTERS OF "PRIVATE DAMAGE."  THEY
PERTAIN TO LEGISLATORS NOT AS INDIVIDUALS BUT AS POLITICAL
REPRESENTATIVES EXECUTING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.  TO OPEN THE LAW
COURTS TO SUCH CONTROVERSIES IS TO HAVE COURTS SIT IN JUDGMENT ON THE
MANIFOLD DISPUTES ENGENDERED BY PROCEDURES FOR VOTING IN LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLIES.  IF THE DOCTRINE OF ASHBY V. WHITE VINDICATING THE PRIVATE
RIGHTS OF A VOTING CITIZEN HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED FOR OVER TWO HUNDRED
YEARS, IT IS EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT FOR OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS ASHBY
V. WHITE HAS NOT BEEN SOUGHT TO BE PUT TO PURPOSES LIKE THE PRESENT. 
IN SEEKING REDRESS HERE THESE KANSAS SENATORS HAVE WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED
THE FUNCTIONS OF THIS COURT.  THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE KANSAS
SUPREME COURT SHOULD THEREFORE BE DISMISSED. 

FN1  FOR AN EARLY INSTANCE OF THE ABSTENTION OF THE KING'S JUSTICES
FROM MATTERS POLITICAL, SEE THE DUKE OF YORK'S CLAIM TO THE CROWN,
HOUSE OF LORDS, 1460, 5 ROT.  PARL.  375, REPRINTED IN WAMBAUGH, CASES
ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1. 

FN2 SEE E.G. THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE IREDELL IN CHISHOLM V.
GEORGIA, 2 DALL.  419, 429; CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON
IN FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87, 143; AND THE CASES COLLECTED IN THE
CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 341. 

FN3  THIS IS SUBJECT TO SOME NARROW EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE RELEVANT. 
SEE, E.G., MCKNETT V. ST. LOUIS & S.F. RY. CO., 292 U.S. 230. 

FN4  AS TO ADVISORY OPINIONS IN USE IN A FEW OF THE STATE COURTS, SEE
J. B. THAYER, ADVISORY OPINIONS, REPRINTED IN LEGAL ESSAYS BY J. B.
THAYER, AT 42 ET SEQ.; ARTICLE ON "ADVISORY OPINIONS," 1 ENC.  SOC. 
SCI. 475.  AS TO ADVISORY OPINIONS IN CANADA, SEE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR
ONTARIO V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR CANADA (1912) A.C. 571.  SPEAKING OF
THE CANADIAN SYSTEM, LORD CHANCELLOR HALDANE, IN ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
BRITISH COLUMBIA V. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA (1914) A.C. 153, 162,
SAID:  "IT IS AT TIMES ATTENDED WITH INCONVENIENCES, AND IT IS NOT
SURPRISING THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE
STEADILY REFUSED TO ADOPT A SIMILAR PROCEDURE, AND SHOULD HAVE CONFINED
ITSELF TO ADJUDICATION ON THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS IN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSIES."  FOR FURTHER ANIMADVERSIONS ON ADVISORY PRONOUNCEMENTS
BY JUDGES, SEE LORD CHANCELLOR SANKEY IN IN RE THE REGULATION AND
CONTROL OF AERONAUTICS IN CANADA (1932) A.C. 54, 66: "WE SYMPATHIZE
WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED AT LENGTH BY NEWCOMBE, J., WHICH WAS CONCURRED
IN BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE, (OF CANADA) AS TO THE DIFFICULTY WHICH THE
COURT MUST EXPERIENCE IN ENDEAVORING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS PUT TO IT IN
THIS WAY." 

AUSTRALIA FOLLOWED OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE IN RESTRICTING HER
COURTS TO LITIGIOUS BUSINESS.  THE EXPERIENCE OF ENGLISH HISTORY WHICH
LAY BEHIND IT WAS THUS PUT IN THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
BY MR. (LATER MR. JUSTICE) HIGGINS:  "I FEEL STRONGLY THAT IT IS MOST
INEXPEDIENT TO BREAK IN ON THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF THE ENGLISH LAW,
AND SECURE DECISIONS ON FACTS WHICH HAVE NOT ARISEN YET.  OF COURSE, IT
IS A MATTER THAT LAWYERS HAVE EXPERIENCE OF EVERY DAY, THAT A JUDGE
DOES NOT GIVE THE SAME ATTENTION, HE CAN NOT GIVE THAT SAME ATTENTION,
TO A SUPPOSITIOUS CASE AS WHEN HE FEELS THE PRESSURE OF THE
CONSEQUENCES TO A LITIGANT BEFORE HIM.  ...  BUT HERE IS AN ATTEMPT TO
ALLOW THIS HIGH COURT, BEFORE CASES HAVE ARISEN, TO MAKE A
PRONOUNCEMENT UPON THE LAW THAT WILL BE BINDING.  I THINK THE
IMAGINATION OF JUDGES, LIKE THAT OF OTHER PERSONS, IS LIMITED, AND THEY
ARE NOT ABLE TO PUT BEFORE THEIR MINDS ALL THE COMPLEX CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH MAY ARISE AND WHICH THEY OUGHT TO HAVE IN THEIR MINDS WHEN GIVING
A DECISION.  IF THERE IS ONE THING MORE THAN ANOTHER WHICH IS
RECOGNIZED IN BRITISH JURISPRUDENCE IT IS THAT A JUDGE NEVER GIVES A
DECISION UNTIL THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR THAT DECISION HAVE ARISEN." 
REP. NAT. AUSTRAL.  CONV.  DEB. (1897) 966-67. 

FN5  SEE THE SERIES OF CASES BEGINNING WITH HAYBURN'S CASE, 2 DALL. 
409, THROUGH UNITED STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463. 

FN6  A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT OVER STATE
COURT DECISIONS LEAVES NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THE FACT THAT THE PRESENT
CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO OUR ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION.  SECTION 25 OF THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT GAVE REVIEWING
POWER TO THIS COURT ONLY OVER STATE COURT DECISIONS DENYING A CLAIM OF
FEDERAL RIGHT.  THIS RESTRICTION WAS, OF COURSE, BORN OF FEAR OF
DISOBEDIENCE BY THE STATE JUDICIARIES OF NATIONAL AUTHORITY.  THE ACT
OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1916, 39 STAT. 726, WITHDREW FROM THIS OBLIGATORY
JURISDICTION CASES WHERE THE STATE DECISION WAS AGAINST A "TITLE,
RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, OR IMMUNITY" CLAIMED TO EXIST UNDER THE CONSTITUTION,
LAWS, TREATIES OR AUTHORITIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  THIS CHANGE, WHICH
WAS INSPIRED MAINLY BY A DESIRE TO ELIMINATE FROM REVIEW AS OF RIGHT
CASES ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, LEFT SUCH
REVIEW ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE VALIDITY OF A TREATY, STATUTE OR
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES WAS DRAWN INTO QUESTION AND THE DECISION
WAS AGAINST THE VALIDITY, AND IN CASES WHERE THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE
OF A STATE OR A STATE AUTHORITY WAS DRAWN INTO QUESTION ON THE GROUNDS
OF CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW AND THE DECISION WAS IN FAVOR OF ITS
VALIDITY.  THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 937, EXTENDED
THIS PROCESS OF RESTRICTING OUR OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION BY TRANSFERRING
TO REVIEW BY CERTIORARI CASES IN WHICH THE STATE COURT HAD HELD INVALID
AN "AUTHORITY" CLAIMED TO BE EXERCISED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES OR IN WHICH IT HAD UPHELD, AGAINST CLAIMS OF INVALIDITY ON
FEDERAL GROUNDS, AN "AUTHORITY" EXERCISED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATES.  NEITHER THE TERMS OF THESE TWO RESTRICTIONS NOR THE
CONTROLLING COMMENTS IN COMMITTEE REPORTS OR BY MEMBERS OF THIS COURT
WHO HAD A SPECIAL SHARE IN PROMOTING THE ACTS OF 1916 AND 1925, GIVE
ANY SUPPORT FOR BELIEVING THAT BY CONTRACTING THE RANGE OF OBLIGATORY
JURISDICTION OVER STATE ADJUDICATIONS CONGRESS ENLARGED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT BY REMOVING THE ESTABLISHED REQUIREMENT OF
LEGAL INTEREST AS A THRESHOLD CONDITION TO BEING HERE. 

NOR DOES THE ACT OF DECEMBER 23, 1914, 38 STAT. 790, TOUCH THE
PRESENT PROBLEM.  BY THAT ACT, CONGRESS FOR THE FIRST TIME GAVE THIS
COURT POWER TO REVIEW STATE COURT DECISIONS SUSTAINING A FEDERAL
RIGHT.  FOR THIS PURPOSE IT MADE CERTIORARI AVAILABLE.  THE COMMITTEE
REPORTS AND THE DEBATES ON THIS ACT PROVE THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS MERELY
TO REMOVE THE UNILATERAL QUALITY OF SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF STATE COURT
DECISIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS AS TO WHICH THIS COURT HAS THE
ULTIMATE SAY.  THE ACT DID NOT CREATE A NEW LEGAL INTEREST AS A BASIS
OF REVIEW HERE; IT BUILT ON THE SETTLED DOCTRINE THAT AN OFFICIAL HAS A
LEGALLY RECOGNIZABLE DUTY TO CARRY OUT A STATUTE WHICH HE IS SUPPOSED
TO ENFORCE. 

THUS, PRIOR TO THE ACT OF 1914, THE KENTUCKY CASE, POST, P. 474,
COULD NOT HAVE COME HERE AT ALL, AND PRIOR TO 1916, THE KANSAS CASE
WOULD HAVE COME HERE, IF AT ALL, BY WRIT OF ERROR.  BY ALLOWING CASES
FROM STATE COURTS WHICH PREVIOUSLY COULD NOT HAVE COME HERE AT ALL TO
COME HERE ON CERTIORARI THE ACT OF 1914 MERELY LIFTED THE PREVIOUS BAR
THAT A FEDERAL CLAIM HAD BEEN SUSTAINED - BUT LEFT EVERY OTHER
REQUISITE OF JURISDICTION UNCHANGED.  SIMILARLY, NO CHANGE IN THESE
REQUISITES WAS AFFECTED BY THE ACTS OF 1916 AND 1925 IN CONFINING
CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF LITIGATION FROM THE STATE COURTS TO OUR
DISCRETIONARY INSTEAD OF OBLIGATORY REVIEWING POWER. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

THE CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED IN 1924; MORE THAN 13 YEARS
ELAPSED BEFORE THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE VOTED, AS THE DECISION JUST
ANNOUNCED HOLDS, TO RATIFY IT.  PETITIONERS INSIST THAT MORE THAN A
REASONABLE TIME HAD ELAPSED AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE
STATE LEGISLATURE IS WITHOUT FORCE.  BUT THIS COURT NOW HOLDS THAT THE
QUESTION IS NOT JUSTICIABLE, RELEGATES IT TO THE "CONSIDERATION OF THE
CONGRESS WHEN, IN THE PRESENCE OF CERTIFIED RATIFICATIONS BY THREE
FOURTHS OF THE STATES THE TIME ARRIVES FOR THE PROMULGATION OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT" AND DECLARES THAT THE DECISION BY CONGRESS
WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COURTS. 

IN DILLON V. GLOSS, 256 U.S. 368, ONE IMPRISONED FOR TRANSPORTATION
OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 OF THE NATIONAL
PROHIBITION ACT, INSTITUTED HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN HIS
RELEASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS INVALID BECAUSE
THE RESOLUTION PROPOSING IT DECLARED THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE OPERATIVE
UNLESS RATIFIED WITHIN SEVEN YEARS.  THE AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED IN LESS
THAN A YEAR AND A HALF.  WE DEFINITELY HELD THAT ARTICLE V IMPLIEDLY
REQUIRES AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED TO BE RATIFIED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
AFTER PROPOSAL; THAT CONGRESS MAY FIX A REASONABLE TIME FOR
RATIFICATION, AND THAT THE PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS FIXED BY THE CONGRESS
WAS REASONABLE. 

WE SAID: 

"IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THIS ARTICLE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE TIME WITHIN
WHICH RATIFICATION MAY BE HAD - NEITHER THAT IT SHALL BE UNLIMITED NOR
THAT IT SHALL BE FIXED BY CONGRESS.  WHAT, THEN, IS THE REASONABLE
INFERENCE OR IMPLICATION?  IS IT THAT RATIFICATION MAY BE HAD AT ANY
TIME, AS WITHIN A FEW YEARS, A CENTURY OR EVEN A LONGER PERIOD; OR THAT
IT MUST BE HAD WITHIN SOME REASONABLE PERIOD WHICH CONGRESS IS LEFT
FREE TO DEFINE? 

"WE DO NOT FIND ANYTHING IN THE ARTICLE WHICH SUGGESTS THAT AN
AMENDMENT ONCE PROPOSED IS TO BE OPEN TO RATIFICATION FOR ALL TIME, OR
THAT RATIFICATION IN SOME OF THE STATES MAY BE SEPARATED FROM THAT IN
OTHERS BY MANY YEARS AND YET BE EFFECTIVE.  WE DO FIND THAT WHICH
STRONGLY SUGGESTS THE CONTRARY.  FIRST, PROPOSAL AND RATIFICATION ARE
NOT TREATED AS UNRELATED ACTS, BUT AS SUCCEEDING STEPS IN A SINGLE
ENDEAVOR, THE NATURAL INFERENCE BEING THAT THEY ARE NOT TO BE WIDELY
SEPARATED IN TIME.  SECONDLY, IT IS ONLY WHEN THERE IS DEEMED TO BE A
NECESSITY THEREFOR THAT AMENDMENTS ARE TO BE PROPOSED, THE REASONABLE
IMPLICATION BEING THAT WHEN PROPOSED THEY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AND
DISPOSED OF PRESENTLY.  THIRDLY, AS RATIFICATION IS BUT THE EXPRESSION
OF THE APPROBATION OF THE PEOPLE AND IS TO BE EFFECTIVE WHEN HAD IN
THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, THERE IS A FAIR IMPLICATION THAT IT MUST
BE SUFFICIENTLY CONTEMPORANEOUS IN THAT NUMBER OF STATES TO REFLECT THE
WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN ALL SECTIONS AT RELATIVELY THE SAME PERIOD, WHICH
OF COURSE RATIFICATION SCATTERED THROUGH A LONG SERIES OF YEARS WOULD
NOT DO.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS AND THE GENERAL PURPORT AND SPIRIT OF THE
ARTICLE LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION EXPRESSED BY JUDGE JAMESON (IN HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS, 4TH ED. SEC. 585) 'THAT AN ALTERATION OF
THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED TODAY HAS RELATION TO THE SENTIMENT AND THE
FELT NEEDS OF TODAY, AND THAT, IF NOT RATIFIED EARLY WHILE THAT
SENTIMENT MAY FAIRLY BE SUPPOSED TO EXIST, IT OUGHT TO BE REGARDED AS
WAIVED, AND NOT AGAIN TO BE VOTED UPON, UNLESS A SECOND TIME PROPOSED
BY CONGRESS.'  THAT THIS IS THE BETTER CONCLUSION BECOMES EVEN MORE
MANIFEST WHEN WHAT IS COMPREHENDED IN THE OTHER VIEW IS CONSIDERED;
FOR, ACCORDING TO IT, FOUR AMENDMENTS PROPOSED LONG AGO - TWO IN 1789,
ONE IN 1810, AND ONE IN 1861 - ARE STILL PENDING AND IN A SITUATION
WHERE THEIR RATIFICATION IN SOME OF THE STATES MANY YEARS SINCE BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF GENERATIONS NOW LARGELY FORGOTTEN MAY BE EFFECTIVELY
SUPPLEMENTED IN ENOUGH MORE STATES TO MAKE THREE-FOURTHS BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PRESENT OR SOME FUTURE GENERATION.  TO THAT VIEW
FEW WOULD BE ABLE TO SUBSCRIBE, AND IN OUR OPINION IT IS QUITE
UNTENABLE.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE FAIR INFERENCE OR IMPLICATION FROM
ARTICLE V IS THAT THE RATIFICATION MUST BE WITHIN SOME REASONABLE TIME
AFTER THE PROPOSAL. 

"OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS, KEEPING WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS, TO FIX A
DEFINITE PERIOD FOR THE RATIFICATION WE ENTERTAIN NO DOUBT.  ...
WHETHER A DEFINITE PERIOD FOR RATIFICATION SHALL BE FIXED SO THAT ALL
MAY KNOW WHAT IT IS AND SPECULATION ON WHAT IS A REASONABLE TIME MAY BE
AVOIDED, IS, IN OUR OPINION, A MATTER OF DETAIL WHICH CONGRESS MAY
DETERMINE AS AN INCIDENT OF ITS POWER TO DESIGNATE THE MODE OF
RATIFICATION.  IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT SEVEN YEARS, THE PERIOD FIXED
IN THIS INSTANCE, WAS REASONABLE, IF POWER EXISTED TO FIX A DEFINITE
TIME; NOR COULD IT WELL BE QUESTIONED CONSIDERING THE PERIODS WITHIN
WHICH PRIOR AMENDMENTS WERE RATIFIED." 

UPON THE REASONING OF OUR OPINION IN THAT CASE, I WOULD HOLD THAT
MORE THAN A REASONABLE TIME HAD ELAPSED* AND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
KANSAS SUPREME COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

*CHRONOLOGY OF CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT. 

(A STATE IS SAID TO HAVE "REJECTED" WHEN BOTH HOUSES OF ITS
LEGISLATURE PASSED RESOLUTIONS OF REJECTION, AND TO HAVE "REFUSED TO
RATIFY" WHEN BOTH HOUSES DEFEATED RESOLUTION FOR RATIFICATION.) 

JUNE 2, 1924, JOINT RESOLUTION DEPOSITED IN STATE DEPARTMENT.  IN
THAT YEAR, ARKANSAS RATIFIED; NORTH CAROLINA REJECTED.  RATIFICATION,
1; REJECTION, 1. 

1925, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA AND WISCONSIN RATIFIED; FLORIDA, GEORGIA,
INDIANA, KANSAS, MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW
HAMPSHIRE, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, UTAH, AND
VERMONT REJECTED; CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE AND SOUTH DAKOTA REFUSED TO
RATIFY.  RATIFICATIONS, 4; REJECTIONS, 16; REFUSALS TO RATIFY, 3. 

1926, KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA REJECTED.  RATIFICATIONS, 4; REJECTIONS,
18; REFUSALS TO RATIFY, 3. 

1927, MONTANA, RATIFIED; MARYLAND REJECTED.  RATIFICATIONS, 5;
REJECTIONS, 19; REFUSALS TO RATIFY, 3. 

1931, COLORADO RATIFIED.  RATIFICATIONS, 6; REJECTIONS, 19; REFUSALS
TO RATIFY, 3. 

1933, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MICHIGAN, NEW JERSEY, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO,
OKLAHOMA, OREGON, WASHINGTON AND WEST VIRGINIA RATIFIED AS DID ALSO
MAINE, MINNESOTA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND PENNSYLVANIA, WHICH HAD REJECTED
IN 1925.  RATIFICATIONS, 20; REJECTIONS, (ELIMINATING STATES
SUBSEQUENTLY RATIFYING) 15; REFUSALS TO RATIFY, 3. 

1935, IDAHO AND WYOMING RATIFIED, AS DID UTAH AND INDIANA, WHICH HAD
REJECTED IN 1925.  AS IN 1925, CONNECTICUT REFUSED TO RATIFY. 
RATIFICATIONS, 24; REJECTIONS, 13; REFUSALS TO RATIFY, 3. 

1936, KENTUCKY, WHICH HAD REJECTED IN 1926, RATIFIED.  RATIFICATIONS,
25; REJECTIONS, 12; REFUSALS TO RATIFY, 3. 

1937, NEVADA AND NEW MEXICO RATIFIED, AS DID KANSAS, WHICH HAD
REJECTED IN 1925.  MASSACHUSETTS, WHICH HAD REJECTED IN 1925, REFUSED
TO RATIFY.  RATIFICATIONS, 28; REJECTIONS, 11; REFUSALS TO RATIFY, 3. 

SIX STATES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS LIST:  ALABAMA, LOUISIANA,
MISSISSIPPI, NEBASKA, NEW YORK AND RHODE ISLAND.  IT APPEARS THAT THERE
HAS NEVER BEEN A VOTE IN ALABAMA OR RHODE ISLAND.  LOUISIANA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES HAS THREE TIMES (1924, 1934 AND 1936) DEFEATED
RESOLUTIONS FOR RATIFICATION.  IN MISSISSIPPI, THE SENATE ADOPTED
RESOLUTION FOR RATIFICATION IN 1934, BUT IN 1936 ANOTHER SENATE
RESOLUTION FOR RATIFICATION WAS ADVERSELY REPORTED.  IN NEBRASKA, THE
HOUSE DEFEATED RATIFICATION RESOLUTIONS IN 1927 AND 1935, BUT THE
SENATE PASSED SUCH A RESOLUTION IN 1929.  IN NEW YORK, RATIFICATION WAS
DEFEATED IN THE HOUSE IN 1935 AND 1937, AND IN THE LATTER YEAR, THE
SENATE PASSED SUCH A RESOLUTION. 

THE POINT THAT THE QUESTION - WHETHER MORE THAN A REASONABLE TIME HAD
ELAPSED - IS NOT JUSTICIABLE BUT ONE FOR CONGRESS AFTER ATTEMPTED
RATIFICATION BY THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF STATES, WAS NOT RAISED BY THE
PARTIES OR BY THE UNITED STATES APPEARING AS AMICUS CURIAE; IT WAS NOT
SUGGESTED BY US WHEN ORDERING REARGUMENT.  AS THE COURT, IN THE DILLON
CASE, DID DIRECTLY DECIDE UPON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE SEVEN YEARS
FIXED BY THE CONGRESS, IT OUGHT NOT NOW, WITHOUT HEARING ARGUMENT UPON
THE POINT, HOLD ITSELF TO LACK POWER TO DECIDE WHETHER MORE THAN 13
YEARS BETWEEN PROPOSAL BY CONGRESS AND ATTEMPTED RATIFICATION BY KANSAS
IS REASONABLE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :







CHANDLER V. WISE, 307 U.S. 474 


NO. 14.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 11, 1938.  REARGUED APRIL 18, 1939.  -
DECIDED JUNE 5, 1939.  - 271 KY. 252 - 111 S.W.2D 633, DISMISSED. 


SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT TO RESTRAIN THE GOVERNOR AND OTHER
STATE OFFICIALS FROM SENDING TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED
STATES A CERTIFIED COPY OF A RESOLUTION ENACTED BY THE STATE
LEGISLATURE PURPORTING TO RATIFY THE PROPOSED CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT TO
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, IT BEING ALLEGED THAT SUCH ATTEMPTED
RATIFICATION WAS ILLEGAL AND VOID.  HELD: 

THAT ALTHOUGH THE STATE COURT HAD JURISDICTION IN LIMINE, THE ACT OF
THE GOVERNOR IN FORWARDING THE CERTIFICATION TO THE FEDERAL SECRETARY
OF STATE AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE SUIT AND AFTER A RESTRAINING ORDER
AND SUMMONS HAD BEEN ISSUED, BUT BEFORE ACTUAL SERVICE AND WITHOUT
KNOWLEDGE OF THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDING, HAD LEFT NO CONTROVERSY
SUSCEPTIBLE OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION; AND THAT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE FINAL JUDGMENT SHOULD THEREFORE BE
DISMISSED. 

CHANDLER, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, ET AL. V. WISE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 634, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE COURT BELOW
OF A JUDGMENT ENTERED PURSUANT TO ITS OPINION ON AN EARLIER REVIEW, 270
KY. 1.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY INDIVIDUALS - CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS, AND
VOTERS IN KENTUCKY - TO RESTRAIN THE GOVERNOR AND OFFICERS OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM SENDING TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED
STATES A CERTIFIED COPY OF A RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE PURPORTING
TO RATIFY THE PROPOSED CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT, AND FOR A JUDGMENT
DECLARING THE LEGISLATIVE ACT TO BE ILLEGAL AND VOID BECAUSE OF A
REJECTION OF THE SAME PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY AN EARLIER LEGISLATURE OF
THE STATE, AS WELL AS BY MORE THAN A MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATURES OF
THE SEVERAL STATES, AND FURTHER BECAUSE MORE THAN A REASONABLE TIME FOR
RATIFICATION HAD ELAPSED SINCE THE AMENDMENT WAS FIRST PROPOSED. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, ANNOUNCED BY MR.
JUSTICE STONE. 

IN JANUARY, 1937, THE LEGISLATURE OF KENTUCKY ADOPTED A RESOLUTION
PURPORTING TO RATIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE
CONGRESS IN 1924 AND KNOWN AS THE "CHILD LABOR AMENDMENT."  FN1 

RESPONDENTS, CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS AND VOTERS IN KENTUCKY, BROUGHT THIS
SUIT IN THE STATE COURT TO RESTRAIN THE GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH
AND THE OFFICERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FROM SENDING CERTIFIED COPIES
OF THE RESOLUTION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES AND
THE PRESIDING OFFICERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND
FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING THE ACTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO BE
ILLEGAL AND VOID.  THE COMPLAINT STATED THAT IN 1926 THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT HAD BEEN REJECTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
AND ALSO BY MORE THAN A MAJORITY OF THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES, AND
THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY COULD NOT THEREAFTER LEGALLY RECONSIDER AND
ADOPT THE AMENDMENT; AND, FURTHER, THAT ITS ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN WITHIN
A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED. 

UPON THE FILING OF THE PETITION, A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS GRANTED AND
SUMMONS WAS ISSUED.  ON THE SAME DAY, BUT BEFORE THE GOVERNOR WAS
ACTUALLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER OR SUMMONS, HE
FORWARDED BY MAIL A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RESOLUTION TO THE SECRETARY
OF STATE.  IT IS NOT CLAIMED THAT THE GOVERNOR THEN KNEW OF THE
PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDING. 

PLAINTIFFS THEN FILED AN AMENDED PETITION SETTING FORTH THE ACTION
TAKEN BY THE GOVERNOR AND SOUGHT A MANDATORY INJUNCTION TO REQUIRE HIM
TO NOTIFY THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT AND THAT
THE NOTICE WHICH HE HAD SENT WAS VOID AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.  THAT
ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN.  DEFENDANTS FILED A GENERAL DEMURRER WHICH WAS
SUSTAINED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT BUT ITS JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  270 KY. 1; 108 S.W.2D 1024. 

THE COURT GAVE OPPORTUNITY ON THE REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, WITH
DIRECTIONS TO OVERRULE THE DEMURRER, FOR SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS
WERE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ITS VIEWS.  UPON THAT REMAND THE DEFENDANTS
DECLINED TO PLEAD FURTHER AND JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE JUDGMENT SO ENTERED SET FORTH
(1) THAT AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY EXISTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THAT THE
PLAINTIFFS HAD THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT AND THE COURT HAD
JURISDICTION; (2) THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE PURPORTING TO
RATIFY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS VOID, NOT HAVING BEEN RATIFIED
ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES;
(3) THAT THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE GOVERNOR TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS
OF NO EFFECT; (4) THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT SHOULD GIVE OFFICIAL
NOTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE THAT THE RESOLUTION PURPORTING TO
RATIFY THE AMENDMENT WAS INVALID, THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN RATIFIED
ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND THAT THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE GOVERNOR WAS OF NO EFFECT.  THE CLERK
WAS FURTHER DIRECTED TO SEND A DULY AUTHENTICATED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE BY REGISTERED MAIL. 

ON APPEAL, THAT JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI.  303 U.S. 634. 

WE THINK THAT, WHILE THE STATE COURT HAD JURISDICTION IN LIMINE, THE
WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DISMISSED UPON THE GROUND THAT AFTER THE
GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY HAD FORWARDED THE CERTIFICATION OF THE
RATIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED
STATES THERE WAS NO LONGER A CONTROVERSY SUSCEPTIBLE OF JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION.  DISMISSED. 

FN1  43 STAT. 670. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ON THE AUTHORITY
OF DILLON V. GLOSS, 256 U.S. 368, AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE
DISSENTING OPINION IN COLEMAN V. MILLER, ANTE, P. 470. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, CONCURRING: 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN CONCURRING OPINION IN COLEMAN V. MILLER,
ANTE, P. 456, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS HAVE ANY
JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE WITH THE AMENDING PROCESS. 

WE THEREFORE CONCUR IN THE DISMISSAL. 
..END :























BALDWIN V. MILLING CO., 307 U.S. 478 


NO. 650.  ARGUED APRIL 21, 1939.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1939.  - 343 MO. 915
- 122 S.W.2D 890, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A CARRIER, HAVING BEEN ORDERED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION TO MAKE REPARATION TO A SHIPPER FOR TARIFF CHARGES THEN
FOUND BY THE COMMISSION TO HAVE BEEN EXCESSIVE, PAYS THE REQUIRED
AMOUNT UPON DEMAND OF THE SHIPPER WITHOUT WAITING TO BE SUED UNDER THE
DISADVANTAGES PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 16(2) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT,
THE PAYMENT IS NOT VOLUNTARY; AND WHERE AFTERWARDS, UPON REHEARING, THE
COMMISSION SETS ASIDE THE REPARATION ORDER, BECAUSE THE FINDING OF
UNREASONABLE RATES UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED WAS ERRONEOUS, THE CARRIER
MAY MAINTAIN A SUIT TO RECOVER THE PAYMENT FROM THE SHIPPER.  THIS
ACCORDS WITH THE POLICY OF THE ACT.  P. 481. 

THE FACT THAT THE SHIPPER PAID PART OF THE MONEY TO AN EXPERT, WHO
ACTED FOR IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN PROCURING THE REPARATION,
RECOVERY OF WHICH IS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS, AND HAS USED THE REMAINDER
FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES, FURNISHES NO EQUITABLE DEFENSE TO THE SUIT FOR
REFUND.  P. 485. 

2.  EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS CAN NOT JUSTIFY FAILURE OF A CARRIER TO
COLLECT, OR OF A SHIPPER TO PAY, THE TARIFF CHARGES REQUIRED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 485. 

BALDWIN ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. SCOTT COUNTY MILLING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW,
WHICH AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSOURI FOR THE
DEFENDANT, IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
RAILWAY COMPANY TO RECOVER AN AMOUNT OF MONEY WHICH THE COMPANY HAD
PAID TO THE DEFENDANT IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF REPARATION MADE BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DECISION IN THIS CASE DEPENDS ON PROVISIONS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT AND ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION. 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1924, RESPONDENT AND OTHERS COMPLAINED TO THE
COMMISSION THAT THE TARIFF CHARGES THEY HAD BEEN AND WERE THEN PAYING
THE MISSOURI PACIFIC AND OTHER CARRIERS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF COAL
FROM MINES IN SOUTHERN ILLINOIS AND WESTERN KENTUCKY TO DESTINATIONS IN
SOUTH-EASTERN MISSOURI AND NORTHEASTERN ARKANSAS, WERE EXCESSIVE.  THEY
ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE RATES FOR THE FUTURE, TO
ASCERTAIN THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES THEY HAD SUSTAINED, AND TO ORDER THE
CARRIERS TO MAKE REPARATION.  AFTER HEARINGS THE COMMISSION, BY ORDER
OF FEBRUARY 11, 1929, AND SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF MARCH 11 IN THE SAME
YEAR, FOUND THAT THE CARRIERS' TARIFF RATES HAD BEEN, WERE, AND FOR THE
FUTURE WOULD BE, UNREASONABLE TO AN EXTENT INDICATED, PRESCRIBED AS
REASONABLE LOWER RATES TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE FUTURE, AND FOUND THAT
COMPLAINANTS INCLUDING RESPONDENT, HAVING PAID EXCESSIVE CHARGES, HAD
SUFFERED DAMAGES AND WERE ENTITLED TO REPARATION TO THE EXTENT OF THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNTS PAID AND WHAT THE CHARGES WOULD HAVE BEEN
UNDER THE RATES THAT THE COMMISSION THEN FOUND REASONABLE. 

ON DEMAND OF THE RESPONDENT, MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S
RULES OF PRACTICE,  FN1 THE MISSOURI PACIFIC BEFORE APRIL 20, 1929,
PAID IT $23,994.33, BEING THE AMOUNTS DIRECTED TO BE PAID BY THE
REPARATION ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF SHIPMENTS FOR WHICH THE MISSOURI
PACIFIC, DELIVERING CARRIER, HAD COLLECTED THE CHARGES.  AFTER DENIAL
OF A NUMBER OF PETITIONS FOR REHEARING FILED BY THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
AND OTHER CARRIERS, THE COMMISSION, NOVEMBER 2, 1931, REOPENED THE
CASE.  JULY 3, 1933, AFTER HEARINGS AND PROTRACTED CONTEST, IT FOUND
THE RATES THAT IT HAD THERETOFORE CONDEMNED WERE NOT UNREASONABLE AND
SET ASIDE ALL FINDINGS AND ORDERS THAT IT HAD MADE, INCLUDING THE
REPARATION ORDER ON WHICH RESPONDENT HAD COLLECTED. 

OCTOBER 30, 1934, PETITIONERS, WHO HAD BEEN APPOINTED TRUSTEES OF THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC, ASKED RESPONDENT TO REFUND THE AMOUNT IT HAD
RECEIVED; RESPONDENT REFUSED.  TO RECOVER WITH INTEREST THE AMOUNT THE
MISSOURI PACIFIC PAID, PETITIONERS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN A CIRCUIT COURT
OF MISSOURI; IT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  THE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED.  IT HELD THAT, AS THE MISSOURI PACIFIC HAD PAID THE AMOUNT OF
THE REPARATION AWARD WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS WITHOUT DENYING
LIABILITY OR WAITING TO BE SUED, THE PAYMENT WAS A VOLUNTARY ONE AND
THAT THEREFORE PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER.  THE COURT
ALSO HELD THAT BY THE VOLUNTARY PAYMENT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC CAUSED
RESPONDENT TO BELIEVE THAT THE MATTER WAS A CLOSED TRANSACTION AND THAT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO WHICH REFERENCE WILL LATER BE MADE, IT WOULD
BE INEQUITABLE TO REQUIRE RESPONDENT TO REFUND. 

WE THINK THAT PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER. 

1.  IN ABSENCE OF PRIOR FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE TARIFF
CHARGES COLLECTED FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION ARE UNREASONABLE, THERE
CAN BE NO ENFORCEABLE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY EXACTIONS ACCORDING
TO THE TARIFF.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204
U.S. 426, 444.  ROBINSON V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 222 U.S. 506,
510.  MITCHELL COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247, 259.  AND
SEE LEWIS-SIMAS-JONES CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 283 U.S. 654,
661; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BRADY, 288 U.S. 448, 458.  PRIOR TO THE
FINDINGS AND ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 11 AND MARCH 11, 1929,
RESPONDENT WAS NOT PERMITTED TO COLLECT, NOR WAS THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
OR OTHER CARRIERS ALLOWED TO PAY, THE DAMAGES CLAIMED BY RESPONDENT. 
BUT WHEN THE COMMISSION MADE THE FINDINGS AND REPARATION ORDERS, THE
CARRIERS, IN THE ABSENCE OF FACTS CONSTITUTING A DEFENSE, WERE IN DUTY
BOUND TO PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDERS. 

COMPLAINANT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF DAMAGES, IT SHALL DIRECT THE
CARRIER TO PAY COMPLAINANT THE SUM TO WHICH HE IS FOUND ENTITLED WITHIN
A SPECIFIED TIME.  SECTION 16(2)  FN3  DECLARES THAT IF THE CARRIER
DOES NOT COMPLY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, COMPLAINANT MAY BRING SUIT
SETTING FORTH THE CAUSES FOR WHICH HE CLAIMS DAMAGES.  IT ALSO DECLARES
THAT, IN CLAIMANTS' SUITS IN FEDERAL COURTS, THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS THEREIN
STATED.  IT ALLOWS PLAINTIFFS, IF THEY PREVAIL, TO RECOVER REASONABLE
ATTORNEYS' FEES.  BY THUS LAYING ON THE CARRIERS THE BURDEN OF BRINGING
FORWARD EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME PRESUMPTIONS CREATED AGAINST THEM, AND BY
COMPELLING THEM, IF DEFEATED, TO PAY PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES IN
ADDITION TO THE INTEREST ALLOWED BY LAW, THE ACT UNMISTAKABLY EVIDENCES
PURPOSE DIRECTLY TO PREVENT INTERPOSITION OF PLEAS LACKING MERIT AND SO
COERCIVELY TO BRING ABOUT PROMPT PAYMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S AWARDS. 
IN MEEKER & CO. V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 236 U.S. 412, THIS COURT,
UPHOLDING THE CLAUSE AS TO ATTORNEYS' FEES, SAID (P. 433):  "THE
PROVISION IS LEVELED AGAINST COMMON CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, A QUASI PUBLIC BUSINESS, AND IS CONFINED TO CASES WHEREIN A
RECOVERY IS HAD FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE CARRIER'S VIOLATION OF
SOME DUTY IMPOSED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY THE ACT TO REGULATE
COMMERCE.  ... ONE OF ITS PURPOSES IS TO PROMOTE A CLOSER OBSERVANCE BY
CARRIERS OF THE DUTIES SO IMPOSED; AND THAT THERE IS ALSO A PURPOSE TO
ENCOURAGE THE PAYMENT, WITHOUT SUIT, OF JUST DEMANDS DOES NOT MILITATE
AGAINST ITS VALIDITY.  AND IN ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO. V. SPILLER, 275
U.S. 156, REFERRING TO THE SAME PROVISION, WE SAID (P. 159):  "THE
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN MAKING THE PROVISION CONCERNING COSTS WAS TO
DISCOURAGE HARASSING RESISTANCE BY A CARRIER TO A REPARATION ORDER." 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO INDICATE, NOR IS IT SUGGESTED BY
RESPONDENT OR IN THE STATE COURT'S OPINION, THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
HAD ANY DEFENSE AGAINST RESPONDENT'S CLAIM UNDER THE FINDINGS AND
REPARATION ORDER.  THE LIABILITY SO ESTABLISHED PERSISTED UNTIL PAYMENT
OF THE CLAIM.  IT MAY NOT REASONABLY BE HELD THAT THE MISSOURI PACIFIC
WAS BOUND TO AWAIT SUIT OR DELAY ADJUDICATION BY FALSE OR FRIVOLOUS
ANSWER WHILE EXPENSES OF LITIGATION, INTEREST, AND FEES FOR ITS
ADVERSARY'S COUNSEL ACCUMULATED.  SECTIONS 16(1) AND 16(2) INDICATE
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO PENALIZE FAILURE OF CARRIERS, HAVING NO DEFENSE,
TO PAY DAMAGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS AND REPARATION ORDERS. 

BUT BY SEC. 16A,  FN4  THE COMMISSION WAS EMPOWERED TO SET ASIDE ITS
ORDERS.  THAT SECTION WAS DRAFTED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE REQUEST OF
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WAS ADDED BY THE
HEPBURN ACT OF 1906.  IT WAS "A NEW SECTION  ...  WHICH EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND MODIFY ITS OWN DECISIONS."  FN5
IT WAS EXPOUNDED BY THE COMMISSION AS "INTENDED TO GIVE THE COMMISSION
A RIGHT TO REHEAR A MATTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTING ANY INJUSTICE
IN A PREVIOUS ORDER."  CATTLE RAISERS' ASSN. V. MISSOURI, K. & T. RY.
CO., 12 I.C.C. 1, 3.  WHILE CAREFUL TO PREVENT APPLICATIONS FOR
REHEARING FROM BEING USED TO AVOID OR DELAY COMPLIANCE WITH THE
COMMISSION'S ORDERS, IT EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION AT ANY TIME TO GRANT
REHEARINGS AS TO ANY DECISION, ORDER, OR REQUIREMENT AND TO REVERSE,
CHANGE, OR MODIFY THE SAME.  RESPONDENT MADE ITS DEMAND AND COLLECTED
THE MONEY SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER WHICH AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF THE SAME. 

THE CLAUSES OF SEC. 16A THAT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER
FACTS ARISING AFTER THE FORMER HEARING AND THAT MAKE ITS DECISIONS
AFTER REHEARING SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROVISIONS AS AN ORIGINAL ORDER
MANIFEST THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT TO REQUIRE CARRIERS TO SERVE FOR, AND
THE SHIPPERS TO PAY, THE LAWFUL TARIFF RATES.  THE ACT CONDEMNS EVERY
DEVIATION FROM LAWFUL TARIFF RATES.  IT DECLARES THAT NO CARRIER MAY
LAWFULLY COLLECT A GREATER OR LESS OR DIFFERENT COMPENSATION FOR
TRANSPORTATION THAN THE RATES SPECIFIED IN THE TARIFF FILED NOR REFUND
OR REMIT ANY PORTION OF THE RATES SO SPECIFIED.  SEC. 6(7); SEE ALSO
SEC. 10(2).  SIMILARLY, IT CONDEMNS THE OBTAINING OF TRANSPORTATION FOR
LESS THAN THE LEGALLY ESTABLISHED RATE.  SEE SEC. 10(3) AND (4). 
INVOLUNTARY REBATES AS WELL AS THOSE THAT ARE VOLUNTARY ARE
PROHIBITED.  LOWDEN V. SIMONDS-SHIELDS-LONSDALE GRAIN CO., 306 U.S.
516.  PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. FINK, 250 U.S. 577, 582. 
NEW YORK CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. YORK & WHITNEY CO., 256 U.S. 406.  BY
ACCEPTING DELIVERY OF THE COAL, RESPONDENT BECAME BOUND TO PAY THE
TARIFF CHARGES.  AS THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND THEM NOT UNREASONABLE BUT
LAWFUL, RESPONDENT IS WITHOUT RIGHT TO RETAIN THE AMOUNT IT COLLECTED
UPON THE CLAIM THAT THEY WERE EXCESSIVE. 

THE RETENTION BY RESPONDENT OF MONEY COLLECTED UNDER THE FINDINGS AND
ORDER THAT THE COMMISSION LATER SET ASIDE AND VACATED CLEARLY WOULD BE
REPUGNANT TO THE POLICY AND PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

2.  THE FACTS ON WHICH THE STATE COURT HELD IT WOULD BE INEQUITABLE
TO REQUIRE RESPONDENT TO REFUND MAY BE BRIEFLY STATED.  RESPONDENT
EMPLOYED AN EXPERT TO REPRESENT IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND PROMISED
TO PAY HIM ONE-HALF THE AMOUNT RECOVERED AS REPARATION.  UPON
COLLECTION, IT PROMPTLY PAID AS AGREED.  WHEN PETITIONERS ASKED REFUND,
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS HAD ELAPSED AND SUIT TO RECOVER BACK THE FEE WAS
BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  RESPONDENT USED THE OTHER HALF
TO PAY DIVIDENDS AND FOR OTHER CORPORATE PURPOSES.  AS ABOVE INDICATED,
THE COURT HELD THE PAYMENT TO BE VOLUNTARY AND RESTED ITS RULING ON
THAT FACT.  BUT AS SHOWN ABOVE IT WAS NOT VOLUNTARY; IT WAS DEMANDED BY
RESPONDENT AND COMPELLED BY THE ACT, FINDINGS, AND REPARATION ORDER. 
MOREOVER, EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS MAY NOT SERVE TO JUSTIFY FAILURE OF
CARRIER TO COLLECT, OR RETENTION BY SHIPPER OF, ANY PART OF LAWFUL
TARIFF CHARGES.  PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. FINK, SUPRA.
NEW YORK CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. YORK & WHITNEY CO., SUPRA.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE APPLICABLE RULE IS V:  REPARATION STATEMENTS - FORMAL CLAIMS
FOR REPARATION BASED UPON FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.  SEE RULES OF
PRACTICE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, REVISED TO APRIL 1, 1936. 

FN2  "IF, AFTER HEARING ON A COMPLAINT MADE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 13
OF THIS CHAPTER, THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE THAT ANY PARTY
COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF DAMAGES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS CHAPTER FOR A VIOLATION THEREOF, THE COMMISSION SHALL MAKE AN
ORDER DIRECTING THE CARRIER TO PAY TO THE COMPLAINANT THE SUM TO WHICH
HE IS ENTITLED ON OR BEFORE A DAY NAMED."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(1). 

FN3  "IF A CARRIER DOES NOT COMPLY WITH AN ORDER FOR THE PAYMENT OF
MONEY WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT IN SUCH ORDER, THE COMPLAINANT, OR ANY
PERSON FOR WHOSE BENEFIT SUCH ORDER WAS MADE, MAY FILE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HE RESIDES OR IN
WHICH IS LOCATED THE PRINCIPAL OPERATING OFFICE OF THE CARRIER, OR
THROUGH WHICH THE ROAD OF THE CARRIER RUNS, OR IN ANY STATE COURT OF
GENERAL JURISDICTION HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES, A PETITION
SETTING FORTH BRIEFLY THE CAUSES FOR WHICH HE CLAIMS DAMAGES, AND THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IN THE PREMISES.  SUCH SUIT IN THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL PROCEED IN ALL RESPECTS LIKE OTHER
CIVIL SUITS FOR DAMAGES, EXCEPT THAT ON THE TRIAL OF SUCH SUIT THE
FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
THE FACTS THEREIN STATED, AND EXCEPT THAT THE PETITIONER SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE FOR COSTS IN THE DISTRICT COURT NOR FOR COSTS AT ANY SUBSEQUENT
STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNLESS THEY ACCRUE UPON HIS APPEAL.  IF THE
PETITIONER SHALL FINALLY PREVAIL HE SHALL BE ALLOWED A REASONABLE
ATTORNEY'S FEE, TO BE TAXED AND COLLECTED AS A PART OF THE COSTS OF THE
SUIT."  49 U.S.C. SEC. 16(2). 

FN4  "AFTER A DECISION, ORDER, OR REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE
COMMISSION IN ANY PROCEEDING ANY PARTY THERETO MAY AT ANY TIME MAKE
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OF THE SAME, OR ANY MATTER DETERMINED
THEREIN, AND IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR THE COMMISSION IN ITS DISCRETION TO
GRANT SUCH A REHEARING IF SUFFICIENT REASON THEREFOR BE MADE TO
APPEAR.  APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARING SHALL BE GOVERNED BY SUCH GENERAL
RULES AS THE COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH.  NO SUCH APPLICATION SHALL
EXCUSE ANY CARRIER FROM COMPLYING WITH OR OBEYING ANY DECISION, ORDER,
OR REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMISSION, OR OPERATE IN ANY MANNER TO STAY OR
POSTPONE THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF, WITHOUT THE SPECIAL ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION.  IN CASE A REHEARING IS GRANTED THE PROCEEDINGS THEREUPON
SHALL CONFORM AS NEARLY AS MAY BE TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN AN ORIGINAL
HEARING, EXCEPT AS THE COMMISSION MAY OTHERWISE DIRECT; AND IF, IN ITS
JUDGMENT, AFTER SUCH REHEARING AND THE CONSIDERATION OF ALL FACTS,
INCLUDING THOSE ARISING SINCE THE FORMER HEARING, IT SHALL APPEAR THAT
THE ORIGINAL DECISION, ORDER, OR REQUIREMENT IS IN ANY RESPECT UNJUST
OR UNWARRANTED, THE COMMISSION MAY REVERSE, CHANGE, OR MODIFY THE SAME
ACCORDINGLY.  ANY DECISION, ORDER, OR REQUIREMENT MADE AFTER SUCH
REHEARING, REVERSING, CHANGING, OR MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL DETERMINATION
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROVISIONS AS AN ORIGINAL ORDER."  49
U.S.C. SEC. 16A.    FN5  NINETEENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, P. 12. 
..END :




















AMERICAN BRIDGE CO. V. COMM'N, 307 U.S. 486 


NO. 704.  ARGUED APRIL 21, 1939.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1939.  - 12 CAL.2D
184 - 83 P.2D 1, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA POLITICAL CODE REQUIRING COUNTY
SUPERVISORS WHEN GRANTING A TOLL BRIDGE FRANCHISE TO FIX TOLLS WHICH
MUST NOT RAISE ANNUALLY AN INCOME EXCEEDING 15 PER CENT. OF A SPECIFIED
BASE, AND PROVIDING THAT TOLLS SHALL NOT BE INCREASED OR DIMINISHED
UNLESS IT BE SHOWN THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM THEM IN ANY ONE YEAR ARE
"DISPROPORTIONATE" TO THE BASE, CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT TOLLS
SHALL NOT BE REDUCED UNLESS THEY YIELD IN EXCESS OF THE 15 PER CENT.
P. 488. 

2.  A TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY WAS NOTIFIED THAT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE
OPERATION OF ITS BRIDGE WOULD EXTEND TO THE TOLLS.  IT WAS ACCORDED AND
ACCEPTED OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE, AND SUBMITTED ITS CASE FOR
DECISION WITHOUT REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OR ARGUMENT.  THE STATE
COMMISSION, IN REDUCING TOLLS, FILED A DECISION SUFFICIENTLY INDICATING
THE FACTS ON WHICH IT MADE THE ORDER.  IN ITS PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
AND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW THE COMPANY, THOUGH SETTING FORTH OTHER
OBJECTIONS SPECIFICALLY, DID NOT CLAIM THAT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS HAD
BEEN DENIED BY THE COMMISSION.  HELD, THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
ASSERTING THE CLAIM IN THIS COURT.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S.
1, IS NOT IN POINT.  P. 492. 

3.  A COMPANY OWNING TWO BRIDGES OBJECTED TO REGULATION OF THE TOLLS
ON ONE WITHOUT INCLUDING THE OTHER, CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE PARTS OF
THE SAME SYSTEM BUT COMPETING, AND THAT REDUCTION OF TOLLS ON THE ONE
WOULD FORCE REDUCTION ON THE OTHER.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT DETERMINATION OF THE PROPER UNIT WAS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
FOR THE RATE-FIXING COMMISSION.  P. 494. 

(2)  AS THE OTHER BRIDGE IS NOT USED OR USEFUL IN RENDERING ANY OF
THE SERVICE COVERED BY THE TOLLS UNDER INVESTIGATION, AND THE DUTY TO
OPERATE THE ONE IS INDEPENDENT OF THE DUTY TO OPERATE THE OTHER, THE
CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION IN CONFINING ITS REGULATION TO THE ONE BRIDGE
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, IS WITHOUT
FOUNDATION.  P. 494. 

4.  WHERE AN ORDER REDUCING BRIDGE TOLLS EXTENDED ONLY TO AUTOMOBILES
AND PASSENGERS, LEAVING INTACT THE TOLLS FOR OTHER CLASSES OF TRAFFIC,
A CLAIM THAT THE REDUCTION WAS CONFISCATORY WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY
PROOF THAT THE REVENUES AS A WHOLE FROM ALL OF THE TRAFFIC WERE
INADEQUATE; THERE MUST BE ALLOCATION OR APPORTIONMENT, TO THE TRAFFIC
COVERED BY THE REDUCED TOLLS, OF OPERATING EXPENSES, COST OF
DEPRECIATION, TAXES, SINKING FUND CONTRIBUTIONS, PROPERTY VALUES, ETC.,
FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SERVICE COVERED BY THE ORDER.  P. 494. 

AMERICAN TOLL BRIDGE CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING
AN ORDER OF THE STATE RAILROAD COMMISSION WHICH REDUCED IN PART THE
TOLLS CHARGED FOR USE OF ONE OF THE APPELLANT'S BRIDGES. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL IS FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE
UPHOLDING AN ORDER OF THE STATE RAILROAD COMMISSION THAT REDUCES TOLLS
FOR USE OF APPELLANT'S BRIDGE ACROSS THE CARQUINEZ STRAITS BETWEEN THE
COUNTIES OF CONTRA COSTA AND SOLANO.  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE ORDER
VIOLATES ART. I, SEC. 10, OF THE CONSTITUTION; THAT THE COMMISSION'S
PROCEDURE WAS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AND THAT THE ORDER, IN VIOLATION OF THAT CLAUSE, PRESCRIBES
RATES THAT ARE CONFISCATORY. 

FEBRUARY 5, 1923, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
EXERTING POWER CONFERRED BY STATE LEGISLATION,  FN1  PASSED ORDINANCE
NO. 171 GRANTING TO THE RODEO-VALLEJO FERRY COMPANY A FRANCHISE TO
CONSTRUCT AND FOR 25 YEARS TO OPERATE THE CARQUINEZ BRIDGE.  JUNE 4,
1923, THE SAME BOARD GRANTED TO THE DELTA BRIDGE CORPORATION A LIKE
FRANCHISE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A BRIDGE ACROSS THE SAN
JOAQUIN RIVER NEAR ANTIOCH, BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF CONTRA COSTA AND
SACRAMENTO.  EACH ORDINANCE PROVIDES THAT, ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE
FRANCHISE, THE PROPERTY RIGHTS, INCLUDING TITLE TO THE BRIDGE, REVERT
TO THE ADJACENT COUNTIES.  APPELLANT BECAME THE OWNER OF BOTH
FRANCHISES.  THE ANTIOCH BRIDGE WAS OPENED IN JANUARY, 1926, AND THE
CARQUINEZ IN MAY, 1927. 

WHEN THE CARQUINEZ BRIDGE OPENED, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIXED
TOLLS AT 60 CENTS FOR AUTOMOBILES AND AT 10 CENTS FOR EACH PERSON IN A
VEHICLE OR ON FOOT.  FN2  THAT SCALE WAS IN OPERATION WHEN THE
COMMISSION MADE THE ORDER IN QUESTION WHICH REDUCED THESE CHARGES TO 45
AND 5 CENTS, RESPECTIVELY.  JURISDICTION OVER TOLL BRIDGES HAVING BEEN
CONFERRED UPON IT BY A STATUTE OF 1937,  FN3  THE COMMISSION IN AUGUST
OF THAT YEAR ON ITS OWN MOTION COMMENCED AN INVESTIGATION OF ALL TOLL
BRIDGES.  BUT, IN OCTOBER FOLLOWING, IT COMMENCED A SEPARATE PROCEEDING
SOLELY TO INVESTIGATE REASONABLENESS OF CARQUINEZ TOLLS.  FEBRUARY 8,
1938, IT ANNOUNCED ITS OPINION AND PROMULGATED THE ORDER IN QUESTION. 
APPELLANT OBTAINED JUDICIAL REVIEW; THE COURT UPHELD THE ORDER.  12
CAL.2D 184. 

THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY BOARD TO GRANT THE
FRANCHISES, ORDINANCE NO. 171, AND THE GRANTEES' ACCEPTANCE CONSTITUTE
A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  CONTRA COSTA CO. V. AMERICAN TOLL
BRIDGE CO., (1937) 10 CAL.2D 359; 74 P.2D 749.  AS TO THAT, THERE IS NO
CONTROVERSY.  BUT APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT UNDER THE FRANCHISE IT HAS A
CONTRACT RIGHT THAT THE BRIDGE TOLLS SHALL NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES UNLESS IT SHALL FIRST APPEAR THAT THEY ARE YIELDING A RATE
IN EXCESS OF 15 PER CENT UPON THE RATE BASE SPECIFIED BY SECS. 2845 AND
2846, POLITICAL CODE. 

THESE SECTIONS PROVIDE: 

SEC. 2845.  "THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GRANTING AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT
A TOLL-BRIDGE  ...  MUST AT THE SAME TIME:  ... 

"2.  FIX THE AMOUNT OF LICENSE TAX TO BE PAID BY THE PERSON OR
CORPORATION FOR TAKING TOLLS THEREON, NOT LESS THAN THREE DOLLARS NOR
OVER ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MONTH, PAYABLE ANNUALLY. 

"3.  FIX THE RATE OF TOLLS WHICH MAY BE COLLECTED FOR CROSSING THE
BRIDGE  ...  WHICH MUST NOT RAISE ANNUALLY AN INCOME EXCEEDING FIFTEEN
PER CENT ON THE ACTUAL COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR ERECTION AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE BRIDGE  ...  FOR THE FIRST YEAR, NOR ON THE FAIR
CASH VALUE TOGETHER WITH THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE THEREOF FOR ANY
SUCCEEDING YEAR; ..."  FN4 

SEC. 2846.  "THE LICENSE TAX AND RATE OF TOLL FIXED AS PROVIDED IN
THE PRECEDING SECTION MUST NOT BE INCREASED OR DIMINISHED DURING THE
TERM OF TWENTY YEARS, AT ANY TIME, UNLESS IT IS SHOWN TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM TOLLS
IN ANY ONE YEAR IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OR
ERECTION, OR THE FAIR CASH VALUE THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH THE COST OF ALL
NECESSARY REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE BRIDGE.  ...  THE LICENSE TAX
FIXED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MUST NOT EXCEED TEN PER CENT OF THE
TOLLS ANNUALLY COLLECTED." 

THE STATE COURT HELD THAT SEC. 2846 CONTEMPLATES INCREASES AS WELL AS
REDUCTIONS, LIMITED BY THE 15 PER CENT MAXIMUM, AT ANY TIME THE
DISPROPORTION IS SHOWN TO EXIST.  IT CONSTRUED THE LANGUAGE OF THAT
SHALL HAVE A 15 PER CENT RETURN, IF YIELDED BY THE TOLLS SPECIFIED IN
THE FRANCHISE.  THE OPINION EXPLAINS THAT: "RATHER IS IT TO BE ASSUMED
THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED, NOT ONLY TO AFFORD AN ADEQUATE AND
PROPORTIONATE RETURN TO THE GRANTEE, BUT THAT IT ALSO INTENDED SOME
MEASURE OF PROTECTION TO THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO BE CHARGED NOT MORE THAN
A REASONABLE TOLL FOR THE USE OF THE BRIDGE.  ...  IN 1872, WHEN
ALLOWED BETWEEN BOTH INTERESTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, TO PERMIT ADEQUATE
ELASTICITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE RATE-MAKING FUNCTION IN
THE LIGHT OF PREVAILING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.  SUCH A STATUTE DOES NOT
SAVOR OF A CONTRACT OBLIGATION TO THE GRANTEE.  ITS OBJECT WAS TO
DELEGATE TO AND VEST IN THE DESIGNATED BODY THE POWER TO REGULATE TOLLS
AS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE STATED LIMITATION."  12 CAL.2D 195; 83 P.2D 6. 

UPON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE ORDER IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONTRACT CLAUSE,
"NO STATE SHALL  ...  PASS ANY  ...  LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF
CONTRACTS," THIS COURT, WHILE INCLINING TO THE STATE COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION, WILL DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHETHER, AS CLAIMED BY APPELLANT,
THE FRANCHISE BY CONTRACT LIMITS EXERTION OF SOVEREIGN POWERS TO
REGULATE TOLLS.  GEORGIA RY. CO. V. DECATUR, 262 U.S. 432, 438.  NEW
YORK RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573, 593.  AND, IF IT
PLAINLY APPEARS THAT IT DOES, THIS COURT WILL NOT HESITATE SO TO
ADJUDGE.  DETROIT UNITED RY. V. MICHIGAN, 242 U.S. 238, 251-253. 
CLEVELAND V. CLEVELAND CITY RY. CO., 194 U.S. 517, 524, 536.  DETROIT
V. DETROIT CITIZENS STREET RY. CO., 184 U.S. 368, 382, 389.  ST. CLOUD
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. ST. CLOUD, 265 U.S. 352.  COMPARE GEORGIA V.
CHATTANOOGA, 264 U.S. 472, 480. 

UPON AN ELABORATE REVIEW OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION RELATING TO
BRIDGE TOLLS, APPELLANT SAYS THAT IN THE FIRST PERIOD, 1850 TO 1857,
BRIDGE FRANCHISES ALLOWED OWNERS TO TAKE ONLY SUCH TOLLS AS THE COURTS
OF SESSIONS AND, LATER, THE COUNTY BOARDS SHOULD FIX ANNUALLY; THAT IN
THE SECOND PERIOD, 1857 TO 1864, TOLLS WERE LIMITED TO THOSE FIXED BY
COUNTY BOARDS ANNUALLY, SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE LEGISLATURE; THAT IN
THE THIRD PERIOD, 1862 TO 1872, GENERAL STATUTES AND SPECIAL ACTS
AUTHORIZED SUCH RATES AS THE COUNTY BOARDS SHOULD ANNUALLY PRESCRIBE,
DECLARING, HOWEVER, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE SO LOW AS TO MAKE INCOME
LESS THAN A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF A DEFINED BASE.  ON THAT
FOUNDATION, IT MAINTAINS THAT THERE WAS AN EVOLUTION OF POLICY TO GRANT
TO BUILDERS AND OPERATORS OF BRIDGES CONTRACT RIGHTS AS TO TOLLS.  IN
THAT LIGHT IT EXAMINES THE LANGUAGE OF SECS. 2845 AND 2846 AND
CONCLUDES THAT THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE FRANCHISE IN QUESTION IS
THAT UNLESS THE YIELD BECOMES IN EXCESS OF 15 PER CENT THE LICENSE TAX
MUST NOT BE INCREASED AND THE RATE OF TOLL MUST NOT BE DIMINISHED. 

WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DETAILED EXAMINATION, THAT THE LEGISLATION SO
PORTRAYED INDICATES THAT IN THE PERIOD NEXT PRECEDING 1872, WHEN THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2846 WERE ENACTED, THE STATE HAD ADOPTED THE POLICY
OF SAFEGUARDING OPERATORS OF TOLL BRIDGES AGAINST RATE REDUCTION BY
COUNTY BOARDS BELOW SPECIFIED LEVELS.  BUT THAT FACT MAY NOT BE
EMPLOYED TO ARRIVE AT A CONSTRUCTION NOT INDICATED BY THE LANGUAGE
USED.  SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE POINT UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE MEANING OF
THE STATUTORY PROVISION IS PLAIN.  SECTION 2845 REQUIRES THE COUNTY
BOARD, WHEN GRANTING THE FRANCHISE, TO FIX THE LICENSE TAX WITHIN
SPECIFIED LIMITS AND A RATE OF TOLL, WHICH MUST NOT RAISE ANNUALLY AN
INCOME EXCEEDING 15 PER CENT OF BASE.  SECTION 2846 DECLARES THAT THE
LICENSE TAX AND THE RATE OF TOLL SO FIXED MUST NOT BE DIMINISHED UNLESS
RECEIPTS ARE DISPROPORTIONATE TO BASE.  THUS PLAINLY THE COMMANDS ARE
THAT AT FIRST THE TOLLS MUST BE FIXED, BUT NOT TO PRODUCE INCOME ABOVE
THE 15 PER CENT SPECIFIED, AND THAT THE TOLLS SO FIXED SHALL NOT BE
DIMINISHED UNLESS YIELD IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE DEFINED BASE. 
NEITHER IN TEXT NOR IN REASON IS THE "FIFTEEN PER CENT" PRESCRIBED AS
MAXIMUM YIELD TIED TO, OR MADE THE TEST BY WHICH TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
RECEIPTS FROM TOLLS ARE, "DISPROPORTIONATE."  WE CONSTRUE THESE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS TO NEGATIVE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT BY THE
FRANCHISE IN QUESTION THE STATE BARGAINED AWAY POWER TO REDUCE TOLLS
FOR USE OF THE CARQUINEZ BRIDGE UNLESS ANNUAL RETURN BECOMES MORE THAN
15 PER CENT.  SEE E.G. PADUCAH V. PADUCAH RY. CO., 261 U.S. 267, 275;
BANTON V. BELT LINE RY. CORP., 268 U.S. 413, 417-419; RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. LOS ANGELES RY. CORP., 280 U.S. 145, 152, 155.  THE ORDER
IS NOT REPUGNANT TO THE CONTRACT CLAUSE. 

APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE COMMISSION DENIED IT A FULL AND FAIR HEARING
AND FAILED ADEQUATELY TO FIND THE FACTS.  THE COMMISSION INITIATED THE
PROCEEDING, ENTITLED "IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION UPON THE
COMMISSION'S OWN MOTION, INTO THE RATES, CHARGES, CONTRACTS,
CLASSIFICATIONS, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF AMERICAN TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY
COVERING ITS OPERATION OF THE TOLL BRIDGE OVER THE CARQUINEZ STRAITS
BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF CONTRA COSTA AND SOLANO"; GAVE APPELLANT NOTICE
THAT THE INVESTIGATION WOULD EXTEND TO TOLLS FOR USE OF THAT BRIDGE;
ACCORDED IT OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE AND PRESENT ITS
CONTENTIONS; AND RECEIVED THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY IT, 233 PAGES OF THE
PRINTED RECORD AND NUMEROUS EXHIBITS.  APPELLANT SUBMITTED THE CASE FOR
DECISION WITHOUT MAKING ANY REQUEST FOR FINDINGS AND WITHOUT ARGUMENT,
ORAL OR WRITTEN.  THE COMMISSION, WITHOUT FORMAL FINDINGS, FILED ITS
DECISION WHICH, SUFFICIENTLY TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS,
INDICATES THE FACTS ON WHICH IT MADE THE ORDER. 

THEN APPELLANT FILED PETITION FOR REHEARING.  THAT DOCUMENT,
INCLUDING EIGHT CAPTIONS AND 12 SUB-CAPTIONS AND AN EXHIBIT, OCCUPIES
39 PRINTED PAGES OF THE RECORD.  FN5  IT SPECIFICALLY SETS FORTH THE
GROUNDS ON WHICH APPELLANT CLAIMED THE DECISION TO BE UNLAWFUL.  THESE
INCLUDE THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF FACTS
USUALLY CONSIDERED IN CASES IN WHICH PRESCRIBED RATES ARE CHALLENGED AS
CONFISCATORY.  THE PETITION CONTAINS NO HINT OF CLAIM THAT THE
COMMISSION DENIED APPELLANT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  NOR WAS THAT
SPECIFIED IN THE PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.  MORGAN V. UNITED
STATES, 304 U.S. 1, ON WHICH APPELLANT RELIES, WAS DECIDED AFTER FILING
OF THAT PETITION AND BEFORE ARGUMENT IN THE CALIFORNIA COURT.  THAT
COURT RIGHTLY HELD IT NOT IN POINT. 

APPELLANT ALSO CLAIMS THAT THE COMMISSION DENIED IT PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS BY EXCLUDING THE ANTIOCH BRIDGE RATES FROM THE PROCEEDING.  IT
MOVED TO INCLUDE WITH THIS PROCEEDING AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ANTIOCH
BRIDGE TOLLS.  IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, IT SUGGESTED THAT THE BRIDGES
ARE PART OF A SINGLE SYSTEM BUT COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER; THAT
OPERATIONS OF THE ANTIOCH ARE LESS SATISFACTORY FINANCIALLY THAN THOSE
OF THE CARQUINEZ; AND THAT REDUCTION OF CARQUINEZ TOLLS WOULD FORCE
REDUCTION OF ANTIOCH TOLLS. 

IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AT LEAST, DETERMINATION OF THE PROPER UNIT FOR
RATE MAKING WAS FOR THE COMMISSION.  THE ANTIOCH BRIDGE IS NOT USED OR
USEFUL TO RENDER ANY SERVICE COVERED BY THE CARQUINEZ TOLLS;
APPELLANT'S DUTY TO OPERATE EITHER BRIDGE IS INDEPENDENT OF ITS
OBLIGATION TO OPERATE THE OTHER.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO BASIS ON
WHICH IT REASONABLY MAY BE HELD THAT BY LIMITING THE INVESTIGATION TO
THE CARQUINEZ TOLLS THE COMMISSION ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, AND CLEARLY
THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THE CLAIM THAT IN EXCLUDING THE ANTIOCH THE
COMMISSION DENIED APPELLANT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  SEE GILCHRIST V.
INTERBOROUGH CO., 279 U.S. 159, 206, 209.  WABASH VALLEY ELECTRIC CO.
V. YOUNG, 287 U.S. 488, 495-8.  FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. V. MIAMI, 98
F.2D 180.  INTERNATIONAL RY. CO. V. PRENDERGAST, 1 F.SUPP.  623.  CF.
CONEY V. BROAD RIVER POWER CO., 171 S.C. 377; 172 S.E. 437. 

THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THE CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE
VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THERE REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION THE CONTENTION THAT THE PRESCRIBED
RATES ARE CONFISCATORY.  THE BURDEN IS ON APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER WILL COMPEL IT TO FURNISH THE SERVICE COVERED
BY THE REDUCED RATES FOR LESS THAN A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN ON THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY USED, AT THE TIME IT IS BEING USED, FOR THAT
SERVICE.  AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF THAT THE
REDUCED TOLLS ARE TOO LOW TO YIELD THAT RETURN, IT MAY NOT BE ADJUDGED
THAT THE STATE BY ENFORCEMENT OF THE MEASURE COMPLAINED OF WILL DEPRIVE
APPELLANT OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  CHICAGO & G.T.
RY. CO. V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339, 344-345.  SAN DIEGO LAND & TOWN CO.
V. JASPER, 189 U.S. 439, 441, 446.  KNOXVILLE V. KNOXVILLE WATER CO.,
212 U.S. 1, 8, 16.  THE MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 433, 452. 
BRUSH ELECTRIC CO. V. GALVESTON, 262 U.S. 443, 446.  AETNA INSURANCE
CO. V. HYDE, 275 U.S. 440, 448.    THE TERMS OF THE ORDER MUST FIRST BE
GIVEN ATTENTION.  IT DIRECTS APPELLANT TO CHANGE THE ITEMS OF ITS
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES, READING AS FOLLOWS:  "PASSENGERS (7 YEARS OF AGE
AND OLDER) ON FOOT OR IN VEHICLES  ...  $.10.  AUTO ONLY  ...  .60" SO
AS TO READ:  "PASSENGERS (7 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER) ON FOOT OR IN
VEHICLES  ...  .05.  AUTO ONLY  ...  .45."  THUS, THE ORDER EXTENDS
ONLY TO AUTOMOBILES AND PASSENGERS.  THE CARQUINEZ FRANCHISE SPECIFIES,
UNTIL OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION, TOLLS APPLICABLE TO OTHER
CLASSES OF TRAFFIC CROSSING THE BRIDGE, NAMELY, BICYCLES, CARTS AND
WAGONS, COMMERCIAL OR DELIVERY AUTOMOBILES AND MOTOR TRUCKS, DITCHERS,
HARVESTERS, ETC., CATTLE AND STOCK, MOTOR STAGES TO WHICH COMMUTATION
RATES ARE APPLIED WHEN OPERATED AS SPECIFIED, FREIGHT, HEARSES, HORSES,
MOTORCYCLES, AND TRAILERS. 

APPELLANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH, BY ALLOCATION OR APPORTIONMENT TO THE
TRAFFIC COVERED BY THE TOLLS SO REDUCED, THE OPERATING EXPENSES, COST
OF DEPRECIATION, TAXES, AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SINKING FUND FOR
AMORTIZATION OF INVESTMENT THAT ARE FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SERVICE
COVERED BY THE ORDER; IT ALSO FAILS TO ESTABLISH THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY
VALUE THAT IS JUSTLY ASSIGNABLE TO THAT TRAFFIC.  OBVIOUSLY, THE RETURN
TO BE YIELDED BY THE REDUCED TOLLS CANNOT BE FOUND WITHOUT COMPARISON
OF THE REVENUES TO BE DERIVED FROM THE SERVICE WITH THE AMOUNTS OF
OPERATING EXPENSES AND OTHER CHARGES RIGHTLY TO BE MADE AGAINST THEM. 
INADEQUACY OF REVENUES FROM ALL TRAFFIC DOES NOT TEND TO SHOW THAT THE
RATES ON AUTOMOBILES AND PERSONS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
ARE TOO LOW.  THE MINNESOTA RATE CASES, SUPRA, 452-453.  BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 349, 372, 378, 381.  IT FOLLOWS
THAT APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A DECREE THAT THE ORDER IS
CONFISCATORY. 

MORE NEED NOT BE WRITTEN TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN THIS
CASE.  BUT IN VIEW OF APPELLANT'S EARNEST CONTENTIONS, IT IS NOT
INAPPROPRIATE TO SAY THAT THE RECORD, CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS
ARGUMENT, FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE RATE REDUCTION WILL SO LESSEN REVENUES
FROM THE CARQUINEZ BRIDGE THAT THERE WILL REMAIN LESS THAN SUFFICIENT,
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, TO CONSTITUTE JUST COMPENSATION FOR ITS
USE - A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN ON THE VALUE OF THE BRIDGE PROPERTY. 
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  POLITICAL CODE, SECS. 2843, 2845, 2846, AND 2872(AS AMENDED MAY
8, 1923, CAL. STATS. 1923, P. 272). 

FN2  THE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE FIXED THESE TOLLS AT 75 CENTS AND 15
CENTS. 

FN3  ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1937, CAL. STATS. 1937, P. 2473. 

FN4  BY ACT OF MAY 9, 1923, PAR. 3 WAS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
"FIX THE RATE OF TOLLS WHICH MAY BE COLLECTED FOR CROSSING THE BRIDGE
...  WHICH MAY RAISE ANNUALLY AN INCOME NOT EXCEEDING FIFTEEN PER CENT
ON THE ACTUAL COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR ERECTION OF THE BRIDGE  ...
AND SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME AS WILL PROVIDE FOR THE ANNUAL COST OF
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AMORTIZATION AND TAXES OF THE BRIDGE.  ...  "
CAL. STATS. 1923, P. 288. 

FN5  I. INTRODUCTION. 

II.  EXCLUSION OF ANTIOCH BRIDGE. 

1.  THE FACTS. 

2.  INEVITABLE EFFECT OF DECISION ON TOLLS OF CARQUINEZ BRIDGE,
ANTIOCH BRIDGE AND MARTINEZ-BENICIO FERRY. 

3.  THE DECISION IS CONTRARY TO THE COMMISSION'S OWN TRADITIONS AND
POLICY. 

4.  THE COMMISSION'S ACTION DEPRIVES AMERICAN TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY OF
ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF GUARANTEES OF
THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS. 

III.  FAILURE TO GIVE FAIR RETURN ON FAIR VALUE OF CARQUINEZ BRIDGE. 

1.  CALCULATIONS OF COMMISSION IN COMPUTING ITS RATE. 

2.  ERRORS IN COMMISSION'S COMPUTATIONS. 

(1)  RATE BASE. 

(2)  MONEY AVAILABLE FOR RETURN ON RATE BASE (UNDER 50[ TOLL). 

3.  RETURN UNDER RATE FIXED BY COMMISSION. 

4.  IN VIEW OF THE COST OF MONEY TO AMERICAN TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY, A
RETURN OF ONLY 6.6% OR 6.9% ON THE FAIR VALUE OF THE CARQUINEZ BRIDGE
WOULD BE CONFISCATORY. 

5.  SUMMARY AS TO FAIR RETURN, CARQUINEZ BRIDGE. 

IV.  FAILURE TO GIVE FAIR RETURN ON FAIR VALUE OF CARQUINEZ AND
ANTIOCH BRIDGES. 

1.  RATE BASE. 

2.  RETURN UNDER RATE FIXED BY COMMISSION. 

3.  EFFECT OF COMMISSION'S DECISION WOULD BE TO CONFISCATE PROPERTY
OF AMERICAN TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY IN BOTH CARQUINEZ AND ANTIOCH BRIDGES. 

V. UNDER COMMISSION'S TOLLS AMERICAN TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY WOULD BE
UNABLE TO MEET ITS REQUIREMENTS TO ITS BONDHOLDERS AND STOCKHOLDERS. 

VI.  IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS. 

VII.  FALSE ANALOGY WITH PUBLICLY OWNED AND OPERATED SAN FRANCISCO
BAY BRIDGES. 

VIII.  VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :
















HAGUE V. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 


NO. 651.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 27, 28, 1939.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1939.  - 101
F.2D 774, MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN MUNICIPAL OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING ORDINANCES
FORBIDDING THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATTER, AND THE HOLDING WITHOUT
PERMITS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS, IN STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES, HELD: 

1.  THE CASE IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  PP.
512-513, 525. 

2.  THE ORDINANCES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS, CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES; BUT A COMPLAINING CORPORATION CAN NOT CLAIM SUCH RIGHTS.  P.
514. 

3.  THE ORDINANCES ARE VOID.  PP. 516, 518. 

4.  PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ENJOINING FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF PLAINTIFFS
OR EXERCISE OF PERSONAL RESTRAINT OVER THEM WITHOUT WARRANT, OR
CONFINEMENT WITHOUT LAWFUL ARREST AND PRODUCTION FOR PROMPT JUDICIAL
HEARING, SAVING LAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE, OR INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR
FREE ACCESS TO STREETS, PARKS OR PUBLIC PLACES OF THE CITY,  - ARE NOT
VAGUE AND IMPRACTICABLE.  P. 517. 

5.  THE DECREE PROPERLY ENJOINED INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT OF
PLAINTIFFS, THEIR AGENTS ETC., TO COMMUNICATE THEIR VIEWS AS
INDIVIDUALS TO OTHERS ON THE STREETS IN AN ORDERLY AND PEACEABLE
MANNER, RESERVING THE RIGHT OF DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE LAW AND ORDER BY
LAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE OR ARREST.  P. 517. 

6.  IN SO FAR AS THE DECREE RELATES TO DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE AND
HOLDING OF MEETINGS, THE DECREE SHOULD ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE VOID
ORDINANCES, AND NOT UNDERTAKE TO ENUMERATE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
THOSE ACTIVITIES MAY BE CARRIED ON.  P. 518. 

PER ROBERTS, J., WITH WHOM BLACK, J., CONCURRED.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE
CONCURRED IN PART (P. 532). 

1.  THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC.
24(1).  P. 508. 

(A) IN SUITS UNDER SEC. 24(1) A TRAVERSE OF THE ALLEGATION AS TO THE
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, OR A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH AMOUNT, CALLS FOR SUBSTANTIAL PROOF ON THE PART OF THE PLAINTIFF
OF FACTS JUSTIFYING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUIT INVOLVES THE NECESSARY
SUM.  P. 507. 

(B)  THE RECORD IN THIS SUIT IS BARE OF ANY SHOWING OF THE VALUE OF
THE ASSERTED RIGHTS TO THE COMPLAINANTS INDIVIDUALLY.  P. 508. 

(C)  COMPLAINANTS MAY NOT AGGREGATE THEIR INTERESTS IN ORDER TO
ATTAIN THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  P. 508. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION UNDER JUD.  CODE, SEC.
24(14).  P. 513. 

(A)  FREEDOM TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROVISIONS OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, TO ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY FOR DISCUSSION
OF THE ACT AND OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AND ADVANTAGES OFFERED BY IT, IS A
PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES SECURED AGAINST
STATE ABRIDGMENT BY SEC. 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; AND R.S. SEC.
1979 AND JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(14) AFFORD REDRESS IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR
SUCH ABRIDGMENT.  P. 512. 

(B)  NATURAL PERSONS ALONE ARE ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES WHICH SEC. 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SECURES TO
"CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES."  ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANTS MAY
MAINTAIN THIS SUIT.  P. 514. 

3. THE PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES TO USE THE STREETS
AND PARKS FOR COMMUNICATION OF VIEWS ON NATIONAL QUESTIONS MAY BE
REGULATED IN THE INTEREST OF ALL; IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE, BUT RELATIVE, AND
MUST BE EXERCISED IN SUBORDINATION TO THE GENERAL COMFORT AND
CONVENIENCE, AND IN CONSONANCE WITH PEACE AND GOOD ORDER; BUT IT MUST
NOT, IN THE GUISE OF REGULATION, BE ABRIDGED OR DENIED.  DISTINGUISHING
DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43.  P. 515. 

4.  THE ORDINANCE HERE IN QUESTION, WHICH FORBIDS PUBLIC ASSEMBLY IN
THE STREETS OR PARKS OF THE CITY WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF
SAFETY, WHO MAY REFUSE SUCH PERMIT UPON HIS MERE OPINION THAT SUCH
REFUSAL WILL PREVENT "RIOTS, DISTURBANCES OR DISORDERLY ASSEMBLAGE," IS
VOID UPON ITS FACE.  P. 516. 

IT DOES NOT MAKE COMFORT OR CONVENIENCE IN THE USE OF THE STREETS OR
PARKS THE STANDARD OF OFFICIAL ACTION, AND CAN BE MADE THE INSTRUMENT
OF ARBITRARY SUPPRESSION OF FREE EXPRESSION OF VIEWS ON NATIONAL
AFFAIRS.  UNCONTROLLED OFFICIAL SUPPRESSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY CAN NOT BE MADE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN
CONNECTION WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT. 

5.  THE QUESTION WHETHER EXEMPTION FROM THE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
PROSCRIBED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS AFFORDED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH IS NOT INVOLVED.  P. 517. 

6.  AN ORDINANCE ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITING DISTRIBUTION OF CIRCULARS,
HANDBILLS, PLACARDS, ETC., IN ANY STREET OR PUBLIC PLACE IS VOID. 
LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444.  P. 518. 

PER STONE, J., WITH WHOM REED, J., CONCURRED.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE
CONCURRED IN PART (P. 532). 

1.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY FOR ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE ARE
RIGHTS OF PERSONAL LIBERTY SECURED TO ALL PERSONS, WITHOUT REGARD TO
CITIZENSHIP, BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P.
519. 

THERE IS NO OCCASION IN THIS CASE TO CONSIDER WHETHER FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY ARE IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

2. THE DECREE WHICH IS NOW AFFIRMED IS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD,
IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY IS DEPENDENT ON
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE RATHER THAN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  COMPLAINANTS ARE NOT ALLEGED, SHOWN, OR
FOUND TO BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE FINDINGS DO NOT SUPPORT
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPOSED MEETINGS OF COMPLAINANTS WERE FOR ANY
PURPOSE AFFECTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPLAINANTS AND THE UNITED
STATES OR PERTAINING TO UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.  THE DECREE IS NOT
RESTRICTED TO INTERFERENCES WITH RIGHTS OR IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP, BUT ENJOINS UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH ALL MEETINGS FOR
LAWFUL PURPOSES AND THE LAWFUL DISSEMINATION OF ALL INFORMATION.  PP.
522-524. 

3.  THE SUIT IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER JUD.  CODE, SEC. 24(14) AS A SUIT
FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  P. 525. 

THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANTS TO MAINTAIN IT CONFERRED BY
SEC. 24(14) DOES NOT DEPEND ON THEIR CITIZENSHIP AND CAN NOT RIGHTLY BE
MADE TO TURN ON THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF A PURPOSE TO
DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

4.  THE LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS THE LIBERTY
OF NATURAL, NOT ARTIFICIAL, PERSONS.  P. 527. 

A CORPORATION CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE DEPRIVED OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY. 

5. THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF APRIL 20, 1871, TO
MAINTAIN A SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO PROTECT THE SUITOR
AGAINST A DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN PRESERVED, AND WHENEVER THE RIGHT IS ONE OF
PERSONAL LIBERTY, NOT DEPENDENT FOR ITS EXISTENCE UPON THE INFRINGEMENT
OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, THERE IS JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER
JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(14) TO ENTERTAIN IT WITHOUT PROOF THAT THE AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $3,000.  P. 531. 

JUD. CODE SEC. 24(1), CONFERRING UPON THE DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION
OF SUITS "ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES"
IN WHICH THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS THE SUM OF $3,000, IS NOT TO
BE INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING A DIFFERENT RESULT. 

HAGUE, MAYOR, ET AL. V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 624, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED A DECREE OF INJUNCTION, 25 F.2D 127, IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY
INDIVIDUALS, UNINCORPORATED LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND A MEMBERSHIP
CORPORATION, AGAINST OFFICIALS OF A MUNICIPALITY TO RESTRAIN ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, PRESIDING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS: 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE DECREE IS MODIFIED
AND AS MODIFIED AFFIRMED.  MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND MR. JUSTICE
DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THE CASE.  MR.
JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS AN OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS, AND
MR. JUSTICE STONE AN OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS.  THE
CHIEF JUSTICE CONCURS IN AN OPINION.  MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR.
JUSTICE BUTLER DISSENT FOR REASONS STATED IN OPINIONS BY THEM
RESPECTIVELY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED AN OPINION IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE BLACK
CONCURRED: 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI AS THE CASE PRESENTS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IN
RESPECT OF THE ASSERTED PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES TO ADVOCATE ACTION PURSUANT TO A FEDERAL STATUTE, BY
DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED MATTER AND ORAL DISCUSSION IN PEACEABLE
ASSEMBLY; AND THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS OF SUITS TO RESTRAIN
THE ABRIDGMENT OF SUCH PRIVILEGE AND IMMUNITY. 

THE RESPONDENTS, INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, UNINCORPORATED LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS COMPOSED OF SUCH CITIZENS, AND A MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION,
BROUGHT SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS, THE MAYOR, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE CHIEF OF
POLICE OF JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY, AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, THE
GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT ACTING UNDER A CITY ORDINANCE FORBIDDING THE
LEASING OF ANY HALL, WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE, FOR A
PUBLIC MEETING AT WHICH A SPEAKER SHALL ADVOCATE OBSTRUCTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR A STATE, OR A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT
BY OTHER THAN LAWFUL MEANS, THE PETITIONERS, AND THEIR SUBORDINATES,
HAVE DENIED RESPONDENTS THE RIGHT TO HOLD LAWFUL MEETINGS IN JERSEY
CITY ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE COMMUNISTS OR COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS;
THAT PURSUANT TO AN UNLAWFUL PLAN, THE PETITIONERS HAVE CAUSED THE
EVICTION FROM THE MUNICIPALITY OF PERSONS THEY CONSIDERED UNDERSIRABLE
BECAUSE OF THEIR LABOR ORGANIZATION ACTIVITIES, AND HAVE ANNOUNCED THAT
THEY WILL CONTINUE SO TO DO.  IT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT ACTING UNDER AN
ORDINANCE WHICH FORBIDS ANY PERSON TO "DISTRIBUTE OR CAUSE TO BE
DISTRIBUTED OR STREWN ABOUT ANY STREET OR PUBLIC PLACE ANY NEWSPAPERS,
PAPER, PERIODICAL, BOOK, MAGAZINE, CIRCULAR, CARD OR PAMPHLET," THE
PETITIONERS HAVE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS BY PROHIBITING
AND INTERFERING WITH DISTRIBUTION OF LEAFLETS AND PAMPHLETS BY THE
RESPONDENTS WHILE PERMITTING OTHERS TO DISTRIBUTE SIMILAR PRINTED
MATTER; THAT PURSUANT TO A PLAN AND CONSPIRACY TO DENY THE RESPONDENTS
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
PETITIONERS HAVE CAUSED RESPONDENTS, AND THOSE ACTING WITH THEM, TO BE
ARRESTED FOR DISTRIBUTING PRINTED MATTER IN THE STREETS, AND HAVE
CAUSED THEM, AND THEIR ASSOCIATES, TO BE CARRIED BEYOND THE LIMITS OF
THE CITY OR TO REMOTE PLACES THEREIN, AND HAVE COMPELLED THEM TO BOARD
FERRY BOATS DESTINED FOR NEW YORK; HAVE, WITH VIOLENCE AND FORCE,
INTERFERED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS DISCUSSING THE RIGHTS OF
CITIZENS UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT; HAVE UNLAWFULLY
SEARCHED PERSONS COMING INTO THE CITY AND SEIZED PRINTED MATTER IN
THEIR POSSESSION; HAVE ARRESTED AND PROSECUTED RESPONDENTS, AND THOSE
ACTING WITH THEM, FOR ATTEMPTING TO DISTRIBUTE SUCH PRINTED MATTER; AND
HAVE THREATENED THAT IF RESPONDENTS ATTEMPT TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS IN
THE CITY TO DISCUSS RIGHTS AFFORDED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, THEY WOULD BE ARRESTED; AND UNLESS RESTRAINED, THE PETITIONERS
WILL CONTINUE IN THEIR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.  THE BILL FURTHER ALLEGES THAT
RESPONDENTS HAVE REPEATEDLY APPLIED FOR PERMITS TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS
IN THE CITY FOR THE STATED PURPOSE, AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE,  FN1
ALTHOUGH THEY DO NOT ADMIT THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCE; BUT IN
EXECUTION OF A COMMON PLAN AND PURPOSE, THE PETITIONERS HAVE
CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO ISSUE ANY PERMITS FOR MEETINGS TO BE HELD BY,
OR SPONSORED BY, RESPONDENTS, AND HAVE THUS PREVENTED THE HOLDING OF
SUCH MEETINGS; THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT, AND DO NOT, PROPOSE TO
ADVOCATE THE DESTRUCTION OR OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR THAT OF NEW JERSEY, BUT THAT THEIR SOLE PURPOSE IS TO
EXPLAIN TO WORKINGMEN THE PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
THE BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM IT, AND THE AID WHICH THE COMMITTEE FOR
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION WOULD FURNISH WORKINGMEN TO THAT END; AND ALL
THE ACTIVITIES IN WHICH THEY SEEK TO ENGAGE IN JERSEY CITY WERE, AND
ARE, TO BE PERFORMED PEACEFULLY, WITHOUT INTIMIDATION, FRAUD, VIOLENCE,
OR OTHER UNLAWFUL METHODS. 

THE BILL CHARGES THAT THE SUIT IS TO REDRESS "THE DEPRIVATION, UNDER
COLOR OF STATE LAW, STATUTE AND ORDINANCE, OF RIGHTS PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF
RIGHTS SECURED BY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS
OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  "  IT CHARGES THAT THE
PETITIONERS' CONDUCT "IS IN VIOLATION OF THEIR (RESPONDENTS) RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  IT
ALLEGES THAT THE PETITIONERS' CONDUCT HAS BEEN "IN PURSUANCE OF AN
UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY  ...  TO INJURE OPPRESS THREATEN AND INTIMIDATE
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS
HEREIN,  ...  IN THE FREE EXERCISE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES SECURED TO THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  ...  " 

THE BILL CHARGES THAT THE ORDINANCES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID,
OR ARE BEING ENFORCED AGAINST RESPONDENTS IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
DISCRIMINATORY WAY; AND THAT THE PETITIONERS, AS OFFICIALS OF THE CITY,
PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER THE ORDINANCES, HAVE DEPRIVED RESPONDENTS OF
THE PRIVILEGES OF FREE SPEECH AND PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY SECURED TO THEM,
AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT
PRAYS AN INJUNCTION AGAINST CONTINUANCE OF PETITIONERS' CONDUCT. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT THE CAUSE IS OF A CIVIL NATURE, ARISING UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHEREIN THE AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $3,000, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS; AND IS A
SUIT IN EQUITY TO REDRESS THE DEPRIVATION, UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW,
STATUTE AND ORDINANCE, OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED BY
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND OF ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

THE ANSWER DENIES GENERALLY, OR QUALIFIES, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
BILL BUT DOES NOT DENY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS ARE CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES; DENIES THAT THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY "AS TO EACH
PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST EACH DEFENDANT" EXCEEDS $3,000, EXCLUSIVE OF
INTEREST AND COSTS; AND ALLEGES THAT THE SUPPOSED GROUNDS OF FEDERAL
JURISDICTION ARE FRIVOLOUS, NO FACTS BEING ALLEGED SUFFICIENT TO SHOW
THAT ANY SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION IS INVOLVED. 

AFTER TRIAL UPON THE MERITS THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND A DECREE IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS.  FN2
IN BRIEF, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE PURPOSES OF RESPONDENTS, OTHER THAN
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, WERE THE ORGANIZATION OF
UNORGANIZED WORKERS INTO LABOR UNIONS, CAUSING SUCH UNIONS TO EXERCISE
THE NORMAL AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH RESPECT TO THE BETTERMENT OF WAGES, HOURS OF
WORK AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT THESE
PURPOSES WERE LAWFUL; THAT THE PETITIONERS, ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES, HAVE ADOPTED AND ENFORCED THE DELIBERATE POLICY OF
EXCLUDING AND REMOVING FROM JERSEY CITY THE AGENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS;
HAVE INTERFERED WITH THEIR RIGHT OF PASSAGE UPON THE STREETS AND ACCESS
TO THE PARKS OF THE CITY; THAT THESE ENDS HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PERSONS AFFECTED WERE
ACTING IN AN ORDERLY AND PEACEFUL MANNER; THAT EXCLUSION, REMOVAL
PERSONAL RESTRAINT AND INTERFERENCE, BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, ARE
ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND WITHOUT PROMPTLY BRINGING THE
PERSONS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BEFORE A JUDICIAL OFFICER FOR HEARING. 

THE COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT THE PETITIONERS, AS OFFICIALS, ACTING IN
RELIANCE ON THE ORDINANCE DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT, HAVE ADOPTED AND
ENFORCED A DELIBERATE POLICY OF PREVENTING THE RESPONDENTS, AND THEIR
ASSOCIATES, FROM DISTRIBUTING CIRCULARS, LEAFLETS, OR HANDBILLS IN
JERSEY CITY; THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE BY POLICEMEN ACTING FORCIBLY AND
VIOLENTLY; THAT THE PETITIONERS PROPOSE TO CONTINUE TO ENFORCE THE
POLICY OF SUCH PREVENTION; THAT THE CIRCULARS AND HANDBILLS,
DISTRIBUTION OF WHICH HAS BEEN PREVENTED, WERE NOT OFFENSIVE TO PUBLIC
MORALS, AND DID NOT ADVOCATE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, BUT WERE GERMANE TO THE
PURPOSES ALLEGED IN THE BILL, AND THAT THEIR DISTRIBUTION WAS BEING
CARRIED OUT IN A WAY CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC ORDER AND WITHOUT
MOLESTATION OF INDIVIDUALS OR MISUSE OR LITTERING OF THE STREETS. 
SIMILAR FINDINGS WERE MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE PREVENTION OF THE
DISTRIBUTION OF PLACARDS. 

THE FINDINGS ARE THAT THE PETITIONERS, AS OFFICIALS, HAVE ADOPTED AND
ENFORCED A DELIBERATE POLICY OF FORBIDDING THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR
ASSOCIATES FROM COMMUNICATING THEIR VIEWS RESPECTING THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT TO THE CITIZENS OF JERSEY CITY BY HOLDING MEETINGS OR
ASSEMBLIES IN THE OPEN AIR AND AT PUBLIC PLACES; THAT THERE IS NO
COMPETENT PROOF THAT THE PROPOSED SPEAKERS HAVE EVER SPOKEN AT AN
ASSEMBLY WHERE A BREACH OF THE PEACE OCCURRED OR AT WHICH ANY
UTTERANCES WERE MADE WHICH VIOLATED THE CANONS OF PROPER DISCUSSION OR
GAVE OCCASION FOR DISORDER CONSEQUENT UPON WHAT WAS SAID; THAT THERE IS
NO COMPETENT PROOF THAT THE PARKS OF JERSEY CITY ARE DEDICATED TO ANY
GENERAL PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE RECREATION OF THE PUBLIC AND THAT THERE
IS COMPETENT PROOF THAT THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES HAVE GRANTED PERMITS
TO VARIOUS PERSONS OTHER THAN THE RESPONDENTS TO SPEAK AT MEETINGS IN
THE STREETS OF THE CITY. 

THE COURT FOUND THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENTS, AND EACH OF THEM,
INTERFERED WITH AND FRUSTRATED BY THE PETITIONERS, HAD A VALUE, AS TO
EACH RESPONDENT, IN EXCESS OF $3,000, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS;
THAT THE PETITIONERS' ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR POLICY AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS CAUSED THE LATTER IRREPARABLE DAMAGE; THAT THE RESPONDENTS
HAVE BEEN THREATENED WITH MANIFOLD AND REPEATED PERSECUTION, AND
MANIFOLD AND REPEATED INVASIONS OF THEIR RIGHTS; AND THAT THEY HAVE
DONE NOTHING TO DISENTITLE THEM TO EQUITABLE RELIEF. 

THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 24 AND (14)
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE; FN3 THAT THE PETITIONERS' OFFICIAL POLICY AND
ACTS WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT THE
RESPONDENTS HAD ESTABLISHED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES AND UNDER R.S. 1979, R.S. 1980, AND R.S. 5508, AS
AMENDED.  FN4 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCURRED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT; HELD
THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 24(1) AND (14) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE; MODIFIED THE DECREE IN RESPECT OF ONE OF ITS PROVISIONS,
AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED IT.  FN5 

BY THEIR SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR, THE PETITIONERS LIMIT THE ISSUES IN
THIS COURT TO THREE MATTERS.  THEY CONTEND THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED
IN HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OVER ALL OR SOME OF
THE CAUSES OF ACTION STATED IN THE BILL.  SECONDLY, THEY ASSERT THAT
THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE STREET MEETING ORDINANCE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, AND THAT IT HAS BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
ADMINISTERED.  THIRDLY, THEY CLAIM THAT THE DECREE MUST BE SET ASIDE
BECAUSE IT EXCEEDS THE COURT'S POWER AND IS IMPRACTICABLE OF
ENFORCEMENT OR OF COMPLIANCE. 

FIRST.  EVERY QUESTION ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION MAY, IF
PROPERLY RAISED IN A STATE COURT, COME ULTIMATELY TO THIS COURT FOR
DECISION.  UNTIL 1875,  FN6  SAVE FOR THE LIMITED JURISDICTION
CONFERRED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS, INFRA, FEDERAL COURTS HAD NO
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF ACTIONS OR SUITS MERELY BECAUSE THE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY AROSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES;
AND THE JURISDICTION THEN AND SINCE CONFERRED UPON UNITED STATES COURTS
HAS BEEN NARROWLY LIMITED. 

DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  SUBSECTION (1) GIVES
JURISDICTION OF "SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE, AT COMMON LAW OR IN EQUITY,
...  WHERE THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND
COSTS, THE SUM OR VALUE OF $3,000" AND "ARISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."    THE WRONGS OF WHICH RESPONDENTS
COMPLAIN ARE TORTIOUS INVASIONS OF ALLEGED CIVIL RIGHTS BY PERSONS
ACTING UNDER COLOR OF STATE AUTHORITY.  IT IS TRUE THAT IF THE VARIOUS
PLAINTIFFS HAD BROUGHT ACTIONS AT LAW FOR THE REDRESS OF SUCH WRONGS
THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 24(1) WOULD HAVE BEEN
DETERMINED BY THE SUM CLAIMED IN GOOD FAITH.  FN7  BUT IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THREATENED INVASIONS OF SUCH RIGHTS A
MERE AVERMENT OF THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY CONFERS JURISDICTION.  IN
SUITS BROUGHT UNDER SUBSECTION (1) A TRAVERSE OF THE ALLEGATION AS TO
THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, OR A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH AMOUNT, CALLS FOR SUBSTANTIAL PROOF ON THE PART OF THE
PLAINTIFF OF FACTS JUSTIFYING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SUIT INVOLVES THE
NECESSARY SUM.  FN8  THE RECORD HERE IS BARE OF ANY SHOWING OF THE
VALUE OF THE ASSERTED RIGHTS TO THE RESPONDENTS INDIVIDUALLY AND THE
SUGGESTION THAT, IN TOTAL, THEY HAVE THE REQUISITE VALUE IS UNAVAILING,
SINCE THE PLAINTIFFS MAY NOT AGGREGATE THEIR INTERESTS IN ORDER TO
ATTAIN THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO GIVE JURISDICTION.  FN9  WE CONCLUDE
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 24(1). 

AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO BE BROUGHT BY ANY PERSON TO REDRESS THE
DEPRIVATION, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION,
CUSTOM, OR USAGE, OF ANY STATE, OF ANY RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, OR IMMUNITY,
SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY RIGHT
SECURED BY ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES PROVIDING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS OF
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN10 

THE PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE RIGHTS OF WHICH THE RESPONDENTS SAY
THEY HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED ARE NOT WITHIN THOSE DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION
(14).  THE COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD THAT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
POSSESS SUCH RIGHTS BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP; THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT SECURES THESE RIGHTS AGAINST INVASION BY A STATE, AND
AUTHORIZES LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS TO ENFORCE THE AMENDMENT. 

PRIOR TO THE CIVIL WAR THERE WAS CONFUSION AND DEBATE AS TO THE
RELATION BETWEEN UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND STATE CITIZENSHIP. 
BEYOND DISPUTE, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, AS SUCH, EXISTED. 
THE CONSTITUTION, IN VARIOUS CLAUSES, RECOGNIZED IT  FN11  BUT NOWHERE
DEFINED IT.  MANY THOUGHT STATE CITIZENSHIP, AND THAT ONLY, CREATED
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP.  FN12 

AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT, A BILL, WHICH BECAME
THE FIRST CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, FN13  WAS INTRODUCED IN THE 39TH CONGRESS,
THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS TO SECURE TO THE RECENTLY FREED NEGROES
ALL THE CIVIL RIGHTS SECURED TO WHITE MEN.  THIS ACT DECLARED THAT ALL
PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN
POWER, EXCLUDING INDIANS NOT TAXED, WERE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS IN EVERY STATE TO MAKE AND ENFORCE
CONTRACTS, TO SUE, BE PARTIES, AND GIVE EVIDENCE, TO INHERIT, PURCHASE,
LEASE, SELL, HOLD, AND CONVEY REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND TO ENJOY
THE FULL AND EQUAL BENEFIT OF ALL LAWS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SECURITY
OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY TO THE SAME EXTENT AS WHITE CITIZENS.  NONE
OTHER THAN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WERE WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT.  IT PROVIDED THAT "ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW,
STATUTE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, OR CUSTOM, SHALL SUBJECT, OR CAUSE TO
BE SUBJECTED, ANY INHABITANT OF ANY STATE  ...  TO THE DEPRIVATION OF
ANY RIGHT SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THIS ACT" SHOULD BE GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR.  IT ALSO CONFERRED ON DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION OF
CIVIL ACTIONS BY PERSONS DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS SECURED TO THEM BY ITS
TERMS. 

BY REASON OF DOUBTS AS TO THE POWER TO ENACT THE LEGISLATION, AND
BECAUSE THE POLICY THEREBY EVIDENCED MIGHT BE REVERSED BY A SUBSEQUENT
CONGRESS, THERE WAS INTRODUCED AT THE SAME SESSION AN ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION WHICH BECAME THE FOURTEENTH. 

THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE AMENDMENT SETTLED THE OLD CONTROVERSY AS TO
CITIZENSHIP BY PROVIDING THAT "ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE."  THENCEFORWARD
CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES BECAME PRIMARY AND CITIZENSHIP OF A
STATE SECONDARY.  FN14 

THE FIRST SECTION OF THE AMENDMENT FURTHER PROVIDES:  "NO STATE SHALL
MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; ...  " 

THE SECOND CIVIL RIGHTS ACT  FN15  WAS PASSED BY THE 41ST CONGRESS. 
ITS PURPOSE WAS TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED CONGRESS BY THE FIFTH SECTION OF THE
AMENDMENT.  BY SEC. 18 IT REENACTED THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866. 

A THIRD CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, ADOPTED APRIL 20, 1871,  FN16  PROVIDED
"THAT ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE, ORDINANCE,
REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE OF ANY STATE, SHALL SUBJECT, OR CAUSE TO
BE SUBJECTED, ANY PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES
TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL, ANY SUCH LAW, STATUTE,
ORDINANCE, REGULATION, CUSTOM, OR USAGE OF THE STATE TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING, BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN ANY ACTION AT LAW,
SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS; ... "  THIS,
WITH CHANGES OF THE ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES WHICH WERE NOT INTENDED TO
ALTER THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION, BECAME R.S. 1979, NOW TITLE 8, SEC.
43 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE. 

AS HAS BEEN SAID, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
THERE HAD BEEN NO CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR OF THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES SECURED
THEREBY OR SPRINGING THEREFROM.  THE PHRASE "PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES"
WAS USED IN ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH DECREES THAT
"THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SEVERAL STATES." 

AT ONE TIME IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THIS SECTION RECOGNIZED A GROUP OF
RIGHTS WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE DAY, WERE CLASSED
AS "NATURAL RIGHTS"; AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION WAS TO CREATE
RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BY GUARANTEEING THE CITIZENS OF
EVERY STATE THE RECOGNITION OF THIS GROUP OF RIGHTS BY EVERY OTHER
STATE.  SUCH WAS THE VIEW OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON.  FN17 

WHILE THIS DESCRIPTION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE
STATES HAS BEEN QUOTED WITH APPROVAL,  FN18  IT HAS COME TO BE THE
SETTLED VIEW THAT ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2, DOES NOT IMPORT THAT A CITIZEN OF
ONE STATE CARRIES WITH HIM INTO ANOTHER FUNDAMENTAL PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES WHICH COME TO HIM NECESSARILY BY THE MERE FACT OF HIS
CITIZENSHIP IN THE STATE FIRST MENTIONED, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, THAT IN
ANY STATE EVERY CITIZEN OF ANY OTHER STATE IS TO HAVE THE SAME
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES WHICH THE CITIZENS OF THAT STATE ENJOY.  THE
CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES IN FAVOR OF ITS OWN.  FN19 

THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED IS WHETHER FREEDOM TO DISSEMINATE
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, TO ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY FOR DISCUSSION OF THE ACT, AND OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES AND ADVANTAGES OFFERED BY IT, IS A PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY
OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES SECURED AGAINST STATE ABRIDGMENT
FN20  BY SEC. 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; AND WHETHER R.S. 1979 AND
SEC. 24(14) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AFFORD REDRESS IN A FEDERAL COURT FOR
SUCH ABRIDGMENT.  THIS IS THE NARROW QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE RECORD,
AND WE CONFINE OUR DECISION TO IT, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF BROADER
ISSUES WHICH THE PARTIES URGE.  THE BILL, THE ANSWER AND THE FINDINGS
FULLY PRESENT THE QUESTION.  THE BILL ALLEGES, AND THE FINDINGS SUSTAIN
THE ALLEGATION, THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO
INFORM CITIZENS OF JERSEY CITY BY SPEECH, AND BY THE WRITTEN WORD,
RESPECTING MATTERS GROWING OUT OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION, THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHICH THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED. 

ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CREATED NO
RIGHTS IN CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT MERELY SECURED EXISTING
RIGHTS AGAINST STATE ABRIDGMENT,  FN21  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RIGHT
PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO DISCUSS THESE TOPICS, AND TO COMMUNICATE
RESPECTING THEM, WHETHER ORALLY OR IN WRITING, IS A PRIVILEGE INHERENT
IN CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH THE AMENDMENT PROTECTS. 

IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES IT WAS SAID, 16 WALL.  79:  "THE RIGHT
TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE AND PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ARE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN
GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION." 

IN UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 552-553, THE COURT
SAID: 

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PETITIONING CONGRESS FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, OR FOR ANY THING ELSE
CONNECTED WITH THE POWERS OR THE DUTIES OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, IS
AN ATTRIBUTE OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP, AND, AS SUCH, UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF, AND GUARANTEED BY, THE UNITED STATES.  THE VERY IDEA OF
A GOVERNMENT, REPUBLICAN IN FORM, IMPLIES A RIGHT ON THE PART OF ITS
CITIZENS TO MEET PEACEABLY FOR CONSULTATION IN RESPECT TO PUBLIC
AFFAIRS AND TO PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.  IF IT HAD BEEN
ALLEGED IN THESE COUNTS THAT THE OBJECT OF THE DEFENDANTS WAS TO
PREVENT A MEETING FOR SUCH A PURPOSE, THE CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN
THE STATUTE, AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

NO EXPRESSION OF A CONTRARY VIEW HAS EVER BEEN VOICED BY THIS COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DECLARES THE POLICY OF THE UNITED
STATES TO BE TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS TO COMMERCE BY ENCOURAGING
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, PROTECTING FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND SELF
ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS, AND, THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES,
NEGOTIATING AS TO CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. 

CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE LITTLE BETTER THAN A NAME
IF IT DID NOT CARRY WITH IT THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS NATIONAL LEGISLATION
AND THE BENEFITS, ADVANTAGES, AND OPPORTUNITIES TO ACCRUE TO CITIZENS
THEREFROM.  ALL OF THE RESPONDENTS' PROSCRIBED ACTIVITIES HAD THIS
SINGLE END AND AIM.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION UNDER SEC.
24(14). 

NATURAL PERSONS, AND THEY ALONE, ARE ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES WHICH SEC. 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SECURES FOR
"CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES."  FN22  ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
MAY, THEREFORE, MAINTAIN THIS SUIT. 

SECOND.  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID DEMONSTRATES THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FACTS FOUND, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS AS
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, WERE INFRINGED BY THE PETITIONERS, BY
VIRTUE OF THEIR OFFICIAL POSITIONS, UNDER COLOR OF ORDINANCES OF JERSEY
CITY, UNLESS, AS PETITIONERS CONTEND, THE CITY'S OWNERSHIP OF STREETS
AND PARKS IS AS ABSOLUTE AS ONE'S OWNERSHIP OF HIS HOME, WITH
CONSEQUENT POWER ALTOGETHER TO EXCLUDE CITIZENS FROM THE USE THEREOF,
OR UNLESS, THOUGH THE CITY HOLDS THE STREETS IN TRUST FOR PUBLIC USE,
THE ABSOLUTE DENIAL OF THEIR USE TO THE RESPONDENTS IS A VALID EXERCISE
OF THE POLICE POWER. 

THE FINDINGS OF FACT NEGATIVE THE LATTER ASSUMPTION.  IN SUPPORT OF
THE FORMER THE PETITIONERS RELY UPON DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S.
43.  THERE IT APPEARED THAT, PURSUANT TO ENABLING LEGISLATION, THE CITY
OF BOSTON ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ANYONE FROM SPEAKING,
DISCHARGING FIRE ARMS, SELLING GOODS, OR MAINTAINING ANY BOOTH FOR
PUBLIC AMUSEMENT ON ANY OF THE PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY EXCEPT UNDER
A PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR.  DAVIS SPOKE ON BOSTON COMMON WITHOUT A PERMIT
AND WITHOUT APPLYING TO THE MAYOR FOR ONE.  HE WAS CHARGED WITH A
VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE AND MOVED TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, INTER
ALIA, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDINANCE ABRIDGED HIS PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND DENIED HIM DUE PROCESS
OF LAW BECAUSE IT WAS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE.  HIS CONTENTIONS WERE
OVERRULED AND HE WAS CONVICTED.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS AND BY THIS COURT. 

THE DECISION SEEMS TO BE GROUNDED ON THE HOLDING OF THE STATE COURT
THAT THE COMMON "WAS ABSOLUTELY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE,"
AND THAT IT WAS THUS "CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED THERE WAS NO RIGHT IN THE
PLAINTIFF IN ERROR TO USE THE COMMON EXCEPT IN SUCH MODE AND SUBJECT TO
SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM MAY HAVE DEEMED
PROPER TO PRESCRIBE."  THE COURT ADDED THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
DID NOT DESTROY THE POWER OF THE STATES TO ENACT POLICE REGULATIONS AS
TO A SUBJECT WITHIN THEIR CONTROL OR ENABLE CITIZENS TO USE PUBLIC
PROPERTY IN DEFIANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE. 

THE ORDINANCE THERE IN QUESTION APPARENTLY HAD A DIFFERENT PURPOSE
FROM THAT OF THE ONE HERE CHALLENGED, FOR IT WAS NOT DIRECTED SOLELY AT
THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY, BUT WAS ADDRESSED AS
WELL TO OTHER ACTIVITIES, NOT IN THE NATURE OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WHICH
DOUBTLESS MIGHT BE REGULATED OR PROHIBITED AS RESPECTS THEIR ENJOYMENT
IN PARKS.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ORDINANCE DEALS ONLY WITH THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATING
VIEWS ENTERTAINED BY SPEAKERS, AND IS NOT A GENERAL MEASURE TO PROMOTE
THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE IN THE USE OF THE STREETS OR PARKS. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE WHETHER, ON THE FACTS DISCLOSED, THE
DAVIS CASE WAS RIGHTLY DECIDED, BUT WE CANNOT AGREE THAT IT RULES THE
INSTANT CASE.  WHEREVER THE TITLE OF STREETS AND PARKS MAY REST, THEY
HAVE IMMEMORIALLY BEEN HELD IN TRUST FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC AND,
TIME OUT OF MIND, HAVE BEEN USED FOR PURPOSES OF ASSEMBLY,
COMMUNICATING THOUGHTS BETWEEN CITIZENS, AND DISCUSSING PUBLIC
QUESTIONS.  SUCH USE OF THE STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES HAS, FROM ANCIENT
TIMES, BEEN A PART OF THE PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES, RIGHTS, AND LIBERTIES
OF CITIZENS.  THE PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES TO USE
THE STREETS AND PARKS FOR COMMUNICATION OF VIEWS ON NATIONAL QUESTIONS
MAY BE REGULATED IN THE INTEREST OF ALL; IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE, BUT
RELATIVE, AND MUST BE EXERCISED IN SUBORDINATION TO THE GENERAL COMFORT
AND CONVENIENCE, AND IN CONSONANCE WITH PEACE AND GOOD ORDER; BUT IT
MUST NOT, IN THE GUISE OF REGULATION, BE ABRIDGED OR DENIED.    WE
THINK THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THE ORDINANCE QUOTED IN NOTE
1 VOID UPON ITS FACE.  FN23  IT DOES NOT MAKE COMFORT OR CONVENIENCE IN
THE USE OF STREETS OR PARKS THE STANDARD OF OFFICIAL ACTION.  IT
ENABLES THE DIRECTOR OF SAFETY TO REFUSE A PERMIT ON HIS MERE OPINION
THAT SUCH REFUSAL WILL PREVENT "RIOTS, DISTURBANCES OR DISORDERLY
ASSEMBLAGE."  IT CAN THUS, AS THE RECORD DISCLOSES, BE MADE THE
INSTRUMENT OF ARBITRARY SUPPRESSION OF FREE EXPRESSION OF VIEWS ON
NATIONAL AFFAIRS, FOR THE PROHIBITION OF ALL SPEAKING WILL UNDOUBTEDLY
"PREVENT" SUCH EVENTUALITIES.  BUT UNCONTROLLED OFFICIAL SUPPRESSION OF
THE PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE MADE A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN
ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT. 

THE BILL RECITED THAT POLICEMEN, ACTING UNDER PETITIONERS'
INSTRUCTIONS, HAD SEARCHED VARIOUS PERSONS, INCLUDING THE RESPONDENTS,
AND HAD SEIZED INNOCENT CIRCULARS AND PAMPHLETS WITHOUT WARRANT OR
PROBABLE CAUSE.  IT PRAYED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST REPETITION OF THIS
CONDUCT.  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE NO FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING SUCH
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AND GRANTED NO RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ENLARGE THE TERMS OF THE DECREE BUT
FOUND THAT UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES HAD OCCURRED AND THAT THE
PROHIBITIONS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAD BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE
FOURTEENTH SO AS TO PROTECT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST SUCH
ACTION. 

THE DECREE AS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT BELOW DOES NOT RESTRAIN ANY
SEARCHES OR SEIZURES.  IN EACH OF ITS PROVISIONS ADDRESSED TO
INTERFERENCE WITH LIBERTY OF THE PERSON, OR TO THE CONSPIRACY TO
DEPORT, EXCLUDE, AND INTERFERE BODILY WITH THE RESPONDENTS IN PURSUIT
OF THEIR PEACEABLE ACTIVITIES, THE DECREE CONTAINS A SAVING CLAUSE OF
WHICH THE FOLLOWING IS TYPICAL:  "EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS SUCH PERSONAL
RESTRAINT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY RIGHT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE."  IN
THE LIGHT OF THIS RESERVATION WE THINK THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO DISCUSS THE QUESTION WHETHER EXEMPTION FROM
THE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES PROSCRIBED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IS
AFFORDED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH, AND
WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER OR DECIDE ANY SUCH QUESTION. 

THIRD.  IT REMAINS TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS TO THE DECREE.  SECTION
A DEALS WITH LIBERTY OF THE PERSON AND PROHIBITS THE PETITIONERS FROM
EXCLUDING OR REMOVING THE RESPONDENTS OR PERSONS ACTING WITH THEM FROM
JERSEY CITY, EXERCISING PERSONAL RESTRAINT OVER THEM WITHOUT WARRANT OR
CONFINING THEM WITHOUT LAWFUL ARREST AND PRODUCTION OF THEM FOR PROMPT
JUDICIAL HEARING, SAVING LAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE; OR INTERFERING WITH
THEIR FREE ACCESS TO THE STREETS, PARKS, OR PUBLIC PLACES OF THE CITY. 
THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS SECTION OF THE DECREE IS SO VAGUE IN ITS
TERMS AS TO BE IMPRACTICAL OF ENFORCEMENT OR OBEDIENCE.  WE AGREE WITH
THE COURT BELOW THAT THE OBJECTION IS NOT WELL FOUNDED. 

PETITIONERS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENTS, THEIR
AGENTS AND THOSE ACTING WITH THEM, TO COMMUNICATE THEIR VIEWS AS
INDIVIDUALS TO OTHERS ON THE STREETS IN AN ORDERLY AND PEACEABLE
MANNER.  IT RESERVES TO THE PETITIONERS FULL LIBERTY TO ENFORCE LAW AND
ORDER BY LAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE OR BY ARREST AND PRODUCTION BEFORE A
JUDICIAL OFFICER.  WE THINK THIS PARAGRAPH UNASSAILABLE. 

PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 ENJOIN INTERFERENCE WITH THE DISTRIBUTION OF
CIRCULARS, HANDBILLS AND PLACARDS.  THE DECREE ATTEMPTS TO FORMULATE
THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH RESPONDENTS AND THEIR SYMPATHIZERS MAY
DISTRIBUTE SUCH LITERATURE FREE OF INTERFERENCE.  THE ORDINANCE
ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITING SUCH DISTRIBUTION IS VOID UNDER OUR DECISION IN
LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA, AND PETITIONERS SO CONCEDE.  WE THINK THE
DECREE GOES TOO FAR.  ALL RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO IS A DECREE
DECLARING THE ORDINANCE VOID AND ENJOINING THE PETITIONERS FROM
ENFORCING IT. 

PARAGRAPH 4 HAS TO DO WITH PUBLIC MEETINGS.  ALTHOUGH THE COURT BELOW
HELD THE ORDINANCE VOID, THE DECREE ENJOINS THE PETITIONERS AS TO THE
MANNER IN WHICH THEY SHALL ADMINISTER IT. THERE IS AN INITIAL COMMAND
THAT THE PETITIONERS SHALL NOT PLACE "ANY PREVIOUS RESTRAINT" UPON THE
RESPONDENTS IN RESPECT OF HOLDING MEETINGS, PROVIDED THEY APPLY FOR A
PERMIT AS REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE.  THIS IS FOLLOWED BY AN
ENUMERATION OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A PERMIT MAY BE GRANTED OR
DENIED.  WE THINK THIS IS WRONG.  AS THE ORDINANCE IS VOID, THE
RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO A DECREE SO DECLARING AND AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST ITS ENFORCEMENT BY THE PETITIONERS.  THEY ARE FREE TO HOLD
MEETINGS WITHOUT A PERMIT AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TERMS OF THE VOID
ORDINANCE.  THE COURTS CANNOT REWRITE THE ORDINANCE, AS THE DECREE, IN
EFFECT, DOES. 

THE BILL SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS TO ALL SAVE THE INDIVIDUAL PLANTIFFS,
AND SEC. B, PARAGRAPHS 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE DECREE SHOULD BE MODIFIED AS
INDICATED.  IN OTHER RESPECTS THE DECREE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF JERSEY CITY DO ORDAIN: 

"1.  FROM AND AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE, NO PUBLIC PARADES
OR PUBLIC ASSEMBLY IN OR UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS, PUBLIC
PARKS OR PUBLIC BUILDINGS OF JERSEY CITY SHALL TAKE PLACE OR BE
CONDUCTED UNTIL A PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
SAFETY. 

"2.  THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED
TO GRANT PERMITS FOR PARADES AND PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, UPON APPLICATION MADE
TO HIM AT LEAST THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE PROPOSED PARADE OR PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY. 

"3.  THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO REFUSE TO
ISSUE SAID PERMIT WHEN, AFTER INVESTIGATION OF ALL OF THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES PERTINENT TO SAID APPLICATION, HE BELIEVES IT TO BE
PROPER TO REFUSE THE ISSUANCE THEREOF; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SAID
PERMIT SHALL ONLY BE REFUSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING RIOTS,
DISTURBANCES OR DISORDERLY ASSEMBLAGE. 

"4.  ANY PERSON OR PERSONS VIOLATING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ORDINANCE SHALL UPON CONVICTION BEFORE A POLICE MAGISTRATE OF THE CITY
OF JERSEY CITY BE PUNISHED BY A FINE NOT EXCEEDING TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS
OR IMPRISONMENT IN THE HUDSON COUNTY JAIL FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING
NINETY DAYS OR BOTH." 

FN2  25 F.SUPP.  127. 

FN3  28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), (12) AND (14). 

FN4  8 U.S.C. SECS. 43 AND 47(3), 18 U.S.C. SEC. 51. 

FN5  HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, 101 F.2D 774. 

FN6  SEE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, C. 137, 18 STAT. 470. 

FN7  WILEY V. SINKLER, 179 U.S. 58; SWAFFORD V. TEMPLETON, 185 U.S.
487.  COMPARE ST. PAUL MERCURY INDEMNITY CO. V. RED CAB CO., 303 U.S.
283, 288. 

FN8  MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178; COMPARE
KVOS, INC. V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 299 U.S. 269. 

FN9  WHELESS V. ST. LOUIS, 180 U.S. 379; PINEL V. PINEL, 240 U.S.
594, 596; SCOTT V. FRAZIER, 253 U.S. 243. 

FN10  THE SECTION IS DERIVED FROM R.S. 563, SEC. 12, WHICH, IN TURN,
ORIGINATED IN SEC. 3 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF APRIL 9, 1866, 14 STAT.
27, AS REENACTED BY SEC. 18 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF MAY 31, 1870, 16
STAT. 144, AND REFERRED TO IN SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF APRIL
20, 1871, 17 STAT. 13. 

FN11  SEE ART, I, SECS. 2 AND 3; ART. II, SEC. 1. 

FN12  SEE SCOTT V. SANDFORD, 19 HOW.  393. 

FN13  ACT OF APRIL 9, 1866, C. 31, 14 STAT. 27. 

FN14  SELECTIVE DRAFT CASES, 245 U.S. 366, 389. 

FN15 MAY 31, 1870, 16 STAT. 140.  THE ACT WAS AMENDED BY AN ACT OF
FEBRUARY 28, 1871, 16 STAT. 433. 

FN16  17 STAT. 13, SEC. 1. 

FN17  CORFIELD V. CORYELL, 4 WASH. C.C. 371; 6 FED. CAS. NO. 3230. 

FN18  THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 76; MAXWELL V. DOW,
176 U.S. 581, 588, 591; CANADIAN NORTHERN RY. CO. V. EGGEN, 252 U.S.
533, 560. 

FN19  DOWNHAM V. ALEXANDRIA, 10 WALL.  173; CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO., 207 U.S. 142; LA TOURETTE V. MCMASTER, 24, U.S. 465;
CHALKER V. BIRMINGHAM & N.W. RY. CO., 249 U.S. 522; SHAFFER V. CARTER,
252 U.S. 37; UNITED STATES V. WHEELER, 254 U.S. 281; DOUGLAS V. NEW
YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 279 U.S. 377; WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297 U.S. 431. 

FN20  AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES STATE ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
AMENDMENT, SEE VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313; EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100
U.S. 339, 347; HOME TEL. CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S. 278; MOONEY V.
HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103, 112; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 450. 

FN21  THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 77; MINOR V.
HAPPERSETT, 21 WALL.  162; EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339; IN RE
KEMMLER, 136 U.S. 436, 448. 

FN22  ORIENT INSURANCE CO. V. DAGGS, 172 U.S. 557; HOLT V. INDIANA
MANUFACTURING CO., 176 U.S. 68; WESTERN TURF ASSN. V. GREENBERG, 204
U.S. 359; SELOVER, BATES & CO. V. WALSH, 226 U.S. 112. 

FN23  LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA.  SEE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ORDINANCE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY IN THOMAS V. CASEY, 121
N.J.L. 185; 1 A.2D 866. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE: 

I DO NOT DOUBT THAT THE DECREE BELOW, MODIFIED AS HAS BEEN PROPOSED,
IS RIGHTLY AFFIRMED, BUT I AM UNABLE TO FOLLOW THE PATH BY WHICH SOME
OF MY BRETHREN HAVE ATTAINED THAT END, AND I THINK THE MATTER IS OF
SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO MERIT DISCUSSION IN SOME DETAIL. 

IT HAS BEEN EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT, WITHOUT
A DISSENTING VOICE, THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY FOR ANY
LAWFUL PURPOSE ARE RIGHTS OF PERSONAL LIBERTY SECURED TO ALL PERSONS,
WITHOUT REGARD TO CITIZENSHIP, BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652; WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357; FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380; STROMBERG V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697; GROSJEAN V.
AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233; DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353;
HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444.  IT
HAS NEVER BEEN HELD THAT EITHER IS A PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY PECULIAR TO
CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, TO WHICH ALONE THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE REFERS, SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36; DUNCAN
V. MISSOURI, 152 U.S. 377, 382; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 97;
MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250 U.S. 525, 538; HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S.
245, 261, AND NEITHER CAN BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THAT
CLAUSE WITHOUT ENLARGING THE CATEGORY OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AS IT HAS HITHERTO BEEN DEFINED. 

AS WILL PRESENTLY APPEAR, THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN A SUIT IN EQUITY TO
RESTRAIN STATE OFFICERS, ACTING UNDER A STATE LAW, FROM INFRINGING THE
RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY GUARANTEED BY THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE, IS GIVEN BY ACT OF CONGRESS TO EVERY PERSON WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHETHER A CITIZEN OR NOT, AND SUCH A
SUIT MAY BE MAINTAINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT ALLEGATION OR
PROOF THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT REQUIRED BY SEC. 24(1) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE IS INVOLVED.  HENCE THERE IS NO OCCASION, FOR
JURISDICTIONAL PURPOSES OR ANY OTHER, TO CONSIDER WHETHER FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY ARE IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR TO REVIVE THE CONTENTION, REJECTED BY THIS COURT IN THE
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, SUPRA, THAT THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP, PROTECTED BY THAT CLAUSE, EXTEND BEYOND
THOSE WHICH ARISE OR GROW OUT OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF UNITED STATES
CITIZENS TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  FN1 

THAT SUCH IS THE LIMITED APPLICATION OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE SEEMS NOW TO BE CONCEDED BY MY BRETHREN.  BUT IT IS SAID THAT
THE FREEDOM OF RESPONDENTS WITH WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAVE INTERFERED
IS THE "FREEDOM TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROVISIONS OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, TO ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY FOR DISCUSSION
OF THE ACT, AND OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AND ADVANTAGES OFFERED BY IT," AND
THAT THESE ARE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES SECURED AGAINST STATE ABRIDGMENT BY THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT
THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO ASSEMBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PETITIONING
CONGRESS FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES IS A PRIVILEGE OF UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP PROTECTED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE.  UNITED
STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 552-553.  WE MAY ASSUME FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES, ALTHOUGH THE STEP IS A LONG AND BY NO MEANS CERTAIN ONE, SEE
MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, THAT THE
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE TO DISCUSS THE ADVANTAGES OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IS LIKEWISE A PRIVILEGE SECURED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT NOT TO OTHERS,
WHILE FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING A SIMILAR STATE
STATUTE WOULD NOT BE WITHIN THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE.  BUT
THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS ASSUMPTION IS, AS THE RECORD AND BRIEFS SHOW,
THAT IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT FIRST EMERGING IN THIS CASE AFTER IT WAS
SUBMITTED TO US FOR DECISION, AND LIKE MOST AFTERTHOUGHTS IN LITIGATED
MATTERS IT IS WITHOUT ADEQUATE SUPPORT IN THE RECORD.    THE
RESPONDENTS IN THEIR BILL OF COMPLAINT SPECIFICALLY NAMED AND QUOTED
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 2, NOW CONCEDED TO BE INAPPLICABLE, AND THE DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH SECURE TO THEM THE RIGHTS OF FREE
SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY.  THEY OMITTED THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM THEIR QUOTATION.  THEY MADE NO
SPECIFIC ALLEGATION THAT ANY OF THOSE WHOSE FREEDOM HAD BEEN INTERFERED
WITH BY PETITIONERS WAS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE GENERAL
ALLEGATION THAT THE ACTS OF PETITIONERS COMPLAINED OF VIOLATE THE
RIGHTS OF "CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE INDIVIDUAL
PLAINTIFFS HERE," AND OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF LIKE TENOR, WERE DENIED BY
PETITIONERS' ANSWER.  THERE IS NO FINDING BY EITHER COURT BELOW THAT
ANY OF RESPONDENTS OR ANY OF THOSE WHOSE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY
HAS BEEN INFRINGED ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND WE ARE
REFERRED TO NO PART OF THE EVIDENCE IN WHICH THEIR CITIZENSHIP IS
MENTIONED OR FROM WHICH IT CAN BE INFERRED. 

BOTH COURTS BELOW FOUND, AND THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS, THAT
THE PURPOSE OF RESPONDENTS, OTHER THAN THE CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, IN
HOLDING MEETINGS IN JERSEY CITY, WAS TO ORGANIZE LABOR UNIONS IN
VARIOUS INDUSTRIES IN ORDER TO SECURE TO WORKERS THE BENEFITS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH RESPECT TO BETTERMENT OF WAGES, HOURS OF
WORK AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  WHETHER THE
PROPOSED UNIONS WERE TO BE ORGANIZED IN INDUSTRIES WHICH MIGHT BE
SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OR TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DOES NOT APPEAR.  NEITHER COURT
BELOW HAS MADE ANY FINDING THAT THE MEETINGS WERE CALLED TO DISCUSS, OR
THAT THEY EVER DID IN FACT DISCUSS, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 
THE FINDINGS DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPOSED MEETINGS
INVOLVED ANY SUCH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND
RESPONDENTS OR ANY OF THEM, ASSUMING THEY ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES, AS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSERTED RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE WAS THAT OF A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AND I CANNOT SAY THAT AN ADEQUATE BASIS
HAS BEEN LAID FOR SUPPORTING A THEORY - WHICH RESPONDENTS THEMSELVES
EVIDENTLY DID NOT ENTERTAIN - THAT ANY OF THEIR PRIVILEGES AS CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES, GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WERE
ABRIDGED, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PRIVILEGES GUARANTEED TO ALL
PERSONS BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  TRUE, THE FINDINGS REFER TO THE
SUPPRESSION BY PETITIONERS OF EXHIBITS, ONE OF WHICH TURNS OUT TO BE A
HANDBILL ADVISING WORKERS THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT, UNDER THE WAGNER
ACT, TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN LABOR UNION TO REPRESENT THEM IN COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  BUT THE INJUNCTION, WHICH THE COURT NOW RIGHTLY SUSTAINS,
IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT, SAID TO PERTAIN TO
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP, TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE WAGNER
ACT.  ON THE CONTRARY IT EXTENDS AND APPLIES IN THE BROADEST TERMS TO
INTERFERENCES WITH RESPONDENTS IN HOLDING ANY LAWFUL MEETING AND
DISSEMINATING ANY LAWFUL INFORMATION BY CIRCULAR, LEAFLET, HANDBILL AND
PLACARD.  IF, AS MY BRETHREN THINK, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO
MAINTAIN IN THIS SUIT ONLY THE RIGHTS SECURED TO THEM BY THE PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - HERE THE RIGHT TO
DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT - IT IS
PLAIN THAT THE DECREE IS TOO BROAD.  INSTEAD OF ENJOINING, AS IT DOES,
INTERFERENCES WITH ALL MEETINGS FOR ALL PURPOSES AND THE LAWFUL
DISSEMINATION OF ALL INFORMATION, IT SHOULD HAVE CONFINED ITS RESTRAINT
TO INTERFERENCES WITH THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THROUGH MEETINGS OR OTHERWISE.  THE COURT
BELOW RIGHTLY OMITTED ANY SUCH LIMITATION FROM THE DECREE, EVIDENTLY
BECAUSE, AS IT DECLARED, PETITIONERS' ACTS INFRINGED THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE, WHICH GUARANTEES TO ALL PERSONS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF
ASSEMBLY FOR ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE. 

NO MORE GRAVE AND IMPORTANT ISSUE CAN BE BROUGHT TO THIS COURT THAN
THAT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY, WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
GUARANTEES TO ALL PERSONS REGARDLESS OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP, BUT WHICH
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE SECURES ONLY TO CITIZENS, AND THEN
ONLY TO THE LIMITED EXTENT THAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT IS AFFECTED.  I AM UNABLE TO REST DECISION HERE ON THE
ASSERTION, WHICH I THINK THE RECORD FAILS TO SUPPORT, THAT RESPONDENTS
MUST DEPEND UPON THEIR LIMITED PRIVILEGES AS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED
STATES IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THEIR CAUSE, OR UPON SO PALPABLE AN
AVOIDANCE OF THE REAL ISSUE IN THE CASE, WHICH RESPONDENTS HAVE RAISED
BY THEIR PLEADINGS AND SUSTAINED BY THEIR PROOF.  THAT ISSUE IS WHETHER
THE PRESENT PROCEEDING CAN BE MAINTAINED UNDER SEC. 24(14) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE AS A SUIT FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
GUARANTEED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  I THINK RESPONDENTS' RIGHT TO
MAINTAIN IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON THEIR CITIZENSHIP AND CANNOT RIGHTLY BE
MADE TO TURN ON THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF A PURPOSE TO
DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IT IS
ENOUGH THAT PETITIONERS HAVE PREVENTED RESPONDENTS FROM HOLDING
MEETINGS AND DISSEMINATING INFORMATION WHETHER FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF
LABOR UNIONS OR FOR ANY OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSE. 

IF IT BE THE PART OF WISDOM TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DECISION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE EQUALLY SO TO AVOID THE
UNNECESSARY CREATION OF NOVEL CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE, INADEQUATELY
SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, IN ORDER TO ATTAIN AN END EASILY AND CERTAINLY
REACHED BY FOLLOWING THE BEATEN PATHS OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION. 

THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE PRESENT SUIT IS CONFERRED UPON THE
INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AND ACTS OF CONGRESS,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR CITIZENSHIP AND OF THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. 
PROVIDED THAT "ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY LAW, STATUTE,
ORDINANCE  ...  OF ANY STATE, SHALL SUBJECT, OR CAUSE TO BE SUBJECTED,
ANY PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE
DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL  ...  BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY
INJURED IN ANY ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER
PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS."  AND IT DIRECTED THAT SUCH PROCEEDINGS SHOULD
BE PROSECUTED IN THE SEVERAL DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE RIGHT OF ACTION GIVEN BY THIS SECTION WAS LATER
SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO "ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER
PERSON WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF," AND WAS EXTENDED TO INCLUDE
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AS WELL AS BY THE CONSTITUTION.  AS THUS MODIFIED THE PROVISION
WAS CONTINUED AS SEC. 1979 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AND NOW CONSTITUTES
SEC. 43 OF TITLE 8 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.  IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT
THE CAUSE OF ACTION, GIVEN BY THE SECTION IN ITS ORIGINAL AS WELL AS
ITS FINAL FORM, EXTENDS BROADLY TO DEPRIVATION BY STATE ACTION OF THE
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED TO PERSONS BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  IT THUS INCLUDES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND SUCH
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AS ARE SECURED BY THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSES, AS WELL AS BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE
OF THAT AMENDMENT.  IT WILL ALSO BE OBSERVED THAT THEY ARE THOSE RIGHTS
SECURED TO PERSONS, WHETHER CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OR NOT, TO
WHOM THE AMENDMENT IN TERMS EXTENDS THE BENEFIT OF THE DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES. 

FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES AND BEFORE THE
LATER EXPANSION BY JUDICIAL DECISION OF THE CONTENT OF THE DUE PROCESS
AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES, THERE WAS LITTLE SCOPE FOR THE OPERATION
OF THIS STATUTE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE OBSERVATION OF THE
COURT IN UNITED STATES V. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542, 551, THAT THE RIGHT
OF ASSEMBLY WAS NOT SECURED AGAINST STATE ACTION BY THE CONSTITUTION,
MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE DECISION IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES THAT
ONLY PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PECULIAR TO UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP
WERE SECURED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE, AND TO THE
FURTHER FACT THAT AT THAT TIME IT HAD NOT BEEN DECIDED THAT THE RIGHT
WAS ONE PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
PHRASE IN THE STATUTE "SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION" REFERS TO RIGHTS
"CREATED," RATHER THAN "PROTECTED" BY IT, IS NOT PERSUASIVE.  THE
PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, PROCLAIMING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO "SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY," USES THE
WORD "SECURE" IN THE SENSE OF "PROTECT" OR "MAKE CERTAIN."  THAT THE
PHRASE WAS USED IN THIS SENSE IN THE STATUTE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION
WAS RECOGNIZED IN CARTER V. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 317, 322, WHERE IT WAS
HELD AS A MATTER OF PLEADING THAT THE PARTICULAR CAUSE OF ACTION SET UP
IN THE PLAINTIFF'S PLEADING WAS IN CONTRACT AND WAS NOT TO REDRESS
DEPRIVATION OF THE "RIGHT SECURED TO HIM BY THAT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION" (THE CONTRACT CLAUSE), TO WHICH HE HAD "CHOSEN NOT TO
RESORT."  SEE, AS TO OTHER RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
HENCE SECURED BY IT, BROUGHT WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF R.S. SEC. 5508,
LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 144 U.S. 263; IN RE QUARLES AND BUTLER, 158
U.S. 532; UNITED STATES V. MOSLEY, 238 U.S. 383. 

SINCE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY ARE RIGHTS SECURED TO
PERSONS BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS
ARE PLAINLY AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 TO
MAINTAIN THE PRESENT SUIT IN EQUITY TO RESTRAIN INFRINGEMENT OF THEIR
RIGHTS.  AS TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, WHICH IS A
CORPORATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DEPRIVED OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY, FOR THE LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS THE LIBERTY OF NATURAL, NOT ARTIFICIAL, PERSONS. 
NORTHWESTERN LIFE INS. CO. V. RIGGS, 203 U.S. 243, 255; WESTERN TURF
ASSN. V. GREENBERG, 204 U.S. 359, 363. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER THERE WAS JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT ALTHOUGH THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY CANNOT
BE SHOWN TO EXCEED $3,000 IN VALUE BECAUSE THE ASSERTED RIGHTS, FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS NOT TO BE
SUSCEPTIBLE OF VALUATION IN MONEY.  THE QUESTION IS THE SAME WHETHER
THE RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE ASSERTED IS SECURED BY THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OR ANY OTHER.  WHEN THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871
DIRECTED THAT SUITS FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THAT ACT SHOULD BE
PROSECUTED IN THE DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS, THE ONLY REQUIREMENT OF
A JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IN SUITS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS WAS THAT
IMPOSED BY SEC. 11 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, WHICH CONFERRED
JURISDICTION ON THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF SUITS WHERE "THE MATTER IN
DISPUTE" EXCEEDED $500 AND THE UNITED STATES WAS A PLAINTIFF, OR AN
ALIEN WAS A PARTY, OR THE SUIT WAS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
STATES; AND IT WAS THEN PLAIN THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF A JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNT DID NOT EXTEND TO THE CAUSES OF ACTION AUTHORIZED BY THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1871.  BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, C. 137, 18 STAT. 470,
THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS WAS EXTENDED TO SUITS AT COMMON
LAW OR IN EQUITY "ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES" IN WHICH THE MATTER IN DISPUTE EXCEEDED $500.  BY THE ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1911, C. 231, 36 STAT. 1087, THE CIRCUIT COURTS WERE ABOLISHED
AND THEIR JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT COURTS, AND BY
SUCCESSIVE ENACTMENTS THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN
CLASSES OF SUITS WAS RAISED TO $3,000.  THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO
SUCH SUITS, THUS MODIFIED, APPEAR AS SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1). 

MEANWHILE, THE PROVISIONS CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON DISTRICT AND
CIRCUIT COURTS OVER SUITS BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1871 WERE CONTINUED AS R.S. SECS. 563 AND 629, AND NOW APPEAR AS
SEC. 24(14) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(14).  THE ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1911, 36 STAT. 1087, 1091, AMENDED SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE SO AS TO DIRECT THAT "THE FOREGOING PROVISION AS TO THE SUM OR
VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO
ANY OF THE CASES MENTIONED IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS
CONTAINED TWO PARALLEL PROVISIONS, ONE CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THE
FEDERAL COURTS, DISTRICT OR CIRCUIT, TO ENTERTAIN SUITS "ARISING UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES" IN WHICH THE AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS A SPECIFIED VALUE; THE OTHER, NOW SEC. 24(14) OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE, CONFERRING JURISDICTION ON THOSE COURTS OF SUITS
AUTHORIZED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY. 

SINCE ALL OF THE SUITS THUS AUTHORIZED ARE SUITS ARISING UNDER A
STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES TO REDRESS DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS,
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, ALL ARE
LITERALLY SUITS "ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES."  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IN EVERY SUCH SUIT THE PLAINTIFF
IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO ALLEGE AND PROVE THAT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY WHICH HE SEEKS TO VINDICATE HAS A VALUE IN
EXCESS OF $3,000.  THERE ARE MANY RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, OF WHICH FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY ARE CONSPICUOUS
EXAMPLES, WHICH ARE NOT CAPABLE OF MONEY VALUATION, AND IN MANY
INSTANCES, LIKE THE PRESENT, NO SUIT IN EQUITY COULD BE MAINTAINED FOR
THEIR PROTECTION IF PROOF OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WERE
PREREQUISITE.  WE CAN HARDLY SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS, HAVING IN THE BROAD
TERMS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 VESTED IN ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES A RIGHT OF ACTION IN EQUITY FOR THE
DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITIES, COGNIZABLE ONLY IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS, INTENDED BY THE ACT OF 1875 TO DESTROY THOSE RIGHTS OF
ACTION BY WITHHOLDING FROM THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES JURISDICTION
TO ENTERTAIN THEM. 

THAT SUCH WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF 1875 IN EXTENDING THE
JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS TO CAUSES OF ACTION ARISING UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES INVOLVING A SPECIFIED
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, IS EVIDENT FROM THE CONTINUANCE UPON THE STATUTE
BOOKS OF SEC. 24(14) SIDE BY SIDE WITH SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF 1875.  SINCE THE TWO PROVISIONS STAND AND MUST
BE READ TOGETHER, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NEITHER IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS
ABOLISHING THE OTHER, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS REMEMBERED THAT THE 1911
AMENDMENT OF SEC. 24(1) PROVIDED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF A
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO CASES
MENTIONED IN SEC. 24(14).  THIS MUST BE TAKEN AS LEGISLATIVE
RECOGNITION THAT THERE ARE SUITS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF
1871 WHICH COULD BE BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 24(14) AFTER, AS WELL AS BEFORE,
THE AMENDMENT OF 1875 WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH ANY REQUIREMENT OF
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, AND THAT THESE AT LEAST MUST BE DEEMED TO
INCLUDE SUITS IN WHICH THE SUBJECT MATTER IS ONE INCAPABLE OF
VALUATION.  OTHERWISE WE SHOULD BE FORCED TO REACH THE ABSURD
CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 24(14) IS MEANINGLESS AND THAT A LARGE PROPORTION
OF THE SUITS AUTHORIZED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED IN
ANY COURT, ALTHOUGH JURISDICTION OF THEM, WITH NO REQUIREMENT OF
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, WAS CAREFULLY PRESERVED BY SEC. 24(14) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE AND BY THE 1911 AMENDMENT OF SEC. 24(1).  BY TREATING
SEC. 24(14) AS CONFERRING FEDERAL JURISDICTION OF SUITS BROUGHT UNDER
THE ACT OF 1871 IN WHICH THE RIGHT ASSERTED IS INHERENTLY INCAPABLE OF
PECUNIARY VALUATION, WE HARMONIZE THE TWO PARALLEL PROVISIONS OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, CONSTRUE NEITHER AS SUPERFLUOUS, AND GIVE TO EACH A
SCOPE IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS HISTORY AND MANIFEST PURPOSE. 

THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THIS COURT TO THE
TWO JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS ESTABLISHES THAT THE JURISDICTION
CONFERRED BY SEC. 24(14) HAS BEEN PRESERVED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED. 
IN HOLT V. INDIANA MFG. CO., 176 U.S. 68, SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RESTRAIN
ALLEGED UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAXATION OF PATENT RIGHTS.  THE COURT HELD
THAT THE SUIT WAS ONE ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AND
THAT THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT IN WHICH THE SUIT HAD BEEN BEGUN
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE CHALLENGED TAX WAS LESS THAN THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  THE COURT REMARKED THAT THE PRESENT SEC. 24(14)
APPLIED ONLY TO SUITS ALLEGING DEPRIVATION OF "CIVIL RIGHTS."  ON THE
OTHER HAND, IN TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, AFF'G 219 F. 273, THIS
COURT SUSTAINED THE JURISDICTION OF A DISTRICT COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE
SUIT OF AN ALIEN TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE ALLEGED TO
BE AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ALIENS IN THEIR RIGHT TO
SEEK AND RETAIN EMPLOYMENT.  THE JURISDICTION OF A DISTRICT COURT WAS
SIMILARLY SUSTAINED IN CRANE V. JOHNSON, 242 U.S. 339, ON THE AUTHORITY
OF TRUAX V. RAICH, SUPRA.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT TO
RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE ALLEGED TO DENY EQUAL
PROTECTION IN SUPPRESSING THE FREEDOM TO PURSUE A PARTICULAR TRADE OR
CALLING.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRESENT CASE IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR IMMUNITY ALLEGED IN THESE TWO CASES
WAS ONE OF PERSONAL FREEDOM, INVOKED IN THE RAICH CASE BY ONE NOT A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN BOTH CASES THE RIGHT ASSERTED AROSE
UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION, NOT THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE;
IN BOTH THE GIST OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT DAMAGE OR INJURY TO
PROPERTY, BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT OF A RIGHT OF PERSONAL
LIBERTY NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF VALUATION IN MONEY.  THE JURISDICTION WAS
SUSTAINED DESPITE THE OMISSION OF ANY ALLEGATION OR PROOF OF
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, POINTEDLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS
COURT. 

THE CONCLUSION SEEMS INESCAPABLE THAT THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY THE ACT
OF 1871 TO MAINTAIN A SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO PROTECT
THE SUITOR AGAINST A DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, HAS BEEN PRESERVED, AND THAT WHENEVER THE RIGHT OR
IMMUNITY IS ONE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY, NOT DEPENDENT FOR ITS EXISTENCE
UPON THE INFRINGEMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, THERE IS JURISDICTION IN THE
DISTRICT COURT UNDER SEC. 24(14) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO ENTERTAIN IT
WITHOUT PROOF THAT THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $3,000.  AS THE
RIGHT IS SECURED TO "ANY PERSON" BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, AND AS THE
STATUTE PERMITS THE SUIT TO BE BROUGHT BY "ANY PERSON" AS WELL AS BY A
CITIZEN, IT IS CERTAIN THAT RESORT TO THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE DECREE WHICH WE NOW SUSTAIN AND WOULD
INVOLVE CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERIMENTATION AS GRATUITOUS AS IT IS
UNWARRANTED.  WE CANNOT BE SURE THAT ITS CONSEQUENCES WOULD NOT BE
UNFORTUNATE. 

FN1  THE PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY ASSERTED IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES
WAS THE FREEDOM TO PURSUE A COMMON BUSINESS OR CALLING, ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN INFRINGED BY A STATE MONOPOLY STATUTE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN
THAT THE COURT, IN DECIDING THE CASE, DID NOT DENY THE CONTENTION OF
THE DISSENTING JUSTICES THAT THE ASSERTED FREEDOM WAS IN FACT INFRINGED
BY THE STATE LAW.  IT RESTED ITS DECISION RATHER ON THE GROUND THAT THE
IMMUNITY CLAIMED WAS NOT ONE BELONGING TO PERSONS BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
CITIZENSHIP.  "IT IS QUITE CLEAR," THE COURT DECLARED (P. 74), "THAT
THERE IS A CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, AND A CITIZENSHIP OF A
STATE, WHICH ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER, AND WHICH DEPEND ON
DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS IN THE INDIVIDUAL."  AND IT HELD THAT THE
PROTECTION OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE DID NOT EXTEND TO
THOSE "FUNDAMENTAL" RIGHTS ATTACHED TO STATE CITIZENSHIP WHICH ARE
PECULIARLY THE CREATION AND CONCERN OF STATE GOVERNMENTS AND WHICH MR.
JUSTICE WASHINGTON, IN CORFIELD V. CORYELL$N, 4 WASH. C.C. 371, 6 FED.
CAS. NO. 3230, MISTAKENLY THOUGHT TO BE GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE IV, SEC.
2 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES, IT WAS POINTED OUT, ARE CONFINED TO THAT LIMITED
CLASS OF INTERESTS GROWING OUT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITIZEN
AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL
LAWS.  SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 79; SEE TWINING V. NEW
JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 97, 98. 

THAT LIMITATION UPON THE OPERATION OF THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN RELAXED BY ANY LATER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  IN
RE KEMMLER, 136 U.S. 436, 448; MCPHERSON V. BLACKER, 146 U.S. 1, 38;
GIOZZA V. TIERNAN, 148 U.S. 657, 661; DUNCAN V. MISSOURI, 152 U.S. 377,
382.  UPON THAT GROUND APPEALS TO THIS COURT TO EXTEND THE CLAUSE
BEYOND THE LIMITATION HAVE UNIFORMLY BEEN REJECTED, AND EVEN THOSE
BASIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES SECURED AGAINST FEDERAL INFRINGEMENT BY
THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS HAVE UNIFORMLY BEEN HELD NOT TO BE PROTECTED
FROM STATE ACTION BY THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE.  WALKER V.
SAUVINET, 92 U.S. 90; HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516; PRESSER V.
ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252; O'NEILL V. VERMONT, 144 U.S. 323; MAXWELL V.
DOW, 176 U.S. 581; WEST V. LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258; TWINING V. NEW
JERSEY, SUPRA; PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319. 

THE REASON FOR THIS NARROW CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAUSE AND THE
CONSISTENTLY EXHIBITED RELUCTANCE OF THIS COURT TO ENLARGE ITS SCOPE
HAS BEEN WELL UNDERSTOOD SINCE THE DECISION OF THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE
CASES.  IF ITS RESTRAINT UPON STATE ACTION WERE TO BE EXTENDED MORE
THAN IS NEEDFUL TO PROTECT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE CITIZEN AND THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND IF IT WERE TO BE DEEMED TO EXTEND TO THOSE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF PERSON AND PROPERTY ATTACHED TO CITIZENSHIP BY
THE COMMON LAW AND ENACTMENTS OF THE STATES WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS
ADOPTED, SUCH AS WERE DESCRIBED IN CORFIELD V. CORYELL, SUPRA, IT WOULD
ENLARGE CONGRESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL CONTROL OF STATE ACTION AND MULTIPLY
RESTRICTIONS UPON IT WHOSE NATURE, THOUGH DIFFICULT TO ANTICIPATE WITH
PRECISION, WOULD BE OF SUFFICIENT GRAVITY TO CAUSE SERIOUS APPREHENSION
FOR THE RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.  THAT WAS THE ISSUE
FOUGHT OUT IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, WITH THE DECISION AGAINST
ENLARGEMENT. 

OF THE FIFTY OR MORE CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS COURT
SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN WHICH STATE STATUTES
HAVE BEEN ASSAILED AS VIOLATING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE,
IN ONLY A SINGLE CASE WAS A STATUTE HELD TO INFRINGE A PRIVILEGE OR
IMMUNITY PECULIAR TO CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN THAT ONE,
COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, IT WAS THOUGHT NECESSARY TO SUPPORT
THE DECISION BY POINTING TO THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THE SLAUGHTER
HOUSE CASES, SUPRA, 79, TO THE RIGHT TO PASS FREELY FROM STATE TO
STATE, SUSTAINED AS A RIGHT OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP IN CRANDALL V.
NEVADA, 6 WALL.  35, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT. 

THE CASES WILL BE FOUND COLLECTED IN FOOTNOTE 2 OF THE DISSENTING
OPINION IN COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, 445.  TO THESE SHOULD BE
ADDED HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366; FERRY V. SPOKANE, P. & S.R. CO.,
258 U.S. 314; NEW YORK EX REL. BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63;
WHITFIELD V. OHIO, 297 U.S. 431; BREEDLOVE V. SUTTLES, 302 U.S. 277;
PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319. 

FN2  THIS PROVISION MADE NO CHANGE IN EXISTING LAW BUT WAS INSERTED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING ALL DOUBT UPON THE POINT.  SEE H.R. REP.
NO. 783, PART 1, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 15; SEN. REP. NO. 388, PART
1, 61ST CONG., 2D SESS., P. 11.  CF. MILLER-MAGEE CO. V. CARPENTER, 34
F. 433; AMES V. HAGER, 36 F. 129. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, CONCURRING: 

WITH RESPECT TO THE MERITS I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE
ROBERTS AND IN THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT AS MODIFIED.  WITH
RESPECT TO THE POINT AS TO JURISDICTION I AGREE WITH WHAT IS SAID IN
THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AS TO THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT BEING A PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES, BUT I AM NOT SATISFIED THAT THE RECORD ADEQUATELY
SUPPORTS THE RESTING OF JURISDICTION UPON THAT GROUND.  AS TO THAT
MATTER, I CONCUR IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE STONE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, DISSENTING: 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED, I
CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE REFUSED TO INTERFERE BY
INJUNCTION WITH THE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS OF THE MUNICIPALITY TO CONTROL ITS
OWN PARKS AND STREETS.  WISE MANAGEMENT OF SUCH INTIMATE LOCAL AFFAIRS,
GENERALLY AT LEAST, IS BEYOND THE COMPETENCY OF FEDERAL COURTS, AND
ESSAYS IN THAT DIRECTION SHOULD BE AVOIDED. 

THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR RESPONDENTS TO ASSERT THEIR CLAIMS
THROUGH AN ORDERLY PROCEEDING IN COURTS OF THE STATE EMPOWERED
AUTHORITATIVELY TO INTERPRET HER LAWS WITH FINAL REVIEW HERE IN RESPECT
OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING: 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE CHALLENGED ORDINANCE IS NOT VOID ON ITS
FACE; THAT IN PRINCIPLE IT DOES NOT DIFFER FROM THE BOSTON ORDINANCE,
AS APPLIED AND UPHELD BY THIS COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE
WHITE, IN DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43, AFFIRMING THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES,
IN COMMONWEALTH V. DAVIS, 162 MASS. 510; 39 N.E. 113, AND THAT THE
DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :






U.S. V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OP., 307 U.S. 533 


NO. 771.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 25, 1939.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1939.  - 26
F.SUPP.  534, REVERSED. 


UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARINGS, MADE AN ORDER FOR FIXING AND
EQUALIZING MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID PRODUCERS FOR MILK SOLD TO DEALERS
("HANDLERS") AND DISPOSED OF BY THE LATTER EITHER IN LIQUID FORM OR AS
MILK PRODUCTS WITHIN A "MARKETING AREA" COMPRISING THE CITY OF NEW YORK
AND ADJACENT COUNTIES.  EFFORTS TO SECURE THE CONSENT OF DEALERS TO A
MARKETING AGREEMENT HAVING FAILED, THE ORDER, BEFORE ITS PROMULGATION,
WAS SUBMITTED BY REFERENDUM TO PRODUCERS, THE VOTE RESULTING, AS
DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, IN
ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORDER BY AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE PRODUCERS WHO
DURING A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION OF MILK
FOR THE MARKETING AREA.  THE SECRETARY HAD FOUND THAT TWO-THIRDS OF THE
MILK COMES TO THIS AREA FROM OTHER STATES WHERE IT IS PRODUCED, OR FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK THROUGH OTHER STATES, AND THAT THE OTHER ONE
THIRD, PRODUCED IN NEW YORK, BECOMES "PHYSICALLY AND INEXTRICABLY
INTERMINGLED" WITH THIS "INTERSTATE" MILK; AND THAT ALL IS HANDLED
EITHER IN THE CURRENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR SO AS TO AFFECT, BURDEN
AND OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS.  THE
SECRETARY HAD DETERMINED ALSO THAT PRICES CALCULATED TO GIVE MILK A
PURCHASING POWER FOR PRODUCERS EQUIVALENT TO THAT ENJOYED IN THE BASE
PERIODS SELECTED BY SECS. 2 AND 8E OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE,
IN VIEW OF PRICES FOR FEED AND "OTHER ECONOMIC CONDITIONS," AND
RESORTED TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY SEC. 8C (18), TO FIX PRICES SO AS
TO "REFLECT" THOSE FACTORS AND "INSURE A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF PURE
AND WHOLESOME MILK AND BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST."  THE ORDER PROVIDES
A METHOD FOR COMPUTING "MINIMUM PRICES" OR VALUES FOR THE MILK RECEIVED
BY "HANDLERS" DURING THE COMPUTATION PERIOD, VARYING ACCORDING TO THE
CLASS OF USE TO WHICH THE MILK IS PUT, THE BUTTER-FAT CONTENT, DISTANCE
OF TRANSPORTATION, ETC.  IT THEN PROVIDES FOR FIXING THE "UNIFORM
PRICE" WHICH PRODUCERS ARE ACTUALLY PAID BY THE PROPRIETARY (NON
COOPERATIVE) "HANDLERS," AND WHICH IN SUBSTANCE IS DETERMINED BY
MULTIPLYING THE AMOUNT OF MILK OF EACH CLASS RECEIVED BY ALL "HANDLERS"
DURING THE PERIOD, LESS CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS, BY THE RESPECTIVE "MINIMUM
PRICE," MAKING CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS, AND DIVIDING THE TOTAL OF THE
REMAINDERS BY THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE MILK RECEIVED.  FOR THE PURPOSE
OF EQUALIZATION, THE ORDER REQUIRES "HANDLERS" TO PAY INTO A "PRODUCER
SETTLEMENT FUND" THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THEIR PURCHASES AT THE "MINIMUM
PRICES" EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF THEIR PURCHASED MILK MULTIPLIED BY THE
"UNIFORM PRICE."  WHEN THE VALUE OF A "HANDLER'S" PURCHASED MILK AT THE
"MINIMUM PRICES" IS LESS THAN IF BOUGHT AT THE "UNIFORM PRICE," THE
FUND PAYS HIM THE DIFFERENCE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO HIS PRODUCERS.  BY THE
TERMS OF THE ORDER, COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS WHICH ARE
ALSO "HANDLERS" NEED NOT PAY THE "UNIFORM PRICE," BUT MAY SETTLE WITH
THEIR PATRONS ACCORDING TO THEIR CONTRACTS.  THE ORDER BY THESE AND
OTHER MEANS SOUGHT TO BRING ABOUT A FAIR DIVISION AMONG PRODUCERS OF
THE FLUID MILK MARKET AND UTILIZATION OF THE REST OF THE SUPPLY IN
OTHER DAIRY STAPLES AND THUS TO CORRECT EVILS ARISING FROM OVER
PRODUCTION OF THE FLUID MILK, PRICE-CUTTING, ETC.  CF., NEBBIA V. N.Y.,
291 U.S. 502.  IN A SUIT BY THE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THE ORDER AGAINST
A PROPRIETARY PRODUCER OF MILK AND COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS OF
PRODUCERS, IN WHICH OTHER COOPERATIVE PRODUCERS INTERVENED ON THE SIDE
OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE DISTRICT COURT ADJUDGED THE ORDER INVALID AND
DISMISSED THE BILL.  HELD: 

1.  SUSPENSION OF THE ORDER BY THE SECRETARY, UNDER SEC. 8C (16)(A)
OF THE ACT, BECAUSE OF THE EFFECT OF THE DECREE ON ITS ADMINISTRATION
AND ENFORCEMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE PROCEEDINGS MOOT, SINCE RIGHTS
ACCRUED UNDER THE ORDER WERE PRESERVED AND REPORTS, ACCOUNTINGS AND
PAYMENTS UNDER IT WERE SOUGHT FROM THE DEFENDANTS.  P. 555. 

2. CONTENTIONS THAT THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDER WAS INFLUENCED BY FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS AND COERCIVE TACTICS PRACTICED BY CERTAIN COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH INTERVENED IN THIS CASE, ARE IMMATERIAL, AS THERE
IS NO AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS TO GO BEHIND THE CONCLUSION OF THE
SECRETARY TO INQUIRE INTO THE INFLUENCES WHICH CAUSED THE PRODUCERS TO
FAVOR THE RESOLUTION.  P. 556. 

3.  THE PROVISION OF THE ACT, SEC. 8(12), AUTHORIZING COOPERATIVES TO
EXPRESS THEIR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF SUCH ORDERS FOR ALL THEIR
MEMBERS OR PATRONS, IS NOT UNREASONABLE.  P. 559. 

4.  IF THE ORDER AND ACT ARE OTHERWISE VALID, THE FACT THAT THEIR
EFFECT WOULD BE TO GIVE COOPERATIVES A MONOPOLY OF THE MARKET, WOULD
NOT VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT OR JUSTIFY A REFUSAL OF AN INJUNCTION
ENFORCING THE ORDER.  P. 560. 

5.  THE OBJECTION THAT THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE PROVISION OF
THE ORDER EXEMPTING COOPERATIVES FROM PAYMENT OF "UNIFORM PRICES"
REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY PROPRIETARY "HANDLERS" CAN NOT BE TAKEN BY
DEFENDANTS WHO ARE THEMSELVES COOPERATIVES, BUT CAN BE TAKEN BY A
DEFENDANT PROPRIETARY.  P. 560. 

6.  THIS EXEMPTION OF COOPERATIVES IS AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 8C (F) OF
THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NOTHING  ...  SHALL  ...  PREVENT A
COOPERATIVE  ...  FROM  ...  MAKING DISTRIBUTION (OF NET PROCEEDS)  ...
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS
PRODUCERS."  P. 561. 

7.  THE OBJECTION THAT, IN AUTHORIZING PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVES AND
CERTAIN OTHER "HANDLERS" FROM THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND, THE ORDER
IS WITHOUT STATUTORY BASIS CAN NOT BE RAISED BY "HANDLERS," WHETHER
PROPRIETARY OR COOPERATIVE, SINCE "HANDLERS" HAVE NO FINANCIAL INTEREST
IN THAT FUND.  P. 561. 

8.  SECTION 8C (5) OF THE ACT, IN SANCTIONING EXEMPTIONS OF PRODUCER
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS FROM THE DUTY IMPOSED BY THE ORDER ON OTHER
"HANDLERS," OF PAYING A UNIFORM PRICE TO PRODUCERS, IS NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISCRIMINATIVE.  P. 562. 

THIS RESULTS FROM THE NATURE OF COOPERATIVES, THE POLICY OF CONGRESS
IN THEIR REGARD, THEIR RELATIONS TO THEIR MEMBERS AND TO PRICE-CUTTING,
AS COMPARED WITH ORDINARY BUSINESS CORPORATIONS. 

9.  NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IS PRODUCED BY PROVISIONS OF
THE ORDER, SANCTIONED BY THE ACT, WHICH LIMIT MINIMUM PRICES TO MILK
SOLD IN THE MARKETING AREA OR WHICH PASSES THROUGH A PLANT IN THE
MARKETING AREA, THEREBY PERMITTING "HANDLERS" TO PURCHASE OTHER MILK
FROM THE SAME PRODUCTION AREA AT ANY PRICE THEY MAY PLEASE.  P. 565. 

IF SUCH "UNPRICED" MILK BE SOLD BY THE "HANDLER" OUTSIDE OF THE
MARKET AREA DESIGNATED BY THE ORDER FOR A PRICE GREATER THAN CAN BE
OBTAINED WITHIN THE AREA, THUS ENABLING THE "HANDLER" TO REPLACE LOSSES
ON SALES WITHIN THE AREA AND STILL BE IN A POSITION TO PAY THE "UNIFORM
PRICE" FOR MILK SUPPLIED TO THE AREA, - THIS IS A COMPETITIVE SITUATION
WHICH THE ORDER DID NOT CREATE AND WITH WHICH IT DOES NOT DEAL. 

10.  SPECIAL DIFFERENTIALS ON MILK COMING FROM CERTAIN COUNTIES
LOCATED MOST FAVORABLY TO THE MARKETING AREA, ALLOWED BY THE ORDER
UNDER SEC. 8C (5)(A) OF THE ACT, ARE NOT SHOWN TO DISCRIMINATE UNDULY
BETWEEN PRODUCERS.  THE SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION OF THEIR PROPRIETY,
MADE ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IS SUPPORTED BY A STRONG PRESUMPTION.  P.
567. 

11.  WHERE MILK SOLD BY THE DAIRY FARMER LOCALLY AND MILK FROM OTHER
STATES ARE DRAWN INTO A GENERAL PLAN FOR PROTECTING THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN THE COMMODITY FROM THE INTERFERENCES, BURDENS AND
OBSTRUCTIONS ARISING FROM EXCESSIVE SURPLUS AND THE SOCIAL AND SANITARY
EVILS CREATED BY LOW PRICES, THE POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS ALSO TO THE
LOCAL SALES.  P. 568. 

12.  THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER, WHERE IT EXISTS, IS COMPLETE AND
PERFECT.  P. 569. 

13. CONGRESS HAS POWER OVER THE PRICES OF MILK IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OF THE SAME NATURE AND EXTENT AS THE POWER RETAINED BY THE STATES OVER
THEIR INTERNAL COMMERCE IN MILK.  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502.  P.
569. 

14.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER WHICH REQUIRE A
"HANDLER" WHOSE PURCHASES AT THE "MINIMUM PRICE" EXCEED THEIR VALUE AT
THE "UNIFORM PRICE" TO PAY THE SURPLUS INTO THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT
FUND, INSTEAD OF PAYING IT TO HIS PATRONS, DO NOT DEPRIVE HIM OF
LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  P. 571. 

THIS POOLING DEVICE IS ANCILLARY TO THE PRICE REGULATION; BOTH ARE
DESIGNED TO FOSTER AND PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY SMOOTHING OUT THE
DIFFICULTIES OF MILK SURPLUS AND CUT-THROAT COMPETITION WHICH BURDENED
THE MARKETING.  P. 572. 

AS CONGRESS WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIMIT THE QUANTITIES OF MILK IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT MAY PERMIT ITS MOVEMENT ON THESE TERMS OF POOL
SETTLEMENT. 

15.  THE ACT DECLARES A DEFINITE POLICY TO RESTORE PARITY PRICES FOR
FARMERS; DIRECTS THE SECRETARY TO ISSUE ORDERS TO THAT END WHENEVER HE
HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THEY WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THAT POLICY; LIMITS
THE TERMS OF SUCH ORDERS SPECIFICALLY, WHILE ALLOWING FLEXIBLE
AUXILIARY ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION; CONFINES ITS APPLICATION TO
SPECIFIED FARM PRODUCTS AND THE ORDERS TO SUCH AREAS AS ARE
"PRACTICABLE"; AND REQUIRES PRELIMINARY HEARINGS AND FINDINGS, WITH
RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SECRETARY AND APPEAL TO THE COURTS.  IN THESE
RESPECTS IT SETS UP SUFFICIENT STANDARDS AND DOES NOT DELEGATE
LEGISLATIVE POWER IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 574. 

EVEN THOUGH PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN THE ACT CAN NOT VALIDATE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION, THEY DO PROTECT AGAINST ARBITRARY ABUSE OF
PROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY.  P. 576. 

16.  SECTION 8C (18) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER HE
FINDS UPON HEARING AND EVIDENCE THAT PRICES GIVING MILK AND MILK
PRODUCTS PURCHASING POWER EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF THE "BASE PERIOD,"
DEFINED IN SECS. 2 AND 8E, ARE NOT REASONABLE, IN VIEW OF THE PRICE AND
AVAILABLE SUPPLIES OF FEEDS, AND OTHER ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT
MARKET SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS IN THE MARKETING
AREA, THE SECRETARY SHALL FIX SUCH PRICES AS HE FINDS "WILL REFLECT
SUCH FACTORS AND INSURE A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF PURE AND WHOLESOME
MILK AND BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST," - SETS UP A STANDARD SUFFICIENT TO
AVOID IMPROPER DELEGATION OF POWER.  P. 576. 

17.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED ORDERS FOR
APPROVAL OF PRODUCERS OF MILK, THROUGH A REFERENDUM, SEC. 8C (9)(B),
AND THE PROVISION AUTHORIZING COOPERATIVES TO CAST THE VOTES OF THEIR
PRODUCER PATRONS, ARE NOT INVALID DELEGATION.  P. 577. 

18.  SECTIONS 8C (5)(A), 8C (5)(C) AND 8C (5)(F), CONSTRUED TOGETHER,
AND WITH SEC. 8C (1), SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO EXCEPT
COOPERATIVES OF THE AGENCY TYPE (DISTINGUISHED FROM THE "SALE" TYPE)
FROM THE DUTY IMPOSED ON HANDLERS GENERALLY TO PAY INTO THE PRODUCER
SETTLEMENT FUND AND SHARE THE EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION.  THE TERM
"PURCHASED" IN SEC. 8C (5)(A) MEANS "ACQUIRED FOR MARKETING"; THE
PROPRIETARY, FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO ACCOUNT AT THE MINIMUM PRICES FOR
MILK HANDLED.  P. 578. 

THIS CONCLUSION ACCORDS WITH THE LEGISLATIVE REPORTS AND DEBATES AND
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION. 

19.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, SEC. 8C (5)(F), PERMITTING A
COOPERATIVE TO DISTRIBUTE THE "NET PROCEEDS" OF ALL ITS SALES TO ITS
MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS CONTRACT WITH THEM, REFERS TO THE
RESULTS OF THE COOPERATIVE'S SALES IN THE MARKETING AREA AFTER
COMPLYING WITH THE EQUALIZATION REQUIREMENTS.  P. 579. 

20.  A PROVISION OF THE ORDER AUTHORIZING ANY "HANDLER," IN
DETERMINING ITS NET POOL OBLIGATION, TO SUBTRACT "THE QUANTITY OF MILK
RECEIVED FROM THE "HANDLER'S OWN FARM," DOES NOT APPLY TO A COOPERATIVE
"HANDLER" WHICH HAS NO FARM.  P. 581. 

UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, INC. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 826, NOYES, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND
MARKETS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, INC. ET
AL.; NO. 827, DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE COOPERATIVE ASSN., INC. V. ROCK ROYAL
CO-OPERATIVE, INC. ET AL.; AND NO. 828, METROPOLITAN COOPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS BARGAINING AGENCY, INC. V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, INC. ET
AL., ALSO ON APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEALS UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937,
FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING TWO SUITS BROUGHT BY THE
GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ISSUED
UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF JUNE 3, 1937,
REGULATING THE HANDLING OF MILK IN AN AREA COMPRISING THE CITY OF NEW
YORK AND NEIGHBORING COUNTIES.  ONE OF THE SUITS WAS AGAINST THREE
INCORPORATED "COOPERATIVES," REPRESENTING MILK PRODUCERS, IN THE
HANDLING OF MILK IN THIS AREA.  THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION IN THE OTHER
SUIT WAS A "PROPRIETARY" HANDLER.  ONE OF THE APPELLANTS IS NOYES,
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WHO
INTERVENED AND PETITIONED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A
REGULATION UNDER THE STATE LAW, IN SO FAR AS THE TRAFFIC IN QUESTION
MIGHT BE ADJUDGED TO BE INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  INASMUCH AS THE
OPERATIONS OF ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS ARE FOUND TO BE OF INTERSTATE
CHARACTER, THE COURT RULES THAT HIS PETITION BE DISMISSED.  THE OTHER
THREE APPEALS ARE BY THE UNITED STATES AND BY TWO INCORPORATED
"COOPERATIVES," WHICH INTERVENED TO COMBAT CHARGES MADE AGAINST THEM BY
THE DEFENDANTS, CONCERNING THEIR ACTIVITIES IN AID OF THE ADOPTION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE APPEALS INVOLVE THE VALIDITY OF ORDER NO. 27 OF THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE, ISSUED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT
OF 1937,  FN1  REGULATING THE HANDLING OF MILK IN THE NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN AREA. 

ON OCTOBER 27, 1938, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FILED A COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, INC., THE CENTRAL NEW YORK
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., AND SCHUYLER JUNCTION NEW YORK MILK SHED
COOPERATIVE, INC., SEEKING A MANDATORY INJUNCTION REQUIRING THE
DEFENDANTS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ORDER.  ON NOVEMBER 26, 1938, A SIMILAR ACTION WAS FILED IN THE
SAME COURT AGAINST THE JETTER DAIRY COMPANY, INC. ON DECEMBER 2 THESE
CAUSES WERE CONSOLIDATED.  THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS HAD SOUGHT RELIEF
NOT ONLY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
BUT ALSO, IF THE COURT SHOULD FIND THAT THE DEFENDANTS OR ANY OF THEM
WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THAT ORDER, FOR VIOLATION OF OFFICIAL ORDER NO. 126
ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK.  THE TWO ORDERS ARE IN PARI MATERIA, ONE COVERING MILK MOVING
IN OR DIRECTLY BURDENING, OBSTRUCTING OR AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND THE OTHER  FN2  COVERING MILK IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  EACH
DEFENDANT IS A DEALER HANDLING MILK MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ON
DECEMBER 15, HOLTON V. NOYES, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND
MARKETS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS A PARTY
PLAINTIFF IN THE CONSOLIDATED ACTION.  HE SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION
COMMANDING THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO COMPLY WITH
ORDER NO. 126 OR, SHOULD IT BE DETERMINED THAT THEIR MILK WAS NOT
SUBJECT TO THIS ORDER, TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE. 

IN THEIR ANSWERS, THE DEFENDANTS PLEADED CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES, SETTING UP THE INVALIDITY OF ORDER NO. 27 BECAUSE OF IMPROPER
EFFORTS TO SECURE ITS ADOPTION.  BROADLY SPEAKING, THESE DEFENSES WERE
BASED UPON ERRONEOUS REPRESENTATIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY
OFFICIALS AND BY CERTAIN PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS TO BRING ABOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE ORDER AND UPON AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY OF THE SAME
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS TO CREATE A MONOPOLY BY MEANS OF THE ORDER.  THE
MOTION TO STRIKE THESE DEFENSES HAVING BEEN OVERRULED, THE DAIRYMEN'S
LEAGUE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE LEAGUE, AND THE
METROPOLITAN COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS BARGAINING AGENCY, INC.,
HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AGENCY, WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE TO COMBAT
THEM. 

THE ANSWERS ALSO CHALLENGED THE TWO ORDERS AND THE ACT AS CONTRARY TO
THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACT AS
INVOLVING IMPROPER DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  THE CENTRAL NEW
YORK COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION DENIED THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO ENACT
THE LEGISLATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND SET UP AS A FURTHER
DEFENSE THAT IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO EITHER ORDER. 

AFTER A HEARING UPON THE MERITS, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINTS.  THE STATE ORDER WAS ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION ON THE
UNDERSTANDING, NOT QUESTIONED HERE, THAT THE MILK OF ALL FOUR
DEFENDANTS IS COVERED BY THE FEDERAL ORDER, IF VALID.  IT WAS FURTHER
HELD THAT SECS. 8C (5)(B)(II) AND 8C (5)(F) OF THE ACT VIOLATE THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THAT THE ORDER IS DISCRIMINATORY
AND TAKES PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION, THAT APPROVAL OF THE PRODUCERS
WAS SECURED BY UNLAWFUL MISREPRESENTATION AND COERCION AND THAT
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER, AUTHORIZING PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVE
AND PROPRIETARY HANDLERS, HAVE NO BASIS IN THE ACT.  UNITED STATES V.
ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, 26 F.SUPP.  534, 548, 550, 544, 545, 553.  AS
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS WAS
ONE GROUND OF THE DECISION AN APPEAL WAS ALLOWED DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT.  FN3 

THE STATUTE.  FN4  THE CONTROVERSY REVOLVES ALMOST ENTIRELY AROUND
ORDER NO. 27.  BACK OF THE ORDER IS THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH IT WAS
ISSUED, THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, WHICH
REENACTED AND AMENDED CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT
ACT.  FN5  AS ITS NAME IMPLIES, IT WAS AIMED AT ASSISTING IN THE
MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES. 

BY SEC. 1 IT IS DECLARED THAT "THE DISRUPTION OF THE ORDERLY EXCHANGE
OF COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IMPAIRS THE PURCHASING POWER OF
FARMERS" THUS DESTROYING THE VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL ASSETS TO THE
DETRIMENT OF THE NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST.  THIS INTERFERENCE IS
DECLARED TO "BURDEN AND OBSTRUCT THE NORMAL CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE." 

BY SEC. 2 IT IS DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF CONGRESS, THROUGH THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, "TO
ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN SUCH ORDERLY MARKETING CONDITIONS FOR
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS WILL ESTABLISH
PRICES TO FARMERS AT A LEVEL THAT WILL GIVE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES A
PURCHASING POWER WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES THAT FARMERS BUY, EQUIVALENT
TO THE PURCHASING POWER OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN THE BASE
PERIOD.  ...  " 

UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT, THE BASE PERIOD FOR AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES, EXCEPT TOBACCO AND POTATOES, IS FIXED AT THE PRE-WAR
PERIOD OF AUGUST, 1909, TO JULY, 1914.  WHERE THE PURCHASING POWER
DURING THE BASE PERIOD CANNOT BE SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED FROM
AVAILABLE STATISTICS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THE
SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE AS THE BASE PERIOD FROM AUGUST, 1919,
TO JULY, 1929, OR A PORTION THEREOF.  SEC. 8E.  IN PRESCRIBING MINIMUM
PRICES FOR MILK THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY TO FIX MINIMUM
PRICES WITHOUT RESTRICTION TO THE PURCHASING POWER DURING THE BASE
PERIOD SO AS TO REFLECT THE PRICES OF AVAILABLE SUPPLIES OF FEED AND
OTHER ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, IF HE FINDS AFTER A HEARING THAT MINIMUM
PRICES WITH A BASE PERIOD PURCHASING POWER ARE UNREASONABLE.  SEC. 8C
(18). 

UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE AND TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN ANY PERSON FROM
VIOLATING ANY OF THE ORDERS, REGULATIONS OR AGREEMENTS UNDER ITS
PROVISIONS. 

MARKETING AGREEMENTS WITH THE PRODUCERS AND OTHERS ENGAGED IN THE
HANDLING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN OR AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THESE AGREEMENTS MAY BE FOR ALL AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND
THEIR PRODUCTS, ARE ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY AND MAY COVER THE HANDLING OF
THE COMMODITY BY ANY PERSON ENGAGED IN THE VARIOUS OPERATIONS OF
PROCESSING OR DISTRIBUTION.  AGREEMENTS ARE INVOLVED ONLY INCIDENTALLY
IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

CERTAIN SITUATIONS.  THESE ORDERS APPLY ONLY TO SPECIFIED COMMODITIES,
INCLUDING MILK.  FN6  THEY ARE TO BE ENTERED ONLY WHEN THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER WILL
TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO ANY
COMMODITY OR PRODUCT THEREOF, AND AFTER NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING.  IT IS NECESSARY ALSO FOR THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO SET
FORTH IN SUCH ORDER A FINDING UPON THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT THE
HEARING THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
THEREOF WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY.  FN7  WHEN, AS
HERE, THE COMMODITY IS MILK, THE ACT REQUIRES  FN8  THAT THE ORDER
CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF TERMS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 8C (5) AND NO OTHERS,
EXCEPT CERTAIN TERMS COMMON TO ALL ORDERS AND SET OUT IN SEC. 8C (7). 
THESE TERMS, AS USED IN THE ORDER UNDER EXAMINATION, WILL BE REFERRED
TO LATER.  ORDERS MAY ONLY BE ISSUED  FN9  AFTER HEARING UPON A
MARKETING AGREEMENT WHICH REGULATES THE HANDLING OF THE COMMODITY IN
THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORDER.  WITHOUT SPECIAL DETERMINATION OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, ORDERS ARE NOT
TO BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS APPROVED BY HANDLERS AS REQUIRED BY THE
ACT.  FN10 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE REFUSAL OR FAILURE OF HANDLERS TO SIGN A
MARKETING AGREEMENT RELATING TO SUCH COMMODITY, THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT, MAY ISSUE AN ORDER
WITHOUT THE ADOPTION OF AN AGREEMENT IF HE DETERMINES THAT THE REFUSAL
OR FAILURE OF THE HANDLERS TO SIGN A MARKETING AGREEMENT TENDS TO
PREVENT THE EFFECTUATION OF THE DECLARED POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE
COMMODITY AND THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER IS THE ONLY PRACTICAL
MEANS OF ADVANCING THE INTEREST OF THE PRODUCERS.  IN SUCH A CASE THE
ORDER MUST BE APPROVED OR FAVORED BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRODUCERS IN
NUMBER OR VOLUME WHO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED, DURING A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD,
IN THE PRODUCTION FOR MARKET OF THE COMMODITY WITHIN THE PRODUCTION
AREA OR TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE COMMODITY
FOR SALE IN THE MARKETING AREA SPECIFIED IN THE MARKETING AGREEMENT OR
ORDER.  SEC. 8C (9).  SECTION 8C (19) AUTHORIZES A REFERENDUM TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER IS APPROVED BY THE
PRODUCERS.  SECTION 8C (12) PROVIDES THAT THE SECRETARY SHALL CONSIDER
THE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL BY ANY COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION AS THE
APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PRODUCERS WHO ARE MEMBERS, STOCKHOLDERS
OR PATRONS OF THE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION. 

ON PETITION OF A HANDLER OBJECTING TO ANY PROVISION AS NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND SEEKING A MODIFICATION OR EXEMPTION THEREFROM. 
BY (15)(B) THE DISTRICT COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW SUCH
RULING. 

THE PROBLEM.  - IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, BEFORE PROMULGATING ORDER NO. 27, CONDUCTED
PUBLIC HEARINGS ATTENDED BY HANDLERS, PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS OF MILK
AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES THROUGHOUT THE MILKSHED.  NO DEFENDANT,
HOWEVER, WAS REPRESENTED.  THESE HEARINGS FOLLOWED THE PRESENTATION BY
THE AGENCY TO THE SECRETARY AND TO THE COMMISSIONER OF A PROPOSED
MARKETING AGREEMENT AND ORDER REGULATING THE HANDLING OF MILK IN THE
NEW YORK MARKETING AREA WITH A REQUEST FOR ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL AND
NEW YORK STATUTES.  THE HEARINGS WERE JOINTLY HELD BY THE FEDERAL AND
STATE GOVERNMENTS.  THE COOPERATION OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS WAS THE
CULMINATION OF A COURSE OF INVESTIGATION AND LEGISLATION WHICH HAD
CONTINUED OVER MANY YEARS.  THE PROBLEM FROM THE STANDPOINT OF NEW YORK
WAS FULLY CONSIDERED AND THE RESULTS SET OUT IN THE REPORT OF 1933 OF
THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE MILK INDUSTRY.  THIS
INVESTIGATION WAS FOLLOWED BY THE CREATION OF THE MILK CONTROL BOARD
WITH BROAD POWERS TO REGULATE THE DAIRY BUSINESS OF THE STATE.  THIS
BOARD HAD POWER TO FIX PRICES TO BE PAID TO PRODUCERS AND TO BE CHARGED
TO CONSUMERS.  FN11  A LATER NEW YORK ACT, THE ROGERS-ALLEN ACT, FN12
AUTHORIZED THE STATE COMMISSIONER TO COOPERATE WITH THE FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES ACTING UNDER THE PRESENT MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT, AND TO
ISSUE ORDERS SUPPLEMENTARY TO THOSE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE
CARRIED OUT UNDER JOINT ADMINISTRATION. 

THE PROBLEMS CONCERNED WITH THE MAINTENANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF AN
ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF MILK IN METROPOLITAN CENTERS ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD BY
PRODUCERS AND HANDLERS.  IN THE MILKSHED AND MARKETING AREA OF
METROPOLITAN NEW YORK THESE PROBLEMS ARE PECULIARLY ACUTE.  FN13  IT IS
GENERALLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE CHIEF CAUSE OF FLUCTUATING PRICES AND
SUPPLIES IS THE EXISTENCE OF A NORMAL SURPLUS WHICH IS NECESSARY TO
FURNISH AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT FOR PEAK PERIODS OF CONSUMPTION.  THIS
RESULTS IN AN EXCESS OF PRODUCTION DURING THE TROUGHS OF DEMAND.  AS
MILK IS HIGHLY PERISHABLE, A FERTILE FIELD FOR THE GROWTH OF BACTERIA,
AND YET AN ESSENTIAL ITEM OF DIET, IT IS MOST DESIRABLE TO HAVE AN
ADEQUATE PRODUCTION UNDER CLOSE SANITARY SUPERVISION TO MEET THE
CONSTANTLY VARYING NEEDS.  THE SALE OF MILK IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK IS
RINGED AROUND WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENTS TO ASSURE THE
PURITY OF THE SUPPLY.  ONLY FARMS WITH EQUIPMENT APPROVED BY THE HEALTH
AUTHORITIES OF THE MARKETING AREA AND OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
REQUIREMENTS ARE PERMITTED TO MARKET THEIR MILK.  MORE THAN SIXTY
THOUSAND DAIRIES LOCATED IN THE STATES OF NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT,
MASSACHUSETTS, MARYLAND, NEW JERSEY, PENNSYLVANIA AND VERMONT HOLD
CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION AND APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.  MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED RECEIVING PLANTS
SIMILARLY SCATTERED HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THE RECEIVING AND SHIPPING
OF GRADES A AND B MILK.  SINCE ALL MILK PRODUCED CANNOT FIND A READY
MARKET AS FLUID MILK IN FLUSH PERIODS, THE SURPLUS MUST MOVE INTO
CREAM, BUTTER, CHEESE, MILK POWDER AND OTHER MORE OR LESS NONPERISHABLE
PRODUCTS.  SINCE THESE MANUFACTURES ARE IN COMPETITION WITH ALL SIMILAR
DAIRY PRODUCTS, THE PRICES FOR THE MILK ABSORBED INTO MANUFACTURING
PROCESSES MUST NECESSARILY MEET THE COMPETITION OF LOW-COST PRODUCTION
AREAS FAR REMOVED FROM THE METROPOLITAN CENTERS.  THE MARKET FOR FLUID
MILK FOR USE AS A FOOD BEVERAGE IS THE MOST PROFITABLE TO THE
PRODUCER.  CONSEQUENTLY, ALL PRODUCERS STRIVE FOR THE FLUID MILK
MARKET.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE MARKETING OF FLUID MILK IN NEW YORK HAS
CONTACTS AT LEAST WITH THE ENTIRE NATIONAL DAIRY INDUSTRY.  THE
APPROVAL OF DAIRIES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF NEW YORK CITY, AS A
CONDITION FOR THE SALE OF THEIR FLUID MILK IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA,
ISOLATES FROM THIS GENERAL COMPETITION A WELL RECOGNIZED SEGMENT OF THE
ENTIRE INDUSTRY.  SINCE THESE PRODUCERS ARE NUMEROUS ENOUGH TO KEEP UP
A VOLUME OF FLUID MILK FOR NEW YORK DISTRIBUTION BEYOND ORDINARY
REQUIREMENTS, CUT-THROAT COMPETITION EVEN AMONG THEM WOULD THREATEN THE
QUALITY AND IN THE END THE QUANTITY OF FLUID MILK DEEMED SUITABLE FOR
NEW YORK CONSUMPTION.  STUDENTS OF THE PROBLEM GENERALLY HAVE
APPARENTLY RECOGNIZED A FAIR DIVISION AMONG PRODUCERS OF THE FLUID MILK
MARKET AND UTILIZATION OF THE REST OF THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY IN OTHER
DAIRY STAPLES AS AN APPROPRIATE METHOD OF ATTACK FOR ITS SOLUTION. 
ORDER NO. 27 WAS AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE EFFECTIVE SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT. 

ORDER NO. 27.  FN14  THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOUND THAT TWO
THIRDS OF THE MILK PRODUCED FOR THE NEW YORK MARKETING AREA ACTUALLY
MOVES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT THE REMAINING ONE-THIRD PRODUCED
WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WAS "PHYSICALLY AND INEXTRICABLY
INTERMINGLED" WITH THE INTERSTATE MILK; THAT ALL WAS HANDLED EITHER IN
THE CURRENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR SO AS TO AFFECT, BURDEN AND
OBSTRUCT SUCH INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS.  AN
EXCEPTION WAS MADE AS TO MILK REGULATED BY THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  THE
SECRETARY FURTHER FOUND THAT PRICES CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 TO GIVE THIS MILK A
PURCHASING POWER EQUIVALENT TO THE PARTIES MENTIONED IN SECS. 2 AND 8E
OF THAT ACT WERE NOT REASONABLE IN VIEW OF THE SUPPLIES AND PRICES OF
FEEDS AND OTHER ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND
FOR MILK.  HE THEN FIXED A MINIMUM PRICE FOR MILK TO BE DETERMINED FROM
TIME TO TIME BY FORMULA. 

BY THE ORDER THE MARKETING AREA IS DEFINED AS THE CITY OF NEW YORK
AND THE COUNTIES OF NASSAU, SUFFOLK AND WESTCHESTER.  A PRODUCER IS ANY
PERSON PRODUCING MILK DELIVERED TO A HANDLER AT A PLANT APPROVED BY A
HEALTH AUTHORITY FOR THE RECEIVING OF MILK FOR SALE IN THE MARKETING
AREA.  A HANDLER IS A PERSON ENGAGED IN THE HANDLING OF MILK OR CREAM
RECEIVED AT AN APPROVED PLANT FOR SIMILAR SALE.  "HANDLER" INCLUDES
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECTIONS OF THE ORDER
SETTING UP A MILK ADMINISTRATOR AND DEFINING HIS DUTIES ARE NOT
ATTACKED.  NOR ARE THOSE WHICH CLASSIFY MILK. 

ARTICLE IV IS IMPORTANT SINCE IT ESTABLISHES MINIMUM PRICES FOR
MILK.  THERE ARE VARIOUS DIFFERENTIALS BASED UPON USE, BUTTER FAT
CONTENT, AND DISTANCES BETWEEN THE POINTS OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
WHICH IT IS UNNECESSARY TO ANALYZE.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS OPINION
IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY, AS AN EXAMPLE, THAT THE MINIMUM PRICE EACH
HANDLER SHOULD PAY FOR MILK IS FIXED BY A FORMULA WHICH VARIES WITH THE
BUTTER-PRICE RANGE FOR 92-SCORE BUTTER AT WHOLESALE IN THE NEW YORK
MARKET DURING THE 60 DAYS PRECEDING THE 25TH DAY OF THE PRECEDING
MONTH.  THE HANDLERS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE REPORTS AS TO THEIR RECEIPTS
AND UTILIZATION OF MILK OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES.  IT SHOULD BE
UNDERSTOOD, HOWEVER, THAT THIS MINIMUM PRICE IS NOT THE AMOUNT WHICH
THE PRODUCER RECEIVES BUT THE PRICE LEVEL OR SO-CALLED "VALUE" FROM
WHICH IS CALCULATED THE ACTUAL AMOUNT IN DOLLARS AND CENTS WHICH HE IS
TO RECEIVE. 

BY ARTICLE VI A UNIFORM PRICE IS COMPUTED AND IT IS THIS UNIFORM
PRICE WHICH THE PRODUCER IS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE PROPRIETARY
(NONCOOPERATIVE) HANDLERS.  THE UNIFORM PRICE IS DETERMINED BY A
COMPUTATION WHICH IN SUBSTANCE MULTIPLIES THE AMOUNT OF MILK
(CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO ITS USE) RECEIVED BY ALL HANDLERS, LESS
CERTAIN QUANTITIES OF MILK PERMITTED TO BE DEDUCTED, BY THE MINIMUM
PRICES FIXED BY ARTICLE IV FOR THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MILK.  FROM THE
RESULT VARIOUS PAYMENTS AND RESERVATIONS ARE DEDUCTED AND THE REMAINDER
IS DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF MILK RECEIVED.  TO EQUALIZE,
HANDLERS PAY INTO THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND.  WHILE MUCH OVER
SIMPLIFIED THE OPERATION WILL BE MADE CLEAR BY SUMMARIZING THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VII TO REQUIRE THAT HANDLERS SHALL PAY TO THE
PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THEIR PURCHASED MILK
MULTIPLIED BY THE MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE VARIOUS CLASSES IS GREATER
THAN THEIR PURCHASED MILK MULTIPLIED BY THE UNIFORM PRICE.  WHEN THE
HANDLERS' PURCHASED MILK MULTIPLIED BY THE MINIMUM PRICE IS LESS THAN
WHEN IT IS MULTIPLIED BY THE UNIFORM PRICE, THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT
FUND PAYS THEM THE DIFFERENCE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THEIR PRODUCERS. 
THESE PROVISIONS GIVE UNIFORM PRICES TO ALL PRODUCERS, WITH EXCEPTIONS
TO BE HEREIN STATED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL USE OF MILK FOR THE
PRECEDING PERIOD. 

OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER UPON WHICH AN ATTACK IS MADE WILL BE
POINTED OUT IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS. 

SUSPENSION OF ORDER.  - IT DEVELOPED AT THE ARGUMENT OF THE CAUSES IN
THIS COURT THAT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ON MARCH 18, 1939,  FN15
HAD SUSPENDED ORDER NO. 27 ON ACCOUNT OF THE EFFECT OF THE DECREE BELOW
ON ITS ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.  SEC. 8C (16)(A).  SINCE THIS
SUSPENSION IS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE AND THE ORDER PRESERVES ACCRUED
RIGHTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THIS STEP DOES NOT MAKE THESE PROCEEDINGS
MOOT.  REPORTS OF THEIR RECEIPTS AND CLASSIFIED SALES OF MILK,
ACCOUNTING OF THEIR POOL OBLIGATIONS IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE
UNIFORM PRICE AND SETTLEMENT WITH THEIR PRODUCERS ON THE BASIS OF THE
ORDER, AS WELL AS THE PAYMENT OF MONEY, ARE SOUGHT FROM THE
DEFENDANTS.  THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER AND THE
POWER TO ENFORCE ITS PROVISIONS REMAINS. 

ADOPTION OF THE ORDER.  - BEFORE CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF THE
MARKETING ACT AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER UNDER ATTACK, WE SHALL
EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF THE DEFENDANTS THAT THE ORDER WAS ADOPTED
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REQUIRE A COURT OF EQUITY TO REFUSE TO
ENFORCE IT.  AFTER DEALERS HAD REFUSED OR FAILED TO SIGN THE PROPOSED
MARKETING AGREEMENT, THE SECRETARY CONDUCTED A REFERENDUM UNDER SEC. 8C
(19) TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ISSUANCE OF ORDER NO. 27 WAS APPROVED BY
TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRODUCERS, AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 8C (9).  VIGOROUS
CAMPAIGNS WERE WAGED BY BOTH PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS OF THE ORDER. 
AMONG THE PROPONENTS WERE THE LEAGUE AND THE AGENCY.  AFTER THE VOTE,
THE SECRETARY ON AUGUST 24, 1938, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT,
DETERMINED THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER WAS FAVORED BY AT LEAST TWO
THIRDS OF THE PRODUCERS, AND DECLARED IT EFFECTIVE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1,
1938.  FN16 

THE DEFENDANTS BASE THEIR APPEAL TO THE CONSCIENCE OF THE CHANCELLOR
UPON MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE REFERENDUM WHICH THEY CLAIM AMOUNT TO
FRAUD IN ITS ADOPTION.  THE ALLEGED FRAUD IS SAID TO CONSIST OF
WIDESPREAD PUBLIC MISREPRESENTATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT ALL PRODUCERS
WOULD RECEIVE THE SAME PRICE FOR THEIR MILK AND A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
THE LEAGUE AND OTHERS TO CONVERT THE STATE AND NATIONAL ACTS INTO
INSTRUMENTS FOR THE CREATION OF A MONOPOLY IN LARGE HANDLERS IN THE
SALE OF FLUID MILK IN THE MARKETING AREA. 

THE FINDINGS SUPPORTING THE CHARGES OF MISREPRESENTATION AND
CONSPIRACY MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS DETERMINING THAT THE INTERVENING
PLAINTIFFS, THE LEAGUE AND THE AGENCY, PARTICIPATED ACTIVELY IN
PROPOSING, ADOPTING AND INDUCING BOTH PRODUCERS AND HANDLERS TO ACCEPT
THE ORDER.  IN GREATER DETAIL, THE FINDINGS SHOW THAT THE LEAGUE WAS
INSTRUMENTAL IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE AGENCY; THAT IT HAS
REPRESENTATIVES UPON THE AGENCY'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS; THAT THE AGENCY
HAS ACTED AS AN ORGANIZATION FOR PROMOTING ACTION UNDER BOTH FEDERAL
AND STATE ACTS; THAT BOTH LEAGUE AND AGENCY PUBLISHED PAPERS WHICH GAVE
VIGOROUS SUPPORT TO THE CAMPAIGN FOR APPROVAL OF THE ORDER.  AT THE
TIME OF THE HEARINGS THE AGENCY ISSUED AN EXPLANATORY BOOKLET STATING
THAT AN EQUAL PURCHASING PRICE WOULD BE PAID BY ALL DEALERS FOR MILK OF
THE SAME USE AND THAT EACH PRODUCER WOULD SHARE EQUALLY THE BENEFITS OF
THE FLUID MILK MARKET.  BOTH AGENCY AND LEAGUE ANNOUNCED REPEATEDLY
THAT HANDLERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY A UNIFORM PRICE AND THAT NO
HANDLER WOULD RECEIVE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER THE OTHERS.  THE
AGENCY EXPENDED OVER $63,000 BETWEEN DECEMBER 1, 1937, AND JUNE 1,
1938, AND OVER $45,000 BETWEEN THE LATTER DATE AND SEPTEMBER 1, 1938,
THE DATE THE ORDER WENT INTO EFFECT, AS IT ACTIVELY SUPPORTED THE
FEDERAL-STATE ORDER PROGRAM.  VOTING ON THE ORDER TOOK PLACE AUGUST 18,
19 AND 20.  OF 38,627 VOTES COUNTED AS VALID IN THE REFERENDUM, 33,663
OR 87.1 PERCENT WERE IN FAVOR OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER, AND 4,964
OR 12.9 PERCENT WERE OPPOSED.  OF THE FAVORABLE VOTES, THE LEAGUE CAST
22,287. 

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BEYOND THE COORDINATED ACTIVITIES OF THE AGENCY,
THE LEAGUE AND OTHER COOPERATIVES FOR THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO
MONOPOLIZE BY SECURING THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDER WAS FOUND BY THE
DISTRICT COURT IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER.  COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES
TO COOPERATIVES IN THE ORDER WERE THOUGHT BY IT TO INDICATE AN IMPROPER
INFLUENCE BY THEM IN ITS DRAFTING.  THESE WILL BE DISCUSSED LATER FROM
THE POINT OF VIEW OF THEIR LEGALITY UNDER PERMISSIBLE CLASSIFICATION. 
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE CONSPIRACY TO OBTAIN A MONOPOLY WAS CARRIED
OUT BY COERCIVE TACTICS ON THE PART OF PRODUCERS, UNDER THE LEADERSHIP
OF THE LEAGUE AND THE AGENCY.  THESE TACTICS CONSISTED OF THREATS TO
HANDLERS THAT IF THEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, THE PRODUCERS
WOULD WITHHOLD DELIVERY OF MILK.  THESE SCHEMES, THE LOWER COURT
DETERMINED, WERE SO SUCCESSFUL IN SECURING THE DRAFTING, ADOPTION AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORDER THAT A CONSPIRACY TO MONOPOLIZE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CONTRARY TO THE SHERMAN ACT WAS ESTABLISHED.  IT HELD THAT THE
OCCURRENCE OF THE INCIDENTS JUST DETAILED COMPELLED REFUSAL OF THE
INJUNCTION.  WE DO NOT AGREE. 

WHILE CONSIDERING THE MANNER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDER, THE
VALIDITY OF THE ACT AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER MUST BE ASSUMED. 
THE ORDER WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PRODUCERS FOR APPROVAL AFTER THE
HEARINGS SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE.  THE FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER WITH
EXPLANATORY PAMPHLETS WAS MAILED EACH PROSPECTIVE VOTER.  IN THE FACE
OF THIS FACT, ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RENDER THE
SUBMISSION FUTILE.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY PRODUCER
MISUNDERSTOOD.  A CASUAL SENTENCE IN ONE OF THE PAMPHLETS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND A NUMBER OF OTHER STATEMENTS IN
PUBLICATIONS OF THE LEAGUE AND AGENCY WERE TO THE EFFECT THAT DEALERS
WOULD PAY ALL PRODUCERS THE UNIFORM PRICE FOR MILK.  SUCH ASSERTIONS
NEED THE QUALIFICATIONS GIVEN IN THE ORDER THAT THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE
TO MILK SOLD OUTSIDE THE MARKETING AREA OR TO MILK HANDLED BY
COOPERATIVES.  THE VARIATION FROM THE FACTS IS NOT IMMATERIAL IN VIEW
OF THE VALUE OR VOLUME OF MILK INVOLVED.  BUT THE ORDER, ARTICLE VII,
PLAINLY STATED THAT COOPERATIVES WERE NOT COVERED BY THE PAYMENT
REQUIREMENTS AND IT APPEARED, ALSO, THAT MILK SOLD OUTSIDE THE
MARKETING AREA WAS NOT WITHIN ITS TERMS.  A STUDY OF THE OFFICIAL FORM
OF THE ORDER WOULD HAVE CLEARED UP ANY MISCONCEPTION CREATED BY THE
LANGUAGE.  THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DECLARED THAT THREE-FOURTHS OF
THE PRODUCERS AFFECTED BY THE ORDER APPROVED ITS TERMS.  THE LITIGANTS
DO NOT DENY THAT THREE-FOURTHS OF THE VOTERS VOTED FOR THE INSTITUTION
OF THE ORDER.  THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS TO GO BEHIND THIS
CONCLUSION OF THE SECRETARY TO INQUIRE INTO THE INFLUENCES WHICH CAUSED
THE PRODUCERS TO FAVOR THE RESOLUTION. 

THE COERCION BY THE LEAGUE AND THE AGENCY, EXERCISED UPON THE
HANDLERS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDER TO FORCE OR INDUCE THEM TO
ACQUIESCE IN ITS OPERATION, IS OF THE SAME INDIRECT CHARACTER AS THE
ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION.  IT IS THE PARTISAN COERCION OF THE PRODUCER
SEEKING TO COMPEL DEALER SUPPORT OF THE PLAN BY THE THREAT OF THE USE
OF HIS ECONOMIC POWER OVER HIS OWN MILK.  THE COERCION WAS INEFFECTIVE
UPON THESE DEFENDANTS. PRODUCERS' ORGANIZATIONS URGED IN THEIR PAPERS
AND MEETINGS DIVERSION OF MILK FROM HANDLERS TO INFLUENCE THEM TO AGREE
TO THE ORDER.  SUCH EFFORTS COULD NOT HAVE HAD AN EFFECT ON THE PRIOR
VOTE OF THE PRODUCERS.  IT IS QUITE TRUE THAT THE LEAGUE WHICH ITSELF
CAST TWO-THIRDS OF THE FAVORABLE VOTES WAS IN A POSITION TO CAST MORE
THAN ONE-THIRD OF THE TOTAL QUALIFIED VOTE AGAINST THE ORDER.  THIS
ARISES FROM THE PROVISION OF THE ACT, AUTHORIZING COOPERATIVES TO
EXPRESS THE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL FOR ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS OR
PATRONS.  FN17  THIS IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE PROVISION, AS THE
COOPERATIVE IS THE MARKETING AGENCY OF THOSE FOR WHOM IT VOTES.  IF THE
POWER IS IN THE CONGRESS TO PUT THE ORDER IN EFFECT, THE MANNER OF THE
DEMONSTRATION OF FURTHER APPROVAL IS LIKEWISE UNDER ITS CONTROL.  THESE
ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS OF MILK HAVE A VITAL INTEREST IN THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EFFICIENT MARKETING SYSTEM.  THIS ADEQUATELY
EXPLAINS THEIR INTEREST IN SECURING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDER BELIEVED
BY THEM TO BE FAVORABLE FOR THIS PURPOSE.  IF ULTERIOR MOTIVES OF
CORPORATE AGGRANDIZEMENT STIMULATED THEIR ACTIVITIES, THEIR EFFORTS
WERE NOT THEREBY RENDERED UNLAWFUL.  FN18  IF THE ACT AND ORDER ARE
OTHERWISE VALID, THE FACT THAT THEIR EFFECT WOULD BE TO GIVE
COOPERATIVES A MONOPOLY OF THE MARKET WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE SHERMAN ACT
OR JUSTIFY THE REFUSAL OF THE INJUNCTION. 

CORRELATION OF ORDER AND ACT.  THERE IS ANOTHER PHASE OF THE ARGUMENT
AGAINST THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT OR
ITS APPLICATION IN THE ORDER AND THEREFORE IS READY FOR DISPOSITION
BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS NEED BE REACHED.  DEFENDANTS
CONTEND THERE IS NO STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE SECTIONS OF THE ORDER
EXEMPTING COOPERATIVES FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE UNIFORM PRICE  FN19  AND
AUTHORIZING PAYMENTS TO THEM AND CERTAIN HANDLERS FROM THE PRODUCER
SETTLEMENT FUND.  FN20 

THE GOVERNMENT MAKES THE POINT THAT NONE OF THE DEFENDANTS, ALL
HANDLERS, CAN OBJECT TO THESE TERMS OF THE ORDER BECAUSE ONLY PRODUCERS
DELIVERING MILK TO COOPERATIVES ARE AFFECTED BY THE EXEMPTION OF
COOPERATIVE HANDLERS FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO PAY AT NOT LESS THAN THE
UNIFORM PRICE AND ONLY PRODUCERS ARE AFFECTED BY THE USE OF THE POOLED
MONEY FOR SECS. 5 AND 6 PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVE AND OTHER HANDLERS. 
ALTHOUGH THREE OF THE DEFENDANTS CANNOT COMPLAIN OF THE BENEFITS
CONFERRED UPON COOPERATIVES, FOR THEY ARE COOPERATIVES, THE DEFENDANT
JETTER DAIRY COMPANY HAS STANDING TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF WANT OF
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO EXCEPT COOPERATIVE HANDLERS FROM THE PAYMENT OF
THE UNIFORM PRICE.  IT IS A PROPRIETARY CORPORATION, A HANDLER OF MILK,
REQUIRED BY THE ORDER TO PAY UNIFORM PRICES FOR THE MILK IT PURCHASES. 
FN21  THIS REQUIREMENT TO PAY UNIFORM PRICES ARISES FROM THE PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLE IV THAT IT SHALL PAY MINIMUM PRICES.  THE TWO ARE THE SAME
EXCEPT FOR THE DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN SERVICE PAYMENTS.  THE COOPERATIVES
ARE EXCEPTED FROM THE PAYMENT.  THE BURDEN OF PAYMENT IS LAID DIRECTLY
UPON JETTER WHILE OTHERS ARE EXCEPTED.  NONE OF THE DEFENDANTS, ON THE
OTHER HAND, IS IN A POSITION TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF LACK OF STATUTORY
AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENTS AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE VII, SECS. 5 AND 6. 
WHETHER COOPERATIVE OR NOT, THE DEFENDANT CORPORATIONS HAVE NO
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND.  ALL DEFENDANTS PAY
INTO, OR DRAW OUT OF, THAT FUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR UTILIZATION OF
THE MILK DELIVERED TO THEM BY THEIR PATRONS.  THE DEFENDANTS' PROFIT OR
LOSS DEPENDS UPON THE SPREAD EACH RECEIVES BETWEEN THE CLASS PRICE AND
SALE PRICE.  IF THE DEDUCTIONS FROM THE FUND ARE SMALL OR NOTHING, THE
PATRON RECEIVES A HIGHER UNIFORM PRICE BUT THE HANDLER IS NOT
AFFECTED.  FN22 

WE NOW CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACT AUTHORIZES THE EXCEPTION OF THE
COOPERATIVES FROM THE UNIFORM PAYMENT PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VII, SEC.
1.  THIS AUTHORITY, IF IT EXISTS, IS IN SEC. 8C (5)(F) OF THE ACT.  THE
EARLIER PARAGRAPHS PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID BY HANDLERS TO
PRODUCERS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, SUBJECT TO USUAL QUALITY AND
LOCATION DIFFERENTIALS NOT IMPORTANT HERE.  THESE WOULD REQUIRE MINIMUM
PRICES TO BE PAID BY COOPERATIVES WHEN, AS HERE, THEY WERE HANDLERS
UNDER THE DEFINITION OF THE ORDER,  FN23  WERE IT NOT FOR THE EXCEPTION
OF THESE SAME COOPERATIVES UNDER SUBSECTION (F):  "NOTHING  ...  SHALL
...  PREVENT A COOPERATIVE  ...  FROM ...  MAKING DISTRIBUTION THEREOF
(NET PROCEEDS)  ...  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
ASSOCIATION AND ITS PRODUCERS."  THIS LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY PERMITS,
INDEED REQUIRES, THE ORDER TO EXCEPT COOPERATIVES FROM THE REQUIREMENT
OF PAYING MINIMUM PRICES TO PRODUCERS.  AS THE MINIMUM PRICE IS PAID TO
THE PRODUCER THROUGH THE PAYMENT OF THE UNIFORM PRICE, AFTER
EQUALIZATION IN THE POOL, THERE IS AUTHORITY IN THE ACT TO EXCEPT THE
COOPERATIVE FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE UNIFORM PRICE. 

                       I. TERMS OF THE ORDER. 

CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER WERE FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO
SHOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ONE OR MORE OF THE
DEFENDANTS.  THE DISCRIMINATIONS OF WHICH COMPLAINT IS MADE ARISE FROM
THE APPLICATION TO THE NEW YORK PROBLEM OF SEC. 8C (5) OF THE ACT
RELATING TO MILK. 

A. UNIFORM PRICE.  - THE JETTER DAIRY COMPANY, A PROPRIETARY HANDLER,
URGES THAT AS MILK COOPERATIVES NEED NOT PAY PRODUCERS A UNIFORM PRICE,
IT IS UNREASONABLY DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE IT TO PAY THIS UNIFORM PRICE. 
IN SEC. 8C (5)(F) THERE IS A DEFINITION OF THE TYPE OF COOPERATIVE
PERMITTED TO SETTLE WITH ITS MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEMBERSHIP
CONTRACT.  THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COOPERATIVES ARE WELL
UNDERSTOOD.  THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT DEFINES SUCH COOPERATIVES AS
ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, CORPORATE OR OTHERWISE, WITH OR WITHOUT
CAPITAL STOCK, MARKETING THEIR PRODUCT FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF THE
MEMBERS AS PRODUCERS WITH EQUAL VOTING PRIVILEGES, RESTRICTED DIVIDENDS
ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED AND DEALINGS LIMITED TO 50 PERCENT NON-MEMBER
PRODUCTS.  FN24  DIFFERENT TREATMENT HAS BEEN ACCORDED MARKETING
COOPERATIVES BY STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION ALIKE.  FN25  INDEED THE
SECRETARY IS CHARGED BY THIS ACT TO "ACCORD SUCH RECOGNITION AND
ENCOURAGEMENT TO PRODUCER-OWNED AND PRODUCER-CONTROLLED COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATIONS AS WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE POLICY TOWARD COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATIONS SET FORTH IN EXISTING ACTS OF CONGRESS, AND AS WILL TEND
TO PROMOTE EFFICIENT METHODS OF MARKETING AND DISTRIBUTION."  FN26
THESE AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES ARE THE MEANS BY WHICH FARMERS AND
STOCKMEN ENTER INTO THE PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THEIR CROPS AND
LIVESTOCK.  THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN SUCH COOPERATIVES AND BUSINESS
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN HELD TO JUSTIFY DIFFERENT
TREATMENT.  FN27  FROST COMMISSION  FN28  IN FACT RECOGNIZED THE
VALIDITY OF SUCH CLASSIFICATION.  THE COMMISSION WAS ENJOINED FROM
ISSUING A LICENSE FOR THE OPERATION OF A COOPERATIVE COTTON GIN, UNDER
A PROVISO DIRECTING IT TO DO SO ON PETITION OF 100 CITIZENS AND
TAXPAYERS WITHOUT THE SHOWING OF PUBLIC NECESSITY REQUIRED FOR OTHER
GINNERS.  THE APPLICANT WAS ORGANIZED FOR PROFIT, THOUGH DIVIDENDS WERE
LIMITED, AND ITS MEMBERSHIP WAS NOT CONFINED TO PRODUCERS.  THE COURT
THOUGHT THE DISTINCTIONS HAD NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE SUBJECT OF
THE LEGISLATION, SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR COOPERATIVES.  IT WAS SAID
THE COURT HAD "NO REASON TO DOUBT" THAT THE CLASSIFICATION WAS VALID AS
APPLIED TO TRUE COOPERATIVES.  FN29 

THE PRODUCER COOPERATIVE SEEKS TO RETURN TO ITS MEMBERS THE LARGEST
POSSIBLE PORTION OF THE DOLLAR NECESSARILY SPENT BY THE CONSUMER FOR
THE PRODUCT WITH DEDUCTIONS ONLY FOR MODEST DISTRIBUTION COSTS, WITHOUT
PROFIT TO THE MEMBERSHIP COOPERATIVE AND WITH LIMITED PROFIT TO THE
STOCK COOPERATIVE.  IT IS ORGANIZED BY PRODUCERS FOR THEIR MUTUAL
BENEFIT.  FN30  FOR THAT REASON, IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT IT WILL SEEK TO
DISTRIBUTE THE LARGEST AMOUNTS TO ITS PATRONS. 

THE COMMODITY HANDLED BY A COOPERATIVE CORRESPONDS FOR SOME PURPOSES
TO THE CAPITAL OF A BUSINESS CORPORATION.  EITHER MAY CUT SALE PRICES
BELOW COST, ONE AS LONG AS ITS MEMBERS WILL DELIVER, THE OTHER AS LONG
AS ITS ASSETS PERMIT.  WHEN PROPRIETARY CORPORATIONS LOWER SALES
PRICES, THEY NATURALLY SEEK TO LOWER PURCHASE PRICES.  THEIR PROFIT
DEPENDS ON SPREAD.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COOPERATIVE CANNOT PASS THE
REDUCTION.  ALL THE SELLING PRICE LESS EXPENSE IS AVAILABLE FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO ITS PATRONS.  AS ITS OWN MEMBERS BEAR THE BURDEN OF
PRICE CUTTING, IT WAS REASONABLE TO EXEMPT IT FROM THE PAYMENT OF THE
FIXED PRICE.  THE COOPERATIVE MEMBER MEASURES HIS RETURN BY THE MARKET
OR UNIFORM PRICE THE BUSINESS HANDLER PAYS.  IN COMMODITIES WITH THE
WIDE MARKET OF STAPLE DAIRY PRODUCTS, QUOTATIONS ARE READILY
AVAILABLE.  IF DISTRIBUTIONS DO NOT EQUAL OPEN PRICES, THE COOPERATORS'
REACTIONS WOULD PARALLEL THOSE OF STOCKHOLDERS OF LOSING BUSINESSES. 
NEITHER THE ACT NOR THE ORDER PROTECTS ANYONE FROM LAWFUL COMPETITION,
NOR IS IT ESSENTIAL THAT THEY SHOULD DO SO.  FN31  WE DO NOT FIND AN
UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION IN EXCEPTING PRODUCERS' COOPERATIVES FROM
THE REQUIREMENT TO PAY A UNIFORM PRICE. 

B. UNPRICED MILK.  ANOTHER DISCRIMINATION IS SAID TO RESIDE IN THAT
PART OF THE ORDER WHICH LIMITS MINIMUM PRICES TO MILK "SOLD IN THE
MARKETING AREA OR WHICH PASSES THROUGH A PLANT IN THE MARKETING AREA." 
OTHER MILK, THOUGH FROM THE SAME PRODUCTION AREA, IS "UNPRICED MILK"
AND DOES NOT FIGURE IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE UNIFORM PRICE.  WHERE
BOTH PRICED AND UNPRICED MILK ARE DEALT IN BY A HANDLER, HE MUST
FURNISH A STATEMENT TO THE PRODUCER SHOWING THE PERCENTAGE OF HIS MILK
PAID FOR AT THE UNIFORM PRICE.  FN32  THE DEFENDANTS HANDLE ONLY MILK
WHICH IS SOLD IN THE MARKETING AREA.  THEY ASSERT THAT AN UNREASONABLE
DISCRIMINATION RESULTS IN FAVOR OF HANDLERS, SUCH AS THE LEAGUE, WHICH
MARKET MILK BOTH IN AND OUTSIDE THE MARKETING AREA. 

THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT IS THAT LARGE DEALERS AND COOPERATIVE
HANDLERS WITH EXTENSIVE GATHERING AND DISTRIBUTING FACILITIES ARE
PERMITTED TO PURCHASE MILK THROUGHOUT THE MILK SHED AT ANY PRICE THEY
PLEASE, IF THE MILK DOES NOT PASS THROUGH A PLANT IN THE MARKETING
AREA, AND SELL IT AT ANY PRICE THEY PLEASE, PROVIDED THE SALE IS
OUTSIDE THE LIMITED NEW YORK MARKETING AREA.  BY REASON OF THE FACT
THAT MILK SELLS FOR MORE IN NEW JERSEY THAN IN NEW YORK, A GREATER
PROFIT IS MADE BY THE HANDLER.  IF HE SO DESIRES, THE HANDLER CAN USE
THIS PROFIT TO REPLACE LOSSES ON NEW YORK AREA SALES AND STILL BE IN A
POSITION TO PAY THE UNIFORM PRICE TO PRODUCERS ON POOL MILK.  THIS IS
SAID TO CREATE A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS. 

IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE HANDLERS WITH UNPRICED MILK TO USE THEIR
PROFITS FROM THE PROFITABLE EXTRA AREA TRADE IN THE WAY SUGGESTED.  IT
WAS EQUALLY POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO SO BEFORE THE ORDER.  IT IS A
COMPETITIVE SITUATION WHICH THE ORDER DID NOT CREATE AND WITH WHICH IT
DOES NOT DEAL.  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION BY
REASON OF THIS SITUATION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT HANDLERS OF UNPRICED MILK "ARE
PERMITTED TO BLEND PRICES PAID OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN PAID FOR SUCH
MILK SOLD IN OTHER MARKETS, WITH THE UNIFORM PRICE ANNOUNCED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR MILK SOLD IN THE AREA, THEREBY REDUCING THE ACTUAL
PRICE PAID BY SUCH HANDLERS, FOR MILK SOLD IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA, IN
COMPETITION WITH MILK SOLD BY THE DEFENDANTS."  "IF THE PRICE FIGURED
BY THE HANDLER FOR UNPRICED MILK, IS LOWER THAN ITS ACTUAL MARKET
VALUE, THE HANDLER, BY BLENDING, IS THEREBY PERMITTED TO PAY PRODUCERS
FOR ALL MILK AT LESS THAN THE ORDER PRICE, AND LESS THAN THE ACTUAL
VALUE THEREOF."  IT IS ERRONEOUS TO SUPPOSE THAT BY BUYING SOME MILK AT
LESS THAN THE MINIMUM, THE "ACTUAL PRICE" PAID FOR MILK SOLD IN THE
MARKETING AREA IS REDUCED.  THE PRICE PAID FOR ALL MILK SOLD BY
PROPRIETARY HANDLERS IN THAT AREA IS THE UNIFORM PRICE.  UNPRICED MILK
FROM THE SAME PRODUCER MAY BE BOUGHT FOR LESS.  THE AVERAGE PAID THE
PRODUCER MAY BE BELOW THE MINIMUM BUT FOR THE PART SOLD IN THE
MARKETING AREA OR PASSING THROUGH PLANTS THERE LOCATED THE MINIMUM IS
PAID.  THIS IS ALL THAT JUSTIFIES THE LANGUAGE OF THE FINDING THAT "THE
HANDLER, BY BLENDING, IS THEREBY PERMITTED TO PAY PRODUCERS FOR ALL
MILK AT LESS THAN THE ORDER PRICE.  ...  " 

C. NEARBY DIFFERENTIALS.  PROVISION IS MADE BY THE ORDER FOR SPECIAL
DIFFERENTIALS OF 20 CENTS ON MILK FROM CERTAIN COUNTIES LOCATED MOST
FAVORABLY TO THE MARKETING AREA.  FN33  THIS IS TO ENABLE HANDLERS TO
PAY THE PRODUCERS AT THESE PLANTS.  FN34  THE FIVE CENT DIFFERENCE IS
ABSORBED BY THE HANDLERS.  THE ACT AUTHORIZES SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT. 
SEC. 8C (5)(A).  THIS WAS FOUND DISCRIMINATORY AS BETWEEN PRODUCERS BY
THE DISTRICT COURT BUT THERE WAS NO FINDING OR CONCLUSION OF LAW AS TO
ANY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DEFENDANTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS OF THE
OPINION THIS WAS UNFAIR TO THESE DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE NO PATRONS IN
THESE COUNTIES.  HERE THE DEFENDANTS URGE FURTHER ADVANTAGES FROM THIS
ARRANGEMENT TO THEIR COMPETITORS WHO HAVE PATRONS IN THESE COUNTIES
BECAUSE NEAR LOCATIONS, FREIGHT DIFFERENTIALS CONSIDERED, HAVE LOWER
TRANSPORTATION COSTS.  THE DIFFERENTIAL INCREASES MILK PRICES TO THE
PRODUCERS.  THIS PAYMENT TENDS TO STIMULATE PRODUCTION.  LARGER
PRODUCTION MEANS MORE BENEFIT FROM THE FREIGHT ADVANTAGE TO
COMPETITORS.  THE DISCRIMINATION SEEMS FANCIFUL AND REMOTE.  IT WOULD
NOT JUSTIFY A COURT IN OVERTURNING THE SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION OF THE
PROPRIETY OF THE DIFFERENTIALS ON EVIDENCE FOUND BY THE LOWER COURT TO
BE SUBSTANTIAL.  SUCH AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION CARRIES A
PRESUMPTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF FACTS JUSTIFYING THE ACTION
FAR TOO STRONG TO BE OVERTURNED BY SUCH SUGGESTIONS AS ARE MADE HERE. 
FN35

         II.  CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT. 

A. MINIMUM PRICES.  THE ACT AUTHORIZES AND THE ORDER UNDERTAKES THE
FIXING OF MINIMUM PRICES FOR THE PURCHASE OF MILK "IN THE CURRENT OF
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR WHICH DIRECTLY BURDENS, OBSTRUCTS,
OR AFFECTS, INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE" IN MILK.  FN36  THERE IS NO
CHALLENGE TO THE FACT THAT THE MILK OF ALL FOUR DEFENDANTS REACHES THE
MARKETING AREA THROUGH THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NOR IS ANY
QUESTION RAISED AS TO THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE
DISTRIBUTION IN THE AREA OF THE WHOLLY INTRASTATE MILK.  IT IS
RECOGNIZED THAT THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY COVERS THE SALES OF THIS MILK, AS
ITS MARKETING IS INEXTRICABLY INTERMINGLED WITH AND DIRECTLY AFFECTS
THE MARKETING IN THE AREA OF THE MILK WHICH MOVES ACROSS STATE LINES. 
FN37    THE CHALLENGE IS TO THE REGULATION "OF THE PRICE TO BE PAID
UPON THE SALE BY A DAIRY FARMER WHO DELIVERS HIS MILK TO SOME COUNTRY
PLANT."  IT IS URGED THAT THE SALE, A LOCAL TRANSACTION, IS FULLY
COMPLETED BEFORE ANY INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEGINS AND THAT THE ATTEMPT TO
FIX THE PRICE OR OTHER ELEMENTS OF THAT INCIDENT VIOLATES THE TENTH
AMENDMENT.  BUT WHERE COMMODITIES ARE BOUGHT FOR USE BEYOND STATE
LINES, THE SALE IS A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN38  WE HAVE
LIKEWISE HELD THAT WHERE SALES FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION WERE
COMMINGLED WITH INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS, THE EXISTENCE OF THE LOCAL
ACTIVITY DID NOT INTERFERE WITH THE FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE
INSPECTION OF THE WHOLE.  FN39  ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED WITHIN STATE LINES
DO NOT BY THIS FACT ALONE ESCAPE THE SWEEP OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE DEPENDENT UPON THEM.  FN40 POWER TO
ESTABLISH QUOTAS FOR INTERSTATE MARKETING GIVES POWER TO NAME QUOTAS
FOR THAT WHICH IS TO BE LEFT WITHIN THE STATE OF PRODUCTION.  FN41
WHERE LOCAL AND FOREIGN MILK ALIKE ARE DRAWN INTO A GENERAL PLAN FOR
PROTECTING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE COMMODITY FROM THE
INTERFERENCES, BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS, ARISING FROM EXCESSIVE SURPLUS
AND THE SOCIAL AND SANITARY EVILS OF LOW VALUES, THE POWER OF THE
CONGRESS EXTENDS ALSO TO THE LOCAL SALES. 

THIS POWER OVER COMMERCE WHEN IT EXISTS IS COMPLETE AND PERFECT. 
FN42  IT HAS BEEN EXERCISED TO FIX A WAGE SCALE FOR A LIMITED PERIOD,
FN43  RAILROAD TARIFFS  FN44  AND FEES AND CHARGES FOR LIVE-STOCK
EXCHANGES.  FN45 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES
NOT DIFFER IN EXTENT OR CHARACTER FROM THAT RETAINED BY THE STATES OVER
INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  SINCE MUNN V. ILLINOIS, THIS COURT HAS HAD
OCCASION REPEATEDLY TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE ACTION OF STATES IN
REGULATING PRICES.  FN46  RECENTLY, UPON A REEXAMINATION OF THE GROUNDS
OF STATE POWER OVER PRICES, THAT POWER WAS PHRASED BY THIS COURT TO
MEAN THAT "UPON PROPER OCCASION AND BY APPROPRIATE MEASURES THE STATE
MAY REGULATE A BUSINESS IN ANY OF ITS ASPECTS, INCLUDING THE PRICES TO
BE CHARGED FOR THE PRODUCTS OR COMMODITIES IT SELLS."  FN47 

THE POWER OF A STATE TO FIX THE PRICE OF MILK HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY
THIS COURT.  FN48  THE PEOPLE OF GREAT CITIES DEPEND LARGELY UPON AN
ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PURE FRESH MILK.  SO ESSENTIAL IS IT FOR HEALTH THAT
THE CONSUMER HAS BEEN WILLING TO FOREGO UNRESTRICTED COMPETITION FROM
LOW COST TERRITORY TO BE ASSURED OF THE PRODUCER'S COMPLIANCE WITH
SANITARY REQUIREMENTS, AS ENFORCED BY THE MUNICIPAL HEALTH
AUTHORITIES.  IT BELONGS TO THAT CATEGORY OF COMMODITIES THAT FOR MANY
YEARS HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE STATE.  A
THOROUGH EXPOSITION OF THE MILK SITUATION IN THE NEW YORK SHED WAS MADE
IN THE NEBBIA CASE.  THERE IS NOTHING TO ADD TO WHAT WAS THERE SAID,
SAVE TO POINT OUT THAT SINCE THAT DECISION, WE HAVE HELD THAT A STATE
CANNOT PROHIBIT THE SALE OF IMPORTED MILK WHERE THE EXTRA-STATE
PURCHASE PRICE WAS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM FN49  AND THAT A
PENNSYLVANIA REGULATORY LAW, INCLUDING MINIMUM PRICES, APPLIED IN THE
ABSENCE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO MILK PURCHASED IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR
SHIPMENT INTO THE NEW YORK MARKETING AREA.  FN50  IN HEGEMAN FARMS
CORP. V. BALDWIN,  FN51  THIS COURT SUSTAINED AGAIN THE NEW YORK MILK
CONTROL STATUTE AGAINST THE COMPLAINT THAT THE PRICE LIMITS WERE
ARBITRARY.  A VARIATION IN PRICES TO BE CHARGED THE CONSUMER BETWEEN
DEALERS WHO HAD AND DEALERS WHO HAD NOT WELL ADVERTISED TRADE NAMES WAS
UPHELD.  FN52  THE POWER ENJOYED BY THE STATES TO REGULATE THE PRICES
FOR HANDLING AND SELLING COMMODITIES WITHIN THEIR INTERNAL COMMERCE
FN53  RESTS WITH THE CONGRESS IN THE COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES. 

B. EQUALIZATION POOL.  - IN ORDER TO EQUALIZE THE PRICES RECEIVED BY
PRODUCERS, HANDLERS ARE REQUIRED TO CLEAR THEIR PURCHASES THROUGH THE
PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND.  PAYMENTS INTO AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THIS FUND
DEPEND UPON THE "VALUE" OF THE MILK RECEIVED WHICH IS FIXED BY THE
ORDER AT DIFFERENT PRICES GOVERNED BY THE USE MADE BY THE HANDLER OF
THE PURCHASED MILK AND UPON WHETHER HIS OBLIGATIONS TO PRODUCERS ARE
GREATER OR LESS THAN THE UNIFORM PRICE DUE THE PRODUCERS UNDER THE
SCHEME.  THE RESULT OF THE USE OF THE DEVICE OF AN EQUALIZATION POOL IS
THAT EACH PRODUCER, DEALING WITH A PROPRIETARY HANDLER, GETS A UNIFORM
OR WEIGHTED AVERAGE PRICE FOR HIS MILK, WITH DIFFERENTIALS FOR QUALITY,
LOCATION OR OTHER USUAL MARKET VARIATIONS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MANNER
OF ITS USE.  THE ACT, SEC. 8C (5)(B)(II) AND (C) AND THE ORDER,
ARTICLES IV, VI AND VII, AUTHORIZE SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT. 

THE DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO THE EQUALIZATION POOL, HERE CONSIDERED,
IS NOT TO THE DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE FUND FOR EXPENSES OF STANDBY OR
MARKETING SERVICES AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE VII, SECS. 5 AND 6, CONCERNING
WHICH WE HOLD THE HANDLER HAS NO STANDING TO COMPLAIN.  IT IS TO THE
ALLEGED DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY ACCOMPLISHED BY THE POOLING
REQUIREMENT IN TAKING AWAY FROM THE DEFENDANTS THEIR RIGHT TO ACQUIRE
MILK FROM THEIR PATRONS AT THE MINIMUM CLASS PRICE, ACCORDING TO ITS
USE, AND FORCING THE HANDLERS TO PAY THEIR SURPLUS, OVER THE UNIFORM
PRICE, TO THE EQUALIZATION POOL INSTEAD OF TO THEIR PATRONS.  THIS
ARGUMENT ASSUMES THE VALIDITY OF PRICE REGULATION, AS SUCH, BUT DENIES
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE POOLING ARRANGEMENT BECAUSE HANDLERS ARE
NOT AT LIBERTY TO PAY THE PRODUCER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USE OF THE
PRODUCER'S MILK BUT MUST DISTRIBUTE THE SURPLUS TO OTHERS WHOSE MILK
WAS RESOLD LESS ADVANTAGEOUSLY.  IT IS URGED THAT TO CARRY THIS
PRINCIPLE OF CONTRIBUTION TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION WOULD MEAN THAT THE
WAGES OF THE EMPLOYED SHOULD BE SHARED WITH THE UNEMPLOYED; THE HIGHLY
PAID, WITH THE UNDERPAID; AND THE RECEIPTS OF THE ABLE, THE FORTUNATE
AND THE DILIGENT, WITH THE INCOMPETENT, THE UNLUCKY AND THE DRONE. 

NO SUCH EXAGGERATED EQUALIZATION OF WEALTH AND OPPORTUNITY IS
PROPOSED.  THE POOL IS ONLY A DEVICE REASONABLY ADAPTED TO ALLOW
REGULATION OF THE INTERSTATE MARKET UPON TERMS WHICH MINIMIZE THE
RESULTS OF THE RESTRICTIONS.  IT IS ANCILLARY TO THE PRICE REGULATION
DESIGNED, AS IS THE PRICE PROVISION, TO FOSTER, PROTECT AND ENCOURAGE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY SMOOTHING OUT THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE SURPLUS
AND CUT-THROAT COMPETITION WHICH BURDENED THIS MARKETING.  IN MULFORD
V. SMITH,  FN54 WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT VOLUME OF COMMODITY MOVEMENT
MIGHT BE CONTROLLED OR DISCOURAGED.  AS THE CONGRESS WOULD HAVE,
CLEARLY, THE RIGHT TO PERMIT ONLY LIMITED AMOUNTS OF MILK TO MOVE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION IT MIGHT PERMIT THE MOVEMENT
ON TERMS OF POOL SETTLEMENT HERE PROVIDED. 

COMMON FUNDS FOR EQUALIZING RISKS ARE NOT UNKNOWN AND HAVE NOT BEEN
CONSIDERED VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.  THE POOLING PRINCIPLE WAS UPHELD
IN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,  FN55  BANK DEPOSIT INSURANCE,  FN56  AND
DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS IN THE TRANSPORTATION ACT.  FN57 

THE DEFENDANTS RELY PARTICULARLY UPON THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS
UTILITIES CORP.,  FN58  AND RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO.
FN59  IN THE THOMPSON CASE, THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION ORDERED
PRORATION OF GAS PRODUCTION IN THE PANHANDLE.  IT WAS ASSUMED THAT
PRORATION TO PREVENT WASTE AND PROTECT CORRELATIVE RIGHTS IN A POOL WAS
VALID BUT IT WAS HELD THAT THE PRORATION ORDER IN ISSUE WAS FOR NONE OF
THESE PURPOSES.  IT WAS FOR THE "SOLE PURPOSE  ...  TO COMPEL THOSE
(WITH MARKET OUTLETS)  ...  TO PURCHASE GAS FROM POTENTIAL PRODUCERS"
WHO HAVE NO MARKET.  THIS WAS NOT DEEMED TO BE REASONABLY RELATED TO
THE CONSERVATION OF GAS OR THE PROTECTION OF CORRELATIVE RIGHTS.  IN
THE RETIREMENT BOARD CASE, THE POOLING PRINCIPLE WAS INVOLVED BUT WAS
FOUND TO BE INVALID BECAUSE THE BURDENS ON THE ROADS WERE NOT EQUALIZED
WITH THE BENEFITS.  ENTRY ON SERVICE WAS MADE AT DIFFERENT AGE LEVELS
FOR DIFFERENT ROADS.  EMPLOYEES SEVENTY OR OLDER WERE REQUIRED TO
RETIRE.  SOME ROADS HAD NONE.  SOLVENT AND INSOLVENT ROADS WERE LIABLE
ALIKE.  ALL CARRIERS WERE TREATED AS A SINGLE EMPLOYER.  IT WAS THESE
PROVISIONS, DEEMED UNEQUAL, WHICH LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MANNER
OF POOLING OF FUNDS DENIED DUE PROCESS.  IN THIS CASE, THE POOLING HAS
DIFFERENTIALS TO COVER THE VARIATIONS OF QUALITY AND LOCATION. 

C. DELEGATION.  - THERE ARE THREE ISSUES OF DELEGATION PRESENTED:
(1) THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO
ESTABLISH MARKETING AREAS; (2) THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO PRODUCERS
TO APPROVE A MARKETING ORDER WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT OF HANDLERS; AND (3)
THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO COOPERATIVES TO CAST THE VOTES OF
PRODUCER PATRONS. 

FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS THE CONGRESS HAS BEEN COMPELLED TO LEAVE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE
FACTS WHICH WERE TO PUT LEGISLATION INTO EFFECT AND THE DETAILS OF
REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD IMPLEMENT THE MORE GENERAL ENACTMENTS.  IT IS
WELL SETTLED, THEREFORE, THAT IT IS NO ARGUMENT AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT TO SAY THAT IT DELEGATES BROAD POWERS TO
EXECUTIVES TO DETERMINE THE DETAILS OF ANY LEGISLATIVE SCHEME.  THIS
NECESSARY AUTHORITY HAS NEVER BEEN DENIED.  FN60  IN DEALING WITH
LEGISLATION INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT, EACH ENACTMENT
MUST BE CONSIDERED TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT STATES THE PURPOSE WHICH THE
CONGRESS SEEKS TO ACCOMPLISH AND THE STANDARDS BY WHICH THAT PURPOSE IS
TO BE WORKED OUT WITH SUFFICIENT EXACTNESS TO ENABLE THOSE AFFECTED TO
UNDERSTAND THESE LIMITS.  WITHIN THESE TESTS THE CONGRESS NEEDS SPECIFY
ONLY SO FAR AS IS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE.  FN61  THE PRESENT ACT, WE
BELIEVE, SATISFIES THESE TESTS. 

1.  DELEGATION TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  - THE PURPOSE OF THE
ACT IS "TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN SUCH ORDERLY MARKETING CONDITIONS FOR
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS WILL ESTABLISH
PRICES TO FARMERS AT A LEVEL THAT WILL GIVE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES A
PURCHASING POWER WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLES THAT FARMERS BUY, EQUIVALENT
TO THE PURCHASING POWER OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN THE BASE
PERIOD."  TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IS DIRECTED
TO ISSUE ORDERS, WHENEVER HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THE ISSUANCE OF AN
ORDER WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT.  UNLIKE
THE LANGUAGE OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT CONDEMNED IN THE
SCHECHTER CASE, PAGE 538, THE TESTS HERE TO DETERMINE THE PURPOSE AND
THE POWERS DEPENDENT UPON THAT CONCLUSION ARE DEFINED.  IN THE RECOVERY
ACT THE DECLARATION OF POLICY WAS COUCHED IN MOST GENERAL TERMS.  FN62
IN THIS ACT IT IS TO RESTORE PARITY PRICES, SEC. 2.  UNDER THE RECOVERY
ACT, GENERAL WELFARE MIGHT BE SOUGHT THROUGH CODES OF ANY INDUSTRY,
FORMULATED TO EXPRESS STANDARDS OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE BUSINESSES
COVERED.  HERE THE TERMS OF ORDERS ARE LIMITED TO THE SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS, MINUTELY SET OUT IN SEC. 8C (5) AND (7).  WHILE
CONSIDERABLE FLEXIBILITY IS PROVIDED BY SEC. 8C (7)(D), IT GIVES
OPPORTUNITY ONLY TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS AUXILIARY TO THOSE DEFINITELY
SPECIFIED. 

THE SECRETARY IS NOT PERMITTED FREEDOM OF CHOICE AS TO THE
COMMODITIES WHICH HE MAY ATTEMPT TO AID BY AN ORDER.  THE ACT, SEC. 8C
(2), LIMITS HIM TO MILK, FRESH FRUITS EXCEPT APPLES, TOBACCO, FRESH
VEGETABLES, SOYBEANS AND NAVAL STORES.  THE ACT AUTHORIZES A MARKETING
AGREEMENT AND ORDER TO BE ISSUED FOR SUCH PRODUCTION OR MARKETING
REGIONS OR AREAS AS ARE PRACTICABLE.  A CITY MILKSHED SEEMS
HOMOGENEOUS.  THIS STANDARD OF PRACTICALITY IS A LIMIT ON THE POWER TO
ISSUE ORDERS.  IT DETERMINES WHEN AN ORDER MAY BE PROMULGATED. 

IT IS FURTHER TO BE OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER COULD NOT BE AND WAS NOT
ISSUED UNTIL AFTER THE HEARING AND FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 8C
(4).  PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD AT ALBANY, MALONE, SYRACUSE, ELMIRA,
AND NEW YORK FROM MAY 16 TO JUNE 7, 1938, WITH FOUR DAYS' RECESS. 
NEARLY THREE THOUSAND PAGES OF TESTIMONY WERE INTRODUCED, EIGHTY-EIGHT
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS AND SOME TWENTY BRIEFS BY INTERESTED PARTIES WERE
FILED.  ON JULY 23, 1938, THE SECRETARY, IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER,
NOTIFIED THE PUBLIC OF HIS FINDINGS AND THE TERMS OF THE ORDER AND
AGAIN INVITED COMMENT.  NUMEROUS PARTIES AGAIN FILED BRIEFS.  A RIGHT
BY STATUTE IS GIVEN HANDLERS TO OBJECT TO THE SECRETARY TO ANY
PROVISION OF AN ORDER AS NOT "IN ACORDANCE WITH LAW," WITH THE
PRIVILEGE OF APPEAL TO THE COURTS.  SEC. 8C (15)(A) AND (B).  EVEN
THOUGH PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS CANNOT VALIDATE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION, THEY DO FURNISH PROTECTION AGAINST AN ARBITRARY USE OF
PROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY.  FN63 

A FURTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT IS TO BE NOTED AS IT WAS EMPLOYED AS A
STANDARD TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM PRICE.  THIS IS SEC. 8C (18).  ACTING
UNDER THIS SECTION, THE SECRETARY FIXED A FLUCTUATING MINIMUM PRICE
BASED UPON WHOLESALE BUTTER PRICES IN NEW YORK.  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT
THE DETERMINATION OF PRICE UNDER THIS SECTION HAS A LESS DEFINITE
STANDARD THAN THE PARITY TESTS OF SECS. 2 AND 8E, WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT
IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO LEAVE THIS DETERMINATION TO A
DESIGNATED ADMINISTRATOR, WITH THE STANDARDS NAMED.  THE SECRETARY MUST
HAVE FIRST DETERMINED THE PRICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 2 AND SEC. 8E,
THAT IS, THE PRICES THAT WILL GIVE THE COMMODITY A PURCHASING POWER
EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF THE BASE PERIOD, CONSIDERING THE PRICE AND SUPPLY
OF FEED AND OTHER PERTINENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE MILK
MARKET IN THE AREA.  IF HE FINDS THE PRICE SO DETERMINED UNREASONABLE,
IT IS TO BE FIXED AT A LEVEL WHICH WILL REFLECT SUCH FACTORS, PROVIDE
ADEQUATE QUANTITIES OF WHOLESOME MILK AND BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
THIS PRICE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY MATHEMATICAL FORMULA BUT THE
STANDARDS GIVE AMPLE INDICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS FACTORS TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE SECRETARY.    2.  DELEGATION TO PRODUCERS.  - UNDER
SEC. 8C(9)(B) OF THE ACT IT IS PROVIDED THAT ANY ORDER SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF 50 PERCENT OF THE HANDLERS TO
APPROVE A SIMILAR AGREEMENT, IF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT DETERMINES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE
ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER IS APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRODUCERS
INTERESTED OR BY INTERESTED PRODUCERS OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE VOLUME
PRODUCED FOR THE MARKET OF THE SPECIFIED PRODUCTION AREA.  BY
SUBSECTION 19 IT IS PROVIDED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING
WHETHER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER IS APPROVED "THE SECRETARY MAY
CONDUCT A REFERENDUM AMONG PRODUCERS."  THE OBJECTION IS MADE THAT THIS
IS AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION TO PRODUCERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO PUT
AN ORDER INTO EFFECT IN A MARKET.  IN CONSIDERING THIS QUESTION, WE
MUST ASSUME THAT THE CONGRESS HAD THE POWER TO PUT THIS ORDER INTO
EFFECT WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF ANYONE.  WHETHER PRODUCER APPROVAL BY
ELECTION IS NECESSARY OR NOT, A QUESTION WE RESERVE, A REQUIREMENT OF
SUCH APPROVAL WOULD NOT BE AN INVALID DELEGATION.  FN64 

3.  AUTHORIZATION OF COOPERATIVES TO CAST THE VOTES OF PRODUCER
PATRONS.  - THIS OBJECTION, TOO, FALLS BEFORE THE ANSWERING ARGUMENT
THAT INASMUCH AS CONGRESS COULD PLACE THE ORDER IN EFFECT WITHOUT ANY
VOTE, IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR IT TO PROVIDE FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL
IN SUCH WAY OR MANNER AS IT MAY CHOOSE. 

COOPERATIVES IN THE EQUALIZATION FUND.  - THE DEFENDANT, CENTRAL NEW
YORK COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, DENIES LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLES VI, VII
AND VIII OF THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY ITS
NET POOL OBLIGATION INTO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUND OR TO MEET THE
EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION.  THE ASSERTED REASON FOR ITS FREEDOM FROM
LIABILITY IS THAT IT IS A COOPERATIVE COMPOSED OF MILK PRODUCERS AND
DISTRIBUTES THE MILK OF ITS MEMBERS AND OTHERS AS AGENT. 

THE COOPERATIVE OWNS NO FARMS.  ITS MEMBERS ARE DAIRY FARMERS.  BY
THEIR CONTRACT THEY AGREE "TO DELIVER  ...  ALL  ...  MILK PRODUCED
...  WHICH SAID MILK IS TO BE MARKETED AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE
(COOPERATIVE)  ...  "  THE LATTER "AGREES TO PAY  ...  FOR THE MILK
...  A PRICE  ...  BASED UPON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED  ...  LESS THE
EXPENSES  ...  "  NONMEMBERS' MILK IS MARKETED UNDER THE SAME
CONTRACT.  THE COOPERATIVE LEASES RECEIVING AND DISTRIBUTING FACILITIES
FROM A BUSINESS CORPORATION.  THE MILK IS RECEIVED BY THE COOPERATIVE
AT RECEIVING PLANTS AND SHIPPED TO THE CITY DEPOT.  IT DISTRIBUTES
THROUGH OTHER BUSINESS CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
OF THE COOPERATIVE.  THESE DISTRIBUTING SUBSIDIARIES USE THE LEASED
PHYSICAL FACILITIES UNDER VERBAL CONTRACTS WITH THE COOPERATIVE.  THE
COOPERATIVE RECEIVES THE NET AMOUNT FROM THE SALES AND DISTRIBUTES TO
ITS PATRONS UNDER LICENSE FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF MILK
CONTROL OF NEW YORK PERMITTING THE MARKETING IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED. 

MINIMUM PRICES WHICH ALL HANDLERS SHALL PAY FOR MILK PURCHASED FROM
PRODUCERS.  SECTION 8C (5)(C) AUTHORIZES THE EQUALIZATION POOL AND THE
HANDLERS' PAYMENT TO THIS SETTLEMENT FUND.  IT IS URGED THAT
COOPERATIVES WHICH MERELY ACT AS AGENTS FOR THEIR MEMBERS ARE NOT
INCLUDED IN HANDLERS PURCHASING FROM PRODUCERS.  THIS IS SAID TO BE
DEFINITELY SHOWN BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8C (5)(F) PROVIDING THAT
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE SUBSECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT A
CAPPER-VOLSTEAD COOPERATIVE FROM MAKING DISTRIBUTION TO ITS "PRODUCERS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT."  THE ORDER DEFINES A HANDLER AS
INCLUDING A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION "WITH RESPECT TO ANY MILK RECEIVED
FROM PRODUCERS AT ANY PLANT OPERATED BY SUCH ASSOCIATION OR WITH
RESPECT TO ANY MILK WHICH IT CAUSES TO BE DELIVERED" TO OTHER
HANDLERS.  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER, ARTICLE VII, SECS. 8 AND
9, COOPERATIVE HANDLERS AS OTHER HANDLERS EQUALIZE THEIR PURCHASES BY
PAYMENT INTO THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO PAY THE UNIFORM PRICE TO THEIR PRODUCERS BY REASON OF THE
EXCEPTION OF ARTICLE VII, SEC. 1, AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8C (5)(F),
AS EXPLAINED AT PAGE 561. 

COOPERATIVE CONTRACTS ARE OF TWO GENERAL TYPES, SALE AND AGENCY. 
FN65  THE CENTRAL NEW YORK COOPERATIVE OPERATES UNDER THE AGENCY TYPE. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE USE OF THE WORD "PURCHASED" IN THE ACT, SEC.
8C (5)(A) AND (C), WOULD NOT EXCLUDE THE "SALE" TYPE OF COOPERATIVE. 
WHEN SEC. 8C (5)(F) WAS DRAWN, HOWEVER, IT WAS MADE TO APPLY TO BOTH
THE "SALE" AND "AGENCY" TYPE WITHOUT DISTINCTION.  THIS WOULD INDICATE
THERE HAD BEEN NO INTENTION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES BY (A)
AND (C).  THE SECTION WHICH AUTHORIZES ALL ORDERS, SEC. 8C (1), MAKES
NO DISTINCTION.  THE ORDERS ARE TO BE APPLICABLE TO "PROCESSORS,
ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, AND OTHERS ENGAGED IN THE HANDLING" OF
COMMODITIES.  THE REPORTS ON THE BILL SHOW NO EFFORT TO DIFFERENTIATE. 
FN66  NEITHER DO THE DEBATES IN CONGRESS.  THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR
EQUALIZATION OF THE BURDENS OF SURPLUS WOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY BY
THE EXCEPTION OF "AGENCY" COOPERATIVES.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN TO INCLUDE SUCH ORGANIZATIONS AS HANDLERS.  FN67
WITH THIS WE AGREE.  AS HERE USED THE WORD "PURCHASED" MEANS "ACQUIRED
FOR MARKETING."  SUBSECTION (A) CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS FREEING AGENTS,
COOPERATIVE OR PROPRIETARY, FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO ACCOUNT AT THE
MINIMUM PRICES FOR MILK HANDLED. 

AS A COROLLARY THE CONTENTION IS MADE ALSO BY CENTRAL COOPERATIVE
THAT NO COOPERATIVE MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY ITS SURPLUS RECEIPTS OVER
UNIFORM PRICES INTO THE EQUALIZATION FUND.  THIS, TOO, IS BASED UPON A
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 8C (5)(F) AS PERMITTING A COOPERATIVE TO MAKE
SETTLEMENT WITH ITS MEMBERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF ITS OWN
CONTRACT WITH THEM.  IF THE COOPERATIVE MEMBERS WERE FREED OF THE
BURDEN OF CARRYING THEIR PROPORTION OF MILK GOING TO MANUFACTURING USE,
THE DISCRIMINATION IN THEIR FAVOR WOULD BE MOST STRONGLY MARKED.  SUCH
A CONSTRUCTION IS NOT REQUIRED.  COOPERATIVES ARE COVERED BY SEC. 8C
(1) AND (5)(A) AND (B), AND BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER, EXCEPT AS
TO THE PAYMENT OF THE UNIFORM PRICE.  ANY PAYMENTS BELOW THE UNIFORM
PRICE FALL ON THEIR MEMBERS.  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION IS CORRECT AND THAT THE "NET PROCEEDS" OF
(F) REFER TO THE RESULT OF THE COOPERATIVE SALES IN THE MARKETING AREA
AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE EQUALIZATION REQUIREMENTS. 

THE DEFENDANT, CENTRAL NEW YORK COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, RAISES FOR
ITSELF A FINAL POINT.  IN DETERMINING THE NET POOL OBLIGATION OF ANY
HANDLER FOR MILK RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS,  FN68  THE HANDLER IS
AUTHORIZED TO SUBTRACT PRO RATA OUT OF EACH CLASS FROM THE MILK
INVOLVED IN THE POOL "THE QUANTITY OF MILK RECEIVED FROM THE HANDLER'S
OWN FARM."  WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THIS COOPERATIVE, THOUGH MARKETING
MILK UNDER AN AGENCY CONTRACT WITH ITS MEMBERS, IS A HANDLER SUBJECT TO
THE ACT AND ORDER.  THE COOPERATIVE ARGUES THAT AS ITS MEMBERS,
FARMERS, WOULD NOT NEED TO ACCOUNT TO THE POOL FOR THEIR PERSONAL SALES
TO CONSUMERS, THE COOPERATIVE, BEING UTILIZED AS AN AGENT TO MARKET THE
FARMERS' MILK, IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO EQUALIZATION. 
AS THE COOPERATIVE DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN FARM BUT IS ITSELF A HANDLER
UNDER THE ACT, IT MUST PAY INTO THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND. 

INASMUCH AS ALL THE DEFENDANTS IN THESE APPEALS ARE HANDLING MILK IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE PETITION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF OFFICIAL ORDER
NO. 126, ISSUED UNDER C. 383 OF THE LAWS OF 1937 OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, CONCERNING MILK NOT COVERED BY ORDER NO. 27 OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN NOS. 771, 827 AND 828 IS REVERSED
AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER AN
ORDER SPECIFICALLY ENFORCING UP TO THE TIME OF SUSPENSION THE
PROVISIONS OF ORDER NO. 27, ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
AUGUST 15, 1938, REGULATING THE HANDLING OF MILK IN THE NEW YORK
MARKETING AREA, AS TO ALL THE DEFENDANTS AND ENJOINING DEFENDANTS,
THEIR OFFICERS, AGENTS AND SERVANTS, FROM FURTHER VIOLATION OF THE
ORDER. 

THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN DISMISSING THE PETITION OF HOLTON
V. NOYES, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 3, 1937, 50 STAT. 246. 

FN2  AS AUTHORIZED BY N.Y. LAWS 1937, C. 383.  SEE NOYES V. ERIE &
WYOMING FARMERS CO-OP., 170 MISC. 42; 10 N.Y.S.2D 114. 

FN3  SEC. 2, ACT OF AUG. 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 752; 28 U.S.C. SEC.
349A. 

FN4  PERTINENT PORTIONS OF THE ACT ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

ACT, SEC. 8C (1).  "THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE SHALL, SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, ISSUE, AND FROM TIME TO TIME AMEND,
ORDERS APPLICABLE TO PROCESSORS, ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, AND OTHERS
ENGAGED IN THE HANDLING OF ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY OR PRODUCT
THEREOF SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION.  ...  " 

(2)  "ORDERS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY
TO THE FOLLOWING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND THE PRODUCTS THEREOF
(EXCEPT PRODUCTS OF NAVAL STORES), OR TO ANY REGIONAL, OR MARKET
CLASSIFICATION OF ANY SUCH COMMODITY OR PRODUCT:  MILK, FRUITS
(INCLUDING PECANS AND WALNUTS BUT NOT INCLUDING APPLES AND NOT
INCLUDING FRUITS, OTHER THAN OLIVES, FOR CANNING), TOBACCO, VEGETABLES
(NOT INCLUDING VEGETABLES, OTHER THAN ASPARAGUS, FOR CANNING), SOYBEANS
AND NAVAL STORES AS INCLUDED IN THE NAVAL STORES ACT AND STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED THEREUNDER (INCLUDING REFINED OR PARTIALLY REFINED
OLEORESIN)." 

(3)  "WHENEVER THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED
POLICY OF THIS TITLE WITH RESPECT TO ANY COMMODITY OR PRODUCT THEREOF
SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION, HE SHALL GIVE DUE NOTICE
OF AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING UPON A PROPOSED ORDER." 

(4)  "AFTER SUCH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER IF HE FINDS, AND SETS FORTH IN SUCH
ORDER, UPON THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT SUCH HEARING (IN ADDITION TO
SUCH OTHER FINDINGS AS MAY BE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION)
THAT THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER AND ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
THEREOF WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THIS TITLE WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH COMMODITY." 

(5)  "IN THE CASE OF MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS, ORDERS ISSUED PURSUANT TO
THIS SECTION SHALL CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, AND (EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (7)) NO OTHERS: 

"(A)  CLASSIFYING MILK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORM IN WHICH OR THE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS USED, AND FIXING, OR PROVIDING A METHOD FOR
FIXING, MINIMUM PRICES FOR EACH SUCH USE CLASSIFICATION WHICH ALL
HANDLERS SHALL PAY, AND THE TIME WHEN PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE, FOR MILK
PURCHASED FROM PRODUCERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS.  SUCH PRICES
SHALL BE UNIFORM AS TO ALL HANDLERS, SUBJECT ONLY TO ADJUSTMENTS FOR
(1) VOLUME, MARKET, AND PRODUCTION DIFFERENTIALS CUSTOMARILY APPLIED BY
THE HANDLERS SUBJECT TO SUCH ORDER, (2) THE GRADE OR QUALITY OF THE
MILK PURCHASED, AND (3) THE LOCATIONS AT WHICH DELIVERY OF SUCH MILK,
OR ANY USE CLASSIFICATION THEREOF, IS MADE TO SUCH HANDLERS. 

"(B)  PROVIDING: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(II) FOR THE PAYMENT TO ALL PRODUCERS AND ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS
DELIVERING MILK TO ALL HANDLERS OF UNIFORM PRICES FOR ALL MILK SO
DELIVERED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE USES MADE OF SUCH MILK BY THE INDIVIDUAL
HANDLER TO WHOM IT IS DELIVERED; 

SUBJECT, IN EITHER CASE, ONLY TO ADJUSTMENTS FOR (A) VOLUME, MARKET,
AND PRODUCTION DIFFERENTIALS CUSTOMARILY APPLIED BY THE HANDLERS
SUBJECT TO SUCH ORDER, (B) THE GRADE OR QUALITY OF THE MILK DELIVERED,
(C) THE LOCATIONS AT WHICH DELIVERY OF SUCH MILK IS MADE, AND (D) A
FURTHER ADJUSTMENT, EQUITABLY TO APPORTION THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MILK
PURCHASED BY ANY HANDLER, OR BY ALL HANDLERS, AMONG PRODUCERS AND
ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, ON THE BASIS OF THEIR MARKETINGS OF MILK
DURING A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD OF TIME. 

"(C)  IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS (A)
AND (B) OF THIS SUBSECTION (5), PROVIDING A METHOD FOR MAKING
ADJUSTMENTS IN PAYMENTS, AS AMONG HANDLERS (INCLUDING PRODUCERS WHO ARE
ALSO HANDLERS), TO THE END THAT THE TOTAL SUMS PAID BY EACH HANDLER
SHALL EQUAL THE VALUE OF THE MILK PURCHASED BY HIM AT THE PRICES FIXED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (A) HEREOF. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(F)  NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUBSECTION (5) IS INTENDED OR SHALL
BE CONSTRUED TO PREVENT A COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION QUALIFIED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF FEBRUARY 18, 1922, AS
AMENDED, KNOWN AS THE 'CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT', ENGAGED IN MAKING
COLLECTIVE SALES OR MARKETING OF MILK OR ITS PRODUCTS FOR THE PRODUCERS
THEREOF, FROM BLENDING THE NET PROCEEDS OF ALL ITS SALES IN ALL MARKETS
IN ALL USE CLASSIFICATIONS, AND MAKING DISTRIBUTION THEREOF TO ITS
PRODUCERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION AND
ITS PRODUCERS:  PROVIDED, THAT IT SHALL NOT SELL MILK OR ITS PRODUCTS
TO ANY HANDLER FOR USE OR CONSUMPTION IN ANY MARKET AT PRICES LESS THAN
THE PRICES FIXED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SUBSECTION (5) FOR
SUCH MILK.    "(G)  NO MARKETING AGREEMENT OR ORDER APPLICABLE TO MILK
AND ITS PRODUCTS IN ANY MARKETING AREA SHALL PROHIBIT OR IN ANY MANNER
LIMIT, IN THE CASE OF THE PRODUCTS OF MILK, THE MARKETING IN THAT AREA
OF ANY MILK OR PRODUCT THEREOF PRODUCED IN ANY PRODUCTION AREA IN THE
UNITED STATES." 

(N.B. (6) RELATES TO PRODUCTS OTHER THAN MILK.) 

(7)  "IN THE CASE OF THE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND THE PRODUCTS
THEREOF SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) ORDERS SHALL CONTAIN ONE OR MORE OF
THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:    "(A)  PROHIBITING UNFAIR METHODS
OF COMPETITION AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES IN THE HANDLING THEREOF. 

"(B)  PROVIDING THAT (EXCEPT FOR MILK AND CREAM TO BE SOLD FOR
CONSUMPTION IN FLUID FORM) SUCH COMMODITY OR PRODUCT THEREOF, OR ANY
GRADE, SIZE, OR QUALITY THEREOF SHALL BE SOLD BY THE HANDLERS THEREOF
ONLY AT PRICES FILED BY SUCH HANDLERS IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SUCH
ORDER. 

"(C)  PROVIDING FOR THE SELECTION BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, OR
A METHOD FOR THE SELECTION, OF AN AGENCY OR AGENCIES AND DEFINING THEIR
POWERS AND DUTIES, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE ONLY THE POWERS: 

"(I)  TO ADMINISTER SUCH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS AND
PROVISIONS; 

"(II)  TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO EFFECTUATE THE TERMS AND
PROVISIONS OF SUCH ORDER; 

"(III)  TO RECEIVE, INVESTIGATE, AND REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATIONS OF SUCH ORDER; AND 

"(IV)  TO RECOMMEND TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AMENDMENTS TO
SUCH ORDER. 

NO PERSON ACTING AS A MEMBER OF AN AGENCY ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO
THIS PARAGRAPH (C) SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE ACTING IN AN OFFICIAL
CAPACITY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10(G) OF THIS TITLE, UNLESS
SUCH PERSON RECEIVES COMPENSATION FOR HIS PERSONAL SERVICES FROM FUNDS
OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"(D)  INCIDENTAL TO, AND NOT INCONSISTENT WITH, THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTIONS (5), (6), AND (7) AND NECESSARY TO
EFFECTUATE THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF SUCH ORDER." 

(18)  "THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, PRIOR TO PRESCRIBING ANY TERM IN
ANY MARKETING AGREEMENT OR ORDER, OR AMENDMENT THERETO, RELATING TO
MILK OR ITS PRODUCTS, IF SUCH TERM IS TO FIX MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID
TO PRODUCERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, OR PRIOR TO MODIFYING THE
PRICE FIXED IN ANY SUCH TERM, SHALL ASCERTAIN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PURCHASING POWER EQUIVALENT TO THEIR PURCHASING POWER DURING THE BASE
PERIOD.  THE LEVEL OF PRICES WHICH IT IS DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF
CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH IN SECTION 2 AND SECTION 8E SHALL, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF SUCH AGREEMENT, ORDER, OR AMENDMENT, BE SUCH LEVEL AS WILL
REFLECT THE PRICE OF FEEDS, THE AVAILABLE SUPPLIES OF FEEDS, AND OTHER
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT MARKET SUPPLY AND DEMAND, FOR MILK OR
ITS PRODUCTS IN THE MARKETING AREA TO WHICH THE CONTEMPLATED MARKETING
AGREEMENT, ORDER, OR AMENDMENT RELATES.  WHENEVER THE SECRETARY FINDS,
UPON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING REQUIRED BY
SUCH COMMODITIES A PURCHASING POWER EQUIVALENT TO THEIR PURCHASING
POWER DURING THE BASE PERIOD AS DETERMINED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 AND
AVAILABLE SUPPLIES OF FEEDS, AND OTHER ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH AFFECT
MARKET SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS IN THE MARKETING
AREA TO WHICH THE CONTEMPLATED AGREEMENT, ORDER, OR AMENDMENT RELATES,
HE SHALL FIX SUCH PRICES AS HE FINDS WILL REFLECT SUCH FACTORS, INSURE
A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF PURE AND WHOLESOME MILK, AND BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  THEREAFTER, AS THE SECRETARY FINDS NECESSARY ON ACCOUNT OF
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, HE SHALL, AFTER DUE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING, MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN SUCH PRICES." 

FN5  ACT OF MAY 12, 1933, 48 STAT. 31, AS AMENDED AUG. 24, 1935, 49
STAT. 750. 

FN6  SEC. 8C(2). 

FN7  SEC. 8C(4). 

FN8  SEC. 8C (5). 

FN9  SEC. 8C (10). 

FN10  SEC. 8C (8). 

FN11  CERTAIN OF THESE POWERS WERE UPHELD IN NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291
U.S. 502. 

FN12  N.Y. LAWS 1937, C. 383. 

FN13  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S.
511; HEGEMAN FARMS CORP. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 163. 

FN14  PERTINENT PORTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

ORDER, ARTICLE VI, SEC. 1.  "NET POOL OBLIGATION OF HANDLERS.  - THE
NET POOL OBLIGATION OF ANY HANDLER FOR MILK RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS
DURING EACH MONTH SHALL BE A SUM OF MONEY COMPUTED FOR SUCH MONTH AS
FOLLOWS: 

"1.  DETERMINE THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF MILK IN EACH CLASS AT EACH
PLANT; 

"2.  SUBTRACT FROM THE QUANTITY OF MILK IN EACH CLASS THE QUANTITY OF
SUCH MILK RECEIVED FROM OTHER PLANTS OR FROM OTHER HANDLERS; 

"3.  SUBTRACT PRO RATA OUT OF EACH CLASS THE QUANTITY OF MILK
RECEIVED FROM THE HANDLER'S OWN FARM; 

"4.  SUBTRACT FROM THE REMAINING QUANTITY OF MILK IN EACH CLASS, THE
QUANTITY OF EACH TO WHICH THE PRICES IN SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE IV DO NOT
APPLY, WHICH RESULT SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE 'NET POOLED MILK' IN EACH
CLASS. 

"5.  MULTIPLY THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF NET POOLED MILK IN EACH CLASS, AT
ALL PLANTS OF THE HANDLER COMBINED, BY THE RESPECTIVE CLASS PRICES SET
FORTH IN SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE IV AND ADD TOGETHER THE RESULTING SUMS; 

     .         . .         .         . 

"8.  DEDUCT 20 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT FOR ALL NET POOLED MILK
RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS AT PLANTS IN THE COUNTIES OR PORTIONS OF
COUNTIES LISTED BELOW IN THIS SECTION.  THE RESULT THUS OBTAINED SHALL
BE KNOWN AS THE 'HANDLER'S NET POOL OBLIGATION.'" 

COUNTIES - NEW JERSEY:  HUNTERDON, SOMERSET, ESSEX, UNION, MORRIS,
WARREN, SUSSEX, PASSAIC.  NEW YORK:  COLUMBIA, DUTCHESS, NASSAU,
ORANGE, PUTNAM, SUFFOLK, WESTCHESTER.  CONNECTICUT: LITCHFIELD. 
MASSACHUSETTS:  BERKSHIRE.  TOWNS IN ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK:
MARBLETOWN, HURLEY, KINGSTOWN, ULSTER, ROSENDALE, ESOPUS, NEW PALTZ,
LLOYD, GARDINER, PLATTEKILL, MARLBOROUGH, SHAWANGUNK. 

"SEC. 2.  COMPUTATION OF THE UNIFORM PRICE.  - THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR SHALL ON OR BEFORE THE 14TH DAY OF EACH MONTH, AUDIT FOR
MATHEMATICAL CORRECTNESS AND OBVIOUS ERRORS THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED
FOR THE PRECEDING MONTH BY EACH HANDLER AND, ON THE 14TH DAY OF SUCH
MONTH, COMPUTE FROM ALL OF SUCH CORRECTED REPORTS THE UNIFORM PRICE IN
THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 

"1.  COMBINE INTO ONE TOTAL THE NET POOL OBLIGATIONS OF ALL
HANDLERS; 

"2.  SUBTRACT THE TOTAL OF PAYMENTS REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR SUCH
MONTH BY SECTION 5 OF ARTICLE VII AND THE TOTAL OF PAYMENTS CLAIMED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 6 OF ARTICLE VII; 

"3.  ADD THE AMOUNT OF CASH IN THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND; 

"4.  DIVIDE THE RESULT BY THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF MILK REPRESENTED IN
THE SUM OBTAINED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SECTION; AND 

"5.  SUBTRACT NOT LESS THAN 4 CENTS NOR MORE THAN 5 CENTS TO PROVIDE
AGAINST THE CONTINGENCY OF ERRORS IN REPORTS AND PAYMENTS OR OF
DELINQUENCIES IN PAYMENTS BY HANDLERS.  THIS RESULT SHALL BE KNOWN AS
THE UNIFORM PRICE FOR SUCH MONTH FOR MILK CONTAINING 3.5 PERCENT
BUTTERFAT RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS AT PLANTS IN THE 201-210 MILE ZONE." 

ARTICLE VII, SEC. 1.  "TIME OF PAYMENT.  - ON OR BEFORE THE 25TH DAY
OF EACH MONTH EACH HANDLER WHICH IS NOT A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF
PRODUCERS SHALL MAKE PAYMENT TO EACH PRODUCER FOR ALL MILK DELIVERED BY
SUCH PRODUCER AT ANY PLANT DURING THE PRECEDING MONTH AT NOT LESS THAN
THE UNIFORM PRICE, SUBJECT TO DIFFERENTIALS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 2 AND
3 OF THIS ARTICLE." 

ARTICLE VII, SEC. 2.  "TRANSPORTATION AND LOCATION DIFFERENTIALS.  -
THE UNIFORM PRICE SHALL BE PLUS OR MINUS THE DIFFERENTIAL SHOWN IN
COLUMN B OF THE SCHEDULE CONTAINED IN SECTION 3 OF ARTICLE IV FOR THE
ZONE OF THE PLANT AS ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 3 OF
ARTICLE IV, PLUS 25 CENTS IN THE CASE OF PLANTS LOCATED IN THE COUNTIES
LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 8 OF SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE VI." 

ARTICLE VII, SEC. 5.  "PAYMENTS TO COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS.  - ANY
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCERS MAY APPLY TO THE SECRETARY FOR A
DETERMINATION OF ITS QUALIFICATIONS TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO
THIS SECTION BY REASON OF ITS HAVING AND EXERCISING FULL AUTHORITY IN
THE SALE OF THE MILK OF ITS MEMBERS, USING ITS BEST EFFORTS TO SUPPLY,
IN TIMES OF SHORT SUPPLY, CLASS I MILK TO THE MARKETING AREA AND TO
SECURE UTILIZATION OF MILK, IN TIMES OF LONG SUPPLY, IN A MANNER TO
ASSURE THE GREATEST POSSIBLE RETURNS TO ALL PRODUCERS, AND HAVING ITS
ENTIRE ACTIVITIES UNDER THE CONTROL OF ITS MEMBERS.  ...  SUCH PAYMENTS
SHALL BE MADE TO EACH COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCERS UNDER THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND AT THE FOLLOWING RATES: 

"1.  ONE CENT PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF NET POOLED MILK AT ANY HANDLER'S
PLANT WHICH WAS CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FROM ITS MEMBERS BY SUCH
ASSOCIATION AND ON WHICH SUCH HANDLER HAS MADE THE REPORTS AND PAYMENTS
REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER. 

"2.  EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THIS SECTION, 2 1/2 CENTS
PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF NET POOLED MILK AT PLANTS OF OTHER HANDLERS WHICH
WAS REPORTED AND COLLECTED FOR BY SUCH ASSOCIATION. 

"3.  FIVE CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF NET POOLED MILK AT PLANTS
OPERATED BY SUCH ASSOCIATION AND, IF, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER
QUALIFICATIONS, SUCH ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY
TO HAVE SUFFICIENT PLANT CAPACITY TO RECEIVE ALL THE MILK OF PRODUCERS
WHO ARE MEMBERS AND TO BE WILLING AND ABLE TO RECEIVE MILK FROM
PRODUCERS NOT MEMBERS, 5 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF ANY NET POOLED MILK
WHICH WAS CAUSED BY IT TO BE DELIVERED TO ANY OTHER HANDLER AND WHICH
IS REPORTED AND COLLECTED FOR BY SUCH ASSOCIATION. 

"SEC. 6.  MARKET SERVICE PAYMENT.  - THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR SHALL
PAY OUT OF THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND TO ANY HANDLER IMMEDIATELY
AFTER AUDIT OF CLAIM FOR SUCH PAYMENT MADE ON FORMS SUPPLIED BY THE
MARKET ADMINISTRATOR: 

"1. WITH RESPECT TO MILK RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS AT A PLANT OPERATED
BY SUCH HANDLER EQUIPPED ONLY FOR THE RECEIVING AND SHIPPING OF MILK TO
THE MARKETING AREA, WHICH WAS, DURING ANY MONTH EXCEPT NOVEMBER OR
DECEMBER, MOVED TO A PLANT WHERE IT WAS UTILIZED IN CLASSES II-A, II-B,
III-A, III-B, III-C, III-D, OR, DURING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, IV-A, AND
FROM WHICH, IF OPERATED BY SUCH HANDLER, NO CLASS I MILK WAS SHIPPED TO
THE MARKETING AREA DURING SUCH MONTH, 23 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF
MILK SO MOVED, PLUS 4 CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT FOR THE FIRST FIVE MILES
OR FRACTION THEREOF, PLUS 1/4 CENT PER HUNDREDWEIGHT PER MILE FOR THE
NEXT 20 MILES, AND PLUS 1/10 OF 1 CENT PER HUNDREDWEIGHT PER ADDITIONAL
MILE, OF THE SHORTEST HIGHWAY DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO PLANTS; AND 

"2.  THIRTY CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF CLASS I MILK SOLD DURING THE
MONTHS OF NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER IN THE MARKETING AREA WHICH WAS
RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS AT A PLANT WHICH IS EQUIPPED FOR CONDENSING OR
DRYING MILK AND FROM WHICH, DURING THE MONTHS OF MAY AND JUNE
PRECEDING, IN TERMS OF EQUIVALENT OF MILK RECEIVED AT SUCH PLANT, NO
MILK IN EXCESS OF 10 PERCENT AND NO CREAM IN EXCESS OF 50 PERCENT WAS
SHIPPED TO THE MARKETING AREA." 

FN15  4 FED. REG. 1259. 

FN16  3 FED. REG. 2100. 

FN17  SEC. 8C(12). 

FN18  CF. ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 139, 145;
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. V. REDDING, 304 U.S. 252, 254. 

FN19  ARTICLE VII, SEC. 1. 

FN20  ARTICLE VII, SECS. 5 AND 6. 

FN21  ARTICLE VII, SEC. 1. 

FN22  CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 18; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V.
OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, 42; OLIVER IRON MINING CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172,
181; GORIEB V. FOX, 274 U.S. 603, 606; CF. CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL
CO., 301 U.S. 495, 513; STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548,
598. 

FN23  ARTICLE I, SEC. 1, SUBSEC.  6. 

FN24  42 STAT. 388. 

FN25  UNITED STATES - THE CLAYTON ACT, SEC. 6, 38 STAT. 731; ROBINSON
PATMAN ACT, SEC. 4, 49 STAT. 1528; CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT, 42 STAT. 388;
WAR FINANCE CORPORATION ACT, 40 STAT. 506, AS AMENDED 42 STAT. 181,
182; THE GRAIN FUTURES ACT, 42 STAT. 1000; THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
ACT, 46 STAT. 91. 

STATES - SEE HANNA, THE LAW OF COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS
(1931), C. 3. 

FN26  AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, SEC. 10(B), 48 STAT. 37, AS
AMENDED BY SEC. 16(B)(1) OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1935, 49 STAT. 767,
AS ADOPTED BY SEC. 1(H) OF THE ACT OF JUNE 3, 1937, 50 STAT. 246. 

FN27  FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 173; BRUSHABER V. UNION
PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., 240 U.S. 1, 21; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN,
262 U.S. 1, 40; LIBERTY WAREHOUSE CO. V. BURLEY TOBACCO GROWERS
COOPERATIVE ASSN., 276 U.S. 71, 89.  THE GOVERNMENT FURNISHES US WITH A
COLLECTION OF STATE CASES APPROVING THE SPECIAL ADVANTAGES GIVEN CO
OPERATIVES:  TOBACCO GROWERS COOP.  ASSN.  V. JONES, 185 N.C. 265; 117
S.E. 174; KANSAS WHEAT GROWERS V. SCHULTE, 113 KAN. 672; 216 P. 311;
BROWN V. STAPLE COTTON GROWERS CO-OP. ASSN., 132 MISS.  859; 96 SO.
849; NORTHERN WISCONSIN CO-OP. T.P. V. BEKKEDAL, 182 WIS. 571; 197 N.W.
936; DARK TOBACCO GR. CO-OP. ASSN. V. DUNN, 150 TENN. 614; 266 S.W.
308; MINNESOTA WHEAT GROWERS V. HUGGINS, 162 MINN. 471; 203 N.W. 420;
LIST V. BURLEY TOBACCO GROWERS CO-OP. ASSN., 114 OHIO ST. 361; 151 N.E.
471; DARK TOBACCO GROWERS CO-OP. ASSN. V. ROBERTSON, 84 IND. APP. 51;
150 N.E. 106; POTTER V. DARK TOBACCO GROWERS CO-OP., 201 KY. 441; 257
S.W. 33; HARRELL V. CANE GROWERS CO-OP., 160 GA. 30; 126 S.E. 531;
NEBRASKA WHEAT GROWERS V. NORQUEST, 113 NEB. 731; 204 N.W. 798; WARREN
V. ALABAMA FARM B. COTTON ASSN., 213 ALA. 61; 104 SO. 264; MANCHESTER
DAIRY SYSTEM V. HAYWARD, 82 N.H. 193; 132 ATL. 12, 19; CLEAR LAKE CO
OPERATIVE LIVE STOCK ASSN. V. WEIR, 200 IOWA 1293; 206 N.W. 297;
HOLLINGSWORTH V. TEXAS HAY ASSN., 246 S.W. 1068; WASHINGTON CRANBERRY
ASSN. V. MOORE, 117 WASH. 430; 201 P. 773; POULTRY PRODUCERS V. BARLOW,
189 CAL. 278; 208 P. 93; OREGON GROWERS CO-OP. ASSN. V. LENTZ, 107
ORE.  561; 212 P. 811; SOUTH CAROLINA COTTON GROWERS V. ENGLISH, 135
S.C. 19; 133 S.E. 542; MILK PRODUCERS CO. V. BELL, 234 ILL. APP. 222
AND BARNS V. DAIRYMEN'S CO-OPERATIVE ASSN., INC., 220 APP. DIV. (N.Y.) 
624; 222 N.Y.S. 294.    FN28  278 U.S. 515. 

FN29  ID., 523. 

FN30  CF. N.Y. COOPERATIVE CORPORATIONS LAW. 

FN31  RAILROAD CO. V. ELLERMAN, 105 U.S. 166; ALABAMA POWER CO. V.
ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 480.    FN32  ORDER, ARTICLE VII, SEC. 1. 

FN33  ORDER, ARTICLE VI, SEC. 1. 

FN34  ORDER, ARTICLE VII, SEC. 2. 

FN35  BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, 209;
PACIFIC STATES CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 185. 

FN36  SEC. 8C (1). 

FN37  STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V.
OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1; HOUSTON & TEXAS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S.
342, 351-2; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 399; LABOR BOARD CASES,
301 U.S. 1; CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; MULFORD V. SMITH, ANTE, P.
38; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601. 

FN38  DAHNKE-WALKER MILLING CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282, 290, 291;
LEMKE V. FARMERS' GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50, 54; CF. FOSTER-FOUNTAIN
PACKING CO. V. HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 1, 10. 

FN39  CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1. 

FN40  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305
U.S. 197, 220. 

FN41  MULFORD V. SMITH, SUPRA, NOTE 37. 

FN42  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 196; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230
U.S. 352, 398. 

FN43  WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 346. 

FN44  34 STAT. 589, 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(1). 

FN45  TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420; STAFFORD
V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495. 

FN46  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113; BUDD V. NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517;
BRASS V. NORTH DAKOTA, 153 U.S. 391; GERMAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. V.
LEWIS, 233 U.S. 389; O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD INSURANCE CO., 282
U.S. 251; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379; TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441. 

WOLFF PACKING CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COURT, 262 U.S. 522; TYSON & BRO. V.
BANTON, 273 U.S. 418; FAIRMONT CREAMERY CO. V. MINNESOTA, 274 U.S. 1;
RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE, 277 U.S. 350; WILLIAMS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 278 U.S.
235. 

FN47  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 537. 

FN48  ID. 

FN49  BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511. 

FN50  MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, 306 U.S. 346. 

FN51  293 U.S. 163. 

FN52  BORDEN'S CO. V. TEN EYCK, 297 U.S. 251. 

FN53  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S.
441. 

FN54  SUPRA, NOTE 37. 

FN55  MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219; NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO. V. WHITE, 243 U.S. 188. 

FN56  NOBLE STATE BANK V. HASKELL, 219 U.S. 104; ABIE STATE BANK V.
BRYAN, 282 U.S. 765. 

FN57  NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184; DAYTON GOOSE CREEK
RY. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456. 

FN58  300 U.S. 55, 77, 78. 

FN59  295 U.S. 330, 355 ET SEQ. 

FN60  PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, 421; SCHECHTER CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 529; CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1. 

FN61  BUTTFIELD V. STRANAHAN, 192 U.S. 470, 496; UNITED STATES V.
CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1, 12; MONONGAHELA BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 216 U.S. 177, 193; UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506, 516;
AVENT V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 127, 130. 

FN62  "SECTION 1.  A NATIONAL EMERGENCY PRODUCTIVE OF WIDESPREAD
UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISORGANIZATION OF INDUSTRY, WHICH BURDENS INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, AFFECTS THE PUBLIC WELFARE, AND UNDERMINES THE
STANDARDS OF LIVING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO
EXIST.  IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO REMOVE
OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE FLOW OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE WHICH
TEND TO DIMINISH THE AMOUNT THEREOF; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL
WELFARE BY PROMOTING THE ORGANIZATION OF INDUSTRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COOPERATIVE ACTION AMONG TRADE GROUPS, TO INDUCE AND MAINTAIN UNITED
ACTION OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT UNDER ADEQUATE GOVERNMENTAL SANCTIONS
AND SUPERVISION, TO ELIMINATE UNFAIR COMPETITIVE PRACTICES, TO PROMOTE
THE FULLEST POSSIBLE UTILIZATION OF THE PRESENT PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF
INDUSTRIES, TO AVOID UNDUE RESTRICTION OF PRODUCTION (EXCEPT AS MAY BE
TEMPORARILY REQUIRED), TO INCREASE THE CONSUMPTION OF INDUSTRIAL AND
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BY INCREASING PURCHASING POWER, TO REDUCE AND
RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT, TO IMPROVE STANDARDS OF LABOR, AND OTHERWISE TO
REHABILITATE INDUSTRY AND TO CONSERVE NATURAL RESOURCES."  48 STAT.
195. 

FN63  CF. SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. AT 533. 

FN64  CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, 15. 

FN65  HANNA, LAW OF COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS, PP. 210,
256. 

FN66  HOUSE REPORT NO. 1241, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; SENATE REPORT NO.
1011, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN67  COSTANZO V. TILLINGHAST, 287 U.S. 341, 345; UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO NORTH SHORE R. CO., 288 U.S. 1, 13-14. 

FN68  ARTICLE VI, SEC. 1. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS CONCUR IN THE JUDGMENT AND
OPINION OF THE COURT EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE OPINION APPEARS TO IMPLY
THAT POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE MARKETING LAW DEPENDS UPON THE USE
AND NATURE OF MILK.  THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE ARE CALLED UPON IN
THIS CASE TO INDICATE, AS THEY THINK WE DO, THAT THERE IS SUCH A
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE DECREE BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

IN OUR VIEW THE CHALLENGED ORDER OF THE SECRETARY MUST SUCCUMB TO TWO
MANIFEST OBJECTIONS.  IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO DISSECT THE RECORD IN
SEARCH OF OTHER IMPEDIMENTS. 

FIRST.  CONGRESS POSSESSES THE POWERS DELEGATED BY THE CONSTITUTION -
NO OTHERS.  THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V.
UNITED STATES (1935), 295 U.S. 495 - NOTEWORTHY BECAUSE OF MODERNITY
AND REAFFIRMATION OF ANCIENT DOCTRINE - SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATES THE
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO MANAGE PRIVATE BUSINESS AFFAIRS
UNDER THE TRANSPARENT GUISE OF REGULATING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  TRUE,
PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MILK ARE MOST IMPORTANT ENTERPRISES, NOT
EASY OF WISE EXECUTION; BUT SO IS BREEDING THE COWS, AUTHORS OF THE
COMMODITY; ALSO, SOWING AND REAPING THE FODDER WHICH INSPIRES THEM. 

SECOND.  IF PERCHANCE CONGRESS POSSESSES POWER TO MANAGE THE MILK
BUSINESS WITHIN THE VARIOUS STATES, AUTHORITY SO TO DO CANNOT BE
COMMITTED TO ANOTHER.  A CURSORY EXAMINATION OF THE STATUTE SHOWS
CLEARLY ENOUGH THE DESIGN TO ALLOW A SECRETARY TO PRESCRIBE ACCORDING
TO HIS OWN ERRANT WILL AND THEN TO EXECUTE.  THIS IS NOT GOVERNMENT BY
LAW BUT BY CAPRICE.  WHIMSEYS MAY DISPLACE DELIBERATE ACTION BY CHOSEN
REPRESENTATIVES AND BECOME RULES OF CONDUCT.  TO US THE OUTCOME SEEMS
WHOLLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SYSTEM UNDER WHICH WE ARE SUPPOSED TO
LIVE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

IN NOS. 772, 809 AND 865* I HAVE EXPRESSED MY VIEWS AS TO THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 HERE INVOLVED, IN VIEW OF THEIR ATTEMPTED
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS.  THAT MATTER IS NOT PRESSED IN THE
PRESENT CASES AND I NEED NOT HERE ADVERT TO THE SUBJECT.  I AM OF
OPINION, NEVERTHELESS, THAT ORDER NO. 27 IS NOT, IN THE RESPECTS TO BE
DISCUSSED, AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT, BUT IF IT IS AUTHORIZED, DEPRIVES THE
APPELLEES OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

*H.P. HOOD & SONS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, POST, 588, 603. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  WHILE THE FINDINGS IN QUESTION ARE THE SUBJECT OF ASSIGNMENTS
OF ERROR, THE APPELLANTS FAILED, EITHER IN BRIEF OR IN ORAL ARGUMENT,
TO POINT OUT THAT THEY LACK SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE. 
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THESE FINDINGS ARE BASED ON
UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY, AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AND A
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES.  THEY SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE ACCEPTED HERE. 
THEY MAY BRIEFLY BE RECAPITULATED. 

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER, ALL OF THE APPELLEES ARE
HANDLERS AND THE DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, THE
APPELLANT IN NO. 827, IS LIKEWISE A HANDLER.  BY ART. VII, SEC. 1, OF
THE ORDER, ON OR BEFORE THE 25TH DAY OF EACH MONTH, EACH HANDLER WHICH
IS NOT A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCERS IS REQUIRED TO PAY TO
EACH PRODUCER THE UNIFORM PRICE FIXED BY THE ORDER FOR ALL MILK
DELIVERED BY THE PRODUCER DURING THE PRECEDING MONTH WHICH WAS SOLD IN
THE MARKETING AREA.  THE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS WHICH ARE HANDLERS
ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR SIMILAR MILK AT THE UNIFORM PRICE
OR AT ANY STATED PRICE.  ART. VII, SEC. 8, REQUIRES ALL HANDLERS, ON OR
BEFORE THE 18TH DAY OF EACH MONTH, TO PAY TO THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR
FOR THE PRODUCER SETTLEMENT FUND "THE AMOUNT BY WHICH HIS NET POOL
OBLIGATION FOR THE PRECEDING MONTH IS GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT OBTAINED
BY MULTIPLYING THE NET POOLED MILK OF SUCH HANDLER BY THE UNIFORM
PRICE."  THUS EACH HANDLER IS REQUIRED TO PAY INTO THE FUND FOR ALL
MILK USED IN THE MARKETING AREA THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $2.45 PER CWT.
AND THE UNIFORM PRICE FOR ALL CLASS I MILK.  HANDLERS SELLING MILK
RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS IN THE PRODUCTION AREA, BUT MARKETED OUTSIDE
THE MARKETING AREA, (DENOMINATED "UNPRICED MILK") ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
PAY A UNIFORM PRICE FOR SUCH MILK OR TO PAY INTO THE FUND THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNIFORM PRICE AND THE ACTUAL MARKET VALUE OF
SUCH MILK, OR ANY FIXED AMOUNT IN RESPECT THEREOF.  THEY ARE PERMITTED
TO BLEND PRICES PAID OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN PAID FOR UNPRICED MILK
WITH THE UNIFORM PRICE ANNOUNCED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MILK SOLD IN
THE MARKETING AREA, THEREBY REDUCING THE ACTUAL PRICE PAID BY THEM FOR
MILK SOLD IN THE MARKETING AREA IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER HANDLERS WHO
SELL MILK ONLY IN THAT AREA.  IN A PAMPHLET ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER ARE SO CONSTRUED AND THE METHOD OF
ACCOUNTING IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 

"THUS, THE HANDLER MAY MULTIPLY THE TOTAL POUNDS OF MILK SOLD BY IT
IN THE AREA BY THE UNIFORM PRICE; MULTIPLY THE TOTAL POUNDS OF MILK
SOLD IN OTHER MARKETS AND WHICH IS CALLED 'UNPRICED MILK' BY 'SUCH
PRICES AS IT SEES FIT;' ADD THE TOTALS, AND DIVIDE BY THE TOTAL POUNDS
OF MILK, TO OBTAIN THE AVERAGE OF 'BLENDED' PRICE PAID PRODUCERS FOR
ALL MILK.  IF THE PRICE FIGURED BY THE HANDLER FOR UNPRICED MILK, IS
LOWER THAN ITS ACTUAL MARKET VALUE, THE HANDLER, BY BLENDING, IS
THEREBY PERMITTED TO PAY PRODUCERS FOR ALL MILK AT LESS THAN THE ORDER
PRICE, AND LESS THAN THE ACTUAL VALUE THEREOF." 

THE APPELLEES' RECEIVING STATIONS IN THE PRODUCTION AREA SUPPLY THE
MARKETING AREA DEFINED BY THE ORDER.  THE APPELLEE, JETTER DAIRY
COMPANY, SELLS MILK IN COMPETITION WITH DEALERS OPERATING MILK
RECEIVING STATIONS IN THE PRODUCTION AREA IN NEW YORK, WHO SHIP MILK
RECEIVED AT THEIR STATIONS TO THE MARKETING AREA.  OTHER APPELLEES BUY
MILK WHICH IS SOLD TO INDEPENDENT DEALERS IN COMPETITION WITH MILK
RECEIVED AT THE OTHER STATIONS IN THE PRODUCING AREA.  SEVERAL OF THE
APPELLEES' LARGEST COMPETITORS, INCLUDING THE DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE
COOPERATIVE, SELL LARGE PROPORTIONS OF THEIR MILK OUTSIDE THE MARKETING
AREA IN NORTHERN NEW JERSEY.  THE MILK CONTROL BOARD OF NEW JERSEY
FIXED A BASE PRICE OF $2.76 PER CWT. TO PRODUCERS FOR 3.5 MILK F.O.B.
COUNTRY MILK PLANTS, WHICH PRICE WAS IN EFFECT DURING THE PERIOD
COVERED BY THE ORDER.  THE SAME BOARD FIXED WHOLESALE PRICES FROM
DEALERS TO STORES AT ELEVEN CENTS PER QUART, BOTTLED IN GLASS, IN TWO
RURAL DISTRICTS, AND TWELVE CENTS PER QUART, IN GLASS, IN THREE HEAVILY
POPULATED DISTRICTS, AND FIXED A MINIMUM PRICE TO CONSUMERS OUT OF
STORES IN THE TWO RURAL DISTRICTS OF TWELVE CENTS PER QUART AND, IN THE
MORE HEAVILY POPULATED DISTRICTS, OF THIRTEEN CENTS PER QUART.  NO
RESALE PRICES ARE FIXED IN THE MARKETING AREA EITHER FROM DEALERS TO
STORES OR FROM STORES TO CONSUMERS.  THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
"UNPRICED" CLASS I MILK PRODUCED IN THE PRODUCTION AREA, AND SOLD BY
HANDLERS IN NEW JERSEY, DURING THE PERIOD THE ORDER WAS IN FORCE, WAS
$2.76 PER CWT. 

WHEREAS THE UNIFORM PRICE FOR 3.5 MILK FIXED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
WAS, FOR SEPTEMBER, $1.87, OCTOBER, $1.91, AND NOVEMBER, $2.10 PER
CWT., THE DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE PAID ITS PRODUCERS A BASE PRICE FOR THE
SAME MILK, IN THE SAME ZONE, FOR SEPTEMBER, $1.75, FOR OCTOBER, $1.81,
AND, FOR NOVEMBER, $2.01 PER CWT.  THUS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
VALUE OF CLASS I MILK SOLD BY THE DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE IN NEW JERSEY, AND
THE PRICES PAID FOR THE SAME TO PRODUCERS PER CWT. WAS, IN SEPTEMBER,
$1.01, IN OCTOBER, $.95, AND, IN NOVEMBER, $.75.  $1.01 PER CWT. ON
10,208,500 POUNDS OF MILK SOLD IN NEW JERSEY BY THE DAIRYMEN'S LEAGUE
AMOUNTS TO $103,105.85. 

SHEFFIELD FARMS COMPANY, A COMPETITOR OF THE APPELLEES, UTILIZED, IN
SEPTEMBER, 1938, 40,083,075 POUNDS OF CLASS I MILK IN NEW YORK STATE
AND 6,426,443 POUNDS OF MILK IN NEW JERSEY, AS WELL AS MILK IN OTHER
MARKETS.  FOR OUT OF MARKET OR UNPRICED MILK THE COMPANY NEGOTIATED
WITH ITS PRODUCERS TO PAY THE UNIFORM ORDER PRICE FOR SUCH OUT OF
MARKET MILK.  THE BASE PRICE PAID WAS, THEREFORE, $1.87, OR EIGHTY-NINE
CENTS PER CWT. LESS THAN THE PRICE FIXED BY THE NEW JERSEY CONTROL
BOARD.  THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNTED TO $57,194.96, OR 14.27 CENTS PER CWT.
ON SUCH MILK AND THE PRICE PAID FOR CLASS I MILK WAS REDUCED BY THAT
AMOUNT.  SIMILAR SPREADS ARE SHOWN IN THE COMPANY'S PURCHASES FOR
OCTOBER, 1938.    BASED UPON THESE FACTS, THE COURT FURTHER FINDS THAT
PRICES PAID TO PRODUCERS DELIVERING TO HANDLERS, WHETHER COOPERATIVE OR
PROPRIETARY, WHICH SELL FLUID MILK IN THE MARKETING AREA, AND ALSO IN
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND OTHER MARKETS, ARE LESS THAN THE ACTUAL
VALUE OF THE MILK DELIVERED, DUE TO THE PROCESS OF BLENDING PRICES FOR
MILK SOLD OUTSIDE OF THE MARKETING AREA, WHICH BEAR NO TRUE RELATION TO
THE ACTUAL VALUE THEREOF, WITH PRICES CHARGED FOR MILK SOLD IN THE
AREA. 

IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE TERMS OF THE ORDER, AND THE SECRETARY'S
CONSTRUCTION OF IT, THAT HANDLERS WHO USE "UNPRICED" MILK MAY FIX ANY
PRICE THEY CHOOSE TO FIX FOR IT.  THUS, CONTRARY TO THE REQUIREMENT OF
SEC. 8C (5)(A), OF THE STATUTE, ALL PRODUCERS DO NOT RECEIVE A UNIFORM
PRICE FOR MILK.  THIS IS A NECESSARY EFFECT OF THE PROVISION PERMITTING
THE BLENDING OF THE PRICE PAID PRODUCERS FOR MILK SOLD IN THE MARKETING
AREA AND AN ARBITRARY PRICE FIXED FOR "UNPRICED" MILK.  THE EFFECT UPON
A HANDLER WHOSE TRADE IS SOLELY IN THE MARKETING AREA IS DISASTROUS. 
THE LOWER PRICE PAID BY THOSE WHO ARE PERMITTED TO BLEND MAKES IT
POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO RESELL THE MILK IN THE MARKETING AREA, IN WHICH NO
RESALE PRICE IS FIXED, AT A CUT RATE WHICH IS DESTRUCTIVE OF THEIR
COMPETITORS' BUSINESS.  AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT HANDLERS,
COOPERATIVE AND PROPRIETARY, HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE TERMS OF THE
ORDER TO CUT THE PRICE OF MILK TO CONSUMERS IN THE MARKETING AREA TO
THE DISADVANTAGE OF THEIR COMPETITORS. 

THE APPELLANTS MAKE NO ANSWER TO THE APPELLEES' ATTACK ON THIS
FEATURE OF THE ORDER.  THE OPINION OF THIS COURT STATES THAT THE
DETRIMENT TO THE SMALLER HANDLERS WHO SELL MILK FOR USE ONLY IN THE
MARKETING AREA IS THE RESULT OF COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS WHICH THE ORDER
DOES NOT AFFECT.  BUT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ORDER FREEZES THE MINIMUM
PRICE WHICH IS TO BE PAID BY MANY HANDLERS AND LEAVES THE PRICE OF
OTHER HANDLERS WHO COMPETE WITH THEM OPEN TO REDUCTION BY THE DEVICE OF
BLENDING. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT WHICH AUTHORIZES THE DISCRIMINATION
WORKED BY THE ORDER PERMITTING HANDLERS, WHETHER PROPRIETARY OR
COOPERATIVE, TO BLEND THE PRICES OF UNPRICED MILK WITH THAT OF MILK,
SOLD IN THE MARKETING AREA.  SECTION 8C (5)(F), AS I READ IT, PROHIBITS
SUCH A PRACTICE BY COOPERATIVES.  IF THE ORDER HAD PROVIDED THAT MILK
SOLD IN NEW JERSEY SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR TO THE POOL AT ITS ACTUAL
VALUE AND HAD THE MILK SO SOLD BEEN ACCOUNTED INTO THE POOL,
COMPETITORS COULD NOT HAVE OBTAINED THE ADVANTAGE WHICH SO SERIOUSLY
INJURES THE BUSINESS OF APPELLEES.  AS THE ORDER IS DRAWN AND
ADMINISTERED IT INEVITABLY TENDS TO DESTROY THE BUSINESS OF SMALLER
HANDLERS BY PLACING THEM AT THE MERCY OF THEIR LARGER COMPETITORS.  I
THINK NO SUCH ARRANGEMENT WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT, BUT THAT, IF IT
WAS, IT OPERATES TO DENY THE APPELLEES DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

I THINK THAT THE DECREE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JOINS IN THIS OPINION SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
INVALIDITY OF THE ORDER ON THE GROUND STATED; MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS
AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER ALSO JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :








H. P. HOOD & SONS V. U.S., 307 U.S. 588 


NO. 772.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 26, 1939.  - DECIDED JUNE 5, 1939.  - 21
F.SUPP.  321 - 26 F.SUPP.  672, AFFIRMED. 


1.  OBJECTIONS, ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, TO THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, AND TO CERTAIN FEATURES OF AN ORDER OF
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE MADE THEREUNDER, OVERRULED UPON THE
AUTHORITY OF THE ROCK ROYAL CASE, ANTE, P. 533.  P. 595. 

2.  THE FINDING AND PROCLAMATION REQUIRED OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE BY SEC. 8(E) OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF
1937 TO JUSTIFY AN ORDER BASED ON PURCHASING POWER DURING THE POST-WAR
PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THAT SECTION RATHER THAN UPON THE PRE-WAR PERIOD
MENTIONED IN SEC. 2 - THAT IS TO SAY, A FINDING AND PROCLAMATION THAT
THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE COMMODITY REGULATED CAN NOT BE
SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED FOR THE PRE-WAR PERIOD FROM AVAILABLE
STATISTICS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - NEED NOT BE REPEATED IN
CONNECTION WITH AN AMENDMENT OF THE ORDER WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY
CHANGE OF THE BASE PERIOD, ALTHOUGH IT IS DECLARED BY SEC. 8(17) THAT
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8(E) APPLICABLE TO ORDERS "SHALL BE APPLICABLE
TO AMENDMENTS TO ORDERS."  P. 595. 

3.  A REFERENDUM TO PRODUCERS, UNDER SEC. 8C (9)(B) AND SEC. 8C (19)
OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ACT, OF AMENDMENTS TO AN ORDER REGULATING THE
HANDLING OF MILK IN THE MARKETING AREA OF BOSTON AND VICINITY, WAS
PROPERLY RESTRICTED TO PRODUCERS WHO SOLD THEIR FLUID MILK TO HANDLING
PLANTS LICENSED BY THE STATE LAW TO DISTRIBUTE OR SELL FLUID MILK IN
THE MARKETING AREA AND WHICH HAD SHIPPED MILK OR CREAM TO THAT AREA
DURING THE REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD.  SO HELD, IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECT
OF THE REGULATION, WHICH WAS TO REMEDY MARKETING EVILS CAUSED BY A
SURPLUS OF FLUID MILK.  P. 597. 

THE REFERENDUM ELECTION WAS NOT INVALIDATED (A) BY DENYING THE VOTE
TO PRODUCERS WHO SOLD TO HANDLERS NOT LICENSED TO SELL MILK, BUT ONLY
CREAM, IN THE MARKETING AREA; (B) BY ALLOWING THE VOTE TO PRODUCERS WHO
SOLD THEIR MILK AT PLANTS WHICH SHIPPED ONLY CREAM TO THE MARKETING
AREA DURING THE REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD, BUT WHICH WERE LICENSED TO SELL
FLUID MILK IN THAT AREA AND COULD HAVE DONE SO; (C) BY ALLOWING THE
VOTE TO PRODUCERS NOT REGISTERED AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE LAW BUT WHOSE
MILK WAS SOLD IN THE MARKETING AREA BY LICENSED HANDLERS; OR (D) BY
PERMITTING THE VOTE TO PRODUCERS WHO SOLD TO STATIONS WHICH SHIPPED
LESS THAN 50 PER CENT. OF THE MILK TO THE AREA DURING THE
REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD. 

4.  AT SUCH A REFERENDUM A COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION OF PRODUCERS MAY
VOTE FOR ITS MEMBERS.  P. 599. 

5.  AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WHICH REGULATED THE
PRICES OF MILK SOLD BY PRODUCERS TO LICENSED HANDLERS FOR A MARKETING
AREA, AND WHICH REQUIRED SUCH HANDLERS TO PAY THROUGH AN EQUALIZATION
FUND - CONSTRUED AS INCLUDING MILK BOUGHT OF UNREGISTERED FARMS AND
SOLD IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE LAW.  P. 599. 

6.  ASSUMING THAT, UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF
1937, REINSTATEMENT OF A SUSPENDED ORDER SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY A
FINDING THAT THE REINSTATEMENT WILL TEND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF
THE ACT, THE OMISSION CAN BE SUPPLIED BY AN APPROPRIATE FINDING ON
REPROMULGATION OF THE ORDER WITH AMENDMENTS.  P. 602. 

H. P. HOOD & SONS, INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 809, WHITING MILK CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL., AND
NO. 865, BRANON V. UNITED STATES ET AL., ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 627, 629, TO REVIEW DECREES OF A DISTRICT COURT
GRANTING MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS IN TWO SUITS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED
STATES AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO ENFORCE A MARKETING ORDER
REGULATING PRICES OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS IN AN AREA COMPRISING THE
CITY OF BOSTON AND ADJACENT SETTLEMENTS.  THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS WERE
THREE MILK DEALERS.  TWO MILK PRODUCERS, ONE OF WHOM IS THE PETITIONER
IN NO. 865, INTERVENED AS DEFENDANTS.  UPON INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS GAVE AN OPINION WHICH IS REPORTED AS H.P. HOOD
& SONS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 97 F.2D 677.  THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI
WERE ISSUED WHILE THE CASES WERE PENDING IN THAT COURT UPON APPEALS
FROM THE FINAL DECREES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES INVOLVE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 FN1  AS APPLIED IN AN ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE REGULATING THE HANDLING OF MILK IN THE GREATER
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, MARKETING AREA. 

THE PETITIONERS, H.P. HOOD & SONS, INC., AND NOBLE'S MILK COMPANY OF
NO. 772 AND WHITING MILK COMPANY OF NO. 809, ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS BELOW,
ARE ENGAGED IN HANDLING MILK IN THE MARKETING AREA IN THE CURRENT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN A MANNER WHICH BURDENS THAT COMMERCE. 
PRODUCERS INTERVENED AS DEFENDANTS, PETITIONER E. FRANK BRANON ON THE
SIDE OF H.P. HOOD & SONS AND CHESTER D. NOYES BESIDE THE WHITING
COMPANY.  THE RESPONDENTS, PLAINTIFFS BELOW, ARE THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  THE PARTIES WILL BE REFERRED
TO AS DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS, RESPECTIVELY. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETAIL THE FACTS OF EACH CASE.  THEY ARE TWO OF
MANY INSTITUTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS TO SECURE OBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER.  ON
OCTOBER 1, 1937, BILLS OF COMPLAINT WERE FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, 21 F.SUPP.  321, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ENJOINING HOOD & SONS, NOBLE'S MILK COMPANY AND WHITING MILK COMPANY
FROM VIOLATING THE TERMS OF ORDER NO. 4 AS AMENDED.  A TEMPORARY
MANDATORY INJUNCTION ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 30, 1937.  A SUPERSEDEAS
FOLLOWED SOON AFTER, CONDITIONED UPON PAYMENT BY THE THREE HANDLERS
INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF THE AMOUNTS BILLED TO THEM BY THE
MARKET ADMINISTRATOR FOR EQUALIZATION CHARGES AND MARKETING SERVICES
UNDER THE ORDER.  ANSWERS TO THE BILLS ASSERTED CONSTITUTIONAL
INFIRMITIES IN THE ACT AND FATAL WEAKNESSES IN THE ORDER AS AMENDED.  A
SPECIAL MASTER WAS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF FINDING THE FACTS IN THESE
AND SIMILAR SUITS.  HIS REPORT WAS FILED ON JANUARY 27, 1939.  SHORTLY
THEREAFTER, THE DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMED THE REPORT, SUSTAINED BOTH THE
ACT AND THE ORDER, AND ENTERED A DECREE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.  THE
DEFENDANTS TOOK AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND, AFTER
THE CASES WERE DOCKETED, FILED PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI.  THE
WRITS WERE GRANTED BECAUSE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF FEDERAL LAW UNDECIDED
BY THIS COURT WERE INVOLVED AND PENDING APPEALS IN OTHER CASES WITH
SIMILAR ISSUES WERE READY FOR ARGUMENT. 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE MARKETING ACT HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED IN
UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, ANTE, P. 533.  THEY WILL NOT
BE REPEATED HERE. 

ORDER NO. 4, AS AMENDED, WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS SEEK TO ENFORCE, IS THE
CULMINATION OF AN EXTENDED EFFORT BY THE SECRETARY TO WORK OUT A PLAN
TO REGULATE THE MARKETING OF MILK IN THE BOSTON AREA.  ORDER NO. 4 WAS
ORIGINALLY ISSUED ON FEBRUARY 7, 1936, UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT.  FN2 ALL STEPS LEADING TO ITS ISSUANCE WERE TAKEN.  ON
NOVEMBER 30, 1935, THE SECRETARY GAVE NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON A
PROPOSED MARKETING AGREEMENT AND ORDER.  HEARINGS WERE HELD.  A
MARKETING AGREEMENT WAS TENTATIVELY APPROVED WHICH HANDLERS FAILED TO
ACCEPT.  ON JANUARY 25, 1936, THE SECRETARY FOUND AND PROCLAIMED THAT
THE PURCHASING POWER OF MILK COULD NOT BE SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED FOR
THE PRE-WAR BASE PERIOD FROM AVAILABLE STATISTICS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, BUT COULD FOR THE POST-WAR PERIOD.  AUGUST, 1919, TO JULY,
1929, WAS DECLARED THE BASE PERIOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING AN
ORDER.  ON FEBRUARY 5, 1936, THE SECRETARY MADE A DETERMINATION, AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 8C (9), AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR ISSUING AN ORDER.  THE
PRESIDENT APPROVED THE DETERMINATION, AND THE ORDER ISSUED.  IT
REMAINED IN EFFECT UNTIL AUGUST 1, 1936, SHORTLY AFTER THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS HELD THAT THE ACT UNDER WHICH
THE ORDER WAS ISSUED WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FN3  ON THAT DAY THE
SECRETARY SUSPENDED THE ORDER FOR AN INDEFINITE TIME. 

AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE MARKETING ACT, THE SECRETARY, ON JUNE 24,
1937, GAVE NOTICE OF A HEARING UPON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ORDER NO.
4.  ON THE FOLLOWING DAY HE TERMINATED THE SUSPENSION OF THE FORMAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AS OF JULY 1, AND OF THE PRICEFIXING
PROVISIONS AS OF AUGUST 1.  HEARINGS WERE HELD.  A PROPOSED MARKETING
AGREEMENT FAILED OF APPROVAL BY THE HANDLERS.  ON JULY 17, 1937, A
REFERENDUM TOOK PLACE.  IT WILL BE DISCUSSED LATER AT SOME LENGTH
BECAUSE OF CONTENTIONS WHICH QUESTION ITS VALIDITY.  ON JULY 27, 1937,
ACTING PURSUANT TO SEC. 8C (9), THE SECRETARY DETERMINED THAT THE
FAILURE OF THE HANDLERS TO SIGN TENDED TO PREVENT EFFECTUATION OF THE
DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT; THAT ISSUANCE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE ORDER WAS THE ONLY PRACTICAL MEANS OF ADVANCING THE INTERESTS OF
MILK PRODUCERS IN THE AREA; AND THAT THE ISSUANCE WAS APPROVED BY OVER
70 PERCENT OF THE PRODUCERS WHO DURING MAY, 1937, WERE ENGAGED IN THE
PRODUCTION OF MILK FOR SALE IN THE AREA.  THE PRESIDENT APPROVED THE
DETERMINATION.  ON JULY 28, 1937, "ORDER NO. 4, AMENDMENT NO. 1"
ISSUED.  IN IT THE SECRETARY MADE FINDINGS UPON THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED
AT THE HEARINGS UPON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND RATIFIED THE ORIGINAL
FINDINGS IN SO FAR AS THEY WERE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE NEW ONES.  HE
MADE NO FINDING OR PROCLAMATION, AS HE HAD IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER, THAT
SATISFACTORY STATISTICS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE PRE-WAR PERIOD BUT
WERE FOR THE POST-WAR PERIOD.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE LATTER WAS
USED AS THE BASE PERIOD FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE PRICES TO BE
USED IN THE AMENDED ORDER. 

THIS AMENDED ORDER IS BASED UPON THE SAME PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED IN
UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, ANTE, P. 533, AND COMPANION
CASES, DECIDED TODAY.  IT ESTABLISHES A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR THE
REGULATION OF MILK HANDLED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN AN AREA
WHICH INCLUDES BOSTON AND 36 OTHER CITIES OR TOWNS.  A MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR, APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, IS IN
CHARGE.  PRODUCERS AND HANDLERS ARE DEFINED, THE FIRST AS ANY PERSON
PRODUCING MILK IN CONFORMITY WITH THE HEALTH REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
MILK SOLD FOR CONSUMPTION AS MILK IN THE MARKETING AREA, THE SECOND AS
ALL, INCLUDING PRODUCERS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, WHO ENGAGE "IN
SUCH HANDLING OF MILK, WHICH IS SOLD AS MILK OR CREAM IN THE MARKETING
AREA, AS IS IN THE CURRENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR WHICH DIRECTLY
BURDENS, OBSTRUCTS, OR AFFECTS INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN MILK
AND ITS PRODUCTS." 

THERE ARE TWO USE CLASSIFICATIONS, ROUGHLY, FLUID AND NON-FLUID.  A
PRICE IS STATED FOR CLASS I OR FLUID MILK; A FORMULA, BASED PRIMARILY
ON THE PRICE OF CREAM IN BOSTON AND CASEIN IN NEW YORK, IS PROVIDED FOR
THE CALCULATION OF THE CLASS II PRICE FOR EACH DELIVERY PERIOD. 
MINIMUM PRICES DETERMINE THE VALUE OF ALL THE MILK DELIVERED BY ALL
PRODUCERS TO ALL THE HANDLERS SUBJECT TO THE ORDER.  EXCEPT TO
ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS FOR CLASS I MILK, PAYMENT TO PRODUCERS IS
MADE AT A BLENDED PRICE.  THE ADMINISTRATOR COMPUTES THE VALUE OF MILK
FOR EACH HANDLER BY MULTIPLYING THE QUANTITIES USED BY HIM IN EACH
CLASS BY THE CLASS PRICE, AND BY ADDING THE TWO RESULTS.  THEN THE
VALUES FOR ALL HANDLERS ARE COMBINED INTO ONE TOTAL.  ADJUSTMENTS ARE
MADE FOR DIFFERENTIALS.  THE ADJUSTED TOTAL IS DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL
QUANTITY OF MILK.  THE RESULT IS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE PRICE SOMEWHERE
BETWEEN THE TWO CLASS PRICES, KNOWN AS THE "BLENDED PRICE."  EACH
HANDLER PAYS HIS PRODUCERS AT THE BLENDED PRICE.  THE AMOUNT PAID TO
PRODUCERS MAY BE LESS, OR IT MAY BE MORE, THAN THE VALUE OF THE MILK
SOLD BY THE HANDLER.  EQUALIZATION IS MADE AMONG HANDLERS.  AS THE
ORDER PUTS IT, AFTER PAYING HIS OWN PRODUCERS, EACH HANDLER PAYS "TO
PRODUCERS, THROUGH THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR, BY PAYING TO OR RECEIVING
FROM THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE AMOUNT BY WHICH
PAYMENTS MADE  ...  ARE LESS THAN, OR EXCEED, THE VALUE OF MILK AS
REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED FOR SUCH HANDLER.  ...  " 

THE DEFENDANTS URGE THAT THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE
REVERSED BECAUSE OF ERROR UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, UNDER THE STATUTE,
UNDER THE ORDER ITSELF.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE EQUALIZATION
PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDED ORDER VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT; THAT THE PRICE FIXING FEATURES OF THE ACT AND ORDER
CONSTITUTE AN INVALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AND AN
INVASION OF THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES UNDER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT; FN4  AND THAT THE ACT INVOLVES DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER.  THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDER ARE SAID TO BE VOID BECAUSE AN
ESSENTIAL FINDING REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE IS LACKING.  THE REFERENDUM
AMONG PRODUCERS IS ASSAILED AS IMPROPERLY CONDUCTED.  AND THE
DEFENDANTS IN NO. 772 RAISE THE POINT THAT THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDED ORDER. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY. - THERE IS NOTHING TO BE ADDED TO THE DISCUSSION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT IN UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO
OPERATIVE, ANTE, P. 533.  THE DISCUSSION THERE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
AMENDED ORDER, IN SO FAR AS SIMILAR ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THIS CASE, IS
ALSO DETERMINATIVE. 

ORDER AMENDED WITHOUT FINDING AS TO BASE PERIOD.  - ORDER NO. 4, AS
AMENDED, IS THE CONTROLLING REGULATION IN THESE CASES.  AS AUTHORIZED
BY SEC. 8E  FN5  IT USED A POST-WAR PERIOD AS THE BASE PERIOD TO
DETERMINE PRICES.  THE FINDING AND PROCLAMATION BY THE SECRETARY AS TO
THE ABSENCE OF STATISTICS FOR THE PRE-WAR PERIOD, AVAILABLE FOR USE,
WERE MADE FOR THE ORIGINAL ISSUE OF ORDER NO. 4 BUT NOT FOR THE
AMENDMENTS.  SECTION 8C (17) MAKES CERTAIN SECTIONS, INCLUDING 8E,
APPLICABLE TO AMENDMENTS OF ORDERS.  IT READS THUS:  "THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS SECTION, SECTION 8D, AND SECTION 8E APPLICABLE TO ORDERS SHALL BE
APPLICABLE TO AMENDMENTS TO ORDERS.  ...  " DEFENDANTS CONTEND THAT
THIS REQUIRES A FINDING AND PROCLAMATION UNDER SEC. 8E EACH TIME AN
ORDER WHICH INCLUDES A POST-WAR BASE PERIOD IS AMENDED IN ANY
PARTICULAR. 

ORDINARILY THE BASE PERIOD OF SEC. 2 IS TO BE USED.  IT IS ONLY AFTER
A FINDING THAT THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE COMMODITY DURING THE PERIOD
FIXED IN SEC. 2 CANNOT BE SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED FROM AVAILABLE
STATISTICS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE THAT THE SECRETARY BY SEC.
8E IS AUTHORIZED TO FIND AND PROCLAIM THE POST-WAR BASE PERIOD.  BY
SEC. 8C (1) THE SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE "AND FROM TIME TO TIME
AMEND" ORDERS.  OBVIOUSLY, AS A GENERAL CLAUSE TO MAKE ALL THE
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 8C, 8D AND 8E APPLICABLE TO AMENDMENTS, SEC. 8C
(17) WAS ADOPTED.  WITHOUT IT QUESTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN PERTINENT AS TO
THE APPLICABILITY TO AMENDED ORDERS OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS IN THESE
AFTER IT WAS ONCE DETERMINED.  THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE NO OCCASION TO
REVIEW THE ABSENCE OF SATISFACTORY STATISTICS, HOWEVER, ON A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY CHANGE IN THE BASE PERIOD.  THE
REQUIREMENT FOR FINDING AND PROCLAMATION IN ADOPTING A BASE PERIOD IS
NOT INTENDED TO FORCE THE SECRETARY TO GO THROUGH A MEANINGLESS
RITUAL.  A DETERMINATION OF THE NECESSITY OF USING THE POST-WAR BASE
PERIOD ONCE MADE AND PROCLAIMED SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS OF SECS. 8C
(17) AND 8E FOR AMENDMENTS, SO LONG AS NO AMENDMENT IS MADE WHICH
INVOLVES A CHANGE IN THE BASE PERIOD.  THIS HAS BEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION  FN6  WHERE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO ORDERS WHICH HAD
UTILIZED A POST-WAR BASE PERIOD.  THE PLAINTIFFS SHOW THIS BY A SERIES
OF REFERENCES TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER WHICH ARE NOT CHALLENGED.  FN7 

VALIDITY OF THE REFERENDUM.  - THE REFERENDUM IS CHALLENGED AS
CONDUCTED CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  SECTION 8C (9)(B)
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO ISSUE AN ORDER,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF HANDLERS TO APPROVE A MARKETING
AGREEMENT, IF HE MAKES CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS, ONE OF THEM THAT THE
ISSUANCE IS APPROVED BY AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRODUCERS WHO,
DURING A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD, "HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF
SUCH COMMODITY FOR SALE IN THE MARKETING AREA.  ..."  FN8  UNDER SEC.
8C(19) THE SECRETARY "MAY CONDUCT A REFERENDUM AMONG PRODUCERS" TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER TWO-THIRDS APPROVE.  HE RESTRICTED VOTING IN THE
REFERENDUM UNDER SCRUTINY TO PRODUCERS WHO HAD DELIVERED MILK TO A
STATION APPROVED FOR THE SHIPMENT OF MILK TO THE MARKETING AREA AND
WHICH HAD SHIPPED MILK OR CREAM TO THE MARKETING AREA DURING THE
REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD.    IT IS SAID THAT THE SECRETARY BY THIS
RESTRICTION DISREGARDED THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AS TO PRODUCERS
ELIGIBLE TO VOTE AND THAT THE BALLOT WAS EITHER ACCORDED TO PRODUCERS
NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE OR DENIED TO QUALIFIED PRODUCERS.  SPECIFICALLY,
THE FOLLOWING ERRORS ARE URGED:  (1)  A LARGE NUMBER OF SOUTHERN AND
WESTERN PRODUCERS WHO DELIVERED TO STATIONS SHIPPING CREAM WERE NOT
PERMITTED TO VOTE.  (2) MANY NEW ENGLAND OR EASTERN NEW YORK PRODUCERS
VOTED WHO DELIVERED TO HANDLERS AT PLANTS WHICH SHIPPED ONLY CREAM IN
THE REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD.  (3) MANY VOTED WHO PRODUCED MILK ON FARMS
AS TO WHICH NO CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION HAD BEEN ISSUED, AS REQUIRED
BY SECS. 16A AND 16C OF THE MASSACHUSETTS MILK LAW.  FN9  (4) A NUMBER
OF APPROVING PRODUCERS DELIVERED MILK TO STATIONS WHICH SHIPPED LESS
THAN 50 PERCENT OF THEIR PRODUCT TO THE BOSTON AREA.  (5) COOPERATIVES
CAST VOTES IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDER SOLELY THROUGH
BALLOTS CAST BY THEIR BOARDS OF DIRECTORS.  INCLUSION OF THE SOUTHERN
AND WESTERN SHIPPERS OF CREAM OR ELIMINATION OF ANY ONE OF THE
REMAINING GROUPS MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THE RESULT OF THE REFERENDUM. 

IT DOES NOT SEEM PROFITABLE TO EXPAND EACH OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE
DEFENDANTS.  THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY WHETHER THE STATUTE WAS FOLLOWED. 
IT SEEMS TO US THAT IT WAS. 

THE ACT DOES NOT SUPPLY THE SECRETARY WITH DETAILED DIRECTIONS AS TO
THE MANNER OF HOLDING A REFERENDUM.  ITS LANGUAGE IS GENERAL.  THE
SECRETARY "MAY CONDUCT A REFERENDUM AMONG PRODUCERS."  FN10  WHAT
PRODUCERS?  THOSE "ENGAGED IN THE PRODUCTION OF (MILK) FOR SALE IN THE
MARKETING AREA.  ..."  FN11  EVERY PRODUCER WHO VOTED WAS SO ENGAGED. 
EACH DELIVERED MILK TO THE PLANT OF A HANDLER LICENSED  FN12  TO
DISTRIBUTE AND SELL FLUID MILK IN THE MARKETING AREA.  THE ORDER IS
AIMED AT THE HANDLING OF MILK MARKETED IN THE AREA.  THE PROBLEMS TO BE
SOLVED ARE THOSE ENGENDERED BY THE NECESSARY, YET TROUBLESOME, SURPLUS
OF FLUID MILK.  EVERY HANDLER TO WHOM THE VOTERS DELIVERED CONTRIBUTED
TO THAT SURPLUS. 

THE MILK OF THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PRODUCERS OUTSIDE THE MILK-SHED
COULD NOT BE SENT INTO THE MARKETING AREA IN FLUID FORM, FOR THEIR
HANDLERS WERE NOT LICENSED TO SELL MILK IN THE AREA.  THE STATION IN
INDIANA, USED IN THE HEARINGS AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE SITUATION, HELD A
LICENSE FOR THE EMERGENCY SHIPMENTS OF SWEET CREAM ONLY.  THE EXCLUSION
OF THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PRODUCERS, THEREFORE, WAS PROPER.  THEY ARE
LOCATED OUTSIDE THE BOSTON MILK-SHED; THEY DO NOT PRODUCE ANY PART OF
THE BURDENSOME SURPLUS OF FLUID MILK. 

THERE WAS NO ERROR IN PERMITTING THE REMAINING GROUPS OF PRODUCERS TO
VOTE.  THAT SOME HANDLERS TO WHOM VOTING PRODUCERS DELIVERED MILK
SHIPPED ONLY CREAM DURING THE REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD IS IMMATERIAL.  THE
FARMERS, IT WAS FOUND, CANNOT TELL WHEN THEY BRING IN THEIR MILK
WHETHER IT WILL BE SOLD BY THE HANDLERS AS MILK OR CREAM.  AS THESE
HANDLERS COULD HAVE SENT THE FLUID MILK TO THE AREA, AND IN MOST
INSTANCES DID, AT TIMES OTHER THAN THE REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD, THE MILK
DELIVERED TO THEM WAS A POTENTIAL PART OF THE SURPLUS.  THE PRODUCERS
WHO LACKED CERTIFICATES OF REGISTRATION WERE PROPERLY INCLUDED.  THEIR
MILK WAS SOLD IN THE AREA BY LICENSED HANDLERS.  FN13 NOR CAN IT MAKE
ANY DIFFERENCE THAT LESS THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE MILK OF SOME STATIONS
WAS SHIPPED TO THE MARKETING AREA DURING THE REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD. 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT THAT COMPELS ADOPTING 50 PERCENT AS
DETERMINATIVE.  IT WAS ENOUGH THAT THE HANDLERS OF THESE PRODUCERS DID
SEND SOME PART, AND COULD HAVE SENT ALL. 

TWO COOPERATIVES VOTED FOR THEIR MEMBERS IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENTS
TO THE ORDER.  FN14  NO POLL WAS TAKEN OF THE INDIVIDUAL PRODUCER
MEMBERS.  NOR WAS THERE ANY SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL BY THEM OF THE ACTION
TAKEN ON THEIR BEHALF BY THE COOPERATIVES.  SECTION 8C (12) DIRECTS THE
SECRETARY TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF CO-OPERATIVES AS
THE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF MEMBERS.  THIS IS COMPLETE AUTHORITY FOR
THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY.  HE NEED NOT REQUIRE FURTHER REFERENDUMS
BY COOPERATIVES THEMSELVES.  PRESUMABLY THEY WILL VOTE WITH AN EYE TO
THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR MEMBERS. 

VIOLATION OF ORDER.  THE DECREE DIRECTS THE DEFENDANTS TO PAY TO THE
MARKET ADMINISTRATOR FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THE PRODUCERS THROUGH THE
EQUALIZATION FUND THE AMOUNTS WHICH HE HAD BILLED TO THEM UNDER THE
ORDER.  THE DEFENDANTS H. P. HOOD & SONS AND NOBLE'S MILK COMPANY
CONTEND THAT THE BILLS INCLUDE IN THEIR COMPUTATION MILK PLAINLY
EXCLUDED BY THE TERMS OF THE ORDER BECAUSE THE PRODUCT OF DAIRIES
WITHOUT THE CERTIFICATES OF REGISTRATION REQUIRED BY MASSACHUSETTS
GENERAL LAWS, CHAPTER 94, SECS. 16A ET SEQ. UNDER THESE SECTIONS NO
PERSON MAY SELL MILK KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED ON UNREGISTERED
FARMS.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT MILK FROM SUCH FARMS FIGURED IN THE
OPERATION OF THE EQUALIZATION POOL.  THE EXPLANATION OF THE PLAINTIFFS
IS THAT THE ORDER COVERS THIS MILK. 

THE ADMINISTRATOR SEEKS PAYMENT ON THE BASIS OF ALL MILK RECEIVED BY
LICENSED HANDLERS FOR USE IN THE MARKETING AREA.  IT WAS FOUND THAT
MILK RECEIVED AT A COUNTRY PLANT WAS INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR KNEW THE PLANT WAS APPROVED FOR SHIPMENT OF FLUID MILK BY
A CITY OR TOWN OF THE MARKETING AREA.  BY STATUTE HANDLERS ARE REQUIRED
TO HAVE A LICENSE TO HANDLE MILK IN ANY TOWN WHERE AN INSPECTOR OF MILK
IS APPOINTED AND A PERMIT FROM THE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH, FN15  AND
THEY MUST REGISTER WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE DAIRYING DIVISION OF THE
STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.  FN16 

AS THE ACTION OF HANDLERS FORMS THE GROUND FOR THE INITIATION OF
REGULATION UNDER THE ACT  FN17 AND FOR CLASSIFICATION, REPORTS,
CALCULATION AND PAYMENT UNDER THE ORDER,  FN18  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
MILK RECEIVED BY HANDLERS FOR USE IN THE AREA IS THE PROPER BASIS OF
COMPUTATION.  TRUE, THE REPORTS ARE BASED ON THE DELIVERY OF MILK BY
DEFINED PRODUCERS BUT IN VIEW OF THE TERMS OF THE ORDER AS A WHOLE, WE
ARE OF THE OPINION THE MILK FROM UNREGISTERED FARMS MUST ALSO BE
REPORTED.  THE ACT AND ORDER REGULATE MARKETING.  IN VIOLATING THE
STATE HEALTH LAWS BY KNOWINGLY SELLING MILK FROM UNREGISTERED FARMS,
PRODUCERS, AND HANDLERS MAY RISK PROSECUTION BY THE MASSACHUSETTS
AUTHORITIES.  NEVERTHELESS, THE HANDLERS MUST CONFORM TO THE ORDER.  IT
IS THE MILK HANDLED, NOT THE MILK PRODUCED, WHICH IS DETERMINATIVE. 
THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS JUSTIFIED IN USING MILK RECEIVED AT AN APPROVED
PLANT FOR COMPUTATION.  IT MAY BE ADDED THAT UNDER THE STATE AND TOWN
REGULATIONS THE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE MARKETING AREA, THROUGH THEIR
CONTROL OVER LICENSES AND PERMITS, HAVE THE POWER TO SUPERVISE THE
HANDLERS TO SEE THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE LAW FORBIDDING SALES FROM
UNLICENSED FARMS.  FN19 

THE FURTHER CONTENTION IS MADE THAT THE SECRETARY FAILED TO MAKE A
FINDING AS TO THE TENDENCY OF THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER
TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY OF THE ACT.  THIS IS CONCEDED.  THE ORDER WAS
REINSTATED IN PART AS OF JULY 1, 1937.  IT WAS THEREAFTER AMENDED AFTER
HEARINGS AND ON JULY 28, 1937, THE ORDER AS AMENDED WAS PROMULGATED
WITH THE FINDING "THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER AND
ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ORDER, AS AMENDED, WILL TEND TO
EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT."  WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT
THIS FINDING CURED ANY OMISSION, IF SUCH A FINDING PRIOR TO
REINSTATEMENT WERE NECESSARY, AS TO WHICH WE EXPRESS NO OPINION.  WHILE
ORDER NO. 4 WAS PARTLY IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THIS AMENDMENT, THE FINDING
COVERED THE ENTIRE ORDER NO. 4 AS AMENDED, AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE
ORDER PROMULGATING THE AMENDMENTS IS AN APPROVAL OF ORDER NO. 4 AS
AMENDED, AS TENDING TO EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT. 

OTHER CONTENTIONS ARE MADE WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BUT THEY DO NOT
SEEM TO REQUIRE ANY STATEMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 3, 1937, 50 STAT. 246. 

FN2  ACT OF MAY 12, 1933, 48 STAT. 31, AS AMENDED AUGUST 24, 1935, 49
STAT. 750. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. DAVID BUTTRICK CO., 15 F.SUPP.  655, REVERSED
IN 91 F.2D 66. 

FN4  ONLY DEFENDANT IN NO. 809 MAKES THIS CONTENTION. 

FN5  "SEC.  8E.  IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAKING OF ANY MARKETINNG
AGREEMENT OR THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ORDER, IF THE SECRETARY FINDS AND
PROCLAIMS THAT, AS TO ANY COMMODITY SPECIFIED IN SUCH MARKETING
AGREEMENT OR ORDER, THE PURCHASING POWER DURING THE BASE PERIOD
SPECIFIED FOR SUCH COMMODITY IN SECTION 2 OF THIS TITLE CANNOT BE
SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED FROM AVAILABLE STATISTICS OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, THE BASE PERIOD, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUCH MARKETING
AGREEMENT OR ORDER, SHALL BE THE POST-WAR PERIOD, AUGUST 1919-JULY
1929, OR ALL THAT PORTION THEREOF FOR WHICH THE SECRETARY FINDS AND
PROCLAIMS THAT THE PURCHASING POWER OF SUCH COMMODITY CAN BE
SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED FROM AVAILABLE STATISTICS OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE." 

FN6  ARMSTRONG PAINT & VARNISH WORKS V. NU-ENAMEL CORP., 305 U.S.
315, 329. 

FN7  "ORDER NO. 2, AMENDED JUNE 5, 1936(1 FED. REG. 549); ORDER NO.
3, AMENDED APRIL 13, 1936(1 FED. REG. 185), AND MARCH 29, 1937(2 FED.
REG. 616), AND MARCH 31, 1939(4 FED. REG. 1404); ORDER NO. 4, AMENDED
JULY 28, 1937(2 FED. REG. 1331), AND JANUARY 13, 1939(4 FED. REG. 249);
ORDER NO. 5, AMENDED MARCH 29, 1937(2 FED. REG. 614); ORDER NO. 7,
AMENDED OCTOBER 24, 1936(1 FED. REG. 1662); ORDER NO. 11, AMENDED
NOVEMBER 17, 1936(1 FED. REG. 1979); ORDER NO. 12, AMENDED FEBRUARY 24,
1937(2 FED. REG. 354); ORDER NO. 15, PROCLAMATION DATED SEPTEMBER 10,
1938(3 FED. REG. 2222), AMENDMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 1938(3 FED. REG.
2222); ORDER NO. 20, AMENDED AUGUST 15, 1938(3 FED. REG. 2015)." 

FN8  THE ALTERNATIVE PROVISIONS MAY BE DISREGARDED IN THIS CASE. 

FN9  MASS. ANN. LAWS, C. 94, SECS. 12-48. 

FN10  SEC. 8C(19). 

FN11  SEC. 8C (9)(B)(I). 

FN12  MASS. ANN. LAWS, C. 94, SEC. 40. 

FN13  COMPARE THE DISCUSSION UNDER THE NEXT HEADING, VIOLATION OF
ORDER. 

FN14  SEE UNITED STATES V. ROCK ROYAL CO-OPERATIVE, ANTE, 533, 556. 

FN15  MASS. ANN. LAWS, C. 94, SECS. 40, 43. 

FN16  ID., SEC. 16F. 

FN17  SEC. 8C.  "(1)  THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE SHALL, SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, ISSUE, AND FROM TIME TO TIME AMEND,
ORDERS APPLICABLE TO PROCESSORS, ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS, AND OTHERS
ENGAGED IN THE HANDLING OF ANY AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY OR PRODUCT
THEREOF SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION.  SUCH PERSONS ARE
REFERRED TO IN THIS TITLE AS 'HANDLERS.'  SUCH ORDERS SHALL REGULATE,
IN THE MANNER HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION PROVIDED, ONLY SUCH HANDLING
OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY, OR PRODUCT THEREOF, AS IS IN THE
CURRENT OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR WHICH DIRECTLY BURDENS,
OBSTRUCTS, OR AFFECTS, INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN SUCH COMMODITY
OR PRODUCT THEREOF." 

FN18  ARTICLE III.  "SECTION 1.  SALES AND USE CLASSIFICATION.  -
MILK PURCHASED OR HANDLED BY HANDLERS SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  ALL MILK SOLD OR DISTRIBUTED AS MILK, CHOCOLATE MILK, OR
FLAVORED MILK AND ALL MILK NOT SPECIFICALLY ACCOUNTED FOR AS CLASS II
MILK SHALL BE CLASS I MILK; AND 

"2.  MILK SPECIFICALLY ACCOUNTED FOR (A) AS BEING SOLD, DISTRIBUTED,
OR DISPOSED OF OTHER THAN AS MILK, CHOCOLATE MILK, OR FLAVORED MILK AND
(B) AS ACTUAL PLANT SHRINKAGE WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS SHALL BE CLASS
II MILK." 

ARTICLE V. "SECTION 1.  PERIODIC REPORTS.  - ON OR BEFORE THE EIGHTH
DAY AFTER THE END OF EACH DELIVERY PERIOD, EACH HANDLER SHALL, EXCEPT
AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE VI, WITH RESPECT TO MILK OR CREAM
WHICH WAS, DURING SUCH DELIVERY PERIOD, (A) RECEIVED FROM PRODUCERS,
(B) RECEIVED FROM HANDLERS, OR (C) PRODUCED BY SUCH HANDLER, REPORT TO
THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR IN THE DETAIL AND FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE
MARKET ADMINISTRATOR, AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  THE RECEIPTS AT EACH PLANT FROM PRODUCERS WHO ARE NOT HANDLERS; 

"2.  THE RECEIPTS AT EACH PLANT FROM ANY OTHER HANDLER, INCLUDING ANY
HANDLER WHO IS ALSO A PRODUCER; 

"3.  THE QUANTITY, IF ANY, PRODUCED BY SUCH HANDLER; AND 

"4.  THE RESPECTIVE QUANTITIES OF MILK WHICH WERE SOLD, DISTRIBUTED,
OR USED, INCLUDING SALES TO OTHER HANDLERS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CLASSIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III." 

ARTICLE VII.  "SECTION 1.  COMPUTATION OF VALUE OF MILK FOR EACH
HANDLER.  - FOR EACH DELIVERY PERIOD THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR SHALL
COMPUTE, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VI, THE VALUE OF MILK
SOLD OR USED BY EACH HANDLER, WHICH WAS NOT PURCHASED FROM OTHER
HANDLERS, BY (A) MULTIPLYING THE QUANTITY OF SUCH MILK IN EACH CLASS BY
THE PRICE APPLICABLE PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 2, 3, AND 4 OF ARTICLE IV AND
(B) ADDING TOGETHER THE RESULTING VALUE OF EACH CLASS." 

ARTICLE VIII.  "SECTION 1.  TIME AND METHOD OF PAYMENT.  - ON OR
BEFORE THE 25TH DAY AFTER THE END OF EACH DELIVERY PERIOD EACH HANDLER
SHALL MAKE PAYMENT, SUBJECT TO THE BUTTERFAT DIFFERENTIAL SET FORTH IN
SUCH DELIVERY PERIOD AS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1
OF ARTICLE VII, AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  TO EACH PRODUCER, EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF THIS
PRODUCER; 

"2.  TO ANY PRODUCER, WHO DID NOT REGULARLY SELL MILK FOR A PERIOD OF
THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF TO A HANDLER OR TO
PERSONS WITHIN THE MARKETING AREA, AT THE CLASS II PRICE, IN EFFECT FOR
THE PLANT AT WHICH SUCH PRODUCER DELIVERED MILK, FOR ALL THE MILK
DELIVERED BY SUCH PRODUCER DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING WITH THE FIRST
REGULAR DELIVERY OF SUCH PRODUCER AND CONTINUING UNTIL THE END OF TWO
FULL CALENDAR MONTHS FOLLOWING THE FIRST DAY OF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING
CALENDAR MONTH;    "3.  TO PRODUCERS, THROUGH THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR,
BY PAYING TO OR RECEIVING FROM THE MARKET ADMINISTRATOR, AS THE CASE
MAY BE, THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE PAYMENTS MADE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPHS 1
AND 2 OF THIS SECTION ARE LESS THAN, OR EXCEED, THE VALUE OF MILK AS
REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED FOR SUCH HANDLER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1 OF
ARTICLE VII, AS SHOWN IN A STATEMENT RENDERED BY THE MARKET
ADMINISTRATOR ON OR BEFORE THE TWENTIETH DAY AFTER THE END OF SUCH
DELIVERY PERIOD." 

FN19  MASS. ANN. LAWS, C. 6 AND C. 94, SECS. 16A, 16F, 40, 41, 43. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

I REGRET THAT I CANNOT CONCUR IN THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THESE
CASES.  I FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ORDER COMPLIED
WITH THE TERMS OF THE ACT OR WHETHER THE ACT OR THE ORDER DEPRIVED THE
APPELLEES OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  I AM OF OPINION THAT
THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE. 

VALID DELEGATION IS LIMITED TO THE EXECUTION OF A LAW.  IF POWER IS
DELEGATED TO MAKE A LAW, OR TO REFRAIN FROM MAKING IT, OR TO DETERMINE
WHAT THE LAW SHALL COMMAND OR PROHIBIT, THE DELEGATION IGNORES AND
TRANSGRESSES THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF POWER BETWEEN THE
LEGISLATIVE AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

IN MY VIEW THE ACT VESTS IN THE SECRETARY AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE,
FIRST, WHAT OF A NUMBER OF ENUMERATED COMMODITIES SHALL BE REGULATED;
SECOND, IN WHAT AREAS THE COMMODITY SHALL BE REGULATED; THIRD, THE
PERIOD OF REGULATION, AND, FOURTH, THE CHARACTER OF REGULATION TO BE
IMPOSED; AND, FOR THESE REASONS, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

THE STATUTE IS AN ATTEMPTED DELEGATION TO AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE REGULATIONS WITHIN SUPPOSED LIMITS AND ACCORDING TO
SUPPOSED STANDARDS SO VAGUE AS IN EFFECT TO INVEST HIM WITH
UNCONTROLLED POWER OF LEGISLATION.  CONGRESS HAS NOT DIRECTED THAT THE
MARKETING OF MILK SHALL BE REGULATED.  CONGRESS HAS NOT DIRECTED THAT
REGULATION SHALL BE IMPOSED THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES OR IN ANY
SPECIFIED PORTION THEREOF.  IT HAS LEFT THE CHOICE OF BOTH LOCATIONS
AND AREAS TO THE SECRETARY.  CONGRESS HAS NOT PROVIDED THAT REGULATION
ANYWHERE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE AT ANY SPECIFIED DATE, OR REMAIN
EFFECTIVE FOR ANY SPECIFIED PERIOD.  CONGRESS HAS PERMITTED SUCH A
VARIETY OF FORMS OF REGULATION AS TO INVEST THE SECRETARY WITH A CHOICE
OF DISCRETE SYSTEMS EACH HAVING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AN INDEPENDENT
AND COMPLETE STATUTE. 

OF EIGHT SPECIFIED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.  IT EMBODIES NO DIRECTIONS AS
TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WHICH SHALL MOVE HIM TO ISSUE ORDERS
AFFECTING EACH OF THE NAMED COMMODITIES.  THE SAME SECTION PERMITS THE
PROMULGATION OF ORDERS APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIED REGIONS.  IT OMITS ANY
RESTRICTION OR DIRECTION AS TO THE SIZE OR LOCATION OF THE AREA TO BE
AFFECTED BY A REGIONAL ORDER.  IT LEAVES THE SECRETARY FREE TO
DETERMINE WHEN REGULATION SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE, WHEN IT SHALL BE
TERMINATED THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES OR IN ANY PORTION THEREOF. 

THE SUPPOSED STANDARDS BY WHICH THE SECRETARY IS TO BE GOVERNED TURN
OUT, UPON EXAMINATION, TO BE NO STANDARDS WHATEVER.  ALL OF THE CHOICES
MENTIONED ARE, ACCORDING TO THE ACT, TO BE MADE IF THE SECRETARY HAS
REASON TO BELIEVE, OR FINDS, THAT HIS PROPOSED ACTION WILL "TEND TO
EFFECTUATE THE DECLARED POLICY" OF THE ACT.* 

*SEE SEC. 8C (3), 8C (4), 8C (16). 

WE TURN, THEREFORE, TO SEC. 2, WHICH DECLARES THE POLICY OF THE
CONGRESS TO BE:  "THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THIS TITLE, TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN
SUCH ORDERLY MARKETING CONDITIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS WILL ESTABLISH PRICES TO FARMERS AT A LEVEL THAT
WILL GIVE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES A PURCHASING POWER WITH RESPECT TO
ARTICLES THAT FARMERS BUY, EQUIVALENT TO THE PURCHASING POWER OF
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IN THE BASE PERIOD," WHICH BASE PERIOD IS
DEFINED AS A PERIOD OF YEARS ANTEDATING THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT.  THE
SECRETARY TO BE "TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE CONSUMER BY (A)
APPROACHING THE LEVEL OF PRICES WHICH IT IS DECLARED TO BE THE POLICY
OF CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION BY GRADUAL
CORRECTION OF THE CURRENT LEVEL AT AS RAPID A RATE AS THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE DEEMS TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND FEASIBLE IN VIEW OF
THE CURRENT CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND IN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN MARKETS, AND (B)
AUTHORIZING NO ACTION UNDER THIS TITLE WHICH HAS FOR ITS PURPOSE THE
MAINTENANCE OF PRICES TO FARMERS ABOVE THE LEVEL WHICH IT IS DECLARED
TO BE THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS

ASSUMING THAT ANY OF THESE PROPOSED ENDS OR AIMS WERE IN THEMSELVES
CAPABLE OF REASONABLE DEFINITION, IT IS, NEVERTHELESS, EVIDENT THAT THE
SECRETARY IS TO FORM A JUDGMENT BY BALANCING A PRICE RAISING POLICY
AGAINST A CONSUMER-PROTECTION POLICY, ACCORDING TO HIS VIEWS OF
FEASIBILITY AND PUBLIC INTEREST. 

IF THEN THE SEPARATE OBJECTS TO BE ATTAINED WERE MATTERS SUSCEPTIBLE
OF A DEFINITE FINDING THERE WOULD STILL BE THE INESCAPABLE RESULT THAT,
AFTER SUCH DEFINITE FINDING AS TO EACH PROPOSED AIM, THERE MUST BE AN
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THAT AIM SHOULD BE
ACCOMPLISHED IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER AND CONFLICTING AIMS.  AND THERE
WOULD STILL REMAIN THE FACT THAT THE CONCLUSION MIGHT BE AGAINST ANY
REGULATION BY REASON OF THE SECRETARY'S UNRESTRAINED JUDGMENT THAT, IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES, REGULATION IS NOT "FEASIBLE." 

ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID TO SHOW THAT A LAW IS TO COME INTO BEING ON THE
BASIS OF THE SECRETARY'S SOLE JUDGMENT AS TO ITS PROBABLE EFFECT UPON
THE MILK INDUSTRY, ITS PROBABLE EFFECT UPON THE CONSUMER, ITS PROBABLE
CONSONANCE WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND ITS FEASIBILITY.  THE
RESOLUTION OF ALL SUCH PROBLEMS IS OF THE ESSENCE OF LAW MAKING. 

BUT IF, AS THE ACT DISCLOSES, THE SUPPOSED STANDARDS WHEREBY THE
SECRETARY IS TO ASCERTAIN THE ELEMENTS WHICH ARE TO DETERMINE HIS
ULTIMATE DECISION ARE THEMSELVES SO VAGUE THAT NEITHER HE NOR ANYONE
CAN ACCURATELY APPLY THEM, THE UNLIMITED NATURE OF THE DELEGATION
BECOMES EVEN CLEARER. 

THE FIRST THING THE SECRETARY IS PERMITTED TO ACCOMPLISH BY
REGULATION, SO THE STATUTE DECLARES, IS THE PARITY IN PURCHASING POWER
OF THE PRICE TO BE RECEIVED BY PRODUCERS WITH THAT RECEIVED IN THE BASE
PERIOD.  THIS PARITY IS TO BE IN TERMS OF THINGS FARMERS PURCHASE.  A
MOMENT'S REFLECTION WILL SHOW THAT ANY CALCULATION OF SUCH PARITY IS
IMPOSSIBLE.  THE THINGS FARMERS PURCHASE, THE RELATIVE QUANTITIES IN
WHICH THEY PURCHASE THEM, AND THEIR PRICE IN TERMS OF MILK, VARY FROM
MONTH TO MONTH AND FROM YEAR TO YEAR.  MOREOVER, THE SECRETARY IS NOT
TO ESTABLISH A PARITY BETWEEN TWO PAST PERIODS BUT IS TO REGULATE THE
INDUSTRY IN SUCH FASHION AS WILL, IN HIS OPINION, PRODUCE FOR THE
FUTURE A PARITY OF THE PURCHASING POWER OF MILK WITH ITS PURCHASING
POWER IN THE BASE PERIOD.  THE SECRETARY'S CONCLUSION MUST LIE IN THE
REALM OF HOPE OR OPINION AND NOT IN THAT OF ASCERTAINED FACT.  THE
MAJOR OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT IS IN TRUTH TO RAISE PRICES PAID FARMERS FOR
MILK.  THE UPWARD LIMIT IS REALLY LEFT TO THE SECRETARY'S UNCONTROLLED
DISCRETION. 

TURN NOW TO ANOTHER ALLEGED STANDARD WHICH IS TO CONTROL THE
SECRETARY'S ACTION.  HE IS NOT TO RAISE PRICES SO FAST AS TO INJURE THE
INTEREST OF THE CONSUMER BUT IS TO RAISE THEM GRADUALLY BY CORRECTION
OF THE CURRENT LEVEL AT AS RAPID A RATE AS HE DEEMS TO BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND FEASIBLE IN VIEW OF CONSUMPTIVE DEMAND.  IT IS FAIR TO ASK
WHETHER THIS CONSTITUTES A STANDARD AT ALL.  WHAT IS THE PUBLIC
INTEREST?  MUST NOT CONGRESS ASCERTAIN AND DECLARE IT?  WHAT IS
FEASIBLE IN THE WAY OF REGULATION?  IS NOT THIS A MATTER FOR
LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  HOW IS ANY ONE TO TELL WHETHER THE SECRETARY HAS
DISOBEYED THE MANDATE OF CONGRESS IN THESE RESPECTS? 

THERE IS IN THE ACT A FURTHER DELEGATION OF POWER.  CONGRESS MIGHT,
ALTHOUGH COMMITTING TO THE SECRETARY'S WILL AND JUDGMENT THE MATTERS
ABOVE ENUMERATED, HAVE DIRECTED HIM HOW TO REGULATE THE INDUSTRY IF HE
DETERMINED SO TO DO.  IT MIGHT HAVE CONSIDERED THE POSSIBLE MODES OF
REGULATION AND PROVIDED WHICH OF THEM THE SECRETARY SHOULD ADOPT.  THE
ACT DOES NO SUCH THING.  IT LEAVES TO THE SECRETARY THE CHOICE OF
DIFFERENT AND MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE METHODS OF CONTROL. 

IN THE ACT.  THE FIRST REQUIRES THAT ANY ORDER AFFECTING MILK MUST
CONTAIN ONE, AND MAY CONTAIN OTHERS, OF SEVEN SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. 
THE SECOND REQUIRES THAT IN ANY ORDER THERE MUST BE INCLUDED ONE, AND
THERE MAY BE INCLUDED OTHERS, OR FOUR CONDITIONS.  THESE SECTIONS GIVE
THE SECRETARY THE CHOICE OF THREE INDEPENDENT PROGRAMS FOR RAISING THE
PRICE OF MILK, NAMELY, BARGAINING WITH HANDLERS, STABILIZING THE RETAIL
PRICE, OR FIXING PRICES TO BE PAID PRODUCERS.  WITHIN EACH, VARIATION
OF THE WIDEST SORT IS ALLOWED.  MOREOVER, THE ACT PERMITS ALTERNATIVE
SCHEMES FOR DISTRIBUTING AMONGST THE PRODUCERS THE DOLLAR VALUE OF MILK
SOLD IN THE AREA TO WHICH THE SECRETARY'S ORDER APPLIES.  THE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PERMISSIBLE SCHEMES ARE NOT MATTERS OF MERE
DETAIL BUT ARE BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL. 

IN RESPECT OF THE CHOICE OF METHOD, THE ONLY GUIDE IS THE DECLARATION
OF POLICY EMBODIED IN SEC. 2.  IF THE SECRETARY IS OF OPINION THAT ONE
METHOD IS MORE LIKELY TO RAISE PRICES THAN ANOTHER HE IS AT LIBERTY TO
PUT INTO THE FORM OF AN ORDER WHAT IS TANTAMOUNT TO A STATUTE
PRESCRIBING THE METHOD OF HIS CHOICE.  THUS THE SECRETARY IS TO DECIDE
NOT ONLY WHETHER THERE IS TO BE A LAW BUT, AS WELL, THE NATURE OF THE
LAW TO BE ENACTED. 

WHAT WAS SAID CONCERNING UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER IN PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, AND SCHECHTER
POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE
HERE.  COMPARISON OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT RESPECTING FLUE-CURED
TOBACCO, WHICH ARE SUMMARIZED IN MULFORD V. SMITH, ANTE, P. 38, WITH
THOSE APPLICABLE TO MILK, WILL DISCLOSE THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARACTER OF THE POWERS DELEGATED IN THE
CASE OF TOBACCO AND THE LEGISLATIVE CHARACTER OF THOSE DELEGATED IN THE
CASE OF MILK.  NO AUTHORITY CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS A
SITUATION COMPARABLE TO THAT HERE DISCLOSED.  IT WOULD NOT BE
PROFITABLE TO ANALYZE EACH OF THE CASES BECAUSE IN EACH THE QUESTION OF
THE NATURE OF THE STATUTORY STANDARD AND ITS APPLICATION IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATUTE INVOLVED DEPENDED UPON THE FIELD WHICH
THE LEGISLATION COVERED.  WHERE DELEGATION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED THE COURT
HAS BEEN CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MADE IT POSSIBLE
TO PRESCRIBE A STANDARD BY WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WAS CONFINED AND
DIRECTED.  SUCH A STANDARD, AS RESPECTS MILK MARKETING, IS LACKING IN
THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937. 

I THINK THAT THE DECREE SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






NEWARK FIRE INS. CO. V. STATE BOARD, 307 U.S. 313 


NO. 449.  ARGUED APRIL 18, 19, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1939.  - 120
N.J.L. 185 - ID. 224 - 198 A. 836, 837, AFFIRMED. 


A TAX ASSESSED UNDER A STATUTE OF NEW JERSEY AGAINST AN INSURANCE
COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THAT STATE, UPON THE FULL AMOUNT
OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK PAID IN AND ACCUMULATED SURPLUS, LESS CERTAIN
DEDUCTIONS FOR LIABILITIES AND STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS - RESISTED AS
VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ON THE
GROUND THAT THE BUSINESS SITUS OF ITS INTANGIBLES AND THE TAX DOMICILE
OF THE CORPORATION WERE IN NEW YORK - SUSTAINED. 

BY REED, J., WITH WHOM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BUTLER AND ROBERTS, JJ.,
CONCURRED. 

1.  IN SO FAR AS THE CONCLUSION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A BUSINESS
SITUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION, DISTINCT FROM THE DOMICILIARY SITUS,
IS THE BASIS FOR A CLAIM OF FEDERAL RIGHT, THE DUTY OF INQUIRING INTO
THE EVIDENCE WHICH ESTABLISHES SUCH BUSINESS SITUS RESTS UPON THIS
COURT.  P. 319. 

2.  THE FACTS PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH
THAT THE CORPORATION'S INTANGIBLES HAD A BUSINESS SITUS IN NEW YORK AND
TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF A TAXABLE SITUS SOLELY IN NEW JERSEY. 
P. 321. 

BY FRANKFURTER, J., WITH WHOM STONE, BLACK, AND DOUGLAS, JJ.,
CONCURRED. 

THE TAX AS APPLIED IS A CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL EXERTION OF THE TAXING
POWER OF A STATE OVER A CORPORATION OF ITS OWN CREATION; AND CREAM OF
WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS, 253 U.S. 325, AND THE CASES WHICH HAVE
FOLLOWED IT, AFFORD A WHOLLY ADEQUATE BASIS FOR SUSTAINING IT.
QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE FICTIONAL "SITUS" OF INTANGIBLES ARE IRRELEVANT
HERE.  P. 324. 

NEWARK FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 456, UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CO. ET AL. V. STATE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND
APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEALS FROM AFFIRMANCES OF JUDGMENTS SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF A
STATE TAX, 118 N.J.L. 525, 538; 193 A. 912, 915. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE ANNOUNCED THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT, VIZ., THAT
THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED WITH COSTS.  MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS
DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE REED ANNOUNCED AN OPINION IN WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR.
JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS CONCURRED. 

THE CONTROVERSY IN NO. 449 RELATES TO THE JURISDICTION OF NEW JERSEY
TO TAX THE APPELLANT UPON THE FULL AMOUNT OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK PAID IN
AND ACCUMULATED SURPLUS.  THE CASE IS HERE BY APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A)
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  FN1 

CHAPTER 236 OF THE LAWS OF 1918  FN2  IS A GENERAL ACT FOR THE
ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TAXES.  SECTION 202 SUBJECTS ALL REAL AND
PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF NEW JERSEY TO TAXATION
ANNUALLY AT ITS TRUE VALUE.  BY SEC. 301 THE TAX ON OTHER THAN TANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY IS ASSESSED ON EACH INHABITANT IN THE TAXING DISTRICT
OF HIS RESIDENCE ON THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER IN EACH YEAR.  SECTION 305
DEALS WITH DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS AS RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH
THEIR CHIEF OFFICE IS LOCATED AND RENDERS THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY
TAXABLE IN THE SAME MANNER AS THAT OF INDIVIDUALS, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
PROVIDED.  SECTION 307, THE MOST VITAL IN THE CASE, PROVIDES: 

"EVERY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY AND EVERY STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY OTHER
THAN LIFE INSURANCE SHALL BE ASSESSED IN THE TAXING DISTRICT WHERE ITS
OFFICE IS SITUATE, UPON THE FULL AMOUNT OF ITS CAPITAL STOCK PAID IN
AND ACCUMULATED SURPLUS; ...  NO FRANCHISE TAX SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON
ANY SUCH FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OR OTHER STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY
INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION." 

THE APPELLANT IS A STOCK FIRE INSURANCE CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER
THE LAWS OF NEW JERSEY WHICH AT THE TIME OF THIS ASSESSMENT REQUIRED IT
TO LOCATE ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND TO CONDUCT ITS GENERAL BUSINESS IN
THE STATE.  FN3  IT IS STIPULATED THAT A REGISTERED OFFICE IS
MAINTAINED IN NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, TOGETHER WITH SUCH BOOKS AS THE LAW
REQUIRES TO BE KEPT WITHIN THE STATE.  THE ONLY BUSINESS CARRIED ON IN
THIS NEWARK OFFICE IS A LOCAL OR REGIONAL CLAIM AND UNDERWRITING
DEPARTMENT FOR ESSEX AND THREE OTHER COUNTIES.  NO EXECUTIVE OFFICER IS
THERE AND REPORTS ARE SENT TO THE NEW YORK OFFICE.  THE STIPULATION
FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE COMPANY'S "EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND ITS EXECUTIVE
OFFICE ARE LOCATED AT 150 WILLIAM STREET, NEW YORK CITY.  THE GENERAL
ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY ARE KEPT IN THE OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY.  THE
GENERAL ACCOUNTING, UNDERWRITING AND EXECUTIVE OFFICES OF THE COMPANY
ARE ALL LOCATED AT THE MAIN OFFICE AT 150 WILLIAM STREET, NEW YORK
CITY.  ALL CASH AND SECURITIES OF THE COMPANY ARE LOCATED THERE OR IN
BANKS IN THAT CITY OR IN OTHER BANKS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SUM OF $6,425.32 ON DEPOSIT IN NEW
JERSEY BANKS.  ALL OF THE GENERAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY ARE CONDUCTED
AT THE MAIN OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY AND HAVE BEEN SO CONDUCTED THERE
SINCE APPELLANT MOVED ITS MAIN OFFICE FROM NEWARK SIX YEARS AGO."  NO
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX IS PAID IN NEW YORK.  THE COMPANY DOES PAY THERE
A FRANCHISE TAX BASED UPON PREMIUMS. 

THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK MADE AN ASSESSMENT, AS
OF OCTOBER 1, 1934, UPON THE CAPITAL STOCK PAID IN AND ACCUMULATED
SURPLUS OF THE APPELLANT, WITH DEDUCTIONS FOR DEBTS AND EXEMPTIONS
ALLOWED BY LAW.  THE ASSESSMENT WAS SUSTAINED, IN SUCCESSION, BY THE
ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, BY THE NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS, NOW AN APPELLEE, BY THE SUPREME COURT, FN4  AND BY THE COURT
OF ERRORS AND APPEALS, THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE STATE.  FN5  THROUGHOUT
THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW THE APPELLANT RESISTED THE JURISDICTION OF NEW
JERSEY TO TAX ON THE GROUND THAT ITS INTANGIBLES HAD ACQUIRED A
BUSINESS SITUS AND THE CORPORATION A TAX DOMICILE IN NEW YORK. 
THROUGHOUT, THE STATE TRIBUNALS TREATED THE ASSESSMENT AS UPON PERSONAL
PROPERTY WITH A BUSINESS SITUS IN THE SISTER STATE.  THE SUPREME COURT
CHARACTERIZED THE EXACTION AS A PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX AND DISCUSSED ITS
VALIDITY "IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROOFS  ...  UPON THE INESCAPABLE PREMISE
THAT ...  THE SECURITIES, THE PERSONALTY INVOLVED, HAVE BECOME AN
INTEGRAL PART OF (APPELLANT'S) BUSINESS SITUS IN NEW YORK  ..."  FN6
IT HELD THAT THE STATE OF DOMICILE MAY IMPOSE A PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX
UPON INTANGIBLES WHICH HAVE ACQUIRED A BUSINESS SITUS IN ANOTHER STATE
AND ADDED THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A NEW YORK PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX,
MULTIPLE TAXATION WAS IMPOSSIBLE.  THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF
NEW JERSEY, PER CURIAM, AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT FOR THE REASONS EXPRESSED
IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT.  FN7 

APPELLANT URGES ERROR IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE FACE OF THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE TAX IS A PROPERTY TAX UPON INTANGIBLES WITH A
BUSINESS SITUS IN NEW YORK, THE COMMERCIAL DOMICILE OF THE
CORPORATION.  SUCH APPROVAL, IT IS CLAIMED, VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT. 

THE PRESENT TAX, AS ADMINISTERED, IS LEVIED UPON AN ASSESSMENT OF THE
FULL AMOUNT OF CAPITAL STOCK AND SURPLUS.  IT IS A TAX ON THE NET VALUE
OF THE CORPORATION LESS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS, REACHED BY TAKING
LIABILITIES FROM GROSS VALUE OF ASSETS AND SUBTRACTING EXEMPT ITEMS
FROM THE REMAINDER.  THIS IS APPARENTLY BECAUSE CAPITAL STOCK AND
SURPLUS ARE TREATED AS INVESTED IN THE EXEMPT ASSETS.  FN8  THE VALUE
THUS ASSESSED IS NOT DETERMINED BY SPECIFIC ITEMS BUT IS THE RESULT OF
A CALCULATION IN WHICH ALL ASSETS ARE INVOLVED EXCEPT THOSE DEFINITELY
EXEMPTED.  OUR CONCLUSION MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO RESOLVE DOUBTS AS TO
WHETHER THIS IS A PROPERTY TAX. 

WHEN A STATE EXERCISES ITS SOVEREIGN POWER TO CREATE A PRIVATE
CORPORATION, THAT CORPORATION BECOMES A CITIZEN, AND DOMICILED IN THE
JURISDICTION, OF ITS CREATOR.  FN9  THERE IT MUST DWELL.  FN10  THE
DOMINION OF THE STATE OVER ITS CREATURE IS COMPLETE.  FN11  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINARY RECOGNITION OF THE RULE OF MOBILIA
SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM TO DETERMINE THE TAXABLE SITUS OF INTANGIBLE
PERSONALTY,  FN12  THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT SUCH PROPERTY IS TAXABLE BY
THE STATE OF THE CORPORATION'S ORIGIN.  FN13  THIS POWER OF NEW JERSEY
TO TAX IS MADE EFFECTIVE BY SEC. 307 OF THE ACT OF 1918, HERETOFORE
QUOTED.  IT IS THE ONLY TAX SOUGHT BY THE STATE FROM CORPORATIONS OF
THIS TYPE, AS THE FRANCHISE TAX, AT ONE TIME LEVIED,  FN14  WAS
REPEALED BY THE ACT OF APRIL 8, 1903.  FN15 

THERE ARE OCCASIONS, HOWEVER, WHEN THE USE OF INTANGIBLE PERSONALTY
IN OTHER STATES BECOMES SO INEXTRICABLY A PART OF THE BUSINESS THERE
CONDUCTED THAT IT BECOMES SUBJECT TO TAXATION BY THAT STATE.  FN16  THE
CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS OF THE CORPORATION IN NEW YORK, IT IS
URGED, HAS WITHDRAWN ITS INTANGIBLES COMPLETELY FROM THE TAX
JURISDICTION OF NEW JERSEY.  WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF A BUSINESS SITUS
AND COMMERCIAL DOMICILE IN NEW YORK, THAT STATE, UNDER THE AUTHORITIES
CITED, WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAX INTANGIBLES WITH THIS RELATION TO
ITS SOVEREIGNTY.  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT IF NEW YORK MAY LEVY A
PROPERTY TAX ON THESE INTANGIBLES, IT WILL VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO PERMIT NEW JERSEY TO DO THE SAME THING;
THAT PROPERTY CANNOT BE IN TWO PLACES; THAT IF IT IS IN NEW YORK FOR
TAX PURPOSES, IT CANNOT BE IN NEW JERSEY.  WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE THAT
BOTH STATES HAVE NOT THE POWER TO TAX THE SAME PROPERTY FOR THE SAME
INCIDENTS.  THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN HERETOFORE RESERVED.  FN17 WE DO NOT
FIND IT NECESSARY TO ANSWER IT IN THIS CASE. 

WHERE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE EXISTENCE OF A BUSINESS
SITUS OF INTANGIBLES FOR TAXATION BY A STATE OTHER THAN THE STATE OF
DOMICILE, THERE HAS BEEN DEFINITE EVIDENCE THAT THE INTANGIBLES WERE
INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED.  IN SO FAR AS THE CONCLUSION
AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A BUSINESS SITUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION,
DISTINCT FROM THE DOMICILIARY SITUS, IS THE BASIS FOR A CLAIM OF A
FEDERAL RIGHT, THE DUTY OF INQUIRING INTO THE EVIDENCE WHICH
ESTABLISHES SUCH BUSINESS SITUS RESTS UPON THIS COURT.  FN18 

IN THE STEMPEL, BRISTOL, COMPTOIR NATIONAL, METROPOLITAN AND
LIVERPOOL CASES, CITED IN NOTE 16, SUPRA, THE INTEGRATION OF THE
FOREIGN-OWNED INTANGIBLES WITH LOCAL ACTIVITIES WAS EVIDENT FROM THE
CONTINUED COURSE OF BUSINESS.  THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THE EVIDENCES
OF THE CREDITS FROM THE JURISDICTION WAS IMMATERIAL.  FN19  THE NON
RESIDENT INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS CARRIED ON CONTINUOUSLY A COURSE
OF LENDING MONEY OR GRANTING CREDITS WITHIN THE TAXING STATES.  THE
TAXED INTANGIBLES GREW OUT OF THESE TRANSACTIONS.  THEY WERE, IN FACT,
A PART OF THEM.  IN THE WHEELING STEEL CASE, THE SAME TYPE OF
AMALGAMATION OCCURRED.  WEST VIRGINIA SOUGHT TO TAX A DELAWARE
CORPORATION ON ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND BANK DEPOSITS.  THE OPINION
POINTS OUT, PAGES 212 AND 213, THAT THESE CHOSES IN ACTION WERE THE
INDEBTEDNESS FOR OR THE PROCEEDS OF SALES CONFIRMED IN WEST VIRGINIA,
ATTRIBUTABLE "TO THE PLACE WHERE THEY ARISE IN THE COURSE OF THE
BUSINESS OF MAKING CONTRACTS OF SALE."  IN FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V.
MINNESOTA ANOTHER DELAWARE CORPORATION WAS FOUND TO HAVE ESTABLISHED A
COMMERCIAL DOMICILE FOR ITSELF AND GIVEN A BUSINESS SITUS TO CERTAIN OF
ITS INTANGIBLES.  THE INTANGIBLES IN QUESTION WERE STOCKS OF MONTANA
AND NORTH DAKOTA STATE BANKS, PURCHASED AND HELD AS PART OF THE
CORPORATION'S ASSETS IN ITS MINNESOTA BUSINESS OF HOLDING THE SHARES
AND MANAGING, THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP, THE BUSINESS OF NUMEROUS BANKS,
TRUST COMPANIES AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE NINTH FEDERAL
RESERVE DISTRICT.  AS THIS BUSINESS WAS LOCALIZED IN MINNESOTA, THE
STOCKS OF THESE BANKS WERE AN ESSENTIAL FACTOR OF THAT BUSINESS AND
THEREFORE HAD A TAXABLE SITUS IN MINNESOTA. 

THE CONCEPTION OF A BUSINESS SITUS FOR INTANGIBLES ENABLES THE TAX
GATHERING ENTITY TO DISTRIBUTE THE BURDEN OF ITS SUPPORT EQUITABLY
AMONG THOSE RECEIVING ITS PROTECTION.  IT MAKES THE NOTION OF A TAX
SITUS FOR PARTICULAR INTANGIBLES MORE DEFINITE.  IT IS NOT THE
SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW FICTION AS TO THE MASS OF CHOSES IN ACTION FOR
THE ESTABLISHED FICTION OF A TAX SITUS AT THE PLACE OF INCORPORATION. 
TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF DOMICILIARY LOCATION, THE PROOF OF
BUSINESS SITUS MUST DEFINITELY CONNECT THE INTANGIBLES AS AN INTEGRAL
PART OF THE LOCAL ACTIVITY.  THE FACTS PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD FALL
FAR SHORT OF THIS REQUIREMENT. 

THE TAX IS UPON "THE FULL AMOUNT OF CAPITAL STOCK AND SURPLUS" LESS
CERTAIN ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS OF REAL ESTATE AND EXEMPT SECURITIES.  THE
EVIDENCE GIVES NO EXPLANATION OF THE AMOUNT OR SOURCE OF THE ASSETS
MAKING UP THE AMOUNT $3,370,080.66 WHICH BALANCES WITH THE CAPITAL
STOCK AND SURPLUS LESS THESE DEDUCTIONS.  THE STIPULATION SHOWS
"AGREED" FIGURES, $8,107,901.83 PRESUMABLY OF CAPITAL AND SURPLUS, AS
SHOWN BELOW.  FN20  AGREED DEDUCTIONS ARE $4,737,821.17.  BUT THE
ASSESSMENT IS $1,069,000.  FROM THE STIPULATION, WE LEARN THE "GENERAL
ACCOUNTS" ARE KEPT IN NEW YORK CITY AND ALL CASH EXCEPT $6,425.32 AND
ALL SECURITIES ARE LOCATED AT THE NEW YORK OFFICE OR IN BANKS OUTSIDE
OF NEW JERSEY.  IF WE ASSUME THAT THE "GENERAL ACCOUNTS" MENTIONED ARE
THE COMPANY'S CLAIMS AGAINST AGENTS, OTHER INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND
SIMILAR BILLS RECEIVABLE, NO PROGRESS IS MADE TOWARDS THEIR
IDENTIFICATION WITH NEW YORK BUSINESS.  NOTHING IS SHOWN AS TO THE
VOLUME OF NEW YORK BUSINESS IN COMPARISON WITH NEW JERSEY OR THE OTHER
STATES.  WE ARE NOT TOLD WHERE BUSINESS IS ACCEPTED, MONEYS COLLECTED
OR INSURANCE CONTRACTS MADE.  THE SECURITIES MAY REPRESENT LOCAL LOANS
OR INVESTMENTS IN NEW JERSEY OR ELSEWHERE MADE FROM FUNDS DERIVED FROM
SIMILAR INSURANCE CONTRACTS WITH A BUSINESS SITUS AT THOSE POINTS. 
FN21  THEY MAY BE THE RESULT OF INSURANCE ACTIVITIES OF MANY KINDS,
TAKING PLACE FAR FROM NEW YORK.  IF WE WERE TO ASSUME THAT THE
INTANGIBLES OF A CORPORATION MAY HAVE ONLY ONE TAXABLE SITUS, THE MERE
FACT THAT GENERAL AFFAIRS OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION ARE CONDUCTED BY
GENERAL OFFICERS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE SOURCE AND
CHARACTER OF THE INTANGIBLES DOES NOT DESTROY THE TAXABILITY OF A PART
OF THESE INTANGIBLES BY THE STATE OF THE CORPORATION'S LEGAL DOMICILE. 
THE PRESUMPTION OF A TAXABLE SITUS SOLELY IN NEW JERSEY IS NOT
OVERTURNED. 

UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND UNIVERSAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
HAVE APPEALS INVOLVING THE SAME QUESTIONS.  BY STIPULATION THESE CASES
WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR REVIEW BELOW AND APPEAL HERE. 

THESE APPELLANTS ARE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE CORPORATIONS, ASSESSED BY
THE CITY OF NEWARK IN THE SAME WAY, UNDER THE SAME STATUTE AND WITH THE
SAME RESULT IN THE STATE COURTS AS THE APPELLANT IN NO. 449. 

THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE CASES.  A
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION HANDLES THESE COMPANIES AT A NEW YORK OFFICE,
WHERE ACCOUNTS ARE PAYABLE.  SEVEN PER CENT OF THE BUSINESS OF
UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY ORIGINATES IN NEW JERSEY.  THE
CORRESPONDING PERCENTAGE FOR THE OTHER COMPANY IS NOT SHOWN.  AS IN NO.
449, THE RECORD IS SILENT AS TO THE CHARACTER, SOURCE AND USE OF THE
SECURITIES AND CREDITS.    FN1  28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

FN2  N.J. LAWS 1918, P. 847; ALSO IN N.J. REV. STATS. 1937, SEC. 54:
4. 

FN3  N.J. LAWS 1902, C. 134, SEC. 3, SECOND, 408; N.J. LAWS 1929, C.
6, SEC. 3, SECOND, P. 18, AND C. 47, SEC. 1, P. 82.  BY C. 164 OF N.J.
LAWS 1937, THIS WAS AMENDED TO READ THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION MUST SET FORTH "THE PLACE WHERE THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF
THE SAID COMPANY IN THIS STATE IS TO BE LOCATED." 

FN4  118 N.J.L. 525; 193 A. 912. 

FN5  120 N.J.L. 185; 198 A. 836. 

FN6  118 N.J.L. AT 526; 193 A. 912. 

FN7  120 N.J.L. 185; 198 A. 836. 

FN8  FIDELITY TRUST CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 77 N.J.L. 128, 130;
71 A. 61. 

FN9  LAFAYETTE INSURANCE CO. V. FRENCH, 18 HOW.  404; ST. LOUIS V.
WIGGINS FERRY CO., 11 WALL.  423, 429; SEABOARD RICE MILLING CO. V.
CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 270 U.S. 363, 366; FAIRBANKS STEAM SHOVEL CO.
V. WILLS, 240 U.S. 642.  CF. INTERNATIONAL MILLING CO. V. COLUMBIAN
TRANSP.  CO., 292 U.S. 511, 519. 

FN10  BANK OF AUGUSTA V. EARLE, 13 PET. 519, 588. 

FN11  OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 273 U.S. 257, 259; CANADA
SOUTHERN RY. V. GEBHARD, 109 U.S. 527, 537-38. 

FN12  SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83, 92; BLODGETT
V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1, 9. 

FN13  CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS, 253 U.S. 325, 329; VIRGINIA
V. IMPERIAL COAL SALES CO., 293 U.S. 15, 19; FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V.
MINNESOTA, 301 U.S. 234, 237.  CF. JOHNSON OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 290
U.S. 158, 161. 

FN14  ACT OF APRIL 18, 1884, N.J. LAWS 1884, C. 159, P. 232. 

FN15  N.J. LAWS 1903, C. 208, P. 394. 

FN16  NEW ORLEANS V. STEMPEL, 175 U.S. 309; BRISTOL V. WASHINGTON
COUNTY, 177 U.S. 133; STATE BOARD V. COMPTOIR NATIONAL D'ESCOMPTE, 191
U.S. 388; METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 205 U.S. 395;
LIVERPOOL & L. & G. CO. V. BOARD OF ASSESSORS, 221 U.S. 346; WHEELING
STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S. 193; FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V. MINNESOTA,
301 U.S. 234. 

FN17  FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V. MINNESOTA, 301 U.S. 234, 237, 241. 
CF. FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204, 213; FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312, 331. 

FN18  BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 282 U.S. 1, 8, AND CASES
CITED. 

FN19  METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 205 U.S. 395, 402. 

FN20  "(A)  THE FOLLOWING FIGURES HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON.  IN THE
FIRST COLUMN APPEARS THE DESIGNATION OF WHAT THE FUND REPRESENTS;
OPPOSITE EACH DESIGNATION APPEARING THE AMOUNT OF THE FUND IN
QUESTION: 

1.  CAPITAL STOCK.................................  $2,000,000.00 

2.  SURPLUS (AS SET FORTH IN THE BOOKS OF THE
COMPANY)...$R2,982,940.29 

3.  RESERVE FOR UNEARNED PREMIUMS.................   3,001,623.46 

4.  RESERVE FOR TAXES.............................      71,765.65 

5.  RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES.....................      68,915.35 

6.  RESERVE FOR REINSURANCE.......................       4,228.36 

7.  AGENCY BALANCES OVER 90 DAYS OLD..............     119,109.72 

8.  FURNITURE AND FIXTURES (IN NEWARK OFFICE).....       1,500.00 

TOTAL.............................................  $8,250,082.83" 

RESERVES FOR UNEARNED PREMIUMS AND FOR REINSURANCE ARE A TAXABLE
ASSET IN NEW JERSEY.  CITY OF TRENTON V. STANDARD FIRE INS. CO., 77
N.J.L. 757, 764-765; 73 A. 606.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD THE
AGENCY BALANCES AN ASSET, AND THE RESERVE FOR TAXES A LIABILITY WHICH
IS DEDUCTIBLE.  NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT THE RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES. 
ADDITION OF THE ITEMS KNOWN TO CONSTITUTE ASSETS - CAPITAL STOCK,
SURPLUS, RESERVE FOR UNEARNED PREMIUMS, RESERVE FOR REINSURANCE, AGENCY
BALANCES - EQUALS $8,107,901.83. 

FN21  METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 205 U.S. 395. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER ANNOUNCED THE FOLLOWING OPINION, CONCURRED IN
BY MR. JUSTICE STONE, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. 

WISE TAX POLICY IS ONE THING; CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION QUITE
ANOTHER.  THE TASK OF DEVISING MEANS FOR DISTRIBUTING THE BURDENS OF
TAXATION EQUITABLY HAS ALWAYS CHALLENGED THE WISDOM OF THE WISEST
FINANCIAL STATESMEN.  NEVER HAS THIS BEEN MORE TRUE THAN TODAY WHEN
WEALTH HAS SO LARGELY BECOME THE CAPITALIZATION OF EXPECTANCIES DERIVED
FROM A COMPLICATED NETWORK OF HUMAN RELATIONS.  THE ADJUSTMENT OF SUCH
RELATIONSHIPS, WITH DUE REGARD TO THE PROMOTION OF ENTERPRISE AND TO
THE FISCAL NEEDS OF DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS WITH WHICH THESE RELATIONS
ARE ENTWINED, IS PECULIARLY A PHASE OF EMPIRICAL LEGISLATION.  IT
BELONGS TO THAT RANGE OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF GOVERNMENT  FN1
WHICH SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRAINED BY RIGID AND ARTIFICIAL LEGAL
CONCEPTS.  ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IS IT TO ABSTAIN FROM INTERVENTION
WITHIN THE AUTONOMOUS AREA OF THE LEGISLATIVE TAXING POWER WHERE THERE
IS NO CLAIM OF ENCROACHMENT BY THE STATES UPON POWERS GRANTED TO THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  IT IS NOT FOR US TO SIT IN JUDGMENT ON ATTEMPTS
BY THE STATES TO EVOLVE FAIR TAX POLICIES.  WHEN A TAX APPROPRIATELY
CHALLENGED BEFORE US IS NOT FOUND TO BE IN PLAIN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OUR TASK IS ENDED. 

CHAPTER 236 OF THE NEW JERSEY LAWS OF 1918, AS APPLIED TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE TWO CASES, CLEARLY DOES NOT OFFEND THE
CONSTITUTION.  IN SUBSTANCE, SUCH LEGISLATION HAS HERETOFORE BEEN FOUND
FREE FROM CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY.  CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS,
253 U.S. 325, AFFIRMING 41 N. DAK.  330; 170 N.W. 863.  DURING ALL THE
VICISSITUDES WHICH THE SO-CALLED "JURISDICTION-TO-TAX" DOCTRINE HAS
ENCOUNTERED SINCE THAT CASE WAS DECIDED, THE EXTENT OF A STATE'S TAXING
POWER OVER A CORPORATION OF ITS OWN CREATION, RECOGNIZED IN THE CREAM
OF WHEAT CASE, HAS NEITHER BEEN RESTRICTED NOR IMPAIRED.  THAT CASE HAS
NOT BEEN CITED OTHERWISE THAN WITH APPROVAL.  FN2  QUESTIONS AFFECTING
THE FICTIONAL "SITUS" OF INTANGIBLES, WHICH RECEIVED FULL CONSIDERATION
IN CURRY V. MCCANLESS, POST, P. 357, DO NOT CONCERN THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSIES.  CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS, SUPRA, AND THE CASES
THAT HAVE FOLLOWED IT, AFFORD A WHOLLY ADEQUATE BASIS FOR AFFIRMING THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW. 

FN1  COMPARE ANDERSON V. DUNN, 6 WHEAT.  204, 226:  "THE SCIENCE OF
GOVERNMENT IS THE MOST ABSTRUSE OF ALL SCIENCES; IF, INDEED, THAT CAN
BE CALLED A SCIENCE WHICH HAS BUT FEW FIXED PRINCIPLES, AND PRACTICALLY
CONSISTS IN LITTLE MORE THAN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION,
APPLIED TO THE EXIGENCIES OF THE STATE AS THEY ARISE.  IT IS THE
SCIENCE OF EXPERIMENT." 

FN2  SEE CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. DURR, 257 U.S. 99, 109; SCHWAB V.
RICHARDSON, 263 U.S. 88, 92; BAKER V. DRUESEDOW, 263 U.S. 137, 141;
SWISS OIL CORP. V. SHANKS, 273 U.S. 407, 413; HELLMICH V. HELLMAN, 276
U.S. 233, 238; MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. EMMERSON, 277 U.S. 573;
EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, 391; NEBRASKA EX REL.
BEATRICE CREAMERY CO. V. MARSH, 282 U.S. 799, 800; FIRST BANK STOCK
CORP. V. MINNESOTA, 301 U.S. 234, 237. 
..END :

















PERKINS V. ELG., 307 U.S. 325 


NO. 454.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1939.  - 69 APP.
D.C. 175 - 99 F.2D 408, MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CHILD BORN HERE OF ALIEN PARENTAGE BECOMES A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES.  P. 328. 

2.  AS MUNICIPAL LAW DETERMINES HOW CITIZENSHIP MAY BE ACQUIRED, THE
SAME PERSON MAY POSSESS A DUAL NATIONALITY.  P. 329. 

3.  A CITIZEN BY BIRTH RETAINS HIS UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP UNLESS
DEPRIVED OF IT THROUGH THE OPERATION OF A TREATY OR CONGRESSIONAL
ENACTMENT OR BY HIS VOLUNTARY ACTION IN CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE
LEGAL PRINCIPLES.  P. 329. 

4.  IT HAS LONG BEEN A RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT IF A
CHILD BORN HERE IS TAKEN DURING MINORITY TO THE COUNTRY OF HIS PARENTS'
ORIGIN, WHERE HIS PARENTS RESUME THEIR FORMER ALLEGIANCE, HE DOES NOT
THEREBY LOSE HIS CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES PROVIDED THAT ON
ATTAINING MAJORITY HE ELECTS TO RETAIN THAT CITIZENSHIP AND TO RETURN
TO THE UNITED STATES TO ASSUME ITS DUTIES.  P. 329. 

EXPATRIATION IS THE VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OR ABANDONMENT OF
NATIONALITY AND ALLEGIANCE.  P. 334. 

5.  THIS RIGHT OF ELECTION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NATURALIZATION
TREATY WITH SWEDEN OF 1869 AND ITS ACCOMPANYING PROTOCOL.  P. 335. 

6.  THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, IN PROVIDING "THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN
SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXPATRIATED HIMSELF WHEN HE HAS BEEN
NATURALIZED IN ANY FOREIGN STATE IN CONFORMITY WITH ITS LAWS, ...  "
WAS AIMED AT VOLUNTARY EXPATRIATION AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO DESTROY THE
RIGHT OF A NATIVE CITIZEN, REMOVED FROM THIS COUNTRY DURING MINORITY,
TO ELECT TO RETAIN THE CITIZENSHIP ACQUIRED BY BIRTH AND TO RETURN HERE
FOR THAT PURPOSE, EVEN THOUGH HE MAY BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN NATURALIZED
UNDER THE FOREIGN LAW BY DERIVATION FROM THE CITIZENSHIP OF HIS PARENTS
BEFORE HE CAME OF AGE.  P. 342. 

THIS IS TRUE NOT ONLY WHERE THE PARENTS WERE FOREIGN NATIONALS AT THE
TIME OF THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD AND REMAINED SUCH, BUT ALSO WHERE THEY
BECAME FOREIGN NATIONALS AFTER THE BIRTH AND REMOVAL OF THE CHILD. 

7.  RECENT PRIVATE ACTS OF CONGRESS FOR THE RELIEF OF NATIVE CITIZENS
WHO HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION DENYING THEIR RIGHTS
OF CITIZENSHIP, CAN NOT BE REGARDED AS THE EQUIVALENT OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS PROVIDING THAT PERSONS IN THE SITUATION OF THE RESPONDENT HERE
HAVE LOST THE AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WHICH THEY ACQUIRED AT BIRTH AND
HAVE SINCE DULY ELECTED TO RETAIN.  P. 349. 

8.  THREATS OF DEPORTATION BY THE SECRETARY OF LABOR AND IMMIGRATION
OFFICIALS, AND REFUSAL BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO ISSUE A PASSPORT,
UPON THE DISPUTED GROUND THAT THE PERSON AFFECTED HAS LOST HIS NATIVE
CITIZENSHIP AND BECOME AN ALIEN WRONGFULLY IN THE COUNTRY, INVOLVE AN
ACTUAL CONTROVERSY AFFORDING BASIS FOR A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT THAT HE IS A CITIZEN AND FOR AN INJUNCTION.  P. 349. 

9.  IN SUCH A SUIT, THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS PROPERLY INCLUDED IN
THE DECLARATORY PROVISION OF THE DECREE, THAT HE MAY BE PRECLUDED FROM
REFUSING TO ISSUE THE PASSPORT SOLELY UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
CITIZENSHIP HAS BEEN LOST.  ID. 

PERKINS, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL. V. ELG.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 455, ELG V. PERKINS, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.,
ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 591, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
SUSTAINING, AS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND OVERRULING, AS TO THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION, A BILL BROUGHT BY MARIE ELIZABETH ELG FOR A DECLARATORY
DECREE ESTABLISHING HER STATUS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, AND FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS.  THERE WERE CROSS APPEALS TO
THE COURT BELOW. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF, MARIE ELIZABETH ELG, WHO WAS
BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF SWEDISH PARENTS THEN NATURALIZED HERE, HAS
LOST HER CITIZENSHIP AND IS SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION BECAUSE OF HER
REMOVAL DURING MINORITY TO SWEDEN, IT APPEARING THAT HER PARENTS
RESUMED THEIR CITIZENSHIP IN THAT COUNTRY BUT THAT SHE RETURNED HERE ON
ATTAINING MAJORITY WITH INTENTION TO REMAIN AND TO MAINTAIN HER
CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES. 

MISS ELG WAS BORN IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, ON OCTOBER 2, 1907.  HER
PARENTS, WHO WERE NATIVES OF SWEDEN, EMIGRATED TO THE UNITED STATES
SOMETIME PRIOR TO 1906 AND HER FATHER WAS NATURALIZED HERE IN THAT
YEAR.  IN 1911, HER MOTHER TOOK HER TO SWEDEN WHERE SHE CONTINUED TO
RESIDE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 7, 1929.  HER FATHER WENT TO SWEDEN IN 1922 AND
HAS NOT SINCE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES.  IN NOVEMBER, 1934, HE
MADE A STATEMENT BEFORE AN AMERICAN CONSUL IN SWEDEN THAT HE HAD
VOLUNTARILY EXPATRIATED HIMSELF FOR THE REASON THAT HE DID NOT DESIRE
TO RETAIN THE STATUS OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND WISHED TO PRESERVE HIS
ALLEGIANCE TO SWEDEN. 

IN 1928, SHORTLY BEFORE MISS ELG BECAME TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE, SHE
INQUIRED OF AN AMERICAN CONSUL IN SWEDEN ABOUT RETURNING TO THE UNITED
STATES AND WAS INFORMED THAT IF SHE RETURNED AFTER ATTAINING MAJORITY
SHE SHOULD SEEK AN AMERICAN PASSPORT.  IN 1929, WITHIN EIGHT MONTHS
AFTER ATTAINING MAJORITY, SHE OBTAINED AN AMERICAN PASSPORT WHICH WAS
ISSUED ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  SHE THEN
RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES, WAS ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN AND HAS
RESIDED IN THIS COUNTRY EVER SINCE. 

IN APRIL, 1935, MISS ELG WAS NOTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR THAT
SHE WAS AN ALIEN ILLEGALLY IN THE UNITED STATES AND WAS THREATENED WITH
DEPORTATION.  PROCEEDINGS TO EFFECT HER DEPORTATION HAVE BEEN POSTPONED
FROM TIME TO TIME.  IN JULY, 1936, SHE APPLIED FOR AN AMERICAN PASSPORT
BUT IT WAS REFUSED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE UPON THE SOLE GROUND THAT
HE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE IT BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT A CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES. 

THEREUPON SHE BEGAN THIS SUIT AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE TO OBTAIN (1) A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT SHE IS A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND ENTITLED TO ALL THE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES OF CITIZENSHIP, AND (2) AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE SECRETARY
OF LABOR AND THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION RESTRAINING THEM FROM
PROSECUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR HER DEPORTATION, AND (3) AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF STATE FROM REFUSING TO ISSUE TO HER A PASSPORT
UPON THE GROUND THAT SHE IS NOT A CITIZEN. 

THE DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, ASSERTING THAT
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF THE
NATURALIZATION CONVENTION AND PROTOCOL OF 1869(PROCLAIMED IN 1872)
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND SWEDEN (17 STAT. 809) AND THE SWEDISH
NATIONALITY LAW, AND SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 2, 1907, 8
U.S.C. 17.  THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE MOTION AS TO THE SECRETARY
OF LABOR AND THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND ENTERED A DECREE
DECLARING THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS A NATIVE CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
BUT DIRECTING THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED AS TO THE SECRETARY OF
STATE BECAUSE OF HIS OFFICIAL DISCRETION IN THE ISSUE OF PASSPORTS.  ON
CROSS APPEALS, THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DECREE.  69 APP. D.C.
175; 99 F.2D 408.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, DECEMBER 5, 1938. 

FIRST.  ON HER BIRTH IN NEW YORK, THE PLAINTIFF BECAME A CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES.  CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 14 STAT. 27; FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, SEC. 1; UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649.  IN A
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES AND AUTHORITIES GOVERNING THE
DECISION IN THAT CASE - THAT A CHILD BORN HERE OF ALIEN PARENTAGE
BECOMES A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES - THE COURT ADVERTED TO THE
"INHERENT RIGHT OF EVERY INDEPENDENT NATION TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF,
AND ACCORDING TO ITS OWN CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, WHAT CLASSES OF PERSONS
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ITS CITIZENSHIP."  UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK,
SUPRA, P. 668.  AS MUNICIPAL LAW DETERMINES HOW CITIZENSHIP MAY BE
ACQUIRED, IT FOLLOWS THAT PERSONS MAY HAVE A DUAL NATIONALITY.  FN1
AND THE MERE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE ACQUIRED SWEDISH
CITIZENSHIP BY VIRTUE OF THE OPERATION OF SWEDISH LAW, ON THE
RESUMPTION OF THAT CITIZENSHIP BY HER PARENTS, DOES NOT COMPEL THE
CONCLUSION THAT SHE HAS LOST HER OWN CITIZENSHIP ACQUIRED UNDER OUR
LAW.  AS AT BIRTH SHE BECAME A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT
CITIZENSHIP MUST BE DEEMED TO CONTINUE UNLESS SHE HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF
IT THROUGH THE OPERATION OF A TREATY OR CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT OR BY
HER VOLUNTARY ACTION IN CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES. 

SECOND.  IT HAS LONG BEEN A RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT
IF A CHILD BORN HERE IS TAKEN DURING MINORITY TO THE COUNTRY OF HIS
PARENTS' ORIGIN, WHERE HIS PARENTS RESUME THEIR FORMER ALLEGIANCE, HE
DOES NOT THEREBY LOSE HIS CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES PROVIDED
THAT ON ATTAINING MAJORITY HE ELECTS TO RETAIN THAT CITIZENSHIP AND TO
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES TO ASSUME ITS DUTIES.  FN2 

THIS PRINCIPLE WAS CLEARLY STATED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL EDWARDS
PIERREPONT IN HIS LETTER OF ADVICE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, HAMILTON
FISH, IN STEINKAULER'S CASE, 15 OP. ATTYS.  GEN'L, 15(1875).  THE FACTS
WERE THESE:  ONE STEINKAULER, A PRUSSIAN SUBJECT BY BIRTH, EMIGRATED TO
THE UNITED STATES IN 1848, WAS NATURALIZED IN 1854, AND IN THE
FOLLOWING YEAR HAD A SON WHO WAS BORN IN ST. LOUIS.  FOUR YEARS LATER
STEINKAULER RETURNED TO GERMANY TAKING THIS CHILD AND BECAME DOMICILED
AT WIESBADEN WHERE THEY CONTINUOUSLY RESIDED.  WHEN THE SON REACHED THE
AGE OF TWENTY YEARS THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT CALLED UPON HIM TO REPORT FOR
MILITARY DUTY AND HIS FATHER THEN INVOKED THE INTERVENTION OF THE
AMERICAN LEGATION ON THE GROUND THAT HIS SON WAS A NATIVE CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES.  TO AN INQUIRY BY OUR MINISTER, THE FATHER DECLINED
TO GIVE AN ASSURANCE THAT THE SON WOULD RETURN TO THIS COUNTRY WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME.  ON REVIEWING THE PERTINENT POINTS IN THE CASE,
INCLUDING THE NATURALIZATION TREATY OF 1868 WITH NORTH GERMANY, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL REACHED THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION: 

"YOUNG STEINKAULER IS A NATIVE-BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN.  THERE IS NO
LAW OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER WHICH HIS FATHER OR ANY OTHER PERSON CAN
DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS BIRTHRIGHT.  HE CAN RETURN TO AMERICA AT THE AGE OF
TWENTY-ONE, AND IN DUE TIME, IF THE PEOPLE ELECT, HE CAN BECOME
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; BUT THE FATHER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TREATY AND THE LAWS, HAS RENOUNCED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND HIS
AMERICAN ALLEGIANCE AND HAS ACQUIRED FOR HIMSELF AND HIS SON GERMAN
CITIZENSHIP AND THE RIGHTS WHICH IT CARRIES, AND HE MUST TAKE THE
BURDENS AS WELL AS THE ADVANTAGES.  THE SON BEING DOMICILED WITH THE
FATHER AND SUBJECT TO HIM UNDER THE LAW DURING HIS MINORITY, AND
RECEIVING THE GERMAN PROTECTION WHERE HE HAS ACQUIRED NATIONALITY AND
DECLINING TO GIVE ANY ASSURANCE OF EVER RETURNING TO THE UNITED STATES
AND CLAIMING HIS AMERICAN NATIONALITY BY RESIDENCE HERE, I AM OF
OPINION THAT HE CANNOT RIGHTLY INVOKE THE AID OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO RELIEVE HIM FROM MILITARY DUTY IN GERMANY DURING HIS
MINORITY.  BUT I AM OF OPINION THAT WHEN HE REACHES THE AGE OF TWENTY
ONE YEARS HE CAN THEN ELECT WHETHER HE WILL RETURN AND TAKE THE
NATIONALITY OF HIS BIRTH, WITH ITS DUTIES AND PRIVILEGES, OR RETAIN THE
NATIONALITY ACQUIRED BY THE ACT OF HIS FATHER.  THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE
'RIGHT REASON', AND I THINK IT IS LAW." 

SECRETARY WILLIAM M. EVARTS, IN 1879, IN AN INSTRUCTION TO OUR
MINISTER TO GERMANY WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUS OF THE BROTHERS
BOISSELIERS WHO WERE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF GERMAN PARENTAGE
SAID:  FN3 

"THEIR RIGHTS REST ON THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE UNITED STATES.  ...
THEIR FATHER, IT IS TRUE, TOOK THEM TO SCHLESWIG WHEN THEY WERE QUITE
YOUNG, THE ONE FOUR AND THE OTHER TWO YEARS OLD.  THEY LIVED THERE MANY
YEARS, BUT DURING ALL THOSE YEARS THEY WERE MINORS, AND DURING THEIR
MINORITY THEY RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES; AND NOW, WHEN BOTH HAVE
ATTAINED THEIR MAJORITY, THEY DECLARE FOR THEIR NATIVE ALLEGIANCE AND
SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THEY WERE
BORN AND OF WHICH THEY ARE NATIVE CITIZENS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
THIS GOVERNMENT CANNOT RECOGNIZE ANY CLAIM TO THEIR ALLEGIANCE, OR
THEIR LIABILITY TO MILITARY SERVICE, PUT FORTH ON THE PART OF GERMANY,
WHATEVER MAY BE THE MUNICIPAL LAW OF GERMANY UNDER WHICH SUCH CLAIM MAY
BE ASSERTED BY THAT GOVERNMENT." 

SECRETARY EVARTS GAVE A SIMILAR INSTRUCTION IN 1880 WITH RESPECT TO A
NATIVE CITIZEN OF DANISH PARENTAGE WHO HAVING BEEN TAKEN ABROAD AT AN
EARLY AGE CLAIMED AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP ON ATTAINING HIS MAJORITY,
SAYING:  FN4 

"HE LOST NO TIME, WHEN HE ATTAINED THE AGE OF MAJORITY, IN DECLARING
THAT HE CLAIMED THE UNITED STATES AS HIS COUNTRY, AND THAT HE
CONSIDERED HIMSELF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  HE APPEARS TO HAVE
ADHERED TO THIS CHOICE EVER SINCE, AND NOW DECLARES IT TO BE HIS
INTENTION TO RETURN TO THIS COUNTRY AND RESIDE HERE PERMANENTLY.  HIS
FATHER'S POLITICAL STATUS (WHETHER A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OR A
DANISH SUBJECT) HAS NO LEGAL OR OTHERWISE MATERIAL EFFECT ON THE
YOUNGER P  S' RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP." 

SECRETARY THOMAS F. BAYARD, IN ANSWER TO AN INQUIRY BY THE
NETHERLANDS LEGATION WHETHER ONE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, OF DUTCH
PARENTS, WHO DURING MINORITY HAD BEEN TAKEN BACK TO THE NETHERLANDS BY
HIS FATHER, ON THE LATTER'S RESUMPTION OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE THERE,
WAS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, ANSWERED:  FN5 

"BUT THE GENERAL VIEW HELD BY THIS DEPARTMENT IS THAT A NATURALIZED
AMERICAN CITIZEN BY ABANDONMENT OF HIS ALLEGIANCE AND RESIDENCE IN THIS
COUNTRY AND A RETURN TO THE COUNTRY OF HIS BIRTH, ANIMO MANENDI, CEASES
TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES; AND THAT THE MINOR SON OF A PARTY
DESCRIBED AS AFORESAID, WHO WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE
CITIZENSHIP THERE OF HIS FATHER, PARTAKES DURING HIS LEGAL INFANCY OF
HIS FATHER'S DOMICILE, BUT UPON BECOMING SUI JURIS HAS THE RIGHT TO
ELECT HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, WHICH WILL BE BEST EVIDENCED BY AN
EARLY RETURN TO THIS COUNTRY. 

"THIS RIGHT SO TO ELECT TO RETURN TO THE LAND OF HIS BIRTH AND ASSUME
HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP COULD NOT, WITH THE ACQUIESCENCE OF THIS
GOVERNMENT, BE IMPAIRED OR INTERFERED WITH." 

IN 1906, A MEMORANDUM, PREPARED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY ITS LAW
OFFICER, WAS SENT BY THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE, ROBERT BACON, TO
THE GERMAN AMBASSADOR AS COVERING "THE PRINCIPLES" UPON WHICH THE
DEPARTMENT HAD ACTED.  IN THIS MEMORANDUM IT WAS SAID:  FN6 

"ASSUMING THAT ALEXANDER BOHN (THE FATHER) NEVER BECAME A CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES, JACOB BOHN (THE SON) WAS BORN OF GERMAN PARENTS IN
THE UNITED STATES.  ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES AS INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS, A CHILD BORN TO ALIEN
PARENTS IN THE UNITED STATES IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, ALTHOUGH SUCH
CHILD MAY ALSO BE A CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY OF HIS PARENTS ACCORDING TO
THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. 

"ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES GIVING ELECTION OF CITIZENSHIP IN SUCH CASES, THIS DEPARTMENT
HAS ALWAYS HELD IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IF A CHILD IS BORN OF
FOREIGN PARENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND IS TAKEN DURING MINORITY TO
THE COUNTRY OF HIS PARENTS, SUCH CHILD UPON ARRIVING OF AGE, OR WITHIN
A REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER, MUST MAKE ELECTION BETWEEN THE
CITIZENSHIP WHICH IS HIS BY BIRTH AND THE CITIZENSHIP WHICH IS HIS BY
PARENTAGE.  IN CASE A PERSON SO CIRCUMSTANCED ELECTS AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP HE MUST, UNLESS IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, IN ORDER TO
RENDER HIS ELECTION EFFECTIVE, MANIFEST AN INTENTION IN GOOD FAITH TO
RETURN WITH ALL CONVENIENT SPEED TO THE UNITED STATES AND ASSUME THE
DUTIES OF CITIZENSHIP."  FN7 

WE HAVE QUOTED LIBERALLY FROM THESE RULINGS - AND MANY OTHERS MIGHT
BE CITED - IN VIEW OF THE CONTENTION NOW URGED BY THE PETITIONERS IN
RESISTING MISS ELG'S CLAIM TO CITIZENSHIP.  WE THINK THAT THEY LEAVE NO
DOUBT OF THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE LONG RECOGNIZED BY THIS GOVERNMENT. 
THAT PRINCIPLE, WHILE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPLIED, CANNOT PROPERLY BE
REGARDED AS A DEPARTMENTAL CREATION INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LAW.  IT WAS
DEEMED TO BE A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION BY
WHICH PERSONS BORN WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO ITS
JURISDICTION BECOME CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.  TO CAUSE A LOSS OF
THAT CITIZENSHIP IN THE ABSENCE OF TREATY OR STATUTE HAVING THAT
EFFECT, THERE MUST BE VOLUNTARY ACTION AND SUCH ACTION CANNOT BE
ATTRIBUTED TO AN INFANT WHOSE REMOVAL TO ANOTHER COUNTRY IS BEYOND HIS
CONTROL AND WHO DURING MINORITY IS INCAPABLE OF A BINDING CHOICE. 
PETITIONERS STRESS THE AMERICAN DOCTRINE RELATING TO EXPATRIATION.  BY
THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1868, FN8  CONGRESS DECLARED THAT "THE RIGHT OF
EXPATRIATION IS A NATURAL AND INHERENT RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE." 
EXPATRIATION IS THE VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OR ABANDONMENT OF
NATIONALITY AND ALLEGIANCE.  FN9  IT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE REMOVAL
FROM THIS COUNTRY OF A NATIVE CITIZEN DURING MINORITY.  IN SUCH A CASE
THE VOLUNTARY ACTION WHICH IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THE RIGHT OF
EXPATRIATION IS LACKING.  THAT RIGHT IS FITTINGLY RECOGNIZED WHERE A
CHILD BORN HERE, WHO MAY BE, OR MAY BECOME, SUBJECT TO A DUAL
NATIONALITY, ELECTS ON ATTAINING MAJORITY CITIZENSHIP IN THE COUNTRY TO
WHICH HE HAS BEEN REMOVED.  BUT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR INVOKING THE
DOCTRINE OF EXPATRIATION WHERE A NATIVE CITIZEN WHO IS REMOVED TO HIS
PARENTS' COUNTRY OF ORIGIN DURING MINORITY RETURNS HERE ON HIS MAJORITY
AND ELECTS TO REMAIN AND TO MAINTAIN HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  INSTEAD
OF BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT OF EXPATRIATION, THE PRINCIPLE
WHICH PERMITS THAT ELECTION CONSERVES AND APPLIES IT. 

THE QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER THIS WELL RECOGNIZED RIGHT OF ELECTION
HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY TREATY OR STATUTE. 

THIRD.  PETITIONERS INVOKE OUR TREATY WITH SWEDEN OF 1869.  FN10
THIS TREATY WAS ONE OF A SERIES OF NATURALIZATION TREATIES WITH SIMILAR
TERMS, WHICH WERE NEGOTIATED WITH VARIOUS COUNTRIES BETWEEN 1868 AND
1872.  FN11  THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE TEXT OF THE TREATY WITH
SWEDEN, AND OF THE ACCOMPANYING PROTOCOL, ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN. 
FN12  THE TREATY MANIFESTLY DEALS WITH EXPATRIATION AND THE RECOGNITION
OF NATURALIZATION BY THE RESPECTIVE POWERS.  THE RECITAL STATES ITS
PURPOSE; THAT IS, "TO REGULATE THE CITIZENSHIP OF THOSE PERSONS WHO
EMIGRATE" TO ONE COUNTRY FROM THE OTHER.  THE TERMS OF THE TREATY ARE
DIRECTED TO THAT PURPOSE AND ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE RECOGNITION OF THE
STATUS OF THOSE WHO VOLUNTARILY TAKE UP THEIR RESIDENCE FOR THE
PRESCRIBED PERIOD IN THE COUNTRY TO WHICH THEY EMIGRATE.  ARTICLE I OF
THE TREATY PROVIDES: 

"CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHO HAVE RESIDED IN SWEDEN
OR NORWAY FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF AT LEAST FIVE YEARS, AND DURING
SUCH RESIDENCE HAVE BECOME AND ARE LAWFULLY RECOGNIZED AS CITIZENS OF
SWEDEN OR NORWAY, SHALL BE HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO BE SWEDISH OR NORWEGIAN CITIZENS, AND SHALL BE TREATED AS SUCH. 

"RECIPROCALLY, CITIZENS OF SWEDEN OR NORWAY WHO HAVE RESIDED IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF AT LEAST FIVE
YEARS, AND DURING SUCH RESIDENCE HAVE BECOME NATURALIZED CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY
TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND SHALL BE TREATED AS SUCH. 

"THE DECLARATION OF AN INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF ONE OR THE
OTHER COUNTRY HAS NOT FOR EITHER PARTY THE EFFECT OF CITIZENSHIP
LEGALLY ACQUIRED." 

WE THINK THAT THIS PROVISION IN ITS DIRECT APPLICATION CLEARLY
IMPLIES A VOLUNTARY RESIDENCE AND IT WOULD THUS APPLY IN THE INSTANT
CASE TO THE FATHER OF RESPONDENT.  THERE IS NO SPECIFIC MENTION OF
MINOR CHILDREN WHO HAVE OBTAINED CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE COUNTRY
WHICH THEIR PARENTS HAVE LEFT.  AND IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT A CHILD BORN
IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE DEEMED TO ACQUIRE THE SWEDISH CITIZENSHIP
OF HIS PARENTS THROUGH THEIR RETURN TO SWEDEN AND RESUMPTION OF
CITIZENSHIP THERE,  FN13  STILL NOTHING IS SAID IN THE TREATY WHICH IN
SUCH A CASE WOULD DESTROY THE RIGHT OF ELECTION WHICH APPROPRIATELY
BELONGS TO THE CHILD ON ATTAINING MAJORITY.  IF THE ABROGATION OF THAT
RIGHT HAD BEEN IN CONTEMPLATION, IT WOULD NATURALLY HAVE BEEN THE
SUBJECT OF A PROVISION SUITABLY EXPLICIT.  RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP ARE
NOT TO BE DESTROYED BY AN AMBIGUITY.  MOREOVER, THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE III MUST BE READ IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLE I. ARTICLE III
PROVIDES: 

"IF A CITIZEN OF THE ONE PARTY, WHO HAS BECOME A RECOGNIZED CITIZEN
OF THE OTHER PARTY, TAKES UP HIS ABODE ONCE MORE IN HIS ORIGINAL
COUNTRY AND APPLIES TO BE RESTORED TO HIS FORMER CITIZENSHIP, THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE LAST-NAMED COUNTRY IS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE HIM AGAIN
AS A CITIZEN ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE SAID GOVERNMENT MAY THINK
PROPER." 

IF THE FIRST ARTICLE COULD BE TAKEN TO COVER THE CASE OF A CHILD
THROUGH THE DERIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP FROM THAT OF HIS EMIGRATING
PARENTS, ARTICLE III BY THE SAME TOKEN WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE
OF A CHILD BORN HERE AND TAKEN TO SWEDEN, WHO AT MAJORITY ELECTS TO
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES AND TO ASSUME THE PRIVILEGES AND
OBLIGATIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  IN THAT EVENT, THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES IS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE ONE SO RETURNING
"AS A CITIZEN ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE SAID GOVERNMENT MAY THINK
PROPER."  AND IF THIS GOVERNMENT CONSIDERS THAT A NATIVE CITIZEN TAKEN
FROM THE UNITED STATES BY HIS PARENTS DURING MINORITY IS ENTITLED TO
RETAIN HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BY ELECTING AT MAJORITY TO RETURN AND
RESIDE HERE, THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE NOTHING IN THE TREATY WHICH WOULD
GAINSAY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECOGNIZE THAT PRIVILEGE
OF ELECTION AND TO RECEIVE THE RETURNING NATIVE UPON THAT BASIS.  THUS,
ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE TREATY DOES NOT PURPORT TO DENY
TO THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT TO TREAT RESPONDENT AS A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES, AND IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
A DENIAL, THE TREATY CANNOT BE SET UP AS A GROUND FOR REFUSING TO
ACCORD TO RESPONDENT THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS BY VIRTUE OF HER BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES. 

NOR DO WE FIND ANYTHING IN THE TERMS OF THE PROTOCOL, ACCOMPANYING
THE TREATY, WHICH CAN BE TAKEN TO OVERRIDE THE RIGHT OF ELECTION WHICH
RESPONDENT WOULD OTHERWISE POSSESS.  ARTICLE III OF THE PROTOCOL REFERS
TO THE CASE OF A SWEDE WHO HAS BECOME A NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES AND LATER RENEWS HIS RESIDENCE IN SWEDEN "WITHOUT THE
INTENT TO RETURN TO AMERICA."  AND IT PROVIDES THAT THE INTENT NOT TO
RETURN MAY BE HELD TO EXIST WHEN THE PERSON "SO NATURALIZED" RESIDES
MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN SWEDEN.  THIS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE APPLICABLE
TO RESPONDENT, WHO WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT, APART FROM THAT,
THE INTENT NOT TO RETURN COULD NOT PROPERLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO HER DURING
MINORITY, AND IF IT WERE SO ATTRIBUTED, THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE
REBUTTED BY THE ELECTION TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES AT MAJORITY. 
COMPARE UNITED STATES V. HOWE, 231 F. 546, 549.  FN14 

THE VIEWS WE HAVE EXPRESSED FIND SUPPORT IN THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED
UPON THE NATURALIZATION TREATIES OF 1868 TO 1872  FN15  IN THE PERIOD
FOLLOWING THEIR RATIFICATION.  THE FIRST OF THOSE TREATIES WAS MADE IN
1868 WITH THE NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION  FN16  AND CONTAINED
PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND IN THE TREATY WITH SWEDEN.  BUT IT
WAS UNDER THIS GERMAN TREATY THAT STEINKAULER'S CASE AROSE IN 1875, TO
WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED, WHERE ATTORNEY GENERAL PIERREPONT
UPHELD THE RIGHT OF ELECTION, SAYING:"  FN17  UNDER THE TREATY, AND IN
HARMONY WITH THE AMERICAN DOCTRINE, IT IS CLEAR THAT STEINKAULER, THE
FATHER, ABANDONED HIS NATURALIZATION IN AMERICA AND BECAME A GERMAN
SUBJECT (HIS SON BEING YET A MINOR), AND THAT BY VIRTUE OF GERMAN LAWS
THE SON ACQUIRED GERMAN NATIONALITY.  IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE SON
BY BIRTH HAS AMERICAN NATIONALITY; AND HENCE HE HAS TWO NATIONALITIES,
ONE NATURAL, THE OTHER ACQUIRED.  ...  THERE IS NO LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES UNDER WHICH HIS FATHER OR ANY OTHER PERSON CAN DEPRIVE HIM OF
HIS BIRTHRIGHT."  TO THE SAME EFFECT, AS TO THE RIGHT OF ELECTION, WAS
THE RULING OF SECRETARY EVARTS IN 1879 IN HIS INSTRUCTION, ABOVE
QUOTED, TO OUR MINISTER TO GERMANY WITH RESPECT TO THE BROTHERS
BOISSELIERS.  FN18 

THERE WERE PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE TREATY WITH SWEDEN IN
THE NATURALIZATION TREATY WITH DENMARK OF 1872,  FN19  BUT SECRETARY
EVARTS EVIDENTLY DID NOT REGARD THOSE PROVISIONS AS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE CLAIM, WHICH HE SUSTAINED, OF ONE BORN HERE OF DANISH PARENTAGE WHO
WAS TAKEN ABROAD BY HIS PARENTS BUT INSISTED UPON HIS AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP WHEN HE ARRIVED AT HIS MAJORITY.  FN20  THESE RULINGS,
FOLLOWING CLOSELY UPON THE NEGOTIATION OF THESE NATURALIZATION
TREATIES, SHOW BEYOND QUESTION THAT THE TREATIES WERE NOT REGARDED AS
ABROGATING THE RIGHT OF ELECTION FOR WHICH RESPONDENT HERE CONTENDS. 

LATER RULINGS WERE TO THE SAME EFFECT.  THUS, IN 1890, IN DEALING
WITH A NATIVE AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO, UPON HIS OWN APPLICATION, HAD BEEN
ADMITTED TO DANISH CITIZENSHIP DURING HIS MINORITY, AND WHO HAD NOT YET
COME OF AGE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT "WHEN A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES VOLUNTARILY BECOMES NATURALIZED OR
RENATURALIZED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, HE IS TO BE REGARDED AS HAVING LOST
HIS RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN," WAS CAREFUL TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING
QUALIFICATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE RIGHT OF ELECTION AT MAJORITY,
SAYING: 

"AS MR. ANDERSON HAS NOT YET ATTAINED HIS MAJORITY, THE DEPARTMENT IS
NOT PREPARED TO ADMIT THAT PROCEEDINGS TAKEN ON HIS BEHALF IN DENMARK
DURING HIS MINORITY WOULD DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS RIGHT, UPON REACHING THE
AGE OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, TO ELECT TO BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN BY
IMMEDIATELY RETURNING TO THIS COUNTRY TO RESUME HIS ALLEGIANCE HERE." 
FN21 

PETITIONERS REFER TO AN INSTRUCTION BY SECRETARY SHERMAN IN 1897
FN22  IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION AS TO THE EFFECT OF A PERSON'S RETURN TO
HIS NATIVE COUNTRY FOR A VISIT ON HIS RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN
WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED THROUGH THE NATURALIZATION OF HIS FATHER. 
WHILE SECRETARY SHERMAN RECOGNIZED "THE ACQUISITION OF UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP BY AN ALIEN-BORN MINOR THROUGH THE LAWFUL NATURALIZATION OF
HIS FATHER UNDER THE OPERATION OF SECTION 2172, REVISED STATUTES," THE
SECRETARY ADDED THE FOLLOWING: 

"IF SUCH A PARTY HAVING THUS BECOME A RECOGNIZED CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES, TAKES UP HIS ABODE ONCE MORE IN HIS ORIGINAL COUNTRY,
AND APPLIES TO BE RESTORED TO HIS FORMER CITIZENSHIP, THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE LAST NAMED COUNTRY IS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE HIM AGAIN AS A CITIZEN,
ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE SAID GOVERNMENT MAY THINK PROPER.  (TREATY OF
1869, ARTICLE III.)  OR HE MAY BY RESIDENCE IN THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN,
WITHOUT INTENT TO RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES, BE HELD TO HAVE
RENOUNCED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  (PROTOCOL, MAY 26, 1869.)  BUT
THIS PRESUMPTION, LIKE ALL PRESUMPTIONS OF INTENT, MAY BE REBUTTED BY
PROOF.  UNTIL A PERSON SO CIRCUMSTANCED SHALL BE HELD TO HAVE
VOLUNTARILY ABANDONED HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, OR SHALL HAVE ACQUIRED
ANOTHER CITIZENSHIP UPON APPLICATION TO THAT END AND BY DUE PROCESS OF
LAW, THIS GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM HIS ALLEGIANCE AND
CONSTRAINED TO PROTECT HIM AS A CITIZEN SO LONG AS HE SHALL BE FOUND
BONA FIDE ENTITLED THERETO." 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THAT INSTRUCTION WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
MAINTENANCE OF RESPONDENT'S RIGHT OF ELECTION IN THE INSTANT CASE.  SO
FAR AS THE INSTRUCTION IN RELATION TO A NATURALIZED MINOR MAY BE DEEMED
TO BE PERTINENT, IT CONFIRMS RATHER THAN OPPOSES RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO
BE CONSIDERED AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. 

THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN THE RIGHT OF
ELECTION IS FURTHER SHOWN BY THE MEMORANDUM OF APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES
WHICH IT ISSUED IN 1906, ABOVE QUOTED, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
DEPARTMENT HAD "ALWAYS HELD IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IF A CHILD IS
BORN OF FOREIGN PARENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND IS TAKEN DURING
MINORITY TO THE COUNTRY OF HIS PARENTS, SUCH CHILD UPON ARRIVING OF
AGE, OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER, MUST MAKE ELECTION BETWEEN
THE CITIZENSHIP WHICH IS HIS BY BIRTH AND THE CITIZENSHIP WHICH IS HIS
BY PARENTAGE."  FN23 

FOURTH.  WE THINK THAT PETITIONERS' CONTENTION UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT
OF MARCH 2, 1907,  FN24 IS EQUALLY UNTENABLE.  THAT STATUTORY PROVISION
IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE EXPATRIATED
HIMSELF WHEN HE HAS BEEN NATURALIZED IN ANY FOREIGN STATE IN CONFORMITY
WITH ITS LAWS, OR WHEN HE HAS TAKEN AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO ANY
FOREIGN STATE. 

"WHEN ANY NATURALIZED CITIZEN SHALL HAVE RESIDED FOR TWO YEARS IN THE
FOREIGN STATE FROM WHICH HE CAME, OR FOR FIVE YEARS IN ANY OTHER
FOREIGN STATE IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT HE HAS CEASED TO BE AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN, AND THE PLACE OF HIS GENERAL ABODE SHALL BE DEEMED HIS PLACE
OF RESIDENCE DURING SAID YEARS:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
PRESUMPTION MAY BE OVERCOME ON THE PRESENTATION OF SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE TO A DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES,
UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE MAY
PRESCRIBE:  AND PROVIDED ALSO, THAT NO AMERICAN CITIZEN SHALL BE
ALLOWED TO EXPATRIATE HIMSELF WHEN THIS COUNTRY IS AT WAR."  FN25 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT RESPONDENT'S ACQUISITION OF DERIVATIVE
SWEDISH CITIZENSHIP MAKES HER A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN "NATURALIZED UNDER
SWEDISH LAW," AND THAT THEREFORE "SHE HAS LOST HER AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP" THROUGH THE OPERATION OF THIS STATUTE.  WE ARE UNABLE TO
ACCEPT THAT VIEW.  WE THINK THAT THE STATUTE WAS AIMED AT A VOLUNTARY
EXPATRIATION AND WE FIND NO EVIDENCE IN ITS TERMS THAT IT WAS INTENDED
TO DESTROY THE RIGHT OF A NATIVE CITIZEN, REMOVED FROM THIS COUNTRY
DURING MINORITY, TO ELECT TO RETAIN THE CITIZENSHIP ACQUIRED BY BIRTH
AND TO RETURN HERE FOR THAT PURPOSE.  IF BY VIRTUE OF DERIVATION FROM
THE CITIZENSHIP OF ONE'S PARENTS A CHILD IN THAT SITUATION CAN BE
DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN NATURALIZED UNDER THE FOREIGN LAW, STILL WE THINK
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY THAT SUCH
NATURALIZATION WOULD NOT DESTROY THE RIGHT OF ELECTION.    IT SHOULD
ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE ACT OF 1907 IN SECS. 5 AND 6  FN26  HAS SPECIFIC
REFERENCE TO CHILDREN BORN WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES OF ALIEN PARENTS
BUT SAYS NOTHING AS TO THE LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP BY MINOR CHILDREN BORN
IN THE UNITED STATES. 

THAT IN THE LATTER CASE THE CHILD WAS NOT DEEMED TO HAVE LOST HIS
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BY VIRTUE OF THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE BUT MIGHT
STILL WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS ON ATTAINING MAJORITY MANIFEST HIS
ELECTION IS SHOWN BY THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED
UNDER DATE OF NOVEMBER 24, 1923, BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO THE
AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR OFFICERS.  FN27  THESE INSTRUCTIONS
DEALT WITH THE QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE CITIZENSHIP ACT OF MARCH 2,
1907, AND CASES OF DUAL NATIONALITY.  IT WAS STATED THAT IT WAS DEEMED
DESIRABLE "TO INFORM DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR OFFICERS OF THE
DEPARTMENT'S CONCLUSIONS, FOR THEIR GUIDANCE IN HANDLING INDIVIDUAL
CASES."  COMMENTING ON DUAL NATIONALITY THE INSTRUCTIONS SAID: 

"THE TERM 'DUAL NATIONALITY' NEEDS EXACT APPRECIATION.  IT REFERS TO
THE FACT THAT TWO STATES MAKE EQUAL CLAIM TO THE ALLEGIANCE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL AT THE SAME TIME.  THUS, ONE STATE MAY CLAIM HIS ALLEGIANCE
BECAUSE OF HIS BIRTH WITHIN ITS TERRITORY, AND THE OTHER BECAUSE AT THE
TIME OF HIS BIRTH IN FOREIGN TERRITORY HIS PARENTS WERE ITS NATIONALS. 
THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES PURPORT TO CLOTHE PERSONS WITH AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP BY VIRTUE OF BOTH PRINCIPLES." 

AND AFTER REFERRING TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 2, 1855, R.S. 1993, THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTINUED: 

"IT THUS BECOMES IMPORTANT TO NOTE HOW FAR THESE DIFFERING CLAIMS OF
AMERICAN NATIONALITY ARE FAIRLY OPERATIVE WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS
LIVING ABROAD, WHETHER THEY WERE BORN ABROAD OR WERE BORN IN THE UNITED
STATES OF ALIEN PARENTS AND TAKEN DURING MINORITY TO RESIDE IN THE
TERRITORY OF STATES TO WHICH THE PARENTS OWED ALLEGIANCE.  IT IS
LOGICAL THAT, WHILE THE CHILD REMAINS OR RESIDES IN TERRITORY OF THE
FOREIGN STATE CLAIMING HIM AS A NATIONAL, THE UNITED STATES SHOULD
RESPECT ITS CLAIM TO ALLEGIANCE.  THE IMPORTANT POINT TO OBSERVE IS
THAT THE DOCTRINE OF DUAL ALLEGIANCE CEASES, IN AMERICAN CONTEMPLATION,
TO BE FULLY APPLICABLE AFTER THE CHILD HAS REACHED ADULT YEARS. 
THEREAFTER TWO STATES MAY IN FACT CLAIM HIM AS A NATIONAL.  THOSE
CLAIMS ARE NOT, HOWEVER, REGARDED AS OF EQUAL MERIT, BECAUSE ONE OF THE
STATES MAY THEN JUSTLY ASSERT THAT HIS RELATIONSHIP TO ITSELF AS A
NATIONAL IS, BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE ARISEN, INCONSISTENT
WITH, AND REASONABLY SUPERIOR TO, ANY CLAIM OF ALLEGIANCE ASSERTED BY
ANY OTHER STATE.  ORDINARILY THE STATE IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL RETAINS
HIS RESIDENCE AFTER ATTAINING HIS MAJORITY HAS THE SUPERIOR CLAIM.  THE
STATUTORY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AFFORDS SOME GUIDANCE BUT NOT ALL
THAT COULD BE DESIRED, BECAUSE IT FAILS TO ANNOUNCE THE CIRCUMSTANCES
WHEN THE CHILD WHO RESIDES ABROAD WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF A STATE
REASONABLY CLAIMING HIS ALLEGIANCE FORFEITS COMPLETELY THE RIGHT TO
PERFECT HIS INCHOATE RIGHT TO RETAIN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.  THE
DEPARTMENT MUST, THEREFORE, BE RELUCTANT TO DECLARE THAT PARTICULAR
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF A PERSON AFTER REACHING ADULT YEARS IN FOREIGN
TERRITORY PRODUCES A FORFEITURE OR SOMETHING EQUIVALENT TO
EXPATRIATION. 

"THE STATUTE DOES, HOWEVER, MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE BURDEN
IMPOSED UPON THE PERSON BORN IN THE UNITED STATES OF FOREIGN PARENTS
AND THE PERSON BORN ABROAD OF AMERICAN PARENTS.  WITH RESPECT TO THE
LATTER, SECTION 6 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907, LAYS DOWN THE
REQUIREMENT THAT, AS A CONDITION TO THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE INDIVIDUAL MUST, UPON REACHING THE AGE OF 18, RECORD AT AN
AMERICAN CONSULATE AN INTENTION TO REMAIN A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND MUST ALSO TAKE AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES
UPON ATTAINING HIS MAJORITY. 

"THE CHILD BORN OF FOREIGN PARENTS IN THE UNITED STATES WHO SPENDS
HIS MINORITY IN THE FOREIGN COUNTRY OF HIS PARENTS' NATIONALITY IS NOT
EXPRESSLY REQUIRED BY ANY STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE THE SAME
ELECTION AS HE APPROACHES OR ATTAINS HIS MAJORITY.  IT IS,
NEVERTHELESS, BELIEVED THAT HIS RETENTION OF A RIGHT TO DEMAND THE
PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE,
BE DEPENDENT UPON HIS CONVINCING THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN A REASONABLE
PERIOD AFTER THE ATTAINING OF HIS MAJORITY OF AN ELECTION TO RETURN TO
THE UNITED STATES, THERE TO ASSUME THE DUTIES OF CITIZENSHIP.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
PRESCRIBE A LIMITED PERIOD WITHIN WHICH SUCH ELECTION SHOULD BE MADE. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT MAY BE ASSERTED NEGATIVELY THAT ONE WHO HAS LONG
MANIFESTED NO INDICATION OF A WILL TO MAKE SUCH AN ELECTION SHOULD NOT
RECEIVE THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES SAVE UNDER THE EXPRESS
APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT." 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT AS LATE AS 1925, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED ITS
"COMPILATION" INCLUDING THE CIRCULAR INSTRUCTION OF NOVEMBER 24, 1923,
IT WAS THE VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 2,
1907, HAD NOT TAKEN AWAY THE RIGHT OF A NATIVE CITIZEN ON ATTAINING
MAJORITY TO RETAIN HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, WHERE HE WAS BORN IN THE
UNITED STATES OF FOREIGN PARENTS.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A
PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT TO HOLD THAT WHILE IT LEAVES UNTOUCHED
THE RIGHT OF ELECTION ON THE PART OF A CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES,
IN CASE HIS PARENTS WERE FOREIGN NATIONALS AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH AND
HAVE NEVER LOST THEIR FOREIGN NATIONALITY, STILL THE STATUTE SHOULD BE
TREATED AS DESTROYING THAT RIGHT OF ELECTION IF HIS PARENTS BECAME
FOREIGN NATIONALS THROUGH NATURALIZATION.  THAT WOULD NOT SEEM TO BE A
SENSIBLE DISTINCTION.  HAVING REGARD TO THE PLAIN PURPOSE OF SEC. 2 OF
THE ACT OF 1907, TO DEAL WITH VOLUNTARY EXPATRIATION, WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT ITS PROVISIONS DO NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF ELECTION, WHICH
WOULD OTHERWISE EXIST, BY REASON OF A WHOLLY INVOLUNTARY AND MERELY
DERIVATIVE NATURALIZATION IN ANOTHER COUNTRY DURING MINORITY.  AND, ON
THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, THIS VIEW APPARENTLY OBTAINED WHEN IN
JULY, 1929, ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE
DEPARTMENT ISSUED THE PASSPORT TO RESPONDENT AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

BUT ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT PROMPTLY MADE HER ELECTION AND TOOK UP HER
RESIDENCE IN THIS COUNTRY ACCORDINGLY, AND HAD CONTINUED TO RESIDE
HERE, SHE WAS NOTIFIED IN APRIL, 1935, THAT SHE WAS AN ALIEN AND WAS
THREATENED WITH DEPORTATION. 

WHEN, PRECISELY, THERE OCCURRED A CHANGE IN THE DEPARTMENTAL ATTITUDE
IS NOT CLEAR.  FN28  IT SEEMS TO HAVE RESULTED IN A CONFLICT WITH THE
OPINION OF THE SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IN THE CASE OF
INGRID THERESE TOBIASSEN, AND THE SECRETARY OF LABOR BECAUSE OF THAT
CONFLICT REQUESTED THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHICH WAS GIVEN
ON JUNE 16, 1932.  FN29  IT APPEARED THAT MISS TOBIASSEN, AGED 20, WAS
BORN IN NEW YORK IN 1911; THAT HER FATHER, A NATIVE OF NORWAY, BECAME A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BY NATURALIZATION IN 1912; THAT IN 1919
MISS TOBIASSEN WAS TAKEN BY HER PARENTS TO NORWAY WHERE THE LATTER HAD
SINCE RESIDED; THAT AT THE AGE OF 18 SHE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES
AND TOOK UP HER PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN NEW JERSEY.  THE QUESTION AROSE
WHEN SHE ASKED FOR A RETURN PERMIT TO VISIT HER PARENTS.  THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE REFUSED TO ISSUE A PASSPORT ON THE GROUND THAT MISS
TOBIASSEN HAD ACQUIRED NORWEGIAN NATIONALITY AND HAD CEASED TO BE AN
AMERICAN CITIZEN.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION APPROVED THAT
ACTION. 

HIS OPINION QUOTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY WITH SWEDEN AND
NORWAY OF 1869  FN30  AND REFERRED TO THE NORWEGIAN NATIONALITY LAW OF
AUGUST 8, 1924, AND TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH
2, 1907.  THE OPINION NOTED THAT THE CLAIM THAT MISS TOBIASSEN HAD
CEASED TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN DID "NOT REST UPON THE TERMS OF THE
NATURALIZATION TREATY WITH NORWAY, BUT UPON A LAW OF THAT COUNTRY, AS A
RESULT OF THE RENUNCIATION BY HER FATHER, A NATIVE OF NORWAY, OF HIS
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, AND THE RESUMPTION OF HIS NORWEGIAN NATIONALITY
IN PURSUANCE OF THE TERMS OF THAT TREATY."  THE LAW OF NORWAY WAS
DEEMED TO BE ANALOGOUS TO OUR STATUTES "BY VIRTUE OF WHICH FOREIGN-BORN
MINOR CHILDREN OF PERSONS NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES ARE DECLARED
TO BE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY"; AND HENCE THE CONCLUSION THAT MISS
TOBIASSEN HAVING ACQUIRED NORWEGIAN NATIONALITY HAD IN CONSEQUENCE
CEASED TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WAS SAID TO BE CORRECT. 

THE OPINION DOES NOT DISCUSS THE RIGHT OF ELECTION OF A NATIVE
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN HE BECOMES OF AGE TO RETAIN AMERICAN
CITIZENSHIP AND DOES NOT REFER TO THE REPEATED RULINGS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN RECOGNITION OF THAT RIGHT, THE EXERCISE OF
WHICH, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED TO BE INCONSISTENT
WITH EITHER TREATY OR STATUTE.  WE ARE RELUCTANT TO DISAGREE WITH THE
OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND WE ARE FULLY CONSCIOUS OF THE
PROBLEMS INCIDENT TO DUAL NATIONALITY AND OF THE DEPARTMENTAL DESIRE TO
LIMIT THEM, BUT WE ARE COMPELLED TO AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS IN
THE INSTANT CASE THAT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THAT OPINION ARE NOT
ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED AND ARE OPPOSED TO THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES
WHICH SHOULD GOVERN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE.  FN31 

NOR DO WE THINK THAT RECENT PRIVATE ACTS OF CONGRESS  FN32  FOR THE
RELIEF OF NATIVE CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION DENYING THEIR RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP, CAN BE REGARDED AS THE
EQUIVALENT OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS PROVIDING THAT PERSONS IN THE
SITUATION OF THE RESPONDENT HERE HAVE LOST THE AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
WHICH THEY ACQUIRED AT BIRTH AND HAVE SINCE DULY ELECTED TO RETAIN.  NO
SUCH STATUTE HAS BEEN ENACTED. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT HAS NOT LOST HER CITIZENSHIP IN THE
UNITED STATES AND IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THAT
CITIZENSHIP. 

FIFTH.  THE CROSS PETITION OF MISS ELG, UPON WHICH CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED IN NO. 455, IS ADDRESSED TO THE PART OF THE DECREE BELOW WHICH
DISMISSED THE BILL OF COMPLAINT AS AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  THE
DISMISSAL WAS UPON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT WOULD NOT UNDERTAKE BY
MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE ISSUANCE OF A PASSPORT OR CONTROL BY MEANS OF A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THE DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE.  BUT THE
SECRETARY OF STATE, ACCORDING TO THE ALLEGATION OF THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT, HAD REFUSED TO ISSUE A PASSPORT TO MISS ELG "SOLELY ON THE
GROUND THAT SHE HAD LOST HER NATIVE BORN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP."  THE
COURT BELOW, PROPERLY RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY WITH THE DEFENDANTS (AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300
U.S. 227), DECLARED MISS ELG "TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES," AND WE THINK THAT THE DECREE SHOULD INCLUDE THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AS WELL AS THE OTHER DEFENDANTS.  THE DECREE IN THAT
SENSE WOULD IN NO WAY INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE SECRETARY'S
DISCRETION WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF A PASSPORT BUT WOULD SIMPLY
PRECLUDE THE DENIAL OF A PASSPORT ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT MISS ELG HAD
LOST HER AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. 

THE DECREE WILL BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY SO AS TO STRIKE OUT THAT
PORTION WHICH DISMISSES THE BILL OF COMPLAINT AS TO THE SECRETARY OF
STATE, AND SO AS TO INCLUDE HIM IN THE DECLARATORY PROVISION OF THE
DECREE, AND AS SO MODIFIED THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED.  MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. 1, SEC. 308; MOORE,
INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST, VOL. III, P. 518; HYDE, INTERNATIONAL LAW,
VOL. I, SEC. 372; FLOURNOY, DUAL NATIONALITY AND ELECTION, 30 YALE LAW
JOURNAL, 546; BORCHARD, DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION OF CITIZENS ABROAD, SEC.
253; VAN DYNE, CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES, P. 25; FENWICK,
INTERNATIONAL LAW, P. 165. 

FN2  HYDE, OP. CIT., SECS. 374, 375; BORCHARD, OP. CIT., SEC. 259;
VAN DYNE, OP. CIT., PP. 25-31; MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., VOL. III, PP. 532
551. 

FN3  MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., VOL. III, P. 543. 

FN4  MOORE, INT. LAW.  DIG., VOL. III, P. 544. 

FN5  FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1888, PT. 2, P. 1341.  SEE, ALSO, MR. BAYARD,
SECRETARY OF STATE TO MR. MCLANE (1888), TO COUNT SPONNECK, DANISH
MINISTER (1888); MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., VOL. III, P. 548; MR. OLNEY,
SECRETARY OF STATE, TO MR. MATERNE, 1896; MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., VOL.
III, P. 542; UNITED STATES EX REL. SCIMECA V. HUSBAND, 6 F.2D 957,
958. 

FN6  FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1906, P. 657.  SEE, ALSO, "COMPILATION OF
CERTAIN DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS" RELATING TO CITIZENSHIP, ETC., ISSUED
BY DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 1925, CONTAINING INSTRUCTIONS TO DIPLOMATIC AND
CONSULAR OFFICERS UNDER DATE OF NOVEMBER 24, 1923, PP. 118, 121, 122;
UNITED STATES EX REL. BAGLIVO V. DAY, 28 F.2D 44. 

FN7  SEE ALSO, MR. UHL, ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE TO MR. RUDOLPH, MAY
22, 1895, 202 MS. DOM.  LET.  298; MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., VOL. III, P.
534. 

FN8  15 STAT. 223. 

FN9  VAN DYNE, OP. CIT., P. 269; BORCHARD, OP. CIT., SEC. 315; HYDE,
OP. CIT., SEC. 376. 

FN10  17 STAT. 809. 

FN11  NORTH GERMAN CONFEDERATION, 1868, 15 STAT. 615; BAVARIA, 1868,
15 STAT. 661; BADEN, 1868, 16 STAT. 731; WURTTEMBERG, 1868, 16 STAT.
735; HESSE, 1868, 16 STAT. 743; BELGIUM, 1868, 16 STAT. 747; GREAT
BRITAIN, 1870, 16 STAT. 775; AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, 1870, 17 STAT. 833;
DENMARK, 1872, 17 STAT. 941.  SEE FLOURNOY AND HUDSON, NATIONALITY
LAWS, PP. 661-673; MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., VOL. III, P. 358. 

FN12  THE TREATY PROVIDES: 

"THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND HIS MAJESTY THE
KING OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY, LED BY THE WISH TO REGULATE THE CITIZENSHIP
OF THOSE PERSONS WHO EMIGRATE FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO
SWEDEN AND NORWAY AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES AND TERRITORIES, AND FROM
SWEDEN AND NORWAY TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HAVE RESOLVED TO
TREAT ON THIS SUBJECT, AND HAVE FOR THAT PURPOSE APPOINTED
PLENIPOTENTIARIES TO CONCLUDE A CONVENTION,  ...  WHO HAVE AGREED TO
AND SIGNED THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES:    "ARTICLE I. CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHO HAVE RESIDED IN SWEDEN OR NORWAY FOR A
CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF AT LEAST FIVE YEARS, AND DURING SUCH RESIDENCE
HAVE BECOME AND ARE LAWFULLY RECOGNIZED AS CITIZENS OF SWEDEN OR
NORWAY, SHALL BE HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE
SWEDISH OR NORWEGIAN CITIZENS, AND SHALL BE TREATED AS SUCH. 

"RECIPROCALLY, CITIZENS OF SWEDEN OR NORWAY WHO HAVE RESIDED IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF AT LEAST FIVE
YEARS, AND DURING SUCH RESIDENCE HAVE BECOME NATURALIZED CITIZENS OF
THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SWEDEN AND NORWAY
TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS, AND SHALL BE TREATED AS SUCH. 

"THE DECLARATION OF AN INTENTION TO BECOME A CITIZEN OF ONE OR THE
OTHER COUNTRY HAS NOT FOR EITHER PARTY THE EFFECT OF CITIZENSHIP
LEGALLY ACQUIRED. 

     .         .         .       .         . 

"ARTICLE III.  IF A CITIZEN OF THE ONE PARTY, WHO HAS BECOME A
RECOGNIZED CITIZEN OF THE OTHER PARTY, TAKES UP HIS ABODE ONCE MORE IN
HIS ORIGINAL COUNTRY AND APPLIES TO BE RESTORED TO HIS FORMER
CITIZENSHIP, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAST-NAMED COUNTRY IS AUTHORIZED TO
RECEIVE HIM AGAIN AS A CITIZEN ON SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE SAID
GOVERNMENT MAY THINK PROPER." 

THE PROTOCOL CONTAINING "THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS, MORE EXACTLY
DEFINING AND EXPLAINING THE CONTENTS" OF THE CONVENTION PROVIDES: 

"I.  RELATING TO THE FIRST ARTICLE OF THE CONVENTION. 

"IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
HAS BEEN DISCHARGED FROM HIS AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, OR, ON THE OTHER
SIDE, IF A SWEDE OR A NORWEGIAN HAS BEEN DISCHARGED FROM HIS SWEDISH OR
NORWEGIAN CITIZENSHIP, IN THE MANNER LEGALLY PRESCRIBED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIS ORIGINAL COUNTRY, AND THEN IN THE OTHER COUNTRY IN A
RIGHTFUL AND PERFECTLY VALID MANNER ACQUIRES CITIZENSHIP, THEN AN
ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS' RESIDENCE SHALL NO LONGER BE REQUIRED; BUT A
PERSON WHO HAS IN THAT MANNER BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A CITIZEN OF THE OTHER
COUNTRY SHALL, FROM THE MOMENT THEREOF, BE HELD AND TREATED AS A
SWEDISH OR NORWEGIAN CITIZEN, AND, RECIPROCALLY, AS A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

     .         .         .         .     . 

"III.  RELATING TO THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE CONVENTION. 

"IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT IF A SWEDE OR NORWEGIAN, WHO HAS BECOME A
NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, RENEWS HIS RESIDENCE IN
SWEDEN OR NORWAY WITHOUT THE INTENT TO RETURN TO AMERICA, HE SHALL BE
HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE RENOUNCED HIS
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. 

"THE INTENT NOT TO RETURN TO AMERICA MAY BE HELD TO EXIST WHEN THE
PERSON SO NATURALIZED RESIDES MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN SWEDEN OR
NORWAY." 

FN13  COMPARE SECRETARY HAY TO MR. HARRIS, FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1900,
P. 13. 

FN14  WHILE THE NATIONALITY LAW OF SWEDEN IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS
CONTROLLING UNLESS THE TREATY MAKES IT SO - WHICH WE HAVE FOUND IS NOT
THE CASE - IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE LAW OF
SWEDEN WOULD OPERATE SO AS TO PRECLUDE RECOGNITION THAT RESPONDENT IS A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEE THE SWEDISH LAW OF 7 MAY, 1909, ART.
8.  THAT, HOWEVER, IS A QUESTION OF FOREIGN LAW WHICH WE FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE. 

FN15  SEE NOTE 10. 

FN16  15 STAT. 615.  SEE TERLINDEN V. AMES, 184 U.S. 270, 283, 284. 

FN17  15 OP. ATTYS.  GEN'L. 15, 17, 18. 

FN18  MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., VOL. III, P. 543. 

FN19  17 STAT. 941. 

FN20  MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., VOL. III, P. 544. 

FN21  MR. WHARTON, ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE, TO COUNT SPONNECK,
DANISH MINISTER (1890); MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., P. 715. 

FN22  SECRETARY SHERMAN TO MR. GRIP, SWEDISH MINISTER, JUNE 15, 1897;
MOORE, INT. LAW DIG., VOL. III, P. 472; 8 MS., NOTES TO SWEDEN, 58. 

FN23  FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1906, P. 657. 

FN24  34 STAT. 1228; 8 U.S.C. 17. 

FN25  SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THIS STATUTE SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED AS THEY
CONTAIN PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO MINOR CHILDREN.  THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 5.  THAT A CHILD BORN WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES OF ALIEN
PARENTS SHALL BE DEEMED A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF THE
NATURALIZATION OF OR RESUMPTION OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BY THE PARENT:
PROVIDED, THAT SUCH NATURALIZATION OR RESUMPTION TAKES PLACE DURING THE
MINORITY OF SUCH CHILD:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE CITIZENSHIP OF
SUCH MINOR CHILD SHALL BEGIN AT THE TIME SUCH MINOR CHILD BEGINS TO
RESIDE PERMANENTLY IN THE UNITED STATES. 

"SEC. 6.  THAT ALL CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE UNITED
STATES WHO ARE CITIZENS THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES AND WHO CONTINUE TO RESIDE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
SHALL, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THE PROTECTION OF THIS GOVERNMENT, BE
REQUIRED UPON REACHING THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS TO RECORD AT AN
AMERICAN CONSULATE THEIR INTENTION TO BECOME RESIDENTS AND REMAIN
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND SHALL BE FURTHER REQUIRED TO TAKE THE
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES UPON ATTAINING THEIR
MAJORITY." 

FN26  SEE NOTE 25. 

FN27  "COMPILATION OF CERTAIN DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS" RELATING TO
CITIZENSHIP, ETC., ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 1925, CONTAINING
INSTRUCTIONS TO DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR OFFICERS UNDER DATE OF NOVEMBER
24, 1923, PP. 118, 121, 122. 

FN28  THAT THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IS FRANKLY STATED IN THE
COMMUNICATION (A COPY OF WHICH IS ANNEXED TO THE COMPLAINT) ADDRESSED
BY THE AMERICAN CONSUL AT GOTEBORG, SWEDEN, TO THE RESPONDENT'S FATHER
UNDER DATE OF OCTOBER 29, 1935. 

FN29  36 OP. ATTYS.  GEN'L, P. 535. 

FN30  CITED AS OF JUNE 14, 1871, THE DATE OF THE EXCHANGE OF
RATIFICATIONS. 

FN31  THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN UNITED STATES V. REID, 73 F.2D
153(CERTIORARI DENIED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICATION WAS NOT MADE
WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED BY LAW, 299 U.S. 544), SO FAR AS IT IS URGED
BY PETITIONERS AS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 

FN32  ACT OF JULY 13, 1937, 50 STAT. PT. 2, P. 1030; ACT OF JUNE 25,
1938(PRIVATE NO. 751, 75TH CONG., 3D SESS.). 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















TOLEDO CO. V. STANDARD PARTS, 307 U.S. 350 


NO. 166.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1939.  - 93 F.2D 336,
AFFIRMED.  - 99 F.2D 806, REVERSED. 


1.  PATENT NO. 1,732,708, CLAIMS 1, 2, 5-7, 11-13, TO WITHROW AND
CLOSE, RELATING TO A BURNER FOR OUTDOOR WARNING SIGNALS, DIMINISHING
LIABILITY OF FLAME EXTINGUISHMENT BY WIND AND RAIN, HELD INVALID FOR
WANT OF INVENTION.  P. 356. 

2.  AGGREGATION OF TWO OLD DEVICES, PRODUCTIVE OF NO NEW JOINT
FUNCTION, IS NOT INVENTION.  P. 356. 

3.  EVIDENCE OF UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS UPON THE PART OF A FEW OTHERS,
NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PRIOR ART, TO ATTAIN THE RESULT ACHIEVED BY THE
PATENTED DEVICE; OF ACCEPTANCE OF LICENSES BY MANUFACTURERS NOT SHOWN
TO HAVE MADE WIDE OR SUCCESSFUL USE OF IT; AND EVIDENCE OF ITS UTILITY
AND COMMERCIAL SUCCESS,  - HELD INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH NOVELTY IN
THIS CASE.  P. 356. 

TOLEDO PRESSED STEEL CO. V. STANDARD PARTS, INC.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 167, TOLEDO PRESSED STEEL CO. V. HUEBNER SUPPLY
CO., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT; AND NO. 603, MONTGOMERY WARD & CO. V. TOLEDO PRESSED
STEEL CO., ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 667; 306 ID. 623, TO REVIEW THREE DECREES IN
INFRINGEMENT SUITS.  IN THE FIRST TWO SUITS, WHICH INVOLVED THE SAME
CLAIMS, RELIEF WAS DENIED BY THE COURT BELOW.  IN THE THIRD SUIT, WHICH
INVOLVED SOME OF THOSE CLAIMS AND SOME OTHERS IN ADDITION, RELIEF WAS
GRANTED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUITS BROUGHT BY THE TOLEDO PRESSED
STEEL COMPANY, OWNER OF WITHROW AND CLOSE PATENT NO. 1,732,708, ISSUED
OCTOBER 22, 1929, FOR A BURNER FOR USE IN OUTDOOR WARNING SIGNALS SUCH
AS CONSTRUCTION TORCHES AND TRUCK FLARES.  THE FIRST TWO SUITS WERE
BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.  IT
FILED AN OPINION INDICATING THE FACTS THAT IT DEEMED ESTABLISHED BY THE
EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT FORMAL FINDINGS HELD THE PATENT VALID AND
INFRINGED BY THE BOLSER AND KARI-KEEN FLARES RESPECTIVELY SOLD BY THE
DEFENDANTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HELD
THE PATENT INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION AND REVERSED.  93 F.2D 336. 
THE OTHER SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  IT MADE FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY RULE 70 1/2,
HELD PLAINTIFF'S PATENT INVALID, AND DISMISSED THE BILL.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HELD THE PATENT VALID AND
INFRINGED BY THE ANTHES FLARE SOLD BY THE DEFENDANT, AND REVERSED.  99
F.2D 806. 

IN THE INTEREST OF PLAINTIFF, SEEKING TO UPHOLD THE PATENT PRIMA
FACIE VALID, AND OF THE PUBLIC, LIABLE TO EXCLUSION FROM MANUFACTURE,
USE, OR SALE IN VIRTUE OF THE RIGHT IT PURPORTS TO CONFER, FINAL
ADJUDICATION AS TO VALIDITY IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE.  THE PATENT IN
SUIT RELATES TO TORCHES FOR GUARDING STREET OBSTRUCTIONS AND TO FLARES,
WHICH ARE LARGE TORCHES, FOR WARNING THAT VEHICLES ARE STOPPED ON THE
ROAD. 

FORMERLY, RED LANTERNS WERE MUCH USED.  BUT, AFTER GENERAL USE OF
AUTOMOBILES HAVING RED TAIL LIGHTS TO SOME EXTENT RESEMBLING THEM, THEY
DID NOT SERVE SO SATISFACTORILY AS BEFORE.  OPEN-FLAME TORCHES CAME TO
BE EXTENSIVELY EMPLOYED.  THE MOTION OF THE LUMINESCENT FLAME
DISTINGUISHES THEM FROM OTHER SIGNALS.  BUT THERE WERE COMPLAINTS THAT
THEY WERE SOMETIMES EXTINGUISHED BY WIND OR RAIN. 

OPEN-FLAME TORCHES IN USE FOR SOME YEARS BEFORE PATENTEES' CLAIMED
INVENTION, INCLUDED THOSE WHICH WERE BOMB-SHAPED, FLAT-BOTTOMED,
WEIGHTED FOR STABILITY, AND WITH AN OPENING IN THE TOP FOR A WICK. 
THAT TYPE WAS WELL KNOWN, AT LEAST AFTER THE PATENT COVERING IT,
MCCLOSKEY NO. 1,610,301, WAS ISSUED DECEMBER 14, 1926; IN 1929 IT WAS
HELD INVALID BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FOR
LACK OF INVENTION AND BECAUSE ANTICIPATED.  MCCLOSKEY V. TOLEDO PRESSED
STEEL CO., 30 F.2D 12.  PLAINTIFF HAD A LARGE BUSINESS IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF TORCHES, INCLUDING THE MCCLOSKEY TYPE.  IT
ADVERTISED THAT THEY WOULD BURN IN ALL KINDS OF WEATHER; HAVING
RECEIVED MANY COMPLAINTS OF EXTINGUISHMENT BY WIND AND RAIN, PATENTEES,
RESPECTIVELY PLAINTIFF'S PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, SET ABOUT
PRODUCING SOMETHING TO MAKE THEM DEPENDABLE AND TO SERVE AS
REPRESENTED.  WITHIN A YEAR, BUT AFTER EXPERIMENTS, TRIALS, AND
FAILURES, THEY BROUGHT FORWARD THE PATENTED DEVICE. 

THE SPECIFICATION STATES THAT THE CLAIMED INVENTION PARTICULARLY
RELATES TO DEVICES TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY AND TO PREVENT FLAME
EXTINGUISHMENT.  IT DECLARES THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION ARE TO
PROVIDE A SIMPLE ATTACHMENT TO ATTAIN THOSE ENDS AND A BURNER SO
CONSTRUCTED THAT LIABILITY OF EXTINGUISHMENT BY WIND OR RAIN WILL BE
REDUCED TO A MINIMUM.  IT FURTHER SAYS THAT WITH THE DESCRIBED
CONSTRUCTION AND ARRANGEMENT CONSUMPTION OF OIL AND WICK IS MATERIALLY
DECREASED. 

THE CLAIMS INVOLVED ARE PRINTED IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  CONSIDERED
TOGETHER, UNOBSCURED BY ARTIFICIALITY IN THEIR STATEMENT, IT FAIRLY MAY
BE SAID THAT THEY SHOW THAT ALL THAT THE PATENTEES DID WAS TO PUT OVER
THE WICK OF A TORCH, WELL KNOWN IN THE ART, AN INVERTED METAL CUPLIKE
CAP HAVING HOLES IN ITS SIDES, SOME TO LET IN AIR FOR COMBUSTION AND
OTHERS TO LET OUT FLAME.  THE CAP WAS ALSO WELL KNOWN AND HAD BEEN USED
AS A PART OF OTHER DEVICES FOR THE PROTECTION OF KEROSENE AND OTHER
FLAMES. 

A NUMBER OF DEVICES PATENTED EARLIER THAN PLAINTIFF'S INCLUDED THE
ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL TO ITS BURNER. 

BILLINGHAM PATENT, NO. 191,031, ISSUED AUGUST 15, 1876, RELATED TO
TORCHES FOR LIGHTING STREET-LAMPS.  IT SHOWS A WICK-TYPE TORCH WITH A
TUBE-LIKE CAP HAVING HOLES, SOME TO LET IN AIR, AND OTHERS TO LET THE
FLAME COME OUT.  THIS CAP, IMPERFORATE AT THE TOP, SERVES TO PREVENT
EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE FLAME BY WIND OR RAIN.  ALMOND PATENT, NO.
193,796, ISSUED AUGUST 7, 1877, RELATED TO VAPOR BURNERS FOR HEATING. 
THE DEVICE, SOME PARTS DETACHED, SERVES AS AN ILLUMINATING LAMP
CONSISTING OF A BODY, A WICK HOLDER, A CAP, A FLANGE HAVING A RIM
SUPPORTING A TUBE CLOSED AT THE TOP.  HOLES ARE IN THE RIM TO ADMIT
AIR; LARGER ONES IN THE TUBE ARE TO LET THE FLAMES OUT.  RUTZ PATENT,
NO. 1,101,146, ISSUED JUNE 23, 1914, COVERS A FLASH IGNITER FOR GAS
STOVE BURNERS.  IT HAS A CAP TO GUARD THE FLAME AND ADAPTED TO EMIT
FLAMES EXTENDING FROM THE IGNITER TO THE GAS BURNERS TO BE LIGHTED. 
THIS CAP, LIKE PLAINTIFF'S, HAS A SUPPORTING AND HEAT RECEIVING FLANGE,
A MEANS TO ENCLOSE THE SPACE ABOVE THE FLANGE AND A RESTRICTED ENTRANCE
TO ADMIT AIR FOR COMBUSTION.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE RUTZ HOOD HAS
BEEN USED TO ACHIEVE THE IDENTICAL RESULTS ATTAINED BY PLAINTIFF'S
DEVICE. 

THERE ARE OTHER PATENTS, ISSUED BEFORE PATENTEES DEVELOPED THE
STRUCTURE IN SUIT, THAT MAY BE REFERRED TO AS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF
INVENTION IN THIS CASE.  EXAMPLES OF THESE ARE CITED IN THE MARGIN. 
FN2 

THE TORCH BODY WAS OLD IN THE ART TO WHICH IT BELONGED.  THE CAP, AS
PART OF DEVICES USED IN OTHER FIELDS, WAS OLD AND USEFUL TO PREVENT
EXTINGUISHMENT OF FLAMES BY WIND OR RAIN AND TO PERMIT FLAMES TO EXTEND
THROUGH HOLES TO THE OPEN AIR.  THE PROBLEM PATENTEES SET FOR
THEMSELVES WAS TO PREVENT EXTINGUISHMENT WHILE PRESERVING USEFULNESS OF
THE FLAMES AS WARNING SIGNALS.  THEY SOLVED IT BY MERELY BRINGING
TOGETHER THE TORCH AND CAP.  AS BEFORE, THE TORCH CONTINUED TO PRODUCE
A LUMINESCENT, UNDULATING FLAME, AND THE CAP CONTINUED TO LET IN AIR
FOR COMBUSTION, TO PROTECT THE FLAME FROM WIND AND RAIN AND TO ALLOW IT
TO EMERGE AS A WARNING SIGNAL.  THEY PERFORMED NO JOINT FUNCTION.  EACH
SERVED AS SEPARATELY IT HAD DONE.  THE PATENTED DEVICE RESULTS FROM
MERE AGGREGATION OF TWO OLD DEVICES, AND NOT FROM INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY.  HAILES V. VAN WORMER, 20 WALL.  353, 368.  RECKENDORFER V.
FABER, 92 U.S. 347, 357.  LINCOLN CO. V. STEWART-WARNER CORP., 303 U.S.
545, 549-50.  ON THE RECORDS BEFORE US, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT
PRODUCTION OF THE PATENTED DEVICE REQUIRED MORE THAN MECHANICAL SKILL
AND ORIGINALITY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THOSE FAMILIAR WITH THE ART OF
PROTECTING FLAMES OF KEROSENE AND OTHER BURNERS.  ALTOONA THEATRES V.
TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477, 486; POWERS-KENNEDY CO. V. CONCRETE CO.,
282 U.S. 175, 186; CONCRETE APPLIANCES CO. V. GOMERY, 269 U.S. 177,
184, 185; HOLLISTER V. BENEDICT & BURNHAM MFG. CO., 113 U.S. 59, 72
73. 

AS EVIDENCE IN ITS FAVOR ON THE QUESTION OF INVENTION, PLAINTIFF
CITES EFFORTS TO FIND SOMETHING USEFUL TO PROTECT OPEN-FLAME TORCHES
FROM EXTINGUISHMENT BY WIND OR RAIN PUT FORTH BY ONE ENGAGED IN
OPERATION OF A STREET RAILWAY AND BY ANOTHER EMPLOYED BY A MANUFACTURER
OF LANTERNS.  BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT EITHER WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE
RELEVANT PRIOR ART. NOR IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF GENERAL OR WIDESPREAD
EFFORT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM HERE INVOLVED.  THERE IS NOTHING THAT TENDS
TO RAISE WHAT PATENTEES DID TO THE REALM OF INVENTION.  SEE PARAMOUNT
CORP. V. TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 464, 476.  PLAINTIFF ALSO BRINGS
FORWARD THE FACT THAT SOME MANUFACTURERS, INCLUDING THREE SUBSTANTIAL
ONES, HAVE TAKEN LICENSES UNDER ITS PATENT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT
THESE LICENSEES HAVE MADE WIDE OR SUCCESSFUL USE OF THE DEVICE.  LACK
OF NOVELTY BEING CLEARLY SHOWN, ACCEPTANCE OF LICENSE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IS WITHOUT WEIGHT.  THROPP'S SONS CO. V.
SEIBERLING, 264 U.S. 320, 330.  JOHN T. RIDDELL V. ATHLETIC SHOE CO.,
75 F.2D 93, 95.  AND SIMILARLY WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE ON THE QUESTION OF
NOVELTY IS THE FACT THAT, AS PLAINTIFF CLAIMS, UTILITY RESULTED AND
COMMERCIAL SUCCESS FOLLOWED FROM WHAT PATENTEES DID.  FIRESTONE TIRE &
RUBBER CO. V. U.S. RUBBER CO., 79 F.2D 948, 954. 

IT RESULTS THAT THE DECREES IN NOS. 166 AND 167 MUST BE AFFIRMED, AND
THAT IN NO. 603 MUST BE REVERSED.  NOS. 166 AND 167, AFFIRMED.  NO.
603, REVERSED. 

FN1 IN ALL THE CASES, CLAIMS 2, 5, 11 AND 12 ARE INVOLVED.  IN NOS.
166 AND 167, CLAIM 13 IS ALSO INVOLVED.  IN NO. 167, CLAIMS 1, 6 AND 7
ARE ALSO INVOLVED. 

"1.  IN A DEVICE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED, A TORCH BODY HAVING AN
OPENING AT ITS UPPER END, A WICK-RECEIVING TUBE EXTENDING INTO SAID
OPENING, AND A CAP DISPOSED ON THE OUTER SIDE OF SAID TORCH BODY TO
ENCLOSE THE OUTER END OF THE WICK, SAID CAP HAVING AN IMPERFORATE UPPER
WALL, LATERAL FLAME OPENINGS, AND AIR OPENINGS BELOW THE FLAME
OPENINGS. 

"2.  IN A DEVICE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED, A TORCH BODY HAVING AN
OPENING FOR A WICK, AND A FLAME GUARD FOR SAID WICK MOUNTED ON THE
OUTSIDE OF SAID TORCH BODY, SAID GUARD INCLUDING A CAP PROVIDED WITH AN
IMPERFORATE TOP WALL AND LATERAL FLAME OPENINGS ADAPTED TO EMIT A
LUMINESCENT FLAME, AND AIR PORTS. 

"5. IN A DEVICE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED, A CONSTRUCTION TORCH HAVING
AN OPENING IN ITS UPPER END FOR A WICK, MEANS TO HOLD THE WICK IN
PLACE, AND A GUARD FITTING OVER THE OUTER END OF THE WICK BUT SPACED
FROM THE SIDES THEREOF, SAID GUARD HAVING AN IMPERFORATE TOP WALL AND
SIDE FLAME AND AIR OPENINGS. 

"6.  IN A DEVICE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED, A TORCH BODY HAVING A
WICKOPENING, A TUBE FOR RECEIVING THE WICK AND ADAPTED TO EXTEND INSIDE
OF THE TORCH BODY, AN OUTWARDLY EXTENDING FLANGE IN THE REGION OF SAID
WICK-OPENING, AND A CAP CONNECTED TO SAID FLANGE AND HAVING AN
IMPERFORATE TOP WALL, SAID CAP HAVING A FLAME OPENING ADJACENT ITS
OUTER END AND AN AIR PORT BENEATH SAID FLAME OPENING. 

"7.  IN A DEVICE OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED, A TORCH BODY HAVING A
WICKOPENING, A CAP FOR ENCLOSING THE OUTER END OF THE WICK BUT SPACED
FROM THE SIDES THEREOF, AN IMPERFORATE END WALL FOR SAID CAP, SAID CAP
HAVING A SERIES OF FLAME OPENINGS AND A SERIES OF AIR PORTS BENEATH THE
FLAME OPENINGS, AND A DISC ADAPTED TO EMBRACE THE WICK AND HAVING A
FLANGED UPPER PORTION DISPOSED IN THE REGION OF SAID AIR PORTS. 

"11.  A BURNER FOR A CONSTRUCTION TORCH ADAPTED TO EMIT A LUMINESCENT
FLAME AND COMPRISING A WICK HOLDER HAVING A PORTION IN CONTACT WITH THE
WICK AND A SUPPORTING AND HEAT-RECEIVING FLANGE, AND MEANS ENCLOSING A
SPACE ABOVE SAID FLANGE AND SURROUNDING THE WICK, EXCEPT FOR PROVISION
FOR LATERAL EXIT OF FLAME AND RESTRICTED ENTRANCE OF AIR FOR
COMBUSTION. 

"12.  A BURNER FOR A CONSTRUCTION TORCH ADAPTED TO EMIT A LUMINESCENT
FLAME AND COMPRISING A WICK HOLDER HAVING A PORTION IN CONTACT WITH THE
WICK AND A LATERAL FLANGE, AND A CAP ENCLOSING AND SPACED FROM THE END
OF THE WICK AND HAVING AN IMPERFORATE TOP AND PROVISION FOR LATERAL
EXIT OF FLAME AND ENTRANCE OF AIR, AND THE BOTTOM OF THE CAP BEING IN
HEAT CONDUCTING RELATION TO SAID FLANGE. 

"13.  A BURNER FOR A CONSTRUCTION TORCH ADAPTED TO EMIT A LUMINESCENT
FLAME AND COMPRISING A WICK HOLDER HAVING A PORTION IN CONTACT WITH THE
WICK AND A LATERALLY EXTENDING FLANGE AND A CAP OVER THE WICK, THE CAP
HAVING AN IMPERFORATE, DOME-SHAPED TOP WALL, A LATERAL FLAME OPENING
APPROXIMATELY EVEN WITH THE TOP OF THE WICK AND A SMALLER OPENING FOR
THE INLET OF AIR LOWER THAN THE FLAME OPENING AND ABOVE THE LOWER EDGE
OF THE CAP, SAID LOWER EDGE BEING IN HEATTRANSFERRING RELATION TO SAID
FLANGE." 

FN2  BLAKE PATENT, NO. 453,335, JUNE 2, 1891.  HESTON PATENT, NO.
270,587, JANUARY 16, 1883.  REEKIE PATENT, NO. 192,130, JUNE 19, 1877. 
KAHN PATENT, NO. 1,175,527, MARCH 14, 1916. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





CURRY V. MCCANLESS, 307 U.S. 357 


NO. 339.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1939.  REARGUED APRIL 28, 1939.  - DECIDED
MAY 29, 1939.  - 174 TENN. 1 - 118 S.W.2D 228, REVERSED. 


1.  DECEDENT, DOMICILED IN TENNESSEE, TRANSFERRED TO A TRUSTEE IN
ALABAMA CERTAIN STOCKS AND BONDS ON SPECIFIC TRUSTS.  THE NET INCOME
WAS TO BE PAID TO HER DURING HER LIFETIME; AND UPON HER DEATH THE
PROPERTY WAS TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR SPECIFIED BENEFICIARIES.  SHE
RESERVED, HOWEVER, CERTAIN POWERS OVER THE TRUSTEE AND THE HANDLING OF
THE TRUST, AND THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF THE ESTATE AS SHE MIGHT DIRECT
BY WILL.  UNTIL HER DEATH THE TRUST WAS ADMINISTERED BY THE TRUSTEE IN
ALABAMA AND THE PAPER EVIDENCES OF THE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY WERE KEPT
THERE.  UPON HER DEATH, IN TENNESSEE, SHE BEQUEATHED THE TRUST PROPERTY
TO THE SAME TRUSTEE TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE SAME AND OTHER
BENEFICIARIES, IN DIFFERENT AMOUNTS AND BY DIFFERENT ESTATES FROM THOSE
PROVIDED FOR BY THE TRUST INDENTURE.  BY THE WILL SHE APPOINTED A
TENNESSEE EXECUTOR "AS TO ALL PROPERTY WHICH I MAY OWN IN THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE AT THE TIME OF MY DEATH," AND AN ALABAMA EXECUTOR "AS TO ALL
PROPERTY WHICH I MAY OWN IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA AND ALSO AS TO ALL
PROPERTY WHICH I MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF BY LAST WILL AND
TESTAMENT IN SAID STATE."  IT WAS PROBATED AND LETTERS TESTAMENTARY
ISSUED TO THE RESPECTIVE EXECUTORS, IN BOTH STATES. 

HELD THAT EACH OF THE TWO STATES COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSE A TAX
ON THE TRANSFER OF THE INTANGIBLES HELD BY THE ALABAMA TRUSTEE BUT
PASSING UNDER THE WILL OF THE DECEDENT, DOMICILED IN TENNESSEE.  PP.
360, 372-373. 

2.  THE OPINION CONSIDERS THE GROUNDS FOR THE DOCTRINE THAT POWER TO
TAX TANGIBLE PROPERTY IS CONFINED TO THE STATE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED.  P. 363. 

WHEN WE SPEAK OF THE JURISDICTION TO TAX LAND OR CHATTELS AS BEING
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE STATE WHERE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY LOCATED, WE MEAN NO
MORE THAN THAT THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF LAWS ENABLING THE OWNER TO
ENJOY THE FRUITS OF HIS OWNERSHIP AND THE POWER TO REACH EFFECTIVELY
THE INTERESTS PROTECTED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBJECTING THEM TO PAYMENT
OF A TAX, ARE SO NARROWLY RESTRICTED TO THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY
THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS TO SET PRACTICAL LIMITS TO TAXATION
BY OTHERS.  P. 364. 

3.  RIGHTS IN INTANGIBLE PROPERTY ARE BUT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
PERSONS, WHICH THE LAW RECOGNIZES BY ATTACHING TO THEM CERTAIN
SANCTIONS ENFORCEABLE IN COURTS.  THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT OVER THEM AND
THE PROTECTION WHICH IT GIVES THEM CAN NOT BE EXERTED THROUGH CONTROL
OF A PHYSICAL THING, BUT CAN BE MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY THROUGH CONTROL
OVER AND PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THOSE PERSONS WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS ARE
THE ORIGIN OF THE RIGHTS.  AS SOURCES OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL WEALTH -
WHICH IS AN APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF ANY TAX IMPOSED ON OWNERSHIP OR ITS
EXERCISE - THEY CAN NOT BE DISSOCIATED FROM THE PERSONS FROM WHOSE
RELATIONSHIPS THEY ARE DERIVED.  P. 366. 

4.  FROM THE BEGINNING OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM CONTROL OVER THE
PERSON AT THE PLACE OF HIS DOMICILE AND HIS DUTY THERE, COMMON TO ALL
CITIZENS, TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN DEEMED
TO AFFORD AN ADEQUATE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR IMPOSING ON HIM A TAX ON
THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF RIGHTS IN INTANGIBLES MEASURED BY THEIR
VALUE.  P. 366. 

5.  IN CASES WHERE THE OWNER OF INTANGIBLES CONFINES HIS ACTIVITY TO
THE PLACE OF HIS DOMICILE IT HAS BEEN FOUND CONVENIENT TO SUBSTITUTE A
RULE FOR A REASON, BY SAYING THAT HIS INTANGIBLES ARE TAXED AT THEIR
SITUS AND NOT ELSEWHERE, OR, PERHAPS LESS ARTIFICIALLY, BY INVOKING THE
MAXIM MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM.  P. 367. 

6.  BUT WHEN THE TAXPAYER EXTENDS HIS ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO HIS
INTANGIBLES, SO AS TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF
THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE, IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BRING HIS PERSON OR
PROPERTY WITHIN THE REACH OF THE TAX GATHERER THERE, THE REASON FOR A
SINGLE PLACE OF TAXATION NO LONGER OBTAINS, AND THE RULE IS NOT EVEN A
WORKABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REASONS WHICH MAY EXIST IN ANY PARTICULAR
CASE TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF EACH STATE CONCERNED TO
TAX.  P. 367. 

7.  THE STATE OF DOMICILE IS NOT DEPRIVED, BY THE TAXPAYER'S
ACTIVITIES ELSEWHERE, OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION TO TAX, AND
CONSEQUENTLY THERE ARE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH MORE THAN ONE STATE
MAY HAVE JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE A TAX AND MEASURE IT BY SOME OR ALL OF
THE TAXPAYER'S INTANGIBLES.  P. 368. 

8.  SINCE ALABAMA MAY LAWFULLY TAX THE PROPERTY IN THE TRUSTEE'S
HANDS, THE COURT PERCEIVES NO GROUND FOR SAYING THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT FORBIDS THAT STATE TO TAX THE TRANSFER OF IT OR AN INTEREST
IN IT TO ANOTHER MERELY BECAUSE THE TRANSFER WAS EFFECTED BY DECEDENT'S
TESTAMENTARY ACT IN ANOTHER STATE.  P. 370. 

9.  EXERCISE OF THE DECEDENT'S POWER TO DISPOSE OF THE INTANGIBLES
WAS A TAXABLE EVENT IN TENNESSEE.  P. 371. 

10.  IN EFFECTING HER PURPOSES, THE TESTATRIX BROUGHT SOME OF THE
LEGAL INTERESTS WHICH SHE CREATED WITHIN THE CONTROL OF ONE STATE BY
SELECTING A TRUSTEE THERE AND OTHERS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE OTHER
STATE BY MAKING HER DOMICILE THERE.  SHE NECESSARILY INVOKED THE AID OF
THE LAW OF BOTH STATES; AND HER LEGATEES, BEFORE THEY CAN SECURE AND
ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF SUCCESSION, MUST INVOKE THE LAW OF BOTH.  P.
372. 

11.  THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST THE TAXATION
OF PROPERTY NOT WITHIN THE TAXING "JURISDICTION" OF A STATE IS NOT TO
BE EXTENDED BY ASCRIBING TO INTANGIBLES IN EVERY CASE A LOCUS FOR
TAXATION IN A SINGLE STATE DESPITE THE CONTROL OVER THEM OR THEIR
TRANSMISSION BY ANY OTHER STATE AND ITS LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN TAXING
THE ONE OR THE OTHER.  THE COURT CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND NO SUPPORT IN REASON, PRINCIPLE, OR AUTHORITY
FOR SAYING THAT IT PROHIBITS EITHER STATE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
CASE, FROM LAYING THE TAX.  PP. 373, 372. 

CURRY, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER OF ALABAMA, ET AL. V. MCCANLESS,
COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND TAXATION OF TENNESSEE. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. 

APPEAL TAKEN BY TAXING OFFICIALS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA FROM A
DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE DECLARING TRUST PROPERTY IN
ALABAMA DISPOSED OF BY A DECEDENT'S WILL TO BE SUBJECT TO SUCCESSION OR
TRANSFER TAXATION IN TENNESSEE BUT NOT IN ALABAMA.  THIS SUIT WAS
BROUGHT BY THE EXECUTORS IN THE TWO STATES, PRAYING FOR A DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE WHETHER THE STATES OF ALABAMA AND
TENNESSEE MAY EACH CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSE DEATH TAXES UPON THE
TRANSFER OF AN INTEREST IN INTANGIBLES HELD IN TRUST BY AN ALABAMA
TRUSTEE BUT PASSING UNDER THE WILL OF A BENEFICIARY DECEDENT DOMICILED
IN TENNESSEE; AND WHICH OF THE TWO STATES MAY TAX IN THE EVENT THAT IT
IS DETERMINED THAT ONLY ONE STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSE THE TAX. 

DECEDENT, A DOMICILED RESIDENT OF TENNESSEE, BY TRUST INDENTURE
TRANSFERRED CERTAIN STOCKS AND BONDS UPON SPECIFIED TRUSTS TO TITLE
GUARANTEE LOAN & TRUST COMPANY, AN ALABAMA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS
IN THAT STATE.  SO FAR AS NOW MATERIAL, THE INDENTURE PROVIDED THAT THE
NET INCOME OF THE TRUST PROPERTY SHOULD BE PAID OVER TO DECEDENT DURING
HER LIFETIME.  SHE RESERVED THE POWER TO REMOVE THE TRUSTEE AND
SUBSTITUTE ANOTHER, WHICH WAS NEVER DONE; THE POWER TO DIRECT THE SALE
OF THE TRUST PROPERTY AND THE INVESTMENT OF THE PROCEEDS; AND THE POWER
TO DISPOSE OF THE TRUST ESTATE BY HER LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, IN WHICH
EVENT IT WAS TO BE "HANDLED AND DISPOSED OF AS DIRECTED" IN HER WILL. 
THE INDENTURE PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN DEFAULT OF DISPOSITION BY WILL
THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF HER HUSBAND,
SON, AND DAUGHTER.  UNTIL DECEDENT'S DEATH THE TRUST WAS ADMINISTERED
BY THE TRUST COMPANY IN ALABAMA AND THE PAPER EVIDENCES OF THE
INTANGIBLES HELD BY THE TRUSTEE WERE AT ALL TIMES LOCATED IN ALABAMA. 

BY HER LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT DECEDENT BEQUEATHED THE TRUST PROPERTY
TO THE TRUST COMPANY IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF HER HUSBAND, SON, AND
DAUGHTER, IN DIFFERENT AMOUNTS AND BY DIFFERENT ESTATES FROM THOSE
PROVIDED FOR BY THE TRUST INDENTURE, WITH REMAINDER INTERESTS OVER TO
THE CHILDREN OF THE SON AND THE DAUGHTER RESPECTIVELY, AND TO HIS WIFE
AND HER HUSBAND.  BY HER WILL TESTATRIX APPOINTED A TENNESSEE TRUST
COMPANY EXECUTOR "AS TO ALL PROPERTY WHICH I MAY OWN IN THE STATE OF
TENNESSEE AT THE TIME OF MY DEATH," AND AN ALABAMA TRUST COMPANY
EXECUTOR "AS TO ALL PROPERTY WHICH I MAY OWN IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA
AND ALSO AS TO ALL PROPERTY WHICH I MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF BY
LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT IN SAID STATE."  THE WILL HAS BEEN PROBATED IN
TENNESSEE AND IN ALABAMA, AND LETTERS TESTAMENTARY HAVE ISSUED TO THE
TWO TRUST COMPANIES NAMED AS EXECUTORS IN THE WILL. 

THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE TWO EXECUTORS IN A CHANCERY COURT
OF TENNESSEE AGAINST APPELLANTS, COMPRISING THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
ALABAMA, AND APPELLEE, COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND TAXATION OF THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, WHO ARE CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF COLLECTING
INHERITANCE OR SUCCESSION TAXES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.  THE BILL
OF COMPLAINT PRAYED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE TENNESSEE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT, TENNESSEE CODE, 1932, SECS. 8835-8847,
DETERMINING WHAT PORTIONS OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT ARE TAXABLE BY THE
STATE OF TENNESSEE AND WHAT PORTIONS BY THE STATE OF ALABAMA. 
APPELLANTS AND APPELLEE APPEARED AND BY THEIR ANSWERS AND BY
STIPULATION RECITED IN DETAIL THE FACTS ALREADY STATED AND ADMITTED
THAT THE TAXING OFFICIALS OF EACH STATE HAD IMPOSED OR ASSERTED THE
RIGHT TO IMPOSE AN INHERITANCE OR DEATH TRANSFER TAX ON THE TRUST
PROPERTY PASSING UNDER DECEDENT'S WILL. 

THE CHANCERY COURT OF TENNESSEE DECREED THAT THE STATE OF ALABAMA
COULD LAWFULLY IMPOSE THE TAX AND THAT THE INHERITANCE TAX LAW OF
TENNESSEE VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN SO FAR AS IT PURPORTED
TO IMPOSE A TAX MEASURED BY THE TRUST PROPERTY DISPOSED OF BY
DECEDENT'S WILL.  THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE REVERSED, AND ENTERED
ITS DECREE DECLARING THE TRUST PROPERTY DISPOSED OF BY DECEDENT'S WILL
TO BE "TAXABLE IN TENNESSEE AND NOT TAXABLE IN ALABAMA FOR PURPOSES OF
DEATH SUCCESSION OR TRANSFER TAXES."  174 TENN. 1; 118 S.W.2D 228.  THE
CASE COMES HERE ON AN APPEAL FROM THIS DECREE TAKEN BY THE TAXING
OFFICIALS OF ALABAMA UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 344(A). 

ALABAMA HAS ASSESSED A STATE INHERITANCE TAX ON THE TRUST PROPERTY
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XII, C. 2, OF ITS GENERAL REVENUE ACT.  ALABAMA
ACTS, 1935, PP. 434 ET SEQ. NO TRANSFER TAX HAS BEEN ASSESSED UPON THE
PROPERTY BY THE TENNESSEE TAXING OFFICIALS, BUT THEY ASSERT THE RIGHT
UNDER THE TENNESSEE STATUTE TO TAX THE TRANSFER UNDER DECEDENT'S WILL
OF THE TRUST PROPERTY.  SECTIONS 1259 AND 1260 OF THE TENNESSEE CODE OF
1932 IMPOSE A TAX UPON THE TRANSFER AT DEATH BY A RESIDENT OF THE STATE
OF HIS INTANGIBLE PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED, INCLUDING TRANSFERS UNDER
POWERS OF APPOINTMENT. 

BOTH THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF TENNESSEE AND THE SUPREME COURT OF
TENNESSEE, CONCEIVING THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES THE
TRANSMISSION AT DEATH OF INTANGIBLES TO BE TAXED AT THEIR "SITUS" AND
THERE ONLY, CONSIDERED THAT THE PRIMARY QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION WAS
THE SITUS OR LOCATION TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE INTANGIBLES OF THE TRUST
ESTATE AT THE TIME OF DECEDENT'S DEATH.  AFTER CONSIDERING ALL OF THE
RELEVANT FACTORS, THE ONE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE SITUS OF THE
INTANGIBLES WAS IN ALABAMA, THE OTHER THAT IT WAS IN TENNESSEE. 
DESPITE THE IMPOSSIBILITY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE OF
ATTRIBUTING A SINGLE LOCATION TO THAT WHICH HAS NO PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS AND WHICH IS ASSOCIATED IN NUMEROUS INTIMATE WAYS WITH
BOTH STATES, BOTH COURTS HAVE AGREED THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
COMPELS THE ATTRIBUTION TO BE MADE AND THAT, ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED BY
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT THAT THE INTANGIBLES ARE IN ONE STATE RATHER
THAN THE OTHER, THE DUE PROCES CLAUSE FORBIDS THEIR TAXATION IN ANY
OTHER. 

THE DOCTRINE, OF RECENT ORIGIN, THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
PRECLUDES THE TAXATION OF ANY INTEREST IN THE SAME INTANGIBLE IN MORE
THAN ONE STATE HAS RECEIVED SUPPORT TO THE LIMITED EXTENT THAT IT WAS
APPLIED IN FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204; BALDWIN
V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312. 
STILL MORE RECENTLY THIS COURT HAS DECLINED TO GIVE IT COMPLETELY
LOGICAL APPLICATION.  FN1  IT HAS NEVER BEEN PRESSED TO THE EXTREME NOW
URGED UPON US, AND WE THINK THAT NEITHER REASON NOR AUTHORITY REQUIRES
ITS ACCEPTANCE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 

THAT RIGHTS IN TANGIBLES - LAND AND CHATTELS - ARE TO BE REGARDED IN
MANY RESPECTS AS LOCALIZED AT THE PLACE WHERE THE TANGIBLE ITSELF IS
LOCATED FOR PURPOSES OF THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT TO MAKE DISPOSITION
OF PUTATIVE RIGHTS IN THEM, FOR PURPOSES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, AND FOR
PURPOSES OF TAXATION, IS A DOCTRINE GENERALLY ACCEPTED BOTH IN THE
COMMON LAW AND OTHER LEGAL SYSTEMS BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND SINCE.  FN2  ORIGINATING, IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT,
IN THE TENDENCY OF THE MIND TO IDENTIFY RIGHTS WITH THEIR PHYSICAL
SUBJECTS, SEE SALMOND, JURISPRUDENCE (2ND ED.)  398, ITS SURVIVAL AND
THE CONSEQUENT CLEAVAGE BETWEEN THE RULES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO
TANGIBLES AND THOSE RELATING TO INTANGIBLES ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
EXCLUSIVE DOMINION EXERTED OVER THE TANGIBLES THEMSELVES BY THE
GOVERNMENT WITHIN WHOSE TERRITORIAL LIMITS THEY ARE FOUND.  GREEN V.
VAN BUSKIRK, 7 WALL.  139, 150; PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714; ARNDT V.
GRIGGS, 134 U.S. 316, 320-321.  SEE MCDONALD V. MABEE, 243 U.S. 90, 91;
CF. HARRIS V. BALK, 198 U.S. 215, 222; FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA,
497.  THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES TO POSSESS AND TO
EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM POSSESSING TANGIBLES, AND THUS TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM
ENJOYING RIGHTS IN TANGIBLES LOCATED WITHIN ITS TERRITORY, AFFORDS
ADEQUATE BASIS FOR AN EXCLUSIVE TAXING JURISDICTION.  WHEN WE SPEAK OF
THE JURISDICTION TO TAX LAND OR CHATTELS AS BEING EXCLUSIVELY IN THE
STATE WHERE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY LOCATED, WE MEAN NO MORE THAN THAT THE
BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF LAWS ENABLING THE OWNER TO ENJOY THE FRUITS
OF HIS OWNERSHIP AND THE POWER TO REACH EFFECTIVELY THE INTERESTS
PROTECTED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBJECTING THEM TO PAYMENT OF A TAX, ARE
SO NARROWLY RESTRICTED TO THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE PHYSICAL
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS TO SET PRACTICAL LIMITS TO TAXATION BY OTHERS. 
OTHER STATES HAVE BEEN SAID TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND SO WITHOUT
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO TAX TANGIBLES IF, BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCATION
ELSEWHERE, THOSE STATES CAN AFFORD NO SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION TO THE
RIGHTS TAXED AND CANNOT EFFECTIVELY LAY HOLD OF ANY INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY IN ORDER TO COMPEL PAYMENT OF THE TAX.  SEE UNION TRANSIT CO.
V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, 202; FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473,
489 ET SEQ. FN3 

VERY DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS, BOTH THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL, APPLY
TO THE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES, THAT IS, RIGHTS WHICH ARE NOT RELATED
TO PHYSICAL THINGS.  SUCH RIGHTS ARE BUT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONS,
NATURAL OR CORPORATE, WHICH THE LAW RECOGNIZES BY ATTACHING TO THEM
CERTAIN SANCTIONS ENFORCEABLE IN COURTS.  THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT OVER
THEM AND THE PROTECTION WHICH IT GIVES THEM CANNOT BE EXERTED THROUGH
CONTROL OF A PHYSICAL THING.  THEY CAN BE MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY THROUGH
CONTROL OVER AND PROTECTION AFFORDED TO THOSE PERSONS WHOSE
RELATIONSHIPS ARE THE ORIGIN OF THE RIGHTS.  SEE CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY.
CO. V. STURM, 174 U.S. 710, 716; HARRIS V. BALK, 198 U.S. 215, 222. 
OBVIOUSLY, AS SOURCES OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL WEALTH - WHICH IS AN
APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF ANY TAX IMPOSED ON OWNERSHIP OR ITS EXERCISE -
THEY CANNOT BE DISSOCIATED FROM THE PERSONS FROM WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS
THEY ARE DERIVED.  THESE ARE NOT IN ANY SENSE FICTIONS.  THEY ARE
INDISPUTABLE REALITIES. 

THE POWER TO TAX "IS AN INCIDENT OF SOVEREIGNTY, AND IS CO-EXTENSIVE
WITH THAT TO WHICH IT IS AN INCIDENT.  ALL SUBJECTS OVER WHICH THE
SOVEREIGN POWER OF A STATE EXTENDS, ARE OBJECTS OF TAXATION; BUT THOSE
OVER WHICH IT DOES NOT EXTEND, ARE, UPON THE SOUNDEST PRINCIPLES,
EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 429.  BUT
THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE STATE DOES NOT
EXTEND OVER INTANGIBLES OF A DOMICILED RESIDENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO
PHYSICAL LOCATION WITHIN ITS TERRITORY, OR THAT ITS POWER TO TAX IS
LOST BECAUSE WE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY THEY ARE LOCATED ELSEWHERE.  A
JURISDICTION WHICH DOES NOT DEPEND ON PHYSICAL PRESENCE WITHIN THE
STATE IS NOT LOST BY DECLARING THAT IT IS ABSENT.  FROM THE BEGINNING
OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM CONTROL OVER THE PERSON AT THE PLACE OF
HIS DOMICILE AND HIS DUTY THERE, COMMON TO ALL CITIZENS, TO CONTRIBUTE
TO THE SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO AFFORD AN ADEQUATE
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR IMPOSING ON HIM A TAX ON THE USE AND ENJOYMENT
OF RIGHTS IN INTANGIBLES MEASURED BY THEIR VALUE.  UNTIL THIS MOMENT
THAT JURISDICTION HAS NOT BEEN THOUGHT TO DEPEND ON ANY FACTOR OTHER
THAN THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER WITHIN THE TAXING STATE, OR TO COMPEL
THE ATTRIBUTION TO INTANGIBLES OF A PHYSICAL PRESENCE WITHIN ITS
TERRITORY, AS THOUGH THEY WERE CHATTELS, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE TAX. 
CARPENTER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 17 HOW.  456; KIRTLAND V. HOTCHKISS, 100
U.S. 491; HAWLEY V. MALDEN, 232 U.S. 1; BULLEN V. WISCONSIN, 240 U.S.
625; CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS, 253 U.S. 325; BLODGETT V.
SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1; FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA;
BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, SUPRA; BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 282 U.S. 1;
FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, SUPRA; VIRGINIA V. IMPERIAL COAL SALES
CO., 293 U.S. 15; SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 302 U.S. 506. 

IN CASES WHERE THE OWNER OF INTANGIBLES CONFINES HIS ACTIVITY TO THE
PLACE OF HIS DOMICILE IT HAS BEEN FOUND CONVENIENT TO SUBSTITUTE A RULE
FOR A REASON, CF. NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 313;
FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V. MINNESOTA, 301 U.S. 234, 241, BY SAYING THAT
HIS INTANGIBLES ARE TAXED AT THEIR SITUS AND NOT ELSEWHERE, OR, PERHAPS
LESS ARTIFICIALLY, BY INVOKING THE MAXIM MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM,
BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, SUPRA; BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, WHICH MEANS
ONLY THAT IT IS THE IDENTITY OR ASSOCIATION OF INTANGIBLES WITH THE
PERSON OF THEIR OWNER AT HIS DOMICILE WHICH GIVES JURISDICTION TO TAX. 
BUT WHEN THE TAXPAYER EXTENDS HIS ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO HIS
INTANGIBLES, SO AS TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF
THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE, IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BRING HIS PERSON OR
PROPERTY WITHIN THE REACH OF THE TAX GATHERER THERE, THE REASON FOR A
SINGLE PLACE OF TAXATION NO LONGER OBTAINS, AND THE RULE IS NOT EVEN A
WORKABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REASONS WHICH MAY EXIST IN ANY PARTICULAR
CASE TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF EACH STATE CONCERNED TO
TAX.  WHETHER WE REGARD THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO TAX AS FOUNDED ON POWER
OVER THE OBJECT TAXED, AS DECLARED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN
MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, THROUGH DOMINION OVER TANGIBLES OR OVER
PERSONS WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS ARE THE SOURCE OF INTANGIBLE RIGHTS; OR ON
THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION CONFERRED BY THE TAXING SOVEREIGNTY, OR
BOTH, IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT THE STATE OF DOMICILE IS NOT DEPRIVED, BY
THE TAXPAYER'S ACTIVITIES ELSEWHERE, OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION
TO TAX, AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT THERE ARE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
MORE THAN ONE STATE MAY HAVE JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE A TAX AND MEASURE
IT BY SOME OR ALL OF THE TAXPAYER'S INTANGIBLES.  SHARES OF CORPORATE
STOCK MAY BE TAXED AT THE DOMICILE OF THE SHAREHOLDER AND ALSO AT THAT
OF THE CORPORATION WHICH THE TAXING STATE HAS CREATED AND CONTROLS; AND
INCOME MAY BE TAXED BOTH BY THE STATE WHERE IT IS EARNED AND BY THE
STATE OF THE RECIPIENT'S DOMICILE.  FN4  PROTECTION, BENEFIT, AND POWER
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER ARE NOT CONFINED TO EITHER STATE.  THE TAXPAYER
WHO IS DOMICILED IN ONE STATE BUT CARRIES ON BUSINESS IN ANOTHER IS
SUBJECT TO A TAX THERE MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE INTANGIBLES USED IN
HIS BUSINESS.  NEW ORLEANS V. STEMPEL, 175 U.S. 309; BRISTOL V.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, 177 U.S. 133; STATE BOARD OF ASSESSORS V. COMPTOIR
NATIONAL, 191 U.S. 388; METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 205
U.S. 395; LIVERPOOL & L. & G. INS. CO. V. BOARD, 221 U.S. 346; WHEELING
STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S. 193; CF. BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, SUPRA;
BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, SUPRA.  BUT TAXATION OF A CORPORATION BY A STATE
WHERE IT DOES BUSINESS, MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE INTANGIBLES USED
IN ITS BUSINESS THERE, DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE STATE OF INCORPORATION
FROM IMPOSING A TAX MEASURED BY ALL ITS INTANGIBLES.  CREAM OF WHEAT
CO. V. GRAND FORKS, SUPRA, 329; FN5  SEE FIDELITY & COLUMBIA TRUST CO.
V. LOUISVILLE, 245 U.S. 54. 

THE PRACTICAL OBSTACLES AND UNWARRANTED CURTAILMENTS OF STATE POWER
WHICH MAY BE INVOLVED IN ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT THE TAXATION OF DIVERSE
LEGAL INTERESTS IN INTANGIBLES IN MORE THAN A SINGLE PLACE, THROUGH
FIRST ASCRIBING TO THEM A FICTITIOUS SITUS AND THEN INVOKING THE
PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST THEIR TAXATION
ELSEWHERE, ARE EXEMPLIFIED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 
HERE, FOR REASONS OF HER OWN, THE TESTATRIX, ALTHOUGH DOMICILED IN
TENNESSEE AND ENJOYING THE BENEFITS OF ITS LAWS, FOUND IT ADVANTAGEOUS
TO CREATE A TRUST OF INTANGIBLES IN ALABAMA BY VESTING LEGAL TITLE TO
THE INTANGIBLES AND LIMITED POWERS OF CONTROL OVER THEM IN AN ALABAMA
TRUSTEE.  BUT SHE ALSO PROVIDED THAT BY RESORT TO HER POWER TO DISPOSE
OF PROPERTY BY WILL, CONFERRED UPON HER BY THE LAW OF THE DOMICILE, THE
TRUST COULD BE TERMINATED AND THE PROPERTY PASS UNDER THE WILL.  SHE
THUS CREATED TWO SETS OF LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS RESULTING IN DISTINCT
INTANGIBLE RIGHTS, THE ONE EMBODIED IN THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP BY THE
ALABAMA TRUSTEE OF THE INTANGIBLES, THE OTHER EMBODIED IN THE EQUITABLE
RIGHT OF THE DECEDENT TO CONTROL THE ACTION OF THE TRUSTEE WITH RESPECT
TO THE TRUST PROPERTY AND TO COMPEL IT TO PAY OVER TO HER THE INCOME
DURING HER LIFE, AND IN HER POWER TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY AT DEATH. 

EVEN IF WE COULD RIGHTLY REGARD THESE VARIOUS AND DISTINCT LEGAL
INTERESTS, SPRINGING FROM DISTINCT RELATIONSHIPS, AS A COMPOSITE
UNITARY INTEREST AND ASCRIBE TO IT A SINGLE LOCATION IN SPACE, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW IT COULD BE SAID TO BE MORE IN ONE STATE THAN IN
THE OTHER AND UPON WHAT ARTICULATE PRINCIPLE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
COULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM EITHER STATE THE TAXING
JURISDICTION WHICH IT UNDOUBTEDLY POSSESSED BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE
AMENDMENT BY CONFERRING ON ONE STATE, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER,
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO TAX.  SEE PADDELL V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 211
U.S. 446, 448.  IF THE "DUE PROCESS" OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT
REQUIRE US TO FIX A SINGLE EXCLUSIVE PLACE OF TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR FOREIGN OWNER, WHO IS ENTITLED TO ITS
PROTECTION, BURNET V. BROOKS, 288 U.S. 378; CF. RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET
V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 481, 489, THE FOURTEENTH CAN HARDLY BE
THOUGHT TO MAKE US DO SO HERE, FOR THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF EACH
AMENDMENT IS DIRECTED AT THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND HE IS
ENTITLED TO ITS IMMUNITY AS MUCH AGAINST THE STATE AS AGAINST THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. 

IF TAXATION IS BUT A MEANS OF DISTRIBUTING THE COST OF GOVERNMENT
AMONG THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECT TO ITS CONTROL AND WHO ENJOY THE PROTECTION
OF ITS LAWS, SEE NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, SUPRA, 313; FIRST
BANK STOCK CORP. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA, 241, LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE
INTANGIBLES IN ALABAMA BY THE ALABAMA TRUSTEE WOULD SEEM TO AFFORD
ADEQUATE BASIS FOR IMPOSING ON IT A TAX MEASURED BY THEIR VALUE.  WE
CAN FIND NO MORE GROUND FOR SAYING THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
RELIEVES IT, OR THE PROPERTY WHICH IT HOLDS AND ADMINISTERS IN ALABAMA,
FROM BEARING THAT BURDEN, THAN FOR SAYING THAT THEY ARE
CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM PAYING ANY OTHER EXPENSE WHICH NORMALLY
ATTACHES TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF A TRUST IN THAT STATE.  THIS COURT
HAS NEVER DENIED THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE TRUSTEE'S DOMICILE TO
SUBJECT THEM TO PROPERTY TAXATION.  SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V.
VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83; SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 30 COLUMBIA LAW REV. 530;
2 COOLEY, TAXATION (8TH ED.), SEC. 602.  AND SINCE ALABAMA MAY LAWFULLY
TAX THE PROPERTY IN THE TRUSTEE'S HANDS, WE PERCEIVE NO GROUND FOR
SAYING THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS THE STATE TO TAX THE
TRANSFER OF IT OR AN INTEREST IN IT TO ANOTHER MERELY BECAUSE THE
TRANSFER WAS EFFECTED BY DECEDENT'S TESTAMENTARY ACT IN ANOTHER STATE. 

NO MORE PLAUSIBLE GROUND IS ASSIGNED FOR DEPRIVING TENNESSEE OF THE
POWER TO TAX IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  THE DECEDENT'S POWER
TO DISPOSE OF THE INTANGIBLES WAS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF WEALTH WHICH
WAS PROPERTY IN HER HANDS FROM WHICH SHE WAS UNDER THE HIGHEST
OBLIGATION, IN COMMON WITH HER FELLOW CITIZENS OF TENNESSEE, TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT WHOSE PROTECTION SHE
ENJOYED.  EXERCISE OF THAT POWER, WHICH WAS IN HER COMPLETE AND
EXCLUSIVE CONTROL IN TENNESSEE, WAS MADE A TAXABLE EVENT BY THE
STATUTES OF THE STATE.  TAXATION OF IT MUST BE TAKEN TO BE AS MUCH
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE AS TAXATION OF THE TRANSFER OF A
MORTGAGE ON LAND LOCATED IN ANOTHER STATE AND THERE SUBJECT TO TAXATION
AT ITS FULL VALUE.  SEE KIRTLAND V. HOTCHKISS, SUPRA; CF. PADDELL V.
CITY OF NEW YORK, SUPRA. 

FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION, A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT, OF WHICH
THE TESTATRIX HERE WAS BOTH DONOR AND DONEE, HAS HITHERTO BEEN REGARDED
BY THIS COURT AS EQUIVALENT TO OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE
POWER.  CHANLER V. KELSEY, 205 U.S. 466; BULLEN V. WISCONSIN, SUPRA,
630; CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 327, 338; SEE GRAY,
RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES (3D ED. 1916), SEC. 524.  FN6  WHETHER THE
APPOINTEE DERIVES TITLE FROM THE DONOR, UNDER THE COMMON LAW THEORY, OR
FROM THE DONEE BY VIRTUE OF THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER, IS HERE
IMMATERIAL.  IN EITHER EVENT THE TRUSTEE'S TITLE UNDER THE WILL WAS
DERIVED FROM DECEDENT, DOMICILED IN TENNESSEE.  CF. WACHOVIA TRUST CO.
V. DOUGHTON, 272 U.S. 567.  THERE IS NO CONFLICT HERE BETWEEN THE LAWS
OF THE TWO STATES AFFECTING THE TRANSMISSION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY. 
THE TITLE OF THE TRUSTEE UNDER THE ORIGINAL ALABAMA TRUST CAME TO AN
END UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE TESTATRIX'S POWER OF APPOINTMENT; AND
ALTHOUGH THE TRUSTEE AFTER HER DEATH STILL HAD TITLE TO THE SECURITIES,
IT WAS IN BY A NEW TITLE AS LEGATEE UNDER HER WILL, AND A NEW
BENEFICIAL INTEREST WAS CREATED, BOTH DERIVED THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF
HER POWER OF DISPOSITION.  THE RESULTING SITUATION WAS NO DIFFERENT
FROM WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF SHE HAD BEQUEATHED THE INTANGIBLES UPON
A NEW TRUST TO A NEW AND DIFFERENT TRUSTEE, EITHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT
THE STATE OF ALABAMA.  SO FAR AS THE POWER OF TENNESSEE TO TAX THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESENT CASE AND ANY OTHER CASE IN
WHICH AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH THE EVIDENCES OF INTANGIBLES PASSING UNDER
THE WILL OF A DECEDENT DOMICILED IN ONE STATE ARE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN
ANOTHER.  SEE BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, SUPRA; BALDWIN V. MISSOURI,
SUPRA. 

IT HAS HITHERTO BEEN THE ACCEPTED LAW OF THIS COURT THAT THE STATE OF
DOMICILE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX THE EXERCISE OR NON-EXERCISE AT DEATH
OF A GENERAL POWER OF APPOINTMENT, BY ONE WHO IS BOTH DONOR AND DONEE
OF THE POWER, RELATING TO SECURITIES HELD IN TRUST IN ANOTHER STATE. 
BULLEN V. WISCONSIN, SUPRA.  IF IT BE THOUGHT THAT IT IS IDENTITY OF
THE INTANGIBLES WITH THE PERSON OF THE OWNER AT THE PLACE OF HIS
DOMICILE WHICH GIVES POWER OVER THEM AND HENCE "JURISDICTION TO TAX,"
AND THIS IS THE REASON UNDERLYING THE MAXIM MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM,
IT IS CERTAIN HERE THAT THE INTANGIBLES FOR SOME PURPOSES ARE
IDENTIFIED WITH THE TRUSTEE, THEIR LEGAL OWNER, AT THE PLACE OF ITS
DOMICILE AND THAT IN ANOTHER AND DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIP AND FOR A
DIFFERENT PURPOSE - THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF DISPOSITION AT DEATH,
WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF OWNERSHIP - THEY ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THE
PLACE OF DOMICILE OF THE TESTATRIX, TENNESSEE.  IN EFFECTING HER
PURPOSES, THE TESTATRIX BROUGHT SOME OF THE LEGAL INTERESTS WHICH SHE
CREATED WITHIN THE CONTROL OF ONE STATE BY SELECTING A TRUSTEE THERE
AND OTHERS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE OTHER STATE BY MAKING HER DOMICILE
THERE.  SHE NECESSARILY INVOKED THE AID OF THE LAW OF BOTH STATES, AND
HER LEGATEES, BEFORE THEY CAN SECURE AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF
SUCCESSION, MUST INVOKE THE LAW OF BOTH. 

WE CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND NO
SUPPORT IN REASON, PRINCIPLE, OR AUTHORITY FOR SAYING THAT IT PROHIBITS
EITHER STATE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, FROM LAYING THE TAX. 
ON THE CONTRARY THIS COURT, IN SUSTAINING THE TAX AT THE PLACE OF
DOMICILE IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT, HAS DECLARED THAT BOTH THE
DECEDENT'S DOMICILE AND THAT OF THE TRUSTEE ARE FREE TO TAX.  BULLEN V.
WISCONSIN, SUPRA, 631; CF. KEENEY V. NEW YORK, 222 U.S. 525, 537;
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. BLODGETT, 287 U.S. 509.  THAT HAS REMAINED THE
LAW OF THIS COURT UNTIL THE PRESENT MOMENT, AND WE SEE NO REASON FOR
DISCARDING IT NOW.  WE FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT TAXATION OF
INTANGIBLES CAN BE REDUCED IN EVERY CASE TO THE MERE MECHANICAL
OPERATION OF LOCATING AT A SINGLE PLACE, AND THERE TAXING, EVERY LEGAL
INTEREST GROWING OUT OF ALL THE COMPLEX LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS WHICH MAY
BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN PERSONS.  THIS IS THE CASE BECAUSE IN POINT OF
ACTUALITY THOSE INTERESTS MAY BE TOO DIVERSE IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO
VARIOUS TAXING JURISDICTIONS TO ADMIT OF UNITARY TREATMENT WITHOUT
DISCARDING MODES OF TAXATION LONG ACCEPTED AND APPLIED BEFORE THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED, AND STILL RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT AS
VALID.  SEE PADDELL V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, 448.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT WITH SUCH MECHANICAL NICETY WITHOUT INFRINGING
POWERS WHICH WE THINK HAVE NOT YET BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE STATES.  WE
HAVE RECENTLY DECLINED TO PRESS TO A LOGICAL EXTREME THE DOCTRINE THAT
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT MAY BE INVOKED TO COMPEL THE TAXATION OF
INTANGIBLES BY ONLY A SINGLE STATE BY ATTRIBUTING TO THEM A SITUS
WITHIN THAT STATE.  FN7  WE THINK IT CANNOT BE PRESSED SO FAR HERE. 

IF WE ENJOYED THE FREEDOM OF THE FRAMERS IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE
MIGHT, IN THE LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE, DEVISE A MORE EQUITABLE SYSTEM OF
TAXATION THAN THAT WHICH THEY GAVE US.  BUT WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THAT
END CANNOT BE ATTAINED BY THE DEVICE OF ASCRIBING TO INTANGIBLES IN
EVERY CASE A LOCUS FOR TAXATION IN A SINGLE STATE DESPITE THE MULTIPLE
LEGAL INTERESTS TO WHICH THEY MAY GIVE RISE AND DESPITE THE CONTROL
OVER THEM OR THEIR TRANSMISSION BY ANY OTHER STATE AND ITS LEGITIMATE
INTEREST IN TAXING THE ONE OR THE OTHER.  WHILE FICTIONS ARE SOMETIMES
INVENTED IN ORDER TO REALIZE THE JUDICIAL CONCEPTION OF JUSTICE, WE
CANNOT DEFINE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY IN TERMS OF A FICTION SO
UNRELATED TO REALITY WITHOUT CREATING AS MANY TAX INJUSTICES AS WE
WOULD AVOID AND WITHOUT EXERCISING A POWER TO REMAKE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT GIVEN TO THE COURTS.  SEE
BRISTOL V. WASHINGTON COUNTY, SUPRA, 145; KIDD V. ALABAMA, 188 U.S.
730, 732, QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN HAWLEY V. MALDEN, SUPRA, 13; BULLEN
V. WISCONSIN, SUPRA, 630; FIDELITY & COLUMBIA TRUST CO. V. LOUISVILLE,
SUPRA, 58; CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS, SUPRA, 330. 

SO FAR AS THE DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE DENIES THE
POWER OF ALABAMA TO TAX, IT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE, IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAXATION, LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX
COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276; NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308;
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA, 305 U.S. 19; CF. SENIOR V. BRADEN, 295
U.S. 422, 431-432.  AND IN THE CASE OF TAXATION OF SHARES OF STOCK, SEE
CORRY V. BALTIMORE, 196 U.S. 466; FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V. MINNESOTA,
301 U.S. 234, 239-240; SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 302 U.S.
506, 514-516. 

FN2  GREEN V. VAN BUSKIRK, 5 WALL.  307; 7 WALL.  139; PENNOYER V.
NEFF, 95 U.S. 714; ARNDT V. GRIGGS, 134 U.S. 316; FALL V. EASTIN, 215
U.S. 1; OLMSTED V. OLMSTED, 216 U.S. 386; UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY
TRUST CO., 293 U.S. 340, 345-346; PADDELL V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 211 U.S.
446; ST. LOUIS V. FERRY CO., 11 WALL.  423, 430; FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
268 U.S. 473; SEE STORY, CONFLICT OF LAWS (8TH ED.), SECS. 550, 551;
DICEY, CONFLICT OF LAWS (5TH ED.), PP. 418, ET SEQ., 583 ET SEQ., 606
ET SEQ.; 1 BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 48.1 ET SEQ.; AMERICAN LAW
INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, SECS. 48, 49; 2 COOLEY,
TAXATION (4TH ED.), SECS. 447, 451. 

FN3  BUT THERE ARE MANY LEGAL INTERESTS OTHER THAN CONVENTIONAL
OWNERSHIP WHICH MAY BE CREATED WITH RESPECT TO LAND OF SUCH A CHARACTER
THAT THEY MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECTED TO TAXATION IN STATES OTHER
THAN THAT WHERE THE LAND IS SITUATED.  NO ONE HAS DOUBTED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF A STATE TO TAX ITS DOMICILED RESIDENTS ON THEIR
SHARES OF STOCK IN A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHOSE ONLY PROPERTY IS REAL
ESTATE LOCATED ELSEWHERE, DARNELL V. INDIANA, 226 U.S. 390; HAWLEY V.
MALDEN, 232 U.S. 1; CF. KIDD V. ALABAMA, 188 U.S. 730; CORRY V.
BALTIMORE, 196 U.S. 466; CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. COUNTY OF GRAND FORKS,
253 U.S. 325, 329; SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 302 U.S. 506,
514-516, OR TO TAX A VALUABLE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND OR
CHATTELS LOCATED IN ANOTHER STATE, SEE CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. DURR,
257 U.S. 99, 108; CF. GISH V. SHAVER, 140 KY. 647, 650; 131 S.W. 515;
GOLDEN V. MUNSINGER, 91 KAN. 820, 823; 139 P. 379; MARQUETTE V.
MICHIGAN IRON & LAND CO., 132 MICH. 130; 92 N.W. 934, OR TO TAX A
MORTGAGE OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED WITHOUT THE STATE, EVEN THOUGH THE LAND
AFFORDS THE ONLY SOURCE OF PAYMENT, SEE KIRTLAND V. HOTCHKISS, 100 U.S.
491; CF. SAVINGS & LOAN SOCIETY V. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, 169 U.S. 421;
BRISTOL V. WASHINGTON COUNTY, 177 U.S. 133; PADDELL V. NEW YORK, 211
U.S. 446.  EACH OF THESE LEGAL INTERESTS FINDS ITS ONLY ECONOMIC SOURCE
IN THE VALUE OF THE LAND, AND THE RIGHTS WHICH ARE ELSEWHERE SUBJECTED
TO THE TAX CAN BE BROUGHT TO THEIR ULTIMATE FRUITION ONLY THROUGH SOME
MEANS OF CONTROL OF THE LAND ITSELF.  BUT THE MEANS OF CONTROL MAY BE
SUBJECTED TO TAXATION IN THE STATE OF ITS OWNER WHETHER IT BE A SHARE
OF STOCK OR A CONTRACT OR A MORTGAGE.  THERE IS NO WANT OF JURISDICTION
TO TAX THESE INTERESTS WHERE THEY ARE OWNED IN THE SENSE THAT THE STATE
LACKS POWER TO APPROPRIATE THEM TO THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX.  NO COURT
HAS CONDEMNED SUCH ACTION AS SO CAPRICIOUS, ARBITRARY OR OPPRESSIVE AS
TO BRING IT WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, FOR IT
IS UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED THAT THESE INTERESTS ARE OF THEMSELVES IN
SOME MEASURE CLOTHED WITH THE LEGAL INCIDENTS OF PROPERTY ENJOYED BY
THEIR OWNER, IN THE STATE WHERE HE RESIDES, THROUGH THE BENEFIT AND
PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS. 

FN4  SEE FOOTNOTE 1, ANTE. 

FN5  SEE ALSO FOOTNOTE 2, ANTE. 

FN6  NO COMPARABLE RIGHT OR POWER RESIDED IN THE BENEFICIARIES UPON
WHOM A TAX WAS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED IN SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V.
VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83, 91. 

FN7  SEE FOOTNOTE 1, ANTE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THIS OPINION EXCEPT AS TO THE STATEMENT
THAT "TAXATION OF A CORPORATION BY A STATE WHERE IT DOES BUSINESS,
MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE INTANGIBLES USED IN ITS BUSINESS THERE,
DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE STATE OF INCORPORATION FROM IMPOSING A TAX
MEASURED BY ALL ITS INTANGIBLES."  UPON THIS POINT HE RESERVES HIS
CONCLUSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER, ON THE FACTS ABOUT TO BE STATED, THE
TENNESSEE INHERITANCE TAX LAW, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, MAY BE EXTENDED TO INTANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY EVIDENCED BY CERTIFICATES OF STOCK AND BONDS HELD IN ALABAMA. 

THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN A CHANCERY COURT OF TENNESSEE UNDER THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ACT OF THAT STATE.  FN1  COMPLAINANTS WERE THE
NASHVILLE TRUST COMPANY, A TENNESSEE CORPORATION APPOINTED BY THE WILL
OF MRS. GRACE C. SCALES AS EXECUTOR FOR TENNESSEE, AND THE TITLE
GUARANTEE LOAN & TRUST COMPANY, WHICH WILL BE REFERRED TO AS THE
BIRMINGHAM TRUST COMPANY, AN ALABAMA CORPORATION APPOINTED AS EXECUTOR
FOR THAT STATE.  DEFENDANTS WERE THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND
TAXATION OF TENNESSEE, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE ALABAMA TAX COMMISSION. 
THE BILL PRAYED THAT THE COURT DETERMINE WHAT PORTIONS OF THE ESTATE
ARE TAXABLE BY TENNESSEE AND WHAT PORTIONS ARE TAXABLE BY ALABAMA.  THE
TENNESSEE COMMISSIONER FILED ANSWER PRAYING DECLARATION AND DECREE THAT
THE SECURITIES HELD IN ALABAMA ARE SUBJECT TO THE INHERITANCE TAX LAW
OF TENNESSEE.  FN2  THE MEMBERS OF THE ALABAMA COMMISSION FILED THEIR
ANSWER AND A CROSS-BILL PRAYING DECREE IN FAVOR OF THAT STATE AND
AGAINST THE BIRMINGHAM TRUST COMPANY FOR THE TAX CLAIMED UNDER THE LAWS
OF ALABAMA.  FN3 

THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT THE FACTS ARE AS STATED IN THE
PLEADINGS.  IN SUBSTANCE THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

AT ALL TIMES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, MRS. SCALES WAS A RESIDENT OF AND
DOMICILED IN TENNESSEE.  HER BROTHER, FORMERLY LIVING IN ALABAMA, DIED
IN 1905 LEAVING A WILL THAT BEQUEATHED TO THE BIRMINGHAM TRUST COMPANY
STOCKS AND BONDS ISSUED BY ALABAMA CORPORATIONS TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR
THE USE AND BENEFIT OF HIS WIDOW AND AT HER DEATH TO BE DELIVERED TO
MRS. SCALES.  THE WIDOW DIED IN 1917.  IMMEDIATELY, DECEMBER 29, 1917,
AND WITHOUT TAKING ANY OF THEM FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE TRUST
COMPANY, MRS. SCALES EXECUTED JOINTLY WITH IT AN INDENTURE COVERING THE
STOCKS AND BONDS OF WHICH SHE HAD BECOME OWNER UNDER HER BROTHER'S
WILL. 

BY PARAGRAPH 1, SHE TRANSFERRED 50 BONDS TO THE TRUST COMPANY AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF HER SON AND DIRECTED THAT IT HOLD
AND MANAGE THE PROPERTY AND PAY NET INCOME TO HIM DURING HIS LIFE, AND
THAT, SUBJECT TO HIS POWER OF DISPOSITION BY WILL, ALL PROPERTY
BELONGING TO THE TRUST AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH SHOULD GO TO HIS
CHILDREN.  BY PARAGRAPH 2, SHE TRANSFERRED TO THE SAME COMPANY 50 OTHER
BONDS TO BE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF HER DAUGHTER SUBJECT TO
TRUSTS, CONDITIONS, AND POWER OF TESTAMENTARY APPOINTMENT BY HER
DAUGHTER LIKE THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE PROVISIONS CREATING THE TRUST FOR
HER SON. 

BY PARAGRAPH 3, SHE TRANSFERRED TO THE SAME TRUSTEE THE BALANCE OF THE
PROPERTY BY IT TO BE HELD IN TRUST AND MANAGED FOR SPECIFIED USES AND
PURPOSES AND UPON TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN SUBSTANCE AS FOLLOWS:  (A)
SHE DIRECTED THE TRUSTEE TO PAY THE INCOME TO HER WHILE SHE LIVED.  (B)
SHE RESERVED THE RIGHT BY WILL TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE TRUST PROPERTY. 
(C)  SHE DIRECTED THAT IF SHE MADE NO DISPOSITION BY WILL THE TRUSTEE
SHOULD PAY $200 PER MONTH OUT OF INCOME TO HER HUSBAND DURING HIS LIFE
AND THE BALANCE OF INCOME TO HER SON AND DAUGHTER DURING THEIR LIVES;
THAT THE CHILD OR CHILDREN OF EITHER, IF DEAD, SHOULD RECEIVE THE SHARE
OF INCOME WHICH THE PARENT WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IF LIVING; THAT ONE-HALF
OF THE PROPERTY IN THE TRUST AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH BE TRANSFERRED TO
THE TRUST CREATED FOR HER SON; AND THAT THE OTHER HALF BE TRANSFERRED
TO THE TRUST CREATED FOR HER DAUGHTER.  (D)  SHE RESERVED POWER AT ANY
TIME THAT SHE DEEMED INCOME INSUFFICIENT FOR HER SUPPORT TO DIRECT THE
TRUSTEE TO SELL A PART OF THE TRUST PROPERTY AND TO GIVE HER THE AMOUNT
RECEIVED FOR IT, AND RETAINED THE RIGHT TO DIRECT TRANSFER TO HER SON
OR DAUGHTER OF ANY PORTION OF THE TRUST PROPERTY, AND (E) THE RIGHT TO
DIRECT INVESTMENTS.  SHE RETAINED AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE TRUSTEE AND
TO APPOINT A SUCCESSOR.  AS TO NEARLY ALL THE PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST
UNDER PARAGRAPH 3, MRS. SCALES, HER SON, DAUGHTER, AND THE TRUSTEE,
JANUARY 11, 1929, EXECUTED A WRITING RELEASING THE POWER RESERVED TO
ENCROACH ON OR DISPOSE OF CORPUS. 

JANUARY 1, 1926, MRS. SCALES EXERTED THE POWER BY WILL TO DISPOSE OF
THE TRUST PROPERTY.  ITEM TWO RECITES THAT SHE HAD RESERVED THE RIGHT
TO DISPOSE BY WILL OF PROPERTY CONVEYED TO THE TRUSTEE UNDER PARAGRAPH
3 OF THE TRUST AGREEMENT AND PROVIDES:  "NOW, THEREFORE, DESIRING TO
EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE SAID TRUST PROPERTY, I DO HEREBY
GIVE, DEVISE, AND BEQUEATH ALL OF THE PROPERTY IN CUSTODY OF SAID TITLE
GUARANTEE LOAN & TRUST COMPANY  ...  AT THE TIME OF MY DEATH TO THE
SAID COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, THE SAME TO BE HELD BY IT IN TRUST UPON THE
USES AND TRUSTS, TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND LIMITATIONS HEREINAFTER SET
FORTH IN THIS ITEM OF MY WILL." 

SHALL BE SET ASIDE PROPERTY OF THE VALUE OF $100,000 TO BE HELD IN
TRUST AS THERE SPECIFIED FOR HER DAUGHTER AND HER DAUGHTER'S CHILDREN. 
THREE DIRECTS THAT, AFTER THE TRUST PROPERTY SHALL BE SET ASIDE AS
SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS ONE AND TWO, THE BALANCE IN THE HANDS OF THE
TRUSTEE SHALL BE GIVEN IN EQUAL SHARES TO HER DAUGHTER AND SON TO BE
THEIRS ABSOLUTELY. 

AN AMENDMENT TO THE ANSWER OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ALABAMA TAX
COMMISSION ALLEGES, AND BY STIPULATION THE OTHER PARTIES ADMIT, THAT
FROM THE TRUST INDENTURE IT FULLY APPEARS THAT THE TITLE, POSSESSION
AND CONTROL OF THE SECURITIES PASSED COMPLETELY TO THE BIRMINGHAM TRUST
COMPANY AND THAT SUCH WAS THE STATUS OF THE SECURITIES AT THE TIME OF
THE DEATH OF MRS. SCALES.  THAT AMENDMENT ALSO ALLEGES, AND THE
STIPULATION ADMITS, THAT SHE NEVER EXERCISED THE RIGHT RESERVED TO HER
TO REMOVE THE TRUSTEE AND THAT THE TRUST PROPERTY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
REMOVED FROM ALABAMA EXCEPT UPON AN ORDER OF A CIRCUIT COURT AND IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTES OF THAT STATE.  FN4 

THE CHANCERY COURT FOUND THAT AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF MRS. SCALES
THE SECURITIES IN QUESTION "HAD A LEGAL SITUS ANALOGOUS TO THE SITUS OF
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA."  IT DECREED THAT
ALABAMA MAY LEGALLY IMPOSE UPON THEM A DEATH TRANSFER OR SUCCESSION TAX
AND THAT IN SO FAR AS THE INHERITANCE TAX LAW OF TENNESSEE ATTEMPTS TO
IMPOSE THE TAX CLAIMED BY THAT STATE IT VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT REVERSED THE CHANCERY COURT.  IT HELD THAT
THE SECURITIES WERE NOT SO USED IN ALABAMA AS TO GIVE THEM A SITUS
THERE; THAT WHEN MRS. SCALES DIED THE SITUATION WAS THE SAME AS THOUGH
THERE NEVER HAD BEEN A TRUST; AND THAT THE PROPERTY PASSED UNDER THE
WILL AS HER ABSOLUTE PROPERTY.  IT ENTERED A DECREE DECLARING THE
PROPERTY TAXABLE IN TENNESSEE AND NOT TAXABLE IN ALABAMA. 

THE TENNESSEE COMMISSIONER AND THE MEMBERS OF THE ALABAMA COMMISSION
RESPECTIVELY CLAIM THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE AN INHERITANCE OR DEATH
SUCCESSION TAX BASED UPON THE VALUE OF ALL THE PROPERTY HELD IN THE
TRUST AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF MRS. SCALES.  RIGHTLY THE PARTIES
AGREED AND THE STATE COURTS ASSUMED THAT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BOTH STATES MAY NOT IMPOSE
TRANSFER TAXES IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROPERTY.  FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
268 U.S. 473, 489-494.  FARMERS LOAN CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204,
210-212.  BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586, 591.  BEIDLER V. SOUTH
CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 282 U.S. 1, 7-8.  FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE,
284 U.S. 312, 328.  CITY BANK CO. V. SCHNADER, 293 U.S. 112, 116-117. 
SEE BURNET V. BROOKS, 288 U.S. 378, 401-402; SENIOR V. BRADEN, 295 U.S.
422, 432; WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S. 193, 209-210; NEW YORK
EX REL. WHITNEY V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 366, 372; NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V.
GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 314-315; WORCESTER COUNTY CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S.
292, 297, 298.  NO DISTINCTION IS SUGGESTED BETWEEN THE SECURITIES
COVERED BY THE RELINQUISHMENT, JANUARY 11, 1929, OF THE RIGHT RESERVED
TO ENCROACH UPON AND TO DIRECT TRANSFER FROM THE CORPUS AND THE SMALL
PART TO WHICH THE RELINQUISHMENT DID NOT EXTEND.  AND, AS THE PARTIES
AND THE STATE COURTS HAVE TREATED ALL ALIKE, THIS COURT MAY DECIDE UPON
TITLE AND TAXABILITY AS IF THE RELINQUISHMENT COVERED ALL. 

THE PARTIES AGREE THAT, UPON EXECUTION OF THE INDENTURE, TITLE,
POSSESSION, AND CONTROL PASSED COMPLETELY TO THE TRUSTEE AND SO
CONTINUED UNTIL THE DEATH OF MRS. SCALES.  THERE BEING NO PROVISION
AUTHORIZING REVOCATION, THE GRANT WAS IRREVOCABLE.  PERRY ON TRUSTS AND
TRUSTEES (7TH ED.)  SEC.  104.  BOGERT, TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES, SEC. 993. 
KEYES V. CARLETON, 141 MASS. 45, 49; 6 N.E. 524.  EWING V. JONES, 130
IND. 247, 254-255; 29 N.E. 1057.  BATH SAVINGS INSTITUTION V. HATHORN,
88 ME. 122, 128-129; 33 A. 836.  WILSON V. ANDERSON, 186 PA. 531, 537;
40 A. 1096.  HELLMAN V. MCWILLIAMS, 70 CAL. 449, 453; 11 P. 659. 
STRONG V. WEIR, 47 S.C. 307, 323; 25 S.E. 157.  UNQUESTIONABLY IT
PRESENTLY VESTED FULL LEGAL AND EQUITABLE TITLE IN THE TRUSTEE AND
BENEFICIARIES, SUBJECT TO BE DIVESTED ONLY BY THE EXERTION BY MRS.
SCALES OF HER POWER OF APPOINTMENT BY WILL.  COOLIDGE V. LONG, 282 U.S.
582, 597.  MARVIN V. SMITH, 46 N.Y. 571, 575.  CARROLL V. SMITH, 99 MD.
653, 658 ET SEQ.; 59 A. 131.  BOONE V. DAVIS, 64 MISS.  133, 140; 8 SO.
202.  THAT POWER DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE TRUST
PROPERTY.  UNITED STATES V. FIELD, 255 U.S. 257, 263.  PORTER V.
COMMISSIONER, 288 U.S. 436, 441.  ALL DOUBT AS TO THAT IS PRECLUDED BY
THE CLAUSE OF THE INDENTURE WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF
DISPOSITION BY HER WILL THE PROPERTY SHALL CONTINUE TO BE HELD IN TRUST
FOR PURPOSES THERE SPECIFIED. 

THE RESERVED AUTHORITY TO DIRECT INVESTMENT CONTEMPLATES ACTION AS
TRUSTEE AND NOT CONTROL AS OWNER.  REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278
U.S. 339, 346-347.  THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE TRUSTEE AND TO APPOINT
A SUCCESSOR DETRACTS NOTHING FROM THE PLENARY GRANT OF TITLE.  SEE
BOWDITCH V. BANUELOS, 1 GRAY 220, 230.  WHEN READ AS IT MUST BE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ALABAMA STATUTE ABOVE REFERRED
TO, THAT PROVISION OF THE INDENTURE DOES NOT RESERVE POWER TO REMOVE
THE TRUST SECURITIES FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA. 

AS THE DEATH OF MRS. SCALES AND TAKING EFFECT OF HER WILL WERE
COINCIDENT, THE LEGAL TITLE REMAINED IN THE TRUSTEE.  THE PURPOSES MRS.
SCALES INTENDED TO EFFECT BY THE TRUSTS DEFINED BY HER WILL ARE LIKE
THOSE SHE INTENDED TO SERVE BY THE TRUSTS CREATED BY THE INDENTURE
WHICH, IN ABSENCE OF WILL, WERE TO CONTINUE AFTER DEATH.  STRIPPED OF
MERE LEGALISM, AND TAKEN ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE, THE WILL OPERATED TO
AMEND AND CONTINUE THE TRUSTS CREATED BY THE INDENTURE.  QUESTIONS OF
POWER TO TAX ARE GOVERNED BY THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS RATHER THAN BY
TECHNICAL RULES, CONCERNING TITLE.  TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S.
497, 503. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT, SAVE HER RIGHT TO INCOME, MRS. SCALES, AFTER HER
RELINQUISHMENT, JANUARY 11, 1929, AND AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH, HAD NO
ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE SECURITIES HELD BY THE TRUSTEE.  THERE IS NO
BASIS FOR APPLICATION OF THE FICTION MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM. 
WACHOVIA TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, 272 U.S. 567, 575.  BROOKE V. NORFOLK,
277 U.S. 27, 29.  SAFE DEPOSIT & T. CO. V. VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83, 92,
94.  MCMURTRY V. STATE, 111 CONN. 594.  ESTATE OF BOWDITCH, 189 CAL.
377.  MATTER OF CANDA, 197 APP. DIV. 597; 189 N.Y.S. 917.  CF. BULLEN
V. WISCONSIN, 240 U.S. 625.  TENNESSEE MAY NOT IMPOSE THE INHERITANCE
TAX CLAIMED IN THIS SUIT BY ITS COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE AND TAXATION. 
MOREOVER, IF CONTRARY TO THE INDENTURE AS ABOVE CONSTRUED, IT SHOULD
BE HELD THAT AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH MRS. SCALES IN ADDITION TO HAVING
POWER OF APPOINTMENT BY WILL OWNED AN INTEREST IN THE TRUST PROPERTY,
TENNESSEE WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE WITHOUT POWER TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE
TRANSFER OF THAT INTEREST BECAUSE THE INTANGIBLES IN QUESTION HAD NO
SITUS IN THAT STATE.    INTANGIBLES, LIKE TANGIBLES, MAY BE SO HELD AND
USED OUTSIDE THE STATE OF THE DOMICIL OF THE OWNER AS TO BECOME TAXABLE
IN THE STATE WHERE KEPT.  SEE E.G. NEW ORLEANS V. STEMPEL, 175 U.S.
309.  BRISTOL V. WASHINGTON COUNTY, 177 U.S. 133, 143 ET SEQ. STATE
BOARD OF ASSESSORS V. COMPTOIR NATIONAL, 191 U.S. 388.  SCOTTISH UNION
& NAT. INS. CO. V. BOWLAND, 196 U.S. 611, 619-620.  METROPOLITAN LIFE
INS. CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 205 U.S. 395, 402.  LIVERPOOL & L. & G. INS.
CO. V. ORLEANS ASSESSORS, 221 U.S. 346, 353.  THE GENERAL RULE OF
MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM MUST YIELD TO THE ESTABLISHED FACT OF LEGAL
OWNERSHIP, ACTUAL PRESENCE AND CONTROL IN A STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF
THE DOMICIL OF THE OWNER.  THE PHRASE "BUSINESS SITUS" AS USED TO
SUPPORT JURISDICTION OF A STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF THE DOMICIL OF THE
OWNER TO IMPOSE TAXES ON INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IS A METAPHORICAL
EXPRESSION OF VAGUE SIGNIFICATION; ITS MEANING IS NOT LIMITED TO
INVESTMENT OR ACTUAL USE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY,
BUT MAY EXTEND TO THE EXECUTION OF TRUSTS SUCH AS THOSE CREATED BY THE
INDENTURE AND IMPOSED ON THE TRUSTEE IN THIS CASE.  DEGANAY V. LEDERER,
250 U.S. 376, 381-382.  NEW YORK EX REL. WHITNEY V. GRAVES, SUPRA, 372
ET SEQ.  WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, SUPRA, 211.  FIRST BANK STOCK
CORP. V. MINNESOTA, 301 U.S. 234. 

THE STOCK CERTIFICATES, BONDS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE
INTANGIBLES CONSTITUTING THE TRUST PROPERTY WERE NEVER HELD IN
TENNESSEE.  NEITHER THEIR ISSUE OR VALIDITY NOR THE ENFORCEMENT OR
TRANSFER, INTER VIVOS OR FROM THE DEAD TO THE LIVING, OF ANY RIGHT
ATTESTED OR SUPPORTED BY THEM WAS AT ALL DEPENDENT ON THE LAWS OF THAT
STATE.  FN5  FROM THE BEGINNING, THE TRUST ESTATE HAS BEEN UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF, AND NECESSARILY THE TRUSTS HAVE BEEN AND ARE BEING
EXECUTED UNDER, THE LAWS OF ALABAMA UNAFFECTED BY THOSE OF ANY OTHER
STATE.  SEE HUTCHISON V. ROSS, 262 N.Y. 381, 394; 187 N.E. 65; SEWALL
V. WILMER, 132 MASS. 131, 137. 

AT LEAST SINCE 1917, MRS. SCALES HAD NO POWER TO REMOVE THE TRUST OR
ANY OF THE TRUST PROPERTY FROM ALABAMA.  EXERTION OF ANY RIGHT OR POWER
RESERVED TO HER BY THE INDENTURE WAS DEPENDENT ON THE LAWS OF ALABAMA
AND NOT UPON OR SUBJECT TO THOSE OF TENNESSEE, WHERE SHE HAPPENED TO
HAVE HER DOMICIL.  WACHOVIA TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, UBI SUPRA.  SUBJECT
TO THE LAWS OF ALABAMA, ALL TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THE TRUST PROPERTIES
WERE CAPABLE OF BEING USED WERE IDENTIFIED WITH THAT STATE.  THE
SECURITIES, HELD THERE NOT ONLY FOR SAFEKEEPING BUT AS WELL FOR
COLLECTION OF INCOME AND PRINCIPAL, AND SUBJECT TO SALE AND
REINVESTMENT OF PROCEEDS, COULD NOT BE MORE COMPLETELY LOCALIZED
ANYWHERE.  DEGANAY V. LEDERER, UBI SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SHOULD BE REVERSED AND
THE CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  TENNESSEE CODE, 1932, SECS. 8835-8847. 

FN2  TENNESSEE CODE, 1932:  "SECTION 1259.  SUBDIVISION 1.  ...  A
TAX IS IMPOSED  ...  UPON TRANSFERS, IN TRUST OR OTHERWISE, OF THE
FOLLOWING PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN OR ACCRUED INCOME
THEREFROM:  (A)  WHEN THE TRANSFER IS FROM A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE
...  (3)  ALL INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY  ...  SECTION 1260. 
SUBDIVISION 2.  ...  THE TRANSFERS ENUMERATED IN SUBDIVISION 1  ...
SHALL BE TAXABLE IF MADE - (A) BY A WILL  ..." 

FN3  ALABAMA GENERAL REVENUE ACT, APPROVED JULY 10, 1935, ART. XII,
C. 2(ACTS 1935, PP. 434 ET SEQ.):  SECTION 347.1:  "...  THERE IS
HEREBY LEVIED AND IMPOSED UPON ALL NET ESTATES PASSING BY WILL, DEVISE,
OR UNDER THE INTESTATE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, OR OTHERWISE,
WHICH ARE LAWFULLY SUBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF AN ESTATE TAX BY THE
STATE OF ALABAMA, A TAX EQUAL TO THE FULL AMOUNT OF STATE TAX PAID
PERMISSIBLE WHEN LEVIED BY AND PAID TO THE STATE OF ALABAMA AS A CREDIT
OR DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING ANY FEDERAL ESTATE TAX PAYABLE BY SUCH ESTATE
ACCORDING TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS IN EFFECT, ON THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF
THE DECEDENT, TAXING SUCH ESTATE, WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS SUBJECT TO
TAXATION IN ALABAMA.  ..."  SECTION 347.7:  "...  ALL OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO SO MUCH OF THE ESTATES OF NON
RESIDENT DECEDENTS AS IS SUBJECT TO ESTATE TAX UNDER THE ACT OF
CONGRESS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF DECEDENT AS CONSISTS OF
REAL ESTATE OR TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THIS STATE, OR
OTHER ITEM OF PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN LAWFULLY SUBJECT TO THE
IMPOSITION OF AN ESTATE TAX BY THE STATE OF ALABAMA.  ..." 

FN4  ALABAMA CODE, 1928, SECS. 10418-10421. 

FN5  SEE FOOTNOTE 4. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE
ROBERTS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 307 U.S. 383 


NO. 372, OCTOBER TERM, 1937.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1939.  REARGUED APRIL
28, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1939.  - 274 N.Y. 10, 634 - 8 N.E.2D 42 -
10 N.E.2D 587, REVERSED. 


DECEDENT, WHILE DOMICILED IN COLORADO, TRANSFERRED TO A COLORADO BANK
CERTAIN BONDS TO BE HELD UPON CERTAIN SPECIFIED TRUSTS WITH SPECIFIED
POWERS IN THE TRUSTEE TO ADMINISTER, INVEST, REINVEST, ETC.  THE TRUST
INDENTURE PROVIDED THAT THE TRUSTEE SHOULD PAY OVER THE INCOME TO
DECEDENT'S DAUGHTER FOR LIFE AND AFTERWARD TO THE DAUGHTER'S CHILDREN
UNTIL EACH HAD REACHED THE AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, WHEN A
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST FUND WAS TO BE PAID
OVER TO SUCH CHILD.  IN DEFAULT OF SUCH CHILDREN THE PRINCIPAL WAS TO
REVERT TO DECEDENT AND PASS UNDER HER WILL.  SHE RESERVED THE RIGHT TO
REMOVE THE TRUSTEE, TO CHANGE ANY BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST, AND TO
REVOKE THE TRUST AND REVEST HERSELF WITH THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, THE
TRUSTEE IN THAT EVENT UNDERTAKING TO ASSIGN AND DELIVER TO HER ALL THE
SECURITIES THEN CONSTITUTING THE TRUST FUND.  AFTER CREATING THE TRUST
DECEDENT BECAME AND REMAINED A DOMICILED RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, WHERE
SHE DIED WITHOUT APPOINTING NEW BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST OR REVOKING
IT.  MEANWHILE, THE TRUSTEE CONTINUED TO ADMINISTER THE TRUST AND HELD
POSSESSION OF THE BONDS EVIDENCING THE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY OF THE
FUND.  FOLLOWING HER DEATH THE TAXING AUTHORITIES OF COLORADO ASSESSED
A TAX ON THE TRANSMISSION AT DEATH OF THE TRUST FUND. 

HELD THAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY LEVY A
TRANSFER TAX UPON THE RELINQUISHMENT AT DEATH OF THE POWER OF
REVOCATION, MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE INTANGIBLES.  CURRY V.
MCCANLESS, ANTE, P. 357.  P. 386. 

GRAVES ET AL., COMMISSIONERS CONSTITUTING THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
NEW YORK, V. ELLIOTT ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SURROGATES' COURT OF THE COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW
YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 667, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT, ENTERED ON REMITTITUR
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, WHICH REVERSED AN ORDER OF THE
SURROGATES' COURT CONFIRMING A TRANSFER TAX ASSESSMENT.  248 APP. DIV.
713; 153 MISC. 70. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO SAY WHETHER THE STATE OF NEW YORK MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX THE RELINQUISHMENT AT DEATH, BY A DOMICILED
RESIDENT OF THE STATE, OF A POWER TO REVOKE A TRUST OF INTANGIBLES HELD
BY A COLORADO TRUSTEE. 

DECEDENT IN 1924, WHILE A RESIDENT OF COLORADO, TRANSFERRED AND
DELIVERED TO DENVER NATIONAL BANK OF DENVER, COLORADO, CERTAIN BONDS TO
BE HELD UPON SPECIFIED TRUSTS WITH SPECIFIED POWERS IN THE TRUSTEE TO
ADMINISTER THE TRUST AND TO INVEST AND REINVEST THE TRUST FUND.  SO FAR
AS NOW MATERIAL, THE TRUST INDENTURE PROVIDED THAT THE TRUSTEE SHOULD
PAY OVER THE INCOME TO DECEDENT'S DAUGHTER FOR LIFE AND AFTERWARD TO
THE DAUGHTER'S CHILDREN UNTIL EACH HAD REACHED THE AGE OF TWENTY-FIVE
YEARS, WHEN A PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE TRUST FUND
WAS TO BE PAID OVER TO SUCH CHILD.  IN DEFAULT OF SUCH CHILDREN THE
PRINCIPAL WAS TO REVERT TO DECEDENT AND PASS UNDER HER WILL.  SHE
RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THE TRUSTEE, TO CHANGE ANY BENEFICIARY OF
THE TRUST, AND TO REVOKE THE TRUST AND REVEST HERSELF WITH THE TITLE TO
THE PROPERTY, THE TRUSTEE IN THAT EVENT UNDERTAKING TO ASSIGN AND
DELIVER TO HER ALL THE SECURITIES THEN CONSTITUTING THE TRUST FUND. 

AFTER CREATING THE TRUST DECEDENT BECAME AND REMAINED A DOMICILED
RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, WHERE SHE DIED IN 1931 WITHOUT APPOINTING NEW
BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST OR REVOKING IT.  UNTIL HER DEATH THE TRUST
WAS ADMINISTERED BY THE BANK AT ITS OFFICES IN COLORADO, AND THE PAPER
EVIDENCES OF THE INTANGIBLES - CORPORATE BONDS - COMPRISING THE TRUST
FUND REMAINED IN THE POSSESSION OF THE TRUSTEE IN COLORADO. 

FOLLOWING HER DEATH THE TAXING AUTHORITIES OF COLORADO ASSESSED A TAX
ON THE TRANSMISSION AT DEATH OF THE TRUST FUND.  PROCEEDINGS IN NEW
YORK FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ESTATE TAXES ON THE TRANSFER OF THE TRUST
FUND AT DECEDENT'S DEATH RESULTED IN AN ORDER OF THE SURROGATE
CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECS. 249-N, 249-R OF THE NEW YORK TAX
LAW.  CONSOL.  LAWS, CH. 60.  FN1  ON APPEAL THE NEW YORK COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE SURROGATE, HOLDING THAT SO FAR AS THE
PROVISIONS OF THE NEW YORK TAX LAW PURPORT TO INCLUDE THE INTANGIBLE
TRUST PROPERTY IN THE GROSS ESTATE THEY INFRINGE DUE PROCESS BY
IMPOSING A TAX ON PROPERTY WHOSE SITUS IS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  274 N.Y.
10.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI NOVEMBER 14, 1938, THE QUESTION INVOLVED
BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE ARE THE SAME AS
THOSE CONSIDERED IN CURRY V. MCCANLESS, ANTE, P. 357.  AS IS THERE
POINTED OUT, THE POWER OF DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IS THE EQUIVALENT OF
OWNERSHIP.  IT IS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF WEALTH AND ITS EXERCISE IN THE
CASE OF INTANGIBLES IS THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF TAXATION AT THE PLACE
OF THE DOMICILE OF THE OWNER OF THE POWER.  THE RELINQUISHMENT AT
DEATH, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE NON-EXERCISE IN LIFE, OF A POWER TO REVOKE
A TRUST CREATED BY A DECEDENT IS LIKEWISE AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF
TAXATION.  SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, 276 U.S. 260; REINECKE V.
NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339; HELVERING V. CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST
CO., 296 U.S. 85; CF. KEENEY V. NEW YORK, 222 U.S. 525; BULLEN V.
WISCONSIN, 240 U.S. 625; CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S.
327; TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
BLODGETT, 287 U.S. 509; PORTER V. COMMISSIONER, 288 U.S. 436. 

FOR REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINION IN CURRY V. MCCANLESS, SUPRA, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE LEGAL INTEREST OF DECEDENT IN THE INTANGIBLES HELD
IN TRUST IN COLORADO WAS SO DISSOCIATED FROM HER PERSON AS TO BE BEYOND
THE TAXING JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF HER DOMICILE MORE THAN HER
OTHER RIGHTS IN INTANGIBLES.  HER RIGHT TO REVOKE THE TRUST AND TO
DEMAND THE TRANSMISSION TO HER OF THE INTANGIBLES BY THE TRUSTEE AND
THE DELIVERY TO HER OF THEIR PHYSICAL EVIDENCES WAS A POTENTIAL SOURCE
OF WEALTH, HAVING THE ATTRIBUTES OF PROPERTY.  AS IN THE CASE OF ANY
OTHER INTANGIBLES WHICH SHE POSSESSED, CONTROL OVER HER PERSON AND
ESTATE AT THE PLACE OF HER DOMICILE AND HER DUTY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT THERE AFFORD ADEQUATE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR
IMPOSITION OF A TAX MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE INTANGIBLES
TRANSMITTED OR RELINQUISHED BY HER AT DEATH.  CURRY V. MCCANLESS,
SUPRA, AND CASES CITED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 249-N IMPOSES A TAX AT SPECIFIED RATES UPON THE NET ESTATE
OF EVERY PERSON DYING A RESIDENT OF THE STATE.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FIXING THE AMOUNT OF THE NET ESTATE, SEC. 249-R INCLUDES IN THE VALUE
OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT THE VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY OF THE
DECEDENT "EXCEPT REAL PROPERTY SITUATED AND TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
HAVING AN ACTUAL SITUS OUTSIDE THIS STATE," 

"3.  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS
AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, IN CONTEMPLATION OF
OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS
DEATH, INCLUDING A TRANSFER UNDER WHICH THE TRANSFEROR HAS RETAINED FOR
HIS LIFE OR ANY PERIOD NOT ENDING BEFORE HIS DEATH (A) THE POSSESSION
OR ENJOYMENT OF, OR THE INCOME FROM, THE PROPERTY OR (B) THE RIGHT TO
DESIGNATE THE PERSONS WHO SHALL POSSESS OR ENJOY THE PROPERTY OR THE
INCOME THEREFROM; ... 

"4.  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS
AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, WHERE THE ENJOYMENT
THEREOF WAS SUBJECT AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH TO ANY CHANGE THROUGH THE
EXERCISE OF A POWER, EITHER BY THE DECEDENT ALONE OR IN CONJUNCTION
WITH ANY PERSON, TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE,  ..." 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THAT THE DECISION IN THIS CASE PUSHES THE FICTION OF MOBILIA
SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM TO AN UNWARRANTED EXTREME AND THUS UNNECESSARILY
PRODUCES AN UNJUST RESULT. 

THE SAME PROPERTY IS SUBJECTED TO AN INHERITANCE OR TRANSFER TAX BY
TWO STATES.  THE DECEDENT, IN 1924, WHILE A RESIDENT OF COLORADO,
CREATED A TRUST IN CERTAIN SECURITIES, CONSISTING OF FEDERAL, STATE AND
OTHER BONDS.  THE TRUSTEE WAS A DENVER BANK.  THE INCOME OF THE TRUST
PROPERTY WAS PAYABLE TO THE SETTLOR'S DAUGHTER DURING HER LIFE AND
THEREAFTER TO HER CHILDREN UNTIL THEY RESPECTIVELY ARRIVED AT THE AGE
OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, WHEN THEY WERE TO HAVE THE PRINCIPAL IN EQUAL
SHARES.  IF THE DAUGHTER LEFT NO CHILDREN, THE TRUST ESTATE WAS TO
REVERT TO THE SETTLOR.  THE SETTLOR RESERVED THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE
BENEFICIARIES, TO REVOKE THE TRUST, AND TO REMOVE THE TRUSTEE.  THE
LEGAL TITLE TO THE SECURITIES WAS THUS VESTED IN THE TRUSTEE, WHICH
ENTERED UPON ITS ADMINISTRATION AND CONTINUED IT BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
THE SETTLOR'S DEATH.  THERE WAS NO REVOCATION OF THE TRUST OR CHANGE OF
BENEFICIARY OR TRUSTEE, OR DIVERSION OF THE INCOME FROM THE USE OF THE
DAUGHTER, AND THE BENEFICIARIES WERE ALL LIVING WHEN THE SETTLOR DIED. 

PRIOR TO HER DEATH, THE SETTLOR REMOVED TO NEW YORK.  THE TRUST RES
CONTINUED TO BE IN COLORADO.  AN INHERITANCE TAX UPON THE DECEDENT'S
PROPERTY SITUATED IN COLORADO, AND INCLUDING THE BONDS HELD THERE IN
TRUST, WAS IMPOSED BY THAT STATE.  THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS HAS
HELD, AND I THINK RIGHTLY, THAT THIS TRUST PROPERTY WAS NOT SUBJECT TO
AN ESTATE TAX IN NEW YORK.  274 N.Y. 10. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES CONTAINS NO
SPECIFIC PROVISION AGAINST DOUBLE TAXATION, BUT THE CONSTITUTION DOES
IMPOSE LIMITATIONS UPON THE TAXING POWER OF A STATE WHICH I THINK ARE
APPLICABLE AND SHOULD PREVENT A DOUBLE EXACTION IN THIS CASE. 

THE PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE STATE'S TAXING POWER IS WELL
ESTABLISHED.  THAT PRINCIPLE, AS REPEATEDLY DECLARED BY THIS COURT, AND
APPARENTLY NOT DISPUTED NOW, IS THAT IT IS "ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY
OF A TAX THAT THE PROPERTY SHALL BE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
OF THE TAXING POWER."  UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194,
204.  WHAT IS MEANT IS THAT DUE PROCESS IN TAXATION REQUIRES THAT THE
PROPERTY SHALL BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DOMAIN OF THE STATE WHICH IMPOSES
THE TAX.  THIS RULE HAS ITS MOST FAMILIAR ILLUSTRATION IN THE CASE OF
LAND WHICH, TO BE TAXABLE, MUST BE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE TAXING
STATE.  THE FACT THAT THE OWNER IS DOMICILED WITHIN A STATE, IF THE
LAND IS ELSEWHERE, DOES NOT GIVE THE STATE OF HIS DOMICILE THE
AUTHORITY TO TAX.  IN UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, WE HELD
THAT THE PRINCIPLE AGAINST THE TAXABILITY OF LAND WITHIN ANOTHER
JURISDICTION APPLIES WITH EQUAL COGENCY TO TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
HAVING AN ACTUAL SITUS OUTSIDE THE STATE'S DOMAIN.  TRUE, THE FICTION
EXPRESSED IN THE MAXIM MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM MIGHT HAVE SEEMED TO
JUSTIFY SUCH A TAX ON PERSONAL PROPERTY BY THE STATE OF THE OWNER'S
DOMICILE.  BUT AS SAID IN PULLMAN'S CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S.
18, 22:  "THE OLD RULE, EXPRESSED IN THE MAXIM MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR
PERSONAM, BY WHICH PERSONAL PROPERTY WAS REGARDED AS SUBJECT TO THE LAW
OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE, GREW UP IN THE MIDDLE AGES, WHEN MOVABLE
PROPERTY CONSISTED CHIEFLY OF GOLD AND JEWELS, WHICH COULD BE EASILY
CARRIED BY THE OWNER FROM PLACE TO PLACE, OR SECRETED IN SPOTS KNOWN
ONLY TO HIMSELF.  IN MODERN TIMES, SINCE THE GREAT INCREASE IN AMOUNT
AND VARIETY OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, NOT IMMEDIATELY CONNECTED WITH THE
PERSON OF THE OWNER, THAT RULE HAS YIELDED MORE AND MORE TO THE LEX
SITUS, THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE PROPERTY IS KEPT AND USED." 

THE RULE THUS ESTABLISHED THAT THE STATE OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE
CANNOT TAX TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH HAS AN ACTUAL SITUS IN
ANOTHER STATE WAS APPLIED BY THIS COURT TO AN INHERITANCE OR TRANSFER
TAX IN THE CASE OF FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473.  THERE THE
COURT HELD, WITHOUT DIVISION, THAT TO TAX THE TRANSFER OF TANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY HAVING AN ACTUAL SITUS IN ANOTHER STATE "CONTRAVENES
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  THE IMPORTANCE OF
THIS LIMITATION OF STATE POWER IS OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF THE INTERRELATION
OF THE STATES UNDER THE BOND OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND OF THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OPPRESSIVE TAXATION IF STATES ATTEMPT TO TAX PROPERTY
OR TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY NOT PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEIR OWN
DOMAIN.  "THE LIMITS OF STATE POWER ARE DEFINED IN VIEW OF THE RELATION
OF THE STATES TO EACH OTHER IN THE FEDERAL UNION."  BURNET V. BROOKS,
288 U.S. 378, 401. 

BUT WHILE THE QUESTION WAS THUS SETTLED AS TO TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY, THE FICTION OF MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM STILL PERSISTS IN A
GENERAL SENSE AS TO INTANGIBLES, EMBRACING SECURITIES, THUS PERMITTING
TAXATION BY THE STATE OF THE OWNER'S DOMICILE ALTHOUGH THE OWNER MAY
KEEP THE SECURITIES IN ANOTHER STATE.  BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S.
1, 9, 14, 16.  THIS GENERAL RULE PROCEEDS IN THE VIEW THAT INTANGIBLES,
AS SUCH, ARE INCAPABLE OF AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL LOCATION AND THAT TO
ATTRIBUTE TO THEM A "SITUS" IS TO INDULGE IN A METAPHOR.  STILL, IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE USE OF THE METAPHOR IS APPROPRIATE.  NEW YORK
EX REL. WHITNEY V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 366, 372. 

THE FACT THAT THIS RULE OF CONVENIENCE MAY GENERALLY BE APPLIED DOES
NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT INTANGIBLES CAN NEVER BE SO EFFECTIVELY
LOCALIZED IN ANOTHER STATE AS TO WITHDRAW THEM FROM THE TAXING POWER OF
THE DOMICILIARY STATE.  THE PROPER USE OF A LEGAL FICTION IS TO PREVENT
INJUSTICE AND IT SHOULD NOT BE UNNECESSARILY EXTENDED SO AS TO WORK AN
INJURY.  UNION TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, P. 208. 

AS WE SAID IN SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83, 92,
THE FICTION OF MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM "MUST YIELD TO ESTABLISHED
FACT OF LEGAL OWNERSHIP, ACTUAL PRESENCE AND CONTROL ELSEWHERE, AND
OUGHT NOT TO BE APPLIED IF SO TO DO WOULD RESULT IN INESCAPABLE AND
PATENT INJUSTICE, WHETHER THROUGH DOUBLE TAXATION OR OTHERWISE."  IN
THAT CASE, A RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA HAD TRANSFERRED CERTAIN SECURITIES TO
THE SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST COMPANY OF BALTIMORE IN TRUST FOR HIS MINOR
SONS.  THE DONOR RESERVED TO HIMSELF A POWER OF REVOCATION.  HE DIED
WITHOUT HAVING EXERCISED IT. VIRGINIA UNDERTOOK TO IMPOSE AN AD VALOREM
TAX UPON THE ENTIRE CORPUS OF THE TRUST ESTATE AND THIS COURT HELD THAT
AS THE SECURITIES WERE SUBJECT TO TAXATION IN MARYLAND, WHERE THEY WERE
IN THE ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE TRUSTEE, THE HOLDER OF THE LEGAL TITLE,
THEY HAD NO LEGAL SITUS FOR TAXATION IN VIRGINIA "UNLESS THE LEGAL
FICTION MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM WAS (IS) APPLICABLE AND
CONTROLLING."  THE VIRGINIA COURT HAD HELD THAT THE TWO BENEFICIARIES
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FATHER'S ESTATE REALLY
OWNED THE TRUST FUND AND THAT BY REASON OF THE FICTION ITS TAXABLE
SITUS FOLLOWED THEM.  THIS COURT REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT VIEW AND DENIED
THE RIGHT OF TAXATION TO VIRGINIA, SAYING:  "IT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE,
PERHAPS AMAZING, IF A LEGAL FICTION ORIGINALLY INVENTED TO PREVENT
PERSONALTY FROM ESCAPING JUST TAXATION, SHOULD COMPEL US TO ACCEPT THE
IRRATIONAL VIEW THAT THE SAME SECURITIES WERE WITHIN TWO STATES AT THE
SAME INSTANT AND BECAUSE OF THIS TO UPHOLD A DOUBLE AND OPPRESSIVE
ASSESSMENT."    THAT WAS A CASE OF AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX.  BUT THE
POWER TO IMPOSE AN INHERITANCE OR TRANSFER TAX, AS WELL AS THE POWER TO
IMPOSE AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX, DEPENDS UPON THE PROPERTY BEING
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DOMAIN OF THE TAXING STATE.  FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
SUPRA, P. 492. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LEGAL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS
IN THE COLORADO TRUSTEE, THE TRUST WAS CREATED UNDER THE COLORADO LAW
AND ITS ADMINISTRATION IS SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF COLORADO.  TO SAY
THAT THESE SECURITIES ARE NOT AS EFFECTIVELY LOCALIZED IN COLORADO, AS
WERE THE FURNITURE, PICTURES AND OTHER ART TREASURES OF MR. FRICK IN
NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS, WHERE ALONE THEIR TRANSFER COULD BE TAXED,
WOULD BE TO IGNORE REALITIES AND TO MAKE IMPORTANT RIGHTS TURN UPON A
VERBAL DISTINCTION. 

UPON WHAT GROUND THEN IS IT MAINTAINED THAT THESE SECURITIES ARE
WITHIN THE TAXING POWER OF NEW YORK?  SOLELY, IT APPEARS, UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE INDENTURE CREATING THE TRUST IN COLORADO RESERVED TO
THE SETTLOR A POWER OF REVOCATION.  THIS UNEXERCISED POWER IS TREATED
AS CARRIED BY THE SETTLOR INTO NEW YORK AND HENCE AS BRINGING IN ITS
TRAIN THE ENTIRE CORPUS OF THE TRUST PROPERTY.  THAT RESULTS, AS
ALREADY NOTED, IN GIVING THE FICTION AN OPPRESSIVE OPERATION.  BUT,
ASIDE FROM THAT PRACTICAL ASPECT, IF THROUGH THE TRUST IN COLORADO THE
SECURITIES HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVELY LOCALIZED IN THAT STATE, WHY SHOULD AN
UNEXERCISED POWER OF REVOCATION ALTER THEIR STATUS?  MR. FRICK DID NOT
EVEN NEED TO REVOKE AN INSTRUMENT, FOR AT ANY TIME HE COULD HAVE
REMOVED HIS FURNITURE AND ART TREASURES FROM NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS
TO HIS DOMICILE IN PENNSYLVANIA.  BUT THAT OBVIOUS CONTROL, WHILE
UNEXERCISED, DID NOT DETRACT FROM THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES WHERE
THE PROPERTY WAS, OR PERMIT TAXATION BY THE DOMICILIARY STATE. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE POWER OF DISPOSITION IS EQUIVALENT TO OWNERSHIP,
AND THAT ITS RELINQUISHMENT AT DEATH IS AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF
TAXATION.  THE CASE OF FEDERAL TAXATION IS NOT ANALOGOUS AS THERE ARE
NO STATE BOUNDARIES TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN THE FEDERAL TAX IS LAID.  NOR
ARE STATE CASES RELEVANT WHEN THERE IS NO ATTEMPTED EXTRATERRITORIAL
APPLICATION OF A STATE STATUTE, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY AGAIN TO REVIEW
THE AUTHORITIES CITED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN CURRY V. MCCANLESS,
ANTE, P. 357.  FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT
UNDER THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, IT IS NOT
ENOUGH TO SAY THAT A POWER OF DISPOSITION IS EQUIVALENT TO OWNERSHIP,
FOR OWNERSHIP BY A RESIDENT OF A STATE GIVES THAT STATE NO AUTHORITY TO
TAX PROPERTY NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS DOMAIN.  MR. FRICK OWNED HIS
PROPERTY IN NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS BUT STILL HIS OWN STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA COULD NOT TAX ITS TRANSFER. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS THUS NOT ONE OF A RESERVED BUT
UNEXERCISED POWER OF REVOCATION OR OF AN ULTIMATE CONTROL IN AN OWNER,
BUT WHETHER SECURITIES, CLASSED AS INTANGIBLES, ARE NECESSARILY AND IN
ALL CIRCUMSTANCES SUBJECT TO A DIFFERENT RULE FROM THAT OBTAINING IN
THE CASE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY.  IT IS NOT PERCEIVED THAT THERE
IS A SOUND BASIS FOR SUCH AN INVARIABLE DISTINCTION, WHICH IS FOREIGN
TO COMMON THOUGHT AND PRACTICAL NEEDS.  WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE
QUESTION AS TO TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, WE DID NOT HESITATE TO LIMIT
THE APPLICATION OF THE FICTION, AND IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT WE CAN NOT
DEAL WITH THE FICTION IN A SIMILAR FASHION IN SUCH A CASE AS THIS,
WHERE WE HAVE AN EFFECTIVE LOCALIZATION OF SECURITIES THROUGH A TRUST
CREATED IN A STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF THE SETTLOR'S DOMICILE AT THE
TIME OF DEATH, AND WHERE IN THAT OTHER STATE THE TRUSTEE HOLDS TITLE
AND POSSESSION AND HAS BEEN AND IS ADMINISTERING THE TRUST SUBJECT TO
ITS LAWS. 

I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :















SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. U.S., 307 U.S. 393 


NO. 613.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 29, 1939.  - 87 CT. CLS.
442, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE A LAND GRANT RAILROAD, HAVING AN ESTABLISHED ROUTE PARTLY
LAND-GRANT AIDED BETWEEN TWO TERMINAL POINTS, DEVELOPED AN ALTERNATIVE
ROUTE WHICH IN PART WAS IDENTICAL WITH THE ORIGINAL ROUTE AND TO THAT
EXTENT LAND-GRANT AIDED, HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED, UNDER
ITS LAND-GRANT ACT CONTRACT, TO COMPENSATE THE RAILROAD FOR TERMINAL-TO
TERMINAL SERVICE ON THE BASIS OF THE LOWER TARIFF AVAILABLE ON THE
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE LESS THE HIGHER LAND GRANT PERCENTAGE DEDUCTION
APPLICABLE ON THE ORIGINAL ROUTE, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT ROUTE WAS
ACTUALLY USED IN SHIPMENT.  PP. 394, 401. 

2.  THIS CONCLUSION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LONG CONTINUED
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN LAND GRANT CONTRACTS.  P. 401. 

3.  DOUBTS IN RESPECT OF THE INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC GRANTS ARE TO
BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 401. 

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE
PETITION IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES TO RECOVER SUMS CLAIMED TO BE DUE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARGES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO DEDUCT FROM THE
PUBLIC TERMINAL-TO-TERMINAL TARIFFS OF A RAILROAD OVER A ROUTE, PARTLY
OF LAND-GRANT AIDED MILEAGE, IDENTICAL WITH PART OF THE MILEAGE OF
ANOTHER EARLIER CONSTRUCTED ROUTE OF THE SAME ROAD BETWEEN THE SAME
TERMINALS, SUMS BASED UPON THE HIGHER PROPORTION OF LAND-GRANT AIDED
MILEAGE IN THIS LATTER ROUTE.  ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION IN ADMINISTRATION, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  FN1 

THE CARRIER OWNS AND OPERATES TWO LINES OF RAILROAD BETWEEN PORTLAND,
OREGON, AND ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA, AND DAVIS, CALIFORNIA, BOTH SOUTHERN
POINTS BEING ON THE CENTRAL PACIFIC, NOW THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC, RAILROAD
IN CALIFORNIA.  FROM THE CALIFORNIA JUNCTIONS, THERE IS DIRECT
CONNECTION OVER THE SAME SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILS INTO SAN FRANCISCO. 
THE OLDER LINE IS CALLED THE SISKIYOU, THE NEWER THE CASCADE ROUTE. 
FOR A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN PORTLAND AND SAN
FRANCISCO, THE TWO ROUTES ARE IDENTICAL.  THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENCES;
ONE IS BETWEEN EUGENE, OREGON, AND BLACK BUTTE, CALIFORNIA.  ON THE
WEST THE SISKIYOU ROUTE PASSES THROUGH GRANT'S PASS AND SISKIYOU, A
DISTANCE OF 300 MILES, TO CONNECT EUGENE AND BLACK BUTTE.  THE EASTERN,
OR CASCADE ROUTE, JOINS THE SAME TWO POINTS BY A SHORTER (275 MILES)
LINE THROUGH NATRON AND KLAMATH FALLS.  THE SECOND DEVIATION IS BETWEEN
TEHAMA, CALIFORNIA, AND DAVIS AND ROSEVILLE RESPECTIVELY.  HERE THE
SISKIYOU ROUTE IS TO THE EAST, 104 MILES LONG, AND THE CASCADE ROUTE TO
THE WEST, 110 MILES. 

WHERE THE ROUTES ARE IDENTICAL, SOME OF THE MILEAGE IS LAND-GRANT
AIDED.  SOME IS NOT.  THE MILEAGE OF THE SISKIYOU WHICH IS DIFFERENT
FROM THE CASCADE IS LARGELY LAND-GRANT AIDED.  NONE OF THE CASCADE
ROUTE, EXCEPT WHERE IT USES THE SAME RAILS AS THE SISKIYOU, HAS LAND
GRANTS.  BASED ON THE PROPORTION OF AIDED MILEAGE AND THE PERCENTAGE OF
DEDUCTION ALLOWED TO THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE TARIFFS CHARGED PRIVATE
SHIPPERS, THE UNITED STATES, BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND PORTLAND, IS
ENTITLED TO A LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION VIA THE SISKIYOU ROUTE OF 42.792 PER
CENT.  VIA THE CASCADE ROUTE, THE DEDUCTION IS 17.801 PER CENT.  THERE
ARE SLIGHT VARIATIONS FOR EAST PORTLAND. 

DURING DECEMBER, 1931, AND JANUARY, 1932, THE CARRIER TRANSPORTED, IN
BOTH DIRECTIONS, CERTAIN PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES ON GOVERNMENT
BILLS OF LADING FROM PORTLAND OR EAST PORTLAND TO SAN FRANCISCO.  NO
DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT AS TO THE ROUTES OVER WHICH THE
SHIPMENTS WERE TO MOVE.  WHILE BEFORE NOVEMBER 11, 1931, THE TERMINAL
TO-TERMINAL RATES OVER THE TWO ROUTES WERE THE SAME, AFTER THAT DATE
AUTHORIZED REVISIONS RESULTED IN A RATE COMPETITIVE WITH WATER BORNE
COMMERCE OVER THE CASCADE AND A HIGHER RATE OVER THE SISKIYOU.  THESE
PUBLIC TARIFFS WERE SO MUCH LOWER OVER THE CASCADE THAN THEY WERE OVER
THE SISKIYOU ROUTE, THAT THE NET COST TO THE GOVERNMENT, AFTER THE
DEDUCTIONS DEEMED APPLICABLE BY THE RAILROAD, WAS LESS OVER THE CASCADE
THAN IT WAS OVER THE SISKIYOU, DESPITE THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF
DEDUCTION ALLOWED THE LATTER ROUTE. 

THE GOVERNMENT WAS BILLED ON THE CASCADE TARIFFS WITH DEDUCTIONS FOR
LAND-GRANT MILEAGE OF ABOUT 17 PER CENT.  IT PAID ON THE BASIS OF THE
CASCADE TARIFFS BUT DEDUCTED ON THE RATIO OF THE LAND-GRANT TO TOTAL
MILES BETWEEN THE TERMINALS ON THE SISKIYOU ROUTE, OR SOME 42 PER CENT.
THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE LOWEST RATE, BETWEEN
THE TERMINALS, LESS THE PERCENTAGE OF DEDUCTION OVER THE ORIGINAL LAND
GRANT AIDED ROUTE.  THE CARRIER PROTESTED AND BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN
THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CASCADE
TARIFFS LESS THE CASCADE RATIO OF LAND-GRANT MILEAGE AND THAT PAID BY
THE GOVERNMENT, THE CASCADE TARIFFS LESS THE SISKIYOU RATIO.  THE COURT
OF CLAIMS, AFTER MAKING SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT, ADJUDGED THAT THE
CARRIER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER AND DISMISSED ITS PETITION. 

THE GOVERNMENT OBTAINED CONCESSIONS FROM THE ESTABLISHED TARIFFS BY
VIRTUE OF THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE CARRIER OF GRANTS OF LAND, TEN
ALTERNATE SECTIONS PER MILE ON EACH SIDE OF THE LINE, TO AID IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A RAILROAD AS DESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE
CONVEYANCE.  FN2  THIS STATUTE WAS SIMILAR IN FORM TO THE LAND GRANT
CONSTRUED IN BURKE V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. FN3 AND UPON COMPLIANCE
WITH ITS REQUIREMENTS BECAME A CONTRACT, "OBLIGATORY ON BOTH"  FN4  THE
CARRIER AND GOVERNMENT.  THE CARRIER AGREED IT SHOULD "BE AND REMAIN A
PUBLIC HIGHWAY FOR THE USE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FREE
OF ALL TOLL OR OTHER CHARGES UPON THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE PROPERTY OR
TROOPS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND THE SAME SHALL BE TRANSPORTED OVER
SAID ROAD AT THE COST, CHARGE, AND EXPENSE OF THE CORPORATIONS OR
COMPANIES OWNING OR OPERATING THE SAME, WHEN SO REQUIRED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE AUTHORIZATION WAS "TO LAY OUT,
LOCATE, CONSTRUCT, FINISH, AND MAINTAIN A RAILROAD AND TELEGRAPH LINE
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PORTLAND, IN OREGON, AND THE CENTRAL PACIFIC
RAILROAD, IN CALIFORNIA,  ...  "  THE ROAD WAS LOCATED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS. 

IN DECEMBER, 1887, THE SISKIYOU ROUTE WAS FINISHED.  THE ROAD RUNNING
FROM ITS SOUTHERN TERMINUS AT ROSEVILLE TO SAN FRANCISCO HAD BEEN
FINISHED IN 1870.  THIS GAVE A THROUGH ROUTE FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO
PORTLAND, 774.16 MILES LONG WITH 663.16 LAND-GRANT AIDED.  THE CASCADE
ROUTE WAS BUILT LATER IN SMALL SECTIONS PRIMARILY FOR LOCAL SERVICE OR
LINKS IN OTHER PROJECTED DISTINCT RAILROAD UNDERTAKINGS.  THE
CALIFORNIA DEVIATION FROM THE SISKIYOU BETWEEN TEHAMA AND DAVIS WAS
FINISHED IN 1882.  THE OREGON SECTION, FORMING WITH THAT PORTION OF THE
SISKIYOU AN IRREGULAR OVOID FIGURE, WAS PUT TOGETHER BETWEEN 1905 AND
1926, BEING COMPLETED SEPTEMBER FIRST OF THE LATTER YEAR.  THIS ROUTE
IS 725.03 MILES BETWEEN PORTLAND AND SAN FRANCISCO WITH 258.13 MILES
BUILT WITH GRANTS IN AID.  EACH ROUTE IS NECESSARY FOR ADEQUATE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE TO THE AREAS TRAVERSED.  AT THE TIME OF THE
COMPLETION OF THE CASCADE AND UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1931, THE TARIFFS OVER
THE TWO ROUTES BETWEEN THE TERMINALS WERE THE SAME. 

ON MAY 23, 1928, THERE WAS ENACTED AN ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF THE LAND
GRANT RAILROAD OPERATED BETWEEN EAST PORTLAND, OREGON, AND ROSEVILLE,
CALIFORNIA.  FN5  AS ROSEVILLE IS THE JUNCTION TERMINAL OF THE SISKIYOU
AND IS NOT SERVED BY THE CASCADE, THIS DESCRIPTION COVERS ONLY THE
SISKIYOU LINE BUILT UNDER THE 1866 ACT.  BY ITS TERMS, THE GOVERNMENT
RELINQUISHED ITS PRIVILEGE OF FREE TRANSPORTATION AND ACCEPTED IN LIEU
THEREOF A RIGHT TO THE SAME RATE AS IS PAID TO OTHER LAND-GRANT ROADS. 
THIS IS FIFTY PER CENT OF THE PUBLIC TARIFF FOR LAND-GRANT AIDED
MILEAGE.  FN6 

THE ACT OF 1866, GRANTING THE AID, SPECIFIED, ONLY GENERALLY, THE
ROUTE OF THE NEW ROAD.  IT WAS TO BEGIN AT SOME POINT ON THE CENTRAL
PACIFIC RAILROAD IN THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY AND THENCE RUN NORTHERLY TO
PORTLAND.  BY THE GRANT OF MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PUBLIC LANDS, THE
GOVERNMENT PREPAID FOR TRANSPORTATION  FN7  OVER THE LINE, WHEREVER IT
MIGHT BE BUILT.  IT WAS ENTITLED TO SERVICE FOR ITS PROPERTY OR TROOPS
WITHOUT FURTHER COST FROM WHOSOEVER OWNED OR OPERATED THE AIDED
FACILITY BETWEEN THE CENTRAL PACIFIC AND PORTLAND.  FN8  BY THE 1928
ACT, THE GOVERNMENT AGREED, FOR THE "RELIEF OF THE LAND-GRANT" ROAD, TO
PUT IT UPON THE SAME BASIS AS OTHER LAND-GRANT ROADS.  BY THIS
CONCESSION, NO CHANGE WAS MADE IN THE EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATION TO GIVE
LAND-GRANT SERVICE. 

THE TWO ACTS ARE QUITE CLEAR IN THEIR REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMPANY
WHICH CONSTRUCTED THE ROAD OR ITS SUCCESSORS IN OWNERSHIP OR OPERATION
SHOULD TRANSPORT THE PROPERTY OR TROOPS OF THE UNITED STATES OVER THE
RAILROAD AT THE RATE FIXED BY THEIR PROVISIONS.  THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO
THE MEANING ARISES IN THE APPLICATION OF THE RIGHT OF TRANSPORTATION TO
THE MILEAGE.  ON COMPLETION OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT BETWEEN PORTLAND
AND THE CENTRAL PACIFIC, THERE WAS A DEFINITE RIGHT OF WAY, THE PRESENT
SISKIYOU ROUTE, WITH EVERY MILE BETWEEN EAST PORTLAND AND THE CENTRAL
PACIFIC AIDED BY LAND GRANTS.  THIS SAME SITUATION EXISTED AS TO ALL OR
PARTS OF OTHER BOND OR LAND AIDED ROADS.  FN9  SOON THERE WERE CHANGES
AND SHORTENING OF THESE LINES.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS FACED WITH THE
PROBLEM OF THE PROPER RATIO OF LAND-GRANT OR BOND-AIDED DEDUCTIONS OR
ALLOCATIONS TO BE APPLIED WHERE NEW NON-AID MILEAGE IS USED BETWEEN
TERMINALS FORMERLY SERVED IN A HIGHER PROPORTION BY LAND-GRANT
MILEAGE.  CUT-OFFS AND THE ELIMINATION OF CURVES FURNISHED OCCASION FOR
THESE DECISIONS.  THUS IN 1888 IN A RULING AS TO TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES RENDERED BY THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD, WHERE THE CENTRAL
HAD THREE LINES FROM SACRAMENTO TO SAN FRANCISCO, WITH VARYING BOND
AIDED MILEAGES, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY RULED, WHEN THE ROAD
SOUGHT TO RENDER STATEMENTS FOR THE LINE ACTUALLY USED, THAT ALL UNITED
STATES ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE STATED IN TERMS OF THE BOND-AIDED MILEAGE OF
THE ORIGINAL ROUTE.  AS THE AMOUNTS DUE TO THE CARRIER WERE APPLIED TO
RETIREMENT OF THE BONDS IN AID, THIS RULING PRESERVED THE CHARGES FOR
THIS PURPOSE.  THIS RULING HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN ROADS AIDED BY LAND
GRANTS.  FN10  THE LONG CONTINUED ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION HAS
DECIDED WEIGHT IN REACHING A CONCLUSION UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS
CONTRACT, FN11  PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CONGRESS AFTER SUCH
INTERPRETATION GIVES UP A RIGHT FOR FREE TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE
TERMINALS.  ANY DOUBT MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
FN12 

THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS REACHED IN UNITED
STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. FN13  WHERE THERE WAS A SHORTENING
OF 94.24 MILES IN THE THROUGH ROUTE BETWEEN ST. PAUL AND SEATTLE BY
MEANS OF A CUT-OFF.  IN THAT CASE, TOO, THE OLD ROUTE WAS MAINTAINED
FOR LOCAL USE. 

IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT IN THIS INSTANCE WE HAVE A NEW LINE, AN
ADDITION, RATHER THAN A CUT-OFF IN OR A SHORTENING OR STRAIGHTENING OF
AN ORIGINAL LINE.  FN14  SO FAR AS TERMINAL-TO-TERMINAL TRANSPORTATION
IS CONCERNED, THE CASCADE ROUTE DOES NOT FUNCTION AS A NEW LINE OR AN
ADDITION.  IT IS SIMPLY ANOTHER WAY OF CARRYING GOODS BY THE SAME
RAILROAD BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO AND PORTLAND.  BY WHICH ROUTE THE
SHIPMENT MOVES, IS IMMATERIAL ON THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION FOR LAND
GRANTS.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LOWEST PUBLIC TARIFFS ARE TO HAVE LAND
GRANT DEDUCTIONS BASED UPON THE PROPORTION OF THE LAND-GRANT MILEAGE IN
THE ORIGINAL LINE, SEEMS CONSONANT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTS. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CF. SCHEDULE OF LAND GRANT AND BOND-AIDED RAILROADS OF THE U.S.,
OFFICE OF THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL OF THE ARMY, CIRCULAR NO. 4,
FEBRUARY 1, 1922.  THIS SHOWS THE LAND-GRANT MILEAGE IN THE UNITED
STATES AT THE DATE OF ISSUE.  IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A SHARE OF GOVERNMENT
TRAFFIC, NON-LAND-GRANT ROADS HAVE ENTERED WIDELY INTO FREIGHT LAND
GRANT EQUALIZATION AGREEMENTS BY WHICH THEY AGREE TO CARRY FREIGHT,
ROUTED OVER THEIR LINES AT "THE LOWEST NET RATES LAWFULLY AVAILABLE, AS
DERIVED THROUGH DEDUCTIONS ACCOUNT OF LAND GRANT DISTANCE.  ...  "  CF.
CIRCULAR 3, FEB. 6, 1935, OFFICE OF QUARTERMASTER GENERAL, WAR
DEPARTMENT, FREIGHT LAND GRANT EQUALIZATION AGREEMENTS. 

FN2  ACT OF JULY 25, 1866, C. 242, 14 STAT. 239. 

FN3  234 U.S. 669. 

FN4  ID. 680; CF. UNITED STATES V. CENTRAL PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U.S.
235, 238. 

FN5  THE ACT OF MAY 23, 1928, C. 720, 45 STAT. 722-723, PROVIDES: 

"CHAP. 720.  - AN ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF THE LAND-GRANT RAILROAD
OPERATED BETWEEN THE STATION FORMERLY KNOWN AS EAST PORTLAND, IN THE
STATE OF OREGON, AND ROSEVILLE, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT THE LAND-GRANT
RAILROAD HERETOFORE OPERATED, AND NOW BEING OPERATED, BETWEEN THE
STATION FORMERLY KNOWN AS EAST PORTLAND, IN THE STATE OF OREGON, AND
ROSEVILLE, IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SHALL HEREAFTER RECEIVE
COMPENSATION FOR TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY AND TROOPS OF THE UNITED
STATES AT THE SAME RATE AS IS PAID TO LAND-GRANT RAILROADS ORGANIZED
UNDER THE LAND GRANT ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, AND THE ACT OF JULY 27,
1866(CHAPTER 278):  PROVIDED, THAT THE CONGRESS HEREBY RESERVES THE
RIGHT AT ANY TIME BY LAW TO PRESCRIBE SUCH CHARGES AS IT DEEMS
ADVISABLE FOR SUCH GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION." 

FN6  LAKE SUPERIOR & M.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 93 U.S. 442, 454,
455; LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 321, 323.  ACT OF
JUNE 7, 1924, C. 291, 43 STAT. 477, 486.  THIS ACT DETERMINED THE
PROPORTION OF THE REGULAR TARIFF TO BE PAID FOR THE TRANSPORTATION. 

FN7  LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 395, 402. 

FN8  SEC. 5, ACT OF JULY 25, 1866, 14 STAT. 240. 

FN9  THE LAWS RELATING TO LAND-GRANT AND BOND-AIDED RAILROADS CONTAIN
SEVERAL TYPES OF CONDITIONS.  THE MOST PREVALENT CONDITION WAS THAT
"THE SAID RAILROAD SHALL BE AND REMAIN A PUBLIC HIGHWAY FOR THE USE OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FREE FROM TOLL OR OTHER CHARGE
UPON THE TRANSPORTATION OF ANY PROPERTY OR TROOPS OF THE UNITED
STATES."  THIS WAS CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE RAILROAD TO FURNISH ONLY
FREE USE OF THE RAILS AND PERMANENT STRUCTURES.  LAKE SUPERIOR & M.R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 93 U.S. 442.  IT IS TO BE FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING
ACTS:  ACT OF SEPT. 20, 1850, 9 STAT. 466(ILL.  CENT.  R.R.; MOBILE &
O.R.R.); ACT OF JUNE 10, 1852, 10 STAT. 8(CHICAGO, B. & Q.R.R.;
MISSOURI PAC. RY.; ST. LOUIS & S.F. RY.); ACT OF FEB. 9, 1853, 10 STAT.
155(CHICAGO, R.I. & PAC. RY.; ST. LOUIS, IRON MTN.  & SO. RY.); ACT OF
MAY 15, 1856, 11 STAT. 9(CHICAGO & N.W. RY.; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R.R.;
CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY.; CHICAGO, R.I. & PAC. RY.); ACT OF MAY 17,
1856, 11 STAT. 15(LOUISVILLE & N.R.R.; SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.); ACT OF
JUNE 3, 1856, 11 STAT. 17, 18, 20, 21(ALA.  GREAT SO. R.R.; CENTRAL OF
GA. RY.; CHICAGO & N.W. RY.; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY.; CHICAGO, ST. P.,
M. & O. RY.; DULUTH, SO. SHORE & AT. RY.; GRAND RAPIDS & IND. R.R.;
GRAND TRUNK R.R.; N.Y. CENT. R.R.; LOUISVILLE & N.R.R.; MICH. CENT.
R.R.; MISSOURI, KAN. & TEXAS RY.; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY.; PERE
MARQUETTE R.R.; SOUTHERN RY. CO.; VICKSBURG, S. & PAC. R.R.); ACT OF
AUG. 11, 1856, 11 STAT. 30(ALA.  & VICKSBURG RY.; GULF & SHIP ID.
R.R.); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1857, 11 STAT. 195(CHICAGO & N.W. RY.; CHICAGO,
M. & ST. P. RY.; CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY.; GREAT NO. RY.; NORTHERN
PAC. RY.); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, 12 STAT. 772(ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY.;
MISSOURI, KAN. & TEXAS RY.); ACT OF MAY 5, 1864, 13 STAT. 64(NORTHERN
PAC. RY.); ACT OF MAY 5, 1864, 13 STAT. 66(MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S.
STE.  MARIE RY.); ACT OF MAY 12, 1864, 13 STAT. 72(CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.
RY.); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1865, 13 STAT. 526(CHICAGO & N.W. RY.; CHICAGO,
M. & ST. P. RY.; GREAT NO. RY., NORTHERN PAC. RY.).  SOME OF THE GRANTS
WENT FURTHER AND REQUIRED THE RAILROAD TO FURNISH FREE TRANSPORTATION. 
ACT OF JULY 1, 1864, 13 STAT. 339(MISSOURI, KAN. & TEXAS RY.); ACT OF
JULY 3, 1866, 14 STAT. 78(N.Y. CENT. R.R.; MICH. CENT. R.R.); ACT OF
JULY 4, 1866, 14 STAT. 87(CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY.); ACT OF JULY 25,
1866, 14 STAT. 239(SOUTHERN PAC. CO.); ACT OF JULY 26, 1866, 14 STAT.
289(MISSOURI, KANS. & TEXAS RY.); ACT OF JULY 28, 1866, 14 STAT.
338(CHICAGO, R.I. & PAC. RY.; ST. LOUIS, IRON MTN.  & SO. RY.).  OTHERS
AUTHORIZED THE RAILROAD TO CHARGE FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION,
SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS WHICH CONGRESS MIGHT IMPOSE RESTRICTING SUCH
CHARGES.  ACT OF JULY 2, 1864, 13 STAT. 365(NORTHERN PAC. RY.); ACT OF
JULY 27, 1866, 14 STAT. 292(ATCHISON, T. & S.F. COAST LINES; ST. LOUIS
& S.F. RY.; SOUTHERN PAC. CO.); ACT OF MARCH 3, 1871, 16 STAT.
573(SOUTHERN PAC. CO.).  THE ACT OF JULY 1, 1862, 12 STAT. 489(MISSOURI
PAC. RY.), PROVIDED FOR FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES FOR GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORTATION, NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNTS PAID BY PRIVATE PARTIES FOR
THE SAME KIND OF SERVICE.  SEE SCHEDULE OF LAND-GRANT AND BOND-AIDED
RAILROADS OF THE U.S., OFFICE OF THE QUARTERMASTER GENERAL OF THE ARMY,
CIRCULAR NO. 4, FEBRUARY 1, 1922. 

FN10  (1888) 3 DIG.  DEC.2D COMP. 299.  FOLLOWED IN (1899) V DEC. OF
COMP. OF TREAS. 364; (1911) XVII DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 633; (1914)
XXI DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 238; (1917) XXIV DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS.
193; (1923) 3 DEC. OF COMP. GEN. 267; (1931) 10 DEC. OF COMP. GEN. 552;
(1936) 15 DEC. OF COMP. GEN. 614.  BUT SEE (1900) VII DEC. OF COMP. OF
TREAS. 224; (1902) VIII DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 474. 

FN11  CF. FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87, 96; ARMSTRONG PAINT &
VARNISH WORKS V. NU-ENAMEL CORP., 305 U.S. 315, 329-30. 

FN12  BROAD RIVER CO. V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 281 U.S. 537, 548. 

FN13  30 F.2D 655; REHEARING DENIED, 32 F.2D 698. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. KANSAS PACIFIC RY. CO., 99 U.S. 455; UNITED
STATES V. DENVER PACIFIC RY. CO., 99 U.S. 460; UNITED STATES V. CENTRAL
PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U.S. 235. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

THE LAND-GRANT ACT OF JULY 25, 1866, AND COMPLIANCE WITH IT
CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT.  FN1  THIS CASE CALLS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
PROVISION IN SEC. 5.  FN2  THE COURT OF CLAIMS SUSTAINED THE
GOVERNMENT'S DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LANDGRANT MILEAGE THAT IS NOT
INCLUDED IN OR POSSIBLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE RAILROAD OVER WHICH THE
SHIPMENTS MOVED.  THE INCLUSION, AS A PART OF THE AIDED RAILROAD, OF
275.6 MILES OF THE CASCADE ROUTE BETWEEN SPRINGFIELD JUNCTION, OREGON
AND BLACK BUTTE, CALIFORNIA, IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT, NOR IS COMPUTATION OF THE LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION FROM CHARGES
FOR TRANSPORTATION VIA CASCADE ON THE PERCENTAGE APPLICABLE TO CHARGES
FOR TRANSPORTATION VIA SISKIYOU WARRANTED BY CONSTRUCTIONS HERETOFORE
PUT UPON LIKE ACTS.  SEE (OPPOSITE) REPRODUCTION OF MAP SUBMITTED AS AN
EXHIBIT AT THE ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT. 

                     PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 23. 

                            (FORM OMITTED)

                              I. 

THE GRANT WAS MADE TO INDUCE AND AID CONSTRUCTION OF A RAILROAD
BETWEEN PORTLAND AND SOME POINT TO BE SELECTED BY THE GRANTEES ON THE
CENTRAL PACIFIC TO SERVE THE WILLAMETTE, UMQUA, AND ROGUE RIVER VALLEYS
IN OREGON, AND THE SACRAMENTO AND SHASTA VALLEYS IN CALIFORNIA, AND TO
BE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON MAPS MADE BY THE GRANTEES AND FILED WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  THE RAILROAD WAS LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED,
AND, SINCE ITS COMPLETION IN 1887, HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN USE,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT.  THE AIDED PORTION IS 663.13 MILES
LONG, EXTENDING BETWEEN EAST PORTLAND, OREGON AND ROSEVILLE,
CALIFORNIA, A POINT ON THE CENTRAL PACIFIC EAST OF SACRAMENTO AND ABOUT
111 MILES FROM SAN FRANCISCO.  IT IS NOW CALLED THE SISKIYOU ROUTE. 

REPAIR AND USE; THAT IT SHALL BE "A PUBLIC HIGHWAY" FOR THE USE OF THE
UNITED STATES; AND THAT PROPERTY AND TROOPS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL
BE TRANSPORTED OVER "SAID ROAD" AT THE COST, CHARGE, AND EXPENSE OF THE
CORPORATIONS OR COMPANIES OWNING OR OPERATING "THE SAME," WHEN SO
REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

PLAINLY THE CONTRACT APPLIES ONLY TO THE LAND-AIDED RAILROAD BETWEEN
PORTLAND AND ROSEVILLE; NOT TO THE HAUL BETWEEN PORTLAND AND SAN
FRANCISCO, NOR TO THAT BETWEEN ROSEVILLE AND SAN FRANCISCO.  THE
CONTRACT NEITHER EXPRESSES NOR IMPLIES ANY SPECIAL UNDERTAKING BY THE
CARRIER AS TO CHARGES FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE PORT OR
TERMINAL OF PORTLAND AND THAT OF SAN FRANCISCO. 

THE ACT OF MAY 23, 1928  FN3  MERELY SUBSTITUTES 50 PER CENT OF THE
COMMERCIAL CHARGES FOR FREE TRANSPORTATION UNDER SEC. 5.  THUS, AS
MODIFIED, THE ACT OF 1866 REQUIRES PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN POINTS ON AND WHOLLY VIA THE LAND-GRANT RAILROAD
FOR ONE-HALF THE CHARGES APPLICABLE TO LIKE SERVICE FOR PRIVATE
PARTIES.  AND FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN A POINT ON THE
AIDED RAILROAD AND ONE ON ANOTHER LINE THERE IS DEDUCTED FROM CHARGES
GENERALLY MADE ONE-HALF THE PERCENTAGE THAT AIDED MILEAGE ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THAT SERVICE IS OF THE TOTAL MILES HAULED. 

THE CASCADE STRETCH WAS NOT COMPLETED UNTIL 1926 AND, AS SHOWN BY THE
FINDINGS, IT IS MADE UP OF BRANCHES EXTENDED DURING A NUMBER OF YEARS
PRIOR TO 1912 LITTLE BY LITTLE FROM BLACK BUTTE TO KIRK TO REACH
PRODUCTIVE FOREST AND AGRICULTURAL AREAS.  SEE DIAGRAM 1, OPPOSITE.  AT
ITS NORTHERLY END A SHORT PIECE FROM SPRINGFIELD JUNCTION TO NATRON WAS
COMPLETED IN 1891; IN 1912 THAT BRANCH WAS BUILT TO OAKRIDGE TO SERVE
TIMBER AREAS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CASCADES AND ULTIMATELY TO BE A PART
OF A LINE CONNECTING WITH THE CENTRAL PACIFIC IN NEVADA OR WITH THE
UNION PACIFIC IN EASTERN OREGON.  THESE SYSTEMS WERE THEN UNDER ONE
CONTROL.  ABOUT THE SAME TIME - 1911-1914 - PLAINTIFF BUILT FROM
FERNLEY, NEVADA, A POINT ON THE CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTHWESTERLY TO
WESTWOOD, CALIFORNIA TO SERVE INDUSTRIES THERE.  CONSUMMATION OF THE
PROJECT TO COMPLETE THE LINE BETWEEN FERNLEY AND SPRINGFIELD JUNCTION
VIA NATRON, OAKRIDGE, KIRK, AND KLAMATH FALLS WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF
THE SUIT BROUGHT IN 1908 UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT BY THE UNITED
STATES IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (SEE 188 F. 102),
WHICH RESULTED IN DECREE DISSOLVING CONTROL BY THE UNION PACIFIC OF THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC.  UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 226 U.S. 61. 
IN 1929, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
PLAINTIFF COMPLETED THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SPRINGFIELD JUNCTION AND
FERNLEY TO FORM A PART OF THE THROUGH ROUTE BETWEEN PORTLAND, SALT LAKE
CITY, AND POINTS EAST. 

                           DIAGRAM 1. 

HATCHED LINES SHOW LAND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

       (FORM OMITTED) 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT SINCE THE COMPLETION OF THE CASCADE
STRETCH "PLAINTIFF HAS HAD AND NOW HAS TWO COMPLETE LINES OF RAILROAD
OR ROUTES IN OREGON AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, ONE THE SISKIYOU ROUTE
...  SERVING THE VALLEYS AND AREAS DESCRIBED  ...  PRODUCING MUCH
TONNAGE OF TIMBER, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, LIVESTOCK, ETC., AND THE
OTHER THE CASCADE ROUTE  ...  ALSO SERVING LARGE TIMBER AREAS AND
AGRICULTURAL AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCING AREAS, EACH OF THESE LINES OF
RAILROAD SERVING PRODUCING AREAS QUITE GENERALLY AT ALL POINTS. 
PLAINTIFF HAS MAINTAINED THE SISKIYOU ROUTE, TRANSPORTING A SUBSTANTIAL
AND VARIED TRAFFIC AND SERVING A LARGE AND IMPORTANT AREA.  THE
SISKIYOU ROUTE AND THE CASCADE ROUTE ARE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
ROUTES OR LINES OF RAILROAD, NECESSARY FOR ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICE TO THE INTERESTED AREAS OR TERRITORIES TRAVERSED BY SUCH
LINES." 

THE STRETCH OF RAILROAD BETWEEN SPRINGFIELD JUNCTION AND BLACK BUTTE
VIA SISKIYOU, ALL LAND-AIDED, IS 300.42 MILES LONG; IT IS USED FOR
THROUGH TRANSPORTATION AND ALSO SERVES LOCALLY IN THE WILLAMETTE,
UMQUA, AND ROGUE RIVER VALLEYS.  ALL LAND-AIDED MILEAGE IN THAT ROUTE
CONTINUOUSLY HAS BEEN OPERATED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE SERVICE OF THE
PUBLIC, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY AND TROOPS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE STRETCH BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS VIA CASCADE, NONE OF IT
LAND-AIDED, IS 275.6 MILES LONG, MOST OF WHICH IS EAST OF THE CASCADE
MOUNTAINS.  IT ALSO CARRIES THROUGH AND LOCAL TRAFFIC.  TO ILLUSTRATE
HOW UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY IT IS TO ATTRIBUTE THAT MILEAGE TO THE
AIDED RAILROAD BUILT, AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF 1866, TO OPEN AND
DEVELOP THE GREAT VALLEYS WEST OF THE MOUNTAINS, LET IT BE NOTED THAT
EXCEPT AT AND NEAR THE CONNECTING POINTS, SPRINGFIELD JUNCTION AND
BLACK BUTTE, THESE STRETCHES SERVE WIDELY SEPARATED TERRITORIES OF VAST
EXTENT; THE AREA BETWEEN THEM IS GREATER THAN THAT OF THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS.  THE MILEAGE OF THE CASCADE STRETCH IS GREATER THAN THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND WEST POINT VIA NEW YORK CITY.  THE
MILEAGE OF THE SISKIYOU STRETCH IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND PITTSBURGH. 

UPON COMPLETION OF THE SISKIYOU ROUTE, PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHED THROUGH
RATES BETWEEN OREGON AND CALIFORNIA POINTS; IN ORDER TO MEET
COMPETITION OF WATER CARRIERS, IT WAS COMPELLED TO MAKE RATES BETWEEN
PORTLAND AND SAN FRANCISCO LOWER THAN RATES BETWEEN INTERMEDIATE
POINTS.  IN 1912, AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE OF
SEC. 4, INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE COMMISSION PERMITTED THE
MAINTENANCE OF LOWER THROUGH RATES; IT FOUND THEY WERE FORCED BY WATER
COMPETITION AND WERE LOWER THAN NORMAL, FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES.  IN
1920, SEC. 4 WAS AGAIN AMENDED TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO FIND THAT
THE LOWER THROUGH RATES PERMITTED BY IT WERE REASONABLY COMPENSATORY. 
IN 1927, THE COMMISSION, UPON PLAINTIFF'S SHOWING OF OPERATING COSTS ON
THE SISKIYOU ROUTE, FOUND THAT THE THROUGH RATES WERE LESS THAN
REASONABLE AND GRANTED AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH RATES BETWEEN THE
TERMINALS LOWER THAN INTERMEDIATE RATES BUT SO MUCH HIGHER THAN THE
COMPETING WATER RATES THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT SHARE IN THE BUSINESS. 
THE COMMISSION THEREAFTER REOPENED THE CASE.  IN ORDER TO SHOW THE
REASONABLY COMPENSATORY NATURE OF THE LOWER THROUGH RATES, PLAINTIFF
BASED ITS SHOWING ON THE MORE FAVORABLE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS AND
SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER OPERATING COSTS ON THE CASCADE ROUTE.  PURSUANT TO
THE COMMISSION'S REPORT AND ORDER OF JULY, 1930, THE PLAINTIFF REVISED
ITS TARIFFS EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 11, 1931.  THE LOW THROUGH RATES ON THE
SISKIYOU ROUTE WERE DISCONTINUED AND HIGHER RATES IN ACCORD WITH SEC. 4
WERE SUBSTITUTED.  MUCH LOWER RATES, TO MEET WATER COMPETITION, WERE
ESTABLISHED VIA THE CASCADE ROUTE AS TO TRANSPORTATION OF ABOUT 25 PER
CENT OF ALL ARTICLES THAT MOVE BETWEEN THE CITIES OF PORTLAND AND SAN
FRANCISCO.  DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN COMPLETION OF THE CASCADE ROUTE
AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE NEW RATES, THE THROUGH RATES WERE THE
SAME VIA BOTH ROUTES. 

THE AIDED MILEAGE IN THE SISKIYOU ROUTE, 663.16 MILES, BETWEEN
PORTLAND AND SAN FRANCISCO, IS 85.584 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL.  THE AIDED
MILEAGE IN THE CASCADE ROUTE IS 258.13 MILES, OR 35.602 PER CENT OF THE
TOTAL.  CHARGES FOR THE SHIPMENTS IN QUESTION APPLICABLE VIA THE
CASCADE ROUTE, LESS 17.801 PER CENT (ONE-HALF OF THE PER CENT OF LAND
GRNAT MILEAGE TO TOTAL) ARE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THOSE VIA SISKIYOU,
LESS 42.792 PER CENT.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT EXPRESSLY DIRECT THE
SHIPMENTS IN QUESTION TO BE HAULED OVER THE CASCADE ROUTE BUT IT DID IN
FACT CHOOSE TO HAVE THEM GO THAT WAY.  IT WAS PLAINTIFF'S DUTY TO SEND
THEM OVER THE ROUTE ON WHICH THE CHARGES WOULD BE LOWER.  THE
GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO PAY MORE THAN THE LOWER RATES APPLICABLE VIA
CASCADE MINUS THE LANDGRANT DEDUCTION OF 42.792 PER CENT APPLICABLE TO
THE HIGHER CHARGES OVER THE SISKIYOU ROUTE. 

THE FINDINGS COMPEL THE CONCLUSIONS THAT THE CASCADE STRETCH BETWEEN
SPRINGFIELD JUNCTION AND BLACK BUTTE WAS NOT BUILT TO BETTER ALIGNMENT
OR LESSEN GRADES OF, ADD TRACKAGE TO OR OTHERWISE IMPROVE, THE LAND
AIDED STRETCH VIA SISKIYOU BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS; THAT IT WAS MADE UP
OF BRANCHES AND EXTENSIONS CONSTRUCTED FROM TIME TO TIME TO DEVELOP
PRODUCTIVE AREAS, TO SERVE LOCAL NEEDS AND, UPON COMPLETION, TO BE A
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT RAILROAD BETWEEN SPRINGFIELD JUNCTION AND BLACK
BUTTE, A PART OF WHICH WAS ALSO TO SERVE AS A SECTION OF THE
TRANSCONTINENTAL ROUTE ABOVE REFERRED TO. CLEARLY IT IS NOT A PART OF
THE RAILROAD AIDED BY THE GRANT OF 1866.  IT WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED TO AID
TRANSPORTATION ON, OR AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR, ANY PART OF THE AIDED
RAILROAD.  THE FACT THAT IT IS USED TO HAUL GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS LIKE
THOSE IN QUESTION DOES NOT SUGGEST ANY FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF FULLY TO
PERFORM THE LAND-GRANT CONTRACT TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP IN USE THE AIDED
RAILROAD BETWEEN PORTLAND AND ROSEVILLE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
GRANT, OR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS MADE AND COMPLIED
WITH, THAT GIVES ANY SUPPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM THAT, FROM THE
LOWER CHARGES APPLICABLE TO SHIPMENTS BY PRIVATE PARTIES VIA CASCADE,
IT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE HIGHER LAND-GRANT PERCENTAGE APPLICABLE TO
TRANSPORTATION VIA SISKIYOU. 

                      II. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOWS ITS JUDGMENT TO HAVE BEEN
REACHED ON AN ASSUMPTION OF FACT THAT IS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE FINDINGS
OR OTHERWISE SUPPORTED.  IT SAYS:  "THE METHOD OF SETTLEMENT WITH
PLAINTIFF USED BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN
CONSISTENTLY AND UNIFORMLY FOLLOWED BY THE DEFENDANT'S ACCOUNTING
OFFICERS FOR MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS IN CASES INVOLVING THE SAME OR
SIMILAR QUESTIONS." 

THERE IS NO FINDING TO THAT EFFECT, BUT TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT THE
OPINION CONTINUES:  "THE PRINCIPLE WAS STATED BY THE SECOND COMPTROLLER
OF THE TREASURY IN A DECISION APRIL 17, 1888, AS FOLLOWS:  'IF A
RAILROAD HAVE A LINE BETWEEN TWO POINTS, AIDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRE A NEW LINE OR LINES NONAIDED BETWEEN THOSE SAME
POINTS, THE ACCOUNTS FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION, WHEN PERFORMED OVER
THE NEW LINE OR LINES, SHALL BE STATED IN THE SAME PROPORTION OF AIDED
TO NONAIDED MILES AS THOUGH THE TRANSPORTATION WERE OVER THE ORIGINAL
LINE.'" 

THE DECISION REFERRED TO HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED OR ANYWHERE
PUBLISHED.  IT MAY BE FOUND ON FILE IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE,
MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS DIVISION, VOL. 55, P. 422.  THE PASSAGE ABOVE
QUOTED IS ONE OF TWO SENTENCES EXCERPTED FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE
DOCUMENT AND TOGETHER PUBLISHED, WITHOUT MORE, AS PARAGRAPH 1160, VOL.
3, P. 299 OF KERN'S 1893 DIGEST OF DECISIONS OF THE SECOND COMPTROLLER
OF THE TREASURY.  FN4  AS COUNSEL FAILED TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO US THE
UNREPORTED TEXT OF THE DECISION, IT IS ASSUMED THAT NOTHING MORE THAN
THE STATEMENT IN THE DIGEST WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LOWER
COURT. 

TO GIVE WEIGHT TO THE SECOND COMPTROLLER'S DICTUM AND JUSTIFY ITS
APPLICATION TO THIS CASE, THE LOWER COURT ADDS:  "THIS RULE AS STATED
HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY OBSERVED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY AND TROOPS OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND HAS BEEN APPLIED IN SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR TRANSPORTATION
RENDERED THE GOVERNMENT WHERE THROUGH SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED BY A
SHORTER LINE SUBSTITUTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR THE LONGER AIDED AND
ORIGINAL LINE.  (SEE STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES IN UNITED STATES V.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 30 F.2D 655.)  THIS LONG ESTABLISHED RULE HAS
BEEN ACQUIESCED IN BY LAND-GRANT RAILROADS GENERALLY AND WAS ACQUIESCED
IN BY THIS PLAINTIFF DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE COMPLETION OF ITS
CASCADE LINE IN 1926 TO 1931 WHEN ITS ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY WERE SETTLED IN THIS
MANNER.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE SHIPMENTS INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT WERE
MOVED THAT PLAINTIFF MADE PROTEST AGAINST THE POSITION OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  WE DO NOT REGARD THE FACT THE RATES BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO
AND PORTLAND WERE THE SAME OVER BOTH ROUTES BETWEEN 1926 AND 1931 AS
MATERIAL OR ALTERING IN ANY WAY THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED." 

AS TO THAT PASSAGE, IT IS TO BE OBSERVED: 

THE OPINION STATES THAT THE RULE, SAID TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, HAS BEEN APPLIED TO TRANSPORTATION RENDERED BY
A "SHORTER LINE SUBSTITUTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR THE LONGER AIDED
AND ORIGINAL LINE."  THE COURT DEFINITELY FOUND THAT THE CASCADE
STRETCH IS A LINE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE AIDED RAILROAD.  IT
WAS NOT SUBSTITUTED FOR OR USED IN LIEU OF THE SISKIYOU ROUTE.  IT WAS
CHOSEN BY OR FOR THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE APPLICABLE CHARGES, WHATEVER
THE BASIS OF CALCULATION OF LAND GRANT DEDUCTIONS, WERE LESS THAN THOSE
FOR LIKE TRANSPORTATION VIA THE OTHER STRETCH. 

THE CITED STIPULATION BETWEEN THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY AND THE
UNITED STATES CANNOT HERE BE MADE TO SERVE IN LIEU OF SPECIAL FINDINGS
OF FACT.  FN5  MOREOVER, AS WILL BE SHOWN, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IN THAT CASE HELD AGAINST THE CARRIER ON THE GROUND THAT NEW UNAIDED
MILEAGE HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR AIDED MILEAGE IN THE ORIGINAL ROUTE. 
THAT CASE MAKES STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF HERE, FOR THE FINDINGS
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOW THAT NO PART OF THE ORIGINAL AIDED RAILROAD
HAD BEEN ABANDONED AS TO THE TRAFFIC IN QUESTION OR OTHERWISE. 

THE LOWER COURT'S STATEMENT THAT, FROM THE COMPLETION OF THE CASCADE
STRETCH IN 1926 UNTIL THE SHIPMENTS HERE INVOLVED, PLAINTIFF ACQUIESCED
IN THE RULE ADOPTED BY THE COURT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS. 
BUT, EVEN IF WARRANTED, IT IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE QUESTION
PRESENTED IN THIS CASE DID NOT AND COULD NOT ARISE WHILE THE RATES
APPLICABLE BETWEEN PORTLAND AND SAN FRANCISCO WERE THE SAME. 

III. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS FAILED TO FIND AS FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT
FOLLOWED, OR THE CARRIERS ACCEPTED AS SOUND, THE DICTUM EXCERPTED BY
KERN FROM THE DECISION OF THE SECOND COMPTROLLER OF APRIL 17, 1888.  TO
SUPPLY THE OMISSION, THE GOVERNMENT CITES IN ITS BRIEF, WITHOUT
ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OR EXPLANATION, ALL ADMINISTRATIVE
RULINGS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS IT DEEMS TO HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE
QUESTION NOW BEFORE US.  THE FORMER ARE REFERRED TO IN FOOTNOTE 10 OF
THIS COURT'S OPINION.  FN6  HERE THE MATERIAL SUBSTANCE OF EACH WILL BE
INDICATED. 

1.  RULING OF APRIL 17, 1888, BY SECOND COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY,
BUTLER.  AT THAT TIME, THE CENTRAL PACIFIC HAD THREE LINES BETWEEN
SACRAMENTO AND SAN FRANCISCO.  THEY ARE INDICATED ON DIAGRAM 2,
OPPOSITE.  ROUTE 1, VIA BRIGHTON, TRACY AND NILES WAS THE ORIGINAL
RAILROAD, 140 MILES, OF WHICH 103 WERE BOND-AIDED.  ROUTE 2 VIA DAVIS
AND PORT COSTA, 90 MILES, HAD NO AIDED MILEAGE.  ROUTE 3 VIA BRIGHTON,
TRACY, AND PORT COSTA WAS 151 MILES, OF WHICH 63 BELONGED TO THE BOND
AIDED STRETCH IN ROUTE 1.  THE BONDS IN AID WERE GIVEN UNDER THE ACT OF
JULY 1, 1862, C. 120, 12 STAT. 489, 494.  SEE ALSO AMENDATORY ACTS OF
JULY 2, 1864, C. 216, 13 STAT. 356, AND MAY 7, 1878, C. 96, 20 STAT.
56.  SECTION 6 DECLARES THAT THE AID GRANTS ARE MADE ON CONDITION THAT
THE COMPANY SHALL KEEP THE RAILROAD IN REPAIR AND USE, TRANSPORT TROOPS
AND PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT "AT FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES OF
COMPENSATION, NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNTS PAID BY PRIVATE PARTIES FOR THE
SAME KIND OF SERVICE," AND THAT ALL COMPENSATION FOR THAT
TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS.  FOR A
TIME IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE SECOND COMPTROLLER'S DECISION, THE
GOVERNMENT STATED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY AS THOUGH ALL SHIPMENTS
HAD BEEN HAULED OVER ROUTE 1.  THE RAILROAD MAINTAINED THAT PAYMENT
SHOULD BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOND-AIDED MILEAGE IN THE ROUTE
USED.  THUS AROSE THE ISSUE DECIDED. 

                              DIAGRAM 2. 

                   SCALE:  APPX.  1 INCH   12 MILES. 

                 HATCHED LINES SHOW BOND-AIDED MILEAGE

                            (FORM OMITTED) 

THE BOND-AID CONTRACT HAD BEEN CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE TREASURY TO
RETAIN THE COMPENSATION FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION OVER BOND-AIDED
MILEAGE AND TO APPLY IT IN PAYMENT OF THE BONDS.  UNITED STATES V.
KANSAS PACIFIC RY. CO., 99 U.S. 455.  UNITED STATES V. CENTRAL PACIFIC
R. CO., 118 U.S. 235.  THESE CASES DEFINITELY ESTABLISHED THAT
COMPENSATION FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION OVER NONAIDED EXTENSIONS OF
THE AIDED RAILROADS SHOULD NOT BE WITHHELD OR APPLIED TO PAY THE BOND
DEBT.  BUT THE SECOND COMPTROLLER HELD THAT RULE NOT APPLICABLE.  HE
FOUND THAT ACCOUNTING OFFICERS WERE REQUIRED BY THE ACT TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE RATES ARE "FAIR AND REASONABLE" AND STATED THE PROBLEM
THUS:  "GIVEN A CERTAIN STATE OF FACTS, WHAT IS THE SERVICE RENDERED BY
THE RAILROAD, AND WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION
THEREFOR?" 

MORE SPECIFICALLY TO DISCLOSE THE POINT, THE SECOND COMPTROLLER
REFERRED TO THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
CARRIERS, AND ASKED HIMSELF:  "ARE THOSE RELATIONS IMPAIRED BY THE
RAILROAD, IF IT PURSUES THE COURSE WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE IT
CONTENDS TO BE RIGHT?"  HE ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVELY AND TO SUSTAIN THAT
VIEW REASONED AS FOLLOWS:  TO REIMBURSE ITSELF THE GOVERNMENT MAY
WITHHOLD COMPENSATION FOR "CARRIAGE OVER AN AIDED LINE."  THE SECURITY
IS IMPAIRED IF THE RAILROAD "PARALLELS OR DUPLICATES AN AIDED LINE
BETWEEN TWO POINTS AND DIVERTS THE GOVERNMENT BUSINESS TO THAT LINE
WITHOUT IN SOME WAY RECOGNIZING ITS INDEBTEDNESS TO THE GOVERNMENT." 
FN7 

THEN, GRANTING THAT ON STRICTEST LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTES
AND OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THERE WAS NOTHING TO PRECLUDE SUCH A
COURSE BY THE RAILROAD, THE SECOND COMPTROLLER WENT ON TO SAY:  "BUT
THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND ETHICS FORBID THE APPLICATION OF SUCH A
CONSTRUCTION."  INVOKING THE MAXIM "HE THAT SEEKS EQUITY MUST DO
EQUITY" AS BEING "MOST FORCIBLY PERTINENT," HE DECLARED THAT SO LONG AS
THE RAILROAD IS INDEBTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE BOND-AIDED
LINE, IT MUST NOT IMPERIL THE GOVERNMENT'S OPPORTUNITY TO RECOUP, AND
CONCLUDED THAT ALL ACCOUNTS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ROUTE USED, SHOULD
BE STATED UPON THE BASIS OF BOND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

THE COMPANY CLAIMED THAT ACQUISITION OF ROUTE 2 WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE
IT THREATENED THE EXISTENCE OF THE CENTRAL PACIFIC AND THAT ROUTE 3 WAS
ACQUIRED FOR CONVENIENCE BECAUSE IT HAD BETTER GRADES THAN THE ORIGINAL
LINE.  IT ARGUED THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD AN INTEREST IN THE NEW LINES
AND SHOULD BE WILLING TO PAY ENTIRE COMPENSATION FOR CARRIAGE OVER
THEM.  AGAINST THAT CONTENTION THE SECOND COMPTROLLER SAID:  "BUT THE
ACQUIRING OR BUILDING BY A RAILROAD OF NEW LINES CONNECTING TWO POINTS
ALREADY CONNECTED BY THE ROAD OF THE COMPANY IS ONE OF THE ORDINARY
ELEMENTS OF MODERN RAILROADING, INTENDED TO ENHANCE THE USEFULNESS OF
THE ORIGINAL LINE, IN THE SAME WAY AS DOES THE REPLACING OF IRON BY
STEEL RAILS, OR WOODEN BY STONE BUILDINGS, OF HAND-BRAKES BY AUTOMATIC
APPLIANCES.  FN8  IS THE GOVERNMENT TO LOSE ITS RIGHT OF WITHHOLDING
COMPENSATION FOR CARRIAGE OVER A TRESTLE, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH IN
WOOD IT AIDED, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE RAILROAD HAS SEEN FIT TO REPLACE THE
WOODEN STRUCTURE BY ONE OF IRON?" 

HE DENOUNCED AS UNTENABLE BOTH THE POSITION OF THE GOVERNMENT AND
THAT OF THE COMPANY, AND DECLARED "THAT A MEDIUM COURSE IS NOT ONLY
PRACTICABLE AND EQUITABLE, BUT IS JUSTIFIED UNDER THE ACTS  ...  BY THE
CHANGED AND APPARENTLY UNANTICIPATED CONDITION OF AFFAIRS SINCE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE RAILROAD WAS CONTEMPLATED."  HE SUGGESTED THAT THE
COMPANY SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S SECURITY SHOULD NOT BE
IMPAIRED BY A DUPLICATING LINE, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD
RECOGNIZE SUCH AN IMPROVEMENT OF ROUTE AS MATERIALLY LESSENS DISTANCE
OR DIFFICULTIES OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TWO POINTS.  THEN REASONING
IN MORE DEFINITE TERMS, HE SAID: 

"IF THE ORIGINAL LINE  ...  , 140 MILES IN LENGTH, WERE ENTIRELY
AIDED, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S SUPPLIES WERE TAKEN OVER THE NEW AND
UNAIDED LINE, 90 MILES IN LENGTH, IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT ON THE ONE HAND
FOR THE RAILROAD TO DEMAND ACTUAL COMPENSATION FOR THE 90 MILES, OR, ON
THE OTHER HAND, FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO MAINTAIN THAT THE ACCOUNT SHOULD
BE ADJUSTED ON A BASIS OF 140 MILES AND THAT AMOUNT PASSED TO THE
CREDIT OF THE RAILROAD ON THE GOVERNMENT'S BOOKS.  THE NON-AIDED LINE
WAS USED TO REPLACE THE AIDED LINE, AND CREDIT FOR THE 90 MILES ONLY
SHOULD BE GIVEN THE RAILROAD ON THE GOVERNMENT'S BOOKS.  THE SAME
REASONING APPLIES WHEN THE ORIGINAL LINE WAS AIDED IN PART. 

"IF OF THE ORIGINAL 140 MILES  ...  103 WERE AIDED, AND THE ACCOUNTS
WERE SO STATED AS TO PAY THE RAILROAD FOR 37 MILES AND CARRY 103 MILES
TO THE RAILROAD'S CREDIT, THE SAME RATIO SHOULD BE APPLIED WHEN
TRANSPORTATION IS OVER A NEW LINE BETWEEN THOSE POINTS, AND 103/140 OF
THE TOTAL DISTANCE TRAVERSED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS AIDED AND SHOULD
BE CARRIED TO THE RAILROAD'S CREDIT ON THE GOVERNMENT'S BOOKS,
COMPENSATION FOR THE BALANCE OF 37/140 BEING PAID DIRECT TO THE
RAILROAD." 

FOLLOWING THESE PASSAGES THE SECOND COMPTROLLER SAID:  "IF A RAILROAD
HAVE A LINE BETWEEN TWO POINTS AIDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRE A NEW LINE OR LINES, NONAIDED, BETWEEN THOSE SAME
POINTS, THE ACCOUNTS FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION, WHEN PERFORMED OVER
THE NEW LINE OR LINES, SHALL BE STATED IN THE SAME PROPORTION OF AIDED
TO NONAIDED MILES, AS THOUGH THE TRANSPORTATION WERE OVER THE ORIGINAL
LINE."  THIS IS THE STATEMENT FOUND IN PAR. 1160, 3 DIG.2D COMP. 299,
ON WHICH THE COURT OF CLAIMS GROUNDED ITS JUDGMENT. 

APPLYING THE GENERALIZATION SO ATTEMPTED HE RULED:  "ON THIS BASIS
THE ACCOUNTS OF THE RAILROAD COMING TO THIS BUREAU WILL BE FINALLY
SETTLED.  I AM OF THE OPINION THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WOULD THUS BE
DONE - THE RAILROAD WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE SECURITY OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AND THE GOVERNMENT WOULD RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE RAILROAD TO MAKE
IMPROVEMENTS."    THE CRUCIAL PHRASE OF THE GENERALIZATION, "A NEW LINE
OR LINES NONAIDED," WOULD INCLUDE MILEAGE THAT IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
FROM AN AIDED RAILROAD MAINTAINED AND KEPT IN USE BETWEEN THE SAME
POINTS.  BUT THE SECOND COMPTROLLER, ON THE GROUNDS THAT ACQUISITION OF
NEW LINES WAS THE SAME AS MAKING ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS TO THE
ORIGINAL AIDED LINE AND THAT ROUTES 2 AND 3 WERE USED TO REPLACE ROUTE
1, TREATED THE LINES CONSTITUTING THE THREE ROUTES AS A SINGLE RAILROAD
BOND-AIDED TO THE EXTENT OF 103/140 OF ITS LENGTH.  FN9  IT THUS
APPEARS THAT THE BROAD GENERALIZATION DOES NOT EXPRESS THE PRINCIPLE OF
THE DECISION OR FIT THE SITUATION DESCRIBED BY IT AS MERE BETTERMENT OF
THE LINE BUILT PURSUANT TO THE BOND-AID CONTRACT.    THE DECISION DOES
NOT RELATE TO THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE.  PLAINTIFF DOES NOT CONTEND
THAT, IF AIDED MILEAGE OF THE SISKIYOU STRETCH NOT USED MAY BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE CASCADE STRETCH THAT WAS USED TO DO THE HAULING IN
QUESTION, THE CORRESPONDING PERCENTAGE, 42.792 PER CENT, SHOULD NOT BE
APPLIED.  PLAINTIFF'S POINT IS THAT THE FINDINGS PRECLUDE THE
ASSIGNMENT OF ANY AIDED MILEAGE TO THE NONAIDED CASCADE STRETCH.  THE
TEXT OF THE SECOND COMPTROLLER'S DECISION SHOWS THAT HE DID NOT DECIDE
OR DEAL WITH ANY SUCH ISSUE. 

2.  RULING OF JANUARY 5, 1899 BY ACTING COMPTROLLER MITCHELL IN A
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CASE, V DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 364.  SEE DIAGRAM 2. 
A GOVERNMENT CLERK TRAVELED TO SACRAMENTO VIA STOCKTON.  A PART OF THE
ROUTE USED WAS BOND-AIDED.  HE RETURNED VIA BENICIA ON THE SHORTER AND
USUALLY TRAVELED NONAIDED ROUTE.  THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER PAYMENT
SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COMPANY FOR TRANSPORTATION OVER THE NONAIDED
ROUTE.  THIS DECISION MERELY FOLLOWS THE UNCALLED FOR AND INAPPLICABLE
GENERALIZATION ATTEMPTED BY SECOND COMPTROLLER BUTLER IN THE CENTRAL
PACIFIC CASE. 

3.  RULING OF NOVEMBER 19, 1900 BY ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER MITCHELL IN
AN ILLINOIS CENTRAL CASE, VII DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 224.  SEE DIAGRAM
3.  THE COMPANY OPERATED A LAND-AIDED RAILROAD BETWEEN CAIRO AND
CHICAGO.  IT HAD TWO ROUTES FOR PASSENGER TRAVEL BETWEEN CAIRO AND ST.
LOUIS: THE SHORTER VIA CARBONDALE AND PINCKNEYVILLE, HAD SOME UNAIDED
MILEAGE; THE LONGER, VIA DU QUOIN, WAS AIDED THROUGHOUT.  THE
GOVERNMENT HAVING FAILED TO DESIGNATE EITHER ROUTE AND THE SHORTER
BEING THE USUALLY TRAVELED ONE OVER WHICH ALL THROUGH TRAINS OPERATED,
THE COMPANY CARRIED THE GOVERNMENT PASSENGER THAT WAY.  THE QUESTION
WAS WHETHER THE LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE CALCULATED ON THE
PERCENTAGE OF LANDAIDED MILEAGE IN THE ROUTE USED OR ON THE GREATER
PERCENTAGE IN THE OTHER ROUTE.  ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER MITCHELL DID NOT
FOLLOW THE GENERAL STATEMENT OF SECOND COMPTROLLER BUTLER IN THE
CENTRAL PACIFIC CASE BUT HELD THAT, AS THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CHOOSE
BETWEEN THE ROUTES, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE CALCULATED ON THE MILEAGE
USED. 

IN THE LIST OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS, CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT, THIS
IS THE FIRST ONE THAT INVOLVES CONSTRUCTION OF A LAND-GRANT ACT.  LAND
AID DIFFERS ESSENTIALLY FROM BOND-AID.  CONTRACTS IN RESPECT OF THE
LATTER REQUIRE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION OVER AIDED MILEAGE AT "FAIR
AND REASONABLE RATES" AND THAT THE COMPENSATION EARNED BE APPLIED ON
THE BOND DEBT.  NO DIMINUTION OF CHARGES FOR GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION
IS EXACTED.  THE RAILROAD RECEIVES CREDIT INSTEAD OF CASH FOR THE
CHARGES CALCULATED AT FULL RATES.  BUT THE LAND-GRANT ACTS REQUIRE
SERVICE EITHER FREE OR AT HALF RATES FOREVER.  QUESTIONS AS TO
COMPENSATION UNDER THEM CONCERN NOT MERELY FORM OF PAYMENT OF FULL
CHARGES BUT THE AMOUNT OF PAYMENT.  UNREASONABLE INDEED WOULD IT BE TO
HOLD THAT CARRIERS' ACQUIESCENCE IN GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION OF BOND-AID
ACTS IS BINDING OR ENTITLED TO WEIGHT IN CASES INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION
OF THE LAND-GRANT ACTS. 

                              DIAGRAM 3. 

            SCALE:  APPX.  1 INCH   26 MILES. 

     HATCHED LINES SHOW LAND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

               (FORM OMITTED) 

4.  RULING OF JANUARY 21, 1902 BY COMPTROLLER TRACEWELL IN A GREAT
NORTHERN CASE, VIII DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 474.  SEE DIAGRAM 4.  THE
GOVERNMENT SHIPPED PROPERTY FROM ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, TO POINTS WEST OF
LARIMORE, NORTH DAKOTA.  THE COMPANY HAD THREE ROUTES BETWEEN THE
POINTS JUST NAMED.  THE PERCENTAGE OF AIDED MILEAGE IN THE ROUTE VIA
CROOKSTON, "A," IS LARGER THAN THAT IN EITHER ROUTE "B" OR "C."  THE
GOVERNMENT HAVING FAILED TO CHOOSE A ROUTE, THE COMPANY HAULED BY THE
SHORTEST ROUTE, "C"; IT WAS GENERALLY USED FOR LIKE SERVICE.  THE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE CALCULATED ON THE
PERCENTAGE OF THE SHORTER LINE ACTUALLY USED OR THE HIGHER PERCENTAGE
OF THE LONGER ONE NOT USED. 

                              DIAGRAM 4. 

    SCALE:  APPX.  1 INCH   74 MILES. 

HATCHED LINES SHOW LAND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

       (FORM OMITTED) 

THE DECISION, AS WELL AS THE QUOTED GENERALIZATION, OF SECOND
COMPTROLLER BUTLER ARE IN TERMS BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER THE QUESTION
PRESENTED BUT COMPTROLLER TRACEWELL, REFUSING TO FOLLOW EITHER, DECIDED
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION.  HE SAID:  "WHERE, WITH GOVERNMENT
AID, TWO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT LINES OF RAILROAD HAVE BEEN
CONSTRUCTED FROM A COMMON POINT TO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POINTS, BUT WHICH
SUBSEQUENTLY BY EXTENSION AND INDEPENDENT CONNECTIONS ARE PROJECTED
THROUGH A COMMON POINT, AND ALL THESE LINES HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED TO
THE CONTROL OF A SINGLE COMPANY, AND TRANSPORTATION IS FURNISHED
BETWEEN SUCH COMMON POINTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT BY THE MOST USUALLY
TRAVELED OF SAID ROUTES, DEDUCTION FOR LAND GRANT SHOULD BE MADE ON THE
BASIS OF SUCH ROUTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRACT OR A REQUEST FOR
TRANSPORTATION BY THE OTHER ROUTE." 

IF FOLLOWED, THIS RULING WOULD REQUIRE LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION IN THE
CASE AT BAR TO BE CALCULATED ON THE LAND-GRANT MILEAGE OF THE CASCADE
ROUTE USED.  COMPARE DIAGRAMS 1 AND 4. 

5.  RULING OF FEBRUARY 28, 1911 BY COMPTROLLER TRACEWELL IN A ST.
LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN (MISSOURI PACIFIC) CASE, XVII DEC. OF
COMP. OF TREAS. 633.  SEE DIAGRAM 5.  THE COMPANY HAD A LAND-AIDED
RAILROAD BETWEEN BIRDS POINT, MISSOURI (ON THE WEST BANK OF THE
MISSISSIPPI OPPOSITE CAIRO, ILLINOIS) AND TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, VIA
DEXTER, MISSOURI.  GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS FROM CAIRO TO DEXTER WERE
GENERALLY TRANSPORTED ACROSS THE RIVER AT BIRDS POINT AND THENCE BY THE
LAND-AIDED LINE.  ON GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS BETWEEN CAIRO AND TEXARKANA
BY THAT ROUTE, 99.247 PER CENT WAS LAND AIDED.  BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN
THE BED OF THE RIVER, IT WAS NECESSARY TO HAUL THE SHIPMENTS IN
QUESTION VIA THEBES AND ILLMO.  THE LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION APPLICABLE TO
THAT ROUTE WAS 81.234 PER CENT.  THE RAILROAD INSISTED THAT, HAVING
BEEN FORCED TO GIVE UP THE OLD ROUTE, IT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE
DEDUCTION FOR THE NONAIDED MILEAGE BETWEEN CAIRO AND DEXTER VIA
THEBES.  BUT THE COMPTROLLER REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT CONTENTION AND
ORDERED SETTLEMENT ON THE BASIS OF LAND-AIDED MILEAGE IN THE ROUTE VIA
BIRDS POINT. 

DIAGRAM 5. 

                   SCALE:  APPX.  1 INCH   17 MILES. 

                HATCHED LINES SHOW LAND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

                            (FORM OMITTED) 

THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT CASE AND THE ONE
BEFORE US.  THE CARRIER HAD ABANDONED THE LAND-AIDED ROUTE FOR HAULS
BETWEEN CAIRO AND DEXTER.  THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC KEPT THE SISKIYOU ROUTE
IN USE. 

6.  RULING OF OCTOBER 19, 1914 BY COMPTROLLER DOWNEY IN AN ATCHISON
CASE, XXI DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 238.  SEE DIAGRAM 6.  THE COMPANY HAS
A LINE IN KANSAS BETWEEN LAWRENCE AND CHANUTE, LAND-AIDED TO THE EXTENT
OF 91.3 MILES AND UNAIDED AS TO 3.02 MILES, PART OF THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CHANUTE AND HUMBOLDT.  IT HAS ANOTHER LINE BETWEEN ATCHISON AND
THE COLORADO BOUNDARY VIA TOPEKA AND EMPORIA, ALL OF WHICH IS LAND
AIDED.  TO CONNECT THESE TWO AIDED LINES THERE WAS BUILT AN UNAIDED
BRANCH BETWEEN LAWRENCE AND TOPEKA AND LATER ANOTHER BETWEEN OTTAWA AND
EMPORIA.  THE GOVERNMENT SHIPPED CEMENT FROM CHANUTE TO HOLBROOK,
ARIZONA.  EARLIER THE SHIPMENT WOULD HAVE MOVED THROUGH HUMBOLDT,
OTTAWA, LAWRENCE, TOPEKA, EMPORIA, AND THENCE TO POINT OF DESTINATION. 
BUT, BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRANCH BETWEEN OTTAWA AND
EMPORIA, THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION WAS HAULED OVER THAT LINE.  BY THIS
ROUTE THE HAUL BETWEEN CHANUTE AND HOLBROOK WAS 59.13 MILES LESS THAN
OVER THE OTHER ROUTE AND AIDED MILEAGE BETWEEN THOSE POINTS WAS LESS BY
91.42 MILES.  THE COMPTROLLER HELD THAT THE LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION SHOULD
BE BASED ON THE LAND-AIDED MILEAGE OF THE ORIGINAL ROUTE.  HE FOUND
THAT THE LAND-GRANT ACT (12 STAT. 772) REQUIRED THE AIDED RAILROADS "TO
BE AND REMAIN PUBLIC HIGHWAYS FOR THE USE OF THE GOVERNMENT" AND THAT
THE BRANCH LINES MADE NEW THROUGH ROUTES "TO THE ABANDONMENT, IN PART,
OF THE AIDED THROUGH ROUTE."  HE SAID: "IT HAS LONG BEEN THE HOLDING OF
THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS THAT THE CHANGING OF A LINE OF RAILROAD AND
ABANDONING OF ANY PART OF THE ORIGINAL AIDED LINE DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE
GOVERNMENT OF ITS ORIGINAL RIGHTS, AND SETTLEMENT FOR SERVICE OVER THE
NEW LINE IS, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO BE MADE AS IF THE TRANSPORTATION
WERE OVER THE ORIGINAL LINE.  (SEE 3 DIG.  DEC.2D COMP. 299; V DEC. OF
COMP. OF TREAS. 364)". 

  DIAGRAM 6. 

                   SCALE:  APPX.  1 INCH   58 MILES. 

                HATCHED LINES SHOW LAND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

                            (FORM OMITTED) 

AS THE GROUND ON WHICH THAT RULING RESTS IS ABANDONMENT OF A PART OF
THE AIDED LINE, IT GIVES NO SUPPORT TO THE JUDGMENT BEFORE US. 

7.  RULING OF OCTOBER 1, 1917 BY COMPTROLLER WARWICK IN A MISSOURI
PACIFIC CASE, XXIV DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 193.  THE PUBLISHED REPORT
DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE PHYSICAL SITUATION.  IT IS INDICATED BY DIAGRAM 7
PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION FOUND IN AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION IN
THE SAME CASE RENDERED MAY 8, 1917.  THE GOVERNMENT SHIPPED STONE FROM
BATESVILLE, ARKANSAS ON AN UNAIDED LINE VIA KANSAS CITY TO LEAVENWORTH
PENITENTIARY, KANSAS.  AN OLDER ROUTE BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS WAS VIA
WHITE RIVER BRANCH CONNECTION, CAIRO BRANCH CONNECTION, CARONDOLET
BRANCH CONNECTION, PACIFIC, AND KANSAS CITY.  THE RATIO APPLICABLE IN
COMPUTING LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION FOR SHIPMENTS HAULED THAT WAY IS 17.933
PER CENT.  THE WARDEN AT LEAVENWORTH PAID THE COMPANY FOR THE SERVICE
IN QUESTION OVER THE UNAIDED LINE, WITHOUT ANY LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION. 
HOWEVER, THE COMPTROLLER HELD THE CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE SAME
PERCENTAGE OF DEDUCTION AS APPLIED TO THE AIDED ROUTE.  ON THE
COMPANY'S APPLICATION HE GRANTED REHEARING, UPHELD THE PRINCIPLE ON
WHICH HE ORDERED THE DEDUCTION, AND DECLARED IT WOULD BE APPLIED TO
FUTURE SHIPMENTS.  BUT, IN VIEW OF PARTICULAR FACTS AND EQUITIES
INVOLVED, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE ACCOUNTS PAID PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE
DECISION COULD BE ALLOWED WITHOUT LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION. 

              DIAGRAM 7. 

                  SCALE:  APPX.  1 INCH   100 MILES. 

                HATCHED LINES SHOW LAND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

                            (FORM OMITTED) 

IT REQUIRES NO DISCUSSION TO SHOW THAT THE DIRECT ROUTE USED SHOULD
HAVE BEEN CHOSEN FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IN QUESTION.  THE COMPTROLLER
CITED NO LAND-GRANT CONTRACT TO SUPPORT THE RULE THAT HE MADE
APPLICABLE TO FUTURE SHIPMENTS.  NOR DID HE CITE SECOND COMPTROLLER
BUTLER'S RULING OR ANY CASE - AND SO FAR AS DISCLOSED BY DILIGENT
RESEARCH, BRIEFS OF COUNSEL AND THIS COURT'S OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED -
THERE IS NONE THAT TENDS TO SUSTAIN SO INCONGRUOUS AN ATTRIBUTION OF
AIDED MILEAGE NOT USED TO AN UNAIDED ROUTE USED. 

8.  RULING OF OCTOBER 27, 1923 BY COMPTROLLER MCCARL IN A SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CASE, 3 COMP. GEN. 267.  SEE DIAGRAM 8.  THIS CASE INVOLVED A
GOVERNMENT SHIPMENT FROM MARSHALL (SPOKANE), WASHINGTON, TO ROSEBURG,
OREGON.  IT WAS ROUTED OVER AN UNAIDED LINE OF THE OREGON-WASHINGTON
RAILROAD & NAVIGATION COMPANY SUBJECT TO AN EQUALIZATION AGREEMENT THAT
CHARGES WOULD NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT PAYABLE HAD THE SERVICE BEEN BY THE
LAND-GRANT LINE YIELDING THE LOWEST NET RATE.  THE NORTHERN PACIFIC
LINE BETWEEN MARSHALL AND PORTLAND VIA PASCO AND TACOMA WAS LAND
AIDED.  LATER THERE WAS BUILT BETWEEN PASCO AND PORTLAND A LINE JOINTLY
OWNED BY THE NORTHERN PACIFIC AND THE GREAT NORTHERN; IT IS A PART OF
THE SPOKANE, PORTLAND & SEATTLE RAILWAY.  UPON COMPLETION OF THAT LINE,
THE NORTHERN PACIFIC CANCELED ITS RATES APPLICABLE BETWEEN MARSHALL AND
PORTLAND BY ITS AIDED LINE THROUGH TACOMA AND ANNOUNCED THAT THE RATES
IN ITS TARIFFS WOULD ONLY APPLY VIA THE NEW UNAIDED LINE.  THE
COMPTROLLER HELD THAT, AS TO THE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION IN QUESTION,
THE AIDED STRETCH OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC HAD BEEN ABANDONED, AND THAT
THE GOVERNMENT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED "TO THE TRANSPORTATION OVER THE
SUBSTITUTED LINE ON THE SAME BASIS AS THOUGH TRANSPORTATION WAS
FURNISHED OVER THE ORIGINAL LAND-GRANT LINE," AND DIRECTED THAT LAND
GRANT DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 

                              DIAGRAM 8. 

        SCALE:  APPX.  1 INCH   64 MILES. 

 HATCHED LINES SHOW LAND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

           (FORM OMITTED) 

THAT CASE DIFFERS FROM THE ONE AT BAR IN THAT THE NORTHERN PACIFIC,
HAVING NO TARIFF APPLICABLE TO THE SHIPMENT VIA ITS AIDED LINE, HAD
ABANDONED THAT LINE AND FOR IT SUBSTITUTED A NEW ONE. 

9.  THE DECISIONS IN NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES ARE
NEXT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.  SEE DIAGRAM 9, ON P. 428.  ON GOVERNMENT
REQUEST, THE COMPANY TRANSPORTED TWO MARINES BY THROUGH PASSENGER TRAIN
FROM ST. PAUL TO SEATTLE.  THE NORTHERN PACIFIC LAND GRANT AIDED A
ROUTE FROM A POINT ON LAKE SUPERIOR TO ONE ON PUGET SOUND.  PURSUANT TO
THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE (ACT OF JULY 2, 1864, 13 STAT. 365) THE AIDED
RAILROAD WAS BUILT FROM THE TERMINAL ESTABLISHED AT ASHLAND IN
WISCONSIN TO THE ONE ESTABLISHED AT TACOMA IN WASHINGTON.  NEITHER ST.
PAUL NOR SEATTLE IS OR EVER WAS A TERMINAL ON THAT OR ANY OTHER LAND
GRANT LINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC.  SEE UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY. CO., 177 U.S. 435, 441.  ST. PAUL IS MORE THAN 100 MILES
OFF THE AIDED LINE; SEATTLE, MORE THAN 50 MILES.  IN THE ROUTE TRAVELED
BY THE TRAIN IN QUESTION THE ONLY AIDED MILEAGE BETWEEN ST. PAUL AND
THE ORIGINAL NORTHERN PACIFIC LAND-GRANT LINE IS A STRETCH OF ABOUT 20
MILES BETWEEN WATAB AND LITTLE FALLS, WHICH IS A PART OF THE LAND-AIDED
RAILROAD BETWEEN WATAB AND BRAINERD CONSTRUCTED BY THE WESTERN RAILROAD
COMPANY UNDER THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1857, 11 STAT. 195.  FN10  THERE IS
NO AIDED MILEAGE BETWEEN SEATTLE AND PALMER JUNCTION, WHERE THE
ORIGINAL LINE CONNECTS WITH THE ROUTE USED. 

                              DIAGRAM 9. 

              HATCHED LINES SHOW LAND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

                        (FORM OMITTED) 

THE ISSUE IN THE CASE WAS WHETHER, IN ADDITION TO AN UNDISPUTED
DEDUCTION OF 3 PER CENT, THERE SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE FULL
COMMERCIAL FARE, $63.16, A LAND-GRANT PERCENTAGE OF 46.001 PER CENT, AS
CLAIMED BY THE COMPANY, LEAVING A BALANCE OF $33.09, OR 47.285 PER
CENT, AS CLAIMED BY THE GOVERNMENT, LEAVING A BALANCE OF $32.29.  THUS
THE AMOUNT IN ISSUE AS TO EACH PASSENGER WAS 80 CENTS. 

THE CONTROVERSY AROSE FROM THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT ATTRIBUTED TO
THE ROUTE USED THE STRETCHES OF AIDED MILEAGE BETWEEN LITTLE FALLS AND
STAPLES VIA BRAINERD AND BETWEEN PALMER JUNCTION AND AUBURN VIA MEEKER,
AMOUNTING IN ALL TO 94.24 MILES. 

THE GOVERNMENT'S THEORY WAS THAT THE NEW UNAIDED LINES WERE "MERELY
ALTERNATE OR LIEU ROUTES - ROUTES ESTABLISHED BY THE RAILROAD TO
SHORTEN OR STRAIGHTEN ITS LINE" AND THAT THEREFORE THE CALCULATION OF
LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AIDED MILEAGE NOT USED TO
RENDER THE SERVICE IN QUESTION.  THE DISTRICT COURT REFUSED SO TO
INTERPRET THE FACTS AND HELD THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE CALCULATED ON
MILEAGE ACTUALLY USED.  22 F.2D 858, 859.  BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, FOUND THAT THE UNUSED AIDED MILEAGE HAD
BEEN ABANDONED.  30 F.2D 655.  AND UPON THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE
STIPULATED FACTS, IT SAID (P. 659):  "IT THUS APPEARS THAT, EXCEPT BY
THIS LATTER ROUTE, (I.E. VIA UNAIDED STRETCHES BETWEEN LITTLE FALLS AND
STAPLES, AND BETWEEN PALMER JUNCTION AND AUBURN) THROUGH CARRIAGE BY
THE NORTHERN PACIFIC (FROM ST. PAUL) TO THE ENTIRE PACIFIC COAST IS
ABANDONED."  THE FACTS CLEARLY DISTINGUISH THAT CASE FROM THE ONE NOW
UNDER CONSIDERATION.  IT IS HERE IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE JUDGMENT RESTS
ON A CORRECT OR ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION ON WHICH
THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE AIDED STRETCHES
WERE EXCLUDED BY THE COMPANY BECAUSE NOT USED AND WERE INCLUDED BY THE
GOVERNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT HAVING BEEN ABANDONED, THEY SHOULD BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE ROUTE USED. 

10.  RULING OF JUNE 23, 1931 BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL IN A
MISSOURI PACIFIC CASE, 10 COMP. GEN. 552.  SEE DIAGRAM 10.  THE COMPANY
CONSTRUCTED AN UNAIDED CUT-OFF BETWEEN JEDBURG JUNCTION AND EUREKA
JUNCTION, INTERMEDIATE POINTS ON ITS LAND-AIDED LINE BETWEEN ST. LOUIS
AND PACIFIC.  THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM VIA THE CUT-OFF IS 2.99 MILES. 
OVER THE OLD LAND-AIDED LINE VIA GLENCOE, IT IS 4.93 MILES.  THAT TRACK
WAS STILL IN USE FOR SOME LOCAL TRAINS.  AT ANOTHER PLACE ON ITS LINE,
WITHIN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, THE COMPANY SUBSTITUTED 0.68 OF A MILE OF
NONAIDED LINE FOR A LONGER ONE WHICH IS AIDED.  THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
HELD THAT THE AIDED MILEAGE NOT USED SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE CUT
OFF MILEAGE USED.  HE SAID:  "IT WOULD SEEM TO BE TOO CLEAR FOR SERIOUS
ARGUMENT THAT OF THE DISTANCES SHOWN AFTER THE CUT-OFF  ...  BETWEEN
EUREKA AND JEDBURG AND THE 0.68 MILES FROM UNION STATION CONNECTION TO
THE UNION STATION, OR A TOTAL OF 3.67 MILES IS NOT OVER THE LAND-GRANT
LINE, BUT IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THE NEW MILEAGE OF 3.67 MILES WAS
SUBSTITUTED FOR MILEAGE OVER THE ORIGINAL LINE FOR WHICH GRANTS OF
PUBLIC LANDS WERE MADE." 

    DIAGRAM 10. 

                HATCHED LINES SHOW LAND-AIDED MILEAGE. 

                            (FORM OMITTED) 

IT REQUIRES IMAGINATION TO DISCOVER IN THAT CASE ANYTHING IN
PRINCIPLE OR IN FACT THAT WILL SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE
COURT OF CLAIMS IN THE CASE AT BAR. 

11.  RULING OF JANUARY 16, 1936 BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, 15
COMP. GEN. 614.  IT HAS NO BEARING UPON THE CASE AT BAR.  THE QUESTION
WAS WHETHER, IN COMPUTING PERCENTAGE OF LAND GRANT DEDUCTION, THE LINE
OF THE SPOKANE, PORTLAND & SEATTLE RAILWAY BETWEEN PASCO AND PORTLAND
(SEE DIAGRAM 8), OWNED JOINTLY BY THE NORTHERN PACIFIC AND THE GREAT
NORTHERN, IS TO BE REGARDED AS A NORTHERN PACIFIC LINE.  THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

                                 IV. 

THERE IS APPARENT ATTEMPT TO DRAW FROM THE ACT OF 1928 SOME SUPPORT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ON WHICH THIS COURT AFFIRMS THE JUDGMENT BELOW. 
BUT, SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE, THAT ACT DOES NOT
INDICATE ANY CONGRESSIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND-GRANT ACT OF
1866.  THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THAT MEASURE WAS TO SUBSTITUTE 50 PER CENT
DEDUCTION IN PLACE OF FREE TRANSPORTATION; IT WAS PASSED IN ORDER TO
RELIEVE THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC OF A BURDEN TO WHICH OTHER AIDED RAILROADS
WERE NOT SUBJECT.  WHEN IT WAS ENACTED, MAY 23, 1928, ONLY EIGHT OF THE
RULINGS ABOVE REFERRED TO HAD BEEN MADE; TWO RELATED TO BONDAID
CONTRACTS AND ARE NOT IN POINT; TWO WERE IN FAVOR OF THE RAILROADS AND
DO NOT SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT IN THIS CASE.  AND, AS ABOVE SHOWN, NONE
GIVES ANY SUPPORT TO THE EXPANSION OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT THAT IS
HERE MADE.  THE 1928 ACT WAS PASSED WHILE THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT IN THE NORTHERN PACIFIC CASE REMAINED UNREVERSED.  22 F.2D
858(1927).  THAT CASE WAS NOT DECIDED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
UNTIL 1929, 30 F.2D 655.  IF THE ACT COULD BE DEEMED TO BE A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAND-GRANT - AS PLAINLY IT MAY NOT - IT WOULD HAVE
TO BE READ AS APPROVING THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, FOR THAT
WAS THE ONLY JUDICIAL DECISION IN THAT FIELD. 

                                  V. 

THE LAND-GRANT LINE HAS BEEN KEPT IN USE.  THE CONTRACT IS THAT,
WHERE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION IS WHOLLY OVER THAT LINE, DEDUCTION OF
50 PER CENT SHALL BE MADE AND THAT, WHERE IT IS PARTLY OVER THAT LINE,
THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED THE PERCENTAGE THAT AIDED MILEAGE USED IS OF
TOTAL HAUL.  BUT THIS COURT HOLDS THAT, EVEN IF THE GOVERNMENT ELECTS
TO HAVE ITS FREIGHT MOVE OVER A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT UNAIDED RAILROAD,
THE PLAINTIFF IS BOUND TO APPLY THE PERCENTAGES APPLICABLE TO CHARGES
FOR TRANSPORTATION OVER THE AIDED LINE.  THUS THE DECISION IMPLIES A
FORMULA OR RULE TO THE EFFECT THAT A LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION ONCE FOUND
APPLICABLE TO CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION OVER A ROUTE MADE UP OF AIDED
AND UNAIDED MILEAGE BETWEEN TWO POINTS IS TO BE APPLIED TO ALL
SUBSEQUENT GOVERNMENT SHIPMENTS BETWEEN THOSE POINTS, EVEN IF THE ROUTE
ACTUALLY USED INCLUDES NO AIDED MILEAGE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS
CONTRACT OR IN ANY OF THE RAILROAD LAND-GRANT ACTS, EITHER AS WRITTEN
OR AS HITHERTO CONSTRUED, TO WARRANT THAT CONSTRUCTION. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  LAKE SUPERIOR & M.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 93 U.S. 442.  UNION
PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 104 U.S. 662, 664.  UNITED STATES V.
CENTRAL PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U.S. 235, 238.  BURKE V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
R. CO., 234 U.S. 669, 680.  UNITED STATES V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO.,
256 U.S. 51, 64.  UNITED STATES V. GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO., 279
U.S. 401. 

FN2  "AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, THAT THE GRANTS AFORESAID ARE MADE
UPON THE CONDITION THAT THE SAID COMPANIES SHALL KEEP SAID RAILROAD
...  IN REPAIR AND USE, AND SHALL AT ALL TIMES TRANSPORT THE MAILS UPON
SAID RAILROAD  ...  FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHEN
REQUIRED SO TO DO BY ANY DEPARTMENT THEREOF, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SHALL AT ALL TIMES HAVE THE PREFERENCE IN THE USE OF SAID RAILROAD  ...
THEREFOR AT FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES OF COMPENSATION, NOT TO EXCEED
THE RATES PAID BY PRIVATE PARTIES FOR THE SAME KIND OF SERVICE.  AND
SAID RAILROAD SHALL BE AND REMAIN A PUBLIC HIGHWAY FOR THE USE OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, FREE OF ALL TOLL OR OTHER CHARGES UPON
THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE PROPERTY OR TROOPS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND
THE SAME SHALL BE TRANSPORTED OVER SAID ROAD AT THE COST, CHARGE, AND
EXPENSE OF THE CORPORATIONS OR COMPANIES OWNING OR OPERATING THE SAME,
WHEN SO REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  14 STAT.
239, 240-241. 

FN3  "AN ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF THE LAND-GRANT RAILROAD OPERATED
BETWEEN THE STATION FORMERLY KNOWN AS EAST PORTLAND, IN  ...  OREGON,
AND ROSEVILLE, IN  ...  CALIFORNIA.  BE IT ENACTED  ... THAT THE LAND
GRANT RAILROAD HERETOFORE OPERATED, AND NOW BEING OPERATED, BETWEEN THE
STATION FORMERLY KNOWN AS EAST PORTLAND, IN  ...  OREGON, AND
ROSEVILLE, IN  ...  CALIFORNIA, SHALL HEREAFTER RECEIVE COMPENSATION
FOR TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY AND TROOPS OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE
SAME RATE AS IS PAID TO LAND-GRANT RAILROADS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAND
GRANT ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, AND THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1866(CHAPTER
278)(PURSUANT TO WHICH SUCH RAILROADS TRANSPORT GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AT
A CHARGE OF 50 PER CENT OF THE REGULAR TARIFFS):  PROVIDED, THAT THE
CONGRESS HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME BY LAW TO PRESCRIBE SUCH
CHARGES AS IT DEEMS ADVISABLE FOR SUCH GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION." 

FN4  THE FIRST SENTENCE READS:  "THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE GOVERNMENT'S DEMAND THAT ITS SECURITY FOR
REPAYMENT OF MONEY ADVANCED IN AID OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL
LINE BE NOT IMPAIRED OR WHITTLED AWAY BY A DUPLICATING OF THE LINE." 

FN5  SEE M.E. BLATT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 267, 277.  STONE
V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 380, 383.  CROCKER V. UNITED STATES, 240
U.S. 74, 78.  BROTHERS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 88, 93.  UNITED
STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S. 102, 120.  UNITED STATES V. ESNAULT-PELTERIE,
299 U.S. 201, 206.  AND SEE AMERICAN PROPELLER CO. V. UNITED STATES,
300 U.S. 475, 479-480. 

FN6  THE FOOTNOTE READS:  "(1888) 3 DIG.  DEC.2D COMP. 299.  FOLLOWED
IN (1899) V DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 364; (1911) XVII DEC. OF COMP. OF
TREAS. 633; (1914) XXI DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 238; (1917) XXIV DEC. OF
COMP. OF TREAS. 193; (1923) 3 DEC. OF COMP. GEN. 267; (1931) 10 DEC. OF
COMP. GEN. 552; (1936) 15 DEC. OF COMP. GEN. 614.  BUT SEE (1900) VII
DEC. OF COMP OF TREAS. 224; (1902) VIII DEC. OF COMP. OF TREAS. 474." 

FN7  AND THEN, THE DECISION QUOTES A PASSAGE FROM A MESSAGE OF
PRESIDENT CLEVELAND, THEN VERY RECENTLY SENT TO CONGRESS WITH THE
REPORT OF THREE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE THE AFFAIRS OF
RAILROAD COMPANIES THAT HAD RECEIVED GOVERNMENT AID, DECLARING THAT THE
ACTS WERE PASSED UPON THE THEORY THAT THE ROADS SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED
"ACCORDING TO THE COMMON RULES OF BUSINESS, FAIRNESS, AND DUTY, AND
THAT THEIR ABILITY TO PAY THEIR DEBTS SHOULD NOT BE IMPAIRED BY UNFAIR
MANIPULATIONS." 

FN8  ITALICS IN QUOTATIONS ARE ADDED. 

FN9  UNDER OUR DECISIONS, THE CONTRACT EXTENDED ONLY TO THE AIDED
RAILROAD.  UNITED STATES V. KANSAS PACIFIC RY. CO., 99 U.S. 455. 
UNITED STATES V. CENTRAL PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U.S. 235.  AS ROUTE 2 HAD
NO AIDED MILEAGE AND ROUTE 3 ONLY 63 OF ITS 151 MILES, THE COMPTROLLER
ERRED IN TREATING THE LINES CONSTITUTING THE THREE ROUTES AS A SINGLE
RAILROAD. 

FN10  BETWEEN MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL THE NORTHERN PACIFIC USES,
UNDER AN OPERATING CONTRACT, 8.23 MILES OF LAND-AIDED ROAD BELONGING TO
ANOTHER COMPANY.  THAT STRETCH WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

..END :









UNITED STATES V. ONE FORD COACH, 307 U.S. 219 


NO. 10.  REARGUED MAY 1, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1939.  - 93 F.2D 771,
19 F.SUPP.  470, AFFIRMED.  - 99 F.2D 498, 22 F.SUPP.  507, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON THE FACTS, HELD THAT CLAIMANTS FOR REMISSION OF FORFEITURES
OF AUTOMOBILES SEIZED FOR UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION OF TAX UNPAID
LIQUORS, HAD COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY SEC. 204(B) OF THE
LIQUOR LAW REPEAL AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1935, AND THAT THE
COURTS BELOW PROPERLY REMITTED THE FORFEITURES.  PP. 224 ET SEQ. 

2.  A CLAIMANT (AUTOMOBILE FINANCE COMPANY) WHO IN GOOD FAITH
PURCHASED FROM A DEALER A CONDITIONAL SALE CONTRACT COVERING THE SALE
OF AN AUTOMOBILE; WHO BELIEVED THAT THE VENDEE NAMED THEREIN WAS THE
REAL PURCHASER AND OWNER OF THE AUTOMOBILE; AND WHO HAD NO KNOWLEDGE,
INFORMATION OR SUSPICION OF FACTS TO THE CONTRARY UNTIL THE CAR WAS
LATER SEIZED FOR VIOLATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS,  - HAD AN "INTEREST IN
SUCH VEHICLE  ...  ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH," WITHIN SEC. 204(B)(1) OF
THE LIQUOR LAW REPEAL AND ENFORCEMENT ACT.  P. 224. 

3.  WHERE SUCH CLAIMANT, BEFORE ACQUIRING SUCH SALE CONTRACT,
INVESTIGATED THE PERSON NAMED THEREIN AS PURCHASER AND FOUND THAT HE
HAD NO RECORD OR REPUTATION FOR VIOLATION OF LIQUOR LAWS; AND BELIEVED
THAT SUCH PERSON WAS THE REAL PURCHASER; AND HAD NO KNOWLEDGE,
INFORMATION, OR SUSPICION THAT HE WAS MERELY A "STRAW" PURCHASER - THIS
WAS A SUFFICIENT SHOWING UNDER SEC. 204(B)(2) THAT THE CLAIMANT HAD NO
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE CAR WOULD BE USED IN VIOLATION OF LIQUOR
LAWS.  THE CONTENTION THAT, SINCE CLAIMANT KNEW THAT AUTOMOBILES WERE
FREQUENTLY USED FOR VIOLATION OF LIQUOR LAWS, HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT THE CAR IN QUESTION WOULD BE SO USED, IS REJECTED.  P. 224. 

4.  SUBSECTION (B)(3) OF SEC. 204 OF THE LIQUOR LAW REPEAL AND
ENFORCEMENT ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE, AS A CONDITION TO REMISSION OF
FORFEITURE BY THE COURT, THAT THE CLAIMANT SHALL HAVE INVESTIGATED, AT
HIS PERIL, EVERY PERSON WITH RECORD OR REPUTATION FOR VIOLATING THE
LIQUOR LAWS WHO IN FACT, ALTHOUGH WHOLLY UNSUSPECTED, HAD ACQUIRED SOME
RIGHT TO THE VEHICLE.  THE SUBSECTION WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT REMISSION
TO A CLAIMANT WHO HAD FAILED TO MAKE INQUIRY WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE DONE
SO, TO ONE CHARGEABLE WITH WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE OR PURPOSE OF FRAUD.  P.
235. 

5.  FORFEITURES ARE NOT FAVORED; THEY SHOULD BE ENFORCED ONLY WHEN
WITHIN BOTH THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.  P. 226. 

UNITED STATES V. ONE 1936 MODEL FORD V-8 DELUXE COACH, COMMERCIAL
CREDIT COMPANY, CLAIMANT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 627, UNITED STATES V. AUTOMOBILE FINANCING, INC.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1939. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 633; 306 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCES OF
JUDGMENTS IN TWO CASES IN WHICH THE DISTRICT COURTS ORDERED REMISSION
OF FORFEITURES UNDER THE LIQUOR LAW REPEAL AND ENFORCEMENT ACT.  IN NO.
10, THE JUDGMENT BELOW WAS PREVIOUSLY AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY
DIVIDED COURT, 305 U.S. 564; A REHEARING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED, 305
U.S. 666.  NO. 627 WAS ASSIGNED FOR ARGUMENT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE
REARGUMENT IN NO. 10. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN EACH OF THESE CAUSES THE DISTRICT COURT, PROCEEDING UNDER THE
"LIQUOR LAW REPEAL AND ENFORCEMENT ACT" OF AUGUST 27, 1935(C. 740, 49
STAT. 872, 878, TITLE 27 U.S.C. SEC. 40(A), MITIGATED THE FORFEITURE OF
AN AUTOMOBILE SEIZED FOR UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION OF DISTILLED SPIRITS
UPON WHICH THE FEDERAL TAX HAD NOT BEEN PAID.  (ONE WAS SEIZED DECEMBER
3, 1936; THE OTHER, MARCH 15, 1937.)  THE FORFEITURE WAS DECREED IN A
PROCEEDING BASED UPON SEC. 3450 R.S. (TITLE 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1441).  THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS RIGHTLY APPROVED AND THEIR JUDGMENTS MUST BE
AFFIRMED. 

THE FACTS, UNDISPUTED, ARE ESSENTIALLY ALIKE IN BOTH CAUSES.  THE
POINTS OF LAW ARE THE SAME.  A STATEMENT BASED ON RECORD NO. 10 WILL
SUFFICE. 

THE REPEAL ENFORCEMENT ACT PROVIDES - 

"SEC. 204.  (A)  WHENEVER, IN ANY PROCEEDING IN COURT FOR THE
FORFEITURE, UNDER THE INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS, OF ANY VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT
SEIZED FOR A VIOLATION OF THE INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS RELATING TO LIQUORS
SUCH FORFEITURE IS DECREED, THE COURT SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
TO REMIT OR MITIGATE THE FORFEITURE. 

"(B)  IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDING THE COURT SHALL NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF
ANY CLAIMANT FOR REMISSION OR MITIGATION UNLESS AND UNTIL HE PROVES (1)
THAT HE HAS AN INTEREST IN SUCH VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT, AS OWNER OR
OTHERWISE, WHICH HE ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH, (2) THAT HE HAD AT NO TIME
ANY KNOWLEDGE OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS BEING OR WOULD BE USED
IN THE VIOLATION OF LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE RELATING
TO LIQUOR, AND (3) IF IT APPEARS THAT THE INTEREST ASSERTED BY THE
CLAIMANT ARISES OUT OF OR IS IN ANY WAY SUBJECT TO ANY CONTRACT OR
AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH ANY PERSON HAVING A RECORD OR REPUTATION FOR
VIOLATING LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE RELATING TO LIQUOR
HAS A RIGHT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT, THAT, BEFORE SUCH
CLAIMANT ACQUIRED HIS INTEREST, OR SUCH OTHER PERSON ACQUIRED HIS RIGHT
UNDER SUCH CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, WHICH EVER OCCURRED LATER, THE
CLAIMANT, HIS OFFICER OR AGENT, WAS INFORMED IN ANSWER TO HIS INQUIRY,
AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE SHERIFF, CHIEF OF POLICE, PRINCIPAL FEDERAL
INTERNAL-REVENUE OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUOR LAWS,
OR OTHER PRINCIPAL LOCAL OR FEDERAL LAWENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE
LOCALITY IN WHICH SUCH OTHER PERSON ACQUIRED HIS RIGHT UNDER SUCH
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, OF THE LOCALITY IN WHICH SUCH OTHER PERSON THEN
RESIDED, AND OF EACH LOCALITY IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT HAS MADE ANY OTHER
INQUIRY AS TO THE CHARACTER OR FINANCIAL STANDING OF SUCH OTHER PERSON,
THAT SUCH OTHER PERSON HAD NO SUCH RECORD OR REPUTATION." 

THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS BY THE DISTRICT COURT, IT IS AGREED, CORRECTLY
SET OUT "THE FACTS IN THIS CASE" - 

THE FORD AUTOMOBILE IN QUESTION WAS SOLD BY THE GREENVILLE AUTO
SALES, INCORPORATED (THE DEALER) OCTOBER 3, 1936, THROUGH ITS AGENT,
ELROD, TO GUY WALKER, WHO IN PART PAYMENT EXCHANGED AN OLD CAR PAID FOR
BY HIM, BUT REGISTERED IN HIS WIFE'S NAME.  HE WAS GIVEN TERMS FOR
PAYMENT UNDER A CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT, DRAWN BY AN AGENT OF THE
DEALER, IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHER, PAUL WALKER, WHO FORMALLY EXECUTED
THE AGREEMENT.  GUY WALKER HAD THE CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT DRAWN AND
EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHER IN ORDER TO PLACE THE TITLE "WHERE
HIS WIFE COULD NOT REACH IT."  PAUL WALKER HAD NO INTEREST IN THE
TRANSACTION EXCEPT TO COMPLY WITH HIS BROTHER'S REQUEST.  GUY WALKER
MADE THE TRANSACTION WITH THE DEALER.  HE SELECTED THE CAR, MADE THE
AGREEMENT AND HANDLED THE TRANSACTION HIMSELF.  PAUL WALKER DROVE THE
CAR FROM THE DEALER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS.  GUY WALKER AT THE TIME, AND
FOR TWO OR THREE WEEKS AFTER THE PURCHASE, WAS LIVING AT HIS BROTHER'S
HOUSE.  ONLY ONE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON THE CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT
BEFORE THE SEIZURE, AND THAT BY GUY WALKER TO THE DEALER. 

IT WAS ADMITTED THAT GUY WALKER HAD A PREVIOUS RECORD AND REPUTATION
FOR VIOLATING BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO LIQUOR.  PAUL
WALKER WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT IN 1929,
AND WAS DULY SENTENCED THEREFOR, BUT HIS RECORD AND REPUTATION SINCE
SERVING THE SENTENCE WERE GOOD. 

ON THE DATE WHEN THE SALE WAS CONSUMMATED THE DEALER SUBMITTED THE
CONTRACT TO THE COMMERCIAL CREDIT COMPANY, THE CLAIMANT HERE, WHO
ACCEPTED BY TELEPHONE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY ON OCTOBER 5TH, IN THE USUAL
COURSE OF BUSINESS THE DEALER ASSIGNED THE CONTRACT TO THE CLAIMANT AND
RECEIVED A CHECK THEREFOR. 

THE CLAIMANT BEFORE ACCEPTING ASSIGNMENT OF THE SALES CONTRACT MADE
AN INVESTIGATION OF PAUL WALKER BY INQUIRING AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE
SHERIFF OF GREENVILLE COUNTY, AND AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE CHIEF OF
POLICE OF GREENVILLE, THE COUNTY AND CITY WHERE THE INTEREST WAS
ACQUIRED AND THE LOCALITY WHERE PAUL WALKER RESIDED, AS TO HIS RECORD
AND REPUTATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE LIQUOR LAW.  INFORMATION WAS
RECEIVED FROM THESE OFFICES THAT HE HAD NO SUCH RECORD OR REPUTATION. 
INFORMATION WAS GIVEN, HOWEVER, FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE THAT GUY
WALKER HAD BOTH RECORD AND REPUTATION AS VIOLATOR OF STATE AND FEDERAL
LAWS RELATING TO LIQUOR.  NO INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WAS MADE AT THE
HEADQUARTERS OF THE PRINCIPAL FEDERAL INTERNAL-REVENUE OFFICER ENGAGED
IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIQUOR LAWS IN THAT LOCALITY, OR AT THE
HEADQUARTERS OF ANY OTHER PRINCIPAL LOCAL OR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER OF THE LOCALITY AS TO PAUL WALKER, AND NO INQUIRY OR
INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER WAS MADE OF GUY WALKER, THE ADMITTED REAL
OWNER AND PURCHASER OF THE AUTOMOBILE. 

THE CLAIMANT HAD PAUL WALKER INVESTIGATED IN AUGUST, 1936, BY THE
BUSINESS SERVICE BUREAU OF GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PURCHASE OF A REFRIGERATOR.  NO INVESTIGATION AT THAT TIME WAS
MADE AS TO HIS REPUTATION OR RECORD FOR VIOLATING THE LIQUOR LAWS; THE
INVESTIGATION DID DISCLOSE THAT HE HAD A GOOD REPUTATION IN THE
COMMUNITY WHERE HE LIVED, AND THIS WAS THE REPUTATION GIVEN HIM BY HIS
EMPLOYER AT THAT TIME. 

THE CLAIMANT PURCHASED THE CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT IN GOOD FAITH,
BELIEVING THAT PAUL WALKER WAS THE PURCHASER AND OWNER OF THE
AUTOMOBILE.  IT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION OR SUSPICION OF THE TRUE
FACTS UNTIL AFTER THE AUTOMOBILE HAD BEEN SEIZED BY FEDERAL OFFICERS. 

PETITIONER CHALLENGES THE JUDGMENT BELOW BECAUSE OF CLAIMANT'S
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY SUB
IT HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THE AUTOMOBILE WAS BEING USED OR WOULD BE
USED TO VIOLATE THE LIQUOR LAWS; ALSO BECAUSE IT MADE NO ADEQUATE
INQUIRY CONCERNING THE RECORD AND REPUTATION OF THE REAL PURCHASER -
GUY WALKER. 

RESPONDENT'S INTEREST IN THE AUTOMOBILE IS NOT QUESTIONED.  IT
"PURCHASED THE CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACT IN GOOD FAITH, BELIEVING THAT
PAUL WALKER WAS THE PURCHASER AND OWNER OF THE AUTOMOBILE.  IT HAD NO
KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION OR SUSPICION OF THE TRUE FACTS UNTIL AFTER THE
AUTOMOBILE HAD BEEN SEIZED."  THIS IS ENOUGH TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH
SUB-SECTION (B)(1).  THERE WAS AN INTEREST ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH. 

AFTER INVESTIGATION OF THE RECORD AND REPUTATION OF PAUL WALKER,
FOLLOWED BY FAVORABLE REPORTS, AND BELIEVING HIM TO BE PURCHASER AND
OWNER OF THE AUTOMOBILE, CLAIMANT IN GOOD FAITH ACQUIRED THE SALES
CONTRACT.  IT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION OR SUSPICION THAT PAUL
WALKER WAS ONLY A "STRAW" PURCHASER.  THIS IS ENOUGH TO SHOW COMPLIANCE
WITH SUB-SECTION (B)(2).  THE SUGGESTION THAT SINCE RESPONDENT KNEW
AUTOMOBILES WERE FREQUENTLY USED FOR VIOLATION OF LIQUOR LAWS IT
THEREFORE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ONE IN QUESTION WOULD BE SO
USED IS NOT WELL FOUNDED.  THE FINDINGS POSITIVELY AFFIRM THAT IT
ENTERTAINED NO SUCH BELIEF OR SUSPICION. 

THE DIFFICULT PHRASING OF SUB-SECTION (B)(3) HAS PRODUCED DIVERGENT
VIEWS CONCERNING ITS MEANING. 

IN FEDERAL MOTOR FINANCE V. UNITED STATES, 88 F.2D 90, 93, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH CIRCUIT SAID - 

"WE THINK THE FAIR INTENDMENT OF THE LANGUAGE OF SUBSECTION (3)
CONCERNING REMISSION OF FORFEITURE IS THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT RELY
ENTIRELY UPON A COURSE OF BUSINESS WHEREBY IT ACQUIRED AN INTEREST IN
THE CAR SO NEARLY APPROXIMATING THE TOTAL VALUE THEREOF WITHOUT TAKING
CARE TO ASCERTAIN WHO THE REAL OWNER WAS IN POSSESSION OF AND USING THE
CAR." 

IN THE CAUSES NOW BEFORE US (93 F.2D 771, 773; 99 F.2D 498, 500), THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ACCEPTED THE VIEW THAT - 

"THE INVOLVED LANGUAGE OF SUBSECTION (B)(3) OF THE ACT DOES PERMIT
THE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION THAT THE LIENOR IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF
MAKING INQUIRY AS TO EVERY ONE, BEARING A BAD REPUTATION OR RECORD, WHO
MAY HAVE A RIGHT UNDER THE CONTRACT OF SALE, WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARS
ON THE FACE OF THE INSTRUMENT.  SEE FEDERAL MOTOR FINANCE V. UNITED
STATES, 8 CIR., 88 F.2D 90.  BUT IN OUR VIEW CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO
IMPOSE UPON THE LIENOR THE OBLIGATION TO ASCERTAIN AT HIS PERIL THE
IDENTITY OF EVERY PERSON HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND TO MAKE
INQUIRY OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AS TO THE PREVIOUS RECORD AND
REPUTATION OF EVERY SUCH PERSON, UNLESS FROM THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES
OR OTHER SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES THE LIENOR POSSESSES INFORMATION
WHICH WOULD LEAD A REASONABLY PRUDENT AND LAW-ABIDING PERSON TO MAKE A
FURTHER INVESTIGATION." 

SEE ALSO C.I.T. CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES, (FOURTH CIRCUIT) 86
F.2D 311, AND UNITED STATES V. C.I.T. CORPORATION, (SECOND CIRCUIT) 93
F.2D 469. 

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER NOW MAINTAIN:  "THAT UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE ((B)(3)) THE CLAIMANT IS REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE THE REAL
PURCHASER AT ITS PERIL AND THAT IF IT FAILS TO DO SO, AS BETWEEN IT AND
THE GOVERNMENT, THE CLAIMANT ASSUMES THE RISK OF FRAUD PERPETRATED UPON
IT BY THE DEALER AND THE BOOTLEGGER.  IN ANY EVENT, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT IT AT LEAST MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO
ASCERTAIN WHO THE REAL PURCHASER AND USER OF THE CAR WAS SO THAT HE
COULD BE INVESTIGATED AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE." 

MANIFESTLY, SEC. 204 IS A REMEDIAL MEASURE.  IT EMPOWERS THE COURTS,
EXERCISING SOUND DISCRETION, TO AFFORD RELIEF TO INNOCENT PARTIES
HAVING INTERESTS IN CONDEMNED PROPERTY WHERE THE CLAIM IS REASONABLE
AND JUST.  ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE IS NOT TO PROTECT THE REVENUES; BUT THIS
IS PROPER MATTER FOR CONSIDERATION WHENEVER REMISSION IS SOUGHT.  THE
POINT TO BE SOUGHT IS THE INTENT OF THE LAWMAKING POWERS.  FORFEITURES
ARE NOT FAVORED; THEY SHOULD BE ENFORCED ONLY WHEN WITHIN BOTH LETTER
AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW.  FARMERS' & M. NATIONAL BANK V. DEARING, 91 U.S.
29, 33-35.  IF ANY CLAIMANT HAS BEEN NEGLIGENT OR IN GOOD CONSCIENCE
OUGHT NOT BE RELIEVED, THE COURT SHOULD DENY HIS APPLICATION. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO REMISSIONS
PRIOR TO SEC. 204 AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS ADOPTION WILL ENLIGHTEN
THE PURPOSE ENTERTAINED BY CONGRESS. 

1620-1621) - DERIVED FROM ACTS JUNE 30, 1864 AND JULY 13, 1866 -
PROVIDE THAT WHENEVER ANY COMMODITY IN RESPECT OF WHICH A TAX IS
IMPOSED, IS REMOVED WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES, IT SHALL
BE FORFEITED "AND EVERY VESSEL, BOAT, CART, CARRIAGE, OR OTHER
CONVEYANCE WHATSOEVER, AND ALL HORSES OR OTHER ANIMALS, AND ALL THINGS
USED IN THE REMOVAL OR FOR THE DEPOSIT OR CONCEALMENT THEREOF,
RESPECTIVELY, SHALL BE FORFEITED."  "THE PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE SUCH
FORFEITURES SHALL BE IN THE NATURE OF A PROCEEDING IN REM IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OR DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
WHERE SUCH SEIZURE IS MADE."  FN1 

JULY 13, 1866 AND JUNE 6, 1872 - PROVIDE THAT WHEN GOODS, WARES, OR
MERCHANDISE SEIZED AS SUBJECTS OF FORFEITURE, DO NOT EXCEED $500 IN
VALUE, THEY MAY BE RESTORED TO THE CLAIMANT UPON THE EXECUTION OF A
BOND AND THIS SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR PROPER
PROCEEDINGS; IF NO BOND, THE ARTICLES SHALL BE SOLD AND THE PROCEEDS
PAID INTO THE TREASURY.  WITHIN A YEAR ANY CLAIMANT MAY APPLY TO THE
SECRETARY FOR REMISSION WHICH MAY BE GRANTED "UPON SATISFACTORY PROOF,
TO BE FURNISHED IN SUCH MANNER AS HE SHALL PRESCRIBE:  PROVIDED, THAT
IT SHALL BE SATISFACTORILY SHOWN  ...  THAT THE SAID FORFEITURE WAS
INCURRED WITHOUT WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE OR ANY INTENTION OF FRAUD ON THE
PART OF THE OWNER OF SAID PROPERTY."  FN2    WHERE THE VALUE EXCEEDS
$500 OR BOND IS GIVEN, FORFEITURE MUST BE SOUGHT IN COURT THROUGH A
LIBEL IN REM.  UNITED STATES V. TWO BAY MULES, ETC., 36 F. 84; UNITED
STATES V. MINCEY, 254 F. 287; LOGAN V. UNITED STATES, 260 F. 746;
UNITED STATES V. ONE BAY HORSE, 270 F. 590. 

15 STAT. 125, 166; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1661) PROVIDES - 

"THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, MAY COMPROMISE ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
CASE ARISING UNDER THE INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS INSTEAD OF COMMENCING SUIT
THEREON; AND, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SAID SECRETARY AND THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, HE MAY COMPROMISE ANY SUCH CASE
AFTER A SUIT THEREON HAS BEEN COMMENCED.  WHENEVER A COMPROMISE IS MADE
IN ANY CASE THERE SHALL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER THE OPINION OF THE SOLICITOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, OR OF
THE OFFICER ACTING AS SUCH, WITH HIS REASONS THEREFOR, WITH A STATEMENT
OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX ASSESSED, THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TAX OR PENALTY
IMPOSED BY LAW IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE NEGLECT OR DELINQUENCY OF THE
PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE TAX IS ASSESSED, AND THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE COMPROMISE." 

(AMENDED, ACTS FEBRUARY 26, 1926, C. 27, SEC. 1201, 44 STAT. 9, 126;
MAY 10, 1934, C. 277, SEC. 512(B), 48 STAT. 680, 759; MAY 28, 1938, C.
289, SEC. 815, 52 STAT. 447, 578.) 

WILSON MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, (NINTH CIRCUIT) 84 F.2D 630, 632,
STATES - "THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF ADVISES THAT PRIOR TO THE ACT OF
AUGUST 27, 1935, THE PROCEDURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO AFFORD RELIEF TO
THESE INNOCENT OWNERS WAS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPROMISE POWERS
GIVEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE TREASURY UNDER SECTION 1661, 26
U.S.C.A." 

IN CONNECTION WITH THE SECTIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE THE U.S.C.
ANNOTATED POINTS TO THEIR ORIGIN AND HISTORY. 

THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT (OCTOBER 28, 1919, C. 85, TITLE II, SEC.
26, 41 STAT. 305, 315, TITLE 27 U.S.C. SEC. 40) PROVIDED THAT "WHENEVER
INTOXICATING LIQUORS TRANSPORTED OR POSSESSED ILLEGALLY SHALL BE SEIZED
BY AN OFFICER HE SHALL TAKE POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE AND TEAM OR
AUTOMOBILE, BOAT, AIR OR WATER CRAFT, OR ANY OTHER CONVEYANCE, AND
SHALL ARREST ANY PERSON IN CHARGE THEREOF."  THE PERSON ARRESTED SHALL
BE PROCEEDED AGAINST BUT THE VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE SHALL BE RETURNED
UPON EXECUTION OF A BOND.  UPON HIS CONVICTION THE COURT SHALL ORDER
THE LIQUOR DESTROYED "AND UNLESS GOOD CAUSE TO THE CONTRARY IS SHOWN BY
THE OWNER, SHALL ORDER A SALE BY PUBLIC AUCTION OF THE PROPERTY
SEIZED."  FN3  SEE RICHBOURG MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 528. 
THIS WAS REPEALED BY THE REPEAL AND ENFORCEMENT ACT, SUPRA. 

THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1922, (C. 356, SEC. 618, 42 STAT. 858, 987)
PROVIDES - 

"WHENEVER ANY PERSON INTERESTED IN ANY VESSEL, VEHICLE, MERCHANDISE,
OR BAGGAGE SEIZED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR WHO HAS
INCURRED, OR IS ALLEGED TO HAVE INCURRED, ANY FINE OR PENALTY
THEREUNDER, FILES WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IF UNDER THE
CUSTOMS LAWS, AND WITH THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE IF UNDER THE
NAVIGATION LAWS, BEFORE THE SALE OF SUCH VESSEL, VEHICLE, MERCHANDISE,
OR BAGGAGE A PETITION FOR THE REMISSION OR MITIGATION OF SUCH FINE,
PENALTY, OR FORFEITURE, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, OR THE SECRETARY
OF COMMERCE, IF HE FINDS THAT SUCH FINE, PENALTY, OR FORFEITURE WAS
INCURRED WITHOUT WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE OR WITHOUT ANY INTENTION ON THE
PART OF THE PETITIONER TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE OR TO VIOLATE THE LAW, OR
FINDS THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO JUSTIFY THE
REMISSION OR MITIGATION OF SUCH FINE, PENALTY, OR FORFEITURE, MAY REMIT
OR MITIGATE THE SAME UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS HE DEEMS
REASONABLE AND JUST, OR ORDER DISCONTINUANCE OF ANY PROSECUTION
RELATING THERETO." 

(REENACTED BY ACT JULY 17, 1930, C. 497, SEC. 618, 46 STAT. 590, 757;
19 U.S.C. SEC. 1618.) 

THE ACT MAY 29, 1928(C. 852, SEC. 709, 45 STAT. 791, 882, 26 U.S.C.
SEC. 1626) EXTENDED "THE PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE REMISSION
OR MITIGATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OF FORFEITURES UNDER THE
CUSTOMS LAWS  ...  TO FORFEITURES INCURRED OR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
INCURRED, BEFORE OR AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, UNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE LAWS." 

IN THE SITUATION DISCLOSED BY THE FOREGOING SUMMARY, CONGRESS CAME TO
CONSIDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1935.  THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES OF
SENATE AND HOUSE MADE REPORTS (SENATE REPORT NO. 1330, HOUSE REPORT NO.
1601, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESSION).  IN EACH THE PARAGRAPHS RELATIVE TO
SEC. 204(A) AND (B) ARE THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE.  FN4 

A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT MADE A STATEMENT TO THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.  AN EXTRACT FROM THIS APPEARS IN THE
MARGIN.  FN5 

A REARRANGEMENT OF THE WORDS OF SUB-SECTION (B)(3) WILL ENLIGHTEN ITS
MEANING - 

"THE COURT SHALL NOT ALLOW THE (REQUEST) - CLAIM - OF ANY CLAIMANT
FOR REMISSION OR MITIGATION, IF IT APPEARS THAT THE INTEREST ASSERTED
BY (HIM) - THE CLAIMANT - ARISES OUT OF OR IS IN ANY WAY SUBJECT TO ANY
CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH ANY PERSON HAVING A RECORD OR
REPUTATION FOR VIOLATING LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE
RELATING TO LIQUOR HAS A RIGHT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH VEHICLE OR
AIRCRAFT, UNLESS AND UNTIL HE (THE CLAIMANT) PROVES THAT BEFORE (HE) -
SUCH CLAIMANT - ACQUIRED HIS INTEREST, OR SUCH OTHER PERSON ACQUIRED
HIS RIGHT UNDER SUCH CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, WHICHEVER OCCURRED LATER,
(HE) - THE CLAIMANT - HIS OFFICER OR AGENT, WAS INFORMED IN ANSWER TO
HIS INQUIRY, AT (CERTAIN HEADQUARTERS SPECIFIED IN THE ALTERNATIVE) AS
TO THE CHARACTER OR FINANCIAL STANDING OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THAT SUCH
OTHER PERSON HAD NO SUCH RECORD OR REPUTATION." 

IF THE WORDS OF SEC. 204(B)(3) BE TAKEN LITERALLY, WITHOUT REGARD TO
HISTORY OR PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT, THEY INHIBIT REMISSION BY THE
COURT UNLESS ONE WHO CLAIMS AN INTEREST MADE ACTUAL INQUIRY CONCERNING
EVERY PERSON WITH RECORD OR REPUTATION FOR VIOLATING THE LIQUOR LAWS
WHO IN FACT (ALTHOUGH WHOLLY UNSUSPECTED) HAD ACQUIRED SOME RIGHT TO
THE VEHICLE.  THERE WOULD BE ABSOLUTE FORFEITURE ALTHOUGH THE CLAIMANT
ACQUIRED HIS INTEREST IN THE UTMOST GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT SUSPICION OF
ANY UNDISCLOSED INTEREST; ALTHOUGH INDEED, HE HAD DILIGENTLY BUT
UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT INFORMATION CONCERNING ALL THE FACTS FROM EVERY
PERSON CONNECTED WITH THE TRANSACTION.  THUS CONSTRUED THE PROVISION
WOULD REQUIRE ABSOLUTE FORFEITURE NOTWITHSTANDING THE CLAIMANT COULD
NOT BY THE UTMOST DILIGENCE ASCERTAIN THE TRUE SITUATION.  NO GREATER
REASON EXISTS FOR SAYING A CLAIMANT SHOULD BE RELIEVED IF HE MADE
UNSUCCESSFUL INQUIRY OF THE SELLER CONCERNING UNDISCLOSED MATTERS THAN
THERE IS FOR RELIEF WHEN HE HAD NO CAUSE TO SUSPECT THE EXISTENCE OF AN
UNDISCLOSED INTEREST - NO CAUSE TO QUESTION APPEARANCES.  A MEASURE
REQUIRING ABSOLUTE FORFEITURE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES PROBABLY WOULD
BE EXPRESSED IN LANGUAGE SUFFICIENTLY PLAIN TO ADMIT NO REASONABLE
DOUBT. 

DURING MANY YEARS INNOCENT CLAIMANTS HAD A CLEAR REMEDY EITHER BY
APPEAL TO THE DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OR BY
APPLICATION FOR COMPROMISE ADDRESSED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
TREASURY OFFICIALS (WILSON MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA); OR UNDER
THE PROHIBITION ACT, TO THE COURT (RICHBOURG MOTOR CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA).  THIS SITUATION WAS CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TREASURY.  HE ALSO
POINTED OUT THAT BEFORE RESTORING A CAR THE SECRETARY REQUIRED THAT THE
CLAIMANT "MUST PROVE THAT HE MADE AN INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
THE PURCHASER HAD A BOOTLEGGER RECORD AND FOUND THAT HE HAD NONE."  THE
SECRETARY "CONSIDERS THAT THE BOOTLEG HAZARD IS AN ELEMENT INVOLVED IN
THE CREDIT RISK, AND IS JUST AS MUCH A PART OF THE INVESTIGATION BY THE
FINANCE COMPANY OF A PERSON AS A CREDIT RISK AS IS HIS FINANCIAL
STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY."  THE COMMITTEE REPORTED IN RESPECT OF
204(B)(3) - "THIS LAST REQUIREMENT IS PREDICATED UPON THE RECOGNITION
OF THE 'BOOTLEG HAZARD' AS AN ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED IN INVESTIGATING
A PERSON AS A CREDIT RISK." 

THESE FACTS INDICATE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED A REASONABLE INQUIRY
CONCERNING THE BOOTLEG RISK SHOULD BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
INVESTIGATION OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.  THEY NEGATIVE THE NOTION
THAT A WHOLLY INNOCENT CLAIMANT AT HIS PERIL MUST SHOW INQUIRY
CONCERNING SOMETHING UNKNOWN AND OF WHICH HE HAD NO SUSPICION.  DEALERS
DO NOT INVESTIGATE WHAT THEY HAVE NO CAUSE TO SUSPECT. 

THE FORFEITURE ACTS ARE EXCEEDINGLY DRASTIC.  THEY WERE INTENDED FOR
PROTECTION OF THE REVENUES, NOT TO PUNISH WITHOUT FAULT.  IT WOULD
REQUIRE UNCLOUDED LANGUAGE TO COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS
ABANDONED THE EQUITABLE POLICY, OBSERVED FOR A VERY LONG TIME, OF
RELIEVING THOSE WHO ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE, AND
ADOPTED AN OPPRESSIVE AMENDMENT NOT DEMANDED BY THE TAX OFFICIALS OR
POINTED OUT IN THE REPORTS OF ITS COMMITTEES. 

SUB-SECTION (B)(3) WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT REMISSION TO A CLAIMANT
WHO HAD FAILED TO INQUIRE WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE DONE SO, TO ONE
CHARGEABLE WITH WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE OR PURPOSE OF FRAUD.  IT WOULD BE
EXCESSIVELY HARSH, UNREASONABLE INDEED, TO SAY THAT ONE DEALING IN
ENTIRE GOOD FAITH MUST, AT HIS PERIL, FIRST DISCOVER AND THEN MAKE
INQUIRY CONCERNING SOMEBODY OF WHOSE EXISTENCE HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OR
SUSPICION.  WE CANNOT THINK CONGRESS INTENDED THUS TO BURDEN DEALING IN
ALL VEHICLES CAPABLE OF TRANSPORTING LIQUOR. 

IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE FOLLOWING THINGS ARE POSSIBLE SUBJECTS
OF SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE BECAUSE OF LIQUOR LAW VIOLATIONS:  "EVERY
VESSEL, BOAT, CART, CARRIAGE, OR OTHER CONVEYANCE WHATSOEVER, AND ALL
HORSES OR OTHER ANIMALS, AND ALL THINGS USED IN THE REMOVAL OR FOR THE
DEPOSIT OR CONCEALMENT, ETC."  "VEHICLE" IS THUS DEFINED - "THAT IN OR
ON WHICH A PERSON OR THING IS OR MAY BE CARRIED FROM ONE PLACE TO
ANOTHER."  A WHEELBARROW, A COVERED WAGON, A "ROLLS-ROYCE," THE PATIENT
MULE, A "MAN OF WAR," AND POSSIBLY A PULLMAN CAR OR OCEAN LINER IS A
VEHICLE.  GOLDSMITH-GRANT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 505; UNITED
STATES V. TWO BAY MULES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. ONE BAY HORSE, SUPRA. 

SUB-SECTION (B)(3) APPLIES NOT ONLY TO TRANSACTIONS BY FINANCIAL
CONCERNS LIKE RESPONDENT BUT TO THOSE OF INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS
GREAT OR SMALL.  IT CONTEMPLATES AN INVESTIGATION AND THIS PRESUPPOSES
SOME REASON AT LEAST TO SUSPECT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SUBJECT OF
INVESTIGATION.  CONGRESS TOOK AWAY FROM EXECUTIVE OFFICERS THE POWER TO
MITIGATE FORFEITURES WHERE THE PROPERTY EXCEEDS $500 IN VALUE, AND GAVE
THIS TO THE COURT FAMILIAR WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES; BUT IT LEFT WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY DISCRETION TO REMIT WHEN THE VALUE WAS BELOW
$500.  THE INTENT WAS TO REQUIRE THE COURTS TO EXACT PROOF OF INQUIRIES
LIKE THOSE DEMANDED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT PRACTICE, AND DISCLOSED
BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE.  THE PETITIONER'S
VIEW, IF ADOPTED, WOULD SANCTION ONE STANDARD OF REMISSION FOR A
VEHICLE WORTH $500, ANOTHER WHEN APPRAISED AT A DOLLAR MORE. 

THE CHALLENGED DECREES MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  R.S. SEC. 3450(ACT JULY 13, 1866, C. 184, SEC. 14, 14 STAT. 98,
151; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1441) - 

"(A)  EVERY PERSON WHO REMOVES, DEPOSITS, OR CONCEALS, OR IS
CONCERNED IN REMOVING, DEPOSITING, OR CONCEALING ANY GOODS OR
COMMODITIES FOR OR IN RESPECT WHEREOF ANY TAX IS IMPOSED, WITH INTENT
TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES OF SUCH TAX ON ANY PART THEREOF, SHALL BE
LIABLE TO A FINE OR PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN $500. 

     .         .         .         .  . 

"(3)  EVERY VESSEL, BOAT, CART, CARRIAGE, OR OTHER CONVEYANCE
WHATSOEVER, AND ALL HORSES OR OTHER ANIMALS, AND ALL THINGS USED IN THE
REMOVAL OR FOR THE DEPOSIT OR CONCEALMENT THEREOF, RESPECTIVELY, SHALL
BE FORFEITED." 

(THIS SECTION WAS AMENDED BY ACT JUNE 26, 1936(C. 830, TITLE III,
SEC. 325, 49 STAT. 1939, 1955) WHICH CHANGED THE PROVISION FOR $500
PENALTY TO A "FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,500 OR BE IMPRISONED FOR NOT
MORE THAN THREE YEARS, OR BOTH.") 

REVISED STATUTES SEC. 3453(ACT JUNE 30, 1864, C. 173, SEC. 48, 13
STAT. 223, 240; ACT JULY 13, 1866, C. 184, SEC. 9, 14 STAT. 98, 111; 26
U.S.C. SECS. 1620-1621) - 

"ALL GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE, ARTICLES, OR OBJECTS, ON WHICH TAXES
ARE IMPOSED, WHICH SHALL BE FOUND IN THE POSSESSION, OR CUSTODY, OR
WITHIN THE CONTROL OF ANY PERSON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING SOLD OR
REMOVED BY HIM IN FRAUD OF THE INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS, OR WITH DESIGN TO
AVOID PAYMENT OF SAID TAXES, MAY BE SEIZED BY THE COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY
COLLECTOR OF THE PROPER DISTRICT, OR BY SUCH OTHER COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY
COLLECTOR AS MAY BE SPECIALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND SHALL BE FORFEITED TO THE UNITED
STATES.  AND ALL RAW MATERIALS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF ANY PERSON
INTENDING TO MANUFACTURE THE SAME INTO ARTICLES OF A KIND SUBJECT TO
TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF FRAUDULENTLY SELLING SUCH MANUFACTURED ARTICLES,
OR WITH DESIGN TO EVADE THE PAYMENT OF SAID TAX; AND ALL TOOLS,
IMPLEMENTS, INSTRUMENTS, AND PERSONAL PROPERTY WHATSOEVER, IN THE PLACE
OR BUILDING, OR WITHIN ANY YARD OR INCLOSURE WHERE SUCH ARTICLES OR RAW
MATERIALS ARE FOUND, MAY ALSO BE SEIZED BY ANY COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, AS AFORESAID, AND SHALL BE FORFEITED AS AFORESAID.  THE
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE SUCH FORFEITURES SHALL BE IN THE NATURE OF A
PROCEEDING IN REM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OR DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT WHERE SUCH SEIZURE IS MADE."    FN2  REVISED
STATUTES SECS. 3460 AND 3461(ACT JULY 13, 1866, C. 184, SEC. 63, 14
STAT. 98, 169; ACT JUNE 6, 1872, C. 315, SEC. 40, 17 STAT. 230, 257; 26
U.S.C. SEC. 1624) - 

"SEC. 3460.  IN ALL CASES OF SEIZURE OF ANY GOODS, WARES, OR
MERCHANDISE, AS BEING SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE
INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS, WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY
COLLECTOR MAKING THE SEIZURE, ARE OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS OR LESS, THE SAID COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY COLLECTOR SHALL,
EXCEPT IN CASES OTHERWISE PROVIDED, PROCEED AS FOLLOWS: 

     .         .         .         .         .   "SECOND.  IF THE
SAID GOODS ARE FOUND BY THE SAID APPRAISERS TO BE OF THE VALUE OF FIVE
HUNDRED DOLLARS OR LESS, THE SAID COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY COLLECTOR SHALL
PUBLISH A NOTICE, FOR THREE WEEKS, IN SOME NEWSPAPER OF THE DISTRICT
WHERE THE SEIZURE WAS MADE, DESCRIBING THE ARTICLES, AND STATING THE
TIME, PLACE, AND CAUSE OF THEIR SEIZURE, AND REQUIRING ANY PERSON
CLAIMING THEM TO APPEAR AND MAKE SUCH CLAIM WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF THE FIRST PUBLICATION OF SUCH NOTICE. 

"THIRD.  ANY PERSON CLAIMING THE GOODS, WARES, OR MERCHANDISE SO
SEIZED, WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, MAY FILE WITH THE SAID
COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY COLLECTOR A CLAIM, STATING HIS INTEREST IN THE
ARTICLES SEIZED, AND MAY EXECUTE A BOND TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE
PENAL SUM OF TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS, WITH SURETIES TO BE
APPROVED BY THE SAID COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CONDITIONED THAT,
IN CASE OF CONDEMNATION OF THE ARTICLES SO SEIZED, THE OBLIGORS SHALL
PAY ALL THE COSTS AND EXPENSES OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN SUCH
CONDEMNATION; AND UPON DELIVERY OF SUCH BOND TO THE COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY
COLLECTOR, HE SHALL TRANSMIT THE SAME, WITH THE DUPLICATE LIST OR
DESCRIPTION OF THE GOODS SEIZED, TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE DISTRICT, AND SAID ATTORNEY SHALL PROCEED THEREON IN THE
ORDINARY MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW. 

"FOURTH.  IF NO CLAIM IS INTERPOSED AND NO BOND IS GIVEN WITHIN THE
TIME ABOVE SPECIFIED, THE COLLECTOR OR DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AS THE CASE
MAY BE, SHALL GIVE TEN DAYS' NOTICE OF THE SALE OF THE GOODS, WARES, OR
MERCHANDISE BY PUBLICATION, AND, AT THE TIME AND PLACE SPECIFIED IN THE
NOTICE, SHALL SELL THE ARTICLES SO SEIZED AT PUBLIC AUCTION, AND, AFTER
DEDUCTING THE EXPENSE OF APPRAISEMENT AND SALE, HE SHALL DEPOSIT THE
PROCEEDS TO THE CREDIT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

"SEC. 3461.  WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE SALE OF ANY GOODS, WARES, OR
MERCHANDISE, AS PROVIDED IN THE PRECEDING SECTION, ANY PERSON CLAIMING
TO BE INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY SOLD MAY APPLY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY FOR A REMISSION OF THE FORFEITURE THEREOF, OR ANY PART
THEREOF, AND A RESTORATION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE; AND THE SAID
SECRETARY MAY GRANT THE SAME UPON SATISFACTORY PROOF, TO BE FURNISHED
IN SUCH MANNER AS HE SHALL PRESCRIBE:  PROVIDED, THAT IT SHALL BE
SATISFACTORILY SHOWN THAT THE APPLICANT, AT THE TIME OF THE SEIZURE AND
SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY, AND DURING THE INTERVENING TIME, WAS ABSENT,
OUT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS PREVENTED HIM
FROM KNOWING OF THE SEIZURE, AND THAT HE DID NOT KNOW OF THE SAME; AND
ALSO THAT THE SAID FORFEITURE WAS INCURRED WITHOUT WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE
OR ANY INTENTION OF FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE OWNER OF SAID PROPERTY. 
IF NO APPLICATION FOR SUCH RESTORATION IS MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR, AS
HEREINBEFORE PRESCRIBED, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL, AT THE
EXPIRATION OF THE SAID TIME, CAUSE THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE SAID
PROPERTY TO BE DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO LAW, AS IN THE CASE OF GOODS,
WARES, OR MERCHANDISE CONDEMNED AND SOLD PURSUANT TO THE DECREE OF A
COMPETENT COURT." 

FN3  "WHEN THE COMMISSIONER, HIS ASSISTANTS, INSPECTORS, OR ANY
OFFICER OF THE LAW SHALL DISCOVER ANY PERSON IN THE ACT OF TRANSPORTING
IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, INTOXICATING LIQUORS IN ANY WAGON, BUGGY,
AUTOMOBILE, WATER OR AIR CRAFT, OR OTHER VEHICLE, IT SHALL BE HIS DUTY
TO SEIZE ANY AND ALL INTOXICATING LIQUORS FOUND THEREIN BEING
TRANSPORTED CONTRARY TO LAW.  WHENEVER INTOXICATING LIQUORS TRANSPORTED
OR POSSESSED ILLEGALLY SHALL BE SEIZED BY AN OFFICER HE SHALL TAKE
POSSESSION OF THE VEHICLE AND TEAM OR AUTOMOBILE, BOAT, AIR OR WATER
CRAFT, OR ANY OTHER CONVEYANCE, AND SHALL ARREST ANY PERSON IN CHARGE
THEREOF.  SUCH OFFICER SHALL AT ONCE PROCEED AGAINST THE PERSON
ARRESTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE IN ANY COURT HAVING
COMPETENT JURISDICTION; BUT THE SAID VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE SHALL BE
RETURNED TO THE OWNER UPON EXECUTION BY HIM OF A GOOD AND VALID BOND,
WITH SUFFICIENT SURETIES, IN A SUM DOUBLE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY,
WHICH SAID BOND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SAID OFFICER AND SHALL BE
CONDITIONED TO RETURN SAID PROPERTY TO THE CUSTODY OF SAID OFFICER ON
THE DAY OF TRIAL TO ABIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.  THE COURT UPON
CONVICTION OF THE PERSON SO ARRESTED SHALL ORDER THE LIQUOR DESTROYED,
AND UNLESS GOOD CAUSE TO THE CONTRARY IS SHOWN BY THE OWNER, SHALL
ORDER A SALE BY PUBLIC AUCTION OF THE PROPERTY SEIZED, AND THE OFFICER
MAKING THE SALE, AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENSES OF KEEPING THE PROPERTY,
THE FEE FOR THE SEIZURE, AND THE COST OF THE SALE, SHALL PAY ALL LIENS,
ACCORDING TO THEIR PRIORITIES, WHICH ARE ESTABLISHED, BY INTERVENTION
OR OTHERWISE AT SAID HEARING OR IN OTHER PROCEEDING BROUGHT FOR SAID
PURPOSE, AS BEING BONA FIDE AND AS HAVING BEEN CREATED WITHOUT THE
LIENOR HAVING ANY NOTICE THAT THE CARRYING VEHICLE WAS BEING USED OR
WAS TO BE USED FOR ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF LIQUOR, AND SHALL PAY THE
BALANCE OF THE PROCEEDS INTO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES AS
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS.  ALL LIENS AGAINST PROPERTY SOLD UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE PROPERTY TO
THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY." 

FN4  HOUSE REPORTS, VOL. 4, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, 1935, REPORT
NO. 1601, P. 6 - 

"SECTION 204(A) OF SECTION 204 PROVIDES THAT IN ANY COURT PROCEEDING
FOR THE FORFEITURE UNDER THE INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS OF ANY VEHICLE OR
AIRCRAFT SEIZED FOR A VIOLATION OF THE INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS RELATING
TO LIQUOR, THE COURT SHALL, UPON DECREE OF FORFEITURE, HAVE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO REMIT OR MITIGATE THE FORFEITURE.  AT THE PRESENT TIME,
THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY ONLY TO DECREE THE FORFEITURE, AND REMISSION OR
MITIGATION IS DEPENDENT UPON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  SECTION 204
EXTENDS TO THE COURT WHICH DETERMINES WHETHER THE VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT
SHALL BE FORFEITED BY REASON OF HAVING BEEN USED IN THE VIOLATION OF
INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS RELATING TO LIQUOR, THE POWER TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE CLAIM OF ANY PERSON HAVING AN INTEREST IN THE VEHICLE OR
AIRCRAFT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AFTER FORFEITURE.  THUS, IN ALL CASES WHERE
THE VALUE OF THE SEIZED PROPERTY EXCEEDS $500, AND IN ALL CASES WHERE
THE VALUE IS $500 OR LESS, BUT A BOND IS POSTED IN ORDER TO BRING THE
FORFEITURE PROCEEDING INTO COURT, THE COURT WILL HAVE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO REMIT OR MITIGATE THE FORFEITURE.  IN THE EVENT THAT A
BOND IS NOT FILED IN CASES WHERE THE PROPERTY IS OF THE VALUE OF $500
OR LESS, THE POWER TO REMIT OR MITIGATE WILL REMAIN IN THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY. 

"CERTAIN STANDARDS ARE GIVEN TO THE COURT TO GUIDE IT IN THIS
DETERMINATION.  THUS, UNDER SUBSECTION (B), THE CLAIMANT MUST PROVE
THAT HE ACQUIRED HIS INTEREST IN GOOD FAITH, THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE
OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT WAS BEING OR WOULD BE
USED IN VIOLATING FEDERAL OR STATE LIQUOR LAWS, AND THAT, IF HIS
INTEREST ARISES OUT OF, OR IS SUBJECT TO, ANY AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH ANY
PERSON HAVING A RECORD OR REPUTATION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL OR STATE
LIQUOR LAWS HAS A RIGHT WITH RESPECT TO THE VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT, THE
CLAIMANT, BEFORE HE ACQUIRED HIS INTEREST, OR BEFORE THE OTHER PERSON
ACQUIRED HIS RIGHT, WHICH EVER OF THESE EVENTS OCCURRED LATER, INQUIRED
OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE LOCALITY WHERE SUCH OTHER PERSON
ACQUIRED HIS RIGHT, OF THE LOCALITY IN WHICH SUCH OTHER PERSON THEN
RESIDED, AND OF EACH LOCALITY WHERE THE CLAIMANT MADE INQUIRY AS TO THE
CHARACTER OR CREDIT STANDING OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, WHETHER THE OTHER
PERSON HAD SUCH A RECORD OR REPUTATION, AND WAS INFORMED HE HAD NOT. 
THIS LAST REQUIREMENT IS PREDICATED UPON THE RECOGNITION OF THE
'BOOTLEG HAZARD' AS AN ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED IN INVESTIGATING A
PERSON AS A CREDIT RISK.  AS A MATTER OF SOUND BUSINESS PRACTICE,
AUTOMOBILE DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES, AND PROSPECTIVE LIENHOLDERS ON
AUTOMOBILES EXAMINE RECORDS, AND MAKE INQUIRY OF REFERENCES AND CREDIT
RATING AGENCIES AS TO THE OWNER'S OR PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER'S REPUTATION
FOR PAYING HIS DEBTS AND HIS ABILITY TO DO SO.  THIS SUBSECTION MERELY
REQUIRES THAT IN THE MAKING OF SUCH INQUIRY, THE 'BOOTLEG HAZARD' ALSO
BE EXAMINED AS ONE ASPECT OF THE CREDIT RISK." 

FN5  SENATE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, 1935, VOL. 495, NO. 4, P. 13 - 

"SECTION 204  ...  RELATES TO PROCEEDINGS IN COURT FOR THE FORFEITURE
OF VEHICLES OR AIRCRAFT SEIZED FOR VIOLATIONS OF INTERNAL-REVENUE
LAWS.  AT THE PRESENT TIME, CLAIMANTS OF INTERESTS IN VEHICLES OR
AIRCRAFT THAT HAVE BEEN SEIZED AND FORFEITED FOR VIOLATION OF INTERNAL
REVENUE LAWS, PETITION THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR THE REMISSION
OR MITIGATION OF THE FORFEITURE, AND THE SECRETARY, UNDER THE LAW,
REQUIRES THE PERSON CLAIMING TO HAVE AN INNOCENT INTEREST TO SHOW THAT
HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNLAWFUL USE OF THE VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT. 
WHAT THIS SECTION WILL DO, IN THE CASE OF ANY COURT PROCEEDING FOR THE
FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES OR AIRCRAFT, IS TO GIVE THE COURT JURISDICTION
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON CLAIMING TO HAVE AN INNOCENT
INTEREST ACTUALLY HAD SUCH AN INTEREST.  UNDER THE PRESENT PRACTICE THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY REQUIRES SUCH A SHOWING.  ...  THIS SECTION
IS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISCOUNTING BY A
FINANCE COMPANY OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALER'S PAPER. 

"AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY CONSIDERS THAT
THE BOOTLEG HAZARD IS AN ELEMENT INVOLVED IN THE CREDIT RISK, AND IS
JUST AS MUCH A PART OF THE INVESTIGATION BY THE FINANCE COMPANY OF A
PERSON AS A CREDIT RISK AS IS HIS FINANCIAL STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY. 
HE REQUIRES THAT BEFORE A CAR BE RETURNED TO THE PERSON CLAIMING AN
INNOCENT INTEREST, THE LATTER MUST PROVE THAT HE MADE AN INVESTIGATION
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE PURCHASER HAD A BOOTLEGGER RECORD, AND FOUND
THAT HE HAD NONE." 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR. JUSTICE STONE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CAUSES. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER AND I THINK THAT THE
JUDGMENTS BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE PROBLEM HERE INVOLVED RAISES THE QUESTION OF THE DUTY OF
AUTOMOBILE FINANCE COMPANIES TO INVESTIGATE THOSE WHO PURCHASE CARS
FROM DEALERS, FINANCED BY THOSE COMPANIES, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE OSTENSIBLE PURCHASERS ARE IN REALITY STRAW MEN FOR
BOOTLEGGERS.  HERE THE DEALERS KNEW THAT THE NAMED PURCHASERS WERE ONLY
NOMINAL PURCHASERS; AND THEY ALSO KNEW THE IDENTITY OF THE REAL
PURCHASERS.  BUT THE FINANCE COMPANIES MADE NO INQUIRY WHATSOEVER OF
THE DEALERS TO ASCERTAIN IF THOSE PURCHASERS WERE STRAW MEN.  THEY MADE
NO INQUIRY IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE USE OF STRAW MEN BY
BOOTLEGGERS WAS NOT NOVEL.  THEY MADE NO INQUIRY IN SPITE OF THE
INTIMATE BUSINESS RELATIONS WHICH EXIST BETWEEN THEM AND THE DEALERS
AND THE PRESUMPTION OF AVAILABILITY OF SUCH INFORMATION WHICH THAT
RELATIONSHIP CREATES.  AND THEY NOW SEEK THE BENEFIT OF AN ACT WHICH
THE CONGRESS PASSED TO AMELIORATE SOME OF THE RISKS OF CONFISCATION AND
FORFEITURE.  WE DO NOT THINK THEY HAVE SATISFIED THE BURDEN WHICH THE
CONGRESS HAS PLACED UPON THEM. 

SEC. 204(A) GIVES THE DISTRICT COURT "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO REMIT
OR MITIGATE" FORFEITURES.  SEC. 204(B) SETS FORTH THREE CONDITIONS
PRECEDENT WHICH THE CLAIMANT MUST SATISFY BEFORE THE COURT MAY REMIT OR
MITIGATE A FORFEITURE.  TO SATISFY THE THIRD OF THESE CONDITIONS
CLAIMANT MUST PROVE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HE MADE INQUIRY OF
DESIGNATED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CONCERNING ANY PERSON FOR WHOM A
STRAW MAN PURCHASER WAS ACTING AND THAT HE WAS INFORMED ON SUCH INQUIRY
THAT SUCH PERSON HAD NO RECORD OR REPUTATION FOR VIOLATING THE LIQUOR
LAWS.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH CLAIMANT MUST MAKE THAT INQUIRY
EXIST "IF IT APPEARS THAT THE INTEREST ASSERTED BY THE CLAIMANT ARISES
OUT OF OR IS IN ANY WAY SUBJECT TO ANY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT UNDER
WHICH ANY PERSON HAVING A RECORD OR REPUTATION FOR VIOLATING LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE RELATING TO LIQUOR HAS A RIGHT WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH VEHICLE OR AIRCRAFT,  ..." 

TO BE SURE, THE PHRASING OF SEC. 204(B)(3) IS DIFFICULT.  BUT IT
MEANS TO US THAT A CLAIMANT MUST PROVE, IN ORDER TO SATISFY THAT
CONDITION, THAT HE MADE A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION TO ASCERTAIN IF THE
PURCHASER WAS A MERE STRAW MAN ACTING FOR ANOTHER OR WAS A LEGITIMATE
PURCHASER IN HIS OWN RIGHT.  THE WORDS "IF IT APPEARS" CARRY THAT
CONNOTATION.  A CONTRARY CONSTRUCTION DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE
CONGRESS BY PLACING AN ENORMOUS PREMIUM ON LACK OF DILIGENCE.  THAT
CONSTRUCTION OPENS WIDE THE DOORS TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE, FOR FINANCE
COMPANIES NEED LIFT NO FINGER NOR MAKE ANY EFFORT TO ASCERTAIN THE
EXISTENCE OF A STRAW MAN PURCHASER.  IGNORANCE NOW IS SURELY BLISS.  BY
FAILURE TO MAKE INQUIRY THEY CAN EFFECTIVELY INSULATE THEMSELVES EVEN
FROM THE KNOWLEDGE WHICH THEIR BUSINESS INTIMATES - THE DEALERS -
HAVE.  UNLESS INFORMED BY DISCLOSURES, IN THE WRITTEN CONTRACT OR
OTHERWISE, THEY CAN CONTENTEDLY ASSUME THAT THE PURCHASER IS NOT A
STRAW MAN FOR A BOOTLEGGER.  THAT THEY WILL THUS BE VOLUNTARILY
INFORMED BY THE PARTIES OR BY OTHERS SEEMS UNLIKELY.  SINCE THE
FUNCTION OF THE STRAW MAN IS TO CONCEAL THE BOOTLEGGER, NEITHER THE
STRAW MAN NOR THE BOOTLEGGER CAN BE EXPECTED TO STEP FORWARD WITH THE
INFORMATION.  AND THE AUTOMOBILE SALESMAN IS NOT LIKELY TO VOLUNTEER
THE INFORMATION FOR HIS DESIRE IS TO SELL AUTOMOBILES NOT TO DEFEAT
SALES.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE INTERPRETATION WHICH WE URGE WOULD GIVE
THE STATUTE REAL MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE IN TERMS OF THIS SPECIFIC
BOOTLEG HAZARD WHICH CONCERNED THE CONGRESS ON ITS ENACTMENT.  FN1 
FURTHERMORE, THE REQUIREMENT FOR REASONABLE INVESTIGATION CANNOT
POSSIBLY PLACE SUCH A BURDEN ON FINANCE COMPANIES AS TO FORCE US TO
RESOLVE AN AMBIGUITY IN STATUTORY LANGUAGE AGAINST FORFEITURE.  IN THE
CASES BEFORE US A SINGLE QUESTION PUT THE DEALER OR THE PURCHASER MIGHT
ALONE HAVE DISCLOSED THE EXISTENCE OF A STRAW MAN.  BUT NO SUCH SIMPLE
INQUIRY WAS MADE.  AN INVESTIGATION IN EACH CASE WAS MADE TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER THE NAMED PURCHASER HAD A REPUTATION OR RECORD FOR LIQUOR
VIOLATIONS.  BUT THE EXISTENCE OF A STRAW MAN WAS NEVER PROBED. 
CERTAINLY ON SUCH A MATTER INVESTIGATIONAL TECHNIQUES ARE NOT NOVEL,
INVOLVED OR UNIQUE.  THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION
WOULD ADD BUT IMPERCEPTIBLY IF AT ALL TO THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. 
IN THIS FIELD SUCH INVESTIGATION ENTAILS A BURDEN WHICH ANY LEGITIMATE
ENTERPRISE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO CARRY.  WE NEED NOT CONJURE UP
HYPOTHETICAL CASES OF EXTENDED INQUIRY WHICH DISCLOSED NO STRAW MAN,
FOR THEY WOULD MEET THE TEST OF REASONABLE INVESTIGATION HERE
PROPOSED. 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  PRECISELY THE INVESTIGATION HERE URGED SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN
INTENDED, FOR THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY SAID
AS RESPECTS SEC. 204(B)(3):  "THIS LAST REQUIREMENTS IS PREDICATED UPON
THE RECOGNITION OF THE 'BOOTLEG HAZARD' AS AN ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED
IN INVESTIGATING A PERSON AS A CREDIT RISK.  AS A MATTER OF SOUND
BUSINESS PRACTICE, AUTOMOBILE DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES, AND
PROSPECTIVE LIENHOLDERS ON AUTOMOBILES EXAMINE RECORDS, AND MAKE
INQUIRY OF REFERENCES AND CREDIT RATING AGENCIES AS TO THE OWNER'S OR
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER'S REPUTATION FOR PAYING HIS DEBTS AND HIS ABILITY
TO DO SO.  THIS SUBSECTION MERELY REQUIRES THAT IN THE MAKING OF SUCH
INQUIRY, THE 'BOOTLEG HAZARD' ALSO BE EXAMINED AS ONE ASPECT OF THE
CREDIT RISK."  SEN. REP. NO. 1330, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 6.  TO
INVESTIGATE THE "BOOTLEG HAZARD" AS "ONE ASPECT OF THE CREDIT RISK"
WHEN INQUIRY IS MADE OF THE "PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER'S REPUTATION FOR
PAYING HIS DEBTS" SEEMS CLEARLY TO ENTAIL INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER IS A STRAW MAN FOR A BOOTLEGGER. 
..END :














ELECTRICAL CORP. V. THOMAS CO., 307 U.S. 241 


NO. 582.  ARGUED APRIL 19, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1939.  - 100 F.2D
403, REVERSED. 


A DEFENDANT IN A PATENT SUIT IS ENTITLED TO APPEAL FROM SO MUCH OF A
DECREE ADJUDGING HIM NOT GUILTY OF INFRINGEMENT AS PURPORTS TO ADJUDGE
THE PATENT VALID.  P. 242. 

ELECTRICAL FITTINGS CORP. ET AL. V. THOMAS & BETTS CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 624, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FROM A
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 23 F.SUPP.  920, IN A SUIT FOR ALLEGED
PATENT INFRINGEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WAS A SUIT IN EQUITY BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT
OF A PATENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD CLAIM I VALID BUT NOT INFRINGED
AND CLAIM 2 INVALID.  FN1  INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE BILL WITHOUT MORE,
IT ENTERED A DECREE ADJUDGING CLAIM 1 VALID BUT DISMISSING THE BILL FOR
FAILURE TO PROVE INFRINGEMENT. 

THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT APPEAL, BUT FILED IN THE PATENT OFFICE A
DISCLAIMER OF CLAIM 2.  THE PETITIONERS APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FROM SO MUCH OF THE DECREE AS ADJUDICATED CLAIM 1 VALID. 
THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONERS HAD BEEN
AWARDED ALL THE RELIEF TO WHICH THEY WERE ENTITLED, THE LITIGATION
HAVING FINALLY TERMINATED IN THEIR FAVOR.  FN2  THE COURT WAS OF
OPINION THAT THE DECREE WOULD NOT BIND THE PETITIONERS IN SUBSEQUENT
SUITS ON THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF CLAIM 1. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT OF DECISION. 
FN3  A PARTY MAY NOT APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OR DECREE IN HIS FAVOR, FOR
THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A REVIEW OF FINDINGS HE DEEMS ERRONEOUS WHICH
ARE NOT NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE DECREE.  FN4  BUT HERE THE DECREE
ITSELF PURPORTS TO ADJUDGE THE VALIDITY OF CLAIM 1, AND THOUGH THE
ADJUDICATION WAS IMMATERIAL TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE, IT STANDS
AS AN ADJUDICATION OF ONE OF THE ISSUES LITIGATED.  WE THINK THE
PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO HAVE THIS PORTION OF THE DECREE
ELIMINATED, AND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION,
FN5  AS WE HAVE HELD THIS COURT HAS,  FN6  TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL, NOT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING ON THE MERITS, BUT TO DIRECT THE REFORMATION
OF THE DECREE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL AND DIRECT
THE DISTRICT COURT TO REFORM ITS DECREE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS
HEREIN EXPRESSED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  23 F.SUPP.  920. 

FN2  100 F.2D 403. 

FN3  SEE OLIVER-SHERWOOD CO. V. PATTERSON-BALLAGH CORP., 95 F.2D 70,
71. 

FN4  LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS BELL TEL. CO., 292 U.S. 151, 176. 

FN5  SEE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 225. 

FN6  GULLY V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 292 U.S. 16; OKLAHOMA GAS &
ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386; WILLIAM JAMESON &
CO. V. MORGENTHAU, ANTE, P. 171. 
..END :







MAYTAG CO. V. HURLEY CO., 307 U.S. 243 


NO. 76.  ARGUED APRIL 19, 20, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1939.  - 96 F.2D
87, AFFIRMED.  - 100 F.2D 218, REVERSED. 


UNREASONABLE NEGLECT AND DELAY OF A PATENTEE IN SUING UPON OR
DISCLAIMING A CLAIM NOT DEFINITELY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM ANOTHER
ADJUDGED INVALID FOR ANTICIPATION AND DISCLAIMED, AVOIDS THE ENTIRE
PATENT.  R.S. SECS. 4917 AND 4922.  P. 245. 

SNYDER PATENT NO. 1,866,779, ISSUED TO MAYTAG COMPANY, ASSIGNEE,
EMBRACING CLAIMS FOR A WASHING MACHINE AND A METHOD OF WASHING FABRICS,
HELD INVALIDATED. 

MAYTAG COMPANY V. HURLEY MACHINE CO. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 77, MAYTAG CO. V. EASY WASHING MACHINE CO., ALSO
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT; AND NO. 661, GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORP. V. MAYTAG CO., ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 666, TO REVIEW DECREES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT
DENYING RELIEF IN TWO INFRINGEMENT SUITS UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
CLAIMS SUED UPON HAD BEEN ANTICIPATED; AND (306 U.S. 626) TO REVIEW A
DECREE IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDING THE SAME CLAIMS AS VALID.  THE
CLAIMS SUED UPON WERE THREE OF THIRTY-SIX APPARATUS CLAIMS, FOR A
WASHING MACHINE, EMBRACED IN THE PATENT.  THE SAME PATENT INCLUDED ALSO
THREE CLAIMS FOR A METHOD OF WASHING FABRICS, TWO OF WHICH HAD BEEN
DISCLAIMED; THE THIRD FURNISHED THE BASIS FOR THE PRESENT DECISION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUITS IN WHICH CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED
BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF DECISION.  FN1  APPARATUS CLAIMS 23, 26, AND
29 OF THE SNYDER PATENT, NO. 1,866,779, WHICH ARE HERE INVOLVED, HAVE
BEEN HELD INVALID IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT BY REASON OF ANTICIPATION; AND
HAVE BEEN ADJUDGED VALID IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.  WE NEED NOT RESOLVE
THE CONFLICT, SINCE WE ARE OF OPINION THE PATENT IS VOID FOR FAILURE TO
DISCLAIM CLAIM 39. 

THE PATENT, ISSUED JULY 12, 1932, TO THE MAYTAG COMPANY AS ASSIGNEE,
CONTAINS THIRTY-NINE CLAIMS, THIRTY-SIX OF WHICH ARE FOR A WASHING
MACHINE AND THREE (NOS. 1, 38 AND 39) FOR A METHOD OF WASHING FABRICS. 
IN 1935 THE COMPANY OBTAINED A DECREE IN A SUIT AGAINST THE BROOKLYN
EDISON COMPANY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF APPARATUS CLAIMS 23 AND 26 AND
METHOD CLAIM 38.  FN2 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT REVERSED AS TO ALL THREE CLAIMS, HOLDING THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE
NOVELTY.  FN3  THIS COURT REFUSED CERTIORARI AND THE COMPANY PROMPTLY
DISCLAIMED TWO OF THE METHOD CLAIMS, 1 AND 38, BUT DID NOT DISCLAIM
39.  IN THE INSTANT CASES INFRINGEMENT OF APPARATUS CLAIMS 23, 26, AND
29, IS CHARGED, BUT CLAIM 39 IS NOT IN SUIT, NOR HAS IT BEEN MADE THE
BASIS OF ANY OTHER SUIT. 

THERE HAS BEEN UNREASONABLE NEGLECT OR DELAY IN ENTERING A DISCLAIMER
OF CLAIM 39 WITHIN THE MEANING OF R.S. 4917, AND R.S. 4922,  FN4
UNLESS THAT CLAIM IS "DEFINITELY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PARTS CLAIMED
WITHOUT RIGHT,"  - THAT IS, THE DISCLAIMED METHOD CLAIMS 1 AND 38. 
THIS MUST BE SO, FOR THE COMPANY, BY DISCLAIMING THOSE CLAIMS, HAS
CONFESSED THAT THE PATENTEE THEREIN CLAIMED "MORE THAN THAT OF WHICH HE
WAS THE ORIGINAL OR FIRST INVENTOR OR DISCOVERER" AND THAT THE COMPANY,
AS ASSIGNEE OF THE PATENT, THEREFORE, "DID NOT CHOOSE TO CLAIM OR TO
HOLD" THE METHOD THEREIN DISCLOSED "BY VIRTUE OF THE PATENT OR
ASSIGNMENT." 

THUS THE COMPANY ELECTED THE COURSE IT WOULD PURSUE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF
THE OPTIONS OPEN TO IT. CLAIM 38, WHICH HAD BEEN ADJUDGED INVALID, NEED
NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLAIMED, BUT, ALONE OR WITH OTHER CLAIMS, MIGHT HAVE
BEEN MADE THE BASIS OF ANOTHER SUIT AGAINST A DIFFERENT PARTY,  - THE
PETITIONER IN NO. 661, FOR EXAMPLE.  FN5  IF THE CLAIMS WERE HELD
INVALID IN SUCH LATER SUIT THE COURT MIGHT FIND THE PATENT WHOLLY VOID,
FOR FAILURE SEASONABLY TO DISCLAIM.  FN6  TO AVOID THE RISK OF SUCH A
POSSIBLE OUTCOME, THE COMPANY CHOSE THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE OF
DISCLAIMING 38, AND RELYING ON OTHER CLAIMS.  FN7  IN THE BROOKLYN
EDISON CASE THE DISTRICT COURT SAID CONCERNING CLAIM 1, "THE QUOTED
VERBIAGE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF CLAIM 38, BUT THE SAME METHOD OR
PROCESS IS THOUGHT TO BE EQUALLY EMBODIED IN BOTH."  FN8  THIS
EXPRESSION PRESUMABLY CAUSED THE COMPANY ALSO TO DISCLAIM CLAIM 1 AS
NOT "DEFINITELY DISTINGUISHABLE" FROM CLAIM 38. 

IF CLAIM 39 DESCRIBES THE SAME METHOD AS CLAIM 38, IT FOLLOWS THAT
FAILURE EITHER TO SUE ON 39 OR TO DISCLAIM IT ALONG WITH 38 INVALIDATES
THE PATENT. 

THE TWO ARE COPIED IN THE MARGIN.  FN9  WE THINK THEY DESCRIBE BUT A
SINGLE METHOD.  THE COMPANY INSISTS THAT THE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE LIES IN
THE FACT THAT IN 38 THE MOVING FLUID IN THE TUB IS SAID SUBSTANTIALLY
TO SUSPEND THE FABRICS, WHEREAS IN 39 THE SAME AGENCY IS SAID TO CAUSE
THE FABRICS TO BE FREELY MOVED ABOUT.  BUT THE DIFFERENCE IN VERBIAGE
DESCRIBES NO DIFFERENCE IN OPERATION OR RESULT.  WE CONCLUDE THAT, WHEN
READ IN THEIR ENTIRETY, THEY DESCRIBE THE SAME METHOD. 

THE DECREES IN NOS. 76 AND 77 ARE AFFIRMED; THAT IN NO. 661 IS
REVERSED.  NOS. 76 AND 77, AFFIRMED.  NO. 661, REVERSED. 

FN1  MAYTAG CO. V. BROOKLYN EDISON CO., 86 F.2D 625; MAYTAG CO. V.
EASY WASHING MACH. CORP., 96 F.2D 87; GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORP. V.
MAYTAG CO., 100 F.2D 218. 

FN2  11 F.SUPP.  743. 

FN3  MAYTAG CO. V. BROOKLYN EDISON CO., SUPRA. 

FN4  35 U.S.C. SECS. 65 AND 71. 

FN5  TRIPLETT V. LOWELL, 297 U.S. 638, 642. 

FN6  IBID.  645. 

FN7  COMPARE ENSTEN V. SIMON, ASCHER & CO., 282 U.S. 445. 

FN8  11 F.SUPP.  758. 

FN9  THE DIFFERENCE IN VERBIAGE RELIED ON TO DISTINGUISH THE CLAIMS
IS ITALICIZED. 

"38.  THE METHOD OF WASHING FABRICS BY FORCING CLEANSING LIQUID
THROUGH AND AROUND THEM WHILE SUBSTANTIALLY SUSPENDED BY THE ACTION OF
THE FLUID, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM PULLING FABRICS THROUGH THE FLUID
AGAINST SCRUBBING CORRUGATIONS, OR OTHERWISE SCRUBBING THEM BY
MECHANICAL MEANS, COMPRISING IMMERSING THE FABRICS IN A WASHING FLUID
IN A CONTAINER, THEN VIGOROUSLY AND RAPIDLY IMPELLING THE WASHING FLUID
IN ONE AND THEN IN AN OPPOSITE OUTWARD CIRCULATORY DIRECTION AWAY FROM
THE PLANE OF THE SOURCE OF IMPULSION AND THROUGH THE FABRICS AND
CIRCUMFERENTIALLY ALONG THE INTERIOR OF THE CONTAINER IN RAPID
SUCCESSION, AND CAUSING THESE VIOLENTLY OPPOSED CURRENTS OF FLUID TO
MEET AND FLOW INWARDLY AND TOWARD THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE CONTAINER,
AND TOWARD THE SOURCE OF IMPULSION THEREBY SUBSTANTIALLY SUSPENDING THE
FABRICS IN THE FLUID AND CLEANSING THEM WHILE THUS SUSPENDED." 

"39.  THE METHOD OF WASHING FABRICS BY FORCING CLEANSING FLUID
THROUGH THEM WHILE SUBSTANTIALLY SUSPENDED BY THE ACTION OF THE FLUID,
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM PULLING FABRICS THROUGH THE FLUID AGAINST
SCRUBBING CORRUGATIONS, OR OTHERWISE SCRUBBING THEM BY MECHANICAL
MEANS, COMPRISING IMMERSING THE FABRICS IN A WASHING FLUID IN A
CONTAINER, THEN VIGOROUSLY AGITATING THE WASHING FLUID AND RAPIDLY
FORCING IT TOWARD THE FABRICS AND AWAY FROM THE PLANE OF THE SOURCE OF
AGITATION VERTICALLY ALONG THE INTERIOR SURFACE OF THE CONTAINER FIRST
IN ONE AND THEN IN AN OPPOSITE CIRCUMFERENTIAL DIRECTION, BACK AND
FORTH THROUGH AND AROUND THE FABRICS, AND CAUSING THE VIOLENTLY MOVING
OPPOSED CURRENTS OF LIQUID TO MEET AND FLOW INWARDLY AND VERTICALLY
TOWARD THE SOURCE OF AGITATION WHEREBY THE FABRICS ARE CAUSED TO BE
FREELY MOVED ABOUT BY THE ACTION OF THE FLUID AND CLEANSED WHILE THUS
MOVED." 
..END :















GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. HENWOOD, 307 U.S. 247 


NO. 384.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 9, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1939.  - 98
F.2D 160, 179, AFFIRMED. 


RAILROAD BONDS, SECURED BY TRUST MORTGAGE, WHICH WERE SOLD IN THIS
COUNTRY FOR DOLLARS IN 1912, WERE EXPRESSED TO BE PAYABLE HERE IN GOLD
COIN OF THE UNITED STATES EQUAL TO THE THEN STANDARD OF WEIGHT AND
FINENESS OR, AT THE OPTION OF THE HOLDER, TO BE PAYABLE IN SEVERAL
FOREIGN COUNTRIES, INCLUDING HOLLAND, IN SPECIFIED AMOUNTS OF THE
MONEYS THERE CURRENT, WHICH AMOUNTS WERE THE 1912 EXCHANGE EQUIVALENTS
OF AMERICAN DOLLAR VALUE PER BOND.  IN A BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDING, HOLDERS OF THE BONDS ASSERTED THEIR OPTION OF PAYMENT
ABROAD IN DUTCH GUILDERS, AND ASKED THAT THEIR CLAIMS BE ALLOWED AT
THEIR GUILDER VALUE, GREATER IN DOLLARS THAN THE FACE OF THEIR BONDS. 
HELD: 

1.  IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF THE OBLIGATION, BONDS AND MORTGAGE
MUST BE CONSTRUED TOGETHER.  P. 253. 

2.  THE BONDS AND MORTGAGE ARE DOMESTIC OBLIGATIONS, TO BE
INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THIS COUNTRY.  P.
254. 

3.  THE BONDS ARE OBLIGATIONS "PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED
STATES," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933,
AND UNDER THAT RESOLUTION, ARE PAYABLE DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR IN PRESENT
LEGAL TENDER.  P. 256. 

THE PROMISES OF PAYMENT, WITH INTEREST, IN ALTERNATIVE CURRENCIES
WERE NOT IN BARTER FOR COMMODITIES.  INTEREST IS NOT PAID ON
COMMODITIES BUT ON MONETARY OBLIGATIONS.  THESE PROMISES ARE NOT
SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTS OR OBLIGATIONS, BUT PARTS OF ONE AND
THE SAME MONETARY OBLIGATION OF THE DEBTOR.  P. 255. 

4.  THE PROPOSITION THAT THE OBLIGATION WAS NEVER PAYABLE IN UNITED
STATES MONEY BECAUSE THE OPTION TO RECEIVE PAYMENT IN DOLLARS HAD NEVER
BEEN EXERCISED, IS REJECTED.  P. 256. 

5.  THE PROPOSITION THAT THE RESOLUTION, IF CONSTRUED TO FORBID
ENFORCEMENT OF THE OPTION TO DEMAND PAYMENT IN GUILDERS, NULLIFIES
CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IS REJECTED. 
P. 258. 

DOMESTIC CONTRACTS BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES CAN NOT CREATE VESTED
RIGHTS RESTRICTING THE EXERCISE OF A POWER OF CONGRESS. 

GUARANTY TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, V. HENWOOD, TRUSTEE, ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 495, CHEMICAL BANK & TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, V.
HENWOOD, TRUSTEE, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 588, 594, TO REVIEW DECREES OF THE COURT BELOW
WHICH AFFIRMED ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT FIXING ALLOWANCES TO
HOLDERS OF RAILROAD BONDS IN A REORGANIZATION CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THE BANKRUPTCY REORGANIZATION OF THE ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY, A MISSOURI CORPORATION, PETITIONERS FILED CLAIMS FOR
BONDHOLDERS.  THEY ASSERTED A RIGHT UNDER THE BONDS TO BE PAID IN DUTCH
GUILDERS, AND ASKED THAT THEIR CLAIMS - BASED UPON GUILDER VALUE - BE
ALLOWED FOR $37,335,525.12.  THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY CONTENDED, AND
THE COURTS BELOW HELD THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933,  FN1
MADE THE BONDS DISCHARGEABLE BY PAYMENT OF CURRENT LEGAL TENDER UNITED
STATES MONEY,  FN2  AND PETITIONERS' CLAIMS WERE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED
FOR $21,638,000.00, THE FACE AMOUNT OF THEIR BONDS IN DOLLARS. 

THESE BONDS, SECURED BY A TRUST MORTGAGE, WERE ISSUED AND SOLD IN THE
UNITED STATES IN 1912.  PURCHASERS PAID AND THE RAILROAD RECEIVED
UNITED STATES DOLLARS, AND UNTIL 1936 INTEREST WAS REGULARLY PAID IN
DOLLARS. 

THE ASSERTED RIGHT TO GUILDER PAYMENT RESTS UPON A PROVISION OF THE
BONDS CONCEDEDLY GRANTING HOLDERS AN OPTION TO ELECT PAYMENT IN
DOLLARS, GUILDERS, POUNDS, MARKS, OR FRANCS.  THIS MULTIPLE CURRENCY
PROVISION WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE FOLLOWING TERMS OF THE MORTGAGE
SECURING THE BONDS: 

"  ...  THE  ...  BONDS MAY BE PAYABLE, AT THE OPTION OF THE HOLDER,
BOTH AS TO PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, AT SOME ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING
PLACES IN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF NEW YORK, AND IN THE MONEYS CURRENT
AT SUCH RESPECTIVE PLACES OF PAYMENT, AT THE FOLLOWING RATES OF
EXCHANGE OR EQUIVALENTS OF $1,000, VIZ.:  IN LONDON, ENGLAND,
$*205.15.2 STERLING, OR IN AMSTERDAM, HOLLAND, 2490 GUILDERS, OR IN
BERLIN, GERMANY, 4200 MARKS, D.R.W., OR IN PARIS, FRANCE, 5180 FRANCS;
... " 

THE BONDS THEMSELVES PROVIDE: 

"ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,  ...  FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
HEREBY PROMISES TO PAY TO THE BEARER, OR, IF REGISTERED, TO THE
REGISTERED HOLDER, OF THIS BOND, ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 1952, AT
ITS OFFICE OR AGENCY IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, CITY AND STATE OF NEW
YORK, ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN GOLD COIN OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, OF OR EQUAL TO THE STANDARD OF WEIGHT AND FINENESS AS IT
EXISTED JANUARY 1, 1912, OR IN LONDON, ENGLAND, $*205 15S 2D, OR IN
AMSTERDAM, HOLLAND, 2490 GUILDERS, OR IN BERLIN, GERMANY, MARKS 4200,
D.R.W., OR IN PARIS, FRANCE, 5180 FRANCS, AND TO PAY INTEREST THEREON,
AT THE RATE OF FIVE PER CENT. PER ANNUM, FROM THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY,
1912, IN SAID RESPECTIVE CURRENCIES, SEMIANNUALLY  ...  " 

SINCE THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE TERMS OF THE BONDS GRANTED HOLDERS
AN OPTION TO ELECT PAYMENT IN GUILDERS, WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER,
DESPITE THIS OPTION, THE JOINT RESOLUTION OPERATED TO MAKE THE BONDS
DISCHARGEABLE IN CURRENT UNITED STATES LEGAL TENDER - A DOLLAR OF LEGAL
TENDER TO BE REPAID FOR EVERY DOLLAR BORROWED. 

ANALYSIS OF THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION  FN3  DISCLOSES, FIRST, THAT
CONGRESS DECLARED CERTAIN TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS AGAINST
PUBLIC POLICY IN TERMS SO BROAD AS TO INCLUDE THEN EXISTING CONTRACTS,
AS WELL AS THOSE THEREAFTER TO BE MADE.  IN ADDITION, FUTURE USE OF
SUCH PROSCRIBED PROVISIONS WAS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, WHETHER ACTUALLY
CONTAINED IN AN OBLIGATION PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES OR
SEPARATELY "MADE WITH RESPECT THERETO."  THIS PROSCRIPTION EMBRACED
"EVERY PROVISION" PURPORTING TO GIVE AN OBLIGEE A RIGHT TO REQUIRE
PAYMENT IN (1) GOLD; (2) A PARTICULAR KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY OF THE
UNITED STATES; OR (3) IN AN AMOUNT OF UNITED STATES MONEY MEASURED BY
GOLD OR A PARTICULAR KIND OF UNITED STATES COIN OR CURRENCY. 

HAVING THUS UNMISTAKABLY STAMPED ILLEGALITY UPON BOTH OUTSTANDING AND
FUTURE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO REQUIRE PAYMENT BY DEBTORS IN
A FROZEN MONEY VALUE RATHER THAN IN A DOLLAR OF LEGAL TENDER CURRENT AT
DATE OF PAYMENT, CONGRESS - APPARENTLY TO OBVIATE ANY POSSIBLE
MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE BREADTH OF ITS OBJECTIVE - ADDED, WITH
STUDIED PRECISION, A CATCHALL SECOND SENTENCE SWEEPING IN "EVERY
OBLIGATION," EXISTING OR FUTURE, "PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED
STATES," IRRESPECTIVE OF "WHETHER OR NOT ANY SUCH PROVISION IS
CONTAINED THEREIN OR MADE WITH RESPECT THERETO."  THE OBLIGATIONS HIT
AT BY CONGRESS WERE THOSE "PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES."  ALL
SUCH OBLIGATIONS WERE DECLARED DISCHARGEABLE "UPON PAYMENT, DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR, IN ANY COIN OR CURRENCY (OF THE UNITED STATES) WHICH AT THE
TIME OF PAYMENT IS LEGAL TENDER FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEBTS."  IT
RESULTS THAT IF PETITIONERS' CLAIMS REST UPON "(OBLIGATIONS)  ...
PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES," BY THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION
THEY SHALL BE DISCHARGED UPON PAYMENT OF CURRENT LEGAL TENDER DOLLARS
EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS PROMISED IN GOLD OR A PARTICULAR KIND OF
MONEY.  DECISION MUST THEREFORE TURN UPON THE NATURE OF THE
"(OBLIGATIONS)  ...  INCURRED" BY THE RAILROAD IN ITS BOND CONTRACTS OF
1912. 

THESE BONDS PROVIDE THAT, "FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AND
FRANCHISES MORTGAGED, THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE SECURITY, THE RIGHTS
OF THE HOLDERS OF SAID BONDS UNDER THE SAME AND THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS UPON WHICH SUCH BONDS ARE ISSUED AND SECURED, REFERENCE IS
MADE TO THE  ... MORTGAGE."  IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF THE
RAILROAD'S OBLIGATION, WE, ACCORDINGLY, LOOK BOTH TO THE MORTGAGE AND
THE BONDS. 

IT APPEARS THAT - 

THE RAILROAD EXECUTED THE MORTGAGE IN 1912 TO THE GUARANTY TRUST
COMPANY OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE, TO SECURE FORTY-YEAR MORTGAGE BONDS
"LIMITED TO AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED MILLION
DOLLARS ($100,000,000.00) AT ANY ONE TIME OUTSTANDING  ...  TO BE
PAYABLE ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 1952, WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
FIVE PER CENT PER ANNUM PAYABLE SEMIANNUALLY  ... "; THE BONDS ARE
PAYABLE OPTIONALLY IN FOREIGN CURRENCIES AS INDICATED ABOVE;
REGISTRATION IN NEW YORK IS REQUIRED OF BONDS SUBJECTED TO
REGISTRATION; TO BE VALID ALL BONDS MUST BE AUTHENTICATED BY THE
GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY IN NEW YORK; NON-COUPON BONDS AND COUPON BONDS
ARE INTERCHANGEABLE UPON REQUEST, BUT NON-COUPON BONDS CONTAIN NO
OPTION FOR PAYMENT IN FOREIGN CURRENCIES; THE NEW YORK TRUSTEE IS
GRANTED BROAD SUPERVISORY POWERS (FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BONDHOLDERS)
OVER FINANCES AND OPERATIONS OF THE RAILROAD; THE RAILROAD IS REQUIRED
TO KEEP AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK WHERE BONDS AND COUPONS CAN BE PRESENTED
FOR PAYMENT, BUT IS NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP ANY FOREIGN OFFICES; IN THE
EVENT OF DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF BONDS OR COUPONS, THE NEW YORK TRUSTEE
IS AUTHORIZED, THROUGH ITS AGENTS OR ATTORNEYS, TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE
MORTGAGED PROPERTY, TO SELL UNDER FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED
STATES, AND TO PROTECT BONDHOLDERS' INTERESTS BY EMPLOYMENT OF
ATTORNEYS AND INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS EITHER IN LAW OR
EQUITY, "FOR THE EQUAL BENEFIT OF ALL HOLDERS OF  ...  OUTSTANDING
BONDS AND COUPONS"; SHOULD THE GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY RESIGN AS
TRUSTEE, THE BONDHOLDERS MAY DESIGNATE ANOTHER WHICH, HOWEVER, "MUST
ALWAYS BE A TRUST COMPANY HAVING AN OFFICE IN THE BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN,
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, N.Y." 

THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES; THE TRUSTEE
WAS REQUIRED TO BE A NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY; ENFORCEMENT OF THE TRUST
SECURITY, COLLECTION OF BONDS AND INTEREST, EMPLOYMENT OF ATTORNEYS,
INSTITUTION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND DISTRIBUTION OF ASSEMBLED ASSETS,
WERE ALL RESPONSIBILITIES PLACED UPON THE TRUSTEE LOCATED IN NEW YORK,
AND OBVIOUSLY CONTEMPLATED THAT ANY NECESSARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
WOULD BE HAD IN THIS COUNTRY UNDER THE GOVERNING LAW OF THE UNITED
STATES.  BOTH THE MORTGAGE AND BONDS ARE DOMESTIC OBLIGATIONS, AND THE
LAW OF THIS COUNTRY MUST DETERMINE THEIR INTERPRETATION, THEIR NATURE,
AND THE OBLIGATIONS ENFORCEABLE UNDER THEM.  FN4  THE JOINT RESOLUTION
THUS MUST GOVERN IF THE BONDS ARE, WITHIN ITS TERMS, "(OBLIGATIONS)
...  PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES." 

IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BONDS, PETITIONERS URGE THAT EACH OF THE
ALTERNATIVE PROMISES TO PAY IN A FOREIGN CURRENCY IS A SEPARATE AND
INDEPENDENT "OBLIGATION" TO PAY.  FROM THIS, THEY ARGUE THAT THE ONLY
"OBLIGATION" FOR WHICH ENFORCEMENT IS HERE SOUGHT IS ONE "PAYABLE" IN
GUILDERS WHICH MUST BE TREATED AS THOUGH IT WERE AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE
AND INDEPENDENT PROMISE OF THE RAILROAD.  BUT THE RAILROAD UNDERTOOK
ONLY A SINGLE OBLIGATION TO REPAY THE MONEY IT BORROWED.  REPAYMENT OF
THAT MONEY MIGHT BE CALLED FOR IN ANY ONE, BUT ONLY ONE, OF THE FIVE
DIFFERENT TYPES OF MONEY.  THIS, HOWEVER, DID NOT DIVIDE THE RAILROAD'S
UNDERTAKING TO REPAY INTO FIVE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT OBLIGATIONS TO
REPAY THE SAME LOAN.  PAYMENT UNDER THE CONTRACT IN ANY ONE OF THE
CURRENCIES SELECTED BY THE BONDHOLDER WOULD DISCHARGE THE ENTIRE SINGLE
OBLIGATION OF THE DEBTOR.  PAYMENT IN GUILDERS, AFTER PAYMENT IN
GUILDERS WAS ELECTED, WOULD NONETHELESS DISCHARGE AN OBLIGATION WHICH
PRIOR TO SUCH ELECTION AND PAYMENT WAS AN OBLIGATION ALSO PAYABLE IN
UNITED STATES DOLLARS.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION WAS
INTENDED TO REFER TO A MONETARY OBLIGATION IN ITS ENTIRETY.  THAT WHICH
THE JOINT RESOLUTION MADE DISCHARGEABLE WAS THE DEBT - THE MONETARY
OBLIGATION TO PAY.  THIS DEBTOR'S OBLIGATION WAS A MONETARY
OBLIGATION.  THE FOREIGN CURRENCIES PROMISED WERE NOT BARTERED FOR AS
COMMODITIES, BUT THEIR FUNCTION WAS THAT OF MONEY TO BE PAID IN
COUNTRIES IN WHICH THEY WERE LEGAL TENDER AND UPON THEM INTEREST WAS TO
BE PAID.  FN5 INTEREST IS NOT PAID ON COMMODITIES BUT ON MONETARY
OBLIGATIONS.  AND THESE PROMISES IN ALTERNATIVE CURRENCIES WERE NOT
SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTS OR OBLIGATIONS, BUT WERE PARTS OF
ONE AND THE SAME MONETARY OBLIGATION OF THE DEBTOR. 

THE POINT IS MADE, HOWEVER, THAT THIS OBLIGATION OF THE RAILROAD WAS
NEVER PAYABLE IN UNITED STATES MONEY BECAUSE THE OPTION TO RECEIVE
PAYMENT IN DOLLARS HAS NEVER BEEN EXERCISED.  CONCEDING THAT ONE
MEANING OF "PAYABLE" IS "CAPABLE OF BEING PAID," PETITIONERS
NEVERTHELESS URGE THAT THE USE OF THIS MEANING SHOULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED
TO CONGRESS, BUT THAT INSTEAD WE MUST NARROW AND RESTRICT "PAYABLE" TO
MEAN AN ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL OBLIGATION.  BUT THE RAILROAD, SINCE
THE DAY ITS BONDS WERE ISSUED, WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO HOLD ITSELF
PREPARED TO PAY UNITED STATES MONEY - OR ANY ONE OF THE OPTIONAL
CURRENCIES.  AND, ON THE DATE THE RESOLUTION WENT INTO EFFECT, NO
ELECTION HAD BEEN MADE SO THAT THE RAILROAD WAS, AT THAT TIME, STILL
UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY DOLLARS.  IF PRIOR TO ELECTION BY THE HOLDERS
THE RAILROAD WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PAY UNITED STATES MONEY, IT WAS
LIKEWISE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PAY ANY MONEY, UNITED STATES OR
OTHERWISE, ALTHOUGH IT THEN HAD OUTSTANDING A $100,000,000.00 MORTGAGE
ON ALL OF ITS PROPERTIES.  NEITHER IN LOGIC NOR LAW CAN IT BE SAID THAT
THE RAILROAD'S PROMISE, SECURED BY A $100,000,000.00 MORTGAGE, TO PAY
IN ANY ONE OF FIVE CURRENCIES WAS NOT AN OBLIGATION PAYABLE IN ANY
CURRENCY UNTIL EXPRESS ELECTION OF PAYMENT IN A PARTICULAR CURRENCY WAS
MADE.  LEGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS CAME INTO EXISTENCE WHEN THE
CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASE OF THE BONDS WERE COMPLETED.  SINCE THE WORDS
"(OBLIGATIONS) ...  PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES" ARE CLEARLY
BROAD ENOUGH TO REQUIRE INCLUSION OF THESE MULTIPLE CURRENCY
OBLIGATIONS, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION HERE FOR RESTRICTING THE MEANING
OF THESE WORDS OF THE RESOLUTION.  CONSIDERATION OF THE EVILS AIMED AT
LEAVES NO DOUBT BUT THAT SUCH RESTRICTION WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO THE
INTENTION OF THE CONGRESS. 

THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE RESOLUTION OPENS WITH WORDS
REVEALING ITS PURPOSE.  IT IS THERE STATED THAT "CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF
INTERPRETATION HAVE ARISEN WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGISLATION EMPOWERING
THE PRESIDENT TO PREVENT THE WITHDRAWAL AND HOARDING OF GOLD AND THE
PROVISION OF THE THOMAS AMENDMENT  FN6  MAKING ALL COINS AND CURRENCIES
LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS.  ADDITIONAL AND IMMEDIATE LEGISLATION IS
NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE DISTURBING EFFECT OF THIS UNCERTAINTY AND TO
INSURE THE SUCCESS OF THE POLICY BY CLOSING POSSIBLE LEGAL LOOPHOLES
AND REMOVING INCONSISTENCIES."  FN7  THE COMPREHENSIVE LANGUAGE OF THE
RESOLUTION WAS INTENDED - AS BY ITS TERMS IT DID - TO CLOSE "LEGAL
LOOPHOLES" CONTRIBUTING TO "DISLOCATION OF THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY WHICH
WOULD BE CAUSED BY SUCH A DISPARITY OF CONDITIONS IN WHICH, IT IS
INSISTED, THOSE DEBTORS UNDER GOLD CLAUSES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY
ONE DOLLAR AND SIXTY-NINE CENTS IN CURRENCY WHILE RESPECTIVELY
RECEIVING THEIR TAXES, RATES, CHARGES AND PRICES ON THE BASIS OF ONE
DOLLAR OF THAT CURRENCY."  FN8  HERE, THE ADMITTED PURPOSE OF THE
MULTIPLE CURRENCY PROVISION SUPPLEMENTING THE GOLD CLAUSE WAS THE SAME
AS THAT OF THE GOLD CLAUSE ITSELF, THAT IS, TO AFFORD CREDITORS OF
UNITED STATES DEBTORS ON DOMESTIC MONEY OBLIGATIONS CONTRACTUAL
PROTECTION AGAINST POSSIBLE DEPRECIATION OF UNITED STATES MONEY.  IT
WAS A PLAN, WHOLLY LEGAL WHEN CONTRIVED, SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO
REQUIRE DEBTORS TO PAY 1912 GOLD DOLLARS OR FIXED AMOUNTS IN FOREIGN
CURRENCIES WHICH WERE THE EXACT EQUIVALENTS OF GOLD DOLLARS IN 1912. 
IN PURPOSE, PATTERN AND, AS SHOWN HERE, IN RESULT, THE MULTIPLE
CURRENCY PROVISION IS IDENTICAL WITH THE PRACTICE CONGRESS DECLARED TO
BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, AND IT FURTHERS A MISCHIEF WHICH THE
RESOLUTION WAS ENACTED TO END.    THE MISCHIEF CONGRESS INTENDED TO END
WILL NOT END IF THE MULTIPLE CURRENCY PROVISION OF THESE BONDS IS HELD
TO BE UNAFFECTED BY THE RESOLUTION.  CONGRESS SOUGHT TO OUTLAW ALL
CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS WHICH REQUIRE DEBTORS, WHO HAVE BOUND THEMSELVES
TO PAY UNITED STATES DOLLARS, TO PAY A GREATER NUMBER OF DOLLARS THAN
PROMISED.  THE RESOLUTION INTENDED THAT DEBTORS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY
DOLLARS SHOULD NOT HAVE THEIR DEBTS TIED TO ANY FIXED VALUE OF
PARTICULAR MONEY, BUT THAT THEIR ENTIRE OBLIGATIONS SHOULD BE MEASURED
BY AND TIED TO THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF DOLLARS PROMISED, DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR.  A MULTIPLE CURRENCY PROVISION WAS INSERTED IN THESE BONDS IN
ORDER TO TIE THIS DEBTOR TO A FIXED VALUE OF PARTICULAR MONEY, AND,
RELYING UPON THIS PROVISION, PETITIONERS DEMAND MORE DOLLARS THAN
PROMISED IN THE BONDS.  THE PROVISION IS THUS CLEARLY AT CROSS PURPOSES
WITH THE RESOLUTION.  BY A SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION TRANSLATING
GUILDER VALUE INTO DOLLAR VALUE, PETITIONERS WILL, IF THE RESOLUTION IS
NOT APPLIED TO THEM, ENFORCE THE OBLIGATIONS OF THIS DEBTOR, NOT DOLLAR
FOR DOLLAR AS THE RESOLUTION PROVIDES, BUT MORE THAN A DOLLAR AND A
HALF FOR EVERY DOLLAR BORROWED, AND THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS, THAT NO
SUCH PREMIUM NEED BE PAID, WILL BE COMPLETELY DEFEATED. 

WHEN THE JOINT RESOLUTION WAS ENACTED THE RAILROAD HAD BY ITS PROMISE
ASSUMED OBLIGATIONS TO PAY ITS BONDS IN DOLLARS; ITS OBLIGATIONS WERE
THEREFORE "PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES" AND SO FALL SQUARELY
WITHIN THE LETTER, AS WELL AS THE SPIRIT OF THE RESOLUTION MAKING
OBLIGATIONS DISCHARGEABLE BY PAYMENT OF CURRENT UNITED STATES LEGAL
TENDER MONEY. 

THERE REMAINS THE ARGUMENT OF PETITIONERS THAT THE RESOLUTION, IF
CONSTRUED TO FORBID ENFORCEMENT OF THE OPTION TO DEMAND PAYMENT IN
GUILDERS, NULLIFIES CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  BUT, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT,
THE CONTRACTS ON WHICH THE CLAIMS FOR GUILDERS REST ARE DOMESTIC
OBLIGATIONS, CONTROLLED BY AND TO BE INTERPRETED UNDER THE LAW OF THE
UNITED STATES.  AND CONTRACTS BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES CANNOT CREATE
VESTED RIGHTS WHICH SERVE TO RESTRICT AND LIMIT AN EXERCISE OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS.  FN9  THESE BONDS AND THEIR SECURING
MORTGAGE WERE CREATED SUBJECT NOT ONLY TO THE EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER "TO COIN MONEY, REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF,
AND OF FOREIGN COIN," BUT ALSO TO "THE FULL AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS
IN RELATION TO THE CURRENCY."  THE EXTENT OF THAT AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS
HAS BEEN RECENTLY POINTED OUT:  "THE BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL
AUTHORITY OVER THE SUBJECTS OF REVENUE, FINANCE AND CURRENCY IS DERIVED
FROM THE AGGREGATE OF THE POWERS GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS, EMBRACING THE
POWERS TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, TO BORROW MONEY, TO REGULATE COMMERCE
WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, TO COIN MONEY,
REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF, AND OF FOREIGN COIN, AND FIX THE STANDARDS
OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, AND THE ADDED EXPRESS POWER 'TO MAKE ALL LAWS
WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION' THE
OTHER ENUMERATED POWERS."  FN10 

UNDER THESE POWERS, CONGRESS WAS AUTHORIZED - AS IT DID IN THE
RESOLUTION - TO ESTABLISH, REGULATE AND CONTROL THE NATIONAL CURRENCY
AND TO MAKE THAT CURRENCY LEGAL TENDER MONEY FOR ALL PURPOSES,
INCLUDING PAYMENT OF DOMESTIC DOLLAR OBLIGATIONS WITH OPTIONS FOR
PAYMENT IN FOREIGN CURRENCIES.  WHETHER IT WAS "WISE AND EXPEDIENT" TO
DO SO WAS, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, A DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY THE
CONGRESS.  FN11  THE RESOLUTION THAT MADE THESE CREDITORS' BONDS
DISCHARGEABLE IN THE SAME UNITED STATES LEGAL TENDER WHICH OTHER
CREDITORS IN THIS COUNTRY MUST ACCEPT, DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

OUR CONCLUSION THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION MAKES PETITIONERS' CLAIMS IN
BANKRUPTCY ALLOWABLE DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR RENDERS CONSIDERATION OF
SUBSIDIARY QUESTIONS UNNECESSARY. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 112, 31 U.S.C. 463. 

FN2  98 F.2D 160, 179.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
PREVIOUSLY HELD TO THE CONTRARY, ANGLO-CONTINENTALE TREUHAND, A. G. V.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 81 F.2D 11, CERT. DEN.  298 U.S. 655,
AND THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK DID LIKEWISE IN ZURICH GENERAL &
A.L. INS. CO. V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., AND ANGLO-CONTINENTALE TREUHAND
V. BETHLEHEM STEEL CO., 279 N.Y. 495, 790; 18 N.E.2D 673; 19 N.E.2D 89;
POST, P. 265.  BECAUSE OF THE DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS ON THIS IMPORTANT
QUESTION, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 588. 

FN3                     "JOINT RESOLUTION 

"TO ASSURE UNIFORM VALUE TO THE COINS AND CURRENCIES OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

"WHEREAS THE HOLDING OF OR DEALING IN GOLD AFFECT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, AND ARE THEREFORE SUBJECT TO PROPER REGULATION AND
RESTRICTION; AND 

"WHEREAS THE EXISTING EMERGENCY HAS DISCLOSED THAT PROVISIONS OF
OBLIGATIONS WHICH PURPORT TO GIVE THE OBLIGEE A RIGHT TO REQUIRE
PAYMENT IN GOLD OR A PARTICULAR KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR IN AN AMOUNT IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES MEASURED THEREBY,
OBSTRUCT THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE VALUE OF THE MONEY
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARED POLICY OF
THE CONGRESS TO MAINTAIN AT ALL TIMES THE EQUAL POWER OF EVERY DOLLAR,
COINED OR ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES, IN THE MARKETS AND IN THE
PAYMENT OF DEBTS.  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 

"RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT (A) EVERY PROVISION
CONTAINED IN OR MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY OBLIGATION WHICH PURPORTS TO
GIVE THE OBLIGEE A RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT IN GOLD OR A PARTICULAR
KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY, OR IN AN AMOUNT IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES
MEASURED THEREBY, IS DECLARED TO BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY; AND NO SUCH
PROVISION SHALL BE CONTAINED IN OR MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY OBLIGATION
HEREAFTER INCURRED.  EVERY OBLIGATION, HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER
INCURRED, WHETHER OR NOT ANY SUCH PROVISION IS CONTAINED THEREIN OR
MADE WITH RESPECT THERETO, SHALL BE DISCHARGED UPON PAYMENT, DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR, IN ANY COIN OR CURRENCY WHICH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT IS LEGAL
TENDER FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEBTS.  ANY SUCH PROVISION CONTAINED IN
ANY LAW AUTHORIZING OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY OR UNDER AUTHORITY OF
THE UNITED STATES, IS HEREBY REPEALED, BUT THE REPEAL OF ANY SUCH
PROVISION SHALL NOT INVALIDATE ANY OTHER PROVISION OR AUTHORITY
CONTAINED IN SUCH LAW. 

"(B)  AS USED IN THIS RESOLUTION, THE TERM 'OBLIGATION' MEANS AN
OBLIGATION (INCLUDING EVERY OBLIGATION OF AND TO THE UNITED STATES,
EXCEPTING CURRENCY) PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES; AND THE TERM
'COIN OR CURRENCY' MEANS COIN OR CURRENCY OF THE UNITED STATES,
INCLUDING FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES AND CIRCULATING NOTES OF FEDERAL
RESERVE BANKS AND NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS. 

"SEC. 2.  THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBSECTION (B) OF
ECONOMIC EMERGENCY BY INCREASING AGRICULTURAL PURCHASING POWER, TO
RAISE REVENUE FOR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES INCURRED BY REASON OF SUCH
EMERGENCY, TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURAL
INDEBTEDNESS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY LIQUIDATION OF JOINT-STOCK
LAND BANKS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES', APPROVED MAY 12, 1933, IS AMENDED
TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"'ALL COINS AND CURRENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES (INCLUDING FEDERAL
RESERVE NOTES AND CIRCULATING NOTES OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS AND
NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS) HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER COINED OR
ISSUED, SHALL BE LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, PUBLIC
CHARGES, TAXES, DUTIES, AND DUES, EXCEPT THAT GOLD COINS, WHEN BELOW
THE STANDARD WEIGHT AND LIMIT OF TOLERANCE PROVIDED BY LAW FOR THE
SINGLE PIECE, SHALL BE LEGAL TENDER ONLY AT VALUATION IN PROPORTION TO
THEIR ACTUAL WEIGHT.' 

"APPROVED, JUNE 5, 1933, 4.40 P.M." 

FN4  LIVERPOOL STEAM CO. V. PHENIX INS. CO., 129 U.S. 397, 453, 459;
UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211, 222; R. V. INTERNATIONAL
TRUSTEE, (1937) 2 ALL E.R. 164; MOUNT ALBERT BOROUGH COUNCIL V.
AUSTRALASIAN, AUSTRALASIAN, T. & G.S. LIFE ASSURANCE SOC., (1938) A.C.
224; JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SWEDEN, (JAN. 30, 1937), REPORTED
IN BULLETIN DE L'INSTITUT JURIDIQUE INTERNATIONAL, APRIL, 1937, PP.
327, 334. 

FN5  HOLYOKE POWER CO. V. PAPER CO., 300 U.S. 324, 335-336; NORMAN V.
BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, 302. 

FN6  48 STAT. 51, SEC. 43. 

FN7  SEN. REP. NO. 99, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN8  NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., SUPRA, 315-16. 

FN9 NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., SUPRA, 306-311; CF., HOME BLDG. &
L. ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 435. 

FN10  NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO., SUPRA, 303. 

FN11  JUILLIARD V. GREENMAN (LEGAL TENDER CASE), 110 U.S. 421, 448,
450. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, DISSENTING. 

WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE QUESTION WHETHER THE BONDHOLDERS IN THESE
CASES HAVE PROPERLY EXERCISED THEIR OPTIONS, I CANNOT AGREE THAT THE
JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 5, 1933, HAS SET AT NAUGHT THE
PROMISE OF THE BONDS TO PAY GUILDERS TO THE HOLDERS AT THEIR ELECTION. 

IN EACH CASE THE BONDS CONTAIN ALTERNATIVE AND MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
UNDERTAKINGS.  THE HOLDER COULD IF HE WISHED DEMAND PAYMENT IN UNITED
STATES GOLD DOLLARS OF A FIXED STANDARD OR THEIR EQUIVALENT IN UNITED
STATES CURRENCY.  THE ALTERNATIVE PROMISE IS FOR PAYMENT ABROAD OF
SPECIFIED AMOUNTS OF ANY ONE OF SEVERAL FOREIGN CURRENCIES, WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THEIR GOLD VALUE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT.  ITS PERFORMANCE
IS AS INDEPENDENT OF GOLD OR GOLD VALUE AS IF IT HAD CALLED FOR THE
DELIVERY OF A SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF WHEAT, SUGAR OR COFFEE, OR THE
PERFORMANCE OF SPECIFIED SERVICES. 

ANY CONSTRUCTION OF THE GOLD CLAUSE RESOLUTION WHICH WOULD IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE PRECLUDE PAYMENT IN FOREIGN MONEY
WOULD EQUALLY FORBID PERFORMANCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE PROMISE CALLING FOR
THE DELIVERY OF A COMMODITY OR THE RENDITION OF SERVICES.  HENCE THE
DECISIVE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE RESOLUTION ADMITS OF A CONSTRUCTION
WHICH WOULD COMPEL ONE WHOSE CONTRACT STIPULATES FOR DELIVERY AT HIS
OPTION OF A CARGO OF SUGAR TO ACCEPT INSTEAD PAYMENT OF A SPECIFIED
AMOUNT IN LEGAL TENDER DOLLARS, MERELY BECAUSE BY THE TERMS OF HIS
CONTRACT HE MIGHT HAVE DEMANDED, THOUGH HE DID NOT, AN EQUAL NUMBER OF
GOLD DOLLARS. 

WHEN THE JOINT RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED THERE WERE MANY OBLIGATIONS OF
AMERICAN CITIZENS PAYABLE ABROAD EXCLUSIVELY IN FOREIGN CURRENCY, AND
THE ATTENDANT DEVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR GREATLY INCREASED THE BURDEN OF
PERFORMANCE OF SUCH CONTRACTS THROUGH THE NECESSITY OF PURCHASING WITH
DEPRECIATED DOLLARS THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE REQUIRED FOR THEIR
FULFILLMENT.  BUT IT MUST BE CONCEDED THAT CONGRESS DID NOT UNDERTAKE
TO RELIEVE ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN OF THAT BURDEN, AND IT IS NOT CONTENDED
THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDED FOR THE DISCHARGE OF ANY OBLIGATIONS
PAYABLE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY, NOT MEASURED IN GOLD, EXCEPT IN THE CASE
WHERE THE PROMISE TO PAY IN FOREIGN MONEY IS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THE
PROMISE TO PAY IN DOLLARS.  AFTER DEVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR THE BURDEN
ON AMERICAN CITIZENS OF MEETING OBLIGATIONS ABROAD BY PAYMENT IN
FOREIGN CURRENCIES MAY WELL HAVE BEEN AS GREAT WHETHER THE UNDERTAKING
WAS UNCONDITIONAL OR TO PAY UPON A CONDITION WHICH HAD HAPPENED, OR
WHETHER THE OBLIGATION WAS TO PAY IN A FOREIGN CURRENCY OR TO SUPPLY
GOODS WHICH MUST BE ACQUIRED BY THE EXPENDITURE OF DEPRECIATED
DOLLARS. 

WE CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OR ITS LANGUAGE TO SUGGEST ANY CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO
RELIEVE FROM THE ONE FORM OF OBLIGATION MORE THAN ANOTHER, OR TO
INDICATE THAT THE RESOLUTION WAS AIMED AT ANYTHING OTHER THAN
PROVISIONS CALLING FOR PAYMENT IN GOLD VALUE OR GOLD DOLLARS OR THEIR
EQUIVALENT, WHICH CONGRESS EXPLICITLY NAMED AND DESCRIBED AS THE EVIL
TO BE REMEDIED, BOTH IN THE JOINT RESOLUTION ITSELF AND IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS ATTENDING ITS ADOPTION.  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 99, 73D
CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 169, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. 

THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS AND THE COMMITTEE REPORTS MAKE NO
MENTION OF OBLIGATIONS DISCHARGEABLE IN FOREIGN CURRENCIES OR BY
DELIVERY OF COMMODITIES OR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES.  IF IT WAS THE
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO CONTROL SUCH OBLIGATIONS THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF
ITS POWER TO REGULATE THE VALUE OF MONEY, THAT FACT MUST BE
DISCOVERABLE FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE RESOLUTION OR FROM SOME
UNDERLYING PUBLIC POLICY, TO WHICH ITS WORDS AND THE RECORDS OF
CONGRESS GIVE NO CLUE.  SHORTLY BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION,
CONGRESS HAD AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO DEVALUE THE DOLLAR.  BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION AND EXECUTIVE ACTION, GOLD PAYMENTS BY THE
TREASURY HAD BEEN SUSPENDED, THE HOARDING OF GOLD AND ITS EXPORTATION
HAD BEEN PROHIBITED, AND ALL PERSONS HAD BEEN REQUIRED TO DELIVER GOLD
OWNED BY THEM TO THE TREASURY.  SEE NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO.,
294 U.S. 240, 295 ET SEQ. IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THESE MEASURES, AIMED AT
THE SUPPRESSION OF THE USE OF GOLD AS A STANDARD OF CURRENCY VALUE,
WOULD FAIL OF THEIR PURPOSE UNLESS ALL PAYMENTS IN GOLD OF THE
ESTABLISHED STANDARD OR ITS EQUIVALENT WERE OUTLAWED.  THE REPORTS OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE
RESOLUTION INDICATE CLEARLY ENOUGH THAT SUCH WAS ITS PURPOSE.  THEY
GIVE NO HINT THAT MORE WAS INTENDED.  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 99, 73D CONG.,
1ST SESS.; H.R. REP. NO. 169, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS.    THE RECITALS OF
THE JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARE THAT IT IS AIMED AT "THE HOLDING OF OR
DEALING IN GOLD" AND THE "PROVISIONS OF OBLIGATIONS WHICH PURPORT TO
GIVE THE OBLIGEE A RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT IN GOLD OR A PARTICULAR
KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR IN AN AMOUNT IN MONEY
OF THE UNITED STATES MEASURED THEREBY."  NO OTHER PURPOSE IS
SUGGESTED.  THE ENACTING PART OF THE RESOLUTION PROSCRIBES "EVERY
PROVISION  ...  WHICH PURPORTS TO GIVE THE OBLIGEE A RIGHT TO REQUIRE
PAYMENT IN GOLD OR A PARTICULAR KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY, OR IN AN
AMOUNT IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES MEASURED THEREBY," AND DECLARES
"EVERY OBLIGATION, HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER INCURRED, WHETHER OR NOT ANY
SUCH PROVISION IS CONTAINED THEREIN OR MADE WITH RESPECT THERETO, SHALL
BE DISCHARGED UPON PAYMENT, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, IN ANY COIN OR CURRENCY
WHICH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT IS LEGAL TENDER  ...  "  "OBLIGATION," IT
STATES, "MEANS AN OBLIGATION  ...  PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED
STATES."  THUS THE RESOLUTION PROCLAIMS THAT IT IS AIMED AT GOLD
CLAUSES AND DECLARES, IF LANGUAGE IS TO BE TAKEN IN ITS PLAIN AND MOST
OBVIOUS SENSE, THAT PROVISIONS REQUIRING PAYMENT IN GOLD DOLLARS OR
MEASURED BY GOLD ARE ILLEGAL AND THAT EVERY PROMISE OR OBLIGATION
"PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES" (NOT IN GUILDERS) SHALL BE
DISCHARGED "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR" IN LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY. 

TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE RESOLUTION COMPELS THE PRESENT
BONDHOLDERS TO ACCEPT DOLLARS INSTEAD OF THE GUILDERS FOR WHICH THEY
HAVE CONTRACTED, IT IS NECESSARY TO SAY THAT "OBLIGATION," WHICH THE
JOINT RESOLUTION DEFINES AS OBLIGATION "PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED
STATES" AND REQUIRES TO BE DISCHARGED "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR" IN LEGAL
TENDER, INCLUDES THE OBLIGATION PAYABLE IN GUILDERS.  THIS DIFFICULTY
IS BRIDGED BY RECOURSE TO A MAJOR OPERATION OF STATUTORY
RECONSTRUCTION.  IT IS SAID THAT "OBLIGATION" MEANS, NOT THE OBLIGATION
OR PROMISE WHICH IS DEFINED BY THE RESOLUTION AS THAT "PAYABLE IN MONEY
OF THE UNITED STATES" AND IN WHICH THE GOLD CLAUSE PROVISION IS
"CONTAINED" AND "WITH RESPECT" TO WHICH THE PROVISION IS "MADE," BUT
INCLUDES ALL OBLIGATIONS, ALTHOUGH NOT DISCHARGEABLE IN MONEY OF THE
UNITED STATES OR IN GOLD, WHICH MAY BE WRITTEN INTO THE INSTRUMENT OR
DOCUMENT CONTAINING ALTERNATIVE PROMISES, ONE OF WHICH IS TO PAY IN
DOLLARS.  THE "OBLIGATION" OF THE RESOLUTION "WITH RESPECT" TO WHICH
THE GOLD CLAUSE IS "MADE" IS THUS TREATED AS SYNONYMOUS WITH THE
INSTRUMENT CONTAINING THE MULTIPLE OBLIGATIONS, AND ALL THE PROVISIONS
IN IT (NOT ALONE THE PROMISE TO PAY DOLLARS) ARE NOW HELD TO BE
DISCHARGEABLE IN DOLLARS MERELY BECAUSE ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE PROMISES
"CONTAINED" A PROVISION PAYABLE IN "MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES,"
ALTHOUGH THE BONDHOLDER IS ENTITLED BY HIS CONTRACT TO DEMAND
PERFORMANCE OF A PROMISE TO PAY GUILDERS NOT MEASURED BY GOLD.  THUS,
STARTING WITH A RESOLUTION AVOWEDLY DIRECTED AT GOLD CLAUSES, WE ARE
BROUGHT TO THE EXTRAORDINARY CONCLUSION THAT A PROMISE TO PAY FOREIGN
CURRENCY IS VOID IF EXPRESSED IN AN INSTRUMENT CONTAINING AN
ALTERNATIVE PROMISE TO PAY IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES WHETHER OF
GOLD STANDARD OR NOT. 

THE ARGUMENT IS NOT PERSUASIVE, BECAUSE IT RESTS BOTH UPON A STRAINED
AND UNNATURAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESOLUTION AND UPON AN ASSUMPTION
THAT THERE WAS A CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO STRIKE DOWN PROVISIONS FOR THE
ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE OF DOLLAR OBLIGATIONS BY PAYMENT IN FOREIGN
CURRENCY NOT TIED TO GOLD, WHICH FINDS NO SUPPORT IN THE LANGUAGE OF
THE JOINT RESOLUTION OR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.  IT SEEMS FAIR TO
SUPPOSE THAT IF CONGRESS PROPOSED TO END ALL POSSIBILITY OF CREATING AN
INTERNATIONAL MARKET FOR BONDS PAYABLE IN DOLLARS OR ALTERNATIVELY
ABROAD IN FOREIGN CURRENCIES, BOTH WITHOUT GOLD VALUE, IT WOULD HAVE
GIVEN SOME MORE EXPLICIT INDICATION OF THAT PURPOSE THAN IS EXHIBITED
BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION.  EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT CONGRESS WOULD HAVE
STRUCK DOWN SUCH ALTERNATIVE CURRENCY CLAUSES HAD IT CONSIDERED THE
MATTER, WE ARE NOT FREE TO DO WHAT CONGRESS MIGHT HAVE DONE BUT DID
NOT, OR WHAT WE MAY THINK IT OUGHT TO HAVE DONE TO LESSEN THE RIGORS OF
OUR OWN CURRENCY DEVALUATION FOR THOSE WHO HAD MADE CONTRACTS FOR
PAYMENT ABROAD IN FOREIGN CURRENCY WITHOUT GOLD VALUE. 

IN ANY CASE IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT IF CONGRESS HAD MADE THE ATTEMPT IT
WOULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN TO DO SO IN TERMS WHICH, IF THE COURT'S
CONSTRUCTION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION BE ACCEPTED, ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO
STRIKE DOWN EVERY CONCEIVABLE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT IN FOREIGN
CURRENCY, DELIVERY OF COMMODITIES, OR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES AS AN
ALTERNATIVE FOR A PROMISE TO PAY DOLLARS, WHETHER OF GOLD STANDARD OR
NOT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER
CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :







BETHLEHEM CO. V. ZURICH INS. CO., 307 U.S. 265 


NO. 590.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 10, 1939.  REARGUED APRIL 27, 1939.  -
DECIDED MAY 22, 1939.  - 279 N.Y. 495, 790 - 18 N.E.2D 673 - 19 N.E.2D
89, REVERSED. 


BONDS OF AMERICAN CORPORATIONS, PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES
OR IN FIXED AMOUNTS OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES, WHICH ORIGINALLY WERE SOLD
IN THIS COUNTRY TO BANKERS, BUT ARE NOW HELD BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
WHICH PURCHASED THEM ABROAD AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933, AND ELECTED TO DEMAND PAYMENT IN FOREIGN
CURRENCIES,  - HELD SUBJECT TO THE JOINT RESOLUTION AND PAYABLE DOLLAR
FOR DOLLAR IN UNITED STATES LEGAL TENDER.  SO DECIDED UPON THE
AUTHORITY OF THE CASE LAST PRECEDING. 

BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. ZURICH GENERAL ACCIDENT & LIABILITY INS. CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 591, BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. V. ANGLO-CONTINENTALE
TREUHAND, A.G., ET AL., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 594, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS, ENTERED ON REMITTITUR
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REVERSING JUDGMENTS
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION.  BOTH SUITS WERE BROUGHT TO
COLLECT INTEREST COUPONS FROM BONDS OF AN AMERICAN CORPORATION PAYABLE
ALTERNATIVELY IN DOLLARS OR IN FIXED AMOUNTS OF CERTAIN FOREIGN
CURRENCIES.  IN THE FIRST CASE, JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED BY THE NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT, SPECIAL TERM, FOR THE EXCHANGE VALUE OF SWISS FRANCS,
AND WAS REVERSED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION.  IN THE SECOND CASE,
JUDGMENT AT SPECIAL TERM HELD AGAINST THE RIGHT TO RECOVER EXCHANGE
VALUE OF DUTCH GUILDERS, AND WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION. 
FOR OPINION AT SPECIAL TERM IN THE FIRST CASE, SEE 254 APP. DIV. 839;
164 MISC. 498; 299 N.Y.S. 862. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AS DID NOS. 384 AND 495, THIS DAY DECIDED, ANTE, P. 247, THESE CASES
INVOLVE EFFORTS TO ENFORCE FOREIGN CURRENCY PROVISIONS OF BOND
OBLIGATIONS PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES AND OPTIONAL FIXED
AMOUNTS OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES.  THE OBLIGATIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY SIMILAR
TO THOSE IN NOS. 384 AND 495, BUT DIFFER IN TWO RESPECTS:  (1) THE
BONDS, ORIGINALLY SOLD IN THIS COUNTRY TO A GROUP OF BANKERS,  FN1
WERE OFFERED BY THAT GROUP NOT ONLY IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT ALSO ABROAD,
AND (2) THE PRESENT HOLDERS ARE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, SOME OF WHOSE
BONDS WERE BOUGHT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  THESE DISTINCTIONS DO NOT
REMOVE FOREIGN HOLDERS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF
JUNE 5, 1933. 

RESPONDENTS DID NOT PURCHASE THEIR BONDS OR ELECT TO DEMAND PAYMENT
IN FOREIGN CURRENCY UNTIL AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION. 
THE COURT BELOW HELD THE RESOLUTION WAS NOT APPLICABLE.  FN2 

IT IS RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION THAT THEIR BONDS REPRESENT A FORM OF
PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION, IN NO WISE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  HOWEVER, THEY SEEK TO ENFORCE THAT OBLIGATION IN THIS
COUNTRY AND CONGRESS HAS, AS IT CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY, PROVIDED THAT
MULTIPLE CURRENCY PROVISIONS OF DOLLAR OBLIGATIONS ARE AGAINST PUBLIC
POLICY HERE AND, THUS, UNENFORCEABLE.  THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES "THIS
CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN
PURSUANCE THEREOF; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHALL BE MADE, UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND; AND THE JUDGES IN EVERY STATE SHALL BE BOUND THEREBY, ANY THING
IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING."  COURTS IN THIS COUNTRY, STATE AND FEDERAL, CAN NO
LONGER ENFORCE THE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS WHICH RESPONDENTS HAVE
PROCEEDED ON, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR PLACE OF MAKING. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLAIM OF INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS BASED UPON THE
TREATY PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT IS ENOUGH THAT RESPONDENTS'
BONDS ARE "OBLIGATIONS PAYABLE IN THE MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES," AS
WE HAVE THIS DAY HELD. 

UNDER THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN NOS. 384 AND 495, THE
MULTIPLE CURRENCY PROVISIONS OF RESPONDENTS' BONDS ARE WITHIN THE
OPERATION OF THE RESOLUTION, AND THEIR COUPONS ARE DISCHARGEABLE DOLLAR
FOR DOLLAR IN CURRENT LEGAL TENDER MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SOME BONDS WERE ORIGINALLY ISSUED TO STOCKHOLDERS IN NO. 590. 

FN2  279 N.Y. 495, 790; 18 N.E.2D 673; 19 N.E.2D 89. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR.
JUSTICE STONE THINK THE JUDGMENTS IN THESE CASES SHOULD BE AFFIRMED,
FOR REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE STONE IN NO. 384,
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. HENWOOD, AND NO. 495, CHEMICAL BANK & TRUST CO.
V. HENWOOD, ANTE, P. 247. 
..END :






LANE V. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268 


NO. 460.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1939.  - 98 F.2D 980,
REVERSED. 


1.  A NEGRO WHO IS DENIED BY STATE REGISTRATION OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF
REGISTRATION, PREREQUISITE TO THE RIGHT TO VOTE, UNDER COLOR OF A STATE
REGISTRATION STATUTE WHICH, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT,
WORKS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE COLORED RACE, HAS A RIGHT OF ACTION IN
THE FEDERAL COURT FOR DAMAGES AGAINST SUCH OFFICIALS UNDER R.S. 1979; 8
U.S.C. SEC. 43.  GILES V. HARRIS, 189 U.S. 475, DISTINGUISHED.  P.
274. 

2.  THIS RESORT TO THE FEDERAL COURT MAY BE HAD WITHOUT FIRST
EXHAUSTING THE JUDICIAL (DISTINGUISHED FROM ADMINISTRATIVE) REMEDIES OF
THE STATE COURTS.  P. 274. 

3.  OKLAHOMA STATUTES MADE REGISTRATION PREREQUISITE TO VOTING, AND
PROVIDED GENERALLY THAT ALL CITIZENS QUALIFIED TO VOTE IN 1916 WHO
FAILED TO REGISTER BETWEEN APRIL 30 AND MAY 11, 1916, SHOULD BE
PERPETUALLY DISFRANCHISED, EXCEPTING THOSE WHO VOTED IN 1914.  THE
EFFECT WAS THAT WHITE PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THE LISTS IN 1914 IN VIRTUE OF
THE PROVISION OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION CALLED THE "GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE" WHICH THIS COURT IN 1915 ADJUDGED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, GUINN V.
UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347, WERE ENTITLED TO VOTE; WHEREAS COLORED
PEOPLE KEPT FROM REGISTERING AND VOTING BY THAT CLAUSE WOULD REMAIN
FOREVER DISFRANCHISED UNLESS THEY APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION DURING THE
LIMITED PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN 12 DAYS.  HELD REPUGNANT TO THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 275. 

LANE V. WILSON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 591, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT, ON
A VERDICT DIRECTED FOR DEFENDANTS IN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES, UNDER R.S.
1979. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMING THAT OF THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA, ENTERED
UPON A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS.  THE ACTION WAS ONE
FOR $5,000 DAMAGES BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 1979 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (8
U.S.C. SEC. 43), BY A COLORED CITIZEN CLAIMING DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT
RESULTING FROM ELECTORAL LEGISLATION OF OKLAHOMA, IN VIOLATION OF THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 305 U.S. 591, BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION AND AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THE
DECISION IN GUINN V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347. 

THE CONSTITUTION UNDER WHICH OKLAHOMA WAS ADMITTED INTO THE UNION
REGULATED THE SUFFRAGE BY ARTICLE III, WHEREBY ITS "QUALIFIED ELECTORS"
WERE TO BE "CITIZENS OF THE STATE  ...  WHO ARE OVER THE AGE OF TWENTY
ONE YEARS" WITH DISQUALIFICATIONS IN THE CASE OF FELONS, PAUPERS AND
LUNATICS.  SOON AFTER ITS ADMISSION THE SUFFRAGE PROVISIONS OF THE
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION WERE RADICALLY AMENDED BY THE ADDITION OF A
LITERACY TEST FROM WHICH WHITE VOTERS WERE IN EFFECT RELIEVED THROUGH
THE OPERATION OF A "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  THE CLAUSE WAS STRICKEN DOWN
BY THIS COURT AS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
"ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE" OF THE
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THIS OUTLAWRY OCCURRED ON JUNE 21, 1915.  IN THE
MEANTIME THE OKLAHOMA GENERAL ELECTION OF 1914 HAD BEEN BASED ON THE
OFFENDING "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  AFTER THE INVALIDATION OF THAT CLAUSE
A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE ENACTED A NEW SCHEME FOR
REGISTRATION AS A PREREQUISITE TO VOTING.  OKLAHOMA LAWS OF 1916, ACT
OF FEBRUARY 26, 1916, C. 24.  SECTION 4 OF THIS STATUTE (NOW SEC. 5654,
OKLAHOMA STATUTES 1931, 26 OKLA. ST. ANN. 74) FN1  WAS OBVIOUSLY
DIRECTED TOWARDS THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISION IN GUINN V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  THOSE WHO HAD VOTED IN THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1914,
AUTOMATICALLY REMAINED QUALIFIED VOTERS.  THE NEW REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS AFFECTED ONLY OTHERS.  THESE HAD TO APPLY FOR REGISTRATION
BETWEEN APRIL 30, 1916 AND MAY 11, 1916, IF QUALIFIED AT THAT TIME,
WITH AN EXTENSION TO JUNE 30, 1916, GIVEN ONLY TO THOSE "ABSENT FROM
THE COUNTY  ...  DURING SUCH PERIOD OF TIME, OR ...  PREVENTED BY
SICKNESS OR UNAVOIDABLE MISFORTUNE FROM REGISTERING  ...  WITHIN SUCH
TIME."  THE CRUX OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY IS THE VALIDITY OF THIS
REGISTRATION SCHEME, WITH ITS DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN WHITE CITIZENS WHO
HAD VOTED UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" IMMUNITY PRIOR TO GUINN V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND CITIZENS WHO WERE OUTSIDE IT, AND THE NOT
MORE THAN 12 DAYS AS THE NORMAL PERIOD OF REGISTRATION FOR THE
THERETOFORE PROSCRIBED CLASS. 

THE PETITIONER, A COLORED CITIZEN OF OKLAHOMA, WHO WAS THE PLAINTIFF
BELOW AND WILL HEREAFTER BE REFERRED TO AS SUCH, SUED THREE COUNTY
ELECTION OFFICIALS FOR DECLINING TO REGISTER HIM ON OCTOBER 17, 1934. 
HE WAS QUALIFIED FOR REGISTRATION IN 1916 BUT DID NOT THEN GET ON THE
REGISTRATION LIST.  THE EVIDENCE IS IN CONFLICT WHETHER HE PRESENTED
HIMSELF IN THAT YEAR FOR REGISTRATION AND, IF SO, UNDER WHAT
CIRCUMSTANCES REGISTRATION WAS DENIED HIM.  THE FACT IS THAT PLAINTIFF
DID NOT GET ON THE REGISTER IN 1916.  UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE HE
THEREBY PERMANENTLY LOST THE RIGHT TO REGISTER AND HENCE THE RIGHT TO
VOTE.  THE CENTRAL CLAIM OF PLAINTIFF IS THAT OF THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 5654.  THE DEFENDANTS JOINED ISSUE ON THIS
CLAIM AND FURTHER INSISTED THAT IF THERE HAD BEEN ILLEGALITY IN A
DENIAL OF THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO REGISTRATION, HIS PROPER RECOURSE
WAS TO THE COURTS OF OKLAHOMA.  THE DISTRICT COURT TOOK THE CASE FROM
THE JURY AND ITS ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
IT FOUND NO PROOF OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NEGROES IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF SEC. 5654 AND DENIED THAT THE LEGISLATION WAS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  98 F.2D 980. 

THE DEFENDANTS URGE TWO BARS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY, APART FROM
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEC. 5654.  THEY SAY THAT ON THE
PLAINTIFF'S OWN ASSUMPTION OF ITS INVALIDITY, THERE IS NO OKLAHOMA
STATUTE UNDER WHICH HE COULD REGISTER AND THEREFORE NO RIGHT TO
REGISTRATION HAS BEEN DENIED.  SECONDLY, THEY ARGUE THAT THE STATE
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION MUST BE EMPLOYED
BEFORE INVOKING THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.  THESE CONTENTIONS WILL BE
CONSIDERED FIRST, FOR THE DISPOSITION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MUST
BE RESERVED TO THE LAST. 

THE FIRST OBJECTION DERIVES FROM A MISAPPLICATION OF GILES V. HARRIS,
189 U.S. 475.  IN THAT CASE A BILL IN EQUITY WAS BROUGHT BY A COLORED
MAN ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF "AND ON BEHALF OF MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND
NEGROES, CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, SIMILARLY
SITUATED" WHICH IN EFFECT ASKED THE FEDERAL COURT "TO SUPERVISE THE
VOTING IN THAT STATE BY OFFICERS OF THE COURT."  WHAT THIS COURT CALLED
A "NEW AND EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION" WAS FOUND "STRIKINGLY" TO REINFORCE
"THE ARGUMENT THAT EQUITY CANNOT UNDERTAKE NOW, ANY MORE THAN IT HAS IN
THE PAST, TO ENFORCE POLITICAL RIGHTS."  SEE 189 U.S. AT 487.  FN2
APART FROM THIS TRADITIONAL RESTRICTION UPON THE EXERCISE OF EQUITABLE
JURISDICTION THERE WAS ANOTHER DIFFICULTY IN GILES V. HARRIS.  THE
PLAINTIFF THERE WAS IN EFFECT ASKING FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF HIS
RIGHT UNDER ALABAMA ELECTORAL LEGISLATION.  THIS PRESUPPOSED THE
VALIDITY OF THE LEGISLATION UNDER WHICH HE WAS CLAIMING.  BUT THE WHOLE
THEORY OF HIS BILL WAS THE INVALIDITY OF THIS LEGISLATION.  NATURALLY
ENOUGH, THIS COURT TOOK HIS CLAIM AT ITS FACE VALUE AND FOUND NO
LEGISLATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE COULD BE
DECREED.  FN3 

THIS CASE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM GILES V. HARRIS - THE DIFFERENCE
HAVING BEEN EXPLICITLY FORESHADOWED BY GILES V. HARRIS ITSELF.  IN THAT
CASE THIS COURT DECLARED "WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT AN ACTION AT
LAW COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED ON THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE BILL."  189
U.S. AT 485.  THAT IS PRECISELY THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT ACTION,
BROUGHT UNDER THE FOLLOWING "APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION" OF CONGRESS TO
ENFORCE THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT: 

"EVERY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE,  ...  OF ANY STATE OR
TERRITORY, SUBJECTS, OR CAUSES TO BE SUBJECTED, ANY CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES  ...  WITHIN THE JURISDICTION THEREOF TO THE DEPRIVATION
OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW. 
..."  FN4  THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT SECURES FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION
ON ACCOUNT OF RACE IN MATTERS AFFECTING THE FRANCHISE.  WHOSOEVER
"UNDER COLOR OF ANY STATUTE" SUBJECTS ANOTHER TO SUCH DISCRIMINATION
THEREBY DEPRIVES HIM OF WHAT THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT SECURES AND, UNDER
SEC. 1979 BECOMES "LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW." 
THE THEORY OF THE PLAINTIFF'S ACTION IS THAT THE DEFENDANTS, ACTING
UNDER COLOR OF SEC. 5654, DID DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE THAT
SUSTAINED HIS RIGHT TO SUE UNDER R.S. SEC. 1979 FOLLOWS.  THE BASIS OF
THIS ACTION IS INEQUALITY OF TREATMENT THOUGH UNDER COLOR OF LAW, NOT
DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE.  COMPARE NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S. 536. 

THE OTHER PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS ACTION IS
LIKEWISE UNTENABLE.  TO VINDICATE HIS PRESENT GRIEVANCE THE PLAINTIFF
DID NOT HAVE TO PURSUE WHATEVER REMEDY MAY HAVE BEEN OPEN TO HIM IN THE
STATE COURTS.  NORMALLY, THE STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, SOMETIMES
EXERCISED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS CONFERRED ON STATE COURTS, MUST
BE COMPLETED BEFORE RESORT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS CAN BE HAD.  PRENTIS
V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE CO., 211 U.S. 210.  BUT THE STATE PROCEDURE OPEN
FOR ONE IN THE PLAINTIFF'S SITUATION (SEC. 5654) HAS ALL THE INDICIA OF
A CONVENTIONAL JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE
OKLAHOMA COURTS ANY OF THE DISCRETIONARY OR INITIATORY FUNCTIONS THAT
ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES.  SEE SECTION 1 OF
ARTICLE IV OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION; OKLAHOMA COTTON GINNERS' ASSN.
V. STATE, 174 OKLA. 243; 51 P.2D 327.  BARRING ONLY EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, SEE E.G. GILCHRIST V. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO.,
279 U.S. 159, OR EXPLICIT STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, E.G. 48 STAT. 775; 50
STAT. 738; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), RESORT TO A FEDERAL COURT MAY BE HAD
WITHOUT FIRST EXHAUSTING THE JUDICIAL REMEDIES OF STATE COURTS.  BACON
V. RUTLAND R. CO., 232 U.S. 134; PACIFIC TEL. & TEL. CO. V. KUYKENDALL,
265 U.S. 196. 

WE THEREFORE CANNOT AVOID PASSING ON THE MERITS OF PLAINTIFF'S
CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS.  THE REACH OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
CONTRIVANCES BY A STATE TO THWART EQUALITY IN THE ENJOYMENT OF THE
RIGHT TO VOTE BY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES REGARDLESS OF RACE OR
COLOR, HAS BEEN AMPLY EXPOUNDED BY PRIOR DECISIONS.  GUINN V. UNITED
STATES, 238 U.S. 347; MYERS V. ANDERSON, 238 U.S. 368.  THE AMENDMENT
NULLIFIES SOPHISTICATED AS WELL AS SIMPLE-MINDED MODES OF
DISCRIMINATION.  IT HITS ONEROUS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH
EFFECTIVELY HANDICAP EXERCISE OF THE FRANCHISE BY THE COLORED RACE
ALTHOUGH THE ABSTRACT RIGHT TO VOTE MAY REMAIN UNRESTRICTED AS TO
RACE.  WHEN IN GUINN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE OKLAHOMA "GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE" WAS FOUND VIOLATIVE OF THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, OKLAHOMA WAS
CONFRONTED WITH THE SERIOUS TASK OF DEVISING A NEW REGISTRATION SYSTEM
CONSONANT WITH HER OWN POLITICAL IDEAS BUT ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  WE ARE COMPELLED TO CONCLUDE, HOWEVER
RELUCTANTLY, THAT THE LEGISLATION OF 1916 PARTAKES TOO MUCH OF THE
INFIRMITY OF THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" TO BE ABLE TO SURVIVE. 

PREREQUISITE TO VOTING.  FN5  BY SECS. 5654 AND 5659  FN6  ALL CITIZENS
WHO WERE QUALIFIED TO VOTE IN 1916 BUT HAD NOT VOTED IN 1914 WERE
REQUIRED TO REGISTER, SAVE IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BETWEEN
APRIL 30 AND MAY 11, 1916, AND IN DEFAULT OF SUCH REGISTRATION WERE
PERPETUALLY DISENFRANCHISED.  EXEMPTION FROM THIS ONEROUS PROVISION WAS
ENJOYED BY ALL WHO HAD REGISTERED IN 1914.  BUT THIS REGISTRATION WAS
HELD UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH WAS CONDEMNED IN THE GUINN CASE.  UNFAIR
DISCRIMINATION WAS THUS RETAINED BY AUTOMATICALLY GRANTING VOTING
PRIVILEGES FOR LIFE TO THE WHITE CITIZENS WHOM THE CONSTITUTIONAL
"GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" HAD SHELTERED WHILE SUBJECTING COLORED CITIZENS TO
A NEW BURDEN.  THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THE 1916 LEGISLATION WAS TO
ACCORD TO THE MEMBERS OF THE NEGRO RACE WHO HAD BEEN DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST IN THE OUTLAWED REGISTRATION SYSTEM OF 1914, NOT MORE THAN 12
DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO REASSERT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHICH THIS COURT
FOUND IN THE GUINN CASE TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY TAKEN FROM THEM.  WE
BELIEVE THAT THE OPPORTUNITY THUS GIVEN NEGRO VOTERS TO FREE THEMSELVES
FROM THE EFFECTS OF DISCRIMINATION TO WHICH THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN
SUBJECTED WAS TOO CABINED AND CONFINED.  THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED MUST
BE JUDGED WITH REFERENCE TO THOSE FOR WHOM THEY WERE DESIGNED.  IT MUST
BE REMEMBERED THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH A BODY OF CITIZENS LACKING THE
HABITS AND TRADITIONS OF POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE AND OTHERWISE LIVING IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT ENCOURAGE INITIATIVE AND ENTERPRISE.  TO BE
SURE, IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES A SUPPLEMENTAL PERIOD WAS AVAILABLE.  BUT
THE NARROW BASIS OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL REGISTRATION, THE EVERY BRIEF
NORMAL PERIOD OF RELIEF FOR THE PERSONS AND PURPOSES IN QUESTION, THE
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES, OF WHICH THE RECORD IN THIS CASE GIVES
GLIMPSES, INEVITABLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH STRICT REGISTRATION
PROVISIONS, LEAVE NO ESCAPE FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MEANS CHOSEN
AS SUBSTITUTES FOR THE INVALIDATED "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" WERE THEMSELVES
INVALID UNDER THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THEY OPERATED UNFAIRLY AGAINST
THE VERY CLASS ON WHOSE BEHALF THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS
HERE SUCCESSFULLY INVOKED. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST, THEREFORE, BE
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION. 

FN1  "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE PRECINCT REGISTRAR TO REGISTER EACH
QUALIFIED ELECTOR OF HIS ELECTION PRECINCT WHO MAKES APPLICATION
BETWEEN THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL, 1916, AND THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MAY,
1916, AND SUCH PERSON APPLYING SHALL AT THE TIME HE APPLIES TO REGISTER
BE A QUALIFIED ELECTOR IN SUCH PRECINCT AND HE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF EVERY QUALIFIED
ELECTOR TO REGISTER WITHIN SUCH TIME; PROVIDED, IF ANY ELECTOR SHOULD
BE ABSENT FROM THE COUNTY OF HIS RESIDENCE DURING SUCH PERIOD OF TIME,
OR IS PREVENTED BY SICKNESS OR UNAVOIDABLE MISFORTUNE FROM REGISTERING
WITH THE PRECINCT REGISTRAR WITHIN SUCH TIME, HE MAY REGISTER WITH SUCH
PRECINCT REGISTRAR AT ANY TIME AFTER THE TENTH DAY OF MAY, 1916, UP TO
AND INCLUDING THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE, 1916, BUT THE PRECINCT
REGISTRAR SHALL REGISTER NO PERSON UNDER THIS PROVISION UNLESS HE BE
SATISFIED THAT SUCH PERSON WAS ABSENT FROM THE COUNTY OR WAS PREVENTED
FROM REGISTERING BY SICKNESS OR UNAVOIDABLE MISFORTUNE, AS HEREINBEFORE
PROVIDED.  AND PROVIDED THAT IT SHALL BE THE MANDATORY DUTY OF EVERY
PRECINCT REGISTRAR TO ISSUE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES TO EVERY
QUALIFIED ELECTOR WHO VOTED AT THE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN THIS STATE
ON THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER, 1914, WITHOUT
THE APPLICATION OF SAID ELECTOR FOR REGISTRATION, AND, TO DELIVER SUCH
CERTIFICATE TO SUCH ELECTOR IF HE IS STILL A QUALIFIED ELECTOR IN SUCH
PRECINCT AND THE FAILURE TO SO REGISTER SUCH ELECTOR WHO VOTED IN SUCH
ELECTION HELD IN NOVEMBER, 1914, SHALL NOT PRECLUDE OR PREVENT SUCH
ELECTOR FROM VOTING IN ANY ELECTION IN THIS STATE; AND PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT WHEREVER ANY ELECTOR IS REFUSED REGISTRATION BY ANY
REGISTRATION OFFICER SUCH ACTION MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THE COUNTY BY THE AGGRIEVED ELECTOR BY HIS FILING WITHIN TEN DAYS A
PETITION WITH THE CLERK OF SAID COURT, WHEREUPON SUMMONS SHALL BE
ISSUED TO SAID REGISTRAR REQUIRING HIM TO ANSWER WITHIN TEN DAYS, AND
THE DISTRICT COURT SHALL BE A EXPEDITIOUS HEARING AND FROM HIS JUDGMENT
AN APPEAL WILL LIE AT THE INSTANCE OF EITHER PARTY TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE AS IN CIVIL CASES; AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT
ELECTIONS.  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT EACH COUNTY ELECTION BOARD IN THIS
STATE SHALL FURNISH TO EACH PRECINCT ELECTION BOARD IN THE RESPECTIVE
COUNTIES A LIST OF THE VOTERS WHO VOTED AT THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER,
1914, AND SUCH LIST SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE RIGHT OF SUCH
PERSON TO VOTE." 

FN2  SEE ALSO, IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200; WALTON V. HOUSE OF REP.,
265 U.S. 487; 4 POMEROY, EQUITY SEC. 1743 ET SEQ.; POUND, EQUITABLE
RELIEF AGAINST DEFAMATION AND INJURIES TO PERSONALITY, 29 HARV. L. REV.
640, 681. 

FN3  "IF THE SECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION CONCERNING REGISTRATION
WERE ILLEGAL IN THEIR INCEPTION, IT WOULD BE A NEW DOCTRINE IN
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT THE ORIGINAL INVALIDITY COULD BE CURED BY AN
ADMINISTRATION WHICH DEFEATED THEIR INTENT.  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS
TO THE ALLEGED FACT OF THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONALITY BEYOND SAYING THAT WE
ARE NOT WILLING TO ASSUME THAT THEY ARE VALID, IN THE FACE OF THE
ALLEGATIONS AND MAIN OBJECT OF THE BILL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING
THE RELIEF WHICH IT WAS NECESSARY TO PRAY IN ORDER THAT THAT OBJECT
SHOULD BE SECURED."  189 U.S. AT 487.  RECOGNITION OF THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AND THE EQUITABLE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN
GILES V. HARRIS WAS REPEATED AT THE CLOSE OF THE OPINION.  SEE 189 U.S.
AT 488.  JUSTICES HARLAN, BREWER, AND BROWN WERE OF THE OPINION THAT IT
WAS COMPETENT FOR A FEDERAL COURT TO GRANT EVEN THE EQUITABLE RELIEF
ASKED FOR IN GILES V. HARRIS. 

FN4  THE ACT OF APRIL 20, 1871, C. 22, 17 STAT. 13, WHICH BECAME SEC.
1979 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, AND IS NOW 8 U.S.C. SEC. 43. 

FN5  "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF EVERY QUALIFIED ELECTOR IN THIS STATE
TO REGISTER AS AN ELECTOR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND NO
ELECTOR SHALL BE PERMITTED TO VOTE AT ANY ELECTION UNLESS HE SHALL
REGISTER AS HEREIN PROVIDED, AND NO ELECTOR SHALL BE PERMITTED TO VOTE
IN ANY PRIMARY ELECTION OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY EXCEPT OF THE POLITICAL
PARTY OF WHICH HIS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE SHOWS HIM TO BE A MEMBER." 
SEC. 2, OKLAHOMA LAWS OF 1916, C. 24. 

FN6  "ANY PERSON WHO MAY BECOME A QUALIFIED ELECTOR IN ANY PRECINCT
IN THIS STATE AFTER THE TENTH DAY OF MAY, 1916, OR AFTER THE CLOSING OF
ANY OTHER REGISTRATION PERIOD, MAY REGISTER AS AN ELECTOR BY MAKING
APPLICATION TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE PRECINCT IN WHICH HE IS A QUALIFIED
VOTER, NOT MORE THAN TWENTY NOR LESS THAN TEN DAYS BEFORE THE DAY OF
HOLDING ANY ELECTION AND UPON COMPLYING WITH ALL THE TERMS AND
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF PRECINCT REGISTRARS
TO REGISTER SUCH QUALIFIED ELECTORS IN THEIR PRECINCT UNDER THE TERMS
AND PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, BEGINNING TWENTY DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF
HOLDING ANY ELECTION AND CONTINUING FOR A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS.  PRECINCT
REGISTRARS SHALL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO REGISTER ELECTORS AT ANY OTHER
TIME EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS ACT AND NO REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY ANY PRECINCT REGISTRAR AT ANY OTHER TIME EXCEPT AS HEREIN
PROVIDED SHALL BE VALID."  SEC. 9, OKLAHOMA LAWS OF 1916, C. 24. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER THINK THAT THE COURT
BELOW REACHED THE RIGHT CONCLUSION AND THAT ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














O'MALLEY V. WOODROUGH, 307 U.S. 277 


NO. 810.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1939.  - REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, REQUIRING
THAT THERE BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING
THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, THE COMPENSATION OF "JUDGES OF COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES TAKING OFFICE AFTER JUNE 6, 1932" - WHICH PROVISION WAS A
REENACTMENT OF A SIMILAR PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE REVENUE ACT OF JUNE
6, 1932, AND PART OF A TAXING MEASURE OF GENERAL, NONDISCRIMINATORY
APPLICATION TO ALL EARNERS OF INCOME,  - HELD CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED
TO A JUDGE WHO WAS APPOINTED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SUBSEQUENTLY TO JUNE 6, 1932.  P. 281. 

2.  THE PROVISION IN QUESTION CAN NOT BE REGARDED AS EFFECTING A
DIMINUTION OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE JUDGE IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, ART. III, SEC. 1, NOR AS AN ENCROACHMENT ON THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.  P. 282. 

CONGRESS DID NOT EXCEED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IN PROVIDING THAT
UNITED STATES JUDGES APPOINTED AFTER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 SHALL NOT
ENJOY IMMUNITY FROM THE INCIDENCES OF TAXATION TO WHICH EVERYONE ELSE
WITHIN THE DEFINED CLASSES OF INCOME IS SUBJECTED. 

3.  THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF THE JUDGE'S APPOINTMENT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HE HELD THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN APPOINTED PRIOR TO JUNE 6, 1932, IS IRRELEVANT TO
THE MATTER IN ISSUE.  P. 279. 

O'MALLEY, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. WOODROUGH ET UX. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEBRASKA. 

APPEAL UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF AUG. 24, 1937, FROM A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS A SUIT
FOR A REFUND OF INCOME TAXES COLLECTED UNDER AN ALLEGEDLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937(50 STAT.
751), AS A DIRECT APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT WHOSE
"DECISION WAS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY" OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS. 
THE SUIT BELOW, AN ACTION AT LAW TO RECOVER A TAX ON INCOME CLAIMED TO
HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY EXACTED, WAS DISPOSED OF UPON THE PLEADINGS AND
TURNED ON THE SINGLE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US, TO WIT:  IS THE PROVISION
OF SEC. 22 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932(47 STAT. 169, 178), RE-ENACTED BY
SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936(49 STAT. 1648, 1657),
CONSTITUTIONAL INSOFAR AS IT INCLUDED IN THE "GROSS INCOME," ON THE
BASIS OF WHICH TAXES WERE TO BE PAID, THE COMPENSATION OF "JUDGES OF
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES TAKING OFFICE AFTER JUNE 6, 1932." 

THAT THIS IS THE SOLE ISSUE WILL EMERGE FROM A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF
THE FACTS AND OF THE GOVERNING LEGISLATION.  JOSEPH W. WOODROUGH WAS
APPOINTED A UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE ON APRIL 12, 1933, AND
QUALIFIED AS SUCH ON MAY 1, 1933.  FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 1936 A
JOINT INCOME TAX RETURN OF JUDGE WOODROUGH AND HIS WIFE DISCLOSED HIS
JUDICIAL SALARY OF $12,500, BUT CLAIMED IT TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY
IMMUNE FROM TAXATION.  SINCE IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN "GROSS INCOME" NO
TAX WAS PAYABLE.  SUBSEQUENTLY A DEFICIENCY OF $631.60 WAS ASSESSED ON
THE BASIS OF THAT ITEM, WHICH, WITH INTEREST, WAS PAID UNDER PROTEST. 
CLAIM FOR REFUND HAVING BEEN REJECTED, THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT,
AND JUDGMENT WENT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR.  THE ASSESSMENT OF THE PRESENT
TAX WAS TECHNICALLY UNDER THE ACT OF 1936, BUT THAT ACT MERELY CARRIED
FORWARD THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1932, FOR THE INCLUSION OF
COMPENSATION OF "JUDGES OF COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, TAKING OFFICE
AFTER JUNE 6, 1932" WHICH HAD BEEN SIMILARLY INCORPORATED IN THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1934(48 STAT. 680, 686-687).  THEREFORE, THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO INCLUDE JUDGE WOODROUGH'S SALARY AS A CIRCUIT JUDGE IN HIS
"GROSS INCOME" MUST BE JUDGED ON THE BASIS OF THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 22
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, AND NOT AS THOUGH THAT POWER HAD BEEN
ORIGINALLY ASSERTED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936.  FOR IT WAS THE ACT OF
JUNE 6, 1932 THAT GAVE NOTICE TO ALL JUDGES THEREAFTER TO BE APPOINTED,
OF THE NEW CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO INCLUDE THE JUDICIAL SALARIES OF
SUCH JUDGES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TAXES.  THE FACT THAT JUDGE
WOODROUGH BEFORE HE BECAME A CIRCUIT JUDGE AND PRIOR TO JUNE 6, 1932,
HAD BEEN A DISTRICT JUDGE IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE MATTER IN ISSUE. 
THE TWO OFFICES HAVE DIFFERENT STATUTORY ORIGINS, ARE FILLED BY
SEPARATE NOMINATIONS AND CONFIRMATIONS, AND ENJOY DIFFERENT
EMOLUMENTS.  A NEW APPOINTEE TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OCCUPIES A
NEW OFFICE NO LESS WHEN HE IS TAKEN FROM THE DISTRICT BENCH THAN WHEN
HE IS DRAWN FROM THE BAR. 

BY MEANS OF SEC. 22 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, CONGRESS SOUGHT TO
AVOID, AT LEAST IN PART, THE CONSEQUENCES OF EVANS V. GORE, 253 U.S.
245.  THAT CASE, DECIDED ON JUNE 1, 1920, RULED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT
A PROVISION REQUIRING THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE JUDGES OF THE
UNITED STATES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE "GROSS INCOME" FROM WHICH THE NET
INCOME IS TO BE COMPUTED, ALTHOUGH MERELY PART OF A TAXING MEASURE OF
GENERAL, NON-DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATION TO ALL EARNERS OF INCOMES, IS
CONTRARY TO ARTICLE III, SEC. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES
THAT THE "COMPENSATION" OF THE "JUDGES" "SHALL NOT BE DIMINISHED DURING
THEIR CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE."  SEE ALSO THE SEPARATE OPINION OF MR.
JUSTICE FIELD IN POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429,
586, 604 ET SEQ.  TO BE SURE, IN A LETTER TO SECRETARY CHASE, CHIEF
JUSTICE TANEY EXPRESSED SIMILAR VIEWS.  FN1  IN DOING SO, HE MERELY
GAVE HIS EXTRA-JUDICIAL OPINION, ASSERTING AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE
QUESTION COULD NOT BE ADJUDICATED.  FN2  CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S VIGOROUS
VIEWS WERE SHARED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL HOAR.  FN3  THEREAFTER, BOTH THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT  FN4  AND CONGRESS  FN5 ACTED UPON THIS
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  HOWEVER, THE MEANING WHICH EVANS V.
GORE IMPUTED TO THE HISTORY WHICH EXPLAINS ARTICLE III, SEC. 1, WAS
CONTRARY TO THE WAY IN WHICH IT WAS READ BY OTHER ENGLISH-SPEAKING
COURTS.  FN6  THE DECISION MET WIDE AND STEADILY GROWING DISFAVOR FROM
LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL OPINION.  FN7  EVANS V. GORE ITSELF
WAS REJECTED BY MOST OF THE COURTS BEFORE WHOM THE MATTER CAME AFTER
THAT DECISION.  FN8 

HAVING REGARD TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE
US IS WHETHER CONGRESS EXCEEDED ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IN PROVIDING
THAT UNITED STATES JUDGES APPOINTED AFTER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 SHALL
NOT ENJOY IMMUNITY FROM THE INCIDENCES OF TAXATION TO WHICH EVERYONE
ELSE WITHIN THE DEFINED CLASSES OF INCOME IS SUBJECTED.  THEREBY, OF
COURSE, CONGRESS HAS COMMITTED ITSELF TO THE POSITION THAT A NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAX LAID GENERALLY ON NET INCOME IS NOT, WHEN APPLIED TO
THE INCOME OF A FEDERAL JUDGE, A DIMINUTION OF HIS SALARY WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION OF ARTICLE III, SEC. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  TO SUGGEST
THAT IT MAKES INROADS UPON THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES WHO TOOK OFFICE
AFTER CONGRESS HAD THUS CHARGED THEM WITH THE COMMON DUTIES OF
CITIZENSHIP, BY MAKING THEM BEAR THEIR ALIQUOT SHARE OF THE COST OF
MAINTAINING THE GOVERNMENT, IS TO TRIVIALIZE THE GREAT HISTORIC
EXPERIENCE ON WHICH THE FRAMERS BASED THE SAFEGUARDS OF ARTICLE III,
SEC. 1.  FN9  TO SUBJECT THEM TO A GENERAL TAX IS MERELY TO RECOGNIZE
THAT JUDGES ARE ALSO CITIZENS, AND THAT THEIR PARTICULAR FUNCTION IN
GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GENERATE AN IMMUNITY FROM SHARING WITH THEIR FELLOW
CITIZENS THE MATERIAL BURDEN OF THE GOVERNMENT WHOSE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS THEY ARE CHARGED WITH ADMINISTERING. 

AFTER THIS CASE CAME HERE, CONGRESS, BY SEC. 3 OF THE PUBLIC SALARY
TAX ACT OF 1939, AMENDED SEC. 22(A) SO AS TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO
"JUDGES OF COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES WHO TOOK OFFICE ON OR BEFORE
JUNE 6, 1932."  FN10  THAT SECTION, HOWEVER, IS NOT NOW BEFORE US.  BUT
TO THE EXTENT THAT WHAT THE COURT NOW SAYS IS INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT
WAS SAID IN MILES V. GRAHAM, 268 U.S. 501, THE LATTER CANNOT SURVIVE. 
JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN ON FEBRUARY 16, 1863, AND WILL BE FOUND
IN 157 U.S. 701. 

FN2  "...  I SHOULD NOT HAVE TROUBLED YOU WITH THIS LETTER, IF THERE
WAS ANY MODE BY WHICH THE QUESTION COULD BE DECIDED IN A JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING.  BUT ALL OF THE JUDGES OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE QUESTION, AND COULD NOT THEREFORE WITH
PROPRIETY UNDERTAKE TO HEAR AND DECIDE IT."  157 U.S. AT 702. 

FN3  13 OP. A.G. 161; BUT SEE THE OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL PALMER,
31 OP. A.G. 475. 

FN4  SEE MR. JUSTICE FIELD, CONCURRING, IN POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN &
TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, 588, 606-07. 

FN5  SEE WAYNE V. UNITED STATES, 26 CT. CL. 274; ACT OF JULY 28,
1892, C. 311, 27 STAT. 306. 

FN6  SEE JUDGMENTS IN COOPER V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 4 COMM.
L.R. 1304, CONSTRUING SEC. 17 OF THE QUEENSLAND CONSTITUTION ACT OF
1867 WHICH PROHIBITED "ANY REDUCTION OR DIMINUTION OF THE SALARY OF A
JUDGE DURING HIS TERM OF OFFICE"; ALSO, JUDGES V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR
SASKATCHEWAN (1937) 2 D.L.R. 209, CONSTRUING SEC. 96 OF THE BRITISH
NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867, THAT "THE SALARIES  ...  OF THE JUDGES  ...
SHALL BE FIXED AND PROVIDED BY THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA" IN CONNECTION
WITH THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1932, OF SASKATCHEWAN. 

FN7  SEE CLARK, FURTHER LIMITATIONS UPON FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, 30
YALE L.J. 75; CORWIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN 1919-1920, 15 AM. POL. 
SCI.  REV. 635, 641-644; FELLMAN, DIMINUTION OF JUDICIAL SALARIES, 24
IOWA L. REV. 89; LOWNDES, TAXING INCOME OF FEDERAL JUDICIARY, 19 VA. L.
REV. 153; POWELL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN 1919-1920, 19 MICH. L. REV. 117
118; POWELL, THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AND INCOME FROM STATE SECURITIES,
NATIONAL INCOME TAX MAGAZINE (JULY 1923) 5-6; 20 COL. L. REV. 794; 43
HARV. L. REV. 318; 20 ILL. L. REV. 376; 45 L.Q. REV. 291; 7 VA. L. REV.
69; 3 U. OF CHI.  L. REV. 141. 

FN8  THE CASES, PRO AND CON, ARE COLLECTED IN THE RECENT DISSENTING
OPINION BY CHIEF JUDGE BOND OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND IN
GORDY V. DENNIS, 5 A.2D 69, 82.  PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE CALLED
TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, KRAUSE V.
COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE, (1929) SO. AFR.  R. (A.D.)  286,
CONSTRUING SEC. 100 OF THE SOUTH AFRICA ACT, WHICH HAD TAKEN OVER THE
IDENTICAL CLAUSE FROM ARTICLE III, SEC. 1, OF OUR CONSTITUTION. 

FN9  THE PROVISIONS REGARDING SECURITY OF SALARY HAD THEIR SOURCE IN
THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT OF 1700, 12 & 13 WILL.  III, C. 2, SEC. III, AND
THE ACT OF 1760, 1 GEO. III, C. 23.  SEE HOLDSWORTH, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POSITION OF THE JUDGES, 48 L.Q. REV. 25; 2 HOLDSWORTH, THE HISTORY OF
ENGLISH LAW, 559-64; 6 ID. 234, 514. 

FN10  PUBLIC NO. 32, 76TH CONG., 1ST SESS., C. 59.  SECTION 209 OF
THE SAME STATUTE, HOWEVER, PROVIDES THAT "IN THE CASE OF THE JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT, AND OF THE INFERIOR COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
CREATED UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHO TOOK OFFICE ON OR
BEFORE JUNE 6, 1932, THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED AS SUCH SHALL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1938 OR ANY PRIOR
REVENUE ACT." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DID NOT HEAR THE ARGUMENT IN THIS CAUSE AND
TOOK NO PART IN ITS CONSIDERATION OR DECISION. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

CONCRETELY, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, BY EXACTING FROM UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT JUDGE JOSEPH W. WOODROUGH AND HIS WIFE $631.60 IN THE FORM OF
INCOME TAX ON HIS SALARY OF $12,500 FOR 1936, THE GOVERNMENT DIMINISHED
THE COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES THERETOFORE FIXED BY CONGRESS.  THAT
ITEM EXCLUDED, THEY HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME.  THE JUDGE'S MONTHLY PAY WAS
$1041.66.  THE TAX TOOK AT THE MONTHLY RATE OF $52.63. 

THE MATERIAL DETAILS MAY BE GIVEN BRIEFLY. 

APRIL 12, 1933, JUDGE WOODROUGH WAS APPOINTED JUDGE OF THE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.  HE QUALIFIED
MAY 1, 1933.  CONGRESS HAD BY THE ACT OF DECEMBER 13, 1926,  FN1
ENACTED THAT "TO EACH OF THE CIRCUIT JUDGES THE SUM OF $12,500 PER
YEAR" SHALL BE PAID AS COMPENSATION.  SINCE MAY 1, 1933, APPELLEE HAS
RECEIVED THE SPECIFIED PAY.  THE REVENUE ACT OF JUNE 6, 1932,
APPLICABLE ONLY TO TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1931,
CONTAINED A PROVISION DECLARING THAT IN THE CASE OF JUDGES TAKING
OFFICE AFTER THAT DATE "THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED AS SUCH SHALL BE
INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME; AND ALL ACTS FIXING THE COMPENSATION OF SUCH
...  JUDGES ARE HEREBY AMENDED ACCORDINGLY."  FN2  THE REVENUE ACT OF
1934,  FN3  APPLICABLE ONLY TO TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER
31, 1933, AND THAT OF 1936,  FN4  APPLICABLE ONLY TO TAXABLE YEARS
BEGINNING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1935, CONTAIN THE SAME LANGUAGE AS THAT
JUST QUOTED FROM THE ACT OF 1932. 

JUDGE WOODROUGH AND HIS WIFE MADE A JOINT INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1936;
IT DISCLOSED HIS SALARY BUT CLAIMED IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE TAX.  THE
COMMISSIONER HELD THE ITEM TAXABLE AND MADE A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF
$631.60.  PLAINTIFFS PAID UNDER PROTEST AND FILED CLAIM FOR REFUND; IT
WAS DENIED.  CLAIMING THE TAX THAT THEY WERE SO COMPELLED TO PAY
DIMINISHED THE JUDGE'S COMPENSATION AND THAT THEREFORE SEC. 22(A) OF
THE ACT OF 1936 VIOLATES SEC. 1, ART. III, OF THE CONSTITUTION,
PLAINTIFFS SUED TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX.  THE COLLECTOR MOVED
TO DISMISS.  THE COURT HELD THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OVERRULED THE
MOTION AND, DEFENDANT HAVING ELECTED NOT TO PLEAD FURTHER, GAVE
PLAINTIFFS JUDGMENT AS PRAYED.  DEFENDANT APPEALED.  FN5 

ARTICLE III, SEC. 1, DECLARES:  "THE JUDGES, BOTH OF THE SUPREME AND
INFERIOR COURTS, SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOUR, AND
SHALL, AT STATED TIMES, RECEIVE FOR THEIR SERVICES, A COMPENSATION,
WHICH SHALL NOT BE DIMINISHED DURING THEIR CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE." 

IT SAFEGUARDS THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.  THE ABUSE AGAINST
WHICH IT WAS INTENDED TO BE A BARRIER IS INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF
REASONS FOR OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.  "THE HISTORY OF THE
PRESENT KING OF GREAT BRITAIN IS A HISTORY OF REPEATED INJURIES AND
USURPATIONS, ALL HAVING IN DIRECT OBJECT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN
ABSOLUTE TYRANNY OVER THESE STATES  ...  HE HAS OBSTRUCTED THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, BY REFUSING HIS ASSENT TO LAWS FOR
ESTABLISHING JUDICIARY POWERS.  - HE HAS MADE JUDGES DEPENDENT ON HIS
WILL ALONE, FOR THE TENURE OF THEIR OFFICES, AND THE AMOUNT AND PAYMENT
OF THEIR SALARIES." 

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR AND THE PURPOSE OF
SEC. 1 OF ART. III, SAID: 

"THE EXECUTIVE NOT ONLY DISPENSES THE HONORS, BUT HOLDS THE SWORD OF
THE COMMUNITY.  THE LEGISLATURE NOT ONLY COMMANDS THE PURSE, BUT
PRESCRIBES THE RULES BY WHICH THE DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF EVERY CITIZEN
ARE TO BE REGULATED.  THE JUDICIARY, ON THE CONTRARY, HAS NO INFLUENCE
OVER EITHER THE SWORD OR THE PURSE; NO DIRECTION EITHER OF THE STRENGTH
OR OF THE WEALTH OF THE SOCIETY; AND CAN TAKE NO ACTIVE RESOLUTION
WHATEVER.  IT MAY TRULY BE SAID TO HAVE NEITHER FORCE NOR WILL, BUT
MERELY JUDGMENT  ...    "THIS SIMPLE VIEW OF THE MATTER  ...  PROVES
INCONTESTABLY, THAT THE JUDICIARY IS BEYOND COMPARISON THE WEAKEST OF
THE THREE DEPARTMENTS OF POWER; THAT IT CAN NEVER ATTACK WITH SUCCESS
EITHER OF THE OTHER TWO; AND THAT ALL POSSIBLE CARE IS REQUISITE TO
ENABLE IT TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST THEIR ATTACKS  ...    "THE COMPLETE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE IS PECULIARLY ESSENTIAL IN A
LIMITED CONSTITUTION.  BY A LIMITED CONSTITUTION, I UNDERSTAND ONE
WHICH CONTAINS CERTAIN SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY; SUCH, FOR INSTANCE, AS THAT IT SHALL PASS NO BILLS OF
ATTAINDER, NO EX-POST-FACTO LAWS, AND THE LIKE.  LIMITATIONS OF THIS
KIND CAN BE PRESERVED IN PRACTICE NO OTHER WAY THAN THROUGH THE MEDIUM
OF COURTS OF JUSTICE, WHOSE DUTY IT MUST BE TO DECLARE ALL ACTS
CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST TENOR OF THE CONSTITUTION VOID.  WITHOUT THIS,
ALL THE RESERVATIONS OF PARTICULAR RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES WOULD AMOUNT TO
NOTHING ..."  (THE FEDERALIST, NO. 78.) 

"NEXT TO PERMANENCY IN OFFICE, NOTHING CAN CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDGES THAN A FIXED PROVISION FOR THEIR SUPPORT
...  IN THE GENERAL COURSE OF HUMAN NATURE, A POWER OVER A MAN'S
SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL  ...  THE ENLIGHTENED
FRIENDS TO GOOD GOVERNMENT IN EVERY STATE, HAVE SEEN CAUSE TO LAMENT
THE WANT OF PRECISE AND EXPLICIT PRECAUTIONS IN THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS
ON THIS HEAD.  SOME OF THESE INDEED HAVE DECLARED THAT PERMANENT
SALARIES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE JUDGES, BUT THE EXPERIMENT HAS
IN SOME INSTANCES SHOWN THAT SUCH EXPRESSIONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY
DEFINITE TO PRECLUDE LEGISLATIVE EVASIONS.  SOMETHING STILL MORE
POSITIVE AND UNEQUIVOCAL HAS BEEN EVINCED TO BE REQUISITE  ...  THIS
PROVISION FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE JUDGES BEARS EVERY MARK OF PRUDENCE
AND EFFICACY; AND IT MAY BE SAFELY AFFIRMED THAT, TOGETHER WITH THE
PERMANENT TENURE OF THEIR OFFICES, IT AFFORDS A BETTER PROSPECT OF
THEIR INDEPENDENCE THAN IS DISCOVERABLE IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF ANY OF
THE STATES IN REGARD TO THEIR OWN JUDGES."  (THE FEDERALIST, NO. 79.) 

MR. JUSTICE STORY DECLARED THAT "WITHOUT THIS PROVISION, THE OTHER,
AS TO THE TENURE OF OFFICE, WOULD HAVE BEEN UTTERLY NUGATORY, AND
INDEED A MERE MOCKERY  ..."  2 STORY, SEC. 1628.  CHANCELLOR KENT SAID:
"THE PROVISION FOR THE PERMANENT SUPPORT OF THE JUDGES IS WELL
CALCULATED, IN ADDITION TO THE TENURE OF THEIR OFFICE, TO GIVE THEM THE
REQUISITE INDEPENDENCE.  IT TENDS, ALSO, TO SECURE A SUCCESSION OF
LEARNED MEN ON THE BENCH, WHO, IN CONSEQUENCE OF A CERTAIN UNDIMINISHED
SUPPORT, ARE ENABLED AND INDUCED TO QUIT THE LUCRATIVE PURSUITS OF
PRIVATE BUSINESS FOR THE DUTIES OF THAT IMPORTANT STATION.  THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THIS SUBJECT, WAS AN IMPROVEMENT
UPON ALL OUR PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONSTITUTIONS."  1 KENT COM. 294. 

THE FIRST JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAUSE WAS BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN 1803 IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES
V. MORE.  FN6  THE OPINION WAS WRITTEN BY JUDGE CRANCH.  THE COURT
SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT CHARGING THAT MORE, A JUSTICE OF
THE PEACE, UNDER COLOR OF HIS OFFICE, EXACTED AN ILLEGAL FEE, 12 CENTS,
FOR GIVING JUDGMENT UPON A WARRANT FOR A SMALL DEBT.  THE ISSUE WAS
WHETHER AN ACT OF CONGRESS ABOLISHING FEES OF JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COULD AFFECT THOSE WHO ACCEPTED THEIR
COMMISSIONS WHILE THE FEES WERE LEGALLY ANNEXED TO THE OFFICE.  THE
COURT SAID:  "THE 3D ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDGES OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, BY
CERTAIN REGULATIONS; ONE OF WHICH IS, THAT THEY SHALL RECEIVE, AT
STATED TIMES, A COMPENSATION FOR THEIR SERVICES, WHICH SHALL NOT BE
DIMINISHED DURING THEIR CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE.  THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF
27TH OF FEBRUARY, 1801, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE OFFICE OF JUSTICES OF THE
PEACE  ...  ASCERTAINS THE COMPENSATION WHICH THEY SHALL HAVE FOR THEIR
SERVICES IN HOLDING THEIR COURTS  ...  THIS COMPENSATION IS GIVEN IN
THE FORM OF FEES, PAYABLE WHEN THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED  ...  THAT HIS
(THE JUSTICE'S) COMPENSATION SHALL NOT BE DIMINISHED DURING HIS
CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE, SEEMS TO FOLLOW AS A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE FROM
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION  ...  IF HIS COMPENSATION HAS ONCE
BEEN FIXED BY LAW, A SUBSEQUENT LAW FOR DIMINISHING THAT COMPENSATION
(A FORTIORI FOR ABOLISHING IT) CANNOT AFFECT THAT JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
DURING HIS CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE; ..." 

THE FIRST ATTEMPT TO TAX COMPENSATION OF FEDERAL JUDGES WAS DURING
THE CIVIL WAR.  SECTION 86 OF THE ACT OF JULY 1, 1862,  FN7  LEVIED "ON
ALL SALARIES OF OFFICERS, OR PAYMENTS TO PERSONS IN THE ...  SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES  ...  WHEN EXCEEDING THE RATE OF SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS
PER ANNUM, A DUTY OF THREE PER CENTUM ON THE EXCESS ABOVE THE SAID SIX
HUNDRED DOLLARS," AND DIRECTED DISBURSING OFFICERS TO DEDUCT AND
WITHHOLD THE DUTY.  THESE GENERAL PROVISIONS WERE CONSTRUED BY THE
REVENUE OFFICERS TO COMPREHEND THE COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND
THE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES.  BY LETTER OF FEBRUARY 16, 1863, MR.
CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY PROTESTED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  IN THE
COURSE OF HIS LETTER,  FN8  HE SAID: 

"THE ACT IN QUESTION, AS YOU INTERPRET IT, DIMINISHES THE
COMPENSATION OF EVERY JUDGE THREE PER CENT, AND IF IT CAN BE DIMINISHED
TO THAT EXTENT BY THE NAME OF A TAX, IT MAY IN THE SAME WAY BE REDUCED
FROM TIME TO TIME AT THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE. 

"THE JUDICIARY IS ONE OF THE THREE GREAT DEPARTMENTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT, CREATED AND ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ITS DUTIES
AND POWERS ARE SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH, AND ARE OF A CHARACTER THAT
REQUIRES IT TO BE PERFECTLY INDEPENDENT OF THE TWO OTHER DEPARTMENTS,
AND IN ORDER TO PLACE IT BEYOND THE REACH AND ABOVE EVEN THE SUSPICION
OF ANY SUCH INFLUENCE, THE POWER TO REDUCE THEIR COMPENSATION IS
EXPRESSLY WITHHELD FROM CONGRESS, AND EXCEPTED FROM THEIR POWERS OF
LEGISLATION. 

"LANGUAGE COULD NOT BE MORE PLAIN THAN THAT USED IN THE
CONSTITUTION.  IT IS MOREOVER ONE OF ITS MOST IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL
PROVISIONS.  FOR THE ARTICLES WHICH LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THOSE WHICH PROVIDE
SAFEGUARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CITIZEN IN HIS PERSON AND
PROPERTY, WOULD BE OF LITTLE VALUE WITHOUT A JUDICIARY TO UPHOLD AND
MAINTAIN THEM, WHICH WAS FREE FROM EVERY INFLUENCE, DIRECT OR INDIRECT,
THAT MIGHT BY POSSIBILITY IN TIMES OF POLITICAL EXCITEMENT WARP THEIR
JUDGMENTS.  ... 

"HAVING BEEN HONORED WITH THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL STATION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, I FEEL IT TO BE MORE ESPECIALLY MY DUTY TO UPHOLD AND
MAINTAIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THAT DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT, AND NOT BY ANY ACT OR WORD OF MINE, LEAVE IT TO BE SUPPOSED
THAT I ACQUIESCE IN A MEASURE THAT DISPLACES IT FROM THE INDEPENDENT
POSITION ASSIGNED IT BY THE STATESMEN WHO FRAMED THE CONSTITUTION; AND
IN ORDER TO GUARD AGAINST ANY SUCH INFERENCE, I PRESENT TO YOU THIS
RESPECTFUL BUT FIRM AND DECIDED REMONSTRANCE AGAINST THE AUTHORITY YOU
HAVE EXERCISED UNDER THIS ACT OF CONGRESS, AND REQUEST YOU TO PLACE
THIS PROTEST UPON THE PUBLIC FILES OF YOUR OFFICE AS THE EVIDENCE THAT
I HAVE DONE EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT IN THE POSITION AND RANK IN THE GOVERNMENT WHICH
THE CONSTITUTION HAS ASSIGNED TO IT." 

THE LETTER OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS NOT ANSWERED AND, AT HIS REQUEST,
THE COURT, MAY 10, 1863, ORDERED THE LETTER ENTERED ON ITS RECORDS.  IN
1869, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY REQUESTED THE OPINION OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL EBENEZER ROCKWOOD HOAR AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT
CONSTRUED TO EXTEND TO JUDGES' SALARIES.  HE RENDERED AN OPINION IN
SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD WITH THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S
PROTEST.  13 OP. A.G. 161.  ACCORDINGLY, THE TAX ON THE COMPENSATION OF
THE PRESIDENT AND OF JUDGES WAS DISCONTINUED AND THE AMOUNTS
THERETOFORE COLLECTED FROM THEM WERE REFUNDED - SOME THROUGH
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNELS; OTHERS THROUGH ACTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS
AND ENSUING APPROPRIATIONS BY CONGRESS.  SEE WAYNE V. UNITED STATES, 26
C. CLS. 274, 290; 27 STAT. 306. 

IN 1889, MR. JUSTICE MILLER, A MEMBER OF THE COURT SINCE 1862, SAID:
FN9 

"THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES HAS PLACED SEVERAL LIMITATIONS
UPON THE GENERAL POWER (OF TAXATION), AND  ...  SOME OF THEM ARE
IMPLIED.  ONE OF ITS PROVISIONS IS THAT NEITHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES (ART. II, SEC. 1, PAR 6), NOR A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME OR
INFERIOR COURTS (ART III, SEC. 1), SHALL HAVE HIS SALARY DIMINISHED
DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH HE SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED, OR DURING HIS
CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE.  IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT WHEN CONGRESS, DURING THE
LATE (CIVIL) WAR, LEVIED AN INCOME TAX, AND PLACED IT AS WELL UPON THE
SALARIES OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE JUDGES OF THE COURTS AS THOSE OF
OTHER PEOPLE, THAT IT WAS A DIMINUTION OF THEM TO JUST THAT EXTENT." 

ALTHOUGH THE INCOME TAX ACT OF 1894 SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE
COMPENSATION OF THE JUDGES, MR. JUSTICE FIELD CONSTRUED SEC. 33  FN10
TO TAX THAT COMPENSATION AND ASSIGNED THAT GROUND AMONG OTHERS FOR
JOINING IN THE DECISION THAT THE ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  POLLOCK V.
FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, 604-606.  MR. JUSTICE FIELD,
WHO WAS CONFIRMED THE DAY THIS COURT ORDERED CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY'S
LETTER ENTERED ON ITS RECORDS, HAD TAKEN HIS PLACE UPON THIS BENCH AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE FOLLOWING TERM.  HIS OPINION RECITED THE FACTS OF
THAT INCIDENT AND QUOTED EXTENSIVELY FROM THE LETTER, WHICH WAS PRINTED
AS AN APPENDIX TO THE VOLUME OF THE REPORTS CONTAINING THE OPINIONS IN
THE POLLOCK CASE.  157 U.S. 701.  THE JUSTICE ENDED HIS DISCUSSION OF
THE MATTER BY STATING HIS BELIEF, BASED ON INFORMATION, THAT THE
OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL HOAR HAD BEEN FOLLOWED EVER SINCE WITHOUT
QUESTION BY THE TREASURY.  AND, UPON REARGUMENT OF THE CAUSE, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OLNEY SAID IN HIS BRIEF:  "THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A DOUBT SINCE
THE OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL HOAR THAT THE SALARIES OF THE PRESIDENT
AND JUDGES WERE EXEMPT." 

THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1913  FN11  AND 1916,  FN12  BEING THE FIRST TWO
AFTER ADOPTION OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM
GROSS INCOME THE COMPENSATION OF JUDGES THEN IN OFFICE.  BUT AFTER THIS
COUNTRY ENGAGED IN THE WORLD WAR, THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, APPROVED
FEBRUARY 24, 1919, DEFINED GROSS INCOME TO INCLUDE "IN THE CASE OF THE
PRESIDENT  ...  (AND) THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME AND INFERIOR COURTS
...  THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED AS SUCH."  FN13  THE REPORTS OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES HAVING THE MEASURE IN CHARGE INDICATE THAT THE
CONGRESS WAS IN DOUBT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THAT
PROVISION AND INTENDED TO HAVE THE QUESTION DECIDED BY THE COURTS. 
FN14  THE QUESTION WAS RAISED AND PRESENTED FOR DECISION IN EVANS V.
GORE, 253 U.S. 245.  THE COLLECTOR INCLUDED THE SALARY FOR 1918 OF
JUDGE EVANS, APPOINTED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE TAXING STATUTE, IN GROSS
INCOME.  HAD IT BEEN EXCLUDED, HE WOULD HAVE HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME.  HE
PAID THE TAX AND BROUGHT SUIT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT SO EXACTED.  THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY HELD
HIM NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER.  BUT, AFTER ARGUMENT BY EMINENT COUNSEL
INCLUDING THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE CLAUSE
DECLARING THAT COMPENSATION OF JUDGES "SHALL NOT BE DIMINISHED DURING
THEIR CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE" PREVENTS DIMINUTION BY TAXATION AND THAT
IT HAS BEEN SO CONSTRUED IN THE ACTUAL PRACTICE OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCLOSING THE REASONS FOR AND TRUE MEANING OF THE
CLAUSE FORBIDDING DIMINUTION OF COMPENSATION OF JUDGES, THE OPINION OF
THE COURT, WRITTEN BY MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, BROUGHT FORWARD
STATEMENTS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE
STORY, CHANCELLOR KENT, CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY, JUSTICE FIELD, ATTORNEYS
GENERAL HOAR AND OLNEY AND OTHERS. 

SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, HE SAID: 

"WITH WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDE THAT THE
COMPENSATION OF THE JUDGES 'SHALL NOT BE DIMINISHED DURING THEIR
CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE'?  IS IT PRIMARILY TO BENEFIT THE JUDGES, OR
RATHER TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC WEAL BY GIVING THEM THAT INDEPENDENCE
WHICH MAKES FOR AN IMPARTIAL AND COURAGEOUS DISCHARGE OF THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION?  DOES THE PROVISION MERELY FORBID DIRECT DIMINUTION, SUCH AS
EXPRESSLY REDUCING THE COMPENSATION FROM A GREATER TO A LESS SUM PER
YEAR, AND THEREBY LEAVE THE WAY OPEN FOR INDIRECT, YET EFFECTIVE,
DIMINUTION, SUCH AS WITHHOLDING OR CALLING BACK A PART AS A TAX ON THE
WHOLE?  OR, DOES IT MEAN THAT THE JUDGE SHALL HAVE A SURE AND
CONTINUING RIGHT TO THE COMPENSATION, WHEREON HE CONFIDENTLY MAY RELY
FOR HIS SUPPORT DURING HIS CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE, SO THAT HE NEED HAVE
NO APPREHENSION LEST HIS SITUATION IN THIS REGARD MAY BE CHANGED TO HIS
DISADVANTAGE? 

"...  THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DIMINUTION WAS
NOT TO BENEFIT THE JUDGES, BUT, LIKE THE CLAUSE IN RESPECT OF TENURE,
TO ATTRACT GOOD AND COMPETENT MEN TO THE BENCH AND TO PROMOTE THAT
INDEPENDENCE OF ACTION AND JUDGMENT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE GUARANTIES, LIMITATIONS AND PERVADING PRINCIPLES OF
THE CONSTITUTION AND TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WITHOUT RESPECT
TO PERSONS AND WITH EQUAL CONCERN FOR THE POOR AND THE RICH.  SUCH
BEING ITS PURPOSE, IT IS TO BE CONSTRUED, NOT AS A PRIVATE GRANT, BUT
AS A LIMITATION IMPOSED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST; IN OTHER WORDS, NOT
RESTRICTIVELY, BUT IN ACCORD WITH ITS SPIRIT AND THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH
IT PROCEEDS.    "OBVIOUSLY, DIMINUTION MAY BE EFFECTED IN MORE WAYS
THAN ONE.  SOME MAY BE DIRECT AND OTHERS INDIRECT, OR EVEN EVASIVE AS
MR. HAMILTON SUGGESTED.  BUT ALL WHICH BY THEIR NECESSARY OPERATION AND
EFFECT WITHHOLD OR TAKE FROM THE JUDGE A PART OF THAT WHICH HAS BEEN
PROMISED BY LAW FOR HIS SERVICES MUST BE REGARDED AS WITHIN THE
PROHIBITION.  NOTHING SHORT OF THIS WILL GIVE FULL EFFECT TO ITS SPIRIT
AND PRINCIPLE.  HERE THE PLAINTIFF WAS PAID THE FULL COMPENSATION, BUT
WAS SUBJECTED TO AN INVOLUNTARY OBLIGATION TO PAY BACK A PART, AND THE
OBLIGATION WAS PROMPTLY ENFORCED.  OF WHAT AVAIL TO HIM WAS THE PART
WHICH WAS PAID WITH ONE HAND AND THEN TAKEN BACK WITH THE OTHER?  WAS
HE NOT PLACED IN PRACTICALLY THE SAME SITUATION AS IF IT HAD BEEN
WITHHELD IN THE FIRST INSTANCE?  ONLY BY SUBORDINATING SUBSTANCE TO
MERE FORM COULD IT BE HELD THAT HIS COMPENSATION WAS NOT DIMINISHED
... 

"THE PROHIBITION IS GENERAL, CONTAINS NO EXCEPTING WORDS AND APPEARS
TO BE DIRECTED AGAINST ALL DIMINUTION, WHETHER FOR ONE PURPOSE OR
ANOTHER; AND THE REASONS FOR ITS ADOPTION, AS PUBLICLY ASSIGNED AT THE
TIME AND COMMONLY ACCEPTED EVER SINCE, MAKE WITH IMPELLING FORCE FOR
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FATHERS OF THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED TO
PROHIBIT DIMINUTION BY TAXATION AS WELL AS OTHERWISE,  - THAT THEY
REGARDED THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDGES AS OF FAR GREATER IMPORTANCE
THAN ANY REVENUE THAT COULD COME FROM TAXING THEIR SALARIES.  ... 

"WHEN WE CONSIDER  ...  WHAT IS COMPREHENDED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
POWER TO TAX,  - WHERE ITS EXERTION IS NOT DIRECTLY OR IMPLIEDLY
INTERDICTED,  - IT BECOMES ADDITIONALLY MANIFEST THAT THE PROHIBITION
NOW UNDER DISCUSSION WAS INTENDED TO EMBRACE AND PREVENT DIMINUTION
THROUGH THE EXERTION OF THAT POWER; FOR, AS THIS COURT REPEATEDLY HAS
HELD, THE POWER TO TAX CARRIES WITH IT 'THE POWER TO EMBARRASS AND
DESTROY'; MAY BE APPLIED TO EVERY OBJECT WITHIN ITS RANGE 'IN SUCH
MEASURE AS CONGRESS MAY DETERMINE'; ENABLES THAT BODY 'TO SELECT ONE
CALLING AND OMIT ANOTHER, TO TAX ONE CLASS OF PROPERTY AND TO FOREBEAR
TO TAX ANOTHER'; AND MAY BE APPLIED IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO DIFFERENT
OBJECTS SO LONG AS THERE IS 'GEOGRAPHICAL UNIFORMITY' IN THE DUTIES,
IMPOSTS AND EXCISES IMPOSED.  IS IT NOT THEREFORE MORALLY CERTAIN THAT
THE DISCERNING STATESMEN WHO FRAMED THE CONSTITUTION AND WERE SO
SEDULOUSLY BENT ON SECURING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY INTENDED
TO PROTECT THE COMPENSATION OF THE JUDGES FROM ASSAULT AND DIMINUTION
IN THE NAME OR FORM OF A TAX?  COULD NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROHIBITION
BE WHOLLY THWARTED IF THIS AVENUE OF ATTACK WERE LEFT OPEN?  CERTAINLY
THERE IS NOTHING IN THE WORDS OF THE PROHIBITION INDICATING THAT IT IS
DIRECTED AGAINST ONE LEGISLATIVE POWER AND NOT ANOTHER; AND IN OUR
OPINION DUE REGARD FOR ITS SPIRIT AND PRINCIPLE REQUIRES THAT IT BE
TAKEN AS DIRECTED AGAINST THEM ALL." 

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES WROTE A DISSENTING OPINION, IN WHICH MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS JOINED.  WITH THAT EXPRESSION HIS OPPOSITION TO THE DECISION
ENDED.  TWO YEARS LATER, IN GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501,
WRITING FOR THE COURT, INVALIDATING A STATE TAX UPON NET INCOME OF A
LESSEE FROM SALES OF HIS SHARE OF OIL AND GAS RECEIVED UNDER LEASES OF
RESTRICTED INDIAN LAND, HE SAID (P. 505): "IN CASES WHERE THE PRINCIPAL
IS ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FROM INTERFERENCE AN INQUIRY IS ALLOWED INTO THE
SOURCES FROM WHICH NET INCOME IS DERIVED AND IF A PART OF IT COMES FROM
SUCH A SOURCE THE TAX IS PRO TANTO VOID; POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN &
TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429; 158 U.S. 601; A RULE LATELY ILLUSTRATED BY
EVANS V. GORE  ..."  AND IN THAT CASE HE RELIED ON THE TRUTH, AS PUT BY
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN M'CULLOCK V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 431,
THAT "THE POWER TO TAX INVOLVES THE POWER TO DESTROY."  HE QUOTED (P.
505) WITH APPROVAL FROM INDIAN OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 240 U.S. 522, THE
STATEMENT OF THE OPINION (P. 530) THAT "A TAX UPON THE LEASES IS A TAX
UPON THE POWER TO MAKE THEM, AND COULD BE USED TO DESTROY THE POWER TO
MAKE THEM."  FN15 

MILES V. GRAHAM (1925), 268 U.S. 501, HELD INVALID SEC. 213(A),
REVENUE ACT OF 1918, (CONDEMNED IN EVANS V. GORE) WHEN APPLIED TO
COMPENSATION OF JUDGE GRAHAM, APPOINTED AFTER ITS ENACTMENT.  MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES JOINED IN THE DECISION.  MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS MERELY
NOTED DISSENT. 

IN THE COURSE OF THE OPINION, WE SAID: 

"DOES THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT DEFENDANT IN ERROR'S APPOINTMENT CAME
AFTER THE TAXING ACT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT VIEW CONCERNING HIS RIGHT TO
EXEMPTION?  THE ANSWER DEPENDS UPON THE IMPORT OF THE WORD
'COMPENSATION' IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 

"THE WORDS AND HISTORY OF THE CLAUSE INDICATE THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO
IMPOSE UPON CONGRESS THE DUTY DEFINITELY TO DECLARE WHAT SUM SHALL BE
RECEIVED BY EACH JUDGE OUT OF THE PUBLIC FUNDS AND THE TIMES FOR
PAYMENT.  WHEN THIS DUTY HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED
BECOMES THE COMPENSATION WHICH IS PROTECTED AGAINST DIMINUTION DURING
HIS CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE. 

"...  THE COMPENSATION FIXED BY LAW WHEN DEFENDANT IN ERROR ASSUMED
HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES WAS $7,500 PER ANNUM, AND TO EXACT A TAX IN RESPECT
OF THIS WOULD DIMINISH IT WITHIN THE PLAIN RULE OF EVANS V. GORE. 

"THE TAXING ACT BECAME A LAW (FEBRUARY 24, 1919) PRIOR TO THE STATUTE
PRESCRIBING SALARIES FOR JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS (APPROVED
FEBRUARY 25, 1919), BUT IF THE DATES WERE REVERSED IT WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSTRUE THE FORMER AS AN AMENDMENT WHICH REDUCED
SALARIES BY THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX IMPOSED.  NO JUDGE IS REQUIRED TO PAY
A DEFINITE PERCENTAGE OF HIS SALARY, BUT ALL ARE COMMANDED TO RETURN,
AS A PART OF 'GROSS INCOME,' 'THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED AS SUCH' FROM
THE UNITED STATES.  FROM THE 'GROSS INCOME' VARIOUS DEDUCTIONS AND
CREDITS ARE ALLOWED, AS FOR INTEREST PAID, CONTRIBUTIONS OR GIFTS MADE,
PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS VARYING WITH FAMILY RELATIONS, ETC., AND UPON THE
NET RESULT ASSESSMENT IS MADE.  THE PLAIN PURPOSE WAS TO REQUIRE ALL
JUDGES TO RETURN THEIR COMPENSATION AS AN ITEM OF 'GROSS INCOME,' AND
TO TAX THIS AS OTHER SALARIES.  THIS IS FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

"THE POWER OF CONGRESS DEFINITELY TO FIX THE COMPENSATION TO BE
RECEIVED AT STATED INTERVALS BY JUDGES THEREAFTER APPOINTED IS CLEAR. 
IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR, WE THINK, THAT THERE IS NO POWER TO TAX A JUDGE OF
A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALARY PRESCRIBED FOR
HIM BY LAW." 

IN O'DONOGHUE V. UNITED STATES (1933), 289 U.S. 516, WE CONSTRUED THE
ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932  FN16 REDUCING THE SALARIES OF ALL JUDGES "EXCEPT
JUDGES WHOSE COMPENSATION MAY NOT, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, BE
DIMINISHED DURING THEIR CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE."  WE THERE HELD THAT THE
SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WERE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS AND THEREFORE THAT THE JUDGES OF THOSE COURTS
WERE EXCEPTED FROM THE SALARY REDUCTION.  WE CITED THE AUTHORITIES,
ADOPTED THE REASONING, AND REAFFIRMED THE CONCLUSIONS ON WHICH REST THE
COURT'S JUDGMENTS IN EVANS V. GORE AND MILES V. GRAHAM.  AND SEE BOOTH
V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 339. 

EVIDENTLY THE COURT INTENDS TO DESTROY THE DECISION IN EVANS V.
GORE.  WITHOUT SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THAT
CASE AND MILES V. GRAHAM, IT DECLARES THAT THE LATTER "CANNOT
SURVIVE."  BUT THE DECISION OF TODAY FAILS TO DEAL WITH, MUCH LESS TO
DETRACT FROM THE REASONING OF THOSE CASES.  THE OPINION WOULD IMPLY
THAT THE LETTER OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY, AND THE SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FIELD IN THE POLLOCK
CASE WERE TREATED AS HAVING WEIGHT AS JUDICIAL DECISIONS.  BUT NOWHERE
HAS THAT EVER BEEN SUGGESTED.  HOWEVER, ALL WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH OUR
JUDICIAL HISTORY KNOW THAT ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT ARE THE REASONED
CONCLUSIONS OF THESE EMINENT AMERICAN JURISTS AS TO THE TRUE INTENT AND
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  AND SIMILARLY WORTHY
OF ATTENTION ARE THE OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND OTHER PUBLIC
OFFICIALS FOLLOWING THE REASONING OF CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY. 

NOW THE COURT CITES, AS IF ENTITLED TO PREVAIL AGAINST THOSE WELL
SUSTAINED OPINIONS AND THE DELIBERATE JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT, OPPOSING
VIEWS - IF INDEED UPON EXAMINATION THEY REASONABLY MAY BE SO DEEMED -
OF ENGLISH SPEAKING JUDGES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 

IT REFERS, FOOTNOTE 6, TO THE DECISION OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN JUDGES
V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN (1937), 2 D.L.R. 209, CONSTRUING
INCOME TAX STATUTES OF SASKATCHEWAN.  NEITHER THE DOMINION NOR THE
PROVINCE HAS ANY LAW FORBIDDING DIMINUTION OF COMPENSATION OF JUDGES
WHILE IN OFFICE AND THAT DECISION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION
BEFORE US.  THE AUSTRALIAN AND SOUTH AFRICAN CASES CITED, FOOTNOTES 6
AND 8, INVOLVED CONSTRUCTION OF INCOME TAX STATUTES UNDER CONSTITUTIONS
OR CHARTERS CREATED BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS AND SUBJECT TO
AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION OR CHANGE BY THE LOCAL OR BRITISH
PARLIAMENT.  THEY SHED NO LIGHT UPON THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE. 

THE OPINION CLAIMS NO SUPPORT FROM ANY STATE COURT DECISION.  THE ONE
IT CITES, FOOTNOTE 8, THAT OF THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS IN GORDY V.
DENNIS, 5 A.2D 69, HELD THAT UNDER A CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF
MARYLAND LIKE THAT IN ART. III, SEC. 1, THE COMPENSATION OF STATE
JUDGES MAY NOT BE TAXED. 

THE OPINION ALSO CITES, FOOTNOTE 7, SELECTED GAINSAYING WRITINGS OF
PROFESSORS,  - SOME ARE LAWYERS AND SOME ARE NOT - BUT WITHOUT
SPECIFICATION OF OR REFERENCE TO THE REASONS UPON WHICH THEIR VIEWS
REST.  AND IN ADDITION IT CITES NOTES PUBLISHED IN LAW REVIEWS, SOME
SIGNED AND SOME NOT; PRESUMABLY THE LATTER WERE PREPARED BY LAW
STUDENTS. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT, AS CITIZENS, JUDGES ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM TAXATION
BEGS THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED.  THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF PUTS JUDGES
IN A SEPARATE CLASS, DECLARING THAT AT STATED TIMES THEY SHALL RECEIVE
FOR THEIR SERVICES COMPENSATION WHICH "SHALL NOT BE DIMINISHED."  AND
SO THEIR SALARIES ARE DISTINGUISHED FROM INCOME OF OTHERS.  THE
IMMUNITY EXTENDS ONLY TO COMPENSATION FOR THEIR SERVICES.  NO QUESTION
OF COMPARISON OR REASONABLENESS IS INVOLVED. 

ADMITTEDLY THE COURT NOW REPUDIATES ITS EARLIER DECISIONS UPON THE
POINT HERE IN ISSUE.  THE PROVISION DEFINING TENURE AND PROVIDING FOR
UNDIMINISHABLE COMPENSATION WAS ADOPTED WITH UNUSUAL ACCORD.  THERE HAS
BEEN UNANIMITY OF OPINION THAT, BECAUSE IN COMPARISON WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT IS WEAK, ITS
INDEPENDENCE IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  THESE
SAFEGUARDS GO FAR TO INSURE THAT INDEPENDENCE.  AND, FROM THE
BEGINNING, STATESMEN AND JURISTS HAVE AGREED THAT THE CLAUSE FORBIDS
DIMINUTION OF JUDGES' COMPENSATION BY ANY FORM OF LEGISLATION.  THE
CLAUSE IN QUESTION IS PLAIN:  NO EXCEPTION IS EXPRESSED; NONE MAY BE
IMPLIED.  ITS UNQUALIFIED COMMAND SHOULD BE GIVEN EFFECT. 

FOR ONE CONVINCED THAT THE JUDGMENT NOW GIVEN IS WRONG, IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO ACQUIESCE OR MERELY TO NOTE DISSENT.  AND SO THIS OPINION
IS WRITTEN TO INDICATE THE GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION AND TO EVIDENCE REGRET
THAT ANOTHER LANDMARK HAS BEEN REMOVED. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 6, 44 STAT. 919. 

FN2  SEC. 22(A), C. 209, 47 STAT. 169. 

FN3  SEC. 22(A), C. 277, 48 STAT. 680. 

FN4  SEC. 22(A), C. 690, 49 STAT. 1648. 

FN5  ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, SEC. 2, C. 754, 50 STAT. 752. 

FN6  THE OPINION IS SET FORTH IN A FOOTNOTE AT P. 160 ET SEQ., 3
CRANCH. 

FN7  C. 119, 12 STAT. 472. 

FN8  PRINTED IN 157 U.S. AT P. 701. 

FN9  MILLER ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES P. 247. 

FN10  SECTION 33, 28 STAT. 557, IN TERMS WAS MUCH LIKE SEC. 86 OF THE
ACT OF 1862; IT LEVIED "ON ALL SALARIES OF OFFICERS, OR PAYMENTS  ...
TO PERSONS IN THE  ...  SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, ...  WHEN
EXCEEDING THE RATE OF FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ANNUM, A TAX OF TWO PER
CENTUM ON THE EXCESS ABOVE THE SAID FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS" AND MADE IT
THE DUTY OF DISBURSING OFFICERS TO DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD THE TAX. 

FN11  SEC. 2B, 38 STAT. 168. 

FN12  SEC. 4, 39 STAT. 759. 

FN13  SEC. 213(A), 40 STAT. 1062. 

FN14  H. REPT. NO. 767, 65TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 29; SEN. REPT. NO.
617, 65TH CONG., 3D SESS., P. 6; 56 CONG. REC., P. 10370. 

FN15  GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA IS ONE OF THE DECISIONS SUBJECTED TO
CONDEMNATORY COMMENT IN THE CONCURRING OPINION IN GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX
REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466.  IT IS THERE SAID:  "A SUCCESSION OF
DECISIONS (GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA IS THE FIRST CITED) THEREBY WITHDREW
FROM THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES AND NATION A VERY CONSIDERABLE
RANGE OF WEALTH WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ACTUAL WORKINGS OF OUR
FEDERALISM, AND THIS, TOO, WHEN THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF ALL GOVERNMENTS
BEGAN STEADILY TO MOUNT." 

AT ANOTHER PLACE IN THAT CONCURRENCE, THE WRITER STATED:  "THE VOLUME
OF THE COURT'S BUSINESS HAS LONG SINCE MADE IMPOSSIBLE THE EARLY
HEALTHY PRACTICE WHEREBY THE JUSTICES GAVE EXPRESSION TO INDIVIDUAL
OPINIONS.  BUT THE OLD TRADITION STILL HAS RELEVANCE WHEN AN IMPORTANT
SHIFT IN CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE IS ANNOUNCED AFTER A RECONSTRUCTION IN
THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COURT.  ... THE ARGUMENTS UPON WHICH MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, RESTED  ...  HAVE BEEN DISTORTED BY STERILE
REFINEMENTS UNRELATED TO AFFAIRS.  THESE REFINEMENTS DERIVED AUTHORITY
FROM AN UNFORTUNATE REMARK IN THE OPINION IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND. 
PARTLY AS A FLOURISH OF RHETORIC AND PARTLY BECAUSE THE INTELLECTUAL
FASHION OF THE TIMES INDULGED A FREE USE OF ABSOLUTES, CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL GAVE CURRENCY TO THE PHRASE THAT 'THE POWER TO TAX INVOLVES
THE POWER TO DESTROY.'  ... THE WEB OF UNREALITY SPUN FROM MARSHALL'S
FAMOUS DICTUM WAS BRUSHED AWAY BY ONE STROKE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES'S
PEN:  'THE POWER TO TAX IS NOT THE POWER TO DESTROY WHILE THIS COURT
SITS'.  PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 277 U.S. 218, 223(DISSENT)." 
BUT, IN THE GILLESPIE CASE, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR THE
COURT, HAD DEFINITELY APPLIED THE DOCTRINE THAT THE POWER TO TAX DOES
INVOLVE THE POWER TO DESTROY. 

IN THE PANHANDLE CASE NEITHER THE COURT, NOR INDEED ANOTHER JUSTICE
DISSENTING, WAS IMPRESSED BY "THE POWER TO TAX IS NOT THE POWER TO
DESTROY WHILE THIS COURT SITS."  THE STATEMENT IS VAGUE AND MAY BE READ
TO IMPLY A POWER THAT THIS COURT NEVER POSSESSED.  IF TAKEN TO MEAN
THAT WE ARE EMPOWERED TO REGULATE OR TO LIMIT THE EXERTION BY CONGRESS
OF ITS POWER OF TAXATION, IT JUSTLY MAY BE REGARDED AS HYPERBOLE; IF
TAKEN TO MEAN THAT THIS COURT HAS POWER TO PREVENT IMPOSITION BY
CONGRESS OF TAXES LAID TO DISCOURAGE, TO DESTROY, OR TO PROTECT, THEN
IT IS IN THE TEETH OF THE LAW.  SEE, E.G., VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8
WALL.  533, 548; MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, 53 ET SEQ.;
MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, 44 ET SEQ.; CINCINNATI SOAP CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 308. 

FN16  SECS. 106, 107, 47 STAT. 401, 402. 
..END :























RORICK V. DEVON SYNDICATE, 307 U.S. 299 


NO. 676.  ARGUED APRIL 24, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 22, 1939.  - 100 F.2D
844, REVERSED. 


1.  REVIEW IS CONFINED TO THE QUESTIONS URGED IN THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI.  P. 303. 

2.  THE FACT THAT HE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF A CORPORATION OF WHICH THE
PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE IS PRESIDENT DOES NOT DISQUALIFY A NOTARY PUBLIC
UNDER SEC. 11532, GENERAL CODE OF OHIO, FROM TAKING AN AFFIDAVIT IN
ATTACHMENT OR GARNISHMENT.  P. 303. 

3.  UNDER THE GENERAL CODE OF OHIO, SECS. 11279, 11819, WHEN A CIVIL
ACTION FOR MONEY HAS BEEN BEGUN BY FILING THE PETITION AND ISSUING
SUMMONS, AN ATTACHMENT OR GARNISHMENT IS NOT PREMATURE BECAUSE OBTAINED
PRIOR TO PERSONAL SERVICE OR BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF SERVICE BY
PUBLICATION.  P. 306. 

4.  UNDER R.S. SECS. 646 AND 915, WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN REMOVED TO
THE FEDERAL COURT AFTER THE STATE COURT HAD ACQUIRED JURISDICTION IN
REM BY ATTACHMENT OR GARNISHMENT, THE FEDERAL COURT, WITHOUT PRIOR
PERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS, HAS THE SAME JURISDICTION TO EXTEND THE
ATTACHMENT OR GARNISHMENT TO OTHER PROPERTY AS THE STATE COURT WOULD
HAVE HAD UNDER THE STATE LAW IF THE CASE HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED.  BIG
VEIN COAL CO. V. READ, 229 U.S. 31, LIMITED.  P. 312. 

RORICK V. DEVON SYNDICATE, LTD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 626, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISCHARGING AN ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT AND DISMISSING THE PETITION,
IN AN ACTION REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSE
CITIZENSHIP. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.  WE GRANTED THE WRIT BECAUSE
THE COURT BELOW HAD DECIDED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW IN A WAY
PROBABLY IN CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL DECISIONS AND PROBABLY HAD
MISCONSTRUED CERTAIN FEDERAL STATUTES AND A DECISION OF THIS COURT
THEREUNDER. 

THE BASIC QUESTION HERE INVOLVED IS WHETHER A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT,
IN THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM AND AFTER REMOVAL OF A CAUSE
FROM A STATE COURT WHERE JURISDICTION IN REM OVER CERTAIN PROPERTY OF A
DEFENDANT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACQUIRED, CAN ISSUE AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT
OR GARNISHMENT AGAINST OTHER PROPERTY OF THE SAME DEFENDANT. 

PETITIONER, A RESIDENT OF OHIO, BROUGHT SUIT ON JUNE 19, 1930, IN A
STATE COURT IN OHIO AGAINST RESPONDENT, A NONRESIDENT CORPORATION
ORGANIZED UNDER CANADIAN LAW, ON A CONTRACT CLAIM FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
RENDERED.  FN1  SUMMONS WAS CONCURRENTLY ISSUED, BUT PERSONAL SERVICE
WAS NEVER HAD; AND SIMULTANEOUSLY, AN AFFIDAVIT IN ATTACHMENT AND
GARNISHMENT WAS FILED.  A SECOND AFFIDAVIT IN ATTACHMENT AND
GARNISHMENT WAS FILED ON JUNE 27, 1930, NAMING ADDITIONAL PERSONS; AND
SHORTLY THEREAFTER CERTAIN FUNDS AND PROPERTY OF RESPONDENT WERE
GARNISHEED.  SUBSEQUENTLY, SERVICE BY PUBLICATION WAS COMPLETED; AND
SOON AFTERWARDS, AND BEFORE JUDGMENT, RESPONDENT APPEARED SPECIALLY AND
OBTAINED A REMOVAL OF THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION.  IN THE
DISTRICT COURT RESPONDENT ALSO APPEARED SPECIALLY AND MOVED TO QUASH
THE SERVICE BY PUBLICATION AND TO DISMISS THE ATTACHMENT AND
GARNISHMENT.  NOTHING FURTHER WAS DONE IN THE CAUSE FOR OVER FIVE
YEARS.  THEN, ON FEBRUARY 17, 1936, PETITIONER, WITH LEAVE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED PETITION REPEATING IN
SUBSTANCE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION; AND A SUPPLEMENTAL
AFFIDAVIT IN GARNISHMENT WHICH NAMED AS GARNISHEES THE SAME PERSONS
DESIGNATED IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVITS OF JUNE 1930 IN THE STATE COURT. 
ON THE SAME DAY, THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT AND
NOTICES TO GARNISHEES.  UNDER THE LATTER ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN THE HANDS
OF ONE OF THE GARNISHEES WERE REACHED.  AND ON APRIL 11, 1936,
RESPONDENTS AGAIN APPEARED SPECIALLY IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AND MOVED,
INTER ALIA, TO DISMISS THE ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT UNDER THE
SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF FEBRUARY 17, 1936.  AFTER REMOVAL TO THE
DISTRICT COURT THERE WAS NEITHER PERSONAL SERVICE, NOR, SO FAR AS
APPEARS, SERVICE BY PUBLICATION. 

BY ITS MOTIONS OF JANUARY 26, 1931, AND APRIL 11, 1936, RESPONDENT
ASSERTED THAT THE AFFIDAVITS IN ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT WERE
DEFECTIVE AND VOID UNDER OHIO LAW; THAT THERE WAS NO PROPERTY OF
RESPONDENT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE STATE
COURT ON WHICH ANY VALID ATTACHMENT COULD BE OR WAS LEVIED; THAT THERE
WAS NO PROPERTY OF RESPONDENT IN THE POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE
GARNISHEES; THAT THE ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT AND THE SERVICE OF
SUMMONS WERE VOID BY REASON OF INCORRECT DESIGNATION OF RESPONDENT;
THAT THERE WAS NO LAWFUL SERVICE OF SUMMONS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL AND
AMENDED PETITION MADE ON RESPONDENT; THAT THE SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHMENT
AND GARNISHMENT UNDER THE AMENDED PETITION WERE ALSO VOID FOR LACK OF
PERSONAL SERVICE; AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER
EITHER THE RESPONDENT OR ITS PROPERTY APPROPRIATE FOR THE MAINTENANCE
OF THIS ACTION. 

AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT ON RESPONDENT'S MOTIONS, THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED AN ORDER DISCHARGING THE ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT AND
STRIKING THE PETITION FROM THE FILES OF THE COURT, ON THE GROUNDS THAT
THE AFFIDAVITS IN ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT, DATED JUNE 19 AND JUNE
27, 1930, WERE DEFECTIVE AND VOID, AND THAT THE SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT
IN ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT WAS ALSO VOID AND INEFFECTIVE, SINCE NO
PERSONAL SERVICE HAD BEEN MADE ON RESPONDENT.  ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE
ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT OR GARNISHMENT IN THE STATE COURT WAS PREMATURE AND
VOID; THAT ON REMOVAL THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT VALIDATE AN
ATTACHMENT NOT PERFECTED IN THE STATE COURT PROCEEDING; AND THAT
ATTACHMENT MAY NOT ISSUE IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT UNTIL THE
DEFENDANT HAS BEEN PERSONALLY SERVED OR HAS VOLUNTARILY APPEARED. 

OF THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS RAISED BELOW AND BRIEFED HERE, ONLY THOSE
URGED IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND INCIDENTAL TO THEIR
DETERMINATION WILL BE CONSIDERED ON REVIEW.  GENERAL TALKING PICTURES
CORP. V. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO., 304 U.S. 175; CONNECTICUT RAILWAY &
LIGHTING CO. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493. 

BEFORE COMING TO THE BASIC QUESTION HERE INVOLVED, NAMELY, WHETHER
THE GARNISHMENT SECURED IN THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL
AFFIDAVIT OF FEBRUARY 17, 1936, WAS VOID, THERE ARE TWO PRELIMINARY
QUESTIONS.  THESE ARE (1) WHETHER THE NOTARY PUBLIC BEFORE WHOM THE
AFFIDAVITS IN ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT OF JUNE 19 AND JUNE 27, 1930,
WERE TAKEN WAS DISQUALIFIED, THUS RENDERING THE GARNISHMENT PROCEEDINGS
VOID AND OF NO EFFECT; AND (2) WHETHER THE GARNISHMENTS OBTAINED IN THE
STATE COURT WERE PREMATURE AND VOID BECAUSE THEY WERE SECURED WITHOUT
PERSONAL SERVICE AND PRIOR TO THE FIRST PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF
CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE. 

FIRST.  THE OHIO GENERAL CODE PROVIDED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT MIGHT BE
USED TO OBTAIN A PROVISIONAL REMEDY SUCH AS ATTACHMENT OR GARNISHMENT
(SEC. 11523), AND THAT AN AFFIDAVIT MIGHT BE MADE BEFORE ANY PERSON
AUTHORIZED TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS (SEC. 11524).  SEC. 11532 PROVIDED THAT
"THE OFFICER BEFORE WHOM DEPOSITIONS ARE TAKEN MUST NOT BE A RELATIVE
OR ATTORNEY OF EITHER PARTY, OR OTHERWISE INTERESTED IN THE EVENT OF
THE ACTION OR PROCEEDING."  THE NOTARY IN QUESTION WAS D.W. DRENNAN, A
MEMBER OF THE OHIO BAR AND OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  ALTHOUGH
DRENNAN HAD SOME PRIVATE PRACTICE OF HIS OWN, HE WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF A
CORPORATION, OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS PRESIDENT, AND PREVIOUSLY IN THE
EMPLOY OF A PREDECESSOR PARTNERSHIP, OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS A MEMBER. 
BUT HE DID NOT REPRESENT PETITIONER IN THIS CASE; NOR HAD HE EVER
REPRESENTED HIM AS PERSONAL COUNSEL; NOR WAS HE CONSULTED BY PETITIONER
WITH REFERENCE TO THIS CASE; NOR WAS HE RELATED TO PETITIONER; NOR DID
HE HAVE ANY FINANCIAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS SUIT.  HIS SOLE
CONNECTION WITH THE CASE WAS THAT HE ACTED AS NOTARY ON A FEW PAPERS. 
FURTHERMORE, THE PETITION IN THIS CASE ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION
PERSONAL TO PETITIONER, NOT ONE ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION BY WHICH
DRENNAN WAS EMPLOYED OR ON BEHALF OF ITS PREDECESSOR PARTNERSHIP. 

SINCE DRENNAN WAS NOT A "RELATIVE OR ATTORNEY" OF PETITIONER, HE WAS
NOT DISQUALIFIED TO TAKE THE AFFIDAVIT UNLESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
OHIO STATUTE HE WAS "OTHERWISE INTERESTED IN THE EVENT OF THE ACTION OR
PROCEEDING."  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT HE WAS SO INTERESTED.  WE DO
NOT SO INTERPRET THE OHIO LAW.  ABSENT SOME LEGAL OR MATERIAL INTEREST,
IT SEEMS TO US, ON THE BASIS OF THE OHIO AUTHORITIES WHICH WE HAVE
FOUND, THAT THERE MUST BE SOME IMMEDIATE INTEREST IN THE ACTION AKIN TO
THAT OF A RELATIVE IN ORDER FOR THE NOTARY TO RUN AFOUL OF THE
STATUTORY PROHIBITION.  DISABILITY THUS DEPENDS ON THE PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE - THE DEGREE OF INTIMACY IN RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PETITIONER AND NOTARY.  IN RHINELANDER CO. V. PITTSBURGH CO.,
15 OHIO C.C. (N.S.)  286, AN OHIO COURT HELD THAT A YOUNG MAN WORKING
AS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE FOR A FIRM OF ATTORNEYS RETAINED IN THE CASE WAS
NOT DISQUALIFIED BY THE FOREGOING SECTION FROM TAKING AN AFFIDAVIT IN
THE CASE AS NOTARY.  THE INTEREST WHICH DISQUALIFIES UNDER THE OHIO
STATUTE, SAID THAT COURT, IS "SOME LEGAL, CERTAIN AND IMMEDIATE
INTEREST SUCH AS FORMERLY DISQUALIFIED A WITNESS FROM TESTIFYING." 
ID., P. 286.  CERTAINLY, IF AN EMPLOYEE OF ONE WHO HIMSELF IS
DISQUALIFIED TO ACT AS NOTARY IS QUALIFIED SO TO ACT, AN EMPLOYEE OF A
CORPORATION WHOSE OFFICER IS SUING NOT ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION BUT
FOR HIMSELF WOULD SEEM TO BE SIMILARLY QUALIFIED UNDER OHIO LAW.  THIS
SEEMS TO US ESPECIALLY PERSUASIVE, SINCE THE NOTARY IN QUESTION WAS IN
FACT TAKING NOT A DEPOSITION BUT AN AFFIDAVIT AND SINCE THE AFFIDAVIT
WAS NOT FOR USE AS EVIDENCE.  FN2 ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
AFFIDAVITS OF JUNE 19 AND JUNE 27, 1930, WERE NOT DEFECTIVE BECAUSE
THEY WERE SWORN TO BEFORE D. W. DRENNAN.  FN3 

SECOND.  SEC. 11279 OF THE OHIO GENERAL CODE PROVIDES THAT "A CIVIL
ACTION MUST BE COMMENCED BY FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE
PROPER COURT A PETITION, AND CAUSING A SUMMONS TO BE ISSUED THEREON." 
SEC. 11819 PROVIDES THAT "IN A CIVIL ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF MONEY,
AT OR AFTER ITS COMMENCEMENT, THE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE AN ATTACHMENT
AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT" UPON VARIOUS ENUMERATED
GROUNDS.  IN THIS CASE THE PETITION WAS FILED, SUMMONS WAS ISSUED, AND
AN AFFIDAVIT IN ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT WAS FILED - ALL ON JUNE 19,
1930.  IT WOULD SEEM, THEREFORE, THAT SEC. 11819 WAS SATISFIED.  BUT
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT AN ATTACHMENT WHICH ISSUED
BEFORE PERSONAL SERVICE WAS OBTAINED, OR BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF
PUBLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, WAS PREMATURE AND VOID.  UNDER
THAT TEST THE ATTACHMENTS AND GARNISHMENTS SOUGHT IN THE STATE COURT ON
JUNE 19 AND JUNE 27, 1930, WERE DEFECTIVE SINCE PERSONAL SERVICE WAS
NEVER HAD AND SINCE SERVICE BY PUBLICATION WAS NOT COMMENCED UNTIL
SEVERAL MONTHS LATER. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REACHED THIS CONCLUSION IN RELIANCE UPON
ITS EARLIER DECISION IN DOHERTY V. CREMERING, 83 F.2D 388, AND UPON THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN SEIBERT V. SWITZER, 35 OHIO
ST. 661. 

WE THINK THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED.  THE CHRONOLOGY OF
EVENTS IN THE DOHERTY CASE IS THE SAME AS THE CHRONOLOGY HERE -
ATTACHMENT WAS ISSUED ON THE DAY THE PETITION WAS FILED AND
SUBSTANTIALLY IN ADVANCE OF COMMENCEMENT OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION. 
PERSONAL SERVICE WAS NOT HAD.  THE COURT RELIED UPON SEC. 11230 OF THE
OHIO GENERAL CODE AND UPON SEIBERT V. SWITZER, SUPRA.  SEC. 11230 IS
CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 2 OF DIVISION 1 OF TITLE IV OF THE OHIO GENERAL
CODE.  TITLE IV IS ENTITLED "PROCEDURE IN COMMON PLEAS COURT."  CHAPTER
2 OF DIVISION 1 IS ENTITLED "LIMITATION OF ACTIONS."  SEC. 11230
PROVIDES:  "AN ACTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE COMMENCED WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THIS CHAPTER, AS TO EACH DEFENDANT, AT THE DATE OF THE
SUMMONS WHICH IS SERVED ON HIM OR ON A CODEFENDANT WHO IS A JOINT
CONTRACTOR, OR OTHERWISE UNITED IN INTEREST WITH HIM.  WHEN SERVICE BY
PUBLICATION IS PROPER, THE ACTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE COMMENCED AT
THE DATE OF THE FIRST PUBLICATION, IF IT BE REGULARLY MADE." 

IT SEEMS CLEAR TO US THAT THE WORDS "AN ACTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
COMMENCED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS CHAPTER" CONFINE THE OPERATION OF
THE SECTION TO MATTERS CONCERNING THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS, THE
SUBJECT TO WHICH THE CHAPTER IS EXPRESSLY DEVOTED.  THE SUPREME COURT
COMMISSION OF OHIO IN BACHER V. SHAWHAN, 41 OHIO ST. 271, SO
INTERPRETED SEC. 4988 REV. STATS. (NOW SEC. 11231 OF THE OHIO GENERAL
CODE) WHICH PROVIDED: "AN ATTEMPT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION SHALL BE DEEMED
TO BE EQUIVALENT TO THE COMMENCEMENT THEREOF, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THIS CHAPTER, WHEN THE PARTY DILIGENTLY ENDEAVORS TO PROCURE SERVICE;
BUT SUCH ATTEMPT MUST BE FOLLOWED BY SERVICE WITHIN SIXTY DAYS."  THE
COURT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT LOSE JURISDICTION BECAUSE
SERVICE BY PUBLICATION WAS NOT COMMENCED, PERSONAL SERVICE NOT BEING
HAD, UNTIL SOME SEVEN MONTHS AFTER SUIT WAS BROUGHT AND AN ORDER OF
ATTACHMENT WAS ISSUED AND LEVIED.  THE COURT SAID:  "IT WILL BE
OBSERVED THAT THE RESTRICTIVE WORDS 'WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS
CHAPTER,' CONFINE THE OPERATION OF THE SECTION TO MATTERS CONCERNING
THE LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS.  IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT
WAS TO PREVENT PARTIES FROM INDEFINITELY PROLONGING A SUSPENSION OF THE
STATUTE BY A MERE ATTEMPT TO SUE."  ID., P. 272. 

ON THAT AUTHORITY WE CONCLUDE THAT "AT OR AFTER ITS COMMENCEMENT" AS
USED IN SEC. 11819 MEANS THE COMMENCEMENT DESCRIBED IN SEC. 11279, NOT
THE COMMENCEMENT DESCRIBED IN SEC. 11230.  ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THIS
CONCLUSION IS FOUND IN SEIBERT V. SWITZER, 35 OHIO ST. 661, ON WHICH
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RELIED FOR THE CONTRARY CONCLUSION.  THERE
THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED
PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION WAS IN ISSUE.  AT THAT TIME SEC.
11279(THEN CIVIL CODE, SEC. 55) WAS IDENTICALLY THE SAME AS AT
PRESENT.  SEC. 11819(THEN CIVIL CODE, SEC. 191) WAS, SO FAR AS MATERIAL
HERE, SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT IS NOW; I.E., IT ALLOWED THE
PLAINTIFF IN A CIVIL ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF MONEY TO HAVE AN
ATTACHMENT "AT OR AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT" OF THE ACTION.  SEC.
11820(THEN CIVIL CODE, SEC. 192) AT THAT TIME, AS NOW, PROVIDED THAT
THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT SHOULD BE MADE "BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT IN
WHICH THE ACTION IS BROUGHT."  AND SEC. 11821(THEN CIVIL CODE, SEC.
193) REQUIRED IN CASE OF ATTACHMENT, AS IT DOES NOW, A BOND BY THE
"PLAINTIFF" TO THE "DEFENDANT" EXCEPT IN CASE DEFENDANT WAS A NON
RESIDENT OR A FOREIGN CORPORATION.  THE COURT IN SEIBERT V. SWITZER,
SUPRA, HELD THAT THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT WAS UNAUTHORIZED AND VOID,
FN4  AND SAID:  "NO ACTION WAS, IN FACT, COMMENCED BY THE FILING OF A
PETITION, UNTIL SOME THREE OR FOUR HOURS AFTER THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT
WAS SERVED AND RETURNED."    "THE STATUTE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE AN
ATTACHMENT EXCEPT IN AN ACTION, AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT UNTIL AN ACTION IS BROUGHT
AND THE RELATION OF PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IS ESTABLISHED IN THE
CASE. 

"AN ACTION IS COMMENCED OR BROUGHT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIONS
192 AND 193, BY THE FILING OF A PETITION AND CAUSING A SUMMONS TO ISSUE
THEREON.  CODE, SEC. 55  ...  " ID., P. 665. 

THE SEIBERT CASE AND THE BACHER CASE THUS SEEM TO BE WHOLLY
CONSISTENT.  AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT ISSUED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF A
PETITION AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS IS VOID; AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT ISSUED
AFTER FILING OF THE PETITION AND THE ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS BUT PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF SERVICE BY PUBLICATION IS VALID, THOUGH PERSONAL
SERVICE IS NOT HAD. 

IN VIEW OF THESE OHIO AUTHORITIES, WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ATTACHMENTS
OR GARNISHMENTS SECURED IN THE STATE COURT WERE NOT PREMATURE OR VOID
BECAUSE OBTAINED PRIOR TO PERSONAL SERVICE OR BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF
SERVICE BY PUBLICATION.  SEE ALSO, ST. JOHN V. PARSONS, 54 OHIO APP.
420; 7 N.E.2D 1013.  THOSE LIENS, HAVING BEEN OBTAINED IN THE STATE
COURT PRIOR TO REMOVAL, ARE PRESERVED INTACT AFTER REMOVAL.  SEC. 646
OF THE REVISED STATUTES (28 U.S.C. SEC. 79).  FN5 

THIRD.  THIS BRINGS US TO THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE CASE - WHETHER A
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS THE POWER TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT OR
GARNISHMENT IN A REMOVED CAUSE IF JURISDICTION IN REM HAS BEEN OBTAINED
PRIOR TO REMOVAL.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RELIED UPON THE RULE
LAID DOWN IN BIG VEIN COAL CO. V. READ, 229 U.S. 31, THAT AN ATTACHMENT
MAY NOT ISSUE IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT WHERE NO PERSONAL SERVICE HAS
BEEN HAD UPON DEFENDANT OR WHERE DEFENDANT HAS MADE NO PERSONAL
APPEARANCE.  ONE OF THE EARLIEST ANTECEDENTS OF THE BIG VEIN COAL CO.
CASE, SUPRA, WAS TOLAND V. SPRAGUE, 12 PET. 300.  IN THAT CASE A
CITIZEN OF PENNSYLVANIA BROUGHT SUIT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AGAINST A CITIZEN OF
MASSACHUSETTS WHO WAS DOMICILED ABROAD.  NO PERSONAL SERVICE WAS HAD,
BUT AN ATTACHMENT WAS LEVIED UPON DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY IN
PENNSYLVANIA.  SEC. 739 OF THE REVISED STATUTES THEN PROVIDED THAT NO
CIVIL SUIT SHOULD BE BROUGHT IN EITHER THE CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT COURT
AGAINST ANY INHABITANT OF THE UNITED STATES BY ANY ORIGINAL PROCESS IN
ANY OTHER DISTRICT THAN THAT WHEREOF HE WAS AN INHABITANT OR IN WHICH
HE WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF THE SERVING OF THE WRIT.  THIS COURT BY A
DIVIDED VOTE CONCLUDED THAT AN ATTACHMENT COULD NOT BE ISSUED EXCEPT AS
A PART OF, OR TOGETHER WITH, PROCESS SERVED UPON DEFENDANT PERSONALLY. 
AND IN EX PARTE RAILWAY CO., 103 U.S. 794, THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT
SINCE THE DEFENDANT WAS AN INHABITANT OF A STATE OUTSIDE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT AND WAS NOT FOUND OR SERVED WITH
PROCESS IN THAT JURISDICTION, NO ATTACHMENT COULD ISSUE FROM THAT COURT
AGAINST HIS PROPERTY.  IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THOSE TWO PRECEDENTS THAT
THIS COURT LATER MADE ITS DECISION IN BIG VEIN COAL CO. V. READ, SUPRA.
IN THAT CASE, PLAINTIFF INSTITUTED SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  A
SUMMONS WAS ISSUED AND RETURNED NOT FOUND.  THEREAFTER AN ORDER OF
ATTACHMENT WAS ISSUED.  IT WAS HELD THAT UNLESS JURISDICTION IN
PERSONAM IS OBTAINED OVER THE DEFENDANT, HIS ESTATE MAY NOT BE ATTACHED
IN THE FEDERAL COURT, AN ATTACHMENT BEING BUT "AN INCIDENT TO A SUIT"
AND NOT A MEANS OF ACQUIRING JURISDICTION.  ID., P. 38.  THIS
CONCLUSION WAS REACHED IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT SEC. 739 HAD BEEN
CHANGED SINCE EX PARTE RAILWAY CO., SUPRA, BY ADDITION OF A DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE PERMITTING SUIT "IN THE DISTRICT OF THE RESIDENCE
OF EITHER THE DEFENDANT OR PLAINTIFF," AND IN SPITE OF SEC. 915 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES (28 U.S.C. SEC. 726), DISCUSSED HEREAFTER. 
NEVERTHELESS, THIS COURT HELD THAT SINCE CONGRESS HAD NOT EXPLICITLY
PROVIDED FOR SERVICE BY PUBLICATION IN SUCH CASES, ATTACHMENT COULD BE
OBTAINED ONLY IN CASES WHERE SERVICE WAS ADEQUATE FOR A JUDGMENT IN
PERSONAM. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR EXTENSION OR APPLICATION OF THE RULE FOLLOWED FROM
TOLAND V. SPRAGUE TO BIG VEIN COAL CO. V. READ, SUPRA, TO CASES SUCH AS
THE INSTANT ONE LOSES ITS PERSUASIVENESS.  INGRAINED IN THOSE DECISIONS
IS THE FEELING THAT IT WOULD BE UNJUST FOR A PERSON TO HAVE HIS RIGHTS
PASSED UPON IN THE ABSENCE OF THE NOTICE AFFORDED BY PERSONAL SERVICE,
SO THAT HE MIGHT APPEAR AND DEFEND HIMSELF.  THAT PHILOSOPHY WAS
PERHAPS BEST EXPRESSED BY MR. JUSTICE MILLER SITTING IN CIRCUIT IN
NAZORO V. CRAGIN, 3 DILL.  474, 476, WHERE HE SAID, IN 1873, THAT A
CONTRARY DOCTRINE WOULD "COMPEL CITIZENS OF THE PACIFIC COAST TO GO TO
NEW YORK TO DEFEND THEIR PROPERTY WHICH HAPPENED TO BE THERE AND WOULD
GIVE THE GREAT CENTRAL CITIES VAST POWER."  BUT THAT VIEWPOINT HAD NOT
BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE CONGRESS IN SEC. 646.  THAT SECTION GAVE VALIDITY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO ATTACHMENTS OBTAINED IN THE STATE COURT PRIOR
TO REMOVAL, BY ITS PROVISION THAT ANY ATTACHMENT IN THE STATE COURT
SUIT "SHALL HOLD THE GOODS OR ESTATE SO ATTACHED" TO ANSWER THE FINAL
JUDGMENT OR DECREE.  AND THIS COURT HAS SOLICITOUSLY PROTECTED
ATTACHMENTS OBTAINED PRIOR TO REMOVAL, EVEN THOUGH JURISDICTION IN REM
HAD NOT BEEN PERFECTED IN THE STATE COURT BY SERVICE BY PUBLICATION. 
CLARK V. WELLS, 203 U.S. 164.  SO TO A CONSIDERABLE DEGREE, THIS COURT
IN PURSUANCE OF THE POLICY OF THE CONGRESS AS EXPRESSED IN SEC. 646,
HAS NOT ADHERED RIGOROUSLY TO THE PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING THE ANTECEDENTS
OF THE BIG VEIN COAL COMPANY CASE.  FOR MOST ASSUREDLY A DEFENDANT
WHOSE PROPERTY IS ATTACHED IN A STATE COURT PRIOR TO REMOVAL MAY NOT
HAVE BEEN GIVEN NOTICE OF THE KIND WHICH PERSONAL SERVICE WOULD
PROVIDE, SINCE THE STATE PROCEDURE AS IN THIS CASE COMMONLY PERMITS
ATTACHMENT OR GARNISHMENT WHERE ONLY SERVICE BY PUBLICATION CAN BE
MADE. 

BUT WE NEED NOT RELY MERELY ON INFERENCES DRAWN FROM STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION, SINCE THE CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED PLAINTIFFS IN FEDERAL
COURTS WITH PROCEDURAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN STATE COURTS.  SEC. 915 OF
THE REVISED STATUTES PROVIDES: 

"IN COMMON-LAW CAUSES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS THE PLAINTIFF SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO SIMILAR REMEDIES, BY ATTACHMENT OR OTHER PROCESS, AGAINST
THE PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT, WHICH WERE, ON JUNE 1, 1872, PROVIDED BY
THE LAWS OF THE STATE IN WHICH SUCH COURT IS HELD FOR THE COURTS
THEREOF; AND SUCH DISTRICT COURTS MAY, FROM TIME TO TIME, BY GENERAL
RULES, ADOPT SUCH STATE LAWS AS MAY BE IN FORCE IN THE STATES WHERE
THEY ARE HELD IN RELATION TO ATTACHMENTS AND OTHER PROCESS.  SIMILAR
PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVITS OR PROOFS, AND SIMILAR SECURITY, AS REQUIRED BY
SUCH STATE LAWS, SHALL BE FIRST FURNISHED BY THE PARTY SEEKING SUCH
ATTACHMENT OR OTHER REMEDY." 

THIS SECTION WHEN READ WITH SEC. 646, INDICATES TO US THAT WHERE
JURISDICTION IN REM HAS BEEN ACQUIRED PRIOR TO REMOVAL, PLAINTIFF MAY
OBTAIN IN THE FEDERAL COURT AFTER REMOVAL SUCH ORDERS OF ATTACHMENT OR
GARNISHMENT AS WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO HIM HAD HE BEEN PERMITTED
TO REMAIN IN THE STATE COURT.  SUCH INTERPRETATION MERELY MAKES IT
POSSIBLE FOR A LIEN OBTAINED IN A STATE COURT PRIOR TO REMOVAL TO BE
EXTENDED BY THE FEDERAL COURT TO OTHER PROPERTY OF THE SAME DEFENDANT. 
IT INTRODUCES NO NEW ELEMENT IN THE STATUTORY SCHEME FOR, AS WE HAVE
SAID, THE LIEN WHICH SEC. 646 PROTECTS MAY OFTEN HAVE BEEN OBTAINED
WITHOUT PERSONAL SERVICE.  THE POLICY WHICH RECOGNIZES THE VALIDITY OF
A LIEN PRESERVED BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 646, THOUGH PERSONAL SERVICE IS
LACKING, PERMITS EXTENSION OF THAT LIEN BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES TO OTHER PROPERTY OF THE SAME DEFENDANT BY
REASON OF SEC. 915. 

THIS HOLDING CAN BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE RULE OF THE BIG VEIN COAL
COMPANY CASE, SUPRA, IF THAT DECISION IS NARROWLY LIMITED.  FOR IN ONE
SENSE IT CAN BE SAID THAT ATTACHMENT OR GARNISHMENT IS HERE USED ONLY
AS AN "AUXILIARY REMEDY."  ID., P. 37.  THE GARNISHMENT EFFECTED UNDER
THE AFFIDAVIT OF FEBRUARY 17, 1936, IF VALID UNDER OHIO LAW, WOULD
MERELY EXTEND THE PROCEEDINGS IN REM TO REACH OTHER PROPERTY OF THE
SAME DEFENDANT.  ACCORDINGLY, IF THAT EXTENSION IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER
SEC. 915, IT IS NOT DEFECTIVE MERELY BECAUSE JURISDICTION IN PERSONAM
IS ABSENT.  WHETHER OR NOT SUCH EXTENSION IS PERMISSIBLE IS A MATTER OF
STATE LAW ON WHICH WE DO NOT PASS.  SINCE THE CASE WILL BE REMANDED,
THAT QUESTION AND OTHER QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT CAN BE MORE
APPROPRIATELY DISPOSED OF BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED, AND THE
CASE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  PARIS E. SINGER WAS ALSO NAMED A DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL
PETITION BUT DIED PENDING THE ACTION.  SINCE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS
WERE CONTINUED AGAINST RESPONDENT ALONE, THE CAUSE IS TREATED AS IF
DEVON SYNDICATE, LIMITED, WERE THE SOLE DEFENDANT. 

FN2  THERE IS OHIO AUTHORITY FOR THE VIEW THAT SEC. 11532 OF THE OHIO
GENERAL CODE UNDER WHICH THE NOTARY'S DISQUALIFICATION IS ASSERTED WAS
INTENDED ONLY TO DEFINE AND REGULATE THE TAKING OF AFFIDAVITS TO BE
USED AS TESTIMONY IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.  CITY COMMISSION OF
GALLIPOLIS V. STATE, 36 OH. APP. 258.  ON THE OTHER HAND, LEAVITT &
MILROY CO. V. ROSENBERG BROS. & CO., 83 OH. ST. 230; 93 N.E. 904,
SQUARELY HELD THAT AN ATTACHMENT WAS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE AFFIDAVIT
WAS MADE BEFORE A NOTARY WHO WAS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 11532 - THEN SEC. 5271 REV. STAT. AND THOUGH THAT
CASE, SO FAR AS APPEARS, HAS NEVER BEEN OVERRULED, ITS HOLDING AND SEC.
11532 WERE NEVERTHELESS BEFORE THE COURT IN EVANS V. LAWYER, 123 OH.
ST. 62; 173 N.E. 735.  THERE THE COURT REFERRED TO CERTAIN SECTIONS OF
THE GENERAL CODE (INCLUDING SEC. 11532) WHICH RELATE TO EXECUTION OF
AFFIDAVITS AND SAID "THE SECTIONS OF THE CODE REFERRED TO RELATE TO THE
MODE OF TAKING TESTIMONY, AND ARE FOUND UNDER PART THIRD, TITLE IV,
DIVISION III, RELATING TO PROCEDURE IN COMMON PLEAS COURT, IN CHAPTER 3
IN REGARD TO EVIDENCE.  WE THINK THESE SECTIONS OF THE CODE RELATE TO
AFFIDAVITS TO BE USED IN THE SENSE OF EVIDENCE."  ID., P. 66.  THOUGH
WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED ON THESE AUTHORITIES IN CONCLUDING THAT THE
PROHIBITIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 11532 ARE INAPPLICABLE TO NOTARIES
BEFORE WHOM AFFIDAVITS IN ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT ARE TAKEN,
NEVERTHELESS THEY LEND SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT IN CONSIDERING WHETHER
OR NOT A NOTARY IS "OTHERWISE INTERESTED" IN THE EVENT OF THE ACTION
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GIVE SOME
WEIGHT TO THE FUNCTION WHICH THE AFFIDAVIT IN QUESTION IS TO PERFORM,
IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY RULING BY THE OHIO COURTS. 

FN3  ANOTHER REASON URGED BY RESPONDENT FOR THE INVALIDITY OF THE
AFFIDAVITS IN QUESTION IS THAT THE NOTARY WAS DISQUALIFIED BY SEC. 121
OF THE OHIO GENERAL CODE WHICH PROVIDES:  "NO BANKER, BROKER, CASHIER,
DIRECTOR, TELLER, OR CLERK OF A BANK, BANKER OR BROKER, OR OTHER PERSON
HOLDING AN OFFICIAL RELATION TO A BANK, BANKER, OR BROKER, SHALL BE
COMPETENT TO ACT AS NOTARY PUBLIC IN ANY MATTER IN WHICH SUCH BANK,
BANKER, OR BROKER IS INTERESTED."  RESPONDENT CLAIMS THAT THE
CORPORATION OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS AN OFFICER AND BY WHICH THE NOTARY
WAS EMPLOYED, AS WELL AS THE PREDECESSOR PARTNERSHIP, WAS A MUNICIPAL
BOND BROKER; THAT PETITIONER, BEING AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION, WAS
HIMSELF A BROKER; AND THAT THEREFORE THE NOTARY WAS A "CLERK OF" OR
"OTHER PERSON HOLDING AN OFFICIAL RELATION TO" A "BROKER."  SUFFICE IT
TO NOTE (1) THAT THE NOTARY WAS NOT IN THE EMPLOY OF PETITIONER; AND
(2) THAT NEITHER THE CORPORATION NOR ITS PREDECESSOR PARTNERSHIP
APPEARS TO BE "INTERESTED" IN THE ACTION.  AS ALLEGED, THE ACTION SEEMS
TO BE PERSONAL TO PETITIONER. 

FN4  IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT SEC. 11230(CIVIL CODE, SEC. 20) WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME THEN AS NOW.  THOUGH THAT SECTION PROVIDED THAT
"WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS SECTION" AN ACTION WHERE SERVICE BY
PUBLICATION WAS PROPER SHOULD "BE DEEMED COMMENCED AT THE DATE OF THE
FIRST PUBLICATION," THE COURT DETERMINED THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT BY
SEC. 11279 WITHOUT MENTIONING SEC. 11230. 

FN5  SEC. 646 PROVIDES:  "WHEN ANY SUIT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM A STATE
COURT TO A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY ATTACHMENT OR
SEQUESTRATION OF THE GOODS OR ESTATE OF THE DEFENDANT HAD IN SUCH SUIT
IN THE STATE COURT SHALL HOLD THE GOODS OR ESTATE SO ATTACHED OR
SEQUESTERED TO ANSWER THE FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE IN THE SAME MANNER
AS BY LAW THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO ANSWER FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE
HAD IT BEEN RENDERED BY THE COURT IN WHICH SAID SUIT WAS COMMENCED. 
ALL BONDS, UNDERTAKINGS, OR SECURITY GIVEN BY EITHER PARTY IN SUCH SUIT
PRIOR TO ITS REMOVAL SHALL REMAIN VALID AND EFFECTUAL NOTWITHSTANDING
SAID REMOVAL; AND ALL INJUNCTIONS, ORDERS, AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS HAD IN
SUCH SUIT PRIOR TO ITS REMOVAL SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT
UNTIL DISSOLVED OR MODIFIED BY THE COURT TO WHICH SUCH SUIT SHALL BE
REMOVED." 
..END :





JAMESON & CO. V. MORGENTHAU, 307 U.S. 171 


NO. 717.  ARGUED MAY 1, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1939.  - 25 F.SUPP. 
771, DECREE VACATED. 


1.  SECTION 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, PROVIDING FOR A COURT OF
THREE JUDGES AND A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, IS NOT APPLICABLE
UNLESS THE QUESTIONS RAISED AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF AN ACT
OF CONGRESS ARE SUBSTANTIAL.  P. 172. 

2.  THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION THAT THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT GIVES TO THE STATES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER
COMMERCE IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS, UNLIMITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND
HENCE THAT CONGRESS HAS NO LONGER AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE IMPORTATION
OF THESE COMMODITIES INTO THE UNITED STATES.  P. 172. 

3.  A SUIT CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT, BUT RAISING NO
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY AS TO THE ACT ITSELF,
IS NOT WITHIN SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, PROVIDING FOR A
THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, AND DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, IN CASES
OF ATTACK UPON AN "ACT OF CONGRESS" UPON THE GROUND THAT "SUCH ACT OR
ANY PART THEREOF IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES."  P. 173. 

4.  LACKING JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE MERITS ON AN APPEAL MISTAKENLY
TAKEN UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, THIS COURT VACATES
THE DECREE BELOW AND REMANDS THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS TO BE TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY OF THAT SECTION.  P. 174. 

WILLIAM JAMESON & CO. V. MORGENTHAU, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT AND OF
REGULATIONS THEREUNDER. 

PER CURIAM. 

APPELLANT, AN IMPORTER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, HAVING
BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO IMPORT ITS PRODUCT INTO THE UNITED STATES
UNDER THE LABEL OF "BLENDED SCOTCH WHISKY," UPON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS
IMPROPERLY LABELED, BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY AND OTHER OFFICIALS TO ENJOIN THEM FROM REFUSING TO RELEASE
THE PRODUCT FROM CUSTOMS CUSTODY UPON PAYMENT OF THE REQUIRED CUSTOMS
DUTIES.  APPELLANT ALSO ASKED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE
FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT, 49 STAT. 977, 1965, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AND THAT REGULATIONS NO. 5 PROMULGATED
THEREUNDER, AND PARTICULARLY SECS. 21(K), 34(F) AND 46(A) OF THESE
REGULATIONS, ARE UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST APPELLANT AND ARE WITHOUT
WARRANT OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY. 

IN THE VIEW THAT THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS
WAS INVOLVED AND THAT THE SUIT WAS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 3 OF THE
ACT OF CONGRESS OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 751, THE CASE WAS HEARD
BELOW BY A COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH DENIED AN APPLICATION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT.  25 F.SUPP.  771. 
FROM ITS DECREE A DIRECT APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN TO THIS COURT. 

COURT OF THREE JUDGES AND A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, IS NOT
APPLICABLE UNLESS THE QUESTIONS RAISED AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS ARE SUBSTANTIAL.  CALIFORNIA WATER
SERVICE CO. V. REDDING, 304 U.S. 252, 254, 255. 

HERE, THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT WAS ATTACKED UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
GIVES TO THE STATES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER COMMERCE IN
INTOXICATING LIQUORS, UNLIMITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND HENCE THAT
CONGRESS HAS NO LONGER AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE IMPORTATION OF THESE
COMMODITIES INTO THE UNITED STATES.  WE SEE NO SUBSTANCE IN THIS
CONTENTION. 

THE OTHER CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ASSAILED THE REGULATIONS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THEREUNDER RATHER THAN THE ACT OF CONGRESS.  SO
FAR AS THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT ITSELF IS CONCERNED, NO
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY WAS RAISED. 

FOR A PROCEDURE ANALOGOUS TO THAT UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
28 U.S.C. 380, CREATES A DISTINCTION WHICH WE THINK IS CONTROLLING. 
WHERE AN INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT "OF ANY
STATUTE OF A STATE" OR "OF AN ORDER MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR
COMMISSION ACTING UNDER AND PURSUANT TO THE STATUTES OF SUCH STATE,"
UPON THE GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  THE PROVISION IN RELATION TO
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS WAS ADDED BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL
BEEN SAID TO BE UNNECESSARY, AS SUCH ORDERS WERE PREVIOUSLY COVERED,
OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S. 290, 292, CONGRESS ADOPTED THE
AMENDMENT OUT OF ABUNDANT CAUTION.  BUT WITH THESE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
266 BEFORE IT, CONGRESS IN ENACTING SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24,
1937, DID NOT REFER TO "ANY STATUTE" OR TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS, BUT
CONFINED ITS REQUIREMENT TO CASES OF ATTACK UPON AN "ACT OF CONGRESS"
UPON THE GROUND THAT "SUCH ACT OR ANY PART THEREOF IS REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  THIS IS NOT AN APT DESCRIPTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS OR ORDERS.  WE MUST REGARD THE CHOICE OF
LANGUAGE AS DELIBERATE AND AS INDICATING A LIMITATION DEEMED TO BE
ADVISABLE.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS
THAT DIRECT APPEAL SHOULD LIE TO THIS COURT WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
AND NOT THE ACT OF CONGRESS IS ASSAILED. 

WHILE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE MERITS ON THIS APPEAL, THE COURT DOES HAVE JURISDICTION TO
MAKE SUCH CORRECTIVE ORDER AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE LIMITATIONS WHICH SEC. 3 IMPOSES, AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED THE APPROPRIATE ACTION IS TO VACATE THE DECREE BELOW AND TO
REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE
TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937.  SEE GULLY
V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 292 U.S. 16; OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V.
OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386, 392.  DECREE VACATED. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 


NO. 696.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1939.  - 26 F.SUPP. 
1002, REVERSED. 


THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT, AS APPLIED TO ONE INDICTED FOR TRANSPORTING
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE A 12-GAUGE SHOTGUN WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 18
INCHES LONG, WITHOUT HAVING REGISTERED IT AND WITHOUT HAVING IN HIS
POSSESSION A STAMP-AFFIXED WRITTEN ORDER FOR IT, AS REQUIRED BY THE
ACT, HELD: 

1.  NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN INVASION OF THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE
STATES.  CITING SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506, AND NARCOTIC
ACT CASES.  P. 177. 

2.  NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 178. 

THE COURT CAN NOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT A SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL
LESS THAN 18 INCHES LONG HAS TODAY ANY REASONABLE RELATION TO THE
PRESERVATION OR EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA; AND THEREFORE
CAN NOT SAY THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEES TO THE CITIZEN THE
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH A WEAPON. 

UNITED STATES V. MILLER ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT FOR VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

AN INDICTMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS,
CHARGED THAT JACK MILLER AND FRANK LAYTON 

"DID UNLAWFULLY, KNOWINGLY, WILFULLY, AND FELONIOUSLY TRANSPORT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE TOWN OF CLAREMORE IN THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
TO THE TOWN OF SILOAM SPRINGS IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS A CERTAIN
FIREARM, TO-WIT, A DOUBLE BARREL 12-GAUGE STEVENS SHOTGUN HAVING A
BARREL LESS THAN 18 INCHES IN LENGTH, BEARING IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
76230, SAID DEFENDANTS, AT THE TIME OF SO TRANSPORTING SAID FIREARM IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS AFORESAID, NOT HAVING REGISTERED SAID FIREARM AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 1132D OF TITLE 26, U.S.C. (ACT OF JUNE 26, 1934, C.
737, SEC. 4(SEC.  5), 48 STAT. 1237), AND NOT HAVING IN THEIR
POSSESSION A STAMP-AFFIXED WRITTEN ORDER FOR SAID FIREARM AS PROVIDED
BY SECTION 1132C, TITLE 26, U.S.C. (JUNE 26, 1934, C. 737, SEC. 4, 48
STAT. 1237) AND THE REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE SAID ACT
OF CONGRESS KNOWN AS THE 'NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT' APPROVED JUNE 26,
1934, CONTRARY TO THE FORM OF THE STATUTE IN SUCH CASE MADE AND
PROVIDED, AND AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE UNITED STATES." 
FN1 

A DULY INTERPOSED DEMURRER ALLEGED:  THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT IS NOT
A REVENUE MEASURE BUT AN ATTEMPT TO USURP POLICE POWER RESERVED TO THE
STATES, AND IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  ALSO, IT OFFENDS THE
INHIBITION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION - "A WELL
REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE
RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT SECTION ELEVEN OF THE ACT VIOLATES THE
SECOND AMENDMENT.  IT ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED THE DEMURRER AND QUASHED
THE INDICTMENT. 

THE CAUSE IS HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL. 

CONSIDERING SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES (1937), 300 U.S. 506, 513, AND
WHAT WAS RULED IN SUNDRY CAUSES ARISING  UNDER THE HARRISON NARCOTIC
ACT  FN2  - UNITED STATES V. JIN FUEY MOY (1916), 241 U.S. 394; UNITED
STATES V. DOREMUS (1919), 249 U.S. 86, 94; LINDER V. UNITED STATES
(1925), 268 U.S. 5; ALSTON V. UNITED STATES (1927), 274 U.S. 289; NIGRO
V. UNITED STATES (1928), 276 U.S. 332 - THE OBJECTION THAT THE ACT
USURPS POLICE POWER RESERVED TO THE STATES IS PLAINLY UNTENABLE. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT POSSESSION OR USE
OF A "SHOTGUN HAVING A BARREL OF LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH"
AT THIS TIME HAS SOME REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESERVATION OR
EFFICIENCY OF A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE SECOND
AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SUCH AN INSTRUMENT. 
CERTAINLY IT IS NOT WITHIN JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THIS WEAPON IS ANY PART
OF THE ORDINARY MILITARY EQUIPMENT OR THAT ITS USE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO
THE COMMON DEFENSE.  AYMETTE V. STATE, 2 HUMPHREYS (TENN.) 154, 158. 

THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED GRANTED TO THE CONGRESS POWER
"TO PROVIDE FOR CALLING FORTH THE MILITIA TO EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THE
UNION, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS AND REPEL INVASIONS; TO PROVIDE FOR
ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING, THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING
SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED
STATES, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE
DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."  WITH OBVIOUS PURPOSE TO ASSURE THE
CONTINUATION AND RENDER POSSIBLE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH FORCES THE
DECLARATION AND GUARANTEE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WERE MADE.  IT MUST
BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED WITH THAT END IN VIEW. 

THE MILITIA WHICH THE STATES WERE EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN AND TRAIN IS
SET IN CONTRAST WITH TROOPS WHICH THEY WERE FORBIDDEN TO KEEP WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS.  THE SENTIMENT OF THE TIME STRONGLY DISFAVORED
STANDING ARMIES; THE COMMON VIEW WAS THAT ADEQUATE DEFENSE OF COUNTRY
AND LAWS COULD BE SECURED THROUGH THE MILITIA - CIVILIANS PRIMARILY,
SOLDIERS ON OCCASION. 

THE SIGNIFICATION ATTRIBUTED TO THE TERM MILITIA APPEARS FROM THE
DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION, THE HISTORY AND LEGISLATION OF COLONIES AND
STATES, AND THE WRITINGS OF APPROVED COMMENTATORS.  THESE SHOW PLAINLY
ENOUGH THAT THE MILITIA COMPRISED ALL MALES PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF
ACTING IN CONCERT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE.  "A BODY OF CITIZENS ENROLLED
FOR MILITARY DISCIPLINE."  AND FURTHER, THAT ORDINARILY WHEN CALLED FOR
SERVICE THESE MEN WERE EXPECTED TO APPEAR BEARING ARMS SUPPLIED BY
THEMSELVES AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME. 

BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, VOL. 2, CH. 13, P. 409 POINTS OUT "THAT
KING ALFRED FIRST SETTLED A NATIONAL MILITIA IN THIS KINGDOM," AND
TRACES THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF SUCH FORCES. 

ADAM SMITH'S WEALTH OF NATIONS, BOOK V, CH. 1, CONTAINS AN EXTENDED
ACCOUNT OF THE MILITIA.  IT IS THERE SAID:  "MEN OF REPUBLICAN
PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN JEALOUS OF A STANDING ARMY AS DANGEROUS TO
LIBERTY."  "IN A MILITIA, THE CHARACTER OF THE LABOURER, ARTIFICER, OR
TRADESMAN, PREDOMINATES OVER THAT OF THE SOLDIER:  IN A STANDING ARMY,
THAT OF THE SOLDIER PREDOMINATES OVER EVERY OTHER CHARACTER; AND IN
THIS DISTINCTION SEEMS TO CONSIST THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THOSE TWO DIFFERENT SPECIES OF MILITARY FORCE." 

"THE AMERICAN COLONIES IN THE 17TH CENTURY," OSGOOD, VOL. 1, CH.
XIII, AFFIRMS IN REFERENCE TO THE EARLY SYSTEM OF DEFENSE IN NEW
ENGLAND - 

"IN ALL THE COLONIES, AS IN ENGLAND, THE MILITIA SYSTEM WAS BASED ON
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ASSIZE OF ARMS.  THIS IMPLIED THE GENERAL
OBLIGATION OF ALL ADULT MALE INHABITANTS TO POSSESS ARMS, AND, WITH
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, TO COOPERATE IN THE WORK OF DEFENCE."  "THE
POSSESSION OF ARMS ALSO IMPLIED THE POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION, AND THE
AUTHORITIES PAID QUITE AS MUCH ATTENTION TO THE LATTER AS TO THE
FORMER."  "A YEAR LATER (1632) IT WAS ORDERED THAT ANY SINGLE MAN WHO
HAD NOT FURNISHED HIMSELF WITH ARMS MIGHT BE PUT OUT TO SERVICE, AND
THIS BECAME A PERMANENT PART OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE COLONY
(MASSACHUSETTS)." 

ALSO "CLAUSES INTENDED TO INSURE THE POSSESSION OF ARMS AND
AMMUNITION BY ALL WHO WERE SUBJECT TO MILITARY SERVICE APPEAR IN ALL
THE IMPORTANT ENACTMENTS CONCERNING MILITARY AFFAIRS.  FINES WERE THE
PENALTY FOR DELINQUENCY, WHETHER OF TOWNS OR INDIVIDUALS.  ACCORDING TO
THE USAGE OF THE TIMES, THE INFANTRY OF MASSACHUSETTS CONSISTED OF
PIKEMEN AND MUSKETEERS.  THE LAW, AS ENACTED IN 1649 AND THEREAFTER,
PROVIDED THAT EACH OF THE FORMER SHOULD BE ARMED WITH A PIKE, CORSELET,
HEAD-PIECE, SWORD, AND KNAPSACK.  THE MUSKETEER SHOULD CARRY A 'GOOD
FIXED MUSKET,' NOT UNDER BASTARD MUSKET BORE, NOT LESS THAN THREE FEET,
NINE INCHES, NOR MORE THAN FOUR FEET THREE INCHES IN LENGTH, A PRIMING
WIRE, SCOURER, AND MOULD, A SWORD, REST, BANDOLEERS, ONE POUND OF
POWDER, TWENTY BULLETS, AND TWO FATHOMS OF MATCH.  THE LAW ALSO
REQUIRED THAT TWO-THIRDS OF EACH COMPANY SHOULD BE MUSKETEERS." 

THE GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY SESSION 1784, PROVIDED
FOR THE ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE MILITIA.  IT DIRECTED THAT
THE TRAIN BAND SHOULD "CONTAIN ALL ABLE BODIED MEN, FROM SIXTEEN TO
FORTY YEARS OF AGE, AND THE ALARM LIST, ALL OTHER MEN UNDER SIXTY YEARS
OF AGE, ..."  ALSO, "THAT EVERY NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER AND PRIVATE
SOLDIER OF THE SAID MILITIA NOT UNDER THE CONTROUL OF PARENTS, MASTERS
OR GUARDIANS, AND BEING OF SUFFICIENT ABILITY THEREFOR IN THE JUDGMENT
OF THE SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN IN WHICH HE SHALL DWELL, SHALL EQUIP
HIMSELF, AND BE CONSTANTLY PROVIDED WITH A GOOD FIRE ARM," &C. 

BY AN ACT PASSED APRIL 4, 1786 THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE DIRECTED:
"THAT EVERY ABLE-BODIED MALE PERSON, BEING A CITIZEN OF THIS STATE, OR
OF ANY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND RESIDING IN THIS STATE, (EXCEPT SUCH
PERSONS AS ARE HEREINAFTER EXCEPTED) AND WHO ARE OF THE AGE OF SIXTEEN,
AND UNDER THE AGE OF FORTY-FIVE YEARS, SHALL, BY THE CAPTAIN OR
COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE BEAT IN WHICH SUCH CITIZENS SHALL RESIDE,
WITHIN FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE PASSING OF THIS ACT, BE ENROLLED IN THE
COMPANY OF SUCH BEAT.  ...  THAT EVERY CITIZEN SO ENROLLED AND
NOTIFIED, SHALL, WITHIN THREE MONTHS THEREAFTER, PROVIDE HIMSELF, AT
HIS OWN EXPENSE, WITH A GOOD MUSKET OR FIRELOCK, A SUFFICIENT BAYONET
AND BELT, A POUCH WITH A BOX THEREIN TO CONTAIN NOT LESS THAN TWENTY
FOUR CARTRIDGES SUITED TO THE BORE OF HIS MUSKET OR FIRELOCK, EACH
CARTRIDGE CONTAINING A PROPER QUANTITY OF POWDER AND BALL, TWO SPARE
FLINTS, A BLANKET AND KNAPSACK; ..." 

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA, OCTOBER, 1785, (12 HENING'S
STATUTES) DECLARED, "THE DEFENSE AND SAFETY OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEPEND
UPON HAVING ITS CITIZENS PROPERLY ARMED AND TAUGHT THE KNOWLEDGE OF
MILITARY DUTY." 

IT FURTHER PROVIDED FOR ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL OF THE MILITIA AND
DIRECTED THAT "ALL FREE MALE PERSONS BETWEEN THE AGES OF EIGHTEEN AND
FIFTY YEARS," WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, "SHALL BE INROLLED OR FORMED
INTO COMPANIES."  "THERE SHALL BE A PRIVATE MUSTER OF EVERY COMPANY
ONCE IN TWO MONTHS." 

ALSO THAT "EVERY OFFICER AND SOLDIER SHALL APPEAR AT HIS RESPECTIVE
MUSTER-FIELD ON THE DAY APPOINTED, BY ELEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE FORENOON,
ARMED, EQUIPPED, AND ACCOUTRED, AS FOLLOWS:  ... EVERY NON-COMMISSIONED
OFFICER AND PRIVATE WITH A GOOD, CLEAN MUSKET CARRYING AN OUNCE BALL,
AND THREE FEET EIGHT INCHES LONG IN THE BARREL, WITH A GOOD BAYONET AND
IRON RAMROD WELL FITTED THERETO, A CARTRIDGE BOX PROPERLY MADE, TO
CONTAIN AND SECURE TWENTY CARTRIDGES FITTED TO HIS MUSKET, A GOOD
KNAPSACK AND CANTEEN, AND MOREOVER, EACH NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER AND
PRIVATE SHALL HAVE AT EVERY MUSTER ONE POUND OF GOOD POWDER, AND FOUR
POUNDS OF LEAD, INCLUDING TWENTY BLIND CARTRIDGES; AND EACH SERJEANT
SHALL HAVE A PAIR OF MOULDS FIT TO CAST BALLS FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE
COMPANIES, TO BE PURCHASED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER OUT OF THE MONIES
ARISING ON DELINQUENCIES.  PROVIDED, THAT THE MILITIA OF THE COUNTIES
WESTWARD OF THE BLUE RIDGE, AND THE COUNTIES BELOW ADJOINING THERETO,
SHALL NOT BE OBLIGED TO BE ARMED WITH MUSKETS, BUT MAY HAVE GOOD RIFLES
WITH PROPER ACCOUTREMENTS, IN LIEU THEREOF.  AND EVERY OF THE SAID
OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, AND PRIVATES, SHALL CONSTANTLY
KEEP THE AFORESAID ARMS, ACCOUTREMENTS, AND AMMUNITION, READY TO BE
PRODUCED WHENEVER CALLED FOR BY HIS COMMANDING OFFICER.  IF ANY PRIVATE
SHALL MAKE IT APPEAR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT HEREAFTER TO BE
APPOINTED FOR TRYING DELINQUENCIES UNDER THIS ACT THAT HE IS SO POOR
THAT HE CANNOT PURCHASE THE ARMS HEREIN REQUIRED, SUCH COURT SHALL
CAUSE THEM TO BE PURCHASED OUT OF THE MONEY ARISING FROM DELINQUENTS." 

MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE STATES HAVE ADOPTED PROVISIONS TOUCHING THE
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.  DIFFERENCES IN THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN
THESE HAVE NATURALLY LED TO SOMEWHAT VARIANT CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE
SCOPE OF THE RIGHT GUARANTEED.  BUT NONE OF THEM SEEM TO AFFORD ANY
MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR THE CHALLENGED RULING OF THE COURT BELOW. 

IN THE MARGIN SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT OPINIONS AND COMMENTS BY
WRITERS ARE CITED.  FN3 

WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW AND THE
CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED.  THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 26, 1934, C. 757, 48 STAT. 1236-1240, 26 U.S.C. SEC.
1132. 

THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT - 

"(A)  THE TERM 'FIREARM' MEANS A SHOTGUN OR RIFLE HAVING A BARREL OF
LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH, OR ANY OTHER WEAPON, EXCEPT A
PISTOL OR REVOLVER, FROM WHICH A SHOT IS DISCHARGED BY AN EXPLOSIVE IF
SUCH WEAPON IS CAPABLE OF BEING CONCEALED ON THE PERSON, OR A MACHINE
GUN, AND INCLUDES A MUFFLER OR SILENCER FOR ANY FIREARM WHETHER OR NOT
SUCH FIREARM IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE FOREGOING DEFINITION, (THE ACT OF
APRIL 10, 1936, C. 169, 49 STAT. 1192 ADDED THE WORDS) BUT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ANY RIFLE WHICH IS WITHIN THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS SOLELY BY
REASON OF THE LENGTH OF ITS BARREL IF THE CALIBER OF SUCH RIFLE IS .22
OR SMALLER AND IF ITS BARREL IS SIXTEEN INCHES OR MORE IN LENGTH. 

"SEC. 3.  (A)  THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND PAID UPON
FIREARMS TRANSFERRED IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES A TAX AT THE RATE
OF $200 FOR EACH FIREARM, SUCH TAX TO BE PAID BY THE TRANSFEROR, AND TO
BE REPRESENTED BY APPROPRIATE STAMPS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE
COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY; AND THE STAMPS HEREIN
PROVIDED SHALL BE AFFIXED TO THE ORDER FOR SUCH FIREARM, HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED FOR.  THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO
ANY IMPORT DUTY IMPOSED ON SUCH FIREARM. 

"SEC. 4.  (A)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO TRANSFER A
FIREARM EXCEPT IN PURSUANCE OF A WRITTEN ORDER FROM THE PERSON SEEKING
TO OBTAIN SUCH ARTICLE, ON AN APPLICATION FORM ISSUED IN BLANK IN
DUPLICATE FOR THAT PURPOSE BY THE COMMISSIONER.  SUCH ORDER SHALL
IDENTIFY THE APPLICANT BY SUCH MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION AS MAY BE
PRESCRIBED BY REGULATIONS UNDER THIS ACT:  PROVIDED, THAT, IF THE
APPLICANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, SUCH IDENTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE
FINGERPRINTS AND A PHOTOGRAPH THEREOF.    "(C)  EVERY PERSON SO
TRANSFERRING A FIREARM SHALL SET FORTH IN EACH COPY OF SUCH ORDER THE
MANUFACTURER'S NUMBER OR OTHER MARK IDENTIFYING SUCH FIREARM, AND SHALL
FORWARD A COPY OF SUCH ORDER TO THE COMMISSIONER.  THE ORIGINAL THEREOF
WITH STAMPS AFFIXED, SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT. 

"(D)  NO PERSON SHALL TRANSFER A FIREARM WHICH HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN
TRANSFERRED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT, UNLESS SUCH
PERSON, IN ADDITION TO COMPLYING WITH SUBSECTION (C), TRANSFERS
THEREWITH THE STAMP-AFFIXED ORDER PROVIDED FOR IN THIS SECTION FOR EACH
SUCH PRIOR TRANSFER, IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH REGULATIONS AS MAY BE
PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS ACT FOR PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES ON SUCH
FIREARMS. 

"SEC. 5.  (A)  WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT
EVERY PERSON POSSESSING A FIREARM SHALL REGISTER, WITH THE COLLECTOR OF
THE DISTRICT IN WHICH HE RESIDES, THE NUMBER OR OTHER MARK IDENTIFYING
SUCH FIREARM, TOGETHER WITH HIS NAME, ADDRESS, PLACE WHERE SUCH FIREARM
IS USUALLY KEPT, AND PLACE OF BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENT, AND, IF SUCH
PERSON IS OTHER THAN A NATURAL PERSON, THE NAME AND HOME ADDRESS OF AN
EXECUTIVE OFFICER THEREOF:  PROVIDED, THAT NO PERSON SHALL BE REQUIRED
TO REGISTER UNDER THIS SECTION WITH RESPECT TO ANY FIREARM ACQUIRED
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF, AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF,
THIS ACT. 

"SEC. 6.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE OR POSSESS
ANY FIREARM WHICH HAS AT ANY TIME BEEN TRANSFERRED IN VIOLATION OF

"SEC. 11.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO
REGISTER AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5 HEREOF AND WHO SHALL NOT HAVE SO
REGISTERED, OR ANY OTHER PERSON WHO HAS NOT IN HIS POSSESSION A
STAMPAFFIXED ORDER AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 4 HEREOF, TO SHIP, CARRY, OR
DELIVER ANY FIREARM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

"SEC. 12.  THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY,
SHALL PRESCRIBE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR
CARRYING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT INTO EFFECT. 

"SEC. 14.  ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT SHALL, UPON CONVICTION, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN
$2,000 OR BE IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH, IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT. 

"SEC. 16.  IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT, OR THE APPLICATION THEREOF
TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCE, IS HELD INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THE
ACT, AND THE APPLICATION OF SUCH PROVISION TO OTHER PERSONS OR
CIRCUMSTANCES, SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED THEREBY. 

"SEC. 18.  THIS ACT MAY BE CITED AS THE 'NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.'" 

FN2  ACT DECEMBER 17, 1914, C. 1, 38 STAT. 785; FEBRUARY 24, 1919, C.
18, 40 STAT. 1057. 

FN3  CONCERNING THE MILITIA - PRESSER V. ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252;
ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275; FIFE V. STATE, 31 ARK. 455; JEFFERS
V. FAIR, 33 GA. 347; SALINA V. BLAKSLEY, 72 KAN. 230; 83 P. 619; PEOPLE
V. BROWN, 253 MICH. 537; 235 N.W. 245; AYMETTE V. STATE, 2 HUMPHR. 
(TENN.)  154; STATE V. DUKE, 42 TEXAS 455; STATE V. WORKMAN, 35 W. VA.
367; 14 S.E. 9; COOLEY'S CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, VOL. 1, P. 729;
STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION, 5TH ED., VOL. 2, P. 646; ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF
THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. X, P. 471, 474. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CAUSE. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. MORGAN, 307 U.S. 183 


NO. 221.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 21, 1938.  REARGUED APRIL 20, 1939.  -
DECIDED MAY 15, 1939.  - 24 F.SUPP.  214, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FIXING STOCKYARDS
RATES WAS SET ASIDE FOR PROCEDURAL DEFECTS WITHOUT JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES FIXED BY THE ORDER,
THE MONEYS REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SCHEDULED RATES IN
EFFECT AND THE LOWER RATES OF THE ORDER, WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE PAID
INTO THE DISTRICT COURT AS A CONDITION TO THE GRANTING OF AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, SHOULD ON MOTION OF THE DEFENDANTS (THE
UNITED STATES AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE) BE RETAINED IN THE
REGISTRY TO AWAIT A FURTHER AND VALID DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE RATES
BY THE SECRETARY IN A PENDING PROCEEDING IN WHICH HE HAD REOPENED ON
HIS OWN MOTION THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT,
AND FOR DISPOSITION ACCORDINGLY.  PP. 185, 198. 

2.  THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT IS TO
SECURE TO PATRONS OF THE STOCKYARDS PRESCRIBED STOCKYARD SERVICES AT
JUST AND REASONABLE RATES.  P. 188. 

3.  IN CONSTRUING A STATUTE SETTING UP AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND
PROVIDING FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ITS ACTION, COURT AND AGENCY ARE TO BE
REGARDED AS THE MEANS ADOPTED TO ATTAIN THE PRESCRIBED END, AND SO FAR
AS THEIR DUTIES ARE DEFINED BY THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, THOSE WORDS
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO ATTAIN THAT END THROUGH COORDINATED ACTION.  P.
191. 

4.  IN REVIEWING AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FIXING
RATES UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT SITS AS
A COURT OF EQUITY, AND IN EXERTING ITS EXTRAORDINARY POWERS TO STAY
EXECUTION OF THE ORDER, AND IN DIRECTING PAYMENT INTO COURT OF SO MUCH
OF THE RATES IN EFFECT AS HAS BEEN FOUND ADMINISTRATIVELY TO BE
EXCESSIVE, THE COURT ASSUMES THE DUTY OF MAKING DISPOSITION OF THE FUND
IN CONFORMITY WITH EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  P. 191. 

5.  THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT DENOUNCES UNREASONABLE RATES AS
UNLAWFUL.  REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE FILED
SCHEDULES.  AND WHERE AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FIXING
NEW AND LOWER STOCKYARDS RATES IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE FILED RATES HAS
BEEN SET ASIDE FOR LACK OF DUE PROCEDURE, HE REMAINS FREE UNDER THE ACT
TO DETERMINE IN A REOPENING OF HIS PROCEEDINGS WHAT RATES WILL BE
REASONABLE FOR THE FUTURE AND FOR THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL
ORDER WAS MADE.  PP. 195, 197. 

HIS DETERMINATION WILL AFFORD A PROPER BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN MAKING DISPOSITION OF THE FUND HERE IN QUESTION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, IN STAYING THE SECRETARY'S ORDER IN THIS CASE AND
AT THE SAME TIME ARRESTING EXCESS PAYMENTS UNDER SCHEDULED RATES, ACTED
AS A COURT OF EQUITY, CHARGED BOTH WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
PROTECTING THE FUND AND OF DISPOSING OF IT ACCORDING TO LAW, AND FREE
IN THE DISCHARGE OF THAT DUTY TO USE BROAD DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS POWERS IN SUCH MANNER AS TO AVOID AN UNJUST OR UNLAWFUL RESULT. 
THE DUTY WAS THE MORE IMPERATIVE BECAUSE THE INJUNCTION NOT ONLY
DEPRIVED THE PUBLIC OF THE LOWER RATES, BUT OBSTRUCTED ANY EFFECTIVE
REPARATION ORDER BY THE SECRETARY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE. 
P. 193. 

6.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY MAY GRANT ITS AID, AND THE
MOULDING OF ITS REMEDIES, MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PUBLIC INTEREST
INVOLVED.  P. 194. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. MORGAN ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT RESPECTING THE DISPOSITION
OF FUNDS IMPOUNDED IN THE LITIGATION OVER THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WHICH THIS COURT HELD INVALID FOR WANT OF
DUE PROCEDURE IN MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468, ID., 304 U.S.
1, 23.  THE DECREE PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER BUT, AS PERMITTED BY THE MANDATE FROM THIS COURT, UNDERTOOK TO
MAKE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE FUND.  IT OVERRULED THE MOTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR A STAY TO AWAIT THE
OUTCOME OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BY THE SECRETARY, AND GRANTED A COUNTER
MOTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS, WHO HAD PAID THE MONEY INTO COURT, THAT IT BE
RETURNED TO THEM. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON THIS APPEAL WE ARE ASKED TO DETERMINE THE PROPER DISPOSITION TO BE
MADE OF A FUND PAID INTO THE COURT BELOW PENDING A SUIT INSTITUTED IN
THAT COURT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
REDUCING SCHEDULED RATES FOR SERVICES RENDERED AT THE KANSAS CITY
STOCKYARDS.  THE FUND IS MADE UP OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
SCHEDULED RATES AND THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY'S ORDER, WHICH
WAS ULTIMATELY SET ASIDE BY THIS COURT IN MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304
U.S. 1, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS, FOR FAILURE OF THE
SECRETARY TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. 

ON JUNE 14, 1933, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE PROMULGATED AN ORDER
UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, 1921, 42 STAT. 159; 7 U.S.C.
SECS. 181-229, SETTING ASIDE A SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM RATES TO BE CHARGED
FOR STOCKYARD SERVICES, FILED BY MARKET AGENCIES AT THE KANSAS CITY
STOCKYARDS, AND PRESCRIBING A NEW AND LOWER RATE SCHEDULE FOR THE
FUTURE.  IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN MISSOURI
BY APPELLEES, CONDUCTING MARKET AGENCIES AT THE KANSAS CITY STOCKYARDS,
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AS CONFISCATORY AND AS HAVING BEEN RENDERED
WITHOUT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, THE COURT ON JULY 22, 1933, ENTERED A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT OF THE SECRETARY'S
ORDER UPON CONDITION THAT APPELLEES SHOULD: 

"DEPOSIT WITH THE CLERK OF THIS COURT ON MONDAY OF EACH AND EVERY
WEEK HEREAFTER WHILE THIS ORDER, OR ANY EXTENSION THEREOF, MAY REMAIN
IN FORCE AND EFFECT AND PENDING FINAL DISPOSITION OF THIS CAUSE, THE
FULL AMOUNT BY WHICH THE CHARGES COLLECTED UNDER THE SCHEDULE OF RATES
IN EFFECT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED UNDER THE
RATES PRESCRIBED IN THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY, TOGETHER WITH A
VERIFIED STATEMENT OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS UPON WHOSE
BEHALF SUCH AMOUNTS ARE COLLECTED BY PETITIONER." 

AFTER TWO APPEALS WE REVERSED THE FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT,
WHICH HAD SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY.  THIS COURT HELD THAT
HE HAD NOT ACCORDED TO APPELLEES THE "FULL HEARING" WHICH SEC. 310 OF
THE ACT REQUIRES, AND, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MERITS, IT REMANDED THE
CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468;
304 U.S. 1.  A PETITION FOR REHEARING, IN PART ON THE GROUND THAT THE
MANDATE OF THIS COURT HAD MADE NO PROVISION FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
FUND PAID INTO THE DISTRICT COURT PURSUANT TO ITS RESTRAINING ORDER,
WAS DENIED IN A MEMORANDUM OPINION STATING THAT THE QUESTIONS RAISED
WERE APPROPRIATELY FOR THE DISTRICT COURT, TO WHICH THE CAUSE HAD BEEN
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  THE OPINION ADDED: 

"WE REMAND THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH OUR OPINION.  WHAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THE SECRETARY
MAY SEE FIT TO TAKE IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISION, OR WHAT
DETERMINATIONS MAY BE MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN RELATION TO ANY
SUCH PROCEEDINGS, ARE NOT MATTERS WHICH WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO FORECAST
OR HYPOTHETICALLY TO DECIDE."  304 U.S. 23, 26.  BY THIS REMAND THE
SECRETARY WAS LEFT FREE TO TAKE SUCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AS THE STATUTE
PERMITS.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 162
U.S. 197, 238-239; SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. ST. LOUIS HAY & GRAIN CO.,
214 U.S. 297, 302; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 9. 

THE SECRETARY THEREUPON, BY ORDER OF JUNE 2, 1938, REOPENED THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAD RESULTED IN THE CHALLENGED ORDER OF JUNE
14, 1933.  HE DIRECTED THAT THE "PROCEEDINGS, FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSION, AND ORDER" OF JUNE 14, 1933, BE SERVED UPON THE APPELLEE
MARKET AGENCIES AS HIS TENTATIVE FINDINGS AND ORDER, WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR APPELLEES TO FILE EXCEPTIONS TO THEM AND TO MAKE ORAL
ARGUMENT UPON THE EXCEPTIONS.  THIS ACTION WAS FOLLOWED, JUNE 11, 1938,
BY THE PRESENT PROCEEDING, BEGUN BY MOTION OF APPELLANTS IN THE
DISTRICT COURT TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERE AND TO DIRECT THE
CLERK OF THE COURT TO RETAIN THE IMPOUNDED FUNDS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
SECRETARY, PROCEEDING WITH DUE EXPEDITION, SHOULD HAVE ENTERED A FINAL
ORDER IN THE PROCEEDINGS REOPENED BY HIM.  THIS MOTION WAS DENIED, AND
FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTING A COUNTER-MOTION BY
APPELLEES TO DISTRIBUTE THE FUND AMONG THEM, THE CASE COMES HERE ON
APPEAL.  FN1 SEC. 316 OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, 42 STAT. 168;
7 U.S.C. SEC. 217; 38 STAT. 220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 47, 47(A); SEC. 238(5)
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345(5).  THIS COURT HAS STAYED AND
SUPERSEDED THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT PENDING APPEAL.  OCTOBER 10,
1938. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE FUND SHOULD PRESENTLY BE DISTRIBUTED
TO APPELLEES, BOTH BECAUSE THE SECRETARY IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY UNDER THE
ACT TO MAKE ANY ORDER PRESCRIBING RATES AND CHARGES WHICH WILL BE
EFFECTIVE AS OF JUNE 14, 1933, THE DATE OF HIS ORIGINAL ORDER, AND
BECAUSE IT CONSTRUED THE TERMS OF ITS OWN RESTRAINING ORDER AS
REQUIRING DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND TO APPELLEES ON THE FINAL
DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT THAT THE SECRETARY'S ORDER OF JUNE 14,
1933, WAS INVALID.  THUS, AS A RESULT OF THE LITIGATION, THE DISTRICT
COURT HAS TWICE SUSTAINED THE DETERMINATION OF THE SECRETARY THAT THE
RATES PRESCRIBED BY HIM, ON THE BASIS OF VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE, WERE
REASONABLE; BUT BECAUSE OF THIS COURT'S DECISION THAT THE SECRETARY HAD
FAILED TO OBSERVE THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF A FULL HEARING, WE HAVE
NEVER REVIEWED THAT DETERMINATION.  THE QUESTION NOW ARISES WHETHER
UPON A REDETERMINATION OF THAT ISSUE BY THE SECRETARY THE DISTRICT
COURT WILL HAVE, AND SHOULD EXERCISE, THE POWER TO ORDER DISTRIBUTION
OF THE IMPOUNDED FUND IN CONFORMITY TO HIS DETERMINATION BY DIRECTING
THAT SO MUCH, IF ANY, OF THE AMOUNTS PAID INTO COURT AS EXCEEDS THE
RATES ULTIMATELY DETERMINED UPON APPROPRIATE REVIEW OF THE SECRETARY'S
FINDINGS TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE BE RETURNED TO THOSE WHO HAVE PAID
THEM.  THIS ISSUE MUST BE DECIDED NOW, FOR UNLESS THE COURT WILL HAVE
SUCH POWER THERE IS NO OCCASION TO RETAIN THE FUND PENDING FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SECRETARY, AND DISTRIBUTION OF IT MUST BE MADE
AS THE DISTRICT COURT HAS DIRECTED. 

DECISION TURNS ON THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS DOMINANT
PURPOSE TO SECURE TO PATRONS OF THE STOCKYARDS PRESCRIBED STOCKYARD
SERVICES AT JUST AND REASONABLE RATES, AND UPON THE AUTHORITY AND DUTY
OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO EFFECTUATE THAT PURPOSE IN MAKING DISPOSITION
OF THE FUND.  SECTION 304 OF THE ACT REQUIRES EVERY STOCKYARD OWNER AND
MARKET AGENCY TO FURNISH NONDISCRIMINATORY AND REASONABLE STOCKYARD
SERVICES, AND SEC. 305 DECLARES THAT "ALL RATES OR CHARGES MADE FOR ANY
STOCKYARD SERVICES FURNISHED AT A STOCKYARD BY A STOCKYARD OWNER OR
MARKET AGENCY SHALL BE JUST, REASONABLE, AND NONDISCRIMINATORY, AND ANY
UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, OR DISCRIMINATORY RATE OR CHARGE IS PROHIBITED
AND DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL."  SECTION 307 MAKES A LIKE REQUIREMENT AS
TO REGULATIONS AND PRACTICES IN RESPECT TO FURNISHING STOCKYARD
SERVICES.  SECTION 306 MAKES IT THE DUTY OF STOCKYARD OWNERS AND MARKET
AGENCIES TO FILE WITH THE SECRETARY A SCHEDULE OF RATES FOR STOCKYARD
SERVICES AND TO CHARGE AND COLLECT SUCH RATES, UNLESS THEY ARE SET
ASIDE BY APPROPRIATE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY OR CHANGED BY THE FILING
OF NEW RATES AS AUTHORIZED BY THE SECTION.  SECTION 308(A) PROVIDES
THAT ANY STOCKYARD OWNER OR MARKET AGENCY VIOLATING ANY OF THE
PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED SECTIONS SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PERSONS INJURED TO
THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED.  SECTION 308(B) PROVIDES FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH LIABILITY EITHER BY COMPLAINT TO THE SECRETARY OR
BY SUIT IN ANY DISTRICT COURT, AND CONCLUDES WITH THE DECLARATION THAT
"THIS SECTION SHALL NOT IN ANY WAY ABRIDGE OR ALTER THE REMEDIES NOW
EXISTING AT COMMON LAW OR BY STATUTE, BUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
ARE IN ADDITION TO SUCH REMEDIES."  SECTION 310 AUTHORIZES THE
SECRETARY "AFTER FULL HEARING" ON COMPLAINT, OR ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE,
TO PRESCRIBE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES FOR THE FUTURE. 

APPELLEES INSIST THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMAND OF SEC. 305 THAT
ALL RATES SHALL BE "JUST, REASONABLE, AND NONDISCRIMINATORY," ITS
MANDATE IS EFFECTIVE ONLY SO FAR AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE OTHER SECTIONS
OF THE ACT; THAT EXCEPT IN A REPARATION CASE THE STATUTE FORBIDS THE
SECRETARY TO MAKE ORDERS AFFECTING COMPLETED TRANSACTIONS, AND THAT
ACTING ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, AS HE DOES HERE, HE CAN FIX RATES FOR THE
FUTURE ONLY.  THEY POINT OUT THAT UNDER SEC. 309(A) AND (E) AND SEC.
310, ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED MAY, ON PETITION TO THE SECRETARY, SEEK
DAMAGES FOR THE EXACTION OF AN UNREASONABLE RATE IN THE PAST, THE
NAMING OF A NEW RATE FOR THE FUTURE, OR BOTH, BUT THAT WHEN THE
SECRETARY INSTITUTES SUCH PROCEEDINGS ON HIS OWN MOTION HE IS PRECLUDED
BY SEC. 309(C) FROM MAKING ANY ORDER FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY.  AS THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING HERE AND THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY IN REOPENING
IT WERE TAKEN ON HIS OWN MOTION, THE CONCLUSION IS DRAWN THAT THERE CAN
BE NO LEGAL WARRANT FOR RESTITUTION OF THE IMPOUNDED MONEYS TO THE
PATRONS OF THE MARKET AGENCIES, EVEN THOUGH THE SECRETARY SHALL NOW
DETERMINE, ON EVIDENCE AND BY PROPER PROCEDURE, THAT THE SCHEDULED
RATES EXCEEDED THE REASONABLE RATES PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 305. 

EVEN THOUGH THE PREMISES BE ACCEPTED AS IN ALL RESPECTS SOUND, THE
CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW.  THERE IS HERE NO QUESTION OF THE
SECRETARY'S MAKING AN ORDER FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY.  THE FUND HAVING
BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY OF THE COURT, IN CONSEQUENCE OF ITS ORDER
RESTRAINING THE OPERATION OF THE RATE SCHEDULE PRESCRIBED BY THE
SECRETARY, THE QUESTIONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE WHETHER THE DISTRICT
COURT, IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE DUTY WHICH IT HAS THUS ASSUMED AS A
COURT OF EQUITY, CAN RIGHTLY DISPOSE OF THE FUND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
COMMAND OF SEC. 305 IF THE SECRETARY SHALL DETERMINE THAT THE RATES
EXACTED BY AID OF THE COURT, AND PAID INTO ITS REGISTRY, ARE EXCESSIVE;
AND WHETHER, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, THE COURT SHOULD RETAIN
THE FUND UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE SECRETARY, PROCEEDING WITH DUE
EXPEDITION, SHALL MAKE HIS FINAL DETERMINATION AND ORDER. 

IN ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS THERE ARE TWO CARDINAL PRINCIPLES WHICH
MUST GUIDE US TO OUR CONCLUSION.  THE ONE IS THAT IN CONSTRUING A
STATUTE SETTING UP AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND PROVIDING FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF ITS ACTION, COURT AND AGENCY ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS WHOLLY
INDEPENDENT AND UNRELATED INSTRUMENTALITIES OF JUSTICE, EACH ACTING IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS PRESCRIBED STATUTORY DUTY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
APPROPRIATE FUNCTION OF THE OTHER IN SECURING THE PLAINLY INDICATED
OBJECTS OF THE STATUTE.  COURT AND AGENCY ARE THE MEANS ADOPTED TO
ATTAIN THE PRESCRIBED END, AND SO FAR AS THEIR DUTIES ARE DEFINED BY
THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, THOSE WORDS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO
ATTAIN THAT END THROUGH COORDINATED ACTION.  NEITHER BODY SHOULD REPEAT
IN THIS DAY THE MISTAKE MADE BY THE COURTS OF LAW WHEN EQUITY WAS
STRUGGLING FOR RECOGNITION AS AN AMELIORATING SYSTEM OF JUSTICE; FN2
NEITHER CAN RIGHTLY BE REGARDED BY THE OTHER AS AN ALIEN INTRUDER, TO
BE TOLERATED IF MUST BE, BUT NEVER TO BE ENCOURAGED OR AIDED BY THE
OTHER IN THE ATTAINMENT OF THE COMMON AIM.  THE OTHER GUIDING PRINCIPLE
IS THAT IN REVIEWING THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY AND IN SIMILARLY
REVIEWING THE ACTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, THE
DISTRICT COURT SITS AS A COURT OF EQUITY, SEE FORD MOTOR CO. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305 U.S. 364, 373; INLAND STEEL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153; AND IN EXERTING ITS EXTRAORDINARY POWERS
TO STAY EXECUTION OF A RATE ORDER, AND IN DIRECTING PAYMENT INTO COURT
OF SO MUCH OF THE RATE AS HAS BEEN FOUND ADMINISTRATIVELY TO BE
EXCESSIVE, IT ASSUMES THE DUTY OF MAKING DISPOSITION OF THE FUND IN
CONFORMITY TO EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES. 

ASSUMING, AS APPELLEES CONTEND, THAT AFTER THE SECRETARY'S ORDER OF
JUNE, 1933, WAS SET ASIDE HE COULD, IN THE REOPENED PROCEEDING, NEITHER
PROMULGATE A RATE ORDER AS OF THAT DATE NOR MAKE AN ORDER FOR THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY, HE WAS STILL NOT WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN THE PREMISES
UNDER THE STATUTE AND THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT.  HE WAS FREE TO MAKE
AN ORDER FIXING RATES FOR THE FUTURE, AND FOR THAT PURPOSE OR ANY OTHER
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT HE IS NOW FREE TO DETERMINE A REASONABLE
RATE FOR THE PERIOD ANTEDATING ANY ORDER HE MAY NOW MAKE.  SEE ATLANTIC
COAST LINE R. CO. V. FLORIDA, 295 U.S. 301, 312.  NO PRIOR DECISION OF
THE SECRETARY STANDS IN THE WAY OF HIS MAKING THE DETERMINATION NOW. 
CF. ARIZONA GROCERY CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 284 U.S. 370. 
THE SOLE LIMITATION UPON HIS POWER, PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 309(C), IS THAT
UPON AN INQUIRY INSTITUTED BY HIM HE MAY NOT ORDER THE PAYMENT OF
MONEY.  IN OTHER RESPECTS HIS POWER TO INVESTIGATE AND DECIDE IS
UNAFFECTED.  FN3  HE MAY MAKE INQUIRY "AS TO ANY MATTER OR THING
CONCERNING WHICH A COMPLAINT IS AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE" TO HIM, "OR
CONCERNING WHICH ANY QUESTION MAY ARISE UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS" OF
THE ACT, "OR RELATING TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY" PROVISION.  HE IS
GIVEN "THE SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH ANY INQUIRY
INSTITUTED UPON HIS OWN MOTION AS THOUGH HE HAD BEEN APPEALED TO BY
PETITION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO MAKE AND ENFORCE ANY ORDER OR ORDERS
IN THE CASE OR RELATING TO THE MATTER OR THING CONCERNING WHICH THE
INQUIRY IS HAD, EXCEPT ORDERS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY."  SEC. 309(C). 

THAT THE SECRETARY, ACTING UNDER SEC. 309(A), COULD NOW ENTERTAIN A
COMPLAINT BY THE PATRONS OF APPELLEES WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE FUND
IN COURT CHARGING THAT THE RATES EXACTED WERE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 305,
SEEMS TO BE CONCEDED AND IS, WE THINK, PLAIN.  SECTION 309(A)
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES:  "IF  ...  THERE APPEARS TO BE ANY REASONABLE
GROUND FOR INVESTIGATING THE COMPLAINT, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
SECRETARY TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTERS COMPLAINED OF IN SUCH MANNER AND
BY SUCH MEANS AS HE DEEMS PROPER."  IT SEEMS EQUALLY PLAIN THAT UNDER
SEC. 309(C) THE SECRETARY, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION, MAY
CONDUCT SUCH AN INVESTIGATION ON HIS OWN MOTION.  ORDINARILY, IT IS
TRUE, THERE WOULD BE NO OCCASION FOR SUCH AN INVESTIGATION IF, AS A
RESULT OF IT, THE SECRETARY COULD MAKE NO REPARATION ORDER.  BUT, AS WE
SHALL PRESENTLY POINT OUT, WHEN THE ALLEGED EXCESSIVE RATES ARE IN
CUSTODIA LEGIS, THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY AND IS UNDER AN EQUITABLE DUTY
TO DISPOSE OF THEM ACCORDING TO LAW AND JUSTICE.  THUS THE SECRETARY
HAS THE BEST OF REASONS TO EXERCISE HIS POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
RATES WERE REASONABLE AND MAY RIGHTLY DO SO, IF HIS DETERMINATION CAN
AFFORD A PROPER BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN MAKING
DISPOSITION OF THE FUND. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, IN STAYING THE SECRETARY'S ORDER AND AT THE SAME
TIME ARRESTING THE EXCESS PAYMENTS TO APPELLEES UNDER THE SCHEDULED
RATES, ASSUMED THE DUTY OF MAKING THE PROPER DISPOSITION OF THE FUND
UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE LITIGATION.  THE DUTY WAS THE MORE
IMPERATIVE HERE BECAUSE THE COURT'S INJUNCTION ORDER NOT ONLY DEPRIVED
THE PUBLIC OF THE BENEFIT OF THE LOWER RATES BUT OBSTRUCTED ANY
EFFECTIVE REPARATION ORDER BY THE SECRETARY.  ITS ACTION PRESUPPOSED
THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE EXCESS PAYMENTS WAS IN DOUBT AND COULD BE
FINALLY DETERMINED ONLY BY AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS OF THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE FILED RATES.  IN TAKING THE PAYMENTS INTO CUSTODY
IT ACTED AS A COURT OF EQUITY, CHARGED BOTH WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
PROTECTING THE FUND AND OF DISPOSING OF IT ACCORDING TO LAW, AND FREE
IN THE DISCHARGE OF THAT DUTY TO USE BROAD DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS POWERS IN SUCH MANNER AS TO AVOID AN UNJUST OR UNLAWFUL RESULT. 
IT ENTERED INTO NO CONTRACT OR UNDERSTANDING WITH THE LITIGANTS; IT
ENTERED INTO NO UNDERTAKING AS TO THE MANNER OF DISPOSING OF THE FUND;
ITS DUTY WITH RESPECT TO IT IS THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE APPLICABLE
PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND EQUITY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE LITIGANTS AND
THE PUBLIC, WHOSE INTERESTS THE INJUNCTION AND THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF
THE FUND AFFECT.  INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

IT IS FAMILIAR DOCTRINE THAT THE EXTENT TO WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY
MAY GRANT OR WITHHOLD ITS AID, AND THE MANNER OF MOULDING ITS REMEDIES,
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED.  CENTRAL KENTUCKY GAS
CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 290 U.S. 264, 271; PENNSYLVANIA V.
WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185; VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION,
300 U.S. 515, 552 ET SEQ. CONGRESS HAVING BY THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
ACT ESTABLISHED THE PUBLIC POLICY OF MAINTAINING REASONABLE RATES FOR
STOCKYARD SERVICES, AND HAVING PROHIBITED AND DECLARED UNLAWFUL ANY
UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE RATE, A COURT OF EQUITY SHOULD BE ASTUTE TO
AVOID THE USE OF ITS PROCESS TO EFFECTUATE THE COLLECTION OF UNLAWFUL
RATES, AND EQUALLY SO TO DIRECT IT TO THE RESTITUTION OF RATES WHICH IT
HAS TAKEN INTO ITS OWN CUSTODY, ONCE THEY ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN
UNLAWFUL.  IF SUCH A DETERMINATION HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE
SECRETARY IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE HIM, AFTER FULL HEARING, AND IF IT
WERE FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT TO BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE DUTY
OF THE COURT TO MAKE RESTITUTION FORTHWITH WOULD SEEM EVIDENT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF ANY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY DIRECTING THE
PAYMENT.  INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  FN4  THE
SECRETARY, AS WE HAVE SEEN, IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION. 
DECLARED BY SEC. 308(B), SAVES TO THE COURT AUTHORITY TO GIVE ANY
REMEDY WHICH IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES IT MIGHT OTHERWISE AFFORD. 

THIS COURT WENT MUCH FURTHER IN ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V.
FLORIDA, SUPRA, IN DENYING, ON EQUITABLE GROUNDS, RESTITUTION TO
SHIPPERS OF THE EXCESS OF AN INTRASTATE RATE, PRESCRIBED BY ORDER OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO AVOID DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OVER THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE COMMISSION,
WHERE THE ORDER OF THE FORMER WAS LATER SET ASIDE BY THIS COURT FOR
WANT OF PROPER FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION.  UPON FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE COMMISSION IT MADE A SECOND ORDER, UPON PROPER FINDINGS OF
DISCRIMINATION, ESTABLISHING THE RATE AS BEFORE.  THE FINAL RESULT OF
THE LITIGATION WAS THAT THE RAILROADS WERE PERMITTED TO COLLECT AND
RETAIN THE HIGHER RATES FOR A PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO LAWFUL
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SUPERSEDING THE STATE COMMISSION RATES.  THERE,
AS HERE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY COULD PRESCRIBE RATES ONLY FOR THE
FUTURE, AND THE HIGHER RATES EXACTED BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE FIRST
ORDER AND THE SECOND WERE WITHOUT THE SANCTION OF A VALID ORDER.  BUT
THERE, AS HERE, THE FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WAS NOT A NULLITY. 
EWELL V. DAGGS, 108 U.S. 143, 148, 149; WEEKS V. BRIDGMAN, 159 U.S.
541, 547; TOY TOY V. HOPKINS, 212 U.S. 542, 548.  THOUGH VOIDABLE, IT
COULD NOT BE IGNORED WITHOUT INCURRING THE PENALTIES FOR DISOBEDIENCE
INFLICTED BY THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.  THE RATES DID
NOT LOSE THEIR UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE QUALITY IN THE ONE CASE, OR
CEASE TO BE UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY IN THE OTHER, MERELY BECAUSE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS IN EACH WERE VOIDABLE FOR PROCEDURAL DEFECTS OR
BECAUSE A SECOND ORDER COULD OPERATE ONLY FOR THE FUTURE.  IN EACH CASE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WAS NOT WITHOUT POWER TO INQUIRE WHETHER
INJUSTICE HAD BEEN DONE BY THE EARLIER RATE, AND THE COURT, CALLED ON
TO ASCERTAIN, ACCORDING TO EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE VOIDABLE ORDER, COULD
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY AS THE BASIS OF ITS ACTION.  ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V.
FLORIDA, SUPRA, 312-313, 317; NEW YORK EDISON CO. V. MALTBIE, 244 APP.
DIV. 436; 279 N.Y.S. 949; BROOKLYN UNION GAS CO. V. MALTBIE, 245 APP.
DIV. 74; 281 N.Y.S. 233. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS AND THE ATLANTIC COAST
LINE CASE IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUDICIAL INACTION AND JUDICIAL
ACTION; THAT THERE THE COURT, UPON SETTLED EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, WAS
FREE TO REFRAIN FROM COMPELLING RESTITUTION IF SATISFIED THAT NO
INJUSTICE HAD BEEN DONE, SEE TIFFANY V. BOATMAN'S INSTITUTION, 18
WALL.  375, 385; MISSISSIPPI & M.R. CO. V. CROMWELL, 91 U.S. 643, 645;
DEWEESE V. REINHARD, 165 U.S. 386, 390, BUT THAT HERE THE COURT IS
CALLED ON BY APPELLANTS TO ACT BY WITHHOLDING FROM APPELLEES RATES
WHICH ARE STILL LAWFULLY IN FORCE BECAUSE THE FILED SCHEDULE HAS NOT
BEEN SET ASIDE BY A VALID ORDER OF THE SECRETARY.  WHILE AT THE MOMENT
APPELLANTS ARE CONTENT WITH INACTION, AND IT IS APPELLEES WHO ARE
DEMANDING ACTION - THE PAYMENT TO THEM OF RATES WHOSE LAWFULNESS IS
CHALLENGED AND NOT YET DETERMINED - THE ACTUAL POSTURE OF THE CASE IS
SUCH THAT THE COURT IS UNDER A SELFIMPOSED DUTY TO ACT BY VIRTUE OF
HAVING TAKEN THE FUND INTO ITS POSSESSION, AND IN ACTING TO DISPOSE OF
THE FUND IT MUST CONFORM TO CONTROLLING LEGAL PRINCIPLES. 
REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE FILED
SCHEDULES.  HAD THE RATES COLLECTED BEEN PAID TO APPELLEES INSTEAD OF
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, THE SECRETARY COULD HAVE ORDERED REPARATION
UPON PROPER FINDINGS THAT THEY WERE UNREASONABLE.  AND THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER THE COURT MUST NOW, IN THE FACE OF A PROCEEDING BY THE
SECRETARY TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CHALLENGED RATES, USE
ITS POWER TO COMPLETE THEIR COLLECTION AT THE RISK OF OBSTRUCTING
REPARATION, OR WHETHER IT SHOULD ITSELF REMAIN INACTIVE UNTIL THEIR
LAWFULNESS IS DETERMINED AND THEN ACT ACCORDINGLY. 

IT IS A POWER "INHERENT IN EVERY COURT OF JUSTICE SO LONG AS IT
RETAINS CONTROL OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND OF THE PARTIES, TO CORRECT
THAT WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY DONE BY VIRTUE OF ITS PROCESS." 
ARKADELPHIA CO. V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 249 U.S. 134, 146. 
SEE NORTHWESTERN FUEL CO. V. BROCK, 139 U.S. 216, 219.  WHAT HAS BEEN
GIVEN OR PAID UNDER THE COMPULSION OF A JUDGMENT THE COURT WILL RESTORE
WHEN ITS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND JUSTICE REQUIRES RESTITUTION. 
NORTHWESTERN FUEL CO. V. BROCK, SUPRA; EX PARTE LINCOLN GAS & ELECTRIC
CO., 257 U.S. 6; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
781.  AND WHERE BY ITS INJUNCTION A COURT HAS COMPELLED PAYMENT INTO
ITS REGISTRY OF AMOUNTS WHICH MAY IN PENDING PROCEEDINGS BE FOUND NOT
TO HAVE BEEN DUE FROM THOSE WHO PAID THEM, WE THINK JUSTICE EQUALLY
REQUIRES THE COURT TO AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER
THAT IT MAY DISCHARGE THE DUTY WHICH IT OWES TO THE LITIGANTS AND THE
PUBLIC BY AVOIDING UNLAWFUL DISPOSITION OF THE FUND IN THE MEANTIME,
AND ULTIMATELY DISTRIBUTING IT TO THOSE FOUND TO BE ENTITLED TO IT.
SEE NEW YORK EDISON CO. V. MALTBIE, SUPRA; BROOKLYN UNION GAS CO. V.
MALTBIE, SUPRA; CF. UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 303 U.S. 276. 

A PROCEEDING IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE SECRETARY IN WHICH, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, HE IS FREE TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES.  HIS
DETERMINATION, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND MADE IN A PROCEEDING
CONDUCTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATUTE AND DUE PROCESS, WILL AFFORD
THE APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN MAKING
DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND IN ITS CUSTODY.  ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V.
FLORIDA, SUPRA, 312-313, 317.  DUE REGARD FOR THE DISCHARGE OF THE
COURT'S OWN RESPONSIBILITY TO THE LITIGANTS AND TO THE PUBLIC AND THE
APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION IN SUCH MANNER AS TO EFFECTUATE
THE POLICY OF THE ACT AND FACILITATE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SYSTEM WHICH
IT HAS SET UP, REQUIRE RETENTION OF THE FUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT
UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE SECRETARY, PROCEEDING WITH DUE EXPEDITION, SHALL
HAVE ENTERED A FINAL ORDER IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE HIM.  CF.
MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32; TOD V. WALDMAN, 266 U.S. 113.  THE DISTRICT
COURT WILL THUS AVOID THE RISK OF USING ITS PROCESS AS AN INSTRUMENT OF
INJUSTICE AND, WITH THE FULL RECORD OF THE SECRETARY'S PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE IT, INCLUDING FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE COURT WILL
HAVE THE APPROPRIATE BASIS FOR ITS ACTION AND WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE ITS
ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION ACCORDINGLY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ON THE SAME DATE THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A DECREE ON THE
MANDATE OF THIS COURT SETTING ASIDE THE SECRETARY'S ORDER OF JUNE 14,
1933, AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINING ITS ENFORCEMENT.  IN THAT DECREE THE
DISTRICT COURT RETAINED JURISDICTION AND DECREED THAT "SUCH OTHER
PROCEEDINGS BE HAD HEREIN IN CONFORMITY TO THE OPINION OF SAID SUPREME
COURT WITH REFERENCE TO THE DISTRIBUTION OR RESTITUTION OF FUNDS
DEPOSITED BY PLAINTIFFS IN THE REGISTRY OF THIS COURT WITH THE CLERK
THEREOF PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
ENTERED ON THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 1933 AS TO LAW AND JUSTICE MAY
APPERTAIN." 

FN2  SEE Y.B. 22 ED. IV MICH. PL. 21; HEATH V. RYDLEY, (1614) CRO. 
JAC.  335; 1 HOLDSWORTH, HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, 459-465. 

FN3  SEC. 309(C); "THE SECRETARY MAY AT ANY TIME INSTITUTE AN INQUIRY
ON HIS OWN MOTION, IN ANY CASE AND AS TO ANY MATTER OR THING CONCERNING
WHICH A COMPLAINT IS AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE TO OR BEFORE THE SECRETARY,
BY ANY PROVISION OF THIS TITLE, OR CONCERNING WHICH ANY QUESTION MAY
ARISE UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE, OR RELATING TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE.  THE SECRETARY
SHALL HAVE THE SAME POWER AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH ANY INQUIRY
INSTITUTED UPON HIS OWN MOTION AS THOUGH HE HAD BEEN APPEALED TO BY
PETITION, INCLUDING THE POWER TO MAKE AND ENFORCE ANY ORDER OR ORDERS
IN THE CASE OR RELATING TO THE MATTER OR THING CONCERNING WHICH THE
INQUIRY IS HAD, EXCEPT ORDERS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY." 

FN4  IN INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153, THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD ORDERED CERTAIN RAILROADS TO CEASE
THE PAYMENT TO SHIPPERS, IN CONFORMITY TO A FILED TARIFF, OF SWITCHING
CHARGES WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND TO BE UNLAWFUL.  ON REVIEW OF
THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION THE DISTRICT COURT STAYED THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER AND DIRECTED THE RAILROADS, PENDING FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE
CAUSE, TO PLACE FURTHER PAYMENTS DUE UNDER THE TARIFF IN A SPECIAL FUND
TO BE HELD SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
WAS ULTIMATELY SUSTAINED, BUT MEANWHILE THE COMMISSION, PENDING REVIEW
IN THE COURTS, HAD POSTPONED THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS ORDER, SO THAT
DURING THE LITIGATION THERE WAS NO OPERATIVE COMMISSION ORDER
FORBIDDING THE UNLAWFUL PAYMENTS.  THIS COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION
OF THE SHIPPERS THAT THE FUND MUST BE PAID OVER TO THEM BECAUSE IT WAS
ACCUMULATED IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTROLLING ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. 
WE HELD THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE DISTRICT COURT, RESULTING FROM ITS
INJUNCTION AND ITS CONTROL OVER THE FUND, TO MAKE EQUITABLE DISPOSITION
OF IT, AND WE SUSTAINED THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER THAT THE FUND SHOULD
BE TURNED OVER TO THE RAILROADS IN CONFORMITY TO THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION, CONFIRMED ON JUDICIAL REVIEW, THAT THE SWITCHING
ALLOWANCES WERE UNLAWFUL.    MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

IN PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED ON COMPLAINT OF SHIPPERS IN 1922, THE
SECRETARY, JULY 27, 1923, APPROVED A 15 PER CENT REDUCTION OF MARKET
AGENCIES' CHARGES.  IN MAY, 1932, THE AGENCIES FILED TARIFFS, WHICH
WERE NOT CHALLENGED BY SHIPPERS OR SUSPENDED BY THE SECRETARY, MAKING
ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS OF ABOUT 10 PER CENT.  THESE RATES REMAINED IN
FORCE UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1937.  THEN THERE BECAME EFFECTIVE A NEW
SCHEDULE ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCIES AND THE
SECRETARY.  THERE BEING NO QUESTION AS TO REASONABLENESS OF CHARGES
MADE SINCE THAT DATE, THE APPELLEES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO CONTINUE
MAKING DEPOSITS TO SECURE THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY'S ORDER
OF JUNE 14, 1933 CHALLENGED IN THIS SUIT, AND SO IMPOUNDING CEASED. 

THE MONEY ON DEPOSIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT IS MADE UP OF AMOUNTS
TAKEN FROM CHARGES AS LOW AS, OR LOWER THAN, THOSE SO PUT AND KEPT IN
FORCE AND APPLIED UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1937.  IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
BEFORE HIM, THE SECRETARY MAY NOT ORDER REPARATION (SEE SEC. 309; ALSO
ARIZONA GROCERY CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 284 U.S. 370, 389)
AND IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DO MORE THAN PRESCRIBE CHARGES TO BE
APPLIED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT ORDER IF ONE SHALL BE MADE. 
THE CHALLENGED ORDER HAVING BEEN ADJUDGED INVALID BECAUSE MADE IN
VIOLATION OF THE ACT, MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 1, THE
APPELLEES IMMEDIATELY BECAME ENTITLED TO THE MONEY THAT, IN PURSUANCE
OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER, WAS DEPOSITED IN COURT BY THEM TO SECURE
THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECRETARY'S ORDER IF FOUND VALID.  THE RECORD
CONTAINS NOTHING TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT THE PLEDGE WAS FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE, OR TO JUSTIFY OR EXCUSE WITHHOLDING IT FOR ANOTHER USE.  FOR
THE REASONS STATED IN ITS OPINION, 24 F.SUPP.  214, THE DISTRICT COURT
RIGHTLY HELD APPELLEES ENTITLED TO HAVE THEIR MONEY RETURNED TO THEM. 
ITS DECREE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 

..END :


















UNITED STATES V. MARXEN, 307 U.S. 200 


NO. 544.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1939. 


R.S. SEC. 3466, GIVING TO THE UNITED STATES PRIORITY IN PAYMENT OF
DEBTS DUE TO IT BY ANY PERSON WHO IS INSOLVENT, IS INAPPLICABLE TO A
GENERAL CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES,
OR TO WHICH IT BECAME SUBROGATED, AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY.  P. 207. 

SO HELD AS TO A CLAIM - ASSUMED TO BE A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES -
UPON A NOTE ASSIGNED TO THE UNITED STATES BY A BANK AFTER THE FILING OF
A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY BY THE MAKER.  THE NOTE WAS COVERED BY A
POLICY OF INSURANCE ISSUED TO THE BANK UNDER THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT;
THE MAKER HAD DEFAULTED; AND THE BALANCE DUE WAS PAID TO THE BANK BY
U.S. TREASURY CHECK SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY. 

UNITED STATES V. MARXEN, TRUSTEE. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

QUESTION CERTIFIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON AN APPEAL
FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 24 F.SUPP.  463, WHICH CONFIRMED
AND APPROVED AN ORDER OF THE REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY DENYING PRIORITY TO
A CLAIM. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT WITH A REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS NEEDED IN A PENDING
CAUSE.  SEC. 239, JUD.  CODE; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346.  THE FOLLOWING FACTS
ARE STATED:  ON AUGUST 10, 1934, THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR
ISSUED A POLICY OF INSURANCE, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
HOUSING ACT, TITLE 1, SEC. 2,  FN1  TO THE CALIFORNIA BANK, A BANKING
CORPORATION.  ON JANUARY 2, 1936, THE CALIFORNIA BANK, UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF THIS POLICY, MADE A LOAN TO THE MONTEREY BREWING
COMPANY.  THE COMPANY PAID PART OF THE INDEBTEDNESS BUT DEFAULTED ON
THE BALANCE ON FEBRUARY 2, 1937.  ON APRIL 5, 1937, IT FILED A PETITION
IN BANKRUPTCY AND WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT.  UNDER THE INSURANCE
CONTRACT THE BANK HAD TO WAIT UNTIL 60 DAYS AFTER DEFAULT BEFORE MAKING
CLAIM UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR.  THE 60 DAYS EXPIRED TWO DAYS BEFORE
BANKRUPTCY OF THE COMPANY.  THE BANK, HOWEVER, DID NOT PRESENT ITS
CLAIM TO THE ADMINISTRATOR UNTIL JULY 3, 1937; THE LATTER PAID AUGUST
4, 1937, BY DRAFT DRAWN ON THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES; THE BANK
ASSIGNED THE NOTE TO THE "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."  LATER THE
ADMINISTRATOR FILED A CLAIM UPON THE NOTE IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA. 

THE REFEREE ALLOWED IT AS A GENERAL CLAIM ONLY.  THE DISTRICT COURT
APPROVED.  IN RE MONTEREY BREWING CO., 24 F.SUPP.  463.  ON THE APPEAL
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE FOLLOWING QUESTION, DECISIVE OF THE
CONTROVERSY,  FN2  WAS CERTIFIED: 

"WHERE, PRIOR TO THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR AND ADJUDICATION IN
BANKRUPTCY OF THE MAKER OF A PROMISSORY NOTE PAYABLE TO A BANK, THE
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
HOUSING ACT, INSURED THE PAYEE BANK AGAINST THE NONPAYMENT OF THE NOTE
BY ITS MAKER, UPON WHICH NOTE THE MAKER BECAME IN DEFAULT MORE THAN
SIXTY DAYS PRIOR TO SAID FILING AND ADJUDICATION, AND UPON DEMAND OF
THE INSURED BANK MADE AFTER THE ADJUDICATION, THE FEDERAL HOUSING
ADMINISTRATOR PAID TO THE BANK ITS CLAIM ARISING FROM SUCH DEFAULT, AND
PROCURED AN ASSIGNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OF THE CLAIM OF THE INSURED
BANK AGAINST THE BANKRUPT WHICH CLAIM HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED OR PROVED
IN BANKRUPTCY BY THE INSURED BANK, AND PRESENTED SUCH CLAIM IN THE NAME
OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAVING BEFORE HIM
OTHER ALLOWED CLAIMS AGAINST THE BANKRUPT, IS SUCH CLAIM ENTITLED TO
PRIORITY OVER SUCH OTHER CLAIMS UNDER SEC. 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES
(31 U.S.C.A. SEC. 191) BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 64(B)(7)(11
U.S.C.A. SEC. 104(B)(7))." 

WHO BY THE LAWS OF  ...  THE UNITED STATES IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY:
PROVIDED, THAT THE TERM 'PERSON'  ...  SHALL INCLUDE  ... THE UNITED
STATES  ..."  FN3  SECTION 3466 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, THE BASIS FOR
THE CLAIMED PRIORITY, PROVIDES THAT "WHENEVER ANY PERSON INDEBTED TO
THE UNITED STATES IS INSOLVENT  ...  THE DEBTS DUE TO THE UNITED STATES
SHALL BE FIRST SATISFIED; AND THE PRIORITY HEREBY ESTABLISHED SHALL
EXTEND  ... TO CASES IN WHICH AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY IS COMMITTED." 

ALTHOUGH AN AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT AUTHORIZED THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO SUE AND BE SUED IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, STATE OR FEDERAL,  FN4  IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN ANSWERING
THE PRESENT CERTIFICATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER BY THIS ADDITION THE
CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE THE ADMINISTRATOR THE STATUS OF A CORPORATION
OR OTHER ENTITY DISTINCT FROM THE UNITED STATES AND BY SUCH STATUS TO
CONFER ON OR WITHHOLD FROM CLAIMS OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
AGAINST BANKRUPTS THE ADVANTAGES OF SEC. 3466.  FN5  WE CAN DEAL ONLY
WITH A CLAIM OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION ASSIGNED TO THE
UNITED STATES AFTER THE ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE OBLIGOR.  IT
IS ASSUMED THAT SUCH A CLAIM BELONGS TO AND IS MADE BY THE UNITED
STATES.  FN6 

BEFORE CONSIDERING THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 3466 TO CLAIMS OF THE
UNITED STATES ACQUIRED AFTER THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE OBLIGOR, WE MUST
EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT IT POSSESSED A PROVABLE
CLAIM AT THE TIME THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED.  THIS ASSERTION
PREDICATES AN AGREEMENT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY THE OBLIGOR TO
INDEMNIFY THE GOVERNMENT FOR ANY LOSS IT MAY SUSTAIN BY REASON OF ITS
INSURANCE OF THE BANK.  THE QUESTION CERTIFIED CONTAINS NOTHING AS TO
THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE EXCEPT THAT IT WAS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT AND "INSURED THE PAYEE BANK AGAINST THE NON
PAYMENT OF THE NOTE BY ITS MAKER."  THE SECTION OF THAT ACT, QUOTED
ABOVE, DOES NOT INDICATE ANY PRIVITY BETWEEN THE BANKRUPT MAKER AND THE
GOVERNMENT BASED UPON THE INSURANCE CONTRACT.  EVEN IF WE ACCEPT AS
ACCURATE THE STATEMENT IN THE CERTIFICATE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION
INSURED AGAINST THE NON-PAYMENT OF THIS NOTE,  FN7  THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE RECORD TO CONNECT THE MAKER WITH THE INSURANCE.  THE GOVERNMENT
ATTEMPTS TO FILL IN THE FACTS LACKING IN THE CERTIFICATION BY PRINTING
IN ITS BRIEF A REGULATION OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, NUMBER
10 OF JULY 15, 1935,  FN8  AND THE FORM OF CREDIT STATEMENT FROM THE
NOTE MAKER TO THE BANK IN USE, PRESUMABLY, AT THE TIME OF THE LOAN. 
THE FORM CONTAINS THIS SENTENCE, AS WELL AS INFORMATION AS TO THE
APPLICANT'S EMPLOYMENT OR BUSINESS, HIS INCOME AND THE PROPERTY TO BE
IMPROVED:  "THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INDUCING YOU TO GRANT CREDIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE I OF THE
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT." 

THE REGULATION AND THE CREDIT STATEMENT CERTAINLY DO NOT SUPPLY THE
FACTS NECESSARY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS PARTICULAR FORM OF CREDIT
STATEMENT WAS USED.  AS THE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT SHOW THE STATE IN
WHICH THE NOTE WAS EXECUTED, PAYABLE OR ENFORCEABLE, WE ARE LEFT TO
SPECULATE AS TO THE APPLICABLE LAW OF INDEMNITY.  IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT
A VOLUNTARY GUARANTOR CAN RECOVER IN EVERY JURISDICTION FROM THE
INVOLUNTARY PRINCIPAL WHO HAS NOT REQUESTED THE SERVICE.  FN9  BUT EVEN
IF WE ASSUME THAT SUCH A GUARANTOR MAY RECOVER UPON AN IMPLIED PROMISE
OF REIMBURSEMENT, THE RULE IS NOT EFFECTIVE HERE.  THE STATEMENT OF THE
CASE AND THE QUESTION CERTIFIED SHOW THAT THE CLAIM IN BANKRUPTCY OF
THE GOVERNMENT IS BASED UPON THE NOTE, DULY ASSIGNED TO IT AFTER
BANKRUPTCY.  AS NO PROOF WAS MADE OF ANY CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT, SUCH
A CLAIM IS NOT INVOLVED.  FN10 

THE CLAIM ON THE NOTE, ASSIGNED TO THE UNITED STATES SUBSEQUENTLY TO
THE MAKER'S BANKRUPTCY, HAS PRIORITY, IF AT ALL, BY VIRTUE OF THE
GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3466, AS RECOGNIZED BY SEC. 64(B)(7) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN11  THAT SUBDIVISION GRANTED PRIORITY AHEAD OF
DIVIDENDS TO CREDITORS, TO CLAIMS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  PRIORITY HAS BEEN SECURED TO THE UNITED STATES
IN VARYING LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY.  FN12  THE TENDENCY HAS
BEEN TO INTERPRET THESE PROVISIONS LIBERALLY TO SECURE THE ADVANTAGE
SOUGHT BY THE CONGRESS."  FN13  AS THIS STATUTE HAS REFERENCE TO THE
PUBLIC GOOD IT OUGHT TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED."  FN14 IT HAS BEEN SAID
THAT "NOTHING ELSE APPEARING" EVEN CLAIMS UNDER THE RAILROAD FEDERAL
CONTROL ACT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY.  FN15  BUT THIS PRINCIPLE OF
CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION THAT THE GENERALITY OF THE
LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION IS RESTRICTED BY THE PURPOSE TO GRANT PRIORITY
TO THE UNITED STATES, ONLY, AND BY LEGISLATIVE INTENTION, AS SHOWN BY
OTHER STATUTES.  CONSEQUENTLY PRIORITY WAS REFUSED TO CORPORATIONS
WHOLLY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES FN16  AND TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
RAILROADS BECAUSE SEC. 10 OF THE FEDERAL CONTROL ACT MANIFESTED AN
INTENTION THAT THE CARRIERS UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL SHOULD BE TREATED AS
BEFORE THEIR TRANSFER TO FEDERAL OPERATION.  FN17  THE UNITED STATES
ITSELF WHEN IT SOUGHT PRIORITY FOR ITS LOANS UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION
ACT WAS DENIED THE BENEFITS OF SEC. 3466 BECAUSE THE INTENTION TO BUILD
UP THE CREDIT STANDING OF THE RAILROADS WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CLAIMED PRIORITY.  FN18 

WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SEC. 3466 IS INAPPLICABLE TO GENERAL CLAIMS
IN BANKRUPTCY TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES, OR TO WHICH IT HAS
BECOME SUBROGATED ON PAYMENT, AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION, FOR THE
REASON THAT THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS ARE FIXED BY THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS
OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.  THIS IS TRUE BOTH AS TO
THE BANKRUPT AND AMONG THEMSELVES.  FN19  THE ASSETS AT THAT TIME ARE
SEGREGATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.  FN20  THE TRANSFER OF THE
ASSETS TO SOMEONE FOR APPLICATION TO "THE DEBTS OF THE INSOLVENT, AS
THE RIGHTS AND PRIORITIES OF CREDITORS MAY BE MADE TO APPEAR,"  FN21
TAKES PLACE AS OF THAT TIME. 

THE QUESTION CERTIFIED SHOULD THEREFORE BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. 
QUESTION ANSWERED "NO." 

FN1  "SEC.  2.  THE ADMINISTRATOR IS AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED, UPON
SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS HE MAY PRESCRIBE, TO INSURE BANKS  ...
WHICH ARE APPROVED BY HIM AS ELIGIBLE FOR CREDIT INSURANCE, AGAINST
LOSSES WHICH THEY MAY SUSTAIN AS A RESULT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES OF
CREDIT, AND PURCHASES OF OBLIGATIONS REPRESENTING LOANS AND ADVANCES OF
CREDIT, MADE BY THEM  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING ALTERATIONS,
REPAIRS, AND IMPROVEMENTS UPON REAL PROPERTY.  IN NO CASE SHALL THE
INSURANCE GRANTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER THIS SECTION TO ANY SUCH
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXCEED 20 PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE
LOANS, ADVANCES OF CREDIT, AND PURCHASES MADE BY SUCH FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION FOR SUCH PURPOSE  ...  "  ACT OF JUNE 27, 1934, C. 847, 48
STAT. 1246. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. MAYER, 235 U.S. 55, 66; CF. WHEELER LUMBER CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 572, 577; INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 570, 573. 

FN3  ACT OF MAY 27, 1926, C. 406, 44 STAT. 667, 11 U.S.C. SEC.
104(B)(7).  THIS SECTION HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 22, 1938,
C. 575, SEC. 64, 52 STAT. 874. 

FN4  ACT OF AUGUST 23, 1935, C. 614, SEC. 344(A), 49 STAT. 722. 

FN5  THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT WAS SAID TO BE "CLARIFYING."  SEN.
REP. NO. 1007 ON H.R. 7617, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 24.  THE
HOUSE REPORT MERELY STATED ITS SUBSTANCE.  H.R. REP. NO. 1822 ON H.R.
7617, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 57.  THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD IS
SILENT ON THIS CLAUSE OF THE BANKING ACT OF 1935. 

A CORPORATION WHOLLY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES IS HELD WITHOUT THE
ADVANTAGES OF SEC. 3466.  SLOAN SHIPYARDS V. U.S. FLEET CORPORATION,
258 U.S. 549, 570. 

FN6  CF. WAGNER V. MCDONALD, 96 F.2D 273, 274; IN RE DICKSON'S
ESTATE, 84 P.2D 661, 664; DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. V. DAVIS, 264 U.S.
456; CLALLAM COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 341; NORTH DAKOTA
MONTANA WHEAT GROWERS ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 66 F.2D 573, 576-577. 

FN7  THIS IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE PRACTICE UNDER TITLE I OF THE
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT.  THE ACT IS ADMINISTERED SO AS TO CREATE AN
INSURANCE RESERVE FOR EACH APPROVED FINANCIAL INSTITUTION OF NOT TO
EXCEED THE AUTHORIZED PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF QUALIFIED
PAPER.  CF. REGULATIONS, FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, PROPERTY
IMPROVEMENT LOANS, 3 FEDERAL REGISTER 358, REGULATION NUMBER 17. 

FN8  "THE QUESTION OF THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE BORROWER IS LEFT
TO THE REASONABLE JUDGMENT OF THE INSURED INSTITUTION AS A CREDIT
MATTER.  THE BORROWER MUST FURNISH THE LENDING INSTITUTION A FINANCIAL
OR CREDIT STATEMENT, APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH IN
THE JUDGMENT OF THE INSURED INSTITUTION SHOWS THE BORROWER TO BE
SOLVENT, WITH REASONABLE ABILITY TO PAY THE OBLIGATION AND IN OTHER
RESPECTS A REASONABLE CREDIT RISK IN VIEW OF THE INSURANCE PROVIDED BY
THE NATIONAL HOUSING ACT." 

FN9  CF. LESLIE V. COMPTON, 103 KAN. 92; 172 P. 1015; MARSH V.
HAYFORD, 80 ME. 97; 13 A. 271; MCPHERSON V. MEEK, 30 MO. 345. 

FN10  CF. INSLEY V. GARSIDE, 121 F. 699, 702.  CF. ALSO SEC. 57(I)
WHICH PROVIDES THAT "WHENEVER A CREDITOR, WHOSE CLAIM AGAINST A
BANKRUPT ESTATE IS SECURED BY THE INDIVIDUAL UNDERTAKING OF ANY PERSON,
FAILS TO PROVE SUCH CLAIM, SUCH PERSON MAY DO SO IN THE CREDITOR'S
NAME, AND IF HE DISCHARGE SUCH UNDERTAKING IN WHOLE OR IN PART HE SHALL
BE SUBROGATED TO THAT EXTENT TO THE RIGHTS OF THE CREDITOR."  ACT OF
JULY 1, 1898, C. 541, SEC. 57, 30 STAT. 560, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 93. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN12  THE GOVERNMENT SUMMARIZES THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND AS
FOLLOWS:  "THE ACT OF JULY 31, 1789, SEC. 21, C. 5, 1 STAT. 29, 42,
FIRST GAVE THE UNITED STATES PRIORITY BUT WAS LIMITED TO DEBTS DUE ON
BONDS FOR DUTIES.  THE ACT OF MAY 2, 1792, SEC. 18, C. 27, 1 STAT. 259,
263, ALLOWED SURETIES WHO PAID THEIR DEBTS TO THE UNITED STATES TO
EXERCISE THEIR PRIORITY.  THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1797, SEC. 5, C. 20, 1
STAT. 512, 515, EXTENDED THE PRIORITY TO ALL DEBTS DUE FROM ANY
PERSON.  THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1799, SEC. 65, C. 22, 1 STAT. 627, 676,
APPLIED TO BONDS FOR DUTIES.  R.S., SEC. 3466 IS DERIVED FROM THE ACTS
OF 1797AND 1799."    FN13  UNITED STATES V. FISHER, 2 CRANCH 358;
HARRISON V. STERRY, 5 CRANCH 289, 298-299; UNITED STATES V. STATE BANK,
6 PET. 29, 35; BEASTON V. FARMERS' BANK, 12 PET. 102, 134; LEWIS V.
UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 618, 621; BRAMWELL V. U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY
CO., 269 U.S. 483, 487; PRICE V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 492, 500. 

FN14  BEASTON V. FARMERS' BANK, SUPRA. 

FN15  MELLON V. MICHIGAN TRUST CO., 271 U.S. 236, 239.    FN16  SLOAN
SHIPYARDS V. U.S. FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549, 570.  EVEN THOUGH PRIVATE
PARTIES MIGHT HAVE PARTICIPATED IN STOCK OWNERSHIP UNDER THE LAW.  SEE
P. 565. 

FN17  MELLON V. MICHIGAN TRUST CO., SUPRA, 240. 

FN18  UNITED STATES V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 280 U.S. 478, 485-86. 

FN19  WHITE V. STUMP, 266 U.S. 310, 313; IN RE C.H. EARLE, INC., 2
F.SUPP.  15, AFFIRMED ON THE OPINION BELOW, 65 F.2D 1013.  CF. SPOKANE
COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 80, 93; UNITED STATES V. OKLAHOMA,
261 U.S. 253, 260, AS TO RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS. 

THE LOWER COURTS HAVE DIVIDED UPON THE ISSUE WHETHER A FEDERAL
HOUSING ADMINISTRATION CLAIM IS ENTITLED TO PRIORITY.  PRIORITY HAS
BEEN GIVEN IN WAGNER V. MCDONALD, 96 F.2D 273; IN RE WILSON, 23
F.SUPP.  236; IN RE T.N. WILSON, INC., 24 F.SUPP.  651; CF. IN RE
DICKSON'S ESTATE, 84 P.2D 661.  PRIORITY HAS BEEN DENIED IN IN RE
HANSEN BAKERIES, INC., 103 F.2D 665; FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR V.
MOORE, 90 F.2D 32; IN RE STAMFORD AUTO SUPPLY CO., 25 F.SUPP.  530; IN
RE MILLER, 25 F.SUPP.  336; CF. PAUL V. PAUL LIGHTING FIXTURE CO., 13
OHIO OP. 27.  THE ASSIGNMENT WAS MADE PRIOR TO BANKRUPTCY OR INSOLVENCY
IN THE WAGNER AND DICKSON CASES.  IN THE WILSON AND T.N. WILSON, INC.,
CASES THE TIME OF ASSIGNMENT IS UNCERTAIN.  IN THE REMAINING CASES IT
CAME AFTER BANKRUPTCY OR INSOLVENCY. 

FN20  MUELLER V. NUGENT, 184 U.S. 1, 14; MAY V. HENDERSON, 268 U.S.
111, 117. 

FN21  BRAMWELL V. U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 269 U.S. 483, 490. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




RORICK V. COMM'RS, 307 U.S. 208 


NO. 554.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 29, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1939.  - 24
F.SUPP.  458, VACATED. 


A SUIT BY BONDHOLDERS OF A STATE DRAINAGE DISTRICT TO RESTRAIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STATUTES EFFECTING CHANGES IN RATES, COLLECTION
AND DISPOSITION OF TAXES ON LANDS OF THE DISTRICT, AND AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE BONDS, ETC., UPON THE GROUND THAT SUCH CHANGES UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
IMPAIR THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS' CONTRACTS, CAN NOT BE TRIED
UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 266 BY A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, NOR BE
APPEALED DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT, THE STATUTES ATTACKED NOT BEING OF
GENERAL APPLICATION, BUT AFFECTING EXCLUSIVELY THE PARTICULAR DISTRICT
OF THE STATE.  P. 211. 

JURISDICTION IS NOT CONFERRED IN SUCH A CASE BY JOINING AS DEFENDANTS
STATE OFFICIALS WHOSE DUTIES UNDER THE STATUTES IN QUESTION ARE OF
LOCAL, NOT OF STATE-WIDE, CONCERN. 

RORICK ET AL. V. BOARD OF COMM'RS OF EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DIST.  ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, CONSTITUTED OF THREE
JUDGES, WHICH DISMISSED A SUIT SEEKING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FLORIDA STATUTES ALLEGED TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  SEE, ALSO, S.C., 57 F.2D 1058.  THIS COURT, FINDING
ITSELF WITHOUT JURISDICTION, VACATES THE DECREE AND REMANDS THE CASE TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY OF
JUD.  CODE SEC. 266. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS
AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 345, TO REVIEW A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF
THREE JUDGES CONVENED UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED,
28 U.S.C. SEC. 380, DENYING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING
THE BILL AND SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS.  THE BILLS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF
CERTAIN FLORIDA STATUTES AS IMPAIRMENTS OF THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT AND
THE APPELLANTS, AS HOLDERS OF SOME OF ITS OUTSTANDING BONDS.  THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS BASED ON ITS CONCEPTION OF THE
APPLICABILITY OF ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, BUT THIS AND
OTHER QUESTIONS ARE NOT NOW OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION IF SEC. 266 DOES NOT
COVER A SITUATION LIKE THE PRESENT.  IF THERE BE A JURISDICTIONAL
BARRIER HERE, IT BINDS US THOUGH NOT INVOKED BY THE APPELLEES. 

THE RECORD IS SINGULARLY OBSCURE.  THIS LITIGATION, WHICH HAS
EXTENDED OVER EIGHT YEARS, IS BUT ONE PHASE OF A COMPLICATED
CONTROVERSY PURSUED IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE BILL WAS FILED ON MAY 19, 1931.  A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL WAS FILED
JULY 4, 1931.  THE PRAYERS OF THE BILLS WERE AMENDED ON NOVEMBER 5,
1931.  A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS CONVENED ON NOVEMBER 14,
1931.  ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1932, ORDERS WERE ENTERED DENYING A MOTION TO
DISMISS, AND GRANTING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION CONDITIONED ON THE
FILING OF A BOND FOR $50,000.  ANSWERS WERE FILED IN OCTOBER AND
NOVEMBER, 1932.  THE REQUIRED BOND WAS NOT GIVEN AND ON FEBRUARY 23,
1933 AN ORDER WAS ENTERED THAT THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SHOULD BE
VACATED.  THE MATTER THEN LAY DORMANT UNTIL A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BILL
WAS FILED ON JULY 19, 1937.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL AUGUST 2, 1938, THAT THE
ORDER SOUGHT HERE TO BE REVIEWED, DENYING THE MOTION FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL, WAS MADE. 

THE FACTS WILL BE SUMMARIZED ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO EXPOSE
THE JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEM.  THE EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT
(HEREAFTER CALLED DISTRICT), COMPRISING A LARGE ACREAGE IN THE SOUTHERN
PART OF FLORIDA, WAS ESTABLISHED BY CHAPTER 6456, LAWS OF FLORIDA, ACTS
OF 1913.  THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DISTRICT WAS ENTRUSTED TO A BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS (HEREAFTER CALLED THE BOARD), A BODY CORPORATE.  THE
LANDS WERE ORIGINALLY PART OF A GRANT MADE BY CONGRESS TO FLORIDA IN
1850 WHEREBY FLORIDA UNDERTOOK TO APPLY THE LANDS AND PROCEEDS DERIVED
FROM THEM TO DRAINAGE AND RECLAMATION PURPOSES.  IN FULFILLMENT OF THIS
OBLIGATION FLORIDA, IN 1855(CHAPTER 610, LAWS OF FLORIDA, ACTS OF
1855), VESTED THE LANDS IN TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
(HEREAFTER CALLED TRUSTEES) CONSISTING OF DESIGNATED STATE OFFICIALS. 
SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION FOR THE DISTRICT MADE NUMEROUS CHANGES AFFECTING
ITS FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND
THE TRUSTEES (CHAPTERS 13,633, 14,717; 17,902, LAWS OF FLORIDA, 1929,
1931 AND 1937).  THE CHANGES CONCERNED RATES OF TAXES, DISPOSITION OF
THEIR PROCEEDS, PROCEDURE IN CASES OF TAX DELINQUENCY, AND
AUTHORIZATION OF BOND ISSUES. 

APPELLANTS SUED AS HOLDERS OF BONDS ISSUED PRIOR TO THESE LATTER
STATUTES CLAIMING THAT THEY IMPAIRED OBLIGATIONS CREATED BY SUCH BONDS
AS DEFINED BY SEC. 23 OF THE ACT OF 1913 WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
THAT THE TERMS OF THAT ACT SHOULD CONSTITUTE "AN IRREPEALABLE CONTRACT"
BETWEEN BONDHOLDERS AND THE DISTRICT.  IN SUBSTANCE THE BILL AND THE
SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS ALLEGED A REDUCTION OF THE AVAILABLE TAXES BELOW
THOSE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE BONDS WERE ISSUED, AN ADVERSE CHANGE IN
THE DEBT SERVICE, AND A DIVERSION OF REVENUES TO PURPOSES OTHER THAN
THOSE REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF 1913.  THE BILLS ALSO COMPLAINED OF
IMPORTANT CHANGES EFFECTED BY THE LATER ACTS REGARDING TAX
DELINQUENCIES ON THE LANDS IN THE DISTRICT.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT UNDER
THE EARLIER ACT LANDS ON WHICH TAXES WERE DELINQUENT WERE TO BE SOLD AT
AUCTION AND, FOR WANT OF BIDDERS FOR THE AMOUNT OF TAXES PLUS COSTS,
WERE TO BE BID OFF TO TRUSTEES WHO WERE UNDER A DUTY TO PAY FOR TAX
CERTIFICATES AS WELL AS THE DRAINAGE TAXES IN THE FUTURE.  VIOLATION OF
CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS WERE ALLEGED IN THAT TRUSTEES HAD CEASED PAYING FOR
THE TAX CERTIFICATES AS WELL AS THE DRAINAGE TAXES, AND THAT SEC. 65 OF
THE 1931 STATUTE HAD DECLARED THAT TRUSTEES HELD THE CERTIFICATES IN
TRUST FOR THE DISTRICT AND REQUIRED THEM TO TRANSFER THE CERTIFICATES
TO THE DISTRICT.  FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO
POWERS GIVEN TO THE DISTRICT, AFTER 1913, WHEREBY IT WAS AUTHORIZED TO
COMPROMISE TAXES, TO ACCEPT BONDS FOR REDEMPTION OF LANDS, AND TO
CANCEL TAX LIENS ON LANDS WHICH CAME INTO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE UNITED
STATES.  FINALLY, A CLAIM OF IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT WAS BASED ON
CHANGES IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE DISTRICT AFTER 1913. 

THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, THE TRUSTEES AND VARIOUS COUNTY TAX
OFFICIALS WERE NAMED AS DEFENDANTS IN THE SUIT.  THE BILLS SOUGHT TO
ENJOIN THE DEFENDANTS DISTRIBUTIVELY, AND WITH MUCH PARTICULARITY, FROM
EFFECTUATING THE VARIOUS MODIFICATIONS MADE BY THE ACTS OF 1929, 1931
AND 1937 CONCERNING THE RATES OF TAXES, THE DISPOSITION OF THEIR
PROCEEDS, THE PROCEDURE IN CASES OF TAX DELINQUENCY, THE AUTHORIZATION
OF BOND ISSUES, AND THE INTERNAL RELATIONS BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND THE
TRUSTEES AS ALL THESE WERE CLAIMED TO BE ORIGINALLY DEFINED BY THE ACT
OF 1913. 

THIS APPEAL IS PROPERLY HERE ONLY IF THE PRESENT SUIT REQUIRED THE
CONVENING OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES UNDER SEC. 266.  WE DO
NOT THINK THAT THIS WAS SUCH A SUIT, BECAUSE THE STATE STATUTES FROM
WHICH RELIEF WAS SOUGHT DO NOT CONSTITUTE LEGISLATION "OF GENERAL
APPLICATION," EX PARTE COLLINS, 277 U.S. 565. 

EX PARTE COLLINS, SUPRA, REINFORCED BY EX PARTE PUBLIC NATIONAL BANK,
278 U.S. 101, AUTHORITATIVELY ESTABLISHED THE RESTRICTED CLASS OF CASES
TO WHICH THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE OF SEC. 266 MUST BE CONFINED.  "DESPITE
THE GENERALITY OF THE LANGUAGE" OF THAT SECTION, IT IS NOW SETTLED
DOCTRINE THAT ONLY A SUIT INVOLVING "A STATUTE OF GENERAL APPLICATION"
AND NOT ONE AFFECTING A "PARTICULAR MUNICIPALITY OR DISTRICT" CAN
INVOKE SEC. 266.  PLAINLY, THE MATTER HERE IN CONTROVERSY IS NOT ONE OF
STATEWIDE CONCERN BUT AFFECTS EXCLUSIVELY A PARTICULAR DISTRICT IN
FLORIDA.  THIS COURT IN EFFECT SO HELD IN DENYING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO CONVENE A COURT UNDER SEC. 266
MADE BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN A SUIT BY A BONDHOLDER CLAIMING
IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS EXISTING UNDER THE 1913 ACT. 
EX PARTE EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 293 U.S. 521.  THE PRESENT SUIT
DIFFERS FROM THE EARLIER CASE IN THAT HERE THE TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENT FUND WERE MADE DEFENDANTS.  BUT WHAT IS DECISIVE UNDER SEC.
266 IS NOT THE FORMAL STATUS OF THE OFFICIALS SUED BUT THE SPHERE OF
THEIR FUNCTIONS REGARDING THE MATTER IN ISSUE.  AN OFFICIAL THOUGH
LOCALIZED BY HIS GEOGRAPHIC ACTIVITIES AND THE MODE OF HIS SELECTION
MAY, WHEN HE ENFORCES A STATUTE WHICH "EMBODIES A POLICY OF STATEWIDE
CONCERN," BE PERFORMING A STATE FUNCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
266.  SPIELMAN MOTOR SALES CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89.  CONVERSELY A
STATE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH DUTIES UNDER A STATUTE NOT OF STATEWIDE
CONCERN IS NOT A STATE FUNCTIONARY WITHIN THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH SEC.
266 WAS DESIGNED.  WHAT WAS MATTER OF LOCAL CONCERN IN EX PARTE
EVERGLADES DRAINAGE DISTRICT, SUPRA, - THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
AFFAIRS OF THE DISTRICT - REMAINS MATTER OF LOCAL CONCERN IN THE
PRESENT SUIT.  THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY - LEGISLATION AFFECTING A
LOCALITY "AS AGAINST A POLICY OF STATEWIDE CONCERN" - HAS REMAINED
UNCHANGED EVEN THOUGH THE PRESENT BILLS MADE IT PERTINENT TO JOIN THE
TRUSTEES.  THIS SUIT THUS FAILS TO SATISFY AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF
SEC. 266. 

SINCE THE TIME FOR APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS
EXPIRED, AND SINCE THE JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEM DETERMINED IN THIS CASE
HAD NOT BEEN FULLY SETTLED PRIOR TO THIS DECISION, WE WILL NOT
TERMINATE THE LITIGATION BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL BUT, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA
PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386, WE WILL ORDER THE DECREE VACATED AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE
TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY OF SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  DECREE VACATED. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DISPOSITION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :













UNITED STATES V. POWERS, 307 U.S. 214 


NO. 687.  ARGUED APRIL 21, 1939.  - DECIDED MAY 15, 1939.  - REVERSED. 


1.  WHETHER AN OFFENSE AGAINST A TEMPORARY ACT MAY BE PUNISHED AFTER
THE ACT HAS EXPIRED DEPENDS UPON THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  P. 216. 

2.  AN ACT OF CONGRESS, DESIGNED TO PROTECT INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE FROM "CONTRABAND" OIL AND TO ENCOURAGE OIL CONSERVATION AND
CONTAINING ADMINISTRATIVE AND PUNITIVE PROVISIONS FOR ITS EFFECTUATION,
PROVIDED THAT IT SHOULD "CEASE TO BE IN EFFECT ON JUNE 16, 1937."  IT
WAS AMENDED JUNE 14, 1937 BY AN ACT WHICH DECLARED ITS PURPOSE TO
CONTINUE THE EARLIER ACT UNTIL JUNE 30, 1939 AND WHICH MERELY CHANGED
THE DATE OF EXPIRATION ACCORDINGLY. 

HELD, A CLEAR INDICATION OF PURPOSE TO TREAT THE ENTIRE ACT AS IF BY
ITS ORIGINAL TERMS IT WAS TO EXPIRE ON THE DAY TO WHICH IT WAS SO
EXTENDED; AND THAT VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT COMMITTED PRIOR TO THE
ORIGINAL DATE OF EXPIRATION WERE INDICTABLE THEREAFTER.  P. 217. 

3.  ARTICLE I, SEC. 9, CL. 3 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, PROSCRIBING
EX POST FACTO LAWS, DOES NOT BAR SUCH PROSECUTION.  P. 218. 

4.  A STATUTE SUSCEPTIBLE OF MORE THAN ONE INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE
GIVEN THAT WHICH WILL MAKE IT EFFECTIVE.  P. 217. 

UNITED STATES V. POWERS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT AND SEC. 238 JUD.  CODE, FROM A
JUDGMENT SUSTAINING DEMURRERS TO AN INDICTMENT AND MOTIONS TO QUASH
IT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL, UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907,
18 U.S.C. SEC. 682, AND SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
345, FROM A JUDGMENT OF A DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINING DEMURRERS AND
MOTIONS OF THE APPELLEES TO QUASH AN INDICTMENT. 

THE INDICTMENT, FILED SEPTEMBER 17, 1938, CHARGES APPELLEES WITH
VIOLATIONS OF THE CONNALLY (HOT OIL) ACT OF FEBRUARY 22, 1935, AS
AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 715 ET SEQ., AND WITH CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE
SUCH ACT, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 88.  THE VARIOUS SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS CHARGE
THAT APPELLEES, IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED, TRANSPORTED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE CONROE OIL FIELD IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
STATE OF TEXAS, TO MARCUS HOOK, PA. CERTAIN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN
EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS PERMITTED TO BE PRODUCED, TRANSPORTED, AND
WITHDRAWN FROM STORAGE UNDER THE LAWS OF TEXAS AND THE REGULATIONS AND
ORDERS PRESCRIBED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS.  THESE
TRANSPORTATIONS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON VARIOUS DATES FROM
NOVEMBER 4, 1935, TO MARCH 20, 1936.  THE CONSPIRACY COUNT CHARGES A
CONSPIRACY BY APPELLEES TO VIOLATE THE ACT, AS AMENDED, BY PRODUCING,
TRANSPORTING, AND WITHDRAWING FROM STORAGE PETROLEUM IN EXCESS OF THE
AMOUNTS PERMITTED TO BE PRODUCED, TRANSPORTED, AND WITHDRAWN FROM
STORAGE UNDER THE LAWS OF TEXAS AND THE REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
PROMULGATED THEREUNDER.  THESE TRANSPORTATIONS ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
MADE BETWEEN THE SAME PLACES ALLEGED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE COUNTS, ON
VARIOUS DATES FROM ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 4, 1935, TO ON OR ABOUT MARCH
15, 1937. 

SEC. 13 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 22, 1935, PROVIDED THAT "THIS ACT
SHALL CEASE TO BE IN EFFECT ON JUNE 16, 1937."  THIS SECTION WAS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 14, 1937, "BY STRIKING OUT 'JUNE 16, 1937'
AND INSERTING IN LIEU THEREOF 'JUNE 30, 1939'."  NO OTHER AMENDMENTS TO
THE ACT WERE MADE. 

THE SINGLE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER VIOLATIONS OF THIS ACT
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED PRIOR TO JUNE 16, 1937, MAY BE
PROSECUTED UNDER AN INDICTMENT RETURNED SUBSEQUENT THERETO.  THE
DISTRICT COURT BY SUSTAINING THE DEMURRERS AND MOTIONS TO QUASH
ANSWERED THAT QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE.  WE THINK IT ERRED. 

THE CONGRESS ALONE MAY DECLARE WHETHER THOSE WHO, BEFORE JUNE 16,
1937, VIOLATED THE ACT MAY BE PROSECUTED THEREAFTER.  THE QUESTION IS
ONE OF THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  EXPLICIT PROVISIONS IN THE AMENDMENT
PRESERVING THE RIGHT OF PROSECUTION AFTER THE DATE ORIGINALLY SET FOR
EXPIRY OF THE ACT WOULD HAVE MADE THAT PURPOSE CLEAR BEYOND QUESTION. 
BUT THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES HERE MAKE THIS PURPOSE AS CLEAR AND
AS UNEQUIVOCAL AS AN EXPLICIT PROVISION.  THIS IS AN ACT DESIGNED TO
PROTECT INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM THE DIVERSION AND
OBSTRUCTION OF, AND THE BURDEN AND HARMFUL EFFECT UPON, SUCH COMMERCE
CAUSED BY CONTRABAND OIL, (AS DEFINED IN THE ACT) AND TO ENCOURAGE THE
CONSERVATION OF DEPOSITS OF CRUDE OIL WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. 
ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY IS PROVIDED FOR THE CONTROL OF SHIPMENT OR
TRANSPORTATION OF CONTRABAND OIL IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SECS. 4, 5
AND 9.  SUCH SHIPMENT OR TRANSPORTATION IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS ON
APPROPRIATE FINDINGS THE PRESIDENT, BY PROCLAMATION, LIFTS THE
PROHIBITION.  SECS. 3 AND 4.  PENALTIES ARE PROVIDED FOR VIOLATIONS OF
THE ACT OR ANY REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED THEREUNDER.  SECS. 6 AND 7.  AND
SEC. 10 IMPLEMENTS THE ACT WITH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURES TO
ENFORCE ITS SANCTIONS.  THE ACT IS THUS A SELF-SUSTAINED AND ORGANIC
WHOLE, EQUIPPED TO EFFECTUATE A DECLARED POLICY OF THE CONGRESS.  BY
ITS ORIGINAL TERMS IT WOULD HAVE EXPIRED JUNE 16, 1937.  BUT IT NEVER
EXPIRED, FOR ON JUNE 14, 1937, THE WHOLE ACT WAS CONTINUED IN EFFECT
UNTIL JUNE 30, 1939.  ITS SUBSTANTIVE PHASES WERE NOT ALTERED ONE WHIT
OR TITTLE; ITS SANCTIONS WERE NEITHER REDUCED NOR INCREASED.  PRECISELY
THE SAME ACTS CONTINUE TO BE PROHIBITED AFTER THE AMENDMENT AS BEFORE. 
THE AMENDMENT MERELY PERPETUATED THE ENTIRE ACT FOR ANOTHER TERM. 

IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SEEMS CLEAR BEYOND QUESTION THAT
IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS, EXPRESSED IN THE AMENDMENT OF JUNE 14,
1937, TO TREAT THIS ACT PRECISELY IN THE SAME WAY AS IF BY ITS ORIGINAL
TERMS IT WAS TO EXPIRE ON JUNE 30, 1939.  DUE TO THE AMENDMENT, THE ACT
HAS NEVER CEASED TO BE IN EFFECT.  NO NEW LAW WAS CREATED; NO OLD ONE
WAS REPEALED.  WITHOUT HIATUS OF ANY KIND, THE ORIGINAL ACT WAS GIVEN
EXTENDED LIFE.  THERE WAS NO FIRST CONNALLY ACT FOLLOWED BY A SECOND
CONNALLY ACT.  DURING THE PERIODS IN QUESTION THERE WAS BUT ONE ACT. 
NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, AND WE HAVE FOUND NONE,
THAT CONGRESS PROPOSED TO WAIVE OR TO PARDON VIOLATIONS WHICH OCCURRED
PRIOR TO JUNE 16, 1937, BUT WHICH WERE NOT PROSECUTED UNTIL SUBSEQUENT
THERETO. 

THERE IS A SECONDARY CONSIDERATION WHICH POINTS TO THE SAME
CONCLUSION.  IF THE APPELLEES ARE RIGHT IN THEIR CONTENTION, A
TEMPORARY ACT SUCH AS THIS ONE WOULD LOSE, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, SOME
OF ITS SANCTIONS.  VIOLATIONS COULD OCCUR WITH IMPUNITY MONTHS BEFORE
ITS EXPIRY, FOR IN PRACTICE THERE FREQUENTLY IS AN UNAVOIDABLY
SUBSTANTIAL LAG BETWEEN VIOLATION AND PROSECUTION.  THE STATUTE SHOULD
NOT BE SO CONSTRUED IF ANOTHER INTERPRETATION WILL MAKE IT EFFECTIVE. 
AS THIS COURT SAID IN BIRD V. UNITED STATES, 187 U.S. 118, 124, "THERE
IS A PRESUMPTION AGAINST A CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD RENDER A STATUTE
INEFFECTIVE OR INEFFICIENT OR WHICH WOULD CAUSE GRAVE PUBLIC INJURY OR
EVEN INCONVENIENCE."  WE ARE UNWILLING TO CONCLUDE THAT ALTHOUGH THE
SAME ACTS CONTINUE TO BE PROHIBITED AFTER JUNE 16, 1937, AS BEFORE,
VIOLATIONS COMMITTED PRIOR TO THAT DATE ARE NOT PUNISHABLE THEREAFTER. 

IN VIEW OF THIS CONCLUSION, WE DO NOT REACH THE NUB OF APPELLEES'
ARGUMENT BASED ON CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL'S STATEMENT IN THE
IRRESISTIBLE, 7 WHEAT.  551, 552 "THAT AN OFFENSE AGAINST A TEMPORARY
ACT CANNOT BE PUNISHED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE ACT, UNLESS A
PARTICULAR PROVISION BE MADE BY LAW FOR THE PURPOSE."  FOR IN THIS
CASE, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 22, 1935, DID NOT EXPIRE ON
JUNE 16, 1937. 

BUT EVEN IF WE ASSUME THE VALIDITY OF THAT STATEMENT, IT SEEMS TO US
CLEAR THAT THOUGH THE ACT BE TREATED AS HAVING EXPIRED OR TERMINATED ON
JUNE 16, 1937, THE RESULT IS THE SAME.  FOR IN THIS CASE "PARTICULAR
PROVISION" HAS BEEN MADE "BY LAW FOR THE PURPOSE" OF EXTENDING THE
ENFORCEMENT MACHINERY WITH REFERENCE TO PRIOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS.  THE
"PARTICULAR PROVISION" WAS THE AMENDMENT OF JUNE 14, 1937, EXTENDING
THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ACT.  THAT AMENDMENT WAS PASSED PRIOR TO
THE ORIGINAL EXPIRATION DATE.  WHEN READ IN LIGHT OF THE TITLE OF THE
AMENDATORY STATUTE, VIZ.  "AN ACT TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT UNTIL JUNE 30,
1939, THE ACT  ...  APPROVED FEBRUARY 22, 1935," THE STATEMENT OF
PURPOSE BECOMES PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS.  IF THE AMENDMENT OF JUNE 14,
1937, HAD MERELY "EXTENDED" THE DURATION, OR POSTPONED THE EXPIRATION,
OF SEC. 10 OF THE ACT DEALING WITH CRIMINAL PENALTIES, "PARTICULAR
PROVISION" FOR SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN INDUBITABLY
CLEAR.  THE FACT THAT ALL SECTIONS, INCLUDING SEC. 10, WERE EXTENDED
MAKES IT NONETHELESS PLAIN.  THE WHOLE, THOUGH LARGER THAN ANY OF ITS
PARTS, DOES NOT NECESSARILY OBSCURE THEIR SEPARATE IDENTITIES. 

IN VIEW OF THESE VARIOUS CONSIDERATIONS, WE HOLD THAT THIS
PROSECUTION DOES NOT OFFEND THE PROHIBITION IN ARTICLE I, SEC. 9, CL. 3
OF THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAWS.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 
..END :



SPRAGUE V. TICONIC BANK, 307 U.S. 161 


NO. 543.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 24, 1939.  - 99 F.2D
583, REVERSED. 


1.  WHEN A LITIGANT IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THROUGH THE PROSECUTION OF
A SUIT ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, HAS AFFIXED A LIEN ON
EARMARKED FUNDS IN AN INSOLVENT BANK FOR THE REPAYMENT IN FULL, WITH
ORDINARY COSTS AND INTEREST, OF A SUM THERETOFORE DEPOSITED BY HIM IN
TRUST, AND, BY SO DOING, HAS INCIDENTALLY, THROUGH THE PRINCIPLE OF
STARE DECISIS, ESTABLISHED LIKE RIGHTS FOR OTHER DEPOSITORS, NOT
PARTIES TO THE SUIT, BUT IN LIKE SITUATION, IT LIES WITHIN THE POWER OF
THE COURT AS A COURT OF EQUITY TO MAKE THE SUCCESSFUL LITIGANT AN
ALLOWANCE OF COSTS "AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT," FOR COUNSEL FEES
AND LITIGATION EXPENSES, TO BE PAID OUT OF THE EARMARKED FUNDS.  P.
163. 

2.  COSTS "AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT" ARE ALLOWED ONLY IN
EXCEPTIONAL CASES, FOR DOMINATING REASONS OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE.  P. 167. 

3.  WHILE A MANDATE IS CONTROLLING AS TO THE MATTERS WITHIN ITS
COMPASS, ON THE REMAND THE LOWER COURT IS FREE TO ACT AS TO OTHER
ISSUES.  P. 168. 

4.  THE EQUITABLE RIGHT OF A LITIGANT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES
(COSTS "AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT") INCURRED IN A SUCCESSFUL SUIT
REDOUNDING ALSO TO THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS IN LIKE SITUATION, MAY
APPROPRIATELY BE ASSERTED BY SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION, AFTER THE SUIT, IN
OTHER RESPECTS, HAS BEEN FINALLY DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND
ON REVIEW.  P. 168. 

THIS RIGHT WAS NOT WAIVED BY FAILURE TO CLAIM IT EXPRESSLY IN THE
ORIGINAL SUIT, NOR WAS IT IMPLIEDLY AN ISSUE; HENCE IT WAS NOT COVERED
BY THE ORIGINAL DECREE AND APPELLATE MANDATES WHICH ALLOWED RECOVERY OF
PRINCIPAL, INTEREST AND ORDINARY COSTS. 

5.  AN APPLICATION TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ALLOWANCE OF COSTS AS
BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT, AT THE FOOT OF THE MAIN DECREE AND NOT
INVOLVING ANY MODIFICATION OF IT, NEED NOT BE MADE BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE TERM AT WHICH THE DECREE WAS ENTERED.  P. 170. 

SPRAGUE V. TICONIC NATIONAL BANK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 623, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DENYING A PETITION FOR AN ALLOWANCE OF COUNSEL FEES AND
EXPENSES OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR TAXABLE COSTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIRST CIRCUIT WHICH AFFIRMED, 99 F.2D 583, A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE, 23 F.SUPP.  59, DENYING A PETITION FOR
THE ALLOWANCE OF COUNSEL FEES AND EXPENSES OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR
TAXABLE COSTS.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, 306 U.S. 623, BECAUSE AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PERTAINING TO THE
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION WAS RAISED. 

THIS CASE IS ANOTHER PHASE OF A LITIGATION THAT HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE,
TICONIC BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S. 406, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHICH MUST
BE SUMMARIZED TO LAY BARE THE PROBLEM NOW BEFORE US.  ON MARCH 28,
1931, LOTTIE F. SPRAGUE, THE PETITIONER HERE, DELIVERED $5,022.18 TO
THE TICONIC NATIONAL BANK OF WATERVILLE, MAINE, IN TRUST IN WHICH SHE
AND OTHERS HAD BENEFICIAL INTERESTS.  UNDER THE TRUST AGREEMENT PART OF
THE AMOUNT WAS TO BE DEPOSITED BY THE BANK IN ITS SAVINGS DEPARTMENT. 
THE REST OF THE FUNDS WAS DEPOSITED BY THE BANK IN ITS COMMERCIAL
CHECKING DEPARTMENT, AS WERE OTHER TRUST FUNDS AWAITING INVESTMENT OR
DISTRIBUTION, SECURED BY AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF BONDS SET ASIDE IN
ITS TRUST DEPARTMENT AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 11(K) OF THE AMENDED FEDERAL
RESERVE ACT, 38 STAT. 262, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 722.  ON AUGUST 3,
1931, THE PEOPLE'S NATIONAL BANK TOOK OVER ALL THE ASSETS, INCLUDING
THESE EARMARKED BONDS, AND ASSUMED THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE TICONIC
BANK.  ON MARCH 4, 1933, THE PEOPLE'S BANK CLOSED, AND BOTH BANKS WENT
INTO THE HANDS OF A RECEIVER.  THEREAFTER, ON JULY 29, 1935, THE
PETITIONER AND HER BENEFICIARY FILED A BILL IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AGAINST THE BANKS AND THEIR RECEIVER TO IMPRESS UPON THE PROCEEDS OF
THE BONDS A LIEN FOR THEIR TRUST DEPOSIT.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED
THE CLAIM AND ENTERED A DECREE FOR THE DISCHARGE OF THE LIEN WITH
INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE BILL AND PAYMENT TO THE
PLAINTIFFS OF "THEIR TAXABLE COSTS," 14 F.SUPP.  900.  ON APPEAL, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AT FIRST DISALLOWED INTEREST, 87 F.2D 365, BUT
ON REHEARING AFFIRMED THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT "WITH COSTS," 90
F.2D 641.  THIS COURT THEN GRANTED CERTIORARI "LIMITED TO THE QUESTION
AS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST," 302 U.S. 675.  BEFORE ITS
DISPOSITION, TICONIC BANK V. SPRAGUE, SUPRA, THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
WERE BEGUN. 

PETITIONER ALLEGED THAT, BY VINDICATING HER CLAIM TO A LIEN ON THE
PROCEEDS OF THE EARMARKED BONDS TO THE AMOUNT OF HER TRUST FUNDS, SHE
HAD ESTABLISHED AS A MATTER OF LAW THE RIGHT TO RECOVERY IN RELATION TO
FOURTEEN TRUSTS IN SITUATIONS LIKE HER OWN; THAT SHE HAD PROSECUTED THE
LITIGATION SOLELY AT HER OWN EXPENSE; THAT ALTHOUGH THE TOTAL ASSETS OF
THE BANK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE UNSECURED CREDITORS, THE
PROCEEDS OF THE BONDS WERE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE ALL TRUST
OBLIGATIONS; AND SHE THEREFORE PRAYED THE COURT FOR REASONABLE COUNSEL
FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO BE PAID OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE
BONDS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT IT "HAD NO AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE
PETITION" ON THE GROUND THAT, AFTER THE APPEAL FROM ITS DECREE IN 14
F.SUPP.  900, IT "HAD NO FURTHER FUNCTION TO PERFORM OTHER THAN TO
CARRY OUT THE MANDATE OF THE SUPREME COURT WHEN RECEIVED.  THE MANDATE
FROM THE SUPREME COURT SIMPLY HAD THE EFFECT OF DIRECTING THIS COURT TO
CARRY OUT THE MANDATE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH IN TURN,
SIMPLY, IN EFFECT, REQUIRED THIS COURT TO EXECUTE ITS ORIGINAL FINAL
DECREE BY ISSUING ITS EXECUTION FOR A CERTAIN SUM OF MONEY WITH COSTS
OF BOTH COURTS."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED "FOR THE
REASONS STATED" BY THE DISTRICT COURT, AND "FOR THE FURTHER REASON THAT
THE TERM OF COURT AT WHICH THE DECREE WAS ENTERED, WHEN THE PETITION TO
AMEND WAS FILED, HAD LONG SINCE PASSED ...  "  OBVIOUSLY, BOTH COURTS
DISPOSED OF THE PETITION NOT AS A CONSIDERED DISALLOWANCE OF ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR
SUIT BUT BECAUSE THEY DEEMED AWARD OF SUCH COSTS BEYOND THE POWER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT. 

WHETHER ACTION BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE MERITS OF THE PETITION
WAS FORECLOSED BY THIS COURT'S MANDATE IN TICONIC BANK V. SPRAGUE,
SUPRA, AND WAS FURTHER LIMITED BY RESTRICTIONS WHICH TERMS OF COURT MAY
IMPOSE, ARE QUESTIONS SUBSIDIARY TO THE POWER OF FEDERAL COURTS IN
EQUITY SUITS TO ALLOW COUNSEL FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES ENTAILED BY THE
LITIGATION NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORDINARY TAXABLE COSTS RECOGNIZED BY
STATUTE. 

ALLOWANCE OF SUCH COSTS IN APPROPRIATE SITUATIONS IS PART OF THE
HISTORIC EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE SUITS "IN
EQUITY" OF WHICH THESE COURTS WERE GIVEN "COGNIZANCE" EVER SINCE THE
FIRST JUDICIARY ACT, CONSTITUTED THAT BODY OF REMEDIES, PROCEDURES AND
PRACTICES WHICH THERETOFORE HAD BEEN EVOLVED IN THE ENGLISH COURT OF
CHANCERY,  FN1  SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO MODIFICATIONS BY CONGRESS, E.G.,
MICHAELSON V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 42.  THE SOURCES BEARING ON
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH PRACTICE - REPORTS AND MANUALS - UNIFORMLY
SUPPORT THE POWER NOT ONLY TO GIVE A FIXED ALLOWANCE FOR THE VARIOUS
STEPS IN A SUIT, WHAT ARE KNOWN AS COSTS "BETWEEN PARTY AND PARTY," BUT
ALSO AS MUCH OF THE ENTIRE EXPENSES OF THE LITIGATION OF ONE OF THE
PARTIES AS FAIR JUSTICE TO THE OTHER PARTY WILL PERMIT, TECHNICALLY
KNOWN AS COSTS "AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT."  FN2  TO BE SURE, THE
USUAL CASE IS ONE WHERE THROUGH THE COMPLAINANT'S EFFORTS A FUND IS
RECOVERED IN WHICH OTHERS SHARE.  SOMETIMES THE COMPLAINANT AVOWEDLY
SUES FOR THE COMMON INTEREST FN3  WHILE IN OTHERS HIS LITIGATION
RESULTS IN A FUND FOR A GROUP THOUGH HE DID NOT PROFESS TO BE THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE.  FN4  THE PRESENT CASE PRESENTS A VARIANT OF THE LATTER
SITUATION.  IN HER MAIN SUIT THE PETITIONER NEITHER AVOWED HERSELF TO
BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS NOR DID SHE AUTOMATICALLY ESTABLISH A
FUND IN WHICH OTHERS COULD PARTICIPATE.  BUT IN VIEW OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF STARE DECISIS, THE PETITIONER BY ESTABLISHING HER CLAIM
NECESSARILY ESTABLISHED THE CLAIMS OF FOURTEEN OTHER TRUSTS PERTAINING
TO THE SAME BONDS. 

THAT THE PARTY IN A SITUATION LIKE THE PRESENT NEITHER PURPORTED TO
SUE FOR A CLASS NOR FORMALLY ESTABLISHED BY LITIGATION A FUND AVAILABLE
TO THE CLASS, DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A DIFFERENTIATING FACTOR SO FAR AS IT
AFFECTS THE SOURCE OF THE RECOGNIZED POWER OF EQUITY TO GRANT
REIMBURSEMENTS OF THE KIND FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE
APPEALED TO THE CHANCELLOR'S DISCRETION.  PLAINLY THE FOUNDATION FOR
THE HISTORIC PRACTICE OF GRANTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COSTS OF
LITIGATION OTHER THAN THE CONVENTIONAL TAXABLE COSTS IS PART OF THE
ORIGINAL AUTHORITY OF THE CHANCELLOR TO DO EQUITY IN A PARTICULAR
SITUATION.  FN5  WHETHER ONE PROFESSES TO SUE REPRESENTATIVELY OR
FORMALLY MAKES A FUND AVAILABLE FOR OTHERS MAY, OF COURSE, BE A
RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCE IN MAKING THE FUND LIABLE FOR HIS COSTS IN
PRODUCING IT.  BUT WHEN SUCH A FUND IS FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES
CREATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS, THE FORMALITIES OF THE LITIGATION -
THE ABSENCE OF AN AVOWED CLASS SUIT OR THE CREATION OF A FUND, AS IT
WERE, THROUGH STARE DECISIS RATHER THAN THROUGH A DECREE - HARDLY TOUCH
THE POWER OF EQUITY IN DOING JUSTICE AS BETWEEN A PARTY AND THE
BENEFICIARIES OF HIS LITIGATION.  AS IN MUCH ELSE THAT PERTAINS TO
EQUITABLE JURISDICTION, INDIVIDUALIZATION IN THE EXERCISE OF A
DISCRETIONARY POWER WILL ALONE RETAIN EQUITY AS A LIVING SYSTEM AND
SAVE IT FROM STERILITY.  IN THE ACTUAL EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO AWARD
COSTS "AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT" ALL SORTS OF PRACTICAL
DISTINCTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN DISTRIBUTING THE COSTS OF THE BURDEN OF
THE LITIGATION.  FN6  AND SO, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE
PETITIONER ENFORCED THE FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OF THE TICONIC BANK - THE
RELATION OF ITS VINDICATION TO BENEFICIARIES SIMILARLY SITUATED BUT NOT
ACTUALLY BEFORE THE COURT, AS WELL AS THE INTEREST OF THE COMMON
CREDITORS WHERE THE FUNDS OF THE BANK ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THEM IN
FULL, AND DOUBTLESS OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - MUST ENTER INTO THE ULTIMATE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS TO THE FAIRNESS OF MAKING AN AWARD,
OR THE EXTENT OF SUCH AWARD, "AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT" IN THIS
CASE.  IN ANY EVENT SUCH ALLOWANCES ARE APPROPRIATE ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL
CASES AND FOR DOMINATING REASONS OF JUSTICE.  BUT HERE WE ARE CONCERNED
SOLELY WITH THE POWER TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A PETITION. 

WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE HISTORIC AUTHORITY OF A COURT OF EQUITY IN
SUCH MATTERS, THE DISTRICT COURT DEEMED ITSELF POWERLESS BECAUSE
FORECLOSED BY THE MANDATE IN TICONIC BANK V. SPRAGUE, SUPRA.  THE
GENERAL PROPOSITION WHICH MOVED THAT COURT - THAT IT WAS BOUND TO CARRY
THE MANDATE OF THE UPPER COURT INTO EXECUTION AND COULD NOT CONSIDER
THE QUESTIONS WHICH THE MANDATE LAID AT REST - IS INDISPUTABLE. 
COMPARE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. GUARDIAN TRUST CO., 281 U.S.
1.  FN7 BUT THAT LEAVES US STILL TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE IMMEDIATE
ISSUE NOW IN CONTROVERSY WAS DISPOSED OF IN THE MAIN LITIGATION AND
THEREFORE FORECLOSED BY THE MANDATE.  WHILE A MANDATE IS CONTROLLING AS
TO MATTERS WITHIN ITS COMPASS, ON THE REMAND A LOWER COURT IS FREE AS
TO OTHER ISSUES.  SEE IN RE SANFORD FORK & TOOL CO., 160 U.S. 247; EX
PARTE CENTURY INDEMNITY CO., 305 U.S. 354.  CERTAINLY THE CLAIM FOR "AS
BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT" COSTS WAS NOT DIRECTLY IN ISSUE IN THE
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS BY SPRAGUE.  IT WAS NEITHER BEFORE THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS NOR BEFORE THIS COURT.  ITS DISPOSITION, THEREFORE, BY
THE MANDATE OF EITHER COURT COULD BE IMPLIED ONLY IF A CLAIM FOR SUCH
COSTS WAS NECESSARILY IMPLIED IN THE CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT, AND
ITS FAILURE TO ASK FOR SUCH COSTS AN IMPLIED WAIVER.  THESE
IMPLICATIONS ARE REPELLED BY THE BASIS ON WHICH SUCH COSTS ARE
GRANTED.  THEY ARE NOT OF A ROUTINE CHARACTER LIKE ORDINARY TAXABLE
COSTS; THEY ARE CONTINGENT UPON THE EXIGENCIES OF EQUITABLE LITIGATION,
THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF WHICH IN ITS ENTIRE PROCESS INCLUDING APPEAL
PLACES SUCH A CLAIM IN MUCH BETTER PERSPECTIVE THAN IT WOULD HAVE AT AN
EARLIER STAGE.  SUCH ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH UNDERLAY THE DECISION
IN TRUSTEES V. GREENOUGH, 105 U.S. 527, IN HOLDING THAT AN ORDER
ALLOWING COSTS "AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT" WAS A FINAL JUDGMENT
FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL BECAUSE "THE INQUIRY WAS A COLLATERAL ONE,
HAVING A DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT CHARACTER."  FN8  WE, THEREFORE, HOLD
THAT THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT
PRESENTED BY THE ORDINARY QUESTIONS REGARDING TAXABLE COSTS THAT IT WAS
IMPLIEDLY COVERED NEITHER BY THE ORIGINAL DECREE NOR BY THE MANDATES,
AND THAT NEITHER CONSTITUTED A BAR TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE PETITION
BELOW ON ITS MERITS. 

FINALLY, WE MUST NOTICE THE SEPARATE GROUND TAKEN BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IT DEEMED THE REQUIREMENTS OF
TERMS OF COURT.  THE NEW RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE HAVE RENDERED
ANACHRONISTIC THE TECHNICAL NICETIES PERTAINING TO TERMS OF COURT AS TO
BOTH LAW AND EQUITY,  FN9  BUT THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT HERE IN
QUESTION WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE OPERATION OF THE NEW RULES.  SINCE WE
VIEW THE PETITION FOR REIMBURSEMENT AS AN INDEPENDENT PROCEEDING
SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING AND NOT A REQUEST FOR A
MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL DECREE, THE SUGGESTION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS - THAT IT CAME AFTER THE END OF THE TERM AT WHICH THE
MAIN DECREE WAS ENTERED AND THEREFORE TOO LATE - FALLS. 

THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED SO THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT MAY ENTERTAIN THE PETITION FOR REIMBURSEMENT IN THE
LIGHT OF THE APPROPRIATE EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE ROBINSON V. CAMPBELL, 3 WHEAT, 212, 222; BOYLE V. ZACHARIE,
6 PET. 648, 658; PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING BRIDGE CO., 13 HOW.  518,
563; PAYNE V. HOOK, 7 WALL.  425, 430; RULE XXXIII, RULES OF PRACTICE
FOR THE COURTS OF EQUITY OF THE UNITED STATES (1822) 7 WHEAT V, XIII;
RULE XC, RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE COURTS OF EQUITY OF THE UNITED
STATES (1842) 1 HOW.  XLI, LXIX; 1 STORY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE (14TH
ED.)  SECS.  57, 58; 1 STREET, FEDERAL EQUITY PRACTICE, SEC. 97. 

FN2  SEE LOMAX V. HIDE, 2 VERN.  185; RAMSDEN V. LANGLEY, 2 VERN. 
536; ATTORNEY GENERAL V. CARTE, 1 DICK.  113; ATTORNEY GENERAL V.
HABERDASHERS' CO. AND TONNA, 4 BROWN C.C. 179; EX PARTE THORP, 1 VES. 
JUN.  394; MOGGRIDGE V. THACKWELL, 1 VES.  JUN.  464; DUNGEY V. ANGOVE,
2 VES.  JUN.  304.  SEE 2 ADAIR, LAW OF COSTS IN COURTS OF EQUITY, 81,
87, 179; 2 BARBOUR, CHANCERY PRACTICE (2D ED.)  889-894; BEAMES, COSTS
IN EQUITY (2D ED.)  144-146; 3 DANIELL'S, CHANCERY PLEADING AND
PRACTICE (2D ED.)  1434-35; 2 SMITH, CHANCERY PRACTICE (2D ED.)  697
700.  ONE MUST, OF COURSE, BE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE INADEQUACY OF
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CHANCERY REPORTS, SEE 2 YORK, LIFE OF LORD
CHANCELLOR HARDWICKE 429, PARTICULARLY AS TO MATTERS OF COSTS.  SEE
BEAMES, COSTS IN EQUITY (ADVERTISEMENT TO SECOND EDITION).  BUT THE
CURRENT OF AUTHORITY IS UNIFORM AND UNEQUIVOCAL.    THE POWER OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS TO GIVE COSTS WAS RECOGNIZED BY IMPLICATION IN THE FIRST
JUDICIARY ACT.  ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, CH. 20, SEC. 20, 1 STAT.
83.  THE STATUTORY-SYSTEM PRIOR TO 1853 REQUIRED "PARTY AND PARTY"
COSTS TO BE TAXED ON THE BASIS OF THE FEES ALLOWED BY STATE PRACTICE,
BUT THE ACT OF FEB. 26, 1853, CH. 80, 10 STAT. 161, SET A UNIFORM SCALE
OF FEES FOR "PARTY AND PARTY" COSTS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  SEE COSTS
IN CIVIL CASES, 30 FED. CAS. 18, 284; STREET, FEDERAL EQUITY PRACTICE
SECS. 1984-1988.  AS TO COSTS "AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT," THE
ENGLISH PRACTICE WAS FOLLOWED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND IT WAS HELD THAT
THE ALLOWANCE OF SUCH COSTS WAS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  TRUSTEES V. GREENOUGH, 105 U.S. 527; DODGE V. TULLEYS, 144
U.S. 451; MEDDAUGH V. WILSON, 151 U.S. 333; COMPARE CENTRAL R. CO. V.
PETTUS, 113 U.S. 116; SEE 4 CYCLOPEDIA OF FEDERAL PROCEDURE SEC. 1086;
2 FOSTER, FEDERAL PRACTICE (6TH ED.)  SEC.  422; 2 STREET, FEDERAL
EQUITY PRACTICE SECS. 2033-2048.  COMPARE THE PRACTICE IN ADMIRALTY,
SHOWN IN THE APOLLON, 9 WHEAT.  362; CANTER V. INSURANCE COMPANIES, 3
PET. 307.  THE PROVISIONS VISIONS OF THE FEE BILL OF 1853 THAT CERTAIN
SPECIFIED FEES AND NO OTHERS SHALL BE TAXED TO ATTORNEYS IN THE COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES APPLIES ONLY TO "PARTY AND PARTY" COSTS.  TRUSTEES
V. GREENOUGH, 105 U.S. 527. 

FN3  E.G., TOOTAL V. SPICER, 4 SIM.  510; HOOD V. WILSON, 2 RUSS.  &
M. 687; STANTON V. HATFIELD, 1 KEEN 358; SUTTON V. DOGGETT, 3 BEAV.  9;
GOLDSMITH V. RUSSELL, 5 DE. G.M. & G. 547; HENDERSON V. DODDS, L.R. 2
EQ. 532; FERGUSON V. GIBSON, L.R. 14 EQ. 379; JERVIS V. WOLFERSTAN,
L.R. 18 EQ. 18. 

FN4  E.G., THOMAS V. JONES, 1 DR. & SM. 134; COMPARE IN RE
RICHARDSON, 14 CH. DIV. 611. 

FN5  FOR EXAMPLES OF THE DISCRETIONARY NATURE OF THE AUTHORITY OF
EQUITY TO TAX COSTS, SEE 3 DANIELL'S, CHANCERY PLEADING AND PRACTICE
(2D ED.)  1381-1410; 2 STREET, FEDERAL EQUITY PRACTICE SECS. 1994
2007. 

FN6  SEE 3 DANIELL'S, CHANCERY PLEADING AND PRACTICE (2D ED.)  1434
1440; 2 STREET, FEDERAL EQUITY PRACTICE SECS. 2033-2048. 

FN7  IN KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. GUARDIAN TRUST CO., SUPRA,
COSTS "AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT" HAD BEEN ASKED IN SUGGESTIONS
ON APPEAL FROM THE ORIGINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, WHILE AFFIRMING ON THE MERITS, PASSED ON THESE
SUGGESTIONS IN A WAY INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT TO ALLOW ONLY "PARTY AND
PARTY" COSTS.  NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN ON THIS POINT.  A SUBSEQUENT
APPLICATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR "SOLICITOR AND CLIENT" COSTS WAS
THEREFORE HELD BARRED. 

FN8  IN TRUSTEES V. GREENOUGH, SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY A HOLDER OF
CERTAIN BONDS AGAINST THE TRUSTEES OF THE STATE IMPROVEMENT FUND
ALLEGING MISMANAGEMENT AND WASTE OF THE FUND WHICH WAS TO SECURE THE
BONDS AND ASKING THAT HIS CLAIM BE ALLOWED, THAT THE FUND BE CHARGED
WITH THE PAYMENT THEREOF, AND THAT AN ACCOUNTING BE HAD.  THIS RELIEF
WAS GRANTED, MUCH PROPERTY WAS RECLAIMED TO THE FUND AND AGENTS WERE
APPOINTED FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE FUND FOR THE PURPOSES OF
LIQUIDATION.  DURING THE LIQUIDATION, THE HOLDER OF THE BONDS WHO HAD
INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS FILED HIS PETITION FOR AN ALLOWANCE FROM THE
FUND OF HIS COSTS AS BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND CLIENT.  SUCH COSTS WERE
ALLOWED WITHOUT ANY SUGGESTION THAT THE APPLICATION FOR THEM WAS NOT
TIMELY. 

FN9  PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, A
FINAL DECREE IN A SUIT IN EQUITY COULD BE REVISED ONLY DURING THE TERM
OF COURT OF ITS ENTRY.  CAMERON V. M'ROBERTS, 3 WHEAT.  591; BUCKEYE
CO. V. HOCKING VALLEY CO., 269 U.S. 42.  THE SAME LIMITATION EXISTED ON
THE POWER OF A DISTRICT COURT TO GRANT A REHEARING OF AN APPEALABLE
DECREE.  EQUITY RULE 88.  THESE TIME LIMITATIONS ARE NO LONGER
APPLICABLE.  RULES 59 AND 60 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SET FORTH
THE TIME IN WHICH THESE ACTIONS MAY BE TAKEN, BUT UNDER THOSE SECTIONS
THE PASSAGE OF THE TERM OF COURT IS NOT MATERIAL.  INDEED, RULE 6(C)
PROVIDES:  "THE PERIOD OF TIME PROVIDED FOR THE DOING OF ANY ACT OR THE
TAKING OF ANY PROCEEDING IS NOT AFFECTED OR LIMITED BY THE EXPIRATION
OF A TERM OF COURT.  THE EXPIRATION OF A TERM OF COURT IN NO WAY
AFFECTS THE POWER OF A DISTRICT COURT TO DO ANY ACT OR TAKE ANY
PROCEEDING IN ANY CIVIL ACTION WHICH HAS BEEN PENDING BEFORE IT."  IT
WAS STATED IN THE NOTES TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PREPARED BY
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MARCH 1938, THAT THIS SECTION "ELIMINATES THE
DIFFICULTIES CAUSED BY THE EXPIRATION OF TERMS OF COURT." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















KOHN V. CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CO., 306 U.S. 531 


NO. 177.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 2, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  -
AFFIRMED. 


A SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE TAX,
ALLEGED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WILL NOT LIE WHERE THE ENFORCEMENT IS
BY SUIT PENDING IN A STATE COURT AND WHERE THE STATE COURTS AFFORD A
PLAIN, SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT REMEDY.  JUDICIAL CODE SECS. 265 AND 24,
PAR. 1, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF AUGUST 21, 1937.  P. 534. 

KOHN ET AL., ADMINISTRATORS, V. CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
DENIED APPLICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AND
DISMISSED THE BILL, IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE LIQUOR
TAX. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ACTING THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER OF
REVENUE, BROUGHT SUIT IN THE FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT OF THAT STATE TO
RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF A TAX CLAIMED TO BE DUE FROM THE CENTRAL
DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, A KENTUCKY CORPORATION.  A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT WAS
ISSUED AND LEVIED UPON CERTAIN WHISKEY WHICH APPELLANTS CLAIMED WAS
SUBJECT TO THEIR LIEN UNDER A CHATTEL MORTGAGE EXECUTED BY THE
COMPANY.  THE MORTGAGOR WAS IN DEFAULT AND APPELLANTS HAD TAKEN
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. 

CONTENDING THAT THE STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE TAX WAS ASSESSED AND
SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED (ALCOHOL CONTROL ACT, EFFECTIVE MARCH 17, 1934,
ALCOHOL BEVERAGE TAX ACT, EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 1936, AND ALCOHOL BEVERAGE
CONTROL LAW, EFFECTIVE MARCH 7, 1938) WERE INVALID UNDER THE STATE
CONSTITUTION AND ALSO UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE CONTRACT CLAUSE,
AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, APPELLANTS BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AGAINST
THE COMMONWEALTH, ON RELATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, AND THE
SHERIFF, TO RESTRAIN THE PROCEEDINGS TO COLLECT THE TAX AND TO PREVENT
THE DEFENDANTS FROM DISPOSING OF THE PROPERTY WHICH HAD BEEN ATTACHED. 

DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE PETITION UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
PLAINTIFFS HAD AN ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY AND THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT. 

ON HEARING OF THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION, THE DISTRICT COURT, COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES, DISMISSED THE
PETITION.  THE COURT STATED THAT IT WAS ITS OPINION THAT SEC. 12 OF THE
ALCOHOL CONTROL ACT OF 1934 "FURNISHES PETITIONERS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY
...  TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF SAID ACT AND TO RECOVER ANY TAXES
COLLECTED FROM THEM BY THE STATE OF KENTUCKY" THEREUNDER.  THE CASE
COMES HERE ON APPEAL.  JUD.  CODE, SEC. 266, 28 U.S.C. 380. 

APPELLANTS CONTEST THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ASSERTING THAT
UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE ACT OF 1934 - THE TEXT OF WHICH IS SET FORTH IN
THE MARGIN  FN1  - THE REMEDY IS GIVEN ONLY TO THE TAXPAYER AND IS NOT
AVAILABLE TO APPELLANTS, THE TAXPAYER'S MORTGAGEES.  THE COMMONWEALTH
URGES THE CONTRARY, BUT POINTS TO NO DECISION OF THE STATE COURT WHICH
IS DECISIVE OF THAT POINT. 

APART FROM THAT QUESTION, THE COMMONWEALTH INSISTS THAT APPELLANTS
HAD A PLAIN AND ADEQUATE REMEDY BY APPEARING IN THE ATTACHMENT SUIT IN
THE FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT WHERE ALL ISSUES AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
TAX AND THE PROPRIETY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ENFORCEMENT COULD BE
LITIGATED AND DETERMINED, WITH THE ULTIMATE RIGHT OF REVIEW IN THIS
COURT OF ANY FEDERAL QUESTION RAISED AND DECIDED.  THE COMMONWEALTH
POINTS TO THE PROVISION OF THE CIVIL CODE OF PRACTICE OF KENTUCKY, SEC.
29,  FN2  UNDER WHICH ANY PERSON CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY WHICH
HAS BEEN ATTACHED MAY FILE HIS PETITION STATING HIS CLAIM AND
CONTROVERTING THAT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ATTACHMENT WHEREUPON HE MAY
BE MADE A DEFENDANT, HIS PETITION BEING TREATED AS AN ANSWER.  SEE,
ALSO, CARROLL'S KENTUCKY STATUTES, BALDWIN'S 1936 REVISION, SEC. 950
1. 

APPELLANTS ASSERT THAT THE FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OF THE ATTACHMENT SUIT, BUT THAT QUESTION, APPROPRIATELY
ONE FOR THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT, COULD MANIFESTLY BE PRESENTED
AND DETERMINED IN THAT ACTION. 

APPELLANTS ALSO STATE THAT IN THE PRESENT SUIT THEY ASKED THE FEDERAL
COURT TO EXERCISE ITS EQUITY POWERS IN THEIR AID IN THE FORECLOSURE OF
THEIR MORTGAGE, BUT IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS RELIEF IS MERELY
INCIDENTAL AND THAT THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE SUIT IS TO RESTRAIN THE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT WHICH HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO
ENFORCE THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX. 

THIS ENDEAVOR, ASIDE FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE
GOVERNING THE EQUITY JURISDICTION, ENCOUNTERS TWO POSITIVE STATUTORY
PROHIBITIONS; (1) THAT OF SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. 379)
PROVIDING THAT AN INJUNCTION SHALL NOT BE GRANTED TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
IN A STATE COURT (ESSANAY FILM CO. V. KANE, 258 U.S. 358, 361;
MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, 97; HILL V. MARTIN, 296 U.S.
393, 403); AND (2) THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 21, 1937(C. 726,
50 STAT. 738) AMENDING THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE TO THE EFFECT THAT "NO DISTRICT COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF
ANY SUIT TO ENJOIN, SUSPEND, OR RESTRAIN THE ASSESSMENT, LEVY, OR
COLLECTION OF ANY TAX IMPOSED BY OR PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF ANY STATE
WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW OR IN
EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE." 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF 1934(CARROLL'S KENTUCKY STATUTES,
BALDWIN'S 1936 REVISION, SEC. 4214A-23) IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"NO SUIT SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT TO RESTRAIN OR DELAY THE
COLLECTION OR PAYMENT OF THE TAX LEVIED BY THIS ACT.  THE AGGRIEVED
TAXPAYER SHALL PAY WITH OR WITHOUT PROTEST THE TAX AS AND WHEN REQUIRED
AND MAY AT ANY TIME WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH PAYMENT SUE
THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGH ITS AGENT, THE AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, IN
AN ACTION AT LAW IN ANY COURT, STATE OR FEDERAL, OTHERWISE HAVING
JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES AND SUBJECT MATTER, FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE
TAX PAID WITH LEGAL INTEREST THEREON FROM THE DATE OF PAYMENT.  IF IT
IS FINALLY DETERMINED THAT SAID TAX OR ANY PART THEREOF WAS WRONGFULLY
COLLECTED, FOR ANY REASON, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE AUDITOR OF
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS TO ISSUE HIS WARRANT ON THE TREASURER OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FOR THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAX SO ADJUDGED TO HAVE
BEEN WRONGFULLY COLLECTED TOGETHER WITH LEGAL INTEREST THEREON.  THE
TREASURER SHALL PAY THE SAME AT ONCE OUT OF THE GENERAL EXPENDITURE
FUND OF THE STATE IN PREFERENCE TO OTHER WARRANTS OR CLAIMS AGAINST THE
COMMONWEALTH.  A SEPARATE SUIT NEED NOT BE FILED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL
PAYMENT MADE BY ANY TAXPAYER, BUT A RECOVERY MAY BE HAD IN ONE SUIT FOR
AS MANY PAYMENTS AS MAY HAVE BEEN MADE." 

FN2  THE TEXT OF SEC. 29 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF PRACTICE IS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"IN AN ACTION OR PROCEEDING FOR THE RECOVERY OF REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY, OR FOR THE SUBJECTION THEREOF TO A DEMAND OF THE PLAINTIFF
UNDER AN ATTACHMENT OR OTHER LIEN, ANY PERSON CLAIMING A RIGHT TO, OR
INTEREST IN, THE PROPERTY OR ITS PROCEEDS, MAY, BEFORE PAYMENT OF THE
PROCEEDS TO THE PLAINTIFF, FILE, IN THE ACTION, HIS VERIFIED PETITION
STATING HIS CLAIM AND CONTROVERTING THAT OF THE PLAINTIFF; WHEREUPON
THE COURT MAY ORDER HIM TO BE MADE A DEFENDANT; AND UPON THAT BEING
DONE, HIS PETITION SHALL BE TREATED AS HIS ANSWER.  BUT IF HE BE A NON
RESIDENT HE MUST GIVE SECURITY FOR COSTS." 
..END :























HIGGINBOTHAM V. BATON ROUGE, 306 U.S. 535 


NO. 462.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 190 LA.
821 - 183 SO. 168, AFFIRMED. 


1.  BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE INCUMBENT'S TERM, THE MUNICIPAL
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC PARKS AND STREETS TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN
ELECTED WAS ABOLISHED BY LATER LEGISLATION, PURSUANT TO WHICH HE WAS
EMPLOYED, UNTIL THE NEXT ELECTION, TO RENDER AS SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS
AND STREETS UNDER CONTROL OF THE MAYOR THE SAME SERVICE PERTAINING TO
THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF THE CITY IN THE SUPERVISION OF ITS PARKS
AND STREETS AS HE HAD RENDERED AS COMMISSIONER AND AT THE SAME SALARY. 
HELD THAT LATER ACTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THE CITY TERMINATING THE
EMPLOYMENT BEFORE THE TERM HAD EXPIRED WAS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE POWER
OVER PUBLIC OFFICES AND NOT AN IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT OBLIGATION WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 535, 539. 

2.  WHILE THIS COURT IN APPLYING THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION MUST REACH AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO THE EXISTENCE AND
NATURE OF THE ALLEGED CONTRACT, GREAT WEIGHT IS ATTACHED TO THE VIEWS
OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  P. 538. 

HIGGINBOTHAM V. CITY OF BATON ROUGE. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN
AN ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TO RECOVER MONEY ALLEGED TO BE DUE AS
SALARY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, IN MARCH, 1935, PURSUANT TO ACT NO. 1 OF THE
FIRST EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF 1935 OF THE LEGISLATURE OF LOUISIANA,
ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THAT THE CITY WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
RETAIN APPELLANT, POWERS HIGGINBOTHAM, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
PARKS AND STREETS, AND THAT HIS EMPLOYMENT IN THAT CAPACITY WAS
TERMINATED.  CONTENDING THAT HE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED FOR A TERM CONTINUING
UNTIL NOVEMBER, 1936, AND THAT THE LEGISLATION ABOVEMENTIONED
CONSTITUTED AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF HIS CONTRACT IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 10 OF ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, APPELLANT BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RECOVER THE BALANCE OF HIS
SALARY FOR THE STATED TERM.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE AFFIRMED
THE JUDGMENT DISMISSING HIS COMPLAINT.  190 LA. 821; 183 SO. 168. 

THE PERTINENT LEGISLATION WITH RESPECT TO THE MUNICIPAL POSITION IN
QUESTION IS COMPREHENSIVELY REVIEWED IN THE OPINION OF THE STATE
COURT.  IT APPEARS THAT THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE HAS A COMMISSION FORM
OF GOVERNMENT ADOPTED IN 1914 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT NO. 207 OF
1912.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION COUNCIL IS DIVIDED AMONG THREE
DEPARTMENTS, VIZ. (1) THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, (2)
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, AND (3) THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PARKS AND
STREETS.  IT WAS PROVIDED THAT A COMMISSIONER SHOULD BE ELECTED FOR
EACH DEPARTMENT, THE MAYOR BEING EX OFFICIO COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY.  IN 1921 THE TERMS OF OFFICE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION COUNCIL WERE FIXED AT FOUR YEARS, THE ELECTION TO BE HAD IN
APRIL.  APPELLANT WAS ELECTED COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
PARKS AND STREETS IN APRIL, 1931, FOR A TERM WHICH WAS TO EXPIRE IN
MAY, 1935.  BUT IN 1934 THE DATE FOR THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS WAS
POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER, 1936, AND APPELLANT'S TERM OF OFFICE WAS
EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY.  LATER, BY ACT NO. 13 OF THE THIRD EXTRAORDINARY
SESSION OF 1934, THE LEGISLATURE ABOLISHED THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC PARKS AND STREETS AND TRANSFERRED ITS FUNCTIONS TO THE
MAYOR.  THERE WAS ALSO CREATED A DEPARTMENT OF STATE COORDINATION AND
PUBLIC WELFARE AND PROVISION WAS MADE FOR THE ELECTION OF A
COMMISSIONER OF THAT DEPARTMENT.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A PROVISO THAT
THE PERSON THEN FILLING THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC PARKS AND STREETS SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ENTER THE EMPLOY OF THE
CITY, AT A SALARY EQUAL TO THAT THERETOFORE ALLOWED TO THE
COMMISSIONER, "IN THE WORK UNDER THE SAID MAYOR AND SAID PERSON SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE IN SAID SERVICE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR UNTIL
THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS IN SAID MUNICIPALITY."  APPELLANT
WAS THE PERSON THUS DESCRIBED, AND ACCORDINGLY, IN JANUARY, 1935, THE
COMMISSION COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE RECITING THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS AND PROVIDING FOR THE EMPLOYMENT OF APPELLANT AS
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC PARKS AND STREETS, UNDER THE MAYOR, "AT THE
SAME SALARY NOW PROVIDED FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC PARKS AND
STREETS, HIS EMPLOYMENT TO CONTINUE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR AND UNTIL THE
NEXT GENERAL ELECTION FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICERS."  APPELLANT ACCEPTED THE
EMPLOYMENT AND ENTERED UPON THE DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES, AS TO THE
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF WHICH NO QUESTION IS RAISED. 

THE STATE COURT HELD THAT THE POSITION IN QUESTION WAS "IN THE NATURE
OF A PUBLIC OFFICE" WITH GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND THAT THE
LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN ABOLISHING IT DID NOT CONTRAVENE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AS TO IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS.  THE COURT
REFERRED TO THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OF 1912 ABOVEMENTIONED THAT "ALL
THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY" CONFERRED UPON THE CITY BY ITS CHARTER, NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WERE DECLARED TO BE
"RESERVED TO THE CITY UNIMPAIRED" TO BE EXERCISED BY THE MAYOR AND
COMMISSION COUNCIL.  FURTHER, THAT BY THE CHARTER OF THE CITY (SEC. 7
OF ACT NO. 169 OF 1898) IT WAS PROVIDED "THAT THE 'EMPLOYEES' OF THE
CITY ARE REMOVABLE AS THEREINAFTER SPECIFIED" AND THAT BY A SUBSEQUENT
PROVISION (SEC. 52 AS AMENDED BY ACT NO. 249 OF 1914) IT WAS DECLARED
THAT "ALL OFFICERS ELECTED BY THE COUNCIL SHALL BE REMOVABLE BY THE
COUNCIL AT PLEASURE."  AGAIN, THAT BY THE ACT OF 1912 IT WAS DECLARED
THAT "ANY OFFICIAL OR ASSISTANT ELECTED OR APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION
COUNCIL MAY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE AT ANY TIME BY A VOTE OF THE
MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL," EXCEPT AS THEREIN OTHERWISE
PROVIDED, AND THAT THERE WAS NO EXCEPTION ELSEWHERE THAT MIGHT BE
APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE.  THE COURT SAID THAT THE GENERAL RULE
THAT A MUNICIPAL COUNCIL "MAY REMOVE AT ANY TIME ANY OFFICIAL APPOINTED
OR ELECTED BY THE COUNCIL, OR ANYONE EMPLOYED BY THE COUNCIL TO PERFORM
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS," HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED IN ITS FORMER DECISIONS,
WHICH WERE CITED.  183 SO. AT P. 172. 

IN THIS VIEW THE STATE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASE WAS NOT
CONTROLLED BY HALL V. WISCONSIN, 103 U.S. 5, UPON WHICH APPELLANT
RELIES, - A CASE OF A CONTRACT WITH A STATE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF
SPECIFIC SERVICES OF A SCIENTIFIC CHARACTER UNDER A STATUTE PROVIDING
FOR "A GEOLOGICAL, MINERALOGICAL AND AGRICULTURAL SURVEY" - A CONTRACT
WHICH WAS HELD TO BE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, AND RATHER
THAT THE CASE WAS GOVERNED BY THE GENERAL DOCTRINE REAFFIRMED IN NEWTON
V. COMMISSIONERS, 100 U.S. 548, 557.  WHILE THE PARTICULAR QUESTION WAS
NOT INVOLVED IN THAT CASE, THE COURT STATED THE FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE THAT
"THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF A STATE, EXCEPT SO FAR AS RESTRAINED BY ITS
OWN CONSTITUTION, IS AT ALL TIMES ABSOLUTE WITH RESPECT TO ALL OFFICES
WITHIN ITS REACH.  IT MAY AT PLEASURE CREATE OR ABOLISH THEM, OR MODIFY
THEIR DUTIES.  IT MAY ALSO SHORTEN OR LENGTHEN THE TERM OF SERVICE." 
ID., P. 559.  SEE, ALSO, BUTLER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 10 HOW.  402; CRENSHAW
V. UNITED STATES, 134 U.S. 99, 106; PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 300
U.S. 319, 322; DODGE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 302 U.S. 74, 78, 79. 

WHILE THIS COURT IN APPLYING THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
MUST REACH AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF
THE ALLEGED CONTRACT (LARSON V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 278 U.S. 429, 433; UNITED
STATES MORTGAGE CO. V. MATTHEWS, 293 U.S. 232, 236), WE ATTACH GREAT
WEIGHT TO THE VIEWS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  COOMBES V.
GETZ, 285 U.S. 434, 441; PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA; DODGE V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA.  IN THIS INSTANCE WE FIND NO REASON FOR
DISAGREEING WITH THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
LOUISIANA.  THE ACT PROVIDING FOR APPELLANT'S "EMPLOYMENT" DID NOT
CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES WHICH HE HAD BEEN PERFORMING AS
COMMISSIONER.  INSTEAD OF ACTING AS COMMISSIONER HE RENDERED THE SAME
SERVICE AS SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC PARKS AND STREETS UNDER THE CONTROL
OF THE MAYOR.  HIS DUTIES STILL DISTINCTLY PERTAINED TO THE PERFORMANCE
OF THE ORDINARY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF THE CITY IN THE SUPERVISION
OF ITS STREETS AND PARKS AND HIS POSITION AS SUPERINTENDENT BOTH WITH
RESPECT TO DUTIES AND TENURE MAY PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS SUBJECT TO THE
CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE AND OF THE COMMISSION COUNCIL ACTING UNDER
ITS AUTHORITY. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 
..END :


















HONEYMAN V. JACOBS, 306 U.S. 539 


NO. 465.  SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 10, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 278
N.Y. 467 - 17 N.E.2D 131, AFFIRMED. 


A STATE LAW PROVIDING THAT A MORTGAGEE WHO HAS BID IN THE PROPERTY AT
FORECLOSURE SALE SHALL HAVE NO DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT IF THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY EQUALS THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT AND INTEREST PLUS COSTS AND
EXPENSES, DOES NOT IMPAIR THE OBLIGATIONS OF PREEXISTING MORTGAGE
CONTRACTS WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  RICHMOND MORTGAGE CORP. V. WACHOVIA BANK, 300 U.S. 124,
128.  P. 545. 

HONEYMAN V. JACOBS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT WHICH CONFIRMED A
FORECLOSURE SALE TO THE APPELLANT AS MORTGAGEE-PURCHASER BUT OVERRULED
HIS MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, COMING HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE STATE COURT, PRESENTS THE
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION OF SEC. 1083A OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE ACT OF NEW YORK
(CHAPTER 794 OF THE LAWS OF 1933)  FN1  UNDER WHICH THE APPELLANT, A
MORTGAGEE OF REAL PROPERTY, WAS DENIED A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT IN A
FORECLOSURE SUIT, WHERE THE STATE COURT FOUND THAT THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE MORTGAGEE AT THE FORECLOSURE SALE WAS EQUAL
TO THE DEBT SECURED BY THE MORTGAGE. 

THE MORTGAGE WAS EXECUTED IN FEBRUARY, 1928, THAT IS, PRIOR TO THE
LEGISLATION IN QUESTION, TO SECURE A BOND FOR $15,000, WITH INTEREST,
PAYABLE IN FEBRUARY, 1931.  ON DEFAULT IN PAYMENT, APPELLANT, THE
HOLDER OF THE BOND AND MORTGAGE, BROUGHT SUIT FOR FORECLOSURE AND
JUDGMENT FOR FORECLOSURE AND SALE WAS ENTERED IN APRIL, 1938.  THE
PROPERTY WAS THEN SOLD TO APPELLANT FOR THE SUM OF $7500.  IN THE
REFEREE'S REPORT OF SALE THE AMOUNT DUE ON THE BOND AND MORTGAGE WAS
STATED TO BE $15,771.17, AND THE TAXES, FEES AND EXPENSES AMOUNTED TO
$1319.03, LEAVING A DEFICIENCY OF $9590.20. 

DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN THE FORECLOSURE SUIT. 
HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 275 N.Y. 382; 9 N.E.2D 970; 302 U.S. 375, 378. 
ACCORDINGLY, APPELLANT MADE HIS MOTION IN THAT SUIT TO CONFIRM THE SALE
AND FOR DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT.  PROOF WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT THE
PRESENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS $25,318.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE
CORRECTNESS OF THIS VALUATION WAS CONTESTED.  THE COURT THEREUPON
CONFIRMED THE SALE AND DENIED THE MOTION FOR DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT UPON
THE GROUND "THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS EQUAL TO THE DEBT OF THE
PLAINTIFF."  APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT SEC. 1083-A AS THUS APPLIED
VIOLATED THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS OVERRULED AND THIS
RULING WAS SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  278 N.Y. 467; 17 N.E.2D
131.  THE COURT FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER DECISIONS, CITING HONEYMAN V.
HANAN, 275 N.Y. 382; 9 N.E.2D 970; KLINKE V. SAMUELS, 264 N.Y. 144; 190
N.E. 324; CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. V. ARDLEA CORPORATION, 267 N.Y.
224; 196 N.E. 34. 

APPELLANT INVOKES THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT IS
IMPAIRED BY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION WHICH UNDER THE FORM OF MODIFYING
THE REMEDY IMPAIRS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.  SEE STURGES V. CROWNINSHIELD, 4
WHEAT.  122, 200; VON HOFFMAN V. CITY OF QUINCY, 4 WALL.  535, 553,
554; ANTONI V. GREENHOW, 107 U.S. 769, 775; HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN.
V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 430, 434, AND CASES CITED, NOTE 13; W.B.
WORTHEN CO. V. THOMAS, 292 U.S. 426, 433; W.B. WORTHEN CO. V.
KAVANAUGH, 295 U.S. 56, 60.  AS WE SAID IN RICHMOND MORTGAGE CORP. V.
WACHOVIA BANK, 300 U.S. 124, 128, "THE LEGISLATURE MAY MODIFY, LIMIT OR
ALTER THE REMEDY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A CONTRACT WITHOUT IMPAIRING ITS
OBLIGATION, BUT IN SO DOING, IT MAY NOT DENY ALL REMEDY OR SO
CIRCUMSCRIBE THE EXISTING REMEDY WITH CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS
SERIOUSLY TO IMPAIR THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT." 

WE HAVE HERETOFORE DECIDED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 1083-A THAT
THE RIGHT TO A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE
FORECLOSURE SUIT RAISES NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION UNDER THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE.  HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 302 U.S. AT P. 378.  THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER IN THE INSTANT CASE THE DENIAL OF A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT
SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRED APPELLANT'S CONTRACT RIGHT.  THE BOND PROVIDED
FOR THE PAYMENT TO HIM OF $15,000 WITH THE STIPULATED INTEREST.  THE
MORTGAGE WAS EXECUTED TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THAT INDEBTEDNESS.  THE
CONTRACT CONTEMPLATED THAT THE MORTGAGEE SHOULD MAKE HIMSELF WHOLE, IF
NECESSARY, OUT OF THE SECURITY BUT NOT THAT HE SHOULD BE ENRICHED AT
THE EXPENSE OF THE DEBTOR OR REALIZE MORE THAN WHAT WOULD REPAY THE
DEBT WITH THE COSTS AND EXPENSES OF THE SUIT.  HAVING A TOTAL DEBT OF
$15,771.17, WITH EXPENSES, ETC., OF $1319.03, APPELLANT HAS OBTAINED
THROUGH HIS FORECLOSURE SUIT THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR FOUND WITHOUT
QUESTION TO BE WORTH OVER $25,000.  HE HAS THAT IN HAND.  WE KNOW OF NO
PRINCIPLE WHICH ENTITLES HIM TO RECEIVE ANYTHING MORE.  ASSUMING THAT
THE STATUTE BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT PERMITTED A RECOVERY OF AN ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT THROUGH A SO-CALLED DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, WE CANNOT SAY THAT
THERE WAS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION FOR SUCH A PROVISION WHICH
PRECLUDED THE LEGISLATURE FROM CHANGING IT SO AS TO CONFINE THE
CREDITOR TO SECURING THE SATISFACTION OF HIS ENTIRE DEBT. 

APPROPRIATE EQUITABLE POWERS.  BY THE NORMAL EXERCISE OF THESE POWERS,
A COURT OF EQUITY IN A FORECLOSURE SUIT WOULD HAVE FULL AUTHORITY TO
FIX THE TERMS AND TIME OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE AND TO REFUSE TO CONFIRM
SALES UPON EQUITABLE GROUNDS WHERE THEY WERE FOUND TO BE UNFAIR OR THE
PRICE BID WAS INADEQUATE.  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL,
SUPRA, AT PP. 446, 447, AND CASES CITED, NOTE 18.  RICHMOND MORTGAGE
CORP. V. WACHOVIA BANK, SUPRA, AT P. 129.  IN THIS CONTROL OVER THE
FORECLOSURE SALE UNDER ITS DECREE, THE COURT COULD CONSIDER AND
DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD TO THE MORTGAGEE AND WHAT THE
MORTGAGEE WOULD THUS REALIZE UPON THE MORTGAGE DEBT IF THE SALE WERE
CONFIRMED.  SEE MONAGHAN V. MAY, 242 APP. DIV. 64, 67; 273 N.Y.S. 475;
GUARANTEED TITLE & MORTGAGE CO. V. SCHEFFRES, 247 APP. DIV. 294; 285
N.Y.S. 464. 

THE REASONING OF THIS COURT IN RICHMOND MORTGAGE CORP. V. WACHOVIA
BANK, SUPRA, IS APPLICABLE AND GOVERNS OUR DECISION.  THERE, A STATUTE
OF NORTH CAROLINA, ENACTED AFTER THE EXECUTION OF NOTES SECURED BY A
DEED OF TRUST, PROVIDED THAT WHERE A MORTGAGEE CAUSED THE SALE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY BY A TRUSTEE AND, BECOMING THE PURCHASER FOR A SUM
LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT, THEREAFTER BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR A
DEFICIENCY, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SHOW, BY WAY OF DEFENSE AND
SET-OFF, THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS FAIRLY WORTH THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT
OR THAT THE SUM BID WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE TRUE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY, AND THUS DEFEAT THE CLAIM IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  UNDER THE
FORMER LAW OF THAT STATE, WHEN THE MORTGAGEE BECAME THE PURCHASER AT
THE TRUSTEE'S SALE UNDER A POWER IN THE DEED OF TRUST, HE MIGHT
THEREAFTER IN AN ACTION AT LAW RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE
HE HAD BID AND THE AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS.  WE FOUND THAT THE OTHER
REMEDY BY BILL IN EQUITY TO FORECLOSE THE MORTGAGE WAS STILL
AVAILABLE.  AND THAT IN SUCH A PROCEEDING THE CHANCELLOR COULD SET
ASIDE THE SALE IF THE PRICE BID WAS INADEQUATE, AND, IN ADDITION, HE
MIGHT AWARD A MONEY DECREE FOR THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE AVAILS OF THE
SALE FELL BELOW THE AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS BUT THAT "HIS DECREE IN
THAT BEHALF WOULD BE GOVERNED BY WELL-UNDERSTOOD PRINCIPLES OF
EQUITY."  THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE STATUTE MODIFYING ONE
OF THE EXISTING REMEDIES FOR REALIZING THE VALUE OF THE SECURITY COULD
NOT "FAIRLY BE SAID TO DO MORE THAN RESTRICT THE MORTGAGEE TO THAT FOR
WHICH HE CONTRACTED, NAMELY, PAYMENT IN FULL."  THE ACT RECOGNIZED THE
OBLIGATION OF HIS CONTRACT AND HIS RIGHT TO ITS FULL ENFORCEMENT BUT
LIMITED THAT RIGHT "SO AS TO PREVENT HIS OBTAINING MORE THAN HIS DUE. 
BY THE OLD AND WELL KNOWN REMEDY OF FORECLOSURE, A MORTGAGEE WAS SO
LIMITED BECAUSE OF THE CHANCELLOR'S CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDING."  THAT
"CLASSICAL METHOD" OF REALIZATION UPON A MORTGAGE SECURITY THROUGH A
FORECLOSURE SUIT HAD ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD "TO BE FAIR TO BOTH PARTIES
TO THE CONTRACT AND TO AFFORD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY TO THE MORTGAGEE."  IN
THAT VIEW IT APPEARED THAT THE NEW LAW AS TO PROCEEDINGS FOR A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AFTER THE EXERCISE OF A POWER OF SALE "MERELY
RESTRICTED THE EXERCISE OF THE CONTRACTUAL REMEDY TO PROVIDE A
PROCEDURE WHICH, TO SOME EXTENT, RENDERS THE REMEDY BY A TRUSTEE'S SALE
CONSISTENT WITH THAT IN EQUITY."  AND THAT DID "NOT IMPAIR THE
OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT." 

WE REACH A SIMILAR RESULT HERE UPON THE SAME GROUND - THAT UNDER THE
FINDING OF THE STATE COURT THE MORTGAGEE HAS OBTAINED SATISFACTION OF
HIS DEBT AND THAT THE DENIAL BY THE STATUTE OF A FURTHER RECOVERY DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 1083-A, PROVIDES: 

"1083-A.  LIMITATION UPON DEFICIENCY JUDGMENTS DURING EMERGENCY
PERIOD.  - NO JUDGMENT SHALL BE GRANTED FOR ANY RESIDUE OF THE DEBT
REMAINING UNSATISFIED AS PRESCRIBED BY THE PRECEDING SECTION WHERE THE
MORTGAGED PROPERTY SHALL BE SOLD DURING THE EMERGENCY, EXCEPT AS HEREIN
PROVIDED.  SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE MAKING OF A MOTION FOR AN ORDER
CONFIRMING THE SALE OR IN ANY EVENT WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE DATE
OF THE SALE, THE PARTY TO WHOM SUCH RESIDUE SHALL BE OWING MAY MAKE A
MOTION IN THE ACTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT UPON
NOTICE TO THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM SUCH JUDGMENT IS SOUGHT OR THE
ATTORNEY WHO SHALL HAVE APPEARED FOR SUCH PARTY IN SUCH ACTION.  SUCH
NOTICE SHALL BE SERVED PERSONALLY OR IN SUCH OTHER MANNER AS THE COURT
MAY DIRECT.  UPON SUCH MOTION THE COURT, WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT
APPEARS, SHALL DETERMINE, UPON AFFIDAVIT OR OTHERWISE AS IT SHALL
DIRECT, THE FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET VALUE OF THE MORTGAGED PREMISES
AS OF THE DATE OF SALE OR SUCH NEAREST EARLIER DATE AS THERE SHALL HAVE
BEEN ANY MARKET VALUE THEREOF AND SHALL MAKE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE
ENTRY OF A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT.  SUCH DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT SHALL BE FOR
AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE AMOUNT OWING BY THE PARTY LIABLE AS
DETERMINED BY THE JUDGMENT WITH INTEREST, PLUS THE AMOUNT OWING ON ALL
PRIOR LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES WITH INTEREST, PLUS COSTS AND
DISBURSEMENTS OF THE ACTION INCLUDING THE REFEREE'S FEE AND
DISBURSEMENTS, LESS THE MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE COURT OR THE
SALE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY WHICHEVER SHALL BE THE HIGHER.  IF NO MOTION
FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT SHALL BE MADE AS HEREIN PRESCRIBED THE
PROCEEDS OF THE SALE REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN FULL
SATISFACTION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND NO RIGHT TO RECOVER ANY
DEFICIENCY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL EXIST." 
..END :





















CARRIER V. BRYANT, 306 U.S. 545 


NO. 541.  ARGUED MARCH 27, 28, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 214
N.C. 174 - 198 S.E. 651, AFFIRMED. 


NEGOTIABLE NOTES AND UNITED STATES BONDS PURCHASED, AND HELD AS
INVESTMENTS, FOR AN INCOMPETENT WORLD WAR VETERAN BY HIS GUARDIAN OUT
OF "PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS" MADE TO HIM BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER LAWS
RELATING TO SUCH VETERANS, HELD NOT EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF
AUGUST 12, 1935 FROM EXECUTION UPON A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
INCOMPETENT.  P. 547. 

CARRIER ET AL. V. BRYANT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 622, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISSOLVING AN ORDER WHICH RESTRAINED RESPONDENT FROM EXECUTING UPON A
JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SUPREME COURT, NORTH CAROLINA, RULED THAT NEGOTIABLE NOTES AND
UNITED STATES BONDS PURCHASED, AND HELD AS INVESTMENTS, FOR AN
INCOMPETENT WORLD WAR VETERAN BY HIS GUARDIAN OUT OF "PAYMENTS OF
BENEFITS" AUTHORIZED UNDER LAWS RELATING TO SUCH VETERANS, WERE SUBJECT
TO EXECUTION UPON A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INCOMPETENT.  PETITIONERS
CHALLENGE THAT VIEW AND CLAIM IMMUNITY UNDER SEC. 3 ACT AUGUST 12,
1935(C. 510, 49 STAT. 607, 609; 38 U.S.C. SEC. 454A). 

"SEC. 3.  PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS DUE OR TO BECOME DUE SHALL NOT BE
ASSIGNABLE, AND SUCH PAYMENTS MADE TO, OR ON ACCOUNT OF, A BENEFICIARY
UNDER ANY OF THE LAWS RELATING TO VETERANS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
TAXATION, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS, AND SHALL NOT
BE LIABLE TO ATTACHMENT, LEVY, OR SEIZURE BY OR UNDER ANY LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE PROCESS WHATEVER, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT BY THE
BENEFICIARY.  SUCH PROVISIONS SHALL NOT ATTACH TO CLAIMS OF THE UNITED
STATES ARISING UNDER SUCH LAWS NOR SHALL THE EXEMPTION HEREIN CONTAINED
AS TO TAXATION EXTEND TO ANY PROPERTY PURCHASED IN PART OR WHOLLY OUT
OF SUCH PAYMENTS.  SECTION 4747 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AND SECTION 22
OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924, ARE HEREBY REPEALED, AND ALL
OTHER ACTS INCONSISTENT HEREWITH ARE HEREBY MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY.  THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT THE
ASSIGNMENT BY ANY PERSON, TO WHOM CONVERTED INSURANCE SHALL BE PAYABLE
UNDER TITLE III OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924, OF HIS INTEREST
IN SUCH INSURANCE TO ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PERMITTED CLASS OF
BENEFICIARIES. 

"SEC. 5.  THAT THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT AND BE IN FORCE FROM AND
AFTER ITS PASSAGE, BUT THE PROVISIONS HEREOF SHALL APPLY TO PAYMENTS
MADE HERETOFORE UNDER ANY OF THE ACTS MENTIONED HEREIN." 

THE CONCLUSION BELOW IS SUPPORTED BY MCCURRY V. PEEK, (1936) 54 GA.
APP. 341; 187 S.E. 854, THE ONLY OTHER OPINION SQUARELY UPON THE POINT
HERE INVOLVED WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION. 

THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 3, ALTHOUGH NOT ENTIRELY FELICITOUS, CONFLICTS
WITH THE PETITIONERS' INSISTENCE. 

THE FIRST SENTENCE GRANTS EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION, CLAIMS OF
CREDITORS, ATTACHMENT, LEVY OR SEIZURE UNDER ANY LEGAL PROCESS
WHATEVER.  THE THINGS EXEMPTED ARE "PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS" DUE OR TO
BECOME DUE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT BY THE BENEFICIARY. 

INVESTMENTS PURCHASED WITH MONEY RECEIVED IN SETTLEMENT OF BENEFITS
ARE NOT SUCH PAYMENTS DUE OR TO BECOME DUE.  ACCORDINGLY, GIVING THE
WORDS EMPLOYED THEIR ORDINARY MEANING, THE NOTES AND BONDS IN QUESTION
ARE NOT EXEMPTED BY THE FIRST SENTENCE IN SEC. 3.  IT LEFT THEM, LIKE
OTHER PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO TAXATION, CLAIMS OF CREDITORS, AND LEGAL
PROCESS. 

THE SECOND SENTENCE IN THE SECTION CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN BENEFIT PAYMENTS AND PROPERTY PURCHASED WITH MONEY THEREFROM. 
IT DECLARES THE EXEMPTION PROVISIONS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE SHALL NOT
ATTACH TO CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES; ALSO THAT EXEMPTION FROM
TAXATION SHALL NOT EXTEND TO PROPERTY PURCHASED OUT OF BENEFIT
PAYMENTS.  NOTHING IS SAID CONCERNING CLAIMS OF CREDITORS. 
NEVERTHELESS, PETITIONERS SEEM TO MAINTAIN, IMMUNITY FROM THESE MUST BE
INFERRED.  BUT A MERE DECLARATION THAT INVESTMENTS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO
TAXATION SHALL NOT ENJOY EXEMPTION THEREFROM AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR
HOLDING THEM FREE FROM CLAIMS OF CREDITORS.  ALTHOUGH THE FIRST
SENTENCE EXTENDED NO IMMUNITY TO INVESTMENTS, APPARENTLY OUT OF
ABUNDANT CAUTION, THE SECOND DECLARED THEM SUBJECT TO TAXATION. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OR SUPPOSED PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT
ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONSTRUCTION NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE ORDINARY
IMPORT OF THE WORDS EMPLOYED. 

UNDER SPICER V. SMITH, (1933) 288 U.S. 430, 434, PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
TO THE GUARDIAN VESTED TITLE IN THE WARD.  THE EXEMPTIONS OF THE
STATUTE WOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT IF THE WARD HAD PERSONALLY RECEIVED THE
PAYMENTS. 

REMAINED IN FORCE UNTIL REPEALED BY ACT AUGUST 12, 1935.  IT PROVIDED
 

"NO SUM OF MONEY DUE, OR TO BECOME DUE, TO ANY PENSIONER, SHALL BE
LIABLE TO ATTACHMENT, LEVY, OR SEIZURE BY OR UNDER ANY LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE PROCESS WHATEVER, WHETHER THE SAME REMAINS WITH THE PENSION
OFFICE, OR ANY OFFICER OR AGENT THEREOF, OR IS IN COURSE OF
TRANSMISSION TO THE PENSIONER ENTITLED THERETO, BUT SHALL INSURE WHOLLY
TO THE BENEFIT OF SUCH PENSIONER." 

THIS SECTION WAS CONSIDERED IN MCINTOSH V. AUBREY, (1902) 185 U.S.
122, 124, WHERE IT WAS UNSUCCESSFULLY CLAIMED THAT PROPERTY PURCHASED
WITH PENSION MONEY COULD NOT BE SEIZED UNDER AN EXECUTION.  IT WAS
THERE SAID - 

"THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION OF ITSELF SEEMS TO PRESENT NO DIFFICULTY,
AND IF DOUBT ARISES AT ALL IT IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECISIONS OF
COURTS WHOSE OPINIONS ARE ALWAYS ENTITLED TO RESPECT.  ...  BUT
NOTWITHSTANDING, WE THINK THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IS CLEARLY
EXPRESSED.  IT IS NOT THAT PENSION MONEY SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
ATTACHMENT IN ALL OF ITS SITUATIONS AND TRANSMUTATIONS.  IT IS ONLY TO
BE EXEMPT IN ONE SITUATION, TO WIT, WHEN 'DUE OR TO BECOME DUE.'  FROM
THAT SITUATION THE PENSION MONEY OF PLAINTIFF IN ERROR HAD DEPARTED." 

613(38 U.S.C., SEC. 454), REPEALED BY ACT AUGUST 4, 1935, PROVIDED - 

"THAT THE COMPENSATION, INSURANCE, AND MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT
ALLOWANCE PAYABLE UNDER TITLES II, III, AND IV, RESPECTIVELY, SHALL NOT
BE ASSIGNABLE; SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS OF ANY
PERSON TO WHOM AN AWARD IS MADE UNDER TITLES II, III, OR IV; AND SHALL
BE EXEMPT FROM ALL TAXATION:  PROVIDED, THAT SUCH COMPENSATION,
INSURANCE, AND MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
ANY CLAIMS WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY HAVE, UNDER TITLES II, III, IV,
AND V, AGAINST THE PERSON ON WHOSE ACCOUNT THE COMPENSATION, INSURANCE,
OR MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE IS PAYABLE.  ..." 

TROTTER V. TENNESSEE, (1933) 290 U.S. 354, 356-357, CONSTRUED THIS
AS COMPENSATION, AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION.  WE SAID - 

"THE MONEYS PAYABLE TO THIS SOLDIER WERE UNQUESTIONABLY EXEMPT TILL
THEY CAME INTO HIS HANDS OR THE HANDS OF HIS GUARDIAN.  MCINTOSH V.
AUBREY, 185 U.S. 122.  WE LEAVE THE QUESTION OPEN WHETHER THE EXEMPTION
REMAINED IN FORCE WHILE THEY CONTINUED IN THOSE HANDS OR ON DEPOSIT IN
A BANK.  ... BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE THINK IT VERY CLEAR THAT THERE WAS
AN END TO THE EXEMPTION WHEN THEY LOST THE QUALITY OF MONEYS AND WERE
CONVERTED INTO LAND AND BUILDINGS.  THE STATUTE SPEAKS OF
'COMPENSATION, INSURANCE, AND MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE
PAYABLE' TO THE VETERAN, AND DECLARES THAT THESE SHALL BE EXEMPT.  WE
SEE NO TOKEN OF A PURPOSE TO EXTEND A LIKE IMMUNITY TO PERMANENT
INVESTMENTS OR THE FRUITS OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISES." 

IN 1935 CONGRESS GAVE MUCH CONSIDERATION TO THE EXEMPTION WHICH
SHOULD BE ACCORDED TO VETERANS.  THE OUTCOME IS SHOWN BY SECS. 3 AND 5,
ACT AUGUST 12, 1935, ANTE, P. 546. 

300 U.S. 245, 249-250.  EXEMPTION WAS SUCCESSFULLY CLAIMED FOR BANK
DEPOSITS STANDING IN THE NAME OF A VETERAN'S GUARDIAN UPON THE VIEW
THAT SUCH DEPOSITS, MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE AND SUBJECT TO DEMAND
FOR THE VETERAN'S USE, SHOULD BE TREATED AS IF MONEY IN HIS HANDS. 

"THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924, PROVIDED THAT THE COMPENSATION
AND INSURANCE ALLOWANCES SHOULD BE 'EXEMPT FROM ALL TAXATION.'  THE ACT
OF 1935 IS MORE SPECIFIC, PROVIDING THAT THE PAYMENTS SHALL BE EXEMPT
FROM TAXATION AND SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO PROCESS 'EITHER BEFORE OR
AFTER RECEIPT BY THE BENEFICIARY.'  THERE WAS ADDED THE QUALIFICATION
THAT THE EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT EXTEND 'TO ANY PROPERTY PURCHASED IN PART
OR WHOLLY OUT OF SUCH PAYMENTS.'  THIS MORE DETAILED PROVISION WAS
SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT OF THE EARLIER ACT AND WAS EXPRESSLY MADE
APPLICABLE TO PAYMENTS THERETOFORE MADE.  WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE
PROVISION OF THE LATER ACT WAS INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE FORMER RATHER
THAN TO CHANGE ITS IMPORT AND IT WAS WITH THAT PURPOSE THAT IT WAS MADE
RETROACTIVE.  ... THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OF 1935 THAT THE EXEMPTION
SHOULD NOT APPLY TO PROPERTY PURCHASED OUT OF THE MONEYS RECEIVED FROM
THE GOVERNMENT SHOWS THE INTENT TO DENY EXEMPTION TO INVESTMENTS, AS
WAS RULED IN THE TROTTER CASE." 

THE QUESTIONED JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :









HONOLULU OIL CORP. V. HALLIBURTON, 306 U.S. 550 


NO. 466.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 6, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 98 F.2D
436, REVERSED IN PART - AFFIRMED IN PART. 


CLAIMS 8 TO 19 OF SIMMONS' PATENT NO. 1,930,987(CLAIMS 8 AND 18 BEING
METHOD CLAIMS, AND THE OTHERS APPARATUS CLAIMS), FOR A METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR TESTING PRODUCTIVITY OF FORMATIONS ENCOUNTERED IN
DRILLING OIL AND OTHER DEEP WELLS BY THE ROTARY METHOD, HELD INVALID
FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  PP. 559, 562. 

HONOLULU OIL CORP. ET AL. V. HALLIBURTON ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 479, HALLIBURTON ET AL. V. HONOLULU OIL CORP. ET
AL., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

WRITS OF CERTIORARI ISSUED ON CROSS-PETITIONS, 305 U.S. 591, TO
REVIEW A DECREE WHICH, REVERSING IN PART A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, 18 F.SUPP.  58, HELD CERTAIN APPARATUS CLAIMS OF A PATENT
INVALID AND CERTAIN METHOD CLAIMS VALID AND INFRINGED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT
NO. 1,930,987 APPLIED FOR FEBRUARY 10, 1926 BY SIMMONS AND, AFTER
ASSIGNMENT, ISSUED OCTOBER 17, 1933, TO HALLIBURTON.  IT IS FOR A
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TESTING PRODUCTIVITY OF FORMATIONS ENCOUNTERED
IN OIL AND OTHER DEEP WELLS DRILLED BY THE ROTARY METHOD. 

THE WRITS WERE GRANTED, ON PETITION OF DEFENDANTS HONOLULU OIL
CORPORATION, LTD. ET AL. AND CROSS-PETITION OF PLAINTIFFS HALLIBURTON,
ET AL., TO REVIEW A DECREE  FN1  OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT HOLDING THAT THE METHOD CLAIMS ARE VALID AND
INFRINGED AND TO THAT EXTENT REVERSING A DECREE  FN2  OF THE DISTRICT
COURT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HOLDING THAT THE METHOD AND APPARATUS
CLAIMS ARE INVALID. 

THERE WAS AN EARLIER SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE SAME PATENT BROUGHT
BY THESE PLAINTIFFS IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS.  THAT COURT SUSTAINED THE PATENT AND
FOUND IT INFRINGED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
REVERSED.  FN3  IT HELD THE METHOD CLAIMS INVALID FOR LACK OF INVENTION
AND THAT, WHILE THE APPARATUS CLAIMS MAY DEFINE A SIMPLIFYING
IMPROVEMENT UPON WHICH A COMBINATION PATENT MIGHT REST, THE APPARATUS
WAS NOT OF SUCH CHARACTER AS TO BE INFRINGED BY THE ACCUSED TOOL OF
DEFENDANTS. 

IN RECENT YEARS ROTARY DRILLING HAS BEEN WIDELY USED IN SINKING DEEP
OIL WELLS.  BORING IS DONE BY ROTATION OF A BIT ATTACHED TO A STEEL
PIPE WHICH WHEN SO USED IS CALLED A "DRILL STEM."  A SMALLER BORE,
CALLED "RAT-HOLE," SOMETIMES PRECEDES, AND IS REAMED OUT TO OBTAIN, THE
FULL SIZE HOLE.  TO AID OPERATION, DRILLING FLUID (MUD-LADEN WATER) IS
PUMPED INTO THE UPPER END OF THE DRILL STEM AND ESCAPES INTO THE WELL
AT HIGH VELOCITY THROUGH HOLES IN THE BIT.  IT RISES THROUGH THE SPACE
BETWEEN THE PIPE AND THE EARTH WALLS OF THE WELL AND CARRIES TO THE
SURFACE CUTTINGS MADE BY THE BIT.  IT HOLDS BACK AND SEALS THE
PENETRATED FORMATIONS.  HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE OF THE DRILLING FLUID IS
VERY GREAT AND THE FLUID IN A PENETRATED FORMATION WILL NOT FLOW INTO
THE WELL UNLESS IT IS UNDER GREATER PRESSURE.  IT IS OFTEN DESIRABLE TO
SECURE A SAMPLE OF THE FLUID WITHIN A STRATUM IN THE BOTTOM OF THE WELL
WITHOUT REMOVING THE DRILLING FLUID.  THE PATENT IN SUIT IS FOR A
METHOD AND APPARATUS INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH THAT PURPOSE. 

THE METHOD CLAIMS ARE 8 AND 18.  CLAIM 8 IS AS FOLLOWS:  "A METHOD OF
TESTING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF A FORMATION ENCOUNTERED IN A WELL
CONTAINING DRILLING FLUID, WHICH INCLUDES LOWERING AN EMPTY STRING OF
PIPE INTO THE WELL THROUGH THE DRILLING FLUID TO ADJACENT THE
FORMATION, THE PIPE CARRYING A PACKER  FN4  AND HAVING A VALVED INLET
AT ITS LOWER END WHICH IS CLOSED WHILE THE PIPE IS BEING LOWERED,
SETTING THE PACKER ABOVE THE FORMATION TO SEAL OFF THE DRILLING FLUID
FROM THE FORMATION, OPENING THE VALVED INLET AFTER THE PACKER IS SET TO
PERMIT COGNATE FLUID  FN5  FROM THE FORMATION TO ENTER THE PIPE,
CLOSING THE VALVED INLET AGAINST THE ENTRANCE OF FLUID FROM THE WELL BY
MOVEMENT OF THE PIPE, RAISING THE PIPE SO CLOSED TO REMOVE AN ENTRAPPED
SAMPLE AND THE PACKER FROM THE WELL."  CLAIM 18 IS PRINTED IN THE
MARGIN.  FN6 

THE APPARATUS CLAIMS IN SUIT ARE 9 TO 17 INCLUSIVE AND 19.  CLAIM 15
IS TYPICAL:  "APPARATUS FOR TESTING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF A FORMATION
ENCOUNTERED IN A WELL CONTAINING DRILLING FLUID, COMPRISING A SINGLE
EMPTY STRING OF PIPE TO BE LOWERED INTO THE WELL THROUGH THE DRILLING
FLUID TO ADJACENT THE FORMATION TO BE TESTED, A PACKER LOWERED INTO THE
WELL BY SAID STRING OF PIPE FOR SEALING OFF THE DRILLING FLUID FROM THE
FORMATION TO BE TESTED, SAID PACKER ADAPTED TO BE POSITIVELY PRESSED
AGAINST THE WALLS OF THE FORMATION TO SEAL OFF THE SAME, MEANS AT THE
LOWER END OF SAID STRING OF PIPE TO RECEIVE FLUID FROM SAID FORMATION
INCLUDING AN INLET OPENING INTO SAID PIPE BELOW SAID PACKER AND A VALVE
STRUCTURE FOR CONTROLLING THE INLET, SAID VALVE STRUCTURE HAVING A
RELATIVELY STATIONARY PART CONNECTED TO THE PACKER AND A RELATIVELY
MOVABLE PART CONNECTED TO THE PIPE." 

SUSTAINING THE CLAIMS IN SUIT, THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN TEXAS
FOUND:  PLAINTIFFS HAVE A LARGE BUSINESS UNDER THE PATENT IN SUIT. 
PRIOR TO THE DISCOVERY THERE WAS NO APPARATUS OR METHOD IN USE FOR
TESTING PRODUCTIVITY OF FORMATIONS IN WELLS CONTAINING DRILLING FLUID
EXCEPT BY PUTTING IN A CASING AND REMOVING THE FLUID.  THIS PATENT
FIRST DISCLOSED TESTING APPARATUS AND METHOD REQUIRING ONLY A SINGLE
STRING OF PIPE. 

IN THIS SUIT THE TRIAL COURT FOUND:  THE FRANKLIN PATENT NO. 263,330,
DATED AUGUST 29, 1882, ANTICIPATES BOTH THE METHOD AND APPARATUS
COVERED BY THE PATENT IN SUIT.  THE USE OF A PACKER IS NECESSARILY
IMPLIED FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE FRANKLIN PATENT.  WITHOUT ONE, THAT
DEVICE COULD NOT PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO IT.  PLAINLY, IT
MAY BE USED AS A TESTER; FOR BY ITS USE THE CONTENTS OF THE PRODUCING
STRATUM, SEALED OFF FROM THE REST OF THE WELL AND UNIMPEDED IN ITS
ENTRY INTO THE RAT-HOLE BY PRESSURE OF THE ROTARY MUD, CAN BE BROUGHT
UNDILUTED TO THE SURFACE BY A MECHANISM ALMOST DUPLICATING THAT SHOWN
BY THE PATENT IN SUIT.  A PACKER TO SEPARATE ONE STRATUM OF THE OIL
WELL FROM ANOTHER IS OLD IN THE ART. 

AND IT ALSO FOUND:  THE COX PATENT NO. 1,347,534, DATED JULY 27,
1920, AND THE EDWARDS PATENT NO. 1,514,585, DATED NOVEMBER 4, 1924,
SUBSTANTIALLY DISCLOSE THE METHOD AND DEVICE CLAIMED IN THE PATENT IN
SUIT.  THE OBJECT OF THESE PATENTS, LIKE THAT OF THE ONE IN SUIT, WAS
TO ASCERTAIN PRODUCTIVITY OF THE STRATUM BEING DRILLED.  THERE WAS NO
ACTUAL COMMERCIAL USE OF THE DEVICE DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED IN THE PATENT
IN SUIT.  IT WAS IMPRACTICAL, DUE TO DIFFICULTY IN OPERATING AT
INCREASED LENGTH.  THE INVENTOR HIMSELF WAS EMPLOYED TO DEVISE
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VALVE STRUCTURE.  IF VALID AT ALL, THE PATENT MUST
BE RESTRICTED TO ITS PRECISE FORM.  THE METHOD CLAIMS ARE INVALID FOR
WANT OF INVENTION.  IN IMPORTANT RESPECTS, DEFENDANTS' DEVICES DIFFER
IN OPERATION FROM THE DEVICE DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED BY THE PATENT IN
SUIT; THEY ARE NOT INFRINGEMENTS OF IT. 

AND THAT COURT DECREED THAT AS TO ALL CLAIMS IN SUIT, THE PATENT IS
INVALID. 

THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
CONSIDERS THE QUESTIONS OF INVENTION HERE INVOLVED.  IN SUBSTANCE, IT
SAYS: 

METHOD CLAIM 18, TAKEN AS TYPICAL, ASSUMES FAMILIAR APPARATUS AND
CLAIMS A MONOPOLY ON A NEW USE OF THE OLD APPARATUS TO ACHIEVE A RESULT
IN A BETTER WAY.  THAT APPARATUS INCLUDES A SINGLE STRING OF PIPE
LOWERED INTO THE WELL, A PACKER ON THE STRING, AND A VALVE AT THE LOWER
END.  THESE SIMPLE AND WELL-KNOWN ELEMENTS ARE TO BE USED BY LOWERING
THE PIPE INTO THE WELL WITH THE VALVE CLOSED AGAINST THE DRILLING FLUID
UNTIL THE PACKER IS SET, THEN BY OPENING THE VALVE TO ADMIT COGNATE
FLUID BELOW THE PACKER, THEN BY CLOSING THE VALVE SO AS TO PREVENT THE
DRILLING FLUID FROM ENTERING WHEN THE PACKER IS RELEASED AND THE PIPE
DRAWN UP WITH ITS CONTENTS.  NO NOVELTY AND CERTAINLY NO INVENTION CAN
BE CLAIMED FOR THE METHOD. 

PACKERS AND PIPES WITH VALVES IN THEM HAVE LONG BEEN IN USE TO GET
WHAT IS BELOW THE PACKER FREE FROM WHAT IS ABOVE AND WITHOUT REMOVING
WHAT IS ABOVE.  WHETHER A LARGE QUANTITY FROM A FINISHED WELL OR A
SIMPLE SAMPLE FROM AN UNFINISHED WELL DOES NOT MATERIALLY ALTER THE
METHOD.  WATER HAS ALWAYS BEEN ENCOUNTERED IN OIL WELLS; THE DRILLING
FLUID IS ONLY VERY MUDDY WATER VOLUNTARILY PUT AND KEPT IN THE WELL FOR
SPECIAL REASONS.  EXPANSIBLE AND REMOVABLE PACKERS WITH PIPES THROUGH
THEM TO REACH THE OIL, GAS, OR OTHER DESIRED FLUID BENEATH AND RAT-HOLE
PACKERS SET BY THE WEIGHT OF THE PIPE PRESSING THEM DOWN AND REMOVABLE
BY SIMPLY LIFTING THEM ARE SHOWN IN EARLIER PATENTS.  FN7 

THE SIMPLICITY OF THE METHOD IN SUIT ALONG WITH ALL ITS OPERATIONS,
WAS REASONABLY DISCLOSED IN THE OLD PATENT TO FRANKLIN.  THERE IS THE
SINGLE PIPE WITH A PACKER MENTIONED, BUT FUNCTION ESTEEMED SO FAMILIAR
AS TO NEED NO EMPHASIS, CAPABLE OF BEING LOWERED INTO AND WITHDRAWN
FROM A WELL, WITH THE ENTRANCE INTO OR ESCAPE FROM THE PIPE TO BE
CONTROLLED BY A VALVE OPERATED FROM ABOVE WHILE THE PIPE IS LOWERED OR
WITHDRAWN.  THE IMPORTANCE OF FRANKLIN TO THIS METHOD CLAIM IS THAT HE
DESCRIBES THE USE OF A PACKER ON A SINGLE STRING OF PIPE WITH A VALVE
IN THE PIPE IN THE VERY OPERATION OF PUTTING THEM IN AND TAKING THEM
OUT OF THE WELL.  FRANKLIN DISCLOSES A PACKER.  EVIDENTLY ONE MUST BE
USED FOR WITHOUT IT OIL WOULD NOT FLOW THROUGH THE PIPE AS DESIRED AND
THERE WOULD BE NO USE OF THE VALVE TO CONTROL THE FLOW.  THE PACKER IS
NECESSARY TO PREVENT ESCAPE OF GAS AND TO BUILD UP PRESSURE TO MAKE THE
OIL FLOW. 

FRANKLIN DID NOT INTEND TO GET A SAMPLE BY RAISING THE PIPE, BUT
INTENDED TO KEEP FROM GETTING A SAMPLE BY MAKING THE VALVE A LEAKY ONE
THAT WOULD LET THE CONTENTS ESCAPE AS THE PIPE IS RAISED.  HE EXPECTED
TO GET WHAT WAS BELOW BY NATURAL FLOW JUST AS SIMMONS, APPLICANT FOR
THE PATENT IN SUIT, SAYS THAT IS TO BE PREFERRED.  IT WOULD BE NO
INVENTION TO SUBSTITUTE A VALVE THAT WOULD NOT LEAK FOR ONE THAT WAS
INTENDED TO AND DOES LEAK ON WITHDRAWAL.  IT WOULD BE NO INVENTION TO
USE THE FRANKLIN DEVICE TO SAMPLE A WELL INSTEAD OF USING IT TO FLOW
THE WELL.  ESPECIALLY AFTER THE DISCLOSURE OF COX AND EDWARDS IN THE
ART OF TESTING BY SAMPLE TAKEN THROUGH THE DRILL STEM WITH THEIR
SOMEWHAT COMPLICATED DEVICES, RECURRENCE FOR THIS NEW USE TO WHAT IS IN
SUBSTANCE THE SIMPLE APPARATUS OF FRANKLIN OUGHT NOT TO BE THE
FOUNDATION FOR THE BROAD METHOD CLAIMS HERE PUT FORTH.  WHILE PERHAPS
NOT ANTICIPATED, THEY INVOLVE NO SUCH INVENTION AS ENTITLES TO
MONOPOLY. 

THE APPARATUS CLAIMS HAVE A DIFFERENT STATUS.  THEY PROPOSE A NEW
MACHINE TO BETTER ACCOMPLISH THE USEFUL RESULT.  THEY WERE REWRITTEN TO
STATE FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT ONLY A SINGLE STRING OF PIPE IS TO BE
USED.  IN VIEW OF THE OIL WELL ART, THE OMISSION OF THE EDWARDS SECOND
PIPE TO MAINTAIN CIRCULATION INVOLVES NO SUCH INVENTION AS TO GIVE A
MONOPOLY OF ALL SINGLE STRING TESTERS AS IS HERE CLAIMED.  IT MAY BE A
SIMPLIFYING IMPROVEMENT ON WHICH TO REST A COMBINATION PATENT BUT IT IS
NOT A BASIC AND PIONEER INVENTION.  POSITIVE PRESSURE OF THE PACKER
AGAINST THE WELL WALLS, ALSO WRITTEN INTO THE CLAIMS, APPEARS TO REFER
TO THE WEIGHT OF THE PIPE ON THE RAT-HOLE PACKER, BUT THAT IS THE WAY A
RAT-HOLE PACKER HAS ALWAYS WORKED.  THE CLAIMS IN SUIT CAN NOT BE
SUSTAINED IN ALL THEIR BREADTH BUT MUST BE LIMITED TO THE FORM OF THE
APPARATUS DISCLOSED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, UPON
CONSIDERATIONS IN SUBSTANCE THE SAME AS THOSE SUGGESTED IN THE OPINION
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, HELD THAT THE
APPARATUS CLAIMS OF THE PATENT IN SUIT WERE ANTICIPATED BY THE PATENT
TO FRANKLIN.  BUT, HOLDING THAT INVALIDITY OF APPARATUS CLAIMS DOES NOT
NEGATIVE DISCOVERY OF METHOD OR PROCESS, THAT COURT IN SUBSTANCE SAID: 

THE FRANKLIN PATENT DIRECTS THE PIPE TO BE LOWERED INTO THE WELL AND
THE VALVE TO BE OPERATED BY MOVEMENT OF THE PIPE SO AS TO CONTROL THE
FLOW OF OIL.  IT TEACHES THAT THE TUBE CAN BE KEPT EMPTY BY CLOSING THE
VALVE WHILE IT IS BEING LOWERED AND THAT IT SHOULD BE CLOSED PRIOR TO
ITS REMOVAL.  THE DEVICE IS TO BE USED IN A FLOWING WELL WHICH, OF
COURSE, CONTAINS NO DRILLING FLUID.  AT THE TIME OF THAT PATENT THE
ROTARY METHOD OF DRILLING WAS UNKNOWN.  ITS PURPOSES WERE TO PROVIDE A
METHOD OF KEEPING THE TUBING CLOSED WHILE BEING LOWERED INTO OR REMOVED
FROM THE WELL AND MEANS OF TEMPORARILY CLOSING THE TUBING TO ALLOW THE
GAS IN THE WELL TO OBTAIN SUFFICIENT HEAD SO THAT THE WELL WOULD FLOW. 
THERE IS DISCLOSED NO USE FOR TAKING ENTRAPPED SAMPLES FROM UNFINISHED
WELLS CONTAINING DRILLING FLUID.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF THIS LAST
STEP OF THE PATENTED PROCESS; THE DEVICE WAS EVIDENTLY INTENDED TO BE
PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE TUBING OF THE WELL. 

SIMMONS, APPLICANT FOR THE PATENT IN SUIT, FACED THE PROBLEM OF
PROVIDING A METHOD OF TESTING AN OIL WELL WITHOUT REMOVING HYDROSTATIC
PRESSURE NECESSARY FOR SUPPORT OF THE FORMATION IN QUESTION.  HE MET IT
BY A METHOD OPERATING SO QUICKLY THAT THE SUSPENSION OF THE CIRCULATION
OF DRILLING FLUID WAS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER THAN THAT FREQUENTLY
NECESSARY IN DRILLING OPERATIONS.  FRANKLIN NEITHER CONSIDERED NOR
SOLVED THIS PROBLEM. 

THE SIMMONS DISCOVERY CONSTITUTED INVENTION.  IT DISCLOSED WHAT HAD
NOT BEEN THOUGHT POSSIBLE IN THE ART, THAT IS, THAT SUCH A DEVICE COULD
BE SET IN A WELL CONTAINING DRILLING FLUID NOT IN CIRCULATION LONG
ENOUGH TO MAKE THE TEST; IT SUBSTITUTED A MUCH BETTER PROCESS THAN HAD
BEEN IN USE.  THE DISCOVERY WAS THAT A WELL COULD BE SAFELY TESTED BY
LOWERING A SINGLE STRING OF PIPE EQUIPPED WITH A VALVE PACKER AND
STRAINER AND THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO SET THE CASING PERMANENTLY
AND BAIL OUT THE DRILLING FLUID; OR, IF A TEST WERE ATTEMPTED WITHOUT
PERMANENTLY SETTING THE CASING, IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE AN
EXTRA STRING OF PIPE FOR CIRCULATION OF THE DRILLING FLUID.    1.
PLAINTIFFS, INSISTING THAT THE APPARATUS CLAIMS ARE NOT INVALID FOR
LACK OF INVENTION, EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT THE FRANKLIN APPARATUS WAS
INTENDED TO BE USED TO GOVERN FLOW OF A FINISHED WELL AND NOT FOR
TESTING PRODUCTIVITY OF FORMATIONS ENCOUNTERED IN DRILLING; THEY
MAINTAIN THAT IT IS NOT ADAPTED TO THE LAST MENTIONED USE WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AND THEY SUGGEST THAT EVEN A VERY SLIGHT CHANGE IS
ENOUGH TO GIVE PATENTABILITY TO THE CHANGED APPARATUS IF THE CHANGE IS
FOREIGN TO THE PURPOSES OF THE FRANKLIN APPARATUS AND DICTATED BY THOSE
OF THE APPARATUS IN SUIT.  THEY SAY THAT THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE
LATTER, NOT FOUND IN THE FRANKLIN PATENT, ARE A PACKER SO RELATED TO
THE INLET THAT IT MAY SEAL OFF THE FORMATION TO BE TESTED FROM THE
HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE OF THE MUD-LADEN FLUID STANDING IN THE WELL DURING
THE TESTING OPERATION, A VALVE SO POSITIONED WITH RESPECT TO THE PACKER
INLET THAT WHEN CLOSED IT WILL ENTRAP THE ENTIRE FLOW OF THE COGNATE
FLUID TO RESULT FROM NATURAL PRESSURE IN THE FORMATION WHEN RELIEVED
FROM PRESSURE OF THE DRILLING FLUID, AND SO CONSTRUCTED THAT IT WILL
HOLD AND BRING TO THE SURFACE THE ENTRAPPED SAMPLE UNCONTAMINATED AND
UNDIMINISHED. 

THE SPECIFICATION OF FRANKLIN'S PATENT STATES THAT HIS INVENTION
CONSISTS IN PROVIDING A DEVICE WHICH CAN BE CONNECTED WITH THE TUBING
OF THE WELL ABOVE A "PACKER."  ON AMPLE EVIDENCE, THE TRIAL AND
APPELLATE COURTS FOUND THAT PACKERS TO SEPARATE THE PRODUCING STRATA
FROM THE OTHERS WERE OLD IN THE ART, AND THAT THE USE OF A PACKER,
SUBSTANTIALLY AS THE SAME EXISTS TODAY, IS NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE
LANGUAGE OF THE FRANKLIN PATENT.  DETAILED DESCRIPTION BY FRANKLIN WAS
UNNECESSARY.  LOOM CO. V. HIGGINS, 105 U.S. 580, 586. 

FRANKLIN'S SPECIFICATION STATES THAT THE DEVICE CONTAINING THE VALVE
SHOULD BE "PREFERABLY  ... ABOVE THE PACKER" AND THAT "IT MAY BE PLACED
DEEP IN THE WELL AND THEREBY OBTAIN CONSIDERABLE ADVANTAGE."  THIS
INDICATES A VALVE JUST ABOVE THE PACKER AS IS TRUE WITH RESPECT TO THE
PATENT IN SUIT.  BUT EVEN ASSUMING THE CONTRARY, IN VIEW OF PRIOR ART
AS DISCLOSED BY THE COX AND EDWARDS PATENTS, THE LOCATION OF THE VALVE
AS INDICATED BY THE PATENT IN SUIT IS MERE MECHANICAL CONTRIVANCE AND
NOT INVENTION.  HOLLISTER V. BENEDICT & BURNHAM MFG. CO., 113 U.S. 59,
73. 

IT IS ASSUMED, AS CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFFS, THAT THE VALVE OF THE
FRANKLIN DEVICE WAS MADE SO THAT IT WOULD LET THE CONTENTS OF THE PIPE
ESCAPE WHILE IT WAS BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE WELL.  BUT BY MERE
SUBSTITUTION OF A TIGHT VALVE FOR A LEAKY ONE THE DEVICE WOULD BE MADE
TO HOLD AND BRING UP SAMPLES FROM THE FORMATION BELOW THE PACKER.  THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FRANKLIN VALVE, LEAKING WHILE BEING DRAWN FROM
THE WELL, AND THAT OF THE PATENT IN SUIT, PURPOSELY MADE TO CLOSE
TIGHTLY, IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL OR PATENTABLE ELEMENT. 

IN WELLS WHERE THERE EXISTS NATURAL PRESSURE IN THE FORMATION BELOW
THE PACKER SUFFICIENT TO FORCE THE FLUID TO THE SURFACE, EITHER DEVICE,
THE FRANKLIN OR THE ONE IN SUIT, MAY BE USED TO CONTROL FLOW OF THE
WELL AND SO DISCLOSE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THAT STRATUM.  IT IS EQUALLY
PLAIN THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE PRESSURE TO CARRY TO THE
SURFACE, THE FRANKLIN DEVICE WITH A VALVE EFFECTIVELY CLOSED WOULD, IF
OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD CLAIMED IN THE PATENT IN SUIT,
SIMILARLY RECEIVE, HOLD, AND BRING TO THE SURFACE SAMPLES FROM THE
FORMATION. 

THE APPARATUS CLAIMS ARE INVALID. 

2.  AS USED IN THE STATUTE,  FN8  "USEFUL ART" INCLUDES METHOD WHICH
IN THIS CASE IS USED INTERCHANGEABLY WITH PROCESS; "MACHINE" INCLUDES
APPARATUS.  FN9  HAVING HELD THE APPARATUS NOT NEW, WE COME TO THE
QUESTION WHETHER CLAIMS 8 AND 18 COVER ANY NEW METHOD OR PROCESS.  FN10
THESE CLAIMS RELATE TO "A METHOD OF TESTING."  THE CLAIMS RELATING TO
THE DEVICE CALL IT AN "APPARATUS FOR TESTING."  IN THE METHOD CLAIMS
FN11  AND IN SOME RELATING TO APPARATUS,  FN12 THE PHRASES JUST QUOTED
ARE FOLLOWED BY IDENTICAL WORDS:  "THE PRODUCTIVITY OF A FORMATION
ENCOUNTERED IN A WELL CONTAINING DRILLING FLUID."  FN13  THE ELEMENTS
TO BE EMPLOYED IN TAKING THE STEPS CONSTITUTING THE METHOD ARE
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE CONSTITUTING THE APPARATUS.  THE PROCESS
CONSISTS OF "LOWERING AN EMPTY STRING OF PIPE," "SETTING THE PACKER,"
"OPENING THE VALVED INLET," "CLOSING THE VALVED INLET," "RAISING THE
PIPE SO CLOSED TO REMOVE AN ENTRAPPED SAMPLE AND THE PACKER FROM THE
WELL."  THE RESULT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE METHOD CLAIMED TO BE NEW IS
PRECISELY THE SAME AS THAT FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF WHICH THE APPARATUS
FOUND TO BE OLD WAS CONTRIVED. 

AS ALREADY SHOWN THE FRANKLIN APPARATUS SERVED TO BRING OUT
UNCONTAMINATED THE OIL YIELDED BY THE STRATUM BELOW THE PACKER.  THE
METHOD PRACTICED BY ITS USE INCLUDES IN THE SAME ORDER ALL THE STEPS,
EXCEPT THE LAST ONE, THAT CONSTITUTE THE PROCESS IN QUESTION.  THAT
STEP IS THE RAISING OF THE PIPE CONTAINING THE ENTRAPPED SAMPLE.  AS
THE FRANKLIN DEVICE WAS TO CONTROL FLOW AND NOT TO TEST PRODUCTIVITY OF
STRATA REACHED BEFORE COMPLETION OF WELLS, THE FINAL MOVEMENT TO BE
TAKEN IN THE PROCESS UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT INVOLVED OR
DESCRIBED.  BUT THAT MOVEMENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY DISCLOSED BY THE COX AND
EDWARDS PATENTS.  NO DISCUSSION, IN ADDITION TO THE CONVINCING
EXPOSITION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, IS
REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT THE METHOD CLAIMED IN SUIT WAS CLEARLY INDICATED
IN THE PRIOR ART. IT CANNOT REASONABLY BE HELD THAT ANYTHING MORE THAN
MECHANICAL SKILL OF MEN FAMILIAR WITH KNOWN METHODS OF OBTAINING OIL
FROM FORMATIONS BELOW PACKERS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUGGEST THE RAISING
OF THE PIPE CONTAINING FLUID ENTRAPPED AND HELD BY EFFECTIVE CLOSING OF
THE VALVE. 

THE METHOD CLAIMS ARE INVALID. 

THE PART OF THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BROUGHT UP BY
DEFENDANTS' PETITION IS REVERSED.  THE PART BROUGHT UP BY PLAINTIFFS'
PETITION IS AFFIRMED.  THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 
NO. 466, REVERSED.  NO. 479, AFFIRMED. 

FN1  98 F.2D 436. 

FN2  18 F.SUPP.  58. 

FN3  88 F.2D 270. 

FN4  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2ND ED., 1935:  "PACKER
...  A DEVICE TO PACK THE SPACE BETWEEN THE WALL OF A WELL AND THE PIPE
OR BETWEEN TWO STRINGS OF PIPE IN A WELL." 

FN5  THAT IS, OIL, GAS, WATER, OR OTHER FLUID ENCOUNTERED IN
FORMATIONS PENETRATED BY THE BIT. 

FN6  "18.  A METHOD OF TESTING THE PRODUCTIVITY OF A FORMATION
ENCOUNTERED IN A WELL CONTAINING DRILLING FLUID INVOLVING THE INSERTION
OF ONLY A SINGLE STRING OF PIPE INTO THE WELL TO MAKE A TEST, WHICH
INCLUDES LOWERING A TEST STRING INTO THE WELL THROUGH THE DRILLING
FLUID WITH A PACKER CARRIED BY THE STRING AND A VALVE INLET AT THE
LOWED END OF THE STRING CLOSED AGAINST THE ENTRANCE OF FLUID FROM THE
WELL, SETTING THE PACKER ABOVE THE FORMATION AND OPENING THE VALVE TO
PERMIT COGNATE FLUID FROM THE FORMATION TO ENTER THE INLET, CLOSING THE
VALVE TO PREVENT THE SUBSEQUENT ENTRANCE OF FLUID FROM THE WELL THROUGH
THE INLET AND RELEASING THE PACKER, AND RAISING THE TEST STRING WITH
THE INLET CLOSED AGAINST ENTRANCE OF FLUID FROM THE WELL TO REMOVE AN
ENTRAPPED SAMPLE." 

FN7  THE OPINION REFERS TO STEWART, NO. 171,589, DECEMBER 28, 1875;
STEWART, NO. 230,080, JULY 13, 1880; KOCH, NO. 208,610, OCTOBER 1,
1878; BLOOM, NO. 785,933, MARCH 28, 1905; MCCREADY, NO. 1,522,197,
JANUARY 6, 1925; AND COOPER, NO. 1,000,583, AUGUST 15, 1911. 

FN8  35 U.S.C. SEC. 31. 

FN9  CORNING V. BURDEN, 15 HOW.  252, 267. 

FN10  SEE RISDON LOCOMOTIVE WORKS V. MEDART, 158 U.S. 68, 77, 79. 
EXPANDED METAL CO. V. BRADFORD, 214 U.S. 366, 383.  TILGHMAN V.
PROCTOR, 102 U.S. 707. 

FN11  CLAIMS 8 AND 18. 

FN12  CLAIMS 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19. 

FN13  TO SHOW IDENTICAL SUBJECT MATTER IN THE TWO SETS OF CLAIMS,
DEFENDANTS PRESENT AN ANALYSIS OF METHOD CLAIM 18 AND APPARATUS CLAIM
19 IN PARALLEL ARRANGEMENT AS FOLLOWS:

   18.                                 19. 

A METHOD OF TESTING THE             AN APPARATUS FOR TESTING THE 

PRODUCTIVITY OF A FORMATION         PRODUCTIVITY OF A FORMATION IN A 

ENCOUNTERED IN A WELL CONTAINING    WELL CONTAINING DRILLING FLUID, 

DRILLING FLUID INVOLVING            COMPRISING 

THE INSERTION OF ONLY A SINGLE      A STRING OF PIPE 

STRING OF PIPE INTO THE WELL TO 

MAKE A TEST, 

WHICH INCLUDES LOWERING A TEST      (A STRING OF PIPE) TO BE LOWERED 

STRING INTO THE WELL THROUGH THE    INTO THE WELL THROUGH THE
DRILLING 

DRILLING FLUID                      FLUID TO ADJACENT THE FORMATION

                                  ...  AND TO BE RAISED OUT OF THE

                                  WELL TO REMOVE THE ENTRAPPED

SAMPLE,  ........................... 

WITH A PACKER CARRIED BY THE        A PACKER CARRIED BY THE PIPE AS 

STRING AND A VALVE INLET AT THE     THE PIPE IS LOWERED INTO THE
WELL 

LOWER END OF THE STRING CLOSED      ...  AN INLET TO THE PIPE 

AGAINST THE ENTRANCE OF FLUID FROM  COMMUNICATING WITH THE WELL
BELOW 

THE WELL,                           THE POINT AT WHICH THE PACKER

                                  SEALS OFF THE WELL, 

SETTING THE PACKER ABOVE THE        (THE PACKER IS) ADAPTED TO BE 

FORMATION  .........................SEATED BY MANIPULATION OF THE

PIPE TO SEAL OFF THE WELL ABOVE THE

            FORMATION, SAID PACKER ADAPTED

                   TO BE POSITIVELY PRESSED AGAINST

                            THE WALLS OF THE FORMATION TO SEAL

                                  OFF THE SAME, 

CLOSING THE VALVE TO PREVENT THE    AND MEANS FOR CONTROLLING THE 

SUBSEQUENT ENTRANCE OF FLUID FROM   INLET TO PERMIT FLUID FROM THE 

THE WELL THROUGH THE INLET AND      FORMATION TO ENTER THE PIPE
WHILE 

RELEASING THE PACKER, AND RAISING   THE PACKER IS SET AND TO PREVENT 

THE TEST STRING WITH THE INLET      FLUID FROM ENTERING THE PIPE
AFTER 

CLOSED AGAINST ENTRANCE OF FLUID    THE PACKER IS RELEASED AND THE 

FROM THE WELL TO REMOVE AN          PIPE IS BEING RAISED OUT OF THE 

ENTRAPPED SAMPLE.                   WELL (TO REMOVE THE ENTRAPPED

                                  SAMPLE). 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















ATLAS INS. CO. V. SOUTHERN, INC., 306 U.S. 563 


NO. 598.  SUBMITTED MARCH 29, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939. 


1.  IN OKLAHOMA, AN INSURER MAY SET UP FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT OF A
POLICY AS A DEFENSE TO AN ACTION AT LAW UPON IT, OR MAY INTERPOSE A
CROSS-COMPLAINT IN THAT ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF THE POLICY.  P.
567. 

2.  AN ACTION IN A STATE COURT OF OKLAHOMA BY A DELAWARE CORPORATION
AGAINST AN OKLAHOMA INSURANCE COMPANY UPON A POLICY OF INSURANCE IS NOT
REMOVABLE TO THE FEDERAL COURT, SINCE THE DEFENDANT IS NOT A
NONRESIDENT OF OKLAHOMA WITHIN JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 28.  P. 567. 

3.  THE "JURISDICTION" OF SUITS IN EQUITY, CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL
COURTS BY JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 24(1), IS AN AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER IN
EQUITY SUITS THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL REMEDIES WHICH
HAD BEEN DEVISED AND WAS BEING ADMINISTERED BY THE ENGLISH COURT OF
CHANCERY AT THE TIME OF THE SEPARATION OF THE TWO COUNTRIES.  P. 568. 

4.  THE PROVISION OF JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 267, THAT SUITS IN EQUITY
SHALL NOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IN ANY CASE WHERE A
"PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW," WHICH
CONTINUES, IN SUBSTANCE, SEC. 16 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, IS BUT A
DECLARATION OF THE EQUITY RULE ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF
THE JUDICIARY ACT, AND IT SERVES BY EMPHASIS OF THE RULE TO PROTECT THE
STATES FROM THE ENCROACHMENTS WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM THE EXERCISE OF
EQUITY POWERS BY FEDERAL COURTS FAILING TO OBSERVE IT.  P. 569. 

5.  THE ACCEPTED TEST OF LEGAL ADEQUACY WHICH THE SECTION PRESCRIBES
IS THE LEGAL REMEDY WHICH THE FEDERAL, RATHER THAN STATE, COURTS
AFFORD.  P. 569. 

6.  THOUGH THE FEDERAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION, IN THE SENSE OF POWER
TO HEAR AND DECIDE THE CAUSE, AND THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF LEGAL REMEDY,
THE RIGHT TO EQUITABLE RELIEF NEVERTHELESS DEPENDS UPON ALLEGATION AND
PROOF OF A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY.  P. 569. 

7.  THE FACT THAT AN "INCONTESTABLE" CLAUSE IN A POLICY WOULD SOON
COME INTO OPERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY GROUND FOR RESORT TO EQUITY IN
THE FEDERAL COURT, WHEN A SUIT AT LAW IS PENDING IN A STATE COURT
WHEREIN THE GROUND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF CAN BE SET UP AS A DEFENSE. 

THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD PROCEED ONLY SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THE SUITOR FROM LOSS OF HIS DEFENSE AT LAW.  P. 572. 

8.  QUESTIONS CERTIFIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO THIS COURT
IN A SUIT BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR CANCELLATION OF POLICIES OF
INSURANCE ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD IN PROCUREMENT, SEEKING INSTRUCTIONS
AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE INSURER TO EQUITABLE RELIEF IN VIEW OF THE
PENDENCY IN THE STATE COURT OF AN ACTION AT LAW PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT ON
THE POLICIES BY THE BENEFICIARY, HELD NOT APPROPRIATELY FRAMED FOR
PROPER ANSWER, BECAUSE THE FACTS CERTIFIED FAIL TO SHOW WHETHER THE
INSURANCE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT.  P. 571. 

THE QUESTIONS SUGGESTED MAY BE PROPERLY ANSWERED ONLY BY REFRAMING
THEM OR GIVING QUALIFIED ANSWERS TO THEM.  THIS THE COURT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO DO, AND CAN NOT PROPERLY DO WITHOUT RECOURSE TO THE RECORD,
WHICH IN THIS CASE IS NOT HERE. 

9.  IT IS INAPPROPRIATE ON CERTIFICATE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHICH MAY
BE AFFECTED BY UNSTATED MATTER LURKING IN THE RECORD, OR QUESTIONS
WHICH ADMIT OF ONE ANSWER UNDER ONE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND A
DIFFERENT ANSWER UNDER ANOTHER, NEITHER OF WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE CERTIFICATE.  P. 573. 

ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. W.I. SOUTHERN, INC. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON AN APPEAL FROM A
DECREE DISMISSING A BILL IN EQUITY FOR CANCELLATION OF POLICIES OF
INSURANCE. 

THE FIRST QUESTION CERTIFIED SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE; THE
SECOND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  ARROWSMITH V. GLEASON, 129 U.S. 86; SMYTH
V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466; CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V. OSBORNE, 265 U.S.
14; RISTY V. CHICAGO, ETC., RY. CO., 270 U.S. 378; HENRIETTA MILLS V.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, 281 U.S. 121; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN F. INSURANCE
ASSN., 296 U.S. 64; PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 304 U.S. 209. 

EVEN WHERE AN ACTION BY THE INSURED IS PENDING IN THE FEDERAL COURT,
TO WHICH THE INSURANCE COMPANY MAY FILE AN ANSWER SETTING UP THE FRAUD
AS A DEFENSE, THE FEDERAL COURT MAY HAVE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF A SUIT
TO CANCEL THE POLICIES BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD.  AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE
CO. V. STEWART, 300 U.S. 203; RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., 93
F.2D 416; STEWART V. AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., 89 F.2D 743; DAVIS V.
WAKELEE, 156 U.S. 680, 688. 

THE THIRD QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 

THE BILL IN EQUITY WAS FILED ONLY FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF
THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD TO INITIATE
ITS CONTEST.  IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. V. STEWART, SUPRA,
THE SUITS WERE FILED "ONE YEAR, FIVE MONTHS AND TWENTY DAYS" PRIOR TO
THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD, AND THIS FACT WAS EMPHASIZED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT IN THE TWO OPINIONS
PRECEDING THE DECISION IN THIS COURT.  SEE STEWART V. AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE CO., 80 F.2D 600, 601; 85 F.2D 791, 792. 

THE SECTION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTES WHICH PROHIBITS THE MAINTENANCE
OF A SUIT IN EQUITY WHERE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW IS AVAILABLE SHOULD
NOT BE HELD TO MEAN THAT ONE MAY NOT MAINTAIN A SUIT IN EQUITY IF HE
HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTERPOSE A DEFENSE AT LAW.  PHOENIX MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE CO. V. BAILEY, 80 U.S. 616; AND CABLE V. UNITED STATES
INSURANCE CO., 191 U.S. 287, DISTINGUISHED.  SEE HARNISCHFAGER SALES
CORP. V. NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., 72 F.2D 921. 

THE INSURED DIED JUST EIGHTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE PERIOD OF
CONTESTABILITY EXPIRED.  THIS RIGHT OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO INVOKE
THE EQUITABLE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT MEANS NOTHING TO IT IF
THE ADVERSARY, AT HIS OWN WILL, MAY DETERMINE WHETHER THAT COURT WILL
PROCEED TO HEAR THE COMPLAINT.  CF. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. CORBETT, 20
F.SUPP.  940; ARROWSMITH V. GLEASON, SUPRA; PAYNE V. HOOK, 74 U.S.
425.  THE FEDERAL COURT WAS BOUND TO TAKE THE CASE; IT COULD NOT
ABDICATE ITS AUTHORITY OR DUTY IN FAVOR OF THE STATE JURISDICTION. 
KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT HAS CERTIFIED
TO US QUESTIONS OF LAW CONCERNING WHICH IT ASKS INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE
PROPER DECISION OF THE CAUSE PENDING IN THAT COURT.  JUDICIAL CODE,
SEC. 239; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 346. 

THE CERTIFICATE STATES THAT ON MARCH 13, 1936, ATLAS LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, AN OKLAHOMA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF BELOW, ISSUED, ON A SINGLE
APPLICATION, THREE POLICIES OF INSURANCE ON THE LIFE OF ONE SOUTHERN,
IN AMOUNTS OF $10,000, $15,000 AND $25,000 RESPECTIVELY, EACH NAMING AS
BENEFICIARY W.I. SOUTHERN, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION.  ALL OF THE
POLICIES CONTAINED AN INCONTESTABLE CLAUSE READING: 

"THIS POLICY WILL BE INCONTESTABLE AFTER TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF ISSUE
EXCEPT FOR THE NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUM AND EXCEPT AS TO PROVISIONS AND
CONDITIONS RELATING TO DISABILITY BENEFITS AND THOSE GRANTING
ADDITIONAL INSURANCE SPECIFICALLY AGAINST DEATH BY ACCIDENT, IF ANY",
AND A CLAUSE RELATING TO STATEMENTS OF THE INSURED IN HIS APPLICATION
AS FOLLOWS: 

"ALL STATEMENTS MADE BY THE INSURED SHALL, IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD,
BE DEEMED REPRESENTATIONS AND NOT WARRANTIES, AND NO SUCH STATEMENT
SHALL VOID THIS POLICY UNLESS IT BE CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN
APPLICATION AND A COPY OF THE APPLICATION IS ENDORSED UPON OR ATTACHED
TO THIS POLICY WHEN ISSUED." 

THE INSURED DIED FEBRUARY 23, 1938, AND ON MARCH 7, 1938, THE
CORPORATE BENEFICIARY BEGAN SUIT AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE
OKLAHOMA STATE DISTRICT COURT.  ON THE FOLLOWING DAY THE INSURANCE
COMPANY BROUGHT A SUIT IN EQUITY AGAINST THE BENEFICIARY IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN OKLAHOMA FOR CANCELLATION OF THE POLICIES,
ON THE GROUND THAT IN HIS APPLICATION THE INSURED HAD INTENTIONALLY AND
FRAUDULENTLY GIVEN FALSE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS MATERIAL TO THE RISK. 
THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE EQUITY SUIT, MADE ON
THE GROUND THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW BY
SETTING UP THE ALLEGED FRAUD AS A DEFENSE TO THE ACTION PENDING IN THE
STATE COURT.  23 F.SUPP.  334.  THE INSURANCE COMPANY ELECTING NOT TO
PLEAD FURTHER, A DECREE WAS ENTERED DISMISSING THE BILL, FROM WHICH THE
INSURANCE COMPANY APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

UNDER THE OKLAHOMA PRACTICE THE INSURANCE COMPANY CAN SET UP THE
FRAUD AS A DEFENSE TO THE ACTION AT LAW ON THE POLICIES, OR CAN
INTERPOSE A CROSS-COMPLAINT IN THAT ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF THE
POLICIES.  FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK V. HOYT, 29 OKLA. 772; 120 P. 264. 
THE ACTION ON THE POLICIES IN THE STATE COURT IS NOT REMOVABLE BY THE
INSURANCE COMPANY, SINCE IT IS NOT A NON-RESIDENT OF OKLAHOMA WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 28 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 71. 

THE QUESTIONS CERTIFIED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  IS THE REMEDY AT LAW AVAILABLE IN THE STATE COURT BY SETTING UP
THE ALLEGED FRAUD AS A DEFENSE TO THE ACTION ON THE POLICIES, SUCH AN
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW AS WILL CONSTITUTE A VALID DEFENSE TO THE SUIT
IN EQUITY FOR CANCELLATION OF THE POLICIES? 

"2.  IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE A DEFENSE TO A SUIT IN EQUITY TO CANCEL A
POLICY OF LIFE INSURANCE ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD, IS IT ESSENTIAL THAT
THE REMEDY AT LAW BE AVAILABLE TO THE COMPLAINANT IN AN ACTION AT LAW
PENDING IN THE FEDERAL COURT? 

"3.  IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW WHICH WILL
PRECLUDE A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY FROM GRANTING RELIEF MUST BE ONE
AVAILABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE WHERE
THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS AFFIRMATIVE IN FORM BUT DEFENSIVE IN CHARACTER?" 

THE CIRCUIT COURTS SHOULD HAVE "COGNIZANCE  ...  OF ALL SUITS OF A
CIVIL NATURE AT COMMON LAW OR IN EQUITY" IN CASES APPROPRIATELY BROUGHT
IN THOSE COURTS.  THIS PROVISION IS PERPETUATED IN SEC. 24(1) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), WHICH DECLARES THAT THE DISTRICT
COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH SUITS.  THE "JURISDICTION" THUS
CONFERRED ON THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ENTERTAIN SUITS IN EQUITY IS AN
AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER IN EQUITY SUITS THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SYSTEM OF
JUDICIAL REMEDIES WHICH HAD BEEN DEVISED AND WAS BEING ADMINISTERED BY
THE ENGLISH COURT OF CHANCERY AT THE TIME OF THE SEPARATION OF THE TWO
COUNTRIES.  PAYNE V. HOOK, 7 WALL.  425, 430; IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S.
200, 209-210; MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525; GORDON V.
WASHINGTON, 295 U.S. 30, 36.  THIS CLAUSE OF THE STATUTE DOES NOT
DEFINE THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS AS FEDERAL COURTS, IN
THE SENSE OF THEIR POWER OR AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DECIDE, BUT
PRESCRIBES THE BODY OF DOCTRINE WHICH IS TO GUIDE THEIR DECISIONS AND
ENABLE THEM TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN ANY GIVEN INSTANCE A SUIT OF WHICH
A DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION AS A FEDERAL COURT IS AN APPROPRIATE
ONE FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY POWERS OF A COURT OF EQUITY. 
SEE MASSACHUSETTS STATE GRANGE V. BENTON, 272 U.S. 525, 528;
PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 181, AND CASES CITED.  FN1 

WITHOUT MATERIAL CHANGE AS SEC. 267 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE; 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 384, DECLARES THAT SUITS IN EQUITY SHALL NOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN ANY CASE WHERE A "PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND
COMPLETE REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW."  THE COMMAND OF SEC. 267 IS BUT A
DECLARATION OF THE EQUITY RULE ESTABLISHED LONG BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF
THE JUDICIARY ACT, AND IT SERVES BY EMPHASIS OF THE RULE TO PROTECT THE
STATES FROM THE ENCROACHMENTS WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM THE EXERCISE OF
EQUITY POWERS BY FEDERAL COURTS FAILING TO OBSERVE IT.  MATTHEWS V.
RODGERS, SUPRA, 525; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 284
U.S. 530. 

BY LONG-SETTLED CONSTRUCTION, THE ACCEPTED TEST OF LEGAL ADEQUACY
WHICH THE SECTION PRESCRIBES IS THE LEGAL REMEDY WHICH THE FEDERAL,
RATHER THAN STATE, COURTS AFFORD.  FN2  SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466;
RISTY V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 378, 388; DI GIOVANNI V.
CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE ASSN., 296 U.S. 64; PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC.
V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 304 U.S. 209, 217.  BUT ALTHOUGH THE ADEQUACY
OF THE LEGAL REMEDY PRECLUDES RESORT TO A FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY, IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE CONVERSE IS TRUE - THAT THE WANT OF A LEGAL
REMEDY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS GIVES THE SUITOR FREE ENTRANCE TO A
FEDERAL COURT OF EQUITY.  ABSENCE OF LEGAL REMEDY DOES NOT DISPENSE
WITH THE NECESSITY OF ALLEGING AND PROVING A CAUSE OF ACTION IN EQUITY
AS A PREREQUISITE TO EQUITABLE RELIEF IN A FEDERAL COURT.  ENELOW V.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE
INSURANCE ASSN., SUPRA; AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. V. STEWART, 300 U.S.
203. 

THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE
CERTIFICATE IS WITHOUT REMEDY IN A SUIT AT LAW.  THE FEDERAL COURTS CAN
RENDER NO JUDGMENT AT LAW DIRECTING CANCELLATION OF A CONTRACT FOR
FRAUD IN ITS INCEPTION OR PRESERVING EVIDENCE OF THE FRAUD.  THESE ARE
FORMS OF RELIEF WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY ALONE CAN GIVE.  BUT THE BASIS
OF EQUITABLE RELIEF IS THAT THE CANCELLATION ASKED IS NECESSARY TO
PROTECT THE SUITOR FROM IRREPARABLE INJURY WHEN THERE IS MANIFEST
DANGER THAT HIS DEFENSE AT LAW ON THE POLICY WILL BE LOST OR
PREJUDICED.  ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA; DI GIOVANNI V.
CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE, ASSN., SUPRA; AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. V. STEWART,
SUPRA. 

ORDINARILY WHEN THE DEFENSE OF FRAUD MAY BE INTERPOSED TO AN ACTION
AT LAW ON THE POLICY AND SUCH AN ACTION IS IMMINENT OR PENDING, THERE
IS NO OCCASION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF AND THE PARTIES WILL BE LEFT TO
THEIR RIGHTS AS DETERMINED IN THE SUIT AT LAW.  IN SUCH A CASE THE BILL
IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NOT BECAUSE THERE IS WANT OF
JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT, BUT BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF HAS MADE
NO CASE FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF.  INSURANCE CO. V. BAILEY, 13 WALL.  616;
CABLE V. UNITED STATES LIFE INS. CO., 191 U.S. 288; ENELOW V. NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE ASSN.,
SUPRA.  AND SINCE THE ISSUE IS NOT ONE OF JURISDICTION BUT OF THE NEED
AND PROPRIETY OF EQUITABLE RELIEF, THE MERE FACT THAT THE SUIT AT LAW
WHICH IS IMMINENT CAN BE BROUGHT ONLY IN THE STATE COURT, OR THAT IT IS
PENDING THERE, IS IMMATERIAL.  CABLE V. UNITED STATES LIFE INS. CO.,
SUPRA; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE ASSN., SUPRA; CF. INSURANCE
CO. V. BAILEY, SUPRA.  IT IS NO GROUND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF THAT THE
SUIT AT LAW IS BROUGHT IN A STATE RATHER THAN A FEDERAL COURT, FOR THE
INSURANCE COMPANY'S DEFENSE MAY BE PROTECTED THERE AS WELL AS IN A
FEDERAL COURT, AND IN THAT CASE THERE IS NO THREAT OF IRREPARABLE
INJURY.  SEE CABLE V. UNITED STATES LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA.  ON
COMPARABLE GROUNDS A FEDERAL COURT MAY WITHHOLD ITS AID WHEN A
PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO RESORT TO A STATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY. 
NATURAL GAS PIPE LINE CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300, 310-311.  ONLY
WHEN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SHOWN WHICH SUBJECT THE INSURER TO THE
HAZARD THAT HIS DEFENSE TO THE SUIT AT LAW, WHETHER IN THE STATE OR
FEDERAL COURT, WILL BE LOST OR PREJUDICED IS THERE OCCASION FOR EQUITY
TO GIVE RELIEF.  AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. V. STEWART, SUPRA. 

IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT WE HAVE SAID IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CERTIFIED
QUESTIONS CANNOT BE PROPERLY ANSWERED, BOTH BECAUSE THEY ARE APPARENTLY
FRAMED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF A
SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS INDEPENDENTLY OF SEC. 267 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE AND ON THE MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION THAT THAT SECTION AFFORDS
THE ONLY TEST OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S RIGHT TO PROCEED IN A FEDERAL
COURT OF EQUITY; AND BECAUSE THE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THERE ARE FACTS, LURKING IN THE RECORD OR WITHIN THE
RANGE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHICH MAY HAVE A MATERIAL BEARING ON THE
INSURANCE COMPANY'S NEED FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF. 

SINCE THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS NO REMEDY AT LAW IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE POLICIES, SEC. 267 INTERPOSES NO
OBSTACLE TO A SUIT IN EQUITY IN A FEDERAL COURT.  BUT IT IS REQUISITE
UNDER SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF SUIT THERE
THAT FACTS SHOULD BE PRESENTED ENTITLING THE COMPANY TO EQUITABLE
RELIEF.  IN THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE THE CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ARE
INCAPABLE OF CATEGORICAL ANSWER AND THE QUESTIONS WHICH THEY SUGGEST
CAN BE PROPERLY ANSWERED ONLY BY REFRAMING THE QUESTIONS CERTIFIED OR
GIVING QUALIFIED ANSWERS TO THEM.  THIS WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO, SEE
JEWELL V. KNIGHT, 123 U.S. 426, 432, 435; CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V.
WILLIAMS, 205 U.S. 444; UNITED STATES V. JOHN BARTH CO., 276 U.S. 606;
WHITE V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 367, AND CANNOT PROPERLY DO WITHOUT RECOURSE
TO THE RECORD, WHICH IS NOT BEFORE US.    THE SUIT AT LAW IN THE STATE
COURT IN THIS CASE WAS BROUGHT SHORTLY BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWO
YEAR PERIOD AFTER WHICH THE INCONTESTABLE CLAUSE, ACCORDING TO ITS
TERMS, WOULD COME INTO OPERATION.  THE FACT THAT THAT PERIOD WAS ABOUT
TO EXPIRE WAS THOUGHT TO BE A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR RESORT TO EQUITY IN
AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. V. STEWART, SUPRA, WHERE NO SUIT AT LAW WAS
PENDING OR APPEARED TO BE IMMINENT WHEN THE BILL WAS FILED.  BUT WE
CANNOT SAY, AT LEAST WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, THAT A COMPLAINANT
SIMILARLY SUSTAINS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THREATENED IRREPARABLE INJURY
WHEN A SUIT AT LAW IS PENDING IN WHICH HE IS FREE TO SET UP AS A
DEFENSE THE FRAUD ON WHICH HE MUST RELY IN A CANCELLATION SUIT IN
EQUITY.  WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT
CASE ENTITLING THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO EQUITABLE RELIEF; WHETHER THERE
ARE PECULIARITIES OF LOCAL PROCEDURE WHICH, IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES,
MIGHT IMPAIR THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S DEFENSE; WHETHER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST; OR WHETHER, UNDER LOCAL LAW, A DEFENSE ONCE
INTERPOSED BEFORE THE POLICY HAS BECOME INCONTESTABLE IS A "CONTEST"
SUFFICIENT TO PRESERVE THE INSURER'S RIGHTS FOR ALL PURPOSES, SEE NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. HURT, 35 F.2D 92, 95; HARNISCHFEGER SALES CORP.
V. NATIONAL LIFE INS. CORP., 72 F.2D 921, 922; KILLIAN V. METROPOLITAN
LIFE INS. CO., 251 N.Y. 44, 48; 166 N.E. 798, ARE QUESTIONS WHICH THE
CERTIFICATE DOES NOT EXCLUDE FROM THE CASE AND WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
BRIEFED OR ARGUED HERE.  YET THEY ARE QUESTIONS WHICH MAY REQUIRE
CONSIDERATION BEFORE A COURT CAN DETERMINE WHETHER THE EQUITY SUIT
SHOULD BE DISMISSED OR WHETHER THE BILL SHOULD BE RETAINED WITHOUT
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PENDING DISPOSITION OF THE SUIT AT LAW, AS MAY BE
DONE BY THE EQUITY COURT IN ITS DISCRETION.  LANDIS V. NORTH AMERICAN
CO., 299 U.S. 248; AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. V. STEWART, SUPRA, 215.  THE
GUIDING PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE FEDERAL COURT SHOULD PROCEED ONLY SO FAR
AS IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE SUITOR FROM LOSS OF HIS DEFENSE AT LAW,
WITHOUT NEEDLESSLY INTERFERING WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS IN THE STATE COURT, WHERE HIS ACTION WAS PROPERLY
BEGUN.  SEE DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE ASSN., SUPRA, 73, AND
CASES CITED. 

THE CERTIFICATE FAILS TO DISCLOSE WHETHER ALL THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES PERTINENT TO THIS ISSUE HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED.  THIS COURT
CANNOT BE REQUIRED BY CERTIFICATE TO ANSWER, AND SHOULD NOT ANSWER,
QUESTIONS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY UNSTATED MATTER LURKING IN THE
RECORD, OR QUESTIONS WHICH ADMIT OF ONE ANSWER UNDER ONE SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES AND A DIFFERENT ANSWER UNDER ANOTHER, NEITHER OF WHICH IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CERTIFICATE.  SEE TRIPLETT V. LOWELL, 297 U.S.
638, 648, 649. 

THE CERTIFICATE IS DISMISSED. 

FN1  UNLIKE THE OBJECTION THAT THE COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS A
FEDERAL COURT, SEE MANSFIELD, C. & L.M. RY. CO. V. SWAN, 111 U.S. 379,
382, THE PARTIES MAY WAIVE THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE EQUITY JURISDICTION
BY CONSENT, HOLLINS V. BRIERFIELD COAL & IRON CO., 150 U.S. 371, 380;
RE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY RECEIVERSHIP, 208 U.S. 90; CF. MARIN V.
AUGEDAHL, 247 U.S. 142, OR BY FAILURE TO TAKE IT SEASONABLY.  BROWN V.
LAKE SUPERIOR IRON CO., 134 U.S. 530, 535-536; SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES (NO. 1), 200 U.S. 341, 349.  THE OBJECTION SHOULD BE
TAKEN BY THE COURT SUA SPONTE, WHEN OBVIOUS, LEWIS V. COCKS, 23 WALL. 
466, 470; SINGER SEWING MACHINE CO. V. BENEDICT, 229 U.S. 481, 484, OR
WHEN THE EXERCISE OF THE EQUITY POWERS OF THE FEDERAL COURT AFFECTS THE
RELATIONSHIP OF THE FEDERAL TO THE STATE COURTS.  SEE KENNEDY V. TYLER,
269 U.S. 13; MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525-526; PENNSYLVANIA
V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE
ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 73.  CF. CENTRAL KENTUCKY NATURAL GAS CO. V.
RAILROAD COMMISSION, 290 U.S. 264, 271-273. 

FN2  "OTHERWISE THE SUITOR IN THE FEDERAL COURTS MIGHT BE ENTITLED TO
A REMEDY IN EQUITY WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS OF LAW ARE COMPETENT TO
GIVE, OR, ON THE OTHER HAND, BE OBLIGED TO FOREGO HIS RIGHT TO BE HEARD
IN THE FEDERAL COURTS IN ORDER TO SECURE AN EQUITABLE REMEDY WHICH
STATE COURTS OF LAW DO BUT THE FEDERAL COURTS OF LAW DO NOT GIVE.  SEE
STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY., 284 U.S. 530, 533, 534; ...  "
DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INSURANCE ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 69. 
..END :














WILENTZ V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, 306 U.S. 573 


NO. 448.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 23
F.SUPP.  23, APPEAL DISMISSED. 


1.  THE REQUIREMENT OF JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 266 THAT THE THREE JUDGE
COURT PROCEDURE THERE PRESCRIBED WITH DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME
COURT MAY BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE SUIT IS ONE TO RESTRAIN THE ACTION
OF STATE OFFICERS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF A STATE STATUTE,
OR IN THE ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF AN ORDER MADE BY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR COMMISSION, IS A REQUIREMENT OF SUBSTANCE, NOT
OF FORM, AND IT IS NOT SATISFIED BY JOINING, AS NOMINAL PARTIES
DEFENDANT, STATE OFFICERS WHOSE ACTION IS NOT THE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF
THE ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTE OR ORDER.  P.
579. 

2.  THE EXTRAORDINARY PROCEDURE BEFORE A COURT OF THREE JUDGES,
DESIGNED FOR A SPECIFIC CLASS OF CASES SHARPLY DEFINED BY THE STATUTE,
CAN NOT PROPERLY BE EXTENDED TO CASES IN WHICH THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL
BASIS FOR RELIEF BY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE ACTION OF STATE OFFICERS
IN ENFORCING OR CARRYING INTO EFFECT A CHALLENGED STATE STATUTE OF
GENERAL APPLICATION.  P. 582. 

3.  THE NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION ACT, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDES A SCHEME FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY
FOUND BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO BE UNABLE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS
WHEN DUE BY A COMMISSION COMPOSED OF STATE OFFICERS ACTING IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES.  THE ACT PROVIDES THAT,
WHERE THE COMMISSION SHALL FUNCTION IN ANY MUNICIPALITY OR COTERMINOUS
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ALL SUITS TO RECOVER UPON SCHOOL BONDS, AND EXECUTION
ON JUDGMENTS IN SUCH SUITS, SHALL BE STAYED, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH
PROCEEDINGS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT UNDER
CONDITIONS CALCULATED TO SECURE EQUALITY TO ALL CREDITORS.  ALSO, THE
GOVERNING BODY OF A DISTRICT IN WHICH THE COMMISSION IS FUNCTIONING IS
AUTHORIZED TO COMPROMISE DELINQUENT TAXES, EXCEPT CLAIMS IN EXCESS OF
$500, WHICH MAY NOT BE COMPROMISED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN ASSENT OF THE
COMMISSION.  ASSAILING THE STAY AND COMPROMISE PROVISION OF THE ACT AS
VIOLATIVE OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, A
CREDITOR WHO HAD RECOVERED A JUDGMENT ON PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED SCHOOL
BONDS BROUGHT SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE COMMISSION FROM FUNCTIONING IN THE
MUNICIPALITY AND FROM ASSENTING TO THE COMPROMISE OF DELINQUENT TAXES
DUE THE MUNICIPALITY AND TO RESTRAIN THE LOCAL TAX COLLECTOR FROM
CARRYING INTO EFFECT ANY SUCH COMPROMISE.  HELD: 

(1)  THE SUIT WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266, AND
THIS COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF A DIRECT APPEAL THEREUNDER.  P.
582. 

(2)  AS THE PRESCRIBED STAY BECOMES EFFECTIVE BY VIRTUE OF THE
STATUTE WHENEVER THE STATE SUPREME COURT FINDS THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS
UNABLE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS, THE COMMISSION IS WITHOUT POWER TO
GRANT OR WITHHOLD A STAY, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO ENJOIN ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION AS THE MEANS OF PREVENTING OPERATION OF THE STAY PROVISION
AND THE SUIT SO FAR AS IT SEEKS TO SET THEM ASIDE IS NOT REQUIRED BY
SEC. 266 TO BE TRIED BY A COURT OF THREE JUDGES.  P. 580. 

(3)  THE COMMISSION IS SIMILARLY WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES TO
COMPROMISE DELINQUENT TAXES, AND TO CONSENT TO A COMPROMISE WHICH IT
CAN NOT COMMAND IS NOT AN "ORDER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 266.  P.
580. 

(4)  THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE COMMISSION FROM ASSENTING
TO COMPROMISES OF DELINQUENT TAXES ARRANGED AND TO BE CARRIED INTO
EFFECT BY LOCAL OFFICERS IS BUT INCIDENTAL TO THE PURPOSE OF THE SUIT
TO PREVENT THE PERFORMANCE BY LOCAL OFFICERS OF A LOCAL FUNCTION, AND
SUCH A SUIT IS NOT TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 266 BY THE
EXPEDIENT OF ADDING AS NOMINAL PARTIES THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
WHO ARE STATE OFFICERS BUT WHOSE PRESENCE IS NOT NECESSARY TO PREVENT
OPERATION OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTE, AND WHOSE ONLY ACTION IS THE
APPROVAL OF THAT OF LOCAL OFFICERS TO BE TAKEN UNDER THE STATUTE.  P.
581. 

4.  ALTHOUGH WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL
UNDER SEC. 266, THIS COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE
JURISDICTION MAY GIVE DIRECTIONS APPROPRIATE TO ENFORCE THE LIMITATIONS
OF THAT SECTION; AND WHERE THE APPELLANTS HAVE ALREADY TAKEN AN APPEAL
FROM THE DECREE BELOW TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THEIR REMEDY
WILL BE PRESERVED BY SIMPLY DISMISSING THE APPEAL TAKEN TO THIS COURT. 
P. 582. 

WILENTZ ET AL. V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, WOODMEN OF THE WORLD. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES HOLDING A
STATE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND GRANTING RELIEF BY INJUNCTION
AGAINST CERTAIN PUBLIC OFFICERS ACTING PURSUANT TO IT. 

EVEN IF THE STAY PROVISIONS AND THE PROVISIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF
BONDS IN PAYMENT OF TAXES WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE THREE-JUDGE COURT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE NO SUBSTANTIAL CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST STATE OFFICERS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH
PROVISIONS. 

IF THERE WAS ANY REASON FOR ASKING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION, WHICH CAN MERELY CONSENT TO COMPROMISES,
THERE WOULD BE MUCH GREATER REASON FOR SEEKING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST
THE BODY WHICH ARRANGES THE COMPROMISES.  AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
COMMISSION'S CONSENTING TO THAT PRACTICE WOULD ADD NOTHING.  THE
COMMISSION IS, THEREFORE, A COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY PARTY IN THIS
PROCEEDING AND ITS PRESENCE IN THE CASE AS THE OBJECT OF A PRAYER FOR
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ITS CONSENTING TO BOND SETTLEMENTS SHOULD NOT
HAVE AVAILED TO OUST THE ONE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT OF JURISDICTION. 

IT IS SETTLED THAT A MERE NOMINAL JOINDER OF STATE OFFICIALS AS
DEFENDANTS IN A CASE WHERE THE SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF SOUGHT IS AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST LOCAL OFFICIALS DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONVENING OF A
THREE-JUDGE COURT.  PLEASANT V. MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RY., 66 F.2D 842;
CERTIORARI DENIED 291 U.S. 659. 

RESPECTING THE STAY PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, APPELLANTS ASSUME
THAT, BECAUSE THE INJUNCTION GRANTED WAS NARROWER THAN THE PRAYER, THE
COURT LOST ALL JURISDICTION OF THE CASE, DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF THE
ESSENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL ELEMENTS IN THE COMPLAINT.  IT IS DEFINITELY
ESTABLISHED THAT A THREE-JUDGE COURT ONCE HAVING OBTAINED JURISDICTION
BY THE PRESENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION, CAN GIVE RELIEF UPON
A NON-CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND OR REST ITS DECISION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF
A LOCAL ISSUE, WITHOUT EVEN PASSING UPON THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS. 
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. V. GARRETT, 231 U.S. 298; DAVIS V. WALLACE, 257
U.S. 478; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378; GLENN V. FIELD PACKING
CO., 290 U.S. 177; LEE V. BICKELL, 292 U.S. 145; RAILROAD COMMISSION V.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 302 U.S. 388. 

THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION IS VITAL TO THE COMPROMISE OF TAXES AND
ACCEPTANCE OF BONDS IN PAYMENT THEREOF.  BY ENJOINING THEM FROM
ASSENTING ON THE GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE AND
ACTION THEREUNDER, THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICE IS STOPPED AT THE PROPER PLACE
- THE SPOT WHERE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY LIES.  IN FACT, IF ANY PARTY
MIGHT BE OMITTED FROM THE INJUNCTION, IT WOULD BE THE TAX COLLECTOR AND
NOT THE COMMISSION, FOR HE MAY ONLY ACT AFTER THE LATTER HAS APPROVED. 
NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. CO. V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, 3 F.SUPP.  791. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE MERITS
OF THIS APPEAL TAKEN UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE DIRECTLY TO
THIS COURT FROM THE DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES. 

APPELLEE BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, PRAYING A DECLARATORY DECREE AGAINST THE
VALIDITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL FINANCE
COMMISSION ACT, C. 340, NEW JERSEY LAWS OF 1931, AS AMENDED, AND AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING STATE AND MUNICIPAL OFFICERS FROM ACTING
PURSUANT TO THE COMMISSION ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT IT IMPAIRS THE
OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION BY
DEPRIVING APPELLEE OF THE REMEDIES EXISTING WHEN THE CONTRACTS WERE
ENTERED INTO.  THE COMMISSION ACT PROVIDES AN ELABORATE SCHEME FOR THE
CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY, FOUND BY THE
SUPREME COURT TO BE UNABLE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS WHEN DUE, BY A
COMMISSION COMPOSED OF STATE OFFICERS ACTING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
LOCAL MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES.  THE ACT, IN ITS AMENDED FORM, APPEARS IN
TITLE 52, C. 27, SECS.1 TO 66, INCLUSIVE, C. 24, SEC. 19.1, C. 14, SEC.
32, TITLE 1, C. 1, SEC. 10, REVISED STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY, 1937. 

APPELLANTS, MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION, AND THE
OTHER APPELLANTS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE BOROUGH OF
RUNNEMEDE, A NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND ITS TAX COLLECTOR,
WERE JOINED AS DEFENDANTS.  DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, PRESENTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES ASSEMBLED PURSUANT TO SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND ALSO ON
A MOTION OF APPELLANTS TO REMIT THE CASE TO A SINGLE DISTRICT JUDGE,
WAS RESERVED, AND THE COURT, AFTER HEARING, RENDERED ITS FINAL DECREE
SUSTAINING APPELLANTS' CONTENTION THAT THE CHALLENGED STATUTE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND GRANTING RELIEF BY INJUNCTION AGAINST ALL THE
APPELLANTS.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SECS. 238 AND 266 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE.  28 U.S.C. SECS. 345, 380. 

APPELLANTS PRESS HERE THE OBJECTION MADE BELOW THAT THE CASE IS NOT
ONE FOR A COURT OF THREE JUDGES AS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 266 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
TO PASS ON THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE DISTRICT
COURT, A CONTENTION WHICH REQUIRES OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF
THE CAUSE OF ACTION AND OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND AWARDED.  SEE OKLAHOMA
GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT STATES THAT APPELLEE, A FRATERNAL BENEFIT LIFE
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF NEBRASKA, PURCHASED
ON JUNE 1, 1930, SCHOOL BONDS ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF RUNNEMEDE, WHICH IS COTERMINOUS WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
RUNNEMEDE; THAT DEFAULT HAVING OCCURRED IN THE PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND
INTEREST ON THE BONDS REMAINING UNPAID, APPELLEE BROUGHT SUIT UPON THEM
IN A FEDERAL COURT AND ON DECEMBER 5, 1935, RECOVERED A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IN THE SUM OF $21,776.21, EXECUTION UPON
WHICH WAS RETURNED UNSATISFIED; AND THAT APPELLEE THEN BEGAN IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR NEW JERSEY A SUIT FOR MANDAMUS, WHICH IS
STILL PENDING UNDECIDED, TO COMPEL THE PROPER OFFICERS OF THE BOROUGH
TO ASSESS AND COLLECT TAXES FOR PAYMENT OF APPELLEE'S JUDGMENT. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT APPELLEE'S CONTRACT,
ACQUIRED BY THE PURCHASE OF THE BONDS, HAS BEEN IMPAIRED IN VIOLATION
OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (ART. I, SEC. 10) BY THE
LATER ENACTMENT OF C. 195, AND SEC. 17 OF C. 258, NEW JERSEY LAWS OF
1935, WHICH EXTENDED THE STAY PROVISIONS OF THE STATE MUNICIPAL FINANCE
COMMISSION ACT (SECS. 351, 352, 354, MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION ACT,
AS AMENDED BY SECS. 8, 9, C. 330, NEW JERSEY LAWS OF 1933, C. 191, NEW
JERSEY LAWS OF 1935) TO A SCHOOL DISTRICT WHENEVER THE COMMISSION SHALL
FUNCTION IN A MUNICIPALITY WHICH IS COTERMINOUS WITH THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT.  IN THAT EVENT SEC. 17 STAYS SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR
RECOVERY ON SCHOOL BONDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY AND STAYS EXECUTION ON
JUDGMENTS IN SUCH SUITS, EXCEPT THAT THE SUPREME COURT OR ONE OF ITS
JUSTICES IS GIVEN DISCRETIONARY POWER ON APPLICATION, PRESCRIBED BY THE
STATUTE, TO AUTHORIZE THE SUIT TO PROCEED, OR EXECUTION TO ISSUE, UNDER
CONDITIONS CALCULATED TO SECURE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF ALL
CREDITORS. 

OF A MUNICIPALITY SHOWING THAT IT "IS NOT IN A POSITION TO MEET ITS
OBLIGATIONS WHEN DUE," A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT IS AUTHORIZED TO
MAKE AN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT, WHEREUPON THE "COMMISSION SHALL FUNCTION"
IN THAT MUNICIPALITY "WITH ALL THE POWERS AND DUTIES CONFERRED BY THIS
ACT."  IT IS ALLEGED IN THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, AND WAS FOUND BELOW,
THAT A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT HAD DETERMINED THAT THE BOROUGH OF
RUNNEMEDE WAS UNABLE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS AND THAT THE COMMISSION,
PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE, THEN COMMENCED TO FUNCTION AND HAS SINCE
FUNCTIONED IN THE BOROUGH AND IN ITS COTERMINOUS SCHOOL DISTRICT. 

AS A FURTHER IMPAIRMENT OF APPELLEE'S CONTRACT THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
ALLEGES THAT IN 1930, WHEN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BONDS WERE ISSUED, THE
STATUTES OF NEW JERSEY PROVIDED THAT TAXES LEVIED ON PROPERTY WITHIN
THE STATE SHOULD BE PAID ONLY IN LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT
THAT SEC. 6 OF C. 330 OF THE NEW JERSEY LAWS OF 1933 AUTHORIZES THE
GOVERNING BODY OF A MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH THE COMMISSION IS FUNCTIONING
TO COMPROMISE AND ADJUST DELINQUENT TAXES DUE THE MUNICIPALITY, EXCEPT
CLAIMS FOR TAXES IN EXCESS OF $500, WHICH MAY NOT BE SO COMPROMISED
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN ASSENT OF THE COMMISSION; THAT ACTING UNDER THESE
PROVISIONS THE COMMISSION HAS GIVEN ITS WRITTEN ASSENT TO COMPROMISES
PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE RUNNEMEDE BOROUGH COUNCIL, WHEREBY BONDS
WERE RECEIVED IN PAYMENT OF TAXES DUE THE BOROUGH IN EXCESS OF $500,
THUS IMPAIRING THE SECURITY AND OBLIGATION OF APPELLEE'S BONDS. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT PRAYS A JUDICIAL DECLARATION THAT APPELLEE'S
RIGHT TO COMPEL A LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR THE SATISFACTION OF
ITS JUDGMENT IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 35 OF THE EXECUTION ACT OF NEW JERSEY,
2 COMP. STAT. OF NEW JERSEY, P. 2255, AND SEC. 237 OF THE SCHOOL LAW OF
NEW JERSEY, 4 COMP. STAT. OF NEW JERSEY, P. 4804, IN FORCE IN 1930,
WHEN THE SCHOOL BONDS WERE ISSUED; THAT THE STATUTES ASSAILED, C. 330,
NEW JERSEY LAWS OF 1933, CS. 195 AND 258, NEW JERSEY LAWS OF 1935, ALL
AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED, BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AS
INFRINGING THE CONTRACT CLAUSE; THAT THE COMMISSION BE ENJOINED FROM
FUNCTIONING IN THE BOROUGH OF RUNNEMEDE AND FROM ASSENTING TO THE
COMPROMISE OF DELINQUENT TAXES OF THE BOROUGH FOR ANY SUM LESS THAN THE
FULL AMOUNT DUE, AND THAT APPELLANT TAX COLLECTOR BE ENJOINED FROM
CARRYING INTO EFFECT ANY SUCH COMPROMISE; THAT APPELLANTS, THE
BOROUGH'S ASSESSORS AND ITS TAX COLLECTOR, BE ENJOINED FROM ASSESSING
AND COLLECTING TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1936 WITHOUT INCLUDING IN THEM THE
AMOUNT OF APPELLEE'S JUDGMENT. 

THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL BY ITS FINDINGS
AND GRANTED THE RELIEF PRAYED, EXCEPT THAT IT DECLINED TO ENJOIN ANY
ACTION BY THE ASSESSORS AND COLLECTOR WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT
AND COLLECTION OF 1936 TAXES.  IN ENJOINING THE COMMISSION FROM
FUNCTIONING IN THE BOROUGH THE COURT DIRECTED THAT ITS DECREE SHOULD BE
"WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OF THE POWERS OR DUTIES OF THE MUNICIPAL
FINANCE COMMISSION UNDER THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMISSION ACT EXCEPT AS
THE STAYS THEREIN CONTAINED AFFECT THE RIGHT OF THE COMPLAINANT TO
ENFORCE ITS JUDGMENT."  THE DECREE IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION THUS
ENJOINED NO ACTION BY THE COMMISSION AND AMOUNTED TO NO MORE THAN A
DECLARATION THAT THE STAY PROVISIONS OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTE WERE
INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE. 

BY SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, A SUIT IN WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE
AND PRESSED FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION "RESTRAINING THE
ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF ANY STATUTE OF A STATE BY
RESTRAINING THE ACTION OF ANY OFFICER OF SUCH STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OR EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE, OR IN THE ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF AN
ORDER MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OR COMMISSION" IS REQUIRED TO BE
HEARD BY A COURT OF THREE JUDGES CONSTITUTED AS THE SECTION
PRESCRIBES.  THE SECTION ALSO DECLARES THAT "A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT MAY BE TAKEN FROM A FINAL DECREE GRANTING OR DENYING A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN SUCH SUIT."  OUR JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE
APPEAL ON THE MERITS, WHICH IS NOW CHALLENGED, TURNS UPON THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE PRESENT IS "SUCH SUIT." 

THE REASONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY PROCEDURE
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE IN THE CLASS OF CASES
DEFINED BY IT, AND THE RULE THAT IT MAY BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE SUIT
IS ONE TO RESTRAIN STATE OFFICERS, HAVE OFTEN BEEN POINTED OUT.  EX
PARTE COLLINS, 277 U.S. 565; EX PARTE PUBLIC NATIONAL BANK, 278 U.S.
101; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 282 U.S. 10; OKLAHOMA
GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., SUPRA.  THIS REQUIREMENT IS
ONE OF SUBSTANCE, NOT OF FORM, AND IT IS NOT SATISFIED BY JOINING, AS
NOMINAL PARTIES DEFENDANT, STATE OFFICERS WHOSE ACTION IS NOT THE
EFFECTIVE MEANS OF THE ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF THE CHALLENGED
STATUTE.  SEE OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO.,
SUPRA, 391. 

BY ITS TERMS SEC. 266 EMBRACES ONLY THOSE CASES IN WHICH AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE OPERATION OF A STATE
STATUTE "BY RESTRAINING THE ACTION" OF A STATE OFFICER "IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OR EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE."  HERE IT APPEARS ON THE FACE
OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, AND FROM THE FINDINGS, THAT THE STATUTES
ASSAILED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARE THOSE PRESCRIBING A STAY OF SUIT OR
EXECUTION AGAINST ANY MUNICIPALITY AND ITS COTERMINOUS SCHOOL DISTRICT
IN WHICH THE COMMISSION IS FUNCTIONING, AND ALSO THE STATUTE WHICH
PERMITS A COMPROMISE OF DELINQUENT TAXES BY SUCH A MUNICIPALITY AND
SCHOOL DISTRICT.  THE ONLY STATE OFFICERS AGAINST WHOM AN INJUNCTION IS
SOUGHT ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.  BUT THEY ARE CLOTHED WITH NO
AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE CHALLENGED STATUTES AND HAVE TAKEN NO STEPS TO
ENFORCE THEM.  THE STAYS PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE BECOME EFFECTIVE
WITH RESPECT TO ANY PARTICULAR MUNICIPALITY BY VIRTUE OF OTHER
STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHENEVER THE STATE SUPREME COURT FINDS THAT THE
MUNICIPALITY IS UNABLE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS.  THE ORDER OF THE
SUPREME COURT PROMULGATING ITS FINDING IS THE DECISIVE ACTION WHICH
CALLS THE STAY PROVISIONS INTO OPERATION, AND WHEN THAT ACTION IS TAKEN
THE STATUTE BECOMES SELF-EXECUTING.  THE COMMISSION IS THUS WITHOUT
POWER TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD A STAY, AND AS THE FORM OF THE DECREE,
ALREADY NOTED, SHOWS, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO ENJOIN ACTION BY THE
COMMISSION AS THE MEANS OF PREVENTING OPERATION OF THE STAY
PROVISIONS.    THE COMMISSION IS SIMILARLY WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1933, AUTHORIZING THE COMPROMISE OF
DELINQUENT TAXES.  ITS WRITTEN ASSENT, PREREQUISITE TO EXECUTION OF A
COMPROMISE WHICH THE COMMISSION CANNOT COMMAND, IS NOT AN ORDER WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 266.  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277
U.S. 172.  THE BOROUGH COUNCIL, WHOSE MEMBERS ARE NOT STATE OFFICERS
AND ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE PRESENT SUIT, IS THE EXCLUSIVE AGENCY FOR
ARRANGING THE COMPROMISE.  THE EFFECTIVE AGENT FOR CARRYING THE STATUTE
INTO EXECUTION IS APPELLANT BOROUGH TAX COLLECTOR, WHO IS NOT A STATE
OFFICER.  THE FUNCTIONS WHICH THE COUNCIL AND THE COLLECTOR PERFORM,
AFFECTING THE COLLECTION OF TAXES FOR PAYMENT OF THE LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT BONDS, ARE NOT STATE, BUT LOCAL FUNCTIONS, AND A SUIT FOR AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING SUCH ACTION BY LOCAL OFFICERS IS NOT WITHIN SEC.
266.  EX PARTE COLLINS, SUPRA; EX PARTE PUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF NEW
YORK, SUPRA; CF. SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89. 

EVEN THOUGH THE WRITTEN ASSENT OF THE COMMISSION, WITHOUT WHICH THERE
CAN BE NO COMPROMISE OF TAX CLAIMS IN EXCESS OF $500, BE SAID TO BE
ACTION IN "EXECUTION" OF THE STATUTE, WE THINK THIS CASE IS NOT ONE FOR
A COURT OF THREE JUDGES, BECAUSE THE INJUNCTION SOUGHT AGAINST THE
COMMISSION IS BUT INCIDENTAL TO THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE SUIT TO PREVENT
THE PERFORMANCE BY LOCAL OFFICERS OF A LOCAL FUNCTION.  THE MEMBERS OF
THE COMMISSION ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE SUIT, AND THERE IS NO
OCCASION FOR RELIEF AGAINST THEM IN ADDITION TO THAT SOUGHT AGAINST THE
COLLECTOR.  THE COMMISSION, IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS STATUTORY DUTY,
ACTS ONLY TO APPROVE THE EXERCISE BY LOCAL OFFICERS OF AN AUTHORITY
CONFERRED ON THEM AS SUCH.  A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE LATTER FROM CARRYING
INTO EXECUTION A STATE STATUTE BY PERFORMANCE OF THE LOCAL FUNCTION
WHICH IT AUTHORIZES IS NOT TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 266
BY THE EXPEDIENT OF ADDING AS NOMINAL PARTIES STATE OFFICERS WHOSE
PRESENCE IS NOT NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE OPERATION OF THE CHALLENGED
STATUTE AND WHOSE ONLY ACTION IS THE APPROVAL OF THAT OF LOCAL OFFICERS
TO BE TAKEN UNDER IT.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THEIR PRESENCE IN THE SUIT
GENERATES NO INTEREST WHICH IT IS THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 266 TO PROTECT
AND MUST BE REGARDED AS COLORABLE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE
ADVANTAGES OF PROCEEDING BEFORE A COURT OF THREE JUDGES, AS WAS THE
PRESENCE OF THE STATE OFFICERS IN OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V.
OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., SUPRA, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO APPEAL
UNDER SEC. 266. 

THE EXTRAORDINARY PROCEDURE BEFORE A COURT OF THREE JUDGES, DESIGNED
FOR A SPECIFIC CLASS OF CASES SHARPLY DEFINED BY THE STATUTE, CANNOT
PROPERLY BE EXTENDED TO CASES IN WHICH THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL BASIS
FOR RELIEF BY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE ACTION OF STATE OFFICERS IN
ENFORCING OR CARRYING INTO EFFECT A CHALLENGED STATE STATUTE OF GENERAL
APPLICATION.  EX PARTE COLLINS, SUPRA; OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V.
OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., SUPRA, 391.  HERE THE ISSUE IS NOT ONE OF
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AS A FEDERAL COURT, SEE EX PARTE
PORESKY, 290 U.S. 30, 31; HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263, BUT IS WHETHER
A FINAL HEARING BY THREE JUDGES IS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECTION AND HENCE
WHETHER THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL.  SMITH V.
WILSON, 273 U.S. 388.  AS THE CASE WAS NOT ONE FOR WHICH A COURT OF
THREE JUDGES IS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 266, NO APPEAL LIES TO THIS COURT
AND IT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. 

IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION, THIS COURT HAS
AUTHORITY TO GIVE SUCH DIRECTIONS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO ENFORCE THE
LIMITATIONS OF SEC. 266, AND MAY FRAME ITS MANDATE IN SUCH MANNER AS
WILL SAVE TO APPELLANTS THEIR APPROPRIATE REMEDY BY APPEAL TO THE
PROPER COURT.  OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO.,
SUPRA; GULLY V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 292 U.S. 16.  BUT AS IS
INDICATED BY THE BRIEFS, APPELLANTS HAVE ALREADY TAKEN AN APPEAL FROM
THE DECREE BELOW TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, AND IT
THUS APPEARS THAT THEIR REMEDY WILL BE PRESERVED BY DISMISSING THE
APPEAL TO THIS COURT WITHOUT MORE. 

THE APPEAL WILL BE DISMISSED WITH COSTS TO APPELLANTS.  SEE MANSFIELD,
C. & L.M. RY. CO. V. SWAN, 111 U.S. 379, 387; OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC
CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., SUPRA.  APPEAL DISMISSED. 
..END :
























CLARK V. PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583 


NO. 534.  ARGUED MARCH 27, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 23
F.SUPP.  946, REVERSED. 


1.  THE COURT RAISES SUA SPONTE THE QUESTION WHETHER JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNTS WERE IN CONTROVERSY IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 588. 

2.  WHEN SEVERAL PLAINTIFFS ASSERT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEMANDS IN A
SINGLE SUIT, THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED CAN NOT BE ADDED TOGETHER TO SATISFY
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS; JURISDICTION AS TO EACH SEPARATE
CONTROVERSY DEPENDS UPON THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THAT CONTROVERSY.  P.
589. 

3.  WHEN SEVERAL PLAINTIFFS ASSERT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEMANDS IN
ONE SUIT, A GENERAL ALLEGATION IN THE BILL THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN
THE LITIGATION IS IN EXCESS OF $3,000 AND A FINDING OF THE DISTRICT
COURT THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE SUIT EXCEEDS THE JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNT, GIVE NO INDICATION THAT THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY WITH RESPECT
TO THE CLAIM OF ANY SINGLE PLAINTIFF EXCEEDS THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT,
AND ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION
OF THE CAUSE.  P. 589. 

4.  THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ILLEGAL
IMPOSITION OF FEES OR TAXES IS THE AMOUNT OF THE FEES AND TAXES WHICH
WOULD NORMALLY BE COLLECTED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE LITIGATION.  P.
589. 

5.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WAS INVOLVED IN
THE DISTRICT COURT IS DETERMINED BY THE RECORD OF THAT COURT, WHICH CAN
NOT BE SUPPLEMENTED BY AFFIDAVITS FILED IN THIS COURT.  P. 590. 

6.  A SUIT BY SEVERAL PLAINTIFFS, EACH BOUND TO ESTABLISH THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO HIS OWN CLAIM, SHOULD BE
DISMISSED AS TO THOSE WHO FAIL TO DO SO.  P. 590. 

7.  THE STATES HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO EXACT REASONABLE FEES
FOR THE USE OF THEIR HIGHWAYS BY VEHICLES MOVING INTERSTATE; AND FOR
THAT PURPOSE THEY MAY CLASSIFY THE VEHICLES ACCORDING TO THE CHARACTER
OF THE TRAFFIC AND THE BURDEN IT IMPOSES ON THE STATE BY THAT USE, AND
CHARGE FOR THE USE A FEE NOT SHOWN TO BE UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE.  P.
593. 

8.  SUCH CLASSIFICATION IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT AND IS PRESUMED TO BE
SUPPORTED BY FACTS KNOWN TO THE LEGISLATURE, UNLESS FACTS JUDICIALLY
KNOWN OR PROVED PRECLUDE THAT POSSIBILITY.  P. 594. 

9.  IN PASSING UPON THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A CALSSIFICATION, THE
FUNCTION OF THE COURT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY
THAT THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION IS WITHOUT RATIONAL BASIS.  THIS IS
EQUALLY THE CASE WHERE THE CLASSIFICATION, WHICH IS ONE WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE WAS COMPETENT TO MAKE, IS APPLIED TO VEHICLES USING THE
STATE HIGHWAYS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 594. 

10.  THE CALIFORNIA "CARAVAN" ACT OF 1937, DEFINING "CARAVANING" AS
THE TRANSPORTATION OF ANY VEHICLE OPERATED ON ITS OWN WHEELS, OR IN TOW
OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE, EXACTS TWO LICENSE FEES,
EACH OF $7.50, FOR A SIX MONTH'S PERMIT TO "CARAVAN" A VEHICLE ON THE
STATE HIGHWAYS.  ONE OF THE FEES IS DECLARED TO BE TO REIMBURSE THE
STATE FOR EXPENSE INCURRED IN ADMINISTERING POLICE REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO THE OPERATION OF VEHICLES MOVED PURSUANT TO SUCH PERMITS,
AND PERTAINING TO PUBLIC SAFETY UPON THE HIGHWAYS AS AFFECTED BY SUCH
OPERATION; THE OTHER IS DECLARED TO BE COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE
OF USING THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS.  VEHICLES MOVING WHOLLY WITHIN EITHER OF
TWO ZONES, WHICH ARE APPROXIMATELY THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN HALVES OF
THE STATE, ARE EXCEPTED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE TAX IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, NOR AN INFRACTION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS APPLIED TO ONE ENGAGED IN THE
DISTINCT BUSINESS OF BRINGING MOTOR CARS INTO THE STATE FOR SALE, IN
EXTENSIVE CARAVANS OR CONVOYS COMPOSED LARGELY OF CARS COUPLED IN TWOS,
EACH PAIR IN CONTROL OF A SINGLE DRIVER.  CF. MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298
U.S. 407.  PP. 594-595. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT COUPLED CARS, UNDER CONTROL OF A SINGLE
DRIVER, SUBJECT THE HIGHWAYS TO INCREASED WEAR AND TEAR BECAUSE OF
THEIR TENDENCY TO SKID AND SWAY ON CURVES AND IN PASSING OTHER TRAFFIC,
AND THAT THE LENGTH OF THE CARAVANS AND THE INEFFICIENCY AND
IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THE DRIVERS, CASUALLY EMPLOYED, INCREASE TRAFFIC
CONGESTION AND THE INCONVENIENCES AND HAZARDS OF AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC. 
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CAUSED THE STATE TO MAKE INCREASED PROVISION
FOR THE POLICING OF THE TRAFFIC. 

(2)  ONE ENGAGED IN THIS CLASS OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC HAS NO GROUND OR
STATUS TO COMPLAIN OF THE DISCRIMINATION INVOLVED IN EXACTING THE FEES
WHERE CARS ARE TRANSPORTED INTO THE STATE FOR SALE SINGLY AND NOT WHERE
THEY MOVE SINGLY INTRAZONE OR ENTER THE STATE NOT FOR PURPOSES OF
SALE.  P. 595. 

(3)  NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION RESULTS FROM FAILURE TO APPLY
THE STATUTE TO CARS THAT MOVE FOR SALE INTRAZONE IN CARAVANS, IT
APPEARING THAT CARS IN THAT CLASS ARE DRIVEN RELATIVELY SHORT
DISTANCES, OVER HIGHWAYS OF MORE THAN TWO LANES, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
CARAVANS COMING FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, WHICH MOVE FOR LONG DISTANCES
OVER TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS IN MOUNTAIN DISTRICTS; THAT SUCH INTRAZONE
CARAVANS OR CONVOYS AS THERE ARE CONSIST OF TWO TO FOUR CARS; THAT
COUPLING IS NEGLIGIBLE; THAT EACH CAR IS IN CHARGE OF A REGULARLY
LICENSED DRIVER; AND THAT SUCH INTRAZONE MOVEMENT IS SUBJECT TO OTHER
LICENSING AND TAXING PROVISIONS, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHICH AND THE
EXACTIONS HERE IN QUESTION MAY BEAR A FAIR RELATION TO THE DIFFERENCES
IN THE BURDEN OF THE TRAFFIC FOR WHICH THE STATE MUST PROVIDE.  P.
596. 

(4)  THE LEGISLATURE HAVING MADE ITS CLASSIFICATION BY THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES, IN THE LIGHT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN THE
STATE, COURTS ARE NOT FREE TO SET ASIDE ITS DETERMINATION UNLESS THEY
CAN SAY THAT IT IS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL BASIS.  P. 596. 

(5)  THE COMPLAINANT HAS NOT SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF PROVING, AND THE
EVIDENCE DOES NOT SHOW, THAT THE FEES EXACTED BY THE STATUTE ARE
EXCESSIVE, FOR THE PURPOSES INDICATED.  P. 600. 

CLARK, DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, ET AL. V. PAUL GRAY,
INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES
WHICH ENJOINED THE APPELLANTS, OFFICERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
FROM ENFORCING STATUTORY PROVISIONS IMPOSING LICENSE FEES FOR THE USE
OF THE STATE HIGHWAYS IN THE TRANSPORTATION FOR SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLES
IN "CARAVANS." 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA
CARAVAN ACT OF 1937, EXACTING FEES AGGREGATING $15 FOR EACH AUTOMOBILE
DRIVEN INTO THE STATE FOR SALE, IMPOSES A FORBIDDEN BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR INFRINGES THE DUE PROCESS OR EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL UNDER SECS. 238(3), 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE; 28
U.S.C. SECS. 345(3), 380, FROM A FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, THREE JUDGES SITTING, ENJOINING APPELLANTS,
OFFICERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FROM ENFORCING THE LICENSE AND FEE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 788, P. 2253, CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF 1937.  GRAY
V. INGELS, 23 F.SUPP.  946.  FN1 

THE STATUTE, KNOWN AS THE CARAVAN ACT, WAS ENACTED AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR THE CARAVAN ACT OF 1935, C. 402, CAL. STAT. 1935, HELD INVALID IN
INGELS V. MORF, 300 U.S. 290, AS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  "CARAVANING" IS DEFINED IN SEC. 1 OF THE PRESENT ACT AS THE
"TRANSPORTATION OF ANY VEHICLE  ...  OPERATED ON ITS OWN WHEELS, OR IN
TOW OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING OR OFFERING THE SAME
FOR SALE  ...  WITHIN OR WITHOUT THIS STATE."  SECTIONS 4, 5 AND 6
EXACT IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER FEES TWO LICENSE FEES, EACH OF $7.50, FOR A
SIX-MONTHS PERMIT FOR CARAVANING A VEHICLE ON THE STATE HIGHWAYS.  ONE
OF THESE IS "TO REIMBURSE THE STATE FOR EXPENSE INCURRED IN
ADMINISTERING POLICE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE OPERATION OF
VEHICLES MOVED PURSUANT TO SUCH PERMITS AND TO PUBLIC SAFETY UPON THE
HIGHWAYS AS AFFECTED BY SUCH OPERATION"; THE OTHER IS DECLARED TO BE
"COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS."  SECTION
8 EXCEPTS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE VEHICLES MOVING WHOLLY
WITHIN EITHER OF TWO ZONES WHICH ARE APPROXIMATELY THE NORTHERN AND
SOUTHERN HALVES OF THE STATE.  OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT MAKE PROVISION
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES.  SECTION 12
PROVIDES FOR THE COLLECTION OF FEES BY SEIZURE AND SALE OF VEHICLES
TRANSPORTED IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT, AND SEC. 13 PRESCRIBES CRIMINAL
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION. 

APPELLEES, NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS, COPARTNERSHIPS AND CORPORATIONS,
JOINED IN BRINGING THE PRESENT SUIT AGAINST APPELLANTS, STATE OFFICERS
CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ENFORCING THE ACT, ALLEGING THAT EACH APPELLEE
HAD DRIVEN AND WOULD IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS DRIVE AUTOMOBILES INTO
CALIFORNIA FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE.  THEY PRAYED AN INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING APPELLANTS FROM COLLECTING THE FEES AND ENFORCING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN AID OF THEIR COLLECTION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT'S FINDINGS STATE THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE ACTION IS IN
EXCESS OF THE SUM OF $3,000; THAT EACH OF APPELLEES, IN THE COURSE OF
BUSINESS OF SELLING MOTOR CARS, PURCHASES CARS PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED IN
OTHER STATES AND "CARAVANS" THEM INTO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THAT
CARS FOR SALE ARE OFTEN MOVED BETWEEN POINTS IN A STATE ZONE; THAT THE
OPERATION OF CARS IN CARAVANS DOES NOT CREATE AN ADDITIONAL HAZARD OR A
TRAFFIC PROBLEM NECESSITATING SPECIAL POLICING OF THE CARAVANS AND THAT
THE CARAVANING OF CARS DOES NOT CREATE UNDUE WEAR AND TEAR ON THE
HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE; THAT THE FEES CHARGED ARE EXCESSIVE AND BEAR NO
RELATION TO THE ADDED EXPENSE TO THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT OF
POLICING THE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND THAT THEY ARE
DISPROPORTIONATE TO OTHER TAXES OR LICENSE FEES CHARGED BY THE STATE
FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE STATUTE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DEPRIVED APPELLEES OF THEIR
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, AND DENIED TO THEM EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS, IN THAT IT APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE USING THE HIGHWAYS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SALE AND DOES NOT
APPLY TO OTHER PERSONS USING THE HIGHWAYS UNDER COMPARABLE
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

APPELLANTS ASSAIL HERE THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT BELOW ON
WHICH IT PREDICATED ITS CONCLUSION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, AND INSIST
THAT UPON THE EVIDENCE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
FEES EXACTED ARE EXCESSIVE OR THAT THERE IS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OR DUE PROCESS. 

JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

A MOTION OF APPELLANTS IN THE COURT BELOW TO DISMISS THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN, AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS NOT CHALLENGED HERE.  BUT ON THE
ARGUMENT, IT APPEARING DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE "MATTER IN CONTROVERSY"
EXCEEDED "THE SUM OR VALUE OF" $3,000, SEC. 24(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE;
28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1), WE RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNT WAS INVOLVED, AS WAS OUR DUTY.  MANSFIELD, C. & L.M. RY. CO. V.
SWAN, 111 U.S. 379, 382; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO.,
282 U.S. 10, 13; ST. PAUL MERCURY INDEMNITY CO. V. RED CAB CO., 303
U.S. 283, 287, NOTE 10.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES GENERALLY THAT
"THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION IS IN EXCESS OF THREE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($3,000.00), EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS."  BUT IT IS PLAIN
THAT THIS ALLEGATION IS INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS WHERE THERE ARE NUMEROUS PLAINTIFFS HAVING NO JOINT OR
COMMON INTEREST OR TITLE IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT.  AS THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT SHOWS ON ITS FACE, AND AS THE FINDINGS ESTABLISH,
EACH APPELLEE MAINTAINS HIS OWN SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESS,
WHICH IS SAID TO BE AFFECTED BY THE CHALLENGED FEES.  NO JOINT OR
COMMON INTEREST OF APPELLEES IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT IS
SHOWN.  CF. GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66. 

IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE THAT WHEN SEVERAL PLAINTIFFS ASSERT SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT DEMANDS IN A SINGLE SUIT, THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN EACH
SEPARATE CONTROVERSY MUST BE OF THE REQUISITE AMOUNT TO BE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND THAT THOSE AMOUNTS CANNOT BE
ADDED TOGETHER TO SATISFY JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  WHELESS V. ST.
LOUIS, 180 U.S. 379; ROGERS V. HENNEPIN COUNTY, 239 U.S. 621; PINEL V.
PINEL, 240 U.S. 594; SCOTT V. FRAZIER, 253 U.S. 243.  THE GENERAL
ALLEGATION IN THE BILL OF COMPLAINT THAT "THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THIS
LITIGATION IS IN EXCESS OF" $3,000 AND THE FINDING OF THE COURT THAT
"THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE WITHIN ACTION" EXCEEDS THE JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNT, GIVE NO INDICATION THAT THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY WITH RESPECT
TO THE CLAIM OF ANY SINGLE PLAINTIFF EXCEEDS THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT
AND ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION
OF THE CAUSE.  PINEL V. PINEL, SUPRA. 

EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ONLY IN THE CASE OF A SINGLE
APPELLEE, PAUL GRAY, INC., IS THERE ANY ALLEGATION OR PROOF TENDING TO
SHOW THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.  AS TO IT THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES
THAT "IT CAUSES TO BE CARAVANED INTO THE SAID STATE  ...  APPROXIMATELY
ONE HUNDRED FIFTY (150) AUTOMOBILES EACH YEAR."  THIS ALLEGATION IS
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THAT THIS APPELLEE IS REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS AND TENDING TO SHOW THAT ITS VOLUME EXCEEDED THAT AMOUNT WHEN
THE ACT WENT INTO EFFECT JULY 2, 1937.  SINCE THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ILLEGAL IMPOSITION OF FEES OR TAXES IS THE AMOUNT
OF THE FEES OR TAXES WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE COLLECTED DURING THE
PERIOD OF THE LITIGATION, HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263, WE CANNOT SAY,
UPON THIS STATE OF THE RECORD, THAT JURISDICTION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED AS
TO APPELLEE PAUL GRAY, INC. 

WE IGNORE AFFIDAVITS FILED HERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENTING THE
RECORD BY SHOWING THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY AS TO ANOTHER APPELLEE. 
WHILE IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THIS COURT TO RECEIVE AFFIDAVITS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING ITS OWN APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER
STATUTES PRESCRIBING THAT A SPECIFIED AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IS
PREREQUISITE TO THE APPEAL, WILLIAMSON V. KINCAID, 4 DALL.  20; RUSH V.
PARKER, 5 CRANCH 287; ROURA V. PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 218 U.S. 386; SEE
RED RIVER CATTLE CO. V. NEEDHAM, 137 U.S. 632, THAT PROCEDURE IS
INAPPLICABLE HERE.  OUR REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN
ASSUMING JURISDICTION IS CONFINED TO THE RECORD BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COURT.  HENNEFORD V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 303 U.S. 17. 

PROPER PRACTICE REQUIRES THAT WHERE EACH OF SEVERAL PLAINTIFFS IS
BOUND TO ESTABLISH THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO HIS OWN
CLAIM, THE SUIT SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS TO THOSE WHO FAIL TO SHOW THAT
THE REQUISITE AMOUNT IS INVOLVED.  FN2  OTHERWISE AN APPELLATE COURT
COULD BE CALLED ON TO SUSTAIN A DECREE IN FAVOR OF A PLAINTIFF WHO HAD
NOT SHOWN THAT HIS CLAIM INVOLVED THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, EVEN
THOUGH THE SUIT WERE DISMISSED ON THE MERITS AS TO THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS
WHO HAD ESTABLISHED THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT FOR THEMSELVES.  ALTHOUGH
IT APPEARS THAT SUCH A RESULT COULD NOT FOLLOW HERE, WE THINK IT BETTER
PRACTICE TO DISMISS THE SUIT FOR WANT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT AS
TO ALL APPELLEES EXCEPT PAUL GRAY, INC. SEE RICH V. LAMBERT, 12 HOW. 
347; EX PARTE BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO., 106 U.S. 5; HASSALL V.
WILCOX, 115 U.S. 598.  CF. GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S.
233. 

DISCRIMINATION. 

APART FROM APPELLEES' INSISTENCE THAT THE FEES ARE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE EXCESSIVE, THE
SUBSTANCE OF THEIR CONTENTION IS THAT THE STATUTE DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN
AUTOMOBILES TRANSPORTED INTO THE STATE SINGLY AND THOSE SIMILARLY
TRANSPORTED INTRAZONE, FOR WHICH NO FEE IS CHARGED, AND ALSO THAT THE
STATUTE DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN THOSE CARS DRIVEN BY APPELLEES IN
CARAVANS AND THOSE SIMILARLY DRIVEN WHOLLY WITHIN EITHER OF THE STATE
ZONES, FOR WHICH NO FEE IS CHARGED. 

IN MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407, WE HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE
VALIDITY OF A FEE OR TAX EXACTED BY NEW MEXICO FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
INTO THE STATE OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE WITHIN OR
WITHOUT THE STATE.  IT THERE APPEARED THAT THE PLAINTIFF, WITH OTHERS,
WAS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTING MOTOR CARS ON THEIR OWN WHEELS IN CARAVANS
ACROSS THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE, AND THAT THEIR
TRANSPORTATION FOR THAT PURPOSE HAD RESULTED IN THE CREATION OF A
DISTINCT CLASS OF MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC OF CONSIDERABLE MAGNITUDE.  IN
THE COURSE OF THIS BUSINESS SECOND-HAND CARS PURCHASED AT POINTS IN THE
EAST ARE ASSEMBLED IN CARAVANS, WHICH ARE DRIVEN AS SUCH TO THE POINT
OF SALE IN CALIFORNIA.  LARGE NUMBERS OF THE CARS ARE COUPLED IN TWOS,
EACH TWO IN CHARGE OF A SINGLE DRIVER WHO OPERATES THE FORWARD CAR AND
CONTROLS THE MOVEMENT OF BOTH BY THE USE OF THE MECHANISM AND BRAKES OF
ONE.  THE DRIVERS OF CARAVANS, EXCEPT TWO OR THREE REGULARLY ENGAGED,
ARE CASUALLY EMPLOYED AND SERVE WITHOUT PAY OR FOR SMALL COMPENSATION
IN ORDER TO SECURE TRANSPORTATION TO THE POINT OF DESTINATION.  WE
SAID, PAGE 411-412: 

"THE LEGISLATURE MAY READILY HAVE CONCLUDED, AS DID THE TRIAL COURT,
THAT THE DRIVERS HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS OR THE VEHICLES
THEY DRIVE AND LESS REGARD THAN DRIVERS OF STATE LICENSED CARS FOR THE
SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF OTHERS USING THE HIGHWAYS.  THE EVIDENCE
SUPPORTS THE INFERENCE THAT CARS THUS COUPLED AND CONTROLLED FREQUENTLY
SKID, ESPECIALLY ON CURVES, CAUSING MORE THAN THE USUAL WEAR AND TEAR
ON THE ROAD; THAT THIS AND OTHER INCREASED DIFFICULTIES IN THE
OPERATION OF THE COUPLED CARS, AND THE LENGTH OF THE CARAVANS, INCREASE
THE INCONVENIENCE AND HAZARD TO PASSING TRAFFIC.  ...  THERE IS AMPLE
SUPPORT FOR A LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION THAT THE PECULIAR CHARACTER OF
THIS TRAFFIC INVOLVES A SPECIAL TYPE OF USE OF THE HIGHWAYS, WITH
ENHANCED WEAR AND TEAR ON THE ROADS AND AUGMENTED HAZARDS TO OTHER
TRAFFIC, WHICH IMPOSES ON THE STATE A HEAVIER FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND POLICING THAN DO OTHER TYPES OF MOTOR CAR
TRAFFIC.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT AFFORD AN
ADEQUATE BASIS FOR SPECIAL LICENSING AND TAXING PROVISIONS, WHOSE ONLY
EFFECT, EVEN WHEN APPLIED TO INTERSTATE TRAFFIC, IS TO ENABLE THE STATE
TO POLICE IT, AND TO IMPOSE UPON IT A REASONABLE CHARGE, TO DEFRAY THE
BURDEN OF THIS STATE EXPENSE, AND FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE STATE
HIGHWAYS." 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS FOUND IT EXPEDIENT TO ADOPT LICENSING
PROVISIONS FOR THIS CLASS OF TRAFFIC AND TO EXACT THE FEES SPECIFIED IN
THE STATUTE FOR THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS AND THE EXPENSE OF POLICING. 
THAT THIS PECULIAR TYPE OF TRAFFIC OCCURS IN LARGE VOLUME BETWEEN
EASTERN POINTS AND POINTS IN CALIFORNIA, AND THAT THERE IS BASIS FOR
THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPOSES SPECIAL BURDENS ON
THE USE OF THE STATE HIGHWAYS FOR WHICH A SPECIAL CHARGE MAY BE MADE,
ARE ABUNDANTLY SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED
THAT FIFTEEN THOUSAND AUTOMOBILES ARE BROUGHT INTO THE STATE FOR SALE
ANNUALLY.  OF THESE, FROM 80 TO 90 PER CENT. COME IN CARAVANS OR
CONVOYS, AND OF THE CARS SO MOVING ONE-HALF ARE COUPLED TOGETHER IN
TWOS.  IT FURTHER APPEARS BY STIPULATION THAT THE CARAVANS OR CONVOYS
ARE MADE UP OF FROM NINETEEN TO TWENTY-FIVE CARS.    THERE IS MUCH
EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD INDICATING THAT IT IS THE LONG HAUL TRAFFIC IN
CARS FOR SALE IN CALIFORNIA WHICH TENDS TO PRODUCE THE MOVEMENT IN
LARGE CARAVANS OR CONVOYS IN ORDER TO SAVE EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTATION,
AND WHICH IN TURN TENDS TO IMPOSE SPECIAL BURDENS ON THE STATE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS, CALLING FOR THE IMPOSITION OF
REGULATIONS AND FEES DIFFERENT FROM THOSE APPLIED TO OTHER TYPES OF
MOTOR CAR MOVEMENT.  WITHOUT REPEATING WHAT WAS SAID MORE AT LENGTH OF
LIKE TRAFFIC IN MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA, THE EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT
CASE SHOWS THAT COUPLED CARS, UNDER CONTROL OF A SINGLE DRIVER, SUBJECT
THE HIGHWAYS TO INCREASED WEAR AND TEAR BECAUSE OF THEIR TENDENCY TO
SKID AND SWAY ON CURVES AND IN PASSING OTHER TRAFFIC, AND THAT THE
LENGTH OF THE CARAVANS AND THE INEFFICIENCY AND IRRESPONSIBILITY OF THE
DRIVERS, CASUALLY EMPLOYED, INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND THE
INCONVENIENCES AND HAZARDS OF AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC.  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
HAVE CAUSED THE STATE TO MAKE INCREASED PROVISION FOR THE POLICING OF
THE TRAFFIC.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE
PRACTICE OF CARAVANING CREATES NO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC HAZARD, NOR ANY
UNDUE WEAR AND TEAR ON THE HIGHWAYS.  BUT IN THIS WE THINK THAT ITS
DETERMINATION WAS NOT ONLY CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE, BUT WENT BEYOND
THE JUDICIAL PROVINCE. 

IT IS NO LONGER OPEN TO QUESTION THAT THE STATES HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY TO EXACT REASONABLE FEES FOR THE USE OF THEIR HIGHWAYS BY
VEHICLES MOVING INTERSTATE, HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610; KANE V.
NEW JERSEY, 242 U.S. 160; CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554; SPROUT V. SOUTH
BEND, 277 U.S. 163; MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA; DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO. V.
STATE REVENUE COMM'N, ANTE, P. 72, AND THAT FOR THAT PURPOSE THEY MAY
CLASSIFY THE VEHICLES ACCORDING TO THE CHARACTER OF THE TRAFFIC AND THE
BURDEN IT IMPOSES ON THE STATE BY THAT USE, AND CHARGE FOR THE USE A
FEE NOT SHOWN TO BE UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE.  CONTINENTAL BAKING CO.
V. WOODRING, 286 U.S. 352, 370-371; HICKLIN V. CONEY, 290 U.S. 169;
MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA, 413; DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO. V. STATE REVENUE
COMM'N, SUPRA. 

THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE TRAFFIC FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATION AND
FIXING FEES IS A LEGISLATIVE, NOT A JUDICIAL, FUNCTION.  ITS MERITS ARE
NOT TO BE WEIGHED IN THE JUDICIAL BALANCE AND THE CLASSIFICATION
REJECTED MERELY BECAUSE THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN COURT APPEARS TO
FAVOR A DIFFERENT STANDARD.  CF. WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY,
302 U.S. 292, 299.  THE DETERMINATION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS PRESUMED TO
BE SUPPORTED BY FACTS KNOWN TO IT, UNLESS FACTS JUDICIALLY KNOWN OR
PROVED PRECLUDE THAT POSSIBILITY.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. MARYSVILLE, 279
U.S. 582, 584; BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS CO. V. TEN EYCK, 297 U.S. 251,
263; S.C. 11 F.SUPP.  599, 600; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 191-192; UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE
PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 153-154.  HENCE, IN PASSING ON THE VALIDITY
OF THE PRESENT CLASSIFICATION, IT IS NOT THE PROVINCE OF A COURT TO
HEAR AND EXAMINE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING AGAIN A QUESTION
WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY DECIDED.  ITS FUNCTION IS ONLY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE LEGISLATIVE DECISION
IS WITHOUT RATIONAL BASIS.  THIS IS EQUALLY THE CASE WHERE THE
CLASSIFICATION, WHICH IS ONE WHICH THE LEGISLATURE WAS COMPETENT TO
MAKE, IS APPLIED TO VEHICLES USING THE STATE HIGHWAYS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, 187
ET SEQ. THE LEGISLATURE MUST BE ASSUMED TO HAVE ACTED ON INFORMATION
AVAILABLE TO COURTS, AND WHERE, AS HERE, THE EVIDENCE, LIKE THAT
DISCUSSED IN MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA, SHOWS THAT IT IS AT LEAST A
DEBATABLE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRAFFIC IN CARAVANS INVOLVES SPECIAL
WEAR AND TEAR OF THE HIGHWAYS AND INCREASED TRAFFIC HAZARDS REQUIRING
SPECIAL POLICE CONTROL, DECISION IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE AND NOT THE
COURTS.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. MARYSVILLE, SUPRA; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY
DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA. 

APPELLEE PAUL GRAY, INC., SO FAR AS APPEARS, CARAVANS ITS CARS FOR
SALE IN CALIFORNIA FROM DETROIT, MICHIGAN, AND ST. JOSEPH, MISSOURI. 
ITS CARS, LIKE THOSE OF THE OTHER APPELLEES, MOVE IN CARAVANS OF FROM
NINETEEN TO TWENTY-FIVE CARS.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR, NOR IS IT CONTENDED,
THAT THIS APPELLEE TRANSPORTS ANY CARS SINGLY.  FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID
IT IS EVIDENT, AS WAS DECIDED IN MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA, THAT CARS
MOVING IN CARAVANS OF THE TYPE DESCRIBED CONSTITUTE A SPECIAL CLASS OF
TRAFFIC WHICH MAY BE TAXED OR CHARGED FOR DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER
CLASSES WITHOUT INFRINGING THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE STATUTE DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION TO APPELLEES
BECAUSE IT EXACTS FEES FOR CARS TRANSPORTED INTO THE STATE FOR SALE
SINGLY BUT NONE FOR CARS WHICH MOVE SIMILARLY INTRAZONE OR FOR THOSE
WHICH ENTER THE STATE NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SALE, IGNORES THE ACTUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE STATUTE IS APPLIED TO APPELLEES, AS SHOWN BY
THE RECORD, AND SEEKS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF AN ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION
WHICH, IF IT EXISTS, DOES APPELLEES NO HARM.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
DOES NOT REQUIRE CLASSIFICATION FOR FEES, MORE THAN FOR TAXATION, TO
FOLLOW ANY PARTICULAR FORM OF WORDS.  IF THAT ADOPTED RESULTS IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE EXACTION TO A CLASS WHICH MAY BE SEPARATELY CHARGED
WITHOUT A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION, THOSE WITHIN THE CLASS CANNOT
COMPLAIN THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE APTLY DEFINED OR THAT THE STATUTE
MAY TAX OTHERS WHO ARE NOT WITHIN THE CLASS.  SEE PATSONE V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138, 144; SILVER V. SILVER, 280 U.S. 117, 123;
MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA, 413. 

IT IS THE PRACTICE OF TRANSPORTING AUTOMOBILES FOR LONG DISTANCES
OVER THE HIGHWAY FOR PURPOSE OF SALE WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE
PRACTICE OF MOVING THEM IN CARAVANS.  THE USE OF AUTOMOBILES FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, OR FOR PLEASURE, DOES NOT HAVE THAT RESULT.  THE
CLASSIFICATION OF THE STATUTE, IN ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATION, EMBRACES
AND IS CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLICABLE TO CARS MOVING IN CARAVANS, THE
CLASS OF TRAFFIC IN WHICH APPELLEE PAUL GRAY, INC., ENGAGES AND ON
WHICH IT IS ALONE TAXED.  ONE FORM OF DISCRIMINATION OF WHICH IT
COMPLAINS IS THAT FEES ARE EXACTED FOR CARS DRIVEN INTO THE STATE
SINGLY FOR SALE BUT NOT FOR THOSE DRIVEN SINGLY TO MARKET INTRAZONE OR
SINGLY FROM WITHOUT THE STATE FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  APPELLEE DOES NOT
SHOW THAT IT BELONGS TO EITHER CLASS, AND SO FAR AS THE TRAFFIC IN
WHICH IT PARTICIPATES IS PROPERLY TAXED, IT CANNOT COMPLAIN OF THE
IMPOSITION OF THE CHARGE ON A BUSINESS WHICH IT DOES NOT DO. 

SO FAR AS APPELLEES COMPLAIN THAT NO FEE IS EXACTED FOR CARS WHICH
MOVE FOR SALE INTRAZONE IN CARAVANS, DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS APPLY. 
AS WE HAVE SAID, IT IS THE LONG HAUL OF CARS FOR SALE WHICH HAS
PRODUCED MOTOR VEHICLE CARAVANS AND HAS MADE THEM A SPECIAL CLASS FOR
THE PURPOSES OF REGULATION AND IMPOSITION OF FEES.  IT WAS FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE WHETHER THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS WHICH
PREVAIL IN THE STATE, AFFECTING MOVEMENT OF CARS FOR SALE, ELIMINATE OR
SO REDUCE THE BURDEN OF THE CARAVAN TRAFFIC ON THE HIGHWAYS AS TO CALL
FOR A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION OF THE SHORT HAUL TRAFFIC FOR THE
PURPOSES OF REGULATION AND FEES.  THE LEGISLATURE HAVING MADE ITS
CLASSIFICATION BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES, IN THE LIGHT OF SPECIAL
CONDITIONS IN THE STATE, COURTS ARE NOT FREE TO SET ASIDE ITS
DETERMINATION UNLESS THEY CAN SAY THAT IT IS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL
BASIS.  CARLEY & HAMILTON V. SNOOK, 281 U.S. 66, 73; CONTINENTAL BAKING
CO. V. WOODRING, SUPRA; SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374; HICKLIN V.
CONEY, SUPRA; AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 295
U.S. 285. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT CARS ARE OFTEN MOVED IN CONVOYS IN ZONE 1,
WHICH INCLUDES THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF LOS ANGELES, AND IT THOUGHT
THIS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE INTRAZONE TRAFFIC. 
THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE
MOVEMENT INTRAZONE OF CARS FOR SALE IN CONVOYS SIMILAR TO THAT OF
APPELLEES IS NEGLIGIBLE AND THAT THE PRINCIPAL SOURCES OF CARS FOR SALE
MOVING INTRAZONE ARE THE ASSEMBLY PLANTS OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
LOCATED IN OR NEAR THE METROPOLITAN AREAS OF LOS ANGELES AND SAN
FRANCISCO.  BEING NEW CARS, THE BULK OF THEM, SHIPPED INTERSTATE OR TO
DISTANT POINTS INTRASTATE, MOVE BY RAIL, WATER, OR TRUCK.  MOST OF
THOSE WHICH MOVE ON THEIR OWN WHEELS ARE DRIVEN RELATIVELY SHORT
DISTANCES, SEVENTY-FIVE MILES OR LESS, IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA OVER
HIGHWAYS OF MORE THAN TWO LANES, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM CARAVANS COMING
FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, WHICH MOVE FOR LONG DISTANCES OVER TWOLANE
HIGHWAYS IN MOUNTAIN DISTRICTS.  THE PROPORTION DRIVEN SINGLY DOES NOT
APPEAR.  SUCH CONVOYS OR CARAVANS AS THERE ARE USUALLY CONSIST OF TWO
OR THREE CARS.  THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSES NO CASE OF MORE THAN FOUR. 
COUPLING IS NEGLIGIBLE.  EACH CAR IS IN CHARGE OF A REGULARLY EMPLOYED
AND LICENSED DRIVER.  THE INTRAZONE MOVEMENT IS SUBJECT TO OTHER
LICENSING AND TAXING PROVISIONS OF THE STATE LAW, AND NO SHOWING IS
MADE THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN FEES OR TAXES EXACTED FROM THE TWO CLASSES
OF TRAFFIC DO NOT BEAR A FAIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE DIFFERENCES IN THE
BURDEN OF THE TRAFFIC FOR WHICH THE STATE MUST PROVIDE. 

THE LEGISLATURE COULD REASONABLY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE WEAR AND
TEAR AND INJURY TO THE HIGHWAYS FROM DRIVING COUPLED CARS INTRAZONE WAS
NEGLIGIBLE, AND THAT THE RELATIVELY SHORT DISTANCES WHICH CARS ARE
DRIVEN IN TWOS OR THREES, THE CHARACTER OF THE HIGHWAYS USED, AND THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE CLASS OF DRIVERS, TAKEN TOGETHER, ELIMINATE FROM THE
INTRAZONE TRAFFIC OR SO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE BURDEN IMPOSED BY
TRAFFIC LIKE THAT OF APPELLEES MOVING INTERSTATE OR INTERZONE AS TO
REQUIRE, IN FAIRNESS, A DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FEES CHARGED FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THAT
CONCLUSION IS WITHOUT SUPPORT OR INFRINGES THE PRINCIPLES WHICH WE HAVE
REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED AS DEFINING THE POWER OF THE STATES, IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, TO CLASSIFY VEHICLES OR TRAFFIC FOR
THE PURPOSES OF REGULATING USE OF THE HIGHWAYS BY VEHICLES MOVING
INTERSTATE.  IF THE CLASSIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO A MATTER REMAINING
WITHIN STATE CONTROL, DESPITE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IS OTHERWISE VALID,
IT IS NOT ANY THE LESS SO BECAUSE IT AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE
SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., SUPRA, 191-192, AND
CASES CITED.  AS THE STATE HAS AUTHORITY TO CHARGE A REASONABLE FEE FOR
THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS, AND AS THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE TRAFFIC WHICH
THE STATE HAS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING THE FEES IS VALID, THE
ONLY REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER THE FEES WHICH IT HAS FIXED MUST BE
DEEMED EXCESSIVE. 

REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES. 

IN INGELS V. MORF, SUPRA, THE $15 FEE CHARGED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ACT OF 1935 FOR DRIVING A CAR INTO THE STATE FOR PURPOSE OF SALE WAS
CONTESTED AS EXCESSIVE.  THERE THE STATUTE DECLARED THAT THE FEE WAS
"INTENDED TO REIMBURSE THE STATE TREASURY FOR THE ADDED EXPENSE WHICH
THE STATE MAY INCUR IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT,
AND THE ADDED EXPENSE OF POLICING THE HIGHWAYS OVER WHICH SUCH
CARAVANING MAY BE CONDUCTED,  ...  " AND THE AUTOMOBILE OWNER ASSUMED
AND BY PROOF SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE CHARGE MADE FOR
THE PRECISE PURPOSES DEFINED BY THE STATUTE WAS EXCESSIVE.  WE ACCEPTED
THE EVIDENCE AS ESTABLISHING THAT THE COST OF ISSUING CARAVAN PERMITS
WAS ABOUT $5 PER CAR AND AS SUPPORTING THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT
THAT THE COST OF POLICING DID NOT EXCEED $5 A CAR.  AND WE CONCLUDED
THAT THE TOTAL COST OF ADMINISTRATION AND POLICING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY
LESS THAN THE $15 FEE CHARGED. 

HERE A FEE OF $7.50 IS COLLECTED FOR ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
OF THE ACT AND A FEE OF LIKE AMOUNT IS CHARGED FOR THE USE OF THE
HIGHWAYS.  APPELLEES HAVE OFFERED NO PROOF THAT EITHER OF THE FEES IS
TOO LARGE, ALTHOUGH THE BURDEN RESTED UPON THEM TO SHOW THAT THE FEES
WERE EXCESSIVE FOR THE DECLARED PURPOSES.  HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, SUPRA,
624; INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, 276 U.S. 245, 251; MORF.  V.
BINGAMAN, SUPRA, 410; INGELS V. MORF, SUPRA, 296.  GREAT NORTHERN RY.
CO. V. WASHINGTON, 300 U.S. 154, IS NOT TO THE CONTRARY. 

APPELLANTS, WITHOUT ABANDONING THEIR POSITION THAT THE BURDEN OF
PROOF RESTS ON APPELLEES, OFFERED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE COSTS OF
ADMINISTRATION AND POLICING PROVED IN INGELS V. MORF, SUPRA, WERE
INCOMPLETE.  DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE CASE MUCH OF THE PROOF IS INEXACT
AND SPECULATIVE.  BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THIRTY-NINE OFFICERS
DEVOTED PART OR ALL OF THEIR TIME TO ENFORCING THE 1937 ACT.  THE
EXPENSE OF OPERATING THEIR AUTOMOBILES AND MOTORCYCLES IS CONSIDERABLE;
AN INCREASED BURDEN IS IMPOSED UPON THE PERSONNEL OF THE BORDER POLICE
STATIONS; AND SOME INCREASE IN CLERICAL FORCE AND IN EXPENDITURES FOR
STATIONERY AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS HAS BEEN REQUIRED.  INVESTIGATIONS
OF ATTEMPTED EVASIONS INCREASE THE UNIT COST ABOVE THAT OF OTHER TYPES
OF TRAFFIC.  THE TOTAL OF THESE ADDED EXPENSES, AS COMPUTED BY
APPELLANTS AT ABOUT $133,000 ANNUALLY, CERTAINLY APPROXIMATES THE
AMOUNT OF THE REVENUE DERIVED FROM THE FEES.  THE AGGREGATE OF THE FEES
COLLECTED DURING ELEVEN MONTHS FOR 14,000 CARS AT $7.50 EACH IS
$105,000.  APPELLEES DO NOTHING TO CHALLENGE THIS EVIDENCE, AND THEY
POINT TO NO SPECIFIC ERRORS IN THE ESTIMATES OR COMPUTATION UPON WHICH
APPELLANTS CALCULATE THE COSTS.    THE STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPUTE
WITH MATHEMATICAL PRECISION THE COST TO IT OF THE SERVICES NECESSITATED
BY THE CARAVAN TRAFFIC.  IF THE FEES CHARGED DO NOT APPEAR TO BE
MANIFESTLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE SERVICES RENDERED, WE CANNOT SAY
FROM OUR OWN KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE THAT THEY ARE EXCESSIVE.  KANE V.
NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, 168; INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, SUPRA,
251, 252; MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA; DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO. V. STATE
REVENUE COMM'N, SUPRA; SEE PATAPSCO GUANO CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA, 171
U.S. 345, 354; MCLEAN & CO. V. DENVER & RIO GRANDE R. CO., 203 U.S. 38,
55; INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183, 186.  APPELLEES
HAVE FAILED TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT EITHER OF THE FEES IS
EXCESSIVE FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS COLLECTED. 

THE TRIAL COURT SEEMS TO HAVE THOUGHT AS APPELLEES ARGUE, THAT
UNREASONABLENESS OF THE FEES WAS ESTABLISHED BY PROOF THAT THE SAME
FEES ARE NOT IMPOSED ON OTHER CLASSES OF TRAFFIC.  BUT SINCE, AS WE
HAVE SEEN, THERE IS BASIS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE TRAFFIC, THERE
IS BASIS FOR A DIFFERENCE IN FEES CHARGED THE DIFFERENT CLASSES. 
HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, SUPRA; INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT,
SUPRA.  APPELLEES HAVE LAID NO FOUNDATION FOR ANY CONTENTION THAT THERE
ARE NOT COMPENSATING DIFFERENCES IN THE TRAFFIC COMPARABLE TO THE
DIFFERENCE IN FEES, OR FOR IMPEACHING THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT
THOSE SPECIFIED ARE FAIRLY RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC TO WHICH THEY ARE
APPLIED. 

THE CAUSE WILL BE REVERSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO
DISMISS THE CASE AS TO APPELLEE PAUL GRAY, INC., ON THE MERITS, AND TO
DISMISS AS TO THE OTHER APPELLEES FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SUIT WAS BEGUN JULY 14, 1937, BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE
AMENDMENT TO SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE; ACT AUGUST 21, 1937, C. 726,
50 STAT. 738, PROVIDING THAT "NO DISTRICT COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION
OF ANY SUIT TO ENJOIN, SUSPEND, OR RESTRAIN THE ASSESSMENT, LEVY, OR
COLLECTION OF ANY TAX IMPOSED BY OR PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF ANY STATE
WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW OR IN
EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE."  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT EXCLUDES
FROM ITS OPERATION SUITS BEGUN IN THE DISTRICT COURTS BEFORE ITS
ENACTMENT. 

FN2  A DIFFERENT QUESTION IS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF A CREDITOR'S
BILL TO LIQUIDATE AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL
CREDITORS.  THERE HIS CLAIM MUST EXCEED THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT. 
LION BONDING CO. V. KARATZ, 262 U.S. 77.  BUT CREDITORS WHOSE CLAIMS
ARE LESS MAY BE MADE PARTIES BECAUSE OF THEIR INTEREST IN A FUND
BROUGHT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  GIBSON V. SHUFELDT, 122
U.S. 27; HANDLEY V. STUTZ, 137 U.S. 366; NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE V.
ALLEN, 90 F. 545, 555-556. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AS TO ALL THE APPELLEES. 
..END :























LABOR BOARD V. FAINBLATT, 306 U.S. 601 


NO. 514.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 9, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 98 F.2D
615, REVERSED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO MANUFACTURERS
WHOSE PRODUCT IS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES
SUCH THAT CESSATION OF WORK BY THEIR EMPLOYEES BY REASON OF STRIKES OR
LABOR DISPUTES WOULD RESULT IN CESSATION OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE
MANUFACTURED PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CONSEQUENTLY THE ACT IS
APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYERS, NOT THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
WHO ARE ENGAGED IN A RELATIVELY SMALL BUSINESS OF PROCESSING MATERIALS
WHICH ARE REGULARLY TRANSMITTED TO THEM BY THE OWNERS THROUGH THE
CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WHICH, AFTER THE PROCESSING, ARE
RETURNED TO THE OWNER'S AGENT AT THE FACTORY, AND BY HIM SHIPPED TO
INTERSTATE DESTINATIONS.  P. 604. 

2.  WHETHER THE MATERIALS ARE OWNED BY THE PROCESSOR AND WHETHER THEY
ARE SHIPPED DIRECTLY TO HIM OR TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OWNERS AT THE
PROCESSOR'S FACTORY, ARE IMMATERIAL.  THE SHIPMENTS TO AND FROM THE
FACTORY ARE NONE THE LESS INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE THE
TRANSPORTATION DID NOT BEGIN OR END WITH THE TRANSFER OF TITLE OF THE
MERCHANDISE TRANSPORTED.  P. 605. 

3.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS PLENARY
AND EXTENDS TO ALL SUCH COMMERCE, BE IT GREAT OR SMALL.  THE AMOUNT OF
COMMERCE REGULATED IS OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT
CONGRESS MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE EXCLUDED COMMERCE OF SMALL VOLUME FROM
THE OPERATION OF ITS REGULATORY MEASURE BY EXPRESS PROVISION OR FAIR
IMPLICATION.  P. 606. 

4.  IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT CONGRESS HAS SET NO
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD TO BE DETERMINED OR
FIXED EXCLUSIVELY BY REFERENCE TO THE VOLUME OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
INVOLVED.  P. 606. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FAINBLATT ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 594, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING A PETITION OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ONE OF ITS
ORDERS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PETITION RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYERS, NOT THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHO ARE ENGAGED IN A RELATIVELY SMALL BUSINESS OF
PROCESSING MATERIALS WHICH ARE TRANSMITTED TO THEM BY THE OWNERS
THROUGH THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WHICH AFTER PROCESSING
ARE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THOSE CHANNELS. 

PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(B) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, C. 372,
49 STAT. 449; 29 U.S.C. SEC. 151 ET SEQ., THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD ISSUED ITS COMPLAINT CHARGING RESPONDENTS WITH UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1), (3), (5) AND SEC. 2(6), (7) OF THE
ACT.  AFTER A HEARING, WHICH RESULTED IN A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE
BOARD, A SUPPLEMENTAL HEARING WAS HELD PURSUANT TO ORDER OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, WHICH RESULTED IN A SUPPLEMENTAL
DECISION AND AN ORDER REAFFIRMING THE BOARD'S ORIGINAL FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL ORDER IN ONE RESPECT NOT
NOW MATERIAL. 

THE FACTS, AS FOUND BY THE BOARD, ARE THAT RESPONDENTS, UNDER THE
NAME OF SOMERSET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ARE ENGAGED AT SOMERVILLE, NEW
JERSEY, IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING MATERIALS INTO VARIOUS TYPES OF
WOMEN'S SPORTS GARMENTS.  THEY OPERATE WHAT IS KNOWN AS A "CONTRACT
SHOP."  THE MATERIALS ARE SUPPLIED BY AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE LEE
SPORTSWEAR COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP LOCATED IN NEW YORK CITY.  THE CLOTH
FROM WHICH THE GARMENTS ARE MADE IS USUALLY CUT BY THE LEE SPORTSWEAR
COMPANY IN NEW YORK CITY AND THEN SHIPPED BY TRUCK TO RESPONDENTS'
FACTORY IN NEW JERSEY.  SOMETIMES THE RAW MATERIALS ARE SHIPPED, ON THE
ORDER OF THE LEE SPORTSWEAR COMPANY, DIRECTLY FROM THE MILLS
MANUFACTURING THEM, MANY OF WHICH ARE OUTSIDE OF NEW JERSEY.  ALL THE
MATERIALS ARE MANUFACTURED AT RESPONDENTS' NEW JERSEY FACTORY UNDER
CONTRACT.  THE FINISHED GARMENTS ARE THERE DELIVERED TO A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LEE SPORTSWEAR COMPANY, WHO SHIPS THEM TO THE
COMPANY IN NEW YORK CITY OR DIRECTLY TO ITS CUSTOMERS THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES. 

THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THERE IS NORMALLY A CONTINUOUS DAY-BY-DAY FLOW OF
SHIPMENTS OF RAW MATERIALS TO RESPONDENTS' FACTORY FROM POINTS WITHOUT
THE STATE, AND OF FINISHED GARMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS' PLANT TO NEW YORK
CITY AND OTHER POINTS OUTSIDE OF NEW JERSEY.  DURING THE YEARS 1934 AND
1935 RESPONDENTS APPEAR TO HAVE FINISHED MORE THAN A THOUSAND DOZEN
GARMENTS EACH MONTH.  IN THE COURSE OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL HEARING IN 1937
IT APPEARED THAT RESPONDENTS HAD INCREASED THEIR WORKING FORCE FROM
SIXTY TO APPROXIMATELY TWO HUNDRED EMPLOYEES, FROM WHICH THE BOARD
INFERRED A CORRESPONDING INCREASE OF OUTPUT.  IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A
STRIKE OF THIRTY-FOUR OF THE WORKERS IN RESPONDENTS' TAILORING
DEPARTMENT, WHICH OCCURRED IN SEPTEMBER, 1935, AND WHICH THE BOARD
FOUND TO BE INDUCED BY THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF RESPONDENTS,
SHIPMENTS WERE ABOUT 80 PER CENT. OF THOSE FOR THE CORRESPONDING PERIOD
IN 1934.  FOLLOWING THE STRIKE, OUTPUT DECREASED BY MORE THAN ONE-HALF,
OR TO 38 PER CENT. OF THE SHIPMENTS FOR THE CORRESPONDING PERIOD IN
1934. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENTS' UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES HAD LED
AND TENDED "TO LEAD TO LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING
COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE."  ITS ORDER AS MODIFIED
DIRECTED RESPONDENTS TO DESIST FROM INTERFERING WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES'
RIGHT TO JOIN A LOCAL UNION AND FROM DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN THE
UNION BY DISCHARGING THEM OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THEM IN THE TERMS
OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, AND IT DIRECTED RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES WHO HAD STRUCK BECAUSE OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, SOME
WITH BACK PAY. 

THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER WAS DENIED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, 98 F.2D 615, ON THE GROUND THAT
RESPONDENTS WERE NOT THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND HAD
NO TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE RAW MATERIALS OR FINISHED PRODUCTS WHICH
MOVED TO AND FROM RESPONDENTS' FACTORY IN NEW JERSEY FROM AND TO POINTS
OUTSIDE THE STATE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI JANUARY 9, 1939, THE QUESTION
BEING ONE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

ONLY THE QUESTION OF THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION IS RAISED BY THE
PETITION AND IN BRIEFS AND ARGUMENT.  IT HAS BEEN SETTLED BY REPEATED
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT AN EMPLOYER MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT ALTHOUGH NOT HIMSELF ENGAGED IN COMMERCE.  THE END
SOUGHT IN THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE WAS THE PREVENTION OF THE
DISTURBANCE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONSEQUENT UPON STRIKES AND LABOR
DISPUTES INDUCED OR LIKELY TO BE INDUCED BECAUSE OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES NAMED IN THE ACT.  THAT THOSE CONSEQUENCES MAY ENSUE FROM
STRIKES OF THE EMPLOYEES OF MANUFACTURERS WHO ARE NOT ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHERE THE CESSATION OF MANUFACTURE NECESSARILY
RESULTS IN THE CESSATION OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT BY THIS COURT. 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301
U.S. 1, 38-40; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO.,
301 U.S. 49; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS
CLOTHING CO., 301 U.S. 58; SANTA CRUZ PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 463 ET SEQ.; CF. CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO.
V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305 U.S. 197.  LONG BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IT HAD BEEN MANY TIMES
HELD BY THIS COURT THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS TO THE PROTECTION
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM INTERFERENCE OR INJURY DUE TO ACTIVITIES
WHICH ARE WHOLLY INTRASTATE.  FN1 

HERE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS INVOLVED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE
MATERIALS TO BE PROCESSED ACROSS STATE LINES TO THE FACTORY OF
RESPONDENTS AND IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT TO POINTS
OUTSIDE THE STATE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO PURCHASERS AND ULTIMATE
CONSUMERS.  WHETHER SHIPMENTS WERE MADE DIRECTLY TO RESPONDENTS, AS THE
BOARD FOUND, OR TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF LEE SPORTSWEAR COMPANY AT THE
FACTORY, AS RESPONDENTS CONTEND, IS IMMATERIAL.  IT WAS NOT ANY THE
LESS INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE THE TRANSPORTATION DID NOT BEGIN OR
END WITH THE TRANSFER OF TITLE OF THE MERCHANDISE TRANSPORTED.  SEE
SANTA CRUZ PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, 463;
CF. GLOUCESTER FERRY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 114 U.S. 196, 203; WABASH,
ST. L. & P. RY. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 118 U.S. 557; HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY
SOUTHERN RY. CO., 187 U.S. 617, 619; MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407;
INGELS V. MORF, 300 U.S. 290.  TRANSPORTATION ALONE ACROSS STATE LINES
IS COMMERCE WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT AND SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY POWER OF CONGRESS.  GIBBONS V.
OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1; CHAMPION V. AMES, 188 U.S. 321. 

NOR DO WE THINK IT IMPORTANT, AS RESPONDENTS SEEM TO ARGUE, THAT THE
VOLUME OF THE COMMERCE HERE INVOLVED, THOUGH SUBSTANTIAL, WAS
RELATIVELY SMALL AS COMPARED WITH THAT IN THE CASES ARISING UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WHICH HAVE HITHERTO ENGAGED OUR
ATTENTION.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
PLENARY AND EXTENDS TO ALL SUCH COMMERCE BE IT GREAT OR SMALL.  HANLEY
V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO., SUPRA.  THE EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL
POWER UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, THE CLAYTON ACT, THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ACT, OR THE NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT ACT, HAS NEVER BEEN
THOUGHT TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRICTED BECAUSE IN ANY PARTICULAR
CASE THE VOLUME OF THE COMMERCE AFFECTED MAY BE SMALL.  THE AMOUNT OF
THE COMMERCE REGULATED IS OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE ONLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT CONGRESS MAY BE TAKEN TO HAVE EXCLUDED COMMERCE OF SMALL VOLUME
FROM THE OPERATION OF ITS REGULATORY MEASURE BY EXPRESS PROVISION OR
FAIR IMPLICATION. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT SEEMS TO MAKE IT
PLAIN THAT CONGRESS HAS SET NO RESTRICTIONS UPON THE JURISDICTION OF
THE BOARD TO BE DETERMINED OR FIXED EXCLUSIVELY BY REFERENCE TO THE
VOLUME OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE INVOLVED.  SECTION 2(6) DEFINES COMMERCE
AS "TRADE, TRAFFIC, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG
THE SEVERAL STATES," WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS VOLUME, AND DECLARES IN
SUBSECTION (7) THAT "THE TERM 'AFFECTING COMMERCE' MEANS IN COMMERCE,
OR BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, OR
HAVING LED OR TENDING TO LEAD TO A LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING OR
OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE."  SECTION 10(A)
CONFERS ON THE BOARD AUTHORITY "TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN
ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (LISTED IN SECTION 8) AFFECTING COMMERCE." 

THE ACT ON ITS FACE THUS EVIDENCES THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO
EXERCISE WHATEVER POWER IS CONSTITUTIONALLY GIVEN TO IT TO REGULATE
COMMERCE BY THE ADOPTION OF MEASURES FOR THE PREVENTION OR CONTROL OF
CERTAIN SPECIFIED ACTS - UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES - WHICH PROVOKE OR TEND
TO PROVOKE STRIKES OR LABOR DISTURBANCES AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  GIVEN THE OTHER NEEDFUL CONDITIONS, COMMERCE MAY BE AFFECTED
IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT IN PROPORTION TO ITS VOLUME,
WHETHER IT BE GREAT OR SMALL.  EXAMINING THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF ITS
PURPOSE AND OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT MUST BE APPLIED WE CAN
PERCEIVE NO BASIS FOR INFERRING ANY INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO MAKE THE
OPERATION OF THE ACT DEPEND ON ANY PARTICULAR VOLUME OF COMMERCE
AFFECTED MORE THAN THAT TO WHICH COURTS WOULD APPLY THE MAXIM DE
MINIMIS. 

THERE ARE NOT A FEW INDUSTRIES IN THE UNITED STATES WHICH, THOUGH
CONDUCTED BY RELATIVELY SMALL UNITS, CONTRIBUTE IN THE AGGREGATE A VAST
VOLUME OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE N2.  SOME, LIKE THE CLOTHING INDUSTRY,
ARE EXTENSIVELY UNIONIZED AND HAVE HAD A LONG AND TRAGIC HISTORY OF
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE.  IT IS NOT TO BE SUPPOSED THAT CONGRESS, IN ITS
ATTEMPTED NATIONWIDE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH THE
REMOVAL OF THE CAUSES OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE AFFECTING IT, INTENDED TO
EXCLUDE SUCH INDUSTRIES FROM THE SWEEP OF THE ACT.  IN THIS, AS IN
EVERY OTHER CASE, THE TEST OF THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION IS NOT THE
VOLUME OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED, BUT THE
EXISTENCE OF A RELATIONSHIP OF THE EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYEES TO THE
COMMERCE SUCH THAT, TO PARAPHRASE SEC. 10(A) IN THE LIGHT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES HAVE LED OR TENDED
TO LEAD "TO A LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE." 

IT IS NO LONGER OPEN TO QUESTION THAT THE MANUFACTURER WHO REGULARLY
SHIPS HIS PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORITY
CONFERRED ON THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHENEVER
SUCH PRACTICES ON HIS PART HAVE LED OR TEND TO LEAD TO LABOR DISPUTES
WHICH THREATEN TO OBSTRUCT HIS SHIPMENTS.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., SUPRA; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO., SUPRA; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO., SUPRA; SANTA CRUZ PACKING CO. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA; CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA. WE CANNOT SAY, OTHER THINGS
BEING EQUAL, THAT THE TENDENCY DIFFERS IN KIND, QUANTITY OR EFFECT
MERELY BECAUSE THE MERCHANDISE WHICH THE MANUFACTURER SHIPS, INSTEAD OF
BEING HIS OWN, IS THAT OF THE CONSIGNEE OR HIS CUSTOMERS IN OTHER
STATES.  IN EITHER CASE COMMERCE IS IN DANGER OF BEING OBSTRUCTED IN
THE SAME WAY AND TO THE SAME EXTENT. 

HERE, ALTHOUGH RESPONDENTS' MANUFACTURING BUSINESS IS SMALL,
EMPLOYING FROM SIXTY TO TWO HUNDRED EMPLOYEES, ITS PRODUCT IS REGULARLY
SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT RESPONDENTS'
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES HAVE LED AND TEND TO LEAD TO LABOR DISPUTES
BURDENING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND INTERFERING WITH ITS FREE FLOW IS
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  MOREOVER, THE BOARD HAS FOUND SPECIFICALLY
THAT RESPONDENTS' UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT THE
UNIONIZATION OF THEIR FACTORY DID IN FACT LEAD TO A STRIKE IN
RESPONDENTS' TAILORING ESTABLISHMENT, WITH A CONSEQUENT REDUCTION OF
ABOUT 50 PER CENT. IN RESPONDENTS' OUTPUT.  THESE FINDINGS ARE NOT
CHALLENGED. 

THE THREATENED CONSEQUENCES TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE AS IMMEDIATE
AND AS CERTAIN TO FLOW FROM RESPONDENTS' UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AS WERE
THOSE WHICH WERE HELD TO RESULT FROM UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., SUPRA; NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO., SUPRA; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO., SUPRA; SANTA CRUZ
PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA; CONSOLIDATED
EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA.  THAT THE VOLUME
OF COMMERCE AFFECTED IS SMALLER THAN IN OTHER CASES IN WHICH THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD HAS BEEN UPHELD, FOR REASONS ALREADY STATED,
IS IN ITSELF WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE.  REVERSED.    FN1  IT MAY PROHIBIT
WHOLLY INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES WHICH, IF PERMITTED, WOULD RESULT IN
RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CORONADO COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE
WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295, 310; BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. STONE CUTTERS
ASSN., 274 U.S. 37, 46; LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 297. 
IT MAY REGULATE THE ACTIVITIES OF A LOCAL GRAIN EXCHANGE SHOWN TO HAVE
AN INJURIOUS EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V.
OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1.  IT MAY REGULATE INTRASTATE RATES OF INTERSTATE
CARRIERS WHERE THE EFFECT OF THE RATES IS TO BURDEN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  HOUSTON, E. & W. TEXAS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S.
342; RAILROAD COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257
U.S. 563; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70, 74; FLORIDA V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 301.  IT MAY COMPEL THE ADOPTION OF SAFETY
APPLIANCES ON ROLLING STOCK MOVING INTRASTATE BECAUSE OF THE RELATION
TO AND EFFECT OF SUCH APPLIANCES UPON INTERSTATE TRAFFIC MOVING OVER
THE SAME RAILROAD.  SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 222 U.S. 20.  IT
MAY PRESCRIBE MAXIMUM HOURS FOR EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE
ACTIVITY CONNECTED WITH THE MOVEMENT OF ANY TRAIN, SUCH AS TRAIN
DISPATCHERS AND TELEGRAPHERS.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612, 619. 

FN2  IN THE YEAR 1933 THE WOMEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY RANKED NINTH
AMONG MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN NUMBER OF WORKERS EMPLOYED AND EIGHTH
IN VALUE OF PRODUCT.  U.S. BIENNIAL CENSUS OF MANUFACTURES (COMMERCE
DEPT., 1933).  IN THIS INDUSTRY THE "CONTRACT SHOP" IS COMMON.  ABOUT
ONE-HALF OF THE 3,414 ENTERPRISES ENGAGED IN 1935 IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
WOMEN'S DRESSES WERE "CONTRACT SHOPS."  U.S. BIENNIAL CENSUS OF
MANUFACTURES (COMMERCE DEPT., 1935).  THESE ENTERPRISES EMPLOYED AN
AVERAGE OF ONLY ABOUT THIRTY-TWO EMPLOYEES EACH. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND I CONCLUDE THAT THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED. 

RESPONDENT, BENJAMIN FAINBLATT, AS SOLE OWNER, CONDUCTS A SMALL PLANT
FOR MANUFACTURING WEARING APPAREL LOCATED AT SOMERVILLE, NEW JERSEY,
WHERE HE EMPLOYS SOME SIXTY WOMEN.  THERE HE RECEIVES MATERIAL
BELONGING TO LEE SPORTSWEAR COMPANY OF NEW YORK AND UNDER CONTRACT
CONVERTS THIS INTO GARMENTS.  THESE ARE DELIVERED TO THE COMPANY'S
REPRESENTATIVE AND PAYMENT IS MADE FOR THE WORK DONE.  THE OWNER SENDS
THE FINISHED PRODUCTS TO NEW YORK. 

THE LABOR BOARD CLAIMS JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYMENT AT THIS
ESTABLISHMENT UPON THE THEORY THAT THE MATERIAL AND GARMENTS MOVE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THAT DISAPPROVED LABOR PRACTICES THERE MAY LEAD TO
DISPUTES; THAT THESE MAY CAUSE A STRIKE; THAT THIS MAY REDUCE THE
FACTORY OUTPUT; THAT BECAUSE OF SUCH REDUCTION LESS GOODS MAY MOVE
ACROSS THE STATE LINES; AND THUS THERE MAY COME ABOUT INTERFERENCE WITH
THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES WHICH CONGRESS HAS POWER
TO REGULATE.  SO, IT IS SAID, TO PREVENT THIS POSSIBLE RESULT CONGRESS
MAY CONTROL THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THOSE EMPLOYED. 
ALSO, THAT THE SIZE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT'S NORMAL OUTPUT IS OF MINOR OR
NO IMPORTANCE.  IF THE PLANT PRESENTLY EMPLOYED ONLY ONE WOMAN WHO
STITCHED ONE SKIRT DURING EACH WEEK WHICH THE OWNER REGULARLY ACCEPTED
AND SENT TO ANOTHER STATE, CONGRESSIONAL POWER WOULD EXTEND TO THE
ENTERPRISE, ACCORDING TO THE LOGIC OF THE COURT'S OPINION. 

MANIFESTLY IF SUCH ATTENUATED REASONING - POSSIBILITY MASSED UPON
POSSIBILITY - SUFFICES, CONGRESS MAY REGULATE WAGES, HOURS, OUTPUT,
PRICES, ETC., WHENEVER ANY PRODUCT OF EMPLOYED LABOR IS INTENDED TO
PASS BEYOND STATE LINES - POSSIBLY IF CONSUMED NEXT DOOR.  PRODUCERS OF
POTATOES IN MAINE, PEANUTS IN VIRGINIA, COTTON IN GEORGIA, MINERALS IN
COLORADO, WHEAT IN DAKOTA, ORANGES IN CALIFORNIA, AND THOUSANDS OF
SMALL LOCAL ENTERPRISES BECOME SUBJECT TO NATIONAL DIRECTION THROUGH A
BOARD. 

OF COURSE, NO SUCH RESULT WAS INTENDED BY THOSE WHO FRAMED THE
CONSTITUTION.  IF THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS HAD BEEN DECLARED THE
CONSTITUTION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED.  SO CONSTRUED, THE POWER TO
REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE BRINGS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF FEDERAL CONTROL
MOST IF NOT ALL ACTIVITIES OF THE NATION; SUBJECTS STATES TO THE WILL
OF CONGRESS; AND PERMITS DISRUPTION OF OUR FEDERATED SYSTEM. 

KIDD V. PEARSON (1888) 128 U.S. 1, 20, 21, LUCIDLY POINTED OUT THE
NECESSARY RESULT OF THIS SUBVERSIVE DOCTRINE, SHOWED HOW IT HAD LONG
BEEN AUTHORITATIVELY REJECTED, AND DEMONSTRATED ITS UTTER ABSURDITY.  A
FEW PARAGRAPHS FROM THAT OPINION MAY QUICKEN ESTIMATION OF WHAT NOW
IMPENDS. 

"WE THINK THE CONSTRUCTION CONTENDED FOR BY PLAINTIFF IN ERROR WOULD
EXTEND THE WORDS OF THE GRANT TO CONGRESS, IN THE CONSTITUTION, BEYOND
THEIR OBVIOUS IMPORT, AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH ITS OBJECTS AND SCOPE. 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE GRANT IS, 'CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO REGULATE
COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,' ETC.
THESE WORDS ARE USED WITHOUT ANY VEILED OR OBSCURE SIGNIFICATION.  'AS
MEN WHOSE INTENTIONS REQUIRE NO CONCEALMENT GENERALLY EMPLOY THE WORDS
WHICH MOST DIRECTLY AND APTLY EXPRESS THE IDEAS THEY INTEND TO CONVEY,
THE ENLIGHTENED PATRIOTS WHO FRAMED OUR CONSTITUTION, AND THE PEOPLE
WHO ADOPTED IT, MUST BE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE EMPLOYED WORDS IN THEIR
NATURAL SENSE AND TO HAVE INTENDED WHAT THEY HAVE SAID.'  GIBBONS V.
OGDEN, SUPRA, AT PAGE 188(9 WHEAT.  1, 188). 

"NO DISTINCTION IS MORE POPULAR TO THE COMMON MIND, OR MORE CLEARLY
EXPRESSED IN ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL LITERATURE, THAN THAT BETWEEN
MANUFACTURES AND COMMERCE.  MANUFACTURE IS TRANSFORMATION - THE
FASHIONING OF RAW MATERIALS INTO A CHANGE OF FORM FOR USE.  THE
FUNCTIONS OF COMMERCE ARE DIFFERENT.  THE BUYING AND SELLING AND THE
TRANSPORTATION INCIDENTAL THERETO CONSTITUTE COMMERCE; AND THE
REGULATION OF COMMERCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE EMBRACES THE
REGULATION AT LEAST OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION.  THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF
THE TERM, AS GIVEN BY THIS COURT IN COUNTY OF MOBILE V. KIMBALL, 102
U.S. 691, 702, IS AS FOLLOWS:  'COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND
AMONG THE STATES, STRICTLY CONSIDERED, CONSISTS IN INTERCOURSE AND
TRAFFIC, INCLUDING IN THESE TERMS NAVIGATION, AND THE TRANSPORTATION
AND TRANSIT OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE PURCHASE, SALE, AND
EXCHANGE OF COMMODITIES.'  IF IT BE HELD THAT THE TERM INCLUDES THE
REGULATION OF ALL SUCH MANUFACTURES AS ARE INTENDED TO BE THE SUBJECT
OF COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS IN THE FUTURE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY THAT
IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE ALL PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRIES THAT CONTEMPLATE THE
SAME THING.  THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT CONGRESS WOULD BE INVESTED, TO
THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATES, WITH THE POWER TO REGULATE, NOT ONLY
MANUFACTURES, BUT ALSO AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, STOCK RAISING,
DOMESTIC FISHERIES, MINING - IN SHORT, EVERY BRANCH OF HUMAN INDUSTRY. 
FOR IS THERE ONE OF THEM THAT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE, MORE OR LESS
CLEARLY, AN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN MARKET?  DOES NOT THE WHEAT GROWER OF
THE NORTHWEST, AND THE COTTON PLANTER OF THE SOUTH, PLANT, CULTIVATE,
AND HARVEST HIS CROP WITH AN EYE ON THE PRICES AT LIVERPOOL, NEW YORK,
AND CHICAGO?  THE POWER BEING VESTED IN CONGRESS AND DENIED TO THE
STATES, IT WOULD FOLLOW AS AN INEVITABLE RESULT THAT THE DUTY WOULD
DEVOLVE ON CONGRESS TO REGULATE ALL OF THESE DELICATE, MULTIFORM, AND
VITAL INTERESTS - INTERESTS WHICH IN THEIR NATURE ARE AND MUST BE,
LOCAL IN ALL THE DETAILS OF THEIR SUCCESSFUL MANAGEMENT." 

THE DOCTRINE APPROVED IN KIDD V. PEARSON HAS BEEN OFTEN APPLIED.  IT
WAS THE RECOGNIZED VIEW OF THIS COURT FOR MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS. 

UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO., (1895) 156 U.S. 1, 16 DECLARED - 

"SLIGHT REFLECTION WILL SHOW THAT IF THE NATIONAL POWER EXTENDS TO
ALL  ...  PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRIES, WHOSE ULTIMATE RESULT MAY AFFECT
EXTERNAL COMMERCE, COMPARATIVELY LITTLE OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND
AFFAIRS WOULD BE LEFT FOR STATE CONTROL." 

OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD, (1923) 262 U.S. 172, 178 - 

"MINING IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT, LIKE MANUFACTURING, IS A
LOCAL BUSINESS SUBJECT TO LOCAL REGULATION AND TAXATION.  ...  ITS
CHARACTER IN THIS REGARD IS INTRINSIC, IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE INTENDED
USE OR DISPOSAL OF THE PRODUCT, IS NOT CONTROLLED BY CONTRACTUAL
ENGAGEMENTS, AND PERSISTS EVEN THOUGH THE BUSINESS BE CONDUCTED IN
CLOSE CONNECTION WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, (1935) 295 U.S. 495, 546, 548, 549,
550 - 

"IF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WERE CONSTRUED TO REACH ALL ENTERPRISES AND
TRANSACTIONS WHICH COULD BE SAID TO HAVE AN INDIRECT EFFECT UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY WOULD EMBRACE PRACTICALLY
ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PEOPLE AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OVER
ITS DOMESTIC CONCERNS WOULD EXIST ONLY BY SUFFERANCE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  ...  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS
OF INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE MUST BE RECOGNIZED
AS A FUNDAMENTAL ONE, ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.   ...  IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY DETERMINE
THE WAGES AND HOURS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE INTERNAL COMMERCE OF A STATE
...  IT WOULD SEEM THAT A SIMILAR CONTROL MIGHT BE EXERTED OVER OTHER
ELEMENTS OF COST, ALSO AFFECTING PRICES, SUCH AS THE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES, RENTS, ADVERTISING, METHODS OF DOING BUSINESS, ETC.  ALL THE
PROCESSES OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION THAT ENTER INTO COST COULD
LIKEWISE BE CONTROLLED.  ...  BUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE PUSHED TO SUCH AN EXTREME AS TO DESTROY THE
DISTINCTION, WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ITSELF ESTABLISHES, BETWEEN
COMMERCE 'AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES' AND THE INTERNAL CONCERNS OF A
STATE.  ...  THE RECUPERATIVE EFFORTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST BE
MADE IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION." 

CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., (1936) 298 U.S. 238, 303, 309 - 

"PLAINLY, THE INCIDENTS LEADING UP TO AND CULMINATING IN THE MINING
OF COAL DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUCH INTERCOURSE.  THE EMPLOYMENT OF MEN, THE
FIXING OF THEIR WAGES, HOURS OF LABOR AND WORKING CONDITIONS, THE
BARGAINING IN RESPECT OF THESE THINGS - WHETHER CARRIED ON SEPARATELY
OR COLLECTIVELY - EACH AND ALL CONSTITUTE INTERCOURSE FOR THE PURPOSES
OF PRODUCTION, NOT OF TRADE.  ...  THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTIONS IN
DEFENSE OF THE LABOR PROVISIONS ARE REALLY DISPOSED OF ADVERSELY BY OUR
DECISION IN THE SCHECHTER CASE.  ...  THERE IS NO BASIS IN LAW OR
REASON FOR APPLYING DIFFERENT RULES TO THE TWO SITUATIONS." 

THE PRESENT DECISION AND THE REASONING OFFERED TO SUPPORT IT WILL
INEVITABLY INTENSIFY BEWILDERMENT.  THE RESULTING CURTAILMENT OF THE
INDEPENDENCE RESERVED TO THE STATES AND THE TREMENDOUS ENLARGEMENT OF
FEDERAL POWER DENOTE THE SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF THE VERY FOUNDATION OF
OUR FEDERATED SYSTEM.  PERHAPS THE CHANGE OF DIRECTION, NO LONGER
CAPABLE OF CONCEALMENT, WILL GIVE POTENCY TO THE EFFORTS OF THOSE WHO
APPARENTLY HOPE TO END A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT FOUND INHOSPITABLE TO
THEIR ULTIMATE DESIGNS. 
..END :





CHIPPEWA INDIANS V. U.S., 307 U.S. 1 


NO. 666.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 88 CT.
CLS. 1, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE ACT OF JANUARY 14, 1889, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE BANDS OF
CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN MINNESOTA CEDED THEIR RESERVATIONS TO THE UNITED
STATES AND THE UNITED STATES UNDERTOOK TO SELL LAND AND TIMBER, HOLD
THE PROCEEDS IN TRUST, EXPEND INCOME FOR PURPOSES SPECIFIED, AND
ULTIMATELY DISTRIBUTE THE PRINCIPAL, ALL FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
INDIANS, DID NOT CREATE A CONVENTIONAL TRUST OR ABDICATE GUARDIANSHIP
OVER THE INDIANS AS TRIBAL INDIANS.  P. 3. 

2.  CONGRESS THEREFORE RETAINED THE POWER TO MAKE EXPENDITURES FROM
THE FUND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIANS IN WAYS NOT CONTEMPLATED BY
THAT ACT.  P. 5. 

CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DISMISSING A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE ABOVE-NAMED
INDIANS FOR RESTORATION OF TRUST FUNDS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DIVERTED BY
THE UNITED STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS  FN1
DISMISSING A SUIT BROUGHT TO COMPEL RESTORATION OF TRUST FUNDS ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN DIVERTED BY THE APPELLEE. 

IN 1926 CONGRESS GRANTED PERMISSION FOR THE BRINGING OF THE SUIT,
FN2  WHICH WAS INSTITUTED APRIL 13, 1927.  IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE CLAIM
TO BE PRESENTED IN ITS PRESENT FORM THE PERMISSIVE ACT WAS AMENDED IN
1934.  FN3  THE APPELLANTS THEN FILED AN AMENDED PETITION TO WHICH THE
APPELLEE RESPONDED BY A GENERAL TRAVERSE.  THE RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS CONFERRED BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF
JUNE 22, 1936.  FN4 

THE SUIT IS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF EQUITABLE CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR
GROWING OUT OF THE ACT OF JANUARY 14, 1889.  FN5  THE APPELLANTS'
THEORY IS THAT THE ACT CONSTITUTED AN OFFER ON THE PART OF CONGRESS FOR
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BANDS OF CHIPPEWAS LOCATED IN MINNESOTA, WHEREBY,
IF THESE BANDS WOULD CEDE THE INDIAN TITLE TO THEIR RESERVATIONS,
(WHICH THEY DID), THE UNITED STATES WOULD SELL THE TIMBER THEREON AND
OPEN THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO SETTLEMENT, AND HOLD THE PROCEEDS OF THE
TIMBER AND THE LANDS, IN TRUST, TO EXPEND THE INCOME FOR PURPOSES
SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE, INCLUDING PAYMENT OF A PORTION OF SUCH INCOME
TO THE INDIANS, AND TO DISTRIBUTE THE PRINCIPAL AT THE EXPIRATION OF
FIFTY YEARS AFTER ALLOTMENTS HAD BEEN COMPLETED TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF
THE VARIOUS BANDS ON SPECIFIED RESERVATIONS.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING
TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT AND ITS RELEVANT SECTIONS APPEAR IN EARLIER
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND NEED NOT HERE BE REPEATED.  FN6 

THE APPELLANTS ASSERT THAT, BY THE ACT OF 1889, CONGRESS ABDICATED
ITS PLENARY POWER OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHIPPEWAS' PROPERTY AS
TRIBAL PROPERTY, RECOGNIZED THAT THE RESERVATIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE
BANDS WERE NOT TRIBAL PROPERTY, AND AGREED TO HOLD THE PROCEEDS OF THE
CEDED LANDS IN STRICT AND CONVENTIONAL TRUST FOR CLASSES OF INDIVIDUAL
INDIANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROGRAM OUTLINED IN THE ACT. 

IN THIS VIEW THE LIVING CHIPPEWAS ARE BENEFICIARIES OF THE INCOME OF
THE FUND DURING THE FIFTY YEAR PERIOD, AND INDIVIDUAL CHIPPEWA INDIANS
WHO MAY BE LIVING AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD, AS A CLASS, ARE
REMAINDERMEN.  IT IS URGED THAT, AS CONGRESS HAS, FROM TIME TO TIME,
REIMBURSED THE TREASURY FOR EXPENDITURES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA OUT OF THE FUND, AND HAS AUTHORIZED OTHER
DIRECT EXPENDITURES FROM THE FUND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIANS IN
WAYS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT, THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN GUILTY OF A
DIVERSION OF TRUST FUNDS AND THAT THE APPELLANTS, AS THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE REMAINDERMEN, ARE ENTITLED, ON PLAIN PRINCIPLES
OF EQUITY, TO DEMAND RESTORATION OF THE DIVERTED SUMS TO THE CORPUS. 

IF, AS THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS FOUND, THE ACT OF 1889, AND THE
CESSIONS MADE PURSUANT TO IT, DID NOT CREATE A TECHNICAL TRUST, WE ARE
RELIEVED FROM CONSIDERING MANY OF THE CONTENTIONS PRESSED BY THE
APPELLANTS IN THAT COURT AND HERE.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE COURT OF
CLAIMS WAS RIGHT IN ITS DECISION THAT NO SUCH TRUST WAS CREATED. 

THE ORIGINAL TRIBAL STATUS OF THE CHIPPEWAS IS DESCRIBED IN WILBUR V.
UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 206, 208, AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS V. UNITED
STATES, 301 U.S. 358, 360.  IT IS UNNECESSARY NOW TO RESTATE WHAT WAS
THERE SAID ON THE SUBJECT. 

IT IS TRUE THAT, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT OF 1889, THE TRIBE
HAD BEEN BROKEN UP INTO NUMEROUS BANDS, SOME OF WHICH HELD INDIAN TITLE
TO TRACTS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.  THE ACT REFERS TO THESE
COLLECTIVELY AS "THE CHIPPEWAS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA."  WHETHER OR
NOT THE TRIBAL RELATION HAD BEEN DISSOLVED PRIOR TO ITS ADOPTION, THE
ACT CONTEMPLATES FUTURE DEALINGS WITH THE INDIANS UPON A TRIBAL BASIS. 
IT EXHIBITS A PURPOSE GRADUALLY TO EMANCIPATE THE INDIANS AND TO BRING
ABOUT A STATUS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. 
BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT, IN THE INTERIM, CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO
SURRENDER ITS GUARDIANSHIP OVER THE INDIANS OR TREAT THEM OTHERWISE
THAN AS TRIBAL INDIANS. 

THIS IS EVIDENCED BY A SERIES OF ACTS, THE FIRST OF WHICH WAS ADOPTED
NINETEEN MONTHS AFTER THE ACT OF 1889, WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
VIEW THAT THE CONGRESS CONSIDERED THE INDIANS AS EMANCIPATED OR
INTENDED TO ENTER INTO A BINDING CONTRACT WITH THEM AS INDIVIDUALS. 
FN7  MANY OF THESE STATUTES REFER TO THE CHIPPEWAS OF MINNESOTA AS A
TRIBE.  FN8  MOREOVER, AN EXAMINATION OF THE ACT OF 1889 DISCLOSES THAT
IT IS NOT CAST IN THE FORM OF AN AGREEMENT; AND, WE MAY NOT ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS ABANDONED ITS GUARDIANSHIP OF THE TRIBE OR THE BANDS AND
ENTERED INTO A FORMAL TRUST AGREEMENT WITH THE INDIANS, IN THE ABSENCE
OF A CLEAR EXPRESSION OF THAT INTENT. 

IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE EXPENDITURES MADE FROM THE FUND, OR
REIMBURSED FROM IT, WERE NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIANS OR WERE NOT
SUCH AS PROPERLY MIGHT BE MADE FOR THEIR EDUCATION AND CIVILIZATION,
THE PURPOSES STATED IN THE ACT OF 1889. 

WE HOLD THAT THE ACT DID NOT TIE THE HANDS OF CONGRESS SO THAT IT
COULD NOT DEPART FROM THE PLAN ENVISAGED THEREIN, IN THE USE OF THE
TRIBAL PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS INDIAN WARDS. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  88 CT. CLS. 1. 

FN2  ACT OF MAY 14, 1926, C. 300; 44 STAT. 555, AS AMENDED BY ACTS OF
APRIL 11, 1928, C. 357, 45 STAT. 423, AND JUNE 18, 1934, C. 568, 48
STAT. 979. 

FN3  ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, C. 568, 48 STAT. 979. 

FN4  C. 714, 49 STAT. 1826. 

FN5  25 STAT. 642. 

FN6  WILBUR V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 206, 209, 210; CHIPPEWA
INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 358, 362. 

FN7  AUG. 19, 1890, C. 807, 26 STAT. 336, 357.  BETWEEN 1890 AND 1926
CONGRESS APPROPRIATED, EITHER FROM THE FUND CREATED UNDER THE ACT OF
1889 OR FROM PUBLIC FUNDS REIMBURSABLE THEREFROM, A TOTAL OF $5,105,059
FOR THE CIVILIZATION AND SUPPORT OF THE CHIPPEWAS.  (FINDINGS 9, 10,
15.)  DURING THE PERIOD 1889 TO 1934 CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE
EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TOTALING $5,065,878 FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT
OF THE CHIPPEWAS WITHOUT ANY PROVISION FOR REIMBURSEMENT.  (FINDING
20.) 

FN8  AUG. 1, 1914, C. 222, 38 STAT. 582, 592; MAY 18, 1916, C. 125,
39 STAT. 134, 135; MARCH 2, 1917, C. 146, 39 STAT. 969, 979; MAY 25,
1918, C. 86, 40 STAT. 561, 572; JUNE 30, 1919, C. 4, 41 STAT. 3, 14;
FEBRUARY 14, 1920, C. 75, 41 STAT. 408, 419; NOVEMBER 19, 1921, C. 133,
42 STAT. 221; JANUARY 30, 1925, C. 114, 43 STAT. 798; FEBRUARY 19,
1926, C. 22, 44 STAT. 7; MARCH 4, 1929, C. 705, 45 STAT. 1562, 1584. 
..END :













ELECTRIC BATTERY CO. V. SHIMADZU, 307 U.S. 5 


NO. 441.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 98
F.2D 831, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 4886, A PATENT FOR AN INVENTION MADE BUT NOT
PATENTED OR PUBLISHED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, IS GOOD, IN A SUIT FOR
INFRINGEMENT, AGAINST AN INNOCENT INFRINGING USE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR
WHICH NO PATENT RIGHT IS CLAIMED AND WHICH BEGAN BEFORE THE DATE OF THE
APPLICATION BUT AFTER THE ACTUAL DATE OF THE INVENTION.  PP. 10 ET
SEQ. 

2.  R.S. SEC. 4887 CONTAINS NO PROVISION WHICH PRECLUDES PROOF OF
FACTS RESPECTING THE ACTUAL DATE OF INVENTION IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO
OVERCOME THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR USE BAR OF SEC. 4886.  P. 12. 

3.  R.S. SEC. 4923, WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF THE PATENTEE, AT THE TIME
OF HIS APPLICATION, BELIEVED HIMSELF THE ORIGINAL OR FIRST INVENTOR,
HIS PATENT SHALL NOT BE REFUSED OR HELD VOID BY REASON OF THE INVENTION
HAVING BEEN KNOWN OR USED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY, IF IT HAD NOT BEEN PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN A PRINTED
PUBLICATION, HELD INAPPLICABLE WHERE THE LITIGATION IS BETWEEN THE
PATENTEE OF A FOREIGN INVENTION, OR HIS ASSIGNEE, AND AN ALLEGED
INFRINGER WHO DEFENDS ONLY IN VIRTUE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR USE NOT
COVERED BY PATENT.  P. 13. 

4. REPEATED AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS OF THE PATENT LAWS WITHOUT
ALTERATION OF PROVISIONS THERETOFORE CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS, IMPLIES
LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF SUCH CONSTRUCTIONS.  P. 14. 

5.  THE QUESTION WHETHER AN INVENTION HAS BEEN ABANDONED IS ONE OF
FACT.  P. 15. 

6.  R.S. SEC. 4920 MAKES ABANDONMENT AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH
MUST BE PLEADED AND PROVED.  P. 16. 

HELD IN THIS CASE THAT THE DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BY FAILURE TO PLEAD IT
IN THE ORIGINAL ANSWER OR BY AMENDMENT, AND THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES DID
NOT AFFORD AN EXCUSE ON THE GROUND OF SURPRISE. 

7.  FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT A FOREIGN
INVENTOR LIMITED HIS APPLICATION FOR A FOREIGN PATENT TO ONE STEP OF
HIS PROCESS, AND, FOR MOTIVES NOT INQUIRED INTO, WITHHELD MORE
ESSENTIAL FEATURES FOR FUTURE PATENTING, ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED IN
THIS CASE AS MEANING THAT HE CONCEALED THE FULL INVENTION AND DELAYED
APPLICATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING UNDULY THE LIFE OF HIS
PATENTS.  P. 15. 

8.  UNDER R.S. SEC. 4886, A VALID PATENT CAN NOT ISSUE FOR AN
INVENTION IN PUBLIC USE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR
TO THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION.  P. 17. 

THIS DEFENSE WAS DULY PLEADED IN THIS CASE BY DENIALS OF NEGATIVE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL AND BY AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS, IN THE ANSWER. 
P. 17. 

9.  THE ORDINARY USE OF A MACHINE OR THE PRACTICE OF A PROCESS IN A
FACTORY IN THE USUAL COURSE OF PRODUCING ARTICLES FOR COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES IS A PUBLIC USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF R.S. SEC. 4886.  P. 18. 

SO HELD WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAD CONTINUOUSLY EMPLOYED THE ALLEGEDLY
INFRINGING MACHINE AND PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF LEAD OXIDE POWDER
USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PLATES FOR STORAGE BATTERIES WHICH WERE SOLD
IN QUANTITY, AND WHERE THE MACHINE, PROCESS AND THE PRODUCT WERE WELL
KNOWN TO THE EMPLOYEES IN THE PLANT, AND NO EFFORTS WERE MADE TO
CONCEAL THEM FROM ANYONE WHO HAD A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN UNDERSTANDING
THEM. 

10.  UPON FINDING THAT TWO OF THE PATENTS SUSTAINED BY THE COURTS
BELOW ARE INVALID BECAUSE OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS' PUBLIC USE PRIOR TO
APPLICATION, THE COURT DIRECTS THAT THE BILL BE DISMISSED AS TO THEM;
BUT AS TO A THIRD PATENT, NOT SUBJECT TO THAT OBJECTION, IT DIRECTS
THAT THE QUESTIONS OF VALIDITY IN OTHER RESPECTS AND OF INFRINGEMENT BE
RE-EXAMINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  PP. 20, 22. 

AS TO PATENT NO. 1,584,149, TO SHIMADZU, CLAIMS 1 AND 2, FOR A METHOD
OF FORMING FINELY DIVIDED LEAD POWDER, THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR
FURTHER EXAMINATION IN REGARD TO VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT. 

PATENT NO. 1,584,150, TO SHIMADZU, CLAIMS 1-4, 6, 8-13, FOR A METHOD
OR PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING A POWDER COMPOSED OF METALLIC AND OXIDIZED
LEAD; AND PATENT NO. 1,896,020, TO SHIMADZU, CLAIMS 10 AND 11, FOR AN
APPARATUS FOR THE CONTINUOUS PRODUCTION OF LEAD OXIDES, HELD INVALID. 

ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERY CO. V. SHIMADZU ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 591, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE, 17
F.SUPP.  42, ENJOINING ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THREE PATENTS AND
REFERRING THE CAUSE TO A SPECIAL MASTER FOR AN ACCOUNTING. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD VALID AND INFRINGED CERTAIN CLAIMS OF
THREE PATENTS  FN1  GRANTED TO GENZO SHIMADZU, A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT
OF JAPAN.  THE EARLIEST IS FOR A METHOD OF FORMING A FINELY DIVIDED
AND, CONSEQUENTLY, MORE CHEMICALLY REACTIVE, LEAD POWDER.  THE SECOND
IS FOR A METHOD OR PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING A FINE POWDER COMPOSED OF
LEAD SUBOXIDE AND METALLIC LEAD AND FOR THE PRODUCT OF THE PROCESS. 
THE THIRD IS FOR AN APPARATUS FOR THE CONTINUOUS PRODUCTION OF LEAD
OXIDES IN THE FORM OF A DRY FINE POWDER.  SUCH POWDER IS USEFUL IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF PLATES FOR STORAGE BATTERIES. 

THE BILL WAS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS PATENTEE AND EXCLUSIVE
LICENSEE.  THE ANSWER DENIED THAT SHIMADZU WAS THE FIRST INVENTOR;
ASSERTED KNOWLEDGE AND USE OF THE INVENTION BY THE PETITIONER IN THE
UNITED STATES MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATES OF THE
APPLICATIONS; AND PLEADED THAT EARLIER PATENTS PROCURED BY SHIMADZU IN
JAPAN AVOIDED THE UNITED STATES PATENTS AS THE FORMER WERE FOR THE SAME
INVENTIONS AND EACH WAS GRANTED MORE THAN A YEAR PRIOR TO THE FILING OF
THE CORRESPONDING APPLICATION IN THIS COUNTRY.  THE CASE WAS TRIED, THE
DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE FACTS, STATED ITS CONCLUSIONS, AND ENTERED A
DECREE FOR THE RESPONDENTS,  FN2  WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  FN3  THE PETITIONER SOUGHT CERTIORARI ALLEGING THAT THE CASE
PRESENTS THREE QUESTIONS, ONE WHICH SHOULD BE SETTLED BY THIS COURT AND
TWO WHICH WERE DECIDED BELOW CONTRARY TO OUR ADJUDICATIONS. 

THE QUESTIONS ARE:  IN AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT BY THE OWNER OF A PATENT
FOR AN INVENTION, MADE BUT NOT PATENTED OR PUBLISHED ABROAD, TO
RESTRAIN AN INNOCENT USE, THE INCEPTION OF WHICH ANTEDATES THE
APPLICATION FOR PATENT, MAY THE PLAINTIFF PROVE THAT HIS ACTUAL DATE OF
INVENTION WAS EARLIER THAN THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ASSERTED INFRINGING
USE?  IS THE DELAY OF THE PATENTEE IN THIS CASE IN APPLYING FOR PATENT
A BAR TO RELIEF FOR ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT?  DOES COMMERCIAL USE OF THE
PATENTED PROCESS AND APPARATUS IN THE ALLEGED INFRINGER'S PLANT FOR
MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION FOR PATENT PRECLUDE
REDRESS? 

NO CONTROVERSY OF FACT IS INVOLVED AS THE PETITIONER CONCEDES IT MUST
ACCEPT THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE COURTS BELOW.  FN4  THE RELEVANT
FACTS LIE WITHIN A NARROW COMPASS. 

THE INVENTIONS WHICH ARE THE BASIS OF THE PATENTS WERE CONCEIVED BY
SHIMADZU AND REDUCED TO PRACTISE IN JAPAN NOT LATER THAN AUGUST 1919. 
HE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE INVENTIONS TO ANYONE IN THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE HE APPLIED FOR UNITED STATES PATENTS.  APPLICATION WAS PRESENTED
FOR NO. 1,584,149 ON JANUARY 30, 1922; FOR NO. 1,584,150 ON JULY 14,
1923; AND FOR NO. 1,896,020 ON APRIL 27, 1926.  THE INVENTIONS WERE NOT
PATENTED OR DESCRIBED IN A PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THIS OR ANY FOREIGN
COUNTRY PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE APPLICATIONS.  THE PETITIONER,
WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF SHIMADZU'S INVENTIONS, BEGAN THE USE OF A MACHINE,
WHICH INVOLVED BOTH THE METHOD AND THE APPARATUS OF THE PATENTS, AT
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, EARLY IN 1921 AND ATTAINED COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION IN JUNE 1921.  OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER THE
RESPONDENTS WERE PERMITTED BY TESTIMONY, AND BY THE INTRODUCTION OF
CONTEMPORANEOUS DRAWINGS AND NOTE BOOKS, TO CARRY THE DATE OF INVENTION
BACK TO AUGUST 1919, AND THE COURTS BELOW FIXED THAT AS THE DATE OF
INVENTION AND REDUCTION TO PRACTISE IN JAPAN. 

FIRST.  THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT R.S. 4886, 4887, AND 4923,  FN5
CONSIDERED TOGETHER, REQUIRE ONE WHO HAS MADE AN INVENTION ABROAD TO
TAKE AS HIS DATE OF INVENTION THE DATE OF HIS APPLICATION IN THE UNITED
STATES UNLESS, PRIOR THERETO, THE INVENTION HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED AND
DESCRIBED TO SOMEONE IN THIS COUNTRY, OR HAS BEEN PATENTED ABROAD.  THE
RESPONDENTS INSIST THAT THE SECTIONS HAVE NO SUCH FORCE.  THEY SAY THAT
WHERE THE ALLEGED INFRINGER IS NOT ACTING UNDER THE SUPPOSED PROTECTION
OF A PRIOR PATENT, BUT IS USING AN UNPATENTED PROCESS OR DEVICE, THE
HOLDER OF A PATENT FOR A FOREIGN INVENTION, LIKE THE HOLDER OF ONE FOR
AN INVENTION MADE HERE, MAY SHOW NOVELTY BY PROVING THAT HIS INVENTION
ANTEDATED HIS APPLICATION AND THE INFRINGING USE. 

THE SOLUTION OF THE ISSUE REQUIRES EXAMINATION OF TWO OF THE SECTIONS
IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT FROM EARLIER PATENT STATUTES. 

R.S. 4886, AS IT STOOD WHEN THE PATENTS WERE GRANTED,  FN6  WAS: 

"ANY PERSON WHO HAS INVENTED OR DISCOVERED ANY NEW AND USEFUL ART,
MACHINE, MANUFACTURE, OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER, OR ANY NEW AND USEFUL
IMPROVEMENTS THEREOF, NOT KNOWN OR USED BY OTHERS (IN THIS COUNTRY),
(BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF), AND NOT PATENTED OR
DESCRIBED IN ANY PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THIS OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY,
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, (OR MORE THAN TWO YEARS
PRIOR TO HIS APPLICATION), AND NOT IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE (IN THIS
COUNTRY) FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO HIS APPLICATION, UNLESS THE
SAME IS PROVED TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED, MAY, UPON PAYMENT OF THE FEES
REQUIRED BY LAW, AND OTHER DUE PROCEEDING HAD, OBTAIN A PATENT
THEREFOR." 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECTION MAY BE BRIEFLY OUTLINED.  THE
PATENT ACT OF 1790  FN7 AUTHORIZED THE GRANT OF A PATENT TO "ANY PERSON
OR PERSONS" WHO MADE AN INVENTION "NOT BEFORE KNOWN OR USED."  THE
SUCCEEDING ACT OF 1793  FN8  CONFINED THE PRIVILEGE TO "A CITIZEN OR
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES," BUT THE ACT OF 1800  FN9  CONFERRED IT
ON ANY ALIEN WHO, AT THE TIME OF HIS APPLICATION, HAD RESIDED FOR TWO
YEARS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  BY THE ACT OF 1836  FN10  IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT A PATENT MIGHT BE OBTAINED BY "ANY PERSON OR PERSONS." 
THE ACT OF 1870,  FN11 WHICH WAS CARRIED INTO THE REVISED STATUTES,
ADDED THE WORDS "IN THIS COUNTRY" AS THEY APPEAR IN THE FIRST BRACKET
IN THE FOREGOING QUOTATION.  THE ACT OF 1897  FN12  ADDED THE THREE
OTHER BRACKETED CLAUSES. 

THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT OF 1790 WAS THAT THE DISCOVERY BE "NOT
BEFORE KNOWN OR USED."  THE ACT OF 1793 AMENDED THIS TO READ "NOT KNOWN
OR USED BEFORE THE APPLICATION."  THE ACT OF 1800 ALTERED THE PROVISION
SO THAT THE PETITIONER HAD TO SWEAR THAT HIS INVENTION HAD NOT "BEEN
KNOWN OR USED EITHER IN THIS OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY."  THE ACT OF 1836
CHANGED THE KNOWLEDGE AND USE CLAUSE TO READ "NOT KNOWN OR USED BY
OTHERS BEFORE HIS OR THEIR DISCOVERY OR INVENTION THEREOF." 

THESE SUCCESSIVE ALTERATIONS THROW INTO RELIEF THE FACT THAT THE
WAS CONCEIVED ABROAD OR IN THIS COUNTRY.  THE TEST IS WHETHER THE
INVENTION WAS "KNOWN OR USED BY OTHERS IN THIS COUNTRY, BEFORE HIS
INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF  ...  "  THE ELEMENTS WHICH PRECLUDE
PATENTABILITY ARE A PATENT, OR A DESCRIPTION IN A PRINTED PUBLICATION
IN THIS OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY, WHICH ANTEDATES THE INVENTION OR
DISCOVERY OF THE APPLICANT. 

NONE OF THE STATUTES HAS EVER EMBODIED AS AN ELEMENT THE PLACE OF
INVENTION OR DISCOVERY, BUT THE CHANGE EFFECTED BY THE ACT OF 1836, AND
CARRIED FORWARD IN ALL SUCCEEDING STATUTES, IS THE FIXATION OF THE
ACTUAL DATE OF THE INVENTIVE ACT AS THE DATE PRIOR TO WHICH THE
INVENTION MUST HAVE BEEN KNOWN OR USED TO JUSTIFY DENIAL OF A PATENT
FOR WANT OF NOVELTY.  THE OMISSION OF ANY LIMITATION AS TO THE PLACE OF
INVENTION OR DISCOVERY PRECLUDES A RULING IMPOSING SUCH A LIMITATION,
ESPECIALLY SO SINCE THE ACT OF 1870 EXPRESSLY LIMITED THE AREA OF PRIOR
KNOWLEDGE OR USE TO THIS COUNTRY. 

THE PROVISIONS OF R.S. 4886 WHICH AFFECT THE QUESTION ARE NOT
MODIFIED BY R.S. 4887, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO PERMIT THE FILING OF
APPLICATIONS FOR THE SAME INVENTION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND IN THE
UNITED STATES.  IT DERIVES FROM SEC. 25 OF THE ACT OF 1870.  FN13 

THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE SECTION, WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE ACT OF
1903  FN14  TO COMPLY WITH RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN
COUNTRIES, GIVES THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE FILING OF AN
APPLICATION IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AS IT WOULD HAVE IF FILED HERE ON THE
DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR PATENT WAS FIRST FILED IN THE FOREIGN
COUNTRY, PROVIDED THAT THE DOMESTIC APPLICATION IS FILED WITHIN TWELVE
MONTHS OF THE FOREIGN FILING DATE.  THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE PARAGRAPH
EXPRESSLY PRESERVES THE BARS OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS' PRIOR PATENTING,
DESCRIPTION IN A PRINTED PUBLICATION BEFORE THE FILING OF APPLICATION
IN THIS COUNTRY, AND PUBLIC USE, MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE SUCH
FILING.  BUT THE SECTION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION WHICH PRECLUDES
PROOF OF FACTS RESPECTING THE ACTUAL DATE OF INVENTION IN A FOREIGN
COUNTRY TO OVERCOME THE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR USE BAR OF SEC. 4886. 

THE PETITIONER ALSO RELIES UPON R.S. 4923, WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF THE
PATENTEE, AT THE TIME OF HIS APPLICATION, BELIEVED HIMSELF THE ORIGINAL
OR FIRST INVENTOR, HIS PATENT SHALL NOT BE REFUSED OR HELD VOID BY
REASON OF THE INVENTION HAVING BEEN KNOWN OR USED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY,
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY, IF IT HAD NOT BEEN PATENTED OR
DESCRIBED IN A PRINTED PUBLICATION.  THE EFFECT OF THIS SECTION IS THAT
IN AN INTERFERENCE BETWEEN TWO APPLICANTS FOR UNITED STATES PATENT, OR
IN AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT WHERE THE ALLEGED INFRINGER RELIES UPON A
UNITED STATES PATENT, THE APPLICATION AND PATENT FOR THE DOMESTIC
INVENTION SHALL HAVE PRIORITY DESPITE EARLIER FOREIGN KNOWLEDGE AND USE
NOT EVIDENCED BY A PRIOR PATENT OR A DESCRIPTION IN A PRINTED
PUBLICATION. 

THE SECTION, ON ITS FACE, IS WITHOUT APPLICATION WHERE THE LITIGATION
IS BETWEEN THE PATENTEE OF A FOREIGN INVENTION, OR HIS ASSIGNEE, AND AN
ALLEGED INFRINGER WHO DEFENDS ONLY IN VIRTUE OF PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR USE
NOT COVERED BY A PATENT. 

WHILE THIS COURT HAS NEVER BEEN CALLED UPON TO DECIDE THE PRECISE
QUESTION PRESENTED, THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE REFUSED TO EXTEND
SEC. 4923 TO SUCH A CASE.  THEY HAVE HELD THAT SEC. 4886 DOES NOT LIMIT
THE PLAINTIFF TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION IN THIS COUNTRY BUT THAT HE
MAY PROVE THE INVENTION WAS IN FACT MADE AT AN EARLIER DATE, AS COULD
THE OWNER OF AN INVENTION MADE IN THE UNITED STATES.  FN15 

THERE IS FORCE IN THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT THE DISTINCTION
SEEMS ILLOGICAL.  THUS, IF A DILIGENT DOMESTIC INVENTOR APPLIES, IN
GOOD FAITH BELIEVING HIMSELF TO BE THE FIRST INVENTOR, SEC. 4923
ASSURES HIM A PATENT AND GIVES IT PRIORITY, DESPITE PRIOR FOREIGN USE,
EVEN THOUGH THAT USE IS EVIDENCED BY A PATENT APPLIED FOR AFTER THE
INVENTION MADE IN THIS COUNTRY.  THE FOREIGN APPLICANT OR PATENTEE
CANNOT CARRY THE DATE OF HIS INVENTION BACK OF THE DATE OF APPLICATION
IN THIS COUNTRY, AS THE HOLDER OF A LATER PATENT FOR AN INVENTION MADE
HERE WOULD BE PERMITTED TO DO IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH PRIORITY.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, A DOMESTIC INVENTOR WHO IS WILLING TO DEDICATE HIS
INVENTION TO THE PUBLIC MAY BE HELD AS AN INFRINGER BY REASON OF THE
LATER PATENTING OF AN INVENTION ABROAD WHICH ANTEDATES THE INVENTION
AND USE IN THIS COUNTRY; AND SO IS PUT IN A WORSE POSITION VIS A VIS A
FOREIGN INVENTOR WHO SUBSEQUENTLY SECURES A PATENT, AND SUCCEEDS IN
ESTABLISHING AN EARLIER DATE OF INVENTION, THAN HE WOULD OCCUPY IF HE
HAD PROMOTED HIS OWN INTEREST BY PROCURING A PATENT. 

WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THE DISCRIMINATION RESULTS FROM
INADVERTENCE OR FROM SOME UNDISCLOSED LEGISLATIVE POLICY, BUT, IN ORDER
TO REDRESS THE DISADVANTAGE UNDER WHICH ONE IN THE PETITIONER'S
SITUATION SUFFERS, WE SHOULD HAVE TO READ INTO THE LAW WORDS WHICH
PLAINLY ARE MISSING.  FN16  WE CANNOT THUS REWRITE THE STATUTE.  FN17
MOREOVER SECS. 4886 AND 4887 HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN AMENDED AND OTHER
PORTIONS OF THE PATENT ACT HAVE BEEN REVISED AND AMENDED FROM TIME TO
TIME SINCE THE DECISIONS POINTING OUT THAT SEC. 4886 DID NOT PREVENT
THE FOREIGN INVENTOR FROM CARRYING BACK HIS DATE OF INVENTION BEYOND
THE DATE OF HIS APPLICATION.  CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO AMEND THE
STATUTE IN THIS RESPECT AND WE MUST ASSUME THAT IT HAS BEEN SATISFIED
WITH, AND ADOPTED, THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO ITS ENACTMENT BY THE
COURTS.  FN18 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE COURTS BELOW WERE RIGHT IN NOT LIMITING
SHIMADZU'S DATE OF INVENTION TO THE DATE OF HIS APPLICATION BUT
ALLOWING HIM TO SHOW AN EARLIER ACTUAL DATE. 

SECOND.  A PATENT IS NOT VALIDLY ISSUED IF THE INVENTION "IS PROVED
TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED."  FN19  ABANDONMENT MAY BE EVIDENCED BY THE
EXPRESS AND VOLUNTARY DECLARATION OF THE INVENTOR; FN20 IT MAY BE
INFERRED FROM NEGLIGENCE OR UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN MAKING APPLICATION FOR
PATENT; FN21 IT MAY BE DECLARED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE INVENTOR'S
CONCEALING HIS INVENTION AND DELAYING APPLICATION FOR PATENT IN AN
ENDEAVOR TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE PATENT PROTECTION BEYOND THE PERIOD
FIXED BY THE STATUTE.  FN22  IN ANY CASE, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
INVENTION HAS BEEN ABANDONED IS ONE OF FACT.  FN23    REFERRING TO A
JAPANESE PATENT APPLIED FOR NOVEMBER 27, 1920, AND ISSUED MAY 10, 1922,
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND:  "WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE MOTIVES WHICH
PROMPTED HIM  ...  TO CONFINE IT (THE JAPANESE PATENT) TO THE SINGLE
STEP OF MECHANICAL REMOVAL OF THE DUST FROM THE DRUM, AND TO WITHHOLD
THE REALLY ESSENTIAL STEPS OF THE INVENTION FOR LATER PATENTING.  IT IS
SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT TO DO THIS IF HE CHOSE."  TAKEN
IN CONNECTION WITH THE COURT'S FINDING THAT SHIMADZU'S INVENTIONS WERE
CONCEIVED AND REDUCED TO PRACTISE IN AUGUST 1919 THIS FINDING IS SAID
TO CONVICT HIM OF INTENTIONAL AND INEXCUSABLE CONCEALMENT.  IN THE
LIGHT OF THE RECORD WE ARE UNABLE SO TO HOLD.    R.S. 4920  FN24  MAKES
ABANDONMENT AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH MUST BE PLEADED AND PROVED. 
FN25  ADMITTEDLY THE DEFENSE WAS NOT PLEADED AND THE RESPONDENTS
ASSERT, WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, THAT IT WAS NOT RELIED UPON IN BRIEF OR
ARGUMENT IN THE COURTS BELOW.  THE PETITIONER EXPLAINS ITS FAILURE SO
TO PLEAD BY SAYING THAT, WHEN IT FILED ITS ANSWER, IT BELIEVED THAT
CERTAIN OF THE JAPANESE PATENTS ISSUED TO SHIMADZU COVERED THE
IDENTICAL INVENTIONS DESCRIBED IN THE PATENTS IN SUIT AND INVALIDATED
THE LATTER BECAUSE APPLICATION WAS NOT MADE IN THIS COUNTRY WITHIN ONE
YEAR OF THE GRANT OF THE FOREIGN PATENTS AS REQUIRED BY R.S. 4887.  THE
CLAIM IS THAT THE REFUSAL TO SUSTAIN THIS DEFENSE AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF
AUGUST 1919 AS THE DATE OF INVENTION, TOOK PETITIONER BY SURPRISE; AND
THAT THE QUESTION OF SHIMADZU'S CONCEALMENT OF HIS INVENTION FROM 1919
UNTIL HE MADE HIS APPLICATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES DID NOT EMERGE
UNTIL THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION WAS RENDERED. 

WE THINK THIS IS NOT A SUFFICIENT EXCUSE FOR NOT PLEADING THE
DEFENSE.  ALTERNATIVE AND INCONSISTENT DEFENSES MAY BE PLEADED.  FN26
CERTAINLY IF THE PETITIONER WAS SURPRISED IT COULD AT LEAST HAVE
REQUESTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND ITS ANSWER.  IF THE DEFENSE HAD BEEN
PLEADED ORIGINALLY OR BY AMENDMENT THE RESPONDENTS WOULD HAVE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MEET IT BY PROOF AND THIS THEY APPEAR NOT TO HAVE BEEN
AFFORDED.  WE HAVE A FINDING WHICH SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED TO
THIS ISSUE; AND NO FINDINGS AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE
DELAY IN FILING APPLICATIONS.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE THINK WE ARE NOT
JUSTIFIED IN ASSIGNING TO THE FINDINGS BELOW THE FORCE OF A FINDING
THAT SHIMADZU, WITH INTENT, CONCEALED HIS INVENTION AND DELAYED MAKING
APPLICATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDULY EXTENDING THE LIFE OF HIS
PATENTS, - A DEFENSE NOT PLEADED. 

THIRD.  IF A VALID PATENT IS TO ISSUE, THE INVENTION MUST NOT HAVE
BEEN IN PUBLIC USE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE
FILING OF THE APPLICATION.  FN27  SUCH PUBLIC USE IS AN AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE TO BE PLEADED AND PROVED.  FN28  THE RESPONDENTS INSIST THAT IT
WAS NOT PLEADED IN THIS CASE AND THAT THE FINDINGS RESPECTING THE
DEFENSE, ON WHICH THE PETITIONER RELIES, ARE UNSUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE.  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH EITHER POSITION. 

ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED SO TO DO, THE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR BILL PLEADED
WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE PATENTS THAT THE INVENTION HAD NOT BEEN IN
PUBLIC USE FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE APPLICATION FILED.  THE
PETITIONER DENIED THE ALLEGATION AS TO EACH PATENT AND, IN ADDITION,
ALLEGED THAT IT WAS SUCCESSFULLY MAKING AND SELLING THE PRODUCT OF THE
INVENTION IN ITS PLANT LONG BEFORE IT EVER LEARNED OF SHIMADZU'S
EXISTENCE OR HIS INVENTIONS, AND FURTHER ASSERTED THAT "THE CLAIMS OF
SAID LETTERS PATENT ARE INVALID AND VOID BECAUSE THE SUBJECT MATTER
THEREOF WAS, PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED INVENTION THEREOF BY SHIMADZU, AND
FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO HIS APPLICATION DATES, KNOWN TO AND
USED BY THE DEFENDANT AT PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA,  ...  "  UPON THE
TRIAL, EMPLOYES OF THE PETITIONER DESCRIBED AN EARLY APPARATUS AND
PROCESS USED IN 1918 AND 1919 AND ABANDONED IN THE LATTER YEAR WHEN
EXPERIMENTS BEGAN TOWARDS EMPLOYMENT OF THE APPARATUS AND PROCESS THE
PETITIONER NOW USES.  THEY TESTIFIED TO THE INCREASING PERFECTION OF
THE APPARATUS AND PROCESS DURING THE EARLY MONTHS OF 1921, AND THAT
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION WAS ACCOMPLISHED SOMETIME BETWEEN APRIL AND JUNE
OF THAT YEAR.  FORMER EMPLOYES OF THE PETITIONER WERE CALLED BY THE
RESPONDENTS AND DESCRIBED THIS APPARATUS AND PROCESS AS USED AND
PRACTISED IN THE PETITIONER'S PLANT IN PHILADELPHIA SUBSEQUENT TO THE
DATE OF SHIMADZU'S APPLICATIONS, BUT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT, AFTER
ITS PERFECTION IN 1921, THE SAME APPARATUS HAS BEEN USED, AND THE SAME
PROCESS PRACTISED, FROM THAT DATE TO THE PRESENT.  THIS IS THE
APPARATUS AND PROCESS WHICH THE COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD TO INFRINGE. 
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND "COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION BY THE HARDINGE MILL
WITH ITS FORCED AIR DRAFT UNDOUBTEDLY INVOLVED THE USE OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S PATENT, AND JUNE, 1921, MAY BE FIXED AS THE DATE WHEN THAT
BEGAN."  THE RESPONDENTS INSIST THAT THIS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A FINDING
OF PRIOR PUBLIC USE, DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE COURT'S PHRASE
"COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION" AND THE DESIGNATION "PUBLIC USE" FOUND IN THE
STATUTE.  WE THINK THE POSITION IS UNTENABLE. 

THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT APPEARS UNDER A HEADING IN ITS
OPINION ENTITLED "ALLEGED PRIOR PUBLIC USE."  AS ORIGINALLY PROMULGATED
THE FINDING FIXED JANUARY 1921 AS THE DATE OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION. 
THE RESPONDENTS SOUGHT A REHEARING AND ASKED THAT THE FINDING AS TO
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION IN JANUARY 1921 BE REVISED.  A REHEARING WAS
GRANTED AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE FILED A MEMORANDUM AMENDING HIS
OPINION.  IN THIS HE SAID:  "AS TO THE SECOND STATEMENT OF FACT, IT MAY
BE SAID AT ONCE THAT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED BY THE COURT TO MAKE A
FINDING OF A PRIOR PUBLIC USE (IN THE STATUTORY SENSE OF THAT TERM) BY
THE DEFENDANT IN JANUARY 1921."  AFTER DISCUSSING THE USE OF THE
APPARATUS IN THE EARLY MONTHS OF 1921, THE COURT SAID:  "IT IS
THEREFORE PLAIN THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING BEYOND AN
EXPERIMENTAL USE BY THE DEFENDANT EARLIER THAN ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE
YEAR 1921.  IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THE WORD 'JANUARY' IN THE
SECOND STATEMENT OF FACT REFERRED TO ABOVE IS A MERE TYPOGRAPHICAL
ERROR AND THAT WHAT THE COURT HAD IN MIND WAS, 'JUNE.'  HOWEVER THAT
MAY BE AND IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE
SCOPE OF THE FINDING, I WILL AMEND IT TO READ 'COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION BY
THE HARDINGE MILL WITH ITS FORCED AIR DRAFT UNDOUBTEDLY INVOLVED THE
USE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S PATENT, AND JUNE, 1921, MAY BE FIXED AS THE DATE
WHEN THAT BEGAN.'" 

BOTH PARTIES APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THAT THE
RESPONDENTS UNDERSTOOD THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE FINDING AS TO PRIOR
USE IS EVIDENT FROM THEIR ASSIGNMENTS, ONE OF WHICH IS THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT ERRED "IN FINDING AND ADJUDGING THAT COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION BY THE HARDINGE MILL WITH ITS FORCED DRAFT INVOLVING THE USE
OF PLAINTIFF'S PATENT BEGAN IN JUNE 1921." 

IT REMAINS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMERCIAL USE FOUND IS, IN
CONTEMPLATION OF LAW, A PUBLIC USE WITHIN THE MEANING OF R.S. 4886.  WE
HOLD THAT IT IS. 

THE EARLIER ACTS PROVIDED THAT THE BAR SHOULD CONSIST IN PUBLIC USE
OR SALE "WITH THE APPLICANT'S CONSENT OR ALLOWANCE PRIOR TO THE
APPLICATION."  FN29  THE ACT OF 1839  FN30  ALTERED THE CLAUSE TO READ
"NO PATENT SHALL BE HELD TO BE INVALID" EXCEPT UPON PROOF THAT "SUCH
... PRIOR USE HAS BEEN FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO SUCH
APPLICATION FOR A PATENT."  THIS COURT CONSTRUED THE LATER ACT, WHICH
HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD INTO THE REVISED STATUTES, AS RENDERING PRIOR
PUBLIC USE A BAR WHETHER THE USE WAS WITH OR WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE
PATENTEE.  FN31 

DECISIONS TURNING ON PRIOR PUBLIC USE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS BOTH IN THIS
COURT AND IN OTHER FEDERAL COURTS; AND THE DEFINITION OF SUCH USE,
FORMULATED WHEN THE STATUTE MADE ONLY USE BY CONSENT A BAR, HAS BEEN
ADOPTED IN INSTANCES WHERE THE USE WAS WITHOUT CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE OF
THE APPLICANT FOR PATENT.  FN32 

A MERE EXPERIMENTAL USE IS NOT THE PUBLIC USE DEFINED BY THE ACT,
FN33  BUT A SINGLE USE FOR PROFIT, NOT PURPOSELY HIDDEN, IS SUCH.  FN34
THE ORDINARY USE OF A MACHINE OR THE PRACTISE OF A PROCESS IN A
FACTORY IN THE USUAL COURSE OF PRODUCING ARTICLES FOR COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES IS A PUBLIC USE.  FN35 

IN THE PRESENT CASE THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THE PETITIONER, SINCE JUNE
1921, HAS CONTINUOUSLY EMPLOYED THE ALLEGED INFRINGING MACHINE AND
PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF LEAD OXIDE POWDER USED IN THE MANUFACTURE
OF PLATES FOR STORAGE BATTERIES WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD IN QUANTITY. 
THERE IS NO FINDING, AND WE THINK NONE WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED, TO
THE EFFECT THAT THE MACHINE, PROCESS, AND PRODUCT WERE NOT WELL KNOWN
TO THE EMPLOYES IN THE PLANT, OR THAT EFFORTS WERE MADE TO CONCEAL THEM
FROM ANYONE WHO HAD A LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN UNDERSTANDING THEM.  FN36
THIS USE, BEGUN MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE SHIMADZU APPLIED FOR PATENTS
1,584,150 AND 1,896,020, INVALIDATED THE CLAIMS IN SUIT. 

FOURTH.  THE DEFENSE OF PRIOR PUBLIC USE IS NOT MADE OUT AGAINST
PATENT 1,584,149, FOR WHICH APPLICATION WAS FILED JANUARY 30, 1922. 
THE DEFENDANT'S COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION COMMENCED ABOUT SIX MONTHS
EARLIER.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE PATENT VALID AND INFRINGED.  ITS
CLAIMS COVER MERELY A PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF A FINELY DIVIDED
CHEMICALLY REACTIVE LEAD POWDER BY INTRODUCING RELATIVELY LARGE MASSES
OF LEAD INTO A ROTATABLE VESSEL, ROTATING THE VESSEL AT A RELATIVELY
LOW SPEED, FORMING THE POWDER BY ATTRITION RESULTING FROM THE RUBBING
OF THE MASSES AGAINST EACH OTHER, AND BLOWING THE POWDER FROM THE
VESSEL BY A CURRENT OF AIR.  THE PROCESS AND APPARATUS COVERED BY THE
OTHER TWO PATENTS IN ISSUE INVOLVE USE AND CONTROL OF AN AIR CURRENT
AND USE AND CONTROL OF TEMPERATURE WITHIN THE RECEPTACLE FOR THE
OXIDATION OF THE LEAD.  WITH RESPECT TO 1,584,149 THE TRIAL COURT
SAID: 

"WHETHER OR NOT '149 IS FOR THE SAME PROCESS AS U.S. PATENT '150 IS
IMMATERIAL, SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF EITHER IS CONCERNED. 
THERE IS NO DOUBLE PATENTING INVOLVED.  THE TWO PATENTS ISSUED ON THE
SAME DAY.  THEY BOTH EXPIRED ON THE SAME DAY.  THERE CAN BE NO
EXTENSION OF THE MONOPOLY AND ONE IS NOT PRIOR ART AGAINST THE OTHER. 

"THE FACT THAT '149 DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE OXIDIZING FUNCTION OF THE
AIR OR REFER TO THE HIGHLY IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF THE PROCESS HAVING TO
DO WITH THE TEMPERATURE CONTROL NECESSARY TO ITS SUCCESSFUL OPERATION
MIGHT THROW DOUBT UPON ITS VALIDITY IN VIEW OF THE PRIOR ART. THIS IS,
OF COURSE, UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS NOT FOR THE SAME INVENTION AS
'150.  THE WHOLE MATTER HOWEVER IS RATHER ACADEMIC SINCE '149 IS
COINCIDENT IN DURATION WITH '150, AND THE DEFENDANT'S PROCESS INFRINGES
THE SOMEWHAT MORE PRECISE, IF NOT NARROWER, CLAIMS OF '150. 

"THIS PATENT IS THEREFORE HELD VALID AND INFRINGED." 

THE HOLDING WAS ASSIGNED AS ERROR IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND
IS SPECIFIED AS ERROR IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 

IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION AS TO 1,584,150 AND OF THE BASIS OF THE
DECISION BELOW RESPECTING 1,584,149, WE THINK THE PETITIONER IS
ENTITLED TO A REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS OF THE VALIDITY AND
INFRINGEMENT OF THE LATTER. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE
BILL AS TO NOS. 1,584,150 AND 1,896,020, AND TO PROCEED, IN THE LIGHT
OF THE DISMISSAL AS TO THOSE PATENTS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER 1,584,149 IS
VALID AND INFRINGED.  REVERSED. 

FN1

 PATENTS.                     DATE GRANTED     CLAIMS 

1,584,149.......................5/11/1926     1 AND 2 

1,584,150.......................5/11/1926     1-4, 6, 8-13 

1,896,020.......................1/31/1933     10 AND 11 

FN2  17 F.SUPP.  42. 

FN3  98 F.2D 831. 

FN4  AT THE TRIAL THE RESPONDENTS RELIED, TO SOME EXTENT, UPON AN
ADJUDICATION IN AN INTERFERENCE PROCEEDING BETWEEN SHIMADZU AND HALL,
AN EMPLOYE OF THE PETITIONER WHO IN 1924 APPLIED FOR A PATENT FOR A
PROCESS OF PRODUCING FINELY POWDERED MIXED LEAD AND LEAD OXIDE.  SEE
HALL V. SHIMADZU, 59 F.2D 225.  THE COURTS BELOW HAVE HELD THAT THIS
INTERFERENCE HAS NO BEARING UPON THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY AND THEIR
HOLDING IN THIS RESPECT INVOLVES QUESTIONS OF FACT.  AS THE RESPONDENTS
DID NOT CROSS-PETITION THEY MAY NOT, IN THIS COURT, ATTACK THE FINDINGS
IN QUESTION. 

FN5  U.S.C. TIT. 35, SECS. 31, 32, 72. 

FN6  THE SECTION WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 23, 1930, C. 312, SEC.
1, 46 STAT. 376, TO AUTHORIZE THE PATENTING OF INVENTIONS OF CERTAIN
PLANTS. 

FN7  ACT OF APRIL 10, 1790, SEC. 1, 1 STAT. 109. 

FN8  ACT OF FEB. 21, 1793, SEC. 1, 1 STAT. 318. 

FN9  ACT OF APRIL 17, 1800, SEC. 1, 2 STAT. 37. 

FN10  ACT OF JULY 4, 1836, SEC. 6, 5 STAT. 117, 119. 

FN11  ACT OF JULY 8, 1870, C. 230, SEC. 24, 16 STAT. 198, 201. 

FN12  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1897, C. 391, SEC. 1, 29 STAT. 692. 

FN13  SEC. 25, 16 STAT. 201. 

FN14  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1903, SEC. 1, C. 1019, 32 STAT. 1226. 

FN15  HANIFEN V. E.G. GODSHALK CO., 78 F. 811; WELSBACH LIGHT CO. V.
AMERICAN INCANDESCENT LAMP CO., 98 F. 613; BADISCHE ANILIN & SODA
FABRIK V. KLIPSTEIN & CO., 125 F. 543; CLAUDE NEON LIGHTS, INC. V.
RAINBOW LIGHT, INC., 47 F.2D 345. 

FN16  THE PETITIONER WOULD HAVE US INSERT IN SEC. 4886, FOR THE THIRD
TIME, THE WORDS "IN THIS COUNTRY" WHICH CONGRESS HAS TWICE INSERTED IN
THE SECTION BY AMENDMENT.  THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT REQUIRES US TO
READ THE SECTION AS IF THE PHRASE "IN THIS COUNTRY" APPEARED BETWEEN
THE WORDS "DISCOVERY THEREOF" AND THE WORDS "AND NOT PATENTED." 

FN17  DEWEY V. UNITED STATES, 178 U.S. 510. 

FN18  SESSIONS V. ROMADKA, 145 U.S. 29, 41-42; MANHATTAN PROPERTIES,
INC. V. IRVING TRUST CO., 291 U.S. 320, 336; UNITED STATES V. ELGIN, J.
& E. RY. CO., 298 U.S. 492, 500; MISSOURI V. ROSS, 299 U.S. 72, 75. 
FN19  R.S. 4886, SUPRA. 

FN20  KENDALL V. WINSOR, 21 HOW.  322, 329; U.S. RIFLE & CARTRIDGE
CO. V. WHITNEY ARMS CO., 118 U.S. 22, 25. 

FN21  CONSOLIDATED FRUIT-JAR CO. V. WRIGHT, 94 U.S. 92, 96; U.S.
RIFLE & CARTRIDGE CO. V. WHITNEY ARMS CO., SUPRA, P. 25. 

FN22  KENDALL V. WINSOR, SUPRA, P. 328; MACBETH-EVANS GLASS CO. V.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 246 F. 695; BLISS CO. V. SOUTHERN CAN CO., 251 F.
903; VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO. V. STARR PIANO CO., 281 F. 60.    FN23
PENNOCK V. DIALOGUE, 2 PET. 1, 16. 

FN24  U.S.C. TIT. 35, SEC. 69. 

FN25  CROWN CORK CO. V. GUTMANN CO., 304 U.S. 159, 165.  COMPARE MUMM
V. DECKER & SONS, 301 U.S. 168, 171. 

FN26  JONES V. SEWALL, 13 FED. CAS. 1017, 1028; SPECIALTY BRASS CO.
V. SETTE, 22 F.2D 964, 966; WALSH V. WAHLE CO., 25 F.2D 350, 351. 

FN27  R.S. 4886, SUPRA. 

FN28  R.S. 4920, SUPRA; KLEIN V. SEATTLE, 63 F. 702; HOOKLESS
FASTENER CO. V. ROGERS CO., 26 F.2D 264. 

FN29  ACT OF JULY 4, 1836, SEC. 7, 5 STAT. 117, 119. 

FN30  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1839, SEC. 7, 5 STAT. 353, 354. 

FN31  ANDREWS V. HOVEY, 123 U.S. 267; ON REHEARING, 124 U.S. 694. 

FN32  DETROIT LUBRICATOR CO. V. LUNKENHEIMER, 30 F. 190; UNITED
STATES ELECTRIC LIGHTING CO. V. EDISON LAMP CO., 51 F. 24, 28; FRONT
RANK STEEL FURNACE CO. V. WROUGHT IRON RANGE CO., 63 F. 995, 998; A.
SCHRADER'S SONS, INC. V. WEIN SALES CORP., 9 F.2D 306, 308; TWYMAN V.
RADIANT GLASS CO., 56 F.2D 119; IN RE MARTIN, 74 F.2D 951; PARAFFINE
CO. V. EVERLAST, INC., 84 F.2D 335; BECKER V. ELECTRIC SERVICE SUPPLIES
CO., 98 F.2D 366. 

FN33  ELIZABETH V. PAVEMENT CO., 97 U.S. 120, 134. 

FN34  CONSOLIDATED FRUIT-JAR CO. V. WRIGHT, SUPRA, 94; EGBERT V.
LIPPMANN, 104 U.S. 333, 336. 

FN35  MANNING V. CAPE ANN ISINGLASS CO., 108 U.S. 462, 465; TWYMAN V.
RADIANT GLASS CO., SUPRA; PARAFFINE CO. V. EVERLAST, SUPRA, PP. 338,
339. 

FN36  COMPARE HALL V. MACNEALE, 107 U.S. 90, 96-97. 
..END :













KESSLER V. STRECKER, 307 U.S. 22 


NO. 330.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 13, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 95
F.2D 976 - 96 ID. 1020, AFFIRMED, WITH MODIFICATION. 


1.  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES
THAT ALIENS OF DESCRIBED CLASSES, INCLUDING "ALIENS WHO BELIEVE IN,
ADVISE, ADVOCATE, OR TEACH, OR WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR AFFILIATED WITH
ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, OR GROUP, THAT BELIEVES IN,
ADVISES, ADVOCATES, OR TEACHES  ...  THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  ", SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM
ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.  SECTION 2 PROVIDES THAT "ANY ALIEN
WHO, AT ANY TIME AFTER ENTERING THE UNITED STATES, IS FOUND TO HAVE
BEEN AT THE TIME OF ENTRY, OR TO HAVE BECOME THEREAFTER, A MEMBER OF
ANY OF THE CLASSES OF ALIENS ENUMERATED" IN SECTION 1, SHALL, UPON
WARRANT OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED,
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. 

HELD THAT AN ALIEN WHO AFTER ENTRY BECOMES A MEMBER OF SUCH AN
ORGANIZATION IS NOT DEPORTABLE ON THAT GROUND IF AT THE TIME OF HIS
ARREST HIS MEMBERSHIP HAS CEASED.  P. 30. 

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION. 
P. 30. 

3.  THIS READING OF THE STATUTE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO
PASS UPON THE ADEQUACY OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SECRETARY CONCERNING
THE PURPOSES AND AIMS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE PROPRIETY OF THE
COURT'S TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE THEREOF.  P. 33. 

4.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES NOT JUSTIFY REVERSAL OF A HOLDING OF
THE COURT BELOW THAT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF LABOR WAS
INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HIS FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT ALIEN BELIEVES
IN AND TEACHES THE OVERTHROW, BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 34. 

5.  WHEN NO ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP IS RAISED, AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
FOR DEPORTATION OF AN ALIEN MADE AFTER FAIR HEARING, BASED ON FINDINGS
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT ERROR OF LAW, IS CONCLUSIVE; IF ANY
OF THESE ELEMENTS WAS LACKING IT IS VOID.  THE MATTER CAN NOT BE TRIED
DE NOVO IN HABEAS CORPUS.  P. 34. 

KESSLER, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, V.
STRECKER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 587, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT IS AN ALIEN WHO ENTERED THE UNITED STATES IN 1912 AND
HAS SINCE RESIDED HERE.  IN 1933 HE APPLIED FOR NATURALIZATION TO A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN ARKANSAS.  HE MADE CERTAIN ADMISSIONS
TO A DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF NATURALIZATION AS A RESULT OF WHICH
NATURALIZATION WAS WITHHELD AND HIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR. 

NOVEMBER 25, 1933, THE SECOND ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR ISSUED A
WARRANT FOR THE RESPONDENT'S APPREHENSION, IN WHICH IT WAS RECITED THAT
HE WAS IN THE UNITED STATES IN VIOLATION OF LAW IN THAT (1) HE BELIEVES
IN, ADVISES, ADVOCATES OR TEACHES THE OVERTHROW, BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE,
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; (2) HE IS A MEMBER OF, OR
AFFILIATED WITH, AN ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, OR GROUP THAT
BELIEVES IN, ADVISES, ADVOCATES OR TEACHES THE OVERTHROW, BY FORCE OR
VIOLENCE, OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; (3) HE IS A MEMBER
OF, OR AFFILIATED WITH, AN ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, OR GROUP
THAT WRITES, CIRCULATES, DISTRIBUTES, PRINTS, PUBLISHES OR DISPLAYS, OR
CAUSES TO BE WRITTEN, CIRCULATED, DISTRIBUTED, PRINTED, PUBLISHED OR
DISPLAYED, OR THAT HAS IN ITS POSSESSION FOR THESE PURPOSES WRITTEN OR
PRINTED MATTER ADVISING, ADVOCATING OR TEACHING THE OVERTHROW, BY FORCE
OR VIOLENCE, OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND (4) AFTER HIS
ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES HE HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BECOME A MEMBER
OF ONE OF THE CLASSES OF ALIENS ENUMERATED IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF
OCTOBER 16, 1918, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 5, 1920, TO WIT:  AN
ALIEN WHO IS A MEMBER OF, OR AFFILIATED WITH, AN ORGANIZATION,
ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY OR GROUP THAT BELIEVES IN, ADVISES OR TEACHES THE
OVERTHROW, BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

THE RESPONDENT WAS APPREHENDED AND WAS GIVEN HEARINGS BEFORE AN
IMMIGRATION INSPECTOR, AT WHICH HE WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND
TESTIFIED IN HIS OWN BEHALF.  THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
TRANSCRIPTS OF HIS EXAMINATION BY THE NATURALIZATION BUREAU, OF AN
INTERVIEW WITH HIM BY AN IMMIGRATION INSPECTOR, AND HIS MEMBERSHIP BOOK
IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE U.S.A., ISSUED NOVEMBER 15, 1932, WITH
STAMPS AFFIXED SHOWING PAYMENT OF DUES TO THE END OF FEBRUARY, 1933. 
THE RULES OF THE PARTY, SET FORTH IN THE BOOK, PROVIDED THAT FAILURE TO
PAY DUES FOR THREE MONTHS AUTOMATICALLY RESULTS IN THE LOSS OF
MEMBERSHIP, AND IT IS ADMITTED THERE IS NO EVIDENCE RESPONDENT
CONTINUED TO BE A MEMBER AFTER MARCH 1, 1933. 

THE BOOK CONTAINED PRINTED MATTER STATING THE PURPOSES AND OBJECTS OF
THE PARTY.  THE GOVERNMENT ALSO OFFERED A COPY OF A MAGAZINE CALLED
"THE COMMUNIST," DATED APRIL 1934, AND READ INTO THE RECORD EXCERPTS
FROM ARTICLES APPEARING THEREIN.  THE RESPONDENT ADMITTED THAT HE
JOINED THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN NOVEMBER 1932, ASSERTED THAT HIS
MEMBERSHIP TERMINATED PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1933, AND HAD NEVER BEEN
RENEWED, AND PROFESSED IGNORANCE OF THE MAGAZINE CALLED "THE COMMUNIST"
AND ITS CONTENTS.  IN SOME RESPECTS HIS TESTIMONY AS TO HIS BELIEFS AND
ACTIONS WAS CONTRADICTORY OF HIS STATEMENTS ON PRIOR EXAMINATIONS, AND
TESTIMONY WAS ELICITED FROM HIM IN AN EFFORT TO SHOW THAT HIS DENIAL OF
PRESENT AFFILIATION WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY MIGHT NOT BE MADE IN GOOD
FAITH; BUT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THAT
CONCLUSION.  AFTER A REVIEW OF THE RECORD BY THE BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, A WARRANT OF DEPORTATION WAS ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY WHICH RECITES AN AFFIRMATIVE FINDING AS TO EACH OF
THE COUNTS IN THE WARRANT OF ARREST AND ORDERS THE RESPONDENT'S
DEPORTATION.  FN1 

THE RESPONDENT PETITIONED A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN ARKANSAS FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO DELIVER HIM FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE
IMMIGRATION INSPECTOR.  THE WRIT WAS DENIED.  THEREAFTER HE FILED THE
PETITION IN THE INSTANT CASE IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR LOUISIANA.  IN
THIS PETITION HE ALLEGED THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN ACCORDED A FAIR HEARING;
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAD NOT CORRECTLY CONSTRUED THE
IMMIGRATION LAWS APPLICABLE TO HIS CASE; THAT THE FINDINGS WERE WITHOUT
SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE; THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW,
AND THAT HE IS NOT A CITIZEN OF POLAND, TO WHICH THE WARRANT DIRECTED
HIS REMISSION.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE WRIT.  THE RESPONDENT
APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ASSIGNING ERROR TO THE
DISTRICT COURT'S ACTION IN DENYING EACH OF HIS CONTENTIONS.  THAT COURT
FOUND THAT THE HEARINGS HAD BEEN FAIR, BUT HELD THAT EACH OF THE
FINDINGS RECITED IN THE WARRANT WAS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE. 
THE COURT WAS OF OPINION THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE
RESPONDENT IS NOW A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THAT HE OR THAT
PARTY, IN 1933, TAUGHT, ADVOCATED, OR INCITED THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE, AND THAT THE RECORD WAS BARE OF
EVIDENCE TO COUNTERVAIL HIS DENIAL THAT HE HAD EVER TAUGHT OR BELIEVED
IN THE UNLAWFUL DESTRUCTION OR OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT BY FORCE. 
THE COURT HELD THAT THE ACTS OF 1918 AND 1920 WERE PASSED TO MEET A
SITUATION CAUSED BY CRISES IN RUSSIA IN 1918 AND 1919; FN2  THAT THE
MAJOR CHANGES IN POLICY AND CONDUCT OF THE SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
WHICH HAD TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN 1918 AND 1933 REBUTTED THE IMPLICATIONS
ARISING FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY AT THE TIME THE ACTS
WERE ADOPTED; THAT MERE MEMBERSHIP IN THAT PARTY IN 1933 IS NOT A
STATUTORY GROUND FOR DEPORTATION.  THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE WAS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION.  FN3 

THE GOVERNMENT MOVED FOR A REHEARING, PRESSING SPECIALLY THE
CONTENTION THAT THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IS TO THE EFFECT
THAT MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT
DEPORTATION.  THE PETITION WAS ENTERTAINED, THE JUDGMENT WAS AMENDED TO
PROVIDE: "REVERSED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO TRY THE ISSUES DE NOVO AS
SUGGESTED IN EX PARTE FIERSTEIN, 41 FED.(2D) P. 54"; AND A REHEARING
WAS DENIED.  FN4  JUDGE SIBLEY DISSENTED ON THE GROUND THAT ON THE
BASIS OF THE RESPONDENT'S MEMBERSHIP BOOK WHICH REFERS TO THE THIRD
COMMUNIST INTERNATIONALE, THE COURT COULD TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE
OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAMS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE THIRD
INTERNATIONALE. 

THE UNITED STATES PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI, ASSERTING THAT THE
SINGLE QUESTION PRESENTED IS "WHETHER THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN FAILING
TO SUSTAIN AN ORDER OF DEPORTATION AGAINST RESPONDENT, AN ALIEN WHO IN
1932 BECAME A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES."  IN
ITS SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS TO BE URGED THE GOVERNMENT ENUMERATED (1)
THE HOLDING THAT AN ALIEN WHO BECAME A MEMBER OF THE PARTY IN 1932 IS
NOT, BY REASON OF THAT FACT, SUBJECT TO DEPORTATION; (2) THE HOLDING
THAT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF LABOR CONCERNING THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE PARTY WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER; (3) THE
REMAND FOR A TRIAL DE NOVO IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AND (4) THE FAILURE
TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  AS REASON FOR THE
GRANTING OF THE WRIT THE GOVERNMENT URGED A CONFLICT OF DECISION ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER MEMBERSHIP BY AN ALIEN IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF
AMERICA SUBJECTS HIM TO DEPORTATION.  BY REASON OF THE ALLEGATION OF
CONFLICT AND THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ORDERING A
TRIAL DE NOVO IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WE GRANTED THE WRIT. 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT THE WARRANT OF DEPORTATION
ON THE SECOND AND THIRD GROUNDS THEREIN SPECIFIED, NAMELY, THAT THE
RESPONDENT "IS A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH" AN ORGANIZATION
DESCRIBED IN THE ACT.  THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF RECORD IS THAT HIS
MEMBERSHIP CEASED MONTHS BEFORE THE ISSUE OF THE WARRANT FOR HIS
ARREST.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT RESPONDENT IS DEPORTABLE BECAUSE, AFTER
ENTRY, HE BECAME A MEMBER OF A CLASS OF ALIENS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 1 OF
THE ACT, TO WIT, A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY, AN ORGANIZATION
MEMBERSHIP IN WHICH IS MADE A CAUSE OF DEPORTATION BECAUSE THE
ORGANIZATION BELIEVES IN, ADVOCATES, AND TEACHES THE OVERTHROW OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE.  THIS CONTENTION
PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT RENDERS FORMER MEMBERSHIP IN SUCH
AN ORGANIZATION, WHICH HAS CEASED, A GROUND OF DEPORTATION.  RESPONDENT
INSISTS THAT THE STATUTE MAKES ONLY PRESENT MEMBERSHIP IN AN
ORGANIZATION DESCRIBED IN THE ACT SUCH GROUND. 

TO DO WITH THE EXCLUSION OF ALIEN IMMIGRANTS AND SPECIFIES FIVE
CLASSES, MEMBERS OF WHICH MAY NOT BE ADMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES. 
ONE OF THESE CLASSES - SUBSECTION (C) - INCLUDES "ALIENS WHO BELIEVE
IN, ADVISE, ADVOCATE, OR TEACH, OR WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR AFFILIATED
WITH ANY ORGANIZATION, ASSOCIATION, SOCIETY, OR GROUP, THAT BELIEVES
IN, ADVISES, ADVOCATES, OR TEACHES  ...  THE OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR
VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  ...  " 

OF 1920, DEALS WITH DEPORTATION.  IT PROVIDES THAT "ANY ALIEN WHO, AT
ANY TIME AFTER ENTERING THE UNITED STATES, IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN AT THE
TIME OF ENTRY, OR TO HAVE BECOME THEREAFTER, A MEMBER OF ANY OF THE
CLASSES OF ALIENS ENUMERATED" IN SEC. 1, SHALL, UPON WARRANT OF THE
SECRETARY OF LABOR, BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AND DEPORTED, IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED BY LAW. 

RELYING ON THE PHRASES ITALICIZED IN THE QUOTATION, THE GOVERNMENT
INSISTS THAT THE SECTION EMBRACES AN ALIEN WHO, AFTER ENTRY, HAS BECOME
A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION, MEMBERSHIP IN WHICH, AT THE TIME OF HIS
ENTRY, WOULD HAVE WARRANTED HIS EXCLUSION, ALTHOUGH HE HAS CEASED TO BE
A MEMBER AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST.  WE HOLD THAT THE ACT DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR THE DEPORTATION OF SUCH AN ALIEN.  THIS CONCLUSION RESTS
NOT ALONE UPON THE LANGUAGE, BUT, AS WELL, UPON THE CONTEXT AND THE
HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION. 

THE PHRASE "AT ANY TIME" QUALIFIES THE VERB "FOUND."  THUS, IF AT ANY
TIME THE SECRETARY FINDS THAT AT ENTRY THE ALIEN WAS A MEMBER, OR HAS
THEREAFTER BECOME AND IS A MEMBER, HE MAY BE DEPORTED.  THE NATURAL
MEANING IS THAT, AS THE ALIEN WAS EXCLUDABLE FOR PRESENT MEMBERSHIP, HE
IS DEPORTABLE FOR PRESENT MEMBERSHIP SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S CONSTRUCTION, WHICH COLLOCATES THE PHRASE "AT ANY TIME"
WITH THE PHRASE "OR TO HAVE BECOME THEREAFTER" IS UNNATURAL AND
STRAINED.  IF CONGRESS MEANT THAT PAST MEMBERSHIP, OF NO MATTER HOW
SHORT DURATION OR HOW FAR IN THE PAST, WAS TO BE A CAUSE OF PRESENT
DEPORTATION THE PURPOSE COULD HAVE BEEN CLEARLY STATED.  THE SECTION
DOES NOT BEAR THIS IMPORT. 

BY THE FIRST SECTION OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED IN 1920, ALIENS ARE TO BE
EXCLUDED WHO ARE MEMBERS OF A DESCRIBED ORGANIZATION.  THE SECTION DOES
NOT REQUIRE THE EXCLUSION OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, BUT ARE
NO LONGER, MEMBERS.  WHEN THE CONGRESS CAME TO PROVIDE FOR DEPORTATION,
INSTEAD OF AGAIN ENUMERATING AND DEFINING THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF ALIENS
WHO MIGHT BE DEPORTED, IT PROVIDED THAT IF AT ANY TIME IT SHOULD BE
FOUND THAT AN ALIEN HAD BEEN ADMITTED AND, AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION,
WAS A MEMBER OF ANY OF THE PROSCRIBED CLASSES, OR HAD THEREAFTER BECOME
SUCH, HE SHOULD BE DEPORTED.  IT IS NOT TO BE SUPPOSED THAT PAST
MEMBERSHIP, WHICH DOES NOT BAR ADMISSION, WAS INTENDED TO BE A CAUSE OF
DEPORTATION.  AND THE FACT THAT NATURALIZATION IS DENIED TO AN ALIEN
ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT HE "IS A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY
ORGANIZATION ENTERTAINING" DISBELIEF IN OR OPPOSITION TO ORGANIZED
GOVERNMENT, AND NOT FOR PAST MEMBERSHIP OR AFFILIATION, FN7  LENDS
ADDED FORCE TO THIS VIEW. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR AND DEFINITE EXPRESSION, WE ARE NOT AT
LIBERTY TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT ANY ALIEN, NO MATTER
HOW LONG A RESIDENT OF THIS COUNTRY, OR HOWEVER WELL DISPOSED TOWARD
OUR GOVERNMENT, MUST BE DEPORTED, IF AT ANY TIME IN THE PAST, NO MATTER
WHEN, OR UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FOR WHAT TIME, HE WAS A MEMBER OF
THE DESCRIBED ORGANIZATION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EXPRESSION WE
CONCLUDE THAT IT IS THE PRESENT MEMBERSHIP, OR PRESENT OFFILIATION - A
FACT TO BE DETERMINED ON EVIDENCE - WHICH BARS ADMISSION, BARS
NATURALIZATION, AND REQUIRES DEPORTATION.  SINCE THE STATUTE DEALS NOT
ONLY WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION OF THE DESCRIBED CLASS, BUT
WITH AFFILIATION THEREWITH AND, AS WELL, WITH BELIEF AND TEACHING, IT
ENABLES THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, AS TRIER OF THE FACTS, FULLY TO
INVESTIGATE AND TO FIND THE TRUE RELATION, BELIEF AND ACTIVITY OF THE
ALIEN UNDER INVESTIGATION. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION.  BY
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1903, FN8 CONGRESS DIRECTED THE EXCLUSION OF
"ANARCHISTS, OR PERSONS WHO BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE THE OVERTHROW BY
FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,  ..."  FN9
AND ALSO OF ANY "PERSON WHO DISBELIEVES IN OR WHO IS OPPOSED TO ALL
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT, OR WHO IS A MEMBER OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY
ORGANIZATION ENTERTAINING AND TEACHING SUCH DISBELIEF IN OR OPPOSITION
TO ALL ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT  ..."  FN10  THE ONLY SECTION AUTHORIZING
DEPORTATION OF SUCH PERSONS IS DIRECTED TO AN ALIEN FOUND TO HAVE
ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF THE ACT, IF PROCEEDED AGAINST WITHIN THREE
YEARS AFTER ENTRY.  FN11  THESE PROVISIONS WERE REENACTED WITHOUT
ALTERATION IN THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1907.  FN12    THE FIRST
LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING DEPORTATION OF PERSONS WHO HAD ENTERED LAWFULLY
IS HR. 6060, ENACTED BY THE 63RD CONGRESS BUT VETOED BY PRESIDENT
WILSON JANUARY 28, 1915.  FN13  THIS BILL REQUIRED DEPORTATION OF "ANY
ALIEN WHO WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER ENTRY SHALL BE FOUND ADVOCATING OR
TEACHING" THE DEFINED DOCTRINES.  IT ALSO ALTERED EXISTING LAW IN
RESPECT OF DEPORTATION OF THOSE WHO HAD ENTERED ILLEGALLY TO PROVIDE
THAT "AT ANY TIME WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER ENTRY, ANY ALIEN WHO AT THE
TIME OF ENTRY WAS A MEMBER OF ONE OR MORE OF THE CLASSES EXCLUDED BY
LAW" SHOULD BE DEPORTED. 

A BILL, IN SUBSTANCE THE SAME, WAS INTRODUCED IN THE 64TH CONGRESS
AND ENACTED FEBRUARY 5, 1917, OVER PRESIDENTIAL VETO.  FN14  WHILE THIS
MEASURE WAS IN COURSE OF PASSAGE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
IN CHARGE OF IT MOVED, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE, TO AMEND SEC. 19 BY
INSERTING THE PHRASE "AT ANY TIME" SO THAT THE SECTION SHOULD PROVIDE
FOR DEPORTATION OF "ANY ALIEN WHO AT ANY TIME AFTER ENTRY SHALL BE
FOUND ADVOCATING OR TEACHING" FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
THE ACT, AS ADOPTED, WAS IN THIS FORM.  THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
WAS TO MAKE PLAIN THAT NO TIME LIMIT WAS FIXED FOR DEPORTATION OF
ALIENS FOUND ADVOCATING THE DOCTRINE.  FN15  THE ACT OF 1917 WAS
AMENDED BY THAT OF OCTOBER 16, 1918, HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH,
BY ITS TITLE, PURPORTED TO APPLY TO "ALIENS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE
ANARCHISTIC AND SIMILAR CLASSES.  ...  " 

ADDITION OF THE WORDS "ALIENS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF OR AFFILIATED WITH ANY
ORGANIZATION THAT ENTERTAINS A BELIEF IN, TEACHES OR ADVOCATES THE
OVERTHROW BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
...  " SECTION 2 MODIFIED THE EARLIER ACT IN RESPECT OF DEPORTATION,
BOTH IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE.  THE PROVISION FOR DEPORTATION OF THOSE
WHO, AT THE TIME OF ENTRY, WERE MEMBERS OF ONE OF THE PROSCRIBED
CLASSES WAS RETAINED, BUT THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATION WITHIN
WHICH DEPORTATION MIGHT BE HAD WAS ELIMINATED.  FN16  THE PROVISION FOR
DEPORTATION OF ALIENS OF ANARCHISTIC AND SIMILAR CLASSES WAS EXPANDED
BY INCLUDING AS CAUSES OF DEPORTATION ALL THE CAUSES OF EXCLUSION
ENUMERATED IN SEC. 1 WHICH WERE THEMSELVES MUCH BROADER THAN THOSE
INCLUDED IN THE 1917 ACT.  THUS, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE
ACT OF 1917 FOR DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WHO DID NOT PERSONALLY ADVOCATE
THE PROSCRIBED DOCTRINE, BUT WERE MEMBERS OF AN ORGANIZATION WHICH DID,
THE ACT OF 1918 EMBODIED SUCH A PROVISION.  THIS ALTERATION, AND THE
ELIMINATION OF THE FIVE YEAR TIME LIMITATION, WERE THE IMPORTANT
CHANGES, RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION UNDER EXAMINATION, WHICH THE ACT OF
1918 EFFECTED IN THE EARLIER LEGISLATION.  THESE MODIFICATIONS LEND NO
SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTION THAT SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1918 WAS INTENDED
TO MAKE QUONDAM MEMBERSHIP A GROUND OF DEPORTATION. 

NOR IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE FORMAL ALTERATION WORKED BY THE ACT OF
1918 WHICH LEADS TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  SECTION 19 OF THE ACT OF
1917 DEALT IN DISTINCT CLAUSES WITH THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF ALIENS WHO
MIGHT BE DEPORTED, SPECIFYING IN ONE CLAUSE AN ALIEN "WHO AT THE TIME
OF ENTRY WAS A MEMBER OF THE CLASSES EXCLUDED BY LAW" AND, IN ANOTHER
CLAUSE, AN ALIEN "WHO, AT ANY TIME AFTER ENTRY, SHALL BE FOUND
ADVOCATING OR TEACHING" THE OBNOXIOUS DOCTRINES.  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT
OF 1918 COMBINED THE CLAUSES DEALING WITH THE TWO GROUPS IN A SINGLE
SENTENCE, WITH A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT LOCUTION.  WE THINK THIS
CONSOLIDATION WAS NOT INTENDED TO ALTER THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW AS IT
THERETOFORE STOOD. 

THE ONLY DECISIONS WHICH SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION ARE THOSE
IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT.  FN17  WE CANNOT APPROVE THEIR REASONING OR
RESULT.  IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION HAS ALWAYS
ACCORDED WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION IN THE PRESENT CASE.  WE
CANNOT FIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN SUCH A UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRES
AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT VIEW.  THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF THE
RESPONDENT'S VIEW UNTIL AFTER THE DECISION IN THE YOKINEN CASE,  FN18
AND THE CONSTRUCTION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN CHANGED IN DEFERENCE TO THE
DECISION IN THAT CASE.  FN19 

OUR READING OF THE STATUTE MAKES IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THE
CONFLICTING CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES CONCERNING THE ADEQUACY OF THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SECRETARY CONCERNING THE PURPOSES AND AIMS OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OR THE PROPRIETY OF THE COURT'S TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE
THEREOF. 

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SUGGESTS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN THE WARRANT OF DEPORTATION ON THE FIRST GROUND THEREIN STATED,
NAMELY, THAT THE RESPONDENT BELIEVES IN AND TEACHES THE OVERTHROW, BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE, OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS SAID
THAT THE ERROR OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN REVERSING THE
DISTRICT COURT IS, IN THIS ASPECT, SO PLAIN THAT WE SHOULD NOTICE IT,
ALTHOUGH THE PETITION DOES NOT PRESENT THE QUESTION.  WE HAVE THE POWER
TO DO THIS IN THE CASE OF PLAIN ERROR,  FN20  BUT WE EXERCISE IT ONLY
IN CLEAR CASES AND IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. 

WE DO NOT KNOW ON WHAT GROUNDS THE DISTRICT JUDGE'S ACTION RESTED
SINCE HE WROTE NO OPINION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE
EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE SECRETARY'S FINDING.  WE THINK
THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT JUSTIFY A REVERSAL OF THE HOLDING OF THE COURT
BELOW UPON THIS POINT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR A TRIAL DE NOVO.  IN THIS WE THINK THERE WAS ERROR.  THE PROCEEDING
FOR DEPORTATION IS ADMINISTRATIVE.  FN21  IF THE HEARING WAS FAIR, IF
THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE SECRETARY, AND IF NO
ERROR OF LAW WAS COMMITTED, THE RULING OF THE DEPARTMENT MUST STAND AND
CANNOT BE CORRECTED IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  FN22  IF, ON THE OTHER
HAND, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS MENTIONED IS LACKING, THE PROCEEDING IS VOID
AND MUST BE SET ASIDE.  FN23  A DISTRICT COURT CANNOT UPON HABEAS
CORPUS, PROCEED DE NOVO, FOR THE FUNCTION OF INVESTIGATION AND FINDING
HAS NOT BEEN CONFERRED UPON IT BUT UPON THE SECRETARY OF LABOR.  ONLY
IN THE EVENT AN ALLEGED ALIEN ASSERTS HIS UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP IN
THE HEARING BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT, AND SUPPORTS HIS CLAIM BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IS HE ENTITLED TO A TRIAL DE NOVO OF THAT ISSUE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN24  THE STATUS OF THE RELATOR MUST BE
JUDICIALLY DETERMINED, BECAUSE JURISDICTION IN THE EXECUTIVE TO ORDER
DEPORTATION EXISTS ONLY IF THE PERSON ARRESTED IS AN ALIEN; AND NO
STATUTORY PROCEEDING IS PROVIDED IN WHICH HE CAN RAISE THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE EXECUTIVE ACTION IS IN EXCESS OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED
UPON THE SECRETARY.  FN25 

IT FOLLOWS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID THAT, AS THE SECRETARY ERRED IN
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE, THE WRIT MUST BE GRANTED AND THE
RESPONDENT DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED
AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. 

FN1  THE DELAY IN THIS CASE IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT WAS
BORN AN AUSTRIAN SUBJECT BUT WAS REFUSED REENTRY INTO THAT COUNTRY ON
THE GROUND THAT THE PLACE OF HIS BIRTH IS NOW IN POLAND.  PROTRACTED
NEGOTIATIONS ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT WERE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF POLAND TO HIS RETURN TO THAT COUNTRY. 

FN2  THAT THIS VIEW IS ERRONEOUS IS SHOWN BY THE HISTORY OF THE
LEGISLATION REFERRED TO INFRA, P. 30.  COMPARE, HOUSE REPORT 504, 66TH
CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 7; SENATE REPORT 648, 66TH CONG., 2ND SESS., P.
4. 

FN3  95 F.2D 976. 

FN4  96 F.2D 1020. 

FN5  ACT OF OCT. 16, 1918, C. 186, 40 STAT. 1012, AS AMENDED BY THE
ACT OF JUNE 5, 1920, C. 251, 41 STAT. 1008; U.S.C. TIT. 8, SEC. 137(A)
TO (E). 

FN6  40 STAT. 1012; U.S.C. TIT. 8, SEC. 137(G). 

FN7  ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, C. 3592, SEC. 7, 34 STAT. 596, 598. 

FN8  32 STAT. 1213. 

FN9  SEC. 2, 32 STAT. 1214. 

FN10  SEC. 38, 32 STAT. 1221. 

FN11  SEC. 21, 32 STAT. 1218. 

FN12  34 STAT. 898, SECS. 21 AND 38, PP. 905, 908. 

FN13  HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 1527, 63RD CONG., 3RD SESS. 

FN14  39 STAT. 874. 

FN15  SEE 53 CONG. REC. PART.  5, P. 5165, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS.;
SEN. REP. 352, P. 14, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 10384. 

FN16  HOUSE REP. 645, 65TH CONG., 2ND SESS. 

FN17  UNITED STATES EX REL. YOKINEN V. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION,
57 F.2D 707; UNITED STATES EX REL. MANNISTO V. REIMER, 77 F.2D 1021. 

FN18  HOUSE REP. 504, P. 9, 66TH CONG., 2ND SESS.  HEARINGS COMMUNIST
AND ANARCHISTIC DEPORTATION CASES, H.R. 66TH CONG., 2ND SESS.
SUBCOMMITTEE OF COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, APRIL 21,
24, 1920, P. 17. 

FN19  SEE LETTER OF SECRETARY OF LABOR EMBODIED IN SENATE REP. 769,
75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN20  MAHLER V. EBY, 264 U.S. 32, 45. 

FN21  PEARSON V. WILLIAMS, 202 U.S. 281; ZAKONAITE V. WOLF, 226 U.S.
272. 

FN22  ZAKONAITE V. WOLF, SUPRA; TISI V. TOD, 264 U.S. 131, 133. 

FN23  VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER, 273 U.S. 103, 106; GEGIOW V. UHL, 239
U.S. 3. 

FN24  UNITED STATES V. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161, 167; BILOKUMSKY V.
TOD, 263 U.S. 149, 152, 153. 

FN25  NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276; COMPARE TOD V. WALDMAN, 266
U.S. 113, 119. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND I CANNOT ACQUIESCE IN THE DISPOSITION OF THIS
CAUSE OR IN THE SUPPORTING OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED.  IT SEEMS WORTHWHILE
BRIEFLY TO INDICATE OUR VIEWS. 

MORE THAN FIVE YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE ALIEN RESPONDENT WAS
ARRESTED AND ORDERED TO SHOW WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE DEPORTED.  THE RECORD
OF THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LABOR DEPARTMENT AND IN THE
COURTS, PRINTED ON EIGHTY-FOUR PAGES, IS BEFORE US.  IT IS NOT VERY
DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND.  WITHOUT QUESTION WE HAVE POWER FINALLY TO
DISPOSE OF THE CAUSE UPON THE MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OMISSIONS OR
DEFECTS FOUND IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE
THINK THAT COURSE SHOULD BE TAKEN.  THE DISTRICT COURT UPON ANOTHER
VIEW OF THE RECORD CAN ASCERTAIN NOTHING NOT OPEN TO US. 

IF THIS ALIEN IS GUILTLESS OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM HE SHOULD BE
LIBERATED WITHOUT MORE ADO; IF GUILTY, THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE RELIEVED OF
HIS PRESENCE NOW.  THAT HE IS AN UNDESIRABLE IS MADE MANIFEST. 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE ADOPTED BY THE COURT SEEMS BOTH
UNWARRANTED AND UNFORTUNATE.  IF BY THE SIMPLE PROCESS OF RESIGNING OR
GETTING EXPELLED FROM A PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION AN ALIEN MAY THEREBY
INSTANTLY PURGE HIMSELF AFTER MONTHS OR YEARS OF MISCHIEVOUS
ACTIVITIES, HOPED-FOR PROTECTION AGAINST SUCH CONDUCT WILL DISAPPEAR. 
ESCAPE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF DELIBERATE VIOLATIONS OF OUR
HOSPITALITY SHOULD NOT BECOME QUITE SO FACILE.  FN1 

SEVEN YEARS AGO, THE COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT, CONSTRUED THE
STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION IN UNITED STATES EX REL. YOKINEN V.
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, 57 F.2D 707-708.  THERE THE ALIEN HAD BEEN
EXPELLED FROM THE COMMUNIST PARTY BEFORE HIS ARREST, AND FOR THAT
REASON HE UNSUCCESSFULLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION.  THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS
FROM THE COURT'S OPINION, WITH FORCE AND DIRECTNESS, EXPRESS OUR VIEW
CONCERNING THE TRUE MEANING OF THE ENACTMENT - 

"IT IS TRUE THAT HE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY WHEN
ARRESTED.  HE HAD RECENTLY BEEN EXPELLED BECAUSE OF HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD
NEGROES, BUT THAT DID NOT REMOVE HIM FROM THE REACH OF THE STATUTE.  WE
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SHAPING THE POLICY OF THE LAW TOWARDS ALIENS
WHO COME HERE AND JOIN A PROSCRIBED SOCIETY.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED
THAT 'ANY ALIEN WHO, AT ANY TIME AFTER ENTERING THE UNITED STATES, IS
FOUND TO HAVE BEEN AT THE TIME OF ENTRY, OR TO HAVE BECOME THEREAFTER,
A MEMBER OF ANY ONE OF THE CLASSES OF ALIENS ENUMERATED IN THIS
CONCEDEDLY DID BECOME AFTER ENTRY A MEMBER OF 'ONE OF  THE CLASSES ...
ENUMERATED' AND FROM THAT TIME BECAME DEPORTABLE.  WE ARE URGED TO
AMELIORATE THE SUPPOSED HARSHNESS OF THE STATUTE BY READING INTO IT
WORDS THAT CONGRESS SAW FIT TO LEAVE OUT AND INTERPRET IT TO APPLY NOT
TO ALIENS WHO BECOME MEMBERS, BUT ONLY TO THOSE WHO BECOME AND CONTINUE
TO THE TIME OF THEIR ARREST TO BE MEMBERS, OF ONE OF THE ENUMERATED
CLASSES.  IF THE WORDS USED IN THE STATUTE WERE EQUIVOCAL OR THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS FOR ANY REASON UNCERTAIN, THERE MIGHT BE ROOM FOR
SUCH A CONSTRUCTION AS THAT FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT NOW CONTENDS. 
PERHAPS THE SUFFICIENT ANSWER IS THAT HAD CONGRESS INTENDED MEMBERSHIP
AT THE TIME OF ARREST TO BE THE CRITERION IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO.  IT
HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTS OF AN ALIEN SHALL TERMINATE HIS
RIGHT TO REMAIN HERE.  SKEFFINGTON V. KATZEFF ET AL. (C.C.A.)  277 F.
129.  WHAT IT DID DO WAS TO MAKE THE ACT OF BECOMING A MEMBER A
DEPORTABLE OFFENSE WITHOUT REGARD TO CONTINUANCE OF MEMBERSHIP AND IT
DID THAT IN LANGUAGE SO PLAIN THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO READ IN ANY OTHER
MEANING IS NO LESS THAN AN ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW ITSELF. 

"SINCE THE APPELLANT ADMITTEDLY HAD, AFTER ENTRY, BECOME A MEMBER OF
A PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION, THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE REQUIRED THE ORDER
FROM WHICH THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN.  ALL PROOF UPON WHICH HE WAS HELD TO
BE AFFILIATED WITH THE COMMUNIST PARTY WAS UNNECESSARY, AND WHILE WE DO
NOT MEAN TO INTIMATE THAT ANY EVIDENCE ON THAT PHASE OF THE CASE WAS
UNFAIRLY RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED, IN ANY EVENT IT DID HIM NO HARM." 
A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ASKING THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS REFUSED OCTOBER 10, 1932(287 U.S.
607).  IT STRESSED THE POINT THAT - "A FAIR AND PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT IT BE CONFINED IN ITS OPERATION TO ALIENS WHO
ARE MEMBERS OF OR AFFILIATED WITH A PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION AT THE
ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT OF ARREST." 

THE UNUSUAL IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION WAS NOT DIFFICULT TO
APPRECIATE. 

IN THE PRESENCE OF CLEAR AND POSITIVE EXPRESSION OF CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT TO THE CONTRARY WE DO NOT FEEL AT LIBERTY TO CONCLUDE THAT AN
ALIEN WHO AFTER ENTRY HAS SHOWN HIS CONTEMPT FOR OUR LAWS BY
DELIBERATELY ASSOCIATING HIMSELF WITH A PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATION MUST BE
ALLOWED TO REMAIN IF HE RESIGNED OR WAS DEBARRED A DAY, A MONTH OR A
YEAR BEFORE HIS ARREST.  AN EXPERIENCED COURT YEARS AGO DECLARED THAT
WOULD BE "NO LESS THAN AN ATTEMPT TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW ITSELF." 

FN1  STRECKER, BORN IN POLAND IN 1888, WAS ADMITTED TO THE UNITED
STATES IN 1912. 

HE JOINED THE COMMUNIST PARTY NOVEMBER, 1932, BUT PAID NO DUES
SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY, 1933.  HE CLAIMS THAT UNDER THE PARTY RULES
FAILURE TO PAY FOR FOUR WEEKS CAUSES MEMBERSHIP TO CEASE.  WARRANT FOR
HIS ARREST ISSUED IN NOVEMBER, 1933. 
..END :








MULFORD V. SMITH, 307 U.S. 38 


NO. 505.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 24
F.SUPP.  919, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PRODUCERS OF TOBACCO, CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, SOUGHT TO ENJOIN
WAREHOUSEMEN FROM DEDUCTING PENALTIES UNDER THE ACT FROM THE SALES
PRICE OF TOBACCO TO BE SOLD ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS, IN EXCESS OF
THEIR RESPECTIVE QUOTAS.  HELD: 

(1) THE SUIT IS WITHIN SEC. 24(8) JUD.  CODE, WHICH CONFERS
JURISDICTION UPON DISTRICT COURTS "OF ALL SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS ARISING
UNDER ANY LAW REGULATING COMMERCE," IRRESPECTIVE OF CITIZENSHIP OF
PARTIES OR AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.  P. 46. 

(2)  THE SUIT IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY R.S. 3224, WHICH APPLIES ONLY TO
RESTRAINT OF ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF A TAX.  P. 46. 

(3)  UPON THE AVERMENTS OF THE BILL THE CASE IS OF EQUITABLE
COGNIZANCE, FOR WANT OF ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY.  P. 46. 

2.  TITLE III OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938, RECITING,
INTER ALIA, THE IMPORTANCE TO THE NATION OF THE MARKETING OF TOBACCO;
THAT TOBACCO IS SOLD ON A NATIONAL MARKET,  - ALMOST WHOLLY IN
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE; AND THAT WITHOUT FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
TOBACCO FARMERS ARE UNABLE TO BRING ABOUT ORDERLY MARKETING, WITH THE
CONSEQUENCE THAT EXCESSIVE SUPPLIES ARE PRODUCED AND DUMPED ON THE
MARKET, BRINGING BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS TO INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE,  - DIRECT THAT WHEN IN ANY YEAR, ON NOVEMBER 15TH, THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FINDS THAT THE TOTAL SUPPLY OF TOBACCO, AS OF
JULY 1ST, EXCEEDED THE RESERVE SUPPLY LEVEL WHICH IS DEFINED IN THE
ACT, HE SHALL PROCLAIM THE TOTAL SUPPLY AND A NATIONAL MARKETING QUOTA
SHALL BE IN EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE MARKETING YEAR WHICH COMMENCES THE
FOLLOWING JULY 1ST, BUT NOT IF MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF THE PRODUCERS OF
THE CROP OF THE PRECEDING YEAR, AT A REFERENDUM HELD BY THE SECRETARY,
OPPOSE THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH QUOTA.  THE QUOTA FOR ANY YEAR IS TO BE
FIRST APPORTIONED AMONG THE STATES, LARGELY ON THE BASIS OF PAST
PRODUCTION, AND EACH STATE ALLOTMENT IS TO BE APPORTIONED AMONG THE
FARMS LARGELY ON THE BASIS OF PAST PRODUCTION AND MARKETING.  EACH
FARMER IS TO BE NOTIFIED OF HIS MARKETING QUOTA, AND IF TOBACCO IN
EXCESS OF THE QUOTA FOR ANY FARM ON WHICH IT WAS PRODUCED IS MARKETED
THROUGH A WAREHOUSEMAN, THE LATTER MUST PAY TO THE SECRETARY A PENALTY
EQUAL TO FIFTY PER CENT. OF THE MARKET PRICE OF THE EXCESS AND MAY
DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE PENALTY FROM THE PRICE PAID THE
PRODUCER.  HELD: 

(1)  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO CONTROL PRODUCTION, BUT
REGULATES COMMERCE IN TOBACCO THROUGH MARKETING.  P. 47. 

(2)  WHERE MARKETING CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT REGULATION AS TO SALES
IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE CAN NOT BE EFFECTIVE UNLESS EXTENDED
TO SALES IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE ALSO, SUCH EXTENSION OF REGULATION IS
CONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 47. 

(3)  IN ORDER TO FOSTER, PROTECT AND CONSERVE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR
TO PREVENT THE FLOW OF THAT COMMERCE FROM WORKING HARM TO THE PEOPLE,
THE AMOUNT OF A GIVEN COMMODITY WHICH MAY BE TRANSPORTED IN IT MAY BE
LIMITED.  P. 48. 

(4)  THE MOTIVE OF CONGRESS IN ASSERTING THE POWER IS IRRELEVANT TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE LEGISLATION.  P. 48. 

(5)  THE PROVISIONS UNDER REVIEW DO NOT AMOUNT TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. 
P. 48. 

DEFINITE STANDARDS ARE LAID DOWN IN THE ACT TO GOVERN THE SECRETARY,
IN FIXING THE QUOTA AND IN ITS ALLOTMENT AMONGST THE STATES AND FARMS. 
HE IS DIRECTED TO ADJUST ALLOTMENTS SO AS TO ALLOW FOR SPECIFIED
FACTORS WHICH HAVE ABNORMALLY AFFECTED THE PRODUCTION OF THE STATE OR
THE FARM IN QUESTION IN TEST YEARS.  CONGRESS HAS INDICATED IN DETAIL
THE CONSIDERATIONS TO BE HELD IN VIEW IN MAKING THESE ADJUSTMENTS, AND,
IN ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION, HAS AFFORDED BOTH
ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW TO CORRECT ERRORS. 

3.  IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE MARKETING YEAR 1938, THE ABOVE
MENTIONED ACT PROVIDED THAT THE NATIONAL MARKETING QUOTA SHOULD BE
PROCLAIMED WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM FEBRUARY 16, 1938, THE DATE OF THE ACT'S
APPROVAL.  SUBSEQUENT STEPS WERE SO FAR DELAYED THAT PRODUCERS OF FLUE
CURED TOBACCO IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA, WHO HAD BEGUN PREPARATIONS IN THE
PRECEDING DECEMBER FOR THEIR 1938 CROPS, AND AT GREAT EXPENSE HAD
BROUGHT THEM TO HARVEST, CURING AND GRADING, WERE NOT NOTIFIED OF THEIR
QUOTAS, WHICH WERE BELOW THE QUANTITIES PRODUCED, UNTIL A FEW DAYS
BEFORE THE MARKETS OPENED. 

HELD, THAT IN BEING SUBJECTED TO THE STATUTORY PENALTY ON THE EXCESS,
THEY WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, THROUGH
RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE.  PP. 49, 51. 

THE STATUTE OPERATED, NOT ON PRODUCTION, BUT PROSPECTIVELY ON
MARKETING, THE ACTIVITY REGULATED.  IT DID NOT PREVENT ANY PRODUCER
FROM HOLDING OVER THE EXCESS OF TOBACCO PRODUCED, OR FROM PROCESSING
AND STORING IT FOR SALE IN A LATER YEAR; AND THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE
PRODUCERS IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA HAD NOT PROVIDED FACILITIES FOR THESE
PURPOSES IS NOT OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. 

MULFORD ET AL. V. SMITH ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DISMISSED
THE BILL IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY TOBACCO FARMERS TO ENJOIN WAREHOUSEMEN
FROM DEDUCTING, AND REMITTING TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, THE
PENALTIES INFLICTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938 ON
TOBACCO SOLD FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN EXCESS OF THE QUOTAS ASSIGNED TO
THEIR RESPECTIVE FARMS.  THE SUIT WAS BEGUN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
GEORGIA.  THE DEFENDANTS REMOVED THE CASE TO THE FEDERAL COURT.  THE
UNITED STATES INTERVENED, UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANTS, PRODUCERS OF FLUE-CURED TOBACCO, ASSERT THAT THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938,  FN1  IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT
AFFECTS THEIR 1938 CROP. 

THE PORTIONS OF THE STATUTE INVOLVED ARE THOSE INCLUDED IN TITLE III,
PROVIDING MARKETING QUOTAS FOR FLUE-CURED TOBACCO.  FN2  THE ACT
DIRECTS THAT WHEN THE SUPPLY IS FOUND TO EXCEED THE LEVEL DEFINED IN
THE ACT AS THE "RESERVE SUPPLY LEVEL" A NATIONAL MARKETING QUOTA SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE WHICH WILL PERMIT ENOUGH FLUE-CURED TOBACCO TO BE
MARKETED DURING THE ENSUING MARKETING YEAR TO MAINTAIN THE SUPPLY AT
THE RESERVE SUPPLY LEVEL.  THE QUOTA IS TO BE APPORTIONED TO THE FARMS
ON WHICH TOBACCO IS GROWN.  PENALTIES ARE TO BE PAID BY TOBACCO AUCTION
WAREHOUSEMEN FOR MARKETING TOBACCO FROM A FARM IN EXCESS OF ITS QUOTA. 

TOBACCO IS A BASIC INDUSTRY WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE; THAT STABLE CONDITIONS IN SUCH MARKETING ARE
NECESSARY TO THE GENERAL WELFARE; THAT TOBACCO IS SOLD ON A NATIONAL
MARKET AND IT AND ITS PRODUCTS MOVE ALMOST WHOLLY IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE; THAT WITHOUT FEDERAL ASSISTANCE THE FARMERS ARE
UNABLE TO BRING ABOUT ORDERLY MARKETING, WITH THE CONSEQUENCE THAT
ABNORMALLY EXCESSIVE SUPPLIES ARE PRODUCED AND DUMPED INDISCRIMINATELY
ON THE NATIONAL MARKET; THAT THIS DISORDERLY MARKETING OF EXCESS SUPPLY
BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTS INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, CAUSES REDUCTION
IN PRICES AND CONSEQUENT INJURY TO COMMERCE, CREATES DISPARITY BETWEEN
THE PRICES OF TOBACCO IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE AND THE PRICES
OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS IN SUCH COMMERCE, AND DIMINISHES THE VOLUME OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS; AND THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF QUOTAS AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT IS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO
PROMOTE, FOSTER AND OBTAIN AN ORDERLY FLOW OF TOBACCO IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CONTINUOUS REGULATION OF TOBACCO MARKETING,
BUT, BY SEC. 312(A), REGULATION BECOMES EFFECTIVE IN ANY YEAR ONLY IF,
ON NOVEMBER 15TH, THE SECRETARY FINDS THAT THE TOTAL SUPPLY OF TOBACCO
AS OF JULY 1ST EXCEEDED THE RESERVE SUPPLY LEVEL WHICH IS DEFINED IN
THE ACT.  FN3  IF HE SO FINDS, HE SHALL, BY DECEMBER 1ST, PROCLAIM THE
TOTAL SUPPLY AND A NATIONAL MARKETING QUOTA SHALL BE IN EFFECT
THROUGHOUT THE MARKETING YEAR WHICH COMMENCES THE FOLLOWING JULY 1ST. 
THE QUOTA IS TO BE THE AMOUNT WHICH THE SECRETARY FINDS WILL MAKE
AVAILABLE DURING THE ENSUING MARKETING YEAR A SUPPLY OF TOBACCO EQUAL
TO THE RESERVE SUPPLY LEVEL.  AS IT WAS NOT PASSED UNTIL AFTER NOVEMBER
15, 1937, THE ACT PROVIDED, WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKETING YEAR
BEGINNING JULY 1, 1938, FOR WHICH THE QUOTAS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WERE
IN EFFECT, THAT THE DETERMINATION AND PROCLAMATION OF THE NATIONAL
MARKETING QUOTA SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER THE STATUTE'S
APPROVAL.  FN4 

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER PROCLAMATION, THE SECRETARY IS TO CONDUCT A
REFERENDUM OF THE PRODUCERS OF THE CROP OF THE PRECEDING YEAR TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER THEY FAVOR OR OPPOSE THE IMPOSITION OF A QUOTA.  IF
MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OPPOSE, THE SECRETARY IS TO PROCLAIM THE RESULT
BEFORE JANUARY 1ST AND THE QUOTA IS NOT TO BE EFFECTIVE.  FN5 

BY SEC. 313(A) IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE QUOTA IS TO BE FIRST
APPORTIONED AMONG THE STATES BASED ON THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF TOBACCO
PRODUCED IN EACH STATE DURING THE FIVE YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
YEAR IN QUESTION, PLUS THE NORMAL PRODUCTION OF ANY ACREAGE DIVERTED
UNDER ANY AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAM IN ANY OF
THE YEARS.  THE BASIC DETERMINATION IS TO BE ADJUSTED TO CORRECT STATE
ALLOTMENTS, GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO SEED BED OR OTHER PLANT
DISEASES, PRODUCTION TRENDS, OR ABNORMAL PRODUCING CONDITIONS WHICH
AFFECTED PRODUCTION IN THE SEVERAL STATES DURING THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD,
AND TO MAKE REQUIRED PROVISION FOR ALLOTMENTS TO SMALL FARMS.  A LIMIT
IS SET BELOW WHICH THE QUOTA OF ANY STATE MAY NOT BE REDUCED. 

THE ACT PROVIDES FOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE STATE ALLOTMENT AMONGST
THE FARMS WHICH PRODUCED TOBACCO IN THE CURRENT YEAR OR HAVE PRODUCED
PREVIOUSLY IN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOUR PRECEDING YEARS.  APPORTIONMENT
TO THESE FARMS IS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PAST MARKETING, AFTER DUE
ALLOWANCE FOR DROUGHT, FLOOD, HAIL, AND OTHER ABNORMAL WEATHER
CONDITIONS, PLANT BED AND OTHER DISEASES, LAND, LABOR, AND EQUIPMENT
AVAILABLE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF TOBACCO, CROP-ROTATION PRACTICES, AND
SOIL AND OTHER PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING PRODUCTION.  A LIMIT IS FIXED
BELOW WHICH THE ADJUSTMENT MAY NOT REDUCE THE PRODUCTION OF A GIVEN
FARM.  ALLOTMENT TO NEW TOBACCO FARMS IS TO BE MADE ON A SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT BASIS.  FN6 

APPORTIONMENT OF THE QUOTA AMONGST INDIVIDUAL FARMS IS TO BE BY LOCAL
COMMITTEES OF FARMERS ACCORDING TO STANDARDS PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT,
AMPLIFIED BY REGULATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY. 
EACH FARMER IS TO BE NOTIFIED OF HIS MARKETING QUOTA AND THE QUOTAS OF
INDIVIDUAL FARMS ARE TO BE KEPT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE
COUNTY OR DISTRICT WHERE THE FARM IS LOCATED.  IF THE FARMER IS
DISSATISFIED WITH HIS ALLOTMENT HE MAY HAVE HIS QUOTA REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND, IF DISSATISFIED WITH THE DETERMINATION OF
THAT COMMITTEE, HE MAY OBTAIN JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

FARM ON WHICH THE TOBACCO IS PRODUCED IS MARKETED THROUGH A
WAREHOUSEMAN, THE LATTER MUST PAY TO THE SECRETARY A PENALTY EQUAL TO
FIFTY PER CENT. OF THE MARKET PRICE OF THE EXCESS, AND MAY DEDUCT AN
AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE PENALTY FROM THE PRICE PAID THE PRODUCER. 
FN7 

OF UNPAID PENALTIES.  FN8 

A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE 1938 AUCTION SALES WERE TO TAKE PLACE, THE
APPELLANTS, WHO PRODUCE FLUE-CURED TOBACCO IN SOUTHERN GEORGIA AND
NORTHERN FLORIDA, FILED A BILL IN EQUITY IN A GEORGIA STATE COURT
AGAINST LOCAL WAREHOUSEMEN TO RESTRAIN THEM FROM DEDUCTING PENALTIES
UNDER THE ACT FROM THE SALES PRICE OF TOBACCO TO BE SOLD AT THEIR
AUCTION WAREHOUSES ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS.  THE BILL ALLEGED THAT THE
ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THAT IT ILLEGALLY COMMANDS THE DEFENDANTS TO
DEDUCT PENALTIES, PAY THEM OVER TO THE SECRETARY, WHO MUST COVER THEM
INTO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES; THAT, IF THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD
MAKE THE REQUIRED PAYMENTS, THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THEM WOULD AGGREGATE SO
LARGE A SUM THAT THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO SATISFY JUDGMENTS IN ACTIONS
BROUGHT TO RECOVER THE ILLEGAL PAYMENTS.  THE COURT GRANTED A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ORDERED THE DEFENDANT WAREHOUSEMEN TO PAY
THE AMOUNTS OF THE PENALTIES INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT.  THE CAUSE
WAS REMOVED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF GEORGIA.  THE DISTRICT COURT CONTINUED THE INJUNCTION, MODIFIED THE
ORDER TO REQUIRE THE PAYMENTS TO BE MADE INTO ITS REGISTRY, THE AUCTION
SALES WERE HELD, AND PAYMENTS INTO THE COURT WERE MADE.  THE UNITED
STATES WAS PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS A DEFENDANT.  FN9  THE
WAREHOUSEMEN AND THE UNITED STATES FILED ANSWERS.  THE CAUSE WAS SET
DOWN BEFORE A COURT CONSISTING OF THREE JUDGES,  FN10  WHICH HEARD IT
ON A STIPULATION OF FACTS AND ENTERED A DECREE DISMISSING THE BILL. 
FN11 

BEFORE COMING TO THE MERITS WE INQUIRE WHETHER THE COURT BELOW HAD
JURISDICTION AS A FEDERAL COURT OR AS A COURT OF EQUITY.  THOUGH NO
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP IS ALLEGED, NOR IS ANY AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
ASSERTED SO AS TO CONFER JURISDICTION UNDER SUBSECTION (1)  FN12  OF
SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, THE CASE FALLS WITHIN SUBSECTION (8)
FN13  WHICH CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON DISTRICT COURTS "OF ALL SUITS AND
PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER ANY LAW REGULATING COMMERCE."  MAINTENANCE OF
THE BILL FOR INJUNCTION IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY R.S. 3224,  FN14  WHICH
APPLIES ONLY TO A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF A TAX. 
UNDER THE AVERMENTS OF THE BILL THE DEFENDANT WAREHOUSEMEN WOULD BE
WRONGDOERS IF THEY DEDUCTED AND PAID OVER THE PRESCRIBED PENALTIES, BUT
NO ACTION AT LAW WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO REDRESS THE DAMAGE THUS
INFLICTED.  IT APPEARS THAT THE TOTAL OF THE PENALTIES INVOLVED IN THIS
SUIT IS SOME $374,000.  THE ALLEGATION THAT THE WAREHOUSEMEN WOULD BE
UNABLE TO RESPOND IN ACTIONS FOR SUMS AGGREGATING THIS AMOUNT HAS,
THEREFORE, REASONABLE BASIS.  BEFORE ANY SUCH ACTION COULD BE INITIATED
THE PENAL SUM WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND
BY HIM TO THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND COVERED INTO THE
GENERAL FUNDS OF THE TREASURY.  NO ACTION COULD BE MAINTAINED AGAINST
THE WAREHOUSEMEN OR EITHER OF THESE OFFICIALS FOR DISPOSING OF THE
PENAL SUMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE ACT UNLESS PRIOR NOTICE
NOT TO DO SO HAD BEEN SERVED UPON EACH OF THEM.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FACT THAT THE APPELLANTS RECEIVED NOTICE OF THEIR QUOTAS ONLY A FEW
DAYS BEFORE THE ACTUAL MARKETING SEASON OPENED, THE MAINTENANCE OF
ACTIONS BASED UPON COLLECTION OF THE PENALTIES WOULD HAVE BEEN A
PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.  WE ARE OF OPINION, THEREFORE, THAT A CASE IS
STATED FOR THE INTERPOSITION OF A COURT OF EQUITY. 

THE APPELLANTS PLANT THEMSELVES UPON THREE PROPOSITIONS:  (1) THAT
THE ACT IS A STATUTORY PLAN TO CONTROL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND,
THEREFORE, BEYOND THE POWERS DELEGATED TO CONGRESS; (2) THAT THE
STANDARD FOR CALCULATING FARM QUOTAS IS UNCERTAIN, VAGUE, AND
INDEFINITE, RESULTING IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER TO THE SECRETARY; (3) THAT, AS APPLIED TO APPELLANTS' 1938 CROP,
THE ACT TAKES THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

FIRST.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO CONTROL PRODUCTION.  IT SETS
NO LIMIT UPON THE ACREAGE WHICH MAY BE PLANTED OR PRODUCED AND IMPOSES
NO PENALTY FOR THE PLANTING AND PRODUCING OF TOBACCO IN EXCESS OF THE
MARKETING QUOTA.  IT PURPORTS TO BE SOLELY A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, WHICH IT REACHES AND AFFECTS AT THE THROAT WHERE TOBACCO
ENTERS THE STREAM OF COMMERCE,  - THE MARKETING WAREHOUSE.  FN15  THE
RECORD DISCLOSES THAT AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS OF ALL FLUE-CURED TOBACCO
SOLD AT AUCTION WAREHOUSES IS SOLD FOR IMMEDIATE SHIPMENT TO AN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN DESTINATION.  IN GEORGIA NEARLY ONE HUNDRED PER
CENT. OF THE TOBACCO SO SOLD IS PURCHASED BY EXTRASTATE PURCHASERS.  IN
MARKETS WHERE TOBACCO IS SOLD TO BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE
PURCHASERS IT IS NOT KNOWN, WHEN THE GROWER PLACES HIS TOBACCO ON THE
WAREHOUSE FLOOR FOR SALE, WHETHER IT IS DESTINED FOR INTERSTATE OR
INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  REGULATION TO BE EFFECTIVE, MUST, AND THEREFORE
MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY, APPLY TO ALL SALES.  FN16  THIS COURT HAS
RECENTLY DECLARED THAT SALES OF TOBACCO BY GROWERS THROUGH WAREHOUSEMEN
TO PURCHASERS FOR REMOVAL OUTSIDE THE STATE CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN17  ANY RULE, SUCH AS THAT EMBODIED IN THE ACT, WHICH IS
INTENDED TO FOSTER, PROTECT AND CONSERVE THAT COMMERCE, OR TO PREVENT
THE FLOW OF COMMERCE FROM WORKING HARM TO THE PEOPLE OF THE NATION, IS
WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF CONGRESS.  WITHIN THESE LIMITS THE EXERCISE OF
THE POWER, THE GRANT BEING UNLIMITED IN ITS TERMS, MAY LAWFULLY EXTEND
TO THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF SUCH COMMERCE,  FN18  AND A FORTIORI TO
LIMITATION OF THE AMOUNT OF A GIVEN COMMODITY WHICH MAY BE TRANSPORTED
IN SUCH COMMERCE.  THE MOTIVE OF CONGRESS IN EXERTING THE POWER IS
IRRELEVANT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE LEGISLATION.  FN19 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UNDER REVIEW CONSTITUTE A REGULATION OF
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF CONGRESS UNDER
THE POWER DELEGATED TO IT BY THE CONSTITUTION. 

SECOND.  THE APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE STANDARD FOR ALLOTTING FARM
QUOTAS IS SO UNCERTAIN, VAGUE, AND INDEFINITE THAT IT AMOUNTS TO A
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND THUS
VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT LAWS SHALL BE ENACTED BY
THE CONGRESS. 

WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN SUMMARIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
SUFFICIENTLY DISCLOSES THAT DEFINITE STANDARDS ARE LAID DOWN FOR THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE SECRETARY, FIRST, IN FIXING THE QUOTA AND, SECOND, IN
ITS ALLOTMENT AMONGST STATES AND FARMS.  HE IS DIRECTED TO ADJUST THE
ALLOTMENTS SO AS TO ALLOW FOR SPECIFIED FACTORS WHICH HAVE ABNORMALLY
AFFECTED THE PRODUCTION OF THE STATE OR THE FARM IN QUESTION IN THE
TEST YEARS.  CERTAINLY FAIRNESS REQUIRES THAT SOME SUCH ADJUSTMENT
SHALL BE MADE.  THE CONGRESS HAS INDICATED IN DETAIL THE CONSIDERATIONS
WHICH ARE TO BE HELD IN VIEW IN MAKING THESE ADJUSTMENTS, AND, IN ORDER
TO PROTECT AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION, HAS AFFORDED BOTH ADMINISTRATIVE
AND JUDICIAL REVIEW TO CORRECT ERRORS.  THIS IS NOT TO CONFER
UNRESTRAINED ARBITRARY POWER ON AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER.  IN THIS ASPECT
THE ACT IS VALID WITHIN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT RESPECTING
DELEGATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.  FN20    THIRD.  IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE ACT, AS APPLIED TO THE CROP YEAR 1938,
DEPRIVES THEM OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE APPELLANTS RELY ON THE FOLLOWING UNDISPUTED
FACTS. 

TOBACCO GROWERS IN SOUTHERN GEORGIA AND NORTHERN FLORIDA BEGAN TO
ARRANGE FOR THE PLANTING OF THEIR 1938 CROP IN DECEMBER, 1937, WHEN IT
WAS NECESSARY FOR THEM TO PREPARE BEDS FOR THE PLANTING OF THE SEEDS. 
THEREAFTER IT WAS NECESSARY TO CULTIVATE THE SEED BEDS, SOW AND WATER
THE SEED, COVER THE BEDS WITH CLOTH, AND OTHERWISE CARE FOR THE PLANTS
UNTIL THEY WERE LARGE ENOUGH TO BE TRANSPLANTED.  AT THE DATE OF
APPROVAL OF THE ACT EACH OF THE PLAINTIFFS HAD PLANTED HIS SEED BEDS
AND, ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF MARCH, BEGAN TRANSPLANTING INTO THE FIELDS,
WHICH WERE PREPARED AND FERTILIZED AT LARGE EXPENSE.  THE PLANTS WERE
THEREAFTER CULTIVATED AND SPRAYED, AND HARVESTING BEGAN DURING JUNE AND
CONTINUED DURING JULY, FOLLOWED BY THE CURING AND GRADING OF THE
TOBACCO. 

ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES INVOLVED LABOR AND EXPENSE.  THE PRODUCTION
OF FLUE-CURED TOBACCO REQUIRES, AT PREVAILING PRICE LEVELS, A CASH
OUTLAY OF BETWEEN THIRTY AND FORTY DOLLARS PER ACRE FOR FERTILIZER,
PLANT BED COVERING, TWINE, POISON, ETC. THE USE OF ANIMALS AND
PERMANENT AND SEMI-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT DEMANDS AN AVERAGE EXPENDITURE,
OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, RANGING FROM TWENTY TO THIRTY DOLLARS AN ACRE. 
THE LABOR EXPENDED PER ACRE IS BETWEEN THREE HUNDRED AND FOUR HUNDRED
MAN-HOURS.  THE TOTAL COST PER POUND VARIES FROM TEN CENTS TO TWENTY
CENTS. 

THE MARKETING SEASON FOR FLUE-CURED TOBACCO IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA
COMMENCES ABOUT AUGUST 1ST OF EACH YEAR.  EACH OF THE APPELLANTS WAS
NOTIFIED OF THE QUOTA OF HIS FARM SHORTLY BEFORE THE OPENING OF THE
AUCTION MARKETS.  PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE EACH OF THEM HAD
LARGELY, IF NOT WHOLLY, COMPLETED PLANTING, CULTIVATING, HARVESTING,
CURING AND GRADING HIS TOBACCO.  UNTIL RECEIPT OF NOTICE NONE KNEW, OR
COULD HAVE KNOWN, THE EXACT AMOUNT OF HIS QUOTA, ALTHOUGH, AT THE TIME
OF FILING THE BILL, EACH HAD CONCLUDED FROM AVAILABLE INFORMATION THAT
HE WOULD PROBABLY MARKET TOBACCO IN EXCESS OF ANY QUOTA FOR HIS FARM. 

THE ACT WAS APPROVED FEBRUARY 16, 1938.  THE SECRETARY PROCLAIMED A
QUOTA FOR FLUE-CURED TOBACCO ON FEBRUARY 18TH AND, ON THE SAME DATE,
ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOLDING A REFERENDUM ON MARCH 12TH.  MARCH 25TH
THE SECRETARY PROCLAIMED THE RESULT OF THE REFERENDUM WHICH WAS
FAVORABLE TO THE IMPOSITION OF A NATIONAL MARKETING QUOTA.  IN JUNE HE
ISSUED REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE FIXING OF FARM QUOTAS WITHIN THE
STATES.  JULY 22ND HE DETERMINED THE APPORTIONMENT AS BETWEEN STATES
AND ISSUED REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE RECORDS TO BE KEPT BY
WAREHOUSEMEN AND OTHERS.  SHORTLY BEFORE THE MARKETS OPENED EACH
APPELLANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE ALLOTMENT TO HIS FARM. 

ON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS IT IS ARGUED THAT THE STATUTE OPERATED
RETROACTIVELY AND THEREFORE AMOUNTED TO A TAKING OF APPELLANTS'
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  THE ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS THE CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT THE STATUTE OPERATES NOT ON FARM PRODUCTION, AS THE APPELLANTS
INSIST, BUT UPON THE MARKETING OF THEIR TOBACCO IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE LAW, ENACTED IN FEBRUARY, AFFECTED THE MARKETING WHICH
WAS TO TAKE PLACE ABOUT AUGUST 1ST FOLLOWING, AND SO WAS PROSPECTIVE IN
ITS OPERATION UPON THE ACTIVITY IT REGULATED.  THE ACT DID NOT PREVENT
ANY PRODUCER FROM HOLDING OVER THE EXCESS TOBACCO PRODUCED, OR
PROCESSING AND STORING IT FOR SALE IN A LATER YEAR; AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE PRODUCERS IN GEORGIA AND FLORIDA HAD NOT PROVIDED
FACILITIES FOR THESE PURPOSES IS NOT OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. 

THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  52 STAT. 31, AS AMENDED MARCH 26, 1938, 52 STAT. 120, APRIL 7,
1938, 52 STAT. 202, MAY 31, 1938, 52 STAT. 586, AND JUNE 20, 1938, 52
STAT. 775; U.S.C. SUPP. IV, TITLE 7, SECS. 1281, ET SEQ. 

FN2  TITLE III, SUBTITLE B, MARKETING QUOTAS, PART I, MARKETING
QUOTAS - TOBACCO, SECS. 311-314, INCLUSIVE.  SEE ALSO SEC. 301,
DEFINITIONS.  SECS. 361-375, INCLUSIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS;
SECS. 388 AND 389 RELATING TO PERSONNEL. 

FN3  THE TOTAL SUPPLY, THE CARRY-OVER FOR A MARKETING YEAR, THE
RESERVE SUPPLY LEVEL, THE NORMAL SUPPLY, A NORMAL YEAR'S DOMESTIC
CONSUMPTION, AND A NORMAL YEAR'S EXPORTS, ARE DEFINED IN SEC. 301. 

FN4  SEC. 312(D). 

FN5  SEC. 312(C).  WITH RESPECT TO 1938 QUOTAS, THE PROCLAMATION OF
THE RESULT OF THE REFERENDUM WAS TO BE MADE WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS
AFTER APPROVAL OF THE ACT.  SEC. 312(D). 

FN6  SECS. 313(B) AND 313(C). 

FN7  IF THE TOBACCO IS MARKETED DIRECTLY TO A PERSON OUTSIDE THE
UNITED STATES, THE PRODUCER IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE PENALTY.  IF THE
TOBACCO IS SOLD BY THE GROWER DIRECTLY TO A PURCHASER WITHOUT
INTERVENTION BY THE WAREHOUSEMAN OR OTHER AGENT, THE BUYER IS REQUIRED
TO PAY THE PENALTY, BUT MAY DEDUCT AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT FROM THE
PURCHASE PRICE.  SECS. 314, 372, 373.  THE PENALTY IS TO BE THREE CENTS
PER POUND IF THAT RATE IS HIGHER THAN 50% OF THE MARKET PRICE.  SEC.
314. 

FN8  THE SECRETARY MAY MAKE REGULATIONS NECESSARY FOR IDENTIFYING
TOBACCO SUBJECT TO QUOTAS, SEC. 375; AND REQUIRING THE KEEPING OF
RECORDS AND THE MAKING OF REPORTS.  THE ACT IMPOSES UPON HANDLERS OTHER
THAN PRODUCERS A FINE OF $500 UPON CONVICTION OF FAILURE TO MAKE ANY
REPORT OR KEEP ANY RECORD, OR FOR MAKING ANY FALSE REPORT OR RECORD. 
SEC. 373(A) AND (B). 

FN9  ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, C. 754, SEC. 1, 50 STAT. 751; U.S.C.
SUPP. III, TIT. 28, SEC. 401. 

FN10  IBID, U.S.C. SUPP. III, TIT. 28, SEC. 380(A). 

FN11  24 F.SUPP.  919. 

FN12  U.S.C. TIT. 28, SEC. 41(1). 

FN13  U.S.C. TIT. 28, SEC. 41(8). 

FN14  U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 1543. 

FN15  CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1; COMPARE TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301
U.S. 441. 

FN16  THE MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352; THE SHREVEPORT CASE,
234 U.S. 342; CURRIN V. WALLACE, SUPRA. 

FN17  CURRIN V. WALLACE, SUPRA; AND SEE DAHNKE-WALKER CO. V.
BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282, 290; SHAFER V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 268 U.S.
189, 198.  COMPARE LEMKE V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50. 

FN18  CHAMPION V. AMES, 188 U.S. 321; HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 220 U.S. 45; HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 308; BROOKS V.
UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432; GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124. 

FN19  STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION (4TH ED.), SECS. 965,
1079, 1081, 1089. 

FN20  UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506; AVENT V. UNITED STATES,
266 U.S. 127; HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 394; NEW YORK
CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 12; CURRIN V.
WALLACE, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

PLAINTIFFS ARE FARMERS IN GEORGIA AND ON THEIR FARMS RAISE TOBACCO. 
THEY SELL IT IN THE MARKET YEAR WHEN PRODUCED BECAUSE, IN THEIR
CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY ARE UNABLE TO PROCESS AND MAKE IT FIT TO BE HELD
FOR SALE IN A LATER YEAR.  THE SALES ARE AT AUCTION MARKETS, THROUGH
DEFENDANTS WHO ARE GEORGIA WAREHOUSEMEN, TO PURCHASERS INTENDING TO
TAKE THE TOBACCO OUTSIDE THE STATE.  THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,
ASSUMING TO BE EMPOWERED BY THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1938,
UNDERTOOK TO PRESCRIBE THE AMOUNT OF FLUE-CURED TOBACCO TO BE RAISED IN
1938 IN THE UNITED STATES, IN EACH STATE, AND ON EACH FARM.  HE FAILED
TO LET PLAINTIFFS KNOW THE QUOTAS RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM UNTIL
AFTER THEIR CROPS HAD MATURED AND WERE READY FOR MARKETING.  EACH
RAISED MORE THAN THE ASSIGNED QUOTA. 

THE ACT DECLARES THAT, IF MORE THAN THE AMOUNT FIXED FOR A FARM IS
MARKETED, THE WAREHOUSEMAN SHALL PAY TO THE SECRETARY A PENALTY EQUAL
TO ONE-HALF THE PRICE OF THE EXCESS, BUT IT AUTHORIZES HIM TO RETAIN
THAT AMOUNT FROM THE FARMER RAISING AND BRINGING IT TO MARKET FOR
SALE.  IF, WITHOUT RESORT TO A WAREHOUSEMAN, THE FARMER SELLS DIRECTLY
TO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY, THE PURCHASER IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE PENALTY
BUT IS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE THE AMOUNT FROM THE PURCHASE PRICE.  IF THE
FARMER SELLS DIRECTLY TO ONE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES HE IS REQUIRED
TO PAY THE PENALTY TO THE SECRETARY.  THUS, IN ANY EVENT, THE PENALTY
IS EFFECTIVELY LAID UPON THE FARMER.  ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT WILL
COMPULSORILY TAKE FROM PLAINTIFFS AN AMOUNT OF MONEY EQUAL TO ONE-HALF
OF THE MARKET VALUE OF ALL TOBACCO RAISED AND SOLD BY THEM IN EXCESS OF
THE PRESCRIBED QUOTAS. 

IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, WE HELD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WITHOUT POWER TO CONTROL FARM PRODUCTION.  WE CONDEMNED THE STATUTORY
PLAN THERE SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED AS REPUGNANT TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 
THAT SCHEME WAS DEVISED AND PUT IN EFFECT UNDER THE GUISE OF EXERTION
OF POWER TO TAX.  WE HELD IT TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; FOUND THE TAX, THE APPROPRIATION OF THE MONEY
RAISED, AND THE DIRECTIONS FOR ITS DISBURSEMENT, TO BE BUT THE MEANS TO
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL END; SHOWED THAT THE CONSTITUTION CONFERS NO POWER
TO REGULATE PRODUCTION AND THAT THEREFORE LEGISLATION FOR THAT PURPOSE
IS FORBIDDEN; EMPHASIZED THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY EARLIER DECISIONS
THAT A PROHIBITED END MAY NOT BE ATTAINED UNDER PRETEXT OF EXERTION OF
POWERS WHICH ARE GRANTED; AND FINALLY WE DECLARED THAT, IF CONGRESS MAY
USE ITS POWER TO TAX AND TO SPEND COMPULSORILY TO REGULATE SUBJECTS
WITHIN THE RESERVED POWER OF THE STATES, THAT POWER "WOULD BECOME THE
INSTRUMENT FOR TOTAL SUBVERSION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL POWERS RESERVED TO
THE INDIVIDUAL STATES." 

AFTER FAILURE OF THAT MEASURE, CONGRESS, ASSUMING POWER UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, ENACTED THE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE QUOTAS AND
PENALTIES THE VALIDITY OF WHICH IS QUESTIONED IN THIS CASE.  PLAINTIFFS
CONTEND THAT THE ACT IS A PLAN TO CONTROL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND
THEREFORE BEYOND THE POWERS DELEGATED TO CONGRESS.  THE COURT IMPLIEDLY
CONCEDES THAT SUCH A PLAN WOULD BE BEYOND CONGRESSIONAL POWER, BUT SAYS
THAT THE PROVISIONS DO NOT PURPORT TO CONTROL PRODUCTION, SET NO LIMIT
UPON THE ACREAGE WHICH MAY BE PLANTED OR PRODUCED AND IMPOSE NO PENALTY
UPON PLANTING AND PRODUCTION IN EXCESS OF MARKETING QUOTA.  MERE
INSPECTION OF THE STATUTE AND SECRETARY'S REGULATIONS UNMISTAKABLY
DISCLOSES PURPOSE TO RAISE PRICE BY LESSENING PRODUCTION.  WHATEVER MAY
BE ITS DECLARED POLICY OR APPEARANCE, THE ENACTMENT OPERATES TO CONTROL
QUANTITY RAISED BY EACH FARMER.  IT IS WHOLLY FALLACIOUS TO SAY THAT
THE PENALTY IS NOT IMPOSED UPON PRODUCTION.  THE FARMER RAISES TOBACCO
ONLY FOR SALE.  PUNISHMENT FOR SELLING IS THE EXACT EQUIVALENT OF
PUNISHMENT FOR RAISING THE TOBACCO.  THE ACT IS THEREFORE INVALID. 
UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1.  HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S.
251.  SEE BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432, 438; KENTUCKY WHIP &
COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334, 350.  CF.
RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, 362, ET SEQ. 

ASSUMING THAT, UNDER CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1, PLAINTIFFS' SALES
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT DEFENDANTS' AUCTION MARKETS ARE TO BE DEEMED
SUBJECT TO FEDERAL POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE COURT NOW RULES
THAT, WITHIN SUGGESTED LIMITS SO VAGUE AS TO BE UNASCERTAINABLE, THE
EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER THAT CLAUSE, "THE GRANT BEING UNLIMITED IN ITS
TERMS, MAY LAWFULLY EXTEND TO THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF SUCH COMMERCE
AND A FORTIORI TO LIMITATION OF THE AMOUNT OF A GIVEN COMMODITY WHICH
MAY BE TRANSPORTED IN SUCH COMMERCE." 

THAT RULING IS CONTRARY ALIKE TO REASON AND PRECEDENT.  TO SUPPORT
IT, THE COURT MERELY CITES THE FOLLOWING CASES: 

THE LOTTERY CASE, (CHAMPION V. AMES) 188 U.S. 321, HELD THAT AN ACT
OF CONGRESS PROHIBITING TRANSPORTATION OF LOTTERY TICKETS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ANY LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION IMPOSED
UPON EXERCISE OF THE POWERS GRANTED TO CONGRESS.  AFTER DEMONSTRATING
THE ILLICIT CHARACTER OF LOTTERY TICKETS, THE COURT SAID (P. 357):  "WE
SHOULD HESITATE LONG BEFORE ADJUDGING THAT AN EVIL OF SUCH APPALLING
CHARACTER, CARRIED ON THROUGH INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CANNOT BE MET AND
CRUSHED BY THE ONLY POWER COMPETENT TO THAT END.  ...  (P. 358)  IT IS
A KIND OF TRAFFIC WHICH NO ONE CAN BE ENTITLED TO PURSUE AS OF RIGHT." 

HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 45, HELD WITHIN FEDERAL
POWER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ACT FORBIDDING TRANSPORTATION
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF FOOD "DEBASED BY ADULTERATION" AND
AUTHORIZING ARTICLES SO TRANSPORTED TO BE SEIZED AS CONTRABAND. 

HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 308, SUSTAINED CONGRESSIONAL
PROHIBITION OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF WOMEN FOR IMMORAL
PURPOSES. 

BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432, UPHELD A STATUTE OF THE UNITED
STATES MAKING IT A CRIME TO TRANSPORT A STOLEN AUTOMOBILE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 124, CONSTRUED AN ACT OF CONGRESS
MAKING IT A CRIME TO TRANSPORT A KIDNAPPED PERSON IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

PLAINLY THESE CASES GIVE NO SUPPORT TO THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS HAS
POWER GENERALLY TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT, AS IT MAY CHOOSE, TRANSPORTATION
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF CORN, COTTON, RICE, TOBACCO, OR WHEAT.  OUR
DECISIONS ESTABLISH THE CONTRARY: 

WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, UPHELD AN ACT REGULATING HOURS OF
SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS BY RAIL.  THE COURT,
FOLLOWING THE TEACHING OF EARLIER DECISIONS, SAID (P. 346):  "THE
EXTENT OF REGULATION DEPENDS ON THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT
AND WHAT IS APPROPRIATE TO ITS REGULATION.  THE POWERS POSSESSED BY
GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH A SUBJECT ARE NEITHER INORDINATELY ENLARGED OR
GREATLY DWARFED BECAUSE THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
APPLIES.  THIS IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MUCH
GREATER POWER OF REGULATION WHICH MAY BE EXERTED AS TO LIQUOR AND THAT
WHICH MAY BE EXERCISED AS TO FLOUR, DRYGOODS AND OTHER COMMODITIES.  IT
IS SHOWN BY THE SETTLED DOCTRINE SUSTAINING THE RIGHT BY REGULATION
ABSOLUTELY TO PROHIBIT LOTTERY TICKETS AND BY THE OBVIOUS CONSIDERATION
THAT SUCH RIGHT TO PROHIBIT COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO PIG IRON, STEEL
RAILS, OR MOST OF THE VAST BODY OF COMMODITIES."    HAMMER V.
DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, HELD REPUGNANT TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND TO
THE TENTH AMENDMENT AN ACT PROHIBITING TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OF ARTICLES MADE AT FACTORIES IN WHICH CHILD LABOR WAS
EMPLOYED.  THE COURT SAID (P. 269):  "IN OTHER WORDS, THE POWER
(GRANTED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE) IS ONE TO CONTROL THE MEANS BY WHICH
COMMERCE IS CARRIED ON, WHICH IS DIRECTLY THE CONTRARY OF THE ASSUMED
RIGHT TO FORBID COMMERCE FROM MOVING AND THUS DESTROY IT AS TO
PARTICULAR COMMODITIES.  BUT IT IS INSISTED THAT THE ADJUDGED CASES IN
THIS COURT ESTABLISH THE DOCTRINE THAT THE POWER TO REGULATE GIVEN TO
CONGRESS INCIDENTALLY INCLUDES THE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE MOVEMENT
OF ORDINARY COMMODITIES AND THEREFORE THAT THE SUBJECT IS NOT OPEN FOR
DISCUSSION.  THE CASES DEMONSTRATE THE CONTRARY.  THEY REST UPON THE
CHARACTER OF THE PARTICULAR SUBJECTS DEALT WITH AND THE FACT THAT THE
SCOPE OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, STATE OR NATIONAL, POSSESSED OVER THEM
IS SUCH THAT THE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT IS AS TO THEM BUT THE EXERTION
OF THE POWER TO REGULATE.  ...  (P. 276)  IN OUR VIEW THE NECESSARY
EFFECT OF THIS ACT IS, BY MEANS OF A PROHIBITION AGAINST THE MOVEMENT
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF ORDINARY COMMERCIAL COMMODITIES, TO REGULATE
THE HOURS OF LABOR OF CHILDREN IN FACTORIES AND MINES WITHIN THE
STATES, A PURELY STATE AUTHORITY.  THUS THE ACT IN A TWOFOLD SENSE IS
REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  IT NOT ONLY TRANSCENDS THE AUTHORITY
DELEGATED TO CONGRESS OVER COMMERCE BUT ALSO EXERTS A POWER AS TO A
PURELY LOCAL MATTER TO WHICH THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXTEND. 
THE FAR REACHING RESULT OF UPHOLDING THE ACT CANNOT BE MORE PLAINLY
INDICATED THAN BY POINTING OUT THAT IF CONGRESS CAN THUS REGULATE
MATTERS ENTRUSTED TO LOCAL AUTHORITY BY PROHIBITION OF THE MOVEMENT OF
COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ALL FREEDOM OF COMMERCE WILL BE AT
AN END, AND THE POWER OF THE STATES OVER LOCAL MATTERS MAY BE
ELIMINATED, AND THUS OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT BE PRACTICALLY
DESTROYED." 

HERETOFORE, IN CASES INVOLVING THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO FORBID OR
CONDITION TRANSPORTATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THIS COURT HAS BEEN
CAREFUL TO DETERMINE WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF
THE SUBJECT, THE MEASURE COULD BE SUSTAINED AS AN APPROPRIATE
REGULATION OF COMMERCE.*  IF CONGRESS HAD THE ABSOLUTE POWER NOW
ATTRIBUTED TO IT BY THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED, THE OPINIONS IN THESE
CASES WERE UNNECESSARY AND UTTERLY BESIDE THE MARK. 

*LOTTERY CASE, 188 U.S. 321, 355 ET SEQ. UNITED STATES V. DELAWARE &
HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366, 415.  HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220
U.S. 45, 57-58.  HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S. 308, 321-323.  SEVEN
CASES V. UNITED STATES, 239 U.S. 510, 514.  CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES,
242 U.S. 470, 491-492.  HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, 270 ET SEQ.
BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432, 436-438.  SEE WILSON V. NEW, 243
U.S. 332, 346.  CF. CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MD. RY. CO., 242
U.S. 311, 325.  UNITED STATES V. HILL, 248 U.S. 420.  KENTUCKY WHIP &
COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334, 346 ET SEQ. 

FOR REASONS ABOVE SUGGESTED, I AM OF OPINION: 

THE PENALTY IS LAID ON THE FARMER TO PREVENT PRODUCTION IN EXCESS OF
HIS QUOTA.  IT IS THEREFORE INVALID. 

IF THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED FOR MARKETING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT IS
A REGULATION NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

TO IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR MARKETING IN EXCESS OF QUOTAS NOT DISCLOSED
BEFORE PLANTING AND CULTIVATION IS TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR
LIBERTY AND PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




















U.S. TRUST CO. V. HELVERING, 307 U.S. 57 


NO. 453.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 98 F.2D
734, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ESTATE TAX IS NOT A TAX UPON THE PROPERTY OF WHICH AN ESTATE IS
COMPOSED, BUT IS AN EXCISE UPON THE TRANSFER OF OR SHIFTING IN
RELATIONSHIPS TO PROPERTY AT DEATH.  P. 60. 

2.  THE PROCEEDS OF A WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY PAYABLE TO A DECEASED
VETERAN'S WIDOW WERE PROPERLY INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS ESTATE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC.
302(G), AS AMENDED.  P. 60. 

3.  SECTION 22 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924, PROVIDING THAT
SUCH INSURANCE "SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM ALL TAXATION," DOES NOT PREVENT. 
P. 59. 

4.  NO PROVISION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTRACT WITH AN INSURED VETERAN
IS IMPAIRED IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BY THE INCLUSION IN HIS
GROSS ESTATE OF PROCEEDS OF A WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF COMPUTING THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.  P. 60. 

UNITED STATES TRUST CO., EXECUTOR, V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 591, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING A DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER PROCEEDS OF A WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY
PAYABLE TO A DECEASED VETERAN'S WIDOW WERE PROPERLY INCLUDED IN HIS
GROSS ESTATE UNDER A FEDERAL ESTATE TAX. 

THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX IN QUESTION  FN1  INCLUDED IN A DECEDENT'S
GROSS ESTATE THE AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS RECEIVED BY
"BENEFICIARIES (OTHER THAN HIS ESTATE) AS INSURANCE UNDER POLICIES
TAKEN OUT BY THE DECEDENT UPON HIS OWN LIFE."  THIS VETERAN'S TOTAL
LIFE INSURANCE FOR BENEFICIARIES OTHER THAN HIS ESTATE EXCEEDED AT
DEATH THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION OF FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, IF HIS WAR
RISK INSURANCE POLICY PAYABLE TO HIS WIDOW IN THE SUM OF TEN THOUSAND
DOLLARS IS INCLUDED.  THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED AN ESTATE TAX MEASURED
BY THIS EXCESS.  AS DECEDENT'S EXECUTOR, PETITIONER CLAIMED THAT
PROCEEDS OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE
ESTATE BECAUSE OF SEC. 22 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924,
PROVIDING THAT SUCH "INSURANCE  ...  SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM ALL
TAXATION."  FN2  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UPHELD THE DETERMINATION OF
THE COMMISSIONER, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN3 

CONGRESS HAS MANIFESTED A CONSISTENT POLICY IN THE REVENUE ACTS FROM
1918 TO 1934, WHEN THE VETERAN DIED, BY IMPOSITIONS OF ESTATE TAXES
UPON TRANSFERS AT DEATH OF PROCEEDS OF ALL LIFE INSURANCE (NOT PAYABLE
TO AN INSURED'S ESTATE) IN EXCESS OF FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.  THIS HAS
BEEN IN HARMONY WITH A GENERAL PLAN OF GRADUATING INCOME AND
INHERITANCE TAXES TO ACCORD WITH THE RESPECTIVE SIZES OF INCOMES AND
ESTATES.  FN4  AND THE TREASURY REGULATIONS HAVE STATED THAT "THE
STATUTE PROVIDES FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF  ...  ALL
INSURANCE (NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF AN ESTATE)  ...  TO THE EXTENT THAT
IT EXCEEDS  ...  FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS  ...  THE TERM 'INSURANCE'
REFERS TO LIFE INSURANCE OF EVERY DESCRIPTION,  ..."  FN5 

BUT PETITIONER INVOKES THE PROVISION OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT,
1924, THAT INSURANCE THEREUNDER "SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM ALL TAXATION." 
AN AMENDMENT TO THAT ACT OF AUGUST 12, 1935  FN6 PROVIDES THAT
"PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS DUE OR TO BECOME DUE  ...  SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
TAXATION  ..."  HOWEVER, THIS AMENDMENT SERVED ONLY TO CLARIFY THE
ORIGINAL PROVISION FOR EXEMPTION, WITHOUT MORE.  FN7  UNLESS RESORT IS
HAD TO ENLARGEMENT BY IMPLICATION, THIS EXEMPTION MEANS ONLY THAT THE
PROCEEDS OR BENEFITS OF A WAR RISK POLICY ARE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. 
EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION DO NOT REST UPON IMPLICATION.  FN8 

AN ESTATE TAX IS NOT LEVIED UPON THE PROPERTY OF WHICH AN ESTATE IS
COMPOSED.  IT IS AN EXCISE IMPOSED UPON THE TRANSFER OF OR SHIFTING IN
RELATIONSHIPS TO PROPERTY AT DEATH.  FN9  THE TAX HERE IS NO LESS AN
ESTATE TAX BECAUSE THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY WERE PAID BY THE
GOVERNMENT DIRECTLY TO THE BENEFICIARY; THE TAXING POWER WAS
NEVERTHELESS EXERCISED UPON "THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY PROCURED THROUGH
EXPENDITURES BY THE DECEDENT WITH THE PURPOSE, EFFECTED AT HIS DEATH,
OF HAVING IT PASS TO ANOTHER."  FN10  IN AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION,
FEDERAL BONDS EXEMPT BY STATUTE FROM ALL TAXATION HAVE BEEN HELD
SUBJECT TO A FEDERAL INHERITANCE TAX.  FN11  AND STATE INHERITANCE
TAXES CAN BE MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF FEDERAL BONDS EXEMPTED BY STATUTE
FROM STATE TAXATION IN ANY FORM.  FN12  SIMILARLY, THE STATUTORY
IMMUNITY OF WAR RISK INSURANCE FROM TAXATION DOES NOT INCLUDE AN
IMMUNITY FROM EXCISES UPON THE OCCASION OF SHIFTS OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE DEATH OF AN INSURED. 

PETITIONER MAKES THE FURTHER POINT THAT THE INCLUSION OF PROCEEDS OF
THE WAR RISK POLICY FOR PURPOSES OF AN ESTATE TAX AMOUNTS TO AN
IMPAIRMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTRACT WITH THE INSURED VETERAN, IN
VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  BUT NEITHER THE
ACT OF 1924, AS AMENDED, NOR ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE WAR RISK
INSURANCE ACT PURPORTED TO EXEMPT WAR RISK INSURANCE FROM DEATH
DUTIES.  THEREFORE, NO STATUTORY EXEMPTION WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED A
PROVISION OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY THE IMPOSITION
OF THE ESTATE TAX IN THIS CASE.  THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 302(G) REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED. 

FN2  43 STAT. 607, 613. 

FN3  98 F.2D 734.  STATE COURTS HAVE DIFFERED AS TO WHETHER PROCEEDS
OF WAR RISK INSURANCE ARE SUBJECT TO DEATH DUTIES IMPOSED BY THE
STATES.  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN RE ESTATE OF HARRIS, 179 MINN. 450; 229
N.W. 781; TAX COMMISSION V. RIFE, 119 OH. ST. 83; 162 N.E. 390;
WANZEL'S ESTATE, 295 PA. 419; 145 A. 512; WATKINS V. HALL, 107 W. VA.
202; 147 S.E. 876(HOLDING THESE PROCEEDS NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH EXCISES);
AND MATTER OF SABIN, 224 APP. DIV. 702; 228 N.Y.S. 890; MATTER OF DEAN,
131 MISC. 125; 225 N.Y.S. 543(CONTRA).  IN VIEW OF THIS FACT AND THE
IMPORTANCE OF AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTES
INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 591. 

FN4  SEE, 44 STAT. 9, 21, 22; 48 STAT. 680, 684, 754. 

FN5  TREASURY REGULATION NO. 70(1929 EDITION), ARTICLES 25 AND 27;
TREASURY REGULATION NO. 80, (1934 EDITION), ARTICLES 25 AND 27. 

FN6  49 STAT. 607, 609. 

FN7  LAWRENCE V. SHAW, 300 U.S. 245, 249. 

FN8  RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573, 592, 593; TROTTER
V. TENNESSEE, 290 U.S. 354, 356, 357; J.W. PERRY CO. V. NORFOLK, 220
U.S. 472, 480; CHICAGO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY V. ILLINOIS, 188 U.S. 662,
672. 

FN9  REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339, 347; CHASE
NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 327, 334; UNITED STATES V.
JACOBS, 306 U.S. 363, 367. 

FN10  CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 337. 

FN11  MURDOCK V. WARD, 178 U.S. 139. 

FN12  PLUMMER V. COLER, 178 U.S. 115. 
..END :






















MCCRONE V. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 61 


NO. 660.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 100 F.2D
322, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CONTEMPT OF AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ISSUED UPON THE
APPLICATION OF AN AGENT OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND REQUIRING
THE PERSON CITED TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY BEFORE SUCH OFFICIAL IN A LAWFUL
INVESTIGATION OF THE TAX LIABILITY OF ANOTHER, WAS A CIVIL CONTEMPT;
AND A JUDGMENT THAT THE CONTEMNOR BE HELD IN JAIL UNTIL HE PURGED
HIMSELF OF THE CONTEMPT WAS APPEALABLE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS GOVERNING APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS IN
CIVIL CASES.  P. 64. 

2.  AN APPEAL FROM SUCH A JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT, WHICH WAS NOT APPLIED
FOR OR ALLOWED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE OR A JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, WAS
PROPERLY DISMISSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  P.
65. 

3.  A CONTEMPT ARISING OUT OF A PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES
OR ITS AGENTS ARE PARTIES IS NOT NECESSARILY A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.  P.
63. 

4.  RULE 73 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, GOVERNING APPEALS TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IS INAPPLICABLE TO A PROCEEDING IN RESPECT OF
WHICH THE STATUTORY TIME ALLOWED FOR APPEAL HAD EXPIRED WITHOUT
APPLICATION PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULES.  SUCH A
PROCEEDING WAS NOT "PENDING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 86.  P. 65. 

MCCRONE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 306 U.S. 625, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FROM A
JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED PETITIONER'S APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF
CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER TO TESTIFY BEFORE
AN INTERNAL REVENUE OFFICIAL.  FN1  THIS DISMISSAL WAS PROPER IF THE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WAS CIVIL AND NOT CRIMINAL.  A NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS
FILED AND A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS SIGNED.  BUT PETITIONER'S APPEAL WAS
NOT, AS APPEALS FROM CIVIL JUDGMENTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE, APPLIED FOR
OR ALLOWED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE OR A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  FN2 

THE FACTS DISCLOSE: 

ON APRIL 21, 1938, AN INTERNAL REVENUE AGENT, ACTING UNDER 26 U.S.C.,
SEC. 1514(COPIED IN THE MARGIN),  FN3  SERVED PETITIONER WITH SUMMONS
TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AND TESTIFY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TAX LIABILITY
OF ANOTHER.  PETITIONER RESPONDED TO THE SUMMONS, BUT DECLINED TO GIVE
ANY STATEMENT OR INFORMATION AS TO THE MATTER UNDER INQUIRY. 
THEREUPON, BOTH THE AGENT AND THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR
THE DISTRICT APPEARED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, AND THE AGENT FILED AN
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS AND PRAYED THAT PETITIONER BE ORDERED TO SUBMIT TO
SUCH QUESTIONS "AS MAY BE PROPOUNDED TO HIM  ...  THAT ARE MATERIAL AND
PERTINENT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER" OF THE INVESTIGATION.  AFTER HEARING,
IN WHICH PETITIONER APPEARED, THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED HIM TO APPEAR
BEFORE THE AGENT AND TESTIFY UPON "ALL MATTERS AND FACTS WITHIN  ...
(HIS) KNOWLEDGE AND CONCERNING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY AND
INVESTIGATION, ..."  PETITIONER DID SO APPEAR BUT AGAIN DECLINED TO
ANSWER THE AGENT'S QUESTIONS.  AFTER A SECOND HEARING BY THE DISTRICT
COURT, PETITIONER WAS FOUND IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO OBEY THE COURT'S
PREVIOUS ORDER TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE AGENT AND WAS ORDERED "HELD IN
...  JAIL  ...  UNTIL  ...  (HE) PURGES HIMSELF OF  ...  CONTEMPT BY
OBEYING THE ORDER" TO TESTIFY. 

PETITIONER INSISTS THAT NO CIVIL ACTION WAS INVOLVED HERE AND THAT
PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES AND ITS AGENTS ARE PARTIES CAN
NOT BE CIVIL.  FN4  HOWEVER, ARTICLE 3, SEC. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION,
EXPRESSLY CONTEMPLATES THE UNITED STATES AS A PARTY TO CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS BY EXTENDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY "TO
CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE A PARTY."  AN ACTION
BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO COMPEL A WITNESS TO TESTIFY IS
"A DIRECT CIVIL PROCEEDING, EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS
IN THE NAME OF THE COMMISSION, AND UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, AGAINST THE WITNESS  ...  REFUSING TO
TESTIFY,  ..."  FN5  SO HERE, THE MERE PRESENCE OF THE UNITED STATES AS
A PARTY, ACTING THROUGH ITS AGENTS, DOES NOT IMPRESS UPON THE
CONTROVERSY THE ELEMENTS OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  FN6  IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO, CONGRESS HAS EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED SUCH A PROCEEDING BY AN AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS "TO COMPEL  ...  ATTENDANCE, TESTIMONY, OR PRODUCTION OF
BOOKS, PAPERS, OR OTHER DATA."  26 U.S.C. SEC. 1523.  FN7 

WHILE PARTICULAR ACTS DO NOT ALWAYS READILY LEND THEMSELVES TO
CLASSIFICATION AS CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS, A CONTEMPT IS CONSIDERED
CIVIL WHEN THE PUNISHMENT IS WHOLLY REMEDIAL, SERVES ONLY THE PURPOSES
OF THE COMPLAINANT, AND IS NOT INTENDED AS A DETERRENT TO OFFENSES
AGAINST THE PUBLIC.  FN8  HERE, THE SUMMONS SERVED ON PETITIONER
REQUIRED ONLY THAT HE TESTIFY IN A TAX INQUIRY PROPERLY CONDUCTED BY AN
AGENT OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE.  AND THE AGENT'S PETITION TO
THE DISTRICT COURT, TO WHICH WE MAY LOOK IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF
THE PROCEEDING, FN9  INVOKED JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE SOLELY IN OBTAINING
PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY.  AUTHORITY OF THE COURT WAS SOUGHT TO BUTTRESS
THE PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTION OF TAXES AND NOT IN "VINDICATION OF THE
PUBLIC JUSTICE,"  FN10  AS IN CRIMINAL CASES. 

THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPT WAS CIVIL, AND APPEAL FROM IT WAS GOVERNED
BY THE STATUTORY RULES OF CIVIL APPEALS. 

THERE REMAINS THE SUGGESTION THAT THE APPEAL IN QUESTION CAN BE
CONSIDERED A CIVIL APPEAL PROPERLY TAKEN UNDER RULE 73 OF THE NEW
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 16,
1938.  FN11  HOWEVER, PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED MAY 2,
1938.  THE CONTROLLING STATUTE REQUIRED APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF A
CIVIL APPEAL WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER JUDGMENT FROM WHICH APPEAL WAS
SOUGHT.  THE THREE MONTHS EXPIRED JULY 28, 1938, AND THE CONTEMPT
JUDGMENT HAD BECOME UNAPPEALABLE WELL BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
NEW RULES.  THEREFORE, PETITIONER IS NOT AIDED BY THE PROVISION OF RULE
86 THAT THE NEW RULES SHALL "GOVERN ALL  ... ACTIONS THEN PENDING,
(SEPTEMBER 16, 1938)  ..."  THIS ACTION - FROM WHICH THERE WAS THEN NO
RIGHT OF APPEAL - WAS NOT PENDING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RULE. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS NOT IN ERROR IN DISMISSING PETITIONER'S
APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING
CIVIL APPEALS.  ITS JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  100 F.2D 322. 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 230; ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. PILLSBURY, 301 U.S.
174. 

FN3  "THE COMMISSIONER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE
CORRECTNESS OF ANY RETURN OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A RETURN WHERE
NONE HAS BEEN MADE, IS AUTHORIZED, BY ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, INCLUDING THE FIELD SERVICE, DESIGNATED BY
HIM FOR THAT PURPOSE, TO EXAMINE ANY BOOKS, PAPERS, RECORDS, OR
MEMORANDA BEARING UPON THE MATTERS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
RETURN, AND MAY REQUIRE THE ATTENDANCE OF THE PERSON RENDERING THE
RETURN OR OF ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF SUCH PERSON, OR THE ATTENDANCE
OF ANY OTHER PERSON HAVING KNOWLEDGE IN THE PREMISES, AND MAY TAKE HIS
TESTIMONY WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATTER REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE INCLUDED
IN SUCH RETURN, WITH POWER TO ADMINISTER OATHS TO SUCH PERSON OR
PERSONS." 

FN4  PETITIONER RELIES ON FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. A. MCLEAN & SON, 94
F.2D 802, 840.  THERE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
SAID, "WE BECAME CONVINCED THAT THE (FEDERAL TRADE) COMMISSION, AN
AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT, REPRESENTING NO PRIVATE INTEREST OF ITS OWN,
BUT ACTING SOLELY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HAD NO SUCH STANDING AS A
PRIVATE PARTY THAT IT COULD UTILIZE PROCEDURE (CIVIL CONTEMPT) INTENDED
TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF PRIVATE PARTIES."  BECAUSE OF
THE CONFLICT ON THIS POINT IN THE JUDGMENT BELOW WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

FN5  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447, 470. 

FN6  CF., HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391, 402. 

FN7  CF., BROWNSON V. UNITED STATES, 32 F.2D 844, 848, 849; UNITED
STATES V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 295 F. 142, AFFIRMED 267 U.S. 576. 

FN8  GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE CO., 221 U.S. 418, 441; FOX V.
CAPITAL CO., 299 U.S. 105; LAMB V. CRAMER, 285 U.S. 217, 220, 221;
ORIEL V. RUSSELL, 278 U.S. 358, 363; EX PARTE GROSSMAN, 267 U.S. 87,
111; UNION TOOL CO. V. WILSON, 259 U.S. 107; IN RE MERCHANTS' STOCK
CO., 223 U.S. 629; MATTER OF CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING CO., 194 U.S. 458;
BESSETTE V. W.B. CONKEY CO., 194 U.S. 324. 

FN9  CF., LAMB V. CRAMER, SUPRA, 220; GOMPERS V. BUCKS STOVE & RANGE
CO., SUPRA, 448. 

FN10  CF. FOX V. CAPITAL CO., SUPRA, 108. 

FN11  "RULE 73.  APPEAL TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

HOW TAKEN.  WHEN AN APPEAL IS PERMITTED BY LAW FROM A DISTRICT COURT
TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED, A PARTY
MAY APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT BY FILING WITH THE DISTRICT COURT A NOTICE
OF APPEAL.  FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO TAKE ANY OF THE FURTHER STEPS
TO SECURE THE REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM DOES NOT AFFECT THE
VALIDITY OF THE APPEAL, BUT IS GROUND ONLY FOR SUCH REMEDIES AS ARE
SPECIFIED IN THIS RULE OR, WHEN NO REMEDY IS SPECIFIED, FOR SUCH ACTION
AS THE APPELLATE COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE, WHICH MAY INCLUDE DISMISSAL
OF THE APPEAL." 
..END :





GIBBS V. BUCK, 307 U.S. 66 


NO. 276.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IS PROPERLY DETERMINED ON
THE BILL AND MOTION TO DISMISS, WHERE THE MOTION IN EFFECT TRAVERSES
ONLY A GENERAL ALLEGATION OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED, AND ADMITS THE OTHER
ALLEGATIONS, TOUCHING THE SUBJECT, MERELY CHALLENGING THEIR SUFFICIENCY
TO SHOW JURISDICTION.  P. 71. 

ON SUBMISSION OF THE QUESTION ON BILL AND MOTION TO DISMISS, THE
BURDEN OF SHOWING JURISDICTIONAL VALUE IN CONTROVERSY IS ON THE
PLAINTIFF.  P. 72. 

2.  IN A CLASS SUIT BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY WHO
HAVE A COMMON AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST, THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT OR
VALUE IS INVOLVED IF FOR ANY MEMBER, WHO IS A PARTY, THE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY IS OF THAT VALUE, OR IF TO THE AGGREGATE OF ALL MEMBERS IN
THE SUIT IT IS OF THAT VALUE.  P. 72. 

3.  IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE PROHIBITING A
BUSINESS, THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IS THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT TO
CONDUCT THE BUSINESS FREE OF SUCH PROHIBITION.  P. 74. 

THE COST OF COMPLIANCE IS EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT TO BE
FREE FROM A STATUTORY PROHIBITION.  P. 75. 

4.  OWNERS OF THE COPYRIGHTS OF MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS, WITH A VIEW TO
PROTECTION AGAINST UNLICENSED PUBLIC PERFORMANCES FOR PROFIT FOR WHICH
THEY RECEIVED NO COMPENSATION, GRANTED TO AN UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATION, OF WHICH THEY WERE THE MEMBERS, THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF
PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR A TERM OF YEARS.  IT WAS THE FUNCTION OF THE
SOCIETY TO PROTECT ITSELF AND ITS MEMBERS FROM PIRACIES AND TO LICENSE
PUBLIC PERFORMANCES BY OTHERS, FOR ROYALTIES WHICH, AFTER CERTAIN
DEDUCTIONS, IT DISTRIBUTED AMONG ITS MEMBERS, PURSUANT TO ITS ARTICLES
OF ASSOCIATION.  A FLORIDA STATUTE UNDERTOOK TO FORBID AND PENALIZE
SUCH COMBINATIONS AS UNLAWFUL MONOPOLIES FIXING PRICES IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE.  IN A SUIT BY THE SOCIETY AND SOME OF ITS MEMBERS REPRESENTING
ALL, SEEKING TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE AS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF COPYRIGHT,  - HELD: 

(1)  AS THE MEMBERS OWN THE COPYRIGHTS, LESS THE LIMITED ASSIGNMENT
TO THE SOCIETY OF THE RIGHT OF PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT, AND SHARE
IN THE EARNINGS THROUGH MANDATORY DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE ARTICLES OF
ASSOCIATION AND NOT BY WAY OF DIVIDENDS, THEY ARE PROPER PARTIES TO THE
ACTION.  P. 73. 

(2)  SINCE THE MEMBERS, BECAUSE OF THE INTERPOSITION OF THE STATUTE,
CAN NOT IN COMBINATION LICENSE PRODUCTION AND COLLECT FEES IN FLORIDA,
THEY HAVE A COMMON AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY
IN THIS CLASS SUIT.  P. 74. 

(3)  ADMITTED ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE
MATTER IN CONTROVERSY - THE VALUE OF THE AGGREGATE RIGHTS OF ALL
MEMBERS TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS THROUGH THE SOCIETY - EXCEEDS $3,000
IN VALUE.  P. 75. 

MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178, AND KVOS,
INC. V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 299 U.S. 269, DISTINGUISHED. 

(4)  IN VIEW OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL RAISING DOUBTS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT, AND IN VIEW OF THE PENALTIES ATTACHED TO
ITS VIOLATION, A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION WAS PROPERLY OVERRULED.  P. 76. 

5.  A MOTION TO DISMISS A BILL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
IS DETERMINED ON THE FACE OF THE BILL WITHOUT RESORT TO AFFIDAVITS USED
ON THE ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.  P. 76. 

6.  WHETHER TO GRANT OR REFUSE A MOTION TO DISMISS BEFORE ANSWER, IS
LARGELY A MATTER OF DISCRETION FOR THE TRIAL COURT.  P. 76. 

7.  WHERE THE BILL MAKES AN ATTACK UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
STATE STATUTE, SUPPORTED BY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SUFFICIENTLY STRONG, AS
HERE, TO RAISE GRAVE DOUBTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT IN THE
MIND OF THE TRIAL COURT, THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE DENIED.  ID. 

GIBBS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. V. BUCK ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES,
OVERRULING A MOTION TO DISMISS THE BILL AND GRANTING AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION, IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF A FLORIDA STATUTE
FORBIDDING COMBINATIONS OF OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE COURT REFUSING TO
DISMISS A BILL OF COMPLAINT ON MOTION FOR FAILURE TO SET OUT FACTS
SUFFICIENT TO SHOW FEDERAL OR EQUITY JURISDICTION, OR TO CONSTITUTE A
CAUSE OF ACTION, AND GRANTING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A FLORIDA STATUTE AIMED AT COMBINATIONS FIXING THE PRICE
FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF RENDERING PRIVATELY OR PUBLICLY FOR PROFIT
COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS.  SEC. 266, JUD.  CODE. 

THE APPELLANT, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND VARIOUS STATE
ATTORNEYS, ARE OFFICERS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CHARGED WITH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT.  THE APPELLEES, COMPLAINANTS BELOW, ARE THE
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS, AN
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK; GENE BUCK AS PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY; VARIOUS CORPORATIONS
PUBLISHING MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS; A NUMBER OF AUTHORS AND COMPOSERS OF
COPYRIGHTED MUSIC; AND SEVERAL NEXT OF KIN OF DECEASED COMPOSERS AND
AUTHORS.  THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY COMPLAINANTS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, TOO NUMEROUS TO
MAKE IT PRACTICABLE TO JOIN THEM AS PLAINTIFFS IN A MATTER OF COMMON
AND GENERAL INTEREST.  FN1 

ONE OF THE RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE COPYRIGHT ACT IS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
TO PERFORM COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS IN PUBLIC FOR PROFIT.  FN2
THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT USERS OF MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS HAD
REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THIS STATUTORY RIGHT AND TO PAY ROYALTIES FOR
PUBLIC PERFORMANCES FOR PROFIT, AND THAT AUTHORS, COMPOSERS AND
PUBLISHERS WERE UNABLE, INDIVIDUALLY, TO ENFORCE THEIR EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
BECAUSE OF THE EXPENSE OF DETECTING AND SUING FOR INFRINGEMENT
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  THE SOCIETY WAS FOUNDED IN 1914 TO
LICENSE PERFORMANCE OF COPYRIGHTED MUSIC FOR PROFIT AND OTHERWISE
PROTECT THE COPYRIGHTS.  THE STATE STATUTE WAS DIRECTED AT
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE SOCIETY AND BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 9, 1937. 
FN3  SO FAR AS IS IMPORTANT HERE, THE STATUTE MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR
OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS TO COMBINE INTO ANY
CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION OR OTHER ENTITY TO FIX LICENSE FEES "FOR ANY
USE OR RENDITION OF COPYRIGHTED VOCAL OR INSTRUMENTAL MUSICAL
COMPOSITIONS FOR PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT," WHEN THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMBINATION CONSTITUTE "A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE
PERSONS, FIRMS OR CORPORATIONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES" OWNING MUSICAL
COPYRIGHTS.  IT DECLARES THE COMBINATION AN UNLAWFUL MONOPOLY, THE
PRICEFIXING IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, AND THE COLLECTION OF LICENSE FEES
AND ALL CONTRACTS BY THE COMBINATION ILLEGAL. 

THE BILL ATTACKED THE STATUTE AS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION OF FLORIDA.  MORE
SPECIFICALLY, IT URGED THAT THE LAW IMPINGED UPON RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE
COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909, DEPRIVED COMPLAINANTS OF RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND WITHOUT THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, IMPAIRED
THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS ALREADY EXECUTED, AND OPERATED AS AN EX
POST FACTO LAW. 

THERE WAS A FORMAL ALLEGATION THAT THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDED
$3,000, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS.  IN ADDITION, THE BILL ALLEGED
THAT THE THREE PUBLISHERS OWNED COPYRIGHTS OF A VALUE IN EXCESS OF
$1,000,000 WHILE EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANTS OWNED COPYRIGHTS
WORTH IN EXCESS OF $100,000; THAT IT WOULD COST EACH INDIVIDUAL MORE
THAN $10,000 TO CREATE AN AGENCY IN FLORIDA TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST
INFRINGEMENT BY UNAUTHORIZED PUBLIC PERFORMANCES FOR PROFIT, TO ISSUE
LICENSES AND TO CHECK ON THE ACCURACY OF USES REPORTED; THAT FEES
COLLECTED IN 1936 IN FLORIDA AMOUNTED TO $59,306.81 AND THAT SIMILAR
SUMS WERE EXPECTED IN THE FUTURE; AND THAT IN 1936 EACH OF THE THREE
PUBLISHERS RECEIVED MORE THAN $50,000 FROM THE SOCIETY AND EACH
INDIVIDUAL MORE THAN $5,000. 

A MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS MADE ON FEBRUARY 7, 1938, THE
SAME DAY THE BILL WAS FILED.  VOLUMINOUS AFFIDAVITS WERE PRESENTED IN
SUPPORT OF THE MOTION.  THEY TEND TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE COMPLAINT ON THE VALUE OF THE COPYRIGHTS AND THE INCOME FROM THE
SOCIETY.  EACH PUBLISHER DEPOSED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED MORE THAN $50,000
FROM THE SOCIETY IN 1936, THAT ITS CONTRACT WITH THE SOCIETY HAD A
VALUE IN EXCESS OF $200,000, AND THAT TO FIX PRICES ON EACH COMPOSITION
FOR EACH USE IN FLORIDA WOULD REQUIRE AN EXPENDITURE OF MORE THAN
$25,000.  THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE INDIVIDUALS SHOWED ANNUAL INCOMES TO
THEM FROM THE SOCIETY OF FROM $3,000 TO $9,000; CONTRACTS WITH THE
SOCIETY WHICH THE AFFIANTS VALUED IN THE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND AN
EXPENSE, IN ONE INSTANCE, AS HIGH AS $5,000 TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE. 

ON MARCH 3, 1938, THE APPELLANTS MOVED TO DISMISS ON SEVERAL GROUNDS:
(1) ABSENCE OF JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT; (2) FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION; (3) WANT OF EQUITY AND OTHER OBJECTIONS NOT STRONGLY PRESSED AT
THIS TIME. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND DENIED THE
MOTION TO DISMISS THE BILL.  IT THOUGHT THAT GREAT DAMAGE WOULD RESULT
UNLESS THE INJUNCTION ISSUED AND THAT THERE WAS GRAVE DOUBT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT.  ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW WERE FILED ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF AFTER THE PER CURIAM DECISION. 
IT FOUND THAT "THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $3,000 EXCLUSIVE OF
INTEREST AND COSTS." 

FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  - THE ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE LOWER COURT BY A
MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT IT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS "FROM THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL  ...  THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT OF
$3,000.00  ...  IS NOT INVOLVED  ...  IN THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE SUIT
IS BROUGHT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS  ...  AND IT DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY
APPEAR THAT THE LOSS OF ANY MEMBER OF SAID SOCIETY DUE TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF (THE CHALLENGED ACT) WOULD AMOUNT TO THE  ...  NECESSARY
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT."  OTHER JURISDICTIONAL AVERMENTS OF THE MOTION
STATE THAT THE SOCIETY CANNOT SUFFER ANY LOSS FROM THE LEGISLATION
BECAUSE IT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS THAT THE SOCIETY DIVIDES ALL ITS
PROCEEDS FROM LICENSING BETWEEN ITS MEMBERS AND AFFILIATES AND
"THEREFORE, THE LOSS, IF ANY, SUSTAINED DUE TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF SAID
FLORIDA LAWS WOULD FALL ON THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, AND NOT ON THE
SOCIETY ITSELF."  FINALLY THE MOTION SETS OUT THE LACK OF JURISDICTION
BECAUSE IT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL THAT
THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IS NOT INVOLVED "BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE
NOT SHOWN THE EXTENT OF LOSS OR DAMAGE THEY WOULD SUFFER BY REASON OF
THE ENFORCEMENT OF SAID STATE LAW, AS COMPARED WITH THE AMOUNT OF
PROFIT THEY WOULD MAKE BY THE NON-ENFORCEMENT OF SAID LAW."  AS THE
FORM OF THE MOTION ON THE JURISDICTION ADMITTED THE BILL'S STATEMENTS,
IT WAS SUBMITTED ON THE ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY
EVIDENCE. 

THIS METHOD OF TESTING THE JURISDICTION PROPERLY RAISES THE
QUESTION.  NO ISSUE IS MADE AS TO THE STANDING OF THE SOCIETY OR ITS
MEMBERS TO SUE.  THE BASIS OF THE ATTACK IS THAT THERE IS A LACK OF THE
ESSENTIAL ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY.  AS
THERE IS NO STATUTORY DIRECTION FOR PROCEDURE UPON AN ISSUE OF
JURISDICTION, THE MODE OF ITS DETERMINATION IS LEFT TO THE TRIAL
COURT.  FN4  BOTH COMPLAINANTS AND DEFENDANTS WERE CONTENT TO REST UPON
THE BILL AND MOTION. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN DISPUTE EXCEEDS THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  SUCH A GENERAL ALLEGATION WHEN NOT TRAVERSED IS
SUFFICIENT, UNLESS IT IS QUALIFIED BY OTHERS WHICH SO DETRACT FROM IT
THAT THE COURT MUST DISMISS SUA SPONTE OR ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION.  FN5
IN THIS INSTANCE, THE ALLEGATION IS, IN EFFECT, TRAVERSED BY THE
LANGUAGE OF THE MOTION WHICH ASSERTS THAT NO PLAINTIFF HAS SHOWN LOSS
FROM ENFORCEMENT EQUAL TO THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  NO OTHER
ALLEGATIONS ARE DENIED.  BY THIS METHOD OF ATTACK THE FACTS SET OUT IN
THE BILL ARE LEFT UNCHALLENGED FOR THE COURT TO ACCEPT AS TRUE WITHOUT
FURTHER PROOF.  THE BURDEN OF SHOWING BY THE ADMITTED FACTS THAT THE
FEDERAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION RESTS UPON THE COMPLAINANTS.  IF THERE
WERE ANY DOUBT OF THE GOOD FAITH OF THE ALLEGATIONS, THE COURT MIGHT
HAVE CALLED FOR THEIR JUSTIFICATION BY EVIDENCE.  FN6  IN VIEW OF THE
UNCHALLENGED FACTS, FEDERAL JURISDICTION WILL BE ADEQUATELY
ESTABLISHED, IF IT APPEARS THAT FOR ANY MEMBER, WHO IS A PARTY, THE
MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS OF THE VALUE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT,
FN7  OR, IF TO THE AGGREGATE OF ALL THE MEMBERS IN THIS REPRESENTATIVE
SUIT, THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS OF THAT VALUE. 

THIS SOCIETY, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION WITH A MEMBERSHIP OF MORE
THAN A THOUSAND OF THE LEADING AUTHORS, COMPOSERS AND PUBLISHERS OF
MUSIC, HAS RECEIVED BY ASSIGNMENT AND POSSESSES, FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD
WHICH COVERS THE TIME HERE INVOLVED, THE "EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PUBLICLY
PERFORM FOR PROFIT" MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS OWNED BY ITS MEMBERS. 
LICENSES ARE ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY TO USERS IN FLORIDA "FOR THE PUBLIC
PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT" OF THESE COMPOSITIONS.  AFTER PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES AND ROYALTIES FOR SIMILAR RIGHTS TO FOREIGN ASSOCIATES, AND
RETENTION OF CERTAIN RESERVES, THE RECEIPTS FROM LICENSES ARE DIVIDED
AMONG THE MEMBERS IN AMOUNTS AND BY CLASSIFICATIONS FIXED BY THE
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.  THE SOCIETY
UNDERTAKES TO PROTECT ITSELF AND ITS MEMBERS FROM PIRACIES OF THE
RIGHTS ASSIGNED TO IT.  THE SOCIETY HAS, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
CHALLENGED LEGISLATION AND WITHOUT NOW GIVING CONSIDERATION TO OTHER
OBJECTIONS AS TO THE LEGALITY OF ITS ORGANIZATION, A RIGHT TO LICENSE
WHICH MAY BE INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE FLORIDA STATUTE.  WHETHER THIS
RIGHT TO LICENSE FLOWS FROM ITS LIMITED OWNERSHIP OF THE COPYRIGHTS OR
BY AUTHORITY OF ITS MEMBERS IS IMMATERIAL HERE.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY
TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION HAS STANDING TO SUE
AND CONFINE OUR DECISION TO THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE
MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AND THE DEFENDANTS.  MEMBERS, BOTH CORPORATE
COPYRIGHT OWNERS AND INDIVIDUAL COMPOSERS OF MUSIC AND LYRICS, ARE
PLAINTIFFS.  THEY REPRESENT ALL OTHER MEMBERS.  AS THE MEMBERS OWN THE
COPYRIGHTS, LESS THE LIMITED ASSIGNMENT TO THE SOCIETY OF THE RIGHT OF
PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT, AND SHARE IN THE EARNINGS THROUGH
MANDATORY DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND NOT BY WAY
OF DIVIDENDS, THEY ARE PROPER PARTIES TO THE ACTION.  FN8  THESE
MEMBERS ARE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.  BECAUSE OF THE INTERPOSITION OF
THE STATUTE THEY CANNOT IN COMBINATION LICENSE PRODUCTION AND COLLECT
FEES IN FLORIDA.  UNLESS THE RELIEF SOUGHT, THE INVALIDATION OF THE
STATUTE, IS OBTAINED, THE MEMBERS CANNOT CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS THROUGH
THE MEDIUM OF THE SOCIETY.  THEY HAVE A COMMON AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST
IN THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IN THIS CLASS SUIT.  FN9 

THE ESSENTIAL MATTER IN CONTROVERSY HERE IS THE RIGHT OF THE MEMBERS,
IN ASSOCIATION THROUGH THE SOCIETY, TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF
LICENSING THE PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT OF THEIR COPYRIGHTS.  THIS
METHOD OF COMBINING FOR CONTRACTS IS INTERDICTED BY THE FLORIDA
STATUTE.  IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF TAXATION OR REGULATION BUT
PROHIBITION.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE ON JURISDICTION IS
THE VALUE OF THIS RIGHT TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS FREE OF THE PROHIBITION
OF THE STATUTE.  FN10  TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THIS RIGHT THE
DISTRICT COURT HAD THE ADMITTED FACTS THAT MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED
CONTRACTS EXPIRING IN 1940 WERE IN EXISTENCE BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND
THE FLORIDA USERS; THAT IN 1936 ALONE ALMOST SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS WAS
COLLECTED FROM THE USERS, AND THAT SIMILAR SUMS WERE EXPECTED FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THE TERM.  WHILE THE NET PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS IN FLORIDA
IS NOT SHOWN, THE BUSINESS OF THE SOCIETY, AS A WHOLE, IS PROFITABLE. 
THE THREE PUBLISHER PARTIES RECEIVE MORE THAN $150,000 YEARLY AND
INDIVIDUALS MORE THAN $5,000 PER YEAR EACH.  THE COST OF COMPLIANCE
WITH ITS REQUIREMENTS IS EVIDENCE ALSO OF THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT OF
FREEDOM FROM THE ACT.  FN11  THE COMPLAINANTS, OTHER THAN THE SOCIETY,
ALLEGE WITHOUT TRAVERSE THAT THE COST TO EACH ONE OF PROVIDING
INDIVIDUALLY IN FLORIDA THE SERVICES NOW PROVIDED BY THE SOCIETY FOR
EACH MEMBER WOULD EXCEED $10,000.  WHETHER THIS IS ANNUALLY, FOR THE
LENGTH OF THE AGREEMENT OR FOR SOME OTHER TERM IS NOT SHOWN.  FROM
THESE FACTS, THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY - THE VALUE OF THE AGGREGATE RIGHTS OF ALL MEMBERS TO
CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS THROUGH THE SOCIETY - EXCEEDS $3,000 IN VALUE IS
FULLY SUPPORTED.    MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. FN12
DIFFERS.  THERE THE STATE OF INDIANA HAD PASSED AN ACT REGULATING, NOT
PROHIBITING, THE BUSINESS OF THE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION.  THE RIGHT FOR
WHICH PROTECTION WAS SOUGHT WAS THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF REGULATION.  IT
WAS TO BE MEASURED BY THE LOSS, IF ANY, FOLLOWING ENFORCEMENT OF
REGULATION.  THIS WAS NOT ALLEGED OR PROVED.  IN KVOS, INC. V.
ASSOCIATED PRESS,  FN13  RELIEF WAS SOUGHT TO ENJOIN ALLEGED PIRATING,
BY RADIO, OF NEWS FURNISHED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS TO ITS MEMBERS. 
THE RIGHT FOR WHICH PROTECTION WAS SOUGHT WAS "THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT
THOSE ENTERPRISES FREE OF" INTERFERENCE.  ON THE ISSUE OF THE VALUE OF
THIS RIGHT, IT WAS DEPOSED ONLY THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RECEIVED MORE
THAN $8,000 PER MONTH FOR NEWS IN THE TERRITORY SERVED BY THE
BROADCASTING STATION AND WAS IN DANGER OF LOSING THE PAYMENTS.  THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WAS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, OPERATED WITHOUT THE
PURPOSE OF PROFITING FROM ITS SERVICES TO MEMBERS AND EQUITABLY
DIVIDING THE EXPENSES AMONG THEM.  THE DAMAGE IN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
CASE WAS TO ITS MEMBERS AND THIS WAS NOT SHOWN.  NEITHER WAS IT ALLEGED
OR PROVED THAT ANY MEMBER THREATENED TO WITHDRAW OR TO REDUCE ITS
PAYMENTS. 

FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  - THE MOTION TO DISMISS ALSO
PRESENTS GENERALLY THE ISSUE WHETHER THE BILL STATES FACTS SUFFICIENT
TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE MOTION THIS
ISSUE WAS LEFT TO THE COURT ON THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE BILL.  THE
ELABORATION OF THESE FACTS, CONTAINED IN THE AFFIDAVITS SUPPORTING AND
OBJECTING TO THE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR
CONSIDERATION, AS THESE AFFIDAVITS ARE A PART OF THE RECORD ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE PROPRIETY OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. 
FN14  WHETHER TO GRANT OR REFUSE A MOTION TO DISMISS BEFORE ANSWER, IS
LARGELY A MATTER OF DISCRETION FOR THE COURT BELOW.  FN15  WHERE THE
BILL MAKES AN ATTACK UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE,
SUPPORTED BY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS SUFFICIENTLY STRONG, AS HERE, TO RAISE
"GRAVE DOUBTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT" IN THE MIND OF THE
TRIAL COURT, THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION SHOULD BE DENIED.  THIS BILL SETS OUT THAT THE EXERCISE OF
RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ACT TO CONTROL THE PERFORMANCE
OF COMPOSITIONS FOR PROFIT IS PROHIBITED BY THE STATUTE; THAT EXISTING
CONTRACTS ARE IMPAIRED; PROPERTY TAKEN WITHOUT COMPENSATION; RECOVERY
ON EXTRA STATE CONTRACTS DENIED AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE
PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT VIOLATED IN MANNERS SPECIFICALLY
PLEADED.  DRASTIC PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THE ACT ARE PROVIDED. 
FN16 THE MANNER IN AND EXTENT TO WHICH THE CHALLENGED STATUTE OFFENDS
OR COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE
CLEARER AFTER FINAL HEARING AND FINDINGS.  FN17  THE FINDINGS HERE WERE
ON THE MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND ON THE ISSUE OF
JURISDICTION. 

OTHER ASSIGNMENTS.  - THE OTHER MATERIAL ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR TO THE
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER SPECIFIED ON THE APPEAL ARE ADDRESSED (1) TO THE
LACK OF EQUITY IN THE BILL, (2) TO THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION IN
ORDERING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, (3) TO THE LACK OF FINDINGS BEFORE THE
ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND (4) TO THE FAILURE TO STRIKE FROM THE
BILL ALLEGATIONS AS TO CERTAIN SECTIONS WHICH DEAL WITH CONTRACT
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND USERS OF THE MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS
BECAUSE THESE SECTIONS ARE NOT ENFORCED BY THE STATE OFFICERS.  WE
TREAT OF THEM BRIEFLY:  (1) IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS EQUITABLE
JURISDICTION TO PREVENT IRREPARABLE INJURY, IF THE SECTIONS OF THE
STATE STATUTE OUTLAWING THE SOCIETY RAISE ISSUES OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. 
THE HEAVY PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION AND THE PROHIBITION OF THE ISSUE OF
LICENSES OR COLLECTION OF FEES SHOW THE NEED TO PROTECT COMPLAINANTS. 
FN18  (2)  UPON THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE
OVERRULED, THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN GRANTING AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  FN19  THE DAMAGE BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT FROM
THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT AS SHOWN BY THE AFFIDAVITS WOULD BE
IRREPARABLE.  THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILL OF THREATS OF ENFORCEMENT AND
THE DECLARATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE,
THE OFFICER CHARGED WITH SUPERVISION OF ENFORCEMENT,  FN20  OF
READINESS AND WILLINGNESS "TO PROSECUTE ANY VIOLATIONS OF SAID ACT,"
SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH THE IMMEDIATE DANGER FROM ENFORCEMENT.  FN21  NO
OBJECTION APPEARS AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE BOND OR THE OTHER TERMS OF
THE INJUNCTION.  THESE REMAIN UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE LOWER COURT. 
ORDINARILY IT WOULD BE EXPECTED THAT WHERE A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS
CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF COMPLAINANTS AGAINST THE
ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION OF STATE OFFICERS, UNDER A STATUTE, A
FINAL ORDER WOULD FOLLOW WITH ALL CONVENIENT SPEED.  (3) THE ORDER OF
THE TRIAL COURT WAS ENTERED APRIL 5, 1938.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE NOT FILED UNTIL MAY 17, 1938, AFTER THE FIRST
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS HAD POINTED OUT THE OMISSION AND AFTER THE APPEAL
WAS ALLOWED.  THE ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR, WHICH HAD RELIED UPON
THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH EQUITY RULE 70 1/2 WAS AMENDED TO SHOW
SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE BUT NO ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF
THE FACT THAT THE FINDINGS WERE OUT OF TIME.  THE OBJECTION WAS TAKEN
IN THE STATEMENT OF POINTS TO BE RELIED UPON ON THE APPEAL AND IN
APPELLANTS' BRIEF IN THE SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS TO BE URGED.  BETTER
PRACTICE DICTATES THE FILING OF THE FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW BEFORE OR CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE ORDER OR DECREE.  IT WOULD BE
USELESS, HOWEVER, TO REVERSE THE ORDER GRANTING THE TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION AND REMAND THE CAUSE.  THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WOULD NOW BE
IN ORDER.  (4) IN ANSWER TO THE FOURTH OBJECTION IT MAY BE SAID THAT
THE ISSUE LIKE THAT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY CAN BE MORE SATISFACTORILY
DISPOSED OF UPON FINAL HEARING.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1 EQUITY RULE 38. 

FN2  ACT OF MARCH 4, 1909, SEC. 1(E), C. 320, 35 STAT. 1075, 17
U.S.C. SEC. 1(E). 

FN3  FLA. GEN. LAWS 1937, VOL. I, C. 17807. 

FN4  WETMORE V. RYMER, 169 U.S. 115, 120, 121; MCNUTT V. GENERAL
MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178, 184; KVOS, INC. V. ASSOCIATED
PRESS, 299 U.S. 269, 278. 

FN5  KVOS, INC. V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 299 U.S. 269, 277; MCNUTT V.
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178, 189. 

FN6  MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178, 189. 

FN7  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 241-242.  CLARK V.
PAUL GRAY, INC., 306 U.S. 583. 

FN8  ARTICLE XV, SEC. 1, OF THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION, READS AS
FOLLOWS:  "APPORTIONMENT OF ROYALTIES - 

"SECTION 1.  ALL ROYALTIES AND LICENSE FEES COLLECTED BY THE SOCIETY
SHALL BE FROM TIME TO TIME AS ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DISTRIBUTED AMONG ITS MEMBERS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER: 

"(A)  THAT ALL EXPENSES OF OPERATION OF THE SOCIETY AND SUMS PAYABLE
TO FOREIGN AFFILIATED SOCIETIES SHALL BE DEDUCTED THEREFROM AND DULY
PAID; AND 

"(B) THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THOSE PRESENT
AT ANY REGULAR MEETING MAY ADD TO THE RESERVE FUND ANY PORTION NOT
EXCEEDING 10% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION; AND 

"(C)  THAT THE NET AMOUNT REMAINING AFTER SUCH DEDUCTION FOR
DISTRIBUTION SHALL BE APPORTIONED AS FOLLOWS:  ONE-HALF (1/2) THEREOF
TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE 'MUSIC PUBLISHER' MEMBERS, AND ONE-HALF
(1/2) AMONG THE 'COMPOSER AND AUTHOR' MEMBERS RESPECTIVELY." 

FN9  CF. TROY BANK V. WHITEHEAD & CO., 222 U.S. 39; SHIELDS V.
THOMAS, 17 HOW.  3. 

FN10  SCOTT V. DONALD, 165 U.S. 107, 114; CF. HUNT V. NEW YORK COTTON
EXCHANGE, 205 U.S. 322, 334; MCNEIL V. SOUTHERN RY. CO., 202 U.S. 543;
BITTERMAN V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 207 U.S. 205; PACKARD V. BANTON,
264 U.S. 140. 

FN11  PACKARD V. BANTON, 264 U.S. 140; PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 304 U.S. 209, 215; HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263;
BUCK V. GALLAGHER, POST P. 95. 

FN12  298 U.S. 178. 

FN13  299 U.S. 269. 

FN14  POLK COMPANY V. GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5, 9. 

FN15  O'KEEFE V. NEW ORLEANS, 273 F. 560; WRIGHT V. BARNARD, 233 F.
329; DOHERTY V. MCDOWELL, 276 F. 728; RALSTON STEEL CAR CO. V. NATIONAL
DUMP CAR CO., 222 F. 590, 592.  COMPARE KANSAS V. COLORADO, 185 U.S.
125, 144-145; WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS, 270 U.S. 634.  WILSHIRE OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 100, 102-103. 

FN16  FINE $50 TO $5,000 AND IMPRISONMENT ONE TO TEN YEARS OR
EITHER.  SEC. 8, FLA. GEN. LAWS, 1937, C. 17807. 

FN17  BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, 211-213. 
POLK CO. V. GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5. 

FN18  EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, 165; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263
U.S. 197, 215. 

FN19  ALABAMA V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 229, 231; OHIO OIL CO. V.
CONWAY, 279 U.S. 813. 

FN20  SEC. 10, FLA. GEN. LAWS, 1937, C. 17807. 

FN21  TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197, 214-16; CLINE V. FRINK DAIRY
CO., 274 U.S. 445, 451-52. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

I BELIEVE THE DECREE ENJOINING AND SUSPENDING FLORIDA'S LAW
PROHIBITING MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE 

(1)  NO SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE THAT CASTS ANY DOUBT UPON A STATE'S
POWER TO PROHIBIT MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING, 

(2)  COMPLAINANTS (APPELLEES HERE) FAILED TO SUSTAIN THEIR BURDEN OF
SHOWING $3,000.00 IN CONTROVERSY, AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE, 

(3)  THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO REQUIRE A BOND OR OTHER CONDITIONS
ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE IN FLORIDA WHO MIGHT BE INJURED BY THE
INJUNCTION. 

FIRST.  DO GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY,  FN1
SIMILARLY GENERAL AFFIDAVITS AND GENERAL FINDINGS BY THE TRIAL COURT
SHOW THAT THE FLORIDA STATUTE AGAINST MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING IS
"NOVEL, IF NOT UNIQUE"  FN2  STATE LEGISLATION, AND RAISE SUCH "GRAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS" THAT A FEDERAL COURT SHOULD SUSPEND THE
STATUTE TO PERMIT COMPLAINANTS TO CONTINUE EXACTING MONOPOLY TRIBUTE
FROM THE PUBLIC UNTIL THE COURT HEARS EVIDENCE? 

THE ENJOINED ATTORNEY GENERAL AND PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS OF FLORIDA DO
NOT HAVE, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY DUTY TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE
AGAINST APPELLEES UNLESS THEY COMBINE TO FIX MONOPOLISTIC PRICES. 
THEREFORE, THIS INJUNCTION CANNOT REST UPON THE ALLEGED
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE OTHER THAN THOSE
PROHIBITING MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING.  AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL
ATTACKING OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE RAISE ONLY MOOT QUESTIONS. 
IF THIS RECORD CAN BE SAID TO RAISE ANY "GRAVE," "NOVEL," OR "UNIQUE"
QUESTION AT ALL, THAT QUESTION IS WHETHER A STATE HAS POWER TO PROHIBIT
PRICE FIXING BY MONOPOLIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

IF THE ISSUE IS NOT NARROWED TO THIS SINGLE POINT, APPROVAL IS GIVEN
TO THE ENJOINING OF STATE OFFICIALS FROM ACTION WHICH THEY HAVE NO DUTY
TO PERFORM AND HAVE SOLEMNLY DISCLAIMED BOTH HERE AND IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  FN3  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INTERPRETATION BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT, TO WHAT MORE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE OR EVIDENCE MAY A FEDERAL
COURT TURN FOR THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, THAN TO THE DECISION OF THE
HIGHEST STATE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH ITS ENFORCEMENT?  HE HAS DETERMINED
THAT, SO FAR AS HE AND THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS UNDER HIM ARE
CONCERNED, APPELLEES MAY LICENSE THEIR COMPOSITIONS AS THEY PLEASE, MAY
COMBINE TO DETECT AND PUNISH INFRINGERS AND MAY OPERATE IN FLORIDA AT
WILL, PROVIDED ONLY THAT THEY ABANDON MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING.  EVEN
AS TO THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION AGAINST PRICE FIXING, ALL THAT IS
BEFORE US, A PRACTICE MORE DESIRABLE AND MORE IN KEEPING WITH OUR DUAL
FORM OF GOVERNMENT, PREVIOUS DECISIONS,  FN4  AND THE TREND OF
CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION,  FN5  WOULD BE TO REFRAIN FROM FEDERAL
JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE UNTIL THE STATE COURTS ARE PRESENTED WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DEFINE THE STATUTORY DUTIES OF APPELLANTS.  "AND ...
THE PRESUMPTION IS IN ALL CASES THAT THE STATE COURTS WILL DO WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRE."  FN6  JUDICIALLY
RESTRAINING THESE FLORIDA OFFICIALS FROM ACTION WHICH THEY DECLARE THEY
CANNOT AND WILL NOT TAKE, DENIES TO FLORIDA THE TRADITIONAL RESPECT
THAT HAS BEEN ACCORDED STATE OFFICIALS BY THIS COURT.  FN7 

EVEN ACCORDING TO THE COMPARATIVELY NEW JUDICIAL FORMULA HERE
APPLIED, THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER "NOVEL  ...  UNIQUE" OR "GRAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS" ARE RAISED BY THE CHARGE THAT THESE STATE
OFFICIALS WILL PERFORM THEIR SOLE DUTY UNDER THE FLORIDA STATUTE OF
PROSECUTING APPELLEES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING.  PARAPHRASING THIS FORMULA, THE QUESTION
HERE ACTUALLY BECOMES:  WHEN COMPLAINANTS CHARGE IN A FEDERAL COURT OF
EQUITY THAT A STATE HAS PASSED, AND ITS OFFICERS ARE ABOUT TO ENFORCE,
A LAW AGAINST MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING, IS THERE SO MUCH DOUBT ABOUT
THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PROHIBIT MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING THAT
OPERATION OF THE LAW MUST BE ENJOINED AND EFFECT DENIED TO IT UNTIL
EVIDENCE IS HEARD BY THE COURT? 

HERE, BOTH THE VERY BILL UPON WHICH THE INJUNCTION NOW APPROVED WAS
GRANTED AND AFFIDAVITS OF RECORD ESTABLISH BEYOND DISPUTE APPELLEES'
FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA LAW BY COMBINING TO FIX PRICES.  THIS
COMBINATION APPARENTLY INCLUDES PRACTICALLY ALL (PROBABLY 95%) AMERICAN
AND FOREIGN COPYRIGHT OWNERS CONTROLLING RENDITION OF COPYRIGHTED MUSIC
FOR PROFIT IN THE UNITED STATES.  NOT ONLY DOES THIS COMBINATION FIX
PRICES THROUGH A SELFPERPETUATING BOARD OF TWENTY-FOUR DIRECTORS, BUT
ITS POWER OVER THE BUSINESS OF MUSICAL RENDITION IS SO GREAT THAT IT
CAN REFUSE TO SELL RIGHTS TO SINGLE COMPOSITIONS, AND CAN, AND DOES,
REQUIRE PURCHASERS TO TAKE, AT A MONOPOLISTICALLY FIXED ANNUAL FEE, THE
ENTIRE REPERTORY OF ALL NUMBERS CONTROLLED BY THE COMBINATION.  AND
THESE FEES ARE NOT THE SAME FOR LIKE PURCHASERS EVEN IN THE SAME
LOCALITY.  EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT COMPETING RADIO STATIONS IN THE SAME
CITY, OPERATING ON THE SAME POWER AND SERVING THE SAME AUDIENCE, ARE
CHARGED WIDELY VARIANT FEES FOR IDENTICAL PERFORMANCE RIGHTS, NOT
BECAUSE OF COMPETITION, BUT BY THE EXERCISE OF MONOPOLY POWER.  SINCE
IT APPEARS THAT MUSIC IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT FOR
PROFIT, RADIO STATIONS OR OTHER BUSINESSES ARBITRARILY COMPELLED TO PAY
DISCRIMINATORY FEES ARE FACED WITH PRICE FIXING PRACTICES THAT COULD
DESTROY THEM, BECAUSE THE SOCIETY HAS A MONOPOLY OF PRACTICALLY ALL -
IF NOT COMPLETELY ALL - AVAILABLE MUSIC.  WHEN CONSIDERATION IS ALSO
GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT AN ARBITRARILY FIXED LOWER RATE IS GRANTED TO A
FAVORED STATION ITSELF CONTROLLED BY ANOTHER INSTRUMENT OF PUBLIC
COMMUNICATION - A NEWSPAPER - THE ULTIMATE POSSIBILITIES FOR CONTROL OF
THE CHANNELS OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION ARE APPARENT. 

WE HAVE HERE A PRICE FIXING COMBINATION THAT ACTUALLY WIELDS THE
POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH OVER EVERY BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, AND ELSEWHERE,
DEPENDENT UPON COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS FOR EXISTENCE.  SUCH A
MONOPOLISTIC COMBINATION'S POWER TO FIX PRICES IS THE POWER TO
DESTROY.  SHOULD A COURT OF EQUITY GRANT THIS COMBINATION THE PRIVILEGE
OF VIOLATING A STATE ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW?  FN8  DOES A STATE LAW
PROHIBITING SUCH A COMBINATION PRESENT "GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS"? 

IT IS MY POSITION THAT A STATE LAW PROHIBITING MONOPOLISTIC PRICE
FIXING IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE IS NOT "NOVEL" AND "UNIQUE" AND RAISES NO
"GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS."  THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE
STATES TO PASS LAWS AGAINST MONOPOLIES SHOULD NOW BE BEYOND POSSIBILITY
OF CONTROVERSY.  "THAT STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE THE RIGHT  ...  TO
PREVENT UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS TO PREVENT COMPETITION AND IN RESTRAINT
OF TRADE, AND TO PROHIBIT AND PUNISH MONOPOLIES, IS NOT OPEN TO
QUESTION,"  FN9  AND FEW HAVE CHALLENGED THE POWER OF STATE
LEGISLATURES TO ORDAIN THAT "COMPETITION NOT COMBINATION, SHOULD BE THE
LAW OF TRADE."  FN10  SURELY, THERE IS PRESENTLY NO BASIS TO DOUBT THIS
POWER AND TO ASSERT THAT ITS EXERCISE RAISES "GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS."  AS RECENTLY AS 1937, THIS COURT HELD THAT PUERTO RICO,
WITH LEGISLATIVE POWERS NOT EQUAL TO, BUT "NEARLY AS EXTENSIVE AS THOSE
EXERCISED BY ANY STATE LEGISLATURE," COULD PROHIBIT MONOPOLISTIC PRICE
FIXING AS ONE OF THE "RIGHTFUL SUBJECTS OF LEGISLATION" UPON WHICH
LEGISLATURES ACT.  FN11 

IF THE STATES HAVE SOMEHOW LOST THEIR HISTORIC POWER TO PROHIBIT
MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING COMBINATIONS BEFORE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
TO A FEDERAL COURT, AT WHAT POINT IN OUR HISTORY AND IN WHAT MANNER DID
THEY LOSE IT?  THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT EXERCISED THEIR EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY,
BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, TO STRIP THE STATES OF THEIR POWER OVER
PRICE FIXING COMBINATIONS AND THUS RAISE MONOPOLY ABOVE THE TRADITIONAL
POWER OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES. 

IT WAS EXPRESSLY CONCEDED AT THE BAR THAT FLORIDA HAD THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO PROHIBIT PRICE FIXING COMBINATIONS UNLESS THE
COPYRIGHT LAWS LIMITED THIS POWER.  AND, SINCE ARGUMENT OF THE PRESENT
CASE, A DECISION RENDERED BY US FEBRUARY 13, THIS YEAR, MADE CLEAR THE
PRINCIPLE THAT THE COPYRIGHT LAWS GRANT NO IMMUNITY TO COPYRIGHT OWNERS
FROM STATUTES PROHIBITING MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES AND AGREEMENTS.  WE
THERE DECLARED THAT "AN AGREEMENT ILLEGAL (BY STATUTE) BECAUSE IT
SUPPRESSES COMPETITION IS NOT ANY LESS SO BECAUSE THE COMPETITIVE
ARTICLE IS COPYRIGHTED."  FN12 

"DUE PROCESS" HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY ENDOWED WITH GREAT ELASTICITY IN
RELATION TO PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT IT WOULD
AFFORD REFUGE FOR MONOPOLIES DEEMED UNDESIRABLE BY THE PEOPLE'S
REPRESENTATIVES.  WHEN A LEGISLATURE AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY
DETERMINES TO PROHIBIT MONOPOLISTIC COMBINATIONS, WE CANNOT, UNDER ANY
DOCTRINE OF "DUE PROCESS," RIGHTFULLY "REVIEW THEIR ECONOMICS OR THEIR
FACTS."  FN13  AND, ALTHOUGH "DUE PROCESS" IS INVOKED, CAN EVIDENCE
EITHER ADD TO OR TAKE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO PERMIT, REGULATE OR
PROHIBIT MONOPOLIES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST? 

SEVERAL OF THE GENERAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILL ARE RELIED UPON TO
JUSTIFY SUSPENSION OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE UNTIL EVIDENCE IS HEARD BY A
COURT.  IT IS SAID THE COURT SHOULD HEAR EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE "BILL
SETS OUT THAT THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL COPYRIGHT
ACT TO CONTROL THE PERFORMANCE OF COMPOSITIONS FOR PROFIT IS PROHIBITED
BY THE STATUTE  ...  "  BUT WHAT EVIDENCE CAN THE COURT HEAR THAT WILL
ASSIST IT IN COMPARING THE STATUTE WITH THE COPYRIGHT LAWS?  THE
FLORIDA STATUTE DOES NOT EVEN PURPORT TO PROHIBIT THE "PERFORMANCE OF
COMPOSITIONS FOR PROFIT," AND THE ENJOINED OFFICIALS HAVE NEITHER
THREATENED, NOR DO THEY INTEND, TO PROHIBIT SUCH PERFORMANCE.  IT IS
SAID THE BILL ALLEGES "THAT EXISTING CONTRACTS ARE IMPAIRED" BY THE
STATUTE.  BUT NO CONTRACTS CAN BE AFFECTED UNLESS INVOLVING PROHIBITED
MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING.  THAT THE FLORIDA LAW PROHIBITS THE
CONTINUATION AND EXECUTION OF MONOPOLY PRACTICES IN PURSUANCE OF PRICE
FIXING AGREEMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LAW WAS PASSED, CAN BE NO BASIS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.  FN14 

IT IS SAID THE BILL ALLEGES "PROPERTY TAKEN WITHOUT COMPENSATION." 
IF THE STATUTE, OF ITSELF, TAKES PROPERTY, (AND NO CHARGE OF
UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IS MADE) IS EVIDENCE
REQUIRED TO SHOW THE MANNER OF THE TAKING?  IT IS SAID THE BILL ALLEGES
THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATES "EQUAL PROTECTION."  BUT THE SOLE THING
THREATENED IS PROSECUTION OF AN ADMITTED PRICE FIXING COMBINATION -
COMPRISED OF PRACTICALLY ALL THE MUSICAL COPYRIGHT OWNERS AND
PUBLISHERS IN THE NATION.  "  ...  IF AN EVIL (OF MONOPOLY) IS
SPECIALLY EXPERIENCED IN A PARTICULAR BRANCH OF BUSINESS, THE
CONSTITUTION EMBODIES NO PROHIBITION OF LAWS CONFINED TO THE EVIL, OR
DOCTRINAIRE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE COUCHED IN ALL EMBRACING
TERMS.  IT DOES NOT FORBID THE CAUTIOUS ADVANCE, STEP BY STEP, AND THE
DISTRUST OF GENERALITIES WHICH SOMETIMES HAVE BEEN THE WEAKNESS, BUT
OFTEN THE STRENGTH, OF ENGLISH LEGISLATION."  FN15  IT IS SAID A
DRASTIC PENALTY IS PROVIDED FOR PRACTICING PRICE FIXING.  WHAT EVIDENCE
WILL SERVE TO ENLIGHTEN THE COURT ON THE STATUTORY PENALTY?  THAT
PENALTY IS SET OUT CLEARLY IN THE STATUTE.  IF IT INVALIDATES THE
STATUTE, THAT DETERMINATION SHOULD BE MADE NOW. 

THE PRESENT CASE ILLUSTRATES HOW THE RECENTLY FASHIONED JUDICIAL
FORMULA UNDER WHICH STATE LAWS MUST BE ENJOINED IF "GRAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS" ARE PRESENTED IN A COMPLAINT, ACTUALLY
RESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC JUDICIAL SUSPENSION OF STATE STATUTES UPON ANY
GENERAL COMPLAINT TO A FEDERAL COURT.  THE APPARENTLY INEVITABLE
OPERATION OF THIS FORMULA RUNS COUNTER TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT INTENDED
TO PRESERVE THE CONTROL OF THE STATES OVER THEIR OWN LOCAL LEGISLATION,
AND OPENS THE DOOR TO FURTHER EVASIONS OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
PROTECTING THE STATES FROM SUITS IN FEDERAL COURTS.  FN16  A LOWER
FEDERAL COURT'S REFUSAL IN ITS "DISCRETION" TO SUSPEND A STATE STATUTE
WAS RECENTLY REVERSED BECAUSE "GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS"  -
REQUIRING EVIDENCE - WERE DEEMED RAISED BY CHARGES THAT THE STATUTE BY
REQUIRING CITRUS FRUIT CANS TO BE TRUTHFULLY LABELED VIOLATED THE
CONSTITUTION.  FN17  AND HERE, WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED A
STATE LAW IN ITS "DISCRETION," THE INJUNCTION IS SUSTAINED BY A HOLDING
THAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE HEARD BECAUSE "GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS"
ARE INVOLVED.  HOWEVER THE LOWER COURT'S "DISCRETION" MAY BE EXERCISED,
THE FORMULA APPARENTLY ACHIEVES BUT ONE RESULT - STATE STATUTES ARE
SUSPENDED. 

CAREFUL SCRUTINY OF APPELLEES' BILL FOR INJUNCTION REVEALS NO
ALLEGATIONS INDICATING THAT FLORIDA'S POWER TO PROHIBIT MONOPOLISTIC
PRICE FIXING WOULD, EVEN UNDER THE FORMULA APPLIED, BE ALTERED BY PROOF
OF ANY "PARTICULAR ECONOMIC FACTS  ...  WHICH ARE  ...  PROPERLY THE
SUBJECT OF EVIDENCE AND OF FINDINGS."  FN18  TRUE, THE BILL ALLEGES
THAT THE STATUTE OF FLORIDA AND SIMILAR LEGISLATION ENACTED BY OTHER
STATES WERE "SPONSORED BY AN ORGANIZED GROUP  ...  FOR THEIR OWN
SELFISH AGGRANDIZEMENT  ...  WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE HEARING BEING AFFORDED
TO COMPLAINANTS AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED," AND THAT "IN TRUTH AND
IN FACT, (THE STATUTE) WAS ENACTED NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST  ...  "
APPELLEES ALSO ALLEGE THAT "UNLESS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS STATE
STATUTE IS RESTRAINED  ...  OTHER STATES, IN ADDITION TO FLORIDA,
MONTANA, WASHINGTON, NEBRASKA AND TENNESSEE, MAY ENACT SIMILAR STATUTES
...  ALL OF WHICH WOULD WORK UNDUE HARDSHIP ON COMPLAINANTS AND WOULD
VIOLATE THE SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION  ...  "  THESE ARE SOME OF THE
STRONGEST - IF NOT THE STRONGEST - OF THE BILL'S ALLEGATIONS DEEMED TO
RAISE "GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS."  IS THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
APPROVED SO THAT THE FEDERAL COURT IN FLORIDA MAY HEAR EVIDENCE ON WHAT
CONSTITUTES THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF FLORIDA?  SHALL THE COURT HEAR
EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT "UNLESS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS
STATUTE IS RESTRAINED" OTHER STATES, "IN ADDITION TO FLORIDA," MAY
SIMILARLY PROHIBIT APPELLEES' MONOPOLY? 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE HOW IN THE FUTURE - UNDER THIS FORMULA -
ANY STATE LAW, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AFFECTING PROPERTY, CAN BECOME
EFFECTIVE UNTIL INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS HAVE DRAGGED THEIR WEARY WAY
THROUGH FEDERAL COURTS.  ALL STATE STATUTES MIGHT HEREAFTER WELL
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE EXPRESSION "TO TAKE EFFECT WITHIN" A CERTAIN PERIOD
OF TIME, THE WORDS "TO TAKE EFFECT AFTER THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE HEARD
EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE" THEIR REASONABLENESS (WISDOM).  AND THE FORMULA
LIKEWISE FITS CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS.  HAD THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THIS
FORMULA NOT BEEN THE CULMINATION OF GRADUAL JUDICIAL ADVANCES, IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN EVERYWHERE RECOGNIZED AS A REVOLUTIONARY DEPARTURE FROM OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT, UNDER WHICH THE WISDOM OF
LEGISLATION, WITHIN THE FIELD OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION, WAS LEFT TO THE
JUDGMENT OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE. 

FLORIDA CAN FIND LITTLE COMFORT IN THE ADMONITION THAT "ORDINARILY IT
WOULD BE EXPECTED THAT WHERE A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS CONSIDERED
NECESSARY  ...  A FINAL ORDER WOULD FOLLOW WITH ALL CONVENIENT SPEED." 
THIS LAW HAS NOW ALREADY BEEN SUSPENDED FOR A YEAR, AND EXPERIENCE
DEMONSTRATES THAT INJUNCTIVE SUSPENSION OF STATE LAWS AND STATE ACTION
CAN HANG IN THE COURTS FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE RECEIVING FINAL
DISPOSITION.  FN19 

SECOND.  JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT. 

THESE ELEVEN APPELLEES ALLEGED IN THEIR BILL FOR INJUNCTION THAT THEY
SUED ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE MORE THAN 1,000 OTHER (AMERICAN)
MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY.  NO DETERMINATION IS MADE HERE "THAT FOR ANY
MEMBER, WHO IS A PARTY, THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS OF THE VALUE OF
THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT" - $3,000.  HOWEVER, WHILE APPELLEES ARE NOT
AIDED IN ESTABLISHING THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT BY THE "ALLEGATION THAT
(THEY)  ...  SUED ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,"  FN20  THE
COURT NEVERTHELESS HOLDS THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IS IN
CONTROVERSY IN "THE VALUE OF THE AGGREGATE RIGHTS OF ALL MEMBERS"
(INCLUDING THE MORE THAN 1,000 WHO HAVE NOT APPEARED IN PERSON) TO
COMBINE AND FIX PRICES IN FLORIDA. 

"ASSUMING THAT SUCH A CASE AS THIS MAY BE CALLED A CLASS ACTION, AND
...  COULD BE MAINTAINED AS SUCH  ... YET THAT IT MAY BE PROPERLY A
CLASS ACTION DOES NOT AFFECT THE RULE AGAINST AGGREGATION (OF CLAIMS
FOR MAKING UP THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT), BECAUSE (SUCH AGGREGATION)
... IS NECESSARILY ONLY APPLICABLE TO THOSE CLASS ACTIONS IN WHICH
SEVERAL CLAIMANTS TO A FUND ARE JOINED AS PLAINTIFFS ASSERTING COMMON
AND UNDIVIDED RIGHTS THEREIN."  FN21  APPELLEES ASSERT NO COMMON AND
UNDIVIDED RIGHTS IN ANY FUND  FN22  OR PROPERTY; FN23  "THE AMOUNT
PAYABLE TO EACH (BY THE SOCIETY) DEPENDS UPON HIS CONTRACT ALONE." 
FN24  NEITHER DOES APPELLEES' BILL SEEK, AS WOULD THE TRADITIONAL CLASS
OR REPRESENTATIVE BILL IN EQUITY, TO PROTECT GROUP RIGHTS ALL CLAIMED
UNDER AND TRACEABLE TO A SINGLE DECREE, FN25  OR RIGHTS "WHICH  ...
(NO ONE PLAINTIFF) CAN ENFORCE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE" OTHERS BECAUSE
DERIVED FROM A SINGLE SECURITY INSTRUMENT.  FN26  IN THIS PROCEEDING,
ALL THAT MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY HAVE IN COMMON IS THEIR ALLEGED RIGHT
TO VIOLATE WITH IMPUNITY THE FLORIDA STATUTE AGAINST PRICE FIXING. 
UNLESS OPPOSITION TO AND VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE CAN BE THEIR BOND OF
UNITY, APPELLEES HAVE "SEPARATE AND DISTINCT DEMANDS  ...  (UNITED) FOR
CONVENIENCE AND ECONOMY IN A SINGLE SUIT, (AND) IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT
THE DEMAND OF EACH BE OF THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT."  FN27 

PERMISSIBLE JOINDER OF MANY PLAINTIFFS AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE AND
ECONOMY IS NOT A MEANS OF ENLARGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  RULE 38, UNDER WHICH THIS CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE SUIT WAS
BROUGHT, DID NOT, IN FACT COULD NOT, EXTEND THAT JURISDICTION WHICH
DEPENDS SOLELY UPON ACTS OF CONGRESS.  FN28 

A COMMON DESIRE TO DISREGARD A STATE LAW CANNOT SERVE AS A COMMON AND
UNDIVIDED INTEREST FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION; FN29
OTHERWISE, ALL WHO OPPOSE SUCH A LAW CAN AGGREGATE THE VALUES OF THEIR
ALLEGED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS SO AS TO DISREGARD THE LAW, IN ORDER THAT
THEY MAY ESCAPE THE COURTS OF A STATE AND BRING ITS LAW BEFORE A
FEDERAL COURT.  AND THE FACT THAT A STATE LAW INFLICTS PECUNIARY LOSS
UPON MEMBERS OF A NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATION BECAUSE OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP
DOES NOT PERMIT AGGREGATION OF THE MEMBERS' PECUNIARY INTERESTS AS A
BASIS FOR ATTACK UPON THE LAW IN A FEDERAL COURT BY SOME MEMBERS "ON
BEHALF AND WITH THE AUTHORITY OF ALL."  FN30  HERE, THE INDIVIDUAL
MEMBERS HAVE MADE NO SHOWING OF WHAT THEY AS INDIVIDUALS HAVE AT STAKE
OR OF WHAT ALL THE MEMBERS AS A CLASS STAND TO LOSE BY VIRTUE OF THE
FLORIDA LAW. 

THE ENJOINED STATE OFFICIALS HAVE ONLY THE DUTY TO PROSECUTE
APPELLEES IF THEY CONTINUE TO FIX PRICES (I.E., TO ISSUE LICENSES)
THROUGH MONOPOLISTIC COMBINATIONS, AND THESE OFFICIALS HAVE EXPRESSLY
DISAVOWED ANY INTENTION TO DO MORE.  FN31  APPELLEES ARE LEFT FREE TO
FORM SUCH COMBINATIONS AS THEY PLEASE IN FLORIDA FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROTECTING AGAINST COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENTS.  THEY ARE HERE DEPRIVED BY
THE FLORIDA STATUTE ONLY OF THE RIGHT TO COMBINE TO FIX PRICES, AND THE
VALUE OF THAT RIGHT MUST DETERMINE THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.  FN32
THAT RIGHT WAS THE OBJECT WHICH APPELLEES' BILL FOR INJUNCTION SOUGHT
TO PROTECT FROM ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE.  FN33  YET,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL IN THE RECORD FROM WHICH EVEN AN INFERENCE
CAN BE DRAWN AS TO THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, INDIVIDUAL APPELLEES OR OTHER
MEMBERS MIGHT LOSE IN FLORIDA BY SELLING OR LICENSING THEIR COPYRIGHTED
ARTICLES INDIVIDUALLY (WHICH THE LAW PERMITS) INSTEAD OF FIXING PRICES
BY MONOPOLISTIC COMBINATION (WHICH THE LAW PROHIBITS).  NO SHOWING WAS
MADE THAT APPELLEES EVER HAVE MADE OR EVER WILL MAKE ANY PROFIT FROM
THE OPERATIONS OF THE SOCIETY IN FLORIDA.  AS STATED BY THE MAJORITY
OPINION, THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE SOCIETY IN THE
ENTIRE UNITED STATES AND SIXTEEN FOREIGN COUNTRIES IS A PROFITABLE
ONE.  BUT WE CANNOT ASSUME FROM THIS THAT ITS FLORIDA OPERATIONS ARE AS
A UNIT PROFITABLE.  IN FACT, THE RECORD SHOWS ONLY THAT THE ENTIRE
SOCIETY HAD SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS WORTH OF CONTRACTS IN FLORIDA IN
1936.  WE ARE NOT TOLD WHAT RATABLE SHARE OF THIS SIXTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS WOULD COME TO ANY INDIVIDUAL IN THE DIVISION OF THE ENTIRE
AMOUNT AMONG THE FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND ODD MEMBERS AFFILIATED WITH THE
SOCIETY (IN AMERICA AND ABROAD).  EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER'S GROSS INCOME
FROM FLORIDA MIGHT BE LESS THAN $1.50 PER YEAR. 

THE LOSS OF A RIGHT TO AN ANNUAL GROSS INCOME OF $1.50 CANNOT AMOUNT
TO THE LOSS OF A RIGHT VALUED AT TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS - AS APPELLEES
ALLEGE - ON THE THEORY THAT IT WOULD COST TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS TO
COLLECT THE $1.50 INCOME INDIVIDUALLY.  AND IT IS, OF COURSE, POSSIBLE
THAT IF THE SOCIETY IN FACT HAS NO NET INCOME FROM FLORIDA BUT OPERATES
THERE AT A LOSS, EACH MEMBER'S RATABLE SHARE OF INCOME FROM THE SOCIETY
WILL ACTUALLY BE INCREASED WHEN THE UNPROFITABLE FLORIDA OPERATIONS
CEASE BECAUSE OF THE STATUTE.  MEASURING THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY ON
THE ABOVE THEORY, JURISDICTION MIGHT BE OBTAINED BY A FEDERAL COURT TO
ENFORCE RIGHTS OF A VALUE FAR LESS THAN THE JURISDICTIONAL $3,000
REQUIRED BY CONGRESS.  FOR ILLUSTRATION, A STATUTE MIGHT PROHIBIT
PARKING OF AUTOMOBILES ON CERTAIN CITY STREETS; AN AUTOMOBILE OWNER
ASSAILING THE LAW MIGHT BE ADMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL
COURT BY ALLEGING THAT IT WOULD COST HIM MORE THAN THREE THOUSAND
DOLLARS TO PURCHASE A PARKING LOT IN WHICH TO PARK OFF THE STREETS OF
THE PROHIBITED AREA.  HE WOULD THUS "COMPLY" WITH THE STATUTE AND
ABANDON THE STREETS IN OBEDIENCE TO IT.  FN34  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT
JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT CAN BE RESTED ON MEASUREMENTS OF THE
IMAGINED COST OF WHAT A COMPLAINANT CONCEIVABLY COULD BUT CERTAINLY
WOULD NEVER DO AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ACTION FORBIDDEN BY STATUTE. 

THE STATUTORY MONETARY STANDARD IS PRECISE AND THE AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY THEREFORE CANNOT BE CONJECTURAL.  "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
FORESEE INTO WHAT MAZES OF SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE WE MAY NOT BE LED
BY A DEPARTURE FROM THE SIMPLICITY OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION. 

"ACCORDINGLY THIS COURT HAS UNIFORMLY BEEN STRICT TO ADHERE TO AND
ENFORCE IT."  FN35 

WITHOUT PROOF OF THE AMOUNT EACH APPELLEE OR MEMBER HAS IN ISSUE, HOW
CAN THE "AGGREGATE AMOUNT" BE FIXED AT ANY FIGURE? 

RIGID ENFORCEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT WILL LIMIT THE
INTERFERENCE OF FEDERAL COURTS IN STATE LEGISLATION AND WILL ACCORD
WITH THE POLICY OF CONGRESS IN NARROWING THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL
COURTS BY SUCCESSIVE INCREASES IN THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT."  FN36
THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE CALLS FOR ITS STRICT CONSTRUCTION."  FN37
SINCE NO INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAS THE
STATUTORY JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, TO REST JURISDICTION OF
A FEDERAL COURT ON NO MORE THAN THE UNIFIED DESIRE OF MANY COMPLAINANTS
TO VIOLATE A STATE STATUTE PROHIBITING MONOPOLISTIC PRICE FIXING, DOES
CONSTITUTE A "NOVEL, IF NOT UNIQUE," AND "GRAVE" JUDICIAL DEPARTURE
FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT FIXED BY CONGRESS. 

THIRD.  THE OTHERWISE COMPLETE SUSPENSION OF FLORIDA'S LAW WAS
LIMITED ONLY BY THE CONDITION THAT APPELLEES MAKE BOND OF FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS PAYABLE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA AND THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS OF THE STATE.  MANIFESTLY, THESE OFFICIALS HAVE NO INDIVIDUAL
INTEREST IN THE MONOPOLY PROHIBITED BY THE FLORIDA LAW.  THE MAJOR
INJURIES ACCRUING FROM THE SUSPENSION OF THE LAW WILL NOT BE INFLICTED
UPON THEM, BUT UPON THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA WHO ARE REQUIRED TO PAY
MONOPOLY PRICES WHILE THE LAW REMAINS ENJOINED.  THUS, WHILE THE LAW IS
SUSPENDED, THESE NON-RESIDENT APPELLEES CAN CARRY ON A MONOPOLISTIC
BUSINESS IN FLORIDA CONTRARY TO ITS PROHIBITIONS, AND THE PEOPLE OF
FLORIDA WHO MUST PAY MONOPOLY PRICES ARE GRANTED NO PROTECTION.  WE
HAVE RECENTLY DECLARED THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE THAT "IT IS THE DUTY OF
A COURT OF EQUITY GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO DO SO UPON CONDITIONS
THAT WILL PROTECT ALL - INCLUDING THE PUBLIC - WHOSE INTERESTS THE
INJUNCTION MAY AFFECT."  FN38  THE INJUNCTION HERE WAS NOT GRANTED UPON
CONDITIONS THAT WOULD PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ALL WHO MIGHT BE
AFFECTED BY IT.  IT NEITHER ORDERED THE MONOPOLY TRIBUTE EXACTED BY
APPELLEES TO BE PAID INTO COURT DURING SUSPENSION OF THE FLORIDA
STATUTE, NOR REQUIRED A BOND FOR THE BENEFIT OF, AND ADEQUATE TO
INDEMNIFY THOSE WHO MUST PAY THIS TRIBUTE UNTIL THE COURT PERMITS THE
STATUTE TO GO INTO EFFECT. 

NEVERTHELESS, THIS COURT NOW REFUSES TO CORRECT THE GROSSLY UNJUST
FAILURE TO PROTECT THOSE WHO MAY SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY FROM THE
SUSPENSION OF THE FLORIDA LAW ON THE GROUND THAT "NO OBJECTION APPEARS
AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE BOND OR THE OTHER TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION. 
THESE REMAIN UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE LOWER COURT."  HOWEVER, THE LOWER
COURT HAS ALREADY EXERCISED ITS CONTROL RESULTING IN MANIFESTLY
INJURIOUS ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD.  FN39  AND AS "UPON THIS APPEAL
IN EQUITY THE WHOLE CASE IS BEFORE US, WE CAN RENDER SUCH DECREE AS
UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE PROPER."  FN40  LITIGATION IS NOT A
GAME IN WHICH JUSTICE CAN BE AWARDED ONLY TO THE ALERT AND FASTIDIOUS
OBJECTOR, PARTICULARLY WHEN - AS HERE - A COURT SUSPENDS STATUTORY
RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO, NOT BEING IN COURT, HAVE NO
OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT.  THE INJUSTICE TO THE PUBLIC APPARENT ON THIS
RECORD VIOLATES THE RUDIMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND FAIR PLAY.  WE
SHOULD NEITHER CONDONE NOR PERMIT IT. 

THEY WHO ATTACK THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW, OBTAIN ITS JUDICIAL
SUSPENSION, AND THEN CONTINUE TO VIOLATE ITS TERMS, SHOULD NOT BENEFIT
BY THE SUSPENSION, IN THE EVENT THE LAW IS LATER HELD CONSTITUTIONAL. 
OTHERWISE, A JUDICIALLY GRANTED PERIOD OF IMMUNITY WILL REWARD
LITIGANTS WHO UNSUCCESSFULLY ASSAIL THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
LEGISLATION.  SEEMINGLY, THE TIME HAS ARRIVED WHEN DESPITE OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT NO STATE LAW CAN BECOME EFFECTIVE
UNTIL A FEDERAL COURT HEARS EVIDENCE ON ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.  THE
COURTS - RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE - SHOULD AT LEAST
PROTECT CITIZENS OF AN ENACTING STATE FROM DISOBEDIENCE TO A STATE LAW
PERMITTED BY AN ERRONEOUS OR IMPROVIDENT INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. 

THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION SHOULD BE VACATED. 

FN1  CF. BORDEN'S CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, 203; AETNA INS. CO.
V. HYDE, 275 U.S. 440, 447; PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N V. GREAT NORTHERN
UTILITIES CO., 289 U.S. 130, 136, 137. 

FN2  BORDEN'S CO. V. BALDWIN, SUPRA, 203. 

FN3  CF., CARROLL V. GREENWICH INSURANCE CO., 199 U.S. 401, 412. 

FN4  GILCHRIST V. INTERBOROUGH CO., 279 U.S. 159, 207; FENNER V.
BOYKIN, 271 U.S. 240, 243-4; CF., WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. V. TEXAS, 177
U.S. 28, 43; AND SEE CLARK, BRANDEIS, JJ., DISSENTING, CINCINNATI V.
CINCINNATI & H. TRACTION CO., 245 U.S. 446, 461. 

FN5  28 U.S.C. 41; C. 726, 50 STAT. 738, 48 STAT. 775, 47 STAT. 70,
43 STAT. 938, 36 STAT. 1162, AMENDED 37 STAT. 1013. 

FN6  DEFIANCE WATER CO. V. DEFIANCE, 191 U.S. 184, 194. 

FN7  SEE SPIELMAN MOTOR CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89, 96; CINCINNATI V.
CINCINNATI & H. TRACTION CO., SUPRA, 454, 455; VIRGINIA V. WEST
VIRGINIA(, 231 U.S. 89, 91; CF. DES MOINES V. CITY RY. CO., 214 U.S.
179, 184.  THIS INJUNCTION MAKES STRIKINGLY PERTINENT THE QUESTION OF
JUSTICE HARLAN, DISSENTING, IN EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, 179(1908):
"IF THE FEDERAL COURT COULD THUS PROHIBIT THE LAW OFFICER OF THE STATE
FROM REPRESENTING IT IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURT, WHY MIGHT
NOT THE BILL IN THE FEDERAL COURT BE SO AMENDED THAT THAT COURT COULD
REACH ALL THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN MINNESOTA AND FORBID THEM FROM
BRINGING TO THE ATTENTION OF GRAND JURIES AND THE STATE COURTS
VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE ACT  ...  ?"  HIS APPREHENSIVE PROPHECY HAS
MORE THAN COME TRUE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

FN8  CF., CONTINENTAL WALL PAPER CO. V. VOIGHT & SONS CO., 212 U.S.
227, 262, AFFIRMING 148 F. 939; GIBBS V. BALTIMORE GAS CO., 130 U.S.
396, 412.  MCCONNELL V. CAMORS-MCCONNELL CO., 152 F. 321; PACIFIC
POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO., 50 F. 493;
AMERICAN BISCUIT & MFG. CO. V. KLOTZ, 44 F. 721; 1 POM.  EQUITY JURIS. 
(3RD ED.)  SEC.  402. 

FN9  WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. V. TEXAS (NO. 1), 212 U.S. 86, 107. 
"THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH
PRECLUDES A STATE FROM ADOPTING AND ENFORCING (STATUTES WHICH SECURE
COMPETITION AND PRECLUDE COMBINATIONS WHICH TEND TO DEFEAT IT)  ...  TO
SO DECIDE WOULD BE STEPPING BACKWARDS."  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
MISSOURI, 234 U.S. 199, 209.  SEE, ATLANTIC & PAC. TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN,
301 U.S. 412, 425-6; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 529; RAST V. VAN
DEMAN & LEWIS CO., 240 U.S. 342, 366-7. 

FN10  NATIONAL COTTON OIL CO. V. TEXAS, 197 U.S. 115, 129; CARROLL V.
GREENWICH INS. CO., SUPRA, 411. 

FN11  PUERTO RICO V. SHELL CO., 302 U.S. 253, 260, 261. 

FN12  INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 208, 230. 

FN13  CENTRAL LUMBER CO. V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 226 U.S. 157, 161. 

FN14  WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. V. TEXAS (NO. 1), SUPRA, 108. 

FN15  CARROLL V. GREENWICH INS. CO., SUPRA, 411; CENTRAL LUMBER CO.
V. SOUTH DAKOTA, SUPRA, 160.  "A LEGISLATURE MAY HIT AT AN ABUSE WHICH
IT HAS FOUND, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS FAILED TO STRIKE AT ANOTHER."  UNITED
STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144, 151. 

FN16  CF. EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, HARLAN, J., DISSENTING, 168
204; AND SEE FITTS V. MCGHEE, 172 U.S. 516, 528, 530; IN RE AYERS, 123
U.S. 443, 496, 497, 505. 

FN17  POLK CO. V. GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5. 

FN18  BORDEN'S CO. V. BALDWIN, SUPRA, AT 210. 

FN19  SEE DISSENT, MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 302 U.S. 419,
435, AND NOTE. 

FN20  LION BONDING CO. V. KARATZ, 262 U.S. 77, 86. 

FN21  EBERHARD V. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 241 F. 353, 356,
REFERRED TO WITH APPARENT APPROVAL IN LION BONDING CO. V. KARATZ,
SUPRA. 

FN22  SMITH V. SWORMSTEDT, 16 HOW.  288. 

FN23  BEATTY V. KURTZ, 2 PET. 566. 

FN24  EBERHARD CASE, SUPRA, 356. 

FN25  SHIELDS V. THOMAS, 17 HOW.  3, BUT SEE CHAPMAN V. HANDLEY, 151
U.S. 443. 

FN26  TROY BANK V. WHITEHEAD & CO., 222 U.S. 39, 41. 

FN27  ID. 40. 

FN28  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. PILLSBURY, 301 U.S. 174, 177;
CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302 U.S. 500, 505; SEE, KVOS, INC. V.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, 299 U.S. 269, 279. 

FN29  POPE V. BLANTON, 10 F.SUPP.  15, 18, DISMISSED PER CURIAM FOR
LACK OF REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY, 299 U.S. 521;
GAVICA V. DONAUGH, 93 F.2D 173. 

FN30  ROGERS V. HENNEPIN COUNTY, 239 U.S. 621.  THE COMPLAINT APPEARS
IN THE ORIGINAL RECORDS OF THIS COURT, NO. 411, OCT. TERM 1915.  CF.,
ROBBINS V. WESTERN AUTO INS. CO., 4 F.2D 249, CERT. DEN., 268 U.S. 698;
WOODS V. THOMPSON, 14 F.2D 951, AND ILLINOIS BANKERS' LIFE ASSN. V.
FARRIS, 21 F.2D 1014, CERT. DEN., 276 U.S. 621. 

FN31  CF., CARROLL V. GREENWICH INS. CO., SUPRA, 412. 

FN32  SCOTT V. DONALD, 165 U.S. 107, 114, 115. 

FN33  CF., GLENWOOD LIGHT & W. CO. V. MUTUAL LIGHT CO., 239 U.S. 121,
125, 126; KVOS, INC. V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 299 U.S. 269, 277. 

FN34  "COST OF COMPLIANCE" WITH AN ASSAILED LEGISLATIVE ACT MAY BE
CONSIDERED THE MEASURE OF THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY WHEN A RIGHT OF
COMPLAINANT IS REGULATED, OR WHERE HE IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION.  CF., KROGER GROCERY CO. V. LUTZ, 299 U.S. 300, 301; MCNUTT V.
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178, 181.  BUT APPELLEES HAVE
NOT BEEN REQUIRED TO TAKE ANY AFFIRMATIVE STEPS, NOR ARE THEY PERMITTED
TO FIX PRICES ON CONDITION THAT THEY "COMPLY" WITH REGULATIONS.  THE
FIXING OF PRICES THROUGH COMBINATIONS HAS BEEN PROHIBITED.  OBVIOUSLY,
APPELLEES CANNOT BE PROHIBITED FROM DOING THAT WHICH THEY MAY ALSO DO
BY "COMPLYING" WITH THE STATUTE. 

FN35  ELGIN V. MARSHALL, 106 U.S. 578, 581. 

FN36  SEE HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263, 270. 

FN37  ID. 

FN38  INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153, 157. 

FN39  SEE, LAMB V. CRAMER, 285 U.S. 217, 222; UNITED STATES V.
TENNESSEE & COOSA R. CO., 176 U.S. 242, 256; REVISED RULES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 27, PARAGRAPH 6; CF., MAHLER V.
EBY, 264 U.S. 32, 45. 

FN40  UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 184 U.S. 416, 423;
CINCINNATI V. CINCINNATI & H. TRACTION CO., SUPRA, 454; RIDINGS V.
JOHNSON, 128 U.S. 212, 218; CF., PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600,
607. 
..END :
























BUCK V. GALLAGHER, 307 U.S. 95 


NO. 329.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 24
F.SUPP.  541, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE PROHIBITING OR
REGULATING A BUSINESS, THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS THE RIGHT TO CARRY
ON THE BUSINESS FREE FROM THE PROHIBITION OR REGULATION.  P. 100. 

2.  THE BURDEN OF SHOWING JURISDICTIONAL VALUE IN CONTROVERSY IS ON
THE PLAINTIFF.  P. 102. 

THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT TO BE FREE IN ONE'S BUSINESS FROM A STATUTORY
REGULATION MAY BE SHOWN BY PROVING THE ADDITIONAL COST OF COMPLYING
WITH THE REGULATION.  P. 103. 

3.  OWNERS OF THE COPYRIGHTS OF MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS, WITH A VIEW TO
PROTECTION AGAINST UNLICENSED PUBLIC PERFORMANCES FOR PROFIT FOR WHICH
THEY RECEIVED NO COMPENSATION, GRANTED TO AN UNINCORPORATED
ASSOCIATION, OF WHICH THEY WERE THE MEMBERS, THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF
PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR A TERM OF YEARS.  IT WAS THE FUNCTION OF THE
SOCIETY TO PROTECT ITSELF AND ITS MEMBERS FROM PIRACIES AND TO LICENSE
PUBLIC PERFORMANCES BY OTHERS, FOR ROYALTIES WHICH, AFTER CERTAIN
DEDUCTIONS, IT DISTRIBUTED AMONG ITS MEMBERS, PURSUANT TO ITS ARTICLES
OF ASSOCIATION.  IN A SUIT BY THE SOCIETY AND SOME OF ITS MEMBERS
REPRESENTING ALL, SEEKING TO ENJOIN ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE OF WASHINGTON WHICH PURPORTS TO REGULATE
LICENSING BY COMBINATIONS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS, THE BILL ALLEGED,
GENERALLY, THAT THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDED $3,000,
AND ALSO THAT THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH A PROVISION OF THE STATUTE
REQUIRING COPYRIGHT OWNERS TO FILE YEARLY A LIST OF THEIR COPYRIGHTED
WORKS WOULD INVOLVE COSTS TO THE SOCIETY, OR TO EACH OF THE MEMBERS
INDIVIDUALLY IF THEY ACTED IN THE MATTER WITHOUT THE SOCIETY, OF
SPECIFIED AMOUNTS EACH IN EXCESS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL VALUE.  HELD: 

(1)  THE ALLEGATIONS SHOW THAT THE MEMBERS HAVE A COMMON AND
UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE RIGHT TO LICENSE IN ASSOCIATION THROUGH THE
SOCIETY FREE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE STATUTE.  P. 103. 

(2)  UPON A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT,
WHICH DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL AND CHALLENGED THEIR
SUFFICIENCY IN THAT REGARD, THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
BILL WITHOUT ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF
THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTE AND OF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY
RIGHTS AFFECTED BY IT.  P. 103. 

BUCK ET AL. V. GALLAGHER, STATE TREASURER, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
DISMISSED, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, A BILL TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF A STATUTE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AFFECTING THE RIGHT OF THE
OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTS TO COMBINE IN LICENSING PERFORMANCES OF THEIR
MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL, UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, FROM A DECREE
DISMISSING APPELLANTS' BILL TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT BY THE APPELLEES
OF A STATUTE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.  FN1  THE PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTE IS TO RENDER ILLEGAL CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY POOLS OF
COPYRIGHT OWNERS IN AUTHORIZING BY BLANKET LICENSES THE PERFORMANCE OF
THEIR MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS. 

THE STATUTE DECLARES IT UNLAWFUL FOR TWO OR MORE PERSONS HOLDING
SEPARATE COPYRIGHTED WORKS TO POOL THEIR INTERESTS IN ORDER TO FIX
PRICES FOR THEIR USE, TO COLLECT FEES OR TO ISSUE BLANKET LICENSES FOR
THEIR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION.  JOINT UNDERTAKINGS FOR THIS PURPOSE ARE
PERMITTED IF THE LICENSES ARE ISSUED AT RATES ASSESSED ON A PER PIECE
SYSTEM OF USAGE.  ALL COMBINATIONS OF OWNERS OF SEPARATE COPYRIGHTED
MUSICAL WORKS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE A COMPLETE LIST OF THESE WORKS ONCE
EACH YEAR WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
TOGETHER WITH DETAILED INFORMATION AS TO PRICES AND OWNERSHIP.  THERE
ARE NUMEROUS OTHER PROVISIONS UNNECESSARY TO DETAIL. 

THE APPELLANTS ARE THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND
PUBLISHERS; GENE BUCK, SUING IN HIS OWN NAME AND AS THE PRESIDENT OF
THE SOCIETY; AND A NUMBER OF OTHER MEMBERS, CORPORATE PUBLISHERS AND
AUTHORS, COMPOSERS OR THEIR NEXT OF KIN.  THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY
COMPLAINANTS ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY TOO NUMEROUS TO MAKE IT PRACTICABLE TO JOIN THEM
AS PLAINTIFFS IN A MATTER OF COMMON AND GENERAL INTEREST.  THE BILL
ALLEGES THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SOCIETY AS A VOLUNTARY, UNINCORPORATED,
NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATION UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW YORK, AND SETS OUT THAT
ITS PURPOSE IS TO PROTECT THE OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTED MUSICAL WORKS
AGAINST PIRACIES, TO GRANT LICENSES AND TO COLLECT ROYALTIES FOR THE
PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT OF THE COMPOSITIONS OF ITS MEMBERS. 
THESE ARE COMPOSERS, AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS OF MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS OR
THEIR SUCCESSORS.  THE ROYALTIES AND LICENSE FEES COLLECTED BY THE
SOCIETY ARE DISTRIBUTED FROM TIME TO TIME, AS ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, AFTER THE PAYMENT OF
EXPENSES OF OPERATION AND SUMS DUE TO FOREIGN AFFILIATED SOCIETIES AND
AFTER THE DEDUCTION OF A LIMITED RESERVE FUND. 

IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL ALLEGATION THAT THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN
DISPUTE IS IN EXCESS OF $3,000, THE BILL ALLEGES THAT THE VALUE OF EACH
PUBLISHER'S COPYRIGHTS EXCEEDS $1,000,000.  THE BILL FURTHER SHOWS THAT
EACH INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS TO ROYALTIES AND RENEWALS WORTH
IN EXCESS OF $100,000.  IT IS SHOWN BY THE BILL THAT IN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON THERE WERE FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-EIGHT CONTRACTS OUTSTANDING
IN 1936, ALL ENTERED INTO IN THE NAME OF THE SOCIETY, FROM WHICH IT
RECEIVED MORE THAN $60,000 AND THAT SIMILAR SUMS ANNUALLY WILL BE
COLLECTED.  OTHER ALLEGATIONS ARE DISCUSSED LATER. 

ON THE FILING OF THE BILL, A MOTION WAS MADE FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION AND AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST.  AT THE
TIME THE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION CAME ON FOR HEARING, THE
DEFENDANT STATE OFFICERS AND CERTAIN INTERVENORS FILED MOTIONS TO
DISMISS WHICH CHALLENGED THE BILL ON VARIOUS GROUNDS.  THE DISTRICT
COURT CONSIDERED ONLY ONE GROUND:  WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER IN DISPUTE IS MORE THAN $3,000, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND
COSTS.  UPON THE HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT NEITHER THE
BILL NOR THE RECORDS SHOWS THE NECESSARY JURISDICTIONAL VALUE AND
DISMISSED THE BILL.  THE BASIS FOR THIS RULING IS TREATED HERE. 

ALTHOUGH THIS STATUTE OF WASHINGTON, AS THAT OF FLORIDA,  FN2  IS
AIMED AT THE POWER EXERCISED BY COMBINATIONS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS OVER
THE USE OF MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS FOR PROFIT, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
ENACTMENTS AND THE PROCEDURAL SITUATIONS REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATION.  THE FLORIDA STATUTE DOES NOT PERMIT ANY COMBINATION OF
COPYRIGHT OWNERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LICENSING THE USE OF THEIR
COMPOSITIONS.  THE PROHIBITION IS COMPLETE.  IN THE WASHINGTON STATUTE,
ON THE OTHER HAND, SUCH A COMBINATION, FEDERATION OR POOL IS NOT
PROHIBITED IF IT ISSUES LICENSES "ON RATES ASSESSED ON A PER PIECE
SYSTEM OF USAGE."  EVEN UPON THESE PERMITTED TRANSACTIONS THERE ARE
LIMITATIONS OF PRICE AND USE, UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER HERE.  FN3  THE
STATUTE IS DIRECTED PARTICULARLY AT THE PRACTICE OF ISSUING BLANKET
LICENSES WHICH AUTHORIZE THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
BELONGING TO THE LICENSOR.  WHETHER A STATE STATUTE IS REGULATORY OR
PROHIBITORY, WHEN A BILL IS FILED AGAINST ITS ENFORCEMENT UNDER SEC.
266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS THE RIGHT TO
CARRY ON BUSINESS FREE OF THE REGULATION OR PROHIBITION OF THE
STATUTE.  FN4  WHERE THE STATUTE IS REGULATORY THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT
TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS, AS WAS SAID IN MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS
ACCEPTANCE CORP., MAY BE SHOWN BY EVIDENCE OF THE LOSS THAT WOULD
FOLLOW THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE.  AND THIS LOSS MAY BE SOMETHING
OTHER THAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NET PROFIT FREE OF REGULATION AND
THE NET PROFIT SUBJECT TO REGULATION.  THE DIFFICULTIES OF DETERMINING
THE VALUE OF RIGHTS BY CALCULATING PAST PROFITS AS COMPARED WITH
POSSIBLE FUTURE PROFITS, INFLUENCED BY THE SINGLE FACTOR OF STATUTORY
REGULATION, ARE OBVIOUS.  THIS DIFFERENCE IS NOT THE ONLY TEST OF THE
VALUE OF THE RIGHT IN QUESTION.  THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY
MAY BE AT LEAST AS ACCURATELY SHOWN BY PROVING THE ADDITIONAL COST OF
COMPLYING WITH THE REGULATION.  THIS FACTOR WAS NOT OFFERED IN EVIDENCE
IN THE MCNUTT CASE. 

IN PACKARD V. BANTON  FN5  THE EXISTENCE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT
WAS PARTLY DETERMINED BY CONSIDERATION OF THE COST OF PROVIDING
LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED BY A REGULATORY STATUTE.  WHERE A STATE
RAILROAD COMMISSION REQUIRED THE CONSTRUCTION AND SERVICE OF AN
INDUSTRIAL SPUR WHICH DID NOT INCREASE EARNING CAPACITY, THE COST WAS
HELD TO MEASURE THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  FN6  THE EXPENSE OF
PRODUCING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY A CHALLENGED ORDER IN A UTILITY
INVESTIGATION WAS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE VALUE OF THE
MATTER IN CONTROVERSY.  FN7 THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH THE CHALLENGED
STATUTE AS A TEST OF THE VALUE OF THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN
APPLIED IN EFFECT IN SUITS TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF TAXES AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCES WITH THE RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS.  IN SUCH
CASES "THE SUM DUE OR DEMANDED IS THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY AND THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX, NOT ITS CAPITALIZED VALUE, IS THE MEASURE OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT."  FN8 

BY SEC. 4 OF THE WASHINGTON STATUTE EVERY COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE
COPYRIGHT OWNERS MUST FILE, ONCE A YEAR, WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, A
COMPLETE LIST OF THEIR COPYRIGHTED WORKS, UNDER OATH.  FN9  BY SEC. 3,
INDIVIDUALS ARE FORBIDDEN FROM JOINING TOGETHER "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTING FEES IN THIS STATE" UNLESS THEIR LICENSES ARE ON A PER PIECE
SYSTEM OF RATES.  IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL ALLEGATION THAT THE VALUE
OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS $3,000, THE BILL ALLEGES THE COST
OF COMPLIANCE BY THE SOCIETY, THE COMBINATION OF MEMBERS, WITH SEC. 4
WOULD EXCEED $300,000.  FN10  FOR THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WHO NOW HAVE
THE BENEFITS OF THE SERVICES PERFORMED BY THE SOCIETY, ADDITIONAL
ALLEGATIONS SET OUT THE COST IMPOSED UPON THEM BY THE STATUTORY
REGULATION AS BEING "IN EXCESS OF $10,000" TO EACH FOR CARRYING ON FOR
THEMSELVES THE FUNCTIONS NOW PERFORMED FOR THEM BY THE SOCIETY.  THE
MOTIONS TO DISMISS DENY THE GENERAL ALLEGATION OF VALUE, DENY THAT
THERE WOULD BE ANY COST TO THE SOCIETY BY COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 4 AS THE
REQUIRED LIST IS ALREADY COMPLIED AND THE EXPENSE, SINCE THE SOCIETY IS
NON-PROFIT, WOULD BE BORNE BY MEMBERS, AND DENY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
COMPLAINANTS WOULD BE PUT TO A COST OF $10,000 EACH.  THERE WAS NO
ALLEGATION OF THE LOSS OR COST TO THE SOCIETY OR MEMBERS OCCASIONED BY
THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE LICENSES FROM POOLED COPYRIGHTS SHOULD BE
ISSUED AT PER PIECE RATES. 

ON SUBMISSION OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL
VALUE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS UPON COMPLAINANTS.  FN11  ALTHOUGH THE
TRIAL COURT CALLED SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO THE JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS
THREE MONTHS BEFORE IT FILED ITS OPINION DENYING JURISDICTION, BY
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFS, NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED.  AFTER THE
FILING OF THE OPINION AND BEFORE THE ENTRY OF THE DECREE, ON
COMPLAINANTS' MOTION AN ORDER WAS ENTERED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY WITNESSES
SHOULD NOT BE HEARD ON THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY.  THE
COMPLAINANTS FURNISHED AN UNCONTROVERTED AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THEIR
FAILURE TO OFFER EVIDENCE WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO DENIAL
OF THE FACTS PLEADED.  THE OFFER OF PROOF SHOWED THAT IT WAS DESIRED
"TO OFFER THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES CONCERNING THE COST OF
COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 4 OF THE ACT, AND CONCERNING
THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN QUESTION WHICH WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS STATUTE."  THE COURT DID NOT REJECT THE EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF
DISCRETION BECAUSE TARDILY PRESENTED.  ON THE HEARING ON THE RULE THE
COURT MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE WAS DEEMED
IMMATERIAL BECAUSE IT SHOWED ONLY COST OF COMPLIANCE, NOT THE VALUE OF
THE RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS FREE OF THE COMPULSION OF THE STATUTE.  FN12
THE APPLICATION TO TAKE FURTHER TESTIMONY WAS DENIED AND THE MOTION TO
DISMISS GRANTED "IN THAT THIS CAUSE IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT AS A FEDERAL COURT."  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE REFUSAL TO PERMIT
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS ERROR. 

THE COMPLAINANTS IN THIS CASE ARE THE SAME AS THOSE IN GIBBS V. BUCK,
SUPRA.  IN THE GIBBS CASE WE POINTED OUT THAT THE MEMBERS SHARE
DIRECTLY IN THE EARNINGS OF THE SOCIETY AND HAVE A COMMON AND UNDIVIDED
INTEREST IN THE RIGHT TO LICENSE IN ASSOCIATION THROUGH THE SOCIETY
FREE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE STATUTE.  THE ALLEGATIONS AS TO
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND ITS MEMBERS SHOW THE SAME STATUS
IN THIS CASE.  THE FACT THAT "NEITHER PRACTICE NOR RULE OF THE
COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE APPORTIONING AMONG THE SOCIETY'S MEMBERS OF
THE POOLED LICENSE FEES REALIZED IS SHOWN,"  FN13  DOES NOT AFFECT THE
RIGHTS MEMBERS HAVE IN THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE ROYALTIES FROM LICENSE
FEES.  THESE RIGHTS ARE GRANTED BY THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION WHICH
ARE A PART OF THE BILL.  KVOS, INC. V. ASSOCIATED PRESS,  FN14  RELIED
UPON BELOW, IS DISTINGUISHED IN THE GIBBS CASE. 

THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO
PERMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT HEREWITH.  REVERSED. 

FN1  BUCK V. CASE, 24 F.SUPP.  541.  WASHINGTON LAWS 1937, C. 218, P.
1070. 

FN2  CONSIDERED IN GIBBS V. BUCK, ANTE, P. 66. 

FN3  WASHINGTON LAWS, 1937, SEC. 3, C. 218, P. 1071, READS AS
FOLLOWS:  "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR TWO OR MORE PERSONS HOLDING OR
CLAIMING SEPARATE COPYRIGHTED WORKS UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES, EITHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE, TO BAND TOGETHER, OR
TO POOL THEIR INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING THE PRICES ON THE USE
OF SAID COPYRIGHTED WORKS, OR TO POOL THEIR SEPARATE INTERESTS OR TO
CONSPIRE, FEDERATE, OR JOIN TOGETHER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING
FEES IN THIS STATE, OR TO ISSUE BLANKET LICENSES IN THIS STATE, FOR THE
RIGHT TO COMMERCIALLY USE OR PERFORM PUBLICLY THEIR SEPARATE
COPYRIGHTED WORKS:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, SUCH PERSONS MAY JOIN TOGETHER
IF THEY ISSUE LICENSES ON RATES ASSESSED ON A PER PIECE SYSTEM OF
USAGE; PROVIDED, FURTHER, THIS ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY ONE
INDIVIDUAL AUTHOR OR COMPOSER OR COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR OWNER WHO MAY
DEMAND ANY PRICE OR FEE HE OR SHE MAY CHOOSE FOR THE RIGHT TO USE OR
PUBLICLY PERFORM HIS OR HER INDIVIDUAL COPYRIGHTED WORK OR WORKS:
PROVIDED, FURTHER, SUCH PER PIECE SYSTEM OF LICENSING MUST NOT BE IN
EXCESS OF ANY PER PIECE SYSTEM IN OPERATION IN OTHER STATES WHERE ANY
GROUP OR PERSONS AFFECTED BY THIS ACT DOES BUSINESS, AND ALL GROUPS AND
PERSONS AFFECTED BY THIS ACT, ARE PROHIBITED FROM DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE BY CHARGING HIGHER AND MORE
INEQUITABLE RATES PER PIECE FOR MUSIC LICENSES IN THIS STATE THAN IN
OTHER STATES:  PROVIDED, FURTHER, WHERE THE OWNER, HOLDER, OR PERSON
HAVING CONTROL OF ANY COPYRIGHTED WORK HAS SOLD THE RIGHT TO THE SINGLE
USE OF SAID COPYRIGHTED WORK, WHERE ITS SOLE VALUE IS IN ITS USE FOR
PUBLIC PERFORMANCE FOR PROFIT, AND HAS RECEIVED ANY CONSIDERATION
THEREFOR, EITHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE, THEN SAID PERSON OR
PERSONS SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE SOLD AND PARTED WITH THE RIGHT TO
FURTHER RESTRICT THE USE OF SAID COPYRIGHTED WORK OR WORKS."    FN4
PROHIBITORY STATUTES - GIBBS V. BUCK, SUPRA; REGULATORY STATUTES -
MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178, 181; KROGER
GROCERY CO. V. LUTZ, 299 U.S. 300, 301. 

FN5  264 U.S. 140. 

FN6  WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 261 U.S. 264,
267. 

FN7  PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 304 U.S.
209, 215. 

FN8  HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263, 271, AND CASES THERE CITED;
GROSJEAN V. AM. PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 241; HENNEFORD V. NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY. CO., 303 U.S. 17, 19. 

FN9  THE LIST MUST STATE THAT IT "IS A COMPLETE CATALOGUE OF THE
TITLES OF THEIR CLAIMED COMPOSITIONS, WHETHER MUSICAL OR DRAMATIC OR OF
ANY OTHER CLASSIFICATION, AND IN ADDITION TO STATING THE NAME AND TITLE
OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK IT SHALL RECITE THEREIN THE DATE EACH SEPARATE
WORK WAS COPYRIGHTED, AND THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR, THE DATE OF ITS
ASSIGNMENT, IF ANY, OR THE DATE OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY INTEREST
THEREIN, IF ANY, AND THE NAME OF THE PUBLISHER, THE NAME OF THE PRESENT
OWNER, TOGETHER WITH THE ADDRESSES AND RESIDENCES OF ALL PARTIES WHO
HAVE AT ANY TIME HAD ANY INTEREST IN SUCH COPYRIGHTED WORK." 

FN10  SPECIFICALLY THE ALLEGATION IS THAT "THE COST TO THE SOCIETY OF
ATTEMPTING TO COMPILE THE LISTS AND INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE
FURNISHED UNDER THE STATE STATUTE WOULD BE FAR IN EXCESS OF $300,000,
WHICH SUM WOULD HAVE TO BE EXPENDED FOR RESEARCH WORK WITH REFERENCE TO
THE PAST HISTORY OF EACH AND EVERY COPYRIGHT OWNER, BY EVERY ONE OF THE
44,000 MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AND ITS AFFILIATED SOCIETIES, LAWYERS
FEES FOR OPINIONS AS TO THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES INVOLVED WITH RESPECT TO
THE OWNERSHIP, GRANTS, LICENSES AND OTHER INTERESTS IN THE RESPECTIVE
COPYRIGHTS, CLERICAL HELP AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES; EVEN WITH SUCH
AN EXPENDITURE, IT WOULD BE UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TO FURNISH AN ACCURATE
OR COMPLETE LIST OF ALL THE RESPECTIVE COPYRIGHTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
SOCIETY AND OF ITS AFFILIATED SOCIETIES WITH ALL OF THE DATA REQUIRED
BY THE STATE STATUTE." 

FN11  MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178, 189. 

FN12  E.G., THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE BY THE COURT:  "PERHAPS WE ARE
SOMEWHAT IN THE FOG WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER YOU ARE TRYING TO
PRESENT BUT FROM OUR VIEWPOINT IT SEEMS TO US THAT YOU ARE URGING THAT
THE VALUE OF THE THING IN CONTROVERSY IS TO BE MEASURED BY THE COST OF
DOING BUSINESS OR COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTE.  FROM OUR STANDPOINT WE
THINK THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE METHOD OF
DOING BUSINESS.  IT IS TRUE THE STATUTE MAY NECESSITATE A LARGE
EXPENDITURE BUT THAT WOULD NOT MEAN ANYTHING BECAUSE BY A LARGE
EXPENDITURE YOU MIGHT MAKE A MUCH LARGER PROFIT.  PERHAPS WE DON'T
UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER BUT I THINK THAT IS THE BASIS OF MEASURING THE
VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY." 

FN13  BUCK V. CASE, 24 F.SUPP.  541, 549. 

FN14  299 U.S. 269. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














DRISCOLL V. EDISON CO., 307 U.S. 104 


NO. 509.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 8, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 25
F.SUPP.  192, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OF MAY 14, 1934, WITHHOLDING FROM THE
DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION OVER SUITS TO ENJOIN ON THE GROUND OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE ORDERS FIXING PUBLIC
UTILITY RATES, "WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY AT LAW OR
IN EQUITY MAY BE HAD IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE,"  - HELD INAPPLICABLE
BY ITS TERMS TO A SUIT ATTACKING TEMPORARY RATES ORDERED BY THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION IN PENNSYLVANIA, WHERE THE REMEDY BY INJUNCTION IS
CONFINED TO PROCEEDINGS "QUESTIONING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION," AND WHERE THE REMEDY AT LAW BY APPEAL DOES NOT POSTPONE
THE RATES PENDENTE LITE.  PP. 108 ET SEQ. 

2.  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 310(A) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES ACT FOR FIXING TEMPORARY PUBLIC UTILITY RATES ARE NOT LIMITED
TO UTILITIES WHICH KEEP CONTINUING PROPERTY RECORDS.  SECTION 310(B)
FURNISHES A PARTIAL ALTERNATIVE METHOD.  P. 112. 

3.  SECTION 310(A) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE COMMISSION TO FIX
TEMPORARY RATES, TO BE CHARGED PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE RATE
PROCEEDINGS, WHICH SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A RETURN OF NOT LESS
THAN 5% UPON ORIGINAL COST, LESS ACCRUED DEPRECIATION, OF THE UTILITY'S
PHYSICAL PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE.  SECTION 309
REQUIRES THAT PERMANENT RATES WHEN DETERMINED SHALL BE "JUST AND
REASONABLE."  IN FIXING THE BASE FOR TEMPORARY RATES IN THIS CASE, THE
COMMISSION DID NOT CONFINE ITSELF TO THE SINGLE FACTOR OF ORIGINAL COST
LESS DEPRECIATION, BUT INTERPRETED SEC. 310(A) AS REQUIRING THAT WEIGHT
BE GIVEN ALSO TO REPRODUCTION COST, GOING CONCERN VALUE AND THE
NECESSITY FOR WORKING CAPITAL, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE LAID DOWN BY
THIS COURT IN SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 400.  HELD, THAT IN THE ABSENCE
OF ANY DECISION OF THE STATE COURT ON THE SUBJECT, THIS INTERPRETATION
OF SEC. 310(A), NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ITS TERMS, SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 
P. 114. 

A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION WOULD RAISE THE NOVEL AND IMPORTANT QUESTION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TEMPORARY RATE, BASED SOLELY ON
DEPRECIATED ORIGINAL COST, WITH PROVISION OF THE STATUTE FOR RECOUPMENT
OF THE LOSS FROM INSUFFICIENT TEMPORARY RATES AS PROVIDED IN SEC.
310(E). 

4.  THIS COURT ADOPTS A JUST AND REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE
STATUTE RENDERING IT CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL RATHER THAN ANOTHER THAT
PUTS ITS VALIDITY IN DOUBT.  P. 115. 

5.  IN DETERMINING A RATE BASE, FAILURE TO INCLUDE ALLOWANCE FOR COST
OF FINANCING IS NOT ERRONEOUS WHERE THE EVIDENCE REVEALS NO ACTUAL
EXPENDITURES FOR THAT PURPOSE AND FURNISHES NO FOUNDATION FOR AN
ESTIMATE.  P. 116. 

6.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM EVIDENCE THAT IN DETERMINING RATE BASE
THE COMMISSION FAILED IN THIS CASE TO MAKE DUE ALLOWANCES FOR GOING
CONCERN VALUE; NOR THAT, IN ESTIMATING DEPRECIATED REPRODUCTION COST,
IT FAILED TO MAKE ADEQUATE ALLOWANCE FOR INDIRECT COSTS, SUCH AS
INTEREST, SUPERVISION, FINANCING, TAXES, LEGAL EXPENSES, OR REFUSED TO
CONSIDER CLAIMED INCREASE OF PRICES.  P. 117. 

7.  SIX PER CENT. HELD NOT AN INADEQUATE RATE OF RETURN IN THE CASE
OF AN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY WHICH OPERATES IN A STABLE COMMUNITY
ACCUSTOMED TO THE USE OF ELECTRICITY AND CLOSE TO THE CAPITAL MARKETS,
WITH FUNDS READILY AVAILABLE FOR SECURE INVESTMENT.  LONG OPERATION AND
ADEQUATE RECORDS MAKE FORECASTS OF NET OPERATING REVENUES FAIRLY
CERTAIN.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES A SIX PER CENT.  RETURN AFTER ALL
ALLOWABLE CHARGES CAN NOT BE CONFISCATORY.  P. 119. 

8.  EVEN WHERE THE RATES IN EFFECT ARE EXCESSIVE, IN A PROCEEDING BY
A COMMISSION TO DETERMINE REASONABLENESS THE UTILITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED
ITS FAIR AND PROPER EXPENSES FOR PRESENTING ITS SIDE TO THE
COMMISSION.  P. 120. 

9.  IN THE ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH RATE-CASE EXPENDITURES, THE PERIOD OVER
WHICH THEY ARE TO BE AMORTIZED WILL DEPEND UPON THE CHARACTER OF
SERVICES RECEIVED OR DISBURSEMENTS MADE.  P. 121. 

THERE COULD RARELY BE AN ANTICIPATION OF ANNUALLY RECURRING CHARGES
FOR RATE REGULATION.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE PRESENTED WHERE FULL
STATISTICS ON INVESTMENT, INVENTORY AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN
MADE WHICH, AS CUMULATED, WILL FORM LARGELY THE BASIS OF ALL FUTURE
NEGOTIATIONS, THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT AMORTIZATION OVER A TEN
YEAR PERIOD IS REASONABLE. 

DRISCOLL ET AL., CONSTITUTING PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMM'N, ET
AL. V. EDISON LIGHT & POWER CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES
PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF TEMPORARY RATES FIXED FOR AN
ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE ENFORCEMENT OF TEMPORARY
RATES.  SEC. 266, JUD.  CODE. 

THE APPELLANTS ARE FIVE NAMED PERSONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MEMBERS OF
THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, AND THE UTILITY CONSUMERS
LEAGUE OF YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, INTERVENING DEFENDANT BELOW, AN
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMERS OF ELECTRIC CURRENT IN THE
TERRITORY SERVED BY THE APPELLEE.  THE LATTER IS A PUBLIC UTILITY
CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA, WHICH GENERATES,
TRANSMITS, DISTRIBUTES AND SELLS ELECTRIC ENERGY TO APPROXIMATELY
30,000 CUSTOMERS IN AND ABOUT YORK, PENNSYLVANIA. 

AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF APPELLEE'S RATES
WAS INSTITUTED ON JANUARY 27, 1936.  DURING ITS PROGRESS THE STATE
LEGISLATURE RECODIFIED THE UTILITY LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA.  ACT OF MAY 28,
1937, P.L. 1053, PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., 1938 SUPP., TITLE 66, SEC.
1101 ET SEQ. IT ENACTED A TEMPORARY RATE SECTION, 310, WHICH IS THE
SOURCE OF THIS CONTROVERSY. 

ACTING UNDER SEC. 310, THE COMMISSION, AFTER NOTICE AND ARGUMENT,
ISSUED A TEMPORARY RATE ORDER ON JULY 13, 1937, REQUIRING THE UTILITY
TO FILE RATE SCHEDULES WHICH WOULD EFFECT A REDUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY
$435,000 IN ANNUAL GROSS OPERATING REVENUES.  THIS ORDER WAS REPLACED
BY ANOTHER ON JULY 27, 1937, WHICH COMMANDED AN IDENTICAL REDUCTION. 
THIS TIME THE COMMISSION ITSELF PRESCRIBED A SCHEDULE OF RATES.  THE
UTILITY FILED A BILL IN EQUITY IN A STATUTORY COURT IN THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  ON OCTOBER 15, 1937, A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
ISSUED.  FN1  THE COMMISSION DID NOT APPEAL.  ON NOVEMBER 30, 1937,
ANOTHER ORDER WAS ISSUED SEEKING TO ESTABLISH THE SAME TEMPORARY RATES
AND TO SECURE THE SAME REDUCTION IN GROSS REVENUES AS THE ORDERS OF
JULY 13 AND 27. 

ON DECEMBER 14, 1937, THE UTILITY FILED A BILL IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO ENJOIN THIS
ORDER.  A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS CONVENED UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE.  BY STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES THE APPLICATION FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION BROUGHT TO HEARING ON JANUARY 17, 1938, WAS
TREATED AS AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  ON OCTOBER 14,
1938, A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ISSUED. 

THE COURT CONCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE UTILITY HAD NO PLAIN,
SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE STATE COURTS; THAT THE ORDER IS VOID
BECAUSE THE "COMMISSION ACTED IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE MANDATORY
PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY ACT WHICH REQUIRES RATES FOR (THE
COMPANY) TO BE FIXED UNDER PARAGRAPH (B) OF SECTION 310"; THAT THE
ORDER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE (1) IT VIOLATES THE PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS, (2) IT FAILS TO PERMIT THE UTILITY TO EARN
A FAIR RETURN ON THE FAIR VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL IN THE
PUBLIC SERVICE, (3) IT CONFISCATES THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY, AND (4) IT
IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  FN2 

JURISDICTION OF THE STATUTORY COURT.  - EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BY THE
JOHNSON ACT,  FN3  JURISDICTION EXISTS IN A STATUTORY COURT, CALLED
PURSUANT TO SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, TO HEAR AND FINALLY
DETERMINE BILLS IN EQUITY SEEKING TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS
AGAINST THE ORDER OF A STATE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION ON THE GROUND OF
IRREPARABLE INJURY.  FN4  BY THIS AMENDATORY ACT, WHERE THE ORDER
ATTACKED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AFFECTS THE RATES OF
A PUBLIC UTILITY, DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND HAS
BEEN MADE AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT TO ENJOIN ITS ENFORCEMENT IS WITHDRAWN, UNLESS NO "PLAIN, SPEEDY
AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, IN THE COURTS OF
SUCH STATE."  NO CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION WAS MADE IN THE
STATUTORY COURT OR ON APPEAL.  IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE BENCH,
COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION CONCEDED THAT THERE WAS NO REMEDY IN THE
STATE COURTS WHICH WOULD SATISFY THE JOHNSON ACT. 

THE REASON FOR THIS CONCESSION LIES, SO FAR AS A REMEDY IN EQUITY IS
CONCERNED, IN THE PROVISION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE FORBIDDING AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST AN ORDER, "EXCEPT IN A PROCEEDING QUESTIONING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION."  FN5  THE BILL IN CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS
ATTACKS THE SECTION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY LAW UNDER WHICH THIS ORDER
ISSUED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN THAT IT EMPOWERED
THE COMMISSION TO FIX NONCOMPENSATORY AND DISCRIMINATORY TEMPORARY
RATES, IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER.  IN ONE SENSE THIS QUESTIONS THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  IF SEC. 310 IS INVALID, THERE IS NO
OTHER PROVISION TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY RATES.  JURISDICTION IS A WORD
OF UNCERTAIN MEANING.  AS USED IN SEC. 1111, SUPRA, IT APPARENTLY
REFERS TO PROCEEDINGS BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
STATUTE.  IN THIS USE IT WOULD PERMIT AN INJUNCTION, EQUITABLE GROUNDS
BEING SHOWN, WHERE THE PUBLIC UTILITY IS NOT COVERED BY THE ACT. 
OTHERWISE, ACTION IN EXCESS OF THE POWERS OF THE COMMISSION, SUCH AS A
CONFISCATORY RATE, MIGHT BE DEEMED BEYOND ITS JURISDICTION.  AT ANY
RATE, WITHOUT AN AUTHORITATIVE DETERMINATION BY THE STATE COURTS, WE
CANNOT SAY, FOR THIS CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING, THAT THE REMEDY IN THE
STATE COURTS IS PLAIN, SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT.  FN6  THE REMEDY AT LAW BY
APPEAL IS INEFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE UTILITY'S POSITION PENDENTE LITE. 
THE SUPERSEDEAS DOES NOT POSTPONE THE APPLICATION OF THE TEMPORARY
RATES.  FN7  THE STATUTORY COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE BILL. 

STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE ORDER.  - SEC. 310  FN8  CONTAINS SEVERAL
SUBSECTIONS.  THE COMMISSION FIXED THE TEMPORARY RATES UNDER SUBSECTION
(A).  THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THIS ACTION
WAS INVALID BECAUSE THEY COULD ONLY BE FIXED UNDER SUBSECTION (B).  THE
TWO SUBSECTIONS ARE SET OUT BELOW.  FN9  IN ITS OPINION, WITHOUT
DISCUSSING SEC. 310(B), THE COURT DECLARED SEC. 310(A) UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BECAUSE IT PERMITTED THE COMMISSION TO FIX A TEMPORARY RATE BASED UPON
THE SINGLE FACTOR OF ORIGINAL COST LESS DEPRECIATION.  FN10  THE
COMMISSION, HOWEVER, DID NOT CONFINE ITSELF TO THAT ONE ELEMENT IN
SETTING THE FAIR VALUE OF THE APPELLEE'S PROPERTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TEMPORARY RATES, AT $5,250,000.  IT GAVE WEIGHT TO REPRODUCTION COST,
ORIGINAL COST, GOING CONCERN VALUE AND THE NECESSITY FOR WORKING
CAPITAL, AND IT ALLOWED ON THIS RATE BASE A RETURN OF MORE THAN SIX PER
CENT.  THIS, OF COURSE, SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 310(A) THAT
THE TEMPORARY RATES SHALL PRODUCE NOT LESS THAN 5% ON THE "ORIGINAL
COST, LESS ACCRUED DEPRECIATION." 

APPELLEE'S FIRST CONTENTION IS THAT THE DECREE MAY BE SUSTAINED FOR
THE SOLE REASON THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED UNDER
SUBSECTION (B) BECAUSE THE APPELLEE DOES NOT HAVE CONTINUING PROPERTY
RECORDS.  AS THE CONCLUSION OF THE LOWER COURT ON THIS POINT IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY A STATE DECISION, WE ANALYZE FOR OURSELVES THE PROVISIONS
OF THE SECTIONS.  IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 310(A) THAT IT
IS APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO PUBLIC UTILITIES WHOSE REPORTS TO THE
COMMISSION SHOW THE ORIGINAL COST OF THEIR PHYSICAL PROPERTY BUT ALSO
TO THOSE WHOSE ORIGINAL COST IS NOT SO SHOWN.  THE LAST CLAUSE OF THE
PROVISION IN 310(A) WHICH LIMITS ITS APPLICATION TO THOSE UTILITIES
WHICH MAINTAIN THE CONTINUING PROPERTY RECORDS OF SEC. 502.  FN11
310(A).  WHERE THERE ARE NO CONTINUING PROPERTY RECORDS, AS PROVIDED BY
SEC. 502, THE COMMISSION MUST IN FIXING THE TEMPORARY RATE ARRANGE FOR
AT LEAST A FIVE PER CENT RETURN ON ORIGINAL COST UNDER (A) OR THE
RETURN OF AN OPERATING INCOME UNDER (B) EQUAL TO THAT FOR THE YEAR 1935
OR A SUBSEQUENT YEAR, AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION. 

APPELLEE URGES NEXT THAT THE SECTION PERMITS THE COMMISSION TO
DISREGARD PRESENT COST, DEPRECIATE ORIGINAL COST, OMIT INDIRECT AND
OVERHEAD ITEMS OF CONSTRUCTION, AND EXCLUDE ALLOWANCES FOR WORKING
CAPITAL OR GOING CONCERN VALUE.  ALTHOUGH THESE ITEMS WERE CONSIDERED
BY THE COMMISSION, THE APPELLEE CONTENDS THAT THE ORDER IS INVALID
BECAUSE SEC. 310(A) MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY PROVIDING A RETURN
OF 5% ON THE ORIGINAL COST DEPRECIATED.  THE ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE THAT
A STATUTE WHICH PERMITS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DETERMINATION IS INVALID,
EVEN THOUGH IT IS ACTUALLY APPLIED IN A CONSTITUTIONAL MANNER.  FN12 

THE COMMISSION DREW THE ORDER IN ACCORD WITH THE PRIOR RULING OF THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT ON A FORMER ORDER IN THIS RATE PROCEEDING.  FN13
THE FORMER ORDER HAD ALSO FIXED TEMPORARY RATES BUT HAD NOT SET OUT THE
FINDINGS OF VALUE DEEMED ESSENTIAL BY THE COURT.  ALTHOUGH THE REVERSAL
OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HAD ACTUALLY TURNED ON THE FAILURE TO SHOW
THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE RATES, AS THE DISTRICT COURT HAD STATED THAT
COMPLIANCE WITH SMYTH V. AMES  FN14  WAS NECESSARY IN TEMPORARY RATE
MAKING, THE COMMISSION BASED THE ORDER NOW UNDER REVIEW ON EVIDENCE
REQUISITE UNDER THAT RULE.  BY TAKING THIS POSITION, IT INTERPRETS THE
STATUTE AS REQUIRING CONSIDERATION OF ELEMENTS OTHER THAN ORIGINAL COST
IN FIXING TEMPORARY RATES.  IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMISSION
OMITTED CONSIDERATION OF ANY NECESSARY ELEMENT IN THE PRESENT ORDER. 
IF WE ASSUME WITH THE APPELLEE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
DELEGATION OF RATE MAKING AUTHORITY IS TO BE TESTED BY WHAT A RATE
MAKING BODY MAY RIGHTFULLY DO UNDER THE DELEGATION RATHER THAN WHAT IT
DOES, APPELLEE'S CASE IS ADVANCED NOT ONE WHIT.  WE HAVE HERE AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE BY THE BOARD CHARGED WITH
ITS ENFORCEMENT THAT IT MUST WEIGH ALL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF
VALUATION REQUIRED BY OUR PAST DECISIONS. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 310(A) WHICH REQUIRES A
DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION.  THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO FIX TEMPORARY
RATES.  THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT AS TO HOW THE RATES ARE TO BE
DETERMINED, EXCEPT THAT THEY SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO RETURN A GIVEN
MINIMUM - NOT LESS THAN 5% ON THE ORIGINAL COST, LESS DEPRECIATION. 
THE LANGUAGE AUTHORIZING THE FIXING OF TEMPORARY RATES IS CAST, EXCEPT
AS TO THE LIMITATION JUST REFERRED TO, IN MUCH THE SAME PATTERN AS THE
LANGUAGE OF SEC. 309 AUTHORIZING THE DETERMINATION OF PERMANENT RATES. 
THE LATTER SECTION READS: "  ...  THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE THE
JUST AND REASONABLE RATES  ...  "  A DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION WOULD RAISE
THE NOVEL AND IMPORTANT QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
TEMPORARY RATE, BASED SOLELY ON DEPRECIATED ORIGINAL COST, WITH
PROVISION FOR RECOUPMENT OF THE LOSS FROM INSUFFICIENT TEMPORARY
RATES.  FN15  IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AUTHORITATIVE STATE DECISION, WE ARE
RELUCTANT TO ACCEPT A CONSTRUCTION WHICH BRINGS FORWARD THAT ISSUE,
PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CASE MAY REASONABLY BE DETERMINED UPON THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE OFFICIALS OF THE STATE CHARGED WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  FN16  THIS COURSE OBSERVES THE VERY
SALUTARY RULE THAT "THIS COURT WILL NOT DECIDE AN ISSUE OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY IF THE CASE MAY JUSTLY AND REASONABLY BE DECIDED
UNDER A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE ACT IS CLEARLY
CONSTITUTIONAL."  FN17 

CONFISCATION. - THERE REMAINS FOR EXAMINATION THE APPELLEE'S ARGUMENT
THAT THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE IT IS CONFISCATORY.  THE COMMISSION,
AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1937, FOUND THE RATE BASE, REVENUE, EXPENSES AND
RATE, AS SET OUT BELOW.  FN18  APPELLEE URGES HERE THAT THE
COMMISSION'S FIGURES ARE ERRONEOUS IN THE FOLLOWING PARTICULARS:  (1)
THE RATE BASE SHOULD BE $5,866,081; (2) THE RATE SHOULD BE 7 1/2 PER
CENT; (3) TWO ITEMS OF EXPENSE, DISALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE
ADDED TO THE OPERATING EXPENSES, (A) SOME INCREASE IN ANNUAL SALARIES
AND (B) RATE CASE EXPENSES ON BOOKS TO NOVEMBER 15, 1937; (4) ALLOWANCE
SHOULD BE MADE FOR A PROSPECTIVE LOSS OF ANNUAL PROFIT BY REASON OF THE
LOSS OF A LARGE CUSTOMER, THROUGH ABANDONMENT OF RAILWAY SERVICE BY
YORK RAILWAYS COMPANY. 

(1)  THE COMMISSION ESTIMATED THE ORIGINAL COST AS OF DECEMBER 31,
1936, AT $4,576,169.73.  THE COMPANY ESTIMATED THE ORIGINAL COST AS OF
NOVEMBER 30, 1936, EXCLUSIVE OF FINANCING CHARGES, AT $4,619,364.00 AND
ITS BOOK COST AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1936, AT $4,578,793.00.  IF, TO THE
HIGHEST OF THESE ITEMS, WE ADD $164,000 FOR WORKING CAPITAL AND
$142,851.07, REPRESENTING NET ADDITIONS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1937, THE
AMOUNTS CLAIMED BY THE COMPANY, THE ORIGINAL COST RATE BASE IS FOUND TO
BE NOT MORE THAN $4,926,215.07. 

THE COMMISSION EXCLUDED THE COST OF FINANCING BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE OF ANY ACTUAL EXPENDITURES FOR SUCH PURPOSE OR OF ANY STUDIES
OF SUCH COST.  WE FIND NO ERROR IN THIS.  FN19 THERE WAS HERE NO
FOUNDATION FOR AN ESTIMATE.  FN20  APPELLEE'S SUGGESTION THAT EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING ITS CLAIM IS FOUND IN THE CAPITALIZATION CHART OF YORK
RAILWAYS COMPANY, THE OWNER OF APPELLEE'S COMMON STOCK, IS NOT
ACCEPTED.  THIS SHOWS THE DISCOUNT, $298,825.00, PAID BY THE PARENT
COMPANY ON $2,706,000 FACE AMOUNT OF BONDS OF VARIOUS ISSUES BETWEEN
1909 AND 1925.  IT APPEARS THAT $1,027,904 OF THE PROCEEDS WAS EXPENDED
FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK OF THE YORK EDISON COMPANY, APPARENTLY APPELLEE'S
PREDECESSOR.  NOTHING IS SHOWN AS TO THE COST OF THIS MONEY TO THE
APPELLEE.  IT MAY HAVE GIVEN NOTES FOR OR BEEN CHARGED WITH THIS EXACT
AMOUNT, WITHOUT A FINANCE CHARGE.  THE FINANCING COST TO APPELLEE MAY
HAVE BEEN COVERED BY THE INTEREST RATE.    THE COMMISSION MADE NO
SPECIFIC ALLOWANCE FOR GOING CONCERN VALUE.  IT DID, HOWEVER, STATE
THAT IT HAD WEIGHED THE GOING CONCERN VALUE WITH OTHER FACTORS TO
DETERMINE FAIR VALUE.  IT GAVE PRACTICAL EFFECT TO THIS CONSIDERATION
WHEN IT FIXED FAIR VALUE SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS IN EXCESS OF
ITS AVERAGE OF ORIGINAL AND REPRODUCTION COST, BOTH DEPRECIATED.  IN
THE COMPUTATIONS BY THE COMPANY OF ORIGINAL AND REPRODUCTION COSTS,
ALLOWANCES WERE MADE FOR THE OVERHEAD EXPENSE OF CREATING THE AGGREGATE
OF LAND, BUILDINGS, AND EQUIPMENT, MAKING UP THE UTILITY.  NO TANGIBLE
EVIDENCE OF ANY UNUSUAL SITUATION JUSTIFYING ANY DEFINITE FURTHER
ALLOWANCE APPEARS IN THE TESTIMONY OF APPELLEE'S WITNESS SEELYE.  THE
PLANT OF THE UTILITY WITHOUT THE UTILIZATION OF ITS PRODUCTION BY THE
COMMUNITY WOULD BE OF LITTLE VALUE.  EXPENDITURES TO SECURE CUSTOMERS
THROUGH ADVERTISEMENT AND SOLICITATION, AS WELL AS TO INSTALL
CONNECTIONS DO NOT APPEAR SEPARATE FROM THE ORDINARY OPERATING AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTS.  THE APPELLEE POINTS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
TERRITORY SERVED, THE COMPANY'S ABILITY TO EARN, THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
MANAGEMENT, THE ADEQUATE AVAILABLE POWER SUPPLY AND THE EXCELLENT
CAPITAL STRUCTURE AS INDICATIVE OF A GOING CONCERN VALUE ABOVE TANGIBLE
PROPERTY PLUS OVERHEAD.  TO APPRAISE THESE ELEMENTS APART FROM AND IN
ADDITION TO REASONABLE COST FIGURES WOULD REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF A FAILURE
ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION TO GIVE REASONABLE WEIGHT TO THESE
FACTORS.  THIS EVIDENCE IS LACKING HERE.  FN21 

FOR DEPRECIATED REPRODUCTION COST AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1936, THE
COMMISSION ACCEPTED THE ESTIMATE OF THE COMPANY FOR DIRECT COSTS,
$3,981,347.  IT ADDED 19%, $756,456, FOR INDIRECT COSTS AND REACHED A
TOTAL OF $4,737,803.  THIS FINDING REDUCED THE INDIRECT COSTS FROM THE
24.3 PER CENT CLAIMED BY THE COMPANY.  EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED BEFORE
THE COMMISSION SUPPORTING EACH PERCENTAGE ESTIMATE.  THE AMOUNT OF
THESE INDIRECT COSTS LIKELY TO BE INCURRED IS TOO UNCERTAIN FOR US TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE PERCENTAGE ADOPTED IS ERRONEOUS.  FN22  WE CANNOT SEE
THAT THE FAILURE OF THE COMMISSION'S WITNESS BIERMAN TO INSPECT THE
PROPERTY MADE LESS VALUABLE HIS ESTIMATE ON THE PROPER PERCENTAGE TO BE
APPLIED FOR INDIRECT COSTS.  THESE INDIRECT COSTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER
OF INTEREST, SUPERVISION, COST OF FINANCING, TAXES AND LEGAL EXPENSE. 

THE UTILITY STATES THAT THE COMMISSION, IN FIXING THE REPRODUCTION
COST, ERRED BY REFUSING TO CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF A CLAIMED INCREASE OF
PRICES.  THE COMMISSION, ON NOVEMBER 30, 1937, FIXED REPRODUCTION COST
UPON A COMPUTATION BASED BY THE UTILITY UPON PRICES AS OF NOVEMBER 30,
1936.  THIS SHOWED A GROSS COST OF $5,572,134, DEPRECIATED AND REDUCED
BY THE COMMISSION, AS EXPLAINED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, TO
$4,737,803.  THE UTILITY PRESENTED A FURTHER COMPUTATION, SHOWING AS OF
MAY 31, 1937, THAT INCREASED PRICES, DUE TO A RISING LEVEL, WOULD
INCREASE THE GROSS COST TO $6,019,832.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE LATER
ESTIMATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.  FN23 PROPORTIONALLY REDUCED TO
ACCORD WITH THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION, THIS LATTER FIGURE WOULD
BECOME $5,118,465.  IF TO THIS HIGHER REPRODUCTION COST WE ADD WORKING
CAPITAL, THERE APPEARS A REPRODUCTION COST DEPRECIATED FIGURE OF
$5,282,465. 

IT IS FURTHERMORE TO BE OBSERVED THAT THE COMMISSION'S FIGURES DO NOT
DIFFER FAR AS TO FAIR VALUE, FROM THE ESTIMATE OF AN IMPORTANT WITNESS
FOR THE UTILITY, MR. SEELYE, WHO TESTIFIED ON MARCH 12, 1937, THAT THE
FAIR VALUE WAS NOT LESS THAN $5,500,000 AND SAID LATER IN ANSWER TO THE
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION THAT THE FAIR VALUE, IN HIS OPINION, WAS
$5,500,000.  THIS ESTIMATE WAS REITERATED ON DECEMBER 20, 1937, IN THE
AFFIDAVITS OF MR. SEELYE AND MR. WAYNE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY,
IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING UPON THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION IN THE
TEMPORARY RATES, WE SHALL ACCEPT $5,500,000 AS THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1937. 

(2)  THE RATE OF RETURN WAS FIXED BY THE COMMISSION AT SIX PER CENT.
WITNESSES FOR THE UTILITY BROUGHT OUT FACTS DEEMED APPLICABLE IN THE
DETERMINATION OF A PROPER RATE OF RETURN ON THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY.  THEIR EVIDENCE TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE YIELD OF BONDS,
PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKS OF SELECTED COMPARABLE UTILITIES, THE
STAGNANT MARKET FOR NEW ISSUES, PREVAILING COST OF MONEY, THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THE POSSIBLE SUBSTITUTION OF SOME GOVERNMENTALLY
OPERATED OR FINANCED UTILITIES FOR THOSE PRIVATELY OWNED AND THE
DANGERS OF A FIXED SCHEDULE OF RATES IN THE FACE OF POSSIBLE
INFLATION.  FROM THESE FACTORS THEY DEDUCED THAT A PROPER RATE OF
RETURN WOULD BE FROM 7.8 PER CENT TO 8 PER CENT.  AN ACCOUNTING EXPERT
OF THE COMMISSION COUNTERED WITH TABLES SHOWING YIELDS OF BONDS OF
UTILITIES; THE YIELD TO MATURITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY
SECURITIES, APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION BETWEEN JULY 1, 1933, AND MAY 7,
1937, LONG TERM AND ACTUALLY SOLD FOR CASH TO NON-AFFILIATED INTERESTS;
YIELD OF PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC UTILITIES; FINANCIAL AND OPERATING
STATISTICS OF PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC UTILITIES; MONEY RATES, AND OTHER
MATERIAL INFORMATION.  HE CONCLUDED 5.5 PER CENT WAS A REASONABLE RATE
OF RETURN. 

IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT EACH UTILITY PRESENTS AN INDIVIDUAL
PROBLEM.  FN24  THE ANSWER DOES NOT LIE ALONE IN AVERAGE YIELDS OF
SEEMINGLY COMPARABLE SECURITIES OR EVEN IN DEDUCTIONS DRAWN FROM RECENT
SALES OF ISSUES AUTHORIZED BY THIS SAME COMMISSION.  YIELDS OF
PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCKS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED, AS WELL AS THOSE OF
THE FUNDED DEBT.  WHEN BONDS AND PREFERRED STOCKS OF WELL SEASONED
COMPANIES CAN BE FLOATED AT LOW RATES, THE ALLOWANCE OF AN OVER ALL
RATE RETURN OF A MODEST PERCENTAGE WILL BRING HANDSOME YIELDS TO THE
COMMON STOCK.  CERTAINLY THE YIELDS OF THE EQUITY ISSUES MUST BE LARGER
THAN THAT FOR THE UNDERLYING SECURITIES.  IN THIS INSTANCE, THE UTILITY
OPERATES IN A STABLE COMMUNITY, ACCUSTOMED TO THE USE OF ELECTRICITY
AND CLOSE TO THE CAPITAL MARKETS, WITH FUNDS READILY AVAILABLE FOR
SECURE INVESTMENT.  LONG OPERATION AND ADEQUATE RECORDS MAKE FORECASTS
OF NET OPERATING REVENUES FAIRLY CERTAIN.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES A
SIX PER CENT RETURN AFTER ALL ALLOWABLE CHARGES CANNOT BE
CONFISCATORY. 

(3) AND (4).  THE UTILITY URGES THAT TWO ITEMS OF EXPENSE AND A
PROSPECTIVE LOSS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE OPERATING EXPENSES, ALLOWED BY
THE COMMISSION, OF $1,382,829.  THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE ITEMS IS
THE RATE CASE EXPENSES.  THE COMPANY BY ITS EXHIBIT 21 SHOWS THESE
INCURRED TO NOVEMBER 15, 1937, TO BE $178,374.50.  THE COMMISSION FROM
EXHIBIT 23 FOUND THEM TO BE $127,935 FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 1937.  THE DIFFERENCE PROBABLY COMES FROM THE EXPENSES
BEFORE AND AFTER THE PERIOD CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION.  WE ASSUME
THE HIGHER FIGURES TO BE CORRECT.  AS THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT THE
PRIOR RATES OF THE COMPANY WERE OBVIOUSLY EXCESSIVE, IT ALLOWED NOTHING
FOR EXPENSE IN DEFENDING THEM.  CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COMPANY'S CHARGE AND WE ACCEPT
THEM AS REASONABLE.  EVEN WHERE THE RATES IN EFFECT ARE EXCESSIVE, ON A
PROCEEDING BY A COMMISSION TO DETERMINE REASONABLENESS, WE ARE OF THE
VIEW THAT THE UTILITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED ITS FAIR AND PROPER EXPENSES
FOR PRESENTING ITS SIDE TO THE COMMISSION.  WE DO NOT REFER TO EXPENSE
OF LITIGATION IN THE COURTS.  "A DIFFERENT CASE WOULD BE HERE IF THE
COMPANY'S COMPLAINT HAD BEEN UNFOUNDED OR IF THE COST OF THE PROCEEDING
HAD BEEN SWOLLEN BY UNTENABLE OBJECTIONS."  FN25 

IN THE ALLOWANCE OF THESE EXPENSES, THE PERIOD OVER WHICH THEY ARE TO
BE AMORTIZED WILL DEPEND UPON THE CHARACTER OF SERVICES RECEIVED OR
DISBURSEMENTS MADE.  THERE COULD RARELY BE AN ANTICIPATION OF ANNUALLY
RECURRING CHARGES FOR RATE REGULATION.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE
PRESENTED WHERE FULL STATISTICS ON INVESTMENT, INVENTORY AND LABOR
REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WHICH, AS CUMULATED, WILL FORM LARGELY THE
BASIS OF ALL FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
AMORTIZATION OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD IS REASONABLE.  FN26  AS SUCH AN
ADJUSTMENT PRODUCES AN ESTIMATED RETURN VERY CLOSE TO THE REASONABLE
RATE, EVEN WITH THE ADDITION TO THE OPERATING EXPENSES OF THE OTHER
ITEMS OF INCREASED SALARIES, $20,593, AND PROSPECTIVE LOSS OF ANNUAL
PROFIT, $15,089, WE DO NOT ENTER INTO A DISCUSSION OF THEM.  EXPERIENCE
WILL ADD ITS WEIGHT TO THE OTHER EVIDENCE ON FURTHER HEARING.  THE NOTE
BELOW SHOWS THE CALCULATION.  FN27 

AT BEST, THESE ESTIMATES ARE PROPHECIES OF EXPECTED RETURNS.  THE
INCALCULABLE FACTORS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY, UNANTICIPATED DEMAND OR
FORBEARANCE, SUBSTITUTION AND OTHER VARIABLES LEAD US TO
APPROXIMATIONS.  WE ARE SATISFIED THE REDUCTION REQUIRED IS NOT SHOWN
TO BE CONFISCATORY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  EDISON LIGHT & POWER CO. V. DRISCOLL, 21 F.SUPP.  1. 

FN2  EDISON LIGHT & POWER CO. V. DRISCOLL, 25 F.SUPP.  192. 

FN3  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 24(1), AS AMENDED BY ACT OF MAY 14, 1934, C.
283, 48 STAT. 775. 

FN4  OKLAHOMA GAS CO. V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S. 290, 292; HERKNESS V.
IRION, 278 U.S. 92, 93. 

FN5  SEC. 1111, P.L. 1053, PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., 1938 SUPP., TITLE
66, SEC. 1441:  "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF DAUPHIN COUNTY COURT TO HEAR
INJUNCTIONS.  - NO INJUNCTION SHALL ISSUE MODIFYING, SUSPENDING,
STAYING, OR ANNULING ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, OR OF A COMMISSIONER,
EXCEPT IN A PROCEEDING QUESTIONING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION,
AND THEN ONLY AFTER CAUSE SHOWN UPON A HEARING.  THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY IS HEREBY CLOTHED WITH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH, OF ALL PROCEEDINGS FOR SUCH INJUNCTIONS,
SUBJECT TO AN APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT AS AFORESAID." 

FN6  MOUNTAIN STATES CO. V. COMM'N, 299 U.S. 167, 170; CORPORATION
COMM'N V. CARY, 296 U.S. 452. 

FN7  SEC. 1103, P.L. 1053, PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., 1938 SUPP., TITLE
66, SEC. 1433. 

FN8  P.L. 1053, PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., 1938 SUPP., TITLE 66, SEC.
1150. 

FN9  "TEMPORARY RATES.  - (A)  THE COMMISSION MAY, IN ANY PROCEEDING
INVOLVING THE RATES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY BROUGHT EITHER UPON ITS OWN
MOTION OR UPON COMPLAINT, AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE AND HEARING, IF IT BE
OF OPINION THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST SO REQUIRES, IMMEDIATELY FIX,
DETERMINE, AND PRESCRIBE TEMPORARY RATES TO BE CHARGED BY SUCH PUBLIC
UTILITY, PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF SUCH RATE PROCEEDING.  SUCH
TEMPORARY RATES, SO FIXED, DETERMINED, AND PRESCRIBED, SHALL BE
SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A RETURN OF NOT LESS THAN FIVE PER CENTUM UPON
THE ORIGINAL COST, LESS ACCRUED DEPRECIATION, OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY
(WHEN FIRST DEVOTED TO PUBLIC USE) OF SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY, USED AND
USEFUL IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE, AND IF THE DULY VERIFIED REPORTS OF SUCH
PUBLIC UTILITY TO THE COMMISSION DO NOT SHOW SUCH ORIGINAL COST, LESS
ACCRUED DEPRECIATION, OF SUCH PROPERTY, THE COMMISSION MAY ESTIMATE
SUCH COST LESS DEPRECIATION AND FIX, DETERMINE, AND PRESCRIBE RATES AS
HEREINBEFORE PROVIDED. 

"(B)  IF ANY PUBLIC UTILITY DOES NOT HAVE CONTINUING PROPERTY
RECORDS, KEPT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSION, UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION FIVE HUNDRED TWO OF THIS ACT, THEN THE
COMMISSION, AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE AND HEARING, MAY ESTABLISH
TEMPORARY RATES WHICH SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A RETURN OF NOT
LESS THAN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE OPERATING INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER THIRTY-FIRST, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE, OR SUCH
OTHER SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS THE COMMISSION MAY DEEM PROPER, TO BE
DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF DATA APPEARING IN THE ANNUAL REPORT OF SUCH
PUBLIC UTILITY TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
THIRTY-FIVE, OR SUCH OTHER SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS THE COMMISSION MAY DEEM
PROPER, PLUS OR MINUS SUCH RETURN AS THE COMMISSION MAY PRESCRIBE FROM
TIME TO TIME UPON SUCH NET CHANGES OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY AS ARE
REPORTED TO AND APPROVED FOR RATE-MAKING PURPOSES BY THE COMMISSION. 
IN DETERMINING THE NET CHANGES OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTY, THE COMMISSION
MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, DEDUCT FROM GROSS ADDITIONS TO SUCH PHYSICAL
PROPERTY THE AMOUNT CHARGED TO OPERATING EXPENSES FOR DEPRECIATION OR,
IN LIEU THEREOF, IT MAY DETERMINE SUCH NET CHANGES BY DEDUCTING
RETIREMENTS FROM THE GROSS ADDITIONS:  PROVIDED, THAT THE COMMISSION,
IN DETERMINING THE BASIS FOR TEMPORARY RATES, MAY MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENTS
IN THE ANNUAL REPORT DATA AS MAY, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION, BE
NECESSARY AND PROPER." 

FN10  EDISON LIGHT & POWER CO. V. DRISCOLL, 25 F.SUPP.  192. 

FN11  P.L. 1053, PURDON'S PA. STAT. ANN., 1938 SUPP., TITLE 66, SEC.
1212. 

"CONTINUING PROPERTY RECORDS.  - THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE ANY
PUBLIC UTILITY TO ESTABLISH, PROVIDE, AND MAINTAIN AS A PART OF ITS
SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS, CONTINUING PROPERTY RECORDS, INCLUDING A LIST OR
INVENTORY OF ALL THE UNITS OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY USED OR USEFUL IN THE
PUBLIC SERVICE, SHOWING THE CURRENT LOCATION OF SUCH PROPERTY UNITS BY
DEFINITE REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC LAND PARCELS UPON WHICH SUCH UNITS
ARE LOCATED OR STORED; AND THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE ANY PUBLIC
UTILITY TO KEEP ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS IN SUCH MANNER AS TO SHOW,
CURRENTLY, THE ORIGINAL COST OF SUCH PROPERTY WHEN FIRST DEVOTED TO THE
PUBLIC SERVICE, AND THE RESERVE ACCUMULATED TO PROVIDE FOR THE
DEPRECIATION THEREOF."    FN12  CF. PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293
U.S. 388, 420; WUCHTER V. PIZZUTTI, 276 U.S. 13, 24; PEOPLE V. KLINCK
PACKING CO., 214 N.Y. 121, 138; 108 N.E. 278; MONTANA COMPANY V. ST.
LOUIS MINING CO., 152 U.S. 160, 170.  BUT SEE HATCH V. REARDON, 204
U.S. 152, 160; TYLER V. JUDGES, 179 U.S. 405, 410; JACOBSON V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11, 37; LIEBERMAN V. VAN DE CARR, 199 U.S. 552,
562; HOME TELEPHONE CO. V. LOS ANGELES, 211 U.S. 265, 278. 

FN13  EDISON LIGHT & POWER CO. V. DRISCOLL, 21 F.SUPP.  1.    FN14
169 U.S. 466. 

FN15  "(E)  TEMPORARY RATES SO FIXED, DETERMINED, AND PRESCRIBED
UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF
THE RATE PROCEEDING, UNLESS TERMINATED SOONER BY THE COMMISSION.  IN
EVERY PROCEEDING IN WHICH TEMPORARY RATES ARE FIXED, DETERMINED, AND
PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS SECTION, THE COMMISSION SHALL CONSIDER THE EFFECT
OF SUCH RATES IN FIXING, DETERMINING, AND PRESCRIBING RATES TO BE
THEREAFTER DEMANDED OR RECEIVED BY SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY ON FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE RATE PROCEEDING.  IF, UPON FINAL DISPOSITION OF
THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN SUCH PROCEEDING, THE RATES AS FINALLY
DETERMINED, ARE IN EXCESS OF THE RATES PRESCRIBED IN SUCH TEMPORARY
ORDER, THEN SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL BE PERMITTED TO AMORTIZE AND
RECOVER, BY MEANS OF A TEMPORARY INCREASE OVER AND ABOVE THE RATES
FINALLY DETERMINED, SUCH SUM AS SHALL REPRESENT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE GROSS INCOME OBTAINED FROM THE RATES PRESCRIBED IN SUCH TEMPORARY
ORDER AND THE GROSS INCOME WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED UNDER THE
RATES FINALLY DETERMINED IF APPLIED DURING THE PERIOD SUCH TEMPORARY
ORDER WAS IN EFFECT."  CF. PRENDERGAST V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., 262
U.S. 43; BRONX GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. MALTBIE, 271 N.Y. 364; 3 N.E.2D
512. 

FN16  FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87, 97; UNION INS. CO. V.
HOGE, 21 HOW.  35, 66. 

FN17  THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CORP., 300 U.S. 55, 75-76, AND
CASES CITED; CF. BLODGETT V. HOLDEN, 275 U.S. 142, 148; FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298, 307; TEXAS V. EASTERN
TEXAS R. CO., 258 U.S. 204, 217. 

FN18 

RATE BASE OR FAIR 

VALUE OF PROPERTY.........................................
$5,250,000.00 

RATE OF RETURN 6%. 

REQUIRED RETURN...........................................
315,000.00 

REVENUE AFTER REDUCTION..................... $1,767,329.00 

OPERATING EXPENSES............ $1,033,898.00 

TAXES.........................  206,400.00 

ANNUAL DEPRECIATION...........    142,531.00  1,382,829.00 

ESTIMATED RETURN..........................................
384,500.00 

FN19  WABASH VALLEY ELEC.  CO. V. YOUNG, 287 U.S. 488, 500; GALVESTON
ELECTRIC CO. V. GALVESTON, 258 U.S. 388, 397. 

FN20  CF. DAYTON P. & L. CO. V. COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290, 309-10; LOS
ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 289 U.S. 287, 310. 

FN21  DENVER STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 470, 478; ST.
JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 62.  CF. DAYTON
P. & L. CO. V. COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290, 308; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 11 F.SUPP.  322, 334; DES MOINES GAS CO. V. DES MOINES,
238 U.S. 153; MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS CO., 272 U.S. 400, 413. 

FN22 DAYTON P. & L. CO. V. COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290, 311. 

FN23  MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 302 U.S. 419. 

FN24  UNITED RAILWAYS V. WEST, 280 U.S. 234, 249; WILLCOX V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S. 19, 48; BLUEFIELD CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 262 U.S. 679, 692; KNOXVILLE V. WATER CO., 212 U.S. 1, 17. 

FN25  WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. COMM'N (NO. 1), 294 U.S. 63, 74; SEE
WABASH VALLEY ELEC.  CO. V. YOUNG, 287 U.S. 488, 500. 

FN26  WABASH VALLEY ELEC.  CO. V. YOUNG, 287 U.S. 488, 500; WEST OHIO
GAS CO. V. COMM'N (NO. 1), 294 U.S. 63, 74. 

FN27  COMPARE WITH THE COMPUTATION OF THE COMMISSION, NOTE 18. 

RATE BASE OR FAIR 

VALUE OF PROPERTY.........................................
$5,500,000.00 

RATE OF RETURN 6%. 

REQUIRED RETURN...........................................
330,000.00 

REVENUE AFTER REDUCTION..................... $1,767,329.00 

OPERATING EXPENSES ........... $1,033,898.00 

TAXES.........................    206,400.00 

ANNUAL DEPRECIATION...........    142,531.00 

RATE EXPENSE, 

10-YEAR AMORTIZATION..........     17,838.00 

SALARY INCREASE...............     20,593.00 

PROSPECTIVE LOSS..............     15,089.00  1,436,349.00 

ESTIMATED RETURN..........................................
330,980.00 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING. 

THE DECREE BELOW WAS CLEARLY WRONG.  BUT IN REVERSING IT, THE COURT'S
OPINION APPEARS TO GIVE NEW VITALITY NEEDLESSLY TO THE MISCHIEVOUS
FORMULA FOR FIXING UTILITY RATES IN SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466.  THE
FORCE OF REASON, CONFIRMED BY EVENTS, HAS GRADUALLY BEEN RENDERING THAT
FORMULA MORIBUND BY REVEALING IT TO BE USELESS AS A GUIDE FOR
ADJUDICATION.  EXPERIENCE HAS MADE IT OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR THAT SMYTH
V. AMES AND THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN PUT REPRESENTED AN ATTEMPT TO
ERECT TEMPORARY FACTS INTO LEGAL ABSOLUTES.  THE DETERMINATION OF
UTILITY RATES - WHAT MAY FAIRLY BE EXACTED FROM THE PUBLIC AND WHAT IS
ADEQUATE TO ENLIST ENTERPRISE - DOES NOT PRESENT QUESTIONS OF AN
ESSENTIALLY LEGAL NATURE IN THE SENSE THAT LEGAL EDUCATION AND LAWYERS'
LEARNING AFFORD PECULIAR COMPETENCE FOR THEIR ADJUSTMENT.  THESE ARE
MATTERS FOR THE APPLICATION OF WHATEVER KNOWLEDGE ECONOMICS AND FINANCE
MAY BRING TO THE PRACTICALITIES OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISE.  THE ONLY
RELEVANT FUNCTION OF LAW IN DEALING WITH THIS INTERSECTION OF
GOVERNMENT AND ENTERPRISE IS TO SECURE OBSERVANCE OF THOSE PROCEDURAL
SAFEGUARDS IN THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS WHICH ARE THE HISTORIC
FOUNDATIONS OF DUE PROCESS. 

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY NEARLY FIFTY YEARS AGO MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE
REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER COURTS OR COMMISSIONS AND LEGISLATURES ARE THE
ULTIMATE ARBITERS OF UTILITY RATES, (DISSENTING, IN CHICAGO, M. & ST.
P. RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 134 U.S. 418, 461).  WHATEVER MAY BE THOUGHT
OF THE WISDOM OF A BROADER JUDICIAL ROLE IN THE CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE PUBLIC, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE
TENDENCY, FOR A TIME AT LEAST, TO DRAW FIXED RULES OF LAW OUT OF SMYTH
V. AMES HAS MET THE REBUFF OF FACTS.  AT LEAST ONE IMPORTANT STATE HAS
FOR DECADES GONE ON ITS WAY UNMINDFUL OF SMYTH V. AMES, AND OTHER
STATES HAVE BY VARIOUS PROPOSALS SOUGHT TO ESCAPE THE FOG INTO WHICH
SPECULATIONS BASED ON SMYTH V. AMES HAVE ENVELOPED THE PRACTICAL TASK
OF ADMINISTERING SYSTEMS OF UTILITY REGULATION. 

SMYTH V. AMES SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE INVOKED WHEN IT IS NOT
NECESSARY TO DO SO.  THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE PRESENT CASE AROSE
REPRESENTS AN EFFORT TO ESCAPE SMYTH V. AMES AT LEAST AS TO TEMPORARY
RATES.  IT IS THE RESULT OF A CONSCIENTIOUS AND INFORMED ENDEAVOR TO
MEET DIFFICULTIES ENGENDERED BY LEGAL DOCTRINES WHICH HAVE BEEN WIDELY
REJECTED BY THE GREAT WEIGHT OF ECONOMIC OPINION,  FN1  BY
AUTHORITATIVE LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATIONS,  FN2  BY UTILITY COMMISSIONS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY,  FN3  AND BY IMPRESSIVE JUDICIAL DISSENTS.  FN4
AS A RESULT OF THIS LONG PROCESS OF EXPERIENCE AND REFLECTION, THE TWO
STATES IN WHICH UTILITIES PLAY THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL PART - NEW YORK
AND PENNSYLVANIA - HAVE EVOLVED THE SO-CALLED RECOUPMENT SCHEME FOR
TEMPORARY RATE-FIXING (THEREBY AVOIDING SOME OF THE MOST WASTEFUL
ASPECTS OF RATE LITIGATION) AS A FAIR MEANS OF ACCOMMODATING PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE INTERESTS.  IT IS A CAREFULLY GUARDED DEVICE FOR SECURING "A
JUDGMENT FROM EXPERIENCE AS AGAINST A JUDGMENT FROM SPECULATION,"
TANNER V. LITTLE, 240 U.S. 369, 386, IN DEALING WITH A PROBLEM OF SUCH
ELUSIVE ECONOMIC COMPLEXITY AS THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT RETURN WILL BE
SUFFICIENT TO ATTRACT CAPITAL IN THE SPECIAL SETTING OF A PARTICULAR
INDUSTRY AND AT THE SAME TIME BE FAIR TO THE PUBLIC DEPENDENT ON SUCH
ENTERPRISE. 

THAT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT "DECIDE AN ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IF
THE CASE MAY JUSTLY AND REASONABLY BE DECIDED UNDER A CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE ACT IS CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL" IS, AS AN
ABSTRACT PROPOSITION, BASIC TO OUR JUDICIAL OBLIGATION.  BUT THIS IS
NOT A FORMAL DOCTRINE OF SELF-RESTRAINT.  ITS RATIONALE IS AVOIDANCE OF
CONFLICT WITH THE LEGISLATURE.  THE OPINION FROM WHICH THE PRECEDING
QUOTATION IS TAKEN AND THE DECISIONS TO WHICH IT REFERS ARE ALL CASES
IN WHICH CONSTITUTIONALITY WAS IN OBVIOUS JEOPARDY.  IT IS ONE THING TO
AVOID UNCONSTITUTIONALITY EVEN AT THE COST OF A TORTURED STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO RECOGNIZE THE VALIDITY OF A
STATUTE DIRECTED EXPRESSLY TO THE SITUATION IN HAND AND SO EMPLOYED BY
THE STATE AUTHORITIES, WHEN CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT STATUTE IS AS
INCONTESTABLY CLEAR AS THE DECISION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS
HAS DEMONSTRATED IT TO BE IN SUSTAINING THE SISTER STATUTE OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA ACT, IN THE MATTER OF BRONX GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. MALTBIE,
271 N.Y. 364; 3 N.E.2D 512.  THE COURT'S OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE
DOES NOT AVOID ISSUES OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.  IT ACCEPTS THE MUCH MORE
DUBIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINES OF SMYTH V. AMES AND ITS SUCCESSORS TO
SOLVE THE VERY EASY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA
ACT. 

FN1  SEE 2 BONBRIGHT, THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY, 1081-1086, 1094
1102; 3A SHARFMAN, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 121-137. 

FN2  N.Y. STATE COMMISSION ON REVISION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION LAW, REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS, PASSIM (1930). 

FN3  PROCEEDINGS OF THE FORTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS, 232 ET
SEQ.; PROCEEDINGS OF THE FORTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS, 115 ET SEQ., 289
ET SEQ.; PROCEEDINGS OF THE FORTY-NINTH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD AND UTILITIES COMMISSIONERS, 159 ET
SEQ. 

FN4  SEE, E.G., BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING, IN MISSOURI EX REL.
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S. 276,
289, AND BIBLIOGRAPHY THEREIN CONTAINED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE ABOVE VIEWS. 
..END :
























ROCHESTER TEL. CORP. V. U.S., 307 U.S. 125 


NO. 481.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 23
F.SUPP.  634, AFFIRMED. 


1.  FACTORS INVOLVED IN REVIEWABILITY VEL NON OF ORDERS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES SUCH AS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ARE ANALYZED AND THE GOVERNING
PRINCIPLES STATED.  PP. 129 ET SEQ. 

2.  ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN "NEGATIVE" AND "AFFIRMATIVE" ORDERS, AS A
TOUCHSTONE OF JURISDICTION TO REVIEW COMMISSION ORDERS, SERVES NO
USEFUL PURPOSE, AND IN SO FAR AS EARLIER DECISIONS HAVE BEEN CONTROLLED
BY THIS DISTINCTION, THEY CAN NO LONGER BE GUIDING.  P. 143. 

3.  AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DETERMINING THE
STATUS OF A TELEPHONE COMPANY AS ONE SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION UNDER SEC.
2(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, BECAUSE OF ITS CONTROL BY
ANOTHER, AND THEREFORE BOUND BY EARLIER GENERAL ORDERS REQUIRING ALL
TELEPHONE CARRIERS SO SUBJECT TO FILE SCHEDULES OF CHARGES, COPIES OF
CONTRACTS, AND OTHER INFORMATION, HELD REVIEWABLE ON QUESTIONS OF LAW
UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCT. 22, 1913, AS EXTENDED TO THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT.  P. 143. 

4.  A FINDING OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION THAT A
TELEPHONE COMPANY, ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SOLELY THROUGH
PHYSICAL CONNECTION WITH THE FACILITIES OF ANOTHER, WAS UNDER THE
OTHER'S CONTROL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(B) OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
ACT OF 1934,  - HELD JUSTIFIED BY THE FACTS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
CONCERNING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES.  P. 144. 

THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH "CONTROL" IS AN ISSUE OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE COMMISSION BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AND NOT BY
ARTIFICIAL TESTS. 

ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING ON THE MERITS
A BILL TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL, UNDER SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED (28
U.S.C. SEC. 345), FROM A FINAL DECREE BY A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES, UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913(28 U.S.C.
SECS. 45, 47A) AS EXTENDED BY SEC. 402(A) OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
ACT (47 U.S.C. SEC. 402(A)), DISMISSING ON THE MERITS A BILL TO REVIEW
AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. 

AT THE OUTSET A CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
CONFRONTS US.  IT INVOLVES THOSE PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW WHICH
ARE IMPLIED BY THE DOCTRINE OF "NEGATIVE ORDERS."  INASMUCH AS THIS
PHRASE IS SHORTHAND FOR A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS, SHARP HEED MUST BE
GIVEN TO THE PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES - INTER ALIA, THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW, THE TERMS OF THE CONTESTED ORDER, THE GROUNDS OF
OBJECTION TO IT - WHICH IN THIS AND OTHER CASES HAVE INVOKED THE
DOCTRINE. 

CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL, THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
SHALL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ANY CARRIER "ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMUNICATION SOLELY THROUGH PHYSICAL CONNECTION WITH THE
FACILITIES OF ANOTHER CARRIER NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTROLLING OR
CONTROLLED BY, OR UNDER DIRECT OR INDIRECT COMMON CONTROL WITH, SUCH
CARRIER."  THE APPELLANT, ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION (HEREAFTER
CALLED THE ROCHESTER), IS A NEW YORK CORPORATION MAINTAINING A SYSTEM
OF TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS IN AND AROUND THE CITY OF ROCHESTER.  FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES THE ROCHESTER IS TO BE DEEMED AS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMUNICATIONS SOLELY BECAUSE OF PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS WITH THE
FACILITIES OF THE NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY (HEREAFTER CALLED THE NEW
YORK). 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY GREW OUT OF A RULING BY THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION THAT THE ROCHESTER OWED OBEDIENCE TO A SERIES
OF ORDERS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION.  THESE ORDERS REQUIRED ALL
TELEPHONE CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE ACT TO FILE SCHEDULES OF THEIR
CHARGES, COPIES OF CONTRACTS WITH OTHER TELEPHONE CARRIERS, INFORMATION
CONCERNING THEIR CORPORATE AND SERVICE HISTORY, THEIR RELATIONS WITH
AFFILIATES, THEIR USE OF FRANKS AND PASSES.  COPIES OF THESE ORDERS
WERE DULY SERVED ON THE ROCHESTER.  NO RESPONSE BEING HAD, THE
TELEPHONE DIVISION OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ON OCTOBER 9,
1935, ORDERED THE ROCHESTER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED
TO FILE RESPONSES TO THE GENERAL ORDERS THERETOFORE SERVED UPON IT.
FN1  THE ROCHESTER ANSWERED, CLAIMING TO BE OUTSIDE THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE ACT EXCEPT AS TO MATTERS NOT HERE QUESTIONED. 

TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS IN THE CONTESTED ISSUE, THE COMMISSION
APPOINTED A TRIAL EXAMINER.  AT HEARINGS HELD BY HIM THE ROCHESTER
ENTERED A SPECIAL APPEARANCE, DENYING THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION AND
CONTENDING THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON THE COMMISSION TO SHOW THAT
ROCHESTER DID NOT COME WITHIN THE EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS OF SEC.
2(B)(2).  AFTER A THOROUGH HEARING  FN2 AND THE SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS,
THE EXAMINER FILED HIS REPORT, TO WHICH THE ROCHESTER DULY EXCEPTED. 
UPON THE BASIS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND OF ARGUMENT BEFORE IT, THE
COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS TELEPHONE DIVISION, SUSTAINED THE FINDINGS OF
ITS CHIEF EXAMINER, DETERMINED THAT THE ROCHESTER WAS UNDER THE
"CONTROL" OF THE NEW YORK AND THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO THE
CLASSIFICATION OF A MERE CONNECTING CARRIER UNDER SEC. 2(B)(2). 
ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMISSION ORDERED THE ROCHESTER CLASSIFIED "AS
SUBJECT TO ALL COMMON CARRIER PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934, AND, THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO ALL ORDERS OF THE TELEPHONE
DIVISION."  A PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE THE FULL COMMISSION WAS
DENIED. 

THE ROCHESTER THEREUPON FILED THE PRESENT BILL, ALLEGING THAT THE
ORDER ENTERED BY THE COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 18, 1936, PURSUANT TO ITS
REPORT, WAS CONTRARY TO UNDISPUTED FACTS AND ERRONEOUS AS A MATTER OF
LAW, AND THAT THE COMMISSION'S THREAT TO ENFORCE IT PUT THE ROCHESTER
TO THE HAZARD OF IRREPARABLE INJURY, AND PRAYING THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT 

"MAKE AND ENTER ITS ORDER AND DECREE SETTING ASIDE AND ANNULLING SAID
ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION HEREINBEFORE MENTIONED,
AND EACH AND ALL OF THEM, AND ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF SAID ORDERS,
EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE PROVISIONS OF SAID ORDERS  ... HAVE ALREADY
BEEN COMPLIED WITH." 

THE CASE WAS DISPOSED OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE PLEADINGS AND
THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

BELOW, THE GOVERNMENT MADE NO OBJECTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S
JURISDICTION, NOR DID THAT COURT RAISE THE QUESTION SUA SPONTE.  FN3
IT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ACTION ON THE MERITS AND DISMISSED THE
BILL.  HERE, THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF "NEGATIVE
ORDERS" THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS NOT REVIEWABLE, BUT, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUPPORTS THE DECREE ON THE MERITS. 

THE RELATION OF ACTION BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO
THE REVIEWING POWER OF THE COURTS IS HERE FOR THE FIRST TIME.  THE
JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE
IMPLICATES OTHER FEDERAL REGULATORY BODIES AS WELL, BECAUSE THE VARIOUS
STATUTORY SCHEMES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW HAVE EITHER BEEN CARRIED OVER
FROM THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, PERTAINING TO ORDERS UNDER THE ACTS
TO REGULATE COMMERCE, OR BECAUSE DIFFERENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS HAVE BY
ANALOGY BEEN ASSIMILATED TO THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE.  THAT
DOCTRINE HAS NOT HAD WHOLLY PLAIN SAILING IN THE MANY CASES, BOTH HERE
AND IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, SINCE IT FIRST GOT UNDER WAY IN 1912,
IN PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 282. 

THE IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THIS CASE IS ENTANGLED
THEREFORE CALL FOR CLARIFICATION. 

THE PRIOR DECISIONS INVOLVING THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE FALL INTO
THREE CATEGORIES:  FN4 

(1)  WHERE THE ACTION SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED MAY HAVE THE EFFECT OF
FORBIDDING OR COMPELLING CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE PERSON SEEKING TO
REVIEW IT, BUT ONLY IF SOME FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION. 
SUCH A SITUATION IS PRESENTED BY AN ATTEMPT TO REVIEW A VALUATION MADE
BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH HAS NO IMMEDIATE LEGAL
EFFECT ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE THE BASIS OF A SUBSEQUENT RATE ORDER. 

(2)  WHERE THE ACTION SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED DECLINES TO RELIEVE THE
COMPLAINANT FROM A STATUTORY COMMAND FORBIDDING OR COMPELLING CONDUCT
ON HIS PART.  THE MOST OBVIOUS CASE IS A DENIAL OF PERMISSION BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR A DEPARTURE FROM THE LONG-SHORT HAUL
CLAUSE. 

(3)  WHERE THE ACTION SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED DOES NOT FORBID OR COMPEL
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE PERSON SEEKING REVIEW BUT IS ATTACKED
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FORBID OR COMPEL CONDUCT BY A THIRD PERSON.  A
FAMILIAR EXAMPLE IS THAT OF A SHIPPER REQUESTING THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE CARRIER TO ADOPT
CERTAIN RATES OR PRACTICES WHICH THE COMMISSION, ON THE MERITS,
DECLINES.  ANOTHER INSTANCE IS WHERE THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZES THE
CARRIER TO DEPART FROM THE LONG-SHORT HAUL CLAUSE AND A SHIPPER
ADVERSELY AFFECTED SEEKS TO HAVE THE AUTHORIZATION SET ASIDE. 

IN GROUP (1) THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED DOES NOT OF ITSELF
ADVERSELY AFFECT COMPLAINANT BUT ONLY AFFECTS HIS RIGHTS ADVERSELY ON
THE CONTINGENCY OF FUTURE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  IN VIEW OF
TRADITIONAL CONCEPTIONS OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER, RESORT TO THE COURTS
IN THESE SITUATIONS IS EITHER PREMATURE OR WHOLLY BEYOND THEIR
PROVINCE.  THUS, ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SETTING A
CASE FOR HEARING DESPITE A CHALLENGE TO ITS JURISDICTION,  FN5  OR
RENDERING A TENTATIVE  FN6  OR FINAL VALUATION  FN7  UNDER THE
VALUATION ACT, ALTHOUGH CLAIMED TO BE INACCURATE, OR HOLDING THAT A
CARRIER IS WITHIN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THEREFORE AMENABLE TO THE
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, ARE NOT REVIEWABLE.  FN8 

THE GOVERNING CONSIDERATIONS WHICH KEEP SUCH ORDERS WITHOUT THE AREA
OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WERE THUS SUMMARIZED FOR THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS IN DENYING REVIEWABILITY OF A "FINAL VALUATION" UNDER THE
VALUATIONS ACT:  "THE SO-CALLED ORDER HERE COMPLAINED OF IS ONE WHICH
DOES NOT COMMAND THE CARRIER TO DO, OR TO REFRAIN FROM DOING, ANYTHING;
WHICH DOES NOT GRANT OR WITHHOLD ANY AUTHORITY, PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE;
WHICH DOES NOT EXTEND OR ABRIDGE ANY POWER OR FACILITY; WHICH DOES NOT
SUBJECT THE CARRIER TO ANY LIABILITY, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL; WHICH DOES NOT
CHANGE THE CARRIER'S EXISTING OR FUTURE STATUS OR CONDITION; WHICH DOES
NOT DETERMINE ANY RIGHT OR OBLIGATION."  UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES &
S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 309-310. 

PLAINLY THE DENIAL OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THESE CASES DOES NOT DERIVE
FROM A REGARD FOR THE SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES. 
JUDICIAL ABSTENTION HERE IS MERELY AN APPLICATION OF THE TRADITIONAL
CRITERIA FOR BRINGING JUDICIAL ACTION INTO PLAY.  PARTLY THESE HAVE
BEEN WRITTEN INTO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION BY WHAT IS IMPLIED
FROM THE GRANT OF "JUDICIAL POWER" TO DETERMINE "CASES" AND
"CONTROVERSIES," ART. III, SEC. 2, U.S. CONSTITUTION.  FN9  PARTLY THEY
ARE AN ASPECT OF THE PROCEDURAL PHILOSOPHY PERTAINING TO THE FEDERAL
COURTS WHEREBY, EVER SINCE THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT, CONGRESS HAS BEEN
LOATH TO AUTHORIZE REVIEW OF INTERIM STEPS IN A PROCEEDING.  FN10 

GROUP (2) IS COMPOSED OF INSTANCES OF STATUTORY REGULATIONS WHICH
PLACE RESTRICTIONS UPON THE FREE CONDUCT OF THE COMPLAINANT.  TO RID
HIMSELF OF THESE RESTRICTIONS THE COMPLAINANT EITHER ASKS THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO PLACE HIM OUTSIDE THE STATUTE, OR,
BEING CONCEDEDLY WITHIN IT, HE INVOKES THE COMMISSION'S DISPENSING
POWER.  IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION A COMPLAINANT SEEKING JUDICIAL REVIEW
UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF ADVERSE ACTION BY THE COMMISSION
MUST CLEAR THREE HURDLES:  (A) "CASE" OR "CONTROVERSY" UNDER ARTICLE
III; (B) THE CONVENTIONAL REQUISITES OF EQUITY JURISDICTION; (C) THE
SPECIFIC TERMS OF THE STATUTE GRANTING TO THE DISTRICT COURTS
JURISDICTION IN SUITS CHALLENGING "ANY ORDER" OF THE COMMISSION. 

WHERE A COMPLAINANT SEEKS THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER THE TERMS
OF A STATUTE AND THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IS FOLLOWED BY LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES, AS WAS THE CASE IN LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
243 U.S. 412, OR WHERE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DENIES AN EXEMPTION FROM
THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, AS IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN RATE CASES, 234 U.S.
476, THE ROAD TO THE COURTS' JURISDICTION SEEMS TO BE CLEAR.  THERE IS
A CONSTITUTIONAL "CASE" OR "CONTROVERSY," INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V.
BRIMSON, 154 U.S. 447; THE REQUIREMENTS OF EQUITY ARE SATISFIED IF
DISREGARD OF THE COMMISSION'S ADVERSE ACTION ENTAILS THREAT OF
OPPRESSIVE PENALTIES; AND THE SUIT IS WITHIN THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT IN THAT IT IS ONE "TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, OR
ANNUL" AN "ORDER OF THE COMMISSION."  28 U.S.C. SECS. 46, 47.  FN11
WHILE THE PENALTIES MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE FOR ITS VIOLATION AND
NOT FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, A FAVORABLE ORDER WOULD
RENDER THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE STATUTE INOPERATIVE.  THE COMPLAINANT
CAN COME INTO COURT, OF COURSE, NOT TO REVIEW ACTION WITHIN THE
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO RENDER AN ADVERSE RATHER
THAN A FAVORABLE DECISION BUT BECAUSE HE URGES ERRORS OF LAW OUTSIDE
THE COMMISSION'S FINAL SAY-SO.  SUCH AN ANALYSIS EMERGES FROM A LONG
SEQUENCE OF CASES UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT VIEWED IN THE
SETTING OF GENERAL DOCTRINES OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE RESULT IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE WAS REACHED IN THE EARLIER
PHASES OF MODERN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND DID NOT DEAL WITH ITS SPECIFIC
JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
GOVERNING FEDERAL EQUITABLE JURISDICTION.  IN CONSEQUENCE, THE PHRASE
"NEGATIVE ORDERS" GAINED CURRENCY AS THOUGH IT WERE DESCRIPTIVE OF SOME
TECHNICAL DOCTRINE OF JURISDICTION HAVING PECULIAR RELEVANCE TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND
COMPARABLE REGULATORY BODIES.  FN12 

THIS BRINGS US TO THE CASES IN GROUP (3).  HERE REVIEW IS SOUGHT OF
ACTION BY THE COMMISSION WHICH AFFECTS THE COMPLAINANT BECAUSE IT DOES
NOT FORBID OR COMPEL CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO HIM BY A THIRD PERSON. 
THIS TYPE OF SITUATION IS ILLUSTRATED BY PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 225 U.S. 282.  SINCE THIS CASE GAVE RISE TO THE NOTION THAT
THERE IS A SPECIALIZED JURISDICTIONAL DOCTRINE PERTAINING TO "NEGATIVE
ORDERS," IT CALLS FOR RE-EXAMINATION.  PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. FILED A
COMPLAINT WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO SET ASIDE
DEMURRAGE RULES THAT IMPOSED CHARGES ON PRIVATE CARS LEFT UNLOADED FOR
OVER FORTY-EIGHT HOURS ON PRIVATE TRACKS.  THE COMMISSION DISMISSED THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE RULES WERE WITHIN THE CARRIERS'
AUTHORITY TO MAKE CONDITIONS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE CARS. 
PROCTER & GAMBLE THEN PETITIONED THE COMMERCE COURT TO ANNUL THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION AND TO ENJOIN THE CARRIERS FROM ENFORCING THE
RULES.  THE COMMERCE COURT TOOK JURISDICTION BUT FOUND THE COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO BE WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY.  ON APPEAL THIS COURT HELD THAT THE
COMMERCE COURT ERRED IN TAKING JURISDICTION AND REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR
DISMISSAL.    CLEARLY PROCTER & GAMBLE WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER SEC. 13 OF
THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE TO INSTITUTE THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION.  SINCE IT ASSERTED A LEGAL RIGHT UNDER THAT ACT TO HAVE THE
COMMISSION APPLY DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES OF LAW FROM THOSE WHICH LED THE
COMMISSION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, THE INGREDIENTS FOR AN
ADJUDICATION - CONSTITUTING A CASE OR CONTROVERSY - WERE PRESENT. 
COMPARE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. BRIMSON, SUPRA; INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N V. BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25, 38.  JUDICIAL RELIEF WOULD BE
PRECISELY THE SAME AS IN THE RECOGNIZED INSTANCES OF REVIEW BY COURTS
OF COMMISSION ACTION:  IF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE COMMISSION
ACTED WERE NOT ERRONEOUS, THE BILL WOULD BE ORDERED DISMISSED; IF THE
COMMISSION WAS FOUND TO HAVE PROCEEDED ON ERRONEOUS LEGAL PRINCIPLES,
THE COMMISSION WOULD BE ORDERED TO PROCEED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ITS
OWN DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY ON THE INDICATED CORRECT PRINCIPLES.  THE
REQUISITES OF EQUITY HAVE OF COURSE TO BE SATISFIED, BUT BY THE
CONVENTIONAL CRITERIA.  THEY WERE SATISFIED IN THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
CASE, SINCE THE BILL SOUGHT TO AVOID A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS.  FINALLY,
THE SHIPPER WAS WITHIN THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF CONGRESS AUTHORIZING
SUITS "TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL,  ...  ANY ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION."  TO BE SURE, THE OPINION IN THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
CASE PARTLY YIELDED TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MAIN CONTENTION IN THAT CASE
THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE ONLY APPLIED WHERE THE ORDER COMPLAINED
OF WAS ONE WHICH WAS TO BE ENFORCED BY THE COMMISSION.  MORE RECENT
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, HOWEVER, HAVE DISPENSED WITH THIS REQUISITE
FOR REVIEW.  FN13 

THE IMPELLING CONSIDERATION UNDERLYING THE DECISION IN THE PROCTER &
GAMBLE CASE DID NOT CONCERN TECHNICAL PROCEDURE.  IT WAS PART OF THE
PROCESS OF ADJUSTING RELATIONS BETWEEN THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION AND THE COURTS TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE
COMMISSION.  THIS IS MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR BY THE GENERAL ATMOSPHERE OF
THE OPINION AS WELL AS BY ITS LANGUAGE,  FN14 PARTICULARLY WHEN REGARD
IS HAD TO THE FACT THAT THE COURT'S SPOKESMAN WAS CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE,
WHO HAD SUCH A LARGE SHARE IN DEVELOPING MODERN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. 
FN15  WHILE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD BEEN IN EXISTENCE
SINCE 1887, THE ENLARGEMENT OF ITS POWERS THROUGH THE HEPBURN ACT, IN
1906,  FN16  AND THE MANN-ELKINS ACT, IN 1910,  FN17  THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF SIMILAR AGENCIES IN MANY STATES FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF NEW YORK  FN18
AND WISCONSIN,  FN19  THE WIDESPREAD RECOGNITION THAT THESE SPECIFIC
INSTANCES MARKED A GENERAL MOVEMENT,  FN20  MADE INCREASINGLY MANIFEST
THE PLACE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN ENFORCING LEGISLATIVE POLICIES
AND CALLED FOR ACCOMMODATION OF THE DUTIES ENTRUSTED TO THEM TO OUR
TRADITIONAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  THIS COURT "ASCRIBED" TO THE FINDINGS OF
THE COMMISSION "THE STRENGTH DUE TO THE JUDGMENTS OF A TRIBUNAL
APPOINTED BY LAW AND INFORMED BY EXPERIENCE."  ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO.
V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 206 U.S. 441, 454.  RECOGNITION OF THE
COMMISSION'S EXPERTISE ALSO LED THIS COURT NOT TO BIND THE COMMISSION
TO COMMON LAW EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL FETTERS IN ENFORCING BASIC
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.  FN21 

FROM THESE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS THE COURT EVOLVED TWO SPECIFIC
DOCTRINES LIMITING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  ONE IS THE PRIMARY JURISDICTION DOCTRINE, FIRMLY
ESTABLISHED IN TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204
U.S. 426.  THEREBY MATTERS WHICH CALL FOR TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
PERTAINING TO TRANSPORTATION MUST FIRST BE PASSED UPON BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BEFORE A COURT CAN BE INVOKED.  FN22
THE OTHER IS THE DOCTRINE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY.  EVEN WHEN RESORT
TO COURTS CAN BE HAD TO REVIEW A COMMISSION'S ORDER, THE RANGE OF
ISSUES OPEN TO REVIEW IS NARROW.  ONLY QUESTIONS AFFECTING
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND THE BASIC PREREQUISITES
OF PROOF CAN BE RAISED.  IF THESE LEGAL TESTS ARE SATISFIED, THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER BECOMES INCONTESTABLE.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N
V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 215 U.S. 452, 470; INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 222 U.S. 541. 

IN TRANSLATING THESE IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES FOR EFFECTUATING THE
CONGRESSIONAL SCHEME TO ENLARGE THE INDEPENDENT POWERS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION INTO A SEEMINGLY TECHNICAL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN "NEGATIVE" AND "AFFIRMATIVE" ORDERS, THE OPINION IN PROCTER &
GAMBLE V. UNITED STATES GAVE AUTHORITY TO A DOCTRINE WHICH HARMONIZES
NEITHER WITH THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH INDUCED IT NOR WITH THE COURSE OF
DECISIONS WHICH HAVE PURPORTED TO FOLLOW IT.  FN23  SUBSEQUENT CASES
HAVE MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT "NEGATIVE ORDER" AND "AFFIRMATIVE
ORDER" ARE NOT APPROPRIATE TERMS OF ART. FN24  THUS, THE COURT HAS HAD
OCCASION TO FIND THAT WHILE AN ORDER WAS "NEGATIVE IN FORM" IT WAS
"AFFIRMATIVE IN SUBSTANCE.""  FN25  NEGATIVE" HAS REALLY BEEN AN
OBFUSCATING ADJECTIVE IN THAT IT IMPLIED A SEARCH FOR A DISTINCTION -
NON-ACTION AS AGAINST ACTION - WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE THE REAL
CONSIDERATIONS ON WHICH REST, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE REVIEWABILITY OF
COMMISSION ORDERS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ITS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY
AND WITHIN THE GENERAL CRITERIA OF JUSTICIABILITY."  FN26  NEGATIVE"
AND "AFFIRMATIVE," IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE PROBLEMS, IS AS
UNILLUMINATING AND MISCHIEF-MAKING A DISTINCTION AS THE OUTMODED LINE
BETWEEN "NONFEASANCE" AND "MISFEASANCE."  FN27 

THE CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY FOR WHICH THE NOTIONS OF "NEGATIVE" AND
"AFFIRMATIVE" ORDERS WERE INTRODUCED, ARE COMPLETELY SATISFIED BY
PROPER APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED DOCTRINES OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
AND ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY.  THE CONCEPT OF "NEGATIVE ORDERS" HAS NOT
SERVED TO CLARIFY THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AND THE
COURTS BUT HAS RATHER TENDED TO OBSCURE THEM.  AN ACTION BEFORE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS AKIN TO AN INCLUSIVE EQUITY SUIT IN
WHICH ALL RELEVANT CLAIMS ARE ADJUSTED.  FN28  AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION DISMISSING A COMPLAINT ON THE MERITS AND MAINTAINING THE
STATUS QUO IS AN EXERCISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION, NO MORE AND NO
LESS, THAN AN ORDER DIRECTING SOME CHANGE IN STATUS.  THE NATURE OF THE
ISSUES FORECLOSED BY THE COMMISSION'S ACTION AND THE NATURE OF THE
ISSUES LEFT OPEN, SO FAR AS THE REVIEWING POWER OF COURTS IS CONCERNED,
ARE THE SAME.  REFUSAL TO CHANGE AN EXISTING SITUATION MAY, OF COURSE,
ITSELF BE A FACTOR IN THE COMMISSION'S ALLOWABLE EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION.  IN THE APPLICATION OF RELEVANT CANONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DIRECTING THE ADOPTION OF A PRACTICE MIGHT
RAISE CONSIDERATIONS ABSENT FROM A SITUATION WHERE THE COMMISSION
MERELY ALLOWED SUCH A PRACTICE TO CONTINUE.  BUT THIS BEARS ON THE
DISPOSITION OF A CASE AND SHOULD NOT CONTROL JURISDICTION.  THE NATURE
OF JUDICIAL RELIEF, THAT IS THE FORM OF DIRECTIONS AVAILABLE, IN
SITUATIONS LIKE THOSE PRESENTED BY THE PROCTER & GAMBLE AND THE LEHIGH
VALLEY CASES, WERE THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS REVIEWED, WOULD BE NO
DIFFERENT THAN WAS THAT USED IN THE INTERMOUNTAIN RATE AND THE NEW
RIVER COAL CO. CASES.  FN29  IN BOTH TYPES OF SITUATIONS "A JUDGMENT
RENDERED WILL BE A FINAL AND INDISPUTABLE BASIS OF ACTION AS BETWEEN
THE COMMISSION AND THE DEFENDANT," INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. BAIRD,
194 U.S. 25, 38.  WE CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT ANY DISTINCTION, AS
SUCH, BETWEEN "NEGATIVE" AND "AFFIRMATIVE" ORDERS, AS A TOUCHSTONE OF
JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS, SERVES NO USEFUL
PURPOSE, AND INSOFAR AS EARLIER DECISIONS HAVE BEEN CONTROLLED BY THIS
DISTINCTION, THEY CAN NO LONGER BE GUIDING. 

THE ORDER OF THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IN THIS CASE WAS THEREFORE
REVIEWABLE.  IT WAS NOT A MERE ABSTRACT DECLARATION REGARDING THE
STATUS OF THE ROCHESTER UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, FN30  NOR WAS IT
A STAGE IN AN INCOMPLETE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION.  THE
CONTESTED ORDER DETERMINING THE STATUS OF THE ROCHESTER NECESSARILY AND
IMMEDIATELY CARRIED DIRECTION OF OBEDIENCE TO PREVIOUSLY FORMULATED
MANDATORY ORDERS ADDRESSED GENERALLY TO ALL CARRIERS AMENABLE TO THE
COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY.  INTO THIS CLASS OF CARRIERS THE ORDER UNDER
DISPUTE COVERED THE ROCHESTER, AND BY THAT FACT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE OTHER ORDERS, MADE DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THE ROCHESTER A
REVIEWABLE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. 

BUT WHILE THE ROCHESTER HAD A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER, IT CANNOT
PREVAIL ON THE MERITS. 

THE ULTIMATE LEGAL ISSUE IS THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDING
THAT THE ROCHESTER "IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE NEW YORK TELEPHONE
COMPANY."  THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS FINDING CLEARLY EMERGES FROM A
RAPID SUMMARY OF THE GOVERNING FACTS ADDUCED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEW YORK AND THE ROCHESTER. 

PRIOR TO 1920 AN INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE COMPANY AND THE NEW YORK
(WHICH WAS PART OF THE BELL SYSTEM) WERE COMPETITORS IN ROCHESTER.  AS
PART OF AN ENDEAVOR TO MEET AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH THE BELL SYSTEM HAD,
IN 1913, MADE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE DETAILS OF WHICH NEED
NOT HERE BE RECITED, THE ROCHESTER WAS FORMED TO CONSOLIDATE THE TWO
PREVIOUSLY COMPETING ENTERPRISES.  THE PROPERTY OF THE INDEPENDENT WAS
PAID FOR BY BONDS OF THE ROCHESTER, AND THE PROPERTY OF THE NEW YORK BY
PREFERRED STOCK, LATER DESIGNATED AS SECOND PREFERRED, OF WHICH THE NEW
YORK HAD THE ENTIRE ISSUE, 48,140 SHARES AT $100 PAR. THE ROCHESTER
ISSUED 1000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, AT $100 PAR, OF WHICH THE NEW YORK
PURCHASED 335 SHARES.  THE NEW YORK ALSO PAID THE OFFICERS OF THE
INDEPENDENT COMPANY $70,000 FOR THEIR SERVICES IN CONSUMMATING THE
CONSOLIDATION, BUT $66,500 OF THIS AMOUNT WAS TO BE USED IN PURCHASING
THE REMAINING 665 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK FOR DEPOSIT IN A VOTING
TRUST.  OTHER OUTSTANDING SECURITIES OF THE ROCHESTER, FIRST PREFERRED
STOCK AND BONDS, NEITHER OF WHICH HAD ANY VOTING RIGHTS, WERE HELD BY
THE PUBLIC.  THERE WERE COMPLICATED LIMITATIONS UPON THE VOTING RIGHTS
OF THE SECOND PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, BUT THE DOMINATING CIRCUMSTANCES
TOUCHING VOTING RIGHTS WERE THAT IN MAJOR MATTERS NO VOTE OF
STOCKHOLDERS COULD BE EFFECTIVE UNLESS CONCURRED IN BY EIGHTY PER CENT
OF THE COMMON STOCK AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS WERE ELECTED BY CUMULATIVE VOTING OF THE COMMON STOCK,
THEREBY ASSURING NEW YORK FIVE OUT OF FIFTEEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS AND TWO MEMBERS IN AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF FIVE. 

PUTTING ALL THESE FACTORS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH THE ROCHESTER CAME INTO BEING, THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS
FINANCED, THE OPERATION OF THE VOTING TRUST, AND THE STAKE OF THE NEW
YORK IN THE ROCHESTER, THE COMMISSION, AFTER FULL HEARING AND DUE
CONSIDERATION, CONCLUDED THAT "THE NEW YORK COMPANY, THROUGH STOCK
OWNERSHIP, IS THE DOMINANT FINANCIAL FACTOR IN THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
AND ALSO, THAT THIS, TAKEN TOGETHER WITH THEIR CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS
AND OTHER PERTINENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES APPEARING IN THE RECORD,
UNQUESTIONABLY GIVES THE NEW YORK COMPANY POWER TO CONTROL THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORPORATION." 

THE RECORD AMPLY JUSTIFIED THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION IN MAKING
SUCH FINDINGS.  INVESTING THE COMMISSION WITH THE DUTY OF ASCERTAINING
"CONTROL" OF ONE COMPANY BY ANOTHER, CONGRESS DID NOT IMPLY ARTIFICIAL
TESTS OF CONTROL.  FN31  THIS IS AN ISSUE OF FACT TO BE DETERMINED BY
THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.  SO LONG AS THERE IS WARRANT IN
THE RECORD FOR THE JUDGMENT OF THE EXPERT BODY IT MUST STAND.  THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE REFUSAL TO REGARD THE NEW YORK OWNERSHIP OF ONLY
ONE THIRD OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE ROCHESTER AS CONCLUSIVE OF THE
FORMER'S LACK OF CONTROL OF THE LATTER SHOULD INVALIDATE THE
COMMISSION'S FINDING, DISREGARDS ACTUALITIES IN SUCH INTERCORPORATE
RELATIONS.  HAVING FOUND THAT THE RECORD PERMITTED THE COMMISSION TO
DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT IT DID, A COURT TRAVELS BEYOND ITS PROVINCE TO
EXPRESS CONCURRENCE THEREWITH AS AN ORIGINAL QUESTION.  "THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION IS EXHAUSTED WHEN THERE IS FOUND TO BE A RATIONAL BASIS FOR
THE CONCLUSIONS APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY."  MISSISSIPPI
VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 282, 286-287; SWAYNE &
HOYT, LTD. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 303, ET SEQ. DECREE
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ON NOVEMBER 13, 1935, THE ORDER WAS AMENDED IN MATTERS NOT HERE
RELEVANT. 

FN2  THE HEARING BEFORE THE EXAMINER LASTED TWO DAYS; 221 PAGES OF
TESTIMONY WERE TAKEN AND 34 EXHIBITS WERE INTRODUCED. 

FN3  UNDER UNITED STATES V. CORRICK, 298 U.S. 435, 440, AND UNITED
STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, 229, THE DOCTRINE OF "NEGATIVE ORDERS"
IMPLIES A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH COURTS MUST CONSIDER SUA SPONTE. 

FN4  ALL EXCEPT ONE OF THE PRIOR DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ON THE
"NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE INVOLVED REVIEW OF ACTION BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  UNITED STATES V. CORRICK, SUPRA, NOTE 3, INVOLVED
REVIEW OF ACTION BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THE PACKERS AND
STOCKYARDS ACT. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 244 U.S. 82.  COMPARE
FEDERAL POWER COMM'N V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO., 304 U.S. 375. 

FN6  DELAWARE & HUDSON CO. V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 438. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299. 

FN8  SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 596; COMPARE SHIELDS V.
UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL R. CO., 305 U.S. 177, 182-184.    FN9  HAYBURN'S
CASE, 2 DALL.  409, IS THE SYMBOL FOR CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LIMIT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, THOUGH THAT CASE ITSELF
NEVER REACHED ADJUDICATION.  SEE, ALSO, UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA, 13
HOW.  40; MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, 219 U.S. 346. 

FN10  PRIOR TO SEC. 7 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, AUTHORIZING AN
APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM A DECREE GRANTING A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, REVIEW IN A CASE NOT INVOLVING A FINAL JUDGMENT
WAS UNKNOWN IN THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM, EXCEPT INSOFAR AS IT WAS
PRESENT IN THE PRACTICE OF CERTIFICATION INTRODUCED BY SEC. 6 OF THE
ACT OF APRIL 29, 1802.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BAILEY, 9 PET. 267.  FOR
STATE COURT DECISIONS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FINALITY OF THE ORIGINAL
JUDICIARY ACT HAVE BEEN ADHERED TO.  SEC. 237, JUDICIAL CODE AS
AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344.  REVIEW OF ACTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURTS NOT INVOLVING FINAL JUDGMENTS CAN BE HAD ONLY IN A LIMITED CLASS
OF CASES DEALING WITH INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS, RECEIVERSHIPS, AND
CRIMINAL APPEALS.  SECS. 129 AND 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED,
28 U.S.C. SECS. 227, 345.  THIS COURT, HOWEVER, MAY TAKE JURISDICTION
ON CERTIORARI BEFORE THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IS EXHAUSTED. 

FN11  THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE APPARENTLY ORIGINATED THE STATEMENT,
OFTEN MADE IN "NEGATIVE ORDER" CASES, THAT THE RISK RESULTS FROM THE
STATUTE, NOT FROM THE ORDER.  BUT THIS FORMULA HARDLY SQUARES WITH THE
ACTUALITIES OF THE SITUATION IN THAT CASE.  THE PANAMA CANAL ACT,
PARAGRAPHS 19-21 OF SEC. 5 OF THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE, AS AMENDED,
FORBADE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST BETWEEN ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE
ACT AND A COMPETING WATER CARRIER.  UNDER PARAGRAPH 20, JURISDICTION
WAS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF FACT AS TO
THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS, EITHER ON
THE APPLICATION OF THE CARRIER OR ON THE COMMISSION'S MOTION, ITS
DETERMINATION TO BE FILED.  UNDER PARAGRAPH 21, THE COMMISSION WAS
GIVEN JURISDICTION TO EXTEND THE TIME WITHIN WHICH OPERATIONS OTHERWISE
PROHIBITED BY THE STATUTE MIGHT BE CARRIED ON AFTER JULY 1, 1914, IF
SUCH EXTENSION DID NOT REDUCE COMPETITION AND BENEFITED THE PUBLIC. 
AFTER RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE ACT FROM THE COMMISSION, THE LEHIGH
APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION FOR A RULING THAT IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
ACT, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN EXTENSION.  THE COMMISSION ISSUED
AN ORDER SUBJECTING THE LEHIGH TO THE ACT AND DENYING AN EXTENSION. 
THEREUPON THE LEHIGH BROUGHT A SUIT TO SET ASIDE THIS ORDER AND TO
ENJOIN THE COMMISSION FROM ENFORCING IT. 

AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THE RISK OF PROSECUTION TO WHICH THE LEHIGH WAS
SUBJECTED IF IT WISHED TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE ITS BOATS WAS THE RESULT
OF THE ORDER.  SINCE THE PANAMA CANAL ACT PROVIDED THAT THE COMMISSION
SHOULD FIND THE FACTS UNDER IT, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO PROSECUTION
WITHOUT A PREVIOUS FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE LEHIGH WAS WITHIN
THE ACT; ONCE SUCH A FINDING WAS MADE IT WAS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY.  COMPARE KEOGH V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 260
U.S. 156.  THEREFORE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER THAT THE LEHIGH WAS SUBJECT
TO THE PANAMA CANAL ACT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISK, AS MUCH SO AS IF
IT HAD EXPRESSLY COMMANDED THE LEHIGH TO STOP RUNNING ITS BOAT LINES. 
AND ASSUMING THE LEHIGH WAS WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE, THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER DENYING AN EXCEPTION HAD THE SAME PRACTICAL EFFECT
AS A DIRECT COMMAND.  INTERMOUNTAIN RATE CASES, 234 U.S. 476. 

PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 469, PRESENTS
A MORE COMPLICATED SITUATION.  SECTION 1(18-22) OF THE ACT TO REGULATE
COMMERCE, AS AMENDED, PROHIBITS ANY COMMON CARRIER BY RAIL SUBJECT TO
THE ACT FROM EXTENDING ITS LINES OR CONSTRUCTING NEW LINES WITHOUT A
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  THIS REQUIREMENT DID NOT
APPLY TO "INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAYS, WHICH ARE NOT OPERATED AS A
PART OR PARTS OF A GENERAL STEAM RAILROAD ROAD SYSTEM OF
TRANSPORTATION."  UPON AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE BY THE PIEDMONT
& NORTHERN, COUPLED WITH A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS
AN "INTERURBAN ELECTRIC" RAILWAY, FOR WHICH NO CERTIFICATE WAS
REQUIRED, THE COMMISSION DENIED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENIED THE
CERTIFICATE ON THE MERITS.  THE BILL TO ENJOIN THE COMMISSION FROM
TAKING ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PIEDMONT & NORTHERN UNDER THIS ORDER
ATTACKED THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION SOLELY ON ITS ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION.  THE COURT HELD THE ORDER WAS NOT REVIEWABLE, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ORDER DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE RAILROAD'S STATUS, DID NOT
COMMAND IT TO DO ANYTHING, BUT ONLY HAD THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE
PIEDMONT'S DOUBTS AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE.  TO BE SURE, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION. 
BUT THIS IS TO VIEW THE MATTER TOO ABSTRACTLY.  FOR THE COMMISSION
ITSELF HAD INSTITUTED THE SYSTEM WHEREBY IT REQUESTED PRELIMINARY
SUBMISSION TO IT OF THE STATUS OF "INTERURBAN" ROADS.  SUCH A DECISION
WAS AT LEAST THE EQUIVALENT OF A THREAT OF PROSECUTION UNDER THE
STATUTE, AND, IN FACT, CONSIDERABLE WEIGHT IS GIVEN TO ADMINISTRATIVE
PRACTICE IN ASCERTAINING THE MEANING OF SUCH LEGISLATION.  COMPARE
UNITED STATES V. VILLAGE OF HUBBARD, 266 U.S. 474. 

FN12  THE INITIAL DECISION IN THIS GROUP OF CASES, THE INTERMOUNTAIN
RATE CASES, 234 U.S. 476, HELD REVIEWABLE THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION
IN REFUSING TO GRANT REQUESTED CONSENT TO DEPART FROM THE LONG-SHORT
HAUL CLAUSE.  (SEC. 4 OF THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE, AS AMENDED.) 
WHILE THIS CASE WOULD SEEM TO CONTROL THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE AND AT
LEAST TO BE PERSUASIVE IN THE PIEDMONT & NORTHERN CASE, IT WAS NOT
MENTIONED IN THEM.  AFTER THESE TWO CASES, SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS IN THIS
GROUP INDICATED THAT THE "NEGATIVE ORDER" DOCTRINE MIGHT PREVENT REVIEW
OF THE REFUSAL BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO ACCEPT RATES FOR
FILING, THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT PROHIBITING THE CHARGING OF
RATES EXCEPT THOSE ON FILE WITH THE SECRETARY, UNITED STATES V.
CORRICK, 298 U.S. 435, AND OF THE REFUSAL TO GRANT AN INCREASE IN RATES
OF COMPENSATION FOR CARRYING OF MAIL, THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT OF 1916
REQUIRING THE CARRIER TO CARRY THE MAIL AT THE RATE SET, UNITED STATES
V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226.  BUT IN BOTH THESE DECISIONS THE RESULT
REACHED WAS SUPPORTED BY FACTORS IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESENT DISCUSSION. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, IN POWELL V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 276, ACTION OF
THE COMMISSION, STRIKING FROM ITS FILES A TARIFF ON THE GROUND THAT A
POINT WAS NOT SERVED BY THE CARRIER, WAS HELD SUBJECT TO REVIEW AS A
COMMAND TO THE RAILWAY WHICH HAD FILED THE TARIFF NOT TO GIVE THE
SERVICE COVERED BY THE TARIFF. 

FN13  THE CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258; VENNER V. MICHIGAN
CENTRAL R. CO., 271 U.S. 127; COLORADO V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 153;
CLAIBORNE-ANNAPOLIS FERRY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 285 U.S. 382; UNITED
STATES V. IDAHO, 298 U.S. 105. 

FN14  "...  WE HAVE LEARNED OF NO INSTANCE WHERE IT WAS HELD OR EVEN
SERIOUSLY ASSERTED, THAT AS TO SUBJECTS WHICH IN THEIR NATURE WERE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF THE COMMISSION TO DECIDE,
THERE WAS POWER IN A COURT, BY AN EXERCISE OF ORIGINAL ACTION, TO
ENFORCE ITS CONCEPTIONS AS TO THE MEANING OF THE ACT TO REGULATE
COMMERCE BY DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THE SUBJECT IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY PRIOR
AFFIRMATIVE COMMAND OR ACTION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
ON THE CONTRARY, BY A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS, WHEREBY APPLICATIONS TO
ENFORCE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF OR
WHERE REQUESTS TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH ORDERS WERE PASSED
UPON, IT APPEARS BY THE REASONING INDULGED IN THAT IT WAS NEVER
CONSIDERED THAT THERE WAS POWER IN THE COURTS AS AN ORIGINAL QUESTION
WITHOUT PREVIOUS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BY THE COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH WHAT
MIGHT BE TERMED IN A BROAD SENSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEATURES OF THE ACT
TO REGULATE COMMERCE BY DETERMINING AS AN ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT THERE
HAD BEEN A COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT."  225 U.S. AT 296-97.  "  ...  THE RECOGNITION OF A RIGHT IN A
COURT TO ASSERT THE POWER NOW CLAIMED WOULD OF NECESSITY AMOUNT TO A
SUBSTITUTION OF THE COURT FOR THE COMMISSION OR AT ALL EVENTS WOULD BE
TO CREATE A DIVIDED AUTHORITY ON A MATTER WHERE FROM THE BEGINNING
PRIMARY SINGLENESS OF ACTION AND UNITY WAS DEEMED TO BE IMPERATIVE." 
225 U.S. AT 298-99. 

FN15  SEE CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT'S ESTIMATE OF THE SERVICES OF CHIEF
JUSTICE WHITE IN "A NEW FIELD OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW":  "THE CAPITAL
IMPORTANCE WHICH OUR RAILROAD SYSTEM HAS COME TO HAVE IN THE WELFARE OF
THIS COUNTRY MADE THE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT OF CRITICAL MOMENT.  IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TO SAY THAT CHIEF JUSTICE
WHITE IN CONSTRUING THE MEASURE AND ITS GREAT AMENDMENTS HAS HAD MORE
TO DO WITH PLACING THIS VITAL PART OF OUR PRACTICAL GOVERNMENT ON A
USEFUL BASIS THAN ANY OTHER JUDGE.  HIS OPINIONS IN THE CASE OF THE
TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. V. THE ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., AND THE
CASES WHICH FOLLOWED IT, ARE MODELS OF CLEAR AND SATISFACTORY REASONING
WHICH GAVE TO THE PEOPLE, TO STATE LEGISLATURES, TO CONGRESS, AND THE
COURTS A MUCH-NEEDED KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRACTICAL FUNCTIONS THE COMMERCE
COMMISSION WAS TO DISCHARGE, AND OF HOW THEY WERE TO BE RECONCILED TO
EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL MACHINERY, FOR THE VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF
THE PUBLIC IN RESPECT OF NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION.  THEY ARE A
CONSPICUOUS INSTANCE OF HIS UNUSUAL AND REMARKABLE POWER AND FACILITY
IN STATESMANLIKE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE LAW."  PROCEEDINGS ON THE
DEATH OF CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE, 257 U.S. V, XXV. 

FN16  34 STAT. 584. 

FN17  36 STAT. 539. 

FN18  LAWS OF NEW YORK, ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTIETH SESSION, C.
429(1907). 

FN19  WISCONSIN LAWS OF 1907, C. 499, ST. 1797 M. 

FN20  SEE, E.G., HUGHES, SOME ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN
LAW (1916) 39 N.Y.B.A. REP. 266, 269-70; ROOT, PUBLIC SERVICE BY THE
BAR (1916) 41 A.B.A. REP. 355, 368-69; SUTHERLAND, PRIVATE RIGHTS AND
GOVERNMENT CONTROL (1917) 42 A.B.A. 197. 

FN21  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25, 44;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S.
88, 93; UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN RY. CO., 265 U.S. 274, 288;
COMPARE DOUGLAS V. NOBLE, 261 U.S. 165, 169.  "IT IS, PERHAPS, NOT TOO
MUCH TO SAY THAT NOT A SINGLE CASE ARISING BEFORE THE COMMISSION COULD
BE PROPERLY DECIDED IF THE COMPLAINANT, THE RAILROAD, OR THE COMMISSION
WERE BOUND BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLYING TO THE INTRODUCTION OF
TESTIMONY IN COURTS."  TWENTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, 10. 

FN22  SEE, ALSO, E.G., BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES EX
REL. PITCAIRN COAL CO., 215 U.S. 481; ROBINSON V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO., 222 U.S. 506; UNITED STATES V. PACIFIC & ARCTIC CO., 228 U.S. 87;
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. AMERICAN TIE CO., 234 U.S. 138; NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. SOLUM, 247 U.S. 477; DIRECTOR GENERAL V. VISCOSE
CO., 254 U.S. 498; DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263
U.S. 456; WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
267 U.S. 493; MIDLAND VALLEY R. CO. V. BARKLEY, 276 U.S. 482; BOARD OF
RAILROAD COMM'RS V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO., 281 U.S. 412.  THE DOCTRINE
HAS BEEN GIVEN GENERAL APPLICATION, E.G., UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO.
V. CUNARD STEAMSHIP CO., 284 U.S. 474(SHIPPING BOARD); MYERS V.
BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41(NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD).  COMPARE, ALSO, PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE CO., 211 U.S.
210; ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337. 

FN23  IN MANUFACTURERS RAILWAY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 457,
THE COURT TREATED AS REVIEWABLE THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN FAILING
TO REQUIRE AN ABSORPTION OF SWITCHING CHARGES OR A REQUESTED JOINT RATE
BUT HELD NOT REVIEWABLE REFUSAL TO FIX DIVISIONS.  IN PART THIS MAY
HAVE BEEN ON THE THEORY THAT THE ISSUE OF THE DIVISIONS WAS NOT
PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  SEE 246 U.S. AT 482-483.  IN UNITED
STATES V. NEW RIVER CO., 265 U.S. 533, THE COURT HELD REVIEWABLE THE
ACTION OF THE FULL COMMISSION DISMISSING A COMPLAINT BY A SHIPPER
AGAINST CERTAIN CAR PRACTICES HELD INVALID BY ONE DIVISION OF THE
COMMISSION.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 235, HELD NOT
REVIEWABLE THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION REFUSING TO GRANT REPARATIONS,
BUT THE MAIN BASIS OF THE DECISION WAS NOT THE "NEGATIVE ORDER"
DOCTRINE BUT THE STATUTORY SCHEME DEALING WITH REPARATIONS.  IN ALTON
R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 229, THE COURT HELD REVIEWABLE THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION REFUSING TO INTERFERE WITH DIVISIONS SET BY A
RAILROAD IN VIOLATION OF A PREVIOUS AGREEMENT, THE COURT STATING THAT
THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION VALIDATED DIVISIONS WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY
INVALID.  SEE 287 U.S. AT 236-237. 

FN24  THE ONLY TEST WHICH CAN BE DERIVED FROM THE CASES IN NOTES 11
13, 23, SUPRA, IS THAT AN ORDER IS "AFFIRMATIVE" IF IT HAS THE LEGAL
EFFECT OF CHANGING THE STATUS QUO, PERMITTING WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY NOT
ALLOWED OR COMPELLING WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY NOT REQUIRED.  BUT ON THIS
TEST THE ORDER IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE WAS "AFFIRMATIVE."  THE
DECISION IN THE NEW RIVER COAL CO. CASE COULD HARDLY BE HUNG ON SUCH A
GOSSAMER THREAD AS THIS TEST, SINCE THERE THE ONLY CHANGE IN THE STATUS
QUO RESULTING FROM AN ORDER CONSIDERED "AFFIRMATIVE" WAS THAT THE ORDER
OF THE FULL COMMISSION HELD UNOBJECTIONABLE A CAR PRACTICE WHICH WAS
THE SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT.  A DIVISION OF THE COMMISSION IN THE SAME
PROCEEDING HAD STATED THAT THE PRACTICE WAS INVALID AND SHOULD BE
ABANDONED AND IT WAS ABANDONED.  AFTER THE FULL COMMISSION FOUND THE
PRACTICE NOT INVALID AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, THE PRACTICE WAS
ADOPTED AGAIN. 

FN25  SEE ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 229, 235. 

FN26  THIS BECOMES CLEAR ON ANALYSIS OF THE PRECISE PROBLEM PRESENTED
IN THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CASE.  IT WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN SHIPPERS WHO
OWNED PRIVATE CARS AND THOSE WHO DID NOT AS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
CARS OWNED BY THE CARRIERS.  THE COMMISSION WAS CALLED UPON TO RESOLVE
THAT ECONOMIC CONFLICT BY VIRTUE OF ITS AUTHORITY TO PREVENT PRACTICES
WHICH UNFAIRLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ONE GROUP AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
OTHER.  ITS FINAL DECISION WAS BASED ON A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY
CONCERNING THE PLACE OF PRIVATE CARS IN OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.  HAD
THE PRIOR PRACTICE OF THE CARRIERS BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH THIS POLICY,
AND THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION COMPELLED A CHANGE, THE PRIVATE CAR
SHIPPERS WOULD ADMITTEDLY HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF
THE COMMISSION RULING IN THE COURTS, SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO THE CANONS
OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINALITY.  IT SEEMS CAPRICIOUS THAT THE FACT THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER AUTHORIZING THE PRESERVATION OF THE STATUS QUO
SHOULD BLOCK ANY REVIEW AT ALL.  THE FORCE OF THIS REASONING IS
EMPHASIZED WHEN IT IS REALIZED WHAT SMALL FACTORS MAY DETERMINE WHETHER
THE STATUS QUO HAS BEEN CHANGED, E.G., A DIFFERENCE OF VIEWS WITHIN THE
COMMISSION, AS IN THE NEW RIVER COAL CO. CASE, SUPRA, NOTE 24.  SEE THE
OPINION OF THE COMMERCE COURT SUSTAINING REVIEWABILITY IN PROCTER &
GAMBLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 188 F. 221. 

FN27  THE RESTATEMENT OF TORTS DOES NOT EMPLOY THIS NOMENCLATURE. 
SEE, ALSO, 7, LABATT, MASTER AND SERVANT, SEC. 2586. 

FN28  COMPARE INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 153, 157:
"  ...  THE COMMISSION WAS ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF SHIPPERS GENERALLY
AND IN BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AND THE NATIONAL RAILROAD SYSTEM." 

FN29  IN THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CASE THE JUDICIAL RELIEF ASKED WAS THAT
THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
DEMURRAGE RULES BE ANNULLED AND THAT THE CARRIERS BE ENJOINED FROM
APPLYING THOSE RULES.  IN THE NEW RIVER COAL CO. CASE THE JUDICIAL
RELIEF ASKED WAS THAT THE CAR RULE UNDER ATTACK BE ADJUDGED INVALID,
THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT AGAINST IT BE
ADJUDGED INVALID, THAT THE CARRIERS BE ENJOINED FROM COMPLYING WITH THE
RULE AND THAT THE COMMISSION BE ENJOINED FROM RESTRICTING THE COMMERCE
OF THE COMPLAINANTS BY ITS ORDER AND BY THE RULE. 

IN THE LEHIGH VALLEY CASE THE JUDICIAL RELIEF ASKED WAS THAT THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AND THE INSTITUTION OF ANY
PROCEEDINGS THEREUNDER AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT BE ENJOINED.  IN THE
INTERMOUNTAIN RATE CASES THE JUDICIAL RELIEF ASKED WAS THAT THE ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION BE SET ASIDE, THAT SEC. 4 OF THE ACT TO REGULATE
COMMERCE BE DECLARED INVALID, AND THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL BE ENJOINED FROM TAKING ANY PROCEEDINGS TO PROSECUTE THE
CARRIERS FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 4. 

FN30  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. ATLANTA, B. & C.R. CO., 282 U.S. 522. 

FN31  SEE HOUSE REPORT 1850, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., 4-5; COMPARE 78
CONG. REC. 8446. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER. 

APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT SHOWS THAT PRIOR TO MAKING ITS FINAL ORDER
NOVEMBER 18, 1936, THE COMMISSION MADE GENERAL ORDERS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6A
AND 9, DIRECTING THAT EVERY TELEPHONE CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE ACT FILE
STATEMENTS CONCERNING ITS BUSINESS AND AFFAIRS.  DECLINING TO RECOGNIZE
THE ACT AS APPLYING TO IT, APPELLANT WITHHELD COMPLIANCE.  THE
COMMISSION ORDERED IT TO OBEY OR TO FILE ANSWER SETTING FORTH THE FACTS
ON WHICH IT RELIED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR FAILURE SO TO DO. APPELLANT
THEN APPLIED TO THE COMMISSION FOR DETERMINATION THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT
TO THE ACT OR THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION BECAUSE EXEMPTED UNDER SEC.
2(B)(2).  AFTER HEARING, THE COMMISSION MADE THE FINAL ORDER DECLARING
APPELLANT SUBJECT TO ALL COMMON CARRIER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT "AND,
THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO ALL ORDERS OF THE TELEPHONE DIVISION APPLICABLE
TO WIRE TELEPHONE CARRIERS ...  "  THUS PLAINLY IT MADE THE GENERAL
ORDERS ABOVE MENTIONED APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT. 

THE COMPLAINT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THESE ORDERS ON THE GROUND
INTER ALIA THAT APPELLANT AS A MATTER OF LAW IS, AND BY THE EVIDENCE
AND FACTS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION IS SHOWN TO BE, NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OF
THEM.  THE PRAYER IS FOR DECREE "SETTING ASIDE AND ANNULLING SAID
ORDERS  ... AND EACH AND ALL OF THEM AND ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF"
THEM.  IN THE DISTRICT COURT, APPELLEES RAISED NO QUESTION AS TO ITS
JURISDICTION.  BUT HERE THEY ARGUE:  THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION
CLASSIFYING THE APPELLANT AS SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION AND TO THE
GENERAL ORDERS IS NOT AN ORDER REVIEWABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913; THE DETERMINATION NEITHER COMMANDS NOR
DIRECTS APPELLANT TO DO OR REFRAIN FROM DOING ANYTHING; THE COMMISSION
COULD NOT HAVE INSTITUTED A PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE IT AND CONSEQUENTLY
THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO SET IT ASIDE. 

THE FINAL ORDER IS MUCH MORE THAN A MERE DETERMINATION THAT APPELLANT
IS SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  WHEN READ, AS IT MUST BE, IN CONNECTION WITH
THE GENERAL ORDERS, IT UNMISTAKABLY PUTS APPELLANT UNDER A SERIES OF
AFFIRMATIVE MANDATES WHICH, IF VALID, MAY BE ENFORCED UNDER THE ACT. 
SEE 47 U.S.C. SECS. 401, 409, 501, 502; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 47, MADE
APPLICABLE BY 47 U.S.C. SEC. 402A.  THESE UNEQUIVOCALLY IMPOSE UPON
APPELLANT BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF PREPARING AND REPORTING TO THE
COMMISSION A VAST AMOUNT OF STATISTICAL AND OTHER INFORMATION. 

THE CASE PRESENTS NO DEBATABLE QUESTION AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  A STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ALLEGED CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS
THAT IN PURPOSE, TERMS AND EFFECT THE FINAL ORDER CONSTITUTES NOT MERE
DETERMINATION OR DECLARATION BUT AFFIRMATIVE COMMANDS.  THERE IS NO
OCCASION TO REVIEW EARLIER DECISIONS DEALING WITH AFFIRMATIVE AND
NEGATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND OBVIOUSLY NONE TO OVERRULE ANY OF
THEM OR TO REPUDIATE OR IMPAIR THE DOCTRINE THEY ESTABLISH.* THE
COURT'S DISCUSSION, EXTRANEOUS TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED, CONFUSES RATHER
THAN CLARIFIES. 

*SEE E.G.:  PROCTER & GAMBLE V. UNITED STATES, (1912) 225 U.S. 282,
292 ET SEQ. HOOKER V. KNAPP, 225 U.S. 302.  UNITED STATES V. BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO., 225 U.S. 306, 320.  LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 243 U.S. 412.  UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 244
U.S. 82, 89.  CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 263-264.  UNITED
STATES V. NEW RIVER CO., 265 U.S. 533, 539-541.  DELAWARE & HUDSON CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 438, 448.  MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L.R. CO. V.
PEORIA RY. CO., 270 U.S. 580.  COLORADO V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 153,
161.  UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 309. 
GT. NORTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 172.  PIEDMONT & N. RY.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 469, 475-477.  UNITED STATES V. ATLANTA,
B. & C.R. CO., 282 U.S. 522.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283
U.S. 235.  ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 229.  UNITED STATES
V. B. & O.R. CO., 293 U.S. 454.  POWELL V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 276,
284.  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, 232 ET SEQ. SHANNAHAN V.
UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 596, 599. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT ARE AMPLY SUSTAINED BY THE
EVIDENCE, AND ITS DECREE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. MAHER, 307 U.S. 148 


NO. 432.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 23
F.SUPP.  810, REVERSED. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DENIED AN APPLICATION OF A
COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY AUTHORIZING HIM TO OPERATE OVER A DESIGNATED ROUTE, AND
ORDERED HIM TO CEASE OPERATING, HOLDING INAPPLICABLE TO HIS CASE A
PROVISION OF SEC. 206(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, UPON WHICH HE
RELIED, WHEREBY CARRIERS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION ON JUNE 1, 1935, AND
SINCE ARE RELIEVED FROM FURTHER PROOF OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY.  HELD THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT IN THIS RULING IS
REVIEWABLE BY SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO SET ASIDE AND ANNUL THE
ORDER.  P. 152. 

2.  UNDER SEC. 206(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, A CARRIER WHO
WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE
1, 1935, OVER THE ROUTE OR ROUTES OR WITHIN THE TERRITORY FOR WHICH
APPLICATION IS MADE AND HAS SO OPERATED SINCE THAT TIME IS ENTITLED TO
A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF
THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED BY SUCH
OPERATION.  HELD INAPPLICABLE WHERE OPERATION OVER THE ROUTE APPLIED
FOR, BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI, BEGAN IN MAY, 1936, WHEREAS THE PREVIOUS
OPERATION WAS AN "ANYWHERE FOR HIRE" SERVICE THAT WAS ABANDONED WHEN
THE NEW ROUTE WAS INSTITUTED.  P. 154. 

3.  WHERE AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE BASED SOLELY UPON THE
EXCEPTION IN SEC. 206(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT IS FOUND UNSUPPORTED
BY THE EVIDENCE, THE COMMISSION IS NOT OBLIGED TO INQUIRE WHETHER IT
SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 207(A).  P.
156. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. MAHER, DOING BUSINESS AS INTERSTATE BUSSES. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF OREGON. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DENYING AN
APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND
COMMANDING THE APPLICANT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM OPERATING. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL, UNDER SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS
AMENDED (28 U.S.C. SEC. 345), TO REVIEW A FINAL DECREE, SETTING ASIDE
AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, GRANTED BY A DISTRICT
COURT OF THREE JUDGES UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, (49 U.S.C.
SUPP. SEC. 305(H)), IN CONNECTION WITH THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF
OCTOBER 22, 1913(28 U.S.C. SECS. 45, 47A). 

THE APPLICATION TO THE SPECIAL FACTS OF THIS CASE OF WHAT IS
COLLOQUIALLY KNOWN AS "THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT
IS THE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION AT ISSUE.  THERE IS A PRELIMINARY
JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEM TOUCHING THOSE PHASES OF THE RELATIONS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO THE COURTS WHICH ARE IMPLIED BY THE
CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ISSUED A "NEGATIVE ORDER." 

543, FORBIDS COMMON CARRIERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE SUBJECT TO ITS PROVISIONS
FROM ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE OPERATIONS WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO BE ISSUED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 207 OF THE ACT.  "THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" OF SEC.
206, HOWEVER, PROVIDES THAT "IF ANY SUCH CARRIER  ...  WAS IN BONA FIDE
OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE 1, 1935, OVER
THE ROUTE OR ROUTES OR WITHIN THE TERRITORY FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS
MADE AND HAS SO OPERATED SINCE THAT TIME,  ...  THE COMMISSION SHALL
ISSUE SUCH CERTIFICATE WITHOUT REQUIRING FURTHER PROOF THAT PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED BY SUCH OPERATION." 

ON JANUARY 24, 1936, THE APPELLEE, MAHER, FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER
THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" FOR A CERTIFICATE TO ENGAGE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE OVER U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 99
BETWEEN PORTLAND AND SEATTLE AND INTERMEDIATE POINTS.  AFTER A HEARING
WAS HAD BEFORE A "JOINT BOARD" COMPOSED OF MEMBERS FROM THE STATES
INVOLVED (SECS. 203(A)(4) AND 205) AT WHICH COMPETING CARRIERS AND THE
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OREGON APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE
APPLICATION, AND AFTER A REPORT WAS FILED BY THE JOINT BOARD WITH THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE APPLICATION BE
DENIED, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, DIVISION 5, ON OCTOBER 27,
1937, FOUND THE FACTS TO BE AS FOLLOWS:  FROM 1931 UNTIL MAY 29, 1936,
THE APPELLEE HAD ENGAGED IN BONA FIDE "ANYWHERE-FOR-HIRE" OPERATIONS IN
OREGON WITH OCCASIONAL ENTRIES INTO WASHINGTON.  THERE WERE RARE TRIPS
TO SEATTLE, NO SERVICE AT ALL TO MOST OF THE INTERVENING POINTS, AND NO
SHOWING THAT PASSENGERS WERE TRANSPORTED ON RETURN TRIPS TO PORTLAND. 
ON MAY 29, 1936, THE APPELLEE BEGAN HIS REGULAR-ROUTE SERVICE BETWEEN
PORTLAND AND SEATTLE WHICH HE CONDUCTED REGULARLY SINCE THAT TIME.  BUT
UPON THE INSTITUTION OF THE REGULARROUTE SERVICE BETWEEN PORTLAND AND
SEATTLE THE APPELLEE DISCONTINUED THE "ANYWHERE-FOR-HIRE" OPERATIONS
THERETOFORE CONDUCTED.  UPON THIS SHOWING DIVISION 5 FOUND THAT THE
SERVICE CONDUCTED BY THE APPELLEE SINCE MAY 29, 1936, WAS A DIFFERENT
SERVICE FROM THAT CONDUCTED BY HIM PRIOR TO THAT TIME, AND THEREFORE
CONCLUDED THAT HE DID NOT COME WITHIN "THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  AND
SO, THE COMMISSION DENIED MAHER'S APPLICATION AND ORDERED HIM "TO CEASE
AND DESIST" FROM "ALL OPERATIONS" AS A COMMON CARRIER IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THEREUPON THE APPELLEE FILED THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, PRAYING THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
BE SET ASIDE AND "ANY CONSTRUCTION THEREUNDER" ENJOINED.  THE SUIT WAS
DISPOSED OF ON THE PLEADINGS, THE ANSWER OF THE COMMISSION HAVING
INCORPORATED ITS REPORT AND ORDERS.  A MAJORITY OF THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERTAINED JURISDICTION AND HELD THAT THE APPELLEE WAS ENTITLED TO AN
"ANYWHERE-FOR-HIRE" PERMIT UNDER "THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" AS WELL AS
THE REGULAR-ROUTE PERMIT UNDER SEC. 207.  23 F.SUPP.  810.  CIRCUIT
JUDGE HANEY FOUND JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER,
ALTHOUGH NOT THE ORDER DENYING THE CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY, BUT SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S VIEW OF THE ACT. 

THE JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEM PRESENTS ANOTHER INSTANCE OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAVING BEEN INVESTED WITH POWER TO FREE
A COMPLAINANT OF RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON HIS CONDUCT BY A STATUTORY
SCHEME AND HAVING DEFINITELY REJECTED THE CLAIM FOR DISPENSATION.  THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE COMMISSION THEN CAME INTO COURT TO "SET ASIDE" AND
"ANNUL" THE "ORDER" OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, CLAIMING
THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION WAS BASED ON A WRONG READING OF THE
AUTHORITY WHICH THE ACT OF CONGRESS GAVE IT.  TO THE HEARING OF SUCH A
CLAIM THERE IS NO JURISDICTIONAL BARRIER, AS WE HAVE HELD TODAY IN
ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 125.  FN1 

ON THE MERITS THE CASE BRINGS INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UPON SEC.
206(A) OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT RELIEVING CARRIERS OPERATING ON JUNE 1,
1935, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEFINED BY THE TERMS OF SEC. 206(A) FROM
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 207.  FN2  THE LATTER SECTION REQUIRES A
FINDING BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE GRANTING OF SUCH A CERTIFICATE IS
DEMANDED BY PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  BUT UNDER SEC. 206(A)
THE COMMISSION MUST ISSUE "SUCH CERTIFICATE WITHOUT REQUIRING FURTHER
PROOF THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED" BY AN
APPLICANT WHO "WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR
VEHICLE ON JUNE 1, 1935, OVER THE ROUTE OR ROUTES OR WITHIN THE
TERRITORY FOR WHICH APPLICATION WAS MADE AND HAS SO OPERATED SINCE THAT
TIME."  BY THIS LEGISLATION CONGRESS RESPONDED TO THE FELT NEED FOR
REGULATING INTERSTATE MOTOR TRANSPORTATION THROUGH FAMILIAR
ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICES, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME IT SATISFIED THE
DICTATES OF FAIRNESS BY AFFORDING SANCTION FOR ENTERPRISES THERETOFORE
ESTABLISHED.  WHETHER AN APPLICANT SEEKING EXEMPTION HAD IN FACT BEEN
IN OPERATION WITHIN THE IMMUNIZING PERIOD OF THE STATUTE WAS BOUND TO
RAISE CONTROVERTED MATTERS OF FACT.  THEIR DETERMINATION CONGRESS
ENTRUSTED TO THE COMMISSION.  THE LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD
ARE RELATIVELY SIMPLE ONCE THE SOMEWHAT CONFUSED OPERATIONS OF THE
APPELLEE'S BUSINESS ARE CLEARLY DEFINED. 

INVOKING THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" THE APPELLEE SOUGHT FROM THE
COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING CONTINUANCE OF HIS REGULAR SERVICE
BETWEEN THE FIXED TERMINI OF PORTLAND AND SEATTLE ON U.S. HIGHWAY 99. 
BUT THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE REGULAR OPERATION OVER THIS ROUTE HAD
ONLY BEEN INSTITUTED ON MAY 29, 1936.  THERETOFORE, AND INCLUDING THE
CRUCIAL PERIOD PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1935, THE APPELLEE HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN
QUITE DIFFERENT SERVICES FROM THOSE FOR WHICH IT ASKED A CERTIFICATE,
NAMELY, "AN IRREGULAR, SO-CALLED ANY WHERE-FOR-HIRE OPERATION IN OREGON
WITH OCCASIONAL TRIPS TO POINTS IN WASHINGTON" OVER ANY ROUTE ADAPTED
TO A PARTICULAR TRIP, BUT USING AT LEAST FOR PART OF THE DISTANCE U.S.
HIGHWAY 99 ON TRIPS TO WASHINGTON.  THESE IRREGULAR OPERATIONS WERE
DISCONTINUED AFTER THE APPELLEE'S REGULAR ROUTE WAS ESTABLISHED. 
APPLYING THESE FINDINGS WHICH ARE BINDING HERE, THE COMMISSION RULED
THAT THE APPELLEE DID NOT BRING HIMSELF WITHIN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
"GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  IN MAKING THIS APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE, THE
COMMISSION PROPERLY CONSTRUED IT. 

THE RECOGNIZED PRACTICES OF AN INDUSTRY GIVE LIFE TO THE DEAD WORDS
OF A STATUTE DEALING WITH IT.  IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN OPERATIONS
OVER THE "ROUTE OR ROUTES" FOR WHICH AN APPLICATION UNDER THE
"GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" IS MADE AS AGAINST OPERATIONS "WITHIN THE
TERRITORY," CONGRESS PLAINLY ADOPTED THE FAMILIAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN
"ANYWHERE-FOR-HIRE" BUS OPERATIONS OVER IRREGULAR ROUTES AND REGULAR
ROUTE BUS OPERATIONS BETWEEN FIXED TERMINI.  FN3  SUCH RECOGNITION IS
IMPLICIT ALSO IN THE PROVISION OF SEC. 208(A) THAT "ANY CERTIFICATE
ISSUED UNDER SECTION 206 OR 207 SHALL SPECIFY THE SERVICE TO BE
RENDERED AND THE ROUTES OVER WHICH, THE FIXED TERMINI, IF ANY, BETWEEN
WHICH, AND THE INTERMEDIATE AND OFF-ROUTE POINTS, IF ANY, AT WHICH, AND
IN CASE OF OPERATIONS NOT OVER SPECIFIED ROUTES OR BETWEEN FIXED
TERMINI, THE TERRITORY WITHIN WHICH, THE MOTOR CARRIER IS AUTHORIZED TO
OPERATE."  SINCE THE NEW REGULAR ROUTE OF APPELLEE WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE
ON JUNE 1, 1935, AND THE IRREGULAR "ANYWHERE-FOR-HIRE" SERVICE WAS NOT
"SO OPERATED," AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 206, WHEN THE COMMISSION PASSED UPON
THE APPLICATION FOR A "GRANDFATHER" CERTIFICATE, THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY
REJECTED THE APPLICATION. 

BUT THE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ON ANOTHER
GROUND.  IT HELD THAT WHEN THE COMMISSION REJECTED APPELLEE'S CLAIM
UNDER THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" ANOTHER PROVISION OF SEC. 206(A) SPRANG
INTO RELEVANCE, TO WIT "OTHERWISE THE APPLICATION FOR SUCH CERTIFICATE
SHALL BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN
DENIED ACCORDINGLY."  WE DO NOT READ THE STATUTE AS LAYING A COMPULSION
UPON THE COMMISSION TO CANVASS ALL THE QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
INTEREST THAT ARE IMPLICIT IN AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE BASED ON
"PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY" WHEN THE APPLICANT HIMSELF ONLY
SEEKS THE FAVOR OF THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE" AND MAKES NO CLAIM, EITHER
BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR IN HIS BILL SEEKING TO ENJOIN ITS ACTION, TO
HAVE THE COMMISSION ACT OUTSIDE THE "GRANDFATHER CLAUSE."  REVERSED. 

FN1  FOR REASONS ON WHICH ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY APPEARS TO SHED NO
LIGHT, THE PHRASE "NEGATIVE ORDER" CREPT INTO SEC. 205 OF THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT IN A CONTEXT NOT COVERING THE PRESENT SITUATION. 

FN2  "SEC.  206.  (A)  NO COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART SHALL ENGAGE IN ANY INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
OPERATION ON ANY PUBLIC HIGHWAY, OR WITHIN ANY RESERVATION UNDER THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, UNLESS THERE IS IN FORCE
WITH RESPECT TO SUCH CARRIER A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZING SUCH OPERATIONS:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT, SUBJECT TO SECTION 210, IF ANY SUCH CARRIER OR
PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST WAS IN BONA FIDE OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER
BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE 1, 1935, OVER THE ROUTE OR ROUTES OR WITHIN
THE TERRITORY FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE AND HAS SO OPERATED SINCE
THAT TIME, OR IF ENGAGED IN FURNISHING SEASONAL SERVICE ONLY, WAS IN
BONA FIDE OPERATION ON JUNE 1, 1935, DURING THE SEASON ORDINARILY
COVERED BY ITS OPERATION, EXCEPT IN EITHER INSTANCE AS TO INTERRUPTIONS
OF SERVICE OVER WHICH THE APPLICANT OR ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST HAD
NO CONTROL, THE COMMISSION SHALL ISSUE SUCH CERTIFICATE WITHOUT
REQUIRING FURTHER PROOF THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WILL BE
SERVED BY SUCH OPERATION, AND WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, IF
APPLICATION FOR SUCH CERTIFICATE IS MADE TO THE COMMISSION AS PROVIDED
IN PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SECTION AND WITHIN ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS
AFTER THIS SECTION SHALL TAKE EFFECT, AND IF SUCH CARRIER WAS
REGISTERED ON JUNE 1, 1935, UNDER ANY CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION
REQUIRING REGISTRATION, THE FACT OF REGISTRATION SHALL BE EVIDENCE OF
BONA FIDE OPERATION TO BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF
SUCH CERTIFICATE.  OTHERWISE THE APPLICATION FOR SUCH CERTIFICATE SHALL
BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION
207(A) OF THIS PART AND SUCH CERTIFICATE SHALL BE ISSUED OR DENIED
ACCORDINGLY.  PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF ANY SUCH APPLICATION THE
CONTINUANCE OF SUCH OPERATION SHALL BE LAWFUL:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER,
THAT THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL NOT BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO REQUIRE ANY SUCH
CARRIER LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN OPERATION SOLELY WITHIN ANY STATE TO OBTAIN
FROM THE COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING THE TRANSPORTATION BY
SUCH CARRIER OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE BETWEEN PLACES WITHIN SUCH STATE IF THERE BE A BOARD IN SUCH
STATE HAVING AUTHORITY TO GRANT OR APPROVE SUCH CERTIFICATES AND IF
SUCH CARRIER HAS OBTAINED SUCH CERTIFICATE FROM SUCH BOARD.  SUCH
TRANSPORTATION SHALL, HOWEVER, BE OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS PART. 

"(B)  APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATES SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING TO THE
COMMISSION, BE VERIFIED UNDER OATH, AND SHALL BE IN SUCH FORM AND
CONTAIN SUCH INFORMATION AND BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SERVICE UPON
SUCH INTERESTED PARTIES AS THE COMMISSION SHALL, BY REGULATION,
REQUIRE.  ANY PERSON, NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH
(A) OF THIS SECTION, WHO OR WHICH IS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE
WHEN THIS SECTION TAKES EFFECT MAY CONTINUE SUCH OPERATION FOR A PERIOD
OF ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS THEREAFTER WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE AND, IF
APPLICATION FOR SUCH CERTIFICATE IS MADE TO THE COMMISSION WITHIN SUCH
PERIOD, THE CARRIER MAY, UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE COMMISSION SHALL
PRESCRIBE, CONTINUE SUCH OPERATION UNTIL OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE
COMMISSION.    "SEC. 207.  (A)  SUBJECT TO SECTION 210, A CERTIFICATE
SHALL BE ISSUED TO ANY QUALIFIED APPLICANT THEREFOR, AUTHORIZING THE
WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE OPERATIONS COVERED BY THE APPLICATION, IF IT
IS FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT IS FIT, WILLING, AND ABLE PROPERLY TO
PERFORM THE SERVICE PROPOSED AND TO CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
PART AND THE REQUIREMENTS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION
THEREUNDER, AND THAT THE PROPOSED SERVICE, TO THE EXTENT TO BE
AUTHORIZED BY THE CERTIFICATE, IS OR WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE PRESENT OR
FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; OTHERWISE SUCH APPLICATION
SHALL BE DENIED:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH CERTIFICATE SHALL BE
ISSUED TO ANY COMMON CARRIER OF PASSENGERS BY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR
OPERATIONS OVER OTHER THAN A REGULAR ROUTE OR ROUTES, AND BETWEEN FIXED
TERMINI, EXCEPT AS SUCH CARRIERS MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN SPECIAL
OR CHARTER OPERATIONS." 

FN3  SEE MOTOR BUS AND MOTOR TRUCK OPERATION, 140 I.C.C. 685, 699;
COORDINATION OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION, 182 I.C.C. 263, 274.  SEE ALSO
COORDINATION OF MOTOR TRANSPORTATION, SEN. DOC. NO. 43, 72D CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 34-35; REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES, SEN. DOC. NO.
152, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 176, 191-192. 
..END :




FED. POWER COMM'N V. PACIFIC CO., 307 U.S. 156 


NO. 508.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 17, 1939.  - 98 F.2D
835, AFFIRMED. 


CONSOLIDATIONS, ACQUISITIONS, ETC. OF PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITIES WITHOUT
PRIOR AUTHORIZATION BY ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, FURTHER
PROVIDES THAT IF THE COMMISSION AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING FINDS THAT A PROPOSED DISPOSITION WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, IT SHALL APPROVE THE SAME.  HELD: 

1.  THAT AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DENYING AN APPLICATION OF TWO
POWER COMPANIES FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED TRANSFER, UPON THE GROUND
THAT THE APPLICANTS HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSFER WOULD BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WAS REVIEWABLE ON QUESTIONS OF LAW
UNDER SEC. 313(B) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT ANY PARTY TO A
PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION
IN SUCH PROCEEDING MAY OBTAIN REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS.  P. 159. 

2.  THE OBJECTION THAT REVIEW OF THE ORDER PRESENTS NO CASE OR
CONTROVERSY, BECAUSE THE COURT CAN NOT ITSELF APPROVE THE PROPOSED
TRANSFER, IS REJECTED, SINCE, WITHOUT INTRUDING UPON THE PROVINCE OF
THE COMMISSION, THE COURT CAN ADJUDICATE THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
AND ITS JUDGMENT WILL BE FINAL AND BINDING ON THE COMMISSION.  P. 159. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 593, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE COURT BELOW WHICH
DENIED A MOTION TO DISMISS A PETITION TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
POWER COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE INTRINSIC IMPORTANCE OF THE
ISSUE RAISED AND OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION BELOW, 98 F.2D 835,
AND THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 
NEWPORT ELECTRIC CORP. V. FEDERAL POWER COMM'N, 97 F.2D 580(C.C.A.2D). 

THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER
COMMISSION, DENYING AN APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 203(A)  FN1  OF THE
FEDERAL POWER ACT AS AMENDED, (49 STAT. 849) IS REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC.
313(B) OF THAT ACT. 

THE INLAND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, AN OREGON CORPORATION, OWNS THREE
HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECTS IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON, TWO OF WHICH ARE
OPERATED UNDER LICENSE OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, AND THE THIRD,
UNDER A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  THE PACIFIC
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A MAINE CORPORATION, IS ENGAGED IN GENERATING
AND DISTRIBUTING ELECTRIC ENERGY IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON, AND OWNS AND
OPERATES FACILITIES FOR INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY.  THE
INLAND AND PACIFIC COMPANIES FILED A JOINT APPLICATION WITH THE POWER
COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL, UNDER SECS. 8 AND 203 OF THE ACT, OF A
PROPOSED TRANSFER OF ALL THE ASSETS, INCLUDING LICENSES, OF INLAND TO
PACIFIC, AND OF THE TERMINATION OF INLAND'S EXISTENCE.  HAVING FOUND
AFTER DUE HEARING AND CONSIDERATION THAT "APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED TO
ESTABLISH THAT SAID TRANSFER WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SEC. 203(A) OF THE FEDERAL POWER
ACT," THE COMMISSION ORDERED THAT "THE APPLICATION BE AND THE SAME
HEREBY IS DENIED." 

INVOKING SEC. 313(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, THE APPLICANTS
INITIATED THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AS UNWARRANTED
IN LAW AND UNSUPPORTED IN ITS FINDINGS.  THE EXACT SCOPE OF THE PRAYER
IS POSTPONED FOR LATER CONSIDERATION.  THE POWER COMMISSION CHALLENGED
THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BY A MOTION TO DISMISS
THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
UNDER SEC. 313(B), SINCE THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE WAS NEGATIVE
IN CHARACTER.  THE DENIAL OF THAT MOTION BROUGHT THE CASE HERE. 

IF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT HAD FORMALLY TAKEN OVER THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT PERTAINING TO REVIEW OF
ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE DECISION IN ROCHESTER
TELEPHONE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 125, WOULD DISPOSE OF THIS
CASE AND SUSTAIN THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BELOW.  BUT THE POWER
ACT CONTAINS A DISTINCTIVE FORMULATION OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
RESORT TO THE COURTS MAY BE MADE AND CONGRESS DETERMINES THE SCOPE OF
JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS.  SECTION 313(B) PROVIDES THAT
"ANY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER ISSUED
BY THE COMMISSION IN SUCH PROCEEDING MAY OBTAIN REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES."  THE DENIAL BY THE
COMMISSION OF APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION BY PETITIONERS OF THE
TRANSFER OF INLAND TO PACIFIC AS NOT "CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC
INTEREST" WAS AN "ORDER," AND THE PETITIONERS WERE "AGGRIEVED" BY IT
SINCE WITHOUT SUCH APPROVAL THE TRANSFER WAS FORBIDDEN.  SEC. 203(A). 
THUS THE STATUTORY SCHEME OF THE POWER ACT ONLY REINFORCES THE ANALYSIS
MADE IN THE ROCHESTER CASE. 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT REVIEW OF THE POWER COMMISSION'S ORDER DOES NOT
PRESENT A "CASE" OR "CONTROVERSY," BECAUSE THE COURT ITSELF CANNOT LIFT
THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE BY GRANTING PERMISSION FOR THE TRANSFER,
NOR ORDER THE COMMISSION TO GRANT SUCH PERMISSION.  AND SO IT IS
CLAIMED THAT ANY ACTION OF A COURT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION WOULD BE AN EMPTY GESTURE, SINCE WITHOUT PERMISSION A
TRANSFER WOULD BE UNLAWFUL.  BUT THIS PROVES TOO MUCH.  IN NONE OF THE
SITUATIONS IN WHICH AN ACTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OR
OF A SIMILAR FEDERAL REGULATORY BODY COMES FOR SCRUTINY BEFORE A
FEDERAL COURT CAN JUDICIAL ACTION SUPPLANT THE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY
OF A COMMISSION.  A FEDERAL COURT CANNOT FIX RATES NOR MAKE DIVISIONS
OF JOINT RATES NOR RELIEVE FROM THE LONG-SHORT HAUL CLAUSE NOR
FORMULATE CAR PRACTICES.  SO HERE IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE COURT
ITSELF CANNOT APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE TRANSFER.  THE COURT HAS POWER
TO PASS JUDGMENT UPON CHALLENGED PRINCIPLES OF LAW INSOFAR AS THEY ARE
RELEVANT TO THE DISPOSITION MADE BY THE COMMISSION.  "  ...  A JUDGMENT
RENDERED WILL BE A FINAL AND INDISPUTABLE BASIS OF ACTION BETWEEN THE
COMMISSION AND THE DEFENDANT."  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. BAIRD,
194 U.S. 25, 38.  IN MAKING SUCH A JUDGMENT THE COURT DOES NOT INTRUDE
UPON THE PROVINCE OF THE COMMISSION, WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS OF "CASE" OR "CONTROVERSY" ARE SATISFIED.  FOR PURPOSES OF
JUDICIAL FINALITY THERE IS NO MORE REASON FOR ASSUMING THAT A
COMMISSION WILL DISREGARD THE DIRECTION OF A REVIEWING COURT THAN THAT
A LOWER COURT WILL DO SO.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "NO PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL SELL, LEASE, OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF
THE WHOLE OF ITS FACILITIES SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COMMISSION, OR ANY PART THEREOF OF A VALUE IN EXCESS OF $50,000, OR BY
ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, MERGE OR CONSOLIDATE SUCH
FACILITIES OR ANY PART THEREOF WITH THOSE OF ANY OTHER PERSON, OR
PURCHASE, ACQUIRE, OR TAKE ANY SECURITY OF ANY OTHER PUBLIC UTILITY,
WITHOUT FIRST HAVING SECURED AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZING IT
TO DO SO.  ...  AFTER NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, IF THE
COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION, CONSOLIDATION,
ACQUISITION, OR CONTROL WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IT
SHALL APPROVE THE SAME." 
..END :










HELVERING V. METRO. EDISON CO., 306 U.S. 522 


NO. 486.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 3, 1939.  - 98 F.2D
807 - ID., 812, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UPON A TRANSFER BY ONE PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION TO ANOTHER OF ITS
FRANCHISES AND ASSETS, PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF APRIL 29, 1874 OF THAT
STATE, AS AMENDED, THE TRANSFEREE BECOMES LIABLE AS MATTER OF LAW FOR
THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE TRANSFEROR.  P. 528. 

2.  A TRANSFER BY ONE PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION TO ANOTHER OF ITS
ASSETS AND FRANCHISES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE-CITED ACT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, HELD TANTAMOUNT TO A MERGER, AND THAT THE TRANSFEREE, IN
COMPUTING ITS INCOME TAX UNDER THE FEDERAL REVENUE ACTS OF 1926 AND
1928, WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT UNAMORTIZED DISCOUNT AND EXPENSES IN
RESPECT OF BONDS ISSUED BY THE TRANSFEROR AND RETIRED BY THE
TRANSFEREE.  P. 529. 

3.  A TRANSFER BY ONE PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION TO ANOTHER OF ITS
ASSETS, THE TRANSFEREE ASSUMING ALL OF THE LIABILITIES OF THE
TRANSFEROR, INCLUDING BONDS ON WHICH THE TRANSFEREE WAS ALREADY LIABLE
AS GUARANTOR, ALTHOUGH IT DID NOT COMPLY FULLY WITH THE ABOVE-CITED
PENNSYLVANIA ACT, HELD A DE FACTO MERGER ENTITLING THE TRANSFEREE TO A
LIKE DEDUCTION.  P. 529. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. METROPOLITAN EDISON
CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 487, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. PENNSYLVANIA WATER & POWER CO., ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 592, TO REVIEW REVERSALS IN TWO CASES OF
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 35 B.T.A. 1110, 36 ID. 467,
SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCES OF DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES PRESENT THE QUESTION WHETHER, UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF
1926 AND 1928,  FN1  A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION MAY DEDUCT UNAMORTIZED
BOND DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE IN CONNECTION WITH REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS OF
A SUBSIDIARY, ALL OF WHOSE ASSETS IT HAD PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED PURSUANT
TO LOCAL LAW.  THE COURT BELOW ANSWERED THIS QUESTION IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.  FN2  BY REASON OF A DIRECT CONFLICT OF DECISION WE
GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  FN3 

THE RESPONDENT IN NO. 486 IS A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION SUPPLYING
ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER IN THAT STATE AND ALSO OPERATING, THROUGH
SUBSIDIARIES, A SYSTEM WHICH SERVES COMMUNITIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AND
MARYLAND.  IT FILED CONSOLIDATED RETURNS FOR ITSELF AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES FOR 1927 AND 1928.  DURING 1928 THE COMPANY RETIRED
CERTAIN BONDS OF PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE FORMERLY
SUBSIDIARIES WHOSE OBLIGATIONS THE TAXPAYER HAD ASSUMED WHEN IT TOOK
OVER THEIR ASSETS BY TRANSFERS EFFECTED PURSUANT TO AN ACT OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF APRIL 29, 1874, AS AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTED.  FN4
WHEN THESE OBLIGATIONS WERE REDEEMED THERE EXISTED, WITH RESPECT TO
THEM, UNAMORTIZED DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE AGGREGATING $752,481.26, WHICH
THE COMPANY IN ITS RETURN DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME.  THE COMMISSIONER
RULED AGAINST THE DEDUCTION AND DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER.  FN5  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD, HOLDING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WHEREBY THE
TAXPAYER ACQUIRED THE ASSETS AND ASSUMED THE LIABILITIES OF ITS FORMER
SUBSIDIARIES, PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE, CONSTITUTED A MERGER, AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH THE SUBSIDIARIES CEASED TO EXIST BY OPERATION OF
LAW WHEREAS THE TAXPAYER CONTINUED TO EXIST AND BECAME LIABLE FOR THE
SUBSIDIARIES' DEBTS BOTH UNDER CONTRACT AND BY OPERATION OF LAW.  THE
COURT, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE UNAMORTIZED DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE WAS
DEDUCTIBLE IN RESPECT OF THE SUBSIDIARY'S BONDS. 

IN 1923 THE RESPONDENT IN NO. 486 DESIRED TO ERECT A GENERATING PLANT
FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY.  WISHING TO FINANCE IT BY A SEPARATE BOND ISSUE
THE RESPONDENT ORGANIZED METROPOLITAN POWER COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA
CORPORATION, AS A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY.  THE TAXPAYER PURCHASED,
GUARANTEED, AND SOLD, AT THE SAME PRICE IT HAD PURCHASED, $3,250,000 OF
BONDS OF THE SUBSIDIARY; PURCHASED ALL OF ITS STOCK AND LOANED IT ON
OPEN ACCOUNT APPROXIMATELY $3,000,000.  THE POWER COMPANY HELD NO
PUBLIC FRANCHISES AND, UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE TAXPAYER, SOLD ALL OF
ITS ELECTRICITY TO THE LATTER AT A PRICE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE IT MERELY
TO EARN THE COSTS OF OPERATION AND OTHER CHARGES, INCLUDING
DEPRECIATION, TAXES, AND INTEREST.  IN 1927, PURSUANT TO STATE
AUTHORITY, THE POWER COMPANY SOLD ALL ITS ASSETS SUBJECT TO ITS
LIABILITIES TO THE TAXPAYER, A DEFICIT FROM OPERATIONS BEING CHARGED
AGAINST THE TAXPAYER'S SURPLUS.  AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER THE
TAXPAYER SURRENDERED THE STOCK OF THE POWER COMPANY FOR CANCELLATION
AND THE LATTER BECAME INACTIVE AND WAS DISSOLVED IN 1928.  THE TAXPAYER
ASSUMED LIABILITY FOR THE OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE POWER COMPANY
PAYMENT OF WHICH IT HAD ORIGINALLY GUARANTEED AND, DURING 1927, CALLED
THEM FOR REDEMPTION AND REDEEMED THEM.  AT THE TIME OF THE REDEMPTION
THERE REMAINED UNAMORTIZED DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE INCURRED IN ISSUING THE
BONDS AGGREGATING $308,097.90 WHICH THE TAXPAYER DEDUCTED FROM ITS
GROSS INCOME.  THE COMMISSIONER RULED AGAINST THE DEDUCTION AND THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED HIM.  FN6  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED
THE BOARD, HOLDING THAT, WHILE THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT CONSUMMATED
UNDER THE STATE STATUTE IT NEVERTHELESS WAS UNDER STATE LAW A DE FACTO
MERGER, AND THE TAXPAYER WAS ACCORDINGLY ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION. 

THE RESPONDENT IN NO. 487 IS A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION OPERATING A
HYDROELECTRIC PLANT AT HOLTWOOD, PENNSYLVANIA.  IN 1924 IT DESIRED TO
PROVIDE ITS CUSTOMERS WITH A MORE ADEQUATE SUPPLY BY AN AUXILIARY STEAM
POWER PLANT.  AS ITS CORPORATE POWERS DID NOT PERMIT STEAM GENERATION
OF ELECTRICITY IT CAUSED THE INCORPORATION OF A PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY,
KNOWN AS HOLTWOOD POWER COMPANY, ALL OF WHOSE SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND
OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT.  WITH THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE POWER
COMPANY'S STOCK AND THOSE OF A BOND ISSUE THE STEAM PLANT WAS ERECTED. 
THIS PLANT SOLD ALL ITS OUTPUT TO THE TAXPAYER WHICH AGREED, IN RETURN,
TO PAY THE POWER COMPANY'S COSTS AND EXPENSES AND AN ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPRECIATION, AND TO PAY A SUM TO PROVIDE FOR AMORTIZATION OF DEBT,
DISCOUNT, AND SECURITY ISSUE EXPENSE, AND THE EXPENSES ATTENDING THE
ISSUE, REGISTRATION AND TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL STOCK AND BONDS, ALL
INTEREST ON BONDS AND OTHER INDEBTEDNESS, AND A SUM SUFFICIENT TO
PROVIDE A NET RETURN OF EIGHT PER CENT. ON THE POWER COMPANY'S STOCK. 
THE STEAM PLANT WAS MANAGED BY THE TAXPAYER'S OFFICERS AND EMPLOYES
WITHOUT COMPENSATION AND WAS OPERATED AS A DEPARTMENT OF THE TAXPAYER. 
IN 1927 THE TAXPAYER SURRENDERED CERTAIN CORPORATE POWERS SO AS TO BE
IN A POSITION TO EFFECT A MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION WITH ITS SUBSIDIARY
UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES.  FN7  THEREUPON THE POWER COMPANY
CONVEYED ALL OF ITS ASSETS AND FRANCHISES TO THE TAXPAYER PURSUANT TO
THE PENNSYLVANIA ACT OF 1874 AS AMENDED, THE SOLE CONSIDERATION BEING
THE DELIVERY TO THE SUBSIDIARY OF ALL ITS CAPITAL STOCK HELD BY THE
TAXPAYER AND THE ASSUMPTION BY THE TAXPAYER OF THE SUBSIDIARY'S
INDEBTEDNESS.  THE SUBSIDIARY CEASED TO EXIST.  IN 1928 THE TAXPAYER
RETIRED THE BONDS OF ITS FORMER SUBSIDIARY AND CHARGED OFF UNAMORTIZED
DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE IN RESPECT OF THEM IN THE SUM OF $145,159.52 AND,
IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THAT YEAR, CLAIMED A SMALL DEDUCTION FOR
AMORTIZATION FOR A PORTION OF THE YEAR PRIOR TO THE RETIREMENT, AND A
DEDUCTION OF THE BALANCE OF THE SUM ABOVE MENTIONED AS OF THE DATE WHEN
THE RETIREMENT TOOK PLACE.  THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION
AND DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
RULING.  FN8  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD. 

THE PETITIONER CONCEDES THAT IF THERE HAS BEEN A TRUE MERGER OR
CONSOLIDATION WHEREBY THE IDENTITY OF THE CORPORATION ISSUING THE BONDS
CONTINUES IN THE SUCCESSOR AND THE LATTER BECOMES LIABLE FOR THE DEBTS
OF THE FORMER BY OPERATION OF LAW, THE SUCCESSOR MAY DEDUCT
AMORTIZATION OF DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE IN RESPECT OF BONDS ISSUED BY ITS
PREDECESSOR AS WELL AS UNAMORTIZED DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE ON ANY OF SUCH
BONDS RETIRED PRIOR TO MATURITY.  FN9  THE RULE IS NOT APPLICABLE UPON
A MERE SALE BY ONE CORPORATION OF ALL ITS ASSETS TO ANOTHER WHICH
ASSUMES THE LIABILITIES OF THE FORMER.  FN10 

THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN ISSUE
FALL WITHIN THE LATTER CATEGORY.  THE RESPONDENTS, ON THE OTHER HAND,
INSIST THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF PENNSYLVANIA AND
THE DECISIONS OF HER COURTS, THE TRANSACTIONS CONSTITUTED MERGERS IN
THE PROPER ACCEPTATION OF THAT TERM.  THE QUESTION, THEN, IS SOLELY ONE
RESPECTING THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

UNTIL THE COMPLETE REVISION OF THE CORPORATION LAWS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH IN 1933 THERE WERE BUT TWO STATUTES AVAILABLE TO
CORPORATIONS SEEKING TO MERGE OR CONSOLIDATE.  THE ACT OF APRIL 29,
1874, SEC. 23, SUPRA, SO FAR AS MATERIAL, PROVIDES THAT ANY
CORPORATION, WITH THE CONSENT OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS, MAY "SELL, ASSIGN,
DISPOSE OF AND CONVEY TO ANY CORPORATION CREATED UNDER OR ACCEPTING THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, ITS FRANCHISES, AND ALL ITS PROPERTY, REAL,
PERSONAL AND MIXED, AND THEREAFTER SUCH CORPORATION SHALL CEASE TO
EXIST, AND THE SAID PROPERTY AND FRANCHISES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
ACT, SHALL THEREAFTER BE VESTED IN THE CORPORATION SO PURCHASING AS
AFORESAID.  ..."  THE ACT OF MAY 3, 1909,  FN11  PERMITS WHAT IT TERMS
A MERGER BUT WHAT IS IN TRUTH A CONSOLIDATION TO BE EFFECTED BY A JOINT
AGREEMENT OF TWO OR MORE CORPORATIONS APPROVED BY THE STOCKHOLDERS
SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE MERGER AND CONSOLIDATION
AND PROVIDING FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF A NEW CORPORATION TO WHICH THE
FRANCHISES AND PROPERTY OF THE CONSOLIDATING CORPORATIONS ARE TO BE
TRANSFERRED.  THIS ACT CONTEMPLATES THE ISSUE OF LETTERS PATENT TO THE
CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION, AND THE ISSUE OF NEW STOCK BY IT, IN LIEU OF
THAT OF THE OLD.  THE PROCEDURE UNDER THE ACT OF 1874 HAS REPEATEDLY
BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH AS THE "SHORT FORM" AND THAT UNDER THE ACT OF 1909 AS THE
"LONG FORM" OF MERGER.  FN12 

INASMUCH AS THE TRANSFER OF THE FRANCHISES AND ASSETS IS AUTHORIZED
BY STATUTE, IT SEEMS REASONABLY CLEAR THAT THE TRANSFEREE IS, AS MATTER
OF LAW, LIABLE FOR THE OBLIGATION OF THE TRANSFEROR.  THE CASES
INDICATE THAT THIS IS SO.  FN13  THE PETITIONER ARGUES AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS HELD TO THE CONTRARY, IN
RELIANCE ON MERWINE V. MT. POCONO LIGHT & IMP.  CO., 304 PA. 517; 156
ATL. 150.  THAT COURT THOUGHT THE CASE INDICATED THAT THE LIABILITY, IF
ANY, OF THE TRANSFEREE WAS NOT UNDER THE STATUTE BUT WAS ONLY THAT OF A
FRAUDULENT TRANSFEREE UNDER 13 ELIZ., CHAP. 5.  ACTION FOR A TORT HAD
BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST THE TRANSFEROR PRIOR TO A TRANSFER UNDER THE ACT
OF 1874.  AFTER THE CONVEYANCE THE DEFENDANT FILED A SUGGESTION THAT
THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN CONVEYED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, THAT THE
DEFENDANT HAD CEASED TO EXIST, AND THAT THE ACTION SHOULD BE ABATED. 
THE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SUBSTITUTE THE TRANSFEREE AS DEFENDANT.  THE
TRIAL COURT DENIED SUBSTITUTION AND ABATED THE ACTION.  THE SUPREME
COURT HELD THAT THE TERMINATION OF CORPORATE EXISTENCE OF THE DEFENDANT
UNDER THE ACT OF 1874 DID NOT ABATE THE ACTION, BUT THAT IF THE
PLAINTIFF RECOVERED A JUDGMENT SHE COULD "LEVY WHEREVER DEFENDANT'S
ASSETS LIABLE FOR THE JUDGMENT MAY BE FOUND," WHICH SEEMS TO US TO MEAN
NO MORE THAN THAT THE ASSETS AFTER THE CONVEYANCE REMAINED SUBJECT TO
THE TRANSFEROR'S LIABILITIES.  A TRANSFER FULLY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE
CANNOT BE A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE WITHIN THE 13 ELIZ. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT A TRANSFER WITHOUT VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,
WITH THE INTENT THAT THE TRANSFEROR SHALL, AS THE STATUTE PROVIDES,
CEASE TO EXIST, MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE, HAS ALL THE
ELEMENTS OF A MERGER AND COMES WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE CORPORATE
PERSONALITY OF THE TRANSFEROR IS DROWNED IN THAT OF THE TRANSFEREE.  IT
RESULTS THAT THE CONTINUING CORPORATION MAY DEDUCT UNAMORTIZED BOND
DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE IN RESPECT OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE TRANSFERRING
AFFILIATE. 

A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT QUESTION ARISES WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSFER OF
ASSETS OF METROPOLITAN POWER COMPANY.  IT IS ADMITTED THAT THIS
TRANSFER WAS NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE ACT OF 1874. 
NO FRANCHISES WERE TRANSFERRED BECAUSE THE METROPOLITAN POWER COMPANY
HELD NO PUBLIC FRANCHISES OF ANY KIND.  THE TRANSFER WAS MERELY OF
ASSETS WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF ALL THE LIABILITIES BY THE TRANSFEREE. 
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT AMONGST THE LIABILITIES ASSUMED
WERE BONDS ON WHICH THE PARENT COMPANY WAS ALREADY LIABLE AS
GUARANTOR.  THE COURT BELOW HAS HELD, AND WE CONCUR, THAT, UNDER THE
LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE TRANSFER IN QUESTION CONSTITUTED A DE FACTO
MERGER, EVEN THOUGH THE TRANSFER DID NOT COMPLY WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT OF 1874,  FN14  AND THAT, AS MATTER OF LAW, THE TAXPAYER
WOULD BE LIABLE FOR THE DEBTS OF THE TRANSFEROR.  JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SECS. 200(D), 212(B), 232 AND 234(A)(1)(2)
AND (4), 44 STAT. 9, 10, 23, 41-42; REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SECS. 23(A)(B)
AND (F), 41, 42, 43, 48, 45 STAT. 791, 799-800, 805, 807. 

FN2  98 F.2D 807, 812. 

FN3  SEE GENERAL GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 98 F.2D 561,
IN WHICH CERTIORARI WAS ALSO GRANTED, DECIDED POST P. 530. 

FN4  ACT OF APRIL 29, 1874, P.L. 73, SEC. 23, AMENDED BY ACT OF APRIL
17, 1876, P.L. 30, SEC. 5, AND ACT OF JUNE 2, 1915, P.L. 724, SEC. 1. 
PURDON'S PA. STATS. TIT. 15, SEC. 595. 

FN5  35 B.T.A. 1110. 

FN6  35 B.T.A. 1110. 

FN7  SEE YORK HAVEN WATER & POWER CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 287
PA. 241, 249; 134 ATL. 419, 421. 

FN8  36 B.T.A. 467. 

FN9  AMERICAN GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 85 F.2D 527;
AMERICAN GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. UNITED STATES, 17 F.SUPP.  151; NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 79 F.2D 247; WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 33 F.2D 695; ILLINOIS POWER & LIGHT CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, 33 B.T.A. 1189; CONNECTICUT ELECTRIC SERVICE CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 35 B.T.A. 444.    FN10  TURNER-FARBER-LOVE CO. V.
HELVERING, 62 APP. D.C. 369; 68 F.2D 416; AMERICAN GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA; AMERICAN GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA. 

FN11  PURDON'S PA. STATS. TIT. 15, SEC. 421, ETC. 

FN12  SEE YORK HAVEN WATER & POWER CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 287
PA. 241, 246; 134 ATL. 419, 420; BUIST'S ESTATE, 297 PA. 537, 541; 147
ATL. 606, 607; COMPARE STOCKLEY PENNA.  CORP.  LAWS 1933, PP. 39, 104;
PENNSYLVANIA UTILITIES CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 69 PA. SUPER.  CT.
612. 

FN13  BERKOVITZ'S APPEAL, 319 PA. 397, 407; 179 ATL. 746 AT 751;
COMMONWEALTH V. MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK, 323 PA. 145, 153; 185 ATL.
823, 827.    FN14  COMMONWEALTH V. MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA, P.
152. 
..END :









GENERAL GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 306 U.S. 530 


NOS. 492 AND 493.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1939.  - DECIDED APRIL 3, 1939.  -
98 F.2D 561, REVERSED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.,
ANTE, P. 522. 

GENERAL GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 593, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING THE DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY
IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE COMPANION CASES TO NOS. 486 AND 487, ANTE, P. 522, AND
INVOLVE THE SAME QUESTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT
CONVEYANCES BY SUBSIDIARIES TO THE TAXPAYER, CONSUMMATED UNDER THE ACT
OF APRIL 29, 1874, DID NOT CONSTITUTE MERGERS SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE
TAXPAYER TO TAKE A DEDUCTION FOR UNAMORTIZED BOND DISCOUNT AND EXPENSE
IN RESPECT OF BONDS ISSUED BY THE SUBSIDIARIES PRIOR TO THE
CONVEYANCE. 

FOR REASONS GIVEN IN NOS. 486 AND 487 THE JUDGMENTS MUST BE
REVERSED. 
..END :























FAIRBANKS V. UNITED STATES, 306 U.S. 436 


NO. 65.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939.  - 95 F.2D
794, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE REDEMPTION BEFORE MATURITY OF CORPORATE BONDS IS NOT A "SALE
OR EXCHANGE" OF CAPITAL ASSETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 208(A)(1),
REV. ACT 1926, AND SEC. 101(C)(1), REV. ACT 1928, AND THE GAIN SO
REALIZED BY THE BONDHOLDER IS NOT A "CAPITAL GAIN," TO BE TAXED AT THE
12 1/2% RATE, BUT IS TAXABLE AT THE NORMAL AND SURTAX RATES.  P. 437. 

2.  IN PROVIDING EXPRESSLY THAT AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE HOLDER UPON
THE RETIREMENT OF CORPORATE BONDS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AMOUNTS
RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE THEREFOR, THE REV. ACT OF 1934 DID NOT INTERPRET,
BUT CHANGED THE PRIOR LAW.  P. 438. 

FAIRBANKS V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 667, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE UNITED STATES IN AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT BROUGHT UNDER SEC.
610 OF THE REV. ACT 1928 TO RECOVER MONEY ERRONEOUSLY REFUNDED TO A
TAXPAYER. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BOTH COURTS BELOW RULED THAT GAIN DERIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM
REDEMPTION OF BONDS DURING 1927, 1928 AND 1929 WAS NOT "CAPITAL GAIN"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONTROLLING STATUTES. 

NO CONTEST NOW EXISTS CONCERNING THE FACTS.  THE NARROW POINT AS
COUNSEL AGREE IS THIS - MUST THE REDEMPTION OF BONDS BEFORE MATURITY BY
THE ISSUING CORPORATION BE TREATED AS TANTAMOUNT TO A SALE OR EXCHANGE
OF CAPITAL ASSETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 208(A)(1), REVENUE ACT
1926, AND SEC. 101(C)(1), REVENUE ACT 1928.  FN1 

IF REDEMPTION AMOUNTS TO SALE OR EXCHANGE, THE PETITIONER'S GAIN WAS
SUBJECT TO TAXATION AT THE TWELVE AND ONE-HALF PER CENT RATE;
OTHERWISE, UNDER NORMAL AND SURTAX RATES. 

PAYMENT AND DISCHARGE OF A BOND IS NEITHER SALE NOR EXCHANGE WITHIN
THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED MEANING OF THE WORDS.  THE COURTS BELOW FOUND NO
SUFFICIENT REASON FOR DISREGARDING THIS AND RIGHTLY APPLIED THE
STATUTES UNDER THAT VIEW. 

THE TAX ACTS OF 1921, 1924, 1926, 1928 AND 1932 CONTAIN LIKE
DEFINITIONS OF CAPITAL GAIN.  FROM 1921 TO 1929 THE COMMISSIONER HELD
THAT SUCH GAIN DID NOT ARISE FROM REDEMPTION.  IN 1929 THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS HELD OTHERWISE.  WERNER V. COMMISSIONER, 15 B.T.A. 482.  BUT IN
1932 IT DEFINITELY OVERRULED THAT DETERMINATION.  WATSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 27 B.T.A. 463. 

THE REVENUE ACT 1934(MAY 10, 1934, C. 277, 48 STAT. 680, 714-715)
PROVIDES -

               "SEC.  117.  CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES. 

(A)  GENERAL RULE.  - IN THE CASE OF A TAXPAYER, OTHER THAN A
CORPORATION, ONLY THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGES OF THE GAIN OR LOSS
RECOGNIZED UPON THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF A CAPITAL ASSET SHALL BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING NET INCOME:  ... 

(F)  RETIREMENT OF BONDS, ETC. - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS TITLE,
AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE HOLDER UPON THE RETIREMENT OF BONDS,
DEBENTURES, NOTES, OR CERTIFICATES OR OTHER EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS
ISSUED BY ANY CORPORATION (INCLUDING THOSE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENT OR
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF), WITH INTEREST COUPONS OR IN REGISTERED
FORM, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE THEREFOR." 

WHAT WE REGARD AS THE CORRECT MEANING OF THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL
GAIN IN THE REVENUE ACT 1921 AND ITS FOUR SUCCESSORS IS ACCENTUATED BY
LONG-CONTINUED EXECUTIVE CONSTRUCTION, ALSO THE LAST CONCLUSION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BELOW WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT BY THE
ACT 1934 CONGRESS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO CONSTRUE THE PRIOR ACTS AND
PURPOSELY MADE A MATERIAL ADDITION THERETO.  IN AVERILL V.
COMMISSIONER, 101 F.2D 644, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FIRST CIRCUIT
ACTED UPON A DIFFERENT VIEW.  THIS CONFLICT CAUSED US TO BRING UP THE
PRESENT CAUSE NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI HAD BEEN
DENIED EARLIER IN THE TERM. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT 1921(NOVEMBER 23, 1921, C. 136, 42 STAT. 227, 232)
PROVIDES - 

"SEC. 206.  (A)  THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS TITLE: 

(1) THE TERM 'CAPITAL GAIN' MEANS TAXABLE GAIN FROM THE SALE OR
EXCHANGE OF CAPITAL ASSETS CONSUMMATED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1921." 

THIS PROVISION WITHOUT MATERIAL CHANGE WAS REENACTED BY REVENUE ACT
1924(JUNE 2, 1924, C. 234, SEC. 208(A)(1), 43 STAT. 253, 262); REVENUE
ACT 1926(FEBRUARY 26, 1926, C. 27, SEC. 208(A)(1), 44 STAT. 9, 19);
REVENUE ACT 1928(MAY 29, 1928, C. 852, SEC. 101(C)(1), 45 STAT. 791,
811); REVENUE ACT OF 1932(JUNE 6, 1932, C. 209, SEC. 101(C)(1), 47
STAT. 169, 191). 
..END :


















CLASON V. INDIANA, 306 U.S. 439 


NO. 517.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939.  - 214 IND.
630 - 17 N.E.2D 92, AFFIRMED. 


AN INDIANA STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE BODIES OF LARGE DEAD ANIMALS (NOT
SLAUGHTERED FOR HUMAN FOOD) SHALL BE PROMPTLY BURNT OR BURIED BY THE
OWNERS, ON THEIR PREMISES, OR BE THERE BY THEM DELIVERED TO THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF A DISPOSAL PLANT LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE
STATE AND BE PROMPTLY CARRIED TO SUCH PLANT IN A SANITARY VEHICLE AND
SPEEDILY RENDERED INNOCUOUS.  HELD: 

1.  THAT IT IS A COMPREHENSIVE, PRACTICAL PUBLIC HEALTH MEASURE
WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE.  P. 441. 

2.  PERMISSION TO THE OWNERS TO SELL THE CARCASSES TO THE LICENSED
OPERATORS FOR DISPOSITION UNDER THE ACT, IS NOT A RECOGNITION BY THE
STATE THAT SUCH DEAD ANIMALS ARE LEGITIMATE ARTICLES OF COMMERCE.  P.
443. 

3.  PROHIBITION AGAINST HAULING SUCH BODIES ON STATE HIGHWAYS EXCEPT
UNDER LICENSE TO A LICENSED DISPOSAL PLANT IN THE STATE, THEREBY
PREVENTING THEIR TRANSPORTATION OUT OF THE STATE TO BE SOLD, WHICH IS
NOT LICENSABLE UNDER THE ACT, IS NOT REPUGNANT TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
P. 443. 

4.  THE MERE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE DOES NOT DISABLE THE STATES FROM ADOPTING REASONABLE MEASURES
DESIGNED TO SECURE THE HEALTH AND COMFORT OF THEIR PEOPLE.  P. 444. 

CLASON V. INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A CONVICTION OF VIOLATION OF THE
INDIANA ANIMALS DISPOSAL ACT OF MARCH 12, 1937, BY TRANSPORTING A DEAD
HORSE OVER A HIGHWAY OF THAT STATE AND INTO ILLINOIS WITHOUT LICENSE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT WHICH CONVICTED
APPELLANT OF VIOLATING SECTION ELEVEN OF THE ANIMALS DISPOSAL ACT
APPROVED MARCH 12, 1937  FN1  (C. 278, ACTS 1937) BY TRANSPORTING A
DEAD HORSE OVER A HIGHWAY OF THAT STATE AND INTO ILLINOIS WITHOUT
LICENSE.  FORBIDDEN TRANSPORTATION IS ADMITTED; ALSO THAT WHILE LICENSE
CAN BE OBTAINED UNDER PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION
WITHIN THE STATE IT IS PROHIBITED FOR POINTS OUTSIDE. 

AND UNDERTAKES TO REGULATE, THE PROMPT DISPOSITION OF LARGE DEAD
ANIMALS (NOT SLAUGHTERED FOR HUMAN FOOD) UNDER THE GENERAL SUPERVISION
OF THE STATE VETERINARIAN.  THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT IS TO
PREVENT THE SPREAD OF DISEASE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUISANCES. 

THE PRESCRIBED PLAN EXACTS THAT WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AFTER DEATH
OWNERS SHALL BURY OR BURN SUCH BODIES ON THEIR PREMISES, OR THERE
DELIVER THEM TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A DISPOSAL PLANT LICENSED TO DO
BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE.  IT FURTHER DIRECTS THAT THE BODY SHALL BE
PROMPTLY CARRIED TO SUCH PLANT IN A SANITARY VEHICLE AND SPEEDILY
RENDERED INNOCUOUS.  THE CONVEYANCE MUST BE THOROUGHLY AND PROMPTLY
DISINFECTED AT THE PLANT. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE WAS UNSUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED ON THE
GROUND THAT IT UNDULY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST AND BURDENS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THEREBY VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE REVIEWED THE STATUTE; POINTED OUT ITS PURPOSE TO
SUPPRESS OBVIOUS DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH; REFERRED TO THE MEANS ADOPTED
AS REASONABLY APPROPRIATE TO THAT END; QUOTED FROM BOWMAN V. CHICAGO &
N.W. RY. CO., 125 U.S. 465, 489.  FN2  IT CONCLUDED THAT DEAD BODIES OF
ANIMALS NOT SLAUGHTERED FOR FOOD ARE NOT LEGITIMATE SUBJECTS OF
COMMERCE; THAT THE STATUTE IS AN APPROPRIATE SANITARY MEASURE WHOSE
EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IF ANY, IS MERELY INCIDENTAL. 

AS THE PRECISE POINT FOR OUR DETERMINATION, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING - 

"THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INDIANA DEAD
ANIMAL DISPOSAL ACT OF 1937 WAS VALID AS A REASONABLE REGULATION OR
QUARANTINE AND NOT INVALID AS A DISCRIMINATORY PROHIBITION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN COMMODITIES RECOGNIZED AS LEGITIMATE ARTICLES OF
INTRASTATE COMMERCE, CONTRARY TO ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3, OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." 

IT SEEMS PLAIN ENOUGH THAT THE CHALLENGED STATUTE IS A SANITARY AND
HEALTH MEASURE NOT INTENDED TO CAUSE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OR TO
BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ITS PURPOSE IS TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE IN FEASIBLE WAYS. 

"THE POWER OF THE STATE TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS WHICH SHALL PREVENT
THE PRODUCTION WITHIN ITS BORDERS OF IMPURE FOODS, UNFIT FOR USE, AND
SUCH ARTICLES AS WOULD SPREAD DISEASE AND PESTILENCE, IS WELL
ESTABLISHED.  SUCH ARTICLES, IT HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THIS COURT, ARE
NOT THE LEGITIMATE SUBJECT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE, NOR WITHIN THE
PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ...  NOR DOES
IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE THAT SUCH REGULATIONS INCIDENTALLY AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHEN THE OBJECT OF THE REGULATION IS NOT TO THAT
END, BUT IS A LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE." 
SLIGH V. KIRKWOOD, 237 U.S. 52, 59-60. 

HERE, CONTRARY TO WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE INSISTENCE OF COUNSEL, THE
STATE HAS NOT RECOGNIZED DEAD HORSES AS LEGITIMATE ARTICLES OF
INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  IT PERMITS THEM TO BE SOLD ONLY TO LICENSED
OPERATORS WHO MUST TRANSPORT THEM IMMEDIATELY UNDER STRICT SANITARY
REGULATIONS FOR PROMPT DELIVERY TO A LICENSED PLANT THERE TO BE
RENDERED INNOCUOUS WITHOUT DELAY BY PRESCRIBED METHODS.  ALL THIS IS
PART OF A WORKABLE SCHEME TO SECURE PROMPT REMOVAL OF DECAYING
CARCASSES AND THUS PROTECT AGAINST OBVIOUS EVILS. 

WE CAN FIND NO SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST LEGITIMATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THAT ANY REAL BURDEN UPON
COMMERCE WHICH THE STATE IS NOT FREE TO INHIBIT WILL RESULT FROM THE
CHALLENGED STATUTE SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE. 

THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF CONFLICT WITH A FEDERAL ENACTMENT.  THE
MERE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
DOES NOT DISABLE THE STATES FROM ADOPTING REASONABLE MEASURES DESIGNED
TO SECURE THE HEALTH AND COMFORT OF THEIR PEOPLE.  THE STATUTE UNDER
CONSIDERATION IS AN EFFORT TO DISCHARGE AN OBLIGATION TO THE PUBLIC;
THE MEANS ADOPTED WE THINK ARE CLEARLY APPROPRIATE TO THIS LAWFUL END. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  INDIANA ACTS 1937, C. 278 - 

"SEC. 4.  (A)  NO PERSON SHALL ENGAGE IN THIS STATE IN THE BUSINESS
OF OPERATING A DISPOSAL PLANT, AS HEREIN DEFINED, WITHOUT FIRST
OBTAINING FOR EACH SUCH DISPOSAL PLANT SO OPERATED BY HIM, OR IN HIS
BEHALF, A LICENSE AND ANY VEHICLE CERTIFICATES REQUIRED, AS HEREIN
PROVIDED; AND NO PERSON, EXCEPT ONE HOLDING A LICENSE TO OPERATE SUCH A
DISPOSAL PLANT IN THIS STATE, OR WHO IS ACTING FOR SUCH LICENSEE, OR
WHO IS OTHERWISE EXCEPTED BY THIS ACT, SHALL EITHER TRANSPORT OVER ANY
HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE, OR DISPOSE OF TO ANY PERSON, THE BODIES OF ANY
DEAD ANIMALS IN ANY MANNER HEREIN PRESCRIBED, OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER
NOT PERMITTED BY LAW. 

"(B)  THE SAID STATE VETERINARIAN SHALL KEEP A RECORD OF ALL
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS, LICENSES AND VEHICLE CERTIFICATES, SHOWING
ALL THEREOF ISSUED, DENIED, OR REVOKED BY HIM, AND SUCH OTHER FACTS AS
HE MAY PRESCRIBE. 

"SEC. 11.  (A)  NO PERSON, EXCEPT AS HEREIN PROVIDED, MAY HAUL OR
TRANSPORT OVER THE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA THE BODIES OF ANY
DEAD ANIMALS, EXCEPT THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERED AND ARE INTENDED
FOR HUMAN FOOD, WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AND HOLDING A LICENSE ISSUED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND WHICH BODIES ARE BEING TRANSPORTED
TO A DISPOSAL PLANT LOCATED IN THIS STATE AND OPERATED BY A PERSON
HOLDING A LICENSE TO ENGAGE IN SUCH BUSINESS. 

"(B)  NO LICENSE SHALL BE ISSUED TO ANY PERSON SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF TRANSPORTING THE BODIES OF DEAD ANIMALS, BUT SUCH TRANSPORTATION
MUST BE DONE SOLELY BY PERSONS HOLDING A LICENSE FOR DISPOSAL PLANTS,
SO THAT SUCH DEAD BODIES MAY BE PROPERLY AND PROMPTLY DISPOSED OF UNDER
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ACT; EXCEPT THAT ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL OF THIS
STATE, CHARGED BY LAW WITH SUCH DUTIES, MAY REMOVE OR SUPERVISE THE
REMOVAL OF ANY SUCH DEAD BODIES AND THE DISPOSAL THEREOF BY ANY METHOD
PROVIDED FOR BY THIS ACT WHERE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH
AND WELFARE. 

"(C)  ALL VEHICLES USED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE BODIES OF DEAD
ANIMALS, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL HAVE A TANK OR METAL
LINING IN THE BED OF SUCH VEHICLE, OR BE OTHERWISE SO CONSTRUCTED THAT
THE SAME SHALL BE PRACTICALLY WATERTIGHT, SO THAT NO DRIPPINGS OR
SEEPING FROM SUCH DEAD BODIES SHALL ESCAPE FROM SUCH VEHICLES WHERE
THIS CAN BE OBVIATED; AND ALL VEHICLES MUST HAVE AN END-GATE
CONSTRUCTED OR LINED WITH THE SAME MATERIALS, AND HINGED AT THE BOTTOM
AND FASTENED FIRMLY AT THE TOP WHEN CLOSED AND SO DESIGNED, SO FAR AS
PRACTICAL, THAT DRIPPINGS AND SEEPINGS SHALL NOT ESCAPE FROM SUCH PART
OF SAID VEHICLE WHILE ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION; AND EVERY SUCH
VEHICLE SHALL HAVE A BED OF SUCH DEPTH AND TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND
EQUIPMENT THAT ANY DEAD BODY OR BODIES THEREIN SHALL BE COMPLETELY
HIDDEN FROM VIEW OF PERSONS USING THE HIGHWAYS AND ANY PUBLIC NUISANCE
OBVIATED WHILE BEING TRANSPORTED. 

"(D)  THE STATE VETERINARIAN MAY PRESCRIBE SPECIFIC AND ALSO
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS AND
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, GOVERNING AND REGULATING SUCH TRANSPORTATION AND
THE CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SUCH
VEHICLES. 

"(E)  AFTER THE BODIES OF DEAD ANIMALS HAVE BEEN UNLOADED FROM ANY
VEHICLE USED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION THEREOF TO THE DISPOSAL PLANT, ON
EACH TRIP, SUCH VEHICLE AND ALL PARTS THEREOF, AND IN THE EVENT DRAUGHT
ANIMALS ARE USED TO DRAW SUCH CONVEYANCES, THE FEET OF SUCH ANIMALS,
SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANSED AND DISINFECTED IN SUCH MANNER AND WITH
SUCH A SOLUTION AS THE STATE VETERINARIAN SHALL PRESCRIBE BY
REGULATION, AND IN ADDITION THERETO ALL SUCH VEHICLES SHALL BE WASHED
OUT THOROUGHLY WITH STEAM OR HOT WATER AFTER EACH USE THEREOF IN
TRANSPORTING SUCH DEAD BODIES. 

"(F)  VEHICLES, WHEN LOADED WITH THE BODY OF AN ANIMAL WHICH HAS DIED
OF DISEASE, SHALL BE DRIVEN DIRECTLY TO THE PLACE OF DISPOSAL, EXCEPT
THAT THE DRIVER MAY STOP ON THE HIGHWAY FOR OTHER LIKE DEAD BODIES, BUT
HE SHALL NOT DRIVE UPON THE PREMISES OF ANY PERSON UNLESS HE FIRST
OBTAINS THE PERMISSION OF SUCH PERSON AND HE SHALL AVOID CREATING ANY
NUISANCE, DURING SUCH TRANSPORTATION AND IN THE EVENT ANY DRIPPINGS OR
SEEPAGE SHOULD ESCAPE FROM SUCH VEHICLE, TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, HE SHALL
CLEAN UP THE SAME AND REMEDY SUCH ESCAPE, IF POSSIBLE TO DO SO." 

FN2  "DOUBTLESS THE STATES HAVE POWER TO PROVIDE BY LAW SUITABLE
MEASURES TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE STATES OF ARTICLES OF
TRADE, WHICH, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR EXISTING CONDITION, WOULD BRING IN
AND SPREAD DISEASE, PESTILENCE, AND DEATH, SUCH AS RAGS OR OTHER
SUBSTANCES INFECTED WITH THE GERMS OF YELLOW FEVER OR THE VIRUS OF
SMALL-POX, OR CATTLE OR MEAT OR OTHER PROVISIONS THAT ARE DISEASED OR
DECAYED, OR OTHERWISE, FROM THEIR CONDITION AND QUALITY, UNFIT FOR
HUMAN USE OR CONSUMPTION.  SUCH ARTICLES ARE NOT MERCHANTABLE; THEY ARE
NOT LEGITIMATE SUBJECTS OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.  THEY MAY BE RIGHTLY
OUTLAWED AS INTRINSICALLY AND DIRECTLY THE IMMEDIATE SOURCES AND CAUSES
OF DESTRUCTION TO HUMAN HEALTH AND LIFE.  THE SELF-PROTECTING POWER OF
EACH STATE, THEREFORE, MAY BE RIGHTFULLY EXERTED AGAINST THEIR
INTRODUCTION, AND SUCH EXERCISES OF POWER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
REGULATIONS OF COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION."  BOWMAN V.
CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 125 U.S. 465, 489. 
..END :














SMITH V. THE FERNCLIFF, 306 U.S. 444 


NO. 548.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939. 


1.  PROVISION IN A MARINE BILL OF LADING THAT CARRIER'S LIABILITY FOR
DAMAGE TO GOODS ON DELIVERY SHALL BE ADJUSTED AND SETTLED ON INVOICE
COST PLUS DISBURSEMENTS, HELD VALID.  ANSALDO SAN GIORGIO I V.
RHEINSTROM BROS. CO., 294 U.S. 494, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 448. 

2.  THE DAMAGES, AS MEASURED BY THIS CLAUSE, ARE COMPUTED BY
DEDUCTING THE VALUE OF THE DAMAGED GOODS IN THEIR DAMAGED CONDITION AT
THE TIME AND PLACE OF DELIVERY FROM THE INVOICE COST VALUATION AS FIXED
BY SUCH CLAUSE, NOT BY APPLYING TO THE INVOICE VALUE THE PERCENTAGE OF
LOSS OF THE DAMAGED GOODS, BASED ON DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOUND VALUE AND
DAMAGED VALUE.  P. 450. 

SMITH ET AL., CO-PARTNERS, TRADING AS H.J. BAKER & BRO. V. THE
FERNCLIFF ET AL. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT BELOW IN
AN ADMIRALTY CASE, ON APPEAL TO THAT COURT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT.  22
F.SUPP.  728, 741-742. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH CIRCUIT, HAS CERTIFIED TO US THE
FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS (U.S.C. TITLE 28, SEC. 346)
 

"STATEMENT OF FACTS. 

"THIS WAS A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY TO RECOVER DAMAGES TO SHIPMENTS OF FISH
MEAL MADE IN MARCH 1936(ON MOTORSHIP FERNCLIFF) FROM POINTS IN JAPAN TO
CONSIGNEES IN NORFOLK, VA. AND BALTIMORE, MD. UNDER BILLS OF LADING
CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING PROVISION: 

"'ALL CLAIMS FOR WHICH THE SHIP AND OR CARRIER MAY BE LIABLE SHALL BE
ADJUSTED AND SETTLED ON THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE SHIPPER OR ON THE NET
INVOICE COST PLUS DISBURSEMENTS, WHICHEVER SHALL BE THE LEAST.  THE
CARRIER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY PROFIT OR CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL
DAMAGES, AND SHALL HAVE THE OPTION OF REPLACING ANY LOST OR DAMAGED
GOODS.' 

"NO LOWER RATE WAS OFFERED THE SHIPPER FOR THE SERVICE RENDERED
BECAUSE OF THIS PROVISION; AND NO CHOICE OF RATES WITH AND WITHOUT THE
VALUATION CLAUSE WAS AFFORDED HIM.  (THE RECORD SHOWS THAT NO VALUE WAS
DECLARED BY THE SHIPPER ON THE SHIPMENT IN QUESTION.) 

"THE INVOICE COST OF THE FISH MEAL WAS $32.50 PER TON.  THE VALUE OF
THE DAMAGED PORTION OF THE SHIPMENT UPON ARRIVAL AT THE PORTS OF
DESTINATION WAS $25.00 PER TON.  THE MARKET VALUE OF UNDAMAGED FISH
MEAL AT THE PORTS OF DESTINATION AT THE TIME OF THE ARRIVAL OF THE
SHIPMENT WAS $36.00 PER TON. 

"THE COURT BELOW HELD THE VALUATION CLAUSE VALID AND COMPUTED THE
DAMAGES ON THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INVOICE COST ($32.50
PER TON) AND THE VALUE OF THE DAMAGED FISH MEAL AT THE TIME AND PLACE
OF DELIVERY ($25.00 PER TON). 

"APPELLANTS, WHILE NOT CONTENDING BEFORE US THAT THE CLAUSE QUOTED IS
ABSOLUTELY INVALID, CONTEND THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN ANSALDO SAN
GIORGIO V. RHEINSTROM BROS. CO., 294 U.S. 494, ITS VALIDITY CAN BE
SUSTAINED ONLY IF IT BE CONSTRUED AS REQUIRING THAT, IN ESTIMATING
DAMAGES, THE PERCENTAGE OF LOSS ON THE DAMAGED SHIPMENT BE ASCERTAINED
AND APPLIED TO THE INVOICE COST.  UNDER THIS CONTENTION, THE LOSS HERE
WOULD BE DETERMINED, NOT BY DEDUCTING THE VALUE UPON ARRIVAL ($25.00
PER TON) FROM THE INVOICE COST ($32.50 PER TON), BUT BY ASCERTAINING
THE PROPORTION OF THE INVOICE COST ($32.50) CORRESPONDING TO THE
PROPORTION WHICH THE ACTUAL LOSS ($36.00-$25.00 $11.00) BEARS TO SOUND
VALUE ($36.00), I.E. BY TAKING 11/36 OF $32.50.  IT IS POINTED OUT THAT
THIS IS THE METHOD USED IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF LOSS UNDER A
VALUED MARINE INSURANCE POLICY ON CARGO AND ALSO THE METHOD PRESCRIBED
BY RULE 16 OF THE YORK-ANTWERP RULES FOR A GENERAL AVERAGE ADJUSTMENT. 
AND IT WAS STATED AT THE BAR OF THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT THAT
THE SAME METHOD HAS BEEN GENERALLY EMPLOYED IN ESTIMATING CARGO DAMAGE
SINCE THE DECISION IN ANSALDO SAN GIORGIO V. RHEINSTROM BROS. CO.,
SUPRA.  (AT THE TIME THIS STATEMENT OF COUNSEL WAS MADE IT WAS
CHALLENGED BY OPPOSING COUNSEL AND NOTHING APPEARS IN THE RECORD WITH
REGARD THERETO.) 

"IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DECISION IN THE ANSALDO SAN GIORGIO CASE, WE
SHOULD AFFIRM THE DECISION BELOW ON THE AUTHORITY OF GULF, C. & S.F.
RY. CO. V. TEXAS PACKING CO., 244 U.S. 31, 37; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V.
OLIVIT BROS., 243 U.S. 574, 586; HART V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 112 U.S.
331; THE CALIFORNIAN, 2 CIR., 82 F.2D 283; DUPLAN SILK CO. V. LEHIGH
VALLEY R. CO., 2 CIR., 223 F. 600; AND THE ONEIDA, 2 CIR., 128 F. 687. 
IN VIEW OF THAT DECISION, HOWEVER, WE ARE DIVIDED AND IN DOUBT AS TO
THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A CLAUSE AS IS HERE INVOLVED AND AS TO THE METHOD
WHICH SHOULD BE EMPLOYED IN COMPUTING DAMAGES UNDER IT.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PASSAGE OF THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT OF
APRIL 16, 1936, C. 229, SEC. 4, 49 STAT. 1210, 46 U.S.C. 1304(5), THE
QUESTION AS TO THE CORRECT METHOD OF COMPUTING DAMAGES UNDER A
VALUATION CLAUSE IS DEEMED AN IMPORTANT ONE, AS TO WHICH AN
AUTHORITATIVE DECISION WOULD SEEM DESIRABLE.  WE, THEREFORE,
RESPECTFULLY CERTIFY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF LAW AS INDISPENSABLE TO A PROPER DECISION OF
THIS CASE: 

"QUESTIONS. 

"1.  IS AN INVOICE COST VALUATION CLAUSE, SUCH AS THAT HERE INVOLVED,
INSERTED IN A MARINE BILL OF LADING WITHOUT OFFERING A CHOICE OF RATES
TO A SHIPPER, VALID AND BINDING UPON THE PARTIES? 

"2.  IF SO, SHOULD DAMAGES TO A SHIPMENT BE ASCERTAINED, UNDER SUCH A
VALUATION CLAUSE, BY DEDUCTING THE VALUE OF THE DAMAGED GOODS IN THEIR
DAMAGED CONDITION AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF DELIVERY FROM THE INVOICE
COST VALUATION AS FIXED BY SUCH CLAUSE? 

"3.  OR, SHOULD THE PERCENTAGE OF LOSS OF THE DAMAGED GOODS, BASED ON
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOUND VALUE AND DAMAGED VALUE, BE ASCERTAINED AND
THE PERCENTAGE APPLIED TO THE INVOICE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASCERTAINING THE DAMAGE?" 

ANSALDO SAN GIORGIO I V. RHEINSTROM BROS. CO., 294 U.S. 494,
CONSIDERED AND HELD INVALID, BECAUSE AGAINST SOUND PUBLIC POLICY, THE
FOLLOWING LIMITATION AGREEMENT IN A MARITIME BILL OF LADING:  "IN THE
EVENT OF CLAIMS FOR LOSS, DAMAGE OR SHORT DELIVERY THE SAME SHALL BE
ADJUSTED ON THE BASIS OF THE INVOICE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE SHIPMENT
ADDING EXPENSES NECESSARILY INCURRED."  THE OPINION DID NOT ADJUDICATE
THE VALIDITY OR EFFECT OF A CLAUSE, SUCH AS THE ONE NOW BEFORE US,
WHERE THE PARTIES ADOPTED "AN AGREED VALUE AS A MEASURE OF RECOVERY FOR
LOSS OR DAMAGE TO GOODS NOT DELIVERED BY THE CARRIER OR DAMAGED IN
TRANSIT," AND IT DOES NOT CONTROL THE QUESTIONS HERE INVOLVED. 

THE CLAUSE IN QUESTION PRESCRIBES A MEASURE OF RECOVERY RATHER THAN
LIMITS THE AMOUNT WHICH MAY BE RECOVERED WHEN LOSS OR DAMAGE OCCURS. 
FOR A LONG TIME, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTROLLING STATUTE, FRAUD OR
IMPOSITION, SUCH PROVISIONS IN BILLS OF LADING HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS
VALID BY THIS AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS.  ALSO BY MANY - PERHAPS A
MAJORITY - OF THE STATE COURTS.  HART V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO., 112
U.S. 331, 337-340; PHOENIX INSURANCE CO. V. ERIE & W. TRANSPORTATION
CO., 117 U.S. 312, 322; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. OLIVIT BROS., 243 U.S.
574, 586; GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO. V. TEXAS PACKING CO., 244 U.S. 31,
37; THE ELLERDALE, 10 F.2D 53; THE ASUARCA, 13 F.2D 222, 223; THE
MERAUKE, 31 F.2D 974; KILTHAU V. INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE CO.,
245 N.Y. 361, 365; 157 N.E. 267; COLEMAN V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO.,
215 MASS. 45, 49; 102 N.E. 92; SHAFFER & CO. V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY.
CO., 21 I.C.C. 8; IN THE MATTER OF BILLS OF LADING, 52 I.C.C. 671, 710;
NOTE, LAWYERS' REPORTS ANNO.  1918B, 720, WHERE THE PERTINENT CASES ARE
COLLECTED. 

CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MCCAULL-DINSMORE CO., 253 U.S. 97,
98, 99-100, INVOLVED THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE IN A BILL ISSUED BY THE
RAILWAY - "THE AMOUNT OF ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE FOR WHICH ANY CARRIER IS
LIABLE SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT
THE PLACE AND TIME OF SHIPMENT UNDER THIS BILL OF LADING, INCLUDING
FREIGHT CHARGES, IF PAID."  WE SAID - 

"BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS AMENDMENT (THE CUMMINS AMENDMENT, ACT
MARCH 4, 1915, C. 176, 38 STAT. 1196) THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAD UPHELD THE CLAUSE IN THE BILL OF LADING AS IN NO WAY
LIMITING THE CARRIERS' LIABILITY TO LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE GOODS
BUT MERELY OFFERING THE MOST CONVENIENT WAY OF FINDING THE VALUE.  ...
WE APPRECIATE THE CONVENIENCE OF THE STIPULATION IN THE BILL OF LADING
AND THE ARGUMENTS URGED IN ITS FAVOR.  WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOES NOT
NECESSARILY PREVENT A RECOVERY OF THE FULL ACTUAL LOSS, AND THAT IF THE
PRICE OF WHEAT HAD GONE DOWN THE CARRIER MIGHT HAVE HAD TO PAY MORE
UNDER THIS CONTRACT THAN BY THE COMMON LAW RULE.  BUT THE QUESTION IS
HOW THE CONTRACT OPERATES UPON THIS CASE."  THE CLAUSE WAS DECLARED
INOPERATIVE BECAUSE FORBIDDEN BY THE CUMMINS AMENDMENT, WHICH DID NOT
EXTEND TO OCEAN CARRIERS.  UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. BURKE, 255 U.S. 317,
322. 

THE DISTRICT COURT UPHELD AND APPLIED THE AGREEMENT, AND SUPPORTED
ITS VIEWS BY A CAREFUL OPINION - (22 F.SUPP.  728, 742-744).  IT SAID
 

"THE CLAUSE WE ARE HERE DEALING WITH DOES NOT APPEAR TO OPERATE IN
THAT WAY (I.E., 'TO RELIEVE THE CARRIER FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS
NEGLIGENCE').  ...  THE CLAUSE IS GRATIFIED BY DETERMINING THE AMOUNT
OF THE WHOLE TONNAGE DAMAGED, AND MULTIPLYING BY THE DAMAGE PER TON. 
... IN OPERATION THE CLAUSE ONLY ELIMINATES PROSPECTIVE PROFIT, AND
LIMITS THE DAMAGE TO THE OWNER'S ACTUAL LOSS IN THE TRANSACTION.  IT
MAY EVEN OPERATE TO HIS ADVANTAGE IF THE MARKET VALUE AT DESTINATION IS
LESS THAN THE INVOICE VALUE.  IN MY OPINION THE CLAUSE IS THEREFORE
DIFFERENT IN ITS OPERATION AND EFFECT FROM THAT CONDEMNED IN THE
ANSALDO CASE.  (294 U.S. 494.) 

"IN THE ANSALDO CASE TWO GENERAL TYPES OF VALUATION CLAUSES WERE
CONSIDERED, ONE DESCRIBED AS A 'TRUE LIMITATION AGREEMENT' AND THE
OTHER AS A 'TRUE VALUATION CLAUSE.'  THE ONE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
WOULD SEEM TO FALL IN THE LATTER CATEGORY.  ...  I TAKE THE VIEW AFTER
READING THE CASES SPECIALLY CITED IN THE OPINION AND OTHER
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBJECT, THAT THE CLAUSE AS HERE WORDED IS NOT
AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND SHOULD BE GIVEN EFFECT.  ...  THE GENERAL
RULE OF OUR LAW IS FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, SUBJECT ONLY TO STATUTE AND
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WHERE A CONTRACT STIPULATION IS
NOT CLEARLY OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY IT SHOULD BE UPHELD, AS IT IS THE
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.  THE PARTICULAR QUESTION IS NOT LIKELY TO
AGAIN ARISE AS THE SUBJECT IS NOW REGULATED BY THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY
SEA ACT, SEC. 4(5), 46 U.S.C.A. SEC. 1304(5). 

     .         .         .     .         . 

"ASSUMING THE VALIDITY OF THE BILL OF LADING CLAUSE THAT CLAIMS
AGAINST THE CARRIER SHALL BE ADJUSTED AND SETTLED ON THE NET INVOICE
COST PLUS DISBURSEMENTS  ...  IT IS NOW CONTENDED THAT THE PROPER
METHOD OF CALCULATION IS TO FIRST DETERMINE WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF
DAMAGE OR LOSS, AND THEN APPLY THIS PERCENTAGE TO THE INVOICE VALUE. 

     .   .         .         .         . 

"COUNSEL FOR THE LIBELANTS POINT OUT THAT THIS IS THE METHOD OF
CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF LOSS UNDER A VALUED MARINE INSURANCE POLICY
ON CARGO.  ...  IT IS FRANKLY ADMITTED BY COUNSEL THAT THIS METHOD OF
CALCULATING DAMAGES HAS NEVER HERETOFORE BEEN APPLIED BY ANY COURT IN A
CASE DEALING WITH A CLAUSE SUBMITTING INVOICE VALUE FOR MARKET VALUE. 
ON THE CONTRARY IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CALCULATION AS MADE IN
THE OPINION, WHICH WAS TO DEDUCT FROM THE INVOICE VALUE (WHICH IN THIS
CASE INCLUDED FREIGHT AND OTHER EXPENSES) THE DAMAGED VALUE HAS BEEN
UNIFORMLY APPLIED." 

WE THINK THE DISTRICT COURT REACHED THE CORRECT CONCLUSION IN RESPECT
OF THE MOOTED CLAUSE UPON ADEQUATE AUTHORITY AND REASONING. 

TO THE FIRST CERTIFIED QUESTION, WE REPLY, YES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN
NO FRAUD OR IMPOSITION; TO THE SECOND THE ANSWER IS, YES; TO THE THIRD,
NO.
..END :





LANZETTA V. NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S. 451 


NO. 308.  ARGUED JANUARY 9, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939.  - 120
N.J.L. 189 - 198 A. 837, REVERSED. 


AN ACT OF NEW JERSEY DECLARES:  "ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN ANY LAWFUL
OCCUPATION, KNOWN TO BE A MEMBER OF ANY GANG CONSISTING OF TWO OR MORE
PERSONS, WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED AT LEAST THREE TIMES OF BEING A
DISORDERLY PERSON, OR WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME IN THIS OR
ANY OTHER STATE, IS DECLARED TO BE A GANGSTER  ...  "  EVERY VIOLATION
IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING $10,000 OR IMPRISONMENT NOT
EXCEEDING 20 YEARS, OR BOTH.  HELD REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE OF ITS VAGUENES AND UNCERTAINTY. 
P. 453. 

LANZETTA ET AL. V. NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF THREE
MEN AS GANGSTERS.  SEE ALSO 118 N.J.L. 212; 192 A. 89. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY THIS APPEAL WE ARE CALLED ON TO DECIDE WHETHER, BY REASON OF
VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY, A RECENT ENACTMENT OF NEW JERSEY, SEC. 4, C.
155, LAWS 1934, IS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT IS AS FOLLOWS:  "ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN
ANY LAWFUL OCCUPATION, KNOWN TO BE A MEMBER OF ANY GANG CONSISTING OF
TWO OR MORE PERSONS, WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED AT LEAST THREE TIMES OF
BEING A DISORDERLY PERSON, OR WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME IN
THIS OR IN ANY OTHER STATE, IS DECLARED TO BE A GANGSTER  ...  "  FN1
EVERY VIOLATION IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING $10,000 OR
IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING 20 YEARS, OR BOTH.  SEC. 5. 

IN THE COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS OF CAPE MAY COUNTY, APPELLANTS WERE
ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THE QUOTED CLAUSE.  THE INDICTMENT CHARGES THAT ON
FOUR DAYS, JUNE 12, 16, 19, AND 24, 1936 "THEY, AND EACH OF THEM, NOT
BEING ENGAGED IN ANY LAWFUL OCCUPATION; THEY, AND ALL OF THEM, KNOWN TO
BE MEMBERS OF A GANG, CONSISTING OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS, AND THEY, AND
EACH OF THEM, HAVING BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME IN THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA, ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE GANGSTERS."  THERE WAS A TRIAL,
VERDICT OF GUILTY, AND JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION ON WHICH EACH WAS
SENTENCED TO BE IMPRISONED IN THE STATE PRISON FOR NOT MORE THAN TEN
YEARS AND NOT LESS THAN FIVE YEARS, AT HARD LABOR.  ON THE AUTHORITY OF
ITS RECENT DECISION IN STATE V. BELL, 188 A. 737; 15 N.J. MISC. 109,
THE SUPREME COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION.  118
N.J.L. 212; 192 A. 89.  THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS AFFIRMED, 120
N.J.L. 189; 197 A. 360, ON THE AUTHORITY OF ITS DECISION, STATE V.
GAYNOR, 119 N.J.L. 582; 198 A. 837, AFFIRMING STATE V. BELL. 

IF ON ITS FACE THE CHALLENGED PROVISION IS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE, SPECIFICATION OF DETAILS OF THE OFFENSE INTENDED TO BE
CHARGED WOULD NOT SERVE TO VALIDATE IT.  CF. UNITED STATES V. REESE, 92
U.S. 214, 221; CZARRA V. BOARD OF MEDICAL SUPERVISORS, 25 APP. D.C.
443, 453.  IT IS THE STATUTE, NOT THE ACCUSATION UNDER IT, THAT
PRESCRIBES THE RULE TO GOVERN CONDUCT AND WARNS AGAINST TRANSGRESSION. 
SEE STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303
U.S. 444.  NO ONE MAY BE REQUIRED AT PERIL OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY
TO SPECULATE AS TO THE MEANING OF PENAL STATUTES.  ALL ARE ENTITLED TO
BE INFORMED AS TO WHAT THE STATE COMMANDS OR FORBIDS.  FN2  THE
APPLICABLE RULE IS STATED IN CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269
U.S. 385, 391:  "THAT THE TERMS OF A PENAL STATUTE CREATING A NEW
OFFENSE MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY EXPLICIT TO INFORM THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECT
TO IT WHAT CONDUCT ON THEIR PART WILL RENDER THEM LIABLE TO ITS
PENALTIES, IS A WELL-RECOGNIZED REQUIREMENT, CONSONANT ALIKE WITH
ORDINARY NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND THE SETTLED RULES OF LAW.  AND A
STATUTE WHICH EITHER FORBIDS OR REQUIRES THE DOING OF AN ACT IN TERMS
SO VAGUE THAT MEN OF COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AT ITS
MEANING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION, VIOLATES THE FIRST ESSENTIAL
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 

THE PHRASE "CONSISTING OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS" IS ALL THAT PURPORTS
TO DEFINE "GANG."  THE MEANINGS OF THAT WORD INDICATED IN DICTIONARIES
AND IN HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL WRITINGS ARE NUMEROUS AND VARIED. 
FN3  NOR IS THE MEANING DERIVABLE FROM THE COMMON LAW,  FN4  FOR
NEITHER IN THAT FIELD NOR ANYWHERE IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW IS THERE
DEFINITION OF THE WORD.  OUR ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN CALLED TO, AND WE
ARE UNABLE TO FIND, ANY OTHER STATUTE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE IT CRIMINAL TO
BE A MEMBER OF A "GANG."  FN5 

IN STATE V. GAYNOR, SUPRA, THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS DEALT WITH
THE WORD.  IT SAID: "PUBLIC POLICY ORDAINS THAT A COMBINATION DESIGNED
TO WAGE WAR UPON SOCIETY SHALL BE DISPERSED AND ITS MEMBERS RENDERED
INCAPABLE OF HARM.  THIS IS THE OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 4  ...  AND IT IS
THEREFORE A VALID EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.  ...  THE EVIDENT
AIM OF THIS PROVISION WAS TO RENDER PENAL THE ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALS
FOR THE PURSUIT OF CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES; THAT IS THE GIST OF THE
LEGISLATIVE EXPRESSION.  IT CANNOT BE GAINSAID THAT SUCH WAS WITHIN THE
COMPETENCY OF THE LEGISLATURE; THE MERE STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE
CARRIES JUSTIFICATION OF THE ACT.  ...  IF SOCIETY CANNOT IMPOSE SUCH
TAINT OF ILLEGALITY UPON THE CONFEDERATION OF CONVICTED CRIMINALS, WHO
HAVE NO LAWFUL OCCUPATION, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES DENOTING  ...  THE
PURSUIT OF CRIMINAL OBJECTIVES, IT IS HELPLESS AGAINST ONE OF THE MOST
MENACING FORMS OF EVIL ACTIVITY.  ...  THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF
GOVERNMENT  ...  IS TO RENDER SECURITY TO ITS SUBJECTS.  AND ANY
MISCHIEF MENACING THAT SECURITY DEMANDS A REMEDY COMMENSURATE WITH THE
EVIL." 

THEN UNDERTAKING TO FIND THE MEANING OF "GANG" AS USED IN THE
CHALLENGED ENACTMENT, THE OPINION STATES:  "IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PROVISION, THE WORD IS TO BE GIVEN A MEANING CONSISTENT WITH THE
GENERAL OBJECT OF THE STATUTE.  IN ITS ORIGINAL SENSE IT SIGNIFIES
ACTION - 'TO GO'; IN ITS MODERN USAGE, WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, IT
DENOTES - IN COMMON INTENT AND UNDERSTANDING - CRIMINAL ACTION.  IT IS
DEFINED AS 'A COMPANY OF PERSONS ACTING TOGETHER FOR SOME PURPOSE,
USUALLY CRIMINAL,' WHILE THE TERM 'GANGSTER' IS DEFINED AS 'A MEMBER OF
A GANG OF ROUGHS, HIRELING CRIMINALS, THIEVES, OR THE LIKE.'  WEBSTER'S
NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (2D ED.).  AND THE OXFORD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY LIKEWISE DEFINES THE WORD 'GANG' AS 'ANY COMPANY OF PERSONS
WHO GO ABOUT TOGETHER OR ACT IN CONCERT (IN MODERN USE MAINLY FOR
CRIMINAL PURPOSES).'  SUCH IS PLAINLY THE LEGISLATIVE SENSE OF THE
TERM." 

IF WORDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S EXPLICATION, THE CHALLENGED
PROVISION WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:  "ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN ANY LAWFUL
OCCUPATION, KNOWN TO BE A MEMBER OF ANY GANG CONSISTING OF TWO OR MORE
PERSONS (MEANING A COMPANY OF PERSONS ACTING TOGETHER FOR SOME PURPOSE,
USUALLY CRIMINAL, OR A COMPANY OF PERSONS WHO GO ABOUT TOGETHER OR WHO
ACT IN CONCERT, MAINLY FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES), WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED
AT LEAST THREE TIMES OF BEING A DISORDERLY PERSON OR WHO HAS BEEN
CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME IN THIS OR IN ANY OTHER STATE, IS DECLARED TO BE
A GANGSTER (MEANING A MEMBER OF A GANG OF ROUGHS, HIRELING CRIMINALS,
THIEVES, OR THE LIKE)." 

APPELLANTS WERE CONVICTED BEFORE THE OPINION IN STATE V. GAYNOR.  IT
WOULD BE HARD TO HOLD THAT, IN ADVANCE OF JUDICIAL UTTERANCE UPON THE
SUBJECT, THEY WERE BOUND TO UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGED PROVISION
ACCORDING TO THE LANGUAGE LATER USED BY THE COURT.  INDEED THE STATE
SUPREME COURT (STATE V. BELL, SUPRA) WENT ON SUPPOSED ANALOGY BETWEEN
"GANG" AND OFFENSES DENOUNCED BY THE DISORDERLY PERSONS ACT, COMP.
STAT. SUPP. 1930, SEC. 59-1 UPHELD BY THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS
IN LEVINE V. STATE, 110 N.J.L. 467, 470; 166 A. 330.  BUT THE COURT IN
THAT CASE FOUND THE MEANING OF "COMMON BURGLAR" THERE INVOLVED TO BE
DERIVABLE FROM THE COMMON LAW. 

THE DESCRIPTIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS USED BY THE COURT TO INDICATE THE
MEANING OF "GANG" ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE DEFINITION,
INCLUSIVE OR EXCLUSIVE.  THE COURT'S OPINION WAS FRAMED TO APPLY THE
STATUTE TO THE OFFENDERS AND ACCUSATION IN THE CASE THEN UNDER
CONSIDERATION; IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO GIVE ANY INTERPRETATION GENERALLY
APPLICABLE.  THE STATE COURT DID NOT FIND, AND WE CANNOT, THAT "GANG"
HAS EVER BEEN LIMITED IN MEANING TO A GROUP HAVING PURPOSE TO COMMIT
ANY PARTICULAR OFFENSE OR CLASS OF CRIMES, OR THAT IT HAS NOT QUITE
FREQUENTLY BEEN USED IN REFERENCE TO GROUPS OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS NOT
TO BE SUSPECTED OF CRIMINALITY OR OF ANYTHING THAT IS UNLAWFUL.  THE
DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS ADOPTED BY THE STATE COURT EXTEND TO PERSONS
ACTING TOGETHER FOR SOME PURPOSE, "USUALLY CRIMINAL," OR "MAINLY FOR
CRIMINAL PURPOSES."  SO DEFINED, THE PURPOSES OF THOSE CONSTITUTING
SOME GANGS MAY BE COMMENDABLE, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, GROUPS OF WORKERS
ENGAGED UNDER LEADERSHIP IN ANY LAWFUL UNDERTAKING.  THE STATUTE DOES
NOT DECLARE EVERY MEMBER TO BE A "GANGSTER" OR PUNISHABLE AS SUCH. 
UNDER IT, NO MEMBER IS A GANGSTER OR OFFENDER UNLESS CONVICTED OF BEING
A DISORDERLY PERSON OR OF CRIME AS SPECIFIED.  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT
THE COURT INTENDED TO GIVE "GANGSTER" A MEANING BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE
ANYONE WHO HAD NOT BEEN SO CONVICTED OR TO LIMIT ITS MEANING TO THE
FIELD COVERED BY THE WORDS THAT IT FOUND IN A DICTIONARY, "ROUGHS,
HIRELING CRIMINALS, THIEVES, OR THE LIKE."  THE LATTER INTERPRETATION
WOULD INCLUDE SOME OBVIOUSLY NOT WITHIN THE STATUTE AND WOULD EXCLUDE
SOME PLAINLY COVERED BY IT. 

THE LACK OF CERTAINTY OF THE CHALLENGED PROVISION IS NOT LIMITED TO
THE WORD "GANG" OR TO ITS DEPENDENT "GANGSTER."  WITHOUT RESOLVING THE
SERIOUS DOUBTS ARISING FROM THE GENERALITY OF THE LANGUAGE, WE ASSUME
THAT THE CLAUSE "ANY PERSON NOT ENGAGED IN ANY LAWFUL OCCUPATION" IS
SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY A CLASS TO WHICH MUST BELONG ALL CAPABLE OF
BECOMING GANGSTERS WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE PROVISION.  THE ENACTMENT
EMPLOYS THE EXPRESSION, "KNOWN TO BE A MEMBER."  IT IS AMBIGUOUS. 
THERE IMMEDIATELY ARISES THE DOUBT WHETHER ACTUAL OR PUTATIVE
ASSOCIATION IS MEANT.  IF ACTUAL MEMBERSHIP IS REQUIRED, THAT STATUS
MUST BE ESTABLISHED AS A FACT, AND THE WORD "KNOWN" WOULD BE WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANCE.  IF REPUTED MEMBERSHIP IS ENOUGH, THERE IS UNCERTAINTY
WHETHER THAT REPUTATION MUST BE GENERAL OR EXTEND ONLY TO SOME
PERSONS.  AND THE STATUTE FAILS TO INDICATE WHAT CONSTITUTES MEMBERSHIP
OR HOW ONE MAY JOIN A "GANG." 

THE CHALLENGED PROVISION CONDEMNS NO ACT OR OMISSION; THE TERMS IT
EMPLOYS TO INDICATE WHAT IT PURPORTS TO DENOUNCE ARE SO VAGUE,
INDEFINITE AND UNCERTAIN THAT IT MUST BE CONDEMNED AS REPUGNANT TO THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SECTION CONTINUES:  "PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NOTHING IN THIS
PARTICIPANT OR SYMPATHIZER IN ANY LABOR DISPUTE."  THE PROVISO IS NOT
HERE INVOLVED. 

FN2  CHAMPLIN RFG.  CO. V. COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, 242, 243.  CLINE
V. FRINK DAIRY CO., 274 U.S. 445, 458.  CONNALLY V. GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391-393.  SMALL CO. V. AMERICAN SUGAR
RFG.  CO., 267 U.S. 233, 239.  UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255
U.S. 81, 89-92.  COLLINS V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 634, 638.  INTERNATIONAL
HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S. 216, 221-223.  CF. PEOPLE V.
BELCASTRO, 356 ILL. 144; 190 N.E. 301.  PEOPLE V. LICAVOLI, 264 MICH.
643; 250 N.W. 520. 

FN3  AMERICAN DICTIONARIES DEFINE THE WORD AS FOLLOWS: 

WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (2D ED.):  "GANG  ...  ACT,
MANNER, OR MEANS OF GOING; PASSAGE, COURSE, OR JOURNEY  ...  A SET OR
FULL COMPLEMENT OF ANY ARTICLES; AN OUTFIT.  A NUMBER GOING IN OR
FORMING A COMPANY; AS, A GANG OF SAILORS; A GANG OF ELK.  SPECIF.:  ...
A GROUP OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED UNDER THE SAME DIRECTION; AS A GANG OF
PAVERS; A GANG OF SLAVES  ...  A COMPANY OF PERSONS ACTING TOGETHER FOR
SOME PURPOSE; USUALLY CRIMINAL, OR AT LEAST NOT GOOD OR RESPECTABLE;
AS, A POLITICAL GANG; A GANG OF ROUGHS.  ...  " 

FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW STANDARD DICTIONARY (1915):  "GANG  ...  A
COMPANY OR BAND OF PERSONS, OR SOMETIMES OF ANIMALS, GOING OR ACTING
TOGETHER; A GROUP OR SQUAD:  SOMETIMES IMPLYING COOPERATION FOR EVIL OR
DISREPUTABLE PURPOSES; AS, A GANG OF LABORERS; A GANG OF BURGLARS; HE
SET THE WHOLE GANG AT WORK.  ...  " 

CENTURY DICTIONARY AND CYCLOPEDIA (1903):  "GANG  ...  A NUMBER GOING
OR ACTING IN COMPANY, WHETHER OF PERSONS OR OF ANIMALS:  AS, A GANG OF
DROVERS; A GANG OF ELKS.  SPECIFICALLY - (A) A NUMBER OF PERSONS
ASSOCIATED FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR ON A PARTICULAR OCCASION:  USED
ESPECIALLY IN A DEPRECIATORY OR CONTEMPTUOUS SENSE OR OF DISREPUTABLE
PERSONS:  AS, A GANG OF THIEVES; A CHAIN-GANG  ...  (B) A NUMBER OF
WORKMEN OR LABORERS OF ANY KIND ENGAGED ON ANY PIECE OF WORK UNDER
SUPERVISION OF ONE PERSON; A SQUAD; MORE PARTICULARLY, A SHIFT OF MEN;
A SET OF LABORERS WORKING TOGETHER DURING THE SAME HOURS.  ...  " 

PART OF THE TEXT OF THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY THE OXFORD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY (1933) READS:  "GANG ...  A SET OF THINGS OR PERSONS  ...  A
COMPANY OF WORKMEN  ...  A COMPANY OF SLAVES OR PRISONERS ...  ANY BAND
OR COMPANY OF PERSONS WHO GO ABOUT TOGETHER OR ACT IN CONCERT (CHIEFLY
IN A BAD OR DEPRECIATORY SENSE, AND IN MOD. USAGE MAINLY ASSOCIATED
WITH CRIMINAL SOCIETIES)  ...  TO BE OF A GANG:  TO BELONG TO THE SAME
SOCIETY, TO HAVE THE SAME INTERESTS.  ..." 

ANOTHER ENGLISH DICTIONARY, WYLD'S UNIVERSAL DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE, DEFINES THE WORD AS FOLLOWS:  "GANG  ...  1.  A BAND,
GROUP, SQUAD; (A) OF LABOURERS WORKING TOGETHER; (B) OF SLAVES,
PRISONERS &C.  2.  (IN BAD SENSE)(A) A GROUP OF PERSONS ORGANIZED FOR
EVIL OR CRIMINAL PURPOSE:  A GANG OF BURGLARS &C; (B)(COLLOQ., IN
DISPARAGEMENT) A BODY, PARTY, GROUP, OF PERSONS: "I AM SICK OF THE
WHOLE GANG OF UNIVERSITY WIRE-PULLERS.  ...  "    SEE:  ASBURY,
HERBERT, THE GANGS OF NEW YORK, 1927, ALFRED A. KNOPF.  THRASHER,
FREDERIC M., "GANGS" IN ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, 1931,
VOL. 6, P. 564, AND THE GANG:  A STUDY OF 1313 GANGS IN CHICAGO, 1927,
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS. 

FN4  SEE, E.G., CHAMPLIN RFG.  CO. V. COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, 242
243.  CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONST. CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391.  NASH V.
UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373. 

FN5  CF. KANS. LAWS 1935, C. 161.  ILL. LAWS 1933, P. 489, HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN PEOPLE V. BELCASTRO, 356 ILL. 144; 190 N.E. 301. 
MICH. COMP. LAWS (MASON, SUPP. 1935) SEC. 17115-167, HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN PEOPLE V. LICAVOLI, 264 MICH. 643; 250 N.W. 520. 
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :



















CHESEBRO V. LOS ANGELES CO. DIST., 306 U.S. 459 


NO. 368.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 2, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939.  - 11
CAL.2D 395 - 80 P.2D 479, AFFIRMED. 


1.  BY AN AMENDMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ACT, THE
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CREATED BY THAT ACT WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACQUIRE
CERTAIN DESIGNATED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN A NUMBER OF
DRAINAGE DISTRICTS EMBRACED WITHIN THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, AND TO
LEVY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS UPON REAL ESTATE WITHIN THE FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT TO MEET DRAINAGE DISTRICT OBLIGATIONS THEREUPON ASSUMED BY THE
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.  AN OWNER OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT, BUT OUTSIDE OF ANY OF THE DRAINAGE DISTRICTS
INVOLVED, SOUGHT BY A PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURT TO PREVENT
ASSESSMENTS UNDER THE AMENDING ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS ENTITLED
TO A HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF BENEFITS AND THAT WITHOUT SUCH
OPPORTUNITY HIS PROPERTY WOULD BE TAKEN WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE STATE COURT RULED IN EFFECT
THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD IMPLIEDLY MADE A FINDING AS TO BENEFITS AND
THAT THEREFORE OWNERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD ON THAT QUESTION. 
ON APPEAL TO THIS COURT, THE OWNER CONTENDS THAT THERE WAS NO
FOUNDATION FOR THE RULING OF THE STATE COURT THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD
MADE A FINDING OF BENEFITS, AND INSISTS THAT THE AMENDING ACT DEPRIVES
HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD.  HELD: 

(1)  THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE WAS APPROPRIATELY DRAWN IN QUESTION
IN THE STATE COURT, AND ITS DECISION IN SUBSTANCE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE
VALIDITY.  P. 463. 

(2)  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS NOT FORECLOSED BY PREVIOUS DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT NOR SO CLEARLY UNDEBATABLE AS TO REQUIRE DISMISSAL FOR
LACK OF SUBSTANCE.  P. 463. 

(3)  A CONTENTION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT RESTED UPON AN
INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND LACKED MERIT.  P. 463. 

(4)  THE STATE COURT'S RULING THAT IMPLIEDLY THE LEGISLATURE MADE THE
REQUISITE FINDINGS AS TO BENEFITS WAS NOT WITHOUT ADEQUATE FOUNDATION
AND ITS JUDGMENT MUST BE SUSTAINED.  P. 466. 

2.  WHERE, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS POWER, THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF HAS
FOUND THAT THE LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WILL
BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS, PRIOR APPROPRIATE AND
ADEQUATE INQUIRY IS PRESUMED AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF FLAGRANT ABUSE OR
PURELY ARBITRARY ACTION, THE FINDING IS CONCLUSIVE.  FORMAL OR EXPRESS
FINDINGS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL.  P. 464. 

CHESEBRO V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT DENYING A WRIT OF
MANDATE.  AS TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A CO-APPELLANT, THE APPEAL WAS
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A FEDERAL QUESTION, 305 U.S. 564. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT MAINTAINS THAT A CALIFORNIA STATUTE AUTHORIZING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD TO LEVY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON HIS LAND WITHIN A
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT CREATED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO PAY COST OF LOCAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES AND OF THEIR OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND
BETTERMENT, WITHOUT PROVIDING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE
QUESTION OF BENEFITS, IS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

CHAPTER 755, STATUTES 1915, CREATES THE LOS ANGELES FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT.  SECTION 2 DECLARES THAT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT ARE TO
PROVIDE FOR THE CONTROL OF THE FLOOD AND STORM WATERS OF THE DISTRICT,
TO CONSERVE THEM FOR BENEFICIAL USES, AND TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DISTRICT FROM DAMAGE BY FLOOD OR STORM WATERS.  SECTION 16
EMPOWERS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT ALL
IMPROVEMENTS AND TO ACQUIRE ALL PROPERTY THAT IS NECESSARY OR USEFUL
FOR CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 

CHAPTER 642, STATUTES 1937, ADDED SEC. 13 1/2 TO THE FLOOD CONTROL
ACT.  IT PROVIDES:  THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE DISTRICT MAY ACCEPT
ON ITS BEHALF, A TRANSFER AND CONVEYANCE OF "ALL, BUT NOT LESS THAN
ALL," STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS OR DRAINAGE
SYSTEMS OF DEFINED CLASSES LYING WITHIN THE DISTRICT.  UPON CONVEYANCE
TO THE DISTRICT OF ANY SUCH DRAINAGE WORKS IT SHALL BECOME LIABLE FOR
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF BONDS THEREAFTER MATURING WHICH WERE ISSUED
BY ANY DRAINAGE DISTRICT TO PAY THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING THE
TRANSFERRED PROPERTY.  FOR THAT PURPOSE THE BOARD SHALL LEVY A SPECIAL
TAX EACH YEAR UPON THE TAXABLE REAL ESTATE IN THE DISTRICT. 

A MAP, THAT WITH APPELLANT'S CONSENT IS INCLUDED IN APPELLEES' BRIEF,
SHOWS THAT THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT IS WITHIN AND NEARLY AS LARGE AS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHICH CONTAINS ALMOST 4,000 SQUARE MILES AND THAT
WITHIN IT THERE ARE ELEVEN DRAINAGE DISTRICTS, TWO OF WHICH WERE
ORGANIZED UNDER CHAPTER 258, STATUTES 1903, AND AMENDATORY ACTS, AND
NINE OF WHICH WERE ORGANIZED UNDER CHAPTER 354, STATUTES 1919, AND
AMENDATORY ACTS* . 

*THE TWO DISTRICTS ORGANIZED UNDER THE ACT OF 1903 AND AMENDATORY
ACTS ARE NO. 1, CONTAINING 2093 ACRES, AND NO. 3, CONTAINING 835
ACRES.  THE NUMBERS AND AREAS OF THE NINE ORGANIZED UNDER THE ACT OF
1919 AND AMENDATORY ACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:  8,  - 5785 ACRES; 9,  - 503
ACRES; 11,  - 3067 ACRES; 17,  - 103 ACRES; 22,  - 4017 ACRES; 23,  -
8786 ACRES; 25,  - 72 ACRES; 26,  - 2199 ACRES; 29,  - 1261 ACRES. 

APPELLANT AND THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES PRESENTED TO THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE THEIR PETITION FOR A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE.  IN
SUBSTANCE IT ALLEGES:  PETITIONERS OWN TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND OUTSIDE THE DRAINAGE DISTRICTS.  DECEMBER 1,
1937, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE DISTRICT ACCEPTED A TRANSFER TO
THE DISTRICT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND SYSTEMS OF THE ELEVEN DRAINAGE
DISTRICTS.  THE BOARD INTENDS TO LEVY ANNUAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
AGAINST ALL REAL ESTATE IN THAT DISTRICT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE
OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF THE WORKS SO
TRANSFERRED.  THE LEVY OF THESE ASSESSMENTS WILL BE ILLEGAL IN THAT
THEY WILL BE LEVIED AGAINST PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT TO PAY THE DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF OTHER SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
DISTRICTS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ACCRUAL OF BENEFITS TO THE LANDS
ASSESSED AND WILL DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE PETITION
PRAYS A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE TO REQUIRE APPELLEES TO LEVY
ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 755, STATUTES 1915, AS IT WAS
PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF SEC. 13 1/2 AND TO COMMAND THEM TO REFRAIN
FROM LEVYING ANY ASSESSMENT UNDER THAT SECTION. 

APPELLEES DEMURRED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITION FAILED TO STATE
FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE STATE COURT
SUSTAINED THAT CONTENTION AND DENIED THE WRIT.  IT RULED:  A FINDING BY
THE LEGISLATURE THAT LANDS WITHIN THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT WOULD BE
BENEFITED BY THAT DISTRICT'S ACQUISITION OF THE WORKS OF THE DRAINAGE
DISTRICTS IS CONCLUSIVE UNLESS SHOWN TO BE WITHOUT REASONABLE
FOUNDATION.  IT MUST BE PRESUMED THAT, BY DESIGNATING IN SEC. 13 1/2
THE IMPROVEMENTS AUTHORIZED TO BE TRANSTERRED, THE LEGISLATURE FOUND
THAT THE ENTIRE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT WOULD BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY
THE ACQUISITION.  THE PARTICULARITY OF THE DESCRIPTION IMPLIES SUCH A
FINDING.  THE FINDING THUS IMPLIED IS AS FULLY EFFECTIVE AS IF DECLARED
IN EXPRESS TERMS IN THE ACT ITSELF. 

PETITIONERS APPEALED TO THIS COURT; APPELLEES MOVED, AS TO THE CITY,
TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM ON THE GROUND THAT NO FEDERAL QUESTION WAS
INVOLVED; AND, AS TO BOTH APPELLANTS, ON THE GROUNDS THAT NO
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION WAS PRESENTED, AND THAT THE DECISION BELOW
RESTS UPON ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUNDS.  WE DISMISSED THE CITY'S
APPEAL FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION AND POSTPONED TO THE
HEARING ON THE MERITS FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION AND OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM.  305 U.S. 564. 

THAT MOTION IS DENIED.  THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION WAS BY THE PETITION APPROPRIATELY DRAWN IN QUESTION AND IN
SUBSTANCE THE DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT IS IN FAVOR OF ITS
VALIDITY.  SEE BRYANT V. ZIMMERMAN, 278 U.S. 63, 67-69.  ITS JUDGMENT
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STATUTE OR MERE
INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED.  ITS DECISION IS TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE LEGISLATURE FOUND THAT THE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT WOULD BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY THE ACQUISITION OF THE
DISTRICT DRAINAGE WORKS AND THAT THEREFORE THE APPELLANT AND OTHER
OWNERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO BE HEARD ON THE QUESTION OF BENEFITS. 
APPELLANT CONTENDS THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THE RULING THAT THE
LEGISLATURE MADE THAT DETERMINATION AND THAT, AS PUT IN OPERATION AND
EFFECT BY THE STATE, SEC. 13 1/2 DEPRIVES HIM OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO BE HEARD.  SEE ST. LOUIS S.W. RY. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 235 U.S.
350, 362.  MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219, 237. 
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO., 264 U.S. 79, 86.  MASON
CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S. 186, 206-207.  WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT
THE QUESTION IS FORECLOSED BY OUR DECISIONS OR THAT IT IS SO CLEARLY
NOT DEBATABLE AS TO REQUIRE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBSTANCE.  HAMILTON
V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245, 258.  ALTON RAILROAD CO. V. ILLINOIS COMMERCE
COMM'N, 305 U.S. 548.  NOR DO WE FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION THAT
THE JUDGMENT RESTS UPON AN INDEPENDENT NON-FEDERAL GROUND. 

BUT WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT IS RIGHT AND MUST BE
AFFIRMED. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF FLAGRANT ABUSE OR PURELY ARBITRARY ACTION, THE
STATE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, MAY ESTABLISH LOCAL
DISTRICTS TO INCLUDE REAL PROPERTY THAT IT FINDS WILL BE SPECIALLY
BENEFITED BY DRAINAGE, FLOOD CONTROL, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THEREIN,
AND, TO ACQUIRE, CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE SAME, MAY IMPOSE
SPECIAL TAX BURDENS UPON THE LANDS BENEFITED.  HAGAR V. RECLAMATION
DIST., 111 U.S. 701, 704-705.  SPENCER V. MERCHANT, 125 U.S. 345, 355. 
FRENCH V. BARBER ASPHALT PAVING CO., 181 U.S. 324, 342.  AND SEE HOUCK
V. LITTLE RIVER DRAINAGE DIST., 239 U.S. 254, 262.  AND WHERE, WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF ITS POWER, THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF HAS FOUND THAT THE LANDS
INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED BY THE
IMPROVEMENTS, PRIOR APPROPRIATE AND ADEQUATE INQUIRY IS PRESUMED, AND
THE FINDING IS CONCLUSIVE.  PARSONS V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 170 U.S.
45, 52.  WAGNER, INC. V. LESER, 239 U.S. 207, 218.  WITHNELL V.
RUECKING CONST. CO., 249 U.S. 63, 69.  HANCOCK V. MUSKOGEE, 250 U.S.
454, 458.  BRANSON V. BUSH, 251 U.S. 182, 189-190.  VALLEY FARMS CO. V.
WESTCHESTER, 261 U.S. 155, 162 ET SEQ.  MILHEIM V. MOFFAT TUNNEL DIST.,
262 U.S. 710, 721.  BUT WHERE THE DISTRICT WAS NOT DIRECTLY CREATED BY
THE LEGISLATURE AND THERE HAS BEEN NO DETERMINATION BY IT THAT THEIR
PROPERTY WILL BE BENEFITED BY THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS THE OWNERS ARE
ENTITLED, UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, TO
BE HEARD BY SOME OFFICER OR TRIBUNAL EMPOWERED BY THE STATE TO HEAR
THEM AND TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE WHETHER THEIR LANDS WILL BE SPECIALLY
BENEFITED.  FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DIST. V. BRADLEY, 164 U.S. 112, 167. 
EMBREE V. KANSAS CITY ROAD DIST., 240 U.S. 242, 247.  BROWNING V.
HOOPER, 269 U.S. 396, 405, 406. 

THE LEGISLATURE NEED NOT ADOPT ANY FORM OF STATEMENT OR FINDING FOR,
IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
UPON THE POWER OF STATES TO ASSESS AND COLLECT TAXES, THIS COURT
REGARDS THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR ENACTMENTS AS CONTROLLING RATHER THAN
MERE FORMS OF EXPRESSION EMPLOYED.  LONDONER V. DENVER, 210 U.S. 373,
385.  APPELLANT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT HIS LAND IS
NOT BY THE DRAINAGE WORKS SPECIALLY BENEFITED OR THAT A FINDING THAT IT
IS SO BENEFITED WOULD BE WITHOUT FOUNDATION OR ARBITRARY.  INDEED, HE
CONCEDES THAT, IF THE LEGISLATURE EITHER BY DESIGNATING THE TERRITORY
TO COMPRISE THE DISTRICT OR BY EXPRESSLY SO DECLARING HAS MADE THE
FINDING, HE IS BOUND BY IT. 

AS SHOWN BY THE OPINION BELOW, THE STATE COURT LONG BEFORE THE
ADDITION OF SEC. 13 1/2, HELD THAT THE MERE PASSAGE OF THE FLOOD
CONTROL ACT, WHICH DID NOT CONTAIN A DIRECT STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT,
"MUST BE TAKEN TO IMPORT A FINDING BY THE LEGISLATURE THAT THE PROPOSED
WORK WILL ANSWER A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND THAT ITS EXECUTION WILL BENEFIT
THE LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT TO SUCH AN EXTENT AS TO WARRANT THE
IMPOSITION UPON SUCH LAND OF THE COST IN THE MANNER PROVIDED.  THE
FINDINGS THUS IMPLIED ARE AS FULLY EFFECTIVE AS IF DECLARED IN EXPRESS
TERMS IN THE ACT ITSELF."  LOS ANGELES FLOOD CONTROL DIST. V. HAMILTON,
177 CAL. 119, 124-125; 169 P. 1028, 1030.  THE COURT DEEMED THAT
LANGUAGE APPLICABLE IN DISPOSING OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS IN THIS
CASE.  AND WE THINK THAT AS THE LEGISLATURE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
DECISION WHEN ENACTING THE CHALLENGED PROVISION, IT MUST BE GIVEN GREAT
WEIGHT IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 13 1/2. 

THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT HAD LONG BEEN IN EXISTENCE AND EMPOWERED
TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR ITS PURPOSES.  SECTION 13 1/2 LIMITED
THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO ACCEPTANCE OF "ALL, BUT NOT LESS THAN ALL" THE
DRAINAGE WORKS AND DEFINED THE TAX BURDEN TO BE IMPOSED.  THE
LEGISLATION IS NOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM A MEASURE TO TAKE EFFECT
UPON AN EVENT UNRELATED TO THE CREATION OF THE DISTRICT OR THE
IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. 

NO QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE FLOOD CONTROL
DISTRICT OR ITS AUTHORITY TO LEVY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON LANDS WITHIN
IT.  BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE CHALLENGED SECTION, THE LEGISLATURE
UNQUESTIONABLY INTENDED THAT THE USE OF THE DRAINAGE WORKS SHOULD NOT
BE LIMITED TO THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH ORIGINALLY THEY WERE INTENDED BUT
THAT THEY SHOULD ALSO BE USED IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER FACILITIES FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT.  THE CHALLENGED SECTION WAS
NOT ENACTED TO CREATE A NEW ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BUT SPECIALLY TO
AUTHORIZE THE ONE ALREADY ESTABLISHED TO ACCEPT, MAINTAIN, AND USE THE
DESIGNATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR SOME OF THE PURPOSES ENUMERATED IN THE
FLOOD CONTROL ACT.  THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE CHALLENGED STATUTE
NECESSARILY IMPLY SPECIAL BENEFITS TO THE LANDS IN QUESTION.  WE THINK
THE STATE COURT'S RULING THAT IMPLIEDLY THE LEGISLATURE MADE THE
REQUISITE FINDINGS IS NOT WITHOUT ADEQUATE FOUNDATION.  MERE LACK OF
FORMAL OR EXPRESS STATEMENT OF THEM IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE
REVERSAL.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 
..END :



GRAVES V. N.Y. EX REL. O'KEEFE, 306 U.S. 466 


NO. 478.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939.  - 278 N.Y.
691 - 16 N.E.2D 404, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RECEIPT OF SALARY BY A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK AS AN EXAMINING
ATTORNEY FOR THE FEDERAL HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAXATION BY A STATE.  P.
475. 

2.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE CREATION OF
THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE
POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THAT ALL ACTIVITIES OF THE
GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS ARE GOVERNMENTAL AND
STAND ON A PARITY WITH RESPECT TO IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION.  P.
477. 

3.  WHETHER CONGRESS, AS AN INCIDENT TO THE EXERCISE OF SPECIFICALLY
GRANTED POWERS, HAS POWER TO GRANT TAX EXEMPTIONS EXTENDING BEYOND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF FEDERAL AGENCIES WHICH COURTS MAY IMPLY, IS
A QUESTION NOT DETERMINED IN THIS CASE.  P. 478. 

4.  NO PURPOSE OF CONGRESS EITHER TO GRANT OR TO WITHHOLD IMMUNITY
FROM STATE TAXATION OF SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORPORATION IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED IN THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF
1933, 48 STAT. 128, OR IS TO BE INFERRED FROM THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS. 
P. 479. 

5.  A TAX ON INCOME IS NOT LEGALLY OR ECONOMICALLY A TAX ON ITS
SOURCE, AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ECONOMIC
BURDEN OF A NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE INCOME TAX ON THE SALARY OF AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OR OF A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IS
PASSED ON SO AS TO IMPOSE A BURDEN ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
TANTAMOUNT TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE BY THE ONE GOVERNMENT
WITH THE OTHER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS.  P. 480. 

6.  ASSUMING THAT THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION IS CLOTHED WITH
THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION AS THE GOVERNMENT
ITSELF, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE PRESENT TAX ON THE INCOME OF ITS
EMPLOYEES LAYS ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON IT.  P. 486. 

7.  COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, AND NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V.
GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401, ARE OVERRULED IN SO FAR AS THEY RECOGNIZE AN
IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM NON-DISCRIMINATING INCOME TAXATION
OF THE SALARIES OF OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE NATIONAL OR STATE
GOVERNMENTS OR THEIR INSTRUMENTALITIES.  ID. 

GRAVES ET AL., COMMISSIONERS CONSTITUTING THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
NEW YORK, V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 592, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER, 253
APP. DIV. 91; 1 N.Y.S.2D 195, SETTING ASIDE A DECISION OF THE TAX
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK REJECTING A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF A
TAX. 

EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION ENJOY NO
CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY IMMUNITY FROM NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE
TAXATION OF THEIR SALARIES. 

INTERFERENCE WITH THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT FURNISHES AN
APPROPRIATE TEST FOR IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION.  BY SUCH TEST NO IMMUNITY
SHOULD BE ACCORDED THE TAXPAYER HERE. 

THE TAXPAYER IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE SALARY IS PAID BY THE CORPORATION PURSUANT TO SEC. 4(J) OF THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933, WHICH CLEARLY DELINEATES THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES LIKE RESPONDENT AND OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES
OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION HAS ALL THE EARMARKS OF A REGULAR
PRIVATE BUSINESS CORPORATION. 

WE NOTE THE EXTENDED AND WHOLLY IMPERTINENT ARGUMENT OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ADDRESSED TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THIS COURT
SHOULD NOW, IN THIS CASE, RECONSIDER AND OVERRULE COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11
WALL.  113, AND SUBSEQUENT CASES IN LINE THEREWITH.  SINCE THE INSTANT
CASE INVOLVES NO SUCH ISSUE OR QUESTION; SINCE WE RESPECT THE REPEATED
ADMONITION OF THIS COURT TO CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES
OF LAW CONCERNED IN THE CASE AT BAR, AND NONE OTHER; SINCE THE ISSUE
THUS EXTRANEOUSLY RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF WILL INEVITABLY COME
BEFORE THE COURT IN A CASE WHERE THE ISSUE MAY BE SQUARELY PRESENTED
AND THE VITAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS THEREIN INVOLVED FULLY ARGUED
AND CONSIDERED - FOR THESE REASONS THE PETITIONERS MUST DECLINE TO BE
DRAWN INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSITION THUS IRRELEVANTLY SOUGHT TO
BE INJECTED INTO THE INSTANT APPEAL.  FOR THE SAME REASONS WE MOST
EARNESTLY TRUST AND PRAY THAT THIS COURT WILL ADHERE TO ITS TRADITIONAL
PHILOSOPHY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS AND DECLINE THE GOVERNMENT'S
INVITATION TO MAKE THE "DIGRESSION FROM THE PARTICULAR CASE BEFORE THE
COURT." 

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION ARE ESSENTIAL TO
THE PRESERVATION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE AND THE PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC
SECURITY. 

A WHOLLY-OWNED INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES, LAWFULLY CREATED
AND USED TO CARRY INTO EFFECT CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, THE HOME OWNERS'
LOAN CORPORATION IS IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND,
4 WHEAT.  316; DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS, 16 PET. 435; VAN BROCKLIN V.
TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151; CLALLAM COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 341;
NEW BRUNSWICK V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 547. 

THE IMMUNITY RESTS UPON AN ENTIRE ABSENCE OF THE POWER TO TAX. 
JOHNSON V. MARYLAND, 254 U.S. 151; ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401. 

THE STATE CAN NOT BY ANY FORM OF TAXATION IMPOSE ANY BURDEN UPON A
NATIONAL POWER OR FUNCTION.  WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET. 449; HOME
SAVINGS BANK V. DES MOINES, 205 U.S. 503, 513. 

CONGRESS MAY ENLARGE THE FEDERAL IMMUNITY IF NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  JAMES V.
DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 160-161. 

ALTHOUGH THE COURT IN VAN ALLEN V. THE ASSESSORS, 3 WALL.  573,
SUGGESTED THAT CONGRESS MIGHT CURTAIL A FEDERAL IMMUNITY THAT MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE IMPLIED, THE COURT, UPON FULL CONSIDERATION, IN THE CASE
OF HOME SAVINGS BANK V. DES MOINES, 205 U.S. 503, SAID:  "IT MAY BE
DOUBTED WHETHER CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO CONFER UPON THE STATE THE
RIGHT TO TAX OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES."  SEE FARMERS BANK V.
MINNESOTA, 232 U.S. 516. 

THE IMMUNITY IS NOT A PRIVATE BOON BUT A LIMITATION IMPOSED IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  EVANS V. GORE, 253 U.S. 245. 

HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, RECOGNIZES THAT THERE ARE MANY
STATE EMPLOYEES REMAINING IMMUNE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TAX AFFECTS
THE STATE ONLY AS THE BURDEN IS PASSED ON TO IT.  THE EFFECT OF THIS
DECISION IS TO DENY IMMUNITY WHEN THE BURDEN OF SUCH TAXATION ON THE
STATE IS SPECULATIVE AND UNCERTAIN TO THE DEGREE MENTIONED IN THAT
OPINION. 

IF IT WERE NECESSARY TO SHOW THE BURDEN OF STATE INCOME TAX ON THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, THAT CAN READILY BE DEMONSTRATED. 

THE DIVERSE PROVISIONS IN THE SEVERAL STATES REQUIRING INFORMATION
REPORTS TO BE FILED BY THE EMPLOYER, AND PROVISIONS FOR WITHHOLDING
TAX, CONSTITUTE A REAL BURDEN AND EXPENSE IF THE CORPORATION BE
REQUIRED TO CONFORM THERETO, AND THE PHYSICAL LABOR INVOLVED IN
PREPARATION OF INFORMATION RETURNS WILL IMPAIR, IMPEDE AND PREJUDICE
THIS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.  NATIONAL BANK V. KENTUCKY, 9 WALL.  353,
362. 

THE STATE INCOME TAX COMPELS CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING SALARIES
AND WOULD INCREASE THE OPERATING EXPENSE OF THE CORPORATION. 

IN ATTEMPTING TO REFLECT THE DIVERS INCOME TAXES, AN ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCY IS CONFRONTED WITH AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK IN THE MATTER OF
CLASSIFICATION AND EQUALIZATION OF SALARIES THROUGHOUT AN ORGANIZATION
FUNCTIONING IN ALL THE STATES OF THE UNION, AND THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE
SUCH A HANDICAP AS TO COMPEL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ABANDON THE
CORPORATE FORM OF AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY AND FUNCTION DIRECTLY IN
ALL FIELDS. 

TO TAX THE SALARY IS TO TAX THE RIGHT OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORPORATION TO EMPLOY THE PERSON, AND IS TO LEVY UPON THE RIGHT OF THE
PERSON TO WORK FOR THE CORPORATION AND RECEIVE THE SALARY. 

INCOME IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM PROPERTY.  THE INCOME TAX IS NOT A
TAX OF MONEY IN HAND BUT IS A TAX ON THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE MONEY. 

THE QUESTION HERE IS ONE OF POWER - NOT ECONOMICS. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT CONSENTED TO A STATE INCOME TAX, AND SUCH CONSENT
WILL NOT BE IMPLIED. 

THE IMMUNITY EXISTS UNLESS CONGRESS EXPRESSLY CONSENTS TO A TAX. 

THE IMMUNITY NEED NEVER BE CARRIED INTO EXPRESS STIPULATION FOR THIS
COULD ADD NOTHING TO ITS FORCE.  EVANS V. GORE, SUPRA. 

THE IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION RESTS UPON AN ENTIRE ABSENCE OF THE POWER
TO TAX.  IT IS ANALOGOUS TO IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, HELVERING V. GERHARDT,
SUPRA, FOOTNOTE 1; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229, 234,
235. 

A STATUTE UNDER WHICH WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS CLAIMED MUST BE
STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  SUIT MAY NOT BE MAINTAINED AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES IN ANY CASE NOT CLEARLY WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE BY WHICH
IT CONSENTS TO BE SUED. 

THE IMMUNITY OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES FROM SUIT IS LESS READILY
IMPLIED THAN IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION. 

THE RULE AS TO TAXATION IS ABSOLUTE IN FORM AND STRICTER IN
SUBSTANCE. 

ALTHOUGH IT BECAME THE PRACTICE AFTER THE CIVIL WAR FOR CONGRESS TO
INSERT IN APPROPRIATE ACTS THE EXPRESS EXEMPTION, THE IMMUNITY, WITHOUT
THAT, IS CLEAR. 

THE IMMUNITY OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES RESTS ON A DIFFERENT BASIS
FROM THAT OF STATE INSTRUMENTALITIES.  IT IS MORE EXTENSIVE.  HELVERING
V. GERHARDT, SUPRA. 

IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA, THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT
CONGRESS MIGHT ENLARGE THE IMMUNITY TO INCLUDE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
IF DEEMED NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. 

A STATE IS WITHOUT POWER TO TAX PERSONS, INSTRUMENTALITIES, OR
AGENCIES ENGAGED IN EXERCISING A POWER GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN EXERCISE ITS
DELEGATED POWERS OF TAXATION EQUALLY AGAINST ALL MEN SO LONG AS IT DOES
NOT ACTUALLY INTERFERE WITH TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF THE
STATE.  CF. MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA; HELVERING V. THERRELL, 303
U.S. 218; UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 180. 

THE CLAIM TO IMMUNITY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY
RESTS ON A DIFFERENT BASIS FROM THAT OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
ENGAGED ON THE WORK OF SUCH AN INSTRUMENTALITY.  JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA; ROGERS V. GRAVES, SUPRA; METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514. 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAS EXEMPTED RESPONDENT'S SALARY FROM TAXATION
BY THE STATE TAX LAW. 

THE NEW YORK STATUTE EXEMPTS "COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM THE UNITED
STATES OF OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES THEREOF."  THE RELATOR IS EXEMPTED
UNDER THIS PROVISION; THE QUESTION IS ONE OF STATE LAW. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN EXERCISE ONLY ITS DELEGATED POWERS, AND IF
THE ACTIVITY IS CONSTITUTIONAL IT MUST BY DEFINITION BE GOVERNMENTAL. 
MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 432, 435-436; VAN BROCKLIN V.
TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151, 158-159; SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199
U.S. 437, 451-452; HELVERING V. THERRELL, 303 U.S. 218, 223; HELVERING
V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 412-413, 416. 

STOCK OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION IS WHOLLY OWNED BY THE
UNITED STATES AND ITS FUNCTIONS ARE THOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT ALONE. 
SINCE THERE IS AND CAN BE NO CHALLENGE TO ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY IN
THESE PROCEEDINGS, ITS ACTIVITIES MUST BE TAKEN TO BE PURELY
GOVERNMENTAL AND IN ALL RESPECTS THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM A TAX SUCH AS THIS. 

THE COURT HAS FOUR TIMES HELD AN OFFICER OF A STATE OR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY THE OTHER; IT HAS NEVER HELD AN
EMPLOYEE TO BE EXEMPT.  COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, WAS ERRONEOUS
AT THE TIME IT WAS DECIDED.  IT IGNORED THAT, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF TAX
IMMUNITY PROBLEMS, THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED NO RELEVANT LIMITATION
UPON THE FEDERAL TAXING POWERS.  IT REVERSED THE REASONING OF THE PRIOR
DECISION OF THIS COURT HOLDING STATE TAXES INVALID SOLELY BECAUSE OF
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.  IT IGNORED CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL'S INSISTENCE
THAT THE REPRESENTATION OF THE STATES IN CONGRESS MADE UNNECESSARY A
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  AND IT OPENED WIDE FIELDS FOR UNNECESSARY
AND UNFAIR TAX EXEMPTIONS, WHICH THE COURT HAS SINCE BEEN REQUIRED
STEADILY TO NARROW. 

COLLECTOR V. DAY CAN NOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS
OF THE COURT.  HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405; METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134;
UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321; PECK & CO. V. LOWE,
247 U.S. 165. 

THERE IS NO PRACTICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE IMMUNITY.  THE GOVERNMENT
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE RECEIVES ALL THE BENEFITS OF ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT
AND SHOULD PAY HIS SHARE OF ITS COSTS.  THE TAX CONTAINS NO THREAT TO
THE OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  IT IS NOT CERTAIN THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SALARY WILL BE TAXED AT ALL IF INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME.  THE EXEMPTION
PRIVILEGE OPERATES IN A VARIABLE AND DISCRIMINATORY MANNER.  FEW, IF
ANY, PERSONS CONSIDERING GOVERNMENT WORK WOULD HAVE THEIR DECISIONS
SHAPED BY IMMUNITY OR LIABILITY TO INCOME TAX.  EVEN IF THE EXEMPTION
WERE TO BE REFLECTED IN THE PUBLIC TREASURY, THERE IS DOUBT THAT SUCH A
BOUNTY SHOULD BE OFFERED BY ONE GOVERNMENT TO ANOTHER.  THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE TAX BE NON-DISCRIMINATORY ELIMINATES ANY DANGER OF
INTERFERENCE WITH GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. 

EACH OF THE THREE REASONS ADVANCED OR SUGGESTED BY THE COURT FOR THE
DECISION IN COLLECTOR V. DAY HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN REJECTED:  (1)  THE
POWER TO TAX CAN NO LONGER BE THOUGHT TO INVOLVE THE POWER TO DESTROY. 
IN HALF A HUNDRED CASES THE COURT HAS SUSTAINED TAXES WHICH WOULD BE
CAPABLE OF DESTRUCTION IF PRESSED TO DISCRIMINATORY OR OPPRESSIVE
LIMITS, AND THE COURT HAS EXPRESSLY DECIDED THAT THE STATES COULD TAX
FEDERAL ACTIVITIES WHICH THEY COULD NOT REGULATE OR FORBID.  WESTERN
UNION TEL. CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 125 U.S. 530; NEW BRUNSWICK V. UNITED
STATES, 276 U.S. 547.  (2)  A NON-DISCRIMINATORY NET INCOME TAX CAN NO
LONGER BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS IN WHICH THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED.  (3) FINALLY,
AFTER THE DECISION IN NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308 AND
HALE V. STATE BOARD, 302 U.S. 95, THE TAX UPON NET INCOME CAN NO LONGER
BE THOUGHT TO BE A TAX ON THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME. 

THE FEAR THAT THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX MIGHT BE PASSED ON TO
THE GOVERNMENT NO LONGER CAN BE ACCEPTED AS A GROUND FOR EXTENDING
IMMUNITY FROM SUCH A TAX.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S.
134, 160; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376;
HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 418-419, 420-421. 

THE REASONS ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT FOR DENYING A CLAIM OF IMMUNITY IN
THE CASES JUST CITED ARE FULLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF A GOVERNMENT
OFFICER. 

FOREIGN FEDERATIONS WITH SIMILAR PROBLEMS HAVE FIRST ADOPTED AND THEN
HAVE REJECTED THE RULE OF COLLECTOR V. DAY. 

AN INTENTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO EXEMPT THE SALARY FROM SUCH
TAXATION IS NOT TO BE IMPLIED FROM ITS SILENCE. 

IN FORTY-ODD CASES THE STATES HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO TAX PRIVATE
PERSONS WHO DEALT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  IN NO CASE HAS THE SILENCE OF
CONGRESS BEEN THOUGHT TO IMPLY A DESIRE THAT THERE BE EXEMPTION; THE
DECISIONS OF IMMUNITY HAVE BEEN PITCHED ON THE CONSTITUTION ALONE.  IN
MANY OPINIONS THE COURT HAS EXPRESSLY RELIED UPON THE FAILURE OF
CONGRESS TO PROVIDE EXEMPTION AS A REASON WHY THE TAX SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED.  AND CERTAINLY IF THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON THE GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTOR, SUSTAINED IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134,
WAS NOT TO BE THOUGHT CONDEMNED BY THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS, A TAX SO
REMOTE FROM THE OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT AS AN INCOME TAX UPON THE
SALARIES PAID OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IS NOT TO BE THOUGHT FORBIDDEN BY
AN IMPLICATION DERIVED FROM THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS.    THE POSSIBLE
ARGUMENT THAT CONGRESS BY ITS SILENCE HAS ACCEPTED THE RULE OF IMMUNITY
ANNOUNCED IN COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, AS APPLIED TO FEDERAL
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, CAN NOT BE ALLOWED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE IMPOSITION BY THE STATE OF NEW
YORK OF AN INCOME TAX ON THE SALARY OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE HOME OWNERS'
LOAN CORPORATION PLACES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. 

RESPONDENT, A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, WAS EMPLOYED DURING 1934 AS AN
EXAMINING ATTORNEY FOR THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION AT AN ANNUAL
SALARY OF $2,400.  IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THAT YEAR HE INCLUDED
HIS SALARY AS SUBJECT TO THE NEW YORK STATE INCOME TAX IMPOSED BY ART.
16 OF THE TAX LAW OF NEW YORK (CONSOL.  LAWS, C. 60).  SUBDIVISION 2F
OF SEC. 359, SINCE REPEALED, EXEMPTED FROM THE TAX "SALARIES, WAGES AND
OTHER COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES OF OFFICIALS OR
EMPLOYEES THEREOF, INCLUDING PERSONS IN THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES.  ..."  PETITIONERS, NEW YORK STATE TAX
COMMISSIONERS, REJECTED RESPONDENT'S CLAIM FOR A REFUND OF THE TAX
BASED ON THE GROUND THAT HIS SALARY WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY EXEMPT FROM
STATE TAXATION BECAUSE THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION IS AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND THAT HE, DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. 

ON REVIEW BY CERTIORARI THE BOARD'S ACTION WAS SET ASIDE BY THE
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, 253 APP. DIV. 91;
1 N.Y.S.2D 195, WHOSE ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  278
N.Y. 691; 16 N.E.2D 404.  BOTH COURTS HELD RESPONDENT'S SALARY WAS FREE
FROM TAX ON THE AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299
U.S. 401, WHICH SUSTAINED THE CLAIM THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY TAX THE SALARY OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PANAMA RAIL ROAD
COMPANY, A WHOLLY-OWNED CORPORATE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED
STATES.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 592, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE RECORD BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION WAS CREATED PURSUANT TO SEC. 4(A)
OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 128, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 1461
ET SEQ., WHICH WAS ENACTED TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY RELIEF TO HOME OWNERS,
PARTICULARLY TO ASSIST THEM WITH RESPECT TO HOME MORTGAGE
INDEBTEDNESS.  THE CORPORATION, WHICH IS AUTHORIZED TO LEND MONEY TO
HOME OWNERS ON MORTGAGES AND TO REFINANCE HOME MORTGAGE LOANS WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT, IS DECLARED BY SEC. 4(A) TO BE AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  ITS SHARES OF STOCK ARE WHOLLY
GOVERNMENT-OWNED.  SEC. 4(B).  ITS FUNDS ARE DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE COMPENSATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES IS PAID BY
DRAFTS UPON THE TREASURY. 

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE CREATION OF THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE
POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  CF. KAY V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S.
1.  AS THAT GOVERNMENT DERIVES ITS AUTHORITY WHOLLY FROM POWERS
DELEGATED TO IT BY THE CONSTITUTION, ITS EVERY ACTION WITHIN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IS GOVERNMENTAL ACTION, AND SINCE CONGRESS IS MADE
THE SOLE JUDGE OF WHAT POWERS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT ARE TO BE
EXERCISED, ALL ACTIVITIES OF GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED BY
CONGRESS MUST STAND ON A PARITY WITH RESPECT TO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 432; VAN
BROCKLIN V. TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151, 158-159; SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED
STATES, 199 U.S. 437, 451-452; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 412
415.  AND WHEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT LAWFULLY ACTS THROUGH A
CORPORATION WHICH IT OWNS AND CONTROLS, THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS ENTITLED TO WHATEVER TAX IMMUNITY ATTACHES TO
THOSE FUNCTIONS WHEN CARRIED ON BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF THROUGH ITS
DEPARTMENTS.  SEE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, 421-422; SMITH V.
KANSAS CITY TITLE CO., 255 U.S. 180, 208; FEDERAL LAND BANK V.
CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374; NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, SUPRA. 

THE SINGLE QUESTION WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED IS WHETHER THE TAX
LAID BY THE STATE UPON THE SALARY OF RESPONDENT, EMPLOYED BY A
CORPORATE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IMPOSES AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON THAT GOVERNMENT.  THE THEORY OF THE TAX
IMMUNITY OF EITHER GOVERNMENT, STATE OR NATIONAL, AND ITS
INSTRUMENTALITIES, FROM TAXATION BY THE OTHER, HAS BEEN RESTED UPON AN
IMPLIED LIMITATION ON THE TAXING POWER OF EACH, SUCH AS TO FORESTALL
UNDUE INTERFERENCE, THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER, WITH THE
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES OF THE OTHER.  THAT THE TWO TYPES OF IMMUNITY
MAY NOT, IN ALL RESPECTS, STAND ON A PARITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FROM
THE BEGINNING, MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, 435-436, AND POSSIBLE
DIFFERENCES IN APPLICATION, DERIVING FROM DIFFERENCES IN THE SOURCE,
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE IMMUNITY OF THE GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR
AGENCIES, WERE POINTED OUT AND DISCUSSED BY THIS COURT IN DETAIL DURING
THE LAST TERM.  HELVERING V. GERHARDT, SUPRA, 412-413, 416. 

SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT, THOSE DIFFERENCES HAVE BEEN THOUGHT TO BE
TRACEABLE TO THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ONE OF DELEGATED
POWERS IN THE EXERCISE OF WHICH CONGRESS IS SUPREME; SO THAT EVERY
AGENCY WHICH CONGRESS CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY CREATE IS A GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY.  AND SINCE THE POWER TO CREATE THE AGENCY INCLUDES THE IMPLIED
POWER TO DO WHATEVER IS NEEDFUL OR APPROPRIATE, IF NOT EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITED, TO PROTECT THE AGENCY, THERE HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO
CONGRESS SOME SCOPE, THE LIMITS OF WHICH IT IS NOT NOW NECESSARY TO
DEFINE, FOR GRANTING OR WITHHOLDING IMMUNITY OF FEDERAL AGENCIES FROM
STATE TAXATION.  SEE VAN ALLEN V. THE ASSESSORS, 3 WALL.  573, 583,
585; BANK V. SUPERVISORS, 7 WALL.  26, 30, 31; THOMSON V. PACIFIC
RAILROAD, 9 WALL.  579, 588, 590; PEOPLE V. WEAVER, 100 U.S. 539, 543;
MERCANTILE BANK V. NEW YORK, 121 U.S. 138, 154; OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK
V. OWENSBORO, 173 U.S. 664, 668; SHAW V. GIBSON-ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276
U.S. 575, 581; OKLAHOMA V. BARNSDALL REFINERIES, INC., 296 U.S. 521,
525-526; BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 209, 211
212; BRITISH-AMERICAN OIL CO. V. BOARD, 299 U.S. 159; JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 161; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, SUPRA, 411,
412, 417; CF. UNITED STATES V. BEKINS, 304 U.S. 27, 52.  WHETHER ITS
POWER TO GRANT TAX EXEMPTIONS AS AN INCIDENT TO THE EXERCISE OF POWERS
SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION CAN EVER, IN ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, EXTEND BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF FEDERAL
AGENCIES WHICH COURTS HAVE IMPLIED, IS A QUESTION WHICH NEED NOT NOW BE
DETERMINED. 

CONGRESS HAS DECLARED IN SEC. 4 OF THE ACT THAT THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN
CORPORATION IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT ITS
BONDS ARE EXEMPT, AS TO PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, FROM FEDERAL AND STATE
TAXATION, EXCEPT SURTAXES, ESTATE, INHERITANCE AND GIFT TAXES.  THE
CORPORATION ITSELF, "INCLUDING ITS FRANCHISE, ITS CAPITAL, RESERVES AND
SURPLUS, AND ITS LOANS AND INCOME," IS LIKEWISE EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION;
ITS REAL PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TAX TO THE SAME EXTENT AS OTHER REAL
PROPERTY.  BUT CONGRESS HAS GIVEN NO INTIMATION OF ANY PURPOSE EITHER
TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION OF THE SALARY OF THE
CORPORATION'S EMPLOYEES, AND THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION IS NOT TO BE
GATHERED FROM THE STATUTE BY IMPLICATION.  CF. BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK
V. STATE TAX COMM'N, SUPRA. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE SILENCE OF CONGRESS, WHEN IT HAS AUTHORITY TO
SPEAK, MAY SOMETIMES GIVE RISE TO AN IMPLICATION AS TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE.  THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THAT IMPLICATION
DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER AND THE EFFECT OF ITS
EXERCISE.  FN1  BUT THERE IS LITTLE SCOPE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THAT
DOCTRINE TO THE TAX IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTALITIES.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF EITHER GOVERNMENT FROM TAXATION BY THE
OTHER, WHERE CONGRESS IS SILENT, HAS ITS SOURCE IN AN IMPLIED
RESTRICTION UPON THE POWERS OF THE TAXING GOVERNMENT.  SO FAR AS THE
IMPLICATION RESTS UPON THE PURPOSE TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH THE
FUNCTIONS OF THE TAXED GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPOSITION UPON IT OF THE
ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX, IT IS PLAIN THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
IMPLYING A PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO EXEMPT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS
AGENCIES FROM TAX BURDENS WHICH ARE UNSUBSTANTIAL OR WHICH COURTS ARE
UNABLE TO DISCERN.  SILENCE OF CONGRESS IMPLIES IMMUNITY NO MORE THAN
DOES THE SILENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT FOLLOWS THAT WHEN EXEMPTION
FROM STATE TAXATION IS CLAIMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS BURDENED BY THE TAX, AND CONGRESS HAS DISCLOSED NO
INTENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIMED IMMUNITY, IT IS IN ORDER TO
CONSIDER THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE ALLEGED BURDEN, AND IF IT APPEARS
THAT THERE IS NO GROUND FOR IMPLYING A CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, THERE
IS EQUALLY A WANT OF ANY GROUND FOR ASSUMING ANY PURPOSE ON THE PART OF
CONGRESS TO CREATE AN IMMUNITY. 

THE PRESENT TAX IS A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX ON INCOME APPLIED TO
SALARIES AT A SPECIFIED RATE.  IT IS NOT IN FORM OR SUBSTANCE A TAX
UPON THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION OR ITS PROPERTY OR INCOME, NOR
IS IT PAID BY THE CORPORATION OR THE GOVERNMENT FROM THEIR FUNDS.  IT
IS MEASURED BY INCOME WHICH BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE TAXPAYER WHEN
RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES; AND THE TAX LAID UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OF RECEIVING IT IS PAID FROM HIS PRIVATE FUNDS AND NOT FROM
THE FUNDS OF THE GOVERNMENT, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.  THE
THEORY, WHICH ONCE WON A QUALIFIED APPROVAL, THAT A TAX ON INCOME IS
LEGALLY OR ECONOMICALLY A TAX ON ITS SOURCE, IS NO LONGER TENABLE, NEW
YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 313, 314; HALE V. STATE
BOARD, 302 U.S. 95, 108; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, SUPRA; CF. METCALF &
EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514; FOX FILM CORP. V. DOYAL, 286 U.S. 123;
JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA, 149; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN
PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376, AND THE ONLY POSSIBLE BASIS FOR IMPLYING
A CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM STATE INCOME TAX OF THE SALARY OF AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OR OF A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IS THAT
THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX IS IN SOME WAY PASSED ON SO AS TO IMPOSE
A BURDEN ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TANTAMOUNT TO AN INTERFERENCE BY
ONE GOVERNMENT WITH THE OTHER IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS. 

IN THE FOUR CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SALARY OF AN
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF ONE GOVERNMENT OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITY WAS IMMUNE
FROM TAXATION BY THE OTHER, IT WAS ASSUMED, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, THAT
THE IMMUNITY OF A GOVERNMENT OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITY EXTENDS TO THE
SALARIES OF ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.  FN2  THIS ASSUMPTION MADE WITH
RESPECT TO THE SALARY OF A GOVERNMENTAL OFFICER IN DOBBINS V.
COMMISSIONERS OF ERIE COUNTY, 16 PET. 435, AND IN COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11
WALL.  113, WAS LATER EXTENDED TO CONFER IMMUNITY ON INCOME DERIVED BY
A LESSEE FROM LANDS LEASED TO HIM BY A GOVERNMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF
A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501; BURNET V.
CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, AND CASES CITED, ALTHOUGH THE
CLAIM OF A LIKE EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON THE INCOME OF A CONTRACTOR
ENGAGED IN CARRYING OUT A GOVERNMENTAL PROJECT WAS REJECTED BOTH IN THE
CASE OF A CONTRACTOR WITH A STATE, METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, SUPRA,
AND OF A CONTRACTOR WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA. 

THE ULTIMATE REPUDIATION IN HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP.,
SUPRA, OF THE DOCTRINE THAT A TAX ON THE INCOME OF A LESSEE DERIVED
FROM A LEASE OF GOVERNMENT OWNED OR CONTROLLED LANDS IS A FORBIDDEN
INTERFERENCE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT CONCERNED LED TO THE
REEXAMINATION BY THIS COURT, IN THE GERHARDT CASE, OF THE THEORY
UNDERLYING THE ASSERTED IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION BY ONE GOVERNMENT OF
SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES OF THE OTHER.  IT WAS THERE POINTED OUT THAT THE
IMPLIED IMMUNITY OF ONE GOVERNMENT AND ITS AGENCIES FROM TAXATION BY
THE OTHER SHOULD, AS A PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION, BE
NARROWLY RESTRICTED.  FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE IMMUNITY OF THE ONE
GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDINGLY CURTAILS THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE OTHER TO
TAX, AND WHERE THAT IMMUNITY IS INVOKED BY THE PRIVATE CITIZEN IT TENDS
TO OPERATE FOR HIS BENEFIT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TAXING GOVERNMENT AND
WITHOUT CORRESPONDING BENEFIT TO THE GOVERNMENT IN WHOSE NAME THE
IMMUNITY IS CLAIMED.  SEE METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, SUPRA, 523-524;
JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA, 156-158.  IT WAS FURTHER POINTED
OUT THAT, AS APPLIED TO THE TAXATION OF SALARIES OF THE EMPLOYEES OF
ONE GOVERNMENT, THE PURPOSE OF THE IMMUNITY WAS NOT TO CONFER BENEFITS
ON THE EMPLOYEES BY RELIEVING THEM FROM CONTRIBUTING THEIR SHARE OF THE
FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE OTHER GOVERNMENT, WHOSE BENEFITS THEY ENJOY,
OR TO GIVE AN ADVANTAGE TO A GOVERNMENT BY ENABLING IT TO ENGAGE
EMPLOYEES AT SALARIES LOWER THAN THOSE PAID FOR LIKE SERVICES BY OTHER
EMPLOYERS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE,  FN3  BUT TO PREVENT UNDUE INTERFERENCE
WITH THE ONE GOVERNMENT BY IMPOSING ON IT THE TAX BURDENS OF THE
OTHER. 

IN APPLYING THESE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES IN THE GERHARDT CASE THE
COURT HELD THAT THE SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES OF THE NEW YORK PORT
AUTHORITY, A STATE INSTRUMENTALITY CREATED BY NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY,
WERE NOT IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX, EVEN THOUGH THE AUTHORITY BE
REGARDED AS NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TAXATION.  IT WAS SAID THAT THE
TAXPAYERS ENJOYED THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND WERE UNDER A DUTY, COMMON TO ALL CITIZENS, TO CONTRIBUTE
FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT; THAT THE TAX LAID ON THEIR
SALARIES AND PAID BY THEM COULD BE SAID TO AFFECT OR BURDEN THEIR
EMPLOYER, THE PORT AUTHORITY, OR THE STATES CREATING IT, ONLY SO FAR AS
THE BURDEN OF THE TAX WAS ECONOMICALLY PASSED ON TO THE EMPLOYER; THAT
A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX LAID ON THE INCOME OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNITY COULD NOT BE ASSUMED TO OBSTRUCT THE FUNCTION WHICH NEW YORK
AND NEW JERSEY HAD UNDERTAKEN TO PERFORM, OR TO CAST AN ECONOMIC BURDEN
UPON THEM, MORE THAN DOES THE GENERAL TAXATION OF PROPERTY AND INCOME
WHICH, TO SOME EXTENT, INCAPABLE OF MEASUREMENT BY ECONOMISTS, MAY TEND
TO RAISE THE PRICE LEVEL OF LABOR AND MATERIALS.  FN4  THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THE CLAIMED IMMUNITY WOULD DO NO MORE THAN RELIEVE THE
TAXPAYERS FROM THE DUTY OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
IN ORDER TO SECURE TO THE STATE A THEORETICAL ADVANTAGE, SPECULATIVE IN
CHARACTER AND MEASUREMENT AND TOO UNSUBSTANTIAL TO FORM THE BASIS OF AN
IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION. 

THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE GERHARDT CASE THAT IN TERMS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL TAX IMMUNITY A FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON THE SALARY OF AN
EMPLOYEE IS NOT A PROHIBITED BURDEN ON THE EMPLOYER MAKES IT IMPERATIVE
THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER ANEW THE IMMUNITY HERE CLAIMED FOR THE SALARY
OF AN EMPLOYEE OF A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY.  AS ALREADY INDICATED,
SUCH DIFFERENCES AS THERE MAY BE BETWEEN THE IMPLIED TAX IMMUNITY OF A
STATE AND THE CORRESPONDING IMMUNITY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS
INSTRUMENTALITIES MAY BE TRACED TO THE FACT THAT THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT IS ONE OF DELEGATED POWERS, IN THE EXERCISE OF WHICH IT IS
SUPREME.  WHATEVER SCOPE THIS MAY GIVE TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO
CLAIM IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION OF ALL INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH IT
MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY CREATE, AND WHATEVER AUTHORITY CONGRESS MAY
POSSESS AS INCIDENTAL TO THE EXERCISE OF ITS DELEGATED POWERS TO GRANT
OR WITHHOLD IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION, CONGRESS HAS NOT SOUGHT IN
THIS CASE TO EXERCISE SUCH POWER.  HENCE THESE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE
TWO TYPES OF IMMUNITY CANNOT AFFECT THE QUESTION WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW
CONCERNED.  THE BURDEN ON GOVERNMENT OF A NON-DISCRIMINATORY INCOME TAX
APPLIED TO THE SALARY OF THE EMPLOYEE OF A GOVERNMENT OR ITS
INSTRUMENTALITY IS THE SAME, WHETHER A STATE OR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS
CONCERNED.  THE DETERMINATION IN THE GERHARDT CASE THAT THE FEDERAL
INCOME TAX IMPOSED ON THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PORT AUTHORITY WAS NOT A
BURDEN ON THE PORT AUTHORITY MADE IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER
THE AUTHORITY ITSELF WAS IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL TAXATION; THE CLAIMED
IMMUNITY FAILED BECAUSE EVEN IF THE PORT AUTHORITY WERE ITSELF IMMUNE
FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX, THE TAX UPON THE INCOME OF ITS EMPLOYEES CAST
UPON IT NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN. 

ASSUMING, AS WE DO, THAT THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION IS CLOTHED
WITH THE SAME IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION AS THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF, WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE PRESENT TAX ON THE INCOME OF ITS EMPLOYEES LAYS ANY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON IT.  ALL THE REASONS FOR REFUSING TO IMPLY
A CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION OF SALARIES OF
STATE EMPLOYEES, STATED AT LENGTH IN THE GERHARDT CASE, ARE OF EQUAL
FORCE WHEN IMMUNITY IS CLAIMED FROM STATE INCOME TAX ON SALARIES PAID
BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENCIES.  IN THIS RESPECT WE
PERCEIVE NO BASIS FOR A DIFFERENCE IN RESULT WHETHER THE TAXED INCOME
BE SALARY OR SOME OTHER FORM OF COMPENSATION, OR WHETHER THE TAXPAYER
BE AN EMPLOYEE OR AN OFFICER OF EITHER A STATE OR THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, OR OF ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES.  IN NO CASE IS THERE BASIS FOR
THE ASSUMPTION THAT ANY SUCH TANGIBLE OR CERTAIN ECONOMIC BURDEN IS
IMPOSED ON THE GOVERNMENT CONCERNED AS WOULD JUSTIFY A COURT'S
DECLARING THAT THE TAXPAYER IS CLOTHED WITH THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL
TAX IMMUNITY OF THE GOVERNMENT BY WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED.  THAT
ASSUMPTION, MADE IN COLLECTOR V. DAY, SUPRA, AND IN NEW YORK EX REL.
ROGERS V. GRAVES, SUPRA, IS CONTRARY TO THE REASONING AND TO THE
CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN THE GERHARDT CASE AND IN METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, SUPRA; GROUP NO. 1 OIL CORP. V. BASS, 283 U.S. 279; JAMES V.
DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP.,
SUPRA; MCLOUGHLIN V. COMMISSIONER, 303 U.S. 218.  IN THEIR LIGHT THE
ASSUMPTION CAN NO LONGER BE MADE.  COLLECTOR V. DAY, SUPRA, AND NEW
YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, SUPRA, ARE OVERRULED SO FAR AS THEY
RECOGNIZE AN IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM INCOME TAXATION OF
THE SALARIES OF OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE NATIONAL OR A STATE
GOVERNMENT OR THEIR INSTRUMENTALITIES. 

SO MUCH OF THE BURDEN OF A NON-DISCRIMINATORY GENERAL TAX UPON THE
INCOMES OF EMPLOYEES OF A GOVERNMENT, STATE OR NATIONAL, AS MAY BE
PASSED ON ECONOMICALLY TO THAT GOVERNMENT, THROUGH THE EFFECT OF THE
TAX ON THE PRICE LEVEL OF LABOR OR MATERIALS, IS BUT THE NORMAL
INCIDENT OF THE ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY OF TWO
GOVERNMENTS, EACH POSSESSING THE TAXING POWER.  THE BURDEN, SO FAR AS
IT CAN BE SAID TO EXIST OR TO AFFECT THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY INDIRECT OR
INCIDENTAL WAY, IS ONE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PRESUPPOSES, AND HENCE IT
CANNOT RIGHTLY BE DEEMED TO BE WITHIN AN IMPLIED RESTRICTION UPON THE
TAXING POWER OF THE NATIONAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION HAS EXPRESSLY GRANTED TO ONE AND HAS CONFIRMED TO THE
OTHER.  THE IMMUNITY IS NOT ONE TO BE IMPLIED FROM THE CONSTITUTION,
BECAUSE IF ALLOWED IT WOULD IMPOSE TO AN INADMISSIBLE EXTENT A
RESTRICTION ON THE TAXING POWER WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS RESERVED TO
THE STATE GOVERNMENTS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS
GENERALLY BEEN TAKEN TO SIGNIFY A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO LEAVE
UNDISTURBED THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO MAKE REGULATIONS AFFECTING
THE COMMERCE IN MATTERS OF PECULIARLY LOCAL CONCERN, BUT TO WITHHOLD
FROM THEM AUTHORITY TO MAKE REGULATIONS AFFECTING THOSE PHASES OF IT
WHICH, BECAUSE OF THE NEED OF A NATIONAL UNIFORMITY, DEMAND THAT THEIR
REGULATION, IF ANY, BE PRESCRIBED BY A SINGLE AUTHORITY.  COOLEY V.
BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, 319; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S.
352, 399-400; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 14; SOUTH CAROLINA
HIGHWAY DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROTHERS, 303 U.S. 177, 184-185; MILK CONTROL
BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS, ANTE, P. 346.  AS TO THE IMPLICATIONS
FROM CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE IN THE FIELD OF STATE TAXATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES, SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250; GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S.
434. 

FN2  IN DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS OF ERIE COUNTY, 16 PET. 435, A
PENNSYLVANIA TAX, NOMINALLY LAID UPON THE OFFICE OF THE CAPTAIN OF A
FEDERAL REVENUE CUTTER, BUT ROUGHLY MEASURED BY THE SALARY PAID TO THE
OFFICER, WAS HELD INVALID.  THE COURT SEEMS TO HAVE RESTED ITS DECISION
IN PART ON THE GROUND THAT A TAX ON THE EMOLUMENTS OF HIS OFFICE WAS
THE EQUIVALENT OF A TAX UPON AN ACTIVITY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT,
AND IN PART ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE IMPLIED
SUPERIOR POWER OF CONGRESS TO FIX THE COMPENSATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES WITHOUT DIMINUTION BY STATE TAXATION. 

IN COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE SALARY
OF A STATE PROBATE JUDGE WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL
INCOME TAX ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SALARY OF AN OFFICER OF A STATE IS
EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL TAXATION IF THE FUNCTION HE PERFORMS AS AN OFFICER
IS EXEMPT, CITING DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS, SUPRA, AND THAT THERE WAS
AN IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION UPON THE POWER OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT TO TAX A STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF THOSE FUNCTIONS WHICH WERE
ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS AS THEY WERE
ORGANIZED AT THE TIME WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED.  THE
POSSIBILITY THAT A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON THE INCOME OF A STATE
OFFICER DID NOT INVOLVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT DISCUSSED EITHER IN THIS OR
THE DOBBINS CASE. 

IN NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401, THE QUESTION WAS
WHETHER THE SALARY OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE PANAMA RAIL ROAD
COMPANY WAS EXEMPT FROM STATE INCOME TAX BECAUSE THE RAILROAD COMPANY
WAS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE SOLE QUESTION
RAISED BY THE TAXING STATE WAS WHETHER THE RAILROAD COMPANY WAS A
GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY.  THE COURT, HAVING FOUND THAT THE RAILROAD
COMPANY WAS SUCH AN INSTRUMENTALITY, DISPOSED OF THE MATTER OF TAX
EXEMPTION OF THE SALARY OF ITS EMPLOYEES BY DECLARING:  "THE RAILROAD
COMPANY BEING IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION, IT NECESSARILY RESULTS THAT
FIXED SALARIES AND COMPENSATION PAID TO ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN
THEIR CAPACITY AS SUCH ARE LIKEWISE IMMUNE."  NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS
V. GRAVES, SUPRA, 408. 

IN BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 352, THE APPLICABLE TREASURY
REGULATION UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RELIED EXEMPTED FROM FEDERAL
INCOME TAX THE COMPENSATION OF "STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES" FOR
"SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXERCISE OF AN ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OF THE STATE."  THE COURT HELD THAT THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM OF NEW YORK CITY WAS AN
ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, AND IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE SALARY
OF THE ENGINEER IN CHARGE OF THAT PROJECT WAS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME
TAX THE COURT DECLARED, CITING NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES,
SUPRA, 408; "THE ANSWER DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE
CITY WAS CREATED AND IS CONDUCTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE CITY'S
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  IF SO, ITS OPERATIONS ARE IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL
TAXATION AND, AS A NECESSARY COROLLARY, 'FIXED SALARIES AND
COMPENSATION PAID TO ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
SUCH ARE LIKEWISE IMMUNE."  BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, 360. 

FN3  THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES OF THE ONE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE
LESSENED IF ALL THOSE WHO DEAL WITH IT WERE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY THE
OTHER WAS THOUGHT NOT TO BE AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR TAX IMMUNITY IN
METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514; GROUP NO. 1 OIL CORP. V.
BASS, 283 U.S. 279; BURNET V. JERGINS TRUST, 288 U.S. 508; JAMES V.
DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS
CORP., 303 U.S. 376. 

FN4  THAT THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF A TAX ON SALARIES IS PASSED ON TO
THE EMPLOYER OR THAT EMPLOYEES WILL ACCEPT A LOWER GOVERNMENT SALARY
BECAUSE OF ITS TAX IMMUNITY, ARE FORMULAS WHICH HAVE NOT WON ACCEPTANCE
BY ECONOMISTS AND CANNOT BE JUDICIALLY ASSUMED.  AS TO THE "PASSING ON"
OF THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF THE TAX, SEE SELIGMAN, INCOME TAX, VII
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, 626-638; PLEHN, PUBLIC FINANCE (5TH
ED.), P. 320; BUEHLER, PUBLIC FINANCE, P. 240; LUTZ, PUBLIC FINANCE (2D
ED.), P. 336, AND SEE INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S.
570, 581, FOOTNOTE 1.  AS TO PREFERENCE FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT
BECAUSE THE SALARY IS TAX EXEMPT, SEE DICKINSON, COMPENSATING
INDUSTRIAL EFFORT (1937), PP. 7-8; DOUGLAS, THE REALITY OF NON
COMMERCIAL INCENTIVES IN INDUSTRIAL LIFE, C. V OF THE TREND OF
ECONOMICS (1924); VOL. I, FETTER, ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES (1915), P. 203. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, CONCURRING: 

I JOIN IN THE COURT'S OPINION BUT DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO ADD A FEW
REMARKS.  THE VOLUME OF THE COURT'S BUSINESS HAS LONG SINCE MADE
IMPOSSIBLE THE EARLY HEALTHY PRACTICE WHEREBY THE JUSTICES GAVE
EXPRESSION TO INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS.  FN1  BUT THE OLD TRADITION STILL
HAS RELEVANCE WHEN AN IMPORTANT SHIFT IN CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE IS
ANNOUNCED AFTER A RECONSTRUCTION IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COURT.  SUCH
SHIFTS OF OPINION SHOULD NOT DERIVE FROM MERE PRIVATE JUDGMENT.  THEY
MUST BE DULY MINDFUL OF THE NECESSARY DEMANDS OF CONTINUITY IN
CIVILIZED SOCIETY.  A REVERSAL OF A LONG CURRENT OF DECISIONS CAN BE
JUSTIFIED ONLY IF ROOTED IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF AS AN HISTORIC
DOCUMENT DESIGNED FOR A DEVELOPING NATION. 

FOR ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS THIS COURT HAS BEEN CONCERNED WITH
CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY FROM TAXES IMPOSED BY ONE AUTHORITY IN OUR DUAL
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THE TAXPAYER'S RELATION TO THE OTHER. 
THE BASIS FOR THE COURT'S INTERVENTION IN THIS FIELD HAS NOT BEEN ANY
EXPLICIT PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE STATES, AFTER THEY FORMED
THE UNION, CONTINUED TO HAVE THE SAME RANGE OF TAXING POWER WHICH THEY
HAD BEFORE, BARRING ONLY DUTIES AFFECTING EXPORTS, IMPORTS, AND ON
TONNAGE.  FN2  CONGRESS, ON THE OTHER HAND, TO LAY TAXES IN ORDER "TO
PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF
THE UNITED STATES," ART. I, SEC. 8, CAN REACH EVERY PERSON AND EVERY
DOLLAR IN THE LAND WITH DUE REGARD TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS AS TO
THE METHOD OF LAYING TAXES.  BUT, AS IS TRUE OF OTHER GREAT ACTIVITIES
OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, THE FACT THAT WE ARE A
FEDERALISM RAISES PROBLEMS REGARDING THESE VITAL POWERS OF TAXATION. 
SINCE TWO GOVERNMENTS HAVE AUTHORITY WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY, NEITHER
THROUGH ITS POWER TO TAX CAN BE ALLOWED TO CRIPPLE THE OPERATIONS OF
THE OTHER.  THEREFORE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS MUST AVOID
EXACTIONS WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EACH OTHER OR OBVIOUSLY INTERFERE
WITH ONE ANOTHER'S OPERATIONS.  THESE WERE THE DETERMINING
CONSIDERATIONS THAT LED THE GREAT CHIEF JUSTICE TO STRIKE DOWN THE
MARYLAND STATUTE AS AN UNAMBIGUOUS MEASURE OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
THE USE BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES AS ONE OF
ITS INSTRUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT. 

THE ARGUMENTS UPON WHICH MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, RESTED
HAD THEIR ROOTS IN ACTUALITY.  BUT THEY HAVE BEEN DISTORTED BY STERILE
REFINEMENTS UNRELATED TO AFFAIRS.  THESE REFINEMENTS DERIVED AUTHORITY
FROM AN UNFORTUNATE REMARK IN THE OPINION IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND. 
PARTLY AS A FLOURISH OF RHETORIC AND PARTLY BECAUSE THE INTELLECTUAL
FASHION OF THE TIMES INDULGED A FREE USE OF ABSOLUTES, CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL GAVE CURRENCY TO THE PHRASE THAT "THE POWER TO TAX INVOLVES
THE POWER TO DESTROY."  ID., AT P. 431.  THIS DICTUM WAS TREATED AS
THOUGH IT WERE A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.  BUT NOT WITHOUT PROTEST.  ONE
OF THE MOST TRENCHANT MINDS ON THE MARSHALL COURT, JUSTICE WILLIAM
JOHNSON, EARLY ANALYZED THE DANGEROUS INROADS UPON THE POLITICAL
FREEDOM OF THE STATES AND THE UNION WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORBITS
RESULTING FROM A DOCTRINAIRE APPLICATION OF THE GENERALITIES UTTERED IN
THE COURSE OF THE OPINION IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND.  FN3  THE SEDUCTIVE
CLICHE THAT THE POWER TO TAX INVOLVES THE POWER TO DESTROY WAS FUSED
WITH ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, LIKEWISE NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION
ITSELF, NAMELY THE DOCTRINE THAT THE IMMUNITIES ARE CORRELATIVE -
BECAUSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IMPLIES IMMUNITIES
FROM STATE TAXATION, THE EXISTENCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS IMPLIES
EQUIVALENT IMMUNITIES FROM FEDERAL TAXATION.  WHEN THIS DOCTRINE WAS
FIRST APPLIED MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY REGISTERED A POWERFUL DISSENT, FN4
THE FORCE OF WHICH GATHERED RATHER THAN LOST STRENGTH WITH TIME. 
COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, 128. 

ALL THESE DOCTRINES OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY HAVE UNTIL RECENTLY
BEEN MOVING IN THE REALM OF WHAT LINCOLN CALLED "PERNICIOUS
ABSTRACTIONS."  THE WEB OF UNREALITY SPUN FROM MARSHALL'S FAMOUS DICTUM
WAS BRUSHED AWAY BY ONE STROKE OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES'S PEN:  "THE POWER
TO TAX IS NOT THE POWER TO DESTROY WHILE THIS COURT SITS."  PANHANDLE
OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 277 U.S. 218, 223(DISSENT).  FAILURE TO EXEMPT
PUBLIC FUNCTIONARIES FROM THE UNIVERSAL DUTIES OF CITIZENSHIP TO PAY
FOR THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT WAS HYPOTHETICALLY TRANSMUTED INTO HOSTILE
ACTION OF ONE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE OTHER.  A SUCCESSION OF DECISIONS
THEREBY WITHDREW FROM THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES AND NATION A VERY
CONSIDERABLE RANGE OF WEALTH WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ACTUAL WORKINGS OF
OUR FEDERALISM,  FN5  AND THIS, TOO, WHEN THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF ALL
GOVERNMENTS BEGAN STEADILY TO MOUNT.  THESE DECISIONS HAVE ENCOUNTERED
INCREASING DISSENT.  FN6  IN VIEW OF THE POWERFUL PULL OF OUR DECISIONS
UPON THE COURTS CHARGED WITH MAINTAINING THE CONSTITUTIONAL EQUILIBRIUM
OF THE TWO OTHER GREAT ENGLISH FEDERALISMS, THE CANADIAN AND THE
AUSTRALIAN COURTS WERE AT FIRST INCLINED TO FOLLOW THE EARLIER
DOCTRINES OF THIS COURT REGARDING INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY.  FN7
BOTH THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ON
FULLER CONSIDERATION - AND FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THE BRITISH NORTH
AMERICA ACT, 30 & 31 VICT., C. 3, AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
CONSTITUTION ACT, 63 & 64 VICT., C. 12, RAISE THE SAME LEGAL ISSUES AS
DOES OUR CONSTITUTION  FN8 - HAVE COMPLETELY REJECTED THE DOCTRINE OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY.  FN9 IN THIS COURT DISSENTS HAVE GRADUALLY
BECOME MAJORITY OPINIONS, AND EVEN BEFORE THE PRESENT DECISION THE
RATIONALE OF THE DOCTRINE HAD BEEN UNDERMINED.  FN10 

THE JUDICIAL HISTORY OF THIS DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY IS A STRIKING
ILLUSTRATION OF AN OCCASIONAL TENDENCY TO ENCRUST UNWARRANTED
INTERPRETATIONS UPON THE CONSTITUTION AND THEREAFTER TO CONSIDER MERELY
WHAT HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY SAID ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, RATHER THAN TO BE
PRIMARILY CONTROLLED BY A FAIR CONCEPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
JUDICIAL EXEGESIS IS UNAVOIDABLE WITH REFERENCE TO AN ORGANIC ACT LIKE
OUR CONSTITUTION, DRAWN IN MANY PARTICULARS WITH PURPOSED VAGUENESS SO
AS TO LEAVE ROOM FOR THE UNFOLDING FUTURE.  BUT THE ULTIMATE TOUCHSTONE
OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF AND NOT WHAT WE HAVE
SAID ABOUT IT.  FN11  NEITHER DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS, 16 PET. 435,
AND ITS OFFSPRING, NOR COLLECTOR V. DAY, SUPRA, AND ITS, CAN STAND
APPEAL TO THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS HISTORIC PURPOSES.  SINCE BOTH ARE
THE STARTING POINTS OF AN INTERDEPENDENT DOCTRINE, BOTH SHOULD BE, AS I
ASSUME THEM TO BE, OVERRULED THIS DAY.  WHETHER CONGRESS MAY, BY
EXPRESS LEGISLATION, RELIEVE ITS FUNCTIONARIES FROM THEIR CIVIC
OBLIGATIONS TO PAY FOR THE BENEFITS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS UNDER
WHICH THEY LIVE IS MATTER FOR ANOTHER DAY. 

FN1  THE STATE OF THE DOCKET OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA AND THAT
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA STILL PERMITS THEM TO CONTINUE THE
CLASSIC PRACTICE OF SERIATIM OPINIONS. 

FN2  ARTICLE 1, SEC. 10, U.S. CONSTITUTION. 

FN3  WESTON V. CITY COUNCIL OF CHARLESTON, 2 PET. 449, 472-73. 

FN4  "I DISSENT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE,
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE SAME POWER OF TAXING
THE INCOME OF OFFICERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS AS IT HAS OF TAXING
THAT OF ITS OWN OFFICERS.  ...  IN MY JUDGMENT, THE LIMITATION OF THE
POWER OF TAXATION IN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH THE PRESENT DECISION
ESTABLISHES, WILL BE FOUND VERY DIFFICULT OF CONTROL.  WHERE ARE WE TO
STOP IN ENUMERATING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WHICH WILL
BE INTERFERED WITH BY FEDERAL TAXATION?  ...  HOW CAN WE NOW TELL WHAT
THE EFFECT OF THIS DECISION WILL BE?  I CANNOT BUT REGARD IT AS FOUNDED
ON A FALLACY, AND THAT IT WILL LEAD TO MISCHIEVOUS CONSEQUENCES."  (11
WALL.  113, 128-29.) 

FN5  E.G., GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501; PANHANDLE OIL CO. V.
MISSISSIPPI, 277 U.S. 218; MACALLEN CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 279 U.S. 620;
INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570; BURNET V. CORONADO
OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393; N.Y. EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S.
401; BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 352. 

FN6  E.G., MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, DISSENTING, IN JAYBIRD MINING CO. V.
WEIR, 271 U.S. 609, 615; MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, DISSENTING, IN PANHANDLE
OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 277 U.S. 218, 222; MR. JUSTICE STONE,
DISSENTING, IN INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570,
580; MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING, IN BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 300
U.S. 352, 374.  SEE, ALSO, MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING, IN HELVERING
V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 424. 

FN7  BANK OF TORONTO V. LAMBE, 12 APP. CAS. 575; D'EMDEN V. PEDDER, 1
C.L.R. 91. 

FN8  ESPECIALLY IS THIS TRUE OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION.  ONE OF
ITS FRAMERS, WHO AFTERWARDS BECAME ONE OF THE MOST DISTINGUISHED OF
AUSTRALIAN JUDGES, MR. JUSTICE HIGGINS, CHARACTERIZED IT AS HAVING
FOLLOWED OUR CONSTITUTION WITH "PEDANTIC IMITATION."  AUSTRALASIAN
TEMPERANCE & G.M. LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. HOWE, 31 C.L.R. 290, 330. 

FN9  ABBOTT V. CITY OF ST. JOHN, 40 CAN.  SUP.  CT. 597; CARON V. THE
KING, (1924) A.C. 999; AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS V. ADELAIDE
STEAMSHIP CO., 28 C.L.R. 129; WEST V. COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION, 56
C.L.R. 657. 

FN10  E.G., JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134; HELVERING
V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304
U.S. 405. 

FN11 COMPARE TANEY, C.J., IN PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOW.  283, 470:  "I
...  AM QUITE WILLING THAT IT BE REGARDED AS THE LAW OF THIS COURT,
THAT ITS OPINION UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION IS ALWAYS
OPEN TO DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN FOUNDED IN ERROR,
AND THAT ITS JUDICIAL AUTHORITY SHOULD HEREAFTER DEPEND ALTOGETHER ON
THE FORCE OF THE REASONING BY WHICH IT IS SUPPORTED." 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND I ARE OF OPINION THAT THE HOME OWNERS'
LOAN CORPORATION, BEING AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES
HERETOFORE DEEMED IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION, "IT NECESSARILY RESULTS,"
AS HELD IN NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES (1937) 299 U.S. 401, "THAT
FIXED SALARIES AND COMPENSATION PAID TO ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN
THEIR CAPACITY AS SUCH ARE LIKEWISE IMMUNE"; AND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF
THE STATE COURT, UNQUESTIONABLY REQUIRED BY THAT DECISION, SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

FROM THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT HAS
OVERRULED DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS OF ERIE COUNTY (1842) 16 PET. 435;
COLLECTOR V. DAY (1871) 11 WALL.  113; NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V.
GRAVES, SUPRA, AND BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER (1937) 300 U.S. 352.  THUS NOW
IT APPEARS THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALWAYS HAD POWER TO TAX SALARIES
OF STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND THAT SIMILARLY FREE HAVE BEEN THE
STATES TO TAX SALARIES OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THE COMPENSATION FOR PAST AS WELL AS FOR FUTURE SERVICE TO BE TAXED AND
THE RATES PRESCRIBED IN THE EXERTION OF THE NEWLY DISCLOSED POWER
DEPEND ON LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVISION. 
FUTILE INDEED ARE THE VAGUE INTIMATIONS THAT THIS COURT MAY PROTECT
AGAINST EXCESSIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE TAXATION.  WHERE THE POWER TO TAX
EXISTS, LEGISLATURES MAY EXERT IT TO DESTROY, TO DISCOURAGE, TO PROTECT
OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING REVENUE.  SEE E.G. VEAZIE
BANK V. FENNO, 8 WALL.  533, 548; MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27,
53 ET SEQ.; MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, 44 ET SEQ.;
CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 308. 

APPRAISAL OF LURKING OR APPARENT IMPLICATIONS OF THE COURT'S OPINION
CAN SERVE NO USEFUL END FOR, SHOULD OCCASION ARISE, THEY MAY BE IGNORED
OR GIVEN DIRECTION DIFFERING FROM THAT AT FIRST SEEMINGLY INTENDED. 
BUT SAFELY IT MAY BE SAID THAT PRESENTLY MARKED FOR DESTRUCTION IS THE
DOCTRINE OF RECIPROCAL IMMUNITY THAT BY RECENT DECISIONS HERE HAS BEEN
SO MUCH IMPAIRED. 
..END :



















PACIFIC INS. CO. V. COMM'N, 306 U.S. 493 


NO. 158.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939.  - 10
CAL.2D 567 - 75 P.2D 1058, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE IS NOT BOUND, APART FROM THE COMPULSION OF THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE, TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE; NOR BY ITS OWN
STATUTE MAY IT DETERMINE THE CHOICE OF LAW TO BE APPLIED IN THE OTHER. 
P. 500. 

2.  AN EMPLOYEE OF A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, RESIDENT IN
MASSACHUSETTS AND REGULARLY EMPLOYED IN THAT STATE UNDER A CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT ENTERED INTO THERE, WAS INJURED IN THE COURSE OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT WHILE TEMPORARILY IN CALIFORNIA.  THE MASSACHUSETTS
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTE PURPORTED TO GIVE AN EXCLUSIVE REMEDY,
EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY WAS SUFFERED OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  HELD, THE
COURTS OF CALIFORNIA WERE NOT BOUND BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO APPLY, CONTRARY TO THE POLICY OF THEIR
STATE, THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE, OR TO RECOGNIZE IT AS A DEFENSE TO A
CLAIM OF THE EMPLOYEE UNDER THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION STATUTE OF
CALIFORNIA, WHICH, BECAUSE THE INJURY WAS SUFFERED IN THE COURSE OF
EMPLOYMENT THERE, ALSO PURPORTED TO BE APPLICABLE AND TO GIVE AN
EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.  BRADFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V. CLAPPER, 286 U.S.
145, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 501. 

THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE IN THIS CASE WOULD
BE OBNOXIOUS TO THE POLICY OF CALIFORNIA SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS:  NOT
ONLY DOES THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE CONFLICT WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS
STATUTE IN RESPECT OF ITS APPLICATION TO EMPLOYEES INJURED IN
CALIFORNIA, BUT IT ALSO EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT "NO CONTRACT, RULE OR
REGULATION SHALL EXEMPT THE EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR THE
COMPENSATION FIXED BY THIS ACT"; AND FURTHER, THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA IN ITS OPINION IN THIS CASE HAS DECLARED IT TO BE THE POLICY
OF THE STATE, AS EXPRESSED IN ITS CONSTITUTION AND COMPENSATION ACT, TO
APPLY ITS OWN PROVISIONS FOR COMPENSATION, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL
OTHERS, AND HOLDS THAT "IT WOULD BE OBNOXIOUS TO THAT POLICY TO DENY
PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN INJURED IN THIS STATE THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR
COMPENSATION WHEN TO DO SO MIGHT REQUIRE PHYSICIANS AND HOSPITALS TO GO
TO ANOTHER STATE TO COLLECT CHARGES FOR MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT
GIVEN TO SUCH PERSONS." 

3.  THE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL UNION OF STATES, TO WHICH ARE RESERVED
SOME OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY, PRECLUDES RESORT TO THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AS A MEANS FOR COMPELLING A STATE TO SUBSTITUTE
THE STATUTES OF OTHER STATES FOR ITS OWN STATUTES DEALING WITH A
SUBJECT MATTER CONCERNING WHICH IT IS COMPETENT TO LEGISLATE.  P. 501. 

4.  THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE A STATE TO
SUBSTITUTE FOR ITS OWN STATUTE, APPLICABLE TO PERSONS AND EVENTS WITHIN
IT, THE CONFLICTING STATUTE OF ANOTHER STATE, EVEN THOUGH THAT STATUTE
IS OF CONTROLLING FORCE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF ITS ENACTMENT
WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME PERSONS AND EVENTS, - AT LEAST IN THE ABSENCE
OF ACTION BY CONGRESS PRESCRIBING THE EXTRA-STATE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN
STATE STATUTES.  P. 502. 

5.  THIS COURT MUST DETERMINE FOR ITSELF HOW FAR THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE COMPELS THE QUALIFICATION OR DENIAL OF RIGHTS ASSERTED
UNDER THE LAWS OF ONE STATE, THAT OF THE FORUM, BY THE STATUTE OF
ANOTHER STATE.  P. 502. 

PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 563, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DENYING A PETITION OF THE INSURER OF AN EMPLOYER TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD
OF COMPENSATION MADE TO AN EMPLOYEE BY THE STATE COMMISSION. 

THE AWARD UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT AND THE
REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE AS A DEFENSE IN THE
CALIFORNIA PROCEEDINGS, IS CONTRARY TO THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE. 

THE COURTS OF ONE STATE MUST GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A STATUTE
OF A SECOND STATE WHICH IS SET UP AS A DEFENSE TO AN ACTION BROUGHT IN
THE FIRST STATE.  BRADFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V. CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145;
MODERN WOODMEN V. MIXER, 267 U.S. 544; AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. DUNKEN,
266 U.S. 389; SUPREME COUNCIL V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531; WESTERN UNION
TELEGRAPH CO. V. BROWN, 234 U.S. 542; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V.
SOWERS, 213 U.S. 55.  THE BRADFORD LIGHT CASE CONTROLS THE PRESENT
CASE. 

WHERE THE STATUTE OF A FOREIGN STATE CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIVE
DEFENSE TO AN ACTION, A CONFLICT BETWEEN SUCH STATUTE AND THE STATUTE
OF THE FORUM CAN NOT BE RESOLVED BY WEIGHING THE GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS
OF EACH JURISDICTION.  ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT
COMM'N, 294 U.S. 532. 

THERE IS NO ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT
THAT TO DENY RECOVERY WOULD BE OBNOXIOUS TO THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THAT
STATE. 

THE CALIFORNIA COURT ERRED IN STATING THAT BECAUSE OF PUBLIC POLICY
IT HAD A GREATER GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST THAN MASSACHUSETTS. 

THE IMPOSITION OF A LIEN FOR MEDICAL SERVICES PRESUPPOSES THE RIGHT
AND EXISTENCE OF JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN AWARD TO THE EMPLOYEE.  IT IS
ILLOGICAL TO SAY THAT THE JURISDICTION OF A TRIBUNAL, IN ANY CASE, CAN
BE DETERMINED BY A FACT WHICH CAN HAVE NO EXISTENCE UNTIL AFTER THE
DETERMINATION OR CREATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF SAID TRIBUNAL. 

THE CALIFORNIA COURT ALSO HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE PHYSICIANS
AND HOSPITALS WHO RENDERED SERVICES TO THE EMPLOYEE IN THAT STATE WOULD
NOT BE WITHOUT REMEDY IN CALIFORNIA IF THE COMMISSION WERE HELD TO HAVE
NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN AWARD HEREIN.  THEY WOULD HAVE A CAUSE OF
ACTION BASED IN CONTRACT WHICH COULD BE PROSECUTED IN CALIFORNIA
COURTS.  IT WOULD BE UNNECESSARY FOR THEM TO GO TO A FOREIGN
JURISDICTION FOR RECOVERY. 

MOREOVER, HAD THE COMPENSATION CLAIM BEEN BROUGHT IN MASSACHUSETTS,
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY LITTLE INCONVENIENCE FOR THE HOSPITALS AND
PHYSICIANS TO PRESENT THEIR CLAIMS IN THAT JURISDICTION. 

THE DECISION OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT IS NOT SOUND ECONOMICALLY.  IT
IS ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT THAT AN EMPLOYER BE ABLE TO LOOK TO THE LAW
OF THE STATE OF HIS RESIDENCE, WHERE HIS BUSINESS IS PRINCIPALLY
CONDUCTED, WHERE THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IS MADE, AND WHERE IT IS TO
BE PRINCIPALLY PERFORMED, AND DO SO WITH THE ASSURANCE THAT SUCH LAW
WILL BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BY OTHER STATES.  OTHERWISE, HE
MUST CARRY WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE IN EVERY STATE IN WHICH, OR
THROUGH WHICH, ANY EMPLOYEE MAY TRAVEL.  THIS WOULD MATERIALLY INCREASE
THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS SUCH AN EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE TO PAY. 
AN INEVITABLE INCREASE IN PRODUCERS' AND CONSUMERS' COSTS WOULD
RESULT.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS GIVE GREAT WEIGHT TO THE INTEREST OF
MASSACHUSETTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.  23 CAL. LAW REV. 381, 389; 46 HARV.
L. REV. 291, 297. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TO BE GIVEN TO A MASSACHUSETTS WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION STATUTE PRECLUDES CALIFORNIA FROM APPLYING ITS OWN
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT IN THE CASE OF AN INJURY SUFFERED BY A
MASSACHUSETTS EMPLOYEE OF A MASSACHUSETTS EMPLOYER WHILE IN CALIFORNIA
IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. 

PETITIONER, AN INSURANCE CARRIER, UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, INSURANCE AND SAFETY ACT, FOR THE PACIFIC COAST BRANCH OF
THE EMPLOYER, DEWEY & ALMY CHEMICAL COMPANY, A MASSACHUSETTS
CORPORATION, FILED ITS PETITION IN THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT OF
APPEAL TO SET ASIDE AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION TO AN EMPLOYEE BY THE
CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.  THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION
WERE, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE EMPLOYEE, BECAUSE HE WAS REGULARLY
EMPLOYED AT THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION IN MASSACHUSETTS AND WAS
TEMPORARILY IN CALIFORNIA ON THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER WHEN INJURED
THERE, WAS SUBJECT TO THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW OF MASSACHUSETTS,
AND THAT THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION, IN APPLYING THE CALIFORNIA ACT AND
IN REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE AS A DEFENSE, HAD
DENIED TO THE LATTER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED
UNDER ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DENYING THE PETITION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.  10 CAL.2D 567; 75 P.2D 1058.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 563, THE QUESTION PRESENTED BEING OF PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE. 

THE INJURED EMPLOYEE, A RESIDENT OF MASSACHUSETTS, WAS REGULARLY
EMPLOYED THERE UNDER WRITTEN CONTRACT IN THE LABORATORIES OF THE DEWEY
& ALMY CHEMICAL COMPANY AS A CHEMICAL ENGINEER AND RESEARCH CHEMIST. 
IN SEPTEMBER, 1935, IN THE USUAL COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT HE WAS SENT
BY HIS EMPLOYER TO ITS BRANCH FACTORY IN CALIFORNIA, TO ACT TEMPORARILY
AS TECHNICAL ADVISER IN THE EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ONE OF THE
EMPLOYER'S PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED THERE.  UPON COMPLETION OF THE
ASSIGNMENT HE EXPECTED TO RETURN TO THE EMPLOYER'S MASSACHUSETTS PLACE
OF BUSINESS, AND WHILE IN CALIFORNIA HE REMAINED SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL
DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYER'S MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE, FROM
WHICH HIS COMPENSATION WAS PAID. 

HE INSTITUTED THE PRESENT PROCEEDING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION
FOR THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ACT FOR INJURIES
RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT IN THAT STATE, NAMING
PETITIONER AS INSURANCE CARRIER UNDER THAT ACT; THE HARTFORD ACCIDENT &
INDEMNITY COMPANY, AS INSURER UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS ACT, WAS MADE A
PARTY.  THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION DIRECTED PETITIONER TO PAY THE
COMPENSATION PRESCRIBED BY THE CALIFORNIA ACT, INCLUDING THE AMOUNTS OF
LIEN CLAIMS FILED IN THE PROCEEDING FOR MEDICAL, HOSPITAL AND NURSING
SERVICES AND CERTAIN FURTHER AMOUNTS NECESSARY FOR SUCH SERVICES IN THE
FUTURE. 

BY THE APPLICABLE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE, SECS. 24, 26, C. 152, MASS.
GEN. LAWS (TER.  ED. 1932), AN EMPLOYEE OF A PERSON INSURED UNDER THE
ACT, AS WAS THE EMPLOYER IN THIS CASE, IS DEEMED TO WAIVE HIS "RIGHT OF
ACTION AT COMMON LAW OR UNDER THE LAW OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION" TO
RECOVER FOR PERSONAL INJURIES UNLESS HE SHALL HAVE GIVEN APPROPRIATE
NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYER IN WRITING THAT HE ELECTS TO RETAIN SUCH
RIGHTS.  SECTION 26 DIRECTS THAT WITHOUT THE NOTICE HIS RIGHT TO
RECOVER BE RESTRICTED TO THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY THE ACT FOR
INJURIES RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, "WHETHER WITHIN OR
WITHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH."  SEE MCLAUGHLIN'S CASE, 274 MASS. 217; 174
N.E. 338; MIGUES' CASE, 281 MASS. 373; 183 N.E. 847. 

ARTICLE XX, SEC. 21 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION VESTS THE
LEGISLATURE WITH PLENARY POWER "TO CREATE AND ENFORCE A COMPLETE SYSTEM
OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION," INCLUDING "ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR THE
COMFORT, HEALTH AND SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE" OF EMPLOYEES INJURED IN
THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, AND TO MAKE "FULL
PROVISION FOR SUCH MEDICAL, SURGICAL, HOSPITAL AND OTHER REMEDIAL
TREATMENT AS IS REQUISITE TO CURE AND RELIEVE FROM THE EFFECTS OF SUCH
INJURY."  SECTIONS 6, 9 AND 29 OF THE CALIFORNIA WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, INSURANCE AND SAFETY ACT, CAL. GEN. LAWS (DEERING 1931)
ACT 4749, PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION FROM INSURANCE PROCURED BY THE
EMPLOYER, IN PRESCRIBED AMOUNTS, FOR INJURIES RECEIVED BY HIS EMPLOYEES
IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT REGARD TO NEGLIGENCE AND FOR
THE COSTS OF MEDICAL ATTENDANCE OCCASIONED BY THE INJURIES.  SECTION
27(A) PROVIDES THAT "NO CONTRACT, RULE, OR REGULATION SHALL EXEMPT THE
EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR THE COMPENSATION FIXED BY THIS ACT."  AND
SEC. 58 PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER
CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES SUFFERED OUTSIDE THE STATE WHEN
THE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRACT OF HIRE WAS ENTERED INTO WITHIN THE STATE.  SEE
QUONG HAM WAH CO. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 184 CAL. 26; 192 P.
1021.  BOTH STATUTES ARE COMPENSATION ACTS, SUBSTITUTED FOR THE COMMON
LAW REMEDY FOR NEGLIGENCE.  THE CALIFORNIA ACT IS COMPULSORY.  SEC.
6(A).  THE MASSACHUSETTS ACT IS SIMILARLY EFFECTIVE UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE
GIVES NOTICE NOT TO BE BOUND BY IT, WHICH IN THIS CASE HE DID NOT DO.
SEC. 24. 

PETITIONER, WHICH AS INSURANCE CARRIER HAS ASSUMED THE LIABILITY OF
THE EMPLOYER UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ACT, RELIES ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MASSACHUSETTS ACT THAT THE COMPENSATION SHALL BE THAT PRESCRIBED FOR
INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE COURSE OF THE EMPLOYMENT, WHETHER WITHIN OR
WITHOUT THE STATE.  IT INSISTS THAT SINCE THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
WAS ENTERED INTO IN MASSACHUSETTS AND THE EMPLOYEE CONSENTED TO BE
BOUND BY THE MASSACHUSETTS ACT, THAT, AND NOT THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE,
FIXES THE EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO COMPENSATION WHETHER THE INJURIES WERE
RECEIVED WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE, AND THAT THE MASSACHUSETTS
STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE
COURTS OF CALIFORNIA. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT THESE PROVISIONS ARE CONTROLLING UPON THE PARTIES
IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND THAT SINCE THEY ARE APPLICABLE TO A MASSACHUSETTS
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN A MASSACHUSETTS EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE,
THEY DO NOT INFRINGE DUE PROCESS.  BRADFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V.
CLAPPER, 286 U.S. 145, 156, ET SEQ. SIMILARLY THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR
INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OCCURRING WITHIN ITS BORDERS, AND FOR INJURIES
AS WELL OCCURRING ELSEWHERE, WHEN THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WAS
ENTERED INTO WITHIN THE STATE, IS NOT OPEN TO QUESTION.  ALASKA PACKERS
ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, 294 U.S. 532; NEW YORK CENTRAL R.
CO. V. WHITE, 243 U.S. 188; MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S.
219. 

WHILE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES NOW PRESENTED, EITHER STATE, IF ITS SYSTEM
FOR ADMINISTERING WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PERMITTED, WOULD BE FREE TO
ADOPT AND ENFORCE THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE OF THE OTHER, HERE
EACH HAS PROVIDED FOR ITSELF AN EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR A LIABILITY WHICH
IT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED TO IMPOSE.  BUT NEITHER IS BOUND,
APART FROM THE COMPULSION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, TO
ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THE OTHER, MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S.
268, 272; AND THE LAW OF NEITHER CAN BY ITS OWN FORCE DETERMINE THE
CHOICE OF LAW TO BE APPLIED IN THE OTHER.  CF. OHIO V. CHATTANOOGA
BOILER & TANK CO., 289 U.S. 439.  PETITIONER, POINTING TO THE CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF THE TWO STATUTES, INSISTS THAT THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE REQUIRES RECOGNITION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE AS
PROVIDING THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AND AS A DEFENSE TO ANY PROCEEDING FOR
THE AWARD OF COMPENSATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ACT.  THE SUPREME COURT
OF CALIFORNIA HAS RECOGNIZED THE CONFLICT AND RESOLVED IT BY HOLDING
THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT DENY TO THE COURTS OF
CALIFORNIA THE RIGHT TO APPLY ITS OWN STATUTE AWARDING COMPENSATION FOR
AN INJURY SUFFERED BY AN EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE STATE. 

TO THE EXTENT THAT CALIFORNIA IS REQUIRED TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT TO THE CONFLICTING MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE IT MUST BE DENIED THE
RIGHT TO APPLY IN ITS OWN COURTS ITS OWN STATUTE, CONSTITUTIONALLY
ENACTED IN PURSUANCE OF ITS POLICY TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR
EMPLOYEES INJURED IN THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE STATE.  IT MUST
WITHHOLD THE REMEDY GIVEN BY ITS OWN STATUTE TO ITS RESIDENTS BY WAY OF
COMPENSATION FOR MEDICAL, HOSPITAL AND NURSING SERVICES RENDERED TO THE
INJURED EMPLOYEE, AND IT MUST REMIT HIM TO MASSACHUSETTS TO SECURE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY WHICH THAT STATE HAS PROVIDED.  WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE GOES SO FAR. 

WHILE THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROVISION WAS TO PRESERVE RIGHTS ACQUIRED
OR CONFIRMED UNDER THE PUBLIC ACTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF ONE
STATE BY REQUIRING RECOGNITION OF THEIR VALIDITY IN OTHER STATES, THE
VERY NATURE OF THE FEDERAL UNION OF STATES, TO WHICH ARE RESERVED SOME
OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY, PRECLUDES RESORT TO THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE AS THE MEANS FOR COMPELLING A STATE TO SUBSTITUTE THE
STATUTES OF OTHER STATES FOR ITS OWN STATUTES DEALING WITH A SUBJECT
MATTER CONCERNING WHICH IT IS COMPETENT TO LEGISLATE.  AS WAS POINTED
OUT IN ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, SUPRA, 547:
"A RIGID AND LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE,
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE STATUTE OF THE FORUM, WOULD LEAD TO THE ABSURD
RESULT THAT, WHEREVER THE CONFLICT ARISES, THE STATUTE OF EACH STATE
MUST BE ENFORCED IN THE COURTS OF THE OTHER, BUT CANNOT BE IN ITS
OWN."  AND IN CASES LIKE THE PRESENT IT WOULD CREATE AN IMPASSE WHICH
WOULD OFTEN LEAVE THE EMPLOYEE REMEDILESS.  FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WOULD
DENY TO CALIFORNIA THE RIGHT TO APPLY ITS OWN REMEDY, AND ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY MAY WELL NOT BE ADAPTED TO GIVING THE REMEDY
AFFORDED BY MASSACHUSETTS.  SIMILARLY, THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
DEMANDED FOR THE CALIFORNIA ACT WOULD DENY TO MASSACHUSETTS THE RIGHT
TO APPLY ITS OWN REMEDY, AND ITS DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS MAY
WELL BE WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO AFFORD THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY
THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE.    IT HAS OFTEN BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT
THAT THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS UPON THE EXTENT TO WHICH A STATE MAY BE
REQUIRED BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE TO ENFORCE EVEN THE
JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER STATE IN CONTRAVENTION OF ITS OWN STATUTES OR
POLICY.  SEE WISCONSIN V. PELICAN INSURANCE CO., 127 U.S. 265;
HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146 U.S. 657; FINNEY V. GUY, 189 U.S. 335;
MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., SUPRA, 273 ET SEQ.; SEE ALSO CLARKE V.
CLARKE, 178 U.S. 186; OLMSTED V. OLMSTED, 216 U.S. 386; HOOD V.
MCGEHEE, 237 U.S. 611; CF. GASQUET V. FENNER, 247 U.S. 16.  AND IN THE
CASE OF STATUTES, THE EXTRASTATE EFFECT OF WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT
PRESCRIBED, AS IT MAY UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, WE THINK THE
CONCLUSION IS UNAVOIDABLE THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES
NOT REQUIRE ONE STATE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR ITS OWN STATUTE, APPLICABLE TO
PERSONS AND EVENTS WITHIN IT, THE CONFLICTING STATUTE OF ANOTHER STATE,
EVEN THOUGH THAT STATUTE IS OF CONTROLLING FORCE IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE OF ITS ENACTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME PERSONS AND EVENTS. 

THIS COURT MUST DETERMINE FOR ITSELF HOW FAR THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE COMPELS THE QUALIFICATION OR DENIAL OF RIGHTS ASSERTED
UNDER THE LAWS OF ONE STATE, THAT OF THE FORUM, BY THE STATUTE OF
ANOTHER STATE.  SEE ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N,
SUPRA, 547.  BUT THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE LITTLE ROOM FOR THE EXERCISE OF
THAT FUNCTION WHEN THE STATUTE OF THE FORUM IS THE EXPRESSION OF
DOMESTIC POLICY, IN TERMS DECLARED TO BE EXCLUSIVE IN ITS APPLICATION
TO PERSONS AND EVENTS WITHIN THE STATE.  ALTHOUGH MASSACHUSETTS HAS AN
INTEREST IN SAFEGUARDING THE COMPENSATION OF MASSACHUSETTS EMPLOYEES
WHILE TEMPORARILY ABROAD IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, AND MAY
ADOPT THAT POLICY FOR ITSELF, THAT COULD HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO SUPPORT
AN APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE WHICH WOULD OVERRIDE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF ANOTHER STATE TO LEGISLATE FOR THE
BODILY SAFETY AND ECONOMIC PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES INJURED WITHIN IT.
FEW MATTERS COULD BE DEEMED MORE APPROPRIATELY THE CONCERN OF THE STATE
IN WHICH THE INJURY OCCURS OR MORE COMPLETELY WITHIN ITS POWER. 
CONSIDERATIONS OF LESS WEIGHT LED TO THE CONCLUSION, IN ALASKA PACKERS
ASSN. V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N, SUPRA, THAT THE FULL FAITH AND
CREDIT CLAUSE DID NOT REQUIRE CALIFORNIA TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ALASKA
COMPENSATION ACT IN PREFERENCE TO ITS OWN.  THERE THIS COURT SUSTAINED
THE AWARD BY CALIFORNIA OF THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY ITS OWN STATUTE
FOR EMPLOYEES WHERE THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE
STATE, ALTHOUGH THE INJURY OCCURRED IN ALASKA, WHOSE STATUTE ALSO
PROVIDED COMPENSATION FOR THE INJURY.  DECISION WAS RESTED EXPLICITLY
UPON THE GROUNDS THAT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT EXACTED FOR THE STATUTE
OF ONE STATE DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE ANOTHER STATE FROM ENFORCING
IN ITS OWN COURTS ITS OWN CONFLICTING STATUTE HAVING NO EXTRA
TERRITORIAL OPERATION FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THAT
NO PERSUASIVE REASON WAS SHOWN FOR DENYING THAT RIGHT. 

BRADFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V. CLAPPER, SUPRA, ON WHICH PETITIONER
RELIES, FULLY RECOGNIZED THIS LIMITATION ON THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE.  IT WAS THERE HELD THAT A FEDERAL COURT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, IN A
SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST A VERMONT EMPLOYER BY HIS VERMONT EMPLOYEE TO
RECOVER FOR AN INJURY SUFFERED IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHILE
TEMPORARILY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, WAS BOUND TO APPLY THE VERMONT
COMPENSATION ACT RATHER THAN THE PROVISION OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE
COMPENSATION ACT WHICH PERMITTED THE EMPLOYEE, AT HIS ELECTION, TO
ENFORCE HIS COMMON LAW REMEDY.  BUT THE COURT WAS CAREFUL TO POINT OUT
THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE STATUTE, THE DECISIONS OF
ITS COURTS, OR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TO SUGGEST THAT
RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE VERMONT STATUTE, AS A DEFENSE TO THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE SUIT, WAS OBNOXIOUS TO THE POLICY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.  THE
CLAPPER CASE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE DECIDED MORE THAN THAT A STATE
STATUTE APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE STATE, WHICH BY
ITS TERMS PROVIDES COMPENSATION FOR THE EMPLOYEE IF HE IS INJURED IN
THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHILE TEMPORARILY IN ANOTHER STATE, WILL
BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE LATTER WHEN NOT OBNOXIOUS TO ITS
POLICY.  SEE BRADFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V. CLAPPER, SUPRA, 161. 

HERE, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION NOT ONLY CONFLICTS WITH THAT OF
MASSACHUSETTS PROVIDING COMPENSATION FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS EMPLOYEE IF
INJURED WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BUT IT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES, FOR
THE GUIDANCE OF ITS OWN COMMISSION AND COURTS, THAT "NO CONTRACT, RULE
OR REGULATION SHALL EXEMPT THE EMPLOYER FROM LIABILITY FOR THE
COMPENSATION FIXED BY THIS ACT."  THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAS
DECLARED IN ITS OPINION IN THIS CASE THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE
STATE, AS EXPRESSED IN ITS CONSTITUTION AND COMPENSATION ACT, TO APPLY
ITS OWN PROVISIONS FOR COMPENSATION, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS,
AND THAT "IT WOULD BE OBNOXIOUS TO THAT POLICY TO DENY PERSONS WHO HAVE
BEEN INJURED IN THIS STATE THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR COMPENSATION WHEN TO
DO SO MIGHT REQUIRE PHYSICIANS AND HOSPITALS TO GO TO ANOTHER STATE TO
COLLECT CHARGES FOR MEDICAL CARE AND TREATMENT GIVEN TO SUCH PERSONS." 

FULL FAITH AND CREDIT DOES NOT HERE ENABLE ONE STATE TO LEGISLATE FOR
THE OTHER OR TO PROJECT ITS LAWS ACROSS STATE LINES SO AS TO PRECLUDE
THE OTHER FROM PRESCRIBING FOR ITSELF THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF ACTS
WITHIN IT.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :
























BONET V. YABUCOA SUGAR CO., 306 U.S. 505 


NO. 498.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939.  - 98 F.2D
398, REVERSED. 


1.  A SUIT AGAINST THE TREASURER OF PUERTO RICO TO ENFORCE A TAX
REFUND CAN NOT BE MAINTAINED UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY PUERTO RICAN LAW. 
PUERTO RICO CAN NOT BE SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  P. 506. 

2.  THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO IS NOT OBLIGED TO PROVIDE A
JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR TAX REFUNDS.  ID. 

3.  UNDER THE LAWS OF PUERTO RICO, AS CONSTRUED BY THE ISLAND COURTS,
SUIT CAN NOT BE MAINTAINED AGAINST THE TERRITORIAL TREASURER TO COLLECT
FROM HIM AN AMOUNT VOLUNTARILY PAID AS AN INCOME TAX WHICH THE
TREASURER HAS DECLINED TO REFUND.  P. 507. 

4.  THIS COURT FOLLOWS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOCAL TAX LAWS ADOPTED
BY THE COURTS OF PUERTO RICO UNLESS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS.  P. 509. 

BONET, TREASURER OF PUERTO RICO, V. YABUCOA SUGAR CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 622, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO DENYING THE JURISDICTION
OF THE LOCAL COURTS OVER AN ACTION AGAINST THE TERRITORIAL TREASURER TO
RECOVER MONEY VOLUNTARILY PAID AS A TAX.  SEE 50 D.P.R. 962; 51 ID.
135. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT SUED THE TREASURER OF PUERTO RICO IN A LOCAL DISTRICT
COURT FOR RECOVERY OF 1927 INCOME TAXES PAID UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
ISLAND.  BY CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOCAL PUERTO RICAN STATUTES PERMITTING
SUITS FOR REFUNDS, THE LOCAL DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT NO RIGHT HAD
BEEN GRANTED TO SUE AT LAW FOR TAXES VOLUNTARILY PAID.  THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT WAS THEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, BECAUSE IT
DISCLOSED THAT THE TAX IN QUESTION HAD BEEN PAID VOLUNTARILY AND
WITHOUT PROTEST.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO AFFIRMED, BUT WAS
REVERSED BY THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN1 

AS CONCEDED BY RESPONDENT, THIS SUIT CANNOT BE MAINTAINED UNLESS
AUTHORIZED BY A PUERTO RICAN LAW, BECAUSE PUERTO RICO CANNOT BE SUED
WITHOUT ITS CONSENT.  FN2  IT IS ALSO CONCEDED THAT THE PUERTO RICAN
LEGISLATURE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE A JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR TAX
REFUNDS.  FN3 RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS HERE ARE THAT THE GOVERNING
STATUTES OF THE ISLAND DO AUTHORIZE THE PRESENT SUIT "EITHER BY EXPRESS
LANGUAGE OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION," AND THAT THE PUERTO RICAN COURTS
ERRONEOUSLY CONSTRUED THE LOCAL STATUTES. 

AUGUST 6, 1925,  FN4 AUTHORIZES THE TREASURER "TO REMIT, REFUND, AND
PAY BACK ALL TAXES ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED,  ...
AND ALL TAXES THAT APPEAR TO BE UNJUSTLY ASSESSED OR EXCESSIVE IN
AMOUNT, OR IN ANY MANNER WRONGFULLY COLLECTED," AND REQUIRES HIM TO
"REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE OF PORTO RICO AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH
REGULAR SESSION  ...  ALL TRANSACTIONS UNDER THIS SECTION." 

THE COURTS OF PUERTO RICO CONSTRUED SEC. 75 TO MEAN THAT THE
TREASURER'S REFUSAL TO REFUND TAXES NOT PAID UNDER PROTEST IS FINAL;
THAT THE LOCAL STATUTES GRANT THE COURTS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THIS
REFUSAL; AND THAT AFTER THE TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE, A
VOLUNTARY TAXPAYER'S COMPLAINT MUST BE ADDRESSED TO THE LEGISLATURE. 
DISAGREEING WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE STATUTE BY THE COURTS OF
PUERTO RICO, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (ONE JUDGE DISSENTING) FOUND
THAT THE 1925 ACT PLAINLY PROVIDED A RESORT TO THE COURTS, EVEN IN
SUITS TO RECOVER TAXES VOLUNTARILY PAID WITHOUT PROTEST. 

IT IS NECESSARY THAT WE EXAMINE SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED
TO THE PUERTO RICAN COURTS' CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 75 OF THE 1925 ACT. 
FOR ILLUSTRATION, SEC. 66 OF THE PUERTO RICAN INCOME TAX LAW OF 1919
FN5  IMPOSED UPON THE TREASURER THE DUTY OF MAKING TAX REFUNDS (AS IN
SEC. 75 OF THE 1925 ACT), BUT SEC. 66 CONTAINED AN EXPRESS PROVISION
FOR "APPEAL TO THE COURTS" IF A TAXPAYER'S CLAIM WERE DENIED BY THE
TREASURER.  FN6  THE OMISSION OF THIS EXPRESS PROVISION FROM SEC. 75
AND ALL OTHER SECTIONS OF THE 1925 ACT WAS LOGICALLY CONSIDERED BY THE
PUERTO RICAN COURTS TO BE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT
ACT.  THE RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE COURTS CONTAINED IN SEC. 66 OF THE
1919 LAW WAS FIRST OMITTED FROM THE 1921 PUERTO RICAN LAW,  FN7  AND
THIS LED THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO TO DECLARE IN THE PRESENT
CASE THAT "SINCE 1921,  ...  THE RIGHT TO BRING SUITS FOR THE RECOVERY
OF TAXES OTHER THAN THOSE PAID UNDER PROTEST HAS BEEN ABROGATED."  FN8 

FURTHERMORE, FOUR DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE 1925 ACT (57, 60, 62 AND
76(A)) CONSTITUTE A STATUTORY PLAN UNDER WHICH A TAXPAYER WHO PAYS
UNDER PROTEST IS GRANTED THE RIGHT TO SUE IN THE COURTS FOR REFUND. 
SUCH A TAXPAYER CAN SUE AT LAW UNDER THESE SECTIONS ONLY IF HE HAS BEEN
DENIED RELIEF BY BOTH THE TREASURER AND THE BOARD OF REVIEW AND
EQUALIZATION OF THE ISLAND.  BUT THESE SECTIONS NOWHERE EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZE APPEAL FROM THE TREASURER TO THE BOARD BY ONE WHO PAID TAXES
WITHOUT PROTEST.  AND SEC. 76(B), WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
INTERPRETED AS AUTHORIZING SUIT BY A TAXPAYER WHO PAID WITHOUT PROTEST,
EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS SUIT IN COURT "UNTIL A CLAIM FOR REFUND OR CREDIT
HAS BEEN DULY FILED WITH  ...  THE BOARD OF REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION ON
APPEAL, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW IN THAT REGARD, AND THE
REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN PURSUANCE THEREOF."  SINCE A VOLUNTARY
TAXPAYER IS GIVEN NO EXPRESS RIGHT OF APPEAL FROM THE TREASURER TO THE
BOARD BY THE "PROVISIONS OF LAW IN  ...  REGARD" TO SUCH APPEALS, HE IS
NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO
RIGHT OF SUIT UNDER SEC. 76(B).  RIGHTS DENIED BY THE STATUTES COULD
NOT BE GRANTED BY REGULATIONS. 

IN ADDITION, SEC. 76(B) OF THE 1925 ACT IS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL IN
LANGUAGE WITH SEC. 3226 OF UNITED STATES REVISED STATUTES GOVERNING
SUITS FOR REFUNDS OF UNITED STATES TAXES.  FN9  BUT THE LEGISLATURE OF
PUERTO RICO - WHILE APPARENTLY USING SEC. 3226 AS A MODEL - OMITTED
FROM 76(B) THE CLAUSE OF SEC. 3226 READING "SUIT OR PROCEEDING (FOR TAX
REFUND) MAY BE MAINTAINED, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH TAX  ...  HAS BEEN PAID
UNDER PROTEST OR DURESS."  THIS SUBSTANTIAL ADOPTION OF SEC. 3226,
OMITTING THE CLAUSE AUTHORIZING SUIT WITHOUT PROTEST, (AS WELL AS THE
SIMILAR OMISSION FROM THE 1921 ACT), COULD HARDLY REPRESENT ACCIDENTAL
OVERSIGHT, BUT INSTEAD INDICATES A DELIBERATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. 
FN10 

CONGRESS FIRST GRANTED LOCAL AUTHORITY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO
RICO IN 1900  FN11  AND COMPREHENSIVELY REVISED THE ORIGINAL PLAN IN
1917.  FN12  BOTH ENACTMENTS MANIFEST A CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO
PRESERVE - CONSISTENTLY WITH OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT - THE THEN
EXISTING GOVERNMENTAL PRACTICES.  LAWS AND ORDINANCES THEN IN EFFECT
AND NOT CONTRARY TO OUR LAWS OR CONSTITUTION WERE CONTINUED IN FULL
FORCE, SUBJECT TO ALTERATION BY THE PUERTO RICAN LEGISLATURE OR
CONGRESS.  ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE LOCAL COURTS, THEIR JURISDICTION AND
PROCEDURE, WERE PRESERVED BY CONGRESS, AND LOCAL OFFICIALS WERE LEFT IN
OFFICE.  FN13  AND THIS COURT HAS DECLARED ITS UNWILLINGNESS TO
OVERRULE PUERTO RICAN TRIBUNALS UPON MATTERS OF PURELY LOCAL CONCERN
FN14  OR TO DECIDE AGAINST THE LOCAL UNDERSTANDING OF A LOCAL MATTER,
NOT BELIEVED BY THIS COURT TO BE CLEARLY WRONG; FN15 AND A DISPOSITION
TO ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED BY A LOCAL COURT UPON A LOCAL
STATUTE,  FN16 AND TO SUSTAIN SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IN THE ABSENCE OF
CLEAR OR MANIFEST ERROR.  FN17 

TAXING ACTS OF PUERTO RICO ARE PURELY LOCAL AND THE TRADITIONAL
RELUCTANCE OF THIS COURT TO OVERTURN CONSTRUCTIONS OF SUCH LOCAL
STATUTES BY LOCAL COURTS IS PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE TO INTERPRETATIONS
OF PUERTO RICAN STATUTES BY PUERTO RICAN TRIBUNALS.  FN18  ORDERLY
DEVELOPMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR
GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM IS WELL SERVED BY A CAREFUL AND CONSISTENT
ADHERENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL POLICY OF DEFERRING TO THE
LOCAL PROCEDURE AND TRIBUNALS OF THE ISLAND. 

THE JUDGMENTS OF THE PUERTO RICAN COURTS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT
UNSUPPORTED BY LOGIC OR REASON.  THEY EMBODY A RECOGNITION OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.  BELIEVING THE LEGISLATURE HAD DECLINED TO GIVE
THE RIGHT TO SUE TO A TAXPAYER WHO COMPUTED HIS OWN TAX FROM HIS OWN
RECORDS AND VOLUNTARILY PAID IT WITHOUT PROTEST, THE PUERTO RICAN
COURTS PROPERLY DECLINED TO READ IMPLICATIONS INTO A STATUTE WHICH THEY
COULD NOT FAIRLY FIND THERE.  IN PASSING UPON A PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION
OF A PUERTO RICAN STATUTE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, THIS
COURT SAID, "THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED IN PORTO RICO AT LEAST DOES NO
VIOLENCE TO THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE; IT CONCERNS LOCAL AFFAIRS UNDER A
SYSTEM WITH WHICH THE COURT OF THE ISLAND IS CALLED ON CONSTANTLY TO
DEAL, AND WE ARE NOT PREPARED, AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT PROPERLY
ATTRIBUTED TO THE LOCAL DECISION, TO SAY THAT IT IS WRONG."  FN19  SO
HERE, WE CANNOT SAY THE PUERTO RICAN COURTS WERE WRONG.  IN FAILING TO
UPHOLD THEIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOCAL STATUTES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WAS IN ERROR. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE COMPLAINT IN
THE DISTRICT COURT OF PUERTO RICO MUST STAND DISMISSED, AS ORDERED BY
THAT COURT AND AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  98 F.2D 398.  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO,
AND ITS OPINION ON REHEARING, HAVE AS YET BEEN REPORTED ONLY IN
SPANISH.  50 D.P.R. 962, 51 D.P.R. 135. 

FN2  SEE PORTO RICO V. ROSALY, 227 U.S. 270, 274; PUERTO RICO V.
SHELL CO., 302 U.S. 253, 262. 

FN3  CF., DISMUKE V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 167, 171, 172. 

FN4  LAWS OF PUERTO RICO 1925, P. 400, 536. 

FN5  LAWS, 1919, P. 612, 666. 

FN6  SECTION 66:  "THAT THE TREASURER BE, AND HE IS HEREBY,
AUTHORIZED TO REMIT, REIMBURSE OR MAKE RESTITUTION FOR ANY TAX OR DUTY
ERRONEOUSLY OR UNLAWFULLY IMPOSED OR COLLECTED, AS WELL AS OF THE
AMOUNT OF ANY FINE COLLECTED BY ERROR OR WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY
THEREFOR. 

"THAT WHEN PROPER CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE TO THE TREASURER OF PORTO RICO
FOR THE RETURN, REIMBURSEMENT OR REMITTAL OF ANY DUTIES OR TAXES
ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY LEVIED OR COLLECTED, AS WELL AS FOR THE AMOUNT
OF ANY FINES COLLECTED BY ERROR OR WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY, IF HE
REFUSES WITHOUT REASON TO GRANT SUCH A CLAIM, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY
APPEAL TO THE COURTS OF JUSTICE, FOLLOWING THEREFOR THE PROCEDURE
AUTHORIZED AND THE PROCEEDINGS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 63 OF THIS ACT." 

FN7  LAWS, 1921, P. 312. 

FN8  COMPANIA AGRICOLA DE CAYEY, LTD. V. DOMENECH, 47 D.P.R.
535(SPANISH ED.), DECIDED PRIOR TO THE PRESENT CASE, IS TO THE SAME
EFFECT. 

FN9  43 STAT. 253, 343. 

FN10  CF., UNITED STATES V. MCCLURE, 305 U.S. 472, 477-478. 

FN11  ACT OF APRIL 12, 1900, C. 191, 31 STAT. 77. 

FN12  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1917, C. 145, 39 STAT. 951. 

FN13  SEE, GARZOT V. DE RUBIO, 209 U.S. 283, 302. 

FN14  NADAL V. MAY, 233 U.S. 447, 454. 

FN15  SANTE FE CENTRAL RY. CO. V. FRIDAY, 232 U.S. 694, 700. 

FN16  PHOENIX RY. CO. V. LANDIS, 231 U.S. 578, 579. 

FN17  VILLANUEVA V. VILLANUEVA, 239 U.S. 293, 299; WAIALUA CO. V.
CHRISTIAN, 305 U.S. 91, 109; INTER-ISLAND CO. V. HAWAII, 305 U.S. 306,
311. 

FN18  DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, 261 U.S. 102, 105, 106. 

FN19  CARDOVA V. FOLGUERAS, 227 U.S. 375, 378, 379. 
..END :







STATE TAX COMM'N V. VAN COTT, 306 U.S. 511 


NO. 491.  ARGUED MARCH 6, 7, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939.  - 95 UTAH
43 - 79 P.2D 6, VACATED. 


1.  SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES OR OFFICIALS OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES
ARE NOT IMMUNE UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FROM TAXATION BY THE
STATES.  GRAVES V. NEW YORK EX REL. O'KEEFE, ANTE, P. 466.  P. 515. 

2.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH HOLDING THE SALARIES OF
AN ATTORNEY FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AND THE REGIONAL
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATION, BOTH FEDERAL AGENCIES, EXEMPT FROM
STATE TAXATION, DOES NOT REST SQUARELY UPON THE EXEMPTION IN THE UTAH
INCOME TAX LAW OF SALARIES RECEIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES "FOR
SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXERCISE OF AN ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION," BUT APPEARS ALSO TO HAVE BEEN ACTUATED BY THE
DOCTRINE THAT STATE TAXATION OF SUCH SALARIES IS FORBIDDEN BY THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 513. 

3.  IN VIEW OF THE OVERRULING OF THAT DOCTRINE BY GRAVES V. O'KEEFE,
THIS COURT VACATES THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH AND
REMANDS THE CASE TO THAT COURT, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY DETERMINE WHETHER
THE SALARIES IN QUESTION ARE EXEMPTED BY THE STATE STATUTE, PURELY AS A
QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW.  P. 515. 

STATE TAX COMMISSION ET AL. V. VAN COTT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 592, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION FROM STATE INCOME TAXATION, ON APPEAL FROM A RULING OF THE
ABOVE-NAMED TAX COMMISSION. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW WAS BASED SQUARELY UPON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE UTAH TAXING STATUTE.  IT DID NOT AND COULD NOT
REACH THE FEDERAL QUESTION AND SHOULD NOT BE REVIEWED. 

THE RECONSTRUCTION AND REGIONAL CORPORATIONS ARE ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY
IN EXERCISING TRADITIONAL AND IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES,
- "ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS," IF THAT PHRASE APPLIES TO ANY
FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.  BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 352. 

UNDER DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS, 16 PET. 435, AND ROGERS V. GRAVES,
299 U.S. 401, RESPONDENT'S SALARIES ARE IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE STATE STATUTE.  ALSO, MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4
WHEAT.  316; HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405. 

NO QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OR
REGIONAL CORPORATION IS PRESENTED. 

IT IS THE PRESENT INTENTION OF CONGRESS THAT THE SALARIES OF OFFICERS
AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES SHALL BE
IMMUNE FROM TAXATION BY THE STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATE OF UTAH'S INCOME TAX LAW, EFFECTIVE IN 1935, EXEMPTS ALL
"AMOUNTS RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION, SALARIES OR WAGES FROM THE UNITED
STATES  ...  FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXERCISE OF
AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION."  FN1  IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME
TAXES TO THE STATE FOR 1935 UNDER THIS LAW, RESPONDENT CLAIMED "AS
DEDUCTION" AND "AS EXEMPT" SALARIES PAID HIM AS ATTORNEY FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AND THE REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
CORPORATION, BOTH FEDERAL AGENCIES.  THE EXEMPTIONS WERE DENIED BY THE
TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH, BUT THE UTAH SUPREME COURT REVERSED.  FN2
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH, RESPONDENT
ASSERTED, FIRST, THAT HIS SALARIES WERE EXEMPT BY THE TERMS OF THE
STATE STATUTE ITSELF, AND, SECOND, THAT THEY COULD NOT BE TAXED BY THE
STATE WITHOUT VIOLATING AN IMMUNITY GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  IN HOLDING RESPONDENT'S INCOME NOT TAXABLE, THE SUPREME
COURT OF UTAH SAID:  "WE SHALL HAVE TO BE CONTENT TO FOLLOW, AS WE
THINK WE MUST, THE DOCTRINE OF THE GRAVES CASE (ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299
U.S. 401), UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A DIFFERENT RULE IS LAID DOWN BY THE
COURTS, THE CONGRESS, OR THE PEOPLE THROUGH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION."  FN3  THE GRAVES CASE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE THAT THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS THE APPLICATION OF STATE INCOME TAXES TO
SALARIES DERIVED FROM FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, IN THE PRESENT CASE, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION WHICH THE UTAH
COURT APPARENTLY THOUGHT CONTROLLED ITS JUDGMENT.  FN4 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE UTAH SUPREME COURT'S DECISION "WAS BASED
SQUARELY UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE UTAH TAXING STATUTE WHICH WAS
HELD TO OMIT RESPONDENT'S SALARIES AS A SUBJECT OF TAXATION, AND
THEREFORE THAT DECISION DID NOT AND COULD NOT REACH THE FEDERAL
QUESTION AND SHOULD NOT BE REVIEWED."  BUT THAT DECISION CANNOT BE SAID
TO REST SQUARELY UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE STATUTE.  THE UTAH
COURT STATED THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE IT WAS WHETHER RESPONDENT'S
SALARIES FROM THE AGENCIES IN QUESTION WERE "TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE STATE INCOME TAX LAW," AND THAT THE ANSWER DEPENDED UPON
WHETHER THESE AGENCIES EXERCISED "ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS." 
BUT THE OPINION AS A WHOLE SHOWS THAT THE COURT FELT CONSTRAINED TO
CONCLUDE AS IT DID BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THIS COURT'S
PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.  OTHERWISE, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN THE COURT'S DECLARATION THAT RESPONDENT COULD NOT
BE TAXED UNDER THE "DOCTRINE OF THE GRAVES CASE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A
DIFFERENT RULE IS LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS, THE CONGRESS OR THE PEOPLE
THROUGH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION."  IF THE COURT WERE ONLY
INCIDENTALLY REFERRING TO DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN DETERMINING THE
MEANING OF THE STATE LAW, AND HAD CONCLUDED THEREFROM THAT THE STATUTE
WAS ITSELF INTENDED TO GRANT EXEMPTION TO RESPONDENT, THIS COURT WOULD
HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THAT QUESTION.  FN5  BUT, IF THE STATE
COURT DID IN FACT INTEND ALTERNATIVELY TO BASE ITS DECISION UPON THE
STATE STATUTE AND UPON AN IMMUNITY IT THOUGHT GRANTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT, THESE TWO GROUNDS ARE SO
INTERWOVEN THAT WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE JUDGMENT RESTS UPON
AN INDEPENDENT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE LAW.  FN6  WHATEVER
EXEMPTIONS THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH MAY FIND IN THE TERMS OF THIS
STATUTE, ITS OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE ONLY INDICATES THAT "IT
THOUGHT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (AS CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT) REQUIRED"
IT TO HOLD RESPONDENT NOT TAXABLE.  FN7 

AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS ON THE QUESTION OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, THE STATE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION AND THE REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
CORPORATION WERE "INSTRUMENTALITIES" PERFORMING "ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL
DUTIES" AND THAT STATE TAXATION OF RESPONDENT'S SALARIES VIOLATED THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED BY THE GRAVES CASE.  ANTICIPATING
THAT THIS COURT MIGHT REEXAMINE THAT INTERPRETATION AND APPLY A
"DIFFERENT TEST," THE STATE COURT SAID THAT "UNTIL SUCH IS DONE THE
STATES ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN  ...  ROGERS
V. GRAVES, SUPRA." 

WE HAVE NOW RE-EXAMINED AND OVERRULED THE DOCTRINE OF ROGERS V.
GRAVES IN GRAVES V. O'KEEFE, ANTE, P. 466.  SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES OR
OFFICIALS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES ARE NO
LONGER IMMUNE, UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, FROM TAXATION BY THE
STATES.  WHETHER THE UTAH INCOME TAX, BY ITS TERMS, EXEMPTS RESPONDENT,
CAN NOW BE DECIDED BY THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT APART FROM ANY QUESTION
OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, AND WITHOUT THE NECESSITY, SO FAR AS THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS CONCERNED, OF ATTEMPTING TO DIVIDE FUNCTIONS OF
GOVERNMENT INTO THOSE WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL AND THOSE WHICH ARE NON
ESSENTIAL. 

"WE HAVE FREQUENTLY HELD THAT IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR APPELLATE
JURISDICTION WE HAVE POWER NOT ONLY TO CORRECT ERROR IN THE JUDGMENT
UNDER REVIEW BUT TO MAKE SUCH DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AS JUSTICE
REQUIRES.  AND IN DETERMINING WHAT JUSTICE DOES REQUIRE, THE COURT IS
BOUND TO CONSIDER ANY CHANGE, EITHER IN FACT OR IN LAW, WHICH HAS
SUPERVENED SINCE THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.  WE MAY RECOGNIZE SUCH A
CHANGE, WHICH MAY AFFECT THE RESULT, BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
REMANDING THE CASE SO THAT THE STATE COURT MAY BE FREE TO ACT.  WE HAVE
SAID THAT TO DO THIS IS NOT TO REVIEW, IN ANY PROPER SENSE OF THE TERM,
THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT UPON A NON-FEDERAL QUESTION, BUT ONLY
TO DEAL APPROPRIATELY WITH A MATTER ARISING SINCE ITS JUDGMENT AND
HAVING A BEARING UPON THE RIGHT DISPOSITION OF THE CASE."  FN8 

APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE, WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF UTAH AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 
JUDGMENT VACATED. 

FN1  REVISED STAT. OF UTAH, 1933, SEC. 80-14-4, (2)(G). 

FN2  95 UTAH 43; 79 P.2D 6. 

FN3  79 P.2D 14. 

FN4  305 U.S. 592. 

FN5  MILLER'S EXECUTORS V. SWANN, 150 U.S. 132, 136; INTERSTATE
RAILWAY CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 207 U.S. 79, 84; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
R. CO. V. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 237 U.S. 300, 302; CF.
CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495, 507. 

FN6  ABIE STATE BANK V. BRYAN, 282 U.S. 765, 773. 

FN7  CF. RED CROSS LINE V. ATLANTIC FRUIT CO., 264 U.S. 109, 120;
TIPTON V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 298 U.S. 141, 152, 153; ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO. V. MESSINA, 240 U.S. 395, 397. 

FN8  PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600, 607. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :









LOWDEN V. SIMONDS ETC. GRAIN CO., 306 U.S. 516 


NO. 342.  ARGUED JANUARY 30, 31, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 27, 1939.  - 97
F.2D 816, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HELD THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF A
TARIFF PROVISION, THERE WERE "PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS" COVERING "A SPECIFIED
PERIOD OF TIME," BETWEEN A SHIPPER AND THE RAILROAD FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF GRAIN DOORS IN CARS FURNISHED TO THE SHIPPER, AND THAT
THE SHIPPER WAS LIABLE FOR THE TARIFF CHARGE FOR SUCH SERVICE.  P.
520. 

2.  A SHIPPER CAN NOT ESCAPE LIABILITY TO PAY LAWFUL TARIFF CHARGES
FOR CARRIER SERVICE BY DISCLAIMING LIABILITY WHEN ORDERING IT; NOR CAN
THE CARRIER LAWFULLY YIELD TO SUCH DISCLAIMER.  ID. 

INVOLUNTARY REBATES FROM TARIFF RATES SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH THE SAME
DISAPPROVAL AS VOLUNTARY REBATES. 

3.  WHERE, AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF A SUIT BY A RAILROAD TO RECOVER
FROM A SHIPPER A TARIFF CHARGE OF $1.00 PER CAR FOR A SERVICE RENDERED,
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT A CHARGE HIGHER THAN
60[ PER CAR FOR SUCH SERVICE WAS UNREASONABLE AND AUTHORIZED
REPARATIONS ACCORDINGLY, THE RAILROAD WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER UPON ITS
CLAIM REDUCED PRO TANTO.  P. 521. 

LOWDEN ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. SIMONDSSHIELDS-LONSDALE GRAIN CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 587, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF THE SHIPPER, 19 F.SUPP.  438, IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE
TRUSTEES OF A RAILROAD COMPANY TO RECOVER FOR CARRIER SERVICES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE RESPONDENT.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED FOR
CONSIDERATION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE, TO WIT, WHETHER A
CARRIER'S CHARGES FOR SERVICES, ACTUALLY UTILIZED BY A SHIPPER AND
AUTHORIZED BY A TARIFF REQUIRING PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SERVICES,
ARE UNCOLLECTIBLE WHEN THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED ON ORDERS, PRECEDED OR
ACCOMPANIED BY DENIALS OF LEGAL LIABILITY.  SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT WAS
ALLEGED.  FN1 

THE FACTS WERE STIPULATED.  THE PETITIONERS, AS TRUSTEES OF THE
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, BROUGHT SUIT, UNDER
SEC. 24(8) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,  FN2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, FOR THE VALUE OF SERVICES
RENDERED IN THE INSTALLATION OF GRAIN DOORS ON BOX CARS USED BY THE
RESPONDENT TO SHIP GRAIN IN BULK IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  GRAIN DOORS
ARE REQUIRED TO PREVENT LEAKAGE OF GRAIN FROM THE CAR WHILE IN
TRANSIT.  THEY ARE WOODEN BARRIERS WHICH MUST BE PLACED INSIDE THE BOX
CAR DOORS BEFORE LOADING AND REMOVED UPON UNLOADING.  BEFORE JULY 1,
1935, THEY WERE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY CARRIERS WITHOUT SEPARATE
CHARGE.  EFFECTIVE THAT DAY, A TARIFF FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION CONTINUED THE CARRIERS' PRACTICE OF FURNISHING THE
MATERIALS FOR GRAIN DOORS BUT SHIFTED THE COST OF INSTALLATION TO THE
SHIPPERS.  IT PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:  "THE RAILROAD WILL ACT AS SHIPPER'S
AGENT AND INSTALL GRAIN DOORS  ...  AT A CHARGE OF ONE DOLLAR ($1.00)
PER CAR; PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE SERVICE TO BE MADE WITH THE
CARRIERS AND TO COVER A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME  ...  " 

ON JULY 2, 1935, THE DAY AFTER THE TARIFF WENT INTO EFFECT, THE
RESPONDENT, TOGETHER WITH OTHER SHIPPERS, ADDRESSED A LETTER TO THE
LOCAL FREIGHT AGENTS OF SEVERAL CARRIERS, INCLUDING THE CHICAGO, ROCK
ISLAND AND PACIFIC, IN WHICH THEY ANNOUNCED THAT DESPITE THE TARIFF
THEY EXPECTED THE RAILROADS, FROM AND AFTER JULY 1, 1935, TO FURNISH
CARS WITH EQUIPMENT TO CARRY BULK GRAIN SAFELY, AND WOULD DECLINE TO
PAY FOR THE SERVICE OF INSTALLING GRAIN DOORS IN THE CARS.  THEY WROTE
IN PART:  "SAID UNDERSIGNED PARTIES FURTHER NOTIFY YOU THAT IF ORDINARY
BOX CARS ARE FURNISHED AND SUPPLIED UPON SUCH ORDERS (FOR CARS FOR THE
SHIPMENT OF BULK GRAIN) THEY WILL EXPECT THEM TO BE FULLY COOPERED OR
PREPARED WITH NECESSARY SIDE-DOOR BARRICADES COMPLETELY INSTALLED AND
READY FOR LOADING." 

THE CARRIERS PROTESTED THAT NEITHER THEY NOR THE SHIPPERS COULD BE
PARTIES TO PRACTICES NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TARIFF.  THEY DECLARED
THAT UNLESS THE SHIPPERS MADE UNQUALIFIED ARRANGEMENTS PURSUANT TO THE
TERMS OF THE TARIFF, CARS WOULD BE FURNISHED WITHOUT THE GRAIN DOORS
INSTALLED.  THIS LETTER, DATED JULY 15, 1935, EVOKED NO REPLY.  BETWEEN
JULY 1, 1935, AND FEBRUARY 29, 1936, THE PETITIONERS UPON THE ORDERS OF
RESPONDENT SUPPLIED THE GRAIN COMPANY WITH 624 BOX CARS FOR THE
SHIPMENT OF GRAIN IN BULK.  BEFORE THE CARS WERE LOADED, THE
PETITIONERS INSTALLED THE NECESSARY GRAIN DOORS.  BILLS, RENDERED
MONTHLY, CHARGED THE RESPONDENT $1.00 FOR EACH CAR.  ON NOVEMBER 22,
1935, THE LATTER RETURNED THE BILLS, DECLINING TO PAY ON THE GROUND
THAT IT HAD MADE NO ARRANGEMENT FOR THE PETITIONERS TO INSTALL GRAIN
DOORS AS ITS AGENTS, AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE TARIFF.  IT CONCLUDED WITH
A REQUEST THAT PETITIONERS REVEAL THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHARGES IN
THE ABSENCE OF ANY ARRANGEMENT.  THE PETITIONERS' AGENT REPLIED ON
JANUARY 9, 1936, THAT THE LETTER OF JULY 2, 1935, HAD BEEN CONSTRUED TO
EFFECT AN ARRANGEMENT AND "ACCEPTING SUCH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT, THE CARS
WERE COOPERED FOR YOUR ACCOUNT AND AS YOUR AGENT, AND WERE ACCEPTED AND
USED BY YOU AS SUCH."  BY LETTER OF JANUARY 15, 1936, THE RESPONDENT
DISAGREED WITH PETITIONERS' CONSTRUCTION OF THE LETTER OF JULY 2, 1935,
AND REITERATED ITS INTENTION NOT TO PAY. 

ON APRIL 4, 1936, THE PETITIONERS BEGAN THIS SUIT, ASKING JUDGMENT
FOR $624.  BEFORE TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION PASSED UPON THE VALIDITY AND REASONABLENESS OF THE CHARGE
FOR THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE.  ON APRIL 12, 1937, THE COMMISSION RULED
THAT IT WAS PROPER TO REQUIRE THE SHIPPER TO BEAR THE EXPENSE OF
INSTALLING GRAIN DOORS FURNISHED BY THE CARRIER; THAT THE CLAUSE
RELATIVE TO PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS; THAT IT WAS FOR THE
CARRIER'S BENEFIT AND COULD BE WAIVED; THAT THE CHARGE OF $1.00 PER CAR
WAS UNREASONABLE AND SHOULD BE LIMITED TO $.60 PER CAR.  IT RULED
FURTHER THAT SHIPPERS WHO HAD PAID THE $1.00 CHARGE WERE ENTITLED TO
REPARATION AND THAT CARRIERS MIGHT WAIVE COLLECTION ABOVE THE SIXTY
CENT CHARGE FROM SHIPPERS WHO HAD NOT YET PAID.  220 I.C.C. 753.  FN3
THE PETITIONERS REDUCED THEIR DEMAND IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO $.60 PER
CAR AND ASKED JUDGMENT FOR $374.40. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT.  19 F.SUPP. 
438.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  97
F.2D 816. 

THE RULING OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE
INSTALLATION IS A DUTY OF THE SHIPPER AND THAT THE CARRIER CAN ONLY
RECEIVE SIXTY CENTS WHEN IT ACTS FOR THE SHIPPER IN PERFORMING THAT
DUTY.  THESE ARE THE ESSENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THE TARIFF.  TO FACILITATE
THE RENDITION OF THE SERVICE PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS ARE REQUIRED.  THE
DOMINANT ELEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR AND THE AMOUNT OF THE
CHARGE.  THESE ARE FIXED BY THE TARIFF.  THE LETTER OF JULY 2, 1935,
FROM THE SHIPPERS REQUIRED THE INSTALLATION OF THE GRAIN DOORS AND THE
RESPECTIVE ORDERS FOR THE SEPARATE CARS, GIVEN THEREAFTER, WERE GIVEN
IN THE LIGHT OF THIS DEMAND FOR CARS SO EQUIPPED.  WE THINK THIS WAS AN
ARRANGEMENT UNDER THE TARIFF.  ON JULY 2, 1935, THE RESPONDENT CLEARLY
SIGNIFIED ITS DESIRE FOR CARS FULLY COOPERED AND READY FOR LOADING. 
ITS LETTER OF THAT DATE WAS AN UNCONDITIONAL REQUEST FOR THE
PETITIONERS' SERVICES FOR A SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME -
"FROM AND AFTER JULY 1, 1935."  THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT RESPONDENT WOULD
DECLINE TO PAY FOR THEM IN NO WAY QUALIFIED THE REQUEST FOR TARIFF
SERVICES, AND CANNOT NOW STAVE OFF LIABILITY.  THE PETITIONERS COULD
DISREGARD THIS ADVANCE DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY AND RELY UPON THE COURTS
TO ENFORCE OBSERVANCE OF THE TARIFF.  UNTIL CHANGED, TARIFFS BIND BOTH
CARRIERS AND SHIPPERS WITH THE FORCE OF LAW.  FN4  UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT THE CARRIER CANNOT DEVIATE FROM THE RATE
SPECIFIED IN THE TARIFF FOR ANY SERVICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY.  FN5  THAT SECTION FORBIDS THE CARRIER FROM
GIVING A VOLUNTARY REBATE IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM.  THIS COURT HAS HAD
OCCASION RECENTLY TO SUSTAIN ACTION OF THE COMMISSION AIMED AT
CARRIERS' PRACTICES RESULTING IN COLLECTION OF LESS THAN THE TARIFF
RATE.  FN6  IT IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT TO AID THE EFFORTS OF A CARRIER IN
COLLECTING PUBLISHED CHARGES IN FULL.  FN7 INVOLUNTARY REBATES FROM
TARIFF RATES SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH THE SAME DISAPPROVAL AS VOLUNTARY
REBATES. 

THE RESPONDENT SUGGESTS THAT THE SUIT MUST FAIL BECAUSE BASED UPON A
TARIFF HELD BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION "UNREASONABLE AND
UNLAWFUL."  THE COMMISSION DID NOT HOLD THE TARIFF UNLAWFUL OR WHOLLY
UNREASONABLE.  IT CLEARLY RECOGNIZED THE VALIDITY OF A TARIFF CHARGE
FOR INSTALLATION SERVICES RENDERED BY CARRIERS AT THE REQUEST OF
SHIPPERS, BUT FOUND $1.00 PER CAR UNREASONABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
EXCEEDED $.60.  IT AWARDED REPARATION TO THOSE WHO HAD PAID $1.00 PER
CAR AND AUTHORIZED THE CARRIERS TO WAIVE COLLECTION OF THE AMOUNT OVER
$.60 PER CAR FROM SHIPPERS WHO HAD NOT PAID.  FN8  THE ONLY RELIEF
AFFORDED RESPONDENT BY THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IS A RIGHT TO
REPARATION FOR ALL PAYMENTS OVER $.60 PER CAR.  FN9  THE VOLUNTARY
REDUCTION OF THEIR CLAIM BY THE PETITIONERS IS A SENSIBLE ADJUSTMENT OF
THEIR RIGHT TO RECOVER THE TARIFF CHARGE AND OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO
MAKE REPARATION TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER VARIOUS OTHER CONTENTIONS MADE BY BOTH
THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENT.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  CF. WABASH RY. CO. V. HORN, 40 F.2D 905, 906(C.C.A. 7). 

FN2  28 U.S.C. SEC. 41.  "THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION AS FOLLOWS:  ... EIGHTH.  OF ALL SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS
ARISING UNDER ANY LAW REGULATING COMMERCE."  SEE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE
R. CO. V. RICE, 247 U.S. 201, 203. 

FN3  THREE COMMISSIONERS DISSENTED.  THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
IS PART OF THE RECORD.  A.J. PHILLIPS CO. V. GRAND TRUNK W. RY. CO.,
236 U.S. 662, 664; CF. ROBINSON V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 222 U.S.
506, 511-12. 

FN4  ROBINSON V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 222 U.S. 506, 509;
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. INTERNATIONAL COAL CO., 230 U.S. 184, 197. 

FN5  ACT OF FEB. 4, 1887, 24 STAT. 379, 381, AS AMENDED, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 6(7). 

FN6  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 507. 

FN7  CF. PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. FINK, 250 U.S. 577;
NEW KYORK CENTRAL & HARLEM RIVER R. CO. V. YORK & WHITNEY CO., 256 U.S.
406. 

FN8  CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. ABILENE & S. RY. CO., 220 I.C.C. 753,
769. 

FN9  CF. A.J. PHILLIPS CO. V. GRAND TRUNK W. RY., 236 U.S. 662, 665;
ARIZONA GROCERY CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 284 U.S. 370, 384. 

..END :








TEXAS V. FLORIDA, 306 U.S. 398 


NO. 11, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1939.  - DECIDED MARCH 13, 1939. 


1.  THE COURT INQUIRES SUA SPONTE INTO ITS JURISDICTION OF THE CASE. 
P. 405. 

2.  PRIVATE PARTIES WHOSE PRESENCE IS NECESSARY OR PROPER FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF A CASE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN STATES MAY BE JOINED AS
DEFENDANTS.  ID. 

3.  JURISDICTION OF THIS SUIT UNDER CONSTITUTION ART. III, SEC. 2
TURNS ON THE QUESTIONS WHETHER THE ISSUE FRAMED BY THE PLEADINGS
CONSTITUTES A JUSTICIABLE "CASE" OR "CONTROVERSY" AND WHETHER THE FACTS
ALLEGED AND FOUND AFFORD AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR RELIEF ACCORDING TO
ACCEPTED DOCTRINES OF THE COMMON LAW AND EQUITY SYSTEMS WHICH ARE
GUIDES TO DECISION OF CASES WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT.  ID. 

4.  BILLS OF INTERPLEADER AND BILLS IN THE NATURE OF INTERPLEADER
CONSIDERED.  ID. 

5.  THE EQUITABLE JURISDICTION BY BILL IN THE NATURE OF INTERPLEADER
EXISTS WHERE THE PARTIES, INCLUDING THE PLAINTIFF, HAVE INDEPENDENT AND
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CLAIMS UPON THE SAME FUND AND WHERE, ALTHOUGH IN
POINT OF LAW OR FACT ONLY ONE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO SUCCEED, THERE IS
DANGER THAT INDEPENDENT PROSECUTIONS OF THE CLAIMS MAY RESULT IN
MULTIPLE RECOVERIES AND RESULTANT DEPLETION OF THE FUND TO THE DAMAGE
OF THE CLAIMANT PROPERLY ENTITLED.  THE GROUND OF THE JURISDICTION IS
TO AVOID THIS DANGER.  EQUITY AVOIDS IT BY REQUIRING THE RIVAL
CLAIMANTS TO LITIGATE BEFORE IT THE DECISIVE ISSUE.  P. 406. 

6.  A SUIT, BY BILL IN THE NATURE OF INTERPLEADER, BROUGHT BY A STATE
AGAINST OTHER STATES TO DETERMINE THE TRUE DOMICILE OF A DECEDENT AS
THE BASIS FOR DEATH TAXES, EACH STATE CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO TAX THE
SUCCESSION TO HIS INTANGIBLE PROPERTY UPON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS THERE
DOMICILED AT THE TIME OF DEATH,  - HELD COGNIZABLE IN EQUITY AND WITHIN
THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  CONSTITUTION ART. III, SEC.
2.  P. 405. 

THE SOLE LEGAL BASIS ASSERTED BY EACH STATE FOR THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE
THE TAX WAS DOMICILE OF THE DECEDENT, AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, IN THE
TAXING STATE; BY THE LAW OF EACH THERE COULD BE BUT ONE DOMICILE FOR
DEATH TAX PURPOSES; EACH IN GOOD FAITH CLAIMED THE DOMICILE AND, PRIOR
TO THE SUIT, WAS IN GOOD FAITH PREPARING TO ENFORCE A TAX LIEN UPON
DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES AND, BUT FOR THE SUIT, WOULD BE TAKING STEPS TO
THAT END; THE NET ESTATE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE TAX CLAIMS OF ALL
THE STATES AND OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; NONE OF THE STATES WOULD
CONSENT TO BECOME A PARTY TO ANY PROCEEDING IN ANY OF THE OTHERS, TO
DETERMINE THE RIGHT TO TAX; THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE CLAIM
OF DOMICILE IN EACH OF THE STATES; AND, DUE TO THE JURISDICTIONAL
PECULIARITIES OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS, AND TO THE
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE WAS A REAL RISK THAT THROUGH
CONFLICTING ASSESSMENTS AGGREGATING AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE ESTATE
THE RIGHT OF THE COMPLAINANT OR SOME OTHER STATE MIGHT BE DEFEATED; NO
QUESTION WAS PRESENTED OF A SITUS OF ANY OF THE INTANGIBLE PROPERTY
DIFFERING, FOR TAX PURPOSES, FROM THE PLACE OF DOMICILE, AND NO
DETERMINATION IN THIS SUIT, AS TO DOMICILE, COULD FORECLOSE
DETERMINATION OF SUCH QUESTIONS OF OTHER TAX SITUS BY ANY COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN WHICH THEY MIGHT ARISE. 

7.  THAT TWO OR MORE STATES MAY EACH CONSTITUTIONALLY ASSESS DEATH
TAXES ON A DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES UPON A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT
THE DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED WITHIN IT, IN PROCEEDINGS BINDING UPON THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE, BUT TO WHICH THE OTHER STATES ARE NOT
PARTIES, IS AN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE.  P. 410. 

8.  THE EQUITY JURISDICTION IN A SUIT IN THE NATURE OF INTERPLEADER
BEING FOUNDED ON AVOIDANCE OF THE RISK OF LOSS RESULTING FROM THE
THREATENED PROSECUTION OF MULTIPLE CLAIMS, THE RISK MUST BE APPRAISED
IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY ARE IN GOOD FAITH ALLEGED AND
SHOWN TO EXIST AT THE TIME WHEN THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  P. 410. 

9.  IN A SUIT LIKE THE PRESENT BETWEEN STATES, MERE ADJUDICATION
SUFFICES AND NEED NOT BE SUPPLEMENTED BY AN INJUNCTION.  P. 411. 

10.  THE COURT ACCEPTS THE SPECIAL MASTER'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND HIS
CONCLUSION THAT THE DECEDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH WAS DOMICILED IN
MASSACHUSETTS.  P. 413. 

11.  RESIDENCE IN FACT, COUPLED WITH THE PURPOSE TO MAKE THE PLACE OF
RESIDENCE ONE'S HOME, ARE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DOMICILE.  P. 424. 

12.  WHILE ONE'S STATEMENTS MAY SUPPLY EVIDENCE OF THE INTENTION
REQUISITE TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE AT A GIVEN PLACE OF RESIDENCE, THEY CAN
NOT SUPPLY THE FACT OF RESIDENCE THERE; AND THEY ARE OF SLIGHT WEIGHT
WHEN THEY CONFLICT WITH THE FACT.  THIS IS THE MORE SO WHERE, AS HERE,
THE STATEMENTS ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY THE DESIRE TO
ESTABLISH A NOMINAL RESIDENCE FOR TAX PURPOSES, DIFFERENT FROM THE
RESIDENCE IN FACT.  P. 425. 

IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTUAL FACT OF THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE AND
THE PERSON'S REAL ATTITUDE AND INTENTION WITH RESPECT TO IT AS
DISCLOSED BY HIS COURSE OF CONDUCT ARE THE CONTROLLING FACTORS IN
ASCERTAINING HIS DOMICILE.  WHEN ONE INTENDS THE FACTS TO WHICH THE LAW
ATTACHES CONSEQUENCES, HE MUST ABIDE THE CONSEQUENCES WHETHER INTENDED
OR NOT. 

13.  ONE CAN NOT ELECT TO MAKE HIS HOME IN ONE PLACE IN POINT OF
INTEREST AND ATTACHMENT AND FOR THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF LIFE, AND IN
ANOTHER, WHERE HE IN FACT HAS NO RESIDENCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TAXATION.  P. 426. 

14.  PHYSICAL FACTS OF RESIDENCE, UNITED WITH MAJOR LIFE INTERESTS
MAY FIX DOMICILE - ONE'S "PREEMINENT HEADQUARTERS."  ID. 

15.  THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT AN EARLIER
DOMICILE WAS ABANDONED FOR A LATER ONE.  P. 427. 

TEXAS V. FLORIDA ET AL. 

ORIGINAL SUIT BY THE STATE OF TEXAS AGAINST THE STATES OF FLORIDA,
NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS, TO DETERMINE THE DOMICILE, AT DEATH, OF
EDWARD H. R. GREEN, DECEASED, AS A BASIS FOR RIGHT TO LEVY A DEATH TAX
IN RESPECT OF THE SUCCESSION TO HIS INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.  HIS WIFE AND
HIS SISTER, CLAIMANTS UPON THE ESTATE, WERE ALSO IMPLEADED AS PARTIES
DEFENDANT.  THE DEFENDANT STATES SEPARATELY DENIED THE PLAINTIFF'S
CLAIM OF DOMICILE IN TEXAS, AND EACH BY COUNTERCLAIM ASSERTED ITS CLAIM
OF DOMICILE AND CONSEQUENT RIGHT TO TAX.  THE WIFE ADMITTED THAT THE
DECEDENT'S DOMICILE WAS IN TEXAS AND LAID CLAIM TO A LARGE SHARE OF THE
ESTATE AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY FREE FROM DEATH TAXES.  SHE WAS DISMISSED
FROM THE SUIT, ON STIPULATION.  302 U.S. 662.  THE SISTER DENIED THE
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF DOMICILE IN TEXAS AND PRAYED THAT THE TRUE
DOMICILE FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION BE DETERMINED.  THE CASE WAS REFERRED
TO JOHN S. FLANNERY, ESQ., AS SPECIAL MASTER, WHO TOOK VOLUMINOUS
EVIDENCE AND MADE HIS REPORT.  HE FOUND THAT THE DOMICILE OF DECEDENT
AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH WAS IN MASSACHUSETTS.  THE CASE WAS HEARD ON
EXCEPTIONS TO THE SPECIAL MASTER'S CONCLUSIONS OF FACT AND SUBSIDIARY
FINDINGS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ORIGINAL SUIT, IN THE NATURE OF A BILL OF INTERPLEADER, BROUGHT
TO DETERMINE THE TRUE DOMICILE OF DECEDENT AS THE BASIS OF RIVAL CLAIMS
OF FOUR STATES FOR DEATH TAXES UPON HIS ESTATE, RAISES TWO PRINCIPAL
QUESTIONS:  WHETHER THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE AND, IF
SO, WHETHER THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER, FINDING THAT DECEDENT AT
THE TIME OF HIS DEATH WAS DOMICILED IN MASSACHUSETTS, SHOULD BE
CONFIRMED. 

ON MARCH 15, 1937, THIS COURT GRANTED THE MOTION OF THE STATE OF
TEXAS FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS BILL OF COMPLAINT AGAINST THE STATES OF
FLORIDA AND NEW YORK AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND AGAINST
DECEDENT'S WIFE, MABEL HARLOW GREEN, AND HIS SISTER, HETTY SYLVIA ANN
HOWLAND GREEN WILKS, BOTH ALLEGED TO BE RESIDENTS OF NEW YORK.  THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT EDWARD H.R. GREEN DIED AT LAKE PLACID,
NEW YORK, ON JUNE 8, 1936, LEAVING SURVIVING HIM HIS WIFE AND SISTER AS
HIS ONLY HEIR AND NEXT OF KIN; THAT HE LEFT A GROSS ESTATE OF
APPROXIMATELY $44,348,500, AND A NET ESTATE VALUED AT $42,348,500,
COMPRISING REAL ESTATE AND TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN TEXAS,
NEW YORK, FLORIDA AND MASSACHUSETTS, OF AN AGGREGATE VALUE OF
APPROXIMATELY $6,500,000, AND INTANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY CONSISTING
PRINCIPALLY OF STOCKS, BONDS AND SECURITIES, THE PAPER EVIDENCES OF
MOST OF WHICH WERE LOCATED IN NEW YORK. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT DECEDENT, AT THE TIME OF HIS
DEATH, WAS DOMICILED IN TEXAS, BUT THAT FLORIDA, NEW YORK, AND
MASSACHUSETTS EACH ASSERTS, THROUGH ITS TAXING OFFICIALS, THAT DECEDENT
WAS AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH DOMICILED WITHIN IT.  IT ALLEGES IN DETAIL
THAT TEXAS AND EACH OF THE DEFENDANT STATES MAINTAINS AND ENFORCES A
SYSTEM OF TAXATION UPON THE INHERITANCE OR SUCCESSION OF THE ESTATES OF
DECEDENTS DOMICILED WITHIN THE STATE AT DEATH, UNDER WHICH LAWS REAL
ESTATE AND TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE AND ALL
INTANGIBLES, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SITUS, ARE SUBJECTED TO THE TAX; THAT
EACH OF THE FOUR STATES ASSERTS AND PROPOSES TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO
TAX THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT DECEDENT WAS
DOMICILED WITHIN IT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH; AND THAT CERTAIN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED IN EACH OF THE FOUR STATES FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF DECEDENT'S ESTATE OR SOME PARTS OF IT.  FN1  IT IS
FURTHER ALLEGED THAT NONE OF THE FOUR STATES AND NO OFFICER OR
REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY STATE, EXCEPT AS ALREADY NOTED, HAS BECOME A
PARTY TO ANY OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT NO STATE OR ITS OFFICER OR
REPRESENTATIVE WILL APPEAR OR BECOME A PARTY TO ANY SUCH PROCEEDINGS
INSTITUTED IN ANY OTHER STATE TO FIX OR ASSESS DEATH TAXES ON
DECEDENT'S ESTATE, AND THAT NO JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH PROCEEDING WILL BE
BINDING ON ANY STATE NOT A PARTY TO IT; THAT EACH OF THE FOUR STATES
CLAIMS A LIEN FOR TAXES AND THE RIGHT TO COLLECT A TAX, BASED ON
DECEDENT'S ALLEGED DOMICILE WITHIN IT, UPON THE TANGIBLES LOCATED IN
THE STATE AND UPON ALL DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES WHEREVER LOCATED, THE
TOTAL OF SUCH CLAIMS AMOUNTING TO A SUM FAR GREATER THAN THE NET VALUE
OF THE ESTATE; THAT THE AMOUNT OF DECEDENT'S PROPERTY LOCATED IN TEXAS
IS NEGLIGIBLE IN AMOUNT AND INSUFFICIENT TO PAY ITS TAX; AND IN THE
EVENT THAT THE STATES SHOULD OBTAIN ADJUDICATIONS IN THEIR OWN OR OTHER
COURTS IN PENDING PROCEEDINGS, OR OTHERS INSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTING THE TAX ON THE GROUND THAT DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED ELSEWHERE
THAN IN TEXAS, TEXAS WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ITS LAWFUL TAX.  THE BILL
PRAYS THAT THE COURT DETERMINE WHETHER DECEDENT'S DOMICILE, FOR
PURPOSES OF TAXATION, WAS IN EITHER OF THE DEFENDANT STATES AND THAT
PARTICULARLY IT DETERMINE AND ADJUDICATE THAT HIS DOMICILE WAS IN TEXAS
AND THAT IT ALONE HAS THE RIGHT TO ASSESS AND COLLECT DEATH TAXES ON
DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES. 

THE SEVERAL DEFENDANT STATES, ANSWERING, ADMIT THAT DECEDENT'S ESTATE
IS INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE TAXES CLAIMED.  ALL
DENY THAT GREEN WAS DOMICILED IN TEXAS, AND BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM AND
CROSS-BILL AGAINST THE OTHER DEFENDANTS, EACH ASSERTS THAT HE WAS
DOMICILED IN IT AND THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT DEATH TAXES UPON ALL
OF DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLE PROPERTY AND UPON ALL HIS TANGIBLES WITHIN THE
STATE.  THE ANSWER OF DECEDENT'S WIFE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS DOMICILED IN
TEXAS AND ASSERTED THAT BY TEXAS LAW SHE OWNED, AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY,
ONE-HALF OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF DECEDENT'S ESTATE ACQUIRED BY HIM
AFTER THEIR MARRIAGE, FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL DEATH TAXES.  PURSUANT TO
STIPULATION SHOWING THAT SHE HAD RELEASED ALL INTEREST IN DECEDENT'S
ESTATE, THE SUIT WAS DISMISSED AS TO HER BY ORDER OF THE COURT ON
JANUARY 17, 1938.  302 U.S. 662.  THE ANSWER OF DEFENDANT WILKS,
DECEDENT'S SISTER, DENIES THAT GREEN WAS DOMICILED IN TEXAS AND ASKS
THE COURT TO DETERMINE IN WHICH OF THE DEFENDANT STATES HE WAS
DOMICILED FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION. 

ON JUNE 1, 1937, THIS COURT APPOINTED A SPECIAL MASTER, 301 U.S. 671,
TO TAKE EVIDENCE, TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATE CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW, AND TO SUBMIT THEM TO THIS COURT, TOGETHER WITH HIS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A DECREE.  THE SPECIAL MASTER HAS REPORTED HIS
FINDINGS, WITH CERTAIN EVIDENTIARY FACTS, AND HIS FINDING THAT DECEDENT
AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH WAS DOMICILED IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS, THIS LATTER CONCLUSION BEING SUPPORTED BY ELABORATE
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS.  THE CASE IS NOW BEFORE US ON EXCEPTIONS TO THE
SPECIAL MASTER'S CONCLUSIONS OF FACT AND SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS THAT
DECEDENT'S DOMICILE WAS IN MASSACHUSETTS AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH. 

JURISDICTION. 

WHILE THE EXCEPTIONS DO NOT CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT,
THE NOVEL CHARACTER OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND THE DUTY WHICH RESTS
UPON THIS COURT TO SEE TO IT THAT THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS BE
CONFINED WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION MAKE IT
INCUMBENT UPON US TO INQUIRE OF OUR OWN MOTION WHETHER THE CASE IS ONE
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.  MINNESOTA V. HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373, 382. 
BY THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE JUDICIAL POWER
EXTENDS TO CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN STATES, AND THIS COURT IS GIVEN
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF CASES IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE A PARTY.  ART.
III, SEC. 2.  THE PRESENT SUIT IS BETWEEN STATES, AND THE OTHER
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS BEING SATISFIED, THE INDIVIDUAL PARTIES
WHOSE PRESENCE IS NECESSARY OR PROPER FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE CASE
OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE STATES ARE PROPERLY MADE PARTIES DEFENDANT. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463, 470.  SO THAT OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO HEAR THE CASE AND GRANT RELIEF TURNS ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE ISSUE FRAMED BY THE PLEADINGS CONSTITUTES A
JUSTICIABLE "CASE" OR "CONTROVERSY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, AND WHETHER THE FACTS ALLEGED AND FOUND
AFFORD AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR RELIEF ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED DOCTRINES OF
THE COMMON LAW OR EQUITY SYSTEMS OF JURISPRUDENCE, WHICH ARE GUIDES TO
DECISION OF CASES WITHIN THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT.  SEE
ROBINSON V. CAMPBELL, 3 WHEAT.  212, 222, 223; PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING
& BELMONT BRIDGE CO., 18 HOW.  460, 462; IRVINE V. MARSHALL, 20 HOW. 
558, 564, 565; PAYNE V. HOOK, 7 WALL.  425, 430. 

BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED A FAMILIAR BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE
OF THE EXTRAORDINARY POWERS OF COURTS OF EQUITY WAS THE AVOIDANCE OF
THE RISK OF LOSS ENSUING FROM THE DEMANDS IN SEPARATE SUITS OF RIVAL
CLAIMANTS TO THE SAME DEBT OR LEGAL DUTY.  ALNETE V. BETTAM, CARY,
65(1560); HACKETT V. WEBB AND WILLEY, FINCH 257(1676); SEE 9 VINER
ABR., 419-440; 1 SPENCE, THE EQUITABLE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY, 659; MACLENNAN, LAW OF INTERPLEADER, 5 ET SEQ. SINCE, WITHOUT
THE INTERPOSITION OF EQUITY, EACH CLAIMANT IN PURSUING HIS REMEDY IN AN
INDEPENDENT SUIT MIGHT SUCCEED AND THUS SUBJECT THE DEBTOR OR THE FUND
PURSUED TO MULTIPLE LIABILITY, EQUITY GAVE A REMEDY BY WAY OF BILL OF
INTERPLEADER, UPON THE PROSECUTION OF WHICH IT REQUIRED THE RIVAL
CLAIMANTS TO LITIGATE IN A SINGLE SUIT THEIR OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSERTED
CLAIM.  A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT AWAIT ACTUAL INSTITUTION OF INDEPENDENT
SUITS; IT IS ENOUGH IF HE SHOWS THAT CONFLICTING CLAIMS ARE ASSERTED
AND THAT THE CONSEQUENT RISK OF LOSS IS SUBSTANTIAL.  EVANS V. WRIGHT,
13 W.R. 468; MICHIGAN TRUST CO. V. MCNAMARA, 165 MICH. 200; 130 N.W.
653; WEBSTER V. HALL, 60 N.H. 7; THOMPSON V. EBBETS, HOPK.  CH.
272(N.Y.); DORN V. FOX, 61 N.Y. 264; YARBOROUGH V. THOMPSON, 3 SM. & M.
(11 MISS.)  291, 294; 4 POMEROY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE (4TH ED.)  SECS. 
1319-1329, 1458-1482; MACLENNAN, SUPRA, 119. 

THE PECULIARITY OF THE STRICT BILL OF INTERPLEADER WAS THAT THE
PLAINTIFF ASSERTED NO INTEREST IN THE DEBT OR FUND, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH
HE PLACED AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE COURT AND ASKED THAT THE RIVAL
CLAIMANTS BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE IN THE EQUITY SUIT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
CLAIM AMONG THEMSELVES.  BUT AS THE SOLE GROUND FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF IS
THE DANGER OF INJURY BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF MULTIPLE SUITS WHEN THE
LIABILITY IS SINGLE, FARLEY V. BLOOD, 30 N.H. 354, 361; BEDELL V.
HOFFMAN, 2 PAIGE 199, 200; MOHAWK & HUDSON R. CO. V. CLUTE, 4 PAIGE
384, 392; ATKINSON V. MANKS, 1 COWEN (N.Y.)  691, 703; STORY, EQUITY
PLEADINGS (10TH ED.)  SECS.  291, 292, AND AS PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE NOT
MERE STAKEHOLDERS MAY BE EXPOSED TO THAT RISK, EQUITY EXTENDED ITS
JURISDICTION TO SUCH CASES BY THE BILL IN THE NATURE OF INTERPLEADER. 
THE ESSENTIAL OF THE BILL IN THE NATURE OF INTERPLEADER IS THAT IT
CALLS UPON THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION TO GUARD AGAINST THE
RISKS OF LOSS FROM THE PROSECUTION IN INDEPENDENT SUITS OF RIVAL CLAIMS
WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HIMSELF CLAIMS AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY OR FUND
WHICH IS SUBJECTED TO THE RISK.  THE OBJECT AND GROUND OF THE
JURISDICTION ARE TO GUARD AGAINST THE CONSEQUENT DEPLETION OF THE FUND
AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S INTEREST IN IT AND TO PROTECT HIM AND
THE OTHER PARTIES TO THE SUIT FROM THE JEOPARDY RESULTING FROM THE
PROSECUTION OF NUMEROUS DEMANDS, TO ONLY ONE OF WHICH THE FUND IS
SUBJECT.  WHILE IN POINT OF LAW OR FACT ONLY ONE PARTY IS ENTITLED TO
SUCCEED, THERE IS DANGER THAT RECOVERY MAY BE ALLOWED IN MORE THAN ONE
SUIT.  EQUITY AVOIDS THE DANGER BY REQUIRING THE RIVAL CLAIMANTS TO
LITIGATE BEFORE IT THE DECISIVE ISSUE, AND WILL NOT WITHHOLD ITS AID
WHERE THE PLAINTIFF'S INTEREST IS EITHER NOT DENIED OR HE DOES NOT
ASSERT ANY CLAIM ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE OTHER PARTIES, OTHER THAN THE
SINGLE CLAIM, DETERMINATION OF WHICH IS DECISIVE OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL. 
PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK V. MIXTER, 124 U.S. 721; PROVIDENCE SAV. LIFE
ASSUR.  SOC.  V. LOEB, 115 F. 357; SHERMAN NATIONAL BANK V. SHUBERT
THEATRICAL CO., 238 F. 225, AFF'D, 247 F. 256; ILLINGWORTH V. ROWE, 52
N.J. EQ. 360; 28 A. 456; CARTER V. CRYER, 68 N.J. EQ. 24; 59 A. 233; 2
STORY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE (14TH ED.)  SEC.  1140; STORY, EQUITY
PLEADINGS (10TH ED.)  SEC.  297B; CHAFEE, CASES ON EQUITABLE REMEDIES,
75 ET SEQ.; 3 DANIELL, CHANCERY PLEADING AND PRACTICE (6TH AMER.  ED.) 
1572; MACLENNAN, SUPRA, 338 ET SEQ. 

WHEN, BY APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE, A COURT POSSESSING EQUITY POWERS IS
IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ASKED TO PREVENT THE LOSS WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE
RESULT FROM THE INDEPENDENT PROSECUTION OF RIVAL BUT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
CLAIMS, A JUSTICIABLE ISSUE IS PRESENTED FOR ADJUDICATION WHICH,
BECAUSE IT IS A RECOGNIZED SUBJECT OF THE EQUITY PROCEDURE WHICH WE
HAVE INHERITED FROM ENGLAND, IS A "CASE" OR "CONTROVERSY," WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION; AND WHEN THE CASE IS ONE
PROSECUTED BETWEEN STATES, WHICH ARE THE RIVAL CLAIMANTS, AND THE RISK
OF LOSS IS SHOWN TO BE REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL, THE CASE IS WITHIN THE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT CONFERRED BY THE JUDICIARY
ARTICLE.  SEE NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249,
261 ET SEQ., AND CASES CITED.    HERE IT IS CONCEDED BY THE PLEADINGS
AND UPON BRIEF AND ARGUMENT THAT THE SOLE LEGAL BASIS ASSERTED BY THE
FOUR STATES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH TAXES ON DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES
IS HIS DOMICILE AT DEATH IN THE TAXING STATE.  THERE IS NO QUESTION
PRESENTED OF A SITUS OF DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES DIFFERING, FOR TAX
PURPOSES, FROM THE PLACE OF HIS DOMICILE, SUCH AS WAS CONSIDERED IN NEW
ORLEANS V. STEMPEL, 175 U.S. 309; SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA,
280 U.S. 83; BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 282 U.S. 1, 8; FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312, 331; WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX,
298 U.S. 193, 210; FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V. MINNESOTA, 301 U.S. 234,
237, 238; LONG V. STOKES, 174 TENN. 1; 118 S.W.2D 228, PROBABLE
JURISDICTION NOTED, NOV. 14, 1938; GRAVES V. ELLIOTT, 274 N.Y. 10; 8
N.E.2D 42, CERTIORARI GRANTED NOVEMBER 14, 1938, 305 U.S. 667.  AND NO
DETERMINATION MADE HERE AS TO DOMICILE CAN HEREAFTER FORECLOSE THE
DETERMINATION OF SUCH QUESTIONS BY ANY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION
IN WHICH THEY MAY ARISE.  BY THE LAW OF EACH STATE A DECEDENT CAN HAVE
ONLY A SINGLE DOMICILE FOR PURPOSES OF DEATH TAXES, AND DETERMINATION
OF THE PLACE OF DOMICILE OF DECEDENT WILL DETERMINE WHICH OF THE FOUR
STATES IS ENTITLED TO IMPOSE THE TAX ON INTANGIBLES SO FAR AS THEY HAVE
NO SITUS DIFFERENT FROM THE PLACE OF DOMICILE.  NO RELIEF IS SOUGHT TO
RESTRAIN COLLECTION OF THE TAX OR TO INTERFERE WITH THE DETERMINATION
OF ITS AMOUNT BY APPROPRIATE STATE PROCEDURE. 

THE SPECIAL MASTER HAS FOUND THAT EACH OF THE FOUR STATES IN GOOD
FAITH ASSERTS THAT THE DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED WITHIN IT AT HIS DEATH;
THAT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS EACH STATE IN GOOD
FAITH WAS PREPARING TO ENFORCE A LIEN ON DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES
WHEREVER LOCATED AND WOULD NOW BE TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION BUT FOR
THESE PROCEEDINGS; AND THAT THE NET ESTATE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE
AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES CLAIMED BY THEM AND BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  FN2  HE HAS ALSO FOUND, AS AVERRED IN THE PLEADINGS, THAT
NONE OF THE FOUR STATES HAS BECOME OR WILL CONSENT TO BECOME A PARTY TO
ANY PROCEEDINGS FOR DETERMINING THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE TAX IN ANY
OTHER STATE; THAT THE RIGHT OF TEXAS TO ASSERT ITS TAX LIEN AND TO
PROSECUTE ITS CLAIM FOR TAXES WITH SUCCESS IS IN JEOPARDY AND THAT IT
IS WITHOUT ADEQUATE REMEDY SAVE IN THIS COURT. 

THE RISK THAT DECEDENT'S ESTATE MIGHT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE SUBJECTED
TO CONFLICTING TAX ASSESSMENTS IN EXCESS OF ITS TOTAL VALUE AND THAT
THE RIGHT OF COMPLAINANT OR SOME OTHER STATE TO COLLECT THE TAX MIGHT
THUS BE DEFEATED WAS A REAL ONE, DUE BOTH TO THE JURISDICTIONAL
PECULIARITIES OF OUR DUAL FEDERAL AND STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS AND TO THE
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.  THAT TWO OR MORE STATES MAY EACH
CONSTITUTIONALLY ASSESS DEATH TAXES ON A DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES UPON A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED WITHIN IT IN
PROCEEDINGS BINDING UPON THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE, BUT TO
WHICH THE OTHER STATES ARE NOT PARTIES, IS AN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF
OUR FEDERAL JURISPRUDENCE.  THORMANN V. FRAME, 176 U.S. 350; OVERBY V.
GORDON, 177 U.S. 214; BURBANK V. ERNST, 232 U.S. 162; BAKER V. BAKER,
ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394; IOWA V. SLIMMER, 248 U.S. 115, 120, 121;
WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 299.  AND A JUDGMENT
THUS OBTAINED IS BINDING ON THE PARTIES TO IT AND CONSTITUTIONALLY
ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE COURTS OF EVERY OTHER STATE. 
MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE CO., 296 U.S. 268.  THE EQUITY JURISDICTION
BEING FOUNDED ON AVOIDANCE OF THE RISK OF LOSS RESULTING FROM THE
THREATENED PROSECUTION OF MULTIPLE CLAIMS, THE RISK MUST BE APPRAISED
IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THEY ARE IN GOOD FAITH ALLEGED AND
SHOWN TO EXIST AT THE TIME WHEN THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  CF. CLARK V.
WOOSTER, 119 U.S. 322; RICE & ADAMS CORP. V. LATHROP, 278 U.S. 509;
MACLENNAN, SUPRA, 132 ET SEQ. IN THIS CASE, AS WILL PRESENTLY BE NOTED,
THE RELATIONS OF DECEDENT TO EACH OF THE DEMANDING STATES WERE SUCH AS
TO AFFORD SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE CLAIM THAT HE WAS DOMICILED WITHIN
IT, WITH FAIR PROBABILITY THAT THE CLAIM WOULD BE ACCEPTED AND
FAVORABLY ACTED UPON IF THERE WERE NO PARTICIPATION BY THE OTHER STATES
IN THE LITIGATION.  SEE NEW JERSEY V. PENNSYLVANIA, 287 U.S. 580; HILL
V. MARTIN, 296 U.S. 393; DORRANCE'S ESTATE, 309 PA. 151; 163 A. 303,
CERTIORARI DENIED, 287 U.S. 660, 288 U.S. 617; IN RE DORRANCE, 115 N.J.
EQ. 268; 170 A. 601; DORRANCE V. MARTIN, 116 N.J. LAW 362; 184 A. 743,
CERTIORARI DENIED, 298 U.S. 678.  CF. MATTER OF TROWBRIDGE, 266 N.Y.
283; 194 N.E. 756.  IN ADDITION THE FACTS MOST ESSENTIAL TO
ESTABLISHING THAT ATTITUDE AND RELATIONSHIP OF PERSON TO PLACE WHICH
CONSTITUTE DOMICILE WERE IN THIS CASE OBSCURED BY NUMEROUS SELF-SERVING
STATEMENTS OF DECEDENT AS TO HIS DOMICILE, WHICH, BECAUSE MADE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AVOIDING LIABILITY FOR STATE INCOME AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
TAXES LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF DOMICILE, TENDED TO CONCEAL RATHER THAN
REVEAL THE TRUE RELATIONSHIP IN THIS CASE.  TAKEN AS A WHOLE THE CASE
IS EXCEPTIONAL IN ITS CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW
APPLICABLE TO THEM, ALL UNITING TO IMPOSE A RISK OF LOSS UPON THE STATE
LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO COLLECT THE TAX. 

WE THINK THAT THE SPECIAL MASTER'S FINDING OF JEOPARDY IS SUSTAINED;
THAT A JUSTICIABLE "CASE" BETWEEN THE STATES IS PRESENTED; AND THAT A
CAUSE OF ACTION COGNIZABLE IN EQUITY IS ALLEGED AND PROVED.  THE FACT
THAT NO RELIEF BY WAY OF INJUNCTION IS SOUGHT OR IS RECOMMENDED BY THE
SPECIAL MASTER DOES NOT MILITATE AGAINST THIS CONCLUSION.  WHILE IN
MOST CAUSES IN EQUITY THE PRINCIPAL RELIEF SOUGHT IS THAT AFFORDED BY
INJUNCTION, THERE ARE OTHERS IN WHICH THE IRREPARABLE INJURY WHICH IS
THE INDISPENSABLE BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE OF EQUITY POWERS IS PREVENTED
BY A MERE ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS WHICH IS BINDING ON THE PARTIES.  THIS
HAS LONG BEEN THE SETTLED PRACTICE OF THIS COURT IN CASES OF BOUNDARY
DISPUTES BETWEEN STATES.  LOUISIANA V. MISSISSIPPI, 202 U.S. 1;
ARKANSAS V. TENNESSEE, 246 U.S. 158; GEORGIA V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 257
U.S. 516; OKLAHOMA V. TEXAS, 272 U.S. 21; MICHIGAN V. WISCONSIN, 272
U.S. 398; NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE, 291 U.S. 361.  IN THE CASE OF BILLS
OF PEACE, BILLS OF INTERPLEADER AND BILLS IN THE NATURE OF
INTERPLEADER, THE GIST OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS THE AVOIDANCE OF THE
BURDEN OF UNNECESSARY LITIGATION OR THE RISK OF LOSS BY THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF MULTIPLE LIABILITY WHEN ONLY A SINGLE OBLIGATION IS
OWING.  THESE RISKS ARE AVOIDED BY ADJUDICATION IN A SINGLE LITIGATION
BINDING ON THE PARTIES. 

WHILE COURTS OF EQUITY IN SUCH SUITS MAY AND FREQUENTLY DO GIVE
INCIDENTAL RELIEF BY INJUNCTION TO SECURE THE FULL BENEFITS OF THE
ADJUDICATION AND TO TERMINATE THE LITIGATION IN A SINGLE SUIT, THEY ARE
NOT BOUND TO DO SO AND THEIR ADJUDICATION OF THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS IS
NOT ANY THE LESS EFFECTIVE AS RES JUDICATA BECAUSE NOT SUPPLEMENTED BY
INJUNCTION.  WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT WHEN THE EQUITY POWERS OF THE COURT
HAVE BEEN INVOKED IT HAS POWER IN ITS DISCRETION TO GIVE SUCH
INCIDENTAL RELIEF BY WAY OF INJUNCTION AS WILL MAKE ITS DETERMINATION
THE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF AVOIDING RISK OF LOSS TO ANY OF THE PARTIES BY
REASON OF THE ASSERTED MULTIPLE TAX LIABILITY.  BUT THE PLENARY EFFECT
OF ITS DECISION AS RES JUDICATA, AND CONSIDERATIONS OF CONVENIENCE IN
THE LEVYING OF THE TAX BY THE USUAL STATE PROCEDURE, MAKE IT
UNNECESSARY AND UNDESIRABLE THAT THE COURT SHOULD PROCEED BEYOND
ADJUDICATION.  THE FACT THAT THE COURT, FOR REASONS OF POLICY OR
CONVENIENCE, DOES NOT EXERCISE THE POWER WHICH IT POSSESSES AND WHICH
HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY EXERCISED IN LIKE CASES BETWEEN PRIVATE SUITORS
DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE SUIT OF ITS CHARACTER AS A CASE OR CONTROVERSY
COGNIZABLE BY THE COURT IN AN ORIGINAL SUIT.  SEE FIDELITY NATIONAL
BANK & TRUST CO. V. SWOPE, 274 U.S. 123, 132, 133, 134; NASHVILLE, C. &
ST. L. RY. V. WALLACE, SUPRA. 

DOMICILE. 

THE SPECIAL MASTER TOOK VOLUMINOUS TESTIMONY IN EACH OF THE FOUR
STATES, RECORDING EVERY AVAILABLE FACT HAVING ANY BEARING ON THE ISSUE
OF DECEDENT'S DOMICILE.  AFTER AN EXHAUSTIVE STUDY OF THE EVIDENCE THE
SPECIAL MASTER HAS PREPARED ELABORATE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS IN WHICH HE
HAS STATED WHAT HE CONSIDERS TO BE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF DECEDENT'S
LIFE WHICH, TAKEN TOGETHER, WERE THE CONTROLLING FACTORS IN HIS
ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT DECEDENT, AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, WAS
DOMICILED IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

IN CONSIDERING AND WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED
THAT THERE WAS NO LOCAL LAW PECULIAR TO ANY OF THE STATES WITH RESPECT
TO THE ESSENTIAL FACT ELEMENTS WHICH GO TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE, AND THAT
THE RULE IN EACH OF THE STATES DEFINING DOMICILE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THAT
OF THE COMMON LAW.  TEXAS, SINCE GREEN IN THE EARLIER PART OF HIS LIFE
LIVED FOR A LARGE PART OF HIS TIME IN THAT STATE AND FREQUENTLY
PROCLAIMED IT TO BE HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE, PLACES GREAT EMPHASIS ON THE
COMMON LAW RULE THAT WHEN ONE HAS ONCE ACQUIRED A DOMICILE IN ONE PLACE
HE DOES NOT LOSE IT BY MERE RESIDENCE ELSEWHERE WITHOUT THE INTENTION
TO MAKE THE NEW PLACE OF RESIDENCE A DOMICILE IN THE SENSE OF A
PERMANENT HOME.  THE DEFENDANT STATES, AS THEY WERE ALL PLACES IN WHICH
DECEDENT LIVED FOR CONSIDERABLE PERIODS OF TIME DURING THE LATTER PART
OF HIS LIFE, AND AS THEY WERE ALL PLACES WITH WHICH HE THEN BECAME MORE
INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED, PLACE GREATER EMPHASIS ON "HOME" AS THE
SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT OF DOMICILE AS THE TERM IS DEFINED IN THE
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE'S RESTATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 13,
WHERE IT IS SAID:  "A HOME IS A DWELLING PLACE OF A PERSON,
DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER DWELLING-PLACES OF THAT PERSON BY THE INTIMACY
OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PERSON AND THE PLACE  ...  IN DETERMINING
WHETHER A DWELLING-PLACE IS A PERSON'S HOME, CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE
GIVEN TO: 

"1.  ITS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS; 

"2.  THE TIME HE SPENDS THEREIN; 

"3.  THE THINGS HE DOES THEREIN; 

"4.  THE PERSONS AND THINGS THEREIN; 

"5.  HIS MENTAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE PLACE; 

"6.  HIS INTENTION WHEN ABSENT TO RETURN TO THE PLACE; 

"7.  ELEMENTS OF OTHER DWELLING-PLACES OF THE PERSON CONCERNED." 

THE SPECIAL MASTER, WHILE NOT COMPLETELY ADOPTING EITHER OF THE TESTS
PROPOSED, NEVERTHELESS FINDS THAT BOTH SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSION.  WE
ACCEPT THE SPECIAL MASTER'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND HIS CONCLUSION THAT
THE DECEDENT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH WAS DOMICILED IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
AS THE MASTER HAS FOUND AND STATED IN GREAT DETAIL THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
DECEDENT'S LIFE WHICH LEAD TO THAT CONCLUSION, AND HAS MADE THEM
AVAILABLE IN HIS REPORT, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DO MORE THAN STATE
THE SALIENT FACTS WHICH ARE TYPICAL OF AND SUPPORTED BY MANY OTHERS,
AND WHICH SUPPORT HIS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION. 

EDWARD GREEN WAS BORN IN ENGLAND AUGUST 22, 1868, AND WAS IN HIS
SIXTY-EIGHTH YEAR AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, JUNE 8, 1936, AT LAKE
PLACID, NEW YORK, WHERE HE WAS TEMPORARILY SOJOURNING FOR REASONS OF
HEALTH.  HE WAS THE SON OF HETTY GREEN, A WELL-KNOWN FIGURE IN THE
FINANCIAL WORLD, WHO WAS BORN IN NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS.  HER
FOREBEARS HAD RESIDED IN THAT VICINITY SINCE THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY,
AND GREEN AND HIS SISTER MRS. WILKS INHERITED FROM HER ONE HUNDRED AND
THIRTY ACRES OF LAND IN THE TOWN OF DARTMOUTH, WHICH HAD BEEN THE
FAMILY HOME AND HAD BEEN PROPERTY OF THE FAMILY FOR SOME TWO HUNDRED
YEARS.  THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY FORTUNE HAD BEEN LAID IN THE
WHALING INDUSTRY, CENTERING AT NEW BEDFORD.  AT HER DEATH HIS MOTHER
LEFT AN ESTATE OF $67,000,000 WHICH, UNDER HER WILL, BECAME THE
PROPERTY OF DECEDENT AND HIS SISTER IN SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL SHARES. 

HIS EDUCATION WAS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF VERMONT AND NEW YORK, AND
FOR TWO YEARS HE ATTENDED FORDHAM UNIVERSITY IN NEW YORK CITY.  HIS
TASTES WERE NOT ARTISTIC OR LITERARY; HE HAD A DEEP INTEREST IN
SCIENTIFIC STUDY AND EXPERIMENTATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE FIELDS OF
ASTRONOMY, GEOLOGY, ELECTRICITY, PHOTOGRAPHY, RADIO AND AVIATION.  HE
WAS FOND OF THE SEA AND OF YACHTING, AND UNTIL A SERIOUS ILLNESS IN
1921, FOLLOWED BY PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT OF HIS HEALTH, HE WAS INTERESTED
IN ATHLETICS AND OUTDOOR LIFE.  AFTER THAT TIME HE BECAME ESPECIALLY
INTERESTED IN COLLECTING STAMPS, COINS, CURRENCY, AND JEWELS, TO WHICH
HE DEVOTED MUCH ATTENTION.  HE HAD NO INTEREST IN FASHIONABLE OR SOCIAL
LIFE, BUT PREFERRED, AS HE STATED, ASSOCIATING WITH THE COMMON MAN OR
"THE MAN IN THE STREET." 

IN 1892, WHEN HE WAS TWENTY-FOUR YEARS OLD, HIS MOTHER SENT HIM TO
TEXAS TO FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE ON A SHORT LINE OF RAILROAD LOCATED
THERE, LATER KNOWN AS THE TEXAS MIDLAND RAILROAD.  AS THE RESULT OF THE
FORECLOSURE SHE ACQUIRED THE RAILROAD, AND FOR THE LARGER PART OF
GREEN'S TIME UNTIL 1911 HE REMAINED IN TEXAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LOOKING
AFTER THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ROAD.  IN THAT YEAR HE RETURNED TO LIVE IN
NEW YORK AT THE URGENT REQUEST OF HIS MOTHER, WHO, BECAUSE OF FAILING
HEALTH, DESIRED HIS ASSISTANCE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF HER BUSINESS
AFFAIRS. 

FROM 1911 UNTIL 1921 GREEN CUSTOMARILY MADE TWO TRIPS A YEAR TO
TEXAS, ONE TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE RAILROAD AND THE OTHER
TO INSPECT THE ROAD, AND IN ALTERNATE YEARS TO VOTE IN TERRELL, TEXAS,
IN STATE AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.  FROM 1922 TO 1927 HE MADE BUT ONE
ANNUAL VISIT, IN THE SPRING OF EACH YEAR.  AFTER 1923 HE SPENT ONLY TWO
OR THREE DAYS ON EACH VISIT TO TEXAS, IN TERRELL AND ITS VICINITY.  IN
THE YEARS 1924 TO 1927 HE VISITED MARLIN, TEXAS, WHERE HE REMAINED FOR
ABOUT A MONTH EACH YEAR FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL TREATMENT.  IN 1928 THE
RAILROAD WAS SOLD.  AFTER THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE WAS MADE IN 1927, HE
MADE NO OTHER VISIT TO DALLAS OR TERRELL, AND HIS ONLY VISIT TO TEXAS
WAS IN 1935, FOR TREATMENT AT A CLINIC IN MARLIN. 

DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS RESIDENCE IN TEXAS, DECEDENT WAS A BACHELOR
AND MAINTAINED DOMESTIC ESTABLISHMENTS AT VARIOUS PLACES.  HE AT FIRST
LIVED IN A HOTEL.  ABOUT 1894 HE MAINTAINED A BACHELOR APARTMENT AT
TERRELL.  FOR A TIME HE ALSO KEPT ROOMS AT A HOTEL IN DALLAS AND THEN
ABOUT 1896 OR 1897 LEASED AN APARTMENT IN THAT CITY.  LATER HE
PURCHASED A BUILDING THERE WHICH HE REMODELLED AND OCCUPIED AS A
DWELLING UNTIL 1911, WHEN THE BUILDING WAS SOLD.  AFTER THAT HE CAUSED
A FRIEND TO RENT A ROOM FOR HIM IN TERRELL, TEXAS, ADMITTEDLY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PRESERVING HIS RIGHT TO VOTE IN TEXAS.  THE ROOM WAS NEVER
OCCUPIED BY HIM NOR WERE ANY OF HIS POSSESSIONS SENT THERE, EXCEPT A
BOX CONTAINING A PAIR OF TROUSERS AND A VEST.  HE ALSO OWNED A TWO
HUNDRED ACRE EXPERIMENTAL FARM NEAR TERRELL WHERE THERE WERE LIVING
QUARTERS WHICH HE OCCASIONALLY USED.  THE FARM WAS AFTERWARDS SOLD, AND
FROM 1911 ON HE HAD NO DWELLING PLACE IN TEXAS EXCEPT HIS PRIVATE
RAILROAD CAR, WHICH WAS SOLD WITH THE ROAD IN 1927-1928.  UPON HIS
REMOVAL TO NEW YORK IN 1911 ALL OF THE BEST FURNITURE IN THE DALLAS
RESIDENCE WAS PACKED AND SHIPPED TO NEW YORK FOR USE IN HIS DWELLING
THERE.  HIS LIBRARY OF BOOKS ON SCIENTIFIC SUBJECTS WAS GIVEN TO THE
DALLAS PUBLIC LIBRARY.  AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH HIS ONLY REAL PROPERTY
IN TEXAS CONSISTED OF SOME UNSALEABLE LOTS PERTAINING TO THE RAILROAD
WHICH WERE APPRAISED AT $2,200. 

DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS RESIDENCE IN TEXAS, ASIDE FROM HIS ACTIVE
INTEREST IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE RAILROAD HE BECAME INTERESTED IN
SCIENTIFIC AND FARM EXPERIMENTATION.  HE ALSO BECAME ACTIVE IN TEXAS
POLITICS, WAS A TEXAS DELEGATE TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION AT
ST. LOUIS, AND BECAME CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN STATE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE, SERVING IN THAT CAPACITY FOR FOUR YEARS, AND UPON REELECTION
UNTIL 1900.  IN 1906 THE NOMINATION FOR GOVERNOR OF TEXAS ON THE
REPUBLICAN TICKET WAS OFFERED HIM, BUT HE DECLINED THE NOMINATION UPON
THE INSISTENCE OF HIS MOTHER.  HE WAS APPOINTED A COLONEL UPON THE
TEXAS GOVERNOR'S STAFF AND SERVED IN THAT CAPACITY UNTIL JANUARY,
1915.  PRIOR TO 1911 AND UNTIL 1920 HE VOTED IN TEXAS IN STATE AND
NATIONAL ELECTIONS. 

GREEN FREQUENTLY EXPRESSED HIMSELF AS BEING ATTACHED TO THE STATE AND
TO ITS PEOPLE.  WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS AND IN SUBSTANTIALLY ALL DEEDS,
PAPERS, AND LEGAL DOCUMENTS HE DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS OF TERRELL, TEXAS,
AND INSTRUCTED HIS SECRETARY AND OFFICE MANAGER AND HIS ATTORNEYS IN
NEW YORK, MASSACHUSETTS, AND FLORIDA, TO MENTION IN ALL IMPORTANT LEGAL
DOCUMENTS THAT TERRELL WAS HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE.  HE CONTINUED THIS
PRACTICE UNTIL 1935.  IN HIS WILL, EXECUTED IN 1908, IN HIS APPLICATION
FOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE IN 1917, AND IN THE PROBATE PROCEEDINGS
CONNECTED WITH HIS MOTHER'S ESTATE, 1916-1918, HE WAS DESCRIBED AS OF
TERRELL, TEXAS.  IN 1922 HE DECLINED TO CONSIDER RUNNING FOR CONGRESS
IN MASSACHUSETTS BECAUSE HE CLAIMED TO BE A RESIDENT OF TEXAS.  IN 1929
HE STATED HE WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR APPOINTMENT AS FEDERAL RADIO
COMMISSIONER FROM NEW ENGLAND BECAUSE HE WAS A FORMER REPUBLICAN
NATIONAL COMMITTEEMAN OF TEXAS AND SPENT ONLY THE SUMMER MONTHS IN NEW
ENGLAND.  IN 1935 HE TESTIFIED UNDER OATH IN FLORIDA THAT HIS RESIDENCE
WAS TEXAS, WITH A WINTER HOME IN FLORIDA AND A SUMMER HOME IN NEW
BEDFORD.  IN THAT YEAR HE RETURNED TO THE TEXAS CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE A
CERTIFICATE WHICH DESCRIBED HIM AS OF MASSACHUSETTS, WITH THE
STATEMENT:  "I HAVE NEVER CHANGED MY LEGAL RESIDENCE FROM TERRELL,
TEXAS." 

IF DECLARATIONS WERE ALONE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE, THE
RECORD WOULD LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT GREEN WAS DOMICILED IN TEXAS UNTIL THE
TIME OF HIS DEATH.  BUT IN THIS CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
GREEN NEVER PAID AN INCOME TAX OR A PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ON
INTANGIBLES IN ANY STATE, AND THE SPECIAL MASTER WAS OF OPINION THAT
THE DESIRE TO AVOID TAXATION WAS A CONTROLLING MOTIVE FOR GREEN'S
REPEATED DECLARATIONS THAT HE WAS A RESIDENT OF TEXAS LONG AFTER HE HAD
CEASED TO HAVE AN ABIDING PLACE OR ANY ACTIVE CONNECTION WITH AFFAIRS
IN THAT STATE. 

IN JULY, 1911, GREEN REMOVED HIS HOUSEHOLD BELONGINGS TO NEW YORK
CITY, WHERE HE ESTABLISHED HIS DWELLING PLACE IN A HOUSE AT 5 WEST 90TH
STREET, WHICH WAS OWNED BY THE ESTATE OF HIS GRANDFATHER AND ADJOINED A
HOUSE OCCUPIED BY HIS MOTHER.  HE OPENED AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY,
WHICH REMAINED HIS BUSINESS HEADQUARTERS UNTIL HIS DEATH, AND WITH HIS
MOTHER MAINTAINED A JOINT OFFICE IN HER RESIDENCE.  WHEN GREEN CAME TO
NEW YORK HIS MOTHER SETTLED UPON HIM, AS HIS OWN, PROPERTY VALUED AT
$500,000.  UPON HER DEATH IN 1916 HE BECAME ENTITLED TO AN INTEREST IN
THE ESTATE OF HIS GRANDFATHER AGGREGATING $4,500,000, AND UNDER THE
WILL OF HIS MOTHER HE BECAME ENTITLED TO THE INCOME OF ONE-HALF OF HER
ESTATE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS, WHEN HE RECEIVED ONE-HALF OF THE
PRINCIPAL, AGGREGATING ABOUT $33,000,000. 

FOLLOWING HIS MOTHER'S DEATH HE WAS MARRIED, ON JULY 10, 1917, TO
MISS MABEL HARLOW.  THE FOLLOWING WINTER THEY REMOVED FROM THE 90TH
STREET HOUSE TO AN APARTMENT IN THE WALDORF HOTEL, WHERE THEY LIVED
WHEN IN NEW YORK UNTIL THE HOTEL WAS DEMOLISHED IN 1921.  THEN THEY
REMOVED TO THE SHERRY NETHERLANDS HOTEL, WHERE THEY RENTED AND USED A
LARGE SUITE.  HE AT FIRST TOOK A TWO YEAR LEASE ON THE APARTMENT, BUT
FROM MAY 1, 1931, THE RENTAL WAS CONTINUED ON A MONTHLY BASIS.  THE
APARTMENTS WERE FURNISHED BY THE HOTELS; DECEDENT'S FURNITURE,
PICTURES, AND PERSONAL BELONGINGS, MUCH OF WHICH HE HAD BROUGHT FROM
TEXAS, REMAINED AT 5 WEST 90TH STREET UNTIL 1921, WHEN MOST OF THEM
WERE REMOVED TO DECEDENT'S PLACE AT ROUND HILLS, MASSACHUSETTS.  IN
1928 THE REMAINDER WAS SENT TO ROUND HILLS AND THE NEW YORK HOUSE
DEMOLISHED. 

DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS OF HIS LIFE HIS APARTMENT IN NEW YORK WAS
USED ONLY AS A TEMPORARY STOPPING PLACE ON HIS TRIPS NORTH AND SOUTH. 
AT HIS DEATH THE FAMILY BELONGINGS IN THE APARTMENT CONSISTED OF SOME
OF HIS MOTHER'S LETTERS, A PORTION OF HIS STAMP COLLECTION, HIS
INTEREST IN WHICH HAD BEEN SLIGHT SINCE 1927, SOME CLOTHING OF MRS.
GREEN'S, AND A FEW PERSONAL BELONGINGS WORTH LESS THAN $1,000.  HIS
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN NEW YORK AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH
CONSISTED PRINCIPALLY OF HIS COLLECTION OF JEWELS, COINS, CURRENCY AND
STAMPS, HAVING AN AGGREGATE VALUE OF $1,583,221. 

GREEN NEVER REGISTERED OR ATTEMPTED TO VOTE IN NEW YORK.  IN 1916 HE
WAS ASSESSED THERE FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES, BUT THE ASSESSMENT WAS
CANCELLED UPON HIS SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS DECLARING THAT HIS LEGAL
RESIDENCE WAS IN TEXAS.  TO THE SUGGESTION OF A FRIEND MADE IN 1917
THAT HE BUILD A HOME ON LONG ISLAND, HE REPLIED THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO
DO SO AS HE DID NOT WISH TO PAY TAXES IN NEW YORK.  AND LATER HE STATED
THAT HE DESIRED TO BUILD ON HIS MOTHER'S PLACE AT ROUND HILLS IN
MASSACHUSETTS.  DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1911 TO 1921 HE WAS ACTIVE IN
BUSINESS AFFAIRS IN NEW YORK.  HE MANAGED HIS OWN FORTUNE, WHICH
AMOUNTED TO APPROXIMATELY $6,000,000 AFTER HIS MOTHER'S DEATH.  HE ALSO
ASSISTED IN MANAGING HER EXTENSIVE BUSINESS INTERESTS AND AFTER HER
DEATH WAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED AS EXECUTOR AND TRUSTEE IN LOOKING AFTER HER
LARGE ESTATE, INCLUDING SEVERAL FAMILY-OWNED HOLDING CORPORATIONS. 
DECEDENT BECAME A DIRECTOR OF A NEW YORK NATIONAL BANK AND A DIRECTOR
OF TWO IMPORTANT TRUST COMPANIES AND REGULARLY ATTENDED THEIR MEETINGS
AND PARTICIPATED IN THEIR AFFAIRS UNTIL ABOUT 1921.  HE MAINTAINED
LARGE DEPOSIT BALANCES IN NEW YORK BANKS; HIS PERSONAL SECURITIES WERE
KEPT IN SAFE DEPOSIT VAULTS THERE.  HE DID NOT ENJOY NEW YORK LIFE AND
SOMETIMES EXPRESSED DISLIKE OF ITS PEOPLE AND BUSINESS PRACTICES. 
AFTER HIS ILLNESS IN NOVEMBER, 1921, ALL OF HIS ACTIVITIES THERE
CEASED.  HE NEVER THEREAFTER ATTENDED TRUSTEES' OR DIRECTORS' MEETINGS,
OR WENT TO HIS NEW YORK OFFICE. 

AFTER HIS MARRIAGE IN 1917 GREEN SPENT A PART OF THE SUMMER NEAR
ROUND HILLS, MASSACHUSETTS, IN THE VICINITY OF DARTMOUTH, WHICH WAS THE
PROPERTY HE HAD INHERITED FROM HIS MOTHER.  ON HIS FIRST VISIT ON A
YACHTING TRIP IN 1917 HE DETERMINED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY INTO A
LARGE COUNTRY ESTATE AND BUILD THERE AN IMPOSING RESIDENCE.  WITH THAT
IN VIEW AND WITH THE CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF HIS SISTER HE BEGAN TO
DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN THE FALL OF THAT YEAR BY CLEARING THE LAND,
CONSTRUCTING BREAKWATERS, WHARVES, WATER TANKS, PUMPING PLANT,
GREENHOUSES AND WORKMEN'S COTTAGES.  FROM THEN UNTIL 1921 DEVELOPMENT
OF THE PROPERTY WAS HIS PRINCIPAL INTEREST AND OCCUPATION.  WHILE THE
WORK WAS GOING FORWARD DECEDENT SPENT MUCH TIME ON HIS YACHT OR AT A
HOTEL IN THE VICINITY.  IN JULY OF 1921 THE HOUSE WAS READY FOR
OCCUPANCY, AND FROM THEN UNTIL SHORTLY BEFORE HIS DEATH HE SPENT MORE
TIME THERE ALMOST EVERY YEAR THAN AT ANY OTHER PLACE, USUALLY COMING TO
ROUND HILLS IMMEDIATELY AFTER JULY 1ST, EVIDENTLY BECAUSE TAXES WERE
ASSESSED AS OF THAT DATE, AND REMAINING JUST SHORT OF SIX MONTHS EACH
YEAR. 

BETWEEN 1917 AND 1926 GREEN EXPENDED ON THE ROUND HILLS ESTATE IN
EXCESS OF $6,688,000.  TO THE LAND INHERITED FROM HIS MOTHER HE ADDED
BY PURCHASE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY ADJOINING ACRES.  THE HOUSE WAS LARGE
AND IMPOSING - INDEED, SOMEWHAT "INSTITUTIONAL" IN APPEARANCE, THERE
HAVING APPARENTLY BEEN SOME THOUGHT, WHICH HE NEVER CARRIED OUT, OF
CONVERTING IT INTO AN INSTITUTION AS A MEMORIAL TO THE GREEN AND
HOWLAND FAMILIES AFTER HIS OWN AND HIS SISTER'S DEATH.  UPON THE
PROPERTY WERE SOME SIXTY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING THE USUAL OUTBUILDINGS
OF A LARGE COUNTRY ESTATE, SWIMMING POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, RADIO
BROADCASTING STATIONS, AN AIRPORT, AIRSHIP HANGAR AND DOCK.  THE HOUSE
WAS DESIGNED AS A COMMODIOUS RESIDENCE, WITH CAREFULLY PLANNED
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR FAMILY, GUESTS, AND FOR A FULL COMPLEMENT OF
SERVANTS. 

SPECIAL FURNITURE WAS DESIGNED FOR THE HOUSE, BUT FURNISHINGS FROM 5
WEST 90TH STREET IN NEW YORK WERE ALSO BROUGHT TO IT, INCLUDING FAMILY
POSSESSIONS AND HEIRLOOMS, TWO OIL PORTRAITS OF HIS MOTHER, ANOTHER OF
HIS GRANDFATHER, PERSONAL COLLECTIONS OF PRINTS AND ENGRAVINGS OF
WHALING SHIPS AND SCENES, AND FRAMED CERTIFICATES OF HIS MEMBERSHIP IN
VARIOUS HISTORICAL SOCIETIES.  GREEN ASSEMBLED THERE A WELL CHOSEN
LIBRARY OF MISCELLANEOUS AND SCIENTIFIC BOOKS, INCLUDING MANY RARE
VOLUMES ON THE HISTORY OF NEW ENGLAND AND ACCOUNTS OF THE WHALING
INDUSTRY, ON WHICH THE FAMILY FORTUNE HAD BEEN FOUNDED.  IN A VAULT IN
THE BASEMENT WAS ASSEMBLED A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF HIS COLLECTION OF
JEWELRY, COINS, AND STAMPS. 

IN THE SOCIAL LIFE OF THE COUNTRYSIDE HE TOOK NO PART, BUT HE
ASSOCIATED FREELY WITH EMPLOYEES AND TRADESMEN AND VISITORS INTERESTED
IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.  HE DEVELOPED ON A LARGE SCALE HIS INTEREST IN
VARIOUS SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES, ESPECIALLY PHOTOGRAPHY, RADIO, AND
AVIATION.  A NUMBER OF HIS BUILDINGS AND RADIO FACILITIES WERE PLACED
AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR
EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES, AND HE CONTRIBUTED HIS OWN FUNDS TO THE COST OF
EXPERIMENTS.  ON HIS PROPERTY HE ESTABLISHED AN AIRPORT AND A SCHOOL
FOR AVIATORS.  HE ARRANGED TO HAVE THE "CHARLES W. MORGAN," AN OLD
WHALING SHIP, TRANSFERRED TO WHALING ENSHRINED, INC., TO WHICH HE GAVE
A STRIP OF THE SHORE AT ROUND HILLS WHERE HE ESTABLISHED THE VESSEL AND
MAINTAINED IT AS A MUSEUM WHICH HE KEPT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.  HIS
GROUNDS AND BATHING BEACH WERE ALSO OPENED TO THE PUBLIC, MEMBERS OF
WHICH VISITED THEM IN LARGE NUMBERS. 

OWING TO HIS FAILING HEALTH MOST OF THESE ACTIVITIES, THOUGH NOT HIS
INTEREST IN THEM, WERE CURTAILED DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS OF HIS
LIFE, BUT HE CONTINUED TO SPEND MOST OF THE SUMMER AND THE EARLY FALL
AT ROUND HILLS UNTIL THE YEAR OF HIS DEATH, AND ALL OF HIS PERSONAL AND
INTIMATE BELONGINGS REMAINED THERE.  HE TOLD A FRIEND THAT HE HOPED TO
BE THERE WHEN HE DIED; AND HIS REMAINS WERE BROUGHT THERE FROM LAKE
PLACID FOR THE FUNERAL SERVICE.  GREEN NEVER VOTED IN MASSACHUSETTS OR
OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED ROUND HILLS AS HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE, INVARIABLY
GIVING AS HIS REASON THAT HE WISHED TO AVOID PAYING TAXES THERE.  WHEN
A DEMAND WAS MADE UPON HIM BY MASSACHUSETTS OFFICIALS FOR PAYMENT OF
INCOME TAX IN 1928, HE DECLINED TO FILE A RETURN ON THE GROUND THAT HIS
LEGAL RESIDENCE WAS TERRELL, TEXAS.  NO INCOME OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX
ON INTANGIBLES WAS PAID BY HIM IN MASSACHUSETTS. 

IN 1923 HE WAS ADVISED BY HIS PHYSICIAN, FOLLOWING AN OPERATION AND
ILLNESS, TO GO TO FLORIDA.  HE SPENT THE FOLLOWING WINTER THERE IN
HOTELS OR UPON BOATS IN THE VICINITY OF MIAMI AND JACKSONVILLE.  IN
APRIL, 1924, HE BOUGHT LAND ON STAR ISLAND, NEAR MIAMI BEACH, AND BEGAN
LANDSCAPING WORK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DOCK.  IN JANUARY, 1925, HE
RETURNED TO MIAMI BEACH, LIVING ON A HOUSEBOAT NEAR STAR ISLAND FOR
ABOUT THREE AND A HALF MONTHS.  WHILE THERE HE PURCHASED ADDITIONAL
LOTS AND BEGAN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING. 

PART OF THE FOLLOWING WINTER WAS SPENT ON HIS HOUSEBOAT NEAR STAR
ISLAND, AND THE HOUSE WAS FINALLY COMPLETED AND OCCUPIED AS A WINTER
RESIDENCE IN 1927.  IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS, UNTIL HIS DEATH, HE SPENT
ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF MONTHS EACH WINTER AT STAR ISLAND, BETWEEN
JANUARY AND MAY.  THE HOUSE, COSTING OVER $600,000, WAS FULLY EQUIPPED
AS A WINTER RESIDENCE, WITH AMPLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR FAMILY, GUESTS,
AND SERVANTS.  HIS TOTAL EXPENDITURES THERE AMOUNTED TO ABOUT
$1,500,000.  THE HOUSE WAS FURNISHED WITH NEW SPECIALLY MADE FURNITURE,
AND IT CONTAINED, WITH NEGLIGIBLE EXCEPTIONS, NO PICTURES, BOOKS,
FURNITURE, OR MEMENTOS OF INTIMATE PERSONAL OR FAMILY ASSOCIATION.  AS
IN HIS OTHER PLACES OF RESIDENCE, HE TOOK LITTLE PART IN THE SOCIAL
LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY.  IN FLORIDA HE NEVER CARRIED ON ANY OF THE
ACTIVITIES OR EXPERIMENTS WITH WHICH HE HAD OCCUPIED HIMSELF IN TEXAS
OR MASSACHUSETTS.  HIS LIFE IN FLORIDA WAS TYPICAL, ON THE WHOLE, OF A
SEMI-INVALID SEEKING HEALTH THERE DURING THE WINTER MONTHS.  HE BUSIED
HIMSELF FOR THE MOST PART WITH AUTOMOBILE RIDES, CRUISING IN NEARBY
WATERS, AND IN WORKING ON HIS COLLECTIONS, PARTS OF WHICH HE HAD
BROUGHT WITH HIM FROM MASSACHUSETTS.    GREEN OCCASIONALLY SPOKE TO
FRIENDS OF FLORIDA AS HIS HOME, SAYING TO ONE:  "THIS IS MY HOME AND I
EXPECT TO LIVE HERE THE REST OF MY DAYS."  HE NEVER VOTED IN FLORIDA OR
PAID INTANGIBLE PROPERTY TAXES THERE, ALTHOUGH SUBJECT TO SUCH TAXES IF
A RESIDENT; IN 1933 HE DECLARED TO THE LOCAL TAX ASSESSOR THAT HIS
LEGAL RESIDENCE WAS IN ANOTHER STATE.  IN 1931 AND AGAIN IN 1933 HE WAS
ADVISED BY A FRIEND TO CHANGE HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE FROM TEXAS TO FLORIDA
BECAUSE OF PENDING TAX LEGISLATION IN TEXAS.  HIS ATTORNEY SUGGESTED
THAT AS HE HAD A RESIDENCE IN FLORIDA IT WOULD ONLY BE NECESSARY TO
MAKE ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS INTENTION.  BUT HE TOOK NO SUCH ACTION AND IN
MARCH OF 1935 TESTIFIED IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN FLORIDA THAT TEXAS
WAS HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE. 

THE FOUR PERSONS NEAREST TO DECEDENT IN LIFE, HIS WIFE, HIS SISTER,
HIS OFFICE MANAGER, AND HIS SECRETARY, WERE ABLE TO THROW LITTLE LIGHT
ON HIS PURPOSES AND INTENTION WITH RESPECT TO HIS DOMICILE.  MRS.
GREEN, WHO WAS A PARTY TO THE PRESENT SUIT, ASSERTED BY HER ANSWER THAT
TEXAS WAS THE DOMICILE OF HERSELF AND HER HUSBAND.  AFTER SETTLEMENT
WITH MRS. WILKS, THE SISTER, OF HER CLAIMS UPON THE ESTATE, THE SUIT
WAS DISCONTINUED AS TO MRS. GREEN.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO
INDICATE THAT SHE HAS SINCE CLAIMED OR RESUMED HER DOMICILE IN TEXAS. 
ON THE CONTRARY, SHE REMAINED AT ROUND HILLS FOR SIX MONTHS AFTER
GREEN'S DEATH.  THE SPECIAL MASTER CONCLUDED THAT HER POSITION WITH
REFERENCE TO HER HUSBAND'S DOMICILE WAS INFLUENCED BY THE ADVANTAGES
WHICH MIGHT ACCRUE TO HER FROM THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS OF TEXAS. 
THE SISTER, BY HER ANSWER IN THIS CASE AS WELL AS IN THE NEW YORK
PROCEEDING WHERE SHE CLAIMED UNDER HER BROTHER'S WILL, IN WHICH HE
DECLARED TEXAS TO BE HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE, DENIED THAT HER BROTHER WAS A
RESIDENT OF TEXAS, AND IN THIS PROCEEDING SHE ASSERTS THAT HIS DOMICILE
AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH WAS IN MASSACHUSETTS.  NEITHER HIS WIFE NOR
HIS SISTER HAS GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN
GREEN'S DECLARATIONS AND HIS ACTIONS OR THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THEMSELVES
UPON THE ISSUE OF DOMICILE.  ALL DECEDENT'S BOOKS AND PAPERS WERE MADE
AVAILABLE BY HIS OFFICE MANAGER, WHO TESTIFIED THAT FROM THE INCEPTION
OF THEIR BUSINESS ASSOCIATION IN NEW YORK UNTIL DECEDENT'S DEATH, HE
CLAIMED TEXAS AS HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE AND GAVE INSTRUCTIONS THAT IN ALL
FORMAL DOCUMENTS HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE BE STATED AS TEXAS.  HIS
SECRETARY TESTIFIED TO THE SAME EFFECT.  NEITHER WAS ABLE TO GIVE ANY
INTIMATION OF THE REAL INTENTION BEHIND DECEDENT'S DECLARATIONS AND
ACTIONS EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE INFERRED FROM HIS EVIDENT DESIRE AND
FREQUENTLY ANNOUNCED PURPOSE TO ESCAPE OR MINIMIZE TAXES. 

RESIDENCE IN FACT, COUPLED WITH THE PURPOSE TO MAKE THE PLACE OF
RESIDENCE ONE'S HOME, ARE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF DOMICILE.  MITCHELL
V. UNITED STATES, 21 WALL.  350; PANNILL V. ROANOKE TIMES CO., 252 F.
910; BEEKMAN V. BEEKMAN, 53 FLA. 858; 43 SO. 923; BABCOCK V. SLATER,
212 MASS. 434; 99 N.E. 173; MATTER OF NEWCOMB, 192 N.Y. 238; 84 N.E.
950; BEALE, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SEC. 15.2.  WE CONCLUDE, AS THE SPECIAL
MASTER FOUND, THAT GREEN CEASED TO HAVE A PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN TEXAS
AFTER 1911.  ABOUT 1914 HE GAVE UP HIS NOMINAL PLACE OF ABODE IN THE
ROOM WHICH HE HAD RENTED IN TERRELL, TEXAS, AND WHICH IN FACT HE HAD
NEVER OCCUPIED.  AFTER THAT HE WAS NEVER IDENTIFIED IN FACT WITH ANY
PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN TEXAS, AND THERE WAS NOTHING IN HIS LIFE TO
CONNECT HIM WITH A TEXAS HOME OTHER THAN HIS FREQUENT STATEMENTS THAT
HIS LEGAL RESIDENCE WAS IN TEXAS.  WHILE ONE'S STATEMENTS MAY SUPPLY
EVIDENCE OF THE INTENTION REQUISITE TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE AT A GIVEN
PLACE OF RESIDENCE, THEY CANNOT SUPPLY THE FACT OF RESIDENCE THERE;
MATTER OF NEWCOMB, SUPRA, 250; MATTER OF TROWBRIDGE, 266 N.Y. 283, 292;
194 N.E. 756; AND THEY ARE OF SLIGHT WEIGHT WHEN THEY CONFLICT WITH THE
FACT.  FEEHAN V. TAX COMM'R, 237 MASS. 169, 171; 129 N.E. 292;
DORRANCE'S ESTATE, 309 PA. 151; 163 A. 303.  THIS IS THE MORE SO WHERE,
AS HERE, DECEDENT'S DECLARATIONS ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY THE
DESIRE TO ESTABLISH A NOMINAL RESIDENCE FOR TAX PURPOSES, DIFFERENT
FROM HIS ACTUAL RESIDENCE IN FACT.  THAYER V. BOSTON, 124 MASS. 132;
FEEHAN V. TAX COMM'R, SUPRA; MATTER OF TROWBRIDGE, SUPRA; BEALE, SUPRA,
SEC. 41C.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACTUAL FACT AS TO THE PLACE OF
RESIDENCE AND DECEDENT'S REAL ATTITUDE AND INTENTION WITH RESPECT TO IT
AS DISCLOSED BY HIS ENTIRE COURSE OF CONDUCT ARE THE CONTROLLING
FACTORS IN ASCERTAINING HIS DOMICILE.  THAYER V. BOSTON, SUPRA.  WHEN
ONE INTENDS THE FACTS TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES CONSEQUENCES, HE MUST
ABIDE THE CONSEQUENCES WHETHER INTENDED OR NOT.  NATIONAL CITY BANK V.
HOTCHKISS, 231 U.S. 50, 56; DICKINSON V. BROOKLINE, 181 MASS. 195, 196;
63 N.E. 331. 

WHATEVER FLOATING INTENTION GREEN MAY HAVE HAD AFTER 1911 TO RETURN
TO TEXAS AND TO MAKE HIS HOME THERE, IT IS PLAIN THAT IT RECEDED INTO
THE BACKGROUND AFTER HIS MOTHER'S DEATH AND HAD COMPLETELY VANISHED
WHEN HE BEGAN TO BUILD UP HIS EXTENSIVE ESTATE AT ROUND HILLS IN
MASSACHUSETTS.  WHEN HE HAD ESTABLISHED HIMSELF THERE ALL THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS LIFE INDICATED THAT HIS REAL ATTITUDE AND
INTENTION WITH RESPECT TO HIS RESIDENCE THERE WERE TO MAKE IT HIS
PRINCIPAL HOME OR ABIDING PLACE TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS.  THIS IS
CLEARLY INDICATED BY THE FACT THAT IT WAS THE PLACE MOST ASSOCIATED
WITH HIS FAMILY HISTORY, BY THE SCALE ON WHICH HE BUILT, BY HIS
ASSEMBLING THERE THE FURNISHINGS AND OBJECTS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH
HIS EARLIER HOMES AND WITH HIS FAMILY LIFE, AND BY CENTERING THERE ALL
THE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO HIS CHIEF INTERESTS - HIS MECHANICAL AND
SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS, HIS DEVELOPMENT OF RADIO AND AVIATION, AND HIS
EFFORTS TO PRESERVE RECORDS AND MEMENTOS OF THE WHALING INDUSTRY WITH
WHICH HIS MOTHER'S FAMILY HAD BEEN ASSOCIATED.  HE SPENT MORE TIME
THERE THAN AT ANY OTHER PLACE, EVIDENTLY CURTAILING HIS STAYS ONLY TO
AVOID THE POSSIBLE DANGER OF BEING SUBJECTED TO MASSACHUSETTS
TAXATION.  HIS CONCEPTION OF LEGAL RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE AS A MENTAL
STATE WHEREBY HE COULD OBTAIN CERTAIN POLITICAL ADVANTAGES AND FREEDOM
FROM TAXATION DOES NOT WEIGH AGAINST THIS CONCLUSION.  HE COULD NOT
ELECT TO MAKE HIS HOME IN ONE PLACE IN POINT OF INTEREST AND ATTACHMENT
AND FOR THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF LIFE, AND IN ANOTHER, WHERE HE IN FACT
HAD NO RESIDENCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION.  FEEHAN V. TAX COMM'R,
SUPRA, 171; 129 N.E. 292; MATTER OF TROWBRIDGE, SUPRA. 

THERE IS LITTLE TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT GREEN EVER INTENDED TO
MAKE HIS PERMANENT HOME IN NEW YORK.  THE EXIGENCIES OF CARING FOR HIS
MOTHER AND HER PROPERTY AND OF MANAGING HER ESTATE AFTER HER DEATH
DEMANDED HIS PRESENCE THERE.  BUT APART FROM THESE DEMANDS LIFE THERE
GAVE HIM NO OPPORTUNITY TO GRATIFY HIS SPECIAL TASTES AND INTERESTS. 
THE NEAREST SEMBLANCE TO A HOME THERE, 5 WEST 90TH STREET, WAS
ABANDONED WHEN HE REMOVED ITS FURNISHINGS TO ROUND HILLS.  AFTER THAT
NEW YORK SAW LITTLE OF HIM, AND THERE WAS LITTLE IN HIS LIFE TO SUGGEST
THAT HE TREATED IT OR IN HIS OWN MIND REGARDED IT AS HIS REAL HOME OR
ABIDING PLACE.  WHATEVER HIS PURPOSE MAY HAVE BEEN BEFORE THAT TIME,
AFTER THE OCCUPANCY OF THE ROUND HILLS RESIDENCE THE PHYSICAL FACTS OF
RESIDENCE UNITED WITH THE MAJOR INTERESTS OF HIS LIFE TO FIX UPON THAT
AS HIS PLACE OF DOMICILE.  GILBERT V. DAVID, 235 U.S. 561, 570.  IN
POINT OF FACT AND PURPOSE IT BECAME HIS "PREEMINENT HEADQUARTERS,"
WHICH IS THE ESSENCE OF TECHNICAL DOMICILE.  WILLIAMSON V. OSENTON, 232
U.S. 619, 625. 

THE RETENTION OF HIS APARTMENT AT THE SHERRY NETHERLANDS HOTEL IN NEW
YORK, UPON TEMPORARY LEASE, AND HIS OCCUPATION OF IT DURING THE LATER
YEARS OF HIS LIFE FOR SHORT STAYS WHEN PASSING THROUGH NEW YORK ON HIS
WAY TO AND FROM FLORIDA, ARE WITHOUT WEIGHT TO TURN THE SCALES AGAINST
THE PREPONDERATING EVIDENCE THAT HIS REAL HOME WAS IN MASSACHUSETTS. 
FROM 1921 ON THE NEW YORK APARTMENT FURNISHED NONE OF THE PHYSICAL
ASPECTS OF A HOME, AND EVIDENCE IS WANTING THAT THE DECEASED EVER
REGARDED OR TREATED IT AS SUCH. 

PROOF IS WANTING ALSO THAT THE DOMICILE ESTABLISHED IN MASSACHUSETTS
WAS ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF THE FLORIDA HOUSE WHICH HE BUILT THERE IN
1927.  FLORIDA ARGUES THE SUPERIOR ATTACTIVENESS AND MERITS OF THAT
STATE FOR PURPOSES OF A HOME OVER THE MORE AUSTERE ENVIRONMENT OF ROUND
HILLS, BUT THERE IS LITTLE IN THE RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT SUCH AN APPEAL
WAS PERSUASIVE TO DECEDENT OR THAT ROUND HILLS HAD CEASED TO BE WHAT IT
BECAME WHEN HE ESTABLISHED HIMSELF THERE - FIRST IN HIS INTEREST AND
ATTACHMENT.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES FLORIDA CARRIES THE BURDEN OF
SHOWING THAT THE EARLIER DOMICILE WAS ABANDONED IN FAVOR OF A LATER
ONE.  MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 352; ANDERSON V. WATT, 138 U.S.
694, 706; MATTER OF NEWCOMB, SUPRA, 250; BEALE, SUPRA, SEC. 41A.  THAT
BURDEN IS NOT SUSTAINED BY SHOWING A PERIOD OF WINTER RESIDENCE THERE
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE DEMANDS OF HEALTH, IN THE ABSENCE THERE OF THE
ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH DECEDENT'S CHIEF INTERESTS AND OF THE
OBJECTS OF THOSE INTERESTS AND OF INTIMATE FAMILY ASSOCIATION, WITH
WHICH HE HAD SURROUNDED HIMSELF AT ROUND HILLS. 

THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER IS CONFIRMED.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR A DECREE WILL BE ADOPTED AND THE
PARTIES MAY SUBMIT A PROPOSED FORM OF DECREE.  SO ORDERED. 

FN1  THE ALLEGATIONS ARE THAT ON JULY 28, 1936, DECEDENT'S WIFE WAS
APPOINTED TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATRIX OF DECEDENT'S ESTATE IN TEXAS ON AN
ALLEGATION THAT GREEN HAD DIED INTESTATE AND WAS DOMICILED AT DEATH IN
TEXAS; THAT ON AUGUST 1, 1936, A PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN BY DECEDENT'S
SISTER IN THE SURROGATE'S COURT OF ESSEX COUNTY, NEW YORK, FOR THE
PROBATE OF DECEDENT'S WILL AND FOR HER CONFIRMATION AS THE EXECUTRIX
NAMED IN THE WILL, IN WHICH PROCEEDING SHE ALLEGED THAT DECEDENT, A NON
RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, HAD DIED THERE, LEAVING PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE STATE, AND IN WHICH PROCEEDING A TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR WAS
APPOINTED AND DECEDENT'S WIFE AND THE NEW YORK TAX COMMISSIONER ENTERED
THEIR APPEARANCES; THAT ON AUGUST 31, 1936, DECEDENT'S WIFE COMMENCED
AN ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN TEXAS
AGAINST DECEDENT'S SISTER TO DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF THE FORMER IN THE
ESTATE OF DECEDENT BY REASON OF AN ALLEGED ANTENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WHICH
PURPORTED TO EXCLUDE THE WIFE FROM ANY INTEREST IN DECEDENT'S PROPERTY;
THAT ON OCTOBER 21, 1936, ON APPLICATION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS
COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS AND TAXATION, A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT WAS APPOINTED BY A MASSACHUSETTS PROBATE COURT
TO TAKE POSSESSION OF AND CONSERVE DECEDENT'S PROPERTY IN THAT
COMMONWEALTH; AND THAT ON JANUARY 4, 1937, THE COUNTY JUDGES' COURT OF
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPOINTED DECEDENT'S WIDOW ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF HER HUSBAND LOCATED IN FLORIDA. 

FN2  THE SPECIAL MASTER HAS FOUND AS FOLLOWS:  THE NET ESTATE, AFTER
PAYMENT OF DEBTS AND ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES OTHER THAN DEATH TAXES,
WILL AMOUNT TO $36,137,335; AND THE TANGIBLE PROPERTY TAXABLE IN THE
STATE OF ITS SITUS IS AS FOLLOWS: 

TEXAS ..................................     $2,220.00 

FLORIDA ................................    222,276.00 

NEW YORK ...............................  1,583,221.00 

MASSACHUSETTS ..........................  2,498,707.00 

DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH HAD A VALUE OF
$35,831,303.  THE PAPER EVIDENCES OF DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES WERE
LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE STATES OF TEXAS, FLORIDA, AND MASSACHUSETTS. 
"THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE SHARES OF STOCK IN AND OBLIGATIONS OF
CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS ORGANIZED OR HAVING A PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN TEXAS, MASSACHUSETTS AND FLORIDA, RESPECTIVELY, AND OF THE
OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS RESIDING IN SAID STATES AND OF THE OBLIGATIONS
OF SAID STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH THE
VALUE OF THE REAL ESTATE AND TANGIBLE PROPERTY IN TEXAS, MASSACHUSETTS
AND FLORIDA, RESPECTIVELY, IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX CLAIMED
BY EACH OF SAID STATES AND THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAX CLAIMED BY TEXAS,
MASSACHUSETTS AND FLORIDA, RESPECTIVELY, GREATLY EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COURTS AND
FROM WHICH THE TAX MIGHT BE COLLECTED IN ANY PROCEEDING IN SAID
COURTS."  THE SPECIAL MASTER FOUND THAT THE DEATH TAXES DUE TO THE
UNITED STATES, AND DUE TO EACH STATE, IF ITS CONTENTIONS BE SUSTAINED,
ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

UNITED STATES ...........................  $17,520,987 

TEXAS ...................................    4,685,057 

FLORIDA .................................    4,663,857 

NEW YORK ................................    5,910,301 

MASSACHUSETTS ...........................    4,947,008

   TOTAL ..............................  $37,727,213 

THIS EXCEEDS THE TOTAL NET ESTATE BY THE SUM OF $1,589,877.  IN
ADDITION THE STATE OF NEW YORK ASSERTS A CLAIM FOR UNPAID PERSONAL
INCOME TAXES OF $920,827. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER. 

THE AUTHORITY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS COMMITTED TO THIS COURT OVER
"CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN TWO OR MORE STATES," SERVES IMPORTANT ENDS IN
THE WORKING OF OUR FEDERALISM.  BUT THERE ARE PRACTICAL LIMITS TO THE
EFFICACY OF THE ADJUDICATORY PROCESS IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF INTERSTATE
CONTROVERSIES.  THE LIMITATIONS OF LITIGATION - ITS EPISODIC CHARACTER,
ITS NECESSARILY RESTRICTED SCOPE OF INQUIRY, ITS CONFINED REGARD FOR
CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY, ITS DEPENDENCE ON THE CONTINGENCIES OF A
PARTICULAR RECORD, AND OTHER CIRCUMSCRIBING FACTORS - OFTEN DENATURE
AND EVEN MUTILATE THE ACTUALITIES OF A PROBLEM AND THEREBY RENDER THE
LITIGIOUS PROCESS UNSUITED FOR ITS SOLUTION.  CONSIDERATIONS SUCH AS
THESE HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME LED THIS COURT OR SOME OF ITS MOST
DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS EITHER TO DEPRECATE RESORT TO THIS COURT BY
STATES FOR SETTLEMENT OF THEIR CONTROVERSIES (SEE NEW YORK V. NEW
JERSEY, 256 U.S. 296, 313), OR TO OPPOSE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION
(SEE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY IN PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING BRIDGE CO., 13
HOW.  518, 579, 592, IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1852(10
STAT. 112), AND PENNSYLVANIA V. WHEELING BRIDGE CO., 18 HOW.  421; MR.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS IN PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262 U.S. 553, 605). 
FN1 

THE PRESUPPOSITION OF JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE IS THE COMMON LAW
DOCTRINE OF A SINGLE DOMICILIARY STATUS.  THAT FOR PURPOSES OF LEGAL
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES A PERSON MUST HAVE ONE DOMICILE, AND CAN HAVE
ONLY ONE, IS AN HISTORIC RULE OF THE COMMON LAW AND JUSTIFIED BY MUCH
GOOD SENSE.  NEVERTHELESS, IT OFTEN REPRESENTS A FICTION.  CERTAINLY IN
MANY SITUATIONS THE DETERMINATION OF A MAN'S DOMICILE IS BY NO MEANS
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EVENT OR A FACT THAT EXISTS IN NATURE.  EVEN
ASSUMING THAT THERE IS GENERAL AGREEMENT AS TO THE ELEMENTS WHICH IN
COMBINATION CONSTITUTE DOMICILE, A SLIGHT SHIFT OF EMPHASIS IN APPLYING
THE FORMULA PRODUCES CONTRADICTORY RESULTS.  BUT, ON THE WHOLE, THE
DOCTRINE OF DOMICILE HAS ADEQUATELY SERVED AS A PRACTICAL WORKING RULE
IN THE SIMPLER SOCIETIES OUT OF WHICH IT AROSE.  MORE PARTICULARLY, ITS
DIFFICULTIES OF APPLICATION WERE CIRCUMSCRIBED WHEN WEALTH
PREDOMINANTLY CONSISTED OF REALTY AND TANGIBLES, AND WHEN RESTRICTED
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION CONDITIONED FIXITY OF
RESIDENCE.  IN VIEW OF THE ENORMOUS EXTENT TO WHICH INTANGIBLES NOW
CONSTITUTE WEALTH, AND THE INCREASING MOBILITY OF MEN, PARTICULARLY MEN
OF SUBSTANCE, THE NECESSITY OF A SINGLE HEADQUARTERS FOR ALL LEGAL
PURPOSES, PARTICULARLY FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION, TENDS TO BE A LESS AND
LESS USEFUL FICTION.  IN THE SETTING OF MODERN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE
INFLEXIBLE DOCTRINE OF DOMICILE - ONE MAN, ONE HOME - IS IN DANGER OF
BECOMING A SOCIAL ANACHRONISM.  RECENT APPLICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
OF THIS RULE TO SATISFY THE VAGUE CONTOURS OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
HAVE HARDLY MITIGATED ITS INADEQUACIES FOR OUR DAY.  E.G., FRICK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473; BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1; FARMERS
LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V.
MAINE, 284 U.S. 312. 

THE FACTS IN THIS CASE DOUBTLESS PRESENT A BIZARRE STORY.  BUT IN
GREEN'S PEREGRINATIONS FROM STATE TO STATE, IN THE MULTIPLICITY OF HIS
RESIDENCES, AND IN THE CONFLICTING APPEALS WHICH VARIOUS STATES MADE
UPON HIS INTERESTS FROM TIME TO TIME, THE CASE IS HARDLY UNIQUE NOR ARE
ANALOGUES TO IT UNLIKELY TO APPEAR IN THE FUTURE.  AS A RESULT, THIS
COURT IS ASKED TO DETERMINE THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF DIFFERENT STATES
OF THE UNION TO A SHARE OF THE ESTATE OF INDIVIDUALS WHO, AS A MATTER
OF HARD FACT, AT DIFFERENT PERIODS AND CONTEMPORANEOUSLY INVOKED AND
ENJOYED SUCH BENEFITS AS THE EXISTENCE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS CONFER.  IT
IS ASKED TO DO SO BY APPLYING AN OLD DOCTRINE OF LIMITED VALIDITY TO
MODERN CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREBY, THROUGH THE ELUSIVE SEARCH FOR AN OFTEN
NON-EXISTENT FACT CALLED DOMICILE, ONLY ONE STATE TO THE EXCLUSION OF
ALL OTHERS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO LEVY A TAX.  THE INHERENT DIFFICULTIES
OF THIS PROBLEM HAVE BEEN WIDELY RECOGNIZED.  FN2  THE OLD FORMULAS ARE
SIMPLY INADEQUATE TO THE NEW SITUATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS NOT
FOR THIS COURT IN THESE CASES OF MULTIPLE RESIDENCES TO EVOLVE NEW
TAXING POLICIES BASED ON MORE EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS THAN THE ALL-OR
NOTHING CONSEQUENCE OF THE OLD DOMICILIARY RULE. 

I AM NOT UNAWARE OF THE DILEMMA PRESENTED BY SUCH A SITUATION AS THE
DORRANCE LITIGATION.  FN3 THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE GREEN ESTATE
DO NOT PRECLUDE LIKE POSSIBILITIES.  BUT MERELY BECAUSE NO OTHER MEANS
THAN LITIGATION HAVE AS YET BEEN EVOLVED TO ADJUST THE CONFLICTING
CLAIMS OF SEVERAL STATES IN A SINGLE ESTATE IS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON
FOR UTILIZING AS A BASIS OF OUR JURISDICTION OVERSIMPLIFIED FORMULAS OF
THE PAST THAT HAVE LARGELY LOST THEIR RELEVANCE IN THE CONTEMPORARY
CONTEXT. 

THE CONTROLLING ASSUMPTION IN TAKING JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE IS
THAT THE ASCERTAINMENT OF A SINGLE DOMICILE FOR GREEN IS MERELY THE
DETERMINATION OF A FACT.  THE AUXILIARY ASSUMPTION IS THE EXISTENCE OF
SOLID DANGER THAT THE HIGHEST COURTS OF FOUR STATES WILL ASCERTAIN THIS
FACT IN FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS.  TEXAS HAS NO STANDING HERE EXCEPT ON THE
BASIS THAT THREE STATE COURTS WILL DESPOIL HER OF HER RIGHTS BY LEAVING
NO ASSETS IN THE ESTATE OUT OF WHICH TO SATISFY HER CLAIM.  BUT THE
FACT THAT THE POLITICAL OFFICERS OF FOUR STATES MAKE CLAIMS TO AN
ESTATE SO AS TO SAFEGUARD ANY POSSIBLE INTEREST, IS HARDLY A
SUBSTANTIAL REASON FOR ASSUMING THAT THEIR JUDICIARIES WILL SANCTION
THE CLAIMS. 

IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT THE STATE COURTS WILL MAKE FINDINGS
DICTATED SOLELY BY FISCAL ADVANTAGES TO THEIR STATES.  THE CONTRARY
ASSUMPTION MUST BE MADE - AND THE ASSUMPTION RESTS ON ADJUDICATED
EXPERIENCE, E.G., MATTER OF TROWBRIDGE, 266 N.Y. 283; 194 N.E. 756.  TO
THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS DANGER THAT OUT OF THE SAME EVENTS FOUR STATE
COURTS WILL SPELL FOUR DIFFERENT DOMICILES, IT IS INHERENT IN THE
SEARCH FOR A DOMICILIARY STATUS.  THE RESULT IS ARRIVED AT NOT THROUGH
ASCERTAINMENT OF AN EXTERNAL FACT BUT BY ATTRIBUTIONS MADE AS A MATTER
OF LAW TO SATISFY THE SUPPOSED ABSTRACT LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF A SINGLE
DOMICILE NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUALITIES OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR MAY BE.  EVEN
A SMALL CHANGE OF PORTIONS IN THE ADMIXTURE OF FACTORS WHICH IN
COMBINATION YIELD THE LEGAL CONCEPT OF DOMICILE, MAY PLACE THE DOMICILE
IN ONE STATE RATHER THAN ANOTHER AND, THEREBY, GIVE ESTATE DUTIES TO
THIS STATE RATHER THAN THAT.  BUT THE STATE TREASURIES ARE NOT ALONE
UNDER POWERFUL MOTIVES TO EXPLOIT THE DOCTRINE OF DOMICILE.  THE TAX
SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENT STATES HAVE VARYING DEGREES OF ATTRACTION FOR
THOSE IN CONTROL OF AN ESTATE, AND IT IS TO THEIR NATURAL INTEREST TO
SEEK A SINGLE, INCLUSIVE DISPOSITION OF THE ELUSIVE ISSUE OF DOMICILE
BY HAVING THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT INVOKED. 

IT IS HARDLY AN ANSWER THAT THIS COURT CAN PROTECT ITSELF AGAINST
FEIGNED CONTROVERSIES.  THE DIFFICULTY IS THAT IN THESE MODERN MULTIPLE
RESIDENCE SITUATIONS THE ISSUE OF DOMICILE IS TOO OFTEN AN INHERENTLY
FEIGNED ISSUE.  TWO STATE COURTS CAN VERY LEGITIMATELY FIND TWO
DIFFERENT DOMICILES, IN THAT TWO EQUALLY COMPETENT TRIBUNALS UTILIZING
THE SAME OUTWARD FACTS IN THE ALEMBIC OF THE SAME COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF
DOMICILE MAY EASILY DISTIL CONTRADICTORY CONCLUSIONS.  MERELY TO AVOID
SUCH A CONFLICT IS NOT ENOUGH TO GIVE JURISDICTION.  FN4  THE VARIANT
THAT THIS CASE PRESENTS IS THE ALLEGATION THAT IF THE CLAIMS OF ALL
FOUR STATES PREVAIL THE ESTATE WOULD BE MORE THAN EATEN UP AND TEXAS
WOULD LOSE HER POTENTIAL RIGHT.  THIS ADDED REQUIREMENT - THE
ABSORPTION OF THE ENTIRE ESTATE BY HAVING NUMEROUS STATES STAKE OUT
CLAIMS - IS TOO READILY SUPPLIED. 

TO EXTEND THE NEAT PROCEDURAL DEVICE OF INTERPLEADER TO SUCH A
SITUATION IS ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF TRANSFERRING A REMEDY FROM ONE
LEGAL ENVIRONMENT TO CIRCUMSTANCES QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT.  TO SETTLE
THE INTERESTS OF DIFFERENT CLAIMANTS TO A SINGLE RES WHERE THESE
INTERESTS TURN ON NARROW AND RELATIVELY FEW FACTS AND WHERE CONFLICTING
CLAIMS CANNOT HAVE EQUAL VALIDITY IN EXPERIENCE, IS ONE THING; IT IS A
WHOLLY DIFFERENT THING TO BRING INTO COURT IN A SINGLE SUIT ALL STATES
WHICH EVEN REMOTELY MIGHT ASSERT DOMICILIARY CLAIMS AGAINST A DECEDENT
AND WHERE ONE STATE COURT MIGHT WITH AS MUCH REASON AS ANOTHER FIND
DOMICILE WITHIN ITS STATE.  CERTAINLY WHEN THE CLAIM OF THE MOVING
STATE IS SO OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT BASIS AS THIS COURT HAS NOW FOUND IN THE
CASE OF TEXAS, THE LINCHPIN OF JURISDICTION IS GONE AND THE OTHER
STATES SHOULD BE REMITTED TO APPROPRIATE REMEDIES OUTSIDE THIS COURT. 
SUCH A DISPOSITION WOULD BE A REAL SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A SUIT TO GIVE THIS COURT JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS WHICH AS SUCH,
THIS COURT HAS ALREADY HELD, ARE NOT WITHIN OUR PROVINCE.  FN5  TO FIND
THAT THE DECEDENT COULD NOT, ON SELF-SERVING GROUNDS, ELECT TO MAKE HIS
HOME IN TEXAS "WHERE HE IN FACT HAD NO RESIDENCE" AND YET TO RETAIN THE
BILL AND DISPOSE OF IT ON ITS MERITS AMOUNTS, IN EFFECT, TO A
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE WHICH COULD NOT BE
ADJUDICATED OTHERWISE THAN THROUGH THE SCREEN OF A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
STATES. 

IN THIS CASE WE DO NOT EVEN HAVE SUBSTANTIAL TRANSLATION INTO
EFFECTIVE LEGAL ACTION OF THE ASSERTIONS BY THE FOUR STATES OF THEIR
DOMICILIARY CLAIMS.  TO BE SURE, THE MASTER HAS FOUND, AS SUMMARIZED IN
THE COURT'S OPINION, "THAT EACH OF THE FOUR STATES IN GOOD FAITH
ASSERTS THAT THE DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED WITHIN IT AT HIS DEATH."  THIS
IS A NATURAL ATTITUDE OF PRUDENCE ON THE PART OF LAW OFFICERS OF STATES
IN THE CASE OF DECEDENTS WHO HAD SCATTERED THEIR LIVES AS WELL AS THEIR
HOLDINGS.  BUT TO GIVE THIS COURT THE EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION WHICH
IS INVOKED, THERE OUGHT TO BE MORE THAN THESE CAVEATS.  THERE SHOULD BE
MANIFESTATION OF THAT HARD DETERMINATION TO PRESS A STATE'S CLAIM WHICH
IS IMPLIED IN SETTING THE TAX-COLLECTING MACHINERY OF A STATE IN
MOTION.  ALLEGATION, AFFIRMATIVE PROOF, AND FINDING OF SUCH ATTEMPTS BY
THE VARIOUS STATES ARE LACKING.  AND NEW YORK DENIES WITHOUT
CONTRADICTION THAT ITS PROCEDURE FOR TAX LEVY AND COLLECTION HAS BEEN
SET IN OPERATION.  FN6  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, THEREFORE, NOT
COMPARABLE TO THE ISSUES IN A CONVENTIONAL INTERPLEADER SUIT BROUGHT TO
FORESTALL CONFLICTING ACTIONS.  INITIATION OF LITIGATION IS, OF COURSE,
NOT A PREREQUISITE TO AN ORDINARY INTERPLEADER.  THIS ONLY SERVES TO
EMPHASIZE THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF UTILIZING A REMEDY INVENTED TO
SETTLE PRIVATE CONTROVERSIES OF LIMITED SCOPE TO THE RESOLUTION OF
CONFLICTING GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS. 

JURISDICTIONAL DOUBTS INEVITABLY LOSE FORCE ONCE LEAVE HAS BEEN GIVEN
TO FILE A BILL, A MASTER HAS BEEN APPOINTED, LONG HEARINGS HAVE BEEN
HELD, AND A WEIGHTY REPORT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.  AND SO, WERE THIS THE
LAST AS WELL AS THE FIRST ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THIS COURT OF A
CONTROVERSY LIKE THE PRESENT, EVEN SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT IT MIGHT WELL
GO UNEXPRESSED.  BUT IF EXPERIENCE IS ANY GUIDE, THE PRESENT DECISION
WILL GIVE MOMENTUM TO KINDRED LITIGATION AND RELIANCE UPON IT BEYOND
THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL FACTS OF THIS CASE.  TO BE SURE, THE COURT'S
OPINION ENDEAVORS TO CIRCUMSCRIBE CAREFULLY THE BOUNDS OF JURISDICTION
NOW EXERCISED.  BUT LEGAL DOCTRINES HAVE, IN AN ODD KIND OF WAY, THE
FACULTY OF SELF-GENERATING EXTENSION.  THEREFORE, IN PRICKING OUT THE
LINES OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT IS NEW DOCTRINE, THE IMPORTANCE OF
THESE ISSUES MAY MAKE IT NOT INAPPROPRIATE TO INDICATE DIFFICULTIES
WHICH I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO OVERCOME AND POTENTIAL ABUSES TO WHICH
THE DOCTRINE IS NOT UNLIKELY TO GIVE RISE. 

I AM AUTHORIZED TO SAY THAT MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THESE VIEWS
AND IN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BILL SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

FN1  THE SPIRIT IN WHICH INTERSTATE LITIGATION SHOULD BE APPROACHED
HAS BEEN THUS EXPRESSED BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER IN LOUISIANA V.
TEXAS, 176 U.S. 1, 15:  "BUT IT IS APPARENT THAT THE JURISDICTION IS OF
SO DELICATE AND GRAVE A CHARACTER THAT IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED THAT IT
WOULD BE EXERCISED SAVE WHEN THE NECESSITY WAS ABSOLUTE AND THE MATTER
IN ITSELF PROPERLY JUSTICIABLE." 

FN2  INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON CONFLICTING TAXATION, CONFLICTING
TAXATION (1935) 88 ET SEQ.; COMPARE LEAGUE OF NATIONS DOCUMENTS, E.F.S.
16 A. 16.  1921; E.F.S. 73 F. 19.  1923; C. 368.  M. 115.  1925.  II;
C. 216.  M. 85.  1927.  II; C. 345.  M. 102.  1928.  II; C. 562.  M.
178.  1928.  II; C. 345.  M. 134.  1929.  II; C. 585.  M. 263.  1930. 
II; C. 791.  M. 385.  1931.  IIA; C. 618.  M. 291.  1933.  IIA; C.
118.  M. 57.  1936.  IIA. 

FN3  IN RE DORRANCE'S ESTATE, 309 PA. 151, 163 ATL. 303, CERT.
DENIED, SUB NOM., DORRANCE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 287 U.S. 660, 288 U.S. 617;
NEW JERSEY V. PENNSYLVANIA, 287 U.S. 580; IN RE DORRANCE, 113 N.J. EQ.
266, 166 ATL. 177; 115 N.J. EQ. 268, 170 ATL. 601; 116 N.J. EQ. 204,
172 ATL. 503, AFF'D SUB NOM., DORRANCE V. MARTIN, 13 N.J. MISC. 168,
176 ATL. 902, AFF'D, 116 N.J.L. 362, 184 ATL. 743, CERT. DENIED, 298
U.S. 678; HILL V. MARTIN, 296 U.S. 393. 

FN4  THE PRINCIPLE IS THUS FORMULATED IN THE PRESENT CASE:  "THAT TWO
OR MORE STATES MAY EACH CONSTITUTIONALLY ASSESS DEATH TAXES ON A
DECEDENT'S INTANGIBLES UPON A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE DECEDENT
WAS DOMICILED WITHIN IT IN PROCEEDINGS BINDING UPON THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE ESTATE, BUT TO WHICH THE OTHER STATES ARE NOT PARTIES, IS AN
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF OUR FEDERAL JURISPRUDENCE."  ANTE, P. 410. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT THEREFORE BINDS THE STATES UPON AN ISSUE OF
STATE LAW WHICH THIS COURT COULD NOT CONSIDER UPON APPEAL FROM THE
STATE COURTS, AND ON WHICH THIS COURT WOULD BE BOUND TO FOLLOW STATE
LAW IN ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

FN5  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN6  "AS YET, NO ONE OF THE STATES HAS ASSESSED AND LEVIED ANY DEATH
TAX AGAINST THE ESTATE, AND, IF THE MATTER WERE LEFT TO THE ORDINARY
PROCEDURE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF SUCH TAXES IN THE VARIOUS STATES, IT IS
HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT DETERMINATIONS WOULD BE MADE IN ALL OF THE
STATES THAT GREEN WAS DOMICILED THEREIN.  IN NEW YORK STATE, THE ONLY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WHO HAS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THE ESTATE TAX IS ASSESSABLE ON THE THEORY THAT GREEN WAS A RESIDENT OF
THE STATE IS THE SURROGATE OF ONE OF THE COUNTIES AND THUS FAR NO
SURROGATE HAS ACTED IN THIS RESPECT."  BRIEF FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
P. 2.    ON MAY 15, 1939, THE FOLLOWING DECREE WAS ENTERED IN THE ABOVE
ENTITLED CASE:

                               DECREE. 

THIS CAUSE CAME ON TO BE HEARD ON THE PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE, AND THE
EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE PARTIES TO THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER,
AND WAS ARGUED BY COUNSEL.    THE COURT HAVING DISMISSED MABEL HARLOW
GREEN AS A PARTY DEFENDANT TO THE SUIT ON JANUARY 17, 1938(302 U.S.
662), PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION FILED BY THE PARTIES, IT IS NOW HERE
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 

1.  THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER IS CONFIRMED. 

2.  THE DOMICILE OF EDWARD HOWLAND ROBINSON GREEN AT THE TIME OF HIS
DEATH, JUNE 8, 1936, WAS IN FACT AND IN LAW WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS AND NOT WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
OR THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

3. THE CAUSE WILL BE RETAINED UPON THE DOCKET FOR SUCH FURTHER ACTION
AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROPER AND THE PARTIES OR ANY OF THEM MAY AT
ANY TIME HEREAFTER APPLY FOR RELIEF AS THEY MAY BE ADVISED. 

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE COSTS IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE
COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES OF THE SPECIAL MASTER SHALL BE PAID ONE-FIFTH
EACH BY THE STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE OF NEW YORK,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND HETTY SYLVIA ANN HOWLAND GREEN
WILKS. 
..END :













LABOR BOARD V. FANSTEEL CORP., 306 U.S. 240 


NO. 436.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 13, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  -
98 F.2D 375, AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. 


1.  SEIZURE AND FORCIBLE RETENTION OF AN EMPLOYER'S FACTORY BUILDINGS
BY EMPLOYEES, IN A "SIT-DOWN" STRIKE, IS GOOD CAUSE FOR THEIR
DISCHARGE.  P. 252. 

2.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO ABROGATE
THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYER TO REFUSE TO RETAIN IN HIS EMPLOY THOSE WHO
ILLEGALLY TAKE AND HOLD POSSESSION OF HIS PROPERTY.  P. 255. 

3.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS
COMPELLING EMPLOYERS TO RETAIN PERSONS IN THEIR EMPLOY REGARDLESS OF
THEIR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.  IN RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE IT
CONTEMPLATES A LAWFUL STRIKE; AND WHERE A STRIKE, EVEN THOUGH ACTUATED
BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYER, IS INITIATED AND CONDUCTED
IN LAWLESSNESS BY THE SEIZURE AND RETENTION OF THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY,
AND THE STRIKERS ARE DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THEIR LAWLESSNESS, THEY DO
NOT REMAIN "EMPLOYEES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(3) AND ARE NOT
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY TO REINSTATE "EMPLOYEES" REPOSED IN THE BOARD BY
SEC. 10(C).  P. 256. 

4.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 10(C) OF THE ACT, BY WHICH THE BOARD MAY
REQUIRE AN EMPLOYER TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS WILL "EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES" OF THE ACT, DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO REQUIRE
REEMPLOYMENT OF MEN WHO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED FOR SUCH UNLAWFUL
CONDUCT.  P. 257. 

5.  STRIKERS WHO AIDED AND ABETTED A "SIT-DOWN" STRIKE ARE IN NO
BETTER CASE THAN THE "SIT-DOWN" STRIKERS THEMSELVES.  ASSUMING THAT,
THROUGH NOT HAVING BEEN FORMALLY DISCHARGED, THEY RETAINED THE STATUS
OF "EMPLOYEES" BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 2(3), THAT PROVISION DOES NOT
AUTOMATICALLY REINSTATE THEM; AND THE PROVISION THAT THE BOARD MAY
REQUIRE "SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES"
AS WILL "EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES" OF THE ACT, WILL NOT COUNTENANCE AN
ORDER REQUIRING REINSTATEMENT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 259. 

6.  AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SPECIFIC FINDINGS.  P.
261. 

7.  AN ORDER OF THE BOARD THAT THE EMPLOYER BARGAIN WITH A PARTICULAR
ORGANIZATION AS EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE
ENFORCED WHERE BY REASON OF VALID DISCHARGES AND NEW EMPLOYMENTS THERE
IS NO GROUND TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS THE CHOICE OF A
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  P.
261. 

8.  AN ORDER OF THE BOARD REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO WITHDRAW
RECOGNITION FROM AN ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE UPHELD WHERE
THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE FORMATION OF THIS ORGANIZATION
WAS BROUGHT ABOUT THROUGH PROMOTION EFFORTS OF THE EMPLOYER CONTRARY TO
THE PROVISION OF SEC. 8(2) OF THE ACT.  P. 262. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 590, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

THE CEASE AND DESIST PORTIONS OF THE ORDER DIRECTED TO VIOLATIONS OF
SECS. 8(1) AND (5) OF THE ACT ARE VALID IF THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD
ARE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V.
NATIONAL LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197.  THE FINDINGS WERE SO SUPPORTED. 

THE BOARD'S ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT BASED UPON THE VIOLATION OF SECS.
8(1) AND (5) WAS IN ALL RESPECTS PROPER.  RESPONDENT'S WHOLE COURSE OF
ILLEGAL CONDUCT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRIKE, AND UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES THE NORMAL AND PROPER MEANS BY WHICH THE STATUS QUO MAY
BE RESTORED IS THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE STRIKERS TO POSITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT. 

THAT REMEDY IS NOT BEYOND THE POWER OF THE BOARD IN THIS CASE BECAUSE
OF THE ATTEMPTED DISCHARGE OF SOME OF THE STRIKERS FOR ENGAGING IN A
"SIT-DOWN."  THE DISCHARGE DID NOT REMOVE THOSE STRIKERS FROM THE CLASS
OF PERSONS DESCRIBED AS "EMPLOYEES" UNDER SEC. 10(C).  PLAINLY THE
STRIKERS HERE WERE WITHIN THAT CATEGORY WHEN THE STRIKE TOOK PLACE; AND
SINCE THE ACT SPECIFIES ONLY ONE WAY IN WHICH THIS STATUTORY STATUS MAY
BE ENDED - BY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE - IT IS REASONABLE TO
ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT STATUS TO CONTINUE DESPITE AN
ATTEMPTED DISCHARGE, AT LEAST FOR THE REMEDIAL PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. CARLISLE LUMBER CO., 94 F.2D 138;
CERT. DEN., 304 U.S. 575.  ONCE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HAS OCCURRED,
THE EMPLOYER, ALTHOUGH FREE TO TERMINATE THE NORMAL INCIDENTS OF THE
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FOR CAUSE, MAY NOT DESTROY THE POWER OF THE BOARD
TO REMEDY HIS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, SO LONG AS THE REMEDY REQUIRED
WILL EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 

EVEN IF THE REINSTATEMENT WAS NOT OF "EMPLOYEES," NEVERTHELESS THE
ORDER IS VALID.  SECTION 10(C) EMPOWERS THE BOARD TO REQUIRE "SUCH
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES ...  AS WILL
EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  THE CLAUSE - "INCLUDING
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES" - IS CLEARLY ILLUSTRATIVE AND NOT INTENDED
AS A LIMITATION.  THE USE OF THE WORD "INCLUDING" AND THE REPORTS IN
CONGRESS EACH CONFIRM WHAT IS BUT IN ANY EVENT THE NORMAL CONSTRUCTION
THAT THE BOARD SHALL HAVE PLENARY POWER TO REMEDY THE EFFECTS OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, INCLUDING THE POWER TO REQUIRE REEMPLOYMENT OF
FORMER EMPLOYEES WHERE THAT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT. 

NOR WAS IT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE BOARD TO CONCLUDE THAT
REINSTATEMENT WOULD EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  THE BOARD
COULD HAVE EFFECTUALLY RESTORED THE STATUS QUO AND DISSIPATED THE
EFFECTS OF RESPONDENT'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN NO OTHER WAY. 
RESPONDENT CAN NOT OBJECT TO THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE MEN ON THE GROUND
EITHER THAT THEY HAD BEEN GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT OR HAD BEEN DISCHARGED
BECAUSE BY REINSTATEMENT OF STRIKERS IN EACH CATEGORY IT HAS ITSELF
SHOWN THAT IT REGARDS NEITHER FACT AS A BAR TO REINSTATEMENT. 
RESPONDENT WAS WILLING TO REINSTATE ALL THE STRIKERS WHO WOULD
SURRENDER THEIR RIGHT TO BARGAIN THROUGH THE UNION.  HENCE, THE BOARD'S
ORDER SIMPLY OBLITERATES THE DISTINCTION WHICH RESPONDENT ITSELF HAS
DRAWN AMONG STRIKERS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR WILLINGNESS OR UNWILLINGNESS
TO ABANDON THE UNION. 

EMPLOYEE WRONGDOING IS A FACTOR TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE
BOARD, BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS NOT AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ORDER REINSTATEMENT. 

THE ORDER OF THE BOARD PROPERLY REQUIRED OFFERS OF REINSTATEMENT TO
ALL THE STRIKERS, EVEN THOUGH RESPONDENT CLAIMED THAT CERTAIN STRIKERS
WERE INEFFICIENT, AND THAT IT HAD ABOLISHED SOME POSITIONS BY
REORGANIZING ITS PLANT.  RESPONDENT, AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER,
MAY REDUCE OR REORGANIZE ITS STAFF ON ANY NON-DISCRIMINATORY BASIS. 

THE PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES BACK PAY ONLY FROM THE TIME WHEN
APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT IS MADE BY THE STRIKERS AND IS REFUSED BY
RESPONDENT IS PROPER. 

THE ORDER PROPERLY REQUIRES RESPONDENT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH
THE UNION UPON REQUEST.  VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300
U.S. 515.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT WHEN THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
ORDER ARE COMPLIED WITH BY THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE STRIKERS AND THE
DISCHARGE OF THOSE FIRST EMPLOYED SINCE THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, THE
UNION WILL HAVE A CLEAR MAJORITY IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT.  EVEN IF THE
FACTS WERE NOT THUS CLEAR, SOME SUCH PRESUMPTION WOULD BE NECESSARY TO
MAKE THE ACT WORKABLE.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. REMINGTON
RAND, 94 F.2D 862; CERT. DEN., 304 U.S. 576. 

THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT RESPONDENT DOMINATED AND INTERFERED WITH THE
FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE RARE METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(2) OF THE ACT IS SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE.  ON THE BASIS OF THAT VIOLATION, THE BOARD PROPERLY ORDERED
RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST, AND TO WITHDRAW RECOGNITION FROM THAT
UNION. 

RESPONDENT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY THE BOARD'S
RULINGS ON ITS APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN SUBPOENAS.  RESPONDENT, BY ITS
PRIVILEGE OF APPLYING TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR LEAVE TO
ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER SEC. 10(E) AND (F), WAS AFFORDED A
FULL REMEDY UNDER THE ACT FOR ANY ERRONEOUS ACTION OF THE BOARD.  NOT
HAVING AVAILED ITSELF OF THAT PRIVILEGE, RESPONDENT HAS NO GROUND FOR
COMPLAINT. 

CEASE WORK BY REASON OF A LABOR DISPUTE OR AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 
THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IS THAT WORKERS SHALL NOT LOSE THEIR EMPLOYEE
STATUS BY STRIKING.  THIS SECTION DOES NOT DESTROY THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHT
TO DISCHARGE STRIKING EMPLOYEES FOR CAUSE, NOR DOES IT, CONVERSELY,
CONFER UPON STRIKING EMPLOYEES IMMUNITY FROM DISCHARGE FOR CAUSE. 

ACTION, INCLUDING THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES, WITH OR WITHOUT BACK
PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT."  ONLY EMPLOYEES MAY
BE ORDERED REINSTATED.  IN ASSERTING THE POWER TO REQUIRE REINSTATEMENT
OF NON-EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD TREATS THE PHRASE "INCLUDING THE
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES" AS SUPERFLUOUS.  THE SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF
THE REINSTATEMENT POWER QUALIFIES AND LIMITS THE GENERAL GRANT. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHT OF DISCHARGE
CAN BE REQUIRED TO GIVE WAY ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT COLLIDES WITH
THE EMPLOYEE'S COEQUAL RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION.  THE RIGHT OF SELF
ORGANIZATION DOES NOT EMBRACE A LICENSE TO SEIZE THE EMPLOYER'S PLANT. 
THE LAWLESS OCCUPATION OF PLANTS IS NOT AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
BE SAFEGUARDED BY THE ACT.  CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RESTRAINTS
IMPOSED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE ACT CLEARLY PRESERVES THE
EMPLOYER'S RIGHT TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES FOR CAUSE, WHETHER THEY BE AT
WORK OR ON STRIKE, AND CONFERS UPON THE BOARD NO POWER TO COMPEL
EMPLOYMENT OF FORMER EMPLOYEES. 

THE REINSTATEMENT OF DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES GUILTY OF THE PROPERTY
DESTRUCTION AND LAWLESSNESS PORTRAYED ON THIS RECORD CAN NOT ADVANCE
EITHER THE IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR THE ULTIMATE
END OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.  SPURNING THE LEGAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER
THE ACT, INCLUDING THE PENDING PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD, THE SIT
DOWN STRIKERS TOOK THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS.  THE BOARD CHARGES THE
EMPLOYER WITH FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT VIOLENCE, VANDALISM AND
LAWLESSNESS THUS UNDERTAKEN AS A MEANS OF SELF-REDRESS.  THAT IS
NOTHING MORE THAN AN APPROVAL OF LYNCH LAW.  THE DELIBERATE LAWLESSNESS
DISQUALIFIED THE PARTICIPANTS AS SUITABLE EMPLOYEES.  RESPONDENT HAD
AMPLE GROUNDS FOR ITS APPREHENSION THAT THEIR REEMPLOYMENT WOULD
ENGENDER PLANT DEMORALIZATION AND STRIFE.  CONTRARY TO THE BOARD'S
ARGUMENT, NO CONDITIONS AS TO UNION MEMBERSHIP OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
ACTIVITY WERE IMPOSED UPON ANY PERSONS REEMPLOYED.  RESPONDENT ACCEPTED
APPLICATIONS FOR REEMPLOYMENT ONLY FROM THOSE BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN
COERCED AND INTIMIDATED INTO REMAINING WITHIN THE BUILDINGS.  THAT
ACTION DID NOT, AS TO THE REMAINING MEN, EITHER VITIATE THEIR VALID
DISCHARGE OR QUALIFY THEM AS SUITABLE EMPLOYEES.  THEIR REINSTATEMENT
CAN NOT EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT. 

THE REINSTATEMENT OF PERSONS (1) WHOSE JOBS HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED AND
(2) WHO ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INEFFICIENT, CAN NOT EFFECTUATE THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT.  THE BOARD DEALT WITH THESE TWO GROUPS BY
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE ALL OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THEN
TO CARRY OUT A NEW INTERNAL REORGANIZATION, DISCHARGING THOSE FOR WHOM
THERE WERE NO JOBS OR WHO WERE INEFFICIENT.  ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT
OF SUCH PERSONS WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE ONLY OF FUTILE PLANT
DISORGANIZATION AND CONSTITUTES AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

THE BACK-PAY PROVISION OF THE ORDER CONSTITUTES A PENALTY FOR SEEKING
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ORDER.  THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE WITH RESPECT
TO PERSONS WHOSE JOBS HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED OR WHO WERE SHOWN TO BE
INEFFICIENT.  THE ORDER RECOGNIZES THAT UPON THEIR REINSTATEMENT THEY
MAY BE IMMEDIATELY DISCHARGED. 

THE COURT PROPERLY HELD THAT THE ELIMINATION FROM THE ROLLS OF THE
EMPLOYEES DISMISSED FOR CAUSE HAD COMPLETELY DISSIPATED ANY MAJORITY
THAT LODGE 66 MIGHT HAVE ENJOYED.  THE BOARD IS WITHOUT POWER TO ORDER
THE RECOGNITION OF LODGE 66 AS THE EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENCY, IN THE
FACE OF THE FACT THAT IT NO LONGER REPRESENTS A MAJORITY. 

THE RECORD IS WHOLLY BARREN OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDING OF
DOMINATION AND INTERFERENCE RESPECTING THE RARE METAL WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 1. 

NOT A SINGLE SUBPOENA REQUESTED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS GRANTED BEFORE
OR DURING THE EIGHTEEN-DAY HEARING.  NOT A SINGLE SUBPOENA DESIRED BY
THE BOARD'S ATTORNEY WAS REFUSED.  THIS ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY
REFUSAL DENIED TO THE RESPONDENT THE FAIR HEARING REQUIRED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO DESIST FROM LABOR PRACTICES
FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND TO
OFFER REINSTATEMENT TO CERTAIN DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES WITH BACK PAY. 
WHILE THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER ARE UNDER REVIEW, THE
PRINCIPAL QUESTION PRESENTED RELATES TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO
REQUIRE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE DISCHARGED BECAUSE
OF THEIR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IN SEIZING RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY IN WHAT IS
CALLED A "SIT-DOWN STRIKE." 

RESPONDENT, FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL CORPORATION, IS ENGAGED AT NORTH
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PRODUCTS MADE FROM
RARE METALS.  NO QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE INTIMATE RELATION OF ITS
OPERATIONS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE EFFECT UPON THAT COMMERCE OF
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITH WHICH THE CORPORATION IS CHARGED.  THE
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD SHOW THAT IN THE SUMMER OF 1936 A GROUP OF
EMPLOYEES ORGANIZED LODGE 66 UNDER THE AUSPICES OF A COMMITTEE OF THE
AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN WORKERS OF NORTH
AMERICA; THAT RESPONDENT EMPLOYED A "LABOR SPY" TO ENGAGE IN ESPIONAGE
WITHIN THE UNION AND HIS EMPLOYMENT WAS CONTINUED UNTIL ABOUT DECEMBER
1, 1936; THAT ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1936, RESPONDENT'S SUPERINTENDENT WAS
REQUESTED TO MEET WITH A COMMITTEE OF THE UNION AND THE SUPERINTENDENT
REQUIRED THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD CONSIST ONLY OF EMPLOYEES OF FIVE
YEARS' STANDING; THAT A COMMITTEE, SO CONSTITUTED, PRESENTED A CONTRACT
RELATING TO WORKING CONDITIONS; THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT OBJECTED TO
"CLOSED-SHOP AND CHECK-OFF PROVISIONS" AND ANNOUNCED THAT IT WAS
RESPONDENT'S POLICY TO REFUSE RECOGNITION TO "OUTSIDE" UNIONS; THAT ON
SEPTEMBER 21, 1936, THE SUPERINTENDENT REFUSED TO CONFER WITH THE
COMMITTEE IN WHICH AN "OUTSIDE" ORGANIZER HAD BEEN INCLUDED; THAT
MEANWHILE, AND LATER, RESPONDENT'S REPRESENTATIVES SOUGHT TO HAVE A
"COMPANY UNION" SET UP, BUT THE ATTEMPT PROVED ABORTIVE; THAT FROM
NOVEMBER, 1936, TO JANUARY, 1937, THE SUPERINTENDENT REQUIRED THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNION TO WORK IN A ROOM ADJOINING THE SUPERINTENDENT'S
OFFICE WITH THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING HIM AWAY FROM THE OTHER WORKERS;
THAT WHILE IN SEPTEMBER, 1936, THE UNION DID NOT HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE
PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES, AN APPROPRIATE UNIT FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, BY FEBRUARY 17, 1937, 155 OF RESPONDENT'S 229
EMPLOYEES IN THAT UNIT HAD JOINED THE UNION AND HAD DESIGNATED IT AS
THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE; THAT ON THAT DATE, A
COMMITTEE OF THE UNION MET TWICE WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT, WHO REFUSED
TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION AS TO RATES OF PAY, HOURS AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT, THE REFUSAL BEING UPON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT WOULD NOT
DEAL WITH AN "OUTSIDE" UNION. 

SHORTLY AFTER THE SECOND MEETING IN THE AFTERNOON OF FEBRUARY 17TH
THE UNION COMMITTEE DECIDED UPON A "SIT-DOWN STRIKE" BY TAKING OVER AND
HOLDING TWO OF RESPONDENT'S "KEY" BUILDINGS.  THESE WERE THEREUPON
OCCUPIED BY ABOUT 95 EMPLOYEES.  WORK STOPPED AND THE REMAINDER OF THE
PLANT ALSO CEASED OPERATIONS.  EMPLOYEES WHO DID NOT DESIRE TO
PARTICIPATE WERE PERMITTED TO LEAVE, AND A NUMBER OF UNION MEMBERS WHO
WERE ON THE NIGHT SHIFT AND DID NOT ARRIVE FOR WORK UNTIL AFTER THE
SEIZURE DID NOT JOIN THEIR FELLOW MEMBERS INSIDE THE BUILDINGS.  AT
ABOUT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING THE SUPERINTENDENT, ACCOMPANIED BY
POLICE OFFICIALS AND RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL, WENT TO EACH OF THE
BUILDINGS AND DEMANDED THAT THE MEN LEAVE.  THEY REFUSED, AND
RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL "THEREUPON ANNOUNCED IN LOUD TONES THAT ALL THE
MEN IN THE PLANT WERE DISCHARGED FOR THE SEIZURE AND RETENTION OF THE
BUILDINGS."  THE MEN CONTINUED TO OCCUPY THE BUILDINGS UNTIL FEBRUARY
26, 1937.  THEIR FELLOW MEMBERS BROUGHT THEM FOOD, BLANKETS, STOVES,
CIGARETTES AND OTHER SUPPLIES.    ON FEBRUARY 18TH, RESPONDENT OBTAINED
FROM THE STATE COURT AN INJUNCTION ORDER REQUIRING THE MEN TO SURRENDER
THE PREMISES.  THE MEN REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER AND A WRIT OF
ATTACHMENT FOR CONTEMPT WAS SERVED ON FEBRUARY 19TH.  UPON THE MEN'S
REFUSAL TO SUBMIT, A PITCHED BATTLE ENSUED AND THE MEN SUCCESSFULLY
RESISTED THE ATTEMPT BY THE SHERIFF TO EVICT AND ARREST THEM.  EFFORTS
AT MEDIATION ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
THE GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS PROVED UNAVAILING.  ON FEBRUARY 26TH THE
SHERIFF WITH AN INCREASED FORCE OF DEPUTIES MADE A FURTHER ATTEMPT AND
THIS TIME, AFTER ANOTHER BATTLE, THE MEN WERE OUSTED AND PLACED UNDER
ARREST.  MOST OF THEM WERE EVENTUALLY FINED AND GIVEN JAIL SENTENCES
FOR VIOLATING THE INJUNCTION. 

RESPONDENT ON REGAINING POSSESSION UNDERTOOK TO RESUME OPERATIONS,
AND PRODUCTION GRADUALLY BEGAN.  BY MARCH 12TH THE RESTAFFING WAS
APPROXIMATELY COMPLETE.  A LARGE NUMBER OF THE STRIKERS, INCLUDING MANY
WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE OCCUPATION OF THE BUILDINGS, WERE
INDIVIDUALLY SOLICITED TO RETURN TO WORK WITH BACK PAY BUT WITHOUT
RECOGNITION OF THE UNION.  SOME ACCEPTED THE OFFER AND WERE REINSTATED;
OTHERS REFUSED TO RETURN UNLESS THERE WERE UNION RECOGNITION AND MASS
REINSTATEMENT, AND WERE STILL OUT AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE
BOARD.  NEW MEN WERE HIRED TO FILL THE POSITIONS OF THOSE REMAINING ON
STRIKE. 

MEANWHILE THE UNION WAS NOT INACTIVE.  ON MARCH 3D AND 5TH THERE WERE
REQUESTS, WHICH RESPONDENT REFUSED, FOR MEETINGS TO CONSIDER THE
RECOGNITION OF THE UNION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THERE WAS NO
COLLECTIVE REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ALL THE STRIKERS.  THE POSITION
OF PRACTICALLY ALL THE STRIKERS WHO DID NOT GO BACK, AND WHO WERE NAMED
IN THE COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE BOARD, WAS "THAT THEY WERE DETERMINED
TO STAY OUT UNTIL THE UNION REACHED A SETTLEMENT WITH THE RESPONDENT." 

EARLY IN APRIL A LABOR ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS RARE METAL WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 1, WAS ORGANIZED AMONG RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES. 
THERE WAS A MEETING IN ONE OF RESPONDENT'S BUILDINGS ON APRIL 15TH,
WHICH WAS ATTENDED BY ABOUT 200 EMPLOYEES, AND THE BALLOTING RESULTED
IN A VOTE OF 185 TO 15 IN FAVOR OF THE FORMATION OF AN "INDEPENDENT"
ORGANIZATION.  ANOTHER MEETING WAS HELD SOON AFTER FOR THE ELECTION OF
OFFICERS.  RESPONDENT ACCORDED THESE EFFORTS VARIOUS FORMS OF SUPPORT. 
THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE RARE METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO.
1, WAS THE RESULT OF THE RESPONDENT'S "ANTIUNION CAMPAIGN" AND THAT
RESPONDENT HAD DOMINATED AND INTERFERED WITH ITS FORMATION AND
ADMINISTRATION. 

UPON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS AND ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THE
BOARD MADE ITS ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO DESIST FROM INTERFERING
WITH ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING AS GUARANTEED IN SEC. 7 OF THE ACT; FROM DOMINATING OR
INTERFERING WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF THE RARE METAL
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 1, OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS
EMPLOYEES OR CONTRIBUTING SUPPORT THERETO; AND FROM REFUSING TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN
WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA, LODGE 66, AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE EMPLOYEES DESCRIBED.  THE BOARD ALSO ORDERED THE FOLLOWING
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH IT WAS FOUND WOULD "EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES"
OF THE ACT; - THAT IS, UPON REQUEST, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE
AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION AS STATED ABOVE; TO OFFER, UPON APPLICATION, TO
THE EMPLOYEES WHO WENT ON STRIKE ON FEBRUARY 17, 1937, AND THEREAFTER,
"IMMEDIATE AND FULL REINSTATEMENT TO THEIR FORMER POSITIONS," WITH BACK
PAY, DISMISSING, IF NECESSARY, ALL PERSONS HIRED SINCE THAT DATE; TO
WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION FROM RARE METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO.
1, AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH
RESPONDENT AS TO LABOR QUESTIONS, AND TO "COMPLETELY DISESTABLISH" THAT
ORGANIZATION AS SUCH REPRESENTATIVE; AND TO POST NOTICES OF
COMPLIANCE.  5 N.L.R.B. 930. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES BY "DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT"
IN ORDER TO "ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION," AND ACCORDINGLY THE COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT
WAS DISMISSED.  ID. 

ON RESPONDENT'S PETITION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE THE
BOARD'S ORDER, 98 F.2D 375, AND THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI, 305 U.S.
590. 

FIRST.  THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  - THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT BY
"THE ANTI-UNION STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS" OF THE SUPERINTENDENT ON
SEPTEMBER 10, 1936, AND SEPTEMBER 21, 1936, BY "THE CAMPAIGN TO
INTRODUCE INTO THE PLANT A COMPANY UNION," BY "THE ISOLATION OF THE
UNION PRESIDENT FROM CONTACT WITH HIS FELLOW EMPLOYEES," AND BY THE
EMPLOYMENT AND USE OF A "LABOR SPY," RESPONDENT HAD INTERFERED WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES, AND RESTRAINED AND COERCED THEM, IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION GUARANTEED IN SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, AND THUS
HAD ENGAGED IN AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT. 

OWING TO THE FACT THAT IN SEPTEMBER, 1936, THE UNION DID NOT HAVE A
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT, THE BOARD HELD THAT
IT WAS PRECLUDED FROM FINDING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN REFUSING TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY AT THAT TIME, BUT THE BOARD FOUND THAT THERE WAS
SUCH A REFUSAL ON FEBRUARY 17, 1937, WHEN THE UNION DID HAVE A MAJORITY
OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT, AND THAT THIS CONSTITUTED A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(5). 

THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AND THE
LATTER IN THIS RELATION HAVE SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE. 

SECOND.  THE DISCHARGE OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR ILLEGAL CONDUCT IN
SEIZING AND HOLDING RESPONDENT'S BUILDINGS - THE BOARD DOES NOT NOW
CONTEND THAT THERE WAS NOT A REAL DISCHARGE ON FEBRUARY 17TH WHEN THE
MEN REFUSED TO SURRENDER POSSESSION.  THE DISCHARGE WAS CLEARLY
PROVED. 

NOR IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR DISPUTE AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE DISCHARGE. 
REPRESENTATIVES OF RESPONDENT DEMANDED THAT THE MEN LEAVE, AND ON THEIR
REFUSAL ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WERE DISCHARGED "FOR THE SEIZURE AND
RETENTION OF THE BUILDINGS."  THE FACT THAT IT WAS A GENERAL
ANNOUNCEMENT APPLICABLE TO ALL THE MEN IN THE PLANT WHO THUS REFUSED TO
LEAVE DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE EFFECT OF THE DISCHARGE EITHER IN FACT
OR IN LAW. 

NOR IS IT QUESTIONED THAT THE SEIZURE AND RETENTION OF RESPONDENT'S
PROPERTY WERE UNLAWFUL.  IT WAS A HIGH-HANDED PROCEEDING WITHOUT SHADOW
OF LEGAL RIGHT.  IT BECAME THE SUBJECT OF DENUNCIATION BY THE STATE
COURT UNDER THE STATE LAW, RESULTING IN FINES AND JAIL SENTENCES FOR
DEFIANCE OF THE COURT'S ORDER TO VACATE AND IN A FINAL DECREE FOR
RESPONDENT AS THE COMPLAINANT IN THE INJUNCTION SUIT. 

THIS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEES MANIFESTLY GAVE GOOD CAUSE
FOR THEIR DISCHARGE UNLESS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ABROGATES
THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO REFUSE TO RETAIN IN HIS EMPLOY THOSE WHO
ILLEGALLY TAKE AND HOLD POSSESSION OF HIS PROPERTY. 

THIRD.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO REQUIRE THE REINSTATEMENT OF
THE EMPLOYEES THUS DISCHARGED.  - THE CONTENTIONS OF THE BOARD IN
SUBSTANCE ARE THESE:  (1) THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF RESPONDENT
LED TO THE STRIKE AND THUS FURNISHED GROUND FOR REQUIRING THE
REINSTATEMENT OF THE STRIKERS; (2) THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT
EMPLOYEES WHO GO ON STRIKE BECAUSE OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE RETAIN
THEIR STATUS AS EMPLOYEES AND ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH DESPITE
DISCHARGE FOR ILLEGAL CONDUCT; (3) THAT THE BOARD WAS ENTITLED TO ORDER
REINSTATEMENT OR REEMPLOYMENT IN ORDER TO "EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES" OF
THE ACT. 

(1)  FOR THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF RESPONDENT THE ACT PROVIDED A
REMEDY.  INTERFERENCE IN THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 1936 WITH THE RIGHT OF
SELF-ORGANIZATION COULD AT ONCE HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF COMPLAINT TO
THE BOARD.  THE SAME REMEDY WAS AVAILABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES WHEN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WAS REFUSED ON FEBRUARY 17, 1937.  BUT
REPREHENSIBLE AS WAS THAT CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT, THERE IS NO GROUND
FOR SAYING THAT IT MADE RESPONDENT AN OUTLAW OR DEPRIVED IT OF ITS
LEGAL RIGHTS TO THE POSSESSION AND PROTECTION OF ITS PROPERTY.  THE
EMPLOYEES HAD THE RIGHT TO STRIKE BUT THEY HAD NO LICENSE TO COMMIT
ACTS OF VIOLENCE OR TO SEIZE THEIR EMPLOYER'S PLANT.  WE MAY PUT ON ONE
SIDE THE CONTESTED QUESTIONS AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND EXTENT OF
INJURY TO THE PLANT AND ITS CONTENTS IN THE EFFORTS OF THE MEN TO
RESIST EVICTION.  THE SEIZURE AND HOLDING OF THE BUILDINGS WAS ITSELF A
WRONG APART FROM ANY ACTS OF SABOTAGE.  BUT IN ITS LEGAL ASPECT THE
OUSTING OF THE OWNER FROM LAWFUL POSSESSION IS NOT ESSENTIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM AN ASSAULT UPON THE OFFICERS OF AN EMPLOYING COMPANY, OR
THE SEIZURE AND CONVERSION OF ITS GOODS, OR THE DESPOILING OF ITS
PROPERTY OR OTHER UNLAWFUL ACTS IN ORDER TO FORCE COMPLIANCE WITH
DEMANDS.  TO JUSTIFY SUCH CONDUCT BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A LABOR
DISPUTE OR OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WOULD BE TO PUT A PREMIUM ON
RESORT TO FORCE INSTEAD OF LEGAL REMEDIES AND TO SUBVERT THE PRINCIPLES
OF LAW AND ORDER WHICH LIE AT THE FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIETY. 

AS RESPONDENT'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFORDED NO EXCUSE FOR THE
SEIZURE AND HOLDING OF ITS BUILDINGS, RESPONDENT HAD ITS NORMAL RIGHTS
OF REDRESS.  THOSE RIGHTS, IN THEIR MOST OBVIOUS SCOPE, INCLUDED THE
RIGHT TO DISCHARGE THE WRONGDOERS FROM ITS EMPLOY.  TO SAY THAT
RESPONDENT COULD RESORT TO THE STATE COURT TO RECOVER DAMAGES OR TO
PROCURE PUNISHMENT, BUT WAS POWERLESS TO DISCHARGE THOSE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE UNLAWFUL SEIZURE WOULD BE TO CREATE AN ANOMALOUS DISTINCTION
FOR WHICH THERE IS NO WARRANT UNLESS IT CAN BE FOUND IN THE TERMS OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  WE TURN TO THE PROVISIONS WHICH THE
BOARD INVOKES. 

(2)  IN CONSTRUING THE ACT IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES
& LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 45, 46, WE SAID THAT IT "DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO
SELECT ITS EMPLOYEES OR TO DISCHARGE THEM"; THAT THE EMPLOYER "MAY NOT,
UNDER COVER OF THAT RIGHT, INTIMIDATE OR COERCE ITS EMPLOYEES WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR SELF-ORGANIZATION AND REPRESENTATION, AND, ON THE
OTHER HAND, THE BOARD IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE ITS AUTHORITY A PRETEXT
FOR INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT OF DISCHARGE WHEN THAT RIGHT IS
EXERCISED FOR OTHER REASONS THAN SUCH INTIMIDATION AND COERCION."  SEE,
ALSO, ASSOCIATED PRESS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 301 U.S. 103,
132.  COMPARE TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD, 281 U.S. 548,
571; VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515,
559. 

IT IS APPARENT UNDER THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT THAT HAD THERE BEEN
NO STRIKE, AND EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN GUILTY OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IN SEIZING
OR COMMITTING DEPREDATIONS UPON THE PROPERTY OF THEIR EMPLOYER, THAT
CONDUCT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD REASON FOR DISCHARGE, AS DISCHARGE ON THAT
GROUND WOULD NOT BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING OR COERCING
EMPLOYEES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION OR
REPRESENTATION, OR BECAUSE OF ANY LAWFUL UNION ACTIVITY, BUT WOULD REST
UPON AN INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE BASIS. 

BUT THE BOARD, IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY UNDER SEC. 10(C) TO
REINSTATE "EMPLOYEES," INSISTS THAT HERE THE STATUS OF THE EMPLOYEES
WAS CONTINUED, DESPITE DISCHARGE FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, BY VIRTUE OF THE
DEFINITION OF THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" IN SEC. 2(3).  BY THAT DEFINITION THE
TERM INCLUDES 

"ANY INDIVIDUAL WHOSE WORK HAS CEASED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN
CONNECTION WITH, ANY CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE OR BECAUSE OF ANY UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE, AND WHO HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY OTHER REGULAR AND
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT,  ...  " 

WE THINK THAT THE ARGUMENT MISCONSTRUES THE STATUTE.  WE ARE UNABLE
TO CONCLUDE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO COMPEL EMPLOYERS TO RETAIN
PERSONS IN THEIR EMPLOY REGARDLESS OF THEIR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT,  - TO
INVEST THOSE WHO GO ON STRIKE WITH AN IMMUNITY FROM DISCHARGE FOR ACTS
OF TRESPASS OR VIOLENCE AGAINST THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY, WHICH THEY
WOULD NOT HAVE ENJOYED HAD THEY REMAINED AT WORK.  APART FROM THE
QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF AN ENACTMENT OF THAT SORT,
IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT SUCH A LEGISLATIVE INTENTION SHOULD BE FOUND
IN SOME DEFINITE AND UNMISTAKABLE EXPRESSION.  WE FIND NO SUCH
EXPRESSION IN THE CITED PROVISION. 

WE THINK THAT THE TRUE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IS REASONABLY CLEAR. 
CONGRESS WAS INTENT UPON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO
SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO THE SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITHOUT RESTRAINT OR COERCION. 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., SUPRA,
P. 33.  TO ASSURE THAT PROTECTION, THE EMPLOYER IS NOT PERMITTED TO
DISCHARGE HIS EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF UNION ACTIVITY OR AGITATION FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, SUPRA.  THE CONDUCT THUS PROTECTED IS LAWFUL CONDUCT.  CONGRESS
ALSO RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO STRIKE,  - THAT THE EMPLOYEES COULD
LAWFULLY CEASE WORK AT THEIR OWN VOLITION BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE
EMPLOYER TO MEET THEIR DEMANDS.  SECTION 13 PROVIDES THAT NOTHING IN
THE ACT "SHALL BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH OR IMPEDE OR
DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE."  BUT THIS RECOGNITION OF "THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE" PLAINLY CONTEMPLATES A LAWFUL STRIKE,  - THE EXERCISE
OF THE UNQUESTIONED RIGHT TO QUIT WORK.  AS WE SAID IN NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO., 304 U.S. 333, 347, "IF
MEN STRIKE IN CONNECTION WITH A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE THEIR ACTION IS
NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A RENUNCIATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION AND
THEY REMAIN EMPLOYEES FOR THE REMEDIAL PURPOSES SPECIFIED IN THE ACT." 
THERE IS THUS ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE OPERATION OF SEC. 2(3)
WITHOUT CONSTRUING IT AS COUNTENANCING LAWLESSNESS OR AS INTENDED TO
SUPPORT EMPLOYEES IN ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE EMPLOYER'S PROPERTY
BY MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE EMPLOYER TO TERMINATE THE RELATION UPON
THAT INDEPENDENT GROUND. 

HERE THE STRIKE WAS ILLEGAL IN ITS INCEPTION AND PROSECUTION.  AS THE
BOARD FOUND, IT WAS INITIATED BY THE DECISION OF THE UNION COMMITTEE
"TO TAKE OVER AND HOLD TWO OF THE RESPONDENT'S 'KEY' BUILDINGS."  IT
WAS PURSUANT TO THAT DECISION THAT THE MEN OCCUPIED THE BUILDINGS AND
THE WORK STOPPED.  THIS WAS NOT THE EXERCISE OF "THE RIGHT TO STRIKE"
TO WHICH THE ACT REFERRED.  IT WAS NOT A MERE QUITTING OF WORK AND
STATEMENT OF GRIEVANCES IN THE EXERCISE OF PRESSURE RECOGNIZED AS
LAWFUL.  IT WAS AN ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF THE BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO PREVENT
THEIR USE BY THE EMPLOYER IN A LAWFUL MANNER AND THUS BY ACTS OF FORCE
AND VIOLENCE TO COMPEL THE EMPLOYER TO SUBMIT.  WHEN THE EMPLOYEES
RESORTED TO THAT SORT OF COMPULSION THEY TOOK A POSITION OUTSIDE THE
PROTECTION OF THE STATUTE AND ACCEPTED THE RISK OF THE TERMINATION OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT UPON GROUNDS ASIDE FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE LEGAL
RIGHTS WHICH THE STATUTE WAS DESIGNED TO CONSERVE. 

(3)  THE BOARD CONTENDS THAT ITS ORDER IS VALID UNDER THE TERMS OF
THE ACT "REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE MEN REMAINED EMPLOYEES."  THE BOARD
BASES ITS CONTENTION ON THE GENERAL AUTHORITY, CONFERRED BY SEC. 10(C),
TO REQUIRE THE EMPLOYER TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS WILL
"EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES" OF THE ACT.  SUCH ACTION, IT IS ARGUED, MAY
EMBRACE NOT ONLY REINSTATEMENT OF THOSE WHOSE STATUS AS EMPLOYEES HAS
BEEN CONTINUED BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 2(3), BUT ALSO A REQUIREMENT OF THE
"REEMPLOYMENT" OF THOSE WHO HAVE CEASED TO BE EMPLOYED. 

THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO "EFFECTUATE THE
POLICIES" OF THE ACT IS BROAD BUT IT IS NOT UNLIMITED.  IT HAS THE
ESSENTIAL LIMITATIONS WHICH INHERE IN THE VERY POLICIES OF THE ACT
WHICH THE BOARD INVOKES.  THUS IN CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, WE HELD THAT THE AUTHORITY TO
ORDER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DID NOT GO SO FAR AS TO CONFER A PUNITIVE
JURISDICTION ENABLING THE BOARD TO INFLICT UPON THE EMPLOYER ANY
PENALTY IT MAY CHOOSE BECAUSE HE IS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT
MAY BE EFFECTUATED BY SUCH AN ORDER.  WE HELD THAT THE POWER TO COMMAND
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE, AND IS TO BE EXERCISED IN
AID OF THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS AND AS A MEANS OF
REMOVING OR AVOIDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION WHERE THOSE
CONSEQUENCES ARE OF A KIND TO THWART THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT. 

WE REPEAT THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL POLICY OF THE ACT IS TO SAFEGUARD THE
RIGHTS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND THUS BY THE
PROMOTION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE FLOW
OF COMMERCE AS DEFINED IN THE ACT.  THERE IS NOT A LINE IN THE STATUTE
TO WARRANT THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS ANY PART OF THE POLICIES OF THE
ACT TO ENCOURAGE EMPLOYEES TO RESORT TO FORCE AND VIOLENCE IN DEFIANCE
OF THE LAW OF THE LAND.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO
PROMOTE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENTS OF DISPUTES BY PROVIDING LEGAL REMEDIES
FOR THE INVASION OF THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS.  ELECTIONS MAY BE ORDERED TO
DECIDE WHAT REPRESENTATIVES ARE DESIRED BY THE MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES IN
APPROPRIATE UNITS AS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.  TO SECURE THE PREVENTION
OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES BY EMPLOYERS, COMPLAINTS MAY BE FILED AND
HEARD AND ORDERS MADE.  THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION THAT IS AUTHORIZED IS TO
MAKE THESE REMEDIES EFFECTIVE IN THE REDRESS OF THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS,
TO ASSURE THEM SELF-ORGANIZATION AND FREEDOM IN REPRESENTATION, NOT TO
LICENSE THEM TO COMMIT TORTIOUS ACTS OR TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE
APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENCES OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OR REEMPLOYMENT OF EMPLOYEES
GUILTY OF THE ACTS WHICH THE BOARD FINDS TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN THIS
INSTANCE WOULD NOT ONLY NOT EFFECTUATE ANY POLICY OF THE ACT BUT WOULD
DIRECTLY TEND TO MAKE ABORTIVE ITS PLAN FOR PEACEABLE PROCEDURE. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID ALSO MEETS THE POINT THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER
REINSTATEMENT OR REEMPLOYMENT WOULD EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT
IS COMMITTED TO THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
DISCRETION SUBJECT ONLY TO THE LIMITATION THAT ITS ACTION MAY NOT BE
"ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE OR CAPRICIOUS."  THE BOARD RECOGNIZES THAT IN
"MANY SITUATIONS" REINSTATEMENT OR REEMPLOYMENT AFTER DISCHARGE FOR
ILLEGAL ACTS WOULD NOT BE PROPER, BUT THE BOARD INSISTS THAT IT WAS
PROPER IN THIS INSTANCE.  FOR THE REASONS WE HAVE GIVEN WE DISAGREE
WITH THAT VIEW.  WE THINK THAT A CLEARER CASE COULD HARDLY BE PRESENTED
AND THAT, WHATEVER DISCRETION MAY BE DEEMED TO BE COMMITTED TO THE
BOARD, ITS LIMITS WERE TRANSCENDED BY THE ORDER UNDER REVIEW. 

THE BOARD STRESSES THE FACT THAT, WHEN RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN
POSSESSION OF ITS BUILDINGS AND TO RESUME OPERATIONS, IT OFFERED
REEMPLOYMENT TO MANY OF THE MEN WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE STRIKE. 
THE CONTENTION CONFUSES WHAT AN EMPLOYER MAY VOLUNTARILY AND LEGALLY DO
IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHT OF SELECTION AND WHAT THE BOARD IS
ENTITLED TO COMPEL.  IN ANNOUNCING THE REOPENING RESPONDENT STATED ITS
BELIEF THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF MEN WHO HAD TAKEN PART IN THE SEIZURE OF
THE PLANT WERE COMPELLED TO DO SO THROUGH COERCION AND INTIMIDATION AND
THAT APPLICATIONS FOR REEMPLOYMENT FROM SUCH MEN WOULD RECEIVE
FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION.  THE BOARD CHALLENGES THE STATEMENT THAT
RESPONDENT LIMITED ITS REHIRING TO SUCH APPLICANTS.  THE BOARD POINTS
TO EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT EVERYONE WHO APPLIED FOR REEMPLOYMENT DURING
THE PERIOD OF RESTAFFING WAS TAKEN BACK WITHOUT CONDITION EXCEPT TWO
EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ADVANCED IN YEARS AND WERE NOT REINSTATED SOLELY FOR
THAT REASON, AND TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT THAT AT LEAST
THIRTY-SEVEN WERE REHIRED "WHO HAD BEEN IN THE SIT-DOWN." 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER IN DETAIL THE RESPECTIVE
CONTENTIONS AS TO RESPONDENT'S OFFER OF REEMPLOYMENT, FOR WE THINK THAT
ITS ACTION DID NOT ALTER THE UNLAWFUL CHARACTER OF THE STRIKE OR
RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS IN THAT ASPECT.  THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT
RESPONDENT STOOD ABSOLVED BY THE CONDUCT OF THOSE ENGAGED IN THE "SIT
DOWN" FROM ANY DUTY TO REEMPLOY THEM, BUT RESPONDENT WAS NEVERTHELESS
FREE TO CONSIDER THE EXIGENCIES OF ITS BUSINESS AND TO OFFER
REEMPLOYMENT IF IT CHOSE.  IN SO DOING IT WAS SIMPLY EXERCISING ITS
NORMAL RIGHT TO SELECT ITS EMPLOYEES. 

FOURTH.  THE REQUIREMENT OF REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WHO AIDED AND
ABETTED THOSE WHO SEIZED AND HELD THE BUILDINGS.  - THERE IS A GROUP OF
FOURTEEN PERSONS IN THIS CLASS WHO WERE NOT WITHIN THE BUILDINGS AND
HENCE DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF DISCHARGE,
BUT WHO WENT ON STRIKE AND FALL WITHIN THE ORDER FOR REINSTATEMENT. 
THE BOARD MADE NO SEPARATE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THESE PARTICULAR
PERSONS AND REFERS US TO THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THEIR RELATION TO THE
TRANSACTIONS UNDER REVIEW.  THIS, HOWEVER, SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS IN THE
STIPULATION OF FACTS, TO WHICH THE BOARD WAS A PARTY, NAMING IN
PARAGRAPH 12 THESE FOURTEEN PERSONS AND DESCRIBING THEIR CONDUCT AS
FOLLOWS: 

"ALL OF THE FOLLOWING MEN WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY ON FEBRUARY
17, 1937, BUT DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE SEIZURE AND RETENTION OF THE
BUILDING, BUT AIDED AND ABETTED THE MEN WITHIN THE SAID BUILDINGS 3 AND
5 IN THE RETENTION OF THE SAID BUILDINGS BY SOLICITING, PROCURING AND
DELIVERING OF FOOD, BEDDING, CIGARETTES, STOVES, OR OTHER SUPPLIES, OR
IN SOME OTHER MANNER, AND THEREBY ASSISTED THE SAID MEN IN BUILDINGS 3
AND 5 TO REMAIN THEREIN CONTRARY TO THE INJUNCTIONAL ORDER AND WRIT OF
INJUNCTION HERETOFORE MENTIONED; THAT ALL OF THE SAID MEN NAMED IN THIS
PARAGRAPH HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID INJUNCTIONAL
ORDER AND WRIT OF INJUNCTION ORDERING AND DIRECTING THE MEN IN
BUILDINGS 3 AND 5 TO VACATE THE SAME, AND THAT THEIR ACTIVITIES IN
AIDING AND ABETTING THE MEN IN BUILDINGS 3 AND 5 WERE DONE WITH A VIEW
TO AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE SAID MEN TO REMAIN IN THE SAID
BUILDINGS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAID INJUNCTIONAL ORDER AND WRIT OF
INJUNCTION AND WITH KNOWLEDGE THEREOF.  NONE OF THE MEN NAMED IN THIS
PARAGRAPH WERE DISCHARGED BY THE COMPANY ON FEBRUARY 17, 1937, OR
THEREAFTER, AND NONE OF THESE MEN WERE RECALLED TO WORK BY THE COMPANY
UPON THE RESUMPTION OF PLANT OPERATIONS SHORTLY AFTER FEBRUARY 26TH,
1937:"  (THE NAMES FOLLOW). 

IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ACT RESPONDENT WAS BOUND
TO REINSTATE THOSE WHO HAD THUS AIDED AND ABETTED THE "SIT-DOWN"
STRIKERS IN DEFYING THE COURT'S ORDER.  IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT BY VIRTUE
OF SEC. 2(3) THEY STILL HAD THE STATUS OF "EMPLOYEES," THAT PROVISION
DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY PROVIDE REINSTATEMENT.  WHETHER THE BOARD COULD
ORDER IT MUST TURN ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISION EMPOWERING THE
BOARD TO REQUIRE "SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF
EMPLOYEES" AS WILL "EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES" OF THE ACT.  WE ARE THUS
RETURNED TO THE QUESTION ALREADY DISCUSSED AND WE THINK THAT IN THAT
RESPECT THESE AIDERS AND ABETTORS, LIKEWISE GUILTY OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT,
ARE IN NO BETTER CASE THAN THE "SIT-DOWN" STRIKERS THEMSELVES.  WE FIND
NO GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THERE IS ANY POLICY OF THE ACT WHICH
JUSTIFIES THE BOARD IN ORDERING REINSTATEMENT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. 

FIFTH.  THERE ARE NINE OTHER PERSONS APPARENTLY EMBRACED WITHIN THE
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT AS TO WHICH RESPONDENT INTERPOSES SPECIAL
OBJECTIONS.  AS TO SEVEN, RESPONDENT OBJECTS TO THE REINSTATEMENT UPON
THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE INEFFICIENT AND THAT NO SHOWING OF UNION
ACTIVITY BY ANY OF THEM WAS MADE.  AS TO TWO OTHERS, RESPONDENT
CONTENDS THAT THEY REFUSED ITS REQUEST TO RETURN TO WORK WITHOUT ANY
CONDITIONS AND THAT THEIR PLACES WERE ACCORDINGLY FILLED. 

WITH RESPECT TO THESE NINE PERSONS, AND TO A MISCELLANEOUS GROUP OF
FIVE OTHERS INCLUDING THREE AS TO WHOM THE TRIAL EXAMINER RECOMMENDED
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, THE BOARD HAS NOT SUPPLIED SPECIFIC
FINDINGS UPON THE POINTS IN CONTROVERSY TO SUSTAIN ITS ORDER. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ERR
IN SETTING ASIDE THE REQUIREMENT OF REINSTATEMENT. 

SIXTH.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT RESPONDENT SHALL BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
WITH LODGE 66 OF THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION AS THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE DESCRIBED UNIT. 

RESPONDENT RESUMED WORK ABOUT MARCH 12, 1937.  THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS
MADE ON MARCH 14, 1938.  IN VIEW OF THE CHANGE IN THE SITUATION BY
REASON OF THE VALID DISCHARGE OF THE "SIT-DOWN" STRIKERS AND THE
FILLING OF POSITIONS WITH NEW MEN, WE SEE NO BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION
THAT AFTER THE RESUMPTION OF WORK LODGE 66 WAS THE CHOICE OF A MAJORITY
OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 
THE BOARD'S ORDER PROPERLY REQUIRES RESPONDENT TO DESIST FROM
INTERFERING IN ANY MANNER WITH ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.  BUT IT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER TO
REQUIRE RESPONDENT TO TREAT LODGE 66 IN THE ALTERED CIRCUMSTANCES AS
SUCH A REPRESENTATIVE.  IF IT IS CONTENDED THAT LODGE 66 IS THE CHOICE
OF THE EMPLOYEES, THE BOARD HAS ABUNDANT AUTHORITY TO SETTLE THE
QUESTION BY REQUIRING AN ELECTION. 

SEVENTH.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT RESPONDENT SHALL WITHDRAW ALL
RECOGNITION FROM RARE METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 1. 

WHILE RESPONDENT PRESENTS A STRONG PROTEST, INSISTING THAT LOCAL NO.
1 OF THE RARE METAL WORKERS WAS THE FREE CHOICE OF THE EMPLOYEES AFTER
WORK WAS RESUMED, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
THAT THE FORMATION OF THIS ORGANIZATION WAS BROUGHT ABOUT THROUGH
PROMOTION EFFORTS OF RESPONDENT CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF SEC. 8(2),
AND WE THINK THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IN THIS RESPECT SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED.  WHETHER RARE METAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 1, OR ANY
OTHER ORGANIZATION, IS THE CHOICE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN
THE PROPER UNIT CAN BE DETERMINED BY PROCEEDINGS OPEN TO THE BOARD. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOARD'S ORDER CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 1,
SUBDIVISIONS (A) AND (B), IN PARAGRAPH 2, SUBDIVISION (D), AND IN
PARAGRAPH 2, SUBDIVISIONS (E) AND (F) SO FAR AS THESE REFER TO THE
FIRST-MENTIONED PROVISIONS, AND THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER
DISMISSING THE CHARGE UNDER SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT, ARE SUSTAINED.  THE
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER ARE SET ASIDE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY
AND AS MODIFIED IS AFFIRMED.  MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING IN PART. 

I CONCUR IN SO MUCH OF THE COURT'S DECISION AS HOLDS THAT THE BOARD
WAS WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ORDER REINSTATEMENT OF THOSE
EMPLOYEES WHO WERE DISCHARGED ON FEBRUARY 17, 1937.  BUT I REST THIS
CONCLUSION SOLELY ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 2(3) AND SEC. 10(C) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  BY SEC. 10(C) THE BOARD IS GIVEN
AUTHORITY TO REINSTATE IN THEIR EMPLOYMENT ONLY THOSE WHO ARE
"EMPLOYEES."  BEFORE THE BOARD MADE ITS ORDER, RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES,
BY REASON OF THEIR LAWFUL DISCHARGE FOR CAUSE, HAD LOST THEIR STATUS AS
SUCH, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN PRESERVED TO THEM UNDER SEC.
2(3).   THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS ITS PURPOSE AND SCOPE ARE
DISCLOSED BY ITS PREAMBLE AND OPERATIVE PROVISIONS AND EXPLAINED BY THE
REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES RECOMMENDING ITS ENACTMENT,
REPORT NO. 573, SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 74TH CONG.,
1ST SESS.; REPORT NO. 1147, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., IS AIMED AT SECURING THE PEACEABLE SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES
BY THE PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYER AND BY
REQUIRING HIM TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH HIS EMPLOYEES.  SINCE ONE
MEANS ADOPTED BY THE ACT TO SECURE THIS END IS THE REINSTATEMENT, BY
THE DISCRETIONARY ACTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, OF
EMPLOYEES WHEN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES HAVE CAUSED THEM TO CEASE WORK,
IT WAS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT LOSE THEIR STATUS AS
EMPLOYEES BY REASON OF THAT FACT.  THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY SEC. 2(3),
WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE' SHALL INCLUDE  ...  ANY INDIVIDUAL WHOSE WORK
HAS CEASED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY CURRENT
LABOR DISPUTE OR BECAUSE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  ...  " 

HAVING IN MIND THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT AND THE END SOUGHT BY THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS SECTION, I THINK ITS FAIR MEANING IS THAT ATTRIBUTED
TO IT BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT, SUPRA, PP. 6-7, WHICH DECLARED: 

"THE BILL THUS OBSERVES THE PRINCIPLE THAT MEN DO NOT LOSE THEIR
RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED AS EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS BILL
MERELY BY COLLECTIVELY REFRAINING FROM WORK DURING THE COURSE OF A
LABOR CONTROVERSY.  ...  AND TO HOLD THAT A WORKER WHO BECAUSE OF AN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE HAS BEEN DISCHARGED OR LOCKED OUT OR GONE ON
STRIKE IS NO LONGER AN EMPLOYEE, WOULD BE TO GIVE LEGAL SANCTION TO AN
ILLEGAL ACT AND TO DENY REDRESS TO THE INDIVIDUAL INJURED THEREBY." 

BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW BECAUSE THE SECTION PRESERVES THIS RIGHT TO
EMPLOYEES WHERE THEY HAVE CEASED WORK BY REASON OF A LABOR DISPUTE OR
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THAT ITS LANGUAGE IS TO BE READ AS DEPRIVING THE
EMPLOYER OF HIS RIGHT, WHICH THE STATUTE DOES NOT PURPORT TO WITHDRAW,
TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP FOR REASONS DISSOCIATED
WITH THE STOPPAGE OF WORK BECAUSE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  THE
LANGUAGE WHICH SAVES THE EMPLOYEE STATUS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE CEASED WORK
BECAUSE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES DOES NOT EMBRACE ALSO THOSE WHO HAVE
LOST THEIR STATUS FOR A WHOLLY DIFFERENT REASON - THEIR DISCHARGE FOR
UNLAWFUL PRACTICES WHICH THE ACT DOES NOT COUNTENANCE. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT, READ AS A WHOLE, TO INDICATE SUCH A
PURPOSE, AND THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN SEC. 2(3) DIRECTED TO SUCH AN
END.  I CANNOT ATTRIBUTE TO CONGRESS IN THE ADOPTION OF SEC. 2(3),
EXPLAINED AS IT WAS IN THE SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT, A PURPOSE TO CUT
OFF THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYER TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE DESTROYED
HIS FACTORY AND TO REFUSE TO REEMPLOY THEM, IF THAT IS THE REAL REASON
FOR HIS ACTION.  IF A PLAINER INDICATION OF SUCH A PURPOSE HAD BEEN
GIVEN BY THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2(3), I SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT OF
SUFFICIENTLY DUBIOUS CONSTITUTIONALITY TO REQUIRE US TO CONSTRUE ITS
LANGUAGE OTHERWISE, IF THAT COULD REASONABLY BE DONE, LEAVING IT TO
CONGRESS TO SAY SO, IN UNMISTAKABLE LANGUAGE, IF IT REALLY MEANT TO
IMPOSE THAT DUTY ON THE EMPLOYER. 

AS TO THE FOURTEEN EMPLOYEES WHO AIDED AND ABETTED THE SIT-DOWN
STRIKE, BUT WHO WERE NOT DISCHARGED, I THINK THEY RETAINED THEIR STATUS
UNDER SEC. 2(3), AND THAT THE BOARD HAD POWER TO REINSTATE THEM. 
WHETHER THAT POWER SHOULD BE EXERCISED WAS A MATTER COMMITTED TO THE
BOARD'S DISCRETION, NOT OURS. 

IN OTHER RESPECTS I CONCUR WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED, DISSENTING IN PART. 

THIS COURT AGREES WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE LABOR BOARD THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, PRIOR TO THE STRIKE,
IN CAMPAIGNING FOR A COMPANY UNION, ISOLATING THE UNION PRESIDENT,
MAKING, THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT, ANTI-UNION STATEMENTS, AND
EMPLOYING A LABOR SPY.  IT ALSO ACCEPTS THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT
THERE WAS FURTHER PRE-STRIKE VIOLATION BY RESPONDENT OF THE LABOR
RELATIONS ACT BY REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY.  NONE QUESTIONS THE
POWER OF THE BOARD TO REINSTATE STRIKING EMPLOYEES AS A MEANS OF
REDRESS FOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  THE ISSUE WHILE IMPORTANT IS
NARROW.  CAN AN EMPLOYEE, ON STRIKE OR LET OUT BY AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, BE DISCHARGED, FINALLY, BY AN EMPLOYER SO AS TO BE INELIGIBLE
FOR REINSTATEMENT UNDER THE ACT? 

THE ISSUE SO STATED GLOWS FEEBLY APART FROM THE FIRE OF CONTROVERSY. 
BUT IT MAY PERMIT A MORE OBJECTIVE APPRAISAL THAN TO EXAMINE IT WHEN
ILLUSTRATED BY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEES WHICH IS THOUGHT TO
PUT "A PREMIUM ON RESORT TO FORCE" AND TO SUBVERT "THE PRINCIPLES OF
LAW AND ORDER WHICH LIE AT THE FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIETY."  NONE ON EITHER
SIDE OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE NEED BE SUSPECTED OF "COUNTENANCING
LAWLESSNESS," OR OF ENCOURAGING EMPLOYEES TO RESORT TO "VIOLENCE IN
DEFIANCE OF THE LAW OF THE LAND."  DISAPPROVAL OF A SIT-DOWN DOES NOT
LOGICALLY COMPEL THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE THEORY THAT AN EMPLOYER HAS THE
POWER TO BAR HIS STRIKING EMPLOYEE FROM THE PROTECTION OF THE LABOR
ACT. 

THE LABOR ACT WAS ENACTED IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE
FROM THE INTERRUPTIONS OF LABOR DISPUTES.  THIS OBJECT WAS SOUGHT
THROUGH PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN PRACTICES DEEMED UNFAIR TO LABOR, AND
THE SANCTIONS ADOPTED TO ENFORCE THE PROHIBITIONS INCLUDED
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES.  TO ASSURE THAT THE STATUS OF STRIKERS WAS
NOT CHANGED FROM EMPLOYEES TO INDIVIDUALS BEYOND THE PROTECTION OF THE
ACT, THE TERM EMPLOYEE WAS DEFINED TO INCLUDE "ANY INDIVIDUAL WHOSE
WORK HAS CEASED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY CURRENT
LABOR DISPUTE OR BECAUSE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE  ...  " SEC.
2(3), ACT OF JULY 5, 1935.  WITHOUT THIS ASSURANCE OF THE CONTINUED
PROTECTION OF THE ACT, THE STRIKING EMPLOYEE WOULD BE QUICKLY PUT
BEYOND THE PALE OF ITS PROTECTION BY DISCHARGE.  AS NOW CONSTRUED BY
THE COURT, THE EMPLOYER MAY DISCHARGE ANY STRIKER, WITH OR WITHOUT
CAUSE, SO LONG AS THE DISCHARGE IS NOT USED TO INTERFERE WITH SELF
ORGANIZATION OR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  FRICTION EASILY ENGENDERED BY
LABOR STRIFE MAY READILY GIVE RISE TO CONDUCT, FROM NOSE-THUMBING TO
SABOTAGE, WHICH WILL GIVE FAIR OCCASION FOR DISCHARGE ON GROUNDS OTHER
THAN THOSE PROHIBITED BY THE LABOR ACT. 

THE CONGRESS SOUGHT BY CLEAR LANGUAGE TO ELIMINATE THIS PROLIFIC
SOURCE OF ILL FEELING BY THE PROVISION JUST QUOTED WHICH SHOULD BE
INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS LANGUAGE AS CONTINUING THE
ELIGIBILITY OF A STRIKER FOR REINSTATEMENT REGARDLESS OF CONDUCT BY THE
STRIKER OR ACTION BY THE EMPLOYER.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM INVOLVED
IN SUCH A CONCLUSION IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE INVOLVED IN
COMPELLING AN EMPLOYER TO REINSTATE AN EMPLOYEE, DISCHARGED FOR UNION
ACTIVITY.  THERE IS HERE NO PROTECTION FOR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.  EVERY
PUNISHMENT WHICH COMPELLED OBEDIENCE TO LAW STILL REMAINS IN THE HANDS
OF THE PEACE OFFICERS.  IT IS ONLY THAT THE ACT OF CEASING WORK IN A
CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE INVOLVING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES SUSPENDS FOR A
PERIOD, NOT NOW NECESSARY TO DETERMINE, THE RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYER TO
TERMINATE THE RELATION.  THE INTERFERENCE WITH THE NORMAL EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHT TO DISCHARGE EXTENDS ONLY TO THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING THE
RELATIONSHIP IN INDUSTRIAL STRIFE. 

THE POINT IS MADE THAT AN EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO
REEMPLOY AN EMPLOYEE GUILTY, PERHAPS, OF SABOTAGE.  THIS DEPENDS UPON
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE BOARD TO WEIGH THE CHARGES
AND COUNTERCHARGES AND DETERMINE THE ADJUSTMENT MOST CONDUCIVE TO
INDUSTRIAL PEACE.  COURTS CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE
NORMAL ACTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.  HERE
BOTH LABOR AND MANAGEMENT HAD ERRED GRIEVOUSLY IN THEIR RESPECTIVE
CONDUCT.  IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE TO RESTORE BOTH TO THEIR
FORMER STATUS.  SUCH RESTORATION WOULD APPLY TO THE SIT-DOWN STRIKERS
AND THOSE STRIKING EMPLOYEES WHO AIDED AND ABETTED THEM. 

I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD
ORDERING AN OFFER OF REINSTATEMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES DISCUSSED ABOVE
SHOULD BE SUSTAINED.  AS THE REMAINDER OF THE ORDER IS AFFECTED BY THE
DETERMINATION UPON THIS ISSUE BUT NOT WHOLLY CONTROLLED BY THE
CONCLUSIONS, NO OPINION IS EXPRESSED AS TO THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF
THE ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :













EICHHOLZ V. COMM'N, 306 U.S. 268 


NO. 367.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  - 23
F.SUPP.  587, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266, THAT PART OF A DECREE OF THE THREE
JUDGE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DENIED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS REVIEWABLE
DIRECTLY BY THIS COURT INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE,
NOT FINAL, CONCERNING A COUNTERCLAIM.  P. 269. 

2.  MERE PENDENCY BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OF AN
APPLICATION UNDER THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT TO OPERATE AS A MOTOR
CARRIER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE AUTHORITY OF A
STATE TO ENFORCE REASONABLE REGULATIONS OF TRAFFIC UPON ITS HIGHWAYS
WITH RESPECT TO SUCH APPLICANT.  P. 273. 

3.  FOR THE EFFECTUATION OF ITS LAWS REQUIRING COMMON CARRIERS BY
MOTOR TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY BEFORE
OPERATING INTRASTATE, A STATE MAY FORBID INTRASTATE BUSINESS BY
CARRIERS WHO HAVE NOT SUCH CERTIFICATES BUT HAVE PERMITS FROM THE STATE
FOR USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ONLY; AND WHERE AN
INTERSTATE CARRIER EVADES THE PROHIBITION BY CARRYING GOODS FROM WITHIN
THE STATE TO A PLACE NEAR TO AND BEYOND ITS BOUNDARY AND THEN CARRYING
THEM BACK FOR DELIVERY IN THE STATE NEAR THE BOUNDARY, THE STATE MAY
REVOKE HIS PERMIT.  P. 273. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY, AND IN THE LIGHT
OF LOCAL EXIGENCIES, THE STATE IS FREE TO ACT IN ORDER TO PROTECT ITS
LEGITIMATE INTERESTS EVEN THOUGH INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS DIRECTLY
AFFECTED. 

EICHHOLZ V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE DENYING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER REVOKING THE APPELLANT'S PERMIT TO OPERATE IN
MISSOURI AS AN INTERSTATE CARRIER BY MOTOR. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, COMPOSED OF
THREE JUDGES, HOLDING VALID AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF MISSOURI WHICH REVOKED APPELLANT'S PERMIT AS AN INTERSTATE CARRIER,
AND DENYING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE COMMISSION AND
CERTAIN STATE OFFICERS FROM PROSECUTING SUITS AGAINST APPELLANT FOR
USING THE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY FOR
HIRE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  23 F.SUPP.  587. 

BY A SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER, THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PLEADED A
COUNTERCLAIM FOR FEES ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO THE STATE FOR THE USE OF ITS
HIGHWAYS SINCE THE GRANTING OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER WHICH WAS ISSUED
ON THE INSTITUTION OF THE SUIT.  THE DISTRICT COURT ADJUDGED THE
DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO RECOVER ON THE COUNTERCLAIM AND APPOINTED A
SPECIAL MASTER TO TAKE THE NECESSARY ACCOUNTING.  AS THE DECREE IS NOT
A FINAL ONE SO FAR AS THE COUNTERCLAIM IS CONCERNED, THE APPELLEES MOVE
TO DISMISS THE APPEAL.  THE MOTION IS DENIED.  THE DECREE DENIED A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF A DIRECT APPEAL
FROM THAT PART OF THE DECREE BY VIRTUE OF THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE
STATUTE.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 266; 28 U.S.C. 380.  COMPARE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N V. BRASHEAR FREIGHT LINES, ANTE, P. 204.  SEE SMITH V.
WILSON, 273 U.S. 388, 390, 391; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY.
CO., 282 U.S. 10, 14. 

SINCE 1931 APPELLANT, FRANK EICHHOLZ, HAS OPERATED FREIGHT TRUCKS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES OF MISSOURI, IOWA AND KANSAS AND
HAS MAINTAINED TERMINAL FACILITIES IN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS, AND OTHER PLACES IN KANSAS AND IOWA.  PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF
THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935(49 U.S.C. 301 ET SEQ.), HE
OBTAINED A PERMIT FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI "TO
OPERATE AS A FREIGHT CARRYING MOTOR CARRIER OVER AN IRREGULAR ROUTE"
BETWEEN POINTS IN MISSOURI AND POINTS BEYOND THAT STATE, "EXCLUSIVELY
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  HE DID NOT SEEK OR OBTAIN FROM THE COMMISSION
AN INTRASTATE PERMIT. 

ON THE PASSAGE OF THE FEDERAL ACT, APPELLANT APPLIED FOR A PERMIT
FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND THAT APPLICATION WAS STILL
PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING BELOW AND ARGUMENT HERE. 

WHEN THE STATE PERMIT WAS GRANTED, AND THEREAFTER, THERE WAS IN FORCE
RULE NO. 44 OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION WHICH PROVIDED AS
FOLLOWS: 

"NO DRIVER OR OPERATOR OPERATING UNDER AN INTERSTATE PERMIT SHALL
ACCEPT FOR TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THIS STATE ANY PERSON OR PROPERTY
KNOWN TO BE DESTINED TO A POINT WITHIN THE STATE OF MISSOURI.  IF SUCH
INTERSTATE CARRIER ACCEPTS WITHIN MISSOURI A PASSENGER WHOSE
DESTINATION IS BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, SUCH
PASSENGER SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO TERMINATE HIS TRIP WITHIN THE STATE
OF MISSOURI; AND IF SUCH INTERSTATE CARRIER ACCEPTS WITHIN MISSOURI
PROPERTY DESTINED TO A POINT BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI
SUCH PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TERMINATED WITHIN THE STATE OF MISSOURI." 

IN DECEMBER, 1936, AFTER HEARING, THE COMMISSION REVOKED APPELLANT'S
PERMIT, HOLDING THIS RULE TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.  ITS DECISION WAS
BASED UPON A FINDING THAT APPELLANT HAD UNLAWFULLY ENGAGED IN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE PRETENSE OF TRANSACTING INTERSTATE
BUSINESS; THAT AS A SUBTERFUGE HE HAD HAULED FREIGHT ORIGINATING IN ST.
LOUIS, MISSOURI, AND DESTINED TO KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, AND VICE VERSA,
THROUGH HIS TERMINAL IN KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, WHICH WAS LOCATED LESS
THAN ONE-HALF MILE FROM THE MISSOURI STATE LINE.  THE COMMISSION STATED
THAT THE TESTIMONY SHOWED AN INDUSTRIOUS SOLICITATION BY APPELLANT FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BETWEEN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, AND KANSAS
CITY, MISSOURI, ON THE BASIS OF HIS QUOTED INTERSTATE RATE BETWEEN SUCH
CITIES AS SET FORTH IN HIS TARIFF FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, WHICH RATE WAS MUCH LOWER THAN THE ESTABLISHED RATE FOR
INTRASTATE CARRIERS OPERATING BETWEEN THESE CITIES, AND THAT BY SUCH
MEANS A LARGE VOLUME OF BUSINESS HAD BEEN DEVELOPED.  IT APPEARED THAT
HE WAS CARRYING FREIGHT AT THE INTERSTATE FIRST-CLASS RATE OF SIXTY
CENTS PER CWT. BETWEEN ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, AND KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI,
THROUGH HIS TERMINAL AT KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, WHILE THE SIMILAR
INTRASTATE FREIGHT RATE ESTABLISHED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES IN MISSOURI WAS NINETY-TWO CENTS PER CWT. 

ON THE CHALLENGE IN THIS SUIT OF THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER, THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD THE EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES AND FOUND
THAT THE CARRIAGE OF PROPERTY FROM ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, TO KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS, AND THENCE BACK INTO KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, FOR DELIVERY, WAS
NOT "THE NORMAL, REGULAR OR USUAL ROUTE" FOR SHIPPING MERCHANDISE
BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES IN MISSOURI; THAT THE ROUTE USED BY APPELLANT TO
HIS TERMINAL AT KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, WAS THROUGH KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI,
AND THAT THE SAME TRAFFIC-WAYS WERE USED IN MAKING DELIVERIES OF
MERCHANDISE AFTER IT HAD BEEN HAULED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO THE
TERMINAL; THAT AFTER REACHING THE TERMINAL IN KANSAS CITY, KANSAS,
APPELLANT IN MANY INSTANCES DID NOT UNLOAD THE MERCHANDISE, THAT MUCH
OF SUCH SHIPMENTS WAS IN CARLOAD LOTS, AND THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED WAS
TO HAUL THE MERCHANDISE TO HIS TERMINAL IN KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, "WHERE
A NEW DRIVER, EITHER WITH THE SAME TRACTOR AND TRAILER, OR WITH ANOTHER
TRACTOR AND THE SAME TRAILER, WOULD RETURN THE MERCHANDISE TO KANSAS
CITY, MISSOURI"; THAT IN SOME INSTANCES MERCHANDISE WAS ACTUALLY
UNLOADED AT THE DEPOT IN KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, AND THEN DISTRIBUTED TO
THE CONSIGNEES IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, BUT THAT THIS WAS "A
NEGLIGIBLE PERCENTAGE OF THE SHIPMENT BETWEEN MISSOURI POINTS"; AND
THAT THE METHOD OF OPERATION WHICH APPELLANT EMPLOYED WAS DESIGNED TO
AFFORD SHIPPERS THE BENEFIT OF A LOWER RATE AND WAS NOT IN GOOD FAITH. 

FIRST.  BY SEC. 5268(A) OF THE MISSOURI BUS AND TRUCK ACT (LAWS OF
1931, PP. 307, 308), THE STATE DECLARED IT TO BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR TO FURNISH SERVICE WITHIN THE STATE WITHOUT
FIRST HAVING OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  BY SEC. 5268(B) IT WAS DECLARED UNLAWFUL
FOR ANY MOTOR CARRIER (WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE) TO
USE ANY OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WITHOUT FIRST HAVING OBTAINED A PERMIT FROM THE COMMISSION.  IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER SUCH A PERMIT SHOULD BE ISSUED,
THE COMMISSION SHOULD GIVE CONSIDERATION "TO THE KIND AND CHARACTER OF
VEHICLES PERMITTED OVER SAID HIGHWAY" AND SHOULD REQUIRE THE FILING "OF
A LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY OR BOND" IN SUCH SUM AND UPON SUCH
CONDITIONS AS THE COMMISSION MIGHT DEEM NECESSARY TO PROTECT ADEQUATELY
THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC IN THE USE OF THE HIGHWAY.  THE STATUTE ALSO
AUTHORIZED THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO PRESCRIBE REGULATIONS
GOVERNING MOTOR CARRIERS. 

APPELLANT'S COMPLAINT DID NOT ATTACK THESE STATUTES; ON THE CONTRARY
HE ASSERTED THAT HE HAD FULLY COMPLIED WITH THEIR PROVISIONS.  HIS
COMPLAINT WAS OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION REVOKING HIS PERMIT.  WE
CONFINE OURSELVES TO THE QUESTION THUS PRESENTED. 

SECOND. WHEN THE COMMISSION REVOKED THE PERMIT, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD NOT ACTED UPON APPELLANT'S APPLICATION UNDER
THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT AND MEANWHILE THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
BODY TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION UNDER THE STATE LAW TO ENFORCE
REASONABLE REGULATIONS OF TRAFFIC UPON THE STATE HIGHWAYS HAD NOT BEEN
SUPERSEDED.  WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, ANTE, P. 79; COMPARE MCDONALD
V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 263. 

THIRD.  APPELLANT DID NOT SEEK FROM THE STATE COMMISSION A
CERTIFICATE ENTITLING HIM TO DO AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  UNDER THE
COMMISSION'S RULE, HE HAD HIS CHOICE EITHER TO REFRAIN FROM CARRYING
PROPERTY BETWEEN POINTS IN MISSOURI OR TO SECURE A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AS AN INTRASTATE CARRIER.  THE
VALIDITY OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SUCH A CERTIFICATE TO PROMOTE THE PROPER
AND SAFE USE OF THE STATE HIGHWAYS IS NOT OPEN TO QUESTION.  HENDRICK
V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610, 622; MORRIS V. DUBY, 274 U.S. 135, 143;
CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554, 556, 557; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY DEPT. V.
BARNWELL BROTHERS, 303 U.S. 177, 189; COMPARE BUCK V. KUYKENDALL, 267
U.S. 307, 315; INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. HOLYOKE RY. CO., 273 U.S. 45,
51; SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 169. 

RULE 44 WAS PLAINLY DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE USE
OF AN INTERSTATE PERMIT TO CIRCUMVENT THE REQUIREMENT OF A CERTIFICATE
FOR INTRASTATE TRAFFIC.  THE RULE SIMPLY SOUGHT TO HOLD TO HIS CHOICE
THE ONE WHO HAD SOUGHT AND OBTAINED A PERMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  APPELLANT WAS ENTIRELY FREE TO CONDUCT THAT
TRANSPORTATION IF HE DID NOT ENGAGE IN THE INTRASTATE BUSINESS FOR
WHICH HE HAD DELIBERATELY REFRAINED FROM QUALIFYING HIMSELF.  WE CANNOT
SEE THAT THE RULE ON ITS FACE IMPOSED ANY IMPROPER BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT DID SO THROUGH THE
APPLICATION THAT THE COMMISSION HAS MADE OF IT. 

APPELLANT INSISTS THAT THE HAULING FROM ST. LOUIS OVER THE STATE LINE
TO KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, OF MERCHANDISE CONSIGNED TO PERSONS IN KANSAS
CITY, MISSOURI, AND HAULING IT BACK AGAIN TO ITS INTENDED DESTINATION
IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, WAS ACTUALLY INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION. 
HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO., 187 U.S. 617; WESTERN UNION
TELEGRAPH CO. V. SPEIGHT, 254 U.S. 17; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V.
STROUD, 267 U.S. 404.  THAT FACT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT REQUIRE THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE STATE'S ACTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ITS INTRASTATE
COMMERCE WAS INVALID.  SEE LONE STAR GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 304 U.S. 224,
238.  WE MAY ASSUME THAT CONGRESS COULD REGULATE INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF THE SORT HERE IN QUESTION, WHATEVER THE MOTIVE OF
THOSE ENGAGING IN IT.  BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL
AUTHORITY, AND IN THE LIGHT OF LOCAL EXIGENCIES, THE STATE IS FREE TO
ACT IN ORDER TO PROTECT ITS LEGITIMATE INTERESTS EVEN THOUGH INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW. 
299, 319; MORGAN'S S.S. CO. V. LOUISIANA, 118 U.S. 455; SMITH V.
ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465; KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1, 9, 10.  IF
APPELLANT'S HAULING OF THE MERCHANDISE IN QUESTION ACROSS THE STATE
LINE WAS NOT IN GOOD FAITH BUT WAS A MERE SUBTERFUGE TO EVADE THE
STATE'S REQUIREMENT AS TO INTRASTATE COMMERCE, THERE IS NO GROUND FOR
SAYING THAT THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF THE INTERSTATE PERMIT TO
COVER SUCH TRANSACTIONS, AND THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMISSION'S RULE
PROHIBITING THEM IN THE ABSENCE OF AN INTRASTATE CERTIFICATE, WAS AN
UNWARRANTABLE INTRUSION INTO THE FEDERAL FIELD OR THE SUBJECTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO ANY UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT.  AND IF THE PROHIBITION
OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS WAS VALID, THE COMMISSION WAS UNDOUBTEDLY ENTITLED
TO ENFORCE IT BY REVOKING APPELLANT'S PERMIT FOR BREACH OF THE
CONDITION UPON WHICH IT WAS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED BY APPELLANT. 

FOURTH.  THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS THUS ONE OF FACT, WHETHER THE
TRANSACTIONS OF APPELLANT WERE OF THE CHARACTER DESCRIBED BY THE
COMMISSION AND IN THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS INTRODUCED
BEFORE THE COURT, BUT NEITHER THAT EVIDENCE NOR THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
TAKEN BY THE COURT IS PRESENTED IN EXTENSO BY THE RECORD HERE.  THE
PARTIES PROPERLY FILED, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPEAL, CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY RELIED.  AN
EXAMINATION OF THESE STATEMENTS DISCLOSES NO REASON FOR DISTURBING THE
COURT'S FINDINGS. 

APPELLANT STRESSES THE FACT THAT HE HAD SELECTED HIS TERMINAL IN
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS OPERATIONS AS A MOTOR
CARRIER, ABOUT 1932, AND THAT IT WAS A CONVENIENT AND PROPER LOCATION. 
BUT THAT FACT DOES NOT ALTER THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS UNDER
REVIEW.  THERE WAS A VARIANCE IN THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE EXTENT OF THE
APPELLANT'S BUSINESS WHICH WAS CONDUCTED IN VIOLATION OF HIS PERMIT,
BUT THERE WAS ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE COURT'S FINDING THAT IT WAS A
CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF HIS OPERATIONS AND JUSTIFIED THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION. 

THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT SO FAR AS IT DENIES AN INJUNCTION IS
AFFIRMED. 
..END :





U.S. V. BERTELSEN & PETERSEN CO., 306 U.S. 276 


NO. 416.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  - 98
F.2D 132, 97 F.2D 488, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A TAXPAYER HAVING OVERPAID INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES FOR 1917, THE
COMMISSIONER ORDERED A REFUND OF PART OF THE OVERPAYMENT AND CREDITED
THE BALANCE TO A DEFICIENCY IN 1918 TAXES, ALTHOUGH ASSESSMENT OF THE
LATTER WAS THEN BARRED BY LIMITATIONS.  THE TAXPAYER SUED THE UNITED
STATES TO RECOVER JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT SO CREDITED.  THE COLLECTOR
WHO HAD WRONGFULLY COLLECTED THE EXCESS 1917 TAXES WAS DEAD OR OUT OF
OFFICE AT THE TIME THIS PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN.  HELD: 

(1)  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY RULED THAT TIMELY AND
PROPER CLAIM FOR THE OVERPAYMENT FOR 1917 HAD BEEN MADE AS REQUIRED BY
R.S. 3226, AS AMENDED AND REENACTED BY REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AND THAT
THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT "TO RECOVER THAT PART OF A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE
1917 OVER-PAYMENT WHICH HAD BEEN DISALLOWED BY IMPROPERLY APPLYING IT
TO AN INVALID ASSESSMENT OF A DEFICIENCY TAX FOR 1918."  P. 279. 

(2)  THE CERTIFICATE OF OVERASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER,
ORDERING REFUND OF PART OF A DISCLOSED OVERPAYMENT FOR 1917 AND
CREDITING THE BALANCE TO A DEFICIENCY FOR 1918, DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN
ACCOUNT STATED BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE TAXPAYER, WHO DID NOT
ASSENT.  P. 280. 

(3)  THE SUIT WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER
JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(20), AS AMENDED.  DISTINGUISHING LOWE BROS. CO. V.
U.S., 304 U.S. 302.  P. 280. 

2.  A SUIT BROUGHT BY A TAXPAYER TO RECOVER ADMITTED OVERPAYMENTS OF
INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES FOR 1922 TO 1925, MADE TO A COLLECTOR WHO AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE SUIT WAS OUT OF OFFICE, WHICH OVERPAYMENTS THE
COMMISSIONER UNDERTOOK TO CREDIT AGAINST ALLEGED DEFICIENCIES OF TAXES
FOR 1926 TO 1928, HELD NOT A SUIT TO RECOVER PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF
TAXES FOR 1926 TO 1928, BUT ONE FOR THE RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS FOR
1922 TO 1925, IN RESPECT OF WHICH TIMELY CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS HAD BEEN
FILED; AND THAT THE SUIT WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(20) AS AMENDED.  P. 281. 

UNITED STATES V. BERTELSEN & PETERSEN ENGINEERING CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 437, UNITED STATES V. JAFFRAY, ET AL., TRUSTEES. 
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 
ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 3, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 590, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCES OF JUDGMENTS FOR THE
TAXPAYERS IN TWO SUITS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURTS TO RECOVER
OVERPAYMENTS OF FEDERAL TAXES.  FOR EARLIER OPINIONS IN NO. 416, SEE 60
F.2D 745; 95 F.2D 867; 49 F.2D 395; 14 F.SUPP.  868. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN EACH OF THESE CAUSES COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES MAINTAIN THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES.  THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL RULED OTHERWISE AND APPROVED JUDGMENTS FOR
RESPONDENTS.  THE COLLECTORS WHO RECEIVED THE EXCESS TAXES IN QUESTION
WERE EITHER DEAD OR OUT OF OFFICE WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER WERE
COMMENCED.  THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION ONLY IS OPEN FOR OUR
CONSIDERATION. 

AND DETERMINE CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ARISING OUT OF CONTRACT,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.  PRIOR TO 1921 SEC. 24(20) JUDICIAL CODE GAVE
DISTRICT COURTS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WHEN THE CLAIM DID NOT EXCEED
TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS.  FN2 

THE ACTS OF 1921, 1924, 1925 AND 1926  FN3  ENLARGED THE JURISDICTION
OF DISTRICT COURTS BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING TO SEC. 24(20) JUDICIAL
CODE: 

"CONCURRENT WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS, OF ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING,
COMMENCED AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, FOR THE
RECOVERY OF ANY INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY
OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED, OR OF ANY PENALTY CLAIMED TO HAVE
BEEN COLLECTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OR ANY SUM ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
EXCESSIVE OR IN ANY MANNER WRONGFULLY COLLECTED, UNDER THE INTERNAL
REVENUE LAWS, EVEN IF THE CLAIM EXCEEDS $10,000, IF THE COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE BY WHOM SUCH TAX, PENALTY, OR SUM WAS COLLECTED IS
DEAD OR IS NOT IN OFFICE AS COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE AT THE TIME
SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING IS COMMENCED." 

1926, C. 27, SEC. 1113(A), 44 STAT. 9, 116 PROVIDES - 

"NO SUIT OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT FOR THE
RECOVERY OF ANY INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY
OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED,  ...  UNTIL A CLAIM FOR REFUND OR
CREDIT HAS BEEN DULY FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
...  NO SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE BEGUN  ...  AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX,
PENALTY, OR SUM, UNLESS SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING IS BEGUN WITHIN TWO
YEARS AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PART OF SUCH CLAIM TO WHICH SUCH
SUIT OR PROCEEDING RELATES.  THE COMMISSIONER SHALL WITHIN 90 DAYS
AFTER ANY SUCH DISALLOWANCE NOTIFY THE TAXPAYER THEREOF BY MAIL." 

1103(A), 47 STAT. 169, 286, SO AS TO READ AS SHOWN IN THE MARGIN.  FN4

                   NO. 416. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE UNDERTOOK TO DEDUCT MORE THAN
TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM AN ADMITTED OVERPAYMENT BY RESPONDENT UPON
1917 TAXES AND TO APPLY THIS TO A DECLARED DEFICIENCY FOR 1918 TAXES
THEN BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  BY THIS SUIT RESPONDENT
SEEKS A JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT SO DEDUCTED. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY HELD "THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT
TO RECOVER THAT PART OF A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE 1917 OVERPAYMENT
WHICH HAD BEEN DISALLOWED BY IMPROPERLY APPLYING IT TO AN INVALID
ASSESSMENT OF A DEFICIENCY TAX FOR 1918."  ALSO, RIGHTLY WE THINK, THAT
TIMELY AND PROPER CLAIM FOR THE OVERPAYMENT FOR 1917 HAD BEEN MADE AS
REQUIRED BY SEC. 3226 REVISED STATUTES AS REENACTED 1926. 

AND WE ACCEPT THE CONCLUSIONS STATED IN THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM
ITS OPINION - 

"THE CERTIFICATE OF OVERASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON JULY
27, 1926, DISCLOSED AN OVERPAYMENT BY THE TAXPAYER OF THE 1917 TAX OF
$91,570.34, OF WHICH THE COMMISSIONER ORDERED REFUNDED TO THE TAXPAYER
APPROXIMATELY $55,000, AND ON JULY 27, 1926, CREDITED $34,555.68 TO A
DEFICIENCY TAX FOR 1918.  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF
OVERASSESSMENT CONSTITUTED AN ACCOUNT STATED BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND
THE TAXPAYER, SINCE THE TAXPAYER REFUSED TO ASSENT TO THE APPLICATION
OF ANY PART OF THE OVERPAYMENT TO A DEFICIENCY TAX FOR 1918.  TO
CONSTITUTE AN ACCOUNT STATED THERE MUST BE AN AGREEMENT AS TO LIABILITY
AND THE AMOUNT DUE.  GOODRICH, ADMR.  V. COFFIN, 83 ME. 324.  THAT THE
TAXPAYER'S PETITION WAS NOT BASED ON AN ALLOWANCE OF AN OVERPAYMENT FOR
1917, AND AN IMPLIED PROMISE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO REFUND, IS EQUALLY
CLEAR, SINCE THE TAXPAYER REFUSED TO ASSENT TO THE APPLICATION OF
$34,555.68 TO A DEFICIENCY TAX OF 1918.  THE APPLICATION BY THE
COMMISSIONER ON JULY 27, 1926, OF A PART OF THE OVERPAYMENT FOR 1917 TO
A DEFICIENCY TAX FOR 1918, AGAINST THE PROTEST OF THE TAXPAYER,
CONSTITUTED A DISALLOWANCE OF SO MUCH OF THE PETITIONER'S ORIGINAL
CLAIM FOR REFUND.  ...  THE SUIT WAS ONE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
AGAINST A COLLECTOR, IF LIVING, BUT WHO IS NOW DEAD OR OUT OF OFFICE." 

LOWE BROS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 302, 303, IS NOT
CONTROLLING.  THERE THE SUIT WAS BEGUN IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER
AN OVERPAYMENT OF 1917 TAXES THE ALLEGED RESULT OF A CREDIT MADE BY THE
COMMISSIONER FROM AN ADMITTED OVERPAYMENT FOR 1918.  FOR THIS NO ACTION
COULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AGAINST THE COLLECTOR - HE DID NOT MAKE OR
AUTHORIZE THE CREDIT.  THEREFORE, THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 24(20) JUDICIAL
CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20)) ENLARGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD NO APPLICATION.  HERE THE COLLECTOR MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUED
SINCE HE WRONGLY RECEIVED PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF 1917 TAXES.  THE
PRESENT CAUSE FALLS WITHIN THE VERY WORDS OF THE AMENDMENT. 

                               NO. 437. 

RESPONDENTS OVERPAID INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES IN SUMS EXCEEDING TEN
THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR 1922, 1923 AND 1924; AND FOR 1925, $7,800.  THE
COMMISSIONER ISSUED CERTIFICATES TO THAT EFFECT AUGUST 16, 1933.  HE
REFUSED TO REPAY THESE SUMS BUT UNDERTOOK TO CREDIT THEM TO
DEFICIENCIES WHICH HE ASSESSED AGAINST RESPONDENTS FOR 1926, 1927,
1928. 

THEREUPON THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RECOVER THE OVERPAYMENTS FOR 1922
TO 1925 UNDER SEC. 24(20) JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED (U.S.C. TITLE 28,
SEC. 41(20)) WHICH GIVES DISTRICT COURTS JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF
TAXES ERRONEOUSLY RECEIVED BY A COLLECTOR OUT OF OFFICE.  RESPONDENTS
MAINTAIN THAT, IN FACT, THERE WERE NO DEFICIENCIES FOR 1926, 1927,
1928, AND THAT BY ATTEMPTING TO CREDIT OVERPAYMENTS FOR 1922 TO 1925
AGAINST NON-EXISTING DEFICIENCIES THE COMMISSIONER IN EFFECT DENIED
THEIR CLAIMS FOR REFUND. 

ON THE OTHER HAND PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S ACTION
IN ALLOWING THE OVERPAYMENTS AND CREDITING THEM AGAINST ALLEGED
DEFICIENCIES AMOUNTED TO PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF TAXES ASSESSED FOR 1926
TO 1928.  AND, AS IT WAS THE COMMISSIONER AND NOT THE COLLECTOR WHO
CAUSED SUCH CREDIT OF OVERPAYMENTS TO DEFICIENCIES, THE DISTRICT COURT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE SUIT WAS ONE TO RECOVER
OVERPAYMENTS ADMITTEDLY MADE TO THE COLLECTOR AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH
TIMELY CLAIMS FOR REFUND HAD BEEN FILED. 

IT SAID - 

"THE CREDITING OF THE OVERPAYMENTS, BY THE COMMISSIONER, AGAINST
TAXES DUE FROM THE TAXPAYER FOR OTHER YEARS WAS A MATTER OF DEFENSE, A
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE FAILURE TO REFUND, AND NOT A MATTER WHICH
DESTROYED THE TAXPAYER'S CAUSE OF ACTION OR OUSTED THE COURT OF
JURISDICTION." 

THIS CONCLUSION WE THINK IS CORRECT.  OTHER POINTS SUGGESTED, SO FAR
AS PRESENTLY IMPORTANT, ARE SUFFICIENTLY ANSWERED BY WHAT HAS BEEN SAID
IN NO. 416. 

BOTH OF THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENTS MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  TUCKER ACT MARCH 3, 1887, C. 359, 24 STAT. 505; ACT JUNE 27,
1898, C. 503, 30 STAT. 494; JULY 1, 1898, C. 546, 30 STAT. 597, 649;
FEBRUARY 26, 1900, C. 25, 31 STAT. 33; MARCH 3, 1911, 36 STAT. 1087,
1136; U.S.C. TITLE 28, SEC. 250(1). 

FN2  "THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS
FOLLOWS:  ... 

"TWENTIETH.  CONCURRENT WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS, OF ALL CLAIMS NOT
EXCEEDING TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOUNDED UPON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES OR ANY LAW OF CONGRESS, OR UPON ANY REGULATION OF AN
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, OR UPON ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,  ..."  ACT MARCH 3, 1911, 36 STAT.
1087, 1091, 1093; U.S.C. TITLE 28, SEC. 41(20). 

FN3  SEE ACT NOVEMBER 23, 1921, C. 136, 42 STAT. 227, 311; JUNE 2,
1924, C. 234, 43 STAT. 253, 348; FEBRUARY 24, 1925, C. 309, 43 STAT.
972; FEBRUARY 26, 1926, C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, 121.  U.S.C. TITLE 28, SEC.
41(20) 

FN4  "SECTION 3226 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED, IS AMENDED TO
READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 3226.  NO SUIT OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT
FOR THE RECOVERY OF ANY INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED,  ... UNTIL A CLAIM FOR
REFUND OR CREDIT HAS BEEN DULY FILED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, ...  NO SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE BEGUN  ...  AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING BY REGISTERED MAIL BY
THE COMMISSIONER TO THE TAXPAYER OF A NOTICE OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE
PART OF THE CLAIM TO WHICH SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING RELATES." 

U.S.C. TITLE 26, SECS. 1672-1673. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
EITHER OF THESE CAUSES. 
..END :




















TITUS V. WALLICK, 306 U.S. 282 


NO. 188.  ARGUED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  - 133
OHIO ST. 612 - 15 N.E.2D 140, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE IN A STATE COURT A JUDGMENT RECOVERED IN A
COURT OF ANOTHER STATE IS ONE ARISING UNDER ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND UNDER A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES, R.S. SEC. 905;
28 U.S.C. SEC. 687.  SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS RIGHT DEPENDS UPON THE
LEGAL EFFECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THE VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT, IN
THE STATE IN WHICH IT WAS RENDERED, THE RULINGS UPON THOSE MATTERS BY
THE COURT IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS SUED UPON ARE REVIEWABLE BY THIS
COURT.  P. 287. 

2.  BY THE LAW OF NEW YORK, AN ASSIGNMENT OF A CHOSE IN ACTION FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SUIT ONLY AND OBLIGATING THE ASSIGNEE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
PROCEEDS TO ANOTHER ENABLES THE ASSIGNEE TO SUE IN HIS OWN NAME.  P.
288. 

3.  THIS EFFECT OF AN ASSIGNMENT IN NEW YORK IS NOT ALTERED BY ADDING
TO THE ASSIGNMENT A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO BRING THE SUIT.  P. 289. 

4.  AFTER RECOVERING A JUDGMENT AS LAWFUL ASSIGNEE OF THE ORIGINAL
CAUSE OF ACTION THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR RESISTED A CLAIM UPON CONTRACT
FOR A SHARE OF THE JUDGMENT, MADE IN ANOTHER SUIT, BY REPRESENTING THAT
HIS INTEREST HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO OTHERS BEFORE THE CONTRACT AND BY
CONCEALING THE FACT THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAD BEEN REASSIGNED TO HIM
FOR PURPOSES OF SUIT BEFORE THE ACTION RESULTING IN THE JUDGMENT HAD
BEEN BEGUN.  HELD NOT MATTER OF DEFENSE IN A SUIT TO COLLECT THE
JUDGMENT IN ANOTHER STATE BECAUSE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT IMPAIR
THE PREVIOUS ASSIGNMENT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEPRIVE THE JUDGMENT
CREDITOR OF THE AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT, ALREADY CONFERRED UPON
HIM BY THE REASSIGNMENT.  P. 290. 

5.  WHEN A STATE COURT REFUSES CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A SISTER
STATE BECAUSE OF ITS OPINION OF THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR
THE JUDGMENT IN WHICH IT IS MERGED, AN ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT IS DENIED
AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE GROUNDS OF DENIAL ARE FOR THIS COURT TO
DECIDE.  P. 291. 

6.  THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1, REQUIRES THAT CREDIT BE
GIVEN A MONEY JUDGMENT RECOVERED BY THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR, AS ASSIGNEE
OF A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION, IN ANOTHER STATE, EVEN THOUGH THE FORUM
MIGHT HAVE DECLINED TO CONCEDE HIS RIGHT TO SUE AS REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST IF THE SUIT HAD BEEN BROUGHT THERE UPON THE ORIGINAL ASSIGNED
CLAIM.  P. 291. 

TITUS V. WALLICK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 585, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW,
WHICH DISMISSED, AS INVOLVING NO DEBATABLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, AN
APPEAL FROM AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF OHIO, WHICH HAD AFFIRMED
A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER IN HIS SUIT ON A NEW YORK
JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, BY
DENYING RECOVERY UPON A JUDGMENT PROCURED BY PETITIONER AGAINST
RESPONDENT IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK, HAS FAILED TO ACCORD TO THE NEW
YORK JUDGMENT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT WHICH ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION COMMANDS. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT IN THE OHIO
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS UPON A JUDGMENT RECOVERED BY PETITIONER AGAINST
RESPONDENT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK ON MAY 1, 1934.  TRANSCRIPT
OF THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT FOR $389,103, DULY AUTHENTICATED IN CONFORMITY
TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS, R.S. SEC. 905, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687, WAS FILED
WITH THE PETITION IN THE OHIO COURT.  DEFENSES INTERPOSED BY
RESPONDENT, SO FAR AS NOW MATERIAL, WERE THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT THE
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IN THE OHIO SUIT AND THAT THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN
PROCURED IN NEW YORK BY FRAUD ON THE COURT AND ON RESPONDENT, IN THAT
PETITIONER WAS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ENTITLED TO ASSERT THE
CLAIM LITIGATED IN THAT SUIT AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 210 OF THE NEW YORK
CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, AND THAT PETITIONER, IN PROCURING THE JUDGMENT,
SUPPRESSED AND WITHHELD THAT FACT FROM RESPONDENT AND THE NEW YORK
COURTS. 

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AFTER A TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY, SUSTAINED
THESE DEFENSES AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT, WHICH THE OHIO COURT
OF APPEALS FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY AFFIRMED, WITH AN OPINION IN WHICH IT
RULED THAT THE JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE DEFENSES DID NOT DENY THE NEW
YORK JUDGMENT THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION. 
APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ASSIGNING AS ERROR THE DENIAL OF
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT WAS DISMISSED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE CASE INVOLVED "NO DEBATABLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION." 
133 OHIO ST. 612; 15 N.E.2D 140.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 585,
THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION BEING OF PUBLIC
IMPORTANCE AND THE FEDERAL RIGHT ASSERTED HAVING BEEN RULED UPON AND
DENIED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  MATTHEWS V. HUWE, 269 U.S.
262; TUMEY V. OHIO, 273 U.S. 510, 515. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THE NEW YORK SUIT IN DECEMBER, 1925, ALLEGING THAT
HE WAS THE OWNER OF A QUARTER INTEREST IN TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SHARES
OF THE STOCK OF AN OHIO CORPORATION WHICH RESPONDENT HERE, THE
DEFENDANT THERE, HAD FRAUDULENTLY APPROPRIATED TO HIS OWN USE.  THE
RELIEF SOUGHT WAS THAT RESPONDENT BE DIRECTED TO DELIVER TO PETITIONER
CERTIFICATES OF STOCK REPRESENTING HIS INTEREST IN THE CORPORATION AND
TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DIVIDENDS AND EARNINGS ON THE STOCK RECEIVED BY
RESPONDENT.  RESPONDENT APPEARED PERSONALLY AND DEFENDED THE SUIT.  IT
WAS TWICE TRIED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK AND WAS FIVE TIMES
BEFORE THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, 222 APP. DIV. 17;
225 N.Y.S. 263; 227 APP. DIV. 789; 237 N.Y.S. 908; 235 APP. DIV. 662;
225 N.Y.S. 905; 240 APP. DIV. 818; 266 N.Y.S. 969; 244 APP. DIV. 789;
280 N.Y.S. 969, AND ONCE BEFORE THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, 260 N.Y.
519; 184 N.E. 75, WHICH AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT ESTABLISHING THE LIABILITY
OF RESPONDENT.  AN ACCOUNTING, AT THE END OF NINE YEARS OF LITIGATION,
RESULTED IN THE FINAL JUDGMENT SUED UPON, WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
APPELLATE DIVISION.  244 APP. DIV. 789; 280 N.Y.S. 969. 

THE PRESENT RECORD DISCLOSES THAT AFTER ENTRY OF THIS JUDGMENT LONDON
WALLICK, A BROTHER OF RESPONDENT, BROUGHT SUIT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW YORK TO RECOVER FROM PETITIONER A SHARE OF THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
A CONTRACT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BE HIM WITH LONDON WALLICK
ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 23, 1925.  IN RESISTING A MOTION MADE IN THAT SUIT
FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING PETITIONER FROM DISPOSING OF THE JUDGMENT
OR ITS PROCEEDS, PETITIONER PREPARED AND FILED AN AFFIDAVIT RECITING
THAT ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 23, 1925, HE HAD INFORMED LONDON WALLICK
THAT HE HAD ALREADY ASSIGNED HIS INTEREST IN THE CLAIM AGAINST
RESPONDENT TO HIS WIFE AND TO WALTER TITUS, HIS BROTHER, AND ASSERTING
THAT "IT DOES NOT LIE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO NOW
ENJOIN WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED." 

THE ASSIGNMENT BY PETITIONER AND A LATER REASSIGNMENT OF THE CLAIM TO
HIM WERE INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENT SUIT.  THE ASSIGNMENT,
DATED MARCH 31, 1924, PURPORTED TO "SELL, ASSIGN, TRANSFER AND SET OVER
UNTO" WALTER TITUS "ANY AND ALL CLAIMS" WHICH PETITIONER THEN HAD
AGAINST RESPONDENT.  THE REASSIGNMENT, DESCRIBED BY ITS TERMS AS AN
"AGREEMENT," BEARS DETE DECEMBER 1, 1925, PRIOR TO THE SUIT BROUGHT BY
PETITIONER AGAINST RESPONDENT IN NEW YORK.  IT RECITES THAT THE EARLIER
ASSIGNMENT WAS MADE UPON AN ORAL AGREEMENT THAT WALTER TITUS WAS TO
"USE ANY FUNDS THAT MIGHT BE DERIVED" FROM THE CLAIM TO THE TWO HUNDRED
AND FIFTY SHARES OF STOCK TO PAY CERTAIN INDEBTEDNESS OF PETITIONER AND
THAT PETITIONER "WISHES TO INSTITUTE AN ACTION AGAINST" RESPONDENT "TO
RECOVER SAID STOCK."  IT STATES THAT WALTER TITUS "DOES HEREBY SELL,
ASSIGN, TRANSFER AND SET OVER" TO PETITIONER "ALL HIS RIGHT, TITLE AND
INTEREST" IN THE CLAIM AND APPOINTS PETITIONER HIS ATTOENEY TO COLLECT
THE CLAIM.  IT FURTHER RECITES AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSIGNOR AND
PETITIONER THAT THE LATTER WILL TURN OVER THE PROCEEDS OF THE CLAIM TO
THE ASSIGNOR, WHO AGREES, AFTER PAYING THE EXPENSES OF COLLECTION, TO
PAY OVER ONE-HALF OF THE NET RECOVERY TO PETITIONER'S WIFE, TO
DISCHARGE CERTAIN INDEBTEDNESS OF PETITIONER, AND TO PAY THE BALANCE TO
HIM. 

THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS DISAGREED WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL
COURT THAT PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT IN THE LONDON WALLICK SUIT
CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT PETITIONER HAD NO INTEREST IN THE CLAIM
PROSECUTED AGAINST RESPONDENT IN NEW YORK.  IT HELD THAT HIS INTEREST
WAS TO BE ASCERTAINED BY EXAMINATION OF THE REASSIGNMENT FROM WALTER
TITUS TO PETITIONER.  BUT INTERPRETING THAT DOCUMENT IN THE LIGHT OF
THE NEW YORK LAW IT CONCLUDED THAT THE REASSIGNMENT WAS NO MORE THAN A
POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING PETITIONER TO COLLECT THE CLAIM IN BEHALF
OF WALTER TITUS AND DID NOT OPERATE AS AN ASSIGNMENT TO VEST ANY RIGHT
OR INTEREST IN PETITIONER UPON WHICH HE COULD MAINTAIN SUIT IN THE NEW
YORK COURTS.  UPON EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT INDICATING, AS
THE COURT THOUGHT, THAT PETITIONER HAD CONSTRUED THE REASSIGNMENT
CORRECTLY AS NOT TRANSFERRING TO HIM ANY RIGHT OR INTEREST IN THE CLAIM
AGAINST RESPONDENT, IT ACCEPTED THE AFFIDAVIT AS EVIDENCE THAT
PETITIONER HAD FRAUDULENTLY PROSECUTED THE NEW YORK SUIT AGAINST
RESPONDENT WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN IT.  THE
COURT ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT DENYING
RECOVERY, ON THE GROUND THAT THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT, IMPEACHABLE THERE
FOR THE FRAUD, WAS TO THE SAME EXTENT IMPEACHABLE IN OHIO. 

BY R.S. SEC. 905, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687, ENACTED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION,
THE DULY ATTESTED RECORDS OF THE JUDGMENTS OF A STATE ARE ENTITLED TO
"SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT  ...  IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES,
AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY
ARE TAKEN."  THE JURISDICTION OF THE NEW YORK COURT OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER AND THE PERSON OF RESPONDENT, ESTABLISHED PRIMA FACIE BY THE
PRESENT RECORD AND DULY AUTHENTICATED RECORD OF THE JUDGMENT, IS NOT
QUESTIONED.  BUT RESPONDENT ARGUES, AS THE STATE COURT HELD, THAT UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION AND ACT OF CONGRESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTITLED TO NO
MORE CREDIT IN OHIO THAN IS ACCORDED TO IT IN NEW YORK AND THAT IN NEW
YORK THE JUDGMENT IS IMPEACHABLE FOR PETITIONER'S FRAUD IN PROSECUTING
THE SUIT, KNOWING THAT HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION
SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE HIM TO MAINTAIN IT. 

THE RIGHT ASSERTED BY PETITIONER TO HAVE THE NEW YORK JUDGMENT
ENFORCED IN THE COURTS OF OHIO IS ONE ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
AND A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES.  AND SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF THE
FEDERAL RIGHT TURNS UPON THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN NEW
YORK AND THE VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT THERE, THE RULINGS ON THOSE
POINTS BY THE OHIO COURT ARE REVIEWABLE HERE.  ADAM V. SAENGER, 303
U.S. 59, 64.  WHILE THEY INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF LOCAL LAW AND ARE OF A
CHARACTER SUCH THAT THIS COURT ORDINARILY REEXAMINES THEM WITH
DEFERENCE AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN PASSED UPON BY A STATE COURT, ITS
DETERMINATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED HERE AS DECISIVE IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMAND IS TO BE OBSERVED, ESPECIALLY AS THE DECISION OF THE STATE
COURT RESTS NOT ON THE LAW OF ITS OWN STATE OR MATTERS PECULIARLY
WITHIN ITS COGNIZANCE, BUT UPON THE LAW OF ANOTHER STATE WHICH IS AS
READILY DETERMINABLE HERE AS IN THE COURTS OF OHIO. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION MUCH DISCUSSED IN BRIEF AND
ARGUMENT HOW FAR THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE PRECLUDES THE DEFENSE
THAT THE JUDGMENT SUED UPON IN ONE STATE WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD IN
ANOTHER, FOR WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT IS SUBJECT TO
NO SUCH INFIRMITY.  IT IS EVIDENT THAT NO FRAUD WAS PERPETRATED ON
RESPONDENT OR ON THE NEW YORK COURTS IF THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE CLAIM TO
PETITIONER BEFORE HE BROUGHT THE SUIT IN NEW YORK OPERATED TO VEST HIM
WITH SUCH OWNERSHIP OR INTEREST IN THE CLAIM AS WOULD ENABLE HIM TO
MAINTAIN THE SUIT UPON IT THERE.  IF THE ASSIGNMENT HAD THAT EFFECT,
THE FACTS THAT IT WAS GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING PETITIONER TO
BRING THE SUIT, AND THAT HE WAS BOUND TO ACCOUNT TO A STRANGER TO THE
SUIT FOR ITS PROCEEDS, ARE IMMATERIAL, SINCE NEITHER THE COURT NOR
RESPONDENT WAS PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THEM. 

CHOSES IN ACTION, WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, ARE MADE FREELY
ASSIGNABLE BY THE NEW YORK STATUTE.  SEC. 41, PERSONAL PROPERTY LAW
(CONSOL.  LAWS, C. 41).  SECTION 210 OF THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT
PROVIDES "EVERY ACTION MUST BE PROSECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE REAL PARTY
IN INTEREST, EXCEPT THAT  ...  A TRUSTEE OF AN EXPRESS TRUST  ...  MAY
SUE WITHOUT JOINING WITH HIM THE PERSON FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE ACTION IS
PROSECUTED."  BY REPEATED DECISIONS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE
OF NEW YORK IT HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED THAT UNDER THESE SECTIONS ANY FORM
OF ASSIGNMENT WHICH PURPORTS TO ASSIGN OR TRANSFER A CHOSE IN ACTION
CONFERS UPON THE TRANSFEREE SUCH TITLE OR OWNERSHIP AS WILL ENABLE HIM
TO SUE UPON IT.  THIS IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSIGNMENT IS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUIT ONLY AND THE TRANSFEREE IS OBLIGATED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
PROCEEDS OF SUIT TO HIS ASSIGNOR.  ALLEN V. BROWN, 44 N.Y. 228; MEEKER
V. CLAGHORN, 44 N.Y. 349; SHERIDAN V. MAYOR, 68 N.Y. 30; MCCAULEY V.
GEORGIA RAILROAD BANK, 239 N.Y. 514; 147 N.E. 175; MEYERS V. CREDIT
LYONNAIS, 259 N.Y. 399; 182 N.E. 61; BANCA C.I. TRUST CO. V. CLARKSON,
274 N.Y. 69, 74; 8 N.E.2D 281; BROWN V. POWERS, 53 APP. DIV. 251; 65
N.Y.S. 733; BIRDSALL V. READ, 188 APP. DIV. 46; 176 N.Y.S. 369. 

HERE THE ASSIGNMENT, WHICH IN PLAIN TERMS PURPORTED "TO SELL, ASSIGN,
TRANSFER AND SET OVER" THE CHOSE IN ACTION TO PETITIONER, WAS
SUFFICIENT UNDER THE NEW YORK STATUTES AND AUTHORITIES TO GIVE
PETITIONER DOMINION OVER THE CLAIM FOR PURPOSES OF SUIT.  IN THAT
RESPECT ITS LEGAL EFFECT WAS NOT CURTAILED BY THE RECITAL THAT THE
ASSIGNMENT WAS FOR PURPOSES OF SUIT AND THAT ITS PROCEEDS WERE TO BE
TURNED OVER OR ACCOUNTED FOR TO ANOTHER.  THE OHIO COURT, PLACING
EMPHASIS ON THE PRESENCE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE ASSIGNMENT,
DISREGARDED THE WORDS OF ASSIGNMENT AND GAVE TO THE INSTRUMENT THE MORE
RESTRICTED EFFECT OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY.  WHILE A POWER OF ATTORNEY TO
SUE, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT UNDER THE NEW YORK LAW OPERATE AS AN
ASSIGNMENT TO VEST THE ATTORNEY WITH SUCH TITLE OR INTEREST AS WILL
ENABLE HIM TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT IN HIS OWN NAME, SPENCER V. STANDARD
CHEMICALS CORP., 237 N.Y. 479; 143 N.E. 651, THE ADDITION OF THE POWER
TO PETITIONER'S ASSIGNMENT DID NOT DEPRIVE IT OF ITS FORCE AND
CHARACTER AS AN ASSIGNMENT.  THE USE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, ONCE FOR
HISTORICAL REASONS THE INDISPENSABLE ADJUNCT OF EVERY ASSIGNMENT OF A
CHOSE IN ACTION, AMES, LECTURES ON LEGAL HISTORY, 210 ET SEQ.,
WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS, REV. ED. SECS. 405, 408, DID NOT RENDER THE
ASSIGNMENT INEFFECTIVE MERELY BECAUSE, BY VIRTUE OF THE STATUTE, ITS
PRESENCE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. 

EVEN THOUGH PETITIONER WAS DISINGENUOUS IN OMITTING TO REVEAL THE
REASSIGNMENT OF THE CLAIM IN HIS AFFIDAVIT IN THE LONDON WALLICK SUIT,
AND EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS FRAUDULENT PURPOSE IN HIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
THAT HE STILL HAD SOME INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE JUDGMENT TO
WHICH LONDON WALLICK WAS ASSERTING A CLAIM, THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT
IMPAIR THE PREVIOUS ASSIGNMENT OF THE CLAIM TO HIM OR DEPRIVE HIM OF
THE AUTHORITY, ALREADY CONFERRED BY THE REASSIGNMENT, TO MAINTAIN THE
SUIT.  WHETHER PETITIONER'S TRANSACTIONS WITH LONDON WALLICK GAVE THE
LATTER ANY EQUITABLE CLAIM TO THE JUDGMENT OR ITS PROCEEDS DOES NOT
APPEAR, BUT IN ANY CASE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH COLLATERAL CLAIMS DOES
NOT SUBJECT THE JUDGMENT TO IMPEACHMENT BY THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR.  MATTER
OF HOLDEN, 271 N.Y. 212, 217; 2 N.E.2D 631.    RESPONDENT ALSO URGES
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS RESTED ITS AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE
TRIAL COURT ON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT IN OHIO, AND THAT THIS IS A NON
FEDERAL GROUND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT AND IS NOT REVIEWABLE
HERE.  WHILE THE COURT INTIMATED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT THE REAL PARTY
IN INTEREST IN OHIO, IT EVIDENTLY RESTED THIS CONCLUSION UPON ITS
OPINION THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST IN THE SUIT
IN NEW YORK.  ITS OPINION STATES THAT IF THE ASSIGNMENT "TRANSFERRED
ANY SUCH LEGAL OR EQUITABLE INTEREST OR BOTH IN HIS CLAIM TO THE
PLAINTIFF (PETITIONER) AS WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION IN
HIS OWN NAME IN NEW YORK, THEN HE WAS A PROPER PARTY IN INTEREST THERE
AND A PROPER PARTY IN INTEREST HERE." 

WHEN A STATE COURT REFUSES CREDIT TO THE JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE
BECAUSE OF ITS OPINION OF THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR THE
JUDGMENT IN WHICH IT IS MERGED, AN ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT IS DENIED AND
THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE GROUNDS OF DENIAL ARE FOR THIS COURT TO DECIDE. 
HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146 U.S. 657, 684; KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. V.
ALBERS COMMISSION CO., 223 U.S. 573, 593; KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, 252
U.S. 411, 415.  SO FAR AS THE COURT RESTED ITS DECISION ON ITS VIEW
THAT THE NEW YORK ASSIGNMENT CONFERRED NO RIGHT ON PETITIONER TO
MAINTAIN THE SUIT THERE, IT IS ENOUGH, AS WE HAVE POINTED OUT, THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT
IN NEW YORK.  SO FAR AS OHIO MIGHT APPLY A DIFFERENT RULE IF THE
ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION WERE PROSECUTED IN ITS COURTS, THAT FACT IS
IRRELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE NOW PRESENTED.  THE SUIT IN OHIO WAS NOT UPON
THE ASSIGNED CAUSE OF ACTION BUT UPON THE JUDGMENT OF WHICH PETITIONER
IS THE RECORD OWNER.  THE SUIT UPON IT IS UPON A DIFFERENT CAUSE OF
ACTION FROM THAT MERGED IN THE JUDGMENT.  MILWAUKEE COUNTY V. WHITE
CO., 296 U.S. 268, 275.  IT IS THE JUDGMENT AND NOT THE CAUSE OF ACTION
WHICH GAVE RISE TO IT FOR WHICH CREDIT IS CLAIMED, AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE REQUIRES CREDIT TO BE GIVEN TO A MONEY JUDGMENT
RENDERED ON A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION IN ANOTHER STATE, EVEN THOUGH THE
FORUM WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER NO DUTY TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT ON WHICH THE
JUDGMENT WAS FOUNDED.  CHRISTMAS V. RUSSELL, 5 WALL.  290; FAUNTLEROY
V. LUM, 210 U.S. 230; ROCHE V. MCDONALD, 275 U.S. 449; MILWAUKEE COUNTY
V. WHITE CO., SUPRA, 277. 

EVEN THOUGH THE OHIO COURT MIGHT HAVE DECLINED TO RECOGNIZE
PETITIONER AS THE PROPER PARTY TO SUE UPON THE ASSIGNED CLAIM, A SUIT
UPON A JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER STATE, BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSTITUTION, STANDS
UPON A DIFFERENT FOOTING.  THE OHIO COURT IS NOT FREE TO WITHHOLD FROM
PETITIONER, THE RECORD OWNER OF A JUDGMENT VALID AND ENFORCEABLE BY HIM
IN NEW YORK, THE FULL BENEFIT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHALL RECEIVE IN THE COURTS OF OHIO SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT AS
IT IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IN NEW YORK.  A STATE WHICH MAY NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY REFUSE TO OPEN ITS COURTS TO A SUIT ON A JUDGMENT OF
ANOTHER STATE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION MERGED IN
THE JUDGMENT, KENNEY V. SUPREME LODGE, SUPRA, 415, OBVIOUSLY CANNOT, BY
THE ADOPTION OF A PARTICULAR RULE OF LIABILITY OR OF PROCEDURE, EXCLUDE
FROM ITS COURTS A SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT.  REVERSED. 
..END :























LABOR BOARD V. COLUMBIAN CO., 306 U.S. 292 


NO. 229.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 12, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  -
96 F.2D 948, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE EMPLOYER, ON A
DATE SPECIFIED, HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THEIR UNION, HELD INVALID,
THE FINDING NOT BEING SUSTAINED BY EVIDENCE.  P. 296. 

2.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT COMPEL THE EMPLOYER TO
SEEK OUT HIS EMPLOYEES AND REQUEST THEIR PARTICIPATION IN NEGOTIATIONS
FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND HE MAY IGNORE OR REJECT
PROPOSALS FOR SUCH BARGAINING WHICH COME FROM THIRD PERSONS NOT
PURPORTING TO ACT WITH AUTHORITY OF HIS EMPLOYEES.  P. 297. 

3.  SECTION 10(E) OF THE ACT IN PROVIDING THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE,
MEANS EVIDENCE WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL, THAT IS, AFFORDING A SUBSTANTIAL
BASIS OF FACT FROM WHICH THE FACT IN ISSUE CAN REASONABLY BE INFERRED. 
P. 299. 

4.  SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS MORE THAN A SCINTILLA, AND MUST DO MORE
THAN CREATE A SUSPICION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACT TO BE
ESTABLISHED.  IT IS SUCH RELEVANT EVIDENCE AS A REASONABLE MIND MIGHT
ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION, AND IT MUST BE ENOUGH TO
JUSTIFY, IF THE TRIAL WERE TO A JURY, A REFUSAL TO DIRECT A VERDICT
WHEN THE CONCLUSION SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN FROM IT IS ONE OF FACT FOR THE
JURY.  P. 300. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. COLUMBIAN ENAMELING & STAMPING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 583, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REFUSING AN
APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF
ONE OF ITS ORDERS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PETITION TESTS THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD OF FEBRUARY 14, 1936, DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO DISCHARGE
FROM ITS SERVICE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY IT ON JULY 22,
1935; TO REINSTATE, TO THE VACANCIES SO CREATED, THOSE WHO WERE
EMPLOYED ON THAT DATE AND HAVE NOT SINCE RECEIVED SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT ELSEWHERE; AND TO DESIST FROM REFUSING TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH ENAMELING AND STAMPING MILL EMPLOYEES UNION NO. 19694
AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES
WITH RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS, AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT.  UNLESS THE FINDING OF THE BOARD THAT RESPONDENT HAD
REFUSED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION ON JULY 23, 1935, IS
SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE, THE ORDER IS INVALID. 

PURSUANT TO A CHARGE LODGED WITH IT BY THE UNION, THE BOARD ISSUED
ITS COMPLAINT CHARGING RESPONDENT WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(1) AND (5) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  49 STAT. 449.  AFTER HEARING, THE BOARD
MADE FINDINGS WHICH, SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT, MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS
FOLLOWS:  RESPONDENT CORPORATION IS ENGAGED AT TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA, IN
THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF METAL UTENSILS AND
OTHER PRODUCTS.  ON JULY 14, 1934, RESPONDENT AND THE UNION ENTERED
INTO A WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR ONE YEAR, TERMINABLE ON THIRTY DAYS'
NOTICE, PRESCRIBING VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.  IT PROVIDED THAT
NO EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY REASON OF MEMBERSHIP OR
NON-MEMBERSHIP IN, OR AFFILIATION OR NON-AFFILIATION WITH ANY UNION OR
LABOR ORGANIZATION.  IT ALSO PROVIDED FOR ARBITRATION, BEFORE AN
ARBITRATION COMMITTEE, OF DISPUTES ARISING UNDER THE CONTRACT, AND THAT
"THERE SHALL BE NO STOPPAGE OF WORK BY EITHER PARTY TO THIS CONTRACT,
PENDING DECISION BY THE COMMITTEE OF ARBITRATION." 

BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE SIGNING OF THE AGREEMENT, JULY 14, 1934, AND
MARCH 23, 1935, RESPONDENT'S OFFICERS HELD NUMEROUS MEETINGS WITH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION, USUALLY THE UNION SCALE COMMITTEE, FOR
THE CONSIDERATION AND ADJUSTMENT OF VARIOUS DEMANDS OF THE UNION.  AT A
MEETING ON JANUARY 4, 1935, THE COMMITTEE PRESENTED A NUMBER OF
REQUESTS, AMONG THEM THE DEMAND THAT RESPONDENT SHOULD DISCHARGE ANY
EMPLOYEES WHO MIGHT BE SUSPENDED BY THE UNION.  THIS AND THE OTHER
DEMANDS WERE REJECTED BY RESPONDENT, AND A LATER REQUEST THAT THE
DEMANDS OF JANUARY 4TH BE ARBITRATED WAS LIKEWISE REFUSED ON THE GROUND
THAT THEY WERE NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE AGREEMENT.  THE COMMITTEE
AFTERWARD PRESENTED NEW DEMANDS AT OTHER MEETINGS AND THEN AT A MEETING
ON MARCH 11TH RENEWED THE DEMANDS OF JANUARY 4TH, WHICH RESPONDENT
AGAIN REJECTED.  ON MARCH 17TH THE UNION PASSED RESOLUTIONS RECITING
GRIEVANCES AND DEMANDING A CLOSED SHOP, AND ON MARCH 23RD ORDERED A
STRIKE, WHEN FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY OF RESPONDENT'S FIVE HUNDRED
EMPLOYEES LEFT WORK.  ON MARCH 30TH RESPONDENT ANNOUNCED THAT ITS
FACTORY WAS CLOSED INDEFINITELY. 

THE STRIKE WAS IN EFFECT JULY 5, 1935, WHEN THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT WAS APPROVED, AND CONTINUED UNTIL ABOUT JULY 23RD, WHEN
RESPONDENT RESUMED OPERATIONS AT ITS PLANT.  BY AUGUST 19TH IT HAD
RECEIVED THREE THOUSAND APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT AND HAD REEMPLOYED
ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY OF ITS PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES.  BY THE END OF THE
SECOND WEEK IN SEPTEMBER RESPONDENT HAD EMPLOYED A FULL FORCE.  ON JULY
23RD TWO LABOR CONCILIATORS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR APPEARED IN
TERRE HAUTE AND WERE REQUESTED BY THE UNION "TO TRY AND OPEN UP
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RESPONDENT."  ON THAT DAY THE CONCILIATORS MET
AND CONFERRED WITH RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT, WHO AGREED TO MEET THEM WITH
THE SCALE COMMITTEE.  SEVERAL DAYS LATER HE INFORMED THEM THAT HE WOULD
NOT MEET WITH THEM OR WITH THE SCALE COMMITTEE.  LATER RESPONDENT
RECEIVED, BUT DID NOT ANSWER, LETTERS OF THE UNION OF SEPTEMBER 20TH
AND OCTOBER 11TH, ASKING FOR A MEETING TO SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN THEM. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT ON JULY 23RD THE "UNION REPRESENTED A
MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, THAT IT SOUGHT TO BARGAIN WITH
THE RESPONDENT, THAT THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO SO BARGAIN, AND THAT
THIS CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8, SUBDIVISION (5) OF THE ACT.  IT ORDERED RESPONDENT TO DISCHARGE ALL
OF ITS PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES WHO WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY IT ON JULY 22,
1935, TO REINSTATE ITS EMPLOYEES AS OF THAT DATE, AND THEREUPON TO
DESIST FROM REFUSING TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION AS THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVE OF RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES. 

APPLICATION BY THE BOARD FOR A DECREE ENFORCING ITS ORDER WAS DENIED
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, 96 F.2D 948,
ON THE GROUND THAT AS THE EMPLOYEES HAD STRUCK BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONTRACT NOT TO
STRIKE AND TO SUBMIT DIFFERENCES TO ARBITRATION, THEY DID NOT RETAIN
AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION OF THEIR STATUS AS EMPLOYEES UNDER
SEC. 2(3) OF THE ACT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 583, THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

THE BOARD'S ORDER IS WITHOUT SUPPORT UNLESS THE DATE OF THE REFUSAL
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY BE FIXED AS JULY 23, 1935.  THE EVIDENCE AND
FINDINGS LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT LATER, IN SEPTEMBER, RESPONDENT IGNORED
THE UNION'S REQUEST FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, BUT AS AT THAT TIME
RESPONDENT'S FACTORY HAD BEEN REOPENED AND WAS OPERATING WITH A FULL
COMPLEMENT OF PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES, THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COULD AFFORD
NO BASIS FOR AN ORDER BY THE BOARD DIRECTING, AS OF THAT DATE, THE
DISCHARGE OF NEW EMPLOYEES AND THEIR REPLACEMENT BY STRIKERS. 
RESTORATION OF THE STRIKERS TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT, BY ORDER OF THE BOARD,
UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF THE ACT, COULD AS A PRACTICAL MATTER BE EFFECTED
ONLY IF RESPONDENT HAD FAILED IN ITS STATUTORY DUTY TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY AT SOME TIME AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT ON JULY 5TH, AND BEFORE RESPONDENT HAD RESUMED NORMAL
OPERATION OF ITS FACTORY.  THE DATE FIXED BY THE BOARD WAS JULY 23RD,
WHEN RESPONDENT REOPENED ITS FACTORY, AND THE OCCASION WAS THE PERSONAL
INTERVIEW ON THAT DAY AND A LATER TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF
RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT WITH THE CONCILIATORS FROM THE LABOR DEPARTMENT,
WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS OR OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION AND WHO,
SO FAR AS THE TESTIMONY DISCLOSES, DID NOT THEN APPEAR TO THE PRESIDENT
TO BE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK FOR THE UNION. 

IN APPRAISING THESE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE CONCILIATORS AND
RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE NATURE AND
EXTENT OF THE LEGAL DUTY IMPOSED UPON THE EMPLOYER BY THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  SECTION 8(5) DECLARES THAT IT IS AN "UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE" FOR AN EMPLOYER "TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS EMPLOYEES," AND SECS. 2 AND 10(C) GIVE TO THE
BOARD AN EXTENSIVE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE AND TO COMPEL REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH BACK PAY
WHEN EMPLOYMENT HAS CEASED IN CONSEQUENCE OF A LABOR DISPUTE OR UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE.  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO &
TELEGRAPH CO., 304 U.S. 333.  WHILE THE ACT THUS MAKES IT THE
EMPLOYER'S DUTY TO BARGAIN WITH HIS EMPLOYEES, AND FAILURE TO PERFORM
THAT DUTY ENTAILS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES TO HIM, IT IMPOSES NO LIKE DUTY
ON HIS EMPLOYEES.  SINCE THERE MUST BE AT LEAST TWO PARTIES TO A
BARGAIN AND TO ANY NEGOTIATIONS FOR A BARGAIN, IT FOLLOWS THAT THERE
CAN BE NO BREACH OF THE STATUTORY DUTY BY THE EMPLOYER - WHEN HE HAS
NOT REFUSED TO RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS FROM HIS EMPLOYEES - WITHOUT SOME
INDICATION GIVEN TO HIM BY THEM OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR
DESIRE OR WILLINGNESS TO BARGAIN.  IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF TRANSACTIONS
BETWEEN THEM, WILLINGNESS OF THE EMPLOYEES IS EVIDENCED BY THEIR
REQUEST, INVITATION, OR EXPRESSED DESIRE TO BARGAIN, COMMUNICATED TO
THEIR EMPLOYER. 

HOWEVER DESIRABLE MAY BE THE EXHIBITION BY THE EMPLOYER OF A TOLERANT
AND CONCILIATORY SPIRIT IN THE SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES, WE THINK
IT PLAIN THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT COMPEL HIM TO SEEK OUT HIS EMPLOYEES
OR REQUEST THEIR PARTICIPATION IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND THAT HE MAY IGNORE OR REJECT PROPOSALS FOR
SUCH BARGAINING WHICH COME FROM THIRD PERSONS NOT PURPORTING TO ACT
WITH AUTHORITY OF HIS EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT VIOLATION OF LAW AND WITHOUT
SUFFERING THE DRASTIC CONSEQUENCES WHICH VIOLATION MAY ENTAIL.  TO PUT
THE EMPLOYER IN DEFAULT HERE THE EMPLOYEES MUST AT LEAST HAVE SIGNIFIED
TO RESPONDENT THEIR DESIRE TO NEGOTIATE.  MEASURED BY THIS TEST THE
BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION IS
WITHOUT SUPPORT, FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
UNION GAVE TO THE EMPLOYER, THROUGH THE CONCILIATORS OR OTHERWISE, ANY
INDICATION OF ITS WILLINGNESS TO BARGAIN OR THAT RESPONDENT KNEW THAT
THEY REPRESENTED THE UNION.  THE EMPLOYER CANNOT, UNDER THE STATUTE, BE
CHARGED WITH REFUSAL OF THAT WHICH IS NOT PROFFERED. 

DURING THE EIGHT MONTHS PRECEDING THE STRIKE RESPONDENT HAD, UPON
REQUEST, ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNION ON SOME ELEVEN
DIFFERENT OCCASIONS.  SUCH MEETINGS, ALWAYS WITH SOME KNOWN
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION, WERE CUSTOMARILY WITH THE UNION SCALE
COMMITTEE AND ON ITS WRITTEN REQUEST.  ALL NEGOTIATIONS WERE BROKEN OFF
BY THE UNION BY THE STRIKE WHICH FOLLOWED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY ITS
RESOLUTIONS OF MARCH 17TH.  ON JULY 23RD THE STRIKE HAD CONTINUED FOR
ABOUT FOUR MONTHS, ACCOMPANIED BY PICKETING, VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION
OF PROPERTY, AND HAD CULMINATED, ON JULY 22ND, IN A PROCLAMATION OF
MARTIAL LAW.  A MEETING ON JUNE 11TH HAD RESULTED IN NO CHANGE OF
ATTITUDE ON EITHER SIDE.  FROM THEN UNTIL JULY 23RD NO ATTEMPT APPEARS
TO HAVE BEEN MADE ON EITHER SIDE TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS. 

WHILE THERE WAS BEFORE THE BOARD TESTIMONY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
UNION THAT ON JULY 23RD HE HAD ASKED THE CONCILIATORS TO "TRY AND OPEN
UP NEGOTIATIONS," THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY THAT RESPONDENT OR ITS
OFFICERS HAD EVER BEEN INFORMED OF THAT FACT OR THAT THEY WERE ADVISED
IN ANY WAY OF THE WILLINGNESS OF THE UNION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS. 
THIS WAS POINTEDLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD AND THE TRIAL
EXAMINER BY A MOTION TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF THE SECRETARY AND THAT
OF RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT, GIVING HIS ACCOUNT OF HIS INTERVIEW WITH THE
CONCILIATORS.  BUT THE CONCILIATORS WERE NOT CALLED AS WITNESSES AND NO
ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO SUPPLY THE OMISSION. 

RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT TESTIFIED THAT ON JULY 23RD THE CONCILIATORS
ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD MEET WITH THEM AND THE SCALE COMMITTEE; THAT HE
REPLIED THAT HE WOULD; THAT NO MEETING WAS ARRANGED AND THAT SEVERAL
DAYS LATER HE CALLED ONE OF THE CONCILIATORS ON THE TELEPHONE AND
INFORMED HIM THAT HE, THE WITNESS, "WOULD NOT HAVE ANY MEETING WITH HIM
OR WITH THE SCALE COMMITTEE."  ALL ELSE THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE
CONCILIATORS AND RESPONDENT IS LEFT A MATTER OF CONJECTURE. 

THIS TESTIMONY, ON WHICH THE BOARD RELIES TO SUPPORT ITS FINDING,
SHOWS ON ITS FACE THAT THERE WAS NO INDICATION UNTIL SOMETIME LATER
THAN JULY 23RD OF ANY UNWILLINGNESS ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT'S
PRESIDENT TO MEET THE UNION.  FURTHERMORE, IT CONTAINS NO HINT THAT THE
UNION AT ANY TIME AFTER JULY 5TH AND BEFORE SEPTEMBER COMMUNICATED TO
RESPONDENT ITS WILLINGNESS TO BARGAIN, OR THAT THE CONCILIATORS, IN
ASKING A MEETING AND DISCUSSING THE MATTER WITH RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT,
PURPORTED TO SPEAK FOR THE UNION.  THE TESTIMONY IS CONSISTENT
THROUGHOUT WITH THE INFERENCE, AND INDEED SUPPORTS IT, THAT THE
CONCILIATORS, SO FAR AS KNOWN TO RESPONDENT, APPEARED IN THEIR OFFICIAL
ROLE AS MEDIATORS TO COMPOSE THE LONG-STANDING DISPUTE BETWEEN
RESPONDENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES; THAT THE EMPLOYER FIRST CONSENTED IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND A MEETING, AND LATER WITHDREW ITS CONSENT WHEN THEY
HAD FAILED FOR SOME DAYS TO ARRANGE A MEETING.  WHETHER IN THE MEANTIME
THE SCALE COMMITTEE OR ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION WAS IN
FACT WILLING TO ATTEND A MEETING DOES NOT APPEAR. 

AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  BUT
AS HAS OFTEN BEEN POINTED OUT, THIS, AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER FINDINGS
BY ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES, MEANS EVIDENCE WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL, THAT IS,
AFFORDING A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS OF FACT FROM WHICH THE FACT IN ISSUE CAN
BE REASONABLY INFERRED.  WASHINGTON, V. & M. COACH CO. V. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 301 U.S. 142; CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305 U.S. 197; APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC
POWER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 93 F.2D 985, 989; NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THOMPSON PRODUCTS INC., 97 F.2D 13; BALLSTON
STILLWATER KNITTING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 98 F.2D 758,
764.  SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS MORE THAN A SCINTILLA, AND MUST DO MORE
THAN CREATE A SUSPICION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE FACT TO BE
ESTABLISHED.  "IT MEANS SUCH RELEVANT EVIDENCE AS A REASONABLE MIND
MIGHT ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION," CONSOLIDATED EDISON
CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, P. 229, AND IT MUST BE
ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY, IF THE TRIAL WERE TO A JURY, A REFUSAL TO DIRECT A
VERDICT WHEN THE CONCLUSION SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN FROM IT IS ONE OF FACT
FOR THE JURY.  SEE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. GROEGER, 266 U.S. 521,
524; GUNNING V. COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90, 94; APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA, 989.    JUDGED BY THESE TESTS
OR ANY OF THEM WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT
RESPONDENT AT ANY TIME BETWEEN JULY 5, 1935, AND SEPTEMBER, 1935, WAS
AWARE THAT THE UNION DESIRED OR SOUGHT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH
RESPONDENT, OR THAT THERE IS SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE BOARD'S
CONCLUSION THAT ON OR ABOUT JULY 23, 1935 RESPONDENT REFUSED TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE LABOR BOARD WAS GIVEN JURISDICTION BY CONGRESS TO HEAR AND WEIGH
EVIDENCE AND TO DETERMINE THE INFERENCES FROM IT; TO MAKE FINDINGS OF
FACT; AND TO ISSUE ORDERS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IN APT LANGUAGE, CONGRESS LIMITED THE
POWER OF COURTS TO REVIEW THE BOARD'S FINDINGS BY PROVIDING IN THE ACT
THAT "THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE." 

I BELIEVE THAT "THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN WERE FOR THE BOARD AND NOT
THE COURTS,"  FN1  AND THAT THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE BOARD WERE
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  COURTS SHOULD NOT - AS HERE - SUBSTITUTE
THEIR APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT OF THE BOARD. 

THE LABOR BOARD, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND MANY
OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES WERE ALL CREATED TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS OF
REGULATION OF EVER INCREASING COMPLEXITY IN THE ECONOMIC FIELDS OF
TRADE, FINANCE AND INDUSTRIAL CONFLICTS.  CONGRESS THUS SOUGHT TO
UTILIZE PROCEDURES MORE EXPEDITIOUS AND ADMINISTERED BY MORE
SPECIALIZED AND EXPERIENCED EXPERTS THAN COURTS HAD BEEN ABLE TO
AFFORD.  THE DECISION HERE TENDS TO NULLIFY THIS CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT. 

THE LABOR BOARD CONCLUDED THAT "ON OR ABOUT JULY 23, 1935, THE
COMPANY REFUSED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR AT ALL,  ...  "  THIS CONCLUSION IS
HERE SET ASIDE ONLY BECAUSE THE COURT BELIEVES THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE
BOARD DID NOT SUPPORT ITS PARTICULAR UNDERLYING FINDING THAT "IT SEEMS
CLEAR THAT  ...  (THE) PRESIDENT OF THE RESPONDENT, KNEW THAT THE UNION
WAS SEEKING THROUGH THE (FEDERAL) CONCILIATORS TO BARGAIN WITH THE
RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE STRIKE." 

UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE DISCLOSED THAT ON JULY 23, 1935, THE CONCILIATORS
- AT THE EXPRESS INSTANCE OF THE UNION - CONFERRED FOR THREE OR FOUR
HOURS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF RESPONDENT; THAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE
CONCILIATORS WAS TO ARRANGE A MEETING BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE UNION
IN ORDER TO BRING ABOUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; THAT THE PRESIDENT
AGREED WITH THE CONCILIATORS TO MEET THE UNION AND THE CONCILIATORS AT
A DATE TO BE SET; BUT THAT SEVERAL DAYS THEREAFTER (WHEN THE COMPANY
HAD OBTAINED OTHER EMPLOYEES AND WAS OPERATING UNDER THE PROTECTION OF
THE MILITIA) THE PRESIDENT - AGAIN ACTING FOR THE COMPANY - CALLED THE
CONCILIATORS AND FLATLY REFUSED TO MEET FURTHER WITH THEM OR THE
UNION.  THE COURT FINDS ONLY A SINGLE LINK MISSING IN THE CHAIN OF
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE COMPANY REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION,
I.E., THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY WAS AWARE THE CONCILIATORS HAD APPROACHED
THE COMPANY AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNION.  BUT THE "COURTS CANNOT PICK
AND CHOOSE BITS OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT CONTRARY TO THE
FINDINGS OF" AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.  FN2  AND THE STORY IN THIS RECORD
DISCLOSES A BROAD BASIS FOR THE INFERENCE THAT THE COMPANY DID KNOW IT
WAS ACTUALLY REFUSING THE UNION'S REQUEST. 

FOR THIRTY-THREE YEARS PRIOR TO JULY, 1934, THE COMPANY RAN A NON
UNION PLANT.  ABOUT THAT DATE, A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES WERE
ORGANIZED BY AN AFFILIATE OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.  THE
COMPANY FIRST REFUSED TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION BUT DID SO,
JULY 14, 1934, UPON THE INTERVENTION OF THE REGIONAL LABOR BOARD
FUNCTIONING UNDER THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT.  THIS AGREEMENT
WAS TO CONTINUE A YEAR, WAS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY MUTUAL CONSENT,
AND PROVIDED FOR ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES ARISING UNDER IT.  THEREAFTER,
PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT, MEETINGS WERE HELD BETWEEN THE UNION AND
RESPONDENT AND THE UNION SUBMITTED REPEATED REQUESTS AND GRIEVANCES,
RELATING TO THE "CHECK-OFF" SYSTEM, WAGE INCREASES, THE POSSIBILITY OF
A CLOSED SHOP, ETC.  THESE WERE REFUSED AND COUNTER GRIEVANCES OF THE
COMPANY WERE SUBMITTED AND DISCUSSED.  IN MEETINGS AND BY MAIL, THE
UNION CONTINUED TO SUBMIT GRIEVANCES - THAT BACK-PAY ACCRUED DURING
SHUT-DOWNS WAS OWING, THAT THE COMPANY WAS DEALING WITH INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEES AND, IN MARCH, 1935, THAT THE COMPANY BY REFUSING TO
ARBITRATE HAD BROKEN ITS AGREEMENT.  MARCH 22, THE UNION CALLED A
STRIKE, THE TESTIMONY SHOWING THAT IT WAS CALLED "ON ACCOUNT OF THE
COMPANY'S REFUSAL TO HONOR AND ABIDE BY THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BEFORE THE
LABOR BOARD JULY 14, 1934  ...  (AS TO) MINIMUM DAYS, WAGES, AND ANY
EMPLOYEE BEING CALLED OUT AND NOT USED" AND BECAUSE THE COMPANY HAD
"REFUSED ARBITRATION ON THIS AGREEMENT."  THEREAFTER, THE COMPANY
CLOSED ITS PLANT, CONSISTENTLY URGED INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE UNION TO
RETURN TO WORK AND DESERT THE UNION'S EFFORTS - BY STRIKE - TO OBTAIN
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD NOT MEET
WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND THAT IT WAS WILLING TO TAKE ITS
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES BACK, BUT "WITHOUT UNION RECOGNITION OR
AGREEMENT."  JUNE 11, THE COMPANY DID MEET WITH THE UNION'S
REPRESENTATIVES BUT INSURED THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCCESSFUL
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY REITERATING AT THE OUTSET THAT THE COMPANY
WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE THE UNION.  JULY 23, THE UNION ASKED THE
CONCILIATORS TO SEE THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY. 

TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COMPANY - THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT - WAS UNAWARE
THE CONCILIATORS WERE ACTING AT THE INSTANCE OF THE UNION, AND,
THEREFORE, IS NOT TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS FLAT REFUSAL TO MEET
WITH ITS EMPLOYEES, IS BOTH TO IGNORE THE RECORD AND TO SHUT OUR EYES
TO THE REALITIES OF THE CONDITIONS OF MODERN INDUSTRY AND INDUSTRIAL
STRIFE.  THE ATMOSPHERE OF A STRIKE BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES
WITH WHOM THE EMPLOYER IS FAMILIAR DOES NOT EVOKE, AND SHOULD NOT
REQUIRE, PUNCTILIOUS OBSERVANCE OF LEGALISTIC FORMALITIES AND SOCIAL
EXACTNESS IN DISCUSSIONS RELATIVE TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE STRIKE.  IT
IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT - DURING SEVERAL HOURS OF CONVERSATION
BETWEEN THE CONCILIATORS AND THE COMPANY'S PRESIDENT CONCERNING A
FUTURE MEETING OF UNION AND COMPANY - THE CONCILIATORS REFRAINED FROM
REFERENCE TO THE UNION'S REQUEST THAT THE CONCILIATORS ARRANGE SUCH A
FUTURE MEETING.  IN A REALISTIC VIEW, THE COMPANY'S STATEMENT OF JULY
23 TO THE CONCILIATORS, THAT IT WOULD MEET WITH THEM AND THE UNION,
CLEARLY INDICATED THE COMPANY'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE
CONCILIATORS WERE APPEARING FOR THE UNION.  THE COMPANY'S DECLARATION
TO THE CONCILIATORS, SEVERAL DAYS LATER, THAT IT WOULD NOT MEET WITH
THE UNION OR THE CONCILIATORS, EQUALLY REPRESENTS THE COMPANY'S
RECOGNITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE CONCILIATORS WERE A
MEANS OF DEALING WITH THE UNION. 

NOT ONLY DID THE LABOR BOARD FIND THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW
THAT THE COMPANY REFUSED TO BARGAIN WITH THE UNION ON OR ABOUT JULY 23,
BUT THE COURT BELOW REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION.  THE RULE IS WELL
SETTLED THAT FINDINGS OF FACT CONCURRED IN BY TWO LOWER COURTS WILL NOT
"BE DISTURBED UNLESS PLAINLY WITHOUT SUPPORT."  FN3  THIS RULE EQUALLY
APPLIES WHEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AND A LOWER COURT - AS HERE -
CONCUR ON FINDINGS OF FACT,  FN4  AND THE RULE IS EVEN MORE PERSUASIVE
WHERE, AS IN THE ACT CREATING THE LABOR BOARD, IT IS PROVIDED THAT "THE
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL
BE CONCLUSIVE."  THE MAJORITY OPINION  FN5  OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN
THIS CASE SAID: 

"THIS CONCLUSION (REFUSAL TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ACTION) DOES NOT
MEAN THAT WE APPROVE OR UPHOLD THE REFUSAL OF THE RESPONDENT TO MEET
THE REQUEST OF THE CONCILIATORS AND ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS LOOKING
TOWARD THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AFTER THE EMPLOYEES HAD QUIT THEIR
EMPLOYMENT.  RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES WERE LARGELY UNIONIZED.  UNDER THE
ACT, RESPONDENT, WHEN REQUESTED TO NEGOTIATE, WAS IN DUTY BOUND TO DO
SO.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.,
301 U.S. 1.  INSTEAD IT LENT A FRIENDLY EAR TO UNWISE COUNSEL WHOLLY
OUT OF SYMPATHY WITH THE LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO AVOID AND SETTLE
CAPITAL-LABOR DISPUTES.  IT ERRED IN ITS REFUSAL TO RESPECT THE LAW AND
...  (IGNORED) THE REQUEST OF THOSE CHARGED WITH THE BURDENSOME TASK
OF WORKING OUT A PEACEFUL SOLUTION OF WHAT HAD BECOME A BITTER
CONTROVERSY.  THERE IS LITTLE OR NO EXPLANATION WHICH WE CAN FIND FOR
THEIR REFUSAL, SAVE AN OPEN, DEFIANT, FLOUTING OF THE LAW OF THE
LAND." 

RESPONDENT'S STRIKING EMPLOYEES REMAINED EMPLOYEES - WHILE ON STRIKE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (SEC. 2(3))
BECAUSE THEIR WORK HAD CEASED "AS A CONSEQUENCE OF  ... (AND) IN
CONNECTION WITH  ...  (A) CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE.  ...  "  THE STATUTORY
RIGHTS OF THESE STRIKING EMPLOYEES COULD NOT BE DESTROYED, AND
RESPONDENT COULD NOT COMMIT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THEN ESCAPE
LIABILITY BY REOPENING THE PLANT WITH A FULL COMPLEMENT OF NON-UNION
MEN. 

SECOND.  THE COURT BELOW WAS OF OPINION THAT THE STRIKE OF MARCH 22,
1935, VIOLATED THE PARTICULAR PROVISION OF THE JULY 14, 1934, CONTRACT
FN6  WITH THE COMPANY THAT "THERE SHALL BE NO STOPPAGE OF WORK BY
EITHER PARTY TO THIS CONTRACT, PENDING DECISION BY THE COMMITTEE OF
ARBITRATION."  SOLELY BECAUSE IT BELIEVED THE UNION HAD VIOLATED ITS
CONTRACT, THE COURT BELOW DECLINED TO ENFORCE THE BOARD'S ORDER, AND
HELD THAT THE COMPANY COULD NOT BE MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS OWN
VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 

IN THIS, I BELIEVE THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR.  A DISAGREEMENT OVER
THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT GOVERNING EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS IS A
LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  SUCH A DISAGREEMENT CAN -
AS IT DID HERE - PRODUCE INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WHICH THE ACT WAS EXPRESSLY
DESIGNED TO PREVENT.  HAD CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT VIOLATION OF A PRIVATE
CONTRACT WOULD DEPRIVE EMPLOYEES AND THE PUBLIC OF THE BENEFITS OF THE
LAW, A DIFFERENT QUESTION WOULD BE PRESENTED.  BUT CONGRESS DID NOT SO
PROVIDE AND, IN ADDITION, THE UNION DID NOT VIOLATE ITS CONTRACT.  IT
CONTRACTED NOT TO STRIKE "PENDING DECISION BY THE COMMITTEE OF
ARBITRATION" BUT THERE WAS NO DECISION "PENDING."  THERE WAS NO
ARBITRATION PENDING BECAUSE THE COMPANY WOULD NOT ARBITRATE.  IF THE
CONTRACT WAS BROKEN, IT WAS THE COMPANY - NOT THE UNION - THAT BROKE
IT. 

I BELIEVE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT
THE BOARD'S ORDER SHOULD BE ENFORCED. 

FN1  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES,
303 U.S. 261, 271. 

FN2  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. STANDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY, 302 U.S.
112, 117; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. ALGOMA CO., 291 U.S. 67, 73; CF.,
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. KEPPEL & BRO., 291 U.S. 304, 314. 

FN3  GENERAL PICTURES CO. V. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO., 304 U.S. 175, 178;
UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1, 14; VIRGINIAN RY. V.
FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515, 542. 

FN4  ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 206 U.S.
441, 466. 

FN5  THREE JUDGES SAT IN THE COURT BELOW.  ONE WROTE THE OPINION FOR
THE MAJORITY; THE SECOND JUDGE CONCURRED IN THE CONCLUSION OF THAT
OPINION; THE THIRD JUDGE DISSENTED BUT EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT THERE WAS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT THE COMPANY REFUSED TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH ITS EMPLOYEES. 

FN6  "IN ANY CASE IN WHICH A SATISFACTORY SETTLEMENT OF A DISPUTE
ARISING UNDER THIS CONTRACT CANNOT BE REACHED, SUCH DISPUTE SHALL BE
REFERRED TO A COMMITTEE OF ARBITRATION COMPOSED OF TWO PERSONS SELECTED
BY THE MANAGEMENT, TWO PERSONS SELECTED BY THE UNION, AND FIFTH PERSON
TO BE SELECTED BY THESE FOUR, WHO SHALL REACH A DECISION WHICH SHALL BE
FINAL AND BINDING UPON BOTH PARTIES TO THIS CONTRACT.  THERE SHALL BE
NO STOPPAGE OF WORK BY EITHER PARTY TO THIS CONTRACT, PENDING DECISION
BY THE COMMITTEE OF ARBITRATION." 

MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS CO., 306 U.S. 307 


NO. 312.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  - 96
F.2D 693, REVERSED. 


1.  APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY OF A CORPORATION UNDERGOING
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT - ACCEPTED BY THIS
COURT IN VIEW OF CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF TWO COURTS BELOW AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUSTAINING THEIR FINDINGS.  P. 314. 

2.  THE SO-CALLED INSTRUMENTALITY RULE IS BUT A CONVENIENT WAY OF
DESIGNATING THE APPLICATION, IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, OF THE
BROADER EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE ENTITY,
RECOGNIZED GENERALLY AND FOR MOST PURPOSES, WILL NOT BE REGARDED WHEN
SO TO DO WOULD WORK FRAUD OR INJUSTICE.  THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN
APPLIED IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES TO GIVE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS
REDRESS AGAINST WRONGFUL INJURY TO THEIR INTERESTS BY A MAJORITY
STOCKHOLDER.  P. 322. 

3.  A PROVISION NEW IN BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION, WITH RESPECT TO THE
STANDING OF STOCKHOLDERS IN CORPORATE REORGANIZATION, IS FOUND IN SEC.
77B (B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH ENACTS THAT A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION "MAY INCLUDE PROVISIONS MODIFYING OR ALTERING THE RIGHTS
OF STOCKHOLDERS GENERALLY, OR ANY CLASS OF THEM, EITHER THROUGH THE
ISSUANCE OF NEW SECURITIES OF ANY CHARACTER OR OTHERWISE."  P. 322. 

4.  SECTION 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AUTHORIZES THE COURT, AS A
COURT OF EQUITY, TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTS AND STATUS OF THE PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS OF A BANKRUPT CORPORATION ARISING OUT OF THE WRONGFUL AND
INJURIOUS CONDUCT OF A CONTROLLING CORPORATION IN THE MISMANAGEMENT OF
THE BANKRUPT'S AFFAIRS.  P. 322. 

5.  A PARENT CORPORATION WITH COMPLETE CONTROL OF A SUBSIDIARY
GROSSLY MISMANAGED ITS AFFAIRS THROUGH MANY YEARS AND, ACCORDING TO THE
ACCOUNTS BETWEEN THEM, BECAME ITS CREDITOR IN AN ENORMOUS SUM. 
MEANWHILE, THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF THE SUBSIDIARY HAD NO VOICE IN
ITS MANAGEMENT BECAUSE THE CHARTER DENIED THEM VOTING POWER SO LONG AS
DIVIDENDS WERE PAID THEM, AND BECAUSE THE DOMINANT CORPORATION CAUSED
THE SUBSIDIARY, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS PRECARIOUS CONDITION, TO PAY SUCH
DIVIDENDS WHEN DUE.  IN A REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED A COMPROMISE OF THE
PARENT COMPANY'S CLAIM, AND ON THAT BASIS APPROVED A PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION INVOLVING FORMATION OF A NEW SUCCESSOR CORPORATION,
DISCHARGE OF OTHER OBLIGATIONS, AND SATISFACTION OF THE COMPROMISED
CLAIM BY AWARDING TO THE PARENT COMPANY A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE NEW
COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK, THUS CONTINUING ITS COMPLETE CONTROL, BUT
ALLOWING ONLY A MINORITY OF SUCH STOCK TO THE OLD PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN NOT REJECTING
THE COMPROMISE AND THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  PP. 309, 323. 

(2)  IF A REORGANIZATION IS EFFECTED, THE AMOUNT AT WHICH THE PARENT
COMPANY'S CLAIM IS ALLOWED IS NOT IMPORTANT IF IT IS TO BE REPRESENTED
BY STOCK IN THE NEW COMPANY, PROVIDED THE STOCK TO BE AWARDED IT IS
SUBORDINATE TO THAT AWARDED PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF THE BANKRUPT.  P.
324. 

(3)  NO PLAN OUGHT TO BE APPROVED WHICH DOES NOT ACCORD SUCH
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS A RIGHT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE EQUITY IN THE
ASSETS PRIOR TO THAT OF THE PARENT COMPANY, AND AT LEAST EQUAL VOICE
WITH THAT COMPANY IN THE MANAGEMENT.  ID. 

TAYLOR ET AL., INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE, V. STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 584, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVING A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN APPROVING THE COMPROMISE OF A CLAIM BY A PARENT AGAINST A
SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION AND A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION BASED UPON THE
COMPROMISE, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN1
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BY A DIVIDED COURT, APPROVED THE DISTRICT
COURT'S ORDER.  FN2 

THE PETITIONERS ARE A COMMITTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS.  THE RESPONDENTS ARE THE TRUSTEE OF THE DEBTOR, DEEP ROCK
OIL CORPORATION (A DELAWARE CORPORATION WHOSE BUSINESS WAS THAT OF
PRODUCING, REFINING, AND SELLING GASOLINE, OIL, AND OTHER PETROLEUM
PRODUCTS, FROM LANDS LOCATED IN OKLAHOMA, KANSAS, TEXAS, AND ARKANSAS),
A REORGANIZATION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTING NOTEHOLDERS AND CERTAIN
HOLDERS OF PREFERRED STOCK, AND STANDARD GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,
WHICH OWNS PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE DEBTOR, CLAIMING
AS A CREDITOR. 

THE DEBTOR WAS ORGANIZED IN 1919 TO TAKE OVER THE PROPERTIES THEN
BEING OPERATED BY ONE C.B. SHAFFER.  FN3  STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC
COMPANY, HEREINAFTER CALLED STANDARD, THEN HAD INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS
UTILITY PROPERTIES BUT HAD NEVER BEEN INTERESTED IN OIL.  BYLLESBY &
COMPANY, HEREINAFTER CALLED BYLLESBY, AN INVESTMENT BANKING CORPORATION
WHICH CONTROLLED STANDARD, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH SHAFFER WHEREBY
HE WAS TO ORGANIZE THE DEBTOR CORPORATION AND TO BE PAID BY THAT
CORPORATION FOR HIS PROPERTIES $15,580,000 MADE UP OF CASH, A NOTE, AND
PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK OF THE COMPANY.  BYLLESBY AGREED TO PURCHASE
$11,000,000 PAR VALUE OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS OF AN AUTHORIZED ISSUE OF
$15,000,000, $5,000,000 PAR VALUE OF PREFERRED STOCK, AND 120,000
SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, PAR $1, FOR $15,200,000 IN CASH, TO BE APPLIED
BY THE COMPANY TO THE CASH PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO SHAFFER AND FOR
WORKING CAPITAL. 

SHAFFER RECEIVED FOR THE PROPERTIES TURNED OVER BY HIM 80,000 SHARES
OF COMMON STOCK, 50,000 SHARES OF $100 PAR PREFERRED STOCK, $9,500,000
IN CASH AND A NOTE OF BYLLESBY AND STANDARD FOR $1,000,000.  IN FACT
$12,000,000 OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS WERE UNDERWRITTEN BY A
SYNDICATE FORMED BY BYLLESBY AND SOLD TO THE PUBLIC.  THE RESULT OF THE
ABOVE TRANSACTIONS WAS TO LEAVE DEEP ROCK WITH APPROXIMATELY $6,700,000
OF CASH.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE REMAINING $3,000,000 OF BONDS WERE
PLEDGED TO SECURE DEEP ROCK'S NOTES FOR $2,000,000.  FROM ITS
ORGANIZATION DEEP ROCK WAS, MOST OF THE TIME, "TWO JUMPS AHEAD OF THE
WOLF," AS ONE OF STANDARD'S OFFICERS TESTIFIED.  THE COMMON STOCK WENT
INTO A VOTING TRUST WHICH GAVE STANDARD AND SHAFFER EQUAL CONTROL. 
SHAFFER UNDERTOOK THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS.  AFTER
TWO YEARS STANDARD BECAME DISSATISFIED WITH SHAFFER'S MANAGEMENT AND HE
SEVERED HIS CONNECTION WITH THE COMPANY SELLING HIS COMMON STOCK TO
STANDARD AND SURRENDERING TO DEEP ROCK 50,000 SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK
WHICH WAS CANCELLED. 

THENCEFORWARD THE DEBTOR WAS UNDER THE COMPLETE CONTROL AND
DOMINATION OF STANDARD THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF THE COMMON STOCK. 
STANDARD'S OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND AGENTS ALWAYS CONSTITUTED A
MAJORITY OF THE BOARD.  THE REMAINING DIRECTORS WERE OPERATING OFFICERS
OR EMPLOYES OF DEEP ROCK WHO HAD BEEN EMPLOYED ON BEHALF OF DEEP ROCK
BY STANDARD OR THE BYLLESBY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, HEREAFTER CALLED
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF STANDARD, OR WERE
UNDER THE COMPLETE CONTROL OF STANDARD.  A MAJORITY OF DEEP ROCK'S
OFFICERS WERE OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS OF STANDARD OR OF THE MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, OR OF BOTH.  THE OFFICERS OF THE DEBTOR, WHO WERE CHOSEN
FOR THEIR TECHNICAL OR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE IN THE OIL INDUSTRY,
ALTHOUGH ALLOWED SOME DISCRETION IN THE MATTER OF DEVELOPMENT AND
OPERATION OF THE OIL PROPERTIES, REPORTED TO AND WERE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO
THE DIRECTION OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF STANDARD.  ALL OF THE FISCAL
AFFAIRS OF THE DEBTOR WERE WHOLLY CONTROLLED BY STANDARD, WHICH WAS ITS
BANKER AND ITS ONLY SOURCE OF FINANCIAL AID. 

DEEP ROCK WAS PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A RECEIVER IN MARCH 1933 AND THE
PRESENT PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS INSTITUTED
IN JUNE 1934.  STANDARD FILED A CLAIM AS A CREDITOR IN THE RECEIVERSHIP
AND IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, WHICH THE RECEIVERS AND THE TRUSTEE
RESISTED.  THE CLAIM WAS REFERRED TO A MASTER, BEFORE WHOM TRIAL LASTED
MANY MONTHS.  ALL THE WITNESSES WERE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS OR AGENTS OF
STANDARD, OR ITS AFFILIATES, AND OFFICERS OF THE DEBTOR.  ALL THE
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE CAME FROM THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF STANDARD AND
DEEP ROCK.  THE BASIS OF CLAIM WAS AN OPEN ACCOUNT WHICH EMBRACED
TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN STANDARD AND DEEP ROCK FROM THE LATTER'S
ORGANIZATION IN 1919 TO THE RECEIVERSHIP IN 1933.  THE ACCOUNT CONSISTS
OF THOUSANDS OF ITEMS OF DEBIT AND CREDIT.  THE BOOK ENTRIES WERE MADE
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF STANDARD'S AUDITING DEPARTMENT, WHICH SUPERVISED
THE AUDITING DEPARTMENT OF DEEP ROCK, AND IT IS NOT SURPRISING,
THEREFORE, THAT THE BOOKS OF THE TWO COMPANIES AGREE WITH RESPECT TO
ALL ITEMS. 

THE ACCOUNT CONTAINS DEBITS TO DEEP ROCK IN EXCESS OF $52,000,000 AND
CREDITS OF APPROXIMATELY $43,000,000 LEAVING A BALANCE SHOWN TO BE DUE
STANDARD OF $9,342,642.37, WHICH WAS THE AMOUNT OF THE CLAIM
PRESENTED.  CASH PAYMENTS BY STANDARD TO DEEP ROCK, OR TO OTHERS FOR
ITS ACCOUNT, AS SHOWN BY THE BOOKS, TOTAL $31,804,145.04.  MANAGEMENT
AND SUPERVISION FEES PAID OR CREDITED TO MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AMOUNT
TO $1,219,034.83.  INTEREST CHARGES BY STANDARD TO DEEP ROCK ON OPEN
ACCOUNT BALANCES TOTAL $4,819,222.07.  RENTAL CHARGES UPON A LEASE TO
DEEP ROCK OF OIL PROPERTIES OWNED BY A STANDARD SUBSIDIARY BUT CLAIMED
BY PETITIONERS TO BELONG, IN EQUITY, TO DEEP ROCK, AMOUNT TO
$4,525,000.  DEBITS BY STANDARD TO DEEP ROCK OF THE AMOUNTS OF
DIVIDENDS DECLARED BY DEEP ROCK TO STANDARD, BUT NOT PAID, REACHED THE
SUM OF $3,502,653.  IN ADDITION THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF DEBITS AND
CREDITS REPRESENTING OTHER INTERCOMPANY ITEMS. 

TWO PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN THE
PROCEEDINGS AND THEY JOINED IN THE TRUSTEE'S OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIM. 
MANY TRANSACTIONS ENTERED IN THE ACCOUNT WERE ATTACKED AS FRAUDULENT
AND IT WAS ASSERTED THAT AS STANDARD HAD MADE DEEP ROCK ITS MERE AGENT
OR INSTRUMENTALITY IT COULD NOT TRANSMUTE ITSELF FROM THE STATUS OF THE
PROPRIETOR OF DEEP ROCK'S BUSINESS TO THAT OF CREDITOR.  THE HEARINGS
BEFORE THE MASTER WERE CLOSED, BUT BEFORE HE MADE ANY REPORT, AND AS A
RESULT OF NEGOTIATIONS INITIATED BY THE REORGANIZATION COMMITTEE
ORGANIZED AT THE INSTANCE OF BYLLESBY, REPRESENTING APPROXIMATELY
EIGHTY-TWO PER CENT. OF THE NOTEHOLDERS AND SIXTY PER CENT. OF THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF DEEP ROCK, STANDARD PROPOSED A COMPROMISE OF
ITS CLAIM. 

THE COURT REFERRED THE PROPOSAL TO THE MASTER WHO REPORTED
FAVORABLY.  THE TRUSTEE AND HIS COUNSEL ALSO RECOMMENDED THE APPROVAL
OF THE COMPROMISE, WHICH INVOLVED THE ALLOWANCE OF STANDARD'S CLAIM AT
$5,000,000.  IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS COMPROMISE A
REORGANIZATION OF DEEP ROCK WAS PROPOSED BY THE REORGANIZATION
COMMITTEE.  THE PLAN WAS BASED UPON THE TRUSTEE'S APPRAISAL OF THE
DEBTOR'S ASSETS AT $16,800,000, OF WHICH $7,300,000 REPRESENTED NET
CURRENT ASSETS, MAINLY CASH, AND THE REMAINDER COMPRISED FIXED ASSETS
VALUED AT $9,500,000.  IT PROVIDED THAT UPON APPROVAL OF THE COMPROMISE
OF STANDARD'S CLAIM, THE REORGANIZATION WOULD BE EFFECTED BY THE
FORMATION OF A NEW COMPANY WHICH WOULD TAKE OVER THE DEBTOR'S ASSETS
AND WOULD ISSUE $10,000,000 PAR VALUE OF FIFTEEN YEAR SIX PER CENT.
INCOME DEBENTURES WHICH WERE TO GO TO THE HOLDERS OF THE DEBTOR'S
UNPAID NOTES OF LIKE AMOUNT; 25,000 SHARES OF $7 CUMULATIVE PREFERRED
STOCK AND 520,000 SHARES OF NO PAR COMMON STOCK, OF WHICH THE ENTIRE
PREFERRED STOCK AND 390,000 SHARES OF COMMON SHOULD GO TO STANDARD ON
ACCOUNT OF ITS CLAIM, 80,000 SHARES OF COMMON TO THE NOTEHOLDERS, AND
50,000 SHARES OF COMMON TO THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF THE OLD
COMPANY.  STANDARD'S CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF $3,500,000 WAS TO STAND ON
A PARITY WITH THE DEBTOR'S NOTES. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE PETITIONERS INSISTED THAT AS THE TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE MASTER HAD BEEN CLOSED HE SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PASS UPON
THE PROVABILITY OF STANDARD'S CLAIM AND NO REORGANIZATION PLAN SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED UNTIL THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIM HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED. 
THE COURT, WITHOUT PASSING ON THIS DEMAND, REFUSED TO APPROVE THE
COMPROMISE OR THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  REFERRING TO THE 50,000
SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK OUTSTANDING, THE JUDGE STATED THAT SOMEBODY
HAD RECEIVED THE MONEY REPRESENTED BY THIS STOCK FROM THE PUBLIC; THAT
THE PLAN IN EFFECT WIPED OUT PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS AND THAT HE COULD
NOT APPROVE ANY PLAN WHICH HAD THIS EFFECT.  IN THE COURSE OF THE
HEARING HE STATED:  "THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT STANDARD RAN
THIS COMPANY; THEY OFFICERED IT; THEY CAPITALIZED IT; IT IS JUST A
CHILD IN THEIR HANDS, AND IF THERE EVER WAS A CASE THE LAW IS CLEAR ON,
IT IS NOTHING BUT AN INSTRUMENTALITY, ACCORDING TO THE ADMISSIONS."  HE
INDICATED, HOWEVER, THAT HE WOULD APPROVE A PLAN ACCORDING STANDARD A
PARITY WITH THE NOTEHOLDERS FOR A SMALLER PROPORTION OF ITS CLAIM
ALLOWING THE BALANCE ON A PARITY WITH THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS, AND
SUGGESTED THAT THE PARTIES NEGOTIATE FURTHER IN AN EFFORT TO REACH A
FAIR RESULT. 

MONTHS LATER THE REORGANIZATION COMMITTEE PRESENTED AN AMENDED PLAN
WHICH, AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT, CONTEMPLATED THE COMPROMISE OF
STANDARD'S CLAIM AT $5,000,000, AS BEFORE, AND THE ORGANIZATION OF A
NEW COMPANY WHICH SHOULD ISSUE $10,000,000 PAR VALUE OF DEBENTURES AND
520,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK.  THESE SECURITIES WERE TO BE
DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS:  THE NEW ISSUE OF DEBENTURES WAS TO GO TO THE
HOLDERS OF THE OLD NOTES.  IN LIEU OF INTEREST ON THE OLD NOTES
ACCUMULATED TO JANUARY 1, 1937, TOTALING $2,300,000, THE NOTEHOLDERS
WERE TO RECEIVE $1,200,000 IN CASH AND 40,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK;
INTEREST ACCRUING SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY 1, 1937, WAS TO BE PAID IN
CASH.  THE OLD PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WERE TO RECEIVE 100,000 SHARES OF
COMMON STOCK AND STANDARD WAS TO RECEIVE FOR ITS CLAIM 380,000 SHARES
OF COMMON STOCK.  THUS THERE WAS ALLOCATED TO STANDARD APPROXIMATELY
SEVENTY-THREE PER CENT., TO THE OLD PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS NINETEEN PER
CENT., AND TO THE NOTEHOLDERS EIGHT PER CENT. OF THE COMMON STOCK.  THE
DISTRICT COURT PERMITTED THE PETITIONERS TO INTERVENE AND, OVER THEIR
OBJECTIONS, APPROVED THE COMPROMISE AND THE PLAN.  A MAJORITY OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS EXAMINED THE RECORD ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF
DETERMINING THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT STANDARD MIGHT ESTABLISH ITS
CLAIM IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AND CONCLUDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
NOT EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF REASONABLE DISCRETION IN GRANTING ITS
APPROVAL.  ONE JUDGE THOUGHT THAT THE INSTRUMENTALITY RULE WAS
APPLICABLE; THAT, UNDER THE RULE, STANDARD HAD NO PROVABLE CLAIM; AND
THAT IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO APPROVE THE COMPROMISE AND THE
REORGANIZATION PLAN.  WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISSENTING
JUDGE, BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. 

THE PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE APPRAISAL UPON WHICH THE PLAN WAS
BASED WAS INORDINATELY LOW AND THAT, FOR THIS REASON ALONE, THE PLAN
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.  THE APPRAISAL WAS SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THE VALUES SHOWN BY IT WERE APPROVED AND
ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  WE
ACCEPT THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE TWO COURTS THAT THE VALUE OF THE
DEBTOR'S ASSETS DOES NOT EXCEED $17,000,000. 

AS THE DEBENTURES TO BE ISSUED TO THE NOTEHOLDERS, PLUS THE CASH THEY
ARE TO GET, TOTAL $11,200,000, THE EQUITY REMAINING IN THE PROPERTY IS
NOT OVER $5,800,000.  STANDARD'S SHARE OF THIS EQUITY WILL BE SEVENTY
THREE PER CENT., OR $4,234,000, AND WILL GIVE IT COMPLETE CONTROL OF
THE NEW COMPANY.  THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WILL RECEIVE NINETEEN PER
CENT. OR $1,020,000,  - A MINORITY INTEREST WITHOUT REPRESENTATION ON
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
REASON AND FAIRNESS, SUCH A PLAN CAN BE JUSTIFIED.  WE THINK THE
HISTORY OF STANDARD'S DEALINGS WITH DEEP ROCK REQUIRES A NEGATIVE
ANSWER. 

WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MINUTIAE OF THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO
COMPANIES, ENOUGH MAY BE STATED TO EXPOSE THE REASONS FOR OUR
DECISION.  AS HAS BEEN STATED, STANDARD CAME INTO COMPLETE CONTROL OF
DEEP ROCK IN 1921.  FROM THE OUTSET DEEP ROCK WAS INSUFFICIENTLY
CAPITALIZED, WAS TOPHEAVY WITH DEBT AND WAS IN PARLOUS FINANCIAL
CONDITION.  STANDARD SO MANAGED ITS AFFAIRS AS ALWAYS TO HAVE A
STRANGLEHOLD UPON IT. 

AT ORGANIZATION DEEP ROCK HAD CASH WORKING CAPITAL OF ONLY ABOUT
$6,600,000 AND A MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS OF $12,000,000, THE INTEREST AND
SINKING FUND REQUIREMENTS OF WHICH WERE NEARLY $2,000,000 A YEAR.  ITS
ASSETS AT THAT TIME WERE APPRAISED AT ABOUT $16,000,000.  SHORTLY
THEREAFTER IT CREATED A FURTHER NOTE ISSUE OF $2,000,000.  UPON THE
ACQUIREMENT OF SHAFFER'S INTEREST, IN 1921, STANDARD CAUSED DEEP ROCK
TO ISSUE SHORT TERM NOTES OF A PART OF $3,500,000.  DEEP ROCK ALSO,
BETWEEN 1921 AND 1924, BORROWED SUBSTANTIAL SUMS ON PROMISSORY NOTES
SOME OF WHICH WERE DISCOUNTED OR SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP BY STANDARD.  SO
INADEQUATE WAS DEEP ROCK'S CAPITALIZATION THAT, IN THE PERIOD FROM
ORGANIZATION TO 1926, THE BALANCE DUE ON OPEN ACCOUNT TO STANDARD GREW
TO MORE THAN $14,800,000.  STANDARD DETERMINED TO PLACE SOME OF THIS
INDEBTEDNESS OF DEEP ROCK WITH THE PUBLIC.  IN ORDER TO DO SO IT HAD TO
IMPROVE DEEP ROCK'S BALANCE SHEET.  THIS IT DID BY PURCHASING 80,000
SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK FOR WHICH IT CREDITED DEEP ROCK
$7,223,333.33.  IT THEN BOUGHT $7,500,000 FACE VALUE TWO YEAR SIX PER
CENT. NOTES FOR $7,273,750, WHICH WERE SOLD TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH A
SYNDICATE ORGANIZED BY BYLLESBY.  DEEP ROCK'S REQUIREMENTS OF
ADDITIONAL CAPITAL PERSISTED AND, BY THE SPRING OF 1928, THE OPEN
ACCOUNT AND A NOTE WHICH DEEP ROCK HAD GIVEN STANDARD FOR ADVANCES
TOTALED OVER $11,000,000.  AS THE TWO-YEAR NOTES HELD BY THE PUBLIC
WERE MATURING, STANDARD FOUND IT NECESSARY TO MAKE A NEW OFFERING. 
THERE STILL REMAINED NEARLY $2,000,000 OF FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS
OUTSTANDING WHICH HAD TO BE RETIRED TO MAKE AN UNSECURED NOTE ISSUE
SALABLE.  STANDARD, THEREFORE, DETERMINED THAT DEEP ROCK'S BALANCE
SHEET MUST AGAIN BE PUT IN SUCH SHAPE THAT NOTES COULD BE SOLD.  IT
ACCORDINGLY PURCHASED COMMON STOCK FROM DEEP ROCK TO THE AMOUNT OF THE
THEN OPEN BALANCE AND COMMUTED 90,000 SHARES OF THE PREFERRED STOCK,
WHICH IT HELD, INTO COMMON.  IT CAUSED DEEP ROCK TO ISSUE $10,000,000
OF SIX PER CENT. NOTES WHICH WERE SOLD BY A SYNDICATE ORGANIZED BY
BYLLESBY AND APPLIED THE PROCEEDS TO THE REDEMPTION OF THE TWO-YEAR
NOTES AND THE OUTSTANDING MORTGAGE BONDS.  THIS FINANCING, HOWEVER,
MERELY CHANGED THE CHARACTER OF DEEP ROCK'S FUNDED INDEBTEDNESS AND
GAVE IT NO NEW WORKING CAPITAL.  THIS $10,000,000 NOTE ISSUE IS THE ONE
NOW OUTSTANDING.  AS BEFORE, DEEP ROCK'S RESOURCES WERE WHOLLY
INSUFFICIENT FOR ITS BUSINESS AND THE OPEN ACCOUNT BEGAN AGAIN TO BUILD
UP SO THAT BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1928 AND FEBRUARY 1933, THE DATE OF
RECEIVERSHIP, THE ACCOUNT HAD GROWN TO $9,342,642.37. 

NO DIVIDENDS WERE PAID ON PREFERRED STOCK UNTIL 1926.  IN THAT AND
THE FOLLOWING YEAR EXISTING ARREARAGES WERE PAID BY STANDARD, FOR DEEP
ROCK'S ACCOUNT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,435,813.  BETWEEN 1928 AND 1931
STANDARD ADVANCED DEEP ROCK, FOR PAYMENT OF PREFERRED DIVIDENDS,
$1,106,706. 

DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1926 AND 1929 DEEP ROCK DECLARED DIVIDENDS
ON ITS COMMON STOCK IN A TOTAL OF $3,064,685.50.  OF THESE DIVIDENDS
$1,946,672 WAS CHARGED BY STANDARD, AS OWNER OF COMMON STOCK, AGAINST
DEEP ROCK IN THE OPEN ACCOUNT.  STANDARD TOOK NEW COMMON STOCK FOR
DIVIDENDS TO THE AMOUNT OF $1,015,437.50 AND ADVANCED DEEP ROCK CASH TO
PAY DIVIDENDS TO OUTSIDE HOLDERS OF COMMON STOCK IN THE SUM OF
$102,576.  AGAINST THE TOTAL OF $2,645,095 ADVANCED BY STANDARD TO PAY
DEEP ROCK'S DIVIDENDS, STANDARD CREDITED PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM DEEP
ROCK IN THE OPEN ACCOUNT IN THE SUM OF $927,500. 

THESE DIVIDENDS WERE DECLARED IN THE FACE OF THE FACT THAT DEEP ROCK
HAD NOT THE CASH AVAILABLE TO PAY THEM AND WAS, AT THE TIME, BORROWING
IN LARGE AMOUNTS FROM OR THROUGH STANDARD. 

ABOUT 1922 STANDARD DECIDED THAT, IN VIEW OF THE UNSATISFACTORY
PROGRESS OF DEEP ROCK, EARNINGS MUST BE INCREASED BY THE ACQUISITION OF
ADDITIONAL OIL PROPERTIES AND BY THE ERECTION OF A MODERN GASOLINE
CRACKING PLANT.  UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE OPERATING OFFICIALS,
STANDARD DECIDED THAT DEEP ROCK SHOULD PURCHASE THE SO-CALLED
BRADSTREET PROPERTIES, THE PRICE OF WHICH WAS $650,000.  OF THIS AMOUNT
$500,000 WAS ADVANCED BY STANDARD FOR ACCOUNT OF DEEP ROCK AND $150,000
PAID BY NOTES OF DEEP ROCK.  TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN IN THE
NAME OF J. C. KENNEDY, AN EMPLOYEE OF DEEP ROCK, AS TRUSTEE.  KENNEDY
NEVER EXECUTED ANY DECLARATION OF TRUST.  DEEP ROCK CHARGED AGAINST HIM
NOT ONLY THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE OF THE BRADSTREET PROPERTIES BUT
THE MONEYS THEREAFTER EXPENDED IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND IN THE
ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LEASES, AMOUNTING, TO OCTOBER 1, 1925, TO
$1,033,294.32, MUCH OF WHICH REPRESENTED ADVANCES BY STANDARD. 

IN 1922 DEEP ROCK CONVEYED A SMALL PORTION OF ITS LAND TO R. J. GRAF,
A STANDARD OFFICIAL, AS TRUSTEE.  UPON THIS LAND DEEP ROCK ERECTED A
NEW CRACKING PLANT AT A TOTAL COST OF $861,297.79.  THIS EXPENDITURE
WAS CHARGED TO R. J. GRAF, TRUSTEE.  AGAIN PART OR ALL OF THE SUMS SO
EXPENDED WERE ADVANCED BY STANDARD TO DEEP ROCK AND CHARGED AGAINST THE
LATTER. 

IN 1922 STANDARD HAD CAUSED A COMPANY TO BE FORMED IN DELAWARE KNOWN
AS DEEP ROCK OIL AND REFINING COMPANY, INTENDING THAT IT SHOULD TAKE
TITLE TO THE BRADSTREET PROPERTIES AND THE CRACKING PLANT.  THE
PURPOSE, AS STANDARD'S OFFICERS NOW STATE, WAS TO KEEP THESE ASSETS
FROM GOING INTO DIRECT OWNERSHIP OF DEEP ROCK AND THUS COMING UNDER THE
LIEN OF ITS MORTGAGE, SO THAT THEY COULD BE USED AS THE BASIS OF
ADDITIONAL FINANCING.  THE RECORDS OF THE REFINING COMPANY SHOW THAT
ITS CAPITAL STOCK WAS ISSUED AGAINST THE TRANSFER BY KENNEDY AND GRAF
AS TRUSTEES OF THE BRADSTREET AND CRACKING PROPERTIES BUT THERE ARE NO
CORPORATE RECORDS OF DEEP ROCK OR OF STANDARD CONCERNING ANY ACTUAL
TRANSFER AND NO BOOK ENTRIES OF DEEP ROCK OR STANDARD WERE MADE
CONCERNING THE SUPPOSED TRANSFER UNTIL DECEMBER 1925, AS OF OCTOBER 1,
1925.  AT THAT TIME, BY DIRECTION OF ONE BRAHANEY, THE CHIEF ACCOUNTING
OFFICER OF STANDARD, ENTRIES WERE MADE IN STANDARD'S BOOKS AND THOSE OF
DEEP ROCK TO EVIDENCE THE FOLLOWING TRANSACTION:  STANDARD ASSUMED THE
ADVANCES MADE BY DEEP ROCK FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE BRADSTREET PROPERTIES
AND THE CRACKING PLANT TOTALING $1,894,592.11 BY CREDITING DEEP ROCK
WITH THAT SUM AND REFINING COMPANY GAVE ITS NOTE TO STANDARD IN THAT
AMOUNT.  DEEP ROCK ALSO CREDITED KENNEDY, TRUSTEE, WITH THE $650,000
PAID FOR THE BRADSTREET PROPERTIES AND STANDARD ASSUMED THIS CHARGE. 
THE ENTIRE CAPITAL STOCK OF REFINING COMPANY, EVIDENCING EQUITY
OWNERSHIP IN THE BRADSTREET PROPERTIES AND THE CRACKING PLANT, WAS
TRANSFERRED TO STANDARD.  THUS, ON THE FACE OF THINGS, STANDARD,
THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF REFINING COMPANY, OWNED AND
CONTROLLED THE BRADSTREET PROPERTIES AND THE CRACKING PLANT AND PUT
ITSELF IN SUCH A POSITION THAT, WITHOUT ITS CONTINUED COOPERATION, DEEP
ROCK COULD NOT FUNCTION. 

AS AT OCTOBER 1, 1925, BUT IN FACT SOMEWHAT LATER, AT THE DICTATION
OF STANDARD'S OFFICIALS, A LEASE WAS EXECUTED BY THE REFINING COMPANY
TO DEEP ROCK COVERING THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION WHEREBY DEEP ROCK
SHOULD, FOR THE FIRST THREE MONTHS, PAY $75,000 PER MONTH AND, FOR THE
ENSUING FOUR AND THREE-QUARTERS YEARS, PAY $50,000 A MONTH TO REFINING
COMPANY AS RENTAL.  SUCH RENTAL AS WAS PAID BY DEEP ROCK WAS AT ONCE
DECLARED BY REFINING COMPANY AS A DIVIDEND TO STANDARD AND SUCH AS WAS
NOT PAID WAS DEBITED TO DEEP ROCK BY STANDARD IN THE OPEN ACCOUNT. 
UNDER THIS LEASE, WHICH EXPIRED OCTOBER 1, 1930, DEEP ROCK PAID, OR
BECAME OBLIGATED TO STANDARD IN THE TOTAL OF $3,075,000.  DURING THE
TERM OF THE LEASE THE OPERATIONS OF THE LEASED PROPERTIES SHOWED A NET
LOSS OF $30,401.40.  THE LEASE FURTHER PROVIDED THAT DEEP ROCK, AT ITS
OWN COST, SHOULD MAKE ALL IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE LEASED
PROPERTY, SHOULD MAKE GOOD ALL DEPRECIATION AND RETURN THE PROPERTY IN
THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN LEASED.  ADDITIONS TO THE CRACKING PLANT
COST DEEP ROCK, DURING THE TERM $264,680.51; AND THERE WERE CHARGED
AGAINST DEEP ROCK IN ALLEGED FULFILMENT OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
LEASE, TAXES OF REFINING COMPANY AND OTHER ITEMS AMOUNTING TO
$192,415.91.  MEANTIME, IN TWO LETTERS WRITTEN BANKERS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SALE OF NOTES OF DEEP ROCK, THE PRESIDENT OF DEEP ROCK, WHO
WAS ALSO PRESIDENT OF STANDARD, MADE STATEMENTS, AND WARRANTED THEIR
TRUTH, TO THE EFFECT THAT DEEP ROCK OWNED THESE LEASED PROPERTIES. 

IN SPITE OF THE LOSSES ENTAILED UPON DEEP ROCK BY THE LEASE
ARRANGEMENT, STANDARD DICTATED ITS RENEWAL FOR ANOTHER TERM OF FIVE
YEARS COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 1930, AND FROM THAT DATE TO THE
RECEIVERSHIP DEEP ROCK PAID, OR WAS DEBITED BY STANDARD WITH,
$1,450,000, AS RENTAL AND SUFFERED, IN THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTIES
LEASED, A TOTAL LOSS OF $1,584,458.05.  DURING THE COMBINED TERMS OF
THE TWO LEASES DEEP ROCK WAS CHARGED IN THE OPEN ACCOUNT FOR STANDARD'S
SUBSIDIARY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION IN PAYMENT OF MANAGERIAL,
ENGINEERING, AND FINANCIAL ADVICE, $1,020,000. 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE LAST AND PRESENTLY OUTSTANDING NOTE ISSUE WAS
SOLD TO THE PUBLIC STANDARD'S ANNUAL REPORT, FOR THE FIRST TIME,
DISCLOSED ITS CLAIM TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE REFINING COMPANY
PROPERTIES.  AT THE DATE OF THE RECEIVERSHIP STANDARD CLAIMED IT OWNED
THE REFINING COMPANY'S PROPERTIES THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP, AND HELD ITS
NOTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,894,592.11.  THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY
ATTACKED THIS TRANSACTION AS FRAUDULENT AND ASSERTED DEEP ROCK'S
OWNERSHIP OF ALL THE PROPERTY REPRESENTED BY THE REFINING COMPANY'S
STOCK FREE OF ANY INDEBTEDNESS TO STANDARD IN RESPECT OF IT. 

DURING THE WHOLE PERIOD FROM 1919 TO THE RECEIVERSHIP, STANDARD
CHARGED DEEP ROCK INTEREST AT THE RATE OF SEVEN PER CENT. PER ANNUM
COMPOUNDED MONTHLY ON THE BALANCE SHOWN BY THE OPEN ACCOUNT.  DURING
THE ENTIRE PERIOD THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION CHARGED DEEP ROCK WITH
ROUND ANNUAL SUMS FOR MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF DEEP ROCK'S AFFAIRS
WHICH TOTALED $1,219,034.83, ALL OF WHICH STANDARD ASSUMED AND CHARGED
INTO THE OPEN ACCOUNT. 

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHIN THE COMPASS OF THIS OPINION TO DETAIL THE
NUMEROUS OTHER TRANSACTIONS EVIDENCED BY THE BOOKS OF THE TWO COMPANIES
MANY OF WHICH WERE TO THE BENEFIT OF STANDARD AND TO THE DETRIMENT OF
DEEP ROCK.  ALL OF THEM WERE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE COMPLETE CONTROL
AND DOMINATION OF STANDARD AND WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS WHO HAD NO VOICE OR VOTE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF
DEEP ROCK'S AFFAIRS.  FN4 

THE SUGGESTED BASIS OF COMPROMISE OF STANDARD'S CLAIM NEEDS COMMENT. 
AS HAS BEEN SAID, WHEN, IN 1928, IT BECAME NECESSARY TO REFINANCE DEEP
ROCK'S NOTE OBLIGATIONS, STANDARD HAD TO WIPE OUT THE ENORMOUS AND
THREATENING CREDIT BALANCE IN ITS FAVOR ON DEEP ROCK'S BOOKS.  IT,
THEREFORE, TOOK COMMON STOCK IN PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE.  IT IS SAID
THAT THE COMPROMISE FIGURE IS REACHED BY DISREGARDING ALL TRANSACTIONS
PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 24, 1928, WHEN STANDARD COMMUTED ITS THEN CLAIM,
STARTING FRESH FROM THAT DATE, AND CONSIDERING ONLY THE ITEMS IN THE
ACCOUNT THENCEFORWARD TO THE DATE OF RECEIVERSHIP.  IT IS ASSERTED
THAT, DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, STANDARD PAID OUT, FOR ACCOUNT OF
DEEP ROCK, IN CASH, $6,850,971.50 AND CREDITED DEEP ROCK AGAINST THESE
EXPENDITURES $4,475,803.59, LEAVING A BALANCE OF CASH ADVANCED OF
$2,375,167.91, AS TO WHICH THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION; THE BRADSTREET
PROPERTIES AND THE CRACKING PLANT ARE TO BE RETURNED TO DEEP ROCK'S
OWNERSHIP BY TRANSFER OF THE STOCK OF THE REFINING COMPANY AND ITS NOTE
NOW HELD BY STANDARD.  IT IS ASSERTED THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS
TRANSFER DEEP ROCK OUGHT TO ASSUME THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE BRADSTREET
PROPERTIES ADVANCED BY STANDARD ($650,000), PLUS THE AMOUNT OF THE
DISBURSEMENTS BY DEEP ROCK UPON THOSE PROPERTIES WHICH STANDARD HAD
CREDITED TO DEEP ROCK WHEN IT TOOK OVER THE REFINING COMPANY STOCK
($1,894,592.11), LESS RENTALS CHARGED BY THE REFINING COMPANY TO DEEP
ROCK PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 24, 1928, WHICH RENTALS HAD BEEN ABSORBED IN THE
SETTLEMENT BY STANDARD OF FEBRUARY 24, 1928($1,475,000).  THIS LEAVES
DEEP ROCK OWING ON THE BRADSTREET AND CRACKING PLANT ACCOUNTS
$1,585,485.18.  SIMPLE INTEREST AT FIVE PER CENT. IS TO BE ALLOWED ON
EACH OF THE TWO SUMS SO ASCERTAINED.  THIS BRINGS THE CLAIM TO
APPROXIMATELY $5,000,000.  IT IS SAID THAT THIS COMPUTATION OF THE
CLAIM ELIMINATES DEBITS TO DEEP ROCK MADE SINCE 1928 FOR THE FEES OF
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, FOR DIVIDENDS ON PREFERRED AND COMMON STOCK
HELD BY STANDARD, AND FOR EVERY OTHER QUESTIONABLE ITEM; AND THAT THERE
CAN BE NO JUST CRITICISM OF THE RECOGNITION OF STANDARD'S CLAIM IN THE
AMOUNT REPRESENTED BY THE COMPROMISE OFFER. 

PETITIONERS INVOKE THE SO-CALLED INSTRUMENTALITY RULE,  - UNDER
WHICH, THEY SAY, DEEP ROCK IS TO BE REGARDED AS A DEPARTMENT OR AGENT
OF STANDARD,  - TO PRECLUDE THE ALLOWANCE OF STANDARD'S CLAIM IN ANY
AMOUNT.  THE RULE WAS MUCH DISCUSSED IN THE OPINION BELOW.  IT IS NOT,
PROPERLY SPEAKING, A RULE, BUT A CONVENIENT WAY OF DESIGNATING THE
APPLICATION IN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BROADER EQUITABLE
PRINCIPLE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE ENTITY, RECOGNIZED GENERALLY
AND FOR MOST PURPOSES, WILL NOT BE REGARDED WHEN SO TO DO WOULD WORK
FRAUD OR INJUSTICE.  THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN APPLIED IN APPROPRIATE
CIRCUMSTANCES TO GIVE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS REDRESS AGAINST WRONGFUL
INJURY TO THEIR INTERESTS BY A MAJORITY STOCKHOLDER.  FN5  IT MUST BE
APPARENT THAT THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF DEEP ROCK ASSERT SUCH
INJURY BY STANDARD AS THE BASIS OF THEIR ATTACK ON THE DECREE BELOW. 
WE NEED NOT STOP TO DISCUSS THE REMEDY WHICH WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THEM
IF SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT HAD NOT BEEN ADOPTED FOR WE THINK
THAT, BY THAT SECTION, THE COURT, IN APPROVING A PLAN, WAS AUTHORIZED
AND REQUIRED, AS A COURT OF EQUITY, TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTS AND THE
STATUS OF THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS ARISING OUT OF STANDARD'S WRONGFUL
AND INJURIOUS CONDUCT IN THE MISMANAGEMENT OF DEEP ROCK'S AFFAIRS. 

THE SECTION CONTAINS A PROVISION NEW IN BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE STANDING OF STOCKHOLDERS IN CORPORATE REORGANIZATION. 
SUBSECTION (B) PROVIDES: "A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION ...  (2) MAY INCLUDE
PROVISIONS MODIFYING OR ALTERING THE RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS GENERALLY,
OR OF ANY CLASS OF THEM, EITHER THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF NEW SECURITIES
OF ANY CHARACTER OR OTHERWISE; ...  "  IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE
REMAINS AN EQUITY AFTER SATISFACTION OF THE CREDITORS IN WHICH ONLY THE
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS AND STANDARD CAN HAVE AN INTEREST.  EQUITY
REQUIRES THE AWARD TO PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS OF A SUPERIOR POSITION IN
THE REORGANIZED COMPANY.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE, WE THINK, PROPERLY
EXERCISED HIS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO APPROVE THE FIRST OFFER OF
COMPROMISE AND CONCOMITANT PLAN BECAUSE IT PARTLY SUBORDINATED
PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS TO STANDARD.  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
MOVED HIM TO REJECT THAT PLAN REQUIRED THE REJECTION OF THE NEW OFFER
AND THE AMENDED PLAN.    DEEP ROCK FINDS ITSELF BANKRUPT NOT ONLY
BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS SUMS IT OWES STANDARD BUT BECAUSE OF THE ABUSES
IN MANAGEMENT DUE TO THE PARAMOUNT INTEREST OF INTERLOCKING OFFICERS
AND DIRECTORS IN THE PRESERVATION OF STANDARD'S POSITION, AS AT ONCE
PROPRIETOR AND CREDITOR OF DEEP ROCK.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RECAST DEEP
ROCK'S HISTORY AND EXPERIENCE SO AS EVEN TO APPROXIMATE WHAT WOULD BE
ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION AT THIS DAY HAD IT BEEN ADEQUATELY CAPITALIZED
AND INDEPENDENTLY MANAGED AND HAD ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS BEEN CONDUCTED
WITH AN EYE SINGLE TO ITS OWN INTERESTS.  IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN
UNDISTURBED POSSESSION AND TO PREVENT THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS HAVING
A VOTE AND A VOICE IN THE MANAGEMENT, STANDARD HAS CAUSED DEEP ROCK TO
PAY PREFERRED DIVIDENDS IN LARGE AMOUNTS.  WHATEVER MAY BE THE FACT AS
TO THE LEGALITY OF SUCH DIVIDENDS JUDGED BY THE BALANCE SHEETS AND
EARNINGS STATEMENTS OF DEEP ROCK, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THEY WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN PAID OVER A LONG COURSE OF YEARS BY A COMPANY ON THE
PRECIPICE OF BANKRUPTCY AND IN DIRE NEED OF CASH WORKING CAPITAL.  THIS
IS ONLY ONE OF THE ASPECTS IN WHICH STANDARD'S MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
HAS OPERATED TO THE DETRIMENT OF DEEP ROCK'S FINANCIAL CONDITION AND
ABILITY TO FUNCTION.  OTHERS ARE APPARENT FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID AND
FROM A STUDY OF THE RECORD. 

IF A REORGANIZATION IS EFFECTED THE AMOUNT AT WHICH STANDARD'S CLAIM
IS ALLOWED IS NOT IMPORTANT IF IT IS TO BE REPRESENTED BY STOCK IN THE
NEW COMPANY, PROVIDED THE STOCK TO BE AWARDED IT IS SUBORDINATED TO
THAT AWARDED PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS.  NO PLAN OUGHT TO BE APPROVED
WHICH DOES NOT ACCORD THE PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS A RIGHT OF
PARTICIPATION IN THE EQUITY IN THE COMPANY'S ASSETS PRIOR TO THAT OF
STANDARD, AND AT LEAST EQUAL VOICE WITH STANDARD IN THE MANAGEMENT. 
ANYTHING LESS WOULD BE TO REMAND THEM TO PRECISELY THE STATUS WHICH HAS
INFLICTED SERIOUS DETRIMENT ON THEM IN THE PAST.  REVERSED. 

FN1  U.S.C., TIT. 11, SEC. 207. 

FN2  TAYLOR V. STANDARD GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 96 F.2D 693. 

FN3  THE CORPORATE NAME WAS SHAFFER OIL & REFINING COMPANY.  THIS WAS
CHANGED IN 1931 TO DEEP ROCK OIL CORPORATION.  THE COMPANY WILL BE
REFERRED TO BY THE LATTER NAME. 

FN4  AT NO TIME DID THE CHARTER CONFER VOTING POWER ON PREFERRED
STOCKHOLDERS, EXCEPT IN CASE AND SO LONG ONLY AS THE COMPANY SHOULD BE
IN DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS ON THE PREFERRED FOR A PERIOD OF
MORE THAN SIX MONTHS.  AT NO TIME DID STANDARD HAVE LESS THAN A
MAJORITY OF THE VOTING STOCK OUTSTANDING. 

FN5  COMPARE SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. BOGERT, 250 U.S. 483. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. TOWERY, 306 U.S. 324 


NO. 360.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  - 97
F.2D 906, REVERSED. 


1.  BENEFITS PAYABLE TO THE INSURED UNDER A WAR RISK TERM INSURANCE
CONTRACT ON ACCOUNT OF TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY DO NOT CEASE
AFTER 240 MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS, BUT ARE CONTINUED FOR LIFE IF THE
DISABILITY LASTS SO LONG.  P. 328. 

2.  SECTION 19 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT OF 1924, AS AMENDED BY
ACT OF JULY 3, 1930, BARS SUITS ON YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE
UNLESS BROUGHT "WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER THE RIGHT ACCRUED FOR WHICH THE
CLAIM IS MADE," OR WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY
ACT, WHICHEVER IS THE LATER DATE; AND PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THE SECTION "IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE RIGHT ACCRUED ON THE HAPPENING
OF THE CONTINGENCY ON WHICH THE CLAIM IS FOUNDED."  HELD, THERE IS BUT
ONE "RIGHT" CONTEMPLATED BY THE SECTION, NAMELY, THE RIGHT TO BENEFIT
PAYMENTS; AND BUT ONE CRITICAL "CONTINGENCY" WHICH CONDITIONS THAT
RIGHT, NAMELY, THE OCCURRENCE OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY OR DEATH
WHILE THE POLICY REMAINS IN FORCE.  PP. 329, 331. 

CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO ACCORD EACH OF THE CLAIMANTS OF POSSIBLE
BENEFITS UNDER THE POLICY SIX YEARS FROM THE TIME ANY INSTALLMENT OR
LUMP SUM PAYMENT FELL DUE WITHIN WHICH TO BRING SUIT.  THE INTEREST OF
A BENEFICIARY UNDER THE POLICY IS DERIVATIVE FROM THAT OF THE VETERAN. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE 1930 AMENDMENT OF SEC. 19 WAS TO SUBSTITUTE A
UNIFORM RULE OF LIMITATION FOR SUITS ON CONTRACTS OF WAR RISK INSURANCE
IN LIEU OF THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE STATUTES, WHICH,
PURSUANT TO THE CONFORMITY ACT, HAD THERETOFORE BEEN APPLIED, AND WHICH
PERIODS VARIED FROM THREE TO TWENTY YEARS. 

3.  INSURED UNDER POLICIES OF WAR RISK TERM INSURANCE WAS DISCHARGED
FROM MILITARY SERVICE IN 1919; PAID NO FURTHER PREMIUMS; AND DIED IN
1927.  ALLEGING THE OCCURRENCE OF DISABILITY ON THE DATE OF DISCHARGE,
CLAIM WAS MADE IN 1932 FOR DISABILITY AND DEATH BENEFITS AND DENIED BY
THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION IN 1935.  SUIT WAS INSTITUTED IN 1936. 
HELD, BARRED BY LIMITATIONS.  PP. 326, 329. 

UNITED STATES V. TOWERY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 588, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A SUIT UPON TWO POLICIES OF WAR RISK TERM INSURANCE. 

THE SIX-YEAR LIMITATION BEGAN TO RUN AGAINST THE SUIT TO RECOVER
INSTALLMENTS OF TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER A CONTRACT OF
WAR RISK TERM INSURANCE NOT ON THE DATE AS OF WHICH EACH INSTALLMENT OF
SUCH BENEFITS ACCRUED, BUT AS OF A DATE NOT LATER THAN THE LAST DAY THE
INSURANCE WAS IN FORCE BY PREMIUM PAYMENTS. 

THE SAME LIMITATION PROVISION BEGAN TO RUN AGAINST THE SUIT OF THE
RESPONDENT AS THE BENEFICIARY NOT UPON THE DATE OF THE INSURED'S DEATH,
AT A TIME WHEN THE POLICY WAS NOT IN FORCE BY PREMIUM PAYMENTS, BUT AS
OF A DATE NOT LATER THAN THE LAST DAY THE INSURANCE WAS IN FORCE BY
PREMIUM PAYMENTS. 

SIX YEAR LIMITATION AS TO CLAIM OF BENEFICIARY RUNS ONLY FROM DEATH
OF INSURED, NOT FROM HAPPENING OF TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY. 

A SEPARATE SIX YEAR LIMITATION AS TO EACH INSTALLMENT OF TOTAL
PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS RUNS ONLY FROM THE DUE DATE OF SUCH
INSTALLMENT. 

AS ALL INSTALLMENTS MATURING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 3, 1926, WERE
RECOVERABLE FREE FROM THE LIMITATION BAR, THE REVERSAL OF THE DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT WAS PROPER. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE TURNS UPON THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIMITATION
PROVISION OF SEC. 19 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT OF 1924, AS
AMENDED.  FN1 

THE RESPONDENT BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN
ILLINOIS IN HIS OWN RIGHT AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF ROBERT C. TOWERY,
DECEASED, UPON CLAIMS ON TWO WAR RISK INSURANCE TERM POLICIES ISSUED TO
THE DECEDENT WHILE IN THE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
CLAIM OF RESPONDENT AS ADMINISTRATOR WAS FOR TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY
BENEFITS ALLEGED TO HAVE ACCRUED TO THE INSURED IN HIS LIFETIME, AND
THE CLAIM AS BENEFICIARY DESIGNATED IN THE POLICIES WAS BASED UPON THE
DEATH OF THE INSURED.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE PREMIUMS WERE
DEDUCTED FROM THE INSURED'S PAY DURING HIS MILITARY SERVICE, FROM WHICH
HE WAS DISCHARGED JUNE 18, 1919; THAT HE BECAME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY
DISABLED, WHILE THE POLICIES WERE IN FORCE, ON JUNE 18, 1919; THAT HE
DIED APRIL 22, 1927; THAT, ON MAY 2, 1927, RESPONDENT WAS APPOINTED
ADMINISTRATOR; THAT, ON FEBRUARY 11, 1932, RESPONDENT MADE CLAIM FOR
DISABILITY AND DEATH BENEFITS UNDER THE POLICIES; THAT THE CLAIM WAS
DENIED BY THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION AUGUST 8, 1935.  SUIT WAS
INSTITUTED JUNE 29, 1936.  THE GOVERNMENT MOVED TO DISMISS ON THE
GROUND THAT THE ACTION WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GRANTED THE MOTION AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  ON APPEAL THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  FN2  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE
OF ALLEGED CONFLICT OF DECISION.  FN3 

VETERAN AND THE BUREAU AS TO A CLAIM UNDER A POLICY, THE CLAIMANT MAY
BRING AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO OBTAIN A DECISION OF THE
CONTROVERSY.  THE STATUTE THEN PROCEEDS: 

"NO SUIT ON YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER
THIS SECTION UNLESS THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN SIX YEARS
AFTER THE RIGHT ACCURED FOR WHICH THE CLAIM IS MADE OR WITHIN ONE YEAR
AFTER THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT, WHICHEVER IS THE
LATER DATE, ...  PROVIDED, THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION IT
SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE RIGHT ACCRUED ON THE HAPPENING OF THE
CONTINGENCY ON WHICH THE CLAIM IS FOUNDED:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THIS
LIMITATION IS SUSPENDED FOR THE PERIOD ELAPSING BETWEEN THE FILING IN
THE BUREAU OF THE CLAIM SUED UPON AND THE DENIAL OF SAID CLAIM BY THE
DIRECTOR.  ...  " 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE "CONTINGENCY," ON THE
HAPPENING OF WHICH "THE RIGHT ACCRUED FOR WHICH THE CLAIM IS MADE," IS
NOT DEFINED BY THE STATUTE AND MUST BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE POLICY
PROVISIONS.  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PROVISIONS THE COURT HELD THAT, IN
THE CASE OF A CLAIM FOR BENEFITS PAYABLE TO THE INSURED, THE
CONTINGENCY IS THE ACCRUAL OF AN INSTALLMENT AND, IN THE CASE OF A
CLAIM BY A BENEFICIARY, THE CONTINGENCY IS THE DEATH OF THE INSURED. 

THE POLICY, WHILE FOR A STATED AMOUNT, CALLS FOR PAYMENT IN MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS, TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY OF WHICH (INTEREST BEING CALCULATED
AT THREE AND ONE-HALF PER CENT.) WOULD EQUAL THE PRINCIPAL SUM. 
CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF THE COURT BELOW, DISABILITY BENEFITS TO THE
INSURED DO NOT CEASE AT THE EXPIRATION OF TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY MONTHS
BUT ARE CONTINUED FOR LIFE IF THE DISABILITY SO LONG LASTS.  FN4
SHOULD THE INSURED DIE, HOWEVER, PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT OF TWO HUNDRED
AND FORTY INSTALLMENTS, FURTHER INSTALLMENTS UP TO THE LIMIT OF TWO
HUNDRED AND FORTY ARE PAYABLE TO HIS BENEFICIARY.  SHOULD THE
BENEFICIARY DIE BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF ALL THE REMAINING INSTALLMENTS UP
TO TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY, THE COMMUTED VALUE OF THE UNPAID INSTALLMENTS
IS PAYABLE TO THE ESTATE OF THE INSURED IN ONE SUM.  FN5  THE COURT
BELOW REACHED ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE MEANING OF THE ACT, FIRST, BY
EXAMINATION OF THE PHRASE "WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER THE RIGHT ACCRUED FOR
WHICH THE CLAIM IS MADE."  IN THE VIEW THAT, IN CASE OF THE DEATH OF
THE INSURED, THE BENEFICIARY HAS A "RIGHT" FOR WHICH A CLAIM MAY BE
MADE AND THAT, PRIOR TO THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, THE LATTER ALSO HAS A
"RIGHT," NAMELY, TO RECEIVE EACH MONTHLY BENEFIT INSTALLMENT, THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THERE WERE TWO RIGHTS.  IF THIS BE THE CORRECT VIEW
THERE IS STILL A THIRD "RIGHT,"  - THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
INSURED TO CLAIM A LUMP SUM COMMUTED VALUE FOR INSTALLMENTS UNPAID TO
THE BENEFICIARY AT THE DATE OF THE LATTER'S DEATH.  THE COURT THEN
ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD "CONTINGENCY" IN THE FIRST
PROVISO OF THE SECTION: "IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE RIGHT ACCRUED ON
THE HAPPENING OF THE CONTINGENCY ON WHICH THE CLAIM IS FOUNDED."  THE
COURT HELD THAT, IN THE CASE OF A DISABLED VETERAN, AT LEAST TWO
CONTINGENCIES MUST OCCUR BEFORE THE RIGHT TO ANY MONTHLY BENEFIT
ACCRUED,  - NAMELY, THE OCCURRENCE OF PERMANENT DISABILITY WHILE THE
POLICY WAS IN FORCE AND THE EXISTENCE OF THE DISABILITY AT THE DATE FOR
WHICH A PARTICULAR MONTHLY PAYMENT IS CLAIMED.  IN THE CASE OF A
BENEFICIARY, THE COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT ANOTHER CONTINGENCY MUST BE
ADDED, NAMELY, THE DEATH OF THE INSURED.  IT MADE THE CHOICE FROM THESE
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES BY HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT ACCRUED IN THE CASE OF
A LIVING INSURED ON THE DATE WHEN EACH MONTHLY BENEFIT PAYMENT BECAME
DUE AND, IN THE CASE OF A BENFICIARY, WHEN THE INSURED DIED.  THIS
CONSTRUCTION IS SAID TO COMPORT WITH THE LIBERAL POLICY OF CONGRESS
TOWARDS VETERANS AND TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT AN ALTERNATIVE
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE PASSAGE OF THE STATUTE WAS
ACCORDED BY CONGRESS.  THE COURT VIEWED THE SIX YEAR PERIOD AS A
LIBERALIZING ALTERNATIVE TO THE ONE YEAR PERIOD, AND, THEREFORE, HELD
THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT, AS BENEFICIARY, WAS TIMELY BECAUSE SUIT
HAD BEEN INSTITUTED WITHIN THE SIX YEAR PERIOD AS ENLARGED BY THE
DURATION OF THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION'S CONSIDERATION.  THE CLAIM, AS
ADMINISTRATOR, FOR INSTALLMENTS ACCRUING IN THE LIFE OF THE INSURED,
WAS HELD MAINTAINABLE FOR SUCH INSTALLMENTS AS ACCRUED DUE WITHIN SIX
YEARS (PLUS THE ADDITIONAL TIME ALLOWED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSIDERATION) PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF SUIT.  WE ARE UNABLE TO
ADOPT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 

INSTITUTION OF SUIT, WHEREAS, THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW WOULD
PROVIDE NO SUCH LIMITATION UPON SUITS BY VETERANS FOR TOTAL PERMANENT
DISABILITY BENEFITS, BUT SIMPLY A LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF
INSTALLMENTS RECOVERABLE; AND, IN APPLICATION TO DISABILITY CASES,
WOULD PRECLUDE ONLY A RECOVERY OF CERTAIN INSTALLMENTS WHEREAS NEW
SUITS MIGHT BE BROUGHT THEREAFTER BY VETERANS, IF LIVING, IN CASES IN
WHICH PRIOR SUITS HAD BEEN HELD BARRED. 

WE THINK THE LEGISLATION AND THE POLICY DO NOT CONFER TWO RIGHTS. 
THE BENEFICIARY'S INTEREST IN THE POLICY IS DERIVATIVE FROM THAT OF THE
VETERAN.  IT MAY BE TAKEN AWAY BY LEGISLATION, EVEN AFTER THE DEATH OF
THE INSURED.  FN6  THERE ARE DIFFERENT EVENTS UPON THE HAPPENING OF
WHICH THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO THE VETERAN OR TO HIS BENEFICIARIES OR
TO HIS ESTATE DEPEND.  WE THINK IT HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO ACCORD EACH OF THE CLAIMANTS OF POSSIBLE BENEFITS UNDER THE
POLICY SIX YEARS FROM THE TIME ANY INSTALLMENT OR LUMP SUM PAYMENT FELL
DUE WITHIN WHICH TO BRING SUIT. 

MILLIONS OF VETERANS ALLOWED THEIR YEARLY CONVERTIBLE TERM INSURANCE
TO LAPSE WHEN THEY LEFT THE SERVICE.  FN7  CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT IF,
AT THE TIME OF THE LAPSE, THE VETERAN WAS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY
DISABLED HE MIGHT RECOVER NOTWITHSTANDING HE HAD NOT MADE IMMEDIATE AND
TIMELY CLAIM.  SECTION 19 OF THE ACT OF 1930 WAS AN AMENDMENT OF AN
EARLIER ACT.  THE STATUTE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY INTENDED AS ONE OF REPOSE. 
THE PURPOSE OF ITS ADOPTION, AS SHOWN BY THE COMMITTEE REPORTS,  FN8
WAS TO SUBSTITUTE A UNIFORM RULE OF LIMITATION FOR SUITS ON CONTRACTS
OF INSURANCE IN LIEU OF THE STATE STATUTES, WHICH, PURSUANT TO THE
CONFORMITY ACT, HAD THERETOFORE BEEN APPLIED.  THESE VARIED AS RESPECTS
THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FROM THREE TO TWENTY YEARS.  AS THE REPORTS SHOW,
THE ADDITIONAL YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT WAS GRANTED
TO PREVENT THE HARDSHIP OF CUTTING OFF CLAIMS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
BARRED BY THE SIX YEAR LIMITATION AT THE DATE OF THE ACT.  A READING OF
THE SECTION AS A WHOLE IS PERSUASIVE THAT WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY
"THE CONTINGENCY UPON WHICH THE CLAIM IS FOUNDED" WAS THE CONTINGENCY
ON WHICH LIABILITY UNDER THE POLICY WAS BOTTOMED, NAMELY,  - PERMANENT
DISABILITY OR DEATH WHILE THE POLICY REMAINED IN FORCE. 

THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE COURT BELOW WOULD PERMIT THE BRINGING
OF SUITS EVEN TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE DISABILITY OCCURRED.  IT IS
OBVIOUS THAT EACH YEAR ASCERTAINMENT OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WHICH
CONDITIONED LIABILITY WOULD BECOME MORE DIFFICULT.  WE THINK THEN THAT,
REASONABLY CONSTRUED, THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THERE SHALL BE BUT ONE
RIGHT,  - THAT IS, THE RIGHT TO BENEFIT PAYMENTS, AND BUT ONE CRITICAL
CONTINGENCY WHICH CONDITIONS THAT RIGHT, NAMELY, THE OCCURRENCE OF
PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY OR DEATH WHILE THE POLICY REMAINS IN FORCE. 

ALL THE OTHER CONTINGENCIES REFERRED TO BY THE COURT BELOW, WHICH
CONDITION ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE BENEFITS TO ONE PERSON OR ANOTHER, ARE
OF MINOR IMPORTANCE.  THEY ARE NOT MATTERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH
DISAGREEMENT WITH THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION IS LIKELY. 

TWO OBJECTIONS ARE RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THIS CONSTRUCTION OF
THE SECTION.  FIRST, IT IS SAID THAT IF SUIT IS BROUGHT ON A POLICY AND
JUDGMENT RECOVERED THAT JUDGMENT IS ONLY FOR THE INSTALLMENTS WHICH
HAVE THERETOFORE FALLEN DUE AND THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD FAIL TO
PAY SUBSEQUENTLY ACCRUING INSTALLMENTS THESE MIGHT, UNDER OUR RULING,
BE BARRED BY THE SIX YEAR LIMITATION.  WE HAVE SAID:  FN9
"UNDOUBTEDLY, WHEN ONE'S RIGHT TO RECOVER IS ESTABLISHED BY JUDGMENT,
THE VETERANS' BUREAU WILL PAY HIM INSTALLMENTS MATURING IN HIS FAVOR
AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION."  THIS HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  INDEED THE BUREAU HAS TREATED A JUDGMENT FOR
INSTALLMENTS DUE THE VETERAN AS REQUIRING, WITHOUT FURTHER CLAIM, THE
PAYMENT OF REMAINING INSTALLMENTS DUE THE BENEFICIARY AFTER HIS DEATH. 
FN10  THE OTHER OBJECTION IS THAT, AS BENEFIT PAYMENTS CEASE ON THE
CESSATION OF THE DISABILITY, THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MAY REFUSE
FURTHER PAYMENTS ON THAT GROUND AND, IF THE INSURED DISAGREES WITH THE
BUREAU'S RULING, A SUIT TO TEST ITS VALIDITY MAY BE BARRED.  THE ANSWER
IS THAT, UNDER THE POLICY'S TERMS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS, THE
POLICY IS AUTOMATICALLY REINSTATED FOR A REDUCED SUM AFTER TAKING
ACCOUNT OF THE PRIOR PAYMENT OF BENEFITS AND MAY BE CONTINUED IN FORCE
BY THE INSURED BY THE PAYMENT OF FUTURE PREMIUMS.  FN11  IF HE CONTENDS
THAT WHEN THE POLICY IS THUS REINSTATED HE IS STILL PERMANENTLY AND
TOTALLY DISABLED, HE HAS THE FULL SIX YEARS GRANTED BY THE STATUTE IN
WHICH TO LITIGATE THE CLAIM SINCE, IF HE CAN ESTABLISH HIS CONTENTION,
HE WOULD HAVE BEEN TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED AT A TIME WHEN THE
POLICY WAS IN FORCE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 7, 1924, C. 320, SEC. 19, 43 STAT. 612, AS AMENDED
BY ACT OF JULY 3, 1930, C. 849, 46 STAT. 992; U.S.C. TIT. 38, SEC.
445. 

FN2  97 F.2D 906. 

FN3  SEE UNITED STATES V. TARRER, 77 F.2D 423. 

FN4  ACT OF OCT. 6, 1917, C. 105, SEC. 402, 40 STAT. 398, 409. 
BULLETIN NO. 3 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OCTOBER 16, 1917.  REGULATIONS AND
PROCEDURE U.S. VETERANS BUREAU 1930, PART II, PP. 1241, 1258, 1259. 

FN5  WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT, 1924, AS AMENDED, U.S.C. TIT. 38, SEC.
514; MCCULLOUGH V. SMITH, 293 U.S. 228. 

FN6  WHITE V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 175. 

FN7  LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571, 576.    FN8  HOUSE
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1274, 70TH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, P. 1.  SENATE
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1297, 70TH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, P. 1. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. WORLEY, 281 U.S. 339, 341. 

FN10  LETTER OF SOLICITOR OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, FEBRUARY 8,
1938. 

FN11  VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS R. 3141-3143. 
..END :
















LABOR BOARD V. SANDS MFG. CO., 306 U.S. 332 


NO. 274.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  - 96
F.2D 721, AFFIRMED. 


1.  FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT RESPONDENT, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(5) OF THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT, HAD REFUSED TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES; HAD
DISCRIMINATED IN REGARD TO HIRE AND TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT AND
DISCOURAGED MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION, IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(3); AND, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1), HAD INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED,
AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SELF
ORGANIZATION, AFFILIATION WITH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 - HELD UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 
P. 339. 

2.  ALSO UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE WAS THE BOARD'S ULTIMATE
CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT PERMITTED NO REASONABLE INFERENCE
OTHER THAN THAT ITS EMPLOYEES WERE LOCKED OUT, DISCHARGED, AND REFUSED
EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR LABOR ORGANIZATION
AND HAD ENGAGED IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  P. 339. 

3.  RESPONDENT HAD A CONTRACT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS
EMPLOYEES WHICH GAVE IT THE RIGHT TO OPERATE ITS PLANT ON THE BASIS OF
"DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY."  IN VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT, THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION SUBSEQUENTLY DEMANDED THAT RESPONDENT ABANDON
"DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY" OR SHUT DOWN ITS PLANT.  RESPONDENT CHOSE THE
LATTER COURSE.  AT THE TIME OF THE CLOSING OF THE PLANT, NO FURTHER
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES WERE PENDING, EACH HAD REJECTED THE
OTHER'S PROPOSALS, AND THERE WERE NO ARRANGEMENTS FOR ANY FURTHER
MEETING. 

HELD THAT, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPONDENT WAS FREE TO TREAT THE
EMPLOYEES AS HAVING SEVERED THEIR RELATIONSHIP, AND TO CONSUMMATE THE
SEPARATION BY HIRING OTHERS TO TAKE THEIR PLACES.  THE ACT DOES NOT
FORBID THE DISCHARGE OF AN EMPLOYEE FOR REPUDIATION OF HIS AGREEMENT. 
P. 344. 

4.  RESPONDENT'S OFFER TO REEMPLOY FOUR MEN AS FOREMEN ON TERMS WHICH
MIGHT HAVE FORMED A BASIS OF COMPROMISE HAD SIMILAR OFFERS BEEN MADE TO
ALL OF THE MEN, DID NOT SUPPORT THE BOARD'S FINDING OF A REFUSAL TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION.  P. 344. 

5.  HAVING THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHERS TO TAKE THE PLACES OF THE
DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES, RESPONDENT HAD THE RIGHT ALSO TO CONTRACT WITH
ANOTHER UNION FOR THE SERVICES OF THE NEW MEN.  P. 345. 

6.  NOR WAS RESPONDENT PRECLUDED FROM MAKING INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS FOR
THE REEMPLOYMENT OF SOME OF ITS DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES.  P. 345. 

7.  THE CONTENTION THAT RESPONDENT'S OFFER OF REEMPLOYMENT TO TWO OF
ITS OLD MEN ON CONDITION THAT THEY JOIN THE OTHER UNION WAS A VIOLATION
OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT, HELD IRRELEVANT TO ANY ISSUE IN THIS CASE.  P.
346. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. SANDS MANUFACTURING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 586, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING A PETITION OF
THE LABOR BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER AND SETTING THE ORDER
ASIDE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED THE PETITION OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT AND GRANTED THE RESPONDENT'S PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER.  FN1  WE ISSUED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
CONFLICT.  FN2 

AFTER COMPLAINT, ANSWER, AND HEARING, THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT, AN OHIO CORPORATION WHICH MANUFACTURES WATER HEATERS IN
CLEVELAND, HAD ENGAGED, AND CONTINUED TO ENGAGE, IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES AS DEFINED BY SEC. 8, SUBSECTIONS (1), (3), AND (5) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,  FN3  AND ORDERED THE COMPANY TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM VIOLATING THOSE PROVISIONS AND TO OFFER REINSTATEMENT
TO FORMER EMPLOYES WITH COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF WAGES FROM SEPTEMBER
3, 1935.  FN4 

THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS AND THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT UPON THE
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE, THE BOARD'S
CONCLUSIONS ARE WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD.  THE PETITIONER INSISTS
THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.  FROM THE FINDINGS, AND THE
UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE, THESE FACTS APPEAR:  IN THE SPRING OF 1934
MOST OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYES JOINED THE MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
OF AMERICA (HEREINAFTER CALLED "MESA"), AN INDEPENDENT LABOR
ORGANIZATION.  THE RESPONDENT MANIFESTED NO OPPOSITION TO THEIR SO
DOING, EXPRESSED ITS WILLINGNESS THAT ITS MEN JOIN ANY ORGANIZATION
THEY CHOSE, AND READILY MET WITH A SHOP COMMITTEE OF THE UNION TO
DISCUSS GRIEVANCES AND WORKING CONDITIONS.  AN AGREEMENT EFFECTING AN
INCREASE OF WAGES, AND AFFECTING WORKING CONDITIONS, WAS ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND THE UNION.  ALTHOUGH LIMITED IN TERM TO
SIXTY DAYS IT WAS CONTINUED, BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT, AND UNDER IT ALL
MATTERS OF CONTROVERSY BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYES WERE SETTLED BY
CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE SHOP COMMITTEE OF THE UNION AND OFFICIALS OF THE
COMPANY. 

IN MAY 1935 THE COMMITTEE DEMANDED, AND THE COMPANY REFUSED, AN
INCREASE OF WAGES.  A STRIKE WAS CALLED, BUT NEGOTIATIONS WENT ON
BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE UNION.  ALL DIFFERENCES WERE ADJUSTED SAVE
THAT THE COMPANY WAS UNWILLING TO REINSTATE CERTAIN MEN ALLEGED TO BE
INCOMPETENT.  THE UNION INSISTED THAT THESE MEN BE TAKEN BACK AND
THEREAFTER BE AFFORDED A HEARING BY THE MANAGEMENT AND THE SHOP
COMMITTEE.  WHEN WORK WAS RESUMED THE COMPANY DID NOT PERMIT THE MEN IN
QUESTION TO RETURN.  THEREUPON A SECOND STRIKE WAS CALLED. 
NEGOTIATIONS AGAIN ENSUED AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE SHOP COMMITTEE
AGREED TO DRAFT AND SUBMIT A CONTRACT TO THE RESPONDENT.  THIS WAS
DONE.  THE MANAGEMENT DEMANDED CERTAIN CHANGES IN THE DRAFT, TO WHICH
THE COMMITTEE AGREED; A CONTRACT EXTENDING TO MARCH 1, 1936, WAS
EXECUTED ON JUNE 15, 1935, AND THE MEN RETURNED TO WORK.  THE AGREEMENT
PROVIDED THAT THE COMPANY WOULD RECOGNIZE THE SHOP COMMITTEE AS
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; THAT NO EMPLOYE
SHOULD BE DISCHARGED WITHOUT A HEARING BEFORE THE SHOP COMMITTEE AND
THE MANAGEMENT; THAT CERTAIN EMPLOYES SHOULD BE DISCHARGED AND NOT
REHIRED; THAT STIPULATED NOTICE SHOULD BE GIVEN OF LAYOFFS DUE TO
SHORTAGE OF WORK; THAT NEW EMPLOYES MIGHT JOIN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION
THEY CHOSE.  IT ALSO COVERED WAGES AND HOURS OF WORK.  IT FURTHER
PROVIDED:  "IN CASE OF A MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND
THE EMPLOYES, THE COMMITTEE SHALL ALLOW THE MANAGEMENT FORTY-EIGHT
HOURS TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE AND, IF THEN UNSUCCESSFUL, THE COMMITTEE
SHALL ACT AS THEY SEE FIT."  PROVISIONS AS TO SENIORITY WILL BE
PRESENTLY STATED. 

IN 1934 THE COMPANY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROCURE A GOVERNMENT
ORDER.  ITS OFFICERS CONFERRED WITH THE MEN AND STATED THAT THEY WOULD
TAKE THE GOVERNMENT ORDER IF ASSURED THAT NO LABOR TROUBLE WOULD
INTERFERE WITH ITS EXECUTION.  ON RECEIVING THIS ASSURANCE THE ORDER
WAS TAKEN AND THE WORKING FORCE MORE THAN DOUBLED BY THE EMPLOYMENT OF
NEW MEN.  IT WAS AGREED WITH THE UNION THAT THESE MEN MIGHT JOINT THE
"MESA" AND IN FACT MANY OF THEM DID SO.  IT WAS ALSO AGREED THAT WHEN
THE GOVERNMENT ORDER WAS FINISHED THESE NEW MEN SHOULD BE DISCHARGED SO
THAT THE OLD MEN COULD REMAIN AT WORK. 

THE COMPANY'S PLANT WAS DIVIDED INTO A NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTS, ONE OF
WHICH WAS THE MACHINE SHOP.  THE WAGE SCALES DIFFERED IN DIFFERENT
DEPARTMENTS AND THE FOREMEN AND OLD MEN WHOM THE COMPANY EMPLOYED IN
EACH DEPARTMENT RECEIVED HIGHER WAGES THAN NEW MEN IN THE SAME
DEPARTMENT.  THE COMPANY HAD HAD A PRACTICE OF KEEPING THE OLD MEN AT
WORK, IN CASE BUSINESS WAS SLACK, BY TRANSFERRING THEM FROM THEIR OWN
DEPARTMENTS TO OTHERS AT THEIR REGULAR PAY.  WHEN NEGOTIATIONS WERE
UNDER WAY FOR THE AGREEMENT OF JUNE 15, 1935, THE COMPANY INSISTED ON
DISCONTINUING THIS PRACTICE OF TRANSFERRING OLD MEN FROM ONE DEPARTMENT
TO ANOTHER, STATING THAT IT WOULD RECOGNIZE, AS THERETOFORE, THE
SENIORITY RIGHTS OF OLD MEN BUT ONLY IN THE DEPARTMENTS IN WHICH
PARTICULAR MEN BELONGED.  THE MANAGEMENT INSISTED THAT THE PRACTICE OF
TRANSFERRING MEN FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER RESULTED IN
INEFFICIENCY.  THE BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THE COMPANY IN FACT DISAPPROVED
OF THE PRACTICE BECAUSE IT RESULTED IN PAYING HIGHER WAGES THAN WOULD
HAVE BEEN THE CASE HAD THE NEW MEN BEEN RETAINED OR RECALLED TO THE
BUSY DEPARTMENT INSTEAD OF TRANSFERRING OLD MEN FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS
THERETO.  AS A RESULT OF THE INSISTENCE OF THE RESPONDENT, CERTAIN
PARAGRAPHS OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYES WERE
ALTERED.  THESE PARAGRAPHS FOLLOW, WITH THE ALTERATIONS DEMANDED BY THE
MANAGEMENT IN ITALICS: 

"(5)  THAT WHEN EMPLOYEES ARE LAID OFF, SENIORITY RIGHTS SHALL RULE,
AND BY DEPARTMENTS. 

"(6)  THAT WHEN ONE DEPARTMENT IS SHUT DOWN, MEN FROM THIS DEPARTMENT
WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR WORK IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS UNTIL ALL OLD MEN
ONLY WITHIN THAT DEPARTMENT, WHO WERE LAID OFF, HAVE BEEN CALLED BACK. 

"(7)  THAT ALL NEW EMPLOYEES BE LAID OFF BEFORE ANY OLD EMPLOYEES, IN
ORDER TO GUARANTEE IF POSSIBLE AT LEAST ONE WEEK'S FULL TIME BEFORE THE
WORKING WEEK IS REDUCED TO THREE DAYS." 

ON JUNE 17, 1935, THE COMPANY HIRED APPROXIMATELY 30 ADDITIONAL MEN,
SOME OF WHOM HAD WORKED FOR THE RESPONDENT WHILE THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
WAS BEING FILLED.  BY THE MIDDLE OF JULY WORK WAS BECOMING SLACK AND
RESPONDENT PROCEEDED TO REDUCE ITS WORKING FORCE.  ABOUT JULY 15, 1935,
AFTER CONFERENCES BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE EMPLOYEES, ALL THE MEN
IN THE TANK HEATER DEPARTMENT EXCEPT THE FOREMAN WERE LAID OFF. 

IN THE AGREEMENT OF JUNE 15, 1935, THE 31 MEN WHO WERE EMPLOYES OF
THE RESPONDENT PRIOR TO THE GOVERNMENT ORDER OF 1934 WERE DESIGNATED AS
"OLD MEN" AND THOSE EMPLOYED WHILE THE GOVERNMENT ORDER WAS BEING
FILLED WERE "NEW MEN."  ABOUT JULY 30, 1935, A NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE
TIME CLOCK IN THE PLANT THAT THE NEW MEN WOULD BE LAID OFF ON JULY 30
AND THE OLD MEN WOULD BE LAID OFF ON AUGUST 2, 1935.  AFTER THE LAYOFF
OF THE NEW MEN ANOTHER NOTICE WAS POSTED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PLANT
WOULD BE OPERATED WITH THE OLD MEN ON A SCHEDULE OF THREE DAYS A WEEK. 

THUS, BY THE END OF JULY OR THE BEGINNING OF AUGUST, SOME DEPARTMENTS
WERE BEING OPERATED ON A PART TIME BASIS AND OTHERS HAD BEEN
PRACTICALLY SHUT DOWN.  AT OR ABOUT THIS TIME, THE RESPONDENT WISHED TO
INCREASE THE WORKING FORCE IN THE MACHINE SHOP, THE KEY DEPARTMENT,
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SHUTTING DOWN THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS.  REPEATED
CONFERENCES WERE HELD BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE SHOP COMMITTEE IN
REFERENCE TO THIS MATTER.  THE POSITIONS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE
EMPLOYES WERE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED.  THE MANAGEMENT CONTENDED THAT NEW
MEN, EXPERIENCED IN MACHINE SHOP WORK, BE EMPLOYED IN PREFERENCE TO THE
OLD MEN.  THE SHOP COMMITTEE CONTENDED THAT, UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF
JUNE 15, 1935, THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT HIRE ANY NEW MEN FOR THE
MACHINE SHOP AS LONG AS OLD MEN WERE STILL LAID OFF.  THE MANAGEMENT
CLAIMED THAT THE SHOP COMMITTEE WAS INSISTING UPON A VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 5 OF THE AGREEMENT.  ON AUGUST 19TH AN OFFICER CONFERRED WITH
THE SHOP COMMITTEE AND ANNOUNCED THAT THE COMPANY WOULD EITHER KEEP THE
MACHINE SHOP RUNNING ACCORDING TO THE COMPANY'S PLAN OR TEMPORARILY
CLOSE THE PLANT.  THE COMMITTEE WAS REQUESTED TO CONFER WITH THE
EMPLOYES AND COMMUNICATE THEIR DECISION.  AFTER CONFERENCE WITH THE
EMPLOYES THE COMMITTEE STATED THAT THE COMPANY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO
RUN THE MACHINE SHOP UNLESS IT TRANSFERRED OLD MEN IN LIEU OF NEW MEN
TO THAT SHOP, AND THAT IF IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THIS CONDITION IT
COULD CLOSE THE PLANT.  ACCORDINGLY, ON AUGUST 21ST, NOTICE WAS POSTED
THAT THE PLANT WOULD BE CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. 

AUGUST 26TH AND 27TH OFFICERS OF RESPONDENT NEGOTIATED WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AN AFFILIATE OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND, ON AUGUST 31ST, MADE A CONTRACT WITH THAT
UNION EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 3RD.  IT ALSO RECRUITED LABOR FROM THE COUNTY
RELIEF ORGANIZATION.  PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE EMPLOYES SO OBTAINED WERE
MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL.  IT OFFERED REEMPLOYMENT TO SEVERAL OF
THE OLD "MESA" MEMBERS, AS FOREMEN, ON THE BASIS OF ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT
AT A LOWER HOURLY WAGE INSTEAD OF THE HIGHER HOURLY WAGE THERETOFORE
PAID THEM, SUBJECT TO LAYOFFS.  THE OFFER WAS REFUSED.  SEPTEMBER 3RD
THE PLANT REOPENED.  ON SEPTEMBER 4TH, A REPRESENTATIVE OF "MESA"
CALLED AN OFFICER OF RESPONDENT AND DEMANDED A CONFERENCE.  THE DEMAND
WAS REFUSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE MEN HAD BEEN DISCHARGED.  THE "MESA"
PICKETED THE PLANT FOR ABOUT A MONTH THEREAFTER. 

THE BOARD HELD THAT THE COMPANY HAD REFUSED TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYES AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 8(5) OF
THE ACT; HAD DISCRIMINATED IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT
AND DISCOURAGED MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION CONTRARY TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8(3); AND, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1), HAD INTERFERED
WITH, RESTRAINED, AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT
OF SELF-ORGANIZATION, AFFILIATION WITH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DISAGREED WITH THESE CONCLUSIONS.  WE HOLD THAT ITS DECISION
WAS RIGHT. 

FIRST.  THE PETITIONER URGES THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ULTIMATE
CONCLUSION THAT THE RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT PERMITS NO REASONABLE
INFERENCE SAVE THAT THE EMPLOYES WERE LOCKED OUT, DISCHARGED, AND
REFUSED EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE "MESA" AND HAD
ENGAGED IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  WE THINK THE CONCLUSION HAS NO SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE AND
IS CONTRARY TO THE ENTIRE AND UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE OF RECORD. 

THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO PREVENT ORGANIZATION OF ITS
EMPLOYES OR DISCOURAGE THEIR AFFILIATION WITH "MESA" OR INTERFERE WITH
THEIR RELATIONS WITH THAT BODY.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ESPIONAGE OR
COERCION BY THE COMPANY.  IMMEDIATELY UPON THE UNIONIZATION OF THE MEN
IN THE SPRING OF 1934, THE RESPONDENT RECOGNIZED AND CONFERRED WITH THE
SHOP COMMITTEE WHENEVER REQUESTED SO TO DO.  MAY 2, 1934, IT ENTERED
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION.  IT CONSULTED THE UNION RESPECTING
HIRING OF ADDITIONAL EMPLOYES FOR THE FILLING OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
IN THE AUTUMN OF 1934 AND COMPLIED WITH ITS PROMISE TO DISCHARGE
ADDITIONAL MEN HIRED FOR THIS PURPOSE WHEN THE ORDER HAD BEEN
COMPLETED.  ALL BUT THREE OF THE MEN HIRED BECAME MEMBERS OF "MESA"
WITHOUT OBJECTION ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY.  FROM MAY 1934 TO MAY
1935 THE COMPANY NEGOTIATED WITH THE UNION AND THE LATTER NEVER HAD ANY
TROUBLE IN GETTING MEETINGS WITH THE MANAGEMENT.  WHEN, IN 1935, A
STRIKE WAS CALLED AS A RESULT OF THE REFUSAL OF THE SHOP COMMITTEE'S
DEMAND FOR A WAGE INCREASE, THE COMPANY CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS DURING
THE STRIKE AND MADE AN ORAL AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE STRIKERS RETURNED
TO WORK.  WHEN THREE DAYS LATER THEY STRUCK AGAIN BECAUSE OF A REFUSAL
TO REINSTATE SOME OF THEIR NUMBER, ALTHOUGH A REPRESENTATIVE OF "MESA"
SAID SEVERAL OF THESE MEN MIGHT BE INCOMPETENT, THE COMPANY TOOK THE
MEN BACK AND CONTINUED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE UNION WITH THE RESULT THAT
A DRAFT OF A CONTRACT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE SHOP COMMITTEE.  AFTER THE
COMPANY HAD INSISTED ON CERTAIN CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO DEPARTMENTAL
SENIORITY, THE DRAFT RIPENED INTO A CONTRACT JUNE 15, 1935. 

THEREAFTER THE RESPONDENT HAD HEARINGS WITH THE SHOP COMMITTEE AS TO
THE DISCHARGE OF AN EMPLOYE FOR INCOMPETENCE AND THERE IS NO SUGGESTION
THAT, BETWEEN JUNE 15TH AND AUGUST 21ST, IT FAILED TO LIVE UP TO ITS
CONTRACT IN ANY RESPECT.  REPEATED MEETINGS WERE HELD WITH THE SHOP
COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT RESPECTING DEPARTMENTAL
SENIORITY.  THE EVIDENCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SHOP COMMITTEE
DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS MATTER WAS FULLY DISCUSSED BEFORE THE CONTRACT
WAS EXECUTED AND THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTOOD THE
COMPANY'S POSITION AND THE REASON FOR THE ALTERATIONS IN THE
COMMITTEE'S DRAFT.  THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER OF 1935 THE COMPANY, WHILE
ADHERING TO ITS POSITION, ATTEMPTED TO ACCOMMODATE ITS PRACTICES TO THE
DEMANDS OF THE SHOP COMMITTEE, EVIDENTLY IN ORDER TO AVOID A STRIKE. 
WHEN THE FINAL CONFERENCE OF AUGUST 19TH TOOK PLACE THE COMPANY'S
MANAGER MADE IT CLEAR TO THE COMMITTEE THAT HE DESIRED TO OPERATE THE
MACHINE SHOP WITH THE NEW MEN BELONGING IN THAT DEPARTMENT AND WHEN THE
COMMITTEE ADVISED HIM THIS WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED HE ASKED THEM TO GO
TO THE MEN AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE PROPOSED OPERATION WOULD BE
PERMITTED OR WHETHER THE PLANT WOULD HAVE TO BE SHUT DOWN.  ON AUGUST
21ST THE COMMITTEE BROUGHT BACK A REPLY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE COMPANY
COULD SHUT DOWN THE PLANT BUT COULD NOT OPERATE THE MACHINE SHOP ON THE
PRINCIPLE OF DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY.  THE COMPANY THEN CLOSED THE PLANT
AND DID NOT OPEN IT UNTIL IT HAD EMPLOYED NEW MEN UNDER A CONTRACT WITH
ANOTHER UNION WHICH GAVE IT THE OPTION TO ENFORCE DEPARTMENTAL
SENIORITY.  SAVE FOR ONE ITEM OF EVIDENCE, THIS IS ALL THE RECORD
DISCLOSES TO INDICATE THAT THE DISCHARGE AND REPLACEMENT OF THE MEN
AROSE FROM A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM FOR UNION ACTIVITIES AND THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  MANIFESTLY IT IS NOT
ONLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN ANY SUCH CONCLUSION BUT DEFINITELY REFUTES
IT.  THE BOARD SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION BY REFERENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF
TWO MEN.  ONE, NORMAN, WHO WAS, WITH THE UNION'S CONSENT, DISCHARGED
AFTER THE AGREEMENT OF JUNE 15, 1935, FOR INCOMPETENCY, TESTIFIED HE
THOUGHT HE WAS DISCHARGED AS A RESULT OF A GRUDGE.  HE SAID THAT IN
JUNE, ONE MCKIERNAN, A SHIPPING CLERK WHO WAS HIS SUPERIOR, TOLD HIM
WHEN HE COMPLAINED ABOUT HIS DISCHARGE:  "I WILL TELL YOU; THERE IS A
LOT MORE OF THIS THAN YOU AND I KNOW OF  ...  "  "I WILL GET YOU BACK
WHEN WE BREAK THIS UNION UP  ...  "  THERE IS THE FURTHER TESTIMONY OF
A WITNESS RUDD WHO SAYS THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT SAID TO HIM IN JUNE, IN
EFFECT, THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE THE A.F. OF L. UNION AS THEY
WERE MORE CONSERVATIVE AND NOT SO LIKELY TO STRIKE.  THIS WAS JUST
AFTER "MESA" HAD CALLED TWO STRIKES IN THE PLANT.  NEITHER OF THE MEN
WHO ARE QUOTED HELD SUCH A POSITION THAT HIS STATEMENTS ARE EVIDENCE OF
THE COMPANY'S POLICY EVEN IN JUNE, TWO MONTHS BEFORE THE DISCHARGE, AND
THE INFERENCE OF HOSTILITY TO "MESA" DRAWN FROM THEIR TESTIMONY DOES
NOT, IN ANY EVENT, AMOUNT TO A SCINTILLA WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT
OF RESPONDENT'S LONG COURSE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF UNION ACTIVITIES
AND IN DEALING FREELY AND CANDIDLY WITH "MESA." 

SECOND.  THE BOARD HELD THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE OBLIGATION
IMPOSED UPON IT BY THE STATUTE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH
REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYES.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT
GOES FAR TO INDICATE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE WAS TO COMPEL
EMPLOYERS TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR EMPLOYES TO THE END THAT
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS BINDING ON BOTH PARTIES SHOULD BE MADE.  FN5  BUT
WE ASSUME THAT THE ACT IMPOSES UPON THE EMPLOYER THE FURTHER OBLIGATION
TO MEET AND BARGAIN WITH HIS EMPLOYES' REPRESENTATIVES RESPECTING
PROPOSED CHANGES OF AN EXISTING CONTRACT AND ALSO TO DISCUSS WITH THEM
ITS TRUE INTERPRETATION, IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT AS TO ITS MEANING.  UPON
THIS BASIS THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT DEFICIENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS
DUTY. 

THE CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY, IN SECS. 5 AND 6,
AND SEC. 7 DID NOT CREATE ANY AMBIGUITY ON THE SUBJECT.  MOREOVER, THE
RECORD MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE COMMITTEE WHICH NEGOTIATED THE CONTRACT
ON BEHALF OF THE UNION FULLY UNDERSTOOD ITS TERMS IN THE SAME SENSE AS
DID THE RESPONDENT.  IN THIS SITUATION HOW OFTEN AND HOW LONG WAS THE
COMPANY BOUND TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF THE COMMITTEE'S DEMAND THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE IGNORED?  IT IS TO BE BORNE IN
MIND THAT SEC. 20 OF THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT IF THE COMPANY DID NOT
MEET THE COMMITTEE'S VIEWS WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT HOURS THE EMPLOYES
RESERVED FULL LIBERTY OF ACTION AND THIS MEANT THAT IF THE COMPANY DID
NOT ACCEDE TO DEMANDS A STRIKE MIGHT FOLLOW. 

WE COME THEN TO CONSIDER THE SITUATION OF THE RESPONDENT IN AUGUST
1935.  THE BOARD HAS FOUND THAT IT DESIRED TO OPERATE ITS MACHINE SHOP
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS HONEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTRACT.  ITS
MOTIVE, WHETHER EFFICIENCY OR ECONOMY, WAS PROPER.  IT HAD STATED ITS
VIEWS TO THE COMMITTEE.  THE COMMITTEE WAS ADAMANT; ITS STAND WAS THAT
THE COMPANY COULD CLOSE ITS ENTIRE PLANT IF IT CHOSE, BUT IT COULD NOT
OPERATE THE MACHINE SHOP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONTRACT.  IF IT ATTEMPTED THE LATTER ALTERNATIVE A STRIKE WAS
INEVITABLE.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT IT WAS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE
EMPLOYES WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE COMPANY'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT
EVEN IF THEY HAD BEEN THREATENED WITH DISCHARGE AT THE TIME.  IT IS
EVIDENT THAT THE RESPONDENT REALIZED THAT IT HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO
OPERATE THE PLANT IN THE WAY THE MEN DICTATED, IN THE TEETH OF THE
AGREEMENT, OR KEEP IT CLOSED ENTIRELY, OR HAVE A STRIKE.  WHEN THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TWO PARTIES SEPARATED ON AUGUST 21, NO FURTHER
NEGOTIATIONS WERE PENDING, EACH HAD REJECTED THE OTHER'S PROPOSALS, AND
THERE WERE NO ARRANGEMENTS FOR A FURTHER MEETING.  ON THE FOLLOWING
DAYS THE FACTORY WAS CLOSED. 

THE BOARD FINDS THAT, IN THIS SITUATION, THE RESPONDENT WAS UNDER AN
OBLIGATION TO SEND FOR THE SHOP COMMITTEE AND AGAIN TO REASON WITH ITS
MEMBERS OR TO WAIT UNTIL THE SITUATION BECAME SUCH THAT IT COULD
OPERATE ITS WHOLE PLANT WITHOUT ANTAGONIZING THE EMPLOYES' VIEWS WITH
RESPECT TO DEPARTMENTAL SENIORITY.  WE THINK IT WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION
TO DO ANY OF THESE THINGS.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THERE WAS A
REFUSAL TO BARGAIN ON AUGUST 21ST.  THERE COULD BE, THEREFORE, NO DUTY
ON EITHER SIDE TO ENTER INTO FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IN THE ABSENCE OF A REQUEST THEREFOR BY THE EMPLOYES.  FN6
NO SUCH REQUEST WAS MADE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 4TH.  RESPONDENT RIGHTLY
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE MEN WERE IRREVOCABLY COMMITTED NOT TO WORK IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR CONTRACT.  IT WAS AT LIBERTY TO TREAT THEM AS
HAVING SEVERED THEIR RELATIONS WITH THE COMPANY BECAUSE OF THEIR BREACH
AND TO CONSUMMATE THEIR SEPARATION FROM THE COMPANY'S EMPLOY BY HIRING
OTHERS TO TAKE THEIR PLACES.  THE ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT AN EFFECTIVE
DISCHARGE FOR REPUDIATION BY THE EMPLOYE OF HIS AGREEMENT, ANY MORE
THAN IT PROHIBITS SUCH DISCHARGE FOR A TORT COMMITTED AGAINST THE
EMPLOYER.  FN7  AS THE RESPONDENT HAD LAWFULLY SECURED OTHERS TO FILL
THE PLACES OF THE FORMER EMPLOYES AND RECOGNIZED A NEW UNION, WHICH, SO
FAR AS APPEARS, REPRESENTED A MAJORITY OF ITS EMPLOYES, THE OLD UNION
AND ITS SHOP COMMITTEE WERE NO LONGER IN A POSITION ON SEPTEMBER 4TH TO
DEMAND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYES. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE COMPANY'S OFFER TO RE-EMPLOY FOUR MEN AS FOREMEN
ON THE BASIS OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL COMPENSATION, AT A LOWER HOURLY RATE
THAN HAD THERETOFORE BEEN PAID THEM, IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S
FINDING OF A REFUSAL TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE UNION.  THE
ARGUMENT IS THAT IF THE COMPANY HAD MADE A SIMILAR OFFER TO ALL OF THE
MEN THIS MIGHT HAVE FORMED A BASIS OF COMPROMISE, SINCE ONE OF THE
EMPLOYES TO WHOM AN OFFICER TALKED INDICATED THAT THE MEN MIGHT BE
WILLING TO TAKE A CUT IN WAGES; BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE
COMPANY HAD ANY THOUGHT OF OFFERING A SIMILAR CONTRACT TO OTHERS THAN
THE FOREMEN OF DEPARTMENTS, AND THE BREACH OF CONTRACT OF WHICH THE MEN
WERE GUILTY LEFT THE COMPANY UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO INITIATE
NEGOTIATIONS FOR A NEW AND DIFFERENT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WITH THEM. 

THIRD.  CERTAIN OCCURRENCES SUBSEQUENT TO AUGUST 21, 1935, ARE URGED
BY THE BOARD IN SUPPORT OF ITS FINDING THAT RESPONDENT'S DISCHARGE OF
ITS FORTY-EIGHT EMPLOYES CONSTITUTED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNION
AND FAILURE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY.  THE FIRST OF THESE IS ITS
APPLICATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR MEN AND ITS MAKING AN
AGREEMENT WITH THAT UNION ON AUGUST 26TH AND 27TH.  IF, AS WE HAVE
HELD, THE RESPONDENT WAS CONFRONTED WITH A CONCERTED REFUSAL ON THE
PART OF "MESA" TO PERMIT ITS MEMBERS TO PERFORM THEIR CONTRACT THERE
WAS NOTHING UNLAWFUL IN THE COMPANY'S ATTEMPTING TO PROCURE OTHERS TO
FILL THEIR PLACES.  FN8  IF THE RESPONDENT WAS AT LIBERTY TO HIRE NEW
EMPLOYES IT WAS EQUALLY AT LIBERTY TO MAKE A CONTRACT WITH A UNION FOR
THEIR SERVICES.  FN9 

THE OFFERING OF RE-EMPLOYMENT TO FOUR OF THE OLD EMPLOYES, UPON A NEW
AND DIFFERENT BASIS, IS SAID TO CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
"MESA," BUT THE ANSWER IS THAT IF THE WHOLE BODY OF EMPLOYES HAD BEEN
LAWFULLY DISCHARGED THE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE MAKING OF INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTS WITH MEN WHOSE PRIOR RELATIONS HAD THEREBY BEEN SEVERED. 
FN10 

FOURTH.  THE BOARD FOUND AS A FACT THAT IN OFFERING REEMPLOYMENT TO
TWO OF ITS OLD MEN THE RESPONDENT STIPULATED AS A CONDITION THAT THEY
JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL UNION.  THE FINDING IS SHARPLY CHALLENGED BUT,
AS THERE IS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF IT, WE ACCEPT IT.  BASED UPON THIS
FINDING THE BOARD CONTENDS THIS STIPULATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
OFFER TO HIRE THE MEN WAS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT
INDEPENDENT OF ANY OF THE VIOLATIONS FLOWING OUT OF THE DISCHARGE AND
REFUSAL TO RE-EMPLOY THE MEN AS A BODY.  THE CONTENTION IS IRRELEVANT
TO ANY ISSUE IN THE CAUSE.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE DISCHARGE OF
THE MEN CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1)
AND (3) AND THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(5).  IT
NOWHERE REFERS TO ANY DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING ANY MAN OR MEN OR
CHARGES ANY VIOLATION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. 

THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  96 F.2D 721. 

FN2  SEE JEFFERY-DEWITT INSULATOR CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 91 F.2D 134. 

FN3  ACT OF JULY 5, 1935, C. 372, 49 STAT. 449, 452; U.S.C. SUPP.
III, TIT. 29, SEC. 158. 

FN4  1 N.L.R.B. 546. 

FN5  REPORT NO. 573 OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 74TH
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 12. 

FN6  COMPARE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. COLUMBIAN ENAMELING &
STAMPING CO., ANTE, P. 292, 298-299. 

FN7  COMPARE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FANSTEEL METALLURGICAL
CORP., ANTE, P. 240, 254FF. 

FN8  COMPARE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO &
TELEGRAPH CO., 304 U.S. 333, 345. 

FN9  COMPARE CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 305 U.S. 197, 236-237. 

FN10 COMPARE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 44, 45; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FANSTEEL
CORP., ANTE, P. 240, 259. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






MILK BOARD V. EISENBERG CO., 306 U.S. 346 


NO. 426.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  - 332
PA. 34 - 200 A. 854, REVERSED. 


A STATE STATUTE REGULATING THE MILK INDUSTRY, WHICH REQUIRES DEALERS
TO OBTAIN LICENSES; TO FILE BONDS CONDITIONED ON PAYMENT OF PURCHASES
FROM PRODUCERS; AND TO PAY PRODUCERS AT LEAST THE MINIMUM PRICES
PRESCRIBED BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY,  - HELD NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AS APPLIED TO A DEALER
WHO, AT A RECEIVING STATION MAINTAINED BY HIM WITHIN THE STATE,
PURCHASES MILK FROM NEIGHBORING FARMS, ALL OF WHICH HE SHIPS TO ANOTHER
STATE FOR SALE.  P. 352. 

THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO CONTROL A DOMESTIC SITUATION IN
THE INTEREST OF THE PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS WITHIN THE STATE.  BECAUSE
OF THE COMPARATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF THE STATE'S TOTAL MILK PRODUCTION
WHICH WAS EXPORTED, THE EFFECT OF THE ACT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS
INCIDENTAL.  IN THE ABSENCE OF REGULATION BY CONGRESS, THE ACT DID NOT
CONSTITUTE A PROHIBITED BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

MILK CONTROL BOARD V. EISENBERG FARM PRODUCTS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 589, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING A BILL TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH A STATE MILK CONTROL LAW. 

IF THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW IS THE LAW OF THE LAND, THE
STABILIZATION OF THE MILK INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES BY MEANS OF
MILK CONTROL LEGISLATION, AND ALL COMMERCE IN MILK, WILL BE GREATLY
HINDERED.  AT LEAST TWENTY STATES (PRACTICALLY ALL THE DAIRY STATES)
TODAY HAVE UPON THEIR STATUTE BOOKS LEGISLATION OF THE KIND THAT IS
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  MILK DEALERS IN ANY STATE MAY EVADE ALL
REGULATION BY SIMPLY PURCHASING THEIR MILK AT PLANTS WHICH THEY ERECT
IN OTHER STATES, THUS CREATING AN AREA WITHOUT LAW, TO THE DETRIMENT OF
DAIRY FARMERS, OTHER DEALERS AND THE CONSUMING PUBLIC. 

IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MILK DEALERS WITH NO ASSETS
IN THE STATE, BUY THEIR MILK ON CREDIT; IF REQUIRED TO POST NEITHER
LICENSE NOR BOND THEY WOULD INDEED HAVE THE FARMERS "AT THEIR MERCY." 
ROHRER V. MILK CONTROL BOARD, 322 PA. 257, 265. 

ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE MILK PRODUCED IN PENNSYLVANIA IS SHIPPED
TO OTHER STATES; YET IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE MALPRACTICES OF A
MINORITY CAN DISRUPT AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY.  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN
FAIR DEALINGS IN AN INDUSTRY WITHIN A STATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
INHABITANTS OF THE STATE, IF HERE AND THERE A MILK DEALER CAN CREATE AN
AREA WITHOUT LAW MERELY BECAUSE HE ULTIMATELY RESELLS THE MILK IN SOME
OTHER STATE.  (NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO APPLY THE PRESENT STATUTE TO
ANY RESALES BY THE DEFENDANT.) 

A STATE CAN NOT, UNDER THE GUISE OF STABILIZING THE MILK INDUSTRY,
DIRECTLY BURDEN OR REGULATE MILK SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  LEMKE
V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50. 

THE COST OF THE MILK TO RESPONDENT WILL BE INCREASED BY THE PREMIUM
ON THE BOND, BY THE LICENSE FEE, AND BY THE INCREASE IN PRICE ORDERED
BY THE COMMISSION.  THE EFFECT OF SUCH REGULATION AND SUCH PRICE FIXING
WOULD BE EXACTLY EQUIVALENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX ON THE EXPORT OF
MILK. 

THE STATUTE MAY NOT BE INTERPRETED AS AN INSPECTION LAW, IN VIEW OF
THE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT INSPECTION LAWS PASSED BY THE COMMONWEALTH. 

THE LICENSE AND BOND REQUIREMENTS WOULD, IN THE LANGUAGE OF BALDWIN
V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, INDIRECTLY REGULATE THE PRICES TO BE PAID TO
PRODUCERS OF COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SINCE THE BUYING AS
WELL AS THE SHIPPING OF MILK FROM PENNSYLVANIA TO NEW YORK CONSTITUTES
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE COMMONWEALTH CAN NOT REGULATE INCIDENTS
PERTAINING TO THE BUYING OF MILK IN PENNSYLVANIA, AS IT, BY
INDIRECTION, WOULD AFFECT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION.  SEE PENNSYLVANIA
RAILROAD CO. V. CLARK COAL CO., 238 U.S. 456; TALBOT V. SMITH, 277 S.W.
257; COMMUNITY NATURAL GAS CO. V. ROYSE CITY, 7 F.SUPP.  481. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE WHETHER A LOCAL POLICE REGULATION
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATES OR BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

PENNSYLVANIA, BY AN ACT OF APRIL 30, 1935 FN1  HAS DECLARED THE MILK
INDUSTRY IN THAT COMMONWEALTH TO BE A BUSINESS AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC
INTEREST.  THE STATUTE DEFINES A MILK DEALER AS ANY PERSON "WHO
PURCHASES OR HANDLES MILK WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH FOR SALE, SHIPMENT,
STORAGE, PROCESSING OR MANUFACTURE WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE
COMMONWEALTH."  IT CREATES A MILK CONTROL BOARD WITH AUTHORITY TO
INVESTIGATE, SUPERVISE, AND REGULATE THE INDUSTRY AND IMPOSES PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OR OF THE BOARD'S ORDERS ISSUED PURSUANT TO
THE LAW, AND REQUIRES A DEALER TO OBTAIN A LICENSE BY APPLICATION TO
THE BOARD.  LICENSES MAY BE REFUSED, SUSPENDED, OR REVOKED FOR
SPECIFIED CAUSES.  A REQUISITE OF OBTAINING A LICENSE IS THAT THE
DEALER SHALL FILE WITH THE BOARD A BOND CONDITIONED FOR THE PROMPT
PAYMENT OF ALL AMOUNTS DUE TO PRODUCERS FOR MILK PURCHASED BY THE
LICENSEE.  THE ACT EMPOWERS THE BOARD TO REQUIRE THE DEALER TO KEEP
CERTAIN RECORDS AND DIRECTS THE BOARD, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
GOVERNOR, TO "FIX, BY OFFICIAL ORDER, THE MINIMUM PRICES TO BE PAID BY
MILK DEALERS TO PRODUCERS AND OTHERS FOR MILK."  THE BOARD MAY VARY THE
PRICE ACCORDING TO THE PRODUCTION, USE, FORM, GRADE OR CLASS OF MILK. 
FN2 

THE PETITIONER, THE MILK CONTROL BOARD, FILED ITS BILL IN A COMMON
PLEAS COURT TO RESTRAIN THE APPELLEE FROM CONTINUING TO DO BUSINESS
WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE STATUTE.  THE RESPONDENT BY ITS ANSWER
SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY FAILURE TO COMPLY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS ENGAGED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AFTER TRIAL THE COURT DISMISSED THE BILL.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AFFIRMED THE DECREE.  FN3 

THE RESPONDENT, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, LEASES AND OPERATES A
MILK RECEIVING PLANT IN ELIZABETHVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA, AT WHICH IT BUYS
MILK FROM APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FIVE FARMERS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, WHO BRING THEIR MILK TO THE PLANT IN THEIR OWN CANS. 
THERE THE MILK IS WEIGHED AND TESTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND EMPTIED INTO
LARGE RECEIVING TANKS IN WHICH IT IS COOLED PREPARATORY TO SHIPMENT. 
THIS REQUIRES RETENTION OF THE MILK FOR LESS THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS; IT
IS NOT PROCESSED, AND NO CHANGE OCCURS IN ITS CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS. 
THE MILK IS THEN DRAWN FROM THE COOLING TANKS INTO TANK TRUCKS OPERATED
BY A CONTRACT CARRIER AND TRANSPORTED INTO NEW YORK CITY FOR SALE THERE
BY THE RESPONDENT.  THE JOURNEY IS CONTINUOUS FROM ELIZABETHVILLE TO
NEW YORK CITY.  ALL MILK PURCHASED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ELIZABETHVILLE
IS SHIPPED TO AND SOLD IN NEW YORK.  DURING THE YEAR 1934 APPROXIMATELY
4,500,000,000 POUNDS OF MILK WERE PRODUCED IN PENNSYLVANIA OF WHICH
APPROXIMATELY 470,000,000 POUNDS WERE SHIPPED OUT OF THE STATE. 

THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE ACT, IF CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE IT TO
OBTAIN A LICENSE, TO FILE A BOND FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRODUCERS, AND
TO PAY THE FARMERS THE PRICES PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD,
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATES AND BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
STATE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE STATUTE IS A VALID POLICE
REGULATION.  FN4  THE PETITIONER CONCEDES THAT THE PURCHASE, SHIPMENT
INTO ANOTHER STATE, AND SALE THERE OF THE MILK IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT
DEALS IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER, IN
THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL REGULATION, THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE IS
PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  WE HOLD THAT IT
IS NOT. 

WHEN THE PEOPLE DECLARED "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO
REGULATE COMMERCE  ...  AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,  ...  " THEIR PURPOSE
WAS CLEAR.  THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT EXIST AS A NATION IF EACH OF
THEM WERE TO HAVE THE POWER TO FORBID IMPORTS FROM ANOTHER STATE, TO
SANCTION THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO TRANSPORT THEIR GOODS INTERSTATE, OR
TO DISCRIMINATE AS BETWEEN NEIGHBORING STATES IN ADMITTING ARTICLES
PRODUCED THEREIN.  THE GRANT OF THE POWER OF REGULATION TO THE CONGRESS
NECESSARILY IMPLIES THE SUBORDINATION OF THE STATES TO THAT POWER. 
THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY DECLARED THAT THE GRANT ESTABLISHED THE
IMMUNITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE CONTROL OF THE STATES
RESPECTING ALL THOSE SUBJECTS EMBRACED WITHIN THE GRANT WHICH ARE OF
SUCH A NATURE AS TO DEMAND THAT, IF REGULATED AT ALL, THEIR REGULATION
MUST BE PRESCRIBED BY A SINGLE AUTHORITY.  FN5  BUT IN MATTERS
REQUIRING DIVERSITY OF TREATMENT ACCORDING TO THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
OF LOCAL CONDITIONS, THE STATES REMAIN FREE TO ACT WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS UNTIL CONGRESS SEES FIT TO ACT IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS OVERRIDING AUTHORITY.  FN6 ONE OF THE COMMONEST FORMS OF STATE
ACTION IS THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER DIRECTED TO THE CONTROL OF
LOCAL CONDITIONS AND EXERTED IN THE INTEREST OF THE WELFARE OF THE
STATE'S CITIZENS.  EVERY STATE POLICE STATUTE NECESSARILY WILL AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN SOME DEGREE, BUT SUCH A STATUTE DOES NOT RUN
COUNTER TO THE GRANT OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER MERELY BECAUSE IT
INCIDENTALLY OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVES OR BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THIS IS SO EVEN THOUGH, SHOULD CONGRESS DETERMINE TO EXERCISE ITS
PARAMOUNT POWER, THE STATE LAW MIGHT THEREBY BE RESTRICTED IN OPERATION
OR RENDERED UNENFORCEABLE.  FN7  THESE PRINCIPLES HAVE GUIDED JUDICIAL
DECISION FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY.  CLEARLY THEY NOT ONLY ARE INEVITABLE
COROLLARIES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, BUT THEIR UNIMPAIRED
ENFORCEMENT IS OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE TO THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF
OUR DUAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  THE DIFFICULTY ARISES NOT IN THEIR
STATEMENT OR IN A READY ASSENT TO THEIR PROPRIETY, BUT IN THEIR
APPLICATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE MYRIAD VARIATIONS IN THE METHODS AND
INCIDENTS OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE UNDER REVIEW OBVIOUSLY IS TO REACH A
DOMESTIC SITUATION IN THE INTEREST OF THE WELFARE OF THE PRODUCERS AND
CONSUMERS OF MILK IN PENNSYLVANIA.  ITS PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO
LICENSE, BOND, AND REGULATION OF PRICES TO BE PAID TO PRODUCERS ARE
APPROPRIATE MEANS TO THE ENDS IN VIEW.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
PRESCRIPTION OF PRICES TO BE PAID PRODUCERS IN THE EFFORT TO ACCOMPLISH
THESE ENDS CONSTITUTES A PROHIBITED BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR
AN INCIDENTAL BURDEN WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE UNTIL SUPERSEDED BY
CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT.  THAT QUESTION CAN BE ANSWERED ONLY BY
WEIGHING THE NATURE OF THE RESPONDENT'S ACTIVITIES, AND THE PROPRIETY
OF LOCAL REGULATION OF THEM, AS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD. 

THE RESPONDENT MAINTAINS A RECEIVING STATION IN PENNSYLVANIA WHERE IT
CONDUCTS THE LOCAL BUSINESS OF BUYING MILK.  AT THAT STATION THE
NEIGHBORING FARMERS DELIVER THEIR MILK.  THE ACTIVITY AFFECTED BY THE
REGULATION IS ESSENTIALLY LOCAL IN PENNSYLVANIA.  UPON THE COMPLETION
OF THAT TRANSACTION THE RESPONDENT ENGAGES IN CONSERVING AND
TRANSPORTING ITS OWN PROPERTY.  THE COMMONWEALTH DOES NOT ESSAY TO
REGULATE OR TO RESTRAIN THE SHIPMENT OF THE RESPONDENT'S MILK INTO NEW
YORK OR TO REGULATE ITS SALE OR THE PRICE AT WHICH RESPONDENT MAY SELL
IT IN NEW YORK.  IF DEALERS CONDUCTING RECEIVING STATIONS IN VARIOUS
LOCALITIES IN PENNSYLVANIA WERE FREE TO IGNORE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE ON THE GROUND THAT ALL OR A PART OF THE MILK THEY PURCHASE IS
DESTINED TO ANOTHER STATE THE UNIFORM OPERATION OF THE STATUTE LOCALLY
WOULD BE CRIPPLED AND MIGHT BE IMPRACTICABLE.  ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF
THE MILK PRODUCED BY FARMERS IN PENNSYLVANIA IS SHIPPED OUT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH.  THERE IS, THEREFORE, A COMPARATIVELY LARGE FIELD
REMOTELY AFFECTING AND WHOLLY UNRELATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN
WHICH THE STATUTE OPERATES.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS WE THINK JUSTIFY THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE EFFECT OF THE LAW ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
INCIDENTAL AND NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION, IN THE ABSENCE OF
REGULATION BY CONGRESS. 

NONE OF THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE COURT BELOW AND THE RESPONDENT
RELY RULES THE INSTANT CASE.  DISANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34,
INVOLVED A STATE LAW DIRECTED SOLELY AT FOREIGN COMMERCE; LEMKE V.
FARMERS GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50, CONDEMNED A STATE STATUTE AFFECTING
COMMERCE, OVER NINETY PER CENT. OF WHICH WAS INTERSTATE AND ESSAYING TO
REGULATE THE PRICE OF COMMODITIES SOLD WITHIN THE STATE PAYABLE AND
RECEIVABLE IN THE STATE OF DESTINATION; SHAFER V. FARMERS GRAIN CO.,
268 U.S. 189, ALSO DEALT WITH A STATE LAW INTENDED TO REGULATE COMMERCE
ALMOST WHOLLY INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER.  IN BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S.
511, THIS COURT CONDEMNED AN ENACTMENT AIMED SOLELY AT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ATTEMPTING TO AFFECT AND REGULATE THE PRICE TO BE PAID FOR
MILK IN A SISTER STATE, AND WE INDICATED THAT THE ATTEMPT AMOUNTED IN
EFFECT TO A TARIFF BARRIER SET UP AGAINST MILK IMPORTED INTO THE
ENACTING STATE. 

THE DECREE MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  P.L. 96; 31 P.S. SEC. 684. 

FN2 THE ACT WAS REPEALED BY AN ACT OF APRIL 28, 1937, P.L. 417, BUT
ALL PROCEEDINGS UNDER IT WERE SAVED BY SEC. 1203 OF THE LATER ACT.  SEE
COMMONWEALTH V. ORTWEIN, 132 PA. SUPERIOR CT. 166; 200 ATL. 859. 

FN3  332 PA. 34; 200 ATL. 854. 

FN4  SEE THE OPINION BELOW, AND COLTERYAHN SANITARY DAIRY V. MILK
CONTROL COMM'N, 332 PA. 15; 1 ATL.2D, 775; KEYSTONE DAIRY CO. V. MILK
CONTROL COMM'N, 332 PA. 15; 1 ATL.2D 775; ROHRER V. MILK CONTROL BOARD,
322 PA. 257; 186 ATL. 336. 

FN5  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 399, AND CASES CITED. 

FN6  IBID. 

FN7  IBID., PP. 402-403. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA PROPERLY CONCLUDED THAT UNDER FORMER
OPINIONS OF THIS COURT THE QUESTIONED REGULATIONS CONSTITUTED A BURDEN
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
..END :






PIERRE V. LOUISIANA, 306 U.S. 354 


NO. 142.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 6, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  -
189 LA. 764 - 180 SO. 630, REVERSED. 


1.  WHEN THE JURY COMMISSIONERS OF A STATE COURT INTENTIONALLY AND
SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDE NEGROES FROM AMONG THE PERSONS SUMMONED AND
LISTED FOR JURY SERVICE, AN INDICTMENT FOR MURDER, RETURNED AGAINST A
NEGRO BY A GRAND JURY DRAWN OR SELECTED FROM SUCH LISTS, IS VOID UNDER
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 357. 

2.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER, AS MATTER OF FACT, SUCH DISCRIMINATION
EXISTED IN THIS CASE, THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STATE SUPREME
COURT, THOUGH ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT, ARE NOT BINDING ON THIS
COURT.  P. 358. 

PIERRE V. LOUISIANA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 586, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A SENTENCE
OF DEATH. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

INDICTED FOR MURDER, PETITIONER, A MEMBER OF THE NEGRO RACE, WAS
CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO DEATH IN A STATE COURT OF THE PARISH OF ST.
JOHN THE BAPTIST, LOUISIANA.  THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED. 
FN1  HIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE LOUISIANA SUPREME
COURT'S JUDGMENT RESTED UPON THE GRAVE CLAIM - EARNESTLY, BUT
UNSUCCESSFULLY URGED IN BOTH STATE COURTS - THAT BECAUSE OF HIS RACE HE
HAD NOT BEEN ACCORDED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED TO
ALL RACES IN ALL THE STATES BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  FOR THIS REASON, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN2 

THE INDICTMENT AGAINST PETITIONER WAS RETURNED JANUARY 18, 1937.  HE
MADE TIMELY MOTION TO QUASH THE INDICTMENT AND THE GENERAL VENIRE FROM
WHICH HAD BEEN DRAWN BOTH THE GRAND JURY THAT RETURNED THE INDICTMENT
AND THE PETIT JURY FOR THE WEEK OF HIS TRIAL.  HIS MOTION ALSO PRAYED
THAT THE GRAND JURY PANEL AND THE PETIT JURY PANEL BE QUASHED.  THIS
SWORN MOTION ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER WAS A NEGRO AND HAD BEEN INDICTED
FOR MURDER OF A WHITE MAN; THAT AT LEAST ONE-THIRD OF THE POPULATION OF
THE PARISH FROM WHICH THE GRAND AND PETIT JURIES WERE DRAWN WERE
MEMBERS OF THE NEGRO RACE, BUT THE GENERAL VENIRE HAD CONTAINED NO
NAMES OF NEGROES WHEN THE GRAND JURY THAT INDICTED PETITIONER WAS
DRAWN; THAT THE STATE OFFICERS CHARGED BY LAW WITH THE DUTY OF
PROVIDING NAMES FOR THE GENERAL VENIRE HAD "DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED
THEREFROM THE NAMES OF ANY NEGROES QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS GRAND OR PETIT
JURORS,  ...  " AND HAD "SYSTEMATICALLY, UNLAWFULLY AND
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXCLUDED NEGROES FROM THE GRAND OR PETIT JURY IN
SAID PARISH" FOR AT LEAST TWENTY YEARS "SOLELY AND ONLY BECAUSE OF
THEIR RACE AND COLOR"; AND THAT PETITIONER HAD THUS BEEN DENIED THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED HIM BY THE CONSTITUTION OF
LOUISIANA AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

NO PLEADINGS DENYING THESE ALLEGATIONS APPEAR IN THE RECORD, AND THE
STATE OFFERED NO WITNESSES ON THE MOTION.  PETITIONER OFFERED TWELVE
WITNESSES WHO WERE QUESTIONED BY HIS COUNSEL, THE STATE'S ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND THE COURT.  ON THE BASIS OF THIS EVIDENCE, THE
TRIAL JUDGE SUSTAINED THE MOTION TO QUASH THE PETIT JURY PANEL AND
VENIRE AND SUBSEQUENTLY ORDERED THE BOX CONTAINING THE GENERAL VENIRE
(FROM WHICH BOTH GRAND AND PETIT JURIES HAD BEEN DRAWN) EMPTIED, PURGED
AND REFILLED.  THIS WAS DONE; A NEW PETIT JURY PANEL COMPOSED OF BOTH
WHITES AND NEGROES WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DRAWN FROM THE REFILLED JURY BOX
AND FROM THIS PANEL A PETIT JURY WAS SELECTED WHICH TRIED AND CONVICTED
PETITIONER.  ALTHOUGH THE GRAND JURY THAT INDICTED PETITIONER AND THE
QUASHED PETIT JURY PANEL HAD BEEN SELECTED FROM THE SAME ORIGINAL
GENERAL VENIRE  FN3  THE TRIAL JUDGE OVERRULED THAT PART OF
PETITIONER'S MOTION SEEKING TO QUASH THE GRAND JURY PANEL AND THE
INDICTMENT. 

FIRST.  THE REASON ASSIGNED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE FOR REFUSING TO QUASH
THE GRAND JURY PANEL AND INDICTMENT WAS THAT "THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE DEFENDANT (ARE)  ...  NOT AFFECTED BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT
PERSONS OF THE COLORED OR AFRICAN RACE ARE NOT PLACED ON THE GRAND
JURY, BECAUSE ...  THE MERE PRESENTMENT OF AN INDICTMENT IS NOT
EVIDENCE OF GUILT  ...  IT SIMPLY INFORMS THE COURT OF A COMMISSION OF
A CRIME AND BRINGS THE ACCUSED BEFORE THE COURT FOR PROSECUTION."  BUT
THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION (DART, 1932, ART. 1,
SEC. 9) PROVIDES THAT "NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR CAPITAL
CRIME UNLESS ON A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT BY A GRAND JURY,  ...  "
AND THE STATE CONCEDES HERE, AS THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA POINTED
OUT IN ITS OPINION IN THIS CASE, THAT "  ...  IT IS SPECIALLY PROVIDED
IN THE (LOUISIANA) LAW PRESCRIBING THE METHOD OF DRAWING GRAND AND
PETIT JURORS TO SERVE IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES THAT 'THERE
SHALL BE NO DISTINCTION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR OR PREVIOUS
CONDITION,'" AND "IF ... (QUALIFIED) MEMBERS OF THE NEGRO  ...  RACE
...  HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM  ... SERVICE IN THE PARISH
OF ST. JOHN,  ...  SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE OR COLOR, THE
INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUASHED  ...  "  EXCLUSION FROM GRAND OR
PETIT JURY SERVICE ON ACCOUNT OF RACE IS FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  FN4  IN ADDITION TO THE SAFEGUARDS OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT "NO CITIZEN POSSESSING ALL OTHER
QUALIFICATIONS  ...  SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED FOR SERVICE AS GRAND OR
PETIT JUROR IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY STATE ON
ACCOUNT OF RACE, COLOR OR PREVIOUS CONDITION OF SERVITUDE; ...  "  FN5
PETITIONER DOES NOT HERE CONTEND THAT LOUISIANA LAWS REQUIRED AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM THE GRAND JURY WHICH
INDICTED HIM.  HIS EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO SHOW THAT LOUISIANA - ACTING
THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS - HAD DELIBERATELY AND
SYSTEMATICALLY EXCLUDED NEGROES FROM JURY SERVICE BECAUSE OF RACE, IN
VIOLATION OF THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS OF LOUISIANA AND THE UNITED
STATES.  FN6 

IF PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE OF SUCH SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM
THE GENERAL VENIRE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION
IN QUASHING THE PETIT JURY DRAWN FROM THAT GENERAL VENIRE, IT
NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT THE INDICTMENT RETURNED BY A GRAND JURY,
SELECTED FROM THE SAME GENERAL VENIRE, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN QUASHED. 

SECOND.  BUT THE STATE INSISTS, AND THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT HELD
(THE CHIEF JUSTICE DISSENTING), THAT THIS EVIDENCE FAILED TO ESTABLISH
THAT MEMBERS OF THE NEGRO RACE WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE GRAND JURY VENIRE
ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, AND THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING OF
DISCRIMINATION WAS ERRONEOUS.  OUR DECISION AND JUDGMENT MUST THEREFORE
TURN UPON THESE DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT.  IN OUR CONSIDERATION OF
THE FACTS THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA ARE
ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT.  YET, WHEN A CLAIM IS PROPERLY ASSERTED - AS
IN THIS CASE - THAT A CITIZEN WHOSE LIFE IS AT STAKE HAS BEEN DENIED
THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF HIS COUNTRY'S LAWS ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RACE, IT
BECOMES OUR SOLEMN DUTY TO MAKE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY AND DETERMINATION
OF THE DISPUTED FACTS FN7  - FOR EQUAL PROTECTION TO ALL IS THE BASIC
PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH JUSTICE UNDER LAW RESTS.  INDICTMENT BY GRAND JURY
AND TRIAL BY JURY CEASE TO HARMONIZE WITH OUR TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF
JUSTICE AT THE VERY MOMENT PARTICULAR GROUPS, CLASSES OR RACES -
OTHERWISE QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS JURORS IN A COMMUNITY - ARE EXCLUDED AS
SUCH FROM JURY SERVICE.  FN8  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INTRUSTS THOSE
WHO BECAUSE OF RACE ARE DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN A STATE
FIRST "TO THE REVISORY POWER OF THE HIGHER COURTS OF THE STATE, AND
ULTIMATELY TO THE REVIEW OF THIS COURT."  FN9 

PETITIONER'S WITNESSES ON THE MOTION WERE THE CLERK OF THE COURT - EX
OFFICIO A MEMBER OF THE JURY COMMISSION; THE SHERIFF OF THE PARISH; THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS WHO HAD SERVED THE PARISH FOR ELEVEN YEARS;
AND OTHER RESIDENTS OF THE PARISH, BOTH WHITE AND COLORED.  THE
TESTIMONY OF PETITIONER'S WITNESSES (THE STATE OFFERED NO WITNESSES)
SHOWED THAT FROM 1896 TO 1936 NO NEGRO HAD SERVED ON THE GRAND OR PETIT
JURIES IN THE PARISH; THAT A VENIRE OF THREE HUNDRED IN DECEMBER, 1936,
CONTAINED THE NAMES OF THREE NEGROES, ONE OF WHOM WAS THEN DEAD, ONE OF
WHOM (D. N. DINBAUT) WAS LISTED ON THE VENIRE AS F. N. DINFANT; THE
THIRD - CALLED FOR PETIT JURY SERVICE IN JANUARY, 1937 - WAS THE ONLY
NEGRO WHO HAD EVER BEEN CALLED FOR JURY SERVICE WITHIN THE MEMORY OF
THE CLERK OF THE COURT, THE SHERIFF, OR ANY OTHER WITNESSES WHO
TESTIFIED; AND THAT THERE WERE MANY NEGRO CITIZENS OF THE PARISH
QUALIFIED UNDER THE LAWS OF LOUISIANA TO SERVE AS GRAND OR PETIT
JURORS.  ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY, NEGROES CONSTITUTED 25 TO 50 PER
CENT OF A TOTAL PARISH POPULATION OF TWELVE TO FIFTEEN THOUSAND.  THE
REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS, FOR 1930, SHOWS THAT THE TOTAL PARISH POPULATION WAS FOURTEEN
THOUSAND AND SEVENTY-EIGHT, 49.7 PER CENT NATIVE WHITE, AND 49.3 PER
CENT NEGRO.  IN A TOTAL NEGRO POPULATION (TEN YEARS OLD AND OVER) OF
FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY, 29.9 PER CENT WERE CLASSIFIED BY
THE CENSUS AS ILLITERATE. 

THE LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT FOUND - CONTRARY TO THE TRIAL JUDGE -
THAT NEGROES HAD NOT BEEN EXCLUDED FROM JURY SERVICE ON ACCOUNT OF
RACE, BUT THAT THEIR EXCLUSION WAS THE RESULT OF A BONA FIDE COMPLIANCE
BY THE JURY COMMISSION WITH STATE LAWS PRESCRIBING JURY
QUALIFICATIONS.  WITH THIS CONCLUSION WE CANNOT AGREE.  LOUISIANA LAW
REQUIRES THE COMMISSIONERS TO SELECT NAMES FOR THE GENERAL VENIRE FROM
PERSONS QUALIFIED TO SERVE WITHOUT DISTINCTION AS TO RACE OR COLOR.  IN
ORDER TO BE QUALIFIED A PERSON MUST BE: 

(A)  A CITIZEN OF THE STATE, OVER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE WITH TWO
YEARS' RESIDENCE IN THE PARISH, 

(B)  ABLE TO READ AND WRITE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 

(C)  NOT CHARGED WITH ANY OFFENSE OR CONVICTED OF A FELONY, 

(D)  OF WELL KNOWN GOOD CHARACTER AND STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY. 
FN10 

THE FACT THAT APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF OF THE PARISH'S POPULATION WERE
NEGROES DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO LACK OF COLORED
RESIDENTS OVER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE. 

IT APPEARS FROM THE 1930 CENSUS THAT 70 PER CENT OF THE NEGRO
POPULATION OF THE PARISH WAS LITERATE, AND THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS TESTIFIED THAT FULLY TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (83 PER CENT),
OF THE PARISH'S NEGRO POPULATION ESTIMATED BY HIM AT ONLY THREE
THOUSAND, WERE ABLE TO READ AND WRITE.  PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
ESTABLISHED BEYOND QUESTION THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE NEGRO POPULATION
COULD READ AND WRITE, AND, IN THIS RESPECT, WERE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE
STATUTE FOR SELECTION AS JURYMEN. 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON WHICH EVEN AN INFERENCE CAN BE BASED THAT ANY
APPRECIABLE NUMBER OF THE OTHERWISE QUALIFIED NEGROES IN THE PARISH
WERE DISQUALIFIED FOR SELECTION BECAUSE OF BAD CHARACTER OR CRIMINAL
RECORDS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM JURY SERVICE WAS NOT
DUE TO THEIR FAILURE TO POSSESS THE STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS. 

THE GENERAL VENIRE BOX FOR THE PARISH IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS TRIED
WAS REQUIRED  FN11  - UNDER LOUISIANA LAW - TO CONTAIN A LIST OF THREE
HUNDRED NAMES SELECTED BY JURY COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, AND THIS LIST HAD TO BE SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME SO AS TO
MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED THREE HUNDRED NAMES.  ALTHOUGH PETIT JURORS ARE
DRAWN FROM THE GENERAL VENIRE BOX AFTER THE NAMES HAVE BEEN WELL MIXED,
FN12 THE LAW PROVIDES  FN13  THAT "THE COMMISSION SHALL SELECT  ...
(FROM THE GENERAL VENIRE LIST) THE NAMES OF TWENTY CITIZENS, POSSESSING
THE QUALIFICATIONS OF GRAND JURORS,  ..."  THE TWENTY NAMES OUT OF
WHICH THE CHALLENGED GRAND JURY OF TWELVE WAS DRAWN, ACTUALLY WERE THE
FIRST TWENTY NAMES ON A NEW LIST OF FIFTY NAMES SUPPLIED - ON THE DAY
THE GRAND JURY LIST WAS SELECTED - BY THE JURY COMMISSION AS A
"SUPPLEMENT" TO THE GENERAL VENIRE OF THREE HUNDRED.  THUS, IF COLORED
CITIZENS HAD BEEN NAMED ON THE GENERAL VENIRE, THEY APPARENTLY WERE NOT
CONSIDERED, BECAUSE THE COMMISSION WENT NO FURTHER THAN THE FIRST
TWENTY NAMES ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIST WHICH ITSELF CONTAINED NO NAMES
OF NEGROES.  FURTHERMORE, THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE ON THE MOTION TO
QUASH SHOWED THAT NO NEGRO HAD EVER BEEN SELECTED FOR GRAND JURY
SERVICE IN THE PARISH WITHIN THE MEMORY OF ANY OF THE WITNESSES WHO
TESTIFIED ON THAT POINT. 

THE TESTIMONY INTRODUCED BY PETITIONER ON HIS MOTION TO QUASH CREATED
A STRONG PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT NEGROES HAD BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY
EXCLUDED - BECAUSE OF RACE - FROM THE GRAND JURY AND THE VENIRE FROM
WHICH IT WAS SELECTED.  SUCH AN EXCLUSION IS A DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, CONTRARY TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION - THE
SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.  FN14  "THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY  ...  WAS
NOT CHALLENGED BY EVIDENCE APPROPRIATELY DIRECT, CANNOT BE BRUSHED
ASIDE."  FN15  HAD THERE BEEN EVIDENCE OBTAINABLE TO CONTRADICT AND
DISPROVE THE TESTIMONY OFFERED BY PETITIONER, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT
THE STATE WOULD HAVE REFRAINED FROM INTRODUCING IT.  THE JURY
COMMISSIONERS, APPOINTED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE, WERE NOT PRODUCED AS
WITNESSES BY THE STATE.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, WHO HAD APPOINTED THE
COMMISSION, LISTENING TO THE EVIDENCE AND AIDED BY A FAMILIARITY WITH
CONDITIONS IN THE PARISH OF MANY YEARS' STANDING, AS JUDGE, PROSECUTOR
AND PRACTICING ATTORNEY, CONCLUDED THAT NEGROES HAD BEEN EXCLUDED FROM
JURY SERVICE BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE, AND ORDERED THE VENIRE QUASHED AND
THE BOX PURGED AND REFILLED.  OUR EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE CONVINCES
US THAT THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS WHICH HE SIGNED CORRECTLY STATED THAT
PETITIONER "DID PROVE AT THE TRIAL OF SAID MOTION TO QUASH THAT NEGROES
AS PERSONS OF COLOR HAD BEEN PURPOSELY EXCLUDED FROM THE GRAND JURY
VENIRE AND PANEL WHICH RETURNED SAID INDICTMENT AGAINST ...
(PETITIONER) ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR COLOR AND RACE,  ...  "    PRINCIPLES
WHICH FORBID DISCRIMINATION IN THE SELECTION OF PETIT JURIES ALSO
GOVERN THE SELECTION OF GRAND JURIES.  "IT IS A RIGHT TO WHICH EVERY
COLORED MAN IS ENTITLED, THAT, IN THE SELECTION OF JURORS TO PASS UPON
HIS LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, THERE SHALL BE NO EXCLUSION OF HIS
RACE, AND NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOR."  FN16
THIS RECORD REQUIRES THE HOLDING THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR
BOTH IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION OF PETITIONER AND IN FAILING TO HOLD
THAT THE INDICTMENT AGAINST HIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUASHED.  THE CAUSE IS
REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA.  REVERSED. 

FN1  189 LA. 764; 180 SO. 630.    FN2  305 U.S. 586. 

FN3  UNDER LOUISIANA PRACTICE THE DISTRICT JUDGE ORDERS THE JURY
COMMISSION TO SELECT THREE HUNDRED QUALIFIED JURORS IN A GIVEN PARISH,
WHO COMPOSE THE GENERAL VENIRE LIST, TO BE KEPT COMPLETE AND
SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME.  THESE NAMES ARE PLACED IN THE "GENERAL
VENIRE BOX."  FROM THE GENERAL VENIRE LIST, THE COMMISSION SELECTS
TWENTY PERSONS QUALIFIED AS GRAND JURORS, TO SERVE SIX MONTHS, WHO
COMPOSE THE "LIST OF GRAND JURORS."  THE JUDGE SELECTS A FOREMAN FROM
THE "LIST OF GRAND JURORS" AND THE SHERIFF DRAWS ELEVEN MORE WHO, WITH
THE FOREMAN, CONSTITUTE THE GRAND JURY PANEL.  AFTER SELECTION OF THE
"LIST OF GRAND JURORS" THE COMMISSION DRAWS THIRTY NAMES FROM THE
"GENERAL VENIRE BOX" TO SERVE AS PETIT JURORS, WHO ARE DESIGNATED A
"LIST OF JURORS" AND THIS "LIST OF JURORS" IS KEPT IN THE "JURY BOX." 
LOUISIANA CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (DART, 1932) TITLE XVIII, C. 2. 

FN4  STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 303, 308, 309; CARTER V.
TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442, 447; MARTIN V. TEXAS, 200 U.S. 316, 319. 

FN5  U.S.C. TITLE 8, SEC. 44. 

FN6  CF., NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 589; NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103
U.S. 370, 397; CARTER V. TEXAS, SUPRA, AT 447; HALE V. KENTUCKY, 303
U.S. 613, 616. 

FN7  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 590. 

FN8  CF. STRAUDER V. WEST VIRGINIA, SUPRA, 308, 309. 

FN9  VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313, 319. 

FN10  LOUISIANA CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SUPRA, TITLE XVIII, C.
1. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN12  LOUISIANA CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SUPRA, TITLE XVIII, C. 2,
ART. 181. 

FN13  ID., ART. 180. 

FN14  NEAL V. DELAWARE, SUPRA, 397; NORRIS V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 591;
HALE V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA, 616. 

FN15  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, SUPRA, 594, 595. 

FN16  VIRGINIA V. RIVES, SUPRA, 322-3. 
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. JACOBS, 306 U.S. 363 


NO. 391.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  - 97
F.2D 784, REVERSED - 99 ID. 799, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924, SEC. 301, AND SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, IN DETERMINING THE TAX
UPON TRANSFER OF THE NET ESTATE OF A DECEDENT, DYING AFTER THE DATE OF
ENACTMENT, THERE IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE THE FULL VALUE
OF PROPERTY REAL OR PERSONAL WHICH WAS OWNED BY THE DECEDENT AND HIS
WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH BUT WHICH WAS ACQUIRED
WITH HIS FUNDS, OR WAS SET UP IN PART BY HIS CONTRIBUTION AND IN PART
BY A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE WIFE OF PROPERTY WHICH HE HAD PREVIOUSLY
GIVEN HER.  PP. 364, 371. 

2.  THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE UNDER THE STATUTE, AND VALID
UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE JOINT TENANCY WAS
CREATED BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF THE ACTS MENTIONED AND BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE FIRST ESTATE TAX LAW, IN 1916.  P. 366. 

3.  THE TAX IS NOT RETROACTIVE, BEING IMPOSED UPON THE OCCASION OF
THE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AND BENEFICIAL RIGHTS AT THE DEATH OF ONE OF
THE JOINT TENANTS.  P. 366. 

4.  DESPITE THE COMMON LAW DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN JOINT TENANCIES AND
TENANCIES BY THE ENTIRETY, THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITIES WHICH
JUSTIFIED CONGRESS IN TREATING THEM ALIKE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES.  P.
370. 

5.  THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS VALID APPLIES WITH
ADDED FORCE TO A REVENUE ACT.  P. 370. 

UNITED STATES V. JACOBS, EXECUTRIX.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 482, DIMOCK, SUBSTITUTED EXECUTOR, V. CORWIN, LATE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 588, 593, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCES BELOW OF TWO
JUDGMENTS OF DISTRICT COURTS, IN THE ONE CASE ALLOWING, AND IN THE
OTHER DENYING, RECOVERY OF MONEY EXACTED UNDER A DEFICIENCY ESTATE TAX
ASSESSMENT.  AN OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE SECOND CASE IS
REPORTED IN 19 F.SUPP.  56. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NO. 391. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE VALUE OR ONLY ONE-HALF THE VALUE
OF REAL PROPERTY - PURCHASED BY A DECEDENT WITH HIS OWN FUNDS AND HELD
AT HIS DEATH BY HIS WIFE AND HIMSELF UNDER A JOINT TENANCY SET UP PRIOR
TO 1916 - MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE UNDER THE 1924
REVENUE ACT. 

IN 1909, REAL ESTATE IN ILLINOIS WAS CONVEYED TO W. FRANCIS JACOBS,
THE DECEDENT, AND ELIZABETH C. JACOBS, HIS WIFE, "AS JOINT TENANTS" AND
THIS JOINT TENANCY CONTINUED UNTIL DECEDENT'S DEATH; THE WIFE NEVER
CONTRIBUTED ANY PART OF, OR CONSIDERATION FOR, THE JOINT PROPERTY;
DECEDENT DIED JUNE 17, 1924(AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 1924
REVENUE ACT), AND AS SURVIVOR THE WIFE BECAME SOLE OWNER IN FEE OF THE
WHOLE OF THE JOINT PROPERTY. 

THE COMMISSIONER INCLUDED THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE FOR TAXATION UNDER THE 1924 ACT.  AS EXECUTRIX,
RESPONDENT PAID THE TAX, AND SOUGHT RECOVERY IN THE DISTRICT COURT
WHICH HELD THAT THE ESTATE TAX COULD BE IMPOSED ONLY UPON ONE-HALF OF
THE JOINT PROPERTY'S TOTAL VALUE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  FN1 

RESPONDENT CONSTRUES THE 1924 REVENUE ACT AS TAXING - BY ITS TERMS -
ONLY ONE-HALF THE VALUE OF THE JOINT PROPERTY, AND CONTENDS THAT
INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY'S ENTIRE VALUE FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES WOULD
AS RETROACTIVE TAXATION VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

FIRST.  IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED, BY SEC. 302 OF THE 1924
ACT,  FN2  TO INCLUDE IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF A DECEDENT THE FULL VALUE
AT DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY OWNED BY HIM AND ANY OTHER IN JOINT TENANCY OR
BY THE ENTIRETY - IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF THE TENANCY'S CREATION -
INSOFAR AS THE PROPERTY OR CONSIDERATION THEREFOR IS TRACEABLE TO THE
DECEDENT.  SUBDIVISION (H) OF SEC. 302 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 302 RELATING TO JOINT TENANCIES SHOULD "APPLY TO THE
TRANSFERS, TRUSTS, ESTATES, INTERESTS, RIGHTS, POWERS, AND
RELINQUISHMENT OF POWERS, AS  ... DESCRIBED THEREIN, WHETHER MADE,
CREATED, ARISING, EXISTING, EXERCISED, OR RELINQUISHED BEFORE OR AFTER
THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT."  SECTION 302(H) WAS ENACTED IN THE 1924 ACT
AFTER THIS COURT, ON MAY 1, 1922, HAD DECIDED THAT THE 1916 ACT DID NOT
PURPORT TO IMPOSE AN ESTATE TAX MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF PROPERTY HELD
IN JOINT TENANCIES CREATED PRIOR TO THE 1916 ACT.  FN3  "THE CLEAR
LANGUAGE OF THE 1924 STATUTE REPELS THE NOTION THAT IT HAS NO
APPLICATION TO JOINT TENANCIES CREATED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 8, 1916." 
FN4 

SECOND.  HERE, DECEDENT PAID THE ENTIRE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE JOINT
PROPERTY WITH HIS OWN INDIVIDUAL FUNDS AND, THEREFORE, THE 1924 STATUTE
REQUIRED THE INCLUSION OF THE FULL VALUE OF THE JOINT PROPERTY IN HIS
GROSS ESTATE.  CONTENDING THAT THE TAX AS SO APPLIED IS RETROACTIVE,
RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
FORBIDS SUCH TAXATION.  THE REASONING IS THAT A ONE-HALF INTEREST IN
THE JOINT PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO, AND VESTED IN, THE WIFE IN 1909;
THAT THE TAX IN QUESTION ONLY APPLIES TO TRANSFERS; AND THAT THE ONE
HALF INTEREST TRANSFERRED TO THE WIFE IN 1909 COULD NOT THEREAFTER
(1924) BE TAXED AS A PART OF DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE WITHOUT
RETROACTIVELY APPLYING THE TAX TO THE 1909 TRANSFER. 

BUT THE TAX WAS NOT LEVIED ON THE 1909 TRANSFER AND WAS NOT
RETROACTIVE.  AT DECEDENT'S DEATH IN 1924, OWNERSHIP AND BENEFICIAL
RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY WHICH HAD EXISTED IN BOTH TENANTS JOINTLY
CHANGED INTO THE SINGLE OWNERSHIP OF THE SURVIVOR.  THIS CHANGE IN
OWNERSHIP, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SPECIAL CHARACTER OF JOINT TENANCIES,
WAS MADE THE OCCASION FOR AN EXCISE, TO BE MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY IN WHICH THE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OCCURRED.  HAD THE TENANCY
NOT BEEN CREATED, THIS SURVIVORSHIP AND CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP WOULD NOT
HAVE TAKEN PLACE, BUT THE TAX DOES NOT OPERATE RETROACTIVELY MERELY
BECAUSE SOME OF THE FACTS OR CONDITIONS UPON WHICH ITS APPLICATION
DEPENDS CAME INTO BEING PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAX.  FN5 

DEATH DUTIES OR EXCISES IMPOSED UPON THE OCCASION OF CHANGE IN LEGAL
RELATIONSHIPS TO PROPERTY BROUGHT ABOUT BY DEATH ARE ANCIENT IN
ORIGIN.  FN6  CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO LEVY A TAX UPON THE OCCASION OF
A JOINT TENANT'S ACQUIRING THE STATUS OF SURVIVOR AT THE DEATH OF A CO
TENANT.  IN HOLDING THAT THE FULL VALUE OF AN ESTATE BY THE ENTIRETY
MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE INCLUDED IN A DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE FOR
ESTATE TAX PURPOSES, THIS COURT SAID:  "THE QUESTION  ...  IS, NOT
WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN, IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THAT WORD, A 'TRANSFER'
OF THE PROPERTY BY THE DEATH OF THE DECEDENT, OR A RECEIPT OF IT BY
RIGHT OF SUCCESSION, BUT WHETHER THE DEATH HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING OR
RIPENED FOR THE SURVIVOR, PROPERTY RIGHTS OF SUCH CHARACTER AS TO MAKE
APPROPRIATE THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX UPON THAT RESULT (WHICH CONGRESS
MAY CALL A TRANSFER TAX, A DEATH DUTY OR ANYTHING ELSE IT SEES FIT), TO
BE MEASURED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY THE VALUE OF SUCH RIGHTS  ... 

"AT  ...  (THE CO-TENANT'S) DEATH, HOWEVER, AND BECAUSE OF IT,  ...
(THE SURVIVOR) FOR THE FIRST TIME, BECAME ENTITLED TO EXCLUSIVE
POSSESSION, USE AND ENJOYMENT; SHE CEASED TO HOLD THE PROPERTY SUBJECT
TO QUALIFICATIONS IMPOSED BY THE LAW RELATING TO TENANCY BY THE
ENTIRETY, AND BECAME ENTITLED TO HOLD AND ENJOY IT ABSOLUTELY AS HER
OWN; AND THEN, AND THEN ONLY, SHE ACQUIRED THE POWER, NOT THERETOFORE
POSSESSED, OF DISPOSING OF THE PROPERTY BY AN EXERCISE OF HER SOLE
WILL.  THUS THE DEATH OF ONE OF THE PARTIES TO THE TENANCY BECAME THE
'GENERATING SOURCE' OF IMPORTANT AND DEFINITE ACCESSIONS TO THE
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE OTHER.  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TOGETHER WITH THE
FACT, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH THE STATUTE REQUIRES, THAT NO PART OF THE
PROPERTY ORIGINALLY HAD BELONGED TO THE WIFE, ARE SUFFICIENT, IN OUR
OPINION, TO MAKE VALID THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE GROSS
ESTATE WHICH FORMS THE PRIMARY BASE FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE TAX." 
FN7 

THEREAFTER, IT WAS FURTHER DECIDED THAT THE FULL VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY PASSING TO A SURVIVOR UNDER A TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY CREATED
PRIOR TO THE ESTATE TAX OF 1916 COULD BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE. 
FN8  CONGRESS - IT HAS BEEN HELD - MAY ALSO CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLY AN
ESTATE TAX TO THE WHOLE OF A JOINT TENANCY CREATED AFTER THE 1916 ACT,
FN9  AND TO HALF OF A JOINT TENANCY CREATED PRIOR TO THE 1916 ACT,
WHERE THE DECEDENT ALONE HAD FURNISHED CONSIDERATION FOR THE JOINT
PROPERTY.  FN10 

IT IS URGED THAT THESE DECISIONS DO NOT SUPPORT THE TAX HERE UPON THE
FULL VALUE OF THE JOINT PROPERTY, BECAUSE THIS TENANCY WAS CREATED
PRIOR TO THE ESTATE TAX LAW OF 1916.  RESPONDENT RELIES UPON
DIFFERENCES IN THE NATURE OF TENANCIES BY THE ENTIRETY AND JOINT
TENANCIES IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE PRESENT CASE FROM THE APPLICATION OF
THESE PRIOR ADJUDICATIONS.  SINCE A JOINT TENANT'S INTEREST IN REALTY
IS SEVERABLE AND SUBJECT TO SALE, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT UPON THE DEATH
OF A CO-TENANT THE SURVIVOR ACTUALLY RECEIVES NOTHING MORE THAN THE
DECEDENT'S ONE-HALF INTEREST AND THEREFORE NO MORE CAN BE SUBJECTED TO
A DEATH DUTY.  ON THE OTHER HAND, RESPONDENT EXPLAINS THE PERMISSIBLE
TAXATION OF THE WHOLE OF A TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE
"AMIABLE FICTION"  FN11  OF THE COMMON LAW, UNDER WHICH OWNERSHIP OF A
HUSBAND AND WIFE IN TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY IS DEEMED A SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL UNITY AND EACH OWNS ALL AND EVERY PART OF THE PROPERTY SO
HELD.  BY VIRTUE OF THIS FEUDAL FICTION OF COMPLETE OWNERSHIP IN EACH
OF TWO PERSONS, THE SURVIVING TENANT BY THE ENTIRETY IS CONCEIVED TO BE
THE RECIPIENT OF ALL THE PROPERTY UPON THE DEATH OF THE CO-TENANT, AND
THEREFORE - IT IS SAID - ALL THE PROPERTY CAN BE TAXED. 

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER OF CONGRESS
IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY SUCH SHADOWY AND INTRICATE DISTINCTIONS OF
COMMON LAW PROPERTY CONCEPTS AND ANCIENT FICTIONS.  FN12  THE
CONSTITUTION GRANTS CONGRESS THE "POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES,
DUTIES, IMPOSTS, AND EXCISES, TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE
COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE."  NO MORE ESSENTIAL OR IMPORTANT
POWER HAS BEEN CONFERRED UPON THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN
ACT OF CONGRESS IS VALID APPLIES WITH ADDED FORCE AND WEIGHT TO A LEVY
OF PUBLIC REVENUE.  FN13 

IN ADDITION, THERE IS SUFFICIENT SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY BETWEEN JOINT
TENANCIES AND TENANCIES BY THE ENTIRETY TO HAVE MOVED CONGRESS TO TREAT
THEM ALIKE FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION.  PRACTICAL NECESSITIES - AND
TAXATION IS "EMINENTLY PRACTICAL"  FN14  - MAY WELL HAVE LED CONGRESS
TO GROUP DIFFERENT TYPES OF JOINT OWNERSHIP TOGETHER FOR TAXATION
RATHER THAN TO AFFORD DIFFERENT TREATMENT TO EACH VARYING SHADE OF SUCH
OWNERSHIP.  A TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY "IS ESSENTIALLY A JOINT TENANCY,
MODIFIED BY THE COMMON LAW THEORY THAT HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE ONE
PERSON."  FN15  ONLY A FICTION STANDS BETWEEN THE TWO.  SURVIVORSHIP IS
THE PREDOMINANT AND DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF EACH.  THE "GRAND
INCIDENT OF JOINT ESTATE IS THE DOCTRINE OF SURVIVORSHIP, 'BY WHICH,
WHEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS ARE SEIZED OF A JOINT ESTATE,  ...  THE ENTIRE
TENANCY UPON THE DECEASE OF ANY OF THEM REMAINS TO THE SURVIVORS, AND
AT LENGTH TO THE LAST SURVIVOR; AND HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE WHOLE
ESTATE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.'"  FN16 

WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT UNTIL THE DEATH OF DECEDENT HERE EACH JOINT
TENANT POSSESSED THE RIGHT TO SEVER THE JOINT TENANCY, EACH WAS
NEVERTHELESS SUBJECTED TO THE HAZARD OF LOSING THE COMPLETE ESTATE TO
THE OTHER AS SURVIVOR.  PRIOR TO DECEDENT'S DEATH, HIS WIFE HAD NO
RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF HER INTEREST BY WILL, NOR COULD IT PASS TO HER
LEGAL HEIRS.  SHE MIGHT SURVIVE AND THEREBY OBTAIN A COMPLETE FEE TO
THE PROPERTY WITH ATTENDANT RIGHTS OF POSSESSION AND DISPOSITION BY
WILL OR OTHERWISE.  UNTIL THE DEATH OF HER CO-TENANT, THE WIFE COULD
HAVE SEVERED THE JOINT TENANCY AND THUS HAVE ESCAPED THE APPLICATION OF
THE ESTATE TAX OF WHICH SHE COMPLAINS.  UPON THE DEATH OF HER CO-TENANT
SHE FOR THE FIRST TIME BECAME POSSESSED OF THE SOLE RIGHT TO SELL THE
ENTIRE PROPERTY WITHOUT RISK OF LOSS WHICH MIGHT HAVE RESULTED FROM
PARTITION OR SEPARATE SALE OF HER INTEREST WHILE DECEDENT LIVED.  THERE
WAS - AT HIS DEATH - A DISTINCT SHIFTING OF ECONOMIC INTEREST,  FN17 A
DECIDED CHANGE FOR THE SURVIVOR'S BENEFIT.  THIS TERMINATION OF A JOINT
TENANCY MARKED BY A CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY WAS
DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS AS AN APPROPRIATE OCCASION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF
A TAX.  NEITHER THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX NOR ITS APPLICATION TO THE
SURVIVOR'S CHANGE OF STATUS AND OWNERSHIP, WAS IN ANY MANNER DEPENDENT
UPON THE DATE OF THE JOINT TENANCY'S CREATION, WHETHER BEFORE, OR
AFTER, 1916.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT CONGRESS CHOSE TO MEASURE THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY,
RATHER THAN BY A PART, OR BY A SET SUM FOR EACH SUCH CHANGE.  THE
WISDOM BOTH OF THE TAX AND OF ITS MEASUREMENT WAS FOR CONGRESS TO
DETERMINE. 

                               NO. 482. 

NO. 482 INVOLVES PROVISIONS OF THE 1926 REVENUE ACT (44 STAT. 9)
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF THE 1924 ACT CONSIDERED ABOVE. 
HERE, ALSO, A JOINT TENANCY (IN PERSONAL PROPERTY) WAS CREATED BY MAN
AND WIFE PRIOR TO 1916.  HOWEVER, NOT ALL OF THE JOINT PROPERTY WAS
CONTRIBUTED BY THE DECEDENT, BUT A PORTION WAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE
TENANCY BY THE WIFE WHO SURVIVED.  THIS PROPERTY WHICH SHE TRANSFERRED
TO THE TENANCY HAD IN TURN BEEN PREVIOUSLY GIVEN TO HER - WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION - BY DECEDENT BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE JOINT TENANCY. 
AT DECEDENT'S DEATH IN 1930, AN ESTATE TAX WAS ASSESSED AND PAID UPON
THE FULL VALUE OF THE JOINT PROPERTY, INCLUDING THAT PART CONTRIBUTED
BY THE SURVIVOR BUT ULTIMATELY TRACEABLE TO THE DECEDENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE FULL VALUE OF THE JOINT PROPERTY WAS
TAXABLE,  FN18  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN19 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE 1926 TAX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IMPOSED UPON THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE JOINT TENANCY AT
DECEDENT'S DEATH IS WITHOUT MERIT, FOR REASONS STATED IN NO. 391. 

HOWEVER, THERE IS HERE THE FURTHER ARGUMENT THAT THE COURTS BELOW
ERRED IN CONSTRUING THE 1926 ACT TO REQUIRE THE INCLUSION IN THE GROSS
ESTATE OF THAT PART OF THE JOINT PROPERTY (SHARES OF STOCK) CONTRIBUTED
TO THE JOINT TENANCY BY THE SURVIVOR, BUT WHICH HAD BEEN PAID FOR AND
GIVEN TO HER BY DECEDENT PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE TENANCY. 
ALTHOUGH SUBDIVISION (H) OF SEC. 302 OF THE 1926 ACT SPECIFICALLY
REQUIRED INCLUSION IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE FULL VALUE OF THE JOINT
PROPERTY AT DEATH IN PROPORTION TO THE DECEDENT'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE
PURCHASE PRICE, PETITIONER RELIES UPON THAT PART OF SUBDIVISION (E)
WHICH EXCEPTS "SUCH PART (OF THE JOINT PROPERTY)  ...  AS MAY BE SHOWN
TO HAVE ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO ...  (THE SURVIVOR) AND NEVER TO HAVE
BEEN RECEIVED OR ACQUIRED BY THE LATTER FROM THE DECEDENT FOR LESS THAN
AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH." 
PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THIS EXCEPTION SHOULD BE READ "EXCEPT SUCH
PARTS THEREOF AS MAY BE SHOWN TO HAVE ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO (THE
SURVIVOR) AND NEVER AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED
OR ACQUIRED BY THE LATTER FROM THE DECEDENT FOR LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE
AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH." 

THE SURVIVING JOINT TENANT IN THIS CASE COMES SQUARELY WITHIN THE
GOVERNING STATUTORY PROVISION BECAUSE SHE "RECEIVED" AND "ACQUIRED" ALL
OF THE PROPERTY CONTRIBUTED BY HER TO THE JOINT TENANCY "FROM THE
DECEDENT FOR LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR
MONEY'S WORTH."  THIS LANGUAGE ADOPTED BY CONGRESS CLEARLY AND
UNAMBIGUOUSLY INDICATES THE PURPOSE TO TAX THE ENTIRE VALUE OF A JOINT
TENANCY UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN BY THIS RECORD.  WE ARE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO ADD LANGUAGE TO THE STATUTE DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO SUCH A
CLEARLY EXPRESSED PURPOSE. 

THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 391 IS REVERSED AND THAT IN NO. 482 IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  97 F.2D 784. 

FN2  THE 1924 ACT IMPOSED A TAX (SEC. 301, ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 253,
303) "UPON THE TRANSFER OF THE NET ESTATE OF EVERY DECEDENT DYING
AFTER" THE ACT'S ENACTMENT, AND INCLUDED (SEC. 302) IN EACH GROSS
ESTATE THE VALUE OF "THE INTEREST  ...  (IN PROPERTY) HELD AS JOINT
TENANTS BY THE DECEDENT AND ANY OTHER PERSON, OR AS TENANTS BY THE
ENTIRETY BY THE DECEDENT AND SPOUSE,  ...  EXCEPT SUCH PART THEREOF AS
MAY BE SHOWN TO HAVE ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO SUCH OTHER PERSON AND NEVER
TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR ACQUIRED BY THE LATTER FROM THE DECEDENT FOR
LESS THAN A FAIR CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH:  PROVIDED,
THAT WHERE SUCH PROPERTY OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR PART OF THE
CONSIDERATION WITH WHICH SUCH PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED, IS SHOWN TO HAVE
BEEN AT ANY TIME ACQUIRED BY SUCH PERSON FROM THE DECEDENT FOR LESS
THAN A FAIR CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH, THERE SHALL BE
EXCEPTED ONLY SUCH PART OF THE VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS IS
PROPORTIONATE TO THE CONSIDERATION FURNISHED BY SUCH OTHER PERSON
..." 

FN3  SHWAB V. DOYLE, 258 U.S. 529, 535; KNOX V. MCELLIGOTT, 258 U.S.
546, 549.  RESPONDENT RELIES UPON LANGUAGE OF THE KNOX CASE TO SUPPORT
THE CONTENTION THAT SEC. 302 OF THE 1924 ACT IS RETROACTIVE IN ITS
EFFECT ON JOINT TENANCIES SUCH AS THE ONE HERE.  HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THAT CASE WENT NO FURTHER THAN TO HOLD THAT
THE TERMS OF THE 1916 ACT THERE CONSIDERED DID NOT REQUIRE THE
INCLUSION - IN GROSS ESTATES - OF THE VALUE OF PROPERTY HELD IN JOINT
TENANCIES CREATED PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THAT PARTICULAR LAW. 

FN4  GWINN V. COMMISSIONER, 287 U.S. 224, 226; CF., PHILLIPS V. DIME
TRUST & S.D. CO., 284 U.S. 160, 166. 

FN5  CF., REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 443, 449; COX V. HART,
260 U.S. 427, 435. 

FN6  SEE, KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 47; 1 COOLEY, "TAXATION,"
SEC. 48, (4TH ED.); SELIGMAN, "ESSAYS IN TAXATION," CH. V, (9TH ED.,
1921). 

FN7  TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497, 503, 504. 

FN8  THIRD NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. V. WHITE, 45 F.2D 911, AFFIRMED
287 U.S. 577; HELVERING V. BOWERS, 303 U.S. 618. 

FN9 FOSTER V. COMMISSIONER, 303 U.S. 618. 

FN10  GWINN V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA; GRISWOLD V. HELVERING, 290 U.S.
56, 58.  IN THE GRISWOLD CASE THIS COURT SAID:  "WHETHER THIS
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE GIVES IT A RETROACTIVE EFFECT IS THE SOLE
QUESTION HERE INVOLVED; AND WITH THAT WE FIND NO DIFFICULTY.  UNDER THE
STATUTE THE DEATH OF DECEDENT IS THE EVENT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE TAX
IS LAID.  IT IS THE EXISTENCE OF THE JOINT TENANCY AT THAT TIME, AND
NOT ITS CREATION AT AN EARLIER DATE, WHICH FURNISHES THE BASIS FOR THE
TAX." 

FN11  CF., TYLER V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT 503. 

FN12  A JOINT TENANCY IN ILLINOIS - WHERE THE PROPERTY INVOLVED HERE
IS LOCATED - IS DESCRIBED BY THAT STATE'S HIGHEST COURT (AS IN THE
COMMON LAW) AS FOLLOWS:  "THE PROPERTIES OF A JOINT ESTATE ARE DERIVED
FROM ITS UNITY, WHICH IS FOURFOLD:  THE UNITY OF INTEREST, THE UNITY OF
TITLE, THE UNITY OF TIME AND THE UNITY OF POSSESSION; OR, IN OTHER
WORDS, JOINT TENANTS HAVE ONE AND THE SAME INTEREST, ACCRUING BY ONE
AND THE SAME CONVEYANCE, COMMENCING AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME AND HELD
BY ONE AND THE SAME UNDIVIDED POSSESSION."  DESLAURIERS V. SENESAC, 331
ILL. 437, 440; 163 N.E. 327.  THE "LEARNING IN THE BOOKS MERELY SHOWS
THAT IN CASE OF A CONVEYANCE TO HUSBAND AND WIFE, THERE IS A FIFTH
UNITY, TO WIT:  THAT OF PERSON  ..."  TOPPING V. SADLER, V JONES (NO.
CAR.)  357, 360.  SEE NOTE, 30 L.R.A. 305. 

FN13  NICOL V. AMES, 173 U.S. 509, 515. 

FN14 ID., 516. 

FN15  1 TIFFANY, "REAL PROPERTY" (1920), SEC. 194; SEE, LITTLETON'S
"TENURES," SEC. 291(WAMBAUGH, ED., 1903). 

FN16  FREEMAN, "COTENANCY AND PARTITION," 2ND ED., SEC. 12. 

FN17  CF., CHASE NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 327, 338;
SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, 276 U.S. 260, 271. 

FN18  19 F.SUPP.  56. 

FN19  99 F.2D 799. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 391 SHOULD BE AFFIRMED AND THAT IN NO.
482 SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN THE SETTLED DOCTRINE OF THIS COURT THAT CONGRESS
CANNOT RETROACTIVELY TAX, AS TESTAMENTARY, A TRANSFER CONSUMMATED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING LAW BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF A SYSTEM OF ESTATE
TAXATION, AND WHERE THE PARTIES, AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION, HAD NO
NOTICE OF INTENT TO TAX IT AS A TRANSFER IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH OR
TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER DEATH.  FN1  IN
ORDER TO AVOID HOLDING TAXING ACTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THIS GROUND, THE
COURT HAS OFTEN CONSTRUED THEM AS APPLYING PROSPECTIVELY ONLY.  FN2
RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON DECISIONS SUSTAINING INCLUSION
IN THE ESTATE OF ONE SPOUSE OF THE ENTIRE VALUE OF AN ESTATE BY THE
ENTIRETIES.  IN THE EARLIER CASES WHEREIN THE EXACTION WAS UPHELD THE
ACT OPERATED PROSPECTIVELY AND AFFECTED ONLY SUCH AN ESTATE ARISING
AFTER PASSAGE OF THE STATUTE,  FN3  OR THE ESTATE CAME INTO BEING AFTER
THE ADOPTION OF A SYSTEM OF TAXATION WHICH MIGHT WELL INCLUDE SUCH A
TRANSFER WITHIN ITS SCOPE.  FN4  SUBSEQUENTLY THE INCLUSION OF THE
ENTIRE VALUE IN THE TAXABLE ESTATE OF ONE SPOUSE WAS SUSTAINED WHERE
THE TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETIES ANTEDATED THE PASSAGE OF THE ESTATE TAX
ACTS.  FN5  THE DECISION WAS BASED UPON THE PECULIAR NATURE OF A
TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETIES AS EXPOUNDED IN TYLER V. UNITED STATES.  A
TRANSFER TAX MEASURED BY ONE-HALF THE VALUE OF AN ESTATE IN JOINT
TENANCY HAS BEEN APPROVED ALTHOUGH THE ESTATE WAS CREATED PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE SYSTEM OF ESTATE TAXES; FN6  BUT THE COURT HAS NEVER
PASSED UPON THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A TAX MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE
ENTIRE JOINT ESTATE.  THERE ARE MARKED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A TENANCY BY
THE ENTIRETIES AND A JOINT TENANCY IN RESPECT OF THE POWER OF ONE
TENANT TO DESTROY THE JOINT ESTATE, TO TRANSFER OR ENCUMBER HIS
INTEREST AND OTHERWISE OBTAIN THE FRUITS OF IT.  IN ORDER TO PREVENT
EVASION CONGRESS MAY INCLUDE THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE ESTATE IN THE
GROSS ESTATE AS A MEASURE OF THE TAX WHERE THE ESTATE ORIGINATES AFTER
ADOPTION OF THE LAW.  FN7  BUT IT MAY NOT RETROACTIVELY APPLY SUCH
MEASURE TO AN ESTATE CREATED AT A TIME WHEN ITS CREATORS HAD NO REASON
TO EXPECT THAT SUCH A TAX WOULD BE LAID IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED RULES OF
PROPERTY. 

FN1  NICHOLS V. COOLIDGE, 274 U.S. 531; HELVERING V. HELMHOLTZ, 296
U.S. 93, 97; WHITE V. POOR, 296 U.S. 98, 102. 

FN2  SHWAB V. DOYLE, 258 U.S. 529; KNOX V. MCELLIGOTT, 258 U.S. 546;
UNION TRUST CO. V. WARDELL, 258 U.S. 537; LEVY V. WARDELL, 258 U.S.
542; LEWELLYN V. FRICK, 268 U.S. 238. 

FN3  TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497. 

FN4  PHILLIPS V. DIME TRUST & SAFE DEPOSIT CO., 284 U.S. 160. 

FN5  THIRD NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. V. WHITE, 287 U.S. 577;
HELVERING V. BOWERS, 303 U.S. 618. 

FN6  KNOX V. MCELLIGOTT, SUPRA; GWINN V. COMMISSIONER, 287 U.S. 224;
CAHN V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 691. 

FN7  SEE NICHOLS V. COOLIDGE, SUPRA, P. 542; TYLER V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, P. 505; HELVERING V. CITY BANK CO., 296 U.S. 85, 90. 
..END :




















HALE V. BIMCO TRADING CO., 306 U.S. 375 


NO. 418.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 6, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 27, 1939.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  PLAINTIFFS IN THE FEDERAL COURT SECURED A DECREE ENJOINING STATE
OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING A STATE STATUTE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  A
PROCEEDING OF MANDAMUS, TO WHICH THEY WERE NOT PARTIES, WAS PENDING
BEFORE THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN WHICH THE SAME OFFICERS HAD BEEN
COMMANDED TO EXECUTE THE STATUTE, AS VALID.  FURTHER ACTION IN THE
MANDAMUS CASE WAS SUSPENDED BY THE STATE COURT TO AWAIT FINAL DECISION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BY THIS COURT ON APPEAL IN THE
INJUNCTION SUIT.  HELD THAT JUD.  CODE SEC. 265, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 379,
WHICH PROVIDES THAT A WRIT OF INJUNCTION SHALL NOT BE GRANTED BY ANY
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TO STAY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF A STATE,
IS INAPPLICABLE.  P. 378. 

2.  STATE LEGISLATION PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR ALL CEMENT SOLD OR USED
IN THE STATE, AND REQUIRING INSPECTION AND IMPOSING AN "INSPECTION FEE"
OF FIFTEEN CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT - SIXTY TIMES THE COST OF INSPECTION
- IN RESPECT OF CEMENT IMPORTED FROM ABROAD, 30% OF THE CEMENT SOLD OR
USED IN THE STATE, WHILST REQUIRING NO INSPECTION AND EXACTING NO FEE
IN RESPECT OF DOMESTIC CEMENT - HELD INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PP. 378, 380. 

HALE, CHAIRMAN, ET AL. V. BIMCO TRADING, INC., ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
ENJOINED THE APPELLANTS, MEMBERS OF THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF
FLORIDA, FROM ENFORCING A FLORIDA STATUTE.  THE COURT BELOW FILED NO
OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL, UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28
U.S.C. SEC. 380), TO REVIEW THE FINAL DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT
COURT ENJOINING APPELLANTS, CONSTITUTING THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF
FLORIDA, FROM ENFORCING AGAINST APPELLEES RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF A
FLORIDA STATUTE.  ACTS 1937, C. 18995, FLA. COMP. GEN. LAWS, C. CVIII,
SEC. 4151(512)-(519).  THE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR THE INSPECTION OF ALL
IMPORTED CEMENT AND THE PAYMENT FOR SUCH INSPECTION OF A FEE OF FIFTEEN
CENTS PER HUNDRED POUNDS.  A MOTION TO DISMISS THE BILL HAVING BEEN
OVERRULED AND APPELLANTS HAVING ELECTED TO STAND ON THE BILL, A FINAL
DECREE WAS DULY ENTERED. 

AT THE THRESHOLD, A CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT MUST BE MET.  IT DERIVES FROM SEC. 265 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28
U.S.C. SEC. 379), FOR IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE INJUNCTION IN EFFECT
STAYED PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.  DISPOSITION OF
THIS CLAIM ENTAILS A QUICK NARRATIVE OF THE COURSE OF LITIGATION
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD. 

ON JULY 29, 1937, A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS WAS FILED IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. FLORIDA PORTLAND
CEMENT COMPANY TO COMPEL APPELLANTS, MEMBERS OF THE STATE ROAD
DEPARTMENT, TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE IN QUESTION, AND ON THE SAME DAY AN
ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS ISSUED.  APPELLANTS' DEMURRER, RAISING
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE, WAS OVERRULED ON OCTOBER 12,
1937.  STATE V. HALE, 129 FLA. 588; 176 SO. 577.  A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF
MANDAMUS, ON NOVEMBER 17, 1937, DIRECTED APPELLANTS TO ENFORCE THE
STATUTE.  MEANWHILE, ON NOVEMBER 4, 1937, APPELLEE BIMCO TRADING, INC.
FILED ITS BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE STATUTE AS FORBIDDEN, INTER ALIA, BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CL. 3, AND
ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, CL. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ON NOVEMBER 27, 1937,
THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
APPELLANTS FROM ENFORCING THE STATUTE.  THEREAFTER, APPELLANTS MOVED
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TO STAY THE MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS PENDING
AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND ON
DECEMBER 9, 1937, THE FLORIDA COURT ORDERED "THAT ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS AND ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE PEREMPTORY WRIT OF
MANDAMUS HERETOFORE ISSUED IN THIS CAUSE, BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY
STAYED UNTIL THE FINAL DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT INVOLVED IN THIS CAUSE AND
UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT."  THIS CAUSE WAS THEN PROSECUTED
WITH DISPATCH.  ON MARCH 8, 1938, APPELLANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, WHICH
HAD BEEN FILED ON NOVEMBER 24, 1937, WAS OVERRULED, AND, APPELLANTS
REFUSING TO PLEAD OVER, THE DISTRICT COURT, ON JUNE 14, 1938, ENTERED A
FINAL DECREE PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE. 

TO INVOKE SEC. 265 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS TO ASSERT THAT A
SUCCESSFUL MANDAMUS PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT AGAINST STATE OFFICIALS
TO ENFORCE A CHALLENGED STATUTE, BARS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN A UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE BY STATE
OFFICIALS AT THE SUIT OF STRANGERS TO THE STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS. 
THIS ASSUMES THAT THE MANDAMUS PROCEEDING BOUND THE INDEPENDENT SUITOR
IN THE FEDERAL COURT AS THOUGH HE WERE A PARTY TO THE LITIGATION IN THE
STATE COURT.  THIS, OF COURSE, IS NOT SO.  CHASE NATIONAL BANK V.
NORWALK, 291 U.S. 431, 441. 

APPELLANTS ARE IN EFFECT CONTENDING THAT NO PROCEEDINGS ARE HERE
AVAILABLE TO BRING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE BEFORE
THIS COURT, ONCE THE STATE COURT DIRECTED ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA ITSELF MANIFESTED NO SUCH STRANGLING CONCEPTION OF
SEC. 265.  IT DID NOT DEEM THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BELOW AS A DENIAL
OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF A STATE COURT THROUGH AN OBSTRUCTIVE EXERCISE OF
AUTHORITY BY A UNITED STATES COURT.  ON THE CONTRARY, IN STAYING "ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ACTIONS" UNTIL THIS COURT HAD FINALLY PASSED
UPON ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RECOGNIZED THE
PROPRIETY OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AS AN ORDERLY MODE FOR INVOKING
THE ULTIMATE JUDICIAL VOICE ON CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.  THEREFORE, SEC.
265 HAS NO RELEVANCE HERE.  THAT PROVISION IS AN HISTORICAL MECHANISM
(ACT OF MARCH 2, 1793, 1 STAT. 334, 335) FOR ACHIEVING HARMONY IN ONE
PHASE OF OUR COMPLICATED FEDERALISM BY AVOIDING NEEDLESS FRICTION
BETWEEN TWO SYSTEMS OF COURTS HAVING POTENTIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
SAME SUBJECT-MATTER.  WELLS FARGO & CO. V. TAYLOR, 254 U.S. 175, 183. 
THE PRESENT RECORD PRESENTS NO OCCASION FOR BRINGING THIS SAFEGUARD
INTO PLAY. 

WE TURN, THEREFORE, TO THE MERITS. 

AFTER RECITING THAT "DURING THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS APPROXIMATELY
THIRTY PER CENTUM (30%) OF ALL CEMENT SOLD AND USED IN FLORIDA WAS
MANUFACTURED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND IMPORTED"; THAT CEMENT IS "AN
INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION" OF "LARGE NUMBERS" OF BUILDINGS;
THAT "MUCH OF THE FOREIGN MANUFACTURED CEMENT  ...  BROUGHT INTO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA HAS BEEN OF INFERIOR QUALITY"; THAT "THE IMPORTATION
...  AND  ...  USE OF FOREIGN CEMENT NOT ONLY JEOPARDIZES PUBLIC SAFETY
BUT AMOUNTS TO UNFAIR COMPETITION BEING FORCED ON THIS GREAT INDUSTRY
IN FLORIDA," THE LEGISLATURE OF THAT STATE, IN 1937, ENACTED THE
STATUTE IN CONTROVERSY.  SECTION 1 AUTHORIZES THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT
OF FLORIDA "TO FIX A MINIMUM STANDARD FOR ALL CEMENT OFFERED FOR SALE
OR SOLD OR USED" WITHIN THE STATE.  SECTION 2 ENFORCES OBEDIENCE TO
STANDARDS OF QUALITY THUS TO BE SET BY THE DEPARTMENT BY PROVISIONS FOR
INSPECTION AND FOR EXACTION OF AN INSPECTION FEE OF FIFTEEN CENTS PER
HUNDRED-WEIGHT.  IT IS THIS SECTION WHICH GIVES THE STATUTE TEETH.  BUT
THIS SECTION - THE SCHEME FOR INSPECTION AND FOR THE INSPECTION FEE -
APPLIES ONLY TO "CEMENT IMPORTED OR BROUGHT INTO THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FROM ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY  ...  "  THE STATUTE THUS RENDERS THE 70%
DOMESTIC CEMENT IMMUNE FROM ITS REQUIREMENTS OF INSPECTION AND ITS
ATTENDANT FEE.  ACCORDING TO THE UNCONTESTED ALLEGATION OF THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT, THIS INSPECTION FEE IS "SIXTY TIMES THE ACTUAL COST OF
INSPECTION."  APART FROM THIS ALLEGATION, THE GOVERNMENT, APPEARING AS
AMICUS AND MORE PARTICULARLY ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST
REPRESENTED BY THE TRADE AGREEMENTS ACT (48 STAT. 943; 19 U.S.C. SEC.
1351), GIVES PERSPECTIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE FIFTEEN CENT FEE BY
COMPARING IT WITH THE DUTY OF SIX CENTS PER ONE HUNDRED POUNDS FIXED BY
THE HAWLEY-SMOOT ACT OF 1930(46 STAT. 590, 602; 19 U.S.C. SEC. 1001,
PAR. 205(B)), AND WITH THE DUTY OF FOUR AND ONE-HALF CENTS FIXED BY THE
BELGIAN TRADE AGREEMENT OF 1935(49 STAT. 3680, 3691; 19 U.S.C. SEC.
1351). 

AS GROUNDS FOR THIS DISCRIMINATION IN THE INCIDENCE OF AN OBVIOUSLY
ONEROUS EXACTION AS BETWEEN FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC CEMENT, THE PREAMBLE
OF THE STATUTE STATES THAT "IT IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC
SAFETY THAT ONLY CEMENT MEASURING UP TO A MINIMUM STANDARD SHOULD BE
OFFERED FOR SALE, SOLD OR USED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA," AND THAT THE
IMPORTATION "AMOUNTS TO UNFAIR COMPETITION BEING FORCED ON THIS GREAT
INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA."  SO FAR AS PUBLIC SAFETY DEMANDS CERTAIN
STANDARDS IN THE QUALITY OF CEMENT, SUCH SAFETY IS DEPENDENT ON
ASSURANCE OF THAT QUALITY BY APPROPRIATE INSPECTION NO LESS OF THE 70%
DOMESTIC CEMENT THAN OF THE 30% OBTAINED FROM ABROAD.  THAT NO FLORIDA
CEMENT NEEDS ANY INSPECTION WHILE ALL FOREIGN CEMENT REQUIRES
INSPECTION AT A COST OF FIFTEEN CENTS PER HUNDREDWEIGHT IS TOO VIOLENT
AN ASSUMPTION TO JUSTIFY THE DISCRIMINATION HERE DISCLOSED.  THE OTHER
JUSTIFICATION - THE COMPETITIVE EFFECT OF FOREIGN CEMENT IN THE FLORIDA
MARKET - IS RATHER A CANDID ADMISSION THAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTE IS TO KEEP OUT FOREIGN GOODS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
GIVES NO REASON RESTING IN LOCAL CONDITIONS FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE A
TRANSPARENT DISCRIMINATION IN THE IMPOSITION OF HEAVY INSPECTION FEES
AS BETWEEN IMPORTED AND DOMESTIC CEMENT, AND NONE HAS BEEN OFFERED BY
APPELLANTS.  THE CONTEXT OF A PARTICULAR STATUTE MAY JUSTIFY
DISTINCTIVE TREATMENT OF PHASES OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY NEGATIVE APPARENT DISCRIMINATION IN THE DIFFERENCE OF
TREATMENT.  SUCH WAS THE SITUATION IN MCLEAN & CO. V. DENVER & RIO
GRANDE R. CO., 203 U.S. 38, REFERRED TO BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. 
BUT THIS IS NOT THAT KIND OF A CASE.  ACCORDING THE STATUTE EVERY
PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY, NO REASONABLE CONJECTURE CAN HERE OVERCOME THE
CALCULATED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

SUCH ASSUMPTION OF NATIONAL POWERS BY A STATE HAS, EVER SINCE MARCH
12, 1827(BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419), BEEN FOUND TO BE IN
COLLISION WITH THE CONSTITUTION.  IT CAN NEVER BE PLEASANT TO
INVALIDATE THE ENACTMENT OF A STATE, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT BEARS THE
IMPRIMATUR OF CONSTITUTIONALITY BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  BUT
IT WOULD NOT BE EASY TO IMAGINE A STATUTE MORE CLEARLY DESIGNED THAN
THE PRESENT TO CIRCUMVENT WHAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE FORBIDS.  COOK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 97 U.S. 566; VOIGHT V. WRIGHT, 141 U.S. 62.  THIS MAKES
IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS URGED UNDER ARTICLE I, SEC.
10, CL. 2. 

THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 
..END :





















KEIFER & KEIFER V. R.F.C., 306 U.S. 381 


NO. 364.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1939, FEBRUARY 1, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY
27, 1939.  - 97 F.2D 812, REVERSED. 


1.  A REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATION, CHARTERED BY THE
RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION BY AUTHORITY OF SEC. 201(E) OF THE
EMERGENCY RELIEF AND CONSTRUCTION ACT OF 1932, AND WHICH UNDER THAT
STATUTE IS GOVERNMENT-FINANCED AND MANAGED AND EMPOWERED TO MAKE LOANS
TO FARMERS AND STOCKMEN FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OR FOR RAISING AND
MARKETING LIVESTOCK - HELD SUBJECT TO SUIT.  PP. 392, ET SEQ. 

NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE CHARTER EXPLICITLY RENDERED THE CREDIT
CORPORATION AMENABLE TO SUIT; BUT AMONG THE CORPORATE POWERS GRANTED
THE FINANCE CORPORATION BY THE ACT CREATING IT WAS AUTHORITY "TO SUE
AND BE SUED, TO COMPLAIN AND TO DEFEND, IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, STATE OR FEDERAL." 

2.  WHETHER A GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION IS ENDOWED WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S IMMUNITY FROM SUIT DEPENDS UPON THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE
IN CREATING IT.  P. 388. 

IMMUNITY IS NOT NECESSARILY TO BE INFERRED FROM THE FACT THAT THE
CORPORATION IS DOING THE GOVERNMENT'S WORK OR FROM THE OMISSION OF THE
CONVENTIONAL SUE-AND-BE-SUED CLAUSE FROM ITS CHARTER. 

3.  LIABILITY TO SUIT OF REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATIONS,
CHARTERED THROUGH THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, IS TO BE
INFERRED FROM THE NUMEROUS INSTANCES IN WHICH CONGRESS, WHEN CREATING
OTHER CORPORATIONS FOR PURPOSES NOT RELEVANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF
THE CREDIT CORPORATIONS, HAS EXPRESSLY INCLUDED AUTHORITY TO SUE AND BE
SUED.  THIS UNIFORM PRACTICE REVEALS A DEFINITE POLICY WHICH SHOULD BE
GIVEN HOSPITABLE SCOPE.  FAILURE TO INCLUDE EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO SUE
AND BE SUED IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE OF THE CREDIT CORPORATIONS IS
EXPLAINED BY AN ASSUMPTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS THAT THAT AUTHORITY
WOULD PASS TO THEM FROM THE RECONSTRUCTION CORPORATION ALREADY ENDOWED
WITH IT.  P. 390. 

4.  RECOVERY AGAINST A REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATION FOR
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ITS NEGLIGENCE IN FAILING TO PROVIDE PROPER CARE
FOR LIVESTOCK DELIVERED TO IT UNDER A CONTRACT OF BAILMENT, MAY BE HAD
IN CONTRACT.  P. 394. 

5.  IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION, LIABILITY OF A
GOVERNMENT CORPORATION EMPOWERED GENERALLY "TO SUE AND BE SUED" IS NOT
CONFINED TO SUITS SOUNDING ONLY IN CONTRACT.  P. 396. 

KEIFER & KEIFER V. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORP. AND REGIONAL
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 588, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT (22 F.SUPP.  918) DISMISSING ON DEMURRER AN ACTION
FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE TWO FEDERAL CORPORATIONS ABOVE NAMED.  THE
QUESTION BROUGHT UP BY THE CERTIORARI CONCERNS ONLY THE CLAIM ADVANCED
FOR THE REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATION THAT IT IS IMMUNE FROM
SUIT. 

CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT THE "REGIONAL" BE SUBJECT TO SUIT IS
EXPRESSED BY SELECTION OF A CORPORATION ITSELF SUBJECT TO SUIT TO FORM
THE "REGIONAL."  CASPER V. REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORP., 202
MINN. 433. 

SUCH INTENT IS ALSO MANIFESTED BY THE DIRECTION THAT THE "REGIONAL"
BE FORMED AS A CORPORATION.  BANK OF U.S. V. PLANTERS BANK, 9 WHEAT. 
904; FEDERAL SUGAR REFINING CO. V. U.S. SUGAR EQ. BOARD, 268 F. 575;
SLOAN SHIPYARDS CORP. V. U.S. SHIPPING BOARD, 258 U.S. 549; U.S.
SHIPPING BOARD V. TABAS, 22 F.2D 398; U.S. SHIPPING BOARD V. EICHBERG,
14 F.2D 248; UNITED STATES V. MCCARL, 275 U.S. 1; NORTH DAKOTA-MONTANA
WHEAT ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, 66 F.2D 573; PHILLIPS V. U.S. GRAIN
CORP., 279 F. 244; U.S. GRAIN CORP. V. PHILLIPS, 261 U.S. 106; SALAS V.
UNITED STATES, 234 F. 842; PANAMA RY. CO. V. CURRAN, 256 F. 768; PANAMA
RY. CO. V. MINNIX, 282 F. 47; OLSON V. U.S. SPRUCE CORP., 276 U.S. 462;
UNITED STATES V. DEUTSCHES KALISYNDIKAT GESELLSCHAFT, 31 F.2D 199;
BECKER STEEL CO. V. CUMMINGS, 296 U.S. 74. 

SUCH INTENT IS IMPLIED IN THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS THE "REGIONAL"
WAS DIRECTED TO TRANSACT.  TITLE 15, SEC. 605B (E) U.S.C.; C. 520, SEC.
201(E), 47 STAT. 713; BANK OF U.S. V. PLANTERS BANK, 9 WHEAT.  904;
U.S. SHIPPING BOARD V. HARWOOD, 281 U.S. 519; STANDARD OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 25 F.2D 480; HOPKINS V. CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE,
221 U.S. 636; CENTRAL MARKET V. KING, 132 NEB. 380; 302 U.S. 687;
FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229; NORTH DAKOTA V. OLSON, 33
F.2D 848; GROSS V. KENTUCKY BOARD, 105 KY. 840. 

SUCH INTENT IS EXPRESSED BY INCLUSION OF THE WORD "CORPORATION" IN
THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT.  DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT. 
518; MARTIN V. KENTUCKY LANDS INV. CO., 146 KY. 525; BARROW S.S. CO. V.
KANE, 170 U.S. 100; TULARE IRRIGATION DIST. V. SHEPARD, 185 U.S. 1;
GILLIGAN V. JOHN GILLIGAN CO., 94 NEB. 437. 

IMMUNITY OF THE SOVEREIGN FROM SUIT DOES NOT EXTEND TO AGENTS, NO
AGENT BEING AN AGENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING A TORT.  MCCOMB V.
U.S. HOUSING CORP., 264 F. 589. 

INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OF WHICH REGIONAL
UNQUESTIONABLY IS ONE, ARE IMMUNE FROM SUIT, AS WELL AS THE UNITED
STATES ITSELF, LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571, 582; CF.
KAWANANAKOA V. POLYBLANK, 205 U.S. 349, UNLESS BY STATUTE CONGRESS HAS
SUBJECTED THEM TO SUIT.  FEDERAL LANK BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229,
231; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. AULT, 256 U.S. 554; THE LAKE MONROE,
250 U.S. 246, 249; CF. THE WESTERN MAID, 257 U.S. 419, 433.  THERE IS
NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUITS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND SUITS AGAINST
THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 147 U.S. 508,
512; CARR V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 433; EASTERN TRANSP.  CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 272 U.S. 675, 686; UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226, 239;
UNITED STATES V. MICHEL, 282 U.S. 656, 659; PRICE V. UNITED STATES, 174
U.S. 373, 375-376. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSLY SUBJECTED REGIONALS TO SUIT EITHER IN THE
STATUTE, ITS HISTORY, OR IN THE CHARTER. 

IMMUNITY CAN NOT BE DESTROYED BY THE MERE INFERENCE FROM THE
SUABILITY OF R.F.C.  MOREOVER, THE FACT THAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED
CREATION OF REGIONALS BY R.F.C. INSTEAD OF BY THE FARM CREDIT
ADMINISTRATION OR SOME OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY NOT SUBJECT TO SUIT DOES
NOT SUPPORT SUCH AN INFERENCE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PARTICULAR OR
SPECIAL RELATION BETWEEN THE POWER OF R.F.C. TO CREATE REGIONALS AND
ITS POWER TO SUE AND BE SUED.  THERE IS NO MORE REASON TO INFER THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THIS ATTRIBUTE OF SUABILITY SHOULD PASS FROM
R.F.C. TO REGIONALS THAN TO INFER THAT ANY OF THE OTHER POWERS OF
R.F.C., SUCH AS ITS POWER TO CREATE REGIONALS, PASSED TO REGIONALS. 

THE GENERAL RULE THAT A GRANT OF CORPORATE EXISTENCE IMPLIES
LIABILITY TO SUIT HAS NO APPLICATION TO CORPORATE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH ARE IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNLESS THIS SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY IS ABANDONED BY STATUTE CLEARLY AND EXPRESSLY AND NOT BY
IMPLICATION.  THE PRESUMPTION OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT (EASTERN TRANSP. 
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 675, 686) AND THE SOVEREIGN CHARACTER OF
THIS IMMUNITY FORBID THE VIEW THAT THE MERE CORPORATE FORM OF THE
GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY IMPLIES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO SUBJECT IT
TO SUIT. 

IN CASES RELIED ON BY PETITIONER THE CORPORATIONS WERE INCORPORATED
UNDER STATUTES CONTAINING EXPRESS PROVISIONS FOR SUABILITY (SLOAN
SHIPYARDS V. U.S. FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549) OR THE GOVERNMENT WAS
MERELY AN INCORPORATOR OR STOCKHOLDER IN A CORPORATION FORMED UNDER
GENERAL LAWS GIVING THE CORPORATION POWER TO SUE AND BE SUED.  UNITED
STATES BANK V. PLANTERS BANK, 9 WHEAT.  904. 

NOTHING IN THE BUSINESS WHICH REGIONALS WERE DIRECTED TO TRANSACT AND
NOTHING IN THE PRESENT TRANSACTION INDICATES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED
THAT REGIONALS, ENGAGED IN A PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY, SHOULD
BE SUBJECT TO SUIT. 

THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESSED
INTENT, THE SOVEREIGN'S INTENT TO WAIVE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT MAY BE
INFERRED FROM THE TYPE OF ACTIVITY INVOLVED, WHETHER GOVERNMENTAL OR
PROPRIETARY, MAY BE APPLICABLE TO INSTRUMENTALITIES OF A STATE
GOVERNMENT, BUT HAS NO APPLICATION TO INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WHICH ENGAGE ONLY IN GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES AND ACTIVITIES
INCIDENTAL THERETO.  HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405, 411; NEW YORK
EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401, 408; SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE
CO., 255 U.S. 180, 211; OSBORN V. UNITED STATES BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738. 
FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229, DISTINGUISHED. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT SUBJECTED REGIONAL TO SUIT IN TORT. 

A JUDGMENT AGAINST REGIONAL WOULD COMPEL IT TO PAY OUT A SUM OF MONEY
FROM THE PUBLIC FUNDS IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES.  SUCH A
JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS IF IT WERE RENDERED DIRECTLY
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED.  THE JURISDICTION
OF A COURT OVER SUCH AN ACTION IS GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULE WHICH
DETERMINES THE COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER A SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
ITSELF.  SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S. 436, 439. 

THE PRESENT CASE IS AN ACTION FOR TORT, AND DOES NOT REST UPON A
CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.  AN ACTION WILL NOT LIE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE MISFEASANCE OR NON-FEASANCE OF ITS OFFICERS OR
AGENTS.  GIBBONS V. UNITED STATES, 8 WALL.  269, 274; LANGFORD V.
UNITED STATES, 101 U.S. 341, 345; SCHILLINGER V. UNITED STATES, 155
U.S. 163, 169; RUSSELL V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 516, 530; HARLEY V.
UNITED STATES, 198 U.S. 229, 234; PEABODY V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S.
530, 539. 

THE STATUTORY LIABILITY TO SUIT MUST BE REGARDED AS CONFINED TO
MATTERS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CORPORATE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT
AGENCY - NOT UNAUTHORIZED WRONGS UPON INDIVIDUALS.  LYLE V. NATIONAL
HOME, 170 F. 842; OVERHOLSER V. NATIONAL HOME, 68 OHIO ST. 236.  THE
RULE OF THE NATIONAL HOME CASES HAS RECENTLY BEEN APPLIED TO ACTIONS IN
TORT AGAINST THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, IN HENSON V. EICHORN,
24 F.SUPP.  842; PRATO V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 24 F.SUPP.  844;
CONTRA, HERMAN V. HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 120 N.J.L. 437; PENNEL V.
HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORP., 21 F.SUPP.  497; AND SEE POSEY V. TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY, 93 F.2D 726. 

IN ENGLAND IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT CORPORATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES, DERIVING THEIR FUNDS ENTIRELY
FROM THE GOVERNMENT, ARE "SERVANTS OF THE CROWN," AND "THAT THE
PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF INCORPORATION MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE
PROPOSITION THAT THE HEADS OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ARE NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE (TORTIOUS) ACTS OF SUBORDINATES."  ROPER V.
COMMISSIONERS, (1915), 1 K.B. 45, 52. 

THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT CONSENT TO ACTIONS IN TORT AGAINST A STATE
GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION, MERELY BY CONFERRING UPON THE CORPORATION THE
POWER TO SUE AND BE SUED.  WHITE V. ALABAMA INSANE HOSPITAL, 138 ALA.
479; LEAVELL V. WESTERN KENTUCKY ASYLUM, 122 KY. 213; MAIA'S ADM. V.
EASTERN STATE HOSPITAL, 97 VA. 507; SMITH V. NEW YORK, 227 N.Y. 405;
YOLO V. MODESTO IRRIGATION DIST., 216 CAL. 274; BUSH V. HIGHWAY
COMMISSION, 329 MO. 843. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT TOOK THIS CASE FOR REVIEW BECAUSE AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF
FEDERAL LAW CALLED FOR SETTLEMENT, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF A CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE COURT BELOW AND THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA.  CASPER V.
REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORP., 202 MINN. 433; 278 N.W. 896.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER A REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATION, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTLY TO BE STATED, IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT. 

ON JULY 21, 1932, CONGRESS ENLARGED THE POWERS OF THE RECONSTRUCTION
FINANCE CORPORATION (HEREAFTER CALLED "RECONSTRUCTION") ESTABLISHED
EARLY THAT YEAR, ACT OF JANUARY 22, 1932, C. 8, 47 STAT. 5, BY
AUTHORIZING IT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO CREATE REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL
CREDIT CORPORATIONS "IN ANY OF THE TWELVE FEDERAL LAND-BANK
DISTRICTS."  EMERGENCY RELIEF AND CONSTRUCTION ACT OF 1932, SEC.
201(E), C. 520, 47 STAT. 709, 713.  EACH CORPORATION WAS TO HAVE A PAID
UP CAPITAL OF NOT LESS THAN $3,000,000 TO BE SUBSCRIBED FOR BY
RECONSTRUCTION, WAS TO BE MANAGED BY APPOINTEES OF RECONSTRUCTION, AND
WAS EMPOWERED TO MAKE LOANS TO FARMERS AND STOCKMEN FOR AGRICULTURAL
PURPOSES OR FOR RAISING AND MARKETING LIVESTOCK.  ACCORDINGLY, ON
SEPTEMBER 10, 1932, RECONSTRUCTION CHARTERED THE REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL
CREDIT CORPORATION OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA (HEREAFTER CALLED "REGIONAL"). 
REGIONAL, IN DUE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS, ENTERED INTO SO-CALLED CATTLE
FEEDING CONTRACTS, WHEREBY IT UNDERTOOK TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FEED AND
WATER FOR LIVESTOCK WITH APPROPRIATE SECURITY FOR RENDERING THESE
SERVICES.  FAILURE THROUGH NEGLIGENCE TO PROVIDE PROPER CARE FOR CATTLE
DELIVERED UNDER THIS ARRANGEMENT, WITH RESULTING DAMAGE TO THE
LIVESTOCK, IS THE BASIS OF THIS SUIT BROUGHT BY PETITIONER, PLAINTIFF
BELOW, AGAINST RECONSTRUCTION AND REGIONAL.  BOTH DEFENDANTS DEMURRED
ON SEVERAL GROUNDS, OF WHICH CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
IS ALONE PERTINENT HERE.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE DEMURRERS
AND DISMISSED THE SUIT.  22 F.SUPP.  918.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, HOLDING FOR RECONSTRUCTION BECAUSE ITS CONTROL OF REGIONAL
HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER (NO. 6084, DATED MARCH 27,
1933, EFFECTIVE MAY 27, 1933) TO THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION PRIOR
TO THE ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION, AND FOR REGIONAL BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND
IMMUNE FROM SUIT.  97 F.2D 812.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, DIRECTED
SOLELY TO THE LATTER ISSUE.  305 U.S. 588. 

THE STARTING POINT OF INQUIRY IS THE IMMUNITY FROM UNCONSENTED SUIT
OF THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  AS TO THE STATES, LEGAL IRRESPONSIBILITY WAS
WRITTEN INTO THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT; AS TO THE UNITED STATES, IT IS
DERIVED BY IMPLICATION.  MONACO V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 313, 321.  FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES IT IS ACADEMIC TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS EXCEPTIONAL
FREEDOM FROM LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ON THE THEORY THAT THE UNITED
STATES IS DEEMED THE INSTITUTIONAL DESCENDANT OF THE CROWN, ENJOYING
ITS IMMUNITY BUT NOT ITS HISTORIC PREROGATIVES, CF. LANGFORD V. UNITED
STATES, 101 U.S. 341, 343, OR ON A METAPHYSICAL DOCTRINE "THAT THERE
CAN BE NO LEGAL RIGHT AS AGAINST THE AUTHORITY THAT MAKES THE LAW ON
WHICH THE RIGHT DEPENDS."  KAWANANAKOA V. POLYBLANK, 205 U.S. 349,
353.  BUT BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE GIVES THE GOVERNMENT A PRIVILEGED
POSITION, IT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATELY CONFINED.  FN1 

THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BECOME THE CONDUIT OF ITS IMMUNITY
IN SUITS AGAINST ITS AGENTS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES MERELY BECAUSE THEY DO
ITS WORK.  UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196, 213, 221; SLOAN
SHIPYARDS V. U. S. FLEET CORP., 258 U.S. 549, 567.  FOR MORE THAN A
HUNDRED YEARS CORPORATIONS HAVE BEEN USED AS AGENCIES FOR DOING WORK OF
THE GOVERNMENT.  CONGRESS MAY CREATE THEM "AS APPROPRIATE MEANS OF
EXECUTING THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT, AS, FOR INSTANCE,  ...  A RAILROAD
CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES." 
LUXTON V. NORTH RIVER BRIDGE CO., 153 U.S. 525, 529.  BUT THIS WOULD
NOT CONFER ON SUCH CORPORATIONS LEGAL IMMUNITY EVEN IF THE CONVENTIONAL
TO-SUE-AND-BE-SUED CLAUSE WERE OMITTED.  IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN
THOUGHT AND PRACTICE REGARDING THE USE OF CORPORATE FACILITIES, SUCH A
CLAUSE IS NOT A RITUALISTIC FORMULA WHICH ALONE CAN ENGENDER LIABILITY
LIKE UNTO INDISPENSABLE WORDS OF EARLY COMMON LAW, SUCH AS "WARRANTIZO"
OR "TO A AND HIS HEIRS," FOR WHICH THERE WERE NO SUBSTITUTES AND
WITHOUT WHICH DESIRED LEGAL CONSEQUENCES COULD NOT BE WROUGHT. 
LITTLETON, TENURES (WAMBAUGH ED.)  SECS. 1, 733.    CONGRESS MAY, OF
COURSE, ENDOW A GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S
IMMUNITY.  BUT ALWAYS THE QUESTION IS:  HAS IT DONE SO?  FEDERAL LAND
BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229, 231.  CF. HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S.
405, 411-412N.  THIS IS OUR PRESENT PROBLEM.  HAS CONGRESS ENDOWED
REGIONAL WITH IMMUNITY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ENVELOPED ITS
CREATION?  IT IS NOT A TEXTUAL PROBLEM; FOR CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPRESSED
ITS WILL IN WORDS.  CONGRESS MAY NOT EVEN HAVE HAD ANY CONSCIOUSNESS OF
INTENTION.  THE CONGRESSIONAL WILL MUST BE DIVINED, AND BY A PROCESS OF
INTERPRETATION WHICH, IN EFFECT, IS THE ASCERTAINMENT OF POLICY
IMMANENT NOT MERELY IN THE SINGLE STATUTE FROM WHICH FLOW THE RIGHTS
AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF REGIONAL, BUT IN A SERIES OF STATUTES UTILIZING
CORPORATIONS FOR GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES AND DRAWING SIGNIFICANCE FROM
DOMINANT CONTEMPORANEOUS OPINION REGARDING THE IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES FROM SUIT. 

BECAUSE OF THE ADVANTAGES ENJOYED BY THE CORPORATE DEVICE COMPARED
WITH CONVENTIONAL EXECUTIVE AGENCIES, THE EXIGENCIES OF WAR AND THE
ENLARGED SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT IN ECONOMIC AFFAIRS HAVE GREATLY EXTENDED
THE USE OF INDEPENDENT CORPORATE FACILITIES FOR GOVERNMENTAL ENDS.  FN2
IN SPAWNING THESE CORPORATIONS DURING THE PAST TWO DECADES, CONGRESS
HAS UNIFORMLY INCLUDED AMENABILITY TO LAW.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR
NOT LESS THAN FORTY OF SUCH CORPORATIONS DISCHARGING GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS, AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION THE AUTHORITY TO-SUE-AND-BE-SUED WAS
INCLUDED.  FN3  SUCH A FIRM PRACTICE IS PARTLY AN INDICATION OF THE
PRESENT CLIMATE OF OPINION WHICH HAS BROUGHT GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FROM
SUIT INTO DISFAVOR, PARTLY IT REVEALS A DEFINITE ATTITUDE ON THE PART
OF CONGRESS WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN HOSPITABLE SCOPE.  FN4  IT IS
NOTEWORTHY THAT THE OLDEST SURVIVING GOVERNMENT CORPORATION - THE
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION - HAS SEVERAL TIMES BEEN IN THE LAW COURTS,
EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPLICIT AUTHORITY AND ALTHOUGH THE GENERAL
FEELING REGARDING GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY WAS VERY DIFFERENT IN 1846 FROM
WHAT IT HAS BECOME IN OUR OWN DAY.  9 STAT. 102.  SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE
V. MEECH, 169 U.S. 398; SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE V. ST. JOHN, 214 U.S.
19. 

ONLY TWO INSTANCES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION IN
WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT EXPLICITLY RENDERED ITS RECENT CORPORATE
CREATIONS AMENABLE TO SUIT.  THESE ARE THE REGIONALS AND THE FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS.  48 STAT. 128, 132-134.  IT IS
SIGNIFICANT THAT NEITHER OF THESE CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS WAS THE
DIRECT EMANATION OF CONGRESS OR THE OFFSPRING OF A GENERAL
INCORPORATION LAW UNDER CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.  SLOAN SHIPYARDS V.
U.S. FLEET CORP., SUPRA.  EACH WAS TO COME INTO BEING THROUGH AN ORGAN
THAT HAD THERETOFORE BEEN CREATED BY CONGRESS.  WE PUT THE FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS TO ONE SIDE, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT NOW
BEFORE THE COURT.  FN5  BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE ORIGINATION
OF REGIONAL MAKE IT MANIFEST THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT
HAVE UNIFORMLY LED CONGRESS TO MAKE ITS IMMEDIATE CORPORATE CREATURES
SUBJECT TO SUIT.  THE GENESIS, FUNCTIONS, AND AFFILIATIONS OF REGIONAL
ALL NEGATIVE THE ASSUMPTION THAT IN ITS OPERATIONS IT WAS TO BE WITHOUT
THE LAW. 

RECONSTRUCTION IS THE PARENT OF REGIONAL.  WHEN CREATING IT, CONGRESS
GAVE RECONSTRUCTION VARIOUS GENERAL CORPORATE POWERS INCLUDING
AUTHORITY "TO SUE AND BE SUED, TO COMPLAIN AND TO DEFEND, IN ANY COURT
OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION, STATE OR FEDERAL."  47 STAT. 5, 6.  WHEN
LATER CONGRESS AUTHORIZED RECONSTRUCTION TO CREATE THESE REGIONAL
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATIONS, IT DID SO BY OUTLINING IN A SINGLE
FOR RECONSTRUCTION.  47 STAT. 709, 713.  FN6  CONGRESS NATURALLY
ASSUMED THAT THE GENERAL CORPORATE POWERS TO WHICH IT HAD GIVEN
PARTICULARITY IN THE ORIGINAL STATUTE ESTABLISHING RECONSTRUCTION WOULD
FLOW AUTOMATICALLY TO THE REGIONALS FROM THE SOURCE OF THEIR BEING. 
SUCH, CERTAINLY, HAS BEEN THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE REGIONAL
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATIONS IN THE INSTINCTIVE PURSUIT OF THEIR
ENTERPRISE.  SEE, E.G., HALLENBECK V. REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
CORP., 47 ARIZ. 477; 56 P.2D 1041; REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORP.
V. ELSTON, PRINCE & MCDADE, 183 SO. 91(LA.).  CF. LEWIS V. REGIONAL
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORP., 92 F.2D 1008(C.C.A. 10TH).  TO IMPLY FOR
REGIONALS A UNIQUE LEGAL POSITION COMPARED WITH THOSE CORPORATIONS TO
WHOSE PURPOSES REGIONAL IS SO CLOSELY ALLIED,  FN7  IS TO INFER
CONGRESSIONAL IDIOSYNCRASY.  THERE IS A MUCH MORE SENSIBLE EXPLANATION
FOR THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO BRING REGIONAL BY EXPRESS TERMS WITHIN
ITS EMPHATIC PRACTICE NOT TO CONFER SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY UPON THESE
GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS.  CONGRESS HAD A RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT THE
CHARACTERISTIC ENERGIES FOR CORPORATE ENTERPRISE WITH WHICH A FEW
MONTHS PREVIOUSLY IT HAD ENDOWED RECONSTRUCTION WOULD NOW RADIATE
THROUGH RECONSTRUCTION TO REGIONAL. 

TO GIVE REGIONAL AN IMMUNITY DENIED TO MORE THAN TWO SCORE
CORPORATIONS, EACH DESIGNED FOR A PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT NOT RELEVANTLY
DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH OCCASIONED THE CREATION OF REGIONAL, IS TO
IMPUTE TO CONGRESS A DESIRE FOR INCOHERENCE IN A BODY OF AFFILIATED
ENACTMENTS AND FOR DRASTIC LEGAL DIFFERENTIATION WHERE POLICY JUSTIFIES
NONE.  A FAIR JUDGMENT OF THE STATUTE IN ITS ENTIRE SETTING RELIEVES US
FROM MAKING SUCH AN IMPUTATION OF CAPRICE. 

THE LEGAL POSITION OF REGIONAL IS, THEREFORE, THE SAME AS THOUGH
CONGRESS HAD EXPRESSLY EMPOWERED IT "TO SUE AND BE SUED."  THE SCOPE OF
THIS LIABILITY REMAINS TO BE EXPLORED. 

REGIONAL CLAIMS IMMUNITY IN ANY EVENT BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS NOT
SUBJECTED IT TO SUIT "IN TORT."  IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE PRESENT ACTION
IS NOT ONE UPON A CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND, THEREFORE, OUTSIDE
THE PURVIEW OF "TO SUE AND BE SUED."  THE PREMISE IS NOT VALID, NOR
DOES THE CONCLUSION FOLLOW. 

THE TRANSACTION WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE CONTROVERSY WAS A BAILMENT OF
LIVESTOCK FOR HIRE, AND THE CAUSE OF ACTION LACK OF REASONABLE
DILIGENCE BY THE BAILEE.  EVER SINCE THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY, ACCORDING
TO MAITLAND, THERE WERE "ACTIONS AGAINST BAILEES FOR NEGLIGENCE IN THE
CUSTODY OF GOODS ENTRUSTED TO THEM, AND HERE ALSO IT WAS NECESSARY TO
ALLEGE AN ASSUMPSIT" - THE HAVING UNDERTAKEN TO DO SOMETHING. 
MAITLAND, EQUITY, LECTURE VI, PP. 362, 363; MAITLAND, THE FORMS OF
ACTION AT COMMON LAW, LECTURE VI, PP. 68, 69.  THAT REGIONAL'S FAILURE
PROPERLY TO FEED AND WATER THE LIVESTOCK ENTRUSTED TO IT BY THE CATTLE
FEEDING CONTRACT WAS NOT A WRONG DISASSOCIATED FROM CARRYING OUT THE
VERY TRANSACTION WHICH BROUGHT IT INTO EXISTENCE, IS EVIDENT FROM THE
RECOGNIZED LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES ITSELF AS LESSEE AND BAILEE
EVEN UNDER THE EXPLICIT RESTRICTIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACTS.  FN8
BOTH THIS COURT AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAVE SUSTAINED ACTIONS NOT
DISSIMILAR FROM THE PRESENT.  THEY HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE BREACH OF
IMPLIED DUTY OF A LESSEE "NOT TO COMMIT WASTE, OR SUFFER IT TO BE
COMMITTED," UNITED STATES V. BOSTWICK, 94 U.S. 53, 68, AND OF A BAILEE
NOT TO NEGLECT "TO EXERCISE ORDINARY CARE AND SKILL," GULF TRANSIT CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 43 CT. CL. 183, 199, ARE DUTIES THAT HAVE THEIR
SOURCE IN CONTRACT EVEN THOUGH THE GUILTY AGENTS MAY BE MERELY TORT
FEASORS.  TO BE SURE, THE COMMON LAW FICTION OF WAIVING THE TORT AND
SUING IN ASSUMPSIT CANNOT BE USED AS AN EVASION OF THE LIMITED
LIABILITY CREATED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACTS.  BIGBY V. UNITED STATES,
188 U.S. 400; UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA INVESTMENT CO., 271 U.S. 212,
217.  BUT WHERE THE WRONG REALLY DERIVES FROM AN UNDERTAKING, TO STAND
ON THE UNDERTAKING AND TO DISREGARD THE TORT IS NOT TO INVOKE A FICTIVE
AGREEMENT.  IT MERELY RECOGNIZES A CHOICE OF PROCEDURAL VINDICATIONS
OPEN TO THE INJURED PARTY. 

TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS IN SUBJECTING THESE RECENTLY CREATED
GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATIONS TO SUIT MEANT TO ENMESH THEM IN THESE
PROCEDURAL ENTANGLEMENTS, WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE. 
WHEN IT CHOSE TO DO SO, CONGRESS KNEW WELL ENOUGH HOW TO RESTRICT ITS
CONSENT TO SUITS SOUNDING ONLY IN CONTRACT, EVEN WITH ALL THE
CONTROVERSIES IN RECONDITE PROCEDURAL LEARNING THAT THIS MIGHT ENTAIL. 
IT DID SO WITH INCREASING PARTICULARITY IN THE SUCCESSIVE COURT OF
CLAIMS ACTS.  10 STAT. 612; 24 STAT. 505; 28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(20),
250(1).  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE STATUTES IT OUGHT NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT
WHEN CONGRESS CONSENTED "TO SUIT" WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, THE EFFECT IS
THE SAME AS THOUGH IT HAD WRITTEN "IN SUITS ON CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, IN CASES NOT SOUNDING IN TORT."  NO SUCH DISTINCTION WAS MADE
BY CONGRESS, AND NO SUCH INTERPOLATION INTO STATUTES HAS BEEN MADE IN
CASES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS INCORPORATED UNDER STATE LAW OR
THAT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  FN9  THERE IS EQUALLY NO WARRANT FOR
IMPORTING SUCH A DISTINCTION HERE.  TO DO SO WOULD MAKE APPLICATION OF
A STEADILY GROWING POLICY OF GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY CONTINGENT UPON
IRRELEVANT PROCEDURAL FACTORS.  THESE, IN OUR LAW, ARE STILL DEEPLY
ROOTED IN HISTORICAL ACCIDENTS TO WHICH THE EXPANDING CONCEPTIONS OF
PUBLIC MORALITY REGARDING GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD NOT BE
SUBORDINATED. 

CONGRESS HAS EMBARKED UPON A GENEROUS POLICY OF CONSENT FOR SUITS
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT SOUNDING IN TORT EVEN WHERE THERE IS NO ELEMENT
OF CONTRACT.  IT HAS SANCTIONED SUITS FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, 36 STAT.
851, PROVIDED FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE DISABILITY OR DEATH OF A
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE "WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY," 39 STAT.
742, AUTHORIZED PAYMENT FOR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY BY THE ARMY AIR
SERVICE.  41 STAT. 109.  THESE AND OTHER PUBLIC STATUTES AND MANY
PRIVATE BILLS WERE FOUNDED ON CONSIDERATIONS THUS GENERALIZED IN A
REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS: 

"IN OTHER WORDS, IT MAY BE SAID THAT CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THE
GENERAL LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT WITHIN MAXIMUM AMOUNTS FOR THE
NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT THE
MACHINERY FOR DETERMINING THAT LIABILITY IS DEFECTIVE AND RESULTS IN
OVERBURDENING THE CLAIMS COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS AND CONGRESS ITSELF WITH
THE CONSIDERATION OF TORT LIABILITY CLAIMS AND WITH INJURIES TO THE
CLAIMANTS. 

"THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS DESIGNED TO RELIEVE THE SITUATION BY
UTILIZING THE MACHINERY OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES
OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE ASSISTANCE OF CONGRESS."  SENATE REPORT NO.
1699, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS., P. 4.  SEE ALSO SENATE REPORT NO. 658, 72D
CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3. 

ACTING ON THESE VIEWS, CONGRESS PASSED A GENERAL COURT OF CLAIMS
BILL, WHICH, HOWEVER, AT THE CLOSE OF THE SESSION FAILED OF ENACTMENT
BY PRESIDENT COOLIDGE'S POCKET-VETO.  H.R. 9285, 70TH CONG., 2D SESS.;
70 CONG. REC. 4836.  FN10  CONGRESS HAS THUS CLEARLY MANIFESTED AN
ATTITUDE WHICH SERVES AS A GUIDE TO THE SCOPE OF LIABILITY IMPLICIT IN
THE GENERAL AUTHORITY IT HAS CONFERRED ON GOVERNMENTAL CORPORATIONS TO
SUE AND BE SUED.  WE SHOULD BE DENYING THE RECENT TREND OF
CONGRESSIONAL POLICY TO RELIEVE REGIONAL FROM LIABILITY.  THIS COMPELS
US TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE PROFESSOR BORCHARD'S BIBLIOGRAPHY IN (1934) 20 A.B.A.J. 747,
748, AND THE COLLECTION OF AUTHORITIES IN JUDGE MACK'S OPINION IN THE
PESARO, 277 F. 473, REV'D, 271 U.S. 562. 

FN2  SEE THURSTON, GOVERNMENT PROPRIETARY CORPORATIONS; VAN DORN,
GOVERNMENT OWNED CORPORATIONS; MCDIARMID, GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND
FEDERAL FUNDS; FIELD, GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS:  A PROPOSAL (1935) 48
HARV. L. REV. 775; MCINTYRE, GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AS ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES:  AN APPROACH (1936) 4 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 161. 

FN3  THE AMERICAN LEGION, 41 STAT. 284, 285; FOREIGN BANKING
CORPORATIONS, 41 STAT. 378, 379; CHINA TRADE ACT CORPORATION, 42 STAT.
849, 851; BELLEAU WOOD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION, 42 STAT. 1441; FEDERAL
INTERMEDIATE CREDIT BANKS, 42 STAT. 1454, 1455; NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL
CREDIT CORPORATIONS, 42 STAT. 1454, 1462; THE GRAND ARMY OF THE
REPUBLIC, 43 STAT. 358, 359; INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION, 43 STAT.
360, 362; THE UNITED STATES BLIND VETERANS OF THE WORLD WAR, 43 STAT.
535, 536; AMERICAN WAR MOTHERS, 43 STAT. 966, 967; TEXTILE FOUNDATION,
46 STAT. 539, 540; RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, 47 STAT. 5, 6;
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS OF THE WORLD WAR, 47 STAT. 320, 321; FEDERAL
HOME LOAN BANK, 47 STAT. 725, 735; TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 48 STAT.
58, 60; CORPORATION OF FOREIGN SECURITY HOLDERS, 48 STAT. 92, 93; HOME
OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, 48 STAT. 128, 129; FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, 48 STAT. 162, 172; PRODUCTION CREDIT CORPORATIONS,
PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATIONS, CENTRAL BANK FOR COOPERATIVES, REGIONAL
BANKS FOR COOPERATIVES, 48 STAT. 257, 266; FEDERAL FARM MORTGAGE
CORPORATIONS, 48 STAT. 344, 345; CAIRO BRIDGE COMMISSION, 48 STAT. 577,
581; PORT ARTHUR BRIDGE COMMISSION, 48 STAT. 1008, 1009; FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, 48 STAT. 1216, 1218; FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN INSURANCE
CORPORATION, 48 STAT. 1246, 1256; NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATIONS, 48
STAT. 1246, 1253; AMERICAN NATIONAL THEATER AND ACADEMY, 49 STAT. 457,
458; FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATOR, 49 STAT. 684, 722; VETERANS OF
FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES, 49 STAT. 1390, 1391; DISASTER LOAN
CORPORATION, 50 STAT. 19; FARMERS' HOME CORPORATION, 50 STAT. 527;
MARINE CORPS LEAGUE, 50 STAT. 558, 559; OWENSBORO BRIDGE COMMISSION, 50
STAT. 641, 645; SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, 50 STAT. 697, 698; AMERICAN
CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 50 STAT. 798, 799, 800(SEMBLE); UNITED STATES HOUSING
AUTHORITY, 50 STAT. 888, 889, 890; FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION,
52 STAT. 72, 73; NIAGARA FALLS BRIDGE COMMISSION, 52 STAT. 767, 770. 

THIS LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE, OF COURSE, THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS
CHARTERED UNDER GENERAL STATE OR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INCORPORATION
LAWS.  SLOAN SHIPYARDS V. U.S. FLEET CORP., SUPRA. 

FN4  MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, ON CIRCUIT, GAVE PIONEER EXPRESSION TO
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM LEGISLATIVE POLICY.  "A STATUTE," HE WROTE
IN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 163 F. 30, 32(C.C.A. 1ST), "MAY INDICATE
OR REQUIRE AS ITS JUSTIFICATION A CHANGE IN THE POLICY OF THE LAW,
ALTHOUGH IT EXPRESSES THAT CHANGE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC CASES MOST
LIKELY TO OCCUR TO THE MIND.  THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE POWER TO DECIDE
WHAT THE POLICY OF THE LAW SHALL BE, AND IF IT HAS INTIMATED ITS WILL,
HOWEVER INDIRECTLY, THAT WILL SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND OBEYED.  THE
MAJOR PREMISE OF THE CONCLUSION EXPRESSED IN A STATUTE, THE CHANGE OF
POLICY THAT INDUCES THE ENACTMENT, MAY NOT BE SET OUT IN TERMS, BUT IT
IS NOT AN ADEQUATE DISCHARGE OF DUTY FOR COURTS TO SAY:  WE SEE WHAT
YOU ARE DRIVING AT, BUT YOU HAVE NOT SAID IT, AND THEREFORE WE SHALL GO
ON AS BEFORE."  SEE ALSO, TAFT, C.J., IN UNITED MINE WORKERS V.
CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344, 385-389; SUTHERLAND, J., IN FUNK V.
UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 371, 381; CARDOZO, J., IN VAN BEECK V. SABINE
TOWING CO., 300 U.S. 342, 350-351; LORD BIRKENHEAD, L.C., IN BOURNE V.
KEANE (1919) A.C. 815, 830; STONE, THE COMMON LAW IN THE UNITED STATES
(1936) 50 HARV. L. REV. 4, 13; LANDIS, STATUTES AND THE SOURCES OF LAW,
HARVARD LEGAL ESSAYS, P. 213. 

FN5  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE PROGENITOR OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS -
THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD - IS NOT ITSELF A CORPORATION.  BUT
SEE SLOAN SHIPYARDS V. U.S. FLEET CORP., SUPRA, IN WHICH THE FLEET
CORPORATION WAS FOUND SUBJECT TO SUIT ALTHOUGH CONGRESS AUTHORIZED ITS
CREATION THROUGH THE PRESIDENT. 

FN6  SECTION 201(E) OF THE STATUTE, PROVIDING FOR REGIONAL
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATIONS, COVERS LESS THAN HALF A PAGE OF A
FIFTEEN-PAGE STATUTE. 

FN7  SEE, E.G., FEDERAL LAND BANKS, 39 STAT. 360, 363; JOINT STOCK
LAND BANKS, 39 STAT. 360, 374; FEDERAL INTERMEDIATE CREDIT BANKS, 42
STAT. 1454, 1455; NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATIONS, 42 STAT.
1454, 1462; PRODUCTION CREDIT CORPORATIONS, PRODUCTION CREDIT
ASSOCIATIONS, CENTRAL BANK FOR COOPERATIVES, REGIONAL BANKS FOR
COOPERATIVES, 48 STAT. 257, 266; FEDERAL FARM MORTGAGE CORPORATIONS, 48
STAT. 344, 345; NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATIONS, 48 STAT. 1246, 1253. 
CONGRESS ITSELF RECOGNIZED THE IDENTITY OF PURPOSE IN THESE VARIOUS
CORPORATIONS.  48 STAT. 267, 268.  NOTE, TOO, THAT PRODUCTION CREDIT
CORPORATIONS, SUCCESSORS TO REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATIONS
ARE SUBJECT TO SUIT.  48 STAT. 257, 266. 

FN8  THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 24, 1855(10 STAT. 612), ESTABLISHING THE
COURT OF CLAIMS ALLOWED SUIT FOR CLAIMS "UPON ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED  ...  "  THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887(24 STAT. 505) ALLOWED SUITS
FOR CLAIMS "UPON ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED  ...  OR FOR DAMAGES,
LIQUIDATED OR UNLIQUIDATED, IN CASES NOT SOUNDING IN TORT.   ...  "
SEE 28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(20), 250(1). 

FN9  THE CASES ARE COLLECTED IN THURSTON, GOVERNMENT PROPRIETARY
CORPORATIONS (1935) 21 VA. L. REV. 351, 378, ET SEQ. 

FN10  THAT OBJECTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEATURES OF THE BILL WERE
THE PROBABLE REASONS FOR THE VETO IS INDICATED BY A MEMORANDUM OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL SARGENT, FOR WHICH SEE MCGUIRE, TORT CLAIMS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES (1931) 19 GEO. L.J. 133, 134, 135. 
..END :
























PUB. SERV. COMM'N V. BRASHEAR LINES, 306 U.S. 204 


NO. 605.  DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 1939. 


UNDER JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 266, 28 U.S.C. 380, APPEAL DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES IS LIMITED TO DECREES
GRANTING OR DENYING INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS; THIS COURT
HAS NO JURISDICTION OF AN APPEAL TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION BY A
DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM AN INJUNCTION WAS DENIED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REVIEWING THE DISMISSAL BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF A COUNTERCLAIM FOR
MONEY PLEADED IN THE ANSWER.  P. 206. 

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL. V. BRASHEAR FREIGHT LINES, INC., ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

PER CURIAM. 

APPELLEES, BRASHEAR FREIGHT LINES, INC., AND OTHERS, COMMON CARRIERS
OF PROPERTY FOR HIRE BY MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OVER THE HIGHWAYS OF MISSOURI AND OTHER STATES, BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO
RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE OF MISSOURI KNOWN AS THE
MISSOURI BUS AND TRUCK ACT, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 1931. 

AS AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT, A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER WAS ISSUED AND A COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS CONVENED PURSUANT TO
SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  28 U.S.C. 380.  IT WAS LATER AGREED
"THAT THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL
FINAL DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE RELIEF ASKED IN THE PLAINTIFFS'
BILL OF COMPLAINT AND THAT HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION FOR A
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED." 

DEFENDANTS, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI AND SEVERAL STATE
OFFICERS, IN THEIR ANSWER INCLUDED A COUNTERCLAIM OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION SEEKING AN ACCOUNTING FROM PLAINTIFFS FOR FEES DUE TO THE
STATE UNDER THE ABOVE MENTIONED ACT FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS
DURING THE TIME THAT THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS IN EFFECT. 
UPON STIPULATION, THE RESTRAINING ORDER WAS MODIFIED SO AS TO PROVIDE
FOR DEPOSIT OF LICENSE FEES WITH A TRUSTEE PENDING THE TERMINATION OF
THE LITIGATION. 

ON HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ITS FINAL DECREE AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  THAT THE PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS; 

"2.  THAT THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN PLAINTIFFS' BILL OF COMPLAINT
SHOULD BE AND IS HEREBY IN ALL RESPECTS DENIED, AND PLAINTIFFS' BILL OF
COMPLAINT IS HEREBY DISMISSED ON ITS MERITS; 

"3.  THAT THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER HERETOFORE GRANTED TO
PLAINTIFFS BY THIS COURT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS, BE AND THE SAME HEREBY
IS DISSOLVED; 

"4.  THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM, NOT
HAVING BEEN URGED NOR PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES, AND THE COURT BEING IN
DOUBT AS TO THE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANTS TO MAINTAIN SUCH COUNTERCLAIM,
IT IS ORDERED THAT THE SAME BE AND IT HEREBY IS DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANTS, OR EITHER OF THEM, TO
MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENT ACTION OR SUIT THEREON, IF THEY, OR EITHER OF
THEM, SHALL BE SO ADVISED; 

"5. THAT DEFENDANTS RECOVER THEIR COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS HEREIN, TO
BE TAXED AS PROVIDED BY LAW AND INSERTED HEREIN IN THE SUM OF  ...
DOLLARS." 

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING, PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE DECREE WAS MODIFIED BY
STRIKING OUT THE FOLLOWING WORDS RELATING TO THE DEFENDANTS'
COUNTERCLAIM, TO WIT, "NOT HAVING BEEN URGED NOR PRESENTED BY THE
PARTIES," AND REHEARING WAS DENIED. 

THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION BRINGS THIS APPEAL SEEKING TO REVIEW
PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE DECREE, AS AMENDED, DISMISSING THE COUNTERCLAIM. 

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM A
FINAL DECREE BY A DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES UNDER SEC.
266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE IS STRICTLY LIMITED AS FOLLOWS: 

"A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT MAY BE TAKEN FROM A FINAL
DECREE GRANTING OR DENYING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN SUCH SUIT." 

THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AS THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY BELOW HAS NO
STANDING TO APPEAL FROM THE DECREE DENYING THE INJUNCTION.  NEW YORK
TELEPHONE CO. V. MALTBIE, 291 U.S. 645; LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS
TELEPHONE CO., 292 U.S. 151, 176.  AND AS NO APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN TO
REVIEW THE DECREE DENYING THE INJUNCTION, THIS COURT IS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION. 

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED OR DENIED AND THE PURPOSE WAS TO
MAKE INTERFERENCE BY SUCH AN INJUNCTION WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
LEGISLATION A MATTER FOR THE ADEQUATE HEARING AND FULL DELIBERATION
WHICH THE PRESENCE OF THREE JUDGES WAS LIKELY TO SECURE.  CUMBERLAND
TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 260 U.S. 212, 216; STRATTON V.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 282 U.S. 10, 14.  THE AMENDMENT THAT
THE REQUIREMENT OF A COURT OF THREE JUDGES SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE
FINAL HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION WAS TO END
THE ANOMALOUS SITUATION IN WHICH A SINGLE JUDGE MIGHT RECONSIDER AND
DECIDE QUESTIONS ALREADY PASSED UPON BY THREE JUDGES ON THE APPLICATION
FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  SMITH V. WILSON, 273 U.S. 388, 390,
391; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., SUPRA.  AND, AS DIRECT
APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS PERMITTED FROM AN ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, THE AMENDMENT PROVIDED ALSO FOR SUCH A DIRECT
APPEAL FROM A FINAL DECREE GRANTING OR DENYING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION. 

IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT, UNLESS THERE IS A PROPER APPEAL FROM A
DECREE GRANTING OR DENYING AN INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
THE PROVISION IN SEC. 266 FOR A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT HAS NO
APPLICATION.  THE APPEAL DISMISSED. 
..END :






INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. U.S., 306 U.S. 208 


NO. 269.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 13, 1939.  - 20
F.SUPP.  868, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE DISTRIBUTORS OF MOTION PICTURE FILMS, OWNING OR CONTROLLING
THE COPYRIGHTS AND ENGAGED, INTERSTATE, IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING
THE FILMS TO THEATERS FOR EXHIBITION UNDER LICENSE CONTRACTS, JOIN IN
MAKING AND CARRYING OUT AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS OF THE THEATERS IN
CERTAIN CITIES TO WHOM THEIR LICENSES FOR FIRST RUN EXHIBITIONS OF
"FEATURE" PICTURES IN THOSE CITIES ARE CONFINED, WHEREBY THE
DISTRIBUTORS, IN GRANTING LICENSES TO OTHER THEATERS IN THE SAME PLACES
FOR SUBSEQUENT RUNS OF SUCH FILMS REQUIRE OF THEM THAT THEY OBSERVE A
MINIMUM PRICE OF ADMISSION AND ABSTAIN FROM PRESENTING A PICTURE SO
LICENSED WITH ANY OTHER FEATURE PICTURE AT THE SAME SHOW,  - THE
PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS BEING TO MAINTAIN THE HIGHER
PRICES OF THE FIRST RUN THEATERS AND PROTECT THEM FROM THE COMPETITION
OF THE OTHERS,  - SUCH AGREEMENT IS AN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND CONTRARY TO THE FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST ACT.  PP.
221, 232. 

2.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SUPPORTED THE INFERENCE THAT THE
DISTRIBUTORS OF THE FILMS ACTED IN CONCERT, IN MAKING THEIR SEVERAL
AGREEMENTS WITH THE FIRST RUN EXHIBITORS, AND IN IMPOSING THE
RESTRICTIONS SO STIPULATED ON THE SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITORS.  P. 221. 

3.  UPON THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH PROOF, THE BURDEN RESTED UPON THOSE
IMPLICATED TO EXPLAIN AWAY OR CONTRADICT IT.  P. 225. 

4.  THE PRODUCTION OF WEAK EVIDENCE WHEN STRONG IS AVAILABLE LEADS TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE STRONG WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVERSE.  SILENCE THEN
BECOMES EVIDENCE OF THE MOST CONVINCING CHARACTER.  P. 226. 

5.  ACCEPTANCE BY COMPETITORS, KNOWING THAT CONCERTED ACTION IS
CONTEMPLATED, OF AN INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN, THE NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH, IF CARRIED OUT, IS RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT.  P. 227. 

6.  A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OF MOTION PICTURE FILMS
AND THE OWNER OF MOTION PICTURE THEATERS, RESTRAINING THE COMPETITIVE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE FILMS IN THE OPEN MARKET IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
THEATER OWNER FROM COMPETITION OF OTHER THEATERS IS NOT PROTECTED BY
THE COPYRIGHT ACT.  P. 227. 

7.  THE OWNER OF THOSE MOTION PICTURE THEATERS IN SEVERAL CITIES IN
WHICH THE FIRST RUNS OF COPYRIGHTED "FEATURE" PICTURES WERE EXHIBTED,
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ITS MONOPOLY, SECURED FROM EACH OF SEVERAL
COPYRIGHT OWNERS WHO DISTRIBUTED SUCH FILMS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AN
AGREEMENT BINDING THE DISTRIBUTOR WHEN LICENSING SUBSEQUENT RUNS OF HIS
FILMS AT OTHER THEATERS IN THOSE CITIES TO REQUIRE THE LICENSEE TO
OBSERVE A CERTAIN MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICE AND TO ABSTAIN FROM
EXHIBITING THE PICTURE IN A DOUBLE BILL WITH ANY OTHER "FEATURE" FILM. 
THE PURPOSE OF THE ARRANGEMENT WAS TO PROTECT THE OWNER OF THE FIRST
RUN THEATERS FROM COMPETITION OF SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATERS, AND ITS
EFFECT WAS TO IMPOSE UNDUE RESTRAINTS UPON COMPETING THEATER BUSINESSES
HABITUALLY EXHIBITING THE COMPETITIVE PICTURES OF DIFFERENT COPYRIGHT
OWNERS, AND TO ENABLE THE FAVORED THEATER OWNER TO DOMINATE THE
BUSINESS OF HIS COMPETITORS.  HELD:  THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE NOT
PROTECTED BY THE COPYRIGHT ACT, AND THAT, ASIDE FROM ANY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE DISTRIBUTORS THEMSELVES, THEY WERE CONTRARY TO THE ANTI
TRUST ACT.  P. 230. 

INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 270, PARAMOUNT PICTURES DISTRIBUTING CO. ET AL. V.
UNITED STATES, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEALS FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDING AN INJUNCTION IN
A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT. 

A LICENSEE OF THE FIRST RUN EXHIBITION OF A COPYRIGHTED MOTION
PICTURE PHOTOPLAY HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO OBTAIN FROM THE LICENSOR A
COVENANT THAT THE RIGHT SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY A SUBSEQUENT
EXHIBITION OF THE PHOTOPLAY AT AN ADMISSION PRICE OF LESS THAN 25[ OR
AS PART OF A DOUBLE FEATURE PROGRAM. 

A DISTRIBUTOR, THE OWNER OF A COPYRIGHTED MOTION PICTURE PHOTOPLAY,
ACTING INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY OTHER DISTRIBUTOR, HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO
AGREE WITH A FIRST RUN EXHIBITOR TO INCLUDE EITHER OR BOTH OF THE
RESTRICTIONS HERE IN QUESTION IN SUBSEQUENT RUN LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER D. CORP. V. BIJOU THEATRE CO., 59 F.2D 70; MANNERS
V. MOROSCO, 252 U.S. 317; BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 180 U.S. 70;
UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476; CARBICE
CORPORATION V. AMERICAN PATENTS DEVELOPMENT CORP., 283 U.S. 27;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163; GENERAL TALKING
PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO., 305 U.S. 124. 

THE RIGHT OF THE OWNER OF A PATENT OR A COPYRIGHT IS TO EXCLUDE ALL
FROM EXERCISING HIS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS, AND HE MAY SELECT HIS LICENSEES
AT WILL, PREFERRING THE LARGE OR THE SMALL BUSINESS UNITS AND GRANTING
HIS MONOPOLY TO ONE OR MORE AS HE WISHES, AND FOR HIS OWN REASONS,
WHICH NO DOUBT UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WILL BE DICTATED BY HIS
DESIRE FOR PROFIT IN THE FORM OF ROYALTIES.  AMERICAN EQUIPMENT CO. V.
TUTHILL, 69 F.2D 406.  HE MAY IMPOSE ANY CONDITIONS REASONABLY ADAPTED
TO THE REALIZATION OF THE VALUE OF HIS MONOPOLY, AS, FOR INSTANCE, BY
FIXING THE PRICE AT WHICH THE LICENSEE MAY SELL UNPATENTED ARTICLES
MANUFACTURED UNDER LICENSE BY PATENTED MACHINERY (STRAIGHT SIDE BASKET
CORP. V. WEBSTER BASKET CO., 82 F.2D 245; MURPHY V. CHRISTIAN PRESS
ASSN. PUB. CO., 38 APP. DIV. 426), AND BY DICTATING THE CUSTOMERS TO
WHOM ARTICLES MAY BE SOLD BY THE LICENSEE.  BECTON, DICKINSON & CO. V.
EISELE & CO., 86 F.2D 267.  HE MAY ALSO LICENSE THE PUBLIC PERFORMANCE
OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS TO SOME LICENSEES ON MORE FAVORABLE TERMS THAN TO
OTHERS.  BUCK V. HILLSGROVE COUNTRY CLUB, 17 F.SUPP.  643.  HE IS NOT
REQUIRED TO GIVE REASONS OR DEAL FAIRLY WITH THOSE SEEKING TO SHARE IN
HIS MONOPOLY.  VICTOR TALKING MACH. CO. V. THE FAIR, 123 FED. 424; DR.
MILES MEDICAL CO. V. PLATT, 142 FED. 606. 

OF COURSE, THE PROTECTION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF TRADE IMPOSED PURSUANT TO A COMBINATION,
AGREEMENT OR CONSPIRACY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE COPYRIGHT OWNERS WHO HAVE
COMBINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MONOPOLY OR RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  STRAUS V.
AMERICAN PUBLISHERS' ASSN., 231 U.S. 222; PARAMOUNT FAMOUS CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30.  BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PRIOR
AGREEMENT, COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY, THE OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHT HAS AN
ABSOLUTE MONOPOLY WITHIN THE FIELD OF HIS COPYRIGHT. 

THE SPECIFIC CONTRACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE AT BAR WERE CONSIDERED
AND UPHELD BY THE APPELLATE COURT OF TEXAS IN GLASS V. HOBLITZELLE, 83
S.W.2D 796.  THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED ARE SETTLED LAW IN TEXAS WITH
REGARD TO PURELY INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS.  COCA-COLA CO. V. STATE, 225
S.W. 791.  SEE SHUBERT THEATRE PLAYERS CO. V. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER
DISTRIBUTING CORP., UNREPORTED, JAN. 30, 1936(D. MINN.). 

EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN NO COPYRIGHT, THE AGREEMENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL
DISTRIBUTORS WOULD STILL BE VALID.  A CONTRACT CONTAINING A COVENANT IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE IS NONETHELESS VALID IF THE RESTRAINT IS REASONABLY
NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT GRANTED BY THE CONTRACT. 
CINCINNATI PACKET CO. V. BAY, 200 U.S. 179; OREGON STEAM NAVIGATION CO.
V. WINSOR, 20 WALL.  67; UNITED STATES V. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO., 85
F. 271; ALLISON V. SEIGLE, 79 F.2D 170; A. BOOTH & CO. V. DAVIS, 127 F.
875. 

SEE FOWL V. PARK, 131 U.S. 88; OREGON STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V. WINSOR,
SUPRA; MOORE V. NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE, 270 U.S. 593; UNITED STATES
V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476; BOARD OF TRADE V. CHRISTIE GRAIN
& STOCK CO., 198 U.S. 236, 250, 252. 

THE PROTECTION GIVEN BY THE LAW TO THE COPYRIGHT OWNER IS STILL
GREATER.  APART FROM AGREEMENTS TO IMPOSE RESTRAINTS UNRELATED TO THE
REWARD OF THE STATUTORY MONOPOLY, OR TO MONOPOLIZE TRADE IN ARTICLES
NOT COVERED BY THE STATUTORY MONOPOLY, A COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR IN
GRANTING AN EXHIBITION RIGHT MAY BIND AND RESTRAIN HIMSELF BY ANY
COVENANT WHICH HAS REASONABLE RELATION TO THE REWARD OF THE COPYRIGHT
OR THE PROTECTION OF THE GRANTED RIGHT EVEN THOUGH SUCH COVENANTS
DIRECTLY RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT HAS
NO APPLICATION TO SUCH RESTRAINTS, WHICH UNDER ALL THE AUTHORITIES ARE
WITHIN THE STATUTORY MONOPOLY OF THE COPYRIGHT. 

THE DECREE MUST BE REVERSED IN SO FAR AS IT ENJOINS SEPARATE
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EACH OF THE EXHIBITOR DEFENDANTS AND EACH OF THE
DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS, NOT ACTING IN CONCERT WITH ANY OTHER
DISTRIBUTORS, TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THEIR MUTUAL INTERESTS IN THE COPYRIGHT REWARD. 

THE COURT'S INFERENCE THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS AGREED AND
CONSPIRED AMONG THEMSELVES TO TAKE UNIFORM ACTION ON THE PROPOSALS MADE
BY INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, AND TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS REQUESTED BY
INTERSTATE, IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE PRECEDING FINDINGS UPON WHICH IT IS
EXPRESSLY PREDICATED, AND IS CONTRARY TO THE STIPULATED FACTS AND THE
UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE. 

IN ORDER TO MAKE OUT UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY SOMETHING MORE THAN MERE
UNIFORMITY OF ACTION MUST BE SHOWN.  FREY & SON V. CUDAHY PACKING CO.,
256 U.S. 208.  TO WARRANT THE INJUNCTION INVALIDATING SUCH
TRANSACTIONS, THERE MUST BE A "DEFINITE FACTUAL SHOWING OF ILLEGALITY,"
I.E., A CLEAR PURPOSE TO MONOPOLIZE OR RESTRAIN TRADE.  STANDARD OIL
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 179.  FROM THE PLURALITY AND
SIMILARITY OF SUCH LAWFUL ACTS UNLAWFUL COMBINATION MAY NOT BE
INFERRED.  TERMINAL WAREHOUSE V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 297 U.S. 500,
516. 

IF ONE WOULD INFER CONSPIRACY FROM SIMILARITY OF LAWFUL ACTS THERE
MUST BE ACCURACY IN STATEMENT OF THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE INFERENCE IS
PREDICATED, AND IF THE INFERENCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE FACTS
ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES IT MUST BE REJECTED.  HACKFELD
& CO. V. UNITED STATES, 197 U.S. 442; KINGS COUNTY LIGHTING CO. V.
NIXON, 268 FED. 143, 149, AFFIRMED, 258 U.S. 180. 

THE BURDEN UPON A PLAINTIFF TO PROVE HIS CASE BY SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE
CAN NOT BE MET BY FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO CALL WITNESSES.  AS THIS
COURT STATED IN THE CASE OF NORTHERN RY. CO. V. PAGE, 274 U.S. 65, 74,
THE FAILURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO CALL A WITNESS CAN NOT BE "TAKEN AS
SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE OF ANY FACT."  SEE ALSO MAMMOTH OIL CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 275 U.S. 13, 52. 

THE RESTRICTIONS IN QUESTION DO NOT UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN TRADE OR
COMMERCE.  APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344, 359;
NASH V. UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 376; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V.
UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 231, 238. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11,
1903, 32 STAT. 823, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 29, AND SEC. 238 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, 43 STAT. 936, 938, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 345, FROM A FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN
TEXAS RESTRAINING APPELLANTS FROM CONTINUING IN A COMBINATION AND
CONSPIRACY CONDEMNED BY THE COURT AS A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF THE
SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, 26 STAT. 209, 15 U.S.C. SEC. 1, AND FROM
ENFORCING OR RENEWING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOUND BY THE COURT TO HAVE BEEN
ENTERED INTO IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY.  20 F.SUPP.  868.  UPON A
PREVIOUS APPEAL THIS COURT SET ASIDE THE DECREE AND REMANDED THE CAUSE
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO
STATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS REQUIRED BY EQUITY
RULE 70 1/2.  304 U.S. 55.  THE CASE IS NOW BEFORE US ON FINDINGS OF
THE DISTRICT COURT SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT APPELLANTS DID IN FACT
AGREE WITH EACH OTHER TO ENTER INTO AND CARRY OUT THE CONTRACTS, WHICH
THE COURT FOUND TO RESULT IN UNREASONABLE AND THEREFORE UNLAWFUL
RESTRAINTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

APPELLANTS COMPRISE THE TWO GROUPS OF DEFENDANTS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT.  THE MEMBERS OF ONE GROUP OF EIGHT CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE
DISTRIBUTORS OF MOTION PICTURE FILMS, AND THE TEXAS AGENTS OF TWO OF
THEM, ARE APPELLANTS IN NO. 270.  THE OTHER GROUP, CORPORATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN EXHIBITING MOTION PICTURES IN TEXAS, AND SOME OF
THEM IN NEW MEXICO, APPEALS IN NO. 269.  THE DISTRIBUTOR APPELLANTS ARE
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MOTION
PICTURE FILMS, COPYRIGHTS ON WHICH THEY OWN OR CONTROL, FOR EXHIBITION
IN THEATRES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  THEY DISTRIBUTE ABOUT 75 PER
CENT. OF ALL FIRST-CLASS FEATURE FILMS EXHIBITED IN THE UNITED STATES. 
THEY SOLICIT FROM MOTION PICTURE THEATRE OWNERS AND MANAGERS IN TEXAS
AND OTHER STATES APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES TO EXHIBIT FILMS, AND
FORWARD THE APPLICATIONS, WHEN RECEIVED FROM SUCH EXHIBITORS, TO THEIR
RESPECTIVE NEW YORK OFFICES, WHERE THEY ARE ACCEPTED OR REJECTED.  IF
THE APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED, THE DISTRIBUTORS SHIP THE FILMS FROM
POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATES OF EXHIBITION TO THEIR EXCHANGES WITHIN THOSE
STATES, FROM WHICH, PURSUANT TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENTS, THE FILMS ARE
DELIVERED TO THE LOCAL THEATRES FOR EXHIBITION.  AFTER EXHIBITION THE
FILMS ARE RESHIPPED TO THE DISTRIBUTORS AT POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

THE EXHIBITOR GROUP OF APPELLANTS CONSISTS OF INTERSTATE CIRCUIT,
INC., AND TEXAS CONSOLIDATED THEATRES, INC., AND HOBLITZELLE AND
O'DONNELL, WHO ARE RESPECTIVELY PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF BOTH
AND IN ACTIVE CHARGE OF THEIR BUSINESS OPERATIONS.  THE TWO
CORPORATIONS ARE AFFILIATED WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH PARAMOUNT PICTURES
DISTRIBUTING CO., INC., ONE OF THE DISTRIBUTOR APPELLANTS. 

INTERSTATE OPERATES FORTY-THREE FIRST-RUN AND SECOND-RUN MOTION
PICTURE THEATRES, LOCATED IN SIX TEXAS CITIES.  FN1  IT HAS A COMPLETE
MONOPOLY OF FIRST-RUN THEATRES IN THESE CITIES, EXCEPT FOR ONE IN
HOUSTON OPERATED BY ONE DISTRIBUTOR'S TEXAS AGENT.  IN MOST OF THESE
THEATRES THE ADMISSION PRICE FOR ADULTS FOR THE BETTER SEATS AT NIGHT
IS 40 CENTS OR MORE.  INTERSTATE ALSO OPERATES SEVERAL SUBSEQUENT-RUN
THEATRES IN EACH OF THESE CITIES, TWENTY-TWO IN ALL, BUT IN ALL BUT
GALVESTON THERE ARE OTHER SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES WHICH COMPETE WITH
BOTH ITS FIRST- AND SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES IN THOSE CITIES. 

TEXAS CONSOLIDATED OPERATES SIXTY-SIX THEATRES, SOME FIRST- AND SOME
SUBSEQUENT-RUN HOUSES, IN VARIOUS CITIES AND TOWNS IN THE RIO GRANDE
VALLEY AND ELSEWHERE IN TEXAS AND IN NEW MEXICO.  IN SOME OF THESE
CITIES THERE ARE NO COMPETING THEATRES, AND IN SIX LEADING CITIES THERE
ARE NO COMPETING FIRST-RUN THEATRES.  IT HAS NO THEATRES IN THE SIX
TEXAS CITIES IN WHICH INTERSTATE OPERATES.  THAT INTERSTATE AND TEXAS
CONSOLIDATED DOMINATE THE MOTION PICTURE BUSINESS IN THE CITIES WHERE
THEIR THEATRES ARE LOCATED IS INDICATED BY THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF
THE CONTRACTS IN QUESTION INTERSTATE AND CONSOLIDATED EACH CONTRIBUTED
MORE THAN 74 PER CENT. OF ALL THE LICENSE FEES PAID BY THE MOTION
PICTURE THEATRES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES TO THE DISTRIBUTOR
APPELLANTS.  FN2 

ON JULY 11, 1934, FOLLOWING A PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION ON THE SUBJECT
TO THE EIGHT BRANCH MANAGERS OF THE DISTRIBUTOR APPELLANTS, O'DONNELL,
THE MANAGER OF INTERSTATE AND CONSOLIDATED, SENT TO EACH OF THEM A
LETTER  FN3  ON THE LETTERHEAD OF INTERSTATE, EACH LETTER NAMING ALL OF
THEM AS ADDRESSEES, IN WHICH HE ASKED COMPLIANCE WITH TWO DEMANDS AS A
CONDITION OF INTERSTATE'S CONTINUED EXHIBITION OF THE DISTRIBUTORS'
FILMS IN ITS 'A' OR FIRST-RUN THEATRES AT A NIGHT ADMISSION OF 40 CENTS
OR MORE.  FN4  ONE DEMAND WAS THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS "AGREE THAT IN
SELLING THEIR PRODUCT TO SUBSEQUENT RUNS, THAT THIS 'A' PRODUCT WILL
NEVER BE EXHIBITED AT ANY TIME OR IN ANY THEATRE AT A SMALLER ADMISSION
PRICE THAN 25[ FOR ADULTS IN THE EVENING."  THE OTHER WAS THAT "ON 'A'
PICTURES WHICH ARE EXHIBITED AT A NIGHT ADMISSION OF 40[ OR MORE - THEY
SHALL NEVER BE EXHIBITED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANOTHER FEATURE PICTURE
UNDER THE SO-CALLED POLICY OF DOUBLE FEATURES."  THE LETTER ADDED THAT
WITH RESPECT TO THE "RIO GRANDE VALLEY SITUATION," WITH WHICH
CONSOLIDATED ALONE WAS CONCERNED, "WE MUST INSIST THAT ALL PICTURES
EXHIBITED IN OUR 'A' THEATRES AT A MAXIMUM NIGHT ADMISSION PRICE OF 35[
MUST ALSO BE RESTRICTED TO SUBSEQUENT RUNS IN THE VALLEY AT 25[." 

THE ADMISSION PRICE CUSTOMARILY CHARGED FOR PREFERRED SEATS AT NIGHT
IN INDEPENDENTLY OPERATED SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES IN TEXAS AT THE TIME
OF THESE LETTERS WAS LESS THAN 25 CENTS.  IN SEVENTEEN OF THE EIGHTEEN
INDEPENDENT THEATRES OF THIS KIND WHOSE OPERATIONS WERE DESCRIBED BY
WITNESSES THE ADMISSION PRICE WAS LESS THAN 25 CENTS.  IN ONE ONLY WAS
IT 25 CENTS.  IN MOST OF THEM THE ADMISSION WAS 15 CENTS OR LESS.  IT
WAS ALSO THE GENERAL PRACTICE IN THOSE THEATRES TO PROVIDE DOUBLE BILLS
EITHER ON CERTAIN DAYS OF THE WEEK OR WITH ANY FEATURE PICTURE WHICH
WAS WEAK IN DRAWING POWER.  THE DISTRIBUTOR APPELLANTS HAD GENERALLY
PROVIDED IN THEIR LICENSE CONTRACTS FOR A MINIMUM ADMISSION PRICE OF 10
OR 15 CENTS, AND THREE OF THEM HAD INCLUDED PROVISIONS RESTRICTING
DOUBLEBILLING.  BUT NONE WAS AT ANY TIME PREVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO
CONTRACTUAL COMPULSION TO CONTINUE THE RESTRICTIONS.  THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS CONSTITUTED AN IMPORTANT DEPARTURE
FROM PRIOR PRACTICE. 

THE LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DISTRIBUTORS, HAVING NO AUTHORITY TO
ENTER INTO THE PROPOSED AGREEMENTS, COMMUNICATED THE PROPOSAL TO THEIR
HOME OFFICES.  CONFERENCES FOLLOWED BETWEEN HOBLITZELLE AND O'DONNELL,
ACTING FOR INTERSTATE AND CONSOLIDATED, AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
VARIOUS DISTRIBUTORS.  IN THESE CONFERENCES EACH DISTRIBUTOR WAS
REPRESENTED BY ITS LOCAL BRANCH MANAGER AND BY ONE OR MORE SUPERIOR
OFFICIALS FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE OF TEXAS.  IN THE COURSE OF THEM EACH
DISTRIBUTOR AGREED WITH INTERSTATE FOR THE 1934-35 SEASON TO IMPOSE
BOTH THE DEMANDED RESTRICTIONS UPON THEIR SUBSEQUENT-RUN LICENSEES IN
THE SIX TEXAS CITIES SERVED BY INTERSTATE, EXCEPT AUSTIN AND
GALVESTON.  WHILE ONLY TWO OF THE DISTRIBUTORS INCORPORATED THE
AGREEMENT TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS IN THEIR LICENSE CONTRACTS WITH
INTERSTATE, THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES, AND IT IS NOT DENIED, THAT ALL
JOINED IN THE AGREEMENT, FOUR OF THEM AFTER SOME DELAY IN NEGOTIATING
TERMS OTHER THAN THE RESTRICTIONS AND NOT NOW MATERIAL.  THESE
AGREEMENTS FOR THE RESTRICTIONS - WITH THE IMMATERIAL EXCEPTIONS NOTED
FN5  - WERE CARRIED INTO EFFECT BY EACH OF THE DISTRIBUTORS' IMPOSING
THEM ON THEIR SUBSEQUENT-RUN LICENSEES IN THE FOUR TEXAS CITIES DURING
THE 1934-35 SEASON.  ONE AGREEMENT, THAT OF METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER
DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION, WAS FOR THREE YEARS.  THE OTHERS WERE RENEWED
IN THE TWO FOLLOWING SEASONS AND ALL WERE IN FORCE WHEN THE PRESENT
SUIT WAS BEGUN. 

NONE OF THE DISTRIBUTORS YIELDED TO THE DEMAND THAT SUBSEQUENT RUNS
IN TOWNS IN THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY SERVED BY CONSOLIDATED SHOULD BE
RESTRICTED.  ONE DISTRIBUTOR, PARAMOUNT, WHICH WAS AFFILIATED WITH
CONSOLIDATED, AGREED TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS IN CERTAIN OTHER TEXAS
AND NEW MEXICO CITIES. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR APPELLANTS AGREED AND
CONSPIRED AMONG THEMSELVES TO TAKE UNIFORM ACTION UPON THE PROPOSALS
MADE BY INTERSTATE, AND THAT THEY AGREED AND CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER
AND WITH INTERSTATE TO IMPOSE THE DEMANDED RESTRICTIONS UPON ALL
SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITORS IN DALLAS, FORT WORTH, HOUSTON AND SAN
ANTONIO; THAT THEY CARRIED OUT THE AGREEMENT BY IMPOSING THE
RESTRICTIONS UPON THEIR SUBSEQUENT-RUN LICENSEES IN THOSE CITIES,
CAUSING SOME OF THEM TO INCREASE THEIR ADMISSION PRICE TO 25 CENTS,
EITHER GENERALLY OR WHEN RESTRICTED PICTURES WERE SHOWN, AND TO ABANDON
DOUBLEBILLING OF ALL SUCH PICTURES, AND CAUSING THE OTHER SUBSEQUENT
RUN EXHIBITORS, WHO WERE EITHER UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO ACCEPT THE
RESTRICTIONS, TO BE DEPRIVED OF ANY OPPORTUNITY TO EXHIBIT THE
RESTRICTED PICTURES, WHICH WERE THE BEST AND MOST POPULAR OF ALL NEW
FEATURE PICTURES; THAT THE EFFECT OF THE RESTRICTIONS UPON "LOW-INCOME
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY" PATRONIZING THE THEATRES OF THESE EXHIBITORS
WAS TO WITHHOLD FROM THEM ALTOGETHER THE "BEST ENTERTAINMENT FURNISHED
BY THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY"; AND THAT THE RESTRICTIONS OPERATED TO
INCREASE THE INCOME OF THE DISTRIBUTORS AND OF INTERSTATE AND TO
DEFLECT ATTENDANCE FROM LATER-RUN EXHIBITORS WHO YIELDED TO THE
RESTRICTIONS TO THE FIRST-RUN THEATRES OF INTERSTATE. 

THE COURT CONCLUDED AS MATTERS OF LAW THAT THE AGREEMENT OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS WITH EACH OTHER AND THOSE WITH INTERSTATE TO IMPOSE THE
RESTRICTIONS UPON SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITORS AND THE CARRYING OF THE
AGREEMENTS INTO EFFECT, WITH THE AID AND PARTICIPATION OF HOBLITZELLE
AND O'DONNELL, CONSTITUTED A COMBINATION AND CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  IT ALSO CONCLUDED
THAT EACH SEPARATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND A DISTRIBUTOR THAT
INTERSTATE SHOULD SUBJECT ITSELF TO THE RESTRICTIONS IN ITS SUBSEQUENT
RUN THEATRES AND THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS SHOULD IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS
ON ALL SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES IN THE TEXAS CITIES AS A CONDITION OF
SUPPLYING THEM WITH ITS FEATURE PICTURES, WAS LIKEWISE A VIOLATION OF
THE ACT. 

IT ACCORDINGLY ENJOINED THE CONSPIRACY AND RESTRAINED THE
DISTRIBUTORS FROM ENFORCING THE RESTRICTIONS IN THEIR LICENSE
AGREEMENTS WITH SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITORS  FN6  AND FROM ENFORCING THE
CONTRACTS OR ANY OF THEM.  THIS INCLUDED BOTH THE CONTRACTS OF
INTERSTATE WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS AND THE CONTRACT BETWEEN CONSOLIDATED
AND PARAMOUNT, WHEREBY THE LATTER AGREED TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS
UPON SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES IN TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO SERVED BY IT. 

APPELLANTS ASSAIL THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THREE
PRINCIPAL GROUNDS:  (A) THAT THE FINDING OF AGREEMENT AND CONSPIRACY
AMONG THE DISTRIBUTOR APPELLANTS TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS UPON LATER
RUN EXHIBITORS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE COURT'S SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS OR
BY THE EVIDENCE; (B) THAT THE SEVERAL SEPARATE CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO
BY INTERSTATE WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS ARE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE
COPYRIGHT ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ARE NOT VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT;
AND (C) THAT THE RESTRICTIONS DO NOT UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT. 

THE AGREEMENT AMONG THE DISTRIBUTORS. 

ALTHOUGH THE FILMS WERE COPYRIGHTED, APPELLANTS DO NOT DENY THAT THE
CONSPIRACY CHARGE IS ESTABLISHED IF THE DISTRIBUTORS AGREED AMONG
THEMSELVES TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS UPON SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITORS. 
STRAUS V. AMERICAN PUBLISHERS' ASSN., 231 U.S. 222; PARAMOUNT FAMOUS
LASKY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30.  AS IS USUAL IN CASES OF
ALLEGED UNLAWFUL AGREEMENTS TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE, THE GOVERNMENT IS
WITHOUT THE AID OF DIRECT TESTIMONY THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS ENTERED INTO
ANY AGREEMENT WITH EACH OTHER TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS UPON
SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITORS.  IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH AGREEMENT IT IS
COMPELLED TO RELY ON INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THE COURSE OF CONDUCT OF THE
ALLEGED CONSPIRATORS. 

THE TRIAL COURT DREW THE INFERENCE OF AGREEMENT FROM THE NATURE OF
THE PROPOSALS MADE ON BEHALF OF INTERSTATE AND CONSOLIDATED; FROM THE
MANNER IN WHICH THEY WERE MADE; FROM THE SUBSTANTIAL UNANIMITY OF
ACTION TAKEN UPON THEM BY THE DISTRIBUTORS; AND FROM THE FACT THAT
APPELLANTS DID NOT CALL AS WITNESSES ANY OF THE SUPERIOR OFFICIALS WHO
NEGOTIATED THE CONTRACTS WITH INTERSTATE OR ANY OFFICIAL WHO, IN THE
NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, WOULD HAVE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OR
NON-EXISTENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE DISTRIBUTORS.  THIS
CONCLUSION IS CHALLENGED BY APPELLANTS BECAUSE NOT SUPPORTED BY
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS OR BY THE EVIDENCE.  WE THINK THIS INFERENCE OF THE
TRIAL COURT WAS RIGHTLY DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE.  IN THE VIEW WE TAKE
OF THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE COOPERATIVE ACTION OF THE DISTRIBUTOR
APPELLANTS IN CARRYING INTO EFFECT THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON
SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES IN THE FOUR TEXAS CITIES AND OF THE LEGAL
EFFECT OF THE SEPARATE AGREEMENTS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THOSE
RESTRICTIONS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND EACH OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS IN GREAT DETAIL THE EVIDENCE
CONCERNING THIS ASPECT OF THE CASE. 

THE O'DONNELL LETTER NAMED ON ITS FACE AS ADDRESSEES THE EIGHT LOCAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DISTRIBUTORS, AND SO FROM THE BEGINNING EACH OF
THE DISTRIBUTORS KNEW THAT THE PROPOSALS WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION BY
THE OTHERS.  EACH WAS AWARE THAT ALL WERE IN ACTIVE COMPETITION AND
THAT WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY UNANIMOUS ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
RESTRICTIONS FOR ANY GIVEN TERRITORY THERE WAS RISK OF A SUBSTANTIAL
LOSS OF THE BUSINESS AND GOOD WILL OF THE SUBSEQUENT-RUN AND
INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS, BUT THAT WITH IT THERE WAS THE PROSPECT OF
INCREASED PROFITS.  THERE WAS, THEREFORE, STRONG MOTIVE FOR CONCERTED
ACTION, FULL ADVANTAGE OF WHICH WAS TAKEN BY INTERSTATE AND
CONSOLIDATED IN PRESENTING THEIR DEMANDS TO ALL IN A SINGLE DOCUMENT. 

THERE WAS RISK, TOO, THAT WITHOUT AGREEMENT DIVERSITY OF ACTION WOULD
FOLLOW.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSALS INVOLVED A RADICAL DEPARTURE
FROM THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE INDUSTRY AND A DRASTIC
INCREASE IN ADMISSION PRICES OF MOST OF THE SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES. 
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSALS WAS DISCOURAGED BY AT LEAST THREE OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS' LOCAL MANAGERS.  INDEPENDENT EXHIBITORS MET AND ORGANIZED
A FUTILE PROTEST WHICH THEY PRESENTED TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
INTERSTATE AND CONSOLIDATED.  WHILE AS A RESULT OF INDEPENDENT
NEGOTIATIONS EITHER OF THE TWO RESTRICTIONS WITHOUT THE OTHER COULD
HAVE BEEN PUT INTO EFFECT BY ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE DISTRIBUTORS AND IN
ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE TEXAS CITIES SERVED BY INTERSTATE, THE
NEGOTIATIONS WHICH ENSUED AND WHICH IN FACT DID RESULT IN MODIFICATIONS
OF THE PROPOSALS RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY UNANIMOUS ACTION OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS, BOTH AS TO THE TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIONS AND IN THE
SELECTION OF THE FOUR CITIES WHERE THEY WERE TO OPERATE. 

ONE DISTRIBUTOR, IT IS TRUE, DID NOT AGREE TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS
IN HOUSTON, BUT THIS WAS EVIDENTLY BECAUSE IT DID NOT GRANT LICENSES TO
ANY SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITOR IN THAT CITY, WHERE ITS OWN AFFILIATE
OPERATED A FIRST-RUN THEATRE.  FN7  THE PROPOSAL WAS UNANIMOUSLY
REJECTED AS TO GALVESTON AND AUSTIN, AS WAS THE REQUEST THAT THE
RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO THE CITIES OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY
SERVED BY CONSOLIDATED.  WE MAY INFER THAT GALVESTON WAS OMITTED
BECAUSE IN THAT CITY THERE WERE NO SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES IN
COMPETITION WITH INTERSTATE.  BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND IN THE RECORD
ANY PERSUASIVE EXPLANATION, OTHER THAN AGREED CONCERT OF ACTION, OF THE
SINGULAR UNANIMITY OF ACTION ON THE PART OF THE DISTRIBUTORS BY WHICH
THE PROPOSALS WERE CARRIED INTO EFFECT AS WRITTEN IN FOUR TEXAS CITIES
BUT NOT IN A FIFTH OR IN THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY.  NUMEROUS VARIATIONS IN
THE FORM OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE DISTRIBUTORS' LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND
THE FACT THAT IN LATER YEARS TWO OF THEM EXTENDED THE RESTRICTIONS INTO
ALL SIX CITIES, DO NOT WEAKEN THE SIGNIFICANCE OR FORCE OF THE NATURE
OF THE RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSALS MADE BY ALL THE DISTRIBUTOR
APPELLANTS.  IT TAXES CREDULITY TO BELIEVE THAT THE SEVERAL
DISTRIBUTORS WOULD, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, HAVE ACCEPTED AND PUT INTO
OPERATION WITH SUBSTANTIAL UNANIMITY SUCH FAR-REACHING CHANGES IN THEIR
BUSINESS METHODS WITHOUT SOME UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL WERE TO JOIN, AND
WE REJECT AS BEYOND THE RANGE OF PROBABILITY THAT IT WAS THE RESULT OF
MERE CHANCE. 

APPELLANTS PRESENT AN ELABORATE ARGUMENT, BASED ON THE MINUTIAE OF
THE EVIDENCE, THAT OTHER INFERENCES ARE TO BE DRAWN WHICH EXPLAIN, AT
LEAST IN SOME RESPECTS, THE UNANIMITY OF ACTION BOTH IN ACCEPTING THE
RESTRICTIONS FOR SOME TERRITORIES AND REJECTING THEM FOR OTHERS.  IT IS
SAID THAT THE REJECTION OF CONSOLIDATED'S PROPOSAL FOR THE RIO GRANDE
VALLEY MAY HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE DEMAND WITH RESPECT TO
THAT TERRITORY DIFFERED MATERIALLY FROM THAT DIRECTED TO THE SIX TEXAS
CITIES.  IT IS URGED THAT THE PROPOSAL FOR THE VALLEY WAS THAT ALL
PICTURES ONCE SHOWN IN A FIRST-RUN THEATRE WITH A 35 CENTS ADMISSION
SHOULD NOT THEREAFTER BE EXHIBITED IN ANY CITY IN THE VALLEY FOR LESS
THAN 25 CENTS ADMISSION, WHILE THE DEMAND IN BEHALF OF INTERSTATE WITH
RESPECT TO THE SIX TEXAS CITIES WAS THAT 'A' PICTURES, AFTER A FIRST
RUN IN THEATRES CHARGING 40 CENTS ADMISSION OR MORE, SHOULD NOT
THEREAFTER BE EXHIBITED IN THE SAME CITY FOR LESS THAN 25 CENTS
ADMISSION.  BUT REFERENCE TO THE O'DONNELL LETTER SHOWS THAT BOTH
DEMANDS RELATED TO PICTURES SHOWN IN A FIRST-RUN OR 'A' THEATRE AND
WERE NOT IN TERMS LIMITED TO SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITIONS IN THE SAME
CITY IN WHICH THE FIRST RUN HAD OCCURRED.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO
REASON FOR THE DISTINCTION TAKEN BETWEEN FIRST-RUN THEATRES IN THE SIX
CITIES CHARGING AN ADMISSION OF 40 CENTS OR MORE AND THOSE IN THE
VALLEY SERVED BY CONSOLIDATED CHARGING 35 CENTS, OTHER THAN THE FACT
THAT THE CITIES THERE WERE SMALLER. 

THE TRIAL COURT, INTERPRETING THE LETTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE WHOLE
EVIDENCE, WHICH SHOWED UNMISTAKABLY THAT ONE PURPOSE OF BOTH DEMANDS
WAS TO PROTECT FIRST-RUN HOUSES FROM COMPETITION OF SUBSEQUENT-RUN
HOUSES, CONCLUDED THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROPOSALS IN ONE CASE AS IN
THE OTHER WAS THAT THE RESTRICTIONS UPON THE SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES
WERE TO BE IMPOSED ONLY IN THE SAME CITY IN WHICH THE FIRST RUN HAD
OCCURRED.  WE AGREE WITH ITS CONCLUSION, BUT IN ANY EVENT SINCE THE
DEMAND MADE BY INTERSTATE WAS PHRASED AS BROADLY AS THAT MADE BY TEXAS
CONSOLIDATED, BOTH AS TO THE KIND OF PICTURES AFFECTED AND THE SCOPE OF
THE RESTRICTION, WE CAN FIND NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT ONE WAS MORE
LIMITED IN ITS ESSENTIALS THAN THE OTHER, OR THAT ANY EXPLANATION IS
THUS AFFORDED OF THE UNANIMOUS ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEMANDS OF INTERSTATE
IN FOUR OF THE SIX CITIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSAL, AND THE UNANIMOUS
REJECTION OF THE DEMAND OF CONSOLIDATED.  IN THE FACE OF THIS ACTION
AND SIMILAR UNANIMITY WITH RESPECT TO OTHER FEATURES OF THE PROPOSALS,
AND THE STRONG MOTIVE FOR SUCH UNANIMITY OF ACTION, WE DECLINE TO
SPECULATE WHETHER THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER AND MORE LEGITIMATE REASONS
FOR SUCH ACTION NOT DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD, BUT WHICH, IF THEY
EXISTED, WERE KNOWN TO APPELLANTS. 

THE FAILURE OF THE DISTRIBUTORS TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN
THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN DEALING WITH EXHIBITORS IN AUSTIN FOR THE
SEASON 1934-35; THEIR FAILURE TO UNITE IN IMPOSING THE RESTRICTION AS
TO ADMISSION PRICES IN SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES IN THAT CITY; AND THEIR
FAILURE TO ENTER INTO THE PROPOSED RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT WITH
INTERSTATE FOR AUSTIN, ARE LIKEWISE UNEXPLAINED BY ANY INFERENCES TO BE
DRAWN FROM THE RECORD.  THE FACTS THAT THREE OF THE DISTRIBUTORS
CONTINUED THEIR ESTABLISHED PRACTICE THERE, AS ELSEWHERE, OF PLACING
RESTRICTIONS AGAINST DOUBLE-BILLING IN THEIR LICENSE CONTRACTS; THAT
THE 25 CENTS ADMISSION RESTRICTION APPEARED IN THE AUSTIN LICENSE
AGREEMENTS OF ONE DISTRIBUTOR FOR THAT YEAR; AND THAT CERTAIN OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS INCLUDED THE RESTRICTIONS IN THEIR AUSTIN LICENSE
AGREEMENTS IN LATER YEARS, DO NOT MILITATE AGAINST THIS CONCLUSION. 
TAKEN TOGETHER, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHICH WE HAVE MENTIONED,
WHEN UNCONTRADICTED AND WITH NO MORE EXPLANATION THAN THE RECORD
AFFORDS, JUSTIFY THE INFERENCE THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS ACTED IN CONCERT
AND IN COMMON AGREEMENT IN IMPOSING THE RESTRICTIONS UPON THEIR
LICENSEES IN THE FOUR TEXAS CITIES. 

THIS INFERENCE WAS SUPPORTED AND STRENGTHENED WHEN THE DISTRIBUTORS,
WITH LIKE UNANIMITY, FAILED TO TENDER THE TESTIMONY, AT THEIR COMMAND,
OF ANY OFFICER OR AGENT OF A DISTRIBUTOR WHO KNEW, OR WAS IN A POSITION
TO KNOW, WHETHER IN FACT AN AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED AMONG THEM FOR
CONCERTED ACTION.  WHEN THE PROOF SUPPORTED, AS WE THINK IT DID, THE
INFERENCE OF SUCH CONCERT, THE BURDEN RESTED ON APPELLANTS OF GOING
FORWARD WITH THE EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN AWAY OR CONTRADICT IT.  THEY
UNDERTOOK TO CARRY THAT BURDEN BY CALLING UPON LOCAL MANAGERS OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS TO TESTIFY THAT THEY HAD ACTED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER
DISTRIBUTORS, AND THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE CONFERENCES WITH OR REACH
AGREEMENTS WITH THE OTHER DISTRIBUTORS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.  THE
FAILURE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CALL AS WITNESSES THOSE OFFICERS WHO
DID HAVE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE DISTRIBUTORS AND WHO WERE IN A
POSITION TO KNOW WHETHER THEY HAD ACTED IN PURSUANCE OF AGREEMENT IS
ITSELF PERSUASIVE THAT THEIR TESTIMONY, IF GIVEN, WOULD HAVE BEEN
UNFAVORABLE TO APPELLANTS.  THE PRODUCTION OF WEAK EVIDENCE WHEN STRONG
IS AVAILABLE CAN LEAD ONLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE STRONG WOULD HAVE
BEEN ADVERSE.  CLIFTON V. UNITED STATES, 4 HOW.  242, 247.  SILENCE
THEN BECOMES EVIDENCE OF THE MOST CONVINCING CHARACTER.  RUNKLE V.
BURNHAM, 153 U.S. 216, 225; KIRBY V. TALLMADGE, 160 U.S. 379, 383;
BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S. 149, 153, 154; VAJTAUER V. COMMISSIONER OF
IMMIGRATION, 273 U.S. 103, 111, 112; MAMMOTH OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES,
275 U.S. 13, 52; LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 298. 

WHILE THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING OF AN AGREEMENT OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS AMONG THEMSELVES IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, WE THINK
THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE SUCH AGREEMENT FOR THE
IMPOSITION OF THE RESTRICTIONS UPON SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITORS WAS NOT A
PREREQUISITE TO AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY.  IT WAS ENOUGH THAT, KNOWING
THAT CONCERTED ACTION WAS CONTEMPLATED AND INVITED, THE DISTRIBUTORS
GAVE THEIR ADHERENCE TO THE SCHEME AND PARTICIPATED IN IT.  EACH
DISTRIBUTOR WAS ADVISED THAT THE OTHERS WERE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE; EACH
KNEW THAT COOPERATION WAS ESSENTIAL TO SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF THE
PLAN.  THEY KNEW THAT THE PLAN, IF CARRIED OUT, WOULD RESULT IN A
RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE, WHICH, WE WILL PRESENTLY POINT OUT, WAS
UNREASONABLE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SHERMAN ACT, AND KNOWING IT, ALL
PARTICIPATED IN THE PLAN.  THE EVIDENCE IS PERSUASIVE THAT EACH
DISTRIBUTOR EARLY BECAME AWARE THAT THE OTHERS HAD JOINED.  WITH THAT
KNOWLEDGE THEY RENEWED THE ARRANGEMENT AND CARRIED IT INTO EFFECT FOR
THE TWO SUCCESSIVE YEARS. 

IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY MAY BE AND OFTEN IS
FORMED WITHOUT SIMULTANEOUS ACTION OR AGREEMENT ON THE PART OF THE
CONSPIRATORS.  SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 253 F. 212, 213, AFF'D, 249
U.S. 47; LEVEY V. UNITED STATES, 92 F.2D 688, 691.  ACCEPTANCE BY
COMPETITORS, WITHOUT PREVIOUS AGREEMENT, OF AN INVITATION TO
PARTICIPATE IN A PLAN, THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH, IF CARRIED
OUT, IS RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH AN
UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  EASTERN STATES LUMBER ASSN.
V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 600; LAWLOR V. LOEWE, 235 U.S. 522, 534;
AMERICAN COLUMN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 377; UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN LINSEED OIL CO., 262 U.S. 371. 

THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE COPYRIGHT ACT TO THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN
INTERSTATE AND THE DISTRIBUTORS. 

THE DECREE BELOW ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT AND RENEWAL OF THE SEPARATE
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EACH DISTRIBUTOR AND INTERSTATE AND OF THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN PARAMOUNT AND CONSOLIDATED IMPOSING THE RESTRICTIONS UPON LATER
RUN THEATRES IN CERTAIN CITIES IN TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO, ALTHOUGH THE
COURT FOUND NO CONSPIRACY AMONG THE DISTRIBUTORS TO EFFECT THIS LATTER
RESTRICTION.  APPELLANTS ASSAIL THIS PART OF THE DECREE ON THE GROUND
THAT SUCH SEPARATE AGREEMENTS, IF ENTERED INTO WITHOUT AGREEMENT OR
CONCERT AMONG THE DISTRIBUTORS, ARE A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE
MONOPOLY SECURED TO THE DISTRIBUTORS BY THEIR COPYRIGHTS. 

UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 35 STAT. 1075, 17 U.S.C. SEC. 1,
THE OWNERS OF THE COPYRIGHT OF A MOTION PICTURE FILM ACQUIRE THE RIGHT
TO EXHIBIT THE PICTURE AND TO GRANT AN EXCLUSIVE OR RESTRICTIVE LICENSE
TO OTHERS TO EXHIBIT IT.  SEE MANNERS V. MOROSCO, 252 U.S. 317. 
APPELLANTS ARGUE THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS WERE FREE TO LICENSE THE FILMS
FOR EXHIBITION SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS, JUST AS A PATENTEE IN A
LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE PATENTED ARTICLE MAY FIX THE PRICE
AT WHICH THE LICENSEE MAY SELL IT.  BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186
U.S. 70; UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476.  THAT THE
PARALLEL IS NOT COMPLETE IS OBVIOUS.  BECAUSE A PATENTEE HAS POWER TO
CONTROL THE PRICE AT WHICH HIS LICENSEE MAY SELL THE PATENTED ARTICLE,
IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE OWNER OF A COPYRIGHT CAN DICTATE THAT OTHER
PICTURES MAY NOT BE SHOWN WITH THE LICENSED FILM OR THE ADMISSION PRICE
WHICH SHALL BE PAID FOR AN ENTERTAINMENT WHICH INCLUDES FEATURES OTHER
THAN THE PARTICULAR PICTURE LICENSED.  CF. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO.
V. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO., 243 U.S. 502; CARBICE CORPORATION V.
AMERICAN PATENTS DEVELOPMENT CORP., 283 U.S. 27; LEITCH MANUFACTURING
CO. V. BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION NOW TO PASS UPON THESE OR RELATED QUESTIONS. 
GRANTED THAT EACH DISTRIBUTOR, IN THE PROTECTION OF HIS OWN COPYRIGHT
MONOPOLY, WAS FREE TO IMPOSE THE PRESENT RESTRICTIONS UPON HIS
LICENSEES, WE ARE NEVERTHELESS OF THE OPINION THAT THEY WERE NOT FREE
TO USE THEIR COPYRIGHTS AS IMPLEMENTS FOR RESTRAINING COMMERCE IN ORDER
TO PROTECT INTERSTATE'S MOTION PICTURE THEATRE MONOPOLY BY SUPPRESSING
COMPETITION WITH IT.  THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON INTERSTATE'S
COMPETITORS DID NOT HAVE THEIR ORIGIN IN THE VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS OR ANY OF THEM.  THEY GAVE EFFECT TO THE WILL AND WERE
SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF INTERSTATE, NOT BY VIRTUE OF ANY COPYRIGHT OF
INTERSTATE, FOR IT HAD NONE, BUT THROUGH ITS CONTRACT WITH EACH
DISTRIBUTOR.  INTERSTATE WAS ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE CONTROL AND IMPOSE ITS
WILL BY FORCE OF ITS MONOPOLY OF FIRST-RUN THEATRES IN THE PRINCIPAL
CITIES OF TEXAS AND THE THREAT TO USE ITS MONOPOLY POSITION AGAINST
COPYRIGHT OWNERS WHO DID NOT YIELD TO ITS DEMANDS.  THE PURPOSE AND
ULTIMATE EFFECT OF EACH OF ITS CONTRACTS WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS WAS TO
RESTRAIN ITS COMPETITORS IN THE THEATRE BUSINESS BY FORCING AN INCREASE
IN THEIR ADMISSION PRICE AND COMPELLING THEM THROUGH THE DOUBLE FEATURE
RESTRICTION TO MAKE THEIR ENTERTAINMENT LESS ATTRACTIVE, AND TO
PRECLUDE THE DISTRIBUTORS FOR THE SPECIFIED TIME FROM RELAXING THE
PRESSURE OF THE RESTRICTIONS UPON THEM. 

THE CASE IS NOT ONE OF THE MERE RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION BETWEEN
THE FIRST SHOWING OF A COPYRIGHTED FILM BY INTERSTATE AND A SUBSEQUENT
SHOWING OF THE SAME FILM BY A LICENSEE OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.  THE
CONTRACT, WHEN APPLIED TO THE SITUATION EXISTING IN THE FOUR TEXAS
CITIES, HAD A MORE EXTENSIVE EFFECT.  BOTH INTERSTATE'S FIRST-RUN AND
SECOND-RUN THEATRES IN EACH OF THE CITIES REGULARLY COMPETE WITH THE
INDEPENDENT SECOND-RUN THEATRES IN THOSE CITIES.  SINCE ALL ARE IN
PRACTICALLY CONTINUOUS OPERATION DURING THE SEASON, COMPETITION BETWEEN
THEM EXTENDS TO THE EXHIBITION OF FILMS FURNISHED BY DIFFERENT
DISTRIBUTORS INCLUDING THOSE OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS SHOWN BY INDEPENDENTS,
WHICH COMPETE WITH THOSE OF OTHER COPYRIGHT OWNERS SHOWN AT THE SAME
TIME BY INTERSTATE.  MOREOVER, THE PROVISION IN INTERSTATE'S CONTRACTS
FOR THE RESTRICTION AGAINST DOUBLE BILLING STIPULATED FOR RESTRAINT
UPON COMPETITION WITH INTERSTATE IN THE EXHIBITION OF FILMS IN THE
DOUBLE BILL IN WHICH NEITHER INTERSTATE NOR THE LICENSOR HAD ANY
INTEREST BY WAY OF COPYRIGHT OR OTHERWISE.  THE PATENT EFFECT OF THE
CONTRACT WAS TO IMPOSE AN UNDUE RESTRAINT BOTH AS TO ADMISSION PRICE
AND THE CHARACTER OF THE EXHIBITION UPON COMPETING THEATRE BUSINESSES
HABITUALLY EXHIBITING THE COMPETITIVE PICTURES OF DIFFERENT COPYRIGHT
OWNERS.  THROUGH ACCEPTANCE OF ITS TERMS BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRIBUTORS
THE CONTRACT BECAME THE READY INSTRUMENT BY WHICH INTERSTATE SUCCEEDED
IN DOMINATING THE BUSINESS OF ITS COMPETITORS IN THE TEXAS CITIES.  THE
FACT THAT THE RESTRICTIONS MAY HAVE BEEN OF A KIND WHICH A DISTRIBUTOR
COULD VOLUNTARILY HAVE IMPOSED, BUT DID NOT, DOES NOT ALTER THE
CHARACTER OF THE CONTRACT AS A CALCULATED RESTRAINT UPON THE
DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF COPYRIGHTED FILMS MOVING IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE BENEFIT TO THE DISTRIBUTOR
FROM THE RESTRICTIONS IS ONE WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE SECURED THROUGH ITS
MONOPOLY CONTROL OF THE COPYRIGHT ALONE, THAT WOULD NOT EXTEND THE
PROTECTION OF THE COPYRIGHT TO THE CONTRACT WITH INTERSTATE AND TO THE
RESULTING RESTRAINT UPON THE COMPETITION OF ITS BUSINESS RIVALS. 

A CONTRACT BETWEEN A COPYRIGHT OWNER AND ONE WHO HAS NO COPYRIGHT,
RESTRAINING THE COMPETITIVE DISTRIBUTION OF THE COPYRIGHTED ARTICLES IN
THE OPEN MARKET IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE LATTER FROM THE COMPETITION,
CAN NO MORE BE VALID THAN A LIKE AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO COPYRIGHT OWNERS
OR PATENTEES.  STRAUS V. AMERICAN PUBLISHERS' ASSN., SUPRA; PARAMOUNT
FAMOUS LASKY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; SEE STANDARD OIL CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 174.  IN EITHER CASE IF THE CONTRACT IS
EFFECTIVE, AS IT WAS HERE, COMPETITION IS SUPPRESSED AND THE
POSSIBILITY OF ITS RESUMPTION PRECLUDED BY FORCE OF THE CONTRACT.  AN
AGREEMENT ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT SUPPRESSES COMPETITION IS NOT ANY LESS SO
BECAUSE THE COMPETITIVE ARTICLE IS COPYRIGHTED.  THE FACT THAT THE
RESTRAINT IS MADE EASIER OR MORE EFFECTIVE BY MAKING THE COPYRIGHT
SUBSERVIENT TO THE CONTRACT DOES NOT RELIEVE IT OF ILLEGALITY. 
STANDARD SANITARY MFG. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S. 20. 

UNREASONABLENESS OF THE RESTRAINT. 

THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON THE SUBSEQUENT-RUN EXHIBITORS WERE HARSH
AND ARBITRARY.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THEY WERE FORCED UPON THE DISTRIBUTORS
AND UPON THEIR CUSTOMERS AS A RESULT OF THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY
INTERSTATE WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS.  COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS
WERE A UNIFORM CONDITION OF EXHIBITION OF THE FILMS BY SUBSEQUENT-RUN
THEATRES.  THERE WERE WIDE DIFFERENCES IN THE LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF
THE SUBSEQUENT-RUN HOUSES IN THE FOUR TEXAS CITIES, WHICH AFFORDED
BASIS FOR THE CORRESPONDING DIFFERENCES IN ADMISSION PRICES CHARGED
BEFORE THE RESTRICTIONS WERE ADOPTED.  DUE TO THE PRACTICE OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS OF ESTABLISHING CLEARANCE PERIODS BETWEEN THE FIRST AND
EACH SUCCESSIVE RUN, LATER RUNS ARE PROGRESSIVELY LESS ATTRACTIVE.  THE
POORER CLASS OF THEATRES, EXHIBITING THE LATER RUNS, SOMETIMES OFFERED
A DOUBLE BILL AS AN OFFSETTING INDUCEMENT FOR PATRONAGE.  DESPITE THESE
DIFFERENCES WHICH NORMALLY AFFECT THE ADMISSION PRICE THAT COULD BE
CHARGED BY SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES, THE 25 CENTS ADMISSION PRICE WAS TO
BE REQUIRED OF ALL ALIKE, FORCING INCREASES IN ADMISSION PRICE RANGING
FROM 25 PER CENT. TO 150 PER CENT. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE LATER-RUN
EXHIBITORS WHO BOWED TO THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD NOT HAVE DONE SO BUT FOR
THE COMPULSION OF THEIR NEED OF SHOWING THE RESTRICTED PICTURES, AND
THAT THE RESULT WAS TO INCREASE THE INCOME OF THE DISTRIBUTORS AND
INTERSTATE AND DIMINISH THAT OF THE EXHIBITORS WHO ACCEPTED THE
RESTRICTIONS, BY DEFLECTING ATTENDANCE FROM SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRES TO
INTERSTATE'S FIRST-RUN THEATRES.  THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY THAT SUCH LOSS
WAS OFFSET BY THE HIGHER ADMISSION PRICE OF THE SECOND-RUN THEATRES,
AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT SOME OF THE POORER CLASS OF SECOND-RUN
THEATRES SUFFERED LOSS OF INCOME BY YIELDING TO THE RESTRICTIONS.  SOME
WHO DID NOT YIELD WERE COMPELLED TO FOREGO EXHIBITION OF THE
DISTRIBUTORS' FEATURE PICTURES.  THE EFFECT WAS A DRASTIC SUPPRESSION
OF COMPETITION AND AN OPPRESSIVE PRICE MAINTENANCE, OF BENEFIT TO
INTERSTATE AND THE DISTRIBUTORS BUT INJURIOUS ALIKE TO INTERSTATE'S
SUBSEQUENT-RUN COMPETITORS AND TO THE PUBLIC. 

THE BENEFIT, AT SUCH A COST, DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE RESTRAINT.  EASTERN
STATES LUMBER ASSN. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 613; DUPLEX CO. V.
DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 468; ANDERSON V. SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 272
U.S. 359, 363; BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. STONE CUTTERS' ASSN., 274 U.S.
37, 47.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE COMPETITION AT WHICH THEY WERE
AIMED WAS UNFAIR OR ABNORMAL.  CF. APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED
STATES, 288 U.S. 344, 363, 372.  THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE PRICE
RESTRICTION, THOUGH MORE OPPRESSIVE, IS COMPARABLE WITH THE EFFECT OF
RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS IN VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  DR. MILES
MEDICAL CO. V. PARK & SONS CO., 220 U.S. 373; UNITED STATES V.
SCHRADER'S SON, INC., 252 U.S. 85.  CF. UNITED STATES V. TRENTON
POTTERIES CO., 273 U.S. 392, 397, ET SEQ. 

WE THINK THE CONCLUSION IS UNAVOIDABLE THAT THE CONSPIRACY AND EACH
CONTRACT BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND THE DISTRIBUTORS BY WHICH THOSE
CONSEQUENCES WERE EFFECTED ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT RIGHTLY ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT AND RENEWAL OF THESE
AGREEMENTS, AS WELL AS OF THE CONSPIRACY AMONG THE DISTRIBUTORS. 
AFFIRMED.    FN1  A FIRST-RUN THEATRE IS ONE IN WHICH A PICTURE IS
FIRST EXHIBITED IN ANY GIVEN LOCALITY.  A SUBSEQUENT-RUN THEATRE IS ONE
IN WHICH THERE IS A SUBSEQUENT EXHIBITION OF THE SAME PICTURE IN THE
SAME LOCALITY. 

FN2  PAYMENTS OF LICENSE FEES BY INTERSTATE TO DISTRIBUTOR APPELLANTS
IN THE 1934-35 SEASON AGGREGATED $1,077,819.58.  PAYMENTS BY ALL OTHER
EXHIBITORS OPERATING THEATRES IN THE SAME CITIES AGGREGATED
$369,594.72.  TEXAS CONSOLIDATED PAYMENTS FOR THE SAME PERIOD
AGGREGATED $594,863.68.  ALL OTHER EXHIBITORS OPERATING IN THE SAME
CITIES PAID $47,928.22. 

FN3  THE LETTER FOLLOWS:

"INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC.,

MAJESTIC THEATRE BUILDING,

DALLAS, TEXAS, JULY 11, 1934. 

MESSRS.:  J. B. DUGGER, HERBERT MACINTYRE, SOL SACHS, C. E. HILGERS,
LEROY BICKEL, J. B. UNDERWOOD, E. S. OLSMYTH, DOAK ROBERTS. 

GENTLEMEN:  ON APRIL 25TH, THE WRITER NOTIFIED YOU THAT IN PURCHASING
PRODUCT FOR THE COMING SEASON 34-35, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR ALL
DISTRIBUTORS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE SALE OF SUBSEQUENT RUNS
THAT INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC., WILL NOT AGREE TO PURCHASE PRODUCE TO BE
EXHIBITED IN ITS 'A' THEATRES AT A PRICE OF 40[ OR MORE FOR NIGHT
ADMISSION, UNLESS DISTRIBUTORS AGREE THAT IN SELLING THEIR PRODUCT TO
SUBSEQUENT RUNS, THAT THIS 'A' PRODUCT WILL NEVER BE EXHIBITED AT ANY
TIME OR IN ANY THEATRE AT A SMALLER ADMISSION PRICE THAN 25[ FOR ADULTS
IN THE EVENING. 

IN ADDITION TO THIS PRICE RESTRICTION, WE ALSO REQUEST THAT ON 'A'
PICTURES WHICH ARE EXHIBITED AT A NIGHT ADMISSION PRICE OF 40[ OR MORE
THEY SHALL NEVER BE EXHIBITED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANOTHER FEATURE
PICTURE UNDER THE SO-CALLED POLICY OF DOUBLE-FEATURES. 

AT THIS TIME THE WRITER DESIRES TO AGAIN REMIND YOU OF THESE
RESTRICTIONS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE SOME DELAY IN
CONSUMMATING ALL OUR FEATURE FILM DEALS FOR THE COMING SEASON, AND IT
IS IMPERATIVE THAT IN YOUR NEGOTIATIONS THAT YOU AFFORD US THIS
CLEARANCE. 

IN THE EVENT THAT A DISTRIBUTOR SEES FIT TO SELL HIS PRODUCT TO
SUBSEQUENT RUNS IN VIOLATION OF THIS REQUEST, IT DEFINITELY MEANS THAT
WE CANNOT NEGOTIATE FOR HIS PRODUCT TO BE EXHIBITED IN OUR 'A' THEATRES
AT TOP ADMISSION PRICES. 

WE NATURALLY, IN PURCHASING SUBSEQUENT RUNS FROM THE DISTRIBUTORS IN
CERTAIN OF OUR CITIES, MUST NECESSARILY ELIMINATE DOUBLE FEATURING AND
MAINTAIN THE MAXIMUM 25[ ADMISSION PRICE, WHICH WE ARE WILLING TO DO. 

RIGHT AT THIS TIME THE WRITER WISHES TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE
RIO GRANDE VALLEY SITUATION.  WE MUST INSIST THAT ALL PICTURES
EXHIBITED IN OUR 'A' THEATRES AT A MAXIMUM NIGHT ADMISSION PRICE OF 35[
MUST ALSO BE RESTRICTED TO SUBSEQUENT RUNS IN THE VALLEY AT 25[.
REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF DAYS WHICH MAY INTERVENE, WE FEEL THAT IN
EXPLOITING AND SELLING THE DISTRIBUTORS' PRODUCT, THAT SUBSEQUENT RUNS
SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO AT LEAST A 25[ ADMISSION SCALE. 

THE WRITER WILL APPRECIATE YOUR ACKNOWLEDGING YOUR COMPLETE
UNDERSTANDING OF THIS LETTER. 

SINCERELY,       (SIGNED)  R. J. O'DONNELL." 

FN4  A CLASS 'A' PICTURE IS A "FEATURE PICTURE" HAVING FIVE REELS OR
MORE OF FILM EACH APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET IN LENGTH, SHOWN IN THEATRES
OF THE SPECIFIED TEXAS CITIES CHARGING 40 CENTS OR MORE FOR ADULT
ADMISSION AT NIGHT.  APPROXIMATELY FIFTY PER CENT. OF THE PICTURES
RELEASED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS IN TEXAS CITIES IN 1934-1935
WERE CLASS 'A' PICTURES. 

FN5  THE METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION AGREEMENT WITH
INTERSTATE DID NOT INCLUDE HOUSTON, WHERE IT OPERATED THROUGH A
SUBSIDIARY A FIRST-RUN THEATRE, AND WHERE IT DID NOT UNTIL THE 1936
1937 SEASON LICENSE ANY SUBSEQUENT-RUN PICTURES.  IT AGREED WITH
INTERSTATE TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS IN HOUSTON FOR THE 1936-1937
SEASON. 

FN6  THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE DOUBLE FEATURE RESTRICTION EXCEPTED
FROM ITS OPERATION TWO DISTRIBUTORS, AND THE AGENT OF ONE OF THEM,
WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE A PRACTICE OF INCLUDING SUCH A RESTRICTION IN
THEIR LICENSE AGREEMENTS. 

FN7  SEE FOOTNOTE 5. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE DECREE SHOULD BE REVERSED.  THE BILL CHARGES THAT THE TWO
EXHIBITOR DEFENDANTS WHICH WERE UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT, KNOWING THAT
SUBSEQUENT RUN HOUSES IN DALLAS, HOUSTON, SAN ANTONIO, FORT WORTH,
AUSTIN, AND GALVESTON, THE LARGEST CITIES IN TEXAS, AND IN WACO,
WICHITA FALLS, TYLER, AMARILLO, TEXAS, AND ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO,
COULD NOT OPERATE WITHOUT THE SHOWING OF FEATURE FILMS, IN ORDER TO
STRENGTHEN THESE TWO DEFENDANTS' MONOPOLY IN FIRST RUN EXHIBITION OF
SUCH FEATURE FILMS, AND TO MONOPOLIZE THE BUSINESS OF EXHIBITING
FEATURE FILMS IN SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT RUN HOUSES OPERATED BY THEM IN
THOSE CITIES, CONSPIRED TO NOTIFY THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS THAT,
DURING THE 1934-1935 SEASON, AND SUBSEQUENT SEASONS, THE LATTER MUST
ADVISE SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT RUN EXHIBITORS THAT SUCH FEATURE FILMS
COULD NOT BE OPERATED IN SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT RUN HOUSES FOR LESS THAN
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS ADULT LOWER FLOOR ADMISSION OR AS PART OF A DOUBLE
FEATURE PROGRAM AND THAT, UNLESS THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS WOULD DO
SO, THE EXHIBITORS WOULD NOT MAINTAIN A NIGHT ADULT ADMISSION PRICE OF
FORTY CENTS OR MORE FOR THE FIRST RUN EXHIBITIONS OF FEATURE FILMS
LICENSED BY THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS TO THEM.  THE BILL CHARGED THAT,
UPON RECEIPT OF ADVICES TO THIS EFFECT FROM THE EXHIBITOR DEFENDANTS,
THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS JOINED IN THE UNLAWFUL COMBINATION AND
CONSPIRED WITH THE EXHIBITOR DEFENDANTS TO PLACE SUCH RESTRICTIONS IN
LICENSES TO SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT RUN EXHIBITORS. 

THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO A STIPULATION OF FACTS, IN LIEU OF EVIDENCE,
BINDING UPON THEM FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUIT, AND FURTHER AGREED THAT ANY
PARTY MIGHT INTRODUCE ADDITIONAL RELEVANT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE BEARING
UPON THE ISSUES "BUT NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ANY FACT CONTAINED IN" THE
STIPULATION.  PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS INTRODUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 
THE TESTIMONY OF SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT EXHIBITORS CALLED AS WITNESSES BY
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS MAY BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN, IN SOME RESPECTS,
CONFLICTING.  THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANTS
WITH RESPECT TO THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE EXHIBITOR DEFENDANTS AND
THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS, AND THE CONDUCT OF THE LATTER, WAS
UNCONTRADICTED UPON ALL POINTS MATERIAL TO A RESOLUTION OF THE FACT
ISSUES IN THE CAUSE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT MADE TEN FINDINGS (NUMBERED FROM 12 TO 21,
INCLUSIVE) OF SUBSIDIARY OR EVIDENTIARY FACTS AND BASED UPON THESE
SPECIFIC FINDINGS ONE CONCLUSION OF ULTIMATE FACT,  - THAT THE
DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS CONSPIRED AMONGST THEMSELVES TO TAKE UNIFORM
ACTION UPON THE PROPOSALS OF INTERSTATE AND CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER
AND WITH INTERSTATE TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS REQUESTED BY INTERSTATE
UPON ALL SUBSEQUENT RUN EXHIBITORS IN DALLAS, FORT WORTH, HOUSTON, AND
SAN ANTONIO. 

THE APPELLANTS CONTEND, AND I THINK THEIR CONTENTION IS SOUND, THAT
THE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FACT CONCLUSION
AND THAT THESE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS ARE, IN A NUMBER OF VITAL INSTANCES,
CONTRARY TO, OR UNSUPPORTED BY, THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND, IN
OTHER INSTANCES, ARE IN THE TEETH OF UNCONTRADICTED AND UNIMPEACHED
TESTIMONY. 

SINCE THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT IN AN EQUITY
SUIT, AND THE FINDINGS ARE CHALLENGED, THIS COURT IS BOUND TO REVIEW
THEM AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY HAVE A PROPER BASIS IN THE
EVIDENCE.  I THINK SUCH A REVIEW DEMONSTRATES THE LACK OF SUPPORT OF
THE CRITICAL BASIC FINDINGS.  NO GOOD PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY A
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF WHAT I CONSIDER ERRONEOUS AND UNSUPPORTED
FINDINGS.  BUT I AM OF OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS OUGHT NOT TO STAND AND
THAT THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY, EITHER BETWEEN THE
DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS OR BETWEEN THEM AND THE INTERSTATE CORPORATION,
IS UNJUSTIFIED.  THE OPINION OF THIS COURT ACCEPTS AND CLOSELY FOLLOWS
THESE FINDINGS OF FACT BUT, WHILE APPROVING THE CONCLUSION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, FINDS IT UNNECESSARY TO GIVE DETAILED CONSIDERATION TO
THE APPELLANTS' CHALLENGE OF THE ACCURACY AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS, FOR THE REASON THAT IT HOLDS, AS MATTER OF LAW, ON
UNCONTRADICTED FACTS, THAT THERE WERE EIGHT SEPARATE CONSPIRACIES
UNREASONABLY TO RESTRAIN TRADE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIRTUE OF THE
AGREEMENT OF EACH OF THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS WITH INTERSTATE TO
IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS ON SUBSEQUENT RUN EXHIBITORS IN CERTAIN CITIES. 

SEPARATELY CONSIDERED, I THINK THESE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT CONSPIRACIES
CONTEMPLATED BY THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE HOLDING THAT THEY ARE GOES FAR
BEYOND ANYTHING THIS COURT HAS EVER DECIDED.  THE DISTRIBUTOR
DEFENDANTS ARE OWNERS OF COPYRIGHTS ON MOVING PICTURE FILMS.  THE
COPYRIGHT LAW GIVES THEM THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF LICENSING
PERFORMANCES OF THE PHOTOPLAYS RECORDED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE
COMPETING CONCERNS WHOSE COPYRIGHTED FEATURE FILMS ARE LICENSED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PRODUCTION.  IN ADDITION, THERE ARE COPYRIGHTED FILMS OF
LOWER CLASSES WELL KNOWN TO THE TRADE.  THESE LOWER CLASS FILMS ARE
USUALLY LICENSED TO HOUSES THAT CHARGE LOWER PRICES FOR FIRST RUN
EXHIBITION THAN THOSE CHARGED BY THEATRES SHOWING FEATURE FILMS, AND
BOTH THE FEATURE FILMS, SECOND AND SUBSEQUENT RUN, AND OTHER FILMS OF
LESS ATTRACTION AND LESS EXPENSIVELY PRODUCED, ARE EXHIBITED BY SO
CALLED SECOND RUN HOUSES.  THE LATTER PAY A MUCH REDUCED RATE TO OBTAIN
THE FEATURE FILMS FOR EXHIBITION IN THE SAME CITY AFTER THEIR ORIGINAL
SHOWING AS FEATURE FILMS IN FIRST RUN HOUSES.  MANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT
RUN HOUSES CHARGE LOW ADMISSION PRICES, AND SOMETIMES PUT ON DOUBLE
BILLS. 

INTERSTATE IS THE LARGEST LICENSEE OF FIRST RUN FEATURE FILMS IN
TEXAS.  IT HAS MANY MORE FIRST RUN HOUSES THAN ANY OTHER TEXAS
EXHIBITOR.  ITS FIRST RUN HOUSES ARE IN THE LARGEST CITIES WHERE THE
HIGHEST ADMISSION PRICES CAN BE OBTAINED.  THE DISTRIBUTORS ARE, OF
COURSE, INTERESTED IN THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE
NECESSARILY HIGH LICENSE FEES WHICH THEY MUST OBTAIN FOR FIRST RUNS OF
FEATURE PICTURES.  THESE ARE FAR HIGHER THAN THOSE RECEIVED FOR THE
SECOND SHOWINGS OF THE SAME PICTURES IN THE SAME CITY.  THEY NATURALLY
HAVE TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR LICENSEES FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF
THE GOOD WILL AND DRAWING POWER OF THESE FEATURE FILMS IN THEIR FIRST
RUNS.  IN AN EFFORT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, BY REQUIRING MINIMUM ADMISSION
CHARGES AND PROHIBITING DOUBLE BILLING IN SUBSEQUENT RUNS OF FEATURE
PICTURES, THEY MAY, OF COURSE, NARROW THE OPPORTUNITY OF SECOND RUN
HOUSES TO OBTAIN FEATURE PICTURES. 

I AGREE THAT WHILE THE COPYRIGHT ACT GIVES A DISTRIBUTOR A SO-CALLED
MONOPOLY, THAT MONOPOLY CANNOT BE MADE THE COVER FOR A CONSPIRACY TO
RESTRAIN TRADE OR COMMERCE.  FN1  BUT I THINK IT OBSCURES THE ISSUE TO
USE THE PHRASE "MONOPOLY."  WHAT THE COPYRIGHT GIVES IS MUCH THE SAME
AS WHAT IS CONFERRED BY THE PATENT LAW.  FN2  THE EXHIBITION OF A
PHOTOPLAY, WERE IT NOT FOR THE COPYRIGHT LAW, WOULD AMOUNT TO A PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE AND THE USE OF THE MATERIAL WOULD THEREAFTER BE OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC.  ALL THE COPYRIGHT ACT DOES IS TO CREATE A FORM OF PROPERTY IN
THE LITERARY OR ARTISTIC PRODUCTION OF THE AUTHOR OR ARTIST.  THE ACT
ATTACHES TO THE PRODUCT OF HIS BRAIN CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES OF PROPERTY. 
ONE OF THESE IS THE RIGHT OF EXCLUSIVE USE SIMILAR TO THAT ATTACHING TO
PHYSICAL PROPERTY; ANOTHER IS THE RIGHT TO SELL THE PRODUCTION WITH
CONSEQUENT EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT IN THE VENDEE; ANOTHER IS THE RIGHT TO
LICENSE OTHERS TO USE THE PRODUCT AS ONE MIGHT LEASE OR BAIL REAL OR
PERSONAL PROPERTY.  THE MONOPOLY, SO CALLED, AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN
THE ATTACHMENT TO THE WORK OF AN AUTHOR OR COMPOSER OR PRODUCER OF
MOTION PICTURES OF THE SAME RIGHTS AS INHERE IN OTHER PROPERTY UNDER
THE COMMON LAW.  THEREFORE, THE STANDING OF THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS
TOWARD THEIR CUSTOMERS, AS RESPECTS THE PRODUCTIONS PROPOSED TO BE
LICENSED, DIFFERS IN NO WAY FROM THAT OF THE OWNER OF ANY OTHER
PROPERTY TOWARD THOSE TO WHOM HE LEASES OR LICENSES ITS USE OR SALE. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT NECESSARILY MEANS THAT THE OWNER OF A
PRODUCT MAY NOT AGREE WITH AN IMPORTANT CUSTOMER THAT THE FORMER WILL
NOT SELL THE PRODUCT AT A CUT RATE TO THE LATTER'S COMPETITORS IN THE
SAME CITY IN WHICH HE CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS.  THE DECISION LEADS TO THE
NECESSARY CONCLUSION THAT A MANUFACTURER WHOSE SKILL RESULTS IN THE
PRODUCTION OF APPARATUS OF SUPERIOR QUALITY MAY NOT, IN CONSIDERATION
OF A PRICE TO BE PAID HIM FOR THE BAILMENT OF THAT APPARATUS TO CERTAIN
USERS IN A CITY, CONTRACT, AS AN INDUCEMENT TO THE USERS, THAT HE WILL
NOT BAIL THE SAME APPARATUS AT LOWER AND DESTRUCTIVE PRICES TO HIS
BAILEES' COMPETITORS IN THE SAME CITY.  I THINK IT HAS NEVER BEEN
SUGGESTED THAT AN AGREEMENT OF THE SORT MENTIONED, RESTRICTED IN TIME
AND PLACE, AMOUNTS TO A CONSPIRACY IN UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE
OR COMMERCE.  THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH AGREEMENTS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
REALIZATION OF THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE
DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS MIGHT GRANT EXCLUSIVE LICENSES TO INTERSTATE,
AND THAT AN EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO INTERSTATE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A
CONSPIRACY UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, OR CONFER ANY CAUSE OF ACTION ON
OTHERS WHO DESIRED LICENSES IN THE SAME CITY; AND THIS REMAINS TRUE
HOWEVER MUCH SUCH ACTION BY THE LICENSOR MIGHT INJURE THE BUSINESS OF
OTHERS SEEKING LICENSES. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE LICENSES OF SECOND RUN
EXHIBITORS WERE NOT UNREASONABLE RESTRAINTS OF COMMERCE UNDER THE
SHERMAN ACT.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE ACTION OF THE DISTRIBUTOR
DEFENDANTS DISCOURAGED COMPETITION BETWEEN THEM EITHER FOR THE BUSINESS
OF INTERSTATE OR FOR THAT OF SUBSEQUENT RUN LICENSEES.  THE
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE LATTER WERE NOT INTENDED TO INCREASE LICENSE FEES
PAID BY THEM OR THOSE PAID BY INTERSTATE; THEY WERE IMPOSED TO PREVENT
DESTRUCTION OF THE GOOD WILL WHICH MADE POSSIBLE THE CONTINUED
EXHIBITION OF FIRST RUN FEATURE PICTURES AND TO AVOID DECREASE OF THE
REVENUE FROM THOSE PICTURES THEN AND THERETOFORE ENJOYED UNDER LICENSES
TO INTERSTATE AND OTHER FIRST RUN FEATURE EXHIBITORS.  THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE RESTRICTIONS MUST BE JUDGED BY THE SITUATION OF
THE INDUSTRY AND THE PROPRIETY OF ITS PROTECTION FROM PRACTICES WHICH
WOULD SERIOUSLY INJURE IT.  FN3  THE QUESTION ALWAYS IS WHETHER AN
AGREEMENT UNDULY RESTRAINS COMPETITION AND, IN APPLYING THIS TEST,
CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN BOTH TO THE INTENT AND EFFECT OF THE
AGREEMENT IN THE LIGHT OF REALITIES. 

IT IS SETTLED THAT THE PROPRIETOR OF A COPYRIGHT MAY GRANT AN
EXCLUSIVE LICENSE; THAT IS, MAY COVENANT WITH HIS LICENSEE THAT HE WILL
NOT LICENSE ANYONE ELSE, AS THE OWNER OF A PATENT MAY GRANT A SIMILAR
EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO MAKE OR SELL THE PATENTED ARTICLE.  FN4  IT IS
SETTLED THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR DEFENDANTS COULD LAWFULLY STIPULATE WITH
THEIR LICENSEES, WHETHER FIRST RUN OR SUBSEQUENT RUN, AS TO THE
ADMISSION PRICE TO BE PAID BY PATRONS AND THAT, SO TO DO, WOULD NOT BE
A VIOLATION OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  FN5  BUT IT IS SAID THAT IF, IN ORDER
TO PROTECT ITS EARNINGS FROM FIRST RUN LICENSES BY ENABLING ITS
LICENSEES TO PAY THE DEMANDED CONSIDERATION, THE DISTRIBUTOR AGREES TO
RESTRICT IN ANYWISE THE EXHIBITION OF THE SAME FEATURE BY A SUBSEQUENT
RUN EXHIBITOR HE HAS VIOLATED THE ANTI-TRUST LAW.  IN THE NATURE OF
THINGS THIS CANNOT BE TRUE.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS
HAVE ALWAYS PROVIDED A SO-CALLED "CLEARANCE" BETWEEN THE FIRST RUN AND
SUBSEQUENT RUNS OF FEATURE PICTURES.  BY THIS IS MEANT THAT THE
DISTRIBUTORS REFUSE TO LICENSE A SUBSEQUENT RUN THEATRE TO SHOW SUCH A
FEATURE UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF A GIVEN NUMBER OF DAYS OR MONTHS AFTER
THE PICTURE HAS BEEN SHOWN IN A FIRST RUN HOUSE.  THIS IS A PERFECTLY
NATURAL PROCEDURE AND ONE OBVIOUSLY REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE VALUE OF
THE FIRST RUN LICENSE.  UNDER THE DECISION HERE, HOWEVER, IF A
DISTRIBUTOR SHOULD AGREE WITH A FIRST RUN HOUSE THAT IF IT WILL
CONTRACT FOR A GIVEN FEATURE PICTURE AT A GIVEN PRICE THE DISTRIBUTOR
WILL IMPOSE A CLEARANCE ON SECOND RUN HOUSES THIS WOULD BE A CONSPIRACY
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.  OTHER RESTRICTIONS TENDING TO PRESERVE THE
VALUE OF THE FIRST EXHIBITION OF A FEATURE PICTURE SUCH AS THOSE
CHALLENGED IN THIS CASE ARE JUST AS NECESSARY AND, I SUPPOSE, IN THE
ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT WOULD BE HELD JUST AS LAWFUL AS THE RESTRICTION
KNOWN AS A CLEARANCE. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT A DISTRIBUTOR MAY LAWFULLY
AGREE THAT ITS EXHIBITOR LICENSEE SHALL HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
EXHIBIT A COPYRIGHTED PLAY BUT CONDEMNS THE AGREEMENTS HERE IN
CONTROVERSY ALTHOUGH A MUCH LESS DRASTIC RESTRAINT RESPECTING LICENSES
TO SUBSEQUENT RUN EXHIBITORS RESULTS FROM THE PROVISION FOR LICENSES
WITH A RESTRICTION AS TO PRICE AND AS TO DOUBLE BILLING. 

ONCE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THE COPYRIGHT LAW ARE
RECOGNIZED IT MUST FOLLOW THAT THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE RIGHT TO
USE, SELL, OR TURN TO ACCOUNT OTHER FORMS OF PROPERTY ARE EQUALLY
APPLICABLE HERE.  WE HAVE OFTEN HELD THAT A CONTRACT CONTAINING A
COVENANT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE IS VALID IF THE RESTRAINT IS REASONABLY
NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT GRANTED BY THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY.  EXAMPLES OF SUCH LAWFUL CONTRACTS ARE THOSE BY WHICH THE
VENDOR OF A BUSINESS SOLD AS A GOING CONCERN AGREES THAT FOR THE
PROTECTION OF ITS VALUE HE WILL FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS REFRAIN FROM
ENGAGING IN THE SAME BUSINESS IN A PRESCRIBED TERRITORY; FN6  AND THOSE
BY THE VENDOR WITH THE VENDEE OF AN ARTICLE TO BE USED IN BUSINESS OR
TRADE THAT IT SHALL NOT BE USED SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH THE VENDOR'S
BUSINESS; FN7  WHICH ARE HELD NOT TO OFFEND THE SHERMAN ACT IF THE
PROHIBITION HAS A REASONABLE RELATION TO THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS OF
THE VENDOR. 

THE GOVERNMENT STRESSES THE FACT THAT EACH OF THE DISTRIBUTORS MUST
HAVE ACTED WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT SOME OR ALL OF THE OTHERS WOULD GRANT OR
HAD GRANTED INTERSTATE'S DEMAND.  BUT SUCH KNOWLEDGE WAS MERELY NOTICE
TO EACH OF THEM THAT IF IT WAS SUCCESSFULLY TO COMPETE FOR THE FIRST
RUN BUSINESS IN IMPORTANT TEXAS CITIES IT MUST MEET THE TERMS OF
COMPETING DISTRIBUTORS OR LOSE THE BUSINESS OF INTERSTATE.  IT COULD
COMPETE SUCCESSFULLY ONLY BY GRANTING EXCLUSIVE LICENSES TO INTERSTATE
AND INJURING SUBSEQUENT RUN HOUSES BY REFUSING THEM LICENSES,  - A
COURSE CLEARLY LAWFUL,  - OR BY DOING THE LESS DRASTIC THING OF
AGREEING TO PROTECT THE GOOD WILL OF ITS PICTURES BY PUTTING NECESSARY
AND NOT SEVERELY BURDENSOME RESTRICTIONS UPON SUBSEQUENT RUN
EXHIBITORS, WHICH I THINK EQUALLY LAWFUL. 

FN1  STRAUS V. AMERICAN PUBLISHERS' ASSN., 231 U.S. 222; PARAMOUNT
FAMOUS CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 30. 

FN2  SEE UNITED STATES V. DUBILIER CONDENSER CORP., 289 U.S. 178,
186. 

FN3  APPALACHIAN COALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 344, 358,
359, 360, 362.  COMPARE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. UNITED STATES, 246
U.S. 231, 238. 

FN4  MANNERS V. MOROSCO, 252 U.S. 317; BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO.,
186 U.S. 70. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, 488-490;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 163, 179. 

FN6  CINCINNATI PACKET CO. V. BAY, 200 U.S. 179; OREGON STEAM
NAVIGATION CO. V. WINSOR, 20 WALL.  64, 67. 

FN7  FOWLE V. PARK, 131 U.S. 88; BOARD OF TRADE V. CHRISTIE GRAIN &
STOCK CO., 198 U.S. 236, 250, 252; MOORE V. NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE,
270 U.S. 593; UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476;
UNITED STATES V. ADDYSTON STEEL CO., 85 F. 271. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















TEXARKANA V. ARKANSAS GAS CO., 306 U.S. 188 


NO. 294.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 5, 1939.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1939.  - 97
F.2D 5, REVERSED. 


1.  A FRANCHISE GRANTED TO A UTILITY COMPANY BY THE CITY OF TEXARKANA,
TEXAS, CONTAINED A SECTION (SEC. IX) PROVIDING THAT IF THE COMPANY
SHOULD "BE FINALLY COMPELLED TO, OR SHOULD VOLUNTARILY, PLACE IN ANY
RATES" FOR THE ADJACENT CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, LESS THAN THOSE
FIXED BY THE FRANCHISE, THEN SUCH LOWER RATES SHOULD APPLY ALSO IN THE
TEXAS CITY AND THE COMPANY "SHALL NOT BE AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED TO
CHARGE AND COLLECT ANY HIGHER RATE."  HELD: 

(1)  THE SECTION WAS NOT INVALID AS A DELEGATION OR ABDICATION OF THE
POWER OF THE TEXAS CITY UNDER ITS CHARTER TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS AND
FIX THE RATES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.  P. 196. 

(2)  BY THE LAW OF TEXAS, THE SECTION WAS BINDING ON THE UTILITY
COMPANY, ALTHOUGH, BECAUSE OF THE RESERVED POWER TO RAISE OR LOWER THE
RATES, NOT BINDING ON THE MUNICIPALITY.  P. 197. 

GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE IS CONSIDERATION FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF THE
UTILITY TO MAINTAIN THE PRESCRIBED RATES UNTIL THEY ARE ALTERED BY THE
EXERCISE OF THE RESERVED POWER OF THE MUNICIPALITY TO REGULATE THE
RATES.  P. 200. 

(3)  EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT UNDER THE LAW
OF TEXAS A MUNICIPALITY COULD NOT VALIDLY MAKE A RATE CONTRACT WITH A
PUBLIC UTILITY BECAUSE INCONSISTENT WITH ITS RESERVED POWER TO REGULATE
RATES ARE INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE (A) THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN A
SUBSEQUENT DECISION HAS INDICATED THAT THE CONTRACT AND REGULATORY
POWERS MAY BE EXERCISED CONCURRENTLY, AND (B) THE CHARTER OF THE
MUNICIPALITY HERE INVOLVED SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERS IT TO ENTER INTO
FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH RATE REGULATION RESERVED.  P. 201. 

(4)  WHEN THE UTILITY VOLUNTARILY PUT INTO EFFECT IN THE ARKANSAS
CITY RATES LOWER THAN THOSE GRANTED BY THE FRANCHISE, THEN THE
CONSUMERS IN THE TEXAS CITY WERE IMMEDIATELY ENTITLED TO THE LOWER
RATE.  P. 202. 

(5) WHERE A RATE ORDER APPLICABLE IN THE ARKANSAS CITY WAS CHALLENGED
BY THE UTILITY, THE LATTER IS NOT "FINALLY COMPELLED" TO "PLACE IN" THE
RATE UNTIL ENTRY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF A COURT MAKING THE RATE
EFFECTIVE; BUT WHEN SUCH FINAL ORDER IS ENTERED, THE TEXAS CONSUMERS
ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE LOWERED RATE APPLIED TO THEIR CONSUMPTION FOR
THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME THAT IT IS ENJOYED BY THE ARKANSAS CONSUMERS. 
P. 202. 

(6)  A SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION SEEKING TO GIVE THE TEXAS CONSUMERS THE
BENEFIT OF A LOWER RATE WHICH HAD BEEN DECREED FOR THE ARKANSAS CITY,
BUT FROM WHICH DECREE AN APPEAL BY THE COMPANY WAS PENDING, WAS
PREMATURE.  P. 203. 

(7)  UPON REMAND OF THIS CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, LEAVE SHOULD BE GRANTED - THE ARKANSAS RATE CASE HAVING
FINALLY BEEN DETERMINED - TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO BRING TO
DATE THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE REFUND OF CHARGES BY THE COMPANY.  P.
203. 

(8)  SECTION IX IS NOT INVALID AS VAGUE, INDEFINITE AND OBSCURE.  P.
204. 

(9)  SECTION VIII-A OF THE FRANCHISE, RELATIVE TO NOTICE OF
APPLICATION FOR INCREASE OR DECREASE IN RATES, IS BY ITS TERMS
INAPPLICABLE TO THE POWER OF THE CITY TO INCREASE RATES.  P. 197. 

2.  QUESTIONS OF THE VALIDITY AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FRANCHISE GRANTED
UNDER STATE LAW TO A UTILITY COMPANY ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
FEDERAL COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE.  P. 198. 

3.  THIS COURT RELIES UPON THE TRIAL COURT FOR AID IN THE EXAMINATION
AND INTERPRETATION OF THE LOCAL LAW.  P. 198. 

4.  A RESPONDENT IN CERTIORARI HERE MAY URGE AFFIRMANCE OF THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON A GROUND ASSIGNED BY HIM ON
HIS APPEAL TO THAT COURT AS REQUIRING JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR BUT WHICH
IT DID NOT PASS UPON.  P. 198. 

5.  WHERE THERE IS A GOOD CAUSE OF ACTION STATED IN THE ORIGINAL
BILL, A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL SETTING UP FACTS SUBSEQUENTLY OCCURRING WHICH
JUSTIFY OTHER OR FURTHER RELIEF IS PROPER.  P. 203. 

6.  THAT THE RATES STIPULATED IN A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN A UTILITY
AND A MUNICIPALITY ARE INADEQUATE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THEIR
ENFORCEMENT.  P. 204. 

CITY OF TEXARKANA V. ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 584, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH, UPON APPEAL FROM
THE DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE CITY AGAINST THE UTILITY
COMPANY REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BRINGS TO THIS COURT FOR REVIEW A JUDGMENT  FN1
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT DENYING THE
VALIDITY OR APPLICABILITY OF THE FOLLOWING SECTION IN A FRANCHISE
GRANTED TO RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER IN 1930.  SECTION IX OF THAT
FRANCHISE READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF GRANTEE SHALL BE FINALLY COMPELLED TO, OR SHOULD VOLUNTARILY,
PLACE IN ANY RATES IN THE CITY OF TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, LESS THAN THE
RATES GRANTED BY THIS ORDINANCE THEN AND THEREUPON THE LESSENED RATE
SHALL APPLY IN THE CITY OF TEXARKANA, TEXAS, AND GRANTEE SHALL NOT BE
AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED TO CHARGE AND COLLECT ANY HIGHER RATE." 

TEXARKANA, TEXAS, AND TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS, ARE ADJACENT CITIES
DIVIDED BY THE ARKANSAS-TEXAS STATE LINE.  RESPONDENT SERVES AS A
PUBLIC UTILITY FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF GAS IN BOTH CITIES.  BECAUSE OF
THE SECTION JUST QUOTED, THE TEXAS CITY UNDERTOOK JUDICIAL ACTION TO
SECURE GAS FOR ITSELF AND ITS CITIZENS AT RATES LOWER THAN THOSE STATED
IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE FRANCHISE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI  FN2  ON
ACCOUNT OF ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURTS ON
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW. 

THE CHARTER OF THE TEXAS CITY GIVES AUTHORITY TO GRANT FRANCHISES FOR
THE USE OF ITS PUBLIC WAYS UPON TERMS TO BE EMBODIED IN ORDINANCES,
WHICH MUST EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT THE CITY SHALL RETAIN THE REGULATION
OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UTILITY, THE FIXING OF ITS RATES AND THE RIGHT
TO INSPECT ITS OPERATIONS.  SHOULD THESE RESERVATIONS BE OMITTED, THEY
ARE NEVERTHELESS TO BE CONSIDERED PART AND PARCEL OF THE FRANCHISE. 
FN3  THE CHARTER ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO
REGULATE RATES CHARGED BY GAS COMPANIES.  FN4  THE GAS COMPANY AND ITS
PREDECESSORS HAD LONG HELD A FRANCHISE FOR FURNISHING GAS TO THE TEXAS
CITY.  THE EARLIEST ORDINANCES OF THE CITY WERE AMENDED IN 1923, BY
WHICH AMENDMENT CERTAIN RATES FOR GAS WERE FIXED.  ARTICLE E IN THAT
ORDINANCE PROVIDED THAT THE GAS COMPANY SHOULD "NOT AT ANY TIME CHARGE
FOR FURNISHING GAS" TO THE TEXAS CITY "A GREATER SUM  ...  THAN IT AT
THE SAME TIME CHARGES AND COLLECTS" FROM THE ARKANSAS CITY.  ON JUNE
17, 1930, THE GAS COMPANY ACCEPTED A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT, IN ORDINANCE
FORM, WHICH INCREASED THE RATES TO GAS CONSUMERS FROM THOSE SET OUT IN
THE 1923 FRANCHISE.  THIS IS THE ORDINANCE CONTAINING THE SEC. IX
HERETOFORE QUOTED AND IT IS THE ORDINANCE REGULATING RATES NOW IN
EFFECT IN THE TEXAS CITY. 

ON MAY 30, 1930, THE GAS COMPANY SECURED A SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT
ADJUSTING RATES FROM THE ARKANSAS CITY.  THERE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IN
EFFECT A FRANCHISE OF 1923 WITH RATES SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE
TEXAS 1923 RATES.  THE ARKANSAS FRANCHISE OF 1930 WAS SUBJECTED TO A
REFERENDUM AND TO PROLONGED LITIGATION.  EVENTUALLY, ON DECEMBER 1,
1933, A FINAL ORDER SET ASIDE THE 1930 ORDINANCE OF THE ARKANSAS CITY
AND ESTABLISHED THE RATES OF THE 1923 ORDINANCE AS EFFECTIVE FOR THE
CONSUMERS OF THE ARKANSAS CITY FROM 1930 TO THE DATE OF THE DECREE. 
THIS DECREE ALSO REQUIRED REFUNDS TO THE ARKANSAS CONSUMERS FOR
OVERPAYMENT DURING THAT PERIOD.  FN5  BY FURTHER LITIGATION, A
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ARKANSAS CITY OF DECEMBER 22, 1933,
PROMULGATING RATES FOR THE FUTURE WAS UPHELD.  FN6  THESE LAST RATES
WERE THE 1923 RATES, MODIFIED IN MINOR PARTICULARS.  IN THE ORDER OF
DECEMBER 4, 1936, CONFIRMING THE RATES ESTABLISHED BY ITS RESOLUTION,
THE GAS COMPANY WAS DIRECTED TO REFUND TO THE CONSUMERS ANY OVERPAYMENT
BY REASON OF THE COLLECTION OF HIGHER RATES DURING THIS LAST JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING.  IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE LEGAL RATES TO THE CONSUMERS OF
THE ARKANSAS CITY AT ALL TIMES HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY THOSE OF THE
1923 ORDINANCE. 

IN TEXARKANA, TEXAS, THE CONSUMERS HAVE PAID SINCE 1930 THE RATES
FIXED IN THAT ORDINANCE, WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THOSE
FINALLY DETERMINED AS APPLICABLE TO THE ARKANSAS CONSUMERS.  THE GAS
COMPANY IN OCTOBER, 1933, SOUGHT FROM THE TEXAS CITY COUNCIL RATES
STILL HIGHER THAN THOSE GRANTED BY THE 1930 ORDINANCE.  THE COMPANY
GAVE NOTICE THAT ON NOVEMBER 23, 1933, A NEW AND HIGHER SCHEDULE OF
RATES THAN THOSE PROVIDED IN THE 1930 AGREEMENT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN
THE TEXAS CITY.  THE TEXAS CITY SOUGHT AND OBTAINED IN THE STATE COURT
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THIS INCREASE.  THIS IS STILL EFFECTIVE.  THIS
SUIT WAS REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR TEXAS.  THE BILL WAS
AMENDED ON JANUARY 15, 1934, TO SET UP AN ADDITIONAL CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST THE GAS COMPANY BY REASON OF THE ENTRY OF THE DECREE ON
DECEMBER 1, 1933, IN THE ARKANSAS LITIGATION.  AS THIS DECREE WAS A
FINAL ORDER DETERMINING THAT THE ARKANSAS CONSUMERS SHOULD PAY ONLY THE
1923 RATES, THE TEXAS CITY CONCEIVED ITS CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF THE SAME LOWER RATES BY VIRTUE OF SEC. IX.  IT WAS FURTHER
SOUGHT BY THIS AMENDMENT TO RECOVER FOR THE AFFECTED TIME A REFUND FOR
THE TEXAS CONSUMERS EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ARKANSAS RATES,
AS DETERMINED BY THE DECREE OF DECEMBER 1, 1933, AND THE TEXAS 1930
RATES.  LATER, ON DECEMBER 30, 1936, A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL WAS FILED TO
SET OUT THE FURTHER CLAIM OF THE TEXAS CITY CONSUMERS, FOR THE PERIOD
BETWEEN THAT COVERED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE FILING OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL, TOGETHER WITH A PRAYER THAT THE GAS COMPANY BE
COMPELLED TO PAY INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT THE EXCESS AMOUNT WHICH
IT WAS ALLEGED IT HAD AND WAS CONTINUOUSLY COLLECTING FROM THE TEXAS
CONSUMERS.  IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION WAS ASKED FOR THE FUNDS APPLICABLE
TO THOSE PERIODS CONCERNING WHICH NO FURTHER ARKANSAS LITIGATION WAS
PENDING. 

THE SITUATION FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE TEXAS CITY MIGHT BE
SUMMARIZED BY SAYING THAT IT SEEKS FOR ITS CONSUMERS THE LOWER 1923
ARKANSAS RATES INSTEAD OF THE TEXAS 1930 RATES, FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE ARKANSAS RESOLUTION OF MAY 30, 1930, TO FEBRUARY 16, 1934.  THIS
REFUND IS CLAIMED BECAUSE THE ARKANSAS CONSUMERS OBTAINED THESE LOWER
RATES BY THE ARKANSAS DECREE OF DECEMBER 1, 1933, AND THE VOLUNTARY ACT
OF THE GAS COMPANY IN COLLECTING THE LOWER RATES FROM THE DATE OF THE
DECREE TO FEBRUARY 16, 1934.  ON FINAL AFFIRMANCE OF THE ARKANSAS
LITIGATION, IT SEEKS REFUNDS FOR ITS CONSUMERS FROM FEBRUARY 16, 1934,
TO DECEMBER 4, 1936, OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TEXAS 1930 RATES AND
THE ARKANSAS DECEMBER 22, 1933, RATES.  THIS REFUND IS CLAIMED BECAUSE
OF THE DECREE OF DECEMBER 4, 1936,  FN7  VALIDATING FOR THE ARKANSAS
CONSUMERS THE RATES OF THE 1933 RESOLUTION.  THESE RATES WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE FIXED IN THE 1923 ORDINANCE.  AS AN
INJUNCTION, PENDING APPEAL, WAS REFUSED, THESE LOWER RATES HAVE BEEN IN
EFFECT IN ARKANSAS SINCE THE DATE OF THE DECREE.  AS POINTED OUT ABOVE,
THE DECREE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND CERTIORARI
REFUSED HERE.  IT IS FURTHER SOUGHT TO HAVE PUT INTO EFFECT IN TEXAS
THE RATES COLLECTED IN ARKANSAS AFTER DECEMBER 4, 1936.  THE RIGHT TO
THE LOWER RATES AND TO THE REFUND DEPENDS UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF
SEC. IX. 

ANOTHER BILL WAS FILED BY THE TEXAS CITY IN MAY, 1934, SEEKING
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RELIEF AS THAT SOUGHT IN THE PROCEEDING
HERETOFORE DETAILED.  THE REASONS FOR THE FILING OF THIS SECOND SUIT
AND ITS PURPOSE ARE NOT MATERIAL TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING.  THE TWO
ACTIONS WERE CONSOLIDATED.  LATER MOTIONS, PLEADINGS AND THE DECREE IN
THE TWO CASES ARE THE SAME. 

THE GAS COMPANY FILED ANSWERS TO THE BILLS SET OUT ABOVE AND A
COUNTERCLAIM SEEKING HIGHER RATES.  SECTION IX WAS CHALLENGED AS
INVALID BECAUSE OF CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER,
THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF TEXAS.  IT WAS ASSERTED THAT THE SECTION
WAS NOT A BINDING CONTRACT ON EITHER PARTY TO THE FRANCHISE AND FURTHER
ASSERTED THAT IF SEC. IX WAS VALID, IT WAS INAPPLICABLE TO ANY OF THE
THREE PERIODS FOR WHICH THE TEXAS CITY SOUGHT RELIEF AND REFUND.  THE
DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE CITY'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWERS AND
COUNTERCLAIM AND, THE GAS COMPANY DECLINING TO AMEND, DECREED THAT SEC.
IX WAS A BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES; THAT IT WAS INAPPLICABLE
TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1, 1933; THAT REFUND SHOULD BE MADE
FROM DECEMBER 1, 1933, TO FEBRUARY 16, 1934; AND THAT THE SUIT WAS
PREMATURE AS TO THE PERIOD AFTER FEBRUARY 16, 1934, BECAUSE AN APPEAL
WAS PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT AT
THE TIME THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS FILED BY THE TEXAS CITY ON DECEMBER
30, 1936.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL.  FN8  IT THOUGHT THAT SEC. IX WAS AN
INVALID ABDICATION OR DELEGATION OF THE TEXAS CITY'S RATE-MAKING POWER
SINCE THE SECTION PURPORTED TO BIND BOTH PARTIES TO LOWER RATES WHICH
MIGHT BE FIXED BY THE GAS COMPANY AND THE ARKANSAS CITY.  THE LOWER
COURT STATED ALSO, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, THAT THE CLAUSE WAS INAPPLICABLE
EVEN IF VALID.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI RELIES UPON THE ALLEGED
ERROR OF THE LOWER COURT IN DECIDING THAT THE SECTION WAS INVALID AND
INAPPLICABLE. 

ABDICATION OR DELEGATION OF REGULATORY POWER.  BY THE ACT TO
INCORPORATE THE CITY OF TEXARKANA, TEXAS, THE LEGISLATURE GRANTED A
SPECIAL CHARTER WHICH CONTAINED DELEGATIONS OF POWER TO THE
MUNICIPALITY TO CONTRACT FOR UTILITIES AND TO REGULATE GAS RATES, AND
PROHIBITIONS AGAINST THE GRANTING OF A FRANCHISE WITHOUT SPECIFIC
RESERVATION OF THIS POWER OF FUTURE REGULATION.  FN9  THE RESPONDENT
TAKES THE POSITION THAT SINCE SEC. IX NOT ONLY REQUIRES THE APPLICATION
OF LOWER ARKANSAS RATES TO TEXAS CONSUMERS BUT PROVIDES THAT THE GAS
COMPANY "SHALL NOT BE AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED TO CHARGE AND COLLECT ANY
HIGHER RATE," THE TEXAS CITY HAS ABDICATED POWER TO RAISE THE TEXAS
RATES ABOVE THE ARKANSAS RATES.  AS THE TEXAS CITY IS FORBIDDEN TO GIVE
UP THE POWER TO REGULATE RATES, THE SECTION, SAYS THE COMPANY, IS
INVALID. 

THE CITY AGREES THAT ANY DELEGATION OR ABDICATION OF COMPLETE POWER
TO REGULATE RATES WOULD BE UNLAWFUL AND ANY PROVISION OF A FRANCHISE
LEADING TO THAT RESULT INVALID UNDER THE DECISIONS OF TEXAS.  FN10  IT
IS THE PETITIONER'S POSITION, HOWEVER, THAT A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF
THE SECTION LEAVES WITH THE CITY THE UNIMPAIRED POWER TO REGULATE THE
GAS RATES, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISIONS.  WE AGREE WITH THIS ANALYSIS OF THE SECTION.  THE WORDS
JUST QUOTED PROHIBITING THE CHARGE OR COLLECTION OF HIGHER RATES MORE
REASONABLY IMPLY A LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT OF THE GAS COMPANY TO LOOK
TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE FRANCHISE FOR AUTHORITY TO EXACT OTHER
RATES.  BUT IF THIS VIEW IS NOT ACCEPTED, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE
CHARTER PROVISION 163A RETAINING THE RIGHT TO REGULATE MUST BE READ
INTO THE FRANCHISE.  THIS WOULD RESULT IN LEAVING IN THE COUNCIL OF THE
TEXAS CITY THE POWER TO RAISE OR LOWER THE GAS RATES. 

NOR, IN THIS VIEW, CAN IT BE SAID THERE IS DELEGATION AS DISTINCT
FROM ABDICATION OF THE POWER TO REGULATE.  IT IS TRUE, EXTRA-STATE
ACTION DETERMINES THAT THE RATE SHALL LESSEN, BUT THE COUNCIL HAS POWER
OVER THE RATES AT ALL TIMES.  THE ARKANSAS RATE IS A MERE MEASURING
ROD, AS THOUGH THE RATE FLUCTUATED WITH TEMPERATURE OR CONSUMPTION. 
EVEN IF SEC. VIII-A  FN11  IS VALID, IN THE FACE OF SECS. 163, 163A AND
196 OF THE CHARTER, IT IS INAPPLICABLE, BY ITS TERMS, TO THE POWER OF
THE CITY TO INCREASE RATES. 

THE OBLIGATION OF THE UTILITY UNDER SECTION IX.  AS THE LOWER COURT
DETERMINED SEC. IX IS WHOLLY INVALID AS A DELEGATION AND ABDICATION BY
THE CITY OF ITS RATE MAKING POWERS, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR IT TO
CONSIDER WHETHER THE SECTION WAS BINDING UPON THE UTILITY ALONE.  WITH
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CITY IS FREE TO RAISE OR LOWER THE RATE, IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, WE MUST INQUIRE WHETHER THE GAS COMPANY IS BOUND TO
FURNISH TEXAS CONSUMERS THEIR GAS AT THE LESSENED ARKANSAS RATES.  THE
DETERMINATION FOLLOWS THE STATE LAW.  FN12  THIS COURT LOOKS TO THE
TRIAL COURT FOR THE ORIGINAL EXAMINATION OF LOCAL QUESTIONS  FN13  AND
RELIES FOR AID UPON THE EXPLANATION OF ITS CONCLUSION.  WHILE NO
OPINION WAS WRITTEN IN THE TRIAL COURT, ITS DECREE FOUND SEC. IX A
"BINDING CONTRACT" AND AWARDED RECOVERY FOR A PORTION OF THE TIME
INVOLVED.  ASSUMING THE DISTRICT COURT AGREED WITH THIS COURT THAT THE
CITY COULD NOT AND DID NOT DELEGATE OR ABDICATE ITS RATE MAKING
FUNCTION, THIS NECESSARILY REQUIRED A HOLDING THAT THE COMPANY ALONE
WAS BOUND BY THIS SECTION OF THE CONTRACT.  AN APPEAL, WITH SPECIFIC
ASSIGNMENT OF THIS RULING AS ERROR, BROUGHT THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AND THE POINT IS ARGUED HERE BY RESPONDENT AS
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE JUDGMENT REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN14
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL CONSTRAINED TO PASS UPON THE
QUESTION.  FN15 

IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
SETTLES THE PROBLEM OF WHETHER A UTILITY IS BOUND TO A CONTRACT FOR A
SCHEDULE OF RATES WHEN THE MUNICIPALITY IS NOT.  THAT COURT, IN 1925,
IN DALLAS RAILWAY CO. V. GELLER, DID STATE THAT AN ORDINANCE ON RATES
IS A CONTRACT.  FN16  THERE HAD BEEN A FRANCHISE WITH A FIXED MAXIMUM
RATE.  THE MUNICIPALITY GRANTED AN INCREASE.  A CITIZEN OBJECTED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE FRANCHISE, AS A CONTRACT, BOUND THE MUNICIPALITY AND
THE UTILITY TO THE AGREED RATE.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS  FN17  HELD
THE RATE SECTION OF THE FRANCHISE WAS NOT A "FIXED CONTRACT" BUT A RATE
SCHEDULE, SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S POWER OF REGULATION BY REASON OF SEC.
17 OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION FORBIDDING UNCONTROLLABLE
GRANTS OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.  ON REVIEW, THE SUPREME COURT STATED THAT
A QUESTION HAD BEEN RAISED BY CITY ATTORNEYS, APPEARING AS AMICI
CURIAE, AS TO THE MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE LOWER COURT WHICH WAS
CONSTRUED BY SOME TO HOLD THAT "A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT MAKE CONTRACTS
THAT ARE BINDING UPON PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS."  FN18  WHILE THE
COURT COULD HAVE AVOIDED COMMENT ON THE POINT UPON THE THEORY THAT
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A CONTRACT, THE CITY'S REGULATORY POWER WAS
UNAFFECTED, IT CHOSE TO INTERPRET THE FRANCHISE IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CONTRACT IN THESE WORDS:  "THE RIGHT OR POWER TO FURTHER CONTROL OR
REGULATE THE GRANT IN REGARD TO THE RATE SCHEDULE IS A RESERVATION TO
THE MUNICIPALITY AND NOT AN INHIBITION TO CONTRACT; AND WHERE A
FRANCHISE IS ACCEPTED BY A GRANTEE, THIS RESERVATION  ...  BECOMES A
PART OF THE CONTRACT."  LATER THE SUPREME COURT, IN DISCUSSING THE
POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO AUTHORIZE SPECIFICALLY BINDING RATE
CONTRACTS FOR DEFINITE PERIODS, CITING THE UVALDE CASE, SAID, "IT IS
WELL ESTABLISHED IN THIS STATE THAT THE LEGISLATURE  ...  MAY AUTHORIZE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS" FOR RATES FOR LIMITED
PERIODS.  FN19  WE REASON FROM THESE OPINIONS THAT IN TEXAS A UTILITY
FRANCHISE IS A CONTRACT, WITH AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED PROVISION THAT THE
RATE SCHEDULES ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE CITY.  IN SUCH A
CONTRACT AN AGREEMENT BY THE UTILITY TO LOWER RATES UNDER SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS IS BINDING, ALTHOUGH THE RULE AS TO THE RESERVED POWER OF
REGULATION PREVENTS THE CITY FROM AGREEING NOT TO RAISE OR LOWER
RATES.  GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE IS CONSIDERATION FOR THE UNDERTAKING OF
THE UTILITY TO MAINTAIN THE PRESCRIBED RATES UNTIL THEY ARE ALTERED BY
THE EXERCISE OF THE RESERVED POWER OF THE MUNICIPALITY TO REGULATE
RATES. 

THE CASE OF UVALDE V. UVALDE ELECTRIC & ICE CO., 1923,  FN20  IS
SUGGESTED AS AN AUTHORITY AGAINST INTERPRETING A RATE CONTRACT, INVALID
AS TO THE CITY, AS BINDING UPON THE UTILITY.  UVALDE, WITHOUT POWER TO
CONTRACT FOR RATES, DID SO CONTRACT.  THE UTILITY RAISED THE RATES
WITHOUT PERMISSION.  THE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT "THE POWER TO
REGULATE RATES AND THE POWER TO STIPULATE BY CONTRACT FOR A TERM OF 10
YEARS FOR RATES CANNOT COEXIST."  LOOKING AT THE CONTRACT IN THIS WAY
AND WITHOUT DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECT OF THE ATTEMPTED AGREEMENT ON THE
UTILITY, AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE NEW RATES WAS REFUSED.  THAT CASE
APPEARS RATHER A PRECEDENT FOR THE RULE THAT WHERE A CITY IS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO CONTRACT AS TO RATES BUT ONLY TO REGULATE THEM, ANY
EFFORT TO CONTRACT IS NUGATORY.  AS INDICATED ABOVE, IT HAS BEEN CITED
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS AS AUTHORITY FOR THE RIGHT OF A
MUNICIPALITY TO CONTRACT WHEN SO EMPOWERED. 

THIS COURT HAS HAD OTHER OCCASIONS TO CONSIDER THE RIGHTS OF TEXAS
UTILITIES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS STATUTES AND CONSTITUTION. 
IN SAN ANTONIO TRACTION CO. V. ALTGELT  FN21 WE ASSUMED A RATE CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE STREET RAILWAY, AND RULED THAT IT WAS SUBJECT
TO SEC. 17 OF THE TEXAS BILL OF RIGHTS,  FN22  WHICH DECLARED THAT ALL
PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY THE LEGISLATURE REMAINED UNDER ITS CONTROL. 
CONSEQUENTLY, AN ENACTMENT CHANGING THE RATE AGREEMENT WAS VALID. 
LATER, 1920, IN SAN ANTONIO V. SAN ANTONIO PUBLIC SERVICE CO. FN23  IN
PASSING UPON A RATE INCREASE BY A UTILITY IN THE FACE OF A FRANCHISE
LIMITATION WE RULED THAT SEC. 17 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WITH ITS
PROVISION AGAINST IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, MADE IMPOSSIBLE A
CONTRACT IN TEXAS ON RATES BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO
CONTRACT AND THE SUPERIOR AND INCONSISTENT POWER TO REGULATE.  TO THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE COMPANY MIGHT BE BOUND, THOUGH THE CITY WAS NOT, THE
COURT REPLIED:  IF THE CITY IS NOT BOUND "IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT THAT
POWER (UNCONTROLLED REGULATORY) WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE EXERTED AND
HENCE THE SUPPOSED CONDITION OPERATING UPON THE PRIVATE OWNER WOULD BE
NUGATORY."  FN24 

THESE CONCLUSIONS OF THIS COURT ARE INAPPLICABLE HERE FOR TWO
REASONS:  FIRST, THE SUBSEQUENT OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE GELLER CASE INDICATES THAT REGULATORY AND CONTRACT POWER MAY BE
EXERCISED CONCURRENTLY IN THAT STATE; SECOND, THE CHARTER OF TEXARKANA,
TEXAS, GIVES IT SPECIFIC POWER TO ENTER INTO FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS WITH
RATE REGULATION RESERVED TO THE CITY.  FN25  THE UTILITY WAS CHARGEABLE
WITH NOTICE IN 1930 OF THE RULE IN TEXAS, RESTATED IN THE TEXARKANA
CHARTER, THAT RATE REGULATORY POWER REMAINS IN THE MUNICIPALITY, AND
THE CHARTER PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT WAS RESERVED IN THE FRANCHISE BY
FORCE OF LAW.  IT CONTRACTED, NEVERTHELESS, TO FURNISH THE TEXAS CITY
GAS AT THE SAME RATES AS ARKANSAS CONSUMERS ENJOY.  THERE APPEARS NO
REASON WHY SUCH AN AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCEABLE AND, IN OUR VIEW
OF THE TEXAS LAW, IT IS. 

APPLICABILITY.  THE TRIAL COURT DETERMINED THAT SEC. IX WAS NOT TO BE
APPLIED TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1, 1933; THAT IT SHOULD BE
APPLIED TO THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 1933, TO FEBRUARY 16, 1934, AND THAT
THE EFFORT TO RECOVER REFUNDS FOR THE PERIOD AFTER FEBRUARY 16, 1934,
WAS PREMATURE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THE SECTION, IF
VALID, GENERALLY INAPPLICABLE.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LANGUAGE
OF THE SECTION WAS INTENDED TO AND DOES MAKE APPLICABLE TO EACH TEXAS
CONSUMER THE SAME RATES THAT ARKANSAS CONSUMERS ARE CHARGED FOR SIMILAR
USES AND QUANTITY, WHEN THE ARKANSAS RATES ARE LOWER THAN THE RATES
GRANTED TEXAS CONSUMERS BY THE ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEXARKANA,
TEXAS, OF JUNE 13, 1930.  THIS FLOWS FROM THE WORDS IN SEC. IX "PLACE
IN ANY RATES" LESS THAN THE TEXAS ORDINANCE RATES. 

THE LOWER RATES FOR TEXAS ARE TO BE EFFECTIVE ONLY WHEN THE UTILITY
IS "FINALLY COMPELLED TO, OR SHOULD VOLUNTARILY, PLACE IN" EFFECT THE
LOWER RATES FOR ARKANSAS.  WHEN A RATE IS VOLUNTARILY PLACED IN EFFECT
IN ARKANSAS, THE TEXAS CONSUMERS ARE IMMEDIATELY ENTITLED TO THE SAME
RATE.  WE CONSTRUE "FINALLY COMPELLED" AS MEANING THE ENTRY BY A COURT
OF THE FINAL ORDER WHICH MAKES EFFECTIVE A CHALLENGED RATE ORDER.  NO
RIGHT TO DEMAND THE LOWER RATE AND NO CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENFORCE THE
RIGHT ARISES UNTIL THAT TIME.  WHEN SUCH ORDER IS ENTERED, HOWEVER, THE
TEXAS CONSUMERS ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE LOWERED RATE APPLIED TO THEIR
CONSUMPTION FOR THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME IT IS ENJOYED BY THE ARKANSAS
CONSUMERS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE CLAUSE WAS TO GIVE TEXAS CONSUMERS THE
ADVANTAGE OF LOWER ARKANSAS RATES FOR SIMILAR PERIODS OF TIME. 
LITIGATION, REGARDLESS OF ITS MERIT, MAY NOT STAY THE BEGINNING OF THE
LOWER TEXAS RATE.  IN OUR VIEW, SO MUCH OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT AS WAS
BASED UPON THE CHALLENGED RATE ORDER OF DECEMBER 22, 1933, WAS
PREMATURE.  FN26  AS THERE WAS AN APPEAL FROM THE DECREE OF DECEMBER 4,
1936, IT WAS INEFFECTIVE TO CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WHEN THE
SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION OF DECEMBER 30, 1936, WAS FILED. 

LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO BRING TO DATE THE
CONTROVERSY OVER THE REFUND OF RATES, COLLECTED SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY
16, 1934, SHOULD BE GRANTED, UPON THE RETURN OF THE CASE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, ON MOTION OF THE CITY OF TEXARKANA, TEXAS.  THE PRESENT
ACTION IS AN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ENTIRE
RATE CONTROVERSY AND THE REFUND OF SUCH SUMS AS MAY BE DETERMINED,
ULTIMATELY, TO BE DUE THE TEXAS CONSUMERS.  FN27  WHERE THERE IS A GOOD
CAUSE OF ACTION STATED IN THE ORIGINAL BILL, A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL
SETTING UP FACTS SUBSEQUENTLY OCCURRING WHICH JUSTIFY OTHER OR FURTHER
RELIEF IS PROPER.  IF THE ORIGINAL DECREE IN THE TRIAL COURT HAD NOT
BEEN ENTERED, THIS SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION WOULD SIMPLIFY THE
CONTROVERSY.  FN28  WE THINK THIS PROCEDURE IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE AFTER
REMAND FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  FN29 

OTHER SUGGESTIONS TO SUPPORT THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION THAT SEC. IX
IS INVALID ARE MADE.  IT IS SAID THAT IT IS VAGUE, INDEFINITE AND
OBSCURE.  THESE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BY WHAT WE HAVE WRITTEN.  THE ISSUE
OF CONFISCATION TENDERED BY THE ANSWER OF THE UTILITY TO THE PETITION
TO ENFORCE THE OBLIGATIONS OF SEC. IX NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THIS
PROCEEDING.  IF THE UTILITY HAS ENTERED INTO A BINDING CONTRACT AS TO
RATES, THEIR CONFISCATORY CHARACTER IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE CLAIM OF
THE CITY TO SERVICE AT THE CONTRACT RATES.  FN30  REVERSED. 

FN1  ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO. V. TEXARKANA, 97 F.2D 5. 

FN2  305 U.S. 584. 

FN3  SEC. 160.  "THE RIGHTS OF THE CITY OF TEXARKANA IN THE USE OF
THE PUBLIC STREETS, ALLEYS, SQUARES, PARKS, BRIDGES AND ALL PUBLIC
PLACES ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE INALIENABLE TO ANY PERSON, FIRM OR
CORPORATION, EXCEPT BY LICENSE PERMIT AND FRANCHISE PASSED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL ON THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THREE-FIFTHS OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF
SAID COUNCIL ELECTED." 

SEC. 163.  "SAID PROPOSED FRANCHISE SHALL CONTAIN ALL THE TERMS AND
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES THERETO, AND IT MUST EXPRESSLY SET FORTH
THAT THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE OF REGULATING AND
CONTROLLING THE OPERATION OF ALL BUSINESS DONE THEREUNDER, FIXING
FARES, RATES, TOLLS AND CHARGES AND INSPECTING THE BUSINESS AND WORK
FROM TIME TO TIME AS IT PROGRESSES, AND RATE REGULATIONS SHALL CONFORM
TO SECTION 197 OF THIS CHARTER." 

SEC. 163A.  "IN THE EVENT THAT ANY FRANCHISE OR PERMIT IS SO GIVEN BY
SAID COUNCIL, WHICH SHALL NOT CONTAIN SUCH STIPULATIONS THEREIN AS
PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 162 OF THIS CHARTER, THEN IT SHALL,
NEVERTHELESS, BE CONSIDERED THAT ALL OF THE SAID STIPULATIONS CONTAINED
IN SAID SECTIONS 162, 163 AND 197 ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE SAID
CONTRACT AND FRANCHISE, JUST AS THOUGH WRITTEN THEREIN, AND THE SAID
APPLICANT SO ACCEPTING SUCH FRANCHISE, AS WELL AS THEIR HEIRS, ASSIGNS
AND SUCCESSORS, SHALL BE HELD AND FIRMLY BOUND THERETO, NOTWITHSTANDING
SUCH OMISSIONS." 

FN4  SEC. 196.  "THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO
REGULATE BY ORDINANCE THE RATES AND COMPENSATION TO BE CHARGED BY ALL
WATER, GAS, LIGHT AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES, CORPORATIONS OR PERSONS
USING THE STREETS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF SAID CITY AND ENGAGED IN
FURNISHING WATER, GAS, LIGHT AND TELEPHONE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC, AND
TO PRESCRIBE REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH
COMMODITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND SERVICES RENDERED, AND TO FIX
PENALTIES TO ENFORCE SUCH CHARGES, RULES AND REGULATIONS; PROVIDED,
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL NOT PRESCRIBE ANY RATE OR COMPENSATION
WHICH WILL YIELD LESS THAN TEN PER CENT PER ANNUM NET ON THE ACTUAL
COSTS OF THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES, EQUIPMENTS AND BETTERMENTS.  SAID
CITY COUNCIL MAY ALSO FIX THE CHARGES WHICH MAY BE COLLECTED FOR
TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS AND BAGGAGE IN VEHICLES ENGAGED IN PUBLIC
SERVICE." 

FN5  ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO. V. TEXARKANA, 97 F.2D 5, 6, COL. 2;
CF. SOUTHERN CITIES DISTRIBUTING CO. V. CARTER, 184 ARK. 4; 41 S.W.2D
1085, APPEAL DISMISSED 285 U.S. 525, 526; TEXARKANA V. SOUTHERN CITIES
DISTRIBUTING CO., 64 F.2D 944, CERT. DENIED 290 U.S. 650. 

FN6  ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO. V. TEXARKANA, 17 F.SUPP.  447;
AFFIRMED 96 F.2D 179; CERT. DENIED, 305 U.S. 606. 

FN7  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ARKANSAS:  ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS
CO. V. TEXARKANA, CAUSE NO. 219. 

FN8  ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO. V. TEXARKANA, 97 F.2D 5. 

FN9  THE PROVISIONS ARE SET OUT IN NOTES 3 AND 4, SUPRA. 

FN10  UVALDE V. UVALDE ELECTRIC & ICE CO., 250 S.W. 140; TEXAS GAS
UTILITIES CO. V. UVALDE, 77 S.W.2D 750; NAIRN V. BEAN (COM. 1932), 48
S.W.2D 584, 586; CF. RAILROAD COMM'N V. WELD & NEVILLE, 96 TEXAS 394,
405; 73 S.W. 529; MISSOURI-KANSAS & T.R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 3
S.W.2D 489, 493; GREEN V. SAN ANTONIO WATER SUPPLY CO. (CIV. APP.), 193
S.W. 453. 

FN11  SECTION VIII-A.  "IN CONSIDERATION OF THE GRANTING OF THIS
FRANCHISE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY AND BETWEEN THE
PARTIES HERETO THAT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY SHALL APPLY
FOR A REDUCTION IN RATES, OR BEFORE THE SOUTHERN CITIES DISTRIBUTING
COMPANY, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, SHALL MAKE APPLICATION FOR AN
INCREASE IN RATES, EITHER PARTY SHALL GIVE TO THE OTHER PARTY ONE
YEAR'S NOTICE IN WRITING OF ITS INTENTION TO SO APPLY FOR AN INCREASE
OR DECREASE IN RATES, AND NO APPLICATION FOR INCREASE OR DECREASE IN
RATES SHALL BE ACTED UPON OR CONSIDERED UNLESS SAID ONE YEAR'S NOTICE
IS FIRST GIVEN BEFORE MAKING SUCH APPLICATION." 

FN12  SEC. 34, ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, C. 20, 1 STAT. 73, 92, 28
U.S.C. 725; ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64; SOUTHERN IOWA
ELECTRIC CO. V. CHARITON, 255 U.S. 539, 543; RAILROAD COMM'N V. LOS
ANGELES RY. CORP., 280 U.S. 145, 151. 

FN13  RAILROAD COMM'N V. LOS ANGELES RY. CORP., 280 U.S. 145, P. 164
DISSENT, N. 1. 

FN14  LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, 538. 

FN15  CF. RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 202, 206. 

FN16  114 TEXAS 484; 271 S.W. 1106. 

FN17  GELLER V. DALLAS RY CO., 245 S.W. 254, 256. 

FN18  IT WAS STATED IN PETITIONER'S BRIEF AND NOT DENIED THAT AFTER
THE DECISION IN UVALDE V. UVALDE ELEC.  & ICE CO., 250 S.W. 140,
DISCUSSED IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, BRIEFS WERE FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
IN THE GELLER CASE ARGUING THE EFFECT OF THE UVALDE DECISION. 

FN19  LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY V. MCGRAW, 83 S.W.2D 629, 638;
125 TEXAS 268. 

FN20  250 S.W. 140.  COMPARE TEXAS GAS UTILITIES CO. V. UVALDE, 77
S.W.2D 750, 752.    FN21  200 U.S. 304, 308. 

FN22  CONSTITUTION OF STATE OF TEXAS, BILL OF RIGHTS, VERNON'S TEXAS
STATUTES 1936, ART. I, P. XXV, SEC. 17.  "NO PERSON'S PROPERTY SHALL BE
TAKEN, DAMAGED OR DESTROYED FOR OR APPLIED TO PUBLIC USE WITHOUT
ADEQUATE COMPENSATION BEING MADE, UNLESS BY THE CONSENT OF SUCH PERSON;
AND, WHEN TAKEN, EXCEPT FOR THE USE OF THE STATE, SUCH COMPENSATION
SHALL BE FIRST MADE, OR SECURED BY A DEPOSIT OF MONEY; AND NO
IRREVOCABLE OR UNCONTROLLABLE GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES OR
IMMUNITIES, SHALL BE MADE; BUT ALL PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES GRANTED BY
THE LEGISLATURE, OR CREATED UNDER ITS AUTHORITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE
CONTROL THEREOF."    FN23  255 U.S. 547, 555, 556. 

FN24  CF. RAILROAD COMM'N V. LOS ANGELES RY. CORP., 280 U.S. 145,
151.  BUT CF. SOUTHERN UTILITIES CO. V. PALATKA, 268 U.S. 232, 233. 

FN25  SECS. 163, 163A, 196, NOTES 3 AND 4, SUPRA. 

FN26  ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412, 429. 

FN27  RULE 15D, DISTRICT COURT RULES, SEPTEMBER 1, 1938.  CF. RULE
34, FEDERAL EQUITY RULES, 1912. 

FN28  NEW YORK SECURITY & TRUST CO. V. LINCOLN ST. RY. CO., 74 F. 67,
68; BANKS LAW PUB. CO. V. LAWYERS' CO-OPERATIVE PUB. CO., 139 F. 701;
KRYPTOK CO. V. HAUSSMANN & CO., 216 F. 267; MILO MANOR, INC. V.
WOODARD, 67 APP. D.C. 296; 92 F.2D 220, 223.  CF. CLARKE V. BOYSEN, 264
F. 492, 496, A CLOSED ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REOPENED. 

FN29  CF. 2 DANIELL'S CHANCERY PLEADING AND PRACTICE, 6TH AM. ED.,
PP. 1536, N. 6, AND 1537.  FOR FURTHER ACTION AFTER DECREE, SEE
MITCHELL COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247, 266; MORRISDALE
COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 304, 314; RIO GRANDE DAM CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 215 U.S. 266, 274. 

FN30  CF. ST. CLOUD PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. ST. CLOUD, 265 U.S. 352;
HENDERSON WATER CO. V. CORPORATION COMM'N, 269 U.S. 278; SEE SOUTHERN
IOWA ELEC.  CO. V. CHARITON, 255 U.S. 539, 542; PADUCAH V. PADUCAH RY.
CO., 261 U.S. 267, 272-73; GEORGIA RY. & POWER CO. V. DECATUR, 262 U.S.
432, 438-39; CF. COLUMBUS RY., POWER & L. CO. V. COLUMBUS, 249 U.S.
399, 410. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS RIGHT AND THAT ITS JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 
..END :









CURRIN V. WALLACE, 306 U.S. 1 


NO. 275.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 95
F.2D 856, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THERE IS AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY IN THIS CASE BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND
DEFENDANTS, RESPECTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE TOBACCO INSPECTION
ACT OF AUGUST 23, 1935, ENTITLING THE PLAINTIFFS TO INVOKE THE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT.  P. 9. 

2.  THE TOBACCO INSPECTION ACT OF AUGUST 23, 1935, AUTHORIZES THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS OF TOBACCO AND TO
DESIGNATE THOSE AUCTION MARKETS WHERE TOBACCO BOUGHT AND SOLD MOVES IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE; AND IT PROVIDES, UNDER PENALTY, THAT AT
A MARKET SO DESIGNATED, NO TOBACCO SHALL BE OFFERED FOR SALE AT AUCTION
UNTIL IT HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND CERTIFIED BY AN AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY ACCORDING TO SUCH STANDARDS.  HE CAN
NOT DESIGNATE A MARKET UNLESS TWO-THIRDS OF THE GROWERS VOTING AT A
PRESCRIBED REFERENDUM FAVOR IT.  IN CASE COMPETENT INSPECTORS ARE NOT
AVAILABLE OR FOR OTHER REASONS THE SECRETARY IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE FOR
INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION AT ALL AUCTION MARKETS WITHIN A TYPE AREA,
HE SHALL FIRST DESIGNATE THOSE MARKETS WHERE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF
GROWERS MAY BE SERVED WITH THE FACILITIES AVAILABLE.  HE MAY SUSPEND
INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION AT A MARKET HE HAS DESIGNATED IF COMPETENT
INSPECTORS ARE NOT AVAILABLE OR THE QUANTITY OF TOBACCO IS NOT ENOUGH
TO JUSTIFY THE COST OF THE SERVICE.  HELD: 

(1)  SUCH REGULATION, FOR THE PROTECTION OF SELLERS OR PURCHASERS, OR
BOTH, IS WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER AS RESPECTS THE SELLING FOR
TRANSPORTATION TO OTHER STATES OR BROAD; AND IN VIEW OF THE MANNER OF
THE SELLING AT THE AUCTIONS, WHERE ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE CONDUCTED
INDISCRIMINATELY AND VIRTUALLY AT THE SAME TIME, CONGRESS WAS
AUTHORIZED TO APPLY ITS REGULATION TO INTRASTATE SALES IN ORDER TO MAKE
IT EFFECTIVE AS TO THE SALES IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  PP.
9, 11. 

(2)  THE AUCTION IS A PART OF THE SALES CONSUMMATED, NOTWITHSTANDING
THAT IN THE MARKET PRACTICE THE GROWERS ARE NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT BIDS,
AND IN SOME INSTANCES REJECT THEM.  P. 10. 

(3)  REGULATIONS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE MAY HAVE THE QUALITY OF
POLICE REGULATIONS.  P. 11. 

(4)  THE INSPECTION AND GRADING UNDER THE ACT, THOUGH THEY TAKE PLACE
BEFORE THE AUCTION, HAVE IMMEDIATE RELATION TO THE SALES IN INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  P. 12. 

(5)  THE FACT THAT, FOR WANT OF A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF EXPERTS TO
INSPECT AND GRADE THE TOBACCO, BUT A FEW OF THE TOBACCO AUCTION MARKETS
IN NORTH CAROLINA HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED, WITH THE RESULT THAT SOME
WAREHOUSEMEN OPERATING SUCH MARKETS ARE BOUND BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF
INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION, WHILE OTHERS, IN THE SAME SORT OF
BUSINESS AND COMPETING FOR THE PATRONAGE OF THE SAME GROWERS, REMAIN
FREE FROM SUCH REQUIREMENTS, DOES NOT RENDER THE REGULATION INVALID FOR
DISCRIMINATION.  P. 13. 

(6)  MERE LACK OF UNIFORMITY DOES NOT INVALIDATE A REGULATION OF
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  P. 14. 

(7)  THE PROVISION FOR A REFERENDUM VOTE OF TOBACCO GROWERS IS MERELY
A CONDITION UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION, AND
DOES NOT INVOLVE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  P.
15. 

(8)  THE ACT DOES NOT INVOLVE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  P. 16. 

3.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT IN THIS CASE THE POWER OF THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THE TOBACCO INSPECTION ACT WAS ARBITRARILY OR
CAPRICIOUSLY USED.  P. 18. 

4.  THE CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE, WHO ARE WAREHOUSEMEN
AND AUCTIONEERS SELLING TOBACCO ON COMMISSION FOR THE GROWERS WHO OWN
THE TOBACCO, THAT THE ACT INFLICTS UPON THEM A LOSS OF PATRONAGE AND
BUSINESS, WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY PROOF.  P. 18. 

CURRIN ET AL. V. WALLACE, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 584, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING A DECREE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 19 F.SUPP.  211, WHICH, AT THE SUIT OF CERTAIN
WAREHOUSEMEN AND AUCTIONEERS, ENJOINED THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND
OTHER FEDERAL OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE
TOBACCO INSPECTION ACT. 

PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT. 

THE TRANSACTION OF OFFERING FOR SALE TOBACCO AT AUCTION ON WAREHOUSE
FLOORS IS NOT A TRANSACTION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

AFTER THE TOBACCO HAS GONE THROUGH THE AUCTION SALE THE FARMER MAY,
AND OFTEN DOES, REJECT THE OFFERED PRICE AND TAKE HIS TOBACCO AWAY. 

THE TOBACCO ACQUIRES INTERSTATE CHARACTER ONLY WHEN THE SALE IS
CONSUMMATED AND POSSESSION PASSES FROM GROWER TO PURCHASER.  TOBACCO,
MOVING FROM THE FIELDS TO THE CURING BARNS, AND FROM THE CURING BARNS
TO THE WAREHOUSE FLOORS, IS NO PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  OBSERVE
THAT THE INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE OFFERING FOR SALE. 
CONTROL OVER COMMODITIES UP TO THE POINT OF SALE IS RESERVED TO THE
STATES BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO CO.,
259 U.S. 344; HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 246; OLIVER
MINING CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. CORPORATION
COMM'N, 286 U.S. 210; HOPE GAS CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284. 

IN HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251; UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V.
HERKERT, 265 U.S. 457; UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1;
KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1, THE COURT HOLDS THAT THE MANUFACTURE OF
GOODS INTENDED TO BE TRANSPORTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE CUTTING OF TIMBER, FOR IMMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION TO OTHER STATES,
IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517; MCCLUSKEY V.
MARYSVILLE & N. RY. CO., 243 U.S. 36; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298
U.S. 238. 

THE GINNING OF COTTON, ALTHOUGH THE COTTON IS TO BE IMMEDIATELY
TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND ALTHOUGH THE COTTON HAS ALREADY
BEGUN ITS JOURNEY FROM THE FIELDS TO THE MARKET, IS NOT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  CRESCENT OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 257 U.S. 129; FEDERAL
COMPRESS & WAREHOUSE CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17; CHASSANIOL V.
GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584; BURCO, INC. V. WHITWORTH, 81 F.2D 721. 

THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY, WHICH IS INSTANTLY THEREAFTER
TRANSMITTED ACROSS STATE LINES, IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UTAH POWER
& LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 285 U.S. 165. 

IF CONGRESS HAS THE POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE GENERAL
WELFARE CLAUSE TO COMPEL A PERSON TO SUBMIT TOBACCO TO GOVERNMENT
REGULATIONS, PRIOR TO ITS SALE AND PRIOR TO ITS DELIVERY TO THE BUYER,
THEN SUCH POWER WILL DELIVER TO FEDERAL CONTROL THE TOBACCO YET
UNPLANTED AND UNHARVESTED AND UNSOLD, BECAUSE IT IS IN LARGE PART
DESTINED FOR AND SURELY TO BE EXPORTED TO STATES OTHER THAN THAT OF ITS
PRODUCTION.  CF. COE V. ERROL, SUPRA; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 495. 

DECLARATIONS BY WAY OF INDUCEMENT TO THE ENACTMENT WHICH FOLLOWS ADD
NOTHING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT. 

THE POWER TO LEGISLATE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF
THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT JUSTIFY THIS ACT. 

THE ACT IN ITS APPLICATION UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN
WAREHOUSEMEN. 

IT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE POWER. 

IT VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE PETITIONERS ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM VOTING UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
ACT, ALTHOUGH IT VITALLY AFFECTS THEIR BUSINESS AND PROPERTY, AND
ALTHOUGH IT IMPOSES DUTIES AND EXPENSE UPON THEM WITHOUT REMUNERATION
FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY ARE PUT AT THE MERCY OF A GROUP OF GROWERS
WHO VOTE AFFIRMATIVELY IN FAVOR OF THE INSPECTION.  BY THIS ACT THE
POWER TO LEGISLATE IS CONFERRED UPON THESE GROWERS, WHO MAY BE A VERY
SMALL MINORITY OF THE WHOLE CLASS.  THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THIS
STATUTE UNDERTAKES "AN INTOLERABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH PERSONAL LIBERTY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY."  CARTER V. CARTER COAL
CO., SUPRA. 

THE 1782 GROWERS WHO VOTED COMPULSORY GRADING ON PETITIONERS' FLOORS
ARE LEFT AT LIBERTY TO SELL THEIR TOBACCO UNGRADED ON MARKETS TO WHICH
THE COMPULSION HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED.  THEY HAVE SHACKLED THE OXFORD
WAREHOUSEMEN, WHO COULD NOT VOTE, BUT LEFT THEMSELVES FREE TO SELL
THEIR TOBACCO AS THEY CHOOSE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PLAINTIFFS, TOBACCO WAREHOUSEMEN AND AUCTIONEERS IN OXFORD, NORTH
CAROLINA, SEEK A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT  FN1  THAT THE TOBACCO INSPECTION
ACT OF AUGUST 23, 1935,  FN2  IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, REVERSING THE
DISTRICT COURT,  FN3  SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED
THE DISMISSAL OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  95 F.2D 856.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  305 U.S. 584. 

THE ACT STATES ITS SCOPE AND PURPOSE.  SECS. 1, 2.  IT APPLIES TO
TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THE SALE OF TOBACCO AT AUCTION AS COMMONLY
CONDUCTED AT AUCTION MARKETS.  THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE CARRIED ON BY
TOBACCO PRODUCERS AND BY PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND
SELLING TOBACCO IN COMMERCE AS DEFINED, THAT IS, IN COMMERCE WHICH IS
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN OR IS WITH OR WITHIN THE TERRITORIES OR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  FN4  CONGRESS FINDS THAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF
TOBACCO ACCORDING TO TYPE, GRADE, AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTS THE
PRICES RECEIVED; THAT "WITHOUT UNIFORM STANDARDS OF CLASSIFICATION AND
INSPECTION THE EVALUATION OF TOBACCO IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO SPECULATION,
MANIPULATION AND CONTROL," AND "UNREASONABLE FLUCTUATIONS IN PRICES AND
QUALITY DETERMINATIONS OCCUR," CONSTITUTING A BURDEN UPON COMMERCE; AND
THAT THE USE OF UNIFORM STANDARDS IS IMPERATIVE "FOR THE PROTECTION OF
PRODUCERS AND OTHERS ENGAGED IN COMMERCE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
THEREIN." 

THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IS AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE THE
HANDLING, INSPECTION AND MARKETING OF TOBACCO AND TO ESTABLISH
STANDARDS BY WHICH ITS TYPE, GRADE, SIZE, CONDITION, OR OTHER
CHARACTERISTICS MAY BE DETERMINED AND THESE STANDARDS ARE TO BE THE
OFFICIAL STANDARDS OF THE UNITED STATES.  SECS. 3, 4. 

THE SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED TO DESIGNATE THOSE MARKETS WHERE TOBACCO
BOUGHT AND SOLD AT AUCTION OR THE PRODUCTS CUSTOMARILY MANUFACTURED
THEREFROM MOVE IN COMMERCE.  HE IS NOT TO DESIGNATE A MARKET UNLESS TWO
THIRDS OF THE GROWERS, VOTING AT A PRESCRIBED REFERENDUM, FAVOR IT.
THE ACT PROVIDES THAT AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE THAT A MARKET HAS BEEN SO
DESIGNATED, NO TOBACCO SHALL BE OFFERED FOR SALE AT AUCTION THEREON
UNTIL IT HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND CERTIFIED BY AN AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY ACCORDING TO THE ESTABLISHED
STANDARDS.  THERE IS A PROVISO THAT IN CASE COMPETENT INSPECTORS ARE
NOT AVAILABLE OR FOR OTHER REASONS THE SECRETARY IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE
FOR SUCH INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION AT ALL AUCTION MARKETS WITHIN A
TYPE AREA, HE SHALL FIRST DESIGNATE THOSE MARKETS WHERE THE GREATEST
NUMBER OF GROWERS MAY BE SERVED WITH THE FACILITIES AVAILABLE.  SEC.
5. 

WAREHOUSEMEN MUST PROVIDE SPACE ON WAREHOUSE TICKETS OR OTHER TAGS OR
LABELS USED BY THEM FOR SHOWING THE GRADES AS DETERMINED BY AN
AUTHORIZED INSPECTOR.  SEC. 8.  THE SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED TO PUBLISH
AND DISTRIBUTE, WITHOUT COST TO THE GROWER, TIMELY INFORMATION ON THE
"MARKET SUPPLY AND DEMAND, LOCATION, DISPOSITION, QUALITY, CONDITION,
AND MARKET PRICES."  SEC. 9.  VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF
INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION AT DESIGNATED MARKETS, IS MADE A
MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1000 OR IMPRISONMENT
FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR BOTH.  SEC. 12. 

THE MARKET PRACTICES WHICH LED TO THIS ENACTMENT ARE DISCLOSED BY THE
RECORD.  THEY ARE DESCRIBED AT LENGTH IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
AGRICULTURE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE
BILL.  FN5  THE GROWERS SORT THEIR TOBACCO FOR MARKET AS BEST THEY
CAN.  IT IS TIED IN BUNDLES OR "HANDS" AND BROUGHT TO THE AUCTION
WAREHOUSE WHERE IT IS PUT IN BASKETS, WEIGHED, AND PLACED IN ROWS ON
THE WAREHOUSE FLOOR WITH A TICKET ON EACH PILE.  THE WAREHOUSEMEN
AUCTION THE TOBACCO, ACTING AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GROWERS AND
RECEIVING FEES AT RATES FIXED BY THE STATE LAW.  THE AUCTION GOES
FORWARD WITH EXTREME RAPIDITY - ABOUT ONE BASKET EVERY TEN SECONDS -
THE AUCTIONEER PROCEEDING ALONG ONE SIDE OF A ROW AND THE BUYERS MOVING
WITH HIM.  THE AUCTION IS CONDUCTED WITH A TECHNICAL VOCABULARY
INTELLIGIBLE ONLY TO THE INITIATED, BIDS BEING MADE BY WELL-UNDERSTOOD
GESTURES.  THE SALE IS NOT COMPLETED UNTIL THE GROWER ACCEPTS THE BID;
HE MAY DECLINE THE BID AND TAKE HIS TOBACCO AWAY.  THE BIDDERS ARE
REPRESENTATIVES OF TOBACCO COMPANIES AND SPECULATORS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN
GRADES.  FN6  THE COMMITTEE REPORTED THAT "THE POSSESSION OF GRADE AND
PRICE INFORMATION BY THE BUYERS, AND THE LACK OF IT ON THE PART OF THE
GROWERS, PLACES THE GROWERS UNDER A SEVERE HANDICAP IN THE MARKETING OF
THEIR TOBACCO AND OPENS THE WAY TO ABUSES AND PRACTICES BY WHICH
FARMERS ARE VICTIMIZED.  ...  IT IS THE THOUGHT OF THE COMMITTEE THAT
IF THE PURCHASER NEEDS AN EXPERT IN GRADES IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIS
INTEREST IN THE SALE THE GROWERS SHOULD BE ACCORDED THE SAME
PROTECTION."  IT ALSO APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT BECAUSE OF THE SPEED
OF THE SALE FEW BUYERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A SATISFACTORY
EXAMINATION OF THE TOBACCO AND CONSEQUENTLY MANY ERRORS ARE MADE,
ALTHOUGH ON THE AVERAGE THE BUYERS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SUFFER
SERIOUSLY.  THE EFFECT OF THE METHODS USED IS TO INTRODUCE AN UNUSUAL
DEGREE OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE PRICES WHICH A GROWER MAY RECEIVE FOR
TOBACCO OF ANY PARTICULAR GRADE. 

UNDER THE OPERATION OF THE ACT FEDERAL INSPECTORS EXAMINE THE TOBACCO
ABOUT AN HOUR BEFORE THE SALE.  THEY PULL SAMPLES FROM EACH PILE AND
PLACE TICKETS INDICATING THE GRADE.  EACH DAY THERE IS DISPLAYED IN THE
WAREHOUSE A REPORT INDICATING THE AVERAGE PRICE FOR THE GOVERNMENT
GRADES SOLD ON THE PREVIOUS DAY, AND WEEKLY REPORTS ARE ISSUED FOR THE
PRECEDING WEEK. 

THE SECRETARY PROMULGATED REGULATIONS TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2,
1936.  LATER, OFFICIAL STANDARD GRADES FOR FLUECURED TOBACCO WERE
PRESCRIBED.  THE SECRETARY DESIGNATED TWENTY-THREE MARKETS THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY FOR COMPULSORY INSPECTION AND GRADING.  IN NORTH CAROLINA
TOBACCO WAS MARKETED ON FORTY AUCTION MARKETS.  THREE OF THESE, AT
OXFORD, GOLDSBORO, AND FARMVILLE, WERE DESIGNATED.  FN7  IN VIEW OF THE
LACK OF EXPERTLY TRAINED INSPECTORS AND GRADERS, ALL MARKETS IN NORTH
CAROLINA COULD NOT BE DESIGNATED AND DEFENDANTS SAY THAT THE MARKETS
ABOVE NAMED WERE SELECTED BECAUSE IN PREVIOUS YEARS THE DEPARTMENT HAD
ESTABLISHED AT THESE PLACES VOLUNTARY INSPECTION OF TOBACCO UNDER THE
FARM PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT  FN8  AND THE GROWERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH
THE BENEFITS ACCRUING FROM THE FEDERAL ACTION. 

IN RELATION TO OXFORD, THE MARKET HERE IN QUESTION, THE REQUIRED
REFERENDUM WAS HAD.  UPWARDS OF 8600 BALLOTS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO
GROWERS WHO HAD SOLD ON THAT MARKET DURING THE PREVIOUS SEASON; 1896
BALLOTS WERE RETURNED, OF WHICH 1782 WERE IN FAVOR OF THE DESIGNATION. 
THERE WERE 248 OTHER BALLOTS RETURNED, OF WHICH 96 PER CENT. WERE
FAVORABLE. 

PLAINTIFFS CONTEND (1) THAT THE TRANSACTION OF OFFERING TOBACCO FOR
SALE AT AUCTION ON THE WAREHOUSE FLOOR IS NOT A TRANSACTION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND HENCE IS NOT SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL
REGULATION; (2) THAT THE ACT IS INVALID BECAUSE OF ITS DISCRIMINATORY
CHARACTER; (3) THAT THE ACT PROVIDES FOR AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION
OF LEGISLATIVE POWER; AND (4) THAT THE ACT VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND, AND THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE
FINDING, THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND
DEFENDANTS, ENTITLING PLAINTIFFS TO INVOKE THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACT.  SEE AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227, 240, 241. 

FIRST.  PLAINTIFFS URGE THAT TOBACCO "IS NOT INHERENTLY AN INTERSTATE
COMMODITY"; THAT THE AUCTION TRANSACTION IS NOT A SALE AS TITLE IS NOT
PASSED UNTIL THE GROWER ACCEPTS THE PRICE; THAT AFTER THE AUCTION THE
GROWER MAY, AND OFTEN DOES, REJECT THE BID AND HE MAY TAKE HIS TOBACCO
AWAY; THAT THE INSPECTION REQUIRED BY THE ACT IS DONE PRIOR TO THE
OFFERING FOR SALE; AND THAT UNTIL SALE AND DELIVERY TO THE PURCHASER
THE TOBACCO IS NOT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ITS CONTROL IS RESERVED
TO THE STATE.  THESE OBJECTIONS ARE UNTENABLE.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
THE SALES CONSUMMATED ON THE OXFORD AUCTION MARKET ARE PREDOMINANTLY
SALES IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE PRINCIPAL PURCHASERS ARE
FEW IN NUMBER AND IN THE MAIN ARE ENGAGED IN THE EXPORT TRADE OR IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN OTHER STATES.  IT APPEARS THAT IN A
GIVEN WEEK, SHORTLY BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THIS SUIT, APPROXIMATELY
2,000,000 POUNDS OF TOBACCO WERE SOLD ON THE OXFORD MARKET, ONLY 15.3
PER CENT. OF WHICH WERE DEFINITELY DESTINED FOR MANUFACTURE IN NORTH
CAROLINA.  ABOUT 14 PER CENT. WERE IN PART FOR MANUFACTURE IN NORTH
CAROLINA AND IN PART FOR OTHER STATES, AND ABOUT 62 PER CENT. MOVED
DIRECTLY INTO FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE FACT THAT THE GROWERS ARE NOT
BOUND TO ACCEPT BIDS, AND IN CERTAIN INSTANCES REJECT THEM, DOES NOT
REMOVE THE AUCTION FROM ITS IMMEDIATE RELATION TO THE SALES THAT ARE
CONSUMMATED UPON THE OFFERS THAT THE GROWERS DO ACCEPT.  THE AUCTION IN
SUCH CASES IS MANIFESTLY A PART OF THE TRANSACTION OF SALE.  SO FAR AS
THE SALES ARE FOR SHIPMENT TO OTHER STATES OR TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES, IT
IS IDLE TO CONTEND THAT THEY ARE NOT SALES IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE AND SUBJECT TO CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION.  WHERE GOODS ARE
PURCHASED IN ONE STATE FOR TRANSPORTATION TO ANOTHER THE COMMERCE
INCLUDES THE PURCHASE QUITE AS MUCH AS IT DOES THE TRANSPORTATION. 
SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, 398, 399; DAHNKE-WALKER
MILLING CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282, 290, 291; LEMKE V. FARMERS
GRAIN CO., 258 U.S. 50, 54; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495, 519;
FLANAGAN V. FEDERAL COAL CO., 267 U.S. 222, 225; SHAFER V. FARMERS
GRAIN CO., 268 U.S. 189, 198; FOSTER-FOUNTAIN PACKING CO. V. HAYDEL,
278 U.S. 1, 10. 

THERE IS NO PERMISSIBLE CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY WHICH WOULD APPLY THIS
PRINCIPLE TO PURCHASES OF LIVESTOCK AS IN THE SWIFT AND STAFFORD CASES,
AND OF GRAIN AS IN THE LEMKE AND SHAFER CASES, AND DENY ITS APPLICATION
TO TOBACCO.  IN THE LEMKE CASE (SUPRA, AT PP. 60, 61), CONDEMNING THE
EFFORT OF A STATE TO CONTROL THE BUYING OF GRAIN FOR SHIPMENT TO OTHER
STATES, THE COURT REFERRED TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE ITS OWN
REGULATION FOR SUCH TRANSACTIONS, SAYING:  "IT IS ALLEGED THAT SUCH
LEGISLATION IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GRAIN GROWERS AND ESSENTIAL TO
PROTECT THEM FROM FRAUDULENT PURCHASES, AND TO SECURE PAYMENT TO THEM
OF FAIR PRICES FOR THE GRAIN ACTUALLY SOLD.  THIS MAY BE TRUE, BUT
CONGRESS IS AMPLY AUTHORIZED TO PASS MEASURES TO PROTECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IF LEGISLATION OF THAT CHARACTER IS NEEDED."  AND AGAIN, IN
THE SHAFER CASE (SUPRA, AT PP. 188, 198), THE COURT SAID:  "THE RIGHT
TO BUY IT (GRAIN) FOR SHIPMENT, AND TO SHIP IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS NOT A PRIVILEGE DERIVED FROM STATE LAWS AND WHICH THEY MAY FETTER
WITH CONDITIONS, BUT IS A COMMON RIGHT, THE REGULATION OF WHICH IS
COMMITTED TO CONGRESS AND DENIED TO THE STATES BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION." 

THE FACT THAT INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS ARE COMMINGLED
ON THE TOBACCO MARKET DOES NOT FRUSTRATE OR RESTRICT THE CONGRESSIONAL
POWER TO PROTECT AND CONTROL WHAT IS COMMITTED TO ITS OWN CARE.  AS WE
SAID IN THE SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342, 351, 352, WITH RESPECT TO
THE INTRASTATE RATES OF INTERSTATE CARRIERS - "WHEREVER THE INTERSTATE
AND INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS OF CARRIERS ARE SO RELATED THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE ONE INVOLVES THE CONTROL OF THE OTHER, IT IS
CONGRESS, AND NOT THE STATE, THAT IS ENTITLED TO PRESCRIBE THE FINAL
AND DOMINANT RULE, FOR OTHERWISE CONGRESS WOULD BE DENIED THE EXERCISE
OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AND THE STATE, AND NOT THE NATION,
WOULD BE SUPREME WITHIN THE NATIONAL FIELD."  SEE, ALSO, MINNESOTA RATE
CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 399; WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, B. &
Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 588; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, SUPRA, AT P. 522. 
HERE, THE TRANSACTIONS ON THE TOBACCO MARKET WERE CONDUCTED
INDISCRIMINATELY AT VIRTUALLY THE SAME TIME, AND IN A MANNER WHICH MADE
IT NECESSARY, IF THE CONGRESSIONAL RULE WERE TO BE APPLIED, TO MAKE IT
GOVERN ALL THE TOBACCO THUS OFFERED FOR SALE. 

HAVING THIS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE SALES ON THE TOBACCO MARKET,
CONGRESS COULD PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE SALES SHOULD BE
MADE IN ORDER TO GIVE PROTECTION TO SELLERS OR PURCHASERS OR BOTH. 
CONGRESS IS NOT TO BE DENIED THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY IN PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS MERELY BECAUSE THESE MAY HAVE THE
QUALITY OF POLICE REGULATIONS.  IT IS ON THAT PRINCIPLE THAT
MISBRANDING UNDER THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT  FN9  EMBRACES FALSE OR
MISLEADING STATEMENTS AS TO THE INGREDIENTS OF COMMODITIES OR THE
EFFECTS OF THEIR USE.  SEE SEVEN CASES V. UNITED STATES, 239 U.S. 510. 
INSPECTION AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS FOR COMMODITIES HAS BEEN
REGARDED FROM COLONIAL DAYS AS APPROPRIATE TO THE REGULATION OF TRADE,
AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATES TO ENACT INSPECTION LAWS IS RECOGNIZED
BY THE CONSTITUTION.  ART. I, SEC. 10, PAR. 2.  SEE TURNER V. MARYLAND,
107 U.S. 38, 51-54; PACIFIC STATES CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 181. 
BUT THE INSPECTION LAWS OF A STATE RELATING TO EXPORTS OR TO ARTICLES
PURCHASED FOR SHIPMENT TO OTHER STATES ARE SUBJECT TO THE PARAMOUNT
REGULATORY POWER OF CONGRESS.  TURNER V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, AT PP. 57,
58.  AND CONGRESS HAS LONG EXERCISED THIS AUTHORITY IN ENACTING LAWS
FOR INSPECTION AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS IN RELATION TO
VARIOUS COMMODITIES INVOLVED IN TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  FN10  THE FACT THAT THE INSPECTION AND GRADING OF THE
TOBACCO TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE AUCTION DOES NOT DISSOCIATE THE FORMER
FROM THE LATTER, BUT ON THE CONTRARY IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE INSPECTION
AND GRADING HAVE IMMEDIATE RELATION TO THE SALES IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE WHICH CONGRESS THUS UNDERTAKES TO GOVERN. 

IN TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, WE RECENTLY HAD UNDER
CONSIDERATION THE LEGISLATION OF GEORGIA PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM CHARGES
FOR THE SERVICES OF TOBACCO WAREHOUSEMEN WHO CONDUCTED THEIR BUSINESS
IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO THAT PREVAILING IN NORTH CAROLINA.  THERE, THE
WAREHOUSEMEN STRONGLY INSISTED THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE, AS THE TOBACCO SOLD ON THEIR FLOORS WAS DESTINED FOR
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN SHIPMENT, AND HENCE THAT THE STATE WAS WITHOUT
POWER TO FIX THEIR FEES.  THEY INVOKED THE FEDERAL ACT IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR CONTENTION.  BUT WE FOUND NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL ACT WHICH
UNDERTOOK TO REGULATE THE CHARGES OF WAREHOUSEMEN AND HENCE WE
CONCLUDED THAT CONGRESS HAD RESTRICTED ITS REQUIREMENTS AND LEFT THE
STATE FREE TO DEAL WITH THE MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION AND NOT INCONSISTENT THEREWITH.  THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS
TO ENACT THE TOBACCO INSPECTION ACT WAS NOT QUESTIONED. 

SECOND.  PLAINTIFFS COMPLAIN THAT THE ACT IS DISCRIMINATORY.  THEY
SAY THAT WAREHOUSEMEN ON OTHER TOBACCO MARKETS IN NORTH CAROLINA, DOING
THE SAME SORT OF BUSINESS AND COMPETING FOR PATRONAGE AMONG THE SAME
GROWERS, ARE AT LIBERTY TO CONDUCT SALES IN THEIR WAREHOUSES WITHOUT
INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION. 

THE REASON FOR THE SELECTION IS SHOWN.  THE LACK OF A SUFFICIENT
NUMBER OF EXPERT INSPECTORS MADE IT IMPRACTICABLE TO SUPPLY INSPECTION
AND GRADING AT ALL TOBACCO AUCTION MARKETS.  HAVING THIS PRACTICAL
DIFFICULTY IN MIND, CONGRESS DIRECTED THAT WHEN FOR THAT REASON OR
OTHERS THE SECRETARY WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE FOR INSPECTION AND
CERTIFICATION AT ALL SUCH MARKETS WITHIN A TYPE AREA, HE SHOULD FIRST
DESIGNATE THOSE WHERE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF GROWERS MAY BE SERVED WITH
THE FACILITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.  SEC. 5.  WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT SUCH
A SELECTION WAS WITHIN THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER. 

WE HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT THE POWER GIVEN TO CONGRESS TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IS "COMPLETE IN ITSELF, MAY BE
EXERCISED TO ITS UTMOST EXTENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGES NO LIMITATIONS, OTHER
THAN ARE PRESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION."  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT. 
1, 196.  TO HOLD THAT CONGRESS IN ESTABLISHING ITS REGULATION IS
RESTRICTED TO THE MAKING OF UNIFORM RULES WOULD BE TO IMPOSE A
LIMITATION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PRESCRIBE.  THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT OF UNIFORMITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMERCE POWER (ART.
I, SEC. 8, PAR. 3) SUCH AS THERE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE POWER TO LAY
DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES (ART. I, SEC. 8, PAR. 1).  CLARK DISTILLING
CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S. 311, 327.  UNDOUBTEDLY, THE
EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER IS SUBJECT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
(MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 312, 336; UNITED
STATES V. CRESS, 243 U.S. 316, 326; LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, 295
U.S. 555, 589); BUT THAT AMENDMENT, UNLIKE THE FOURTEENTH, HAS NO EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE.  LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 377,
392; STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, 584. 

IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THERE MIGHT BE DISCRIMINATION OF SUCH AN
INJURIOUS CHARACTER AS TO BRING INTO OPERATION THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THAT IS A DIFFERENT MATTER FROM A CONTENTION
THAT MERE LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER
RENDERS THE ACTION OF CONGRESS INVALID.  FOR THAT CONTENTION WE FIND NO
WARRANT.  IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THE PLENARY POWER CONFERRED THAT
CONGRESS MAY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN THE USE OF THE POWER.  CONGRESS
MAY CHOOSE THE COMMODITIES AND PLACES TO WHICH ITS REGULATION SHALL
APPLY.  CONGRESS MAY CONSIDER AND WEIGH RELATIVE SITUATIONS AND NEEDS. 
CONGRESS IS NOT RESTRICTED BY ANY TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT BUT MAY MAKE
LIMITED APPLICATIONS AND RESORT TO TESTS SO THAT IT MAY HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF EXPERIENCE IN DECIDING UPON THE CONTINUANCE OR EXTENSION OF
A POLICY WHICH UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IT IS FREE TO ADOPT.  AS TO SUCH
CHOICES, THE QUESTION IS ONE OF WISDOM AND NOT OF POWER. 

THIRD.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER IS EQUALLY UNTENABLE.  THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE
CONGRESS HAS ATTEMPTED TO ABDICATE, OR TO TRANSFER TO OTHERS, THE
ESSENTIAL LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS WITH WHICH IT IS VESTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  ART. I, SEC. 1; SEC. 8, PAR. 18.  SEE PANAMA REFINING
CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, 421; SCHECHTER CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 495, 529, 541, 542, 553.  WE HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT
LEGISLATION MUST OFTEN BE ADAPTED TO CONDITIONS INVOLVING DETAILS WITH
WHICH IT IS IMPRACTICABLE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO DEAL DIRECTLY.  WE
HAVE SAID THAT - "THE CONSTITUTION HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS DENYING
TO THE CONGRESS THE NECESSARY RESOURCES OF FLEXIBILITY AND
PRACTICALITY, WHICH WILL ENABLE IT TO PERFORM ITS FUNCTION IN LAYING
DOWN POLICIES AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS, WHILE LEAVING TO SELECTED
INSTRUMENTALITIES THE MAKING OF SUBORDINATE RULES WITHIN PRESCRIBED
LIMITS AND THE DETERMINATION OF FACTS TO WHICH THE POLICY AS DECLARED
BY THE LEGISLATURE IS TO APPLY.  WITHOUT CAPACITY TO GIVE
AUTHORIZATIONS OF THAT SORT WE SHOULD HAVE THE ANOMALY OF A LEGISLATIVE
POWER WHICH IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES CALLING FOR ITS EXERTION WOULD BE BUT
A FUTILITY."  PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, SUPRA.  IN SUCH CASES "A
GENERAL PROVISION MAY BE MADE, AND POWER GIVEN TO THOSE WHO ARE TO ACT
UNDER SUCH GENERAL PROVISIONS TO FILL UP THE DETAILS."  WAYMAN V.
SOUTHARD, 10 WHEAT.  1, 43.  WE THINK THAT THE TOBACCO INSPECTION ACT
BELONGS TO THAT CLASS. 

SO FAR AS GROWERS OF TOBACCO ARE CONCERNED, THE REQUIRED REFERENDUM
DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.  CONGRESS HAS
MERELY PLACED A RESTRICTION UPON ITS OWN REGULATION BY WITHHOLDING ITS
OPERATION AS TO A GIVEN MARKET "UNLESS TWO-THIRDS OF THE GROWERS VOTING
FAVOR IT."  SIMILAR CONDITIONS ARE FREQUENTLY FOUND IN POLICE
REGULATIONS.  CUSACK CO. V. CHICAGO, 242 U.S. 526, 530.  THIS IS NOT A
CASE WHERE A GROUP OF PRODUCERS MAY MAKE THE LAW AND FORCE IT UPON A
MINORITY (SEE CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 310, 318) OR
WHERE A PROHIBITION OF AN INOFFENSIVE AND LEGITIMATE USE OF PROPERTY IS
IMPOSED NOT BY THE LEGISLATURE BUT BY OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS (SEE
WASHINGTON EX REL. SEATTLE TRUST CO. V. ROBERGE, 278 U.S. 116, 122). 
HERE IT IS CONGRESS THAT EXERCISES ITS LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IN MAKING
THE REGULATION AND IN PRESCRIBING THE CONDITIONS OF ITS APPLICATION. 
THE REQUIRED FAVORABLE VOTE UPON THE REFERENDUM IS ONE OF THESE
CONDITIONS.  THE DISTINCTION WAS POINTED OUT IN HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 276 U.S. 394, 407, WHERE, IN SUSTAINING THE SO-CALLED "FLEXIBLE
TARIFF PROVISION" OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1922,  FN11  AND THE
AUTHORITY IT CONFERRED UPON THE PRESIDENT, WE SAID:  "CONGRESS MAY FEEL
ITSELF UNABLE CONVENIENTLY TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHEN ITS EXERCISE OF
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER SHOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE, BECAUSE DEPENDENT ON
FUTURE CONDITIONS, AND IT MAY LEAVE THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH TIME TO
THE DECISION OF AN EXECUTIVE, OR, AS OFTEN HAPPENS IN MATTERS OF STATE
LEGISLATION, IT MAY BE LEFT TO A POPULAR VOTE OF THE RESIDENTS OF A
DISTRICT TO BE EFFECTED BY THE LEGISLATION.  WHILE IN A SENSE ONE MAY
SAY THAT SUCH RESIDENTS ARE EXERCISING LEGISLATIVE POWER, IT IS NOT AN
EXACT STATEMENT, BECAUSE THE POWER HAS ALREADY BEEN EXERCISED
LEGISLATIVELY BY THE BODY VESTED WITH THAT POWER UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, THE CONDITION OF ITS LEGISLATION GOING INTO EFFECT BEING
MADE DEPENDENT BY THE LEGISLATURE ON THE EXPRESSION OF THE VOTERS OF A
CERTAIN DISTRICT." 

NOR IS THERE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION TO THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE.  CONGRESS HAS SET FORTH ITS POLICY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF STANDARDS FOR TOBACCO ACCORDING TO TYPE, GRADE, SIZE, CONDITION, AND
OTHER DETERMINABLE CHARACTERISTICS.  SECS. 3, 4.  THE PROVISION THAT
THE SECRETARY SHALL MAKE THE NECESSARY INVESTIGATIONS TO THAT END AND
FIX THE STANDARDS ACCORDING TO KIND AND QUALITY IS PLAINLY APPROPRIATE
AND CONFORMS TO FAMILIAR LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE AS SHOWN BY THE VARIOUS
STATUTES ALREADY MENTIONED N12.  IT IS NOT DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE FROM
THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO ESTABLISH
"'UNIFORM STANDARDS OF PURITY, QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR CONSUMPTION OF
ALL KINDS OF TEAS IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES'" (BUTTFIELD V.
STRANAHAN, 192 U.S. 470, 494), OR FROM THAT CONFERRED UPON THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO FIX STANDARDS FOR SAFETY DEVICES AND
EQUIPMENT (ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S. RY. CO. V. TAYLOR, 210 U.S. 281, 286,
287; NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 272 U.S. 605, 612), OR FROM THAT
CONFERRED UPON THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO DETERMINE WHETHER BRIDGES AND
OTHER STRUCTURES CONSTITUTE UNREASONABLE OBSTRUCTIONS TO NAVIGATION AND
TO SPECIFY AND PRESCRIBE THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT ARE REQUIRED
(UNION BRIDGE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 204 U.S. 364).    THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE IS AUTHORIZED TO DESIGNATE THOSE MARKETS WHERE TOBACCO
BOUGHT AND SOLD THEREON AT AUCTION MOVES IN COMMERCE.  SEC. 5.  THIS
CALLS FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF A FACT.  THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS IS
CLEAR THAT MARKETS THUS ASCERTAINED SHALL BE DESIGNATED SUBJECT TO THE
PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS AND AS RAPIDLY AS FACILITIES FOR INSPECTION ARE
AVAILABLE.  WE FIND NO UNFETTERED DISCRETION LODGED WITH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.  THE REQUIREMENT OF A REFERENDUM, AS ALREADY
NOTED, CALLS FOR THE EXPRESSION OF THE WISHES OF THE GROWERS AND THE
SECRETARY ACTS MERELY AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT IN CONDUCTING THE
REFERENDUM.  THE PROVISION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF A DESIGNATED MARKET
BECAUSE COMPETENT INSPECTORS ARE NOT AVAILABLE OR THE QUANTITY OF
TOBACCO IS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE COST OF THE SERVICE, SETS FORTH
DEFINITE AS WELL AS REASONABLE CRITERIA.  THE STATUTE ALSO LAYS DOWN A
PRACTICAL RULE FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE SECRETARY IN THE SELECTION OF
MARKETS IN THE EVENT THAT BECAUSE OF LACK OF INSPECTORS OR OTHER
REASONS THE SECRETARY IS UNABLE TO FURNISH INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
AT ALL AUCTION MARKETS WITHIN A TYPE AREA.  IN THAT CASE HE IS FIRST TO
DESIGNATE THOSE AUCTION MARKETS "WHERE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF GROWERS
MAY BE SERVED WITH THE FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO HIM." 

THE STATUTE THUS DEFINES THE POLICY OF CONGRESS AND ESTABLISHES
STANDARDS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT IS TO
SUPPLY THE DETAILS.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE WELL WITHIN THE
PRINCIPLE OF PERMISSIBLE DELEGATION WHICH WE APPLIED IN RELATION TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE FOREST RESERVE IN UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220
U.S. 506, 517; TO THE ALLOCATION OF LICENSES, WAVE LENGTHS, ETC. IN
FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON BROS. CO., 289 U.S. 266, 285; AND TO THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION IN NEW YORK CENTRAL SECURITIES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 287
U.S. 12, 24. 

NOR DOES IT APPEAR THAT, IN HIS USE OF HIS AUTHORITY IN THE INSTANT
CASE, THE SECRETARY HAS ACTED IN AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS MANNER. 
AS HE DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE CORPS OF EXPERTS TO SUPPLY ALL THE NORTH
CAROLINA MARKETS, HE SELECTED THOSE WHERE THERE HAD BEEN VOLUNTARY
INSPECTION UNDER THE PRIOR ACT.  FN13  IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS WAS
AN UNREASONABLE COURSE. 

FOURTH.  FINALLY, PLAINTIFFS INVOKE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PLAINTIFFS ARE WAREHOUSEMEN AND AUCTIONEERS ACTING AS
AGENTS FOR THE GROWERS WHO OWN THE TOBACCO AND PAY THEIR COMMISSIONS. 
PLAINTIFFS ARE THUS IN THE POSITION OF CONTESTING A REGULATION FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THEIR PRINCIPALS BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH
THEIR BUSINESS.  THE ACT DOES NOT AFFECT THEIR RATE OF CHARGES AND DOES
NOT DEPRIVE THEM OF ANY PROPERTY.  THE GROWERS, TO BE SURE, MAY TAKE
THEIR TOBACCO WHERE THEY PLEASE.  BUT EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT THE
CONTENTION THAT THE MARKETS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION PROVISION WOULD
LOSE PATRONAGE COULD AFFORD GROUND FOR RESISTING THIS SORT OF
REGULATION, OTHERWISE VALID, THE CLAIM IN THIS INSTANCE RESTS MORE ON
CONJECTURE THAN ON PROOF.  WE AGREE WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
THAT AS TO THE ASSERTED DIFFERENCE OF PRICES OBTAINABLE ON INSPECTED
MARKETS, AS COMPARED WITH THOSE NOT INSPECTED, THE EVIDENCE HAS LITTLE
PROBATIVE VALUE AND THAT THE LOSS OF BUSINESS FROM GROWERS WHO DO NOT
DESIRE THE INSPECTION WOULD SEEM BY THE RECORD TO BE MORE THAN
COUNTERBALANCED BY THE GAIN OF BUSINESS FROM THOSE WHO DESIRE IT.  95
F.2D P. 861. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, 48 STAT. 955. 

FN2  49 STAT. 731; 7 U.S.C. SUPP. III, 511A-511 Q. 

FN3  19 F.SUPP.  211. 

FN4  SEE SEC. 1. 

FN5  REPORT, COMMITTEE OF AGRICULTURE, JUNE 5, 1935, TO ACCOMPANY
H.R. 8026. 

FN6  THE METHODS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FOLLOWED IN GEORGIA AS
DESCRIBED IN TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441, 445. 

FN7  A REFERENDUM WAS ALSO HAD AT SMITHFIELD WHICH RESULTED
UNFAVORABLY. 

FN8  7 U.S.C. 492. 

FN9  21 U.S.C. 10. 

FN10  SEE, E.G., UNITED STATES COTTON STANDARDS ACT, 7 U.S.C. 51-65;
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, 21 U.S.C. 14A, 15, 20, 41, 71, 74, 89, 143; UNITED
STATES WAREHOUSE ACT, 7 U.S.C. 243; CERTIFICATION OF CONDITION, ETC. OF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, 7 U.S.C. 414;
FARM PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT, 7 U.S.C. 492; PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES ACT, 7 U.S.C. 499N. 

FN11  42 STAT. 858, 941, 942. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 10. 

FN13  FARM PRODUCTS INSPECTION ACT, 7 U.S.C. 492. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DISSENT. 
..END :






















BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, 306 U.S. 19 


NO. 359.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 97
F.2D 860, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE UNITED STATES HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ACQUIRE LAND WITHIN
THE EXTERIOR LIMITS OF A STATE FOR A NATIONAL PARK.  P. 23. 

2.  AS A GENERAL RULE REVIEW OF A DETERMINATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMING ITS JURISDICTION INVOLVING IMPRISONMENT FOR CRIME IS BY
APPELLATE PROCEDURE AND NOT BY HABEAS CORPUS.  P. 23. 

THIS RULE IS NOT ONE DEFINING POWER TO GRANT THE WRIT BUT ONE WHICH
RELATES TO THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF POWER.  P. 26. 

3.  HABEAS CORPUS MAY BE APPROPRIATELY GRANTED WHERE JURISDICTION IN
THE CRIMINAL CASE DEPENDED UPON A QUESTION OF LAW, THERE BEING NO
DISPUTE OF FACTS, AND WHERE THE NEED FOR THE INQUIRY IS MADE APPARENT
BY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 27. 

SUCH EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED IN THIS CASE, WHICH INVOLVED A
SENTENCE BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MURDER COMMITTED IN THE CHICKAMAUGA
AND CHATTANOOGA NATIONAL PARK, IN GEORGIA.  THERE APPEARED TO BE
UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER OFFENSES WITHIN THE PARK WERE
TRIABLE BY THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL COURTS.  IT WAS REPRESENTED THAT
MURDER CASES HAD BEEN TRIED IN EACH.  IT DID NOT APPEAR OF RECORD THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT HAD CONSIDERED THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.  THERE
HAD BEEN NO APPEAL, AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT A READING OF THE GEORGIA
STATUTE OF CONSENT AND CESSION WOULD SHOW THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD
NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION SO AS TO BRING THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT WITHIN THE CLASS OF OFFENSES COGNIZABLE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

4.  IN HABEAS CORPUS BY ONE IMPRISONED FOR A MURDER COMMITTED IN THE
CHICKAMAUGA AND CHATTANOOGA NATIONAL PARK, IN GEORGIA, THE SOLE
QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE UNITED STATES HAD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER
LAND IN THE PARK, IN VIRTUE OF HAVING ACQUIRED IT BY CONSENT OF OR
CESSION FROM THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.  HELD: 

(1)  THE FEDERAL COURTS TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE GEORGIA
STATUTES.  P. 23. 

(2)  IF THESE STATUTES DID NOT GIVE TO THE UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARK, THE INDICTMENT DID NOT CHARGE A CRIME
COGNIZABLE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  ID. 

(3)  ALTHOUGH IN EARLIER ACTS CONSENTING TO ACQUISITIONS AND CEDING
JURISDICTION OF LAND FOR THE PARK, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION WAS
SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE STATE, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WAS CEDED BY
THE GENERAL ACT OF 1927, PURPORTING TO CEDE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO
THE UNITED STATES OVER ANY LAND "WHICH HAS BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER BE
ACQUIRED FOR CUSTOM-HOUSES, POST-OFFICES, ARSENALS, OTHER PUBLIC
BUILDINGS WHATEVER, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES OF GOVERNMENT," AND WHICH
RESERVED THE RIGHT TO SERVE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCESSES BUT NOT
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES WITHIN THE CEDED TERRITORY.  P.
28. 

(4)  THIS CONCLUSION HAS SUPPORT IN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  P.
29. 

REFERRING TO AN OPINION OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, JULY 14, 1930,
WHEN THE PARK WAS IN CHARGE OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT. 

BOWEN V. JOHNSTON, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 579, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE BELOW OF AN ORDER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED, IN 1933, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, OF MURDER COMMITTED IN 1930 ON THE
GOVERNMENT RESERVATION KNOWN AS THE CHICKAMAUGA AND CHATTANOOGA
NATIONAL PARK WITHIN THE EXTERIOR LIMITS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA.  HE
WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND IS CONFINED IN THE PRISON AT
ALCATRAZ, CALIFORNIA. 

IN 1937, HE PRESENTED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THE
DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALLEGING THAT THE
INDICTMENT WAS VOID, AND NO LEGAL JUDGMENT COULD BE BASED THEREON, AS
IT FAILED TO SHOW JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON AND SUBJECT MATTER; THAT
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE PARK. 
FN1  HE ALSO ALLEGED THAT ON HIS TRIAL THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THE
EVIDENCE TAKEN DOWN AND PRESERVED SO THAT HE MIGHT APPEAL, AND THAT,
UPON THIS GROUND AND OTHERS, HE HAD BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  A COPY OF THE INDICTMENT WAS ANNEXED TO
THE PETITION.  PURSUANT TO AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, THE WARDEN MADE
RETURN SHOWING THE JUDGMENT AND THE RECORD OF COMMITMENT.  ON THE
RETURN DAY THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE OF PETITIONER'S ATTORNEYS, AND NO
EVIDENCE, APART FROM THE RETURN AND THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS, WAS
OFFERED.  THE PETITION WAS SUBMITTED AND LATER WAS DENIED WITHOUT
OPINION.  ON APPEAL, THE ORDER WAS AFFIRMED.  97 F.2D 860. 

THE PRINCIPAL CONTENTION BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS THAT
THE UNITED STATES DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE PARK AND
HENCE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IN GEORGIA DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO
TRY THE PETITIONER.  THE COURT, TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE UNITED STATES
COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE PARK (COLLINS V.
YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518), HELD THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
UNITED STATES DID ACQUIRE SUCH JURISDICTION COULD NOT BE RAISED ON
HABEAS CORPUS.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION THUS
PRESENTED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  305 U.S. 579. 

FIRST.  JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED UPON THE DISTRICT COURTS "OF ALL
CRIMES AND OFFENSES COGNIZABLE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES."  JUD.  CODE, SEC. 24; 28 U.S.C. 41(2). 

CRIMES ARE THUS COGNIZABLE - 

"WHEN COMMITTED WITHIN OR ON ANY LANDS RESERVED OR ACQUIRED FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION THEREOF, OR ANY PLACE PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED BY
THE UNITED STATES BY CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN WHICH
THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE ERECTION OF A FORT, MAGAZINE, ARSENAL,
DOCKYARD, OR OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDING."  CRIM. CODE, SEC. 272; 18 U.S.C.
451, THIRD. 

THE LAST CLAUSE COVERS CASES WHERE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IS ACQUIRED
BY THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, PARAGRAPH 17, OF
THE CONSTITUTION. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO QUESTION OF FACT WAS PRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO
THE PLACE WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.  THE INDICTMENT SPECIFIED THE
PLACE, THAT IS,  - "A CERTAIN PLACE AND ON CERTAIN LANDS RESERVED AND
ACQUIRED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE UNITED STATES AND UNDER EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION THEREOF, AND ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY CONSENT OF
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, TO WIT:  CHICKAMAUGA AND
CHATTANOOGA NATIONAL PARK, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS CHICKAMAUGA AND
CHATTANOOGA NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, IN SAID STATE OF GEORGIA." 

THE SOLE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THIS PARK WAS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE
UNITED STATES HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ACQUIRE THE TERRITORY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF A NATIONAL PARK AND THAT IT DID ACQUIRE IT.  WHETHER OR
NOT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ACQUIRED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE
LANDS WITHIN THE PARK OR THE STATE RESERVED, AS IT COULD, JURISDICTION
OVER THE CRIMES THERE COMMITTED, DEPENDED UPON THE TERMS OF THE CONSENT
OR CESSION GIVEN BY THE LEGISLATURE OF GEORGIA.  COLLINS V. YOSEMITE
PARK CO., SUPRA, PP. 529, 530.  SEE, ALSO, JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING
CO., 302 U.S. 134, 146-148.  THE FEDERAL COURTS TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
THE GEORGIA STATUTES.  OWINGS V. HULL, 9 PET. 607; LAMAR V. MICOU, 114
U.S. 218, 223.  IF THESE STATUTES DID NOT GIVE TO THE UNITED STATES
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE PARK, THE INDICTMENT DID NOT CHARGE A
CRIME COGNIZABLE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

SECOND.  WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON AND
THE SUBJECT MATTER IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CANNOT BE USED AS A WRIT OF ERROR.  THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS NOT
SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  EX PARTE WATKINS, 3 PET. 193, 203; EX
PARTE PARKS, 93 U.S. 18, 23; HARLAN V. MCGOURIN, 218 U.S. 442, 448;
MCMICKING V. SCHIELDS, 238 U.S. 99, 107; RIDDLE V. DYCHE, 262 U.S. 333,
335; CRAIG V. HECHT, 263 U.S. 255, 277.  THE SCOPE OF REVIEW ON HABEAS
CORPUS IS LIMITED TO THE EXAMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
WHOSE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IS CHALLENGED.  EX PARTE SIEBOLD, 100 U.S.
371, 375; EX PARTE BIGELOW, 113 U.S. 328, 331; MATTER OF GREGORY, 219
U.S. 210, 213; GLASGOW V. MOYER, 225 U.S. 420, 429; KNEWEL V. EGAN, 268
U.S. 442, 445.  BUT IF IT BE FOUND THAT THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION
TO TRY THE PETITIONER, OR THAT IN ITS PROCEEDINGS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DENIED, THE REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS IS AVAILABLE.  EX
PARTE LANGE, 18 WALL.  163, 178; EX PARTE CROW DOG, 109 U.S. 556, 572;
IN RE SNOW, 120 U.S. 274, 285; IN RE COY, 127 U.S. 731, 758; HANS
NIELSEN, PETITIONER, 131 U.S. 176, 182; IN RE BONNER, 151 U.S. 242,
257; MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86, 91; JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S.
458, 467. 

IN APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE, WE HAVE SAID THAT THE COURT "HAS
JURISDICTION TO RENDER A PARTICULAR JUDGMENT ONLY WHEN THE OFFENCE
CHARGED IS WITHIN THE CLASS OF OFFENCES PLACED BY THE LAW UNDER ITS
JURISDICTION."  IN RE BONNER, SUPRA. AS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, WHEN THE PROSECUTION IS BROUGHT BEFORE IT, TO EXAMINE THE CHARGE
AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE OFFENSE IS OF THAT CLASS, THE DISTRICT COURT
IS THUS EMPOWERED TO PASS UPON ITS OWN JURISDICTION.  THIS, UNDER THE
APPLICABLE STATUTE, MAY REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE
OFFENSE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.  THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION
MAY REQUIRE THE EXAMINATION AND DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS OF FACT AND
LAW AND THAT DETERMINATION MAY BE THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF APPELLATE
REVIEW.  THUS IF, CONSTRUING A STATUTE, A QUESTION OF LAW IS DETERMINED
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ON DEMURRER TO THE INDICTMENT, THE CASE MAY FALL
WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  UNITED STATES V.
SUTTON, 215 U.S. 291; UNITED STATES V. SOLDANA, 246 U.S. 530.  OR, IF
DECIDED AGAINST THE ACCUSED, THE QUESTION MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  IN
CONSIDERING THE DISTRIBUTION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER THE FORMER
STATUTE  FN2  PERMITTING A DIRECT WRIT OF ERROR FROM THIS COURT TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, WHEN THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE LATTER WAS
THE ONLY QUESTION INVOLVED, WE DREW THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THAT ASPECT AND
THAT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  LOUIE V. UNITED STATES,
254 U.S. 548, 549, 550.  THERE, ON A CHARGE OF MURDER COMMITTED WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF AN INDIAN RESERVATION, THE DEFENDANT CONTENDED THAT
BEFORE THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED CRIME HE HAD BEEN DECLARED COMPETENT AND
THAT THE LAND ON WHICH THE CRIME WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED
"HAD BEEN ALLOTTED AND DEEDED TO HIM IN FEE SIMPLE."  "THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT  ...  HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LOCUS IN
QUO WAS A PART OF THE RESERVATION WAS NOT QUESTIONED" AND THE JUDGMENT
WAS HELD TO BE REVIEWABLE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND NOT
DIRECTLY BY THIS COURT.  SEE, ALSO, PRONOVOST V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 487; POTHIER V. RODMAN, 261 U.S. 307, 311. 

WHERE ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION
OF THE OFFENSE AND OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT ON
THE FACTS SHOWN THE CRIME WAS NOT COMMITTED AT A PLACE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE JUDGMENT IS
ONE FOR REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ERROR PROCEEDINGS AND
THAT THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS PROPERLY REFUSED.  TOY TOY V.
HOPKINS, 212 U.S. 542, 549.  AND, ON REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS, WE HAVE
OBSERVED THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE QUESTION "WHETHER THE LOCUS OF THE
ALLEGED CRIME WAS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED
STATES DEMANDS CONSIDERATION OF MANY FACTS AND SERIOUSLY CONTROVERTED
QUESTIONS OF LAW," THESE MATTERS "MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT WHERE
THE INDICTMENT WAS FOUND" AND THAT "THE REGULAR COURSE MAY NOT BE
ANTICIPATED BY ALLEGING WANT OF JURISDICTION AND DEMANDING A RULING
THEREON IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING."  RODMAN V. POTHIER, 264 U.S.
399, 402.  SEE, ALSO, HENRY V. HENKEL, 235 U.S. 219, 229.  ON THE SAME
PRINCIPLE, IN WALSH V. ARCHER, 73 F.2D 197, WHERE THE INDICTMENT
CHARGED MURDER COMMITTED ON BOARD A VESSEL ON THE HIGH SEAS, THE COURT
AFFIRMED AN ORDER DISMISSING A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, IT BEING
CONTENDED THAT THE VESSEL AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
WAS WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND UNDER ITS JURISDICTION, SAYING -
"WHETHER THE LOCATION OF THE ALLEGED CRIME WAS UPON THE HIGH SEAS AND
EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES REQUIRED
CONSIDERATION OF MANY FACTS AND SERIOUSLY CONTROVERTED QUESTIONS OF
LAW, INCLUDING THE ALLEGED ERROR INVOLVING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT."  ID., P. 199. 

BUT THE RULE, OFTEN BROADLY STATED, IS NOT TO BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT
THE MERE FACT THAT THE COURT WHICH TRIED THE PETITIONER HAD ASSUMED
JURISDICTION, NECESSARILY DEPRIVES ANOTHER COURT OF AUTHORITY TO GRANT
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  AS THE COURT SAID IN THE CASE OF COY, SUPRA,
PP. 757, 758, THE BROAD STATEMENT OF THE RULE WAS CERTAINLY NOT
INTENDED TO GO SO FAR AS TO MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, "THAT BECAUSE A FEDERAL
COURT TRIES A PRISONER FOR AN ORDINARY COMMON LAW OFFENCE, AS BURGLARY,
ASSAULT AND BATTERY, OR LARCENY, WITH NO AVERMENT OR PROOF OF ANY
OFFENCE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY CONNECTION WITH A STATUTE OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND PUNISHES HIM BY IMPRISONMENT, HE CANNOT BE
RELEASED BY HABEAS CORPUS BECAUSE THE COURT WHICH TRIED HIM HAD ASSUMED
JURISDICTION."  DESPITE THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT, THE ABSENCE OF
JURISDICTION MAY APPEAR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD (SEE IN RE SNOW,
SUPRA; HANS NIELSEN, PETITIONER, SUPRA, P. 183) AND THE REMEDY OF
HABEAS CORPUS MAY BE NEEDED TO RELEASE THE PRISONER FROM A PUNISHMENT
IMPOSED BY A COURT MANIFESTLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO PASS JUDGMENT. 

IT MUST NEVER BE FORGOTTEN THAT THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS THE
PRECIOUS SAFEGUARD OF PERSONAL LIBERTY AND THERE IS NO HIGHER DUTY THAN
TO MAINTAIN IT UNIMPAIRED.  EX PARTE LANGE, SUPRA.  THE RULE REQUIRING
RESORT TO APPELLATE PROCEDURE WHEN THE TRIAL COURT HAS DETERMINED ITS
OWN JURISDICTION OF AN OFFENSE IS NOT A RULE DENYING THE POWER TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WHEN IT APPEARS THAT NEVERTHELESS THE TRIAL
COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  THE RULE IS NOT ONE DEFINING POWER BUT
ONE WHICH RELATES TO THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF POWER.  IT HAS SPECIAL
APPLICATION WHERE THERE ARE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS OF FACT DETERMINABLE BY
THE TRIAL COURT.  RODMAN V. POTHIER, SUPRA.  IT IS APPLICABLE ALSO TO
THE DETERMINATION IN ORDINARY CASES OF DISPUTED MATTERS OF LAW WHETHER
THEY RELATE TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT OR TO THE VALIDITY OF
THE STATUTE ON WHICH THE CHARGE IS BASED.  ID.; GLASGOW V. MOYER,
SUPRA; HENRY V. HENKEL, SUPRA.  BUT IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT THE RULE IS
NOT SO INFLEXIBLE THAT IT MAY NOT YIELD TO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE THE NEED FOR THE REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS
APPARENT.  AMONG THESE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THOSE INDICATING A
CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES ON A QUESTION OF LAW
INVOLVING CONCERNS OF LARGE IMPORTANCE AFFECTING THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS.  IN RE LINCOLN, 202 U.S. 178, 182, 183; HENRY V. HENKEL,
SUPRA, PP. 228, 229. 

WE THINK THAT THERE ARE SUCH EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS
INSTANCE.  THERE APPEAR TO BE UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION WITH RESPECT TO
THE QUESTION WHETHER OFFENSES WITHIN THE CHICKAMAUGA AND CHATTANOOGA
NATIONAL PARK ARE TRIABLE IN THE STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS.  IT IS
REPRESENTED THAT MURDER CASES HAVE BEEN TRIED IN THE STATE COURT AS
WELL AS IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  IF THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH TRIED
PETITIONER GAVE CONSIDERATION TO THE QUESTION, IT MADE NO COMMENT ON
THE SUBJECT, AS IT RENDERED NO OPINION AND APPARENTLY MADE NO RECORD OF
ITS PROCEEDINGS ASIDE FROM THE INDICTMENT AND JUDGMENT.  THE MATTER
STOOD WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL EXPLICATION AND WITHOUT APPEAL.  IF, AS
CONTENDED, THERE BEING NO DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT, A READING OF THE
GEORGIA STATUTE OF CONSENT AND CESSION WOULD SHOW THAT THE UNITED
STATES HAD NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION SO AS TO BRING THE OFFENSE CHARGED
IN THE INDICTMENT WITHIN THE CLASS OF OFFENSES COGNIZABLE IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, WE THINK THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE COURT
TO WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS MADE TO EXAMINE THE
QUESTION AND TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN CASE THE CLAIM OF WANT OF
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL COURT WAS FOUND TO BE A VALID ONE.    THIRD.
OUR EXAMINATION OF THE GEORGIA STATUTES LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO REMAND THE CASE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT BUT THAT IT MAY BE, AND SHOULD BE, DISPOSED OF AT ONCE BY OUR
DECISION.    THE LANDS WHICH ARE EMBRACED WITHIN THE CHICKAMAUGA AND
CHATTANOOGA NATIONAL PARK, AND LIE WITHIN THE EXTERIOR LIMITS OF THE
STATE OF GEORGIA, WERE ACQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF
CONGRESS APPROVED AUGUST 19, 1890, AND SUPPLEMENTARY LEGISLATION.  26
STAT. 333.  THE ACT PROVIDED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PARK "UPON
THE CEDING OF JURISDICTION BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
GEORGIA."  THE LANDS WERE ACQUIRED IN 1891 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  SOME
WERE ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE AND SOME BY CONDEMNATION.  CONSENT WAS GIVEN
AND JURISDICTION WAS CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES BY AN ACT OF THE
LEGISLATURE OF GEORGIA APPROVED NOVEMBER 19, 1890.  GEORGIA LAWS, 1890
91, VOL. 1, P. 199.  THE ACT SPECIFICALLY RESERVED TO THE STATE OF
GEORGIA CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN THE CEDED TERRITORY BY THE FOLLOWING
PROVISO:  "PROVIDED, THAT THIS CESSION IS UPON THE EXPRESS CONDITION
THAT THE STATE OF GEORGIA SHALL SO FAR RETAIN A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
WITH THE UNITED STATES OVER SAID LANDS AND ROADS AS THAT ALL CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL PROCESS ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS STATE MAY BE
EXECUTED THEREON IN LIKE MANNER AS IF THIS ACT HAD NOT BEEN PASSED; AND
UPON THE FURTHER EXPRESS CONDITIONS, THAT THE STATE SHALL RETAIN ITS
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS AND CITIZENS IN SAID CEDED
TERRITORY AS OVER OTHER PERSONS AND CITIZENS IN THE STATE, AND THE
PROPERTY OF SAID CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS THEREON, EXCEPT LAND AND SUCH
OTHER PROPERTY AS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT MAY DESIRE FOR ITS USE, AND
THAT THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO PERSONS RESIDING WITHIN SAID CEDED
TERRITORY SHALL BE LIABLE TO STATE AND COUNTY TAXES, THE SAME AS IF
THEY RESIDED ELSEWHERE, AND THAT CITIZENS OF THIS STATE IN SAID CEDED
TERRITORY SHALL RETAIN ALL RIGHTS OF STATE SUFFRAGE AND CITIZENSHIP
...  ;" 

LATER ACTS OF CESSION CONTAINED A SIMILAR RESERVATION AS TO CRIMINAL
JURISDICTION.  FN3 

IF THE MATTER RESTED WITH THESE STATUTES, THERE WOULD BE NO ROOM FOR
DOUBT THAT JURISDICTION TO PUNISH FOR CRIMES COMMITTED ON THE LANDS
WITHIN THE PARK REMAINED WITH THE STATE.  SEE JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA.  BUT IN 1927, ANOTHER CESSION ACT OF A GENERAL
CHARACTER WAS PASSED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, PURPORTING TO CEDE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE UNITED STATES OVER ANY LAND "WHICH HAS
BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER BE ACQUIRED FOR CUSTOM-HOUSES, POST-OFFICES,
ARSENALS, OTHER PUBLIC BUILDINGS WHATEVER, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES OF
GOVERNMENT."  GEORGIA LAWS, 1927, P. 352.  THIS ACT RESERVED THE RIGHT
TO SERVE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCESSES BUT NOT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
OVER OFFENSES WITHIN THE CEDED TERRITORY. 

THE ARGUMENT IS STRONGLY PRESSED THAT AS THIS IS A GENERAL ACT AND
THERE IS NO EXPRESS REPEAL OF, OR SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO, THE EARLIER
SPECIAL ACTS RELATING TO THE LANDS WITHIN THE PARK, IT SHOULD NOT BE
REGARDED AS YIELDING THE JURISDICTION WHICH THE EARLIER ACTS RESERVED
TO THE STATE.  BUT WE FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION IS TO
THE CONTRARY.  THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PARK WAS PLACED WITH THE WAR
DEPARTMENT  FN4 AND IT APPEARS FROM ITS FILES THAT ON JULY 14, 1930,
UPON A REVIEW OF THE PERTINENT LEGISLATION, THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
GAVE AN OPINION THAT THE ACT OF 1927 "VESTS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN
THE UNITED STATES OVER THAT PART OF THE CHICKAMAUGA AND CHATTANOOGA
NATIONAL MILITARY PARK LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE OF GEORGIA" AND THAT
VIOLATIONS OF LAW OCCURRING ON THE CEDED LANDS ARE ENFORCEABLE ONLY BY
THE PROPER AUTHORITIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  AS THIS ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION IS A PERMISSIBLE ONE WE FIND IT PERSUASIVE AND WE THINK
THAT THE DEBATED QUESTION OF JURISDICTION SHOULD BE SETTLED BY
CONSTRUING THE ACT OF 1927 IN THE SAME WAY. 

ON THIS GROUND, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
AFFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT DENYING THE PETITION FOR
HABEAS CORPUS, IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 272, THIRD; 18 U.S.C. 451. 

FN2  26 STAT. 827; 36 STAT. 1157, JUD.  CODE, SEC. 238. 

FN3  GEORGIA LAWS, 1893, P. 110; 1895, P. 77; 1901, P. 85; 1902, P.
110. 

FN4  TRANSFERRED TO THE NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6166, JUNE 10, 1933. 
..END :





















WASHINGTONIAN CO. V. PEARSON, 306 U.S. 30 


NO. 222.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 68
APP. D.C. 373 - 98 F.2D 245, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 12 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909 PROVIDES THAT, AFTER
COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN SECURED BY PUBLICATION WITH THE PRESCRIBED NOTICE OF
COPYRIGHT, TWO COPIES OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK SHALL BE "PROMPTLY"
DEPOSITED IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE; AND THAT NO SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT
SHALL BE MAINTAINED "UNTIL" THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO
THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES AND REGISTRATION OF SUCH WORK SHALL HAVE BEEN
COMPLIED WITH.  HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO SUE UNDER THE ACT FOR
INFRINGEMENT IS NOT LOST BY MERE DELAY IN DEPOSITING COPIES OF THE
COPYRIGHTED WORK.  P. 39. 

2.  FOURTEEN MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF ITS PUBLICATION AND SIX MONTHS
AFTER IT HAD BEEN INFRINGED, COPIES OF A PUBLICATION WHICH BORE NOTICE
OF COPYRIGHT WERE DEPOSITED IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND A CERTIFICATE
OF REGISTRATION SECURED.  HELD, A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE INFRINGEMENT AND
TO RECOVER DAMAGES (FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE INFRINGING
WORK) WAS MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909.  PP. 33, 39. 

3.  THE COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1909 WAS INTENDED DEFINITELY TO GRANT
VALUABLE, ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS TO AUTHORS, PUBLISHERS, ETC., WITHOUT
BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS.  FORFEITURES OF SUCH RIGHTS ARE NOT TO BE
INFERRED FROM DOUBTFUL LANGUAGE.  PP. 36, 42. 

WASHINGTONIAN PUBLISHING CO. V. PEARSON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 583, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE FOR THE
PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY THIS SUIT, INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARCH 8, 1933,
PETITIONER SEEKS AN INJUNCTION, DAMAGES, ETC., BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A MAGAZINE ARTICLE COPYRIGHTED UNDER ACT MARCH 4,
1909(CH. 320, 35 STAT. 1075; U.S.C., TITLE 17).  PERTINENT PORTIONS OF
THE STATUTE ARE IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  BOBBS-MERRILL CO. V. STRAUS, 210
U.S. 339, 346; CALIGA V. INTER OCEAN NEWSPAPER CO., 215 U.S. 182, 188. 

THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED PETITIONER'S CLAIM AND DIRECTED
ASCERTAINMENT OF PROFITS, DAMAGES, ETC.  THE COURT OF APPEALS RULED
THAT, AS COPIES OF THE MAGAZINE HAD NOT BEEN PROMPTLY DEPOSITED IN THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICE AS DIRECTED BY SEC. 12, THE ACTION COULD NOT BE
MAINTAINED.  IT ACCORDINGLY REVERSED THE DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE. 

THE RECORD DISCLOSES - 

DECEMBER 10, 1931, PETITIONER PUBLISHED AN ISSUE OF "THE
WASHINGTONIAN," A MONTHLY MAGAZINE, AND CLAIMED COPYRIGHT BY PRINTING
THEREON THE REQUIRED STATUTORY NOTICE.  FOURTEEN MONTHS LATER, FEBRUARY
21, 1933, COPIES WERE FIRST DEPOSITED IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND A
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION SECURED.  THIS SUIT FOLLOWED, MARCH 8,
1933. 

IN AUGUST, 1932, LIVERIGHT, INC., PUBLISHED AND OFFERED FOR GENERAL
SALE A BOOK WRITTEN BY TWO OF THE RESPONDENTS AND PRINTED BY ANOTHER,
WHICH CONTAINED MATERIAL SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH AN ARTICLE
CONTAINED IN THE WASHINGTONIAN OF DECEMBER, 1931.  THE USUAL NOTICE
CLAIMED COPYRIGHT OF THIS BOOK.  AUGUST 26, 1932, COPIES WERE DEPOSITED
IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED. 

RESPONDENTS CONCEDE THAT PETITIONER SECURED UPON PUBLICATION A VALID
COPYRIGHT OF THE WASHINGTONIAN.  BUT THEY INSIST THAT ALTHOUGH PROMPT
DEPOSIT OF COPIES IS NOT PREREQUISITE TO COPYRIGHT, NO ACTION CAN BE
MAINTAINED BECAUSE OF INFRINGEMENT PRIOR IN DATE TO A TARDY DEPOSIT. 
COUNSEL ASSERT - "THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN AN
ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT IS DEPOSIT OF COPIES AND REGISTRATION OF THE
WORK.  NEITHER OF THESE HAS THE SLIGHTEST BEARING UPON THE CREATION OF
THE COPYRIGHT ITSELF UNDER SECTION 9.  THAT IS OBTAINED MERELY BY
PUBLICATION WITH NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT."  ALSO, "IF COPIES WERE
NOT DEPOSITED PROMPTLY AFTER PUBLICATION THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH
THE REQUIREMENT OF PROMPTNESS WAS GONE FOREVER AS TO THAT PARTICULAR
WORK." 

PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT UNDER THE STATUTE PROMPT DEPOSIT OF COPIES IS
NOT PREREQUISITE TO AN ACTION FOR INFRINGEMENT; AND THAT UNDER THE
FACTS HERE DISCLOSED DEPOSIT BEFORE SUIT WAS ENOUGH. 

THE ACT OF 1909 IS A COMPLETE REVISION OF THE COPYRIGHT LAWS,
DIFFERENT FROM THE EARLIER ACT BOTH IN SCHEME AND LANGUAGE.  IT
INTRODUCED MANY CHANGES AND WAS INTENDED DEFINITELY TO GRANT VALUABLE,
ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS TO AUTHORS, PUBLISHERS, ETC., WITHOUT BURDENSOME
REQUIREMENTS; "TO AFFORD GREATER ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE PRODUCTION OF
LITERARY WORKS OF LASTING BENEFIT TO THE WORLD."  FN2 

UNDER THE OLD ACT DEPOSIT OF THE WORK WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE EXISTENCE
OF COPYRIGHT.  THIS REQUIREMENT CAUSED SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES AND
UNFORTUNATE LOSSES.  (SEE H.R. REPORT, NOTE 2, SUPRA.) THE PRESENT
STATUTE (SEC. 9) DECLARES - "ANY PERSON ENTITLED THERETO BY THIS ACT
MAY SECURE COPYRIGHT FOR HIS WORK BY PUBLICATION THEREOF WITH THE
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT REQUIRED BY THIS ACT (SEC. 18); ...  "  AND
RESPONDENTS RIGHTLY SAY "IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO DEPOSIT ANYTHING
TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT OF A PUBLISHED WORK, BUT ONLY TO PUBLISH WITH THE
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT." 


"THAT SUCH PERSON MAY OBTAIN REGISTRATION OF HIS CLAIM TO COPYRIGHT
BY COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, INCLUDING THE DEPOSIT OF
COPIES, AND UPON SUCH COMPLIANCE THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS SHALL ISSUE
TO HIM THE CERTIFICATE PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION FIFTY-FIVE OF THIS
ACT." 


"THAT AFTER COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN SECURED BY PUBLICATION OF THE WORK
WITH THE NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION NINE OF THIS ACT,
THERE SHALL BE PROMPTLY DEPOSITED IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE OR IN THE
MAIL ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, TWO COMPLETE COPIES OF THE BEST EDITION THEREOF THEN
PUBLISHED,  ...  NO ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN ANY WORK UNTIL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES AND REGISTRATION OF SUCH WORK
SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH." 


"THAT SHOULD THE COPIES CALLED FOR BY SECTION TWELVE OF THIS ACT NOT
BE PROMPTLY DEPOSITED AS HEREIN PROVIDED, THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
MAY AT ANY TIME AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF THE WORK, UPON ACTUAL NOTICE,
REQUIRE THE PROPRIETOR OF THE COPYRIGHT TO DEPOSIT THEM, AND AFTER THE
SAID DEMAND SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE, IN DEFAULT OF THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES
OF THE WORK WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM ANY PART OF THE UNITED STATES,
...  THE PROPRIETOR OF THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BE LIABLE TO A FINE OF ONE
HUNDRED DOLLARS AND TO PAY TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TWICE THE AMOUNT
OF THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE BEST EDITION OF THE WORK, AND THE COPYRIGHT
SHALL BECOME VOID." 

THAT DEPOSIT OF COPIES IS NOT REQUIRED PRIMARILY IN ORDER TO INSURE A
COMPLETE, PERMANENT COLLECTION OF ALL COPYRIGHTED WORKS OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC.  DEPOSITED COPIES MAY BE DISTRIBUTED OR DESTROYED UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF THE LIBRARIAN  FN3  AND THIS IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE
NOTION THAT COPIES ARE NOW REQUIRED IN ORDER THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF
PROTECTED WORKS MAY ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE FOR INFORMATION AND TO PREVENT
UNCONSCIOUS INFRINGEMENT. 

ALTHOUGH IMMEDIATELY UPON PUBLICATION OF THE WASHINGTONIAN FOR
DECEMBER, 1931, PETITIONER SECURED COPYRIGHT OF THE ARTICLES THEREIN,
RESPONDENTS MAINTAIN THAT THROUGH FAILURE PROMPTLY TO DEPOSIT COPIES IN
THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE THE RIGHT TO SUE FOR INFRINGEMENT WAS LOST.  IN
EFFECT, THAT THE PROVISION IN SEC. 12 RELATIVE TO SUITS SHOULD BE
TREATED AS THOUGH IT CONTAINED THE WORDS "PROMPTLY," ALSO "UNLESS"
INSTEAD OF "UNTIL," AND READ - NO ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE
MAINTAINED FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN ANY WORK UNLESS THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES PROMPTLY
AND REGISTRATION OF SUCH WORK SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 

PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS VIEW WERE ADVANCED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  WE THINK, HOWEVER, ITS ADOPTION WOULD NOT SQUARE
WITH THE WORDS ACTUALLY USED IN THE STATUTE, WOULD CAUSE CONFLICT WITH
ITS GENERAL PURPOSE, AND IN PRACTICE PRODUCE UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES. 
WE CANNOT ACCEPT IT. 

PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF COPYRIGHT CAME TO FRUITION IMMEDIATELY UPON
PUBLICATION.  WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE IT WAS GOOD AGAINST ALL THE
WORLD.  ITS VALUE DEPENDED UPON THE POSSIBILITY OF ENFORCEMENT. 

THE USE OF THE WORD "UNTIL" IN SEC. 12 RATHER THAN "UNLESS" INDICATES
THAT MERE DELAY IN MAKING DEPOSIT OF COPIES WAS NOT ENOUGH TO CAUSE
FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT THERETOFORE DISTINCTLY GRANTED. 

PUBLICATION OF THE WORK WITH THE NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT AS PROVIDED IN
COPYRIGHT OFFICE" TWO COPIES, ETC.  THE ACT NOWHERE DEFINES "PROMPTLY,"
AND TO MAKE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF COPYRIGHT DEPEND UPON PROMPTNESS
WOULD LEAD TO UNFORTUNATE UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION.  THE GREAT NUMBER
OF COPYRIGHTS ANNUALLY OBTAINED IS INDICATED BY NOTE 3, SUPRA.  THE
DIFFICULTIES CONSEQUENT UPON THE FORMER REQUIREMENT OF DEPOSIT BEFORE
PUBLICATION ARE POINTED OUT IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.  THESE WOULD BE
ENLARGED IF WHENEVER EFFORT IS MADE TO VINDICATE A COPYRIGHT IT WOULD
BECOME NECESARY TO SHOW DEPOSITS WERE MADE PROMPTLY AFTER PUBLICATION
ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF "PROMPTLY." 

FINDS UNDUE DELAY AND TO REQUIRE DEPOSIT OF COPIES.  UPON FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITHIN THREE MONTHS THE PROPRIETOR SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A FINE
AND THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BECOME VOID.  EVIDENTLY MERE DELAY DOES NOT
NECESSARILY INVALIDATE THE COPYRIGHT; ITS EXISTENCE FOR THREE MONTHS
AFTER ACTUAL NOTICE IS RECOGNIZED.  WITHOUT RIGHT OF VINDICATION A
COPYRIGHT IS VALUELESS.  IT WOULD BE GOING TOO FAR TO INFER THAT
TARDINESS ALONE DESTROYS SOMETHING VALUABLE BOTH TO PROPRIETOR AND THE
PUBLIC. 

SEC. 23 DECLARES "THAT THE COPYRIGHT SECURED BY THIS ACT SHALL ENDURE
FOR TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION, WHETHER THE
COPYRIGHTED WORK BEARS THE AUTHOR'S TRUE NAME OR IS PUBLISHED
ANONYMOUSLY OR UNDER AN ASSUMED NAME:  ...  "  FURTHERMORE, PROPER
PUBLICATION GIVES NOTICE TO ALL THE WORLD THAT IMMEDIATE COPYRIGHT
EXISTS.  ONE CHARGED WITH SUCH NOTICE IS NOT INJURED BY MERE FAILURE TO
DEPOSIT COPIES.  THE DUTY NOT TO INFRINGE IS UNAFFECTED THEREBY.  A
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION PROVIDED FOR BY SEC. 55 APPARENTLY MAY BE
OBTAINED AT ANY TIME AND BECOMES EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS STATED THEREIN. 

APPLICATION AND REGISTRATION WITHIN ITS LAST YEAR ALTHOUGH THE
DEPOSITED COPYRIGHTED PUBLICATION MAY HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF UNDER SECS.
59-60, GIVE CLEAR INDICATION THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEPOSIT IS NOT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF A PERMANENT RECORD OF COPYRIGHTED PUBLICATIONS AND
THAT SUCH RECORD IS NOT INDISPENSABLE TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE
COPYRIGHT.  FN4 

THE PENALTY FOR DELAY CLEARLY SPECIFIED IN SEC. 13 IS ADEQUATE FOR
PUNISHMENT OF DELINQUENTS AND TO ENFORCE CONTRIBUTIONS OF DESIRABLE
BOOKS TO THE LIBRARY.  TO GIVE SEC. 12 A MORE DRASTIC EFFECT WOULD TEND
TO DEFEAT THE BROAD PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT.  THE REPORT OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE POINTS OUT THAT FORFEITURE AFTER NOTICE AND
THREE MONTHS' FURTHER DELAY WAS THOUGHT TOO SEVERE BY SOME.  NOWHERE
DOES IT SUGGEST APPROVAL OF THE MUCH MORE DRASTIC RESULT NOW INSISTED
UPON BY RESPONDENTS. 

READ TOGETHER AS THE COMMITTEE WHICH REPORTED THE BILL SAID THEY
SHOULD BE, SECS. 12 AND 13 SHOW, WE THINK, THE CONGRESS INTENDED THAT
PROMPT DEPOSIT WHEN DEEMED NECESSARY SHOULD BE ENFORCED THROUGH ACTUAL
NOTICE BY THE REGISTER; ALSO THAT WHILE NO ACTION CAN BE MAINTAINED
BEFORE COPIES ARE ACTUALLY DEPOSITED, MERE DELAY WILL NOT DESTROY THE
RIGHT TO SUE.  SUCH FORFEITURES ARE NEVER TO BE INFERRED FROM DOUBTFUL
LANGUAGE. 

THIS VIEW IS IN ACCORD WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF SOMEWHAT SIMILAR
PROVISIONS OF THE ENGLISH COPYRIGHT ACT.  GOUBAUD V. WALLACE AND CATE
V. DEVON CONSTITUTIONAL NEWSPAPER CO., SUPRA.  ALSO WITH THE
CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN LUMIERE V. PATHE EXCHANGE AND MITTENTHAL V.
BERLIN, SUPRA. 

THE CHALLENGED DECREE MUST BE REVERSED.  THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT MARCH 4, 1909 - 

"SEC. 1.  THAT ANY PERSON ENTITLED THERETO, UPON COMPLYING WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, SHALL HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT: 

"(A) TO PRINT, REPRINT, PUBLISH, COPY, AND VEND THE COPYRIGHTED WORK;
... 

"SEC. 3.  THAT THE COPYRIGHT PROVIDED BY THIS ACT SHALL PROTECT ALL
THE COPYRIGHTABLE COMPONENT PARTS OF THE WORK COPYRIGHTED, AND ALL
MATTER THEREIN IN WHICH COPYRIGHT IS ALREADY SUBSISTING, BUT WITHOUT
EXTENDING THE DURATION OR SCOPE OF SUCH COPYRIGHT.  THE COPYRIGHT UPON
COMPOSITE WORKS OR PERIODICALS SHALL GIVE TO THE PROPRIETOR THEREOF ALL
THE RIGHTS IN RESPECT THERETO WHICH HE WOULD HAVE IF EACH PART WERE
INDIVIDUALLY COPYRIGHTED UNDER THIS ACT. 

"SEC. 4.  THAT THE WORKS FOR WHICH COPYRIGHT MAY BE SECURED UNDER
THIS ACT SHALL INCLUDE ALL THE WRITINGS OF AN AUTHOR. 

"SEC. 9.  THAT ANY PERSON ENTITLED THERETO BY THIS ACT MAY SECURE
COPYRIGHT FOR HIS WORK BY PUBLICATION THEREOF WITH THE NOTICE OF
COPYRIGHT REQUIRED BY THIS ACT; AND SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE AFFIXED TO
EACH COPY THEREOF PUBLISHED OR OFFERED FOR SALE IN THE UNITED STATES BY
AUTHORITY OF THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR,  ... 

"SEC. 10.  THAT SUCH PERSON MAY OBTAIN REGISTRATION OF HIS CLAIM TO
COPYRIGHT BY COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, INCLUDING THE
DEPOSIT OF COPIES, AND UPON SUCH COMPLIANCE THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
SHALL ISSUE TO HIM THE CERTIFICATE PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION FIFTY-FIVE
OF THIS ACT. 

"SEC. 12.  THAT AFTER COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN SECURED BY PUBLICATION OF
THE WORK WITH THE NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION NINE OF
THIS ACT, THERE SHALL BE PROMPTLY DEPOSITED IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE OR
IN THE MAIL ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, WASHINGTON,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TWO COMPLETE COPIES OF THE BEST EDITION THEREOF
THEN PUBLISHED,  ...  NO ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN ANY WORK UNTIL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES AND REGISTRATION OF SUCH WORK
SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.    "SEC. 13.  THAT SHOULD THE COPIES
CALLED FOR BY SECTION TWELVE OF THIS ACT NOT BE PROMPTLY DEPOSITED AS
HEREIN PROVIDED, THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS MAY AT ANY TIME AFTER THE
PUBLICATION OF THE WORK, UPON ACTUAL NOTICE, REQUIRE THE PROPRIETOR OF
THE COPYRIGHT TO DEPOSIT THEM, AND AFTER THE SAID DEMAND SHALL HAVE
BEEN MADE, IN DEFAULT OF THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES OF THE WORK WITHIN THREE
MONTHS FROM ANY PART OF THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT AN OUTLYING
TERRITORIAL POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM
ANY OUTLYING TERRITORIAL POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR FROM ANY
FOREIGN COUNTRY, THE PROPRIETOR OF THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BE LIABLE TO A
FINE OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND TO PAY TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TWICE
THE AMOUNT OF THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE BEST EDITION OF THE WORK, AND THE
COPYRIGHT SHALL BECOME VOID. 

"SEC. 18.  THAT THE NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT REQUIRED BY SECTION NINE OF
THIS ACT SHALL CONSIST EITHER OF THE WORD "COPYRIGHT" OR THE
ABBREVIATION "COPR.", ACCOMPANIED BY THE NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT
PROPRIETOR, AND IF THE WORK BE A PRINTED LITERARY, MUSICAL, OR DRAMATIC
WORK, THE NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE ALSO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE COPYRIGHT WAS
SECURED BY PUBLICATION.  ... 

"SEC. 20.  THAT WHERE THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR HAS SOUGHT TO COMPLY
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT WITH RESPECT TO NOTICE, THE OMISSION BY
ACCIDENT OR MISTAKE OF THE PRESCRIBED NOTICE FROM A PARTICULAR COPY OR
COPIES SHALL NOT INVALIDATE THE COPYRIGHT OR PREVENT RECOVERY FOR
INFRINGEMENT AGAINST ANY PERSON WHO, AFTER ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE
COPYRIGHT, BEGINS AN UNDERTAKING TO INFRINGE IT,  ... 

"SEC. 23.  THAT THE COPYRIGHT SECURED BY THIS ACT SHALL ENDURE FOR
TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION, WHETHER THE
COPYRIGHTED WORK BEARS THE AUTHOR'S TRUE NAME OR IS PUBLISHED
ANONYMOUSLY OR UNDER AN ASSUMED NAME:  PROVIDED, THAT IN THE CASE OF
ANY POSTHUMOUS WORK OR OF ANY PERIODICAL, CYCLOPEDIC, OR OTHER
COMPOSITE WORK UPON WHICH THE COPYRIGHT WAS ORIGINALLY SECURED BY THE
PROPRIETOR THEREOF, OR OF ANY WORK COPYRIGHTED BY A CORPORATE BODY
(OTHERWISE THAN AS ASSIGNEE OR LICENSEE OF THE INDIVIDUAL AUTHOR) OR BY
AN EMPLOYER FOR WHOM SUCH WORK IS MADE FOR HIRE, THE PROPRIETOR OF SUCH
COPYRIGHT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF THE COPYRIGHT
IN SUCH WORK FOR THE FURTHER TERM OF TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS WHEN
APPLICATION FOR SUCH RENEWAL AND EXTENSION SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND DULY REGISTERED THEREIN WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO
THE EXPIRATION OF THE ORIGINAL TERM OF COPYRIGHT:  AND PROVIDED
FURTHER, THAT IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER COPYRIGHTED WORK, INCLUDING A
CONTRIBUTION BY AN INDIVIDUAL AUTHOR TO A PERIODICAL OR TO A CYCLOPEDIC
OR OTHER COMPOSITE WORK WHEN SUCH CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN SEPARATELY
REGISTERED, THE AUTHOR OF SUCH WORK, IF STILL LIVING, OR THE WIDOW,
WIDOWER, OR CHILDREN OF THE AUTHOR, IF THE AUTHOR BE NOT LIVING, OR IF
SUCH AUTHOR, WIDOW, WIDOWER, OR CHILDREN BE NOT LIVING, THEN THE
AUTHOR'S EXECUTORS, OR IN THE ABSENCE OF A WILL, HIS NEXT OF KIN SHALL
BE ENTITLED TO A RENEWAL AND EXTENSION OF THE COPYRIGHT IN SUCH WORK
FOR A FURTHER TERM OF TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS WHEN APPLICATION FOR SUCH
RENEWAL AND EXTENSION SHALL HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND
DULY REGISTERED THEREIN WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE
ORIGINAL TERM OF COPYRIGHT:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT IN DEFAULT OF
THE REGISTRATION OF SUCH APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL AND EXTENSION, THE
COPYRIGHT IN ANY WORK SHALL DETERMINE AT THE EXPIRATION OF TWENTY-EIGHT
YEARS FROM FIRST PUBLICATION. 

"SEC. 24.  THAT THE COPYRIGHT SUBSISTING IN ANY WORK AT THE TIME WHEN
THIS ACT GOES INTO EFFECT MAY, AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM PROVIDED
FOR UNDER EXISTING LAW, BE RENEWED AND EXTENDED BY THE AUTHOR OF SUCH
WORK IF STILL LIVING, OR THE WIDOW, WIDOWER, OR CHILDREN OF THE AUTHOR,
IF THE AUTHOR BE NOT LIVING, OR IF SUCH AUTHOR, WIDOW, WIDOWER, OR
CHILDREN BE NOT LIVING, THEN BY THE AUTHOR'S EXECUTORS, OR IN THE
ABSENCE OF A WILL, HIS NEXT OF KIN, FOR A FURTHER PERIOD SUCH THAT THE
ENTIRE TERM SHALL BE EQUAL TO THAT SECURED BY THIS ACT, INCLUDING THE
RENEWAL PERIOD: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE WORK BE A COMPOSITE WORK
UPON WHICH COPYRIGHT WAS ORIGINALLY SECURED BY THE PROPRIETOR THEREOF,
THEN SUCH PROPRIETOR SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGE OF RENEWAL AND
EXTENSION GRANTED UNDER THIS SECTION:  PROVIDED, THAT APPLICATION FOR
SUCH RENEWAL AND EXTENSION SHALL BE MADE TO THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND
DULY REGISTERED THEREIN WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE
EXISTING TERM. 

"SEC. 25.  THAT IF ANY PERSON SHALL INFRINGE THE COPYRIGHT IN ANY
WORK PROTECTED UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES SUCH
PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE: 

"(A)  TO AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING SUCH INFRINGEMENT; 

"(B)  TO PAY TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR SUCH DAMAGES AS THE
COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR MAY HAVE SUFFERED DUE TO THE INFRINGEMENT, AS WELL
AS ALL THE PROFITS WHICH THE INFRINGER SHALL HAVE MADE FROM SUCH
INFRINGEMENT,  ... 

"SEC. 27.  THAT THE PROCEEDINGS FOR AN INJUNCTION, DAMAGES, AND
PROFITS, AND THOSE FOR THE SEIZURE OF INFRINGING COPIES, PLATES, MOLDS,
MATRICES, AND SO FORTH, AFOREMENTIONED, MAY BE UNITED IN ONE ACTION. 

"SEC. 54.  THAT THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS SHALL PROVIDE AND KEEP
SUCH RECORD BOOKS IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE AS ARE REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, AND WHENEVER DEPOSIT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICE OF A COPY OF ANY WORK UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
HE SHALL MAKE ENTRY THEREOF. 

"SEC. 55.  THAT IN THE CASE OF EACH ENTRY THE PERSON RECORDED AS THE
CLAIMANT OF THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION UNDER SEAL OF THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE, TO CONTAIN HIS NAME
AND ADDRESS,  ...  SAID CERTIFICATE SHALL BE ADMITTED IN ANY COURT AS
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS STATED THEREIN.  IN ADDITION TO SUCH
CERTIFICATE THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS SHALL FURNISH, UPON REQUEST,
WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FEE, A RECEIPT FOR THE COPIES OF THE WORK DEPOSITED
TO COMPLETE THE REGISTRATION. 

"SEC. 59.  THAT OF THE ARTICLES DEPOSITED IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COPYRIGHT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF
THIS ACT, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS SHALL DETERMINE WHAT BOOKS AND
OTHER ARTICLES SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE PERMANENT COLLECTIONS OF THE
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING THE LAW LIBRARY, AND WHAT OTHER BOOKS OR
ARTICLES SHALL BE PLACED IN THE RESERVE COLLECTIONS OF THE LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS FOR SALE OR EXCHANGE, OR BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
LIBRARIES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR USE THEREIN. 

"SEC. 60.  THAT OF ANY ARTICLES UNDISPOSED OF AS ABOVE PROVIDED,
TOGETHER WITH ALL TITLES AND CORRESPONDENCE RELATING THERETO, THE
LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS AND THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS JOINTLY SHALL, AT
SUITABLE INTERVALS, DETERMINE WHAT OF THESE RECEIVED DURING ANY PERIOD
OF YEARS IT IS DESIRABLE OR USEFUL TO PRESERVE IN THE PERMANENT FILES
OF THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE, AND, AFTER DUE NOTICE AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED,
MAY WITHIN THEIR DISCRETION CAUSE THE REMAINING ARTICLES AND OTHER
THINGS TO BE DESTROYED:  ... 

"SEC. 62.  THAT IN THE INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ACT
'THE DATE OF PUBLICATION' SHALL IN THE CASE OF A WORK OF WHICH COPIES
ARE REPRODUCED FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION BE HELD TO BE THE EARLIEST DATE
WHEN COPIES OF THE FIRST AUTHORIZED EDITION WERE PLACED ON SALE, SOLD,
OR PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED BY THE PROPRIETOR OF THE COPYRIGHT OR UNDER HIS
AUTHORITY, AND THE WORD 'AUTHOR' SHALL INCLUDE AN EMPLOYER IN THE CASE
OF WORKS MADE FOR HIRE." 

FN2  SEE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, CH. 565, 26 STAT. 1106; GOUBAUD V.
WALLACE (1877), 36 LAW TIMES (N.S.)  704, 705; 25 W.R. 604; CATE V.
DEVON & EXETER CONSTITUTIONAL NEWSPAPER CO. (1889), L.R. 40 CH. D. 500,
37 W.R. 487, 58 L.J. CH. 288, 60 L.T. 672, 5 T.L.R. 229; LUMIERE V.
PATHE EXCHANGE (1921), 275 F. 428; MITTENTHAL V. BERLIN (1923), 291 F.
714. 

ALSO REPORT OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS, FEBRUARY 22, 1909(NO.
2222).  AMONG OTHER THINGS THIS SAYS - 

"SECTIONS 12 AND 13 DEAL WITH THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES, AND SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED TOGETHER.  THEY MATERIALLY ALTER THE EXISTING LAW, WHICH
PROVIDES THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE COPYRIGHT VALID THERE MUST BE
DEPOSITED TWO COMPLETE COPIES OF THE BOOK OR OTHER ARTICLE NOT LATER
THAN THE DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION.  THE FAILURE OF A SHIPPING CLERK TO
SEE THAT THE COPIES GO PROMPTLY FORWARD TO WASHINGTON MAY DESTROY A
COPYRIGHT OF GREAT VALUE, AND MANY COPYRIGHTS HAVE BEEN LOST BECAUSE BY
SOME ACCIDENT OR MISTAKE THIS REQUIREMENT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH.  THE
COMMITTEE FELT THAT SOME MODIFICATION OF THIS DRASTIC PROVISION, UNDER
WHICH THE DELAY OF A SINGLE DAY MIGHT DESTROY A COYPRIGHT, MIGHT WELL
BE MADE.  THE BILL REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE PROVIDES THAT THERE SHALL
BE 'PROMPTLY' DEPOSITED IN THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE, OR IN THE MAIL
ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, TWO COMPLETE COPIES OF THE
BEST EDITION THEN PUBLISHED, AND THAT NO ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE
MAINTAINED FOR THE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN ANY WORK UNTIL THE
PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES AND THE REGISTRATION
OF SUCH WORK SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 

"IF THE WORKS ARE NOT PROMPTLY DEPOSITED, WE PROVIDE THAT THE
REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS MAY AT ANY TIME AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE WORK,
UPON ACTUAL NOTICE, REQUIRE THE PROPRIETOR OF THE COPYRIGHT TO DEPOSIT,
AND THEN IN DEFAULT OF DEPOSIT OF COPIES OF THE WORK WITHIN THREE
MONTHS FROM ANY PART OF THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT AN OUTLYING
TERRITORIAL POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM
ANY OUTLYING TERRITORIAL POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES, OR FROM ANY
FOREIGN COUNTRY, THE PROPRIETOR OF THE COPYRIGHT SHALL BE LIABLE TO A
FINE OF $100 AND TO PAY TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TWICE THE AMOUNT OF
THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE BEST EDITION OF THE WORK, AND THE COPYRIGHT
SHALL BECOME VOID.  IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE FORFEITURE OF THE
COPYRIGHT FOR FAILURE TO DEPOSIT COPIES WAS TOO DRASTIC A REMEDY, BUT
YOUR COMMITTEE FEEL THAT IN MANY CASES IT WILL BE THE ONLY EFFECTIVE
REMEDY:  CERTAINLY THE PROVISION FOR COMPELLING THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES
BY THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY UNAVAILING SHOULD THE
COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR BE THE CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A FOREIGN STATE." 

FN3  SEE REPORT REGISTER COPYRIGHTS FOR 1938.  DURING THE YEAR THERE
WERE 166,248 REGISTRATIONS; 194,433 CURRENT ARTICLES DEPOSITED WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.  ALSO 3,612 MOTION PICTURE
FILMS, AND 43,302 DEPOSITS FROM OTHER CLASSES WERE RETURNED TO THE
AUTHORS OR PROPRIETORS. 

FN4  FOR STATEMENT OF THE VIEWS OF THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE CONCERNING
ACT OF 1909 AND PRACTICE THEREUNDER, SEE LETTER FROM THE REGISTER OF
COPYRIGHTS TO THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 1938,
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1938.  THE FOLLOWING APPEARS
THEREIN - (P. 20) 

"THE FAILURE TO MAKE DEPOSIT WITHIN THE PROPER TIME DOES NOT IN
ITSELF INVALIDATE THE COPYRIGHT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SECURED BY
PUBLICATION WITH NOTICE; THIS CAN NOW RESULT ONLY AFTER FAILURE TO MAKE
DEPOSIT UPON ACTUAL NOTICE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 13. 

"IT IS TRUE THAT SECTION 12 PROVIDES THAT NO ACTION OR PROCEEDING
SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR INFRINGEMENT UNTIL THE 'DEPOSIT OF COPIES AND
REGISTRATION' HAVE TAKEN PLACE, WHICH PRESUMABLY WAS ADDED AS A SPECIAL
INDUCEMENT TO MAKE PROMPT DEPOSIT; BUT THIS DOES NOT ANSWER THE
QUESTION. 

"HERETOFORE, THE PRACTICE OF THE OFFICE HAS BEEN TO ACCEPT COPIES AT
ANY TIME SUBSEQUENT TO PUBLICATION WITH NOTICE; THUS, IN EFFECT,
ATTACHING NO SIGNIFICANCE TO THE WORD 'PROMPTLY'; AND CERTAIN DECISIONS
OF THE COURTS SEEM TO SANCTION THE PRACTICE  ... 

"IT SEEMS VERY DESIRABLE TO REMOVE THIS DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY BY
ELIMINATING THE WORD 'PROMPTLY' FROM SECTION 12, LEAVING SECTION 13 AS
HERETOFORE TO TAKE CARE OF ANY DELINQUENT.  ...  " 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE OPENING WORDS OF THE 1909 COPYRIGHT LAW,  FN1  UNDER WHICH
PETITIONER HERE CLAIMS, GRANT THE PRIVILEGE OF COPYRIGHT ONLY TO THOSE
WHO HAVE COMPLIED "WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT."  THE PROVISIONS OF
THAT 1909 ACT, OF THE FIRST COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1790,  FN2  AND OF EVERY
COPYRIGHT ACT PASSED SINCE 1790, HAVE REQUIRED THAT COPIES OF A
COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE BE DELIVERED TO A DESIGNATED GOVERNMENTAL
DEPOSITORY.  UNTIL TODAY, THIS COURT HAS NEVER PERMITTED RECOVERY FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT UNLESS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR
DEPOSIT HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN THE MANNER AND WITHIN THE TIME
REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNING COPYRIGHT STATUTE.  THE 1909 ACT - GOVERNING
THE PRESENT CASE - REQUIRES THAT "AFTER COPYRIGHT HAS BEEN SECURED BY
PUBLICATION OF THE WORK WITH THE NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT AS PROVIDED IN
COPYRIGHT OFFICE OR IN THE MAIL ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTER OF
COPYRIGHTS,  ...  TWO COMPLETE COPIES OF THE BEST EDITION THEREOF THEN
PUBLISHED,  ..." 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT PETITIONER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE BY
PROMPT DEPOSIT OF TWO COPIES OF ITS WORK.  FOURTEEN MONTHS ELAPSED
BETWEEN THE DATE OF PUBLICATION AND THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.  PETITIONER'S
ASSERTED MONOPOLY RIGHTS REST SOLELY ON THE STATUTE  FN3  AND
PETITIONER DISOBEYED THE STATUTE'S REQUIREMENTS.  NOTWITHSTANDING THIS
DISOBEDIENCE, PETITIONER IS HERE PERMITTED TO COLLECT DAMAGES UNDER THE
STATUTE, EVEN FOR ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT COMMITTED IN THE FOURTEEN MONTH
PERIOD DURING WHICH THE STATUTE'S EXPRESS COMMAND WAS CONTINUOUSLY
DISREGARDED BY PETITIONER.  THIS CENTURY AND A HALF OLD STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC DEPOSIT OF A COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE PROVIDED A
PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT.  IT IMPOSES A SIMPLE AND EASILY
PERFORMED DUTY - NOT BURDENSOME IN ANY RESPECT - IN RETURN FOR A TWENTY
EIGHT YEAR MONOPOLY, WITH RIGHT OF RENEWAL FOR TWENTY-EIGHT MORE
YEARS.  TO PERMIT RECOVERY HERE PROTECTS THE COPYRIGHT OWNER'S
STATUTORY PRIVILEGE OF MONOPOLY, BUT EMASCULATES THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS DESIGNED - FOR OVER A CENTURY AND A HALF - TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC.    THE JUDGMENT HERE RESTS UPON THE CONCLUSIONS:  (1) THAT THE
STATUTE GRANTS A COPYRIGHT FROM THE DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION WITH
NOTICE; (2) THAT AFTER DEPOSITS ARE MADE THE STATUTE PERMITS A
RETROACTIVE RECOVERY FOR PUBLIC USE OF AN ARTICLE OF WHICH COPIES WERE
NEVER PROMPTLY DEPOSITED AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE; (3) THAT SEC. 13
PROVIDES AN EXCLUSIVE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO MAKE THE DEPOSIT; AND (4)
THAT - ACCORDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT - DEPOSITS
ARE NOT ESSENTIAL.  THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE
HISTORIC POLICY OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW. 

FIRST.  THERE IS NO NOVELTY IN THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT OF 1909
THAT DEPOSIT OF COPIES SHALL BE MADE AFTER THE COPYRIGHT HAS ALREADY
BEEN SECURED.  EVERY COPYRIGHT ACT, INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL ACT OF 1790,
PROVIDED FOR A COPYRIGHT INTEREST WHICH (AS IN THE 1909 ACT) VESTED
PRIOR TO THE TIME BY WHICH THE LAST DEPOSIT WAS REQUIRED.  TRUE, THE
1909 ACT GRANTS A COPYRIGHT UPON FIRST PUBLICATION, THAT IS, BEFORE THE
DATE ON WHICH DEPOSIT IS REQUIRED.  BUT ALL OF THE PREVIOUS ACTS
GRANTED A COPYRIGHT INTEREST "FROM THE (TIME OF) RECORDING THE TITLE"
OF AN ARTICLE, AND RECORDING ALWAYS TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE DATE BY WHICH
THE LAST DEPOSITS WERE REQUIRED.  FN4  AND WHILE A COPYRIGHT INTEREST
UNDER THE ACTS PRIOR TO THAT OF 1909 - AS IN THAT ACT - THUS VESTED
BEFORE THE LAST DEPOSITS WERE REQUIRED, THIS COURT UNIFORMLY HELD THAT
UNDER THESE ACTS "CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT" PROVIDING FOR DEPOSITS WERE
ACTUALLY "CONDITIONS PRECEDENT" TO THE PERFECTION OF THE COPYRIGHT. 
CONSTRUING THE REQUIREMENT OF DEPOSITS IN THE ACTS OF 1790 AND 1802,
THIS COURT SAID: "THE ANSWER IS, THAT THIS IS NOT A TECHNICAL GRANT OF
PRECEDENT AND SUBSEQUENT CONDITIONS.  ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE IMPORTANT;
THE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO BE PERFORMED; AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THEIR
PERFORMANCE IS ESSENTIAL TO A PERFECT TITLE.  ON THE PERFORMANCE OF A
PART OF THEM, THE RIGHT VESTS; AND THIS WAS ESSENTIAL TO ITS PROTECTION
UNDER THE STATUTE; BUT OTHER ACTS ARE TO BE DONE, UNLESS CONGRESS HAVE
LEGISLATED IN VAIN, TO RENDER THE RIGHT PERFECT."  FN5 

THE 1831 ACT WAS ALSO CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT AS FOLLOWS:  "ALTHOUGH,
UNDER SEC. 6 OF THE  ... ACT, THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THE COPYRIGHT
VESTS UPON THE RECORDING OF THE TITLE TO THE BOOK, AND RUNS FOR THE
PRESCRIBED PERIOD FROM THAT DATE, AND ALTHOUGH THE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR
INFRINGEMENT, UNDER SEC. 6, ALSO ACCRUES AT THAT TIME, YET IT IS QUITE
CLEAR, THAT, UNDER SEC. 4, IN RESPECT AT LEAST TO SUITS BROUGHT AFTER
THREE MONTHS FROM THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK, (WITHIN WHICH THE 1831
ACT REQUIRED DEPOSIT) IT MUST BE SHOWN, AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE
RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT, THAT A COPY OF THE BOOK WAS DELIVERED TO
THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE
PUBLICATION.  ...  UNDOUBTEDLY, THE THREE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE
STATUTE, NAMELY, THE DEPOSIT BEFORE PUBLICATION OF THE PRINTED COPY OF
THE TITLE OF THE BOOK, THE GIVING OF INFORMATION OF THE COPYRIGHT BY
THE INSERTION OF THE NOTICE ON THE TITLE-PAGE OR THE NEXT PAGE, AND THE
DEPOSITING OF A COPY OF THE BOOK WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE
PUBLICATION, ARE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE PERFECTION OF THE
COPYRIGHT."  FN6 

SECOND.  ALL COPYRIGHT LAWS BEFORE 1891 HAD REQUIRED DEPOSIT WITHIN
SOME DESIGNATED PERIOD AFTER PUBLICATION.  THE ACT OF 1891, HOWEVER,
REQUIRED DEPOSIT "NOT LATER THAN THE DATE OF (FIRST) PUBLICATION."  THE
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE 1909 ACT CONSIDERED THIS
REQUIREMENT TOO DRASTIC BECAUSE "THE DELAY OF A SINGLE DAY" (AFTER
PUBLICATION) IN MAKING THE DEPOSIT "MIGHT DESTROY A COPYRIGHT." 
INSTEAD OF REQUIRING DEPOSIT WITHIN A FIXED NUMBER OF DAYS, OR BY THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION, THE BILL AS REPORTED, AND THE 1909 ACT AS PASSED,
PERMITTED A COPYRIGHT TO BE PERFECTED BY A "PROMPT DEPOSIT" AFTER
PUBLICATION.  THE COMMITTEE DID NOT RECOMMEND, NOR DID CONGRESS PROVIDE
THAT COPYRIGHT COULD BE PERFECTED WITHOUT DEPOSIT; THE COMMITTEE DID
RECOMMEND, AND CONGRESS ENACTED AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME FOR DEPOSIT. 

IN CONSIDERING WHAT CONGRESS MEANT BY CONTINUING IN THE 1909 REVISION
OF THE COPYRIGHT LAWS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES, "WE
MUST LOOK TO THE ORIGIN AND SOURCE OF THE EXPRESSION AND THE JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION PUT UPON IT BEFORE THE ENACTMENT IN QUESTION WAS PASSED." 
FN7 PRIOR TO THE 1909 ACT THIS COURT HAD CONSTRUED PROVISIONS FOR
DEPOSIT AS ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS TO THE PERFECTION OF COPYRIGHT,
WHETHER CONSIDERED AS CONDITIONS PRECEDENT OR SUBSEQUENT.  FN8  THE
COMMITTEE REPORTING THE 1909 ACT POINTED OUT THAT "UNDER EXISTING LAW
(THE 1891 ACT) THE FILING OF TITLE AND DEPOSIT OF COPIES ON OR BEFORE
THE DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION ARE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT, AND ANY FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THEM WORKS A FORFEITURE OF THE COPYRIGHT.  IT IS
PROPOSED UNDER THIS BILL TO SO CHANGE THIS AS TO HAVE THE COPYRIGHT
EFFECTIVE UPON THE PUBLICATION WITH NOTICE, AND THE OTHER FORMALITIES
BECOME CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT."  FN9 

"A CONDITION PRECEDENT IS ONE WHICH MUST HAPPEN OR BE PERFORMED
BEFORE THE ESTATE TO WHICH IT IS ANNEXED CAN VEST" OR WHICH MUST BE
PERFORMED "BEFORE SOME RIGHT DEPENDENT THEREON ACCRUES."  FN10 A
"CONDITION SUBSEQUENT IS ONE ANNEXED TO AN ESTATE ALREADY VESTED,  ...
AND BY THE FAILURE OR NON-PERFORMANCE OF WHICH IT IS DEFEATED."  N11 

IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE REQUIREMENT AS TO
DEPOSITS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH IN ORDER TO PERFECT THE COPYRIGHT
INTEREST UNDER THE 1909 ACT.  ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION RUNS COUNTER TO
THE POLICY OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW AND REWARDS DISOBEDIENCE TO PLAIN
STATUTORY PROVISIONS. 

ONLY COMPELLING LANGUAGE COULD JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED TO ABANDON A STATUTORY POLICY - IN EFFECT SINCE 1790 - WHICH
REQUIRED OWNERS OF PATENT OR COPYRIGHT MONOPOLIES TO DISCLOSE UPON THE
PUBLIC RECORDS THE EXTENT OF THEIR CLAIMED MONOPOLIES.  UNDER THE
PREVAILING JUDGMENT HERE, PUBLIC DEPOSIT AND PUBLIC REGISTRATION ARE NO
LONGER NECESSARY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAW. 
AND WITHOUT DEPOSIT AND REGISTRATION, THERE NEED BE NO PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE OF THE DAY OR THE YEAR OF PUBLICATION (BY WHICH COPYRIGHT IS
OBTAINED) OF MANY COPYRIGHTED WORKS.  UNDER SEC. 18 - THE ONLY
MANDATORY PROVISION FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE NOW LEFT UNIMPAIRED - MANY
TYPES OF COPYRIGHT WILL BE OBTAINED MERELY BY MARKING PUBLICATIONS WITH
THE NAME OF THE PROPRIETOR AND THE WORD "COPYRIGHT", "COPYR.", OR "C". 
HEREAFTER, THERE NEED BE NO PUBLIC (OR EVEN PRIVATE) RECORD OF THE
BEGINNING AND THE ENDING OF MANY OF THESE MONOPOLIES.  AND IT IS
UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT AN OWNER OF A COPYRIGHT WILL VOLUNTARILY
MAKE THE EXTENT AND LIMITATIONS OF HIS MONOPOLY MORE PUBLIC THAN THE
LAW REQUIRES.  CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO ENSHROUD COPYRIGHT MONOPOLIES
IN SUCH SECRECY (SEE SECS. 16, 23, 55, 62).  IF DISOBEDIENCE OF THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IS TO BE REWARDED, THE REWARD SHOULD CERTAINLY BE
LIMITED - AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD - SO THAT A DEPOSIT WHICH DOES
NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAW COULD NOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE OPERATION
PERMITTING RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR PUBLIC USE DURING THE PERIOD OF
DISOBEDIENCE. 

THIRD.  SECTION 12 OF THE 1909 ACT - REQUIRING REGISTRATION AND
PROMPT DEPOSIT, AFTER PUBLICATION, OF TWO COMPLETE COPIES OF THE BEST
EDITION OF A COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE - PROVIDES THAT NO ACTION OR
PROCEEDING SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT UNTIL THE
REQUIRED COPIES ARE DEPOSITED AND THE ARTICLE REGISTERED WITH THE
REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS.  UNDER SEC. 13, IF THE COPIES ARE NOT PROMPTLY
DEPOSITED AFTER PUBLICATION, THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS MAY DEMAND
DEPOSIT BY THE PROPRIETOR.  IF DEPOSIT IS NOT THEN MADE WITHIN THREE
MONTHS, THE PROPRIETOR IS LIABLE TO A FINE OF $100.00 AND PAYMENT TO
THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS OF TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE
BEST EDITION OF THE ARTICLE, AND THE COPYRIGHT BECOMES VOID FOR ALL
PURPOSES.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SEC. 13 PROVIDES THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE
PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF PROMPT
DEPOSIT OF COPIES.  BUT THIS IGNORES ONE OF THE TWO DISTINCT PURPOSES
OF CONGRESS IN REQUIRING DEPOSITS OF COPIES IN THE 1909 ACT AND IN ALL
PRECEDING COPYRIGHT ACTS.  FIRST, THE DEPOSIT IS INTENDED TO RECORD
PUBLICLY FULL AND COMPLETE INFORMATION ABOUT A WORK FOR WHICH COPYRIGHT
IS CLAIMED AND TO MAKE THAT WORK CONTINUOUSLY AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC
INSPECTION IN ORDER THAT THE EXTENT AND BOUNDARIES OF THE MONOPOLY MAY
BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES DURING THE LIFE OF THE
COPYRIGHT.  THE JUDGMENT HERE RENDERS THIS PRIMARY CONGRESSIONAL
PURPOSE INEFFECTIVE.  SECOND, CONGRESS INTENDED TO PRESERVE "DESIRABLE
OR USEFUL"  FN12  WORKS IN A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY DEDICATED TO THE
DIFFUSION OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.  IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS SECOND PURPOSE
THE ACT OF 1909, - AS DID OTHER ACTS SINCE 1846 - REQUIRED COPIES TO BE
DEPOSITED WITH THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.  THESE TWO SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT PURPOSES HAVE BEEN MANIFESTED BY CONGRESS SOMETIMES IN
DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF A SINGLE COPYRIGHT STATUTE AND AT OTHER TIMES IN
SEPARATE ACTS. 

TO EFFECTUATE THE FIRST PURPOSE, THAT IS, TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC OF THE
EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF A COPYRIGHT MONOPOLY, THE FIRST ACT OF 1790
REQUIRED DEPOSIT, PUBLIC RECORDING AND REGISTRATION IN A DISTRICT
COURT, AND PUBLICATION IN A NEWSPAPER; THE ACT OF 1831 REQUIRED DEPOSIT
WITH THE CLERK OF A DISTRICT COURT (WITHOUT PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO
DEPOSIT); THE ACT OF 1870 REQUIRED DEPOSIT OF ONE COPY OF THE TITLE
WITH THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS BEFORE PUBLICATION AND TWO COPIES OF THE
ARTICLE WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION WITHOUT PROVISION FOR MONEY
PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY; SEC. 4956 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (1878)
REQUIRED DEPOSIT OF ONE COPY OF THE TITLE BEFORE PUBLICATION AND TWO
COPIES OF THE WORK AFTER PUBLICATION.  DEPOSIT HAS SERVED AS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF EVERY LEGISLATIVE PLAN TO GIVE THE PUBLIC FULL
INFORMATION OF COPYRIGHT MONOPOLIES.  THESE PLANS HAVE INCLUDED
DEPOSITS, REGISTRATION, NOTICE ON THE COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE ITSELF AND
FULL PUBLICATION IN NEWSPAPERS.  DEPOSIT, REGISTRATION AND NOTICE ON
THE ARTICLE - WHICH EVERY PRIOR COPYRIGHT ACT REQUIRED - ARE
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE 1909 ACT. 

TO EFFECTUATE THE SECOND PURPOSE, THAT IS, TO PRESERVE WORTHY WORKS
FOR THE DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE, THE ACT OF 1790 MADE SEPARATE PROVISION
FOR DELIVERY OF AN ADDITIONAL COPY TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE "TO BE
PRESERVED IN HIS OFFICE"; IN A NON-COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1846, (9 STAT. 102,
106) CREATING THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE "FOR THE DIFFUSION OF
KNOWLEDGE," CONGRESS REQUIRED DEPOSIT OF SEPARATE COPIES WITH THE
INSTITUTE AND WITH THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS; A SPECIAL ACT OF 1865(13
STAT. 540, THE ORIGIN OF SEC. 13 NOW CONSIDERED) PERMITTED A SEPARATE
COPY TO BE FRANKED TO THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WITHIN A MONTH OF
PUBLICATION "FOR THE USE OF SAID LIBRARY," GAVE THE LIBRARIAN THE RIGHT
TO DEMAND THIS ADDITIONAL COPY, AND PENALIZED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH HIS
DEMAND BY FORFEITURE OF COPYRIGHT; SEC. 93 OF THE ACT OF 1870 REQUIRED
TWO ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE BEST EDITION TO BE DELIVERED, WITHIN TEN
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION, TO THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, AND (SEC. 94) "IN
DEFAULT OF SUCH DEPOSIT" WHICH WAS REQUIRED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
LIBRARY, A PENALTY OF $25.00 COULD BE COLLECTED BY THE LIBRARIAN OF
CONGRESS; SEC. 4959 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (1878) REQUIRED DEPOSIT OF
TWO ADDITIONAL SEPARATE COPIES OF THE BEST EDITION "WITHIN TEN DAYS
FROM PUBLICATION" WITH THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, AND SEC. 4960
EXTENDED THE PENALTY OF $25.00 TO COVER ALL FAILURES TO MAKE DEPOSITS
OF COPIES. 

1891(26 STAT. 1106) PROVIDED IN A SINGLE SECTION FOR DEPOSIT OF COPIES
WITH THE LIBRARIAN BOTH FOR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC AND FOR USE OF THE
LIBRARY.  SECTION 13 OF THE 1909 ACT NOW PROVIDES IN A SINGLE SECTION -
AS HAD SEC. 4960 OF THE REVISED STATUTES - A PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO
MAKE DEPOSITS WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR THE TWO PURPOSES OF NOTICE TO THE
PUBLIC AND USE BY THE LIBRARY.  NEITHER THIS SEC. 13 NOR ANY OF ITS
LEGISLATIVE PREDECESSORS INDICATED A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO ABANDON -
AS A CONDITION TO THE PERFECTION OF A COPYRIGHT - THE REQUIREMENT OF
DEPOSITS FOR THE SALUTARY PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ADEQUATE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF THE EXISTENCE AND CONTINUING EXTENT OF COPYRIGHT MONOPOLIES. 
OF COPIES OF EVERY ARTICLE ON WHICH COPYRIGHT IS CLAIMED, ADDING AN
ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH HIS DEMAND.  THIS
ADDITIONAL PENALTY MAY BE IMPOSED WHETHER THE CLAIMED COPYRIGHT IS
VALID OR INVALID, AND DOES NOT NULLIFY THE MANDATORY PROVISION OF SEC.
12 REQUIRING DEPOSIT OF COPIES FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. 

MAINTAINED FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN ANY WORK UNTIL THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPOSIT OF COPIES AND
REGISTRATION OF SUCH WORK SHALL HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH."  COMPLIANCE
WITH "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT" IS MADE A CONDITION OF THE RIGHT TO
SUE, AND THE ACT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY DELAYING FOURTEEN MONTHS AFTER
PUBLICATION BEFORE MAKING DEPOSIT.  THE ACT REQUIRES "PROMPT DEPOSIT." 

IT IS SAID THAT TWO NEW SECTIONS (59 AND 60) OF THE 1909 ACT INDICATE
AN INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO ABANDON THE PROTECTIVE MANDATE FOR PUBLIC
RECORD OF COPYRIGHT MONOPOLIES.  THESE SECTIONS SHOW A CONTRARY PURPOSE
AND DISTINCTLY MARK THE LINE BETWEEN DEPOSITS FOR LIBRARY USES AND
DEPOSITS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION. 

DEPOSITED COPIES TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL LIBRARIES FOR THEIR USE.  SINCE
1909, ACTING UNDER THIS AUTHORITY, THE LIBRARIAN HAS DISTRIBUTED
186,037 VOLUMES.  FN13    SECTION 60 PERMITS THE LIBRARIAN (SUPERVISING
BOTH THE LIBRARY AND COPYRIGHT OFFICES) ACTING JOINTLY WITH THE
REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, (DIRECTLY IN CHARGE OF DEPOSITS FOR COPYRIGHT
PURPOSES) TO DETERMINE WHAT DEPOSITS "RECEIVED DURING ANY PERIOD OF
YEARS IT IS DESIRABLE OR USEFUL TO PRESERVE IN THE PERMANENT FILES OF
THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE  ...  "  AFTER DULY PUBLISHED NOTICE TO THE
PUBLIC, AND "SPECIFIC NOTICE TO THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR OF RECORD"
OTHER ARTICLES CAN BE DESTROYED OR RETURNED TO THE PROPRIETOR "OF
RECORD."  BUT EVEN AS TO ARTICLES DESTROYED OR RETURNED, PUBLIC RECORDS
OF THE COPYRIGHT MONOPOLIES MUST BE RETAINED IN THE REGISTRATION FILES
(SECS. 10, 11, 16, 45, 47, 53, 54, 55) AND IN THE INDICES OR CATALOGUES
(SEC. 56).  ALL THESE RECORDS "SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC INSPECTION." 
(SEC. 58).  AND - AMONG OTHER PURPOSES - THESE RECORDS REMAIN OPEN TO
PUBLIC INSPECTION, IN THE EVENT OF A COPYRIGHT RENEWAL. 

DURING THE LAST FORTY-ONE YEARS COPYRIGHT REGISTRATIONS NUMBERED OVER
FIVE MILLION, AND "HAVE INCREASED OVER FIVEFOLD."  N14  IN 1909, IT WAS
OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY TO ENACT LEGISLATION PROVIDING FOR DISPOSAL OF SOME
OF THE MULTITUDINOUS ACCUMULATED COPYRIGHTED ARTICLES NO LONGER
NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.  BUT FAR FROM SHOWING A
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO PERMIT COPYRIGHT MONOPOLIES WITH NO PUBLIC
GOVERNMENTAL RECORD AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION, SECS. 59 AND 60
ARE THE CLEAREST AND MOST CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF A CONTRARY PURPOSE. 
THEY CARRIED FORWARD AND EMPHASIZED ONCE MORE THE DUAL STATUTORY
PURPOSE TO REQUIRE DEPOSITS FOR THE USE OF THE LIBRARY, AND TO PRESERVE
FOR THE PUBLIC THE HISTORIC AND WISE POLICY THAT THE OWNERSHIP, NATURE
AND EXTENT OF PRIVATE MONOPOLIES GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT SHOULD ALWAYS BE
SPREAD UPON GOVERNMENT RECORDS OPEN FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION. 

FOURTH.  THERE REMAINS THE SUGGESTION THAT ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF THE 1909 ACT LENDS SUPPORT TO THE JUDGMENT HERE UNDER
WHICH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR PUBLIC REGISTRATION AND DEPOSIT ARE
NULLIFIED.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY
THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS UNDER THE 1909 ACT HAVE CONTINUOUSLY AND
CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED THAT REGISTRATION AND DEPOSIT ARE MANDATORY. 
FROM THE FIRST (1910) UNTIL THE LATEST (1927) EDITION OF THESE RULES
AND REGULATIONS THEY HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"PROMPTLY AFTER FIRST PUBLICATION OF THE WORK WITH THE COPYRIGHT
NOTICE INSCRIBED, TWO COMPLETE COPIES OF THE BEST EDITION OF THE WORK
THEN PUBLISHED MUST BE SENT TO THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE, WITH THE PROPER
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION CORRECTLY FILLED OUT AND A MONEY ORDER FOR
THE AMOUNT OF THE LEGAL FEE. 

"THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THE DEPOSIT OF THE COPYRIGHT WORK SHALL BE
MADE 'PROMPTLY' WHICH HAS BEEN DEFINED AS 'WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DELAY.' 
IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL, HOWEVER, THAT THE DEPOSIT BE MADE ON THE VERY DAY
OF PUBLICATION."  FN15 

BUT IT IS SAID THAT A LETTER FROM THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS TO THE
LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS - DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 1938 - INDICATES A
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT BY THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE.  HOWEVER,
THIS LETTER DOES NOT PURPORT TO CHANGE THE FORMAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
- IN FORCE AND EFFECT SINCE 1910 - WHICH PROVIDE THAT DEPOSIT AND
REGISTRATION "MUST" BE "PROMPTLY" MADE.  THE 1909 ACT GIVES THE
REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS
BUT IT DOES NOT GIVE HIM AUTHORITY TO ALTER THE LAW'S MEANING BY
COMMUNICATING WITH THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS.  NOR, IN FACT, DOES THIS
LETTER REPRESENT AN EFFORT BY THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS TO CHANGE THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS DATING FROM 1910.  PRACTITIONERS IN THE COPYRIGHT
OFFICE, AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, RELY UPON FORMAL RULES AND
REGULATIONS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.  BUT WHETHER THEY HAVE ACCESS
TO INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS SUCH AS THE LETTER DOES NOT
APPEAR. 

THIS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION BEARS THE DATE OF SEPTEMBER 17,
1938.  IT APPEARED IN PUBLIC FORM FOR THE FIRST TIME JANUARY 4, 1939. 
ITS APPEARANCE THUS OCCURRED NEARLY SIX YEARS AFTER THE COMPLAINT IN
THIS SUIT WAS FILED; MORE THAN EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DECIDED THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR DEPOSIT WERE
MANDATORY; ALMOST THREE MONTHS AFTER THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI; AND
TWENTY-NINE DAYS AFTER THE CAUSE WAS ARGUED AND SUBMITTED FOR FINAL
DECISION BY THIS COURT.  THE COMMUNICATION IS ADMITTEDLY CONTRARY TO
THE ONLY TWO COURT DECISIONS WHICH IT CITES ON THE PRECISE QUESTION OF
THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO MAKE DEPOSIT.  FN16 IT DOES NOT REPRESENT AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE CONSISTENTLY PURSUED, OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION OF LONG STANDING, AND THEREFORE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY
WEIGHT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1909 ACT.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
AND REGULATIONS - TO WHICH WE MAY LOOK - HAVE SINCE 1910 CONSISTENTLY
REQUIRED THAT DEPOSIT "MUST" BE MADE. 

IT IS OF FAR GREATER IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC TODAY THAN IT WAS IN
1790, 1831, 1870, OR 1891, THAT PUBLIC RECORD BE MADE OF COPYRIGHT
MONOPOLIES GRANTED TO FURTHER THE ARTS AND SCIENCES, SINCE THESE
PRIVILEGES HAVE BEEN EXTENDED BY STATUTE TO INCLUDE ALMOST EVERY
CONCEIVABLE TYPE OF PRODUCTION OF THE HUMAN MIND.  FN17  IT HAS BEEN
WELL SAID THAT THE "GENERAL RULE OF LAW IS, THAT THE NOBLEST OF HUMAN
PRODUCTIONS - KNOWLEDGE, TRUTHS ASCERTAINED, CONCEPTIONS, AND IDEAS -
BECOME, AFTER VOLUNTARY COMMUNICATION TO OTHERS, FREE AS THE AIR TO
COMMON USE."  FN18  ALL VOLUNTARY COMMUNICATIONS BECOME "FREE AS THE
AIR TO COMMON USE" UNLESS PROTECTED BY COMPLIANCE WITH THE COPYRIGHT
STATUTES.  MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO (1911) A CAREFUL AND
ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE COPYRIGHT LAWS LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT "FOR
SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS IT HAS BEEN THE SETTLED LAW OF THIS COUNTRY THAT
PROTECTION UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAW IS GRANTED ONLY TO THOSE WHO PERFORM
THE CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL TO A PERFECT COPYRIGHT TITLE."  FN19  NO
DECISION OF THIS COURT - PREVIOUS TO THAT OF TODAY - HAS QUESTIONED THE
CONSISTENT PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO REQUIRE "THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE
NOTICE, BY A TRUE AND CORRECT OFFICIAL REGISTRY, AS TO THE REAL AUTHOR
OR PROPRIETOR ENTITLED TO THE ENJOYMENT OF SUCH MONOPOLY AS AGAINST THE
PUBLIC."  FN20  TO GRANT MONOPOLY PRIVILEGES - BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION
- TO THOSE WHO FAIL TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY SAFEGUARDS INTENDED TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC AGAINST ABUSES OF SUCH PRIVILEGES CONFLICTS WITH
STATUTORY POLICY EXTENDING BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE NATION'S
HISTORY.  AN AUTHOR IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EVERY RIGHT AFFORDED
BY COPYRIGHT LAW, BUT ONLY "UPON COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF" THAT
LAW.  CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED FOR A GRANT OF MONOPOLY PRIVILEGES UNDER
COPYRIGHT FOR A TERM WHICH MAY EXTEND BY RENEWAL TO FIFTY-SIX YEARS FOR
THOSE WHO DO COMPLY.  PETITIONER HAVING CONCEDED THAT IT DISOBEYED A
PLAIN REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT DESIGNED TO INFORM AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC,
I CANNOT AGREE THAT IT SHOULD RECOVER DAMAGES UNDER THE VERY LAW IT
ADMITTEDLY DISOBEYED. 

FN1  35 STAT. 1075. 

FN2  1 STAT. 124, 125. 

FN3  BANKS V. MANCHESTER, 128 U.S. 244; CALIGA V. INTER OCEAN
NEWSPAPER CO., 215 U.S. 182, 188; BOBBS-MERRILL CO. V. STRAUS, 210 U.S.
339, 346; GLOBE NEWSPAPER CO. V. WALKER, 210 U.S. 356, 367. 

FN4  SECTION 4 OF THE FIRST ACT OF 1790, 1 STAT. 124, 125, REQUIRED
THE LAST DEPOSIT OF ONE COPY OF THE COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE "WITHIN SIX
MONTHS AFTER THE PUBLISHING THEREOF  ...  "; SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF 1831,
4 STAT. 436, 437, REQUIRED THE LAST DEPOSIT TO BE MADE "WITHIN THREE
MONTHS FROM THE PUBLICATION  ...  "; SEC. 10 OF THE ACT OF 1846, 9
STAT. 102, 106, REQUIRED THE LAST DEPOSITS TO BE MADE "WITHIN THREE
MONTHS FROM THE PUBLICATION  ...  "; SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1865, 13
STAT. 540, REQUIRED THE LAST DEPOSIT TO BE MADE "WITHIN ONE MONTH OF
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION  ... "; THE ACT OF 1867, 14 STAT. 395, REQUIRED
DEPOSIT "WITHIN ONE MONTH AFTER PUBLICATION  ...  "; SEC. 93 OF THE ACT
OF 1870, 16 STAT. 213, REQUIRED THE LAST DEPOSITS "WITHIN TEN DAYS
AFTER  ... PUBLICATION  ...  "; REVISED STATUTES OF 1878, SEC. 4956,
REQUIRED DEPOSIT "WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE PUBLICATION  ...  "; SEC. 3
OF THE ACT OF 1891, 26 STAT. 1106, REQUIRED DEPOSIT "NOT LATER THAN THE
DAY OF THE PUBLICATION  ...  "; SEC. 12 OF THE ACT OF 1909, 35 STAT.
1078, PROVIDES THAT "AFTER COPYRIGHT  ...  , THERE SHALL BE PROMPTLY
DEPOSITED  ...  " 

FN5  WHEATON & DONALDSON V. PETERS & GRIGG, 8 PETERS 591, 665. 

FN6  CALLAGHAN V. MYERS, 128 U.S. 617, 651, 652; CF. MERRELL V. TICE,
104 U.S. 557; THOMPSON V. HUBBARD, 131 U.S. 123, 150. 

FN7  KEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 100, 121. 

FN8  SEE NOTES 5, 6, SUPRA. 

FN9  HOUSE REP. NO. 2222, 60TH CONG., 2ND SESS., P. 10. 

FN10  BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 3RD ED., WEST PUBLISHING CO., 1933. 

FN11  ID. 

FN12  SEC. 60, ACT OF 1909. 

FN13  THE BOOKS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE,
COMMERCE, NAVY, TREASURY, EDUCATION; AND TO THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION, BUREAU OF STANDARDS, ARMY MEDICAL LIBRARY, WALTER REED
HOSPITAL, ENGINEER SCHOOL, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SOLDIERS' HOME, DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA LIBRARY AND OTHERS.  ANNUAL REPORT, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS,
1938, P. 4. 

FN14  ANNUAL REPORT, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1938, P. 1. 

FN15 RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE, BULLETIN NO. 15,
1927.  THE WORD "PROMPTLY" WAS INSERTED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN 1917. 

FN16  OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW; EBELING & REUSS, INC. V. RAFF,
UNOFFICIALLY REPORTED, 28 UNITED STATES PATENT QUARTERLY, 366, (E.D.,
PENN.). 

FN17  THE ACT OF 1909 AS AMENDED, 17 U.S.C., SEC. 5, LISTS THE
FOLLOWING CLASSES OF WORKS IN WHICH COPYRIGHT MAY BE CLAIMED:  BOOKS,
INCLUDING COMPOSITE AND CYCLOPEDIC WORKS, DIRECTORIES, GAZETTEERS, AND
OTHER COMPILATIONS; PERIODICALS, INCLUDING NEWSPAPERS; LECTURES,
SERMONS, ADDRESSES (PREPARED FOR ORAL DELIVERY); DRAMATIC OR DRAMATICO
MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS; MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS; MAPS; WORKS OF ART; MODELS
OR DESIGNS FOR WORKS OF ART; REPRODUCTIONS OF A WORK OF ART; DRAWINGS
OR PLASTIC WORKS OF A SCIENTIFIC OR TECHNICAL CHARACTER; PHOTOGRAPHS;
PRINTS AND PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATIONS; MOTION-PICTURE PHOTOPLAYS; MOTION
PICTURES OTHER THAN PHOTOPLAYS. 

FN18  BRANDEIS, J., DISSENTING, INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, 248 U.S. 215, 250. 

FN19  LOUIS DEJONGE & CO. V. BREUKER & KESSLER CO., 191 F. 35, 36;
AFF'D, 235 U.S. 33. 

FN20  KOPPEL V. DOWNING, 11 APP. D.C. 93, 104. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE REED CONCUR IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :
























UTAH FUEL CO. V. COAL COMM'N, 306 U.S. 56 


NO. 528.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 69
APP. D.C. 333 - 101 F.2D 426, AFFIRMED. 


AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION DIRECTED ITS
SECRETARY TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO INTERESTED PARTIES, FOR POSSIBLE USE IN
EVIDENCE IN A HEARING WHICH WAS TO BE HELD BY THE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF THE TOTAL COSTS PER TON OF COAL
PRODUCED IN CERTAIN AREAS, CERTAIN COST AND SALES REALIZATION DATA
THERETOFORE FURNISHED BY PRODUCERS PURSUANT TO AN ORDER UNDER SEC.
10(A) OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937.  SEVERAL PRODUCERS, MEMBERS
OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL CODE, FILED A BILL IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
ENJOIN THE THREATENED DISCLOSURE.  THE BILL ALLEGED, INTER ALIA, THAT
THE PETITIONERS WERE WITHOUT OTHER ADEQUATE REMEDY (THE ORDER NOT BEING
REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 6(B) OF THE ACT), AND THAT THEY WOULD SUSTAIN
IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE FROM SUCH DISCLOSURE; AND FURTHER,
THAT THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSED ACTION WAS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE,
UNAUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE, AND IN VIOLATION OF A PROMISE OF PRIVACY
INFERABLE FROM THE ORDER UNDER WHICH THE DATA WERE FILED AND THE FORMS
USED FOR RETURNS THEREOF.  HELD: 

1.  THE SUIT WAS WITHIN THE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  P. 59. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL; AND USUALLY IF THE BILL MAKES A CLAIM WHICH IF
WELL FOUNDED IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, THEN IT IS WITHIN
THAT JURISDICTION WHETHER WELL FOUNDED OR NOT. 

2.  IT WAS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO AUTHORIZE PUBLICATION BY
THE NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMMISSION OF COST AND SALES REALIZATION
DATA FILED BY PRODUCERS, AND CONGRESS DID SO AUTHORIZE SUCH PUBLICATION
BY SEC. 10(A) OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937.  THE ORDER HERE
ATTACKED IS VALID AND MAY NOT BE ENJOINED.  P. 61. 

UTAH FUEL CO. ET AL. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMM'N ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 575, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL
OF A BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS ARE PRODUCERS - ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING COAL,
AND MEMBERS OF THE "BITUMINOUS COAL CODE," - THAT IS "PRODUCERS
ACCEPTING MEMBERSHIP IN THE CODE."  THE NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL
COMMISSION, CREATED BY ACT APRIL 26, 1937(CH. 127, 50 STAT. 72),
PURPORTING TO PROCEED UNDER SEC. 10(A), ON JULY 15, 1937 ISSUED ORDER
NO. 15 WHICH DIRECTED EACH PRODUCER OF BITUMINOUS COAL TO FILE WITHIN
FIFTEEN DAYS COMPLETE REPORT SHOWING FOR EACH MINE DETAILED COST OF
TONNAGE PRODUCED AND REALIZATION PRICES DERIVED FROM SALE, DURING
1936.  THIS NOTICE CONCLUDED - 

"THE COMMISSION DIRECTS SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF
REPORTS REQUIRED UNDER THIS ORDER AND FURTHER GIVES NOTICE THAT THE
PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER BY THE PRODUCER
WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED." 

APPROVED FORMS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO PRODUCERS FOR RETURNS TO THE
ORDER.  THEY CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING IN BOLD TYPE - "THIS REPORT IS
REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT OF 1937 AND IS
THEREFORE CONFIDENTIAL."  PETITIONERS MADE RETURNS UPON THESE FORMS. 

MARCH 30, 1938, THE COMMISSION ANNOUNCED THAT THEREAFTER IT WOULD
GIVE PUBLIC NOTICE OF A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF
TOTAL COST OF THE TONNAGE OF COAL IN THE CALENDAR YEAR 1936 ADJUSTED,
ETC.  FURTHER, THAT UPON SUCH HEARING THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM
INDIVIDUAL COAL PRODUCERS THROUGH ORDER 15 WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR
INSPECTION AND INTRODUCTION IN EVIDENCE; THAT SEC. 10(A) OF THE ACT WAS
CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE SUCH DISCLOSURE. 

PETITIONERS MADE FORMAL OBJECTION TO THE MARCH 30 ACTION BUT THE
COMMISSION AFTER CONSIDERATION ANNOUNCED ADHERENCE AND ORDERED - 

"THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION BE AND HE IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO
CAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL COST RETURNS OF THE PRODUCERS, AS ABOVE DESCRIBED,
TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE FINAL
HEARING IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM PRICES AND MARKETING RULES AND
REGULATIONS, SO THAT THE SAME WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INTRODUCTION IN
EVIDENCE IF AND WHEN REQUIRED." 

DEEMING THIS PROPOSED ACTION UNAUTHORIZED AND RELYING UPON SEC. 6(B)
OF THE ACT, ONE OF THE PRESENT PETITIONERS WITH OTHERS ASKED REVIEW IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THAT COURT HELD THE
CHALLENGED ACTION WAS NOT REVIEWABLE BY IT AND DISMISSED THE PETITION
AUGUST 1, 1938.  MALLORY COAL CO. V. NATIONAL BITUMINOUS COAL COMM'N,
69 APP. D.C. 166; 99 F.2D 399.  AUGUST 31, 1938, THE COMMISSION ORDERED
ITS SECRETARY TO MAKE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION TO "INTERESTED PARTIES
WHO HAVE FILED APPEARANCES IN THIS PROCEEDING," PETITIONERS' COST,
ETC., REPORTS RETURNED UNDER ORDER 15. 

SEPTEMBER 7, 1938 PETITIONERS BY BILL FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE THREATENED
DISCLOSURE.  THIS SET OUT THE FOREGOING FACTS, STATED THAT NO ADEQUATE
RELIEF COULD BE HAD ELSEWHERE, AND THAT PETITIONERS WOULD SUSTAIN
IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IF THEIR REPORTS WERE PUBLICIZED.  IT
FURTHER AVERRED THAT THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSED ACTION WAS UNAUTHORIZED,
ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, AND IN FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE ALSO
THE PROMISE OF PRIVACY INFERABLE FROM ORDER 15 AND THE FORMS USED FOR
RETURNS THERETO. 

THE TRIAL COURT HELD "THE BILL OF COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION IN THAT THE ACTS OF THE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED ARE
AUTHORIZED BY AND NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT," AND
DISMISSED IT UPON MOTION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THE DISTRICT
COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CONTROVERSY AND UPON THAT GROUND
APPROVED THE DISMISSAL.  101 F.2D 426.  THE MATTER IS HERE BY
CERTIORARI. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE VIEW OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE
DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY RULED THAT THE BILL FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF
ACTION AND FOR THAT REASON PROPERLY DIRECTED THE BILL DISMISSED. 

A QUESTION COGNATE TO THE ONE HERE PRESENTED WAS BEFORE US IN SHIELDS
V. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL RAILROAD CO., 305 U.S. 177, DECIDED DECEMBER 5,
1938, THE DATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION HEREIN.  WE THERE
DECLARED, ALTHOUGH DETERMINATION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
THAT A RAILROAD WAS NOT "INTERURBAN" DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN "ORDER"
REVIEWABLE UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER, 1913,  FN1
NEVERTHELESS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED, IT COULD BE SUBJECTED TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW BY BILL IN EQUITY.  "EQUITY JURISDICTION MAY BE INVOKED
WHEN IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS ASSERTED, EVEN
THOUGH THE COMPLAINANT SEEKS TO ENJOIN THE BRINGING OF CRIMINAL
ACTIONS." 

CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE ALLEGED, THE GREAT AND OBVIOUS
DAMAGE WHICH MIGHT BE SUFFERED, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHTS ASSERTED,
AND THE LACK OF ANY OTHER REMEDY, WE THINK COMPLAINANTS COULD PROPERLY
ASK RELIEF IN EQUITY.  THE JURISDICTION OF A DISTRICT COURT IS TO BE
"DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL, AND USUALLY IF THE BILL OR
DECLARATION MAKES A CLAIM THAT IF WELL FOUNDED IS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IT IS WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION WHETHER WELL
FOUNDED OR NOT."  HART V. B.F. KEITH VAUDEVILLE EXCHANGE, 262 U.S. 271,
273; ALSO BINDERUP V. PATHE EXCHANGE, 263 U.S. 291, 305; UNITED STATES
V. ARCHIBALD MCNEIL & SONS, 267 U.S. 302, 307. 

BY ADMISSION, CONGRESS COULD HAVE AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION TO
DISCLOSE THE DETAILS OF REPORTS CONCERNING COSTS, ETC.  BUT PETITIONERS
INSIST THAT THE BITUMINOUS COAL ACT CONFERRED NO SUCH POWER; ON THE
CONTRARY DEFINITELY DENIES IT. 

THE ACT CONTAINS TWENTY-ONE SECTIONS AND A SCHEDULE OF DISTRICTS. 
COMMISSION AS THE 'BITUMINOUS COAL CODE', AND ARE HEREIN REFERRED TO AS
THE CODE."  "PART II - MARKETING" OF THIS DECLARES - 

"THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE POWER TO PRESCRIBE FOR CODE MEMBERS
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PRICES, AND MARKETING RULES AND REGULATIONS, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"(A)  ALL CODE MEMBERS SHALL REPORT ALL SPOT ORDERS TO SUCH
STATISTICAL BUREAU HEREINAFTER PROVIDED FOR AS MAY BE DESIGNATED BY THE
COMMISSION AND SHALL FILE WITH IT COPIES OF ALL CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE
OF COAL, COPIES OF ALL INVOICES, COPIES OF ALL CREDIT MEMORANDA, AND
SUCH OTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PREPARATION, COST, SALE, AND
DISTRIBUTION OF COAL AS THE COMMISSION MAY AUTHORIZE OR REQUIRE.  ALL
SUCH RECORDS SHALL BE HELD BY THE STATISTICAL BUREAU AS THE
CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS OF THE CODE MEMBER FILING SUCH INFORMATION. 

"FOR EACH DISTRICT THERE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION A
STATISTICAL BUREAU WHICH SHALL BE OPERATED AND MAINTAINED AS AN AGENCY
OF THE COMMISSION.  ...  " 


"THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE REPORTS FROM PRODUCERS AND MAY USE SUCH
OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE AS IT DEEMS ADVISABLE, AND MAY
REQUIRE PRODUCERS TO MAINTAIN A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING OF COSTS,
WAGES, OPERATIONS, SALES, PROFITS, LOSSES, AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS
MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ACT.  NO INFORMATION
OBTAINED FROM A PRODUCER DISCLOSING COSTS OF PRODUCTION OR SALES
REALIZATION SHALL BE MADE PUBLIC WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PRODUCER
FROM WHOM THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, EXCEPT WHERE SUCH
DISCLOSURE IS MADE IN EVIDENCE IN ANY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR
ANY COURT AND EXCEPT THAT SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COMPILED IN COMPOSITE
FORM IN SUCH MANNER AS SHALL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE INTERESTS OF ANY
PRODUCER AND, AS SO COMPILED, MAY BE PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION." 

COUNSEL SUBMIT AN INGENIOUS ARGUMENT TO SHOW THAT AS PETITIONERS ARE
CODE MEMBERS THEIR RETURNS TO ORDER 15 ARE NOT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC.
10 AND MUST BE TREATED AS IF PRESENTED UNDER SEC. 4, PART II (A) AND
THEREFORE CONFIDENTIAL.  ALSO, THAT THE CHALLENGED ACTION OF THE BOARD
CONFLICTS WITH THE WORDS, SPIRIT AND GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE
ENACTMENT. 

WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ARGUMENT BUT CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE REASONS
ADVANCED ARE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE POINT TAKEN. 

THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 10(A) APPLIES TO ALL PRODUCERS AND WE THINK
ALLOWS WHAT THE BOARD PROPOSES.  IT HARMONIZES RATHER THAN CONFLICTS
WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE TO PERMIT ACTION BY THE BOARD
ONLY UPON FULL INFORMATION.  OBVIOUSLY PUBLICATION MAY BE HARMFUL TO
PETITIONERS BUT AS CONGRESS HAD ADEQUATE POWER TO AUTHORIZE IT AND HAS
USED LANGUAGE ADEQUATE THERETO WE CAN FIND HERE NO SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR
AN INJUNCTION. 

UPON THE GROUND AND FOR THE REASONS HEREIN STATED THE DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  38 STAT. 208, 28 U.S.C. 41. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

I CONCUR IN THE AFFIRMANCE OF THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  FOR
REASONS STATED IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,  FN1  I
BELIEVE THAT COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT
JURISDICTION. 

FN1  101 F.2D 426. 
..END :















FELT & TARRANT CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 62 


NO. 302.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 23
F.SUPP.  186, AFFIRMED. 


AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, NOT QUALIFIED TO DO LOCAL BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA, SOLICITED ORDERS FOR ITS GOODS FROM CALIFORNIA PURCHASERS,
THROUGH AGENTS FOR WHOM IT HIRED OFFICES IN THAT STATE, AND WHO TOOK
THE ORDERS SUBJECT TO THE VENDOR'S APPROVAL.  GOODS SOLD WERE SENT BY
THE VENDOR FROM OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA DIRECTLY TO THE PURCHASERS OR TO
THE AGENTS FOR DISTRIBUTION TO THEM.  PRICES WERE PAID TO THE VENDOR
DIRECTLY, IN ILLINOIS.  HELD THAT CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY APPLY
TO SUCH NONRESIDENT CORPORATION THE PROVISION OF ITS USE TAX ACT
REQUIRING RETAILERS MAINTAINING A PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE STATE, AND
MAKING SALES OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR STORAGE, USE OR OTHER
CONSUMPTION THEREIN, TO COLLECT FROM THE PURCHASERS THE TAXES IMPOSED. 
P. 64. 

THE ACT, SO APPLIED, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND WITH
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FELT & TARRANT MANUFACTURING CO. V. GALLAGHER ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING A BILL TO
ENJOIN APPELLEES FROM ENFORCING A TAX ACT. 

THE THREE CASES UPON WHICH THE LOWER COURT RELIED AS AUTHORITY FOR
THE DENIAL OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT, HENNEFORD
V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577; BOWMAN V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 256
U.S. 642; AND MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, ARE NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR. 

IN EACH OF THOSE CASES THE CORPORATION SUBJECTED TO THE TAX WAS
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE TAXING STATE AND WAS TRANSACTING AN
INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  THE APPELLANT, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, CARRIED
ON NO INTRASTATE OPERATIONS IN CALIFORNIA AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ITS
JURISDICTION.  SUCH BUSINESS AS IT TRANSACTS IN CALIFORNIA IS
INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER. 

CALIFORNIA, THEREFORE, LACKS THE POWER TO REQUIRE THE APPELLANT (1)
TO ACT AS THE STATE'S COLLECTING AGENT WITH RESPECT TO USE TAX WHICH
MAY BECOME DUE FROM CALIFORNIA STORERS, USERS OR CONSUMERS; OR (2) TO
INSURE PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX IF IT FAILS TO MAKE COLLECTION FROM THE TAX
DEBTORS; OR (3) OTHERWISE TO ACT AS A "RETAILER" AS DEFINED BY THE ACT
AND THE APPELLEES. 

THE TREATMENT OF THE APPELLANT AS A RETAILER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS A DIRECT BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
NUMEROUS PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, IF APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT, WOULD
DEPRIVE IT OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE ACTION OF
THE LOWER COURT IN DENYING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WAS ERRONEOUS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT SEEKS AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE STATE OFFICERS FROM
ENFORCING AGAINST IT THE CALIFORNIA USE TAX ACT OF 1935.  (CAL. STAT.
1935, CH. 361, AS AMENDED BY CAL. STAT. 1937, CH. 401, 671 AND 683.) 
COUNSEL DO NOT QUESTION THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO COLLECT THIS TAX FROM
THE USER, ETC., BUT THEY SAY THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DISCLOSED,
THE OFFICERS MAY NOT COMPEL APPELLANT TO SERVE AS AN AGENT FOR
COLLECTING THE TAX AS THEY ARE THREATENING TO DO. 

THE TRIAL COURT, THREE JUDGES, DISMISSED THE BILL UPON MOTION. 

IT APPEARS - 

APPELLANT, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND
SELLING COMPTOMETERS IN THAT STATE AND DELIVERING THESE TO PURCHASERS
IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE UNION.  AS STATED BY THE COURT BELOW ITS METHOD
OF DOING BUSINESS WITH RESPECT TO CALIFORNIA PURCHASERS IS
SUBSTANTIALLY AS FOLLOWS: 

"PURSUANT TO A SEPARATE CONTRACT MADE WITH EACH, THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
TO SOLICIT ORDERS IN CALIFORNIA IS GRANTED TO TWO GENERAL AGENTS, EACH
OF WHOM IS ALLOTTED A SEPARATE SECTION OF THE STATE.  UNDER THIS
CONTRACT THE ONLY COMPENSATION PAID TO A GENERAL AGENT CONSISTS OF
COMMISSIONS ON SALES MADE.  EACH GENERAL AGENT MAY EMPLOY SUB-AGENTS
AND ALSO A DEMONSTRATOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMONSTRATING AND
INSTRUCTING RESPECTING THE COMPTOMETERS, PROVIDED SUCH EMPLOYMENT IS
APPROVED BY PLAINTIFF.  LIKEWISE, PLAINTIFF AGREES BY THIS CONTRACT TO
PAY THE RENT OF AN OFFICE FOR EACH GENERAL AGENT, PROVIDED THE LEASE TO
THE SAME HAS BEEN APPROVED BY IT, SUCH OFFICE TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY IN
FURTHERING ITS BUSINESS; ALSO AGREES TO PAY PART OF THE TRAVELING
EXPENSES INCURRED BY EACH GENERAL AGENT, HIS SUB-AGENTS AND
DEMONSTRATORS WHILE TRAVELING ON BUSINESS TRIPS AUTHORIZED BY
PLAINTIFF, AND ALSO TO REIMBURSE EACH GENERAL AGENT TO THE EXTENT OF
PART OF THE MONIES ADVANCED TO A SUB-AGENT AND, IN ADDITION, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $40.00 PER MONTH TOWARD THE SALARY OF A DEMONSTRATOR. 
PLAINTIFF ASSUMES NO OTHER FINANCIAL OBLIGATION WITH RESPECT TO SUB
AGENTS AND DEMONSTRATORS.  UNDER THIS CONTRACT THE GENERAL AGENT MUST
DEVOTE HIS ENTIRE TIME AND ATTENTION TO SOLICITING ORDERS FOR
PLAINTIFF.  ALL ORDERS TAKEN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY
PLAINTIFF, ALL SALES AND DELIVERIES MUST BE MADE BY, AND ALL BILLS FOR
SUCH ORDERS AS ARE ACCEPTED MUST BE RENDERED BY, THE PLAINTIFF.  THE
GENERAL AGENT IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING COLLECTIONS AND ALL PAYMENTS
MUST BE MADE DIRECTLY TO PLAINTIFF.  THE CONTRACT FURTHER REQUIRES THE
GENERAL AGENT TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN RECORDS, AND MAKE CERTAIN REPORTS AND
MAKE A SPECIFIED MINIMUM NUMBER OF CALLS ON PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS." 

AND FURTHER "THAT EACH OF THESE TWO GENERAL AGENTS MAINTAINS AN
OFFICE IN THIS STATE, THE LEASE TO SUCH OFFICE DESIGNATING THE
PLAINTIFF AS LESSEE THEREIN, THE RENT FOR THE SAME BEING PAID BY
PLAINTIFF, WHILE ALL OTHER EXPENSES OF MAINTAINING SUCH OFFICE ARE PAID
BY THE GENERAL AGENT.  AS SOON AS AN ORDER IS ACCEPTED A PARTICULAR
MACHINE IS APPROPRIATED FOR THAT PURPOSE IN PLAINTIFF'S SHIPPING
DEPARTMENT IN ILLINOIS.  ALL MACHINES SOLD FOR DELIVERY IN CALIFORNIA
ARE SHIPPED FROM ONE OF PLAINTIFF'S DISTRIBUTING POINTS OUTSIDE OF THE
STATE.  SOMETIMES MACHINES ARE FORWARDED DIRECTLY TO THE PURCHASERS,
WHILE IN OTHER INSTANCES, IN ORDER TO SECURE REDUCED FREIGHT CHARGES,
LARGE GROUPS OF MACHINES ARE SHIPPED TO THE GENERAL AGENT WHO MAKES
DELIVERY TO THE RESPECTIVE PURCHASERS.  THE ONLY MACHINES KEPT BY
PLAINTIFF IN CALIFORNIA ARE THOSE USED AS DEMONSTRATORS.  PLAINTIFF HAS
NEVER QUALIFIED TO DO INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA." 

THE USE TAX ACT (SEC. 6) DIRECTS RETAILERS MAINTAINING A PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN THE STATE, AND MAKING SALES OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY
FOR STORAGE, USE OR OTHER CONSUMPTION THEREIN, TO COLLECT FROM THE
PURCHASER THE TAX IMPOSED. 

APPELLANT PRESENTS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION TWO POINTS:  (1) THE STATUTE
AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED BY THE APPELLEES TO THE APPELLANT IS REPUGNANT
TO ART. I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 3 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  (2) THE
THREATENED ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE WOULD DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF HIS
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE ARGUMENT IS THIS - 

THE APPELLANT, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, CARRIED ON NO INTRASTATE
OPERATIONS IN CALIFORNIA AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION.  SUCH
BUSINESS AS IT TRANSACTS IN CALIFORNIA IS INTERSTATE IN CHARACTER. 
CALIFORNIA, THEREFORE, LACKS THE POWER TO REQUIRE IT (1) TO ACT AS THE
STATE'S COLLECTING AGENT WITH RESPECT TO USE TAX WHICH MAY BECOME DUE
FROM CALIFORNIA STORERS, USERS OR CONSUMERS, OR (2) TO INSURE PAYMENT
OF SUCH TAX IF IT FAILS TO MAKE COLLECTIONS FROM THE TAX DEBTORS, OR
(3) OTHERWISE TO ACT AS A "RETAILER" AS DEFINED BY THE ACT AND THE
APPELLEES.  THE TREATMENT OF THE APPELLANT AS A RETAILER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA USE TAX ACT IS A DIRECT BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  NUMEROUS
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, IF APPLIED, WOULD DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF ITS
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE TRIAL COURT THOUGHT THAT BOTH CONTENTIONS WERE FORECLOSED BY WHAT
WAS SAID AND RULED IN BOWMAN V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 256 U.S. 642, 650,
MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, 93, 95, AND HENNEFORD V.
SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 582, 583.  AND WE AGREE WITH THAT
CONCLUSION. 

HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO. UPHELD A WASHINGTON STATUTE SIMILAR TO
THE ONE UNDER CONSIDERATION.  THE OPINION DECLARED (PP. 582, 583) - 

"THE TAX IS NOT UPON THE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT UPON
THE PRIVILEGE OF USE AFTER COMMERCE IS AT AN END. 

"THINGS ACQUIRED OR TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE
SUBJECTED TO A PROPERTY TAX, NON-DISCRIMINATORY IN ITS OPERATION, WHEN
THEY HAVE BECOME PART OF THE COMMON MASS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE
OF DESTINATION.  ...  THIS IS SO, INDEED, THOUGH THEY ARE STILL IN THE
ORIGINAL PACKAGES.  ...  FOR LIKE REASONS THEY MAY BE SUBJECTED, WHEN
ONCE THEY ARE AT REST, TO A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON USE OR
ENJOYMENT.  ...  A TAX UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF USE OR STORAGE WHEN THE
CHATTEL USED OR STORED HAS CEASED TO BE IN TRANSIT IS NOW AN IMPOST SO
COMMON THAT ITS VALIDITY HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE ARENA OF DEBATE." 

BOWMAN V. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF THE STATE
TO REQUIRE A DISTRIBUTOR "TO RENDER DETAILED STATEMENTS OF ALL GASOLINE
RECEIVED, SOLD, OR USED BY IT, WHETHER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR NOT,
TO THE END THAT THE STATE MAY THE MORE READILY ENFORCE SAID EXCISE TAX
TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HAS LAWFUL POWER TO ENFORCE IT AS ABOVE STATED." 

MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON UPHELD AN IOWA STATUTE.  THE COMPLAINANT
THERE SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING TAX OFFICERS FROM REQUIRING THE
DISTRIBUTOR OF MOTOR OIL RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER STATE TO PAY INTO THE
STATE TREASURY THE TAX LEVIED UPON THE CONSUMER.  THIS COURT SAID (PP.
93, 95), "THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CLAIM THAT THE STATUTES IMPOSE A
BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE ...  THE STATUTE IN TERMS IMPOSES THE
TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL USED OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN THE STATE. 
INSTEAD OF COLLECTING THE TAX FROM THE USER THROUGH ITS OWN OFFICERS,
THE STATE MAKES THE DISTRIBUTOR ITS AGENT FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THIS IS A
COMMON AND ENTIRELY LAWFUL ARRANGEMENT.  ...  THE STATUTE OBVIOUSLY WAS
NOT INTENDED TO REACH TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT TO TAX
THE USE OF MOTOR FUEL AFTER IT HAD COME TO REST IN IOWA, AND THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPELLANT AS THE SHIPPER INTO IOWA SHALL, AS AGENT
OF THE STATE, REPORT AND PAY THE TAX ON THE GASOLINE THUS COMING INTO
THE STATE FOR USE BY OTHERS ON WHOM THE TAX FALLS IMPOSES NO
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN EITHER UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR UPON THE
APPELLANT." 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CAUSE. 
..END :










U.S. V. DURKEE FAMOUS FOODS, 306 U.S. 68 


NO. 309.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 11, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  -
AFFIRMED. 


THE ACT OF MAY 10, 1934, PROVIDES THAT WHEN AN INDICTMENT IS FOUND
INSUFFICIENT AFTER THE PERIOD OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS
EXPIRED, A NEW INDICTMENT MAY BE RETURNED DURING THE NEXT SUCCEEDING
TERM FOLLOWING SUCH FINDING, DURING WHICH A GRAND JURY SHALL BE IN
SESSION.  HELD THAT THIS DOES NOT AUTHORIZE REINDICTMENT AT THE SAME
TERM DURING WHICH THE FIRST INDICTMENT WAS FOUND DEFECTIVE.  P. 69. 

UNITED STATES V. DURKEE FAMOUS FOODS, INC.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 310, UNITED STATES V. MANHATTAN LIGHTERAGE CORP.,
AND NO. 311, COLGATE-PALMOLIVE-PEET CO. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEAL, UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
PLEA IN BAR TO AN INDICTMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE IDENTICAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN THESE THREE CASES REQUIRE
CONSIDERATION OF THE ACT DECEMBER 27, 1927, (CH. 6, 45 STAT. 51, U.S.C.
TITLE 18 SEC. 582) WHICH PRESCRIBES A THREE YEAR LIMITATION FOR
OFFENSES NOT CAPITAL; ALSO THE ACT MAY 10, 1934(CH. 278, 48 STAT. 772,
U.S.C. TITLE 18 SEC. 587) WHICH SPECIFIES THE TIME DURING WHICH A NEW
INDICTMENT MAY BE RETURNED AFTER THE FIRST IS FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE OR
INSUFFICIENT FOR ANY CAUSE.  FN1 

REFERENCE TO THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD IN NO. 309 WILL
SUFFICE. 

DURING THE APRIL TERM 1934 THE GRAND JURY FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW
JERSEY RETURNED AN INDICTMENT CHARGING APPELLEE WITH VIOLATION OF THE
ELKINS ACT (FEBRUARY 19, 1903, CH. 708, 32 STAT. 847, U.S.C. TITLE 49
SEC. 41) ON AUGUST 17, 1932.  A MOTION TO QUASH THIS WAS SUSTAINED,
FEBRUARY 2, 1937, DURING THE JANUARY, 1937 TERM.  LATER IN THE SAME
TERM - APRIL 9, 1937 - THE GRAND JURY RETURNED A SECOND INDICTMENT
AGAINST APPELLEE BASED ON THE SAME FACTS AND CONTAINING THE SAME
CHARGES AS THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE 1934 INDICTMENT. 

TO THE SECOND INDICTMENT APPELLEE INTERPOSED WHAT IT DESIGNATED A
PLEA IN BAR.  THIS ALLEGED (1) THAT AS THE OFFENSE CHARGED WAS
COMMITTED MORE THAN THREE YEARS PRECEDING THE RETURN OF THE PENDING
INDICTMENT PROSECUTION WAS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; (2)
THAT THE NEW INDICTMENT WAS NOT RETURNED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ACT MAY
10, 1934(NOTE 1, SUPRA), SINCE IT WAS REPORTED AT THE TERM DURING WHICH
THE FIRST INDICTMENT WAS FOUND DEFECTIVE - NOT AT THE SUCCEEDING ONE. 
THIS PLEA WAS SUSTAINED AND THE CAUSE IS HERE BY DIRECT APPEAL. 

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS SUBMIT - 

THE ACT MAY 10, 1934 PREVENTED THE BAR OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
FROM BECOMING EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE END OF THE TERM NEXT SUCCEEDING THAT
DURING WHICH THE FIRST INDICTMENT WAS QUASHED.  THE RULING OF THE TRIAL
COURT (1) IS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND NOT REQUIRED BY ITS
LANGUAGE; (2) IS CONTRARY TO THE POLICY AND FRUSTRATES THE GENERAL
OBJECT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS "TO ENCOURAGE PROMPTITUDE IN THE
PROSECUTION OF REMEDIES"; (3) CREATES UNNECESSARY INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN
THE TWO SECTIONS OF THE ACT, AND RESULTS IN AN ILLOGICAL AND
UNREASONABLE BREAK WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 

THE ACT OF 1934 WAS PASSED UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHOSE REPORT STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL
WAS SET OUT IN A LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHICH IT QUOTED. 
FN2 

INSPECTION OF THIS LETTER SHOWS QUITE PLAINLY THAT THE BILL AS
FINALLY ENACTED UNDERTOOK TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ASKED.  THE LANGUAGE IS APT TO EXPRESS THAT PURPOSE AND WE ARE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY, BY INTERPRETATION, TO GIVE THE STATUTE ANOTHER MEANING. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENTS MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CHAPTER 278: - AN ACT TO LIMIT THE OPERATION OF STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS IN CERTAIN CASES. 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT WHENEVER AN
INDICTMENT IS FOUND DEFECTIVE OR INSUFFICIENT FOR ANY CAUSE, AFTER THE
PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS EXPIRED,
A NEW INDICTMENT MAY BE RETURNED AT ANY TIME DURING THE NEXT SUCCEEDING
TERM OF COURT FOLLOWING SUCH FINDING, DURING WHICH A GRAND JURY THEREOF
SHALL BE IN SESSION. 

SEC. 2.  WHENEVER AN INDICTMENT IS FOUND DEFECTIVE OR INSUFFICIENT
FOR ANY CAUSE, BEFORE THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS HAS EXPIRED, AND SUCH PERIOD WILL EXPIRE BEFORE THE END
OF THE NEXT REGULAR TERM OF THE COURT TO WHICH SUCH INDICTMENT WAS
RETURNED, A NEW INDICTMENT MAY BE RETURNED NOT LATER THAN THE END OF
THE NEXT SUCCEEDING TERM OF SUCH COURT, REGULAR OR SPECIAL, FOLLOWING
THE TERM AT WHICH SUCH INDICTMENT WAS FOUND DEFECTIVE OR INSUFFICIENT,
DURING WHICH A GRAND JURY THEREOF SHALL BE IN SESSION. 

SEC. 3.  IN THE EVENT OF REINDICTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT THE DEFENSE OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST
THE NEW INDICTMENT, ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING. 

SEC. 4.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY INDICTMENT
AGAINST WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN AT THE DATE OF
APPROVAL HEREOF. 

APPROVED MAY 10, 1934. 

FN2                                            JANUARY 17, 1934. 

HON. HENRY F. ASHURST,

 CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

     UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

MY DEAR SENATOR:  IN SOME CRIMINAL CASES THE OFFENSE IS NOT
DISCOVERED UNTIL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS NEARLY RUN.  IN OTHER
CASES DEFENDANTS ARE NOT APPREHENDED FOR SOME TIME OR REMOVAL
PROCEEDINGS ARE INSTITUTED AND APPEALS TAKEN FROM HABEAS CORPUS ORDERS
REFUSING TO RELEASE THE DEFENDANT ON REMOVAL ORDER, AND IN STILL OTHER
CASES DILATORY MOTIONS ARE MADE WITH THE HOPE THAT, IF ULTIMATELY
SUSTAINED, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL MEANWHILE HAVE RUN AGAINST
ANOTHER PROSECUTION.  TO SAFEGUARD THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN
SUCH CASES, LEGISLATION IS RECOMMENDED PROVIDING THAT IN ANY CASE IN
WHICH AN INDICTMENT IS FOUND DEFECTIVE OR INSUFFICIENT FOR ANY CAUSE,
AFTER THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN, OR
WHERE SAID PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS HAS NOT RUN BUT WILL EXPIRE BEFORE THE
END OF THE NEXT REGULAR SESSION OF COURT, A NEW INDICTMENT MAY BE
RETURNED AT ANY TIME DURING THE FIRST SUCCEEDING TERM OF COURT AT WHICH
A GRAND JURY IS IN SESSION.  THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE FAVORS LEGISLATION
OF THIS TENOR. 

A DRAFT OF BILL TO EFFECTUATE THIS RECOMMENDATION IS ENCLOSED
HEREWITH AND I SHALL APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WILL INTRODUCE IT AND LEND IT
YOUR SUPPORT. 

RESPECTFULLY,                              HOMER CUMMINGS,

                                           ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
..END :


















DIXIE OHIO CO. V. COMM'N, 306 U.S. 72 


NO. 260.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 186
GA. 228 - 197 S.E. 887, AFFIRMED. 


THE GEORGIA MAINTENANCE TAX ACT, AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT, AN OHIO
CORPORATION ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS A COMMON
CARRIER OF PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE, IMPOSES A TAX OF $50 ON
EACH TON-AND-A-HALF MOTOR VEHICLE, $75 ON EACH TWO-TON MOTOR VEHICLE,
AND $50 ON EACH TRAILER OF 4000 POUNDS FACTORY WEIGHT.  THE TAX WOULD
BE THE SAME IF THE CARRIER WERE ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE, OR WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE, BUT
WOULD BE LESS IF THE VEHICLES WERE NOT USED FOR HIRE.  HELD: 

1.  WHILE A STATE MAY NOT IMPOSE A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT MAY VALIDLY IMPOSE A FAIR AND REASONABLE TAX
UPON VEHICLES AS COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS, EVEN THOUGH
THE VEHICLES BE USED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  P. 76. 

2.  TO SUSTAIN AN EXACTION BY THE STATE FOR THE USE OR PRIVILEGE OF
USING ITS HIGHWAYS FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, IT MUST AFFIRMATIVELY
APPEAR THAT THE CHARGE IS FOR COMPENSATION OR TO PAY THE COST OF
POLICING THE HIGHWAYS.  P. 77. 

3.  THE SCOPE AND LANGUAGE OF THE ACT CLEARLY DISCLOSE THAT ITS
PURPOSE IS TO REQUIRE COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING OVER
THE ROADS OF THE STATE.  P. 77. 

4.  THE FACT THAT THE STATE, IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS,
CHOOSES TO USE PART OR ALL OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS OTHER THAN THOSE OVER WHICH APPELLANT OPERATES,
DOES NOT RENDER IT VIOLATIVE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 77. 

5.  THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE APPELLANT FOR LICENSE TAGS, PUBLIC
SERVICE TAGS, AND GASOLINE TAXES ARE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS
CASE.  P. 78. 

6.  THE FACT THAT, IN LICENSE AND FUEL TAXES, MOTOR VEHICLES BORE
OVER 62 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL TAXES COLLECTED BY THE STATE, DOES NOT
AID IN ASCERTAINING THE VALUE OF APPELLANT'S USE OF, OR PRIVILEGE TO
USE, THE STATE'S HIGHWAYS.  P. 78. 

7.  FIGURES SHOWING THE EXTENT OF APPELLANT'S USE OF THE STATE'S
ROADS MAY NOT BE TAKEN AS AN INDICATION OF THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE
WHERE IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THE PRIVILEGE WAS FULLY AVAILED OF.
P. 78. 

8.  FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH EVIDENTIARY DETAILS ON THE
ISSUE TENDS TO SUPPORT THE STATE'S CLAIM THAT THE EXACTION WAS
REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USE OF ITS ROADS.  P. 78. 

9.  THE IMPOSITION OF HIGHER TAXES ON VEHICLES USED FOR HIRE THAN ON
THOSE NOT SO USED IS NOT AN ARBITRARY CLASSIFICATION AND DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P.
78. 

DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO. V. STATE REVENUE COMMISSION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT WHICH SUSTAINED A
DEMURRER AND DISMISSED AN AFFIDAVIT CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF A LEVY
OF EXECUTION BY THE STATE REVENUE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE BY THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE, THE GEORGIA MAINTENANCE TAX ACT  FN1  VIOLATES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

APPELLANT IS AN OHIO CORPORATION ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION AS A COMMON CARRIER OF PROPERTY FOR HIRE BY MOTOR
VEHICLES, INCLUDING HAULING BETWEEN POINTS IN GEORGIA AND POINTS IN
OTHER STATES.  A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZING APPELLANT'S INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION IN GEORGIA,  FN2  DOES NOT EXTEND TO TRANSPORTATION OVER
RURAL POST ROADS, WHICH ARE ROADS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATE HIGHWAY
SYSTEM OVER WHICH UNITED STATES MAIL IS CARRIED.  FN3 

APPELLANT OWNS FOR USE IN ITS BUSINESS ABOUT 100 PIECES OF EQUIPMENT
CONSISTING OF TRUCKS AND TRACTORS WITH MANUFACTURER'S RATED CAPACITY OF
A TON AND A HALF AND TWO TONS AND TRAILERS HAVING FACTORY WEIGHT OF
4,000 POUNDS.  IF USED TO HAUL NOT FOR HIRE, THE TAX ON EACH TON-AND-A
HALF MOTOR VEHICLE IS $15; ON EACH TWO-TON VEHICLE, $30; AND ON EACH
TRAILER, $30.  BUT WHEN USED TO HAUL EITHER AS A COMMON OR CONTRACT
CARRIER FOR HIRE, THE TAXES ARE RESPECTIVELY, $50, $75, AND $50.  SEC.
3. 

FOR THE COLLECTION OF TAX ON ONE OF APPELLANT'S TWO-TON TRUCKS, THE
STATE REVENUE COMMISSION OBTAINED FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON
COUNTY AN EXECUTION ON WHICH IT CAUSED THE SHERIFF TO LEVY UPON THAT
VEHICLE.  APPELLANT GAVE A BOND TO THE SHERIFF WITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF
ILLEGALITY.  FN4  IN ORDER TO AVOID SEIZURE OF ALL OF APPELLANT'S
EQUIPMENT, THE STATE COMMISSION ALLOWED IT TO DEPOSIT IN ESCROW THE
AMOUNT CLAIMED UNDER THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER EQUIPMENT AND AGREED
THAT LEVY SHOULD BE MADE ONLY ON THE ONE TRUCK.  THE COMMISSION
DEMURRED; THE SUPERIOR COURT SUSTAINED THE DEMURRER AND DISMISSED THE
AFFIDAVIT.  THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  186 GA. 228; 197 S.E. 887. 

IN ADDITION TO THE DESCRIPTION OF APPELLANT'S EQUIPMENT, OPERATIONS,
AND USE OF GEORGIA HIGHWAYS GIVEN ABOVE, THE STATEMENTS OF THE
AFFIDAVIT OF ILLEGALITY, SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE ISSUES HERE TO BE
DECIDED, MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: 

THE ACT DIRECTS THAT UPON PAYMENT OF THE MAINTENANCE TAX THE DIRECTOR
OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION OF THE STATE COMMISSION SHALL ISSUE A
TAG (SEC. 9), AND THAT THE MONEY DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF THESE TAGS
SHALL BE ALLOCATED TO THE UNITED STATES RURAL POSTAL ROADS DIVISION OF
THE GEORGIA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.  SEC. 11.  THUS, NO PART OF IT IS
APPLICABLE TO HIGHWAYS OVER WHICH APPELLANT OPERATES.  THE MAINTENANCE
TAXES ON ITS EQUIPMENT FOR EACH YEAR WILL BE ABOUT $6,000.  IN
ADDITION, THE GEORGIA LAWS REQUIRE IT TO PAY $3 FOR A LICENSE TAG  FN5
AND $25 FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE TAG  FN6  FOR EACH VEHICLE AND SIX CENTS
PER GALLON OF GASOLINE PURCHASED IN GEORGIA; FN7 IT ANNUALLY BUYS IN
THAT STATE ABOUT 90,000 GALLONS.  TWO-THIRDS OF THE GASOLINE TAX IS FOR
MAINTENANCE OF STATE AID HIGHWAYS.  FN8  APPELLANT HAULS IN SEVEN
STATES; ANNUALLY ITS TRUCKS TRAVEL AN AVERAGE OF 6,870,000 MILES OF
WHICH 725,000, LESS THAN 11 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL, ARE IN GEORGIA.  THE
1936 TOTAL TAXES COLLECTED BY GEORGIA AMOUNTED TO $30,058,092.68, OF
WHICH MOTOR VEHICLES BORE $19,207,909.59 IN LICENSE AND FUEL TAXES. 

IN CONCLUSION, THE AFFIDAVIT ASSERTS THAT THE TAX IN QUESTION IS AN
UNREASONABLE FEE FOR APPELLANT'S USE OF THE ROADS AND IS THEREFORE
REPUGNANT TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND THAT IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
CARRIERS FOR HIRE IN FAVOR OF CARRIERS NOT FOR HIRE AND FOR THAT REASON
VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

1.  IS THE ACT REPUGNANT TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE? 

WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE, IT REQUIRES THAT ALL WHO OWN OR
HAVE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS A MOTOR BUS, TRUCK,
FN9  OR TRAILER "SHALL PAY A MAINTENANCE TAX FOR OPERATION  ...  UPON
AND OVER THE PUBLIC ROADS OF THE STATE" (SEC. 1) ACCORDING TO A
SCHEDULE (SEC. 3) WHICH SPECIFIES THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX ON EACH
VEHICLE.  THE ACT MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN VEHICLES USED IN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE AND THOSE USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT
DISCRIMINATES IN FAVOR OF EQUIPMENT USED NOT FOR HIRE.  IT LAYS UPON
TRUCKS AND TRACTORS TAXES GRADUATED ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S RATED
CAPACITIES AND UPON TRAILERS AMOUNTS GRADUATED ACCORDING TO FACTORY
WEIGHTS.  THE TAX IMPOSED ON APPELLANT IS THE SAME AS IF IT OPERATED
EXCLUSIVELY IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE OR CARRIED ON BOTH INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION. 

IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT A STATE MAY NOT IMPOSE A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE
OF ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S.
163, 171.  INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC., V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183, 185. 
GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434, AND CASES THERE
CITED; ALSO THOSE CITED IN THE CONCURRING OPINION.  BUT, CONSISTENTLY
WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, A STATE MAY IMPOSE UPON VEHICLES USED
EXCLUSIVELY FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION A FAIR AND REASONABLE TAX AS
COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING ITS HIGHWAYS FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE IS STATED IN HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S.
610.  WE THERE SAID (PP. 623-624):  "IN VIEW OF THE MANY DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT THERE CAN BE NO SERIOUS DOUBT THAT WHERE A STATE AT ITS OWN
EXPENSE FURNISHES SPECIAL FACILITIES FOR THE USE OF THOSE ENGAGED IN
COMMERCE, INTERSTATE AS WELL AS DOMESTIC, IT MAY EXACT COMPENSATION
THEREFOR.  THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGES AND THE METHOD OF COLLECTION ARE
PRIMARILY FOR DETERMINATION BY THE STATE ITSELF; AND SO LONG AS THEY
ARE REASONABLE AND ARE FIXED ACCORDING TO SOME UNIFORM, FAIR AND
PRACTICAL STANDARD THEY CONSTITUTE NO BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 
THAT RULE HAS BEEN APPLIED IN MANY CASES.  SEE E.G. KANE V. NEW JERSEY,
242 U.S. 160, 168-169.  CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554, 557.  SPROUT V.
SOUTH BEND, SUPRA, 170.  AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, 295 U.S.
285, 289.  MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407, 412.  WHILE ORDINARILY STATE
ACTION IS DEEMED VALID UNLESS THE CONTRARY APPEARS, WE HAVE HELD THAT
TO SUSTAIN A CHARGE BY THE STATE FOR THE USE OR PRIVILEGE OF USING ITS
ROADS FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, IT MUST AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR THAT
THE CHARGE IS EXACTED AS COMPENSATION OR TO PAY THE COST OF POLICING
ITS HIGHWAYS.  SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, SUPRA.  INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC.
V. LINDSEY, SUPRA, 186.  INGELS V. MORF, 300 U.S. 290, 294. 

THE SCOPE AND LANGUAGE OF THE CHALLENGED ENACTMENT UNMISTAKABLY
DISCLOSE INTENTION OF THE STATE TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR
THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING OVER ITS ROADS THE SPECIFIED VEHICLES FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY.  IT CONTAINS NO HINT OF HOSTILITY TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR OF PURPOSE TO IMPOSE A CHARGE ON THE PRIVILEGE
OR BUSINESS OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THE EXACTION IS NOT TO BE
DEEMED OFFENSIVE TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE MERELY BECAUSE THE STATE, IN
THE CONDUCT OF ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS, CHOOSES TO USE PART OR ALL OF THE
PROCEEDS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT, OR
MAINTENANCE OF ITS HIGHWAYS.  CLARK V. POOR, SUPRA, 557.  MORF V.
BINGAMAN, SUPRA, 412. 

THE AFFIDAVIT OF ILLEGALITY FAILS TO ALLEGE ANY FACTS TENDING TO SHOW
THAT A REASONABLE CHARGE FOR THE PRIVILEGE IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT
EXACTED FOR IT.  APPELLANT DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE PRIVILEGE TO OPERATE
FOR A YEAR 100 PIECES OF ITS EQUIPMENT OVER ANY OR ALL THE STATE'S
ROADS IS NOT WORTH $6,000, THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES IN CONTROVERSY.  IT
DOES NOT DISCLOSE WHAT THE TAXES IN QUESTION AMOUNT TO PER TRUCK,
TRACTOR, OR TRAILER MILE, PER TON HAULED, OR PER TON MILE, NOR DOES IT
COMPARE THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXES WITH TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OR WITH
OPERATING REVENUES.  THE FIGURES FURNISHED INDICATE THAT THE TAX
IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE USE OF EACH VEHICLE AMOUNTS TO ABOUT 20 CENTS
A DAY AND THAT, ON APPELLANT'S BUSINESS IN 1936, IT WAS ABOUT EIGHT
MILLS PER VEHICLE MILE.  THE AMOUNTS PAID FOR LICENSE TAGS, PUBLIC
SERVICE TAGS, AND TAXES ON GASOLINE ARE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS
CASE.  INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, 276 U.S. 245, 251-252.  THE
ALLEGATION TO THE EFFECT THAT IN 1936 MOTOR VEHICLES IN GEORGIA BORE,
IN LICENSE AND FUEL TAXES, OVER 62 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL TAXES
COLLECTED BY THE STATE IS TOO VAGUE FOR USE IN ANY ESTIMATE OF OR STUDY
FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE VALUE OF APPELLANT'S USE, OR OF ITS
PRIVILEGE TO USE, THE STATE'S ROADS. 

APPELLANT'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE WHETHER IT FULLY AVAILED ITSELF OF
THE PRIVILEGE TO USE THE ROADS LEAVES THE FIGURES REFLECTING ACTUAL USE
WITHOUT FOUNDATION AND WORTHLESS AS A MEASURE OR INDICATION OF THE
VALUE OF THAT PRIVILEGE.  AND, IN VIEW OF THE SEEMINGLY LOW CHARGE FOR
THE OPERATION OF ITS VEHICLES PER DAY OR MILE, ITS FAILURE TO FURNISH
EVIDENTIARY DETAILS MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE OF REASONABLENESS MAKES
AGAINST ITS CONTENTION THAT THE CHALLENGED EXACTIONS SO EXCEED THE
WORTH OF THE GRANTED USE OF THE ROADS THAT THEY ARE TO BE DEEMED TAXES
ON THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION AND TENDS TO CONFIRM APPELLEE'S CLAIM THAT THEY
CONSTITUTE PAY FOR THE SPECIFIED OPERATIONS OVER THE STATE'S ROADS. 

WE FIND THAT THE CHALLENGED ENACTMENT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE. 

2.  IS THE ACT REPUGNANT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE?  APPELLANT
INSISTS THAT IT IS BECAUSE OF THE HIGHER TAXES IMPOSED ON THOSE WHO
HAUL FOR HIRE.  BUT IT FAILS TO SHOW LACK OF FACTS SUFFICIENT TO
JUSTIFY THE DISCRIMINATION.  IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY,
IT IS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THE USE OF THE ROADS BY ONE HAULING NOT FOR
HIRE IS GENERALLY LIMITED TO TRANSPORTATION OF HIS OWN PROPERTY AS AN
INCIDENT TO HIS OCCUPATION OR BUSINESS AND THAT IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY
LESS THAN THAT OF ONE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COMMON CARRIER
THEREON FOR HIRE.  AS HAULING NOT FOR HIRE IS LIKELY TO BE OCCASIONAL
AND ACCESSORY AND AS HAULING FOR HIRE IS A BUSINESS THE SUCCESS OF
WHICH DEPENDS ON THE LOADING OF THE VEHICLES USED AND MILEAGE MADE BY
THEM, THE CLASSIFICATION COMPLAINED OF MAY NOT BE HELD ARBITRARY OR
WITHOUT REASONABLE FOUNDATION.  MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA, 413.  AERO
TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, SUPRA, 290, 291.  HICKLIN V. CONEY, 290
U.S. 169, 176, 177.  CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. V. WOODRING, 286 U.S. 352,
370, 371, ET SEQ. BRADLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 289 U.S. 92, 97. 
ALWARD V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 509, 513-514.  BEKINS VAN LINES V. RILEY,
280 U.S. 80, 82.  PACKARD V. BANTON, 264 U.S. 140, 144.  APPELLANT'S
CONTENTION THAT THE ACT VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IS WITHOUT
MERIT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  LAWS 1937, P. 155. 

FN2  SEC. 206, MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, C. 498, 49 STAT. 551, 49
U.S.C. SEC. 306. 

FN3  LAWS 1937, P. 914. 

FN4  CODE 1933, SEC. 92-7301. 

FN5  LAWS 1935, P. 157. 

FN6  CODE 1933, SEC. 68-623. 

FN7  LAWS 1937, P. 174. 

FN8  LAWS 1937, P. 180. 

FN9  THE ACT DEFINES "TRUCK" TO "INCLUDE ANY SELF-PROPELLED VEHICLE
DESIGNED  ...  FOR DRAWING OTHER VEHICLES, BUT HAVING NO PROVISION FOR
CARRYING LOADS INDEPENDENTLY, EXCEPT WHAT ARE COMMONLY KNOWN AS FARM
TRACTORS."  SEC. 2B. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 306 U.S. 79 


NO. 295.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 89
N.H. 428 - 199 A. 886, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE FORBIDS THE OWNER OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLE USED
ON THE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY FOR
HIRE, TO REQUIRE OR PERMIT TO OPERATE SUCH VEHICLE A DRIVER WHO HAS
BEEN CONTINUOUSLY ON DUTY FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS.  REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATES, WITHOUT WHICH NO COMMON OR CONTRACT CARRIER MAY LAWFULLY
OPERATE OVER THE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE, MAY BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED FOR
VIOLATIONS.  THE STATUTE EXEMPTS:  THOSE TRANSPORTING PRODUCTS OF THEIR
OWN MANUFACTURE OR LABOR; MOTOR VEHICLES NOT PRINCIPALLY ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY FOR HIRE; AND CARRIERS OPERATING EXCLUSIVELY
IN A CITY OR TOWN OR WITHIN 10 MILES THEREOF, OR BEYOND THE 10 MILE
LIMIT ON NOT MORE THAN TWO TRIPS IN 30 DAYS.  HELD: 

1.  AS APPLIED TO A CARRIER WHICH WAS NOT EXEMPT, THE STATUTE WAS NOT
BY REASON OF ITS EXEMPTIONS REPUGNANT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 82. 

2.  ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE AGAINST AN INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIER
FOR VIOLATIONS COMMITTED SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE PASSAGE OF THE FEDERAL
MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, BUT PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE (AND THE DATE
OF ISSUE) OF AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, PURSUANT
THERETO, PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF SUCH
CARRIERS, WAS VALID.  P. 83. 

3.  CONGRESS WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE INTENDED THAT STATE
REGULATORY MEASURES RELATING TO SAFETY ON THE HIGHWAYS SHOULD BE
SUPERSEDED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SIMILAR FEDERAL REGULATION. 
P. 85. 

H.P. WELCH CO. V. NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DISMISSING AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUSPENDING THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATES OF A MOTOR CARRIER FOR VIOLATION OF THE STATE LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A STATUTE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE  FN1  DECLARES UNLAWFUL THE OPERATION ON
ITS ROADS OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR SPECIFIED TRANSPORTATION BY DRIVERS WHO
HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY ON DUTY FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS.  BY THIS APPEAL
WE ARE CALLED ON TO DECIDE WHETHER, AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, SECS. 3,
4, AND 8 ARE REPUGNANT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, AND WHETHER SECS. 8 AND 11 WERE SUPERSEDED BY THE FEDERAL
MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, SEC. 204,  FN2  AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED
UNDER IT BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE ACT DECLARES THAT THE NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES
OPERATED BY CARRIERS FOR HIRE HAS MADE REGULATION NECESSARY TO THE END
THAT ITS HIGHWAYS MAY BE SAFER FOR USE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.  SEC. 1. 
IT REQUIRES COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS BETWEEN POINTS WITHIN THE
STATE TO REGISTER THEIR TRUCKS WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. 
SEC. 2.  CONTRACT CARRIERS INCLUDE THOSE, OTHER THAN COMMON CARRIERS,
WHO HAUL FOR HIRE BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON ANY ROAD OF THE STATE.  SEC. 3. 
EXEMPTED FROM THE CHALLENGED REGULATION ARE THOSE TRANSPORTING PRODUCTS
OF THEIR OWN MANUFACTURE OR LABOR (SEC. 3), AND MOTOR VEHICLES NOT
PRINCIPALLY ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY FOR HIRE OR
OPERATING EXCLUSIVELY IN A CITY OR TOWN OR WITHIN 10 MILES OF ITS
LIMITS OR BEYOND THE 10-MILE LIMIT ON NOT MORE THAN TWO TRIPS IN 30
DAYS.  SEC. 4. 

OPERATE, OR FOR THE OWNER THEREOF TO REQUIRE OR PERMIT ANY DRIVER TO
OPERATE, ANY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY FOR HIRE
ON THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE WHEN THE DRIVER HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY ON
DUTY FOR MORE THAN TWELVE HOURS, AND AFTER A DRIVER HAS BEEN
CONTINUOUSLY ON DUTY FOR TWELVE HOURS IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR HIM OR
FOR THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE TO PERMIT HIM TO OPERATE ANY SUCH MOTOR
VEHICLE ON THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE UNTIL HE SHALL HAVE HAD AT LEAST
EIGHT CONSECUTIVE HOURS OFF DUTY."  SECTION 11 PROVIDES THAT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY AFTER NOTICE
AND HEARING, TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE ANY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. 

APPELLANT IS A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION DOING INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE BUSINESS AS A COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIER OF FREIGHT FOR
HIRE BY MOTOR VEHICLES OVER PUBLIC HIGHWAYS IN THAT STATE AND IN NEW
HAMPSHIRE.  APPROXIMATELY 99 PER CENT OF ITS BUSINESS IS INTERSTATE. 
IT HAS TERMINALS AT BOSTON IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND AT MANCHESTER,
CONCORD, AND CLAREMONT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.  IN 1937 IT OBTAINED FROM THE
NEW HAMPSHIRE COMMISSION REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES FOR 20 TRUCKS. 
AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, THE COMMISSION, IN A DECISION FILED AS OF
DECEMBER 11, 1937, HELD APPELLANT HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8
AND ORDERED THAT ITS CERTIFICATES BE SUSPENDED FOR FIVE DAYS. 
APPELLANT APPEALED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  THAT COURT UPHELD THE
CHALLENGED PROVISIONS AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL.  89 N.H. 428; 199 A.
886. 

1.  SECTIONS 3, 4, AND 8 ARE NOT REPUGNANT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE.  THE STATE COURT FOUND THAT THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 8 IS "TO
PROTECT USERS OF THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS STATE FROM THE DANGER LIKELY TO
RESULT TO THEM FROM THE OPERATION THEREON OF TRUCKS UNDER THE CONTROL
OF DRIVERS SUFFERING FROM THE EFFECTS OF FATIGUE."  APPELLANT'S
CONTENTION IS THAT THE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN DRIVERS OF MOTOR CARRIERS
FOR HIRE SUBJECT TO SEC. 8 AND THOSE EXEMPTED BY SECS. 3 AND 4, HAS NO
FAIR OR SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO HIGHWAY SAFETY.  IT SUGGESTS, AND WE
MAY ASSUME, THAT THE ROADS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ARE EXTENSIVELY USED FOR
TRANSPORTATION BY TRUCKS NOT REGULATED BY SEC. 8; THAT DRIVERS OF THEM
ARE JUST AS SUSCEPTIBLE TO FATIGUE FROM LONG HOURS OF CONTINUOUS
OPERATION AS ARE THOSE OPERATING THE TRUCKS USED BY APPELLANT AND OTHER
COMMON CARRIERS FOR HIRE, AND THAT THE DANGERS ATTRIBUTABLE TO FATIGUED
DRIVERS ARE THE SAME IN ONE CLASS OF SERVICE AS IN ANOTHER.  APPELLANT
HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT, IN OPERATIONS TO WHICH SEC. 8 APPLIES,
CONTINUOUS DRIVING FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS IS NOT SO MUCH MORE PREVALENT
THAN IN THOSE EXEMPTED (SECS. 3, 4) AS TO CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE BASIS
FOR THE DIFFERENTIATION.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT, FOR REASONS GIVEN
ABOVE, THOSE STATED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE AND BY THIS
COURT IN DIXIE OHIO EXPRESS CO. V. GEORGIA COMM'N, ANTE, P. 72, THE
CLASSIFICATION IN QUESTION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE RULE OF EQUAL
PROTECTION. 

2.  AS APPLICABLE TO THE VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE LAW FOUND TO HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED BY APPELLANT, SECS. 8 AND 11 WERE NOT SUPERSEDED BY THE
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, OR THE REGULATIONS MADE UNDER IT BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

THAT ACT BECAME LAW AUGUST 9, 1935.  UNDER THE CAPTION "GENERAL
DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE COMMISSION," SEC. 204(A) DECLARES:  "IT SHALL
BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION  ...  TO REGULATE" COMMON AND CONTRACT
CARRIERS BY "MOTOR VEHICLE  ...  AND TO THAT END THE COMMISSION MAY
ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO  ...  QUALIFICATIONS
AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES, AND SAFETY OF OPERATION AND
EQUIPMENT."  BY ORDER MADE UNDER AUTHORITY OF THAT SECTION DECEMBER 29,
1937, THE COMMISSION PRESCRIBED REGULATIONS AS TO MAXIMUM HOURS OF
SERVICE OF DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES OPERATED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY
COMMON AND CONTRACT CARRIERS.  FN3  THESE REGULATIONS WERE MODIFIED
JULY 12, 1938 FN4  AND THEIR EFFECTIVE DATE HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO
JANUARY 31, 1939.  FN5  WITH EXCEPTIONS THAT NEED NOT BE STATED HERE,
THEY DECLARE THAT NO COMMON CARRIER SHALL PERMIT OR REQUIRE ANY DRIVER
TO REMAIN ON DUTY FOR MORE THAN 60 HOURS A WEEK OR MORE THAN 10 HOURS
IN ANY PERIOD OF 24 CONSECUTIVE HOURS.  FN6 

APPELLANT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT PRIOR TO CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THE
STATE WAS WITHOUT POWER, FOR PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY, TO
REGULATE USE OF ITS ROADS AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 8, AND TO ENFORCE
OBEDIENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 11.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12
HOW.  299, 320.  SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465.  CLEVELAND, C., C. &
ST. L. RY. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 177 U.S. 514.  THE VIOLATIONS FOR WHICH THE
STATE COMMISSION SUSPENDED APPELLANT'S REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES
OCCURRED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FEDERAL ACT AND BEFORE THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION MADE ITS ORDER.  WITHOUT SO DECIDING, WE
ASSUME, SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE PERIODS OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE CONDEMNED
BY THE STATE COMMISSION, THAT WHEN THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS TAKE EFFECT
THEY WILL OPERATE TO SUPERSEDE THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF THE STATE
STATUTE.  THEN, THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED THAT
FROM THE TIME OF THE FEDERAL ENACTMENT UNTIL EFFECTIVE ACTION BY THE
COMMISSION, THERE SHOULD BE NO REGULATION OF PERIODS OF CONTINUOUS
OPERATION BY DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES HAULING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
OUR DECISIONS PROVIDE NO FORMULA FOR DISCOVERING IMPLIED EFFECT OF
FEDERAL STATUTES UPON STATE MEASURES SUCH AS THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION. 
HERE, THE WAY IS MADE CLEAR BY THE LANGUAGE AND CONTEXT CONSIDERED IN
CONNECTION WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS.  SECTION 204(A) DEFINITELY IMPOSES
UPON THE COMMISSION THE DUTY TO "REGULATE" BUT MERELY AUTHORIZES IT TO
ESTABLISH REASONABLE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO, INTER ALIA,
QUALIFICATIONS AND MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES AND SAFETY OF
OPERATION AND EQUIPMENT.  THE DISTINCTION INTENDED BETWEEN DUTY IMPOSED
AND ACTION PERMITTED IS MORE STRIKING IN VIEW OF THE MATTERS THAT,
ALONG WITH QUALIFICATIONS AND HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS, ARE
COMMITTED TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION.  THEY INCLUDE
TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE AND EXPRESS, UNIFORM SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTS,
RECORDS, AND REPORTS, AND PRESERVATION OF RECORDS. 

THE ROADS BELONG TO THE STATE.  THERE IS NEED OF LOCAL SUPERVISION OF
OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO PREVENT COLLISIONS, TO SAFEGUARD
PEDESTRIANS, AND THE LIKE.  UNQUESTIONABLY, REASONABLE REGULATION OF
PERIODS OF CONTINUOUS DRIVING IS AN APPROPRIATE MEASURE.  IN VIEW OF
THE EFFORTS OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES EVERYWHERE TO MITIGATE THE
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE, LIMB AND PROPERTY RESULTING FROM THE USE OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE ANY
STATE SAFETY MEASURE PRIOR TO THE TAKING EFFECT OF A FEDERAL MEASURE
FOUND SUITABLE TO PUT IN ITS PLACE.  ITS PURPOSE TO DISPLACE THE LOCAL
LAW MUST BE DEFINITELY EXPRESSED.  MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346,
350.  THE RULE APPLICABLE IS CLEARLY STATED IN ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO.
V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 245 U.S. 493, 510:  "IN CONSTRUING FEDERAL
STATUTES ENACTED UNDER THE POWER CONFERRED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION  ...  IT SHOULD NEVER BE HELD THAT CONGRESS INTENDS TO
SUPERSEDE OR SUSPEND THE EXERCISE OF THE RESERVED POWERS OF A STATE,
EVEN WHERE THAT MAY BE DONE, UNLESS, AND EXCEPT SO FAR AS, ITS PURPOSE
TO DO SO IS CLEARLY MANIFESTED."  WE HAVE FREQUENTLY APPLIED THAT
PRINCIPLE.  SEE E.G. REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 148.  MISSOURI
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. LARABEE MILLS CO. 211 U.S. 612, 621, ET SEQ.
MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. HARRIS, 234 U.S. 412, 418-419.  SMITH V.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., 282 U.S. 133, 139.  NORTHWESTERN BELL TEL.
CO. V. NEBRASKA RY. COMM'N, 297 U.S. 471, 478.  KELLY V. WASHINGTON,
302 U.S. 1, 10, ET SEQ. APPELLANT CITES NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 222 U.S. 370, 378; ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. NEW YORK, 233 U.S.
671; OREGON-WASHINGTON CO. V. WASHINGTON, 270 U.S. 87; NAPIER V.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 272 U.S. 605, 613; AND MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V.
PORTER, 273 U.S. 341, 345.  IN EACH, THE FACTS DIFFER SO WIDELY FROM
THOSE OF THE CASE BEFORE US THAT NO DISCUSSION IS REQUIRED TO SHOW THAT
IT IS NOT IN POINT. 

PLAINLY CONGRESS BY MERE GRANT OF POWER TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION DID NOT INTEND TO SUPERSEDE STATE POLICE REGULATIONS
ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC USING STATE HIGHWAYS. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  LAWS 1933, C. 106 AS AMENDED BY C. 169. 

FN2  49 STAT. 546; 49 U.S.C. SEC. 304. 

FN3  3 M.C.C. 665. 

FN4  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, JULY 12, 1938. 

FN5  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, DECEMBER 22, 1938. 

FN6  EX PARTE NO. MC-2, JULY 12, 1938(RULE 3(A) AND (B)). 
..END :















MACKAY CO. V. RADIO CORP., 306 U.S. 86 


NO. 127.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 15, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  -
96 F.2D 587, REVERSED. 


1.  CARTER PATENT, NO. 1,974,387, FOR A DIRECTIVE ANTENNA SYSTEM FOR
USE IN RADIO COMMUNICATION, HELD NOT INFRINGED BY PETITIONER'S ANTENNA
STRUCTURES.  PP. 88, 101. 

CLAIMS 15 AND 16 ARE INVALID SO FAR AS THEY CLAIM ANTENNAE OF WIRE
LENGTHS INTERMEDIATE OF MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS.  AND SO FAR AS
THE PATENT DISCLOSES AND CLAIMS INVENTION OF A V ANTENNA STRUCTURE MADE
IN CONFORMITY TO THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, PETITIONER'S STRUCTURES DO NOT
INFRINGE, FOR NONE OF THEM CONFORMS TO THE ABRAHAM FORMULA.  ONE HAS
WIRES WHICH ARE AN INTEGRAL NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS LONG, BUT USES
AN ANGLE 10% SMALLER THAN THAT DERIVABLE FROM THE ABRAHAM FORMULA; ALL
OF THE OTHERS HAVE WIRES WHICH ARE NOT MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS
LONG AND ANGLES NOT DERIVABLE FROM THE FORMULA. 

2.  THE DISCLOSURE OF THE CARTER PATENT WAS THAT THE BEST DIRECTIONAL
RADIO PROPAGATION BY THE V TYPE ANTENNA IS OBTAINED IN THE DIRECTION OF
ITS BISECTOR, WITH A STRUCTURE IN WHICH THE ANGLE OF THE WIRES, THEIR
LENGTH, AND THE LENGTH OF WAVE PROPAGATED ARE IN A DEFINITE
MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIP EXPRESSED BY A FORMULA DISCLOSED IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS.  THE FORMULA SHOWS THAT THE APPROPRIATE ANGLE BETWEEN
EACH OF THE ANTENNA WIRES AND THEIR BISECTOR DEPENDS UPON THE WAVE
LENGTH TO BE PROPAGATED AND THE WIRE LENGTH, WHICH IS A MULTIPLE OF
HALF WAVE LENGTHS.  THE FORMULA HAD BEEN DEVELOPED AND PUBLISHED BY
ABRAHAM THIRTY YEARS PREVIOUSLY.  LINDENBLAD HAD TAUGHT THAT WITH AN
ARRANGEMENT OF ANTENNA WIRES AT AN ANGLE, RADIATION WILL OCCUR IN THE
DIRECTION OF THE BISECTOR OF THE ANGLE AND THAT THE PREFERRED ANGLE WAS
DEPENDENT UPON AN INDICATED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WIRE LENGTH AND WAVE
LENGTH.  CARTER'S INVENTION THEREFORE, IF IT WAS INVENTION, CONSISTED
IN TAKING THE ANGLE OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA AS THE ANGLE BETWEEN EACH
WIRE OF THE V ANTENNA AND ITS BISECTOR, AND THUS ESTABLISHING ALONG THE
BISECTOR THE GREATEST DIRECTIONAL RADIO ACTIVITY.  THE EMPIRICAL
FORMULA OF THE SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS 15 AND 16, DERIVED GRAPHICALLY
FROM THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, DISCLOSED NO INVENTION OTHER THAN THE
APPLICATION OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA TO THE V ANTENNA WHEN WAVE LENGTH
AND WIRE LENGTH ARE KNOWN.  HELD, ASSUMING THAT IT WAS MORE THAN THE
SKILL OF THE ART TO COMBINE THE TEACHING OF ABRAHAM WITH THAT OF
LINDENBLAD AND OTHERS WHO HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE
WIRES AT AN ANGLE ENHANCED DIRECTIONAL RADIO ACTIVITY ALONG THEIR
BISECTOR, THEN THE INVENTION WAS A NARROW ONE, CONSISTING OF A
STRUCTURE CONFORMING TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA AS TO
ANGLE AND WIRE LENGTH RELATIVE TO WAVE LENGTH, AND IS TO BE STRICTLY
CONSTRUED WITH REGARD BOTH TO PRIOR ART AND TO ALLEGED INFRINGING
DEVICES.  CARTER, AVOIDING PRIOR ART BY DEFINING HIS ANGLE FOR ANTENNAE
WITH WIRES OF PARTICULAR WAVE LENGTHS WITH MATHEMATICAL PRECISION, CAN
NOT DISCARD THAT PRECISION TO ESTABLISH INFRINGEMENT.  PP. 94, 102. 

3.  THE APPLICATION OF CARTER, AT LEAST BEFORE THE AMENDMENTS
INTRODUCED SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRESENT LITIGATION,
CAN NOT BE CONSTRUED AS EMBRACING STRUCTURES NOT CONFORMING TO THE
ABRAHAM FORMULA.  AND THE ATTEMPT BY AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE CLAIMS,
BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA (DERIVED FROM THE
ABRAHAM FORMULA) TO WIRE LENGTHS NOT MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS,
MUST FAIL, BECAUSE IT INVOLVED A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT CARTER'S
APPLICATION HAD DESCRIBED AS HIS INVENTION, AND A CONTRADICTION OF IT.
P. 98. 

4.  IT IS UNNECESSARY IN THIS CASE TO DECIDE THE FURTHER QUESTION
WHETHER PETITIONER'S STRUCTURES AVOID INFRINGEMENT BECAUSE THE
DIRECTION OF THEIR PRINCIPAL RADIO ACTIVITY IS NOT IN THE PLANE OF THE
WIRES.  P. 102. 

MACKAY RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO. V. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 582, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH MODIFIED AND
REVERSED A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 16 F.SUPP.  610, DISMISSING
THE BILL IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN INFRINGEMENTS OF PATENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT* . 

*OPINION REPORTED AS AMENDED BY ORDER OF MARCH 6, 1939, POST, P.
618. 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR DECISION BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
ARE WHETHER THE CARTER PATENT, NO. 1,974,387, OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1934,
FOR A DIRECTIVE ANTENNA SYSTEM FOR USE IN RADIO COMMUNICATION, IS VALID
AND IS INFRINGED BY ANTENNAE STRUCTURES USED BY PETITIONER IN SUCH
COMMUNICATION. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN
NEW YORK TO ENJOIN INFRINGEMENTS OF FOUR PATENTS RELATING TO RADIO
ANTENNAE OR THEIR OPERATION.  TWO WERE THOSE OF CARTER AND TWO THOSE OF
LINDENBLAD.  OF THESE ONLY THE SECOND LINDENBLAD PATENT, NO. 1,927,522,
OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1933, FOR AN ANTENNA FOR RADIO COMMUNICATION, IS OF
PRESENT IMPORTANCE.  WHEN THE SUIT WAS BEGUN THE APPLICATION FOR THE
THIRD CARTER PATENT, WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED, WAS
PENDING.  AFTER PETITIONER HAD ANSWERED AND RESPONDENT, AS A RESULT OF
THE LITIGATION, HAD ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE
STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF PETITIONER'S ANTENNAE, CARTER, RESPONDENT'S
ASSIGNOR, AMENDED THE STATEMENT OF HIS INVENTION IN HIS APPLICATION SO
AS IN TERMS TO EMBRACE A DIFFERENTIATING FEATURE OF PETITIONER'S
STRUCTURES.  AFTER THIS PATENT WAS ISSUED RESPONDENT WAS PERMITTED TO
FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL CHARGING INFRINGEMENT OF IT.  THE SUITS WERE
CONSOLIDATED, AND THE PARTIES PROCEEDED TO TRIAL ON THE ISSUES OF THE
VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT OF ALL FIVE PATENTS. 

AFTER TAKING THE VOLUMINOUS TESTIMONY OF NUMEROUS WITNESSES, THE
TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT NONE OF THE PATENTS IN SUIT WAS INFRINGED AND
DECREED THAT THE SUITS BE DISMISSED.  16 F.SUPP.  610.  IT HELD THAT
NONE OF THEM WAS A PIONEER PATENT; THAT NONE HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY ANY
ONE; THAT RESPONDENT'S COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES DID NOT FOLLOW THE
TEACHINGS OF ANY OF THEM; AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED
TO A BROAD CONSTRUCTION.  WITH RESPECT TO THE CARTER PATENT IN SUIT IT
SAID:  "THE DISCLOSURE AND THE CLAIMS WERE BROADENED NOT ONLY CONTRARY
TO THEIR ORIGINAL TERMINOLOGY BUT TO THEIR SPIRIT AS WELL."  AND "  ...
BY THOSE AMENDMENTS THE PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOLD THE THIRD CARTER
PATENT BOTH AS TO DISCLOSURE AND CLAIMS, TO COVER DEFENDANT'S ANTENNA
SYSTEMS.  THIS COULD NOT LAWFULLY BE DONE." 

ON APPEAL FROM SO MUCH OF THE DECREE AS RELATED TO THE SECOND
LINDENBLAD PATENT AND THE THIRD CARTER PATENT, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED AS TO THE LINDENBLAD PATENT, BUT REVERSED
AS TO THE CARTER PATENT, HOLDING CLAIMS 15 AND 16 VALID AND INFRINGED. 
96 F.2D 587.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 582, BECAUSE OF THE
NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE, ON A PETITION WHICH URGED AS GROUNDS
FOR ITS ALLOWANCE THAT VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT OF THE CARTER PATENT
WERE IN DOUBT AND THAT, AS PETITIONER IS THE ONLY COMPETITOR OF
RESPONDENT IN THE BUSINESS OF WORLD WIDE PUBLIC RADIO COMMUNICATION,
FURTHER LITIGATION, RESULTING IN CONFLICT OF DECISION AMONG CIRCUITS,
WAS IMPROBABLE. 

IN ORDINARY BROADCASTING, RADIO WAVES ARE PROJECTED IN ALL DIRECTIONS
FROM THE SENDING STATION.  IN RADIO COMMUNICATION IT IS ADVANTAGEOUS
AND HAS LONG BEEN THE PRACTICE TO USE A DIRECTIVE ANTENNA BY WHICH THE
WAVES OF RADIO ACTIVITY EMANATING FROM IT ARE PROJECTED AS A BEAM IN
THE DIRECTION OF THE RECEIVING STATION.  IN PRACTICE THE BEAM IS
DIRECTED AT AN ANGLE FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TOWARD THE IONIZED LAYER
OF THE STRATOSPHERE, OR HEAVISIDE LAYER, FROM WHICH THE BEAM IS
DEFLECTED TOWARD THE EARTH'S SURFACE IN THE COMPASS DIRECTION OF THE
RECEIVING STATION.  IN MORE RECENT YEARS IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE TO
USE RELATIVELY SHORT WAVE LENGTHS FOR RADIO COMMUNICATION. 

THE RADIO WAVES ARE GENERATED AT THE SENDING STATION BY FEEDING AN
OSCILLATING ELECTRIC CURRENT OF APPROPRIATE CHARACTER INTO THE WIRE OR
WIRES OF THE ANTENNA.  THE ELECTRIC WAVES IN THE WIRES ENERGIZE RADIO
ACTIVITY, WHICH THE ANTENNA PROJECTS AS RADIO WAVES TOWARD THE
RECEIVING STATION.  BY MODULATING OR INTERRUPTING THE CURRENT,
CORRESPONDING MODULATION OR INTERRUPTION OF THE RADIO WAVES IS
EFFECTED, WHICH MAY BE USED AS A MEANS OF TRANSMITTING ANY DESIRED
SIGNAL.  THE WAVES, AS MODULATED, IMPINGE ON THE ANTENNA OF THE
RECEIVING STATION DEVISED TO RECEIVE AND UTILIZE THEM AS A MEANS OF
CONTROLLING, WITH CORRESPONDING MODULATION, AN ELECTRIC CURRENT WHICH
IN TURN ACTUATES A MECHANISM CONTRIVED TO GIVE AUDIBLE OR VISUAL
EXPRESSION TO THE TRANSMITTED SIGNAL. 

THE EFFECTIVE PART OF THE ANTENNA IS A COPPER WIRE FROM WHICH THE
RADIO WAVES ARE RADIATED, SUPPORTED ON TOWERS OR POLES AT A HEIGHT
ABOVE THE GROUND DEPENDING ON THE WAVE LENGTH USED.  THE WIRE MAY BE
PARALLEL WITH THE EARTH, OR VERTICAL, OR ARRANGED AT AN ANGLE,
DEPENDING UPON THE FUNCTION TO BE PERFORMED.  BEFORE CARTER, ANTENNAE
OF TWO OR MORE WIRES IN VARYING ARRANGEMENT HAD BEEN USED.  THE SECOND
LINDENBLAD PATENT SHOWED AN ANTENNA OF TWO WIRES ARRANGED AT AN ANGLE
IN THE FORM OF A V OR AN X, AND IT POINTED OUT THAT IN SUCH AN
ARRANGEMENT RADIATION WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE AXIS OR
BISECTOR OF THE ANGLE OF THE DIVERGING WIRES, AND THAT "THE SPACING AT
THE OPEN END (OF THE WIRES), WHILE VARIABLE OVER A GREAT RANGE, SHOULD
BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF A FIFTH OF THE LENGTH, AND THE LENGTH OF EACH
ANTENNA SECTION SHOULD BE OF THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF FIVE TO TEN
WAVES LONG." 

WHILE SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT PROJECTS THE RADIO WAVES PRINCIPALLY IN TWO
DIRECTIONS ALONG THE BISECTOR OF THE ANGLE OF THE ANTENNA WIRES, THE
PRIOR ART HAD MADE USE OF AN ARRANGEMENT OF WIRES, PARALLEL TO THE
WIRES OF THE ANGULAR ANTENNA, AS A "REFLECTOR" BY WHICH THE RADIATION
WAS PROJECTED AS A BEAM IN ONE DIRECTION AWAY FROM THE REFLECTOR AND
ALONG THE BISECTOR OF THE ANGLE OF THE WIRES. 

THE PRESENT CARTER PATENT IS FOR AN "ANTENNA SYSTEM UTILIZING
STANDING WAVE PHENOMENA."  LIKE THE SECOND LINDENBLAD PATENT, IT IS
CONCERNED WITH A V ANTENNA BY WHICH THE PRINCIPAL RADIATION IS DIRECTED
IN THE PLANE OF THE WIRES ALONG THE BISECTOR OF THEIR ANGLE.  THE
DISCLOSURE OF THE PATENT, IN WHICH THE COURT BELOW FOUND INVENTION, WAS
THAT THE BEST DIRECTIONAL RADIO PROPAGATION BY THE V TYPE ANTENNA IS
OBTAINED WITH A STRUCTURE IN WHICH THE ANGLE OF THE WIRES, THEIR
LENGTH, AND THE LENGTH OF WAVE PROPAGATED ARE IN A DEFINITE
MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIP EXPRESSED BY A FORMULA DISCLOSED IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS. 

IN EXPLAINING HIS INVENTION, CARTER POINTED OUT THAT "IT IS KNOWN
THAT WHEN A WIRE HAVING A LENGTH GREATER THAN THE OPERATING WAVE LENGTH
IS EXCITED IN SUCH MANNER THAT STANDING WAVES ARE PRODUCED THEREON,
RADIATION WILL OCCUR PRINCIPALLY IN THE DIRECTION OF SYMMETRICAL CONES
HAVING THEIR APICES AT THE CENTER OF THE WIRE.  SUCH IS THE CASE WITH A
WIRE HAVING A LENGTH EQUAL TO A PLURALITY OF ONE-HALF WAVE LENGTHS AT
THE OPERATING FREQUENCY.  THE RADIATION PATTERN PRODUCED IN SUCH
INSTANCE APPEARS, IN CROSS SECTION, IN THE FORM OF SYMMETRICAL CONES
ABOUT THE WIRE.  THE PRESENT INVENTION, WHICH MAKES USE OF THESE
PHENOMENA, IN ITS MOST SIMPLE ASPECT EMPLOYS A PAIR OF OPEN-ENDED WIRES
ENERGIZED IN PHASE OPPOSITION TO HAVE STANDING WAVES THROUGHOUT THE
LENGTH OF THE WIRES, THE WIRES HAVING SUCH ANGULAR RELATION WITH
RESPECT TO EACH OTHER AS TO OBTAIN A HIGHLY DIRECTIONAL, EFFICIENT AND
SIMPLE ANTENNA SYSTEM."  FN1 

THE PATENT STATES THE MATHEMATICAL FORMULA BY WHICH THE DESIRED
RELATIONSHIP IS SECURED, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE APPROPRIATE ANGLE BETWEEN
EACH OF THE ANTENNA WIRES AND THEIR BISECTOR DEPENDS UPON THE WAVE
LENGTH TO BE PROPAGATED AND THE USE OF ANTENNA WIRES OF A LENGTH WHICH
IS A MULTIPLE OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS.  FN2 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FORMULA LIES IN THE FACT THAT THE ANGLE
BETWEEN THE WIRE AND THE DIRECTION OF GREATEST RADIO ACTIVITY IS A
TRIGONOMETRICAL FUNCTION OF TWO VARIABLES, THE WAVE LENGTH USED AND THE
"NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS CONTAINED IN THE WIRE," AND THAT, AS THE
APPLICATION STATED, THE USE OF THE FORMULA IN PRACTICE PRESUPPOSES THE
USE OF A WIRE WHOSE LENGTH IS A MULTIPLE OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS.  THE
PATENT THEN EXPLAINS THAT THE ANGLE $* OF THE FORMULA IS THE ANGLE
BETWEEN EACH WIRE OF THE V ANTENNA AND ITS BISECTOR - IN OTHER WORDS,
THAT THE ANGLE OF THE WIRES OF THE ANTENNA IS TWICE $* AND HENCE, LIKE
THE ANGLE OF THE FORMULA, IS A FUNCTION OF THE WAVE LENGTH AND THE
LENGTH OF THE WIRES, WHICH ARE EACH A MULTIPLE OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS
LONG. 

CARTER DID NOT INVENT THE FORMULA.  IT HAD BEEN DEVELOPED BY ABRAHAM
AND PUBLISHED IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL THIRTY YEARS BEFORE.  ANNALEN DER
PHYSIK, 1898, PHYSIKALISCHE ZEITSCHRIFT, MARCH 2, 1901.  ABRAHAM'S
FORMULA EXPRESSED THE SCIENTIFIC TRUTH THAT WHEN RADIO ACTIVITY IS
PROJECTED FROM A CHARGED WIRE OF FINITE LENGTH, I.E., ONE HAVING
STANDING WAVES, AND HAVING A LENGTH OF A MULTIPLE OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS,
THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE DIRECTION OF THE PRINCIPAL RADIO ACTIVITY AND THE
WIRE IS DEPENDENT ON WAVE LENGTH AND WIRE LENGTH, WHICH IS A MULTIPLE
OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS.  LINDENBLAD HAD DESCRIBED HIS ANTENNA AS USING
EITHER STANDING OR TRAVELING WAVES AND, AS WE HAVE SEEN, HAD TAUGHT
THAT WITH AN ARRANGEMENT OF ANTENNA WIRES AT AN ANGLE, RADIATION WILL
OCCUR SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE DIRECTION OF THE BISECTOR OF THE ANGLE AND
THAT THE PREFERRED ANGLE WAS DEPENDENT UPON AN INDICATED RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN WIRE LENGTH AND WAVE LENGTH. 

IT IS PLAIN, THEREFORE, THAT THE CARTER INVENTION, IF IT WAS
INVENTION, CONSISTED IN TAKING THE ANGLE OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA AS THE
ANGLE BETWEEN EACH WIRE OF THE V ANTENNA AND ITS BISECTOR.  BY SO DOING
HE BROUGHT THE CONES OF PRINCIPAL RADIO ACTIVITY, EACH HAVING ONE OF
THE WIRES OF THE ANTENNA AS ITS AXIS, INTO CONJUNCTION AT THEIR
PERIPHERY AND ALONG THE BISECTOR OF THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE WIRES, AND
THUS ESTABLISHED THERE THE GREATEST DIRECTIONAL RADIO ACTIVITY. 

WHILE A SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, OR THE MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION OF IT, IS
NOT PATENTABLE INVENTION, A NOVEL AND USEFUL STRUCTURE CREATED WITH THE
AID OF KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTH MAY BE.  BUT WE DO NOT STOP TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM WHETHER IT WAS MORE THAN THE SKILL OF THE ART TO
COMBINE THE TEACHING OF ABRAHAM WITH THAT OF LINDENBLAD AND OTHERS WHO
HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE WIRES AT AN ANGLE ENHANCED
DIRECTIONAL RADIO ACTIVITY ALONG THEIR BISECTOR.  WE ASSUME, WITHOUT
DECIDING THE POINT, THAT THIS ADVANCE WAS INVENTION EVEN THOUGH IT WAS
ACHIEVED BY THE LOGICAL APPLICATION OF A KNOWN SCIENTIFIC LAW TO A
FAMILIAR TYPE OF ANTENNA.  BUT IT IS APPARENT THAT IF THIS ASSUMPTION
IS CORRECT THE INVENTION WAS A NARROW ONE, CONSISTING OF A STRUCTURE
CONFORMING TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA AS TO ANGLE AND WIRE
LENGTH RELATIVE TO WAVE LENGTH, AND IS TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED WITH
REGARD BOTH TO PRIOR ART AND TO ALLEGED INFRINGING DEVICES.  KOKOMO
FENCE MACHINE CO. V. KITSELMAN, 189 U.S. 8; CIMIOTTI UNHAIRING CO. V.
AMERICAN FUR REFINING CO., 198 U.S. 399.  CARTER'S STRUCTURE WAS A V
ANTENNA HAVING AN ANGLE DOUBLE THE ABRAHAM ANGLE AND WIRES CONTAINING A
MULTIPLE OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS. 

CARTER, USING THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, CALCULATED THE VALUE OF THE ANGLE
$* IN THAT FORMULA FOR WIRES UP TO FOURTEEN WAVE LENGTHS LONG.  HE
PLOTTED THE RESULT, WHICH HE EXPRESSED GRAPHICALLY IN FIGURE 12 OF THE
PATENT BY DRAWING A SMOOTH CURVE CONNECTING THE DISCRETE POINTS ON THE
GRAPH WHICH INDICATED THE RESULTS OF HIS COMPUTATION BY USE OF THE
ABRAHAM FORMULA.  FROM THIS CALCULATION HE DERIVED A FORMULA IN
EMPIRICAL FORM  FN3  FOR DETERMINING THE DESIRED ANGLE WHEN WAVE LENGTH
AND LENGTH OF WIRE ARE KNOWN, IN WHICH THE ANGLE BETWEEN THE WIRES IS
DESCRIBED AS TWICE A, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE ANGLE $* OF THE
ABRAHAM FORMULA. 

PETITIONER USES ANTENNAE WITH WIRES IN V ARRANGEMENT, BUT THEIR WIRES
ARE NOT AN INTEGRAL NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS LONG, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF ONE ANTENNA, NO. 8, WHICH IS FOUR WAVE LENGTHS LONG AND
USES AN ANGLE 10% SMALLER THAN THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE ABRAHAM FORMULA
FOR THAT LENGTH OF WIRE.  THE OTHERS ARE OF LENGTHS WHICH ARE
APPROXIMATELY MULTIPLES OF QUARTER WAVE LENGTHS, AND THEIR ANGLES
DIFFER FROM THE ANGLES OF THE FORMULA.  THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IN THE
CASE IS WHETHER A V ANTENNA STRUCTURE, HAVING A WIRE LENGTH TO WHICH
THE ABRAHAM FORMULA DOES NOT APPLY AND USING AN ANGLE NOT TO BE DERIVED
FROM THAT FORMULA, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE PATENT, INFRINGES CARTER'S
PATENT.  RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT IT DOES, BECAUSE, AS IT ARGUES, THE
INVENTION DISCLOSED BY CARTER'S APPLICATION, ELABORATED BY AMENDMENT
AND BROAD CLAIMS, EMBRACES ALL V ANTENNAE ARRANGED AT AN ANGLE DOUBLE
THE ANGLE OF THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA, EVEN THOUGH THE LENGTH OF THE WIRES
IS NOT AN EXACT MULTIPLE OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS, AS PRESCRIBED BY THE
ABRAHAM FORMULA.  THIS IS THE INVENTION OF CLAIM 15,  FN4  AND IT IS
URGED THAT THE CLAIM IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE STATEMENT IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS APPEARING IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT THE EMPIRICAL
FORMULA REPRESENTED BY THE PLOTTED CURVE OF FIGURE 12 OF THE PATENT
"WILL BE FOUND ACCURATE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES WHERE THE LENGTH OF
WIRE DEALT WITH DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO A WHOLE NUMBER OF HALF WAVE
LENGTHS."    THE TRIAL COURT, ANALYZING CARTER'S APPLICATION AND TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT THE ESSENTIALS OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA AND THE STATEMENT IN
THE APPLICATION THAT THE "OBJECT OF THE PRESENT INVENTION IS TO
DISCLOSE THE PROPER ANGLE FOR CONDUCTORS OR RADIATORS" MEASURED IN
MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS, EVIDENTLY THOUGHT, AS PETITIONER
ARGUES, THAT THE REFERENCES IN THE APPLICATION TO "WIRES OF FINITE"
FN5  LENGTH AND TO WIRES "OF ANY LENGTH WHATSOEVER"  FN6  WERE INTENDED
ONLY TO REFER TO WIRES OF ELECTRICALLY FINITE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
ELECTRICALLY INFINITE LENGTH, CAPABLE OF PRODUCING STANDING WAVES
UTILIZED BY THE ANTENNA OF THE PATENT, AND OF ANY LENGTH CONFORMING TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF TEH BASIC FORMULA.  FN7  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPLICATION WAS THAT THE INVENTION
DESCRIBED DID NOT GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA AND SO
EXTENDED ONLY TO THE ANGLES CALCULABLE BY THAT FORMULA FOR STANDING
WAVE WIRES MEASURED BY MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS.  SUPPORT IS
GIVEN TO THIS CONCLUSION BY THE STATEMENT IN THE APPLICATION THAT "THE
LAW, GIVING THE CORRECT ANGLE FOR LENGTHS BETWEEN ODD AND EVEN NUMBER
OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS, IS NOT GIVEN DUE TO ITS COMPLEXITY  ...  " 

THE COURT OF APPEALS PLACED EMPHASIS ON THE REFERENCE TO "WIRES OF
ANY FINITE LENGTH" AND ON THE STATEMENT THAT "THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA AND
THE CURVE OF FIGURE 12 WILL BE FOUND ACCURATE FOR ALL PRACTICAL
PURPOSES, WHERE THE LENGTH OF WIRE DEALT WITH DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO A
WHOLE NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS."  IT HELD THAT THE INVENTION
DISCLOSED WAS THE APPLICATION OF THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA TO ALL LENGTHS
OF ANTENNA WIRES AND EMBRACED ALL ANGLES RESULTING FROM SUCH
CALCULATION, AND THAT THE INVENTION WAS CONSEQUENTLY INFRINGED BY
PETITIONER'S STRUCTURES. 

WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE PATENTEE, BY THESE
REFERENCES TO WIRE LENGTHS IN HIS APPLICATION, TO EXTEND HIS PATENT TO
STRUCTURES NOT CONFORMING TO THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO
CONSTRUE THE APPLICATION, BEFORE AMENDMENT AT LEAST, AS EMBRACING SUCH
AN EXTENSION.  AND WE THINK THAT THE ATTEMPT TO EXTEND THE CLAIMS,
BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA, TO WIRE LENGTHS NOT
MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS, MUST FAIL, BECAUSE SUCH STRUCTURES ARE
NOT WITHIN THE INVENTION DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION. 

THE FORMULA IN CLAIMS 15 AND 16 IS THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA DERIVED FROM
THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, WHICH IS, BY ITS TERMS, APPLICABLE ONLY TO ANTENNA
WIRES WHICH ARE MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS LONG.  CARTER'S
EMPIRICAL FORMULA, WHOLLY DERIVED FROM ABRAHAM'S FORMULA, AND TAKEN
TOGETHER WITH IT, THEREFORE DISCLOSES NO INVENTION OR DISCOVERY MORE
THAN THE APPLICATION OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA TO THE V ANTENNA.  IT
REVEALS NO SCIENTIFIC LAW APPLICABLE TO WIRE LENGTHS WHICH ARE
INTERMEDIATE OF MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS, AND THE APPLICATION
EXPLICITLY STATES THAT "THE LAW, GIVING THE CORRECT ANGLE FOR LENGTHS
BETWEEN ODD AND EVEN NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS, IS NOT GIVEN."  THE
PREPARATION, BY METHODS FAMILIAR TO ENGINEERS, OF THE GRAPH IN FIGURE
12, WHICH WAS BUT A PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA
APPLIED TO CERTAIN WIRE LENGTHS SPECIFIED IN THE FORMULA, DID NOT
INVOLVE INVENTION.  NEITHER THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA NOR ITS GRAPH GIVES
ANY CLUE TO THE DIRECTIONAL RADIO ACTIVITY RESULTING FROM THE USE OF
WIRE LENGTHS INTERMEDIATE OF MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS, WHICH WERE
EXCLUDED BY THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, AND NEITHER AFFORDED ANY BASIS FOR A
CLAIM OF INVENTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE USE OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA
ITSELF. 

THE CLAIMED USE OF THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE
ANGLE FOR WIRES WHICH ARE NOT MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS LONG THUS
INVOLVED A DEPARTURE FROM WHAT CARTER'S APPLICATION HAD DESCRIBED AS
HIS INVENTION, AND A CONTRADICTION OF IT.  WHAT CARTER DID WAS TO
DESCRIBE HIS STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF ITS DIMENSIONS, ARRIVED AT BY THE
USE OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, WHICH WAS STATED TO EMBODY THE APPLICABLE
SCIENTIFIC LAW.  HE THEN DERIVED THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA FROM ABRAHAM. 
FROM THE VERY METHOD OF DERIVATION THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA MEANT NOTHING
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF ABRAHAM.  HE THEN DECLARED THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA
TO EMBODY A METHOD OF ARRIVING AT THE MEASUREMENTS OF A STRUCTURE
DIFFERENT FROM THE STRUCTURE FIRST DESCRIBED AS THE INVENTION AND NOT
CAPABLE OF CONSTRUCTION BY THE METHOD OF THE ABRAHAM FORMULA.  IF, AS A
RESULT OF THIS LEGERDEMAIN, A V ANTENNA HAVING WIRE LENGTHS A MULTIPLE
OF ANY FRACTIONAL WAVE LENGTH IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE INVENTION OF
CARTER'S APPLICATION, THEN EVERYTHING THAT IT SAID OF THE ABRAHAM
FORMULA AND OF WIRES "EITHER AN EVEN NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS LONG
OR AN ODD NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS LONG" COULD BE DISCARDED WITHOUT
CHANGING ITS MEANING.  FN8 

THIS ATTEMPT TO BROADEN THE ONLY INVENTION DESCRIBED IN THE
APPLICATION THROUGH A PURELY MECHANICAL ALTERATION OF THE MEANING OF
THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA, WHICH HAD BEEN DEVISED AS A SHORTHAND EXPRESSION
OF THE SCIENTIFIC LAW ON WHICH THE INVENTION WAS DECLARED TO REST,
CANNOT, WE THINK, BE TAKEN TO ENLARGE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
AS MEASURED BY THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, SO AS TO INCLUDE A STRUCTURE TO
WHICH THAT FORMULA DOES NOT APPLY.  THIS USE OF THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA
FOR A PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS NOT DEVISED DOES NOT JUSTIFY OUR
CONSTRUING THE APPLICATION AS THOUGH ALL REFERENCE TO THE ABRAHAM
FORMULA HAD BEEN ELIMINATED AND A NEW AND DIFFERENT ONE EXPRESSING A
NEW AND DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC LAW HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR IT.  THE
RESULT OF READING THE APPLICATION AS RESPONDENT CONTENDS IT SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS THOUGH FULL EFFECT WERE GIVEN TO A
CLAIM WHICH GOES BEYOND THE INVENTION DESCRIBED, AND IT IS OPEN TO THE
SAME OBJECTION. 

AFTER THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT THE APPLICATION WAS ALTERED BY
AMENDMENT SO AS IN EFFECT TO WIPE OUT ALL REFERENCE TO THE SCIENTIFIC
LAW BY WHICH CARTER'S INVENTION WAS DEFINED.  THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY
CHANGES WHICH IMPLICITLY ASSERT THAT THE LETTER N OF THE FORMULA OF THE
INVENTION, THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, MEANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM "THE
NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS CONTAINED IN THE WIRE" OF A LENGTH OF
MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS AS STATED BOTH IN THE APPLICATION AND IN
THE PATENT. 

THE REFERENCE IN THE APPLICATION TO THE PURPOSE OF THE INVENTION TO
DISCLOSE THE "PROPER ANGLE" FOR RADIATORS OF MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE
LENGTHS LONG WAS ALTERED BY ELIMINATING FROM IT ALL MENTION OF HALF
WAVE LENGTHS.  FN9  A SENTENCE ADDED AFTER FORMAL ALLOWANCE OF THE
PATENT STATES: "BY THE TERM 'PLURALITY OF WAVE LENGTHS', OR 'PLURALITY
OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS', OR 'SEVERAL HALF WAVE LENGTHS', IT IS NOT
INTENDED THAT THE WIRES SO DESCRIBED SHALL NECESSARILY BE AN EXACT OR
APPROPRIATE INTEGRAL NUMBER OF SUCH LENGTHS, UNLESS SO SPECIFIED, BUT
RATHER THAT EACH OF THE WIRES SO DESCRIBED SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY LONG
TO INCLUDE THE LENGTHS SPECIFIED."  THESE AMENDMENTS OPERATED TO MODIFY
THE ABRAHAM FORMULA SO AS TO CANCEL FROM THE APPLICATION THE STATEMENT
OF THE SCIENTIFIC LAW DEFINING THE INVENTION.  THEY LEFT AS ITS
DEFINITION THE MODIFIED ABRAHAM FORMULA AND ITS COUNTERPART, THE
EMPIRICAL FORMULA, STATING A DIFFERENT LAW WHICH THEIR GENESIS DID NOT
AUTHORIZE. 

WE THINK THAT THESE ALTERATIONS WERE NOT PERMISSIBLE.  SCHRIBER
SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO., 305 U.S. 47, AND THAT WITHOUT THEM
THE INVENTION MUST BE TAKEN TO BE LIMITED TO A STRUCTURE HAVING AN
ANGLE DOUBLE THAT DISCLOSED BY THE ABRAHAM FORMULA, WHICH WAS MADE THE
BASIS OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION.  AS ALREADY SHOWN, NEITHER THE ABRAHAM
FORMULA NOR THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA DESCRIBES, OR PURPORTS TO DESCRIBE,
THE DIRECTIONAL RADIO ACTIVITY OR DEFINES THE ANGLE WHICH AFFORDS "THE
BEST DIRECTIONAL PROPAGATION" OF THE PATENT FOR ANTENNAE OF WIRE
LENGTHS INTERMEDIATE OF MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS.  THE EXPERT
TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT IN FACT NEITHER FORMULA SERVES THAT PURPOSE.  THE
FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THEY DO NOT MAKE "A CORRECT SHOWING OF
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE WIRES ARE OTHER THAN EXACT MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE
LENGTHS" IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  THE TESTIMONY WARRANTS THE
CONCLUSION THAT DIFFERENCES IN WAVE EFFECT ALREADY NOTED, FN10  WHEN
WIRES OF OTHER THAN EXACT MULTIPLES OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS ARE USED,
PRODUCE, THROUGH CONSEQUENT CHANGES IN "RADIATION RESISTANCE,"
DIFFERENCES IN DIRECTIONAL RADIO ACTIVITY NOT CALCULABLE BY THE
FORMULAE OF THE PATENT.  IT FOLLOWS THAT CLAIMS 15 AND 16, SO FAR AS
THEY CLAIM ANTENNAE OF WIRE LENGTHS INTERMEDIATE OF MULTIPLES OF HALF
WAVE LENGTHS, ARE INVALID.  SO FAR AS THE PATENT DISCLOSES AND CLAIMS
INVENTION OF A STRUCTURE MADE IN CONFORMITY TO THE ABRAHAM FORMULA,
PETITIONER'S STRUCTURES DO NOT INFRINGE, FOR NONE OF THEM CONFORMS TO
THE ABRAHAM FORMULA. 

FOR REASONS ALREADY INDICATED IT IS NOT MATERIAL THAT THE VARIATIONS
ARE SMALL BETWEEN THE ANGLES USED BY PETITIONER FOR WIRE LENGTHS OF
MULTIPLES OF QUARTER WAVE LENGTHS AND THOSE OBTAINED BY APPLICATION OF
THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA.  FURTHER, CARTER'S ADVANCE OVER PRIOR ART WAS IN
SPECIFYING AN EXACT ANGLE FOR WIRES OF THE PRESCRIBED LENGTH. 
LINDENBLAD HAD INDICATED A PREFERRED ANGLE, AND BRUCE, BEFORE CARTER,
HAD PLOTTED A RULE OF THUMB GRAPH, WHICH THE TRIAL COURT FOUND TO BE
PRIOR ART, SHOWING THE DIRECTIONAL RADIO ACTIVITY OF A V ANTENNA AND
EXHIBITING RELATIVELY SMALL VARIATIONS FROM THAT OF CARTER.  CARTER,
AVOIDING PRIOR ART BY DEFINING HIS ANGLE FOR ANTENNAE WITH WIRES OF
PARTICULAR WAVE LENGTHS WITH MATHEMATICAL PRECISION, CANNOT DISCARD
THAT PRECISION TO ESTABLISH INFRINGEMENT.  KOKOMO FENCE MACHINE CO. V.
KITSELMAN, SUPRA; CIMIOTTI UNHAIRING CO. V. AMERICAN FUR REFINING CO.,
SUPRA, CF. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CORP., 304 U.S. 364. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE FURTHER QUESTION WHETHER
PETITIONER'S STRUCTURES AVOID INFRINGEMENT BECAUSE THE DIRECTION OF
THEIR PRINCIPAL RADIO ACTIVITY IS NOT IN THE PLANE OF THE WIRES, AN
OPERATIVE DIFFERENCE FROM THE ANTENNAE DESCRIBED BY THE PATENT WHICH
THE COURT BELOW FOUND TO BE DUE WHOLLY TO GROUND EFFECT, WHICH IT
THOUGHT MUST BE ASSUMED TO BE ENVISAGED BY, THOUGH NOT STATED IN, THE
CARTER PATENT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISCLOSURE AND OTHER FEATURES OF THE PATENT
REQUIRES A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF ITS TERMS.  THE TERM "LONG," AS APPLIED
TO AN ANTENNA, MEANS A WIRE WHICH IS LONG IN RELATION TO THE WAVE
LENGTH USED.  THE TERM "STANDING WAVES," AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
"TRAVELING WAVES," DESCRIBES THE PHENOMENON MANIFESTED WHEN AN
OSCILLATING ELECTRIC CURRENT OF RADIO FREQUENCY IS COMMUNICATED TO ONE
END OF A WIRE WHICH IS OPEN AT THE OTHER (THAT IS, NOT IN A CLOSED
CIRCUIT) AND SUFFICIENTLY SHORT SO THAT THE WAVES HAVE NOT COMPLETELY
RADIATED THEIR ENERGY BEFORE REACHING THE END OF THE WIRE.  THE WAVES
WILL THEN BE REFLECTED BACK ALONG THE WIRE, AND THE ENERGY OF THE
REFLECTED WAVES TENDS TO UNITE WITH THAT OF THE ONCOMING WAVES OF THE
SAME PERIODICITY, SO AS TO PRODUCE STANDING WAVES ALONG THE WIRE.  AS
THE VELOCITY OF THE RADIO WAVE IN SPACE IS APPROXIMATELY THAT OF THE
CURRENT WAVES IN THE WIRE, THE NUMBER OF COMPLETE STANDING WAVES ON THE
WIRE IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE LENGTH OF THE WIRE DIVIDED BY
THE WAVE LENGTH.  WHEN THE LENGTH OF THE WIRE IS A MULTIPLE OF HALF
WAVE LENGTHS, THE ONCOMING AND REFLECTED WAVES, TRAVELING AT THE SAME
VELOCITY, OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY, DIFFERING IN THIS RESPECT FROM THE
WAVES IN A WIRE OF A LENGTH INTERMEDIATE A MULTIPLE OF HALF WAVE
LENGTHS, AND WITH DIFFERENT EFFECTS UPON THE RESULTING RADIO ENERGY,
PRESENTLY TO BE NOTED. 

WHEN OSCILLATING CURRENT IS SO RELATED TO THE LENGTH OF WIRE THAT THE
ENERGY OF THE FORMER IS EXHAUSTED BY RADIATION BEFORE OR WHEN THE WAVES
REACH THE END OF THE WIRE, THERE IS NO REFLECTION OF THE WAVES, AND
THEY TRAVEL IN ONE DIRECTION ONLY TOWARD THE OPEN END OF THE WIRE. 
THEY ARE DENOMINATED "TRAVELING WAVES."  IN PROFESSIONAL PARLANCE,
WIRES PRODUCING REFLECTED, AND HENCE "STANDING" WAVES, ARE ELECTRICALLY
OF FINITE LENGTH.  THOSE OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH  TO AVOID REFLECTION AND
THUS CARRY WAVES FLOWING IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION ARE SAID TO BE
ELECTRICALLY OF INFINITE LENGTH. 

FN2  THE SPECIFICATIONS STATE:  "BY CONSIDERING A LONG WIRE THE
EQUIVALENT OF A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF VERY SHORT, (HERTZ) OSCILLATORS
AND BY ADDING UP THE FIELD COMPONENTS AT ANY POINT P HAVING A DIRECTION
ANGLE $* RELATIVE TO THE AXIS OF THE WIRE, WHERE THE POINT P IS A GREAT
DISTANCE FROM THE WIRE AS COMPARED TO THE LENGTH OF THE WIRE SUCH THAT
ALL LINES FROM POINT P TO ANY POINT ON THE WIRE ARE ESSENTIALLY
PARALLEL, IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE FIELD STRENGTH H IS GIVEN BY THE
FOLLOWING PROPORTIONALITY FOR A CONDUCTOR AN ODD NUMBER OF HALF WAVE
LENGTHS LONG: 

(CHART OMITTED) 

"THE LETTER 'N' INDICATES THE NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS CONTAINED
IN THE WIRE. 

"FOR A WIRE AN EVEN NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS LONG, IN SIMILAR
FASHION, THE FIELD STRENGTH 'H' IS GIVEN BY THE FOLLOWING
PROPORTIONALITY: 

(CHART OMITTED) 

"WHERE N AS ABOVE INDICATES THE NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS ON THE
WIRE." 

FN3  "FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA 

(CHART OMITTED)  IS SUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE WHERE L EQUALS THE LENGTH
OF THE WIRE AND $* THE WAVE LENGTH, BOTH IN THE SAME UNITS OF
MEASUREMENT." 

FN4  "15.  AN ANTENNA COMPRISING A PAIR OF RELATIVELY LONG CONDUCTORS
DISPOSED WITH RESPECT TO EACH OTHER AT AN ANGLE SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO
TWICE 

(CHART OMITTED)  DEGREES, L BEING THE LENGTH OF THE WIRE AND $* THE
OPERATING WAVE LENGTH IN LIKE UNITS, AND MEANS IN CIRCUIT WITH SAID
ANTENNA FOR EXCITING THE CONDUCTORS IN PHASE OPPOSITION WHEREBY
STANDING WAVES OF OPPOSITE INSTANTANEOUS POLARITY ARE FORMED ON THE
CONDUCTORS THROUGHOUT THEIR LENGTH."    CLAIM 16 CLAIMS AN ANTENNA
ARRANGED IN CONFORMITY TO THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA, AS IN CLAIM 15, WITH
"A SIMILAR PARALLEL PAIR OF CONDUCTORS SPACED AN ODD NUMBER OF QUARTER
WAVE LENGTHS AWAY FROM SAID FIRST MENTIONED PAIR  ...  "  THESE
PARALLEL WIRES CONSTITUTE THE "REFLECTOR," WHICH, AS ALREADY NOTED, WAS
OLD IN THE ART. 

FN5  "STILL A FURTHER OBJECT OF THE PRESENT INVENTION IS TO DISCLOSE
THE PROPER ANGLE FOR CONDUCTORS OR RADIATORS EITHER AN EVEN NUMBER OF
HALF WAVE LENGTHS LONG OR AN ODD NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS LONG, AND,
IN GENERAL TO DISCLOSE THE ANGLE FOR BEST DIRECTIONAL PROPAGATION FOR
WIRES OF ANY FINITE LENGTH." 

AFTER THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT THIS PARAGRAPH WAS AMENDED TO
READ: 

"ANOTHER OBJECT OF THE INVENTION IS TO DISCLOSE THE ANGLE FOR THE
BEST DIRECTIONAL PROPAGATION FOR OPEN-ENDED WIRES OF ANY FINITE LENGTH,
PREFERABLY LONGER THAN THE OPERATING WAVE LENGTH, HAVING STANDING WAVES
THEREON AND ARRANGED IN THE MANNER PROPOSED." 

FN6  "MOREOVER, IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE WIRES OF
EACH UNIT CAN BE OF ANY LENGTH WHATSOEVER PROVIDED THEY ARE PLACED AT
THE CORRECT ANGLE FOR THEIR LENGTH.  FOR BEST TUNING, THE TOTAL OVERALL
LENGTH OF BOTH OF THE WIRES AND THE 'U' LOOP TERMINATING THEM SHOULD BE
EFFECTIVELY AN INTEGRAL NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS, BUT, THE PORTION
FORMING THE RADIATION ELEMENT CAN BE OF ANY LENGTH.  THE LAW, GIVING
THE CORRECT ANGLE FOR LENGTHS BETWEEN ODD AND EVEN NUMBER OF HALF WAVE
LENGTHS, IS NOT GIVEN DUE TO ITS COMPLEXITY, BUT THE EMPIRICAL FORMULA
AND THE CURVE OF FIGURE 12 WILL BE FOUND ACCURATE FOR ALL PRACTICAL
PURPOSES, WHERE THE LENGTH OF WIRE DEALT WITH DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO A
WHOLE NUMBER OF HALF WAVE LENGTHS." 

FN7  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN8  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :









WICHITA CO. V. CITY BANK, 306 U.S. 103 


NO. 314.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 95
F.2D 671 - 97 ID. 249, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS AT AN EARLIER STAGE OF
THIS CASE, DEFINING THE LIABILITY OF A BANK FOR TRUST-FUNDS TRANSFERRED
BY A TRUSTEE FROM THE TRUST ACCOUNT TO A PERSONAL ACCOUNT, AND CHECKED
OUT AND MISAPPROPRIATED BY HIM AFTER THE BANK HAD ACCEPTED PAYMENT OF
HIS PERSONAL DEBTS TO THE BANK OR AN OFFICER THEREOF, WITH NOTICE THAT
THE PAYMENTS HAD THEIR SOURCE IN TRUST FUNDS, WAS NOT MODIFIED BY THE
OPINION OF THAT COURT IN QUANAH, ACME & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. WICHITA
STATE BANK & TRUST CO., 127 TEX. 407.  P. 108. 

THE EARLIER OPINION MUST BE ACCEPTED AS STATING THE LAW OF TEXAS, AND
IT AFFORDS THE APPROPRIATE GUIDE FOR THE FEDERAL COURT SO FAR AS IT MAY
BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED ON THE TRIAL
THERE. 

2.  DECISION ON FIRST APPEAL IS NOT RES JUDICATA IN SUBSEQUENT
HEARING OF THE CASE.  P. 107. 

3.  UPON REMOVAL OF A CASE FOR RETRIAL AFTER AN APPEAL TO AND
REVERSAL BY A STATE SUPREME COURT, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COURT
TO DETERMINE AND APPLY THE STATE LAW TO LOCAL QUESTIONS AS THE STATE
COURT WOULD HAVE DONE, AND, WHERE THE STATE COURT HOLDS ITSELF FREE TO
MODIFY OR RECEDE FROM ITS OWN OPINIONS, THE FEDERAL COURT IS FREE TO
EXAMINE LATER OPINIONS OF THE STATE COURT IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE
APPLICABLE STATE LAW.  P. 107. 

4.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY DIRECTED REMAND OF THIS
CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN ACCORDANCE WITH EQUITY RULE 70 1/2.  P. 110. 

WICHITA ROYALTY CO. ET AL. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF WICHITA FALLS ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 587, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE IN A
CASE REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD DENIED
RECOVERY ON CERTAIN CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS WHICH WERE INVOLVED IN THE
ORIGINAL SUIT.  THIS COURT AFFIRMS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IN
REMANDING THE CASE FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, BUT
DIFFERS FROM THAT COURT IN RESPECT OF PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
CORRECTLY APPLIED THE LAW OF TEXAS IN A SUIT UPON A CAUSE OF ACTION
ARISING IN THAT STATE BETWEEN A TEXAS ASSOCIATION ACTING UNDER A
DECLARATION OF TRUST AND A NATIONAL BANK DOING BUSINESS THERE. 

THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION HAVE BEEN EXTENSIVE AND
COMPLEX BUT ONLY THOSE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE PRESENTED HERE NEED BE
DETAILED.  RESPONDENT, THE CITY NATIONAL BANK OF WICHITA FALLS, BROUGHT
SUIT IN A TEXAS COURT AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER HERE, AND ITS
TRUSTEE TO RECOVER ON TWO PROMISSORY NOTES, ONE MADE AND THE OTHER
ENDORSED BY PETITIONER.  THEY FILED A CROSSACTION AGAINST THE BANK,
IMPLEADING ITS VICE-PRESIDENT, TO RECOVER A DEPOSIT BALANCE IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONER ON THE GROUND THAT THE BANK HAD IMPROPERLY CHARGED THE
ACCOUNT WITH DRAFTS DRAWN UPON IT BY PECKHAM, A FORMER TRUSTEE OF
PETITIONER, OR AT HIS DIRECTION, AND THAT PECKHAM, IN BREACH OF TRUST,
HAD USED THE PROCEEDS IN PART TO PAY HIS OWN DEBTS TO THE BANK OR ITS
VICE-PRESIDENT, AND IN PART FOR OTHER EXPENDITURES FOR HIS OWN
BENEFIT. 

THE MISAPPROPRIATIONS WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN EFFECTED BY THE
WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS FROM THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT BY A LARGE NUMBER OF
CHECKS SIGNED BY PECKHAM AS TRUSTEE, OR AT HIS DIRECTION, AND PAYABLE
TO HIS OWN ORDER OR TO THE BANK.  SOME WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
CREDITED BY THE BANK IN PAYMENT OF THE TRUSTEE'S PERSONAL DEBTS AND
SOME TO HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK, FROM WHICH HE LATER
WITHDREW A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE AMOUNTS SO DEPOSITED AND USED IT FOR
HIS OWN PURPOSES.  PETITIONER CONTENDED THAT SOME OF THE FUNDS THUS
WITHDRAWN FROM HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT WERE USED IN PAYMENT OF HIS
PERSONAL DEBTS TO THE BANK OR ITS VICE-PRESIDENT AND THAT THE BANK AND
ITS VICE-PRESIDENT, BECAUSE OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE BANK AND THE
FORM OF THE CHECKS, HAD NOTICE OF AND HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE BREACHES
OF TRUST OR SOME OF THEM AND TO THAT EXTENT WERE LIABLE FOR ALL THE
MISAPPROPRIATIONS. 

THE TRIAL COURT DIRECTED A VERDICT AND ENTERED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
THE BANK ON THE NOTES AND AGAINST PETITIONER ON ITS CROSS-ACTION.  ON
APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS REVERSED AND REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR A
NEW TRIAL UPON SUCH FURTHER EVIDENCE AS MIGHT BE ADDUCED, AND IN ITS
OPINION STATED THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF LAW FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE
TRIAL COURT.  127 TEX. 158, 184.  MEANWHILE, THE BANK HAD CLOSED ITS
DOORS.  ITS ASSETS WERE TAKEN OVER BY RESPONDENT, THE NEWLY ORGANIZED
CITY NATIONAL BANK IN WICHITA FALLS, WHICH ASSUMED THE LIABILITIES OF
THE OLD BANK. 

ON THE REMAND THE DIRECTORS AND THE LIQUIDATING AGENT OF THE OLD BANK
AND THE NEW BANK WERE MADE PARTIES DEFENDANT TO THE CROSS-ACTION BY
PETITIONER ASSOCIATION, AND THE PLEADINGS WERE AMENDED SO AS TO CHARGE
THE NEW INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LIABILITY
ORIGINALLY ASSERTED AGAINST THE OLD BANK, AND ALSO TO CHARGE THE NEW
BANK BY REASON OF ITS ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS AND ITS ASSUMPTION OF
THE LIABILITIES OF THE OLD ONE. 

THE CAUSE WAS THEN REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN
TEXAS, UNDER SEC. 28 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 71.  ON THE
TRIAL OF THE CAUSE THERE, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE
WAS TAKEN BEFORE A COMMISSIONER, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED RECOVERY TO
THE OLD BANK ON THE PROMISSORY NOTES AND TO THE ASSOCIATION UPON ITS
CLAIM AGAINST THE OLD BANK AND THE VARIOUS OTHER PARTIES SOUGHT TO BE
CHARGED WITH ITS LIABILITY, BUT DIRECTED THAT JURISDICTION BE RETAINED
TO WIND UP THE AFFAIRS OF THE INSOLVENT BANK.  SEC. 24(16) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(16); INTERNATIONAL TRUST CO. V. WEEKS,
203 U.S. 364. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SET ASIDE THE DECREE
BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS REQUIRED BY EQUITY RULE 70 1/2.  95 F.2D
671.  IN REMANDING THE CAUSE THE COURT STATED, FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE
TRIAL COURT, PRINCIPLES OF LAW WHICH IT THOUGHT APPLICABLE TO THE CAUSE
OF ACTION ASSERTED BY THE ASSOCIATION.  THESE WERE AT VARIANCE WITH
THOSE WHICH THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT IN ITS EARLIER REMAND OF THE CASE
HAD DECLARED TO BE CONTROLLING.  IT REJECTED IN PART THE RULINGS OF THE
STATE COURT BECAUSE IT THOUGHT THAT THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED WERE OF
GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS WERE
NOT BOUND BY LOCAL DECISIONS, AND THAT THE RULES WHICH THE TEXAS COURTS
HAD ADOPTED WERE NOT FAVORED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE FEDERAL AND SOME
STATE COURTS. 

IN ITS OPINION DENYING A SECOND PETITION FOR REHEARING, 97 F.2D 249,
PRESENTED AFTER OUR DECISION IN ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S.
64, THE COURT DISCLAIMED ANY PURPOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF TEXAS,
BUT REAFFIRMED ITS INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE TRIAL COURT ON THE GROUND THAT
THEY WERE IN HARMONY WITH THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN
A LATER CASE, QUANAH, ACME & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. WICHITA STATE BANK &
TRUST CO., 127 TEX. 407; 93 S.W.2D 701, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS
THOUGHT HAD MODIFIED AND RESTRICTED THE RULES ANNOUNCED BY THE STATE
COURT ON THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 587,
ON A PETITION URGING THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
APPLY THE LAW AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ON THE FIRST
APPEAL, THE QUESTION, CONCERNING THE RELATIONS OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS, BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

IN DEPARTING FROM THE "LAW OF THE CASE," AS ANNOUNCED BY THE STATE
COURT, AND APPLYING A DIFFERENT RULE, THE COURT BELOW CORRECTLY STATED
THAT BY REASON OF THE REMOVAL IT HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE TEXAS
SUPREME COURT AS THE APPROPRIATE COURT OF APPEAL AND THAT IT WAS ITS
DUTY TO APPLY THE TEXAS LAW AS THE TEXAS COURT WOULD HAVE DECLARED AND
APPLIED IT ON A SECOND APPEAL IF THE CAUSE HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED.  IT
WAS THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COURT TO APPLY THE LAW OF TEXAS AS DECLARED
BY ITS HIGHEST COURT.  ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA.  BUT THE
CASE ON THE FIRST APPEAL HAD NOT BECOME RES JUDICATA.  REMINGTON V.
CENTRAL PACIFIC R. CO., 198 U.S. 95, 99, 100; MESSENGER V. ANDERSON,
225 U.S. 436, 444; DIAZ V. PATTERSON, 263 U.S. 399, 402; SEAGRAVES V.
WALLACE, 69 F.2D 163, 164, 165.  AND SINCE THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
HOLDS ITSELF FREE UPON RECONSIDERATION TO MODIFY OR RECEDE FROM ITS OWN
OPINIONS, SEE QUANAH, ACME & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. WICHITA STATE BANK &
TRUST CO., SUPRA, SUPERSEDING 89 S.W.2D 385, THE COURT BELOW, IN
APPLYING THE LOCAL LAW, WAS LIKEWISE FREE TO DEPART FROM THE EARLIER
RULINGS TO THE EXTENT THAT EXAMINATION OF THE LATER OPINIONS OF THE
TEXAS SUPREME COURT SHOWED THAT IT HAD MODIFIED ITS OPINION ON THE
FIRST APPEAL.  HENCE THE ONLY QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER THE
COURT OF APPEALS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE COURT HAD THUS
ALTERED ITS OPINION. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, AS DID THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, THAT THE
OLD BANK, SO FAR AS IT HAD ACCEPTED PAYMENT OF THE TRUSTEE'S PERSONAL
DEBTS FROM HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT, WITH NOTICE THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD
THEIR SOURCE IN TRUST FUNDS, HAD BECOME LIABLE FOR THE TRUSTEE'S
MISAPPROPRIATIONS BY REASON OF ITS PARTICIPATION IN THEM.  BUT THE TWO
COURTS DIFFERED WITH RESPECT TO THE LIABILITY OF THE BANK FOR TRUST
FUNDS COMMINGLED WITH THE TRUSTEE'S PERSONAL ACCOUNT AND LATER
WITHDRAWN AND USED FOR HIS PERSONAL BENEFIT.  THE STATE COURT HAD RULED
THAT THE BANK WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SUCH MISAPPROPRIATIONS AS TOOK
PLACE AFTER IT HAD KNOWINGLY ACCEPTED TRUST FUNDS IN PAYMENT OF THE
TRUSTEE'S PERSONAL DEBTS.  POINTING OUT THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF SUCH
TRANSACTIONS, IT DECLARED, 127 TEX. 158, 174, 175:  "THE BANK, AFTER
BEING CHARGED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF PECKHAM'S DISHONEST DEALINGS, CONTINUED
TO CREDIT PECKHAM'S PERSONAL ACCOUNT WITH CHECKS DRAWN ON THE TRUST
ACCOUNT, AND PERSISTED IN ITS COURSE OF DEALINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE
TWO ACCOUNTS.  HAVING INCURRED THE BURDEN OF ASCERTAINING WHETHER
SUBSEQUENT EXPENDITURES MADE BY THE TRUSTEE FROM THE COMMINGLED FUNDS
WERE FOR AUTHORIZED TRUST PURPOSES, IT CANNOT EFFECTIVELY COMPLAIN OF
THE WEIGHT OF THAT BURDEN."  AND IT CONCLUDED, 127 TEX. 158, 182:  "IT
IS APPARENT FROM WHAT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE BANK'S
LIABILITY IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSITS
(OF TRUST MONEYS) FOR WHICH PECKHAM'S PERSONAL ACCOUNT RECEIVED CREDIT
AFTER HE BEGAN COMMINGLING TRUST FUNDS WITH HIS OWN ON OCTOBER 8, 1925,
AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWALS THEREFROM WHICH THE BANK MAY SHOW
WERE USED FOR AUTHORIZED TRUST PURPOSES."  FN1 

THE COURT BELOW, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
IN THE LATER QUANAH CASE, DECLINED TO ACCEPT THIS CONCLUSION.  INSTEAD
IT DECLARED THAT THE BANK WAS NOT CHARGEABLE WITH NOTICE OF THE
TRUSTEE'S MISAPPROPRIATIONS THROUGH WITHDRAWAL AND USE OF TRUST FUNDS
DEPOSITED IN HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT BY THE BARE FACT OF ITS KNOWLEDGE
THAT THE TRUSTEE HAD PREVIOUSLY PAID HIS PERSONAL DEBTS TO THE BANK
WITH TRUST FUNDS PASSED THROUGH HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT.  BUT THE QUANAH
CASE PRESENTED A DIFFERENT QUESTION FROM THAT CONSIDERED BY THE TEXAS
COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE FORMER INVOLVED NO QUESTION OF ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE AND PARTICIPATION BY THE BANK IN THE MISAPPROPRIATION OF
TRUST FUNDS.  THERE AN OFFICER OF A CORPORATION DEPOSITED ITS FUNDS IN
HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT IN A BANK WITH WHICH THE CORPORATION HAD NO
ACCOUNT.  THE BANK HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT THE FUNDS OR SOME OF THEM
BELONGED TO THE CORPORATION AND NOT TO THE OFFICER PERSONALLY, BUT IT
PAID THEM OUT ON THE ORDER OF THE OFFICER, WHO APPROPRIATED THEM TO HIS
OWN USE.  IN HOLDING THAT THE BANK WAS NOT LIABLE, THE COURT ADOPTED
THE RULE, FOR WHICH IT FOUND SUPPORT IN THE DECISIONS OF OTHER COURTS
AND IN TEXT WRITERS, THAT THE BANK IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT LIABLE
FOR THE MISAPPROPRIATION.  THE COURT WAS AT PAINS TO POINT OUT THAT A
DIFFERENT RULE WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE IF, BEFORE THE WITHDRAWALS
FROM THE ACCOUNT, "THE BANK (HAD) ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE
SPOLIATION OF THE TRUST FUND AND KNOWINGLY RECEIVED A PART OF THE FUND
TO ITSELF IN PAYMENT OF THE TRUSTEE'S INDIVIDUAL DEBT TO IT," CITING
ITS OPINION IN THE PRESENT CASE.  127 TEX. 407, 421, 422. 

EVEN IF WE THOUGHT THIS DISTINCTION NOT WELL TAKEN, NOTHING REQUIRES
THE STATE COURTS TO ADOPT THE RULE WHICH THE FEDERAL OR OTHER COURTS
MAY BELIEVE TO BE THE BETTER ONE, OR TO BE CONSISTENT IN THEIR
DECISIONS IF THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE.  THAT THE DISTINCTION TAKEN IN
THE QUANAH CASE WAS ADVISEDLY MADE AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY THE
RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE STATE COURT ON THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE, APPEARS
FROM THE OPINIONS IN BOTH CASES.  ON THE SAME DAY THAT THE FINAL
OPINION IN THE QUANAH CASE, FROM WHICH WE HAVE QUOTED, WAS DELIVERED BY
THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT, IT DENIED A PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THE
PRESENT CASE, WITH AN OPINION, 127 TEX. 184, WHICH LEFT UNDISTURBED THE
PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE FIRST DECISION.  IN ITS FINAL OPINION IN
THE QUANAH CASE IT SAID: "  ...  WE HAVE AGAIN CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE
OPINION IN THE WICHITA ROYALTY CO. ET AL. V. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF
WICHITA FALLS CASE,  ...  DECIDED BY THIS COURT ON THE SAME DAY THE
CASE AT BAR WAS ORIGINALLY DECIDED.  ...  WE ARE SATISFIED WITH OUR
OPINION IN THE WICHITA ROYALTY COMPANY CASE AS EXPLAINED BY OUR OPINION
ON REHEARING IN THAT CASE."  127 TEX. 407, 421, 422.  AS THERE IS NO
CONTENTION THAT THE OPINION OF THE TEXAS COURT IN THIS CASE HAS IN ANY
OTHER RESPECT BEEN MODIFIED BY THE QUANAH OR ANY OTHER CASE IN THE
TEXAS SUPREME COURT, WE DO NOT DISCUSS OTHER PARTS OF THE OPINION BELOW
WHICH IT IS ARGUED FAIL TO FOLLOW THE OPINION OF THE STATE COURT. 

WE THINK THAT THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE
PRESENT CASE HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED BY THE QUANAH CASE AND MUST BE
ACCEPTED AS STATING THE LAW OF TEXAS; AND THAT IT AFFORDS THE
APPROPRIATE GUIDE FOR THE DISTRICT COURT SO FAR AS IT MAY BE APPLICABLE
TO THE FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED ON THE TRIAL THERE.  AS THE
COURT BELOW PROPERLY DIRECTED THE REMAND FOR A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW UNDER THE EQUITY RULE, THE DECREE WILL BE
AFFIRMED BUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT WILL BE IN
CONFORMITY TO THIS OPINION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE OPINION ASSUMED THAT ALL THE FUNDS IN THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT
ON OCTOBER 8, 1925, WERE TRUST FUNDS AND THAT ON NOVEMBER 17, 1925, THE
TRUSTEE PAID HIS PERSONAL INDEBTEDNESS TO THE BANK FROM THOSE FUNDS. 
127 TEX. 158, 168.  IN ITS OPINION ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING THE
COURT STATED THAT THESE ASSUMPTIONS WERE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS FORECLOSING
PROOF OF THE FACTS UPON THE NEW TRIAL.  127 TEX. 158, 184. 
..END :




















HELVERING V. REYNOLDS CO., 306 U.S. 110 


NO. 328.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 97
F.2D 302, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, DEFINING GROSS INCOME,
WAS SO GENERAL IN ITS TERMS THAT AN INTERPRETATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION DETERMINING WHETHER IT INCLUDED GAIN FROM THE RESALE BY A
CORPORATION OF ITS OWN STOCK WAS APPROPRIATE.  P. 114. 

2.  ARTICLE 66 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, PROMULGATED UNDER THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
INCOME TAX NO GAIN OR LOSS IS REALIZED BY A CORPORATION FROM THE
PURCHASE OR SALE OF ITS OWN STOCK.  THIS ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
SINCE AT LEAST 1920.  MAY 2, 1934, BEFORE THE 1929 TAX OF THE CORPORATE
TAXPAYER HEREIN HAD BEEN FINALLY DETERMINED, THE TREASURY ADOPTED AN
AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 66 SUBJECTING TO TAX ANY GAIN DERIVED BY A
CORPORATION FROM THE SALE OF ITS OWN SHARES WHERE IT "DEALS IN ITS OWN
SHARES AS IT MIGHT IN THE SHARES OF ANOTHER CORPORATION."  HELD: 

(1)  THE ASCERTAINMENT OF GAIN BY THE CORPORATION FOR THE TAXABLE
YEAR 1929 IS TO BE DETERMINED IN CONFORMITY TO THE REGULATION THEN IN
FORCE AND NOT BY THE AMENDMENT.  P. 115. 

(2)  THE REGULATION IN FORCE IN THE TAXABLE YEAR 1929 MUST BE TAKEN
TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE FORCE OF LAW BY
CONGRESS.  P. 115. 

(3)  SECTION 605 OF THE 1928 ACT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE TREASURY TO
REPEAL THE RULE OF LAW THAT EXISTED DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE TAX
WAS IMPOSED.  P. 116. 

(4)  THE REENACTMENT OF SEC. 22(A) IN THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND
1938, WITHOUT MORE, MAY NOT BE TAKEN AS SANCTION BY CONGRESS OF A
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE AMENDED REGULATION.  P. 117. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO
CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 587, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 35 B.T.A. 949, WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER GAIN ACCRUING TO A
CORPORATION CONSEQUENT ON THE PURCHASE AND RESALE OF ITS OWN SHARES
CONSTITUTES GROSS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 22(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  FN1 

THE RESPONDENT, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ON OCCASION BETWEEN 1921
AND 1929, PURCHASED ITS OWN CLASS B COMMON STOCK FOR REASONS OF POLICY,
SUCH AS THE ELIMINATION OF A VERY LARGE SINGLE HOLDING, THE BROADENING
OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE STOCK, AND THE SUPPORT OF THE MARKET TO PROTECT
THE INVESTMENTS OF EMPLOYE SHAREHOLDERS.  THIS STOCK WAS RESOLD FROM
TIME TO TIME.  WHILE HELD IT WAS TREATED AS TREASURY STOCK AND THE COST
OF IT WAS ENTERED IN THE ACCOUNTS AS "INVESTMENTS IN NON-COMPETITIVE
COMPANIES."  THE BOOKS SHOWED NO INCREASE OR REDUCTION OF CAPITAL STOCK
ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES OR SALES.  DURING 1929 THE COMPANY SOLD SHARES
ACQUIRED IN THAT AND PRIOR YEARS FOR A SUM WHICH EXCEEDED COST BY
$286,581.21, WHICH AMOUNT WAS ENTERED IN THE BOOKS AS A CASH ITEM AND
ADDED TO SURPLUS.  IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1929 THE COMPANY LISTED
THIS GAIN UNDER THE CAPTION "OTHER ITEMS OF NON-TAXABLE INCOME," AS
"PROFIT R.J.R. STOCK." 

THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY IN THE TAX PAID FOR 1929
INVOLVING ITEMS NOT HERE IN CONTROVERSY AND THE COMPANY APPEALED TO THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHERE THOSE ITEMS WERE ADJUSTED.  BEFORE THE CASE
WAS CLOSED THE COMMISSIONER BY AMENDED ANSWER ALLEGED THAT THE
TAXPAYER'S NET INCOME SHOULD BE INCREASED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE "NET
PROFIT REALIZED  ...  THROUGH TRAFFICKING IN CLASS B COMMON STOCK OF
THE  ...  COMPANY," AND CLAIMED A RESULTING DEFICIENCY.  HE BASED HIS
CLAIM UPON TREASURY REGULATION 74, ARTICLE 66, AS AMENDED BY A TREASURY
DECISION OF MAY 2, 1934, FN2  WHICH STATES "WHERE A CORPORATION DEALS
IN ITS OWN SHARES AS IT MIGHT IN THE SHARES OF ANOTHER CORPORATION, THE
RESULTING GAIN OR LOSS IS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THOUGH
THE CORPORATION WERE DEALING IN THE SHARES OF ANOTHER." 

THE BOARD, AFTER FINDING THE FACTS IN DETAIL, SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER.  FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD'S
RULING.  FN4  BECAUSE OF ASSERTED CONFLICT WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.  FN5 

GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER
FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES,
COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL,
GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY;
ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF
ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND
INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER."  SECTION 62 DIRECTS THE
COMMISSIONER, "WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY" OF THE TREASURY, TO
"PRESCRIBE AND PUBLISH ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THIS TITLE."  ARTICLE 66 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 74,
PROMULGATED UNDER THE ACT OF 1928, SO FAR AS MATERIAL, IS:  "IF  ...
THE CORPORATION PURCHASES ANY OF ITS STOCK AND HOLDS IT AS TREASURY
STOCK, THE SALE OF SUCH STOCK WILL BE CONSIDERED A CAPITAL TRANSACTION
AND THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH SALE WILL BE TREATED AS CAPITAL AND WILL NOT
CONSTITUTE INCOME OF THE CORPORATION.  A CORPORATION REALIZES NO GAIN
OR LOSS FROM THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF ITS OWN STOCK." 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT, AS CONGRESS MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE EXERCISED
ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO THE FULLEST EXTENT IN LAYING THE TAX, SEC.
22(A) SHOULD BE HELD TO INCLUDE THE GAIN REALIZED FROM SALES OF A
CORPORATION'S OWN STOCK, AND THE QUOTED REGULATION CANNOT RESTRICT THE
SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY DEFINITION.  THE RESPONDENT REPLIES THAT SUCH
GAIN IS CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT INCOME, AS IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE THEORY
AND PRACTICE OF ACCOUNTING  FN6  AND BY COURT DECISIONS.  FN7 THE COURT
BELOW FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE, HOLDING THAT WHETHER
THE INCREMENT IS INCOME IS AT LEAST A DEBATABLE QUESTION AND THE
REGULATION WAS, THEREFORE, PROPER AS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING
OF THE SECTION.  WE AGREE THAT SEC. 22(A) IS SO GENERAL IN ITS TERMS AS
TO RENDER AN INTERPRETATIVE REGULATION APPROPRIATE.  FN8 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION EMBODIED IN THE REGULATION HAS, SINCE
AT LEAST 1920, BEEN UNIFORM WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE REVENUE ACTS
FROM THAT OF 1913 TO THAT OF 1932, AS EVIDENCED BY TREASURY RULINGS AND
REGULATIONS, AND DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  FN9  IN THE
MEANTIME SUCCESSIVE REVENUE ACTS HAVE REENACTED, WITHOUT ALTERATION,
THE DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME AS IT STOOD IN THE ACTS OF 1913, 1916,
AND 1918.  FN10  UNDER THE ESTABLISHED RULE CONGRESS MUST BE TAKEN TO
HAVE APPROVED THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION AND THEREBY TO HAVE GIVEN
IT THE FORCE OF LAW. 

THE PETITIONER CONCEDES THAT IF NOTHING FURTHER APPEARED HE WOULD BE
BOUND TO APPLY THE STATUTE IN CONFORMITY TO THE REGULATION.  HE
ASSERTS, HOWEVER, THAT THE AMENDMENT ADOPTED BY THE TREASURY MAY 2,
1934, WHILE THIS CAUSE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD, IS CONTROLLING. 
BY THE AMENDMENT ARTICLE 66 IS MADE TO READ:  "WHETHER THE ACQUISITION
OR DISPOSITION BY A CORPORATION OF SHARES OF ITS OWN CAPITAL STOCK
GIVES RISE TO TAXABLE GAIN OR DEDUCTIBLE LOSS DEPENDS UPON THE REAL
NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION, WHICH IS TO BE ASCERTAINED FROM ALL ITS
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.  ... 

"BUT WHERE A CORPORATION DEALS IN ITS OWN SHARES AS IT MIGHT IN THE
SHARES OF ANOTHER CORPORATION, THE RESULTING GAIN OR LOSS IS TO BE
COMPUTED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THOUGH THE CORPORATION WERE DEALING IN
THE SHARES OF ANOTHER.  ...  ANY GAIN DERIVED FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS IS
SUBJECT TO TAX, AND ANY LOSS SUSTAINED IS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION
WHERE PERMITTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE STATUTES." 

PETITIONER URGES THAT THE AMENDMENT OPERATES RETROACTIVELY AND
GOVERNS THE ASCERTAINMENT OF GROSS INCOME FOR TAXABLE PERIODS PRIOR TO
THE DATE OF ITS PROMULGATION, AND, FURTHER, SINCE CONGRESS HAS
REENACTED SEC. 22(A) IN THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938, IT HAS
APPROVED THE REGULATION AS AMENDED.  WE HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENT'S TAX
LIABILITY FOR THE YEAR 1929 IS TO BE DETERMINED IN CONFORMITY TO THE
REGULATION THEN IN FORCE. 

REGULATION OR TREASURY DECISION RELATING TO THE INTERNAL-REVENUE LAWS
IS AMENDED BY A SUBSEQUENT REGULATION OR TREASURY DECISION MADE BY THE
SECRETARY OR BY THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY,
SUCH SUBSEQUENT REGULATION OR TREASURY DECISION MAY, WITH THE APPROVAL
OF THE SECRETARY, BE APPLIED WITHOUT RETROACTIVE EFFECT."  FN11  IT IS
CLEAR FROM THIS PROVISION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE TO THE
TREASURY POWER TO CORRECT MISINTERPRETATIONS, INACCURACIES, OR
OMISSIONS IN THE REGULATIONS AND THEREBY TO AFFECT CASES IN WHICH THE
TAXPAYER'S LIABILITY HAD NOT BEEN FINALLY DETERMINED, UNLESS, IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE TREASURY, SOME GOOD REASON REQUIRED THAT SUCH
ALTERATIONS OPERATE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
GRANTED POWER MAY BE EXERCISED IN AN INSTANCE WHERE, BY REPEATED
REENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE, CONGRESS HAS GIVEN ITS SANCTION TO THE
EXISTING REGULATION. 

SINCE THE LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL OF EXISTING REGULATIONS BY REENACTMENT
OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION TO WHICH THEY APPERTAIN GIVES SUCH
REGULATIONS THE FORCE OF LAW, WE THINK THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO
AUTHORIZE THE TREASURY TO REPEAL THE RULE OF LAW THAT EXISTED DURING
THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE TAX IS IMPOSED.  WE NEED NOT NOW DETERMINE
WHETHER, AS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED,  FN12  THE ALTERNATION OF THE EXISTING
RULE, EVEN FOR THE FUTURE, REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION OR MAY BE
SHOWN BY REENACTMENT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION UNALTERED AFTER A
CHANGE IN THE APPLICABLE REGULATION.  AS THE PETITIONER POINTS OUT,
CONGRESS HAS, IN THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1936 AND 1938, RETAINED SEC. 22(A)
OF THE 1928 ACT IN HAEC VERBA.  FROM THIS IT IS ARGUED THAT CONGRESS
HAS APPROVED THE AMENDED REGULATION.  IT MAY BE THAT BY THE PASSAGE OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936 THE TREASURY WAS AUTHORIZED THEREAFTER TO APPLY
THE REGULATION IN ITS AMENDED FORM.  BUT WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DECIDE
THIS QUESTION SINCE WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE REENACTMENT OF THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE AMENDMENT, IN THE TEETH OF THE FORMER REGULATION
WHICH RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, BY THE PASSAGE OF SUCCESSIVE
REVENUE ACTS INCLUDING THAT OF 1928. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 852, 45 STAT. 791. 

FN2  TREASURY DECISION 4430, XIII-1 CUMULATIVE BULLETIN 36. 

FN3  35 B.T.A. 949. 

FN4  R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 97 F.2D 302. 

FN5  SEE FIRST CHROLD CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, POST, P. 117. 

FN6  SEE E.G. DICKINSON, "ACCOUNTING PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE," 130,
132; SUNLEY AND PINKERTON, "CORPORATION ACCOUNTING," 121; STREIGHTOFF,
"ADVANCED ACCOUNTING," 134-5. 

FN7  JOHNSON V. COMMISSIONER, 56 F.2D 58; SQUIBB & SONS V. HELVERING,
98 F.2D 69; COMPARE, BORG V. INTERNATIONAL SILVER CO., 11 F.2D 143,
147; COMMISSIONER V. INLAND FINANCE CO., 63 F.2D 886; CARTER HOTEL CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 67 F.2D 642. 

FN8  MORRISSEY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344, 354. 

FN9  SEE L.O. 1035, 2 C.B. 132, 3 C.B. 160; L.O. 296, 5 C.B. 210;
L.O. 426, 5 C.B. 210; A.A.R. 693, 5 C.B. 207; I.T. 1198, C.B. I-1, 275;
A.A.R. 799, C.B. I-1, 374; I.T. 1802, C.B. II-2, 267.  REG. 45, ARTS.
542 AND 563; REG. 62, ARTS. 543 AND 563; REG. 65, ARTS. 543 AND 563;
REG. 69, ARTS. 543 AND 563; REG. 74, ARTS. 66 AND 176; REG. 77, ARTS.
66 AND 176.  SIMMONS & HAMMOND MFG. CO., 1 B.T.A. 803; COOPERATIVE
FURNITURE CO., 2 B.T.A. 165; ATLANTIC CARTON CORP., 2 B.T.A. 380;
HUTCHINS LUMBER & STORAGE CO., 4 B.T.A. 705; FARMERS DEPOSIT NAT. BANK,
5 B.T.A. 520; H.S. CROCKER CO., 5 B.T.A. 537, 541; INTERURBAN
CONSTRUCTION CO., 5 B.T.A. 529; LIBERTY AGENCY CO., 5 B.T.A. 778; UNION
TRUST CO., 12 B.T.A. 688, 690; 105 WEST 55TH STREET, INC., 15 B.T.A.
210, 213; AMERICAN CIGAR CO., 21 B.T.A. 464, 495; CARTER HOTEL CO., 25
B.T.A. 933. 

FN10  SEE R.A. 1913, SEC. II, B, 38 STAT. 167; R.A. 1916, SEC. 2(A),
39 STAT. 757; R.A. 1918, SEC. 213(A), 40 STAT. 1065; R.A. 1921, SEC.
213(A), 42 STAT. 238; R.A. 1924, SEC. 213(A), 43 STAT. 267; R.A. 1926,
SEC. 213(A), 44 STAT. 23; R.A. 1928, SEC. 22(A), 45 STAT. 797; R.A.
1932, SEC. 22(A), 47 STAT. 178. 

FN11  45 STAT. 874.  SOMEWHAT SIMILAR PROVISIONS WERE CONTAINED IN
EARLIER ACTS.  SEE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, SEC. 1314, 42 STAT. 314;
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC. 1108(A), 44 STAT. 114. 

FN12  SQUIBB & SONS V. HELVERING, 98 F.2D 69, 70. 
..END :












FIRST CHROLD CORP. V. COMM'R, 306 U.S. 117 


NO. 385.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 97
F.2D 22, REVERSED. 


DECIDED ON THE AUTHORITY OF HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.,
ANTE, P. 110. 

FIRST CHROLD CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 305 U.S. 589, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING A DETERMINATION OF DEFICIENCY IN
INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE SAME QUESTION AS THAT INVOLVED IN NO. 328,
HELVERING V. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., ANTE, P. 110.  CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT IN THE DECISIONS BELOW.  THE STATUTORY
PROVISION UNDER WHICH THIS CASE ARISES IS SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE CORRESPONDING SECTION OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1928.  THE REGULATIONS, ORIGINAL AND AMENDED, HAVE THE SAME
RELATION TO THIS CONTROVERSY AS TO THAT IN NO. 328.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS SUSTAINED A DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY IN THE PETITIONER'S
TAX FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1933 AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED THE BOARD'S RULING.  FN1 

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN NO. 328 THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  97 F.2D 22. 
..END :



















TENNESSEE POWER CO. V. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118 


NO. 27.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 15, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  -
21 F.SUPP.  947, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PRINCIPLE PERMITTING SUIT AGAINST AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT
TO RESTRAIN EXECUTION OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE PROTECTS ONLY
LEGAL RIGHTS.  P. 137. 

2.  FRANCHISES TO BE A CORPORATION AND TO FUNCTION AS A PUBLIC
UTILITY AND NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISES TO OCCUPY AND USE PUBLIC PROPERTY
AND PLACES FOR SERVICE OF THE PUBLIC, DO NOT GRANT FREEDOM FROM
COMPETITION.  P. 138. 

3.  THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER CAN NOT BE CHALLENGED
MERELY BECAUSE ITS EXERCISE RESULTS IN HARMFUL COMPETITION.  THE DAMAGE
IS DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA.  P. 139. 

4.  STATE LAWS REQUIRING ELECTRIC POWER COMPANIES TO OBTAIN
CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AS A CONDITION TO DOING
BUSINESS DO NOT CONFER UPON THOSE POSSESSING SUCH CERTIFICATES A
STANDING TO ENJOIN OPERATIONS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, WHICH,
THOUGH IT HAS NO SUCH CERTIFICATE, OPERATES WITH CONSENT OF THE STATE. 
P. 141. 

5.  THE APPELLANT POWER COMPANIES MAY NOT RAISE, IN THIS CASE, ANY
QUESTION OF DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
INVOLVED IN STATE EXEMPTION OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY FROM
COMMISSION REGULATION.  FROST V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 515,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 143. 

6.  THE COMPETITION OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY IN UNDERSELLING
THE POWER COMPANIES AND IN FIXING RESALE RATES BY CONTRACT, DOES NOT
AMOUNT TO REGULATION OF THEIR RATES IN VIOLATION OF THE TENTH
AMENDMENT, AND GIVES RISE TO NO CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THAT AMENDMENT OR
UNDER THE NINTH AMENDMENT.  P. 143. 

7.  THE FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE DO NOT SUSTAIN THE CHARGE
OF A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY AND THE PUBLIC
WORKS ADMINISTRATOR TO INTIMIDATE THE APPELLANT POWER COMPANIES INTO
SELLING THEIR EXISTING SYSTEMS WHERE THE AUTHORITY DESIRES TO SEIZE THE
MARKET FOR ELECTRICITY.  P. 144. 

COOPERATION BY TWO FEDERAL OFFICIALS, ONE ACTING UNDER A STATUTE
WHEREBY FUNDS ARE PROVIDED FOR THE ERECTION OF MUNICIPAL PLANTS, AND
THE OTHER UNDER A STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY AND
ITS SALE TO SUCH PLANTS, IN COMPETITION WITH THE APPELLANTS, DOES NOT
SPELL CONSPIRACY TO INJURE THEIR BUSINESS.  P. 146. 

TENNESSEE ELECTRIC POWER CO. ET AL. V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
DISMISSED A BILL FILED BY NUMEROUS ELECTRIC POWER COMPANIES WHEREIN
THEY SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY AND ITS THREE
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, FROM GENERATING, DISTRIBUTING AND
SELLING ELECTRIC POWER AND FROM OTHER INJURIOUS AND ALLEGEDLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITIES IN HARMFUL AND DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION WITH
THE APPELLANTS. 

THE WATER POWER IS NOT BEING, AND WILL NOT BE, CONSTITUTIONALLY
CREATED.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL ACQUIRE NO TITLE TO SUCH WATER
POWER. 

THE ELECTRICITY WILL NOT RESULT INCIDENTALLY TO AN EXERCISE OF THE
IMPLIED POWER TO IMPROVE NAVIGATION.  POWER DEVELOPMENT IS AN
INDEPENDENT, IF NOT THE PRIMARY, PURPOSE.  THIS IS PLAIN ON THE FACE OF
THE ACT. 

CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE, THE APPELLEES' UNIFIED PLAN IS PLAINLY A POWER
PROJECT. 

IN ANY EVENT THE WATER POWER CREATED BY THE TRIBUTARY RESERVOIRS IS
NOT INCIDENTAL TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION. 

BOTH THE STATUTORY SCHEME AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN ARE PLAINLY
ATTEMPTS, IN THE GUISE OF EXERCISING THE IMPLIED POWER TO IMPROVE
STREAMS FOR NAVIGATION, TO EXERCISE POWER NOT GRANTED BUT FORBIDDEN TO
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  SEE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 423;
LINDER V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 5; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298
U.S. 238, 291; CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20, 37. 

THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT RECOGNIZE THAT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
WATER POWER IS TO BE THE INCIDENTAL RESULT OF THE OPERATION OF
STRUCTURES WHICH HAVE A REAL, SUBSTANTIAL AND BONA FIDE RELATION TO THE
IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION.  APPARENTLY, IT DEEMED THE CONTROLLING
QUESTION TO BE WHETHER POWER DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE "INCONSISTENT" WITH
OR OBSTRUCTIVE OF NAVIGATION, AND THOUGHT THAT UNDER THE EUPHONIOUS
TITLE OF A "MULTIPLE PURPOSE PROJECT" THE GOVERNMENT MAY YOKE TOGETHER
CONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENTERPRISES.  CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS MAY NOT BE SO EVADED.  RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO.,
295 U.S. 330, 362; EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S. 463, 501. 

NONE OF THE COMMERCIAL WATER POWER IS CREATED BY THE OPERATION OF ANY
FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES INCLUDED IN THE UNIFIED PLAN. 

FLOOD CONTROL IS MINOR, IF NOT PRETENSIVE, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO SUSTAIN
THAT PLAN AS A FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT FAILS AS AN ATTEMPT TO ACCOMPLISH
A FORBIDDEN OBJECT UNDER THE PRETENSE OF EXERCISING A CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER.  UNITED STATES V. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287, 289.  IT IS PLAIN
ON THE FACE OF THE ACT THAT POWER DEVELOPMENT IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO
FLOOD CONTROL.  THE FEDERAL POWER OVER FLOOD CONTROL DOES NOT EXTEND
BEYOND THE PROTECTION OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS AND WORKS.  CF. JACKSON V.
UNITED STATES, 230 U.S. 1, 18, 23; CUBBINS V. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMM'N,
241 U.S. 351; 204 F. 299; LEOVY V. UNITED STATES, 177 U.S. 621;
MANIGAULT V. SPRINGS, 199 U.S. 473; ORR V. ALLEN, 248 U.S. 35; ST.
LOUIS S.W. RY. CO. V. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 207 F. 338. 

THE ELECTRICITY WILL NOT BE PRODUCED AS AN INCIDENT OF THE EXERCISE
OF THE WAR OR NATIONAL DEFENSE POWER, AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN HELD THAT
IN TIME OF PEACE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY CARRY ON ALL OF THE
BUSINESSES WHICH MIGHT BE COMMANDEERED OR WHICH MIGHT PRODUCE ARTICLES
ESSENTIAL OR CONVENIENT IN THE PROSECUTION OF A WAR. 

NEITHER THE STATUTORY NOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE METHOD OF DISPOSING OF
THE ELECTRICITY IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  EACH VIOLATES THE FIFTH, NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS. 

THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF FEDERAL PROPERTY DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY POWER
OF REGULATION, OR THE POWER TO ENGAGE IN THE CONDUCT OR MANAGEMENT OF A
BUSINESS HAVING NO RELATION TO THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED.  SEE KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46, 89,
92; SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437, 457-459; VAN
BROCKLIN V. ANDERSON, 117 U.S. 151, 158; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282
U.S. 194, 211-212; ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N,
245 U.S. 493; RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S.
563; NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 591; ARKANSAS RAILROAD COMM'N
V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 274 U.S. 597; SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 546-548; UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S.
1. 

IT SURELY MAY NOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE, OR WITH THE DIRECT AND
NECESSARY EFFECT, OF GOVERNING CONCERNS RESERVED TO THE STATES AND THE
PEOPLE OR OF UPSETTING THE BALANCE OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM. 

THE DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF ELECTRICITY WITHIN THE STATE IS A LOCAL
PUBLIC SERVICE, SUBJECT TO FULL AND COMPLETE REGULATION BY THE STATE
UNDER ITS POLICE POWERS.  UNION DRY GOODS CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE
CORP., 248 U.S. 372, 374; MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113, 124; NEBBIA V.
NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 524; SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36. 
FEDERAL INTERFERENCE IN THIS FIELD "IS PLAINLY REPUGNANT TO THE
EXCLUSIVE POWER OF THE STATE OVER THE SAME SUBJECT," LICENSE TAX CASES,
5 WALL.  462, 471; FOR THE EXERCISE OF STATE POLICE POWER "IS NOT
SUBJECT TO NATIONAL SUPERVISION."  SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199
U.S. 437, 453. 

UNDER THE NINTH AMENDMENT, THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EARN A
LIVELIHOOD, AND ACQUIRE AND USE PROPERTY BY ENGAGING IN THE ELECTRIC
BUSINESS, SUBJECT ONLY TO STATE REGULATION.  CF. STEWARD MACHINE CO. V.
DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548; NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262; DENT
V. WEST VIRGINIA, 129 U.S. 114, 121; DUPLEX CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S.
443, 465; BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60, 74; LIGGETT CO. V.
BALDRIDGE, 278 U.S. 105, 111; TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 327. 

TO THE EXTENT THAT FEDERAL STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS OF
DISPOSING OF PROPERTY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL, THEY ARE SUPREME.  IF NOT
HELD WITHIN THEIR PROPER LIMITATIONS THEY WILL DESTROY RESERVED POWERS
AND RIGHTS OF STATE AND PEOPLE.  SEE BUTLER V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S.
1, 74. 

BOTH THE ACT AND THE UNIFIED PLAN MUST BE JUDGED BY THEIR NATURAL AND
REASONABLE EFFECT IN THE SITUATION IN WHICH THEY OPERATE.  COLLINS V.
NEW HAMPSHIRE, 171 U.S. 30, 33-34; STANDARD OIL CO. V. GRAVES, 249 U.S.
389, 394; UNITED STATES V. REYNOLDS, 235 U.S. 133, 148; HAMMER V.
DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, 275; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. KANSAS,
216 U.S. 1, 27; STEWART DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294 U.S. 550, 555;
MINNESOTA V. BARBER, 136 U.S. 313, 319. 

PURSUANT TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT THE AUTHORITY IS
ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC WITHIN
THE STATES, AND REGULATING ITS OWN RATES AND SERVICE, THE RATES AND
SERVICE OF DISTRIBUTORS OF ITS POWER, AND THE RATES OF PRIVATELY OWNED
AND STATE-REGULATED UTILITIES.  IF THIS IS VALID, THE POWERS OF THE
STATES AND THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS, ARE PRO
TANTO DESTROYED.  CF. WALLA WALLA CITY V. WALLA WALLA WATER CO., 172
U.S. 1, 11; UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 70-71; FROST V.
RAILROAD COMMISSION, 271 U.S. 583; PANAMA REFINING CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 293 U.S. 388. 

THERE IS NO REAL OR SUBSTANTIAL RELATION BETWEEN THE POWER TO DISPOSE
OF FEDERAL PROPERTY AND THE REGULATION OF LOCAL ELECTRIC RATES OR THE
ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE STATES OF A FEDERAL POLICY OF HAVING THE LOCAL
ELECTRIC BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY PUBLIC OR NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. 

THE NATURAL AND REASONABLE EFFECT OF THE OPERATION OF THE ACT, BY
BRINGING ABOUT A FEDERAL MONOPOLY OF THE LOCAL ELECTRIC BUSINESS, IS TO
DEPRIVE THE STATES OF IMPORTANT TAX REVENUES. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOT EXERCISE ITS POWER OF TAXATION SO AS
SUBSTANTIALLY TO BURDEN OR INTERFERE WITH THE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATES. 
COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, 124; POLLOCK V. FARMERS LOAN & TRUST
CO., 157 U.S. 429, 584; AMBROSINI V. UNITED STATES, 187 U.S. 1. 
HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405; ALLEN V. REGENTS, 304 U.S. 439,
DISTINGUISHED. 

THE OBJECTION THAT THE STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEME IS
UNAUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONTRAVENES THE FIFTH, NINTH AND
TENTH AMENDMENTS CAN NOT BE CURED BY THE CONSENT OF A STATE.  ASHTON V.
CAMERON COUNTY WATER DIST., 298 U.S. 513, 531; UNITED STATES V. BUTLER,
297 U.S. 1, 72; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 295.  STEWARD
MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548, DISTINGUISHED.  SEE UNITED STATES
V. BEKINS, 304 U.S. 27, 53; NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. MINNESOTA EX
REL. DULUTH, 208 U.S. 583; ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. GOLDSBORO, 232 U.S.
548; DENVER & RIO GRANDE R. CO. V. DENVER, 250 U.S. 241; KELLER V.
UNITED STATES, 213 U.S. 138, 144; NEW YORK V. MILN, 11 PET. 102, 139. 

THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE ASHWANDER CASE, 297 U.S. 288, CONDEMN
THE METHOD OF DISPOSAL AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT AND ADOPTED BY THE UNIFIED
PLAN. 

ONE THREATENED WITH DIRECT AND SPECIAL INJURY THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF A FEDERAL STATUTE OR THE ACT OF A FEDERAL OFFICER MAY MAINTAIN A
SUIT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR THE ACT IS
AUTHORIZED.  FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 488; PHILADELPHIA CO.
V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 621-622; ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S.
464. 

THE LEGAL RIGHTS WHICH APPELLANTS SEEK TO PROTECT ARE:  (1) THE RIGHT
TO BE FREE FROM ILLEGAL COMPETITION AND (2) THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN AND
CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE
STATES FREE FROM DISPLACEMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND FREE FROM
FEDERAL INTERFERENCE, REGULATION OR CONTROL.  THESE RIGHTS ARE ENTITLED
TO PROTECTION BOTH FROM INJURY PRODUCED BY THE OPERATION OF AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE AND FROM INJURY PRODUCED BY UNAUTHORIZED
ACTION OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES. 

A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE IS PROPERTY.  IT IS EXCLUSIVE AS AGAINST
ALL PERSONS ATTEMPTING TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT A
FRANCHISE OR UNDER A VOID FRANCHISE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT, THERE BEING NO
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW, THE HOLDER OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE HAS A
STANDING IN EQUITY TO PROTECT HIS PROPERTY AGAINST SUCH AN INJURIOUS
INVASION.  FROST V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 515, 521;
CORPORATION COMMISSION V. LOWE, 281 U.S. 431, 435; ALABAMA POWER CO. V.
ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 484-485; CITY OF CAMPBELL V. ARKANSAS-MISSOURI
POWER CO., 55 F.2D 560, 562; GALLARDO V. PORTO RICO RY. L. & P. CO., 18
F.2D 918, 922; ARKANSAS-MISSOURI POWER CO. V. CITY OF KENNETT, 78 F.2D
911; IOWA SOUTHERN UTILITIES CO. V. CASSILL, 69 F.2D 703; KANSAS GAS &
ELECTRIC CO. V. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, 79 F.2D 32.  THIS MEANS THAT THE
HOLDER OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE HAS A RIGHT TO INVOKE A JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ANY ACTUAL OR THREATENED COMPETITION WITH HIM
IS LEGAL AND, IF THAT INVOLVES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE OR
THE EXISTENCE OF OFFICIAL AUTHORITY, THEN A DETERMINATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OR OF THE EXTENT OF THE OFFICIAL AUTHORITY. 
AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF APPELLANTS TO SUE, IT
MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE APPELLEES ARE ATTEMPTING TO ENGAGE IN THE
BUSINESS ILLEGALLY, WITHOUT A FRANCHISE OR UNDER A VOID FRANCHISE. 

THE APPELLANTS HAVE A RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN AND CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF
SUPPLYING ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE SEVERAL STATES SUBJECT
ONLY TO STATE REGULATION AND FREE FROM OUSTER, INTERFERENCE, REGULATION
OR CONTROL BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE FREE
FROM DISPLACEMENT OR SUPERSESSION, IN CARRYING ON THAT BUSINESS, BY THE
OPERATION OF FEDERAL STATUTES OR THE ACTION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES WHICH
RESULT IN TAKING OVER THE BUSINESS AS A FEDERAL ENTERPRISE. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE APPELLANTS ARE SEVERALLY THREATENED WITH THE
MOST SEVERE AND DESTRUCTIVE SORT OF COMPETITION.  THAT A THREAT OF
COMPETITION IS A THREAT OF IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IS ESTABLISHED BY THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  WALLA WALLA V. WALLA WALLA WATER CO., 172
U.S. 1, 12; FROST V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 515, 521; ALABAMA
POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464. 

THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM ILLEGAL COMPETITION INCLUDES COMPETITION
FOR FUTURE OR UNATTACHED BUSINESS.  IT INCLUDES COMPETITION FOR
BUSINESS HANDLED BY THE AUTHORITY THROUGH MUNICIPAL AND COOPERATIVE
DISTRIBUTORS.  SEE CITIZENS ELECTRIC CO. V. LACKAWANNA & W.P. CO., 255
PA. 145; CHICAGO V. MUTUAL ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., 55 ILL. APP. 429. 

WHILE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A RELATIONSHIP IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO
APPELLANTS' RIGHT TO SUE, THE MUNICIPALITIES AND COOPERATIVES ARE IN
REALITY MERE AGENTS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
POWER; AND IN ANY EVENT, THE AUTHORITY SO FAR CONTROLS AND PARTICIPATES
IN THE SALES BY DISTRIBUTORS THAT THE VALIDITY OF ITS PARTICIPATION MAY
BE TESTED AT THE SUIT OF AN INJURED PARTY.  SEE UNITED STATES V.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476; MITCHELL WAGON CO. V. POOLE, 235 F.
817; IN RE UNITED STATES ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO., 2 F.2D 378; IN RE
WRIGHT-DANA HARDWARE CO., 211 F. 908; RUDIN V. KING-RICHARDSON CO., 37
F.2D 637; IN RE SMITH, 192 F. 574; IN RE THOMAS, 231 F. 513; IN RE
KRUSE, 234 F. 470; JOHN DEERE PLOW CO. V. MCDAVID, 137 F. 802; LUDVIGH
V. AMERICAN WOOLEN CO., 231 U.S. 522; MCCALLUM V. BRAY ROBINSON
CLOTHING CO., 24 F.2D 35; IN RE RENFRO-WADENSTEIN, 47 F.2D 238; BUTLER
BROS. SHOE CO. V. U.S. RUBBER CO., 156 F. 1.    APPELLANTS HAVE A CLEAR
RIGHT TO SUE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1; CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238; BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S.
20; HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 J.S. 251; HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44;
ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464. 

UNLESS APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED ON THE RECORD AS MADE TO A REVERSAL OF
THE DECREE WITH DIRECTIONS TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION, THEN THE DECREE OF
THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR SERIOUS ERRORS IN MATTERS OF
PROCEDURE AND IN RULINGS ON EVIDENCE. 

THE ACT SETS FORTH AS ITS BASIC PURPOSES THE IMPROVEMENT OF
NAVIGATION, THE CONTROL OF DESTRUCTIVE FLOODS IN THE TENNESSEE AND
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASINS, AND THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE.  THE
WHOLE RECORD CONFIRMS THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAT THE PROJECTS ARE
APPROPRIATE MEANS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE FUNCTIONS PRESCRIBED IN
THE STATUTE. 

THE POWER GENERATED IS LAWFULLY ACQUIRED, SINCE THESE ARE THE ONLY
PROJECTS CAPABLE OF PROVIDING FLOOD CONTROL ON THE TENNESSEE AND THE
MISSISSIPPI IN CONJUNCTION WITH A NINE-FOOT NAVIGATION CHANNEL ON THE
TENNESSEE.  THAT THE PROJECTS WILL CREATE AND MAINTAIN A CONTINUOUS
NINE-FOOT WATERWAY THROUGHOUT THE 650-MILE LENGTH OF THE TENNESSEE IS
UNDISPUTED.  NOT ONLY THE MAIN-STREAM DAMS, BUT THE TWO TRIBUTARY DAMS
AS WELL, WILL PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS TO NAVIGATION BOTH ON THE
TENNESSEE AND THE MISSISSIPPI, BY VIRTUE OF RELEASES OF STORED WATER IN
LOW-WATER SEASON. 

WHILE THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ALTERNATIVE
SYSTEMS ARE NOT LEGALLY MATERIAL, THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES AND THE TRIAL
COURT FOUND THAT THE PROJECTS OF THE AUTHORITY WILL PROVIDE A
NAVIGATION CHANNEL SUPERIOR TO THAT WHICH COULD BE PROVIDED BY ANY
ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM. 

EVEN IF THE POWER TO CONSTRUCT FLOOD-CONTROL WORKS MUST BE RESTED ON
THE POWER TO IMPROVE NAVIGATION, THE TEST IS MET BY THESE PROJECTS,
SINCE THEIR OPERATION FOR FLOOD-CONTROL PURPOSES RESULTS IN SUBSTANTIAL
BENEFITS TO NAVIGATION.  JACKSON V. UNITED STATES, 230 U.S. 1, 23;
CUBBINS V. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMM'N, 241 U.S. 351, 368-369.  BUT
CONGRESS HAS POWER TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON LAND
AS WELL AS ON WATER, AND ACCORDINGLY TO ENGAGE IN FLOOD-CONTROL
MEASURES, WHERE, AS ON THE TENNESSEE AND THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI, THERE
IS A SERIOUS FLOOD MENACE TO ALL FORMS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CF.
WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1.  IN ADDITION, ITS POWER TO COPE WITH
THE RECURRING THREAT OF FLOODS CAN BE RESTED ON ITS POWER TO MAKE
EXPENDITURES FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE.  CF. STEWARD MACHINE CO. V.
DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548. 

THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL DEFENSE IS SUBSTANTIALLY SERVED BY THE
TRIBUTARY DAMS WHICH RELEASE WATER DURING THE LOW-WATER SEASON AND SO
ENHANCE THE VALUE AND USEFULNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTIES AT
MUSCLE SHOALS. 

IN PROVIDING WORKS WHICH APPROPRIATELY SERVE AS NAVIGATION AND FLOOD
CONTROL STRUCTURES, CONGRESS MAY DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE PROJECTS AND
THE MODE AND MANNER OF THEIR USE, AND THE POWER WHICH IS THUS ACQUIRED
IS THE LAWFUL PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA,
283 U.S. 423, 456; GREEN BAY & M. CANAL CO. V. PATTEN PAPER CO., 172
U.S. 58, REHEARING DENIED, 173 U.S. 179; UNITED STATES V. CHANDLER
DUNBAR WATER POWER CO., 229 U.S. 53. 

THE WATER POWER CREATED BY THESE PROJECTS IS THE PROPERTY OF THE
UNITED STATES, MAY BE CONVERTED INTO ELECTRIC ENERGY, AND, UNDER THE
PROPERTY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION ALL OF THE ELECTRICITY SO ACQUIRED
MAY BE DISPOSED OF BY TRANSMISSION TO THE MARKET AND BY SALES TO
MUNICIPALITIES, RURAL COOPERATIVES, AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS. 
ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 340. 

THE AUTHORITY IS NOW SELLING POWER TO THE SAME CLASSES OF CUSTOMERS
AS THOSE SERVED BY THE LINES PURCHASED UNDER THE CONTRACT APPROVED IN
THE ASHWANDER CASE.  AND, AS FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT, ALL OF THE
MARKETING FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED BY THE AUTHORITY, NAMELY,
TRANSMISSION LINES, SUBSTATIONS, AND RURAL LINES, ARE SIMILAR IN
CHARACTER AND FUNCTION TO THE FACILITIES PURCHASED UNDER THAT
CONTRACT. 

IN THIS CASE, AS IN THAT, THE METHOD OF DISPOSITION IS NECESSARY TO
AVOID A PRIVATE MONOPOLY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPERTY, TO PREVENT
WASTE, AND TO SECURE A WIDESPREAD DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS PURSUANT TO
THE STATUTE. 

AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT, THE AUTHORITY'S CONTRACTS WITH
MUNICIPALITIES AND COOPERATIVES ESTABLISH THE RESALE RATES TO BE
CHARGED BY THE DISTRIBUTORS (SEC. 10).  APPELLANTS HAVE NO STANDING TO
CHALLENGE THESE PROVISIONS, SINCE THEY WERE VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO BY
THE MUNICIPALITIES AND COOPERATIVES, WHICH ARE EMPOWERED TO DO SO BY
VALID STATE LAW.  ANY ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE TO APPELLANTS RESULTING
FROM THE RATES ADOPTED BY THE MUNICIPALITIES AND COOPERATIVES IS MERELY
THE INCIDENTAL RESULT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS VESTED IN THEM BY
THE LAWS OF THE STATES OF THEIR CREATION TO SET THEIR OWN RATES AND TO
CONTRACT WITH RESPECT TO THEM.  EDWARD HINES TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES,
263 U.S. 143, 148; SPRUNT & SON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 249, 254
256; WILBUR V. TEXAS CO., 40 F.2D 787(APP.  D.C., 1930), CERT. DENIED,
282 U.S. 843; GEORGIA POWER CO. V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 14
F.SUPP.  673(N.D. GA., 1936). 

IN ANY EVENT, THESE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACTS ARE VALID.  THE
GOVERNMENT IS SELLING AT WHOLESALE.  THE DEMAND FOR THE GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY WILL BE INFLUENCED BY THE RATES CHARGED TO THE ULTIMATE
CONSUMER.  THE CONGRESS, IN THE POSITION OF A TRUSTEE OF GOVERNMENT
PROPERTY, MAY THEREFORE AUTHORIZE THIS MEANS TO ASSURE A WIDESPREAD
DIFFUSION OF THE BENEFITS TO THE PEOPLE.  CF. OREGON & CALIFORNIA R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 393; UNITED STATES V. GRATIOT, 26 FED.
CAS. 12(C.C.D. ILL., 1839), AFF'D, 14 PET. 526. 

THERE IS NO INVASION OF THE RIGHTS RESERVED TO THE STATES UNDER THE
TENTH AMENDMENT, EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE AMENDMENT CONSTITUTES
AN INDEPENDENT LIMITATION ON THE EXERCISE OF GRANTED POWERS.  THE
DENIAL OF THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO CONSTRUCT THE NECESSARY
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES AND TO ENTER INTO THE NECESSARY CONTRACTS FOR
THE SALE OF THE POWER WOULD LIMIT THE AUTHORITY'S MARKET TO SALES AT
THE DAM SITES WHERE THE COMMONWEALTH AND SOUTHERN COMPANIES ARE,
PRACTICALLY, THE ONLY AVAILABLE PURCHASERS. 

THE CONCLUSIVE ANSWER TO THE INVOCATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT IS
THAT THE MEANS OF DISPOSITION DO NOT IMPAIR THE EXERCISE OF THE STATES'
POLICE POWER.  THE AUTHORITY IS DEALING WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND
COOPERATIVES WHO ARE SUBJECT AT ALL TIMES TO THE COMPLETE CONTROL OF
THE STATES, AND THE STATE COURTS HAVE DETERMINED THAT THERE IS NO
ABDICATION OF STATE POWERS.  MEMPHIS POWER & LIGHT CO. V. MEMPHIS, 172
TENN. 346(1937); OPPENHEIM V. FLORENCE, 229 ALA. 50(1934).  AN
ARRANGEMENT BY WHICH THE STATE AUTHORIZES ITS AGENCIES, AT THEIR
ELECTION, TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FROM THE GOVERNMENT, STILL RETAINING IN
THE STATE THE RIGHT OF REGULATION AND CONTROL, CAN GIVE RISE TO NO
QUESTIONS UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  CF. STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS,
SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. BEKINS, 304 U.S. 27.  THE STATES MAY AUTHORIZE
MUNICIPALITIES TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE ELECTRIC PLANTS IN COMPETITION
WITH THE APPELLANT COMPANIES EVEN THOUGH THE RESULT IS HARMFUL TO THE
BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES.  ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464. 
TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS COMPETITION IS RELATED TO THE WHOLESALE SERVICE
OF THE AUTHORITY, THE CASE IS ONE OF THE FEDERAL EXERCISE OF THE
GRANTED POWER TO DISPOSE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY BY SALES TO LOCAL PUBLIC
AGENCIES WHO THEMSELVES ENGAGE IN AN ENTERPRISE AUTHORIZED BY THE
STATES.  SUCH COOPERATION IS PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT
FORBIDDEN BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  DUKE POWER CO. V. GREENWOOD COUNTY,
91 F.2D 665, 673(C.C.A.4TH, 1937); CF. STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS,
SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. BEKINS, SUPRA. 

MOREOVER, ANY EFFECT OF COMPETITION UPON APPELLANTS' RATES DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE REGULATION AND IS ONLY THE COLLATERAL EFFECT OF THE EXERCISE
OF A GRANTED POWER.  DUKE POWER CO. V. GREENWOOD COUNTY, SUPRA; CF.
SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506, 513-514; UNITED STATES V.
CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144. 

THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECTS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC
PROPERTY IS A QUESTION FOR CONGRESS TO DETERMINE.  CF. ARIZONA V.
CALIFORNIA, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. HANSON, 167 F. 881(C.C.A.9TH,
1909). 

THE RESALE-RATE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACTS DO NOT DEPRIVE THE STATES
OF THEIR POWER TO REGULATE INTRASTATE RATES AND ARE NOT IN VIOLATION OF
THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  THERE CANNOT BE ANY IMPAIRMENT OF STATE
SOVEREIGNTY WHERE, AS HERE, THE STATES HAVE AUTHORIZED THE CONTRACTS
AND HAVE RESERVED A CONTINUING POWER TO REVOKE THE AUTHORIZATION.  CF.
STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. BEKINS, SUPRA. 

THE SALE OF POWER BY THE AUTHORITY AND ITS WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE REGULATION, AND THE LOSS OF APPELLANTS' BUSINESS, IF
ANY, IS NOT A "TAKING" OF THEIR PROPERTY UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; STANDARD SCALE CO. V. FARRELL, 249
U.S. 571; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES R. LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S.
72; UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES R. CO., 273 U.S. 299.  CF. WALLA WALLA
V. WALLA WALLA WATER CO., 172 U.S. 1; JOPLIN V. SOUTHWEST M. LIGHT CO.,
191 U.S. 150; HELENA WATER WORKS CO. V. HELENA, 195 U.S. 383; PUGET
SOUND CO. V. SEATTLE, 291 U.S. 619. 

APPELLANTS HAVE NO STANDING TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT.  THEIR MUNICIPAL
AND COUNTY STREET FRANCHISES, LICENSES, OR EASEMENTS, AT THE MOST,
CONFER ONLY THE RIGHT TO ENJOIN THE USE OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS BY
ONE COMPETING WITH APPELLANTS WITHOUT A LIKE FRANCHISE, LICENSE, OR
EASEMENT.  NO SHOWING HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE AUTHORITY'S FACILITIES
OCCUPY THE PUBLIC STREETS AND HIGHWAYS.  MOREOVER, WHATEVER THE NATURE
OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED BY LOCAL STREET FRANCHISES, LICENSES, OR
EASEMENTS, IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GRANTED SUCH
RIGHTS BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN THE AREAS IN WHICH IT OPERATES. 

THE ONLY SO-CALLED "STATE FRANCHISES" WHICH APPELLANTS, AS A CLASS,
POSSESS ARE CORPORATE PRIVILEGES DERIVED UNDER THE GENERAL STATE LAWS
GOVERNING INCORPORATION AND THE QUALIFICATION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. 
SUCH CORPORATE "FRANCHISES" OBVIOUSLY CONFER NO IMMUNITY FROM
COMPETITION.  CF. RAILROAD CO. V. ELLERMAN, 105 U.S. 166.  APPELLANTS
HAVE NOT BEEN REQUIRED TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATES OF CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY TO SERVE IN THE AREA IN WHICH THE AUTHORITY IS OPERATING. 
CONSEQUENTLY, APPELLANTS ARE NOT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF FROST V.
CORPORATION COMM'N, 278 U.S. 515. 

IN ANY EVENT, THE STATUTES IN ALL THE STATES IN WHICH THE AUTHORITY
IS UNDER CONTRACT TO SELL ELECTRICITY WITHIN THE CLAIMED TERRITORY OF
APPELLANTS HAVE EXEMPTED THE AUTHORITY FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE
REGULATORY COMMISSIONS AND FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF CERTIFICATES OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  THE VALIDITY OF THESE EXEMPTIONS IS NOT
CHALLENGED AS UNLAWFULLY DISCRIMINATORY.  THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN
THE FROST CASE (278 U.S. 515) MERELY HOLDS THAT ONE WHO IS REQUIRED TO
OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY MAY ENJOIN
COMPETITION BY ONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND
HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THEIR TERMS.  CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY, 94 F.2D 520(C.C.A.4TH, 1938),
CERT. DENIED, 304 U.S. 578.  IT IS INSUFFICIENT ANSWER THAT THE POWERS
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE ENLARGED BY STATE ENACTMENTS.  THE
VALIDITY OF THESE STATE STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS (WHICH IS NOT CHALLENGED
BY APPELLANTS) MAY BE SUPPORTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT. 

IN ADDITION TO THEIR LACK OF THE NECESSARY FRANCHISES, NINE OF THE
APPELLANT COMPANIES ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE THREATENED WITH DAMAGE BY ANY
CONCRETE ACT OF THE APPELLEES.  IN THE CLAIMED TERRITORY OF THESE
APPELLANTS THE AUTHORITY NEITHER OWNS ELECTRIC FACILITIES NOR HAS IT
NEGOTIATED ANY CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF POWER.  AS TO THESE
APPELLANTS, OBVIOUSLY NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY IS PRESENTED. 
ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, SUPRA.  FOUR OTHER APPELLANTS,
ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND SOUTHERN SYSTEM, HAVE PURCHASED A
LARGE PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE POWER DEVELOPED AND
GENERATED AT THE PROJECTS OF THE AUTHORITY, BOTH AT THE SWITCHBOARD
AND, IN THE CASE OF THE ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, AT THE END OF THE
AUTHORITY'S TRANSMISSION LINE; AND ALL OF THEM HAVE RECEIVED MANY OTHER
BENEFITS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT NOW CHALLENGED.  ACCEPTANCE OF
THESE BENEFITS ESTOPS THESE APPELLANTS FROM QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH THE BENEFITS WERE RECEIVED. 
GREAT FALLS MFG. CO. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 124 U.S. 581; WALL V. PARROT
SILVER & COPPER CO., 244 U.S. 407; ST. LOUIS CO. V. PRENDERGAST CO.,
260 U.S. 469.  THE DECISION IN THE ASHWANDER CASE HELD MERELY THAT THE
PURCHASE OF POWER AT THE DAM SITE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE
DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ATTACK ON SEPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF TRANSMISSION FACILITIES AND IS CLEARLY
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CASE AT BAR. 

FINALLY, THE COMPETITION OF WHICH THE APPELLANTS COMPLAIN IS THE
COMPETITION OF THE MUNICIPALITIES AND COOPERATIVES AND NOT OF THE
AUTHORITY, AND UNDER THE DECISION IN ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, SUPRA,
THE APPELLANTS CANNOT CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACTS BETWEEN
THE AUTHORITY AND THESE MUNICIPALITIES AND COOPERATIVES.  APPELLANTS'
LEGAL INTEREST IS THE SAME WHETHER THE PERMANENT ELECTRIC SUPPLY OF THE
MUNICIPAL AND COOPERATIVE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IS GENERATED BY
FACILITIES OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY FACILITIES OWNED BY THE
DISTRIBUTOR BUT CONSTRUCTED BY MEANS OF FEDERAL LOANS AND GRANTS. 
THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE ALLEGED TO RESULT FROM THE LOSS OF THE WHOLESALE
MUNICIPAL AND COOPERATIVE MARKETS SERVED BY THE AUTHORITY IS WHOLLY
SPECULATIVE AND UNREAL.  NEITHER THE MUNICIPALITIES NOR THE
COOPERATIVES WERE POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS OF THE APPELLANTS.  THE SAME IS
TRUE OF THE LARGE ELECTROCHEMICAL AND ELECTROMETALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES
UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAVE LOCATED IN THE CLAIMED
TERRITORY OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND SOUTHERN COMPANIES. 

ON THE WHOLE RECORD, APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO SHOW A SUFFICIENT
LEGAL INTEREST TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT, AND THE CASE PRESENTED DOES NOT
ADMIT OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.    THE TRIAL WAS FAIR AND EXHAUSTIVE. 
ON THE WHOLE RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RULINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT ON
EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE WERE WELL WITHIN ITS DISCRETION, AND, IN ANY
EVENT, APPELLANTS HAVE FAILED TO SHOW ANY PREJUDICIAL ERROR SUFFICIENT
TO JUSTIFY OR EVEN TO PERMIT THE REMAND OF A CASE OF THIS CHARACTER. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT  FN1  ERECTS A CORPORATION, AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES, TO DEVELOP BY A SERIES OF DAMS ON
THE TENNESSEE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES A SYSTEM OF NAVIGATION AND
FLOOD CONTROL AND TO SELL THE POWER CREATED BY THE DAMS.  EIGHTEEN
CORPORATIONS WHICH GENERATE AND DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY IN TENNESSEE,
KENTUCKY, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, NORTH
CAROLINA, AND SOUTH CAROLINA, AND ONE WHICH TRANSMITS ELECTRICITY IN
TENNESSEE AND ALABAMA, FILED A BILL IN EQUITY, IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF
KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE, AGAINST THE AUTHORITY AND ITS THREE EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS.  THE PRAYERS WERE THAT THE DEFENDANTS BE
RESTRAINED FROM GENERATING ELECTRICITY OUT OF WATER POWER CREATED, OR
TO BE CREATED, PURSUANT TO THE ACT AND THE AUTHORITY'S PLAN OF
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION; FROM TRANSMITTING, DISTRIBUTING, SUPPLYING
OR SELLING ELECTRICITY SO GENERATED, OR TO BE GENERATED, IN COMPETITION
WITH ANY OF THE COMPLAINANTS; FROM CONSTRUCTING, OR FINANCING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF, STEAM OR HYDROELECTRIC GENERATING STATIONS,
TRANSMISSION LINES OR MEANS OF DISTRIBUTION, WHICH WILL DUPLICATE OR
COMPETE WITH ANY OF THEIR SERVICES; FROM REGULATING THEIR RETAIL RATES
THROUGH ANY CONTRACT, SCHEME OR DEVICE; AND FROM SUBSTITUTING FEDERAL
REGULATION FOR STATE REGULATION OF LOCAL RATES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE,
MORE ESPECIALLY BY INCORPORATING IN CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF
ELECTRICITY TERMS FIXING RETAIL RATES.  THE DEFENDANTS REMOVED THE
CAUSE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN TENNESSEE AND
THERE ANSWERED THE BILL.  AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937,
FN2  A COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS CONVENED WHICH, AFTER A TRIAL,
DISMISSED THE BILL.  FN3 

FOURTEEN OF THE COMPLAINANTS ARE HERE AS APPELLANTS.  FN4  THEY
CONTEND THAT WATER POWER CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE CREATED IN
CONFORMITY TO THE TERMS OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT, AND THE
UNITED STATES WILL, THEREFORE, ACQUIRE NO TITLE TO IT, BECAUSE IT WILL
NOT BE PRODUCED AS AN INCIDENT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO
IMPROVE NAVIGATION AND CONTROL FLOODS IN THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE
NATION.  THEY AFFIRM THAT THE STATUTORY PLAN IS A PLAIN ATTEMPT, IN THE
GUISE OF EXERTING GRANTED POWERS, TO EXERCISE A POWER NOT GRANTED TO
THE UNITED STATES, NAMELY, THE GENERATION AND SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY;
THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE PLAN CONTRAVENES THE FIFTH, NINTH, AND TENTH
AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION, SINCE THE SALE OF ELECTRICITY ON THE
SCALE PROPOSED WILL DEPRIVE THE APPELLANTS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WILL RESULT IN FEDERAL REGULATION OF THE INTERNAL
AFFAIRS OF THE STATES, AND WILL DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES OF
THEIR GUARANTEED LIBERTY TO EARN A LIVELIHOOD AND TO ACQUIRE AND USE
PROPERTY SUBJECT ONLY TO STATE REGULATION.  THE APPELLEES CONTEST THESE
CONTENTIONS.  FOR REASONS ABOUT TO BE STATED WE DO NOT CONSIDER OR
DECIDE THE ISSUES THUS MOOTED. 

THE AUTHORITY'S ACTS, WHICH THE APPELLANTS CLAIM GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE
OF ACTION, COMPRISE (1) THE SALE OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AT WHOLESALE TO
MUNICIPALITIES EMPOWERED BY STATE LAW TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THEIR OWN
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS; (2) THE SALE OF SUCH ENERGY AT WHOLESALE TO
MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER STATE LAW TO PURCHASE AND
DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY TO THEIR MEMBERS WITHOUT PROFIT; (3) THE SALE OF
FIRM AND SECONDARY POWER AT WHOLESALE TO INDUSTRIAL PLANTS. 

THE APPELLANTS ARE INCORPORATED FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE
AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AS PUBLIC UTILITIES.  SEVERAL DO SO ONLY
WITHIN THE STATES OF THEIR INCORPORATION; THOSE CHARTERED ELSEWHERE
HAVE QUALIFIED AS FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATES IN
WHICH THEY MANUFACTURE, TRANSMIT, OR DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY.  MOST OF
THEM HAVE LOCAL FRANCHISES, LICENSES, OR EASEMENTS GRANTED BY
MUNICIPALITIES OR GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISIONS BUT IT IS ADMITTED THAT
NONE OF THESE FRANCHISES CONFERS AN EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE. 

WHILE THE AUTHORITY HAS NOT BUILT OR AUTHORIZED ANY TRANSMISSION
LINE, HAS NOT SOLD OR AUTHORIZED THE SALE OF ELECTRICITY, OR CONTRACTED
FOR, OR AUTHORIZED ANY CONTRACT FOR, THE SALE OF ELECTRICITY BY OTHERS,
IN TERRITORY SERVED BY NINE OF THE APPELLANTS, IT HAS DONE SOME OR ALL
OF THESE THINGS IN AREAS SERVED OR SUSCEPTIBLE OF SERVICE BY FIVE OF
THE COMPANIES; AND IT PLANS TO ENTER IN THE SAME WAY THE TERRITORY OF
OTHER APPELLANTS.  IT IS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT ITS ACTS HAVE RESULTED
AND WILL RESULT IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MUNICIPAL AND COOPERATIVE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS COMPETING WITH THOSE OF SOME OR ALL OF THE
APPELLANTS IN TERRITORY WHICH THEY NOW SERVE, OR REASONABLY EXPECT TO
SERVE BY EXTENSION OF THEIR EXISTING SYSTEMS, AND IN DIRECT COMPETITION
WITH THE APPELLANTS' ENTERPRISES THROUGH THE SALE OF POWER TO
INDUSTRIES IN AREAS NOW SERVED BY THEM OR WHICH THEY CAN SERVE BY
EXPANSION OF THEIR FACILITIES.  THE APPELLANTS ASSERT THAT THIS
COMPETITION WILL INFLICT SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE UPON THEM.  THE APPELLEES
ADMIT THAT SUCH DAMAGE WILL RESULT, BUT CONTEND THAT IT IS NOT THE
BASIS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION SINCE IT IS DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA,  - A
DAMAGE NOT CONSEQUENT UPON THE VIOLATION OF ANY RIGHT RECOGNIZED BY
LAW. 

THE APPELLANTS INVOKE THE DOCTRINE THAT ONE THREATENED WITH DIRECT
AND SPECIAL INJURY BY THE ACT OF AN AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH, BUT
FOR STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR ITS PERFORMANCE, WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF
HIS LEGAL RIGHTS, MAY CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE IN A SUIT
AGAINST THE AGENT.  FN5  THE PRINCIPLE IS WITHOUT APPLICATION UNLESS
THE RIGHT INVADED IS A LEGAL RIGHT,  - ONE OF PROPERTY, ONE ARISING OUT
OF CONTRACT, ONE PROTECTED AGAINST TORTIOUS INVASION, OR ONE FOUNDED ON
A STATUTE WHICH CONFERS A PRIVILEGE.  FN6  THE APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, BY COMPETING WITH THEM IN THE SALE OF
ELECTRIC ENERGY, IS DESTROYING THEIR PROPERTY AND RIGHTS WITHOUT
WARRANT, SINCE THE CLAIMED AUTHORIZATION OF ITS TRANSACTIONS IS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE.  THE PITH OF THE COMPLAINT IS THE AUTHORITY'S
COMPETITION.  BUT THE APPELLANTS REALIZE THAT COMPETITION BETWEEN
NATURAL PERSONS IS LAWFUL.  THEY SEEK TO STIGMATIZE THE AUTHORITY'S
PRESENT AND PROPOSED COMPETITION AS "ILLEGAL" BY RELIANCE ON THEIR
FRANCHISES WHICH THEY SAY ARE PROPERTY PROTECTED FROM INJURY OR
DESTRUCTION BY COMPETITION.  THEY CLASSIFY THE FRANCHISES IN QUESTION
AS OF TWO SORTS,  - THOSE INVOLVED IN THE STATE'S GRANT OF
INCORPORATION OR OF DOMESTICATION AND THOSE ARISING FROM THE GRANT BY
THE STATE OR ITS SUBDIVISIONS OF THE PRIVILEGE TO USE AND OCCUPY PUBLIC
PROPERTY AND PUBLIC PLACES FOR THE SERVICE OF THE PUBLIC. 

THE CHARTERS OF THE COMPANIES WHICH OPERATE IN THE STATES OF THEIR
INCORPORATION GIVE THEM LEGAL EXISTENCE AND POWER TO FUNCTION AS PUBLIC
UTILITIES.  THE LIKE EXISTENCE AND POWERS OF THOSE CHARTERED IN OTHER
STATES HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATES IN WHICH THEY DO
BUSINESS PERMITTING THE DOMESTICATION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  THE
APPELLANTS SAY THAT THE FRANCHISE TO BE A PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATION
AND TO FUNCTION AS SUCH, WITH INCIDENTAL POWERS, IS A SPECIES OF
PROPERTY WHICH IS DIRECTLY TAKEN OR INJURED BY THE AUTHORITY'S
COMPETITION.  THEY FURTHER URGE THAT, THOUGH NON-EXCLUSIVE, THE LOCAL
FRANCHISES OR EASEMENTS, WHICH GRANT THEM THE PRIVILEGE TO SERVE WITHIN
GIVEN MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISIONS, AND TO OCCUPY STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES,
ARE ALSO PROPERTY WHICH THE AUTHORITY IS DESTROYING BY ITS
COMPETITION.  SINCE WHAT IS BEING DONE IS JUSTIFIED BY REFERENCE TO THE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ACT, THEY SAY THEY HAVE STANDING TO
CHALLENGE ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

THE VICE OF THE POSITION IS THAT NEITHER THEIR CHARTERS NOR THEIR
LOCAL FRANCHISES INVOLVE THE GRANT OF A MONOPOLY OR RENDER COMPETITION
ILLEGAL.  THE FRANCHISE TO EXIST AS A CORPORATION, AND TO FUNCTION AS A
PUBLIC UTILITY, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC CHARTER CONTRACT ON THE
SUBJECT, CREATES NO RIGHT TO BE FREE OF COMPETITION,  FN7  AND AFFORDS
THE CORPORATION NO LEGAL CAUSE OF COMPLAINT BY REASON OF THE STATE'S
SUBSEQUENTLY AUTHORIZING ANOTHER TO ENTER AND OPERATE IN THE SAME
FIELD.  FN8  THE LOCAL FRANCHISES, WHILE HAVING ELEMENTS OF PROPERTY,
CONFER NO CONTRACTUAL OR PROPERTY RIGHT TO BE FREE OF COMPETITION
EITHER FROM INDIVIDUALS, OTHER PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATIONS, OR THE
STATE OR MUNICIPALITY GRANTING THE FRANCHISE.  FN9  THE GRANTOR MAY
PRECLUDE ITSELF BY CONTRACT FROM INITIATING OR PERMITTING SUCH
COMPETITION,  FN10  BUT NO SUCH CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION IS HERE
ASSERTED. 

THE APPELLANTS FURTHER ARGUE THAT EVEN IF INVASION OF THEIR FRANCHISE
RIGHTS DOES NOT GIVE THEM STANDING, THEY MAY, BY SUIT, CHALLENGE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER THE EXERCISE OF WHICH
RESULTS IN COMPETITION.  THIS IS BUT TO SAY THAT IF THE COMMODITY USED
BY A COMPETITOR WAS NOT LAWFULLY OBTAINED BY IT THE CORPORATION WITH
WHICH IT COMPETES MAY RENDER IT LIABLE IN DAMAGES OR ENJOIN IT FROM
FURTHER COMPETITION BECAUSE OF THE ILLEGAL DERIVATION OF THAT WHICH IT
SELLS.  IF THE THESIS WERE SOUND, APPELLANTS COULD ENJOIN A COMPETING
CORPORATION OR AGENCY ON THE GROUND THAT ITS INJURIOUS COMPETITION IS
ULTRA VIRES, THAT THERE IS A DEFECT IN THE GRANT OF POWERS TO IT, OR
THAT THE MEANS OF COMPETITION WERE ACQUIRED BY SOME VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THE CONTENTION IS FORECLOSED BY PRIOR DECISIONS THAT THE
DAMAGE CONSEQUENT ON COMPETITION, OTHERWISE LAWFUL, IS IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA, AND WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF
ACTION OR A RIGHT TO SUE.  FN11 

CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF STATE STATUTES REGULATING PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE
CLAIMED TO CONFER ON THE APPELLANTS THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF
COMPETITION.  EACH OF THE STATES IN WHICH ANY OF THEM OPERATES, SAVE
MISSISSIPPI,  FN12  HAS ESTABLISHED A COMMISSION TO SUPERVISE AND
REGULATE PUBLIC UTILITIES.  WHILE THE STATUTES  FN13  DIFFER IN THEIR
PROVISIONS, ALL BUT THAT OF VIRGINIA REQUIRE A PUBLIC UTILITY TO OBTAIN
A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AS A CONDITION OF DOING
BUSINESS.  THE APPELLANTS COMMENCED BUSINESS IN THE VARIOUS STATES
PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SUCH CERTIFICATES AND, SO
FAR AS APPEARS, THEY HAVE NONE COVERING THEIR ENTIRE OPERATIONS.  THEY
HAVE, HOWEVER, OBTAINED CERTIFICATES FOR EXTENSIONS MADE SINCE THE
PASSAGE OF THE STATUTES; AND THEY CLAIM THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THESE LAWS
AFFORD THEM PROTECTION FROM THE AUTHORITY'S COMPETITION SINCE ANY
UTILITY NOW SEEKING TO SERVE IN THEIR TERRITORY MUST OBTAIN A
CERTIFICATE, AND HENCE THEY HAVE STANDING TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT AGAINST
THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS NONE.  THE POSITION CANNOT BE MAINTAINED. 
WHETHER COMPETITION BETWEEN UTILITIES SHALL BE PROHIBITED, REGULATED OR
FORBIDDEN IS A MATTER OF STATE POLICY.  THAT POLICY IS SUBJECT TO
ALTERATION AT THE WILL OF THE LEGISLATURE.  FN14  THE DECLARATION OF A
SPECIFIC POLICY CREATES NO VESTED RIGHT TO ITS MAINTENANCE IN UTILITIES
THEN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OR THEREAFTER EMBARKING IN IT. 

MOREOVER, THE STATES IN WHICH THE AUTHORITY IS NOW FUNCTIONING HAVE
DECLARED THEIR POLICY IN RESPECT OF ITS ACTIVITIES.  ALABAMA HAS
ENACTED THAT FEDERAL AGENCIES, INSTRUMENTALITIES, OR CORPORATIONS SHALL
NOT BE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ITS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; FN15
THAT MUNICIPALITIES AND IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITIES MAY OWN AND OPERATE
ELECTRIC GENERATING AND DISTRIBUTING SYSTEMS AND MAY CONTRACT WITH A
FEDERAL AGENCY SUCH AS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE PURCHASE OF ENERGY, AND
STIPULATE AS TO THE USE OF THE ENERGY, INCLUDING RATES OF RESALE; FN16
THAT NONPROFIT MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS MAY BE FORMED FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION AMONG THEIR MEMBERS OF ELECTRICITY WITH LIKE POWER TO
CONTRACT WITH THE AUTHORITY FOR THE REQUIRED ENERGY.  FN17 TENNESSEE
HAS AMENDED SEC. 5448 OF ITS CODE, WHICH DEFINES PUBLIC UTILITIES, SO
AS TO EXCLUDE FEDERAL CORPORATIONS SUCH AS THE AUTHORITY FROM THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE UTILITIES COMMISSION; FN18  HAS AUTHORIZED
MUNICIPALITIES TO OWN AND OPERATE ELECTRIC GENERATING TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS AND TO CONTRACT FOR POWER WITH THE AUTHORITY ON
TERMS DEEMED APPROPRIATE, INCLUDING THE FIXING OF RESALE PRICES; FN19
HAS AUTHORIZED THE FORMATION OF NONPROFIT MEMBERSHIP ELECTRIC
CORPORATIONS WITH LIKE POWERS TO CONTRACT.  FN20  KENTUCKY HAS
AUTHORIZED MUNICIPALITIES TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN LIGHT, HEAT, AND
POWER PLANTS; FN21  AND HAS PROVIDED FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF NONPROFIT
COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS WHICH MAY CONTRACT WITH THE AUTHORITY
FOR PURCHASE OF ENERGY AND STIPULATE AS TO RESALE PRICES.  FN22
MISSISSIPPI, WHICH HAS NO STATE LAW FOR REGULATION OF UTILITIES, HAS
EMPOWERED MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN
ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS WHICH MAY BUY POWER FROM THE AUTHORITY
AND CONTRACT AS TO RESALE PRICES; FN23  HAS CREATED A RURAL ELECTRICAL
AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZED THE FORMATION OF POWER DISTRICTS AND NONPROFIT
COMPETITIVES, ALL COMPETENT TO PURCHASE ENERGY FROM THE AUTHORITY AND
DISTRIBUTE IT AND TO CONTRACT WITH THE AUTHORITY AS TO RESALE RATES TO
CONSUMERS.  FN24  THE AUTHORITY'S ACTION IN THESE STATES IS CONSONANT
WITH STATE LAW, BUT, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, IF THE FACT WERE OTHERWISE, THE
APPELLANTS WOULD HAVE NO STANDING TO RESTRAIN ITS CONTINUANCE.    AS
THE AUTHORITY HAS NOT ACTED IN ANY WAY IN NORTH CAROLINA, SOUTH
CAROLINA, VIRGINIA OR WEST VIRGINIA, THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT
ITS PROPOSED ENTRY INTO SOME OR ALL OF THEM CONFERS A RIGHT TO SUE FOR
AN INJUNCTION AGAINST INJURY THEREBY THREATENED HAS EVEN LESS SUPPORT. 
FN25    THE APPELLANTS MAY NOT RAISE ANY QUESTION OF DISCRIMINATION
FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INVOLVED IN STATE EXEMPTION OF
THE AUTHORITY FROM COMMISSION REGULATION.  FOR THIS REASON FROST V.
CORPORATION COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 515, ON WHICH THEY RELY, IS
INAPPLICABLE.  MANIFESTLY THERE CAN BE NO CHALLENGE OF THE VALIDITY OF
STATE ACTION IN THIS SUIT. 

A DISTINCT GROUND UPON WHICH STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT IS SAID TO
REST IS THAT THE ACTS OF THE AUTHORITY CANNOT BE UPHELD WITHOUT
PERMITTING FEDERAL REGULATION OF PURELY LOCAL MATTERS RESERVED TO THE
STATES OR THE PEOPLE BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT AND SANCTIONING DESTRUCTION
OF THE LIBERTY SAID TO BE GUARANTEED BY THE NINTH AMENDMENT TO THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATES TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND EMPLOY IT IN A LAWFUL
BUSINESS.  THE PROPOSITION CAN MEAN ONLY THAT SINCE THE AUTHORITY SELLS
ELECTRICITY AT RATES LOWER THAN THOSE HERETOFORE MAINTAINED BY THE
APPELLANTS SUCH SALE IS AN INDIRECT REGULATION OF APPELLANTS' RATES. 
BUT THE COMPETITION OF A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY AUTHORIZED BY THE
STATE TO ENTER THE TERRITORY SERVED BY ONE OF THE APPELLANTS WOULD, IN
THE SAME SENSE, CONSTITUTE A REGULATION OF RATES.  THE CONTENTION
AMOUNTS TO SAYING THAT COMPETITION BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR A STATE
CORPORATION IS NOT REGULATION BUT COMPETITION BY A FEDERAL AGENCY IS.
IN CONTRACTING WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS THE
AUTHORITY HAS STIPULATED RESPECTING THE PRICE AT WHICH THE ENERGY
SUPPLIED SHALL BE RESOLD BY ITS VENDEES.  THAT IS SAID TO BE A
REGULATION OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS.  BUT IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN
INCIDENT OF COMPETITION; IT IS BUT A METHOD OF SEEKING AND ASSURING A
MARKET FOR THE POWER WHICH THE AUTHORITY HAS FOR SALE, AND A LAWFUL
MEANS TO THAT END.  FN26  THE SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN
COMPETITION WITH OTHERS IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  AS
WE HAVE SEEN THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO THE AUTHORITY'S OPERATIONS BY THE
STATES, AND, IF THIS WERE NOT SO, THE APPELLANTS, ABSENT THE STATES OR
THEIR OFFICERS, HAVE NO STANDING IN THIS SUIT TO RAISE ANY QUESTION
UNDER THE AMENDMENT.  FN27  THESE CONSIDERATIONS ALSO ANSWER THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE APPELLANTS HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ALLEGED
INFRACTIONS OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT. 

FINALLY, IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THIS SUIT IS
SUSTAINED BY CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS OF CONCERTED ACTION BY THE OFFICIALS
OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR.  THE BILL ALLEGES
THAT HAVING ADOPTED AN UNLAWFUL PLAN THE DEFENDANTS HAVE COOPERATED,
AND THREATEN TO CONTINUE TO COOPERATE IN ITS EXECUTION, WITH HAROLD L.
ICKES, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS,
IN A SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN TO COERCE AND INTIMIDATE THE COMPLAINANTS INTO
SELLING THEIR EXISTING SYSTEMS IN MUNICIPALITIES OR TERRITORY IN WHICH
THE AUTHORITY DESIRES TO SEIZE THE MARKET FOR ELECTRICITY; THAT, IN
ORDER TO MAKE THIS COERCION EFFECTIVE, ICKES HAS, IN COOPERATION WITH,
OR ON REQUEST OF, THE AUTHORITY, ANNOUNCED LOANS AND GRANTS OF FEDERAL
FUNDS TO MUNICIPALITIES; THAT THE AUTHORITY AND ICKES HAVE COOPERATED,
AND CONTINUE TO DO SO, TO FORCE MUNICIPALITIES TO PURCHASE THE
AUTHORITY'S POWER UNDER THREATS THAT, UNLESS THEY DO, PROPOSED LOANS
AND GRANTS FOR MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS WILL NOT BE MADE.  THE BILL STATES
THAT, THOUGH ICKES "CONFEDERATED AND ACTED WITH THE DEFENDANTS IN SOME
OF ITS ILLEGAL ACTS AND IS, THEREFORE, A PROPER PARTY, HE IS NOT A
NECESSARY PARTY AND IS NOT JOINED AS A DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE IS BEYOND
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT."  THERE IS A PRAYER THAT THE DEFENDANTS
BE RESTRAINED FROM CONFEDERATING AND ACTING IN CONCERT WITH ICKES FOR
THE DESCRIBED ENDS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FINDS THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS NOT INDULGED IN
COERCION, DURESS, FRAUD, OR MISREPRESENTATION IN PROCURING CONTRACTS
WITH MUNICIPALITIES, COOPERATIVES OR OTHER PURCHASERS OF POWER; HAS NOT
ACTED WITH ANY MALICIOUS OR MALEVOLENT MOTIVE; AND HAS NOT CONSPIRED
WITH MUNICIPALITIES OR OTHER PURCHASERS OF POWER.  THE RECORD JUSTIFIES
THESE FINDINGS.  IT IS CLAIMED, HOWEVER, THAT THEY ARE INCONCLUSIVE
SINCE THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDED MUCH PROFFERED EVIDENCE TENDING TO
SUSTAIN THE CHARGE.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT
CERTAIN OF THE EVIDENCE OFFERED WAS PROPERLY EXCLUDED, AND THAT IN
OTHER INSTANCES THE REJECTION OF THAT OFFERED CONSTITUTED, AT MOST,
HARMLESS ERROR. 

ERROR IS ASSIGNED TO THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO PERMIT THE TAKING
OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR.  IN VIEW OF THE
PRIOR OPPORTUNITY WHICH THE CLAIMANTS HAD TO TAKE THIS DEPOSITION, THE
LATENESS OF THE APPLICATION, AND OTHER FACTORS, PERMISSION TO TAKE THE
DEPOSITION WAS A MATTER WITHIN THE COURT'S DISCRETION AND IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT THE DISCRETION WAS ABUSED. 

THE REMAINING ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR DIRECTED TO THE EXCLUSION OF
EVIDENCE OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TWO FEDERAL AGENCIES GO TO THE
REJECTION OF EVIDENCE CONSISTING LARGELY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THEM
AND PRESS RELEASES OR ANNOUNCEMENTS BY OFFICERS OF ONE OR THE OTHER. 
THE RECORD CONTAINS ALL BUT A FEW OF THESE REJECTED DOCUMENTS, THOSE
OMITTED APPARENTLY NOT BEING THOUGHT OF IMPORTANCE.  SCRUTINY OF THEM
COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT IF THE REJECTED EVIDENCE HAD BEEN ADMITTED,
THE TRIAL COURT'S HOLDING THAT A CONSPIRACY HAD NOT BEEN PROVED SHOULD
NOT BE OVERRULED. 

THE ONLY FINDINGS ON THIS SUBJECT REQUESTED BY THE APPELLANTS WERE TO
THE EFFECT THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION HAS COOPERATED WITH AND
ASSISTED THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY IN THE FURTHERANCE OF THE
LATTER'S POWER PROGRAM AND THAT THE FORMER HAS MADE CONTRACTS AND
ALLOTMENTS FOR LOANS AND GRANTS TO TWENTY-THREE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE
STATES OF ALABAMA, MISSISSIPPI, AND TENNESSEE, AMOUNTING TO ABOUT
FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING MUNICIPAL
SYSTEMS TO DISTRIBUTE THE AUTHORITY'S POWER IN COMPETITION WITH THE
APPELLANTS; THAT THE APPLICATIONS FOR LOAN AND GRANT IN SOME INSTANCES
SPECIFY THAT THE MUNICIPAL SYSTEM WILL DUPLICATE A PRIVATELY OWNED
SYSTEM; IN OTHERS THAT A LARGE BUSINESS WILL BE DONE BY THE MUNICIPAL
PLANTS BECAUSE OF THE LOW PROMOTIONAL RATES OF THE AUTHORITY; THAT SOME
OF THE APPLICATIONS STATE THEY WERE FILED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE LOW
RATES OFFERED BY THE AUTHORITY AND THAT, WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS, THEY
STATE THAT THE ELECTRICITY TO BE DISTRIBUTED IN THE CITY WILL BE
PURCHASED FROM THE AUTHORITY.  A FURTHER REQUESTED FINDING IS THAT THE
APPLICATIONS OF CERTAIN ALABAMA CITIES RECITE THAT THEY HAVE SECURED
WRITTEN CONTRACTS FROM PRACTICALLY ALL CONSUMERS; THAT THESE CONTRACTS
REFER TO LOWER RATES TO BE SECURED, PROVIDED THE RATES CHARGED BY THE
CITY SHALL BE THUS PRESCRIBED BY THE AUTHORITY FOR RESALE AT RETAIL. 
THE COURT REFUSED TO MAKE THE REQUESTED FINDINGS AND ERROR IS ASSIGNED
TO THIS REFUSAL.  IT IS APPARENT THAT IF THE COURT HAD MADE THE
FINDINGS NO CONCLUSION OF CONFEDERATION OR CONSPIRACY, WITH MALICIOUS
INTENT TO HARM THE APPELLANTS OR TO DESTROY THEIR BUSINESS, WOULD
THEREBY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED. 

COOPERATION BY TWO FEDERAL OFFICIALS, ONE ACTING UNDER A STATUTE
WHEREBY FUNDS ARE PROVIDED FOR THE ERECTION OF MUNICIPAL PLANTS, AND
THE OTHER UNDER A STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY AND
ITS SALE TO SUCH PLANTS, IN COMPETITION WITH THE APPELLANTS, DOES NOT
SPELL CONSPIRACY TO INJURE THEIR BUSINESS.  AS THE COURT BELOW HELD,
SUCH COOPERATION DOES NOT INVOLVE UNLAWFUL CONCERT, PLAN, OR DESIGN, OR
COOPERATION TO COMMIT AN UNLAWFUL ACT OR TO COMMIT ACTS OTHERWISE
LAWFUL WITH THE INTENT TO VIOLATE A STATUTE. 

IN NO ASPECT OF THE CASE HAVE THE APPELLANTS STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE
SUIT AND THE BILL WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED. 

THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF MAY 18, 1933, 48 STAT. 58, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF AUGUST
31, 1935, 49 STAT. 1075; 16 U.S.C. SEC. 831, ET SEQ. 

FN2  50 STAT. 751, 752, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380A. 

FN3  21 F.SUPP.  947. 

FN4  GEORGIA POWER COMPANY WAS ENJOINED FROM MAINTAINING THE ACTION. 
SEE GEORGIA POWER CO. V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 17 F.SUPP.  769;
89 F.2D 218, 302 U.S. 692.  FOUR OTHER COMPLAINANTS HAVE SINCE BEEN
PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW FROM THE LITIGATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ITS
PROSECUTION BY THE REMAINING APPELLANTS. 

FN5  PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 619; STAFFORD V.
WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495, 512; MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447,
488.  THE SAME RULE APPLIES TO SUITS AGAINST STATE OFFICERS:  OSBORN V.
THE BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738, 857, 859; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197,
214; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 393. 

FN6 IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443; WALLA WALLA V. WALLA WALLA WATER CO.,
172 U.S. 1; AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY, 187 U.S.
94; EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; SCULLY V. BIRD, 209 U.S. 481;
PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, SUPRA; LANE V. WATTS, 234 U.S. 525; TRUAX
V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; LIPKE V. LEDERER, 259 U.S. 557. 

FN7  SEE CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 11 PET. 420, 548;
TURNPIKE CO. V. THE STATE, 3 WALL.  210, 213; HAMILTON GAS LIGHT CO. V.
HAMILTON CITY, 146 U.S. 258, 268; PEARSALL V. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.,
161 U.S. 646, 664. 

FN8  COMPARE LEHIGH WATER CO. V. EASTON, 121 U.S. 388. 

FN9  JOPLIN V. SOUTHWEST MISSOURI LIGHT CO., 191 U.S. 150; HELENA
WATER WORKS CO. V. HELENA, 195 U.S. 383, 393; MADERA WATER WORKS V.
MADERA, 228 U.S. 454; GREEN V. FRAZIER, 253 U.S. 233; PUGET SOUND POWER
& LIGHT CO. V. SEATTLE, 291 U.S. 619, 624. 

FN10  WALLA WALLA V. WALLA WALLA WATER CO., SUPRA; SUPERIOR WATER, L.
& P. CO. V. SUPERIOR, 263 U.S. 125. 

FN11  RAILROAD CO. V. ELLERMAN, 105 U.S. 166, 173; ALABAMA POWER CO.
V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, 479-483, AND CASES CITED; GREENWOOD COUNTY V.
DUKE POWER CO., 81 F.2D 986, 997; DUKE POWER CO. V. GREENWOOD COUNTY,
91 F.2D 665, 676; AFFIRMED 302 U.S. 485. 

FN12  IN MISSISSIPPI THERE IS NO STATE COMMISSION, BUT MUNICIPALITIES
ARE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE UTILITIES WITHIN THEIR TERRITORIAL
LIMITS.  MISSISSIPPI CODE (1930) SECS. 2400-1, 2414. 

FN13  ALABAMA CODE (1928) SEC. 9795; CARROLL'S KENTUCKY STATUTES
(1936) SEC. 3952-25; NORTH CAROLINA CODE (1935) SEC. 1037(D); WILLIAMS'
TENNESSEE CODE (1934) SECS. 5502-3; SOUTH CAROLINA CODE (1934 SUPP.)
SEC. 8555-2(23); VIRGINIA CODE (1936) SECS. 3693-3774K; WEST VIRGINIA
CODE (1937) SEC. 2562(1). 

FN14  COMPARE WHEELING & B. BRIDGE CO. V. WHEELING BRIDGE CO., 138
U.S. 287, 292; WILLIAMS V. WINGO, 177 U.S. 601, 604. 

FN15  ALABAMA ACTS, REGULAR SESSION 1935, NO. 1. 

FN16  ALABAMA ACTS, REGULAR SESSION 1935, NO. 155. 

FN17  ALABAMA ACTS, REGULAR SESSION 1935, NO. 45. 

FN18  TENNESSEE PUBLIC ACTS 1935, CH. 42, P. 98. 

FN19  TENNESSEE PUBLIC ACTS 1935, CH. 32, P. 28; TENNESSEE PUBLIC
ACTS 1935, CH. 37, P. 78. 

FN20  TENNESSEE PUBLIC ACTS 1937, CH. 231, P. 882. 

FN21  CARROLL'S KENTUCKY STATUTES (1936) SECS. 3480 D-1 TO 3480 D
22. 

FN22  KENTUCKY ACTS, FOURTH EXTRAORDINARY SESSION, 1936-1937, CH. 6,
P. 25. 

FN23  MISSISSIPPI LAWS, 1936, CH. 185, P. 354; CH. 271, P. 531. 

FN24  MISSISSIPPI LAWS, 1936, CH. 183, P. 334; CH. 187, P. 370; CH.
184, P. 342. 

FN25  IN FACT SEVERAL OF THE STATES IN QUESTION HAVE STATUTES WHICH
WOULD TO SOME EXTENT, AND IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, PERMIT THE PURCHASE
AND USE OF POWER CREATED BY THE AUTHORITY.  IN ALL OF THEM
MUNICIPALITIES MAY ESTABLISH AND OPERATE THEIR OWN DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEMS:  NORTH CAROLINA CODE (1935) SEC. 2807; SOUTH CAROLINA CODE
(1932) SECS. 7278-7280, 8262; VIRGINIA CODE (1936) SEC. 3031; WEST
VIRGINIA CODE (1937) SECS. 494, 591(86).  NORTH CAROLINA AND VIRGINIA
HAVE STATUTES PERMITTING THE FORMATION OF COOPERATIVES WHICH MAY BUY
POWER FROM THE AUTHORITY UNDER CONTRACTS FIXING RESALE RATES:  PUBLIC
LAWS OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1935, CH. 291, P. 312; VIRGINIA CODE (1936) CH.
159 A. SOUTH CAROLINA HAS CREATED A STATE RURAL ELECTRIFICATION
AUTHORITY WITH POWER TO BUY ELECTRICITY FROM ANY FEDERAL AGENCY:  SOUTH
CAROLINA CODE (1936 SUPPLEMENT) SECS. 6010-2 FF. 

FN26  OREGON & CALIFORNIA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 393;
UNITED STATES V. GRATIOT, 26 FED. CAS. 12, 13-14; AFFIRMED 14 PET.
526. 

FN27  COMPARE GEORGIA POWER CO. V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 14
F.SUPP.  673, 676. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER. 

THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED GOES TOO FAR.  IT EXCLUDES FROM THE
COURTS COMPLAINANTS SEEKING CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THEIR PROPERTY
AGAINST DEFENDANTS ACTING, AS IT IS ALLEGED, UNDER INVALID CLAIM OF
GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SETTING UP AND CARRYING ON A PROGRAM
CALCULATED TO DESTROY COMPLAINANTS' BUSINESS.  THE ISSUES JOINED BY THE
PARTIES, TRIED BELOW AND FULLY PRESENTED TO THIS COURT, INCLUDE THE
QUESTION WHETHER, WHEN CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE THE THINGS DONE AND
THREATENED BY DEFENDANTS, THE CHALLENGED ENACTMENT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OR REPUGNANT TO THE FIFTH, NINTH, AND TENTH AMENDMENTS. 
THE ISSUES ALSO INCLUDE THE QUESTION WHETHER, AS BEING APPLIED, THE ACT
IS VOID BECAUSE THE EXECUTION OF DEFENDANTS' PROGRAM WILL DEPRIVE
COMPLAINANTS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THIS COURT HOLDS COMPLAINANTS
HAVE NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT AND PUTS ASIDE AS
IMMATERIAL THEIR CLAIM THAT BY DEFENDANTS' UNAUTHORIZED ACTS THEIR
PROPERTIES ARE BEING DESTROYED.    THE OPINION STATES:  "THE
AUTHORITY'S ACTS WHICH THE APPELLANTS CLAIM GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF
ACTION, COMPRISE (1) THE SALE OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY AT WHOLESALE TO
MUNICIPALITIES EMPOWERED BY STATE LAW TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THEIR OWN
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS; (2) THE SALE OF SUCH ENERGY AT WHOLESALE TO
MEMBERSHIP CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER STATE LAW TO PURCHASE AND
DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY TO THEIR MEMBERS WITHOUT PROFIT; (3) THE SALE OF
FIRM AND SECONDARY POWER AT WHOLESALE TO INDUSTRIAL PLANTS." 

THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF COMPLAINANTS' CASE MAY NOT BE SO COMPRESSED IS
DISCLOSED BY THE SUMMARY OF THEIR BILL THAT FOLLOWS: 

COMPLAINANTS ARE 19 PUBLIC UTILITIES.  EACH, AUTHORIZED BY LAW, IS
ENGAGED IN GENERATING AND SELLING ELECTRICITY WITHIN THE POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS OF VARIOUS STATES.  SOME HAVE LONG-TERM CONTRACTS UNDER
WHICH THEY FURNISH LARGE QUANTITIES OF ELECTRICITY.  THEY ARE MORE THAN
ABLE TO FILL THE NEEDS OF THE TERRITORIES IN WHICH THEY OPERATE AND ARE
READY TO SUPPLY SUCH ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AS MAY BE NEEDED IN THE
FUTURE.  THEIR PROPERTIES ARE MODERN AND ECONOMICALLY OPERATED AND
POSSESS GREAT VALUE AS GOING CONCERNS.  THEIR RATES YIELD NO MORE THAN
A REASONABLE RETURN AND ARE FULLY REGULATED BY THE STATES IN WHICH THEY
SERVE. 

DEFENDANTS ARE THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, A BODY CORPORATE
CREATED BY THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1933, WITH THE RIGHT TO SUE AND BE SUED,
AND ITS THREE DIRECTORS, CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF EXERCISING THE POWERS
OF THE AUTHORITY.  HAROLD L. ICKES, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PUBLIC
WORKS ADMINISTRATION, HAS CONFEDERATED WITH DEFENDANTS IN SOME ACTS
CHARGED TO BE ILLEGAL; HE IS NOT SUED BECAUSE BEYOND THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT.  FROM ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, THE
AUTHORITY CARRIES ON A PROPRIETARY BUSINESS AS A PUBLIC UTILITY FOR THE
GENERATION, TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF ELECTRICITY IN
TENNESSEE, MISSISSIPPI, GEORGIA AND ALABAMA. 

ON ITS FACE, THE ACT DISCLOSES PURPOSE TO AUTHORIZE A LARGE AND
INDETERMINATE NUMBER OF GREAT WORKS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF CREATING
A VAST SUPPLY OF ELECTRIC POWER, TO USE THIS POWER TO ESTABLISH THE
UNITED STATES IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCING, TRANSMITTING, AND SELLING
ELECTRIC POWER, AND TO DISPOSE OF THIS POWER IN A MANNER INCONSISTENT
WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM AND SO AS TO GOVERN THE CONCERNS
RESERVED TO THE STATES.  ANY REFERENCES IN THE ACT TO NAVIGATION OR TO
ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIVE ARE UNSUBSTANTIAL AND MERE PRETENSES
OR PRETEXTS UNDER WHICH IT IS SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE AN OBJECT RESERVED TO
THE STATES.  EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO POWER AVAILABLE AT WILSON DAM PRIOR
TO THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF, THE PROGRAM IS ONE OF CREATING AN OUTLET FOR
POWER DELIBERATELY PRODUCED AS A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE TO BE SOLD IN
UNLAWFUL AND DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION WITH POWER NOW AVAILABLE IN
ADEQUATE QUANTITIES. 

THE PROGRAM CONTEMPLATES ULTIMATELY THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL POWER
SITES ON THE TENNESSEE RIVER AND ALL ITS TRIBUTARIES AS AN INTEGRATED
ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM, THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF HYDRO-ELECTRIC
PLANTS AT THESE SITES, THE USE OF AUXILIARY STEAM PLANTS, THE
INTERCONNECTION OF ALL PLANTS, AND THE ELIMINATION OF EXISTING
PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES. 

IN THE AREA OF OVER 40,000 SQUARE MILES, THERE ARE 149 WATER POWER
SITES WHICH, WITH AUXILIARY STEAM PLANTS, WILL PRODUCE 25 BILLION
K.W.H. ANNUALLY.  PRESENT CONSUMPTION OF THE AREA IS 56% OF THAT
QUANTITY.  THE ELECTRIC POWER TO BE PRODUCED BY DEFENDANTS CAN ONLY BE
SOLD THROUGH DISPLACEMENT OF THE COMPLAINANTS.  EXECUTION OF THE
PROGRAM WILL NECESSARILY DESTROY ALL OR A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OF EACH OF THE COMPLAINANTS. 

DEFENDANTS HAVE TAKEN OVER WILSON DAM AND THE NITRATE PLANT AND HAVE
COMMENCED, OR RECOMMENDED TO CONGRESS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF 10 OTHER
DAMS; THEIR PROGRAM CALLS FOR 11 COMPLETED DAMS BY JULY 1, 1943.  THEY
HAVE PREPARED PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH-TENSION TRANSMISSION
LINES FROM THE DAMS TO AT LEAST 14 CITIES AND INDEED TO THE WHOLE
AREA.  THEY HAVE PURCHASED OR ARE ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEMS IN AT LEAST 15 CITIES.  THEY HAVE ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS TO
SELL POWER TO VARIOUS COMMUNITIES AND INDUSTRIES FOR A 20-YEAR PERIOD
AND HAVE AGREED TO SUPPLY FIRM POWER TO OTHER AND LARGER CITIES. 

THE AVOWED PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM IS TO EFFECT A FEDERAL REGULATION
OF INTRASTATE ELECTRIC RATES AND SERVICE BY A SO-CALLED "YARDSTICK"
METHOD OR "REGULATION BY COMPETITION."  THE YARDSTICK FOR WHOLESALE
RATES IS THE WHOLESALE RATE CHARGED BY THE AUTHORITY.  IT IS
UNREASONABLE AND CONFISCATORY AS A MEASURE OF COMPLAINANTS' RATES IN
THAT IT EXCLUDES THE COST OF THE MAJOR PART OF THE INVESTMENT NECESSARY
TO RENDER THE SERVICE AND EXCLUDES NECESSARY OPERATING EXPENSES.  THE
YARDSTICK FOR RETAIL RATES IS THE SUM OF THE WHOLESALE RATE AND THE
AMOUNT WHICH THE AUTHORITY ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES TO ADD TO THE
WHOLESALE RATE TO COVER COST OF LOCAL DISTRIBUTION; IT EXCLUDES MANY
ITEMS OF NECESSARY COST OF RENDERING THE SERVICE. 

PURSUANT TO A PLAN PROMULGATED IN 1933, DEFENDANTS ARE CONDUCTING A
SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISRUPTING THE ESTABLISHED
BUSINESS RELATIONS BETWEEN COMPLAINANTS AND THEIR CUSTOMERS, DESTROYING
THE GOOD WILL BUILT UP BY COMPLAINANTS, SEIZING THEIR MARKETS AND
INCITING THE RESIDENTS OF COMMUNITIES SERVED BY THEM TO COOPERATE WITH
DEFENDANTS IN THEIR SCHEME TO DEVELOP AN ABSOLUTE MONOPOLY. 

WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE NONCOMPENSATORY AND CONFISCATORY CHARACTER
OF THE YARDSTICK RATES, THEY HAVE REPRESENTED TO THE INHABITANTS OF
COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COMPLAINANTS THAT THESE "YARDSTICKS" WERE FAIR
MEASURES OF REASONABLE RATES AND HAVE THEREBY ATTEMPTED TO INCITE THE
INHABITANTS TO BUILD PUBLICLY OWNED SYSTEMS USING POWER FURNISHED BY
THE AUTHORITY, TO LEAD THEM TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE BEING CHARGED
UNREASONABLE RATES, TO STIR UP POLITICAL AGITATION AGAINST PRIVATELY
OWNED UTILITIES AND TO BRING COMPLAINANTS INTO DISREPUTE AND DISFAVOR. 

THE DEFENDANTS ATTEMPT TO COERCE COMPLAINANTS TO SELL DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEMS AND TRANSMISSION LINES, IN TERRITORIES WHICH DEFENDANTS INTEND
TO APPROPRIATE, AT PRICES FAR BELOW FAIR VALUE BY THREATENING THAT,
UNLESS COMPLAINANTS ACCEDE, THEY WILL CONSTRUCT, OR CAUSE TO BE
CONSTRUCTED, DUPLICATE FACILITIES SUBSIDIZED IN CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION BY FEDERAL FUNDS AND RENDER COMPLAINANTS' PROPERTIES WHOLLY
VALUELESS.  THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION HAS
COOPERATED WITH DEFENDANTS.  DEFENDANTS INFORM THE OWNERS THAT, UNLESS
THEY SELL, EITHER THE AUTHORITY OR THE MUNICIPALITIES WILL BUILD
DUPLICATE SYSTEMS WITH FEDERAL FUNDS.  AT DEFENDANTS' REQUEST, THE
ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORIZES AND ANNOUNCES A GIFT TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF
FROM 30% TO 45% OF THE COST OF THE DUPLICATE SYSTEM AND AGREES TO LEND
THE BALANCE, REPAYABLE OUT OF EARNINGS, IF ANY, OF THE DUPLICATE PLANT,
UPON CONDITION THAT THE MUNICIPALITY WILL AGREE TO USE POWER OF THE
AUTHORITY AND WILL, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, OUST THE EXISTING UTILITY.  IF
THE UTILITY AGREES TO SELL, THE ALLOTMENTS ARE CANCELED WITHOUT REGARD
TO THE WILL OF THE MUNICIPALITY.  THIS POLICY HAS ALREADY BEEN APPLIED
IN CERTAIN CITIES.  THE DEFENDANTS AND ADMINISTRATOR ALSO COOPERATE TO
FORCE MUNICIPALITIES TO AGREE TO PURCHASE POWER FURNISHED BY THE
AUTHORITY BY THREATS THAT OTHERWISE FEDERAL ALLOTMENTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS
WILL BE CANCELED OR DENIED. 

DEFENDANTS HAVE CAUSED BILLS, DESIGNED TO FORWARD THEIR POWER
PROGRAM, TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURES OF VARIOUS STATES IN THE
AREA AND HAVE LOBBIED FOR AND BROUGHT ABOUT THEIR PASSAGE.  THEY HAVE
INSTALLED AUTHORITY PERSONNEL THROUGHOUT THE AREA TO DISSEMINATE
PROPAGANDA IN BEHALF OF THE PROGRAM.  THE ELECTRIC HOME AND FARM
AUTHORITY, A CORPORATION SET UP AS A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OF WHICH THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE DIRECTORS, FINANCES SALE OF ELECTRICAL
DEVICES, PRINTS AND CIRCULATES COSTLY ADVERTISING IN PRAISE OF THE
AUTHORITY PROGRAM.  DEFENDANTS HAVE OFFERED TO SUPPLY ELECTRICITY TO
LARGE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS OF SOME OF THE COMPLAINANTS AT
NONCOMPENSATORY AND DISCRIMINATORY RATES.  THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO
PERSUADE COMPLAINANTS' CUSTOMERS TO BREAK EXISTING CONTRACTS. 
COMPLAINANTS CANNOT MEET THIS COMPETITION BECAUSE OF THE
NONCOMPENSATORY RATES AND BECAUSE THEY ARE FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW TO
MAKE DISCRIMINATORY RATES. 

THE BILL PRAYS INVALIDATION OF THE ACT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS. 

UNQUESTIONABLY, THE BILL SHOWS THAT COMPLAINANTS ARE NOT ASSERTING A
RIGHT HELD, OR COMPLAINING OF AN INJURY SUSTAINED, IN COMMON WITH THE
GENERAL PUBLIC.  THEY ALLEGE FACTS THAT UNMISTAKABLY SHOW THAT EACH HAS
A VALUABLE RIGHT AS A PUBLIC UTILITY, NON-EXCLUSIVE THOUGH IT IS, TO
SERVE IN TERRITORY COVERED BY ITS FRANCHISE, AND THAT, INEVITABLY THE
VALUE OF ITS BUSINESS AND PROPERTY USED WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE
DIMINUTION BY DEFENDANTS' PROGRAM AND ACTS COMPLAINED OF. IF, BECAUSE
OF CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE
ENTERPRISE FORMULATED AND BEING EXECUTED BY DEFENDANTS, THEN THEIR
CONDUCT IS UNLAWFUL AND INFLICTS UPON COMPLAINANTS DIRECT AND SPECIAL
INJURY OF GREAT CONSEQUENCE.  THEREFORE, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE THIS
COURT DECIDE UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS THEY HAVE BROUGHT HERE. 
SEE MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 488; FROST V. CORPORATION
COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 515, 521. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :















INLAND STEEL CO. V. U.S., 306 U.S. 153 


NO. 227.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 4, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A SUIT BY A SHIPPER TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION REQUIRING A CARRIER TO CEASE PAYING THE SHIPPER
TARIFF ALLOWANCES FOR SPOTTING CARS IN THE SHIPPER'S PLANT, WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAD FOUND UNLAWFUL, THE DISTRICT COURT IN GRANTING AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IMPOSED THE CONDITION, WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM
THE SHIPPER, THAT FURTHER PAYMENTS BE WITHHELD BY THE CARRIER, IN A
SEPARATE ACCOUNT, TO BE PAID OVER TO THE SHIPPER OR CANCELED UPON
FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT.  HELD WITHIN THE EQUITABLE POWER OF THE
COURT, THOUGH NOT REQUESTED BY THE CARRIER NOR, SPECIFICALLY, BY THE
COMMISSION.  P. 156. 

2.  THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT SO TO IMPOUND THE ALLOWANCES AND,
FINALLY, UPON SUSTAINING THE COMMISSION AND DISMISSING THE BILL, TO
ORDER THAT THE FUND BE RETAINED BY THE CARRIER, WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE
FACT THAT BECAUSE OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, THE CARRIER HAD KEPT
IN FORCE ITS PUBLISHED TARIFF PROVIDING FOR THE ALLOWANCES, OR BY THE
FACT THAT FOR THE SAME REASON THE COMMISSION HAD UNDERTAKEN TO POSTPONE
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS ORDER.  PP. 158, 159. 

3.  APART FROM THE PRIMARY ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ALLOWANCES,
IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THAT EVIDENCE BE TAKEN AND SPECIAL FINDINGS BE
MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE IMPOUNDED FUND.  P. 161. 

INLAND STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 228, CHICAGO BY-PRODUCT COKE CO. V. UNITED STATES
ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEALS FROM DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN SUITS TO SET ASIDE
ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION RESTRAINING CARRIERS FROM
PAYING ALLOWANCES FOR SPOTTING CARS TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT SHIPPERS. 
SEE 23 F.SUPP.  291.  THESE APPEALS WERE DIRECTED ONLY TO PROVISIONS OF
THE FINAL DECREES REQUIRING THAT FUNDS RESULTING FROM IMPOUNDING OF THE
ALLOWANCES DURING THE SUIT BE RETAINED BY THE CARRIERS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN NO. 227, AFTER FULL HEARINGS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
ON JULY 11, 1935, FOUND AND REPORTED  FN1  THAT THE INDIANA HARBOR BELT
RAILROAD WAS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF PAYING AN ALLOWANCE FOR
APPELLANT'S SERVICE IN SPOTTING CARS IN APPELLANT'S PLANT; FN2  THAT
APPELLANT WAS PERFORMING THIS PLANT SERVICE FOR ITS OWN CONVENIENCE;
THAT THE RAILROAD WAS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO SPOT THE CARS AND
THEREFORE THE ALLOWANCE WAS PAID FOR SERVICE FOR WHICH THE RAILROAD WAS
NOT COMPENSATED UNDER LINE-HAUL RATES; THAT THE ALLOWANCE WAS UNLAWFUL
AND AFFORDED APPELLANT A PREFERENTIAL SERVICE, NOT ACCORDED TO SHIPPERS
GENERALLY, AMOUNTING TO REFUND OR REMISSION OF PART OF THE RATES
CHARGED OR COLLECTED AS COMPENSATION FOR TRANSPORTING FREIGHT.  ON THE
SAME DATE, AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION INCORPORATED ITS REPORT AND
FINDINGS, INCLUDING THE FINDING THAT "BY THE PAYMENT OF SAID ALLOWANCES
THE INDIANA BELT RAILROAD COMPANY VIOLATES THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT."  THIS ORDER ALSO DIRECTED THE RAILROAD TO "CEASE AND DESIST ON OR
BEFORE SEPTEMBER 3, 1935, AND THEREAFTER TO ABSTAIN FROM SUCH UNLAWFUL
PRACTICE." 

AUGUST 28, 1935, UPON PETITION OF APPELLANT, THE DISTRICT COURT,
THREE JUDGES SITTING, GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION BY WHICH THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT AND ORDER WERE "SUSPENDED, STAYED, AND SET ASIDE" -
"PENDING THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT"; THE COMMISSION WAS RESTRAINED
AND ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING THEM; AND, THE RAILROAD HAVING PREVIOUSLY
GIVEN PUBLIC NOTICE THAT ITS PUBLISHED TARIFF PROVIDING FOR THE
ALLOWANCE WOULD BE CANCELLED AS OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1935, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, THE INJUNCTION SUSPENDED THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE CANCELLATION.  BUT THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION ALSO
PROVIDED "THAT UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT, ANY AND ALL SUMS
DUE AND PAYABLE TO PLAINTIFF (APPELLANT), UNDER THE  ...  TARIFF
PROVIDING SAID ALLOWANCE, SHALL BE SET UP BY DEFENDANT INDIANA HARBOR
BELT RAILROAD COMPANY ON ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH SUMS SO SET UP
SHALL BE PAID OVER TO  ...  (APPELLANT), OR CANCELED, ONLY UPON THE
FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT, (APPELLANT)  ...  BY ITS COUNSEL HAVING
AGREED IN OPEN COURT TO SUCH ARRANGEMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE." 

FEBRUARY 26, 1937, THE COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER PURPORTING TO
EXTEND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ITS COMMAND TO "CEASE AND DESIST" TO JUNE
15, 1937, BUT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT ITS ORDER OF JULY 11, 1935,
SHOULD "IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT." 

APRIL 27, 1938, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR
WANT OF EQUITY, DISSOLVED THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, AND ORDERED THE
ACCRUED ALLOWANCES THAT HAD BEEN SET ASIDE IN A SPECIAL ACCOUNT BY THE
RAILROAD AS REQUIRED BY THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION TO "BE RETAINED BY
...  (THE RAILROAD) AS A PART OF ITS GENERAL FUNDS AND SAID ACCOUNT
CANCELED." 

APPELLANT CONCEDES THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE
HOLDING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER VALID, DISMISSING THE PETITION AND
DENYING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  FN3  THE APPEAL ONLY SEEKS A REVIEW OF
THE COURT'S ACTION IN ORDERING THAT THE UNLAWFUL ALLOWANCES ACCUMULATED
AFTER THE DATE OF THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION BE RETAINED BY THE
RAILROAD AND NOT PAID TO APPELLANT. 

FIRST.  IN GRANTING THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, THE DISTRICT COURT
PROCEEDED UNDER A JURISDICTIONAL ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT "  ...  THE
COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION, MAY RESTRAIN OR SUSPEND, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER PENDING THE FINAL HEARING AND
DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT."  FN4  APPELLANT INVOKED THE COURT'S EQUITY
POWERS.  FN5 

A COURT OF EQUITY "IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, FREQUENTLY
RESORTS TO THE EXPENDIENT OF IMPOSING TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON THE
PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE IT PROPOSES TO ACT.  THE POWER TO IMPOSE SUCH
CONDITIONS IS FOUNDED UPON, AND ARISES FROM, THE DISCRETION WHICH THE
COURT HAS IN SUCH CASES, TO GRANT, OR NOT TO GRANT, THE INJUNCTION
APPLIED FOR.  IT IS A POWER INHERENT IN THE COURT, AS A COURT OF
EQUITY, AND HAS BEEN EXERCISED FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL."  FN6 

IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, THE DISTRICT COURT IMPOSED
CONDITIONS IN ITS DECREE GRANTING APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  APPELLANT NEITHER OBJECTED TO THE CONDITIONS
NOR SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE COURT'S ACTION IN IMPOSING THEM, BUT UNDER THE
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION ENJOYED FOR THREE YEARS THE SUSPENSION - WHICH
IT HAD SOUGHT - OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, PENDING LITIGATION.  NOW,
THE LITIGATION ENDED, APPELLANT INSISTS THAT THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED
JURISDICTION TO DO MORE THAN VACATE ITS INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND
DISMISS THE PETITION, SINCE NO PLEADINGS OF THE RAILROAD OR THE
COMMISSION SOUGHT THE CREATION OF THE SPECIAL ALLOWANCE ACCOUNT.  BUT
THIS OVERLOOKS THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF A COURT
OF EQUITY GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO DO SO UPON CONDITIONS THAT WILL
PROTECT ALL - INCLUDING THE PUBLIC - WHOSE INTERESTS THE INJUNCTION MAY
AFFECT.  FN7  AND THE COMMISSION, IN DEFENDING ITS REPORT AND ORDER,
ACTED UNDER ITS STATUTORY DUTY AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTEREST
WHICH THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS THE RAILROADS, HAVE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF
FAIR, REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY TRANSPORTATION PRACTICES.  FN8
MOREOVER, IN INTERVENING THE COMMISSION PRAYED THAT IT HAVE "THE
BENEFIT OF SUCH  ...  DECREES OR RELIEF AS MAY BE JUST AND PROPER." 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE GRANTING OF ALLOWANCES FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY
SHIPPERS CONSTITUTES A DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE.  FN9  HERE, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS PRIMARY JURISDICTION, THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THE
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED AND MADE FINDINGS THAT THE RAILROAD'S
PRACTICE WAS UNLAWFULLY PREFERENTIAL AND DISCRIMINATORY.  IN DOING SO,
THE COMMISSION WAS ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF SHIPPERS GENERALLY AND IN
BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AND THE NATIONAL RAILROAD SYSTEM.  THE DISTRICT
COURT, AT THE BEHEST OF THIS APPELLANT, RESTRAINED THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE COMMISSION'S REPORT AND ORDER EMBODYING THESE FINDINGS.  WHILE THUS
ACTING IN THE INTEREST OF A SINGLE SHIPPER, THE COURT PROPERLY TOOK
STEPS TO PROTECT THE OTHER INTERESTS - REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSION -
FROM INJURIES THAT THE INJUNCTION MIGHT CAUSE.  IT DID SO BY ORDERING
THE PAYMENTS, WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND UNLAWFUL, TO BE CONTINUED
ON CONDITION THAT THEY BE SEGREGATED OR PAID INTO A SEPARATE ACCOUNT,
PENDING THE COURT'S REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDING OF ILLEGALITY. 
THIS SEGREGATED ACCOUNT THUS ACCRUED AS A RESULT OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN DECLARED
UNLAWFUL.  WHEN THE COURT FINALLY DETERMINED THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDINGS AND ORDER WERE CORRECT, APPELLANT COULD CLAIM AN INTEREST IN
THE FUND ONLY BY ASSERTING A RIGHT TO PAYMENTS FORBIDDEN BY LAW, AND IT
BECAME THE DUTY OF THE COURT PROMPTLY TO ALLOCATE THE FUND TO ITS
LAWFUL OWNER. 

AN EQUITY COURT HAVING LAWFUL CONTROL OF A FUND, IN WHICH THERE MAY
BE INTERESTS REPRESENTED ONLY BY A DULY AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY,
HAS THE POWER AND IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF PROTECTING THOSE
INTERESTS IN DISPOSING OF THE FUND.  FN10  OTHERWISE, RIGHTS (SUCH AS
THE RIGHT OF THIS RAILROAD TO RESTITUTION) MIGHT BE IMPAIRED OR CUT OFF
WHILE AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS IN EFFECT, AS FOR INSTANCE BY
STATUTES OF LIMITATION.  HERE, THE COURT HAD THE POWER AND IT WAS ITS
DUTY SO TO FASHION ITS EQUITABLE DECREE THAT APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE
THE BENEFICIARY OF UNLAWFUL PAYMENTS, AND TO PREVENT THE DISSIPATION OF
THE RAILROAD'S ASSETS THROUGH UNLAWFUL PREFERENCES. 

SECOND.  APPELLANT FURTHER INSISTS THAT THE COURT HAD NO POWER TO
IMPOSE THE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS HERE, BECAUSE THE RAILROAD WAS ORDERED
TO RETAIN (IN A SPECIAL ACCOUNT) ALLOWANCES PROVIDED FOR IN ITS
PUBLISHED TARIFF.  THIS CONTENTION RESTS ON THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT
THAT PUBLISHED TARIFFS MUST BE OBSERVED.  FN11  HOWEVER, BEFORE THE
COURT ACTED, THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND AND REPORTED - AND HAD
INCORPORATED ITS FINDINGS AND REPORT IN AN ORDER - THAT THESE
ALLOWANCES PROVIDED IN THE PUBLISHED TARIFF WERE UNLAWFUL PREFERENCES
VIOLATING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THE COMMISSION HAD ALSO ORDERED
THAT PAYMENT OF THE UNLAWFUL ALLOWANCES CEASE, AND THE RAILROAD HAD
ALREADY - IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER - PUBLISHED A NEW
TARIFF ELIMINATING THE ALLOWANCE PROVISION.  BUT, SIX DAYS BEFORE THE
NEW TARIFF WOULD BY ITS TERMS HAVE BECOME EFFECTIVE, APPELLANT SOUGHT
AND OBTAINED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WHICH DID NOT DESTROY, BUT
TENTATIVELY SUSPENDED THE COMMISSION'S REPORT AND ORDER AND ALSO
TENTATIVELY SUSPENDED THE RAILROAD'S TARIFF CANCELING THE UNLAWFUL
ALLOWANCE.  THE RAILROAD THEN REPUBLISHED THE OLD TARIFF, THUS - UNDER
COURT ORDER - RESTORING THE UNLAWFUL ALLOWANCE.  WHEN THE COURT
SUBSEQUENTLY DISMISSED APPELLANT'S PETITION AND VACATED THE
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION "IN ALL RESPECTS," IT THEREBY FOUND THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT AND ORDER VALID, AND THEY WERE THEN IN EFFECT AS
THOUGH THE INJUNCTION HAD NEVER BEEN GRANTED.  THUS, DURING THE PERIOD
THE INJUNCTION WAS PENDING (SAVE FOR THE FIRST SIX DAYS), THE PUBLISHED
TARIFF HAD CONTAINED THE UNLAWFUL ALLOWANCE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE
COURT'S INJUNCTION.  TO SUSTAIN THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT THAT THE
PROVISION FOR ALLOWANCES IN THE PUBLISHED TARIFF LIMITED THE AUTHORITY
OF THE COURT TO PREVENT THEIR PAYMENT WOULD BE TO CLOTHE A PUBLISHED
TARIFF, IN EXISTENCE SOLELY BY REASON OF EQUITABLE INTERVENTION, WITH
AN IMMUNITY FROM EQUITY ITSELF.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT GRANTS NO
SUCH IMMUNITY.  FN12 

THIRD.  THE APPELLANT TAKES THE POSITION THAT THE COMMISSION'S
PURPORTED POSTPONEMENT OF ITS COMMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST (EIGHTEEN
MONTHS AFTER THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED) DEPRIVED THE
COURT OF AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE CONDITIONS OF ITS INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION.  HOWEVER, SINCE THE COURT HAD EXERCISED JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW AND SUSPEND THE COMMISSION'S REPORT AND ORDER, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ACT INCONSISTENTLY WITH THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION, HAD IT ATTEMPTED TO DO SO.  FN13  BUT, SINCE THE
COMMISSION HAD ALREADY BEEN ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING ITS REPORT AND
ORDER WHEN IT ENTERED ITS POSTPONEMENT, THERE IS NO REASON TO CONSTRUE
THE COMMISSION'S ACTION AS ANYTHING MORE THAN A RECOGNITION OF THE
POSTPONEMENT ACTUALLY EFFECTED BY THE COURT'S INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION. 

IN ADDITION, THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE ASPECTS TO THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION.  IT FOUND AN ILLEGAL PRACTICE IN EXISTENCE THAT INVOLVED
UNLAWFUL DISBURSEMENT OF THE RAILROAD'S FUNDS, CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  THE COMMISSION ALSO ENTERED A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER TO
OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY.  EVEN IF THE COMMISSION'S POSTPONEMENT OF THE
CEASE AND DESIST PORTION OF ITS ORDER HAD BEEN OPERATIVE, THE
COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY LEFT IN EFFECT ITS RULING THAT THE ALLOWANCE
WAS UNLAWFUL.  FN14 

THE COMMISSION HAD EXERCISED ITS PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND HAD FOUND
THE ALLOWANCES UNLAWFUL; UPON REVIEW, THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY
APPROVED THIS FINDING; THE AMOUNT IN THE SPECIAL ALLOWANCE ACCOUNT WAS
EXACTLY KNOWN AND UNDISPUTED; THIS FUND COULD HAVE BELONGED ONLY TO THE
RAILROAD OR TO APPELLANT; THE RAILROAD WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE FUND
AND IN EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE WAS ENTITLED TO RETAIN IT.
THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO TAKE EVIDENCE, AND THE ACTION OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IN DISPOSING OF THE FUND REQUIRED NO ADDITIONAL
FINDINGS.  THE FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DIRECTED
THAT THE UNLAWFUL ALLOWANCES SHOULD NOT BE PAID TO APPELLANT, AND
SHOULD BE RETAINED BY THE RAILROAD. 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN NO. 228 ARE GOVERNED BY OUR CONCLUSIONS
HERE, AND THE JUDGMENTS IN BOTH CASES ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  209 I.C.C. 747; 216 I.C.C. 8(NO. 228). 

FN2  "SPOTTING" INVOLVES HANDLING OF CARS BETWEEN THE POINT OF
INTERCHANGE BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND APPELLANT AND THE POINTS AT WHICH
SUCH CARS ARE UNLOADED OR LOADED IN APPELLANT'S PLANT. 

FN3  SEE, UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S.
402; UNITED STATES V. PAN-AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP., 304 U.S. 156. 

FN4  28 U.S.C. 46. 

FN5  CF., FORD MOTOR CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 305 U.S.
364. 

FN6  RUSSELL V. FARLEY, 105 U.S. 433, 438; MEYERS V. BLOCK, 120 U.S.
206, 214.    FN7  CENTRAL KENTUCKY CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 290 U.S.
264, 271. 

FN8  ARKADELPHIA MILLING CO. V. ST. LOUIS S.W. RY. CO., 249 U.S. 134,
146; SMITH V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 245 U.S. 33, 42, 43, 45; CF.
EX PARTE LINCOLN GAS CO., 256 U.S. 512, 517; 49 U.S.C. SECS. 15A, 43. 

FN9  MITCHELL COAL & COKE CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 247;
ST. LOUIS, B. & M. RY. CO. V. BROWNSVILLE NAVIGATION DIST., 304 U.S.
295; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426. 

FN10  CENTRAL KENTUCKY CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, SUPRA.    FN11  49
U.S.C. SEC. 6(7). 

FN12  CF. MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501,
511. 

FN13  CF. FORD MOTOR CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA.
IT IS, THEREFORE, IMMATERIAL THAT IN NO. 228 THERE WERE CONSECUTIVE
PURPORTED POSTPONEMENTS OF THE COMMAND TO CEASE AND DESIST, EACH
ENTERED BY THE COMMISSION BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE POSTPONEMENT
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING. 

FN14  CF. TERMINAL WAREHOUSE V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 297 U.S. 500,
507, 508.  A SUIT AT LAW BASED ON A PAST ALLEGED DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICE MAY BE STAYED IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE PLAINTIFF TO OBTAIN THE
NECESSARY PRELIMINARY RULING BY THE COMMISSION.  SEE MORRISDALE COAL
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 304; MITCHELL COAL & COKE CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., SUPRA; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. TIFT, 206 U.S. 428. 
..END :










U.S. V. MIDSTATE CO., 306 U.S. 161 


NO. 286.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1939.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  -
AFFIRMED. 


THE ELKINS ACT, SEC. 1, AS AMENDED, DENOUNCES, AMONG OTHER OFFENSES,
THE ACTS OF GRANTING OR ACCEPTING ANY REBATE OR CONCESSION WHEREBY
PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHALL BE TRANSPORTED AT A RATE LESS
THAN THAT NAMED IN THE CARRIER'S PUBLISHED TARIFFS.  IT PROVIDES THAT
EVERY VIOLATION SHALL BE PROSECUTED IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
HAVING JURISDICTION OF CRIMES WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH
VIOLATION WAS COMMITTED OR THROUGH WHICH THE TRANSPORTATION MAY HAVE
BEEN CONDUCTED; AND THAT WHENEVER THE OFFENSE IS BEGUN IN ONE
JURISDICTION AND COMPLETED IN ANOTHER IT MAY BE DEALT WITH IN EITHER. 
HELD THAT WHERE THE OFFENSES CHARGED WERE THE GRANTING AND RECEIVING OF
REBATES OR CONCESSIONS IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH HAD BEEN
COMPLETED AND PAID FOR AT TARIFF RATES BEFORE THE CONCEPTION OF THE
CRIMINAL TRANSACTIONS, VENUE WAS WRONGLY LAID IN A DISTRICT THROUGH
WHICH THE TRANSPORTATION WAS CONDUCTED BUT WHICH WAS NOT THE DISTRICT
IN WHICH THE GRANTING AND RECEIVING WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED.  P.
163. 

UNITED STATES V. MIDSTATE HORTICULTURAL CO. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 287, UNITED STATES V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO.,
ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEALS UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT SUSTAINING DEMURRERS TO INDICTMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE TWO APPEALS PRESENT FOR REVIEW A SINGLE QUESTION.  AS STATED BY
APPELLANT THE SOLE QUESTION IN EACH APPEAL IS "WHETHER OR NOT THE
INDICTMENT CHARGES THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AS IT MUST, IF
APPELLEES ARE TO BE PROSECUTED THEREIN.  CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 3,

THE DEFENDANT IN NO. 287 WAS INDICTED IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA CHARGED WITH MAKING UNLAWFUL REBATES ON INTERSTATE
SHIPMENTS.  DEFENDANTS IN NO. 286 WERE CHARGED, BY INDICTMENT IN THE
SAME DISTRICT, WITH RECEIVING THE UNLAWFUL REBATES.  THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINED DEMURRERS TO BOTH INDICTMENTS.  THE GOVERNMENT APPEALED
DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT.  APPELLEES MOVED HERE TO DISMISS THE APPEALS ON
IDENTICAL GROUNDS.  THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS ARE DENIED IN BOTH CASES. 
FN2 

THE RECORD REQUIRES THAT WE TREAT THE INDICTMENTS TO WHICH DEMURRERS
WERE SUSTAINED AS CHARGING THAT REBATES OR CONCESSIONS WERE PAID AND
RECEIVED IN NEW YORK IN 1935 IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF
GOODS IN 1932 FROM CALIFORNIA THROUGH THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA TO NEW JERSEY; THAT THE FULL LAWFUL RATE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PUBLISHED TARIFFS WAS PAID WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION TOOK PLACE; AND
THAT PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE PAYMENT AND RECEIPT OF THE ALLEGED
REBATES IN NEW YORK IN 1935 THE CARRIER AND SHIPPERS HAD NEITHER AGREED
NOR INTENDED THAT ANY REBATE OR CONCESSION SHOULD BE MADE.  THE
GOVERNMENT CONCEDES THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE ELKINS
ACT,  FN3  ON WHICH THE PROSECUTIONS ARE BASED, REQUIRE TRIAL IN THE
DISTRICT IN WHICH A VIOLATION OF THE ACT IS COMMITTED, BUT CONTENDS
THAT THE RECORD DISCLOSES VIOLATIONS ACTUALLY COMMITTED IN THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THIS CONTENTION RESTS UPON THE ARGUMENT THAT
THE ELKINS ACT AIMS PRIMARILY TO PREVENT THE RESULT OF OBTAINING
TRANSPORTATION AT LESS THAN THE LAWFUL RATE; THAT PAYMENT AND RECEIPT
OF REBATES IN 1935 SERVED TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH FORBIDDEN RESULTS -
NAMELY, TRANSPORTATION IN 1932 AT LESS THAN THE LAWFUL RATE; AND, SINCE
THE TRANSPORTATION IN 1932 PASSED THROUGH THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, THE OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED AND ARE PUNISHABLE THERE. 

THE STATUTE DEFINES OFFENSES UNDER IT AS FOLLOWS:  "  ...  IT SHALL
BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, PERSONS, OR CORPORATION TO OFFER, GRANT, OR
GIVE, OR TO SOLICIT, ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE ANY REBATE, CONCESSION, OR
DISCRIMINATION IN RESPECT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF ANY PROPERTY IN
INTERSTATE ... COMMERCE BY ANY COMMON CARRIER  ...  WHEREBY ANY SUCH
PROPERTY SHALL BY ANY DEVICE WHATEVER BE TRANSPORTED AT A LESS RATE
THAN THAT NAMED IN THE TARIFFS PUBLISHED AND FILED BY SUCH CARRIER, ...
"  AS TO VENUE THE STATUTE PROVIDES:  "EVERY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION
SHALL BE PROSECUTED IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING
JURISDICTION OF CRIMES WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH VIOLATION WAS
COMMITTED, OR THROUGH WHICH THE TRANSPORTATION MAY HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED;
AND WHENEVER THE OFFENSE IS BEGUN IN ONE JURISDICTION AND COMPLETED IN
ANOTHER IT MAY BE DEALT WITH, INQUIRED OF, TRIED, DETERMINED, AND
PUNISHED IN EITHER JURISDICTION IN THE SAME MANNER AS IF THE OFFENSE
HAD BEEN ACTUALLY AND WHOLLY COMMITTED THEREIN." 

WE NEED NOT DETERMINE WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED - BY PROVIDING FOR
THE TRIAL OF CRIMES "WITHIN THE DISTRICT  ...  THROUGH WHICH THE
TRANSPORTATION MAY HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED" - TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN ANY
DISTRICT WHEREIN A VIOLATION WAS NOT COMMITTED.  THE GOVERNMENT ONLY
INSISTS THAT THE INDICTMENTS HERE DISCLOSE OFFENSES COMMITTED IN THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND URGES THAT THE PROVISION FOR
TRIAL IN ANY DISTRICT THROUGH WHICH ILLEGAL TRANSPORTATION IS CONDUCTED
IS WITHOUT MEANING UNLESS APPLICABLE TO THESE PROSECUTIONS. 

BUT THERE ARE MANY OFFENSES IN THE ACT OF WHICH THIS PROVISION IS A
PART TO WHICH THE PROVISION IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE.  AN ILLUSTRATION IS
THAT PROVIDED IN THE CASE OF ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209
U.S. 56.  THERE AN UNLAWFUL CONCESSION WAS GIVEN IN THE STATE OF KANSAS
BEFORE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT WAS MADE.  TRANSPORTATION PASSED THROUGH THE
STATE OF MISSOURI.  THE RECIPIENT OF THE CONCESSION WAS TRIED IN
MISSOURI.  IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE TRANSACTION CONSTITUTED A CONTINUING
OFFENSE BEGINNING IN KANSAS, AND THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD BE TRIED IN
ANY DISTRICT THROUGH WHICH THE UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION TOOK PLACE.  THE
COURT SAID (AT P. 76):  "WE THINK THE DOCTRINE (OF CONTINUING OFFENSES)
...  APPLIES IN THE PRESENT CASE, FOR TRANSPORTATION IS AN ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, AND, AS WE HAVE SAID, TRANSPORTATION EQUALLY
TAKES PLACE OVER ANY AND ALL OF THE TRAVELED ROUTE, AND DURING
TRANSPORTATION THE CRIME IS BEING CONSTANTLY COMMITTED."  THE SECTION
OF THE ELKINS ACT UNDER WHICH THE PRESENT INDICTMENTS WERE DRAWN
DESCRIBES OTHER OFFENSES AND, IN ADDITION, MAKES IT A MISDEMEANOR FOR A
CARRIER TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE NUMEROUS CRIMINAL PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  CONGRESS EVIDENTLY INTENDED TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT AS TO ANY OF THE MANY OFFENSES IN WHICH "DURING TRANSPORTATION THE
CRIME IS BEING CONSTANTLY COMMITTED" PROSECUTION COULD BE HAD IN ANY
DISTRICT THROUGH WHICH THE UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION MOVES. 

WE DO NOT BELIEVE CONGRESS INTENDED THAT SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OR EVENTS
SHOULD STAMP CRIMINALITY UPON AN ACT THAT WAS LAWFUL, AND WHOLLY
UNRELATED TO ANY UNLAWFUL PLAN OR PURPOSE, WHEN DONE.  HERE, THE FULL
LAWFUL RATE WAS PAID FOR THE TRANSPORTATION INVOLVED.  THE LAWFUL
TRANSPORTATION THROUGH THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WAS NOT
INFECTED BY RELATION TO ANY UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT, PURPOSE OR INTENT AT
THE TIME IT OCCURRED.  THE RECORD SHOWS NO OFFENSE THAT BEGAN IN 1932
AND CONTINUED UNTIL 1935.  AS WAS CLEARLY SET FORTH BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IN THE ARMOUR PACKING CO. CASE:  FN4  "A CONTINUING
OFFENSE IS A CONTINUOUS, UNLAWFUL ACT OR SERIES OF ACTS SET ON FOOT BY
A SINGLE IMPULSE AND OPERATED BY AN UNINTERMITTENT FORCE, HOWEVER LONG
A TIME IT MAY OCCUPY.  WHERE SUCH AN ACT OR SERIES OF ACTS RUNS THROUGH
SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS, THE OFFENSE IS COMMITTED AND COGNIZABLE IN
EACH.  ...  THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS IN THIS CASE INTO AND
THROUGH THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, AT THE ILLEGAL THROUGH RATE,
WAS THE CONTINUING OPERATION AND EFFECT IN THAT DISTRICT OF ITS PRIMARY
CAUSE, THE RECEIPT OF THE CONCESSION AND THE DELIVERY OF THE OIL BY THE
SHIPPER TO THE CARRIER THEREUNDER FOR TRANSPORTATION IN FOREIGN
COMMERCE, AND EVEN IF THE SHIPPER'S OFFENSE WAS COMPLETE IN KANSAS, IT
MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN MISSOURI ALSO, WHERE ITS OPERATION CONTINUED
AND TOOK EFFECT." 

THE LEGAL TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AT A LAWFUL RATE THROUGH THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WITHOUT INTENT, PURPOSE, OR AGREEMENT
TO COMMIT ANY PART OF A CRIME DID NOT GIVE THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JURISDICTION TO TRY THESE DEFENDANTS
UNDER THE ELKINS ACT.  ON THIS RECORD NO VIOLATION OF THE ELKINS ACT
WAS BEGUN, CONTINUED OR BROUGHT ABOUT FN5  IN THAT DISTRICT.  THE
DEMURRERS WERE PROPERLY SUSTAINED AND THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ARTICLE 3, SEC. 2, CLAUSE 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:  "THE
TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT, SHALL BE BY JURY;
AND SUCH TRIAL SHALL BE HELD IN THE STATE WHERE THE SAID CRIMES SHALL
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED; BUT WHEN NOT COMMITTED WITHIN ANY STATE, THE TRIAL
SHALL BE AT SUCH PLACE OR PLACES AS THE CONGRESS MAY BY LAW HAVE
DIRECTED."  AMENDMENT 6 OF THE CONSTITUTION SO FAR AS PERTINENT
PROVIDES:  "IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE
AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH
DISTRICT SHALL HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, ...  " 

FN2  THE FIRST GROUND OF THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS IS THAT APPEAL WAS
NOT TAKEN "WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DECISION OR JUDGMENT" AS
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C., SEC. 682.  THE COURT BELOW WROTE AN OPINION IN
WHICH IT STATED "THE DEMURRERS ARE SUSTAINED," AND FILED THE OPINION
JUNE 16, 1938.  BUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S PRACTICE, FINAL
ORDER WAS NOT ENTERED UNTIL JULY 2, 1938.  IN THAT ORDER THE COURT
SUSTAINED THE DEMURRERS AND ORDERED DEFENDANTS DISCHARGED.  THE
GOVERNMENT PETITIONED FOR APPEAL JULY 20, 1938, WITHIN EIGHTEEN DAYS
AFTER THE FINAL ORDER WAS ENTERED, BUT MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE
WRITTEN OPINION HAD BEEN FILED.  THE APPEALS WERE FROM THE JUDGMENTS
AND ORDERS OF JULY 2, AND NOT THE PREVIOUS WRITTEN OPINION.  THE SECOND
GROUND OF THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE A
RIGHT OF DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT GRANTED BY 18 U.S.C., SEC. 682,
WHICH AUTHORIZES SUCH AN APPEAL WHERE JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER
"IS BASED UPON THE INVALIDITY OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UPON WHICH
THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED."  THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE INDICTMENTS
WERE RETURNED PROVIDES EXPRESSLY FOR THE JURISDICTION OVER OFFENSES
CREATED BY IT, AND THE RECORD CLEARLY DISCLOSES THAT THE RULINGS ON
DEMURRERS INVOLVED A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE. 

FN3  49 U.S.C., SEC. 41(1), 34 STAT. 587. 

FN4  153 F. 1, 5, 6.  CF., UNITED STATES V. LOMBARDO, 241 U.S. 73,
77. 

FN5  CF., UNITED STATES V. HOLTE, 236 U.S. 140, 144. 
..END :


















SOUTHERN PAC. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 167 


NO. 212.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  - 23
F.SUPP.  193, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CALIFORNIA TAX ON STORAGE AND USE - I.E., UPON RETENTION AND
EXERCISE OF OWNERSHIP - MAY BE APPLIED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO AN
INTERSTATE RAILROAD COMPANY IN RESPECT OF SUPPLIES PURCHASED OUTSIDE OF
THE STATE AND BROUGHT IN FOR PROMPT APPLICATION IN THE OPERATION OF ITS
ROAD, SUCH AS OFFICE SUPPLIES, AND RAILS, EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, TOOLS,
ETC., USED IN REPLACEMENTS, REPAIRS AND EXTENSIONS, AND INCLUDING
ARTICLES ORDERED OUT OF THE STATE ON SPECIFICATIONS SUITABLE ONLY FOR
USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY UPON
ARRIVAL AT THE CALIFORNIA DESTINATION.  P. 172. 

2.  THERE IS AN INTERVAL AFTER THE ARTICLES HAVE REACHED THE END OF
THEIR INTERSTATE MOVEMENT AND BEFORE THEIR CONSUMPTION IN INTERSTATE
OPERATION HAS BEGUN WHEN THE "USE AND STORAGE" ARE SUBJECT TO LOCAL
TAXATION.  HELSON & RANDOLPH V. KENTUCKY, 279 U.S. 245, DISTINGUISHED. 
P. 176. 

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT REFUSING A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA USE TAX.  THE COURT BELOW HAD AT FIRST
GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, 20 F.SUPP.  940. 

A STATE EXCISE TAX IMPOSED DIRECTLY UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF USING
INSTRUMENTALITIES IN CARRYING ON AND CONDUCTING INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE BY A RAILROAD COMMON CARRIER, IS A DIRECT BURDEN ON SUCH
COMMERCE, CONTRARY TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BINGAMAN V. GOLDEN EAGLE
LINES, 297 U.S. 626; HELSON & RANDOLPH V. KENTUCKY, 279 U.S. 245; EAST
OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 465; OZARK PIPE LINE V.
MONIER, 266 U.S. 555; OKLAHOMA V. WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298;
GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217; PHILADELPHIA S.S.
CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326; FARGO V. MICHIGAN, 121 U.S. 230;
GLOUCESTER FERRY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 114 U.S. 214; U.S. AIRWAYS V.
SHAW, 43 F.2D 148; MID-CONTINENT AIR EXPRESS CORP. V. LUJAN, 47 F.2D
266; PUGET SOUND CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90; MINOT V.
PHILADELPHIA, W. & B.R. CO., 17 FED. CAS. 458; FED. CAS. NO. 9645; 18
WALL.  206; PULLMAN SOUTHERN CAR CO. V. NOLAN, 22 F. 276, 280, 281; 117
U.S. 34, 46; PACIFIC TELEPHONE & T. CO. V. HENNEFORD, 81 P.2D 786. 

A STATE EXCISE TAX CAN NOT VALIDLY BE APPLIED INDISCRIMINATELY AND
WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT TO AN INSTRUMENTALITY COMMON TO INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TEL. CO., 294 U.S. 384;
ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 314; COLORADO V. UNITED STATES,
271 U.S. 153; RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S.
563. 

THE CASE AT BAR IS DISTINGUISHED BY ITS FACTS FROM THE CASES IN WHICH
THE PRIVILEGES TAXED WERE NOT ACTS OF CONDUCTING INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  DISTINGUISHING EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, 289
U.S. 249; 61 F.2D 319; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288
U.S. 249; COVERDALE V. PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604. 

IT WAS SAID IN THE OPINION IN THE COVERDALE CASE THAT A NARROW
DISTINCTION OF FACTS EXISTS BETWEEN THE TAX HELD INVALID IN THE HELSON
CASE AND THE TAX CONSIDERED VALID IN THE NASHVILLE CASE.  THAT NARROW
DISTINCTION OF FACTS IS THE DISTINCTION WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN THE
TAXATION OF AN EVENT SEPARABLE AND COMPLETED BEFORE USE IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BEGINS AND THE TAXATION OF AN EVENT WHICH IS AN INSEPARABLE
PART AND ACT OF CARRYING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE EXCISE TAXATION BURDENING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS NOT AVOIDED BY IMPOSING STATE TAXES AT AN EQUAL RATE ON
INTRASTATE COMMERCE OR OTHER INTRASTATE PRIVILEGES. 

WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, CITED BY THE
LOWER COURT, CITES MANY CASES AND ILLUSTRATIONS EXEMPLIFYING THE RULE
THAT "EVEN INTERSTATE BUSINESS MUST PAY ITS OWN WAY," BUT NOT A SINGLE
ONE OF THEM DEALS WITH A TAX UPON ACTION SANCTIONED AND PROTECTED BY
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WHERE THE MANNER OF IMPOSITION OF THE TAX HAS BEEN
DIRECT.  THEY DO NOT MODIFY OR CRITICIZE THE LONG ESTABLISHED RULE THAT
WHERE THE TAX IS DIRECTLY IMPOSED ON AN INTERSTATE PRIVILEGE THE BURDEN
IS IPSO FACTO DIRECT AND THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 429; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S.
134; GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 227. 

IT CAN BE SAID OF THE TAX IN QUESTION IN THE CASE AT BAR, AMOUNTING TO
MORE THAN $300,000, AND CONTINUING TO ACCRUE IN LARGE AMOUNTS, AS WAS
SAID BY THIS COURT IN U.S. GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321, THAT
"CONCEIVABLY IT MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROFIT
AND LOSS, OR TO SO DIMINISH THE PROFIT AS TO IMPEDE OR DISCOURAGE THE
CONDUCT OF THE COMMERCE."  HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303
U.S. 376, DISTINGUISHED.  SEE PACIFIC TELEPHONE & T. CO. V. HENNEFORD,
81 P.2D 786. 

THE TAX IS DISCRIMINATORY IN ITS OPERATION AND EFFECT, AND IF THE
DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT IS SUSTAINED THE WAY WILL BE OPEN FOR
SERIOUS DISCRIMINATORY ABUSES IN STATE AND MUNICIPAL TAXATION OF THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE TAXATION OF THE USE OF PROPERTY, INSEPARABLY USED BY A RAILROAD
INTERSTATE CARRIER IN THE TRANSACTION OF ITS TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS,
BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, WOULD BE
EXTRATERRITORIAL IN ITS OPERATION AND EFFECT AND IN VIOLATION OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CALIFORNIA USE TAX ACT OF 1935  FN1  IS ASSAILED AS VIOLATIVE OF
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHEN IMPOSED UPON
TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, BOUGHT OUTSIDE OF THE STATE BY THE SOUTHERN
PACIFIC COMPANY, AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD, AND INSTALLED ON IMPORTATION,
OR KEPT AVAILABLE FOR USE, AS A PART OF ITS TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. 

THE ATTACK COMES BY MEANS OF A BILL OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
SEEKING, BEFORE A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT,  FN2  AN INTERLOCUTORY
AND FINAL INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF
CALIFORNIA, ITS MEMBERS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE, TO
RESTRAIN THEM FROM ENFORCING THE USE TAX ACT.  FN3  THE TRIAL COURT
GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND DENIED A MOTION TO DISMISS N4
BUT LATER REFUSED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND SUSTAINED THE MOTION TO
DISMISS.  FN5  THE CASE COMES HERE BY APPEAL.  FN6 

THE USE TAX ACT IS COMPLEMENTAL TO THE CALIFORNIA RETAIL SALES TAX
ACT OF 1933.  FN7  THE LATTER LEVIES A TAX UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS FROM SALES OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY; THE
FORMER  FN8  IMPOSES AN EXCISE ON THE CONSUMER AT THE SAME RATE FOR THE
STORAGE, USE OR OTHER CONSUMPTION IN THE STATE OF SUCH PROPERTY WHEN
PURCHASED FROM ANY RETAILER.  AS PROPERTY COVERED BY THE SALES TAX IS
EXEMPT UNDER THE USE TAX, ALL TANGIBLE PERSONALTY SOLD OR UTILIZED IN
CALIFORNIA IS TAXED ONCE FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. 
DEFINITIONS IN THE USE TAX ACT OF TAXPAYER, RETAILER, STORAGE AND USE
ARE DESIGNED TO MAKE THE COVERAGE COMPLETE.  A RETAILER IS "EVERY
PERSON, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING SALES FOR STORAGE, USE OR
OTHER CONSUMPTION"; USE IS THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT OR POWER INCIDENT
TO OWNERSHIP, EXCEPT SALE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS; STORAGE IS
ANY "KEEPING OR RETENTION" WITH A SIMILAR EXEMPTION; AND A TAXPAYER
INCLUDES EVERYONE "STORING, USING OR OTHERWISE CONSUMING" THE PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO THE USE TAX.  FN9 

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE USE TAX AS APPLIED TO PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO THE
STATE AFTER ITS RETAIL PURCHASE FOR INTRASTATE USE HAS BEEN UPHELD IN
HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO.,  FN10  AGAINST THE CHARGE THAT IT WAS A
TAX UPON THE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR A TAX UPON A FOREIGN
SALE, VIOLATIVE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  UNDER THE WASHINGTON
STATUTE, THERE CONSIDERED, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
ARISING FROM A SECOND EXACTION FOR USE AFTER A FOREIGN TAX ON SALE,
COULD NOT EXIST AS PROVISION WAS MADE FOR A CREDIT AGAINST THE LOCAL
TAX OF ANY SUCH FOREIGN LEVY.  NO SUCH PROBLEM ARISES HERE BY EVIDENCE,
FINDING OR ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR  FN11  EVEN THOUGH THE CALIFORNIA ACT
DOES NOT HAVE THIS PROVISION.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO RESOLVE THAT
ARGUMENT "WHEN A TAXPAYER PAYING IN THE STATE OF ORIGIN IS COMPELLED TO
PAY AGAIN IN THE STATE OF DESTINATION."  FN12  A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
GOODS OF OUT-OF-STATE ORIGIN ON THE FACE OF THE SALES AND USE ACTS IS
SUGGESTED BECAUSE THE LOCAL RETAILER MAY ABSORB THE SALES TAX WHILE THE
CONSUMER OF AN IMPORTED ARTICLE MUST PAY THE USE TAX.  FN13  BUT THIS
IS NOT A DISCRIMINATION IN THE LAW.  CALIFORNIA'S EXACTION FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IS THE SAME, WHETHER
PURCHASED WITHIN OR WITHOUT HER BORDERS OR WHETHER PAID BY THE RETAILER
OR CONSUMER.  THERE IS AN EQUAL CHARGE AGAINST WHAT IS USED, WHATEVER
ITS SOURCE.  IN THIS CASE WE HAVE A DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT APPLICATION OF
A USE TAX.  THE TAX IS NOT SOUGHT FROM PERSONAL PROPERTY USED IN
TRANSACTIONS ENTIRELY DISASSOCIATED FROM ANY AGENCY CONNECTED WITH
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, AS BUILDERS' SUPPLIES FOR LOCAL WORK IN THE
SILAS MASON CASE, BUT FROM TANGIBLE PERSONALTY PURCHASED OUT OF THE
STATE FOR IMMEDIATE OR SUBSEQUENT INSTALLATION IN AN INTERSTATE RAILWAY
FACILITY. 

THE APPELLANT, THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, A KENTUCKY CORPORATION,
HANDLES INTRASTATE, INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OVER ITS RAILROAD
SYSTEM WHICH TRAVERSES A NUMBER OF STATES AND CONNECTS WITH THE LINES
OF CARRIERS COVERING THE CONTINENT.  THE FINDINGS AND STIPULATION OF
FACTS SHOW CONTINUAL EXTRASTATE PURCHASES OF TANGIBLE PERSONALTY FOR
THE OPERATION OF THE ROAD; RAILS, EQUIPMENT, MACHINERY, TOOLS AND
OFFICE SUPPLIES.  SOME OF THE PURCHASES ARE USED IN THE GENERAL OFFICES
OF THE CORPORATION, LOCATED IN CALIFORNIA, FOR THE SUPERVISION OF THE
WIDE-FLUNG ACTIVITIES; OTHERS ARE FOR MATERIAL KEPT IN READINESS AS A
STAND-BY SUPPLY TO REPLACE OR REPAIR EQUIPMENT DAMAGED, DESTROYED OR
WORN OUT IN THE OPERATION OF THE ROAD; AND STILL OTHERS ARE TO MAKE
IMPROVEMENTS, REPLACEMENTS OR EXTENSIONS PURSUANT TO PREVIOUSLY
DETERMINED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.  FEW, IF ANY, OF THE SUPPLIES ARE
STORED FOR LONG TERM NEEDS.  STORAGE IS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO PROTECTION
UNTIL USE, AS OFFICE SUPPLIES IN A CLOSET OR AN EXTRA FROG AT A SECTION
TOOL HOUSE.  FOR CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION UPON A LARGE SCALE,
SPECIAL ORDERS ARE GIVEN AND ARRANGEMENTS MADE, SO THAT THE MATERIAL IS
FABRICATED FOR A PARTICULAR USE IN THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES,
SHIPPED TO ITS CALIFORNIA DESTINATION AND INSTALLED UPON ARRIVAL.  TO
AVOID DELAY AND COST THE MOVEMENT FROM LOADING TO FINAL PLACEMENT IS AS
NEARLY CONTINUOUS AS MANAGERIAL EFFICIENCY CAN CONTRIVE.  WHILE SOME
ARTICLES ARE CAPABLE OF GENERAL USE, THE MAJOR PURCHASES OF RAILS,
REPAIR PARTS AND SUPPLIES FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE
SYSTEM ARE ADAPTED ONLY TO RAILROAD USE.  THE PURCHASES ARE PAID FOR
OUT OF RAILROAD OPERATING CAPITAL AND MOVE ON COMPANY MATERIAL
WAYBILLS, WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION CHARGE.  ALL PURCHASES MAY BE SAID TO
BE DEDICATED TO CONSUMPTION IN THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS
OF APPELLANT.  NO NEW ROLLING STOCK IS INVOLVED.  SUBSEQUENT TO
REPAIRING AND RECONDITIONING, ROLLING STOCK MOVES AGAIN IN INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION, AS DO CARS AFTER BEING STOCKED WITH SUPPLIES.  THE
CALIFORNIA TAX ON STORAGE OR USE, IT IS SAID, CANNOT APPLY TO THESE
ARTICLES, AS SUCH A TAX WOULD BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON THE
FACILITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OF WHICH THE ARTICLES ARE A PART. 

THERE IS AGREEMENT UPON THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.  APPELLANT STATES
THAT AN EXCISE TAX IMPOSED DIRECTLY UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF USING
INSTRUMENTALITIES IN CARRYING ON INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IS A DIRECT
AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON COMMERCE.  APPELLEES DO NOT DISPUTE THE
PREMISE BUT CONTEND THAT THE TAX IS ON INTRASTATE STORAGE AND USE. 
THEY POINT TO THE DEFINITION OF USE AS THE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OF
OWNERSHIP, AND OF STORAGE AS ANY KEEPING OR RETENTION.  BY THE
DEFINITIVE TERMS THEMSELVES, IT IS URGED, THE TAXABLE EVENTS ARE
RETENTION AND INSTALLATION, NOT SUCH STORAGE AS WAREHOUSING CONNOTES,
OR USE IN THE SENSE OF CONSUMPTION OR OPERATION.  IF WE CONCLUDE
RETENTION AND INSTALLATION, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DEVELOPED, ARE
INTRASTATE TAXABLE EVENTS, VIEWED APART FROM COMMERCE, WE MUST STILL
INQUIRE WHETHER TAXES LAID UPON THEM ARE NOT, IN EFFECT, UPON COMMERCE,
AND FORBIDDEN.  FN14 

TWO LINES OF AUTHORITY AID IN CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF THIS TAX ON
COMMERCE.  THE FIRST MAKES IT QUITE CLEAR THAT A STATE TAX UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING IN, OR UPON CARRYING ON, INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
INVALID.  STATES CANNOT TAX INTERSTATE TELEGRAPH MESSAGES,  FN15  OR
FREIGHT SHIPMENTS N16.  A LICENSE TAX ON SALES BY SAMPLES BURDENS ONE
SELLING ONLY GOODS FROM OTHER STATES.  FN17  A TAX ACT AS APPLIED TO
THE BUSINESS OF INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION  FN18  IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
WHERE A SIMILAR LEVY BY OTHER STATES MAY BE IMPOSED, WITH CONSEQUENT
MULTIPLICITY OF EXACTION ON COMMERCE FOR THE SAME TAXABLE EVENT, LOCAL
TAX OF A PRIVILEGE, MEASURED BY TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE
TRANSACTIONS, IS CONSIDERED IDENTICAL WITH AN EXACTION ON THE COMMERCE
ITSELF.  FN19  THIS RULE IS APPLICABLE TO A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION; FN20  AN OCCUPATION TAX MEASURED BY GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM RADIO BROADCASTING N21, AND A GENERAL TAX AT SPECIFIED
RATES UPON THE GROSS INCOME OF EVERY RESIDENT, CONSTRUED AS "A TAX UPON
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM COMMERCE"  FN22  "WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT."  N23  THE
MEASUREMENT OF A TAX BY GROSS RECEIPTS WHERE IT CANNOT RESULT IN A
MULTIPLICATION OF THE LEVIES IT UPHELD.  FN24 

APPELLANT SELECTS FROM THIS LINE THE HELSON CASE FN25  AS
DETERMINATIVE OF THE CONTENTION THAT A TAX ON USE OF SUPPLIES OR
EQUIPMENT IS A TAX ON THE COMMERCE.  A STATE TAX OF THREE CENTS PER
GALLON WAS IMPOSED ON ALL GASOLINE "SOLD AT WHOLESALE."  THIS PHRASE
WAS DEFINED TO INCLUDE GASOLINE BOUGHT OUT OF THE STATE AND USED WITHIN
THE STATE.  THERE WAS NO DEFINITION OF THE WORD USE OR USED.  THE
TAXPAYERS OPERATED AN INTERSTATE FERRY, PURCHASED GASOLINE IN OHIO AND
USED THAT PORTION SOUGHT TO BE TAXED IN PROPELLING THEIR CRAFT IN THE
TERRITORIAL WATERS OF KENTUCKY.  THE COURT CONSIDERED THE TAX ON THE
CONSUMPTION OF THE GAS THE SAME AS A TAX ON THE OPERATION OF THE FERRY
BOAT AND THEREFORE INVALID UNDER THE RULE DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING
PARAGRAPH.    THE SECOND LINE OF AUTHORITY SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT USE
AND STORAGE AS DEFINED IN THE CALIFORNIA ACT ARE TAXABLE INTRASTATE
EVENTS, SEPARATE AND APART FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  A RECENT
DISCUSSION OF THE TOPIC SETS OUT THE PRECEDENTS IN SUPPORT OF A RULING
THAT A TAX UPON THE PRODUCTION OF POWER BY THE USE OF WHICH COMPRESSORS
DROVE NATURAL GAS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS VALID.  SUCH PRODUCTION IS
A TAXABLE EVENT DISTINCT FROM ITS CONSUMPTION IN COMMERCE.  FN26
PARTICULAR ATTENTION IS CALLED BY THE STATE TO THE WALLACE CASE.  FN27
THERE THE TAX WAS ON "SELLING OR STORING OR DISTRIBUTING GASOLINE."  IT
BECAME DUE ON WITHDRAWAL FROM STORAGE.  THE TAX WAS HELD APPLICABLE TO
GASOLINE, PURCHASED OUT OF THE STATE AND STORED IN THE STATE, "WHEN ALL
IS WITHDRAWN AND USED  ...  AS A SOURCE OF MOTIVE POWER IN INTERSTATE
RAILWAY OPERATION" AND VALID AGAINST THE OBJECTION THAT "IT IS IN
EFFECT A TAX UPON THE USE" IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN28  THE
INVALIDITY OF SUCH A TAX ARISES FROM A LEVY ON COMMERCE ITSELF OR ITS
GROSS RECEIPTS, NOT UPON EVENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMERCE.  FN29 

THE PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATED BY THE HELSON CASE FORBIDS A TAX UPON
COMMERCE OR CONSUMPTION IN COMMERCE.  THE WALLACE CASE, AND PRECEDENTS
ANALOGOUS TO IT, PERMIT STATE TAXATION OF EVENTS PRELIMINARY TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE VALIDITY OF ANY APPLICATION OF A TAXING ACT
DEPENDS UPON A CLASSIFICATION OF THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE
THEORIES.  IN THE PRESENT CASE SOME OF THE ARTICLES WERE ORDERED OUT OF
THE STATE UNDER SPECIFICATION SUITABLE ONLY FOR UTILIZATION IN THE
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY ON ARRIVAL AT THE
CALIFORNIA DESTINATION.  IF ARTICLES SO HANDLED ARE DEEMED TO HAVE
REACHED THE END OF THEIR INTERSTATE TRANSIT UPON "USE OR STORAGE," NO
FURTHER INQUIRY IS NECESSARY AS TO THE REST OF THE ARTICLES WHICH ARE
SUBJECTED TO A RETENTION, BY COMPARISON, FARTHER REMOVED FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE THINK THERE WAS A TAXABLE MOMENT WHEN THE
FORMER HAD REACHED THE END OF THEIR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND HAD
NOT BEGUN TO BE CONSUMED IN INTERSTATE OPERATION.  AT THAT MOMENT, THE
TAX ON STORAGE AND USE - RETENTION AND EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OF
OWNERSHIP, RESPECTIVELY - WAS EFFECTIVE.  THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT WAS
COMPLETE.  THE INTERSTATE CONSUMPTION HAD NOT BEGUN.  CHAMPLAIN CO. V.
BRATTLEBORO  FN30  AND CARSON PETROLEUM CO. V. VIAL  FN31  ARE
THEREFORE INAPPLICABLE.  BACON V. ILLINOIS,  FN32  WHERE TAXATION OF
GRAIN DURING STOPPAGE IN TRANSIT WAS VALIDATED, PRESENTS A CLOSER
ANALOGY.  "PRACTICAL CONTINUITY" DOES NOT ALWAYS MAKE AN ACT A PART OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN33  THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE PREPONDERANCE
TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATE ACT OVER ITS EFFECT ON COMMERCE.  STATE
TAXES UPON NATIONAL COMMERCE OR ITS INCIDENTS DO NOT DEPEND FOR THEIR
VALIDITY UPON A CHOICE OF WORDS BUT UPON THE CHOICE OF THE THING
TAXED.  IT IS TRUE, THE INCREASED COST TO THE INTERSTATE OPERATOR FROM
A TAX ON INSTALLATION IS THE SAME AS FROM A TAX ON CONSUMPTION OR
OPERATION.  THIS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  FN34  THE PROHIBITED BURDEN UPON
COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES IS CREATED BY STATE INTERFERENCE WITH THAT
COMMERCE, A MATTER DISTINCT FROM THE EXPENSE OF DOING BUSINESS.  A
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IT, OR A TAX ON ITS OPERATIONS AS SUCH, IS AN
INTERFERENCE.  A TAX ON PROPERTY OR UPON A TAXABLE EVENT IN THE STATE,
APART FROM OPERATION, DOES NOT INTERFERE.  THIS IS A PRACTICAL
ADJUSTMENT OF THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO REVENUE FROM THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF COMMERCE AND THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATE TO LEAVE
THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE TO THE CONGRESS. 

BUT IT IS URGED BY THE APPELLANT THAT OUR FORMER OPINIONS MAKE THIS
CONCLUSION A DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT; THE EVENTS ARE SO CLOSE TO OR SO
INSEPARABLY INTERTWINED WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS TO BE A PART OF
IT.  FN35  COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE CO. FN36  IS CITED TO
SHOW THAT A "STATE EXCISE TAX CANNOT BE VALIDLY APPLIED
INDISCRIMINATELY AND WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT TO AN INSTRUMENTALITY COMMON
TO INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE."  THE TELEPHONE COMPANY WAS
TAXED A SUM ON EACH TELEPHONE IN USE.  AS THE INSTRUMENT WAS EMPLOYED
PART OF THE TIME IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THIS COURT HELD THE TAX TO BE
UPON THAT COMMERCE AND INVALID.  SINCE THERE WAS NO APPORTIONMENT THE
ENTIRE TAX FELL.  UNLESS THE TAXABLE EVENTS HERE, ALL OF WHICH ARE
INTRASTATE, ARE IN EFFECT A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OUR PREVIOUS
DISCUSSION OF THEIR SEPARABLE CHARACTER WOULD RENDER THE COONEY CASE
INAPPLICABLE.  FOR THIS POINT WE ARE REFERRED TO PUGET SOUND CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION  FN37  AND OZARK PIPE LINE CORP. V. MONIER.  FN38 

IN THE FORMER CASE, THE DISTINCTION IN THE OPINION BETWEEN
STEVEDORING IN LOADING AND UNLOADING INTERSTATE CARGOES, HELD NON
TAXABLE AS A BURDEN UPON COMMERCE, AND THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING
LONGSHOREMEN FOR OTHERS TO LOAD AND UNLOAD, HELD TAXABLE AS A LOCAL
BUSINESS, IS APPLICABLE HERE.  THE INVALID TAX IN THE PUGET SOUND CASE
WAS ON THE BUSINESS OF STEVEDORING, MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE ACTIVITY.  THE VALID TAX WAS A SIMILAR
PERCENTAGE ON THE LOCAL ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYMENT AGENCY.  HERE, UNDER
OUR ANALYSIS, WE FIND ONLY INTRASTATE EVENTS TAXED.  FN39 

IN THE OZARK CASE, MISSOURI SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY A FRANCHISE TAX ON A
COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF AN INTERSTATE PIPE LINE BY
SUGGESTING THE TAX WAS UPON CERTAIN INTRASTATE EVENTS, SUCH AS
OPERATION OF COMMUNICATIONS, REPAIR AND PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES.  THE TAX
WAS FORBIDDEN BECAUSE ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN EXCLUSIVELY
INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THE OPINION IS TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
STATEMENT BY THE COURT OF ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS AND LEGAL
DEDUCTIONS WHICH CONTROL ITS DECISION.  THE MISSOURI ACT CALLED FOR A
FRANCHISE TAX OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE PAR OF ITS STOCK, APPORTIONED TO
ITS ASSETS IN THAT STATE.  THIS COURT SAID THAT "THE TAX IS ONE UPON
THE PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS," AND AS THE TAXPAYER "IS ENGAGED
ONLY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" THE TAX "CONSTITUTIONALLY CANNOT BE
IMPOSED."  THERE WAS THEN ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH: 

"THE MAINTENANCE OF AN OFFICE, THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES, EMPLOYMENT
OF LABOR, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES
AND AUTOMOBILES, AND APPELLANT'S OTHER ACTS WITHIN THE STATE, WERE ALL
EXCLUSIVELY IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS; AND THE PROPERTY
ITSELF, HOWEVER EXTENSIVE OR OF WHATEVER CHARACTER, WAS LIKEWISE
DEVOTED ONLY TO THAT END.  THEY WERE THE MEANS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES BY
WHICH THAT BUSINESS WAS DONE AND IN NO PROPER SENSE CONSTITUTED, OR
CONTRIBUTED TO, THE DOING OF A LOCAL BUSINESS.  THE PROTECTION AGAINST
IMPOSITION OF BURDENS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS PRACTICAL AND
SUBSTANTIAL AND EXTENDS TO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO THE COMPLETE
ENJOYMENT OF THE RIGHT PROTECTED."  FN40 

THIS COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE CORPORATION HAD A LICENSE TO ENGAGE
EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  FN41  THE LANGUAGE JUST QUOTED
SHOWS THAT THIS COURT INTERPRETED THE TRANSACTIONS IN MISSOURI AS
MERELY A PART OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE TAX ON THE FRANCHISE
AN INTERFERENCE THEREWITH BECAUSE A TAX DIRECTLY UPON IT.  FN42  "  ...
NOTHING WAS DONE IN MISSOURI EXCEPT IN FURTHERANCE OF
TRANSPORTATION."  FN43  IT WAS THIS CONCLUSION OF THE COURT ON THE
FACTUAL SITUATION WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE OZARK DECISION.  WHERE THERE
IS ALSO INTRASTATE ACTIVITY, AN APPORTIONED STATE FRANCHISE TAX ON
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS DOING AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS UPHELD.  FN44  A
FRANCHISE TAX ON AN EXCLUSIVELY INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS A DIRECT BURDEN;
PROPORTIONED TO AN INTERMINGLED BUSINESS, IT IS VALID.  FN45  SINCE THE
INCIDENCE OF THE CALIFORNIA TAX AS HERE INTERPRETED IS UPON EVENTS
OUTSIDE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE OZARK OPINION IS NOT APPLICABLE. 
THERE THE MISSOURI TAX WAS UPON ACTIVITIES FOUND WHOLLY INTERSTATE. 

FINALLY, APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE TAX VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE EXACTED FOR CONSUMPTION OF OFFICE
AND CAR SUPPLIES OUTSIDE THE STATE, UPON THEIR APPROPRIATION IN
CALIFORNIA BY THE GENERAL OFFICE TO THE USE OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM.  FN46
THIS CONTENTION FALLS WITH THE DETERMINATION THAT THE TAXABLE EVENT IS
THE EXERCISE OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT IN CALIFORNIA.  THIS COURT DECLINED
TO ACCEPT A SIMILAR ARGUMENT IN THE SILAS MASON COMPANY CASE.  FN47
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CAL. STATS. 1935, CH. 361. 

FN2  SEC. 266, JUD.  CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380. 

FN3  AS THE BILL WAS FILED JULY 10, 1936, THERE WAS JURISDICTION.  50
STAT. 738. 

FN4  SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. CORBETT, 20 F.SUPP.  940. 

FN5  ID., 23 F.SUPP.  193. 

FN6  SEC. 266, JUD.  CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380. 

FN7  CAL. STATS. 1933, CH. 1020, AS AMENDED, CAL. STATS. 1935, CHS. 
351, 355, 357. 

FN8  CALIFORNIA USE TAX ACT, SUPRA, SEC. 3. 

FN9  ID., SECS. 2, 3. 

FN10  300 U.S. 577.  CF. FELT & TARRANT MFG. CO. V. GALLAGHER, ANTE. 
P. 62. 

FN11  NEW YORK V. KLEINERT, 268 U.S. 646, 651. 

FN12  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 587. 

FN13  NATIONAL ICE & COLD STORAGE CO. V. PACIFIC FRUIT EXPRESS CO.,
95 CAL. DEC. 442, 445-8; 11 CAL.2D 283; 79 P.2D 380. 

FN14  CF. OZARK PIPE LINE CORP. V. MONIER, 266 U.S. 555. 

FN15  TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. 460. 

FN16  CASE OF THE STATE FREIGHT TAX, 15 WALL.  232. 

FN17  ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DIST., 120 U.S. 489, 496, 497;
BRENNAN V. TITUSVILLE, 153 U.S. 289. 

FN18  LELOUP V. PORT OF MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640. 

FN19  SEE THE DISCUSSION IN GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD,
305 U.S. 434. 

FN20  PHILADELPHIA STEAMSHIP CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326, 336. 

FN21  FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650. 

FN22  ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 311. 

FN23  FOR COMPARISON WITH SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY RULE AND REASON FOR
VARIATION, SEE JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 157, 158. 

FN24  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 256, AND
CASES CITED.  COVERDALE V. ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S.
604, 612; FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DIST., 145 U.S. 1; AND
AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, AS EXPLAINED IN GWIN,
WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA, AND ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN,
SUPRA, 312. 

FN25  HELSON & RANDOLPH V. KENTUCKY, 279 U.S. 245; SEE ALSO BINGAMAN
V. GOLDEN EAGLE LINES, 297 U.S. 626. 

FN26  COVERDALE V. PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604, 609. 

FN27  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249. 

FN28  ID., 265-66; SEE EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, 289 U.S. 249,
252; GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY, 286 U.S. 472, 479. 

FN29  ID., 267. 

FN30  260 U.S. 366. 

FN31  279 U.S. 95. 

FN32  227 U.S. 504. 

FN33  OLIVER MINING CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172; HOPE NATURAL GAS CO.
V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284; UTAH POWER & L. CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165. 

FN34  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250, 254, AND CASES
CITED. 

FN35  CF. HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 583. 

FN36  294 U.S. 384. 

FN37  302 U.S. 90. 

FN38  266 U.S. 555. 

FN39  UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THE REGULATORY POWER OF THE CONGRESS
IS CUSTOMARILY EXERCISED ON TRANSACTIONS TAKING PLACE WITHIN THE STATE
ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT SUCH ACTS ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE CURRIN V. WALLACE, ANTE, P. 1, AND CASES CITED.  CF.
TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441. 

FN40  266 U.S. 555, 565. 

FN41  ID., 567. 

FN42  ANGLO-CHILEAN CORP. V. ALABAMA, 288 U.S. 218, 224; ID.,
MINORITY, 236; VIRGINIA V. IMPERIAL COAL CO., 293 U.S. 15, 20. 

FN43  SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148, 155. 

FN44  ID., 156. 

FN45  SEE ALSO ATLANTIC LUMBER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 298 U.S. 553,
556. 

FN46  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134; CONNECTICUT
GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77; FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
268 U.S. 473; GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S.
412; INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S. 135. 

FN47  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 578. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER: 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND I ARE OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE REVERSED. 

THE FACTS STATED IN THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED LEAVE NOTHING OF
SUBSTANCE TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE CALIFORNIA TAX IS NOT UPON
THE OPERATION - MAINTENANCE AND USE - OF APPELLANT'S RAILROAD FOR
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  DISCUSSION CAN NEITHER OBSCURE NOR MORE
PLAINLY DISCLOSE THE TRUTH THAT THE TAX IN QUESTION DIRECTLY BURDENS
COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  CONCEDEDLY, THAT IS REPUGNANT TO THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AS, FROM THE BEGINNING, IT HAS BEEN CONSTRUED BY THIS
COURT. 
..END :





















PACIFIC TEL. CO. V. GALLAGHER, 306 U.S. 182 


NO. 213.  ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 13, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 30, 1939.  -
23 F.SUPP.  197, AFFIRMED. 


CALIFORNIA USE AND STORAGE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY IN
RESPECT OF EQUIPMENT, APPARATUS, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES PURCHASED
OUTSIDE AND SHIPPED INTO THE STATE IN OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
OF ITS INTERSTATE SYSTEM, HELD CONSTITUTIONAL, UPON THE AUTHORITY OF
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, ANTE, P. 167. 

PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. GALLAGHER ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT REFUSING A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN
ENFORCEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA USE TAX.  THE COURT BELOW HAD AT FIRST
OVERRULED A MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. 

THE TAX IS BAD AS A DIRECT TAX UPON THE OPERATION OF
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FALLING INDISCRIMINATELY AND
WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT UPON INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE USE.  HELSON &
RANDOLPH V. KENTUCKY, 279 U.S. 245; BINGAMAN V. GOLDEN EAGLE LINES, 297
U.S. 626; COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE CO. 294 U.S. 384, 393. 

THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT THE TAX MAY BE APPLIED TO THE STORAGE
OF PROPERTY PRIOR TO INTERSTATE USE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE DECREE AS TO
THE SPECIFIC ORDER EQUIPMENT WHICH IS NOT STORED PRIOR TO ITS USE IN
INTERMINGLED INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  LIKEWISE, IN THE CASE
OF THE STAND-BY PROPERTY, THERE IS NO PRELIMINARY INTRASTATE STORAGE
SEPARABLE FROM USE IN THE INTERMINGLED COMMERCE, SINCE IT IS TRUE IN
EVERY PRACTICAL SENSE, AS THE TRIAL COURT SPECIFICALLY FOUND, THAT THE
STAND-BY SERVICE IN THIS CASE IS ITSELF A NECESSARY USE OF THE PROPERTY
IN THE APPELLANT'S INTERMINGLED INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE BUSINESS. 

THERE IS IN THIS CASE NO INTRASTATE ENTERPRISE, TRANSACTION, OR USE
WHICH IS SEPARABLE FROM THE INTERSTATE USE OF THE PROPERTY.  THE TAX
UPON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, EITHER IN THE IMMEDIATE RENDITION OF
SERVICE (SPECIFIC ORDER EQUIPMENT) OR IN A STAND-BY CAPACITY (STAND-BY
FACILITIES), IS, THEREFORE, A DIRECT TAX UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
STATE STATUTE, PROPERLY CONSTRUED, DID NOT INTEND TO IMPOSE SUCH A TAX,
BUT IF IT IS OTHERWISE CONSTRUED, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT
RESPECT. 

THE APPELLEES ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THE HELSON CASE, UPON THE
ASSUMPTION HERE OF SOME SEPARABLE INTRASTATE TRANSACTION AFFECTING THE
PROPERTY TO WHICH THE TAX APPLIES, IS ANSWERED BY THE FACT THAT THERE
IS NO STORAGE OR WITHDRAWAL FROM STORAGE OF THE SPECIFIC ORDER
EQUIPMENT.  NO STORAGE OCCURS IN THE MOMENTS WHEN THE PROPERTY IS
TEMPORARILY SET DOWN IN THE COURSE OF UNLOADING OR INSTALLATION.  THESE
ARE NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL INTERRUPTIONS OF MOVEMENT.  FURTHERMORE,
IT IS SETTLED THAT A MOMENTARY STORAGE COMPRISING A MERE TEMPORARY
INTERRUPTION OF THE COURSE OF A NON-TAXABLE INTERSTATE EVENT DOES NOT
ITSELF ACQUIRE AN INTRASTATE CHARACTER AND BECOME TAXABLE ON THAT
ACCOUNT.  CARSON PETROLEUM CO. V. VIAL, 279 U.S. 95; CHAMPLAIN CO. V.
BRATTLEBORO, 260 U.S. 366. 

TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT MAY BEAR THE
TAX, THE ANSWER IS THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT TAX INSTALLATION.  IF IT
DID PURPORT TO DO SO IT WOULD BE INVALID IN THIS CASE.  A TAX ON
INSTALLATION FOR USE IS IN EFFECT A TAX UPON THE USE ITSELF, AND WOULD
DEFEAT THE ENDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.  THE MAINTENANCE OF
INTERSTATE TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES AND REPAIRS IN THE OPERATION
OF INTERSTATE PIPE LINES - NECESSARILY INVOLVING THE INSTALLATION OF
REPAIR PARTS AND IMPROVEMENTS - ARE NOT SEPARABLE INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES
AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION OF A STATE EXCISE TAX.  OZARK PIPE LINE V.
MONIER, 266 U.S. 555, 565; ATLANTIC LUMBER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 298
U.S. 553, 557. 

INSTALLATION FOR INTERSTATE USE, LIKE LOADING FOR INTERSTATE
SHIPMENT, IS ESSENTIALLY THE ACT OF PUTTING THE PROPERTY IN POSITION
FOR INTERSTATE ACTIVITY, AND IS EXCLUSIVELY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS SETTLED THAT A STATE CAN NOT TAX SUCH A
CLOSELY RELATED INCIDENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS THE LOADING OF GOODS
IN POSITION FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT,  - PUGET SOUND CO. V. TAX COMM'N,
302 U.S. 90; HUGHES BROS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 272 U.S. 469,  - EVEN WHERE
THE WORK IS DONE BY A SEPARATE CONCERN HIRED FOR THE PURPOSE. 

WITH RESPECT TO STAND-BY FACILITIES, APPELLEES' CLAIM SEEMS TO BE
THAT THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF THE GENERAL MASS OF PROPERTY IN THE STATE
AND HENCE IS SUBJECT TO THE STATE'S GENERAL TAXING LAWS.  BUT THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE STAND-BY FUNCTION, AS THE FACTS SHOW AND AS THE
TRIAL COURT HELD, IS USE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE INTERSTATE-INTRASTATE
BUSINESS; AND WHILE ALL THE REST OF APPELLANT'S PLANT IN USE IS PART OF
THE GENERAL MASS OF PROPERTY IN THE STATE AND MAY BE SUBJECTED TO
PROPERTY TAXES, YET THE STATE MAY NOT TAX THE USE OF THAT PLANT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NOR ANY PART OF THE PRIVILEGE OF INTERMINGLED
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE USE WITHOUT APPORTIONING THE TAX TO THE
AMOUNT OF INTRASTATE USE. 

THE INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT ARE INSEPARABLY
INTERTWINED; THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IS WHOLLY USED IN INEXTRICABLY
INTERMINGLED INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE; AND APPELLEES HAVE
DEMANDED THE TAX FOR THE STORAGE, USE, OR OTHER CONSUMPTION, OF ALL OF
THE PROPERTY AT THE RATE OF 3% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF ALL OF IT,
WITHOUT ANY APPORTIONMENT FOR THE DIVISION OF USE BETWEEN INTERSTATE
AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  SINCE THERE IS NO TRANSACTION SEPARABLE FROM
THE INTERMINGLED USE, AND SINCE THE TAX NECESSARILY, THEREFORE, FALLS
ON THE INTERMINGLED USE, AND SINCE THE MEASURE OF THE TAX IS
UNAPPORTIONED BY ANY ALLOCATION OF THE USE, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE TAX IS
NOT LAID UPON THE INTRASTATE USE ALONE. 

THE CASE COINCIDES WITH THE COONEY CASE.  CF. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH
CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1, 27.  APPELLANT IS COMPELLED TO PURCHASE MORE
PROPERTY BY REASON OF THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS THAN IT WOULD IF IT WERE
ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE ALONE; SO THAT THE TAX, A FIXED
PERCENTAGE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY, IS GREATER BY REASON
OF THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS DONE.  RALEY & BROS. V. RICHARDSON, 264 U.S.
157, DISTINGUISHED. 

IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THE SALE AND USE TAXES ARE BOTH PAID BY THE
PURCHASER.  THE CALIFORNIA RETAIL SALES TAX ACT OF 1933, (CAL. STATS.
1933, P. 2599, CH. 1020) IMPOSES UPON RETAILERS, FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
SELLING TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AT RETAIL, A TAX EQUAL TO 3% OF THE
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THEIR RETAIL SALES.  IN NATIONAL ICE & COLD STORAGE
CO. V. PACIFIC FRUIT EXPRESS CO., 11 CAL.2D 283; 79 P.2D 380, THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HELD THAT THE SALES TAX IS A TAX ON THE
RETAILER AND NOT ON THE PURCHASER, AND THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR PASSING
THE TAX ON TO THE PURCHASER WERE INVALID EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE LATTER
MIGHT CONSENT THERETO, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY.  IT IS MERELY
OPTIONAL WITH THE RETAILER WHETHER HE SHALL ATTEMPT TO REIMBURSE
HIMSELF FROM THE CONSUMER; HE MAY WAIVE THE RIGHT, ROTH DRUG, INC. V.
JOHNSON, 13 CAL. APP.2D 720, 736; 57 P.2D 1022, 1029, (APPROVED IN THE
CASE LAST CITED).  THE USE TAX ACT, ON THE OTHER HAND, MAKES THE TAX A
DIRECT OBLIGATION OF THE CONSUMER, WHO MUST PAY THE TAX - TO THE
RETAILER IF THE LATTER MAINTAINS A PLACE OF BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA,
OTHERWISE DIRECTLY TO THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. 

OBVIOUSLY, THE SALES AND USE TAXES ARE NOT MUTUALLY COMPLEMENTARY;
MOREOVER, THE CALIFORNIA TAX SCHEME CREATES A HEAVIER DETERRENT TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN TO INTRASTATE COMMERCE, BECAUSE THE CONSUMER
CAN NOT ESCAPE THE 3% USE TAX ON HIS PURCHASES INTERSTATE, BUT MAY
ESCAPE THE 3% SALES TAX ON HIS PURCHASES INTRASTATE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE SAME QUESTIONS AS SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V.
GALLAGHER, ANTE, P. 167.  THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE STATE
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ITS MEMBERS, AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE FROM ENFORCING THE USE TAX OF 1935.  A
THREE-JUDGE COURT GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  LATER, IT
DENIED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE APPELLANT'S BILL  FN1
FOR THE REASONS STATED IN SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. CORBETT, 23 F.SUPP. 
193. 

THE APPELLANT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, OPERATES A TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH SYSTEM IN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  THE SAME
PLANT, FACILITIES AND ORGANIZATION ARE DEVOTED TO BOTH INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  IN THE NECESSARY OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND
REPAIR OF ITS SYSTEM, THE APPELLANT PURCHASES OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA LARGE
AMOUNTS OF EQUIPMENT, APPARATUS, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES WHICH ARE
SHIPPED TO IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT VARIOUS POINTS WITHIN THE
STATE.  THE TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH THE APPELLEES THREATEN TO
TAX IS OF TWO GENERAL CLASSES:  SPECIFIC ORDER AND STAND-BY EQUIPMENT. 
THE FIRST CONSISTS OF CENTRAL OFFICE SWITCHBOARDS, FRAMES, CABLE RACKS,
LARGE PRIVATE BRANCH EXCHANGE SWITCHBOARDS, LARGE UNDERGROUND CABLES,
SWITCHES, CENTRAL OFFICE CABLE, WIRE, PROTECTORS AND OTHER COMPONENT
PARTS OF TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES, WHICH ARE PURCHASED ON SPECIFIC
ORDER FOR INSTALLATION AT A PARTICULAR PLACE IN THE SYSTEM.  THE SECOND
COMPRISES GOODS BOUGHT FROM TIME TO TIME FOR HOLDING AS STAND-BY
SUPPLIES TO MEET FLUCTUATING DEMANDS AND EMERGENCIES AND TO MAKE
REPAIRS. 

THE SPECIFIC ORDER EQUIPMENT IS SHIPPED TO THE APPELLANT AT THE PLACE
OF USE.  ITS REPRESENTATIVE RECEIPTS FOR THE GOODS AT THE DOCK OR
BREAKS THE SEAL OF THE RAILROAD CAR, AND ITS EMPLOYEES UNLOAD THE GOODS
FROM THE DOCK OR CAR INTO ITS TRUCKS.  IN MOST INSTANCES THE TRUCKS ARE
DRIVEN DIRECTLY TO THE BUILDING WHERE THE EQUIPMENT IS TO BE INSTALLED;
IN SOME, TO DISTRIBUTING CENTERS FOR RELOADING INTO OTHER TRUCKS WHICH
ARE DRIVEN TO THE PLACE OF INSTALLATION.  OCCASIONALLY, PRIVATE BRANCH
EXCHANGE SWITCHBOARDS MUST BE HELD BY THE APPELLANT UNTIL THE PLACE OF
INSTALLATION IS READY.  THERE IS NO HOLDING IN WAREHOUSES.  THE STAND
BY SUPPLIES WHICH CONSTITUTE A RESERVE TO MEET CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE
REPLENISHED BY MONTHLY ORDERS.  THE APPELLANT'S TRUCKS PICK THEM UP AT
THE DOCK OR RAILROAD DEPOT AND CARRY THEM TO STORAGE PLACES AT POINTS
ON THE SYSTEM SUITABLE FOR PROMPT DISTRIBUTION.  WHEN NEEDED, THE STAND
BY FACILITIES ARE TAKEN OUT OF THE STORES AND INSTALLED. 

THE APPELLANT EXERCISES TWO RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP IN CALIFORNIA -
RETENTION AND INSTALLATION - AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE INTERSTATE
SHIPMENT AND BEFORE THE USE OR CONSUMPTION ON ITS MIXED INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE TELEPHONE SYSTEM.  WE SEE NO MATERIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THOSE DISPOSED OF IN SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. GALLAGHER, ANTE, P. 167. 

THE DECREE OF THE LOWER COURT DISMISSING THE APPELLANT'S BILL IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  PACIFIC TEL. & TEL. CO. V. CORBETT, 23 F.SUPP.  197. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DISSENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :









PULLMAN CO. V. JENKINS, 305 U.S. 534 


NO. 210.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 14, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 16, 1939.  -
96 F.2D 405, AFFIRMED AS TO RESULT. 


1.  EXISTENCE OF A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY FOR REMOVAL UNDER 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 71 IS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFF'S PLEADING AT THE TIME
OF PETITION FOR REMOVAL.  P. 537. 

2.  IF, AS TO THE NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT SEEKING REMOVAL, THE
CONTROVERSY IS SEPARABLE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 71, THE
FACT THAT UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE IT MAY BE JOINED IN THE SAME SUIT
WITH ANOTHER CONTROVERSY AS AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS, DOES NOT PRECLUDE
REMOVAL.  P. 538. 

3.  WHERE, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR PROOF OF BAD FAITH IN THE JOINDER,
CONCURRENT ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS SUED AS
JOINT TORT-FEASORS ARE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY IS
NOT PRESENTED AND THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUED
SEPARATELY AFFORDS NO GROUND FOR REMOVAL.  THIS RULE IS APPLIED WHERE A
NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYER AND ITS RESIDENT EMPLOYEE, WHOSE NEGLIGENCE
CAUSED THE INJURY, ARE SUED JOINTLY.  P. 538. 

4.  A NON-RESIDENT SLEEPING CAR COMPANY AND ITS RESIDENT PORTER WERE
SUED FOR NEGLIGENCE, COMMITTED BY THE ACTION OF THE PORTER, IN
PERMITTING A DRUNKEN AND DISORDERLY MAN TO BOARD A SLEEPING CAR, WHO,
WHILST BEING EJECTED, STRUCK THE PLAINTIFF'S HUSBAND, THE TRAIN
CONDUCTOR, CAUSING HIS DEATH.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THIS CONTROVERSY WAS SEPARABLE FROM OTHERS IN THE SAME
COMPLAINT, VIZ. A CLAIM AGAINST THE ASSAILANT FOR THE ASSAULT, AND A
CLAIM AGAINST THE RAILWAY COMPANY AND ITS GATE TENDER FOR NEGLIGENCE IN
PERMITTING THE ASSAILANT TO ENTER THE STATION AND GO THROUGH THE GATES,
WITHOUT SHOWING HIS TICKET, TO BOARD THE TRAIN.  P. 539. 

(2)  THE NON-RESIDENT CAR COMPANY, BEING CHARGED JOINTLY WITH ITS
RESIDENT EMPLOYEE, COULD NOT REMOVE THE CASE TO THE FEDERAL COURT.  P.
540. 

(3)  THE FACTS THAT THE PORTER WAS SUED BY A FICTITIOUS NAME AND HIS
RESIDENCE NOT ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, DID NOT JUSTIFY REMOVAL.  ID. 

IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE CAR COMPANY TO SHOW THAT IT HAD A SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSY WHICH WAS WHOLLY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES.  AS
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS SUCH A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY WITH
RESPECT TO THE CAR COMPANY ITS PORTER COULD NOT BE IGNORED, THE CAR
COMPANY WAS BOUND TO SHOW THAT HE WAS A NON-RESIDENT IN ORDER TO
JUSTIFY REMOVAL. 

5.  WHERE THERE IS A NON-SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY AGAINST A NON-RESIDENT
AND A RESIDENT DEFENDANT, THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN
SERVED WITH PROCESS DOES NOT JUSTIFY REMOVAL BY THE NON-RESIDENT.  P.
540. 

6.  IT IS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT TO SHOW THAT THE
RESIDENT DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN JOINED IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR THAT
REASON SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE RIGHT TO REMOVE.  P.
541. 

PULLMAN COMPANY ET AL. V. JENKINS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 583, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 17 F.SUPP.  820, DISMISSING, UPON THE GROUND OF
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE, AN ACTION IN TORT, WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM
A STATE COURT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER PETITIONER, THE PULLMAN COMPANY, WAS ENTITLED
TO REMOVE THIS CAUSE TO THE FEDERAL COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT, ORDERED REMAND (96 F.2D 405) AND
BECAUSE OF CONFLICT IN THE GROUND OF ITS RULING WITH DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

RESPONDENT, MRS. JENKINS, AND HER SON ROBERT W. JENKINS, BY MRS.
JENKINS AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, BROUGHT THIS ACTION ON SEPTEMBER 27,
1935, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO
RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INJURIES CAUSING THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND.  HE WAS
EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY AS CONDUCTOR OF A TRAIN
RUNNING FROM LOS ANGELES TO SAN FRANCISCO.  HIS INJURIES WERE DUE TO A
BLOW STRUCK BY A. J. KASH, WHO WAS BEING REMOVED FROM THE TRAIN BY
POLICE OFFICERS CALLED TO ASSIST THE CONDUCTOR IN EJECTING KASH BECAUSE
OF HIS DISORDERLY CONDUCT.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE SOUTHERN
PACIFIC COMPANY, THE PULLMAN COMPANY, KASH, HATCH, THE PULLMAN
CONDUCTOR, JOHN DOE ONE, DESCRIBED AS EMPLOYED BY THE PULLMAN COMPANY
AS PORTER, AND JOHN DOE TWO, DESCRIBED AS EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTHERN
PACIFIC COMPANY AS GATE TENDER AT THE PASSENGER DEPOT AT LOS ANGELES. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED TWO CAUSES OF ACTION, ONE AGAINST ALL THE
DEFENDANTS, THE OTHER AGAINST KASH ALONE.  THE PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT
KASH WERE STATED TO BE RESIDENTS OF CALIFORNIA.  THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
COMPANY WAS DESCRIBED AS A KENTUCKY CORPORATION AND THE PULLMAN COMPANY
AS AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION.  THE RESIDENCES OF THE DEFENDANTS HATCH AND
JOHN DOE ONE AND JOHN DOE TWO WERE NOT SET FORTH. 

ON NOVEMBER 20, 1935, THE PULLMAN COMPANY, AS A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT
OF ILLINOIS, INSISTING THAT THE CONTROVERSY AS TO IT WAS A SEPARABLE
ONE, FILED ITS PETITION FOR REMOVAL TO THE FEDERAL COURT, WITH BOND;
AND ON NOVEMBER 25, 1935, THE PETITION AND BOND WERE APPROVED AND
REMOVAL WAS ORDERED.  ON THE DAY ON WHICH THAT ORDER WAS ENTERED, AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN THE STATE COURT WHICH CONTAINED THE
ALLEGATION THAT THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
COMPANY UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  45 U.S.C. 51.  ON
DECEMBER 27, 1935, MRS. JENKINS AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE
DECEDENT WAS SUBSTITUTED AS PLAINTIFF.  ON JANUARY 17, 1936, THE
DEFENDANT HATCH DEMURRED TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT UPON THE GROUND THAT
IT STATED NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HIM, AND ON JANUARY 29, 1936, THE
DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED. 

ON JANUARY 22, 1936, THE PLAINTIFFS MOVED TO REMAND, STATING THAT
EDWARD E. MEYERS, THE PULLMAN PORTER, SUED AS JOHN DOE ONE, HAD BEEN
SERVED WITH PROCESS ON JANUARY 14, 1936, AND THAT HE AND THE DEFENDANT
HATCH WERE RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA, AND THAT THE ACTION AS
AGAINST THEM AND THE PULLMAN COMPANY WAS NOT A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY. 
PENDING THIS MOTION, ON FEBRUARY 8, 1936, THE PLAINTIFFS FILED IN THE
FEDERAL COURT A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IDENTIFYING MEYERS AS THE
PULLMAN PORTER AND FRED M. DOLSEN AS JOHN DOE TWO, DESCRIBED AS THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC GATE TENDER.  THIS AMENDED COMPLAINT REPEATED THE
ALLEGATION THAT THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC WAS SUED UNDER THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  ON FEBRUARY 19, 1936, THE COURT DENIED THE
MOTION TO REMAND. 

ON DECEMBER 28, 1936, THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS AGAINST THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC AND DOLSEN AS THE RESULT OF A COMPROMISE. 
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS WERE THEN FILED BY THE REMAINING DEFENDANTS
RESPECTIVELY CLAIMING RELEASE BY REASON OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THIS DEFENSE AND
ENTERED JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT. 

ON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, PASSING THE OTHER QUESTIONS,
HELD THAT IF IT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY APPEAR AT THE TIME OF THE PETITION
FOR REMOVAL THAT THE CAUSE WAS NOT SEPARABLE, IT DID SO APPEAR WHEN THE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED AND HENCE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION TO REMAND.  96 F.2D P. 410.  THIS RULING
WAS PLACED UPON AN ERRONEOUS GROUND.  THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE RIGHT TO REMOVE,
WHICH IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT ONE WAS TO BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO
THE PLAINTIFFS' PLEADING AT THE TIME OF THE PETITION FOR REMOVAL. 
BARNEY V. LATHAM, 103 U.S. 205, 213-216; GRAVES V. CORBIN, 132 U.S.
571, 585; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. WANGELIN, 132 U.S. 599, 601;
SALEM TRUST CO. V. MANUFACTURERS' FINANCE CO., 264 U.S. 182, 189, 190;
SAINT PAUL MERCURY INDEMNITY CO. V. RED CAB CO., 303 U.S. 283, 294,
295. 

THE QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SET FORTH A
SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE PULLMAN COMPANY,
THAT IS, A CONTROVERSY "WHICH IS WHOLLY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
STATES, AND WHICH CAN BE FULLY DETERMINED AS BETWEEN THEM."  28 U.S.C.
71.  IF, AS TO THE NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT SEEKING REMOVAL, THE
CONTROVERSY IS SEPARABLE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE AS
CONSTRUED, THE FACT THAT UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE IT MAY BE JOINED IN
THE SAME SUIT WITH ANOTHER CONTROVERSY AS AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS,
DOES NOT PRECLUDE REMOVAL.  BARNEY V. LATHAM, SUPRA; NICHOLS V.
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO., 195 F. 913, 915, 916; STEWART V. NEBRASKA
TIRE & RUBBER CO., 39 F.2D 309, 311; DES MOINES ELEVATOR CO. V.
UNDERWRITERS' GRAIN ASSN., 63 F.2D 103, 105; CULP V. BALDWIN, 87 F.2D
679, 680-682. 

THIS IS SO WHETHER THE ACTION SOUNDS IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT.  THE
QUESTION IS DETERMINED BY THE PLAINTIFF'S PLEADING.  THUS IF DEFENDANTS
ARE CHARGED WITH NEGLIGENCE, BUT THE CHARGE AGAINST THE NON-RESIDENT
DEFENDANT IS BASED ON DIFFERENT AND NON-CONCURRENT ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE
AND A CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH IS JOINT IN CHARACTER IS NOT ALLEGED, A
SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY IS PRESENTED.  SEE CULP V. BALDWIN, SUPRA.
WHERE, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR PROOF OF BAD FAITH IN THE JOINDER,
CONCURRENT ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS SUED AS
JOINT TORT-FEASORS ARE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED, A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY IS
NOT PRESENTED AND THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUED
SEPARATELY AFFORDS NO GROUND FOR REMOVAL.  THIS RULE IS APPLIED WHERE A
NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYER AND ITS RESIDENT EMPLOYEE, WHOSE NEGLIGENCE
CAUSED THE INJURY, ARE SUED JOINTLY.  CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V.
DIXON, 179 U.S. 131, 139; ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. THOMPSON,
200 U.S. 206, 212, 213, 220; CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. DOWELL, 229
U.S. 102, 111-113; HAY V. MAY COMPANY, 271 U.S. 318, 321, 322; WATSON
V. CHEVROLET MOTOR CO., 68 F.2D 686, 689; HARRELSON V. MISSOURI PACIFIC
TRANSPORTATION CO., 87 F.2D 176, 177. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT DID NOT CHARGE ANY
NEGLIGENCE OR WRONGFUL CONDUCT IN EJECTING KASH FROM THE TRAIN.  ON THE
CONTRARY, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT HE WAS INTOXICATED AND WAS ACTING IN AN
OFFENSIVE, THREATENING AND QUARRELSOME MANNER IN WHICH HE PERSISTED
DESPITE REMONSTRANCE.  THERE WAS CLEARLY A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY WITH
RESPECT TO KASH.  HE WAS SUED FOR HIS UNLAWFUL ASSAULT UPON THE
CONDUCTOR. 

THE NEGLIGENCE CHARGED AGAINST THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY AND ITS
GATE TENDER WAS IN THE ACTION OF THE LATTER IN PERMITTING KASH TO ENTER
THE STATION AND GO THROUGH THE GATES TO BOARD THE TRAIN WITHOUT
DISPLAYING HIS TICKET AND WHILE DRUNK AND DISORDERLY.  THE NEGLIGENCE
CHARGED AGAINST THE PULLMAN COMPANY AND ITS PORTER WAS ALLEGED TO
CONSIST IN THE ACTION OF THE PORTER IN PERMITTING KASH TO BOARD THE
PULLMAN SLEEPER.  NO FACTS WERE ALLEGED UPON WHICH LIABILITY OF THE
PULLMAN COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES COULD BE PREDICATED UPON THE
NEGLIGENCE OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY AND ITS GATE TENDER.  IT WAS
NOT SHOWN THAT EITHER THE PULLMAN COMPANY OR THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
COMPANY WAS LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF THE OTHER OR THAT THEY JOINED IN THE
COMMISSION OF ANY WRONG.  WITH RESPECT TO THESE COMPANIES IN RELATION
TO EACH OTHER, THE CASES ABOVE CITED, SO FAR AS THEY HOLD THAT A
SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY IS NOT PRESENTED WHEN MASTER AND SERVANT ARE
JOINED BECAUSE OF CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE, ARE NOT IN POINT. 

NOR WAS ANY NEGLIGENCE OR WRONGFUL ACT ALLEGED ON THE PART OF THE
PULLMAN CONDUCTOR. 

THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, REMAINS AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE JOINDER OF THE
PULLMAN PORTER.  IF THE PORTER HAD BEEN SUED IN HIS PROPER NAME,
INSTEAD OF JOHN DOE, HAD BEEN DESCRIBED AS A CITIZEN OF CALIFORNIA, AND
HAD BEEN SERVED WITH PROCESS PRIOR TO THE PETITION FOR REMOVAL, THERE
COULD BE NO QUESTION THAT THE PULLMAN COMPANY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ENTITLED TO REMOVE.  CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. DIXON, SUPRA; ALABAMA
GREAT SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. THOMPSON, SUPRA; HAY V. MAY COMPANY, SUPRA. 

WE THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THE PULLMAN PORTER WAS SUED BY A
FICTITIOUS NAME DID NOT JUSTIFY REMOVAL.  HIS RELATION TO THE PULLMAN
COMPANY AND HIS NEGLIGENCE AS ITS SERVANT WERE FULLY ALLEGED.  SEE
GROSSO V. BUTTE ELECTRIC RY. CO., 217 F. 422.  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT
THE RESIDENCE OF THE PORTER WAS NOT SET FORTH JUSTIFY DISREGARDING
HIM.  IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE PULLMAN COMPANY TO SHOW THAT IT HAD A
SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY WHICH WAS WHOLLY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT
STATES.  AS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS SUCH A SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSY WITH RESPECT TO THE PULLMAN COMPANY ITS PORTER COULD NOT BE
IGNORED, THE COMPANY WAS BOUND TO SHOW THAT HE WAS A NON-RESIDENT IN
ORDER TO JUSTIFY REMOVAL. 

AT THE TIME OF THE PETITION FOR REMOVAL THE PULLMAN PORTER HAD NOT
YET BEEN SERVED WITH PROCESS.  WHERE THERE IS A NON-SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSY WITH RESPECT TO SEVERAL NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANTS, ONE OF
THEM MAY REMOVE THE CAUSE, ALTHOUGH THE OTHER DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT BEEN
SERVED WITH PROCESS AND HAVE NOT APPEARED.  TREMPER V. SCHWABACHER, 84
F. 413, 416; BOWLES V. H.J. HEINZ CO., 188 F. 937; HUNT V. PEARCE, 271
F. 498; 284 F. 321, 323, 324; COMMUNITY BUILDING CO. V. MARYLAND
CASUALTY CO., 8 F.2D 678; TROWER V. STONEBRAKER-ZEA CO., 17 F.SUPP. 
687, 690; KELLY V. ALABAMA-QUENELDA CO., 34 F.2D 790, 791.  IN SUCH A
CASE THERE IS DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THE REASON FOR THE RULE IS
STATED TO BE THAT THE DEFENDANT NOT SERVED MAY NEVER BE SERVED, OR MAY
BE SERVED AFTER THE TIME HAS EXPIRED FOR THE DEFENDANT WHO HAS BEEN
SERVED TO APPLY FOR A REMOVAL, AND UNLESS THE LATTER CAN MAKE AN
EFFECTIVE APPLICATION ALONE, HIS RIGHT TO REMOVAL MAY BE LOST.  HUNT V.
PEARCE, 284 F. P. 324.  BUT THE RULE IS OTHERWISE WHERE A NON-SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSY INVOLVES A RESIDENT DEFENDANT.  IN THAT CASE THE FACT THAT
THE RESIDENT DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED WITH PROCESS DOES NOT
JUSTIFY REMOVAL BY THE NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT.  PATCHIN V. HUNTER, 38
F. 51, 53; ARMSTRONG V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO., 192 F. 608, 615;
HUNT V. PEARCE, 271 F. P. 502; DEL FUNGO GIERA V. ROCKLAND LIGHT &
POWER CO., 46 F.2D 552, 554; HANE V. MID-CONTINENT PETROLEUM CORP., 47
F.2D 244, 246, 247.  IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT MAY
BE PREJUDICED BECAUSE HIS CO-DEFENDANT MAY NOT BE SERVED.  ON THE OTHER
HAND THERE IS NO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THE CONTROVERSY BEING A
NON-SEPARABLE ONE, THE NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED
TO SEIZE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE THE CAUSE BEFORE SERVICE UPON THE
RESIDENT CO-DEFENDANT IS EFFECTED.  IT IS ALWAYS OPEN TO THE NON
RESIDENT DEFENDANT TO SHOW THAT THE RESIDENT DEFENDANT HAS NOT BEEN
JOINED IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR THAT REASON SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING THE RIGHT TO REMOVE.  WECKER V. NATIONAL ENAMELING CO., 204
U.S. 176, 185, 186; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. V. COCKRELL, 232 U.S.
146, 152; WILSON V. REPUBLIC IRON & STEEL CO., 257 U.S. 92, 97; CLANCY
V. BROWN, 71 F.2D 110, 112, 113. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS NO CHARGE THAT THE JOINDER WAS
FRAUDULENT.  ON THE MOTION TO REMAND IT APPEARED THAT THE PULLMAN
PORTER, IDENTIFIED AS MEYERS, WAS A RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA AND HAD THEN
BEEN SERVED WITH PROCESS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION TO
REMAND AND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE PULLMAN COMPANY, SEEKING
REMOVAL, TO SHOW THAT IT WAS SUED IN A CONTROVERSY "WHOLLY BETWEEN
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES"; FN1  THAT THE COMPANY FAILED TO MEET
THIS BURDEN; THAT PLAINTIFF'S JOINING THE PULLMAN COMPANY WITH A
PULLMAN PORTER DESIGNATED BY A FICTITIOUS NAME DID NOT RELIEVE THE
COMPANY OF ITS STATUTORY BURDEN; THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE DISTRICT COURT
ERRED IN DENYING A MOTION TO REMAND, AND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT'S REFUSAL TO
REMAND, SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE OPINION, WHICH
THIS AFFIRMANCE DOES NOT REQUIRE, I CANNOT AGREE.    FIRST.  THE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FILED IN THE STATE COURT INDICATED PLAINTIFF'S
INTENTION TO REST ITS CASE AGAINST THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY UPON
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, UNDER WHICH SUITS BROUGHT IN
STATE COURTS ARE NOT REMOVABLE TO FEDERAL COURTS.  FN2  THE PLEADINGS
DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE SUIT WAS BASED ON THE FEDERAL ACT AS CLEARLY
AS GOOD PLEADING REQUIRES, AND THE COMPLAINT WAS DOUBTLESS SUBJECT TO
SPECIAL DEMURRER BECAUSE OF ITS GENERALITY.  BUT THE MERE FACT THAT A
COMPLAINT BASED ON THE FEDERAL ACT IS DEMURRABLE DOES NOT MAKE IT
SUBJECT TO REMOVAL.  IN ADDITION, BOTH AN AMENDMENT FILED IN THE STATE
COURT BEFORE THE ORDER OF REMOVAL (BUT AFTER THE PETITION FOR REMOVAL),
AND A SECOND AMENDMENT FILED AFTER REMOVAL, SERVED TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT MORE PRECISE AND MADE CLEAR THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF CLAIMING
UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WITHOUT CHANGING THE
ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION.  "IT IS TRUE THAT THE DECLARATION WAS AMENDED
AFTER THE PETITION TO REMOVE  ...  , BUT THE AMENDMENT IF NOT
UNNECESSARY MERELY MADE THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION MORE PRECISE.  ON
THE QUESTION OF REMOVAL WE HAVE NOT TO CONSIDER MORE THAN WHETHER THERE
WAS A REAL INTENTION TO GET A JOINT JUDGMENT AND WHETHER THERE WAS A
COLORABLE GROUND FOR IT SHOWN AS THE RECORD STOOD WHEN THE (PETITION
FOR REMOVAL WAS RULED ON)  ...  WE ARE NOT TO DECIDE WHETHER A FLAW
COULD BE PICKED IN THE DECLARATION ON SPECIAL DEMURRER."  FN3 

BOTH FROM THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND FROM ITS AMENDMENTS IT SEEMS
CLEAR TO ME THAT PLAINTIFF SOUGHT RELIEF UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT AND THAT THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THAT
GROUND WAS PROPER. 

SECOND.  THE DISPOSITION OF THIS CASE ON THE GROUND SET OUT IN THE
OPINION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE STATEMENT THAT "IF, AS TO THE NON-RESIDENT
DEFENDANT SEEKING REMOVAL, THE CONTROVERSY IS SEPARABLE WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED, THE FACT THAT UNDER THE STATE
PRACTICE IT MAY BE JOINED IN THE SAME SUIT WITH ANOTHER CONTROVERSY AS
AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS, DOES NOT PRECLUDE REMOVAL."  NOR DO I AGREE
THAT THIS IS A CORRECT CONSTRUCTION OF THE REMOVAL STATUTE.  THE
STATEMENT IS RESTED ON THE CASE OF BARNEY V. LATHAM, 103 U.S. 205, AND
OPINIONS FROM TWO CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  FN4  HOWEVER, THIS COURT
LATER REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE LATHAM CASE AS AUTHORITY FOR THE
PROPOSITION THAT THE STATUTORY RIGHT OF REMOVAL "TAKES NO ACCOUNT OF
...  WHAT MAY BE THE RULES OF PRACTICE, WHETHER COMMON LAW OR
STATUTORY, OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE ACTION MAY BE PENDING"; INSTEAD,
IT HELD EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.  ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RY. CO. V.
THOMPSON, 200 U.S. 206, (SEE ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL, PAGE 209).  AND IN
CINCINNATI, N.O. & T.P. RY. CO. V. BOHON, 200 U.S. 221, 225,
226(CONSIDERED AND DECIDED WITH THE THOMPSON CASE), THE COURT STATED: 

"WHILE THE CASE DID NOT SHOW AN ATTEMPT TO REMOVE, THE DISCUSSION OF
THE SUBJECT BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE STRONGLY INTIMATES THAT IF THE ACTION
WAS PROPERLY JOINT IN THE FORUM IN WHICH IT WAS BEING PROSECUTED IT
COULD NOT BE REMOVED AS A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY UNDER THE ACT OF
CONGRESS.  WE HAVE UNDER CONSIDERATION AN ACTION FOR TORT WHICH BY THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE, AS INTERPRETED BY THE HIGHEST COURT
IN THE STATE, GIVES A JOINT REMEDY AGAINST MASTER AND SERVANT TO
RECOVER FOR NEGLIGENT INJURIES.  THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT A
SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY MUST BE SHOWN UPON THE FACE OF THE PETITION OR
DECLARATION, AND THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS NO RIGHT TO SAY THAT AN ACTION
SHALL BE SEVERAL WHICH THE PLAINTIFF ELECTS TO MAKE JOINT.  (SEE CASES
CITED IN ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. THOMPSON, SUPRA.) A
STATE HAS AN UNQUESTIONABLE RIGHT BY ITS CONSTITUTION AND LAWS TO
REGULATE ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND WHERE IT HAS PROVIDED THAT THE
PLAINTIFF IN SUCH CASES MAY PROCEED JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY AGAINST THOSE
LIABLE FOR THE INJURY, AND THE PLAINTIFF IN DUE COURSE OF LAW AND IN
GOOD FAITH HAS FILED A PETITION ELECTING TO SUE FOR A JOINT RECOVERY
GIVEN BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE, WE KNOW OF NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL
REMOVAL STATUTE WHICH WILL CONVERT SUCH ACTION INTO A SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVAL, BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF A
NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANT THEREIN PROPERLY JOINED IN THE ACTION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE WHEREIN IT IS CONDUCTING ITS
OPERATIONS AND IS DULY SERVED WITH PROCESS." 

IT WAS THUS BROADLY HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO OTHER OR SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSY, IF A PLAINTIFF PROPERLY ELECTS UNDER STATE PRACTICE TO SUE
DEFENDANTS JOINTLY.  EVEN A SEPARATE DEFENSE, WHICH MAY DEFEAT A JOINT
RECOVERY, CANNOT CREATE A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY WHEN THE PLAINTIFF HAS
A RIGHT TO MAKE HIS CAUSE OF ACTION JOINT.  FN5 

IN CASES WHICH HAVE INVOLVED THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL SINCE THE LATHAM
CASE, THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD THAT THE "JOINT LIABILITY OF THE
DEFENDANTS (ONE OF WHOM IS A NON-RESIDENT) UNDER THE DECLARATION AS
AMENDED IS A MATTER OF STATE LAW, AND UPON THAT WE SHALL NOT ATTEMPT TO
GO BEHIND THE DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE BEFORE WHICH
THE QUESTION COULD COME."  FN6 

ONLY TWO CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE HELD THAT CAUSES OF ACTION
PROPERLY JOINED UNDER STATE PRACTICE MAY NEVERTHELESS BE SEPARABLE FOR
PURPOSES OF REMOVAL; OTHER CIRCUITS HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT.  FN7  CASES FROM THE TWO CIRCUITS ARE RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE
LANGUAGE IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT TO WHICH I CANNOT AGREE.  FN8
HOWEVER, THE CASES RELIED UPON FROM ONE OF THESE TWO CIRCUITS NO LONGER
APPEAR TO REPRESENT THE RULE EVEN IN THAT CIRCUIT.  FN9  AND THE LONE
CASE IN THE OTHER OF THE TWO CIRCUITS WAS CONTRARY TO AND DECIDED
BEFORE THE MOST RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ON THE SUBJECT.  FN10 

THIRD.  IT IS, OF COURSE, TRUE THAT WHERE GOVERNING STATE LAW
CHARACTERIZES ACTIONABLE NEGLIGENCE OF A LOCAL AND A NON-RESIDENT
DEFENDANT AS "CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE," THERE CAN BE NO RIGHT OF
REMOVAL.  HOWEVER, THIS IS BUT ONE APPLICATION OF THE RULE GOVERNING
REMOVALS UNDER WHICH WE LOOK TO STATE LAW TO DETERMINE THE PROPRIETY OF
JOINING TWO OR MORE DEFENDANTS IN A SINGLE SUIT.  FN11  THE OPINION IN
THE THOMPSON CASE, SUPRA, WAS EXPRESSLY DESIGNED TO RESOLVE THE
"CONFLICT IN THE AUTHORITIES AS TO WHETHER A CORPORATION, WHOSE
LIABILITY DOES NOT ARISE FROM AN ACT OF CONCURRENCE OR DIRECTION ON ITS
PART, BUT SOLELY AS A RESULT OF THE RELATION OF MASTER AND SERVANT, MAY
BE JOINTLY SUED WITH THE SERVANT WHOSE NEGLIGENT CONDUCT DIRECTLY
CAUSED THE INJURY."  (AT PP. 213, 214).  THE QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR
DECISION IN THAT CASE WAS (PP. 212, 213):  "MAY A RAILROAD CORPORATION
BE JOINTLY SUED WITH TWO OF ITS SERVANTS  ...  THOUGH  ...  NOT CHARGED
WITH ANY CONCURRENT ACT OF NEGLIGENCE?"  THIS COURT GAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE
ANSWER. 

THE PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN WELL STATED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF
THE SECOND CIRCUIT: 

"APPELLEES CONTEND THAT REMOVAL IS PREVENTED ONLY WHERE A MASTER AND
SERVANT ARE CHARGED WITH CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE.  THE RULE IS SETTLED
OTHERWISE.  IN ALABAMA GREAT SO. RY. CO. V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, AND
CINCINNATI, N.O. & TEXAS PAC. RY. V. BOHON, SUPRA, THE MASTER WAS
ALLEGED TO BE LIABLE ON THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.  IT IS
IMMATERIAL THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE MASTER AND THAT OF THE SERVANT
PROCEED ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS; EVEN MORE DISTINCT WERE THE BASES OF
LIABILITY OF THE LESSEE AND LESSOR RAILROAD COMPANIES IN CHICAGO, B. &
Q. RY. CO. V. WILLARD,  ...  (220 U.S. 413) WHERE THE LESSOR WAS HELD
ON ITS OBLIGATION TO THE PUBLIC OF WHICH IT COULD NOT BE RELIEVED BY
VIRTUE OF A LEASE.  ...  NOTHING IN HAY V. MAY DEPARTMENT STORES CO.,
271 U.S. 318, ...  SUPPORTS THE CLAIM THAT THE RULE OF NONREMOVABILITY
IS LIMITED TO INSTANCES OF CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE."  FN12 

THE CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES CONGRESS TO FIX THE JURISDICTION OF
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF POWERS BETWEEN
THE STATES AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT MAKES IT NECESSARY THAT THE
JURISDICTIONAL POLICY DECLARED BY CONGRESS BE SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVED. 
THIS IS ESPECIALLY SO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT AFTER REMOVAL OF A CAUSE
FROM A STATE COURT BY REASON OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE FEDERAL
COURT MUST PROCEED UNDER STATE LAW AND PRACTICE.  QUESTIONS OF STATE
CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY AND GENERAL LAW, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CLEARLY
AND FINALLY DETERMINED BY THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT, MAY ARISE IN THE
FEDERAL COURT.  THE STATE COURT NEED NOT THEREAFTER, IN OTHER
LITIGATION, FOLLOW THE FEDERAL COURT'S DECISION ON SUCH QUESTIONS. 
HOWEVER, CASES FOR WHICH CONGRESS HAS NOT AUTHORIZED REMOVAL FROM A
STATE COURT CAN BE APPEALED TO THE STATE'S HIGHEST JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL,
THUS GIVING EACH LITIGANT A FINAL DETERMINATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER
STATE LAWS BY THE BODY VESTED WITH FINAL AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THOSE
LAWS.  RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
WHICH MAY BE INVOLVED IN SUCH LITIGATION IN A STATE COURT, CAN STILL BE
PROTECTED BY APPEAL TO THIS COURT. 

THE STATUTORY PRIVILEGE OF REMOVAL SHOULD BE PROTECTED.  BUT I DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION SHOULD EXPAND THE STATUTORY
PRIVILEGE BEYOND LIMITS INTENDED BY THE STATUTE AND PROPERLY RECOGNIZED
BY THIS COURT IN PREVIOUS DECISIONS.  PARTICULARLY, I THINK IT UNWISE
TO INDICATE THIS STEP IN A CASE IN WHICH DECISION AND JUDGMENT DO NOT
REQUIRE DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION. 

FN1  C. 3, SEC. 71, 28 U.S.C. 

FN2  C. 2, SEC. 51, SEC. 56, 45 U.S.C. 

FN3  CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. SCHWYHART, 227 U.S. 184, 194. 

FN4  NICHOLS V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. CO. (CCA 6TH, DECIDED 1912),
195 F. 913; STEWART V. NEBRASKA TIRE & RUBBER CO. (CCA 8TH, DECIDED
1930), 39 F.2D 309; DES MOINES ELEVATOR & GRAIN CO. V. UNDERWRITERS'
GRAIN ASSN. (CCA 8TH, DECIDED 1933), 63 F.2D 103; CULP V. BALDWIN (CCA
8TH, DECIDED 1937), 87 F.2D 679(BUT SEE 679-80). 

FN5  PIRIE V. TVEDT, 115 U.S. 41; POWERS V. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY.
CO., 169 U.S. 92, 97; CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V. WILLARD, 220 U.S.
413. 

FN6  CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. SCHWYHART, SUPRA, AT 193(DECIDED
1913); SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. MILLER, 217 U.S. 209, 215, 216(DECIDED
1910); "THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE DECIDED THAT THE PETITION STATED
A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DRAKE AND THE RAILWAY COMPANY, AND WHETHER IT
DID, WE SAID IN CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RY. V. SCHWYHART, 227
U.S. 184, WAS A MATTER OF STATE LAW."  CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V.
WHITEAKER, 239 U.S. 421, 424(DECIDED 1915); CHICAGO & ALTON R. CO. V.
MCWHIRT, 243 U.S. 422(DECIDED 1917). 

FN7  IN NORWALK V. AIR-WAY ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CORP., 87 F.2D 317,
319, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HELD THAT
"WHETHER A SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVAL IS
DETERMINED BY STATE LAW," CITING THE BOHON CASE AND THE MCWHIRT CASE,
SUPRA.  TO THE SAME EFFECT ARE, JOHNSON V. NOBLE, 64 F.2D 396, 398,
PADGETT V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 54 F.2D 576, 577, AND
CENTERVILLE STATE BANK V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 37 F.2D 338(CCA 10TH);
GULF REFINING CO. V. MORGAN, 61 F.2D 80, 81(CCA 4TH); SEE BREYMANN V.
PENNSYLVANIA, O. & D.R. CO., 38 F.2D 209(CCA 6TH); OPINION OF
HUTCHESON, CIRCUIT JUDGE, IN LAKE V. TEXAS NEWS CO., 51 F.2D 862,
863(S.D. TEXAS); AND WACO V. U.S. FIDELITY & G. CO., 76 F.2D 470,
471(CCA 5TH). 

FN8  SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN9  OTHER CASES IN THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT THROW SOME DEGREE OF DOUBT ON
THE STEWART AND GRAIN CO. CASES, SUPRA, AND INDICATE A DISPOSITION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER LIABILITY OF A DEFENDANT UNDER ALLEGATIONS OF A
COMPLAINT IS JOINT OR SEVERABLE BY REFERENCE TO STATE LAW.  SEE,
HARRELSON V. MISSOURI PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO., 87 F.2D 176, 178;
HUFFMAN V. BALDWIN, 82 F.2D 5, 8; WATSON V. CHEVROLET MOTOR CO., 68
F.2D 686, 688, 689.  AFTER THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN ERIE R. CO. V.
TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT SEEMINGLY WAS OF OPINION (1938) THAT THE QUESTION OF "JOINT
LIABILITY AND OF THE BEARING THEREOF ON THE QUESTION OF REMOVABILITY"
MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE.  ERVIN V. TEXAS CO., 97
F.2D 806, 809. 

FN10  THE NICHOLS CASE, SUPRA, IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, WAS DECIDED IN
1912; THE SCHWYHART CASE, THE WHITEAKER CASE, AND THE MCWHIRT CASE, IN
THIS COURT, WERE DECIDED IN 1913, 1915, AND 1917, RESPECTIVELY (SEE
NOTE 6). 

FN11  SEE, CHESAPEAKE & OHIO R. CO. V. DIXON, 179 U.S. 131, 140;
ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. THOMPSON, SUPRA, 220; CHICAGO, R.I. &
P. RY. CO. V. DOWELL, 229 U.S. 102, 112, 113. 

FN12  NORWALK V. AIR-WAY ELECTRIC APPLIANCE CORP., SUPRA, 319. 
..END :














ALTON R. CO. V. ILLINOIS COMM'N, 305 U.S. 548 


NO. 231.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 16, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 16, 1939.  -
368 ILL. 584 - 15 N.E.2D 508, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM WILL BE OVERRULED WHERE, AFTER
ARGUMENT, IT APPEARS THAT THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS NOT SO CLEARLY
LACKING IN MERIT THAT IT MAY BE PUT ASIDE ON MERE CITATION OF EARLIER
DECISIONS.  P. 550. 

2.  A RAILROAD COMPANY, IN ILLINOIS, WHICH HAS LONG OPERATED, AND
MAINTAINED AT ITS OWN COST, A SWITCH TRACK LEADING FROM ITS MAIN LINE
TO INDUSTRIAL PLANTS, IS NOT DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
BY AN ORDER OF THE STATE REQUIRING IT TO CONTINUE THE UP-KEEP, WHERE,
THOUGH CONSTRUCTED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE INDUSTRIES, ON LAND IN THEIR
OWNERSHIP, THE TRACK CROSSES PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES AND, UNDER THE LAW OF
THE STATE, CONSTITUTES A PART OF THE RAILROAD SYSTEM WHICH, WITH ANY
EXTENSIONS, MAY BE USED TO SERVE OTHER SHIPPERS AND THE PUBLIC AT
LARGE.  P. 553. 

ALTON RAILROAD CO. V. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
REQUIRING THE RAILROAD COMPANY TO CONTINUE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF
A SWITCH TRACK.  THE CASE WENT BY APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION TO A
CIRCUIT COURT, WHICH ALSO SUSTAINED THE ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER AN ORDER MADE BY THE COMMISSION, DENYING
APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO DISCONTINUE, AND REQUIRING IT
TO CONTINUE, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A SWITCH TRACK IN CHICAGO
USED TO SERVE SHIPPERS, DEPRIVES IT OF ITS PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SPECIFICALLY,
APPELLANT MAINTAINS THAT BY COMPELLING IT TO EXPEND ITS FUNDS FOR THE
UPKEEP OF A TRACK NOT CONSTRUCTED OR OWNED BY IT AND UPON LAND IT DOES
NOT OWN, THE ORDER IS REPUGNANT TO THAT PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT, AFFIRMING THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,
SUSTAINED THE ORDER AS A VALID EXERCISE OF STATE POWER.  368 ILL. 584;
15 N.E.2D 508. 

APPELLEES, INSISTING THAT OUR DECISIONS RULE THAT QUESTION IN THEIR
FAVOR, FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM* .  WE POSTPONED
CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS. 
NOW AFTER HEARING COUNSEL IT APPEARS THAT THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE
APPEAL IS NOT SO CLEARLY LACKING IN MERIT THAT UPON MERE CITATION OF
OUR DECISIONS IT MAY BE PUT ASIDE AS NOT REQUIRING FURTHER
CONSIDERATION.  WE THEREFORE DENY THE MOTION.  MILHEIM V. MOFFAT TUNNEL
DIST., 262 U.S. 710, 716, 717.  HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245,
258. 

*APPELLEES REST THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM ON:  UNION LIME CO.
V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 233 U.S. 211.  LAKE ERIE & W.R. CO. V.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 249 U.S. 422.  CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO. V. OCHS,
249 U.S. 416.  WESTERN & ATLANTIC RAILROAD V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
267 U.S. 493, 496. 

THROUGH PURCHASERS AT JUDICIAL SALE JULY 18, 1931, APPELLANT ACQUIRED
THE PROPERTIES OF THE CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY, A CONSOLIDATED
COMPANY FORMED IN 1906 AND IN RECEIVERSHIP FROM 1922 TO THE SALE.  IT
AND ITS PREDECESSORS, INCLUDING THE RECEIVER, MAY FOR BREVITY BE
REFERRED TO AS THE CARRIER. 

THE SWITCH TRACK IN QUESTION EXTENDS FROM THE CARRIER'S MAIN LINE
ABOUT 150 FEET ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THENCE 2,681 FEET, CROSSING PUBLIC
STREETS AND ALLEYS, TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE PLANT OF THE PEOPLES GAS
LIGHT & COKE COMPANY UPON LAND LARGELY, IF NOT WHOLLY, OWNED BY THAT
COMPANY AND THE OTHER INDUSTRIES SERVED BY THE TRACK.  THE INDUSTRIES,
COMMENCING WITH THE ONE NEAREST THE MAIN LINE, ARE COMMONWEALTH EDISON
COMPANY, E. HELDMAIER, INC., MOULDING-BROWNELL CORP., AND THE GAS
COMPANY.  ALL BUT THE FIRST DEPEND UPON THE TRACK FOR RAIL
TRANSPORTATION.  IT HAS BEEN EXTENDED FOR SOME DISTANCE INTO THE PLANT
OF THE GAS COMPANY.  FIVE SPURS, THAT APPROPRIATELY MAY BE CALLED
PRIVATE SIDINGS, EXTEND FROM IT AND SERVE WITHIN THE PLANTS OF THE
INDUSTRIES.  THERE IS HERE NO QUESTION AS TO THE PART OF THE TRACK
WITHIN THE GAS PLANT OR OF THE SPURS SERVING THE INDUSTRIES. 
CONSTRUCTION WAS BEGUN PRIOR TO 1884, AND AT LEAST SINCE 1887 THE
STRETCH HERE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN USED TO SERVE THE GAS COMPANY, AND
FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS OTHER INDUSTRIES BETWEEN THAT COMPANY'S PLANT
AND THE MAIN LINE.  THE ORIGINAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS BORNE BY THE
GAS COMPANY AND POSSIBLY OTHER INDUSTRIES.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR BY WHOM
THE COST OF MAINTENANCE PRIOR TO 1904 WAS PAID. 

PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE PASSED NOVEMBER 2, 1903, A PART OF THE TRACK
WAS ELEVATED AT CROSSINGS OF THREE STREETS AND TWO INTERVENING ALLEYS. 
NOVEMBER 1, 1904, THE CARRIER MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GAS COMPANY
AND THE PREDECESSOR OF THE ELECTRIC COMPANY PURSUANT TO WHICH THEY PAID
THE COST OF ELEVATION.  THE GAS COMPANY AGREED TO PAY AN ANNUAL FEE OF
$300 IMPOSED BY THE ORDINANCE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF MAINTAINING THE
TRACK ACROSS THE STREETS AND ALLEYS.  THE CARRIER AGREED TO MAINTAIN
THE TRACK.  AND, BY AN ASSIGNMENT RECITING THAT THE ORDINANCE HAD BEEN
OBTAINED FOR THEIR BENEFIT, THE CARRIER TRANSFERRED IT TO THE GAS AND
ELECTRIC COMPANIES.  THE GAS COMPANY PAID THE FEES UNTIL THE 1903
ORDINANCE EXPIRED NOVEMBER 2, 1923.  THEN IT AND THE ELECTRIC COMPANY
INSISTED THAT FUTURE EXACTIONS BY THE CITY AS WELL AS MAINTENANCE
SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE CARRIER.  THE LATTER REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE
ADDITIONAL BURDEN.  DECEMBER 10, 1924, THE CITY PASSED AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING USE OF THE STREETS FOR 20 YEARS FROM EXPIRATION OF THE 1903
ORDINANCE, INCREASED THE ANNUAL FEE TO $1,400, AND REQUIRED A BOND TO
INSURE COMPLIANCE.  THE CARRIER ACCEPTED THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE,
HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING WITH THE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANIES THAT THEY
WOULD PAY THE CHARGES.  NEVERTHELESS, IT PAID $1,400 ANNUALLY FROM 1923
TO 1932 AND WAS REIMBURSED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF $300 PAID BY THE GAS
COMPANY FOR EACH OF THREE YEARS IN THAT PERIOD.  AS OF NOVEMBER 2, 1932
THE ANNUAL FEE WAS REDUCED TO $700, AND APPELLANT PAID IT UP TO
NOVEMBER 2, 1936.  THE CARRIER BORE THE COST OF MAINTAINING THE TRACK
FROM 1904 TO MARCH 26, 1936.  ON THAT DATE, EXERCISING AS IT ASSERTS A
RIGHT RESERVED BY FINAL DECREE IN THE RECEIVERHIP PROCEEDING, IT
ELECTED NOT TO ASSUME THE CONTRACT.  NEVERTHELESS, IT HAS CONTINUED TO
USE AND MAINTAIN THE TRACK.  THUS SINCE 1903 THE CARRIER, IN ADDITION
TO MAINTAINING THE TRACK, HAS PAID $15,190 TO THE CITY AS COMPENSATION
FOR ITS OCCUPANCY OF THE PUBLIC STREETS AND ALLEYS.  THROUGH ERROR AS
IT SAYS, IT PAID TAXES ON THE TRACK FOR SOME OF THE TIME. 

NEEDED REPAIRS AND BETTERMENTS OF THE TRACK INVOLVED WILL REQUIRE
EXPENDITURES AMOUNTING TO ABOUT $4,000 A YEAR FOR THREE YEARS; THEN
ANNUAL COST OF MAINTENANCE WILL BE ABOUT $1,000.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED
THAT, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE OPERATION, APPELLANT WILL HAVE TO PAY
WHATEVER FEES ARE CHARGED BY THE CITY, AND THAT, BECAUSE THE TRACK IS
ON LAND NOT OWNED BY IT, ITS EXPENDITURES FOR ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS
MUST, AS IT ASSERTS, BY ACCOUNTING REGULATIONS BE CHARGED TO OPERATING
EXPENSES.  THE ANNUAL GROSS REVENUE FOR TRANSPORTATION OVER THE TRACK
AMOUNTS TO ABOUT $40,000. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT OPERATING EXPENSES INCLUDING THE CITY
CHARGES, PLUS COST OF REPLACEMENTS AND BETTERMENTS, WILL EXCEED REVENUE
DERIVED FROM USE OF THE TRACK OR THAT OPERATION OF THE TRACK WILL NOT
YIELD IT A REASONABLE PROFIT; NOR DOES IT CLAIM, AS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT, TO BE ENTITLED TO HAVE ANY PROFIT FROM USE OF THE SWITCH TRACK
SEPARATELY CONSIDERED.  PUGET SOUND TRACTION CO. V. REYNOLDS, 244 U.S.
574, 580.  FORT SMITH LIGHT & TRACTION CO. V. BOURLAND, 267 U.S. 330,
332.  WESTERN & ATLANTIC RAILROAD V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 267 U.S.
493, 496-497.  ADMITTEDLY, APPELLANT IS WILLING TO CONTINUE TO USE THE
TRACK TO SERVE THE INDUSTRIES.  ITS PETITION PRAYS AN ORDER REQUIRING
THEM TO PAY COST OF MAINTENANCE AND FUTURE CITY CHARGES.  IT SEEKS
AUTHORITY TO DISCONTINUE SERVICE AND TO CANCEL APPLICABLE RATES, BUT
ONLY IN CASE OF FAILURE OF THE INDUSTRIES TO PAY THESE OPERATING
EXPENSES.  IT WANTS, NOT TO GIVE UP THE TRAFFIC, BUT TO SHIFT A
SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT IT HAS LONG BEEN BEARING TO THE
INDUSTRIES SERVED. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD:  AS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND THE
RAILROAD, A SWITCH TRACK BUILT FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES AND ACROSS
PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES BECOMES A PART OF THE MAIN LINE OF THE SYSTEM
WHICH IT JOINS AND IS SUBJECT TO GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS BUILT BY PRIVATE FUNDS AND FOR THE MOST
PART ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; APPELLANT USES THE SWITCH TRACK IN QUESTION
FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT TO SERVE INDUSTRIES LOCATED ON IT AND MAY USE IT
AND EXTENSIONS OF IT TO SERVE OTHER SHIPPERS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE;
THE PUBLIC HAS AN INTEREST QUITE APART FROM THAT OF THE PARTIES TO THE
SUIT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE TRACK; THE STATE PUBLIC UTILITY ACT,
SEC. 50, IS BROAD ENOUGH TO IMPOSE UPON A RAILROAD DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE
PROPERTY WHICH IT USES FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT AS WELL AS THAT TO WHICH IT
HAS TITLE; THE COMMISSION HAS AMPLE POWER TO ENFORCE THAT DUTY AND THE
ORDER DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONS. 

WE HAVE HELD:  THE USES FOR WHICH A TRACK WAS DESIRED ARE NOT THE
LESS PUBLIC BECAUSE THE MOTIVE WHICH DICTATED ITS LOCATION WAS TO REACH
A PRIVATE INDUSTRY, OR BECAUSE THE PROPRIETORS OF THAT INDUSTRY
CONTRIBUTED TO THE COST.  HAIRSTON V. DANVILLE & WESTERN RY. CO., 208
U.S. 598, 608.  THE STATE, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, MAY EMPOWER A COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD TO
CONDEMN A RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A SPUR LEADING TO A SINGLE INDUSTRY TO BE
OPERATED UNDER OBLIGATIONS OF PUBLIC SERVICE OPEN TO ALL AND DEVOTED TO
PUBLIC USE.  UNION LIME CO. V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 233 U.S. 211,
222.  IT MAY COMPEL A RAILROAD TO EXTEND A SIDING TO AN ADJACENT
INDUSTRY SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRACKAGE FOR PUBLIC USE AND, IF
NECESSARY, TO CONDEMN A RIGHT-OF-WAY.  CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO. V. OCHS,
249 U.S. 416, 419.  FOR SIMILAR EXERTIONS OF STATE POWER, SEE LAKE ERIE
& W.R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 249 U.S. 422, 424 AND WESTERN &
ATLANTIC RAILROAD V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, SUPRA. 

THE DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE MUST HERE BE
HELD CONCLUSIVELY TO ESTABLISH THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
ILLINOIS THE ORDER IS VALID.  THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ABOVE CITED
LEAVE NO DOUBT AS TO THE POWER OF THE STATE TO REQUIRE A COMMON CARRIER
BY RAILROAD TO CONDEMN RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR AND TO CONSTRUCT SWITCH TRACKS
LIKE THE ONE HERE INVOLVED.  SO FAR AS CONCERNS DECISION OF THIS CASE,
IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER ILLINOIS HAS EXERTED THAT POWER, FOR THE TRACK
HAS BEEN LAID AND IS BEING USED BY THE CARRIER.  THE REQUIRED
MAINTEANCE AND OPERATION ARE NOT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE CARRIER'S
UNDERTAKING TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.  UNION LIME CO. V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY.
CO., SUPRA.  CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO. V. OCHS, SUPRA. 

ASSUMING THAT THE QUESTIONS WHETHER THE SWITCH TRACK IS OPEN TO
PUBLIC USE AND HAS BECOME A PART OF THE MAIN LINE ARE SO RELATED TO THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE HERE PRESENTED THAT THE STATE COURT'S
DETERMINATION OF THEM IS NOT BINDING UPON THIS COURT, WE ARE OF OPINION
THAT, UPON THE FACTS ALLEGED IN APPELLANT'S PETITION TO THE COMMISSION,
THE LATTER'S UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS, AND OUR DECISIONS IN SIMILAR CASES,
IT IS CLEAR THAT IN POINT OF FACT AND LAW THE SWITCH TRACK AND ANY
EXTENSIONS OF IT THAT MAY BE MADE ARE OPEN TO USE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC
AND CONSTITUTE A PART OF THE CARRIER'S SYSTEM. 

ASSERTING THAT THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN A TRACK SUCH AS THAT IN QUESTION
NORMALLY RESULTS FROM OWNERSHIP, APPELLANT EARNESTLY INSISTS THAT THE
ORDER IS SHOWN TO BE UNREASONABLE BY THE FACT THAT RAILS AND OTHER
MATERIALS PURCHASED AND OWNED BY IT WHEN PUT INTO THE TRACK IMMEDIATELY
CEASE TO BELONG TO IT AND BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE GAS COMPANY WHICH,
APPELLANT SAYS, RETAINS RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP IN THE TRACK.  BUT, IN
MAKING THAT AND SIMILAR ARGUMENTS, APPELLANT IGNORES THE DECISIONS IN
THIS CASE OF THE COMMISSION, THE STATE SUPREME COURT, AND AS WELL THE
RULING OF THIS COURT JUST INDICATED, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TRACK IN
QUESTION IS ONE BUILT FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ON AND ACROSS PUBLIC
THOROUGHFARES; A TRACK THAT HAS BECOME A PART OF THE MAIN LINE OF THE
CARRIER'S SYSTEM AND, THOUGH CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT COST TO IT ON LANDS
OWNED BY OTHERS, IS OPEN TO PUBLIC USE; A TRACK WHICH HAS LONG BEEN AND
IS BEING USED BY THE CARRIER FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT AND BY IT MAY BE USED
WITH EXTENSIONS IF ANY SHALL BE MADE, TO SERVE THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT AS AGAINST THE OWNERS OF THE LAND OR
THOSE WHO PAID FOR BUILDING THE TRACK, IT IS A TRESPASSER OR WITHOUT
RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE TRACK AS REQUIRED BY THE
ORDER.  NOR DOES IT SAY THAT, BY EXERTION OF THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN, IT MAY NOT SUCCESSFULLY RESIST DEMANDS OF CLAIMANTS OR OWNERS
FOR POSSESSION OF ANY PART OF THE LAND OR OF THE TRACK NOT OWNED BY IT.
SEE MAPES V. VANDALIA RAILROAD CO., 238 ILL. 142, 145; 87 N.E. 393;
BLACK V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 243 ILL. 534, 539; 90 N.E. 1075;
ROBERTS V. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 158 U.S. 1, 11; NORTHERN PACIFIC R.
CO. V. SMITH, 171 U.S. 260, 271. 

IF, AS SUGGESTED, EXPENDITURES FOR NEEDED BETTERMENTS, AS WELL AS
THOSE FOR MAINTENANCE, ARE CHARGEABLE TO OPERATING EXPENSES, ALL ARE
RETURNABLE TO THE CARRIER, OUT OF OPERATING REVENUE, AS A PART OF THE
COST OF MAINTENANCE AND USE.  AND, IF APPELLANT ACQUIRES TITLE TO THE
LAND AND TRACK, THEN ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS MADE BY IT WILL
CONSTITUTE A PART OF ITS INVESTMENT IN ROAD AND EQUIPMENT OWNED AND
USED FOR ITS PURPOSES AS A COMMON CARRIER AND, BY THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSES OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS, SAFEGUARDED AGAINST
CONFISCATION. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER WILL NOT TAKE APPELLANT'S
PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF OPINION THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD BE
GRANTED.    MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. POWERS, 305 U.S. 527 


NO. 102.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 9, 1939.  - 94
F.2D 783, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TREATY OF MAY 7, 1868, BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE CROW
INDIANS, WHICH ESTABLISHED THEIR RESERVATION AND CONTEMPLATED
SETTLEMENT IN SEVERALTY AND FARMING BY INDIVIDUAL INDIANS, OPERATED BY
IMPLICATION TO RESERVE THE WATERS WITHIN THE RESERVATION FOR THE EQUAL
BENEFIT OF TRIBAL MEMBERS.  WINTERS V. UNITED STATES, 207 U.S. 564. 
PP. 528-532. 

2.  ALLOTTEES AND THEIR GRANTEES ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO USE SOME
PORTION OF THE TRIBAL WATERS ESSENTIAL FOR CULTIVATION.  ID. 

SUBSEQUENT ACTS, CITED IN THE OPINION, DO NOT DENY TO ALLOTTEES
PARTICIPATION IN THE USE OF WATERS ESSENTIAL TO FARMING AND HOME
MAKING.  IF POSSIBLE, LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO THE TREATY MUST BE
INTERPRETED IN HARMONY WITH ITS PLAIN PURPOSES. 

3.  THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT OF 1887 RECOGNIZES EQUAL RIGHTS IN
DISTRIBUTION OF WATER AMONG INDIANS RESIDENT ON RESERVATIONS, AND
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BY REGULATIONS TO SECURE JUST
AND EQUAL DISTRIBUTION.  P. 533. 

4.  ADOPTION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OF PLANS FOR IRRIGATION
PROJECTS TO SERVE CERTAIN LANDS ON THE CROW INDIAN RESERVATION DID NOT
IMPLY A PURPOSE TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHER LAND FROM PARTICIPATION IN
ESSENTIAL WATER AND THEREBY DESTROY THE EQUAL INTEREST GRANTED BY THE
TREATY.  P. 533. 

SUBSEQUENT ALLOTMENTS FOR FARMING FOLLOWED BY PATENTS NEGATIVE ANY
SUCH NOTION. 

UNITED STATES V. POWERS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 581, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH AFFIRMED A DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 16 F.SUPP.  155, DISMISSING A BILL BY WHICH THE
UNITED STATES SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN TRACTS OF LAND IN
THE CROW INDIAN RESERVATION, INDIAN ALLOTMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN DULY SOLD
IN FEE, FROM USING OR DIVERTING ANY WATER FROM TWO STREAMS ON THE
RESERVATION. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY THIS PROCEEDING (BEGUN IN 1934) THE UNITED STATES SEEK TO PREVENT
FURTHER TAKING OF WATER FROM CERTAIN NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS WITHIN THE
CROW INDIAN RESERVATION.  THIS WATER IS ESSENTIAL TO THE CULTIVATION OF
RESPONDENTS' LANDS ALLOTTED MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO TO MEMBERS OF
THE TRIBE AND PRESENTLY HELD UNDER PROPERLY ACQUIRED FEE SIMPLE
TITLES.  THE PRAYER OF THE BILL IS FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST
"MAINTAINING OR USING SAID DAMS AND DITCHES, AS AFORESAID, AND FROM
DIVERTING BY MEANS OF SAID DAMS AND DITCHES OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER ANY
OF THE WATERS FROM LODGE GRASS CREEK OR LITTLE BIG HORN RIVER AND THEIR
TRIBUTARIES; ...  " 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSING THE BILL MUST
BE AFFIRMED. 

BY TREATY OF MAY 7, 1868, 15 STAT. 649, 650-651, THE UNITED STATES
SET ASIDE A LARGE TRACT OF ARID LAND NOW WITHIN THE STATE OF MONTANA AS
A RESERVATION FOR THE "ABSOLUTE AND UNDISTURBED USE AND OCCUPATION" OF
CROW INDIANS, AND THEY UNDERTOOK TO MAKE THEIR PERMANENT HOMES
THEREON.  IT PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER AN INDIVIDUAL INDIAN DESIRES "TO
COMMENCE FARMING" HE MAY SELECT LAND, UNDER STATED CONDITIONS, WHICH
THEREUPON SHALL "CEASE TO BE HELD IN COMMON, BUT THE SAME MAY BE
OCCUPIED AND HELD IN THE EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF THE PERSON SELECTING
IT, AND OF HIS FAMILY, SO LONG AS HE OR THEY MAY CONTINUE TO CULTIVATE
IT."  ALSO - 

"THE PRESIDENT MAY AT ANY TIME ORDER A SURVEY OF THE RESERVATION,
AND, WHEN SO SURVEYED, CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE FOR PROTECTING THE RIGHTS
OF SETTLERS IN THEIR IMPROVEMENTS, AND MAY FIX THE CHARACTER OF THE
TITLE HELD BY EACH.  ...  WHEN THE HEAD OF A FAMILY OR LODGE SHALL HAVE
SELECTED LANDS AND RECEIVED HIS CERTIFICATE AS ABOVE DIRECTED, AND THE
AGENT SHALL BE SATISFIED THAT HE INTENDS IN GOOD FAITH TO COMMENCE
CULTIVATING THE SOIL FOR A LIVING, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
SEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN VALUE ONE
HUNDRED DOLLARS, AND FOR EACH SUCCEEDING YEAR HE SHALL CONTINUE TO
FARM, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS MORE, HE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
SEEDS AND IMPLEMENTS AS AFORESAID IN VALUE TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS PER
ANNUM." 

THE TREATY CONTAINS NO DEFINITE PROVISION CONCERNING APPORTIONMENT OR
USE OF WATERS.  ALTHOUGH THE LANDS ARE ARID A CONSIDERABLE AREA IS
SUSCEPTIBLE OF CULTIVATION UNDER IRRIGATION. 

THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED APRIL 11, 1882, CH. 74, 22 STAT. 42, 43,
REFERS TO "AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES (BY THE
CROWS) OF A PORTION OF THEIR SAID RESERVATION, AND FOR THEIR SETTLEMENT
UPON LANDS IN SEVERALTY," ETC.  IN RETURN THE UNITED STATES AGREED TO
SURVEY THE REMAINING LANDS AND DIVIDE THEM AMONG MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE;
ALSO "'TO ISSUE PATENTS TO US RESPECTIVELY, THEREFOR, SO SOON AS THE
NECESSARY LAWS ARE PASSED BY CONGRESS.'"  SECTION 2 - 

"THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BE, AND HE IS HEREBY, AUTHORIZED
TO CAUSE TO BE SURVEYED A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF LAND ON THE CROW
RESERVATION TO SECURE THE SETTLEMENT IN SEVERALTY OF SAID INDIANS AS
PROVIDED IN SAID AGREEMENT, AND UPON THE COMPLETION OF SAID SURVEY HE
SHALL CAUSE ALLOTMENTS OF LAND TO BE MADE TO EACH AND ALL OF THE
INDIANS OF SAID CROW TRIBE IN QUANTITY AND CHARACTER AS MENTIONED AND
SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENT ABOVE NAMED, AND UPON THE APPROVAL OF SAID
ALLOTMENTS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HE SHALL CAUSE PATENTS TO
ISSUE TO EACH AND EVERY ALLOTTEE FOR THE LANDS SO ALLOTTED, WITH THE
SAME CONSIDERATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS MENTIONED THEREIN AS
ARE PROVIDED IN SAID AGREEMENT." 

THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 8, 1887, CH. 119, 24 STAT. 388, 389-390, PROVIDES
FOR ALLOTMENTS IN SEVERALTY TO INDIANS UPON ANY RESERVATION CREATED FOR
THEIR USE WHENEVER IN THE PRESIDENT'S OPINION ANY PART IS ADVANTAGEOUS
FOR AGRICULTURAL AND GRAZING PURPOSES.  AND IT DIRECTS THAT AFTER
ALLOTMENTS ARE APPROVED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SHALL ISSUE
PATENTS DECLARING THE UNITED STATES WILL HOLD THE LAND FOR TWENTY-FIVE
YEARS IN TRUST AND THEREAFTER "WILL CONVEY THE SAME BY PATENT TO SAID
INDIAN, OR HIS HEIRS AS AFORESAID, IN FEE, DISCHARGED OF SAID TRUST AND
FREE OF ALL CHARGE OR INCUMBRANCE WHATSOEVER  ...  "  SECTION 7 - 

"THAT IN CASES WHERE THE USE OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION IS NECESSARY TO
RENDER THE LANDS WITHIN ANY INDIAN RESERVATION AVAILABLE FOR
AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR BE, AND HE IS
HEREBY, AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS HE MAY
DEEM NECESSARY TO SECURE A JUST AND EQUAL DISTRIBUTION THEREOF AMONG
THE INDIANS RESIDING UPON ANY SUCH RESERVATIONS; AND NO OTHER
APPROPRIATION OR GRANT OF WATER BY ANY RIPARIAN PROPRIETOR SHALL BE
AUTHORIZED OR PERMITTED TO THE DAMAGE OF ANY OTHER RIPARIAN
PROPRIETOR." 

THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, CH. 543, 26 STAT. 989, 1040, MENTIONS
ANOTHER CONVEYANCE BY THE CROWS TO THE UNITED STATES AND APPROPRIATES
$200,000 TO BE EXPENDED UNDER DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR FOR IRRIGATION IN THE VALLEYS OF THE BIG HORN AND LITTLE BIG
HORN RIVERS AND ON PRYOR CREEK, WITHIN THE DIMINISHED RESERVATION. 

THE ACT OF MAY 8, 1906, CH. 2348, 34 STAT. 182, 183, AUTHORIZES THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ISSUE TO INDIAN ALLOTTEES PATENTS IN FEE
SIMPLE "AND THEREAFTER ALL RESTRICTIONS AS TO SALE, INCUMBRANCE, OR
TAXATION OF SAID LAND SHALL BE REMOVED  ...  "  ALSO - 

"HEREAFTER WHEN AN ALLOTMENT OF LAND IS MADE TO ANY INDIAN, AND ANY
SUCH INDIAN DIES BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TRUST PERIOD, SAID
ALLOTMENT SHALL BE CANCELLED AND THE LAND SHALL REVERT TO THE UNITED
STATES, AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SHALL ASCERTAIN THE LEGAL
HEIRS OF SUCH INDIAN, AND SHALL CAUSE TO BE ISSUED TO SAID HEIRS AND IN
THEIR NAMES, A PATENT IN FEE SIMPLE FOR SAID LAND, OR HE MAY CAUSE THE
LAND TO BE SOLD AS PROVIDED BY LAW AND ISSUE A PATENT THEREFOR TO THE
PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS, AND PAY THE NET PROCEEDS TO THE HEIRS, OR
THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, OF SUCH DECEASED INDIAN.  THE ACTION OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN DETERMINING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF ANY
DECEASED INDIAN, AS PROVIDED HEREIN, SHALL IN ALL RESPECTS BE
CONCLUSIVE AND FINAL." 

COMMENCING IN 1901 ALLOTMENTS IN SEVERALTY OF TRACTS ABUTTING OR
ADJACENT TO THE LITTLE BIG HORN RIVER OR LODGE GRASS CREEK WERE MADE TO
RESPONDENTS' INDIAN PREDECESSORS.  THESE CULMINATED IN THE ISSUANCE OF
FEE SIMPLE PATENTS AS PROVIDED BY ACT OF MAY 8, 1906.  FN1  EACH PATENT
UNDERTOOK TO CONVEY THE LAND "TOGETHER WITH ALL THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES,
IMMUNITIES AND APPURTENANCES, OF WHATSOEVER NATURE, THEREUNTO
BELONGING," BUT CONTAINED NO EXPRESS PROVISION CONCERNING WATER
RIGHTS.  RESPONDENTS HAVE SUCCEEDED TO THE INTEREST OF THE ORIGINAL
ALLOTTEES EITHER BY MESNE CONVEYANCES OR BY PURCHASE AT GOVERNMENT
SALES OF DECEASED ALLOTTEES' LANDS. 

THE LITTLE BIG HORN RIVER AND ITS AFFLUENT, LODGE GRASS CREEK, UNDER
NORMAL CONDITIONS MAY AFFORD SUFFICIENT WATER TO IRRIGATE TWENTY
THOUSAND ACRES WITHIN THE RESERVATION.  THROUGH PRIVATE DITCHES
RESPONDENTS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS HAVE LONG CONVEYED WATER FROM THESE
STREAMS IN ORDER TO IRRIGATE THEIR LANDS AND THUS RENDER THEM
SUSCEPTIBLE OF CULTIVATION.  IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT WATER THEREFOR
CAN BE OBTAINED FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. 

PETITIONERS MAINTAIN - 

THAT PRIOR TO 1885, THE UNITED STATES COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION OF
IRRIGATION WORKS INTENDED TO DIVERT WATERS FROM THE STREAMS IN
QUESTION.  THESE GRADUALLY DEVELOPED INTO A SYSTEM NORMALLY CAPABLE OF
CARRYING SUFFICIENT WATER TO IRRIGATE 20,000 ACRES.  FN2  NONE OF
RESPONDENTS' LANDS LIE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THESE PROJECTS; AND NEITHER
THE ORIGINAL ALLOTMENTS NOR THE PATENTS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED THE USE OF
ANY WATER. 

THAT CONGRESS GAVE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR CONTROL OF
RESERVATION WATERS.  IRRIGATION PROJECTS INITIATED UNDER HIS AUTHORITY
PRIOR TO ALLOTMENTS OF RESPONDENTS' LANDS SUFFICED TO DEDICATE AND
RESERVE SUFFICIENT WATER FOR FULL UTILIZATION OF THESE PROJECTS; RIGHTS
ACQUIRED BY THE ALLOTTEES WERE TAKEN SUBJECT TO THIS RESERVATION. 

THAT BECAUSE OF DROUGHT DURING 1931 TO 1934, AND RESPONDENTS'
DIVERSION OF WATERS UPSTREAM FROM THE PROJECTS SO INITIATED, THE
AVAILABLE WATER BECAME INSUFFICIENT PROPERLY TO IRRIGATE SOME 8,000
ACRES LYING THEREIN AND UNDER CULTIVATION.  ACCORDINGLY THE INJUNCTION
SHOULD BE GRANTED; ALL WATERS FROM THE TWO STREAMS HAD BEEN DEVOTED TO
THOSE AND SIMILARLY SITUATED LANDS SO FAR AS NECESSARY FOR FARMING
OPERATIONS. 

RESPONDENTS MAINTAIN THAT UNDER THE TREATY OF 1868 WATERS WITHIN THE
RESERVATION WERE RESERVED FOR THE EQUAL BENEFIT OF TRIBAL MEMBERS
(WINTERS V. UNITED STATES, 207 U.S. 564) AND THAT WHEN ALLOTMENTS OF
LAND WERE DULY MADE FOR EXCLUSIVE USE AND THEREAFTER CONVEYED IN FEE,
THE RIGHT TO USE SOME PORTION OF TRIBAL WATERS ESSENTIAL FOR
CULTIVATION PASSED TO THE OWNERS. 

THE RESPONDENTS' CLAIM TO THE EXTENT STATED IS WELL FOUNDED. 

MANIFESTLY THE TREATY OF 1868 CONTEMPLATED ULTIMATE SETTLEMENT BY
INDIVIDUAL INDIANS UPON DESIGNATED TRACTS WHERE THEY COULD MAKE HOMES
WITH EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF CULTIVATION FOR THEIR SUPPORT AND WITH
EXPECTATION OF ULTIMATE COMPLETE OWNERSHIP.  WITHOUT WATER PRODUCTIVE
CULTIVATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN IMPOSSIBLE. 

WE CAN FIND NOTHING IN THE STATUTES AFTER 1868 ADEQUATE TO SHOW
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO PERMIT ALLOTTEES TO BE DENIED PARTICIPATION IN
THE USE OF WATERS ESSENTIAL TO FARMING AND HOME MAKING.  IF POSSIBLE,
LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO THE TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED IN HARMONY
WITH ITS PLAIN PURPOSES. 

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HAD AUTHORITY (ACT 1887) TO PRESCRIBE
RULES AND REGULATIONS DEEMED NECESSARY TO SECURE JUST AND EQUAL
DISTRIBUTION OF WATERS.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HE EVER UNDERTOOK SO
TO DO.  CERTAINLY HE COULD NOT AFFIRMATIVELY AUTHORIZE UNJUST AND
UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION.  THE STATUTE ITSELF CLEARLY INDICATES
CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION OF EQUAL RIGHTS AMONG RESIDENT INDIANS. 

ADOPTION BY THE SECRETARY OF PLANS FOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS TO SERVE
CERTAIN LANDS WAS NOT ENOUGH TO INDICATE A PURPOSE TO EXCLUDE ALL OTHER
LAND FROM PARTICIPATION IN ESSENTIAL WATER AND THEREBY DESTROY THE
EQUAL INTEREST GUARANTEED BY THE TREATY.  SUBSEQUENT ALLOTMENTS FOR
FARMING FOLLOWED BY PATENTS NEGATIVE ANY SUCH NOTION.  THE PATENTED
LANDS HAD NO VALUE FOR AGRICULTURE WITHOUT WATER; THEY WERE SELECTED
FOR HOMES AND INDIVIDUAL FARMING. 

THE PETITIONERS HAVE SHOWN NO RIGHT TO THE INJUNCTION ASKED.  WE DO
NOT CONSIDER THE EXTENT OR PRECISE NATURE OF RESPONDENTS' RIGHTS IN THE
WATERS.  THE PRESENT PROCEEDING IS NOT PROPERLY FRAMED TO THAT END. 

THE CHALLENGED DECREE MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CH. 2348, 34 STAT. 182. 

FN2  SEE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1899, CH. 324, 30 STAT. 924; ACT OF MAY 31,
1900, CH. 598, 31 STAT. 221; ACT OF APRIL 27, 1904, CH. 1624, 33 STAT.
352. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. PLEASANTS, 305 U.S. 357 


NO. 169.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 86
CT.CLS.  679 - 22 F.SUPP.  964, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, WHICH ALLOWS DEDUCTION FROM GROSS
INCOME OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS NOT TO EXCEED 15% OF "NET INCOME" AS
ASCERTAINED WITHOUT SUCH DEDUCTION, SEC. 23(N), THE NET INCOME INTENDED
IS THAT UPON WHICH NORMAL TAX AND SURTAX ARE LEVIED, UNDIMINISHED BY
THE AMOUNT OF A CAPITAL NET LOSS 12 1/2% OF WHICH IS ALLOWED AS AN OFF
SET IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL TAX, UNDER THE SPECIAL PROVISION OF SEC.
101(B).  HELVERING V. BLISS, 293 U.S. 144, EXPLAINED.  P. 358. 

2.  EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION OF INCOME DEVOTED TO CHARITY ARE NOT
NARROWLY CONSTRUED.  P. 363. 

3.  ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE, TO BE PERSUASIVE,
SHOULD BE CONSISTENT.  ID. 

UNITED STATES V. PLEASANTS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 582, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ALLOWING A RECOVERY OF
MONEY ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED AS PART OF AN INCOME TAX. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE 15 PER CENTUM ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION FOR
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER SEC. 23(N) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 IS
TO BE CALCULATED ON THE TAXPAYER'S NET INCOME COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD
TO A CAPITAL NET LOSS AS TO WHICH SPECIAL PROVISION IS MADE BY SEC.
101(B). 

ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME - 

"IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, CONTRIBUTIONS OR GIFTS MADE WITHIN THE
TAXABLE YEAR TO OR FOR THE USE OF:  ...  TO AN AMOUNT WHICH IN ALL THE
ABOVE CASES COMBINED DOES NOT EXCEED 15 PER CENTUM OF THE TAXPAYER'S
NET INCOME AS COMPUTED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THIS SUBSECTION."  47
STAT. 181-182. 

RESPONDENT IN 1932 MADE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE AMOUNT OF
$3496.  HIS NET INCOME, IRRESPECTIVE OF A CAPITAL NET LOSS, WAS
DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO BE $94,963.52.  UPON THAT NET INCOME
THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED THE NORMAL TAX AND SURTAX AT THE RATES
PRESCRIBED BY SECS. 11 AND 12.  FN1  RESPONDENT CONTENDED THAT THIS WAS
HIS NET INCOME AS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 23(N) AND THAT AS HIS CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTIONS WERE LESS THAN 15 PER CENTUM OF THAT AMOUNT THEY WERE
DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL IN DETERMINING HIS NORMAL TAX AND SURTAX.  THE
COMMISSIONER REFUSED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION. 

THE TAXPAYER HAD SUSTAINED A "CAPITAL NET LOSS," AS DEFINED IN SEC.
101(C)(6), OF $154,921.98.  THE COMMISSIONER RULED THAT "SINCE THE
CAPITAL LOSS OF $154,921.98 IS IN EXCESS OF ADJUSTED ORDINARY NET
INCOME OF $94,963.52(WITHOUT CONTRIBUTIONS) THERE IS NO NET INCOME
AGAINST WHICH TO MAKE A DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS." 

HAVING PAID THE TAX ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER UPON THAT THEORY,
RESPONDENT FILED HIS CLAIM FOR A REFUND AND ON ITS REJECTION BROUGHT
THIS SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED IN HIS FAVOR. 
22 F.SUPP.  964.  BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS  FN2  AND WITH OUR RULING IN HELVERING V.
BLISS, 293 U.S. 144, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  OCTOBER 10, 1938. 

"CAPITAL NET GAINS" AND "CAPITAL NET LOSSES" OF INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS
ARE THE SUBJECT OF SPECIAL TREATMENT UNDER SEC. 101.  IN THE CASE OF A
"CAPITAL NET GAIN," THERE IS TO BE LEVIED, AT THE ELECTION OF THE
TAXPAYER, AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER TAXES IMPOSED BY THE INCOME TAX
TITLE, A TAX OF 12 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE CAPITAL NET GAIN, TO BE ADDED
TO THE TAX COMPUTED UPON THE BASIS OF THE "ORDINARY NET INCOME."  SEC.
101(A).  IN THE CASE OF A "CAPITAL NET LOSS," SEC. 101(B) PROVIDES FOR
A TAX TO BE DETERMINED, ALSO IN LIEU OF OTHER INCOME TAXES BUT
IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY ELECTION BY THE TAXPAYER, AS FOLLOWS: 

"A PARTIAL TAX SHALL FIRST BE COMPUTED UPON THE BASIS OF THE ORDINARY
NET INCOME AT THE RATES AND IN THE MANNER AS IF THIS SECTION HAD NOT
BEEN ENACTED, AND THE TOTAL TAX SHALL BE THIS AMOUNT MINUS 12 1/2 PER
CENTUM OF THE CAPITAL NET LOSS; BUT IN NO CASE SHALL THE TAX OF A
TAXPAYER WHO HAS SUSTAINED A CAPITAL NET LOSS BE LESS THAN THE TAX
COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION." 

SUM OF THE CAPITAL LOSSES PLUS THE CAPITAL DEDUCTIONS OVER THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN."  SECTION 101(C)(7) DEFINES "ORDINARY NET
INCOME" AS "THE NET INCOME, COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS TITLE, AFTER EXCLUDING ALL ITEMS OF CAPITAL GAIN, CAPITAL LOSS,
AND CAPITAL DEDUCTIONS." 

THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROVISION AS TO CAPITAL
NET LOSSES, WHICH WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924.  FN3
PRIOR TO THAT TIME, AND UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, CAPITAL LOSSES
WERE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING
THE "CAPITAL NET GAIN."  FN4  IF CAPITAL DEDUCTIONS AND CAPITAL LOSSES
WERE IN EXCESS OF THE CAPITAL GAIN, OR IF THERE WERE CAPITAL LOSSES IN
THE ABSENCE OF CAPITAL GAIN, SUCH LOSSES WERE DEDUCTIBLE AS ORDINARY
LOSSES.  WE ARE TOLD THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MINIMIZE TAXES BY THE
PRACTICE OF TAKING CAPITAL LOSSES TO OFFSET ORDINARY NET INCOME
CONSTITUTED A PARTICULARLY SERIOUS PROBLEM AFTER THE ACT OF 1921, WHICH
REDUCED THE RATE OF TAX ON CAPITAL NET GAINS.  THE RESULTS TO THE
TREASURY OF THAT METHOD OF TREATING CAPITAL LOSSES LED TO THE ADOPTION
IN THE ACT OF 1924 OF THE PLAN FOR SUBJECTING CAPITAL NET LOSSES TO A
LIMITED RATE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE REVENUES,  FN5  A PLAN WHICH WAS
CONTINUED IN THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1926, 1928, AND 1932.  FN6 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISION FOR THE LIMITATION WITH
RESPECT TO A CAPITAL NET LOSS UNDER SEC. 101(B)(UNLIKE THE PROVISION IN
SEC. 101(A) AS TO A CAPITAL NET GAIN) GIVES NO OPTION TO THE TAXPAYER. 
FN7  THE LIMITATION IS EXPLICIT AND MUST BE FOLLOWED AS WRITTEN.  THE
LIMITATION APPLIES EQUALLY WHEN THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAIN AND HENCE
NOTHING TO BE DEDUCTED FROM CAPITAL LOSSES ON THAT SCORE.  FN8  THE
LIMITATION IS APPLICABLE UNLESS, AS STATED IN THE LAST CLAUSE OF SEC.
101(B), A GREATER TAX WOULD RESULT FROM NOT APPLYING IT.  FN9  IN THE
INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE LIMITATION DOES APPLY AND
THE COMMISSIONER HAS APPLIED IT. 

IN SUCH A CASE THE STATUTE DIRECTS THAT A PARTIAL TAX SHALL BE FIRST
COMPUTED UPON THE BASIS OF THE "ORDINARY NET INCOME" AND AT THE RATES
AND IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECS. 11 AND 12.  FN10 THE TOTAL TAX IS
THEN ARRIVED AT BY DEDUCTING 12 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE CAPITAL NET
LOSS.  THAT LOSS THUS FIGURES IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL TAX ONLY
BY THE ALLOWANCE OF AN OFFSET TO THE SPECIFIED EXTENT AGAINST THE TAX
DETERMINED APART FROM THE CAPITAL LOSSES.  THUS, WHERE THE LIMITATION
IS APPLICABLE AND THE OFFSET OF 12 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE CAPITAL NET
LOSS IS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY, CAPITAL LOSSES ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN
DETERMINING THE TAXPAYER'S NET INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE NORMAL TAX
AND SURTAX.  AND, AS IN SUCH CASE THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAIN, THE
"ORDINARY NET INCOME" UNDER SEC. 101(B), THAT IS, THE NET INCOME
COMPUTED AFTER EXCLUDING CAPITAL LOSS AND CAPITAL DEDUCTIONS, IS THE
ONLY NET INCOME UPON WHICH A TAX IS LAID. 

WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LIMITATION OF SEC. 101(B) IS NOT APPLICABLE IF
THE TAX, COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THAT SECTION, WOULD BE GREATER. 
THE LATTER METHOD OF COMPUTATION BRINGS OUT THE DISTINCTION CLEARLY. 
FOR IN THAT METHOD THE CAPITAL NET LOSS IS DEDUCTED FROM THE ORDINARY
NET INCOME IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL NET INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE
OF APPLYING THE NORMAL TAX AND SURTAX RATES.  SEE ILLUSTRATION IN
REGULATIONS 77, ARTICLE 503.  BUT WHERE THE LIMITATION OF SEC. 101(B)
GOVERNS, BECAUSE THE TAX AS OTHERWISE COMPUTED WOULD NOT BE GREATER,
CAPITAL LOSSES ARE NOT DEDUCTED IN DETERMINING THE NET INCOME WHICH IS
TO BE TAXED, BUT ARE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE
SPECIFIED OFFSET AGAINST THE TAX ON THAT NET INCOME.  ID. 

WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE ARGUMENT BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF
SECS. 21, 22 AND 23.  TRUE, SEC. 21 PROVIDES THAT "NET INCOME" MEANS
GROSS INCOME COMPUTED UNDER SEC. 22 LESS THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SEC.
23.  SECTION 22 DEFINES GROSS INCOME AND SEC. 23 PROVIDES FOR
DEDUCTIONS, INCLUDING DEDUCTIONS FOR LOSSES.  BUT SECS. 21, 22 AND 23
ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO DEROGATE FROM THE SPECIAL AND EXPLICIT
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 101(B).  UNDER THE LIMITATION OF THAT SECTION, AS WE
HAVE SEEN, THE TAXPAYER IS NOT PERMITTED TO DEDUCT CAPITAL LOSSES SO AS
TO REDUCE THE NET INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX AND HIS CAPITAL LOSSES ENTER
INTO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS ULTIMATE TAX ONLY THROUGH THE DEDUCTION OF
12 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE CAPITAL NET LOSS FROM THE TAX WHICH IS
COMPUTED UPON THE NET INCOME ASCERTAINED IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT LOSS. 

IT IS IN THIS LIGHT THAT WE MUST DECIDE THE PARTICULAR QUESTION HERE
PRESENTED AS TO THE MEANING OF THE WORDS "THE TAXPAYER'S NET INCOME" IN
SEC. 23(N) PROVIDING FOR A DEDUCTION OF 15 PER CENTUM FOR CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTIONS.  DO THESE WORDS REFER TO THE TAXPAYER'S NET INCOME WHICH
UNDER THE STATUTORY SCHEME IS ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO TAX?  OR IS THAT NET
INCOME, ALTHOUGH TREATED AS SUBSISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING TAXED,
TO BE REGARDED AS NON-EXISTENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMITTING DEDUCTIONS
FOR CONTRIBUTIONS?  WE THINK THAT CONGRESS, IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
SPECIAL PROVISION OF SEC. 101(B) FOR AN OFFSET IN CASE OF A CAPITAL NET
LOSS, INTENDED TO MAKE THE TAXPAYER'S NET INCOME, ASCERTAINED
IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT LOSS, THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX AND THAT THE
PROVISION IN SEC. 21(N) ALLOWING A DEDUCTION FOR CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTIONS IS APPLICABLE TO THAT TAXABLE NET INCOME. 

THERE IS NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN OUR DECISION IN HELVERING V.
BLISS, SUPRA.  IN THAT CASE THERE WAS A CAPITAL NET GAIN.  THE NET
INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER COMPREHENDED THAT NET GAIN AS WELL AS HIS NET
INCOME OTHERWISE COMPUTED.  WE DECIDED THAT IT WAS HIS TOTAL NET INCOME
WHICH WAS TO BE REGARDED AS THE BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE UNDER SEC.
23(N).  WE FOUND NOTHING IN SEC. 101, WHICH IN THAT APPLICATION
PRESCRIBED "MERELY A METHOD FOR SEGREGATING A PORTION OF THAT NET
INCOME FOR TAXATION AT A SPECIAL RATE," THAT IN ANY WISE ALTERED THE
RIGHT OF THE TAXPAYER TO TAKE THE DEDUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC.
23(N).  ID., 150, 151.  HERE, INSTEAD OF A CAPITAL NET GAIN, WE HAVE A
CAPITAL NET LOSS.  THERE IS NO GAIN TO BE ADDED TO THE TAXPAYER'S NET
INCOME OTHERWISE COMPUTED, AND THUS THAT IS THE ONLY NET INCOME TAXABLE
UNDER THE STATUTE.  TO THAT NET INCOME, THE PROVISION OF SEC. 23(N)
APPROPRIATELY APPLIES.  WE OBSERVED IN THE BLISS CASE THAT THE
EXEMPTION OF INCOME DEVOTED TO CHARITY AND THE REDUCTION OF THE RATE OF
TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS "WERE LIBERALIZATIONS OF THE LAW IN THE TAXPAYER'S
FAVOR, WERE BEGOTTEN FROM MOTIVES OF PUBLIC POLICY, AND ARE NOT TO BE
NARROWLY CONSTRUED."  THAT OBSERVATION IS EQUALLY PERTINENT HERE. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION INVOKED BY THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT
BEEN OF A SUFFICIENTLY CONSISTENT CHARACTER TO AFFORD ADEQUATE SUPPORT
FOR ITS CONTENTION.  FN11 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN REFUSING TO PERMIT THE
DEDUCTION SOUGHT BY RESPONDENT FOR HIS CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AND
THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THESE SECTIONS PROVIDE: 

"SEC. 11.  NORMAL TAX ON INDIVIDUALS.  - 

"THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND PAID FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR
UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL A NORMAL TAX EQUAL TO THE SUM
OF THE FOLLOWING:  ... 

"SEC. 12.  SURTAX ON INDIVIDUALS.  - 

"(A)  RATES OF SURTAX.  - THERE SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND PAID
FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL A SURTAX
AS FOLLOWS:  ...  " 47 STAT. 174. 

FN2  AVERY V. COMMISSIONER, C.C.A.7TH, 84 F.2D 905; LOCKHART V.
COMMISSIONER, C.C.A. 3D, 89 F.2D 143; HEINZ V. COMMISSIONER, C.C.A. 3D,
94 F.2D 832. 

FN3  REVENUE ACT OF 1924, SEC. 208(C). 

FN4  REVENUE ACT OF 1921, SEC. 206(A)(4). 

FN5  PIPER V. WILLCUTS, 64 F.2D 813, 815, 816; 65TH CONG. REC. 2428;
H. REP. 179, 68TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 20. 

FN6  REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC. 208(C); 1928, SEC. 101(B); 1932, SEC.
101(B). 

FN7  REGULATIONS 77, ART. 503. 

FN8  SEE PIPER V. WILLCUTS, 64 F.2D 813, 816; HOFFMAN V.
COMMISSIONER, 71 F.2D 929. 

FN9  SEE ILLUSTRATION IN REGULATIONS 77, ART. 503. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN11  SEE I.T. 2104, III-2 CUM. BULL.  152; ELKINS V. COMMISSIONER,
24 B.T.A. 572; LIVINGOOD V. COMMISSIONER, 25 B.T.A. 585, 589; XI-1 CUM.
BULL.  9, 33; XI-2 CUM. BULL.  3, 6, 29, 268; STRAUS V. COMMISSIONER,
27 B.T.A. 1116; XIII-2 CUM. BULL.  25, 29, 135. 
..END :










FORD MOTOR CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 364 


NOS. 182 AND 183.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3,
1939.  - 99 F.2D 1003, 1009, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY OR SET ASIDE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER,
CONFERRED ON THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BY SEC. 10(D) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, ENDS WITH THE FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF
ITS RECORD IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 368. 

2.  UPON THE FILING OF SUCH TRANSCRIPT IN CONNECTION WITH THE BOARD'S
PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER, AND NOTICE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS ACQUIRES JURISDICTION UNDER SEC. 10(E).  ID. 

3.  UNDER SEC. 10(F) OF THE ACT THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS IS OF THE SAME CHARACTER AND SCOPE IN A PROCEEDING FOR
REVIEW BROUGHT BY A PERSON AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF THE BOARD AS THE
JURISDICTION WHICH THE COURT HAS IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE
BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT.  P. 369. 

4.  WHERE THE BOARD HAS PETITIONED FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER SEC. 10(E)
AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT HAS ATTACHED, THE RESPONDENT IS
ENTITLED TO RAISE ALL PERTINENT QUESTIONS AND TO OBTAIN ANY AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF THAT IS APPROPRIATE WITHOUT SEEKING INDEPENDENT REVIEW UNDER
SEC. 10(F); AND PERMISSION TO THE BOARD TO WITHDRAW ITS PETITION RESTS
IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT, TO BE EXERCISED IN THE LIGHT OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE.  ID. 

5.  WHERE THE BOARD SOUGHT ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER UNDER SEC. 10(E),
AND THE PARTY PROCEEDED AGAINST PETITIONED FOR REVIEW UNDER SEC. 10(F),
SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF AND SETTING UP SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
GROUNDS IN ITS ANSWER TO THE BOARD'S PETITION AND IN ITS OWN PETITION,
HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO RETAIN THE TRANSCRIPT FILED
BY THE BOARD, WHILE PERMITTING WITHDRAWAL OF THE BOARD'S PETITION, AND
TO ORDER THAT THE TRANSCRIPT BE FILED IN THE PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW.  IN
RE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 304 U.S. 486, DISTINGUISHED.  P.
370. 

(2)  ON THE PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE BOARD COULD SEEK, NOT MERELY A
DENIAL OF THAT PETITION, BUT ALSO ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  P. 371. 

(3)  THE COURT ACQUIRED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE
ORDER.  P. 372. 

6.  UPON A PETITION TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, WHERE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER WAS INVALID FOR
WANT OF A FULL AND FAIR HEARING AND BECAUSE THE BOARD HAD NOT ITSELF
CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE BUT HAD ADOPTED AS ITS OWN A DECISION PREPARED
BY SUBORDINATES, WITHOUT AFFORDING THE PETITIONER ANY OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD THEREON,  - THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY GRANTED THE
BOARD'S MOTION TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SETTING ASIDE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER, ISSUING PROPOSED FINDINGS, WITH
PERMISSION TO THE PARTIES TO FILE EXCEPTIONS AND PRESENT ARGUMENT, AND
THEREAFTER MAKING ITS DECISION AND ORDER UPON A RECONSIDERATION OF THE
ENTIRE CASE.  P. 372. 

THIS PURPOSE, EXPRESSED IN THE BOARD'S MOTION AND SPECIFIED IN THE
ORDER OF REMAND, QUALIFIES THAT ORDER AND BINDS THE BOARD.  IT WAS NOT
NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE BOARD'S
CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDING, AS THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE FINDINGS AND
ORDER WOULD CARRY WITH IT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE
MAKING OF A NEW RECORD.  PP. 372-375. 

FORD MOTOR CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 585, TO REVIEW ORDERS OF THE COURT BELOW, ONE
GRANTING A MOTION OF THE ABOVE-NAMED BOARD TO WITHDRAW A PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE OTHER REMANDING
THE CAUSE TO THE BOARD ON THE BOARD'S MOTION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE PROPRIETY OF THE ACTION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN REMANDING A CAUSE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING ASIDE ITS FINDINGS AND
ORDER, AND ISSUING PROPOSED FINDINGS, AND MAKING ITS DECISION AND ORDER
UPON RECONSIDERATION. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ON DECEMBER 22, 1937, ENTERED AN
ORDER AGAINST PETITIONER DIRECTING IT TO DESIST FROM DESCRIBED
PRACTICES AND TO OFFER REINSTATEMENT, WITH BACK PAY, TO CERTAIN
DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES. 

ON JANUARY 7, 1938, THE BOARD FILED ITS PETITION IN NO. 182(CALLED
THE BOARD'S PROCEEDING) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, SEEKING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER, AND AT THE SAME TIME FILED THE TRANSCRIPT OF
THE RECORD. 

ON APRIL 4, 1938, PETITIONER ASKED LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.  ON APRIL 11, 1938, PETITIONER FILED ITS ANSWER TO THE
BOARD'S PETITION, ALLEGING THAT THE ORDER WAS INVALID AND ASKING THAT
IT BE SET ASIDE UPON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE BOARD HAD
FAILED TO ACCORD PETITIONER A FULL AND FAIR HEARING, AND THAT THE BOARD
HAD NOT ITSELF CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE BUT HAD ADOPTED AS ITS OWN A
DECISION PREPARED BY ITS SUBORDINATES WITHOUT AFFORDING PETITIONER ANY
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THEREON.  IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE FINDINGS
WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  PETITIONER MOVED FOR A COMMISSION
TO TAKE THE DEPOSITIONS OF WITNESSES, AND SERVED INTERROGATORIES UPON
THE BOARD. 

ON MAY 2, 1938, AFTER OUR DECISION IN MORGAN V. UNITED STATES (APRIL
25, 1938), 304 U.S. 1, THE BOARD FILED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW
ITS PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT AND THE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.  THE BOARD STATED THAT, SHOULD ITS MOTION BE GRANTED, IT
WOULD SET ASIDE ITS ORDER, WOULD ISSUE PROPOSED FINDINGS, WITH
PERMISSION TO THE PARTIES TO FILE EXCEPTIONS AND PRESENT ARGUMENT, AND
THEREAFTER MAKE ITS DECISION AND ORDER.  ON MAY 5, 1938, THE COURT
GRANTED THE BOARD'S MOTION.  ON MAY 6, 1938, THE BOARD SERVED NOTICE ON
PETITIONER OF ITS INTENTION TO VACATE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER OF
DECEMBER 22, 1937, BUT LATER IN VIEW OF PETITIONER'S OBJECTION HELD
THAT ACTION UNDER ADVISEMENT.  ON MAY 9, 1938, THE ORDER OF MAY 5TH WAS
AMENDED SO FAR AS IT PERMITTED THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF
RECORD AND THE COURT DIRECTED THAT THE TRANSCRIPT REMAIN ON FILE.  ON
JUNE 2, 1938, THE BOARD PURPORTED TO WITHDRAW ITS PETITION FOR
ENFORCEMENT.  ON JUNE 4, 1938, THE PETITIONER MOVED TO VACATE THE ORDER
OF MAY 5TH.  THAT MOTION WAS DENIED ON JUNE 10, 1938, WITH A STAY OF
THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE BOARD'S PETITION PENDING APPLICATION HERE FOR
WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

MEANWHILE, ON MAY 4, 1938, THE PETITIONER FILED WITH THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IN NO. 183(CALLED THE PETITIONER'S PROCEEDING) ITS
PETITION ASKING THE COURT TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THE BOARD'S ORDER OF
DECEMBER 22, 1937.  ON MAY 9, 1938, THE COURT DIRECTED THAT THE
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD FILED IN THE BOARD'S PROCEEDING SHOULD BE DEEMED
TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE PETITIONER'S PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AS OF THE
DATE OF MAY 4TH.  ON JUNE 2, 1938, THE BOARD FILED A MOTION TO VACATE
THAT ORDER OF MAY 9TH.  AT THE SAME TIME THE BOARD MOVED THAT IN THE
EVENT OF A DENIAL OF THAT MOTION THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE
BOARD FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

ON JUNE 10, 1938, THE COURT ENTERED ITS ORDER DENYING CERTAIN MOTIONS
OF THE PETITIONER FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS PETITION FOR REVIEW, DENYING
THE BOARD'S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER OF MAY 9TH, AND GRANTING THE
BOARD'S MOTION OF JUNE 2D - "TO REMAND THIS CAUSE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING ASIDE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER
OF DECEMBER 22, 1937, AND ISSUING PROPOSED FINDINGS, AND MAKING ITS
DECISION AND ORDER UPON A RECONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE CASE." 

BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN RELATION TO
THE SCOPE OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION AND ITS APPROPRIATE EXERCISE,
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF MAY 5TH, GRANTING THE
BOARD'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW ITS PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT, AND THE ORDER
OF JUNE 10TH, REMANDING THE CAUSE AS ABOVE STATED.  OCTOBER 10, 1938. 

FIRST.  THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE BOARD BY SEC. 10(D)  FN1  OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, TO MODIFY OR SET ASIDE ITS FINDINGS
AND ORDER, ENDED WITH THE FILING IN COURT OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD. 
UPON THE FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT IN CONNECTION WITH THE BOARD'S
PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT, AND NOTICE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD
JURISDICTION OF THE PROCEEDING AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 10(E) OF THE ACT, AS
FOLLOWS: 

"UPON SUCH FILING (OF THE TRANSCRIPT), THE COURT SHALL CAUSE NOTICE
THEREOF TO BE SERVED UPON SUCH PERSON, AND THEREUPON SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION OF THE PROCEEDING AND OF THE QUESTION DETERMINED THEREIN,
AND SHALL HAVE POWER TO GRANT SUCH TEMPORARY RELIEF OR RESTRAINING
ORDER AS IT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER, AND TO MAKE AND ENTER UPON THE
PLEADINGS, TESTIMONY, AND PROCEEDINGS SET FORTH IN SUCH TRANSCRIPT A
DECREE ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS SO MODIFIED, OR SETTING
ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BOARD.  ...  THE FINDINGS OF
THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE.  IF EITHER PARTY SHALL APPLY TO THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO
ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SHALL SHOW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
COURT THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE IN THE
HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY, THE COURT MAY
ORDER SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE BOARD, ITS
MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY, AND TO BE MADE A PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT.  THE
BOARD MAY MODIFY ITS FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS, OR MAKE NEW FINDINGS, BY
REASON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO TAKEN AND FILED, AND IT SHALL FILE
SUCH MODIFIED OR NEW FINDINGS, WHICH, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL
BE CONCLUSIVE, AND SHALL FILE ITS RECOMMENDATIONS, IF ANY, FOR THE
MODIFICATION OR SETTING ASIDE OF ITS ORIGINAL ORDER.  THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE AND ITS JUDGMENT AND DECREE SHALL BE
FINAL, EXCEPT THAT THE SAME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW  ...  " 49 STAT.
454, 455. 

UNDER SEC. 10(F) THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS
OF THE SAME CHARACTER AND SCOPE IN A PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW BROUGHT BY A
PERSON AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF THE BOARD AS THE JURISDICTION WHICH THE
COURT HAS IN A PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BY THE BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT. 
FN2 

WHILE SEC. 10(F) ASSURES TO ANY AGGRIEVED PERSON OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTEST THE BOARD'S ORDER, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN UNNECESSARY
DUPLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS.  THE AIM OF THE ACT IS TO ATTAIN SIMPLICITY
AND DIRECTNESS BOTH IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND ON JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  WHERE THE BOARD HAS PETITIONED FOR ENFORCEMENT UNDER SEC.
10(E) AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT HAS ATTACHED, NO SEPARATE
PROCEEDING IS NEEDED ON THE PART OF THE PERSON THUS BROUGHT INTO THE
COURT.  THE BREADTH OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THE COURT TO SET
ASIDE OR MODIFY IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE BOARD'S ORDER, OR TO PERMIT NEW
EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN, NECESSARILY IMPLIES THAT THE PARTY PROCEEDED
AGAINST IS ENTITLED TO RAISE ALL PERTINENT QUESTIONS AND TO OBTAIN ANY
AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF THAT IS APPROPRIATE.  HERE, PETITIONER IN THE
BOARD'S PROCEEDING HAD SOUGHT AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF AND HAD TAKEN STEPS TO
ESTABLISH THAT RIGHT.  CONSIDERING THE SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 10(E), AND THE
POSITION AND RIGHTS OF THE PERSON PROCEEDED AGAINST, WE ARE UNABLE TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE BOARD HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW ITS PETITION
AT ITS PLEASURE.  WE THINK THAT PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW MUST REST IN THE
SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT TO BE EXERCISED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE.  FN3 

WHILE IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE ARE TWO PROCEEDINGS, SEPARATELY
CARRIED ON THE DOCKET, THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY ONE SO FAR AS ANY QUESTION
AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS CONCERNED.  PETITIONER'S
ANSWER IN THE BOARD'S PROCEEDING PRESENTED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
OBJECTIONS AS THOSE RAISED IN PETITIONER'S PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW.  THE
PRESENT CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ARE LARGELY ADDRESSED TO PROCEDURAL
DISTINCTIONS, BUT IF WE FOLLOW THE COURSE OF THE TWO PROCEEDINGS WE
FIND THAT THERE IS REALLY BUT ONE ULTIMATE QUESTION AND THAT IS WITH
RESPECT TO THE COURT'S FINAL ACTION IN REMANDING THE CAUSE TO THE BOARD
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 

BEFORE THE COURT ON MAY 5TH GRANTED THE BOARD'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW
ITS PETITION, THE OTHER PROCEEDING HAD BEEN INSTITUTED BY THE FILING OF
THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON MAY 4TH.  THAT PROCEEDING WAS TAKEN BY
PETITIONER AS A PERSON AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF DECEMBER 22, 1937, AND
WAS DOUBTLESS PROMPTED BY THE BOARD'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW ITS OWN
PETITION.  AS THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING HAD ALREADY BEEN CERTIFIED AND FILED, IT WAS WITHIN THE
COURT'S CONTROL.  THE ORDER OF MAY 5TH WAS AMENDED ON MAY 9TH SO AS TO
PRECLUDE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE TRANSCRIPT, AND ON THE SAME DAY THE
COURT ORDERED THAT THE TRANSCRIPT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED IN THE
PETITIONER'S PROCEEDING AS OF MAY 4TH.  WE SEE NO REASON TO DOUBT THE
POWER OF THE COURT TO RETAIN THE TRANSCRIPT OR TO AMEND ITS ORDER OF
MAY 5TH ACCORDINGLY, AND CERTIORARI HAS NOT BEEN SOUGHT BY THE BOARD IN
RELATION TO THE ORDER OF MAY 9TH.  OUR DECISION IN IN RE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 304 U.S. 486, IS NOT APPOSITE.  THERE THE TRANSCRIPT
HAD NOT BEEN FILED, THE COURT HAD NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OF THE
SUBJECT MATTER, AND THE BOARD STILL HAD THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON IT
BY SEC. 10(D).  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE WE THINK IT IS
CLEAR THAT THE COURT WAS POSSESSED OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING "AND OF THE QUESTION DETERMINED THEREIN," AND
THUS OF THE POWER OF "ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS SO
MODIFIED, OR SETTING ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE
BOARD."  SEC. 10(F).  AS ON THE BOARD'S PETITION THE COURT COULD GRANT
AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF TO THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS
DIRECTED, SO ON THE COURT'S ENTERTAINING THE PETITION OF THAT PERSON
FOR REVIEW THE BOARD COULD SEEK NOT MERELY TO HAVE THE PETITION DENIED
BUT TO HAVE ITS ORDER ENFORCED, REGARDLESS OF ANY SEPARATE PROCEEDING
TO THAT END. 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT NEITHER THE ORDER OF MAY 5TH, GRANTING THE BOARD
PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ITS PETITION, NOR THE ATTEMPT OF THE BOARD ON
MAY 6TH TO REASSUME CONTROL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, NOR THE
BOARD'S WITHDRAWAL OF ITS PETITION ON JUNE 2D, ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING OF
SUBSTANCE, AS THE BOARD, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT'S CONTINUED AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, REMAINED WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH ITS
ORDER.  AND ANY QUESTION AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF THE COURT'S ORDER OF
MAY 5TH BECAME ONE OF MERELY ACADEMIC INTEREST AFTER THE COURT BY ITS
ORDER OF JUNE 10TH REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE BOARD.  WE TURN TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF THAT ORDER. 

SECOND.  THE CAUSE WAS REMANDED TO THE BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE "OF
SETTING ASIDE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER OF DECEMBER 22, 1937, AND ISSUING
PROPOSED FINDINGS, AND MAKING ITS DECISION AND ORDER UPON A
RECONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE CASE."  THE BOARD IN ITS APPLICATION FOR
THE REMAND STATED THAT IT WOULD TAKE THAT COURSE.  THE SPECIFIED
PURPOSE QUALIFIED THE COURT'S ORDER.  IT CREATED A CONDITION WHICH THE
BOARD WAS BOUND TO OBSERVE.  IF THE BOARD WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
FAILED TO SET ASIDE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER, WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE
COURT COULD VACATE ITS ORDER OF REMAND AND PROCEED WITH ITS
CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION TO REVIEW.  THE PROPRIETY OF THE ORDER OF
REMAND MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THAT ASPECT. 

THIRD.  IF THE COURT ITSELF HAD SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF
THE BOARD UPON THE GROUND, AS ASSERTED BY PETITIONER, THAT THE BOARD
HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE AND MADE ITS OWN FINDINGS, BUT HAD
ADOPTED AS ITS OWN A DECISION PROPOSED BY ITS SUBORDINATES WITHOUT
AFFORDING PETITIONER ANY OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THEREON, THE COURT
COULD HAVE REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH ITS OPINION.  THAT GROUND BEING SUFFICIENT FOR SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER, THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE OF PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO THE REVIEW
EITHER OF JUDICIAL DECREES OR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE
THE COURT TO EXAMINE OTHER GROUNDS OF ATTACK. 

IT IS FAMILIAR APPELLATE PRACTICE TO REMAND CAUSES FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT DECIDING THE MERITS, WHERE JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT
COURSE IN ORDER THAT SOME DEFECT IN THE RECORD MAY BE SUPPLIED.  FN4
SUCH A REMAND MAY BE MADE TO PERMIT FURTHER EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN OR
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS TO BE MADE UPON ESSENTIAL POINTS.  FN5  SO, WHEN A
DISTRICT COURT HAS NOT MADE FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CONTROLLING
RULE (EQUITY RULE 70 1/2) IT IS OUR PRACTICE TO SET ASIDE THE DECREE
AND REMAND THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  FN6  THE JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE ORDERS OF THE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS VESTED IN A COURT
WITH EQUITY POWERS, AND WHILE THE COURT MUST ACT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF
THE STATUTE AND WITHOUT INTRUDING UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROVINCE, IT
MAY ADJUST ITS RELIEF TO THE EXIGENCIES OF THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING JUDICIAL ACTION.  THE PURPOSE OF THE
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS CONSONANT WITH THAT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
ITSELF,  - TO SECURE A JUST RESULT WITH A MINIMUM OF TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS.  THE STATUTE WITH RESPECT TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS
OF THE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOLLOWS CLOSELY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
IN RELATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, AND AS TO
THE LATTER IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE COURT MAY REMAND THE CAUSE
TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO THE END THAT VALID AND
ESSENTIAL FINDINGS MAY BE MADE.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CURTIS
PUBLISHING CO., 260 U.S. 568, 580, 583; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V.
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 280 U.S. 291, 297; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. ROYAL
MILLING CO., 288 U.S. 212, 218; PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N, 11 F.2D 47, 48, 49; OHIO LEATHER CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N,
45 F.2D 39, 42.  FN7  SIMILAR ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN AGWILINES, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 87 F.2D 146, 155.  SEE, ALSO, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
BELL OIL & GAS CO., 91 F.2D 509, 515.  THE "REMAND" DOES NOT ENCROACH
UPON ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS.  IT MEANS SIMPLY THAT THE CASE IS
RETURNED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IN ORDER THAT IT MAY TAKE FURTHER
ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW.  SEE FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N
V. NELSON BROTHERS CO., 289 U.S. 266, 278. 

SUCH A REMAND DOES NOT DISMISS OR TERMINATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING.  IF FINDINGS ARE LACKING WHICH MAY PROPERLY BE MADE UPON
THE EVIDENCE ALREADY RECEIVED, THE COURT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE EVIDENCE
TO BE REHEARD.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CURTIS PUBLISHING CO., SUPRA;
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, SUPRA.  IF FURTHER
EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY AND AVAILABLE TO SUPPLY THE BASIS FOR FINDINGS ON
MATERIAL POINTS, THAT EVIDENCE MAY BE TAKEN.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
ROYAL MILLING CO., SUPRA; PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N,
SUPRA; OHIO LEATHER CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, SUPRA; AGWILINES, INC.
V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA. WHATEVER FINDINGS OR ORDER
MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE MADE WILL BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE IF NOT ADEQUATELY
SUPPORTED OR THE BOARD HAS FAILED TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. 

FOURTH.  THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY THUS COMES TO THE NARROW POINT THAT
INSTEAD OF SETTING ASIDE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS AND ORDER, THE COURT HAS
ALLOWED THE BOARD ITSELF TO SET THEM ASIDE.  THE CONTENTION ON THAT
GROUND IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  IN EITHER EVENT THE FINDINGS AND ORDER
ARE VACATED.  PETITIONER'S OBJECTION TO THE ORDER BECAUSE OF LACK OF
DUE HEARING RESULTS IN THE ABANDONMENT OF THE FINDINGS AND ORDER AND
PETITIONER WILL THUS BE COMPLETELY FREED FROM ANY DETERMINATION THEY
CONTAIN OR ANY OBLIGATION THEY IMPOSE. 

PETITIONER SAYS THAT THE BOARD HAS NOT CONFESSED ERROR.  THIS IS
IMMATERIAL IF THE ASSAILED FINDINGS AND ORDER ARE SET ASIDE.  NOR IS IT
IMPORTANT THAT THE COURT HAS NOT HELD THE FINDINGS AND ORDER TO BE
VOID.  IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO DETERMINE
QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE, OR IN THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, WHICH PRECLUDES THE COURT
FROM GIVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET OBJECTIONS TO
ITS ORDER BY CORRECTING IRREGULARITIES IN PROCEDURE, OR SUPPLYING
DEFICIENCIES IN ITS RECORD, OR MAKING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS WHERE THESE
ARE NECESSARY, OR SUPPLYING FINDINGS VALIDLY MADE IN THE PLACE OF THOSE
ATTACKED AS INVALID.  THE APPLICATION FOR REMAND IN THIS INSTANCE WAS
NOT ON FRIVOLOUS GROUNDS OR FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED
DILATORY OR VEXATIOUS.  PETITIONER HAD RAISED A SERIOUS QUESTION AS TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS AND ORDER.  THE BOARD PROPERLY RECOGNIZED
THE GRAVITY OF THE CONTENTION AND SOUGHT TO MEET IT BY VOLUNTARILY
DOING WHAT THE COURT COULD HAVE COMPELLED.  THAT WAS IN THE INTEREST OF
A PROMPT DISPOSITION, AND WHATEVER DELAY HAS RESULTED IS DUE TO
PETITIONER'S RESISTANCE TO THAT COURSE. 

PETITIONER INSISTS THAT IT HAD OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE BOARD'S
CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDING.  BUT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO
CONSIDER THEM, AS THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE FINDINGS AND ORDER CARRIED
WITH IT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE MAKING OF A NEW
RECORD.  WHAT FINDINGS OR ORDER WOULD THUS BE MADE BECAME A MATTER OF
CONJECTURE AND IN ANY EVENT THESE AND THE MANNER OF ARRIVING AT THEM
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ANY JUSTIFIED CRITICISM. 

AS THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION IS PRESENTED BY THE ORDER OF JUNE 10TH,
THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN NO. 182 IS DISMISSED.  THE ORDER OF JUNE 10TH
IN NO. 183 IS AFFIRMED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 10(D) PROVIDES: 

"(D)  UNTIL A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD IN A CASE SHALL HAVE BEEN
FILED IN A COURT, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, THE BOARD MAY AT ANY TIME,
UPON REASONABLE NOTICE AND IN SUCH MANNER AS IT SHALL DEEM PROPER,
MODIFY OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY FINDING OR ORDER MADE OR
ISSUED BY IT."  49 STAT. 454. 

FN2  SECTION 10(F) PROVIDES: 

"(F)  ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD GRANTING OR
DENYING IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE RELIEF SOUGHT MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF
SUCH ORDER IN ANY CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE
CIRCUIT WHEREIN THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN QUESTION WAS ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN  ...  BY FILING IN SUCH COURT A WRITTEN PETITION
PRAYING THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD BE MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE.  A COPY
OF SUCH PETITION SHALL BE FORTHWITH SERVED UPON THE BOARD, AND
THEREUPON THE AGGRIEVED PARTY SHALL FILE IN THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF
THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE PROCEEDING, CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD, INCLUDING
THE PLEADING AND TESTIMONY UPON WHICH THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF WAS
ENTERED AND THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD.  UPON SUCH FILING, THE
COURT SHALL PROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION
BY THE BOARD UNDER SUBSECTION (E), AND SHALL HAVE THE SAME EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO GRANT TO THE BOARD SUCH TEMPORARY RELIEF OR RESTRAINING
ORDER AS IT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER, AND IN LIKE MANNER TO MAKE AND ENTER
A DECREE ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS SO MODIFIED, OR SETTING
ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BOARD; AND THE FINDINGS OF
THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL IN LIKE
MANNER BE CONCLUSIVE."  49 STAT. 455. 

FN3  SEE COOPER V. LEWIS, 2 PHILLIPS, CH. 177, 181; BANK V. ROSE, 1
RICH EQ., 292, 294; STEVENS V. THE RAILROADS, 4 F. 97, 105; CHICAGO &
ALTON R. CO. V. UNION ROLLING MILL CO., 109 U.S. 702, 713-715; CITY OF
DETROIT V. DETROIT CITY RY. CO., 55 F. 569, 572, 573; PULLMAN'S PALACE
CAR CO. V. CENTRAL TRANSPORTATION CO., 171 U.S. 138, 146; EX PARTE
SKINNER & EDDY CORP., 265 U.S. 86, 93, 94; UNITED MOTORS SERVICE V.
TROPIC-AIRE, 57 F.2D 479, 481, 482; JONES V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMM'N, 298 U.S. 1, 19, 20. 

FN4  ESTHO V. LEAR, 7 PET. 130; LEVY V. ARREDONDO, 12 PET. 218; VILLA
V. VAN SCHAICK, 299 U.S. 152, 155, 156. 

FN5  CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 176 U.S. 167, 179,
180; UNITED STATES V. RIO GRANDE IRRIGATION CO., 184 U.S. 416, 424;
LINCOLN GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. V. LINCOLN, 223 U.S. 349, 361-365. 

FN6  RAILROAD COMMISSION V. MAXCY, 281 U.S. 82; INTERSTATE CIRCUIT,
INC. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 55. 

FN7  COMPARE TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N,
162 U.S. 197, 238, 239; SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. ST. LOUIS HAY & GRAIN
CO., 214 U.S. 297, 302; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 9;
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 66 APP.
D.C. 375; 88 F.2D 757, 761. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT HEAR THE ARGUMENT AND TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















PATTERSON V. STANOLIND CO., 305 U.S. 376 


NO. 113.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939. 


1.  THE OWNER-LESSOR OF THE MINERAL RIGHTS IN A TRACT OF LAND ON WHICH
WAS A PRODUCING OIL WELL WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, NOR WERE HIS CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS
IMPAIRED, BY AN ORDER OF THE OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION, MADE
AFTER DUE HEARING AND PURSUANT TO C. 59, OKLAHOMA SESSION LAWS, 1935,
WHEREBY PART OF HIS LAND, WITH THE WELL, WAS INCLUDED IN THE SAME 10
ACRE WELL-SPACING AND DRILLING UNIT WITH LAND OF OTHER OWNER-LESSORS,
AND WHEREBY HE WAS OBLIGED, UNDER SEC. 4(C) OF THE STATUTE, TO SHARE
WITH THEM IN ONE-EIGHTH OF THE PRODUCTION FROM THE WELL, IN PROPORTION
TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ACREAGES IN SUCH UNIT - IT BEING ASSUMED, AS FOUND
BY THE COMMISSION, THAT THERE IS A COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY, AND THAT
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITS WILL TEND TO EFFECT PROPER DRAINAGE OF THE
OIL POOL, RESULT IN UNIFORM WITHDRAWAL AND GREATEST ULTIMATE RECOVERY
OF OIL, CONSERVE RESERVOIR ENERGY, AND PROTECT THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF
THE LEASEHOLDERS AND ROYALTY-OWNERS IN THE COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY.  P.
377. 

2.  CONTENTION THAT REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF C. 59, OKLA. SESS. LAWS,
1935, AUTHORIZING THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION TO FIX WELL-SPACING
AND DRILLING UNITS ARE VOID FOR INDEFINITENESS - HELD WITHOUT MERIT. 
P. 379. 

PATTERSON V. STANOLIND OIL & GAS CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

APPEAL FROM 182 OKLA. 155; 77 P.2D 83, DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN THIS SUIT, BROUGHT TO RECOVER HIS SHARE OF OIL ROYALTIES, THE
PLAINTIFF CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY, UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE AND THE
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, OF THE WELL-SPACING ACT OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA (CHAP. 59, OKLA. SESS. LAWS 1935) AND AN ORDER MADE THEREUNDER
BY THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THAT STATE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE, AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WITH A MODIFICATION
IMMATERIAL HERE, SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AND ORDER.  182
OKLA. 155; 77 P.2D 83.  THE PLAINTIFF BRINGS THIS APPEAL. 

THE CORPORATION COMMISSION FIXED THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COMMON SOURCE
OF OIL SUPPLY IN THE NORTH WELLSTON AREA IN LINCOLN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA,
SO AS TO INCLUDE 520 ACRES, AND AUTHORIZED TEN-ACRE WELL-SPACING UNITS
WITHIN THAT AREA.  THE WELL IN QUESTION IS IN THE APPROXIMATE CENTER OF
ONE OF THESE TEN-ACRE UNITS.  THAT UNIT CONSISTS OF 6 1/4 ACRES WHICH
LIE IN TRACT "A" AND 3 3/4 ACRES IN TRACT "B," THESE TRACTS BEING IN
SEPARATE OWNERSHIP.  THE WELL IS LOCATED ON TRACT "A."  THE STATUTE,
SEC. 4(C), PROVIDES: 

"IN THE EVENT A PRODUCING WELL, OR WELLS, IS COMPLETED UPON A UNIT
WHERE THERE ARE TWO OR MORE SEPARATELY OWNED TRACTS, ANY ROYALTY OWNER,
OR GROUP OF ROYALTY OWNERS, HOLDING THE ROYALTY INTEREST UNDER A
SEPARATELY OWNED TRACT, SHALL SHARE IN ONE-EIGHTH (1/8) OF ALL THE
PRODUCTION FROM THE WELL OR WELLS DRILLED WITHIN THE UNIT IN THE
PROPORTION THAT THE ACREAGE OF THEIR SEPARATELY OWNED TRACT BEARS TO
THE ENTIRE ACREAGE OF THE UNIT." 

UNDER THAT PROVISION, AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT, THE OWNERS OF
THE MINERAL RIGHTS IN THE 3 3/4 ACRES OF THE DRILLING UNIT ARE
PERMITTED TO SHARE WITH THE PLAINTIFF, AND HIS CO-OWNERS OF THE MINERAL
RIGHTS IN THE OTHER 6 1/4 ACRES OF THE UNIT, THE OIL AND GAS PRODUCED
FROM THE WELL ALTHOUGH IT IS LOCATED ENTIRELY UPON THE SURFACE OF THE 6
1/4 ACRE TRACT.  PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT THIS DISTRIBUTION AMONG THE
OWNERS OF THE 3 3/4 ACRES WORKS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION OF HIS
PROPERTY AND AN IMPAIRMENT OF HIS CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS.  THE CORPORATION
COMMISSION FOUND AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT THE SAID WELL AS ABOVE DESCRIBED IS LOCATED IN THE APPROXIMATE
CENTER OF A 10-ACRE TRACT OF LAND, AND THAT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION
THE DEPTH OF THE WELL NOW PRODUCING IN SAID COMMON SOURCE OF SUPPLY,
THE THICKNESS, POROSITY, AND PERMEABILITY OF THE PRODUCING SAND, THE
NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE RESERVOIR ENERGY, THE FORMATIONS
ENCOUNTERED IN THE DRILLING OF THE WELL, AND THE HISTORY AND PRODUCTIVE
CHARACTERISTICS OF WELLS IN OTHER COMMON SOURCES OF SUPPLY WHICH HAVE
SIMILAR FORMATIONS, AND FROM OTHER GEOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC
INFORMATION AND DATA AS SHOWN BY THE RECORDS, THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT
A WELL-SPACING AND DRILLING UNIT OF 10 ACRES AND OF UNIFORM SIZE SHOULD
BE ESTABLISHED IN THE SAID NORTH WELLSTON POOL; THAT THE SAME WOULD
TEND TO EFFECT THE PROPER DRAINAGE OF OIL FROM SAID POOL, AND WOULD
RESULT IN UNIFORM WITHDRAWAL AND IN THE GREATEST ULTIMATE RECOVERY OF
OIL, AND WOULD BEST CONSERVE RESERVOIR ENERGY, AND WOULD PROTECT THE
RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE LEASEHOLDERS AND ROYALTY OWNERS IN SAID COMMON
SOURCE OF SUPPLY." 

IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION MADE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER AFTER
DUE HEARING.  THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING ITS FINDINGS IS NOT IN THE
RECORD.  ACCORDINGLY, AS THE STATE COURT SAID, IT MUST BE ASSUMED "THAT
THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY OF THE WELL IN QUESTION IS COMMON TO THE LAND
ADJOINING IT AND THAT SAID POOL UNDERLIES NOT ONLY THE 6 1/4 ACRES OF
LAND ON WHICH THE WELL IS LOCATED BUT THAT IT ALSO EXTENDS BENEATH THE
3 3/4 ACRE TRACT."  IN THAT VIEW THE STATE COURT APPLIED WELL SETTLED
PRINCIPLES IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT (OHIO OIL CO. V. INDIANA, 177 U.S. 190; LINDSLEY V. NATURAL
CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61; WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON CO., 254 U.S.
300; BANDINI PETROLEUM CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8; CHAMPLIN
REFINING CO. V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210) AND UNDER THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE (RAST V. VAN DEMAN & LEWIS CO., 240 U.S. 342, 362, 363;
UNION DRY GOODS CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE CORP., 248 U.S. 372, 376;
SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 390, 391; STEPHENSON V. BINFORD, 287
U.S. 251, 276; HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398,
435, 436).  THE ARGUMENT, THAT THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE
AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO MAKE ITS ORDER FIXING THE DRILLING UNIT
ARE VOID FOR INDEFINITENESS, IS WITHOUT MERIT.  BANDINI V. SUPERIOR
COURT, SUPRA; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, SUPRA. 

IN THE LIGHT OF OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS, THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO
RAISE A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR
THE WANT OF JURISDICTION.  HANNIS DISTILLING CO. V. BALTIMORE, 216 U.S.
285, 288; LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103, 105, 106. 
DISMISSED. 
..END :
























BACON & SONS V. MARTIN, 305 U.S. 380 


NO. 203.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939. 


THE TAX IMPOSED BY KENTUCKY ON THE "RECEIPT" OF COSMETICS IN THE STATE
BY ANY KENTUCKY RETAILER IS NOT A DIRECT BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AS APPLIED TO ARTICLES PURCHASED IN OTHER STATES AND TRANSPORTED TO THE
RETAILER AT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN KENTUCKY, SINCE, AS CONSTRUED BY
THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT, THE IMPOSITION IS NOT UPON THE ACT OF
RECEIVING BUT UPON SUBSEQUENT SALE AND USE. 

J. BACON & SONS V. MARTIN. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY. 

APPEAL FROM 273 KY. 389; 116 S.W.2D 963, DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION. 

PER CURIAM. 

PLAINTIFF SOUGHT JUDGMENT DECLARING INVALID A STATUTE IMPOSING A TAX
ON "THE RECEIPT OF COSMETICS IN THE STATE BY ANY KENTUCKY RETAILER,"
FN1  AS APPLIED TO ARTICLES PURCHASED FROM MANUFACTURERS AND DEALERS IN
OTHER STATES AND TRANSPORTED TO PLAINTIFF AT ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN
KENTUCKY.  PLAINTIFF CONTENDED THAT THE TAX WAS ON "THE ACT OF
RECEIVING" AND HENCE WAS A DIRECT BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY THUS CONSTRUED THE STATUTE: 

"THE WORD 'RECEIPT' IS NOT USED IN A LIMITED SENSE, BUT IN THE SENSE
THAT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE RETAILER AND IS NOW IN HIS
USE.  ...  THAT WORD 'RECEIPT' PRESUPPOSES THAT THE COSMETICS WERE NOW
IN USE AND AFTER THE SALE HAD BEEN CONSUMMATED. 

"  ...  IT, THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX AGAINST
THE RETAILER IS NOT ON THE ACT OF RECEIVING THE COSMETICS, BUT ON THE
SALE AND USE THEREOF, AFTER THE RETAILER HAS RECEIVED THEM, THAT
CONSTITUTES THE EXCISE TAX.  WHEN WE APPLY THE INTENDED AND CORRECT
MEANING OF THE WORD 'RECEIPT' AS USED IN THE ACT, IT IS CONCLUSIVE TO
OUR MINDS THAT THE TAX OF THE RETAILER, REFERRED TO, IS PAID WHEN THE
ARTICLES ARE IN HIS POSSESSION AND WHEN THE MERCHANT HAS UNLIMITED
CONTROL AND DOMINION OVER THE COSMETICS."  MARTIN V. J. BACON & SONS,
268 KY. 612, 618, 619; 105 S.W.2D 569, 572. 

ADHERING TO THAT CONSTRUCTION, THE STATE COURT AFFIRMED THE PRESENT
JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE TAX.  273 KY. 389; 116 S.W.2D 963.  THE
PLAINTIFF APPEALS. 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BY THE STATE COURT IS BINDING UPON
US.  SUPREME LODGE, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS V. MEYER, 265 U.S. 30, 32, 33;
HICKLIN V. CONEY, 290 U.S. 169, 172; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO.
V. NELSON MANUFACTURING CO., 291 U.S. 352, 358.  AND IN THE LIGHT OF
ITS CONSTRUCTION THE STATE COURT APPLIED THE PRINCIPLES DECLARED IN OUR
DECISIONS.  MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, 93; GREGG DYEING
CO. V. QUERY, 286 U.S. 472, 478, 479; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V.
WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 265, 266; EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, INC.,
289 U.S. 249, 252. 

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR THE WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
QUESTION.  DISMISSED. 

FN1  SUBSECTION (F) OF SEC. 2 OF CHAPTER 3 OF THE 1936 SPECIAL BUDGET
AND SPECIAL REVENUE SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE OF KENTUCKY.  CARROLL'S
KENTUCKY STATUTES, BALDWIN'S 1936 REVISION, SECS. 4281D-1 TO 4281D-25. 

..END :









MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 382 


NO. 73.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 95
F.2D 468, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE UNITED STATES IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY DEFENDANT IN A
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY A STATE TO ACQUIRE A RIGHT OF WAY
OVER LANDS WHICH THE UNITED STATES OWNS IN FEE AND HOLDS IN TRUST FOR
INDIAN ALLOTTEES.  P. 386. 

2.  THE EXEMPTION OF THE UNITED STATES FROM BEING SUED WITHOUT ITS
CONSENT EXTENDS TO A SUIT BY A STATE.  SUCH A SUIT CAN NOT BE
MAINTAINED UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY ACT OF CONGRESS.  P. 387. 

3.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901 THAT, WHERE
INDIAN ALLOTTED LANDS ARE CONDEMNED UNDER STATE LAWS FOR A PUBLIC
PURPOSE, "THE MONEY AWARDED AS DAMAGES SHALL BE PAID TO THE ALLOTTEE,"
DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS:  IN VIEW OF THE
RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION IMPOSED BY OTHER ACTS OF CONGRESS; THE
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES AS TRUSTEE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE
PROCEEDING (THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID); AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR IN RESPECT OF REINVESTING THE PROCEEDS.  P. 387. 

4.  WHERE JURISDICTION HAS NOT BEEN CONFERRED BY CONGRESS, NO OFFICER
OF THE UNITED STATES HAS POWER TO GIVE ANY COURT JURISDICTION OF A SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE FACTS THAT THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
PETITIONED FOR REMOVAL OF A SUIT FROM THE STATE TO THE FEDERAL COURT,
AND STIPULATED WITH COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF THAT THE SUIT COULD BE SO
REMOVED, ARE WITHOUT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS REGARD.  P. 388. 

5.  A FEDERAL COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF A SUIT REMOVED TO IT
FROM A STATE COURT WHICH ITSELF LACKED JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER OR THE PARTIES; EVEN THOUGH THE FEDERAL COURT MIGHT HAVE HAD
JURISDICTION HAD THE SUIT BEEN BROUGHT THERE ORIGINALLY.  P. 389. 

6.  THE PROVISION OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1901, AUTHORIZING "CONDEMNATION OF" LANDS ALLOTTED IN
SEVERALTY TO INDIANS "IN THE SAME MANNER AS LAND OWNED IN FEE,"
CONSTRUED AS NOT AUTHORIZING SUIT IN A STATE COURT.  P. 389. 

THE CONTENTION THAT A LONG ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE MAKES
FOR A CONTRARY INTERPRETATION IS UNSUPPORTED. 

MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 580, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED, WITH
DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS, A JUDGMENT GRANTING THE PETITION OF THE STATE
FOR CONDEMNATION OF A RIGHT OF WAY OVER INDIAN ALLOTTED LANDS.  THE
SUIT WAS BROUGHT ORIGINALLY IN THE STATE COURT BUT WAS REMOVED TO THE
FEDERAL COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MINNESOTA BROUGHT IN A COURT OF THE STATE THIS PROCEEDING TO TAKE BY
CONDEMNATION PURSUANT TO ITS LAWS A RIGHT OF WAY FOR A HIGHWAY OVER
NINE ALLOTTED PARCELS OF LAND WHICH FORM PARTS OF THE GRAND PORTAGE
INDIAN RESERVATION, GRANTED FOR THE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF LAKE
SUPERIOR BY TREATY OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1854(10 STAT. 1109) AND THE ACT OF
CONGRESS, JANUARY 14, 1889, C. 24, 25 STAT. 642.  THE PARCELS HAD BEEN
ALLOTTED IN SEVERALTY TO INDIVIDUAL INDIANS BY TRUST PATENTS.  THE
HIGHWAY WAS LOCATED PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE.  IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT AUTHORITY HAD BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HIGHWAY OVER THE
INDIAN LANDS.  THE PETITION NAMED AS PERSONS INTERESTED THE OWNERS
UNDER THE INDIAN ALLOTMENTS, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED
CHIPPEWA AGENCY, AND THE UNITED STATES, AS HOLDER OF THE FEE IN TRUST. 

THE UNITED STATES WAS NAMED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT.  THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, APPEARING SPECIALLY FOR THE UNITED STATES AND GENERALLY FOR
THE OTHER RESPONDENTS, FILED A PETITION FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CAUSE TO
THE FEDERAL COURT.  HE AND COUNSEL FOR THE STATE STIPULATED THAT THE
CAUSE "MAY BE (SO) REMOVED."  THE STATE COURT ORDERED REMOVAL.  IN THE
FEDERAL COURT, THE UNITED STATES, APPEARING SPECIALLY, MOVED TO DISMISS
THE ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD NOT CONSENTED TO BE SUED AND THAT
THE STATE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THE ACTION OR OVER THE UNITED
STATES.  THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE UNITED
STATES IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY, SINCE "CONSENT  ...  TO BRING THESE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE INDIAN ALLOTTEES HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY GRANTED AND
GIVEN BY THE UNITED STATES TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, PURSUANT TO 25
U.S.C. ANNOTATED, SECTION 357" (ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, C. 832, SEC. 3,
31 STAT. 1058, 1083-84), THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THAT LANDS ALLOTTED IN SEVERALTY TO INDIANS MAY BE CONDEMNED FOR ANY
PUBLIC PURPOSE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OR TERRITORY WHERE LOCATED
IN THE SAME MANNER AS LAND OWNED IN FEE MAY BE CONDEMNED, AND THE MONEY
AWARDED AS DAMAGES SHALL BE PAID TO THE ALLOTTEE." 

THE PETITION FOR CONDEMNATION WAS GRANTED. 

UPON APPEAL BY THE UNITED STATES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD
THAT THE STATE WAS WITHOUT POWER TO CONDEMN THE INDIAN LANDS UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED SO TO DO BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AS
PROVIDED IN SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF 1901, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO GRANT
PERMISSION, UPON COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH REQUIREMENTS AS HE MAY DEEM
NECESSARY, TO THE PROPER STATE OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE OPENING AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OR TERRITORY IN WHICH THE LANDS ARE SITUATED  ...  THROUGH ANY
LANDS WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED IN SEVERALTY TO ANY INDIVIDUAL INDIANS
...  BUT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONVEYED TO THE ALLOTTEES WITH FULL POWER
OF ALIENATION." 

IT HELD, FURTHER, THAT AS SUCH AUTHORIZATION HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN, THE
UNITED STATES HAD NOT CONSENTED TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CONDEMNATION
SUIT AGAINST IT; THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO PROCEED;
AND THAT THE FACT THAT REMOVAL FROM THE STATE COURT TO THE FEDERAL
COURT HAD BEEN OBTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY BY STIPULATION
HAD NOT EFFECTED A GENERAL APPEARANCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
THEREFORE, REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS
TO DISMISS.  95 F.2D 468.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
CONFLICT WITH THE ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE UNDER THE
APPLICABLE STATUTES AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

THE STATE CONTENDS THAT IT HAD POWER, AND ITS COURTS JURISDICTION, TO
CONDEMN THE ALLOTTED LANDS WITHOUT MAKING THE UNITED STATES A PARTY TO
THE PROCEEDINGS:  (1) BECAUSE AUTHORIZED SO TO DO BY THE SECOND
PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, QUOTED ABOVE; (2)
BECAUSE AUTHORIZED SO TO DO BY THE TREATY OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1854, 10
STAT. 1109, 1110, APPROVED BY CONGRESS JANUARY 14, 1889, WHICH PROVIDED
IN ARTICLE 3 - 

"ALL NECESSARY ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND RAILROADS, THE LINES OF WHICH MAY
RUN THROUGH ANY OF THE RESERVED TRACTS, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY
THROUGH THE SAME, COMPENSATION BEING MADE THEREFOR AS IN OTHER CASES." 

(3)  BECAUSE THE STATE, IN ITS SOVEREIGN CAPACITY AND IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IN THE LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL STATE TRUCK HIGHWAY REQUIRED TO BE SO LOCATED AND
CONSTRUCTED BY ITS CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, MAY, WITHOUT EXPRESS
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY THEREFOR, EXERCISE ITS INHERENT POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN FOR SUCH PURPOSE OVER LANDS SO ALLOTTED IN SEVERALTY TO
INDIVIDUAL INDIANS. 

THE MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE AND THE GRAND PORTAGE-GRAND MARAIS BAND
THEREOF FILED BY THE TRIBAL ATTORNEY A BRIEF PRAYING THAT THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT AFFIRMED. 

FIRST.  THE UNITED STATES IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY DEFENDANT TO THE
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.  A PROCEEDING AGAINST PROPERTY IN WHICH THE
UNITED STATES HAS AN INTEREST IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE
SIREN, 7 WALL.  152, 154; CARR V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 433, 437;
STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255.  COMPARE UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 389.  IT IS CONFESSEDLY THE OWNER OF THE FEE OF
THE INDIAN ALLOTTED LANDS AND HOLDS THE SAME IN TRUST FOR THE
ALLOTTEES.  AS THE UNITED STATES OWNS THE FEE OF THESE PARCELS, THE
RIGHT OF WAY CANNOT BE CONDEMNED WITHOUT MAKING IT A PARTY.  FN1  THE
EXEMPTION OF THE UNITED STATES FROM BEING SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT
EXTENDS TO A SUIT BY A STATE.  COMPARE KANSAS V. UNITED STATES, 204
U.S. 331, 342; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 298 U.S. 558, 568, 571, 572. 
COMPARE MINNESOTA V. HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373, 382-387; OREGON V.
HITCHCOCK, 202 U.S. 60.  HENCE MINNESOTA CANNOT MAINTAIN THIS SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY SOME ACT OF CONGRESS. 

MINNESOTA CONTENDS THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE
PARTY.  IT ARGUES THAT SINCE THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1901, PROVIDES THAT "THE MONEY AWARDED AS DAMAGES SHALL BE
PAID TO THE ALLOTTEE," THE UNITED STATES HAS NO INTEREST IN THE LAND OR
ITS PROCEEDS AFTER THE CONDEMNATION IS BEGUN.  FN2  UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE
GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT, ACT OF FEBRUARY 8, 1887, C. 119, 24 STAT. 388,
389, U.S.C. TITLE 25, SEC. 348, THE INDIANS' INTEREST IN THESE ALLOTTED
LANDS WAS SUBJECT TO RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION; FN3  AND BY SEC. 2 OF
THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT, ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, C. 576, 48 STAT.
984, U.S.C. TITLE 25, SEC. 462, RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION WERE
EXTENDED.  THE CLAUSE QUOTED MAY NOT BE INTERPRETED AS FREEING THE
ALLOTTEE'S LAND FROM THE RESTRAINT IMPOSED BY OTHER ACTS OF CONGRESS. 
AS THE PARCELS HERE IN QUESTION WERE RESTRICTED LANDS, THE INTEREST OF
THE UNITED STATES CONTINUES THROUGHOUT THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS. 
IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE FOR THE INDIANS IT IS NECESSARILY INTERESTED
IN THE OUTCOME OF THE SUIT - IN THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID.  THAT IT IS
INTERESTED, ALSO, IN WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH THE PROCEEDS IS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932, C. 333, 47 STAT. 474, U.S.C.
TITLE 25, SEC. 409A, UNDER WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR MAY
DETERMINE THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE CONDEMNATION OF RESTRICTED INDIAN
LANDS SHALL BE REINVESTED IN OTHER LANDS SUBJECT TO THE SAME
RESTRICTIONS.  FN4 

SECOND.  MINNESOTA CONTENDS THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED SUIT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS TRUE THAT AUTHORIZATION TO CONDEMN CONFERS BY
IMPLICATION PERMISSION TO SUE THE UNITED STATES.  BUT CONGRESS HAS
PROVIDED GENERALLY FOR SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS.  AND IT RESTS WITH CONGRESS TO DETERMINE NOT ONLY WHETHER THE
UNITED STATES MAY BE SUED, BUT IN WHAT COURTS THE SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT. 
THIS SUIT WAS BEGUN IN A STATE COURT.  THE FACT THAT THE REMOVAL WAS
EFFECTED ON PETITION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE STIPULATION OF ITS
ATTORNEY IN RELATION THERETO ARE FACTS WITHOUT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
WHERE JURISDICTION HAS NOT BEEN CONFERRED BY CONGRESS, NO OFFICER OF
THE UNITED STATES HAS POWER TO GIVE TO ANY COURT JURISDICTION OF A SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  COMPARE CASE V. TERRELL, 11 WALL.  199,
202; CARR V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 433, 435-39; FINN V. UNITED STATES,
123 U.S. 227, 232-33; STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255, 270; UNITED
STATES V. GARBUTT OIL CO., 302 U.S. 528, 533-35.  IF CONGRESS DID NOT
GRANT PERMISSION TO BRING THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING IN A STATE
COURT, THE FEDERAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION UPON ITS REMOVAL. 
FOR JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT ON REMOVAL IS, IN A LIMITED
SENSE, A DERIVATIVE JURISDICTION.  WHERE THE STATE COURT LACKS
JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OR OF THE PARTIES, THE FEDERAL COURT
ACQUIRES NONE, ALTHOUGH IN A LIKE SUIT ORIGINALLY BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL
COURT IT WOULD HAVE HAD JURISDICTION.  LAMBERT RUN COAL CO. V.
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 258 U.S. 377, 383; GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V.
LAKE SHORE & M.S. RY. CO., 260 U.S. 261, 288. 

THIRD.  MINNESOTA CONTENDS THAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED SUIT IN A COURT
OF THE STATE BY PROVIDING IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT
OF MARCH 3, 1901, QUOTED ABOVE, FOR "CONDEMNATION OF" LANDS ALLOTTED IN
SEVERALTY TO INDIANS "IN THE SAME MANNER AS LAND OWNED IN FEE."  BUT
THE PARAGRAPH CONTAINS NO PERMISSION TO SUE IN THE COURT OF A STATE. 
IT MERELY AUTHORIZES CONDEMNATION FOR "ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OR TERRITORY WHERE LOCATED."  THERE ARE PERSUASIVE
REASONS WHY THAT STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING SUIT IN
A STATE COURT.  IT RELATES TO INDIAN LANDS UNDER TRUST ALLOTMENTS - A
SUBJECT WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING SUCH LANDS HAS BEEN
COMMONLY COMMITTED EXCLUSIVELY TO FEDERAL COURTS.  FN5 

MINNESOTA ASSERTED IN SUPPORT OF ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE PARAGRAPH
THAT BY LONG ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE SUCH CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS ARE BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURT AND WITHOUT MAKING THE
UNITED STATES A PARTY.  FN6  THE ASSERTION WAS DENIED BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  AS THE BRIEF OF NEITHER COUNSEL FURNISHED ADEQUATE DATA AS
TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE, THEY WERE REQUESTED AT THE ORAL
ARGUMENT TO FURNISH THE DATA THEREAFTER.  FROM THE REPORT THEN
SUBMITTED BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IT APPEARS THAT THROUGHOUT A LONG
PERIOD THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR HAS INSISTED IN MINNESOTA AND IN
OTHER STATES, THAT CONDEMNATION SUITS MUST BE BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL
COURT AND THAT THE UNITED STATES MUST BE MADE A PARTY DEFENDANT.  FN7 

AS THE LOWER COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OF THIS SUIT, WE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER, AS A MATTER OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW, THE LACK
OF ASSENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR PRECLUDED MAINTENANCE OF THE
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE FEE OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A DRY LEGAL TITLE DIVORCED
FROM SUBSTANTIAL POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RELATION TO THE
LAND.  UNITED STATES V. RICKERT, 188 U.S. 432; COMPARE TIGER V. WESTERN
INVESTMENT CO., 221 U.S. 286; BRADER V. JAMES, 246 U.S. 88.  IN THE
CASE OF PATENTS IN FEE WITH RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION IT IS ESTABLISHED
THAT AN ALIENATION OF THE INDIAN'S INTEREST IN THE LANDS BY JUDICIAL
DECISION IN A SUIT TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A PARTY HAS NO
BINDING EFFECT BUT THAT THE UNITED STATES MAY SUE TO CANCEL THE
JUDGMENT AND SET ASIDE THE CONVEYANCE MADE PURSUANT THERETO.  BOWLING &
MIAMI INVESTMENT CO. V. UNITED STATES, 233 U.S. 528; PRIVETT V. UNITED
STATES, 256 U.S. 201; SUNDERLAND V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 226.  IN
THE STRONGER CASE OF A TRUST ALLOTMENT, IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR THAT NO
EFFECTIVE RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN IN A PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE UNITED
STATES IS NOT A PARTY AND THAT THE UNITED STATES IS THEREFORE AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO ANY SUIT TO ESTABLISH OR ACQUIRE AN INTEREST IN
THE LANDS.  COMPARE MCKAY V. KALYTON, 204 U.S. 458. 

FN2  THE EXTENT OF THE RESTRAINTS ON ALIENATION CONTAINED IN SEC. 5
OF THE GENERAL ALLOTMENT ACT WAS CLARIFIED AND MODIFIED TO SOME EXTENT
BY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION.  E.G., ACT OF MAY 27, 1902, C. 888, SEC. 7,
32 STAT. 245, 275; ACT OF MAY 8, 1906, C. 2348, 34 STAT. 182; ACT OF
MARCH 1, 1907, C. 2285, 34 STAT. 1015, 1018; ACT OF MAY 29, 1908, C.
216, 35 STAT. 444; ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, C. 431, SECS. 1-5, 36 STAT.
855-56; ACT OF MAY 18, 1916, C. 125, 39 STAT. 123, 127; U.S.C. TITLE
25, SECS. 349, 372, 373, 378, 379, 394, 403, 404, 405, 408.  UNDER SEC.
4 OF THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT, APPLICABLE TO ALL INDIAN
RESERVATIONS UNLESS A MAJORITY OF THE ADULT INDIANS VOTE AGAINST ITS
APPLICATION, THE TRANSFERABILITY OF RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS IS GREATLY
LIMITED.  ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, C. 576, 48 STAT. 984, U.S.C. TITLE 25,
SEC. 464.    FN3  COMPARE THE ACT OF MARCH 1, 1907, C. 2285, 34 STAT.
1018, U.S.C. TITLE 25, SEC. 405; ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, C. 431, SECS. 4,
8, 36 STAT. 856-857; U.S.C. TITLE 25, SECS. 403, 406. 

FN4  "WHENEVER ANY NONTAXABLE LAND OF A RESTRICTED INDIAN OF THE FIVE
CIVILIZED TRIBES OR OF ANY OTHER INDIAN TRIBE IS SOLD TO ANY STATE,
COUNTY, OR MUNICIPALITY FOR PUBLIC-IMPROVEMENT PURPOSES, OR IS
ACQUIRED, UNDER EXISTING LAW, BY ANY STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPALITY BY
CONDEMNATION OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS FOR SUCH PUBLIC PURPOSES, OR IS SOLD
UNDER EXISTING LAW TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, THE MONEY RECEIVED FOR SAID LAND MAY, IN THE DISCRETION AND
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, BE REINVESTED IN
OTHER LANDS SELECTED BY SAID INDIAN, AND SUCH LAND SO SELECTED AND
PURCHASED SHALL BE RESTRICTED AS TO ALIENATION, LEASE OR INCUMBRANCE,
AND NONTAXABLE IN THE SAME QUANTITY AND UPON THE SAME TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS THE NONTAXABLE LANDS FROM WHICH THE REINVESTED FUNDS WERE
DERIVED, AND SUCH RESTRICTIONS SHALL APPEAR IN THE CONVEYANCE."  SEE
ALSO NOTE 7, INFRA. 

FN5  COMPARE MCKAY V. KALYTON, 204 U.S. 458; 28 STAT. 305; 31 STAT.
760; U.S.C. TITLE 25, SEC. 345.  THE UNITED STATES ARGUES THAT A
STATUTE GRANTING PERMISSION TO SUE THE UNITED STATES MUST BE CONSTRUED
TO APPLY ONLY TO THE FEDERAL COURTS UNLESS THERE IS AN EXPLICIT
REFERENCE TO THE STATE TRIBUNALS, CITING STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S.
255, 270; UNITED STATES V. INABA, 291 F. 416, 418; UNITED STATES V.
DEASY, 24 F.2D 108, 110.  THIS IS NOT UNIVERSALLY TRUE EVEN AS TO SUITS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ITSELF.  UNITED STATES V. JONES, 109 U.S.
513.  AND IN MANY INSTANCES THE STATE COURTS HAVE BEEN HELD TO HAVE
JURISDICTION OF SUITS AGAINST THE INSTRUMENTALITIES AND OFFICERS OF THE
UNITED STATES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT ITS PROPERTY INTERESTS WITHOUT SUCH
SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.  MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. AULT, 256
U.S. 554; SLOAN SHIPYARDS V. UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, 258 U.S.
549, 568-69; OLSON V. UNITED STATES SPRUCE PRODUCTION CORP., 267 U.S.
462; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229, 235-37.  COMPARE DAVIS
V. L.N. DANTZLER LUMBER CO., 261 U.S. 280. 

FN6  IN 35 LAND DECISIONS 648 THE ACTING SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
HANDED DOWN ON JUNE 29, 1907, AN OPINION WHICH RECOGNIZED, WITHOUT ANY
DISCUSSION, THE VALIDITY OF A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING BROUGHT UNDER THE
SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, IN A STATE COURT, IT NOT
APPEARING THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS JOINED AS A PARTY. 

FN7  SEE ALSO REGULATION 69 1/2 OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR, "CONCERNING RIGHTS OF WAY OVER INDIAN LANDS," ADOPTED
IN THE GENERAL REVISION OF APRIL 7, 1938, WHICH PROVIDES:  "AS THE
HOLDER OF THE LEGAL TITLE TO ALLOTTED INDIAN LANDS HELD IN TRUST, THE
UNITED STATES MUST BE MADE A PARTY TO ALL SUCH CONDEMNATION SUITS AND
THE ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT IN THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT,
THE PROCEDURE, HOWEVER, TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE LAW ON
THE SUBJECT, SO FAR AS APPLICABLE." 
..END :






















BREWING CO. V. LIQUOR COMM'N, 305 U.S. 391 


NO. 130.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 21
F.SUPP.  969, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SINCE THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO PROHIBIT
OR REGULATE THE IMPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IS NOT LIMITED BY
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 394. 

2.  REGULATION DISCRIMINATORY BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED
INTOXICATING LIQUORS, OR BETWEEN IMPORTED INTOXICATING LIQUORS, IS NOT
PROHIBITED BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
P. 394. 

3.  A STATUTE OF MICHIGAN PROHIBITS DEALERS IN BEER IN THAT STATE
FROM SELLING ANY BEER MANUFACTURED IN A STATE WHICH BY ITS LAWS
DISCRIMINATES, IN MANNER DESCRIBED, AGAINST BEER MANUFACTURED IN
MICHIGAN.  PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE, THE STATE LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
DESIGNATED SPECIFICALLY OTHER STATES, TEN IN NUMBER, INCLUDING INDIANA,
WHICH DISCRIMINATED AGAINST MICHIGAN BEER; WHEREUPON MICHIGAN LICENSEES
WERE PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING, OR SELLING ANY
BEER MANUFACTURED IN THOSE STATES.  HELD, AS APPLIED TO AN INDIANA
MANUFACTURER OF BEER, WHO SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
MICHIGAN STATUTE, IT WAS NOT VOID AS VIOLATING THE COMMERCE, DUE
PROCESS, OR EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP.
392, 394. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE STATUTE IS RETALIATORY OR
PROTECTIVE IN CHARACTER; IT IS VALID IN EITHER ASPECT. 

4.  THE POWER OF THE STATE TO FORBID THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR
IS UNDOUBTED.  P. 394. 

INDIANAPOLIS BREWING CO. V. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, DENYING A
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL, IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE LIQUOR LAW, ALLEGED TO BE "RETALIATORY" AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

INDIANAPOLIS BREWING COMPANY, INC., AN INDIANA CORPORATION,
MANUFACTURES BEER IN THAT STATE.  UNDER APPROPRIATE LICENSES IT HAS FOR
SOME YEARS SOLD AND SHIPPED TO DEALERS IN MICHIGAN ITS PRODUCT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN JULY, 1937, THE MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL ACT
WAS AMENDED SO AS TO PROHIBIT MICHIGAN DEALERS IN BEER FROM SELLING ANY
BEER MANUFACTURED IN A STATE WHICH BY ITS LAWS DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
MICHIGAN BEER.  BY SEC. 40 OF THE AMENDED ACT, THE MICHIGAN COMMISSION
IS DIRECTED TO DECLARE WHAT STATES DISCRIMINATE AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED
BY THE ACT.  FN1  IT NAMED TEN STATES.  FN2  AMONG THESE IS INDIANA,
WHICH BY ITS LIQUOR CONTROL ACT OF 1935, AS AMENDED IN 1937, PROHIBITS
LICENSED INDIANA WHOLESALERS FROM IMPORTING ANY BEER WHICH IS NOT THEIR
ABSOLUTE PROPERTY; AND REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO SECURE THE PRIVILEGE
OF IMPORTING BEER FROM OTHER STATES EACH MUST OBTAIN A "PORT OF ENTRY"
PERMIT, OF WHICH NO FEWER THAN TEN AND NO MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED ARE TO
BE GRANTED, PAY A LICENSE FEE OF $1500 AND GIVE A BOND OF $10,000, IN
ADDITION TO THE LICENSE FEE AND BOND REQUIRED OF THOSE WHO SELL ONLY
INDIANA BEER.  FN3 

THE INDIANAPOLIS COMPANY, SUING ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BROUGHT, IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR EASTERN MICHIGAN,
THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT PROVISION OF THE MICHIGAN
LAW ON THE GROUND THAT IT VIOLATES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE
MEMBERS OF THE MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION AND OTHER OFFICERS OF
THE STATE WERE MADE DEFENDANTS.  AS A TEMPORARY, AS WELL AS A
PERMANENT, INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT, A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS CONVENED TO
HEAR THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.  DEFENDANTS MOVED TO
DISMISS THE BILL.  IT WAS CONCEDED THAT IF THE LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
THE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO EQUITABLE RELIEF.  NO QUESTION EXCEPT
THAT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW WAS PRESENTED.  THE COURT HELD
THE LAW VALID; DENIED THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION; AND DISMISSED THE
BILL.  21 F.SUPP.  969. 

THE PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT ALTHOUGH THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT
DECLARES: 

"THE TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION INTO ANY STATE, TERRITORY OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR DELIVERY OR USE THEREIN OF
INTOXICATING LIQUORS, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS THEREOF, IS HEREBY
PROHIBITED" 

THE MICHIGAN LAW SHOULD BE HELD VOID AS VIOLATING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
AND THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  IT CHARACTERIZES THE LAW AS "RETALIATORY"; ARGUES, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, THAT THE AMENDMENT MAY NOT BE INTERPRETED AS PERMITTING
RETALIATION; AND INSISTS THAT SUCH INTERPRETATION WOULD DEFEAT ITS
PURPOSE, AS THEREBY MICHIGAN WOULD BE ALLOWED TO PUNISH INDIANA FOR
DOING WHAT, UNDER THE RULE APPLIED IN STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION V.
YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59, 63, IS PERMITTED.  WHETHER THE
MICHIGAN LAW SHOULD NOT MORE PROPERLY BE DESCRIBED AS A PROTECTIVE
MEASURE, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER.  FOR WHATEVER ITS CHARACTER,
THE LAW IS VALID.  SINCE THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, AS HELD IN THE
YOUNG CASE, THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO PROHIBIT OR REGULATE THE
IMPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IS NOT LIMITED BY THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE; AND, AS HELD BY THAT CASE AND MAHONEY V. JOSEPH TRINER CORP.,
304 U.S. 401, DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED INTOXICATING
LIQUORS, OR BETWEEN IMPORTED INTOXICATING LIQUORS, IS NOT PROHIBITED BY
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  THE FURTHER CLAIM THAT THE LAW VIOLATES
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS ALSO UNFOUNDED.  THE SUBSTANTIVE POWER OF THE
STATE TO PREVENT THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IS UNDOUBTED.  MUGLER
V. KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AMENDED SEC. 40 OF MICHIGAN ACT NO. 281.  PUBLIC ACTS OF 1937,
P. 509, PROVIDES:  " ... THE COMMISSION SHALL FORTHWITH ADOPT A
REGULATION DESIGNATING THE STATES, THE LAWS, OR THE RULES OR
REGULATIONS OF WHICH ARE FOUND TO REQUIRE A LICENSED WHOLESALER OF BEER
THEREIN TO PAY AN ADDITIONAL FEE FOR THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE, IMPORT, OR
SELL BEER MANUFACTURED IN THIS STATE; OR WHICH DENY THE ISSUANCE OF A
LICENSE AUTHORIZING THE IMPORTATION OF BEER TO ANY DULY LICENSED
WHOLESALER OF BEER THEREIN WHO MAY MAKE APPLICATION FOR SUCH LICENSE;
...  THE REGULATION ADOPTED SHALL PROHIBIT ALL LICENSEES FROM
PURCHASING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING, OR SELLING ANY BEER MANUFACTURED IN
ANY STATE THEREIN DESIGNATED, SAID REGULATION TO BECOME EFFECTIVE
NINETY DAYS AFTER ITS ADOPTION.  ANY LICENSEE OR PERSON ADVERSELY
AFFECTED SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REVIEW BY CERTIORARI TO THE PROPER COURT
THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS ACTED ILLEGALLY OR IN
EXCESS OF AUTHORITY IN MAKING ITS FINDING WITH RESPECT TO ANY STATE." 

FN2  THE REGULATION OF THE LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION ISSUED DECEMBER
14, 1937, IS AS FOLLOWS: "PURSUANT TO ACT NO. 8, PUBLIC ACTS, EXTRA
SESSION OF THE YEAR 1933 OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AS AMENDED BY ACT
NO. 241 OF THE PUBLIC ACTS FOR THE YEAR 1935, AND ACT NO. 281 OF THE
PUBLIC ACTS FOR THE YEAR 1937, PARTICULARLY SECTION 40 THEREOF, THE
MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION PROMULGATES THE FOLLOWING RULE AND
REGULATION DESIGNATING AS DISCRIMINATORY ACCORDING TO SECTION 40 OF
SAID ACT THE FOLLOWING STATES:  MAINE, MARYLAND, NEVADA, INDIANA, NEW
HAMPSHIRE, NORTH CAROLINA, PENNSYLVANIA, TENNESSEE, VERMONT,
WASHINGTON.  THESE DESIGNATIONS ARE MADE AFTER A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF
THE LAWS AND RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED STATES." 

FN3  INDIANA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ACT OF 1935, C. 226, AMENDED BY ACT
OF 1937, C. 197, SECS. 9, 40(A), 41, BURNS REVISED STATUTES 1933,
SUPP., SECS. 12-508, 12-801, 12-901. 
..END :
























FINCH & CO. V. MCKITTRICK, 305 U.S. 395 


NO. 252.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 23
F.SUPP.  244, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF MISSOURI MAKES IT UNLAWFUL TO IMPORT INTO THAT STATE, OR
TO PURCHASE, RECEIVE, SELL, OR POSSESS THEREIN, ANY ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR
MANUFACTURED IN ANY STATE THE LAWS OF WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST
IMPORTATION OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR MANUFACTURED IN MISSOURI.  HELD NOT
VIOLATIVE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
FOLLOWING INDIANAPOLIS BREWING CO. V. LIQUOR CONTROL COMM'N, ANTE, P.
391.  P. 397. 

JOSEPH S. FINCH & CO. ET AL. V. MCKITTRICK, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 253, BEN BURK, INC. V. MCKITTRICK ET AL.; NO. 254,
JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, INC. ET AL. V. MCKITTRICK ET AL.; NO. 255,
HINRICHS DISTILLED PRODUCTS V. MCKITTRICK ET AL.; AND NO. 256, ARROW
DISTILLERIES, INC. V. MCKITTRICK ET AL., ALL ON APPEALS FROM THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEALS FROM DECREES OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENYING
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AND DISMISSING THE BILLS IN SEVERAL
SUITS, CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING AND REVIEW, TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF A STATE LIQUOR LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATE OF MISSOURI APPROVED APRIL 8, 1937,  FN1  AN ACT, SOMETIMES
CALLED THE MISSOURI ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT, SOMETIMES THE MISSOURI
RETALIATION ACT.  IT PROVIDES IN SEC. 4:  "THE TRANSPORTATION OR
IMPORTATION INTO THIS STATE, OR THE PURCHASE, SALE, RECEIPT OR
POSSESSION HEREIN, BY ANY LICENSEE, OF ANY ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR
MANUFACTURED IN A 'STATE IN WHICH DISCRIMINATION EXISTS' IS HEREBY
PROHIBITED, AND IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY LICENSEE TO TRANSPORT OR
IMPORT INTO THIS STATE, OR TO PURCHASE, RECEIVE, POSSESS OR SELL IN
THIS STATE, ANY ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR MANUFACTURED IN ANY 'STATE IN WHICH
DISCRIMINATION EXISTS' AS HEREIN DEFINED."  THE STATUTE DEFINES WHAT
EXACTIONS, PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY LAWS OF THE SEVERAL
STATES SHALL BE DEEMED "DISCRIMINATIONS" IMPOSED UPON THE IMPORTATION
INTO THE SEVERAL STATES OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR MANUFACTURED IN MISSOURI;
REQUIRES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE EXISTS THEREIN
ANY SUCH DISCRIMINATION; AND, IF HE FIND ANY SUCH DISCRIMINATORY LAW,
TO SPECIFY THE SAME IN A CERTIFICATE TO BE FILED WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF
LIQUOR CONTROL.  THE SUPERVISOR IS DIRECTED TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF THE
CERTIFICATES AND TO ADVISE ALL LICENSEES THAT IT WILL BE UNLAWFUL TO
IMPORT INTO MISSOURI OR TO PURCHASE, RECEIVE, SELL OR POSSESS IN
MISSOURI ANY LIQUOR MANUFACTURED IN A DISCRIMINATING STATE.  PURSUANT
TO THESE PROVISIONS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FILED, IN OCTOBER, 1937,
CERTIFICATES WITH THE SUPERVISOR DECLARING THAT THE STATES OF INDIANA,
PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN AND MASSACHUSETTS ARE "STATES IN WHICH
DISCRIMINATIONS EXISTED" AS DEFINED BY THE MISSOURI STATUTE. 

TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THIS PROVISION OF THE MISSOURI STATUTE,
THESE FIVE SUITS WERE BROUGHT, IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF THE STATE, AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE SUPERVISOR
OF LIQUOR CONTROL.  EACH BILL CHARGES THAT THE PROVISION VIOLATES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN2  IN FOUR OF THE CASES THE BILL
ALLEGES THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS A CITIZEN OF A STATE OTHER THAN MISSOURI;
THAT IT MANUFACTURES LIQUOR IN ONE OF THE STATES CERTIFIED AS
"DISCRIMINATING"; THAT IT HOLDS A NON-RESIDENT MISSOURI PERMIT UNDER
WHICH IT IMPORTS AND SELLS IN MISSOURI A PART OF ITS PRODUCTS; AND THAT
IT WOULD BE IRREPARABLY INJURED IF THE PROVISION OF THE MISSOURI
STATUTES WERE ENFORCED.  THE FIFTH CASE DIFFERS ONLY IN THAT THE BILL
ALLEGES THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS A CITIZEN OF MISSOURI ENGAGED THERE IN
THE RECTIFYING AND BOTTLING BUSINESS FOR WHICH IT IMPORTS LIQUOR
MANUFACTURED IN A STATE CERTIFIED AS "DISCRIMINATING."  AS BOTH A
TEMPORARY AND A PERMANENT INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT IN EACH CASE, EACH WAS
ASSIGNED FOR HEARING BEFORE A THREE-JUDGE COURT.  IN EACH THE
DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE BILL.  LATER, THE CASES WERE
CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING AND REVIEW; AND IT WAS AGREED THAT WHEN THE
COURT HEARD THE APPLICATION FOR THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IT SHOULD
FINALLY DETERMINE THE CAUSES.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
APPLICATIONS FOR A TEMPORARY AND A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED
THE BILL IN EACH CASE.  23 F.SUPP.  244.  BUT THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDERS ISSUED UPON THE FILING OF THE BILLS WERE CONTINUED UNTIL THE
FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE APPEALS TO THIS COURT. 

THE CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS RESTED, IN THIS COURT,
SUBSTANTIALLY ON THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  FN3  IT IS URGED THAT THE MISSOURI LAW DOES NOT RELATE TO
PROTECTION OF THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND MORALITY, OR THE PROMOTION OF
THEIR SOCIAL WELFARE, BUT IS MERELY AN ECONOMIC WEAPON OF RETALIATION;
AND THAT, HENCE, THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED
AS GRANTING POWER TO ENACT IT.  SINCE THAT AMENDMENT, THE RIGHT OF A
STATE TO PROHIBIT OR REGULATE THE IMPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IS
NOT LIMITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  AS WAS SAID IN STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION V. YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59, 62, "THE WORDS USED
ARE APT TO CONFER UPON THE STATE THE POWER TO FORBID ALL IMPORTATIONS
WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS WHICH IT PRESCRIBES."  TO LIMIT
THE POWER OF THE STATES AS URGED "WOULD INVOLVE NOT A CONSTRUCTION OF
THE AMENDMENT, BUT A REWRITING OF IT."  SEE ALSO MAHONEY V. JOSEPH
TRINER CORP., 304 U.S. 401; INDIANAPOLIS BREWING CO. V. LIQUOR CONTROL
COMM'N, ANTE, P. 391.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  LAWS OF MISSOURI 1937, PP. 536-543. 

FN2  THE BILL ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE PROVISION VIOLATED THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE CONTRACT CLAUSE AND THE
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE. 

FN3  THE ARGUMENTS IN APPELLANT'S BRIEF ARE CONFINED TO THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE.  THE STATEMENT OF POINTS TO BE RELIED UPON INCLUDES ALL THE
CONTENTIONS OF THE BILL. 
..END :








U.S. V. CONTINENTAL BANK, 305 U.S. 398 


NO. 22.  ARGUED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 94 F.2D
81, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SUIT UPON A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT
MUST BE BEGUN WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER THE ASSESSMENT.  SEC. 278(D).  P.
403. 

2.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, THE TIME FOR BRINGING SUIT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF ASSESSMENT, TO ENFORCE LIABILITY OF A TRANSFEREE OF THE
TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO SIX YEARS, MADE UP OF FIVE YEARS
AFTER RETURN, ALLOWED FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST TAXPAYER, SEC. 277(A), AND
ONE YEAR THEREAFTER FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST TRANSFEREE.  SEC.
280(B)(1).  ID. 

3.  A SUIT AGAINST TRANSFEREES OF A TRANSFEREE OF PROPERTY OF A
DELINQUENT TAXPAYER, WHICH IS OTHERWISE BARRED, CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AS
TIMELY UNDER SECS. 280 AND 278(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, BECAUSE
BROUGHT WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE
FIRST TRANSFEREE.  P. 404. 

4.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST A TAXPAYER'S
TRANSFEREE WAS IN TIME UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, WHICH ALLOWS SIX
YEARS AFTER THE TAXPAYER'S RETURN, SECS. 277(A), 280(D), BUT PROVIDES
THAT THE RUNNING OF THE LIMITATION SHALL BE SUSPENDED WHILE THE
COMMISSIONER IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING ASSESSMENT AND FOR 60 DAYS
THEREAFTER, SEC. 280(D), IT IS HELD THAT, THE TRANSFEREE HAVING DIED
WHILE HIS PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS PENDING UNDECIDED BEFORE THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS, AND NO APPLICATION FOR A SUBSTITUTION HAVING BEEN MADE, IT
WAS ERROR TO INCLUDE IN THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION 23 MONTHS THAT ELAPSED
BETWEEN THE DEATH AND THE DATE OF AN ATTEMPTED ASSESSMENT, SINCE THE
COMMISSIONER WAS NOT PRECLUDED DURING THOSE MONTHS, BUT COULD HAVE
OBTAINED A DISMISSAL OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDING WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
AND MADE HIS ASSESSMENT.  P. 405. 

UNITED STATES V. CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 554, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING THE AMENDED BILL IN A SUIT BY THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST
BENEFICIARIES AND TRUSTEES UNDER A WILL, TO IMPRESS A TRUST UPON THE
ASSETS OF THE ESTATE, FOR THE COLLECTION OF AN INCOME AND PROFITS TAX,
TO THE EXTENT OF ASSETS TRANSFERRED TO THE TESTATOR BY A CORPORATION
AGAINST WHICH THE TAX WAS ORIGINALLY ASSESSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MAY 6, 1932, PETITIONER SUED RESPONDENTS IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TO ENFORCE A CLAIM FOR PART OF INCOME AND
PROFITS TAXES FOR 1920 ASSESSED AGAINST AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION
DISSOLVED IN DECEMBER, 1921.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE
SUIT IS BARRED BY LAPSE OF TIME. 

THE PERTINENT SUBSTANCE OF THE COMPLAINT, AS AMENDED FEBRUARY 14,
1937, FOLLOWS: 

IN 1919 AND 1920, JAMES DUGGAN, HEREAFTER CALLED THE TESTATOR, WAS
THE PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDER OF THE JOHNSON CITY & BIG MUDDY COAL & MINING
COMPANY, WHICH OWNED A SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION.  MAY 16, 1921, THESE
CORPORATIONS MADE CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND PROFITS TAX RETURNS FOR 1920,
SHOWING A TAX OF $5,269.21, WHICH WAS PAID.  DURING 1920 AND 1921 THE
MINING COMPANY WAS BEING DISSOLVED; IT CONVERTED ITS ASSETS INTO CASH
AND SECURITIES AND TRANSFERRED $295,331.64 TO TESTATOR; HE APPROPRIATED
IT TO HIS OWN USE.  HAVING DETERMINED DEFICIENCY OF $316,620.61 AGAINST
THE COMPANY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DECEMBER 6, 1924 SENT
NOTICE TO IT BY 60-DAY LETTER.  THE TAXPAYER HAVING FAILED TO PETITION
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR REDETERMINATION, ASSESSMENT WAS MADE
AGAINST IT FOR THAT AMOUNT. 

APRIL 15, 1926, THE COMMISSIONER NOTIFIED TESTATOR THAT THERE WAS
PROPOSED FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST HIM THE AMOUNT OF $295,331.64,
CONSTITUTING HIS LIABILITY, AS TRANSFEREE OF TAXPAYER'S ASSETS, ON
ACCOUNT OF THE UNPAID BALANCE OF ITS 1920 TAXES.  JUNE 11, 1926,
TESTATOR FILED WITH THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HIS PETITION FOR
REDETERMINATION.  IN MARCH, 1929, HE DIED.  JANUARY 27, 1931, THE BOARD
MADE AN ORDER OF REDETERMINATION IN THE AMOUNT PROPOSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER, WITH INTEREST FROM DECEMBER 6, 1924.  THE ORDER WAS NOT
REVIEWED.  FEBRUARY 14, 1931, THE COMMISSIONER MADE A JEOPARDY
ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DECEASED IN THE AMOUNT FIXED BY THE BOARD AS HIS
LIABILITY AS TRANSFEREE. 

HIS WILL WAS ADMITTED TO PROBATE; A TRUST COMPANY IT NAMED WAS
APPOINTED EXECUTOR; AND, THE EXECUTOR HAVING BEEN DISMISSED, ONE
ROBINSON WAS, ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1930, APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR.  BEFORE
SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE, PLAINTIFF, APRIL 24, 1931, FILED ITS CLAIM
WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR.  BUT HE PAID NOTHING ON ACCOUNT OF IT AND,
MAKING DISTRIBUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WILL, TRANSFERRED TO
DEFENDANT HENRY DUGGAN $50,000 AND TO DEFENDANT TRUSTEE THE REST OF THE
ESTATE, ABOUT $1,500,000.  PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THAT THE ASSETS SO
DISTRIBUTED HAD BECOME IMPRESSED WITH A TRUST FOR THE PAYMENT OF ITS
CLAIM AGAINST TESTATOR AND PRAYED DECREE ENFORCING IT AGAINST TRUSTEE
AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE WILL TO THE EXTENT OF ASSETS TRANSFERRED BY
THE TAXPAYER TO TESTATOR, WITH INTEREST. 

DEFENDANTS, JUNE 6, 1933, MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE
GROUND THAT THE SUIT WAS BARRED BY SECS. 277, 278, 280, REVENUE ACT,
1926, AS AMENDED, AND SEC. 311(B), REVENUE ACT, 1928.  PLAINTIFF,
JANUARY 11, 1937, CONFESSED DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS.  THEN,
APPLYING FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, IT REPRESENTED TO THE COURT
THAT AMENDMENT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION THAT AN ASSESSMENT
WAS MADE AGAINST TESTATOR WAS OMITTED FROM THE ORIGINAL BILL AND WAS AN
IMPORTANT FACT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PRESENT ACTION WAS TIMELY
BROUGHT.  LEAVE HAVING BEEN GRANTED, IT IMMEDIATELY AMENDED BY ADDING
THE ALLEGATION THAT, FEBRUARY 14, 1931, THE COMMISSIONER MADE AGAINST
TESTATOR THE JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT ABOVE REFERRED TO.  THE COMPLAINT WAS
NOT OTHERWISE CHANGED.  MARCH 22, 1937, THE COURT SUSTAINED DEFENDANTS'
MOTION AND ENTERED DECREE DISMISSING THE AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  94 F.2D 81.  THIS COURT GRANTED
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  304 U.S. 554. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SUIT IS BARRED BY THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS ON WHICH THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS BASED.  FIRST TO BE
CONSIDERED ARE SECS. 277, 278 AND 280, READ IN CONNECTION WITH
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 274 AND 279 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926. 
FN1 

THE PERTINENT SUBSTANCE OF THESE FOLLOWS: 

WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF
DEFICIENCY, THE TAXPAYER MAY FILE PETITION WITH THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS FOR REDETERMINATION; NO ASSESSMENT OR PROCEEDING IN COURT FOR
COLLECTION SHALL BE MADE OR BEGUN UNTIL THE BOARD'S DECISION HAS BECOME
FINAL.  SEC. 274(A).  FN2  THE AMOUNT REDETERMINED BY DECISION THAT HAS
BECOME FINAL SHALL BE ASSESSED AND UPON HIS DEMAND SHALL BE PAID TO THE
COLLECTOR.  SEC. 274(B). 

ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE RETURN; "NO
PROCEEDINGS IN COURT WITHOUT ASSESSMENT FOR THE COLLECTION OF TAXES
SHALL BE BEGUN AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH PERIOD."  SEC. 277(A).  THE
RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON ASSESSMENT OR PROCEEDING IN
COURT FOR COLLECTION OF DEFICIENCY SHALL BE SUSPENDED FOR THE PERIOD
DURING WHICH THE COMMISSIONER IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING ASSESSMENT OR
BRINGING SUIT AND FOR 60 DAYS THEREAFTER.  SEC. 277(B).  WHERE THE
ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE WITHIN THE PERIOD PROPERLY APPLICABLE THERETO,
THE TAX MAY BE COLLECTED BY DISTRAINT OR PROCEEDING IN COURT "BUT ONLY
IF BEGUN  ...  WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX."  SEC.
278(D).  IF THE COMMISSIONER BELIEVES THAT ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF
DEFICIENCY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED BY DELAY HE SHALL IMMEDIATELY ASSESS THE
DEFICIENCY AND "NOTICE AND DEMAND SHALL BE MADE BY THE COLLECTOR FOR
THE PAYMENT THEREOF."  SEC. 279(A).  JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT MAY BE MADE
WHETHER OR NOT THE TAXPAYER HAS FILED PETITION WITH THE BOARD.  SEC.
279(C).  IF IT IS MADE AFTER THE BOARD'S DECISION IT MAY BE ONLY FOR
THE DEFICIENCY DETERMINED BY THE DECISION.  SEC. 279(D).  THE TAXPAYER
MAY OBTAIN STAY OF COLLECTION OF THE JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT.  SEC. 279(F)
(H). 

THE LIABILITY AT LAW OR IN EQUITY OF "A TRANSFEREE OF PROPERTY OF A
TAXPAYER IN RESPECT OF THE TAX" SHALL BE ASSESSED, COLLECTED, AND PAID
IN THE SAME MANNER AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS
AS IN CASE OF A DEFICIENCY IN A TAX.  SEC. 280(A).  TRANSFEREE
LIABILITY MUST BE ASSESSED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM EXPIRATION OF THE
PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE TAXPAYER.  SEC.
280(B)(1).  THE RUNNING OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION ON TRANSFEREE
LIABILITY SHALL, AFTER NOTICE TO TRANSFEREE UNDER SEC. 274(A), BE
SUSPENDED FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE COMMISSIONER IS PROHIBITED
FROM MAKING ASSESSMENT OF THAT LIABILITY AND FOR 60 DAYS THEREAFTER. 
SEC. 280(D). 

THIS IS NOT A SUIT UPON ASSESSMENT OF DEFICIENCY AGAINST THE TAXPAYER
ON ACCOUNT OF THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION AS SHOWN IN HIS LETTER
OF DECEMBER 6, 1924.  THE TIME FOR SUCH A SUIT, SIX YEARS AFTER
ASSESSMENT, EXPIRED LONG BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS SUIT.  SEC.
278(D).  UNITED STATES V. UPDIKE, 281 U.S. 489, 494. 

NOR IS IT A SUIT AUTHORIZED TO BE BROUGHT, IN ABSENCE OF ASSESSMENT,
TO ENFORCE LIABILITY OF A TRANSFEREE OF THE TAXPAYER'S PROPERTY.  THE
TIME FOR BRINGING SUCH A SUIT IS SIX YEARS, MADE UP OF FIVE YEARS AFTER
RETURN, ALLOWED FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST TAXPAYER, SEC. 277(A), AND ONE
YEAR THEREAFTER FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST TRANSFEREE.  SEC. 280(B)(1). 
THE TAXPAYER HAVING MADE ITS RETURN ON MAY 16, 1921, THE SIX YEARS
EXPIRED MAY 16, 1927. 

THIS SUIT IS AGAINST TRANSFEREES UNDER THE WILL OF A TRANSFEREE OF
THE PROPERTY OF THE TAXPAYER; IT IS BASED ON THE JEOPARDY ASSESSMENT
MADE AGAINST TESTATOR. 

PLAINTIFF ASSERTS THAT IT HAD SIX YEARS AFTER THAT ASSESSMENT, OR
UNTIL FEBRUARY 14, 1937, WITHIN WHICH TO BRING THIS SUIT.  ITS
REASONING IS THAT SEC. 280, SPECIFYING NO PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR
COLLECTION OF LIABILITY OF A TRANSFEREE AFTER IT HAS BEEN ASSESSED, AND
PROVIDING THAT IT SHALL BE COLLECTED SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATIONS AS
IN THE CASE OF DEFICIENCY IN A TAX, MAKES APPLICABLE THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION UPON COLLECTION DEFINED IN SEC. 278(D). 

BUT NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AGAINST ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS.  NONE OF
THEM IS A TRANSFEREE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE TAXPAYER; ALL ARE
TESTAMENTARY TRANSFEREES OF THE ESTATE OF TESTATOR.  IT IS CLEAR THAT
SECS. 278(D) AND 280 UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF RELIES ARE NOT BROAD ENOUGH
TO IMPOSE ON DEFENDANTS ANY LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT
AGAINST THE TESTATOR.  FN3  AND, AS ALREADY SHOWN, SUIT ON ASSESSMENT
AGAINST THE TAXPAYER, OR SUIT IN ABSENCE OF ASSESSMENT OF TRANSFEREE
LIABILITY, WAS BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS BARRED LONG
BEFORE THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT. 

MOREOVER, THE ASSESSMENT SUED ON WAS OUT OF TIME.  PLAINTIFF CITES
SEC. 280(D) AND SEEKS TO APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE RULE THAT
ASSESSMENT AGAINST TRANSFEREE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE WITHIN 6 YEARS
AFTER RETURN, SECS. 277(A), 280(B)(1), AS FOLLOWS:  THE TAXPAYER MADE
ITS RETURN MAY 16, 1921.  WHEN, ON APRIL 15, 1926, THE COMMISSIONER
NOTIFIED TESTATOR THAT HE PROPOSED TO ASSESS TRANSFEREE LIABILITY
AGAINST HIM, THERE REMAINED 13 MONTHS AND A DAY OF THE PERIOD ALLOWED
FOR MAKING THAT ASSESSMENT; THE COMMISSIONER WAS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING
THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE 60-DAY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TESTATOR WAS
PERMITTED TO PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION BY THE BOARD AND UNTIL ITS
DECISION, JANUARY 27, 1931, BECAME FINAL, JUNE 27, 1931, AND FOR 60
DAYS THEREAFTER, SEPTEMBER 25, 1931.  SECS. 278(D), 280(D).  TAKING IN
THE 13 MONTHS AND A DAY, PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIL OCTOBER 25, 1932 WITHIN
WHICH TO ASSESS TESTATOR. 

BUT THAT CALCULATION IS DEFECTIVE FOR IT FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
ANY PART OF THE PERIOD AFTER APPEAL TO THE BOARD THAT ELAPSED BETWEEN
THE DEATH OF TESTATOR IN MARCH, 1929, AND THE ASSESSMENT, MORE THAN 23
MONTHS LATER, FEBRUARY 14, 1931.  REDETERMINATION IS GRANTED TO
SAFEGUARD AGAINST ERRONEOUS EXACTIONS BY THE COMMISSIONER.  SUSPENSION
OF HIS AUTHORITY TO ASSESS OR COLLECT IS PROTECTION AGAINST COMPULSORY
PAYMENT PENDING FINAL DECISION UPON OBJECTIONS INTERPOSED BY
PETITIONER.  THE PROCEEDING IS AN ADVERSARY ONE IN WHICH THE PARTY
PRAYING RELIEF BY REDETERMINATION IS PETITIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER IS
RESPONDENT.  THE CONTROVERSY IS BROUGHT TO ISSUE BY PETITION, ANSWER,
AND REPLY THAT ARE BY THE BOARD REQUIRED TO BE DEFINITE AND CERTAIN. 
RULES 6, 14, 15.  FN4  BEFORE ITS DECISION EITHER PARTY, FOR CAUSE
SHOWN, MAY HAVE THE PROCEEDING DISMISSED.  FN5  RULE 31.  AND IN CASE
OF PETITIONER'S DEATH, THE BOARD MAY ORDER SUBSTITUTION OF PROPER
PARTIES.  RULE 37. 

NO PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF TESTATOR NOR ANY OTHER PERSON APPLIED
FOR SUBSTITUTION OF A PARTY TO CARRY ON THE PROCEEDING IN THE PLACE OF
THE DECEASED TESTATOR, AND NONE WAS ORDERED.  THE COMMISSIONER FAILED
TO OBTAIN OR SEEK DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF A NECESSARY PARTY OR WANT OF
PROSECUTION.  CF. RUSK V. COMMISSIONER (CCA 7) 53 F.2D 428, 430. 
PLAINTIFF DOES NOT CONTEND THAT, NO SUBSTITUTION HAVING BEEN APPLIED
FOR OR MADE, THE COMMISSIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ORDER OF
DISMISSAL.  NOR DOES IT SUGGEST ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THE ASSUMPTION,
MADE IN ITS CALCULATION OF TIME AND THROUGHOUT ITS ARGUMENT, THAT
SUSPENSION OF COMMISSIONER'S AUTHORITY TO ASSESS CONTINUED THROUGH THE
PERIOD OF MORE THAN 23 MONTHS BETWEEN TESTATOR'S DEATH AND THE
ASSESSMENT.  THERE IS NO GROUND ON WHICH IT MAY BE HELD THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED IN CASE OF DEATH OF PETITIONER, WHERE NO APPLICATION FOR OR
ORDER OF SUBSTITUTION IS MADE, INDEFINITELY TO CONTINUE SUSPENSION OF
THE COMMISSIONER'S AUTHORITY TO ASSESS.  EQUALLY UNREASONABLE WOULD IT
BE TO HOLD THAT SUSPENSION OF THE COMMISSIONER'S AUTHORITY TO ASSESS
THE ASSERTED TRANSFEREE LIABILITY CONTINUED AFTER TESTATOR'S DEATH FOR
MORE THAN A REASONABLE TIME WITHIN WHICH, NO SUBSTITUTION HAVING BEEN
APPLIED FOR OR MADE, TO OBTAIN DISMISSAL.  UNQUESTIONABLY THAT TIME AND
MORE HAD EXPIRED LONG BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. 

AS THE SUIT IS BARRED BY PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, WE
NEED NOT CONSIDER SEC. 311(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, UPON WHICH
DEFENDANTS ALSO RELIED.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  44 STAT. 55 ET SEQ. 

FN2  THE BOARD'S DECISION BECOMES FINAL UPON EXPIRATION OF THE TIME
(SIX MONTHS AFTER IT RENDERS DECISION) ALLOWED FOR FILING PETITION FOR
REVIEW BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  SECS. 1001, 1005. 

FN3  CF. SEC. 311, REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  IT PROVIDES: 

"(A)  THE AMOUNTS OF THE FOLLOWING LIABILITIES SHALL, EXCEPT AS
HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION PROVIDED, BE ASSESSED, COLLECTED, AND PAID
IN THE SAME MANNER AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS
AS IN THE CASE OF A DEFICIENCY IN A TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE.  ...
(1) THE LIABILITY, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, OF A TRANSFEREE OF PROPERTY OF
A TAXPAYER, IN RESPECT OF THE TAX ...  IMPOSED UPON THE TAXPAYER BY
THIS TITLE.  ...    "(B)  THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT OF
ANY SUCH LIABILITY OF A TRANSFEREE  ...  SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:  (1)  IN
THE CASE OF THE LIABILITY OF AN INITIAL TRANSFEREE OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE TAXPAYER,  - WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE TAXPAYER; (2) IN THE CASE OF THE
LIABILITY OF A TRANSFEREE OF A TRANSFEREE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
TAXPAYER,  - WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE PRECEDING TRANSFEREE, BUT ONLY IF
WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR
ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE TAXPAYER; - EXCEPT THAT IF BEFORE THE EXPIRATION
OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE LIABILITY OF THE
TRANSFEREE, A COURT PROCEEDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX OR
LIABILITY IN RESPECT THEREOF HAS BEEN BEGUN AGAINST THE TAXPAYER OR
LAST PRECEDING TRANSFEREE, RESPECTIVELY,  - THEN THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE LIABILITY OF THE TRANSFEREE SHALL
EXPIRE ONE YEAR AFTER THE RETURN OF EXECUTION IN THE COURT
PROCEEDING." 

THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE STATES:  "SECTION 280
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE ANY LIMITATION
PERIOD IN THE CASE OF A TRANSFEREE OF A TRANSFEREE OF THE TAXPAYER. 
THAT THE PERIOD FOR ASSESSMENT IN SUCH CASE SHALL BE ONE YEAR AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE
PRECEDING TRANSFEREE.  IT SEEMED TO THE COMMITTEE THAT THIS WOULD
UNDULY PROLONG LITIGATION AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A TIME WHEN THE
TRANSFEREE MAY KNOW THAT HE IS NO LONGER LIABLE TO BE PROCEEDED
AGAINST.  A COMMITTEE AMENDMENT THEREFORE PROVIDES THAT IN ALL CASES
THE TAX MUST BE ASSESSED WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE
PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE TAXPAYER."  SENATE
REPORT NO. 960, 70TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 32. 

FN4  REVISED TO NOVEMBER 1, 1929.  RULES 31 AND 37 ARE NUMBERED 21
AND 23 IN THE PRESENT EDITION OF THE RULES. 

FN5  SECTION 906(C), REVENUE ACT OF 1926, PROVIDES:  "IF A PETITION
FOR A REDETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY HAS BEEN FILED BY THE TAXPAYER, A
DECISION OF THE BOARD DISMISSING THE PROCEEDING SHALL ...  BE
CONSIDERED AS ITS DECISION THAT THE DEFICIENCY IS THE AMOUNT DETERMINED
BY THE COMMISSIONER.  AN ORDER SPECIFYING SUCH AMOUNT SHALL BE ENTERED
IN THE RECORDS OF THE BOARD UNLESS THE BOARD CAN NOT DETERMINE SUCH
AMOUNT FROM THE PLEADINGS."  44 STAT. 107. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE FIRST TRANSFEREE WAS A "TAXPAYER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
280(A)(1), SINCE HE WAS LIABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE LAW
TO PAY THE TAX AND, LIKE OTHER TAXPAYERS, WAS SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND
DISTRAINT AS WELL AS TO A SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF THE TAX.  UNITED STATES
V. UPDIKE, 281 U.S. 489, 494.  RESPONDENT, THE SECOND TRANSFEREE, WAS
THEREFORE IN THE WORDS OF SEC. 280(A)(1), "A TRANSFEREE OF PROPERTY OF
A TAXPAYER," AND ITS TAX LIABILITY WAS BY THAT SECTION TO "BE ASSESSED,
COLLECTED, AND PAID IN THE SAME MANNER AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME
PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS IN THE CASE OF A DEFICIENCY IN A TAX
IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE  ...  INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS  ...  AUTHORIZING
DISTRAINT AND PROCEEDINGS IN COURT FOR COLLECTION  ...  " 

UNDER SEC. 278(D) THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COLLECTION OF THE
TAX FROM THE FIRST TRANSFEREE DID NOT EXPIRE UNTIL JANUARY, 1931, SIX
YEARS AFTER ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX AGAINST THE ORIGINAL TAXPAYER AND
FIRST TRANSFEROR.  UNITED STATES V. UPDIKE, SUPRA.  BY SEC. 277(B) THE
RUNNING OF THE SIX YEAR STATUTE IS SUSPENDED, AFTER THE BEGINNING OF
DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 274(A), "FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH
THE COMMISSIONER IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING THE ASSESSMENT OR BEGINNING
DISTRAINT OR A PROCEEDING IN COURT."  AND BY SEC. 274(A) IT IS PROVIDED
THAT DURING THE PENDENCY OF DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS "NO ASSESSMENT OF A
DEFICIENCY IN RESPECT OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE AND NO DISTRAINT
OR PROCEEDING IN COURT FOR ITS COLLECTION SHALL BE MADE, BEGUN, OR
PROSECUTED  ...  " IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS IN FAVOR OF THE FIRST TRANSFEREE WAS SUSPENDED DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THE DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS INTIATED WITH RESPECT TO HIM
APRIL 15, 1926, AT LEAST, AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT STATES, UNTIL THE
DEATH OF THE FIRST TRANSFEREE IN MARCH, 1929, OR FOR A PERIOD OF NEARLY
THREE YEARS.  THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX
FROM THE FIRST TRANSFEREE WAS THUS EXTENDED AT LEAST UNTIL 1933, WITHIN
WHICH TIME THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST RESPONDENT.  BY VIRTUE
OF THE TRANSFER, THE TRANSFEREE, TO THE EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY
RECEIVED, BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE TRANSFEROR. 
PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 592, 593, AND CASES CITED IN
FOOTNOTE 1.  SINCE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS AND THE PROVISIONS FOR ITS
SUSPENSION UNDER SECS. 274(A) AND 277(B), APPLICABLE TO THE FIRST
TRANSFEREE AND TAXPAYER, ARE BY SEC. 280(A)(1) LIKEWISE APPLICABLE TO
HIS TRANSFEREE, WHO IS ALSO A TAXPAYER, UNITED STATES V. UPDIKE, SUPRA,
494, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO
RESPONDENT, THE SECOND TRANSFEREE, HAD NOT EXPIRED WHEN THE PRESENT
SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN MAY, 1932. 

NO DISTINCTION WAS MADE BY THE REVENUE LAWS BETWEEN THE LIABILITY AND
THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO A FIRST TRANSFEREE AND THOSE
APPLICABLE TO A SECOND UNTIL THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 311 OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1928, WHICH PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (B)(2) THAT THE LIABILITY OF
A SECOND TRANSFEREE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE TAXPAYER SHOULD NOT EXTEND
BEYOND THREE YEARS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR
ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL TAXPAYER, EXCEPT THAT PROVISION WAS
MADE FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE TIME IF WITHIN THAT PERIOD "A COURT
PROCEEDING FOR COLLECTION OF THE TAX OR LIABILITY" HAD BEEN BEGUN
AGAINST THE ORIGINAL TAXPAYER OR THE LAST PRECEDING TRANSFEREE.  IN
RECOMMENDING THESE CHANGES THE REPORT OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE,
NO. 960, 70TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESS., P. 32, PREPARED BEFORE OUR DECISION
IN THE UPDIKE CASE, POINTED OUT THAT SEC. 280 OF THE 1926 ACT DID NOT
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE ANY LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE CASE OF A TRANSFEREE
OF A TRANSFEREE, AND IT STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE NEW PROVISIONS
IN SEC. 311(B)(2) WAS TO SHORTEN THE PERIOD DURING WHICH PROCEEDINGS
MIGHT BE HAD AGAINST A SECOND TRANSFEREE.  THIS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS
PERSUASIVE THAT UNDER SEC. 280 OF THE 1926 ACT, AS ITS LANGUAGE
INDICATES, THE SECOND TRANSFEREE IS THE TRANSFEREE OF A TAXPAYER AND
SUBJECT TO THE SAME PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS AND PROVISIONS FOR ITS
EXTENSION AS IS HIS TRANSFEROR. 

AS A TRANSFEREE IS SUBJECT TO THE TAX LIABILITY OF HIS TRANSFEROR,
THE SECOND TRANSFEREE UNDER THE 1926 ACT IS EITHER SUBJECT TO THE SAME
PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS AS HIS TRANSFEROR, OR THERE IS NO STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO HIM.  BUT IF THE FIRST TRANSFEREE IS A
TAXPAYER, SO AS TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE BENEFIT OF THE SIX YEAR STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS FOR COLLECTION OF THE TAX, AS HELD IN THE UPDIKE CASE,
HIS TRANSFEREE IS LIKEWISE A TAXPAYER, AS WELL AS THE TRANSFEREE OF A
TAXPAYER, SO AS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE BURDEN OF THE PROVISIONS EXTENDING
THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR COLLECTION OF THE TAX.  SEC. 280(A)(1). 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS. 
..END :













JAMES V. UNITED ARTISTS CORP., 305 U.S. 410 


NO. 161.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 9, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 23
F.SUPP.  353, AFFIRMED. 


APPELLEE, A FOREIGN CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
DISTRIBUTING MOTION PICTURE FILMS FOR EXHIBITION IN THEATRES IN VARIOUS
STATES, HAD NO OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS IN WEST VIRGINIA; IT CARRIED
ON NO BUSINESS THERE EXCEPT SUCH AS WAS INVOLVED IN THE SOLICITATION BY
A TRAVELING REPRESENTATIVE OF EXHIBITION CONTRACTS ALL OF WHICH WERE
MADE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  TO EXHIBITORS THERE IT SHIPPED FILMS FROM
OUTSIDE OF THE STATE AND THESE WERE RETURNED BY THE EXHIBITORS LIKEWISE
TO POINTS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  OTHER THAN THESE FILMS, WHEN
TEMPORARILY THERE, IT HAD NO PROPERTY IN THE STATE.  IT HAD NO
COLLECTION AGENT IN THE STATE, BUT ALL SUMS DUE UNDER THE CONTRACTS
WERE REQUIRED TO BE PAID AT OFFICES OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.  WHEN THE
CONTRACT WAS FOR A PERCENTAGE OF THE EXHIBITOR'S GROSS RECEIPTS, THE
EXHIBITOR AGREED TO SET APART SUCH PERCENTAGE "IN TRUST" TO BE PAID TO
APPELLEE OUTSIDE THE STATE.  HELD:  APPELLEE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
TAX, MEASURED BY GROSS INCOME, IMPOSED BY SEC. 2(I) OF ART. 13, C. 11,
OF THE WEST VIRGINIA CODE, ON ALL ENGAGED WITHIN THE STATE "IN THE
BUSINESS OF COLLECTING INCOMES FROM THE USE OF REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY."  P. 414. 

SO CONSTRUED IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATE SUPREME COURT DECISION
INTERPRETING THE SECTION AND OF ANY EVIDENCE OF ITS LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY; AND IN VIEW OF THE EMPHASIS PUT BY THE SECTION AND ITS VARIOUS
SUBSECTIONS ON THE CARRYING ON OF BUSINESS OR OTHER SPECIFIED
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE AS THE REAL INCIDENCE OF THE TAX, AND THE
FACT THAT THE EXHIBITORS' GROSS RECEIPTS ARE TAXED TO THEM UNDER
ANOTHER PROVISION OF THE STATUTE.  QUESTIONS AS TO THE POWER OF A STATE
TO LAY A TAX ON INCOME DERIVED FROM SOURCES WITHIN IT, AND AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF A TAX UPON SOLICITATION WITHIN THE STATE OF THE CONTRACTS,
ARE NOT HERE INVOLVED. 

JAMES V. UNITED ARTISTS CORP. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT, ENJOINING THE
COLLECTION OF A STATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF BUT A SINGLE QUESTION:  WHETHER
APPELLEE IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE OF WEST VIRGINIA
WHICH LAYS A TAX, MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS, "UPON EVERY PERSON
(INCLUDING CORPORATIONS) ENGAGING  ...  WITHIN THIS STATE IN THE
BUSINESS OF COLLECTING INCOMES FROM THE USE OF REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY.  ..." 

APPELLEE, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, HAVING AN OFFICE AND ITS PRINCIPAL
PLACE OF BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY, BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA AGAINST APPELLANT, A WEST
VIRGINIA TAX OFFICIAL, TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION OF A TAX IMPOSED BY
ARTICLE 13 OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE WEST VIRGINIA CODE, AS AMENDED MARCH 9,
1935, BY C. 86, WEST VIRGINIA LAWS OF 1935, ON THE GROUND THAT THE
APPELLEE WAS NOT, BY THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, SUBJECT TO THE TAX, AND
THAT THE TAX WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
FN1 

THE DISTRICT COURT, THREE JUDGES SITTING, ADOPTED AS ITS FINDINGS THE
FACTS AS STIPULATED.  IT FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX EXCEEDED
$3,000 AND THAT SUCH JUDICIAL REMEDY AS THERE WAS UNDER WEST VIRGINIA
LAW FOR RECOVERY OF THE TAX, IF PAID, WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE AT LAW IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS, AND THAT BY REASON OF PENALTIES FOR NONPAYMENT, SOME OF
WHICH WERE CUMULATIVE, APPELLEE WAS WITHOUT ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY.  THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT APPELLEE WAS NOT DOING BUSINESS IN WEST VIRGINIA
OR ENGAGED THERE IN THE BUSINESS OF COLLECTING INCOME FROM THE USE OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE APPLICABLE TAXING ACT, AND
THAT THE ATTEMPTED TAX WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND DECREED THAT COLLECTION OF THE TAX BE PERMANENTLY
ENJOINED.  23 F.SUPP.  353.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC.
266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380. 

AMENDED, LAYS ANNUAL PRIVILEGE TAXES UPON VARIOUS BUSINESSES AND
ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON WITHIN THE STATE.  SECTION 2(G) IMPOSES A TAX OF
ONE-HALF OF ONE PER CENT. OF THE GROSS INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS
OF OPERATING A THEATRE OR MOVING PICTURE SHOW.  SECTION 2(H) TAXES THE
GROSS RECEIPTS OF EVERY PERSON ENGAGING WITHIN THE STATE IN ANY
BUSINESS NOT OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY TAXED, AND SEC. 2(I) LEVIES UPON
"EVERY PERSON ENGAGING  ...  WITHIN THIS STATE IN THE BUSINESS OF
COLLECTING INCOMES FROM THE USE OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY" A TAX OF
ONE PER CENT. "OF THE GROSS INCOME OF ANY SUCH ACTIVITY." 

APPELLEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTING MOTION PICTURE
FILMS FOR EXHIBITION IN THEATRES IN VARIOUS STATES, INCLUDING WEST
VIRGINIA.  IT MAINTAINS BRANCH OFFICES IN OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BUT HAS NO OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS IN WEST
VIRGINIA, AND HAS NO AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE OTHER THAN A
TRAVELING REPRESENTATIVE WHO VISITS THE STATE TO SOLICIT FROM THEATRE
MANAGERS OR OWNERS CONTRACTS FOR THE EXHIBITION THERE OF FILMS TO BE
SUPPLIED BY APPELLEE.  APPELLEE OWNS NO PROPERTY IN WEST VIRGINIA OTHER
THAN THE FILMS SENT THERE TEMPORARILY FOR EXHIBITION AND AFTERWARD
RETURNED TO IT AT POINTS WITHOUT THE STATE. 

IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS APPELLEE FROM TIME TO TIME MAKES PUBLIC
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF ITS OFFERING OF FILMS.  THEATRE OWNERS OR MANAGERS IN
WEST VIRGINIA SIGN WRITTEN APPLICATIONS IN THE FORM OF OFFERS FOR
LICENSE CONTRACTS PERMITTING THE EXHIBITION IN WEST VIRGINIA OF SUCH
FILMS AS THEY DESIRE TO SHOW THERE.  THE SIGNED APPLICATIONS ARE
TRANSMITTED TO APPELLEE'S NEW YORK OFFICE, WHERE IT ACCEPTS OR REJECTS
THEM.  WHEN THEY ARE ACCEPTED, APPELLEE SIGNS A WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE
ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION AND RETURNS THE EXECUTED CONTRACT TO THE
EXHIBITOR.  THE SUBSEQUENT COURSE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN APPELLEE AND THE
WEST VIRGINIA EXHIBITOR CONFORMS TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.  IT
CALLS FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE FILMS BY SHIPMENT FROM ANY OF APPELLEE'S
EXCHANGES TO THE EXHIBITOR IN WEST VIRGINIA, AND PROVIDES FOR
EXHIBITION OF THE FILMS FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD, FOR WHICH THE EXHIBITOR
UNDERTAKES TO PAY A FIXED SUM OR A PERCENTAGE OF THE RECEIPTS FROM
EXHIBITION, AND FOR THE RETURN OF THE FILMS BY THE EXHIBITOR AFTER THEY
ARE SHOWN, BY SHIPPING THEM TO ANOTHER EXHIBITOR OR TO ONE OF THE
APPELLEE'S EXCHANGES, AS APPELLEE MAY DIRECT. 

WHEN THE LICENSE IS UPON A PERCENTAGE BASIS, THE EXHIBITOR UNDERTAKES
TO SEGREGATE APPELLEE'S PERCENTAGE OF THE BOX OFFICE RECEIPTS AND TO
HOLD IT "IN TRUST" AND PAY IT OVER TO THE APPELLEE DAILY.  BUT THE
CONTRACT PROVIDES THAT "ANY AND ALL PAYMENTS TO BE MADE HEREUNDER SHALL
BE PAYABLE TO THE DISTRIBUTOR AT THE CITY IN WHICH IS LOCATED THE
EXCHANGE FROM WHICH THE EXHIBITOR IS SERVED," AND ALL PAYMENTS DUE
APPELLEE FROM WEST VIRGINIA EXHIBITORS ARE SENT BY THEM TO APPELLEE AT
POINTS WITHOUT THE STATE. 

UPON THE ARGUMENT THE STATE CONCEDED THAT THE EXHIBITORS OF
APPELLEE'S FILMS IN WEST VIRGINIA ARE SUBJECT TO AND PAY THE TAX
IMPOSED ON OPERATORS OF MOVING PICTURE HOUSES BY SEC. 2(G) AND THAT THE
TAX IS MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM EXHIBITING THE FILMS,
ASCERTAINED WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE PERCENTAGE PAYABLE TO APPELLEE.  THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE DISCLAIMED ANY CONTENTION THAT APPELLEE
WAS TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 2(H), SEE PENNYWITT V. BLUE, 73 W. VA. 718; 81
S.E. 399, OR UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE OTHER THAN THOSE OF
2(I) LAYING A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON EVERY PERSON ENGAGING WITHIN THE
STATE IN THE BUSINESS OF COLLECTING INCOMES FROM PROPERTY. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF WEST VIRGINIA APPEARS NOT TO HAVE CONSTRUED THIS
THE STATUTE INDICATING THAT IT HAS ANY PURPOSE OR MEANING OTHER THAN
THAT SUGGESTED BY ITS WORDS.  WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH THE
QUESTION WHETHER A STATE, BY A STATUTE APPROPRIATELY FRAMED, MAY LAY A
TAX ON INCOME DERIVED FROM SOURCES WITHIN IT, OR WHETHER THE
SOLICITATION OF THE CONTRACTS MAY BE TAXED.  NO SUCH TAXATION IS
ATTEMPTED BY SEC. 2(I).  THE TAXING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 ARE RESTRICTED
IN THEIR APPLICATION TO VARIOUS ENUMERATED CLASSES OF ACTIVITIES WITHIN
THE STATE, ONE OF WHICH, SPECIFIED IN SEC. 2(I), IS THAT OF ENGAGING
THERE IN THE BUSINESS OF COLLECTING INCOMES.  THE CONDUCT OF SUCH A
BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY BY APPELLEE REQUIRES ITS PRESENCE THERE, OR THAT
OF ITS AGENT, AND THE COLLECTION OF INCOME WITHIN THE STATE BY THE ONE
OR THE OTHER.  AS IT IS STIPULATED AND FOUND THAT APPELLEE CARRIES ON
NO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, EXCEPT SUCH AS IS INVOLVED IN
SOLICITATION OF THE CONTRACTS, AND HAS NO COLLECTION AGENT THERE, AND
AS THE EXHIBITORS THERE ARE BOUND TO AND DO PAY ALL SUMS DUE UNDER
THEIR CONTRACTS TO APPELLEE AT POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE, WE CAN FIND NO
BASIS FOR SAYING THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN COLLECTING INCOME WITHIN THE
STATE, EITHER AS A BUSINESS OR OTHERWISE. 

THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENT THAT THE EXHIBITOR IS TO SET APART THE
APPELLEE'S PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS "IN TRUST" IS A FAMILIAR
DEVICE FOR SECURING PAYMENT TO THE APPELLEE IN THE EVENT OF THE
EXHIBITOR'S FINANCIAL EMBARRASSMENT.  BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE THE
EXHIBITOR APPELLEE'S AGENT, NOR DOES IT DISPENSE IN LAW, MORE THAN IT
HAS IN FACT, WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FORMER'S OBLIGATION TO MAKE
ALL PAYMENTS TO APPELLEE WITHOUT THE STATE.  THE EMPHASIS PLACED BY
SEC. 2 AND ITS VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS ON THE CARRYING ON OF BUSINESS OR
OTHER SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE AS THE CONDITION OF LAYING
THE TAX, AND THE FACT THAT THE EXHIBITORS' RECEIPTS ARE TAXED IN THEIR
HANDS UNDER SEC. 2(G), LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE IN CASES LIKE THE PRESENT TO TAX GROSS RECEIPTS
APART FROM THE BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY OF COLLECTING THEM, CARRIED ON
WITHIN THE STATE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS WRONG IN THAT
CONCLUSION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE SUIT WAS BEGUN BEFORE THE ENACTMENT ON AUGUST 21, 1937, OF
THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 50 STAT. 738, PROVIDING
THAT "NO DISTRICT COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF ANY SUIT TO ENJOIN,
SUSPEND, OR RESTRAIN THE ASSESSMENT, LEVY, OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX
IMPOSED BY OR PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF ANY STATE WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY,
AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW OR IN EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF
SUCH STATE."  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT EXCLUDES FROM ITS OPERATION SUITS
BEGUN IN THE DISTRICT COURTS BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT. 
..END :
























U.S. V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO., 305 U.S. 415 


NO. 245.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 86
CT. CLS. 226, 188, 171, REVERSED. 


1.  CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE TO A LUMBER COMPANY OF TIMBER ON UNALLOTTED
LAND OF THE KLAMATH INDIAN RESERVATION, EXECUTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT
OF THE KLAMATH INDIAN SCHOOL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE KLAMATH INDIANS,
PURSUANT TO SEC. 7 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910 AND UNDER REGULATIONS
AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, THE MONEYS
RECEIVED UNDER THE CONTRACTS BEING DEPOSITED PURSUANT TO STATUTORY
REQUIREMENT IN THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, TO BE HELD AND USED BY THE
SECRETARY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIANS, HELD NOT CONTRACTS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER ALLEGED
OVERPAYMENTS MADE UNDER SUCH CONTRACTS WAS THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  P. 421. 

2.  LIKEWISE, CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE ON SIMILAR TERMS OF TIMBER ON
RESTRICTED ALLOTTED LANDS, ENTERED INTO BY INDIVIDUAL ALLOTTEES AS
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 8 OF THE ACT OF 1910, THE PAYMENTS THEREUNDER BEING
DEPOSITED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT IN PRIVATE STATE BANKS AND CREDITED ON
HIS OWN BOOKS TO THE ALLOTTEES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE INTERESTS,
WERE NOT OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES ENFORCEABLE IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  P. 423. 

3.  EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY POWER TO TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO
SAFEGUARD THE DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY OF WHICH THE INDIANS ARE THE
SUBSTANTIAL OWNERS, DOES NOT NECESSARILY INVOLVE THE ASSUMPTION OF
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THEIR ASSUMPTION IS NOT TO
BE PRESUMED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ON
ITS BEHALF INDICATING SUCH A PURPOSE.  P. 421. 

4. RECEIPT BY THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, OF PAYMENTS MADE TO
THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE INDIANS, EVEN THOUGH
PAYMENT WAS MADE UNDER PROTEST, GAVE RISE TO NO CONTRACT FOR REPAYMENT
IMPLIED IN FACT ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES, AND DID NOT MAKE SUIT
THEREFOR COGNIZABLE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  P. 423. 

5.  INFIRMITIES, IF ANY, IN THE CONTRACTS OF THE LUMBER COMPANIES
WITH THE INDIANS COULD NOT IMPOSE ON THE UNITED STATES A LIABILITY
WHICH THE CONTRACTS DO NOT PURPORT TO UNDERTAKE IN ITS BEHALF.  P.
423. 

6.  BY THE TREATY WITH THE KLAMATH TRIBE OF FEBRUARY 17, 1870, THE
UNITED STATES ACQUIRED NO BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP IN THE TRIBAL LANDS OR
THEIR PROCEEDS; AND WHATEVER THE NATURE OF THE LEGAL INTEREST ACQUIRED
BY THE GOVERNMENT AS THE IMPLEMENT OF ITS CONTROL, SUBSTANTIAL
OWNERSHIP REMAINED WITH THE TRIBE AS IT EXISTED BEFORE THE TREATY.  P.
420. 

UNITED STATES V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 246, UNITED STATES V. FOREST LUMBER CO., AND NO.
247, UNITED STATES V. LAMM LUMBER CO., ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO
THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 583, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS
IN THREE SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF
ALLEGED OVERPAYMENTS MADE UPON CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF TIMBER ON
INDIAN LANDS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DECISION OF THESE CASES TURNS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER CERTAIN
CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF TIMBER ON LAND OF THE KLAMATH INDIAN
RESERVATION IN OREGON, EXECUTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE KLAMATH
INDIAN SCHOOL BY AUTHORITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, ARE CONTRACTS OF THE
UNITED STATES UPON WHICH SUITS MAY BE MAINTAINED IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS. 

855, 857, PROVIDES THAT THE "TIMBER ON UNALLOTTED LANDS OF ANY INDIAN
RESERVATION MAY BE SOLD UNDER REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE PROCEEDS FROM SUCH SALES SHALL BE
USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIANS OF THE RESERVATION IN SUCH MANNER
AS HE MAY DIRECT."  SECTION 8 OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "THE TIMBER ON
ANY INDIAN ALLOTMENT HELD UNDER A TRUST OR OTHER PATENT CONTAINING
RESTRICTIONS ON ALIENATIONS, MAY BE SOLD BY THE ALLOTTEE WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE PROCEEDS THEREOF SHALL
BE PAID TO THE ALLOTTEE OR DISPOSED OF FOR HIS BENEFIT UNDER
REGULATIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR." 

THE PRESENT SUITS WERE BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY RESPONDENTS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER ALLEGED OVERPAYMENTS OF AMOUNTS
DUE UPON CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF TIMBER UPON CERTAIN UNALLOTTED
AND ALLOTTED INDIAN LANDS IN THE KLAMATH RESERVATION.  THE CONTRACTS
WERE EXECUTED PURSUANT TO SECS. 7 AND 8 OF THE ACT OF 1910 AND
REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  THEY PROVIDED THAT THE
PRICES FIXED FOR THE TIMBER TO BE CUT SHOULD BE READJUSTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AT INTERVALS OF THREE YEARS, BUT THAT
PERMITTED INCREASES IN PRICE SHOULD "NOT EXCEED FIFTY PER CENT OF THE
INCREASE IN THE AVERAGE MILL RUN WHOLESALE NET VALUE OF LUMBER  ...
DURING THE THREE YEARS PRECEDING JANUARY 1 OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE NEW
PRICES ARE FIXED." 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN EACH CASE FOUND THAT PRICES FIXED BY THE
INDIAN COMMISSIONER HAD EXCEEDED THE PERMITTED INCREASES AND THAT IN
CONSEQUENCE THERE HAD BEEN AN OVERPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS DUE UNDER THE
CONTRACTS.  IT HELD THAT THEY WERE CONTRACTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND
IN EACH CASE GAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE
OVERPAYMENTS.  ALGOMA LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 86 CT. CLS. 226;
FOREST LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 86 CT. CLS. 188; LAMM LUMBER CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 86 CT. CLS. 171.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, OCTOBER 10,
1938, THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED BEING OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF INDIAN LANDS AND IN DEFINING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS IN TERMS SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO RAISE THE QUESTION, NOT
CONSIDERED BELOW OR ARGUED HERE, WHETHER, ASSUMING THE CONTRACTS WERE
OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, SUITS TO
RECOVER THE OVERPAYMENTS ARE UPON QUASI CONTRACTS OR CONTRACTS "IMPLIED
IN LAW" NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY
SEC. 145(1) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 250(1).  FN1 MERRITT
V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 338; UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA INVESTMENT
CO., 271 U.S. 212; GOODYEAR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 287.  BUT
THE QUESTION CHIEFLY DISCUSSED IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT BEFORE US IS
WHETHER THE CONTRACTS IN SUIT ARE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, SO
AS TO GIVE RISE TO CLAIMS FOUNDED UPON THEM WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  AS DETERMINATION OF THIS QUESTION IS DECISIVE OF
THE CASE, WE DO NOT CONSIDER WHETHER, EVEN IF THE CONTRACTS WERE
OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CLAIMS ARE FOR THE RECOVERY OF
UNJUST ENRICHMENT UPON CONTRACTS "IMPLIED IN LAW" NOT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. 

FOR PURPOSES OF DECISION THE CONTRACTS IN NO. 245, UNITED STATES V.
ALGOMA LUMBER CO., MAY BE TAKEN AS TYPICAL OF THOSE IN THE OTHER
CASES.  PURSUANT TO SECS. 7 AND 8 OF THE ACT OF 1910 AND REGULATIONS OF
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ADOPTED JUNE 29, 1911, TIMBER UPON
DESIGNATED LANDS WITHIN THE KLAMATH RESERVATION WAS OFFERED FOR SALE. 
BIDS SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT, ALGOMA COMPANY, WERE ACCEPTED, AND ON
JULY 28, 1917, THE CONTRACT OF SALE WAS EXECUTED BY THE COMPANY AND BY
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE KLAMATH INDIAN SCHOOL, PURSUANT TO
DEPARTMENTAL REGULATIONS, AND WAS APPROVED BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1917. 

THE AREA DESIGNATED EMBRACED APPROXIMATELY 15,700 ACRES, ALL OF WHICH
WERE UNALLOTTED EXCEPT 2,240 ACRES OF ALLOTTED LANDS.  THE CONTRACT
PROVIDED FOR THE SALE OF THE TIMBER ON THE UNALLOTTED LANDS UPON TERMS
AND CONDITIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL.  IT REQUIRED THAT THE PURCHASE MONEY
BE PAID TO THE SUPERINTENDENT "FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE KLAMATH
TRIBE," AND THAT THE ALGOMA COMPANY ENTER INTO SEPARATE CONTRACTS WITH
THE INDIVIDUAL INDIAN ALLOTTEES WHO DESIRED TO SELL THE TIMBER STANDING
ON THEIR ALLOTMENTS.  IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT
THE ALGOMA COMPANY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, ENTERED INTO
SEPARATE CONTRACTS WITH TWENTY-ONE INDIVIDUAL ALLOTTEES FOR PURCHASE OF
THE TIMBER ON THEIR ALLOTMENTS UPON TERMS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TIMBER ON THE UNALLOTTED LANDS. 

AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTS, THE PURCHASE PAYMENTS BY THE ALGOMA
COMPANY, INCLUDING THE ALLEGED OVERPAYMENTS, WERE MADE TO THE
SUPERINTENDENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INDIANS.  PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF
MARCH 3, 1883, 22 STAT. 582, 590, AS AMENDED MAY 17, 1926, 44 STAT.
560, ALL MONEYS RECEIVED FROM THE UNALLOTTED LANDS, LESS EXPENSES, WERE
DEPOSITED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES IN
AN ACCOUNT DESIGNATED "INDIAN MONEYS, PROCEEDS OF LABOR."  PAYMENTS FOR
TIMBER ON THE ALLOTTED LANDS, LESS EXPENSES, WERE DEPOSITED BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT IN PRIVATE STATE BANKS AND CREDITED ON HIS OWN BOOKS TO
THE ALLOTTEES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE INTERESTS.  ACT OF JULY 1,
1898, 30 STAT. 571, 595; ACT OF APRIL 30, 1908, 35 STAT. 70, 73; ACT OF
JUNE 25, 1910, 36 STAT. 855, 856.  ALL THE PROCEEDS OF SALE ARE
REQUIRED TO BE HELD AND USED BY THE SECRETARY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
INDIANS.  ACT OF MARCH 2, 1887, 24 STAT. 449, 463; ACT OF MAY 18, 1916,
39 STAT. 123, 158; ACT OF MAR. 2, 1907, 34 STAT. 1221; ACT OF MAY 25,
1918, 40 STAT. 561, 591. 

THE KLAMATH RESERVATION WAS SET APART AS TRIBAL LANDS UNDER THE
TREATY WITH THE KLAMATH TRIBE OF FEBRUARY 17, 1870, 16 STAT. 707, FROM
LANDS IMMEMORIALLY POSSESSED BY THEM.  SEE UNITED STATES V. KLAMATH
INDIANS, 304 U.S. 119, 121.  UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY AND
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO LAND RESERVATIONS CREATED FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE INDIAN TRIBES, THE INDIANS ARE BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE
LAND AND THE TIMBER STANDING UPON IT AND OF THE PROCEEDS OF THEIR SALE,
SUBJECT TO THE PLENARY POWER OF CONTROL BY THE UNITED STATES, TO BE
EXERCISED FOR THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF THE INDIANS.  UNITED STATES
V. KLAMATH INDIANS, 304 U.S. 119; CF. UNITED STATES V. CANDELARIA, 271
U.S. 432; MOTT V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 747; CHIPPEWA INDIANS V.
UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 358, 375; UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304
U.S. 111, 116.  THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED NO BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP IN
THE TRIBAL LANDS OR THEIR PROCEEDS, AND HOWEVER WE MAY DEFINE THE
NATURE OF THE LEGAL INTEREST ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS THE
IMPLEMENT OF ITS CONTROL, SUBSTANTIAL OWNERSHIP REMAINED WITH THE TRIBE
AS IT EXISTED BEFORE THE TREATY.  UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE,
SUPRA, 116. 

THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE TIMBER, AND THE
CONTRACTS PRESCRIBED UNDER ITS AUTHORITY BY DEPARTMENTAL REGULATIONS
AND APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY, ARE TO BE VIEWED AS THE MEANS CHOSEN FOR
THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND
BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE INDIANS.  THE MEANS ARE ADAPTED TO THAT
END.  NEITHER THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY OFFICER PURPORTING TO ACT ON
ITS BEHALF IS NAMED A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.  BY ITS TERMS THE CONTRACT
IS DECLARED TO BE ENTERED INTO "BETWEEN THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE
KLAMATH INDIAN SCHOOL, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE KLAMATH INDIANS, PARTY
OF THE FIRST PART" AND THE LUMBER COMPANY, "PARTY OF THE SECOND PART." 
IT IS THUS ON ITS FACE THE CONTRACT OF THE KLAMATH INDIANS EXECUTED BY
THE SUPERINTENDENT, ACTING AS THEIR AGENT.  THE FORM OF THE CONTRACT
AND THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR ITS EXECUTION AND APPROVAL CONFORM TO
THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
INDIANS, UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS PLENARY POWER TO TAKE
APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO SAFEGUARD THE DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY OF WHICH THE
INDIANS ARE THE SUBSTANTIAL OWNERS.  EXERCISE OF THAT POWER DOES NOT
NECESSARILY INVOLVE THE ASSUMPTION OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE
GOVERNMENT.  THEIR ASSUMPTION IS NOT TO BE PRESUMED IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ON ITS BEHALF INDICATING SUCH A
PURPOSE.  SEE IN RE SANBORN, 148 U.S. 222, 227; TURNER V. UNITED
STATES, 248 U.S. 354, 359.  IN THIS, AS IN ANY OTHER CASE OF A WRITTEN
CONTRACT, THOSE WHO ARE PARTIES TO AND BOUND BY IT ARE TO BE
ASCERTAINED BY AN INSPECTION OF THE DOCUMENT, AND ITS PROVISIONS ARE
CONTROLLING IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME POSITIVE RULE OF LAW OR PROVISION OF
STATUTE REQUIRING THEM TO BE DISREGARDED. 

RESPONDENTS POINT ONLY TO SEC. 7 OF THE ACT OF 1910 AND THE
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER IT AS COMPELLING A DIFFERENT RESULT.  THEY
ARGUE THAT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE MANNER OF SALE BE PRESCRIBED BY
THE SECRETARY, THAT THE CONTRACTS BE EXECUTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT AND
APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY, AND THAT THE PRICES OF LUMBER BE FIXED BY
THE INDIAN COMMISSIONER, INDICATE A PURPOSE TO MAKE THE UNITED STATES,
ACTING AS GUARDIAN OR TRUSTEE OF THE INDIANS THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND
SUPERINTENDENT, THE CONTRACTING PARTY.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, ALL THAT
WAS DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN SUPERVISING THE EXECUTION OF
THE CONTRACTS AND THEIR PERFORMANCE WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXERCISE OF
ITS FUNCTION AS PROTECTOR OF THE INDIANS WITHOUT THE ASSUMPTION BY THE
UNITED STATES OF ANY OBLIGATION TO THE PURCHASERS OF THE TIMBER, AND NO
IMPLIED OBLIGATION ON ITS PART ARISES FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT
FUNCTION. 

BEFORE THE ACT OF 1910, THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 16, 1889, 25 STAT. 673,
HAD GIVEN THE PRESIDENT AUTHORITY, FROM YEAR TO YEAR, UNDER SUCH
REGULATIONS AS HE MIGHT PRESCRIBE, TO AUTHORIZE THE INDIANS ON
RESERVATIONS OR ALLOTMENTS TO SELL DEAD TIMBER, STANDING OR FALLEN, ON
SUCH RESERVATIONS.  THE CONTRACTS AUTHORIZED WERE TO BE THOSE OF THE
INDIANS AND NOT OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEE PINE RIVER LOGGING CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 186 U.S. 279.  FN2 

THE ACT OF 1910 ENLARGED THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE EARLIER ACT
SO AS TO PERMIT THE SALE OF LIVING TIMBER ON THE RESERVATIONS UNDER
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.  IT DID NOT
COMMAND DEPARTURE FROM THE EARLIER PRACTICE OF SELLING THE TIMBER BY
CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE INDIANS AND THE PURCHASERS, AND IT
SEEMS CLEAR THAT IN PRESCRIBING THAT THE CONTRACTS BE ENTERED INTO WITH
THE INDIANS THE SECRETARY ADHERED TO THIS PRACTICE, BUT WITH THE ADDED
SAFEGUARD THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE TO BE EFFECTED FOR THEM THROUGH THE
AGENCY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT WHO, FOR MANY PURPOSES, ACTS AS THE AGENT
OF THE INDIANS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SINNOTT, 26 F. 84, 86; CF. PARKS
V. ROSS, 11 HOW.  362, 374. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT COULD CONFER
AUTHORITY UPON HIM TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS BINDING UPON THE INDIANS, OR
WHETHER THE ACT OF 1910 DISPENSED WITH THE FORMALITIES REQUIRED OF
CONTRACTS WITH THE INDIANS BY R.S. SEC. 2103, 25 U.S.C. SEC. 81,
OMITTED IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT CONTRACTS.  SEE GREEN V. MENOMINEE
TRIBE, 233 U.S. 558.  INFIRMITIES, IF ANY, IN RESPONDENTS' CONTRACTS
WITH THE INDIANS COULD NOT IMPOSE ON THE UNITED STATES A LIABILITY
WHICH THE CONTRACTS DO NOT PURPORT TO UNDERTAKE IN ITS BEHALF. 

AS THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOUND THAT THE CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF
TIMBER ON ALLOTTED LANDS WERE ENTERED INTO BY INDIVIDUAL ALLOTTEES AS
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 8 OF THE ACT OF 1910, THEY STAND ON NO DIFFERENT
FOOTING, AS OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM THE TRIBAL CONTRACT
OR SIMILAR CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO UNDER THE ACT OF 1889. 

SINCE NONE OF THE CONTRACTS IN SUIT WERE CONTRACTS OR OBLIGATIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES, IT IS PLAIN THAT RECEIPT, BY THE TREASURY OF THE
UNITED STATES, OF PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THEM TO THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR
"THE USE AND BENEFIT" OF THE INDIANS, EVEN THOUGH MADE UNDER PROTEST,
GAVE RISE TO NO CONTRACT FOR REPAYMENT IMPLIED IN FACT ON THE PART OF
THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION, IF ANY, IS NOT WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  MERRITT V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA INVESTMENT CO., SUPRA; GOODYEAR CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  REVERSED.    FN1  "  ...  THE COURT OF CLAIMS
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING MATTERS: 

"FIRST.  ALL CLAIMS FOUNDED UPON  ...  ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  " 

FN2  IN SOME INSTANCES CONGRESS HAS PASSED SPECIAL ACTS CONFERRING
JURISDICTION ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO ENTERTAIN SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST
THE INDIANS ON THEIR CONTRACTS.  35 STAT. 444; 36 STAT. 287; SEE GREEN
V. MENOMINEE TRIBE, 233 U.S. 558; CF. 26 STAT. 636; 27 STAT. 86; 35
STAT. 457; 36 STAT. 287. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :







SOCONY-VACUUM CO. V. SMITH, 305 U.S. 424 


NO. 195.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 96
F.2D 98, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS NOT A DEFENSE IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY A SEAMAN
UNDER THE JONES ACT TO RECOVER FOR INJURIES RESULTING FROM HIS USE,
WHILE ON DUTY, OF A DEFECTIVE APPLIANCE OF THE SHIP, WHEN HE CHOSE TO
USE THE UNSAFE APPLIANCE, KNOWING IT UNSAFE, INSTEAD OF A SAFE METHOD
OF DOING HIS WORK, WHICH WAS KNOWN TO HIM.  P. 428. 

2.  IN SUCH CASES THE ADMIRALTY RULE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
APPLIES, IN MITIGATION OF DAMAGES.  P. 431. 

SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO. V. SMITH. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 586, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED BY THE PRESENT RESPONDENT, A SEAMAN, IN AN ACTION FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES BROUGHT UNDER THE JONES ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS A DEFENSE IN A SUIT
BROUGHT BY A SEAMAN UNDER THE JONES ACT TO RECOVER FOR INJURIES
RESULTING FROM HIS USE, WHILE ON DUTY, OF A DEFECTIVE APPLIANCE OF THE
SHIP, WHEN HE CHOSE TO USE THE UNSAFE APPLIANCE INSTEAD OF A SAFE
METHOD OF DOING HIS WORK, WHICH WAS KNOWN TO HIM. 

RESPONDENT, A SEAMAN, BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR SOUTHERN NEW YORK TO RECOVER, UNDER THE JONES ACT, 41 STAT. 1007,
46 U.S.C. SEC. 688, FOR AN INJURY RECEIVED FROM A FALL IN THE ENGINE
ROOM OF PETITIONER'S VESSEL.  THE FALL WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE STEP
ON WHICH RESPONDENT STOOD WHILE ON DUTY, WHEN SEEKING TO LEARN, BY
TOUCHING WITH HIS FINGER, WHETHER AN ENGINE BEARING WAS OVERHEATED. 

IN SUBMITTING THE CASE TO THE JURY THE TRIAL COURT APPLIED THE
ADMIRALTY RULE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, INSTRUCTING THE JURY THAT
NEGLIGENCE OF RESPONDENT CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT A BAR TO
RECOVERY BUT WAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN MITIGATION OF DAMAGES.  THE COURT
REFUSED PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR AN INSTRUCTION THAT IF RESPONDENT
COULD HAVE PERFORMED HIS DUTY WITHOUT USE OF THE DEFECTIVE STEP, HE
ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM IT.  INSTEAD, THE COURT CHARGED THAT
THERE WAS NO ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY THE SEAMAN WHERE THE SHIPOWNER
FAILED IN ITS DUTY TO FURNISH A SAFE APPLIANCE. 

JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, UPON A VERDICT IN RESPONDENT'S FAVOR,
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 96 F.2D
98, ON AUTHORITY OF THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110, AND BEADLE V.
SPENCER, 298 U.S. 124.  THE COURT'S DECISION WAS PREDICATED UPON ITS
CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT HAD FREE CHOICE OF A WAY TO REACH AND TOUCH
THE BEARING, WITHOUT STANDING ON THE DEFECTIVE STEP, AND IT HELD THAT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND SINCE THE SEAMAN HAD NOT USED THE DEFECTIVE
APPLIANCE CONTRARY TO ORDERS, THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD CORRECTLY INSTRUCTED
THE JURY THAT ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS NOT A BAR TO RERECOVERY.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, OCTOBER 10, 1938, UPON A PETITION ASKING US TO
REVIEW THIS RULING IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISIONS IN THE ARIZONA AND THE
BEADLE CASES, SUPRA, THE QUESTION BEING ONE OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE IN THE
APPLICATION OF THE MARITIME LAW AS SUPPLEMENTED BY THE JONES ACT. 

A PRELIMINARY POINT, MUCH DISCUSSED IN BRIEF AND ARGUMENT HERE, IS
WHETHER THE QUESTION RULED UPON BELOW IS PRESENTED BY THE RECORD. 
RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE JURY COULD
CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS A SAFE METHOD KNOWN TO HIM BY WHICH HE COULD
HAVE REACHED THE BEARING WITHOUT USING THE DEFECTIVE STEP AND THAT HE
CHOSE THE UNSAFE INSTEAD OF THE SAFE METHOD. 

RESPONDENT WAS EMPLOYED AS AN OILER IN PETITIONER'S ENGINE ROOM.  IT
WAS HIS DUTY WHILE THE VESSEL WAS UNDER WAY TO TOUCH WITH HIS FINGER,
AT INTERVALS OF TWENTY MINUTES, A BEARING OF THE PROPELLER SHAFT, IN
ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT WAS OVERHEATING AND IN NEED OF ADDITIONAL
LUBRICATION.  DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE BEARING, AS HE APPROACHED IT,
WAS AN IRON STEP, LOCATED ABOUT ONE FOOT ABOVE THE ENGINE ROOM FLOOR
AND BOLTED TO THE BEDPLATE WHICH SUPPORTED THE BEARING.  RESPONDENT
TESTIFIED THAT THE STEP WAS BRACED ON ITS UNDERSIDE BY A BRACKET OR
STRUT, AND THAT ABOUT TWO OR THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT HE HAD
OBSERVED THAT THE BRACKET WAS LOOSE AND OUT OF PLACE AND HAD REPORTED
THE FACT TO A SUPERIOR OFFICER. 

RESPONDENT ALSO GAVE THE ONLY ACCOUNT OF WHAT OCCURRED AT THE TIME OF
THE ACCIDENT.  HE TESTIFIED THAT IN ORDER TO REACH THE BEARING IT WAS
NECESSARY FOR HIM AND WAS HIS UNIFORM PRACTICE TO STAND WITH HIS RIGHT
FOOT UPON THE STEP WITH HIS LEFT ADVANCED AND PLACED UPON THE BEDPLATE,
AND WITH HIS LEFT HAND HOLDING, FOR SUPPORT, THE UPPER EDGE OF AN
ADJACENT VERTICAL SLUSH PAN; THAT, STANDING IN THIS POSITION, HE PLACED
HIS RIGHT HAND IN A HOLE EXTENDING DOWNWARD THROUGH THE BEARING CAP A
DISTANCE OF EIGHT OR TEN INCHES, WHERE HE TOUCHED THE SHAFT AND THE
ADJOINING BEARING TO DISCOVER WHETHER THEY WERE OVER-HEATED AND TO
INSPECT THE OIL WHICH STUCK TO HIS FINGERS AND WHICH, IF DISCOLORED,
WOULD INDICATE THAT THE JOURNAL WAS BEGINNING TO GRIPE BECAUSE OF
EXCESSIVE FRICTION; THAT AS HE STEPPED DOWN HIS LEFT FOOT STRUCK THE
LOOSE BRACKET, WHICH HAD PROJECTED BEYOND THE EDGE OF THE STEP, CAUSING
HIM TO FALL AND SUFFER THE INJURIES COMPLAINED OF. THERE WAS TESTIMONY
BY PETITIONER'S WITNESSES, ALL DENIED BY RESPONDENT, FROM WHICH THE
JURY COULD HAVE FOUND THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR RESPONDENT TO HAVE
REACHED THE BEARING WHILE STANDING ON THE FLOOR, WITHOUT THE USE OF THE
DEFECTIVE STEP, BY SEIZING WITH HIS RIGHT HAND A GRAB IRON LOCATED ON A
NEARBY COLUMN AND REACHING WITH HIS LEFT HAND TO TOUCH THE LEFT END OF
THE BEARING, WHICH EXTENDED THROUGH THE BEDPLATE; THAT THIS WAS THE
USUAL AND ONLY APPROPRIATE WAY TO EXAMINE THE BEARING, AND THAT
RESPONDENT HAD BEEN SEEN TO REACH IT IN THAT MANNER.  THERE WAS ALSO
TESTIMONY THAT OTHER OILERS HAD TOUCHED THE BEARING WITHOUT USING THE
STEP WHILE STANDING ON THE FLOOR, WITH RIGHT HAND GRASPING THE UPPER
EDGE OF THE VERTICAL CRANK-PIT GUARD, WHICH WAS ADJACENT ON THE RIGHT
AND NEARER TO THE BEARING THAN THE GRAB IRON.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF
THE RELATIVE LOCALITIES OF THE SEVERAL PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE MENTIONED
AND OF THE DISTANCES BETWEEN THEM, INDICATING THAT RESPONDENT COULD
HAVE REACHED THE BEARING, EITHER AT ITS LEFT END OR THROUGH THE HOLE IN
THE BEARING CAP, WHILE STANDING ON THE ENGINE ROOM FLOOR AND WITHOUT
USING THE STEP. 

WE MUST ACCEPT THE VERDICT AS ESTABLISHING THE NEGLIGENT FAILURE OF
PETITIONER TO FURNISH A SAFE APPLIANCE, THE IRON STEP, AND THAT THE
PLAINTIFF KNEW THAT IT WAS DEFECTIVE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, FOR
THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF ANY BREACH OF DUTY BY PETITIONER WAS RESPONDENT'S
TESTIMONY THAT HE KNEW OF THE DEFECT AND HAD REPORTED IT TO THE FIRST
ASSISTANT ENGINEER TWO OR THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT.  UPON ALL
THE EVIDENCE IT WAS FOR THE JURY TO SAY WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS AWARE
THAT IN REACHING THE BEARING WITH ONE HAND, EITHER AT ITS END OR
THROUGH THE HOLE IN THE BEARING CAP, HE COULD AVOID THE USE OF THE
DEFECTIVE STEP BY STANDING ON THE ENGINE ROOM FLOOR AND STEADYING
HIMSELF BY SEIZING WITH HIS RIGHT HAND THE GRAB IRON OR THE CRANK-PIT
GUARD ON HIS RIGHT, OR BY PLACING HIS LEFT HAND ON THE EDGE OF THE
SLUSH PAN. 

NO SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION WAS ASKED OR GIVEN AS TO WHAT THE VERDICT
SHOULD BE IF THE JURY CONCLUDED THAT RESPONDENT HAD KNOWINGLY MADE SUCH
AN ELECTION.  INSTEAD, THE COURT CHARGED GENERALLY "THAT THE SHIP OWNER
IS UNDER A DUTY TO FURNISH THE SEAMAN WITH A SAFE PLACE IN WHICH TO
WORK" AND "THERE IS NO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OR ASSUMPTION OF RISK ON
THE PART OF A PLAINTIFF IN SO FAR AS THE DEFENDANT FAILS IN THESE
DUTIES."  CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DISTURBING THE JUDGMENT
UNLESS THIS CHARGE IS ERRONEOUS AS APPLIED TO THE EVIDENCE TAKEN MOST
FAVORABLY TO PETITIONER. 

THE QUESTION WHETHER ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS A BAR TO A SUIT BY A
SEAMAN TO RECOVER UNDER THE JONES ACT FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY A
DEFECTIVE APPLIANCE, WHEN HE HAS A FREE CHOICE TO AVOID THE USE OF IT,
IS A NOVEL ONE IN THIS COURT.  NO SUCH CHOICE WAS INVOLVED IN THE
ARIZONA OR BEADLE CASES.  THERE ASSUMPTION OF RISK BY THE SEAMAN, WHICH
WOULD HAVE BARRED RECOVERY AT COMMON LAW, WAS CONCEDEDLY NOT A DEFENSE
UNDER THE ADMIRALTY RULE.  THE DECISION WAS THAT THE JONES ACT, IN
EXTENDING TO SEAMEN ALL THE RIGHTS TO RECOVER FOR INJURIES RESULTING
FROM DEFECTIVE APPLIANCES GIVEN TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES BY THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51, HAD LEFT
UNDISTURBED THE ADMIRALTY RULE WITH RESPECT TO ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  IN
HOLDING THAT THE RULE HAD NOT BEEN CHANGED, WE DID NOT CONSIDER THE
QUESTION NOW PRESENTED WHETHER, WITHIN THAT RULE, ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS
A DEFENSE WHERE THE SEAMAN COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE USE OF THE UNSAFE
APPLIANCE BY THE FREE CHOICE OF A SAFE ONE. 

BEFORE THE JONES ACT A SEAMAN WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER, FROM A VESSEL
OR ITS OWNER, INDEMNITY FOR INJURIES DUE TO AN UNSEAWORTHY VESSEL, OR
FOR "FAILURE TO SUPPLY AND TO KEEP IN ORDER THE PROPER APPLIANCES
APPURTENANT TO THE SHIP."  THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S. 158, 175; THE ARIZONA
V. ANELICH, SUPRA, 120 ET SEQ. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, THEN AS NOW,
WAS NOT A DEFENSE IN SUITS BROUGHT BY SEAMEN TO RECOVER FOR INJURIES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT, BUT WAS GROUND ONLY FOR MITIGATION
OF DAMAGES.  SEE THE MAX MORRIS, 137 U.S. 1; THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH,
SUPRA, 122, AND CASES CITED.  AND NO AMERICAN CASE APPEARS TO HAVE
RECOGNIZED ASSUMPTION OF RISK AS A DEFENSE TO SUCH A SUIT.  IN NUMEROUS
CASES THIS DEFENSE WAS EITHER DENIED OR IGNORED IN CIRCUMSTANCES
PLAINLY CALLING FOR ITS APPLICATION HAD IT BEEN AVAILABLE.  HALVERSON
V. NISEN, FED. CAS. NO. 5,970; 3 SAWY.  562; THE EDITH GODDEN (D.C.),
23 F. 43; THE NODDLEBURN (D.C.), 28 F. 855; OLSON V. FLAVEL (D.C.), 34
F. 477; THE A. HEATON (C.C.), 43 F. 592; THE JULIA FOWLER (D.C.), 49 F.
277; LAFOURCHE PACKET CO. V. HENDERSON (C.C.A.), 94 F. 871; THE
FULLERTON, 167 F. 1; GLOBE S.S. CO. V. MOSS, 245 F. 54; THE COLUSA
(C.C.A.), 248 F. 21; CRICKET S.S. CO. V. PARRY, 263 F. 523; STORGARD V.
FRANCE & CANADA S.S. CORP. 263 F. 545. 

IN SOME OF THESE CASES THE SEAMAN HAD VOLUNTARILY SHIPPED ON A VESSEL
WHICH HE KNEW TO BE UNSEAWORTHY, CRICKET S.S. CO. V. PARRY, SUPRA; SEE
SCHEFFLER V. MORAN TOWING & TRANSPORTATION CO., 68 F.2D 11, 12.  IN
OTHERS IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE SEAMAN HAD CHOSEN TO EXPOSE HIMSELF TO
THE DANGERS OF UNSAFE APPLIANCES WHEN THERE WAS A SAFE ALTERNATIVE. 
THE JULIA FOWLER, SUPRA; OLSON V. FLAVEL, SUPRA. 

IN SOME CASES ARISING AFTER THE JONES ACT WHERE THE DEFENSE WAS
ALLOWED, THE EMPLOYEE WAS THOUGHT TO HAVE HAD THE STATUS OF A STEVEDORE
OR SHORE WORKER AND NOT THAT OF A SEAMAN.  THE MAHARAJAH, 40 F. 784;
CUNARD S.S. CO. V. SMITH, 255 F. 846; HARDIE V. NEW YORK HARBOR DRY
DOCK CORP., 9 F.2D 545; SKOLAR V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 60 F.2D 893;
SCHEFFLER V. MORAN TOWING & TRANSPORTATION CO., SUPRA, 12; YACONI V.
BRADY & GIOE, INC., 246 N.Y. 300, 306; 158 N.E. 876.  IN JOHNSON V.
UNITED STATES, 74 F.2D 703, THE SEAMAN HAD MADE HIS CHOICE IN
DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS, AND IN ANOTHER WHERE THE DEFENSE WAS ALLOWED
THE SEAMAN, WHILE NOT ON DUTY, THOUGH IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT,
HAD CHOSEN TO GO INTO AN UNSAFE PART OF THE VESSEL, KNOWING THAT THERE
WAS AN ALTERNATIVE.  HOLM V. CITIES SERVICE CO., 60 F.2D 721.  FN1 

HERE RESPONDENT WAS A SEAMAN; HE WAS ON DUTY WHEN INJURED; AND THERE
WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE ACTED IN DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY CONTROLLING OR PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY WE LOOK TO THE
REASON OF THE ADMIRALTY RULE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK IN ORDER TO
ASCERTAIN ITS APPROPRIATE LIMITS.  MANY CONSIDERATIONS WHICH APPLY TO
THE LIABILITY OF A VESSEL OR ITS OWNER TO A SEAMAN FOR THE FAILURE TO
PROVIDE SAFE APPLIANCES AND A SAFE PLACE TO WORK ARE ABSENT OR ARE OF
LITTLE WEIGHT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ATTEND SHORE EMPLOYMENT, IN
RELATION TO WHICH THE COMMON LAW RULES OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. 

THE SEAMAN, WHILE ON HIS VESSEL, IS SUBJECT TO THE RIGOROUS
DISCIPLINE OF THE SEA AND HAS LITTLE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO THE
PROTECTION FROM ABUSE OF POWER WHICH THE LAW MAKES READILY AVAILABLE TO
THE LANDSMAN.  HIS COMPLAINTS TO SUPERIOR OFFICERS OF UNSAFE WORKING
CONDITIONS NOT INFREQUENTLY PROVOKE HARSH TREATMENT.  HE CANNOT LEAVE
THE VESSEL WHILE AT SEA.  ABANDONMENT OF IT IN PORT BEFORE HIS
DISCHARGE, TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DANGERS OF EMPLOYMENT, EXPOSES HIM TO
THE RISK OF LOSS OF PAY AND TO THE PENALTIES FOR DESERTION.  FN2  IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY HE IS OFTEN UNDER THE NECESSITY OF MAKING QUICK
DECISIONS WITH LITTLE OPPORTUNITY OR CAPACITY TO APPRAISE THE RELATIVE
SAFETY OF ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION.  WITHAL, SEAMEN ARE THE WARDS
OF THE ADMIRALTY, WHOSE TRADITIONAL POLICY IT HAS BEEN TO AVOID, WITHIN
REASONABLE LIMITS, THE APPLICATION OF RULES OF THE COMMON LAW WHICH
WOULD AFFECT THEM HARSHLY BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
ATTENDING THEIR CALLING.  THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, SUPRA, 123, AND CASES
CITED; CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORP. V. TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525.  IT IS FOR THIS
REASON THAT REMEDIAL LEGISLATION FOR THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF
SEAMEN HAS BEEN LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO ATTAIN THAT END.  CHELENTIS V.
LUCKENBACH S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372, 380, 381; JAMISON V. ENCARNACION,
281 U.S. 635, 639; ALPHA S.S. CORP. V. CAIN, 281 U.S. 642; CORTES V.
BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 375; WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S.
155, 157. 

ANY RULE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK IN ADMIRALTY, WHATEVER ITS SCOPE, MUST
BE APPLIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ESTABLISHED ADMIRALTY DOCTRINE OF
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND IN HARMONY WITH IT.  UNDER THAT DOCTRINE
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, HOWEVER GROSS, IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY BUT
ONLY MITIGATES DAMAGES.  THERE BEING NO DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK
WHERE THE SEAMAN IS WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY TO USE A SAFE APPLIANCE, IT
SEEMS PLAIN THAT HIS CHOICE OF A DEFECTIVE INSTEAD OF A SAFE ONE,
RESULTING IN INJURY, DOES NOT DIFFER IN EITHER THE QUALITY OF THE ACT
OR IN ITS INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES, IN ANY PRACTICAL WAY, FROM HIS
CORRESPONDINGLY NEGLIGENT USE OF A SAFE OR AN UNSAFE APPLIANCE, WHERE
ITS USE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO AN INJURY RESULTING FROM A BREACH OF DUTY BY
THE OWNER.  SEE THE WANDERER, 20 F. 140; THE FRANK AND WILLIE, 45 F.
494; JOHN A. ROEBLING'S SONS CO. V. ERICKSON, 261 F. 986, 987; STORGARD
V. FRANCE & CANADA S.S. CORP., 263 F. 545.  IN EITHER CASE THE SEAMAN'S
NEGLIGENCE IS A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE OF HIS INJURY, WITHOUT WHICH THE
SHIP OWNER WOULD BE LIABLE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE. 

THE INCONGRUITY AND PRACTICAL EMBARRASSMENTS IN THE APPLICATION OF A
RULE THAT THE NEGLIGENCE IN THE ONE CASE BARS RECOVERY, WHILE THAT IN
THE OTHER ONLY REDUCES THE RECOVERABLE DAMAGES, ARE EVIDENT.  THE
COMMON LAW IS CONSISTENT IN HOLDING THAT BOTH CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK ARE DEFENSES.  BUT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS APART,
IT SEEMS INCONSISTENT, AND AN IMPRACTICABLE REFINEMENT, TO APPLY THE
RULE FOR WHICH PETITIONER CONTENDS IN A SYSTEM OF LAW WHICH MAINTAINS
THE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE RULE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT.  THIS WAS
RECOGNIZED IN OLSON V. FLAVEL, SUPRA, AND THE JULIA FOWLER, SUPRA,
WHERE THE CHOICE BY THE SEAMAN OF AN UNSAFE APPLIANCE WAS HELD NOT TO
BAR RECOVERY BUT TO BE A PROPER BASIS FOR A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF
DAMAGES BECAUSE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE CHOICE.  IN THE JULIA FOWLER,
SUPRA, THE EMINENT ADMIRALTY JUDGE, ADDISON BROWN, HELD THAT A SEAMAN
WHO HAD SUFFERED INJURY THROUGH THE DELIBERATE USE OF A HALLIARD KNOWN
TO BE DEFECTIVELY SPLICED WHEN A SOUND ROPE WAS AVAILABLE WAS ENTITLED
TO RECOVER, BUT WITH DIMINUTION OF DAMAGES BECAUSE OF HIS NEGLIGENCE IN
USING THE UNSAFE ROPE. 

WE THINK THAT THE CONSISTENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARITIME LAW IN
CONFORMITY TO ITS TRADITIONAL POLICY OF AFFORDING ADEQUATE PROTECTION
TO SEAMEN THROUGH AN EXACTION OF A HIGH DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF
OWNERS FOR THE SEAWORTHINESS OF VESSELS AND THE SAFETY OF THEIR
APPLIANCES WILL BE BEST SERVED BY APPLYING THE RULE OF COMPARATIVE
NEGLIGENCE, RATHER THAN THAT OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK, TO THE SEAMAN WHO
MAKES USE OF A DEFECTIVE APPLIANCE KNOWING THAT A SAFE ONE IS
AVAILABLE.  THE POWER OF THE TRIAL JUDGE TO GUIDE AND INSTRUCT THE JURY
AND HIS CONTROL OVER EXCESSIVE VERDICTS AFFORD AS ADEQUATE A PROTECTION
TO OWNERS AS IN ANY OTHER CASE WHERE THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE SEAMAN,
WHATEVER ITS DEGREE, HAS CONTRIBUTED TO AN ACTIONABLE INJURY. 

UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE CHARGE OF THE
TRIAL COURT AS TO ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  ITS INSTRUCTION AS TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WAS GENERAL AND NO
EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN TO IT.  PETITIONER WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO A
MORE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION, IF REQUESTED, AS TO THE APPROPRIATE EFFECT
UPON THE AMOUNT OF THE VERDICT OF THE RELATIVE DEGREES OF PETITIONER'S
AND RESPONDENT'S NEGLIGENCE IF THE JURY SHOULD FIND THAT RESPONDENT HAD
KNOWINGLY FAILED TO CHOOSE AN AVAILABLE SAFE METHOD OF DOING HIS WORK. 

WE LEAVE TO FUTURE CASES AS THEY MAY ARISE THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT
RULE IS TO APPLY IN CASES WHERE THE SEAMAN'S ELECTION TO USE AN UNSAFE
APPLIANCE IS IN DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS OR MADE WHILE NOT ON DUTY. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN TAMPA INTEROCEAN S.S. CO. V. JORGENSEN, 93 F.2D 927, 930, THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, IN AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF A SEAMAN, TOOK OCCASION TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION
BY THE TRIAL COURT TO THE JURY:  "YOU ARE INSTRUCTED THAT IF THE
PLAINTIFF WAS FURNISHED TWO METHODS OF ENTERING THE 'TWEEN DECK SPACE,
ONE OBVIOUSLY SAFE AND THE OTHER OBVIOUSLY UNSAFE, AND IF THE PLAINTIFF
KNEW THE SAFE METHOD AND NOTWITHSTANDING CHOSE THE UNSAFE METHOD, THE
DEFENDANT IS NOT LIABLE." 

FN2  SEE R.S. SEC. 4596, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 701. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS THINKS THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR THE CHARGE
IN RESPECT OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THAT, FOR
THAT REASON, THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











GWIN, ETC., INC. V. HENNEFORD, 305 U.S. 434 


NO. 75.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 193
WASH. 451 - 75 P.2D 1017, REVERSED. 


A STATE TAX MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE TAXPAYER FROM HIS
BUSINESS OF MARKETING FRUIT SHIPPED FROM THE STATE TO THE PLACES OF
SALE IN OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES, HELD A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  P. 436. 

THE BUSINESS WAS THAT OF A MARKETING AGENT FOR A FEDERATION OF FRUIT
GROWERS.  THE AGENT, WITH THE AID OF NUMEROUS REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT
THE STATE, SOLD THE FRUIT TO PURCHASERS IN OTHER STATES AND IN FOREIGN
COUNTRIES, FOR PRICES FIXED BY THE PRINCIPAL, COLLECTED AND ACCOUNTED
FOR THE PROCEEDS, AND WAS PAID AT SO MUCH PER BOX.  THE TAX, THOUGH
NOMINALLY IMPOSED UPON THE AGENT'S ACTIVITIES IN WASHINGTON, IS NOT
APPORTIONED TO THOSE ACTIVITIES, BUT IS MEASURED, LIKE THE COMPENSATION
TAXED, UPON THE ENTIRE INTERSTATE COMMERCE SERVICE RENDERED, BOTH
WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE, AND BURDENS THAT COMMERCE IN DIRECT
PROPORTION TO ITS VOLUME.  IF WASHINGTON IS FREE TO EXACT SUCH A TAX,
OTHER STATES TO WHICH THE COMMERCE EXTENDS MAY, WITH EQUAL RIGHT, LAY A
TAX SIMILARLY MEASURED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL LIMITS THE ACTIVITIES THERE WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO
THE SERVICE. 

GWIN, WHITE & PRINCE, INC. V. HENNEFORD ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT DISMISSING ON THE MERITS
A BILL TO ENJOIN MEMBERS OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON FROM
COLLECTING A TAX ON THE "BUSINESS ACTIVITIES" OF THE PLAINTIFF
APPELLANT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL RAISES THE SINGLE QUESTION WHETHER A WASHINGTON TAX
MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF APPELLANT FROM ITS BUSINESS OF
MARKETING FRUIT SHIPPED FROM WASHINGTON TO THE PLACES OF SALE IN
VARIOUS STATES AND IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES IS A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

APPELLANT, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS THERE,
BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE STATE SUPERIOR COURT TO RESTRAIN APPELLEES,
COMPRISING THE STATE TAX COMMISSION, FROM COLLECTING THE "BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES" TAX LAID BY CHAPTER 180 OF WASHINGTON LAWS OF 1935,
AMENDING CHAPTER 191 OF WASHINGTON LAWS OF 1933, ON THE GROUND THAT IT
INFRINGES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BY STIPULATION AFTER DEMURRER TO THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT THE CAUSE WAS TRIED AND DECIDED ON THE MERITS, UPON
FACTS STATED IN THE COMPLAINT AND CERTAIN OTHERS SPECIFIED IN THE
STIPULATION.  JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT FOR APPELLEES WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON, 193 WASH. 451; 75 P.2D 1017, AND THE
CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS
AMENDED, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344. 

1935 LAY "A TAX FOR THE ACT OR PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES" UPON EVERY PERSON (INCLUDING CORPORATIONS) "ENGAGING WITHIN
THIS STATE IN ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY," WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL,
AT THE RATE OF ONE-HALF OF 1% OF THE "GROSS INCOME OF THE BUSINESS." 
AS THE RECORD DISCLOSES, APPELLANT HAS A PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON FROM WHICH IT CARRIES ON ITS OPERATIONS IN MARKETING, IN
OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES, APPLES AND PEARS GROWN IN
WASHINGTON AND OREGON.  ITS ENTIRE BUSINESS IS THAT OF MARKETING AGENT
FOR FRUIT GROWERS AND GROWERS' COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS IN THOSE
STATES.  AS SUCH IT MAKES SALES AND DELIVERIES OF THE FRUIT IN OTHER
STATES AND IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, COLLECTS THE SALES PRICES AND REMITS
THE PROCEEDS TO ITS PRINCIPALS AFTER DEDUCTING TRANSPORTATION CHARGES,
CERTAIN EXPENSE ALLOWANCES AND ITS OWN COMPENSATION.  IN THE COURSE OF
THE BUSINESS THE FRUIT IS SHIPPED FROM THE STATES OF ORIGIN -
APPROXIMATELY 25% FROM OREGON - TO OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES,
SOMETIMES DIRECTLY TO THE PURCHASERS, BUT MORE OFTEN IT IS CONSIGNED TO
APPELLANT AT EXTRA-STATE POINTS FROM WHICH IT IS DIVERTED BY APPELLANT
TO PURCHASERS WHO BUY THE FRUIT WHILE IN TRANSIT, OR WHERE IT IS STORED
PENDING SALE.  REPRESENTATIVES OF APPELLANT AT NUMEROUS POINTS WITHOUT
THE STATE NEGOTIATE SALES OF THE FRUIT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT AND ON
ITS APPROVAL EXECUTE WRITTEN CONTRACTS OF SALE, EFFECT DELIVERY OF THE
SHIPMENTS TO PURCHASERS, COLLECT THE PURCHASE PRICE AND REMIT IT TO
APPELLANT IN WASHINGTON, WHERE IT IS ACCOUNTED FOR TO THE SHIPPERS.  IN
CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS APPELLANT SENDS TO ITS REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT
THE STATE DAILY BULLETINS LISTING THE FRUIT, SOME OF WHICH IS IN
TRANSIT INTERSTATE AND SOME OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN PLACED IN STORAGE
WITHOUT THE STATE, AND IT EXPENDS LARGE AMOUNTS FOR COMMUNICATIONS BY
TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH AND CABLE BETWEEN ITSELF IN WASHINGTON AND ITS
REPRESENTATIVES OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

THE ENTIRE WASHINGTON BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON BY APPELLANT UNDER
CONTRACT WITH AN INCORPORATED FEDERATION OF TWELVE STATE COOPERATIVE
GROWERS' ORGANIZATIONS.  BY THIS CONTRACT APPELLANT IS GIVEN EXCLUSIVE
AUTHORITY TO SELL ALL APPLES AND PEARS COMING INTO THE POSSESSION AND
CONTROL OF THE FEDERATION AS AGENT FOR ITS MEMBERS AND TO COLLECT THE
PROCEEDS OF SALE.  APPELLANT UNDERTAKES TO SELL THESE PRODUCTS AT
PRICES FIXED BY THE FEDERATION, TO OBTAIN THEIR WIDEST POSSIBLE
DISTRIBUTION, TO ATTEND TO ALL TRAFFIC MATTERS PERTAINING TO SHIPMENT
AND TRANSPORTATION OF THE FRUIT, TO EFFECT DELIVERY TO PURCHASERS AND
TO COLLECT AND REMIT THE SALES PRICES.  THE STIPULATED COMPENSATION FOR
THE ENTIRE SERVICE IS AT THE RATE OF 8 CENTS A BOX FOR APPLES SOLD AND
10 CENTS A BOX FOR PEARS.  ACCORDING TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT APPELLEES
ASSERT THAT APPELLANT IS SUBJECT TO THE TAX UPON ITS ENTIRE GROSS
REVENUE FROM THE BUSINESS, AND THEY THREATEN TO COLLECT THE TAX AND TO
IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR ITS NONPAYMENT.  BUT ON THE TRIAL IT WAS
STIPULATED THAT "THE STATE MAKES NO CLAIM" TO THE TAX UPON APPELLANT'S
OREGON BUSINESS, AND WE TREAT THE DECISION AND DECREE OF THE STATE
COURT AS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX MEASURED BY THE
AMOUNT OF FRUIT SHIPPED FROM WASHINGTON. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON, CONCEDING THAT THE SHIPMENT OF THE
FRUIT FROM THE STATE OF ORIGIN TO POINTS OUTSIDE, AND ITS SALE THERE,
INVOLVE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HELD NEVERTHELESS THAT APPELLANT'S
ACTIVITIES IN WASHINGTON IN PROMOTING THE COMMERCE WERE A LOCAL
BUSINESS, SUBJECT TO STATE TAXATION AS IS OTHER BUSINESS CARRIED ON IN
THE STATE, AND IT SUSTAINED THE PRESENT LEVY, AGAINST ATTACK UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, AS A TAX UPON THOSE ACTIVITIES, CITING FICKLEN V.
SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 145 U.S. 1, AND AMERICAN MANUFACTURING
CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459. 

WE NEED NOT STOP TO CONSIDER WHICH, IF ANY, OF APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES
IN CARRYING ON ITS BUSINESS ARE IN THEMSELVES TRANSPORTATION OF THE
FRUIT IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  FOR THE ENTIRE SERVICE FOR
WHICH THE COMPENSATION IS PAID IS IN AID OF THE SHIPMENT AND SALE OF
MERCHANDISE IN THAT COMMERCE.  SUCH SERVICES ARE WITHIN THE PROTECTION
OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120
U.S. 489; CALDWELL V. NORTH CAROLINA, 187 U.S. 622; REAL SILK MILLS V.
PORTLAND, 268 U.S. 325; AND THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE TAXATION
OF APPELLANT'S GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM THEM IS SUCH AN INTERFERENCE
WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO BRING THE TAX WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITION. 

WHILE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, AND THE
STATE COURTS HAVE SUSTAINED THE TAX AS LAID ON ITS ACTIVITIES THERE,
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE SERVICE WHICH IT RENDERS AND FOR WHICH THE
TAXED COMPENSATION IS PAID IS NOT WHOLLY PERFORMED WITHIN THE STATE.  A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF IT IS OUTSIDE THE STATE WHERE SALES ARE NEGOTIATED
AND WRITTEN CONTRACTS OF SALE ARE EXECUTED, AND WHERE DELIVERIES AND
COLLECTIONS ARE MADE.  BOTH THE COMPENSATION AND THE TAX LAID UPON IT
ARE MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE COMMERCE - THE NUMBER OF BOXES OF
FRUIT TRANSPORTED FROM WASHINGTON TO PURCHASERS ELSEWHERE; SO THAT THE
TAX, THOUGH NOMINALLY IMPOSED UPON APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES IN
WASHINGTON, BY THE VERY METHOD OF ITS MEASUREMENT REACHES THE ENTIRE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SERVICE RENDERED BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE
AND BURDENS THE COMMERCE IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO ITS VOLUME. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL EFFECT OF A TAX UPON GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM
PARTICIPATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OR
EXTENT OF THE COMMERCE ITSELF HAS BEEN SO RECENTLY AND FULLY CONSIDERED
BY THIS COURT THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY NOW TO ELABORATE THE APPLICABLE
PRINCIPLES.  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250;
ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307; CF. COVERDALE V.
ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604. 

IT HAS OFTEN BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT "EVEN INTERSTATE BUSINESS MUST PAY
ITS WAY" BY HEARING ITS SHARE OF LOCAL TAX BURDENS, POSTAL TELEGRAPH
CABLE CO. V. RICHMOND, 249 U.S. 252, 259, AND THAT IN CONSEQUENCE NOT
EVERY LOCAL TAX LAID UPON GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM PARTICIPATION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS FORBIDDEN.  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, SUPRA, 254 ET SEQ., AND CASES CITED.  BUT IT IS ENOUGH FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES THAT UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, STATE TAXATION, WHATEVER ITS FORM, IS PRECLUDED
IF IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR UNDERTAKES TO LAY A
PRIVILEGE TAX MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM ACTIVITIES IN
SUCH COMMERCE WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE TAXING
STATE.  SUCH A TAX, AT LEAST WHEN NOT APPORTIONED TO THE ACTIVITIES
CARRIED ON WITHIN THE STATE, SEE MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK RY. CO., 142 U.S.
217; WISCONSIN & M. RY. CO. V. POWERS, 191 U.S. 379; CUDAHY PACKING CO.
V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450; UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223
U.S. 335; CF. FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, SUPRA; AMERICAN
MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA, BURDENS THE COMMERCE IN THE SAME
MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THE EXACTION WERE FOR THE PRIVILEGE
OF ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WOULD, IF SUSTAINED, EXPOSE IT
TO MULTIPLE TAX BURDENS, EACH MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE
COMMERCE, TO WHICH LOCAL COMMERCE IS NOT SUBJECT. 

HERE THE TAX, MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE VOLUME OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN WHICH APPELLANT PARTICIPATES, IS NOT APPORTIONED TO ITS
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE.  IF WASHINGTON IS FREE TO EXACT SUCH A
TAX, OTHER STATES TO WHICH THE COMMERCE EXTENDS MAY, WITH EQUAL RIGHT,
LAY A TAX SIMILARLY MEASURED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING WITHIN
THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIAL LIMITS THE ACTIVITIES THERE WHICH
CONTRIBUTE TO THE SERVICE.  THE PRESENT TAX, THOUGH NOMINALLY LOCAL,
THUS IN ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION DISCRIMINATES AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SINCE IT IMPOSES UPON IT, MERELY BECAUSE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS BEING DONE, THE RISK OF A MULTIPLE BURDEN TO WHICH LOCAL COMMERCE IS
NOT EXPOSED.  ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA, 310, 311; CF.
FARGO V. MICHIGAN, 121 U.S. 230; PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326; GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210
U.S. 217, 225, 227; MEYER V. WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298; CREW
LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292; FISHER'S BLEND STATION V.
STATE TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650; SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, SUPRA, 260.  SUCH A MULTIPLICATION OF STATE TAXES, EACH
MEASURED BY THE VOLUME OF THE COMMERCE, WOULD REESTABLISH THE BARRIERS
TO INTERSTATE TRADE WHICH IT WAS THE OBJECT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO
REMOVE.  UNLAWFULNESS OF THE BURDEN DEPENDS UPON ITS NATURE, MEASURED
IN TERMS OF ITS CAPACITY TO OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND NOT ON
THE CONTINGENCY THAT SOME OTHER STATE MAY FIRST HAVE SUBJECTED THE
COMMERCE TO A LIKE BURDEN. 

FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, SUPRA, WHICH THE WASHINGTON
SUPREME COURT THOUGHT SUSTAINED ITS DECISION, UPHELD A STATE LICENSE
TAX IMPOSED UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING A BROKERAGE BUSINESS WITHIN THE
STATE AND MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF COMMISSIONS FROM SALES OF
MERCHANDISE SHIPPED INTO THE STATE FOR DELIVERY AFTER THE SALES WERE
MADE.  ALTHOUGH THE TAX, MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS, TO SOME EXTENT
BURDENED THE COMMERCE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE BURDEN DID NOT INFRINGE THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  SINCE IT WAS APPORTIONED EXACTLY TO THE ACTIVITIES
TAXED, ALL OF WHICH WERE INTRASTATE, THE TAX WAS FAIRLY MEASURED BY THE
VALUE OF THE LOCAL PRIVILEGE OR FRANCHISE.  NEW YORK, L.E. & W.R. CO.
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 158 U.S. 431; AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS,
SUPRA; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165; COVERDALE V.
ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA PIPE LINE CO., SUPRA.  NEITHER THE TAX IN THE
FICKLEN CASE NOR THAT UPHELD IN AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST.
LOUIS, SUPRA, WAS OPEN TO THE OBJECTION DIRECTED HERE TO THE PRESENT
TAX AND SUSTAINED IN ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA, 311,
THAT THE TAX IS MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS FROM ACTIVITIES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONDUCTED BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE TAXING STATE
AND THAT THE EXACTION IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT IF LAWFUL IT MIGHT BE
LAID TO THE FULLEST EXTENT BY THE STATES IN WHICH THE MERCHANDISE IS
SOLD AS WELL AS BY THOSE FROM WHICH IT IS SHIPPED.  SEE WESTERN LIVE
STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, SUPRA, 260. 

FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY, SINCE BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419,
445, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, CONGRESS
NOT ACTING, SOME PROTECTION IS AFFORDED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AGAINST
STATE TAXATION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN IT.  WEBBER V. VIRGINIA,
103 U.S. 344; TELEGRAPH CO. V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. 460; ROBBINS V. SHELBY
COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, SUPRA; LELOUP V. MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640; BRENNAN
V. TITUSVILLE, 153 U.S. 289; INTERNATIONAL TEXT BOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217
U.S. 91; FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, SUPRA; ADAMS
MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, SUPRA.  FOR HALF A CENTURY, FOLLOWING THE
DECISION IN PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S.
326, IT HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED THAT STATE TAXATION OF LOCAL PARTICIPATION
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, MEASURED BY THE ENTIRE VOLUME OF THE COMMERCE,
IS LIKEWISE FORECLOSED.  DURING THAT PERIOD CONGRESS HAS NOT SEEN FIT
TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ALTER OR ABOLISH THE RULES THUS
JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED.  INSTEAD, IT HAS LEFT THEM UNDISTURBED,
DOUBTLESS BECAUSE IT HAS APPRECIATED THE DESTRUCTIVE CONSEQUENCES TO
THE COMMERCE OF THE NATION IF THEIR PROTECTION WERE WITHDRAWN. 
MEANWHILE CONGRESS HAS ACCOMMODATED ITS LEGISLATION, AS HAVE THE
STATES, TO THESE RULES AS AN ESTABLISHED FEATURE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM.  THERE HAS BEEN LEFT TO THE STATES WIDE SCOPE FOR TAXATION OF
THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EXTENDING TO THE INSTRUMENTS OF
THAT COMMERCE, TO NET INCOME DERIVED FROM IT, AND TO OTHER FORMS OF
TAXATION NOT DESTRUCTIVE OF IT.  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF
REVENUE, SUPRA, 254, ET SEQ., AND CASES CITED.  REVERSED.    MR.
JUSTICE BUTLER, CONCURRING. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND I CONCUR IN THE RESULT.    APPELLANT IS
ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, A PART OF WHICH IS CARRIED
ON IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.  FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING THAT
BUSINESS THE STATE STATUTE PURPORTS TO TAX ITS GROSS EARNINGS AT THE
RATE OF ONE-HALF OF ONE PER CENT.  THE EXACTION IS PLAINLY REPUGNANT TO
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
122 U.S. 326.  GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217. 
MEYER V. WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298, 300.  NEW JERSEY TELEPHONE
CO. V. TAX BOARD, 280 U.S. 338, 346.  FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX
COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650, 655-656.  PUGET SOUND CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S.
90, 94.  SEE MATSON NAVIGATION CO. V. STATE BOARD, 297 U.S. 441, 444. 
REVERSAL APPROPRIATELY MAY BE BASED ON CITATION OF THESE DECISIONS
WITHOUT MORE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

"EQUALITY IS THE THEME THAT RUNS THROUGH ALL THE SECTIONS OF THE
STATUTE"  FN1  OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HERE CONSIDERED.  THE STATUTE
IMPOSES A GENERAL, NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX - MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS
UPON ALL BUSINESSES OPERATING IN THAT STATE.  THE INTENDED EQUALITY OF
THE STATUTE WILL BECOME UNEQUALITY BY THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT HERE,
BECAUSE APPELLANT AND ALL OTHER BUSINESSES IN WASHINGTON THAT RECEIVE
INCOME FOR SELLING WASHINGTON PRODUCTS IN THAT AND OTHER STATES, ARE
EXEMPTED FROM THE TAX.  APPELLANT IS EXEMPTED FROM PAST, PRESENT AND
FUTURE PAYMENTS OF THIS TAX.  NOT SO, HOWEVER, AS TO PAST, PRESENT, OR
FUTURE PAYMENTS BY WASHINGTON BUSINESSES SELLING ONLY TO CITIZENS OF
THAT STATE.  THEY MUST BEAR THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF THE TAX.  THUS THE
JUDGMENT HERE, FRAMED TO PREVENT CONJECTURED FUTURE, POSSIBLE - NOT
PRESENT AND ACTUAL - DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, MAKES
OF THIS STATUTE WITH EQUALITY AS ITS THEME, AN INSTRUMENT OF
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WASHINGTON INTRA-STATE BUSINESSES.  APPELLANT, A
WASHINGTON AGENT OR BROKER SELLING WASHINGTON PRODUCTS IN THAT STATE
AND ELSEWHERE, CAN NOW DO SO FREED FROM THIS BUSINESS TAX.  WASHINGTON
AGENTS AND BROKERS SELLING THE SAME PRODUCTS TO WASHINGTON CITIZENS
(AND ALL OTHER LOCAL BUSINESSES) MUST PAY.  WASHINGTON'S INTRA-STATE
COMMERCE THUS WILL "PAY ITS WAY"; FN2  INTERSTATE COMMERCE NEED NOT. 

IN 1933, WASHINGTON'S SYSTEM OF TAXATION FAILED TO SUPPLY ADEQUATE
REVENUE TO SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ESSENTIAL TO THE WELFARE OF ITS PEOPLE. 
MOUNTING DELINQUENCIES DUE TO BURDENSOME TAXES ON PROPERTY LED THE
STATE LEGISLATURE TO CONCLUDE THAT PROPERTY TAXES HAD TO BE REDUCED. 
THIS REDUCTION WAS MADE.  THEN, FORCED TO SEEK NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE,
FN3  THE STATE TURNED - AS DID MANY OTHER STATES FACED WITH SIMILAR
NEEDS  FN4  - TO A GENERAL, NON-DISCRIMINATORY EXCISE TAX UPON BUSINESS
CARRIED ON IN WASHINGTON, MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS.  THIS GENERAL AND
NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX ENABLED "THE COMMON SCHOOLS OF THE STATE  ...
TO OPERATE THE FULL SCHOOL TERM."  FN5  WHILE THOSE ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE BUSINESSES HAVE ENJOYED THE PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION IN COMMON
WITH ALL WASHINGTON BUSINESSES, THE EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION HERE
GRANTED APPELLANT FORCES INTRA-STATE BUSINESSES TO BEAR THE ENTIRE
BURDEN OF THE EXCISE THAT REPLACED THE REPEALED PROPERTY TAXES.  FN6
ONLY INTRA-STATE BUSINESS IS REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE UNDER THIS EXCISE
TO THE SUPPORT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT THAT AFFORDS PROTECTION TO BOTH
INTERSTATE AND LOCAL BUSINESS.  FN7 

APPELLANT, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, SERVES - UNDER A CONTRACT MADE
IN WASHINGTON - AS SALES AGENT FOR WASHINGTON APPLE GROWERS.  ITS
AGENTS SELL THESE WASHINGTONGROWN APPLES IN WASHINGTON AND OTHER
STATES.  THE WASHINGTON EXCISE TAX IS MEASURED BY APPELLANT'S GROSS
INCOME - RECEIVED IN WASHINGTON - AND EARNED SOLELY BY SELLING APPLES
GROWN IN AND SHIPPED FROM THAT STATE.  FN8 

NO OTHER STATE IN WHICH APPELLANT'S AGENTS PERFORM SALES SERVICES HAS
IMPOSED A SIMILAR TAX UPON APPELLANT MEASURED BY ANY PART OF ITS GROSS
RECEIPTS.  SUCH AN EVENTUALITY - IF IT SHOULD OCCUR - IS GIVEN THE
TITLE OF "MULTIPLE TAXATION."  AND SUCH CONJECTURED "MULTIPLE TAXATION"
WOULD BE - IT IS SAID - A VIOLATION OF THAT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
WHICH GIVES CONGRESS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES.  THUS
FAR, CONGRESS HAS NOT DEEMED IT NECESSARY TO PROHIBIT THE STATES FROM
LEVYING TAXES MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
WHILE THERE ARE STRONG LOGICAL GROUNDS UPON WHICH THIS COURT HAS BASED
ITS INVALIDATION OF STATE LAWS ACTUALLY IMPOSING UNJUST, UNFAIR, AND
DISCRIMINATORY BURDENS AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS SUCH,  FN9  THE
SAME GROUNDS DO NOT SUPPORT A JUDICIAL REGULATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT
COMMERCE FROM VALIDLY ENACTED NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXES WHICH DO
NOT - BUT MAY SOMETIME - PROVE BURDENSOME.  WITH REFERENCE TO THE
POSSIBLE INVALIDITY OF ANOTHER PHASE OF THIS SAME WASHINGTON TAX
PROGRAM BY REASON OF CONJECTURED FUTURE TAXES OF OTHER STATES, THIS
COURT HAS SAID:  FN10 

"A STATE, FOR MANY PURPOSES, IS TO BE RECKONED AS A SELF-CONTAINED
UNIT, WHICH MAY FRAME ITS OWN SYSTEM OF BURDENS AND EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT
HEEDING SYSTEMS ELSEWHERE.  IF THERE ARE LIMITS TO THAT POWER, THERE IS
NO NEED TO MARK THEM NOW.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO MARK THEM WHEN A
TAXPAYER PAYING IN THE STATE OF ORIGIN IS COMPELLED TO PAY AGAIN IN THE
STATE OF DESTINATION." 

SO HERE, IF NATIONAL REGULATION TO PREVENT "MULTIPLE TAXATION" IS
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THIS COURT, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE TIME
ENOUGH TO CONSIDER IT WHEN APPELLANT OR SOME OTHER TAXPAYER IS ACTUALLY
SUBJECTED TO "MULTIPLE TAXATION." 

UNLESS WE PRESUPPOSE THAT THE CONJECTURED TAX ON APPELLANT'S GROSS
INCOME BY ANOTHER STATE WOULD BE VALID, APPELLANT HAS NOT EVEN SHOWN A
HYPOTHETICAL POSSIBILITY OF INJURY.  CERTAINLY, WASHINGTON'S LAW,
ENJOYING A STRONG PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY, WOULD NOT BE
INVALIDATED BECAUSE OF APPREHENSION THAT ANOTHER STATE MIGHT LAY A TAX
ON APPELLANT'S INCOME WHICH IS INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE.  ANY OTHER
STATE'S TAX ON APPELLANT WHICH DIRECTLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, COULD NOT (TOGETHER WITH WASHINGTON'S TAX) CREATE
A "MULTIPLE BURDEN."  THIS IS SO, BECAUSE SUCH A DISCRIMINATORY TAX
LAW, STANDING ALONE, WOULD BE HELD TO VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 
FN11  EVERY STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO UTILIZE GROSS RECEIPTS AS THE
MEASURE OF TAXES WHICH IT HAS THE POWER TO IMPOSE.  FN12  WASHINGTON -
IT IS ADMITTED - HAD THE POWER TO TAX APPELLANT SAVE FOR THE
POSSIBILITY OF "MULTIPLE TAXATION."  SINCE "MULTIPLE TAXATION" CAN ONLY
RESULT IF ANOTHER STATE PASSES A VALID, NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX LAW, TWO
NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE LAWS WHEN COMBINED BECOME INVALID AND
DISCRIMINATORY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AS A RESULT OF THE JUDGMENT
HERE.  THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF DEPARTING FROM THE SOUND POSITION
THAT STATE LAWS ARE NOT INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE UNLESS THEY
ACTUALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR CONFLICT WITH A
REGULATION ENACTED BY CONGRESS. 

APPELLANT IS HERE SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED FROM WASHINGTON'S NON
DISCRIMINATORY "TAX FOR THE ACT OR PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES" IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE OF CONJECTURED SIMILAR TAXATION OF
APPELLANT IN OTHER STATES.  HOWEVER, THE PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE
FIRST THREE CASES RELIED ON BY THE MAJORITY  FN13  WOULD CONSTITUTE
AUTHORITY FOR EXEMPTING APPELLANT'S AGENTS FROM A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE
OF ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING AND DELIVERING APPLES "IN OTHER
STATES TO WHICH (APPELLANT'S) COMMERCE EXTENDS."  THESE PRINCIPLES WERE
THERE APPLIED BY THIS COURT TO INVALIDATE TAXES ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
NEGOTIATING INTERSTATE SALES, LEVIED BY STATES IN WHICH THE PURCHASERS
RESIDED.  IN ONE OF THE CASES (CALDWELL V. NORTH CAROLINA, DECIDED IN
1903), THIS COURT OBSERVED (PP. 632-3) "THAT EFFORTS TO CONTROL
COMMERCE OF THIS KIND, IN THE INTEREST OF THE STATES WHERE THE
PURCHASERS RESIDE, HAVE BEEN FREQUENTLY MADE IN THE FORM OF STATUTES
AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES, BUT  ...  SUCH EFFORTS HAVE BEEN HERETOFORE
RENDERED FRUITLESS BY THE SUPERVISING ACTION OF THIS COURT."  THE
REASONING OF THESE THREE CASES, HOWEVER, DOES NOT SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT
HERE WHICH INVALIDATES A PRIVILEGE TAX LEVIED, NOT BY THE STATE WHERE
THE APPLES WERE PURCHASED, BUT BY THE STATE WHERE THE APPLES WERE
GROWN, WHERE THE APPELLANT DOES BUSINESS, AND TO WHICH ALL PROCEEDS
FROM SALES MADE BY APPELLANT ARE REMITTED.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE
SINCE THE THREE EARLIER DECISIONS ASSUMED THAT A PRIVILEGE TAX IMPOSED
BY AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS'S STATE OF RESIDENCE (SUCH AS THIS WASHINGTON
TAX ON APPELLANT) WOULD BE VALID.  IN ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING
DISTRICT, SUPRA, AT PAGE 498, THE COURT - IN EXPLAINING THAT THE LEVY
BY THE STATE OF PURCHASE OF A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF SELLING WOULD
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OUT OF STATE BUSINESSES - SAID:  "IT IS
PRESUMABLE,  ...  (THAT) THE MERCHANTS AND MANUFACTURERS OF OTHER
STATES IN THE PLACES WHERE THEY RESIDE" ARE TAXED FOR THEIR LICENSED
BUSINESSES THERE.  IN SHOWING THAT "THE TAX ...  (WAS) DISCRIMINATIVE
AGAINST THE MERCHANTS AND MANUFACTURERS OF OTHER STATES" THE COURT ALSO
STATED THAT "  ...  IT NOT ONLY OPERATES AS A RESTRICTION UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT  ...  IT IS INTENDED TO HAVE THAT EFFECT AS
ONE OF ITS PRINCIPAL OBJECTS."  APPELLANT'S BUSINESS IS EXEMPTED HERE
FROM A PRIVILEGE TAX IN ITS STATE OF RESIDENCE, AND APPROVAL IS GIVEN
AUTHORITIES EXEMPTING SUCH BUSINESS FROM PRIVILEGE TAXES IN OTHER
STATES WHERE APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED ON.  THUS, THESE THREE
CASES STAND BETWEEN APPELLANT AND CONJECTURED "MULTIPLE TAXATION" IN
OTHER STATES WHERE ITS AGENTS SELL APPLES.  THE EXEMPTION OF INTERSTATE
BUSINESS FROM THE TYPE OF STATE TAXATION HERE INVOLVED IS NOW MADE
COMPLETE. 

A BUSINESS ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES IN TWO OR MORE STATES SHOULD BEAR
ITS PART OF THE TAX BURDENS OF EACH.  IF VALID, NON-DISCRIMINATORY
TAXES IMPOSED IN THESE STATES CREATE "MULTIPLE" BURDENS, SUCH "BURDENS"
RESULT FROM THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS CREATED BY OUR FORM OF
GOVERNMENT.  THEY ARE THE PRICE PAID FOR GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION AND
MAINTENANCE IN ALL STATES WHERE THE TAXPAYER DOES BUSINESS.  A STATE'S
TAXES ARE NOT DISCRIMINATORY IF THE STATE TREATS THOSE ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE AND INTRA-STATE BUSINESS WITH EQUALITY AND JUSTICE.  IF THE
COMBINED VALID AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAXES OF MANY STATES RAISE A
PROBLEM, ONLY CONGRESS HAS POWER TO CONSIDER THAT PROBLEM AND TO
REGULATE WITH RESPECT TO IT.  NEITHER A STATE, NOR A STATE WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THIS COURT, HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ENACT RULES TO
ADJUST AND GOVERN CONFLICTING STATE INTERESTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY MIGHT DISCLOSE TO CONGRESS THAT THE SPECULATIVE
DANGER OF INJURY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS MORE THAN OFFSET BY THE
CERTAIN INJURY TO RESULT FROM DEPRIVING STATES OF A PRACTICAL METHOD OF
TAXATION.  IT MIGHT APPEAR TO CONGRESS THAT THE ADOPTION OF A RULE
AGAINST STATE TAXES MEASURED BY INTERSTATE COMMERCE GROSS RECEIPTS
WOULD DEPRIVE THE STATES OF A POTENT WEAPON USEFUL IN PREVENTING
EVASION OF STATE TAXES. 

THIS COURT'S RULE WOULD PERMIT WASHINGTON TO TAX APPELLANT'S NET
INCOME.  BUT DETERMINATION AND COLLECTION OF TAXES ON NET INCOMES ARE
OFTEN VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE CORPORATE PROFITS AND INCOME MAY BE
ISOLATED OR HIDDEN BY ACCOUNTING METHODS, HOLDING COMPANIES AND
INTERCORPORATE DEALINGS.  A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE NATION'S
COMMERCE IS CARRIED ON BY CORPORATIONS WITH FAR-FLUNG BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES IN MANY STATES.  INTER-CORPORATE RELATIONS MAY ASSUME "THEIR
RATHER CUMBERSOME AND INVOLVED NATURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING (A
STATE)  ...  TAX" ON INCOME AND TO "REMOVE INCOME FROM THE STATE THOUGH
STILL CREATING IT WITHIN THE STATE."  FN14  EVEN "PROFITS THEMSELVES
ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF ASCERTAINMENT WITH CERTAINTY AND PRECISION
EXCEPT AS THE RESULT OF INQUIRIES TOO MINUTE TO BE PRACTICABLE."  N15 

CONGRESS MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT THE STATES SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED FROM
UTILIZING NON-DISCRIMINATORY GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES FOR STATE REVENUES,
BECAUSE THERE ARE "JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX.  ...  IT
HAS GREATER CERTITUDE AND FACILITY OF ADMINISTRATION THAN THE NET
INCOME TAX, AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION TO TAXPAYER AND TAX GATHERER
ALIKE.  AND THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS INDICATED ON THE TAXPAYER'S
BOOKS MAY BEAR A CLOSER RELATION TO THE COST OF GOVERNMENTAL
SUPERVISION AND PROTECTION THAN THE ANNUAL PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT." 
FN16 

ONLY A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY AND INVESTIGATION OF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL
ECONOMY - WHICH CONGRESS ALONE HAS POWER AND FACILITIES TO MAKE - CAN
INDICATE THE NEED FOR, AS WELL AS JUSTIFY, RESTRICTING THE TAXING POWER
OF A STATE SO AS TO PROVIDE AGAINST CONJECTURED TAXATION BY MORE THAN
ONE STATE ON IDENTICAL INCOME.  A BROAD AND DELIBERATE LEGISLATIVE
INVESTIGATION - WHICH NO COURT CAN MAKE - MAY INDICATE TO CONGRESS THAT
A WISE POLICY FOR THE NATIONAL ECONOMY DEMANDS THAT EACH STATE IN WHICH
AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS OPERATES BE PERMITTED TO APPLY A NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAX TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THAT BUSINESS EITHER
BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE AND VOLUME OR PARTIALLY TO OFFSET THE TENDENCY
TOWARD CENTRALIZATION OF THE NATION'S BUSINESS.  FN17  CONGRESS MAY
FIND THAT TO SHELTER INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN A TAX EXEMPT REFUGE - IN
THE MANNER OF THE JUDGMENT HERE - IS TO GRANT THAT COMMERCE A
PRIVILEGED STATUS OVER INTRASTATE BUSINESS, CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL
WELFARE.    IT IS INDICATED, HOWEVER, THAT WASHINGTON MIGHT HAVE
VALIDLY APPORTIONED ITS FAIR SHARE OF APPELLANT'S GROSS INCOME FOR
TAXATION.  TO SAY THAT A SINGLE STATE CAN - SUBJECT TO SUPERVISION AND
APPROVAL BY THIS COURT - ENACT REGULATIONS APPORTIONING ITS SHARE OF
THE TAXABLE INCOME FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS TO TRANSFER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE SUCH COMMERCE FROM CONGRESS TO THE
STATES AND FEDERAL COURTS TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTION GIVES NO SUCH
POWER.  THE CONSTITUTION CONTEMPLATES THAT CONGRESS ALONE SHALL PROVIDE
FOR NECESSARY NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IN RULES GOVERNING FOREIGN AND
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN18  RULES TO FURTHER FREE TRADE AMONG THE
STATES BY APPORTIONMENT OR DIVISION OF TAXES ON SUCH COMMERCE, ARE
REGULATIONS.  BOTH THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH A RULE, AND THE DETERMINATION
AND ENACTMENT OF A REGULATION TO PUT IT INTO EFFECT, CALL FOR
FACILITIES AND POWERS POSSESSED NEITHER BY A STATE NOR BY THE COURTS. 
A STATE LEGISLATURE ATTEMPTING TO PUT UPON INTERSTATE BUSINESS ITS
APPORTIONED SHARE OF THE BURDEN OF TAXATION IS "FACED WITH THE
IMPOSSIBILITY OF ALLOCATING SPECIFICALLY THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE
PROCESSES CONDUCTED WITHIN" THE BORDERS OF THE STATE.  FN19  IF AN
"APPORTIONMENT" BETWEEN STATES OF TAXES ON INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS TO BE
MADE, IT CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT NATIONAL INQUIRY AND NATIONAL
ACTION. 

WHILE SOME FORMULAS FOR APPORTIONMENT DEVISED BY STATES HAVE BEEN
APPROVED BY THIS COURT,  FN20 OTHERS HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED.  FN21  A
FORMULA APPLIED BY CONNECTICUT WAS HELD VALID,  FN22  BUT A SIMILAR
FORMULA WAS HELD INVALID WHEN ADOPTED IN NORTH CAROLINA.  FN23  THE
LITIGATION WHICH HAS FOLLOWED IN THE WAKE OF STATE ATTEMPTS AT
APPORTIONMENT HAS CONFIRMED, IN THE OPINION OF MANY, THE WISDOM OF THE
FOUNDERS IN DENYING TO THE STATES AND COURTS, AND GRANTING TO THE
CONGRESS, EXCLUSIVE POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  DEPARTURES FROM
THIS PRINCIPLE HAVE, AS HERE, LEFT INTRA-STATE BUSINESSES - USUALLY
COMPARATIVELY SMALL - TO BEAR THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF TAXES INVALIDATED AS
TO INTERSTATE BUSINESSES, WHILE INTERSTATE BUSINESSES - USUALLY
CONDUCTED ON A LARGE SCALE - HAVE BEEN EXEMPTED.  SHOULD WASHINGTON
ATTEMPT AN APPORTIONMENT, THE FATE OF ITS FORMULA WOULD BE UNCERTAIN
UNTIL THIS COURT PASSES UPON ITS FAIRNESS.  A STATE'S INABILITY TO
OBTAIN NECESSARY DATA AND INFORMATION AS A BASIS OF A FORMULA FOR
APPORTIONMENT BETWEEN ITSELF AND THE OTHER FORTY-SEVEN STATES,
INDICATES IN ADVANCE THAT ITS APPORTIONMENT MIGHT BE INVALIDATED.  WHEN
STATE STATUTES OF APPORTIONMENT COME HERE THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO MAKE
THE BROAD NATIONAL INQUIRY NECESSARY TO REACH AN INFORMED CONCLUSION ON
THIS QUESTION OF ECONOMIC POLICY. 

BUT CONGRESS HAS BOTH THE FACILITIES FOR ACQUIRING THE NECESSARY
DATA, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ACT UPON IT.  "THE POWER OVER
COMMERCE  ...  WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE PEOPLE OF
AMERICA ADOPTED THEIR GOVERNMENT, AND MUST HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED IN
FORMING IT."  FN24 THE "DISASTROUS EXPERIENCES UNDER THE CONFEDERATION
WHEN THE STATES VIED IN DISCRIMINATORY MEASURES AGAINST EACH OTHER"
FN25  UNITED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN THE CONVICTION THAT SOME
BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE EXCLUSIVE POWER TO
REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES AND WITH FOREIGN NATIONS.  OUR
CONSTITUTION ADOPTED BY THAT CONVENTION DIVIDED THE POWERS OF
GOVERNMENT BETWEEN THREE DEPARTMENTS, CONGRESS, THE EXECUTIVE AND THE
JUDICIARY.  IT ALLOTTED TO CONGRESS ALONE THE "POWER  ...  TO REGULATE
COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES,  ...  "
CONGRESS IS THE ONLY DEPARTMENT OF OUR GOVERNMENT - STATE OR FEDERAL -
VESTED WITH AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER "MULTIPLE TAXATION" IS
INJURIOUS TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY; WHETHER NATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR
DIVISION OF TAXES MEASURED BY INTERSTATE COMMERCE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOULD
OR SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED; AND WHAT REGULATIONS, IF ANY, SHOULD PROTECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM "MULTIPLE TAXATION."  IT "IS THE FUNCTION OF
THIS COURT TO INTERPRET AND APPLY THE LAW ALREADY ENACTED, BUT NOT
UNDER THE GUISE OF CONSTRUCTION TO PROVIDE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME
OF REGULATION THAN CONGRESS HAS DECIDED UPON.  NOR, IN THE ABSENCE OF
FEDERAL ACTION, MAY WE DENY EFFECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE ENACTED
WITHIN THE FIELD WHICH IT IS ENTITLED TO OCCUPY UNTIL ITS AUTHORITY IS
LIMITED THROUGH THE EXERTION BY CONGRESS OF ITS PARAMOUNT
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER."  FN26 

UNTIL 1936,  FN27  THIS COURT HAD NEVER STRICKEN DOWN - AS VIOLATING
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE - A UNIFORM AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE PRIVILEGE
TAX MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS, AND CONSTITUTING AN INTEGRAL ELEMENT OF
A COMPREHENSIVE STATE TAX PROGRAM.  IN PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO.
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326, DECIDED HALF A CENTURY AGO AND RELIED
UPON TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT HERE, THIS COURT DID NOT DETERMINE THAT
SUCH A GENERAL BUSINESS TAX - APPLIED TO ALL BUSINESSES WITHIN A STATE
COULD NOT BE MEASURED BY INTERSTATE COMMERCE GROSS RECEIPTS.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE INVALIDATED TAX WAS "A TAX ON
TRANSPORTATION ONLY" (P. 345), AND THAT EVEN ONE ENGAGED IN
TRANSPORTATION COULD "LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN,  ...  BE PERSONALLY TAXED
FOR THE AMOUNT OF HIS PROPERTY OR ESTATE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SOURCE
FROM WHICH IT WAS DERIVED, WHETHER FROM COMMERCE, OR BANKING, OR ANY
OTHER EMPLOYMENT."  THAT, AS THE COURT MADE CLEAR, WAS "AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT THING FROM LAYING A SPECIAL TAX UPON HIS RECEIPTS IN A
PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT."  (P. 342.)  SINCE THE PHILADELPHIA S.S. CO.
CASE, THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED MANY STATE TAXES MEASURED BY RECEIPTS
BOTH FROM INTERSTATE AND INTRA-STATE COMMERCE.  FN28  IT WAS NOT UNTIL
THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S.
292, 296, AND UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321, 329,
DECIDED 1917 AND 1918, RESPECTIVELY, THAT THIS COURT FIRST TENTATIVELY
ANNOUNCED, BY WAY OF DICTA, A RULE CONDEMNING STATE TAXES BASED ON
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE FULL-BLOWN RULE UNDER
WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS STRIKE DOWN GENERALLY APPLIED NON
DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAXES MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE
COMMERCE RIPENED INTO ITS PRESENT EXPANDED FORM ONLY EIGHT MONTHS AGO
(ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, MAY 16, 1938).  THIS RECENT
JUDICIAL RESTRICTION - STILL LESS THAN A YEAR OLD - ON THE POWER OF THE
STATES TO LEVY GENERAL GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES, CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED OR
VALIDATED BY CLAIMING PRESTIGE FROM ADVANCED AGE. 

SINCE THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE POWER TO CONGRESS TO
REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES, REPEATED ASSUMPTION OF THIS POWER
BY THE COURTS - EVEN OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS - COULD NOT MAKE THIS
ASSUMPTION OF POWER CONSTITUTIONAL.  APRIL 25, 1938, THIS COURT
OVERRULED AND RENOUNCED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASSUMPTION OF POWER BY THE
FEDERAL COURTS BASED ON A DOCTRINE EXTENDING BACK THROUGH AN UNBROKEN
LINE OF AUTHORITY TO 1842.  FN29  IN OVERRULING, IT WAS SAID: "WE
MERELY DECLARE THAT IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE (DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL) THIS COURT AND THE LOWER COURTS HAVE INVADED RIGHTS
WHICH IN OUR OPINION ARE RESERVED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE SEVERAL
STATES."  (AT PAGE 80.)  A CENTURY OLD RULE HAD PRODUCED "INJUSTICE AND
CONFUSION" AND "THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COURSE PURSUED  ...
(HAD BECOME) CLEAR  ...  "  (PP. 77, 78.)  THAT DECISION RESTED UPON
THE SOUND PRINCIPLE THAT THE RULE OF STARE DECISIS CANNOT CONFER POWERS
UPON THE COURTS WHICH THE INEXORABLE COMMAND OF THE CONSTITUTION SAYS
THEY SHALL NOT HAVE.  STATE OBEDIENCE TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASSUMPTION
OF POWER BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, AND INACTION BY THE
CONGRESS, CANNOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION BY CREATING AND ESTABLISHING A
NEW "FEATURE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM."  NO PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION AUTHORIZES ITS AMENDMENT IN THIS MANNER. 

IT IS ESSENTIAL TODAY, AS AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THAT COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES AND WITH FOREIGN NATIONS
BE LEFT FREE FROM DISCRIMINATORY AND RETALIATORY BURDENS IMPOSED BY THE
STATES.  IT IS OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE, HOWEVER, THAT THE JUDICIAL
DEPARTMENT OF OUR GOVERNMENT SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS AND THAT CONGRESS ALONE SHOULD ADOPT A BROAD NATIONAL
POLICY OF REGULATION - IF OTHERWISE VALID STATE LAWS COMBINE TO HAMPER
THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE.  DOUBTLESS, MUCH CONFUSION WOULD BE AVOIDED
IF THE COURTS WOULD REFRAIN FROM RESTRICTING THE ENFORCEMENT OF VALID,
NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAX LAWS.  ANY BELIEF THAT CONGRESS HAS FAILED
TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PROBLEMS OF CONJECTURED "MULTIPLE TAXATION"
OR "APPORTIONMENT" BY EXERTING ITS EXCLUSIVE POWER OVER INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IS AN INADEQUATE REASON FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT
- WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER - TO ATTEMPT TO PERFORM THE DUTY
CONSTITUTIONALLY REPOSED IN CONGRESS.  I WOULD RETURN TO THE RULE THAT
EXCEPT FOR STATE ACTS DESIGNED TO IMPOSE DISCRIMINATORY BURDENS ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE IT IS INTERSTATE - CONGRESS ALONE MUST
"DETERMINE HOW FAR (INTERSTATE COMMERCE)  ...  SHALL BE FREE AND
UNTRAMMELLED, HOW FAR IT SHALL BE BURDENED BY DUTIES AND IMPOSTS, AND
HOW FAR IT SHALL BE PROHIBITED."  FN30 

FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS SET OUT ELSEWHERE  FN31  I BELIEVE THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 583. 

FN2  CF. POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. V. RICHMOND, 249 U.S. 252, 259. 

FN3  FIFTH BIENNIAL REPORT, TAX COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON; "THE SALES
TAX IN THE AMERICAN STATES," HAIG & SHOUP (1934), P. 309 ET SEQ. 

FN4  AT LEAST ELEVEN STATES - MOST OF THEM RECENTLY - HAVE IMPOSED
GROSS INCOME OR GROSS SALES TAXES UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS
WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BORDERS.  SEE, "TAX SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD," 7TH
ED. (CCH), PP. 153 TO 156.  WHILE THESE LAWS VARY IN APPLICATION,
SEVERAL MAY BE GENERALLY CHARACTERIZED AS SIMILAR TO THE WASHINGTON
TAX.  SEE, "STATE LAW INDEX" NO. 5, P. 673(LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS); FIFTH BIENNIAL REPORT, SUPRA; DISSENT,
ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 317, FOOTNOTE 4. 

FN5  FIFTH BIENNIAL REPORT, SUPRA, P. 8. 

FN6  CF. CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450, 453, 454;
UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335, 345, 347. 

FN7  WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123, 137. 

FN8  WHILE ABOUT 25% OF APPELLANT'S BUSINESS RELATES TO THE SALE OF
OREGON-GROWN APPLES, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON MADE NO CONTENTION THAT IT
COULD UNDER ITS STATUTE IMPOSE A TAX UPON APPELLANT'S RECEIPTS FROM THE
SALE OF OREGON-GROWN APPLES.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT FROM
WHICH APPEAL WAS TAKEN EXPRESSLY STATES:  "THE COURT  ...  CONSIDERED
...  THE STIPULATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE STATE MAKES NO CLAIM
TO THE TAX UPON THE OREGON BUSINESS OF  ... (APPELLANT) EVEN THOUGH IT
CLEARS THROUGH  ...  (APPELLANT'S) SEATTLE OFFICE," AND WAS "OF THE
OPINION THAT THE BUSINESS OF  ...  (APPELLANT), ORIGINATING IN THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, IS TAXABLE."  IN AFFIRMING THIS JUDGMENT THE
SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON POINTED OUT THAT APPELLANT WAS DENYING "THE
STATE TAX COMMISSION'S CLAIM OF A TAX LIABILITY ON THE TOTAL COMMISSION
APPELLANT RECEIVES FROM THE GROWERS FOR WASHINGTON-GROWN FOOD SOLD AND
SHIPPED TO PARTS WITHIN AND WITHOUT THIS STATE ..." 

FN9  WELTON V. MISSOURI, 91 U.S. 275; WALLING V. MICHIGAN, 116 U.S.
446; DARNELL & SON CO. V. MEMPHIS, 208 U.S. 113; CF. PHILADELPHIA &
SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326, 342, 344-5. 

FN10  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., SUPRA, AT 587. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 9, SUPRA; CF. SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S.
506, 516; PACIFIC CO. V. JOHNSON, 285 U.S. 480, 493. 

FN12  NEW YORK RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573, 582. 

FN13  ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489;
CALDWELL V. NORTH CAROLINA, 187 U.S. 622; REAL SILK MILLS V. PORTLAND,
268 U.S. 325. 

FN14  PALMOLIVE CO. V. CONWAY, 43 F.2D 226, 230, CERT. DEN., 287 U.S.
601; SEE MAGILL "ALLOCATION OF INCOME BY CORPORATE CONTRACT," 44
HARVARD LAW REVIEW 935; "INTERSTATE ALLOCATION OF CORPORATE INCOME FOR
TAXING PURPOSES" (NOTE) XL YALE LAW REVIEW 1273; HUSTON "ALLOCATION OF
CORPORATE NET INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION," XXVI ILL. LAW REVIEW
725; BRECKENRIDGE, "TAX ESCAPE BY MANIPULATIONS OF HOLDING COMPANY," 9
NO. CAR.  LAW REVIEW 189; BERLE AND MEANS, "THE MODERN CORPORATION AND
PRIVATE PROPERTY" (1934), P. 202 ET SEQ. 

FN15  CARDOZO, J., DISSENTING, STEWART DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294
U.S. 550, 576. 

FN16  NEW YORK RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, 582-3. 

FN17  CF. BRANDEIS, J., DISSENTING, LIGGETT CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. 517,
574:  "BUSINESSES MAY BECOME AS HARMFUL TO THE COMMUNITY BY EXCESSIVE
SIZE, AS BY MONOPOLY OR THE COMMONLY RECOGNIZED RESTRAINTS OF TRADE. 
IF THE STATE SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT BIGNESS IN RETAIL MERCHANDISING AS
MANIFESTED IN CORPORATE CHAIN STORES MENACES THE PUBLIC WELFARE, IT
MIGHT PROHIBIT THE EXCESSIVE SIZE OR EXTENT OF THAT BUSINESS  ...  IT
WAS SAID IN UNITED STATES V. U.S. STEEL CORP., 251 U.S. 417, 451, THAT
THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT DID NOT FORBID LARGE AGGREGATIONS; BUT THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT CORPORATIONS OF A SIZE DEEMED EXCESSIVE
FROM ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS NOT QUESTIONED." 

FN18  WELTON V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, 279, 280. 

FN19  UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113, 121. 

FN20  UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, SUPRA; BASS, RATCLIFF
& GRETTON V. TAX COMM'N, 266 U.S. 271; CF. NATIONAL LEATHER CO. V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 277 U.S. 413.    FN21  HANS REES' SONS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 283 U.S. 123; CF. WALLACE V. HINES, 253 U.S. 66; ALPHA
PORTLAND CEMENT CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 268 U.S. 203. 

FN22  UNDERWOOD CASE, SUPRA. 

FN23  REES' CASE, SUPRA. 

FN24  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 190. 

FN25  THE MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 398.  SEE ALSO HOUSTON,
E. & W.T. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, (THE SHREVEPORT CASE), 234 U.S.
342, 350.  "THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES WAS
VESTED IN CONGRESS IN ORDER TO SECURE EQUALITY AND FREEDOM IN
COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE AGAINST DISCRIMINATING STATE LEGISLATION.  ...
"  RAILROAD CO. V. RICHMOND, 19 WALL.  584, 589.  SEE ALSO, COUNTY OF
MOBILE V. KIMBALL, 102 U.S. 691, 697. 

FN26  THE MINNESOTA RATE CASES, SUPRA, 433. 

FN27  FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650, SEE ADAMS
MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307. 

FN28  SEE NOTES 17, 18 AND 19, DISSENT, ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V.
STOREN, SUPRA, P. 329. 

FN29  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 

FN30  WELTON V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, 280. 

FN31  SEE DISSENT, ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307, 316. 
..END :










PRINCESS LIDA V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 456 


NO. 118.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 18, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  -
329 PA. 497 - 198 A. 58, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA UNDER A BILL TO COMPEL SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AN
AGREEMENT INTER PARTES CREATING A TRUST CEASED WHEN THE COURT'S DECREE
REQUIRING SUCH PERFORMANCE WAS COMPLIED WITH AND SATISFIED.  P. 461. 

2.  TWO SURVIVING TRUSTEES OF A VOLUNTARY TRUST FILED AN ACCOUNT, FOR
THEMSELVES AND FOR A DECEASED TRUSTEE, IN A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PENNSYLVANIA.  THEREAFTER, TWO OF THE FIVE CESTUIS QUE TRUSTENT SUED
THE SURVIVING TRUSTEES AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DECEASED ONE, IN A
FEDERAL COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA, CHARGING MISMANAGEMENT AND PRAYING FOR
AN ACCOUNTING AND RESTITUTION, FOR REMOVAL OF THE DEFENDANT TRUSTEES,
AND THAT ALL TRUSTEES UNDER THE AGREEMENT BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BOND, AND
FOR GENERAL RELIEF.  ONE OF THE OTHER BENEFICIARIES APPEARED IN THE
COMMON PLEAS PROCEEDING AND EXCEPTED TO THE TRUSTEES' ACCOUNT.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT UNDER PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, THE STATE COURT, UPON THE
FILING OF THE ACCOUNT, GAINED JURISDICTION OVER THE TRUST QUASI IN
REM.  SHELBY V. BACON, 10 HOW.  56, LIMITED.  P. 462. 

(2)  THAT THE FEDERAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN THE SUIT
BEFORE IT, INVOLVING AS IT DID CONTROL OF THE TRUST RES AND
ADMINISTRATION, ALREADY WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE
COURT, AND WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ENJOIN PARTIES FROM PROSECUTING THE
STATE PROCEEDING.  P. 465. 

(3)  THAT THE STATE COURT PROPERLY ENJOINED PARTIES FROM FURTHER
PROCEEDING IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  P. 467. 

3.  WHERE THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT IS STRICTLY IN PERSONAM, BOTH THE STATE
COURT AND THE FEDERAL COURT, HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, MAY
PROCEED WITH THE LITIGATION AT LEAST UNTIL JUDGMENT IS OBTAINED IN ONE
OF THEM WHICH MAY BE SET UP AS RES JUDICATA IN THE OTHER.  P. 466. 

4.  BUT IF THE TWO SUITS ARE IN REM, OR QUASI IN REM, SO THAT THE
COURT, OR ITS OFFICER, HAS POSSESSION OR MUST HAVE CONTROL OF THE
PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE LITIGATION IN ORDER TO PROCEED
WITH THE CAUSE AND GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT, THE JURISDICTION OF THE ONE
COURT MUST YIELD TO THAT OF THE OTHER.  ID. 

THE PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS THAT THE
COURT FIRST ASSUMING JURISDICTION OVER PROPERTY MAY MAINTAIN AND
EXERCISE THAT JURISDICTION TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER, IS NOT
RESTRICTED TO CASES WHERE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACTUALLY SEIZED UNDER
JUDICIAL PROCESS BEFORE A SECOND SUIT IS INSTITUTED, BUT APPLIES AS
WELL WHERE SUITS ARE BROUGHT TO MARSHAL ASSETS, ADMINISTER TRUSTS, OR
LIQUIDATE ESTATES, AND IN SUITS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WHERE, TO GIVE
EFFECT TO ITS JURISDICTION, THE COURT MUST CONTROL THE PROPERTY.  ID. 

AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OR THE
AMOUNT OF A CLAIM, IN RESPECT OF A TRUST, CONSTITUTES NO INTERFERENCE
WITH THE STATE COURT'S POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF A RES.  ID. 

PRINCESS LIDA OF THURN AND TAXIS ET AL. V. THOMPSON ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 582, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH AFFIRMED AN ORDER
OF A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA ENJOINING THE PETITIONERS
HERE FROM PROSECUTING A SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
BY A STATE COURT OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF A TRUST DEPRIVES A FEDERAL
COURT OF JURISDICTION OF A LATER SUIT INVOLVING THE SAME SUBJECT
MATTER. 

DECEMBER 6, 1906, GERALD P. FITZGERALD, A CITIZEN OF IRELAND, AND HIS
WIFE LIDA, ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH JOSIAH V.
THOMPSON, CHARLES E. LENHART, AND FITZGERALD, AS TRUSTEES, WHICH
RECITED THE MARRIAGE OF THE TWO FIRST NAMED, THAT THEY HAD THREE SONS,
AND THAT, ON DECEMBER 5, 1906, LIDA HAD OBTAINED A DECREE OF DIVORCE IN
IRELAND.  THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED FOR PAYMENTS OF ALIMONY BY GERALD TO
LIDA PENDING AN ABSOLUTE DIVORCE (WHICH WAS EVENTUALLY GRANTED), AND
FOR PAYMENTS THEREAFTER BY GERALD TO THE TRUSTEES FOR THE BENEFIT OF
LIDA AND THE CHILDREN, TO BE MADE OUT OF HIS SHARE OF THE PROFITS OF
TWO PARTNERSHIPS OF WHICH HE WAS A MEMBER.  FROM THESE PROFITS GERALD
WAS TO PAY THE TRUSTEES FOR LIDA'S BENEFIT AN ANNUITY OF $15,000 FOR
THE FIRST THREE YEARS AND $20,000 THEREAFTER.  HE WAS FURTHER TO PAY
ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUITY AND ONE-THIRD OF HIS
SHARE OF THE PROFITS ANNUALLY UNTIL A FUND SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE
HANDS OF THE TRUSTEES AMOUNTING TO $300,000, IN WHICH LIDA, THE SONS,
AND GERALD WERE GIVEN INTERESTS, EITHER OF INCOME OR PRINCIPAL OR
BOTH.  IN THE EVENT OF DEATH, RESIGNATION, OR DISABILITY OF A TRUSTEE,
OR A SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, THE VACANCY WAS TO BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY
THE TWO REMAINING TRUSTEES, OR, ON THEIR FAILURE TO APPOINT, BY THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, ON THE PETITION
OF A REMAINING TRUSTEE OR OF LIDA. 

LIDA AND THE THREE SONS ARE LIVING.  GERALD HAS ASSIGNED HIS INTEREST
IN THE TRUST TO THE SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF UNIONTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA. 

GERALD PERFORMED THE AGREEMENT UNTIL JUNE, 1910, WHEN HE REPUDIATED
IT.  THOMPSON, ONE OF THE TRUSTEES, LIDA AND HER SONS, BROUGHT SUIT IN
EQUITY IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,
SEEKING PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT BY GERALD AND OTHER RELIEF. 
GERALD ANSWERED PRAYING A DECLARATION THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS VOID. 
AFTER A HEARING THE COURT ENTERED A DECREE SUSTAINING THE AGREEMENT;
ORDERING GERALD TO ACCOUNT AND TO PAY WHAT MIGHT BE SHOWN TO BE DUE;
REMOVING HIM AS A TRUSTEE; FIXING A LIEN UPON HIS PARTNERSHIP
INTERESTS; AND RESTRAINING HIM FROM ENCUMBERING OR CONVEYING THEM UNTIL
THE $300,000 FUND CONTEMPLATED BY THE AGREEMENT SHOULD BE ACCUMULATED
IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUSTEES. 

IN MARCH, 1915, THE TRUSTEES THEN IN OFFICE PETITIONED FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND THE AGREEMENT AND FOR MODIFICATION OF THE EARLIER DECREE TO
PROVIDE THAT GERALD SHOULD PAY AND SECURE TO THE TRUSTEES THE PAYMENT
OF SUMS SUFFICIENT TO CREATE TWO FUNDS, ONE OF $400,000 FOR LIDA'S
BENEFIT AND THE OTHER OF $300,000 PRINCIPALLY FOR THE SONS' BENEFIT. 
THE COURT APPROVED THE PETITION AND MODIFIED ITS FORMER DECREE
ACCORDINGLY.  MAY 25, 1925, THE TRUSTEES THEN IN OFFICE ACKNOWLEDGED
RECEIPT OF ALL THE SUMS DUE UNDER THE DECREE OF THE COURT AS MODIFIED
AND DIRECTED THAT SATISFACTION OF THE DECREE BE ENTERED OF RECORD. 
THIS WAS DONE JUNE 3, 1925. 

OCTOBER 9, 1925, THE THREE ACTING TRUSTEES FILED AN ACCOUNT IN THE
COMMON PLEAS COURT, WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF EXCEPTIONS, WAS
CONFIRMED.  JULY 7, 1930, A SECOND AND PARTIAL ACCOUNT WAS FILED IN THE
SAME COURT BY TWO SURVIVING TRUSTEES ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND A
DECEASED TRUSTEE. 

ON THE NEXT DAY LIDA AND HER SON JOHN BROUGHT SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AGAINST THE TWO TRUSTEES AND THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THE DECEASED
TRUSTEE, ALLEGING MISMANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST FUNDS AND PRAYING THAT THE
TRUSTEES BE REMOVED AND ALL THE DEFENDANTS BE MADE TO ACCOUNT AND REPAY
THE LOSSES OF THE ESTATE.  THEREAFTER THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
EXTENDED THE TIME FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THE SECOND ACCOUNT AND, ON
FEBRUARY 16, 1931, EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED BY GERALD P. FITZGERALD, JR.
MEANTIME THE TRUSTEES MOVED TO DISMISS THE BILL IN THE FEDERAL COURT
FOR LACK OF INDISPENSABLE PARTIES AND BECAUSE THE STATE COURT HAD
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE CONTROVERSY.  MAY 12, 1931, THE FEDERAL
COURT REFUSED THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND REQUIRED THE DEFENDANTS TO
ANSWER, DECLARING THAT IT WOULD NOT DECIDE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
UNTIL AFTER ANSWERS HAD BEEN FILED.  MAY 18, 1931, THE DEFENDANTS
ANSWERED SETTING UP THAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT.  NOTHING FURTHER WAS DONE IN THE
FEDERAL SUIT UNTIL APRIL 17, 1937, WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS AMENDED THEIR
BILL.  MAY 5, 1937, THE TRUSTEES ANSWERED THE AMENDMENT.  MEANTIME, ON
MAY 1, 1937, THE TRUSTEES HAD PRESENTED A PETITION IN THE STATE COURT
FOR A RULE UPON THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN, TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE RESTRAINED FROM
PROSECUTING THEIR SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  AFTER AN ANSWER BY LIDA
DENYING THAT THE COMMON PLEAS COURT HAD CONTROL OR POSSESSION OF THE
TRUST FUNDS OR THAT ANY CONTROVERSY WAS THEREIN PENDING WHEN SUIT WAS
INSTITUTED IN THE FEDERAL COURT, THE RULE WAS MADE ABSOLUTE JUNE 17,
1937.  JULY 6, 1937, JOHN FITZGERALD, ONE OF THE PETITIONERS, APPLIED
TO THE FEDERAL COURT FOR AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE DEFENDANTS IN
THE CASE THERE PENDING, THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN, FROM FURTHER
PROSECUTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT.  ON THE SAME DAY THE
PETITIONERS TOOK AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMON PLEAS COURT TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  JULY 19, 1937, THE TRUSTEES FILED
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT A THIRD AND PARTIAL ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST TO
WHICH EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED.  TESTIMONY WAS THEREAFTER TAKEN ON THE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE SECOND ACCOUNT.  SEPTEMBER 18, 1937, THE FEDERAL
COURT TEMPORARILY ENJOINED THE DEFENDANTS IN THAT COURT, THE
RESPONDENTS HEREIN, FROM FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
STATE COURT TO ENJOIN THE PLAINTIFFS, THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, FROM
HAVING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE TRIED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AND SET
NOVEMBER 8, 1937, FOR A TRIAL OF THAT ISSUE.  TRIAL WAS ACCORDINGLY
HAD. 

MARCH 21, 1938, THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AFFIRMED THE ORDER
OF THE COMMON PLEAS COURT ENJOINING THE PETITIONERS FROM PROSECUTING
THEIR SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT,  FN1  AND, ON THE SAME DAY, THE
DISTRICT COURT RENDERED AN OPINION HOLDING IT HAD JURISDICTION
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT.  THE
DISTRICT JUDGE ENTERED NO DECREE BUT STATED THAT REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS
OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND A FORM OF DECREE, MIGHT BE SUBMITTED,
AND THAT HE WOULD PROCEED THEREAFTER TO TRY THE MERITS OF THE CAUSE. 

WE ARE THUS CONFRONTED WITH A SITUATION WHERE EACH OF THE COURTS
CLAIMING JURISDICTION HAS RESTRAINED THE PARTIES BEFORE IT FROM
PROCEEDING IN THE OTHER.  IN VIEW OF THIS UNUSUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS, OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION INVOLVED, AND OF THE CLAIM THAT THE
ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IS IN CONFLICT WITH OUR
DECISIONS, WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

FIRST.  THE SUIT BROUGHT IN COMMON PLEAS COURT IN 1910 WAS FOR THE
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER 6, 1906.  THE DECREE
IN THAT SUIT DECLARED THE AGREEMENT VALID AND COMMANDED PERFORMANCE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS.  AS THE AGREEMENT CALLED FOR A CONTINUING
PERFORMANCE, AND THE DECREE WAS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THAT PERFORMANCE,
THE COURT RETAINED JURISDICTION TO RENDER THE GRANTED RELIEF
EFFECTIVE.  IT EXERCISED THIS RETAINED JURISDICTION IN 1915, WHEN, BY
CONSENT OF THE PARTIES, IT MODIFIED ITS DECREE TO COMPORT WITH
AMENDMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT.  BUT THE COURT'S JURISDICTION UNDER THE
BILL CEASED WHEN FITZGERALD HAD COMPLETELY PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE AMENDED DECREE OF 1915, AS EVIDENCED BY THE TRUSTEES'
ACKNOWLEDGMENT FILED OF RECORD IN THE COURT ON JUNE 3, 1925, THAT THE
TERMS OF THE DECREE HAD BEEN SATISFIED.  THE TRUST WAS CREATED BY
AGREEMENT INTER PARTES, ONE OF WHOM REPUDIATED AND FAILED TO PERFORM
IT.  WHEN PERFORMANCE HAD BEEN OBTAINED THE EQUITY PROCEEDING WAS AT AN
END; THE TRUST RES IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUSTEES, WHO WERE THE CREATURES
OF THE AGREEMENT, THEN HAD THE SAME STATUS AS IF THE COURT HAD NEVER
BEEN CALLED UPON TO ACT. 

SECOND.  ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT VACANCIES OCCURRING BY
DEATH, RESIGNATION, OR INCAPACITY OF A TRUSTEE SHOULD BE FILLED BY THE
REMAINING TRUSTEES, AND THAT APPLICATION TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
TO APPOINT A NEW TRUSTEE SHOULD ONLY BE MADE IN THE EVENT THE TRUSTEES
IN OFFICE COULD NOT AGREE ON THE APPOINTMENT OF A SUCCESSOR, IT APPEARS
THAT FROM TIME TO TIME TRUSTEES PRESENTED THEIR RESIGNATIONS TO THAT
COURT AND THE COURT PURPORTED TO ACCEPT THEM.  AND WHEN THE REMAINING
TRUSTEES APPOINTED NEW TRUSTEES TO FILL VACANCIES THEY REPORTED THEIR
ACTION TO THE COURT WHICH SOMETIMES PURPORTED TO CONFIRM AND RATIFY
THAT ACTION.  THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT THE FIRST METHOD
PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR FILLING VACANCIES EVER WAS IMPRACTICABLE,
OR THAT THERE WAS OCCASION FOR RESORT TO THE COURT.  THE PETITIONERS
CONTEND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT'S APPROVAL WAS UNNECESSARY
AND DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION.  WE FIND IT
UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THE CONTENTION. 

THIRD.  THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER THE FILING OF THE
TRUSTEES' ACCOUNT ON JULY 7, 1930, GAVE THE COMMON PLEAS COURT
JURISDICTION, AND, IF SO, WHAT WAS THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THAT
JURISDICTION.  THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IS GIVEN "THE JURISDICTION AND
POWERS OF A COURT OF CHANCERY, SO FAR AS RELATES TO:  ...  THE CONTROL,
REMOVAL AND DISCHARGE OF TRUSTEES, AND THE APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES, AND
THE SETTLEMENT OF THEIR ACCOUNTS."  N2  RESPECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE
JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY A STATUTORY GRANT SO PHRASED THE SUPREME
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS SAID:  "THE SCOPE OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF
NECESSITY INCLUDES ANY MATTER WHICH CONCERNS THE INTEGRITY OF THE TRUST
RES - ITS ADMINISTRATION, ITS PRESERVATION AND ITS DISPOSITION AND ANY
OTHER MATTER WHEREIN ITS OFFICERS (TRUSTEES) ARE AFFECTED IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES."  FN3 THIS JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH "ANY SUCH TRUSTEE SHALL
HAVE RESIDED AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRUST."  FN4  TWO OF THE
ORIGINAL TRUSTEES NAMED IN THE AGREEMENT WERE RESIDENTS OF FAYETTE
COUNTY.  TWO METHODS ARE PROVIDED FOR INVOKING THE JURISDICTION WITH
RESPECT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST.  THE COURT MAY CITE THE
TRUSTEE ON THE APPLICATION OF ANY PERSON IN INTEREST "TO EXHIBIT AN
ACCOUNT OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST ESTATE."  FN5  THE TRUSTEE MAY,
ON THE OTHER HAND, OBTAIN AN ADJUDICATION OF HIS MANAGEMENT OF THE
TRUST BY FILING HIS ACCOUNT IN THE OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE
COURT AND, UPON SUCH FILING, PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE HAD IN THE SAME
MANNER AS IF HE HAD FILED THE ACCOUNT UNDER COMPULSION.  FN6 THE
TRUSTEE IS PERMITTED TO HAVE AN ADJUDICATION OF HIS STEWARDSHIP IN THIS
MANNER EVERY THREE YEARS.  FN7 

IT THUS APPEARS THAT WHETHER AN ACCOUNT BE FILED PURSUANT TO CITATION
OR AS THE VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE TRUSTEE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
ATTACHES AND MAY BE EXERCISED OVER ALL THE MATTERS WHICH FALL WITHIN
ITS SUPERVISORY CONTROL OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE.  THE COURT
HAS THE POWER TO FIX THE COMPENSATION OF THE TRUSTEE N8, TO REQUIRE HIM
TO TAKE OVER FROM THE TRUST INVESTMENTS IMPROPERLY MADE AND TO RESTORE
THE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR THEM TO THE TRUST ESTATE,  FN9  TO SURCHARGE
HIM WITH LOSSES INCURRED, TO ALLOW HIM HIS PROPER EXPENSES, TO FIND
AGAINST HIM A BALANCE DUE THE ESTATE, AND TO MAKE THE BALANCE FOUND DUE
A LIEN UPON HIS REAL ESTATE.  FN10  IN THE CASE OF A CONTINUING TRUST
SUCH AS THAT HERE IN QUESTION, AFTER ADJUDICATION, THE CORPUS IS
REAWARDED TO THE TRUSTEE FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE TERMS OF THE TRUST.  IN THE CASE OF AN ACCOUNT FILED AT THE CLOSE
OF ADMINISTRATION THE COURT HAS POWER TO DECREE DISTRIBUTION TO THE
PARTIES ENTITLED.  UNDER THE EQUITY POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT THE COURT
MAY ENFORCE ITS ORDERS AGAINST A TRUSTEE BY ATTACHMENT FOR CONTEMPT. 
FN11  THE JURISDICTION EXTENDS TO A TRUST LIKE THE PRESENT CREATED BY
DEED OR VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.  FN12  THE AUDIT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE
ACCOUNT IS TO BE HAD AFTER ADVERTISEMENT AND OTHER FORMS OF NOTICE AND
IS BINDING ON ALL THOSE ANYWISE INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE WHO HAVE HAD
THE REQUIRED STATUTORY NOTICE OF THE AUDIT.  FN13  THE PARTIES IN
INTEREST ARE PERMITTED BY EXCEPTION AND OBJECTION TO THE ACCOUNT TO
RAISE ALL PERTINENT QUESTIONS RESPECTING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUST,
AND TO INVOKE THE POWERS OF THE COURT OVER THE SUBJECTS ABOVE
MENTIONED.  FN14  THE AUDIT WILL FURTHER DISCLOSE WHETHER THERE BE
PROBABLE GROUND FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE TRUSTEE AND THE APPOINTMENT OF
ANOTHER IN HIS PLACE AND IF THAT BE DONE THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO
COMPEL THE REMOVED TRUSTEE TO TRANSFER THE TRUST ASSETS TO HIS
SUCCESSOR.    IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FILING OF THEIR ACCOUNT ON JULY 7,
1930, SUBJECTED THE RESPONDENTS, AS THE TRUSTEES THEN IN OFFICE, TO THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWERS THUS CONFERRED UPON THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 

WE TURN TO THE SUIT INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO ASCERTAIN
WHAT RELIEF WAS THERE SOUGHT.  IN THE BILL AS ORIGINALLY FILED SUNDRY
INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE TRUSTEES WERE ATTACKED AND THEY WERE CHARGED
WITH MISMANAGEMENT OF THE ESTATE.  THE PRAYERS WERE THAT THEY BE CITED
TO FILE AN ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST; THAT THEY BE REMOVED; THAT ALL
TRUSTEES UNDER THE AGREEMENT BE REQUIRED TO GIVE BOND FOR THE FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES; AND FOR GENERAL RELIEF.  BY THE AMENDED
BILL ADDITIONAL TRUST INVESTMENTS WERE ATTACKED.  NEW PRAYERS WERE
SUBSTITUTED ASKING THAT THE DEFENDANTS BE REQUIRED TO ANSWER, TO
RESTORE TO THE TRUST FUNDS THE MONEYS LOST BY THEIR ILLEGAL AND
NEGLIGENT CONDUCT; THAT THEY BE REMOVED; THAT ALL TRUSTEES BE REQUIRED
TO GIVE BOND; AND FOR GENERAL RELIEF. 

THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE DISTRICT COURT WERE BUT TWO OF THE FIVE
CESTUIS.  ONE OF THE OTHERS HAS APPEARED IN THE COMMON PLEAS PROCEEDING
AND EXCEPTED TO THE TRUSTEES' ACCOUNTS.  CERTAIN IT IS, THEREFORE, THAT
IF BOTH COURTS WERE TO PROCEED THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COVER THE SAME
GROUND.  THIS OF ITSELF IS NOT CONCLUSIVE OF THE QUESTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION, FOR IT IS SETTLED THAT WHERE THE
JUDGMENT SOUGHT IS STRICTLY IN PERSONAM, BOTH THE STATE COURT AND THE
FEDERAL COURT, HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, MAY PROCEED WITH THE
LITIGATION AT LEAST UNTIL JUDGMENT IS OBTAINED IN ONE OF THEM WHICH MAY
BE SET UP AS RES JUDICATA IN THE OTHER.  FN15  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF
THE TWO SUITS ARE IN REM, OR QUASI IN REM, SO THAT THE COURT, OR ITS
OFFICER, HAS POSSESSION OR MUST HAVE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS
THE SUBJECT OF THE LITIGATION IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE CAUSE AND
GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ONE COURT MUST YIELD TO
THAT OF THE OTHER.  FN16  WE HAVE SAID THAT THE PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO
BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS THAT THE COURT FIRST ASSUMING
JURISDICTION OVER PROPERTY MAY MAINTAIN AND EXERCISE THAT JURISDICTION
TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER, IS NOT RESTRICTED TO CASES WHERE
PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACTUALLY SEIZED UNDER JUDICIAL PROCESS BEFORE A
SECOND SUIT IS INSTITUTED, BUT APPLIES AS WELL WHERE SUITS ARE BROUGHT
TO MARSHAL ASSETS, ADMINISTER TRUSTS, OR LIQUIDATE ESTATES, AND IN
SUITS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WHERE, TO GIVE EFFECT TO ITS JURISDICTION,
THE COURT MUST CONTROL THE PROPERTY.  FN17  THE DOCTRINE IS NECESSARY
TO THE HARMONIOUS COOPERATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE TRIBUNALS.  FN18
WHILE IT HAS NO APPLICATION TO A CASE IN A FEDERAL COURT BASED UPON
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, WHEREIN THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS MERELY AN
ADJUDICATION OF HIS RIGHT OR HIS INTEREST AS A BASIS OF A CLAIM AGAINST
A FUND IN THE POSSESSION OF A STATE COURT,  FN19  THIS IS NOT SUCH A
CASE.  NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED IN THE FEDERAL COURT AS TO THE RIGHT OF
ANY PERSON TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RES OR AS TO THE QUANTUM OF HIS
INTEREST IN IT.  THE CONTENTIONS ARE SOLELY AS TO ADMINISTRATION AND
RESTORATION OF CORPUS. 

PETITIONERS INSIST THAT SHELBY V. BACON, 10 HOW.  56, IS CONCLUSIVE
THAT, UNDER THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE FILING OF AN ACCOUNT ON JULY
7, 1930, DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE INSTITUTION OF A SUIT BY THE TRUSTEES,
DID NOT CONFER EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION ON THE STATE COURT AND DID NOT
BAR THE SUBSEQUENT INSTITUTION OF A SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE
SAME RELIEF.  IN THIS WE THINK THEY ARE IN ERROR.  WHAT WAS THERE SAID
BY THIS COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FILING OF AN ACCOUNT IN THE STATE
COURT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A SUIT AND DID NOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE
STATE COURT, WAS NOT NECESSARY TO THE DECISION AND IS NOT IN ACCORD
WITH THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA AS DECLARED BY ITS OWN SUPREME COURT. 
FN20  ASSUMING, HOWEVER, THAT THE STATE COURT HAD JURISDICTION, THIS
COURT HELD MERELY THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAD A RIGHT TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM
BY SUIT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATE COURT'S
JURISDICTION OVER THE TRUST.  THE COURT WAS CAREFUL TO SAY THAT IT WAS
UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER QUESTIONS WHICH MIGHT ARISE IN THE EXERCISE OF
THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT.  THE DECISION IS IN ENTIRE
ACCORD WITH MANY CASES WHICH HOLD THAT AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT
TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OR THE AMOUNT OF A CLAIM CONSTITUTES NO
INTERFERENCE WITH A STATE COURT'S POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF A RES. 

THE COMMON PLEAS COURT COULD NOT EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE THE
JURISDICTION VESTED IN IT, WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIAL MEASURE OF CONTROL OF
THE TRUST FUNDS.  ITS PROCEEDINGS ARE, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, QUASI
IN REM, AND THE JURISDICTION ACQUIRED UPON THE FILING OF THE TRUSTEES'
ACCOUNT IS EXCLUSIVE.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT
FOR THE SAME RELIEF, AND THE PETITIONERS WERE PROPERLY ENJOINED FROM
FURTHER PROCEEDING IN THAT COURT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THOMPSON V. FITZGERALD, 329 PA. 497; 198 ATL. 58. 

FN2  ACT OF JUNE 16, 1836, P.L. 784, SEC. 13; 17 P.S. SEC. 281. 

FN3  WILSON V. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CITY TRUSTS, 324 PA. 545, 551;
188 A. 588, 592. 

FN4 ACT OF JUNE 14, 1836, P.L. 628, SEC. 15; 20 P.S. SEC. 2741; SEC.
16, 20 P.S. SEC. 2872; SEC. 23, 20 P.S. SEC. 2767; ACT OF MAY 1, 1861,
P.L. 680, SEC. 1; 20 P.S. SEC. 2871. 

FN5  ACT OF JUNE 14, 1836, P.L. 628, SEC. 19; 20 P.S. SEC. 2833. 

FN6  ACT OF JUNE 14, 1836, P.L. 628 SEC. 14; 20 P.S. SEC. 2925. 

FN7  "ALL TRUSTEES OF ESTATES  ...  MAY HEREAFTER, TRIENNIALLY, FROM
THE DATE OF THEIR APPOINTMENT, FILE THEIR ACCOUNTS IN THE APPROPRIATE
COURTS, WHICH SHALL BE DULY AUDITED, AND CONFIRMED ABSOLUTELY TO THAT
DATE:  ...  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT DUE AND ACTUAL NOTICE SHALL HAVE
BEEN GIVEN, WHERE THE ACOUNT SHALL BE FILED BY A TRUSTEE, TO ALL
PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE ESTATE, UNDER THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THE
TRUST; ...  AND THAT ADVERTISEMENT SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY MADE OF THE
FILING OF SAID ACCOUNT; AND THAT SUCH PERSONS, ACTUALLY NOTIFIED, ARE
LEGALLY COMPETENT AND QUALIFIED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR BY THEIR
GUARDIANS, TO APPEAR IN COURT AND OBJECT TO SAID ACCOUNT IF THEY SO
DESIRE."  ACT OF MAY 3, 1909, P.L. 391, SEC. 1; 20 P.S. SEC. 2853. 

FN8  ACT OF JUNE 14, 1836, P.L. 628, SEC. 29; 20 P.S. 3271. 

FN9  SEE THE OPINION BELOW, 329 PA. 512; 198 A. 58. 

FN10  ACT OF APRIL 30, 1855, P.L. 386, SEC. 1; 20 P.S. SEC. 2854. 

FN11  CHEW'S APPEAL, 44 PA. 247; SCOTT V. JAILER, 1 GRANT 237;
MORRISON V. BLAKE (NO. 1) 33 PA. SUPER.  CT. 290, 297; COMMONWEALTH V.
HESTON, 292 PA. 63, 68; 146 A. 533. 

FN12  SEE BASKIN'S APPEAL, 34 PA. 272; JONES' ESTATE, 15 PA. DIST.
REP. 30; IN RE WEISER TRUST, 23 YORK 80; BALL'S ESTATE, 220 PA. 399; 69
A. 817. 

FN13  THE PETITIONERS LAY STRESS ON AN AVERMENT IN THE ANSWER FILED
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT TO THE TRUSTEES' PETITION FOR A RULE TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THE PETITIONERS SHOULD NOT BE RESTRAINED FROM PROSECUTING
THEIR SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  THIS IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
TRUSTEES' ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN "FILED WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE" PETITIONERS. 
NO NOTICE OF THE INTENTION TO FILE IS REQUIRED.  NOTICE IS TO BE GIVEN
TO THE PARTIES IN INTEREST THAT THE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FILED AND WILL BE
AUDITED.  THERE IS NO AVERMENT THAT THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST DID
NOT RECEIVE SUCH NOTICE. 

FN14  COMPARE MOORE'S APPEAL, 10 PA. 435; MCLELLAN'S APPEAL (NO. 1),
76 PA. 231; COMMONWEALTH V. TROUT, 76 PA. 379. 

FN15  PENN GENERAL CASUALTY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 189, 195,
AND CITED CASES. 

FN16  IBID. 

FN17  FARMERS' LOAN & T. CO. V. LAKE STREET E.R. CO., 177 U.S. 51, 61;
PALMER V. TEXAS, 212 U.S. 118, 129; UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK &
T. CO., 296 U.S. 463, 477. 

FN18  UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK & TRUST CO., SUPRA, 478, AND
CASES CITED. 

FN19  COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. BRADFORD, 297 U.S. 613, 619, AND
CASES CITED. 

FN20  WHITNEY'S APPEAL, 22 PA. 500, 505. 
..END :























HELVERING V. OWENS, 305 U.S. 468 


NO. 180.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 95
F.2D 318, REVERSED.  - 97 F.2D 431, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1932 AND 1934, THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF A LOSS SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, ARISING FROM
DAMAGE BY CASUALTY TO PROPERTY NOT USED IN THE TAXPAYER'S TRADE OR
BUSINESS (AS TO WHICH CLASS OF PROPERTY NO ANNUAL DEDUCTIONS FOR
DEPRECIATION ARE ALLOWED), IS NOT THE COST OF THE PROPERTY BUT ITS
VALUE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE CASUALTY.  P. 471. 

2.  IN COMPUTING UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 THE AMOUNT OF THE
DEDUCTION FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR FROM THE SALE OR
OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, SEC. 113(B)(1)(B) - AND THE
CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF THE 1932 ACT - MUST BE READ AS A LIMITATION
UPON THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTION SO THAT IT MAY NOT EXCEED COST, AND IN
THE CASE OF DEPRECIABLE NONBUSINESS PROPERTY MAY NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT
OF THE LOSS ACTUALLY SUSTAINED IN THE TAXABLE YEAR, MEASURED BY THE
THEN DEPRECIATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  P. 471. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. OWENS ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 318, OBICI ET AL. V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, PP. 582, 585, TO REVIEW, IN NO. 180, THE
AFFIRMANCE, AND IN NO. 318, THE REVERSAL, OF DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS IN FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYERS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURTS BELOW HAVE GIVEN OPPOSING ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF A LOSS SUSTAINED DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR THROUGH INJURY TO PROPERTY NOT USED IN A TRADE OR
BUSINESS, AND THEREFORE NOT THE SUBJECT OF AN ANNUAL DEPRECIATION
ALLOWANCE, SHOULD BE ORIGINAL COST OR VALUE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE
CASUALTY.  FN1  TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT WE GRANTED CERTIORARI IN BOTH
CASES. 

IN NO. 180 THE FACTS ARE THAT THE RESPONDENT DONALD H. OWENS
PURCHASED AN AUTOMOBILE AT A DATE SUBSEQUENT TO MARCH 1, 1913, AND
PRIOR TO 1934, FOR $1825, AND USED IT FOR PLEASURE UNTIL JUNE 1934 WHEN
IT WAS DAMAGED IN A COLLISION.  THE CAR WAS NOT INSURED.  PRIOR TO THE
ACCIDENT ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS $225; AFTER THAT EVENT THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE WAS $190.  THE RESPONDENTS FILED A JOINT INCOME TAX RETURN
FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1934 IN WHICH THEY CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF $1635,
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE AFTER THE CASUALTY. 
THE COMMISSIONER REDUCED THE DEDUCTION TO $35, THE DIFFERENCE IN MARKET
VALUE BEFORE AND AFTER THE COLLISION.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SUSTAINED THE TAXPAYERS' CLAIM AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED ITS RULING. 

IN NO. 318 IT APPEARS THAT THE TAXPAYERS ACQUIRED A BOAT, BOATHOUSE,
AND PIER IN 1926 AT A COST OF $5,325.  IN AUGUST 1933 THE PROPERTY,
WHICH HAD BEEN USED SOLELY FOR PLEASURE, AND WAS UNINSURED, WAS TOTALLY
DESTROYED BY A STORM.  ITS ACTUAL VALUE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO
DESTRUCTION WAS $3905.  THE TAXPAYERS CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO DEDUCT COST
IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME.  THE COMMISSIONER ALLOWED ONLY
VALUE AT DATE OF DESTRUCTION.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD WITH THE
TAXPAYERS BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD'S
RULING. 

DECISION IN NO. 180 IS GOVERNED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934; FN2  IN
NO. 318 BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  FN3  THE PROVISIONS OF BOTH
STATUTES TOUCHING THE QUESTION PRESENTED ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AND
WE SHALL REFER ONLY TO THOSE OF THE 1934 ACT.  SECTION 23(E)(3) PERMITS
DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME OF LOSSES "OF PROPERTY NOT CONNECTED WITH
THE TRADE OR BUSINESS" OF THE TAXPAYER, "IF THE LOSS ARISES FROM  ...
CASUALTY."  SUBSECTION (H) DECLARES THAT "THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE
AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED, TO BE ALLOWED UNDER
SUBSECTION (E)  ... , SHALL BE THE ADJUSTED BASIS PROVIDED IN SECTION
113(B)."  SECTION 113 IS ENTITLED "ADJUSTED BASIS FOR DETERMINING GAIN
OR LOSS"; IN SUBSECTION (A) IT PROVIDES THAT "THE BASIS OF PROPERTY
SHALL BE THE COST OF SUCH PROPERTY," WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL. 
SUBSECTION (B), TO WHICH 23(H) REFERS, IS:  "ADJUSTED BASIS.  - THE
ADJUSTED BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OR OTHER
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, WHENEVER ACQUIRED, SHALL BE THE BASIS
DETERMINED UNDER SUBSECTION (A), ADJUSTED AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED.  (1)
GENERAL RULE.  - PROPER ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SHALL IN
ALL CASES BE MADE - (B) IN RESPECT OF ANY PERIOD SINCE FEBRUARY 28,
1913, FOR EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR, OBSOLESCENCE, AMORTIZATION, AND
DEPLETION, TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED (BUT NOT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT
ALLOWABLE) UNDER THIS ACT OR PRIOR INCOME TAX LAWS." 

THE INCOME TAX ACTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR
EXHAUSTION, WEAR AND TEAR, OR OBSOLESCENCE ONLY IN THE CASE OF
"PROPERTY USED IN THE TRADE OR BUSINESS."  THE TAXPAYERS IN THESE CASES
COULD NOT, THEREFORE, HAVE CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION ON THIS ACCOUNT FOR
YEARS PRIOR TO THAT IN WHICH THE CASUALTY OCCURRED.  FOR THIS REASON
THEY CLAIM THEY MAY DEDUCT UPON THE UNADJUSTED BASIS,  - THAT IS,  -
COST.  AS THE INCOME TAX LAWS CALL FOR ACCOUNTING ON AN ANNUAL BASIS;
AS THEY PROVIDE FOR DEDUCTIONS FOR "LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR"; AS THE TAXPAYER IS NOT ALLOWED ANNUAL DEDUCTIONS FOR
DEPRECIATION OF NONBUSINESS BUSINESS PROPERTY; AS SEC. 23(H) REQUIRES
THAT THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE ON "THE ADJUSTED BASIS PROVIDED IN SECTION
113(B)," THUS CONTEMPLATING AN ADJUSTMENT OF VALUE CONSEQUENT ON
DEPRECIATION; AND AS THE PROPERTY INVOLVED WAS SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION
AND OF LESS VALUE IN THE TAXABLE YEAR, THAN ITS ORIGINAL COST, WE THINK
SEC. 113(B)(1)(B) MUST BE READ AS A LIMITATION UPON THE AMOUNT OF THE
DEDUCTION SO THAT IT MAY NOT EXCEED COST, AND IN THE CASE OF
DEPRECIABLE NON-BUSINESS PROPERTY MAY NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS
ACTUALLY SUSTAINED IN THE TAXABLE YEAR, MEASURED BY THE THEN
DEPRECIATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  THE TREASURY RULINGS HAVE NOT BEEN
CONSISTENT, BUT THIS CONSTRUCTION IS THE ONE WHICH HAS FINALLY BEEN
ADOPTED.  FN4  IN NO. 180 JUDGMENT REVERSED.  IN NO. 318 JUDGMENT
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  HELVERING V. OWNES, 95 F.2D 318; HELVERING V. OBICI, 97 F.2D
431. 

FN2  C. 277, 48 STAT. 680, SECS. 23(E)(F)(H)(L), 24(A)1, 41, 113; 26
U.S.C. SECS. 23, 24, 41, 113. 

FN3  C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, SECS. 23(E)(F)(G)(H), 24(A)1, 113. 

FN4  TREASURY REGULATIONS 86, ARTS. 23(E)-1, 23(H) 1, 113(B) 1;
G.C.M. XV 1, CUMULATIVE BULLETIN 115-118. 
..END :


















UNITED STATES V. MCCLURE, 305 U.S. 472 


NO. 154.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 95
F.2D 744, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A VETERAN ALLOWED HIS YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE TO LAPSE BY
FAILING TO PAY THE PREMIUM DUE IN FEBRUARY, 1919, WHEN HE WAS SUFFERING
FROM A COMPENSABLE DISABILITY FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS NOT
COLLECTED.  IN DECEMBER, 1929, WHEN HE BECAME PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY
DISABLED, THERE REMAINED COMPENSATION DUE HIM SUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL
PREMIUMS DUE ON THE LAPSED POLICY.  HELD THAT HIS INSURANCE WAS REVIVED
UNDER SEC. 305 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, WHICH PROVIDES FOR
REVIVAL OF LAPSED INSURANCE BY APPLICATION TO PREMIUM OF COMPENSATION
DUE.  P. 473. 

THIS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH SEC. 301, WHICH PROVIDES GENERALLY FOR
CONVERSION OF YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE BY JULY 2, 1927 AND
DECLARES THAT "ALL YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE SHALL CEASE ON JULY
2, 1927, EXCEPT WHEN DEATH OR TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY SHALL HAVE
OCCURRED BEFORE JULY 2, 1927." 

2. ALTHOUGH SEC. 305 OF THE ACT, AND SEC. 304 DEALING WITH
REINSTATEMENT OF YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE AND PROHIBITING SUCH
REINSTATEMENT AFTER JULY 2, 1927, BOTH EMANATED FROM A SINGLE SECTION
IN AN EARLIER ACT, THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS DISTINCT PARTS OF THE
LATER STATUTE, HAVING BEEN SEPARATED BY CONGRESS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN REINSTATEMENT AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM REVIVAL OF LAPSED POLICIES.  THE SEPARATION
INDICATES AN INTENDED CHANGE.  P. 477. 

3.  A PROVISO IS TO BE READ AS REFERRING, PRESUMABLY, TO THE
PROVISION TO WHICH IT IS ATTACHED.  P. 478. 

UNITED STATES V. MCCLURE, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 582, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING AN ACTION ON A WAR RISK
INSURANCE POLICY.  UPON THE DEATH OF THE ASSURED, WHO BROUGHT THE
ACTION FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS, THE PRESENT RESPONDENT WAS SUBSTITUTED,
AS ADMINISTRATRIX AND INDIVIDUALLY, AND SOUGHT BY HER AMENDED COMPLAINT
TO RECOVER BOTH TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS AND DEATH
BENEFITS.  THE CASE WAS TRIED WITHOUT A JURY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE WHETHER SEC. 301 OR SEC. 305 OF THE
WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT  FN1 APPLIES TO A LAPSED POLICY OF WAR RISK
YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE. 

EXCEPTIONS NOT APPLICABLE HERE) THAT "ALL YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM
INSURANCE SHALL CEASE ON JULY 2, 1927, EXCEPT WHEN DEATH OR TOTAL
PERMANENT DISABILITY SHALL HAVE OCCURRED BEFORE JULY 2, 1927:  ...  " 

HIS INSURANCE TO LAPSE,  ... WHILE SUFFERING FROM A COMPENSABLE
DISABILITY FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS NOT COLLECTED AND DIES OR HAS
DIED, OR BECOMES OR HAS BECOME PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED" WHILE
"ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION REMAINING UNCOLLECTED  ...  HIS INSURANCE
...  SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS LAPSED"; AND THE VETERANS'
ADMINISTRATION SHALL PAY HIM OR HIS BENEFICIARIES "SO MUCH OF HIS
INSURANCE AS SAID UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION  ...  WOULD PURCHASE IF
APPLIED AS PREMIUMS WHEN DUE  ...  LESS THE UNPAID PREMIUMS AND
INTEREST AT FIVE PER CENTUM COMPOUNDED ANNUALLY IN INSTALLMENTS." 

JOHN F. MCCLURE, A WORLD WAR VETERAN, ALLOWED HIS YEARLY RENEWABLE
TERM INSURANCE TO LAPSE BY FAILING TO PAY THE PREMIUM DUE FEBRUARY,
1919, "WHILE SUFFERING FROM A COMPENSABLE DISABILITY FOR WHICH
COMPENSATION WAS NOT COLLECTED."  DECEMBER 1, 1929, WHEN HE BECAME
PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED, THERE REMAINED UNCOLLECTED
COMPENSATION DUE HIM SUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL PREMIUMS THEN DUE ON HIS
LAPSED POLICY.  THE VETERAN BROUGHT SUIT ON HIS POLICY ALLEGING TOTAL
AND PERMANENT DISABILITY AND, AT HIS DEATH, RESPONDENT - AS
ADMINISTRATRIX AND INDIVIDUALLY - FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT SEEKING
RECOVERY UNDER SEC. 305.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE INSURANCE
WAS NOT REVIVED UNDER SEC. 305 AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE
GOVERNMENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,  FN2 BELIEVING SEC.
301 DID NOT LIMIT SEC. 305 AND THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT
ON THE POLICY, CONTRARY TO THE RESULT REACHED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.  FN3 

SINCE THIS VETERAN'S LAPSED POLICY WAS "YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM
INSURANCE" AND HIS PERMANENT DISABILITY OCCURRED AFTER JULY 2, 1927,
THE QUESTION IS:  DID SUCH INSURANCE CEASE TO EXIST ON JULY 2, 1927
BECAUSE OF THE GENERAL SWEEPING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 301, OR WAS LAPSED
YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE - SUCH AS HIS - SAVED BY THE SPECIAL
BENEFITS EXTENDED UNDER SEC. 305?  WE FIND THE ANSWER IN THE LANGUAGE
OF THE ORIGINAL WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT AND ITS AMENDMENTS. 

THAT ORIGINAL ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917,  FN4  PROVIDED GOVERNMENT
INSURANCE WITHOUT MEDICAL EXAMINATION FOR PERSONS ENGAGED IN WAR
SERVICES.  YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE WAS GRANTED WITH PROVISION
FOR CONVERSION INTO OTHER FORMS OF INSURANCE WITHOUT MEDICAL
EXAMINATION NOT LATER THAN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE
WAR. 

AUGUST 9, 1921, CONGRESS AMENDED THIS ACT AND ADDED SEC. 408.  FN5
REINSTATE AND TO REVIVE LAPSED "YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE." 
FIRST.  VETERANS SUFFERING FROM DISABILITY CONTRACTED IN ACTIVE WAR
SERVICE WERE PERMITTED TO REINSTATE THEIR POLICIES DESPITE SUCH
DISABILITY.  SECOND.  VETERANS' INSURANCE WHICH HAD LAPSED WHILE THE
VETERANS WERE SUFFERING FROM SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITIES FOR WHICH
COMPENSATION HAD NOT BEEN PAID - AS HERE, WAS REVIVED IN THE AMOUNT
WHICH SUCH UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION - AT DEATH OR DATE OF TOTAL
DISABILITY - WOULD PURCHASE.  THIS FIRST PROVISION OF SEC. 408 WAS THE
ORIGINAL PREDECESSOR OF SEC. 304; THE SECOND PROVISION - RELIED UPON TO
ENFORCE MCCLURE'S POLICY - BECAME SEC. 305. 

BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, FN6  CONGRESS BROADENED BOTH BENEFICIAL
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 408 AND LEFT IT AS A SINGLE SECTION.  BUT IN 1924,
WHEN CONGRESS REVISED THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT,  FN7 THESE TWIN
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 408 WERE SEVERED AND THEREAFTER APPEARED AS TWO
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PARAGRAPHS, SECS. 304 AND 305.  SECTION 304
INCORPORATED THAT PORTION OF SEC. 408 WHICH HAD PROVIDED FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF LAPSED TERM INSURANCE DESPITE PHYSICAL DISABILITY. 
AUTHORIZED UTILIZATION OF UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION FOR REVIVAL OF SUCH
LAPSED INSURANCE.  IT IS OF VITAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT CONGRESS IN
CREATING THESE TWO NEW SECTIONS WAS CAREFUL TO LIMIT REINSTATEMENT OF
LAPSED TERM INSURANCE BY CONCLUDING SEC. 304 WITH THE POINTED PROVISO
"THAT NO TERM INSURANCE SHALL BE REINSTATED AFTER JULY 2, 1926."  BUT
CONGRESS PLACED NO SUCH LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT OF REVIVAL UNDER SEC.
305, ON WHICH THIS SUIT IS BROUGHT. 

THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN RESTRICTING THE BENEFITS ONLY UNDER ONE OF
THE TWO SECTIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH SEC. 301 OF THE SAME
1924 ACT WHICH PROVIDED THAT "ALL TERM INSURANCE SHALL CEASE ON JULY 2,
1926, EXCEPT WHEN DEATH OR TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY SHALL HAVE
OCCURRED BEFORE JULY 2, 1926."  CONGRESS IN THIS 1924 ACT, CLEARLY
EVIDENCED ITS PURPOSE TO PROHIBIT REINSTATEMENT OF YEARLY RENEWABLE
TERM POLICIES UNDER SEC. 304 AFTER JULY 2, 1926, IN ORDER TO MAKE SEC.
304 CONFORM TO SEC. 301 WHICH AUTHORIZED CONVERSION OF SUCH POLICIES
PRIOR TO THAT DATE.  REINSTATEMENT UNDER SEC. 304, HOWEVER, REQUIRED
ACTION BY THE VETERAN.  HE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT APPLICATION, TO
COMPLY WITH STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, AND TO PAY BACK
PREMIUMS.  BUT ACTION BY THE VETERAN WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REVIVE A
LAPSED POLICY UNDER SEC. 305.  HIS RIGHTS DID NOT DEPEND UPON
APPLICATION, PROOF, COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS OR PAYMENT.  BECAUSE
HIS POLICY HAD LAPSED WHILE THE GOVERNMENT OWED HIM MONEY FOR SERVICE
CONNECTED DISABILITY WHICH HAD BECOME TOTAL AND PERMANENT, HIS LAPSED
POLICY WAS AUTOMATICALLY REVIVED.  TO HAVE REQUIRED ACTION ON HIS PART
WOULD HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT WITH THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO
PERMIT REVIVAL AND CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE SOLELY BECAUSE THE
GOVERNMENT HAD IN ITS POSSESSION FUNDS DUE THE VETERAN AND SUFFICIENT
TO PAY FOR HIS INSURANCE. 

JUNE, 1926,  FN8  SEC. 301 WAS AMENDED EXTENDING THE DATE FOR
CONVERSION OF YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE TO JULY 2, 1927, AND THE
FOLLOWING MONTH THE PROVISO OF SEC. 304 WAS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED TO
CONFORM TO THE JUNE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 301, BY PROHIBITING REINSTATEMENT
OF SUCH INSURANCE AFTER JULY 2, 1927.  FN9  ALTHOUGH THE RIGHT OF
REINSTATEMENT UNDER SEC. 304 THUS WAS AGAIN SPECIFICALLY RESTRICTED,
CONGRESS IN NO WAY INDICATED ANY INTENTION TO ADD THE SAME RESTRICTION
TO THE RIGHT OF REVIVAL UNDER SEC. 305 ON WHICH THE PRESENT SUIT IS
BASED.  INSTEAD, THE BENEFITS UNDER SEC. 305 WERE EXTENDED BY THE JULY
AMENDMENT SO AS TO PERMIT BENEFICIARIES TO APPLY UNCOLLECTED BONUSES TO
THE LAPSED POLICIES OF DECEASED VETERANS.  CONGRESS AGAIN GAVE SPECIAL
ATTENTION TO SEC. 305 IN 1928 FN10  AND AUTHORIZED THE REVIVAL OF
LAPSED POLICIES BY UTILIZATION OF COMPENSATION OTHERWISE UNCOLLECTIBLE
BECAUSE BARRED BY LIMITATIONS.  CONTINUING THE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION
AND TREATMENT OF SECS. 304 AND 305, CONGRESS IN 1930 ONCE MORE APPLIED
THE RESTRICTIVE PROVISO TO SEC. 304 BUT NOT TO SEC. 305.  FN11 

THE DELIBERATE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO APPLY DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS
TO THE RIGHT OF REINSTATING LAPSED POLICIES UNDER SEC. 304 AND THAT OF
REVIVING SUCH POLICIES UNDER SEC. 305 WAS ALSO MADE MANIFEST BY OTHER
CHANGES IN THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926.  FN12  WHILE REINSTATEMENT OF
YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE UNDER SEC. 304, BUT NOT REVIVAL UNDER
SEC. 305, WAS THEREIN PROHIBITED AFTER JULY 2, 1927, A NEW PROVISO WAS
ADDED TO SEC. 305 UNDER WHICH THE "INSURANCE HEREAFTER REVIVED UNDER
THIS SECTION (305)  ...  SHALL BE PAID ONLY TO THE INSURED, HIS WIDOW,
CHILD OR CHILDREN, DEPENDENT MOTHER OR FATHER,  ...  "  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THERE IS NO SUCH LIMITATION AS TO BENEFICIARIES OF POLICIES
REINSTATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 304.  THIS STUDIED LIMITATION
OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LIABILITY ON POLICIES REVIVED UNDER SEC. 305, BY
RESTRICTION OF BENEFICIARIES, INDICATES A DISTINCTIVE LEGISLATIVE
CONSIDERATION AND TREATMENT OF THAT SECTION. 

TO HOLD THAT A LAPSED YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE POLICY CANNOT
BE REVIVED UNDER SEC. 305 WOULD BE TO APPLY TO THAT SECTION, BY
CONSTRUCTION, THE PROVISO WHICH CONGRESS ATTACHED ONLY TO SEC. 304. 
THEM.  WHILE BOTH SECTIONS EMANATED FROM A SINGLE PRIOR SECTION,
CONGRESS EVIDENTLY SEPARATED THEM TO PROVIDE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
TREATMENT THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN REINSTATEMENT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM
REVIVAL OF LAPSED POLICIES.  A DELIBERATE SEPARATION OF THE TWO PARTS
OF THE OLD SECTION - APPLYING A RESTRICTION TO ONE AND NOT THE OTHER -
INDICATES THAT A CHANGE WAS INTENDED.  FN13  THIS IS IN ACCORD WITH THE
PRESUMPTION THAT A PROVISO "REFERS ONLY TO THE PROVISION TO WHICH IT IS
ATTACHED."  FN14 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE
ACT, THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 301
REQUIRING CONVERSION OF YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE BY JULY 2,
1927, AND THE SPECIAL BENEFITS GRANTED BY SEC. 305 TO THAT PARTICULAR
GROUP OF VETERANS TO WHOM THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT PAID DISABILITY
COMPENSATION WHICH WAS JUSTLY THEIR DUE.  THE BENEFITS OF THE SPECIAL
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 305 ARE EXTENDED TO EVERY VETERAN WHO HAS
"HERETOFORE ALLOWED HIS INSURANCE TO LAPSE,  ...  "  THE MEANING OF THE
WORDS OF THE STATUTE IS APPARENT AND WE NEED NOT LOOK BEYOND THE
LANGUAGE AND STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT.  FN15
A LAPSED POLICY, WHETHER YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM OR IN CONVERTED FORM,
COMES WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 305. 

SINCE THE VETERAN IN THIS CASE WAS DUE COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE
CONNECTED DISABILITIES AT THE TIME HIS POLICY LAPSED AND AT THE TIME HE
BECAME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED THE AMOUNT OF HIS UNCOLLECTED
COMPENSATION WAS SUFFICIENT TO PAY ALL PREMIUMS THEN DUE, HIS INSURANCE
WAS REVIVED UNDER SEC. 305.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  38 U.S.C., SECS. 512, 516, 44 STAT. 686, 790. 

FN2  95 F.2D 744. 

FN3  SKELTON V. UNITED STATES, 88 F.2D 599. 

FN4  40 STAT. 398, 409-410. 

FN5  42 STAT. 147, 156. 

FN6  42 STAT. 1521, 1525, 1526. 

FN7  43 STAT. 607, 625, 626. 

FN8 44 STAT. 686. 

FN9  44 STAT. 790, 799. 

FN10  45 STAT. 964, 971. 

FN11  46 STAT. 991, 1001, SEC. 23. 

FN12  44 STAT. 790, 799, 800. 

FN13  CF. BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280 U.S. 327, 337; UNITED STATES V.
PERRYMAN, 100 U.S. 235, 238. 

FN14  UNITED STATES V. MORROW, 266 U.S. 531, 535. 

FN15  CF. STANDARD FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258 U.S. 346,
356. 
..END :




CHIPPEWA INDIANS V. U.S., 305 U.S. 479 


NO. 244.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 12, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 87
CT. CLS. 1, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE ACT OF MAY 23, 1908, WHICH CREATED A NATIONAL FOREST OF LANDS
THEN HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT IN TRUST FOR THE CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF INDIANS
AND PROVIDED FOR PAYMENTS OF COMPENSATION TO THE INDIANS INCLUDING THE
VALUE OF TIMBER TO BE APPRAISED, WAS A COMPLETE TAKING AT THE TIME THE
ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE, AND THE VALUE OF SUCH TIMBER IS DETERMINED AS OF
THE DATE OF THE ACT RATHER THAN AS OF THE TIME OF THE MAKING AND
APPROVAL OF THE APPRAISAL, MANY YEARS LATER.  P. 480. 

2.  THE LEGISLATION CONFERRING ON THE COURT OF CLAIMS JURISDICTION TO
ADJUDICATE ALL LEGAL AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS OF THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF
MINNESOTA ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE ACT OF JANUARY 14, 1889,
OR ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF ANY SUBSEQUENT ACT OF CONGRESS IN
RELATION TO INDIAN AFFAIRS, DID NOT INCLUDE A CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF LAND
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM INDIAN RESERVATIONS THROUGH
ERRONEOUS PUBLIC SURVEYS IN 1872-1885 AND TO HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED AND
SOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT, BEFORE THE ACT OF 1889 WAS PASSED.  P. 483. 

THE TERMS OF THE ACT OF 1889 WERE RESTRICTED TO THE CHIPPEWA
RESERVATIONS THEN EXISTING (1889) IN MINNESOTA.  NONE OF THE SUBSEQUENT
ACTS, RELATING TO INDIAN AFFAIRS, UPON WHICH THE INDIANS RELY EXPANDED
THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1889 ACT SO AS TO INCLUDE CONGRESSIONAL TREATMENT
OF THE TRANSACTIONS MADE THE BASIS OF THIS CLAIM. 

CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DISMISSING TWO CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS FILED SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ASSERTING TWO
SEPARATE CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  THE GOVERNMENT PLEADED OFFSETS
GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE CLAIMS OF THE TRIBE.  DISMISSING THE TRIBE'S
PETITION AS TO BOTH ITS CLAIMS,  FN1  THE COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO
PASS UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S OFFSETS, AND THEREFORE DENIED THEM WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.  THE CAUSE IS HERE ON APPEAL BY VIRTUE OF A SPECIAL ACT OF
CONGRESS REQUIRING OUR REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 
FN2 

AS TO THE FIRST CLAIM.  A CONGRESSIONAL ACT OF MAY 23, 1908, CREATED
A NATIONAL FOREST UPON LANDS THEN IN POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES
BUT HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT AS A TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHIPPEWA
INDIAN TRIBE.  FN3  THIS ACT AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
TO "PROCEED WITH THE SALE OF THE MERCHANTABLE PINE TIMBER" UPON CERTAIN
OF THESE LANDS; AND PROVIDED FOR AN APPRAISAL "FORTHWITH" OF THE TIMBER
ON THE LANDS; FOR PAYMENT TO THE INDIANS OF THE APPRAISED VALUE PLUS
PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF ANY TIMBER BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR PRIOR TO THE APPRAISAL; AND FOR PAYMENT TO THE TRIBE OF $1.25
PER ACRE FOR ALL OF THE LANDS APPROPRIATED.  APPRAISAL WAS NOT MADE
"FORTHWITH," BUT IN 1922.  IN 1908, WHEN THE ACT WAS PASSED, CERTAIN
TYPES OF THE TIMBER WERE NOT "MERCHANTABLE" AND HAD NO VALUE.  BY 1923,
HOWEVER, WHEN THE APPRAISAL WAS COMPLETED AND APPROVED, THESE
PARTICULAR TIMBERS WERE APPRAISED AT $1,060,887.07.  IN VIEW OF THE
LONG DELAY IN MAKING THE APPRAISAL AND PAYMENT, APPROXIMATELY $490,000
IN INTEREST WAS APPROPRIATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TRIBE IN 1926.  THE
COURT OF CLAIMS CONSTRUED THE 1908 ACT AS AN APPROPRIATION OF THE LANDS
AND TIMBER FOR A PUBLIC USE AT THE DATE OF ENACTMENT, AND FINDING THE
TIMBERS IN QUESTION WITHOUT A MERCHANTABLE VALUE AT THAT TIME, DECIDED
AGAINST THE TRIBE ON THIS CLAIM. 

THE SOLE QUESTION RAISED BY APPELLANTS' ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR WITH
REFERENCE TO THIS FIRST CLAIM ATTACKS THE COURT OF CLAIMS' HOLDING -
BASED ON ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT OF 1908 - THAT THE APPROPRIATION
OF THE TRIBE'S LAND AND TIMBER WAS EFFECTED BY THAT ACT AND AS OF THE
DATE OF THE ACT, AND THAT COURT'S FAILURE TO HOLD THAT THE
APPROPRIATION OCCURRED WHEN THE TIMBER WAS APPRAISED AND THE APPRAISAL
APPROVED IN APRIL, 1923. 

THE FINDINGS DO NOT SHOW AS CLEARLY AS MIGHT BE DESIRED THAT THE
TIMBER WAS WITHOUT MERCHANTABLE VALUE IN 1908.  HOWEVER, THERE IS A
COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTROVERSY ON THIS POINT, AND APPELLANTS WERE
NOT DENIED THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY.  WHEN THESE FINDINGS ARE CONSIDERED WITH THE PLEADINGS
AND ARE CLARIFIED BY THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW, ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT
AS TO THEIR MEANING DISAPPEARS, AND THEY SHOW THAT THE COURT FOUND A
LACK OF ANY MERCHANTABLE VALUE IN 1908.  FN4 

ACTUAL APPROPRIATION OF THE LAND OR TIMBER BY THE UNITED STATES IS
ADMITTED.  JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY APPROPRIATED MUST BE ITS
VALUE AS OF THE DATE WHEN THE TRIBE'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS
TAKEN.  FN5 IT IS AGREED THAT UNTIL THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT OF 1908 THE
GOVERNMENT HELD POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND TIMBER AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
TRIBE.  UNDER THE TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WAS CHARGED WITH DISPOSAL OF THE
PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TRIBE.  IF THE ACT OF 1908 ACTUALLY
DEPRIVED THE TRIBE OF ITS BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, THE ACT
REPRESENTED AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND VESTED -
WHEN ENACTED - COMPLETE TITLE IN THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS WOULD BE AN
APPROPRIATION - A COMPLETE TAKING OF PROPERTY - AT THE TIME THE ACT
BECAME EFFECTIVE.  FN6 

WE NEED LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE LANGUAGE OF THIS ACT TO ASCERTAIN
ITS EFFECT.  THE VERY FIRST WORDS AFTER THE ENACTING CLAUSE ARE "  ...
THERE IS HEREBY CREATED IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA A NATIONAL FOREST
CONSISTING OF LANDS AND TERRITORY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS,  ...  "  THERE
FOLLOWS A DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION BY METES AND BOUNDS. 
THROUGHOUT THE ACT THERE ARE REPEATED DECLARATIONS REFERRING TO THE
NATIONAL FOREST "HEREBY CREATED."  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT FOR
CONGRESS TO HAVE SELECTED LANGUAGE MORE CLEARLY EXPRESSING THE INTENT
AND PURPOSE TO DEPRIVE THE TRIBE COMPLETELY - BY THE ACT - OF ALL ITS
REMAINING BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. 

APPELLANTS URGE THAT APPROPRIATION OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT TAKE PLACE
UNTIL THE APPRAISAL OF THE TIMBER WAS APPROVED IN 1923.  IN SUPPORT OF
THIS CONTENTION THEY RELY CHIEFLY UPON THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF SEC.
5 OF THE ACT:  "  ...  ALL MONEYS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF TIMBER FROM
ANY OF THE LAND SET ASIDE BY THIS ACT FOR A NATIONAL FOREST, PRIOR TO
THE APPRAISAL HEREIN PROVIDED FOR ...  SHALL BE PLACED TO THE CREDIT OF
THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA  ...  AND AFTER SAID
APPRAISAL THE NATIONAL FOREST HEREBY CREATED, AS ABOVE DESCRIBED, SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO ALL GENERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS  ...  GOVERNING NATIONAL
FORESTS,  ...  "  BUT THIS PROVISION BY ITS VERY TERMS CHARACTERIZES
THE PROPERTY AS "THE NATIONAL FOREST HEREBY CREATED" AND DIRECTS
DISPOSITION OF "ALL MONEYS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF TIMBER FROM ANY OF
THE LAND SET ASIDE BY THIS ACT FOR A NATIONAL FOREST,  ...  " THE FACT
THAT THE LANDS WERE NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE GENERAL LAWS AND
REGULATIONS GOVERNING NATIONAL FORESTS UNTIL AFTER THE APPRAISAL WAS
MADE INDICATES NO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO DELAY THE CREATION OF THE
NATIONAL FOREST.  THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAD LEGAL TITLE TO, AND
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE ACT CONTEMPLATED THAT THE APPRAISAL
SHOULD BE MADE "FORTHWITH."  SINCE THE TRIBE WAS TO BE PAID THE
APPRAISED VALUE OF ALL THE TIMBER, THE ACT APPROPRIATELY PROVIDED THAT
PROCEEDS FOR SALES OF ANY TIMBER SOLD BEFORE APPRAISAL SHOULD BE PAID
TO THE TRIBE. 

UPON EXAMINATION OF THE ACT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COURT OF
CLAIMS CORRECTLY DECIDED THAT THE APPROPRIATION OF THE LAND AND TIMBER
OCCURRED IN 1908, WHEN THE ACT BECAME THE LAW, AND THAT ACCORDINGLY IT
PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM. 

SECOND.  THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT UNDER WHICH THE PETITION IN THIS
CAUSE WAS FILED  FN7  CONFERRED JURISDICTION UPON THE COURT OF CLAIMS
"TO HEAR, EXAMINE, AND ADJUDICATE AND RENDER JUDGMENT IN ANY AND ALL
LEGAL AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF THE ACT OF
JANUARY 14, 1889 ...  , OR ARISING UNDER OR GROWING OUT OF ANY
SUBSEQUENT ACT OF CONGRESS IN RELATION TO INDIAN AFFAIRS WHICH SAID
CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA MAY HAVE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES,  ...
" APPELLANTS' SECOND CLAIM WAS BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT MADE ERRONEOUS SURVEYS OF INDIAN LANDS BETWEEN AND INCLUDING
THE YEARS 1872 AND 1885; THAT THESE ERRORS RESULTED IN WRONGFULLY
EXCLUDING THE LANDS FROM INDIAN RESERVATIONS; AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT
THEREAFTER APPROPRIATED AND SOLD THESE LANDS (SOME OF WHICH BELONGED TO
APPELLANTS) BEFORE THE ACT OF 1889 WAS PASSED.  INSPECTION OF THE 1889
ACT  FN8  DISCLOSES THAT NONE OF ITS PROVISIONS RELATED TO THESE LANDS
PREVIOUSLY DISPOSED OF BY THE GOVERNMENT.  ITS TERMS WERE RESTRICTED TO
THE CHIPPEWA RESERVATIONS THEN EXISTING (1889) IN MINNESOTA.  NONE OF
THE SUBSEQUENT ACTS, RELATING TO INDIAN AFFAIRS, UPON WHICH APPELLANTS
RELY  FN9  EXPANDED THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1889 ACT SO AS TO INCLUDE
CONGRESSIONAL TREATMENT OF THE TRANSACTIONS MADE THE BASIS OF THIS
SECOND CLAIM.  SINCE THIS SECOND CLAIM DID NOT ARISE FROM OR GROW OUT
OF THE 1889 ACT OR SUBSEQUENT ACTS, THE COURT OF CLAIMS PROPERLY
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  87 CT. CLS. 1. 

FN2  49 STAT. 1826; ACT OF JUNE 22, 1936, C. 714. 

FN3  35 STAT. 268. 

FN4  CF. ACKERLIND V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 531, 535; CARTAS V.
UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 545, 546; AMERICAN PROPELLER CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 300 U.S. 475, 479, 480. 

FN5  UNITED STATES V. ROGERS, 255 U.S. 163, 169; SHOSHONE TRIBE V.
UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476. 

FN6  HURLEY V. KINCAID, 285 U.S. 95, 103, 104; UNITED STATES V.
LYNAH, 188 U.S. 445, 470. 

FN7  44 STAT. 555, AS AMENDED BY ACTS APPROVED APRIL 11, 1928(45
STAT. 423) AND JUNE 18, 1934(48 STAT. 979). 

FN8  25 STAT. 642(1889). 

FN9  32 STAT. 400(1902); 35 STAT. 268(1908). 
..END :






















LYON V. MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSN., 305 U.S. 484 


NO. 189.  SUBMITTED DECEMBER 12, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 95
F.2D 528, REVERSED. 


1.  A HEALTH AND ACCIDENT POLICY (GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF ARKANSAS),
ISSUED AND EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 1926, AND RECITING AND PROVIDING THAT
IT IS ISSUED "IN CONSIDERATION OF  ...  THE PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF
$74.00 THE FIRST YEAR" AND THAT "THE PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF  ...  $16.00
QUARTERLY THEREAFTER, BEGINNING WITH APRIL 1, 1927, IS REQUIRED TO KEEP
THIS POLICY IN CONTINUOUS EFFECT," - CONSTRUED AS MEANING AND INTENDING
THAT THE PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF $74.00 WOULD KEEP THE POLICY IN FORCE
UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1927, AND THAT PAYMENT OF $16.00 APRIL 1, 1927,
WOULD EXTEND THE POLICY A QUARTERLY PERIOD BEYOND DECEMBER 31, 1927,
AND THAT SUCCESSIVE PAYMENTS OF $16.00 AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH QUARTER
FOLLOWING THE QUARTER BEGINNING APRIL 1, 1927, WOULD EXTEND THE POLICY
CORRESPONDINGLY.  P. 488. 

2.  DELIVERY OF THE POLICY CONTAINING THE RECITAL THAT IT "IS ISSUED
IN CONSIDERATION OF  ... THE PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF $74.00" ESTABLISHED
PRIMA FACIE THE FACT OF ADVANCE PAYMENT OF THAT AMOUNT.  ID. 

3.  EVIDENCE SUPPLEMENTING THIS INFERENCE AND SHOWING PAYMENT OF
PREMIUMS, WAS NOT INCOMPETENT AS AN ATTEMPT TO ALTER THE TERMS OF THE
POLICY BUT WAS ADMISSIBLE IN PROOF OF PERFORMANCE.  P. 489. 

4.  IN A SUIT TO RECOVER UPON A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE PAYABLE UPON
THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, HELD THAT THERE WAS COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE TO THE INSURER IN
SUFFICIENT AMOUNT TO KEEP THE POLICY IN FORCE BEYOND THE QUARTERLY
PREMIUM PAYMENT PERIOD IN WHICH THE DEATH OCCURRED; THAT THE EVIDENCE
ON THIS POINT SUPPORTED THE VERDICT AND JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE PLAINTIFF; AND THAT REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS WAS ERRONEOUS.  P. 489. 

5.  IN A SUIT IN ARKANSAS UPON AN ARKANSAS INSURANCE POLICY, FEDERAL
JURISDICTION RESTING UPON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE DISTRICT COURT,
AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE AND UPON THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENDANT FOR
A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION, DENIED THE REQUEST AND DIRECTED A VERDICT FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.  THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE VERDICT.  HELD,
THAT THE COURT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CONFORMITY ACT, FOLLOWED THE
ARKANSAS PROCEDURAL RULE GOVERNING THE EFFECT OF A REQUEST FOR A
PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION, AND THAT THAT RULE DID NOT DEPRIVE THE
DEFENDANT OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  P. 490. 

LYON V. MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASSN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 583, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A JUDGMENT
FOR THE PETITIONER IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER UPON A POLICY OF INSURANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, (PLAINTIFF BELOW) BROUGHT SUIT AS BENEFICIARY IN THE
DISTRICT COURT AGAINST RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT BELOW) ON A HEALTH AND
ACCIDENT POLICY ISSUED BY RESPONDENT IN 1926 TO PETITIONER'S HUSBAND. 
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THAT THE INSURED WAS ACCIDENTALLY KILLED JULY 26,
1934, WHILE THE POLICY WAS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT INSURING AGAINST
DEATH RESULTING FROM ACCIDENTAL CAUSES.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE, DEFENDANT DECLINED TO OFFER ANY EVIDENCE AND DID
NO MORE THAN MOVE FOR A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION.  DEFENDANT'S MOTION WAS
BASED UPON THE CONTENTIONS THAT (1) THE POLICY WAS NOT IN EFFECT WHEN
INSURED WAS KILLED BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD EXERCISED AN OPTION GRANTED IT
BY THE POLICY TO REJECT THE QUARTERLY PREMIUM DUE JULY 1, 1934; (2)
THAT THE "PREMIUM RECEIPTS THEMSELVES SHOW THAT THE POLICY TERMINATED
ON THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, 1934, PRIOR TO THE TIME THIS LOSS OCCURRED." 
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION WAS DENIED, DEFENDANT
EXCEPTED, AND THE COURT DIRECTED THE JURY TO RETURN A VERDICT FOR
PLAINTIFF.  DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTION WAS NOTED, THE JURY RENDERED VERDICT
FOR PLAINTIFF, AND THE COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT UPON THE VERDICT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,  FN1  HOLDING THAT THE POLICY WAS TERM
INSURANCE AND RESERVED TO DEFENDANT THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY QUARTERLY
PREMIUM ON THE DUE DATE, THAT DEFENDANT HAD PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS
OPTION IN REJECTING THE QUARTERLY PREMIUM DUE JULY 1, 1934, AND THAT
THE POLICY WAS, THEREFORE, TERMINATED PRIOR TO INSURED'S DEATH.  THE
COURT FURTHER HELD THAT NO COMPETENT EVIDENCE HAD SUSTAINED PLAINTIFF'S
ALLEGATIONS THAT THE REQUIRED PREMIUMS HAD BEEN PAID.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  FN2 

IN THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THE CASE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTION THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
DEFENDANT HAD THE OPTION TO CANCEL THE POLICY UPON THE DUE DATE OF ANY
QUARTERLY PREMIUM.  WE FIND THAT THERE WAS COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION THAT INSURED HAD PAID
PREMIUMS SUFFICIENT TO KEEP THE POLICY IN EFFECT UP TO AND INCLUDING
THE DATE OF INSURED'S DEATH. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT: 

THE POLICY SUED ON WAS ISSUED DECEMBER 31, 1926; AFTER ADVANCE
PAYMENT OF $74.00 FOR THE FIRST YEAR'S PREMIUM, THE POLICY WAS
DELIVERED TO INSURED; THEREAFTER, ALL QUARTERLY PREMIUMS WERE PAID TO
THE DEFENDANT'S LOCAL TREASURER LOCATED AT ROGERS, ARKANSAS (WHERE THE
POLICY WAS SOLD AND DELIVERED) UP TO AND INCLUDING THE QUARTERLY
PREMIUM DUE JANUARY 1, 1934; THESE PREMIUMS WERE USUALLY PAID IN
ADVANCE, BUT NOT ALWAYS; BEFORE APRIL 1, 1934, PLAINTIFF AS AGENT FOR
THE INSURED WENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL TREASURER AT WHOSE OFFICE
SHE HAD PAID ALL THE OTHER PREMIUMS; HE COULD NOT BE FOUND AT THE
OFFICE; A YOUNG GIRL IN THE OFFICE SUGGESTED THAT THE PAYMENT BE SENT
TO LITTLE ROCK; PLAINTIFF MAILED THAT PAYMENT TO LITTLE ROCK AND
RECEIVED A RECEIPT DATED MARCH 30, 1934; PLAINTIFF HAD NOT THEN
RECEIVED, AND NEVER DID RECEIVE ANY NOTICE FROM THE COMPANY THAT IT HAD
MOVED ITS OFFICE OR CHANGED ITS METHOD OF COLLECTING PREMIUMS; JULY 1,
1934, WHEN THE NEXT PREMIUM WAS DUE SHE WENT TO THE LOCAL TREASURER'S
OFFICE AND FOUND IT CLOSED; DILIGENT SEARCH FOR HIM DISCLOSED THAT NOT
ONLY HAD HIS OFFICE BEEN CLOSED, BUT HE HAD MOVED FROM THE HOUSE IN
WHICH HE HAD FORMERLY RESIDED; CONTINUING TO SEARCH FOR THE TREASURER,
SHE FINALLY FOUND HIM SEVERAL DAYS LATER EARLY IN THE MORNING ENTERING
A CAR IN FRONT OF HIS OFFICE; HE DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE PREMIUM, TOLD
HER TO SEND IT TO LITTLE ROCK, AND INFORMED HER THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE
RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM THE COMPANY TO THAT EFFECT; THAT DAY, JULY 6,
SHE BOUGHT A MONEY ORDER, "ADDRESSED THE ENVELOPE JUST TO THE COMPANY
AT LITTLE ROCK" AND MAILED IT; JULY 13, THE LITTLE ROCK OFFICE OF THE
COMPANY WROTE HER THAT IT COULD NOT ACCEPT THE PAYMENT BECAUSE THE
OMAHA HOME OFFICE HAD NOT SENT AN OFFICIAL RECEIPT FOR THIS POLICY
PAYMENT; IN THAT LETTER AND IN A SUBSEQUENT COMMUNICATION OF JULY 26,
THE LITTLE ROCK OFFICE OFFERED TO REINSTATE THE POLICY BUT WITH
RESTRICTED BENEFITS; ON JULY 26, HOWEVER, THE INSURED WAS KILLED BY
ACCIDENTAL MEANS WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE POLICY.  THE DEFENDANT OFFERED
NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. 

FIRST.  THE POLICY PROVIDES AS TO PREMIUM PAYMENTS THAT "THIS POLICY
IS ISSUED IN CONSIDERATION OF  ...  THE PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF $74.00
THE FIRST YEAR, AND THE PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF  ... $16.00 QUARTERLY
THEREAFTER, BEGINNING WITH APRIL 1, 1927, IS REQUIRED TO KEEP THIS
POLICY IN CONTINUOUS EFFECT."  THIS LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND NOTHING
ELSEWHERE IN THE POLICY ALTERS ITS MEANING.  TRUE, THE PRINTED
APPLICATION SIGNED BY DECEASED, DECEMBER 27, 1926, AND UPON WHICH THE
POLICY WAS ISSUED FOUR DAYS LATER, CONTAINS THE PRINTED QUESTION, "WHAT
IS THE PREMIUM?"  AND A TYPEWRITTEN ANSWER, "$16.00 QUARTERLY." 
HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISION OF THE POLICY FOR
THE PAYMENT OF $74.00 IN ADVANCE AND $16.00 QUARTERLY PREMIUMS.  THE
PROVISION FOR PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF $74.00 THE FIRST YEAR REQUIRED
PAYMENT BEFORE THE DATE THE POLICY TOOK EFFECT, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE
POLICY WAS THE DATE OF ISSUE.  UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF THIS PROVISION
ACTUAL PAYMENT OF A YEAR'S PREMIUM IN ADVANCE PURCHASED INSURANCE FOR A
YEAR.  THE DATES FOR FURTHER PAYMENTS TO EXTEND THE POLICY BEYOND A
YEAR COULD BE AND WERE FIXED BY THE POLICY CONTRACT.  PAYMENT FOR THE
FIRST YEAR CARRIED THE POLICY TO DECEMBER 31, 1927, AND THE FIRST
QUARTERLY PAYMENT, DUE BY THE POLICY'S TERMS APRIL 1, 1927 AND PAID IN
ADVANCE OF THAT DATE, EXTENDED THE POLICY ANOTHER QUARTER BEYOND
DECEMBER 31, 1927.  EACH SUCCEEDING QUARTERLY PAYMENT CARRIED THE
POLICY A CORRESPONDING THREE MONTHS.  THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE TRIAL
COURT WERE WHETHER THE $74.00 FIRST PAYMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE, AND
WHETHER THEREAFTER QUARTERLY PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT
TO CARRY THE POLICY FROM THE END OF THE FIRST YEAR UP TO AND INCLUDING
THE QUARTERLY PERIOD IN WHICH DEATH OF INSURED OCCURRED. 

SINCE THE POLICY RECITES THAT "THIS POLICY IS ISSUED IN CONSIDERATION
OF  ...  THE PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF $74.00 THE FIRST YEAR  ...  ,"
DELIVERY OF THE POLICY PRIMA FACIE ESTABLISHED THE FACT OF THE ADVANCE
PAYMENT OF THAT AMOUNT.  FN3  THIS EVIDENCE WAS REINFORCED BY
PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT THE $74.00 WAS SO PAID.  DEFENDANT MADE NO
OBJECTION TO THIS TESTIMONY.  ON CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENDANT,
PLAINTIFF AMPLIFIED HER TESTIMONY AS TO WHY SHE PAID THE QUARTERLY
PREMIUM IN APRIL, 1927, AFTER HAVING ALREADY PAID THE PREMIUM FOR A
WHOLE YEAR BEFORE THE POLICY WAS DELIVERED.  SHE EXPLAINED THAT THIS
WAS BECAUSE DEFENDANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TOLD HER AND THE INSURED THAT
"THERE WERE NO DAYS OF GRACE INCLUDED IN THE POLICY, BUT IF WE PAID A
YEAR'S PREMIUM IN ADVANCE THAT WOULD TAKE THE PLACE OF THESE DAYS OF
GRACE." 

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT OBJECT TO PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY OF
PAYMENT, AND EVOKED EXPLANATION OF IT ON CROSSEXAMINATION, THE COURT OF
APPEALS, WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO GOVERNING STATE LAW,  FN4 CONCLUDED
THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS INCOMPETENT.  THAT COURT BELIEVED THIS EVIDENCE
REPRESENTED AN EFFORT TO ALTER THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN POLICY CONTRACT
BY AN ORAL AGREEMENT VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS THAT "THIS POLICY  ...
CONTAINS THE ENTIRE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE," AND "NO AGENT HAS AUTHORITY
TO CHANGE THIS POLICY OR TO WAIVE ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS."  BUT THIS
EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS AS REQUIRED BY THE POLICY, DID NOT
AFFECT THE TERMS OF THE WRITTEN CONTRACT.  IT WAS OFFERED TO PROVE THE
DISCHARGE OF THE INSURED'S OBLIGATION UNDER THE CONTRACT.  THE EVIDENCE
WAS MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH THE FACT OF PAYMENT.  NO STATUTES OF ARKANSAS
OR DECISIONS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THAT STATE  FN5  HAVE BEEN POINTED
OUT WHICH WOULD MAKE SUCH RELEVANT EVIDENCE INCOMPETENT.  FN6  THE
$74.00 PAYMENT FOR THE FIRST YEAR, TOGETHER WITH QUARTERLY PAYMENTS
UNDISPUTEDLY MADE THROUGH APRIL 1, 1934, CARRIED THE POLICY TO JANUARY
1, 1935.  WE, THEREFORE, FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE
SIX DAYS DELAY IN PAYING THE JULY 1, 1934 PREMIUM WAS EXCUSED BY REASON
OF ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES. 

SECOND.  THE CONFORMITY ACT REQUIRES THAT "THE PRACTICE, PLEADINGS,
AND FORMS AND MODES OF PROCEEDING IN CIVIL CAUSES  ...  IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS, SHALL CONFORM, AS NEAR AS MAY BE, TO THE PRACTICE, PLEADINGS,
AND FORMS AND MODES OF PROCEEDING EXISTING AT THE TIME IN LIKE CAUSES
IN THE COURTS OF RECORD OF THE STATE WITHIN WHICH SUCH DISTRICT COURTS
ARE HELD, ANY RULE OF COURT TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING."  FN7 

OUR ATTENTION HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTED TO ANY MORE AUTHORITATIVE
ARKANSAS RULING GOVERNING THE PROCEDURAL EFFECT OF A REQUEST FOR A
PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION WITHOUT MORE, THAN THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF ARKANSAS IN A. B. SMITH LUMBER CO. V. PORTIS BROS., 140 ARK.
356; 215 S.W. 590.  THERE THE COURT SAID (AT 358, 359, 360):  "THE
CAUSE  ...  PROCEEDED TO A HEARING UPON THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE. 
WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS CONCLUDED, APPELLANT REQUESTED A PEREMPTORY
INSTRUCTION, AND NO OTHER.  THE COURT REFUSED THE INSTRUCTION OVER THE
OBJECTION OF APPELLANT, AND, ON ITS OWN MOTION, INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO
RETURN A VERDICT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEES  ...  OVER THE OBJECTION AND
EXCEPTION OF APPELLANT.  ...  AND THE COURT, ON ITS OWN MOTION, GAVE A
PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION FOR APPELLEE.  THE REQUEST FOR A PEREMPTORY
INSTRUCTION BY APPELLANT AND THE GIVING OF THE PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION
BY THE COURT FOR THE ADVERSE PARTY WAS TANTAMOUNT TO SUBMITTING THE
CASE TO THE COURT SITTING AS A JURY, AND THE COURT'S FINDING BECAME A
VERDICT AS MUCH SO AS IF IT HAD BEEN RENDERED BY A JURY UPON THE ISSUES
AND EVIDENCE.  ...  SO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD IS NOT
WHETHER THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO WARRANT THE
COURT IN SENDING THE CASE TO THE JURY UPON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT
THE UNDERTAKING WAS COLLATERAL, BUT THE QUESTION IS, WAS THERE ANY
LEGAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE COURT THAT THE UNDERTAKING
WAS ORIGINAL?" 

THIS RULE OF PROCEDURE CLOSELY APPROACHES THAT FREQUENTLY APPROVED BY
THIS COURT ON THE SAME SUBJECT, TO THE EFFECT THAT "'WHERE BOTH PARTIES
REQUEST A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION AND DO NOTHING MORE THEY THEREBY
ASSUME THE FACTS TO BE UNDISPUTED AND, IN EFFECT, SUBMIT TO THE TRIAL
JUDGE THE DETERMINATION OF THE INFERENCES PROPER TO BE DRAWN
THEREFROM'.  AND UPON REVIEW, A FINDING OF FACT BY THE TRIAL COURT
UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MUST STAND IF THE RECORD DISCLOSES SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT."  FN8 

HERE, THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO JUSTIFY THE VERDICT. 
DEFENDANT OBVIOUSLY PROCEEDED - AFTER THE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSED - UPON
THE BELIEF THAT THE FACTS AND ALL THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN THEREFROM
RAISED ONLY A QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE COURT - NOT ONE OF FACT FOR THE
JURY; AND PLAINTIFF ACQUIESCED.  NEITHER DEFENDANT NOR PLAINTIFF DID
ANYTHING TO INDICATE A DESIRE OR BELIEF THAT THE JURY SHOULD PASS UPON
ANY FACTS.  THUS, THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING IN ARKANSAS, HAVING
JURISDICTION ONLY BY REASON OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND TRYING A
SUIT INVOLVING AN ARKANSAS CONTRACT, FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURAL RULE
ANNOUNCED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THAT STATE. 

WHILE LITIGANTS IN FEDERAL COURTS CANNOT - BY RULES OF PROCEDURE - BE
DEPRIVED OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS
OF THE UNITED STATES, THE LOCAL ARKANSAS RULE FOLLOWED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT DOES NOT RESULT IN SUCH DEPRIVATION.  IN EFFECT, THAT LOCAL RULE
IS PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE FEDERAL RULE WHICH TREATS A REQUEST
BY BOTH PARTIES FOR PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTIONS WITHOUT MORE AS A
SUBMISSION OF ISSUES OF FACT TO THE COURT.  IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE
RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY BE SCRUPULOUSLY SAFEGUARDED, AND A STATE RULE OF
PROCEDURE ENTRENCHING UPON THIS RIGHT WOULD NOT REQUIRE OBSERVANCE BY
FEDERAL COURTS.  FN9  HOWEVER, THIS ARKANSAS PROCEDURAL RULE - SO
CLOSELY APPROXIMATING THE FEDERAL RULE - DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A
PROHIBITED INVASION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS.  SINCE THE DISTRICT COURT
FOLLOWED THE ARKANSAS PROCEDURAL RULE, AND THE VERDICT AND JUDGMENT
WERE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IT FOLLOWS THAT
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT'S
JUDGMENT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS, THEREFORE, REVERSED
AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  95 F.2D 528. 

FN2  POST, P. 583; CF. RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S.
202, 206. 

FN3  WASHINGTON FIDELITY NAT. INS. CO. V. ANDERSON, 187 ARK. 974,
976; 63 S.W.2D 535; NATIONAL EQUITY LIFE INS. CO. V. PARKER, 190 ARK.
642, 644; 80 S.W.2D 630; CF. SPLAWN V. MARTIN, 17 ARK. 146, 153. 

FN4  SEE 28 U.S.C., SEC. 724.  CF. D'WOLF V. RABAUD, 1 PET. 476, 502;
WILCOX V. HUNT, 13 PET. 378, 379; NASHUA SAVINGS BANK V. ANGLO-AMERICAN
CO., 189 U.S. 221, 228; CF. ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64. 
FN5  CF. ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, SUPRA. 

FN6  CF. SPLAWN V. MARTIN, SUPRA; VAUGINE V. TAYLOR, 18 ARK. 65, 79;
BORDEN V. PEAY, 20 ARK. 293, 306; HILL V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 129 ARK.
265, 269; 195 S.W. 678; LAY V. GAINES, 130 ARK. 167, 170; 196 S.W.
919. 

FN7  28 U.S.C., SEC. 724. 

FN8  WILLIAMS V. VREELAND, 250 U.S. 295, 298; AETNA INS. CO. V.
KENNEDY, 301 U.S. 389, 393. 

FN9  CF. DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22.    MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DID
NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER: 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND I ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE OPINION OR TO
AGREE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT JUST ANNOUNCED. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE REVERSED, AND THAT, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE SEPARATE
OPINION OF CIRCUIT JUDGE STONE, 95 F.2D 528, 534, THE CASE SHOULD BE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT
OPINION. 
..END :




CONNECTICUT RY. CO. V. PALMER, 305 U.S. 493 


NO. 63.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 14, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 95
F.2D 483, REVERSED. 


1.  REVIEW BY CERTIORARI IS LIMITED TO THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE WRIT
WAS SOUGHT AND ALLOWED.  A RULING TO WHICH THERE WAS BUT A MERE
REFERENCE IN THE PETITION, WITHOUT REQUEST FOR REVIEW, NOT CONSIDERED. 
P. 496. 

2.  THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES UPON REJECTION OF A LEASE IN A RAILROAD
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS
AMENDED AUG. 27, 1935, IS THE ACTUAL DAMAGES DETERMINABLE AS IN EQUITY
PROCEEDINGS AND UPON EVIDENCE.  THE ACT FIXES NO LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF
ACTUAL DAMAGES.  ONLY SUCH DAMAGES AS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF DEFINITE,
SATISFACTORY PROOF MAY BE ALLOWED.  PP. 497-503. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH CLAIMS IN RAILROAD
REORGANIZATION ARE COMPARED WITH THOSE LIMITING LIKE CLAIMS AGAINST
INDIVIDUAL DEBTORS AND IN GENERAL CORPORATE REORGANIZATION. 

3. THE CONCLUSION THAT, IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED, UPON REJECTION OF A LEASE
WITH 969 YEARS STILL TO RUN, THE LESSOR'S DAMAGES WERE LIMITED TO THE
RENT ACCRUED, UP TO THE LATEST PRACTICABLE DATE IN THE REORGANIZATION
FOR PRESENTATION OF ITS CLAIM, DIMINISHED BY THE NET EARNINGS OF THE
PROPERTY - THUS BARRING PROOF OF DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF RENT FALLING DUE
AFTER THAT DATE, AND DESTROYING, BY OPERATION OF SUBDIVISION (F), THE
RIGHT OF FURTHER RECOVERY FOR SUCH INJURY FROM THE DEBTOR AFTER
REORGANIZATION - HELD ERRONEOUS.  ID. 

4.  IMPROVEMENTS AND SINKING FUNDS WHICH CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF
THE LESSOR BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE, HELD NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS
OFFSETS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE LESSOR HEREIN.  P. 505. 

5.  SECTION 63(A)(9) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT HELD INAPPLICABLE TO THE
PRESENT CONTROVERSY.  P. 506. 

CONNECTICUT RAILWAY & LIGHTING CO. V. PALMER ET AL., TRUSTEES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 584, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH MODIFIED AND
AFFIRMED A DECREE OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DETERMINING A CLAIM ARISING
OUT OF THE REJECTION OF A LEASE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE POSES THE QUESTION OF THE CORRECT MEASURE OF DAMAGES
ALLOWABLE TO A LESSOR CREDITOR OF A RAILROAD DEBTOR FOR THE REJECTION
OF A LEASE UNDER THE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS OF SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE DETERMINATION DEPENDS UPON THE MEANING OF THE
DEFINITIVE CLAUSE "TO THE EXTENT OF THE ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY
DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OBTAINING IN EQUITY
PROCEEDINGS."  N1  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, UNDER SEC. 240A OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, BECAUSE THE CASE INVOLVES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF
FEDERAL LAW WHICH SHOULD BE SETTLED BY THIS COURT. 

ON DECEMBER 19, 1906, THE CONNECTICUT RAILWAY AND LIGHTING COMPANY,
PETITIONER HERE, LEASED CERTAIN GAS, ELECTRIC AND STREET RAILWAY
PROPERTIES FOR 999 YEARS TO THE CONSOLIDATED RAILWAY COMPANY,
PREDECESSOR OF THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY,
HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE NEW HAVEN.  BY A SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNMENT
THE NEW HAVEN WAS DIVESTED OF EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE TRANSPORTATION
PROPERTIES INVOLVED HERE.  ON FEBRUARY 28, 1910, THESE WERE TRANSFERRED
TO A WHOLLYOWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE NEW HAVEN.  SOME QUESTION AROSE IN
THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS AS TO THE NEW HAVEN'S LIABILITY ON THE
1906 LEASE AFTER THIS TRANSFER TO ITS SUBSIDIARY.  THE LOWER COURT,
HOWEVER, HELD THE NEW HAVEN LIABLE AS LESSEE, AND, NO ATTACK HAVING
BEEN MADE UPON THIS RULING, WE TREAT, WITHOUT FURTHER CONSIDERATION,
THE CONNECTICUT RAILWAY AS A LESSOR AND THE NEW HAVEN AS LESSEE. 

THE LEASE GAVE THE LESSOR THE OPTION TO TERMINATE, ON DEFAULT OF THE
LESSEE, AND TO REPOSSESS THE PROPERTY "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ITS RIGHT
OF ACTION FOR ARREARS OF RENT OR BREACH OF COVENANT."  IT CONTAINED NO
PROVISION FOR LIQUIDATION OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THE ENTIRE LEASE. 

THE NEW HAVEN AGREED TO PAY ALL TAXES ON THE PROPERTY AND ON THE
LESSOR'S INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY.  IT ALSO PAID $1,049,563.50 ANNUALLY
FOR THE STREET RAILWAYS.  OF THIS AMOUNT, $504,975 WAS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE CONNECTICUT RAILWAY'S BONDS
AND FOR PAYMENTS INTO A SINKING FUND.  THESE INTEREST AND SINKING FUND
PAYMENTS CREATED A CLAIM UPON THE LESSOR FOR THE CONTENTS OF THE FUND
AT THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE BONDS.  THE ARRANGEMENT LOOKED TO THE
CANCELLATION OF THE BONDS IN 1951 BY THE NEW HAVEN'S PAYMENTS, AND THE
ISSUANCE BY THE CONNECTICUT RAILWAY OF NEW BONDS IN THEIR PLACE.  THE
DELIVERY TO IT OF THESE BONDS, THE NEW HAVEN AGREED, WOULD LIQUIDATE
ITS CLAIM FOR THE CONTENTS OF THE SINKING FUND.  IN EFFECT THE ANNUAL
RESERVED RENT WOULD THEN BE CONSIDERABLY DECREASED, FOR THE INTEREST
AND SINKING FUND PAYMENTS WOULD BE FOR ITS BENEFIT AS OWNER OF THE NEW
BONDS. 

ON OCTOBER 23, 1935, THE NEW HAVEN FILED ITS PETITION UNDER SEC. 77
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE PETITION WAS APPROVED AND THE RESPONDENTS
WERE APPOINTED TRUSTEES.  ON DECEMBER 18, 1935, THEY REJECTED THE 1906
LEASE WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT.  ON NOVEMBER 16, 1936, THE
CONNECTICUT RAILWAY REPOSSESSED THE STREET RAILWAY PROPERTIES. 

THE CONNECTICUT RAILWAY FILED CLAIMS AGAINST THE NEW HAVEN'S ESTATE
FOR NUMEROUS ITEMS, AMONG THEM DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF THE LEASE AND FOR
DEFICIENCIES IN PROPERTY RETURNED.  IT CLAIMS $23,190,314.73 AS DAMAGES
FOR REJECTION OF THE LEASE.  THIS SUM IS ALLEGED TO BE "THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE PRESENT WORTH OF RENT AND OF RENTAL VALUE FOR THE BALANCE
OF THE TERM OF THE LEASE, LIQUIDATED BY DISCOUNTING AT 4%." 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT UNDER SEC. 77 THE LESSOR IS A CREDITOR
FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES ACCRUING FROM THE REJECTION OF THE UNEXPIRED LEASE
TO THE LATEST PRACTICABLE DATE IN THE REORGANIZATION FOR PRESENTATION
OF LESSORS' CLAIMS.  DAMAGES WERE MEASURED BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE RENT RESERVED IN THE LEASE AND THE NET EARNINGS OF THE PROPERTY. 
THE COURT ALLOWED THE AMOUNT PROVED UP TO JUNE 20, 1937, WITH LEAVE TO
THE CONNECTICUT RAILWAY TO APPLY FOR FURTHER HEARINGS TO LIQUIDATE
DAMAGES SUFFERED AFTER THAT DATE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, APPROVING THE TRIAL COURT'S
EXCLUSION OF ANY FUTURE DAMAGE WHICH HAD NOT ACCRUED UP TO THE LATEST
POSSIBLE HEARING IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 

FIRST.  THE CLAIM FOR DEFICIENCIES IN THE PROPERTY RETURNED TO
PETITIONER IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT.  THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI DID NOT INCLUDE THE CLAIM AMONG THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED OR
REASONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT.  IT WAS LISTED AS ONE OF THREE
RULINGS BELOW.  THE FIRST RELATED TO RENT ACCRUED TO PETITION FILED,
THE SECOND TO DEFICIENCIES IN PROPERTY RETURNED, AND THE THIRD TO
DAMAGES FOR REJECTION OF THE LEASE.  NOWHERE IN THE PETITION WAS THERE
COMPLAINT AS TO THE FIRST TWO ITEMS.  CLEARLY THE PETITION SOUGHT
REVIEW SOLELY OF THE DECREE IN SO FAR AS IT LIMITED PETITIONER'S CLAIM
UNDER SEC. 77 FOR DAMAGES FROM REJECTION OF THE UNEXPIRED LEASE.  AS
CLEARLY, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW ONLY THE MATTER WHICH THIS
COURT WAS ADVISED AGGRIEVED PETITIONER.  JOHNSON V. MANHATTAN RY. CO.,
289 U.S. 479, 494; GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CO. V. WESTERN ELECTRIC
CO., 304 U.S. 175, 177-9.  PETITIONER RELIES UPON WASHINGTON, V. & M.C.
CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 301 U.S. 142, 146.  NEITHER THE
LANGUAGE OF THAT CASE NOR THE AUTHORITIES THERE CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE
REFUSAL TO REVIEW A CLAIM NOT MENTIONED GIVE VITALITY TO THE SUGGESTION
OF THE PETITIONER THAT A MERE REFERENCE IN A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO
A RULING, WITHOUT A REQUEST FOR REVIEW, WILL CAUSE ITS CONSIDERATION. 

SECOND.  UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF SEC.
63(A) BY THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1934,  FN2  A CLAIM FOR FUTURE RENT WAS NOT
PROVABLE.  FN3  A COVENANT, HOWEVER, CREATING A LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES
ON THE FILING OF A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY, MEASURED BY THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF THE REMAINING RENT AND THE PRESENT
FAIR RENTAL VALUE OF THE PREMISES FOR THE BALANCE OF THE TERM, RESULTED
IN A PROVABLE CLAIM.  FN4  THIS CONDITION MADE FOR INEQUALITY AMONG
BOTH CREDITORS AND BANKRUPTS, SINCE RECOVERY BY CLAIMANTS DEPENDED UPON
THE ARTISTRY WITH WHICH THEIR LEASES WERE DRAFTED AND DISCHARGED
BANKRUPTS WERE OFTEN LEFT WITH SURVIVING CLAIMS FOR RENT, UNDULY
BURDENSOME UPON THEIR EFFORTS AT SELF-REHABILITATION.  FN5 EVERYONE
INTERESTED IN BANKRUPTCY PROBLEMS HAD LONG BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THE
FUTURE RENT SITUATION AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS INTO THE FIELDS OF
ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND THE PROVABILITY OF
CONTINGENT CLAIMS.  FN6 

DURING THE YEARS 1933 TO 1935 THE CONGRESS DEALT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS
WITH LANDLORDS' CLAIMS FOR FUTURE RENT.  THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, MADE
PROVISION FOR THE RELIEF OF INDIVIDUAL DEBTORS, AGRICULTURAL AND NON
AGRICULTURAL, AND FOR RAILROAD REORGANIZATION.  SECTION 74 DEFINED
CREDITORS THUS:  "THE TERM 'CREDITOR' SHALL INCLUDE FOR THE PURPOSES OF
AN EXTENSION PROPOSAL UNDER THIS SECTION ALL HOLDERS OF CLAIMS OF
WHATEVER CHARACTER AGAINST THE DEBTOR OR HIS PROPERTY INCLUDING A CLAIM
FOR FUTURE RENT, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CLAIMS WOULD OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE
PROVABLE CLAIMS UNDER THIS ACT.  A CLAIM FOR FUTURE RENT SHALL
CONSTITUTE A PROVABLE DEBT AND SHALL BE LIQUIDATED UNDER SECTION 63(B)
OF THIS ACT."  FN7  SIMILARLY THE RAILROAD REORGANIZATION SECTION
TREATED OF FUTURE RENTS IN SUB-SECTIONS 77(B), (H) AND (J), HEREAFTER
MORE FULLY CONSIDERED.  BY THE DECISION OF MANHATTAN PROPERTIES V.
IRVING TRUST CO., ON JANUARY 10, 1934, THE DIFFICULTIES OF LESSORS WERE
SHARPLY EMPHASIZED.  THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1934, SUPPLIED PROCEDURE FOR
CORPORATE REORGANIZATION WITH ARRANGEMENTS PERMITTING THE PROOF OF
CLAIMS FOR FUTURE RENT.  FN8  THESE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN UPHELD.  FN9 

THE FIRST PROVISIONS FOR PROOF OF CLAIMS FOR FUTURE RENT IN RAILROAD
REORGANIZATIONS APPEARED IN THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, SIMULTANEOUSLY
WITH THE BROADENING OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT TO INCLUDE THE RAILROADS AS
DEBTORS.  THIS ACT INCLUDED SEC. 74 WHICH ENLARGED THE BANKRUPTCY
DEFINITION OF CREDITOR.  FOR CREDITORS OF THIS TYPE IN RAILROAD
REORGANIZATIONS, THE ENACTMENT WAS EQUALLY BROAD.  FN10  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DISCLOSES NOTHING AS TO THE MOTIVES WHICH PROMPTED
THE INCLUSION OF THE LANGUAGE.  IN THE ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1935, THESE
CLAUSES WERE AMENDED TO READ AS THEY NOW STAND BUT AGAIN NOTHING HAS
BEEN FOUND COMMENTING UPON THE REASONS FOR THEIR ADOPTION IN EITHER THE
ORIGINAL OR PRESENT FORM.  CHANGES OF INTEREST HERE FROM THE 1933
LANGUAGE WERE PROPOSED BY THE FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF TRANSPORTATION,
FN11  BUT THEY WERE NOT DEEMED OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE BY HIM TO MERIT
PARTICULAR COMMENT.  THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES HELD HEARINGS AND REPORTED A BILL, BASED ON THE
COORDINATOR'S DRAFT, WITH THE LANGUAGE, HERE IMPORTANT, CHANGED TO THE
EXACT WORDING OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1935.  NOTHING WHICH ILLUMINES
THIS PROBLEM APPEARS IN THE HEARINGS  FN12  OR COMMITTEE REPORT.  FN13 

THE PORTIONS OF THE ACT WHICH WE MUST CONSIDER ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 77.  REORGANIZATION OF RAILROADS  ...  (B)  ...  THE TERM
'CREDITORS' SHALL INCLUDE  ... THE HOLDER OF A CLAIM UNDER A CONTRACT
EXECUTORY IN WHOLE OR IN PART INCLUDING AN UNEXPIRED LEASE. 

"  ...  IN CASE AN EXECUTORY CONTRACT OR UNEXPIRED LEASE OF PROPERTY
SHALL BE REJECTED  ...  ANY PERSON INJURED BY SUCH NONADOPTION OR
REJECTION SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION BE DEEMED TO BE A
CREDITOR OF THE DEBTOR TO THE EXTENT OF THE ACTUAL DAMAGE OR INJURY
DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OBTAINING IN EQUITY
PROCEEDINGS.  ... 

"(F)  ...  THE PROPERTY DEALT WITH BY THE PLAN, WHEN TRANSFERRED AND
CONVEYED  ...  SHALL BE FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEBTOR, ITS
STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS, AND THE DEBTOR SHALL BE DISCHARGED FROM ITS
DEBTS AND LIABILITIES,  ...  " 49 STAT. 911, 913, 920. 

IT IS FIRST TO BE NOTED THAT THE SUCCESSIVE ACTS OF THE CONGRESS, ON
EXTENSION OF INDIVIDUAL DEBTS AND CORPORATE AND RAILROAD
REORGANIZATION, ARE DIRECTED GENERALLY AT THE REHABILITATION OF
DEBTORS.  FN14  AS ONE OF THE MEANS USED CONSISTENTLY TO ACCOMPLISH
THIS, CLAIMS FOR FUTURE RENT ARE MADE PROVABLE AND DISCHARGEABLE, SO
THAT THE DEBTOR WOULD NOT BE BURDENED WITH THE RENT OBLIGATION AFTER
DISCHARGE.  FN15  NEXT, THE LIMITATION OF THE AMOUNT OF FUTURE RENT
RECOVERABLE TO ONE YEAR IN SEC. 4 AND TO THREE YEARS IN SEC. 1(77B (B))
OF THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1934, LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT THE CONGRESS DEEMED A
DEFINITE FORMULA ADVANTAGEOUS IN BANKRUPTCY AND GENERAL CORPORATE
REORGANIZATION.  ITS FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN EXACT MEASURE IN RAILROAD
REORGANIZATIONS SHOWS IT WAS NOT THERE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE. 
FINALLY, IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE CHANGES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY IN THE WORDING OF THE COORDINATOR'S DRAFT, BY WHICH "ACTUAL"
WAS INSERTED BEFORE "DAMAGE" AND "DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PRINCIPLES OBTAINING IN EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS" ADDED AS A GUIDE, WERE
INTENDED TO CALL EMPHATICALLY TO THE ATTENTION OF THOSE ADMINISTERING
THE REORGANIZATION SECTION THE REQUIREMENT THAT ONLY THOSE DAMAGES
SUSCEPTIBLE OF DEFINITE PROOF SHOULD BE ALLOWED.  WE CANNOT READ A
LIMITATION ON DAMAGES INTO THE LANGUAGE AS ENACTED.  AS REORGANIZATIONS
HAD BEEN TRADITIONALLY CARRIED ON IN EQUITY AND WOULD BE CARRIED ON IN
A BANKRUPTCY COURT WITH EQUITY POWERS, IT WAS NATURAL TO ADD THE CLAUSE
AS TO EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS.  LEASES WERE PLACED UPON THE SAME BASIS AS
EXECUTORY CONTRACTS. 

THE NEW HAVEN URGES THAT THE REFERENCE TO "EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS" IS
TO RECEIVERSHIPS IN EQUITY, AS SUCH RECEIVERSHIPS WERE MENTIONED TWICE
IN THE SAME SUBSECTION.  THE USE OF "EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS" INSTEAD OF
"EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS" SUPPORTS THE VIEW THAT SOMETHING DIFFERENT WAS
INTENDED.  THE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS FOR
FUTURE RENT THE NEW HAVEN FINDS IN PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK
CITY RY. CO., 198 F. 721, EXPRESSED AS FOLLOWS, PAGES 741-742, "CLAIMS
WHICH WHEN PRESENTED WITHIN THE TIME LIMITED BY THE COURT FOR THEIR
PRESENTATION ARE CERTAIN OR ARE CAPABLE OF BEING MADE CERTAIN BY
RECOGNIZED METHODS OF COMPUTATION, SHOULD BE ALLOWED.  CLAIMS WHICH ARE
NOT THEN CERTAIN SHOULD BE DISALLOWED BECAUSE THEY AFFORD NO BASIS FOR
MAKING DIVIDENDS."  THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AS AFFIRMED
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IS THEN OFFERED AS THE CORRECT RULE IN
THIS CASE.  THAT CONCLUSION WAS SUMMARIZED BY THE BRIEF OF THE NEW
HAVEN IN THESE WORDS: 

"THE COURT THEREUPON HELD THAT DAMAGES MEASURED BY THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE RENT RESERVED AND THE EARNINGS OF THE PROPERTY UP TO THE
DATE OF HEARING SHOULD BE ALLOWED, WITH THE FURTHER RIGHT TO THE
CLAIMANT, IN COMMON WITH ALL OTHER CLAIMANTS UNDER REJECTED LEASES, TO
APPLY FOR A SUBSEQUENT HEARING AT THE LATEST PRACTICABLE DATE TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE COURT DURING THE REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROVING SIMILAR DAMAGES UP TO THAT DATE."    DAMAGES FOR
LOSS OF RENT WHICH FELL DUE AFTER THE LATEST PRACTICABLE DATE FOR
FILING CLAIMS WERE THUS BARRED FROM PROOF, AND UNDER THE QUOTED
LANGUAGE OF SUBDIVISION (F), THE RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR SUCH INJURY FROM
THE DEBTOR AFTER REORGANIZATION WAS DESTROYED. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF FUTURE RENT IS
ERRONEOUS.  NOTWITHSTANDING ITS EXTENDED TERM, THE LEASE CREATED AN
OBLIGATION UNDER THE PRESENT BANKRUPTCY ACT UPON THE NEW HAVEN ENTITLED
TO SHARE IN ITS ASSETS UPON REORGANIZATION ON AN EQUALITY WITH THE
CLAIMS OF OTHER CREDITORS.    WHILE IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE GENERAL
RULE IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS WAS THAT ONLY ACCRUED DAMAGES COULD BE
PROVEN, THERE WAS NO DISCERNIBLE EQUITABLE RULE FOR THE DETERMINATION
OF DAMAGES FOR REJECTION OR NONADOPTION OF AN UNEXPIRED LEASE.  THE
ACTUAL DAMAGES FROM THE BREACH WERE NOT DETERMINED.  AT THE MOST AN
ARBITRARY TIME LIMIT WAS SET ON PROOF.  THE REFERENCE TO EQUITY
PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT, IN OUR OPINION, REFER TO ANY RULE FOR THE MEASURE
OF DAMAGES IN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIPS.  IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION OF
ESTATES, WHETHER RAILROAD OR NON-RAILROAD, CLAIMS FOR FUTURE RENTS
DEPENDED FOR THEIR PROVABILITY UPON THE FACT OF REENTRY,  FN16  THE
EXISTENCE OF A CLAUSE FOR INDEMNITY IN CASE OF BREACH,  FN17  OR THE
INCIDENCE OF THE MATURITY OF THE RENT CLAIM UNDER THE LOCAL LAW.  FN18 

THE DAMAGES RECOVERED BY AN INJURED PARTY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN LIMITED TO
HIS "ACTUAL" DAMAGES.  THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE CONGRESS
INTENDED TO HAVE "ACTUAL" INTERPRETED AS "ACCRUED."  THE MEASURE OF
DAMAGES APPLIED BY THE COURTS FOR THE BREACH OF A LEASE, WHERE DAMAGES
ARE PERMITTED, IS UNIFORM.  IN WILLIAM FILENE'S SONS CO. V. WEED  FN19
AND IN KUEHNER V. IRVING TRUST CO.,  FN20  THIS COURT SAID IN ANALOGOUS
SITUATIONS THAT THE MEASURE WAS THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE RENT RESERVED
LESS THE PRESENT RENTAL VALUE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM.  FN21  THE
ENGLISH BANKRUPTCY ACT PERMITS PROOF OF FUTURE RENTS, AS ANY CLAIM IS
PROVABLE WHICH IS "AS TO MODE OF VALUATION, CAPABLE OF BEING
ASCERTAINED BY FIXED RULES OR AS MATTER OF OPINION."  FN22  THE MEASURE
OF DAMAGES IS THE SAME.  FN23  THE DIFFICULTIES OF PROOF ARE WELL
RECOGNIZED.  FN24  THE SAME RULES APPLY TO EXECUTORY CONTRACTS.  IN
KUEHNER V. IRVING TRUST CO. FN25  THIS COURT POINTED OUT AS ONE OF THE
REASONS FOR UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTORY FORMULA THE
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE LOSS ENTAILED BY ABROGATION OF LEASES, AN
UNCERTAINTY GROWING GREATER AS THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM LENGTHENS. 
"TESTIMONY AS TO PRESENT RENTAL VALUE," IT WAS SAID, "PARTAKES LARGELY
OF THE CHARACTER OF PROPHECY  ...  "  A REMAINDER OF FOURTEEN YEARS WAS
THERE INVOLVED.  HERE THERE IS A REMAINDER OF 969 YEARS.  THAT LEASE
WAS FOR A STORE IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.  EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF
UNEXPIRED TERMS OF STREET RAILWAY LEASES WOULD BE EVEN MORE DIFFICULT
TO PRODUCE, AS POSSIBLE LESSEES ARE LIMITED IN NUMBER.  SINCE
INSOLVENCIES ARE MORE FREQUENT IN ECONOMIC DEPRESSIONS AND SINCE, AS A
CONSEQUENCE, ESTIMATES OF THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM
ARE GIVEN UNDER SUBNORMAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS, THE DIFFICULTIES ARE
MULTIPLIED. 

JUDGES IN EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS WILL HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF EVIDENCE
IN APPLYING THE USUAL RULES AS TO THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES.  IT IS WELL
UNDERSTOOD THAT SUCH EVIDENCE MUST SHOW DAMAGES TO REASONABLE
CERTAINTY.  MERE "PLAUSIBLE ANTICIPATION" DOES NOT MERIT CONSIDERATION
NOR ARE FLIGHTS INTO THE REALM OF PURE SPECULATION ENTITLED TO BE
TREATED AS EVIDENCE.  FN26  THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT TO BE
ALLOWED AS THE DAMAGE WILL BE BASED ON EVIDENCE WHICH SATISFIES THE
MIND. 

THIRD.  WE COMMENT BRIEFLY ON TWO OTHER POINTS RAISED.  THE
BETTERMENTS AND SINKING FUNDS HAVING COME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE
LESSORS BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS OFFSETS
AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE LESSOR.  THEIR POSSESSION BY THE LESSOR
INCREASES THE EARNING POWER OF THE ASSETS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE
LESSEE. 

SINCE SUBSECTION (L) OF SEC. 77  FN27  IS GENERAL IN FORM AND IS
SPECIFICALLY SUBORDINATED TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION,
INCLUDING SUBSECTION (B), SEC. 63(A)(9) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS
INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY. 

AS CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT AND ALLOWED ONLY UPON SO MUCH OF THE ORDER
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS AFFECTED THE MEASURE OF THE LESSOR'S
DAMAGE FOR REJECTION OF THE LEASE IN QUESTION, THE ORDER OF THAT COURT
IS REVERSED ONLY IN THAT PARTICULAR AND THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER AND
OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS HEREIN MODIFIED AND OF THIS
COURT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 911, 914; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 205(B). 

FN2  48 STAT. 923-924.  "SEC.  4.  (A) SECTION 63(A) OF THE ACT OF
JULY 1, 1898, ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF
BANKRUPTCY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES', APPROVED JULY 1, 1898, AS
AMENDED, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:  '(A) DEBTS OF THE BANKRUPT MAY
BE PROVED AND ALLOWED AGAINST HIS ESTATE WHICH ARE  ...  (7) CLAIMS FOR
DAMAGES RESPECTING EXECUTORY CONTRACTS INCLUDING FUTURE RENTS WHETHER
THE BANKRUPT BE AN INDIVIDUAL OR A CORPORATION, BUT THE CLAIM OF A
LANDLORD FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM THE REJECTION BY THE TRUSTEE OF AN
UNEXPIRED LEASE OF REAL ESTATE OR FOR DAMAGES OR INDEMNITY UNDER A
COVENANT CONTAINED IN SUCH LEASE SHALL IN NO EVENT BE ALLOWED IN AN
AMOUNT EXCEEDING THE RENT RESERVED BY THE LEASE, WITHOUT ACCELERATION,
FOR THE YEAR NEXT SUCCEEDING THE DATE OF THE SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES
PLUS AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE UNPAID RENT ACCRUED UP TO SAID DATE:
PROVIDED, THAT THE COURT SHALL SCRUTINIZE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN
ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE RENT CLAIMS AND THE AMOUNT OF THE CONSIDERATION
PAID FOR SUCH ASSIGNMENT IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES ALLOWED
ASSIGNEE HEREUNDER:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CLAUSE (7) SHALL APPLY TO ESTATES PENDING AT THE TIME OF THE ENACTMENT
OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT.'" 

THE AMENDMENTS OF JUNE 18, 1934, C. 580, 48 STAT. 991, JUNE 5, 1936,
C. 512, SEC. 1, 49 STAT. 1475, AND JUNE 22, 1938, C. 575, 52 STAT. 840,
ARE IMMATERIAL UPON THIS POINT. 

FN3  MANHATTAN PROPERTIES V. IRVING TRUST CO., 291 U.S. 320, 330. 

FN4  IRVING TRUST CO. V. PERRY CO., 293 U.S. 307, 310. 

FN5  CITY BANK CO. V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 433, 437. 

FN6  CF. MANHATTAN PROPERTIES V. IRVING TRUST CO., SUPRA; MAYNARD V.
ELLIOTT, 283 U.S. 273, 278; CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. CHICAGO AUDITORIUM
ASSN., 240 U.S. 581, 589-90. 

FN7  47 STAT. 1467-68. 

FN8  "IN CASE AN EXECUTORY CONTRACT OR UNEXPIRED LEASE OF REAL ESTATE
SHALL BE REJECTED  ... ANY PERSON INJURED BY SUCH REJECTION SHALL, FOR
ALL PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION AND OF THE REORGANIZATION PLAN, ITS
ACCEPTANCE AND CONFIRMATION, BE DEEMED TO BE A CREDITOR.  THE CLAIM OF
A LANDLORD FOR INJURY RESULTING FROM THE REJECTION OF AN UNEXPIRED
LEASE OF REAL ESTATE OR FOR DAMAGES OR INDEMNITY UNDER A COVENANT
CONTAINED IN SUCH LEASE SHALL BE TREATED AS A CLAIM RANKING ON A PARITY
WITH DEBTS WHICH WOULD BE PROVABLE UNDER SECTION 63(A) OF THIS ACT, BUT
SHALL BE LIMITED TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE RENT, WITHOUT
ACCELERATION, RESERVED BY SAID LEASE FOR THE THREE YEARS NEXT
SUCCEEDING THE DATE OF SURRENDER OF THE PREMISES TO THE LANDLORD OR THE
DATE OF REENTRY OF THE LANDLORD, WHICHEVER FIRST OCCURS, WHETHER BEFORE
OR AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION, PLUS UNPAID RENT ACCRUED UP TO
SUCH DATE OF SURRENDER OR REENTRY:  PROVIDED, THAT THE COURT SHALL
SCRUTINIZE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE RENT CLAIMS AND
THE AMOUNT OF THE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR SUCH ASSIGNMENT IN DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES ALLOWED ASSIGNEE HEREUNDER."  48 STAT. 915. 

"(H)  UPON FINAL CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN,  ...  THE PROPERTY DEALT
WITH BY THE PLAN, WHEN TRANSFERRED AND CONVEYED BY THE TRUSTEE OR
TRUSTEES TO THE DEBTOR OR THE OTHER CORPORATION OR CORPORATIONS  ...
SHALL BE FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEBTOR, ITS STOCKHOLDERS
AND CREDITORS  ...  " 48 STAT. 920. 

FN9  CITY BANK CO. V. IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 433; KUEHNER V.
IRVING TRUST CO., 299 U.S. 445. 

FN10  47 STAT. 1475, 1480, SEC. 77, "(B)  ...  THE TERM 'CREDITORS'
SHALL,  ...  INCLUDE  ... ALL HOLDERS OF CLAIMS, INTERESTS, OR
SECURITIES OF WHATEVER CHARACTER AGAINST THE DEBTOR OR ITS PROPERTY,
INCLUDING CLAIM FOR FUTURE RENT, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CLAIMS, INTERESTS,
OR SECURITIES WOULD OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE PROVABLE CLAIMS UNDER THIS
ACT." 

"(H)  ...  THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN SHALL DISCHARGE THE DEBTOR
FROM ITS DEBTS EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE PLAN.  ...  " 

"(J)  UPON THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN THE PROPERTY DEALT WITH BY
THE PLAN,  ...  SHALL, AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT, BE FREE AND CLEAR OF
ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEBTOR, ITS STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS, ...  " 

FN11  HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 89, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, APPENDIX X,
PAGE 229. 

THOSE AFFECTING THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, QUOTED IN
NOTE 10, SUPRA, WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE TERM 'CREDITORS' SHALL INCLUDE FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION
ALL HOLDERS OF CLAIMS OF WHATEVER CHARACTER AGAINST THE DEBTOR OR ITS
PROPERTY, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH CLAIMS WOULD OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE
PROVABLE CLAIMS UNDER THIS ACT, INCLUDING THE HOLDER OF A CLAIM UNDER A
CONTRACT EXECUTORY IN WHOLE OR IN PART INCLUDING AN UNEXPIRED LEASE." 
ID. P. 231. 

"IN CASE AN EXECUTORY CONTRACT OR UNEXPIRED LEASE OF PROPERTY SHALL
BE REJECTED  ...  , ANY PERSON INJURED BY SUCH NONADOPTION OR
REJECTION, SHALL, FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION BE DEEMED TO BE A
CREDITOR TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH DAMAGE OR INJURY, PROVIDED, THAT THE
JUDGE SHALL CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF FUTURE RENT
CLAIMS AND THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION PAID FOR SUCH ASSIGNMENT IN
DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES ALLOWED AN ASSIGNEE HEREUNDER AND MAY
LIMIT SUCH DAMAGES TO THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID FOR SUCH CLAIMS." 
ID. PP. 231-2. 

"  ...  THE PROPERTY DEALT WITH BY THE PLAN, WHEN TRANSFERRED AND
CONVEYED  ...  SHALL BE FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEBTOR, ITS
STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS,  ...  THE FINAL DECREE SHALL DISCHARGE THE
DEBTOR FROM ITS DEBTS AND LIABILITIES AND SHALL TERMINATE ALL RIGHTS
AND INTERESTS OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
THE PLAN OR AS MAY BE RESERVED AS AFORESAID."  ID. P. 239. 

COMMENT OF COORDINATOR, ID. P. 100 ET SEQ. 

FN12  HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 6249,
74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION. 

FN13  H.R. REPORT NO. 1283, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION. 

FN14  CF. ADAIR V. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL T. & S. ASSN., 303 U.S.
350. 

FN15  CF. MANHATTAN PROPERTIES V. IRVING TRUST CO., 291 U.S. 320, 331
2. 

FN16  GARDINER V. BUTLER & CO., 245 U.S. 603, 605. 

FN17  WM. FILENE'S SONS CO. V. WEED, 245 U.S. 597, 602. 

FN18 GARDINER V. BUTLER & CO. 245 U.S. 603, 605; WAKE DEVELOPMENT CO.
V. AUBURN-FULLER CO., 71 F.2D 702; MOORE V. MCDUFFIE, 71 F.2D 729; IN
RE MCALLISTER-MOHLER CO., 46 F.2D 91; SEE GERDES, CORPORATE
REORGANIZATIONS, SECS. 687-88. 

FN19  245 U.S. 597, 602. 

FN20  299 U.S. 445, 450. 

FN21  CF. GRAYSON V. MIXON, 176 ARK. 1123; 5 S.W.2D 312; CURRAN V.
SMITH-ZOLLINGER CO., 18 DEL. CH. 220; 157 A. 432; WILSON V. NATIONAL
REFINING CO., 126 KAN. 139; 266 P. 941; WOMBLE V. LEIGH, 195 N.C. 282;
142 S.E. 17; IN RE READING IRON WORKS, 150 PA. 369; 24 A. 617;
SUTHERLAND, DAMAGES, VOL. III, FOURTH ED., SEC. 844. 

FN22  ACT OF 1914, 4 AND 5 GEO. V, C. 59, SEC. 30(8)(C). 

FN23  IN RE TICKLE, 3 MORR.  126; EX PARTE LLYNVI COAL & IRON CO.,
L.R. 7 CH. APP. 28; IN RE HINKS, EX PARTE VERDI, 3 MORR.  218; IN RE
CARRUTHERS, 2 MANS.  172; CF. HARDY V. FOTHERGILL, L.R. 13 A.C. 351,
358, WHERE A CLAIM ON COVENANT TO DELIVER WELL REPAIRED AT END OF FIFTY
YEAR TERM WAS HELD PROVABLE. 

FN24  PENNSYLVANIA STEEL CO. V. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., 198 F. 721,
759. 

FN25  299 U.S. 445, 454. 

FN26  CF. SUTHERLAND, DAMAGES, VOL. I, FOURTH ED., SEC. 121. 

FN27  49 STAT. 922, "(L)  IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION AND
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS THEREOF, THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF
THE COURT, THE DUTIES OF THE DEBTOR AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF
CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEBTOR AND ITS
PROPERTY, SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION
HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY
WHEN THE DEBTOR'S PETITION WAS FILED." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






B. & O.R. CO. V. U.S., 305 U.S. 507 


NO. 133.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 8, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1939.  - 20
F.SUPP.  273 - ID. 917, AFFIRMED. 


INTERSTATE CARRIERS, AT THE PORT OF NEW YORK, IN A COMPETITIVE EFFORT
TO INDUCE SHIPPERS TO PATRONIZE THEIR RESPECTIVE LINES AND SO INCREASE
THEIR LINE-HAUL TRAFFIC, FURNISHED WAREHOUSE SPACE AND SERVICES, AT
LESS THAN COST TO THE CARRIERS AND AT LESS THAN THE RATES CHARGED BY
PRIVATE WAREHOUSEMEN.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION PROPERLY ORDERED THE
CARRIERS TO CEASE FURNISHING SUCH FACILITIES BELOW COST, UPON THE
GROUNDS THAT SUCH WAREHOUSING IS "COMMERCIAL" AND NOT PART OF THE
TRANSPORTATION, AND THE EFFECT OF FURNISHING IT BELOW COST, IN ORDER TO
ATTRACT LINE-HAUL PATRONAGE, IS TO ALLOW WHAT AMOUNTS TO A REBATE TO
THOSE SHIPPERS WHO ENJOY THE BELOW-COST WAREHOUSING AND TO WORK UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AND UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE AGAINST OTHER SHIPPERS PAYING
THE PUBLISHED TRANSPORTATION RATES, IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 2, 3, AND 6
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  P. 520. 

2.  TO THIS CONCLUSION, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SHIPPER PAYS LESS
THAN FAIR OR MARKET VALUE IS IMMATERIAL.  P. 523. 

3.  INCLUSION OF SUCH BELOW-COST WAREHOUSING SERVICE IN THE CARRIER'S
TARIFF, IN CONNECTION WITH STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT PRIVILEGES, THOUGH
REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION, DOES NOT MAKE IT A TRANSPORTATION COST OR
SAVE IT FROM THE CONDEMNATION OF SEC. 6(7) OF THE ACT.  P. 525. 

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE DISMISSING A BILL TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, THE WAREHOUSEMEN'S PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE, THE AMERICAN
WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, THE BOSTON PORT AUTHORITY, AND THE CITY OF
BOSTON INTERVENED AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE BILL. 

THE ORDER CONDEMNS RAILROAD LEASES TO SHIPPERS UPON THE BASIC FINDING
THAT THE RENTALS RESERVED ARE LESS THAN THE COST OF PROVIDING THE
PROPERTY LEASED.  UPON THIS FINDING ALONE THE COMMISSION AND THE
DISTRICT COURT HOLD THAT SUCH RENTALS ARE "CONCESSIONS" TO SHIPPERS
FROM THE PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES FOR ROAD-HAUL TRANSPORTATION, IN
VIOLATION OF SECS. 2, 3, AND 6 OF THE ACT AND "PROBABLY" IN VIOLATION
OF THE ELKINS ACT.  IT IS NEITHER THE DUTY NOR WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF
THE COURT TO SEARCH THE RECORD TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL
ESSENTIAL FINDINGS MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE. 

TO MAKE OUT AN UNLAWFUL CONCESSION, RECEIPT BY THE SHIPPER OF MORE
VALUE THAN HE PAYS BACK MUST BE SHOWN BY AN EXPRESS FINDING THAT THE
REASONABLE RENTAL VALUE OF THE LEASE GIVEN TO THE SHIPPER EXCEEDED THE
RENTAL HE ACTUALLY PAID. 

CITING LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 444, 446;
WIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 167 U.S. 512; MITCHELL COAL CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA
R. CO., 230 U.S. 247, 260-265; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TIN PLATE CO.,
301 U.S. 402; NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N,
200 U.S. 361; NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO. V. THOMPSON, 281 U.S. 331;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 268 U.S. 146, 155; ST. LOUIS
& O'FALLON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 461, 494; ATCHISON, T. &
S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 248, 260; GREAT NORTHERN RY.
CO. V. WEEKS, 297 U.S. 135, 149; DONOVAN V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 199
U.S. 279; LOUISVILLE & N. RY. CO. V. WEST COAST NAVAL STORES CO., 198
U.S. 483; MISSOURI-PACIFIC RY. V. NEBRASKA, 164 U.S. 403; DAVIS V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 235 F. 731, 737; ARON V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 80
F.2D 100, CERT. DENIED, 298 U.S. 658; CLEVELAND, C.C. & ST. L. RY. CO.
V. HIRSCH, 204 F. 849; CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. V. BLOUNT, 238 F.
292; VANDALIA RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 226 F. 713; UNITED STATES V.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 18 F.2D 299, 304; ANDREWS BROS. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 123 I.C.C. 733; WILLIAMS-THOMPSON CO. V. A. &
W.P.R. CO., 126 I.C.C. 417; JOHNSON LUMBER CO. V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO.,
219 I.C.C. 125. 

GREAT HARDSHIP WILL RESULT TO THE SHIPPERS AND CARRIERS THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY FROM THIS RIGID COST OR INVESTMENT STANDARD AS THE TEST OF
LAWFUL RENTALS. 

THERE IS NOTHING STRANGE OR UNUSUAL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT PRESENT
FAIR VALUE OF LEASES MAY NOT EQUAL "COST," IF CALCULATED TO INCLUDE, AS
THE COMMISSION'S REPORTS SEEM TO CONTEMPLATE, INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION
ON INVESTMENT AT SOME UNSTATED RATES, AND TAXES.  THE COMMISSION'S
REPORTS IN THIS CASE SHOW THAT MOST OF THE BUILDINGS IN WHICH THE
CARRIERS HAVE LEASED SPACE TO SHIPPERS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THE YEARS
AFTER THE WAR AND PRIOR TO THE DEPRESSION WHEN, AS THE COURT WILL
JUDICIALLY NOTICE, PRICE LEVELS AND ALL PROPERTY VALUES WERE MATERIALLY
HIGHER THAN HAVE PREVAILED LATER AND WHEN THE LEASES HERE IN ISSUE WERE
MADE. 

PROCEEDING FURTHER UPON THE UNSOUND COST THEORY, THE COURT BELOW WENT
SO FAR AS TO HOLD THAT A LOSS DUE TO LEASING PROPERTY AT A RENTAL BELOW
COST NECESSARILY REDUCES, BY THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS, THE CARRIER'S
"TRUE NET TRANSPORTATION RETURN" FROM THE TARIFF RATES FOR
TRANSPORTATION CHARGED THE SHIPPER, AND THAT SUCH LOSS IS AUTOMATICALLY
AND CORRESPONDINGLY A GAIN BY THE SHIPPER.  SIMPLY STATED, THE ARGUMENT
IS THAT EVERY RAILROAD LOSS OR REDUCTION IN "NET TRANSPORTATION RETURN"
IS SOMEBODY'S CONCESSION OR REBATE.  TO STATE THE PROPOSITION, WE
SUBMIT, IS TO DISCLOSE ITS FALLACY. 

A CARRIER MAY DISSIPATE ITS REVENUE DERIVED FROM THE TARIFF RATES ON
A GIVEN SHIPMENT IN MANY WAYS.  BUT MERE DISSIPATION CAN NOT CONSTITUTE
A CONCESSION.  UNLESS THE LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE CARRIER ALSO HAS THE
EFFECT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OF GIVING THE SHIPPER SOMETHING OF VALUE
OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HE PAYS, THERE IS, AND IN THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS
CAN BE, NO REDUCTION IN THE TARIFF RATES PAID BY THE SHIPPER, AND
THEREFORE NO CONCESSION FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE SHIPPER.  IT IS NOT
WHAT THE CARRIER RETAINS AS A NET TRANSPORTATION RETURN, BUT WHAT THE
SHIPPER PAYS, IN RELATION TO WHAT HE GETS FROM THE CARRIER, THAT
DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT THE SHIPPER HAS PAID AND BORNE THE FULL
TARIFF RATE.  IT IS NOT WHAT THE CARRIER LOSES, BUT WHAT THE SHIPPER
GAINS, IF ANYTHING, FROM THE LEASE, THAT CONTROLS. 

THE ONLY FINDING THAT THE COMMISSION MADE AS TO APPELLANTS' STORING
OF FREIGHT IN THEIR WAREHOUSES AND PIERS IS LIKEWISE THAT THE CHARGES
THEREFOR ARE LESS THAN THE COST TO THE CARRIER OF STORING SUCH
FREIGHT.  AS TO SUCH STORAGE THAT FINDING IS, FOR THE SAME REASONS,
INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A CONCESSION. 

ALL OF APPELLANTS'"IN-TRANSIT SERVICES," CONSISTING OF IN-TRANSIT
STORAGE AND THE HANDLING AND INSURING OF GOODS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH,
ARE COVERED BY TARIFFS, AND, UNDER THE COMMISSION'S EXPRESS FINDING,
MUST CONTINUE SO TO BE.  APPELLANTS' FULL COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH TARIFFS,
WHICH IS ADMITTED, MAKES THE EXISTENCE OF CONCESSIONS IN CONNECTION
WITH SUCH "IN-TRANSIT SERVICES" IMPOSSIBLE. 

THE ORDER AS TO APPELLANTS' LEASES, STORAGE, AND "INTRANSIT SERVICES"
WILL DEPRIVE APPELLANTS OF THEIR LIBERTY AND PROPERTY IN CONTRAVENTION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE COMMISSION HAS FULL POWER, UNDER THE FAIR AND REASONABLE VALUE
STANDARD URGED BY APPELLANTS, TO CORRECT ANY PRACTICES THAT MAY RESULT
IN CONCESSIONS OR DISCRIMINATIONS. 


APPELLANTS HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE LEASES AT FAIR RENTAL VALUES
AND TO STORE GOODS AT THE REASONABLE WORTH OF THE STORAGE, AND NO

THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ESTABLISH THAT APPELLANTS IN THEIR OWN
COMPETITION FOR LINE-HAUL TRAFFIC CUT WAREHOUSING CHARGES AND SPACE
RENTALS BELOW THEIR OWN COSTS AND BELOW THOSE OF THE COMPETITIVE
COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSEMEN, WITHOUT REGARD TO "FAIR VALUE." 

APPELLANTS' CONTENTION THAT THE ONLY BASIC FINDING WAS THAT THE
WAREHOUSING CHARGES ARE BELOW COST, AND THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT
FIND THAT THESE CHARGES WERE BELOW FAIR VALUE, IS ERRONEOUS. 

COMPETITION FOR LINE-HAUL TRAFFIC WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR THE LOW
WAREHOUSING CHARGES. 

THE ORDER, PRESCRIBING COSTS AS THE MINIMUM, TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS OF
SECS. 2, 3, AND 6 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY
THE NEW HAVEN CASE, 200 U.S. 361. 

APPELLANTS HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO MAINTAIN COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING
CHARGES THAT ARE BELOW COSTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUCING THE MOVEMENT
OF COMPETITIVE TRAFFIC OVER THEIR RESPECTIVE LINES, WHERE THE EFFECT IS
TO TRANSPORT THE PROPERTY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT LESS THAN THE
PUBLISHED TARIFF RATES.  WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501;
NEW HAVEN CASE, 200 U.S. 361; NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
212 U.S. 481; UNITED STATES V. UNION STOCK YARD CO., 226 U.S. 286, 301
309. 

THE BELOW-COST WAREHOUSING RATES OF APPELLANTS DISSIPATE THEIR
REVENUES, CAUSE UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PARTICULAR SHIPPERS AND
AGAINST THE GENERAL BODY OF SHIPPERS OVER THEIR LINES, IN VIOLATION OF
SECS. 2, 3, AND 6 AND OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT (SEC. 15A) TO MAINTAIN
ADEQUATE NATIONAL RAILWAY SERVICE.  WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N V.
CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 585; NEW ENGLAND DIVISIONS CASE,
261 U.S. 184, 189-190; DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263
U.S. 456, 478; RAILROAD COMM'N V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 264 U.S. 331,
341, 347; UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 290 U.S. 70; FLORIDA V. UNITED
STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 7-8. 

THE COMMISSION, THOUGH HOLDING IN ITS THIRD REPORT THAT TARIFFS
PUBLISHING THE STORAGE, HANDLING, AND INSURANCE RATES ON FREIGHT STORED
UNDER THE TRANSIT PRIVILEGE SHOULD BE FILED, AFFIRMED ITS PRIOR FINDING
THAT THE SERVICES UNDER THESE RATES ARE NOT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. 

THE FACT THAT APPELLANTS' BELOW-COST RATES FOR STORAGE, HANDLING, AND
INSURANCE ON FREIGHT STORED UNDER THE TRANSIT PRIVILEGE WERE PUBLISHED
IN APPELLANTS' TARIFFS DID NOT PREVENT THEM FROM CAUSING THE
DISCRIMINATIONS AND OTHER VIOLATIONS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION. 

APPELLANTS' BRIEF SUGGESTS THAT THE ORDER REQUIRES RATES THAT WILL
YIELD A RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT IN THE OPERATION OF THEIR WAREHOUSES,
AND DEPRECIATION.  THE COMMISSION'S REPORTS FIND DEFINITELY THAT
DEPRECIATION IS A PART OF THE COSTS.  AS TO RETURN ON INVESTMENT, THE
ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT APPELLANTS MAKE WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE
RATES AND SPACE RENTALS THAT WILL YIELD A PROFIT.  IT SIMPLY SETS COSTS
AS THE MINIMUM.  WHERE INTEREST IS PROPERLY A PART OF THE COSTS, IT IS
CLEAR IT MUST BE INCLUDED, BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REPORT AND ORDER
THAT RIGIDLY REQUIRES THE ORIGINAL OR HISTORICAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION
OF BUILDINGS TO BE USED AS THE BASIS. 

IF APPELLANTS ARE IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER IN PARTICULAR INSTANCES
INTEREST ON INVESTMENT IS TO BE DEEMED A PROFIT, OR PART OF THE COSTS,
THEIR PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO APPLY TO THE COMMISSION FOR A RULING. 
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. V. CALDWELL, 244 U.S. 617, 627. 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ORDER DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO REQUIRE WHAT MIGHT
BE IMPOSSIBLE, THAT APPELLANTS' WAREHOUSES BE OPERATED AT A PROFIT. 

THE ORDER FOR THE FUTURE RIGHTLY CORRECTS THE DISCRIMINATIONS AND
OTHER VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT BY REQUIRING REMOVAL OF THE MEANS BY WHICH
THEY WERE ACCOMPLISHED. 

THE ORDER IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE COMMISSION'S REGULATORY POWER
AND THEREFORE DOES NOT DEPRIVE APPELLANTS OF THEIR LIBERTY OR PROPERTY
IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ENTERED AN ORDER ON FEBRUARY 2,
1937, WHICH DIRECTED CERTAIN CARRIERS SERVING THE PORT OF NEW YORK
DISTRICT TO CEASE AND DESIST ON OR BEFORE APRIL 5, 1937, FROM
PERMITTING SHIPPERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OVER THE CARRIERS' LINES
FROM OCCUPYING "SPACE BY LEASE OR OTHERWISE IN WAREHOUSES, BUILDINGS OR
ON PIERS OWNED OR CONTROLLED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY, OR AFFILIATED
WITH" THE CARRIERS INVOLVED "AT RATES AND CHARGES WHICH FAILED TO
COMPENSATE SAID" CARRIERS "FOR THE COST OF PROVIDING SAID SPACE."  THE
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER LIKEWISE DIRECTED THE CARRIERS TO ABSTAIN FROM
STORING, HANDLING OR INSURING GOODS FOR SHIPPERS AT LESS THAN COST. 
ONE CARRIER WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO ABSTAIN FROM GRANTING CONCESSIONS TO A
WAREHOUSE COMPANY BY MEANS OF LEASING SPACE TO THE WAREHOUSE COMPANY AT
LESS THAN THE COST OF THE SPACE TO THE CARRIER. 

AS AUTHORIZED BY THE JUDICIAL CODE,  FN1  A PETITION IN EQUITY WAS
FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK ON MARCH 9, 1937, SEEKING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  A HEARING WAS HAD BY A THREE-JUDGE COURT
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES APPROPRIATION ACT
OF OCTOBER 22, 1913,  FN2 AND A FINAL ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION
ENTERED ON MARCH 23, 1938.  FN3  AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THIS
COURT AS AUTHORIZED BY THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT AND THE JUDICIAL
CODE.  FN4 

THE ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS ENTERED IN AN INVESTIGATION INTO
"PRACTICES OF CARRIERS AFFECTING OPERATING REVENUES OR EXPENSES"  FN5
UNDERTAKEN BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UPON ITS OWN MOTION. 
FN6  FOR CONVENIENCE THE GENERAL INVESTIGATION WAS DIVIDED INTO
DIFFERENT PARTS; THE ONE IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS
ENTERED IS PART VI, "WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE OF PROPERTY BY CARRIERS AT
THE PORT OF NEW YORK."  THE PARTICULAR PRACTICES AFFECTED BY THE ORDER
WERE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSION BY COMPLAINTS OF
WAREHOUSE OPERATORS IN THE NEW YORK DISTRICT THAT WAREHOUSES OWNED OR
CONTROLLED BY THE CARRIERS WERE BEING OPERATED CONTRARY TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FULL REPORTS OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE
PRACTICES COMPLAINED OF WERE MADE BY THE COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 12,
1933,  FN7  AND JUNE 8, 1936.  FN8  THE FIRST REPORT TERMINATED IN AN
ADMONITION; THE SECOND REPORT WAS FOLLOWED BY AN ORDER WHICH NEVER
BECAME EFFECTIVE.  THIS ORDER WAS SUPERSEDED BY THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
OF FEBRUARY 2, 1937, IN CONTROVERSY HERE.  THIS LAST ORDER WAS ENTERED
BY THE COMMISSION UPON RECONSIDERATION OF ITS FORMER REPORTS.  FN9  THE
COMMISSION POSTPONED ITS EFFECTIVE DATE UNTIL THE INJUNCTION WAS
BROUGHT AND THE LOWER COURT HAS ENTERED AN ORDER FOR A FURTHER STAY
PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL TO THIS COURT. 

WHILE THE ISSUES HERE ARE MATTERS OF LAW DEPENDING ON WHETHER
ADMITTED FACTS SUPPORT THE ORDER, IT WILL BE HELPFUL FOR AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE BASIS OF OUR OPINION TO HAVE SUMMARIZED THE
UNDERLYING FACTS FOUND BY THE LOWER COURT. 

THE RAILROADS AFFECTED BY THE ORDER ARE THE BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD
COMPANY, THE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, THE DELAWARE,
LACKAWANNA & WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, LEHIGH
VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY AND THE
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.  ALL ARE SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT.  AS COMMON CARRIERS THEY OPERATE LINES OF RAILROAD
EXTENDING IN A GENERALLY WESTWARD DIRECTION FROM THE PORT OF NEW YORK
DISTRICT TO VARIOUS WESTERN POINTS AND COMPETE EACH WITH THE OTHERS FOR
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN COMMERCE TO AND FROM THE DISTRICT.  ALL UNITED IN
THE PETITION TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER.  THEIR PETITION
NAMED AS DEFENDANT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE WAREHOUSEMEN'S PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE
INTERVENED.  LATER, ORDERS WERE ENTERED ALLOWING THE INTERVENTION OF
THE AMERICAN WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, MERCHANDISE DIVISION; THE
BOSTON PORT AUTHORITY; AND THE CITY OF BOSTON. 

IT WAS THE PRACTICE OF THESE CARRIERS TO FURNISH TO SHIPPERS IN THE
PORT OF NEW YORK AREA THE STORAGE, HANDLING AND INSURANCE WHICH WERE
UNDER INVESTIGATION.  ON ACCOUNT OF THE HIGH PRICE AND GREAT DEMAND FOR
STORAGE SPACE IN THE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL BUSINESS LOCATIONS OF NEW
YORK, DEALERS MUST STORE THEIR SURPLUS STOCKS IN LOWRENT SECTIONS.  TO
SERVE THOSE MERCHANTS WHO DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN WAREHOUSE FACILITIES,
NUMEROUS COMPANIES NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE CARRIERS ARE ENGAGED IN THE
COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE BUSINESS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF NEW YORK. 
THEIR BUSINESS, LIKE THE WAREHOUSE BUSINESSES OWNED OR OPERATED BY OR
AFFILIATED WITH THE CARRIERS, NOT ONLY COVERS THE STORAGE OF GOODS BUT
ITS HANDLING IN AND OUT OF CARS AND SHIPS WITH ALL THE INCIDENTAL
SERVICES CONNECTED THEREWITH SUCH AS THE ISSUANCE OF WAREHOUSE
RECEIPTS, INSPECTION, COOPERAGE, MARKING, AND WEIGHING. 

NEITHER THE COMPLAINTS OF THE COMPETITORS OF THE CARRIERS IN THE
WAREHOUSING BUSINESS NOR THE TERMS OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ARE
DIRECTED AT THE INVOLUNTARY STORAGE OF GOODS INCIDENTAL TO
TRANSPORTATION.  THIS IS THE PERIOD BEFORE OR AFTER SHIPMENT DURING
WHICH GOODS OCCUPY CARS OR FLOORS WITHOUT ANY CHARGE ABOVE THE STRICTLY
TRANSPORTATION RATE.  THE WAREHOUSING PRACTICES COMPLAINED OF ARE THOSE
IN CONNECTION WITH ACCESSORIAL SERVICES OF THE CARRIERS, ACCURATELY
DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING.  EXAMPLES OF SUCH SERVICES ARE THE
STORAGE AND OTHER WAREHOUSING SERVICES FURNISHED BY THE CARRIERS OR
THEIR AFFILIATES OR SUBSIDIARIES, TO ENABLE SHIPPERS TO HOLD AND HANDLE
THEIR COMMODITIES BEYOND THE TIME ALLOWED BY TRANSPORTATION RATES AND
IN WAYS NOT REQUIRED BY RAIL MOVEMENT ITSELF.  ALL OF THE CARRIERS "NOW
GENERALLY STORE FREIGHT ON PIERS OWNED OR LEASED BY THEM AND IN
WAREHOUSES OPERATED BY AFFILIATED OR SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES."  THIS
BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON IN VARIOUS WAYS.  SOME CARRIERS LEASE SPACE TO
SHIPPERS FOR WAREHOUSING; OTHERS HAVE AIDED IN FINANCING STRUCTURES ON
THEIR PROPERTY IN WHICH THEY LEASE SPACE FROM THEIR OWN SUBSIDIARIES;
AND STILL OTHERS OWN DIRECTLY THE BUILDINGS AND LEASE THEM TO
SUBSIDIARIES FOR WAREHOUSE OPERATIONS.  IN ALL CASES THE CARRIERS
EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE WAREHOUSE FACILITIES TO MAKE THEM
SUBSERVIENT TO THE COMPETITIVE NEEDS OF THE CARRIERS.  THEIR ENTRANCE
INTO WAREHOUSING WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY A DESIRE TO INDUCE SHIPPERS TO
USE PARTICULAR RAIL FACILITIES AND AS FIRST ONE AND THEN THE OTHER OF
THE CARRIERS GAINED TRAFFIC BY THEIR WAREHOUSE CONVENIENCES, IT SEEMED
NECESSARY FOR THEIR COMPETITORS TO EQUIP THEMSELVES WITH SIMILAR
ADVANTAGES.  OBVIOUSLY A SHIPPER, WHO CAN SECURE TRANSPORTATION,
STORAGE, HANDLING AND INSURANCE TOGETHER FROM A CARRIER AND ITS
AFFILIATES FOR AN AGGREGATE COST WHICH IS LESS THAN THE SUM FOR WHICH
HE CAN SECURE THE VARIOUS SERVICES WHEN PURCHASED SEPARATELY FROM
CARRIERS AND NON-AFFILIATED ENTERPRISES, WILL DEAL WITH THOSE OFFERING
THE BEST TERMS.  THE STORAGE LARGELY DETERMINES THE TRANSPORTATION
ROUTE.  TO GET THE RAIL TRANSPORTATION OF LARGE SHIPPERS, THE CARRIERS
SOUGHT THEM OUT AND OFFERED WAREHOUSING SERVICES AND SPACE BELOW THE
RATES OF PRIVATE WAREHOUSEMEN AND BELOW THE COST TO THE CARRIERS OF THE
SERVICES RENDERED.  IT WAS NOT ONLY A CONTEST BETWEEN CARRIERS AND
PRIVATE WAREHOUSEMEN BUT ALSO BETWEEN THE CARRIERS THEMSELVES.  TRAFFIC
DEPARTMENTS OF THE RAILROADS BECAME SOLICITORS FOR WAREHOUSING
BUSINESS.  FAVORED SHIPPERS WERE RENTED SPACE BY THE CARRIERS BELOW
COMPENSATORY FIGURES.  TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS COMPETITION THE
VARIOUS PORT OF NEW YORK RAILROADS ADDED MANY NEW BUILDINGS IN RECENT
YEARS.  THIS PROVIDED MANY MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET OF SPACE ABOVE THE
PRESENT NEEDS OF THE DISTRICT.  FN10 

ANOTHER FORM OF WAREHOUSING IS FOUND IN A DEVELOPMENT OF THE STORAGE
IN-TRANSIT PRIVILEGE AT THE PORT OF NEW YORK.  THE CARRIERS HAVE RULES
AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THIS PRIVILEGE WHICH ARE PUBLISHED IN
SEPARATE TARIFFS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION.  THESE TARIFFS PROVIDE THAT
WESTBOUND FREIGHT IN CARLOADS "FROM POINTS WITHIN THE FREE LIGHTERAGE
LIMITS OF NEW YORK HARBOR MAY BE STORED IN DESIGNATED WAREHOUSES  ...
WITHIN THE PORT DISTRICT, AND, IF REFORWARDED BY RAIL WITHIN THE PERIOD
SPECIFIED IN THE TARIFFS  ...  THE THROUGH RATE  ...  FROM POINT OF
ORIGIN IN NEW YORK HARBOR TO THE FINAL DESTINATION, WILL BE APPLIED." 

AS THE THROUGH RATE FROM SHIPSIDE AND FROM WAREHOUSE IS THE SAME, IF
THE SHIPMENT MOVES OUTBOUND FROM THE WAREHOUSE OVER THE LINE OF THE
INBOUND CARRIER, A SHIPPER USING CARRIER WAREHOUSES HAS THE ADVANTAGE
OF PORT STOPPAGE WITHOUT EXTRA TRANSPORTATION COST.  THIS TARIFF
ARRANGEMENT DOES NOT AFFECT CHARGES FOR WAREHOUSING SERVICES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE STORAGE.  THE STORAGE IS COMMERCIAL IN CHARACTER
AND INVOLVES LARGE TONNAGES.  WHILE THE TRANSPORTATION TARIFFS PERMIT
VARYING PERIODS OF FROM TWELVE TO THIRTY-SIX MONTHS FOR THE DIFFERENT
COMMODITIES, STORAGE MAY BE CONTINUED BEYOND THIS TIME LIMIT AT THE
SAME RATE.  PRIOR TO OCTOBER 16, 1934, THE TARIFFS PERMITTED THE
REMOVAL OF THE COMMODITIES STORED AT ANY TIME IN ANY QUANTITY AND BY
ANY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CHARGE.  ON THAT DATE AN
ADDITIONAL CHARGE WAS PROVIDED FOR WITHDRAWAL BY MEANS OTHER THAN OVER
THE RAILROAD WHICH GRANTED THE STORAGE.  IT WILL BE NOTED THAT IN THE
MOVEMENT FROM SHIPSIDE TO A WESTERN DESTINATION AN EXTRA HANDLING OF
THE COMMODITY IS REQUIRED IF THE WAREHOUSE IS LOCATED DIRECTLY ON THE
WATERFRONT AND TWO EXTRA HANDLINGS IF THE GOODS MUST FIRST BE
TRANSPORTED FROM THE WATER-FRONT TO THE WAREHOUSE AND THEN LOADED INTO
WESTBOUND CARS.  THE COST OF THESE EXTRA HANDLINGS IS BORNE BY THE
CARRIER.  INSURANCE IS FURNISHED AT A LEVEL PREMIUM RATE
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VARIABLES OF THE DIFFERENT EXPOSURES.  ALL IN ALL,
IT WAS DETERMINED, AND THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT IN DISPUTE, THAT THE
WAREHOUSE SERVICES WERE PERFORMED "AT RATES AND CHARGES WHICH FAIL TO
COMPENSATE" THE CARRIERS FOR THE COST. 

THROUGH ARRANGEMENTS PERMITTING DISTRIBUTORS TO AVOID PAYMENT OF
TARIFF CHARGES FOR STORAGE, THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND
THAT THE CARRIERS PERMITTED DISTRIBUTORS OF FLOUR TO GET UNJUST AND
DISCRIMINATORY CHARGES. 

AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF COST OF THE VARIOUS CARRIERS FOR
WAREHOUSING, BOTH AS STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT AND ORDINARY STORAGE, THE
CONCLUSION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS THAT THE
COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING WAS CARRIED ON AT A SUBSTANTIAL LOSS.  THE TERM
"COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING" COVERS ALL WAREHOUSING PRACTICES EXCEPT THOSE
STRICTLY A PART OF THE OPERATION OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION.  THIS PHASE OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ORDER MAY BE SUMMED UP IN THE WORDS
OF THE 179TH FINDING OF FACT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"IN ITS FIRST REPORT THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT THAT THE MATTERS AND
TRANSACTIONS REFERRED TO THEREIN 'ARE FURTHER ILLUSTRATIONS OF SERIOUS
WASTE RESULTING FROM THE COMPETITION OF RAILROADS WITH EACH OTHER FOR
TRAFFIC.'  THE EXTENT OF THIS WASTE IS INDICATED BY STATEMENTS
CONTAINED IN APPENDICES TO THE REPORT, APPENDIX I OF WHICH SHOWS THAT
THE SEVEN PLAINTIFFS EXPENDED APPROXIMATELY $35,000,000 IN CONNECTION
WITH THE WAREHOUSE PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE REPORT.  IN ITS SECOND
REPORT THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT UP TO THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 1930, THE
COLD STORAGE INDUSTRY HAD PLACED 33,688,546 CUBIC FEET OF REFRIGERATED
SPACE ON THE MARKET IN THE PORT OF NEW YORK DISTRICT, AND THAT WITHIN A
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS THEREAFTER WAREHOUSES AFFILIATED WITH THE ERIE
AND PENNSYLVANIA PLACED AN ADDITIONAL 8,500,000 CUBIC FEET OF
REFRIGERATED SPACE ON THE MARKET, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT AT THE
TIME THERE WAS AN UNUSED CAPACITY OF AT LEAST 30 PER CENT OF THE THEN
EXISTING FACILITIES; AND FURTHER THAT AS OF THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 1930
THE 43 WAREHOUSE COMPANIES OPERATING MERCHANDISE WAREHOUSES, OTHER THAN
COLD STORAGE, IN THE PORT OF NEW YORK DISTRICT HAD PLACED 20,450,000
SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE SPACE ON THE MARKET IN THAT DISTRICT, AND THAT
WITHIN SIX YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO JANUARY 1, 1929, THE PLAINTIFFS OR THEIR
AFFILIATES PLACED 6,185,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW ADDITIONAL MERCHANDISE
WAREHOUSE SPACE ON THE MARKET, THEREBY, WITHOUT COMMERCIAL NEED,
INCREASING THE CAPACITY AT LEAST 25 PER CENT.  APPENDIX II OF THE FIRST
REPORT SHOWS THAT THE LOSS INCURRED BY PLAINTIFFS IN CONNECTION WITH
THEIR WAREHOUSE PROJECTS DURING THE YEAR 1931 WAS $1,260,441.  APPENDIX
III SHOWS THAT THE LOSS PER TON OF FREIGHT STORED IN TRANSIT DURING
1931 RANGED FROM $1.28 TO $6.18.  THESE LOSSES WERE ADDED TO BY LOSSES
INCURRED ON FREIGHT STORED ON RAILROAD PIERS, AND IN CARS, ON INSURANCE
PREMIUMS, AND FROM LOANS AND ADVANCES.  IN THIS CONNECTION THE
COMMISSION FOUND:  'WHETHER OR NOT INITIAL ADVANTAGES MAY HAVE BEEN
REALIZED AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, BY INDIVIDUAL CARRIERS, THE RESULT IS
THAT A PREFERRED GROUP OF LARGE SHIPPERS ARE NOW THE SOLE
BENEFICIARIES, AND ARE SO AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CARRIERS AND THE
GENERAL SHIPPING PUBLIC.'  AND THE COMMISSION FOUND 'THAT THE
RESPONDENTS' WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE PRACTICES, CHARGES ASSESSED, AND
ALLOWANCES MADE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AT THE PORT OF NEW YORK
DISTRICT DISSIPATE THEIR FUNDS AND REVENUES, ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH
EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL MANAGEMENT AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, AND ARE NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.'" 

THE FINAL ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, DISMISSING UPON THESE FACTS
THE PETITION FOR INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER, IS ATTACKED HERE UPON TWO GROUNDS:  FIRST, THAT THE
RENDITION OF SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC AT LESS THAN COST IS INSUFFICIENT
IN LAW TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CARRIERS THEREBY MAKE CONCESSIONS AND
THROUGH SUCH CONCESSIONS ARE GUILTY OF THE VIOLATION OF SECS. 2, 3 AND
6 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT; SECOND, THAT THE CARRIERS HAVING
PUBLISHED AND OBSERVED TARIFFS COVERING STORAGE-IN-TRANSIT CANNOT BE
GUILTY AS TO SUCH SERVICES OF VIOLATIONS OF THE SAME THREE SECTIONS. 

THE CARRIERS CONTEND THAT THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN CHARGES OF
VIOLATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT BY DISCRIMINATION AND REBATE
ARE TO BE JUDGED BY THE REASONABLE WORTH OF THE SERVICES RENDERED
INSTEAD OF BY THE COST TO THE CARRIER AND THAT THE CHARGES FOR STORAGE
IN-TRANSIT ARE NOT WAREHOUSING COSTS BUT TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND
THEREFORE IT IS NO VIOLATION OF THE ACT TO FURNISH THEM AT LESS THAN
COST TO THE CARRIERS. 

WAREHOUSING CHARGES.  - THE ORDER, AS ENTERED BY THE COMMISSION  FN11
AND SUSTAINED BY THE LOWER COURT, WAS AN EXERCISE BY THE COMMISSION OF
ITS POWER TO CAUSE CARRIERS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM PRACTICES WHICH
RESULT IN THE RECEIPT OF LESS THAN THE PUBLISHED TARIFFS FOR
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, WITH THE CONSEQUENCE THAT CONCESSIONS WERE
GIVEN AND PREFERENCES AND ADVANTAGES OBTAINED BY CERTAIN SHIPPERS.  ITS
VALIDITY, EXCEPT AS IT MAY BE AFFECTED BY CONSIDERATION OF THE POINT
THAT THE PRACTICES WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TARIFFS MADE AND FILED WITH
THE COMMISSION, DEPENDS UPON WHETHER A FINDING THAT THE WAREHOUSING
SERVICES WERE RENDERED AT A CHARGE BELOW COST TO THE CARRIER AUTHORIZED
THE ORDER, WITHOUT THE FURTHER FINDING THAT THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE
SERVICE WAS ABOVE THE CHARGE. 

IT WAS THE VIEW OF THE COMMISSION AND THE LOWER COURT THAT THE
FINDING OF THE COMMISSION SHOWED A VIOLATION OF SECS. 2, 3(1) AND 6(7)
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN12  THESE SECTIONS WERE ENACTED TO
ASSURE THE MAINTENANCE OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION TARIFFS WITHOUT REBATE,
DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENCE.  NO FINDINGS APPEAR, NOR HAS OUR
ATTENTION BEEN CALLED TO ANY EVIDENCE, WHICH SUGGESTS THE CHARGES WERE
MADE TO MEET THE COMPETITION OF THE COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSEMEN OR WERE
BASED UPON THE FAIR VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED, REGARDLESS OF
COMPETITION.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS THE CARRIERS' STRUGGLE TO OBTAIN
LINE HAUL TRAFFIC WHICH LED THEM INTO THE PRICE CUTTING WARFARE. 
CHARGES FOR LEASES, STORAGE, BOTH IN AND OUT OF THE TRANSIT PRIVILEGE,
HANDLING AND INSURANCE WERE ALIKE SLASHED TO MEET THE COMPETITION. 

SINCE THE TARIFFS FOR RAIL HAUL ARE FIXED FOR THE VARIOUS POINTS AND
FREIGHT CLASSIFICATIONS, EVERY SHIPPER MUST PAY THAT TARIFF FOR HIS
TRANSPORTATION.  AS THE SHIPPERS OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK DISTRICT CAN
UTILIZE, IN MANY INSTANCES, COMMERCIAL STORAGE AND OTHER WAREHOUSING
SERVICES IN ADDITION TO RAIL TRANSPORTATION, A SAVING ON THE NON
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OBVIOUSLY FIGURES OUT THE SAME AS A REBATE ON
THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE SHIPPER PAYS
FAIR VALUE OR THE MARKET PRICE FOR THE EXTRA PRIVILEGE HE ENJOYS. 
PUBLISHED RATES FOR TRANSPORTATION OR TO REMIT "BY ANY DEVICE ANY
PORTION OF THE RATES."  WHEN SERVICES, NOT NECESSARY FOR
TRANSPORTATION, ARE FURNISHED BELOW COST IN AN EFFORT TO ACQUIRE RAIL
TRANSPORTATION, AS WAS DONE HERE, THIS PROVISION IS VIOLATED.  FN13
SINCE THE CARRIER WAREHOUSE RATES, AS FOUND BY THE COURT AND
COMMISSION, ARE NOT OPEN TO ALL SHIPPERS ALIKE,  FN14  THERE IS
VIOLATION OF SECS. 2 AND 3(1) PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AND
UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE.  THE RAIL TRANSPORTATION RATES HAVE CHARGED
AGAINST THEM THE LOSS OCCASIONED BY WAREHOUSING PRACTICES DESIGNED TO
ATTRACT A VOLUME OF RAIL BUSINESS.    THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT FOR EVERY
SITUATION IT IS NECESSARY THAT ACCESSORIAL SERVICES SHOULD BE RENDERED
AT NOT LESS THAN COST, RATHER THAN MARKET OR FAIR VALUE.  THE
COMMISSION POINTED OUT IT WAS NOT CONDEMNING BONA FIDE STORAGE-IN
TRANSIT FOR MILLING, MANUFACTURING OR PROCESSING,  FN15 BUT ONLY THE
STORAGE PRACTICES INDULGED IN HERE TO GET RAIL TRANSPORTATION.  IN
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES FAIR VALUE AND MARKET HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS
LEGITIMATE BASES.  FN16  WHERE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES SUCH AS EXISTED
HERE ARE ABSENT, REASONABLE OR MARKET VALUE CHARGES MAY WELL BE THE
TEST.  THE POWER, HOWEVER, IS IN THE COMMISSION, WHENEVER IT IS OF THE
OPINION THAT ANY PRACTICE IS UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, PREFERENTIAL OR
OTHERWISE VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT, TO PRESCRIBE WHAT PRACTICE WILL BE
JUST, FAIR AND REASONABLE N17.  AS IN MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED
STATES  FN18  THE COMMISSION "RIGHTLY SECURED THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE
DISCRIMINATION BY ORDERING THE CARRIERS TO CEASE EMPLOYING THE MEANS BY
WHICH IT HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED." 

IN-TRANSIT TARIFFS.  - THE CARRIERS URGE ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY THE
ORDER IS INVALID AS TO IN-TRANSIT STORAGE.  THEY FIND IN THE ORDER AS
TO IT ALL THE ALLEGED VICES OF THE ORDER WITH RESPECT TO LEASES AND NON
TRANSIT STORAGE, WHICH ARISE FROM BASING THE MINIMUM CHARGES ON COST
RATHER THAN MARKET OR FAIR VALUE.  THEY ALSO CONTEND THAT SINCE THE
CHARGES FOR IN-TRANSIT ARRANGEMENTS ARE AND MUST BE PUBLISHED IN
TARIFFS, THEY ARE A PART OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND THEREFORE MAY BE
RENDERED AT LESS THAN COST.  FN19  EVEN IF THE IN-TRANSIT WAREHOUSING
IS NOT TECHNICALLY TRANSPORTATION, SAY THE CARRIERS, ITS INCLUSION IN
TARIFFS IS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT IT FROM THE ATTACK THAT ITS BELOW-COST
CHARGES VIOLATE SEC. 6.  THE CARRIERS INSIST THAT THEY DO NOT REMIT BY
ANY DEVICE ANY PORTION OF THE SPECIFIED TARIFF CHARGES AND THAT, AS
ASSERTED VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 2 AND 3 ARE PREDICATED UPON VIOLATIONS OF
SEC. 6, NONE OF THE FINDINGS AS TO IN-TRANSIT CHARGES SUPPORTS THE
ORDERS. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE IN-TRANSIT WAREHOUSING WAS NOT A PART
OF TRANSPORTATION.  THIS FINDING IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE DETERMINATION
OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE RATES AND CHARGES SHOULD BE PUBLISHED IN THE
TARIFFS.  INDEED, IN ITS REPORT ON THE SUBJECT THE COMMISSION SAID
"WHAT IS HERE CONDEMNED IS THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE
VOLNTARILY ENGAGED IN STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT
WITHIN THEIR COMMON-CARRIER OBLIGATIONS AND, BY PROVIDING SUCH SERVICES
TO SHIPPERS BELOW THE COST OF SUCH SERVICES, REDUCE THE COST TO SUCH
SHIPPERS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR GOODS.  THE TARIFFS NOW ON
FILE ARE INSTRUMENTS WHICH WORK VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT IN THAT, THROUGH
THEM, RESPONDENTS HOLD THEMSELVES OUT TO PERFORM COMMERCIAL SERVICES
(UNDER THE GUISE OF PERFORMING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES) AT RATES AND
CHARGES WHICH FAIL TO COMPENSATE RESPONDENTS FOR THE COST OF PERFORMING
THEM, AND THEREBY VIOLATE SECTIONS 2, 3, AND 6 OF THE ACT."  FN20 

WE ACCEPT THIS CONCLUSION.  FN21  IF THE SERVICE IS NON
TRANSPORTATION, THE FACT THAT IT IS IN A TARIFF DOES NOT SAVE IT FROM
THE CONDEMNATION OF SEC. 6(7).  THAT SECTION FORBIDS RECEIVING A LESS
COMPENSATION FOR TRANSPORTATION THAN THE TARIFF.  THE LOSS ON IN
TRANSIT WAREHOUSING, ENTERED INTO TO SECURE THE RAIL-HAUL, RESULTS IN
LOWERED RECEIPTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AND IN VIOLATION OF THE
THE BELOW-COST IN-TRANSIT SERVICE.  THEY MUST PAY THE FULL
TRANSPORTATION RATE, WITHOUT ANY OFFSET FROM THE WAREHOUSING.  THIS
DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN SHIPPERS IS UNLAWFUL AND THE REMEDY APPLIED BY
THE ORDER VALID IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

CONCLUSION. - WE DO NOT DISCUSS THE SUGGESTION THAT THE ORDER
DEPRIVES THE CARRIERS OF THEIR LIBERTY AND PROPERTY CONTRARY TO THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IF, AS HERE HELD, THE ORDER IS A VALID REGULATION OF
RATES FOR WAREHOUSING SERVICES WHICH AFFECT TRANSPORTATION TARIFFS, IT
CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  APPELLANTS' CONTENTION OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS PREDICATED ON THE INVALIDITY OF THE ORDER UNDER
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 24, SUBSECTION 28. 

FN2  38 STAT. 220. 

FN3  FOR OPINION BELOW SEE BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES
(I.C.C.), 20 F.SUPP.  273. 

FN4  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 238. 

FN5  EX PARTE 104, 198 I.C.C. 134. 

FN6  INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, ACT OF FEB. 4, 1887, C. 104, SEC.
13(2), 24 STAT. 383, AS AMENDED; 49 U.S.C. SEC. 13(2). 

FN7  198 I.C.C. 134. 

FN8  216 I.C.C. 291. 

FN9  220 I.C.C. 102. 

FN10  THOSE INTERESTED IN THE DETAILS WILL FIND THEM IN 198 I.C.C.
134, 216 I.C.C. 291, 220 I.C.C. 102. 

FN11  THE PERTINENT LANGUAGE OF THE ORDER FOLLOWS:  "IT IS ORDERED,
THAT THE RESPONDENT CARRIERS ...  BE, AND THEY ARE HEREBY, NOTIFIED AND
REQUIRED TO CEASE AND DESIST  ...  FROM PERMITTING SHIPPERS  ...  TO
OCCUPY SPACE BY LEASE OR OTHERWISE IN  ... BUILDINGS,  ...  OWNED OR
CONTROLLED ...  BY  ...  RESPONDENTS  ...  AT RATES AND CHARGES WHICH
FAIL TO COMPENSATE SAID RESPONDENTS FOR THE COST OF PROVIDING SPACE; 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT THE RESPONDENT CARRIERS  ...  ARE HEREBY
...  REQUIRED TO CEASE AND DESIST  ...  FROM STORING GOODS  ...  AT
RATES AND CHARGES WHICH FAIL TO COMPENSATE SAID RESPONDENTS FOR THE
COST OF STORING SUCH GOODS OR PROVIDING SUCH STORAGE SPACE. 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT THE RESPONDENT CARRIERS  ...  ARE HEREBY
...  REQUIRED TO CEASE AND DESIST  ...  FROM  ...  HANDLING GOODS  ...
FOR SHIPPERS  ...  AT RATES AND CHARGES WHICH FAIL TO COMPENSATE SAID
RESPONDENTS FOR THE COST OF SAID HANDLING. 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT THE RESPONDENT CARRIERS  ...  (EXCEPT
THE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY)  ...  ARE HEREBY  ...
REQUIRED TO CEASE AND DESIST  ...  FROM INSURING GOODS  ... AT LESS
THAN THE COST OF PROVIDING SUCH INSURANCE. 

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT THE RESPONDENT CARRIERS ABOVE-NAMED BE,
AND THEY ARE HEREBY, NOTIFIED AND REQUIRED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
APPLYING, BY MEANS OF TARIFFS NOW ON FILE WITH THIS COMMISSION ON OR
BEFORE APRIL 15, 1937, NONCOMPENSATORY RATES AND CHARGES, AS FULLY
DESCRIBED IN SAID REPORTS, FOR THE LEASING OF SPACE, STORAGE, HANDLING
AND INSURANCE OF GOODS SHIPPED OVER THEIR LINES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WHICH GOODS ARE STORED, HANDLED OR INSURED IN CONNECTION WITH
COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING SERVICE AS FULLY DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN SAID
REPORTS. 

 .         .         .         .         . 

"AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, THAT RESPONDENT, THE CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, BE, AND IT IS HEREBY, NOTIFIED AND REQUIRED TO
CEASE AND DESIST, ON OR BEFORE APRIL 15, 1937, AND THEREAFTER TO
ABSTAIN, FROM SUBSIDIZING AND GRANTING CONCESSIONS TO THE NEWARK
CENTRAL WAREHOUSE COMPANY BY MEANS OF NONCOMPENSATORY RENTALS COLLECTED
OR RECEIVED FOR THE SPACED LEASED BY THE NEWARK CENTRAL WAREHOUSE
COMPANY FROM SAID RESPONDENT CARRIER, AS FULLY DESCRIBED OF RECORD AND
IN SAID REPORTS." 

FN12  ACT OF FEBRUARY 4, 1887, C. 104, 24 STAT. 379, AS AMENDED; 49
U.S.C. SECS. 2, 3(1), 6(7). 

"SEC. 2.  IF ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER SHALL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY ANY SPECIAL RATE, REBATE,
DRAWBACK, OR OTHER DEVICE, CHARGE, DEMAND, COLLECT, OR RECEIVE FROM ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS A GREATER OR LESS COMPENSATION FOR ANY SERVICE
RENDERED OR TO BE RENDERED, IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR
PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, THAN IT CHARGES,
DEMANDS, COLLECTS, OR RECEIVES FROM ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS FOR
DOING FOR HIM OR THEM A LIKE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS SERVICE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF A LIKE KIND OF TRAFFIC UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS, SUCH COMMON CARRIER SHALL BE DEEMED
GUILTY OF UNJUST DISCRIMINATION, WHICH IS PROHIBITED AND DECLARED TO BE
UNLAWFUL. 

"SEC. 3.  (1) IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER TO MAKE OR GIVE ANY UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, COMPANY,
FIRM, CORPORATION, OR LOCALITY, OR ANY PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF
TRAFFIC, IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER, OR TO SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR
PERSON, COMPANY, FIRM, CORPORATION, OR LOCALITY, OR ANY PARTICULAR
DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC, TO ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR
DISADVANTAGE IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER. 

"SEC. 6.  ...  (7)  ...  NOR SHALL ANY CARRIER CHARGE OR DEMAND OR
COLLECT OR RECEIVE A GREATER OR LESS OR DIFFERENT COMPENSATION FOR SUCH
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY, OR FOR ANY SERVICE IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH, BETWEEN THE POINTS NAMED IN SUCH TARIFFS THAN THE
RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES WHICH ARE SPECIFIED IN THE TARIFF FILED AND
IN EFFECT AT THE TIME; NOR SHALL ANY CARRIER REFUND OR REMIT IN ANY
MANNER OR BY ANY DEVICE ANY PORTION OF THE RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES SO
SPECIFIED, NOR EXTEND TO ANY SHIPPER OR PERSON ANY PRIVILEGES OR
FACILITIES IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY, EXCEPT SUCH
AS ARE SPECIFIED IN SUCH TARIFFS." 

FN13 CF. WIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 167 U.S. 512; SEABOARD AIR LINE V.
UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 57, 63; NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N, 200 U.S. 361. 

FN14  198 I.C.C. AT 197. 

FN15  216 I.C.C. 291, 356. 

FN16  LEASES AND GRANTS BY CARRIERS TO SHIPPERS, 73 I.C.C. 671, 683,
684.  CF. WHARFAGE CHARGES AT ATLANTIC AND GULF PORTS, 157 I.C.C. 663,
692; CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. V. BLOUNT, 238 F. 292, 296. 

FN17  SEC. 15(1), 41 STAT. 484; 49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(1). 

FN18  283 U.S. 501, 513. 

FN19  CLEVELAND, C.C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. DETTLEBACH, 239 U.S. 588;
ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. V. GILL, 156 U.S. 649, 665, 666;
ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. NORTH CAROLINA COMM'N, 206 U.S. 1, 26-7;
NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585, 600; MINNEAPOLIS
& ST. L.R. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 186 U.S. 257, 268. 

FN20  220 I.C.C. AT 103-104. 

FN21  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S. 402,
406. 
..END :




MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, 305 U.S. 337 


NO. 57.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 12, 1938.  - 342
MO. 121 - 113 S.W.2D 783, REVERSED. 


1.  THE STATE OF MISSOURI PROVIDES SEPARATE SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES
FOR WHITES AND NEGROES.  AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY, ATTENDED BY WHITES,
THERE IS A COURSE IN LAW; AT THE LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, ATTENDED BY
NEGROES, THERE IS AS YET NONE, BUT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE CURATORS OF
THAT INSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH ONE THERE WHENEVER IN THEIR OPINION THIS
SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PRACTICABLE, AND PENDING SUCH DEVELOPMENT, THEY
ARE AUTHORIZED TO ARRANGE FOR LEGAL EDUCATION OF MISSOURI NEGROES, AND
TO PAY THE TUITION CHARGES THEREFOR, AT LAW SCHOOLS IN ADJACENT STATES
WHERE NEGROES ARE ACCEPTED AND WHERE THE TRAINING IS EQUAL TO THAT
OBTAINABLE AT THE MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY.  PURSUANT TO THE STATE'S
POLICY OF SEPARATING THE RACES IN ITS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, THE
CURATORS OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY REFUSED TO ADMIT A NEGRO AS A STUDENT
IN THE LAW SCHOOL THERE BECAUSE OF HIS RACE; WHEREUPON HE SOUGHT A
MANDAMUS, IN THE STATE COURTS, WHICH WAS DENIED.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT INASMUCH AS THE CURATORS OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED THE STATE, IN CARRYING OUT ITS POLICY, THEIR ACTION IN
DENYING THE NEGRO ADMISSION TO THE LAW SCHOOL WAS STATE ACTION, WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 343. 

(2)  THE ACTION OF THE STATE IN FURNISHING LEGAL EDUCATION WITHIN THE
STATE TO WHITES WHILE NOT FURNISHING LEGAL EDUCATION WITHIN THE STATE
TO NEGROES, WAS A DISCRIMINATION REPUGNANT TO THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 344. 

IF A STATE FURNISHES HIGHER EDUCATION TO WHITE RESIDENTS, IT IS BOUND
TO FURNISH SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL ADVANTAGES TO NEGRO RESIDENTS, THOUGH
NOT NECESSARILY IN THE SAME SCHOOLS. 

(3)  THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION IS NOT AVOIDED BY THE
PURPOSE OF THE STATE TO ESTABLISH A LAW SCHOOL FOR NEGROES WHENEVER
NECESSARY AND PRACTICABLE IN THE OPINION OF THE CURATORS OF THE
UNIVERSITY PROVIDED FOR NEGROES.  P. 346. 

(4)  NOR ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
SATISFIED BY THE OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY MISSOURI TO ITS NEGRO
CITIZENS FOR LEGAL EDUCATION IN OTHER STATES.  P. 348. 

THE BASIC CONSIDERATION HERE IS NOT AS TO WHAT SORT OF OPPORTUNITIES
OTHER STATES PROVIDE, OR WHETHER THEY ARE AS GOOD AS THOSE IN MISSOURI,
BUT AS TO WHAT OPPORTUNITIES MISSOURI ITSELF FURNISHES TO WHITE
STUDENTS AND DENIES TO NEGROES SOLELY UPON THE GROUND OF COLOR.  THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF LAWS SEPARATING THE RACES IN THE ENJOYMENT OF
PRIVILEGES AFFORDED BY THE STATE RESTS WHOLLY UPON THE EQUALITY OF THE
PRIVILEGES WHICH THE LAWS GIVE TO THE SEPARATED GROUPS WITHIN THE
STATE.  BY THE OPERATION OF THE LAWS OF MISSOURI A PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN
CREATED FOR WHITE LAW STUDENTS WHICH IS DENIED TO NEGROES BY REASON OF
THEIR RACE.  THE WHITE RESIDENT IS AFFORDED LEGAL EDUCATION WITHIN THE
STATE; THE NEGRO RESIDENT HAVING THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS IS REFUSED IT
THERE AND MUST GO OUTSIDE THE STATE TO OBTAIN IT.  THAT IS A DENIAL OF
THE EQUALITY OF LEGAL RIGHT TO THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PRIVILEGE WHICH THE
STATE HAS SET UP, AND THE PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF TUITION FEES IN
ANOTHER STATE DOES NOT REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATION.  P. 348. 

(5)  THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATE TO GIVE THE PROTECTION OF EQUAL LAWS
CAN BE PERFORMED ONLY WHERE ITS LAWS OPERATE, THAT IS, WITHIN ITS OWN
JURISDICTION.  IT IS THERE THAT THE EQUALITY OF LEGAL RIGHT MUST BE
MAINTAINED.  THAT OBLIGATION IS IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION UPON THE
STATES SEVERALLY AS GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES - EACH RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS
OWN LAWS ESTABLISHING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PERSONS WITHIN ITS
BORDERS.  P. 350. 

(6)  THE FACT THAT THERE IS BUT A LIMITED DEMAND IN MISSOURI FOR THE
LEGAL EDUCATION OF NEGROES DOES NOT EXCUSE THE DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR
OF WHITES.  P. 350. 

(7)  INASMUCH AS THE DISCRIMINATION MAY LAST INDEFINITELY - SO LONG
AS THE CURATORS FIND IT UNNECESSARY AND IMPRACTICABLE TO PROVIDE
FACILITIES FOR THE LEGAL EDUCATION OF NEGROES WITHIN THE STATE, THE
ALTERNATIVE OF ATTENDANCE AT LAW SCHOOLS IN OTHER STATES BEING PROVIDED
MEANWHILE - IT CAN NOT BE EXCUSED AS A TEMPORARY DISCRIMINATION.  P.
351. 

2.  THE STATE COURT DECIDED THIS CASE UPON THE MERITS OF THE FEDERAL
QUESTION, AND NOT UPON THE PROPRIETY OF REMEDY BY MANDAMUS.  P. 352. 

MISSOURI EX REL. GAINES V. CANADA, REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MISSOURI, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 580, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING DENIAL OF A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI HAS HELD THAT THE LAWS OF MISSOURI DO
NOT ENTITLE THE PETITIONER TO BE ADMITTED AS A STUDENT IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, AND THAT THOSE LAWS PROVIDE FOR THE SEPARATION
OF THE WHITE AND NEGRO RACES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIGHER EDUCATION.  THE
SECOND PART OF THE DECISION, FULLY RECOGNIZING PETITIONER'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL FACILITIES FOR LEGAL EDUCATION, FINDS AS
A FACT THAT THE STATE HAS ACCORDED HIM EQUAL FACILITIES - WHICH FINDING
OF FACT, SUPPORTED AS IT IS BY STRONG AND UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE, IS
BINDING UPON THIS COURT.  THE ABSENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION
IS MANIFEST. 

PETITIONER REFUSED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE FACILITIES FOR A LEGAL
EDUCATION PROVIDED BY THE STATE.  IF HE HAD APPLIED TO THE LINCOLN
UNIVERSITY CURATORS FOR A LEGAL EDUCATION, IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT
THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR MANDATORY DUTY
UNDER THE ACT.  HIS REFUSAL TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS IS
FATAL TO HIS CASE. 

THE STATE OF MISSOURI HAS NOT DENIED PETITIONER THE EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS BY EXCLUDING HIM FROM THE SCHOOL OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF MISSOURI. 

SEPARATION OF THE WHITE AND NEGRO RACES FOR PURPOSES OF EDUCATION
DOES NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF EITHER RACE GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

SOCIAL EQUALITY IS NOT A LEGAL QUESTION AND CAN NOT BE SETTLED BY LAW
OR BY THE JUDGMENTS OF COURTS. 

THE FACILITIES FOR LEGAL EDUCATION AVAILABLE TO PETITIONER UNDER THE
LINCOLN UNIVERSITY ACT (SECS. 9616 TO 9624, R.S. MO., 1929) ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THE FACILITIES AFFORDED WHITE STUDENTS IN THE
SCHOOL OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI. 

IN SEPARATING THE RACES, AND IN DETERMINING THE PARTICULAR FACILITIES
TO BE USED BY THE TWO RACES, THE STATE IS ALLOWED A LARGE MEASURE OF
DISCRETION; AND THE COURTS WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THAT
DISCRETION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, EXCEPT IN CASE OF A VERY CLEAR AND
UNMISTAKABLE DISREGARD OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

THE LINCOLN UNIVERSITY BOARD OF CURATORS ARE NOT MERELY AUTHORIZED,
BUT ARE REQUIRED, TO REORGANIZE THE INSTITUTION SO THAT IT SHALL AFFORD
OPPORTUNITY TO NEGROES EQUAL TO THAT ACCORDED TO WHITE STUDENTS; AND,
PENDING THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, ARE REQUIRED, TO
ARRANGE FOR THE ATTENDANCE OF NEGRO RESIDENTS OF THE STATE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF ANY ADJACENT STATE, TO TAKE ANY COURSE OF STUDY PROVIDED
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI BUT NOT AT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY; AND THEY
ARE NOT MERELY AUTHORIZED, BUT ARE REQUIRED, TO PAY THE REASONABLE
TUITION FEES FOR SUCH ATTENDANCE (SEC. 9622, R.S. MO., 1929).  THE DUTY
TO DO THESE THINGS IS MANDATORY AND PEREMPTORY. 

THE RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY TO CARRY OUT THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PLACED BY
LAW - NOT UPON THESE RESPONDENTS, THE CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MISSOURI - BUT UPON THE CURATORS OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY. 

IF PETITIONER PURSUES HIS LEGAL RIGHTS AND MAKES APPLICATION TO THE
LINCOLN UNIVERSITY CURATORS FOR AN EDUCATION IN THE LAW, IT WILL THEN
BECOME THEIR MANDATORY DUTY (A) TO ESTABLISH A SCHOOL OF LAW IN LINCOLN
UNIVERSITY AND TO ADMIT PETITIONER AS A STUDENT THEREIN; AND (B)
PENDING THAT, AND AS A TEMPORARY MATTER, TO ARRANGE FOR THE ATTENDANCE
OF PETITIONER IN ONE OR ANOTHER OF THE SCHOOLS OF LAW ALREADY
ESTABLISHED IN THE UNIVERSITIES OF KANSAS, NEBRASKA, IOWA OR ILLINOIS
(ALL OF WHICH ADMIT NEGROES), AND TO PAY HIS TUITION FEES WHILE HE IS
ATTENDING SUCH SCHOOL. 

SUBSTANTIAL EQUALITY AND NOT IDENTITY OF SCHOOL FACILITIES IS WHAT IS
GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE FACT THAT IN ORDER TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF LEGAL EDUCATION IN ANY ONE
OF THE FOUR LAW SCHOOLS IN ADJACENT STATES, THE PETITIONER (A GROWN
MAN) WOULD BE PUT TO THE NECESSITY OF TRAVELING FARTHER FROM HIS HOME
IN ST. LOUIS THAN THE DISTANCE FROM ST. LOUIS TO COLUMBIA (WHERE THE
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI IS LOCATED), IS A MERE MATTER OF INCONVENIENCE,
WHICH MUST NECESSARILY ARISE AS AN INCIDENT TO ANY CLASSIFICATION OR
ANY SCHOOL SYSTEM; AND THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THIS FURNISHES NO
SUBSTANTIAL GROUND OF COMPLAINT BY PETITIONER.  PETITIONER'S EXPENSE OF
TRAVEL TO ANY OF THESE ADJACENT STATE UNIVERSITIES WOULD BE NO GREATER
THAN THE TRAVELING EXPENSE OF STUDENTS LIVING IN VARIOUS PARTS OF
MISSOURI, WHO ATTEND THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT COLUMBIA. 

THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISION FOR OUT-OF
STATE INSTRUCTION IS, STRICTLY SPEAKING, NOT PRESENTED FOR REVIEW,
SINCE PETITIONER NEVER MADE ANY APPLICATION TO LINCOLN UNIVERSITY
CURATORS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAW COURSE IN THAT INSTITUTION;
AND, THEREFORE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER THE CURATORS OF
LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, HAD HE KNOCKED AT THE DOOR, WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY
ESTABLISHED A LAW COURSE THERE, RENDERING IT UNNECESSARY FOR HIM TO GO
OUT-OF-STATE FOR A LEGAL EDUCATION. 

MANDAMUS AGAINST RESPONDENTS WAS NOT A PROPER REMEDY, BECAUSE
PETITIONER MUST EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE SEEKING
EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF; AND THIS HE FAILED TO DO.  PETITIONER IS IN NO
POSITION TO APPEAL TO THE COURTS FOR ANY REMEDY, AND CERTAINLY NOT FOR
MANDAMUS, TO COMPEL THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY TO
PROVIDE HIM WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LEGAL EDUCATION WHICH HE SAYS HE
DESIRES, BUT WHICH HE HAS NEVER REQUESTED FROM THE AUTHORITIES CHARGED
WITH THE DUTY TO PROVIDE IT FOR HIM.  A FORTIORI, HE COULD NOT APPEAL
TO THE COURTS FOR MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE BOARD OF CURATORS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI TO PROVIDE HIM WITH A LEGAL EDUCATION WHICH HE
HAS NOT REQUESTED FROM THE AUTHORITIES CHARGED WITH THE DUTY TO PROVIDE
IT FOR HIM. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER LLOYD GAINES, A NEGRO, WAS REFUSED ADMISSION TO THE SCHOOL
OF LAW AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI.  ASSERTING THAT THIS
REFUSAL CONSTITUTED A DENIAL BY THE STATE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS ACTION FOR MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE
CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY TO ADMIT HIM.  ON FINAL HEARING, AN
ALTERNATIVE WRIT WAS QUASHED AND A PEREMPTORY WRIT WAS DENIED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT. 
113 S.W.2D 783.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, OCTOBER 10, 1938. 

PETITIONER IS A CITIZEN OF MISSOURI.  IN AUGUST, 1935, HE WAS
GRADUATED WITH THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS AT THE LINCOLN
UNIVERSITY, AN INSTITUTION MAINTAINED BY THE STATE OF MISSOURI FOR THE
HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEGROES.  THAT UNIVERSITY HAS NO LAW SCHOOL.  UPON
THE FILING OF HIS APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE LAW SCHOOL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, THE REGISTRAR ADVISED HIM TO COMMUNICATE WITH
THE PRESIDENT OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY AND THE LATTER DIRECTED
PETITIONER'S ATTENTION TO SEC. 9622 OF THE REVISED STATUTES OF MISSOURI
(1929), PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 9622.  MAY ARRANGE FOR ATTENDANCE AT UNIVERSITY OF ANY ADJACENT
STATE - TUITION FEES.  - PENDING THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE LINCOLN
UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF CURATORS SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ARRANGE
FOR THE ATTENDANCE OF NEGRO RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF ANY ADJACENT STATE TO TAKE ANY COURSE OR TO STUDY ANY
SUBJECTS PROVIDED FOR AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, AND WHICH
ARE NOT TAUGHT AT THE LINCOLN UNIVERSITY AND TO PAY THE REASONABLE
TUITION FEES FOR SUCH ATTENDANCE; PROVIDED THAT WHENEVER THE BOARD OF
CURATORS DEEM IT ADVISABLE THEY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO OPEN ANY
NECESSARY SCHOOL OR DEPARTMENT.  (LAWS 1921, P. 86, SEC. 7.)" 

PETITIONER WAS ADVISED TO APPLY TO THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS FOR AID UNDER THAT STATUTE.  IT WAS ADMITTED ON THE TRIAL THAT
PETITIONER'S "WORK AND CREDITS AT THE LINCOLN UNIVERSITY WOULD QUALIFY
HIM FOR ADMISSION TO THE SCHOOL OF LAW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI IF
HE WERE FOUND OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE."  HE WAS REFUSED ADMISSION UPON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS "CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS AND PUBLIC
POLICY OF THE STATE TO ADMIT A NEGRO AS A STUDENT IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
MISSOURI."  IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE SCHOOLS OF LAW IN CONNECTION WITH
THE STATE UNIVERSITIES OF FOUR ADJACENT STATES, KANSAS, NEBRASKA, IOWA
AND ILLINOIS, WHERE NONRESIDENT NEGROES ARE ADMITTED. 

THE CLEAR AND DEFINITE CONCLUSIONS OF THE STATE COURT IN CONSTRUING
THE PERTINENT STATE LEGISLATION NARROW THE ISSUE.  THE ACTION OF THE
CURATORS, WHO ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
STATE UNIVERSITY (R.S. MO., SEC. 9625), MUST BE REGARDED AS STATE
ACTION.  FN1  THE STATE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT SEPARATE FREE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN OF AFRICAN
DESCENT (ART. XI, SEC. 3), AND BY STATUTE SEPARATE HIGH SCHOOL
FACILITIES ARE SUPPLIED FOR COLORED STUDENTS EQUAL TO THOSE PROVIDED
FOR WHITE STUDENTS (R.S. MO., SECS. 9346-9349).  WHILE THERE IS NO
EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION REQUIRING THAT THE WHITE AND NEGRO
RACES BE SEPARATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THE STATE COURT
ON A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE STATE STATUTES HELD THAT IT WAS
INTENDED TO SEPARATE THE WHITE AND NEGRO RACES FOR THAT PURPOSE ALSO. 
REFERRING IN PARTICULAR TO LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, THE COURT DEEMED IT TO
BE CLEAR "THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO BRING THE LINCOLN UNIVERSITY
UP TO THE STANDARD OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, AND GIVE TO THE
WHITES AND NEGROES AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION - THE
WHITES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, AND THE NEGROES AT LINCOLN
UNIVERSITY."  FURTHER, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
9622(ABOVE QUOTED) TO THE EFFECT THAT NEGRO RESIDENTS "MAY ATTEND THE
UNIVERSITY OF ANY ADJACENT STATE WITH THEIR TUITION PAID, PENDING THE
FULL DEVELOPMENT OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY," MADE IT EVIDENT "THAT THE
LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTEND THAT NEGROES AND WHITES SHOULD ATTEND THE
SAME UNIVERSITY IN THIS STATE."  IN THAT VIEW IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWED
THAT THE CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ACTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE POLICY OF THE STATE IN DENYING PETITIONER ADMISSION TO ITS
SCHOOL OF LAW UPON THE SOLE GROUND OF HIS RACE. 

IN ANSWERING PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THIS DISCRIMINATION
CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THE STATE COURT HAS
FULLY RECOGNIZED THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE NEGROES WITH
ADVANTAGES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THE ADVANTAGES
AFFORDED TO WHITE STUDENTS.  THE STATE HAS SOUGHT TO FULFILL THAT
OBLIGATION BY FURNISHING EQUAL FACILITIES IN SEPARATE SCHOOLS, A METHOD
THE VALIDITY OF WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY OUR DECISIONS.  PLESSY V.
FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537, 544; MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 235
U.S. 151, 160; GONG LUM V. RICE, 275 U.S. 78, 85, 86.  COMPARE CUMMING
V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 175 U.S. 528, 544, 545.  RESPONDENTS' COUNSEL
HAVE APPROPRIATELY EMPHASIZED THE SPECIAL SOLICITUDE OF THE STATE FOR
THE HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEGROES AS SHOWN IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, A STATE INSTITUTION WELL CONDUCTED ON A PLANE WITH
THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI SO FAR AS THE OFFERED COURSES ARE
CONCERNED.  IT IS SAID THAT MISSOURI IS A PIONEER IN THAT FIELD AND IS
THE ONLY STATE IN THE UNION WHICH HAS ESTABLISHED A SEPARATE UNIVERSITY
FOR NEGROES ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE STATE UNIVERSITY FOR WHITE
STUDENTS.  BUT, COMMENDABLE AS IS THAT ACTION, THE FACT REMAINS THAT
INSTRUCTION IN LAW FOR NEGROES IS NOT NOW AFFORDED BY THE STATE, EITHER
AT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY OR ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE STATE, AND THAT THE STATE
EXCLUDES NEGROES FROM THE ADVANTAGES OF THE LAW SCHOOL IT HAS
ESTABLISHED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI. 

IT IS MANIFEST THAT THIS DISCRIMINATION, IF NOT RELIEVED BY THE
PROVISIONS WE SHALL PRESENTLY DISCUSS, WOULD CONSTITUTE A DENIAL OF
EQUAL PROTECTION.  THAT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR IN THAT ASPECT. 
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND V. MURRAY, 169 MD. 478; 182 A. 590.  IT THERE
APPEARED THAT THE STATE OF MARYLAND HAD "UNDERTAKEN THE FUNCTION OF
EDUCATION IN THE LAW" BUT HAD "OMITTED STUDENTS OF ONE RACE FROM THE
ONLY ADEQUATE PROVISION MADE FOR IT, AND OMITTED THEM SOLELY BECAUSE OF
THEIR COLOR"; THAT IF THOSE STUDENTS WERE TO BE OFFERED "EQUAL
TREATMENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTION, THEY MUST, AT PRESENT, BE
ADMITTED TO THE ONE SCHOOL PROVIDED."  ID., P. 489.  A PROVISION FOR
SCHOLARSHIPS TO ENABLE NEGROES TO ATTEND COLLEGES OUTSIDE THE STATE,
MAINLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES, WAS FOUND TO BE
INADEQUATE (ID., PP. 485, 486) AND THE QUESTION, "WHETHER WITH AID IN
ANY AMOUNT IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SEND THE NEGROES OUTSIDE THE STATE FOR
LEGAL EDUCATION," THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO
DISCUSS.  ACCORDINGLY, A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO ADMIT THE APPLICANT WAS
ISSUED TO THE OFFICERS AND REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND AS THE
AGENTS OF THE STATE ENTRUSTED WITH THE CONDUCT OF THAT INSTITUTION. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS DISTINGUISHED THE
DECISION IN MARYLAND UPON THE GROUNDS - (1) THAT IN MISSOURI, BUT NOT
IN MARYLAND, THERE IS "A LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION OF A PURPOSE TO
ESTABLISH A LAW SCHOOL FOR NEGROES AT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY WHENEVER
NECESSARY OR PRACTICAL"; AND (2) THAT, "PENDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
SUCH A SCHOOL, ADEQUATE PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE LEGAL EDUCATION
OF NEGRO STUDENTS IN RECOGNIZED SCHOOLS OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE."  113
S.W.2D, P. 791. 

AS TO THE FIRST GROUND, IT APPEARS THAT THE POLICY OF ESTABLISHING A
LAW SCHOOL AT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY HAS NOT YET RIPENED INTO AN ACTUAL
ESTABLISHMENT, AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A MERE DECLARATION OF
PURPOSE, STILL UNFULFILLED, IS ENOUGH.  THE PROVISION FOR LEGAL
EDUCATION AT LINCOLN IS AT PRESENT ENTIRELY LACKING.  RESPONDENTS'
COUNSEL URGE THAT IF, ON THE DATE WHEN PETITIONER APPLIED FOR ADMISSION
TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, HE HAD INSTEAD APPLIED TO THE CURATORS
OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR DUTY TO ESTABLISH A LAW
SCHOOL; THAT THIS "AGENCY OF THE STATE," TO WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE
APPLIED, WAS "SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH THE MANDATORY DUTY TO FURNISH
HIM WHAT HE SEEKS."  WE DO NOT READ THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT AS
CONSTRUING THE STATE STATUTE TO IMPOSE SUCH A "MANDATORY DUTY" AS THE
ARGUMENT SEEMS TO ASSERT.  THE STATE COURT QUOTED THE LANGUAGE OF SEC.
9618, R.S. MO. 1929, SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN2 MAKING IT THE
MANDATORY DUTY OF THE BOARD OF CURATORS TO ESTABLISH A LAW SCHOOL IN
LINCOLN UNIVERSITY "WHENEVER NECESSARY AND PRACTICABLE IN THEIR
OPINION."  THIS QUALIFICATION OF THEIR DUTY, EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE
STATUTE, MANIFESTLY LEAVES IT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE CURATORS TO DECIDE
WHEN IT WILL BE NECESSARY AND PRACTICABLE TO ESTABLISH A LAW SCHOOL,
AND THE STATE COURT SO CONSTRUED THE STATUTE.  EMPHASIZING THE
DISCRETION OF THE CURATORS, THE COURT SAID: 

"THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED IN 1921.  SINCE ITS ENACTMENT NO NEGRO, NOT
EVEN APPELLANT, HAS APPLIED TO LINCOLN UNIVERSITY FOR A LAW EDUCATION. 
THIS FACT DEMONSTRATES THE WISDOM OF THE LEGISLATURE IN LEAVING IT TO
THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD OF CURATORS TO DETERMINE WHEN IT WOULD BE
NECESSARY OR PRACTICABLE TO ESTABLISH A LAW SCHOOL FOR NEGROES AT
LINCOLN UNIVERSITY.  PENDING THAT TIME ADEQUATE PROVISION IS MADE FOR
THE LEGAL EDUCATION OF NEGROES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF SOME ADJACENT
STATE, AS HERETOFORE POINTED OUT."  113 S.W.2D P. 791. 

THE STATE COURT HAS NOT HELD THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DUTY OF THE
CURATORS TO ESTABLISH A LAW SCHOOL AT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY FOR THE
PETITIONER ON HIS APPLICATION.  THEIR DUTY, AS THE COURT DEFINED IT,
WOULD HAVE BEEN EITHER TO SUPPLY A LAW SCHOOL AT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY AS
PROVIDED IN SEC. 9618 OR TO FURNISH HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN HIS
LEGAL TRAINING IN ANOTHER STATE AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 9622.  THUS THE LAW
LEFT THE CURATORS FREE TO ADOPT THE LATTER COURSE.  THE STATE COURT HAS
NOT RULED OR INTIMATED THAT THEIR FAILURE OR REFUSAL TO ESTABLISH A LAW
SCHOOL FOR A VERY FEW STUDENTS, STILL LESS FOR ONE STUDENT, WOULD HAVE
BEEN AN ABUSE OF THE DISCRETION WITH WHICH THE CURATORS WERE
ENTRUSTED.  AND, APPARENTLY, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THAT DISCRETION, AND OF
THE POSTPONEMENT WHICH ITS EXERCISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE
STATUTE WOULD ENTAIL UNTIL NECESSITY AND PRACTICABILITY APPEARED, THAT
THE STATE COURT CONSIDERED AND UPHELD AS ADEQUATE THE PROVISION FOR THE
LEGAL EDUCATION OF NEGROES, WHO WERE CITIZENS OF MISSOURI, IN THE
UNIVERSITIES OF ADJACENT STATES.  WE MAY PUT ON ONE SIDE RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION THAT THERE WERE FUNDS AVAILABLE AT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY FOR
THE CREATION OF A LAW DEPARTMENT AND THE SUGGESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
THE NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS WHO WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND THE
COST OF SUPPLYING THEM.  THE PRESIDENT OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY DID NOT
ADVERT TO THE EXISTENCE OR PROSPECTIVE USE OF FUNDS FOR THAT PURPOSE
WHEN HE ADVISED PETITIONER TO APPLY TO THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS FOR AID UNDER SEC. 9622.  AT BEST, THE EVIDENCE TO WHICH
ARGUMENT AS TO AVAILABLE FUNDS IS ADDRESSED ADMITS OF CONFLICTING
INFERENCES, AND THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT DID NOT HINGE ON ANY
SUCH MATTER.  IN THE LIGHT OF ITS RULING WE MUST REGARD THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE PROVISION FOR THE LEGAL EDUCATION IN OTHER STATES OF
NEGROES RESIDENT IN MISSOURI IS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION, AS THE PIVOT UPON WHICH
THIS CASE TURNS. 

THE STATE COURT STRESSES THE ADVANTAGES THAT ARE AFFORDED BY THE LAW
SCHOOLS OF THE ADJACENT STATES,  - KANSAS, NEBRASKA, IOWA AND ILLINOIS,
- WHICH ADMIT NON-RESIDENT NEGROES.  THE COURT CONSIDERED THAT THESE
WERE SCHOOLS OF HIGH STANDING WHERE ONE DESIRING TO PRACTICE LAW IN
MISSOURI CAN GET "AS SOUND, COMPREHENSIVE, VALUABLE LEGAL EDUCATION" AS
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI; THAT THE SYSTEM OF EDUCATION IN THE
FORMER IS THE SAME AS THAT IN THE LATTER AND IS DESIGNED TO GIVE THE
STUDENTS A BASIS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN ANY STATE WHERE THE ANGLO
AMERICAN SYSTEM OF LAW OBTAINS; THAT THE LAW SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF MISSOURI DOES NOT SPECIALIZE IN MISSOURI LAW AND THAT THE COURSE OF
STUDY AND THE CASE BOOKS USED IN THE FIVE SCHOOLS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL.  PETITIONER INSISTS THAT FOR ONE INTENDING TO PRACTICE IN
MISSOURI THERE ARE SPECIAL ADVANTAGES IN ATTENDING A LAW SCHOOL THERE,
BOTH IN RELATION TO THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PARTICULAR STUDY OF
MISSOURI LAW AND FOR THE OBSERVATION OF THE LOCAL COURTS,  FN3  AND
ALSO IN VIEW OF THE PRESTIGE OF THE MISSOURI LAW SCHOOL AMONG THE
CITIZENS OF THE STATE, HIS PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS.  PROCEEDING WITH ITS
EXAMINATION OF RELATIVE ADVANTAGES, THE STATE COURT FOUND THAT THE
DIFFERENCE IN DISTANCES TO BE TRAVELED AFFORDED NO SUBSTANTIAL GROUND
OF COMPLAINT AND THAT THERE WAS AN ADEQUATE APPROPRIATION TO MEET THE
FULL TUITION FEES WHICH PETITIONER WOULD HAVE TO PAY. 

WE THINK THAT THESE MATTERS ARE BESIDE THE POINT.  THE BASIC
CONSIDERATION IS NOT AS TO WHAT SORT OF OPPORTUNITIES OTHER STATES
PROVIDE, OR WHETHER THEY ARE AS GOOD AS THOSE IN MISSOURI, BUT AS TO
WHAT OPPORTUNITIES MISSOURI ITSELF FURNISHES TO WHITE STUDENTS AND
DENIES TO NEGROES SOLELY UPON THE GROUND OF COLOR.  THE ADMISSIBILITY
OF LAWS SEPARATING THE RACES IN THE ENJOYMENT OF PRIVILEGES AFFORDED BY
THE STATE RESTS WHOLLY UPON THE EQUALITY OF THE PRIVILEGES WHICH THE
LAWS GIVE TO THE SEPARATED GROUPS WITHIN THE STATE.  THE QUESTION HERE
IS NOT OF A DUTY OF THE STATE TO SUPPLY LEGAL TRAINING, OR OF THE
QUALITY OF THE TRAINING WHICH IT DOES SUPPLY, BUT OF ITS DUTY WHEN IT
PROVIDES SUCH TRAINING TO FURNISH IT TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE UPON
THE BASIS OF AN EQUALITY OF RIGHT.  BY THE OPERATION OF THE LAWS OF
MISSOURI A PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN CREATED FOR WHITE LAW STUDENTS WHICH IS
DENIED TO NEGROES BY REASON OF THEIR RACE.  THE WHITE RESIDENT IS
AFFORDED LEGAL EDUCATION WITHIN THE STATE; THE NEGRO RESIDENT HAVING
THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS IS REFUSED IT THERE AND MUST GO OUTSIDE THE
STATE TO OBTAIN IT.  THAT IS A DENIAL OF THE EQUALITY OF LEGAL RIGHT TO
THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PRIVILEGE WHICH THE STATE HAS SET UP, AND THE
PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF TUITION FEES IN ANOTHER STATE DOES NOT
REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATION. 

THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IS "A PLEDGE OF THE PROTECTION OF
EQUAL LAWS."  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 369.  MANIFESTLY, THE
OBLIGATION OF THE STATE TO GIVE THE PROTECTION OF EQUAL LAWS CAN BE
PERFORMED ONLY WHERE ITS LAWS OPERATE, THAT IS, WITHIN ITS OWN
JURISDICTION.  IT IS THERE THAT THE EQUALITY OF LEGAL RIGHT MUST BE
MAINTAINED.  THAT OBLIGATION IS IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION UPON THE
STATES SEVERALLY AS GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES,  - EACH RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS
OWN LAWS ESTABLISHING THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PERSONS WITHIN ITS
BORDERS.  IT IS AN OBLIGATION THE BURDEN OF WHICH CANNOT BE CAST BY ONE
STATE UPON ANOTHER, AND NO STATE CAN BE EXCUSED FROM PERFORMANCE BY
WHAT ANOTHER STATE MAY DO OR FAIL TO DO.  THAT SEPARATE RESPONSIBILITY
OF EACH STATE WITHIN ITS OWN SPHERE IS OF THE ESSENCE OF STATEHOOD
MAINTAINED UNDER OUR DUAL SYSTEM.  IT SEEMS TO BE IMPLICIT IN
RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT THAT IF OTHER STATES DID NOT PROVIDE COURSES FOR
LEGAL EDUCATION, IT WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF
MISSOURI WHEN IT SUPPLIED SUCH COURSES FOR WHITE STUDENTS TO MAKE
EQUIVALENT PROVISION FOR NEGROES.  BUT THAT PLAIN DUTY WOULD EXIST
BECAUSE IT RESTED UPON THE STATE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ACTION OF OTHER
STATES.  WE FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION, WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGAL RIGHT TO
THE ENJOYMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE STATE, CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY
REQUIRING RESORT TO OPPORTUNITIES ELSEWHERE.  THAT RESORT MAY MITIGATE
THE INCONVENIENCE OF THE DISCRIMINATION BUT CANNOT SERVE TO VALIDATE
IT. 

NOR CAN WE REGARD THE FACT THAT THERE IS BUT A LIMITED DEMAND IN
MISSOURI FOR THE LEGAL EDUCATION OF NEGROES AS EXCUSING THE
DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF WHITES.  WE HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER A
COGNATE QUESTION IN THE CASE OF MCCABE V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO.,
SUPRA.  THERE THE ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED, IN RELATION TO THE PROVISION
BY A CARRIER OF SLEEPING CARS, DINING AND CHAIR CARS, THAT THE LIMITED
DEMAND BY NEGROES JUSTIFIED THE STATE IN PERMITTING THE FURNISHING OF
SUCH ACCOMMODATIONS EXCLUSIVELY FOR WHITE PERSONS.  WE FOUND THAT
ARGUMENT TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.  IT MADE, WE SAID, THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT "DEPEND UPON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST, WHEREAS THE ESSENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS THAT IT IS
A PERSONAL ONE.  WHETHER OR NOT PARTICULAR FACILITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED
MAY DOUBTLESS BE CONDITIONED UPON THERE BEING A REASONABLE DEMAND
THEREFOR, BUT, IF FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED, SUBSTANTIAL EQUALITY OF
TREATMENT OF PERSONS TRAVELING UNDER LIKE CONDITIONS CANNOT BE
REFUSED.  IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION
OF THE LAWS, AND IF HE IS DENIED BY A COMMON CARRIER, ACTING IN THE
MATTER UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF A STATE LAW, A FACILITY OR CONVENIENCE IN
THE COURSE OF HIS JOURNEY WHICH UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
CIRCUMSTANCES IS FURNISHED TO ANOTHER TRAVELER, HE MAY PROPERLY
COMPLAIN THAT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN INVADED."  ID., PP.
161, 162. 

HERE, PETITIONER'S RIGHT WAS A PERSONAL ONE.  IT WAS AS AN INDIVIDUAL
THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND THE STATE
WAS BOUND TO FURNISH HIM WITHIN ITS BORDERS FACILITIES FOR LEGAL
EDUCATION SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL TO THOSE WHICH THE STATE THERE AFFORDED
FOR PERSONS OF THE WHITE RACE, WHETHER OR NOT OTHER NEGROES SOUGHT THE
SAME OPPORTUNITY. 

IT IS URGED, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROVISION FOR TUITION OUTSIDE THE
STATE IS A TEMPORARY ONE,  - THAT IT IS INTENDED TO OPERATE MERELY
PENDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAW DEPARTMENT FOR NEGROES AT LINCOLN
UNIVERSITY.  WHILE IN THAT SENSE THE DISCRIMINATION MAY BE TERMED
TEMPORARY, IT MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD BY
REASON OF THE DISCRETION GIVEN TO THE CURATORS OF LINCOLN UNIVERSITY
AND THE ALTERNATIVE OF ARRANGING FOR TUITION IN OTHER STATES, AS
PERMITTED BY THE STATE LAW AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT, SO LONG AS
THE CURATORS FIND IT UNNECESSARY AND IMPRACTICABLE TO PROVIDE
FACILITIES FOR THE LEGAL INSTRUCTION OF NEGROES WITHIN THE STATE.  IN
THAT VIEW, WE CANNOT REGARD THE DISCRIMINATION AS EXCUSED BY WHAT IS
CALLED ITS TEMPORARY CHARACTER. 

WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT TURNS ON ANY
PROCEDURAL QUESTION.  THE ACTION WAS FOR MANDAMUS, BUT IT DOES NOT
APPEAR THAT THE REMEDY WOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED INAPPROPRIATE IF THE
ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT HAD BEEN SUSTAINED.  IN THAT SITUATION THE
REMEDY BY MANDAMUS WAS FOUND TO BE A PROPER ONE IN UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND V. MURRAY, SUPRA.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE STATE COURT DID
NOTE THAT PETITIONER HAD NOT APPLIED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF LINCOLN
UNIVERSITY FOR LEGAL TRAINING.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE STATE COURT
DID NOT RULE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DUTY OF THE CURATORS TO GRANT
SUCH AN APPLICATION, BUT ON THE CONTRARY TOOK THE VIEW, AS WE
UNDERSTAND IT, THAT THE CURATORS WERE ENTITLED UNDER THE STATE LAW TO
REFUSE SUCH AN APPLICATION AND IN ITS STEAD TO PROVIDE FOR PETITIONER'S
TUITION IN AN ADJACENT STATE.  THAT CONCLUSION PRESENTED THE FEDERAL
QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ADEQUACY OF SUCH A PROVISION WHILE
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR LEGAL TRAINING WITHIN THE STATE WAS NOT
FURNISHED, AND THIS FEDERAL QUESTION THE STATE COURT ENTERTAINED AND
PASSED UPON.  WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT IN SO DOING THE COURT DENIED THE
FEDERAL RIGHT WHICH PETITIONER SET UP AND THE QUESTION AS TO THE
CORRECTNESS OF THAT DECISION IS BEFORE US.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
THE RULING WAS ERROR, AND THAT PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO BE ADMITTED
TO THE LAW SCHOOL OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER AND
PROPER PROVISION FOR HIS LEGAL TRAINING WITHIN THE STATE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  EX PARTE VIRGINIA, 100 U.S. 339, 346, 347; NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103
U.S. 370, 397; CARTER V. TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442, 447; NORRIS V. ALABAMA,
294 U.S. 587, 589. 

FN2  SECTION 9618, R.S. MO. 1929, IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 9618.  BOARD OF CURATORS AUTHORIZED TO REORGANIZE.  - THE BOARD
OF CURATORS OF THE LINCOLN UNIVERSITY SHALL BE AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED
TO REORGANIZE SAID INSTITUTION SO THAT IT SHALL AFFORD TO THE NEGRO
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OPPORTUNITY FOR TRAINING UP TO THE STANDARD
FURNISHED AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI WHENEVER NECESSARY AND
PRACTICABLE IN THEIR OPINION.  TO THIS END THE BOARD OF CURATORS SHALL
BE AUTHORIZED TO PURCHASE NECESSARY ADDITIONAL LAND, ERECT NECESSARY
ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, TO PROVIDE NECESSARY ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT, AND TO
LOCATE, IN THE COUNTY OF COLE THE RESPECTIVE UNITS OF THE UNIVERSITY
WHERE, IN THEIR OPINION, THE VARIOUS SCHOOLS WILL MOST EFFECTIVELY
PROMOTE THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE.  (LAWS OF 1921, P. 86, SEC. 3.)" 
FN3  SEE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND V. MURRAY, 169 MD. 478, 486. 

SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS. 

CONSIDERING THE DISCLOSURES OF THE RECORD, THE SUPREME COURT OF
MISSOURI ARRIVED AT A TENABLE CONCLUSION AND ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED.  THAT COURT WELL UNDERSTOOD THE GRAVE DIFFICULTIES OF THE
SITUATION AND RIGHTLY REFUSED TO UPSET THE SETTLED LEGISLATIVE POLICY
OF THE STATE BY DIRECTING A MANDAMUS.    IN CUMMING V. RICHMOND COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 175 U.S. 528, 545, THIS COURT THROUGH MR. JUSTICE
HARLAN DECLARED - "THE EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE IN SCHOOLS MAINTAINED BY
STATE TAXATION IS A MATTER BELONGING TO THE RESPECTIVE STATES, AND ANY
INTERFERENCE ON THE PART OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF
SUCH SCHOOLS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF A CLEAR AND
UNMISTAKABLE DISREGARD OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE SUPREME LAW OF THE
LAND."  GONG LUM V. RICE, 275 U.S. 78, 85 - OPINION BY MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE TAFT - ASSERTS:  "THE RIGHT AND POWER OF THE STATE TO REGULATE
THE METHOD OF PROVIDING FOR THE EDUCATION OF ITS YOUTH AT PUBLIC
EXPENSE IS CLEAR." 

FOR A LONG TIME MISSOURI HAS ACTED UPON THE VIEW THAT THE BEST
INTEREST OF HER PEOPLE DEMANDS SEPARATION OF WHITES AND NEGROES IN
SCHOOLS.  UNDER THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED, I PRESUME SHE MAY ABANDON
HER LAW SCHOOL AND THEREBY DISADVANTAGE HER WHITE CITIZENS WITHOUT
IMPROVING PETITIONER'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEGAL INSTRUCTION; OR SHE MAY
BREAK DOWN THE SETTLED PRACTICE CONCERNING SEPARATE SCHOOLS AND
THEREBY, AS INDICATED BY EXPERIENCE, DAMNIFY BOTH RACES.  WHETHER BY
SOME OTHER COURSE IT MAY BE POSSIBLE FOR HER TO AVOID CONDEMNATION IS
MATTER FOR CONJECTURE. 

THE STATE HAS OFFERED TO PROVIDE THE NEGRO PETITIONER OPPORTUNITY FOR
STUDY OF THE LAW - IF PERCHANCE THAT IS THE THING REALLY DESIRED - BY
PAYING HIS TUITION AT SOME NEARBY SCHOOL OF GOOD STANDING.  THIS IS FAR
FROM UNMISTAKABLE DISREGARD OF HIS RIGHTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS
ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANY REASONABLE DEMAND FOR SPECIALIZED TRAINING.  IT
APPEARS THAT NEVER BEFORE HAS A NEGRO APPLIED FOR ADMISSION TO THE LAW
SCHOOL AND NONE HAS EVER ASKED THAT LINCOLN UNIVERSITY PROVIDE LEGAL
INSTRUCTION. 

THE PROBLEM PRESENTED OBVIOUSLY IS A DIFFICULT AND HIGHLY PRACTICAL
ONE.  A FAIR EFFORT TO SOLVE IT HAS BEEN MADE BY OFFERING ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDY WHEN SOUGHT IN GOOD FAITH.  THE STATE SHOULD NOT
BE UNDULY HAMPERED THROUGH THEORIZATION INADEQUATELY RESTRAINED BY
EXPERIENCE. 

THIS PROCEEDING COMMENCED IN APRIL, 1936.  PETITIONER THEN TWENTY
FOUR YEARS OLD ASKED MANDAMUS TO COMPEL HIS ADMISSION TO THE UNIVERSITY
IN SEPTEMBER, 1936, NOTWITHSTANDING PLAIN LEGISLATIVE INHIBITION. 
MANDAMUS IS NOT A WRIT OF RIGHT BUT IS GRANTED ONLY IN THE COURT'S
DISCRETION UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  DUNCAN
TOWNSITE CO. V. LANE, 245 U.S. 308, 311; UNITED STATES EX REL. ARANT V.
LANE, 249 U.S. 367, 371. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI DID NOT CONSIDER THE PROPRIETY OF
GRANTING THE WRIT UNDER THE THEORY OF THE LAW NOW ACCEPTED HERE.  THAT,
OF COURSE, WILL BE MATTER OPEN FOR ITS CONSIDERATION UPON RETURN OF THE
CAUSE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER CONCURS IN THE ABOVE VIEWS. 
..END :










EX PARTE CENTURY CO., 305 U.S. 354 


NO. - , ORIGINAL.  DECIDED DECEMBER 12, 1938.  - RULE DISCHARGED. 


1.  UPON A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHOULD NOT ISSUE
REQUIRING JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO CONSIDER CERTAIN
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR WHICH THAT COURT HAD DECLINED TO CONSIDER UPON A
GROUND WHICH THIS COURT, UPON REVIEW, ADJUDGED INSUFFICIENT, IT IS AN
ANSWER THAT ANOTHER AND SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR REJECTING THE ASSIGNMENTS
IS REVEALED BY THE RECORD.  P. 355. 

2.  PAPERS PURPORTING TO BE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW, WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THE TRANSCRIPT BUT NOT IN THE BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS, ARE NOT PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED.  P. 356. 

EX PARTE CENTURY INDEMNITY CO. 

PER CURIAM. 

ON AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION AT LAW,
IN WHICH A JURY WAS WAIVED, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO
CONSIDER CERTAIN ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR UPON THE GROUND THAT THEY RELATED
TO FINDINGS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT AFTER THE TRIAL HAD BEEN
CONCLUDED.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED, 90 F.2D 644, AND CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED.  WE WERE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS THAT WHEN THE TRIAL COURT ORDERED "THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED
FOR PLAINTIFF, WITH INTEREST AND COSTS, UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TO BE PRESENTED," IT WAS THEREAFTER "TOO LATE
ADEQUATELY TO PRESENT SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT."  IT WAS NOT NECESSARY
TO TREAT THE FIRST ORDER FOR JUDGMENT AS ENDING "THE PROGRESS OF THE
TRIAL."  28 U.S.C. 875.  THE QUALIFYING WORDS IN THE ORDER WERE
APPROPRIATE TO SUGGEST A "RESERVATION OF OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER
ACTION."  ACCORDINGLY, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
REVERSED AND THE CAUSE WAS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT.  CENTURY
INDEMNITY CO. V. NELSON, 303 U.S. 213. 

ON THE LATER HEARING, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND ANOTHER
GROUND FOR ITS ACTION,  - A GROUND NOT DEALT WITH IN ITS FORMER RULING
AND NOT PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.  THAT WAS THAT
DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS WERE "NOT INCORPORATED IN THE BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY REFERENCE."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ADDRESSED TO THE
REJECTION OF THESE FINDINGS AND AGAIN AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  96 F.2D
679. 

ON APPLICATION OF THE DEFENDANT, THIS COURT ISSUED A RULE DIRECTING
THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE VACATED AND THE COURT BE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER
THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.  THE JUDGES HAVE MADE RETURN TO THE RULE. 

WHILE IT APPEARS FROM THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS THAT THE DEFENDANT
"SERVED AND LODGED ITS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW," AND THE TRANSCRIPT CONTAINS A PAPER DESCRIBED AS DEFENDANT'S
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THAT PAPER IS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AND HENCE IS NOT PROPERLY
AUTHENTICATED.  28 U.S.C. 875.  INSURANCE COMPANY V. FOLSOM, 18 WALL. 
237, 249; MCLEOD V. UNITED STATES, 67 F.2D 740. 

IN VIEW OF THAT DEFECT, WE CANNOT DIRECT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
TO CONSIDER THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR AND THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE MUST BE
DISCHARGED.  RULE DISCHARGED. 
..END :











SHIELDS V. UTAH IDAHO R. CO., 305 U.S. 177 


NO. 28.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - 95
F.2D 911, REVERSED. 


1.  CONGRESS, HAVING POWER TO SUBJECT INTERSTATE RAILWAYS TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT RELATING TO LABOR RELATIONS, WAS
EMPOWERED ALSO TO EXCEPT INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAYS NOT OPERATING AS
PART OF A GENERAL STEAM-RAILROAD SYSTEM, AND TO CONFIDE THE QUESTION OF
FACT WHETHER A PARTICULAR RAILROAD FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTED CATEGORY
TO DETERMINATION, AFTER HEARING AND UPON EVIDENCE, BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  P. 170. 

2.  THE CONFERRING OF AUTHORITY, BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, UPON THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PARTICULAR
ELECTRIC RAILWAY IS AN INTERURBAN ONE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATION OF POWER.  P. 181. 

3.  UNDER SEC. 1 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE AS MATTERS OF FACT, NOT
ONLY WHETHER AN ELECTRIC RAILWAY LINE IS OPERATED AS PART OF A GENERAL
STEAM-RAILROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION, BUT ALSO WHETHER IT IS AN
"INTERURBAN" LINE.  P. 181. 

4.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT IN REQUIRING A HEARING ON THESE MATTERS BY
THE COMMISSION - A HEARING OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT - , IS TO COMPLY
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 182. 

5.  THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION, MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE
MEDIATION BOARD, IS BINDING ON THE BOARD AND ON THE CARRIER.  P. 182. 

6.  A DETERMINATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, UNDER THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, THAT AN ELECTRIC LINE IS NOT "INTERURBAN," THOUGH
NOT IN ITSELF AN "ORDER," SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 596,
SUBJECTS THE CARRIER TO REGULATION BY THE MEDIATION BOARD AND TO
CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT IF ITS ORDERS ARE DISOBEYED, AND ITS VALIDITY IS
SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN A SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY THE CARRIER
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TO RESTRAIN PROSECUTIONS.  P. 182. 

7.  UPON REVIEW OF SUCH DETERMINATION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION ACTED WITHIN ITS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY; AND, WHERE THE REQUIREMENT AS TO HEARING WAS
SATISFIED, THE SOLE REMAINING QUESTION WOULD BE WHETHER THE COMMISSION
IN ARRIVING AT ITS DETERMINATION DEPARTED FROM THE APPLICABLE RULES OF
LAW AND WHETHER ITS FINDING HAD A BASIS IN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR WAS
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.  P. 184. 

8.  IN THIS CASE, THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION THAT
COMPLAINANT WAS NOT AN "INTERURBAN" ELECTRIC LINE FINDS SUPPORT IN
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS;
NOR DID IT DEPART FROM APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF LAW.  P. 185. 

SHIELDS ET AL. V. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 556, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
PERMANENTLY ENJOINING A UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FROM INSTITUTING
PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION INTERVENED AS A PARTY DEFENDANT.  FOR THE OPINION OF THE
COMMISSION, SEE 214 I.C.C. 707. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTIONS OF THE EFFECT OF A DETERMINATION BY
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT, THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT AN INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY,
AND OF THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THAT DETERMINATION. 

THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, WHICH APPLIES TO RAILROADS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EXCEPTS ANY "INTERURBAN" ELECTRIC RAILWAY UNLESS
IT IS OPERATING AS A PART OF A GENERAL STEAM-RAILROAD SYSTEM OF
TRANSPORTATION.  FN1  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS "AUTHORIZED
AND DIRECTED UPON REQUEST OF THE MEDIATION BOARD OR UPON COMPLAINT OF
ANY PARTY INTERESTED TO DETERMINE AFTER HEARING WHETHER ANY LINE
OPERATED BY ELECTRIC POWER" FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  AT THE REQUEST
OF THE MEDIATION BOARD, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AFTER
HEARING DETERMINED THAT THE LINES OF RESPONDENT, THE UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL
RAILROAD COMPANY, DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY. 
214 I.C.C. 707.  THE MEDIATION BOARD ORDERED RESPONDENT TO POST THE
FORMAL NOTICE PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 2, EIGHTH, OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 
FN2  RESPONDENT DID NOT COMPLY.  FAILURE TO PUBLISH THE NOTICE SUBJECTS
"THE CARRIER, OFFICER OR AGENT OFFENDING" TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES.  FN3
RESPONDENT, INSISTING THAT ITS LINE IS AN INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY
AND THUS EXCEPTED FROM THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AND ALLEGING THE
INVALIDITY OF THE ACT, BROUGHT THIS SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH TO RESTRAIN HIM FROM PROSECUTING ANY
PROCEEDING BASED UPON AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ACT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT TOOK JURISDICTION, PERMITTED RESPONDENT TO TRY THE
QUESTION DE NOVO, DECIDED THAT RESPONDENT WAS AN INTERURBAN ELECTRIC
RAILWAY, AND GRANTED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  95 F.2D 911.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

AS RESPONDENT, HOWEVER CHARACTERIZED, IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION, THE QUESTION WHETHER IT SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT RELATING TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF
LABOR DISPUTES, WAS ONE FOR THE DECISION OF CONGRESS.  THESE
REQUIREMENTS WERE PRESCRIBED IN THE EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS
R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515.  AS CONGRESS WAS FREE TO ESTABLISH THE
CATEGORIES WHICH SHOULD BE EXCEPTED, CONGRESS COULD BRING TO ITS AID AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A
PARTICULAR RAILROAD FELL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION, AND CONGRESS COULD MAKE
THAT FACTUAL DETERMINATION, AFTER HEARING AND UPON EVIDENCE,
CONCLUSIVE.  ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38,
51.  FOR THAT PURPOSE CONGRESS COULD CREATE A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
OR USE ONE ALREADY EXISTING.  AND AS THE QUESTIONS OF FACT INVOLVED
WOULD RELATE TO METHODS OF RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION, AND THUS TO A FIELD
IN WHICH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD PECULIAR EXPERTNESS,
CONGRESS COULD FITTINGLY COMMIT THE DETERMINATION TO THAT BODY. 

CONGRESS DID NOT DEFINE THE TERM "INTERURBAN."  DESPITE THE
DESIRABILITY OF SUCH A DEFINITION FN4  AND THE DIFFICULTIES OCCASIONED
BY ITS ABSENCE, THE TERM IS NOT SO DESTITUTE OF MEANING THAT IT CAN BE
DENIED EFFECT AS A VALID DESCRIPTION.  RESPONDENT, STANDING UPON THE
EXCEPTION, NECESSARILY TREATS IT AS VALID AND HENCE AS SUSCEPTIBLE OF
APPLICATION.  THAT VIEW PRESUPPOSES THAT THE TERM "INTERURBAN" DENOTES
DISTINGUISHING FACTUAL CHARACTERISTICS WHICH ON APPROPRIATE INQUIRY MAY
BE ASCERTAINED.  WE HAVE SO TREATED THE TERM IN OTHER RELATIONS. 
PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 286 U.S.
299; UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO NORTH SHORE & M.R. CO., 288 U.S. 1.  THE
CONFERRING OF AUTHORITY UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER A PARTICULAR ELECTRIC RAILWAY IS AN INTERURBAN ONE
CANNOT BE REGARDED AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF POWER.  SEE
UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO NORTH SHORE & M.R. CO., SUPRA, AT PP. 13, 14. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAS MADE THE
DETERMINATION CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE AND WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH
THE QUESTIONS WHICH MIGHT ARISE IN ITS ABSENCE.  THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION WAS ONE OF FACT.  SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S.
596, 599.  WHAT EFFECT SHALL BE ASCRIBED TO IT?  THE ARGUMENT IS
PRESSED THAT THE DETERMINATION IS AT BEST PERSUASIVE AND NOT IN ANY
WISE BINDING UPON THE COURTS.  IT IS URGED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS
RESTRICTED TO DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS OPERATED AS A PART OF
A GENERAL STEAM-RAILROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION, WHICH CONCEDEDLY IT
WAS NOT; THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT AN "ORDER";
THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT MANIFESTED AN INTENTION THAT THE DETERMINATION
SHOULD BE BINDING IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND THAT IN THE NATURE OF
THINGS IT COULD NOT BE MADE BINDING IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED IN THE COURT BELOW
THAT THE COMMISSION WAS CONFINED TO DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS
OPERATED AS A PART OF A GENERAL STEAM-RAILROAD SYSTEM OF
TRANSPORTATION.  BEFORE REACHING THAT POINT - AS TO WHICH THERE WAS NO
QUESTION - THE COMMISSION HAD TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT WAS AN
"INTERURBAN" LINE.  THAT HAS BEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STATUTORY PROVISION  FN5  AND WE SEE NO REASON TO DOUBT ITS
CORRECTNESS. 

IN CONSIDERING THE EFFECT OF THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION, THE
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE
PROVISION POINTS TO DEFINITIVE ACTION.  THE COMMISSION IS TO
"DETERMINE."  THE COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE "AFTER HEARING."  THE
REQUIREMENT OF A "HEARING" HAS OBVIOUS REFERENCE "TO THE TRADITION OF
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH EVIDENCE IS RECEIVED AND WEIGHED BY THE
TRIER OF THE FACTS."  THE "HEARING" IS "THE HEARING OF EVIDENCE AND
ARGUMENT."  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 480.  AND THE
MANIFEST PURPOSE IN REQUIRING A HEARING IS TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS UPON WHICH THE PARTIES AFFECTED BY THE
DETERMINATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY ARE ENTITLED TO INSIST. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S.
88, 91.  THE COMMISSION IS NOT ONLY AUTHORIZED BUT "DIRECTED" TO GIVE
THE HEARING AND MAKE THE DETERMINATION WHEN REQUESTED.  WE CANNOT THINK
THAT A DETERMINATION SO PRESCRIBED AND SAFEGUARDED WAS INTENDED TO HAVE
NO LEGAL EFFECT.  ON THE CONTRARY, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF
THE PROCEEDING, WE MUST REGARD THE DETERMINATION AS BINDING ON BOTH THE
CARRIER AND THE MEDIATION BOARD.  THE LATTER HAVING OBTAINED THE
DETERMINATION COULD NOT IGNORE IT; NEITHER COULD THE CARRIER. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION IS NOT AN
"ORDER" REVIEWABLE UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22,
1913.  FN6  SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  BUT WE HAVE NOT HELD
THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL
REVIEW BY OTHER PROCEDURE, A QUESTION WHICH, AS WE SAID IN THE
SHANNAHAN CASE, WE HAD NO OCCASION THERE TO CONSIDER.  ID., AT P. 603. 
THE NATURE OF THE DETERMINATION POINTS TO THE PROPRIETY OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW.  FOR, WHILE THE DETERMINATION IS MADE BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND NOT
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BY THE COMMISSION ITSELF, IT IS NONE THE LESS A
PART OF A REGULATORY SCHEME.  IT HAS THE EFFECT, IF VALIDLY MADE, OF
SUBJECTING THE RESPONDENT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT,
WHICH WAS ENACTED TO REGULATE THE ACTIVITIES OF TRANSPORTATION
COMPANIES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN7  THE MEDIATION BOARD HAS
ORDERED THE POSTING OF THE PRESCRIBED NOTICE THAT DISPUTES BETWEEN THE
CARRIER AND ITS EMPLOYEES WILL BE HANDLED UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 
DISOBEDIENCE IS IMMEDIATELY PUNISHABLE AND IT IS MADE THE DUTY OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VIOLATORS. 
RESPONDENT HAS INVOKED THE EQUITY JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN SUCH
PROSECUTION AND THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE PROPRIETY OF THAT
PROCEDURE.  EQUITY JURISDICTION MAY BE INVOKED WHEN IT IS ESSENTIAL TO
THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS ASSERTED, EVEN THOUGH THE COMPLAINANT
SEEKS TO ENJOIN THE BRINGING OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS.  PHILADELPHIA COMPANY
V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 621, 622; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, 37,
38; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197, 214.  TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION
THAT EQUITABLE RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE, RESPONDENT POINTS TO THE PECULIAR
DIFFICULTIES WHICH CONFRONT IT UNDER THE CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION. 
CONGRESS HAS ENACTED TWO SETS OF STATUTES WHICH INVOLVE THE APPLICATION
OF THE SAME CRITERION.  IF RESPONDENT IS SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT, IT IS EXCLUDED FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT; FN8  OTHERWISE NOT.  THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937
FN9  HAS A LIKE PROVISO EXCEPTING INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAYS AND
AUTHORIZING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
PARTICULAR ELECTRIC RAILWAY FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  A SIMILAR
PROVISION IS FOUND IN THE CARRIERS TAXING ACT OF 1937  FN10  AND IN THE
RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT OF 1938.  FN11  IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES WE THINK RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO RESORT TO EQUITY IN
ORDER TO OBTAIN A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTIONS OF THE VALIDITY AND
EFFECT OF THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION PURPORTING TO FIX ITS STATUS. 

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW TO WHICH RESPONDENT IS
ENTITLED?  AS CONGRESS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ENACT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT LOOKING TO THE SETTLEMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BETWEEN CARRIERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THEIR EMPLOYEES,  FN12  AND COULD INCLUDE OR EXCEPT INTERURBAN CARRIERS
AS IT SAW FIT, NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS PRESENTED CALLING FOR THE
APPLICATION OF OUR DECISIONS  FN13  WITH RESPECT TO A TRIAL DE NOVO SO
FAR AS THE CHARACTER OF THE RESPONDENT IS CONCERNED.  WITH RESPECT TO
THAT QUESTION, UNLIKE THE CASE PRESENTED IN UNITED STATES V. IDAHO, 298
U.S. 105, WHERE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WAS DENIED THE
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF THE TRACKAGE IN QUESTION (ID.,
P. 107), THE COMMISSION IN THIS INSTANCE WAS EXPRESSLY DIRECTED TO MAKE
THE DETERMINATION.  AS THIS AUTHORITY WAS VALIDLY CONFERRED UPON THE
COMMISSION N14, THE QUESTION ON JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE SIMPLY WHETHER
THE COMMISSION HAD ACTED WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 222 U.S. 541, 547; INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 91; VIRGINIAN
RAILWAY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 658, 663; TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD
V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420, 444; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
1, 12; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE CONDITION WHICH CONGRESS IMPOSED WAS THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD
MAKE ITS DETERMINATION AFTER HEARING.  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE
COMMISSION DID GIVE A HEARING.  RESPONDENT APPEARED AND THE EVIDENCE
WHICH IT OFFERED WAS RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED.  THE SOLE REMAINING
QUESTION WOULD BE WHETHER THE COMMISSION IN ARRIVING AT ITS
DETERMINATION DEPARTED FROM THE APPLICABLE RULES OF LAW AND WHETHER ITS
FINDING HAD A BASIS IN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR WAS ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS.  ID. THAT QUESTION MUST BE DETERMINED UPON THE EVIDENCE
PRODUCED BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 

TAKING THAT POSITION, PETITIONERS UNSUCCESSFULLY OBJECTED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT TO THE ADMISSION OF NEW EVIDENCE.  BUT THAT EVIDENCE WAS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT PRODUCED BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WHICH
WAS ALSO RECEIVED.  THE FACTS CAREFULLY ANALYZED BY THE COMMISSION (214
I.C.C. PP. 709-711) ARE VIRTUALLY UNDISPUTED.  RESPONDENT'S RAILWAY
EXTENDS FROM OGDEN, UTAH, NORTH TO PRESTON, IDAHO, A DISTANCE OF 94.63
MILES AND HAS TWO BRANCH LINES OF ABOUT 7 AND 14 MILES RESPECTIVELY. 
ABOUT 81.8 PER CENT. OF THE LINE IS LOCATED ON PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHT-OF
WAY AND THE REMAINING 18.2 PER CENT. ON PUBLIC STREETS OR HIGHWAYS,
THESE BEING CHIEFLY IN FIFTEEN CITIES AND TOWNS.  THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDES THE POINT STRESSED BY RESPONDENT THAT ITS LINE HAS MANY OF THE
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN INTERURBAN RAILROAD.  THUS ITS TRACKS ON
THE WHOLE ARE OF LIGHTER WEIGHT, ITS GRADES SLIGHTLY STEEPER, ITS
CURVES SHARPER, ITS STATIONS AND SIDETRACKS MORE FREQUENT, ITS MOTIVE
POWER OF LESS CAPACITY, ITS SIDETRACKS SHORTER THAN IS CUSTOMARY ON
TRUNK LINES, AND ITS PASSENGER BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED IN THE SAME MANNER
AS THAT OF ANY INTERURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY.  THE PASSENGER BUSINESS,
HOWEVER, YIELDS BUT A MINOR PART (ABOUT 18.1 PER CENT.) OF THE TOTAL
REVENUES.  DURING THE FIVE YEARS FROM 1930 TO 1934, INCLUSIVE, THE
FREIGHT REVENUES AMOUNTED TO $2,021,724.57 AND THE REVENUES FROM
PASSENGERS, MAIL AND EXPRESS WERE $448,941.62.  THE RAILWAY IS
PREDOMINANTLY A CARRIER OF FREIGHT.  THE FREIGHT TRAFFIC CONSISTS TO A
LARGE EXTENT OF RAW PRODUCTS SUCH AS SUGAR BEETS, MILK, TOMATOES AND
PEAS MOVING TO FACTORIES, CANNERIES OR PROCESSING PLANTS, AND OF THE
MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS MOVING OUTBOUND FROM THE PLANTS TO CONNECTING
RAILROADS.  A CONSIDERABLE PART OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE RAW PRODUCTS
REQUIRES SPECIAL SERVICE WITH ONE-CAR OR TWO-CAR TRAINS.  A DAILY
PACKAGE-MERCHANDISE TRAIN IS MAINTAINED, WITH FACILITIES FOR
REFRIGERATION IN SUMMER AND HEATING IN WINTER AND WITH PICK-UP AND
DELIVERY SERVICE AT ALL AVAILABLE POINTS.  IN 1934 THE FREIGHT TRAINS
AVERAGED 6.2 CARS EACH.  IN THE LAST HALF OF THAT YEAR THE CARRIER
HANDLED 6,354 CARLOADS OF FREIGHT OF WHICH 2,226 WERE LOCAL AND 4,017
WERE INTERCHANGED WITH OTHER CARRIERS.  THE TRAFFIC ORIGINATING ON ITS
LINE MOVED TO POINTS IN 31 STATES AND THAT DELIVERED BY IT WAS FROM
POINTS IN 26 STATES.  RESPONDENT IS A PARTY TO PRACTICALLY ALL THE
TARIFFS PUBLISHING THROUGH RATES TO OR FROM THIS TERRITORY AND ITS
INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC GENERALLY MOVES ON JOINT RATES.  IT DOES NOT
PERFORM INTERMEDIATE SERVICE BETWEEN OTHER LINES.  PRACTICALLY ALL THE
INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC IS HANDLED IN STANDARD EQUIPMENT FURNISHED BY
CONNECTING RAILROADS. 

IT CANNOT BE SAID UPON THIS EVIDENCE, AND THE RELATED FACTS
SUMMARIZED IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT, THAT THE COMMISSION'S
DETERMINATION LACKED SUPPORT OR WAS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.  NOR IS
THERE GROUND FOR HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION IN REACHING ITS
DETERMINATION DEPARTED FROM APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF LAW.  THERE IS NO
PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH REQUIRED SUCH A CARRIER TO BE CLASSIFIED AS AN
INTERURBAN RAILWAY.  FAILING IN ITS EFFORT TO OBTAIN A CLARIFYING
DEFINITION FROM CONGRESS, THE COMMISSION PERFORMED ITS DUTY IN WEIGHING
THE EVIDENCE AND REACHING ITS CONCLUSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOMINANT
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENT'S OPERATIONS WHICH WERE FAIRLY COMPARABLE
TO THOSE OF STANDARD STEAM RAILROADS.  COMPARE PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY.
CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, SUPRA, PP. 308-310; UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO NORTH SHORE & M.R. CO., SUPRA, P. 10. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING A TRIAL DE
NOVO OF THAT ISSUE AND THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION WAS
WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY VALIDLY EXERCISED.  THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTION TO DISMISS THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  48 STAT. 1185; 45 U.S.C. 151 

FN2  45 U.S.C. 152, EIGHTH. 

FN3  45 U.S.C. 152, TENTH. 

FN4  ANNUAL REPORTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 1921, P. 21;
1923, P. 70; 1924, P. 78; 1925, P. 72; 1928, P. 83; 1929, P. 80; TO
WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO NORTH SHORE & M.R.
CO., 288 U.S. 1, 11, 12. 

FN5  SEE TEXAS ELECTRIC RAILWAY, 208 I.C.C. 193; CHICAGO SOUTH SHORE
& SOUTH BEND RAILROAD, 214 I.C.C. 167; UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL RAILROAD CO.,
214 I.C.C. 707. 

FN6  38 STAT. 208, 219, 220; 28 U.S.C. 41, 46, 47. 

FN7  COMPARE GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 172,
180; BUTTE, ANACONDA & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 127. 

FN8  49 STAT. 449, SEC. 2(2). 

FN9  50 STAT. 307. 

FN10  50 STAT. 435. 

FN11  52 STAT. 1094.  SEE, ALSO, THE PROVISION OF SEC. 9(A) OF THE
CARRIERS TAXING ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 439, WITH RESPECT TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE TERM "EMPLOYMENT" AS DEFINED IN TITLE VIII OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, SEC. 811(B). 

FN12  TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548;
VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515. 

FN13  OHIO VALLEY WATER CO. V. BEN AVON BOROUGH, 253 U.S. 287, 289;
PRENDERGAST V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., 262 U.S. 43, 50; BLUEFIELD WATER
WORKS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S. 679, 689; TAGG BROS. &
MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420, 443, 444; PHILLIPS V.
COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 600; CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 60;
STATE CORPORATION COMM'N V. WICHITA GAS CO., 290 U.S. 561, 569. 

FN14  SEE UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO NORTH SHORE & M.R. CO., 288 U.S.
1, 13, 14. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :











LYETH V. HOEY, 305 U.S. 188 


NO. 48.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - 96
F.2D 141, REVERSED - 20 F.SUPP.  619, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PROPERTY RECEIVED BY AN HEIR UNDER AN AGREEMENT COMPROMISING AND
SETTLING HIS CONTEST OF THE DECEDENT'S WILL, IS PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY
"INHERITANCE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 22(B)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932, WHICH EXEMPTS THE VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY FROM THE INCOME TAX. 
P. 191. 

2.  THIS QUESTION IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL LAW, BUT IS A
FEDERAL QUESTION, IN DECIDING WHICH THE LANGUAGE OF THE REVENUE LAW
SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO GIVE UNIFORM APPLICATION TO A NATIONWIDE
SCHEME OF TAXATION.  P. 193. 

CONGRESS ESTABLISHES ITS OWN CRITERIA AND THE STATE LAW MAY CONTROL
ONLY WHEN THE FEDERAL TAXING ACT BY EXPRESS LANGUAGE OR NECESSARY
IMPLICATION MAKES ITS OPERATION DEPENDENT UPON STATE LAW. 

3.  THE CLAIMANT IN THIS CASE WAS CONCEDEDLY AN HEIR CONTESTING THE
WILL.  THE DECREE OF PROBATE ADMITTING THE WILL ALSO REQUIRED THAT THE
ESTATE BE DISTRIBUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.  IN
SO FAR AS IT PROVIDED FOR DISTRIBUTION TO HEIRS THE AGREEMENT OVERRODE
THE WILL.  THE PORTION SO OBTAINED BY THE CLAIMANT CAME NOT THROUGH THE
WILL, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS HEIRSHIP.  THE FACT THAT HE RECEIVED LESS THAN
THE AMOUNT OF HIS CLAIM DID NOT ALTER ITS NATURE OR THE QUALITY OF ITS
RECOGNITION THROUGH THE DISTRIBUTION WHICH HE DID RECEIVE.  WHAT HE GOT
FROM THE ESTATE CAME TO HIM BECAUSE HE WAS HEIR, THE COMPROMISE SERVING
TO REMOVE PRO TANTO THE IMPEDIMENT TO HIS INHERITANCE.  P. 195. 

LYETH V. HOEY, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 557, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED FROM THE RESPONDENT TAX COLLECTOR FOR MONEY COLLECTED BY HIM
FROM THE PETITIONER AS AN INCOME TAX. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER PROPERTY RECEIVED BY PETITIONER
FROM THE ESTATE OF A DECEDENT IN COMPROMISE OF HIS CLAIM AS AN HEIR IS
TAXABLE AS INCOME UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932. 

PETITIONER IS A GRANDSON OF MARY B. LONGYEAR WHO DIED IN 1931, A
RESIDENT OF MASSACHUSETTS, LEAVING AS HER HEIRS FOUR SURVIVING CHILDREN
AND THE PETITIONER AND HIS BROTHER, WHO WERE SONS OF A DECEASED
DAUGHTER.  BY HER WILL, THE DECEDENT GAVE TO HER HEIRS CERTAIN SMALL
LEGACIES AND THE ENTIRE RESIDUARY ESTATE, AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN
$3,000,000, WAS BEQUEATHED TO TRUSTEES OF A SO-CALLED ENDOWMENT TRUST,
CREATED APRIL 5, 1926, THE INCOME FROM WHICH WAS PAYABLE TO ANOTHER SET
OF TRUSTEES UNDER ANOTHER TRUST DESCRIBED AS THE LONGYEAR FOUNDATION. 
THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE LATTER TRUST WAS TO PRESERVE "THE RECORDS OF
THE EARTHLY LIFE OF MARY BAKER EDDY," THE FOUNDER OF THE CHRISTIAN
SCIENCE RELIGION. 

WHEN THE WILL WAS OFFERED FOR PROBATE IN MASSACHUSETTS THERE WAS
OBJECTION BY THE HEIRS UPON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, OF LACK OF
TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND UNDUE INFLUENCE.  AFTER HEARING, AT WHICH A
STATEMENT WAS MADE BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES OF THEIR PROPOSED
EVIDENCE, THE PROBATE COURT GRANTED A MOTION FOR THE FRAMING OF ISSUES
FOR TRIAL BEFORE A JURY.  IN THAT SITUATION A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT WAS
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE HEIRS, THE LEGATEES, THE DEVISEES AND THE
EXECUTORS UNDER THE WILL, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
THIS AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE WILL SHOULD BE ADMITTED TO PROBATE AND
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY ISSUED; THAT THE SPECIFIC AND PECUNIARY BEQUESTS
TO INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE ENFORCED; THAT THE BEQUEST OF THE RESIDUARY
ESTATE TO THE ENDOWMENT TRUST SHOULD BE DISREGARDED; THAT $200,000
SHOULD BE PAID TO THE HEIRS AND A LIKE AMOUNT TO THE ENDOWMENT TRUST,
AND THAT THE NET RESIDUE OF THE ESTATE, AS DEFINED, SHOULD BE EQUALLY
DIVIDED BETWEEN THE TRUSTEES OF THE ENDOWMENT TRUST AND THE HEIRS.  THE
NET RESIDUE TO WHICH THE HEIRS WERE THUS ENTITLED WAS TO BE PAYABLE IN
UNITS OF STOCK OWNED BY THE DECEDENT IN CERTAIN CORPORATIONS, LONGYEAR
ESTATE, INC., LONGYEAR CORPORATION AND LONGYEAR REALTY CORPORATION, AND
FOR THAT PURPOSE A UNIT WAS TO CONSIST OF THREE SHARES, ONE SHARE OF
EACH CORPORATION. 

THE COMPROMISE WAS APPROVED BY THE PROBATE COURT PURSUANT TO A
STATUTE OF MASSACHUSETTS (MASS. GEN. LAWS 1932, C. 204, SECS. 15-17)
AND A DECREE WAS ENTERED ON APRIL 26, 1932, ADMITTING THE WILL TO
PROBATE, ISSUING LETTERS TESTAMENTARY TO THE EXECUTORS AND DIRECTING
THEM "TO ADMINISTER THE ESTATE OF SAID DECEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TERMS OF SAID WILL AND SAID AGREEMENT OF COMPROMISE."  OWING TO THE
DEPRESSION AND THE NECESSITY OF DISCHARGING PECUNIARY LEGACIES
AMOUNTING TO ABOUT $300,000, WHICH WERE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY IN PAYMENT
BEFORE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESIDUE, THE HEIRS UNDERTOOK TO FINANCE ONE
HALF OF THESE LEGACIES AND THE RESIDUARY LEGATEES THE OTHER ONE-HALF. 
FOR THIS PURPOSE THE HEIRS FORMED A CORPORATION KNOWN AS LONGYEAR
HEIRS, INC., TO WHICH THEY ASSIGNED THEIR INTERESTS IN THE ESTATE IN
EXCHANGE FOR COMMON STOCK.  PREFERRED STOCK WAS ISSUED TO THE PECUNIARY
LEGATEES. 

IN JULY, 1933, THE EXECUTORS DISTRIBUTED TO LONGYEAR HEIRS, INC., AS
ASSIGNEE OF THE PETITIONER, HIS DISTRIBUTABLE SHARE OF THE ESTATE
CONSISTING OF $80.17 IN CASH AND A CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT FOR 358
UNITS, EACH UNIT REPRESENTING ONE SHARE OF EACH OF THE THREE
CORPORATIONS MENTIONED IN THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.  THE COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE VALUED THIS DISTRIBUTABLE SHARE AT $141,484.03 AND
TREATED THE WHOLE AMOUNT AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR 1933 IN WHICH IT WAS
RECEIVED.  AN ADDITIONAL TAX OF $56,389.65 WAS ASSESSED, WHICH
PETITIONER PAID IN OCTOBER, 1936, WITH INTEREST.  CLAIM FOR REFUND WAS
THEN FILED AND ON ITS REJECTION THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE
COLLECTOR. 

ON MOTION OF PETITIONER THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IN HIS FAVOR, 20 F.SUPP.  619, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED.  96 F.2D 141.  BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT IN MAGRUDER V. SEGEBADE,
94 F.2D 177, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERRULED THE CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER THAT THE
PROPERTY HE RECEIVED WAS WITHIN THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION (SEC. 22(B)(3)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932) AND, FURTHER, THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT
INCOME EITHER UNDER THE STATUTE OR UNDER THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AS THE VIEW OF THE COURT OF APPEALS UPON THESE
QUESTIONS DETERMINED THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, IT WAS FOUND
UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES SET UP BY THE
ANSWER OF THE RESPONDENT AND THESE DEFENSES ARE NOT PRESSED IN THIS
COURT. 

FIRST.  BY SEC. 22(B)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, THERE IS
EXEMPTED FROM THE INCOME TAX - 

"THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY GIFT, BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR
INHERITANCE.  ...  " 

WHETHER PROPERTY RECEIVED BY AN HEIR FROM THE ESTATE OF HIS ANCESTOR
IS ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE, WHEN IT IS DISTRIBUTED UNDER AN AGREEMENT
SETTLING A CONTEST BY THE HEIR OF THE VALIDITY OF THE DECEDENT'S WILL,
IS A QUESTION UPON WHICH STATE COURTS HAVE DIFFERED.  THE QUESTION HAS
ARISEN IN THE APPLICATION OF STATE LAWS OF TAXATION.  IN MASSACHUSETTS,
THE RULE IS THAT WHEN A WILL IS ADMITTED TO PROBATE UNDER A COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT, THE STATE SUCCESSION TAX IS APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY "THAT
PASSES BY THE TERMS OF THE WILL AS WRITTEN AND NOT AS CHANGED BY ANY
AGREEMENT FOR COMPROMISE."  BAXTER V. TREASURER, 209 MASS. 459, 463; 95
N.E. 854, 856.  ALTHOUGH UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE RELATING TO
COMPROMISE  FN1  IT IS THE PRACTICE TO INSERT A CLAUSE IN THE COURT'S
DECREE THAT THE ESTATE IS TO BE ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
AGREEMENT, "YET THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES SO FAR AS THEY REST UPON THE
AGREEMENT ARE CONTRACTUAL AND NOT TESTAMENTARY."  ELLIS V. HUNT, 228
MASS. 39, 43; 116 N.E. 956.  SEE, ALSO, BRANDEIS V. ATKINS, 204 MASS.
471, 474; 90 N.E. 861; COPELAND V. WHEELWRIGHT, 230 MASS. 131, 136; 119
N.E. 667.  THUS, WHEN A CONTEST WAS WITHDRAWN UNDER A COMPROMISE AND
THE RESIDUARY ESTATE WAS DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN THE LEGATEE AND THE
HEIRS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE TAX WAS PROPERLY LEVIED UPON THE ENTIRE
RESIDUARY LEGACY AND THAT THE ADMINISTRATORS WITH THE WILL ANNEXED HAD
NO RIGHT TO PAY OUT OF THE SHARE TRANSFERRED TO THE HEIRS ONE-HALF OF
THE TAX THUS COLLECTIBLE FROM THE LEGATEE UNLESS THE COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY SO PROVIDED.  BROWN V. MCLOUGHLIN, 287
MASS. 15, 17; 190 N.E. 795.  SEVERAL STATES HAVE A SIMILAR RULE.  FN2
IN OTHER STATES THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY AN HEIR UNDER AN AGREEMENT
COMPROMISING A CONTEST OF HIS ANCESTOR'S WILL IS CONSIDERED TO BE
RECEIVED BY VIRTUE OF HIS HEIRSHIP AND IS SUBJECT TO AN INHERITANCE TAX
UNLESS THE STATUTE EXEMPTS HIM.  FN3 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS APPLIED THE MASSACHUSETTS
RULE, HOLDING THAT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF
INHERITANCE DEPENDED "UPON THE LAW OF THE JURISDICTION UNDER WHICH THIS
TAXPAYER RECEIVED IT."  WE THINK THAT THIS RULING WAS ERRONEOUS.  THE
QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXEMPTION IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE
IS NOT DETERMINED BY LOCAL LAW.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE
PECULIARITIES AND SPECIAL INCIDENCES OF STATE TAXES OR WITH THE
POLICIES THEY REFLECT.  UNDOUBTEDLY THE STATE LAW DETERMINES WHAT
PERSONS ARE QUALIFIED TO INHERIT PROPERTY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION. 
MAGER V. GRIMA, 8 HOW.  490, 493; MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250 U.S. 525, 536,
537.  THE LOCAL LAW DETERMINES THE RIGHT TO MAKE A TESTAMENTARY
DISPOSITION OF SUCH PROPERTY AND THE CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL TO THE
VALIDITY OF WILLS, AND THE STATE COURTS SETTLE THEIR CONSTRUCTION. 
UTERHART V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 598, 603.  THE STATE ESTABLISHES
THE PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE PROBATE OF WILLS AND THE PROCESSES OF
ADMINISTRATION.  PETITIONER'S STATUS AS HEIR WAS THUS DETERMINED BY THE
LAW OF MASSACHUSETTS.  THAT LAW ALSO REGULATED THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH
HIS RIGHTS AS AN HEIR COULD BE VINDICATED.  THE STATE LAW AUTHORIZED
ITS COURTS TO SUPERVISE THE MAKING OF AGREEMENTS COMPROMISING CONTESTS
BY HEIRS OF THE VALIDITY OF AN ALLEGED WILL OF THEIR ANCESTOR, IN ORDER
THAT SUCH COMPROMISES SHALL BE JUST AND REASONABLE WITH RESPECT TO ALL
PERSONS IN INTEREST.  FN4  BUT WHEN THE CONTESTANT IS AN HEIR AND A
VALID COMPROMISE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND THERE IS A DISTRIBUTION TO
THE HEIR FROM THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE ACCORDINGLY, THE QUESTION WHETHER
WHAT THE HEIR HAS THUS RECEIVED HAS BEEN "ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE NECESSARILY IS A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  IT IS NOT DETERMINED BY LOCAL CHARACTERIZATION. 

IN DEALING WITH THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS
ENACTED IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO
TAX INCOME AND TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS FROM THAT TAX, IT IS THE WILL OF
CONGRESS WHICH CONTROLS, AND THE EXPRESSION OF ITS WILL, IN THE ABSENCE
OF LANGUAGE EVIDENCING A DIFFERENT PURPOSE, SHOULD BE INTERPRETED "SO
AS TO GIVE A UNIFORM APPLICATION TO A NATIONWIDE SCHEME OF TAXATION." 
BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110.  CONGRESS ESTABLISHES ITS OWN
CRITERIA AND THE STATE LAW MAY CONTROL ONLY WHEN THE FEDERAL TAXING ACT
BY EXPRESS LANGUAGE OR NECESSARY IMPLICATION MAKES ITS OPERATION
DEPENDENT UPON STATE LAW.  BURNET V. HARMEL, SUPRA.  SEE BURK-WAGGONER
OIL ASSN. V. HOPKINS, 269 U.S. 110, 111, 114; WEISS V. WIENER, 279 U.S.
333, 337; MORRISSEY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344, 356.  COMPARE CROOKS
V. HARRELSON, 282 U.S. 55, 59; POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101, 109, 110;
BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 9, 10.  THERE IS NO SUCH EXPRESSION
OR NECESSARY IMPLICATION IN THIS INSTANCE.  WHETHER WHAT AN HEIR
RECEIVES FROM THE ESTATE OF HIS ANCESTOR THROUGH THE COMPROMISE OF HIS
CONTEST OF HIS ANCESTOR'S WILL SHOULD BE REGARDED AS WITHIN THE
EXEMPTION FROM THE FEDERAL TAX SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED IN ONE WAY IN THE
CASE OF AN HEIR IN PENNSYLVANIA OR MINNESOTA AND IN ANOTHER WAY IN THE
CASE OF AN HEIR IN MASSACHUSETTS OR NEW YORK,  FN5  ACCORDING TO THE
DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE STATE COURTS.  WE THINK THAT IT WAS THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS IN ESTABLISHING THIS EXEMPTION TO PROVIDE A
UNIFORM RULE. 

SECOND.  IN EXEMPTING FROM THE INCOME TAX THE VALUE OF PROPERTY
ACQUIRED BY "BEQUEST, DEVISE, OR INHERITANCE," CONGRESS USED
COMPREHENSIVE TERMS EMBRACING ALL ACQUISITIONS IN THE DEVOLUTION OF A
DECEDENT'S ESTATE.  FOR THE WORD "DESCENT," AS USED IN THE EARLIER
ACTS,  FN6  CONGRESS SUBSTITUTED THE WORD "INHERITANCE" IN THE 1926 ACT
AND THE SUBSEQUENT REVENUE ACTS AS "MORE APPROPRIATELY INCLUDING BOTH
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY."  FN7  THUS THE ACQUISITION BY SUCCESSION
TO A DECEDENT'S ESTATE WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL WAS EMBRACED IN THE
EXEMPTION.  FURTHER, BY THE "ESTATE TAX," CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED A TAX
UPON THE TRANSFER OF THE ENTIRE NET ESTATE OF EVERY PERSON DYING AFTER
SEPTEMBER 8, 1916,  FN8  ALLOWING SUCH EXEMPTIONS AS IT SEES FIT IN
ARRIVING AT THE NET ESTATE.  CONGRESS HAS NOT INDICATED ANY INTENTION
TO TAX AGAIN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH LEGATEES, DEVISEES OR
HEIRS RECEIVE FROM THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE. 

PETITIONER WAS CONCEDEDLY AN HEIR OF HIS GRANDMOTHER UNDER THE
MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE.  IT WAS BY VIRTUE OF THAT HEIRSHIP THAT HE
OPPOSED PROBATE OF HER ALLEGED WILL WHICH CONSTITUTED AN OBSTACLE TO
THE ENFORCEMENT OF HIS RIGHT.  SAVE AS HEIR HE HAD NO STANDING. 
SEEKING TO REMOVE THAT OBSTACLE, HE ASSERTED THAT THE WILL WAS INVALID
BECAUSE OF WANT OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY AND UNDUE INFLUENCE.  IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL PRACTICE, HE ASKED THE PROBATE COURT TO FRAME
THESE ISSUES FOR A JURY TRIAL.  IT THEN BECAME NECESSARY FOR HIM TO
SATISFY THE COURT THAT THE ISSUES WERE SUBSTANTIAL.  ISSUES ARE NOT TO
BE FRAMED UNLESS IT APPEARS FROM STATEMENTS BY COUNSEL OF EXPECTED
EVIDENCE OR OTHERWISE THAT THERE IS A "GENUINE QUESTION OF FACT
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE OF SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL NATURE AS TO AFFORD GROUND
FOR REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF A RESULT FAVORABLE TO THE PARTY
REQUESTING THE FRAMING OF ISSUES."  BRIGGS V. WESTON, - MASS. -; 2
N.E.2D 466; SMITH V. PATTERSON, 286 MASS. 356; 190 N.E. 536. 
PETITIONER SATISFIED THAT CONDITION AND THE PROBATE COURT DIRECTED THE
FRAMING OF JURY ISSUES.  IT WAS IN THAT SITUATION, FACING A TRIAL OF
THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL, THAT THE COMPROMISE WAS MADE BY
WHICH THE HEIRS, INCLUDING THE PETITIONER, WERE TO RECEIVE CERTAIN
PORTIONS OF THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT PETITIONER OBTAINED THAT PORTION, UPON THE
VALUE OF WHICH HE IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED, BECAUSE OF HIS STANDING AS AN
HEIR AND OF HIS CLAIM IN THAT CAPACITY.  IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE
QUESTIONED THAT IF THE CONTEST HAD BEEN FOUGHT TO A FINISH AND
PETITIONER HAD SUCCEEDED, THE PROPERTY WHICH HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED
WOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPT UNDER THE FEDERAL ACT.  NOR IS IT QUESTIONED
THAT IF IN ANY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING, INSTITUTED BY HIM AS HEIR, HE
HAD RECOVERED JUDGMENT FOR A PART OF THE ESTATE, THAT PART WOULD HAVE
BEEN ACQUIRED BY INHERITANCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  WE THINK
THAT THE DISTINCTION SOUGHT TO BE MADE BETWEEN ACQUISITION THROUGH SUCH
A JUDGMENT AND ACQUISITION BY A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT IN LIEU OF SUCH A
JUDGMENT IS TOO FORMAL TO BE SOUND, AS IT DISREGARDS THE SUBSTANCE OF
THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION.  IT DOES SO, BECAUSE IT DISREGARDS THE
HEIRSHIP WHICH UNDERLAY THE COMPROMISE, THE STATUS WHICH COMMANDED THAT
AGREEMENT AND WAS RECOGNIZED BY IT.  WHILE THE WILL WAS ADMITTED TO
PROBATE, THE DECREE ALSO REQUIRED THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPROMISE AND, SO FAR AS THE LATTER PROVIDED FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO THE HEIRS, IT OVERRODE THE WILL.  SO FAR AS THE WILL
BECAME EFFECTIVE UNDER THE AGREEMENT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE HEIRS'
CONSENT AND RELEASE AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE DISTRIBUTION THEY
RECEIVED BY REASON OF THEIR BEING HEIRS.  RESPONDENT AGREES THAT THE
WORD "INHERITANCE" AS USED IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE IS NOT SOLELY
APPLICABLE TO CASES OF COMPLETE INTESTACY.  THE PORTION OF THE
DECEDENT'S PROPERTY WHICH PETITIONER OBTAINED UNDER THE COMPROMISE DID
NOT COME TO HIM THROUGH THE TESTATOR'S WILL.  THAT PORTION HE OBTAINED
BECAUSE OF HIS HEIRSHIP AND TO THAT EXTENT HE TOOK IN SPITE OF THE WILL
AND AS IN CASE OF INTESTACY.  THE FACT THAT PETITIONER RECEIVED LESS
THAN THE AMOUNT OF HIS CLAIM DID NOT ALTER ITS NATURE OR THE QUALITY OF
ITS RECOGNITION THROUGH THE DISTRIBUTION WHICH HE DID RECEIVE. 

WE ARE NOT CONVINCED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT PETITIONER HAD BUT "THE
EXPECTATIONS" OF AN HEIR AND REALIZED ON A "BARGAINING POSITION."  HE
WAS HEIR IN FACT.  WHETHER HE WOULD RECEIVE ANY PROPERTY IN THAT
CAPACITY DEPENDED UPON THE VALIDITY OF HIS ANCESTOR'S WILL AND THE
EXTENT TO WHICH IT WOULD DISPOSE OF HIS ANCESTOR'S ESTATE.  WHEN, BY
COMPROMISE AND THE DECREE ENFORCING IT, THAT DISPOSITION WAS LIMITED,
WHAT HE GOT FROM THE ESTATE CAME TO HIM BECAUSE HE WAS HEIR, THE
COMPROMISE SERVING TO REMOVE PRO TANTO THE IMPEDIMENT TO HIS
INHERITANCE.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXEMPTION APPLIES. 

IN THIS VIEW WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE OTHER QUESTIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT THE BAR. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS 1932, CHAP. 204, SECS. 13-18. 

FN2  SEE MATTER OF COOK, 187 N.Y. 253; 79 N.E. 991; ENGLISH V.
CRENSHAW, 120 TENN. 531; 110 S.W. 210; ESTATE OF WELLS, 142 IOWA 255;
120 N.W. 713; ESTATE OF GRAVES, 242 ILL. 212; 89 N.E. 978; ESTATE OF
ROSSI, 169 CAL. 148; 146 P. 430; COCHRAN'S EXECUTOR V. COMMONWEALTH,
241 KY. 656; 44 S.W.2D 603; MACKENZIE V. WRIGHT, 31 ARIZ. 272; 252 P.
521; IN RE O'NEILL, 111 N.J. EQ. 378; 162 A. 425; LYNCHBURG BANK V.
COMMONWEALTH, 162 VA. 73; 173 S.E. 548. 

FN3  SEE PEPPER'S ESTATE, 159 PA. 508; 28 A. 353; TABER'S ESTATE, 257
PA. 81; 101 A. 311; TAYLOR V. GEORGIA, 40 GA. APP. 295; 149 S.E. 321;
PEOPLE V. RICE, 40 COLO. 508; 91 P. 33; STATE EX REL. HILTON V. PROBATE
COURT, 143 MINN. 77; 172 N.W. 902; ESTATE OF THORSON, 150 MINN. 464;
185 N.W. 508.  COMPARE BARBER V. WESTCOTT, 21 R.I. 355; 43 A. 844. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 1.  SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE "ENTIRELY VALID OUTSIDE OF THE
STATUTE."  ELLIS V. HUNT, 228 MASS. 39, 44; 116 N.E. 956. 

FN5  SEE NOTES 2 AND 3. 

FN6 SEE ACT OF OCTOBER 3, 1913, C. 16, SEC. II, 38 STAT. 167; REVENUE
ACTS OF 1918, 1921 AND 1924, SEC. 213(B)(3). 

FN7  REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC. 213(B)(3); ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932, SEC.
22(B)(3).  SE. REP. NO. 52, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 20. 

FN8 ACT OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1916, C. 463, TITLE II, 39 STAT. 777. 
..END :



















EDISON CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 305 U.S. 197 


NO. 19.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 17, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - 95
F.2D 390, AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. 


1.  THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, EXTEND TO THE LABOR RELATIONS OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES ENGAGED IN SUPPLYING ELECTRICAL ENERGY, GAS AND STEAM, WHERE
THE BUSINESS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE UTILITIES ARE WHOLLY WITHIN A STATE,
AND WHERE THE QUANTUM OF SERVICE RENDERED TO CUSTOMERS FOR STRICTLY
INTRASTATE USES IS VAST AND GREATLY PREPONDERANT, BUT WHERE,
NEVERTHELESS, A PART OF THAT SERVICE, OF MUCH IMPORTANCE IN ITSELF, IS
TO RAILROADS, STEAMSHIPS, TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, ETC., ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND WHERE THAT COMMERCE WOULD BE
SERIOUSLY AFFECTED IF SUCH SERVICE WERE CUT OFF BY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE
BETWEEN THE UTILITIES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES RESULTING FROM UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES.  P. 219. 

PETITIONERS, AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, ARE ENGAGED IN
SUPPLYING ELECTRIC ENERGY, GAS AND STEAM (AND CERTAIN BYPRODUCTS)
WITHIN NEW YORK CITY AND ADJACENT WESTCHESTER COUNTY.  THEY SERVE OVER
3,500,000 CUSTOMERS WITH ELECTRICITY AND GAS, LARGELY FOR RESIDENTIAL
AND DOMESTIC PURPOSES.  IN 1936 THEY SUPPLIED ABOUT 97.5 PER CENT. OF
THE TOTAL ELECTRIC ENERGY SOLD IN THE CITY AND ABOUT 100 PER CENT. OF
THAT SOLD IN THE COUNTY.  THEY DO NOT SELL FOR RESALE WITHOUT THE
STATE.  THEY HAVE ABOUT 42,000 EMPLOYEES, THEIR TOTAL PAYROLLS IN 1936,
WITH RETIREMENT ANNUITIES AND SEPARATION ALLOWANCES, AMOUNTING TO
NEARLY $82,000,000.  THERE IS ALSO IMPRESSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE
DEPENDENCE OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE UPON THE CONTINUITY OF
THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONING COMPANIES.  UPON THAT SERVICE DEPEND:
THREE RAILROAD COMPANIES FOR THE LIGHTING AND OPERATION OF PASSENGER
AND FREIGHT TERMINALS, AND FOR THE MOVEMENT OF INTERSTATE TRAINS; THE
PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY FOR THE OPERATION OF ITS TERMINAL AND A
TUNNEL BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY; A MAJORITY OF THE PIERS OF
TRANSATLANTIC AND COASTWISE STEAMSHIP COMPANIES ALONG THE NORTH AND
EAST RIVERS, WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, FOR LIGHTING, FREIGHT
HANDLING AND RELATED USES; TWO TELEGRAPH COMPANIES AND A TELEPHONE
COMPANY FOR POWER FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING MESSAGES, LOCAL AND
INTERSTATE; ALSO A TRANSATLANTIC RADIO SERVICE; AN AIRPORT; AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FOR OPERATION OF LIGHTHOUSES, BEACONS AND HARBOR
LIGHTS, AND FOR LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER IN VARIOUS FEDERAL BUILDINGS IN
NEW YORK CITY.  IN PASSING UPON THE STATUS OF THESE PETITIONERS WITH
RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL POWER OF REGULATION, THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER
SUPPLIES OF OIL, COAL, ETC., ALTHOUGH VERY LARGE, WHICH COME FROM
WITHOUT THE STATE AND ARE CONSUMED IN THE GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AND GAS. 

2.  THE CRITERION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO SUPPRESS
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, IS THE
INJURIOUS EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, RATHER THAN THE
SOURCE OF THE INJURY.  P. 222. 

3.  WHETHER OR NOT PARTICULAR ACTION IN THE CONDUCT OF INTRASTATE
ENTERPRISES AFFECTS INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN SUCH A CLOSE AND
INTIMATE FASHION AS TO BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL, DEPENDS UPON THE
PARTICULAR CASE.  P. 222. 

4.  THE FACT THAT A STATE HAS THE POWER, AND HAS ENACTED A STATUTE,
TO REGULATE THE LABOR RELATIONS OF INTRASTATE ENTERPRISES IN ORDER TO
PREVENT INTERRUPTION OF THEIR SERVICES THROUGH INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES CAN
NOT AFFECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
REGULATE THOSE RELATIONS, IN ORDER TO PROTECT INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE FROM THE INJURY DUE TO SUCH INTERRUPTION.  P. 222. 

5.  BUT WHERE, IN SUCH CASES, THE AUTHORITY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD IS INVOKED TO PROTECT INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
FROM INTERFERENCE OR INJURY ARISING FROM THE EMPLOYERS' INTRASTATE
ACTIVITIES, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES DO
ACTUALLY THREATEN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN A SUBSTANTIAL
MANNER IS NECESSARILY PRESENTED.  AND IN DETERMINING THAT FACTUAL
QUESTION REGARD SHOULD BE HAD TO ALL THE EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES,
INCLUDING THE BEARING AND EFFECT OF ANY PROTECTIVE ACTION TO THE SAME
END ALREADY TAKEN UNDER STATE AUTHORITY.  THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER SHOULD CLEARLY APPEAR.  BUT THE QUESTION IN
SUCH A CASE WOULD RELATE NOT TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE FEDERAL POWER BUT
TO THE PROPRIETY OF ITS EXERCISE ON A GIVEN STATE OF FACTS.  P. 223. 

THE PRESENT PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN BEFORE THE NEW YORK LABOR RELATIONS
ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE, AND THERE WAS NO EXERTION OF STATE AUTHORITY
WHICH COULD BE TAKEN TO REMOVE THE NEED FOR THE EXERTION OF FEDERAL
AUTHORITY TO PROTECT INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE EXERCISE OF
THE FEDERAL POWER TO PROTECT INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM
INJURY DOES NOT DEPEND UPON A CLASH WITH STATE ACTION AND NEED NOT
AWAIT THE EXERCISE OF STATE AUTHORITY. 

6.  AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPLAINT IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,  - HELD DISCRETIONARY RULINGS AFFORDING NO
GROUND FOR CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE HEARING.  P. 224. 

7.  A REFUSAL BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO PERMIT THE
RESPONDENT EMPLOYERS TO ADDUCE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY, HIGHLY
IMPORTANT, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY,  - HELD
UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY.  P. 225. 

8.  WHERE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, IN ABUSE OF ITS
DISCRETION, REFUSES TO RECEIVE IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY WHICH
COULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY OF THE PROCEEDING, THE
INJURED PARTY HAS HIS REMEDY BY APPLICATION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, UPON REVIEW OF THE ORDER, FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE THE ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE, UNDER SEC. 10(E)(F) OF THE ACT.  P. 226. 

9.  AFTER THE TAKING OF THE EVIDENCE BY A TRIAL EXAMINER, IN A CASE
UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE EMPLOYERS FILED A BRIEF
WITH HIM.  SEVERAL WEEKS LATER THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE BOARD. 
THE EXAMINER MADE NO TENTATIVE REPORT OR FINDINGS, AND THERE WAS NO
OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD ITSELF BEFORE THE BOARD MADE
ITS DECISION.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE BOARD RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED
THE BRIEF.  P. 226. 

(2)  UNDER THE RULES OF THE BOARD, THE EMPLOYERS DESIRING AN ORAL
HEARING SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED IT, AFTER THE TRANSFER TO THE BOARD.  P.
228. 

(3)  THOUGH IT CAN NOT BE SAID ON THIS RECORD THAT THE BOARD DID NOT
CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OR THE PETITIONER'S BRIEF OR FAILED TO MAKE ITS
OWN FINDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF THAT EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN BETTER PRACTICE FOR THE BOARD TO HAVE DIRECTED THE EXAMINER TO
MAKE A TENTATIVE REPORT WITH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EXCEPTIONS AND ARGUMENT
THEREON.  P. 228. 

10.  IN PROVIDING THAT "THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE," THE ACT MEANS SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUCH EVIDENCE AS A REASONABLE MIND MIGHT ACCEPT
AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION.  P. 229. 

THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT "THE RULES OF EVIDENCE PREVAILING IN COURTS
OF LAW AND EQUITY SHALL NOT BE CONTROLLING."  THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF
THIS AND SIMILAR PROVISIONS IS TO FREE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS FROM THE
COMPULSION OF TECHNICAL RULES SO THAT THE MERE ADMISSION OF MATTER
WHICH WOULD BE DEEMED INCOMPETENT IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT
INVALIDATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.  BUT THIS ASSURANCE OF A DESIRABLE
FLEXIBILITY IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO
JUSTIFY ORDERS WITHOUT A BASIS IN EVIDENCE HAVING RATIONAL PROBATIVE
FORCE.  MERE UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OR RUMOR DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

11.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO BAR THE
RESUMPTION OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WHICH HAS LATELY BEEN
ABANDONED.  P. 230. 

THE COURT IS SATISFIED FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT THE ORDER
OF THE BOARD, IN SO FAR AS IT REQUIRED EMPLOYER COMPANIES TO DESIST
FROM CERTAIN DISCRIMINATING AND COERCIVE PRACTICES, AND TO REINSTATE
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES, WITH BACK PAY, AND TO POST NOTICES ASSURING FREEDOM
FROM DISCRIMINATION AND COERCION, RESTED UPON FINDINGS SUSTAINED BY THE
EVIDENCE AND THAT THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING THE
ORDER IN THESE RESPECTS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

12.  IN A PROCEEDING IN WHICH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FOUND EMPLOYER COMPANIES GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES VIOLATING
SEC. 8(1) AND (3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, BUT EXCULPATED
THEM FROM ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(2), WHICH MAKES IT AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE "TO DOMINATE OR INTERFERE WITH THE FORMATION OR
ADMINISTRATION OF ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION OR CONTRIBUTE FINANCIAL
SUPPORT TO IT," THE BOARD NEVERTHELESS ATTEMPTED, IN ITS ORDER, TO SET
ASIDE AGREEMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE, PENDING THE PROCEEDING, BETWEEN
THE COMPANIES AND A BROTHERHOOD OF WORKERS AND ITS LOCAL UNIONS, ALL
INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE COMPANIES' CONTROL.  THESE
AGREEMENTS STIPULATED THAT THE BROTHERHOOD SHOULD BE THE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGENCY OF THOSE OF THE COMPANIES' EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ITS
MEMBERS (COMPRISING 80% OF ALL THE COMPANIES' EMPLOYEES OUT OF 38,000
ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP), AND THAT THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS MEMBERS
WOULD NOT INTIMIDATE OR COERCE EMPLOYEES INTO MEMBERSHIP IN THE
BROTHERHOOD OR SOLICIT MEMBERSHIP ON THE TIME OR PROPERTY OF THE
EMPLOYERS.  THEY ALSO PROVIDED AGAINST STRIKES OR LOCKOUTS AND FOR THE
ADJUSTMENT AND ARBITRATION OF LABOR DISPUTES, THUS INSURING AGAINST THE
DISRUPTION OF THE SERVICE OF THE COMPANIES TO INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE THROUGH AN OUTBREAK OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE.  IT WAS CONCEDED
THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE FAIR TO BOTH EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  HELD THAT
SO MUCH OF THE BOARD'S ORDER, AS FORBADE THE COMPANIES TO GIVE EFFECT
TO SUCH AGREEMENTS, WAS BEYOND ITS AUTHORITY.  PP. 231, 238. 

(1)  THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS HAVING VALUABLE AND BENEFICIAL
INTERESTS IN THE CONTRACTS WERE ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND HEARING BEFORE
THEY COULD BE SET ASIDE.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 232. 

(2)  NOTICE OF THE COMPLAINT, IN WHICH THE LEGALITY OF THE
COMPANIES'"RELATIONS" WITH THE BROTHERHOOD WAS ATTACKED, BUT NOT THE
VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACTS, DID NOT PLACE THE UNIONS UNDER A DUTY TO
INTERVENE BEFORE THE BOARD IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THEIR INTERESTS IN THE
CONTRACTS.  P. 234. 

(3)  THE RULE THAT DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD BEFORE JUDGMENT IF DEFENSES MAY BE PRESENTED UPON APPEAL, ASSUMES
THAT THE APPELLATE REVIEW AFFORDS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ALL AVAILABLE
DEFENSES INCLUDING LACK OF PROPER NOTICE TO JUSTIFY THE JUDGMENT OR
ORDER COMPLAINED OF.  P. 234. 

(4)  THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACTS WAS NOT NECESSARILY IN ISSUE
BECAUSE OF THE CHARGES OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN THE BOARD'S
COMPLAINT; AND AMENDMENT OF THE COMPANIES' ANSWER, STATING THAT THE
CONTRACTS HAD MADE THE PROCEEDING MOOT, DID NOT PUT THEM IN ISSUE
BEFORE THE BOARD.  P. 234. 

(5)  THE ACT GIVES NO EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD TO INVALIDATE
CONTRACTS WITH INDEPENDENT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  THE AUTHORITY GRANTED
BY SEC. 10(C) TO REQUIRE THAT AN EMPLOYER GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES DESIST FROM SUCH PRACTICES, AND "TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY,
AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT," IS REMEDIAL, NOT
PUNITIVE, AND IS TO BE EXERCISED IN AID OF THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO
RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS AND AS A MEANS OF REMOVING OR AVOIDING THE
CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION WHERE THOSE CONSEQUENCES ARE OF A KIND TO
THWART THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.  P. 235. 

HERE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A FINDING THAT THE CONTRACTS WITH THE
BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS WERE A CONSEQUENCE OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES FOUND BY THE BOARD OR THAT THESE CONTRACTS IN THEMSELVES
THWART ANY POLICY OF THE ACT OR THAT THEIR CANCELLATION WOULD IN ANY
WAY MAKE THE ORDER TO CEASE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICES ANY MORE
EFFECTIVE. 

(6)  THE CONTRACTS WERE NOT INVALID BECAUSE MADE DURING THE PENDENCY
OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDING.  P. 237. 

THE EFFECT OF SUCH PENDENCY EXTENDS TO THE PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYERS
TO WHICH THE COMPLAINT WAS ADDRESSED.  IT DID NOT SUSPEND THE RIGHT OF
THE EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION OR PRECLUDE THE BROTHERHOOD AS AN
INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION CHOSEN BY ITS MEMBERS FROM MAKING FAIR
CONTRACTS ON THEIR BEHALF. 

(7)  THE CONTENTION OF THE BOARD THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE THE FRUIT OF
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYERS,  - "A DEVICE TO CONSUMMATE
AND PERPETUATE" THE COMPANIES' ILLEGAL CONDUCT, AND CONSTITUTED ITS
CULMINATION,  - IS REJECTED AS ENTIRELY TOO BROAD AND AS NOT WITHIN THE
COMPLAINT AND PROOF, BUT BASED ON MERE CONJECTURE.  P. 238. 

(8)  A PROVISION OF THE BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRING THE COMPANIES TO
CEASE RECOGNIZING THE BROTHERHOOD "AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THEIR EMPLOYEES," IS CONSTRUED AS MERELY PROVIDING THAT THERE SHALL BE
NO INTERFERENCE WITH AN EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENCY IF ONE OTHER THAN
THE BROTHERHOOD SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT, AND IS SUSTAINED AS MERELY AN APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW. 
P. 239.    CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 25, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL., ALSO ON WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 555, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENFORCING AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  SEE 4 N.L.R.B. 71.  THE CASE WAS
BEFORE THE COURT BELOW UPON A PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER, BROUGHT
BY THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK AND ITS AFFILIATES, AND
A LIKE PETITION BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
AND ITS LOCALS, WHICH INTERVENED IN THAT COURT, AND UPON THE BOARD'S
PETITION TO ENFORCE, SUPPORTED BY THE UNITED ELECTRICAL AND RADIO
WORKERS OF AMERICA WHICH ALSO INTERVENED IN THAT COURT. 

I. THE BOARD HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ITS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WAS
ESSENTIAL OR APPROPRIATE, OR THAT SUCH JURISDICTION HAS BEEN OR COULD
BE CONFERRED UPON THE BOARD UNDER EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
AND CONCEPTS. 

THE PETITIONERS' OPERATIONS, RELATIONS AND LABOR PRACTICES ARE
EXCLUSIVELY AND ENTIRELY INTRASTATE.  THEY ARE CARRIED ON WHOLLY WITHIN
A SINGLE STATE AND TRADITIONALLY SUBJECT TO PLENARY JURISDICTION OF THE
STATE; THEY ARE APPROPRIATELY REGULATED AND SUPERVISED AS LOCAL
CONCERNS AFFECTED WITH A LOCAL PUBLIC INTEREST.  BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER,
300 U.S. 352, 371; PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL
UTILITY DIST., 92 F.2D 365, 369; 303 U.S. 620; SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS
CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148, 154; MISSOURI V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS
CO., 265 U.S. 298. 

BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT AND IMMEDIACY OF THE FUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCE OF
NEW YORK CITY AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY AND THE MILLIONS OF THEIR
INHABITANTS UPON THE PETITIONERS' SERVICES, THE LOCAL INTEREST IN
PETITIONERS' UNINTERRUPTED SUPPLY OF THEIR SERVICES IS PREDOMINANT AND
PARAMOUNT.  PETITIONERS' OPERATIONS AND LABOR RELATIONS ARE
PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL RATHER THAN NATIONAL BECAUSE OF THE DIRECTNESS AND
IMMEDIACY OF THEIR RELATION TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT, AND
CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE AND DO
BUSINESS IN THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, AND BECAUSE OF THE
DEPENDENCE OF THAT CITY AND STATE THEREON IN EXERCISING THEIR POLICE
POWERS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND THE
PROTECTION OF THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THEIR INHABITANTS.  SUCH
NATIONAL INTEREST AS MAY ATTEND SUCH LOCAL OPERATIONS, RELATIONS AND
LABOR PRACTICES AND RELATE TO THE PREVENTION OR REMOVAL OF BURDENS OR
OBSTRUCTIONS TO "COMMERCE," IS ESSENTIALLY SUBORDINATE AND REQUIRES NO
SEPARATE IDENTIFICATION SO AS TO SERVE AS A BASIS FOR FEDERAL
REGULATION. 

IN VIEW OF THIS PARAMOUNT LOCAL INTEREST IN PETITIONERS' SERVICE AND
OPERATIONS, AND THE ALL-INCLUSIVE MEASURES IN EFFECT UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, INCLUDING THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT
APPLICABLE TO PETITIONERS, WHO ARE SUBJECT FULLY TO THE LAWS OF THE
STATE, THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY BY THE BOARD IS NOT "ESSENTIAL
OR APPROPRIATE," BUT DEFINITELY CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT. 
FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 211, 212; CF. PENNSYLVANIA V.
WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176; HOPKINS SAVINGS ASSN. V. CLEARY, 296 U.S. 315. 

THERE HAS BEEN NO BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTION OF COMMERCE BY ANY
INTERRUPTION OF PETITIONERS' SERVICES BECAUSE OF ANY LABOR CONTROVERSY;
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH INTERRUPTION IS LIKELY FROM SUCH A
CAUSE, OR THAT A LABOR CONTROVERSY INVOLVING PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES
WOULD BE LESS LIKELY UNDER THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, OR WOULD NOT BE AS
EFFECTIVELY DEALT WITH BY THE STATE BOARD, AND THERE IS NO FINDING OF
ANY INADEQUACY OF THE STATE JURISDICTION AND REGULATION OF THE
PETITIONERS' LABOR PRACTICES. 

THE VARIOUS RULINGS OF THIS COURT UNDER THE ACT ARE NOT DECISIVE OR
CONTROLLING HERE, BECAUSE IN THOSE CASES THE EMPLOYER WAS ITSELF
ENGAGED ACTIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS
WAS ORGANIZED AND CONDUCTED PREDOMINANTLY AS AN ENTERPRISE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BEYOND FULL CONTROL IN ALL ASPECTS BY A SINGLE
STATE, AND THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT, AS HERE, A LOCAL OPERATING PUBLIC
UTILITY AFFECTED PREDOMINANTLY WITH A LOCAL PUBLIC INTEREST AND ALREADY
SUBJECT TO PLENARY JURISDICTION BY THE STATE AND LOCALITY, INCLUDING
REGULATION AS TO ITS LABOR PRACTICES, AND WITH A STATE LABOR RELATIONS
ACT AND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN EXISTENCE AND FUNCTIONING. 

TO UPHOLD THE JURISDICTION ASSERTED HERE BY THE BOARD WOULD NOT ONLY
DISREGARD THE PLAIN ADMONITIONS IN THE DECISION OF NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 30; BUT
ALSO WOULD REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE RULING OF THIS COURT
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IN FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194,
211, 212, AND OTHER RECENT DECISIONS. 

JURISDICTION WAS NOT CONFERRED BECAUSE SOME OF THE PETITIONERS'
SUPPLIES ARE ACQUIRED BY OTHERS WHO BRING THEM INTO THE STATE OF NEW
YORK.  THE FACTS AS TO THE ORIGINS OF SUPPLIES USED BY PETITIONERS SHOW
THAT GAS-OIL IS DELIVERED TO ONLY ONE OF THE PETITIONERS; DELIVERY IS
MADE BY THE SELLER, WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW YORK; DELIVERY OF COAL TO
THE STORAGE YARDS AND STATIONS, ALL WITHIN THAT CITY OR IN YONKERS, IS
MADE BY INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISERS; NO EMPLOYEE OF THE PETITIONERS IS
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF ANY MATERIALS; SOME OF THE
SUPPLIES OTHER THAN COAL AND OIL ORIGINATE OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

PURCHASES ARE MADE ONLY FROM NON-AFFILIATED PRODUCERS OR DEALERS, AND
PURCHASES EXTRA-STATE ARE SHIPPED ONLY THROUGH INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
TRANSPORTATION WHICH ARE OWNED AND OPERATED BY INDEPENDENT CARRIERS. 
ALL PURCHASES ARE MADE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS COVERING THE PARTICULAR
TRANSACTION.  THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY MAY CHANGE, DEPENDING UPON MARKET
CONDITIONS, OR THE NEEDS OF PARTICULAR PETITIONERS.  REQUIREMENTS OF
PARTICULAR PETITIONERS ARE SUPPLIED FROM STORAGE; NO EMPLOYEE OF ANY
PETITIONER IS INVOLVED UNTIL THE SUPPLIES HAVE "COME TO REST" IN
STORAGE, AND ONLY AN INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IS INVOLVED
UNTIL THE SUPPLIES ARE MOVED INTO CONSUMPTION. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PETITIONERS MAKE ALL OF THEIR PURCHASES FOR
THEIR OWN CONSUMPTION EXCLUSIVELY.  THEY BUY NOTHING FOR RESALE IN
INTERSTATE MARKETS OR ELSEWHERE; THEY SELL THEIR BY-PRODUCTS ENTIRELY
WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND CREDIT THE PROCEEDS AGAINST THEIR
PRODUCTION COSTS. 

THE CONTROLLING FACT HERE, AS IN SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 554, IS THAT, ALTHOUGH COAL, OIL AND OTHER
MATERIALS ORIGINATE OUTSIDE THE STATE, THE USE OF SUCH MATERIALS IS
ESSENTIALLY AND ONLY LOCAL AND INTRA-STATE.  THE INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION THAT PRECEDES LOCAL MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION CAN NOT
BE ISOLATED TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE LOCAL USE FOR WHICH THE MATERIALS
ARE INTENDED.  SINCE THIS USE IS LOCAL IN ITS IMMEDIACY, IT COUNTERACTS
AND OUTWEIGHS THE FACT THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE AN INTERSTATE ORIGIN;
OTHERWISE, EVERY INTRASTATE TRANSACTION WHICH INVOLVED INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION BY OTHERS WOULD COME WITHIN FEDERAL CONTROL AND THEREBY
PUT AN END TO OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT EVEN WHERE A UTILITY COMPANY BUYS ITS SUPPLY
OF GAS FROM INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION (WHICH THESE PETITIONERS DO NOT DO
AS TO GAS, ELECTRICITY, OR STEAM), THE STATE JURISDICTION IS
NEVERTHELESS PARAMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE UTILITY
COMPANY.  MISSOURI V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, 309. 

IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN DECISION AND THE OTHERS WHICH HAVE FOLLOWED
IT, THIS COURT HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ACT HERE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED
AND APPLIED SO AS TO DESTROY "THE BALANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTS
AND LIMITATIONS," AND MAY NOT APPLY TO WHOLLY INTRA-STATE ACTIVITIES
UNLESS "THEIR CONTROL IS" ESSENTIAL OR APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT COMMERCE
FROM DIRECT BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS. 

THE CONTENTIONS AT ONE TIME URGED BEFORE THIS COURT IN BEHALF OF THE
BOARD, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE RECORD MUST SHOW THAT THERE IS A
REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT THE LABOR PRACTICES WILL CAUSE STRIKES WITH
AN INTENT TO INTERFERE WITH COMMERCE, AND THAT IF SUCH STRIKES "DO
DEVELOP THEY WILL HAVE A NECESSARY EFFECT OF BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING
COMMERCE," ETC., ARE NO LONGER URGED.  EMPHASIS IS NO LONGER PLACED BY
THE BOARD ON THE INTERSTATE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF AN INDUSTRY
AND THE NEED FOR A REGULATION AS BROAD IN SCOPE AS THE SCALE OF THE
OPERATIONS.  THE PRESENT POSITION IS THAT IF THE BOARD MAKES A FINDING
THAT THE "STOPPAGE OF  ...  OPERATIONS BY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE" IN A
PARTICULAR ENTERPRISE WOULD RESULT IN WHAT THE BOARD REGARDS AS A
SUBSTANTIAL INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EVEN
THOUGH IT BE COMMERCE CARRIED ON WHOLLY BY OTHERS, THE BOARD HAS
JURISDICTION.  A FEW EMPLOYEES BELONGING TO A MINORITY LABOR
ORGANIZATION CAN FILE A CHARGE AGAINST A PURELY LOCAL EMPLOYER; THE
BOARD NEED ONLY TO FIND THAT A STRIKE AND STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS BY THE
EMPLOYER WOULD OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE WITH COMMERCE, AND THE BOARD HAS
THEREBY GIVEN ITSELF JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CHARGE. 
THE BOARD HERE MADE A FINDING COUCHED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE
"THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RESPONDENTS  ...  TEND TO LEAD TO LABOR
DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE."  CF. SEC. 2(7) OF THE ACT.  BY A SIMILAR PROCESS, VIRTUALLY
ANY EMPLOYER CAN BE BROUGHT UNDER THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION AT THE
BOARD'S OPTION. 

THE TRUE TEST OF JURISDICTION IS WHETHER OR NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF
ACTION BY THE NATIONAL BOARD, THE "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES" UNDER
CONSIDERATION ARE SUFFICIENTLY LIKELY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, TO RESULT IN A STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS OF THESE PETITIONERS, SO AS
TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR NEED AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ACTION OF THE
NATIONAL BOARD IN TAKING JURISDICTION OF THE PETITIONERS WITH RESPECT
TO THOSE ALLEGED PRACTICES, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE. 

THE BOARD'S POSITION IGNORES ALTOGETHER THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND
FINDINGS THAT ITS OWN ACTION IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PREVENT
"INDUSTRIAL STRIFE" AND "STOPPAGE OF  ...  OPERATIONS," ETC. THERE ARE
NO FINDINGS, NOR EVIDENCE, HERE THAT ANY POSSIBLE HAZARD OF INDUSTRIAL
STRIFE WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS WOULD NOT BE
ADEQUATELY AND EFFECTIVELY DEALT WITH BY THE STATE BOARD.  INDEED, WE
CHALLENGE ANYONE TO READ THIS RECORD OPEN-MINDEDLY AND ESCAPE THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE INTERVENTION OF THE NATIONAL BOARD NOT ONLY WAS
WHOLLY UNNECESSARY FOR PREVENTING INDUSTRIAL STRIFE AND AVERTING ANY
STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS, BUT ALSO THAT THE INTERVENTION AND ACTION OF
THE NATIONAL BOARD, ITS ABROGATION OF CONTRACTS PROVIDING FOR
ARBITRATION, ETC., TENDED RATHER TO FOMENT STRIFE AND TO INTERJECT A
DANGER OF STOPPAGE WHERE NO SUCH DANGER EXISTED BEFORE. 

THE "FINDINGS" BY THE CONGRESS IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT WERE NOT MADE IN
THE LIGHT OF, OR WITH ANY CONSIDERATION FOR, A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT
ONE, WHICH INVOLVES AN ALL-INCLUSIVE STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT LAWFULLY
APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYER AND PROTECTIVE OF THE CONTINUITY OF THE
PETITIONERS' OPERATIONS FROM THE CONSEQUENCE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
IN EVERY RESPECT AS ADEQUATELY AND COMPLETELY AS COULD BE UNDER THE
NATIONAL ACT.  NO STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT HAD BEEN ENACTED WHEN THE
NATIONAL ACT BECAME LAW.  THIS COURT WARNED, IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN
CASE (PAGE 30) AGAINST "SUPERIMPOSING" ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
"INFERENCES FROM GENERAL LEGISLATIVE DECLARATIONS OF AN AMBIGUOUS
CHARACTER," CONTAINED IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT. 

IT WAS A PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE NATIONAL ACT, TO
EXEMPLIFY TO THE STATES A PATTERN OF DESIRABLE STATE LABOR RELATIONS
LEGISLATION WHICH COULD BE COPIED BY THEM TO GOVERN THE EVER-EXPANDING
SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF PRESENT-DAY INTRA-STATE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. 
INDEED, IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD THAT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
URGED JUST SUCH EXEMPLARY ACTION BY THE SEVERAL STATES, IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL ACT. 

THE STATE ACT HAD BECOME EFFECTIVE LONG BEFORE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS,
DECISION AND ORDER.  THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STATE FORUM WAS KNOWN TO
THE BOARD AT THE TIME ITS HEARINGS STARTED; AND THE QUESTION OF THE
NECESSITY AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NATIONAL BOARD'S ACTION,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE EFFECT OF THE STATE ACT, BECAME VITAL LONG BEFORE
THE BOARD HAD TAKEN ANY IMPORTANT FINAL ACTION. 

II.  THE BOARD DENIED TO PETITIONERS THE FULL AND FAIR HEARING AND
IMPARTIAL DETERMINATION WHICH ARE PREREQUISITES OF JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT
OF ITS ORDER. 

TAKEN TOGETHER AND GIVEN CUMULATIVE EFFECT, OR EVEN IF EACH STANDS
ALONE, THE FOLLOWING INCIDENTS SHOULD BE HELD TO CONSTITUTE PRO TANTO A
WITHHOLDING OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW: 

(1)  THE ARBITRARY REFUSAL AND FAILURE OF THE BOARD TO GIVE
PETITIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD DIRECTLY BY THE BOARD ITSELF,
WHICH RENDERED THE BOARD'S ORDER ULTRA VIRES.  SEC. 10(B) OF THE ACT. 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HOPWOOD RETINNING CO., 98 F.2D 97,
101; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 216 U.S.
538. 

P. 239. 

CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET
AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 25, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS ET AL. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL., ALSO ON WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 555, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENFORCING AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  SEE 4 N.L.R.B. 71.  THE CASE WAS
BEFORE THE COURT BELOW UPON A PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER, BROUGHT
BY THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK AND ITS AFFILIATES, AND
A LIKE PETITION BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
AND ITS LOCALS, WHICH INTERVENED IN THAT COURT, AND UPON THE BOARD'S
PETITION TO ENFORCE, SUPPORTED BY THE UNITED ELECTRICAL AND RADIO
WORKERS OF AMERICA WHICH ALSO INTERVENED IN THAT COURT. 

I. THE BOARD HAS NOT SHOWN THAT ITS ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WAS
ESSENTIAL OR APPROPRIATE, OR THAT SUCH JURISDICTION HAS BEEN OR COULD
BE CONFERRED UPON THE BOARD UNDER EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
AND CONCEPTS. 

THE PETITIONERS' OPERATIONS, RELATIONS AND LABOR PRACTICES ARE
EXCLUSIVELY AND ENTIRELY INTRASTATE.  THEY ARE CARRIED ON WHOLLY WITHIN
A SINGLE STATE AND TRADITIONALLY SUBJECT TO PLENARY JURISDICTION OF THE
STATE; THEY ARE APPROPRIATELY REGULATED AND SUPERVISED AS LOCAL
CONCERNS AFFECTED WITH A LOCAL PUBLIC INTEREST.  BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER,
300 U.S. 352, 371; PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL
UTILITY DIST., 92 F.2D 365, 369; 303 U.S. 620; SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS
CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148, 154; MISSOURI V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS
CO., 265 U.S. 298. 

BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT AND IMMEDIACY OF THE FUNCTIONAL DEPENDENCE OF
NEW YORK CITY AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY AND THE MILLIONS OF THEIR
INHABITANTS UPON THE PETITIONERS' SERVICES, THE LOCAL INTEREST IN
PETITIONERS' UNINTERRUPTED SUPPLY OF THEIR SERVICES IS PREDOMINANT AND
PARAMOUNT.  PETITIONERS' OPERATIONS AND LABOR RELATIONS ARE
PREDOMINANTLY LOCAL RATHER THAN NATIONAL BECAUSE OF THE DIRECTNESS AND
IMMEDIACY OF THEIR RELATION TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT, AND
CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE AND DO
BUSINESS IN THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, AND BECAUSE OF THE
DEPENDENCE OF THAT CITY AND STATE THEREON IN EXERCISING THEIR POLICE
POWERS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ORDER AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND THE
PROTECTION OF THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THEIR INHABITANTS.  SUCH
NATIONAL INTEREST AS MAY ATTEND SUCH LOCAL OPERATIONS, RELATIONS AND
LABOR PRACTICES AND RELATE TO THE PREVENTION OR REMOVAL OF BURDENS OR
OBSTRUCTIONS TO "COMMERCE," IS ESSENTIALLY SUBORDINATE AND REQUIRES NO
SEPARATE IDENTIFICATION SO AS TO SERVE AS A BASIS FOR FEDERAL
REGULATION. 

IN VIEW OF THIS PARAMOUNT LOCAL INTEREST IN PETITIONERS' SERVICE AND
OPERATIONS, AND THE ALL-INCLUSIVE MEASURES IN EFFECT UNDER THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, INCLUDING THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT
APPLICABLE TO PETITIONERS, WHO ARE SUBJECT FULLY TO THE LAWS OF THE
STATE, THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY BY THE BOARD IS NOT "ESSENTIAL
OR APPROPRIATE," BUT DEFINITELY CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT. 
FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 211, 212; CF. PENNSYLVANIA V.
WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176; HOPKINS SAVINGS ASSN. V. CLEARY, 296 U.S. 315. 

THERE HAS BEEN NO BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTION OF COMMERCE BY ANY
INTERRUPTION OF PETITIONERS' SERVICES BECAUSE OF ANY LABOR CONTROVERSY;
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH INTERRUPTION IS LIKELY FROM SUCH A
CAUSE, OR THAT A LABOR CONTROVERSY INVOLVING PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES
WOULD BE LESS LIKELY UNDER THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, OR WOULD NOT BE AS
EFFECTIVELY DEALT WITH BY THE STATE BOARD, AND THERE IS NO FINDING OF
ANY INADEQUACY OF THE STATE JURISDICTION AND REGULATION OF THE
PETITIONERS' LABOR PRACTICES. 

THE VARIOUS RULINGS OF THIS COURT UNDER THE ACT ARE NOT DECISIVE OR
CONTROLLING HERE, BECAUSE IN THOSE CASES THE EMPLOYER WAS ITSELF
ENGAGED ACTIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS
WAS ORGANIZED AND CONDUCTED PREDOMINANTLY AS AN ENTERPRISE IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BEYOND FULL CONTROL IN ALL ASPECTS BY A SINGLE
STATE, AND THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT, AS HERE, A LOCAL OPERATING PUBLIC
UTILITY AFFECTED PREDOMINANTLY WITH A LOCAL PUBLIC INTEREST AND ALREADY
SUBJECT TO PLENARY JURISDICTION BY THE STATE AND LOCALITY, INCLUDING
REGULATION AS TO ITS LABOR PRACTICES, AND WITH A STATE LABOR RELATIONS
ACT AND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IN EXISTENCE AND FUNCTIONING. 

TO UPHOLD THE JURISDICTION ASSERTED HERE BY THE BOARD WOULD NOT ONLY
DISREGARD THE PLAIN ADMONITIONS IN THE DECISION OF NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 30; BUT
ALSO WOULD REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE RULING OF THIS COURT
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IN FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194,
211, 212, AND OTHER RECENT DECISIONS. 

JURISDICTION WAS NOT CONFERRED BECAUSE SOME OF THE PETITIONERS'
SUPPLIES ARE ACQUIRED BY OTHERS WHO BRING THEM INTO THE STATE OF NEW
YORK.  THE FACTS AS TO THE ORIGINS OF SUPPLIES USED BY PETITIONERS SHOW
THAT GAS-OIL IS DELIVERED TO ONLY ONE OF THE PETITIONERS; DELIVERY IS
MADE BY THE SELLER, WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW YORK; DELIVERY OF COAL TO
THE STORAGE YARDS AND STATIONS, ALL WITHIN THAT CITY OR IN YONKERS, IS
MADE BY INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISERS; NO EMPLOYEE OF THE PETITIONERS IS
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF ANY MATERIALS; SOME OF THE
SUPPLIES OTHER THAN COAL AND OIL ORIGINATE OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

PURCHASES ARE MADE ONLY FROM NON-AFFILIATED PRODUCERS OR DEALERS, AND
PURCHASES EXTRA-STATE ARE SHIPPED ONLY THROUGH INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
TRANSPORTATION WHICH ARE OWNED AND OPERATED BY INDEPENDENT CARRIERS. 
ALL PURCHASES ARE MADE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS COVERING THE PARTICULAR
TRANSACTION.  THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY MAY CHANGE, DEPENDING UPON MARKET
CONDITIONS, OR THE NEEDS OF PARTICULAR PETITIONERS.  REQUIREMENTS OF
PARTICULAR PETITIONERS ARE SUPPLIED FROM STORAGE; NO EMPLOYEE OF ANY
PETITIONER IS INVOLVED UNTIL THE SUPPLIES HAVE "COME TO REST" IN
STORAGE, AND ONLY AN INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IS INVOLVED
UNTIL THE SUPPLIES ARE MOVED INTO CONSUMPTION. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE PETITIONERS MAKE ALL OF THEIR PURCHASES FOR
THEIR OWN CONSUMPTION EXCLUSIVELY.  THEY BUY NOTHING FOR RESALE IN
INTERSTATE MARKETS OR ELSEWHERE; THEY SELL THEIR BY-PRODUCTS ENTIRELY
WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND CREDIT THE PROCEEDS AGAINST THEIR
PRODUCTION COSTS. 

THE CONTROLLING FACT HERE, AS IN SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 554, IS THAT, ALTHOUGH COAL, OIL AND OTHER
MATERIALS ORIGINATE OUTSIDE THE STATE, THE USE OF SUCH MATERIALS IS
ESSENTIALLY AND ONLY LOCAL AND INTRA-STATE.  THE INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION THAT PRECEDES LOCAL MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION CAN NOT
BE ISOLATED TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE LOCAL USE FOR WHICH THE MATERIALS
ARE INTENDED.  SINCE THIS USE IS LOCAL IN ITS IMMEDIACY, IT COUNTERACTS
AND OUTWEIGHS THE FACT THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE AN INTERSTATE ORIGIN;
OTHERWISE, EVERY INTRASTATE TRANSACTION WHICH INVOLVED INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION BY OTHERS WOULD COME WITHIN FEDERAL CONTROL AND THEREBY
PUT AN END TO OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT EVEN WHERE A UTILITY COMPANY BUYS ITS SUPPLY
OF GAS FROM INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION (WHICH THESE PETITIONERS DO NOT DO
AS TO GAS, ELECTRICITY, OR STEAM), THE STATE JURISDICTION IS
NEVERTHELESS PARAMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE UTILITY
COMPANY.  MISSOURI V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298, 309. 

IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN DECISION AND THE OTHERS WHICH HAVE FOLLOWED
IT, THIS COURT HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ACT HERE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED
AND APPLIED SO AS TO DESTROY "THE BALANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTS
AND LIMITATIONS," AND MAY NOT APPLY TO WHOLLY INTRA-STATE ACTIVITIES
UNLESS "THEIR CONTROL IS" ESSENTIAL OR APPROPRIATE TO PROTECT COMMERCE
FROM DIRECT BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS. 

THE CONTENTIONS AT ONE TIME URGED BEFORE THIS COURT IN BEHALF OF THE
BOARD, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE RECORD MUST SHOW THAT THERE IS A
REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT THE LABOR PRACTICES WILL CAUSE STRIKES WITH
AN INTENT TO INTERFERE WITH COMMERCE, AND THAT IF SUCH STRIKES "DO
DEVELOP THEY WILL HAVE A NECESSARY EFFECT OF BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING
COMMERCE," ETC., ARE NO LONGER URGED.  EMPHASIS IS NO LONGER PLACED BY
THE BOARD ON THE INTERSTATE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION OF AN INDUSTRY
AND THE NEED FOR A REGULATION AS BROAD IN SCOPE AS THE SCALE OF THE
OPERATIONS.  THE PRESENT POSITION IS THAT IF THE BOARD MAKES A FINDING
THAT THE "STOPPAGE OF  ...  OPERATIONS BY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE" IN A
PARTICULAR ENTERPRISE WOULD RESULT IN WHAT THE BOARD REGARDS AS A
SUBSTANTIAL INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EVEN
THOUGH IT BE COMMERCE CARRIED ON WHOLLY BY OTHERS, THE BOARD HAS
JURISDICTION.  A FEW EMPLOYEES BELONGING TO A MINORITY LABOR
ORGANIZATION CAN FILE A CHARGE AGAINST A PURELY LOCAL EMPLOYER; THE
BOARD NEED ONLY TO FIND THAT A STRIKE AND STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS BY THE
EMPLOYER WOULD OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE WITH COMMERCE, AND THE BOARD HAS
THEREBY GIVEN ITSELF JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CHARGE. 
THE BOARD HERE MADE A FINDING COUCHED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE
"THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RESPONDENTS  ...  TEND TO LEAD TO LABOR
DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE."  CF. SEC. 2(7) OF THE ACT.  BY A SIMILAR PROCESS, VIRTUALLY
ANY EMPLOYER CAN BE BROUGHT UNDER THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION AT THE
BOARD'S OPTION. 

THE TRUE TEST OF JURISDICTION IS WHETHER OR NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF
ACTION BY THE NATIONAL BOARD, THE "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES" UNDER
CONSIDERATION ARE SUFFICIENTLY LIKELY, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, TO RESULT IN A STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS OF THESE PETITIONERS, SO AS
TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR NEED AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ACTION OF THE
NATIONAL BOARD IN TAKING JURISDICTION OF THE PETITIONERS WITH RESPECT
TO THOSE ALLEGED PRACTICES, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE. 

THE BOARD'S POSITION IGNORES ALTOGETHER THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND
FINDINGS THAT ITS OWN ACTION IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PREVENT
"INDUSTRIAL STRIFE" AND "STOPPAGE OF  ...  OPERATIONS," ETC. THERE ARE
NO FINDINGS, NOR EVIDENCE, HERE THAT ANY POSSIBLE HAZARD OF INDUSTRIAL
STRIFE WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS WOULD NOT BE
ADEQUATELY AND EFFECTIVELY DEALT WITH BY THE STATE BOARD.  INDEED, WE
CHALLENGE ANYONE TO READ THIS RECORD OPEN-MINDEDLY AND ESCAPE THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE INTERVENTION OF THE NATIONAL BOARD NOT ONLY WAS
WHOLLY UNNECESSARY FOR PREVENTING INDUSTRIAL STRIFE AND AVERTING ANY
STOPPAGE OF OPERATIONS, BUT ALSO THAT THE INTERVENTION AND ACTION OF
THE NATIONAL BOARD, ITS ABROGATION OF CONTRACTS PROVIDING FOR
ARBITRATION, ETC., TENDED RATHER TO FOMENT STRIFE AND TO INTERJECT A
DANGER OF STOPPAGE WHERE NO SUCH DANGER EXISTED BEFORE. 

THE "FINDINGS" BY THE CONGRESS IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT WERE NOT MADE IN
THE LIGHT OF, OR WITH ANY CONSIDERATION FOR, A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT
ONE, WHICH INVOLVES AN ALL-INCLUSIVE STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT LAWFULLY
APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYER AND PROTECTIVE OF THE CONTINUITY OF THE
PETITIONERS' OPERATIONS FROM THE CONSEQUENCE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
IN EVERY RESPECT AS ADEQUATELY AND COMPLETELY AS COULD BE UNDER THE
NATIONAL ACT.  NO STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT HAD BEEN ENACTED WHEN THE
NATIONAL ACT BECAME LAW.  THIS COURT WARNED, IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN
CASE (PAGE 30) AGAINST "SUPERIMPOSING" ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT
"INFERENCES FROM GENERAL LEGISLATIVE DECLARATIONS OF AN AMBIGUOUS
CHARACTER," CONTAINED IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT. 

IT WAS A PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE NATIONAL ACT, TO
EXEMPLIFY TO THE STATES A PATTERN OF DESIRABLE STATE LABOR RELATIONS
LEGISLATION WHICH COULD BE COPIED BY THEM TO GOVERN THE EVER-EXPANDING
SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF PRESENT-DAY INTRA-STATE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. 
INDEED, IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD THAT THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
URGED JUST SUCH EXEMPLARY ACTION BY THE SEVERAL STATES, IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL ACT. 

THE STATE ACT HAD BECOME EFFECTIVE LONG BEFORE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS,
DECISION AND ORDER.  THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STATE FORUM WAS KNOWN TO
THE BOARD AT THE TIME ITS HEARINGS STARTED; AND THE QUESTION OF THE
NECESSITY AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NATIONAL BOARD'S ACTION,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE EFFECT OF THE STATE ACT, BECAME VITAL LONG BEFORE
THE BOARD HAD TAKEN ANY IMPORTANT FINAL ACTION. 

II.  THE BOARD DENIED TO PETITIONERS THE FULL AND FAIR HEARING AND
IMPARTIAL DETERMINATION WHICH ARE PREREQUISITES OF JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT
OF ITS ORDER. 

TAKEN TOGETHER AND GIVEN CUMULATIVE EFFECT, OR EVEN IF EACH STANDS
ALONE, THE FOLLOWING INCIDENTS SHOULD BE HELD TO CONSTITUTE PRO TANTO A
WITHHOLDING OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW: 

(1)  THE ARBITRARY REFUSAL AND FAILURE OF THE BOARD TO GIVE
PETITIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD DIRECTLY BY THE BOARD ITSELF,
WHICH RENDERED THE BOARD'S ORDER ULTRA VIRES.  SEC. 10(B) OF THE ACT. 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. HOPWOOD RETINNING CO., 98 F.2D 97,
101; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO., 216 U.S.
538.    (2)  THE BOARD'S EX PARTE DIRECTIONS THAT THE TRIAL EXAMINER
DENY TO THE PETITIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE, EVEN TO
THE EXTENT OF REFUSING TO HEAR WITNESSES PRESENT IN THE HEARING-ROOM,
WAS BOTH A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITES UNDER SEC. 10(B) OF THE ACT. 

(3)  A DENIAL OF ADEQUATE AND FAIR HEARING WAS INHERENT IN THE
"TRANSFER" OF THE CASE AWAY FROM THE TRIAL EXAMINER WITHOUT FINDINGS
AND IN THE WITHHOLDING OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONERS TO BE HEARD
BEFORE THE BOARD WHICH MADE THE FINDINGS WITHOUT HEARING THE EVIDENCE. 
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO & TEL. CO., 304 U.S.
333, 350, DISTINGUISHED. 

(4)  THE BOARD'S COURSE OF ACTION IN REPEATEDLY AMENDING ITS
COMPLAINT IN SUBSTANTIAL RESPECTS, DOWN TO THE LAST DAY OF THE
HEARINGS, AND IN FAILING TO GIVE NOTICE OR INFORMATION OF SUCH
AMENDMENTS TO THE BROTHERHOOD, AND IN REFUSING TO GIVE TO THE
PETITIONERS AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND DEAL WITH THE CHANGED
SITUATIONS PRODUCED BY SUCH UNEXPECTED AMENDMENTS, SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER FACTS AS TO THE MANNER OF
HEARING AND DETERMINING THIS CASE. 

(5)  WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PETITIONERS OR THE BROTHERHOOD AND WITHOUT
EVER STATING AN ISSUE AS TO SUCH CONTRACTS, EITHER IN THE COMPLAINT AS
FIRST SERVED OR AS FROM TIME TO TIME AMENDED OR ON THE HEARINGS, THE
BOARD INVALIDATED THE PETITIONERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACTS WITH
THE BROTHERHOOD AND THE 30,000 EMPLOYEES WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE
BROTHERHOOD.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 1; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261; SHIELDS
V. BARROW, 17 HOW.  129, 139. 

(6)  REMOTE HEARSAY AND MERE RUMOR WERE PERMITTED TO DOMINATE THE
TESTIMONY, TO AN EXTENT REPUGNANT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  ST. JOSEPH
STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 73; MORGAN V. UNITED
STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 480. 

III.  THE BOARD'S FINDINGS DISREGARDED THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND
THE COURT BELOW ADOPTED AN INADEQUATE STANDARD OF REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S
FINDINGS, THEREBY SUSTAINING FINDINGS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  WASHINGTON COACH CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 301
U.S. 142, 143; PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 288 U.S. 333,
339-343; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THOMPSON PRODUCTS, 97 F.2D
13, 15; APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 93 F.2D 985, 989. 

THE TEST OF PERMISSIBLE APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT TO AN INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE IS WHETHER "STOPPAGE OF  ...
OPERATIONS BY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE" IN THAT ENTERPRISE WOULD RESULT IN
SUBSTANTIAL INTERRUPTION TO OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREE FLOW OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 41.  PETITIONERS' OPERATIONS ARE SUCH
THAT THEIR CESSATION BY REASON OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WOULD BLOCK
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM NEW YORK CITY ON SEVERAL MAIN
INTERSTATE RAILROADS; OTHER FACILITIES OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE AREA,
SUCH AS AUTOMOBILES, TRUCKS AND BUSES, AS WELL AS FERRIES AND OTHER
TRANSPORTATION BY WATER, WOULD BE SERIOUSLY HAMPERED; COMMUNICATIONS BY
TELEGRAPH, TELEPHONE AND RADIO WOULD BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED; AND MANY
OTHER ENTERPRISES, WITH LARGE AND IMPORTANT INTERSTATE OPERATIONS,
WOULD BE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN. 

IN ADDITION, STOPPAGE OF PETITIONERS' OPERATIONS WOULD INTERRUPT A
SUBSTANTIAL FLOW OF MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES INTO THE STATE.  PETITIONERS
ARE THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY REASON OF THEIR
PURCHASE IN OTHER STATES OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF COAL AND OIL. 

PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT THAT THE ACT MAY NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
APPLIED TO THEM, BASED UPON THE LACK OF A FINDING THAT THERE EXISTS A
NECESSITY FOR CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION IN THE PRESENT CASE, IS DIRECTLY
CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS AND INTENTION OF CONGRESS UNDER THE PRESENT
ACT AND TO THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING CO.
V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 303 U.S. 453. 

PARAGRAPHS 1(F) AND (G) OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, WHICH REQUIRE
PETITIONERS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THEIR CONTRACTS
WITH THE BROTHERHOOD AND FROM RECOGNIZING IT AS THE EXCLUSIVE
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, ARE IN ALL RESPECTS VALID
AND PROPER UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THEY WERE NOT REASONABLY APPRISED THAT
THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACTS WAS IN ISSUE IN THE PROCEEDINGS CAN NOT
BE SUSTAINED BY THE RECORD. 

EVEN ASSUMING THAT PETITIONERS WERE NOT IN FACT ADEQUATELY INFORMED
PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONTRACTS WAS IN ISSUE, NEVERTHELESS THEY ARE NOT PREJUDICED.  THEY
MIGHT HAVE APPLIED TO THE BOARD FOR A REHEARING, OR THEY MIGHT HAVE
APPLIED TO THE COURT BELOW PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS (E) AND (F) OF SEC.
10 OF THE ACT FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE CONTRACT
ISSUE.  THEY DID NEITHER. 

PETITIONERS HAVE NO VALID GROUND OF COMPLAINT BASED UPON THE REFUSAL
OF THE BOARD TO HEAR THE PROFFERED TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES ON JULY
6, 1937. 

THE RECORD SHOWS CLEARLY THAT PETITIONERS DID NOT REQUEST AN ORAL
ARGUMENT, AND HAD NO REASON TO EXPECT ONE IN THE ABSENCE OF A REQUEST. 
MOREOVER, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS FULLY COMPLIED WITH SINCE PETITIONERS
HAD PREVIOUSLY FILED A LENGTHY BRIEF.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298
U.S. 468, 481. 

PETITIONERS' CONTENTION THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
FINDINGS IS WITHOUT MERIT.  NOR DOES THE RECORD SUPPORT PETITIONERS'
CONTENTION THAT THE FINDINGS WERE BASED ON HEARSAY EVIDENCE.  THERE WAS
DIRECT TESTIMONY ON EACH ISSUE.  IN ANY EVENT, HEARSAY EVIDENCE WAS
CLEARLY PROPER.  SPILLER V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 253 U.S. 117. 

PETITIONERS WERE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
TRIAL EXAMINER AND THE BOARD, AND WERE ENTITLED TO LEGAL NOTICE
THEREOF, IN VIEW OF THE INVALIDATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS BY THE BOARD'S
FINAL ORDER.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND
LINES, 303 U.S. 261, DISTINGUISHED.  SEE GENERAL INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE
SHORE R. CO., 260 U.S. 261, 285-286. 

ALL PERSONS HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF PROPERTY OR LIBERTY IN
THE SUBJECT MATTER OR OBJECT OF A PROCEEDING ARE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
TO IT.  MALLOW V. HINDE, 12 WHEAT.  193; BARNEY V. BALTIMORE, 6 WALL. 
280; RUSSELL V. CLARK, 7 CRANCH 69; SHIELDS V. BARROW, 17 HOW.  130;
GREGORY V. STETSON, 133 U.S. 579; SWAN LAND & CATTLE CO. V. FRANK, 148
U.S. 603; RAILROAD CO. V. ORR, 18 WALL.  471; RIBON V. RAILROAD
COMPANIES, 16 WALL.  446; MINNESOTA V. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO., 184
U.S. 199, 235; GARZAT V. DERUBIO, 209 U.S. 283; LEE V. LEHIGH VALLEY
CO., 267 U.S. 542; COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. SMITH, 266 U.S. 152; NILES
BEMENT-POND CO. V. IRON MOULDERS UNION, 254 U.S. 77; EMPLOYERS
REINSURANCE CORP. V. BRYANT, 299 U.S. 374, 381. 

THE "INTERVENTION" REFERRED TO IN SEC. 10(B) OF THE ACT, AND ARTICLE
II, SEC. 19, OF THE RULES OF THE BOARD IS SO ABSOLUTELY DISCRETIONARY
AND SO PARTIAL AND LIMITED, THAT, WHERE SUBSTANTIVE PROPERTY AND
PERSONAL RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED, IT SERIOUSLY FAILS TO SATISFY
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  MOREOVER, IN THE PROCEEDING HEREIN
INVOLVED, THREE DAYS OF THE HEARING HAD ELAPSED AND FUNDAMENTAL
TESTIMONY HAD BEEN INTRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIAL EXAMINER PRIOR TO THE
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT OF JUNE 14, AFFECTING THE PETITIONERS WITHIN
THE ACT. 

NEITHER THE ATTEMPTED SERVICE UPON PETITIONERS OF THE NOTICE OF MAY
12, NOR THAT OF THE AMENDED NOTICE OF MAY 25, 1937, WAS A VALID SERVICE
OF NOTICE OR PROCESS, OR COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 11(4) OF THE ACT, OR
ARTICLE V OF THE BOARD'S RULES, OR WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  AND AFTER THE AMENDMENTS OF JUNE 14, 1937, BY
WHICH AMENDMENTS THESE PETITIONERS WERE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, MADE THE
SUBJECT OF CHARGES IN THE COMPLAINT WITHIN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO PRETENSE OF AN ATTEMPT IN ANY FORM TO GIVE
NOTICE TO THESE PETITIONERS, OR ANY OF THEM, OF ANY CHARGE IN THE
COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM. 

PETITIONERS WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY SEC. 1(F) AND (G) OF
THE BOARD'S ORDER, ABROGATING THEIR CONTRACTS AND DIRECTING NON
RECOGNITION OF THE BROTHERHOOD AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES,
WHEN NEITHER THE VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACTS, NOR REPRESENTATION, WAS IN
ISSUE, OR EMBRACED, IN THE CHARGE, THE COMPLAINT OR AMENDED COMPLAINT,
OR RAISED AT THE HEARINGS OR AT ANY OTHER TIME BEFORE THE BOARD'S FINAL
ORDER, AND THE BOARD ITSELF DISMISSED SO MUCH OF THE COMPLAINT AS
INVOLVED COMPANY DOMINATION OR SUPPORT CONTRARY TO SEC. 8(2) OF THE
ACT.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. SEMINOLE
NATION, 299 U.S. 417, 421-422. 

THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER
THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND THEIR LABOR RELATIONS
WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES, OR OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OR
AMENDED COMPLAINT, INCLUDING PETITIONERS' CONTRACTS WHICH THE ORDER
DESTROYED, BECAUSE SAID COMPANIES AND LOCAL UNIONS ARE NOT ENGAGED IN,
AND THEIR LABOR RELATIONS DO NOT BURDEN, "COMMERCE" AS DEFINED IN THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES BEING WHOLLY WITHIN NEW YORK, BY THE STATUTES OF WHICH THEY
ARE SUBJECT TO FULL AND COMPLETE REGULATION.  THE ACT, AS HEREIN
APPLIED BY THE BOARD, CONFLICTS WITH THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238-341;
SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495-550; NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, V. FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO., 301 U.S. 49,
53; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING
CO., 301 U.S. 58, 72; SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 303 U.S. 453. 

THE DECISION IN THE SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING CO. CASE, DECIDED BY
THIS COURT MARCH 28, 1938, TWO WEEKS AFTER THE DECISION AND A WEEK
AFTER THE JUDGMENT RENDERED HEREIN BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
DOES NOT DISPOSE OF THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION AS HEREIN PRESENTED,
INASMUCH AS IN THAT CASE ABOUT 37 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL OUTPUT OF THE
EMPLOYER WAS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, WHEREIN "THERE
WAS A CONSTANT STREAM OF LOADING AND SHIPPING OF PRODUCTS."  MOREOVER
AN ACTUAL STRIKE HAD BEEN IN PROGRESS, WITH A CESSATION OF THE FLOW OF
EXTENSIVE COMMERCE.  FURTHERMORE THERE WAS NO QUESTION AT ALL RAISED AS
TO THE ADEQUACY OF STATE REGULATION, THERE BEING NO STATE REGULATION OF
THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER OR OF ITS LABOR RELATIONS WITH ITS
EMPLOYEES. 

WHENEVER FEDERAL POWER IS EXERTED WITHIN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE THE
DOMAIN OF STATE POWER, THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL
POWER MUST CLEARLY APPEAR, FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 211;
AND FEDERAL POWER SHOULD BE RELINQUISHED TO STATE POWER, WHERE ITS
EXERCISE WOULD INVOLVE CONTROL OF, OR INTERFERENCE WITH, THE INTERNAL
AFFAIRS OF A DOMESTIC CORPORATION OF THE STATE.  PENNSYLVANIA V.
WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185; HOPKINS SAVINGS ASSN. V. CLEARY, 296 U.S.
315. 

THE ORDER OF THE BOARD ANNULLING PETITIONERS' CONTRACTS EXCEEDED THE
POWER OF THE BOARD, AND THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE ORDER DID NOT
COMPLY WITH THE ACT OR THE BOARD'S RULES, AND CONSTITUTED A DENIAL OF A
FAIR AND FULL HEARING AND OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN CONTRAVENTION OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

MANY SUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF THE TESTIMONY UPON WHICH THE FINDINGS AND
DECISION OF THE BOARD PURPORT TO REST, AND ITS COURSE OF PROCEEDING TO
ITS FINAL ORDER, VIOLATED BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE
ESSENTIAL TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE BOARD LACKED JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ORDER ABROGATING THE
CONTRACTS, BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS OR ITS AFFILIATES AS FORMAL PARTIES, OR TO NOTIFY
THEM OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH ACTION AGAINST THEIR
CONTRACTS WAS CONTEMPLATED; AND THE ENTRY OF SUCH ORDER IN THE ABSENCE
OF THE BROTHERHOOD WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE BROTHERHOOD LOCALS ARE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES.  THE NECESSITY FOR
THEIR JOINDER IS WELL ESTABLISHED AT COMMON LAW AND EQUITY. 

THE FAILURE TO JOIN THE BROTHERHOOD IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT. 

THE ACT DOES NOT AND CAN NOT DISPENSE WITH THE NECESSITY OF JOINING
THE BROTHERHOOD. 

THE BROTHERHOOD HAS NOT WAIVED ITS RIGHTS BY FILING A PETITION FOR
REVIEW. 

THE BROTHERHOOD HAS NEVER BEEN PROPERLY SERVED WITH NOTICES OF THE
PROCEEDINGS. 

IN ANY EVENT, THE BROTHERHOOD WAS DENIED A HEARING BECAUSE THE
COMPLAINT DID NOT APPRISE IT OF ANY CHARGE INVOLVING ABROGATION OF THE
CONTRACTS, AND NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN IT TO DEFEND ITS INTERESTS. 

THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO ISSUE ORDERS INVALIDATING OR
ADVERSELY AFFECTING CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND A
BONA FIDE LABOR ORGANIZATION NOT CLAIMING THE RIGHT TO EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATION OF ALL EMPLOYEES WHERE THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT A
SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF ITS MEMBERS HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE EMPLOYER
INTO JOINING THE ORGANIZATION, AND WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS BEEN ORDERED
TO TAKE OTHER ACTION FULLY PROTECTING RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF ITS
EMPLOYEES UNDER THE ACT. 

THE BOARD HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT IS
NOT ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT. 
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR HAS FOSTERED AND IS FOSTERING STATE
LABOR RELATIONS ACTS, AND IS VITALLY INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE BOARDS AGAINST ENCROACHMENT OF THE NATIONAL
BOARD. 

THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO CONDEMN EXPRESSIONS OF
SYMPATHY BY AN EMPLOYER OR ITS SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES WITH AIMS AND
PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION AFFILIATES, IF THERE IS NO
ACTUAL COMPULSION TO JOIN, OR ANY DISCRIMINATORY ACTS THREATENED OR
TAKEN.    MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE UNITED ELECTRICAL AND RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH
THE COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, FILED A CHARGE, ON MAY 5,
1937, WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT THE CONSOLIDATED
EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK AND ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES WERE
INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHT OF THEIR EMPLOYEES TO FORM, JOIN OR ASSIST
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING AND WERE CONTRIBUTING
FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUPPORT, IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED, TO THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AN AFFILIATE OF THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.  THE BOARD ISSUED ITS COMPLAINT AND THE
EMPLOYING COMPANIES, APPEARING SPECIALLY, CHALLENGED ITS JURISDICTION. 
ON THE DENIAL OF THEIR REQUEST THAT THIS QUESTION BE DETERMINED
INITIALLY, THE COMPANIES FILED ANSWERS RESERVING THEIR JURISDICTIONAL
OBJECTIONS.  AFTER THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE BEFORE A TRIAL EXAMINER, THE
PROCEEDING WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE BOARD, WHICH ON NOVEMBER 10, 1937,
MADE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER. 

THE ORDER DIRECTED THE COMPANIES TO DESIST FROM LABOR PRACTICES FOUND
TO BE UNFAIR AND IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) AND (3) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT,  FN1  DIRECTED REINSTATEMENT OF SIX DISCHARGED
EMPLOYEES WITH BACK PAY, AND REQUIRED THE POSTING OF NOTICES TO THE
EFFECT THAT THE COMPANIES WOULD CEASE THE DESCRIBED PRACTICES AND THAT
THEIR EMPLOYEES WERE FREE TO JOIN OR ASSIST ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION FOR
THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO
DISCHARGE OR TO ANY DISCRIMINATION BY REASON OF THEIR CHOICE.  4
N.L.R.B. 71. 

IT APPEARED THAT BETWEEN MAY 28, 1937, AND JUNE 16, 1937, THE
COMPANIES HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND ITS LOCAL UNIONS, PROVIDING FOR
THE RECOGNITION OF THE BROTHERHOOD AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENCY
FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ITS MEMBERS, AND CONTAINING VARIOUS
STIPULATIONS AS TO HOURS, WORKING CONDITIONS, WAGES, ETC., AND FOR
ARBITRATION IN THE EVENT OF DISPUTES.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT THESE
CONTRACTS WERE EXECUTED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY WERE INVALID
AND REQUIRED THE COMPANIES TO DESIST FROM GIVING THEM EFFECT.  ID.  AT
THE SAME TIME THE BOARD DECIDED THAT THE COMPANIES HAD NOT ENGAGED IN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(2) OF THE ACT.  FN2
THAT CLAUSE MAKES IT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE TO "DOMINATE OR
INTERFERE WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION OR CONTRIBUTE FINANCIAL OR OTHER SUPPORT TO IT." 
ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT, SO FAR AS IT ALLEGED A
VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(2), WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  ID. 

THE COMPANIES PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER AND A PETITION FOR THE SAME PURPOSE WAS PRESENTED BY THE
BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS.  THESE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS HAD NOT BEEN
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD BUT INTERVENED IN THE COURT
OF APPEALS AS PARTIES AGGRIEVED BY THE INVALIDATION OF THEIR
CONTRACTS.  THE BOARD IN TURN ASKED THE COURT TO ENFORCE THE ORDER. 
THE UNITED ELECTRICAL AND RADIO WORKERS OF AMERICA APPEARED IN SUPPORT
OF THE BOARD.  THE COURT GRANTED THE BOARD'S PETITION.  95 F.2D 390. 
WE ISSUED WRITS OF CERTIORARI UPON APPLICATIONS OF THE COMPANIES (NO.
19) AND OF THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS (NO. 25). 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED RELATE (1) TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD;
(2) TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE HEARING; (3) TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO COERCIVE
PRACTICES, DISCRIMINATION AND THE DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES; AND (4) TO
THE INVALIDATION OF THE CONTRACTS WITH THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS. 

THE PERTINENT FACTS WILL BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH OUR
DISCUSSION OF THESE QUESTIONS. 

FIRST.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD.  - THAT IS, WAS THE PROCEEDING
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY VALIDLY CONFERRED?  THE PETITIONING
COMPANIES CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE
COMPANY WHICH MAINTAINS UNDERGROUND DUCTS FOR ELECTRICAL CONDUCTORS IN
NEW YORK CITY, THEY ARE ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGAGED IN SUPPLYING
ELECTRIC ENERGY, GAS AND STEAM (AND CERTAIN BY-PRODUCTS) WITHIN THAT
CITY AND ADJACENT WESTCHESTER COUNTY.  THE ENTERPRISE IS ONE OF GREAT
MAGNITUDE.  THE COMPANIES SERVE OVER 3,500,000 ELECTRIC AND GAS
CUSTOMERS, - A LARGE MAJORITY USING THE SERVICE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND
DOMESTIC PURPOSES.  IN 1936 THE COMPANIES SUPPLIED ABOUT 97.5 PER CENT.
OF THE TOTAL ELECTRIC ENERGY SOLD IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND ABOUT ONE
HUNDRED PER CENT. OF THAT SOLD IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY.  THEY DO NOT SELL
FOR RESALE WITHOUT THE STATE.  THEY HAVE ABOUT 42,000 EMPLOYEES, THEIR
TOTAL PAYROLLS IN 1936, WITH RETIREMENT ANNUITIES AND SEPARATION
ALLOWANCES, AMOUNTING TO NEARLY $82,000,000. 

PETITIONERS URGE THAT THESE PREDOMINANT INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES,
CARRIED ON UNDER THE PLENARY CONTROL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THESE OPERATIONS OF THE UTILITIES ARE
OF VAST CONCERN TO THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, THAT
THEY DO NOT ALSO INVOLVE THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE IN SUCH A DEGREE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED TO
INTERVENE FOR THEIR PROTECTION.  FOR EXAMPLE, THE GOVERNANCE OF THE
INTRASTATE RATES OF A RAILROAD COMPANY MAY BE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO
THE STATE AND AN APPROPRIATE OBJECT OF THE EXERTION OF ITS POWER, BUT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY STILL INTERVENE TO PROTECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FROM INJURY CAUSED BY INTRASTATE OPERATIONS AND TO THAT END
MAY OVERRIDE INTRASTATE RATES AND SUPPLY A DOMINANT FEDERAL RULE.  THE
SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342; WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, B.
& Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563; NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 591. 
SEE, ALSO, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 37-41. 

IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE WE MAY LAY ON ONE SIDE, AS DID THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, THE MERE PURCHASES BY THE UTILITIES OF THE SUPPLIES
OF OIL, COAL, ETC., ALTHOUGH VERY LARGE, WHICH COME FROM WITHOUT THE
STATE AND ARE CONSUMED IN THE GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC
ENERGY AND GAS.  APART FROM THOSE PURCHASES, THERE IS UNDISPUTED AND
IMPRESSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE DEPENDENCE OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE UPON THE CONTINUITY OF THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONING
COMPANIES.  THEY SUPPLY ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE NEW YORK CENTRAL
RAILROAD COMPANY, THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD
COMPANY, AND THE HUDSON AND MANHATTAN RAILROAD COMPANY (OPERATING A
TUNNEL SERVICE TO NEW JERSEY) FOR THE LIGHTING AND OPERATION OF
PASSENGER AND FREIGHT TERMINALS, AND FOR THE MOVEMENT OF INTERSTATE
TRAINS.  THEY SUPPLY THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY WITH ELECTRIC
ENERGY FOR THE OPERATION OF ITS TERMINAL AND THE HOLLAND TUNNEL.  THEY
SUPPLY A MAJORITY OF THE PIERS OF TRANSATLANTIC AND COASTWISE STEAMSHIP
COMPANIES ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST RIVERS, WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
FOR LIGHTING, FREIGHT HANDLING AND RELATED USES.  THEY SERVE THE
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, THE POSTAL TELEGRAPH COMPANY, AND THE
NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY WITH POWER FOR TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING
MESSAGES, LOCAL AND INTERSTATE.  THEY SUPPLY ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR THE
TRANSATLANTIC RADIO SERVICE OF THE RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA.  THEY
PROVIDE ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR THE FLOYD BENNETT AIR FIELD IN BROOKLYN FOR
VARIOUS PURPOSES, INCLUDING FIELD ILLUMINATION, A RADIO BEAM AND
OBSTRUCTION LIGHTING.  UNDER CONTRACTS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THEY
SUPPLY ELECTRIC ENERGY FOR SIX LIGHTHOUSES AND EIGHT BEACON OR HARBOR
LIGHTS; ALSO LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER FOR THE GENERAL POST OFFICE AND
BRANCH POST OFFICES, THE UNITED STATES BARGE OFFICE, THE CUSTOMS HOUSE,
APPRAISERS' WAREHOUSE AND VARIOUS FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDINGS. 

IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THESE ACTIVITIES, WHILE CONDUCTED WITHIN
THE STATE, ARE MATTERS OF FEDERAL CONCERN.  IN THEIR TOTALITY THEY RISE
TO SUCH A DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE THAT THE FACT THAT THEY INVOLVE BUT A
SMALL PART OF THE ENTIRE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE UTILITIES IN THEIR
EXTENSIVE BUSINESS IS IMMATERIAL IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTENCE
OF THE FEDERAL PROTECTIVE POWER.  THE EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE OF AN INTERRUPTION THROUGH INDUSTRIAL STRIFE OF THE
SERVICE OF THE PETITIONING COMPANIES WAS VIVIDLY DESCRIBED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THESE WORDS:  "INSTANTLY, THE TERMINALS AND
TRAINS OF THREE GREAT INTERSTATE RAILROADS WOULD CEASE TO OPERATE;
INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION BY TELEGRAPH, TELEPHONE, AND RADIO WOULD STOP;
LIGHTS MAINTAINED AS AIDS TO NAVIGATION WOULD GO OUT; AND THE BUSINESS
OF INTERSTATE FERRIES AND OF FOREIGN STEAMSHIPS, WHOSE DOCKS ARE
LIGHTED AND OPERATED BY ELECTRIC ENERGY, WOULD BE GREATLY IMPEDED. 
SUCH EFFECTS WE CANNOT REGARD AS INDIRECT AND REMOTE."  95 F.2D 390,
394. 

IF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE DUE TO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ACTUALLY BROUGHT
ABOUT SUCH A CATASTROPHE, WE SUPPOSE THAT NO ONE WOULD QUESTION THE
AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO INTERVENE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE
THE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE AND THE RESUMPTION OF THE ESSENTIAL
SERVICE TO INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  BUT IT CANNOT BE
MAINTAINED THAT THE EXERTION OF FEDERAL POWER MUST AWAIT THE DISRUPTION
OF THAT COMMERCE.  CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO PROVIDE REASONABLE
PREVENTIVE MEASURES AND THAT WAS THE OBJECT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

CONGRESS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH PARTICULAR INSTANCES.  IT
CREATED FOR THAT PURPOSE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  IN
CONFERRING AUTHORITY UPON THAT BOARD, CONGRESS HAD REGARD TO THE
LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF FEDERAL POWER.  THUS, THE
"COMMERCE" CONTEMPLATED BY THE ACT (ASIDE FROM THAT WITHIN A TERRITORY
OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) IS INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WHICH THE ACT PURPORTS TO REACH ARE THOSE
AFFECTING THAT COMMERCE.  SEC. 10(A).  FN3  IN DETERMINING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED, WE HAVE APPLIED THE
WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS THE EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, NOT THE SOURCE OF THE INJURY, WHICH IS THE CRITERION.  IT IS
NOT NECESSARY TO REPEAT WHAT WE SAID UPON THIS POINT IN THE REVIEW OF
OUR DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES &
LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., SUPRA.  AND WHETHER OR NOT PARTICULAR ACTION IN
THE CONDUCT OF INTRASTATE ENTERPRISES DOES AFFECT THAT COMMERCE IN SUCH
A CLOSE AND INTIMATE FASHION AS TO BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL, IS
LEFT TO BE DETERMINED AS INDIVIDUAL CASES ARISE.  ID., SEE, ALSO, SANTA
CRUZ PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 303 U.S. 453, 466,
467. 

PETITIONERS URGE THAT THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW YORK HAS ENACTED
COMPREHENSIVE AND ADEQUATE MEASURES TO PROTECT AGAINST THE INTERRUPTION
OF PETITIONERS' SERVICES THROUGH LABOR DISPUTES.  NOT ONLY HAS THE
STATE LONG HAD LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE OPERATIONS OF PUBLIC UTILITY
COMPANIES (PUBLIC SERVICE LAW) BUT THE LEGISLATURE HAS RECENTLY ENACTED
THE NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT (LAWS OF 1937, CHAPTER 443,
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1937; ARTICLE 20 OF THE LABOR LAW) WHICH PROVIDES A
COMPLETE SUPERVISION OF LABOR RELATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS IN INTRASTATE
ENTERPRISES SIMILAR TO THAT SET UP BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
WITH RESPECT TO INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE STATE ACT, WITH
ADDED DETAILS, FOLLOWS CLOSELY THE NATIONAL ACT.  THE STATE ACT
PROVIDES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, INCLUDING THE CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS
TO DETERMINE THE REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES, AND EMPOWERS THE STATE
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO PREVENT UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  IN SEEKING TO
AVOID A CLASH WITH FEDERAL AUTHORITY, THE STATE ACT IS MADE
INAPPLICABLE "TO THE EMPLOYEES OF ANY EMPLOYER WHO CONCEDES TO AND
AGREES WITH THE BOARD THAT SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO AND PROTECTED
BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OR THE FEDERAL
RAILWAY LABOR ACT."  FN4  IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE ENACTMENT OF THIS
STATE LAW COULD NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE STATE COULD NOT ADD TO OR DETRACT FROM THAT
AUTHORITY.  BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT WHERE THE EMPLOYERS ARE NOT
THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND THE AUTHORITY
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IS INVOKED TO PROTECT THAT
COMMERCE FROM INTERFERENCE OR INJURY ARISING FROM THE EMPLOYERS'
INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES DO ACTUALLY THREATEN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN A
SUBSTANTIAL MANNER IS NECESSARILY PRESENTED.  AND IN DETERMINING THAT
FACTUAL QUESTION REGARD SHOULD BE HAD TO ALL THE EXISTING
CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THE BEARING AND EFFECT OF ANY PROTECTIVE
ACTION TO THE SAME END ALREADY TAKEN UNDER STATE AUTHORITY.  THE
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER SHOULD CLEARLY APPEAR. 
FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194, 211, 212.  BUT THE QUESTION IN
SUCH A CASE WOULD RELATE NOT TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE FEDERAL POWER BUT
TO THE PROPRIETY OF ITS EXERCISE ON A GIVEN STATE OF FACTS. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, NOT ONLY WAS THIS PROCEEDING INSTITUTED BEFORE
THE NEW YORK LABOR RELATIONS ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE BUT, SO FAR AS
APPEARS, NO PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN TAKEN UNDER IT IN RELATION TO THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES HERE ALLEGED.  FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE, IT IS
SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EXERTION OF STATE AUTHORITY
WHICH CAN BE TAKEN TO REMOVE THE NEED FOR THE EXERTION OF FEDERAL
AUTHORITY TO PROTECT INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE EXERCISE OF
THE FEDERAL POWER TO PROTECT INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM
INJURY DOES NOT DEPEND UPON A CLASH WITH STATE ACTION AND NEED NOT
AWAIT THE EXERCISE OF STATE AUTHORITY.    WE CONCLUDE THAT THE BOARD
HAD AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN THIS PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PETITIONING
COMPANIES. 

SECOND.  THE FAIRNESS OF THE HEARING, - PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  -
APART FROM THE ACTION OF THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE BROTHERHOOD
CONTRACTS, WHICH WE SHALL CONSIDER SEPARATELY, THE CONTENTIONS UNDER
THIS HEAD RELATE (1) TO AMENDMENTS OF THE COMPLAINT, (2) TO THE REFUSAL
TO HEAR CERTAIN WITNESSES, AND (3) TO THE TRANSFER OF THE PROCEEDING TO
THE BOARD AND ITS DETERMINATION WITHOUT AN INTERMEDIATE REPORT OR
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING UPON PROPOSED FINDINGS. 

THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT RELATED TO THE DISCHARGE OF FIVE EMPLOYEES AND
ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF INDUSTRIAL SPIES
AND UNDERCOVER OPERATIVES, IN ALLOWING EMPLOYEES TO SOLICIT MEMBERSHIP
IN THE BROTHERHOOD DURING WORKING HOURS AND ON THE PROPERTY OF THE
COMPANIES, IN COMPENSATING SUCH EMPLOYEES WHILE SO ENGAGED AND IN
FURNISHING THEM OFFICE SPACE AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE WHILE REFUSING
SUCH PRIVILEGES TO THE UNITED, AND GENERALLY IN COERCION OF THE
EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE BROTHERHOOD.  THE AMENDMENTS WERE MADE FROM TIME
TO TIME IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING.  IN PARTICULAR, THEY ADDED
ANOTHER EMPLOYEE TO THOSE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED
AND SUPPLIED AN OMITTED ALLEGATION THAT THE OTHER UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES AFFECTED COMMERCE.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE THE TRIAL
EXAMINER GRANTED A MOTION TO CONFORM THE PLEADINGS TO THE PROOF ON THE
STATEMENT OF THE ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD THAT NO IMPORTANT CHANGE WAS
INTENDED AND THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS SOUGHT MERELY TO MAKE MORE DEFINITE
AND CERTAIN WHAT APPEARED IN THE COMPLAINT.  THESE WERE DISCRETIONARY
RULINGS WHICH AFFORD NO GROUND FOR CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE
HEARING. 

A MORE SERIOUS QUESTION GROWS OUT OF THE REFUSAL TO RECEIVE THE
TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN WITNESSES.  THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE BEGAN ON JUNE
3, 1937, AND WAS CONTINUED FROM TIME TO TIME UNTIL JUNE 23D WHEN THE
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD UNEXPECTEDLY ANNOUNCED THAT ITS CASE WOULD
PROBABLY BE CLOSED ON THE FOLLOWING DAY.  AT THAT TIME THE BOARD
COMPLETED ITS PROOF, WITH THE RESERVATION OF ONE MATTER, AND AT THE
REQUEST OF THE COMPANIES' COUNSEL THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED UNTIL JULY
6TH IN ORDER THAT MR. CARLISLE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY, AND MR. DEAN, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF
ONE OF ITS AFFILIATES, WHO WERE THEN UNAVAILABLE, COULD TESTIFY.  IN
RESPONSE TO THE EXAMINER'S INQUIRY, THE COMPANIES' COUNSEL STATED THAT
THE DIRECT EXAMINATION OF ALL WITNESSES ON THEIR BEHALF WOULD NOT
OCCUPY MORE THAN A DAY.  ON JULY 6TH THE TESTIMONY OF MR. CARLISLE AND
MR. DEAN WAS TAKEN AND THE COMPANIES ALSO OFFERED THE TESTIMONY OF TWO
OTHER WITNESSES (THEN PRESENT IN THE HEARING ROOM) IN RELATION TO THE
DISCHARGE OF THE EMPLOYEE WITH RESPECT TO WHOM THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN
AMENDED AS ABOVE STATED.  THE EXAMINER REFUSED TO RECEIVE THIS
TESTIMONY FOLLOWING A RULING OF THE BOARD (MADE IN THE COURSE OF
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COMPANIES' COUNSEL DURING THE ADJOURNMENT) TO
THE EFFECT THAT NO OTHER TESTIMONY THAN THAT OF MR. CARLISLE AND MR.
DEAN WOULD BE RECEIVED ON THE ADJOURNED DAY.  AN OFFER OF PROOF WAS
MADE WHICH SHOWED THE TESTIMONY TO BE HIGHLY IMPORTANT WITH RESPECT TO
THE REASONS FOR THE DISCHARGE.  IT WAS BRIEF AND COULD HAVE BEEN
RECEIVED AT ONCE WITHOUT ANY UNDUE DELAY IN THE CLOSING OF THE
HEARING. 

WE AGREE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE REFUSAL TO RECEIVE THE
TESTIMONY WAS UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY.  ASSUMING, AS THE BOARD
CONTENDS, THAT IT HAD A DISCRETIONARY CONTROL OVER THE CONDUCT OF THE
PROCEEDING, WE CANNOT BUT REGARD THIS ACTION AS AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.  BUT THE STATUTE DID NOT LEAVE THE PETITIONERS WITHOUT
REMEDY.  THE COURT BELOW POINTED TO THAT REMEDY, THAT IS, TO APPLY TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; ON
SUCH AN APPLICATION AND A SHOWING OF REASONABLE GROUNDS THE COURT COULD
HAVE ORDERED IT TO BE TAKEN.  SEC. 10(E)(F).  FN5  PETITIONERS DID NOT
AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THIS APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE. 

SHORTLY AFTER THE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSED, THE COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONING COMPANIES FILED A BRIEF WITH THE TRIAL EXAMINER.  SEVERAL
WEEKS LATER, ON SEPTEMBER 29TH, THE PROCEEDING WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE
BOARD.  THE EXAMINER MADE NO TENTATIVE REPORT OR FINDINGS AND THERE WAS
NO OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD ITSELF.  IT MUST BE
ASSUMED, HOWEVER, THAT THE BRIEF FOR THE COMPANIES WAS TRANSMITTED TO
THE BOARD AND WAS CONSIDERED BY IT IN MAKING ITS DECISION.  THE BOARD
CONTENDS THAT THE COMPANIES SUBMITTED THEIR BRIEF WITHOUT ASKING FOR AN
ORAL ARGUMENT, AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE BOARD'S RULE (RULE 29), OR FOR AN
INTERMEDIATE REPORT, AND HENCE THAT THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO
COMPLAIN ON EITHER SCORE.  THE BOARD ALSO INSISTS THAT AFTER THE
TRANSFER OF THE PROCEEDING, IT WAS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD
TO ADOPT ANY ONE OF THE COURSES OF PROCEDURE ENUMERATED IN ITS RULE
(RULE 38)  FN6  OF WHICH PETITIONERS WERE INFORMED BY THE SERVICE OF A
COPY OF THE BOARD'S RULES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCEEDING. 
PETITIONERS SAY THAT AT THE VERY OUTSET THEY HAD ASKED, ON THEIR
SPECIAL APPEARANCE, FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD UPON THE QUESTION OF
ITS JURISDICTION AND THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS BE TRANSFERRED TO THE BOARD,
AND THAT THE RULES INDUCED THE BELIEF THAT AFTER THE TRANSFER TO THE
BOARD AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE THERE WOULD BE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
AT WHICH THEY WOULD BE HEARD.  BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE RULES
JUSTIFIED THAT EXPECTATION OR DISPENSED WITH THE NECESSITY, AFTER THE
TRANSFER, OF A SUITABLE REQUEST BY THE PETITIONERS FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL
HEARING AS THEY DESIRED.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT SUCH REQUEST WAS
MADE. 

IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OR THE
PETITIONERS' BRIEF OR FAILED TO MAKE ITS OWN FINDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF
THAT EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER PRACTICE FOR THE
BOARD TO HAVE DIRECTED THE EXAMINER TO MAKE A TENTATIVE REPORT WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR EXCEPTIONS AND ARGUMENT THEREON.  BUT, ASIDE FROM THE
QUESTION OF THE BROTHERHOOD CONTRACTS, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING
THAT THE ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS WERE NOT CLEARLY DEFINED AND THAT THE
PETITIONING COMPANIES WERE NOT FULLY ADVISED OF THEM.  NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO., 304 U.S. 333, 350,
351.  THE POINTS RAISED AS TO THE LACK OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN
THIS RELATION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

THIRD.  THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS OF
THE BOARD WITH RESPECT TO COERCIVE PRACTICES, DISCRIMINATION AND
DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES.  - THE COMPANIES CONTEND THAT THE COURT OF
APPEALS MISCONCEIVED ITS POWER TO REVIEW THE FINDINGS AND, INSTEAD OF
SEARCHING THE RECORD TO SEE IF THEY WERE SUSTAINED BY "SUBSTANTIAL"
EVIDENCE, MERELY CONSIDERED WHETHER THE RECORD WAS "WHOLLY BARREN OF
EVIDENCE" TO SUPPORT THEM.  WE AGREE THAT THE STATUTE, IN PROVIDING
THAT "THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE," MEANS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  WASHINGTON, V. & M. COACH CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 301 U.S. 142, 147.  SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS MORE THAN A MERE
SCINTILLA.  IT MEANS SUCH RELEVANT EVIDENCE AS A REASONABLE MIND MIGHT
ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION.  APPALACHIAN ELECTRIC POWER
CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 93 F.2D 985, 989; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. THOMPSON PRODUCTS, 97 F.2D 13, 15; BALLSTON
STILLWATER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 98 F.2D 758, 760.  WE
DO NOT THINK THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS INTENDED TO APPLY A DIFFERENT
TEST.  IN SAYING THAT THE RECORD WAS NOT "WHOLLY BARREN OF EVIDENCE" TO
SUSTAIN THE FINDING OF DISCRIMINATION, WE THINK THAT THE COURT REFERRED
TO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  BALLSTON-STILLWATER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, SUPRA. 

THE COMPANIES URGE THAT THE BOARD RECEIVED "REMOTE HEARSAY" AND "MERE
RUMOR."  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT "THE RULES OF EVIDENCE PREVAILING IN
COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY SHALL NOT BE CONTROLLING."  FN7  THE OBVIOUS
PURPOSE OF THIS AND SIMILAR PROVISIONS IS TO FREE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS
FROM THE COMPULSION OF TECHNICAL RULES SO THAT THE MERE ADMISSION OF
MATTER WHICH WOULD BE DEEMED INCOMPETENT IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WOULD
NOT INVALIDATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V.
BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25, 44; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 93; UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN
RY. CO., 265 U.S. 274, 288; TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280
U.S. 420, 442.  BUT THIS ASSURANCE OF A DESIRABLE FLEXIBILITY IN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO JUSTIFY ORDERS
WITHOUT A BASIS IN EVIDENCE HAVING RATIONAL PROBATIVE FORCE.  MERE
UNCORROBORATED HEARSAY OR RUMOR DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE. 

APPLYING THESE PRINCIPLES, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE BOARD'S
FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE MATTERS NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION DID NOT
HAVE THE REQUISITE FOUNDATION.  WITH RESPECT TO INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE,
THE COMPANIES SAY THAT THE EMPLOYMENT OF "OUTSIDE INVESTIGATING
AGENCIES" OF ANY SORT HAD BEEN VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUED PRIOR TO
NOVEMBER, 1936, BUT THE BOARD RIGHTLY URGES THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO BAR
ITS RESUMPTION.  COMPARE FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
CO., 304 U.S. 257, 260.  IN RELATION TO THE OTHER CHARGES OF UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES, THE COMPANIES POINT TO THE STATEMENT OF MR. CARLISLE
AT A LARGE MEETING OF THE EMPLOYEES IN APRIL, 1937, WHEN THE
RECOGNITION OF THE BROTHERHOOD WAS UNDER DISCUSSION, THAT THE EMPLOYEES
WERE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO JOIN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION,  - THAT THEY COULD
DO AS THEY PLEASED.  DESPITE THIS STATEMENT AND ASSUMING, AS COUNSEL
FOR THE COMPANIES URGES, THAT WHERE TWO INDEPENDENT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
SEEK RECOGNITION, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR
THE EMPLOYER MERELY TO EXPRESS PREFERENCE OF ONE ORGANIZATION OVER THE
OTHER, BY REASON OF THE FORMER'S ANNOUNCED POLICIES, IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY ATTEMPTS AT INTIMIDATION OR COERCION, WE THINK THAT THERE WAS STILL
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT SUCH ATTEMPTS WERE MADE IN THIS CASE. 

IT WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE TO LENGTHEN THIS OPINION BY
DETAILING THE TESTIMONY.  WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ORDER REQUIRING THE COMPANIES TO DESIST FROM THE DISCRIMINATING AND
COERCIVE PRACTICES DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISIONS (A) TO (E) INCLUSIVE AND
IN SUBDIVISION (H) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF ITS ORDER,  FN8  AND TO
REINSTATE THE SIX EMPLOYEES MENTIONED WITH BACK PAY, AND TO POST
NOTICES ASSURING FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION AND COERCION AS PROVIDED
IN PARAGRAPH TWO OF THE ORDER, RESTED UPON FINDINGS SUSTAINED BY THE
EVIDENCE AND THAT THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING THE
ORDER IN THESE RESPECTS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FOURTH.  THE BROTHERHOOD CONTRACTS.  - THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD THAT
THE CONTRACTS WITH THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS WERE INVALID, AND THE
BOARD'S ORDER REQUIRING THE COMPANIES TO DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO
THESE CONTRACTS, PRESENT QUESTIONS OF MAJOR IMPORTANCE.  WE APPROACH
THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THREE CARDINAL CONSIDERATIONS.  ONE IS THAT THE
BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS ARE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INDEPENDENTLY
ESTABLISHED AS AFFILIATES OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND ARE
NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE EMPLOYING COMPANIES.  SO FAR AS THERE WAS
ANY CHARGE, UNDER SEC. 8(2) OF THE ACT, THAT THE EMPLOYING COMPANIES
HAD DOMINATED OR INTERFERED WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF ANY
LABOR ORGANIZATION OR HAD CONTRIBUTED FINANCIAL OR OTHER SUPPORT TO IT,
THE CHARGE WAS DISMISSED.  ANOTHER CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE CONTRACTS
RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY; THEY
RECOGNIZE THE BROTHERHOOD AS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENCY FOR THE
EMPLOYEES WHO BELONG TO IT, AND THE BROTHERHOOD AGREES FOR ITSELF AND
ITS MEMBERS NOT TO INTIMIDATE OR COERCE EMPLOYEES INTO MEMBERSHIP IN
THE BROTHERHOOD AND NOT TO SOLICIT MEMBERSHIP ON THE TIME OR PROPERTY
OF THE EMPLOYERS.  THE THIRD CONSIDERATION IS THAT THE CONTRACTS
CONTAIN IMPORTANT PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO HOURS, WORKING CONDITIONS,
WAGES, SICKNESS, DISABILITY, ETC., AND ALSO PROVIDE AGAINST STRIKES OR
LOCKOUTS AND FOR THE ADJUSTMENT AND ARBITRATION OF LABOR DISPUTES, THUS
CONSTITUTING INSURANCE AGAINST THE DISRUPTION OF THE SERVICE OF THE
COMPANIES TO INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE THROUGH AN OUTBREAK OF
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THESE PROVISIONS ARE
UNREASONABLE OR OPPRESSIVE BUT ON THE CONTRARY IT WAS VIRTUALLY
CONCEDED AT THE BAR THAT THEY ARE FAIR TO BOTH THE EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES.  IT ALSO APPEARS FROM THE EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS RECEIVED
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS COMPRISED OVER
30,000, OR 80 PER CENT OF THE COMPANIES' EMPLOYEES OUT OF 38,000
ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP. 

THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS CONTEND THAT THEY WERE INDISPENSABLE
PARTIES AND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGAL NOTICE TO THEM OR THEIR
APPEARANCE, THE BOARD HAD NO AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE THE CONTRACTS. 
THE BOARD CONTESTS THIS POSITION, INVOKING OUR DECISION IN NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261. 
THAT CASE, HOWEVER, IS NOT APPOSITE AS THERE NO QUESTION OF CONTRACT
BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE WAS INVOLVED.  THE BOARD HAD FOUND UPON
EVIDENCE THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD CREATED AND FOSTERED THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION IN QUESTION AND DOMINATED ITS ADMINISTRATION IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 8(2).  THE STATEMENT THAT THE "ASSOCIATION" SO FORMED AND
CONTROLLED WAS NOT ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND HEARING WAS MADE IN THAT
RELATION.  ID., PP. 262, 270, 271.  IT HAS NO APPLICATION TO
INDEPENDENT LABOR UNIONS SUCH AS THOSE BEFORE US.  WE THINK THAT THE
BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS HAVING VALUABLE AND BENEFICIAL INTERESTS IN
THE CONTRACTS WERE ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND HEARING BEFORE THEY COULD BE
SET ASIDE.  RUSSELL V. CLARK'S EXECUTORS, 7 CRANCH, 69, 96; MALLOW V.
HINDE, 12 WHEAT.  193, 198; MINNESOTA V. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO., 184
U.S. 199, 235; GARZOT V. DE RUBIO, 209 U.S. 283, 297; GENERAL
INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE & M.S. CO., 260 U.S. 261, 285.  THE RULE,
WHICH WAS APPLIED IN THE CASES CITED TO SUITS IN EQUITY, IS NOT OF A
TECHNICAL CHARACTER BUT RESTS UPON THE PLAINEST PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE,
EQUALLY APPLICABLE HERE.  SEE MALLOW V. HINDE, SUPRA.    THE BOARD
URGES THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY
PROVISION REQUIRING THESE UNIONS TO BE MADE PARTIES; THAT SEC. 10(B)
FN9  AUTHORIZES THE BOARD TO SERVE A COMPLAINT ONLY UPON PERSONS
CHARGED WITH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND THAT ONLY EMPLOYERS CAN BE SO
CHARGED.  IN THAT VIEW, THE QUESTION WOULD AT ONCE ARISE WHETHER THE
ACT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO INVALIDATE THE
CONTRACTS OF INDEPENDENT LABOR UNIONS NOT BEFORE IT AND ALSO AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE ACT IF SO CONSTRUED.  BUT THE BOARD CONTENDS THAT THE
BROTHERHOOD HAD NOTICE, REFERRING TO THE SERVICE OF A COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING UPON A LOCAL UNION OF THE BROTHERHOOD
ON MAY 12, 1937, AND OF AN AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MAY 25, 1937. 
PETITIONERS REJOIN THAT THE SERVICE WAS NOT UPON A LOCAL WHOSE RIGHTS
WERE AFFECTED BUT UPON ONE WHOSE MEMBERS WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE
COMPANIES' SYSTEM.  THE BOARD SAYS, HOWEVER, THAT THE BROTHERHOOD, AND
THE LOCALS WHICH WERE INVOLVED, HAD ACTUAL NOTICE AND HENCE WERE
ENTITLED TO INTERVENE, SEC. 10(B), AND CHOSE NOT TO DO SO.  BUT NEITHER
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT - WHICH ANTEDATED THE CONTRACTS - NOR THE
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS CONTAINED ANY MENTION OF THEM, AND THE
BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS WERE NOT PUT UPON NOTICE THAT THE VALIDITY
OF THE CONTRACTS WAS UNDER ATTACK.  THE BOARD CONTENDS THAT THE
COMPLAINT CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE COMPANIES'"RELATIONS" WITH THE
BROTHERHOOD.  BUT WHAT WAS THUS CHALLENGED CANNOT BE REGARDED AS GOING
BEYOND THE PARTICULAR PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYERS AND THE DISCHARGES
WHICH THE COMPLAINT DESCRIBED.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE
SAID THAT THE UNIONS WERE UNDER A DUTY TO INTERVENE BEFORE THE BOARD IN
ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THEIR INTERESTS. 

THE BOARD URGES FURTHER THAT THE UNIONS HAVE AVAILED THEMSELVES OF
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S ORDER IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS, AND THAT DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO BE HEARD BEFORE JUDGMENT, IF DEFENSES MAY BE PRESENTED UPON APPEAL. 
YORK V. TEXAS, 137 U.S. 15, 20, 21; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. BALDWIN, 287
U.S. 156, 168; MOORE ICE CREAM CO. V. ROSE, 289 U.S. 373, 384.  BUT
THIS RULE ASSUMES THAT THE APPELLATE REVIEW DOES AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT ALL AVAILABLE DEFENSES, INCLUDING LACK OF PROPER NOTICE, TO
JUSTIFY THE JUDGMENT OR ORDER COMPLAINED OF.  ID. 

APART FROM THIS QUESTION OF NOTICE TO THE UNIONS, BOTH THE COMPANIES
AND THE UNIONS CONTEND THAT UPON THE CASE MADE BEFORE THE BOARD IT HAD
NO AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE THE CONTRACTS.  BOTH INSIST THAT THAT ISSUE
WAS NOT ACTUALLY LITIGATED, AND THE RECORD SUPPORTS THAT CONTENTION. 
THE ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY, THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE NECESSARILY IN
ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE CHARGE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AGAINST THE
COMPANIES, IS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE.  NOT ONLY DID THE COMPLAINT AS AMENDED
FAIL TO ASSAIL THE CONTRACTS BUT IT WAS STATED BY THE ATTORNEY FOR THE
BOARD UPON THE HEARING THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT DIRECTED AGAINST THE
BROTHERHOOD; THAT "NO ISSUE OF REPRESENTATION (WAS) INVOLVED IN THIS
PROCEEDING"; AND THAT THE BOARD TOOK THE POSITION THAT THE BROTHERHOOD
WAS "A BONA FIDE LABOR ORGANIZATION" WHOSE LEGALITY WAS NOT ATTACKED. 
BUT THE BOARD SAYS THAT ON JULY 6TH (THE LAST OF THE CONTRACTS HAVING
BEEN MADE ON JUNE 16TH) THE COMPANIES AMENDED THEIR ANSWER STATING THAT
THE MAKING OF THE CONTRACTS HAD RENDERED THE PROCEEDING MOOT, AND THAT
THIS NECESSARILY PUT THE CONTRACTS IN ISSUE.  WE CANNOT SO REGARD IT.
WE THINK THAT THE FAIR CONSTRUCTION OF THE POSITION THUS TAKEN ON THE
LAST DAY OF THE HEARINGS WAS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW THAT THE
VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACTS HAD NOT BEEN, AND WAS NOT, IN ISSUE.  AND THE
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPANIES POINT TO THEIR BRIEF BEFORE THE BOARD, WHICH
THEY PRODUCE, AS PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE
CONTRACTS HAD NOT BEEN ASSAILED. 

FURTHER, THE ACT GIVES NO EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD TO
INVALIDATE CONTRACTS WITH INDEPENDENT LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  THAT
AUTHORITY, IF IT EXISTS, MUST REST UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(C). 
FN10  THAT SECTION AUTHORIZES THE BOARD, WHEN IT HAS FOUND THE EMPLOYER
GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, TO REQUIRE HIM TO DESIST FROM SUCH
PRACTICES "AND TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT
OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES
OF THIS ACT."  WE THINK THAT THIS AUTHORITY TO ORDER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO CONFER A PUNITIVE JURISDICTION ENABLING THE
BOARD TO INFLICT UPON THE EMPLOYER ANY PENALTY IT MAY CHOOSE BECAUSE HE
IS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD BE OF THE
OPINION THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT MIGHT BE EFFECTUATED BY SUCH AN
ORDER. 

THE POWER TO COMMAND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE,
AND IS TO BE EXERCISED IN AID OF THE BOARD'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRAIN
VIOLATIONS AND AS A MEANS OF REMOVING OR AVOIDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF
VIOLATION WHERE THOSE CONSEQUENCES ARE OF A KIND TO THWART THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT.  THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF A COMPANY UNION ESTABLISHED BY
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OR OF A UNION DOMINATED BY THE EMPLOYER IS A
CONSEQUENCE OF VIOLATION OF THE ACT WHOSE CONTINUANCE THWARTS THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT AND RENDERS INEFFECTIVE ANY ORDER RESTRAINING THE
UNFAIR PRACTICES.  COMPARE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, SUPRA.  HERE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A
FINDING THAT THE CONTRACTS WITH THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS WERE A
CONSEQUENCE OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES FOUND BY THE BOARD OR THAT
THESE CONTRACTS IN THEMSELVES THWART ANY POLICY OF THE ACT OR THAT
THEIR CANCELLATION WOULD IN ANY WAY MAKE THE ORDER TO CEASE THE
SPECIFIED PRACTICES ANY MORE EFFECTIVE. 

THE ACT CONTEMPLATES THE MAKING OF CONTRACTS WITH LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS.  THAT IS THE MANIFEST OBJECTIVE IN PROVIDING FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  UNDER SEC. 7  FN11  THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
COMPANIES ARE ENTITLED TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO JOIN LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF
THEIR OWN CHOOSING.  THE 80 PER CENT. OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO WERE MEMBERS
OF THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS, HAD THAT RIGHT.  THEY HAD THE RIGHT
TO CHOOSE THE BROTHERHOOD AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND TO HAVE CONTRACTS MADE AS THE RESULT OF THAT
BARGAINING.  NOTHING THAT THE EMPLOYERS HAD DONE DEPRIVED THEM OF THAT
RIGHT.  NOR DID THE CONTRACTS MAKE THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS
EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  ON THIS POINT THE
CONTRACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.  THEY SIMPLY CONSTITUTE THE BROTHERHOOD
THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENCY FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ITS
MEMBERS.  THE BOARD BY ITS ORDER DID NOT DIRECT AN ELECTION TO
ASCERTAIN WHO SHOULD REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  SEC. 9(C).  FN12  UPON THIS RECORD THERE IS NOTHING TO
SHOW THAT THE EMPLOYEES' SELECTION AS INDICATED BY THE BROTHERHOOD
CONTRACTS HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY ANY OTHER SELECTION BY A MAJORITY OF
EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANIES SO AS TO CREATE AN EXCLUSIVE AGENCY FOR
BARGAINING UNDER THE STATUTE, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN EXCLUSIVE
AGENCY THE EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE BROTHERHOOD, EVEN IF THEY WERE
A MINORITY, CLEARLY HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICE.  MOREOVER,
THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO PROTECT INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE FROM INTERRUPTIONS AND OBSTRUCTIONS CAUSED BY INDUSTRIAL
STRIFE.  THIS PURPOSE APPEARS TO BE SERVED BY THESE CONTRACTS IN AN
IMPORTANT DEGREE.  REPRESENTING SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE
EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANIES, AND PRECLUDING STRIKES AND PROVIDING FOR
THE ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES, THESE AGREEMENTS ARE HIGHLY PROTECTIVE TO
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THEY CONTAIN NO TERMS WHICH CAN BE
SAID TO "AFFECT COMMERCE" IN THE SENSE OF THE ACT SO AS TO JUSTIFY
THEIR ABROGATION BY THE BOARD.  THE DISRUPTION OF THESE CONTRACTS, EVEN
PENDING PROCEEDINGS TO ASCERTAIN BY AN ELECTION THE WISHES OF THE
MAJORITY OF EMPLOYEES, WOULD REMOVE THAT SALUTARY PROTECTION DURING THE
INTERVENING PERIOD. 

THE BOARD INSISTS THAT THE CONTRACTS ARE INVALID BECAUSE MADE DURING
THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDING.  BUT THE EFFECT OF THAT PENDENCY WOULD
APPROPRIATELY EXTEND TO THE PRACTICES OF THE EMPLOYERS TO WHICH THE
COMPLAINT WAS ADDRESSED.  SEE JONES V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N,
298 U.S. 1, 15.  IT DID NOT REACH SO FAR AS TO SUSPEND THE RIGHT OF THE
EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION OR PRECLUDE THE BROTHERHOOD AS AN
INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION CHOSEN BY ITS MEMBERS FROM MAKING FAIR
CONTRACTS ON THEIR BEHALF. 

APART FROM THIS, THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE BOARD IS THAT THE
CONTRACTS WERE THE FRUIT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OF THE
EMPLOYERS; THAT THEY WERE "SIMPLY A DEVICE TO CONSUMMATE AND
PERPETUATE" THE COMPANIES' ILLEGAL CONDUCT AND CONSTITUTED ITS
CULMINATION.  BUT, AS WE HAVE SAID, THIS CONCLUSION IS ENTIRELY TOO
BROAD TO BE SUSTAINED.  IF THE BOARD INTENDED TO MAKE THAT CHARGE, IT
SHOULD HAVE AMENDED ITS COMPLAINT ACCORDINGLY, GIVEN NOTICE TO THE
BROTHERHOOD, AND INTRODUCED PROOF TO SUSTAIN THE CHARGE.  INSTEAD IT IS
LEFT AS A MATTER OF MERE CONJECTURE TO WHAT EXTENT MEMBERSHIP IN THE
BROTHERHOOD WAS INDUCED BY ANY ILLEGAL CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE
EMPLOYERS.  THE BROTHERHOOD WAS ENTITLED TO FORM ITS LOCALS AND THEIR
ORGANIZATION WAS NOT ASSAILED.  THE BROTHERHOOD AND ITS LOCALS WERE
ENTITLED TO SOLICIT MEMBERS AND THE EMPLOYEES WERE ENTITLED TO JOIN. 
THESE RIGHTS CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE AS IMMATERIAL FOR THEY ARE OF THE
VERY ESSENCE OF THE RIGHTS WHICH THE LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS PASSED TO
PROTECT AND THE BOARD COULD NOT IGNORE OR OVERRIDE THEM IN PROFESSING
TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE ACT.  TO SAY THAT OF THE 30,000 WHO
DID JOIN THERE WERE NOT THOSE WHO JOINED VOLUNTARILY OR THAT THE
BROTHERHOOD DID NOT HAVE MEMBERS WHOM IT COULD PROPERLY REPRESENT IN
MAKING THESE CONTRACTS WOULD BE TO INDULGE AN EXTRAVAGANT AND
UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION.  THE EMPLOYERS' PRACTICES, WHICH WERE
COMPLAINED OF, COULD BE STOPPED WITHOUT IMPERILING THE INTERESTS OF
THOSE WHO FOR ALL THAT APPEARS HAD EXERCISED FREELY THEIR RIGHT OF
CHOICE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE BOARD WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE
PETITIONING COMPANIES TO DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE BROTHERHOOD
CONTRACTS, AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER. 

SUBDIVISION (G) OF THAT PARAGRAPH, REQUIRING THE COMPANIES TO CEASE
RECOGNIZING THE BROTHERHOOD "AS THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR
EMPLOYEES" STANDS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING.  THE CONTRACTS DO NOT CLAIM
FOR THE BROTHERHOOD EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION OF THE COMPANIES'
EMPLOYEES BUT ONLY REPRESENTATION OF THOSE WHO ARE ITS MEMBERS, AND THE
CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE CONTRACTS IS NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISION OF THE LAW BY WHICH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CAN BE ASCERTAINED IN CASE ANY
QUESTION OF "REPRESENTATION" SHOULD ARISE.  SEC. 9.  FN13  WE CONSTRUE
SUBDIVISION (G) AS HAVING NO MORE EFFECT THAN TO PROVIDE THAT THERE
SHALL BE NO INTERFERENCE WITH AN EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING AGENCY IF ONE
OTHER THAN THE BROTHERHOOD SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  SO CONSTRUED, THAT SUBDIVISION MERELY APPLIES
EXISTING LAW. 

THE PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH TWO OF THE ORDER AS TO POSTING NOTICES
SHOULD BE MODIFIED SO AS TO EXCLUDE ANY REQUIREMENT TO POST A NOTICE
THAT THE EXISTING BROTHERHOOD CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN ABROGATED. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS MODIFIED SO AS TO HOLD
UNENFORCEABLE THE PROVISION OF SUBDIVISION (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE
ORDER AND THE APPLICATION TO THAT PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH TWO
SUBDIVISION (C), AND AS SO MODIFIED THE DECREE ENFORCING THE ORDER OF
THE BOARD IS AFFIRMED.  MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 

FN1  49 STAT. 449; 29 U.S.C. SECS. 158(1)(3). 

FN2  29 U.S.C. 158(2). 

FN3  29 U.S.C. 160(A). 

FN4  NEW YORK STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SEC. 715. 

FN5  29 U.S.C. 160(E)(F). 

FN6  RULES 37 AND 38 ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 37.  WHENEVER THE BOARD DEEMS IT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, IT MAY PERMIT A CHARGE TO BE FILED
WITH IT, IN WASHINGTON, D.C., OR MAY, AT ANY TIME AFTER A CHARGE HAS
BEEN FILED WITH A REGIONAL DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 OF THIS
ARTICLE, ORDER THAT SUCH CHARGE, AND ANY PROCEEDING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
INSTITUTED IN RESPECT THERETO - 

"(A)  BE TRANSFERRED TO AND CONTINUED BEFORE IT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSOLIDATION WITH ANY PROCEEDING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED BY THE
BOARD, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE; OR 

"(B)  BE CONSOLIDATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING, OR FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE, WITH ANY OTHER PROCEEDING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED IN
THE SAME REGION; OR 

"(C)  BE TRANSFERRED TO AND CONTINUED IN ANY OTHER REGION, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONSOLIDATION WITH ANY PROCEEDING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
INSTITUTED IN OR TRANSFERRED TO SUCH OTHER REGION, OR FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE. 

"THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3 TO 31, INCLUSIVE, OF THIS ARTICLE
SHALL, IN SO FAR AS APPLICABLE, APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD
PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, AND THE POWERS GRANTED TO REGIONAL DIRECTORS
IN SUCH PROVISIONS SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, BE RESERVED
TO AND EXERCISED BY THE BOARD.  AFTER THE TRANSFER OF ANY CHARGE AND
ANY PROCEEDING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED IN RESPECT THERETO FROM
ONE REGION TO ANOTHER PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, THE PROVISIONS OF
CHARGE AND SUCH PROCEEDING AS IF THE CHARGE HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN FILED
IN THE REGION TO WHICH THE TRANSFER IS MADE.    "SEC. 38.  AFTER A
HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING EVIDENCE UPON THE COMPLAINT IN ANY
PROCEEDING OVER WHICH THE BOARD HAS ASSUMED JURISDICTION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 37 OF THIS ARTICLE, THE BOARD MAY - 

"(A)  DIRECT THAT THE TRIAL EXAMINER PREPARE AN INTERMEDIATE REPORT,
IN WHICH CASE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 32 TO 36, INCLUSIVE, OF THIS
ARTICLE SHALL IN SO FAR AS APPLICABLE GOVERN SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE, AND
THE POWERS GRANTED TO REGIONAL DIRECTORS IN SUCH PROVISIONS SHALL FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION BE RESERVED TO AND EXERCISED BY THE BOARD;
OR 

"(B)  DECIDE THE MATTER FORTHWITH UPON THE RECORD, OR AFTER THE
FILING OF BRIEFS OR ORAL ARGUMENT; OR 

"(C)  REOPEN THE RECORD AND RECEIVE FURTHER EVIDENCE, OR REQUIRE THE
TAKING OF FURTHER EVIDENCE BEFORE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, OR OTHER AGENT
OR AGENCY; OR 

"(D)  MAKE OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE CASE. 

"THE BOARD SHALL NOTIFY THE PARTIES OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF ANY SUCH
SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS, ORAL ARGUMENT, OR TAKING OF FURTHER EVIDENCE." 

FN7  SEC. 10(B); 29 U.S.C. 160(B). 

FN8  THESE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER IN SUBSTANCE REQUIRED THE
COMPANIES TO DESIST FROM DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED OR
ENCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN THE BROTHERHOOD, OR ANY OTHER LABOR
ORGANIZATION OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, BY DISCHARGES, OR THREATS OF
DISCHARGE, OR REFUSAL OF REINSTATEMENT, BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP OR
ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH ANY SUCH LABOR ORGANIZATION; FROM
PERMITTING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BROTHERHOOD TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES
IN ITS BEHALF DURING WORKING HOURS OR ON THE EMPLOYERS' PROPERTY UNLESS
SIMILAR PRIVILEGES WERE GRANTED TO THE UNITED AND ALL OTHER LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS; FROM PERMITTING EMPLOYEES WHO WERE OFFICIALS OF THE
EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATION PLANS TO USE THE EMPLOYERS' TIME, PROPERTY
AND MONEY IN BEHALF OF THE BROTHERHOOD OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION;
FROM EMPLOYING DETECTIVES TO INVESTIGATE THE ACTIVITIES OF THEIR
EMPLOYEES IN BEHALF OF THE UNITED OR OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, OR
EMPLOYING FOR SUCH PURPOSE ANY OTHER SORT OF ESPIONAGE; AND FROM "IN
ANY OTHER MANNER INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING ITS
EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM,
JOIN OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS" OR TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY OR TO
ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THAT PURPOSE OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR
PROTECTION. 

FN9  29 U.S.C. 160(B). 

FN10  29 U.S.C. 160(C). 

FN11  29 U.S.C. 157. 

FN12  29 U.S.C. 159(C). 

FN13  29 U.S.C. 159. 

OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BUTLER. 

I AGREE WITH THE COURT'S DECISION THAT THE BOARD WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT
TO THE CONTRACTS REFERRED TO IN SUBDIVISION (F) OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH
OF THE ORDER.  AND I AM OF OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE ORDER SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE. 

THE BOARD WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  THE FACTS ON WHICH IT ASSUMED TO
EXERT POWER NEED NOT BE NARRATED; THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY STATED BY THE
LOWER COURT AND IN THE OPINION HERE.  BOTH COURTS RIGHTLY TREAT THE
CASE AS ONE WHERE NEITHER EMPLOYERS NOR EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  HERE, THE EMPLOYERS ARE ENGAGED SOLELY
IN INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES.  A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE PRODUCTS,
FURNISHED IN THAT STATE TO OTHERS, IS BY THE LATTER USED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT CONGRESS CANNOT REGULATE RELATIONS
BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTRASTATE
ACTIVITIES. 

IN SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES (MAY, 1935), 295 U.S. 495,
DECIDED SHORTLY BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WE
HELD THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT REGULATE THE WAGES AND HOURS OF
LABOR OF PERSONS EMPLOYED IN THE INTERNAL COMMERCE OF THE STATE. 

IN CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO. (MAY, 1936), 298 U.S. 238, DECIDED
SHORTLY AFTER PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WE HELD THAT
PROVISIONS OF THE BITUMINOUS COAL CONSERVATION ACT OF 1935 LOOKING TO
THE CONTROL OF WAGES, HOURS, AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF PERSONS ENGAGED
IN PRODUCING COAL ABOUT TO MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SEEKING TO
GUARANTEE THEIR RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, WERE BEYOND THE POWER
OF CONGRESS, FOR THE REASONS THAT IT HAS NO GENERAL POWER OF REGULATION
TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE; THAT THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POWER TO CONTROL THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH COAL IS
PRODUCED; THAT THE EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF LABOR CONDITIONS
INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF COAL, INCLUDING DISPUTES AND STRIKES OVER
WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, IS INDIRECT. 

IN THE PERIOD, LESS THAN A YEAR, INTERVENING BETWEEN THE CARTER CASE
AND LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN (APRIL, 1937), 301 U.S. 1, AND
OTHER LABOR BOARD CASES DECIDED ON THE SAME DAY,  FN1  - AND, AS I
THINK, WRONGLY DECIDED - IT WAS, ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCHECHTER AND
CARTER CASES, HELD BY FOUR CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND SIX DISTRICT
COURTS THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS DOES NOT EXTEND TO REGULATIONS
BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN LOCAL PRODUCTION. 
THEIR DECISIONS ARE CITED IN THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE LABOR BOARD
CASES.  301 U.S. 76.  IN THAT PERIOD THE LOWER COURTS WERE BOUND BY OUR
DECISIONS TO CONDEMN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, CONSTRUED TO
APPLY TO PRODUCTION OR INTRASTATE COMMERCE, AS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF
CONGRESS. 

THIS CASE IS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE SCHECHTER CASE OR THE
CARTER CASE.  THERE, AS HERE, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EMPLOYERS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES WERE EXCLUSIVELY LOCAL.  IT DIFFERS FROM THE JONES & LAUGHLIN
CASE AND ALL THE OTHER LABOR BOARD CASES.  FN2  IN EACH OF THEM, THE
EMPLOYER WAS TO AN EXTENT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE OPINION
JUST ANNOUNCED POINTS TO NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS CASE AND THE
SCHECHTER OR CARTER CASE.  NOR DOES IT REFER TO THE LABOR BOARD CASES
AS CONTROLLING HERE.  BUT, TO SUPPORT THIS FEDERAL ADVANCE INTO LOCAL
FIELDS, THE COURT BRINGS FORWARD THREE RAILROAD RATE CASES:  HOUSTON &
TEXAS RY. V. UNITED STATES (THE SHREVEPORT CASE), 234 U.S. 342;
WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563; AND
NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 591. 

THESE CASES GIVE NO SUPPORT TO THE IDEA THAT, IN ABSENCE OF CONFLICT
BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL POLICY OR REGULATION, CONGRESS HAS POWER TO
CONTROL LABOR CONDITIONS IN PRODUCTION OR INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION. 
IN EACH, THE FEDERAL INTERFERENCE IS SHOWN NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
PROTECT NATIONAL AUTHORITY, INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND INTERSTATE RATES
ESTABLISHED UNDER FEDERAL LAW.  BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS THAT
LED UP TO THESE CASES AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DECISIONS WILL BE
SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THEY HAVE NO APPLICATION HERE. 

IN 1906 AND 1907, MINNESOTA REDUCED INTRASTATE RATES SUBSTANTIALLY
BELOW LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED INTERSTATE RATES.  SUITS WERE BROUGHT BY
THEIR STOCKHOLDERS TO RESTRAIN THE CARRIERS FROM OBEYING, AND STATE
OFFICERS FROM ENFORCING, THE LOCAL RATES ON THE GROUND, INTER ALIA,
THAT THEY WERE REPUGNANT TO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THAT ENFORCEMENT
WOULD NECESSARILY INTERFERE WITH AND BURDEN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
BY THE CARRIERS.  THE MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352.  THE
CONTROVERSY WAS EVERYWHERE REGARDED AS IMPORTANT.  SEE P. 395.  THE
FACTS FOUND BY THE SPECIAL MASTER AND ADOPTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT ARE
STATED IN ITS OPINION (SHEPARD V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. (1911), 184
F. 765, 775-794) AND SUMMARIZED IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT.  PP. 381
395.  THEY SHOW THAT THE INTRASTATE RATES DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CARRIERS TO COLLECT,
OR FOR THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE, VALID HIGHER INTERSTATE RATES. 
THE TRIAL COURT HELD THE STATE MEASURES REPUGNANT TO THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND UPON THAT GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, ENJOINED ENFORCEMENT OF THE
RATES THEY PRESCRIBED. 

THE CASES WERE ARGUED HERE IN APRIL, 1912, AND DECIDED JUNE 9, 1913. 
THIS COURT UPHELD THE STATE RATES, NOTWITHSTANDING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE,
THE ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE, THE INTERSTATE RATES LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW, AND THE DESTRUCTIVE DISCRIMINATION.  IT
HELD THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION OF UNJUST DISCRIMINATION, THE INTRASTATE RATES WERE VALID. 
THE OPINION RESERVED, P. 419, THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMISSION WAS
EMPOWERED TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION.  AND THAT QUESTION WAS DECIDED IN
THE SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342, 357. 

THAT CASE WAS PENDING HERE BEFORE THE DECISION IN THE MINNESOTA RATE
CASES, AND WAS DECIDED IN JUNE, 1914.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAD FOUND THAT RATES PRESCRIBED BY TEXAS OPERATED TO
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE TRAFFIC FROM SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA,
INTO TEXAS MOVING ON LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED INTERSTATE RATES.  IN ORDER
TO ELIMINATE THE DISCRIMINATION, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED THE CARRIERS
TO CEASE CHARGING HIGHER RATES FOR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION THAN THOSE
CHARGED FOR TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TEXAS POINTS.  THIS COURT HELD THE
CARRIERS FREE TO RAISE THE INTRASTATE RATES SO AS TO REMOVE THE
DISCRIMINATION. 

WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. (1922), 257 U.S.
563, UPHELD SEC. 15A OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, ADDED BY SEC. 422,
TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, WHICH EMPOWERED THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION RESULTING FROM INTRASTATE RATES
UNDULY LOW, AS COMPARED WITH CORRESPONDING RATES FIXED UNDER THAT

NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 591, HELD THAT INTRASTATE RATES
SO LOW THAT THEY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
INCREASED UNDER THAT ACT BY THE COMMISSION TO CONFORM WITH LIKE RATES
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FIXED BY IT. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS DECIDED IN THESE THREE CASES WERE
ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE OF FEDERAL POWER HERE PRESENTED. 
THE STATE MEASURES THERE OVERBORNE WERE REPUGNANT TO EXISTING FEDERAL
REGULATIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  APPLICATION OF THE LOWER STATE
RATES MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE, OR TO
ENABLE, CARRIERS TO COLLECT INTERSTATE RATES LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED AS
JUST AND REASONABLE.  THE POLICY AND PROVISIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE
LABOR RELATIONS ACT ARE IN SUBSTANCE PRECISELY THE SAME AS THE NATIONAL
POLICY AND THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE STATE'S INTEREST,
PURPOSE, AND ABILITY TO SAFEGUARD AGAINST POSSIBLE INTERRUPTION OF
PRODUCTION AND SERVICE BY LABOR DISPUTES ARE NOT LESS THAN THOSE OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE STATE'S NEED OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE IS
IMMEDIATE, WHILE THE EFFECT OF INTERRUPTION ON INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE WOULD BE MEDIATE, INDIRECT, AND RELATIVELY REMOTE.  THE RECORD
FAILS TO DISCLOSE ANY CONDITION, EXISTING OR THREATENED, TO SUGGEST AS
NECESSARY FEDERAL ACTION TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR ANY OTHER
INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE LIABLE
TO RESULT FROM CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN THESE EMPLOYERS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES.  THE RIGHT OF THE STATES, CONSISTENTLY WITH NATIONAL POLICY
AND LAW, FREELY TO EXERT THE POWERS SAFEGUARDED TO THEM BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF THIS GOVERNMENT. 
UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1, 12, 13.  KIDD V. PEARSON,
128 U.S. 1, 21.  ASSEVERATION OF NEED TO UPHOLD OUR DUAL FORM OF
GOVERNMENT AND THE SAFEGUARDS SET FOR PROTECTION OF THE STATES AND THE
LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED EXERTION OF FEDERAL POWER,
DOES NOT ASSURE ADHERENCE TO, OR CONCEAL FAILURE TO DISCHARGE, DUTY TO
SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
548-550.  CF. LABOR BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, SUPRA, 29-30. 

FN1  LABOR BOARD V. FRUEHAUF CO., 301 U.S. 49.  LABOR BOARD V.
CLOTHING CO., 301 U.S. 58.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S.
103.  WASHINGTON COACH CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 142. 

FN2  LABOR BOARD V. FRUEHAUF CO., 301 U.S. 49.  LABOR BOARD V.
CLOTHING CO., 301 U.S. 58.  ASSOCIATED PRESS V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S.
103.  WASHINGTON COACH CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 142.  LABOR BOARD
V. GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261.  LABOR BOARD V. PACIFIC LINES, 303
U.S. 272.  SANTA CRUZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 303 U.S. 453.  LABOR BOARD V.
MACKAY RADIO & T. CO., 304 U.S. 333. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART. 

WHILE CONCURRING IN GENERAL WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT IN THIS
CASE, I FIND MYSELF IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WAS "WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE
PETITIONING COMPANIES TO DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THE BROTHERHOOD
CONTRACTS, AS PROVIDED IN SUBDIVISION (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER."  IN THAT PARAGRAPH THE PETITIONER COMPANIES ARE ORDERED
TO: 

"I.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM: 

     .         .         .         .   . 

(F)  GIVING EFFECT TO THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS." 

IT IS AGREED THAT THE "FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO PROTECT
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE FROM INTERRUPTIONS AND OBSTRUCTIONS
CAUSED BY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE."  THIS IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY CONTRACTS
WITH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, REACHED THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN TURN ARE TO BE CREATED THROUGH THE SELF
ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS, FREE FROM INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT OR COERCION
OF THE EMPLOYER.  FN1  THE FORBIDDEN INTERFERENCE IS AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, WHICH THE BOARD, EXCLUSIVELY, IS EMPOWERED TO PREVENT BY SUCH
NEGATIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE
ACT.  FN2  TO INTERPRET THE ACT TO MEAN THAT THE BOARD IS WITHOUT POWER
TO NULLIFY ADVANTAGES OBTAINED BY THE EDISON COMPANIES THROUGH
CONTRACTS WITH UNIONS, PARTLY DEVELOPED BY THE UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE OF
THE EDISON COMPANIES WITH SELF-ORGANIZATION, IS TO WITHDRAW FROM THE
BOARD THE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE ACT TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION TO PROTECT THE WORKERS' RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION, THE BASIC
PRIVILEGE GUARANTEED BY THE ACT.  FREEDOM FROM EMPLOYER DOMINATION
FLOWS FROM FREEDOM IN SELF-ORGANIZATION.    IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE
TERMS OF THESE CONTRACTS IN ALL RESPECTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND ARE IN THEMSELVES,
CONSIDERED APART FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE EDISON COMPANIES IN SECURING
THEIR EXECUTION, ADVANTAGEOUS IN PRESERVING INDUSTRIAL HARMONY. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY AND ITS
AFFILIATES, THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE BOARD, "DELIBERATELY EMBARKED
UPON AN UNLAWFUL COURSE OF CONDUCT, AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, WHICH ENABLED
THEM TO IMPOSE THE I.B.E.W. UPON THEIR EMPLOYEES AS THEIR BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE AND AT THE SAME TIME DISCOURAGE AND WEAKEN THE UNITED
WHICH THEY OPPOSED.  FROM THE OUTSET THE RESPONDENTS CONTEMPLATED THE
EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS WITH THE I.B.E.W. LOCALS WHICH WOULD CONSUMMATE
AND PERPETUATE THEIR PLAINLY ILLEGAL COURSE OF CONDUCT IN INTERFERING
WITH, RESTRAINING, AND COERCING THEIR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO THEM UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ACT.  IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE GRANTING OF THE CONTRACTS TO THE I.B.E.W. BY THE RESPONDENTS WAS A
PART OF THE RESPONDENTS' UNLAWFUL COURSE OF CONDUCT AND AS SUCH
CONSTITUTED AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS OF THEIR EMPLOYEES TO SELF
ORGANIZATION.  THE CONTRACTS WERE EXECUTED UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT THEY ARE INVALID, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THEY ARE IN EXPRESS TERMS
APPLICABLE ONLY TO MEMBERS OF THE I.B.E.W. LOCALS.  IF THE CONTRACTS
ARE SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THEM BY THE
RESPONDENTS, NAMELY, THAT THEY WERE EXCLUSIVE CLUSIVE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS, THEN, A FORTIORI, THEY ARE INVALID."  FN3 

THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THIS FINDING IS BASED IS SUMMARIZED IN DETAIL
IN 4 N.L.R.B., PAGES 83 TO 94.  IT SHOWS A CONSISTENT EFFORT ON THE
PART OF THE OFFICERS AND FOREMEN OF THE EDISON COMPANY AND ITS
AFFILIATES, AS WELL AS OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE EDISON COMPANIES -
FORMERLY OFFICERS IN THE RECENTLY DISESTABLISHED "EMPLOYEES'
REPRESENTATION PLANS," ACTUALLY COMPANY UNIONS - TO FURTHER THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE I.B.E.W. UNIONS BY RECOGNITION, CONTRACTS FOR
BARGAINING, OPENLY EXPRESSED APPROVAL, ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCALS, AND BY
PERMITTING SOLICITATION OF EMPLOYEES ON THE TIME AND PREMISES OF THE
EDISON COMPANIES.  BY THE WAGNER ACT EMPLOYEES HAVE "THE RIGHT TO SELF
ORGANIZATION."  IT IS AN "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER" TO
"INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN OR COERCE EMPLOYEES" IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT
RIGHT.  FN4  THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE CONTRACTS WITH THE I.B.E.W.
UNIONS WERE A PART OF A SYSTEMATIC VIOLATION BY THE EDISON COMPANIES OF
THE WORKERS' RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION. 

THIS DETERMINATION SET IN MOTION THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO ISSUE
AN ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AND TO TAKE
"SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION  ...  AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS
ACT."  THE EVIDENCE WAS CLEARLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE BOARD THAT THE EDISON COMPANIES ENTERED INTO THE CONTRACTS AS AN
INTEGRAL PART OF A PLAN FOR COERCION OF AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE SELF
ORGANIZATION OF THEIR EMPLOYEES.  THIS JUSTIFIED THE BOARD'S
PROHIBITION AGAINST GIVING EFFECT TO THE CONTRACTS.  THE "AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION" MUST BE CONNECTED WITH THE UNFAIR PRACTICES BUT THERE COULD BE
NO QUESTION AS TO THE MATERIALITY OF THE CONTRACTS.  AS THIS COURT,
ONLY RECENTLY, SAID, AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS IN ENACTING THIS
ACT: 

"IT HAD BEFORE IT THE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE WHICH HAD EMPHASIZED THE
IMPORTANCE OF UNION RECOGNITION IN SECURING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, S. REP. 573,
74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 17, AND THERE WERE THEN AVAILABLE DATA
SHOWING THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYER HAS CONFERRED RECOGNITION ON A PARTICULAR
ORGANIZATION IT HAS A MARKED ADVANTAGE OVER ANY OTHER IN SECURING THE
ADHERENCE OF EMPLOYEES, AND HENCE IN PREVENTING THE RECOGNITION OF ANY
OTHER."  FN5 

TO THIS, IT IS ANSWERED THAT THE EXTENT OF THE COERCION IS LEFT TO
"MERE CONJECTURE"; THAT IT WOULD BE AN "EXTRAVAGANT" ASSUMPTION TO SAY
THAT NONE OF THE 30,000 MEMBERS "JOINED VOLUNTARILY"; AND THAT THE
"EMPLOYERS' PRACTICES, WHICH WERE COMPLAINED OF, COULD BE STOPPED
WITHOUT IMPERILING THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO FOR ALL THAT APPEARS HAD
EXERCISED FREELY THEIR RIGHT OF CHOICE."  FN6 ON THE QUESTION WHETHER
OR NOT THE EDISON COMPANIES' ACTIVITIES AS TO THESE CONTRACTS WERE A
PART OF A DEFINITE PLAN TO INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF SELF
ORGANIZATION, THESE ANSWERS ARE IMMATERIAL.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE
PROBLEM OF THE CONTRACTS SHOULD BE APPROACHED WITH THREE CARDINAL
CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND:  (1) THAT ONE CONTRACTING PARTY IS AN
"INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED" LABOR ORGANIZATION, FREE OF DOMINATION BY
THE EMPLOYER; (2) THAT THE CONTRACTS GRANT VALUABLE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING RIGHTS; AND (3) THAT THEY CONTAIN PROVISIONS FOR DESIRABLE
WORKING PRIVILEGES.  SUCH CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD AFFECT DISCRETION IN
SHAPING THE PROPER REMEDY.  THEY ARE NEGLIGIBLE IN DETERMINING THE
POWER OF THE BOARD.  THEY WOULD, IF GIVEN WEIGHT, PERMIT PATERNALISM TO
BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SELF-ORGANIZATION.  THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD, BASED
ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, ARE CONCLUSIVE.  FN7  THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF
COERCION AND INTERFERENCE, AND THE BOARD DID DETERMINE THAT THE
POLICIES OF THE ACT WOULD BE EFFECTUATED BY REQUIRING THE COMPANIES TO
CEASE GIVING EFFECT TO THESE CONTRACTS. 

THE PETITIONERS, HOWEVER, ASIDE FROM THE MERITS, RAISE PROCEDURAL
OBJECTIONS.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT BEFORE THE BOARD COULD HAVE AUTHORITY
TO ORDER THE EDISON COMPANIES TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM GIVING EFFECT TO
THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE UNIONS, IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE UNIONS AS
WELL AS THE EDISON COMPANIES SHOULD HAVE LEGAL NOTICE OR SHOULD APPEAR;
THAT THE UNIONS WERE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES.  THIS COURT HAS HELD TO THE
CONTRARY IN LABOR BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261. 
THIS CASE DETERMINED THAT WHERE AN EMPLOYER HAS CREATED AND FOSTERED A
LABOR ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES, THUS INTERFERING WITH THEIR RIGHT TO
SELF-ORGANIZATION, THE EMPLOYER CAN BE REQUIRED WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE
ORGANIZATION, TO WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION OF SUCH ORGANIZATION AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  IT IS SAID THAT THIS CASE "IS NOT
APPOSITE, AS THERE NO QUESTION OF CONTRACT BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE WAS INVOLVED.  THE BOARD HAD FOUND UPON EVIDENCE THAT THE
EMPLOYER HAD CREATED AND FOSTERED THE LABOR ORGANIZATION IN QUESTION
AND DOMINATED ITS ADMINISTRATION IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(2)."  FN8  IN
THE INSTANT CASE IT WAS FOUND THAT NO SUCH DOMINATION EXISTED.  IN THE
GREYHOUND CASE, THE BOARD FOUND NOT ONLY DOMINATION UNDER SEC. 8(2) BUT
ALSO, AS IN THIS CASE, AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UNDER SEC. 8(1).  THE
COMPANY'S VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1) WAS PREDICATED ON ITS INTERFERENCE
WITH SELF-ORGANIZATION.  FN9  IN THE GREYHOUND CASE IT WAS SAID THAT
THE ORGANIZATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND HEARING BECAUSE "THE
ORDER DID NOT RUN AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION."  FN10  HERE THE UNIONS ARE
AFFECTED BY THE ACTION ON THE CONTRACTS, EXACTLY AS THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION IN THE GREYHOUND CASE WAS AFFECTED BY THE ORDER TO
WITHDRAW RECOGNITION.  IT WOULD SEEM IMMATERIAL WHETHER THOSE CONTRACTS
WERE VIOLATIVE OF ONE OR BOTH OR ALL THE PROHIBITED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES. 

A FURTHER PROCEDURAL OBJECTION IS FOUND IN THE FAILURE OF THE
COMPLAINT, OR ANY OF ITS AMENDMENTS, TO SEEK SPECIFICALLY A CEASE AND
DESIST ORDER AGAINST CONTINUED OPERATION UNDER THE CONTRACTS.  THE
COMPANIES WERE CHARGED WITH ALLOWING ORGANIZATION MEETINGS ON THE
COMPANY TIME AND ON COMPANY PROPERTY, PERMITTING SOLICITATION OF
MEMBERSHIP DURING COMPANY TIME, AND PAYING OVERTIME ALLOWANCES TO THOSE
ENGAGED IN SOLICITING OR COERCING WORKERS TO JOIN THE CONTRACTING
UNIONS.  THE COMPLAINT SAID THAT SIMILAR AID WAS NOT EXTENDED TO A
COMPETING UNION AND THAT OFFICE ASSISTANCE WAS GIVEN TO THE EFFORT TO
GET MEMBERS FOR THE CONTRACTING UNIONS.  THESE CHARGES MADE IT OBVIOUS
THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE OBTAINED FROM THE UNIONS WHICH WERE IMPROPERLY
AIDED BY THE EDISON COMPANIES IN VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
INTERFERENCE WITH SELF-ORGANIZATION.  CONTRACTS SO OBTAINED WERE
NECESSARILY AT ISSUE IN AN EXAMINATION OF THE ACTS IN QUESTION. 

CERTAINLY THE EDISON COMPANIES AND THE CONTRACTING UNIONS COULD HAVE
BEEN ALLOWED ON A PROPER SHOWING A FURTHER HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF
THE COMPANIES' CONTINUING RECOGNITION OF THE CONTRACTS.  BY SEC. 10(F)
THE EDISON COMPANIES AND THE UNIONS COULD OBTAIN A REVIEW OF THE
BOARD'S ORDER.  IN THAT HEARING EITHER OR BOTH COULD SHOW TO THE COURT,
SEC. 10(E), THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS TO THE CONTRACTS WAS MATERIAL
AND THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED BECAUSE THE AGGRIEVED PARTIES HAD
NOT UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE SUBJECT TO A CEASE AND DESIST
ORDER, OR HAD NOT KNOWN OF THE PROCEEDING.  THE COURT COULD ORDER THE
BOARD TO TAKE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.  THIS SIMPLE PRACTICE WAS NOT
FOLLOWED.  ALTHOUGH ALL PARTIES WERE BEFORE THE LOWER COURT ON THE
REVIEW, THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO RELY ON THE IMPOTENCY OF THE BOARD TO
ENTER AN ORDER AFFECTING THE CONTRACTS. 

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROVISION OF THE ORDER REQUIRING THE
EDISON COMPANIES TO CEASE FROM GIVING EFFECT TO THEIR CONTRACTS WITH
THE CONTRACTING UNIONS IS PROPER.  THIS ORDER PREVENTS THE EDISON
COMPANIES FROM REAPING AN ADVANTAGE FROM THOSE ACTS OF INTERFERENCE
FOUND ILLEGAL BY THE BOARD. 

FN1  LABOR BOARD CASES, 301 U.S. 1. 

FN2 SECS. 7, 8, 10, ACT OF JULY 5, 1935, 49 STAT. 452-55. 

FN3 4 N.L.R.B. 71, 94. 

FN4  SECS. 7 AND 8, ACT OF JULY 5, 1935, 49 STAT. 452. 

FN5  LABOR BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 267. 

FN6  ANTE, P. 238. 

FN7  WASHINGTON, V. & M. COACH CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 142,
146. 

FN8  ANTE, P. 233. 

FN9  LABOR BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, 263. 

FN10  ID., 271. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




















SCHER V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 251 


NO. 49.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - 95
F.2D 64, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A PROSECUTION FOR POSSESSION AND TRANSPORTATION OF DISTILLED
SPIRITS IN CONTAINERS LACKING THE REQUISITE REVENUE STAMPS, IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 201 OF THE LIQUOR TAXING ACT OF 1934, A DEFENSE THAT
THE DISTILLED SPIRITS INVOLVED WERE NOT INTENDED FOR SALE AND WERE
THEREFORE EXPRESSLY EXCEPTED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT MUST BE
AFFIRMATIVELY PROVED.  P. 254. 

2. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED IN THIS CASE, THE SEARCH OF AN
AUTOMOBILE AND SEIZURE OF LIQUOR THEREFROM, WITHOUT A WARRANT, AFTER
THE CAR HAD ENTERED A GARAGE APPURTENANT TO A PRIVATE DWELLING, TO
WHICH IT HAD BEEN PURSUED BY FEDERAL OFFICERS, WAS NOT AN UNREASONABLE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE; AND, IN A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 201 OF
THE LIQUOR TAXING ACT OF 1934, A MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE
THEREBY OBTAINED WAS PROPERLY OVERRULED.  P. 255. 

3.  A FEDERAL OFFICER WHO HAS MADE AN ARREST FOLLOWING A TIP AS TO A
VIOLATION OF A FEDERAL LAW MAY NOT IN A PROSECUTION FOR SUCH VIOLATION
BE REQUIRED TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF HIS INFORMANT, WHERE THIS IS NOT
ESSENTIAL TO THE DEFENSE.  P. 254. 

SCHER V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 557, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION
FOR VIOLATION OF THE LIQUOR TAXING ACT OF 1934. 

THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE FEDERAL OFFICERS MADE THEIR WAY
INTO PART OF A PRIVATE DWELLING WITHOUT A WARRANT, AND ALSO BECAUSE
THEY WERE TRESPASSERS WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE DEFENDANT'S HOME WHEN
THEY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES IS CONSTRUED LIBERALLY TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY. 
UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452; GO-BART IMPORTING CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 344; TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 1; SGRO
V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 206.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. SLUSSER, 270
F. 818; UNITED STATES V. DICORVO, 37 F.2D 124; ELROD V. MOSS, 278 F.
123; GAUSKE V. UNITED STATES, 1 F.2D 620; UNITED STATES V. OLMSTEAD, 7
F.2D 760; UNITED STATES V. SPALLINO, 21 F.2D 567. 

WHILE THE AUTOMOBILE WAS THE OBJECT THAT WAS SEARCHED, THE SEARCH WAS
MADE IN THE GARAGE OF THE DEFENDANT, AND THEREFORE WAS A SEARCH OF THE
GARAGE ITSELF. 

THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE SOURCE OF THE AGENTS'
INFORMATION SO THAT THE COURT MIGHT DETERMINE WHETHER THE INFORMATION
WAS GIVEN BY A RELIABLE INFORMANT AND WHETHER A CASE OF PROBABLE CAUSE
HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SCHER WAS FOUND GUILTY UNDER TWO COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT
WHICH CHARGED VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 201, TITLE II, LIQUOR TAXING ACT,
JANUARY 11, 1934,  FN1  BY POSSESSING AND TRANSPORTING DISTILLED
SPIRITS IN CONTAINERS WANTING REQUISITE REVENUE STAMPS.  HE WAS
SENTENCED FOR A YEAR AND A DAY, ETC.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT. 

NO OBJECTION TO THE JUDGE'S CHARGE IS URGED AND THE EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT. 

THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE NOT IN SERIOUS DISPUTE.  A BRIEF SUMMATION
WILL SUFFICE FOR THE POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED. 

FEDERAL OFFICERS RECEIVED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THOUGHT TO BE
RELIABLE THAT ABOUT MIDNIGHT, DECEMBER 30, 1935, A DODGE AUTOMOBILE
WITH SPECIFIED LICENSE PLATE WOULD TRANSPORT "PHONY" WHISKEY FROM A
SPECIFIED DWELLING IN CLEVELAND, OHIO.  ABOUT NINE-THIRTY, OFFICERS
POSTED NEARBY SAW THE DESCRIBED AUTOMOBILE STOP IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE
AND REMAIN THERE FOR AN HOUR.  A MAN, WITH THREE WOMEN AND A PACKAGE,
THEN ENTERED THE CAR AND DROVE AWAY.  IT RETURNED SHORTLY BEFORE
MIDNIGHT, STOPPED AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE AND REMAINED FOR HALF AN
HOUR.  THE HEADLIGHTS WERE EXTINGUISHED; THE OFFICERS HEARD WHAT SEEMED
TO BE HEAVY PAPER PACKAGES PASSING OVER WOOD.  DOORS SLAMMED;
PETITIONER DROVE THE CAR AWAY, APPARENTLY HEAVILY LOADED.  THE OFFICERS
FOLLOWED IN ANOTHER CAR.  AFTER GOING A FEW BLOCKS PETITIONER STOPPED
BRIEFLY AT A FILLING STATION; THEN HE DROVE TOWARDS HIS OWN RESIDENCE
TWO OR THREE BLOCKS FURTHER ALONG.  THE OFFICERS FOLLOWED.  HE TURNED
INTO A GARAGE A FEW FEET BACK OF HIS RESIDENCE AND WITHIN THE
CURTILAGE.  ONE OF THE PURSUING OFFICERS LEFT THEIR CAR AND FOLLOWED. 
AS PETITIONER WAS GETTING OUT OF HIS CAR THIS OFFICER APPROACHED,
ANNOUNCED HIS OFFICIAL CHARACTER, AND STATED HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE
CAR WAS HAULING BOOTLEG LIQUOR.  PETITIONER REPLIED, "JUST A LITTLE FOR
A PARTY."  ASKED WHETHER THE LIQUOR WAS TAX PAID, HE REPLIED THAT IT
WAS CANADIAN WHISKEY; ALSO, HE SAID IT WAS IN THE TRUNK AT THE REAR OF
THE CAR.  THE OFFICER OPENED THE TRUNK AND FOUND EIGHTY-EIGHT BOTTLES
OF DISTILLED SPIRITS IN UNSTAMPED CONTAINERS.  HE ARRESTED PETITIONER
AND SEIZED BOTH CAR AND LIQUOR.  THE OFFICER HAD NO SEARCH WARRANT. 

AT THE TRIAL COUNSEL UNDERTOOK TO QUESTION THE ARRESTING OFFICERS
RELATIVE TO THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION WHICH LED THEM TO OBSERVE
PETITIONER'S ACTIONS.  OBJECTIONS TO THESE QUESTIONS WERE SUSTAINED AND
THIS IS NOW ASSIGNED AS ERROR. 

BEFORE TRIAL PETITIONER'S COUNSEL MOVED "TO SUPPRESS ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY THE SEARCH MADE BY THE REVENUE AGENTS IN THE ABOVE
ENTITLED CAUSE, TOGETHER WITH ALL INFORMATION OBTAINED BY REASON OF
SUCH SEARCH, AND TO GRANT AN ORDER REQUIRING THE AGENTS TO RETURN ALL
ARTICLES SEIZED BY REASON OF SAID SEARCH.  ...  "  IN SUPPORT OF THIS
HE RELIED UPON THE FACTS ABOVE STATED.  DENIAL OF THIS MOTION IS SAID
TO BE ERROR. 

THE EXCEPTION IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTING LIQUOR NOT INTENDED FOR SALE
FOUND IN THE STATUTE AFFORDS MATTER FOR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.  QUEEN V.
UNITED STATES, 64 APP. D.C. 301; 77 F.2D 780. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION WHICH CAUSED HIM
TO BE OBSERVED WAS UNIMPORTANT TO PETITIONER'S DEFENSE.  THE LEGALITY
OF THE OFFICERS' ACTION DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF
SOMETHING TOLD BUT UPON WHAT THEY SAW AND HEARD - WHAT TOOK PLACE IN
THEIR PRESENCE.  JUSTIFICATION IS NOT SOUGHT BECAUSE OF HONEST BELIEF
BASED UPON CREDIBLE INFORMATION AS IN UNITED STATES V. BLICH, 45 F.2D
627. 

MOREOVER, AS OFTEN POINTED OUT, PUBLIC POLICY FORBIDS DISCLOSURE OF
AN INFORMER'S IDENTITY UNLESS ESSENTIAL TO THE DEFENSE, AS, FOR
EXAMPLE, WHERE THIS TURNS UPON AN OFFICER'S GOOD FAITH.  SEGUROLA V.
UNITED STATES, 16 F.2D 563, 565; SHORE V. UNITED STATES, 60 APP. D.C.
137; 49 F.2D 519, 522; MCINES V. UNITED STATES, 62 F.2D 180. 

CONSIDERING THE DOCTRINE OF CARROLL V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S.
132(SEE HUSTY V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 694), AND THE APPLICATION OF
THIS TO THE FACTS THERE DISCLOSED, IT SEEMS PLAIN ENOUGH THAT JUST
BEFORE HE ENTERED THE GARAGE THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS PROPERLY COULD HAVE
STOPPED PETITIONER'S CAR, MADE SEARCH AND PUT HIM UNDER ARREST.  SO
MUCH WAS NOT SERIOUSLY CONTROVERTED AT THE ARGUMENT. 

PASSAGE OF THE CAR INTO THE OPEN GARAGE CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY THE
OBSERVING OFFICER DID NOT DESTROY THIS RIGHT.  NO SEARCH WAS MADE OF
THE GARAGE.  EXAMINATION OF THE AUTOMOBILE ACCOMPANIED AN ARREST,
WITHOUT OBJECTION AND UPON ADMISSION OF PROBABLE GUILT.  THE OFFICERS
DID NOTHING EITHER UNREASONABLE OR OPPRESSIVE.  AGNELLO V. UNITED
STATES, 269 U.S. 20, 30; WISNIEWSKI V. UNITED STATES, 47 F.2D 825,
826. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CH. 1, SEC. 201, 48 STAT. 313, 316(U.S.C., TITLE 26, SEC. 1152A,
1152G) - 

"NO PERSON SHALL  ...  TRANSPORT, POSSESS, BUY, SELL, OR TRANSFER ANY
DISTILLED SPIRITS, UNLESS THE IMMEDIATE CONTAINER THEREOF HAS AFFIXED
THERETO A STAMP DENOTING THE QUANTITY OF DISTILLED SPIRITS CONTAINED
THEREIN AND EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF ALL INTERNAL-REVENUE TAXES IMPOSED ON
SUCH SPIRITS.  THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE SHALL NOT APPLY TO - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(F)  DISTILLED SPIRITS NOT INTENDED FOR SALE OR FOR USE IN THE
MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE INTENDED FOR SALE; ...  " 

SEC. 207 - "ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS TITLE,  ...
SHALL ON CONVICTION BE PUNISHED BY A FINE NOT EXCEEDING $1,000, OR BY
IMPRISONMENT AT HARD LABOR NOT EXCEEDING FIVE YEARS, OR BY BOTH." 
..END :























CALIFORNIA V. LATIMER, 305 U.S. 255 


NO. 13, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5,
1938.  - BILL DISMISSED. 


A BILL FILED HERE BY CALIFORNIA AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, TO ENJOIN
THEM FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THE STATE BELT RAILROAD - A RAILROAD ON THE
SAN FRANCISCO WATER FRONT, OWNED BY THE STATE, AND OPERATED BY IT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE - THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACTS OF
1935 AND 1937 AND OF THE CARRIERS TAXING ACT OF 1937, HELD WITHOUT
EQUITY. 

1.  AN ALLEGED THREAT OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD TO REQUIRE THE
STATE BELT RAILROAD TO GATHER AND KEEP RECORDS OF ITS EMPLOYEES, DOES
NOT EXPOSE IT TO IRREPARABLE INJURY.  P. 259. 

(A)  A GENERAL ALLEGATION WITHOUT SUPPORTING DETAIL OR SPECIFICATION
THAT COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD WOULD SUBJECT THE STATE
"TO GREAT EXPENSE" IS NOT AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR RELIEF ON THE GROUND OF
IRREPARABLE INJURY.  P. 260. 

(B)  MOREOVER, THE BOARD IS WITHOUT POWER TO ENFORCE ITS REGULATIONS
EXCEPT BY RESORT TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, AND THEREIN THE STATE WOULD HAVE
AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACTS.  P. 260. 

(C)  THE CONTENTION THAT THE POSSIBLE PENALTY, IN CASE OF A
PROSECUTION UNDER SEC. 13 OF THE RETIREMENT ACT OF 1937, IS SO SERIOUS
THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND WOULD NOT BE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY, IS
EXAMINED AND REJECTED.  P. 261. 

2.  THE THREAT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO REQUIRE
PAYMENT OF THE TAX DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY SHOW DANGER OF IRREPARABLE
INJURY.  P. 261. 

(A)  PAYMENT, IF NOT DUE, COULD BE RECOVERED.  P. 261. 

(B)  POSSIBLE DELAY IN RECOVERY OF PAYMENT - SUIT COULD NOT BE
INSTITUTED UNTIL SIX MONTHS AFTER CLAIM FOR REFUND WAS MADE, IF THE
COMMISSIONER FAILED EARLIER TO ACT UPON IT - IS NOT A SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE JUSTIFYING RESORT TO A SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION IN ORDER
THAT THE QUESTION OF LIABILITY MAY BE PROMPTLY DETERMINED.  P. 261. 

(C)  THE CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE THAT TO RAISE THE MONEY WITH WHICH
TO PAY THE STATE'S PORTION OF THE TAX IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO READJUST
THE TARIFFS OF THE RAILROAD, AND THAT THE DEDUCTION OF THE EMPLOYEES'
PORTION FROM THE PAYROLL WOULD RESULT IN A MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS BY
EMPLOYEES TO FIX THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE RETIREMENT LAW, HELD NOT
SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED IN THE BILL.  P. 262. 

(D)  MERE INCONVENIENCE TO THE STATE IN RAISING THE MONEY TO PAY THE
TAXES DOES NOT ENTITLE IT TO AN INJUNCTION TO TEST THE VALIDITY OR
APPLICABILITY OF THE TAX.  P. 262. 

CALIFORNIA V. LATIMER ET AL. 

BILL OF COMPLAINT FILED BY CALIFORNIA, BY LEAVE OF COURT, IN A SUIT
INVOKING THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, AGAINST MEMBERS OF
THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACTS OF
1935 AND 1937 AND THE CARRIERS TAXING ACT OF 1937. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CALIFORNIA OWNS THE RAILROAD ALONG THE SAN FRANCISCO WATER FRONT
KNOWN AS STATE BELT RAILROAD, AND OPERATES IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
SHERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 25; UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297
U.S. 175.  ON LEAVE GRANTED, THE STATE FILED IN THIS COURT THIS BILL
AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD AND THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES, TO ENJOIN THEM FROM ENFORCING AGAINST THAT RAILROAD
PROVISIONS OF THE ACTS OF CONGRESS KNOWN AS THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT
ACTS OF 1935 AND 1937  FN1 AND OF THE CARRIERS TAXING ACT OF 1937. 
FN2 

THE BILL RECITES THAT CALIFORNIA HAS A STATE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM SUSTAINED BY A FUND TO WHICH THE STATE AND ITS EMPLOYEES
CONTRIBUTE; AND THAT ALL THE PERSONS EMPLOYED IN THE OPERATION OF STATE
BELT RAILROAD ARE MEMBERS OF THAT RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND ARE ENTITLED TO
PENSIONS THEREUNDER, UNLESS THEY ARE MEMBERS OF A RETIREMENT SYSTEM
SUPPORTED WHOLLY, OR IN PART, BY FUNDS OF THE UNITED STATES; THAT THE
THREE ACTS OF CONGRESS NAMED HAVE FOR THEIR SOLE PURPOSE THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PENSION SYSTEM OF ANNUITIES AND OTHER BENEFITS FOR
EMPLOYEES OF INTERSTATE RAILROADS; AND THAT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM IS
SUSTAINED BY TAXES IMPOSED BY THE CARRIERS TAXING ACT.  THE BILL
ASSERTS, APPARENTLY, THAT AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF STATE BELT
RAILROAD; AND APPARENTLY THAT IF CONSTRUED AS APPLICABLE TO THEM, THE
LEGISLATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE BILL CHARGES THAT THE RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD HAS THREATENED TO REQUIRE THE COMPLAINANT TO GATHER
AND KEEP RECORDS CONCERNING THE EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE BELT RAILROAD,
WHICH WOULD SUBJECT IT "TO GREAT EXPENSE"; AND THAT THE BOARD "WILL
ENFORCE AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES
CERTAIN PENALTIES IF IT REFUSES" TO DO SO.  THE BILL CHARGES, ALSO,
THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE HAS THREATENED TO ENFORCE
TAXES, UNDER THE CARRIERS TAXING ACT, AND WILL SUBJECT IT TO HEAVY
FINES AND PENALTIES IF IT FAILS TO PAY THE SAME.  THE RELIEF PRAYED IS
THAT THE THREE ACTS OF CONGRESS BE DECLARED INAPPLICABLE TO STATE BELT
RAILROAD; THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD BE
ENJOINED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, FROM REQUIRING THE RAILROAD TO ASSEMBLE
AND FURNISH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED; AND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE BE ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING COLLECTION OF THE TAXES
CLAIMED. 

THE DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE BILL, ASSIGNING THEREFOR NINE
GROUNDS.  WE NEED CONSIDER ONLY THE OBJECTION THAT THE BILL IS WITHOUT
EQUITY.  FN3  FOR WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THERE WAS ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY
TO TEST AT LAW THE APPLICABILITY AND CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACTS OF
CONGRESS; AND THAT NO DANGER IS SHOWN OF IRREPARABLE INJURY IF THAT
COURSE IS PURSUED. 

FIRST.  THE ALLEGED THREAT OF THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD TO
REQUIRE STATE BELT RAILROAD TO GATHER AND KEEP RECORDS OF ITS EMPLOYEES
DOES NOT EXPOSE IT TO IRREPARABLE INJURY.  THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT
OF 1937 PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 8.  EMPLOYERS SHALL FILE WITH THE BOARD, IN SUCH MANNER AND
FORM AND AT SUCH TIMES AS THE BOARD BY RULES AND REGULATIONS MAY
PRESCRIBE, RETURNS UNDER OATH OF MONTHLY COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES,
AND, IF THE BOARD SHALL SO REQUIRE, SHALL FURNISH EMPLOYEES WITH
STATEMENTS OF THEIR MONTHLY COMPENSATION AS REPORTED TO THE BOARD. 
... 

"SEC. 10(B) 4.  ...  THE BOARD SHALL HAVE POWER TO REQUIRE ALL
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES AND ANY OFFICER, BOARD, COMMISSION, OR OTHER
AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES TO FURNISH SUCH INFORMATION AND RECORDS AS
SHALL BE NECESSARY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF SUCH ACTS.  THE SEVERAL
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION UPON
SUIT BY THE BOARD TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE TO ANY ORDER OF THE BOARD ISSUED
PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION  ..." 

"SEC. 13.  ANY OFFICER OR AGENT OF AN EMPLOYER  ...  WHO SHALL
WILLFULLY FAIL OR REFUSE TO MAKE ANY REPORT OR FURNISH ANY INFORMATION
REQUIRED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(B) 4, BY THE
BOARD  ...  SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $10,000 OR BY
IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR." 

THE ONLY "THREATS" MADE AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT IN CONNECTION WITH
THESE SECTIONS IS A RULING BY THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD THAT THE
STATE BELT RAILROAD IS SUBJECT TO THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACTS.  NO
SPECIFIC ACTION IN RELATION TO THAT RAILROAD APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN
BY THE BOARD.  FN4  REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED UNDER SECS. 8 AND
10 WHICH ARE SIMPLE AND OF A TYPE WHICH CAN BE COMPLIED WITH LARGELY BY
TRANSCRIPTIONS FROM PAYROLLS N5.  THE BILL ALLEGES THAT COMPLIANCE WITH
THE REGULATIONS WOULD SUBJECT THE STATE "TO GREAT EXPENSE."  NO
SUPPORTING DETAIL OR SPECIFICATION IS GIVEN.  SUCH A GENERAL STATEMENT
IS NOT AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR RELIEF ON THE GROUND OF IRREPARABLE
DAMAGES.  FN6  THE TRIFLING EXPENSE OF TEMPORARILY COMPLYING WITH THE
REGULATION UNTIL THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT SHALL HAVE BEEN
JUDICIALLY DETERMINED, LIKE THE EXPENSE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COMPLAINED OF IN MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41,
50, 51, AND PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 304
U.S. 209, 220, 221, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF
IRREPARABLE INJURY INDISPENSABLE TO INTERPOSITION BY INJUNCTION. 
COMPARE SPIELMAN MOTOR SALES CO. V. DODGE, 295 U.S. 89, 95, 96. 

MOREOVER, THE BOARD IS WITHOUT POWER TO ENFORCE ITS REGULATIONS
EXCEPT BY RESORT TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 10(B) 4; AND
IN ANY SUIT WHICH IT MAY INSTITUTE TO ENFORCE THE REGULATIONS  FN7
AMPLE OPPORTUNITY IS AFFORDED TO DEFEND, ON THE GROUND THAT STATE BELT
RAILROAD IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACTS.  IT IS
CONTENDED THAT THE POSSIBLE PENALTY, IN CASE OF A PROSECUTION UNDER
SEC. 13, IS SO SERIOUS AS TO PREVENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND FROM
BEING AN ADEQUATE REMEDY.  COMPARE EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, 165. 
NO PROSECUTION HAS BEEN INSTITUTED OR THREATENED.  AND AUTHORITY TO
INSTITUTE SUCH A PROCEEDING RESTS NOT WITH THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT
BOARD, BUT WITH THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, WHO IS NOT MADE DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT.  FN8  FURTHERMORE,
IT MAY BE DOUBTED WHETHER A REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION WOULD
BE DEEMED WILLFUL, IF BASED ON AN HONEST BELIEF THAT THE ACT IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO A RAILROAD OPERATED BY THE STATE.  COMPARE UNITED STATES
V. MURDOCK, 290 U.S. 389, 394-396. 

SECOND.  THE ALLEGED THREAT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF THE TAX DOES NOT SHOW DANGER OF IRREPARABLE
INJURY.  THE ONLY THREAT ALLEGED IS THE RULING THAT THE CARRIERS TAXING
ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THIS RAILROAD - A RULING MADE IN ANSWER TO AN
ENQUIRY BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE.  THE TAX FOR THE YEAR IS
$7,862.32 PAYABLE BY THE STATE BELT RAILROAD; AND AN EQUAL AMOUNT
PAYABLE BY THE EMPLOYEES TO BE DEDUCTED BY IT FROM THEIR COMPENSATION. 
PAYMENT OF THE TAX WOULD NOT EXPOSE THE STATE TO IRREPARABLE INJURY,
FN9  SINCE THE AMOUNT PAID WITH INTEREST COULD BE RECOVERED IF NOT
DUE.  PAYMENT FOLLOWED BY PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT WOULD
INVOLVE SOME DELAY, AS AN ACTION AT LAW TO RECOVER THE SUM PAID COULD
NOT BE INSTITUTED UNTIL SIX MONTHS AFTER MAKING THE CLAIM FOR REFUND,
IF THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD FAIL TO ACT EARLIER UPON IT.  FN10  SUCH
POSSIBLE DELAY, IT IS URGED, IS A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH JUSTIFIES
RESORT TO A SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION IN ORDER THAT THE QUESTION OF
LIABILITY MAY BE PROMPTLY DETERMINED.  IF THE DELAY INCIDENT TO SUCH
PROCEEDINGS JUSTIFIED REFUSAL TO PAY A TAX, THE FEDERAL RULE THAT A
SUIT IN EQUITY WILL NOT LIE TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION ON THE SOLE GROUND
THAT THE TAX IS ILLEGAL,  FN11  COULD HAVE LITTLE APPLICATION.  FOR
POSSIBLE DELAY OF THAT CHARACTER IS THE COMMON INCIDENT OF PRACTICALLY
EVERY CONTEST OVER THE VALIDITY OF A FEDERAL TAX. 

IT IS URGED THAT IN ORDER TO RAISE THE MONEY WITH WHICH TO PAY THE
STATE'S PORTION OF THE TAX, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO READJUST THE
TARIFFS OF STATE BELT RAILROAD; AND THAT THE DEDUCTION OF THE
EMPLOYEES' PORTION FROM THE PAYROLL WOULD RESULT IN A MULTIPLICITY OF
SUITS BY EMPLOYEES TO RECOVER THE AMOUNTS AND TO REESTABLISH THEIR
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE.  THE MEAGRE
STATEMENTS OF THE BILL DO NOT CONVINCE US THAT THE APPREHENSION ALLEGED
IS WELL FOUNDED.  THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ACT ALSO REQUIRES THE
STATE BELT RAILROAD TO MAKE DEDUCTIONS FROM THE SALARIES OF ITS
EMPLOYEES.  THE BILL DOES NOT SHOW THE PRECISE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
AMOUNTS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL ACTS, OR EVEN,
IF THE AMOUNT OF THE FEDERAL DEDUCTION IS GREATER, THAT IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE STATE BELT RAILROAD TO WORK OUT WITH ITS EMPLOYEES A
WAY OF ADJUSTING ITS AFFAIRS DURING THE PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY AS TO
WHICH ACT IS APPLICABLE.  MERE INCONVENIENCE TO THE TAXPAYER IN RAISING
THE MONEY WITH WHICH TO PAY TAXES IS NOT UNCOMMON, AND IS NOT A SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH ENTITLES ONE TO RESORT TO A SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION
IN ORDER TO TEST THE VALIDITY OR APPLICABILITY OF THE TAX.  FOR AUGHT
THAT APPEARS PROMPT PAYMENT OF THE TAX AND CLAIM OF REFUND WOULD HAVE
LED TO AN EARLY DETERMINATION OF THE LIABILITY HERE CONTESTED.  BILL
DISMISSED. 

FN1  ACT OF AUGUST 29, 1935, C. 812, 49 STAT. 967, AS AMENDED JUNE
24, 1937, C. 382, PART I, 50 STAT. 307, 45 U.S.C., SEC. 228A-R (1937
SUPP.). 

FN2  ACT OF JUNE 29, 1937, C. 405, 50 STAT. 435, 45 U.S.C., SECS. 261
73(1937 SUPP.). 

FN3  THIS OBJECTION WAS THE BASIS OF TWO OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN
SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS.  THE OTHER SEVEN ARE:  (1) THE
INDIVIDUAL CITIZENSHIP OF DEFENDANTS CAN FORM NO BASIS FOR THE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  THE DEFENDANTS CAN AND WILL ACT ONLY AS
OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES; AND AS OFFICIALS THEY ARE CITIZENS OF
NO STATE.  (2) THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA AND THE EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE BELT RAILROAD HAVE NOT
BEEN JOINED AS DEFENDANTS.  THEY ARE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES IN WHOSE
ABSENCE THE COURT SHOULD NOT PROCEED.  (3) THE CAUSE IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE IN THIS COURT, SINCE THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR
THE FIRST DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, A CITIZEN OF CALIFORNIA, SHOULD BE
MADE A PARTY, AND TO JOIN HIM WOULD DEPRIVE THE COURT OF ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION.  (4) THE CAUSE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THIS COURT, SINCE
THE EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE BELT RAILROAD, CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA,
SHOULD BE MADE PARTIES, AND TO JOIN ANY OF THEM WOULD DEPRIVE THE COURT
OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.  (5) MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT IS PROHIBITED BY
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST AND HENCE AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  (7) THE
ISSUES PRESENTED BY COMPLAINANT HAVE BEEN CLEARLY DECIDED AGAINST IT BY
PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, AND A RE-EXAMINATION OF THOSE
CONTENTIONS WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE. 

FN4  COMPARE DALTON ADDING MACHINE CO. V. STATE CORPORATION COMM'N,
236 U.S. 699, 701; CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. V. WOODRING, 286 U.S. 352,
367-68; STATE CORPORATION COMM'N V. WICHITA GAS CO., 290 U.S. 561, 568
69. 

FN5  3 FEDERAL REGISTER, P. 22 ET SEQ. (PROMULGATED DECEMBER 31,
1937), 3 FEDERAL REGISTER, P. 218(PROMULGATED JANUARY 17, 1938), IN
EFFECT AT THE TIME LEAVE TO FILE THE BILL OF COMPLAINT WAS GRANTED, MAY
16, 1938, LATER SUPERSEDED BY 3 FEDERAL REGISTER, PP. 1478, 1493 ET
SEQ., PART 50(PROMULGATED MAY 31, 1938). 

FN6  COMPARE SHELTON V. PLATT, 139 U.S. 591, 596; CRUICKSHANK V.
BIDWELL, 176 U.S. 73, 81; INDIANA MFG. CO. V. KOEHNE, 188 U.S. 681,
690; BOISE ARTESIAN WATER CO. V. BOISE CITY, 213 U.S. 276, 285. 

FN7  COMPARE CAVANAUGH V. LOONEY, 248 U.S. 453; FENNER V. BOYKIN, 271
U.S. 240; HURLEY V. KINCAID, 285 U.S. 95. 

FN8  COMPARE FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CLAIRE FURNACE CO., 274 U.S.
160, 173-74; PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 620-22. 

FN9  DOWS V. CHICAGO, 11 WALL.  108.  SEE ALSO CASES IN NOTE 6. 

FN10  R.S. SEC. 3226, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 1103, REVENUE ACT OF 1932. 

FN11  SEE CASES UNDER NOTE 6. 
..END :




















MCDONALD V. THOMPSON, 305 U.S. 263 


NO. 55.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 9, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - 95
F.2D 937, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 206(A) OF THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935, DECLARES
THAT NO COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT MAY ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNLESS THERE SHALL HAVE BEEN
ISSUED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION.  A PROVISO
REQUIRES THAT THE COMMISSION ISSUE A CERTIFICATE WITHOUT FURTHER PROOF
AS TO PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, WHERE THE APPLICANT WAS "IN
BONA FIDE OPERATION" AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE 1,
1935, AND SINCE THAT TIME, OVER ROUTES FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE;
AND THE APPLICANT IN SUCH CASE IS AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE OPERATION
PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION.  HELD THAT, ONE WHO HAD
BEEN OPERATING AS A COMMON CARRIER WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
COMMISSION - HIS APPLICATION THEREFOR HAVING BEEN DENIED PRIOR TO 1935
BY AN ORDER SUBSEQUENTLY UPHELD BY THE STATE COURT - HAD NOT BEEN "IN
BONA FIDE OPERATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISO.  P. 266. 

2.  AS THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT IS REMEDIAL AND TO BE CONSTRUED
LIBERALLY, A PROVISO DEFINING EXEMPTIONS IS TO BE READ IN HARMONY WITH
THE PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE AND HELD TO EXTEND ONLY TO CARRIERS PLAINLY
WITHIN ITS TERMS.  P. 266. 

MCDONALD V. THOMPSON ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 580, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH REVERSED, WITH
DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL, A DECREE OF INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PETITIONER OF THE MOTOR TRUCK LAW OF TEXAS. 

PETITIONER IN THIS SUIT CLAIMS "GRANDFATHER RIGHTS" BASED UPON HIS
UNLAWFUL OPERATION UPON THE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.  HIS "RIGHT
OF-WAY" FOR HIS INTERSTATE OPERATIONS HAS NEVER BEEN SECURED FROM THE
CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES OF THE STATE, AND ALL OF HIS OPERATIONS HAVE
BEEN AS A TRESPASSER UPON THE STATE HIGHWAYS, AND UNLESS THE STATE LAWS
HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED THE MERE FILING OF HIS APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE
WOULD CONFER NO NEW RIGHT UPON HIM TO CONTINUE HIS UNLAWFUL USE OF
THESE TEXAS HIGHWAYS.  TOWN OF CONWAY V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 20
F.2D 250, 259. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS AGAINST THE MEMBERS OF THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION
AND ITS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ENJOIN THEM FROM ENFORCING AGAINST HIM
THE STATE MOTOR TRUCK LAW.  FN1  RESPONDENTS ANSWERED; THERE WAS A
TRIAL; THE COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT, STATED ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND ENTERED A DECREE PERMANENTLY ENJOINING RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING
WITH PETITIONER'S BUSINESS IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE
BILL.  95 F.2D 937.  THIS COURT GRANTED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

MOTOR FOR HIRE OVER PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE TO OBTAIN FROM THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. 
TRANSPORTATION, TO PRESCRIBE RULES FOR SAFETY OF CARRIERS' OPERATIONS,
AND TO SUPERVISE ALL MATTERS AFFECTING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE
CARRIERS AND THE PUBLIC. 

THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT, 1935,  FN2  SEC. 206(A), DECLARES THAT
NO COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE SUBJECT TO ITS PROVISIONS SHALL
ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNLESS THERE IS IN FORCE WITH RESPECT TO
SUCH CARRIER A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY ISSUED
BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION.  A
PROVISO IN THAT SECTION DECLARES THAT, IF ANY SUCH CARRIER "WAS IN BONA
FIDE OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER BY MOTOR VEHICLE ON JUNE 1, 1935,"
OVER ROUTES FOR WHICH APPLICATION IS MADE AND HAS SO OPERATED SINCE
THAT TIME, THE COMMISSION SHALL ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE WITHOUT REQUIRING
FURTHER PROOF THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY WILL BE SERVED BY
THE CARRIER'S OPERATION.  PENDING DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION, THE
APPLICANT IS AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS. 

SINCE SOME TIME BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT, PETITIONER HAS BEEN
CONTINUOUSLY USING TEXAS HIGHWAYS IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF
PROPERTY BY MOTOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE.  CLAIMING TO HAVE BEEN IN BONA FIDE
OPERATION AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISO, HE MADE TIMELY APPLICATION TO
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING HIM TO
CONTINUE TO OPERATE OVER THE HIGHWAYS HE HAS BEEN USING.  THE
APPLICATION IS STILL PENDING, AND PETITIONER INSISTS THAT,
NOTWITHSTANDING STATE LAW, HE IS ENTITLED TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS UNDER
THE PROVISO.  THE QUESTION FIRST TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER HIS CLAIM OF
BONA FIDE OPERATION IS WELL FOUNDED. 

IN MAY OF 1934 HE APPLIED TO THE STATE COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE
AUTHORIZING OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  JULY
14, 1934, THE COMMISSION DENIED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE
PROPOSED OPERATIONS WOULD SUBJECT THE HIGHWAYS NAMED IN IT TO EXCESSIVE
BURDEN AND ENDANGER AND INTERFERE WITH ORDINARY USE BY THE PUBLIC. 
PETITIONER APPEALED TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY AND OBTAINED
A DECREE ENJOINING THE COMMISSION FROM INTERFERING WITH HIS
OPERATIONS.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, JANUARY 8, 1936, REVERSED AND
DISSOLVED THE INJUNCTION.  90 S.W.2D 581.  THUS IT APPEARS THAT
PETITIONER'S OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF THE TEXAS
COMMISSION AND, UNLESS WITHIN THE PROVISO OF THE FEDERAL ACT, WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL LAW. 

EXACT DEFINITION OF "BONA FIDE OPERATION" IS NOT NECESSARY.  AS THE
ACT IS REMEDIAL AND TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY, THE PROVISO DEFINING
EXEMPTIONS IS TO BE READ IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE AND
HELD TO EXTEND ONLY TO CARRIERS PLAINLY WITHIN ITS TERMS.  PIEDMONT &
NORTHERN RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 286 U.S. 299, 311.  TO
LIMIT THE MEANING TO MERE PHYSICAL OPERATION WOULD BE TO ELIMINATE
"BONA FIDE."  THAT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE RULE THAT ALL WORDS OF A
STATUTE ARE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND GIVEN EFFECT IF THAT CAN BE
DONE CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PLAINLY DISCLOSED LEGISLATIVE INTENT. 
GINSBERG & SONS V. POPKIN, 285 U.S. 204, 208.  EX PARTE PUBLIC NATIONAL
BANK, 278 U.S. 101, 104.  THERE IS NOTHING TO JUSTIFY REJECTION OF
THESE QUALIFYING WORDS.  THE EXPRESSION, "IN BONA FIDE OPERATION,"
SUGGESTS ABSENCE OF EVASION, EXCLUDES THE IDEA THAT MERE ABILITY TO
SERVE AS A COMMON CARRIER IS ENOUGH, INCLUDES ACTUAL RATHER THAN
POTENTIAL OR SIMULATED SERVICE, AND IN CONTEXT IMPLIES RECOGNITION OF
THE POWER OF THE STATE TO WITHHOLD OR CONDITION THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS
IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION FOR HIRE.  PLAINLY THE PROVISO DOES
NOT EXTEND TO ONE OPERATING AS A COMMON CARRIER ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS OF A
STATE IN DEFIANCE OF ITS LAWS. 

AS PETITIONER IS NOT PROTECTED IN HIS OPERATION AS A COMMON CARRIER
BY THE PROVISO, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER TO WHAT EXTENT, IF AT ALL, THE
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT SUPERSEDED THE STATE MOTOR TRUCK LAW, OR ANY
OTHER QUESTION PRESENTED BY PETITIONER.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACTS REG. SESS., 42D LEG., 1931, C. 277; VERNON'S TEX. ANN. CIV.
ST., ART. 911B. 

FN2  ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1935, 49 STAT. 543, 551; 49 U.S.C., SEC.
306(A). 
..END :








M.E. BLATT CO. V. U.S., 305 U.S. 267 


NO. 98.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 16, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  -
87 CT.CLS.  413 - 23 F.SUPP.  461, REVERSED. 


1.  SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE NOT
AFFECTED BY ANY STATEMENT OF FACT, REASONING, OR CONCLUSION THAT MAY BE
FOUND IN ITS OPINION.  P. 277. 

2.  RENT IS A FIXED SUM, OR PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO A FIXED SUM.  IT
DOES NOT INCLUDE PAYMENTS, UNCERTAIN AS TO AMOUNT AND TIME, MADE BY THE
LESSEE FOR THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS.  P. 277. 

3.  IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY THE LESSEE, EVEN WHEN REQUIRED BY THE LEASE,
WILL NOT BE DEEMED RENT UNLESS SUCH INTENTION IS PLAINLY DISCLOSED. 
ID. 

4.  IMPROVED REAL PROPERTY WAS LEASED FOR USE AS A PICTURE THEATER,
FOR TEN YEARS BEGINNING UPON COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS MADE AND PAID
FOR PARTLY BY THE LESSOR AND PARTLY BY THE LESSEE.  THE LEASE PROVIDED
THAT IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY THE LESSEE SHOULD BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE
LESSOR, ON EXPIRATION OR EARLIER TERMINATION OF THE LEASEHOLD.  THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ESTIMATED THE DEPRECIATED VALUES, AT
THE END OF TEN YEARS, OF THE LESSEE'S IMPROVEMENTS, OMITTING SOME WHICH
COULD THEN HAVE NO VALUE, AND ADDED ONE-TENTH OF THE TOTAL ESTIMATE TO
THE LESSOR'S INCOME FOR THE TAX YEAR NEXT FOLLOWING THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE LEASE.  HELD ERRONEOUS. 

(1)  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER, UNDER THIS PARTICULAR LEASE,
ONE-TENTH OF THIS "ESTIMATED DEPRECIATED VALUE," AT THE END OF THE
TERM, WAS INCOME OF THE LESSOR IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE TERM.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE FINDINGS TO SUGGEST THAT COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT MADE BY
LESSEE WAS RENT OR AN EXPENDITURE NOT PROPERLY TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO ITS
CAPITAL OR MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OPERATING
EXPENSE.  THEY DISCLOSE NO BASIS OF VALUE ON WHICH TO LAY AN INCOME TAX
OR THE TIME OF REALIZATION OF TAXABLE GAIN, IF ANY THERE WAS.  THE
FIGURES MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER ARE NOT DEFINED.  THE FINDINGS DO NOT
SHOW WHETHER THEY ARE INTENDED TO REPRESENT VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS IF
REMOVED OR THE AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEM AS A PART OF THE BUILDING. 
THE FIGURES THEMSELVES REPEL THE SUGGESTION THAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO
REPRESENT AMOUNTS OBTAINABLE FOR THE ITEMS IF REMOVED; IT IS NOT TO BE
ASSUMED THAT THEY WERE INTENDED AS VALUATIONS OF SALVAGE AT THE END OF
THE TERM; AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS, IF DETACHED,
WOULD THEN HAVE ANY VALUE, EVEN AS JUNK, OVER NECESSARY COST OF
REMOVAL.  EQUALLY CONJECTURAL WOULD BE ASSUMPTION THAT THE FIGURES
REPRESENT ENHANCEMENT OF VALUE OF THE LEASED PREMISES BY REASON OF THE
IMPROVEMENTS WHEN NEW, OR AS DETERIORATED AT THE END OF THE TERM. 
PRESENT OR FUTURE VALUE OF THE PREMISES, HOWEVER ASCERTAINED, IS SINGLE
IN SUBSTANCE; IT CAN NOT BE ARRIVED AT BY MERE SUMMATION OF ACTUAL OR
ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS, NEW OR DEPRECIATED.  PP. 276,
ET SEQ. 

(2)  GRANTING THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS INCREASED THE VALUE OF THE
BUILDING, THE ENHANCEMENT WAS NOT REALIZED INCOME OF LESSOR; IT WAS
ADDITION TO CAPITAL, NOT INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1932, SEC. 22(A).  P. 279. 

(3)  ASSUMING THAT AT SOMETIME VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE
INCOME OF LESSOR, IT CAN NOT BE REASONABLY ASSIGNED TO THE YEAR IN
WHICH THEY WERE INSTALLED.  P. 280. 

M.E. BLATT CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 581, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REJECTING A CLAIM FOR
RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID AS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX. 

WHEN IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE BY A LESSEE, AS IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO
REALIZATION OF GAIN BY THE LESSOR AT THE TIME WHEN THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE
COMPLETED. 

THE TENANT AGREED TO PAINT AND DECORATE (PROVIDED THE LANDLORD WOULD
PAY $1500 OF THE COST) AND TO INSTALL THE LATEST TYPE OF MOVING PICTURE
AND TALKING APPARATUS, THEATRE SEATS, AND ALL OTHER FIXTURES,
FURNITURE, AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF A
MODERN UP-TO-DATE THEATRE.  THAT WAS ALL.  THE TENANT WAS NOT REQUIRED
TO SPEND ANY CERTAIN AMOUNT.  THE AMOUNT WAS LEFT ENTIRELY TO HIS
DISCRETION AND SELF-INTEREST.  HE HAD A LEASE FOR TEN YEARS AND
PRESUMABLY WOULD SPEND AS MUCH ON IMPROVEMENTS AS WOULD FIT THE
PREMISES FOR HIS PURPOSE, BUT HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SPEND ANY AMOUNT
WHATEVER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LESSOR.  SO FAR AS THE LEASE WENT, HIS
EXPENDITURES MIGHT WELL BE LIMITED TO IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WOULD HAVE A
LIFE NOT EXCEEDING THE TERM OF THE LEASE.  IF HE SPENT MORE AND THE
IMPROVEMENTS HE MADE WERE OF SUCH CHARACTER AS WOULD CARRY OVER SOME
RESIDUAL VALUE BEYOND THE TERM OF THE LEASE, ANY SUCH EXCESS VALUE
WOULD BE A GIFT TO THE LESSOR.  AT ALL EVENTS IT WAS NOT REQUIRED BY
THE TERMS OF THE LEASE. 

THE COMMON DEFINITION OF RENT OR RENTAL IS AN AGREED FIXED PAYMENT
FOR THE USE OF PROPERTY.  IT NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE PAYABLE IN MONEY
BUT IT MUST BE AGREED UPON AND IT MUST BE FIXED IN AMOUNT OR QUANTITY. 
DUFFY V. CENTRAL RAILROAD CO., 268 U.S. 55, 63. 

IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL RULE OF INCOME TAXATION, LAID DOWN IN EISNER V.
MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, THAT TO CONSTITUTE TAXABLE GAIN OR INCOME THERE
MUST BE A REALIZATION, EITHER BY SEVERANCE FROM THE SOURCE OR BY
CONVERSION OF BOTH SOURCE AND GAIN INTO A DIFFERENT FORM, AND THAT
UNREALIZED APPRECIATION IN VALUE IS NOT TAXABLE AS INCOME.  UNITED
STATES V. SAFETY CAR HEATING & L. CO., 297 U.S. 88, 99.  COMPARE ALSO
KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441; NORTH AMERICAN OIL CONSOLIDATED V.
BURNET, 286 U.S. 417; MACLAUGHLIN V. ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO., 286 U.S.
244; BURNET V. LOGAN, 283 U.S. 404. 

HERE THE PETITIONER IS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY WHICH IT HAS LEASED TO
ANOTHER FOR TEN YEARS.  THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY HAS ADDED
IMPROVEMENTS WHICH THE COMMISSIONER HAS FOUND WILL HAVE A RESIDUAL
VALUE OF $17,423.14 AT THE END OF THE TERM OF THE LEASE.  THE VALUE OF
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, THEREFORE, HAS BEEN INCREASED AND A PART OF THAT
INCREASED VALUE WILL PRESUMABLY STILL BE IN THE PROPERTY WHEN IT
REVERTS TO PETITIONER UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE.  HAS
PETITIONER REALIZED ANY IMMEDIATE GAIN BY VIRTUE OF ALL THIS? 
CERTAINLY THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING "SEVERED" FROM THE PROPERTY
(PETITIONER'S CAPITAL) OR "RECEIVED OR DRAWN" BY PETITIONER FOR ITS
"SEPARATE USE, BENEFIT AND DISPOSAL."  THERE HAS BEEN NO GAIN OR PROFIT
IN THE SENSE OF "SOMETHING OF EXCHANGEABLE VALUE PROCEEDING FROM THE
PROPERTY."  PETITIONER HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY, OR THE
IMPROVEMENTS, SO LONG AS THE LEASE RUNS.  EVEN WHEN THE LEASE ENDS,
PETITIONER WILL HAVE ONLY THE POSSESSION OF REAL ESTATE BEARING
IMPROVEMENTS WHICH FIT IT FOR USE AS A THEATRE. 

THE COURT BELOW SUGGESTS, HOWEVER, THAT PETITIONER HAS AT ALL TIMES A
RIGHT TO SELL THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE LEASE, AND SO IMMEDIATELY
REALIZE THE CASH VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WILL
HAVE VALUE BEYOND THE TERM OF THE LEASE.  THIS DOES NOT AID THE COURT'S
CONCLUSION.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT SUPPORTS PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT THAT
THERE WAS NO REALIZATION OF GAIN AT THE TIME THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE
ADDED, AND THAT THE REALIZATION OF GAIN, IF ANY,  - AND THE TAXATION
THEREOF AS INCOME - CAN ONLY TAKE PLACE UPON THE SALE OR OTHER
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY.  HEWITT REALTY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 76
F.2D 880. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW IGNORES THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
AND REALITIES OF THE SITUATION. 

IT SEEMS FAIRLY OBVIOUS THAT THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION WHICH TAX AS
INCOME TO THE LESSOR, EITHER IMMEDIATELY OR BY SPREADING IT OVER THE
TERM OF THE LEASE, THE "ESTIMATED DEPRECIATED VALUE" AT THE END OF THE
LEASE OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY THE LESSEE, ARE BOUND TO BE UNCERTAIN
AND DIFFICULT OF APPLICATION IN PARTICULAR CASES.  SEE MORPHY V.
COMMISSIONER, 35 B.T.A. 289, MINORITY OPINION; HART V. COMMISSIONER, 37
B.T.A. 360; PAUL & MERTENS, LAW OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION, VOL. 1,
SEC. 10.12, 1937 SUPPLEMENT. 

IF THE "INCOME" WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS CHARGED TO PETITIONER HERE,
NOT ONLY FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE BUT
LIKEWISE FOR EVERY YEAR OF THE LEASE IN QUESTION, IS IN FACT AND IN LAW
INCOME TO PETITIONER AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS, IT BECOMES A PROBLEM
TO DETERMINE HOW IT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED SO AS TO AVOID THE TAX ON
UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS. 

WHEN IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE BY A LESSEE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE
ACCESSION OF VALUE TO THE PROPERTY IS NOT INCOME BUT A CAPITAL
ADDITION.  EDWARDS V. CUBA RAILROAD CO., 268 U.S. 628.  SEE TAFT V.
BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470. 

(A)  THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME IS REALIZED UPON COMPLETION OF THE
IMPROVEMENT.  - THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ADDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
LESSOR'S PROPERTY IS PRECISELY EQUIVALENT TO THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE
RENTALS, AND THEREFORE THE INCOME IS REALIZED WHEN THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE
COMPLETE.  THE LESSOR IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE OWNER AS SOON AS THE
IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE, AND IF TITLE BE THE TEST HE HAS THEN DERIVED
INCOME.  THE CASH RENTALS ARE ALLOCABLE IN PART TO THE IMPROVEMENTS, SO
THAT THE LESSOR HAS THE IMMEDIATE USE OF THE IMPROVEMENT TO THAT
EXTENT, JUST AS HE HAS THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE REST OF THE
PROPERTY.  THE ONLY REASON WHY HE IS NOT ENTIRELY FREE TO USE THE
PROPERTY IS THAT HE HAS AGREED IN ADVANCE WITH THE LESSEE TO PERMIT THE
LATTER THE EXCLUSIVE USE.  THIS CIRCUMSTANCE IS ANALOGOUS TO THE
ASSIGNED INCOME CASES AND SHOULD NOT PREVENT THE TAX.  MOREOVER, THE
CONCEPT OF INCOME DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAVE
THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO ENJOY IT.  BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103;
POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101; MILLER V. GEARIN, 258 F. 225; 250 U.S.
667; CRYAN V. WARDELL, 263 F. 248. 

THE TREASURY REGULATIONS THEN IN EFFECT PROVIDED THAT THE DEPRECIATED
VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS ERECTED BY A LESSEE CONSTITUTED TAXABLE INCOME TO
THE LESSOR UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE.  ART. 4, PAR. 50, REG.
33(REV.  ED.); ART. 48, REG. 45.  BUT THE CITED CASES OVERRULED THE
EXISTING REGULATIONS, WHEREUPON THE TREASURY MADE CHANGES TO CONFORM TO
THE DECISIONS.  T.D. 3062, 3 CUMULATIVE BULLETIN 109; MIM.  2714, 4
CUMULATIVE BULLETIN 90; ART. 48, REGULATIONS 45(1920 ED.).  THE
REGULATIONS UNDER THE LATER ACTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY REGARDED THE INCOME
AS REALIZED UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.  THE REGULATIONS
UNDER THE 1921 AND SUBSEQUENT ACTS HAVE PERMITTED THE GAIN TO BE SPREAD
OVER THE LIFE OF THE LEASE.  ART. 48, REGULATIONS 62, 65 AND 69; ART.
63, REGULATIONS 74 AND 77; ART. 22(A)-13, REGULATIONS 86 AND 94. 

AGAINST THIS VIEW IT MAY BE URGED THAT THE LESSOR HAS NOT "DERIVED"
THE INCOME BECAUSE HE IS NOT FREE TO USE IT.  BUT THE LESSOR DERIVES
RENT FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS AND, TO THAT EXTENT AT LEAST, IT WOULD
APPEAR THAT HE DOES USE THE IMPROVED PROPERTY.  HIS FULL RIGHT OF USE
IS TIED UP AND RESTRICTED DURING THE TERM OF THE LEASE BY THE AGREEMENT
OF THE PARTIES MADE IN ADVANCE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.  IN OTHER
SITUATIONS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH AN ASSIGNMENT DOES NOT AVOID THE
TAX.  LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111; LONSDALE V. COMMISSIONER, 32 F.2D
537; 280 U.S. 575.  CF. BURNET V. WELLS, 289 U.S. 670; POE V. SEABORN,
282 U.S. 101; CLEVELAND RY. CO. V. LUCAS, 36 F.2D 347; 281 U.S. 743;
OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716; UNITED STATES V.
HENDLER, 303 U.S. 564; AND SEE UNITED STATES V. BOSTON & M.R. CO., 279
U.S. 732. 

(B)  THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME IS REALIZED UPON THE TERMINATION OF THE
LEASE.  - IF THE RESTRICTIONS UPON ENJOYMENT PREVENT THE INCOME FROM
BEING TREATED AS DERIVED WHEN THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE, IT SHOULD
FOLLOW THAT THE INCOME IS RECEIVED WHEN THE RESTRICTIONS ARE REMOVED. 
THE PRINCIPLE IS WELL RECOGNIZED THAT THE RELEASE OF A LIABILITY IS THE
EQUIVALENT OF RECEIPT, AND WHERE INCOME IS PHYSICALLY RECEIVED AT A
TIME WHEN THERE IS SOME RESTRICTION UPON ITS USE, THE TIME OF RECEIPT
IS DEEMED TO BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE RESTRICTION IS REMOVED.  IF THAT
THEORY IS APPLICABLE, THE INCOME IS DERIVED AT THE EXPIRATION OR
EARLIER TERMINATION OF THE LEASE.  HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS
CORP., 303 U.S. 376; UNITED STATES V. KIRBY LUMBER CO., 284 U.S. 1;
HELVERING V. AMERICAN CHICLE CO., 291 U.S. 426; MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 342; NORTH AMERICAN OIL V. BURNET, 286 U.S.
417, 424; CF. HELVERING V. TEX-PENN CO., 300 U.S. 481. 

(C)  THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME IS REALIZED UPON DISPOSITION OF THE
IMPROVED PROPERTY.  - THE THEORY THAT THE INCOME IS REALIZED UPON THE
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY IS BASED UPON THE VIEW THAT THE INCREASED
VALUE WHICH RESULTED FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS IS MERELY APPRECIATION OF
SOME CHARACTER, LIKE AN INCREASE RESULTING FROM FLUCTUATING
CONDITIONS.  HOWEVER, THERE IS LITTLE SIMILARITY BETWEEN GENERAL
CONDITIONS CAUSING DAY-TO-DAY FLUCTUATIONS AND A PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT
TO THE PARTICULAR REALTY.  FURTHERMORE, THIS THEORY IS BASED UPON THE
MISCONCEPTION THAT THERE MUST BE AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF
INCOME FROM CAPITAL.  WE THINK THE CASES SHOW THAT THE CONCEPT OF
INCOME IS SATISFIED WHERE THE TAXPAYER'S INVESTMENT PRODUCES NEW
PROPERTY WHICH, IN SOME FORM, IS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM.  THE SIMPLICITY
OF THE THEORY HAS APPEALED TO SOME COURTS, BUT IF THE INCOME IS LOST AS
A RESULT OF UNRELATED EVENTS OCCURRING BETWEEN THE TIME OF ITS RECEIPT
AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY, THIS THEORY WOULD PERMIT IT TO
ESCAPE TAXATION ALTOGETHER.  IN NO OTHER SITUATION IS A TAXPAYER
EXCUSED FROM ACCOUNTING FOR INCOME BECAUSE OF ITS SUBSEQUENT LOSS. 
HEWITT REALTY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 880; MARR V. UNITED STATES,
268 U.S. 536, 540; HELVERING V. MIDLAND INS. CO., 300 U.S. 216, 225;
KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441. 

THE CASE IS SQUARELY WITHIN THE REGULATIONS, AND THE VALIDITY OF THE
TAX DEPENDS UPON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE THEORY WHICH UNDERLIES THE
REGULATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER PAID, AND IN THIS SUIT SEEKS TO RECOVER, AN AMOUNT
INCLUDED IN A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE AS ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR ENDING JANUARY
31, 1932.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER PETITIONER IS LIABLE UNDER REVENUE
ACT OF 1932, SEC. 22(A).  FN1 

THE MATERIAL SUBSTANCE OF THE FINDINGS FOLLOWS. 

FOR ITSELF AND A SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION, PETITIONER MADE CONSOLIDATED
RETURN.  THE COMMISSIONER ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE SUBSIDIARY ON
ACCOUNT OF IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO ITS PROPERTY BY A LESSEE.  HE RULED THE
IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCOME TO LESSOR IN THAT YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR
VALUE AT TERMINATION OF THE LEASE. 

LESSOR PURCHASED THE REAL ESTATE IN 1927, AND SEPTEMBER 13, 1930,
LEASED IT FOR USE AS A MOVING PICTURE THEATER FOR A TERM OF TEN YEARS,
BEGINNING UPON COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE.  AT ITS OWN COST
AND EXPENSE, LESSOR AGREED TO MAKE ALTERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS PREPARED BY AN ARCHITECT SELECTED BY THE PARTIES. 
LESSEE AGREED TO INSTALL THE LATEST TYPE OF MOVING PICTURE AND TALKING
APPARATUS, THEATER SEATS AND ALL OTHER FIXTURES, FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF A MODERN THEATER TO
BECOME THE PROPERTY OF LESSOR AT THE EXPIRATION OR SOONER TERMINATION
OF THE LEASE. 

LESSOR MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE BUILDER TO MAKE THE CONTEMPLATED
IMPROVEMENTS AND AGREED TO PAY, UP TO A SPECIFIED LIMIT, ACTUAL COST,
PLUS BUILDER'S PROFIT AND ARCHITECT'S FEE.  ADDITIONAL WORK ORDERED BY
LESSEE WAS TO BE PAID FOR BY IT.  LESSEE CONSENTED TO THE TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT AND AGREED TO PAY FOR WORK AND MATERIALS ORDERED BY IT.  ALL
IMPROVEMENTS WERE COMPLETED IN JANUARY 1931; LESSEE TOOK POSSESSION OF
THE PROPERTY FEBRUARY 1 OF THAT YEAR. 

THE TOTAL COST OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS WAS $114,468.77; LESSOR PAID
$73,794.47; LESSEE PAID THE BALANCE, $40,674.30.  "THE ESTIMATED
DEPRECIATED VALUE AT THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE OF THE ALTERATIONS
AND IMPROVEMENTS PAID FOR BY THE LESSEE WAS COMPUTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER AND WAS AGREED TO BY THE PLAINTIFF (PETITIONER), AS
FOLLOWS:

          DEPRECIATED VALUE

                      AT END OF 10

                  COST          YEARS 

(1) VENTILATING SYSTEM................   $3,959.75     $2,771.83 

(2) GLAZING, ARCHITECT'S FEE AND

   OTHER ITEMS......................   10,366.37      7,256.46 

(3) PAINTING..........................      760.80         0 

(4) OTHER IMPROVEMENTS................      185.97         0    (5)
CHAIRS............................    9,167.24      3,055.75 

(6) BOOTH.............................    5,197.39     0 

(7) DRAPERIES.........................    7,075.42    2,358.47 

(8) ELECTRIC SIGNS AND MARQUEE........    3,961.36      1,980.63

   TOTAL............................  $40,674.30    $17,423.14" 

FROM THESE FIGURES IT APPEARS THAT THE CALCULATIONS WERE BASED ON
ANNUAL DEPRECIATION OF ITEMS (1) AND (2) AT 3 PER CENT., ON (5) AND
(7), AT 6 2/3 PER CENT., ON (8), AT 5 PER CENT., AND ON (3), (4), AND
(6), AT 10 PER CENT.    FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION, THE COMMISSIONER
ADDED TO INCOME OF LESSOR $1,742.31, ONE-TENTH OF THE COST SO
DEPRECIATED.  THE RESULTING ADDITIONAL TAX WAS $211.61.  PETITIONER
PAID IT; THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED CLAIM FOR REFUND.  THE LOWER COURT
HELD PETITIONER NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER; IT SUSTAINED THE TAX ON THE
GROUND THAT, IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY
LESSEE, THEY BECAME THE PROPERTY OF LESSOR, AND CONSTITUTED
COMPENSATION PAID BY LESSEE AS ADDITIONAL RENTAL FOR THE USE OF THE
LEASED PREMISES. 

PETITIONER INSISTS THAT WHERE IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE BY LESSEE, THERE
IS NO REALIZATION OF GAIN AT THE TIME THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETED;
THAT THE ACCESSION OF VALUE TO THE PROPERTY IS NOT INCOME BUT A CAPITAL
ADDITION.  THE UNITED STATES SAYS THAT, WHILE THE CASE PRESENTS THE
QUESTION WHETHER DEPRECIATED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS BY LESSEE
CONSTITUTES INCOME TO LESSOR IN THE TAXABLE YEAR, THE "BASIC QUESTION
IS WHETHER INCOME IS EVER REALIZED BY THE LESSOR IN SUCH CASES, AND IF
SO, WHEN."  ASSUMING THAT IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY LESSEE AND WHICH WILL
OUTLAST THE TERM CONSTITUTE INCOME TO LESSOR AT SOME TIME, ITS BRIEF
DISCUSSES THE QUESTIONS WHETHER THE INCOME IS REALIZED UPON (1)
COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS, (2) TERMINATION OF THE LEASE, OR (3)
DISPOSITION OF THE IMPROVED PROPERTY.  IT CONCLUDES THAT THE "SOUNDEST
THEORY SEEMS TO BE THAT SUCH INCOME IS TAXABLE AT THE TIME THE
IMPROVEMENTS ARE ERECTED."  AND, WITHOUT SUPPORTING THE LOWER COURT'S
RULING THAT THE ESTIMATED DEPRECIATED VALUE AT THE END OF THE TEN-YEAR
TERM CONSTITUTED ADDITIONAL RENT OR COMPENSATION PAID FOR THE USE OF
THE PREMISES, IT ASKS THAT THE JUDGMENT BE UPHELD. 

WE ARE NOT CALLED ON TO DECIDE WHETHER UNDER ANY LEASE OR IN ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, INCOME IS RECEIVED BY LESSOR BY REASON OF IMPROVEMENTS
MADE BY LESSEE, NOR TO CHOOSE, FOR GENERAL APPROVAL OR CONDEMNATION,
ANY OF THE THEORIES EXPOUNDED BY THE UNITED STATES.  CONCRETELY, THE
QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER, UNDER THE LEASE HERE INVOLVED, ONE-TENTH
OF WHAT THE COMMISSIONER AND TAXPAYER CALL AND AGREE TO BE "ESTIMATED
DEPRECIATED VALUE," AS OF THE END OF THE TERM, WAS INCOME TO PETITIONER
IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE TERM.  AND THAT QUESTION IS TO BE DECIDED UPON
THE LOWER COURT'S SPECIAL FINDINGS UNAFFECTED BY ANY STATEMENT OF FACT,
REASONING, OR CONCLUSION THAT MAY BE FOUND IN ITS OPINION.  FN2 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FINDINGS TO SUGGEST THAT COST OF ANY
IMPROVEMENT MADE BY LESSEE WAS RENT OR AN EXPENDITURE NOT PROPERLY TO
BE ATTRIBUTED TO ITS CAPITAL OR MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM OPERATING EXPENSE.  WHILE THE LEASE REQUIRED IT TO MAKE
IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATION, NO ITEM WAS SPECIFIED,
NOR THE TIME OR AMOUNT OF ANY EXPENDITURE.  THE REQUIREMENT WAS ONE
MAKING FOR SUCCESS OF THE BUSINESS TO BE DONE ON THE LEASED PREMISES. 
IT WELL MAY HAVE BEEN DEEMED BY LESSOR ESSENTIAL OR APPROPRIATE TO
SECURE PAYMENT OF THE RENT STIPULATED IN THE LEASE.  EVEN WHEN
REQUIRED, IMPROVEMENTS BY LESSEE WILL NOT BE DEEMED RENT UNLESS
INTENTION THAT THEY SHALL BE IS PLAINLY DISCLOSED.  RENT IS "A FIXED
SUM, OR PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO A FIXED SUM, TO BE PAID AT STATED TIMES
FOR THE USE OF PROPERTY  ...  ; ...  IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PAYMENTS,
UNCERTAIN BOTH AS TO AMOUNT AND TIME, MADE FOR THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS
...  " FN3 THE FACTS FOUND ARE CLEARLY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE
LOWER COURT'S HOLDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MAKING OF IMPROVEMENTS BY
LESSEE WAS PAYMENT OF RENT. 

IT REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION
REPRESENTED TAXABLE INCOME, OTHER THAN RENT, IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE
TERM. 

THE FINDINGS FAIL TO DISCLOSE ANY BASIS OF VALUE ON WHICH TO LAY AN
INCOME TAX OR THE TIME OF REALIZATION OF TAXABLE GAIN, IF ANY THERE
WAS.  THE FIGURES MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER ARE NOT DEFINED.  THE
FINDINGS DO NOT SHOW WHETHER THEY ARE INTENDED TO REPRESENT VALUE OF
IMPROVEMENTS IF REMOVED OR THE AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THEM AS A PART OF
THE BUILDING. 

THE FIGURES THEMSELVES REPEL THE SUGGESTION THAT THEY WERE INTENDED
TO REPRESENT AMOUNTS OBTAINABLE FOR THE ITEMS IF REMOVED.  WE ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO ASSUME THAT THE COMMISSIONER INTENDED HIS ESTIMATES TO
REPRESENT SALVAGE, AT THE END OF THE TERM, OF VENTILATING SYSTEM,
GLAZING, ARCHITECT'S FEES AND THE LIKE, DRAPERIES, CHAIRS, ELECTRIC
SIGNS, AND MARQUEE, THE USEFUL LIVES OF WHICH IN PLACE HAVE DECLINED
FROM 30 TO 66 2/3 PER CENT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT IF DETACHED FROM
THE BUILDING THEY WOULD THEN HAVE ANY VALUE, EVEN AS JUNK, OVER
NECESSARY COST OF REMOVAL.  IT IS CLEAR THAT, IF ANY VALUE AS OF THAT
TIME MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THEM, IT IS INCLUDED IN AND NOT SEPARABLE
FROM THAT OF THE LEASED PREMISES. 

EQUALLY CONJECTURAL WOULD BE ASSUMPTION THAT THE FIGURES REPRESENT
ENHANCEMENT OF VALUE OF THE LEASED PREMISES BY REASON OF THE
IMPROVEMENTS WHEN NEW OR AS DETERIORATED AT THE END OF THE TERM.  THE
LEASED PROPERTY IS CAPABLE OF INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASCERTAINING ORIGINAL AND ESTIMATED PRESENT COSTS OF ITS ELEMENTS AND
OTHER RELEVANT FACTS AS INDICATIONS OF WORTH TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
IN DETERMINING ITS VALUE; I.E., THE MONEY EQUIVALENT OF THE PROPERTY AS
A WHOLE.  FN4  BUT PRESENT OR FUTURE VALUE, HOWEVER ASCERTAINED, IS
SINGLE IN SUBSTANCE; IT CANNOT BE ARRIVED AT BY MERE SUMMATION OF
ACTUAL OR ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS, NEW OR DEPRECIATED. 
FN5  THE ADDITION TO VALUE OF THE LEASED PREMISES RESULTING FROM THE
LESSEE'S IMPROVEMENTS MAY NOT BE ARRIVED AT BY FORMULA OR
ARITHMETICALLY BY MERELY SETTING AGAINST EACH ITEM OR ELEMENT ITS COST
LESS DEPRECIATION ESTIMATED TO ACCRUE DURING THE TERM OF THE LEASE. 
FN6 THE AMOUNT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE REASONABLY
TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE IMPROVEMENTS AFTER USE FOR TEN YEARS IS NOT
ASCERTAINABLE BY THE SIMPLE CALCULATIONS EMPLOYED BY THE COMMISSIONER. 

GRANTING THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS INCREASED THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING,
THAT ENHANCEMENT IS NOT REALIZED INCOME OF LESSOR.  FN7  SO FAR AS
CONCERNS TAXABLE INCOME, THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IS NOT
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM EXCESS, IF ANY THERE MAY BE, OF VALUE OVER COST OF
IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY LESSOR.  EACH WAS AN ADDITION TO CAPITAL; NOT
INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  FN8 TREASURY REGULATIONS CAN
ADD NOTHING TO INCOME AS DEFINED BY CONGRESS.  FN9 

BUT, ASSUMING THAT AT SOME TIME VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE
INCOME OF LESSOR, IT CANNOT BE REASONABLY ASSIGNED TO THE YEAR IN WHICH
THEY WERE INSTALLED.  THE COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT AT THE END OF THE
TERM SOME WOULD BE WORTHLESS AND EXCLUDED THEM.  HE ALSO EXCLUDED
DEPRECIATION OF OTHER ITEMS.  THESE EXCLUSIONS IMPLY THAT ELEMENTS
WHICH WILL NOT OUTLAST LESSEE'S RIGHT TO USE ARE NOT AT ANY TIME INCOME
OF LESSOR.  THE INCLUSION OF THE REMAINING VALUE IS TO HOLD THAT
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO HAVE THEM AS A PART OF THE BUILDING AT EXPIRATION
OF LEASE CONSTITUTES INCOME IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE TERM IN AN AMOUNT
EQUAL TO THEIR ESTIMATED VALUE AT THE END OF THE TERM WITHOUT ANY
DEDUCTION TO OBTAIN PRESENT WORTH AS OF DATE OF INSTALLATION.  IT MAY
BE ASSUMED THAT, SUBJECT TO THE LEASE, LESSOR BECAME OWNER OF THE
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE.  BUT IT HAD NO RIGHT TO USE OR
DISPOSE OF THEM DURING THE TERM.  MERE ACQUISITION OF THAT SORT DID NOT
AMOUNT TO CONTEMPORANEOUS REALIZATION OF GAIN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "'GROSS INCOME' INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM
SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND
AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES,
BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL
OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH
PROPERTY; ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE
TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS OR
PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.  ...  "  47 STAT.
178.  THE REGULATION APPLIED BY THE COMMISSIONER (REG. 77, ART. 63) HAS
SINCE BEEN CHANGED.  SEE REG. 94 AND 86, ART. 22(A)-13. 

FN2  STONE V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 380, 383.  CROCKER V. UNITED
STATES, 240 U.S. 74, 78.  BROTHERS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 88, 93. 
UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S. 102, 120.  UNITED STATES V. ESNAULT
PELTERIE, 299 U.S. 201, 206.  AND SEE AMERICAN PROPELLER CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 300 U.S. 475, 479-480. 

FN3  DUFFY V. CENTRAL RAILROAD CO., 268 U.S. 55, 63.  DODGE V. HOGAN,
19 R.I. 4, 11; 31 A. 269, 1059.  GUILD V. SAMPSON, 232 MASS. 509, 513;
122 N.E. 712.  GARNER V. HANNAH, 6 DUER 262, 266.  BOARD OF COMM'RS V.
PURE OIL CO., 167 LA. 801, 811; 120 SO. 373.  2 BLACKSTONE, P. 41. 

FN4  WEST V. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TEL. CO., 295 U.S. 662, 671.  OLSON
V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 246, 255.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO., 268 U.S. 146, 155. 

FN5  DENVER STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 470, 479. 

FN6  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 434.  BLUEFIELD CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S. 679, 690.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO., 268 U.S. 146, 157, 159.  MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER
CO., 272 U.S. 400, 416. 

FN7  HEWITT REALTY CO. V. COMMISSIONER (CCA 2), 76 F.2D 880, 884. 
EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 207.  LUCAS V. ALEXANDER, 279 U.S.
573, 577.  CF. BOWERS V. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 175. 

FN8  UNITED STATES V. PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156, 169, 175.  MERCHANTS'
LOAN & T. CO. V. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509, 519-520.  TAFT V. BOWERS, 278
U.S. 470, 480, ET SEQ. LUCAS V. AMERICAN CODE CO., 280 U.S. 445, 449. 
ECKERT V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 140, 142.  BURNET V. LOGAN, 283 U.S. 404,
412-413.  UNITED STATES V. SAFETY CAR HEATING CO., 297 U.S. 88, 99. 
KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441, 444-445.  CF. COMMISSIONER V. VAN
VORST (CCA 9), 59 F.2D 677, 680. 

FN9  KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441, 447. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE. 

I ACQUIESCE IN THAT PART OF THE COURT'S OPINION WHICH CONSTRUES THE
FINDINGS BELOW AS FAILING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LESSEE'S IMPROVEMENTS
RESULTED IN AN INCREASE IN MARKET VALUE OF THE LESSOR'S LAND IN THE
TAXABLE YEAR.  AS IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER SUCH INCREASE, IF
ESTABLISHED, WOULD CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE LESSOR, I DO NOT
JOIN IN SO MUCH OF THE OPINION AS, UPON AN ASSUMPTION CONTRARY TO THE
FINDINGS, UNDERTAKES TO DISCUSS THAT QUESTION. 
..END :























WHITE V. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 281 


NO. 96.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 17, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  -
86 CT.CLS.  125 - 21 F.SUPP.  361, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER SECS. 23 AND 101 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, UPON A COMPLETE
LIQUIDATION OF A CORPORATION, STOCKHOLDERS' LOSSES FROM THEIR
INVESTMENTS IN ITS STOCK HELD FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS ARE NOT ORDINARY
LOSSES DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL FROM GROSS INCOME, BUT ARE CAPITAL LOSSES 12
1/2% OF WHICH IS DEDUCTIBLE, UNDER SEC. 101, FROM THE TAX AS COMPUTED
WITHOUT REGARD TO SUCH LOSSES.  P. 283. 

2.  UNDER THIS ACT, STOCKHOLDERS' GAINS AND LOSSES UPON LIQUIDATION
OF THE CORPORATION ARE TAXED ON THE SAME BASIS AS GAINS OR LOSSES UPON
SALES AND EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY, WITH THE RATE OF TAX PRESCRIBED BY
SEC. 101.  P. 284. 

THIS CONCLUSION FOLLOWS FROM A COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF SECS. 12,
21-23, 101, 112, 113 AND 115, AND IS SUPPORTED BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION
OF SEC. 115(C), HELLMICH V. HELLMAN, 276 U.S. 233, AS IT APPEARED IN
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, SEC. 201(C), AND BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
SECS. 101 AND 115, AND BY REPORTS OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. 

3.  ARTICLE 625 OF TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, INTERPRETING SECS. 101
AND 115(C) OF THE 1928 ACT, IS A CLEAR RECOGNITION THAT SECS. 115 AND
101, WHEN READ WITH THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT, ARE INTERDEPENDENT
AND REQUIRE STOCKHOLDERS' GAINS UPON LIQUIDATION TO BE TAXED AS ARE THE
CORRESPONDING GAINS ON SALES OF PROPERTY.  P. 290. 

4.  THE REPEATED REENACTMENT OF SECS. 101 AND 115(C), AS THEY APPEAR
IN THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1924, 1928, AND 1932, IS UPON ACCEPTED
PRINCIPLES A CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF TREASURY REGULATIONS AS
CORRECTLY INTERPRETING THOSE SECTIONS, AND IS CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION
THAT SECS. 101 AND 115(C) ARE TO BE READ TOGETHER IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN
THE METHOD BY WHICH GAINS AND LOSSES UPON LIQUIDATION ARE TO BE TAXED. 
THE METHOD, IN THE CASE OF STOCK HELD FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS, IS THAT
APPLIED BY SEC. 101 TO CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES FROM THE SALE OR
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY.  P. 291. 

5.  THE ARGUMENT THAT DOUBTS MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE
TAXPAYER, IS REJECTED.  P. 292. 

IT IS A FUNCTION OF COURTS TO RESOLVE DOUBTS; AND NO REASON IS
PERCEIVED WHY THAT FUNCTION SHOULD BE ABDICATED IN A TAX CASE MORE THAN
IN ANY OTHER WHERE THE RIGHTS OF SUITORS TURN ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
STATUTE, AND IT IS THE DUTY OF A COURT TO DECIDE WHAT THAT CONSTRUCTION
FAIRLY SHOULD BE. 

6.  EVERY DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME IS ALLOWED AS A MATTER OF
LEGISLATIVE GRACE; AND ONLY AS THERE IS CLEAR PROVISION THEREFOR CAN
ANY PARTICULAR DEDUCTION BE ALLOWED; AND A TAXPAYER SEEKING A DEDUCTION
MUST BE ABLE TO POINT TO AN APPLICABLE STATUTE AND SHOW THAT HE COMES
WITHIN ITS TERMS.  P. 292. 

WHITE ET AL. V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 97, WHITE, EXECUTOR, V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 581, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS REJECTING CLAIMS FOR
THE RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID UNDER ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS. 
CF. THE NEXT CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION DECISIVE OF THIS CASE IS WHETHER, UNDER SECS. 23 AND 101
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT. 791, UPON A LIQUIDATION OF A
CORPORATION, STOCKHOLDERS' LOSSES FROM THEIR INVESTMENT IN ITS STOCK
HELD FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS ARE ORDINARY LOSSES DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL
FROM GROSS INCOME, OR CAPITAL LOSSES, 12 1/2% OF WHICH IS DEDUCTIBLE
UNDER SEC. 101 FROM THE TAX AS COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO SUCH LOSSES. 

THE DECEDENT IN EACH OF THESE CASES MADE AN INVESTMENT REPRESENTED BY
SHARES OF STOCK IN A CORPORATION.  UPON COMPLETE LIQUIDATION OF THE
CORPORATION, MORE THAN TWO YEARS LATER, THE TOTAL LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS
ON THE STOCK AMOUNTED TO LESS THAN THE COST OF THE INVESTMENT.  IN
THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1929 PETITIONERS DEDUCTED FROM GROSS
INCOME THE LOSSES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE DECEDENTS.  THE COMMISSIONER
RULED THAT THE LOSSES WERE CAPITAL NET LOSSES OF WHICH ONLY 12 1/2% WAS
DEDUCTIBLE, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 101, AND HE ACCORDINGLY FOUND
DEFICIENCIES, WHICH PETITIONERS PAID. 

IN THE PRESENT SUITS, BROUGHT BY PETITIONERS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS
TO RECOVER THE PAYMENTS OF THE DEFICIENCIES AS OVERPAYMENTS OF 1929
TAX, RECOVERY WAS DENIED.  86 CT. CLS. 125; 21 F.SUPP.  361.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, OCTOBER 10, 1938, TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
DECISION BELOW AND THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN CHESTER N. WEAVER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 97 F.2D.  31, CERTIORARI
GRANTED, OCTOBER 10, 1938, WHICH AROSE UNDER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE
1932 REVENUE ACT.  (SEE NEXT CASE.) 

THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS  ...  LOSSES SUSTAINED DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR  ...  (2) IF INCURRED IN ANY TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO FOR
PROFIT, THOUGH NOT CONNECTED WITH THE TRADE OR BUSINESS; ...  " AND SUB
DEDUCTION FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED  ...  SHALL BE THE SAME AS IS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 113 FOR DETERMINING THE GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OR OTHER
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY." 

THESE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 23 ARE QUALIFIED AND RESTRICTED BY SEC. 101,
WHICH PRESCRIBES RATES OF TAX APPLICABLE TO CAPITAL NET GAINS AND THE
EXTENT TO WHICH CAPITAL NET LOSSES ARE DEDUCTIBLE IN ARRIVING AT NET
TAXABLE INCOME.  SECTION 101(C)(1) AND (2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928
DEFINES "CAPITAL GAIN" AS A "GAIN FROM THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF CAPITAL
ASSETS" AND "CAPITAL LOSS" AS A "DEDUCTIBLE LOSS RESULTING FROM THE
SALE OR EXCHANGE OF CAPITAL ASSETS."  SECTION 101(C)(3) AND (4)
DECLARES:  "'CAPITAL DEDUCTIONS' MEANS SUCH DEDUCTIONS AS ARE ALLOWED
BY SECTION 23 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING NET INCOME, AND ARE PROPERLY
ALLOCABLE TO OR CHARGEABLE AGAINST CAPITAL ASSETS SOLD OR EXCHANGED
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR  ...  ;" AND "'ORDINARY DEDUCTIONS' MEANS THE
DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SECTION 23 OTHER THAN CAPITAL LOSSES AND CAPITAL
DEDUCTIONS."  BY SEC. 101(C)(5) AND (6) A "CAPITAL NET GAIN" OR "LOSS"
RESULTS FROM THE SALE OF "CAPITAL ASSETS," WHICH ARE DEFINED BY SEC.
101(C)(8) AS "PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS,"
NOT INCLUDING "STOCK IN TRADE  ...  OR OTHER PROPERTY" HELD BY THE
TAXPAYER "PRIMARILY FOR SALE IN THE COURSE OF HIS TRADE OR BUSINESS." 

A DIFFERENT BASIS FROM OTHER TYPES OF GAINS AND LOSSES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF COMPUTING THE TAX.  BY SEC. 101(A) A CAPITAL NET GAIN AS DEFINED BY
SEC. 101(C)(5) MAY, AT THE OPTION OF THE TAXPAYER, BE ASSESSED AT THE
RATE OF 12 1/2% IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER TAXES, AND BY SEC. 101(B) A
CAPITAL NET LOSS, DEFINED BY SEC. 101(6) AS "THE EXCESS OF THE SUM OF
THE CAPITAL LOSSES PLUS THE CAPITAL DEDUCTIONS OVER THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
CAPITAL GAIN," MAY BE DEDUCTED, ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 12 1/2%, FROM THE
TAX AS COMPUTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CAPITAL NET LOSS.  THESE
DISCUSSED, THUS PROVIDE A COMPLETE SCHEME FOR ASCERTAINING CAPITAL
GAINS AND LOSSES FROM THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY AND FOR BRINGING
THEM INTO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX ON NET INCOME, A SCHEME DISTINCT
FROM THAT APPLICABLE TO OTHER TYPES OF GAINS AND LOSSES RESULTING IN
ORDINARY NET INCOME, INCLUDING THOSE FROM SALES AND EXCHANGES OF
PROPERTY NOT CAPITAL ASSETS. 

THE LOSSES HERE SUSTAINED ARE CONCEDEDLY LOSSES ON INVESTMENTS OF
CAPITAL, ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE NET
INCOME, BUT PETITIONERS' CONTENTION IS THAT AS THE LOSSES DID NOT
RESULT FROM A SALE OR EXCHANGE OF THE STOCK THEY ARE NOT CAPITAL LOSSES
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 101, WHICH LIMITS THE DEDUCTION OF SUCH
LOSSES, AND THAT IN CONSEQUENCE THEY FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF ORDINARY
LOSSES, DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL UNDER SEC. 23.  THE ANSWER TO THIS
CONTENTION TURNS UPON THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF SEC. 115(C), WHICH
RELATES TO DISTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS AND APPEARS IN SUPPLEMENT B OF
THE 1928 ACT.  THE SECTION PROVIDES IN PART: 

"AMOUNTS DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLETE LIQUIDATION OF A CORPORATION SHALL
BE TREATED AS IN FULL PAYMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE STOCK, AND AMOUNTS
DISTRIBUTED IN PARTIAL LIQUIDATION OF A CORPORATION SHALL BE TREATED AS
IN PART OR FULL PAYMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE STOCK.  THE GAIN OR LOSS TO
THE DISTRIBUTEE RESULTING FROM SUCH EXCHANGE SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER
COMPUTATION OF GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY AND REFERS, AS DOES SEC. 23(G), TO SEC. 113 AS AFFORDING THE
BASIS FOR DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS UPON SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
PROPERTY.  BY SEC. 112(A) IT IS PROVIDED THAT "UPON THE SALE OR
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE GAIN OR LOSS, DETERMINED
UNDER SECTION 111, SHALL BE RECOGNIZED, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED
IN THIS SECTION."  FN1 

PETITIONERS CONCEDE THAT THE COMMAND OF SEC. 115(C) THAT AMOUNTS
DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLETE LIQUIDATION OF A CORPORATION "SHALL BE TREATED
AS IN FULL PAYMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE STOCK" AND THAT THE "GAIN OR
LOSS  ...  SHALL BE DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 111," REQUIRES THE GAIN OR
LOSS UPON LIQUIDATION TO BE DETERMINED AS ARE GAINS OR LOSSES UPON SALE
OF THE STOCK UNDER SECS. 111, 113.  THE SAME METHOD IS ADOPTED BY 101
FOR DETERMINING GAINS OR LOSSES FROM SALES OF CAPITAL ASSETS.  FN2  BUT
THEY INSIST THAT THE QUALIFICATION  THAT GAIN OR LOSS "SHALL BE
RECOGNIZED ONLY TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN SECTION 112" AND THE FACT
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 101 APPLY ONLY TO CASES OF SALES OR
EXCHANGES EXCLUDE THE STOCKHOLDERS' GAIN OR LOSS UPON LIQUIDATION,
WHICH IS NOT A SALE OR EXCHANGE, FROM THE OPERATION OF THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 101 GOVERNING THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX. 

THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SUB-TITLE B OF THE 1928 REVENUE ACT, WHICH IS
CONCERNED WITH RATES OF TAX AND COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME.  SECTION 101
APPEARS IN SUPPLEMENT A, RELATING TO RATES OF TAX, AND SEC. 115 IN
SUPPLEMENT B, CONCERNING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME.  BOTH SUPPLEMENTS
SERVE TO MODIFY OR EXPLAIN THE GENERAL PROVISIONS.  "  ...  THE
SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS ARE THOSE WHICH APPLY ONLY TO EXTRAORDINARY
CLASSES OF TAXPAYERS OR WHICH APPLY ONLY TO THE EXTRAORDINARY
TRANSACTIONS OF ORDINARY CLASSES OF TAXPAYERS."  REPORT, COMMITTEE ON
WAYS AND MEANS, NO. 2, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 12.  FROM THE
ARRANGEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN OF THE ACT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE EFFECT
OF SECS. 101 AND 115 UPON EACH OTHER IS NOT TO BE ASCERTAINED ALONE BY
THE COMPARISON OF THE TWO SECTIONS OR BY NOTING THE ABSENCE OF ANY
REFERENCE TO EITHER BY THE OTHER, BUT BY NOTING AND COMPARING THE
EFFECT OF EACH UPON THE GENERAL PROVISIONS, TO WHICH REFERENCE MUST BE
MADE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE FOR ALL COMPUTATIONS OF INCOME TAX. 

TO WHICH SECS. 101 AND 115 ARE SUPPLEMENTARY, GOVERN COMPUTATION OF NET
INCOME AND OF THE TAX.  SUBSECTION (C) OF SEC. 12, WHICH FIXES THE
RATES OF SURTAX, REFERS SPECIFICALLY TO SEC. 101 FOR THE RATE AND
COMPUTATION OF TAX ON CAPITAL NET GAINS AND LOSSES.  FN3  SECTION 21
DECLARES THAT NET INCOME MEANS GROSS INCOME COMPUTED UNDER SEC. 22,
LESS THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SEC. 23.  AS ALREADY NOTED, SEC. 23(E),
(G), PROVIDING FOR DEDUCTIONS OF LOSSES ON SALES OR EXCHANGES OF
PROPERTY, IS RESTRICTED IN ITS OPERATION BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
101.  OTHERWISE, SEC. 101 WOULD HAVE NO APPLICATION TO DEDUCTIBLE
LOSSES.  THESE GENERAL PROVISIONS THUS INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE THOSE
OF SEC. 101 AND GIVE TO THEM CONTROLLING EFFECT IN THE COMPUTATION OF
THE TAX IN CASES OF CAPITAL GAINS OR LOSSES UPON THE SALE OR EXCHANGE
OF CAPITAL ASSETS.  IN ADDITION, SEC. 22(D) PROVIDES THAT
"DISTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS SHALL BE TAXABLE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 115," WHICH IN TURN, AS ALREADY NOTED, PROVIDES IN
PARAGRAPH (C) THAT LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS "SHALL BE TREATED AS IN FULL
PAYMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE STOCK," AND THAT RESULTING GAINS OR LOSSES
DETERMINED, AS IN THE CASE OF SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY, UNDER
SEC. 111, ARE TO BE "RECOGNIZED ONLY TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN SECTION
112," WHICH ALSO DEALS WITH SALES AND EXCHANGES. 

ALONE GIVE NO CLUE TO THE PART WHICH A STOCKHOLDER'S LOSS ON
LIQUIDATION IS TO PLAY, IN COMPUTATION OF THE TAX, MORE THAN THEY GIVE
IN THE CASE OF GAINS AND LOSSES UPON SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY. 
IN EACH CASE THEY TELL HOW THE GAIN OR LOSS IS TO BE "DETERMINED" AND
DECLARE THAT IT SHALL BE "RECOGNIZED."  BUT AS SEC. 115 SAYS THAT THE
GAIN OR LOSS UPON LIQUIDATION IS TO BE "RECOGNIZED" ONLY TO THE EXTENT
TO WHICH GAINS OR LOSSES UPON SALES OR EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY ARE
RECOGNIZED BY SEC. 112, IT FOLLOWS THAT IN ONE CASE, AS IN THE OTHER,
WE MUST TURN TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO LEARN WHAT
RECOGNITION IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE GAINS OR LOSSES UNDER SECS. 12, 22
AND 23, AS SUPPLEMENTED BY SEC. 101.  ADMITTEDLY THE RECOGNITION
ACCORDED BY SEC. 112 TO GAINS AND LOSSES ON SALES OF CAPITAL ASSETS IS
CONTROLLED BY SEC. 101, AND SEC. 115(C), WITH ITS REFERENCE TO SEC.
112, IS EXPLICIT THAT GAINS AND LOSSES UPON LIQUIDATIONS ARE TO RECEIVE
THE RECOGNITION ACCORDED TO GAINS AND LOSSES UPON SALES OF PROPERTY. 
CONSEQUENTLY THE RECOGNITION REQUIRED BY SEC. 115(C) OF GAINS AND
LOSSES ON LIQUIDATIONS MUST, WE THINK, BE TAKEN TO BE THE SAME AS THAT
ACCORDED TO GAINS AND LOSSES UPON SALES OF PROPERTY IN THE COMPUTATION
OF THE TAX UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS TO WHICH SEC. 115 AND SEC. 112
ARE SUPPLEMENTARY AND TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS AS ARE
IMPOSED UPON RECOGNITION OF GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY SECTION 101.  STOCKHOLDERS' GAINS AND
LOSSES UPON LIQUIDATION OF THE CORPORATION ARE THUS TAXED ON THE SAME
BASIS AS GAINS OR LOSSES UPON SALES AND EXCHANGES OF PROPERTY, WITH THE
RATE OF TAX AND DEDUCTIONS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 101. 

IF THIS CONCLUSION WERE DOUBTFUL, DOUBTS WOULD BE PUT AT REST BY THE
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 115(C) AS IT APPEARED IN THE 1918 ACT AND
BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECS. 101 AND 115.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
FIRST SENTENCE OF SEC. 115(C) OF THE 1928 ACT APPEARED, BUT WITHOUT THE
REFERENCE TO SECS. 111 AND 112, IN SEC. 201(C) OF THE 1918 ACT, WHICH
PROVIDED THAT "AMOUNTS DISTRIBUTED IN THE LIQUIDATION OF A CORPORATION
SHALL BE TREATED AS PAYMENTS IN EXCHANGE FOR STOCK OR SHARES,  ...  "
FN4  IN HELLMICH V. HELLMAN, 276 U.S. 233, IT WAS HELD THAT THIS CLAUSE
REQUIRED A STOCKHOLDER'S GAINS UPON LIQUIDATION TO BE TREATED AS GAINS
FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE NORMAL TAX,
ALTHOUGH THEY WERE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM CORPORATE EARNINGS, AND, UNDER
SECS. 201(A), (B) AND 216(A) DIVIDENDS PAID FROM SUCH EARNINGS WERE
FREE FROM NORMAL TAX.  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115(C) PRESCRIBING THE
TREATMENT OF LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS WERE THUS, FROM THE BEGINNING, TAKEN
TO REFER TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX AS WELL AS TO THE DETERMINATION
OF THE GAIN OR LOSS. 

THE ADDITION TO THE SECTION IN THE 1924 AND LATER ACTS OF THE
DIRECTION THAT GAIN OR LOSS SHOULD BE DETERMINED UNDER THE SECTION
CORRESPONDING TO SEC. 111 OF THE 1928 ACT AND RECOGNIZED ONLY TO THE
EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE SECTION CORRESPONDING TO SEC. 112 OF THAT ACT
REQUIRES NO DIFFERENT RESULT.  FOR REASONS ALREADY GIVEN IT SUPPORTS
THE CONCLUSION THAT SEC. 115(C), LIKE ITS PRECURSOR, SEC. 201(C) OF THE
1918 ACT, AS CONSTRUED IN HELLMICH V. HELLMAN, SUPRA, PLACED
SHAREHOLDERS' GAINS AND LOSSES FROM LIQUIDATIONS UPON THE SAME BASIS,
FOR COMPUTATION OF THE TAX, AS GAINS AND LOSSES UPON THE SALE OR
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY.  THE REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES
DISCUSSING SEC. 201(C) OF THE 1924 ACT MAKE IT PLAIN THAT THAT SECTION,
THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS IDENTICAL WITH SEC. 115(C) OF THE 1928
ACT, WAS INTENDED TO REQUIRE GAINS UPON CORPORATE LIQUIDATIONS TO BE
BROUGHT INTO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX IN THE SAME MANNER AS
CORRESPONDING GAINS FROM SALES.  FN5    ARTICLE 625 OF TREASURY
REGULATIONS 74, INTERPRETING SECS. 101 AND 115(C) OF THE 1928 ACT,
STATES IN PART:  "ANY GAIN TO THE SHAREHOLDER (FROM A DISTRIBUTION IN
LIQUIDATION OF A CORPORATION) MAY, AT HIS OPTION, BE TAXED AS A CAPITAL
NET GAIN IN THE MANNER AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN
115 AND 101, WHEN READ WITH THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT, ARE
INTERDEPENDENT AND REQUIRE STOCKHOLDERS' GAINS UPON LIQUIDATION TO BE
TAXED AS ARE THE CORRESPONDING GAINS ON SALES OF PROPERTY.  THE
REGULATION, IN IDENTICAL FORM, FIRST APPEARED IN ARTICLE 1545 OF
REGULATIONS 65 AND 69, APPLICABLE TO SECS. 201(C) AND 208 OF THE
REVENUE ACTS OF 1924 AND 1926, CORRESPONDING TO SECS. 115(C) AND 101 OF
THE 1928 ACT, AND WAS CONTINUED IN ARTICLE 625 OF REGULATIONS 77 WITH
RELATION TO THE CORRESPONDING SECTIONS, 115(C) AND 101, OF THE 1932
ACT. 

THE REPEATED REENACTMENT OF SECS. 101 AND 115(C), AS THEY APPEAR IN
THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1924, 1928, AND 1932, IS UPON ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES A
CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE REGULATION AS CORRECTLY INTERPRETING
THOSE SECTIONS AND IS CONGRESSIONAL RECOGNITION THAT SECS. 101 AND
115(C) ARE TO BE READ TOGETHER IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE METHOD BY
WHICH GAINS AND LOSSES UPON LIQUIDATION ARE TO BE TAXED.  THE METHOD,
IN THE CASE OF STOCK HELD FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS, IS THAT APPLIED BY
SEC. 101 TO CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES FROM THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF
PROPERTY. 

THE FACT THAT NEITHER THE DECISION IN HELLMICH V. HELLMAN, SUPRA, NOR
THE REGULATION DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH LOSSES DOES NOT ADMIT OF THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS' LOSSES ON LIQUIDATION ARE TO BE
BROUGHT INTO COMPUTATION OF THE TAX ON A BASIS DIFFERENT FROM GAINS AND
LOSSES UPON SALES.  SECTION 115(C) MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
RECOGNITION OF GAINS AND THE RECOGNITION OF LOSSES, AND IF ONE IS
CONTROLLED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 101 THE OTHER MUST BE. NO ADEQUATE
BASIS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED FOR SUCH A DISTINCTION. 

WE ATTACH NO SIGNIFICANCE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 101 OF THE 1928 ACT FIRST APPEARED IN THE 1921 ACT, WHILE THE
CONTROLLING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115(C) WERE ENACTED IN THE 1918 ACT AND
IN THEIR FINAL FORM IN THE 1924 ACT.  WE ACCEPT PETITIONER'S CONTENTION
THAT ALL THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 101 ARE BY ITS TERMS RESTRICTED TO
CASES OF SALES OR EXCHANGES.  BUT IF, AS WE HAVE SAID, SEC. 115(C)
REQUIRES THE TAX IN CASE OF LIQUIDATIONS TO BE COMPUTED UPON THE SAME
BASIS AS IN CASE OF SALES OF THE STOCK, ALTERATION IN THE METHOD OF
ASCERTAINING THE TAX COULD BE MADE MORE READILY BY ADDING SEC. 101 OR
AMENDING IT THAN BY AMENDING SEC. 115(C), SO LONG AS IT IS THE PURPOSE
TO TREAT GAINS AND LOSSES ON LIQUIDATION NO DIFFERENTLY FROM GAINS AND
LOSSES ON SALES.  HELVERING V. CHESTER N. WEAVER CO., POST, P. 293. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH WE THINK CORRECT LEADS
TO THE HARSH AND ABSURD CONSEQUENCE THAT A SMALL LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND
IS MORE DISADVANTAGEOUS TO THE TAXPAYER THAN NO DISTRIBUTION AT ALL IN
THE CASE WHERE THE STOCK HAS BECOME WORTHLESS.  THIS IS AN ARGUMENT,
MORE PROPERLY ADDRESSED TO CONGRESS, THAT THE STATUTE SHOULD HAVE GONE
FURTHER THAN IT DID BY PROVIDING THAT THE LOSS IN THE CASE OF WORTHLESS
SECURITIES SHOULD BE TREATED AS A LOSS UPON THEIR SALE, AS WAS LATER
DONE BY SEC. 23(G)(2) OF THE 1938 ACT.  BUT IT IS NOT PERSUASIVE THAT
WE SHOULD DISREGARD THE LANGUAGE AND HISTORY OF THE PERTINENT SECTIONS,
WITH CONSEQUENCES EQUALLY HARSH AND ABSURD, TO ADOPT THE CONSTRUCTION
FOR WHICH PETITIONERS CONTEND.  CF. HELVERING V. TWIN BELL OIL
SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, 321. 

WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT, AS THE QUESTION HERE
DECIDED IS DOUBTFUL, ALL DOUBTS SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE
TAXPAYER.  IT IS THE FUNCTION AND DUTY OF COURTS TO RESOLVE DOUBTS.  WE
KNOW OF NO REASON WHY THAT FUNCTION SHOULD BE ABDICATED IN A TAX CASE
MORE THAN IN ANY OTHER WHERE THE RIGHTS OF SUITORS TURN ON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE AND IT IS OUR DUTY TO DECIDE WHAT THAT
CONSTRUCTION FAIRLY SHOULD BE.  HERE DOUBTS WHICH MAY ARISE UPON A
CURSORY EXAMINATION OF SECS. 101 AND 115 DISAPPEAR WHEN THEY ARE READ,
AS THEY MUST BE, WITH EVERY OTHER MATERIAL PART OF THE STATUTE,
HELLMICH V. HELLMAN, SUPRA, 237, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY.  MOREOVER, EVERY DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME IS ALLOWED AS A
MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE GRACE, AND "ONLY AS THERE IS CLEAR PROVISION
THEREFOR CAN ANY PARTICULAR DEDUCTION BE ALLOWED  ...  A TAXPAYER
SEEKING A DEDUCTION MUST BE ABLE TO POINT TO AN APPLICABLE STATUTE AND
SHOW THAT HE COMES WITHIN ITS TERMS."  NEW COLONIAL ICE CO. V.
HELVERING, 292 U.S. 435, 440. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED, BUT FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS, OTHER
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONERS OF LESSER MOMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ENUMERATED EXCEPTIONS, NONE OF WHICH ARE APPLICABLE IN THE
PRESENT CASE, RELATE TO SPECIFIED TYPES OF GAINS OR LOSSES UPON
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY, SOME OF WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE RECOGNITION
ACCORDED GENERALLY BY THE SECTION TO SUCH GAINS AND LOSSES. 

FN2  THE METHOD OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SEC. 101 IS IN
SUBSTANCE THAT OF SECS. 111, 112 AND 113, WHICH IS IDENTIFIED BY SECS.
22 AND 23 WITH THAT PRESCRIBED FOR ASCERTAINING THE GAIN TO A
STOCKHOLDER UPON CORPORATE LIQUIDATION BY SEC. 115.  BY SEC. 22(D) IT
IS PROVIDED: "DISTRIBUTIONS BY CORPORATIONS SHALL BE TAXABLE TO THE
SHAREHOLDERS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 115"; AND "(E) IN THE CASE OF A
SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, THE GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE
COMPUTED AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 111, 112, AND 113."  SECTION 101 IN
TERMS PROVIDES THAT "'CAPITAL DEDUCTIONS' MEANS SUCH DEDUCTIONS AS ARE
ALLOWED BY SECTION 23 FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING NET INCOME, AND ARE
PROPERLY ALLOCABLE TO OR CHARGEABLE AGAINST CAPITAL ASSETS SOLD OR
EXCHANGED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR."  AND SEC. 23(G) PROVIDES:  "THE
BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED  ...
SHALL BE THE SAME AS IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 113 FOR DETERMINING THE
GAIN OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY." 

FN3  SEC. 12(C):  "CAPITAL NET GAINS AND LOSSES.  - FOR RATE AND
COMPUTATION OF TAX IN LIEU OF NORMAL AND SURTAX IN CASE OF NET INCOMES
OF NOT LESS THAN $30,000, APPROXIMATELY, OR IN CASE OF NET INCOMES,
EXCLUDING ITEMS OF CAPITAL GAIN, CAPITAL LOSS, AND CAPITAL DEDUCTIONS,
OF NOT LESS THAN $30,000, APPROXIMATELY, SEE SECTION 101." 

ONLY IN THE CASE OF INCOMES IN EXCESS OF $30,000, APPROXIMATELY, DO
THE AGGREGATE OF THE NORMAL AND SURTAX EXCEED THE 12 1/2% RATE PROVIDED
FOR IN SEC. 101. 

FN4  SECTION 201(C) OF THE 1918 ACT, OMITTED FROM THE 1921 ACT, WAS
CONTINUED, SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT, IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT LATER
APPEARED IN SEC. 115(C) OF THE ACT OF 1928, AS SEC. 201(C) OF THE 1924
AND 1926 ACTS, AND AS SEC. 115(C) OF THE 1932 AND 1934 ACTS.  THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 101 FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS OR LOSSES UPON SALES
OR EXCHANGES AND TAXING THEM ON A DIFFERENT BASIS FROM ORDINARY INCOME
FIRST APPEARED AS SEC. 206 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921, WHICH WAS
CONTINUED AS SEC. 208 OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1924 AND 1926 AND AS SEC.
101 OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928 AND 1932. 

FN5  THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE (REPORT NO. 398,
68TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) STATES AT PAGE 11:  "  ...  THE BILL TREATS A
LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND AS A SALE OF THE STOCK, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE
GAIN TO THE TAXPAYER IS TREATED NOT AS A DIVIDEND SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
SURTAX BUT AS A GAIN FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE TREATED AS
A CAPITAL GAIN.  THE TREATMENT OF LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS UNDER THE BILL
IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918. 
A LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND IS, IN EFFECT, A SALE BY THE STOCKHOLDER OF HIS
STOCK TO THE CORPORATION; HE SURRENDERS HIS INTEREST IN THE CORPORATION
AND RECEIVES MONEY IN PLACE THEREOF.  TREATING SUCH A TRANSACTION AS A
SALE AND WITHIN THE CAPITAL GAINS PROVISIONS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
ENTIRE THEORY OF THE ACT AND, FURTHERMORE, IS THE ONLY METHOD OF
TREATING SUCH DISTRIBUTIONS WHICH CAN BE EASILY ADMINISTERED." 

THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE (REPORT NO. 179,
68TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) STATES WITH RESPECT TO SEC. 201(C), AT PAGE 11:
"  ...  THE TREASURY HAS CONSTRUED THE EXISTING LAW AS TAXING
LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS, NOT AS CAPITAL GAINS, BUT AS DIVIDENDS SUBJECT
TO THE SURTAX RATES.  THE PROPOSED BILL, AS DID THE 1918 ACT, TREATS A
LIQUIDATING DIVIDEND AS A SALE OF THE STOCK TO THE CORPORATION AND
RECOGNIZES THE TRUE EFFECT OF SUCH A DISTRIBUTION." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
DISSENT. 
..END :





HELVERING V. WEAVER CO., 305 U.S. 293 


NO. 304.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - 97
F.2D 31, REVERSED. 


PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY A CORPORATION AS A STOCKHOLDER IN ANOTHER
CORPORATION, UPON THE LATTER'S COMPLETE LIQUIDATION, ARE TO BE TREATED
AS PAYMENTS UPON A SALE OR EXCHANGE OF THE STOCK UNDER SEC. 23(R)(1) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, WHICH ALLOWS THE DEDUCTION OF LOSSES FROM
SALES OR EXCHANGES OF STOCK, NOT HELD FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS, ONLY TO
THE EXTENT OF THE GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR EXCHANGES.  P. 295. 

THE TAXABLE YEAR SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS IN COMPUTING NET
INCOME, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (R);
SUBSECTION (R)(1) DECLARES THAT LOSSES FROM "SALES OR EXCHANGES" OF
STOCK WHICH ARE NOT "CAPITAL ASSETS" (AS DEFINED IN SEC. 101, I.E.,
PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS) SHALL BE ALLOWED
ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR EXCHANGES.  SECTIONS
115 AND 112 ACCORD TO LOSSES ON LIQUIDATION THE SAME RECOGNITION
ACCORDED BY SEC. 23(R) TO LOSSES UPON SALES.  CF. WHITE V. UNITED
STATES, ANTE, P. 281.  P. 295. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. CHESTER N. WEAVER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 585, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 35 B.T.A. 514, SUSTAINING AN ADDITIONAL
INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY A
CORPORATION AS A STOCKHOLDER IN ANOTHER CORPORATION, UPON THE LATTER'S
COMPLETE LIQUIDATION, ARE TO BE TREATED AS PAYMENTS UPON A SALE OR
EXCHANGE OF THE STOCK UNDER SEC. 23(R)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,
47 STAT. 169, WHICH ALLOWS THE DEDUCTION OF LOSSES FROM SALES OR
EXCHANGES OF STOCK, NOT HELD FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS, ONLY TO THE
EXTENT OF THE GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR EXCHANGES. 

ON AUGUST 9, 1932, RESPONDENT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PURCHASED
SHARES OF STOCK IN ANOTHER CORPORATION.  IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE
LATTER WAS COMPLETELY LIQUIDATED.  THE LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS RECEIVED
BY RESPONDENT AMOUNTED TO LESS THAN THE COST OF THE STOCK.  IN ITS
INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1933 RESPONDENT DEDUCTED THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE
LOSS FROM GROSS INCOME.  THE COMMISSIONER RULED THAT, SINCE THE LOSS
WAS SUSTAINED UPON AN EXCHANGE OF STOCK HELD LESS THAN TWO YEARS AND
THE RESPONDENT HAD RECEIVED NO GAINS AGAINST WHICH THE LOSS COULD BE
APPLIED, THE DEDUCTION WAS FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 23(R)(1), AND HE FOUND A
DEFICIENCY ACCORDINGLY.  THE ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
SUSTAINING THE DEFICIENCY WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT, 97 F.2D 31.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, OCTOBER 10, 1938, TO
RESOLVE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW AND THAT
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN WHITE V. UNITED STATES, 86 CT. CLS. 125; 21
F.SUPP.  361, THIS DAY AFFIRMED ON CERTIORARI, ANTE, P. 281. 

THE TAXABLE YEAR SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS IN COMPUTING NET
INCOME, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (R).  SUB

"LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF STOCKS AND BONDS  ...  WHICH ARE
NOT CAPITAL ASSETS (AS DEFINED IN SECTION 101) SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY TO
THE EXTENT OF THE GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR EXCHANGES  ... "  BY SEC.
101 "'CAPITAL ASSETS' MEANS PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER FOR MORE THAN
TWO YEARS  ...  " 

SINCE THE LOSS SUSTAINED BY RESPONDENT WAS NOT FROM THE SALE OR
EXCHANGE OF THE STOCK, IT IS CONTENDED THAT SUBSECTION (R) HAS NO
APPLICATION AND THAT THE LOSS IS DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL, AS ARE OTHER
LOSSES, UNDER SEC. 23(F).  WHETHER SEC. 23(F) OR 23(R) APPLIES MUST BE
ANSWERED BY DECIDING WHETHER, UNDER SEC. 115(C), STOCKHOLDERS' LOSSES
UPON A CORPORATE LIQUIDATION ARE TO BE TREATED, FOR PURPOSES OF
COMPUTATION OF THE TAX, IN THE SAME MANNER AS LOSSES UPON A SALE OR
EXCHANGE OF THE STOCK. 

THE SCHEME OF THE 1932 ACT, AS RESPECTS THE TREATMENT OF GAINS AND
LOSSES UPON THE SALE OR EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY ON A DIFFERENT BASIS FROM
OTHER TYPES OF GAIN OR LOSS, IS SUBSTANTIALLY THAT OF THE 1928 ACT,
WHICH WE HAVE CONSIDERED IN WHITE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 12(C), 22(D), (E), 23, 101, 111, 112, 113 AND
115(C) OF THE 1928 ACT, DISCUSSED IN THE WHITE CASE, SO FAR AS NOW
RELEVANT WERE REENACTED IN THE SAME NUMBERED SECTIONS OF THE 1932 ACT. 
THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH IN THAT CASE LED US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT
SEC. 115(C) OF THE 1928 ACT HAD PLACED STOCKHOLDERS' GAINS AND LOSSES
FROM LIQUIDATIONS ON THE SAME BASIS AS GAINS AND LOSSES FROM SALES OF
THE STOCK FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF THE TAX, LEAD US TO THE SAME
CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE 1932 ACT. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OR HISTORY OF SEC. 23(R) TO SUGGEST
THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING IT, HAD ANY PURPOSE TO RESTRICT THE
OPERATION OF SEC. 115(C) AS WE HAVE CONSTRUED IT.  SECTION 23(R), LIKE
SEC. 101 IN THE 1932 AND EARLIER ACTS, SPEAKS OF LOSSES RESULTING ONLY
FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES.  BUT THE ONE DOES NOT MORE THAN THE OTHER
RESTRICT THE OPERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 115 AND 112, WHICH
ACCORD TO LOSSES ON LIQUIDATION THE SAME RECOGNITION ACCORDED BY SEC.
23(R) TO LOSSES UPON SALES.  CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE 1934 ACT,
RECOGNIZED THAT UNDER THAT OF 1932 "  ...  A DISTRIBUTION IN
LIQUIDATION OF A CORPORATION IS TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS A SALE OF
STOCK."  REPORT OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, NO. 558, 73RD CONG.,
2ND SESS., P. 37.  TO PREVENT AVOIDANCE OF SURTAX THROUGH LIQUIDATION
OF CORPORATIONS WITH LARGE SURPLUSES, CONGRESS FOUND IT NECESSARY TO
PLACE GAINS ON LIQUIDATIONS ON A DIFFERENT BASIS FROM GAINS ON SALES. 
IT ACCOMPLISHED THIS BY AMENDING SEC. 115(C) TO PROVIDE:  "DESPITE THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 117(A)(CORRESPONDING TO SEC. 101 IN THE EARLIER
ACTS SPECIALLY TAXING CAPITAL GAINS AND LOSSES) 100 PER CENTUM OF THE
GAIN SO RECOGNIZED SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING NET
INCOME."  48 STAT. 711. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE TAXPAYER CAN DEDUCT THE LOSS
IS CONTROLLED BY SEC. 23(R)(1), AND THAT SINCE THE STOCK WAS HELD FOR
LESS THAN TWO YEARS AND THERE WERE NO GAINS AGAINST WHICH THE LOSS
COULD BE OFFSET, IT CAN NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
DISSENT. 
..END :






















NEBLETT V. CARPENTER, 305 U.S. 297 


NO. 21.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - 10
CAL.2D 307 - 74 P.2D 761, AFFIRMED. 


1.  DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, TO THE EFFECT - 

(1)  THAT A PROCEEDING FOR REHABILITATION OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY,
BEGUN BEFORE A DISQUALIFIED JUDGE, COULD BE CARRIED ON AND A TRANSFER
OF ASSETS MADE UNDER HIS VOID ORDER BE RATIFIED BY ORDERS OF A
QUALIFIED JUDGE WHO TOOK HIS PLACE; 

(2)  THAT THE STATE INSURANCE CODE AUTHORIZED THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER TO DELEGATE TO A CORPORATION, ORGANIZED BY HIM, POWERS AND
DUTIES IN AID OF HIS ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSETS OF AN INSOLVENT
INSURANCE COMPANY; 

(3)  THAT THE AUTHORITY WHICH THE CODE CONFERS ON THE COMMISSIONER TO
ENTER INTO REHABILITATION OR INSURANCE AGREEMENTS EMBRACES A CONTRACT
FOR ASSUMPTION OF THE INSOLVENT COMPANY'S POLICIES BY A NEW COMPANY
ORGANIZED BY THE COMMISSIONER; AND 

(4)  THAT ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER IN THIS CASE DID NOT VIOLATE
CERTAIN STATE STATUTES CONCERNING FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES - HELD RULINGS
ON LOCAL LAW NOT REVIEWABLE BY THIS COURT.  PP. 301-302. 

2.  WHETHER A STATE STATUTE DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS TO THE
STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION
IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW THE DECISION OF WHICH BY THE STATE'S HIGHEST
COURT IS BINDING HERE.  P. 302. 

3.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE INSURANCE CODE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHORIZING
THE COMMISSIONER, AS CONSERVATOR, AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COURT,
TO "MUTUALIZE OR REINSURE THE BUSINESS" OF THE COMPANY "OR ENTER INTO
REHABILITATION AGREEMENTS," HELD NOT SO VAGUE THAT A PLAN OF
REHABILITATION BY THE FORMATION OF A NEW COMPANY WOULD DEPRIVE
CREDITORS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 303. 

4.  A PLAN AND AGREEMENT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF A CALIFORNIA
INSURANCE COMPANY (WHICH BECAME INSOLVENT AS A RESULT OF UNPROFITABLE
NONCANCELABLE HEALTH AND ACCIDENT POLICIES) PROVIDED FOR THE FORMATION
BY THE COMMISSIONER OF A NEW COMPANY.  THE ASSETS OF THE OLD COMPANY
WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CAPITAL STOCK OF
THE LATTER.  THE NEW COMPANY WOULD ASSUME THE POLICIES AND OBLIGATIONS
OF THE OLD COMPANY TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT. 
POLICYHOLDERS WERE TO HAVE THE OPTION OF TAKING INSURANCE FROM THE NEW
COMPANY OR PROVING THEIR CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF THEIR CONTRACTS,
PROVISION FOR PAYMENT BEING MADE BY COVENANTS OF THE NEW COMPANY AND
CERTAIN RETAINED ASSETS OF THE OLD.  THE PLAN AND AGREEMENT WERE
APPROVED BY THE STATE COURT.  SEVERAL HOLDERS OF LIFE AND NONCANCELABLE
HEALTH AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE POLICIES CHALLENGED THE PLAN AND COURT
ORDER APPROVING IT AS DENYING THEM DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND IMPAIRING THE
OBLIGATION OF THEIR CONTRACTS.  UPON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE STATE
COURT OVERRULING THEIR CLAIMS, HELD: 

(1)  THE CONTENTION THAT DISSENTING POLICYHOLDERS DO NOT HAVE THE
OPTION OF PROVING THEIR CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BECAUSE NO
LIQUIDATOR HAS BEEN APPOINTED MUST BE DISMISSED, SINCE NO REASON
APPEARS WHY ACTION CANNOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE PLAN, BE TAKEN UPON A
PENDING APPLICATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER AS
LIQUIDATOR.  P. 303. 

(2)  THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT IN THIS CASE CONTAINING ONLY THE
JUDGMENT ROLL, IT MUST BE PRESUMED THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE
DECREE OF THE STATE COURT.  P. 304. 

(3)  THE DISSENTING POLICYHOLDERS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A
PARTICULAR FORM OF REMEDY.  P. 305. 

(4)  AS FAR AS APPEARS FROM THE RECORD IN THIS CASE, THE METHOD OF
LIQUIDATION PROVIDED BY THE PLAN ADOPTED WAS AS FAVORABLE TO DISSENTING
POLICYHOLDERS AS WOULD HAVE BEEN A SALE OF THE ASSETS AND PRO RATA
DISTRIBUTION TO ALL CREDITORS, AND THEY HAVE THEREFORE FAILED TO SHOW
THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS BEING TAKEN WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, OR THAT THE
OBLIGATIONS OF THEIR CONTRACTS WILL BE IMPAIRED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 305. 

NEBLETT ET AL. V. CARPENTER, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 555, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHICH APPROVED A PLAN OF THE
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER FOR THE REHABILITATION OF AN INSOLVENT INSURANCE
COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS RAISED ARE WHETHER PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REHABILITATION
OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY, PURSUANT TO THE INSURANCE CODE OF CALIFORNIA,
FN1  UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVE POLICY HOLDERS OF THEIR PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, OR IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THEIR
CONTRACTS.  FN2 

FOR MANY YEARS THE PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
CALIFORNIA HAS WRITTEN LIFE, HEALTH, AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE.  SINCE
1918 IT HAS ISSUED NONCANCELABLE HEALTH AND ACCIDENT POLICIES.  THE
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF CALIFORNIA DETERMINED THAT, WHILE THE LIFE
AND GENERAL HEALTH AND ACCIDENT BUSINESS WAS IN SOUND CONDITION, THERE
WAS AN OVER-ALL DEFICIT IN RESERVES DUE TO THE UNPROFITABLE NATURE OF
OUTSTANDING NONCANCELABLE HEALTH AND ACCIDENT RISKS, WITH THE RESULT
THAT THE COMPANY WAS INSOLVENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CODE.  JULY
22, 1936, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ON HIS APPLICATION,
APPOINTED HIM CONSERVATOR.  ON THE SAME DAY HE APPLIED FOR AND OBTAINED
AN ORDER WHICH APPOINTED HIM LIQUIDATOR OF THE COMPANY.  ON THE SAME
DAY, AS CONSERVATOR, HE PETITIONED FOR AUTHORITY TO REHABILITATE THE
COMPANY AND SUBMITTED A PLAN EMBODYING AN AGREEMENT, TO BE EXECUTED BY
THE COMPANY AND HIMSELF AS COMMISSIONER, WITH A NEW CORPORATION, WHICH
HE WOULD FORM, ALL OF WHOSE CAPITAL STOCK HE WOULD PURCHASE WITH THE
ASSETS OF THE COMPANY, AND TO WHICH HE WOULD TRANSFER MOST OF THE
ASSETS, RETAINING THE STOCK OF THE NEW COMPANY AND CERTAIN OTHER ASSETS
OF THE OLD.  THE NEW COMPANY WAS TO ASSUME THE POLICIES AND OBLIGATIONS
OF THE OLD COMPANY TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT.  POLICY
HOLDERS WERE TO HAVE THE OPTION OF TAKING INSURANCE FROM THE NEW
COMPANY OR PROVING THEIR CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF THEIR CONTRACTS,
PROVISION FOR PAYMENT BEING MADE BY COVENANTS OF THE NEW COMPANY AND
THE RETAINED ASSETS OF THE OLD.  THE COURT APPROVED THE PLAN AND
AUTHORIZED THE EXECUTION AND PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT. 

SHORTLY AFTERWARDS IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE JUDGE WHO ACTED IN THE
CAUSE WAS PROBABLY DISQUALIFIED BY OWNERSHIP OF A POLICY ISSUED BY THE
COMPANY.  AUGUST 11, 1936, ANOTHER JUDGE ENTERED AN ORDER, WHICH, AFTER
ADVERTING TO THE POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE
EARLIER ORDERS, RATIFIED, APPROVED, AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER APPOINTING
THE COMMISSIONER CONSERVATOR AND, ON THE BASIS OF THE PETITION FILED ON
JULY 22, INDEPENDENTLY, AND AS AN ORIGINAL ORDER, APPOINTED THE
COMMISSIONER CONSERVATOR, INVESTED HIM WITH TITLE TO ALL THE COMPANY'S
ASSETS, AND AUTHORIZED HIM TO ENDEAVOR TO CONSUMMATE A REHABILITATION
OR REINSURANCE PLAN.  ON SEPTEMBER 25 THE COMMISSIONER PRESENTED A
FURTHER PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REHABILITATION AND REINSURANCE
AGREEMENT, WHICH RECITED HIS ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S
ORDERS AND TO THE PLAN OF REHABILITATION, AND ASKED APPROVAL THEREOF. 
AN ORDER ISSUED WHICH DIRECTED ALL INTERESTED PERSONS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE AGREEMENT, AND WHAT HAD BEEN DONE PURSUANT TO IT, SHOULD NOT BE
APPROVED AND ALL THE PRIOR ACTS OF THE COMMISSIONER RATIFIED AND
CONFIRMED, AND FIXED A HEARING.  AT THE HEARING, WHICH LASTED FROM
OCTOBER 19 TO DECEMBER 4, MANY OFFICERS, STOCKHOLDERS AND POLICY
HOLDERS WHO HAD INTERVENED, INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS, WERE HEARD. 
PLANS OF REHABILITATION PRESENTED BY SOME OF THEM WERE CONSIDERED;
EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN AND ARGUMENT WAS HAD.  DECEMBER 4 AN ORDER WAS
ENTERED APPROVING THE COMMISSIONER'S PLAN AND AGREEMENT, RATIFYING THE
ACTION HE HAD TAKEN, AND AUTHORIZING HIM AS CONSERVATOR, AND AS
LIQUIDATOR, IF HE SHOULD BE APPOINTED AS SUCH, TO CARRY OUT THE
REHABILITATION AGREEMENT.  THE COURT RETAINED JURISDICTION TO MAKE
FURTHER ORDERS FOR THE EFFECTUATION OF THE PLAN AND AGREEMENT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AFFIRMED THE ORDER.  FN3  THE ACTION
OF THAT COURT IN OVERRULING CERTAIN OF PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS IS
CLAIMED TO HAVE DEPRIVED THEM OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. 

THE COURT DECLARED THAT THE ORDERS OF JULY 22, 1936, WERE VOID
BECAUSE OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE JUDGE WHO MADE THEM.  THE
PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT IN CONSEQUENCE THE COMMISSIONER'S TRANSFER OF
ASSETS TO A NEW COMPANY PURSUANT TO THE APPROVED PLAN WAS VOID AND THAT
ITS ILLEGALITY COULD NOT BE CURED BY SUBSEQUENT COURT ACTION.  THE
SUPREME COURT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE COURT IN WHICH THE COMMISSIONER'S
ORIGINAL PETITION WAS FILED THEREBY ACQUIRED JURISDICTION AND THAT THE
AVOIDANCE OF THE ORDERS MADE BY THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE JUDGE WHO
ENTERED THEM DID NOT DISENABLE A QUALIFIED JUDGE THEREAFTER FROM
ENTERING VALID ORDERS BASED ON THE PETITION.  IT IS FURTHER URGED THAT
AS THE OLD COMPANY'S ASSETS WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW PURSUANT TO A
VOID ORDER THERE WAS NOTHING ON WHICH ANY LATER ORDER COULD OPERATE. 
THE LATER ORDER, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF REVIEW, RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED
THE TRANSFER, AND THE SUPREME COURT HELD THE ORDER EFFECTIVE UNDER THE
INSURANCE CODE. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE CODE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER TO
DELEGATE TO A CORPORATION ORGANIZED BY HIM POWERS AND DUTIES IN AID OF
HIS ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSETS OF AN INSOLVENT INSURANCE COMPANY. 
THE STATE COURT HAS HELD SUCH PROCEDURE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE
PROVISIONS. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORITY WHICH THE CODE CONFERS ON THE
COMMISSIONER TO ENTER INTO REHABILITATION OR REINSURANCE AGREEMENTS
DOES NOT EMBRACE A CONTRACT FOR ASSUMPTION OF THE INSOLVENT COMPANY'S
POLICIES BY A NEW COMPANY ORGANIZED BY THE COMMISSIONER.  THE COURT
BELOW HELD THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATED SUCH ACTION. 

IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S ACTION VIOLATED CERTAIN STATE
STATUTES CONCERNING FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES.  THE STATE COURT HELD THE
CONTRARY. 

ALL OF THESE HOLDINGS CONCERN MATTERS OF STATE LAW AND AMOUNT AT MOST
TO ALLEGED ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE STATE'S STATUTES BY ITS OWN
COURT OF LAST RESORT.  SUCH DECISIONS WOULD NOT BE A DENIAL OF THE DUE
PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN4  WE ARE,
THEREFORE, WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE STATE COURT'S DECISION OF
ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS. 

IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CODE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER, AND THAT THE SUPREME COURT ERRED IN NOT
SO HOLDING.  THIS, AGAIN, IS A QUESTION OF STATE LAW THE DECISION OF
WHICH BY THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT IS BINDING UPON US.  FN5 

THE INSURANCE CODE PROVIDES:  "IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ARTICLE,
THE COMMISSIONER, AS CONSERVATOR  ...  MAY, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF
SAID COURT,  ...  MUTUALIZE OR REINSURE THE BUSINESS OF" AN INSURANCE
COMPANY "OR ENTER INTO REHABILITATION AGREEMENTS."  THE PETITIONERS
ASSERT THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS SO VAGUE THAT NO ONE CAN DETERMINE WHAT
POWERS ARE INTENDED TO BE CONFERRED UPON THE COMMISSIONER AND THAT THE
STATE COURTS, IN CONSTRUING THE CODE TO AUTHORIZE THE PLAN AND
PROCEDURE HERE IN QUESTION UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ATTEMPTED TO READ A
MEANING INTO THE STATUTE OF WHICH IT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE, AND THUS
DEPRIVED THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  THE
COURT BELOW FULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION AND OVERRULED IT.  WE THINK
ITS DECISION WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE CRITERIA APPROVED BY THIS COURT. 
FN6 

THE PETITIONERS UNSUCCESSFULLY CLAIMED IN THE SUPREME COURT THAT THE
METHOD OF LIQUIDATION ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND APPROVED BY THE
COURT, EVEN IF AUTHORIZED BY THE INSURANCE CODE, DENIES THEM DUE
PROCESS AND IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF THEIR POLICY CONTRACTS.  BECAUSE
OF THESE CONTENTIONS WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

ONE OF THE PETITIONERS HOLDS A LIFE POLICY WHICH, IF HE ASSENTS TO
THE PLAN, WILL BE REPLACED BY A POLICY OF THE NEW COMPANY FOR THE SAME
AMOUNT.  THE OTHERS ARE HOLDERS OF NONCANCELABLE HEALTH AND ACCIDENT
POLICIES NO LIABILITY UNDER WHICH HAS ACCRUED.  IF THEY ASSENT TO THE
PLAN AND ACCEPT THE OBLIGATION OF THE NEW COMPANY, IN LIEU OF THAT OF
THE OLD, THEY WILL RECEIVE INSURANCE FOR ONLY A PERCENTAGE OF THE FACE
VALUE OF THEIR OLD POLICIES.  THE ALTERNATIVE OPEN TO ALL IS TO DISSENT
FROM THE PLAN AND TO PROVE THEIR CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF THEIR POLICY
CONTRACTS AGAINST THE LIQUIDATOR OF THE OLD COMPANY.  THEY INSIST THIS
OPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THEM AS NO LIQUIDATOR HAS BEEN APPOINTED. 
WHEN THEY TOOK THEIR APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THERE WAS
PENDING AN APPLICATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER AS
LIQUIDATOR, AND NO REASON IS ASSIGNED WHY ACTION CANNOT BE TAKEN UPON
THIS PETITION PURSUANT TO THE PLAN.  THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID:  "THE
PROPOSAL CONTEMPLATES THAT IN DUE COURSE THE COMMISSIONER WILL BE
APPOINTED LIQUIDATOR OF THE OLD COMPANY, AND IN THAT CAPACITY WILL
RECEIVE, LIQUIDATE, AND PAY ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE OLD COMPANY FROM THE
OLD COMPANY'S ASSETS NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW COMPANY (INCLUDING THE
NEW COMPANY'S STOCK), AND FROM CERTAIN MONEYS FURNISHED TO THE
LIQUIDATOR BY THE NEW COMPANY AS PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT."  10 CAL.2D
307, 322; 74 P.2D 761, 771.  THE PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT THE FUNDS
PROVIDED WILL BE INSUFFICIENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF THEIR CLAIMS AND
OTHERS OF LIKE CHARACTER, SHOULD THEY DISSENT FROM THE PLAN.  THE ORDER
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT RECITES THAT THE PLAN MAKES ADEQUATE PROVISION
FOR EACH CLASS OF POLICY HOLDERS, FOR THE CREDITORS, AND FOR THE
STOCKHOLDERS; THAT THE PLAN IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE; THAT IT DOES NOT
DISCRIMINATE UNFAIRLY OR ILLEGALLY IN FAVOR OF ANY CLASS OF POLICY
HOLDERS; THAT THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS CONSERVED BY THE PLAN ARE WORTH
SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS AND THAT IF THE OLD COMPANY WERE DISSOLVED AND
ITS ASSETS SOLD THEIR VALUE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE AMOUNT
WHICH WILL BE REALIZED FROM THEM UNDER THE PLAN. 

THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE, AND WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT HERE BY OUR WRIT, CONTAINS ONLY
THE JUDGMENT ROLL.  THE EVIDENCE IS NOT BEFORE US AND THE COURT BELOW
HAS HELD THAT, UNDER THE STATE LAW, THE JUDGE WAS NOT BOUND TO MAKE
SPECIAL FINDINGS.  WE MUST PRESUME THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S DECREE.  ON ACCOUNT OF THE STATE OF THE RECORD
THE PETITIONERS ARE UNABLE TO POINT TO ANY EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THEIR
CONTENTION THAT IF THEY DISSENT THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE AS MUCH IN
LIQUIDATION OF THEIR CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF THEIR POLICY CONTRACTS AS
THEY WOULD UPON A SALE OF ASSETS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROCEEDS. 

THE PETITIONERS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A PARTICULAR FORM OF
REMEDY.  FN7  THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED, AS AGAINST THEIR FELLOWS WHO
PREFER TO COME UNDER THE PLAN AND ACCEPT ITS BENEFITS, TO FORCE, AT
THEIR OWN WISH OR WHIM, A LIQUIDATION WHICH UNDER THE FINDINGS WILL NOT
ADVANTAGE THEM AND MAY SERIOUSLY INJURE THOSE WHO ACCEPT THE BENEFIT OF
THE PLAN.  THEY ARE NOT BOUND, AS WERE THE DISSENTING CREDITORS IN DOTY
V. LOVE, 295 U.S. 64, TO ACCEPT THE OBLIGATION OF THE NEW COMPANY BUT
ARE AFFORDED AN ALTERNATIVE WHEREBY THEY WILL RECEIVE DAMAGES FOR
BREACH OF THEIR CONTRACTS.  THEY HAVE FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE PLAN
TAKES THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. 

IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT A STATUTORY SCHEME FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF AN
INSOLVENT DOMESTIC CORPORATION IS PER SE AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE
OBLIGATION OF THE COMPANY'S CONTRACTS.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE
IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT ARISES FROM THE LESS FAVORABLE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE NEW NONCANCELABLE POLICIES WHICH ARE TO BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR THE OLD ONES AND, IN THE CASE OF THE LIFE POLICIES, BY
THE SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW COMPANY AS CONTRACTOR IN PLACE OF THE OLD,
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE POLICY HOLDER.  THIS POSITION IS BOTTOMED
UPON THE THEORY THAT THE POLICY HOLDERS ARE COMPELLED TO ACCEPT THE NEW
COMPANY AS INSURER ON THE TERMS SET OUT IN THE REHABILITATION
AGREEMENT.  AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THEY ARE NOT SO COMPELLED BUT ARE
GIVEN THE OPTION OF A LIQUIDATION WHICH ON THIS RECORD APPEARS AS
FAVORABLE TO THEM AS THAT WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM THE SALE OF THE
ASSETS AND PRO RATA DISTRIBUTION IN SOLUTION OF ALL RESULTING CLAIMS
FOR BREACH OF OUTSTANDING POLICIES.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  STATUTES 1935, C. 145, PP. 540-553.  THE SECTIONS OF THE
INSURANCE CODE BEARING UPON THE ISSUES IN THE CASE ARE 1011-16,
INCLUSIVE, 1021, 1024, 1025, 1035, 1037, 1043. 

FN2  IN THE COURT BELOW CONTENTIONS WERE MADE UNDER THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BUT NEITHER THE REASONS
STATED IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION NOR THE ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR IN THIS
COURT PRESENT ANY QUESTION UNDER THAT CLAUSE. 

FN3  CARPENTER V. PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 10 CAL.2D 307; 74
P.2D 761. 

FN4  ARROWSMITH V. HARMONING, 118 U.S. 194, 196; CENTRAL LAND CO. V.
LAIDLEY, 159 U.S. 103, 112; IOWA CENTRAL RY. CO. V. IOWA, 160 U.S. 389,
393; WEST V. LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258, 261; STANDARD OIL CO. V.
MISSOURI, 224 U.S. 270, 287; MCDONALD V. OREGON R. & N. CO., 233 U.S.
665, 669; AMERICAN RY. EXP.  CO. V. KENTUCKY, 273 U.S. 269, 273.    FN5
OHIO V. AKRON PARK DISTRICT, 281 U.S. 74, 79. 

FN6  CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385, 391. 

FN7  GIBBES V. ZIMMERMAN, 290 U.S. 326, 332; DOTY V. LOVE, 295 U.S.
64, 70. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





INTER-ISLAND CO. V. HAWAII, 305 U.S. 306 


NO. 94.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - 96
F.2D 412, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII THAT A COMMON
CARRIER OF FREIGHT AND PASSENGERS BY WATER BETWEEN DIFFERENT POINTS IN
THE TERRITORY WAS A PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE HAWAII
UTILITIES ACT OF 1913, IS ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT ON REVIEW.  P. 311. 

2.  ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916 DID NOT OUST
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF HAWAII OF ALL JURISDICTION
WHATSOEVER OVER COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER BETWEEN PORTS OF THE
TERRITORY, AND DID NOT ABROGATE THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO EXACT FEES
FROM SUCH CARRIERS TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF INVESTIGATORY SERVICES
WHICH IT STILL HAD AUTHORITY TO PERFORM.  PP. 311, 313. 

3.  AN ACT OF CONGRESS WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO SUPERSEDE A TERRITORIAL
LAW UNLESS THAT INTENTION IS CLEAR.  P. 312. 

4.  THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX UPON A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER BETWEEN
PORTS OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII (ASSUMED TO BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
OR FOREIGN COMMERCE), UNDER AN ACT OF THE TERRITORY TO WHICH CONGRESS
HAD EXPRESSLY SUBJECTED SUCH CARRIER, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 313. 

5.  CONGRESS HAS PLENARY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE PEOPLE AND
GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORIES.  P. 314. 

6.  THE GENERAL TAX IMPOSED ON PUBLIC UTILITIES BY THE HAWAII
UTILITIES ACT OF 1913, DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE A PLAN FOR CONTROL AND
SUPERVISION OF THE UTILITIES OF THE TERRITORY, IS NOT VOID UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT AS APPLIED TO A PARTICULAR UTILITY WHICH MAY NOT HAVE
DIRECTLY BENEFITED FROM THE INVESTIGATORY AND SUPERVISORY SERVICES
PERFORMED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE ACT.  P. 314. 

INTER-ISLAND STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V. TERRITORY OF HAWAII. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 580, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII IN A SUIT AGAINST THE NAVIGATION COMPANY TO
COLLECT TAXES. 

THE COMMISSION HAS AT NO TIME DURING THE NINE YEARS IN QUESTION MADE
ANY INSPECTION, REGULATION, OR SUPERVISION OF PETITIONER'S BUSINESS,
AND HAS INCURRED NO EXPENSE ON ITS ACCOUNT.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
THE INSPECTION FEES AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN $4000 PER ANNUM LEVIED
AGAINST PETITIONER'S BUSINESS INDISCRIMINATELY (LOCAL, INTERSTATE, AND
FOREIGN) ARE VOID AS A DIRECT BURDEN ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE
AND DENY TO PETITIONER DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

WHERE INSPECTION FEES ARE ASSESSED AGAINST A NUMBER OF UNRELATED
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND ARE DEPOSITED IN A COMMON FUND TO BE USED BY THE
COMMISSION FOR THE REGULATION AND INSPECTION OF UTILITIES GENERALLY,
THE BURDEN IS UPON THE COMMISSION TO PROVE THAT THE FEES DEMANDED ARE
NO MORE THAN NECESSARY TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF REGULATION OR
INSPECTION.  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. WASHINGTON, 300 U.S. 154. 

UNDER THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, AND THE
UTILITY ACT, THE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITIONER AND
CAN NOT COLLECT THE FEES DEMANDED. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO AMEND AND EXTEND THE
PROVISIONS OF ACT 135, S.L. HAW.  1913, AND TO RATIFY AND CONFIRM THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY ACT OF 1913, IS INDUBITABLE. 
FRANCE V. CONNOR, 161 U.S. 65, 72; MORMON CHURCH V. UNITED STATES, 136
U.S. 1; NATIONAL BANK V. YANKTON COUNTY, 101 U.S. 129. 

THE STATEMENTS MADE IN CONGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE AMENDMENT AND
RATIFICATION OF THE TERRITORIAL STATUTE, SHOW BEYOND DISPUTE THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED THE UTILITIES ACT OF 1913 TO APPLY TO ALL UTILITIES
OPERATING WITHIN THE TERRITORY. 

THE EXACTION OF TERRITORIAL UTILITY FEES APPROVED BY CONGRESS CAN NOT
IMPOSE A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

THE ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, DID NOT DIVEST
THE LOCAL COMMISSION OF ITS POWERS OF INVESTIGATION OR ITS DUTY TO
COLLECT THE FEES PROVIDED TO PERMIT SUCH INVESTIGATION. 

THE SHIPPING ACT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED IN ANALOGY TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A HAWAIIAN CORPORATION, IS A COMMON CARRIER OF FREIGHT
AND PASSENGERS BY WATER BETWEEN DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE TERRITORY.  A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS GROSS INCOME IS DERIVED FROM TRANSPORTING
FREIGHT DESTINED FOR TRANS-SHIPMENT TO FOREIGN OR MAINLAND PORTS.  IN
1913 A STATUTE OF THE TERRITORY CREATED A PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
PRESCRIBED ITS DUTIES AND LEVIED A UNIFORM SEMI-ANNUAL TAX -
DENOMINATED A FEE  FN1  - UPON ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES DOING BUSINESS IN
THE TERRITORY, PARTIALLY TO DEFRAY THE COMMISSION'S EXPENSES. 
PETITIONER PAID THE TAX UNTIL 1923, WHEN IT REFUSED TO MAKE FURTHER
PAYMENTS, CONTENDING THE TAX COULD NOT VALIDLY BE APPLIED TO IT. IN
THIS SUIT, THE TERRITORY RECOVERED JUDGMENT IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT
FOR THE TAXES ASSESSED FOR THE YEARS 1923 TO 1930, INCLUSIVE.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BOTH
AFFIRMED.  FN2 

THE HAWAIIAN "UTILITIES ACT OF 1913,"  FN3  UNDER WHICH THE
CHALLENGED TAXES HAVE BEEN LEVIED, INVESTED THE TERRITORIAL COMMISSION
WITH BROAD POWERS TO INVESTIGATE ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES DOING BUSINESS IN
THE TERRITORY, WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAFETY AND ACCOMMODATION OF THE
PUBLIC; SAFETY, WORKING HOURS AND WAGES OF EMPLOYEES; RATES AND FARES;
VALUATION; ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES; AMOUNT AND DISPOSITION OF INCOME;
BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH OTHERS; COMPLIANCE WITH TERRITORIAL AND FEDERAL
LAWS AND PROVISIONS OF FRANCHISES, CHARTERS, AND ARTICLES OF
ASSOCIATION; REGULATIONS, PRACTICES AND SERVICE; ACCIDENTS, IN
CONNECTION WITH UTILITY OPERATIONS, BELIEVED BY THE COMMISSION TO
REQUIRE INVESTIGATION AND "ALL MATTERS OF EVERY NATURE AFFECTING THE
RELATIONS AND TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN  ...  (SUCH UTILITIES) AND THE
PUBLIC, OR PERSONS, OR CORPORATIONS." 

THIS TERRITORIAL COMMISSION WAS EMPOWERED TO MAKE ITS INVESTIGATIONS
"NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE SAME MAY BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, OR WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT
OR OTHER BODY, AND WHEN AFTER SUCH EXAMINATION THE (TERRITORIAL)
COMMISSION SHALL BE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT, IT
SHALL BE ITS DUTY TO EFFECT THE NECESSARY RELIEF OR REMEDY BY THE
INSTITUTION AND PROSECUTION OF APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS OR OTHERWISE
BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, OR SUCH COURT, OR OTHER
BODY, IN ITS OWN NAME OR THE NAME OF THE TERRITORY,  ...  " 

THE TAXES IN QUESTION ACCRUED UNDER SEC. 17 OF THE ACT OF 1913,
PROVIDING THAT "THERE SHALL ...  BE PAID TO THE COMMISSION IN EACH OF
THE MONTHS OF MARCH AND SEPTEMBER IN EACH YEAR BY EACH PUBLIC UTILITY
WHICH IS SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION BY THE COMMISSION A FEE WHICH WILL BE
EQUAL TO ONE-TWENTIETH OF ONE PER CENTUM OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE
PUBLIC UTILITY BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY IN THE
TERRITORY DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR, PLUS ONE-FIFTIETH OF ONE PER
CENTUM OF THE PAR VALUE OF THE STOCK ISSUED BY SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY AND
OUTSTANDING ON DECEMBER 31 OF THE PRECEDING YEAR,  ...  "  AFTER
COLLECTION, THE TAXES "SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY OF THE
TERRITORY TO THE CREDIT OF A SPECIAL FUND TO BE CALLED THE 'PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION FUND'" TO BE USED - WITH ANY APPROPRIATIONS MADE
AVAILABLE BY THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE - TO PAY NECESSARY EXPENSES OF
THE COMMISSION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTIES UNDER THE ACT. 

THE ORGANIC ACT GRANTING LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE TERRITORIAL
GOVERNMENT OF HAWAII PROVIDES THAT "THE LEGISLATURE SHALL NOT GRANT TO
ANY CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, OR INDIVIDUAL ANY SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE
PRIVILEGE, IMMUNITY, OR FRANCHISE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF CONGRESS; ...
"  FN4 PURSUANT TO THE ORGANIC ACT, AND PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE UTILITIES ACT OF 1913, THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE PASSED ACT 135
S.L. HAW.  1913 - TO TAKE EFFECT UPON THE APPROVAL BY CONGRESS -
PROVIDING THAT ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES PREVIOUSLY GRANTED FRANCHISES
SHOULD "BE SUBJECT AS TO REASONABLENESS OF RATES, PRICES, AND CHARGES
AND IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF ...  (THE UTILITIES ACT
OF 1913) AND ALL AMENDMENTS THEREOF FOR THE REGULATION OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES IN SAID TERRITORY; ...  "  MARCH 28, 1916,  FN5  CONGRESS
EXPRESSLY RATIFIED, APPROVED AND CONFIRMED THIS HAWAIIAN ACT 135. 

ACT 135 AS ENACTED BY THE TERRITORY APPLIED ONLY TO HAWAIIAN
UTILITIES SPECIALLY DESCRIBED IN THE ACT.  HOWEVER, CONGRESS IN
RATIFYING AND APPROVING, BROADENED THE ACT BY AMENDMENT SO AS TO
INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE DESCRIBED UTILITIES BUT "ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND
PUBLIC-UTILITIES COMPANIES ORGANIZED OR OPERATING WITHIN THE TERRITORY
OF HAWAII."  BY FURTHER AMENDMENT CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN ACT
135 SHOULD "LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OR POWERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION" AND THAT ALL ACTIONS OF THE HAWAIIAN PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSION SHOULD "BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COURTS OF THE  ...
TERRITORY." 

SEPTEMBER 7, 1916, CONGRESS ENACTED THE "SHIPPING ACT OF 1916."  FN6
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SHIPPING ACT, "THE TERM 'COMMON CARRIER BY
WATER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE'" WAS GIVEN A STATUTORY DEFINITION TO
INCLUDE "A COMMON CARRIER  ...  BY WATER OF PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY  ...
ON REGULAR ROUTES FROM PORT TO PORT BETWEEN  ...  " PLACES IN THE SAME
"TERRITORY, DISTRICT OR POSSESSION."  THIS ACT CREATED THE UNITED
STATES SHIPPING BOARD, WITH BROAD POWERS TO INVESTIGATE AND SUPERVISE
CARRIERS BY WATER IN FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS DEFINED
THEREIN. 

WE ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII THAT
PETITIONER IS A PUBLIC UTILITY AS DEFINED BY THE HAWAIIAN ACT.  FN7
HOWEVER, PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE TERRITORY CANNOT VALIDLY APPLY
THIS TAX TO IT.  WE HAVE EXAMINED ALL OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THIS
CONTENTION RESTS.  NONE IS SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE PETITIONER FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE UTILITIES ACT OF 1913 AS APPLIED HERE. 

FIRST.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE PASSAGE OF THE SHIPPING ACT BY
CONGRESS COMPLETELY OUSTED THE TERRITORIAL COMMISSION OF ALL
JURISDICTION OVER IT IN ANY RESPECT, OR FOR ANY PURPOSE, AND THUS
WITHDREW THE COMMISSION'S POWER TO COLLECT THE FEES IN QUESTION. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII HELD IN THIS CASE, AS HERETOFORE,  FN8
THAT THE SHIPPING ACT DID DEPRIVE THE TERRITORIAL COMMISSION OF
AUTHORITY, UNDER THE ACT OF 1913, TO REGULATE BY ITS OWN ORDER THE
RATES OF THIS PETITIONER.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, THAT COURT
CONCLUDED THAT THE SHIPPING ACT DID NOT WITHDRAW THE TERRITORIAL
COMMISSION'S POWER TO INVESTIGATE WATER CARRIERS - SUCH AS PETITIONER -
AS TO RATES AND OTHER MATTERS, EITHER FOR THE EXERCISE OF ITS OWN
PERMITTED SUPERVISORY POWERS OR FOR PRESENTATION OF THE PUBLIC'S CASE
BEFORE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENTAL BODIES.  FN9  THE TERRITORIAL ACT OF
1913 - TO WHICH CONGRESS IN 1916 SUBJECTED ALL UTILITIES DOING BUSINESS
IN HAWAII - GAVE THE TERRITORIAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION OVER MANY
MATTERS OTHER THAN RATE REGULATION.  IN GENERAL, THE COMMISSION WAS
EMPOWERED TO SUPERVISE AND REGULATE LOCAL PROPERTIES AND ACTIVITIES OF
UTILITIES AND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN RELATION TO RATES,
OPERATIONS, AND MANY OTHER PHASES OF THE UTILITY BUSINESS.  WHILE, IN
SOME INSTANCES, THE COMMISSION WAS POWERLESS TO ENTER ANY FINAL ORDER,
NEVERTHELESS ITS AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE AND TO APPEAR BEFORE
APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WAS DESIGNED AS A PART OF A GENERAL
PLAN TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE SHIPPING ACT INVESTED THE
SHIPPING BOARD WITH AUTHORITY OVER SOME OF THESE MATTERS.  BUT NO
LANGUAGE IN THAT ACT INDICATES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO WITHDRAW ALL
OF THE TERRITORIAL COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION OVER TERRITORIAL WATER
CARRIERS.  WHILE CONGRESS HAD COMPLETE POWER TO REPEAL THE ENTIRE
TERRITORIAL PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT, "AN INTENTION TO SUPERSEDE THE LOCAL
LAW (OF A TERRITORY) IS NOT TO BE PRESUMED, UNLESS CLEARLY EXPRESSED." 
N10 PETITIONER OWNS, CONTROLS, OPERATES AND MANAGES NUMEROUS STEAM
VESSELS, WHARFS, DOCKS AND REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY USEFUL IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS AND FREIGHT BETWEEN THE VARIOUS PORTS AND
ISLANDS OF HAWAII.  PETITIONER'S GROSS INCOME BETWEEN THE YEARS 1922
AND 1929 FROM BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN THE TERRITORY AMOUNTED TO
APPROXIMATELY $18,000,000.  THIS TERRITORY IS LOCATED FAR FROM THE
MAINLAND OF THE UNITED STATES.  ONLY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT STATUTORY
LANGUAGE COULD JUSTIFY A HOLDING THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE SHIPPING
ACT TO DEPRIVE THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF ALL JURISDICTION OVER
ACTIVITIES SUCH AS PETITIONER'S, VITALLY AFFECTING THE TRADE, COMMERCE,
SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY. 

WE AGREE WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII THAT THE SHIPPING ACT OF
1916 DID NOT WHOLLY SUPERSEDE THE TERRITORIAL ACT OF 1913 AS APPLIED TO
WATER CARRIERS LIKE PETITIONER, AND DID NOT TAKE FROM THE TERRITORIAL
COMMISSION ITS POWER TO INVESTIGATE SUCH UTILITIES.  A VALID
LEGISLATIVE POWER NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO BE
EXPENDED IN ITS EXERCISE. 

SECOND.  PETITIONERS CONTEND, HOWEVER, THAT THE TAXES INVOLVED
CONSTITUTE A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  BUT HERE, CONGRESS,
BY ITS ACT OF 1916, SUBJECTED PETITIONER TO THE TERRITORIAL LAW UNDER
WHICH THESE VERY TAXES WERE LEVIED. 

UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN11 THEREFORE, ASSUMING - BUT NOT DECIDING - THAT
PETITIONER IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, CONGRESS HAS
EXERCISED ITS POWER IN THE PRESENT CASE BY PERMITTING THE TERRITORY TO
ACT UPON THIS COMMERCE BY THE IMPOSITION OF THE CONTESTED TAXES.  THE
IMPOSITION OF THESE TAXES UNDER AN ACT TO WHICH CONGRESS EXPRESSLY
SUBJECTED PETITIONER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

CONGRESS HAD THE POWER TO SUBJECT PETITIONER TO THIS TAX BY VIRTUE OF
ITS AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY, IN ADDITION TO ITS POWER UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  "CONGRESS MAY NOT ONLY ABROGATE LAWS OF THE
TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURES, BUT IT MAY ITSELF LEGISLATE DIRECTLY FOR THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT.  IT MAY MAKE A VOID ACT OF THE TERRITORIAL
LEGISLATURE VALID, AND A VALID ACT VOID.  IN OTHER WORDS, IT HAS FULL
AND COMPLETE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORIES
AND ALL THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS."  FN12 

THIRD.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE CHALLENGED TAX IS PROHIBITED BY
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE "NO INVESTIGATION, SUPERVISION, OR
REGULATION OF PETITIONER WAS IN FACT MADE BY THE COMMISSION." 

A GENERAL TAX DESIGNED TO EFFECTUATE A PLAN FOR CONTROL AND
SUPERVISION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES NEED NOT BE APPORTIONED AMONG THE
TAXPAYERS ACCORDING TO THE ACTUAL SERVICES PERFORMED DIRECTLY FOR
EACH.  SUCH A REQUIREMENT WOULD SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVE
APPLICATION AND OPERATION OF GENERAL TAX SYSTEMS.  SERVICES PERFORMED
BY THE HAWAIIAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
PUBLIC AS A WHOLE AND ARE NOT ANY THE LESS SERVICES BENEFICIAL TO
PETITIONER BECAUSE ITS BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY SPECIAL
ASSISTANCE.  FN13  "A TAX IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS."  FN14 
THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CF., NEW YORK V. LATROBE, 279 U.S. 421, 423. 

FN2  33 HAW.  890; 96 F.2D 412. 

FN3  ACT 89 S.L. HAW.  1913, AS AMENDED BY ACT 127, S.L. HAW.  1913,
C. 132, OF THE REVISED LAWS HAWAII, 1925, C. 261, REVISED LAWS HAWAII,
1935.    FN4  ACT OF CONG., APRIL 30, 1900, C. 339, SEC. 55, 31 STAT.
150; U.S.C., TITLE 48, SEC. 562. 

FN5  39 STAT. 38, C. 53. 

FN6  39 STAT. 728, C. 451, ACT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1916. 

FN7  CF., WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO. V. CHRISTIAN, ANTE, P. 91. 

FN8  RE INTER-ISLAND STEAM NAVIGATION CO., 24 HAW.  136. 

FN9  SIMILARLY, MANY STATES HAVE AUTHORIZED UTILITY COMMISSIONS TO
MAKE INVESTIGATIONS AND TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  ALA. CODE (MICHILE), 1928, SEC. 9669; CRAWFORD &
MOSES DIG.  OF STATS. OF ARK. 1921, SEC. 1630; STRUCKMEYER, REVISED
CODE ARIZ. 1928, SEC. 691; GEN. LAWS OF CALIF., 1937(DEERING), SEC. 34;
CODE OF GA., 1933, SEC. 93-314; CODE OF IOWA, 1931, SECS. 7890, 7891;
REVISED STAT. OF KAN. ANN., 1923, SEC. 66-148; MD., 1 ANN. CODE -
BAGBY, P. 835, ART. 23, SEC. 384; 1 MASON'S MINN. STAT. (1927), SEC.
4660; REV. STATUTES OF MISSOURI (1929), SEC. 5187; CONS.  LAWS OF N.Y.
CAHILL (1930), C. 49, P. 1878; SEC. 59; (NORTH CAROLINA) CONS.  STAT. 
ANN. (1919), P. 464, SEC. 1075; NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC LAWS, 1926, VOL.
II, P. 923, (22, 23); 2, OLSON, ORE.  LAWS OF 1920, P. 2374, SEC. 5872;
66 PURDON'S PENNA.  STAT., SEC. 552; (SOUTH DAKOTA) - COMPILED LAWS,
1929, VOL. II, P. 3264, SEC. 9577-8; (1935) WIS. STAT., SEC. 195.17. 

"IN ITS GENERAL SCOPE AND PURPOSE, AS WELL AS IN ITS TERMS, (THE
SHIPPING ACT)  ...  CLOSELY PARALLELS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT; AND
WE CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE TWO
ACTS, EACH IN ITS OWN FIELD, SHOULD HAVE LIKE INTERPRETATION,
APPLICATION AND EFFECT."  U.S. NAVIGATION CO. V. CUNARD S.S. CO., 284
U.S. 474, 481. 

FN10  FRANCE V. CONNOR, 161 U.S. 65, 72; SEE DAVIS V. BEASON, 133
U.S. 333, COPE V. COPE, 137 U.S. 682; CF., SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S.
501, 533; GILVARY V. CUYAHOGA VALLEY RY. CO., 292 U.S. 57, 60 

FN11  FOR ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE EXTENT OF THIS POWER, SEE GIBBONS V.
OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 196; IN RE RAHRER, 140 U.S. 545; SECOND EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1; HOUSTON, E. & W.T. RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES (SHREVEPORT CASE), 234 U.S. 342; CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN
MARYLAND RY. CO., 242 U.S. 311; ALABAMA & V. RY. CO. V. JACKSON & E.
RY. CO., 271 U.S. 244, 250. 

FN12  MORMON CHURCH V. UNITED STATES, 136 U.S. 1, 43; CF., SERE V.
PITOT, 6 CRANCH 332; AMERICAN INS. CO. V. CANTER, 1 PET. 511; DOOR V.
UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 138; CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, 301
U.S. 308. 

FN13  CF. CLYDE MALLORY LINES V. ALABAMA, 296 U.S. 261, 266. 

FN14  CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495, 522. 
..END :










ARMSTRONG CO. V. NU-ENAMEL CORP., 305 U.S. 315 


NO. 51.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 8, 1938.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 5, 1938.  - 95
F.2D 448, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A REGISTRANT UNDER THE TRADE MARK ACT OF MARCH 19, 1920 OF THE
NAME NU-ENAMEL, FOR ENAMELS AND KINDRED PRODUCTS, BROUGHT SUIT IN THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN INFRINGEMENT BY A COMPETITOR WHO WAS
USING IN THE SALE OF ENAMELS THE NAME NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL.  THE BILL
ALLEGED, INTER ALIA, THAT IN THE TRADE THE NAME NU-ENAMEL HAD COME TO
MEAN THE PLAINTIFF AND ITS PRODUCTS EXCLUSIVELY; THAT THE MARK
DISTINGUISHED PLAINTIFF'S GOODS FROM OTHERS OF THE SAME CLASS; AND THAT
NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL WAS BEING PASSED OFF BY MERCHANTS AS THE PRODUCT OF
THE PLAINTIFF.  HELD: 

(1)  IT BEING CONCEDED BY THE ANSWER THAT THE NAME NU-ENAMEL HAD COME
TO MEAN PLAINTIFF AND ITS PRODUCTS, AND THAT IT DISTINGUISHED
PLAINTIFF'S GOODS FROM OTHERS OF THE SAME CLASS, NO EVIDENCE OR FINDING
WAS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THESE FACTS.  P. 322. 

(2)  BY VIRTUE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF THE
TRADE MARK ACT OF 1905 BY THE 1920 ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAD ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION,
RESPECTIVELY, OF SUITS AT LAW OR IN EQUITY RESPECTING TRADE MARKS
REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LATTER ACT AND
ARISING UNDER IT; AND THIS COURT WAS GIVEN JURISDICTION BY CERTIORARI
THE SAME AS IN PATENT CASES.  P. 323. 

(3)  THE ALLEGATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE 1920 ACT, UNLESS
PLAINLY UNSUBSTANTIAL, IS SUFFICIENT TO GIVE THE DISTRICT COURT
JURISDICTION OF THE MERITS.  P. 324. 

(4)  THE DISTRICT COURT HAVING PROPERLY ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OF THE
SUIT FOR INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE THE TRADE MARK,
THEN THOUGH THE ISSUE OF INFRINGEMENT FAIL BECAUSE THE TRADE MARK WAS
NOT REGISTRABLE, THE COURT STILL HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE, ON
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FACTS, THE ISSUE OF UNFAIR COMPETITION.  HURN V.
OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238.  P. 324. 

(5)  AS APPLIED TO ENAMELS, THE MARK NU-ENAMEL IS DESCRIPTIVE, BUT
REGISTRABLE NEVERTHELESS UNDER PARAGRAPH (B) OF THE TRADE MARK ACT OF
1920.  P. 329. 

(6)  HAVING IN NU-ENAMEL A REGISTERED MARK WHICH HAD ACQUIRED A
SECONDARY MEANING AS INDICATING ITS PRODUCTS EXCLUSIVELY, PLAINTIFF WAS
ENTITLED TO PROTECTION AGAINST THE UNFAIR USE OF THE WORDS OF THE MARK
BY A COMPETITOR SEEKING TO PALM OFF ITS GOODS AS THOSE OF THE
PLAINTIFF, AND HAD A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SUCH A ONE EITHER FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF THE MARK OR FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION.  P. 335. 

(7)  UPON THE RECORD OF THIS CASE, THE COMPETITOR'S USE OF THE NAME
NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL WAS UNFAIR AND INFRINGED THE PLAINTIFF'S TRADE MARK NU
ENAMEL.  P. 336. 

2.  THE FEDERAL TRADE MARK ACT OF 1920 DOES NOT VEST ANY NEW
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS BUT IT DOES CREATE REMEDIES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
FOR PROTECTING THE REGISTRATIONS AND AUTHORIZES TRIPLE DAMAGES FOR
INFRINGEMENT.  P. 324. 

3.  TRADE MARKS REGISTERED UNDER THE 1920 ACT MAY BE ATTACKED
COLLATERALLY.  P. 322. 

4.  THE SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ACTS OF 1905 AND 1920 IS
THE OMISSION IN THE LATTER OF THE PROVISION IN THE EARLIER ACT MAKING
THE REGISTRATION OF A TRADE-MARK PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP.  P.
323. 

5.  THE REMEDIES AFFORDED REGISTRANTS UNDER THE 1920 ACT ARE
AVAILABLE ONLY TO "OWNERS."  OWNERSHIP MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY PROOF;
ACTUAL AND EXCLUSIVE USE, SHORT OF A SECONDARY MEANING, IS
INSUFFICIENT.  P. 335. 

6.  SECTION 1(B) OF THE TRADE MARK ACT OF 1920 PERMITS REGISTRATION
OF MARKS USED FOR ONE YEAR IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHICH WERE NOT
REGISTRABLE UNDER THE ACT OF 1905, "EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFIED IN
PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 5" OF THE ACT OF 1905.  HELD THAT THE
PHRASE "EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 5"
DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PROVISOS OF PARAGRAPH (B) OTHER THAN THE FIRST
THEREOF.  P. 331. 

THIS HAS BEEN THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN THE SUBSECTION BY THE PATENT
OFFICE.  MOREOVER, TO CONSTRUE IT AS BARRING NAMES, DESCRIPTIVE MARKS,
AND MERELY GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS, WOULD MAKE THE SUBSECTION USELESS. 

7.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF A
STATUTE HAVE WEIGHT WHEN CHOICE IS NICELY BALANCED.  P. 330. 

8.  A CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE WHICH PRESERVES ITS USEFULNESS IS TO
BE PREFERRED TO ANOTHER WHICH DOES NOT.  P. 333. 

ARMSTRONG PAINT & VARNISH WORKS V. NUENAMEL CORP. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 580, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE
DISMISSING FOR WANT OF EQUITY A BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION AND OTHER
RELIEF. 

THE DECISION THAT "NU-ENAMEL" IS A VALID TRADE-MARK IS CONTRARY TO
THE TRADE-MARK LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, UNDER WHICH THIS SUIT WAS
BROUGHT, AND IN CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OF
OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS. 

DESCRIPTIVE WORDS ARE NOT VALID AS TRADE-MARKS UNDER THE TRADE-MARK
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  TRADE-MARK ACT, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 85, PAR.
(B), 121; IN RE CHAS. R. LONG, JR. CO., 280 F. 975, 976; STANDARD PAINT
V. TRINIDAD, 220 U.S. 446; CANAL V. CLARK, 13 WALL.  311; ELGIN WATCH
V. ILLINOIS WATCH, 179 U.S. 665, 673; RICHMOND REMEDIES V. DR. MILES
MEDICAL CO., 16 F.2D 598, 601; KELLOGG CO. V. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., 71
F.2D 662, 666; CHARLES BROADWAY ROUSS, INC. V. WINCHESTER CO., 300 F.
706, 712; ROGERS ON "GOOD WILL, TRADE-MARKS AND UNFAIR TRADINGS," (1914
ED. REPRINTED 1919), 76. 

THAT A DESCRIPTIVE WORD OR TERM HAS ACQUIRED A SECONDARY MEANING DOES
NOT RENDER IT CAPABLE OF BEING APPROPRIATED AS A VALID TRADE-MARK UNDER
THE TRADE-MARK LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.  KAY & ESS CO. V.
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, 92 F.2D 552, 554; IN RE CANADA DRY GINGERALE,
INC., 86 F.2D 830, 832, 833; SPEAKER V. SHALER, 86 F.2D 985, 987;
BARBER V. OVERHEAD DOOR CORP., 65 F.2D 147; BARTON V. REX-OIL CO., 2
F.2D 402; HERCULES POWDER V. NEWTON, 266 F. 169; VACUUM OIL V. CLIMAX
REFINING, 120 F. 254. 

THAT "NU-ENAMEL" MAY HAVE ACQUIRED A SECONDARY MEANING DOES NOT
PREVENT OTHERS FROM USING SUCH WORDS IN THEIR PRIMARY DESCRIPTIVE SENSE
AS "NU-BEAUTY" WAS USED BY THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PRODUCT KNOWN AS ENAMEL.  WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526,
528; PEPSI-COLA V. KRAUSE BOTTLING CO., 92 F.2D 272, 274; HYGRADE FOOD
PRODUCTS CORP. V. W.H.D. LEE MERCANTILE CO., 46 F.2D 771, 772; FAWCETT
PUBLICATIONS V. POPULAR MECHANICS, 80 F.2D 194, 197; O'CEDAR CORP. V.
F.W. WOOLWORTH CO., 66 F.2D 363, 366. 

THERE WAS NO ISSUE OF UNFAIR COMPETITION AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
NO JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND OF UNFAIR COMPETITION. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT CONTAINS NO ALLEGATIONS OF FACTS CONSTITUTING
UNFAIR COMPETITION, NOR DOES IT PRAY FOR RELIEF AGAINST UNFAIR
COMPETITION.  GARRETT V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 235 U.S. 308, 313;
CROCKET V. LEE, 7 WHEAT.  522, 527. 

THERE WAS NO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AND, THEREFORE, NO FEDERAL
JURISDICTION.  NU-ENAMEL CORP. V. ARMSTRONG, 81 F.2D 1; ATKINS V.
GORDAN, 86 F.2D 595; LESCHEN ROPE CO. V. BRODERICK CO., 201 U.S. 166,
172; HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238, 248; VAN CAMP SEA FOOD CO. V. COHN
HOPKINS, 56 F.2D 797, 799; SANDERS V. PAUL, 74 F.2D 399, 405. 

"NU-ENAMEL" IS NOT INFRINGED BY "NU-BEAUTY," OR "NEW BEAUTY" AS USED
BY PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH AND ON THE PRODUCT KNOWN AS ENAMEL. 
ELLIOTT VARNISH CO. V. SEARS, ROEBUCK CO., 232 F. 588, 591. 

THERE IS AN EXACT ANALOGY BETWEEN THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE ACT OF
1920 AUTHORIZING THE REGISTRATION OF MARKS USED AS TRADE-MARKS FOR ONE
YEAR AND THE TEN-YEAR PROVISO OF THE 1905 ACT (15 U.S.C. SEC. 85) WHICH
AUTHORIZES THE REGISTRATION OF MARKS USED AS TRADE-MARKS FOR TEN YEARS
PRIOR TO OCT. 20, 1905. 

THE "B" REGISTER OF THE 1920 ACT, LIKE THE TEN-YEAR PROVISO, IS
DESIGNED TO AFFORD REGISTRATION TO MARKS ACTUALLY USED AS TRADE-MARKS
ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE DESCRIPTIVE, GEOGRAPHICAL OR PERSONAL NAMES. 
THADDEUS DAVIDS CO. V. DAVIDS, 233 U.S. 461, 468, 469. 

THE NU-ENAMEL MARK NOW BEFORE THE COURT IS NOT ONLY REGISTERED UNDER
THE 1920 ACT, BUT MEETS ALL THE TESTS PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE AND
IMPOSED IN PATENT OFFICE PRACTICE.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IT IS
SUSCEPTIBLE OF TRADE-MARK USE; THAT IT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SO USED; IS
REGARDED EVEN BY PETITIONER AS A TRADE-MARK; AND THAT THE TRADE-MARK
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORD NU-ENAMEL IS AN IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENT
AND ITS GOODS IS FULLY RECOGNIZED BY THE PUBLIC.  THESE BEING THE
FACTS, THE MARK WAS CLEARLY REGISTRABLE UNDER THE 1920 ACT.  BEING SO
REGISTERED, IT IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THAT ACT,
INCLUDING, OF COURSE, THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL COURTS IN
CASES INVOLVING IT. 

THE ONLY PREREQUISITE FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER EITHER ACT IS
REGISTRATION, AND THE DISTRICT COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THEIR AUTHORITY
TO ACT ON THAT GROUND ALONE.  RECAMIER V. HARRIET HUBBARD AYER, INC.,
59 F.2D 802. 

WHEN BY VIRTUE OF THE REGISTRATION, THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE AUTHORITY
TO ACT, THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO DEAL FULLY WITH ALL ASPECTS OF THE
CASE.  VOGUE CO. V. VOGUE HAT CO., 12 F.2D 991, 992. 

IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE WHETHER THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF IN THIS CASE
ARE CALLED TRADE-MARK INFRINGEMENT OR UNFAIR COMPETITION.  THEIR
CHARACTERIZATION IS MERELY EPITHETICAL.  THE ACT IS THE SAME.  BUT EVEN
IF IT SHOULD BE HELD THAT RESPONDENTS' REGISTRATION OF NU-ENAMEL IS
INVALID, STILL THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN THE USE
OF NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL WHICH RESULTS IN THE PASSING OFF OF PETITIONER'S
GOODS AS RESPONDENTS'.  WATERMAN CO. V. GORDON, 72 F.2D 272, 273; HURN
V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238, 246. 

PETITIONER'S INFRINGEMENT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NU-ENAMEL CORPORATION OF ILLINOIS FILED ITS BILL OF COMPLAINT IN
A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN ILLINOIS TO ENJOIN THE
ARMSTRONG PAINT AND VARNISH WORKS, A CORPORATION OF THE SAME STATE,
FROM USING IN THE SALE OF PAINTS, VARNISHES AND SIMILAR GOODS THE WORDS
"NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL" OR ANY NAME INCLUDING THE WORDS "NU-ENAMEL" OR OTHER
COLORABLE IMITATION OF PLAINTIFF'S REGISTERED TRADE-MARK NU-ENAMEL OR
OTHERWISE INFRINGING IT; TO REQUIRE AN ACCOUNTING OF PROFITS, AND TO
RECOVER TREBLE DAMAGES.  PENDING THE LITIGATION, THE PLAINTIFF SOLD ITS
ASSETS TO THE OTHER RESPONDENT, NU-ENAMEL CORPORATION OF DELAWARE, BUT
CONTINUED ITS OWN CORPORATE EXISTENCE.  THE PURCHASER WAS PERMITTED TO
INTERVENE. 

THE BILL SHOWED THE REGISTRATION BY THE PLAINTIFF OF NU-ENAMEL UNDER
THE ACT OF MARCH 19, 1920, TRADE-MARK 308,024, FOR MIXED PAINTS,
VARNISHES, PAINT ENAMELS, PREPARED SHELLACS, STAINS, LACQUERS, LIQUID
CREAM FURNITURE POLISHES AND COLORS GROUND IN OIL.  IT SET OUT THAT THE
NAME "NU-ENAMEL" THROUGH WIDE USE BY PLAINTIFF HAD COME TO MEAN
"PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF'S PRODUCTS ONLY" AND THE "WORD 'NU-ENAMEL' IS
A MARK BY WHICH THE GOODS OF THE PLAINTIFF ARE DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER
GOODS OF THE SAME CLASS."  THERE WERE FURTHER ALLEGATIONS THAT
DEFENDANT HAD ADOPTED THE NAME "NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL" WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE
OF PRIOR AND EXTENSIVE USE BY PLAINTIFF OF "NU-ENAMEL"; THAT AS A
RESULT OF DEFENDANT'S USE OF THE MARK "NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL," MERCHANTS
PASSED OFF DEFENDANT'S PRODUCTS FOR PLAINTIFF'S, AND THAT THE PRODUCTS
OF BOTH MANUFACTURERS WERE SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AN EXHIBIT
SHOWED THAT PLAINTIFF USED ITS MARK WITH THIS SLOGAN PRINTED ABOVE IT:
"THE COAT OF ENDURING BEAUTY." 

DEFENDANT ADMITTED "THAT THE NAME 'NU-ENAMEL' HAS COME TO MEAN AND IS
UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN, THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS AND THE CITY OF CHICAGO, THE PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF'S
PRODUCTS ONLY, AND THE WORD 'NU-ENAMEL' IS A MARK BY WHICH THE GOODS OF
THE PLAINTIFF ARE DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER GOODS OF THE SAME CLASS";
DENIED THE VALIDITY, BUT NOT THE FACT OR EXTENT OF THE COVERAGE, OF THE
REGISTRATION; ASSERTED "NU-ENAMEL" WAS A DESCRIPTIVE AND GENERIC TERM
AND THAT IT HAD ADOPTED "NU-BEAUTY" IN CONNECTION WITH ENAMEL AND
KINDRED PRODUCTS BEFORE IT HEARD OF THE TRADE-MARK OR TRADE NAME "NU
ENAMEL."  DEFENDANT ANSWERED SPECIFICALLY THAT IT MARKETED ONLY ENAMELS
UNDER THE DESIGNATION "NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL" AND THAT IT DID NOT MARKET
PAINTS AND VARNISHES UNDER THIS NAME.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS DENIED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL FINDINGS OF FACT: 

"1.  PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT HEREIN WERE AND ARE NOW BOTH CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS.  THE INTERVENER, NU-ENAMEL CORPORATION, IS A CORPORATION OF
THE STATE OF DELAWARE. 

"2.  'NU' IN 'NU-ENAMEL', APPEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S LABEL, IS A
PHONETIC SPELLING OR MISSPELLING OF THE ENGLISH WORD 'NEW' AND MEANS
'NEW.' 

"3.  'ENAMEL' IS A COMMON ENGLISH WORD DESCRIBING A PAINT WHICH FLOWS
OUT TO A SMOOTH COAT WHEN APPLIED AND WHICH USUALLY DRIES WITH A GLOSSY
APPEARANCE, AND HAS LONG BEEN KNOWN AS SUCH IN THE PAINT INDUSTRY AND
TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL. 

"4.  'NU-ENAMEL' USED IN CONNECTION WITH PAINT OR ENAMEL SOLD BY
PLAINTIFF MEANS 'NEW ENAMEL' AND IS A COMMON AND GENERIC TERM
DESCRIPTIVE OF THE PRODUCT TO WHICH IT IS APPLIED AND OF ITS NEW OR
RECENT ORIGIN. 

"5.  'NU' WAS COMMONLY USED IN THE PAINT AND OTHER INDUSTRIES IN
COMBINATION WITH OTHER WORDS AS A MISSPELLING OR PHONETIC SPELLING OF
'NEW' TO DESIGNATE BRANDS AND KINDS OF ENAMEL, PAINT AND OTHER
COMMODITIES BEFORE PLAINTIFF AND ITS PREDECESSORS ADOPTED THE NAME 'NU
ENAMEL.'" 

IT DETERMINED THAT "NU-ENAMEL" WAS NOT A VALID TRADE-MARK UNDER THE
TRADE-MARK ACTS OR AT COMMON LAW AND, HAVING SO DETERMINED, REFUSED
JURISDICTION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  FN1  THAT COURT HELD THE
TRADE-MARK NON-DESCRIPTIVE, VALID AND INFRINGED.  IT WAS OF THE OPINION
THAT THE MARK HAD ACQUIRED A SECONDARY MEANING.  IT FOUND THAT THE
PETITIONER'S CONDUCT ENABLED MERCHANTS TO PALM OFF THE ARMSTRONG
PRODUCT FOR "NU-ENAMEL" AND CONCLUDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION OF THE ISSUE OF UNFAIR COMPETITION.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE IN TRADE-MARK LAW OF THE ISSUES OF THE
DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTER OF THE MARK AND THE EFFECT OF ITS ACQUIRED
MEANING UNDER THE TRADE-MARK ACT OF 1920. 

AS THE PETITIONER CONCEDES BY ANSWER THAT "NU-ENAMEL" HAS ACQUIRED
THE MEANING OF RESPONDENT AND RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS ONLY AND IS A MARK
WHICH DISTINGUISHES RESPONDENT'S GOODS FROM OTHERS OF THE SAME CLASS,
NO EVIDENCE OR FINDING IS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT FACT.  IT MAY BE
NOTED, ALSO, THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE USE OF "NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL" BY
ARMSTRONG ON PRODUCTS OTHER THAN ENAMELS, FAILS OF PROOF.  ARMSTRONG
USES THIS MARK ON ENAMELS ONLY.  ON OTHER PRODUCTS, THERE IS THE MARK
"NU-BEAUTY," FOLLOWED BY SOME DESCRIPTIVE WORD, SUCH AS PAINT, VARNISH
OR BRUSH. 

FEDERAL TRADE-MARK ACT OF 1920.  THE REGISTRATION OF "NU-ENAMEL" DOES
NOT CREATE ANY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS IN THE REGISTRANT.  FN2  TRADE-MARKS
REGISTERED UNDER THE 1920 ACT MAY BE ATTACKED COLLATERALLY.  KELLOGG
CO. V. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., 71 F.2D 662, 666. 

THE ACT FORBIDS THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE REGISTERED MARK IN
FOREIGN AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ADOPTS THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF
THE TRADE-MARK ACT OF 1905.  FN3  THROUGH THE INCLUSION OF THESE
PROCEDURAL SECTIONS THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS ARE GIVEN ORIGINAL AND
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF "ALL SUITS AT LAW OR IN EQUITY RESPECTING
TRADE-MARKS REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT,
ARISING UNDER THE PRESENT ACT" AND THIS COURT WAS GIVEN JURISDICTION
FOR CERTIORARI "IN THE SAME MANNER AS PROVIDED FOR PATENT CASES."  FN4
MARK CASES IS APPLICABLE ALSO TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE 1920 ACT.  BY
SEC. 23 FORMER REMEDIES IN LAW AND EQUITY ARE LEFT AVAILABLE.  THE
SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO ACTS IS THE OMISSION IN THE
1920 ACT OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 16 OF THE EARLIER ACT MAKING THE
REGISTRATION OF A TRADE-MARK PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP. 

ON ITS FACE THE ACT SHOWS IT WAS ENACTED TO ENABLE AMERICAN AND
FOREIGN USERS OF TRADE-MARKS TO REGISTER THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF TRADE-MARKS AND
COMMERCIAL NAMES, SIGNED AT BUENOS AIRES IN 1910.  IN ADDITION SEC. 1,
PARAGRAPH (B), PROVIDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION TO THE EXPORT TRADE, FOR
THE REGISTRATION OF MARKS NOT REGISTERABLE UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE TRADE
MARK ACT OF 1905, AFTER ONE YEAR'S USE IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  THIS ENABLES THE (B) MARKS TO BE REGISTERED ABROAD. 

WHILE THE ACT OF 1920 DOES NOT VEST ANY NEW SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS, IT
DOES CREATE REMEDIES IN THE FEDERAL COURTS FOR PROTECTING THE
REGISTRATIONS AND AUTHORIZES TRIPLE DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT.  FN5  AS
A CONSEQUENCE OF THESE REMEDIAL PROVISIONS, WHEN A SUIT IS BEGUN FOR
INFRINGEMENT, BOTTOMED UPON REGISTRATION UNDER THE 1920 ACT, THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE JURISDICTION.  UNLESS PLAINLY
UNSUBSTANTIAL, THE ALLEGATION OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT IS
SUFFICIENT TO GIVE JURISDICTION OF THE MERITS.  IN THIS CASE THE TRIAL
COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE INVALIDITY OF THE TRADE-MARK DIVESTED IT OF
JURISDICTION OVER UNFAIR COMPETITION.  THIS WAS ERRONEOUS.  FN6  ONCE
PROPERLY OBTAINED, JURISDICTION OF THE ONE CAUSE OF ACTION, THE ALLEGED
INFRINGEMENT OF THE TRADE-MARK, PERSISTS TO DEAL WITH ALL GROUNDS
SUPPORTING IT, INCLUDING UNFAIR COMPETITION WITH THE MARKED ARTICLE. 
FN7  THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS THE INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
TO USE THE MARK "NU-ENAMEL."  IF IT IS A PROPERLY REGISTERED TRADE
MARK, A GROUND TO SUPPORT THE CAUSE OF ACTION IS VIOLATION OF THE TRADE
MARK ACT.  IF IT IS NOT A PROPERLY REGISTERED TRADE-MARK, THE GROUND IS
UNFAIR COMPETITION AT COMMON LAW.  THE FACTS SUPPORTING A SUIT FOR
INFRINGEMENT AND ONE FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME.  THEY CONSTITUTE AND MAKE PLAIN THE WRONG COMPLAINED OF, THE
VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO EXCLUSIVE USE.    IN THE OURSLER CASE THERE
WAS A VALID COPYRIGHT WHICH WAS HELD NOT INFRINGED.  HERE THE TRIAL
COURT DETERMINED THE TRADE-MARK WAS INVALID.  THE OURSLER CASE HELD
THAT WHERE THE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DIFFERENT, THE DETERMINATION THAT
THE FEDERAL CAUSE FAILS CALLS FOR DISMISSAL.  FN8 BUT WHERE THERE IS
ONLY ONE CAUSE OF ACTION WE DO NOT CONSIDER THAT THE HOLDING OF THE
INVALIDITY FURNISHES ANY BASIS FOR A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS AND THE
OURSLER CASE.  REGISTRATION OF "NU-ENAMEL" FURNISHED A SUBSTANTIAL
GROUND FOR FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  THAT JURISDICTION SHOULD BE CONTINUED
TO DETERMINE, ON SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FACTS, THE ISSUE OF UNFAIR
COMPETITION.  FN9 

REGISTRATION OF DESCRIPTIVE MARK UNDER 1920 TRADE-MARK ACT.  EVEN
THOUGH UNDER THE FACTS ALLEGED AND THE ADMISSION THAT RESPONDENT'S MARK
HAS ACQUIRED A SECONDARY MEANING THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION
TO DETERMINE WHETHER PETITIONER IS CHARGEABLE WITH UNFAIR COMPETITION,
IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER REGISTRATION OF "NU-ENAMEL"
IS PERMISSIBLE OR IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT OF 1920 IN ORDER THAT IT
MAY BE KNOWN WHETHER SEC. 4, THE BASIS OF THE PRAYER IN THE BILL FOR
TRIPLE DAMAGES, IS APPLICABLE.  FN10  SECTION 1(B) OF THE 1920 ACT
PERMITS REGISTRATION OF THE MARKS USED FOR ONE YEAR IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHICH WERE NOT REGISTERABLE UNDER THE ACT OF 1905 "EXCEPT
THOSE SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 5" OF THE ACT OF
1905.  THAT SECTION IS SET OUT BELOW.  FN11  THE POINT RAISED IS
WHETHER THE PHRASE "EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF
BONOS MORES, UNDER (A) AND MARKS, INFRA DIGNITATEM, UNDER (B) BUT ALSO
THE FOLLOWING PROVISOS, PARTICULARLY THE ONE CONCERNED WITH DESCRIPTIVE
WORDS OR DEVICES. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE MARK "NU-ENAMEL" IS DESCRIPTIVE OF A TYPE OF
PAINT LONG FAMILIAR TO MANUFACTURERS,  FN12  WITH THE ADDITION OF THE
ADJECTIVE NEW, PHONETICALLY SPELLED OR MISSPELLED.  OBVIOUSLY THIS
SLIGHT VARIATION FROM THE ORTHOGRAPHIC NORMAL IS NOT UNUSUAL.  NUMEROUS
ILLUSTRATIONS OF SUCH USE BY PAINT AND VARNISH MANUFACTURERS ARE GIVEN
BY PETITIONER IN ITS ANSWER.  THE TRADE-MARK IS REGISTERED BY THE NU
ENAMEL CORPORATION FOR A VARIETY OF PRODUCTS FROM ENAMELS THROUGH PAINT
BRUSHES TO GLUE, SOLDER AND TACK RAGS.  IT IS QUITE TRUE THAT THE MARK
IS NOT DESCRIPTIVE AS APPLIED TO MANY OF RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS BUT THE
USE BY PETITIONER, THE ARMSTRONG COMPANY, OF WHICH THE NU-ENAMEL
CORPORATION COMPLAINS IS THE USE OF "NU-ENAMEL" OR "NU-BEAUTY ENAMEL." 
THIS USE, ARMSTRONG ANSWERS AND THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE ASSERTION, IS
CONFINED TO THE ENAMELS.  WE MUST THEREFORE CONSIDER THE CASE AS THOUGH
THE ONLY PRODUCTS OF NU-ENAMEL CORPORATION WERE ENAMELS.  AS APPLIED TO
THEM IT IS DESCRIPTIVE. 

THAT THE MARK IS DESCRIPTIVE OF PAINT ENAMELS DOES NOT BAR IT FROM
REGISTRATION AS TO THEM UNDER THE 1920 ACT.  THIS HAS BEEN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATENT OFFICE.  FN13  TO CONSTRUE (B) OF THE 1920
ACT TO BAR NAMES, DESCRIPTIVE MARKS AND MERELY GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS WOULD
MAKE THE SUBSECTION USELESS.  THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF ITS INCLUSION WAS
TO WIDEN THE ELIGIBILITY OF MARKS.  A DICTUM HAS EXPRESSED  FN14  A
VIEW CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE PATENT OFFICE. 

THIS ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION, CONTEMPORARY WITH THE
LEGISLATION, AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY HAVE WEIGHT "WHEN CHOICE IS
NICELY BALANCED."  FN15  WE CONSTRUE SEC. 1(B) OF THE 1920 ACT TO BE
APPLICABLE TO THE CATEGORIES EXPRESSED IN SEC. 5 OF THE ACT OF 1905
UNDER (A) AND (B) INCLUDING THE FIRST PROVISO BUT NOT TO INCLUDE THE
OTHER PROVISOS OF (B).  THIS CONCLUSION IS FORTIFIED BY THE ADDITION OF
THE PROVISO TO SEC. 1(B) OF THE 1920 ACT, RELATING TO IDENTICAL TRADE
MARKS.  THE PROVISO IN SEC. 5(B) OF THE 1905 ACT REFUSING REGISTRATION
TO IDENTICAL MARKS IN MUCH THE SAME LANGUAGE WAS CONSTRUED IN THADDEUS
DAVIDS CO. V. DAVIDS MFG. CO., 233 U.S. 461, AS NOT PERMITTING THE
REGISTRATION OF SUCH MARKS WHEN USED FOR TEN YEARS UNDER THE FOURTH,
NOW FIFTH, PROVISO OF THAT SECTION.  WE THINK THAT CONGRESS IN ADOPTING
THE CORRESPONDING PROVISO IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THE 1920 ACT, MUST BE
TAKEN TO HAVE ADOPTED THE ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIMILAR PROVISO
OF THE 1905 ACT.  IF THE LANGUAGE OF THE 1920 ACT HAD BEEN INTENDED TO
EXCLUDE FROM REGISTRATION ALL THE CLASSES EXCLUDED BY THE PROVISOS OF
SEC. 5 OF THE 1905 ACT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARY TO INCLUDE THIS
PROVISO.  FN16 

THIS COURT HAS HAD SEVERAL OCCASIONS WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS TO
CONSTRUE STATUTES IN WHICH CONFLICTS BETWEEN REASONABLE INTENTION AND
LITERAL MEANING OCCURRED.  WE HAVE REFUSED TO NULLIFY STATUTES, HOWEVER
HARD OR UNEXPECTED THE PARTICULAR EFFECT, WHERE UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE
CALLED FOR A LOGICAL AND SENSIBLE RESULT.  FN17  ANY OTHER COURSE WOULD
BE PROPERLY CONDEMNED AS JUDICIAL LEGISLATION.  HOWEVER, TO CONSTRUE
STATUTES SO AS TO AVOID RESULTS GLARINGLY ABSURD, HAS LONG BEEN A
JUDICIAL FUNCTION.  FN18  WHERE, AS HERE, THE LANGUAGE IS SUSCEPTIBLE
OF A CONSTRUCTION WHICH PRESERVES THE USEFULNESS OF THE SECTION, THE
JUDICIAL DUTY RESTS UPON THIS COURT TO GIVE EXPRESSION TO THE
INTENDMENT OF THE LAW. 

REMEDIES.  FN19  REGISTRATION UNDER THE 1920 ACT CONFERRED NO
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS IN THE REGISTERED MARK BUT IT DOES PERMIT SUITS IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS TO PROTECT RIGHTS OTHERWISE ACQUIRED IN THE MARKS. 
THE 1905 ACT, SEC. 1, AUTHORIZES THE "OWNER" TO OBTAIN REGISTRATION OF
ELIGIBLE TRADE-MARKS; SEC. 2 REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO MAKE OATH THAT
HE "BELIEVES HIMSELF  ... TO BE THE OWNER OF THE TRADE-MARK"; SEC. 5
REFERS TO THE "OWNER OF THE MARK"; SEC. 16 THEN DECLARES "THAT THE
REGISTRATION OF A TRADE-MARK UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP"; SEC. 23 RESERVES ALL REMEDIES AT
LAW OR IN EQUITY WHICH ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THE WRONGFUL USE OF HIS
TRADE-MARK WOULD HAVE HAD WITHOUT THE ACT OF 1905. 

THE 1920 ACT OMITS THE QUOTED PORTION OF SEC. 16 AS TO THE EFFECT OF
REGISTRATION AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP.  UNDER SEC. 1 THE
REGISTER INCLUDES ALL MARKS COMMUNICATED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS PROVIDED FOR BY THE BUENOS AIRES
CONVENTION OF 1910 AND ALL OTHER MARKS NOT REGISTERABLE UNDER THE TRADE
MARK ACT OF 1905, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING
ONE YEAR IN COMMERCE OTHER THAN INTRASTATE.  SECTION 4,  FN20  WHICH
PROTECTS THE TRADE-MARK, IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS SEC. 16 OF THE
1905 ACT, EXCEPT FOR THE OMISSION OF THE PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION OF
OWNERSHIP.  IT IS THE OWNER WHO HAS THE RIGHTS OF ACTION UNDER THIS
ACT, UNAIDED BY ANY PRESUMPTION FROM REGISTRATION.  THE OWNER, ON THE
OTHER HAND, IS NOT LIMITED IN ANY WAY BY THE ACT, AS SEC. 23 OF THE ACT
OF 1905 IS MADE SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE.  THIS SECTION PRESERVES THE
LEGAL AND EQUITABLE REMEDIES TO AN AGGRIEVED OWNER.  THE COMMITTEE ON
PATENTS IN THE SENATE WAS QUITE POSITIVE THAT THE EFFECT OF THE ACT ON
DOMESTIC RIGHTS WAS NIL.  FN21  THE REGISTRANT ACQUIRES BY THE
ACCEPTANCE OF HIS MARK UNDER THE 1920 ACT THE RIGHT TO PROCEED IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS AGAINST INFRINGERS AND TO RECOVER TRIPLE DAMAGES IF HE
CAN ESTABLISH HIS OWNERSHIP OF THE TRADE-MARK AT COMMON LAW. 

"NU-ENAMEL" IS DESCRIPTIVE OF THE ENAMELS IN ISSUE.  THE USE ON THE
NUMEROUS OTHER ARTICLES OF RESPONDENT'S MANUFACTURE, IN ITS
ADVERTISING, ON STORE WINDOW VALANCES, ON ELECTRIC AND OTHER DISPLAYS,
AND AS THE NAME OF MANY STORES AND THE SIGN OF SEVERAL THOUSAND
DEALERS, JUSTIFY PETITIONER'S CONCESSION THAT THE NAME MEANS RESPONDENT
AND RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS ONLY AND THE WORD DISTINGUISHES ITS GOODS
FROM OTHERS OF THE SAME CLASS.  BUT A MARK WHICH IS DESCRIPTIVE IS NOT
A GOOD TRADE-MARK AT COMMON LAW.  FN22 

IT WAS SAID IN THADDEUS DAVIDS CO. V. DAVIDS MFG. CO. FN23  THAT
NAMES REGISTERED UNDER THE LAST PROVISO OF SEC. 5 OF THE 1905 ACT
BECAME TECHNICAL TRADE-MARKS UPON VALID REGISTRATION UNDER THAT ACT. 
ASSUMING THAT DESCRIPTIVE TERMS IN THIS RESPECT WOULD BE ANALOGOUS TO
PROPER NAMES, THERE ARE CLEAR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE ACTS.  THE 1920
ACT DOES NOT DEFINE "TRADE-MARK" TO INCLUDE ANY MARK REGISTERED UNDER
ITS TERMS, AS DOES SEC. 29 OF THE 1905 ACT.  REMEDIES ARE AFFORDED
REGISTRANTS UNDER THE 1920 ACT BUT THESE REMEDIES ARE FOR "OWNERS," AND
ACTUAL AND EXCLUSIVE USE, SHORT OF A SECONDARY MEANING,  FN24  DOES NOT
QUALIFY A REGISTRANT UNDER THE 1920 ACT AS AN OWNER.  THAT OWNERSHIP
MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY PROOF.  FN25  UNLESS THIS OWNERSHIP IS
ESTABLISHED, NO RIGHTS OF ACTION UNDER THE 1920 ACT FOR INFRINGEMENT
EXIST.  HERE WE HAVE A SECONDARY MEANING TO THE DESCRIPTIVE TERM, "NU
ENAMEL."  THIS ESTABLISHES, ENTIRELY APART FROM ANY TRADE-MARK ACT, THE
COMMON LAW RIGHT OF THE NU-ENAMEL CORPORATION TO BE FREE FROM THE
COMPETITIVE USE OF THESE WORDS AS A TRADE-MARK OR TRADE NAME.  FN26  AS
WAS POINTED OUT IN THE DAVIDS CASE, IN CONSIDERING THE TEN-YEAR CLAUSE
OF THE 1905 ACT, THIS RIGHT OF FREEDOM DOES NOT CONFER A MONOPOLY ON
THE USE OF THE WORDS.  IT IS A MERE PROTECTION AGAINST THEIR UNFAIR USE
AS A TRADE-MARK OR TRADE NAME BY A COMPETITOR SEEKING TO PALM OFF HIS
PRODUCTS AS THOSE OF THE ORIGINAL USER OF THE TRADE NAME.  THIS RIGHT
TO PROTECTION FROM SUCH USE BELONGS TO THE USER OF A MARK WHICH HAS
ACQUIRED A SECONDARY MEANING.  HE IS, IN THIS SENSE, THE OWNER OF THE
MARK.  WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
THAT INFRINGEMENT IS SHOWN. 

THE RIGHTS OF NU-ENAMEL CORPORATION TO BE FREE OF THE COMPETITIVE USE
OF "NU-ENAMEL" MAY BE VINDICATED, ALSO, THROUGH THE CHALLENGE OF UNFAIR
COMPETITION, AS SET OUT IN THE BILL.  THE REMEDY FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION
IS THAT GIVEN BY THE COMMON LAW.  THE RIGHT ARISES NOT FROM THE TRADE
MARK ACTS BUT FROM THE FACT THAT "NU-ENAMEL" HAS COME TO INDICATE THAT
THE GOODS IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH IT IS USED ARE THE GOODS
MANUFACTURED BY THE RESPONDENT.  WHEN A NAME IS ENDOWED WITH THIS
QUALITY, IT BECOMES A MARK, ENTITLED TO PROTECTION.  THE ESSENCE OF THE
WRONG FROM THE VIOLATION OF THIS RIGHT IS THE SALE OF THE GOODS OF ONE
MANUFACTURER FOR THOSE OF ANOTHER.  FN27 

THE QUESTIONS AS TO DAMAGES, PROFITS, AND THE FORM OF THE DECREE WILL
BE PASSED UPON MORE APPROPRIATELY BY THE TRIAL COURT.  THE DECREE OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSING THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
IS AFFIRMED AND THIS CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
DIRECTIONS TO PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  95 F.2D 448. 

FN2  KELLOGG CO. V. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., ANTE, P. 117, NOTE 3;
CHARLES BROADWAY ROUSS, INC. V. WINCHESTER CO., 300 F. 706, 713, 714;
SLEIGHT METALLIC INK CO. V. MARKS, 52 F.2D 664, ON RIGHTS IT IS "AS
THOUGH THERE HAD BEEN NO REGISTRATION," P. 665; NEVA-WET CORP. V. NEVER
WET PROCESSING CORP., 277 N.Y. 163; 13 N.E.2D 755, 759; SLAYMAKER LOCK
CO. V. REESE, 24 F.SUPP.  69, 72. 

FN3  TRADE-MARK ACT OF MARCH 19, 1920, C. 104, SEC. 6, 41 STAT. 535. 

FN4  SECS. 17 AND 18, FED. TRADE-MARK ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1905, 33
STAT. 728-29; SECS. 5 AND 6, ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, 26 STAT. 827-28;
SEC. 240A OF THE JUDICIAL CODE CONFIRMS THIS JURISDICTION.  STREET &
SMITH V. ATLAS MFG. CO., 231 U.S. 348, 352.  CF. FORSYTH V. HAMMOND,
166 U.S. 506, 513. 

FN5  41 STAT. 534, SEC. 4.  "THAT ANY PERSON WHO SHALL WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE OWNER THEREOF REPRODUCE, COUNTERFEIT, COPY, OR COLORABLY
IMITATE ANY TRADE-MARK ON THE REGISTER PROVIDED BY THIS ACT, AND SHALL
AFFIX THE SAME TO MERCHANDISE OF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME DESCRIPTIVE
PROPERTIES AS THOSE SET FORTH IN THE REGISTRATION, OR TO LABELS, SIGNS,
PRINTS, PACKAGES, WRAPPERS, OR RECEPTACLES INTENDED TO BE USED UPON OR
IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF MERCHANDISE OF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
DESCRIPTIVE PROPERTIES AS THOSE SET FORTH IN SUCH REGISTRATION, AND
SHALL USE, OR SHALL HAVE USED, SUCH REPRODUCTION, COUNTERFEIT, COPY, OR
COLORABLE IMITATION IN COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR WITH A
FOREIGN NATION, OR WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES, SHALL BE LIABLE TO AN ACTION
FOR DAMAGES THEREFOR AT THE SUIT OF THE OWNER THEREOF; AND WHENEVER IN
ANY SUCH ACTION A VERDICT IS RENDERED FOR THE PLAINTIFF THE COURT MAY
ENTER JUDGMENT THEREIN FOR ANY SUM ABOVE THE AMOUNT FOUND BY THE
VERDICT AS THE ACTUAL DAMAGES, ACCORDING TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, NOT EXCEEDING THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF SUCH VERDICT, TOGETHER
WITH THE COSTS." 

FN6  ALTHOUGH WE DETERMINE LATER THAT "NU-ENAMEL" IS REGISTERABLE
UNDER THE 1920 ACT, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS JURISDICTION OF
UNFAIR COMPETITION ON A DIFFERENT ASSUMPTION SO THAT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE TRIAL COURT, CORRECTED BUT NOT DISCUSSED BY THE APPELLATE COURT,
WILL NOT BECOME A PRECEDENT ON ISSUES OF JURISDICTION IN TRADE-MARK
LAW.  CF. HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238, 240. 

FN7  HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238. 

FN8  HURN V. OURSLER, 289 U.S. 238, 248. 

FN9  TWO CASES CITED IN THE OURSLER OPINION DEAL WITH TRADE-MARKS:
LESCHEN ROPE CO. V. BRODERICK CO., 201 U.S. 166, AND ELGIN WATCH CO. V.
ILLINOIS WATCH CO., 179 U.S. 665.  THEY ARE THERE TREATED AS OUT OF
LINE WITH THE CASES HOLDING THAT FACTS SUPPORTING SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
AND NON-FEDERAL QUESTIONS GIVE JURISDICTION TO FEDERAL COURTS.  BOTH
STATE CATEGORICALLY THAT WITHOUT A LAWFULLY REGISTERED TRADE-MARK A
FEDERAL COURT LOSES JURISDICTION WHEN THE JURISDICTION DEPENDS ON THE
TRADE-MARK ACT.    WHERE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP EXISTS THE ISSUE DOES
NOT ARISE.  WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526.  WHILE THE
DIVERSITY IS NOT MADE PLAIN IN THE OPINION IT APPEARS IN THE RECORD. 
NO. 32, 1923 TERM, VOL. 13, TRANSCRIPTS OF RECORD 1689. 

FN10  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

WHEN THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED THE TRADE-MARK WAS NOT REGISTERABLE
UNDER THE 1920 ACT, IT DISMISSED THE BILL WHICH ALSO SOUGHT DAMAGES FOR
UNFAIR COMPETITION.  WHEN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THE
TRADE-MARK WAS REGISTERABLE AS NON-DESCRIPTIVE, IT DECLARED THAT THE
ISSUE OF UNFAIR COMPETITION WAS COGNIZABLE IN THE TRIAL COURT.  IT DOES
NOT APPEAR WHETHER THE REASON FOR THIS HOLDING WAS BECAUSE THE MARK WAS
REGISTERABLE OR BECAUSE IT HAD ACQUIRED A SECONDARY MEANING, THROUGH
EXTENSIVE USE.  THE LOWER COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER WHETHER THE BILL
ALLEGES REGISTRATION UNDER THE 1920 ACT.  IF THE MARK IS NOT
DESCRIPTIVE IT IS REGISTERABLE UNDER THE 1905 ACT.  A MARK REGISTERABLE
UNDER THE 1905 ACT IS NOT REGISTERABLE UNDER THE 1920 ACT.  16 TRADE
MARK REPORTER, 93, 530.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE 1920 ACT PERMITS
REGISTRATION ONLY OF MARKS COMMUNICATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU AND
THOSE NOT REGISTERABLE UNDER THE 1905 ACT. 

FN11  "NO MARK BY WHICH THE GOODS OF THE OWNER OF THE MARK MAY BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER GOODS OF THE SAME CLASS SHALL BE REFUSED
REGISTRATION AS A TRADE-MARK ON ACCOUNT OF THE NATURE OF SUCH MARK
UNLESS SUCH MARK - 

"(A)  CONSISTS OF OR COMPRISES IMMORAL OR SCANDALOUS MATTER. 

"(B)  CONSISTS OF OR COMPRISES THE FLAG OR COAT OF ARMS OR OTHER
INSIGNIA OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY SIMULATION THEREOF, OR OF ANY
STATE OR MUNICIPALITY OR OF ANY FOREIGN NATION, OR OF ANY DESIGN OR
PICTURE THAT HAS BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER BE ADOPTED BY ANY FRATERNAL
SOCIETY AS ITS EMBLEM, OR OF ANY NAME, DISTINGUISHING MARK, CHARACTER,
EMBLEM, COLORS, FLAG, OR BANNER ADOPTED BY ANY INSTITUTION,
ORGANIZATION, CLUB, OR SOCIETY WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN ANY STATE IN
THE UNITED STATES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION AND USE BY THE
APPLICANT:  PROVIDED, THAT SAID NAME, DISTINGUISHING MARK, CHARACTER,
EMBLEM, COLORS, FLAG, OR BANNER WAS ADOPTED AND PUBLICLY USED BY SAID
INSTITUTION, ORGANIZATION, CLUB, OR SOCIETY PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
ADOPTION AND USE BY THE APPLICANT:  PROVIDED, THAT TRADE-MARKS WHICH
ARE IDENTICAL WITH A REGISTERED OR KNOWN TRADE-MARK OWNED AND IN USE BY
ANOTHER AND APPROPRIATED TO MERCHANDISE OF THE SAME DESCRIPTIVE
PROPERTIES, OR WHICH SO NEARLY RESEMBLE A REGISTERED OR KNOWN TRADE
MARK OWNED AND IN USE BY ANOTHER AND APPROPRIATED TO MERCHANDISE OF THE
SAME DESCRIPTIVE PROPERTIES AS TO BE LIKELY TO CAUSE CONFUSION OR
MISTAKE IN THE MIND OF THE PUBLIC OR TO DECEIVE PURCHASERS SHALL NOT BE
REGISTERED:  PROVIDED, THAT NO MARK WHICH CONSISTS MERELY IN THE NAME
OF AN INDIVIDUAL, FIRM, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION NOT WRITTEN,
PRINTED, IMPRESSED, OR WOVEN IN SOME PARTICULAR OR DISTINCTIVE MANNER,
OR IN ASSOCIATION WITH A PORTRAIT OF THE INDIVDUAL, OR MERELY IN WORDS
OR DEVICES WHICH ARE DESCRIPTIVE OF THE GOODS WITH WHICH THEY ARE USED,
OR OF THE CHARACTER OR QUALITY OF SUCH GOODS, OR MERELY A GEOGRAPHICAL
NAME OR TERM, SHALL BE REGISTERED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS SUBDIVISION
OF THIS CHAPTER:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NO PORTRAIT OF A LIVING
INDIVIDUAL MAY BE REGISTERED AS A TRADE-MARK EXCEPT BY THE CONSENT OF
SUCH INDIVIDUAL, EVIDENCED BY AN INSTRUMENT IN WRITING, NOR MAY THE
PORTRAIT OF ANY DECEASED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BE REGISTERED
DURING THE LIFE OF HIS WIDOW, IF ANY, EXCEPT BY THE CONSENT OF THE
WIDOW EVIDENCED IN SUCH MANNER:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NOTHING
HEREIN SHALL PREVENT THE REGISTRATION OF ANY MARK USED BY THE APPLICANT
OR HIS PREDECESSORS, OR BY THOSE FROM WHOM TITLE TO THE MARK IS
DERIVED, IN COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS OR AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
OR WITH INDIAN TRIBES, WHICH WAS IN ACTUAL AND EXCLUSIVE USE AS A TRADE
MARK OF THE APPLICANT, OR HIS PREDECESSORS FROM WHOM HE DERIVED TITLE
FOR TEN YEARS NEXT PRECEDING FEBRUARY 20, 1905:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT
NOTHING HEREIN SHALL PREVENT THE REGISTRATION OF A TRADE-MARK OTHERWISE
REGISTERABLE BECAUSE OF ITS BEING THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT OR A
PORTION THEREOF.  AND IF ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION SHALL HAVE SO
REGISTERED A MARK UPON THE GROUND OF SAID USE FOR TEN YEARS PRECEDING
FEBRUARY 20, 1905, AS TO CERTAIN ARTICLES OR CLASSES OF ARTICLES TO
WHICH SAID MARK SHALL HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR SAID PERIOD, AND SHALL HAVE
THEREAFTER AND SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED HIS BUSINESS SO AS TO INCLUDE
OTHER ARTICLES NOT MANUFACTURED BY SAID APPLICANT FOR TEN YEARS NEXT
PRECEDING FEBRUARY 20, 1905, NOTHING HEREIN SHALL PREVENT THE
REGISTRATION OF SAID TRADE-MARK IN THE ADDITIONAL CLASSES TO WHICH SAID
NEW ADDITIONAL ARTICLES MANUFACTURED BY SAID PERSON OR CORPORATION
SHALL APPLY, AFTER SAID TRADE-MARK HAS BEEN USED ON SAID ARTICLE IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE OR WITH THE INDIAN TRIBES FOR AT LEAST
ONE YEAR, PROVIDED ANOTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION HAS NOT ADOPTED AND
USED PREVIOUSLY TO ITS ADOPTION AND USE BY THE PROPOSED REGISTRANT, AND
FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR SUCH TRADE-MARK OR ONE SO SIMILAR AS TO BE
LIKELY TO DECEIVE IN SUCH ADDITIONAL CLASS OR CLASSES."  U.S.C., TITLE
15, SEC. 85. 

FN12  "ENAMEL OR VARNISH PAINT.  - THESE TYPES OF PAINTS DRY WITH A
BRILLIANT GLOSSY SURFACE.  THEY ARE MADE BY GRINDING THE SELECTED
PIGMENT, OR MIXTURE OF PIGMENTS, IN A VARNISH MEDIUM, AND THEIR NATURE
AND PROPERTIES DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF VARNISH USED.  A QUICK-DRYING
VARIETY IS MADE BY USING A CHEAP ROSIN VARNISH AS THE VEHICLE, IT DRIES
WITH A HIGH GLOSS SURFACE IN ABOUT 2-4 HOURS, BUT OWING TO THE BRITTLE
AND NON-DURABLE NATURE OF THE VARNISH USED IT IS ONLY SUITABLE FOR
INTERIOR USE.  HIGH-CLASS DURABLE ENAMELS, SUITABLE FOR BOTH INSIDE AND
OUTSIDE USE, ARE MADE BY USING MIXTURES OF HEAT-TREATED LINSEED OIL
(STAND OIL) AND ELASTIC COPAL VARNISHES AS THE VEHICLE.  THEY ARE SLOW
DRYING, TAKING FROM 12-18 HOURS, AND ARE VERY TOUGH UNDER THE SEVEREST
CLIMATIC CONDITIONS. 

"FLAT PAINT.  - THIS TYPE OF PAINT IS REALLY A FLAT-DRYING ENAMEL. 
IT IS MADE IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS THE HIGH CLASS GLOSSY ENAMELS,
EXCEPT THAT IT CONTAINS LESS VARNISH AND MORE TURPENTINE THAN ORDINARY
ENAMEL.  SOME VARIETIES CONTAIN A PROPORTION OF WAX DISSOLVED IN THE
VARNISH SO AS TO GIVE A MORE PERFECT MAT OR FLAT FINISH.  OWING TO
THEIR PLEASING DECORATIVE EFFECT THEY ARE USED FOR INTERIOR
DECORATIONS, BUT ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR OUTSIDE USE."  17 ENCYCLOPEDIA
BRITANNICA (14TH ED.)  35. 

FN13  WRIGHT CO. V. SAR-A-LEE CO., 328 OFFICIAL GAZETTE 787, 788;
POSTUM CEREAL CO. V. CAL. FIG NUT CO., 313 O.G. 454; OPINION OF
SOLICITOR, INTERIOR DEPARTMENT, JULY 13, 1920, 277 O.G. 181, 182: 

"IN MY OPINION THE RECENT ACT OF MARCH 19, 1920, AS APPLIED TO
REGISTER (B) THEREIN PROVIDED SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS IF IT MORE
SPECIFICALLY READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"'ALL OTHER MARKS NOT REGISTERABLE UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20,
1905, AS AMENDED, EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFIED AS NOT REGISTERABLE IN
PARAGRAPHS OR SCHEDULES (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 5 OF THAT ACT, ETC.' 

"THIS IS THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE LAW, AS IT WAS UNDOUBTEDLY THE
INTENTION TO CONTINUE TO DENY REGISTRATION TO THOSE MARKS PROHIBITED
REGISTRATION BY PARAGRAPHS OF SCHEDULES (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 5 OF THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1905.  IN OTHER WORDS, MY VIEW IS THAT REGISTER (B)
PROVIDED BY THE RECENT ACT IS NOT INTENDED FOR ANY TRADE-MARK
REGISTERABLE UNDER ANY PART OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1905, NOR FOR
REGISTRATION OF ANY MARK NOT REGISTERABLE AS SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS OR
SCHEDULES (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 5 OF THAT ACT.  THE DOUBT WILL BE
RELIEVED AND A RATIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW WILL BE SUBSERVED BY
CONSIDERING THE REFERENCE IN THE RECENT ACT TO 'PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B)'
OF SECTION 5 OF THE AMENDED ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1905, AS MEANING
SCHEDULES A AND B RATHER THAN PARAGRAPHS STRICTLY AND AS COMPRISING THE
FOLLOWING MATTERS SPECIFIED AS NOT REGISTERABLE, VIZ: 

"'(A)  CONSISTS OF OR COMPRISES IMMORAL OR SCANDALOUS MATTER. 

"'(B)  CONSISTS OF OR COMPRISES THE FLAG OR COAT-OF-ARMS OR OTHER
INSIGNIA OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY SIMULATION THEREOF, OR OF ANY
STATE OR MUNICIPALITY OR OF ANY FOREIGN NATION, OR OF ANY DESIGN OR
PICTURE THAT HAS BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER BE ADOPTED BY ANY FRATERNAL
SOCIETY AS ITS EMBLEM, OR OF ANY NAME, DISTINGUISHING MARK, CHARACTER,
EMBLEM, COLORS, FLAG OR BANNER ADOPTED BY ANY INSTITUTION,
ORGANIZATION, CLUB, OR SOCIETY WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN ANY STATE IN
THE UNITED STATES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION AND USE BY THE
APPLICANT:  PROVIDED, THAT SAID NAME, DISTINGUISHING MARK, CHARACTER,
EMBLEM, COLORS, FLAG, OR BANNER WAS ADOPTED AND PUBLICLY USED BY SAID
INSTITUTION, ORGANIZATION, CLUB, OR SOCIETY PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
ADOPTION AND USE BY THE APPLICANT.' 

"THIS WAS THE EVIDENT INTENTION, AS SHOWN BY THE CONGRESSIONAL
HEARINGS ON THE RECENT ACT, AND WITH SUCH CONSTRUCTION A FIELD WILL
EXIST FOR THE OPERATION OF THE NEW LAW; OTHERWISE NONE WOULD REMAIN." 

RULE 19 OF THE RULES OF THE PATENT OFFICE GOVERNING REGISTRATION OF
TRADE-MARKS, ISSUED JULY 1, 1937, READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"A TRADE-MARK MUST HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY USED IN COMMERCE BEFORE AN
APPLICATION FOR ITS REGISTRATION CAN BE FILED IN THE PATENT OFFICE. 

"NO TRADE-MARK WILL BE REGISTERED  ...  UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20,
1905, WHICH CONSISTS MERELY IN THE NAME OF AN INDIVIDUAL, FIRM,
CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION, NOT WRITTEN, PRINTED, IMPRESSED, OR WOVEN
IN SOME PARTICULAR OR DISTINCTIVE MANNER OR IN ASSOCIATION WITH A
PORTRAIT OF THE INDIVIDUAL, OR MERELY IN WORDS OR DEVICES WHICH ARE
DESCRIPTIVE OF THE GOODS WITH WHICH THEY ARE USED, OR OF THE CHARACTER
OR QUALITY OF SUCH GOODS, OR MERELY A GEOGRAPHICAL NAME OR TERM ...  NO
TRADE-MARK WILL BE REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 1(B), ACT OF MARCH 19,
1920, WHICH IS REGISTRABLE UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1905, AS
AMENDED, OR WHICH HAS NOT BEEN IN BONA FIDE USE AS A TRADE-MARK FOR ONE
YEAR IN INTERNATIONAL OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR COMMERCE WITH INDIAN
TRIBES." 

FN14  IN RE CHAS. R. LONG, JR., CO., 51 APP. D.C. 399; 280 F. 975,
977. 

FN15  FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87, 96. 

ON JANUARY 21 AND 22, 1920, THE COMMITTEE ON PATENTS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES WAS CONSIDERING H.R. 7157 OF THE 66TH CONGRESS, 2ND
SESSION, A BILL TO AMEND SEC. 5 OF THE TRADE-MARK ACT OF 1905.  THE
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS DISCUSSED WITH THE COMMITTEE AN AMENDMENT
APPLICABLE TO H.R. 9023 OF THE 66TH CONGRESS ENTITLED "A BILL TO GIVE
EFFECT TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
TRADE-MARKS."  THE APPLICABLE LANGUAGE IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"MR. NEWTON.  YES.  THE AMENDMENT WE PROPOSE IS THIS: 

"'ALL OTHER MARKS NOT REGISTERABLE UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20,
1905(AS AMENDED), BUT WHICH FOR NOT LESS THAN TWO YEARS HAVE BEEN BONA
FIDE USED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR COMMERCE WITH INDIAN
TRIBES, BY THE PROPRIETOR THEREOF, UPON OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY GOODS
OF SUCH PROPRIETOR AND UPON WHICH THE FEE OF $10 HAS BEEN PAID AND SUCH
FORMALITIES AS ARE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS HAVE BEEN
COMPLIED WITH, MAY BE REGISTERED.' 

"ANYTHING MAY BE REGISTERED.  THAT IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE BILL THAT
WAS PASSED YESTERDAY.  THAT BILL DOES NOT GIVE PRIMA FACIE VALIDITY TO
THE MARK THAT IS REGISTERED, THE BILL THAT PASSED YESTERDAY, AND THIS
AMENDMENT DOES NOT GIVE IT.  THAT IS THE REASON WE PUT THIS PROPOSED
AMENDMENT INTO THE BILL.  BUT MR. MERRITT'S BILL WANTS TO GIVE THEM
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP, SO WE PUT THAT UNDER THE 1905
STATUTE WHERE IT NATURALLY BELONGS."  HEARINGS ON H.R. 7157 BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON PATENTS, 66TH CONGRESS, 2D SESSION, P. 30. 

LATER IN THE HEARING ON THE BILL WHICH BECAME THE ACT OF MARCH 19,
1920, THIS DISCUSSION WAS CONTINUED BY MR. WHITEHEAD, ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, WHO DISCUSSED THE COMMISSIONER'S SUGGESTED
LANGUAGE QUOTED ABOVE AND SAID: 

"ONE OR TWO SLIGHT AMENDMENTS OUGHT, IT SEEMS TO ME, TO BE MADE TO
THE BILL.  THE BILL AS IT STANDS IS BROAD ENOUGH TO PUT ANY MARK ON THE
REGISTER.  SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1905, OUTLAWS - IF I
MAY USE THAT EXPRESSION - TWO CLASSES OF MARKS - ONE, SCANDALOUS AND
IMMORAL MARKS, AND THE OTHER MARKS CONSISTING OF THE FLAG OR COAT OF
ARMS OF THE UNITED STATES, ETC., AND IT SEEMS AS IF THIS SENATE
AMENDMENT OUGHT TO BE AMENDED TO EXCLUDE THOSE MARKS SPECIFIED IN
PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF THAT SECTION.  OTHERWISE THERE CAN BE PUT ON
THE REGISTER SCANDALOUS MARKS AND THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES.  I
THINK IT MUST HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED.  I DO NOT THINK MR. MERRITT OR MR.
NEWTON THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE INCLUDING THOSE TWO TYPES OF MARKS.  IT
SEEMS AS IF THAT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY INSERTING IN THE AMENDMENT,
AFTER THE WORDS 'ALL OTHER MARKS NOT REGISTERABLE UNDER THE ACT OF
FEBRUARY 20, 1905,' THE WORDS, 'EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS
(A) AND (B) OF SECTION 5 OF THAT ACT,' OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT." 

     .        .         .         .         . 

AFTER DISCUSSION OF OTHER MATTERS: 

"THE CHAIRMAN.  IF YOU WILL IN YOUR BRIEF JUST MAKE THOSE
SUGGESTIONS, WE WILL BE GLAD TO TAKE THEM UP WITH THE CONFEREES. 

"MR. WHITEHEAD.  I WILL BE GLAD TO DO THAT.  I THINK THE ONLY REALLY
IMPORTANT ONE IS TO EXCLUDE THOSE OF PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION
5.  THESE OTHERS ARE MINOR MATTERS."  HEARINGS ON H.R. 9023 BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON PATENTS, 66TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION, PART 2, PP. 33-35. 

THE PRECISE LANGUAGE ADOPTED CAME FROM THE CONFERENCE REPORT. 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 66TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION, P. 4160.    FN16  THE
VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO PROVISOS HAVE BEEN TREATED IN PRACTICE AS
IMMATERIAL.  277 O.G. 181, 182.  CF. THADDEUS DAVIDS CO. V. DAVIDS MFG.
CO., 233 U.S. 461, 467. 

FN17  CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470, 485; CROOKS V.
HARRELSON, 282 U.S. 55, 58-59; TAFT V. COMMISSIONER, 304 U.S. 351,
359. 

FN18  SORRELLS V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 435, 446, ET SEQ. AND CASES
CITED; UNITED STATES V. RYAN, 284 U.S. 167. 

FN19  SINCE NEITHER PARTY HAS RELIED UPON STATE LAW, WE DO NOT
CONSIDER ANY EFFECT IT MIGHT HAVE ON OUR CONCLUSIONS.  CF. KELLOGG CO.
V. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., ANTE, P. 111. 

FN20  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN21  "THIS LEGISLATION HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DOMESTIC RIGHTS OF
ANYONE.  IT IS SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING MANUFACTURERS TO
REGISTER THEIR TRADE-MARKS IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING
WITH LEGISLATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, WHICH NECESSITATES REGISTRATION
IN THE UNITED STATES AS A NECESSARY PRELIMINARY FOR SUCH FOREIGN
REGISTRATION.  AS THE LAW NOW STANDS, IT ENABLES TRADE-MARK PIRATES IN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES TO REGISTER AS TRADE-MARKS, THE NAMES AND MARKS OF
THE AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS, AND THUS LEVY BLACKMAIL UPON THEM."  SENATE
REPORT NO. 432, 66TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION, P. 2.  CF. CHARLES BROADWAY
ROUSS, INC. V. WINCHESTER CO., 300 F. 706, 714. 

FN22  WARNER & CO. V. LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526, 528; STANDARD PAINT
CO. V. TRINIDAD ASPHALT MFG. CO., 220 U.S. 446, 453; ELGIN NAT. WATCH
CO. V. ILLINOIS WATCH CO., 179 U.S. 665, 673. 

FN23  233 U.S. 461, 466, 468, 469, 470. 

FN24  CF. STANDARD PAINT CO. V. TRINIDAD ASPHALT MFG. CO., 220 U.S.
446, 461.  THE LANGUAGE IN THAT CASE, DENYING TO A DESCRIPTIVE TERM THE
EFFECT OF A TRADE-MARK, IS INAPPLICABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THE
DESCRIPTIVE TERM HAD NOT ACQUIRED A SECONDARY MEANING. 

FN25  CF. CHARLES BROADWAY ROUSS, INC. V. WINCHESTER CO., 300 F. 706,
713. 

FN26  THADDEUS DAVIDS CO. V. DAVIDS MFG. CO., 233 U.S. 461, 470,
471. 

FN27  ELGIN NAT. WATCH CO. V. ILLINOIS WATCH CO., 179 U.S. 665, 674. 

..END :




















GENERAL PICTURES CO. V. ELECTRIC CO., 305 U.S. 124 


NO. 1.  REARGUED OCTOBER 19, 20, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 21, 1938.  -
91 F.2D 922, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE OWNER OF A PATENT MAY LAWFULLY RESTRICT HIS LICENSEE TO
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF THE PATENTED INVENTION FOR USE IN ONLY ONE OR
SOME OF SEVERAL DISTINCT FIELDS IN WHICH IT IS USEFUL, EXCLUDING HIM
FROM THE OTHERS.  P. 125. 

2.  WHERE A LICENSEE, SO RESTRICTED, MAKES AND SELLS THE PATENTED
ARTICLE FOR A USE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS LICENSE, HE IS AN INFRINGER;
AND HIS VENDEE, BUYING WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS, IS LIKEWISE AN
INFRINGER.  P. 127. 

3.  IN THIS CASE, THE COURT HAS NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER (A) WHAT THE
RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE ARTICLES EMBODYING THE
PATENTED INVENTION HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED UNDER THE PATENT AND HAD
PASSED INTO THE HANDS OF A PURCHASER IN THE ORDINARY CHANNELS OF TRADE;
OR (B) THE EFFECT OF A NOTICE ATTACHED TO ARTICLES LAWFULLY MADE AND
SOLD UNDER LICENSE OF THE PATENT-OWNER, AND WHICH PURPORTS TO RESTRICT
THEIR USE.  ID. 

GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORPORATION V. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

IN THIS CASE THERE WERE SEVERAL SUITS FOR INFRINGEMENTS OF PATENTS
RELATING TO VACUUM TUBE AMPLIFIERS.  THE COURT BELOW WAS AFFIRMED AT
THE LAST TERM; BUT A REHEARING WAS GRANTED ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS
SAID TO BE INVOLVED.  304 U.S. 175, 546, 587. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE, WE AFFIRMED ON MAY 2, 1938, 304 U.S. 175, THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 91 F.2D 922, WHICH HELD THAT
PETITIONER HAD INFRINGED CERTAIN PATENTS RELATING TO VACUUM TUBE
AMPLIFIERS.  ON MAY 31ST, WE GRANTED A REHEARING, 304 U.S. 587, UPON
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WHICH HAD BEEN PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI. 

1.  CAN THE OWNER OF A PATENT, BY MEANS THEREOF, RESTRICT THE USE
MADE OF A DEVICE MANUFACTURED UNDER THE PATENT, AFTER THE DEVICE HAS
PASSED INTO THE HANDS OF A PURCHASER IN THE ORDINARY CHANNELS OF TRADE,
AND FULL CONSIDERATION PAID THEREFOR? 

2.  CAN A PATENT OWNER, MERELY BY A "LICENSE NOTICE" ATTACHED TO A
DEVICE MADE UNDER THE PATENT, AND SOLD IN THE ORDINARY CHANNELS OF
TRADE, PLACE AN ENFORCEABLE RESTRICTION ON THE PURCHASER THEREOF AS TO
THE USE TO WHICH THE PURCHASER MAY PUT THE DEVICE? 

UPON FURTHER HEARING WE ARE OF OPINION THAT NEITHER QUESTION SHOULD
BE ANSWERED.  FOR WE FIND THAT, WHILE THE DEVICES EMBODY THE INVENTIONS
OF THE PATENTS IN SUIT, THEY WERE NOT MANUFACTURED OR SOLD "UNDER THE
(PATENTS)" AND DID NOT "PASS INTO THE HANDS OF A PURCHASER IN THE
ORDINARY CHANNELS OF TRADE." 

THESE ARE THE RELEVANT FACTS.  AMPLIFIERS EMBODYING THE INVENTION
HERE INVOLVED ARE USEFUL IN SEVERAL DISTINCT FIELDS.  AMONG THESE IS
(A) THE COMMERCIAL FIELD OF SOUND RECORDING AND REPRODUCING, WHICH
EMBRACES TALKING PICTURE EQUIPMENT FOR THEATRES, AND (B) THE PRIVATE OR
HOME FIELD, WHICH EMBRACES RADIO BROADCAST RECEPTION, RADIO AMATEUR
RECEPTION AND RADIO EXPERIMENTAL RECEPTION.  FOR THE COMMERCIAL FIELD
EXCLUSIVE LICENSES HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE PATENT POOL TO WESTERN
ELECTRIC COMPANY AND ELECTRICAL RESEARCH PRODUCTS, INC. FOR THE PRIVATE
OR HOME FIELD THE PATENT POOL GRANTED NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSES TO ABOUT
FIFTY MANUFACTURERS.  AMONG THESE WAS AMERICAN TRANSFORMER COMPANY.  IT
WAS LICENSED "SOLELY AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT AND FOR THE USES
HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED AND DEFINED  ...  TO MANUFACTURE  ...  , AND TO
SELL ONLY FOR RADIO AMATEUR RECEPTION, RADIO EXPERIMENTAL RECEPTION AND
RADIO BROADCAST RECEPTION  ...  LICENSED APPARATUS SO MANUFACTURED BY
THE LICENSEE.  ...  " 

THE LICENSE PROVIDED FURTHER: 

"NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE REGARDED AS CONFERRING UPON THE
LICENSEE EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY ESTOPPEL, IMPLICATION, OR OTHERWISE, A
LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE OR SELL ANY APPARATUS EXCEPT SUCH AS MAY BE
MANUFACTURED BY THE LICENSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS
OF THIS AGREEMENT." 

TRANSFORMER COMPANY, KNOWING THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN LICENSED TO
MANUFACTURE OR TO SELL AMPLIFIERS FOR USE IN THEATRES AS PART OF
TALKING PICTURE EQUIPMENT, MADE FOR THAT COMMERCIAL USE THE AMPLIFIERS
IN CONTROVERSY AND SOLD THEM TO PICTURES CORPORATION FOR THAT
COMMERCIAL USE.  PICTURES CORPORATION ORDERED THE AMPLIFIERS AND
PURCHASED THEM KNOWING THAT TRANSFORMER COMPANY HAD NOT BEEN LICENSED
TO MAKE OR SELL THEM FOR SUCH USE IN THEATRES.  ANY USE BEYOND THE
VALID TERMS OF A LICENSE IS, OF COURSE, AN INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT. 
ROBINSON ON PATENTS, SEC. 916.  IF WHERE A PATENTED INVENTION IS
APPLICABLE TO DIFFERENT USES, THE OWNER OF THE PATENT MAY LEGALLY
RESTRICT A LICENSEE TO A PARTICULAR FIELD AND EXCLUDE HIM FROM OTHERS,
TRANSFORMER COMPANY WAS GUILTY OF AN INFRINGEMENT WHEN IT MADE THE
AMPLIFIERS FOR, AND SOLD THEM TO, PICTURES CORPORATION.  AND AS
PICTURES CORPORATION ORDERED, PURCHASED AND LEASED THEM KNOWING THE
FACTS, IT ALSO WAS AN INFRINGER. 

THE QUESTION OF LAW REQUIRING DECISION IS WHETHER THE RESTRICTION IN
THE LICENSE IS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT.  THAT A RESTRICTIVE LICENSE IS LEGAL
SEEMS CLEAR.  MITCHELL V. HAWLEY, 16 WALL.  544.  AS WAS SAID IN UNITED
STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, 489, THE PATENTEE MAY
GRANT A LICENSE "UPON ANY CONDITION THE PERFORMANCE OF WHICH IS
REASONABLY WITHIN THE REWARD WHICH THE PATENTEE BY THE GRANT OF THE
PATENT IS ENTITLED TO SECURE."  THE RESTRICTION HERE IMPOSED IS OF THAT
CHARACTER.  THE PRACTICE OF GRANTING LICENSES FOR A RESTRICTED USE IS
AN OLD ONE, SEE RUBBER COMPANY V. GOODYEAR, 9 WALL.  788, 799, 800;
GAMEWELL FIRE-ALARM TELEGRAPH CO. V. BROOKLYN, 14 F. 255.  SO FAR AS
APPEARS, ITS LEGALITY HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED.  THE PARTIES
STIPULATED THAT "IT IS COMMON PRACTICE WHERE A PATENTED INVENTION IS
APPLICABLE TO DIFFERENT USES, TO GRANT WRITTEN LICENSES TO MANUFACTURE
UNDER UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENTS RESTRICTED TO ONE OR MORE OF THE
SEVERAL FIELDS OF USE PERMITTING THE EXCLUSIVE OR NON-EXCLUSIVE USE OF
THE INVENTION BY THE LICENSEE IN ONE FIELD AND EXCLUDING IT IN ANOTHER
FIELD." 

AS THE RESTRICTION WAS LEGAL AND THE AMPLIFIERS WERE MADE AND SOLD
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE LICENSE THE EFFECT IS PRECISELY THE SAME AS IF
NO LICENSE WHATSOEVER HAD BEEN GRANTED TO TRANSFORMER COMPANY.  AND AS
PICTURES CORPORATION KNEW THE FACTS, IT IS IN NO BETTER POSITION THAN
IF IT HAD MANUFACTURED THE AMPLIFIERS ITSELF WITHOUT A LICENSE.  IT IS
LIABLE BECAUSE IT HAS USED THE INVENTION WITHOUT LICENSE TO DO SO. 

WE HAVE CONSEQUENTLY NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHAT THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE AMPLIFIER HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED "UNDER
THE PATENT" AND "HAD PASSED INTO THE HANDS OF A PURCHASER IN THE
ORDINARY CHANNELS OF TRADE."  NOR HAVE WE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE
EFFECT OF A "LICENSEE'S NOTICE" WHICH PURPORTS TO RESTRICT THE USE OF
ARTICLES LAWFULLY SOLD.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

ALMOST A CENTURY AGO, THIS COURT ASSERTED, AND TIME AFTER TIME
THEREAFTER IT HAS REASSERTED, THAT WHEN AN ARTICLE DESCRIBED IN A
PATENT IS SOLD AND "PASSES TO THE HANDS OF A PURCHASER, IT IS NO LONGER
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE MONOPOLY.  IT PASSES OUTSIDE OF IT, AND IS NO
LONGER UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS.  ...  CONTRACTS IN
RELATION TO IT ARE REGULATED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE, AND ARE SUBJECT
TO STATE JURISDICTION."  FN1 

A SINGLE DEPARTURE FROM THIS JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PATENT
STATUTE  FN2  WAS EXPRESSLY OVERRULED WITHIN FIVE YEARS, AND THIS COURT
AGAIN REASSERTED THAT COMMODITIES - ONCE SOLD - WERE NOT THEREAFTER
"SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS TO USE" IMPOSED BY PATENT OWNERS.  FN3  IN
RESULT, THE JUDGMENT HERE IS A SECOND DEPARTURE FROM THE TRADITIONAL
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PATENT LAWS. 

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE RETURN TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PATENT
STATUTES PREVIOUSLY REPUDIATED AND EXPRESSLY OVERRULED, PETITIONER IS
ENJOINED FROM MAKING FULL USE OF, AND MUST ACCOUNT IN TRIPLE DAMAGES
FOR USING TUBES AND AMPLIFIERS WHICH HE OWNS.  HE BECAME THE OWNER OF
THE TUBES BY PURCHASE FROM VARIOUS RETAILERS AUTHORIZED BY RESPONDENTS
TO SELL IN THE OPEN MARKET.  HE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE AMPLIFIERS BY
PURCHASE FROM A MANUFACTURER WHO - HAVING THE COMPLETE RIGHT TO MAKE
THEM - HAD CONTRACTED TO SELL ONLY FOR LIMITED USES.  FN4  THE
DEPARTURE HERE PERMITS THE PATENTEE - BY VIRTUE OF HIS CONTRACT WITH
THE MANUFACTURER - TO RESTRICT THE USES TO WHICH THIS PURCHASER AND
OWNER MAY PUT HIS TUBES AND AMPLIFIERS. 

TRANSFORMER COMPANY WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE PATENTEE TO MAKE AND TO
SELL AMPLIFIERS.  IT DID MAKE SUCH AMPLIFIERS - OF A STANDARD TYPE
USABLE IN MANY FIELDS, FN5  THEY BECAME ITS PROPERTY WHEN MADE, WERE
SOLD TO AND BECAME THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER.  THE PRIOR OPINION IN
THIS CASE, BOTH COURTS BELOW AND THE OPINION ON THIS REHEARING, ALL
REFER TO THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN TRANSFORMER COMPANY AND PETITIONER AS
A SALE.  EVEN THE VERY CONTRACT AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY TO
MAKE AND SELL THE AMPLIFIERS PROVIDED "THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
AGREEMENT ALL LICENSED APPARATUS SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS 'SOLD' WHEN THE
LICENSED APPARATUS HAS BEEN BILLED OUT, OR IF NOT BILLED OUT, WHEN IT
HAS BEEN DELIVERED, SHIPPED, OR MAILED." 

NOTICE TO THE PURCHASER IN ANY FORM COULD NOT - UNDER THE PATENT LAW
LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE USE OF THE AMPLIFIERS AFTER THEY WERE SOLD  FN6
AND KNOWLEDGE BY BOTH VENDOR AND PURCHASER THAT THE ARTICLES WERE
PURCHASED FOR USE OUTSIDE THE "FIELD" FOR WHICH THE VENDOR HAD BEEN
GIVEN THE RIGHT TO SELL, MADE THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THEM NO LESS A
SALE.  FN7  HAD PETITIONER - AFTER MAKING THE PURCHASE - DECIDED NOT TO
USE THESE AMPLIFIERS IN THE FORBIDDEN FIELDS, OR HAD THEY BEEN
DESTROYED PRIOR TO SUCH USE, CERTAINLY THE MERE STATE OF MIND OF THE
PARTIES AT THE TIME OF SALE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THEM BOTH INFRINGERS. 

INDEED, PETITIONER COULD USE THE AMPLIFIERS AT ALL ONLY IN
COMBINATION WITH TUBES WHICH IT PURCHASED ON THE OPEN MARKET FROM
RETAILERS AUTHORIZED BY RESPONDENTS TO SELL.  THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE
STATE OF MIND OF VENDOR AND PURCHASER WERE MATERIAL, TRANSFORMER
COMPANY COULD BE CONSIDERED AN INFRINGER ONLY BECAUSE IT SOLD A
COMMODITY WHICH MIGHT - DEPENDING ON POSSIBLE EVENTS AFTER THE SALE -
BE USED IN INFRINGING COMBINATION WITH ANOTHER LAWFULLY PURCHASED
COMMODITY.  THE PATENT LAW WAS NOT INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH RESULT. 
FN8 

PETITIONER HAS PERSISTENTLY CONTENDED THROUGHOUT THIS LITIGATION THAT
NO EXISTING TRADE PRACTICE PERMITS A PATENTEE - UNDER GUISE OF A
"LICENSE" - TO EXTEND HIS MONOPOLY TO COMMODITIES AFTER SALE, AND HAS
NOT STIPULATED OTHERWISE.  FN9  NEITHER STIPULATION NOR PRACTICE COULD
JUSTIFY EXTENSION OF PATENT MONOPOLY BEYOND THE LIMITS OF LEGALITY
FIXED BY CONGRESS AND RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT FOR OVER THREE-QUARTERS
OF A CENTURY.  "THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
'USE' A PATENTED MACHINE  ...  IS PRECISELY THE SAME, AS THE AUTHORITY
TO GRANT THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO 'VEND,'  ...  "  FN10  A WIDESPREAD
PRACTICE OF RESTRICTING THE RESALE PRICE OF ARTICLES DESCRIBED IN
PATENTS  FN11  DID NOT PREVENT THIS COURT FROM HOLDING THAT ONCE THE
STATUTORY RIGHT TO VEND HAS BEEN EXERCISED "THE ADDED RESTRICTION IS
BEYOND THE PROTECTION AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT."  FN12  SIMILARLY, A
"COMMON PRACTICE  ...  TO GRANT WRITTEN LICENSES  ... RESTRICTED TO ONE
OR MORE  ...  FIELDS OF USE" CANNOT PREVENT THE APPLICATION OF "THAT
LINE OF CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT FROM THE BEGINNING HAS HELD THAT A
PATENTEE WHO HAS PARTED WITH A PATENTED MACHINE BY PASSING TITLE TO A
PURCHASER HAS PLACED THE ARTICLE BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE MONOPOLY
SECURED BY THE PATENT ACT."  FN13 

FN1  BLOOMER V. MCQUEWAN, 14 HOW.  539, 549-50; SEE, CHAFFEE V.
BOSTON BELTING CO., 22 HOW.  217, 223; MITCHELL V. HAWLEY, 16 WALL. 
544, 547; ADAMS V. BURKE, 17 WALL.  453; WADE V. METCALF, 129 U.S. 202,
205; BOESCH V. GRAFF, 133 U.S. 697, 702; HOBBIE V. JENNISON, 149 U.S.
355; MORGAN ENVELOPE CO. V. ALBANY PAPER CO., 152 U.S. 425; KEELER V.
STANDARD FOLDING BED CO., 157 U.S. 659; BAUER & CIE V. O'DONNELL, 229
U.S. 1; STRAUS V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO., 243 U.S. 490; MOTION
PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 243 U.S. 502; BOSTON STORE
V. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO., 246 U.S. 8.  THE RULE ASSERTED IN THESE
CASES IS IN ACCORD WITH THE VIEWS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON WHO SERVED AS A
MEMBER OF THE FIRST PATENT BOARD ESTABLISHED BY THE FIRST PATENT ACT OF
1790(1 STAT. 109) AND WHO ALSO DRAFTED THE COMPREHENSIVE PATENT LAW OF
1793(1 STAT. 318).  SEE, "THE JEFFERSONIAN CYCLOPEDIA," P. 680(FUNK AND
WAGNALLS, 1900).  THE ACTS OF 1790 AND 1793 GRANTED PATENTEES FOR
FOURTEEN YEARS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT "OF MAKING, CONSTRUCTING, USING AND
VENDING TO OTHERS TO BE USED."  MR. JEFFERSON, REFERRING TO THE GENERAL
RULES ADOPTED BY THE FIRST PATENT BOARD, SAID:  "ONE OF THESE (RULES)
WAS, THAT A MACHINE OF WHICH WE WERE POSSESSED, MIGHT BE APPLIED BY
EVERY MAN TO ANY USE OF WHICH IT IS SUSCEPTIBLE, AND THAT THIS RIGHT
OUGHT NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM HIM AND GIVEN TO A MONOPOLIST, BECAUSE THE
FIRST PERHAPS HAD OCCASION SO TO APPLY IT. THUS A SCREW FOR CRUSHING
PLASTER MIGHT BE EMPLOYED FOR CRUSHING CORN-COBS.  AND A CHAIN-PUMP FOR
RAISING WATER MIGHT BE USED FOR RAISING WHEAT:  THIS BEING MERELY A
CHANGE OF APPLICATION."  "THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON," VOL. VI,
H.A. WASHINGTON, EDITOR, P. 181(PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE JOINT
COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY, 1861).  AFTER THE PATENT BOARD'S
DUTIES DEVOLVED UPON THE COURTS, MR. JEFFERSON SUGGESTED THAT THE RULE
BE "ADOPTED BY THE JUDGES" THAT "THE PURCHASER OF THE RIGHT TO USE THE
INVENTION SHOULD BE FREE TO APPLY IT TO EVERY PURPOSE OF WHICH IT IS
SUSCEPTIBLE."  ID., P. 372. 

UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, RELIED ON BY THE
MAJORITY HERE, WAS NOT A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT, BUT WAS AN
ACTION BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  THE OPINION WAS
WRITTEN BY CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT AND APPLIED SOME OF THE REASONING OF THE
BUTTON-FASTENER CASE, 77 F. 288, IN WHICH HE HAD AGREED AS CIRCUIT
JUDGE TO THE OPINION OF CIRCUIT JUDGE LURTON.  LATER, THIS COURT IN
HENRY V. DICK CO., 224 U.S. 1, WITH THE THEN JUSTICE LURTON WRITING THE
OPINION, FOLLOWED THE BUTTON-FASTENER CASE.  MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO.
V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., SUPRA, EXPRESSLY OVERRULED AND REPUDIATED THE
DOCTRINE OF THE DICK CASE.  IN EFFECT, THE JUDGMENT HERE ONCE MORE
REVIVES THE DOCTRINE OF THE BUTTON-FASTENER CASE.    THE MAJORITY
OPINION ALSO RELIES UPON MITCHELL V. HAWLEY, SUPRA.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT
THAT IN THE HAWLEY CASE THE PATENTEE NEVER LICENSED OR TRANSFERRED HIS
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SELL; AND THE LICENSE CONVEYED ONLY "THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT TO MAKE AND USE 'AND TO LICENSE TO OTHERS THE RIGHT TO USE  ...
'"  16 WALL., AT 548.  THAT CASE, THEREFORE, DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE
JUDGMENT HERE WHERE THE PATENTEE'S POWER TO VEND WAS BOTH TRANSFERRED
AND EXERCISED. 

FN2  HENRY V. DICK CO., 224 U.S. 1, DECIDED MARCH 11, 1912. 

FN3  MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., SUPRA, 516,
SIMILARLY, THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO VEND EXHAUSTS THE RIGHT UNDER A
PATENT TO CONTROL THE PRICE AT WHICH AN ARTICLE CLAIMED IN THE PATENT
MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE SOLD.  BAUER & CIE V. O'DONNELL; STRAUS V. VICTOR
TALKING MACHINE CO.; BOSTON STORE V. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO., SUPRA. 

FN4  LICENSE AGREEMENT.  "  ...  THAT WHEREAS THE LICENSORS REPRESENT
THAT THEY SEVERALLY OWN AND/OR HAVE THE RIGHT TO GRANT LICENSES UNDER
VARIOUS UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENT RELATING TO POWER SUPPLY AND TO
POWER AMPLIFIER UNITS, HEREINAFTER TERMED LICENSED APPARATUS,  ... 

"1.  EACH OF THE LICENSORS HEREBY GRANTS UNDER ALL OF THE UNITED
STATES PATENT USEFUL IN THE LICENSED APPARATUS, OWNED BY IT AND/OR WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH IT HAS THE RIGHT TO GRANT LICENSES, ...  SOLELY AND
ONLY TO THE EXTENT AND FOR THE USES HEREINAFTER SPECIFIED AND DEFINED,
A PERSONAL, INDIVISIBLE, NON-TRANSFERABLE AND NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO
THE LICENSEE TO MANUFACTURE AT ITS FACTORY  ...  ; AND NOT ELSEWHERE
WITHOUT PREVIOUS WRITTEN PERMISSION OBTAINED FROM THE RADIO
CORPORATION, AND TO SELL ONLY FOR RADIO AMATEUR RECEPTION, RADIO
EXPERIMENTAL RECEPTION, AND RADIO BROADCAST RECEPTION THROUGHOUT THE
UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES OR DEPENDENCIES, LICENSED APPARATUS
SO MANUFACTURED BY THE LICENSEE,  ...  "  REASONABLY INTERPRETED, THIS
CONTRACT GRANTS THE RIGHT TO MAKE EVERYTHING DESCRIBED IN THE PATENTS;
THE SOLE LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT TO MAKE RELATES TO THE PLACE OF
MANUFACTURE.  THE CONTRACT GRANTS THE RIGHT TO SELL THE MANUFACTURED
ARTICLES WITH AN ATTEMPT BY NOTICE TO RESTRICT THEIR USE IN THE HANDS
OF OWNERS TO WHOM THEY ARE SOLD. 

FN5  ONE OF RESPONDENTS' OFFICIALS TESTIFIED:  "THESE THINGS, THESE
VACUUM TUBES AND THE CIRCUITS ON WHICH WE HAVE PATENTS, ARE USEFUL IN
VARIOUS OF THESE FIELDS AND APPLICABLE TO MANY FIELDS.  AND IF WE
GRANTED LICENSES NOT RESTRICTED TO ANY PARTICULAR FIELD, THE SAME
THINGS COULD BE USED IN THESE OTHER FIELDS."  THE INJUNCTION SUSTAINED
HERE WAS DECREED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE ON THE BASIS OF HIS CONCLUSION
THAT THE AMPLIFIERS PUT TO COMMERCIAL USE BY PETITIONER COULD ALSO BE
USED "FOR EXPERIMENTAL OR RADIO AMATEUR USE" AS THE PATENTEE HAD
DESIRED.  16 F.SUPP.  293, 303.  THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE VERY
AMPLIFIERS MADE AND SOLD TO PETITIONER WERE SUITABLE FOR ALL "FIELDS." 

FN6  "THE STATUTES RELATING TO PATENTS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SUCH
NOTICE AND IT CAN DERIVE NO AID FROM THEM."  MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO.
CASE, SUPRA, 509; BAUER & CIE V. O'DONNELL, SUPRA; STRAUS CASE, SUPRA;
BOSTON STORE CASE, SUPRA; CARBICE CORPORATION V. AMERICAN PATENTS
CORP., 283 U.S. 27. 

FN7  HOBBIE V. JENNISON, SUPRA; KEELER CASE, SUPRA; STRAUS CASE,
SUPRA. 

FN8  CF., MORGAN ENVELOPE CO. V. ALBANY PAPER CO., SUPRA. 

FN9  THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR STIPULATION WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

"MR. NEAVE:  MR. DARBY, WILL YOU AGREE THAT IT IS COMMON PRACTICE
WHERE A PATENTED INVENTION IS APPLICABLE TO DIFFERENT USES, TO GRANT
WRITTEN LICENSES UNDER UNITED STATES PATENTS RESTRICTED TO ONE OR MORE
OF THE SEVERAL FIELDS OF USE, PERMITTING EXCLUSIVE OR NON-EXCLUSIVE USE
OF THE INVENTION BY THE LICENSEE IN ONE FIELD AND EXCLUDING ITS USE IN
ANOTHER FIELD? 

"MR. DARBY:  I DO NOT AGREE.  AS A MATTER OF FACT I BELIEVE THAT JUST
THE OPPOSITE OR THE CONTRARY IS TRUE." 

"MR. DARBY:  ...  MR. ASHTON CALLED ME UP AND TOLD ME THAT MR. W. H.
DAVIS HAD ENTERED INTO SUCH A STIPULATION IN THE INDEPENDENT WIRELESS
CASE, AND ASKED ME IF I WOULD DO THE SAME THING.  I TOLD HIM I COULD
NOT CONSCIENTIOUSLY, BECAUSE NOT ONLY COULD I NOT AGREE THAT THAT WAS
THE COMMON PRACTICE, BUT I KNOW I THOROUGHLY DISAGREE WITH (IT) WHETHER
IT WAS OR NOT.  IN OTHER WORDS I WAS CONFIDENT THAT WAS NOT THE COMMON
PRACTICE.  IN MY OWN CASE, I KNOW I WOULD NOT ALLOW MY OWN CLIENTS TO
DO IT, BECAUSE I DID NOT THINK IT WAS LEGAL." 

"MR. DARBY:  I AM WILLING TO STIPULATE IT, IF IT WILL BE OF ANY
ASSISTANCE TO MR. ASHTON, THAT IT IS, IF HE TELLS ME IT IS, THE COMMON
PRACTICE OF THE WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY AND THE RADIO CORPORATION TO
DO THAT." 

"MR. DARBY:  IT IS STIPULATED THAT IT IS COMMON PRACTICE WHERE A
PATENTED INVENTION IS APPLICABLE TO DIFFERENT USES, TO GRANT WRITTEN
LICENSES TO MANUFACTURERS UNDER UNITED STATES LETTERS PATENTS
RESTRICTED TO ONE OR MORE OF THE SEVERAL FIELDS OF USE PERMITTING THE
EXCLUSIVE OR NON-EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE INVENTION BY THE LICENSEE IN ONE
FIELD AND EXCLUDING ITS USE IN ANOTHER FIELD.  I STIPULATE THAT AND I
URGE, HOWEVER, OBJECTION TO ITS RECEIPT FOR ANY EVIDENTIAL PURPOSE, AS
IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL WHAT THE COMMON PRACTICE IS, ON THE ISSUE OF
LAW AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT IS LEGAL." 

FN10  MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. CASE, SUPRA, 516. 

FN11  SEE, "EMANCIPATION OF PATENTED ARTICLES," WALTER H. CHAMBERLIN,
6 ILL. LAW REVIEW, 357. 

FN12  BAUER & CIE CASE, SUPRA, 17. 

FN13  ID. 

MR. JUSTICE REED JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :




















WELCH V. HENRY, 305 U.S. 134 


NO. 13.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 21, 1938.  - 226
WIS. 595 - 277 N.W. 183, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE INCOME TAX LAW OF WISCONSIN IN FORCE IN 1933 AND SINCE,
THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY A TAXPAYER FROM CORPORATIONS WHOSE
"PRINCIPAL BUSINESS" IS "ATTRIBUTABLE TO WISCONSIN," I.E., CORPORATIONS
WHICH THEMSELVES HAVE PAID A WISCONSIN INCOME TAX UPON 50% OR MORE OF
THEIR TOTAL NET INCOME, MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME ALONG WITH
OTHER DEDUCTIONS, IN COMPUTING HIS TAXABLE NET INCOME.  A TAXPAYER, IN
HIS RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1933, FILED IN MARCH, 1935, MADE THESE
DEDUCTIONS, THE AGGREGATE OF WHICH WAS SUCH THAT HE HAD NO TAXABLE
INCOME FOR THAT YEAR.  A YEAR LATER, A STATUTE WAS PASSED LAYING A TAX
ON ALL DIVIDENDS RECEIVED IN 1933 WHICH, WHEN RECEIVED, WERE DEDUCTIBLE
FROM GROSS INCOME.  THE TAXPAYER WAS THUS REQUIRED TO PAY A TAX OF $545
ON HIS DIVIDEND INCOME IN 1933.  HELD CONSISTENT WITH EQUAL PROTECTION
AND DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 142, 146. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE DIVIDENDS WERE TAXED AT A DIFFERENT RATE FROM
THAT APPLIED TO OTHER INCOME IN 1933 AND WERE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF BUT
A SINGLE DEDUCTION OF $750, WHILE RECIPIENTS OF OTHER TYPES OF INCOME
IN THAT YEAR WERE PERMITTED TO DEDUCT SPECIFIED ITEMS OF INTEREST,
TAXES, BUSINESS LOSSES AND DONATIONS, DID NOT RENDER THE DIVIDEND TAX
REPUGNANT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.  P. 142. 

THE DIVIDENDS CONSTITUTED A CLASS OF UNTAXED INCOME, RECEIVED FROM A
SPECIFIED CATEGORY OF CORPORATIONS; AND THE LEGISLATURE COULD HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THIS INCOME HAD BORNE NO TAX
BURDEN AT ITS SOURCE IN THE EARNINGS OF THE CORPORATIONS, SINCE
CORPORATIONS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY A TAX ON THAT PART OF THEIR
INCOME ALLOCABLE TO BUSINESS CARRIED ON OR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHOUT THE
STATE.  THE SELECTION OF SUCH INCOME FOR TAXATION AT RATES AND WITH
DEDUCTIONS NOT SHOWN TO BE UNRELATED TO AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF
THE TAX BURDEN IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION COMMANDED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 143. 

3.  THE DISTRIBUTION OF A TAX BURDEN BY PLACING IT IN PART ON A
SPECIAL CLASS WHICH, BY REASON OF THE TAXING POLICY OF THE STATE, HAS
ESCAPED ALL TAXATION DURING THE TAXABLE PERIOD IS NOT A DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION; NOR IS THE TAX ANY MORE A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION
BECAUSE RETROACTIVE.  P. 144. 

4.  SO FAR AS EQUAL PROTECTION IS CONCERNED, THE VALIDITY OF
RETROACTIVE ALTERATION OF A TAX SCHEME MUST BE DETERMINED, AS IN THE
CASE OF ANY OTHER TAX, BY ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE THING TAXED FALLS
WITHIN A DISTINCT CLASS WHICH MAY RATIONALLY BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY
FROM OTHER CLASSES.  P. 145. 

5.  IN THE ABSENCE OF FACTS TENDING TO SHOW THAT THE TAXING ACT IS A
HOSTILE OR OPPRESSIVE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE RECIPIENTS OF
DIVIDENDS WHO HAVE HITHERTO ESCAPED ALL TAXATION OF THEM, IT DOES NOT
DENY EQUAL PROTECTION.  P. 146. 

6.  A TAX IS NOT NECESSARILY IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
BECAUSE RETROACTIVE.  IN EACH CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE
NATURE OF THE TAX AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT IS LAID BEFORE IT
CAN BE SAID THAT ITS RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IS SO HARSH AND OPPRESSIVE
AS TO TRANSGRESS THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION.  P. 146. 

CASES DISTINGUISHED IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS HELD INVALID THE TAXATION
OF GIFTS MADE AND COMPLETELY VESTED BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAXING
STATUTE, DECISION THERE HAVING BEEN RESTED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
NATURE OR AMOUNT OF THE TAX COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED
BY THE TAXPAYER AT THE TIME OF THE PARTICULAR VOLUNTARY ACT WHICH THE
STATUTE LATER MADE THE TAXABLE EVENT.  UNLIKE THE CASE OF GIFTS WHICH
THE DONOR MIGHT HAVE REFRAINED FROM MAKING HAD HE ANTICIPATED THE TAX,
IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT STOCKHOLDERS WOULD REFUSE TO RECEIVE
DIVIDENDS EVEN IF THEY KNEW THAT THE RECEIPT WOULD LATER BE SUBJECTED
TO A NEW TAX OR TO THE INCREASE OF AN OLD ONE, AND THE OBJECTION TO THE
PRESENT TAX IS ADDRESSED ONLY TO THE PARTICULAR INCONVENIENCE OF THE
TAXPAYER IN BEING CALLED UPON, AFTER THE CUSTOMARY TIME FOR LEVY AND
PAYMENT OF THE TAX HAS PASSED, TO BEAR A GOVERNMENTAL BURDEN OF WHICH
IT IS SAID HE HAD NO WARNING AND WHICH HE DID NOT ANTICIPATE. 

7.  TAXPAYERS CAN NOT JUSTLY ASSERT SURPRISE OR COMPLAIN OF ARBITRARY
ACTION IN THE RETROACTIVE APPORTIONMENT OF TAX BURDENS TO INCOME WHEN
THIS IS DONE BY THE LEGISLATURE AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY AFTER
KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF THE INCOME IS AVAILABLE.  P.
149. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RETURNS OF INCOME RECEIVED IN 1933 WERE FILED
AND BECAME AVAILABLE IN MARCH, 1934.  THE NEXT SUCCEEDING SESSION OF
THE LEGISLATURE AT WHICH TAX LEGISLATION COULD BE CONSIDERED WAS IN
1935, WHEN THE CHALLENGED STATUTE WAS PASSED.  P. 150. 

WELCH V. HENRY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING AN INCOME TAX, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH
THE PRESENT APPELLANT PAID UNDER PROTEST AND SUED TO RECOVER.  THE
TRIAL COURT HAD AT FIRST OVERRULED A DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT.  THE
RULING WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN ON A FIRST
APPEAL.  THE TRIAL COURT THEN SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT.  JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMING THIS ACTION IS THE
SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT APPEAL TO THIS COURT. 

THERE WAS NO REASONABLE GROUND FOR CLASSIFYING THE RECIPIENTS OF
DIVIDENDS SEPARATELY AND SUBJECTING THEM TO A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
TAX. 

IF THIS SO-CALLED "EXEMPTION" FROM NORMAL TAX CAN BE MADE THE BASIS
OF A CLASSIFICATION AT ALL, THERE SHOULD BE SOME RELATION BETWEEN THE
AMOUNT OF TAXES EXACTED FROM THIS CLASS AND THE BENEFITS WHICH HAVE
ACCRUED TO THEM BY REASON OF HAVING BEEN ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION FOR
PURPOSES OF NORMAL TAX, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE EXEMPTION IS THE ONLY
BASIS FOR THE CLASSIFICATION. 

THE TAX HERE INVOLVED IS MEASURED BY NOTHING EXCEPT THE AMOUNT OF
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED AND BEARS NOT THE SLIGHTEST RELATION TO THE NET
INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER FROM ALL SOURCES, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE
NORMAL TAX, OR TO THE AMOUNT OF TAX HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY
HAD DIVIDENDS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE DETERMINATION OF HIS INCOME SUBJECT
TO NORMAL TAX.  WHATEVER MAY BE SAID IN FAVOR OF THIS CLASSIFICATION
FOR PURPOSES OF A TAX MEASURED BY INCLUDING DIVIDENDS IN TAXABLE INCOME
DURING 1933, THERE IS GROSS DISCRIMINATION IN SUBJECTING THAT CLASS TO
A TAX MEASURED ONLY BY THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS REGARDLESS OF THE EFFECT
OF OTHER TRANSACTIONS OF THE TAXPAYER UPON HIS TAXABLE INCOME, OR UPON
THE AMOUNT OF NORMAL TAX WHICH HE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY HAD
THE DIVIDENDS BEEN INCLUDED IN HIS INCOME SUBJECT TO SUCH NORMAL TAX. 
THIS MANIFESTLY RESULTS IN GREAT DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF
DIVIDEND TAX AND THE NORMAL TAX UPON A LIKE AMOUNT OF NET INCOME.  THE
APPELLANT, WHO RECEIVED DIVIDENDS OF $12,156.10, WAS CALLED UPON FOR A
TAX OF $556.84.  NORMAL INCOME TAX AND SURTAX UPON THAT SAME AMOUNT OF
NET INCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN $468.42 LESS HIS EXEMPTION. 

IT IS TRUE, AS WAS POINTED OUT BY THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN,
THAT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A FAIR COMPARISON, BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER'S
DIVIDENDS MIGHT COME IN ON TOP OF OTHER INCOME AND, IF SUBJECTED TO
NORMAL TAX, RESULT IN A HIGHER TAX THAN THE TAX ACTUALLY IMPOSED. 
HERE, HOWEVER, AND IN THE CASE OF MANY OTHER TAXPAYERS, THE EXISTENCE
OF BUSINESS LOSSES, THE PAYMENT OF TAXES AND INTEREST, AND OTHER
DEDUCTIONS, GIVE THE TAXPAYER A NET LOSS FOR PURPOSES OF NORMAL TAX, NO
PART OF WHICH IS ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE TAX NOW IMPOSED. 

THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TAX, AS A PROPERTY TAX, OR AN EXCISE, MAKES IT
ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY BECAUSE OF THE GRADUATED RATES. 

THE TAX IS NOT ONE MEASURED BY A BALANCING OF THE NET RESULTS OF ALL
THE TAXPAYER'S BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS FOR THE YEAR.  IT IS NOT A TAX
UPON INCOME, MEANING THEREBY THE GAIN OR PROFIT TO THE TAXPAYER FROM
ALL OF HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AS THAT TERM IS USED, FOR INSTANCE, IN
CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL INCOME TAX OR THE WISCONSIN NORMAL INCOME TAX. 
IT IS NOT LAID UPON WHAT REMAINS WHEN "ALL EXPENSES ARE PAID AND LOSSES
ADJUSTED, AND AFTER THE RECIPIENT OF THE INCOME IS FREE TO USE IT AS HE
CHOOSES."  PECK & CO. V. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165, 175; REDFIELD V. FISHER,
135 ORE.  180; SHAFFER V. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, 51; NEW YORK EX REL.
COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 313. 

EVEN IF IT IS TRUE THAT THE GROSS INCOME FROM DIVIDENDS MAY BE
CONSIDERED AS NET INCOME, THE FACT REMAINS THAT WHEN YOU MEASURE THE
TAX BY RECEIPTS, WHETHER GROSS OR NET, FROM SOME PARTICULAR SOURCE, YOU
ARE TAXING SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE NET INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER FROM ALL
HIS ACTIVITIES DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR.  UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 299
U.S. 498, DISTINGUISHED. 

WHEN THE REAL NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE TAX ARE CONSIDERED, IT IS TO
ALL PRACTICAL INTENTS AND PURPOSES A PROPERTY TAX.  THERE IS ONLY ONE
MEASURE OF IT, THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYER FROM
STOCK.  TO PICK OUT THIS ONE SOURCE OF RECEIPTS AND LEVY A TAX UPON
THEM IS TO DIRECTLY TAX THE PROPERTY FROM WHICH THE RECEIPTS ARE
SECURED. 

IT IS ASSUMED THAT THERE MAY BE A VALID CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY
FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION, BUT THE APPLICATION TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT
CLASS OF VARYING RATES RESULTS IN AN INDEFENSIBLE DISCRIMINATION.  THE
TAXPAYER WHO OWNS A THOUSAND SHARES OF STOCK AND RECEIVES THE DIVIDENDS
THEREON, BY THAT FACT ALONE IS REQUIRED TO PAY A GREATER NUMBER OF
DOLLARS PER SHARE OWNED THAN ANOTHER TAXPAYER WHO OWNS BUT A HUNDRED
SHARES OF THAT SAME STOCK.  STEWART DRY-GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294 U.S.
550. 

THE CASE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS TAX IS NOT IMPROVED BY
CONSIDERING IT AS AN EXCISE TAX.  IT IS A TAX WHICH BEARS NO RELATION
TO THE ABILITY OF THE TAXPAYER TO PAY OR TO HIS NET INCOME FROM ALL
SOURCES.  IT IS A TAX UPON THE RECEIPTS, WHETHER GROSS OR NET, FROM A
PARTICULAR SOURCE.  SCHUSTER V. HENRY, 218 WISC.  506. 

THE RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF THE TAX RENDERS IT ARBITRARY AND
DISCRIMINATORY. 

IT PURPORTS TO ASSESS A TAX BASED UPON SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE
SECOND PRECEDING YEAR AND GOES MUCH FARTHER IN THAT REGARD THAN ANY
SUCH TAXING MEASURES THAT HAVE COME TO OUR ATTENTION.  DISTINGUISHING:
FLORIDA CENTRAL R. CO. V. REYNOLDS, 183 U.S. 471; HECHT V. MALLEY, 265
U.S. 144; FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107.  IT IS SIMPLY A TAX
AUTHORIZED AND LEVIED DURING 1935 UPON DIVIDENDS WHICH UNDER THE LONG
EXISTING POLICY OF THE STATE HAD NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX AT ALL AT
THE TIME THEY WERE RECEIVED. 

ITS RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION ACCENTUATES THE DISCRIMINATORY NATURE OF
THE TAX.  EVEN IF IT WERE ENTIRELY PROPER TO CLASSIFY RECIPIENTS OF
DIVIDENDS IN A SEPARATE CLASS AND SUBJECT THEM TO A SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT TAX, IT WOULD NOT FOLLOW THAT IT WOULD LIKEWISE BE PROPER TO
CONSTITUTE A SEPARATE CLASS COMPOSED OF THOSE WHO HAD RECEIVED
DIVIDENDS IN THE PAST. 

THE PRESENT TAX WAS IMPOSED IN 1935 UPON DIVIDENDS RECEIVED IN 1933. 
DURING 1933, THE TAXPAYER HAD NO INTIMATION THAT HE WOULD BE CALLED
UPON FOR A TAX OUT OF THEM.  HE FILED HIS RETURN IN MARCH OF 1934
REPORTING THE RECEIPT OF THESE DIVIDENDS AND STILL NO TAX WAS DEMANDED
FROM HIM ON ACCOUNT THEREOF.  THE ENTIRE YEAR 1934 WENT BY AND STILL NO
TAX WAS DEMANDED.  IN THE MEANTIME HIS ABILITY TO PAY HAD BEEN
SUBJECTED TO THE RESULTS OF WHATEVER BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS HE HAD
DURING 1934.  IN MARCH OF 1935 THE STATE CHANGED ITS MIND AND TAXED
THESE 1933 DIVIDENDS:  "IF INCOME FROM DIVIDENDS RECEIVED IN 1933 WERE
PROPERLY SUBJECT TO TAXATION WHY NOT THOSE OF 1932 OR 1931?  WHY NOT GO
BACK TO 1929 WHEN DIVIDENDS WERE MANY AND LARGE, INSTEAD OF 1933, WHEN
THEY WERE FEW AND SMALL?"  (FOWLER, J., DISSENTING, 223 WISC.  319,
332.) 

DISTINGUISHING:  MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15; UNITED
STATES V. HUDSON, 299 U.S. 498.  RETROACTIVITY OF THE TAXING STATUTE TO
THAT EXTENT AND OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME IS IN ITSELF ENOUGH TO VIOLATE
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  NICHOLS V. COOLIDGE, 274 U.S. 531, 542;
BLODGETT V. HOLDEN, 275 U.S. 142; UNTERMYER V. ANDERSON, 276 U.S. 440;
HELVERING V. HELMHOLZ, 296 U.S. 93; WHITE V. POOR, 296 U.S. 98;
COOLIDGE V. LONG, 282 U.S. 582. 

IN SETTING UP AS A TEST, THAT THE LEGISLATURE CAN GO BACK "TO THE
MOST RECENT YEAR FOR WHICH THEY HAVE RETURNS FURNISHING A BASIS UPON
WHICH TO ESTIMATE THE TOTAL RETURN OF THE TAX TO THE STATE," THE COURT
BELOW HAS SUBSTITUTED THE CONVENIENCE OF THE STATE FOR THE RIGHTS OF
THE TAXPAYER AS THE STANDARD TO BE COMPLIED WITH.  THE RETURNS REFERRED
TO WERE APPARENTLY THE RETURNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING NORMAL
INCOME TAX WHICH ALL WISCONSIN TAXPAYERS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE ON THE
15TH DAY OF MARCH IN EACH YEAR.  THE RETURNS COVERING INCOME FOR 1934
WERE DUE ON MARCH 15, 1935.  WISCONSIN STATUTES, SEC. 71.09(4). 
MARCH, 1935, THE DAY BEFORE THE RETURNS COVERING INCOME FOR 1934 WERE
DUE.  IT WAS PUBLISHED AND BECAME EFFECTIVE MARCH 27TH, TWELVE DAYS
AFTER THE RETURNS WERE DUE.  UNDER THE RULE FIXED BY THE COURT THIS
TAX, MERELY BECAUSE OF ITS RETROACTIVE FEATURES, WOULD HAVE BEEN
INVALID HAD IT BEEN PASSED THE DAY AFTER IT WAS APPROVED. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT IF YOU GO BACK FAR ENOUGH WITH A RETROACTIVE TAX,
YOU MUST COME TO A POINT WHERE THERE IS SO LITTLE RELATION BETWEEN THE
INCOME DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED AND THE TAXPAYER'S ABILITY TO PAY, OR
ANY OTHER REASONABLE GROUND FOR DEMANDING A TAX, THAT THE EFFECT IS AN
ARBITRARY IMPOSITION WHICH IS BEYOND THE LEGISLATURE'S POWER.  THAT
POINT HAS BEEN REACHED WHEN THE LEGISLATURE PURPORTS TO IMPOSE A TAX
UPON RECEIPTS FOR THE SECOND PRECEDING YEAR, A PERIOD FOR WHICH TAXES
HAVE ALREADY BEEN LEVIED AND PAID. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE TAX IS ANYTHING BUT A PROPERTY TAX
UPON THE RECEIPTS THEMSELVES.  WHEN THE DIVIDENDS REACHED THE
TAXPAYER'S HANDS BY TRANSACTIONS UPON WHICH THE STATE WAS NOT THEN
CLAIMING ANY TAX, THEY BECAME SO MUCH PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION AND NO
DIFFERENT FROM OTHER DOLLARS IN THE HANDS OF OTHER TAXPAYERS THAT HAD
COME IN SOME OTHER MANNER.  THE SINGLING OUT OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE
HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FOR TAXATION WHEN OTHER DOLLARS WERE NOT TAXED
IS AN ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACT OF THE WISCONSIN
LEGISLATURE OF MARCH 27, 1935, WHICH IMPOSED A TAX ON CORPORATE
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED BY APPELLANT IN 1933 AT RATES DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
APPLICABLE IN THAT YEAR TO OTHER TYPES OF INCOME AND WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS
WHICH WERE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TAX ON OTHER INCOME, INFRINGES THE
EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE STATUTE OF WISCONSIN IN FORCE IN 1933 AND SINCE IMPOSES A TAX ON
NET INCOME AT GRADUATED RATES.  WISCONSIN STAT. 1933, C. 71. 
APPELLANT, A RESIDENT OF WISCONSIN, RECEIVED IN 1933 GROSS INCOME OF
$13,383.26, OF WHICH $12,156.10 WAS DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM
CORPORATIONS WHOSE "PRINCIPAL BUSINESS" WAS "ATTRIBUTABLE TO WISCONSIN"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TAXING STATUTE.  BY SEC. 71.04(4), (4),
WISCONSIN STAT. 1933,  FN1  SUCH DIVIDENDS WERE DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS
INCOME IN COMPUTING NET TAXABLE INCOME, TOGETHER WITH OTHER ITEMS,
INCLUDING TAXES, INTEREST PAID, BUSINESS EXPENSES, LOSSES FROM THE SALE
OF SECURITIES, AND DONATIONS, AGGREGATING, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT,
$11,161.97, SO THAT HE HAD NO TAXABLE NET INCOME FOR THE YEAR 1933. 

PETITIONER'S INCOME TAX RETURN WAS DUE AND FILED MARCH 15, 1934.  A
YEAR LATER C. 15 OF THE LAWS OF WISCONSIN FOR 1935, EFFECTIVE MARCH 27,
1935, LAID NEW TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1933 AND 1934 UPON VARIOUS TAXABLE
SUBJECTS.  SECTION 6, WITH WHICH WE ARE ALONE CONCERNED, IMPOSED A
GRADUATED TAX, WITH NO DEDUCTION EXCEPT THE SUM OF $750, ON ALL
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED IN 1933 WHICH, WHEN RECEIVED, WERE DEDUCTIBLE FROM
GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 71.04(4).  THE STATUTE DECLARED THAT THE LEVY
WAS AN EMERGENCY TAX TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR RELIEF PURPOSES AND
DIRECTED THAT THE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE PAID INTO THE STATE TREASURY TO BE
USED FOR "UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF PURPOSES."  APPELLANT PAID THE TAX,
AMOUNTING TO $545.71, UNDER PROTEST, ON MAY 13, 1935, AND BROUGHT THE
PRESENT SUIT TO COMPEL ITS RESTITUTION AS EXACTED IN VIOLATION OF THE
STATE CONSTITUTION AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
WISCONSIN SUSTAINING THE TAX, 226 WIS. 595; 277 N.W. 183, THE CASE
COMES HERE ON APPEAL.  SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344. 

FIRST.  APPELLANT ASSAILS THE STATUTE AS A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION
BECAUSE THE DIVIDENDS WHICH IT SELECTED FOR TAXATION AS A SPECIAL CLASS
WERE SUBJECTED RATABLY TO A TAX BURDEN DIFFERENT FROM THAT BORNE BY
OTHER TYPES OF INCOME FOR THE SAME YEAR BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE
DIVIDENDS WERE TAXED AT A DIFFERENT RATE FROM THAT APPLIED TO OTHER
INCOME AND WERE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF BUT A SINGLE DEDUCTION OF $750,
WHILE RECIPIENTS OF OTHER TYPES OF INCOME IN THAT YEAR WERE PERMITTED
TO DEDUCT SPECIFIED ITEMS OF INTEREST, TAXES, BUSINESS LOSSES AND
DONATIONS.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE RECEIPT OF DIVIDENDS FROM
CORPORATIONS IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX, OR THAT APART FROM THE RETROACTIVE
APPLICATION OF THE TAX THEY COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT NET TAXABLE INCOME, BUT IT IS INSISTED THAT
DISPARITIES IN THE TAX BURDENS WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THE DIFFERENT
RATES AND DEDUCTIONS INFRINGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY. 

WISCONSIN INCOME TAX LEGISLATION HAS FROM THE BEGINNING TREATED
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM CORPORATIONS DERIVING A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF
THEIR INCOME FROM BUSINESS CARRIED ON WITHIN THE STATE, ON WHICH THE
CORPORATIONS HAVE PAID A TAX TO THE STATE, AS A DISTINCT CLASS OF
INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES.  AT FIRST COMPLETE TAX IMMUNITY WAS GRANTED TO
THEM.  SEC. 1, C. 658, LAWS OF WISCONSIN, 1911.  LATER THE IMMUNITY WAS
ALLOWED RATABLY IN THE SAME PROPORTION THAT THE INCOME OF THE
CORPORATION HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO STATE INCOME TAX.  SEC. 1, C. 318,
LAWS OF WISCONSIN, 1923.  AND, FINALLY, BY AMENDMENT ADOPTED IN 1927
FN2  AND IN FORCE IN 1933 COMPLETE IMMUNITY OF DIVIDENDS FROM INCOME
TAX WAS ALLOWED IF 50% OR MORE OF THE TOTAL NET INCOME OF THE
CORPORATION PAYING THEM WAS INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE
WISCONSIN TAX ON CORPORATE INCOME.  FN3    WHEN IN 1935 THE STATE WAS
CONFRONTED WITH THE NECESSITY OF RAISING REVENUE TO MEET THE DEMAND FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, AND OF DISTRIBUTING THE COST AMONG ITS TAXPAYERS,
THE LEGISLATURE FOUND ONE CLASS OF UNTAXED INCOME, DIVIDENDS RECEIVED
FROM A SPECIFIED CATEGORY OF CORPORATIONS.  IT ALSO COULD HAVE
CONCLUDED THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THIS INCOME HAD BORNE NO TAX
BURDEN AT ITS SOURCE IN THE EARNINGS OF THE CORPORATIONS, SINCE, BY
SEC. 71.02(3)(D), (D), CORPORATIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY A TAX ON
THAT PART OF THEIR INCOME ALLOCABLE TO BUSINESS CARRIED ON OR PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHOUT THE STATE. 

WE THINK THAT THE SELECTION OF SUCH INCOME FOR TAXATION AT RATES AND
WITH DEDUCTIONS NOT SHOWN TO BE UNRELATED TO AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION
OF THE TAX BURDEN IS NOT A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION COMMANDED BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE RECEIPT OF
DIVIDENDS FROM A CORPORATION IS AN EVENT WHICH MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE
TAXED EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS, LYNCH V. HORNBY, 247 U.S. 339;
SEE HELVERING V. INDEPENDENT LIFE INS. CO., 292 U.S. 371, 381, EVEN
THOUGH THE CORPORATE INCOME WHICH IS THEIR SOURCE HAS ALSO BEEN TAXED. 
SEE TENNESSEE V. WHITWORTH, 117 U.S. 129, 136; KLEIN V. BOARD OF TAX
SUPERVISORS, 282 U.S. 19, 23; COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, 420. 
THE FACT THAT THE DIVIDENDS OF CORPORATIONS WHICH HAVE TO SOME EXTENT
BORNE THE BURDEN OF STATE TAXATION CONSTITUTE A DISTINCT CLASS FOR
PURPOSES OF TAX EXEMPTION, COLGATE V. HARVEY, SUPRA; COMPARE
TRAVELLERS' INSURANCE CO. V. CONNECTICUT, 185 U.S. 364, 367; KIDD V.
ALABAMA, 188 U.S. 730; DARNELL V. INDIANA, 226 U.S. 390, 398, AND THAT
IN CONSEQUENCE SUCH DIVIDENDS HAVE BORNE NO TAX BURDEN, IS EQUALLY A
BASIS FOR THEIR SELECTION FOR TAXATION.  WATSON V. STATE COMPTROLLER,
254 U.S. 122, 124, 125; KLEIN V. BOARD OF TAX SUPERVISORS, SUPRA.  ANY
CLASSIFICATION OF TAXATION IS PERMISSIBLE WHICH HAS REASONABLE RELATION
TO A LEGITIMATE END OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTION.  TAXATION IS BUT THE MEANS
BY WHICH GOVERNMENT DISTRIBUTES THE BURDENS OF ITS COST AMONG THOSE WHO
ENJOY ITS BENEFITS.  AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF A TAX BURDEN BY PLACING IT
IN PART ON A SPECIAL CLASS WHICH BY REASON OF THE TAXING POLICY OF THE
STATE HAS ESCAPED ALL TAX DURING THE TAXABLE PERIOD IS NOT A DENIAL OF
EQUAL PROTECTION.  SEE WATSON V. COMPTROLLER, SUPRA, 125.  NOR IS THE
TAX ANY MORE A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION BECAUSE RETROACTIVE.  IF THE
1933 DIVIDENDS DIFFERED SUFFICIENTLY FROM OTHER CLASSES OF INCOME TO
ADMIT OF THE TAXATION, IN THAT YEAR, OF ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER, LAPSE OF
TIME DID NOT REMOVE THAT DIFFERENCE SO AS TO COMPEL EQUALITY OF
TREATMENT WHEN THE INCOME WAS TAXED AT A LATER DATE.  SELECTION THEN OF
THE DIVIDENDS FOR THE NEW TAXATION CAN HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO BE HOSTILE
OR INVIDIOUS WHEN THE BASIS OF SELECTION IS THE FACT THAT THE TAXED
INCOME IS OF THE CLASS WHICH HAS BORNE NO TAX BURDEN.  THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE LEGISLATURE FROM CHANGING ITS
MIND IN MAKING AN OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE CHOICE OF SUBJECTS OF
TAXATION.  THE VERY FACT THAT THE DIVIDENDS WERE RELIEVED OF TAX, WHEN
THE NEED FOR REVENUE WAS LESS, IS BASIS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT
THAT THEY SHOULD BEAR SOME OF THE ADDED BURDEN WHEN THE NEED IS
GREATER. 

NUMEROUS RETROACTIVE REVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL AND WISCONSIN REVENUE
LAWS, PRESENTLY TO BE DISCUSSED, HAVE IMPOSED TAXES ON SUBJECTS
PREVIOUSLY UNTAXED AND SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF OLD TAXES BY CHANGES IN
RATES, EXEMPTIONS AND DEDUCTIONS.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN THOUGHT THAT SUCH
CHANGES INVOLVE A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION IF THE NEW TAXES COULD
HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE EARLIER ACT WHEN ADOPTED.  IF SOME
RETROACTIVE ALTERATION IN THE SCHEME OF A TAX ACT IS PERMISSIBLE, AS IS
CONCEDED, IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT VALIDITY, SO FAR AS EQUAL PROTECTION IS
CONCERNED, MUST BE DETERMINED, AS IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER TAX, BY
ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE THING TAXED FALLS WITHIN A DISTINCT CLASS
WHICH MAY RATIONALLY BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER CLASSES.  IF
SUCH CHANGES ARE FORBIDDEN IN THE NAME OF EQUAL PROTECTION,
LEGISLATURES IN LAYING NEW TAXES WOULD BE LEFT POWERLESS TO RECTIFY TO
ANY EXTENT A PREVIOUS DISTRIBUTION OF TAX BURDENS WHICH EXPERIENCE HAD
SHOWN TO BE INEQUITABLE, EVEN THOUGH CONSTITUTIONAL. 

THE BARE FACT THAT THE PRESENT TAX IS IMPOSED AT DIFFERENT RATES AND
WITH DIFFERENT DEDUCTIONS FROM THOSE APPLIED TO OTHER TYPES OF INCOME
DOES NOT ESTABLISH UNCONSTITUTIONALITY.  IT IS A COMMONPLACE THAT THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE A STATE TO MAINTAIN RIGID
RULES OF EQUAL TAXATION, TO RESORT TO CLOSE DISTINCTIONS, OR TO
MAINTAIN A PRECISE SCIENTIFIC UNIFORMITY.  POSSIBLE DIFFERENCES IN TAX
BURDENS, NOT SHOWN TO BE SUBSTANTIAL, OR WHICH ARE BASED ON
DISCRIMINATION NOT SHOWN TO BE ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, DO NOT FALL
WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION.  LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N,
286 U.S. 276, 284, 285, AND CASES CITED. 

JUST WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE IN THE TAX BURDENS CAST UPON THE TWO
TYPES OF INCOME BY THE DIVERGENCE IN RATES AND DEDUCTIONS APPLIED TO
THEM DOES NOT APPEAR.  THE BURDEN PLACED ON DIVIDENDS BY THE TAXING ACT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN GREATER IF THEY HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME AND
TAXED ON THE SAME BASIS AS OTHER INCOME SINCE, IN THAT CASE, THE
RESULTING INCREASE IN NET INCOME WOULD BE TAXED AT THE RATES APPLICABLE
TO THE HIGHER BRACKETS.  WHEN THE CHALLENGED STATUTE WAS ENACTED THERE
WERE AVAILABLE TO THE LEGISLATURE THE RETURNS FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR
SHOWING THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF INCOME, THE APPLICATION TO THEM OF THE
EXISTING LAW, AND THE EFFECT OF EXISTING RATES AND DEDUCTIONS.  THERE
WERE ALSO DATA TO BE DERIVED FROM THE CORPORATION TAX RETURNS SHOWING
WHAT PART OF THE EXEMPTED DIVIDENDS HAD THEIR SOURCE IN CORPORATE
INCOME WHICH HAD BEEN TAXED TO THE CORPORATION AND WHAT PART WAS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO CORPORATE INCOME NOT SIMILARLY TAXED.  THE LEGISLATURE
WAS FREE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE FACTORS IN PRESCRIBING RATES
AND DEDUCTIONS TO BE APPLIED TO THE NEWLY TAXED DIVIDENDS SO AS TO
ARRIVE AT AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ADDED TAX BURDEN.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY FACTS TENDING TO SHOW THAT THE TAXING ACT, IN ITS
PURPOSE OR EFFECT, IS A HOSTILE OR OPPRESSIVE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
THE RECIPIENTS OF DIVIDENDS WHO HAVE BEEN HITHERTO FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO
ESCAPE ALL TAXATION WE CANNOT SAY THE TAXING STATUTE DENIES EQUAL
PROTECTION. 

SECOND.  THE OBJECTION CHIEFLY URGED TO THE TAXING STATUTE IS THAT IT
IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE IN 1935 IT IMPOSED A TAX ON
INCOME RECEIVED IN 1933.  BUT A TAX IS NOT NECESSARILY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BECAUSE RETROACTIVE.  MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15, 21; AND
CASES CITED.  TAXATION IS NEITHER A PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE TAXPAYER NOR
A LIABILITY WHICH HE ASSUMES BY CONTRACT.  IT IS BUT A WAY OF
APPORTIONING THE COST OF GOVERNMENT AMONG THOSE WHO IN SOME MEASURE ARE
PRIVILEGED TO ENJOY ITS BENEFITS AND MUST BEAR ITS BURDENS.  SINCE NO
CITIZEN ENJOYS IMMUNITY FROM THAT BURDEN, ITS RETROACTIVE IMPOSITION
DOES NOT NECESSARILY INFRINGE DUE PROCESS, AND TO CHALLENGE THE PRESENT
TAX IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO POINT OUT THAT THE TAXABLE EVENT, THE RECEIPT
OF INCOME, ANTEDATED THE STATUTE. 

IN THE CASES IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS HELD INVALID THE TAXATION OF
GIFTS MADE AND COMPLETELY VESTED BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE TAXING
STATUTE, DECISION WAS RESTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE NATURE OR AMOUNT OF
THE TAX COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED BY THE TAXPAYER AT
THE TIME OF THE PARTICULAR VOLUNTARY ACT WHICH THE STATUTE LATER MADE
THE TAXABLE EVENT.  NICHOLS V. COOLIDGE, 274 U.S. 531, 542; UNTERMEYER
V. ANDERSON, 276 U.S. 440, 445(CITING BLODGETT V. HOLDEN, 275 U.S. 142,
147); COOLIDGE V. LONG, 282 U.S. 582.  SINCE, IN EACH OF THESE CASES,
THE DONOR MIGHT FREELY HAVE CHOSEN TO GIVE OR NOT TO GIVE, THE
TAXATION, AFTER THE CHOICE WAS MADE, OF A GIFT WHICH HE MIGHT WELL HAVE
REFRAINED FROM MAKING HAD HE ANTICIPATED THE TAX, WAS THOUGHT TO BE SO
ARBITRARY AND OPPRESSIVE AS TO BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  BUT THERE
ARE OTHER FORMS OF TAXATION WHOSE RETROACTIVE IMPOSITION CANNOT BE SAID
TO BE SIMILARLY OFFENSIVE, BECAUSE THEIR INCIDENCE IS NOT ON THE
VOLUNTARY ACT OF THE TAXPAYER.  AND EVEN A RETROACTIVE GIFT TAX HAS
BEEN HELD VALID WHERE THE DONOR WAS FOREWARNED BY THE STATUTE BOOKS OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH A LEVY, MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IN
EACH CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THE TAX AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT IS LAID BEFORE IT CAN BE SAID THAT ITS
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IS SO HARSH AND OPPRESSIVE AS TO TRANSGRESS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION. 

PROPERTY TAXES AND BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS OF REAL ESTATE, RETROACTIVELY
APPLIED, ARE NOT OPEN TO THE OBJECTION SUCCESSFULLY URGED IN THE GIFT
CASES.  SEE WAGNER V. BALTIMORE, 239 U.S. 207; SEATTLE V. KELLEHER, 195
U.S. 351; COMPARE CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. KENTUCKY, 217 U.S. 443,
454; BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261, 282.  SIMILARLY, A TAX ON
THE RECEIPT OF INCOME IS NOT COMPARABLE TO A GIFT TAX.  WE CAN NOT
ASSUME THAT STOCKHOLDERS WOULD REFUSE TO RECEIVE CORPORATE DIVIDENDS
EVEN IF THEY KNEW THAT THEIR RECEIPT WOULD LATER BE SUBJECTED TO A NEW
TAX OR TO THE INCREASE OF AN OLD ONE.  THE OBJECTION TO THE PRESENT TAX
IS OF A DIFFERENT CHARACTER AND IS ADDRESSED ONLY TO THE PARTICULAR
INCONVENIENCE OF THE TAXPAYER IN BEING CALLED UPON, AFTER THE CUSTOMARY
TIME FOR LEVY AND PAYMENT OF THE TAX HAS PASSED, TO BEAR A GOVERNMENTAL
BURDEN OF WHICH IT IS SAID HE HAD NO WARNING AND WHICH HE DID NOT
ANTICIPATE. 

ASSUMING THAT A TAX MAY ATTEMPT TO REACH EVENTS SO FAR IN THE PAST AS
TO RENDER THAT OBJECTION VALID, WE THINK THAT NO SUCH CASE IS PRESENTED
HERE.  FOR MORE THAN SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS IT HAS BEEN THE FAMILIAR
LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE OF CONGRESS IN THE ENACTMENT OF REVENUE LAWS TO
TAX RETROACTIVELY INCOME OR PROFITS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR OF THE
SESSION IN WHICH THE TAXING STATUTE IS ENACTED, AND IN SOME INSTANCES
DURING THE YEAR OF THE PRECEDING SESSION.  SEE UNTERMEYER V. ANDERSON,
SUPRA, FOOTNOTE 1.  THESE STATUTES NOT ONLY INCREASED THE TAX BURDEN BY
LAYING NEW TAXES AND INCREASING THE RATES OF OLD ONES OR BOTH, BUT THEY
REDISTRIBUTED RETROACTIVELY THE TAX BURDENS IMPOSED BY PREEXISTING
LAWS.  THIS WAS NOTABLY THE CASE WITH THE "REVENUE ACT OF 1918,"
ENACTED FEBRUARY 24, 1919, 40 STAT. 1057, AND MADE APPLICABLE TO THE
CALENDAR YEAR 1918, WHICH CUT DOWN EXEMPTIONS AND DEDUCTIONS,
INCREASED, IN VARYING DEGREES, INCOME, EXCESS PROFITS AND CAPITAL STOCK
TAXES, ALTERED THE BASIS OF SURTAXES, AND INCREASED IN PROGRESSIVE
RATIO THE RATES APPLICABLE TO THE HIGHER BRACKETS.  SIMILARLY THE
SPECIAL MUNITION MANUFACTURER'S TAX, IMPOSED ON PROFITS DERIVED FROM
SALES OF MUNITIONS, ACT OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1916, C. 463, 39 STAT. 756,
780, WAS APPLIED TO THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1916.  CF.
CARBON STEEL CO. V. LEWELLYN, 251 U.S. 501; UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON,
269 U.S. 422, 435.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF
THE REVENUE ACTS IS A DENIAL OF THE DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY REJECTED.  STOCKDALE V. INSURANCE
COMPANIES, 20 WALL.  323, 331; RAILROAD CO. V. ROSE, 95 U.S. 78, 80;
FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107; BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 261, 282; BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1, 20; LYNCH
V. HORNBY, 247 U.S. 339, 343; LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 256
U.S. 377.  THE LIKE PRACTICE OF THE LEGISLATURE OF WISCONSIN HAS BEEN
APPROVED BY ITS COURTS.  FN4 

THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE
MEDIUM OF AN INCOME TAX IS A DELICATE AND DIFFICULT TASK.  IN ITS
PERFORMANCE EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THE IMPORTANCE OF REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, IN THE REVISION OF TAX LAWS, TO
DISTRIBUTE INCREASED COSTS OF GOVERNMENT AMONG ITS TAXPAYERS IN THE
LIGHT OF PRESENT NEED FOR REVENUE AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE SOURCES AND
AMOUNTS OF THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF TAXABLE INCOME DURING THE TAXABLE
PERIOD PRECEDING REVISION.  WITHOUT THAT OPPORTUNITY ACCOMMODATION OF
THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO THE NEED MAY BE SERIOUSLY OBSTRUCTED IF NOT
DEFEATED.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE DUE PROCESS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
EXACTS DENIES THAT OPPORTUNITY TO LEGISLATURES; THAT IT WITHHOLDS FROM
THEM, MORE THAN IN THE CASE OF A PROSPECTIVE TAX, AUTHORITY TO
DISTRIBUTE THE INCREASED TAX BURDEN IN THE LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE AND IN
CONFORMITY WITH ACCEPTED NOTIONS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF EQUAL
PROTECTION; OR THAT IN VIEW OF WELL ESTABLISHED LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE,
BOTH STATE AND NATIONAL, TAXPAYERS CAN JUSTLY ASSERT SURPRISE OR
COMPLAIN OF ARBITRARY ACTION IN THE RETROACTIVE APPORTIONMENT OF TAX
BURDENS TO INCOME AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY AFTER KNOWLEDGE OF THE
NATURE AND AMOUNT OF THE INCOME IS AVAILABLE.  AND WE THINK THAT THE
"RECENT TRANSACTIONS" TO WHICH THIS COURT HAS DECLARED A TAX LAW MAY BE
RETROACTIVELY APPLIED, COOPER V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 409, 411, MUST
BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE THE RECEIPT OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR OF THE
LEGISLATIVE SESSION PRECEDING THAT OF ITS ENACTMENT. 

THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS OF JULY 4, 1864, NO. 77, 13 STAT.
417, IMPOSED AN ADDITIONAL TAX ON INCOMES EARNED DURING THE CALENDAR
YEAR 1863, THIS TAX BEING IMPOSED AFTER THE TAXES FOR THE YEAR HAD BEEN
PAID.  IN STOCKDALE V. INSURANCE COMPANIES, SUPRA, 331, MR. JUSTICE
MILLER SAID OF IT:  "THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO HAVE IMPOSED THIS TAX BY
A NEW STATUTE, ALTHOUGH THE MEASURE OF IT WAS GOVERNED BY THE INCOME OF
THE PAST YEAR, CANNOT BE DOUBTED.  ...  NO ONE DOUBTED THE VALIDITY OF
THE TAX OR ATTEMPTED TO RESIST IT."  THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 24, 1919, C.
18, TIT. 2, 40 STAT. 1057, 1058-1088, WHICH TAXED INCOMES FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 1918, WAS APPLIED WITHOUT QUESTION AS TO ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY IN UNITED STATES V. ROBBINS, 269 U.S. 315, AND IN
OTHER CASES.    IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RETURNS OF INCOME RECEIVED IN
1933 WERE FILED AND BECAME AVAILABLE IN MARCH, 1934.  WISCONSIN STAT.
1933, SEC. 71.09(4).  THE NEXT SUCCEEDING SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE AT
WHICH TAX LEGISLATION COULD BE CONSIDERED WAS IN 1935, WHEN THE
CHALLENGED STATUTE WAS PASSED.  BY SEC. 11, ART. IV; SEC. 4, ART. V, OF
THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION, AND SEC. 13.02 WISCONSIN STATUTES, 1935,
REGULAR SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE ARE HELD IN EACH ODDNUMBERED YEAR. 
SPECIAL SESSIONS OF THE LEGISLATURE MAY BE HELD ON CALL OF THE
GOVERNOR, AT WHICH NO BUSINESS CAN BE TRANSACTED "EXCEPT AS SHALL BE
NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE SPECIAL PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS
CONVENED."  A SPECIAL SESSION WAS CALLED BY THE GOVERNOR IN 1934, BUT
FOR PURPOSES UNRELATED TO TAXATION.  PROCLAMATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR OF
WISCONSIN DECEMBER 2, 28, 1933, JANUARY 18, 22, 30, 1934.  THUS THE
LEGISLATURE IN 1935, AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY AFTER THE TAX YEAR IN
WHICH THE INCOME WAS RECEIVED, MADE ITS REVISION OF THE TAX LAWS
APPLICABLE TO 1933 INCOME, AS DID CONGRESS IN THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF
JULY 4, 1864, COMMENTED ON IN STOCKDALE V. INSURANCE COMPANIES, SUPRA. 

WHILE THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN THOUGHT THAT THE PRESENT TAX
MIGHT "APPROACH OR REACH THE LIMIT OF PERMISSIBLE RETROACTIVITY," WE
CANNOT SAY THAT IT EXCEEDS IT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 71.04(4) PERMITS THE DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME OF
DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM CORPORATIONS WHOSE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO WISCONSIN; "  ...  ANY CORPORATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED
AS HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABLE TO WISCONSIN IF FIFTY PER
CENT OR MORE OF THE ENTIRE NET INCOME OR LOSS OF SUCH CORPORATION  ...
(FOR THE YEAR PRECEDING THE PAYMENT OF SUCH DIVIDENDS) WAS USED IN
COMPUTING THE AVERAGE TAXABLE INCOME PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 71.  ...  " 

FN2  C. 539, SEC. 4, LAWS OF WISCONSIN OF 1927. 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN4  INCOME TAX CASES (1912), 148 WIS. 456, 514; 134 N.W. 673; 135
N.W. 164; STATE EX REL. GLOBE TUBES CO. V. LYONS (1924), 183 WIS. 107,
124; 197 N.W. 578; CLIFFS CHEMICAL CO. V. WISCONSIN TAX COMM'N (1927),
193 WIS. 295, 302; 214 N.W. 447; WEST V. TAX COMM'N (1932), 207 WIS.
557, 562; 242 N.W. 165; VAN DYKE V. TAX COMM'N (1935), 217 WIS. 528;
295 N.W. 700. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF WISCONSIN, ARTICLE VIII, SEC. 1, PROVIDES:
"TAXES MAY ALSO BE IMPOSED ON INCOMES, PRIVILEGES AND OCCUPATIONS,
WHICH TAXES MAY BE GRADUATED AND PROGRESSIVE, AND REASONABLE EXEMPTIONS
MAY BE PROVIDED."  PURSUANT TO THIS GRANT, THE STATE, SINCE 1911,  FN1
HAS HAD A STATUTE LEVYING A GENERAL INCOME TAX ON CORPORATIONS AND
INDIVIDUALS AT A GRADUATED RATE.  THE SYSTEM, WHICH IS ANALOGOUS TO
THAT WITH WHICH WE ARE FAMILIAR IN THE FEDERAL FIELD, HAS, LIKE THE
LATTER, BEEN AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME IN DETAIL.  THE LAW AS IT STOOD
IN 1933 IS FOUND IN THE 1933 EDITION OF THE WISCONSIN STATUTES AS
CHAPTER 71.  THE TAX IS IMPOSED FOR ANNUAL PERIODS.  THE GROSS INCOME
OF A GIVEN YEAR INCLUDES RENTS, DIVIDENDS, WAGES, AND SALARIES, PROFITS
FROM THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS OR SALE OF PROPERTY AND ALL OTHER
GAINS, PROFITS, OR INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE EXCEPT SUCH AS ARE
SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED.  IN ASCERTAINING TAXABLE INCOME EACH TAXPAYER IS
ENTITLED TO DEDUCT FROM GROSS RECEIPTS WAGES, SALARIES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES OF CONDUCTING A BUSINESS, OCCUPATION, OR PROFESSION,
DEPRECIATION, ALSO COST OF PROPERTY SOLD.  IN ADDITION EACH IS
PERMITTED TO DEDUCT CERTAIN LOSSES INCURRED WITHIN THE YEAR NOT
COMPENSATED BY INSURANCE, INTEREST PAID ON INDEBTEDNESS, STATE AND
FEDERAL TAXES, CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE OR ITS SUBDIVISIONS OR TO
CHARITABLE OBJECTS AND AMOUNTS PAID TO AN UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVE.  FN2
PENSIONS ARE EXEMPTED, AND A SPECIFIED AMOUNT MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM THE
TAX, WHEN ASCERTAINED, AS A PERSONAL EXEMPTION.  FN3  DIVIDENDS (WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL) RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN CORPORATIONS FILING
INCOME TAX RETURNS UNDER THE LAW, AND PAYING INCOME TAX TO THE STATE,
ARE DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS INCOME.  FN4  WE WERE TOLD AT THE BAR THAT
THIS DEDUCTION HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR TO 1933. 

THE APPELLANT, A RESIDENT OF WISCONSIN, ON OR ABOUT MARCH 15, 1934,
AS BY LAW REQUIRED, MADE A RETURN OF HIS INCOME FOR 1933 SHOWING HIS
GROSS INCOME AND TOOK DEDUCTIONS FOR INTEREST PAID, FOR LOSSES ON THE
SALE OF SECURITIES, FOR BUSINESS EXPENSES, FOR CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTIONS, AND FOR DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM CERTAIN CORPORATIONS,
WITH THE RESULT THAT NO NET TAXABLE INCOME REMAINED.  WITHOUT THE
DEDUCTION OF THE DIVIDENDS HIS NET INCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN $2,221.39. 

WHEN THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE MET IN ITS REGULAR BIENNIAL SESSION IN
JANUARY 1935 IT WAS CONFRONTED BY A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE TO MEET
THE STATE'S OBLIGATIONS.  THE CONDITION IS REFERRED TO AS AN EMERGENCY
BECAUSE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS GREW OUT OF THE THEN CURRENT
RELIEF LOAD, BUT THE EMERGENCY WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN IF THE STATE HAD
FOUND ITSELF SHORT OF FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF OFFICIAL SALARIES.  AS
THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN HAS SAID:  "EXPENSE FOR RELIEF OF THE
UNEMPLOYED IS ON NO DIFFERENT FOOTING THAN ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
EXPENSE."  FN5 AND IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT AN EMERGENCY DOES NOT
CREATE POWER BUT IS MERELY THE OCCASION FOR THE EXERCISE OF EXISTING
POWERS IN CONFORMITY TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.  FN6 

WHAT THEN DID THE LEGISLATURE DO TO MEET THE DEMAND FOR PUBLIC
REVENUE?  IT ADOPTED A STATUTE EFFECTIVE MARCH 27, 1935.  FN7  BY SEC.
2 THIS ACT LAID AN INCOME TAX ADDITIONAL TO AND SEPARATE FROM THE
GENERAL INCOME TAX AT A GRADUATED RATE ON THE INCOME OF ALL
INDIVIDUALS, FOR THE YEAR 1934, WHICH WAS TO BE "ASSESSED, COLLECTED,
AND PAID IN THE SAME MANNER, UPON THE SAME INCOME AND SUBJECT TO THE
SAME REGULATIONS," AS PROVIDED "BY LAW FOR THE ASSESSMENT, COLLECTION
AND PAYMENT OF THE NORMAL INCOME TAX," WITH CERTAIN VARIATIONS.  ONE OF
THE VARIATIONS WAS THAT NO DEDUCTION WAS TO BE ALLOWED FOR THOSE
CORPORATE DIVIDENDS WHICH WERE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SUBSECTION (4) OF SEC.
71.04 OF THE GENERAL LAW. 

TO JULY 1, 1937.  SECTION 4 PLACED ADDITIONAL LICENSE FEES FOR THE YEAR
1934 ON TELEPHONE COMPANIES.  SECTION 5 IMPOSED AN ADDITIONAL LICENSE
FEE FOR 1934 UPON ELECTRIC, GAS AND SIMILAR UTILITY COMPANIES. 

UNDER THE GENERAL LAW, A GRADUATED TAX OF ONE PER CENT. ON THE FIRST
TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS OF NET DIVIDEND INCOME, THREE PER CENT. ON THE
NEXT $3,000, AND SEVEN PER CENT. ON ALL ABOVE $5,000.  NET DIVIDEND
INCOME IS DEFINED AS GROSS DIVIDEND INCOME LESS $750.  THE TAX IS TO BE
ASSESSED, COLLECTED AND PAID IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE NORMAL INCOME
TAX FOR 1934.  UNDER THIS SECTION THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE
RETURN AND PAY ON SOME $12,000 OF THE DIVIDENDS WHICH HE HAD BEEN
PERMITTED TO DEDUCT FROM GROSS INCOME IN CALCULATING AND PAYING HIS
INCOME TAX FOR 1933 AND WAS ASSESSED THEREON $545.71, WHICH HE PAID
UNDER PROTEST AND BROUGHT THIS ACTION TO RECOVER. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SEC. 6 TRANSGRESSES THE PROHIBITION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN, ALTHOUGH STATING
THAT "WHILE THE PRESENT TAX MAY APPROACH OR REACH THE LIMIT OF
PERMISSIBLE RETROACTIVITY, IT DOES NOT EXCEED IT," SUSTAINED THE
STATUTE AS AGAINST CHALLENGE UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS
CLAUSES OF THE AMENDMENT.  FN8  I THINK THE STATUTE IS VIOLATIVE OF THE
GUARANTEES OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS. 

ONE MUST IGNORE THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION IF HE APPROACHES A
DECISION OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AS IF
THE STATUTE UNDER ATTACK WERE PROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION; OR, IN THE
LIGHT OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, AS IF THE STATUTE WERE A REVISION OF
AN EXISTING GENERAL INCOME TAX SYSTEM THERETOFORE IN FORCE.  THE
ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION AND THE ARBITRARY CHARACTER OF THE ACT CONDEMN
IT UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE NOT BECAUSE IT SELECTS A
PARTICULAR CLASS OF CITIZENS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX BUT BECAUSE,
IN SO DOING, IT REACHES BACK AND SINGLES OUT FOR A NEW AND WHOLLY
DIFFERENT SORT OF INCOME TAX THOSE FEW ONLY TO WHOM A SPECIFIC
DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED IN THE GENERAL COMPUTATION OF THEIR TAXABLE
INCOME FOR THE YEAR 1933.  IT WILL NOT DO TO EXAMINE THE CLASSIFICATION
AS IF IT WERE THE DECLARATION OF A NEW POLICY OF TAXATION TO BE
OPERATIVE IN THE FUTURE.  NO MORE WILL IT DO TO SEPARATE THE
RETROACTIVE FEATURE OF THE LAW AND CONSIDER IT AS IF IT WERE A MERE
AMENDMENT OF A GENERAL INCOME TAX SYSTEM AS SUCH APPLICABLE TO ALL
INCOME OF ALL TAXPAYERS SUBJECT TO THE LAW AS IT STOOD AT THE DATE OF
THE AMENDMENT.  THE REASON FOR ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION IS PLAIN.  AS HAS
BEEN SAID IN THIS COURT:  "THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS SOLELY TO
PREVENT DOUBLE TAXATION BY THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, OF THE INCOME
RECEIVED BY INDIVIDUALS IN THE FORM OF DIVIDENDS."  FN9  THE SAME THING
MAY BE SAID AS TO THE REASON FOR OTHER ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS, AS, FOR
INSTANCE, OF TAXES PAID.  REASONS OF FAIRNESS AND PUBLIC POLICY MOVED
THE STATE TO ALLOW THE PERMITTED DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

IT READILY MAY BE CONCEDED THAT WISCONSIN IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN,
FREE IN THE IMPOSITION OF AN INCOME TAX, FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT
REASON, TO TREAT THE RECIPIENTS OF DIVIDENDS ON A BASIS DIFFERENT FROM
THE RECIPIENTS OF OTHER SORTS OF INCOME.  THE STATE ALSO WAS FREE TO
REVOKE, ALTER, AND AMEND THE PROVISIONS FOR DEDUCTIONS AS ITS VIEWS OF
FAIRNESS AND POLICY MIGHT DICTATE.  THIS CASE PRESENTS NO SUCH
SITUATION.  AFTER THE TAXPAYERS HAD RETURNED AND PAID THEIR TAX UNDER
THE EXISTING SYSTEM AND ACCORDING TO THE LONG ESTABLISHED PUBLIC POLICY
OF THE STATE, THE STATE SOUGHT ADDITIONAL REVENUES.  INSTEAD OF LEVYING
AN EXACTION UPON THE CITIZENS GENERALLY OR CERTAIN CLASSES OF CITIZENS,
THE STATE WENT BACK AND SOUGHT TO TAX A SMALL CLASS OF INCOME TAX
PAYERS BY REASON OF THE PURELY ARBITRARY AND ADVENTITIOUS FACT THAT
THEY HAD BEEN ALLOWED A PARTICULAR DEDUCTION IN A PAST YEAR.  IT CHOSE
AS THE BASE OF THE TAX A PART OF THE INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER UNDER THE
LAW AS PREVIOUSLY IN FORCE.  THE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED DEDUCTION WAS NOT
WITHDRAWN BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, THE INCOME REPRESENTED BY THAT
DEDUCTION WAS PICKED OUT FROM ALL OTHERS, WAS CLASSIFIED BY ITSELF AND
TAXED IN A MANNER WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE INCOME AND THE TAXES OF THE
RECIPIENT OF THESE DIVIDENDS UNDER THE GENERAL LAW UNDER WHICH HE HAD
COMPUTED AND PAID HIS TAX.  IF THE STATE WAS AT LIBERTY TO DO THIS IT
WAS EQUALLY FREE TO TAX AT A NEW RATE AND UPON A NEW SCHEME INCOME OF
THE TAXPAYERS WHO IN 1933 DEDUCTED LOSSES SUSTAINED OR THOSE WHO
DEDUCTED INTEREST PAID OR TAXES PAID OR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE. 
IT WAS EQUALLY AT LIBERTY TO FORM A TAXABLE CLASS OF THOSE WHO WERE
GRANTED PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS, TO WREST OUT OF THEIR SETTING, AS PART OF
THE GENERAL INCOME OF A TAXPAYER, RENTS RECEIVED, ROYALTIES RECEIVED,
OR PROFESSIONAL INCOME ACCRUED IN 1933 AND TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL INCOME
TAX ON ONE OR ALL OF THOSE ITEMS.  AS THE TRIAL JUDGE WELL SAID: 

"IN THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF TAXATION PERSONS RECEIVING
DIVIDENDS IN THE YEAR 1933 SHOULD NOT BE CLASSIFIED LESS FAVORABLY THAN
PERSONS RECEIVING OTHER KINDS OF INCOME THAT YEAR.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TAXATION THE INCOME WAS NOT MATERIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE FOLLOWING
KINDS:  SALARIES PAID OFFICERS OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS; SALARIES PAID
TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS; INTEREST; RENTS; PROFIT AND INCOME OF ALL KINDS
RECEIVED BY INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS GENERALLY, UNLESS SOME GOOD
REASON APPEARED FOR SOME LEGISLATIVE EXCEPTION. 

"THE STATUTE IS ALSO DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST THE CLASS OF PERSONS
RECEIVING DIVIDENDS IN THE YEAR 1933 WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHER CLASSES
OF PERSONS WHEN SUCH OTHER CLASSES ARE ASSESSED AT ALL.  IT
DISCRIMINATES IN BEING MORE DRASTIC IN LIMITING DEDUCTIONS FOR LOSSES,
EXPENSES AND EXEMPTIONS.  IT IS MORE DRASTIC IN THE RAPID INCREASE OF
THE GRADUATED RATE.  FOR SOME REASON ONE CLASS ONLY WAS SELECTED TO
BEAR THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF THE EMERGENCY TAX IN QUESTION.  THIS CLASS
WAS SUBJECTED TO AN UNUSUALLY INEQUITABLE BURDEN." 

DECISIONS SUSTAINING THE POWER OF A STATE PROSPECTIVELY TO CLASSIFY,
TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS, OR OTHERWISE TO INTERRELATE THE TAX BURDENS OF
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF TAXPAYERS ARE OF NO AID AND LEND NO SUPPORT TO THE
PRESENT STATUTE.  IN NO CASE HERETOFORE TO WHICH ATTENTION HAS BEEN
CALLED HAVE THE COURTS SUSTAINED A LAW WHICH AFTER THE FACT REACHES
BACK TWO YEARS AND SELECTS FOR A SPECIAL FORM OF INCOME TAXATION AT A
NEW RATE A GROUP OF THE TAXPAYERS WHO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PREEXISTING
LAW, HAD PAID THAT SHARE OF THE GENERAL INCOME TAX WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAD ADJUDGED TO BE ITS EQUAL AND PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE
BURDEN OF GOVERNMENT.  TO ATTEMPT THIS WAS, IN MY JUDGMENT, ARBITRARY
AND DISCRIMINATORY CLASSIFICATION. 

FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID I THINK IT APPARENT THAT THE RETROACTIVITY OF
THE CHALLENGED STATUTE TAKEN ALONE IS NOT THE ELEMENT WHICH CONDEMNS IT
ANY MORE THAN THE ATTEMPTED CLASSIFICATION ALONE WOULD CONDEMN IT IF
THE ACT WERE PROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION.  THE CASES RELIED UPON TO
SUPPORT THE STATUTE, VIEWED IN ITS RETROACTIVE ASPECT, DO NOT MEET THE
PRESENT CASE.  IN ONE OF THE CITED CASES, - UNITED STATES V. HUDSON,
299 U.S. 498, 500,  - EARLIER DECISIONS WERE THUS SUMMARIZED: "AS
RESPECTS INCOME TAX STATUTES IT LONG HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF CONGRESS
TO MAKE THEM RETROACTIVE FOR RELATIVELY SHORT PERIODS SO AS TO INCLUDE
PROFITS FROM TRANSACTIONS CONSUMMATED WHILE THE STATUTE WAS IN PROCESS
OF ENACTMENT, OR WITHIN SO MUCH OF THE CALENDAR YEAR AS PRECEDED THE
ENACTMENT; AND REPEATED DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS
PRACTICE AND SUSTAINED IT.  ...  "  THAT WAS A CASE WHICH FELL SQUARELY
WITHIN THIS STATEMENT OF THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE RETROACTIVITY.  ALL
ENACTMENTS SUSTAINED THAT AMENDED THE TAX SYSTEM OF A PRIOR YEAR WERE
CONTINUATIONS OF THAT EXISTING SYSTEM, AND THE TAXPAYERS HAD KNOWLEDGE,
BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE YEAR OF RECEIPT OF THE INCOME BY WHICH THE
TAX WAS MEASURED, THAT AMENDMENT OF THE SYSTEM WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  TO THIS CLASS BELONGS THE PROVISION OF THE WISCONSIN
ACT OF 1935 IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL TAX ON INCOME RECEIVED IN 1934. 
THIS FEATURE OF THE ACT IS NOT HERE UNDER ATTACK.  A VERY DIFFERENT
COURSE WAS ADOPTED WITH RESPECT TO THE INCOME OF 1933.  FOR THAT YEAR
THE STATUTE IMPOSED A SPECIAL INCOME TAX ON A CLASS SELECTED BECAUSE
THE LAW IN FORCE WHEN THEY PAID THEIR TAXES HAD PERMITTED THEM TO
DEDUCT CERTAIN ITEMS, AND IGNORED ALL OTHERS TO WHOM SIMILAR DEDUCTIONS
HAD BEEN GRANTED.  THUS THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THE GENERAL INCOME TAX WAS
UNBALANCED AND A PECULIAR AND SPECIFIC BURDEN LAID UPON A SELECTED FEW
WHO HAD THERETOFORE BEEN RELIEVED OF THE UNJUST BURDEN OF DOUBLE
TAXATION.  WHAT WAS SAID IN MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15, 21,
IS PECULIARLY APPOSITE TO THE FACTS HERE DISCLOSED.  THERE, REFERRING
TO EARLIER DECISIONS, CONDEMNING, UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE,
RETROACTIVE TAXES, IT WAS STATED:  "IN BOTH THE POINT WAS STRESSED, AS
THE BASIS OF DECISION, THAT THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF THE TAX BURDEN
IMPOSED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND FORESEEN BY THE TAXPAYER AT
THE TIME OF THE PARTICULAR VOLUNTARY ACT WHICH WAS MADE THE OCCASION OF
THE TAX."  HERE THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF THIS SPECIAL AND PECULIAR TAX
COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND FORESEEN WHEN THE PETITIONER PAID
HIS 1933 INCOME TAX. 

IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THE ACT IN QUESTION IS NOT A CURATIVE
STATUTE FOR THE COLLECTION OF TAXES ASSESSED IN A PRIOR YEAR AND
UNCOLLECTED  FN10  NOR ONE INTENDED TO MAKE AVAILABLE TAXES WHICH, BY
REASON OF ILLEGALITY IN THEIR IMPOSITION, WERE NOT PAID IN THE YEAR IN
WHICH THEY WERE ASSESSED.  FN11  THE ACT IS NOT A REMEDIAL MEASURE TO
CONFIRM OR RATIFY A DOUBTFUL ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF PRIOR
LEGISLATION.  FN12  IT DOES NOT LAY AN EXCISE OR A PRIVILEGE MEASURED
BY THE INCOME OF A PRIOR YEAR,  FN13  NOR IS IT A STATUTE TO SETTLE
DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER AN EARLIER TAXING ACT HAD EXPIRED BY LIMITATION. 
FN14 

IT WAS SUGGESTED AT THE BAR THAT THE EXACTION IS A PROPERTY TAX AND
BAD AS SUCH BECAUSE RETROACTIVELY IMPOSED.  THE REPLY WAS THAT
RETROACTIVE PROPERTY TAXES HAVE BEEN UPHELD.  THE CASES CITED DO NOT
TOUCH THE VALIDITY OF AN AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX RETROACTIVELY
IMPOSED.  SOME OF THEM INVOLVED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR BENEFITS
ASSESSED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENT.  FN15 ANOTHER CITED
TO THE PROPOSITION DEALT WITH AN EXCISE FOR THE USE, FOR PLEASURE, OF
FOREIGN BUILT YACHTS EITHER OWNED OR CHARTERED BY THE USER FOR MORE
THAN SIX MONTHS DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THE EXACTION WAS HELD AN
EXCISE ON THE PRIVILEGE OF USE AND NOT A TAX UPON OWNERSHIP, AND,
MOREOVER, THE TAX WAS NOT RETROACTIVE IN OPERATION BUT WAS ASSESSED
UPON THE TAXPAYER AT A DATE DURING WHICH THE TAXPAYER'S USE OF THE
YACHT CONTINUED.  FN16  STILL ANOTHER DEALT WITH A CURATIVE ACT PASSED
TO REACH PROPERTY ILLEGALLY ASSESSED.  FN17  BUT WHETHER VIEWED AS A
PROPERTY OR AN INCOME TAX THE EXACTION IS BAD.  MOST, IF NOT ALL, THE
STATES HAVE LONG MAINTAINED THE POLICY OF EXEMPTING PLACES OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP FROM ANNUAL TAX LEVIES.  WILL IT BE CONTENDED THAT IF THE STATE
WERE NOW TO IMPOSE A TAX ON THE VALUE OF SUCH EXEMPT PROPERTY FOR SOME
PAST YEAR, THE ACTION WOULD NOT BE AN ARBITRARY TAKING OF PROPERTY AS
WELL AS A HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION? 

IF, AS THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY SAID, AN INCOME TAX IS AN EQUITABLE
METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING THE NECESSARY BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT, CERTAINLY
NO SUCH DISCRIMINATION AS IS EVIDENCED BY THE CHALLENGED ACT CAN
PROPERLY FALL WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION.  THE ACT EVIDENCES PURPOSEFUL AND
ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION AND THUS VIOLATES THE GUARANTEE OF EQUAL
PROTECTION. 

FN1  LAWS OF WISCONSIN 1911, C. 658, P. 984. 

FN2  SEC. 71.04. 

FN3  SEC. 71.05. 

FN4  SEC. 71.04(4). 

FN5  SCOBIE V. TAX COMMISSION, 225 WIS. 529, 538; 275 N.W. 531. 

FN6  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 425, 436;
WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 348. 

FN7  LAWS OF WISCONSIN 1935, C. 15, P. 19. 

FN8  THE JUDGES WHO HEARD THE CAUSE WERE EQUALLY DIVIDED IN OPINION. 
FOUR JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT VOTED TO SUSTAIN THE ACT.  THE TRIAL
JUDGE AND THREE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT WERE OF THE OPINION THAT
IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

FN9  MILLER V. MILWAUKEE, 272 U.S. 713, 717. 

FN10  FLORIDA CENTRAL & P.R. CO. V. REYNOLDS, 183 U.S. 471. 

FN11  CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. KENTUCKY, 217 U.S. 443. 

FN12  HECHT V. MALLEY, 265 U.S. 144. 

FN13  FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107. 

FN14  STOCKDALE V. INSURANCE COMPANIES, 20 WALL.  323. 

FN15  SEATTLE V. KELLEHER, 195 U.S. 351; WAGNER V. BALTIMORE, 239
U.S. 207. 

FN16  BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261. 

FN17  CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK V. KENTUCKY, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :





















HARRIS V. BRUNDAGE CO., 305 U.S. 160 


NO. 53.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 21, 1938.  - 95
F.2D 373, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES
RELATING TO PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE DEBTOR'S AGENT AT THE TIME OF
THE FILING OF A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.  P. 163. 

2.  A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAS POWER, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, TO
DETERMINE WHETHER IT HAS THAT ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION WHICH
IS ESSENTIAL TO ITS JURISDICTION TO PROCEED.  ID. 

3.  CONCURRENT FINDING OF TWO COURTS BELOW THAT RESPONDENTS IN THE
CASE HELD CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF AN ESCROW FUND IN CONTROVERSY AS AGENT
OF A BANKRUPT CORPORATION, IS ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT.  ID. 

4.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CLAIM, THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION, WHEN THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED,
TO DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES RELATING TO AN ESCROW FUND IN CONTROL OF THE
BANKRUPT'S AGENTS, AND HAD POWER BY SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO COMPEL ITS
SURRENDER.  ID. 

5.  PARTIES HAVING ONLY A PROCEDURAL RIGHT TO HAVE ISSUES TRIED IN A
PLENARY SUIT MAY WAIVE IT BY CONSENTING TO SUMMARY TRIAL IN
BANKRUPTCY.  P. 164. 

HARRIS ET A L. V. AVERY BRUNDAGE CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 557, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF ORDERS OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT REQUIRING THE PRESENT PETITIONERS TO MAKE A PAYMENT
FROM AN ESCROW FUND, AND ORDERING THAT PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONERS
CHALLENGING ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE FUND BE STRICKEN. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

DID THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN THIS INVOLUNTARY PROCEEDING HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ORDER THE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF
PERSONS FOUND BY THE COURT TO BE HOLDING AS AGENTS OF THE ALLEGED
BANKRUPT? 

RESPONDENTS ENGAGED THE TAX SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS TO SEEK
EXEMPTION FOR RESPONDENTS FROM AN ILLINOIS TAX.  THE CONTRACT ENTITLED
THE ASSOCIATION TO $1,500 CASH, AND AN ADDITIONAL $20,000 SHOULD THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS FIND RESPONDENTS EXEMPT.  THE CONTRACT
AUTHORIZED THE ASSOCIATION TO RETAIN PETITIONER ODELL AS ATTORNEY TO
PROSECUTE THE CLAIMED EXEMPTION WITHOUT COST TO RESPONDENTS FOR HIS
SERVICES.  ODELL ENDORSED THE CONTRACT BETWEEN RESPONDENTS AND THE
ASSOCIATION WITH THE STATEMENT:  "I HEREBY CONSENT TO RETENTION UNDER
THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT."  UNDER THE CONTRACT RESPONDENTS MADE
PAYMENTS - CORRESPONDING TO THEIR POSSIBLE TAX LIABILITIES - INTO AN
ESCROW FUND.  PETITIONERS ODELL AND HARRIS, EMPLOYED BY THE
ASSOCIATION, AND ONE CRAIG, DEPOSITED THESE PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO A
LETTER  FN1  TO THE BANK WHICH DECLARED THAT THE FUNDS DEPOSITED WERE
NOT THE PROPERTY OF EITHER ODELL, HARRIS OR CRAIG, BUT WERE IN THEIR
CUSTODY. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS DECIDED RESPONDENTS WERE LIABLE FOR THE
TAX,  FN2  AND THEREAFTER AN INVOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS
FILED AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION.  CRAIG WAS WILLING BUT ODELL AND HARRIS
REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH RESPONDENTS' REQUEST FOR THE RETURN OF THE
PAYMENTS THEY HAD MADE INTO THE FUND, AND RESPONDENTS FILED A PETITION
FOR THEIR RECOVERY IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  PETITIONERS CONSENTED AND
AGREED IN OPEN COURT TO AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT WHICH REQUIRED
THEM TO PAY SEVENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE FUND ($242,000) TO THE STATE
OF ILLINOIS IN DISCHARGE OF RESPONDENTS' TAX LIABILITY, AND WHICH ALSO
PROVIDED THAT "THE BALANCE IN SAID  ... FUND  ...  SHALL REMAIN AND BE
HELD  ... SUBJECT TO THE FURTHER ORDER" OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  IT
RECITED THAT PETITIONERS "AGREED THAT (THE BANKRUPTCY COURT) HAD
JURISDICTION TO ENTER THIS ORDER." 

RESPONDENTS THEN FILED A SECOND PETITION TO RECOVER AN ADDITIONAL
$48,580.40 FROM THE FUND, WITH $20,000 TO REMAIN "SUBJECT TO THE
FURTHER ORDER OF" THE COURT.  IN ANSWER TO RESPONDENTS' CLAIM, THE BANK
AND CRAIG DISCLAIMED ANY INTEREST IN THE FUND.  THE SOLE CLAIM ADVERSE
TO RESPONDENTS WAS ASSERTED BY THE RECEIVER OF THE ASSOCIATION, FOR
$20,000.  NEITHER ODELL NOR HARRIS CLAIMED ANY INTEREST IN THE FUND. 
IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S REQUESTS TO ANSWER, PETITIONERS ALLEGED THAT
THE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE RIGHTS RELATING TO THE
FUND.  AFTER A HEARING, THE COURT FOUND THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION AND
ORDERED PETITIONERS TO PAY $48,580.40 FROM THE FUND TO RESPONDENTS, THE
BALANCE TO REMAIN "SUBJECT TO THE FURTHER ORDER OF (THE)  ...  COURT
...  "  THE FOLLOWING DAY THE COURT ORDERED THAT PETITIONERS' PLEADINGS
WHICH CHALLENGED ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE $20,000 BALANCE IN THE FUND
BE STRUCK, AND THAT PETITIONERS ANSWER WITHIN TWENTY DAYS TO THE MERITS
ON RESPONDENTS' CLAIM TO THIS BALANCE. 

PETITIONERS DID NOT ANSWER, BUT APPEALED FROM BOTH ORDERS.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN3 

A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAS JURISDICTION TO "BRING IN AND SUBSTITUTE
ADDITIONAL PERSONS OR PARTIES IN PROCEEDINGS IN BANKRUPTCY WHEN
NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETE DETERMINATION OF A MATTER IN CONTROVERSY;
(AND TO) CAUSE THE ESTATES OF BANKRUPTS TO BE COLLECTED, REDUCED TO
MONEY AND DISTRIBUTED, AND DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES IN RELATION
THERETO," WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL.  FN4  THIS JURISDICTION OF
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT EXTENDS TO THE DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSIES
RELATING TO ALL PROPERTY IN THE DEBTOR'S PHYSICAL POSSESSION OR IN THE
HANDS OF THE DEBTOR'S AGENT AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF A PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY.  FN5  IN EVERY CASE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS POWER, IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE, TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT HAS THAT ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE
POSSESSION WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO ITS JURISDICTION TO PROCEED.  FN6 

HERE, BOTH COURTS BELOW FOUND THAT HARRIS AND ODELL WERE AGENTS OF
THE DEBTOR (THE ASSOCIATION) AND HAD CUSTODY OF THE ESCROW FUND AS SUCH
AGENTS AT THE TIME THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED AND
THEREAFTER.  WE ACCEPT THIS FINDING,  FN7  AND PROCEED TO A
CONSIDERATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION.  FN8 

PETITIONERS CONTROLLED AND HAD CUSTODY OF THIS FUND AS AGENTS OF THE
ASSOCIATION AND DID NOT ASSERT ANY ADVERSE INTEREST IN THEMSELVES.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CLAIM, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
ACQUIRED JURISDICTION - WHEN THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED - TO
DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES RELATING TO THE FUND,  FN9  AND HAD POWER BY
SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS TO COMPEL ITS SURRENDER.  FN10  FURTHERMORE,
PETITIONERS CONSENTED AND AGREED IN OPEN COURT AND RESPONDENTS ASSENTED
TO THE COURT'S DISPOSITION OF THE FUND IN A SUMMARY PROCEEDING. 
JURISDICTION TO TRY THE ISSUES WAS VESTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING
AS A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.  SINCE THE PARTIES HAD ONLY A PROCEDURAL
RIGHT TO HAVE THESE ISSUES TRIED IN A PLENARY SUIT, THEY WERE AT
LIBERTY TO WAIVE THIS RIGHT.  FN11  PETITIONERS APPROVED THE FIRST
ORDER WHICH DISPOSED OF PART OF THE FUND, AND SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED
THAT THE BALANCE REMAIN "SUBJECT TO THE FURTHER ORDERS OF" THE DISTRICT
COURT. 

ALL PERSONS WHO CREATED OR HAD ANY POSSIBLE INTEREST IN THAT PORTION
OF THE FUND ORDERED DISTRIBUTED WERE PARTIES AND PRESENT IN THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT.  NO ONE OF THEM - INCLUDING PETITIONERS - ASSERTED OR
IN ANY WAY INDICATED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT THAT THERE COULD BE ANY
INTEREST IN THE MONEY DISTRIBUTED ADVERSE TO RESPONDENTS.  THE SOLE
CLAIM ADVERSE TO RESPONDENTS WAS THAT OF THE RECEIVER OF THE
ASSOCIATION, FOR $20,000.  THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED AND THE
COURT RETAINED JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES RELATING TO IT. 

PETITIONERS HAVING CONSENTED THAT THE FUND BE SUBJECT TO THE ORDERS
OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND THAT COURT HAVING DETERMINED THAT
PETITIONERS HELD THE FUND AS AGENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION, THERE WAS
JURISDICTION TO ENTER THE ORDERS IN QUESTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "NATIONAL BUILDERS BANK OF CHICAGO.  "GENTLEMEN: 

"THERE HAS BEEN OPENED WITH YOU A CERTAIN ACCOUNT ENTITLED SALES TAX
ESCROW FUND.  THERE WILL BE DELIVERED TO YOU FROM TIME TO TIME
HEREAFTER FOR DEPOSIT TO THE CREDIT OF SAID ACCOUNT CERTAIN CHECKS FOR
VARIOUS AMOUNTS ISSUED BY SUNDRY CONTRACTORS. 

"YOU ARE HEREBY INSTRUCTED THAT THE FUNDS FROM TIME TO TIME ON
DEPOSIT IN SAID ACCOUNT ARE NOT THE FUNDS OF THE UNDERSIGNED, BUT ARE
UNDER THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE UNDERSIGNED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF
PROPOSED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS.  WITHDRAWALS FROM THE ACCOUNT ARE TO BE MADE ONLY ON WRITTEN
ORDER OF THE UNDERSIGNED, THREE OF WHOM MUST ACT TOGETHER AS
INDICATED.  EACH CHECK MUST BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF EITHER:  BENJAMIN F.
J. ODELL OR RUTH V. WILLNER; AND R. G. HARRIS OR P. N. WEAVER, TOGETHER
WITH E. M. CRAIG OR R. D. STEEL." 

FN2  BLOME CO. V. AMES, 365 ILL. 456; 6 N.E.2D 841. 

FN3  95 F.2D 373. 

FN4  BANKRUPTCY ACT, C. 2, 11 U.S.C., SEC. 11(6, 7).  AS TO
EXCEPTIONS, SEE BRYAN V. BERNHEIMER, 181 U.S. 188, 194. 

FN5  MUELLER V. NUGENT, 184 U.S. 1; SEE WHITNEY V. WENMAN, 198 U.S.
539, 552; TAUBEL-SCOTT-KITZMILLER CO. V. FOX, 264 U.S. 426, 432, 433
AND NOTES; MAY V. HENDERSON, 268 U.S. 111, 115. 

FN6  TAUBEL-SCOTT-KITZMILLER CO. V. FOX, SUPRA, 433; MAY V.
HENDERSON, SUPRA, 116.  SEE, HARRISON V. CHAMBERLAIN, 271 U.S. 191,
194. 

FN7  "IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, RESPONDENT (PETITIONERS) ASSERTED NO
RIGHT OR TITLE TO THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE REFEREE, AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE (THEY) HELD POSSESSION MUST BE ACCEPTED AS
FOUND BY THE REFEREE AND THE DISTRICT COURT."  MUELLER V. NUGENT,
SUPRA, 15. 

FN8  CF. PAGE V. ARKANSAS GAS CORP., 286 U.S. 269, 271. 

FN9  TAUBEL-SCOTT-KITZMILLER CO. V. FOX, SUPRA, 433; SEE NOTE 5,
SUPRA. 

FN10  CF. MUELLER V. NUGENT, SUPRA, 14. 

FN11  MACDONALD V. PLYMOUTH TRUST CO., 286 U.S. 263; BRYAN V.
BERNHEIMER, SUPRA, 197; SEE TAUBEL-SCOTT-KITZMILLER CO V. FOX, SUPRA,
437; PAGE V. ARKANSAS GAS CORP., SUPRA, 271; CF. SCHUMACHER V. BEELER,
293 U.S. 367, 369. 
..END :















STOLL V. GOTTLIEB, 305 U.S. 165 


NO. 20.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 21, 1938.  - 368
ILL. 88 - 12 N.E.2D 881, REVERSED. 


1.  A CONTENTION THAT A RULING OF A STATE SUPREME COURT DISREGARDED
DECREES OF A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, RAISED A FEDERAL QUESTION
REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 237B OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 167. 

2.  AN ORDER OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, WHICH, IN A PROCEEDING TO
REORGANIZE A CORPORATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, APPROVED
A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION PROVIDING INTER ALIA FOR DISCHARGE OF THE
DEBTOR'S BONDS AND CANCELLATION OF A PERSONAL GUARANTY THEREOF, HELD
RES JUDICATA, AND PROOF AGAINST COLLATERAL ATTACK, IN AN ACTION IN A
STATE COURT, BROUGHT AGAINST THE GUARANTOR (WHO HAD APPEARED AND
APPROVED THE REORGANIZATION AS PROPOSED), BY ONE OF THE HOLDERS OF THE
GUARANTEED BONDS, WHO HAD RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE HEARING IN THE
DISTRICT COURT UPON THE PROPOSED REORGANIZATION, BUT DID NOT THERE
APPEAR, AND WHO, AFTER BRINGING HIS ACTION ON THE GUARANTY, HAD
UNSUCCESSFULLY PETITIONED THAT COURT TO SET ASIDE OR MODIFY ITS ORDER
UPON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO EXTINGUISH THE
GUARANTY.  P. 170. 

IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION, THE COURT ASSUMES THAT THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ITS ORDER -
THE RELEASE, IN REORGANIZATION, OF A GUARANTOR FROM HIS GUARANTY.  THE
DECISION HERE IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT IN AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY THE
QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS RAISED AND
DETERMINED ADVERSELY TO THE RESPONDENT.  THAT DETERMINATION IS RES
JUDICATA OF THAT ISSUE IN THIS ACTION, WHETHER OR NOT POWER TO DEAL
WITH THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER WAS STRICTLY OR QUASI
JURISDICTIONAL. 

VALLELY V. NORTHERN FIRE INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348, DISTINGUISHED. 

CASES DEALING WITH STATUS AND TRANSFER OF TITLE TO REAL ESTATE ARE
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INQUIRY. 

STOLL V. GOTTLIEB. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 554, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF CHICAGO, IN AN ACTION UPON A
GUARANTY OF BONDS OF A CORPORATION, AND REVERSING A JUDGMENT OF THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, 289 ILL. APP. 595, WHICH HAD HELD TO THE
CONTRARY. 

UNDER THE "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT" CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT TO CANCEL THE GUARANTY WAS PROPERLY
INQUIRED INTO BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE FEDERAL COURT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN ESTOPPEL
OR RES JUDICATA. 

MOTION OF RESPONDENT IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO VACATE THE DECREE AND
ORDERS CANCELLING THE GUARANTY ENTERED ALMOST TWO YEARS EARLIER, FOR
THE REASON THAT THAT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO CANCEL THE GUARANTY,
DID NOT CONFER VALIDITY UPON THAT PART OF THE DECREE, OTHERWISE VOID. 

THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PROHIBITS THE CANCELLATION OF A GUARANTY, AND
THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN SEC. 77B OR ELSEWHERE GIVING THE FEDERAL COURT
THAT POWER. 

IF SEC. 77B WERE CONSTRUED TO EMPOWER THE DISTRICT COURT TO CANCEL
THE GUARANTY, IT WOULD VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

UNDER THE DECISIONS IN IN RE DIVERSEY BUILDING CORP., 86 F.2D 456,
WHEREIN THIS COURT DENIED CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 662, AND IN RE NINE
NORTH CHURCH ST., INC., 82 F.2D 186, 188, THE FEDERAL COURT WAS WHOLLY
WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS GUARANTY, AND ITS
ORDERS AND DECREE PERTAINING TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE GUARANTY ARE
ABSOLUTELY VOID AND SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.  SEE IN RE UTILITIES
POWER & LIGHT CORP., 91 F.2D 598; IN RE PRUDENCE BONDS CORP., 79 F.2D
212, 215; IN RE 1775 BROADWAY CORP., 79 F.2D 108, 110; BRUMLEY V.
JONES, 141 F. 318; HOLM V. JAMIESON, 173 ILL. 295, 300; UNION TRUST CO.
V. WILLSEA, 275 N.Y. 164; IN RE MADISON MORTGAGE CORP., 22 F.SUPP.  99;
CHAUNCEY V. DYKES BROS., 119 F. 1, 3; IN RE PYROCOLOR CORP., 46 F.2D
554; JOHNSON V. FINN, 14 N.E.2D 240; COLLIER SUPP. SEC. 77B; AM. B.R.
DIGEST, SEC. 1279-A; ARMSTRONG V. OBUCINO, 306 ILL. 140; STANDARD OIL
CO. V. MISSOURI, 224 U.S. 270, 281; IN RE SAWYER, 124 U.S. 200, 220;
UNITED STATES V. WALKER, 109 U.S. 258; WINDSOR V. MCVEIGH, 93 U.S. 274;
ADAMS V. TERRELL, 4 F. 796, 800; NOVAK V. KRUSE, 211 ILL. APP. 274;
GREAT WESTERN TEL. CO. V. BARKER, 56 ILL. APP. 402; RISLEY V. PHENIX
BANK, 83 N.Y. 318, 337; EX PARTE WISNER, 203 U.S. 449; HOVEY V.
ELLIOTT, 167 U.S. 409, 444; REYNOLDS V. STOCKTON, 140 U.S. 254;
GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. GREEN COVE R. CO., 139 U.S. 137; IN RE SOUTHERN
STATES FINANCE CO., 19 F.2D 959; THE CONFISCATION CASES, 20 WALL.  92;
SHARON V. TERRY, 36 F. 337, 346; RABBIT V. WEBER & CO., 297 ILL. 491,
495; DEMILLY V. GROSRENAUD, 201 ILL. 272, 273; KENNEY V. GREER, 13 ILL.
432; ASHLOCK V. ASHLOCK, 360 ILL. 115, 122. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CERTIORARI WAS ALLOWED TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF ILLINOIS.  THAT COURT HAD DENIED EFFECT TO A PLEA OF RES JUDICATA
ARISING FROM ORDERS OF A DISTRICT COURT IN BANKRUPTCY.  PROVISIONS
DECLARING THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE EXTENT OF THE
JUDICIAL POWER AND AUTHORIZING NECESSARY AND PROPER LEGISLATION TO MAKE
THE GRANTS EFFECTIVE CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THIS COURT TO DETERMINE
THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN DECREES OF A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN STATE
COURTS.  FN1  AS THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE RULING BELOW DISREGARDED
DECREES OF A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT RAISED A FEDERAL QUESTION
REVIEWABLE UNDER SEC. 237B OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  FN2 

THE ADMISSION OF FACTS, AND UNCONTROVERTED ALLEGATIONS OF THE
PLEADINGS, SHOW THAT TEN FIFTEEN NORTH CLARK BUILDING CORPORATION FILED
A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION ON JUNE 20, 1934, UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS; THAT THE PETITION WAS APPROVED AS PROPERLY FILED
SHORTLY THEREAFTER, AND THAT NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS WAS GIVEN TO THE
CREDITORS, ONE OF WHOM WAS RESPONDENT WILLIAM GOTTLIEB.  A PROPOSED
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WAS FILED BY THE DEBTOR WHICH PROVIDED FOR THE
SUBSTITUTION OF ONE SHARE OF COMMON STOCK IN THE OLYMPIC HOTEL BUILDING
CORPORATION FOR EACH $100 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE OUTSTANDING FIRST
MORTGAGE, 6 1/2% GOLD BONDS OF THE DEBTOR CORPORATION, THE DISCHARGE OF
THE BONDS AND THE CANCELLATION OF A GUARANTY ENDORSED ON THEM.  THE
GUARANTY WAS ONE OF J. O. STOLL, PETITIONER HERE, AND S. A. CROWE, JR.,
TO PAY THE BOND.  ITS MATERIAL PROVISIONS ARE STATED BELOW.  FN3  THE
EXTINCTION OF THE PERSONAL GUARANTY WAS IN CONSIDERATION "FOR THE
TRANSFER OF ALL THE ASSETS OF SAID DEBTOR (I. E., THE BUILDING
CORPORATION) TO THE OLYMPIC HOTEL BUILDING CORPORATION AND THE
SURRENDER OF THE SAID COMMON STOCK OF THE DEBTOR."  CROWE AND STOLL,
TOGETHER WITH OTHER STOCKHOLDERS OF THE DEBTOR, "FILED THEIR
ACCEPTANCES IN WRITING" OF THE PLAN. 

ON NOTICE TO RESPONDENT AND A HEARING AT WHICH HE DID NOT APPEAR THE
PROPOSED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WITH THE PROVISION FOR THE EXTINCTION
OF THE GUARANTY WAS CONFIRMED OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF CREDITORS OF THE
SAME CLASS AS RESPONDENT.  THE CONFIRMATION PROVIDED THAT ALL CREDITORS
OF THE DEBTOR SHOULD BE BOUND.  IT ALSO APPEARS THAT, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PLAN, THE GUARANTORS CAUSED THE ASSETS OF THE DEBTOR TO BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW CORPORATION AND SURRENDERED THE CAPITAL STOCK OF
THE DEBTOR.  AFTER THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT ACTION IN THE STATE
COURT GOTTLIEB FILED A PETITION IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR REORGANIZATION
OF THE TEN FIFTEEN NORTH CLARK BUILDING CORPORATION PRAYING THAT AN
ORDER BE ENTERED VACATING OR MODIFYING THE DECREES AND ORDERS ENTERED
IN THE PROCEEDINGS CONFIRMING THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, ON THE GROUND
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IN PROCEEDINGS FOR REORGANIZATION DID NOT HAVE
POWER OR JURISDICTION TO CANCEL THE GUARANTY.  AN ORDER WAS ENTERED
DENYING THIS PETITION.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM ANY OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ORDERS. 

SUBSEQUENT TO THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION BUT
BEFORE THE PETITION TO VACATE THESE ORDERS GOTTLIEB BEGAN AN ACTION IN
THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF CHICAGO AGAINST THE GUARANTORS CROWE AND STOLL
TO RECOVER UPON THEIR GUARANTY OF THREE OF THE $500 BONDS OF TEN
FIFTEEN NORTH CLARK BUILDING CORPORATION.  CROWE WAS NOT SERVED WITH
SUMMONS.  STOLL DEFENDED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT CONFIRMING THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WITH RELEASE OF HIS
GUARANTY AND ITS FURTHER ORDER, DENYING GOTTLIEB'S PETITION TO SET
ASIDE THE DECREE PROVIDING FOR THE RELEASE OF THE GUARANTY, WERE RES
JUDICATA. 

THE MUNICIPAL COURT GRANTED THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE BONDHOLDER, THE
APPELLATE COURT REVERSED AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS IN TURN REVERSED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS, WHICH AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL
COURT.  FN4  TWO JUSTICES DISSENTED. 

THE CONGRESS ENACTED, AS ONE OF THE EARLIER STATUTES, PROVISIONS FOR
GIVING EFFECT TO THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURTS.  THIS HAS LONG
HAD ITS PRESENT FORM.  FN5  THIS STATUTE IS BROADER THAN THE AUTHORITY
GRANTED BY ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION ONE, OF THE CONSTITUTION TO PRESCRIBE
THE MANNER OF PROOF AND THE EFFECT OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF
STATES.  UNDER IT THE JUDGMENTS AND DECREES OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN A
STATE ARE DECLARED TO HAVE THE SAME DIGNITY IN THE COURTS OF THAT STATE
AS THOSE OF ITS OWN COURTS IN A LIKE CASE AND UNDER SIMILAR
CIRCUMSTANCES.  FN6  BUT WHERE THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE OF THE FEDERAL
COURT DETERMINES A RIGHT UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE, THAT DECISION IS
"FINAL UNTIL REVERSED IN AN APPELLATE COURT, OR MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE
IN THE COURT OF ITS RENDITION."  FN7  AS THIS PLEA WAS BASED UPON AN
ADJUDICATION UNDER THE REORGANIZATION PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
EFFECT AS RES JUDICATA IS TO BE GIVEN THE FEDERAL ORDER, IF IT IS
CONCLUDED IT WAS AN EFFECTIVE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF ITS RENDITION. 
THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS WAS NOT ONE OF FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT BUT OF RES JUDICATA.  IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, A
FEDERAL QUESTION WAS INVOLVED.  THIS WAS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL
COURTS TO PROTECT THOSE WHO COME BEFORE THEM RELYING UPON
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR RIGHTS GIVEN, AS IN THIS CASE, THROUGH A
STATUTE ENACTED PURSUANT TO CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTS OF POWER. 

THE INQUIRY IS TO BE DIRECTED AT THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE ORDER
RELEASING THE GUARANTOR FROM HIS OBLIGATION, ASSUMING THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ORDER, THE
RELEASE IN REORGANIZATION OF A GUARANTOR FROM HIS GUARANTY OF THE
DEBTOR'S OBLIGATIONS.  FN8 

A COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER, BY JUDICIAL FIAT, TO EXTEND ITS
JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO
IT BY ITS CREATORS.  THERE MUST BE ADMITTED, HOWEVER, A POWER TO
INTERPRET THE LANGUAGE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL INSTRUMENT AND ITS
APPLICATION TO AN ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT.  FN9  WHERE ADVERSARY PARTIES
APPEAR, A COURT MUST HAVE THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS
JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OF A LITIGANT,  FN10  OR WHETHER ITS
GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION COVERS THE PLACE OF THE OCCURRENCE UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  FN11  EVERY COURT IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT, TACITLY, IF
NOT EXPRESSLY, DETERMINES ITS JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES AND THE
SUBJECT MATTER.  FN12  AN ERRONEOUS AFFIRMATIVE CONCLUSION AS TO THE
JURISDICTION DOES NOT IN ANY PROPER SENSE ENLARGE THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT UNTIL PASSED UPON BY THE COURT OF LAST RESORT, AND EVEN THEN
THE JURISDICTION BECOMES ENLARGED ONLY FROM THE NECESSITY OF HAVING A
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER. 
WHEN AN ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT, WHETHER FROM THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OR
FROM THE COURT OF FINAL RESORT, IS PLEADED IN ANOTHER COURT OR ANOTHER
JURISDICTION THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE FORMER JUDGMENT IS RES
JUDICATA.  AFTER A FEDERAL COURT HAS DECIDED THE QUESTION OF THE
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES AS A CONTESTED ISSUE, THE COURT IN WHICH
THE PLEA OF RES JUDICATA IS MADE HAS NOT THE POWER TO INQUIRE AGAIN
INTO THAT JURISDICTIONAL FACT.  FN13  WE SEE NO REASON WHY A COURT, IN
THE ABSENCE OF AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD IN OBTAINING THE JUDGMENT, SHOULD
EXAMINE AGAIN THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT  FN14  MAKING THE EARLIER
DETERMINATION ON AN ACTUAL CONTEST OVER JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, DID HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
LITIGATION.  IN THIS CASE THE ORDER UPON THE PETITION TO VACATE THE
CONFIRMATION SETTLED THE CONTEST OVER JURISDICTION. 

COURTS TO DETERMINE THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR
SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT THAT THERE SHOULD BE A
PLACE TO END AS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A PLACE TO BEGIN LITIGATION. 
AFTER A PARTY HAS HIS DAY IN COURT, WITH OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS
EVIDENCE AND HIS VIEW OF THE LAW, A COLLATERAL ATTACK UPON THE DECISION
AS TO JURISDICTION THERE RENDERED MERELY RETRIES THE ISSUE PREVIOUSLY
DETERMINED.  THERE IS NO REASON TO EXPECT THAT THE SECOND DECISION WILL
BE MORE SATISFACTORY THAN THE FIRST. 

THAT A FORMER JUDGMENT IN A STATE COURT IS CONCLUSIVE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AND THEIR PRIVIES IN A FEDERAL COURT WHEN ENTERED UPON AN
ACTUALLY CONTESTED ISSUE AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LITIGATION, HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THIS COURT IN
FORSYTH V. HAMMOND.  FN15  THE PETITIONER, CAROLINE M. FORSYTH, SOUGHT
BY INJUNCTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO FORBID THE CITY OF HAMMOND FROM
COLLECTING TAXES ON CERTAIN LANDS, ANNEXED TO THE CITY BY AN EARLIER
STATE COURT DECREE.  THE CITY CONTENDED THAT THE EARLIER DECREE WAS
DECISIVE, THE PETITIONER THAT IT WAS VOID BECAUSE THE ENLARGEMENT OF A
CITY WAS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE, NOT JUDICIAL, COGNIZANCE.  WITHOUT
DETERMINING THE ISSUE WHETHER ANNEXATION ITSELF IS A FUNCTION SOLELY OF
THE LEGISLATURE, THIS COURT UPHELD THE CONTENTION OF THE CITY ON THE
GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAD TAKEN AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIANA FROM THE EARLIER DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT AGAINST HER IN THE
ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS, AND HAD IN THAT APPEAL ATTACKED THE VALIDITY OF
THE DECREE ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION.  "HAVING LITIGATED A
QUESTION IN ONE COMPETENT TRIBUNAL AND BEEN DEFEATED, CAN SHE LITIGATE
THE SAME QUESTION IN ANOTHER TRIBUNAL, ACTING INDEPENDENTLY, AND HAVING
NO APPELLATE JURISDICTION?  THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF
THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN
ANOTHER ACTION BETWEEN OTHER PARTIES, BUT WHETHER IT IS NOT BINDING
BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES IN THAT OR ANY OTHER FORUM."  FN16 

OTHER INSTANCES CLOSELY APPROACHING THE LINE OF THIS CASE MAY BE
EXAMINED. 

IN DES MOINES NAVIGATION & RAILROAD CO. V. IOWA HOMESTEAD CO.,  FN17
THIS COURT WAS CALLED UPON TO RESOLVE A CONTROVERSY OVER THE EFFECT OF
A JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN A MATTER BEYOND THEIR
JURISDICTION.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE HOMESTEAD COMPANY IN THE
STATE COURT TO RECOVER CERTAIN TAXES WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF
LITIGATION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES IN HOMESTEAD COMPANY V. VALLEY
RAILROAD, 17 WALL.  153.  IN THE EARLIER CASE THE DECISION HAD BEEN
ADVERSE TO THE HOMESTEAD COMPANY.  WHEN THE NAVIGATION COMPANY PLEADED
THE EARLIER DECREE IN BAR TO THE LATER ACTION, IT WAS MET WITH THE
REPLY THAT THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH HAD RENDERED THE
EARLIER DECREE "HAD NO JURISDICTION OF SAID SUIT AND NO LEGAL POWER OR
AUTHORITY TO RENDER SAID DECREE OR JUDGMENT."  THE REASON FOR THIS
ASSERTION WAS THAT THE EARLIER SUIT HAD BEEN INSTITUTED IN A STATE
COURT BY THE HOMESTEAD COMPANY, AN IOWA CORPORATION, AGAINST VARIOUS
NON-RESIDENT DEFENDANTS AND THE NAVIGATION COMPANY, ALSO AN IOWA
CORPORATION.  THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS CAUSED A REMOVAL TO THE FEDERAL
COURT AND ALL DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING THE NAVIGATION COMPANY, APPEARED,
FILED ANSWERS AND DEFENDED THE ACTION.  THE HOMESTEAD COMPANY LIKEWISE
APPEARED AND ACTUALLY CONTESTED ISSUES IN DISPUTE WITH THE NAVIGATION
COMPANY.  THE LITIGATION EVENTUALLY REACHED THIS COURT AND WAS DECIDED
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE LACK OF JURISDICTION.  IN THE LATER CASE THIS
COURT ASSUMED THAT THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT COURT OVER THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE TWO IOWA CORPORATIONS
WAS IMPROPER.  IT WAS HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE EARLIER DECREE WAS A
"PRIOR ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY" AND A BAR TO THE
LATER ACTION. 

A FEW YEARS LATER THIS COURT HAD OCCASION TO EXAMINE AGAIN THE
QUESTION OF THE EFFECT OF A FORMER ADJUDICATION BY A UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT COURT IN A CASE WHERE THIS COURT ASSUMED THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES BUT NOT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.  THE EARLIER
ADJUDICATION WAS PLEADED IN BAR TO A SUIT TO QUIET TITLE IN A STATE
COURT SITTING IN THE SAME STATE AS THE CIRCUIT COURT.  THE STATE COURTS
DENIED EFFECT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT DECREE.  ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF OREGON THIS COURT ANSWERED THE CONTENTION THAT THE
GROUND UPON WHICH "THE FEDERAL COURT ASSUMED JURISDICTION WAS
INSUFFICIENT IN LAW TO MAKE THIS CASE ONE ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES" IN THESE WORDS: 

"BUT THAT WAS A QUESTION WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WAS COMPETENT TO DETERMINE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  ITS DETERMINATION OF
IT WAS THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.  EVEN IF THAT COURT ERRED IN
ENTERTAINING JURISDICTION, ITS DETERMINATION OF THAT MATTER WAS
CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PARTIES BEFORE IT, AND COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED BY
THEM OR EITHER OF THEM COLLATERALLY, OR OTHERWISE THAN ON WRIT OF ERROR
OR APPEAL TO THIS COURT."  FN18 

THE DECISION IN THE DES MOINES CASE IS NOT PRECISELY PARALLEL WITH
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION WAS
BASED UPON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP BETWEEN OTHER PARTIES TO THE
CONTROVERSY  FN19  AND DOWELL V. APPLEGATE MAY LIKEWISE BE SEEN TO
DEVIATE SLIGHTLY SINCE THERE WAS COLOR OF JURISDICTION IN THE FEDERAL
COURT BY REASON OF CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS AS TO VIOLATION OF ACTS OF
CONGRESS IN THE STAMPING OF THE DEEDS. 

A CASE LIKEWISE CLOSELY APPROACHING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSY IS VALLELY V. NORTHERN FIRE & M. INS. CO. FN20  A
CORPORATION ALLEGED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS WAS
ADJUDICATED AN INVOLUNTARY BANKRUPT IN THE TEETH OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
SEC. 4-B, THAT "ANY MONEYED  ...  CORPORATION, EXCEPT (AN)  ...
INSURANCE  ...  CORPORATION,  ...  MAY BE ADJUDGED AN INVOLUNTARY
BANKRUPT."  THERE WAS A DEFAULT, ACQUIESCENCE AND AID TO THE TRUSTEE BY
THE BANKRUPT.  AFTER THE TIME FOR REVIEW OF THE ADJUDICATION HAD
EXPIRED, THE BANKRUPT FILED A MOTION TO VACATE THE ADJUDICATION AS NULL
AND VOID.  THIS COURT UPHELD THE MOTION.  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT A
DETERMINATION OF A JURISDICTIONAL FACT SUCH AS WHETHER AN ALLEGED
BANKRUPT IS A FARMER, BINDS,  FN21  BUT THAT WHERE THERE WAS NO STATUTE
OF BANKRUPTCY APPLICABLE "NECESSARILY THERE IS NO POWER IN THE DISTRICT
COURT TO INCLUDE," THE EXCEPTED CORPORATION.  IT WAS THOUGHT THAT TO
RECOGNIZE THE BINDING EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT WOULD BE TO EXTEND THE
JURISDICTION.  THIS DECISION IS INAPPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT
AN ACTUALLY CONTESTED ISSUE AND ORDER AS TO JURISDICTION.  THE CASE IS
ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE BECAUSE THE MOTION TO VACATE WAS MADE IN THE SAME
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING AS THE ORDER.  WE DO NOT COMMENT UPON THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS VARIABLE. 

TO APPRAISE THE CASES DEALING WITH STATUS AND TRANSFER OF TITLE TO
REAL ESTATE SEEMS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PRESENT INQUIRY.  THE RULE
APPLIED HERE MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE IN INSTANCES WHERE THE COURTS
WITH JURISDICTION OF THE LATER CONTROVERSY ARE PASSING UPON MATTERS OF
STATUS AND REAL ESTATE TITLES.  FN22 

IT IS FREQUENTLY SAID THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN STRICTLY JURISDICTIONAL
FACTS, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF
PROCEEDINGS AND THE ABSENCE OF WHICH RENDERS THE ACT OF THE COURT A
NULLITY.  EXAMPLES WITH CITATIONS ARE LISTED IN NOBLE V. UNION RIVER
LOGGING R. CO. FN23 FOR INSTANCE, SERVICE OF PROCESS IN A COMMON LAW
ACTION WITHIN A STATE, PUBLICATION OF NOTICE IN STRICT FORM IN
PROCEEDINGS IN REM AGAINST ABSENT DEFENDANTS, THE APPOINTMENT OF AN
ADMINISTRATOR FOR A LIVING PERSON, A COURT MARTIAL OF A CIVILIAN.  UPON
THE OTHER HAND THERE ARE QUASI-JURISDICTIONAL FACTS, DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP, MAJORITY OF LITIGANTS, AND JURISDICTION OF PARTIES, A MERE
FINDING OF WHICH, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL EXISTENCE, IS SUFFICIENT.  AS TO
THE FIRST GROUP IT IS SAID AN ADJUDICATION MAY BE COLLATERALLY
ATTACKED, AS TO THE SECOND IT MAY NOT.  WE DO NOT REVIEW THESE CASES AS
WE BASE OUR CONCLUSION HERE ON THE FACT THAT IN AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY
THE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS RAISED AND
DETERMINED ADVERSELY TO THE RESPONDENT.  THAT DETERMINATION IS RES
ADJUDICATA OF THAT ISSUE IN THIS ACTION, WHETHER OR NOT POWER TO DEAL
WITH THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER WAS STRICTLY OR QUASI
JURISDICTIONAL.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

FN1  CRESCENT CITY LIVE STOCK CO. V. BUTCHERS' UNION, 120 U.S. 141,
146; EMBRY V. PALMER, 107 U.S. 3, 9; METCALF V. WATERTOWN, 153 U.S.
671, 676; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. SOWERS, 213 U.S. 55, 65. 

FN2  DUPASSEUR V. ROCHEREAU, 21 WALL.  130, 134; CRESCENT CITY LIVE
STOCK CO. V. BUTCHERS' UNION, 120 U.S. 141, 142; DES MOINES NAV. CO. V.
IOWA HOMESTEAD CO., 123 U.S. 552, 559; PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY.
CO. V. LONG ISLAND LOAN & TRUST CO., 172 U.S. 493, 507; MOTLOW V. STATE
EX REL. KOELN, 295 U.S. 97, 98. 

FN3

                              "GUARANTY. 

"FOR VALUE RECEIVED, THE UNDERSIGNED, DO HEREBY GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT
OF THE WITHIN BOND AND THE INTEREST THEREON, AT THE MATURITY THEREOF
EITHER BY THE TERMS OF SAID BOND OR OF ANY AGREEMENT EXTENDING THE TIME
OF PAYMENT THEREOF, OR BY ANTICIPATION OF MATURITY AT THE ELECTION OF
THE LEGAL HOLDER OR OWNER THEREOF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY PROVISION OF
SAID BOND OR OF THE TRUST DEED GIVEN TO SECURE THE SAME, OR OF ANY
EXTENSION AGREEMENT; AND DO HEREBY ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF
THE RESPECTIVE INTEREST COUPONS, GIVEN TO EVIDENCE THE INTEREST ON SAID
BOND, AND ALL EXTENSION COUPONS, AT THEIR RESPECTIVE DATES OF MATURITY,
AND ALL INTEREST ON SAID COUPONS, AND DO HEREBY ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE
THE FULL AND COMPLETE PERFORMANCE BY THE MAKER OF THE TRUST DEED GIVEN
TO SECURE THE SAID BONDS AND COUPONS, AND ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS,
OF ALL OF THE TERMS, PROVISIONS, COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS OF THE SAID
TRUST DEED AND OF ANY SUCH EXTENSION AGREEMENT." 

FN4  368 ILL. 88; 12 N.E.2D 881. 

FN5  REV. STAT. SEC. 905.  "THE ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ANY STATE
OR TERRITORY, OR OF ANY COUNTRY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, SHALL BE AUTHENTICATED BY HAVING THE SEALS OF SUCH
STATE, TERRITORY, OR COUNTRY AFFIXED THERETO.  THE RECORDS AND JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURTS OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, OR OF ANY SUCH
COUNTRY, SHALL BE PROVED OR ADMITTED IN ANY OTHER COURT WITHIN THE
UNITED STATES, BY THE ATTESTATION OF THE CLERK, AND THE SEAL OF THE
COURT ANNEXED, IF THERE BE A SEAL, TOGETHER WITH A CERTIFICATE OF THE
JUDGE, CHIEF JUSTICE, OR PRESIDING MAGISTRATE, THAT THE SAID
ATTESTATION IS IN DUE FORM.  AND THE SAID RECORDS AND JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS, SO AUTHENTICATED, SHALL HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN
TO THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR
USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN." 

FN6  DUPASSEUR V. ROCHEREAU, 21 WALL.  130; EMBRY V. PALMER, 107 U.S.
3, 9; CF. METCALF V. WATERTOWN, 153 U.S. 671. 

FN7  DEPOSIT BANK V. FRANKFORT, 191 U.S. 499, 520. 

FN8  WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DID OR
DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.  CF. IN RE DIVERSEY
BUILDING CORP., 86 F.2D 456; IN RE NINE NORTH CHURCH STREET, INC., 82
F.2D 186; UNION TRUST CO. V. WILLSEA, 275 N.Y. 164, 167; 9 N.E.2D 820. 

FN9  AS ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER, SEE TEXAS &
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 266, 274; MATTER
OF GREGORY, 219 U.S. 210, 217. 

FN10  BALDWIN V. TRAVELING MEN'S ASSN., 283 U.S. 522. 

FN11  JONES V. UNITED STATES, 137 U.S. 202. 

FN12  CHICAGO LIFE INS. CO. V. CHERRY, 244 U.S. 25, 29. 

FN13  CHICAGO LIFE INS. CO. V. CHERRY, 244 U.S. 25, 30; BALDWIN V.
TRAVELING MEN'S ASSN., 283 U.S. 522, 525; DAVIS V. DAVIS, ANTE, P. 32. 

FN14  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS ONE OF GENERAL JURISDICTION.  FAIRBANKS
SHOVEL CO. V. WILLS, 240 U.S. 642, 649. 

FN15  166 U.S. 506, 515. 

FN16  ID. 517. 

FN17  123 U.S. 552. 

FN18  DOWELL V. APPLEGATE, 152 U.S. 327, 340. 

FN19  VALLELY V. NORTHERN FIRE & M. INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348, 354. 

FN20  254 U.S. 348. 

FN21  DENVER FIRST NAT. BANK V. KLUG, 186 U.S. 202. 

FN22  CF. ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14; S.C. 176 MASS. 92; 57 N.E.
333; FALL V. EASTIN, 215 U.S. 1; CARPENTER V. STRANGE, 141 U.S. 87,
105. 

FN23  147 U.S. 165. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :
























KELLOGG CO. V. NAT. BISCUIT CO., 305 U.S. 111 


NOS. 2 AND 56.  ARGUED OCTOBER 10, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 14, 1938. 
91 F.2D 150 - 96 ID. 873, REVERSED. 


1.  THE TERM "SHREDDED WHEAT" IS GENERIC, AND NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
ITS USE MAY BE ACQUIRED.  P. 116. 

2.  MOREOVER, "SHREDDED WHEAT" WAS THE GENERAL DESIGNATION OF THE
PRODUCT MADE UNDER THE PRODUCT AND PROCESS PATENTS ISSUED TO PERKY,
UPON THE EXPIRATION WHEREOF THERE PASSED TO THE PUBLIC NOT ONLY THE
RIGHT TO MAKE THE ARTICLE AS IT WAS MADE DURING THE PATENT PERIOD, BUT
ALSO THE RIGHT TO APPLY THERETO THE NAME BY WHICH IT HAD BECOME KNOWN. 
P. 117. 

3.  TO ESTABLISH, BY APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SECONDARY
MEANING, THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO "SHREDDED WHEAT" AS A TRADE NAME, THE
CLAIMANT MUST SHOW THAT THE PRIMARY SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM IN THE
MINDS OF THE CONSUMING PUBLIC IS NOT THE PRODUCT BUT THE PRODUCER.  P.
118. 

4.  THE RIGHT OF A COMPETITOR, UPON EXPIRATION OF THE PATENTS, TO
MAKE THE PATENTED PRODUCT AND CALL IT BY ITS GENERIC NAME, COULD NOT BE
LOST BY DELAY, EVEN THOUGH THE EARLIER MANUFACTURER, IN THE PERIOD
BETWEEN THE EXPIRATION OF THE PATENTS AND THE TIME WHEN THE COMPETITOR
BECAME A FACTOR, HAD SPENT LARGE SUMS IN ADVERTISING THE PRODUCT.  THE
ONLY OBLIGATION OF THE COMPETITOR WAS TO IDENTIFY ITS OWN PRODUCT LEST
IT BE MISTAKEN FOR THAT OF THE EARLIER PRODUCER.  P. 119. 

5.  INASMUCH AS THE PILLOW-SHAPED BISCUIT WAS THE FORM IN WHICH
SHREDDED WHEAT WAS MADE UNDER THE PATENTS AND IN WHICH THE ARTICLE
BECAME GENERALLY KNOWN, THE FORM WAS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC UPON
EXPIRATION OF THE PATENTS.  P. 119. 

6.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, HELD THAT THE KELLOGG COMPANY, IN
MAKING AND SELLING "SHREDDED WHEAT" BISCUITS UNDER THAT NAME, IN PILLOW
SHAPE FORM, IN COMPETITION WITH A SIMILAR PRODUCT OF THE NATIONAL
BISCUIT COMPANY (SUCCESSOR TO THE SHREDDED WHEAT COMPANY), WAS NOT
DOING SO UNFAIRLY.  THE OBLIGATION RESTING UPON THE KELLOGG COMPANY WAS
NOT TO INSURE THAT EVERY PURCHASER WOULD KNOW IT TO BE THE MAKER OF THE
BISCUITS SOLD BY IT, BUT TO USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO PREVENT
CONFUSION.  P. 120. 

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE OF "PASSING OFF" OR DECEPTION ON
THE PART OF THE KELLOGG COMPANY. 

7.  THE KELLOGG COMPANY IS NOT OBLIGED TO REFRAIN FROM USING THE NAME
"SHREDDED WHEAT" AND TO MAKE ITS BISCUIT IN SOME OTHER THAN THE PILLOW
SHAPE FORM.  IT IS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE GOODWILL OF AN ARTICLE
UNPROTECTED BY PATENT OR TRADE-MARK.  FURTHERMORE, THE EVIDENCE IS
PERSUASIVE THAT THE PILLOW-SHAPE FORM MUST BE USED, BECAUSE IT IS
FUNCTIONAL.  P. 121. 

8.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE KELLOGG COMPANY'S USE UPON ITS PACKAGES
OF A PICTURE OF TWO SHREDDED WHEAT BISCUITS IN A BOWL WAS A VIOLATION
OF A TRADE-MARK OF THE NATIONAL BISCUIT COMPANY, HELD NOT BEFORE THIS
COURT ON THE PRESENT RECORD.  P. 122. 

KELLOGG COMPANY V. NATIONAL BISCUIT COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 586, TO REVIEW A DECREE OF INJUNCTION AGAINST
THE PETITIONER AND A LATER ORDER CLARIFYING THE DECREE.  A PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE FIRST DECREE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DENIED, 302
U.S. 733.  JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT WAS BASED UPON DIVERSITY
OF CITIZENSHIP. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR DELAWARE N1 BY
NATIONAL BISCUIT COMPANY AGAINST KELLOGG COMPANY TO ENJOIN ALLEGED
UNFAIR COMPETITION BY THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF THE BREAKFAST FOOD
COMMONLY KNOWN AS SHREDDED WHEAT.  THE COMPETITION WAS ALLEGED TO BE
UNFAIR MAINLY BECAUSE KELLOGG COMPANY USES, LIKE THE PLAINTIFF, THE
NAME SHREDDED WHEAT AND, LIKE THE PLAINTIFF, PRODUCES ITS BISCUIT IN
PILLOW-SHAPED FORM. 

SHREDDED WHEAT IS A PRODUCT COMPOSED OF WHOLE WHEAT WHICH HAS BEEN
BOILED, PARTIALLY DRIED, THEN DRAWN OR PRESSED OUT INTO THIN SHREDS AND
BAKED.  THE SHREDDED WHEAT BISCUIT GENERALLY KNOWN IS PILLOW-SHAPED IN
FORM.  IT WAS INTRODUCED IN 1893 BY HENRY D. PERKY, OF COLORADO; AND HE
WAS CONNECTED UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 1908 WITH COMPANIES FORMED TO MAKE AND
MARKET THE ARTICLE.  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS WAS NOT ATTAINED UNTIL THE
NATURAL FOOD COMPANY BUILT, IN 1901, A LARGE FACTORY AT NIAGARA FALLS,
NEW YORK.  IN 1908, ITS CORPORATE NAME WAS CHANGED TO "THE SHREDDED
WHEAT COMPANY"; AND IN 1930 ITS BUSINESS AND GOODWILL WERE ACQUIRED BY
NATIONAL BISCUIT COMPANY. 

KELLOGG COMPANY HAS BEEN IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING BREAKFAST
FOOD CEREALS SINCE ITS ORGANIZATION IN 1905.  FOR A PERIOD COMMENCING
IN 1912 AND ENDING IN 1919 IT MADE A PRODUCT WHOSE FORM WAS SOMEWHAT
LIKE THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION, BUT WHOSE MANUFACTURE WAS DIFFERENT, THE
WHEAT BEING REDUCED TO A DOUGH BEFORE BEING PRESSED INTO SHREDS.  FOR A
SHORT PERIOD IN 1922 IT MANUFACTURED THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION.  IN 1927,
IT RESUMED MANUFACTURING THE PRODUCT.  IN 1928, THE PLAINTIFF SUED FOR
ALLEGED UNFAIR COMPETITION TWO DEALERS IN KELLOGG SHREDDED WHEAT
BISCUITS.  THAT SUIT WAS DISCONTINUED BY STIPULATION IN 1930.  ON JUNE
11, 1932, THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT.  MUCH EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED;
BUT THE DETERMINATIVE FACTS ARE RELATIVELY FEW; AND AS TO MOST OF THESE
THERE IS NO CONFLICT. 

IN 1935, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE BILL.  IT FOUND THAT THE
NAME "SHREDDED WHEAT" IS A TERM DESCRIBING ALIKE THE PRODUCT OF THE
PLAINTIFF AND OF THE DEFENDANT; AND THAT NO PASSING OFF OR DECEPTION
HAD BEEN SHOWN.  IT HELD THAT UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERKY PATENT
NO. 548,086 ISSUED OCTOBER 15, 1895, THE NAME OF THE PATENTED ARTICLE
PASSED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.  IN 1936, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED THAT DECREE.  UPON REHEARING, IT VACATED, IN 1937, ITS OWN
DECREE AND REVERSED THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WITH DIRECTION "TO
ENTER A DECREE ENJOINING THE DEFENDANT FROM THE USE OF THE NAME
'SHREDDED WHEAT' AS ITS TRADE-NAME AND FROM ADVERTISING OR OFFERING FOR
SALE ITS PRODUCT IN THE FORM AND SHAPE OF PLAINTIFF'S BISCUIT IN
VIOLATION OF ITS TRADE-MARK; AND WITH FURTHER DIRECTIONS TO ORDER AN
ACCOUNTING FOR DAMAGES AND PROFITS."  IN ITS OPINION THE COURT
DESCRIBED THE TRADE-MARK AS "CONSISTING OF A DISH, CONTAINING TWO
BISCUITS SUBMERGED IN MILK."  91 F.2D 150, 152.  WE DENIED KELLOGG
COMPANY'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 733; AND DENIED
REHEARING, 302 U.S. 777. 

ON JANUARY 5, 1938, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ITS MANDATE IN THE
EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND ISSUED
A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER NATIONAL BISCUIT COMPANY
PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO RECALL ITS MANDATE "FOR
PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION."  IT ALLEGED THAT KELLOGG COMPANY WAS
INSISTING, CONTRARY TO THE COURT'S INTENTION, THAT THE EFFECT OF THE
MANDATE AND WRIT OF INJUNCTION WAS TO FORBID IT FROM SELLING ITS
PRODUCT ONLY WHEN THE TRADE NAME "SHREDDED WHEAT" IS APPLIED TO A
BISCUIT IN THE FORM AND SHAPE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S BISCUIT AND IS
ACCOMPANIED BY A REPRESENTATION OF A DISH WITH BISCUITS IN IT; AND THAT
IT WAS NOT ENJOINED FROM MAKING ITS BISCUIT IN THE FORM AND SHAPE OF
THE PLAINTIFF'S BISCUIT, NOR FROM CALLING IT "SHREDDED WHEAT," UNLESS
AT THE SAME TIME IT USES UPON ITS CARTONS PLAINTIFF'S TRADE-MARK
CONSISTING OF A DISH WITH TWO BISCUITS IN IT.  ON MAY 5, 1938, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED THE PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION AND
DIRECTED THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER A DECREE ENJOINING KELLOGG COMPANY
(96 F.2D 873): 

"(1) FROM THE USE OF THE NAME 'SHREDDED WHEAT' AS ITS TRADE NAME, (2)
FROM ADVERTISING OR OFFERING FOR SALE ITS PRODUCT IN THE FORM AND SHAPE
OF PLAINTIFF'S BISCUIT, AND (3) FROM DOING EITHER." 

KELLOGG COMPANY THEN FILED A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
REVIEW THE DECREE AS SO CLARIFIED, AND ALSO SOUGHT RECONSIDERATION OF
OUR DENIAL OF ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE DECREE AS
ENTERED IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM.  IN SUPPORT OF THESE PETITIONS IT CALLED
TO OUR ATTENTION THE DECISION OF THE BRITISH PRIVY COUNCIL IN CANADIAN
SHREDDED WHEAT CO. V. KELLOGG CO. OF CANADA, 55 R.P.C. 125, RENDERED
AFTER OUR DENIAL OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI EARLIER IN THE TERM. 
WE GRANTED BOTH PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI.  FN2 

THE PLAINTIFF CONCEDES THAT IT DOES NOT POSSESS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
TO MAKE SHREDDED WHEAT.  BUT IT CLAIMS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THE TRADE
NAME "SHREDDED WHEAT" AND THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE SHREDDED WHEAT
BISCUITS PILLOW-SHAPED.  IT CHARGES THAT THE DEFENDANT, BY USING THE
NAME AND SHAPE, AND OTHERWISE, IS PASSING OFF, OR ENABLING OTHERS TO
PASS OFF, KELLOGG GOODS FOR THOSE OF THE PLAINTIFF.  KELLOGG COMPANY
DENIES THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE NAME
OR OF THE PILLOW-SHAPE; DENIES ANY PASSING OFF; ASSERTS THAT IT HAS
USED EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO DISTINGUISH ITS PRODUCT FROM THAT OF
THE PLAINTIFF; AND CONTENDS THAT IN HONESTLY COMPETING FOR A PART OF
THE MARKET FOR SHREDDED WHEAT IT IS EXERCISING THE COMMON RIGHT FREELY
TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL AN ARTICLE OF COMMERCE UNPROTECTED BY PATENT. 

FIRST.  THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE TERM
"SHREDDED WHEAT" AS A TRADE NAME.  FOR THAT IS THE GENERIC TERM OF THE
ARTICLE, WHICH DESCRIBES IT WITH A FAIR DEGREE OF ACCURACY; AND IS THE
TERM BY WHICH THE BISCUIT IN PILLOW-SHAPED FORM IS GENERALLY KNOWN BY
THE PUBLIC.  SINCE THE TERM IS GENERIC, THE ORIGINAL MAKER OF THE
PRODUCT ACQUIRED NO EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE IT.  AS KELLOGG COMPANY HAD
THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE ARTICLE, IT HAD, ALSO, THE RIGHT TO USE THE TERM
BY WHICH THE PUBLIC KNOWS IT.  COMPARE SAXLEHNER V. WAGNER, 216 U.S.
375; HOLZAPFEL'S COMPOSITIONS CO. V. RAHTJEN'S AMERICAN COMPOSITION
CO., 183 U.S. 1.  EVER SINCE 1894 THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN KNOWN TO THE
PUBLIC AS SHREDDED WHEAT.  FOR MANY YEARS, THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO USE
THE TERM "SHREDDED WHEAT" AS A TRADE-MARK.  WHEN IN 1905 PLAINTIFF'S
PREDECESSOR, NATURAL FOOD COMPANY, APPLIED FOR REGISTRATION OF THE
WORDS "SHREDDED WHOLE WHEAT" AS A TRADE-MARK UNDER THE SO-CALLED "TEN
YEAR CLAUSE" OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1905, C. 592, SEC. 5, 33 STAT.
725, WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS GAVE NOTICE OF OPPOSITION.  UPON THE HEARING
IT APPEARED THAT WILLIAMS HAD, AS EARLY AS 1894, BUILT A MACHINE FOR
MAKING SHREDDED WHEAT, AND THAT HE MADE AND SOLD ITS PRODUCT AS
"SHREDDED WHOLE WHEAT."  THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS REFUSED
REGISTRATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AFFIRMED HIS DECISION, HOLDING THAT "THESE WORDS ACCURATELY AND APTLY
DESCRIBE AN ARTICLE OF FOOD WHICH  ...  HAS BEEN PRODUCED  ...  FOR
MORE THAN TEN YEARS  ...  " NATURAL FOOD CO. V. WILLIAMS, 30 APP. D.C.
348.  FN3 

MOREOVER, THE NAME "SHREDDED WHEAT," AS WELL AS THE PRODUCT, THE
PROCESS AND THE MACHINERY EMPLOYED IN MAKING IT, HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO
THE PUBLIC.  THE BASIC PATENT FOR THE PRODUCT AND FOR THE PROCESS OF
MAKING IT, AND MANY OTHER PATENTS FOR SPECIAL MACHINERY TO BE USED IN
MAKING THE ARTICLE, ISSUED TO PERKY.  IN THOSE PATENTS THE TERM
"SHREDDED" IS REPEATEDLY USED AS DESCRIPTIVE OF THE PRODUCT.  THE BASIC
PATENT EXPIRED OCTOBER 15, 1912; THE OTHERS SOON AFTER.  SINCE DURING
THE LIFE OF THE PATENTS "SHREDDED WHEAT" WAS THE GENERAL DESIGNATION OF
THE PATENTED PRODUCT, THERE PASSED TO THE PUBLIC UPON THE EXPIRATION OF
THE PATENT, NOT ONLY THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE ARTICLE AS IT WAS MADE
DURING THE PATENT PERIOD, BUT ALSO THE RIGHT TO APPLY THERETO THE NAME
BY WHICH IT HAD BECOME KNOWN.  AS WAS SAID IN SINGER MFG. CO. V. JUNE
MFG. CO., 163 U.S. 169, 185: 

"IT EQUALLY FOLLOWS FROM THE CESSATION OF THE MONOPOLY AND THE
FALLING OF THE PATENTED DEVICE INTO THE DOMAIN OF THINGS PUBLIC, THAT
ALONG WITH THE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF THE DEVICE THERE MUST ALSO
NECESSARILY PASS TO THE PUBLIC THE GENERIC DESIGNATION OF THE THING
WHICH HAS ARISEN DURING THE MONOPOLY.  ...  TO SAY OTHERWISE WOULD BE
TO HOLD THAT, ALTHOUGH THE PUBLIC HAD ACQUIRED THE DEVICE COVERED BY
THE PATENT, YET THE OWNER OF THE PATENT OR THE MANUFACTURER OF THE
PATENTED THING HAD RETAINED THE DESIGNATED NAME WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY
NECESSARY TO VEST THE PUBLIC WITH THE FULL ENJOYMENT OF THAT WHICH HAD
BECOME THEIRS BY THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE MONOPOLY." 

IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO THE
NAME "SHREDDED WHEAT," BECAUSE THOSE WORDS ACQUIRED THE "SECONDARY
MEANING" OF SHREDDED WHEAT MADE AT NIAGARA FALLS BY THE PLAINTIFF'S
PREDECESSOR.  THERE IS NO BASIS HERE FOR APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF
SECONDARY MEANING.  THE EVIDENCE SHOWS ONLY THAT DUE TO THE LONG PERIOD
IN WHICH THE PLAINTIFF OR ITS PREDECESSOR WAS THE ONLY MANUFACTURER OF
THE PRODUCT, MANY PEOPLE HAVE COME TO ASSOCIATE THE PRODUCT, AND AS A
CONSEQUENCE THE NAME BY WHICH THE PRODUCT IS GENERALLY KNOWN, WITH THE
PLAINTIFF'S FACTORY AT NIAGARA FALLS.  BUT TO ESTABLISH A TRADE NAME IN
THE TERM "SHREDDED WHEAT" THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW MORE THAN A
SUBORDINATE MEANING WHICH APPLIES TO IT.  IT MUST SHOW THAT THE PRIMARY
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TERM IN THE MINDS OF THE CONSUMING PUBLIC IS NOT
THE PRODUCT BUT THE PRODUCER.  THIS IT HAS NOT DONE.  THE SHOWING WHICH
IT HAS MADE DOES NOT ENTITLE IT TO THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE TERM
SHREDDED WHEAT BUT MERELY ENTITLES IT TO REQUIRE THAT THE DEFENDANT USE
REASONABLE CARE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC OF THE SOURCE OF ITS PRODUCT. 

THE PLAINTIFF SEEMS TO CONTEND THAT EVEN IF KELLOGG COMPANY ACQUIRED
UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE PATENTS THE RIGHT TO USE THE NAME SHREDDED
WHEAT, THE RIGHT WAS LOST BY DELAY.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT KELLOGG
COMPANY, ALTHOUGH THE LARGEST PRODUCER OF BREAKFAST CEREALS IN THE
COUNTRY, DID NOT SERIOUSLY ATTEMPT TO MAKE SHREDDED WHEAT, OR TO
CHALLENGE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHT TO THAT NAME UNTIL 1927, AND THAT MEANWHILE
PLAINTIFF'S PREDECESSOR HAD EXPENDED MORE THAN $17,000,000 IN MAKING
THE NAME A HOUSEHOLD WORD AND IDENTIFYING THE PRODUCT WITH ITS
MANUFACTURE.  THOSE FACTS ARE WITHOUT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.  KELLOGG
COMPANY'S RIGHT WAS NOT ONE DEPENDENT UPON DILIGENT EXERCISE.  LIKE
EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, IT WAS, AND REMAINED, FREE TO MAKE
SHREDDED WHEAT WHEN IT CHOSE TO DO SO; AND TO CALL THE PRODUCT BY ITS
GENERIC NAME.  THE ONLY OBLIGATION RESTING UPON KELLOGG COMPANY WAS TO
IDENTIFY ITS OWN PRODUCT LEST IT BE MISTAKEN FOR THAT OF THE
PLAINTIFF. 

SECOND.  THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SELL SHREDDED
WHEAT IN THE FORM OF A PILLOW-SHAPED BISCUIT - THE FORM IN WHICH THE
ARTICLE BECAME KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.  THAT IS THE FORM IN WHICH SHREDDED
WHEAT WAS MADE UNDER THE BASIC PATENT.  THE PATENTED MACHINES USED WERE
DESIGNED TO PRODUCE ONLY THE PILLOW-SHAPED BISCUITS.  AND A DESIGN
PATENT WAS TAKEN OUT TO COVER THE PILLOW-SHAPED FORM.  FN4  HENCE, UPON
EXPIRATION OF THE PATENTS THE FORM, AS WELL AS THE NAME, WAS DEDICATED
TO THE PUBLIC.  AS WAS SAID IN SINGER MFG. CO. V. JUNE MFG. CO., SUPRA,
P. 185: 

"IT IS SELF EVIDENT THAT ON THE EXPIRATION OF A PATENT THE MONOPOLY
GRANTED BY IT CEASES TO EXIST, AND THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE THING FORMERLY
COVERED BY THE PATENT BECOMES PUBLIC PROPERTY.  IT IS UPON THIS
CONDITION THAT THE PATENT IS GRANTED.  IT FOLLOWS, AS A MATTER OF
COURSE, THAT ON THE TERMINATION OF THE PATENT THERE PASSES TO THE
PUBLIC THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE MACHINE IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT WAS
CONSTRUCTED DURING THE PATENT.  WE MAY, THEREFORE, DISMISS WITHOUT
FURTHER COMMENT THE COMPLAINT, AS TO THE FORM IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT
MADE HIS MACHINES." 

WHERE AN ARTICLE MAY BE MANUFACTURED BY ALL, A PARTICULAR
MANUFACTURER CAN NO MORE ASSERT EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS IN A FORM IN WHICH THE
PUBLIC HAS BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO SEE THE ARTICLE AND WHICH, IN THE MINDS
OF THE PUBLIC, IS PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ARTICLE RATHER THAN A
PARTICULAR PRODUCER, THAN IT CAN IN THE CASE OF A NAME WITH SIMILAR
CONNECTIONS IN THE PUBLIC MIND.  KELLOGG COMPANY WAS FREE TO USE THE
PILLOW-SHAPED FORM, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE OBLIGATION TO IDENTIFY ITS
PRODUCT LEST IT BE MISTAKEN FOR THAT OF THE PLAINTIFF. 

THIRD.  THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER KELLOGG COMPANY IN EXERCISING
ITS RIGHT TO USE THE NAME "SHREDDED WHEAT" AND THE PILLOW-SHAPED
BISCUIT, IS DOING SO FAIRLY.  FAIRNESS REQUIRES THAT IT BE DONE IN A
MANNER WHICH REASONABLY DISTINGUISHES ITS PRODUCT FROM THAT OF
PLAINTIFF.    EACH COMPANY SELLS ITS BISCUITS ONLY IN CARTONS.  THE
STANDARD KELLOGG CARTON CONTAINS FIFTEEN BISCUITS; THE PLAINTIFF'S
TWELVE.  THE KELLOGG CARTONS ARE DISTINCTIVE.  THEY DO NOT RESEMBLE
THOSE USED BY THE PLAINTIFF EITHER IN SIZE, FORM, OR COLOR.  AND THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE LABELS IS STRIKING.  THE KELLOGG CARTONS BEAR IN BOLD
SCRIPT THE NAMES "KELLOGG'S WHOLE WHEAT BISCUIT" OR "KELLOGG'S SHREDDED
WHOLE WHEAT BISCUIT" SO SIZED AND SPACED AS TO STRIKE THE EYE AS BEING
A KELLOGG PRODUCT.  IT IS TRUE THAT ON SOME OF ITS CARTONS IT HAD A
PICTURE OF TWO SHREDDED WHEAT BISCUITS IN A BOWL OF MILK WHICH WAS
QUITE SIMILAR TO ONE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S REGISTERED TRADE-MARKS.  BUT
THE NAME KELLOGG WAS SO PROMINENT ON ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S CARTONS AS
TO MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONFUSION. 

SOME HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, AND LUNCHROOMS SERVE BISCUITS NOT IN
CARTONS AND GUESTS SO SERVED MAY CONCEIVABLY SUPPOSE THAT A KELLOGG
BISCUIT SERVED IS ONE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S MAKE.  BUT NO PERSON FAMILIAR
WITH PLAINTIFF'S PRODUCT WOULD BE MISLED.  THE KELLOGG BISCUIT IS ABOUT
TWO-THIRDS THE SIZE OF PLAINTIFF'S; AND DIFFERS FROM IT IN APPEARANCE. 
MOREOVER, THE FIELD IN WHICH DECEPTION COULD BE PRACTICED IS NEGLIGIBLY
SMALL.  ONLY 2 1/2 PER CENT OF THE KELLOGG BISCUITS ARE SOLD TO HOTELS,
RESTAURANTS AND LUNCHROOMS.  OF THOSE SO SOLD 98 PER CENT ARE SOLD IN
INDIVIDUAL CARTONS CONTAINING TWO BISCUITS.  THESE CARTONS ARE
DISTINCTIVE AND BEAR PROMINENTLY THE KELLOGG NAME.  TO PUT UPON THE
INDIVIDUAL BISCUIT SOME MARK WHICH WOULD IDENTIFY IT AS THE KELLOGG
PRODUCT IS NOT COMMERCIALLY POSSIBLE.  RELATIVELY FEW BISCUITS WILL BE
REMOVED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL CARTONS BEFORE THEY REACH THE CONSUMER. 
THE OBLIGATION RESTING UPON KELLOGG COMPANY IS NOT TO INSURE THAT EVERY
PURCHASER WILL KNOW IT TO BE THE MAKER BUT TO USE EVERY REASONABLE
MEANS TO PREVENT CONFUSION. 

IT IS URGED THAT ALL POSSIBILITY OF DECEPTION OR CONFUSION WOULD BE
REMOVED IF KELLOGG COMPANY SHOULD REFRAIN FROM USING THE NAME "SHREDDED
WHEAT" AND ADOPT SOME FORM OTHER THAN THE PILLOW-SHAPE.  BUT THE NAME
AND FORM ARE INTEGRAL PARTS OF THE GOODWILL OF THE ARTICLE.  TO SHARE
FULLY IN THE GOODWILL, IT MUST USE THE NAME AND THE PILLOW-SHAPE.  AND
IN THE GOODWILL KELLOGG COMPANY IS AS FREE TO SHARE AS THE PLAINTIFF. 
COMPARE WILLIAM R. WARNER & CO. V. ELI LILLY & CO., 265 U.S. 526, 528,
530.  MOREOVER, THE PILLOW-SHAPE MUST BE USED FOR ANOTHER REASON.  THE
EVIDENCE IS PERSUASIVE THAT THIS FORM IS FUNCTIONAL - THAT THE COST OF
THE BISCUIT WOULD BE INCREASED AND ITS HIGH QUALITY LESSENED IF SOME
OTHER FORM WERE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE PILLOW-SHAPE. 

KELLOGG COMPANY IS UNDOUBTEDLY SHARING IN THE GOODWILL OF THE ARTICLE
KNOWN AS "SHREDDED WHEAT"; AND THUS IS SHARING IN A MARKET WHICH WAS
CREATED BY THE SKILL AND JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S PREDECESSOR AND HAS
BEEN WIDELY EXTENDED BY VAST EXPENDITURES IN ADVERTISING PERSISTENTLY
MADE.  BUT THAT IS NOT UNFAIR.  SHARING IN THE GOODWILL OF AN ARTICLE
UNPROTECTED BY PATENT OR TRADE-MARK IS THE EXERCISE OF A RIGHT
POSSESSED BY ALL - AND IN THE FREE EXERCISE OF WHICH THE CONSUMING
PUBLIC IS DEEPLY INTERESTED.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PASSING OFF OR
DECEPTION ON THE PART OF THE KELLOGG COMPANY; FN5  AND IT HAS TAKEN
EVERY REASONABLE PRECAUTION TO PREVENT CONFUSION OR THE PRACTICE OF
DECEPTION IN THE SALE OF ITS PRODUCT. 

FOURTH.  BY ITS "CLARIFYING" DECREE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
ENJOINED KELLOGG COMPANY FROM USING THE PICTURE OF THE TWO SHREDDED
WHEAT BISCUITS IN THE BOWL ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST MANUFACTURING THE PILLOW-SHAPED BISCUITS AND THE USE OF THE
TERM SHREDDED WHEAT, ON THE GROUNDS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION.  FN6  THE
USE OF THIS PICTURE WAS NOT ENJOINED ON THE INDEPENDENT GROUND OF TRADE
MARK INFRINGEMENT.  SINCE THE NATIONAL BISCUIT COMPANY DID NOT PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI, THE QUESTION WHETHER USE OF THE PICTURE IS A VIOLATION
OF THAT TRADE-MARK ALTHOUGH KELLOGG COMPANY IS FREE TO USE THE NAME AND
THE PILLOW-SHAPED BISCUIT IS NOT HERE FOR REVIEW.  DECREES REVERSED
WITH DIRECTION TO DISMISS THE BILL. 

FN1  THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION RESTS ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP -
NATIONAL BISCUIT COMPANY BEING A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION AND KELLOGG
COMPANY A DELAWARE CORPORATION.  MOST OF THE ISSUES IN THE CASE INVOLVE
QUESTIONS OF COMMON LAW AND HENCE ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ERIE R. CO.
V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64(1938).  BUT NO CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE THAT THE
LOCAL LAW IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE GENERAL LAW ON THE SUBJECT, AND
BOTH PARTIES HAVE RELIED ALMOST ENTIRELY ON FEDERAL PRECEDENTS. 

FN2  RIGHTS HERE CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFF HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN MUCH
OTHER LITIGATION.  SEE NATURAL FOOD CO. V. WILLIAMS, 30 APP. D.C. 348;
SHREDDED WHEAT CO. V. HUMPHREY CORNELL CO., 250 F. 960(C.C.A.2D);
KELLOGG CO. V. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., 71 F.2D 662(C.C.A.2D); CANADIAN
SHREDDED WHEAT CO. V. KELLOGG CO. OF CANADA, 55 R.P.C. 125; IN RE TRADE
MARK NO. 500761, REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE SHREDDED WHEAT CO.,
LTD., IN CLASS 42(1938) SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, COURT OF APPEAL;
ALSO NATURAL FOOD CO. V. BUCKLEY, NO. 28,530, U.S. DIST. CT., N. DIST.
ILL., EAST.  DIV.  (1908). 

FN3  THE TRADE-MARKS ARE REGISTERED UNDER THE ACT OF 1920.  41 STAT.
533, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 121-28(1934).  BUT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT
REGISTRATION UNDER IT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DOMESTIC COMMON-LAW RIGHTS
OF THE PERSON WHOSE TRADE-MARK IS REGISTERED.  CHARLES BROADWAY ROUSS,
INC. V. WINCHESTER CO., 300 F. 706, 713, 714(C.C.A.2D); KELLOGG CO. V.
NATIONAL BISCUIT CO., 71 F.2D 662, 666(C.C.A.2D). 

FN4  THE DESIGN PATENT WOULD HAVE EXPIRED BY LIMITATIONS IN 1909.  IN
1908 IT WAS DECLARED INVALID BY A DISTRICT JUDGE ON THE GROUND THAT THE
DESIGN HAD BEEN IN PUBLIC USE FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE
APPLICATION FOR THE PATENT AND THERETOFORE HAD ALREADY BEEN DEDICATED
TO THE PUBLIC.  NATURAL FOODS CO. V. BULKLEY, NO. 28,530, U.S. DIST.
CT., N. DIST. ILL., EAST.  DIV.  (1908). 

FN5  ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE FACT THAT THE LABEL ON THESE KELLOGG
CARTONS BEARS, IN SMALL LETTERS, THE WORDS:  "THE ORIGINAL HAS THIS
(W.K. KELLOGG'S) SIGNATURE."  OBJECTION TO THEIR USE WAS NOT CHARGED IN
THE BILL; NO SUCH ISSUE WAS RAISED AT THE TRIAL; AND THE USE WAS NOT
ENJOINED.  COUNSEL FOR THE COMPANY ADMITTED IN THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US
THAT ITS USE, COMMON AS APPLIED TO OTHER KELLOGG PRODUCTS, SHOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN MADE ON CARTONS OF SHREDDED WHEAT; AND STATED THAT THE USE
HAD BEEN DISCONTINUED LONG BEFORE ENTRY OF THE "CLARIFYING" DECREE. 

FN6  IN ITS OPINION CLARIFYING THE MANDATE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE NAME AND THE
FORM OF THE BISCUIT, SAID (96 F.2D 873, 875): 

"THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE
ORDER OF APRIL 12, 1937, DID NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE VIOLATION OF THE TWO-BISCUIT-IN-A-DISH TRADE-MARK (ALTHOUGH
IT WAS INTENDED TO DO SO) WE HAVE ANY JURISDICTION TO AMEND THE MANDATE
SO AS TO INCLUDE SPECIFICALLY SUCH A PROVISION.  AS THERE MAY BE SOME
DOUBT ON THIS QUESTION, WE WILL NOT AMEND THE MANDATE SO AS TO PROVIDE
A SPECIFIC INJUNCTION AGAINST THE USE OF THE TWO-BISCUIT-IN-A-DISH
TRADE-MARK.  ITS USE ON A CARTON OR IN ADVERTISING MATTER, WHEN THE
DEFENDANT IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE THE WORD 'SHREDDED WHEAT' AS A TRADE
NAME OR TO ADVERTISE OR SELL BISCUITS IN THE PILLOW-SHAPE FORM, WOULD
MANIFESTLY BE SO IMPROPER AND SO LIKELY TO MISLEAD THAT WE WILL ASSUME
THAT THE APPELLEE WILL NOT USE IT." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS CORRECT AND SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED.  TO THEM IT SEEMS SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR THAT THE KELLOGG COMPANY
IS FRAUDULENTLY SEEKING TO APPROPRIATE TO ITSELF THE BENEFITS OF A
GOODWILL BUILT UP AT GREAT COST BY THE RESPONDENT AND ITS
PREDECESSORS. 
..END :















GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. LEONIDAS, 305 U.S. 1 


NO. 8.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 105
MONT. 302 - 72 P.2D 1007, AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  SECTION 54 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, PROVIDING THAT
AN EMPLOYEE OF A COMMON CARRIER SHALL NOT BE HELD TO HAVE ASSUMED THE
RISKS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT "IN ANY CASE WHERE THE VIOLATION BY SUCH COMMON
CARRIER OF ANY STATUTE ENACTED FOR THE SAFETY OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTED
TO THE INJURY OR DEATH OF SUCH EMPLOYEE," RELATES TO STATUTES
SUBJECTING CARRIERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO PARTICULAR OBLIGATIONS
FOR THE SAFETY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, SUCH AS THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS,
NOT TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ITSELF.  P. 2. 

WHERE SUCH VIOLATIONS ARE NOT INVOLVED, THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF
RISK IS AVAILABLE IN ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT.  P. 2. 

2.  THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK IS FOR THE JURY, UNDER PROPER
INSTRUCTIONS, WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE TENDING TO SUPPORT IT.  P. 3. 

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. ET AL. V. LEONIDAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 632, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE RAILWAY COMPANY AND ONE OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN AN ACTION FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES.  THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS DISMISSED AS TO THE
EMPLOYEE FOR WANT OF A PROPERLY PRESENTED FEDERAL QUESTION. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY GEORGE LEONIDAS, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GREAT
NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, AGAINST THAT COMPANY AND GEORGE PAPPAS,
ANOTHER OF ITS EMPLOYEES, TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS' NEGLIGENCE.  THE COMPLAINT
SET FORTH TWO CAUSES OF ACTION BUT AT THE TRIAL PLAINTIFF ELECTED TO
STAND UPON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, WHICH WAS BASED UPON THE FEDERAL
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT.  45 U.S.C. 51-59.  DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR THE
DIRECTION OF A VERDICT IN THEIR FAVOR WAS DENIED AND THE JURY FOUND FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT. 
105 MONT. 302; 72 P.2D 1007. 

AFTER RULING THAT UPON THE EVIDENCE THE QUESTION OF PLAINTIFF'S
ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS ONE FOR THE JURY, THE COURT STATED AS A FURTHER
GROUND FOR AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT THAT THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF
RISK WAS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  THE COURT POINTED TO
THE PROVISION (SEC. 54) THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMMON CARRIER SHALL
NOT BE HELD TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISKS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT "IN ANY CASE
WHERE THE VIOLATION BY SUCH COMMON CARRIER OF ANY STATUTE ENACTED FOR
THE SAFETY OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURY OR DEATH OF SUCH
EMPLOYEE."  THE COURT RULED THAT THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
WAS ONE INTENDED TO PROMOTE THE SAFETY OF EMPLOYEES AND HENCE THAT THE
DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS BARRED. 

THIS RULING WAS ERROR.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 54 RELATES TO SUCH
STATUTES AS THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACTS (MARCH 2, 1893, C. 196, 27 STAT.
531; MARCH 2, 1903, C. 976, 32 STAT. 943; APRIL 14, 1910, C. 160, 36
STAT. 298; FEBRUARY 17, 1911, C. 103, 36 STAT. 913); THE HOURS OF
SERVICE ACT (MARCH 4, 1907, C. 2939, 34 STAT. 1415); AND OTHER STATUTES
SUBJECTING CARRIERS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO PARTICULAR OBLIGATIONS
FOR THE SAFETY OF THEIR EMPLOYEES.  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. HORTON,
233 U.S. 492, 503; JACOBS V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., 241 U.S. 229, 235,
236.  WHERE SUCH VIOLATIONS ARE NOT INVOLVED, THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION
OF RISK IS AVAILABLE IN ACTIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
ACT.  SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. HORTON, SUPRA; JACOBS V. SOUTHERN
RAILWAY CO., SUPRA; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. SWEARINGEN, 239 U.S.
339, 344; BAUGHAM V. NEW YORK, P. & N.R. CO., 241 U.S. 237, 241;
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. WARD, 252 U.S. 18, 21. 

DESPITE THIS ERRONEOUS RULING, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED UPON THE FIRST GROUND TAKEN BY THE STATE
COURT, THAT IS, THAT THE QUESTION OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK WAS FOR THE
JURY.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT
UPON THAT DEFENSE WERE ERRONEOUS.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT THERE WAS NO
EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE JURY.  WE THINK THAT THERE WAS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER GREAT
NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.  AS TO THE PETITIONER GEORGE PAPPAS, THE WRIT
OF CERTIORARI IS DISMISSED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION AS
TO THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY UNDER THE ACT AGAINST HIM INDIVIDUALLY, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE RAILWAY COMPANY, WAS NOT PROPERLY PRESENTED. 
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS TO BOTH PETITIONERS. 
..END :









TEXAS THEATRES V. PITTMAN, 305 U.S. 3 


NO. 26.  SUBMITTED OCTOBER 19, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938. 


TEXAS CONSOLIDATED THEATRES, INC. V. PITTMAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 556, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, 93 F.2D 21; 94 ID. 203, AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES
AGAINST PETITIONER, DISMISSED, WITH COSTS, IN VIEW OF SUBSEQUENT
SETTLEMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT &C. 

PER CURIAM. 

RESPONDENT RECOVERED JUDGMENT FOR DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR INJURIES
SUFFERED BY HIS WIFE.  AFTER APPEAL HAD BEEN ARGUED AND WHILE IT WAS
UNDER ADVISEMENT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE PARTIES ENTERED
INTO A STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT ON PAYMENT OF A SUM LESS THAN THE
JUDGMENT AND PROVIDING THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED AND
JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR COSTS ONLY.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  93 F.2D 21.  ALLEGING THAT THE
COURT HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THE COMPROMISE AND STIPULATION, PETITIONER
SOUGHT A REHEARING, WHICH WAS DENIED.  94 F.2D 203.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

UPON THE CASE BEING CALLED FOR ARGUMENT IN THIS COURT, RESPONDENT DID
NOT APPEAR.  PETITIONER SUBMITTED A STATEMENT SHOWING THAT, SINCE THE
ISSUE OF THE WRIT, AN ORDER UPON HEARING HAD BEEN ENTERED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT WHEREBY THE JUDGMENT INVOLVED WAS DECREED TO BE
SATISFIED AND DISCHARGED IN FULL AND THE ISSUE OF EXECUTION THEREON WAS
PROHIBITED; THAT RESPONDENT EXCEPTED TO THE ORDER AND GAVE NOTICE OF
APPEAL BUT THAT THE APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN PROSECUTED. 

PETITIONER SUBMITTED THE CASE FOR SUCH ORDER AS THE COURT MAY DEEM
PROPER AND SUGGESTED THAT THE COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDING MAY BE TAXED
AGAINST IT. 

THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS DISMISSED WITH COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER. 
DISMISSED. 
..END :












POLK COMPANY V. GLOVER, 305 U.S. 5 


NO. 29.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 22
F.SUPP.  575, REVERSED. 


1.  IN DECIDING A MOTION TO DISMISS A BILL UPON THE GROUND THAT IT
FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE COURT IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO
CONSIDER AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF AN
ACCOMPANYING APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION, BUT MUST
DECIDE UPON THE FACTS SET UP IN THE BILL.  P. 9. 

THE MOTION WAS ACCOMPANIED ALSO BY ANSWERS; BUT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT
SUBMIT THE CASE TO BE DECIDED UPON THE MERITS UPON THE BILL, ANSWERS
AND AFFIDAVITS. 

2.  BEFORE DECIDING GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, THE ESSENTIAL
FACTS UPON WHICH THEY DEPEND SHOULD BE DETERMINED AFTER A HEARING IN
DUE COURSE UPON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS.  P. 9. 

A FLORIDA STATUTE REQUIRED THAT THE LABELS UPON CONTAINERS OF CANNED
CITRUS FRUIT OR FRUIT JUICE NAME THE STATE OR COUNTRY WHERE THE
CONTENTS WERE PRODUCED, AND, IF PRODUCED IN FLORIDA, THAT THE NAME
"FLORIDA" BE IN OR EMBOSSED UPON THE SUBSTANCE OF EACH CONTAINER. 
VIOLATION WAS MADE PUNISHABLE AS A CRIME AND BY CONFISCATION.  CANNERS
OF CITRUS PRODUCTS GROWN IN FLORIDA ATTACKED THE STATUTE UPON THE
GROUND THAT ITS PRESENT ENFORCEMENT WOULD INFLICT IMMEDIATE AND
IRREPARABLE INJURY BECAUSE OF THE COST OF SORTING, CLASSIFYING AND
OVERPRINTING LARGE STOCKS OF LABELS ON HAND; AND BECAUSE THE TINNED
CONTAINERS ON HAND, OF GREAT VALUE, COULD NOT BE EMBOSSED AS REQUIRED
WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE PROTECTIVE COATING OF TIN, SO THAT SUBSEQUENT USE
WOULD RESULT IN SPOILAGE OF CONTENTS AND MUCH LOSS TO THE PLAINTIFFS'
BUSINESS.  IT IS HELD, WITHOUT INTIMATING ANY OPINION ON CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES, THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE BILL WERE SUCH AS TO ENTITLE
PLAINTIFFS TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEIR CASE, AND THAT THE COURT
BELOW SHOULD NOT HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO DISPOSE OF THOSE ISSUES IN DENIAL
OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.  THE ALLEGATIONS AS TO TRADE CONDITIONS AND
PRACTICES, AND AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE REQUIRED EMBOSSING OF CANS,
RAISED PARTICULAR QUESTIONS WHICH COULD HARDLY BE SAID TO LIE WITHIN
THE RANGE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE. 

POLK COMPANY ET AL. V. GLOVER, COUNTY SOLICITOR, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, DENYING AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL, IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE RELATING TO THE LABELING &C. OF CANNED CITRUS
PRODUCTS. 

PER CURIAM. 

PLAINTIFFS, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CANNING CITRUS PRODUCTS GROWN
IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, CHALLENGED BY THIS SUIT THE VALIDITY OF
CHAPTER 17,783 OF THE ACTS OF 1937 OF THAT STATE UPON THE GROUND THAT
THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, AND THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT AND A COURT OF THREE JUDGES WAS CONVENED. 

RECITING THAT CERTAIN PERSONS ARE ENGAGED IN IMPORTING INTO FLORIDA
CITRUS FRUIT AND CITRUS JUICE PRODUCED AND CANNED ELSEWHERE, AND IN
LABELING THE SAME IN FLORIDA WHENCE IT IS SOLD, WITH THE RESULT THAT
DEALERS ARE DECEIVED AND PRODUCERS AND CANNERS IN FLORIDA ARE INJURED,
THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT EVERY LABEL UPON ANY CONTAINER OF CANNED
CITRUS FRUIT OR JUICE SHALL SHOW ACCURATELY THE NAME OF THE STATE OR
COUNTRY IN WHICH THE FRUIT OR JUICE WAS PRODUCED, AND THAT EVERY
CONTAINER USED FOR SUCH FRUIT OR JUICE PRODUCED IN FLORIDA "SHALL HAVE
STAMPED INTO OR EMBOSSED UPON THE TIN, GLASS OR OTHER SUBSTANCE OF
WHICH SUCH CONTAINER IS MADE" THE WORD "FLORIDA," AND IT IS MADE
UNLAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO USE ANY CONTAINER BEARING THE NAME "FLORIDA" FOR
ANY CANNED CITRUS FRUIT OR JUICE PRODUCED ELSEWHERE.  THE FLORIDA
CITRUS COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE THE METHOD OF MARKING THE
LABELS AND EMBOSSING THE CONTAINERS.  VIOLATION OF THE ACT IS
PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT OR FINE, OR BOTH, AND BY CONFISCATION OF ALL
GOODS MISBRANDED. 

THE ACT WAS APPROVED JUNE 10, 1937, AND PROVIDED THAT IT SHOULD TAKE
EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.  ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1937, THE COMMISSION RESOLVED THAT
"FOR THE PRESENT" IT FELT THAT "AN EDUCATIONAL AND ADJUSTMENT PERIOD"
WAS NECESSARY BEFORE THE LABELING PROVISIONS WERE ENFORCED.  ON OCTOBER
4, 1937, THE COMMISSION ADOPTED REGULATIONS PRESCRIBING THE METHOD OF
STAMPING OR EMBOSSING THE CANS. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT SET FORTH FACTS RELATING TO THE CHARACTER OF
THE TRADE, THE PROCESS OF CANNING AND THE TRADE PRACTICES AS TO
LABELING.  IT ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFFS WERE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE
AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO POSTPONE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LABELING
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HAD NO ASSURANCE FROM ANY ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY THEREWITH WOULD NOT RESULT IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION OR IN THE CONFISCATION OF PRODUCTS PACKED; THAT THE
"CLASSIFICATION, SORTING AND OVERPRINTING OF BOTH PACKER AND PRIVATE
BRAND LABELS NOW ON HAND" WOULD RESULT IN IMMEDIATE INCREASED COST TO
EACH OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $3,000; THAT AS TO THE
REQUIRED EMBOSSING, THE STATUTE MADE NO PROVISION FOR THE USE OF THE
TIN CONTAINERS NOT SO EMBOSSED WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS HAD ON HAND IN A
VALUE IN EXCESS OF $33,000; THAT THESE CONTAINERS WOULD NO LONGER BE
USABLE IN THE PACKING OF CANNED CITRUS PRODUCTS IF THE STATUTE WERE
ENFORCED; THAT THE EMBOSSING OF THE TIN PLATE OF THE CAN WOULD CAUSE
WHAT IS KNOWN AS "HYDROGEN FLIPPERS" DUE TO ACTION OF THE ACID IN THE
FRUIT UPON THE SHEET STEEL UNDERLYING THE TIN PLATE THROUGH THE
WEAKENING OR PENETRATION OF THE TIN COVERING; THAT THIS WOULD RESULT IN
"UNTOLD SPOILAGE, SWELLING OF CANS, UNMARKETABILITY AND LOSS OF
PRODUCTS, LOSS OF CONSUMERS' GOOD WILL, AND OTHER DAMAGE," IN AN AMOUNT
NOT PRESENTLY CALCULABLE; AND THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF EMBOSSING WOULD
CAUSE EACH OF THE PLAINTIFFS A LOSS IN EXCESS OF $3,000 BECAUSE OF THE
REFUSAL OF DISTRIBUTORS TO PURCHASE AND HANDLE CANS SO EMBOSSED.  THE
EFFECT OF THE ACT UPON PLAINTIFFS' TRADE WAS DESCRIBED IN SUPPORT OF
THE CLAIM THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS PROVISIONS WOULD INFLICT
IMMEDIATE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY. 

DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING THE FLORIDA CITRUS COMMISSION (WHICH
INTERVENED) AND OTHER OFFICIALS, FILED ANSWERS PUTTING IN ISSUE THE
ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE INJURIOUS OPERATION OF THE STATUTE.  THEY ALSO
MOVED TO DISMISS THE BILL OF COMPLAINT UPON THE GROUND THAT IT FAILED
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  ON THE APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION, THE PARTIES SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS SETTING FORTH FACTS IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS.  AT THE SAME TIME THE COURT
HEARD THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS.  INJUNCTION WAS DENIED, THE MOTIONS TO
DISMISS WERE GRANTED, AND A FINAL DECREE WAS ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.  22
F.SUPP.  575.  THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE DECREE OF DISMISSAL. 
28 U.S.C. 380. 

THE DISTRICT COURT MADE FINDINGS.  AFTER RECITING THE STATEMENTS IN
THE PREAMBLE OF THE STATUTE, THE COURT FOUND THAT NO SUFFICIENT FACTS
HAD BEEN SHOWN BY AFFIDAVITS OR OTHERWISE TO OVERCOME THE FINDINGS OF
FACT SO MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE; THAT THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED IN
PURSUANCE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE AND THAT ALL CITRUS FRUIT
CANNERS IN FLORIDA WERE AFFECTED BY ITS PROVISIONS, WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS;
THAT PLAINTIFFS HAD ON HAND UNEMBOSSED CONTAINERS OF A VALUE IN EXCESS
OF $33,000 WHICH WOULD NO LONGER BE USABLE IF THE ACT WERE ENFORCED,
BUT THAT "SUCH CONTAINERS COULD BE USED FOR PACKING OF VEGETABLES OR
COMMODITIES OTHER THAN CITRUS PRODUCTS" AND THAT THERE WAS NO SHOWING
"THAT THEY COULD NOT BE EXCHANGED WITH THE MANUFACTURER FOR PROPERLY
EMBOSSED CANS AT LITTLE OR NO EXTRA EXPENSE"; THAT IF THE PRACTICES AND
ABUSES AS FOUND BY THE LEGISLATURE WERE NOT STOPPED "THE PRICE WHICH
THE PRODUCER OF CITRUS FRUIT GROWN IN FLORIDA RECEIVES FOR HIS PRODUCT
WILL BE GREATLY REDUCED" AND HE WILL "ULTIMATELY BE FORCED OUT OF
BUSINESS"; THAT IT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY APPEAR THAT THE EMBOSSING OF
CANS WOULD BE INJURIOUS OR HARMFUL TO THE CITRUS CONTENTS; THAT, "APART
FROM THE CONFLICTING AFFIDAVITS, NUMEROUS EMBOSSED CANS WERE PRODUCED
BEFORE THE COURT, SOME OF WHICH WERE USED FOR CANNING CITRUS PRODUCTS
AND THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH CANS HAD BEEN
INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE EMBOSSING." 

AT THE SAME TIME THE COURT MADE AN ORDER RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE STATUTE PENDING THIS APPEAL, UPON THE PLAINTIFFS GIVING A BOND. 
THAT ORDER RECITED THAT THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION "THAT THE
QUESTIONS INVOLVED ARE NOVEL AND OF GREAT IMPORTANCE" AND FURTHER THAT
THE PLAINTIFFS "WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE LOSS AND DAMAGE DURING SAID
APPEAL" IF THE FLORIDA STATUTE IS ENFORCED AND THIS COURT SHOULD
REVERSE THE DECREE. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT.  PLAINTIFFS DID NOT SUBMIT THE CASE TO BE DECIDED
UPON THE MERITS UPON THE BILL, ANSWERS AND AFFIDAVITS.  DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS, LIKE THE DEMURRER FOR WHICH IT IS A SUBSTITUTE
(EQUITY RULE 29) WAS ADDRESSED TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE BILL.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT MOTION, THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE
BILL STOOD ADMITTED.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT MOTION, THE COURT WAS
CONFINED TO THE BILL AND WAS NOT AT LIBERTY TO CONSIDER THE AFFIDAVITS
OR THE OTHER EVIDENCE PRODUCED UPON THE APPLICATION FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  BUT THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT INDICATE THAT
THAT EVIDENCE, IN PART AT LEAST, UNDERLAY THE FINAL DECREE IT ENTERED. 

WE THINK THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE BILL WERE SUFFICIENT TO
ENTITLE THE PLAINTIFFS TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THEIR CASE, IF THEY
COULD, AND THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO DISPOSE OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES (AS TO WHICH WE INTIMATE NO OPINION) IN ADVANCE
OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL AS TO TRADE
CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES, AND AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE REQUIRED
EMBOSSING OF CANS, RAISE PARTICULAR QUESTIONS WHICH CAN HARDLY BE SAID
TO LIE WITHIN THE RANGE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE.  THE SALUTARY PRINCIPLE
THAT THE ESSENTIAL FACTS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BEFORE PASSING UPON GRAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IS APPLICABLE.  SEE BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS CO.
V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, 211-213, AND CASES CITED.  AND THAT
DETERMINATION REQUIRES A HEARING IN DUE COURSE UPON THE ISSUES RAISED
BY THE PLEADINGS. 

THE DECREE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

A FLORIDA LAW DESIGNED TO PREVENT FRAUD, REQUIRES THAT CITRUS
PRODUCTS GROWN AND CANNED IN FLORIDA CARRY THE LABEL "MADE IN FLORIDA,"
AND THAT CONTAINERS OF THESE PRODUCTS BE EMBOSSED WITH THE SINGLE WORD,
"FLORIDA."  THE MAJORITY DO NOT DECIDE THAT THIS STATE LAW VIOLATES THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  NOR DO THEY DECIDE THAT PROOF OF THE ALLEGATIONS
OF PETITIONERS' BILL OF COMPLAINT WILL SHOW THAT THE FLORIDA LAW
VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.  WHILE PETITIONERS ARE HELD ENTITLED TO
PRODUCE EVIDENCE, THEY ARE NOT HELD ENTITLED TO RELIEF IF THEY PROVE
THEIR ENTIRE BILL.  IF ON REMAND PETITIONERS PROVE EVERY ALLEGATION IN
THEIR COMPLAINT, STILL - AFTER TIME AND STATE FUNDS HAVE BEEN SPENT IN
TAKING EVIDENCE - EITHER THE DISTRICT COURT OR THIS COURT MAY DECIDE
THAT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE
LAW.  IN THE MEANTIME, THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS FORCED TO LITIGATE THE
VALIDITY OF ITS DULY ENACTED LAW, WITH NO DECISION ON ITS SUBSTANTIAL
DEFENSE THAT PETITIONERS' BILL IS WHOLLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE OF
"INSUFFICIENCY OF FACT TO CONSTITUTE A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION"  FN1  OR
"FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED."  FN2 

THE IMPORTANT CONSEQUENCES OF THIS REMAND RAISE FAR MORE THAN MERE
QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURE.  STATE LAWS ARE CONTINUALLY SUBJECTED TO
CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACKS BY THOSE WHO DO NOT WISH TO OBEY THEM. 
ACCORDINGLY, IT BECOMES INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT TO PROTECT STATE
GOVERNMENTS FROM NEEDLESS EXPENSIVE BURDENS AND SUSPENSIONS OF THEIR
LAWS INCIDENT TO FEDERAL COURT INJUNCTIONS ISSUED ON ALLEGATIONS THAT
SHOW NO RIGHT TO RELIEF.  THE OPERATION OF THIS FLORIDA LAW HAS BEEN
SUSPENDED.  COMPLAINTS SEEKING TO INVALIDATE AND SUSPEND THE OPERATION
OF STATE LAWS BY INVOKING THE "VAGUE CONTOURS" OF DUE PROCESS  FN3  CAN
IRREPARABLY INJURE STATE GOVERNMENTS IF WE ACCEPT AS A "SALUTARY
PRINCIPLE" THE RULE THAT ALL SUCH COMPLAINTS - THOUGH FAILING TO STATE
A CAUSE OF ACTION - RAISE "GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS" WHICH
REQUIRE THAT "THE ESSENTIAL FACTS SHALL BE DETERMINED."  UNDER THIS
DECLARED "SALUTARY PRINCIPLE" SPECIALLY APPLYING TO BILLS ATTACKING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTS, SUCH BILLS MUST BE DEFENDED
AGAINST EVEN THOUGH THEY FAIL TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THIS IS
CONTRARY TO THE TRADITIONAL GENERAL RULE THAT FATALLY DEFECTIVE BILLS
ARE DISMISSED ON MOTION (FORMERLY DEMURRER) IN ORDER TO PREVENT
NEEDLESS LITIGATION, DELAY AND EXPENSE.  FN4  THE APPLICATION OF THIS
SPECIAL PRINCIPLE TO BILLS ATTACKING STATE LEGISLATION SERIOUSLY
UNDERMINES THE HISTORICAL PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF STATE ACTS. 
FN5  A REFUSAL TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL
ARE SUFFICIENT TO STRIKE DOWN AN ACT UNTIL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN HEARD ADDS
A SPECIAL BURDEN TO THE DEFENSE OF STATE LEGISLATION, AS THOUGH
LEGISLATION WERE TO BE PRESUMED INVALID.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS
PRINCIPLE LEADS TO SALUTARY RESULTS AND I AM OF THE OPINION THAT WE
SHOULD NOW DETERMINE WHETHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL, IF PROVEN,
WOULD ENTITLE PETITIONERS TO RELIEF. 

THE BILL ALLEGES THAT THE FLORIDA STATUTE VIOLATES THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION  FN6 AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT BELOW HELD IN THE ALTERNATIVE THAT
PETITIONERS FAILED TO MAKE "SUFFICIENT SHOWING EITHER BY AFFIDAVIT OR
BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL TO UPHOLD THE CONTENTION THAT THE ACT
DEPRIVES THE PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 

EVEN ACCORDING TO THE PRESENTLY PREVAILING INTERPRETATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE
AVERMENTS OF PETITIONERS' BILL CAN SUSTAIN INVALIDATION OF THIS DULY
ENACTED FLORIDA STATUTE.  THE STATUTE CONTAINS A LEGISLATIVE FINDING
THAT "CERTAIN PERSONS, FIRMS AND CORPORATIONS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA"
HAD ENGAGED "IN THE PRACTICE" OF DECEIVING CUSTOMERS INTO THE BELIEF
THAT NON-FLORIDA CANNED CITRUS PRODUCTS HAD BEEN PRODUCED IN FLORIDA. 
THE LEGISLATURE FURTHER FOUND THAT THIS PRACTICE OPERATED TO "THE
INJURY AND DETRIMENT OF THE PRODUCERS AND CANNERS OF CITRUS FRUIT AND
CITRUS JUICES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA; ...  " AND CONCLUDED THAT AN
EFFECTIVE METHOD TO PREVENT THIS FRAUDULENT PRACTICE WAS TO REQUIRE THE
PUBLICATION OF THE TRUTH UPON LABELS AND CONTAINERS.  AVERMENTS OF
PETITIONERS' BILL, IN THEIR STRONGEST LIGHT, GO NO FURTHER THAN TO DENY
THIS LEGISLATIVE FINDING.  THEY SAY TO REQUIRE PUBLICATION OF THE TRUTH
IN THIS MANNER ON THE CANS AND LABELS IS BURDENSOME  FN7  AND VIOLATES
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THEY FURTHER
CHARGE HERE THAT THIS FINDING OF THE LEGISLATURE IS A "FEIGNED"
ASSUMPTION AND THAT "THE FACTS ALLEGED (IN PETITIONERS' BILL) NOT ONLY
SHOW THE NONEXISTENCE OF ANY BASIS FOR SUCH ASSUMPTION BUT DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE LAW WILL CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY TO THE PACKER AND MARKED
CURTAILMENT OF THE SALE OF CITRUS PRODUCTS GROWN AND CANNED IN
FLORIDA."  PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT FOR REVERSAL LARGELY INVOLVES "THIS
DISPUTED QUESTION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS CONCERNING THE BASIS FOR
THE LAW, AND  ...  THE PREAMBLE STATEMENT OF THE ALLEGED EVIL WHICH
GAVE RISE TO ITS ENACTMENT.  ...  "    BECAUSE, IT IS SAID, THE
EMBOSSING AND LABELING REQUIREMENTS RAISE GRAVE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA WILL BE REQUIRED TO DEFEND AGAINST TWO ISSUES
RAISED BY PETITIONERS' BILL.  THE STATE MUST ANSWER THE CHARGES:
FIRST, THAT - CONTRARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE FINDING - THERE WAS NO
FRAUDULENT PRACTICE UNDER WHICH THE DEALERS IN CANNED CITRUS PRODUCTS
WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE BUYING FLORIDA PRODUCTS WHEN IN FACT
THE CANNED GOODS WERE PRODUCED OUTSIDE THAT STATE; SECOND, THAT
TRUTHFUL LABELING AND EMBOSSING AS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE WOULD
FINANCIALLY INJURE CITRUS GROWERS, PRODUCERS, CANNERS AND THE PEOPLE OF
FLORIDA RATHER THAN BENEFIT THEM AS FOUND BY THE LEGISLATURE. 

IN ATTACKING THE LEGISLATIVE FINDING THAT THE ACT WOULD BESTOW
BENEFITS ON THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONERS ALLEGE THAT THE LAW WOULD
REQUIRE PETITIONERS TO SPEND EXTRA MONEY FOR LABELS; MIGHT CAUSE THEM
TO LOSE SOME BUSINESS; WOULD AFFORD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SPOILING AND
SWELLING OF SOME CANS ON THE THEORY THAT EMBOSSING WITHOUT SPOILING IS
DIFFICULT AND COULD WEAKEN THE TIN OF CONTAINERS THEREBY PERMITTING
ACID TO CORRODE THE STEEL UNDERNEATH THE TIN; THAT PETITIONERS WILL
SUFFER LOSS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ON THEIR HANDS CANS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
EMBOSSED; AND THAT FLORIDA ALREADY HAS LAWS ADEQUATE TO PROTECT ITSELF
FROM FRAUDULENT SALES. 

WITH REFERENCE TO A STATE LAW REGULATING CONTAINERS (FOR LARD) THIS
COURT HAS ALREADY SAID:  FN8 

"THIS MAY INVOLVE A CHANGE OF PACKING BY THE COMPANY AND THE COST OF
THAT CHANGE, BUT THIS IS A SACRIFICE THE LAW CAN REQUIRE TO PROTECT
FROM THE DECEPTION OF THE OLD METHOD." 

THE REAL ISSUE RAISED BY PETITIONERS' BILL IS NOT THE COST INCIDENT
TO CHANGING FROM THE OLD METHOD OF LABELING AND EMBOSSING, BUT WHETHER
THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE - CONVINCED THAT FRAUD EXISTED - HAD THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE POLICY WHICH IT BELIEVED WOULD
PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA FROM THAT FRAUD.  THE CAUSE IS NOW SENT
BACK TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO REVIEW THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE
POLICY ENACTED INTO LAW BY THE LEGISLATURE. 

UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PLAN OF GOVERNMENT, THE EXCLUSIVE POWER OF
DETERMINING THE WISDOM OF THIS POLICY RESTED WITH THE LEGISLATURE OF
FLORIDA SUBJECT TO THE VETO POWER OF FLORIDA'S GOVERNOR.  FN9  THIS
COURT HAS TAKEN JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT CITRUS FRUITS SUPPORT
ONE OF THE GREAT INDUSTRIES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND HELD THAT IT
"WAS COMPETENT FOR THE LEGISLATURE (OF FLORIDA) TO FIND THAT IT WAS
ESSENTIAL FOR THE SUCCESS OF THAT INDUSTRY THAT ITS REPUTATION BE
PRESERVED IN OTHER STATES WHEREIN SUCH FRUITS FIND THEIR MOST EXTENSIVE
MARKET."  FN10  THE LEGISLATORS OF FLORIDA ARE PECULIARLY QUALIFIED TO
DETERMINE THE POLICIES RELATING TO ONE OF THEIR STATE'S GREATEST
INDUSTRIES.  LEGISLATURES, UNDER OUR SYSTEM, DETERMINE THE NECESSITY
FOR REGULATORY LAWS, CONSIDERING BOTH THE EVIL AND THE BENEFITS THAT
MAY RESULT.  UNLESS PROHIBITED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, THEIR
DECISIONS AS TO POLICY ARE FINAL.  IN WEIGHING CONFLICTING ARGUMENTS ON
THE WISDOM OF LEGISLATION THEY ARE NOT CONFINED WITHIN THE NARROW
BOUNDARIES OF A PARTICULAR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN LITIGANTS.  THEIR
INQUIRIES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE WHICH HAVE
BEEN FOUND ESSENTIAL IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURTS.  LEGISLATORS MAY
PERSONALLY SURVEY THE FIELD AND OBTAIN DATA AND A BROAD PERSPECTIVE
WHICH THE NECESSARY LIMITATIONS OF COURT LITIGATION MAKE IMPOSSIBLE. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE UNDER REVIEW INDICATES
THAT IT WAS GIVEN THE CAREFUL AND CAUTIOUS CONSIDERATION WHICH
REGULATION OF ONE OF THE STATE'S MAJOR INDUSTRIES DESERVED.  FN11
COMPANION MEASURES WERE OFFERED IN THE FLORIDA HOUSE AND SENATE ON THE
SAME DAY - APRIL 28, 1937.  IN THE HOUSE THE MEASURE WAS REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON CITRUS FRUITS.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A STANDING
COMMITTEE IS ITSELF INDICATIVE OF A LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE DESIGNED TO
GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO LEGISLATION CONCERNING THIS IMPORTANT
INDUSTRY.  MAY 4, 1937, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE VOTED TO REPORT THE BILL
FAVORABLY, SIXTEEN AYES, NO NAYS, SIX MEMBERS ABSENT.  JUNE 1, THE BILL
WAS MADE THE SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS AND ON JUNE 2, THE COMPANION
SENATE BILL PREVIOUSLY PASSED BY THAT BODY BY A VOTE OF TWENTY-FOUR TO
ONE WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE HOUSE MEASURE AND PASSED BY A VOTE OF
SEVENTY TO NOTHING.  FN12 

IN THE FACE OF THIS HISTORY, PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THIS STATUTE
DULY PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA
VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS AN UNREASONABLE, CAPRICIOUS, UNJUST,
HARSH AND ARBITRARY MEASURE.  THEREFORE, IF PETITIONERS ARE TO OBTAIN
RELIEF ON THIS THEORY IT MUST BE FOUND THAT THIS STATUTE WAS "FIXED OR
ARRIVED AT THROUGH AN EXERCISE OF WILL, OR BY CAPRICE, WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION OR ADJUSTMENT WITH REFERENCE TO PRINCIPLES, CIRCUMSTANCES
OR SIGNIFICANCE"; OR THAT IT WAS "DESPOTIC, AUTOCRATIC (OR) HIGH
HANDED"; OR THAT IT IS "IRRATIONAL, SENSELESS" OR PASSED BY THOSE "NOT
ENDOWED WITH REASONING ABILITY; NON-CONFORMABLE TO REASON"; OR THAT IT
IS CAPRICIOUS OR FREAKISH WHICH "DENOTES AN IMPULSIVE SEEMINGLY
CAUSELESS CHANGE OF MIND, LIKE THAT OF A CHILD OR A LUNATIC."  FN13 

THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR THE COURT BELOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENT THAT CANS AND LABELS BE TRUTHFULLY MARKED IS
ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, CAPRICIOUS, UNJUST OR HARSH.  THIS MAKES IT
NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO WEIGH AND PASS UPON THE RELATIVE JUDGMENT,
POISE AND REASONING ABILITY OF THE ONE LEGISLATOR WHO VOTED AGAINST THE
LAW, AS CONTRASTED WITH THE NINETY-FOUR LEGISLATORS AND THE GOVERNOR
WHO FAVORED IT.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT OBEDIENCE TO THIS CAREFULLY
CONSIDERED LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT WOULD VIOLATE ANY OF PETITIONERS'
PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW OR THAT - EVEN UNDER
PREVAILING DOCTRINE - THE AVERMENTS OF THE COMPLAINT INDICATE THAT NO
KNOWN OR SUPPOSED FACTS COULD SUSTAIN IT.  FN14  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT IN THIS CAUSE RAISE NO MORE THAN QUESTIONS OF POLICY FOR
LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION, WHICH THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE HAS ALREADY
CONSIDERED AND WHICH CAN BE PRESENTED TO OTHER LEGISLATURES IN THE
FUTURE. 

THIS CASE OFFERS AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN TO THE
WHOLESOME PRINCIPLE STATED BY THIS COURT IN 1888, IN POWELL V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 127 U.S. 678, 686, IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: 

"IF ALL THAT CAN BE SAID OF THIS LEGISLATION IS THAT IT IS UNWISE, OR
UNNECESSARILY OPPRESSIVE TO THOSE MANUFACTURING OR SELLING WHOLESOME
OLEOMARGARINE, AS AN ARTICLE OF FOOD, THEIR APPEAL MUST BE TO THE
LEGISLATURE, OR TO THE BALLOT-BOX, NOT TO THE JUDICIARY.  THE LATTER
CANNOT INTERFERE WITHOUT USURPING POWERS COMMITTED TO ANOTHER
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT." 

THE MAJORITY OPINION APPARENTLY DOES NOT DECIDE THAT FLORIDA HAS NO
POWER TO REQUIRE THAT THE ORIGIN OF CITRUS PRODUCTS CANNED IN FLORIDA
SHALL BE TRUTHFULLY SHOWN.  FN15  PETITIONERS' BILL INSISTS THAT
FLORIDA EXERCISED ITS POWER SO UNWISELY AS TO VIOLATE RIGHTS OF
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE, AS ALLEGED, CANNING FRAUDS DID
NOT EXIST, AND COULD BE PREVENTED BY A WISER STATUTE, LESS EXPENSIVE
AND BURDENSOME TO PETITIONERS.  THUS THEY CHALLENGE THE WISDOM OF THE
FLORIDA LEGISLATION.  ON REMAND OF PETITIONERS' BILL WHICH FAILS TO
SHOW THAT THE FLORIDA LAW IS INVALID, MAY THE COURT, ON EVIDENCE
OUTSIDE THE BILL, HOLD THAT THE LAW VIOLATES DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE
COURT IS CONVINCED THAT THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT HAVE CHOSEN A WISER, LESS
EXPENSIVE AND LESS BURDENSOME REGULATION?  IF A COURT IN THIS CASE AND
UNDER THIS BILL HAS THIS POWER, THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE WISDOM
AND CHOICE OF LEGISLATIVE POLICY HAS PASSED FROM LEGISLATURES - ELECTED
BY AND RESPONSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE - TO THE COURTS.  FN16  I BELIEVE, IN
THE LANGUAGE OF THE POWELL CASE, SUPRA, THAT SINCE ALL THAT HAS BEEN
"SAID OF THIS LEGISLATION IS THAT IT IS UNWISE, OR UNNECESSARILY
OPPRESSIVE TO THOSE" CANNING CITRUS PRODUCTS, THAT PETITIONERS'"APPEAL
MUST BE TO THE LEGISLATURE,  ...  NOT TO THE JUDICIARY."  I WOULD
AFFIRM. 

FN1  RULE 29, RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE COURTS OF EQUITY OF THE
UNITED STATES, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1913. 

FN2  RULE 12(B), "FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE." 

FN3  CF. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES DISSENTING IN ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525, 568. 

FN4  STORY'S EQUITY PLEADINGS (10TH ED.)  SECS.  446, 447, 526.  THE
"  ...  PROPER RULE OF PLEADING WOULD SEEM TO BE, THAT, WHEN THE CASE
STATED BY THE BILL APPEARS TO BE ONE IN WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY WILL
REFUSE ITS AID, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO RESIST IT BY
DEMURRER.  ...  'IF THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS STATED IN THE BILL
WILL NOT ENTITLE HIM TO A DECREE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT MAY BE
REQUIRED ON DEMURRER WHETHER THE DEFENDANT OUGHT TO BE COMPELLED TO
ANSWER THE BILL'  ...  "  THIS PRINCIPLE IS CALCULATED "TO SAVE THE
PARTIES FROM USELESS EXPENSE AND TROUBLE IN BRINGING IT (A SUIT) TO
ISSUE.  ...  "  MAXWELL V. KENNEDY, 8 HOW.  210, 222, 223; CF. SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. CAMPBELL, 189 F. 182, AFF'D 230 U.S. 537; MISSOURI
PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORWOOD, 42 F.2D 765, AFF'D 283 U.S. 249; PACIFIC
STATES CO. V. WHITE, 9 F.SUPP.  341, AFF'D 296 U.S. 176; ISBRANDTSEN
MOLLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 14 F.SUPP.  407, AFF'D 300 U.S. 139. 

FN5  SEE OGDEN V. SAUNDERS, 12 WHEAT.  213, 270. 

"THE COMPLAINT CONTAINS MUCH BY WAY OF ARGUMENT, ASSERTIONS AS TO
QUESTIONS OF LAW TOGETHER WITH INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE
PLEADER AS TO MATTERS OF FACT.  THESE ARE NOT DEEMED TO BE ADMITTED BY
MOTION TO DISMISS.  ...  THE STATE LAWS (REGULATING TRAIN CREWS AND
ASSAILED AS VIOLATIVE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION) ARE PRESUMED VALID. 
...  THE BURDEN IS ON THE PLAINTIFF BY CANDID AND DIRECT ALLEGATIONS TO
SET FORTH IN ITS COMPLAINT FACTS SUFFICIENT PLAINLY TO SHOW THE
ASSERTED INVALIDITY."  MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORWOOD, 283 U.S.
249, 254, 255.  "EVERY EXERTION OF THE POLICE POWER, EITHER BY THE
LEGISLATURE OR BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, IS AN EXERCISE OF DELEGATED
POWER.  ...  "  WHERE "THE REGULATION IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY
LEGALLY DELEGATED, THE PRESUMPTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS JUSTIFYING
ITS SPECIFIC EXERCISE ATTACHES ALIKE TO STATUTES, TO MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCES, AND TO ORDERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES."  PACIFIC STATES
CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 185, 186. 

FN6  THE ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT REST UPON
PROOF OF FACT.  IT MUST BE DECIDED BY A COMPARISON OF THE FLORIDA LAW
AND THE FEDERAL PURE FOOD AND DRUG ACT AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER. 
THAT QUESTION CAN - AND SHOULD - BE DECIDED NOW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE BILL.  THE COURT BELOW FOUND NO CONFLICT AND I AGREE WITH ITS
FINDINGS.  SEE, SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533. 

FN7  "WE MAY NOT TEST IN THE BALANCES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW THE WEIGHT
AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTS TO SUSTAIN THE CONCLUSION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY, NOR MAY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE COMPLIANCE
WITH IT IS BURDENSOME."  STANDARD OIL CO. V. MARYSVILLE, 279 U.S. 582,
586. 

FN8  ARMOUR & CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 240 U.S. 510, 516. 

FN9  "THE POWER OF A STATE TO PRESCRIBE STANDARD CONTAINERS IN ORDER
TO FACILITATE TRADING, TO PRESERVE THE CONDITION OF THE MERCHANDISE, TO
PROTECT BUYERS FROM DECEPTION, OR TO PREVENT UNFAIR COMPETITION IS
CONCEDED.  SUCH REGULATION OF TRADE IS A PART OF THE INSPECTION LAWS;
WAS AMONG THE EARLIEST EXERTIONS OF THE POLICE POWER IN AMERICA; HAS
BEEN PERSISTENT; AND HAS BEEN WIDELY APPLIED TO MERCHANDISE COMMONLY
SOLD IN CONTAINERS. 

"DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMODITIES REQUIRE DIFFERENT TYPES OF
CONTAINERS; AND AS TO EACH COMMODITY THERE MAY BE REASONABLE DIFFERENCE
OF OPINION AS TO THE TYPE BEST ADAPTED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC.  WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY IN OREGON (FLORIDA?)  TO PROVIDE A
STANDARD CONTAINER FOR RASPBERRIES AND STRAWBERRIES (CITRUS PRODUCTS?);
AND, IF SO, WHETHER THAT ADOPTED SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE MANDATORY,
INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND OF POLICY, THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH
RESTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT." 

PACIFIC STATES CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 181, 182. 

FN10  SLIGH V. KIRKWOOD, 237 U.S. 52, 61. 

FN11  AS TO AN "ADDED REASON FOR APPLYING THE PRESUMPTION OF
VALIDITY" WHERE A STATUTE HAS BEEN CAREFULLY ENACTED, COMPARE, PACIFIC
STATES CO. V. WHITE, SUPRA, P. 186. 

FN12  JOURNAL OF THE SENATE OF FLORIDA, REG. SESS. 1937, 508; JOURNAL
OF THE HOUSE OF FLORIDA, REG. SESS. 1937, 837. 

FN13  SEE, WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2ND ED., 1939. 

FN14  CF., STANDARD OIL CO. V. MARYSVILLE, 279 U.S. 582; HEBE CO. V.
SHAW, 248 U.S. 297, 304. 

FN15  "RECOGNIZED ELEMENTS OF INSPECTION LAWS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN
QUALITY OF THE ARTICLE, FORM, CAPACITY, DIMENSIONS, AND WEIGHT OF
PACKAGE, MODE OF PUTTING UP, AND MARKING AND BRANDING OF VARIOUS KINDS,
...  " 

IN "THE EXERCISE OF  ...  (LEGISLATIVE) DISCRETION, AND OF  ...  (A
STATE'S) POWER TO PRESCRIBE THE METHOD IN WHICH ITS PRODUCTS SHALL BE
FITTED FOR EXPORTATION, IT MAY DIRECT THAT A CERTAIN PRODUCT, WHILE IT
REMAINS 'IN THE BOSOM OF THE COUNTRY' AND BEFORE IT HAS BECOME AN
ARTICLE 'OF FOREIGN COMMERCE OR OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES,' SHALL
BE ENCASED IN SUCH A PACKAGE AS APPEARS BEST FITTED TO SECURE THE
SAFETY OF THE PACKAGE AND TO IDENTIFY ITS CONTENTS AS THE GROWTH OF THE
STATE, AND MAY DIRECT THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE PACKAGE, AND THE NAME OF
THE OWNER OF ITS CONTENTS, SHALL BE PLAINLY MARKED ON THE PACKAGE,  ...
"  TURNER V. MARYLAND, 107 U.S. 38, 55, 57.    FN16  WITH REFERENCE TO
A STATE LAW REGULATING LABELS AND CONTAINERS FOR CONDENSED MILK, THIS
COURT SAID, "IF THE CHARACTER OR EFFECT OF THE ARTICLE AS INTENDED TO
BE USED 'BE DEBATABLE, THE LEGISLATURE IS ENTITLED TO ITS OWN JUDGMENT,
AND THAT JUDGMENT IS NOT TO BE SUPERSEDED BY THE VERDICT OF A JURY,'
OR, WE MAY ADD, BY THE PERSONAL OPINION OF JUDGES, 'UPON THE ISSUE
WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS DECIDED.'"  HEBE CO. V. SHAW, 248 U.S. 297,
303. 
..END :





GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA, 305 U.S. 19 


NO. 9.  ARGUED OCTOBER 11, 12, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 169
VA. 414 - 193 S.E. 534, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE QUESTION WHETHER A STATE STATUTE PROVIDING FOR TAXATION OF
TRUST INCOME TO THE TRUSTEES WHEN DISTRIBUTION BY THEM IS
DISCRETIONARY, AND TO THE BENEFICIARY WHEN IT IS NOT, WOULD OPERATE TO
DENY EQUAL PROTECTION IF INCOME OF A DISCRETIONARY TRUST WERE TO BE
TAXED UNDER IT FIRST TO THE TRUSTEE AND AGAIN TO THE BENEFICIARY WHILE
INCOME FROM ORDINARY TRUSTS WAS TAXED ONLY ONCE, DOES NOT ARISE IN A
CASE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN BUT ONE TAX IMPOSED UNDER THE STATUTE,  - THE
TAX ON THE BENEFICIARY - AND WHEN THERE IS NO GROUND TO SUPPOSE THAT
THE STATUTE WILL BE SO CONSTRUED AND APPLIED BY THE STATE AUTHORITIES
AS TO RESULT IN DOUBLE TAXATION.  P. 23. 

2.  VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK BOTH HAVE LAWS TAXING TRUST INCOME TO THE
TRUSTEE WHEN DISTRIBUTION IS DISCRETIONARY, BUT TO THE BENEFICIARY WHEN
IT IS NOT.  HELD THAT TAXATION OF A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA
UPON INCOME RECEIVED THERE FROM A TRUST ESTABLISHED AND ADMINISTERED IN
NEW YORK WAS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH SUCH INCOME CAME FROM INCOME OF THE TRUST WHICH WAS
TAXED TO THE TRUSTEES BY NEW YORK.  P. 23. 

GUARANTY TRUST CO., EXECUTOR, V. VIRGINIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 632, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DENYING RELIEF IN AN ACTION TO SET ASIDE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS AND TO
RECOVER THE TAXES, THERETOFORE PAID UNDER PROTEST. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MRS. MARY T. RYAN, WHILE RESIDENT AND CITIZEN OF VIRGINIA IN 1930,
1931 AND 1932, WAS BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST SET UP UNDER THE WILL OF HER
HUSBAND, THOMAS F. RYAN, WHO DIED WHEN A CITIZEN OF NEW YORK IN 1928. 
THE WILL WAS PROBATED IN NEW YORK; THE TRUSTEES QUALIFIED THERE, TOOK
OVER THE ASSETS AND HAVE KEPT THEM THERE.  THE TRUST HAS BEEN
ADMINISTERED AND ACCOUNTS SETTLED UNDER THE LAWS OF THAT STATE. 

THE WILL DIVIDED THE ESTATE INTO FIFTY-FOUR PARTS AND DIRECTED
PAYMENT OF THE INCOME THEREFROM TO DESIGNATED BENEFICIARIES.  THESE ARE
THE PROVISIONS PRESENTLY IMPORTANT - 

"TWELVE (12) OF SAID EQUAL PARTS TO SAID TRUSTEES IN TRUST TO RECEIVE
THE INCOME THEREFROM, AND TO PAY OVER SUCH PART OF SAID INCOME TO MY
DEAR WIFE, MARY T. RYAN, AS THEY IN THEIR SOLE DISCRETION MAY DETERMINE
TO BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR HER CARE, SUPPORT AND COMFORT DURING HER
LIFE, IN SUCH INSTALLMENTS AND AT SUCH INTERVALS AS THEY IN THEIR SOLE
DISCRETION MAY DETERMINE." 

THE WILL FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE TRUSTEES SHOULD "DIVIDE ANY
SURPLUS INCOME FROM SAID TWELVE PARTS NOT PAID TO MY WIFE AS AFORESAID,
INTO FORTY-TWO EQUAL PORTIONS, AND TO PAY SUCH SURPLUS INCOME IN EQUAL
QUARTERLY PAYMENTS AS NEAR AS MAY BE" TO CERTAIN DISTRIBUTEES AS
DESIGNATED IN SAID WILL, AND THAT UPON THE DEATH OF THE SAID WIFE THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE SAID TWELVE EQUAL PARTS SHOULD BE DIVIDED AND
DISTRIBUTED TO CERTAIN DESIGNATED DISTRIBUTEES, AS SET OUT IN SAID
WILL. 

THE NEW YORK AND VIRGINIA STATUTES LAYING TAXES UPON INCOMES FROM
TRUSTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE.  THEY REQUIRE TRUSTEES TO REPORT INCOME
RECEIVED AND WHERE THE TRUST IS DISCRETIONARY TO PAY THE AMOUNT
ASSESSED UPON THE ENTIRE INCOME; IF THE TRUST IS AN ORDINARY ONE EACH
BENEFICIARY IS ASSESSED UPON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HIM. 

FOR 1930, 1931 AND 1932, NEW YORK IN ONE OR BOTH OF THESE WAYS
RECEIVED TAXES UPON THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE TRUST SET UP UNDER THE
WILL.  EXERCISING THEIR DISCRETION, AFTER SATISFYING THE TAXES, THE
TRUSTEES PAID TO MRS. RYAN CONSIDERABLE SUMS OUT OF THE INCOME, FROM
TWELVE FIFTY-FOURTHS OF THE ESTATE - IN ALL APPROXIMATELY $300,000. 
FOR THE SAME YEARS, VIRGINIA ASSESSED ORDINARY STATE INCOME TAXES
AGAINST HER ON ACCOUNT OF THE SUMS SO RECEIVED.  THEY WERE PAID; AND
THIS PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NELSON COUNTY TO
RECOVER THEM.  IT SUSTAINED THE TAX, AND THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  THE MATTER COMES HERE BY CERTIORARI GRANTED
UPON THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT - 

THIS PETITION PRESENTS THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
HAS THE RIGHT, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, TO ASSESS AN INCOME TAX ON INCOME
RECEIVED BY THE SAID MARY T. RYAN FOR THE YEARS IN QUESTION, WHEN THE
IDENTICAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF HER TRUSTEES HAD BEEN ASSESSED WITH
INCOME TAXES BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND WHICH SAID TAXES HAD BEEN
PAID THERE, THUS IMPOSING TWO STATE TAXES ON THE SAME INCOME. 

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER SUBMITS - 

THE SAME INCOME WAS SUBJECTED TO TAXATION BY TWO STATES.  NEW YORK
UNQUESTIONABLY HAD THE RIGHT TO EXACT THE TAX UPON THE INCOME OF THE
TRUST, AND THEREBY VIRGINIA WAS INHIBITED.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECT AGAINST SUCH TAXATION BY TWO STATES ON THE
SAME INCOME.  HERE, BOTH THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSES FORBID THE CHALLENGED EXACTMENT. 

THE CLAIM THAT EQUAL PROTECTION HAS BEEN DENIED SEEMS TO REST UPON AN
ASSUMED LITERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE VIRGINIA STATUTE WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE INCOME FROM DISCRETIONARY TRUSTS TO BE TAXED AGAINST BOTH
TRUSTEE AND BENEFICIARY, WHILE ONLY ONE TAX (AGAINST THE BENEFICIARY)
WOULD FALL UPON INCOME FROM ORDINARY TRUSTS. 

WE MUST, OF COURSE, DEAL WITH RIGHTS HERE ACTUALLY INVOLVED.  THE
STATE HAS MADE ONE ASSESSMENT AGAINST A RESIDENT BENEFICIARY BECAUSE OF
INCOME RECEIVED WITHIN HER JURISDICTION AND HER COURTS HAVE APPROVED. 
THEY HAVE NOT INTERPRETED HER STATUTES ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER'S
ASSUMPTION. 

THE RIGHT TO RECOGNIZE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ORDINARY AND
DISCRETIONARY TRUSTS AND THUS INSURE COLLECTION OF TAXES UPON THE
ENTIRE INCOME ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE LATTER SEEMS CLEAR ENOUGH. 

HAS THERE BEEN DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS - 

THE INSISTENCE IS THAT THE CHALLENGED ASSESSMENT WAS UPON THE
IDENTICAL INCOME ALREADY RIGHTLY TAXED BY NEW YORK; THAT, UNDER
NUMEROUS DECISIONS BY US, TWO OR MORE STATES MAY NOT TAX THE SAME
SUBJECT; THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION AND INFRINGE THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE.  TO SUPPORT THIS PROPOSITION THE CASES NOTED IN THE
MARGIN N1 ARE CITED. 

THOSE CASES GO UPON THE THEORY THAT THE TAXING POWER OF A STATE IS
RESTRICTED TO HER CONFINES AND MAY NOT BE EXERCISED IN RESPECT OF
SUBJECTS BEYOND THEM.  HERE, THE THING TAXED WAS RECEIPT OF INCOME
WITHIN VIRGINIA BY A CITIZEN RESIDING THERE.  THE MERE FACT THAT
ANOTHER STATE LAWFULLY TAXED FUNDS FROM WHICH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE
DID NOT NECESSARILY DESTROY VIRGINIA'S RIGHT TO TAX SOMETHING DONE
WITHIN HER BORDERS.  AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION THE APPLICABLE DOCTRINE WAS
EXPOUNDED AND APPLIED IN LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276,
AND NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308.  THE ATTEMPT TO DRAW
A CONTROLLING DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM AND THE PRESENT CAUSE, WE THINK,
HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  UNION REFRIGERATOR CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, FRICK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473, SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA, 280
U.S.
..END :























COLORADO BANK V. COMM'R, 305 U.S. 23 


NO. 30.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 95
F.2D 160, REVERSED. 


1.  WHETHER A TRANSFER WAS IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH HELD A QUESTION
OF FACT AS TO WHICH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, SUPPORTED
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WAS CONCLUSIVE.  P. 29. 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSFER WAS TO ENABLE THE
DONOR TO SPECULATE UPON THE STOCK MARKET FOR THE REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE
MORE ACTIVELY THAN HE HAD IN THE PAST WITHOUT FEAR THAT THE PART OF HIS
FORTUNE TRANSFERRED MIGHT BE LOST. 

2.  AS TO THE MEANING OF THE TERM "IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH," THE
COURT ADHERES TO WHAT WAS SAID IN UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S.
102.  P. 30. 

THE MERE PURPOSE TO MAKE PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AFTER A DONOR'S DEATH
IS NOT ENOUGH CONCLUSIVELY TO ESTABLISH THAT ACTION TO THAT END WAS "IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH."  BROADLY SPEAKING, THOUGHTFUL MEN HABITUALLY
ACT WITH REGARD TO ULTIMATE DEATH, BUT SOMETHING MORE THAN THIS IS
REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT A CONVEYANCE COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF
THE STATUTE, REV. ACT OF 1926, SEC. 302(C). 

COLORADO NATIONAL BANK ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 556, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT UPHOLDING AN ESTATE
TAX ASSESSMENT, AND THEREIN REVERSING A CONTRARY DECISION OF THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

EDWIN B. HENDRIE OF DENVER, COLORADO, JANUARY 26, 1925, EXECUTED A
WILL WHEREIN HE GAVE HIS PROPERTY, WITH RELATIVELY SMALL EXCEPTIONS, TO
TRUSTEES TO BE HELD FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS DAUGHTER, GERTRUDE HENDRIE
GRANT, AND HER CHILDREN.  JANUARY 7, 1927, WHEN EIGHTY YEARS OLD AND IN
GOOD HEALTH, HE IRREVOCABLY CONVEYED IN TRUST TO THE COLORADO NATIONAL
BANK, SECURITIES OF LARGE VALUE - PERHAPS $800,000.  THE DEED AMONG
OTHER THINGS PROVIDED THAT THE INCOME SHOULD BE ACCUMULATED DURING THE
DONOR'S LIFE; AFTER HIS DEATH AND DURING THE LIFE OF HIS DAUGHTER
GERTRUDE SO MUCH THEREOF AS SHE ASKED SHOULD BE PAID TO HER AND THE
REMAINDER ADDED TO THE PRINCIPAL; UPON HER DEATH THE CORPUS SHOULD BE
DISTRIBUTED TO HER DESCENDANTS, ETC. 

HENDRIE DIED JULY 15, 1932.  HIS 1925 WILL WAS DULY PROBATED AND
UNDER IT PROPERTY WORTH SOME $900,000 PASSED.  THE COMMISSIONER RULED
THAT THE 1927 TRUST WAS SET UP IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 302(C), REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED,  FN1  TREATED
THE PROPERTY IN THE TRUSTEE'S HANDS AS PART OF THE GROSS ESTATE, AND
ASSESSED TAXES THEREON ACCORDINGLY. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT FACTS AND HELD THE
CONVEYANCE OF 1927 "WAS NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE STATUTE AS EXPLAINED IN UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S.
102." 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT THE TRANSFER WAS IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, AND REVERSED THE BOARD'S DECISION.  WE THINK
THIS WAS ERROR.  THE DECISION OF THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED. 

THE COURT DECLARED - "EACH CASE MUST BE DETERMINED BY ITS OWN FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES.  ...  IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT A FINDING OF FACT MADE
BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WILL NOT BE DISTURBED ON REVIEW IF IT IS
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  BUT WHETHER THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING IS A QUESTION OF LAW.  ...  AND A FINDING
NOT THUS SUPPORTED WILL BE SET ASIDE."  THESE STATEMENTS ARE IN ACCORD
WITH OUR HOLDINGS. 

ALSO IT SAID - "THE TEST LIES IN THE MOTIVE FOR THE TRANSFER.  IF THE
GENERATING SOURCE OF THE MOTIVE IS ASSOCIATED WITH LIFE, THE TRANSFER
IS NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.  BUT IF THE GENERATING
INDUCEMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH, EITHER IMMEDIATE OR DISTANT, THE
TRANSFER IS MADE IN SUCH CONTEMPLATION.  A GIFT IS MADE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WHERE THE DOMINANT MOTIVE OF THE DONOR IS TO
MAKE PROPER PROVISION FOR THE OBJECT OF HIS BOUNTY AFTER THE DEATH OF
THE DONOR." 

FOLLOWING A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IT SAID - "THE DOMINANT PURPOSE
WAS TO MAKE PROVISION FOR HIS DESCENDANTS AFTER HIS DEATH, IN THE EVENT
HIS SPECULATIONS PROVED TRAGIC.  IT WAS TO PLACE THAT SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF PROPERTY IN AN ASYLUM OF IMMUNITY FROM ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES
OF SPECULATION, IN ORDER TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT IT WOULD BE USED FOR HIS
DAUGHTER AND HER CHILDREN AFTER HIS DEATH.  ...  THE PURPOSE WAS A
COMMENDABLE ONE, BUT THE GENERATING MOTIVE FOR A TRANSFER MADE IN SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH." 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE VIEWS SO STATED THE COURT CONCLUDED THERE WAS NO
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT MADE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.  ONE JUDGE, DISSENTING, DECLARED - "IT SEEMS
CLEAR FROM THE UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY THAT MR. HENDRIE'S GIFT TO HIS
DAUGHTER AND HER CHILDREN WAS NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH BUT IN
ORDER THAT HE MIGHT SPECULATE UPON THE STOCK MARKET FOR THE REMAINDER
OF HIS LIFE MORE ACTIVELY THAN HE HAD IN THE PAST WITHOUT FEAR THAT THE
PART OF HIS FORTUNE THUS GIVEN MIGHT BE LOST.  HE MANIFESTED NO OTHER
INTENT AND PURPOSE IN THAT RESPECT." 

THERE WAS EVIDENCE WHICH THE BOARD THOUGHT ADEQUATE, AND WHICH WE
DEEM SUBSTANTIAL, TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION.  DOMINANT PURPOSE WAS A
QUESTION OF FACT FOR DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD. 

THE COURT'S OPINION SEEMS TO REST UPON AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF
THE TERM "IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH."  THE MEANING OF THIS WAS MUCH
DISCUSSED IN UNITED STATES V. WELLS, SUPRA.  WE ADHERE TO WHAT WAS
THERE SAID.  THE MERE PURPOSE TO MAKE PROVISION FOR CHILDREN AFTER A
DONOR'S DEATH IS NOT ENOUGH CONCLUSIVELY TO ESTABLISH THAT ACTION TO
THAT END WAS "IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH."  BROADLY SPEAKING, THOUGHTFUL
MEN HABITUALLY ACT WITH REGARD TO ULTIMATE DEATH, BUT SOMETHING MORE
THAN THIS IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT A CONVEYANCE COMES WITHIN
THE AMBIT OF THE STATUTE. 

HERE, THE BOARD HAVING BEFORE IT ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE WILL, CONCLUDED THAT THEY DISCLOSED AN EFFECTIVE
MOTIVE NOT DIRECTLY SPRINGING FROM APPREHENSION OF DEATH.  AND AS
POINTED OUT BY THE DISSENTING JUDGE THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR
THAT VIEW.  ITS ACTION IS IN ACCORD WITH PRINCIPLES ACCEPTED BY US IN
SHUKERT V. ALLEN, 273 U.S. 545, REINECKE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278
U.S. 339, MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238, MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S.
784, BECKER V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 48. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED.  THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS APPROVED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1926, C. 27, 44 STAT. 9: 

"SEC. 302.  THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL
PROPERTY, REAL OR PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED
 

"(A)  TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST THEREIN OF THE DECEDENT AT THE
TIME OF HIS DEATH; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS
AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, IN CONTEMPLATION OF
OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS
DEATH,  ..."  (U.S.C., TITLE 26, SEC. 411.) 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
BOARD THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WAS
JUSTIFIED.  THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A LIFE MOTIVE AND THE
BOARD DID NOT FIND AN EFFECTIVE MOTIVE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN PROVIDING THAT PROPERTY TRANSFERRED TO A
TRUST SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TRANSFEROR'S GROSS ESTATE WHEN
TRANSFERRED IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH  FN1  WAS TO PREVENT EVASION OF
THE PROGRESSIVELY GRADUATED ESTATE TAX THROUGH THE USE OF TRUST DEVICES
WHICH ACTUALLY OPERATED AS SUBSTITUTES FOR TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY.  FN2  THE WILL MADE BY MR. HENDRIE AT THE AGE OF SEVENTY
EIGHT IN 1925 AND THE TRUST AGREEMENT SUBSTITUTED FOR IT AT EIGHTY (AS
TO A LARGE PART OF HIS PROPERTY) TWO YEARS LATER IN 1927 WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL AS TO PARTIES, RECIPIENTS OF HIS PROPERTY,
AMOUNTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS.  NEITHER THE WILL NOR THE TRUST
AGREEMENT PERMITTED ANY PAYMENTS TO THE BENEFICIARIES UNTIL THE DEATH
OF MR. HENDRIE. 

THE STIPULATED EVIDENCE AS TO EXPRESSIONS BY THE DONOR OF HIS MOTIVE
FOR MAKING THE TRUST AGREEMENT SHOWED THAT: 

HE "WANTED TO TRANSFER ABOUT ONE THIRD OF HIS ASSETS IN THE INTEREST
OF HIS DAUGHTER AND HER HEIRS SO THAT WHATEVER MIGHT HAPPEN TO HIS OWN
FINANCIAL AFFAIRS IN THE FUTURE, THOSE PERSONS WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR. 
HE SAID HE DESIRED TO RETAIN FOR HIMSELF HIS MORE SPECULATIVE
SECURITIES AND TO FEEL FREE TO SPECULATE WITH THAT PROPERTY DURING THE
REST OF HIS LIFE, BUT TO PUT THE OTHER ONE-THIRD BEYOND HIS OWN REACH
AND RISK.  HE SAID HE DESIRED AND INTENDED TO 'PLAY ON THE MARKET' TO A
GREATER EXTENT AND IN A MORE SPECULATIVE WAY FOR THE REMAINDER OF HIS
LIFE." 

AT "ONE TIME HE STATED  ...  THAT HIS DAUGHTER AND HIS GRANDCHILDREN
WOULD BE ADEQUATELY PROVIDED FOR IN THE EVENT OF HIS, THE SAID
HENDRIE'S DEATH, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF A TRUST WHICH HE HAD CREATED,
REGARDLESS OF HIS OPERATIONS ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE." 

IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE STIPULATED FACTS IN THIS CASE
SHOWED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE TRUST GIFT WAS MADE IN CONTEMPLATION
OF THE DONOR'S DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT, THE
COURT BELOW SAID IN PART: 

"THE TRUST WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MAKE PROVISION FOR THE BENEFICIARIES
DURING HIS LIFE.  NONE OF THE PROPERTY OR THE INCREMENT THERETO WAS TO
REACH THEM UNTIL AFTER HIS DEATH.  NEITHER WAS IT DESIGNED TO ENABLE
HIM TO ENGAGE IN SPECULATION.  HE COULD HAVE DONE THAT UNFETTERED AND
UNRESTRAINED WITHOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TRUST.  BUT IN ITS
ABSENCE THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE HAZARDS
OF SPECULATION.  IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHIN REACH OF CREDITORS IF HE
LOST ALL.  THE DOMINANT PURPOSE WAS TO MAKE PROVISION FOR HIS
DESCENDANTS AFTER HIS DEATH, IN THE EVENT HIS SPECULATIONS PROVED
TRAGIC.  IT WAS TO PLACE THAT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTY IN AN
ASYLUM OF IMMUNITY FROM ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF SPECULATION, IN ORDER
TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT IT WOULD BE USED FOR HIS DAUGHTER AND HER CHILDREN
AFTER HIS DEATH.  IT WAS TO MAKE ASSURANCE DOUBLY SURE THAT PROVISION
WAS MADE FOR THEM, NOT DURING HIS LIFE, BUT AFTER HIS DEATH."  FN3 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DID NOT PASS UPON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.  AND
THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE BOARD BELIEVED THAT ANY CONFLICTING
INFERENCES COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE STIPULATED FACTS.  STATING THAT "THE
COMMISSIONER RELIES UPON THE FACT THAT THE INCOME WAS TO BE ACCUMULATED
AND ADDED TO CORPUS DURING THE LIFE OF THE DONOR AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE
BENEFICIARIES WERE TO RECEIVE NOTHING UNTIL AFTER THE DEATH OF THE
DECEDENT," THE BOARD DID NO MORE THAN SAY THAT THEY THOUGHT "THE
TRANSFER WAS NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE STATUTE AS EXPLAINED IN UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 283 U.S. 102," AND
THAT "THEREFORE, ON THIS POINT, WE HOLD FOR THE PETITIONERS."  THAT THE
BOARD REACHED ITS CONCLUSION ON THIS SINGLE PRINCIPLE IS CLEARLY
INDICATED BY ITS STATEMENT THAT "PRINCIPLES ANNOUNCED IN THE CASES
ABOVE LISTED CONTROL THIS CASE WHICH IS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM ONE OR
MORE OF THOSE CASES WHERE, AS HERE, INCOME WAS TO BE ACCUMULATED UNTIL
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE DONOR." 

THE DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. WELLS, SUPRA, IS NOT CONTROLLING ON
THE PRESENT FACTS.  THERE THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT, IN EFFECT, THE
FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT SHOWED THAT THE GIFT INVOLVED "'WAS THE
CARRYING OUT OF A POLICY LONG FOLLOWED BY DECEDENT IN DEALING WITH HIS
CHILDREN OF MAKING LIBERAL GIFTS TO THEM DURING HIS LIFETIME.  HE HAD
CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED THAT POLICY FOR NEARLY THIRTY YEARS AND THE THREE
TRANSFERS IN QUESTION WERE A CONTINUATION AND FINAL CONSUMMATION OF
SUCH POLICY.  IN THE LAST TRANSFER SUCH AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN TO HIS
CHILDREN AS WOULD EVEN THEM UP ONE WITH ANOTHER, IN THE GIFTS AND
ADVANCEMENTS MADE TO THEM. 

"'THAT THIS WAS THE MOTIVE WHICH ACTUATED THE DECEDENT IN MAKING
THESE TRANSFERS SEEMS UNQUESTIONED.'" 

HERE, THE DONOR HAD NEVER FOLLOWED ANY SUCH POLICY.  HIS WILL
INDICATED THAT HE WAS MOTIVATED NOT BY A DESIRE TO GIVE HIS CHILDREN
AND GRANDCHILDREN PROPERTY WHILE HE WAS YET LIVING, BUT TO PROVIDE FOR
THEM AFTER HIS DEATH.  IN THE WELLS CASE, SUPRA, 117, THIS COURT SAID
THAT "THE MOTIVE WHICH INDUCES THE TRANSFER MUST BE OF THE SORT WHICH
LEADS TO TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION."  THAT THE MOTIVE OF THE DONOR IN
THIS CASE WAS OF THE KIND "WHICH LEADS TO TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION" IS
CONCLUSIVELY SHOWN BY THE FACTS THAT THE TRUST AGREEMENT WAS AN ACTUAL
SUBSTITUTE FOR A PREVIOUS WILL; THAT THE SOLE MOTIVE SHOWN IN ALL OF
THE EVIDENCE WAS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DONOR'S CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN
AFTER HIS DEATH SO HE WOULD BE "FREE FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE TO
SPECULATE IN WHATEVER SECURITIES HE MIGHT WISH" WITHOUT SUBJECTING THE
PROPERTY INTENDED FOR HIS CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO "THE
VICISSITUDES OF HIS SPECULATIONS."  FN4 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT UPON REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS THE "COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER TO AFFIRM OR, IF THE DECISION
OF THE BOARD IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, TO MODIFY OR TO REVERSE THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD, WITH OR WITHOUT REMANDING THE CASE FOR A
REHEARING, AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE."  FN5  ALTHOUGH THIS STATUTE
INDICATES AN INTENT ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO MAKE THE FINDINGS OF
FACT OF THE BOARD CONCLUSIVE, THIS COURT HOLDS THAT SUCH FINDINGS ARE
NOT CONCLUSIVE UNLESS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  FN6  THIS
COURT HAS ALSO SAID THAT THE ULTIMATE FINDING BY THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS IS A "CONCLUSION OF LAW OR AT LEAST A DETERMINATION OF A MIXED
QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT" WHICH IS "SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AND, ON
SUCH REVIEW, THE COURT MAY SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE
BOARD."  FN7  UNDER THIS RULE - WITH WHICH I AM NOT IN ACCORD - BUT
WHICH GOVERNED THE COURT OF APPEALS, I BELIEVE THAT COURT CORRECTLY
DECIDED THAT THE BOARD HAD NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY ITS
ERRONEOUS ULTIMATE DETERMINATION OF THE MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT
HERE.  FOR THAT REASON I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.    FN1
SEC. 302(C), REVENUE ACT, 1926, 44 STAT. 9. 

FN2  MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15; UNITED STATES V. WELLS,
283 U.S. 102, 116-17; CF. TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497, 505. 

FN3  95 F.2D 163. 

FN4  THE STATUTE ALTERNATIVELY TAXES TWO TYPES OF TRUST TRANSFERS
INTER VIVOS WHICH MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WILLS.  IF A TRUST WAS
INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT AT DEATH OR IF A TRUST WAS CREATED IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, EITHER CONTINGENCY INVOKES THE IMPOSITION OF
THE TAX.  HOLDINGS WHERE THE TAX HAS BEEN ASSESSED ON THE THEORY THAT A
TRUST SHIFTED SUCH ECONOMIC INTERESTS AT A TRANSFEROR'S DEATH - AND NOT
WHEN THE TRUST WAS SET UP - THAT THE TRANSFER WAS INTENDED TO TAKE
EFFECT AT DEATH (SHUKERT V. ALLEN, 273 U.S. 545; REINECKE V. NORTHERN
TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339; MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238; MCCORMICK V.
BURNET, 283 U.S. 784; BECKER V. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 48)
ARE NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THIS CASE INVOLVING AN ALLEGED MOTIVE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH. 

FN5  44 STAT. 110, 26 U.S.C., C. 5, SEC. 641(C). 

FN6  HELVERING V. TEX-PENN CO., 300 U.S. 481, 490; HELVERING V.
RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131; PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589,
600. 

FN7  HELVERING V. TEX-PENN CO., SUPRA, AT 491; HELVERING V. RANKIN,
SUPRA.
..END :
























DAVIS V. DAVIS, 305 U.S. 32 


NO. 16.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 96
F.2D 512, REVERSED. 


1.  UNDER ART. IV, SEC. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION AND R.S. SEC. 905, A
DECREE OF A COURT OF VIRGINIA IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME FAITH AND CREDIT
IN THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS IT HAS BY LAW OR USAGE IN
THE COURTS OF VIRGINIA.  P. 39. 

2. WHETHER THE MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL IS THE DOMICIL OF THE HUSBAND
DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.  P. 41. 

3.  A HUSBAND OBTAINED, ON THE GROUND OF CRUELTY, A DECREE OF
SEPARATION FROM HIS WIFE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHERE BOTH
RESIDED.  THE DECREE GAVE HER CUSTODY OF ONE CHILD AND MONTHLY
ALIMONY.  SOME YEARS LATER, THE HUSBAND ESTABLISHED HIS RESIDENCE IN
VIRGINIA AND SUED IN A VIRGINIA COURT FOR ABSOLUTE DIVORCE ON THE
GROUND OF DESERTION.  NOTICE WAS SERVED PERSONALLY ON THE WIFE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHERE SHE CONTINUED TO RESIDE, AND SHE FILED IN
THE VIRGINIA COURT A PLEA STATING THAT SHE APPEARED THERE "SPECIALLY
AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO FILE THIS PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT."  THE PLEA ALLEGED THAT NEITHER SHE NOR THE HUSBAND HAD BEEN
A RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA FOR A YEAR BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE SUIT AND
ASSERTED THAT HE WAS NOT THEN A BONA FIDE RESIDENT THERE, BUT THAT THE
RESIDENCE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH WAS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
CREATING JURISDICTION IN THE COURT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE SUIT FOR
DIVORCE AND WAS THEREFORE A FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND NOT RESIDENCE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF LAW.  IT PRAYED JUDGMENT WHETHER THE COURT "CAN OR
WILL TAKE ANY FURTHER COGNIZANCE OF THE ACTION AFORESAID."  THERE WAS A
DECREE OF REFERENCE TO A COMMISSIONER TO ASCERTAIN AND REPORT WHETHER
THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION AND WHETHER A DIVORCE SHOULD BE GRANTED, THE
DECREE RECITING, INTER ALIA, THAT COUNSEL HAD BEEN HEARD IN ARGUMENT. 
THE COMMISSIONER REPORTED THAT BY STIPULATION OF COUNSEL, HE HAD
LIMITED HIS INQUIRY TO THE JURISDICTION; THAT HE HAD TAKEN ALL THE
TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES, AND THAT IN HIS OPINION THE HUSBAND
WAS A BONA FIDE RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA AND THAT THE COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CAUSE.  THERE WAS A HEARING UPON
THE WIFE'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT, AFTER WHICH THE COURT FOUND THAT
THE HUSBAND HAD BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE VIRGINIA COUNTY FOR THE
REQUISITE TIME AND THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER AND
OF THE PARTIES; AND CONFIRMED THE REPORT.  THE COURT GRANTED THE WIFE
FURTHER TIME IN WHICH TO APPEAL OR TO ANSWER, BUT SHE DID NEITHER.  THE
CAUSE PROCEEDED AND THERE WAS A FINAL DECREE OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE UPON
THE GROUND OF WILFUL DESERTION, WITH AN ALLOWANCE FOR SUPPORT OF THE
CHILD BUT NO ALIMONY FOR THE WIFE, THE DECREE RECITING THAT THERE HAD
BEEN A HEARING UPON SPECIFIED PAPERS AND DEPOSITIONS TAKEN BEFORE A
COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO NOTICE SERVED IN THE COUNTY, ON COUNSEL WHO
HAD ENTERED SPECIAL APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT, AND UPON HER PERSONALLY
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  HELD: 

(A)  CONSTRUING THE WIFE'S APPEARANCE AS SPECIAL, SHE WAS NEVERTHELESS
BOUND BY THE FINDING OF THE VIRGINIA COURT ON RESIDENCE AND
JURISDICTION, AND THE DECREE WAS ENFORCEABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 40. 

(B)  THE WIFE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE VIRGINIA LITIGATION WAS SUCH AS
TO AMOUNT TO A GENERAL APPEARANCE.  P. 42. 

NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE AS TO THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA COURT OVER ALIMONY. 

DAVIS V. DAVIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

ON CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 552, TO REVIEW A DECREE REFUSING RECOGNITION
TO A VIRGINIA DECREE OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE SECURED BY A HUSBAND WHO
CHANGED HIS RESIDENCE TO THAT STATE FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE THE DECREE OF THE VIRGINIA COURT VIOLATES
ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND R.S. SEC. 905.  CHEELEY V.
CLAYTON, 110 U.S. 701, 705; THOMPSON V. THOMPSON, 226 U.S. 551; 35 APP.
D.C. 14; ATHERTON V. ATHERTON, 181 U.S. 155; BLOEDORN V. BLOEDORN, 64
APP. D.C. 199, 201. 

THE APPEARANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF THE WIFE IN THE HEARING IN THE
VIRGINIA COURT GAVE THAT COURT FULL JURISDICTION.  BALDWIN V. IOWA
STATE TRAVELING MEN'S ASSN., 283 U.S. 522; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V.
BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 166. 

THE RULING BELOW THAT THE PETITIONER, SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE JUDICIAL
SEPARATION GRANTED HIM, COULD NOT ACQUIRE A NEW DOMICILE WHICH WOULD
SUPPORT AN ACTION FOR DIVORCE, IS IN CONFLICT WITH BARBER V. BARBER, 21
HOW.  582, 594; CHEEVER V. WILSON, 9 WALL.  108, 124; HADDOCK V.
HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 562; WILLIAMSON V. OSENTON, 232 U.S. 619.  SEE HUNT
V. HUNT, 72 N.Y. 217, 243.  IT IS ALSO IN CONFLICT WITH ROLLINS V.
ROLLINS, 60 APP. D.C. 305, 307, AND MARCUM V. MARCUM, 61 APP. D.C. 332,
334. 

WHERE ONE SPOUSE HAS JUSTIFIABLY LEFT THE OTHER, OR THE PARTIES ARE
LIVING APART BY VIRTUE OF A JUDICIAL SEPARATION, THERE IS NO
MATRIMONIAL DOMICILE, AND THE INNOCENT PARTY MAY ACQUIRE ANOTHER, WITH
JURISDICTION IN THE COURTS OF THE LATTER TO DECREE A DIVORCE OF BINDING
VALIDITY EVERYWHERE. 

THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW WAS BY THREE JUDGES ONLY, AND NOT BY
THE FULL COURT OF FIVE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE, ALTHOUGH HEARING BY THE
FULL COURT WAS REQUESTED. 

WHEN A HUSBAND GOES TO A STATE SOLELY FOR DIVORCE PURPOSES, HE DOES
NOT CARRY THE MARITAL RES WITH HIM, AND THE COURTS OF THE STATE TO
WHICH HE HAS GONE HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN HIS DIVORCE SUIT. 

RECITALS OF THE DECREES ENTERED IN DIVORCE CASES IN ONE STATE ARE NOT
BINDING ON THE COURT OF ANOTHER STATE; THEY MAY BE CONTRADICTED. 

THE BONA FIDES OF THE RESIDENCE OF A PARTY WHO OBTAINS A DIVORCE IN
ONE STATE MAY BE INQUIRED INTO BY THE COURTS OF ANOTHER STATE.  BELL V.
BELL, 181 U.S. 175; STREITWOLF V. STREITWOLF, 181 U.S. 179; ANDREWS V.
ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14; HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, 201 U.S. 502; SIMMONS V.
SIMMONS, 57 APP. D.C. 216; CHEELEY V. CLAYTON, 110 U.S. 701; FREY V.
FREY, 61 APP. D.C. 232. 

THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 9, 1893, 27 STAT. 434,
ESTABLISHING THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO
REQUIRE A FULL COURT TO CONSTITUTE A QUORUM.  THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1930,
INCREASED THE NUMBER OF JUSTICES TO FIVE, AND PROVIDED THAT THEY "SHALL
HAVE THE SAME TENURE OF OFFICE, PAY AND EMOLUMENTS, POWERS AND DUTIES,
AS PROVIDED BY LAW, FOR THE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT."  THERE WAS NOTHING
IN THE ACT REQUIRING MORE THAN THREE JUDGES TO DECIDE A CASE, JUST AS
THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE ACT OF 1893 REQUIRING MORE THAN TWO JUDGES TO
DECIDE A CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE LOWER COURT HELD A DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, ENTERED JUNE 26, 1929, GRANTING PETITIONER AN
ABSOLUTE DIVORCE FROM RESPONDENT UPON THE GROUND OF DESERTION, NOT
ENTITLED TO RECOGNITION IN THE SUPREME (NOW DISTRICT) COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE QUESTION AROSE UPON HIS APPLICATION TO THAT
COURT TO SET ASIDE OR MODIFY A DECREE IT ENTERED OCTOBER 29, 1925,
GRANTING HIM DIVORCE A MENSA ET THORO FROM RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND OF
CRUELTY. 

IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ABSOLUTE DIVORCE WAS NOT THEN PERMITTED
FOR DESERTION OR CRUELTY.  FN1  IN VIRGINIA, ABSOLUTE DIVORCE WAS
AUTHORIZED WHERE EITHER PARTY WILLFULLY DESERTED OR ABANDONED THE OTHER
FOR THREE YEARS.  FN2  THE CIRCUIT COURTS THERE HAVE JURISDICTION OVER
SUITS FOR DIVORCE AND ALIMONY.  NO SUIT FOR DIVORCE IS MAINTAINABLE
UNLESS ONE OF THE PARTIES HAS BEEN DOMICILED IN THE STATE FOR AT LEAST
A YEAR PRECEDING ITS COMMENCEMENT.  FN3 

PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT MARRIED IN 1909 AND, UNTIL ABOUT THE TIME
HE BROUGHT THE SUIT FOR LIMITED DIVORCE, LIVED TOGETHER IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.  THEY HAD A SON AND DAUGHTER.  THE DECREE OF SEPARATION
AWARDED TO HIM CUSTODY OF THE SON; TO HER, CUSTODY OF THE DAUGHTER; AND
DIRECTED HIM TO PAY $300 A MONTH FOR SUPPORT OF WIFE AND DAUGHTER. 

PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT IN THE VIRGINIA COURT ALLEGED THAT HE WAS A
RESIDENT OF THAT STATE FOR THE REQUISITE TIME, SHOWED THAT RESPONDENT
WAS A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FULLY DISCLOSED THE
PROCEEDINGS AND DECREE IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AND ALLEGED CONTINUOUS
DESERTION COMMENCING BEFORE AND EXTENDING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS
AFTER ENTRY OF THAT DECREE.  PROCESS OF THE VIRGINIA COURT WAS SERVED
PERSONALLY UPON THE RESPONDENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  SHE FILED
A PLEA STATING THAT SHE APPEARED "SPECIALLY AND FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE
THAN TO FILE THIS PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT."  IN THAT
DOCUMENT SHE ALLEGED THAT NEITHER SHE NOR PETITIONER HAD BEEN A
RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA FOR A YEAR BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE SUIT; AND
ASSERTED THAT HE WAS NOT THEN A BONA FIDE RESIDENT THERE, BUT THAT THE
RESIDENCE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH WAS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
CREATING JURISDICTION IN THE COURT TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE SUIT FOR
DIVORCE, AND WAS THEREFORE A FRAUD UPON THE COURT AND NOT RESIDENCE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF LAW.  THE PLEA PRAYED JUDGMENT WHETHER THE COURT "CAN
OR WILL TAKE ANY FURTHER COGNIZANCE OF THE ACTION AFORESAID." 

THE COURT ENTERED A DECREE RECITING THAT THE CAUSE CAME ON FOR HEARING
UPON THE COMPLAINT, EXHIBITS, OTHER PAPERS, AND "ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL,"
AND REFERRING THE CAUSE TO A COMMISSIONER IN CHANCERY TO ASCERTAIN AND
REPORT WHETHER THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE IT AND
WHETHER A DECREE OF DIVORCE SHOULD BE ENTERED.  THE COMMISSIONER
REPORTED THAT "BY STIPULATION OF COUNSEL IT WAS AGREED," THAT HE SHOULD
ONLY ASCERTAIN THE FACTS RAISED IN THE PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION AND
THAT NO OTHER MATTER SHOULD BE INQUIRED INTO OR REPORTED; THAT HE HAD
TAKEN ALL THE TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES; THAT IN HIS OPINION
PETITIONER WAS A BONA FIDE RESIDENT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND
THAT THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CAUSE. 

RESPONDENT FILED EXCEPTIONS, REITERATING THE ALLEGATIONS OF HER PLEA
AND ASSERTING THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S FINDINGS WERE CONTRARY TO THE
EVIDENCE.  THERE WAS A HEARING UPON THE REPORT AND EXCEPTIONS.  AFTER
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE
EVIDENCE, THE COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONER WAS A RESIDENT OF ARLINGTON
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, FOR THE REQUISITE TIME; THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OF
THE "SUBJECT MATTER AND OF THE PARTIES"; OVERRULED THE EXCEPTIONS, AND
CONFIRMED THE REPORT.  RESPONDENT HAVING SIGNIFIED HER DESIRE TO APPLY
FOR AN APPEAL, THE COURT ORDERED OPERATION OF THE DECREE SUSPENDED FOR
A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS.  IT ALSO GRANTED RESPONDENT TEN DAYS "WITHIN
WHICH TO FILE SUCH ANSWER OR OTHER PLEADINGS IN THIS CAUSE AS SHE MAY
WISH."  SHE DID NOT APPEAL OR FILE ANSWER OR OTHER PLEADING. 

THE FINAL DECREE STATES THAT THE CASE CAME ON FOR HEARING UPON
SPECIFIED PAPERS AND DEPOSITIONS OF FIVE NAMED PERSONS, TAKEN BEFORE A
COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO NOTICE SERVED IN ARLINGTON COUNTY, ON COUNSEL
WHO HAD ENTERED SPECIAL APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT, AND UPON HER
PERSONALLY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IT FOUND:  RESPONDENT
WILLFULLY DESERTED PETITIONER FEBRUARY 24, 1925; THE DESERTION
CONTINUED FROM THAT DATE; THREE YEARS HAD ELAPSED SINCE THE ENTRY OF
THE DECREE A MENSA ET THORO; THERE HAS BEEN NO RECONCILIATION, AND NONE
IS PROBABLE.  IT GRANTED PETITIONER ABSOLUTE DIVORCE, DIVESTED
RESPONDENT OF ALL RIGHTS IN HIS PROPERTY, AND REQUIRED HIM TO PAY $150
PER MONTH FOR SUPPORT OF THE DAUGHTER.  NO ALIMONY WAS ALLOWED
RESPONDENT. 

DECEMBER 30, 1929, PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO HAVE
ITS DECREE SET ASIDE OR MODIFIED SO AS NOT TO REQUIRE HIM TO PAY ANY
AMOUNT FOR MAINTENANCE OF RESPONDENT BUT TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF
A REASONABLE SUM FOR THE SUPPORT OF THEIR DAUGHTER.  THE APPLICATION
WAS BASED SOLELY UPON THE VIRGINIA DECREE.  RESPONDENT APPEARED AND
OPPOSED THE APPLICATION BUT RAISED NO QUESTION AS TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THE VIRGINIA COURT.  IT WAS DENIED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED
ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE LOWER COURT, HAVING ENTERED THE DECREE,
RETAINED JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE OR MODIFY ITS ORDER FOR MAINTENANCE OF
THE WIFE AND DAUGHTER; THAT PETITIONER'S REMOVAL TO VIRGINIA DID NOT
INVEST THE COURTS OF THAT STATE WITH AUTHORITY TO ANNUL OR SUPERSEDE
THAT JURISDICTION; AND THAT, THE DISTRICT COURT HAVING FIRST ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER, ITS AUTHORITY CONTINUES UNTIL THE
MATTER IS FINALLY DISPOSED OF.  61 APP. D.C. 48; 57 F.2D 414.  IN
PASSING UPON THAT APPLICATION, NEITHER COURT CONSIDERED OR DECIDED ANY
QUESTION AS TO JURISDICTION OF THE VIRGINIA COURT. 

APRIL 16, 1935, PETITIONER FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT ANOTHER
APPLICATION TO HAVE ITS DECREE SET ASIDE OR MODIFIED AS BEFORE PRAYED. 
HE THEN SOUGHT RELIEF ON THREE GROUNDS:  THE DECREE OF THE VIRGINIA
COURT, THE FACT THAT HIS DAUGHTER HAD MARRIED AND WAS NO LONGER LIVING
WITH RESPONDENT, AND DIMINUTION OF HIS INCOME.  RESPONDENT ANSWERED,
ALLEGING THAT PETITIONER NEVER WAS A RESIDENT OF VIRGINIA AND DENYING
THE DESERTION FOUND BY THE VIRGINIA COURT.  THERE WAS A HEARING, AT
WHICH PETITIONER OFFERED EVIDENCE SHOWING THE PROCEEDINGS AND DECREE IN
THE VIRGINIA COURT, THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER, AND THAT SHE WAS
LIVING WITH HER HUSBAND.  THEN COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT APPLIED FOR TIME
TO SECURE HER ATTENDANCE AND THAT OF WITNESSES WHO, AS HE SAID, WOULD
GIVE TESTIMONY THAT PETITIONER WENT TO VIRGINIA FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
GETTING A DIVORCE, AND THAT HE NEVER BECAME A BONA FIDE RESIDENT
THERE.  PETITIONER'S COUNSEL ADMITTED THAT, IF PRESENT, RESPONDENT AND
THE WITNESSES REFERRED TO WOULD SO TESTIFY, BUT INSISTED THAT THE
TESTIMONY WOULD BE INCOMPETENT.  RESPONDENT OFFERED NO OTHER EVIDENCE. 
THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE APPLICATION. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN AN UNREPORTED OPINION, HELD ITS EARLIER
DECISION ESTABLISHED THE LAW OF THE CASE.  DECLARING PETITIONER NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF HIS DAUGHTER AFTER HER MARRIAGE, IT HELD
THAT FACT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION AS TO THE AMOUNT OF ALIMONY TO BE ALLOWED
RESPONDENT.  PETITIONER APPLIED FOR AND THE COURT GRANTED REHEARING. 
IT HEARD ARGUMENT AND FILED AN OPINION, IN WHICH IT ADHERED TO ITS
RULING THAT ITS EARLIER DECISION WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE, AND HELD THAT
THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT REFUSING TO ENFORCE PETITIONER'S DECREE
OF ABSOLUTE DIVORCE SHOULD STAND.  IT SAID:  "THE VIRGINIA COURT DID
NOT HAVE FULL JURISDICTION OF THE PARTIES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER, AND,
HENCE, THE DECREE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.  ...  IT
WAS NECESSARY  ...  UNDER  ... HADDOCK V. HADDOCK (201 U.S. 562)  ...
THAT VIRGINIA BE THE LAST MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL OF THE PARTIES, OR, IF
NOT, THAT THE WIFE BE SUBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
(BELOW) EITHER BY PERSONAL SERVICE WITHIN THE STATE, OR BY VOLUNTARY
APPEARANCE AND PARTICIPATION IN THE SUIT."  IT HELD THAT THE
MATRIMONIAL DOMICIL WAS NOT IN VIRGINIA; THAT RESPONDENT'S SPECIAL
APPEARANCE DID NOT GIVE THE VIRGINIA COURT FULL JURISDICTION, OR
CONSTITUTE WAIVER OF HER OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION.  IT HELD
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION ONE ADDRESSED TO THE DISCRETION OF THE LOWER
COURT AND THAT ITS OMISSION TO CONSIDER THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER
CONSTITUTED FAILURE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION.  ACCORDINGLY, IT REVERSED
AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION. 
96 F.2D 512. 

ART. IV, SEC. 1, REQUIRES THAT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN EACH STATE
SHALL BE GIVEN FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE COURTS OF EVERY OTHER
STATE.  FN4  THE ACT OF MAY 26, 1790, 1 STAT. 122, AS AMENDED, R.S.
SEC. 905, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 687, DECLARES THAT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
AUTHENTICATED AS THERE PROVIDED SHALL HAVE SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN
TO THEM IN EVERY "COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR
USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN."  FN5  THUS
CONGRESS RIGHTLY INTERPRETED THE CLAUSE TO MEAN, NOT SOME, BUT FULL
CREDIT.  HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, SUPRA, 567.  THE ACT EXTENDED THE RULE OF
THE CONSTITUTION TO ALL COURTS, FEDERAL AS WELL AS STATE.  MILLS V.
DURYEE, 7 CR. 481, 485. 

AS TO PETITIONER'S DOMICIL FOR DIVORCE AND HIS STANDING TO INVOKE
JURISDICTION OF THE VIRGINIA COURT, ITS FINDING THAT HE WAS A BONA FIDE
RESIDENT OF THAT STATE FOR THE REQUIRED TIME IS BINDING UPON RESPONDENT
IN THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT.  SHE MAY NOT SAY THAT HE WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO SUE FOR DIVORCE IN THE STATE COURT, FOR SHE APPEARED THERE
AND BY PLEA PUT IN ISSUE HIS ALLEGATION AS TO DOMICIL, INTRODUCED
EVIDENCE TO SHOW IT FALSE, TOOK EXCEPTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER'S
REPORT, AND SOUGHT TO HAVE THE COURT SUSTAIN THEM AND UPHOLD HER PLEA. 
PLAINLY, THE DETERMINATION OF THE DECREE UPON THAT POINT IS EFFECTIVE
FOR ALL PURPOSES IN THIS LITIGATION.  BALDWIN V. TRAVELING MEN'S ASSN.,
283 U.S. 522, 525-526.    NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE DOMICIL WAS NOT
ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT, IN VIRTUE OF THE RULE OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS, A DECREE ENFORCEABLE IN THE COURTS OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  DEPENDING ON THE CONNECTION IN WHICH USED,
VARIOUS MEANINGS HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THE PHRASE MATRIMONIAL
DOMICIL.  SEE ATHERTON V. ATHERTON, 181 U.S. 155, 171; ANDREWS V.
ANDREWS, 188 U.S. 14, 40; HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, SUPRA, 572; THOMPSON V.
THOMPSON, 226 U.S. 551, 562.  DEFINITION, INCLUSIVE AND EXCLUSIVE, IS
NOT TO BE FOUND; IT NEED NOT BE ATTEMPTED HERE.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY
THAT CARE SHOULD ALWAYS BE TAKEN TO DETERMINE UPON THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE WHETHER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL
RULE, IT IS THE DOMICIL OF THE HUSBAND.  SEE CHEELY V. CLAYTON, 110
U.S. 701, 705; THOMPSON V. THOMPSON, SUPRA.  CF. BARBER V. BARBER, 21
HOW.  582, 592, 594; CHEEVER V. WILSON, 9 WALL.  108, 124.  IN THIS
CASE, THE WIFE HAS BEEN ADJUDGED BY THE DECREE A MENSA ET THORO, ON
WHICH SHE RELIES, TO HAVE DISRUPTED THE MARITAL RELATION.  AND BY THE
DECREE OF THE VIRGINIA COURT, THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH SHE OPPOSES, SHE
IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE PERSISTED IN DESERTION OF PETITIONER FOR A PERIOD
MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE HIM UNDER THE LAWS OF THAT STATE TO
DISSOLUTION OF THE BONDS.  CF. HARDING V. HARDING, 198 U.S. 317, 338
339.  WHILE IN THAT STATE LITIGATING THE QUESTION OF HIS STANDING TO
SUE, SHE CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER CHARGES OF WILLFUL DESERTION. 

THIS CASE DIFFERS ESSENTIALLY FROM HADDOCK V. HADDOCK, SUPRA, RELIED
ON BY THE LOWER COURT.  THERE THE HUSBAND, IMMEDIATELY AFTER MARRIAGE
IN NEW YORK, FLED TO ESCAPE HIS MARITAL OBLIGATIONS AND NEVER RETURNED
TO DISCHARGE ANY OF THEM.  THE WIFE REMAINED IN THAT STATE.  HE
ACQUIRED DOMICIL IN CONNECTICUT AND THERE OBTAINED ABSOLUTE DIVORCE. 
SHE DID NOT APPEAR IN THE CONNECTICUT COURT FOR ANY PURPOSE.  THERE WAS
NO SUGGESTION THAT SHE WAS AT FAULT OR DID ANYTHING TO DISRUPT THE
MARITAL RELATION.  IN THIS CASE, THERE EXISTS NONE OF THE REASONS ON
WHICH WE HELD THE NEW YORK COURT NOT BOUND BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE TO ENFORCE IN THAT STATE THE HUSBAND'S CONNECTICUT DIVORCE. 
PETITIONER FRANKLY PRESENTED TO THE VIRGINIA COURT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH
HE SOUGHT RELEASE.  HE GAVE RESPONDENT ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUIT.  SHE
APPEARED, SPECIALLY AS SHE MAINTAINS, AND RAISED AND TRIED THE QUESTION
WHETHER HE HAD STANDING TO SUE.  IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, AND OF HER
CONDUCT, ADJUDGED REPUGNANT TO THE MARITAL RELATION, IT WOULD BE
UNREASONABLE TO HOLD THAT HIS DOMICIL IN VIRGINIA WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
ENTITLE HIM TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE HAVING THE SAME FORCE IN THE DISTRICT
AS IN THAT STATE. 

AS TO RESPONDENT'S APPEARANCE IN THE VIRGINIA COURT.   - THE
ASSERTION IN HER PLEA THAT IT WAS SPECIAL AND MADE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF CHALLENGING JURISDICTION IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE IF IN FACT IT WAS NOT
SO LIMITED.  SUGG V. THORNTON, 132 U.S. 524, 530.  STERLING TIRE CORP.
V. SULLIVAN, 279 F. 336, 339.  IF THE PLEA ALONE MAY NOT BE HELD TO
AMOUNT TO A GENERAL APPEARANCE, THERE ARISES THE QUESTION WHETHER, BY
HER PARTICIPATION IN THE LITIGATION AND ACQUIESCENCE IN THE ORDERS OF
THE COURT RELATING TO MERITS, SHE SUBMITTED HERSELF TO ITS JURISDICTION
FOR ALL PURPOSES.  HER PLEA AND CONDUCT ARE TO BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 

THERE HAD BEEN NO CLAIM OF JURISDICTION OVER HER PERSON.  THE PLEA
DID NOT CHALLENGE JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONER OR THE COURT'S
AUTHORITY, IF APPROPRIATELY INVOKED, TO GRANT THE DECREE PETITIONER
SOUGHT.  IT MERELY ASSERTED THAT HE LACKED DOMICIL REQUIRED BY VIRGINIA
LAW.  HER ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYER SHOW THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE PLEA
WAS TO JOIN ISSUE WITH PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION OF DOMICIL IN VIRGINIA,
TO SECURE A FINDING AGAINST HIM ON THAT POINT, TO OBTAIN DECREE THAT HE
HAD NO STANDING TO BRING THE SUIT AND SO PUT AN END TO HIS EFFORTS TO
OBTAIN DIVORCE IN THAT STATE. 

THE RECITAL IN THE DECREE OF REFERENCE, THAT THE CAUSE CAME ON FOR
HEARING UPON, INTER ALIA, ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL, SUGGESTS THAT BOTH
PARTIES WERE HEARD.  THE STIPULATION OF COUNSEL THAT THE COMMISSIONER
SHOULD ONLY ASCERTAIN THE FACTS RAISED BY HER PLEA SHOWS ACTION BY BOTH
PARTIES RELATING TO MERITS, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WITHDREW THE
CASE FROM THE COMMISSIONER.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO CHALLENGE BY
RESPONDENT TO THE STATEMENT, IN THE DECREE OVERRULING HER EXCEPTIONS,
THAT THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND OF THE
PARTIES.  THE GRANT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO ANSWER IMPLIES APPLICATION
TO THAT END.  A MOTION FOR SUCH AN ORDER RELATES TO MERITS.  HUPFELD V.
AUTOMATON PIANO CO., 66 F. 788, 789.  THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF TAKING
DEPOSITIONS UPON RESPONDENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND UPON HER
COUNSEL IN VIRGINIA IMPLIES THAT PETITIONER'S COUNSEL UNDERSTOOD THAT
RESPONDENT HAD STANDING TO APPEAR AND CROSS-EXAMINE.  PLAINLY HER PLEA
AND CONDUCT IN THE VIRGINIA COURT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS SPECIAL
APPEARANCE MERELY TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION.  CONSIDERED IN ITS
ENTIRETY, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SHE SUBMITTED HERSELF TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE VIRGINIA COURT AND IS BOUND BY ITS DETERMINATION
THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND OF THE PARTIES.  CF.
ANDREWS V. ANDREWS, SUPRA, 40. 

NO QUESTION IS HERE PRESENTED AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE VIRGINIA DECREE
ON THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OVER ALIMONY. 

PETITIONER IS ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO HAVE THE VIRGINIA
DECREE GIVEN EFFECT IN THE COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE
DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED; THE CASE WILL BE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  D.C. CODE, TIT. 14, SEC. 63. 

FN2  VA. CODE, 1924, SEC. 5103. 

FN3  VA. CODE, 1936, SEC. 5105. 

FN4  "FULL FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN IN EACH STATE TO THE
PUBLIC ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF EVERY OTHER STATE. 
AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS PRESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH
ACTS, RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PROVED, AND THE EFFECT
THEREOF." 

FN5  "THE ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, OR OF
ANY COUNTRY SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE
AUTHENTICATED BY HAVING THE SEALS OF SUCH STATE, TERRITORY, OR COUNTRY
AFFIXED THERETO.  THE RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURTS OF
ANY STATE OR TERRITORY, OR OF ANY SUCH COUNTRY, SHALL BE PROVED OR
ADMITTED IN ANY OTHER COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, BY THE
ATTESTATION OF THE CLERK, AND THE SEAL OF THE COURT ANNEXED, IF THERE
BE A SEAL, TOGETHER WITH A CERTIFICATE OF THE JUDGE, CHIEF JUSTICE, OR
PRESIDING MAGISTRATE, THAT THE SAID ATTESTATION IS IN DUE FORM.  AND
THE SAID RECORDS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, SO AUTHENTICATED, SHALL HAVE
SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO THEM IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE FROM
WHICH THEY ARE TAKEN." 
..END :



















DAVIDSON V. COMMISSIONER, 305 U.S. 44 


NO. 18.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 94
F.2D 300, AFFIRMED. 


THE TAXPAYER DIRECTED HIS BROKERS TO SELL CERTAIN SHARES BOUGHT BY HIM
IN THE THEN CURRENT YEAR, AND DIRECTED HIS BANK, WHICH HELD THE
CERTIFICATES, TO DELIVER THEM TO THE BROKER.  BY MISTAKE, THE BANK
DELIVERED AND THE BROKER SOLD OTHER SHARES OF THE SAME STOCK WHICH THE
BANK HELD FOR THE TAXPAYER AND WHICH HE HAD BOUGHT IN AN EARLIER YEAR
FOR A LOWER PRICE.  HELD THAT THE TAXABLE GAIN WAS PROPERLY COMPUTED ON
THE BASIS OF THE COST OF THE SHARES SO ACTUALLY SOLD, RATHER THAN THE
HIGHER COST OF THE SHARES WHICH THE TAXPAYER INTENDED TO SELL.  P. 45. 

DAVIDSON V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 554, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 34 B.T.A. 555, WHICH SUSTAINED A DEFICIENCY
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UPON PETITIONER'S INSISTENCE AND RESPONDENT'S ADMISSION, THAT THE
DECISION BELOW CONFLICTS WITH THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN MILLER V. COMMISSIONER, 80 F.2D 219, WE GRANTED A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER PETITIONER'S
TAXABLE GAIN FROM SALE IN 1929 OF 1,000 SHARES OF STOCK IS TO BE
DETERMINED UPON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF STOCK PETITIONER BOUGHT IN
THAT YEAR, OR UPON THE BASIS OF LOWER COST OF LIKE SHARES EARLIER
BOUGHT BY HIM. 

THE DETAILS FOUND BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS MAY BE GIVEN BRIEFLY. 
MARCH 27, 1929, AT COST OF $49.90 EACH, PETITIONER BOUGHT 1,000 SHARES
FOR WHICH HE RECEIVED 10 SEPARATELY NUMBERED CERTIFICATES COVERING 100
SHARES EACH AND DELIVERED THEM TO A BANK TO BE HELD AS SECURITY FOR A
LOAN.  SOME YEARS EARLIER HE HAD BOUGHT, AT COST OF $4.42 EACH, 1,000
SHARES OF LIKE STOCK FOR WHICH HE OBTAINED CERTIFICATES THAT HE
DELIVERED TO THE SAME BANK AS COLLATERAL SECURITY, WHERE THEY WERE HELD
UNTIL THE SALES HERE INVOLVED.  JUNE 19, 1929 PETITIONER INSTRUCTED HIS
BROKER TO SELL 500 SHARES OF THE STOCK HE BOUGHT MARCH 27, AND, TO
ENABLE THE BROKER TO DELIVER, PETITIONER INSTRUCTED THE BANK TO GIVE
THE BROKER CERTIFICATES COVERING SHARES BOUGHT IN THAT YEAR.  BY
MISTAKE THE BANK DELIVERED HIM CERTIFICATES OF SHARES INCLUDED IN THE
LOT EARLIER PURCHASED BY PETITIONER.  JULY 1, 1929 PETITIONER
INSTRUCTED THE BROKER TO SELL THE REST OF THE LOT BOUGHT IN THAT YEAR
AND DIRECTED THE BANK TO DELIVER THE BROKER CERTIFICATES OF THE STOCK
PETITIONER INTENDED TO HAVE SOLD.  AGAIN FAILING TO FOLLOW
INSTRUCTIONS, THE BANK DELIVERED THE BROKER CERTIFICATES OF STOCK IN
THE OTHER LOT.  IT MAY BE TAKEN AS GRANTED THAT, WHEN HE MADE HIS
RETURN, PETITIONER EXCUSABLY ASSUMED THAT THE BANK HAD FOLLOWED HIS
DIRECTIONS. 

HE REPORTED GAIN ON THE BASIS OF COST OF THE STOCK PURCHASED IN THAT
YEAR.  THE COMMISSIONER CALCULATED GAIN ON THE BASIS OF COST OF THE
STOCK EARLIER PURCHASED AND GAVE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED HIS DETERMINATION.  34 B.T.A. 555.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  94 F.2D 300. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT BY HIS REFERENCE TO AMOUNTS AND DATES OF
PURCHASES, HE ADEQUATELY DESIGNATED TO THE BROKER THE SHARES TO BE
SOLD; THAT IN FACT THE SHARES SO IDENTIFIED WERE SOLD AND THAT THE
BANK'S DELIVERY OF CERTIFICATES OF OTHER STOCK TO THE BROKER DID NOT
AFFECT PETITIONER'S ORDER.  UNDOUBTEDLY, PETITIONER SUFFICIENTLY
INDICATED TO THE BROKER AND TO THE BANK THE SHARES HE INTENDED TO
SELL.  HE PLAINLY ALLOCATED THE LOTS TO BE SOLD TO THE 1,000 SHARES HE
BOUGHT IN 1929.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THEY WERE THE SHARES
SOLD.  HIS INTENTION TO SELL, EVEN WHEN COUPLED WITH HIS ORDER TO THE
BROKER AND DIRECTION TO THE BANK, CANNOT BE HELD TO CONSTITUTE SALE. 
SNYDER V. COMMISSIONER, 295 U.S. 134, 137.  NOTWITHSTANDING HIS ORDER
TO THE BROKER TO SELL SHARES IN THE 1929 LOT, PETITIONER WAS FREE LATER
TO DIRECT THAT SHARES FROM THE OTHER LOT BE USED FOR FINAL CONSUMMATION
OF THE SALE.  AND SO, WHEN THE BANK DELIVERED HIM CERTIFICATES OF STOCK
NOT DESIGNATED IN HIS ORDER TO SELL, THE BROKER MAY WELL HAVE ASSUMED
THAT PETITIONER'S FINAL PURPOSE WAS TO SELL THE SHARES COVERED BY THE
CERTIFICATES THAT THE BANK SENT HIM.  HE HAD NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT
THE BANK DID NOT ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN IT BY
PETITIONER.  THE CASE IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF
PETITIONER HIMSELF HAD DELIVERED TO THE BROKER THE CERTIFICATES SENT BY
THE BANK.  PLAINLY, PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE CERTIFICATES USED
TO COMPLETE THE SALE DID NOT COVER THE SHARES SOLD CANNOT BE UPHELD. 
COMMISSIONER V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 128.  THE COMMISSIONER RIGHTLY
COMPUTED GAIN ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WAS DONE RATHER THAN ON WHAT
PETITIONER INTENDED TO DO. UNITED STATES V. PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156, 172;
BONHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 89 F.2D 725, 728; CURTIS V. COMMISSIONER, 89
F.2D 736, 738; REMINGTON RAND, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, 33 F.2D 77, 78. 
AFFIRMED. 
..END :







SCHRIBER CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO., 305 U.S. 47 


NO. 3.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 19, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 92
F.2D 330, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE IT IS IMPROBABLE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE DOUBTFUL VALIDITY OF A
PATENT, THAT CONFLICT OF DECISION RESPECTING ITS VALIDITY WILL ARISE IN
DIFFERENT CIRCUITS, BECAUSE OF THE CONCENTRATION IN ONE CIRCUIT OF THE
INDUSTRY IN WHICH THE PATENTED DEVICES ARE USED, THERE IS REASON FOR
GRANTING CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A DECISION IN THAT CIRCUIT SUSTAINING IT.
P. 50. 

2.  A PATENT DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE INVENTION DESCRIBED AND
EXPLAINED AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES; IT CAN NOT BE ENLARGED BY CLAIMS IN
THE PATENT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DESCRIPTION.  P. 57. 

3.  THE APPLICATION FOR A PATENT CAN NOT BE BROADENED BY AMENDMENT SO
AS TO EMBRACE AN INVENTION NOT DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION AS FILED,
AT LEAST WHEN ADVERSE RIGHTS HAVE INTERVENED.  POWERS-KENNEDY CO. V.
CONCRETE CO., 282 U.S. 175; PERMUTIT CO. V. GRAVER CORPORATION, 284
U.S. 52.  ID. 

4.  AMENDMENTS TO PATENT NO. 1,815,733, TO GULICK, FOR A COMBINATION
IN THE STRUCTURE OF PISTONS OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES FOR
AUTOMOBILES, DESIGNED TO PREVENT UNDUE THERMAL EXPANSION OF THE PISTONS
WHEN IN OPERATION, WERE UNLAWFULLY ADDED.  P. 51. 

5.  IN THIS COMBINATION, THE HEAD AND SKIRT OF THE PISTON, SEPARATED
BY AN AIR SPACE, ARE CONNECTED AND HELD IN PROPER RELATION TO EACH
OTHER BY TWO WEBS WHICH EXTEND LONGITUDINALLY WITHIN THE SKIRT AND
WHICH, PIERCED AT RIGHT ANGLES FOR WRIST-PIN BEARINGS, SUPPORT THE
PISTON PIN BOSSES.  THE SKIRT IS LONGITUDINALLY SPLIT IN ORDER TO
MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF THERMAL EXPANSION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REGARDED LATERAL FLEXIBILITY OF THE WEBS AS AN ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT OF THE INVENTION.  THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, HOWEVER, CONTAINED
NO REFERENCE IN TERMS TO LATERALLY FLEXIBLE WEBS OR TO THE FUNCTION OF
THE WEBS IN SECURING FLEXIBILITY OF THE SKIRT, BUT DESCRIBED THE WEBS
AS "EXTREMELY RIGID" AND STATED THAT AN OBJECT OF THE INVENTION WAS "TO
RIGIDLY SUPPORT THE PISTON PIN BOSSES FROM THE PISTON WALLS," AND THAT
THE ARRANGEMENT PROVIDED "A PARTICULARLY STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE
BOSSES."  THE WEBS, AS SHOWN BY THE DRAWINGS, CONFORMED TO THESE
SPECIFICATIONS, AND NEITHER DRAWINGS NOR SPECIFICATIONS GAVE DIMENSIONS
SHOWING THICKNESS OR OTHER PROPORTIONS OF THE WEBS WHICH MIGHT SUGGEST
A FLEXIBLE STRUCTURE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT, AFTER A SIMILAR PISTON WITH THE ELEMENT OF FLEXIBLE WEBS
HAD COME INTO COMMERCIAL USE AND ANOTHER HAD BEEN DESCRIBED IN AN
APPLICATION FOR PATENT, THE PATENTEE COULD NOT ADD THAT ELEMENT TO HIS
APPLICATION BY AMENDMENT.  P. 55. 

(2)  AMENDMENTS TO THAT END COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED AS BEING BUT
CLARIFICATIONS OF THE APPLICATION AS FILED.  P. 57. 

THE CONTENTION THAT LATERAL FLEXIBILITY WAS IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL
DESCRIPTION AS AN INHERENT PROPERTY OF THE METAL COMPOSING THE WEB, AND
WAS DISCLOSED BY THE DRAWINGS, IS REJECTED. 

INHERENT FLEXIBILITY OF THE WEB IN COOPERATION WITH THE SLIT SKIRT
CAN NOT BE DEPENDED UPON TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED EFFECT IN RENDERING THE
SKIRT YIELDABLE IN RESPONSE TO CYLINDER WALL PRESSURE.  THAT DEPENDS
UPON DESIGN OF THE WEB, WITH CORRECT PROPORTIONING OF THE DIFFERENT
PARTS AS TO LOCATION AND THICKNESS TO PRODUCE LATERAL FLEXIBILITY. 
INHERENT RIGIDITY, MADE MORE EFFECTIVE BY DESIGN OF THE WEBS, WOULD
CORRESPONDINGLY CURTAIL THE DESIRED EFFECT. 

6.  DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AND THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS SUSTAINING THE GULICK
AMENDMENTS ARE ACCORDED WEIGHT BUT ARE NOT CONTROLLING IN THIS COURT
WHEN THE VALIDITY OF THE AMENDMENTS IS INVOLVED IN AN INFRINGEMENT
CASE.  P. 59. 

7.  AS FLEXIBLE WEBS ARE NEITHER DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS NOR
MENTIONED IN THE CLAIMS OF THE PATENT FOR A LIKE COMBINATION TO
MAYNARD, NO. 1,655,968, THEY CAN BE IMPORTED INTO THEM ONLY BY
REFERENCE TO THE DRAWINGS OR BY INFERENCE FROM THE INHERENT FLEXIBILITY
OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH, AS IN THE CASE OF GULICK, ARE INSUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMPLISH THE RESULT.  P. 60. 

SCHRIBER-SCHROTH CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 4, ABERDEEN MOTOR SUPPLY CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST
CO. ET AL., AND NO. 5, F.E. ROWE SALES CO. V. CLEVELAND TRUST CO. ET
AL., ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 587, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE HOLDING
CERTAIN PATENT CLAIMS INVALID IN SUITS FOR INFRINGEMENT.  OTHER
PATENTS, HELD INVALID BY THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT NOT PASSED UPON BY THE
COURT BELOW, WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS REVIEW. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT* . 

*OPINION REPORTED AS AMENDED BY ORDER OF DECEMBER 12, 1938, POST, P.
573. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE COURT BELOW
RIGHTLY SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF TWO PATENTS BY INCLUDING IN THE
COMBINATION CONSTITUTING THE ALLEGED INVENTION OF EACH AN ELEMENT WHICH
WAS NOT IN TERMS DESCRIBED IN ONE, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF WHICH IN THE
OTHER WAS ADDED ONLY BY AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER IT WAS
FILED. 

RESPONDENT, THE CLEVELAND TRUST COMPANY, IS THE ASSIGNEE IN TRUST OF
SOME EIGHTY PATENTS RELATING TO PISTONS OF THE TYPE EMPLOYED IN
INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES FOR AUTOMOBILES, UNDER A POOLING AGREEMENT
TO WHICH AN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER AND A NUMBER OF MANUFACTURERS OF
PISTONS ARE PARTIES.  IT BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUITS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR NORTHERN OHIO TO ENJOIN INFRINGEMENT OF FIVE OF THE ASSIGNED
PATENTS.  THE CASE WAS TRIED BEFORE A SPECIAL MASTER WHO, UPON THE
BASIS OF ELABORATE FINDINGS, HELD THAT THE GULICK PATENT, NO.
1,815,733, APPLIED FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1917 AND ALLOWED JULY 31, 1931, WAS
INVALID FOR WANT OF INVENTION AND BECAUSE OF THE ADDITION TO THE
APPLICATION BY AMENDMENT IN 1922 OF A NEW ELEMENT OF THE ALLEGED
INVENTION.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION HE RELIED ON THIS COURT'S
DECISIONS IN POWERS-KENNEDY CORP. V. CONCRETE CO., 282 U.S. 175 AND
PERMUTIT CO. V. GRAVER CORPORATION, 284 U.S. 52, AS INCONSISTENT WITH
THE RESULT OF INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH GULICK'S AMENDMENTS
WERE SUSTAINED, LONG V. GULICK, 17 F.2D 686, HARTOG V. LONG, 47 F.2D
369.  THE MASTER ALSO HELD THAT THE MAYNARD PATENT NO. 1,655,968,
APPLIED FOR JANUARY 3, 1921 AND ALLOWED JANUARY 10, 1928, WAS INVALID
FOR WANT OF INVENTION AND FOR FAILURE TO DESCRIBE AND CLAIM THE ALLEGED
INVENTION.  HE HELD INVALID UPON VARIOUS GROUNDS THE OTHER PATENTS,
WHICH ARE NOT PRESENTLY INVOLVED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ADOPTED THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE MASTER
AND GAVE ITS DECREE FOR PETITIONERS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT REVERSED, AS TO THE GULICK AND MAYNARD PATENTS ONLY,
HOLDING THAT THEY WERE VALID AND INFRINGED.  92 F.2D 330.  FN1  AS THE
COURT REGARDED THE CLAIMS WHICH IT SUSTAINED AS BASIC AND THOUGHT THAT
A FULL RECOVERY COULD BE HAD BY RESPONDENT UNDER THEM, IT DID NOT PASS
UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE OTHER PATENTS OR DECIDE OTHER QUESTIONS
INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL. 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI RAISING THE QUESTION, AMONG OTHERS, WHETHER
THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD ERRED IN HOLDING PATENTABLE A COMBINATION
INCLUDING ONE ELEMENT NOT DESCRIBED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR THE
GULICK PATENT AND LATER ADDED TO IT BY AMENDMENT, AND NOT DESCRIBED AT
ALL IN THE MAYNARD PATENT, WAS AT FIRST DENIED, THERE BEING NO CONFLICT
OF DECISION.  303 U.S. 639.  WE LATER GRANTED CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 587,
ON A PETITION FOR REHEARING SHOWING THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE DOUBTFUL
VALIDITY OF THE PATENTS, LITIGATION ELSEWHERE WITH A RESULTING CONFLICT
OF DECISION WAS IMPROBABLE BECAUSE OF THE CONCENTRATION OF THE
AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.  CF. PARAMOUNT PUBLIX CORP.
V. AMERICAN TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 464; ALTOONA PUBLIX THEATRES V.
AMERICAN TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477. 

IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE PISTON IN A GAS
ENGINE THAT IT SHOULD FIT THE EXPLOSION CHAMBER CLOSELY SO AS TO
CONSERVE POWER, PREVENT THE PASSAGE OF LUBRICATING OIL AROUND THE
PISTON INTO THE CHAMBER, AND INSURE THE SMOOTH AND NOISELESS MOVEMENT
OF THE PISTON WITHIN THE CYLINDER.  IN DESIGNING GAS ENGINES FOR
AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER PURPOSES REQUIRING A HIGH SPEED PISTON
RECIPROCATION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH TEMPERATURE IN
THE EXPLOSION CHAMBER, IT IS DESIRABLE TO AVOID THERMAL EXPANSION OF
THE CLOSE FITTING PISTON, WHICH WILL RESULT IN LOSS OF POWER AND
POSSIBLE INJURY TO THE MECHANISM THROUGH INCREASED FRICTION, WHICH MAY
CAUSE THE PISTON TO SEIZE OR STICK.  THE DANGER OF UNDUE EXPANSION IS
INCREASED WHEN, AS IS ADVANTAGEOUS IN AUTOMOBILE ENGINES, THE PISTON IS
OF ALUMINUM, WHICH HAS A HIGHER COEFFICIENT OF EXPANSION THAN THE IRON
OR STEEL CHAMBER WITHIN WHICH THE PISTON MOVES. 

BOTH THE GULICK AND MAYNARD PATENTS ARE FOR COMBINATIONS IN THE
STRUCTURE OF A PISTON FOR GAS ENGINES DESIGNED TO PREVENT OR RESTRICT
UNDUE EXPANSION OF THE PISTON WHEN IN OPERATION.  THE GULICK PATENT
EXHIBITS A PISTON IN WHICH THE RING-CARRYING HEAD IS SEPARATED BY AN
AIR SPACE AT ITS PERIPHERY FROM THE CYLINDRICALLY SHAPED SKIRT OR GUIDE
WALL, WHOSE SURFACE ENGAGES THE INNER SURFACE OF THE CYLINDER.  THE
PISTON HEAD AND SKIRT ARE CONNECTED BY TWO "WEBS" OR WALLS EXTENDING
LONGITUDINALLY THROUGH THE INTERIOR OF THE SKIRT.  THE WEBS ARE PIERCED
AT RIGHT ANGLES FOR WRIST PIN BEARINGS, AND SUPPORT, AT THE BEARINGS,
PISTON PIN BOSSES FORMED WITH INTEGRAL FLANGES EXTENDING LATERALLY FROM
THEIR RESPECTIVE BOSSES TO FORM THE WEBS, WHICH IN TURN ARE INTEGRALLY
CONNECTED ON EITHER SIDE WITH THE INTERIOR WALL OF THE LOWER PART OF
THE SKIRT AND AT THEIR ENDS WITH THE PISTON HEAD.  THE SKIRT IS
LONGITUDINALLY SPLIT ON ONE SIDE AT A POINT IN ITS CIRCUMFERENCE
APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN THE PIN BOSSES, WITH THE EDGES OF THE
SKIRT FORMED BY THE SPLIT SEPARATED SO AS TO ADMIT OF THE FREE MOVEMENT
OF THE EDGES TOWARD EACH OTHER. 

THE STRUCTURE IS THUS DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE THE EXPANSION RESULTING
FROM HIGH TEMPERATURES DEVELOPED IN THE CHAMBER AND TO AVOID THE
EFFECTS OF THERMAL EXPANSION OF THE SKIRT.  THE WEBS, WHICH AFFORD AT
THE WRIST PIN BEARINGS THE MEANS FOR CONNECTING THE PISTON-ROD WITH THE
PISTON, SERVE TO HOLD THE HEAD AND SKIRT IN PROPER RELATION TO EACH
OTHER SO THAT THE AIR SPACE BETWEEN THEM RETARDS FLOW OF HEAT FROM THE
HEAD TO THE SKIRT, UNDUE EXPANSION OF THE SKIRT, AND THE CONSEQUENT
INCREASE OF FRICTION BETWEEN PISTON AND ENVELOPING CYLINDER.  UNDUE
EXPANSION OF THE PISTON IS SAID BY THE PATENT'S SPECIFICATIONS TO BE
AVOIDED BY THE SEPARATION OF THE SKIRT BY THE LONGITUDINAL SPLIT IN
ORDER TO ADMIT OF UNRESTRAINED MOVEMENT OF THE EDGES OF THE SKIRT
TOWARD EACH OTHER.  ELSEWHERE THEY STATE THAT "WHEN THE LONGITUDINAL
SPLIT IS USED, AS SHOWN, THE WEB STRUCTURE HAS SUFFICIENT LATERAL
FLEXIBILITY TO PERMIT THE SPLIT TO CLOSE MORE OR LESS UNDER THE ACTION
OF THE EXPANSION FORCES INCIDENT TO THE HEATING OF THE PISTON." 

THE ELEMENTS OF THE COMBINATION AS ENUMERATED IN CLAIM 39 ARE:  "A
PISTON FOR AN ENGINE CYLINDER COMPRISING A SKIRT, A HEAD SEPARATED FROM
THE SKIRT WALL AROUND ITS ENTIRE PERIPHERY, SAID SKIRT BEING
LONGITUDINALLY SPLIT TO RENDER THE SKIRT WALL YIELDABLE ON EVERY
DIAMETER IN RESPONSE TO CYLINDER WALL PRESSURE, WRIST PIN BOSSES, AND
MEANS RIGIDLY CONNECTING SAID BOSSES TO THE HEAD AND YIELDINGLY
CONNECTING SAID BOSSES TO THE SKIRT WHEREBY SAID SKIRT IS YIELDABLE IN
RESPONSE TO CYLINDER WALL PRESSURE."  REFERENCE TO A COMBINATION
INCLUDING, WITH OTHER ELEMENTS, WEB CONNECTIONS, "WHEREBY SAID PISTON
SKIRT IS RENDERED YIELDABLE DURING OPERATION IN RESPONSE TO CYLINDER
WALL PRESSURE," APPEARS IN CLAIM 18. 

THE COMBINATION OF PISTON HEAD SEPARATED FROM A SLITTED SKIRT BY AN
AIR SPACE, THE TWO BEING CONNECTED BY WEBS SUPPORTING WRIST PIN
BEARINGS WITH BOSSES WHICH DO NOT COME DIRECTLY IN CONTACT WITH THE
WALLS OF THE SKIRT, WAS PLAINLY FORESHADOWED BY THE PRIOR ART AS A
PRACTICABLE MEANS OF MINIMIZING THE FLOW OF HEAT FROM HEAD TO SKIRT AND
OF SECURING LATERAL FLEXIBILITY IN THE SKIRT.  THE EXPIRED SPILLMAN AND
MOOERS PATENT NO. 1,092,870, OF APRIL 14, 1914, POOLED WITH THE PATENTS
IN SUIT, SHOWED A PISTON WITH HEAD SEPARATED BY AN AIR SPACE FROM THE
SKIRT, THE TWO BEING CONNECTED BY A WEB SEPARATED FROM THE SKIRT EXCEPT
AT THE POINT OF INTEGRAL CONNECTION WITH IT AT THE LOWER END OF THE
PISTON, AND PROVIDING BEARINGS FOR A WRIST PIN CONNECTION WITH BOSSES
NOT IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE WALL OF THE SKIRT. 

FLEXIBILITY OF THE SKIRT ATTAINED BY LONGITUDINAL SLITS WAS OLD, AS
SHOWN BY THE EBBS PATENT NO. 700,309 OF 1902, AND VAN BEVER, NO.
1,031,212 OF 1912.  THE FRANQUIST PISTON, PATENT NO. 1,153,902 OF 1915,
ANOTHER OF THE POOLED PATENTS, WHICH SHOWED PISTON HEAD PARTIALLY
SEPARATED FROM SKIRT BY AIR SPACES, ATTAINED FLEXIBILITY OF THE PISTON
WALL BY LONGITUDINAL GROOVES IN THE SKIRT WHICH INTERRUPTED ITS OUTER
PERIPHERY THOUGH CONNECTED AT THE INNER EDGES OF THE GROOVE BY A FOLD
OF THE METAL ON THE ACCORDION PRINCIPLE.  THE LONG PISTON, PATENT NO.
1,872,772 OF 1932, WHICH THE MASTER AND THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND WAS IN
COMMERCIAL USE FROM 1917 ON, AND BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF THE GULICK
APPLICATION, PRESENTLY TO BE DISCUSSED, SHOWED LONGITUDINAL SLITS CUT
THROUGH THE SKIRT, WHICH WAS SEPARATED BY AIR SPACES FROM THE PISTON
HEAD, THE TWO BEING CONNECTED BY PARALLEL WEBS PIERCED FOR WRIST PIN
BEARINGS. 

THE COURT BELOW FOUND INVENTION IN THE GULICK DISCLOSURE IN A
COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS, OF WHICH ONE WAS WEBS "LATERALLY FLEXIBLE,"
WHICH WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY SO DESCRIBED IN THE GULICK APPLICATION
UNTIL THE AMENDMENT OF 1922.  CONCEDING THAT THE DECELERATION OF THE
FLOW OF HEAT FROM HEAD TO SKIRT BY AN AIR GAP MIGHT BE AN OBVIOUS
EXPEDIENT OF THE ART, AND THAT TO SLIT THE SKIRT VERTICALLY SO AS TO
COMPENSATE FOR THERMAL EXPANSION MIGHT NOT BE BEYOND THE SKILL OF THE
ART, THE COURT ADDED:  "BUT TO COMBINE INSULATION OF HEAD FROM SKIRT,
RETRACTION OF THE BOSSES FROM THE SKIRT PERIPHERY, CONNECTION OF SUCH
BOSSES TO THE SKIRT WITH WEBS LATERALLY FLEXIBLE AND YET SO CARRIED
FROM THE HEAD AS TO SUPPORT THE LOAD UPON THE WRIST PIN WITH SUFFICIENT
STRENGTH AND RIGIDITY, AND TO UTILIZE THE MECHANICAL FORCE OF THE
CYLINDER WALL UPON THE SKIRT AND THE THERMAL EXPANSION OF THE BOSSES SO
AS TO COMPENSATE EVENLY AND FULLY FOR HEAD EXPANSION AND TO SECURE A
BALANCED FLEXIBILITY OF THE SKIRT WITH NO BENDING CONCENTRATION AT ANY
POINT THEREIN, DISCLOSES, WE THINK, A MERITORIOUS CONCEPT BEYOND THE
REACH OF THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART."  92 F.2D, AT 334. 

WE CAN FIND NO SUPPORT IN THE OPINION FOR THE CONTENTION OF
RESPONDENT THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT CONSIDER THE
FLEXIBLE WEB AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN GULICK'S INVENTION.  ITS
ENUMERATION, AMONG OTHER NAMED ELEMENTS, OF THE CONNECTION OF HEAD AND
SKIRT BY WEBS LATERALLY FLEXIBLE AS EMBODYING A MERITORIOUS CONCEPT
MUST BE TAKEN TO INDICATE THAT THE COURT REGARDED THE FLEXIBLE WEBS AS
A PART OF THE INVENTION, THE MORE SO SINCE IT INDICATES THAT LATERAL
FLEXIBILITY OF THE WEBS IS THE ONLY FEATURE MENTIONED NOT WITHIN THE
PRIOR ART OR WITHIN THE EXPECTED SKILL OF THE ART. IT REJECTED, ON THE
AUTHORITY OF LONG V. GULICK, SUPRA, AND HARTOG V. LONG, SUPRA, THE
CONTENTION MADE BELOW AND PRESSED HERE THAT GULICK'S APPLICATION AS
FILED DID NOT DISCLOSE "WEBS LATERALLY FLEXIBLE" AND THE RESULTANT
"BALANCED FLEXIBILITY OF THE SKIRT," AND THAT THOSE FEATURES WERE ADDED
TO SPECIFICATIONS AND CLAIMS AFTER THE USE OF THE LONG PISTON AND AFTER
THEY HAD APPEARED IN HARTOG. 

THE GULICK APPLICATION, WHICH WAS FILED NOVEMBER 30, 1917, CONTAINED
NO REFERENCE IN TERMS TO LATERALLY FLEXIBLE WEBS OR TO THE FUNCTION OF
THE WEBS IN SECURING FLEXIBILITY OF THE SKIRT.  THE SPECIFICATIONS
POINTED TO NO INADEQUACY IN THE STRUCTURE OR FUNCTION OF WEBS OF THE
PRIOR ART WHICH WOULD BE REMEDIED BY THE WEBS SPECIFIED AND TO NO
FUNCTION TO BE PERFORMED BY THEM OTHER THAN AS A MEANS OF CONNECTING
AND HOLDING HEAD AND SKIRT SO AS TO MAINTAIN THE AIR GAP BETWEEN THEM
AND TO SUPPORT THE WRIST PIN BEARINGS AND THEIR BOSSES AS BOTH WERE
SHOWN IN SPILLMAN AND MOOERS.  ON THE CONTRARY, GULICK'S APPLICATION
DESCRIBED THE WEBS AS "EXTREMELY RIGID" AND STATED THAT AN OBJECT OF
THE INVENTION WAS "TO RIGIDLY SUPPORT THE PISTON PIN BOSSES OF A PISTON
FROM THE PISTON WALLS."  THE ONLY DESCRIPTION OF THE WEB STRUCTURE WAS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT WILL BE SEEN THAT IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING A PISTON WITH A SPLIT
SKIRT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED CONSTRUCTION ALSO PROVIDES AN EXTREMELY RIGID
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PISTON PIN BOSSES AND THE SKIRT OF THE PISTON,
WHICH CONSTRUCTION MAY BE USED EITHER WITH OR WITHOUT THE SPLIT SKIRT
AND SEPARATED HEAD.  THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE SUPPORTING FLANGES 17
BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE PISTON PIN BOSSES AND THE CONNECTION OF THOSE
FLANGES WITH THE PISTON SKIRT PROVIDE A PARTICULARLY STRONG SUPPORT FOR
THE BOSSES."  THE WEBS AS SHOWN BY THE DRAWINGS CONFORM TO THE
SPECIFICATIONS OF AN "EXTREMELY RIGID CONNECTION" BETWEEN PISTON PIN
BOSSES AND SKIRT AND "A PARTICULARLY STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE BOSSES." 
THEY FORM CHORDS SUBTENDING THE ARC OF THE CIRCLE OF THE SKIRT, WITH
FLANGES DEPENDING FROM THE HEAD TO THE BOSSES AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE
WEBS, AND THE SKIRT AS SHOWN IS PROVIDED WITH INTERIOR CORRUGATIONS AND
WITH AN INTURNED FLANGE AT THE BOTTOM, ALL FAMILIAR DEVICES FOR
SECURING RIGIDITY OF STRUCTURE.  NEITHER DRAWINGS NOR SPECIFICATIONS
GIVE DIMENSIONS SHOWING THICKNESS OR OTHER PROPORTIONS WHICH MIGHT
SUGGEST A FLEXIBLE STRUCTURE.   IN 1922, AFTER THE LONG PISTON, WHOSE
WEBS CONCEDEDLY WERE LATERALLY FLEXIBLE, WAS IN COMMERCIAL USE, AND
HARTOG, TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF GULICK'S ASSIGNEE, HAD SPECIFIED AND
CLAIMED A YIELDABLE WEB, GULICK COPIED THE HARTOG CLAIM AND AMENDED HIS
SPECIFICATIONS SO AS TO STATE THAT ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF HIS INVENTION
WAS "TO RIGIDLY SUPPORT THE PISTON PIN BOSSES OF A PISTON FROM THE
PISTON WALL AGAINST MECHANICAL LOAD THRUST FROM THE CONNECTING ROD
WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE YIELDING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SKIRT IN
RESPONSE TO CYLINDER WALL PRESSURE."  AND HE AMENDED HIS DESCRIPTION OF
THE WEB STRUCTURE TO READ: 

"THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE SUPPORTING FLANGES 17 BETWEEN THE ENDS OF THE
PISTON PIN BOSSES AND THE CONNECTIONS OF THOSE FLANGES WITH BOTH THE
PISTON GUIDE PORTION AND THE HEAD PROVIDE A PARTICULARLY STRONG
CONSTRUCTION, AND AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN THE LONGITUDINAL SPLIT IS
USED, AS SHOWN, THE WEB STRUCTURE HAS SUFFICIENT LATERAL FLEXIBILITY TO
PERMIT THE SPLIT TO CLOSE MORE OR LESS UNDER THE ACTION OF THE
EXPANSION FORCES INCIDENT TO THE HEATING OF THE PISTON." 

PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE FLEXIBLE WEB ELEMENT OF THE GULICK
COMBINATION, AS FOUND AND SUSTAINED BY THE COURT BELOW, IS EXCLUDED
FROM THE GULICK PATENT BY REASON OF HIS FAILURE TO DESCRIBE THAT
ELEMENT IN HIS APPLICATION AS FILED, AND THAT HE COULD NOT CURE THE
OMISSION AND SECURE A PATENT EMBODYING THAT FEATURE BY SUBSTITUTING BY
WAY OF AMENDMENT "WEBS LATERALLY FLEXIBLE" FOR "EXTREMELY RIGID WEBS"
IN THE DESCRIPTION OF HIS INVENTION.  THE STATUTE, R.S. SEC. 4888,
PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICATION WHICH THE INVENTOR MUST FILE AS A
PREREQUISITE TO A PATENT SHALL CONTAIN "A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF (HIS
INVENTION)  ...  AND OF THE MANNER AND PROCESS OF MAKING, CONSTRUCTING
...  AND USING IT, IN SUCH FULL, CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EXACT TERMS AS TO
ENABLE ANY PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART  ...  TO  ... CONSTRUCT  ...  AND
USE THE SAME; AND IN CASE OF A MACHINE, HE SHALL EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE
THEREOF, AND THE BEST MODE IN WHICH HE HAS CONTEMPLATED APPLYING THAT
PRINCIPLE, SO AS TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM OTHER INVENTIONS; ...  " 

THE OBJECT OF THE STATUTE IS TO REQUIRE THE PATENTEE TO DESCRIBE HIS
INVENTION SO THAT OTHERS MAY CONSTRUCT AND USE IT AFTER THE EXPIRATION
OF THE PATENT AND "TO INFORM THE PUBLIC DURING THE LIFE OF THE PATENT
OF THE LIMITS OF THE MONOPOLY ASSERTED, SO THAT IT MAY BE KNOWN WHICH
FEATURES MAY BE SAFELY USED OR MANUFACTURED WITHOUT A LICENSE AND WHICH
MAY NOT."  PERMUTIT CO. V. GRAVER CORPORATION, 284 U.S. 52, 60.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT THE PATENT MONOPOLY DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE INVENTION
DESCRIBED AND EXPLAINED AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES, PERMUTIT CO. V. GRAVER
CORPORATION, SUPRA, AT 57; THAT IT CANNOT BE ENLARGED BY CLAIMS IN THE
PATENT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE DESCRIPTION, SNOW V. LAKE SHORE & M.S. RY.
CO., 121 U.S. 617; CF. SMITH V. SNOW, 294 U.S. 1; AND THAT THE
APPLICATION FOR A PATENT CANNOT BE BROADENED BY AMENDMENT SO AS TO
EMBRACE AN INVENTION NOT DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION AS FILED, AT
LEAST WHEN ADVERSE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE INTERVENED.  RAILWAY CO.
V. SAYLES, 97 U.S. 554, 563, 564; POWERS-KENNEDY CORP. V. CONCRETE CO.,
282 U.S. 175, 185-186; CF. WEBSTER ELECTRIC CO. V. SPLITDORF ELECTRICAL
CO., 264 U.S. 463; PERMUTIT CO. V. GRAVER CORPORATION, SUPRA; CROWN
CORK & SEAL CO. V. GUTMANN CO., 304 U.S. 159. 

RESPONDENT EARNESTLY ARGUES, AS BOTH COURTS HELD IN THE INTERFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS, LONG V. GULICK, SUPRA, AND HARTOG V. LONG, SUPRA, THAT THE
CHANGES IN GULICK'S APPLICATION WERE NOT ALTERATIONS IN THE DESCRIPTION
OF HIS INVENTION BUT WERE AT MOST A PERMISSIBLE CLARIFICATION OF ITS
DESCRIPTION OF THE FLEXIBLE WEB ELEMENT WHICH WAS PRESENT, OR AT LEAST
PLAINLY SUGGESTED, IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS OF THE GULICK
APPLICATION.  FLEXIBILITY, IT IS SAID, AS IS WELL KNOWN TO THOSE
SKILLED IN THE ART, IS AN INHERENT PROPERTY OF THE METAL OUT OF WHICH
THE WEBS ARE MADE, AND IN CONSEQUENCE REFERENCE TO THE WEBS IN THE
APPLICATION AS FILED WAS SUFFICIENT TO IMPORT INTO IT AS A PART OF THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION THEIR KNOWN QUALITY OF FLEXIBILITY, A
DESCRIPTION WHICH WAS MADE MORE SPECIFIC, BUT NOT ALTERED, BY THE
AMENDMENTS.  THE ARGUMENT SUGGESTS THAT IT WAS BUT THE SKILL OF THE
ART, AND NOT INVENTION, TO SUBSTITUTE A FLEXIBLE FOR A RIGID MEANS OF
CONNECTING HEAD AND SKIRT IN A KNOWN COMBINATION OF PISTON HEAD
SEPARATED FROM A SLITTED SKIRT BY AN AIR SPACE AND CONNECTED BY WEBS. 
BUT IN ANY CASE WE THINK IT FALLS SHORT OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE GULICK
AMENDMENTS WERE NOT NEW MATTER BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DEVICE DESCRIBED
IN THE APPLICATION AS FILED. 

THE PROPERTIES OF ANY GIVEN MATERIAL ARE MANY AND DIVERSE.  THE
ANTITHETICAL QUALITIES OF RIGIDITY AND FLEXIBILITY OF A STRUCTURE ARE
NOT ABSOLUTE BUT RELATIVE; IT MAY BE MORE RIGID THAN SOME AND MORE
FLEXIBLE THAN OTHERS; TOO RIGID FOR SOME PURPOSES AND TOO FLEXIBLE FOR
OTHERS.  THE ONE QUALITY MAY BE INCREASED AND THE OTHER DIMINISHED BY
CHOICE OF MATERIALS FROM WHICH THE STRUCTURE IS MADE AND BY VARIATION
IN ITS PROPORTIONS.  IF INVENTION DEPENDS ON EMPHASIS OF ONE QUALITY
OVER THE OTHER, AS THE COURT BELOW FOUND WAS THE CASE WITH THE
LATERALLY FLEXIBLE WEBS IN THE GULICK DEVICE, THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT
EMPHASIS TO BE REVEALED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WHO ARE ENTITLED
TO KNOW WHAT INVENTION IS CLAIMED.  THAT IS NOT ACCOMPLISHED EITHER BY
NAMING A MEMBER HAVING INHERENT ANTITHETICAL PROPERTIES OR BY ASCRIBING
TO IT ONE PROPERTY WHEN THE OTHER IS MEANT.  SINCE RIGIDITY IS A
RELATIVE TERM, THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRUCTURE AS RIGID MUST BE
TAKEN AS EMPHASIZING RIGIDITY RATHER THAN ITS OPPOSITE, FLEXIBILITY,
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE CONDITIONS TO BE ENCOUNTERED IN THE
OPERATION OF THE PISTON.  EVEN IF THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART WOULD HAVE
KNOWN THAT A PISTON WITH WEBS WHICH WOULD YIELD ENOUGH LATERALLY TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRICTION OF THE SPLIT SKIRT UNDER THE PRESSURE
DEVELOPED BY THERMAL EXPANSION WOULD WORK MOST EFFECTIVELY IF THE WEBS
WERE LATERALLY FLEXIBLE RATHER THAN RIGID, THAT WAS NOT THE INVENTION
WHICH GULICK DESCRIBED BY HIS REFERENCES TO AN EXTREMELY RIGID WEB. 

GULICK ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE OF HIS MACHINE SO AS TO
DISTINGUISH IT FROM THE PRIOR ART. WEBS HAVING THE INHERENT PROPERTIES
BOTH OF RIGIDITY AND FLEXIBILITY WERE FAMILIAR ELEMENTS IN PISTON
STRUCTURE.  THE COURT BELOW, AFTER POINTING OUT THAT THE SLOTS OF THE
FRANQUIST SKIRT RENDERED IT CAPABLE OF LIMITED CONSTRICTION, FOUND A
DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF GULICK'S PISTON TO BE A WEB RELATIVELY
FLEXIBLE LATERALLY, SO AS TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRICTION OF SKIRT TO
THERMAL EXPANSION, THE COMBINATION OPERATING TO SECURE A "BALANCED
FLEXIBILITY" OF THE SKIRT.  BUT THAT PRINCIPLE - FACILITATING SKIRT
CONSTRICTION RATHER THAN OBSTRUCTING IT - WAS FIRST EXPLAINED AND ITS
EMBODIMENT IN THE FLEXIBLE-WEBBED DEVICE WAS FIRST CLAIMED BY THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE APPLICATION. 

AS ALREADY INDICATED, THE OMISSION FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS NOT
SUPPLIED BY THE DRAWINGS, WHICH FAILED TO DISCLOSE BY DIMENSIONS THE
PROPORTIONS OF THE WEBS.  INHERENT FLEXIBILITY OF THE WEB IN
COOPERATION WITH THE SLIT SKIRT CANNOT BE DEPENDED UPON TO PRODUCE THE
DESIRED EFFECT IN RENDERING THE SKIRT YIELDABLE IN RESPONSE TO CYLINDER
WALL PRESSURE.  AS RESPONDENT'S OWN EXPERT TESTIFIED, THAT DEPENDS UPON
DESIGN OF THE WEB, WITH CORRECT PROPORTIONING OF THE DIFFERENT PARTS AS
TO LOCATION AND THICKNESS TO PRODUCE LATERAL FLEXIBILITY.  INHERENT
RIGIDITY, MADE MORE EFFECTIVE BY DESIGN OF THE WEBS, WOULD
CORRESPONDINGLY CURTAIL THE DESIRED EFFECT. 

WE RECOGNIZE THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO THE DETERMINATIONS IN THE
INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA AND THE COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
GULICK AMENDMENTS.  CF. RADIO CORPORATION V. RADIO LABORATORIES, 293
U.S. 1, 7.  BUT THE DECISIONS IN THOSE CASES ARE NOT CONTROLLING HERE. 
SO FAR AS THE COURTS RELIED ON THE INHERENT FLEXIBILITY OF THE WEBS TO
SUPPLY THE FEATURE OF LATERAL FLEXIBILITY OMITTED FROM THE GULICK
DESCRIPTION THEY IGNORED THE PRINCIPLE RECOGNIZED IN PERMUTIT CO. V.
GRAVER CORPORATION, SUPRA, AND POWERS-KENNEDY CORP. V. CONCRETE CO.,
SUPRA.  SO FAR AS THEY RELIED ON THE DRAWINGS TO SUPPLY THE OMISSION
THEY DISREGARDED THE FACT SHOWN BOTH BY INSPECTION AND BY THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED HERE THAT THE DRAWINGS DO NO MORE TO POINT TO GULICK'S
INVENTION THAN DOES THE FACT OF INHERENT FLEXIBILITY.  WE CONCLUDE THAT
RESPONDENT CAN TAKE NO BENEFIT FROM THE FLEXIBLE WEB ELEMENT ADDED BY
AMENDMENT TO THE GULICK APPLICATION. 

IN SUSTAINING THE CLAIMS OF THE MAYNARD PATENT THE COURT BELOW SAID
THAT "MAYNARD  ...  EMBODIES THE GULICK COMBINATION OF SKIRT
INSULATION, SKIRT FLEXIBILITY BY MEANS OF VERTICAL SLOTTING COOPERATING
WITH LONGITUDINAL SLOTTING, AND FLEXIBLE WEBS IN THE REGION OF THE
WRIST PIN BOSSES.  HE ALSO FOLLOWS JARDINE'S SIMPLIFIED DESIGN TO
PERMIT ECONOMICAL MANUFACTURE AND JARDINE'S BOSS RELIEF," AND AFTER
ENUMERATING CERTAIN MECHANICAL FEATURES OF THE MAYNARD CONSTRUCTION
DIFFERING FROM GULICK AND JARDINE, CONCLUDED:  "IT IS CLEAR THAT
MAYNARD, WHILE NOT DEPARTING FROM THE TEACHING OF GULICK IN BASIC
COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS, DISCLOSES A PISTON LIGHTER AND MORE ECONOMICAL
OF MANUFACTURE THAN GULICK AND ONE MORE RUGGED AND DURABLE THAN
JARDINE."  92 F.2D, AT 337. 

INVENTION OVER GULICK AND JARDINE WAS APPARENTLY FOUND IN THE DETAILS
OF CONSTRUCTION BUT, AS WE ARE WITHOUT OTHER INDICATION OF THE
CHARACTER OF THE INVENTION, WE CONSTRUE THE COURT'S OPINION AS
INCLUDING THE LATERALLY FLEXIBLE WEBS AS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN THE
PATENTED COMBINATION.  AS FLEXIBLE WEBS ARE NEITHER DESCRIBED IN
MAYNARD'S SPECIFICATIONS NOR MENTIONED IN HIS CLAIMS, THEY CAN BE
IMPORTED INTO THEM ONLY BY REFERENCE TO THE DRAWINGS OR BY INFERENCE
FROM THE INHERENT FLEXIBILITY OF THE STRUCTURE, WHICH, FOR REASONS
ALREADY GIVEN IN OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE GULICK AMENDMENTS, ARE
INSUFFICIENT TO ACCOMPLISH THAT RESULT.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT
BELOW ERRED IN GIVING ANY EFFECT TO SO MUCH OF THE GULICK PATENT AS BY
AMENDMENT DESCRIBES OR CLAIMS THE FLEXIBLE WEBS, AND IN TREATING ANY OF
THE SPECIFICATIONS OR CLAIMS IN GULICK AND MAYNARD AS REFERRING TO SUCH
WEBS.  WE ASSUME THAT IT SUSTAINED CLAIM 1 OF THE GULICK PATENT, WHICH
MAKES NO MENTION OF WEB FLEXIBILITY, ONLY BY READING INTO IT THAT
ELEMENT, WHICH THE COURT REGARDED AS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE
INVENTION. 

AS THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT PASS UPON OTHER QUESTIONS IN THE
CASE, THE CAUSES WILL BE REVERSED AND REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS, IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION, WITH RESPECT TO SUCH
CLAIMS OF THE PATENTS IN SUIT AS APPELLANT BELOW SUBMITTED TO THAT
COURT FOR ADJUDICATION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE DECREE SUSTAINED GULICK'S CLAIMS NUMBERED 1, 11, 12, 13, 15,
18, 30 AND 33, AND MAYNARD'S CLAIMS NUMBERED 1, 6 AND 8. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











STAHMANN V. VIDAL, 305 U.S. 61 


NO. 12.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 13, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 93
F.2D 902, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PURPOSE OF THE BANKHEAD COTTON ACT (APRIL 21, 1934; REPEALED
BY ACT OF FEB. 10, 1936) WAS TO RESTRICT THE PRODUCTION OF COTTON AND,
TO THAT END, TO LEVY A HEAVY TAX IN RESPECT OF THAT PRODUCED IN EXCESS
OF THE FARMER'S QUOTA.  THE BURDEN WAS TO FALL UPON THE PRODUCER.  THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE TAX AGAINST THE GINNER WAS INTENDED TO IMMOBILIZE THE
COTTON IN HIS POSSESSION UNTIL THE PRODUCER SHOULD LIQUIDATE THE TAX. 
P. 65. 

2.  WHERE A COLLECTOR, AS REQUIRED BY THIS ACT, ASSESSED A TAX ON
EXCESS COTTON AGAINST THE GINNER; AND THE PRODUCER, IN ORDER TO POSSESS
HIMSELF OF THE COTTON, PAID THE TAX TO THE COLLECTOR, HELD THAT HE HAD
STANDING, UNDER R.S. SEC. 3226, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 6, 1932,
SEC. 1103, TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION AGAINST THE COLLECTOR, FOR RECOVERY OF
THE AMOUNT PLUS INTEREST, BASED UPON THE CLAIM THAT THE BANKHEAD ACT
WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 63. 

STAHMANN ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS STAHMANN FARMS CO., V. VIDAL,
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 552, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR A
TAX, RECOVERED BY THE TAXPAYER IN THE DISTRICT COURT, IN A CASE TRIED
WITHOUT A JURY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE ARE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PETITIONERS MAY MAINTAIN AN ACTION TO
RECOVER FROM A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE SUMS PAID BY THEM AS TAXES
ASSESSED UNDER THE BANKHEAD COTTON ACT.  FN1 

DURING THE CROP YEAR 1934-1935 THE PETITIONERS WERE ENGAGED IN
GROWING COTTON AND PRODUCED A QUANTITY IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOTMENT FOR
WHICH, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACT, THEY WERE ENTITLED TO OBTAIN TAX
EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES.  PETITIONERS DELIVERED THE EXCESS COTTON TO
SANTO TOMAS GIN COMPANY, WHICH GINNED IT AND FILED RETURNS WITH THE
RESPONDENT, AS COLLECTOR, SHOWING A TAX OF SOME $13,000 DUE ON THE
GINNING.  THE RESPONDENT, AS DIRECTED BY THE ACT, ASSESSED THE TAX
AGAINST THE GIN COMPANY.  THE LATTER REFUSED TO DELIVER THE COTTON TO
THE PETITIONERS UNTIL THE TAX WAS PAID, AND TO OBTAIN THEIR COTTON THE
PETITIONERS, IN NOVEMBER 1934 AND JANUARY 1935, PAID THE TAX TO THE
RESPONDENT.  MARCH 6, 1935 THEY PRESENTED A CLAIM FOR REFUND, WHICH WAS
REJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AUGUST 22, 1935.  SUIT
WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT MAY 5, 1936, TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT
PAID WITH INTEREST, THE PETITIONERS ALLEGING THAT THE BANKHEAD ACT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THIS THE ANSWER DENIED, AND SET UP THE FURTHER
DEFENSE THAT, UNDER THE ACT, THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT LIABLE FOR THE
TAX, ANY PAYMENT THEY HAD MADE WAS IN DISCHARGE OF A LIABILITY IMPOSED
BY THE ACT ON THE GIN COMPANY, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THEY WERE NOT
ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN THE ACTION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, A JURY HAVING BEEN WAIVED, HELD THAT THE ACT WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THAT THE PETITIONERS COULD MAINTAIN THE ACTION, AND
GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THEM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO PASS
UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, AS IT WAS OF OPINION THAT THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PETITIONERS' STANDING, AND REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT.  FN2  ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, LIMITED, HOWEVER, TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PETITIONERS
WERE THE PROPER PARTIES TO MAINTAIN THE ACTION. 

WHICH A PROCEEDING MIGHT BE MAINTAINED FOR THE RECOVERY OF ANY SUM
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED
UNDER ITS TERMS.  THE ACT WAS REPEALED FEBRUARY 10, 1936,  FN4  PRIOR
TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE INSTANT ACTION.  THE PETITIONERS WERE
THEREFORE REMITTED FOR RECOVERY OF THE SUM DEMANDED TO R.S. 3226, AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 6, 1932, SEC. 1103.  FN5  AS THEREBY
REQUIRED, THEY TIMELY FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND, WHICH WAS DENIED, AND
TIMELY BROUGHT THEIR ACTION.  UNDER THIS SECTION IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
PLEAD OR PROVE THAT THE TAX WAS PAID UNDER PROTEST OR ITS COLLECTION
WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY DURESS. 

THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE PETITIONERS VOLUNTARILY
PAID SOMEONE'S ELSE TAX.  IF THEY DID THEY MAY NOT MAINTAIN THE
ACTION.  FN6 

THE RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT, BY THE TERMS OF THE ACT, THE TAX IS
IMPOSED UPON THE GINNER AND NOT UPON THE PRODUCER.  THE PETITIONERS, ON
THE OTHER HAND, POINT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH MAKE THE LEVY
OF THE TAX DEPENDENT UPON THE VOTE OF COTTON PRODUCERS AND NOT UPON ANY
ACT OF THE GINNERS; WHICH BASE EXEMPTIONS FROM THE TAX UPON THE TIME,
MANNER, AND CHARACTER OF PRODUCTION AND NOT UPON THE TIME, MANNER, OR
CHARACTER OF GINNING; WHICH GRANT EXEMPTIONS TO PRODUCERS, NOT TO
GINNERS; WHICH CONDITION EXEMPTIONS UPON THE PRODUCERS MEETING CERTAIN
CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS; AND WHICH FIX QUOTAS FOR EXEMPTIONS TO
PRODUCERS.  THEY SAY CONGRESS NEVER INTENDED THE GINNER SHOULD BEAR THE
TAX, SINCE THE ACT PROVIDES THAT HE IS TO BE REIMBURSED UP TO TWENTY
FIVE CENTS PER BALE FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE INCURRED BY HIM IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT.  THEY ASSERT THAT THE
RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE TAX IS UPON THE GINNING OF THE COTTON
IS NEGATIVED BY THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT ASSESSED UPON ALL COTTON GINNED
REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT PRODUCED BY THE OWNER OF THE PARTICULAR FARM,
AND THAT IT AMOUNTS PER BALE TO APPROXIMATELY FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF
THE CUSTOMARY CHARGE FOR GINNING.  THEY CALL ESPECIAL ATTENTION TO
THOSE SECTIONS OF THE ACT WHICH IMPOSE A LIEN FOR THE TAX UPON THE
COTTON IF IT IS REMOVED FROM THE GIN, FORBID TRANSPORTATION OF THE
COTTON,  - THE PRODUCERS' PROPERTY,  - BEYOND THE COUNTY WHERE
PRODUCED, EXCEPT FOR STORAGE, AND PROHIBIT OPENING OF THE BALE OR SALE
OF THE COTTON UNTIL THE TAX SHALL HAVE BEEN PAID.  THEY SAY IT IS
OBVIOUS THE STATUTE MADE THE GINNER A CONVENIENT COLLECTING AGENT TO
ENFORCE PAYMENT OF THE TAX AND THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO FORCE THE FARMER
TO PAY BY PROHIBITING HIS USE OF HIS EXCESS COTTON UNLESS AND UNTIL HE
PAID; AND THE LATTER IS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR
THE REFUND OF THE TAX IF IT WAS ILLEGALLY COLLECTED. 

WE HOLD THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN THE ACTION. 
THE PURPOSE OF THE BANKHEAD ACT WAS TO RESTRICT THE PRODUCTION OF
COTTON AND, TO THAT END, TO LEVY A HEAVY TAX IN RESPECT OF THAT
PRODUCED IN EXCESS OF THE FARMER'S QUOTA.  THE TAX BORE NO RELATION TO
THE GINNING OF COTTON.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS INTENDED TO FALL, AND
THE ACT ATTEMPTED TO MAKE IT FALL, UPON THE PRODUCERS.  THE ASSESSMENT
OF THE TAX AGAINST THE GINNER WAS INTENDED TO IMMOBILIZE THE COTTON IN
HIS POSSESSION UNTIL THE PRODUCER SHOULD LIQUIDATE THE TAX.  THIS IS
EVIDENT FROM THE PROVISIONS WHICH IMPOSE A LIEN UPON THE COTTON FOR THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX UPON REMOVAL OF IT FROM THE GIN WITHOUT PAYMENT OF
THE TAX, AND, WHILE PERMITTING IT TO BE STORED BY THE PRODUCER, FORBID
THE OPENING OF A BALE OR THE SALE OF IT UNTIL THE TAX LIABILITY SHALL
HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED.  PLAINLY THE PURPOSE WAS THAT IF THE GINNER
SHOULD RELEASE THE COTTON TO THE PRODUCER WHILE THE TAX REMAINED UNPAID
THE LIEN UPON IT WOULD INSURE PAYMENT BY THE PRODUCER. 

THE SCHEME OF THE ACT SETS THE CASE APART FROM ANY TO WHICH OUR
ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED ARISING UNDER OTHER TAXING ACTS.  THE
COLLECTOR WAS PART OF THE MACHINERY FOR COMPELLING THE FARMER TO PAY
THE TAX, FOR IMMOBILIZING THE COTTON AND MAKING IT UNUSABLE UNTIL THE
ASSESSMENT HE HAD MADE AGAINST THE GINNER WAS SATISFIED BY PAYMENT OF
THE TAX.  WHETHER OR NOT THE TAX WAS IMPOSED UPON THE PETITIONERS, THEY
ARE, ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES, ENTITLED TO RECOVER UNLESS THEY
WERE VOLUNTEERS, WHICH THEY PLAINLY WERE NOT BECAUSE THEY PAID THE TAX
UNDER DURESS OF GOODS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF APRIL 21, 1934, C. 157, 48 STAT. 598. 

FN2  93 F.2D 902. 

FN3  48 STAT. 606. 

FN4  49 STAT. 1106. 

FN5  47 STAT. 169, 286; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SECS. 1672-1673. 

FN6  COMPARE WOURDACK V. BECKER, 55 F.2D 840; CLIFT & GOODRICH V.
UNITED STATES, 56 F.2D 751; OHIO LOCOMOTIVE CRANE CO. V. DENMAN, 73
F.2D 408; CENTRAL AGUIRRE SUGAR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 2 F.SUPP.  538;
COMBINED INDUSTRIES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 15 F.SUPP.  349. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





SOVEREIGN CAMP V. BOLIN, 305 U.S. 66 


NO. 31.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 112
S.W.2D 582, 592, REVERSED. 


1.  A FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION OF NEBRASKA ISSUED AND
DELIVERED IN MISSOURI A CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP REQUIRING THE MEMBER
TO PAY DUES AND ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR BENEFITS TO ACCRUE UPON
HIS DEATH.  PURSUANT TO A BY-LAW OF THE ASSOCIATION, THE CERTIFICATE
PURPORTED TO EXEMPT THE MEMBER FROM FURTHER DUES AND ASSESSMENTS AFTER
TWENTY YEARS; BUT THIS EXEMPTION WAS AFTERWARDS ADJUDGED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF NEBRASKA, IN A CLASS SUIT BROUGHT BY THE HOLDER OF A SIMILAR
CERTIFICATE, TO BE ULTRA VIRES AND VOID.  IN AN ACTION IN MISSOURI BY
BENEFICIARIES NAMED IN THE CERTIFICATE FIRST-MENTIONED, HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS NOT A MERE CONTRACT TO BE CONSTRUED AND
ENFORCED ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE WHERE IT WAS DELIVERED. 
ENTRY INTO THE SOCIETY WAS ENTRY INTO A COMPLEX AND ABIDING RELATION
AND THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERSHIP ARE GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
INCORPORATION.  ANOTHER STATE, WHEREIN THE CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP
WAS ISSUED, CAN NOT ATTACH TO MEMBERSHIP, RIGHTS AGAINST THE SOCIETY
WHICH ARE REFUSED BY THE LAW OF THE DOMICIL.  P. 75. 

(2)  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ASSOCIATION WAS ESTOPPED TO PLEAD ULTRA
VIRES WAS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE MISSOURI LAW OF OLD LINE
INSURANCE COMPANIES.  P. 76. 

(3)  THE JUDGMENT OF THE NEBRASKA COURT, IN THE CLASS SUIT,
DETERMINED THAT THE ASSOCIATION LACKED POWER TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES
EXEMPT FROM DUES AND ASSESSMENTS AFTER TWENTY YEARS, AND THAT IT WAS
NOT ESTOPPED TO PLEAD ULTRA VIRES IN THAT REGARD.  P. 78. 

(4)  THE MISSOURI COURT, BY ENFORCING THE CERTIFICATE, FAILED TO GIVE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE ASSOCIATION'S CHARTER EMBODIED IN THE
STATUTES OF NEBRASKA AS INTERPRETED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT.  P. 79. 

2.  IN A CLASS SUIT BY A MEMBER OF A BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION TO
DETERMINE THE POWER OF THE ASSOCIATION TO ISSUE BENEFICIAL MEMBERSHIP
CERTIFICATES EXEMPT FROM DUES AND ASSESSMENTS AFTER TWENTY YEARS, THE
ASSOCIATION REPRESENTS ALL ITS MEMBERS AND STANDS IN JUDGMENT FOR THEM,
AND THE JUDGMENT IS CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION
WITH RESPECT TO ALL RIGHTS, QUESTIONS, OR FACTS THEREIN DETERMINED.  P.
78. 

SOVEREIGN CAMP OF THE WOODMEN OF THE WORLD V. BOLIN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 557, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER IN AN ACTION ON A FRATERNAL BENEFICIAL
CERTIFICATE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN AN
APPEAL. 

(A)  THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS
UNDER THE BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATE MUST BE DETERMINED BY APPLICATION OF
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE
CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED AND THE DUES WERE PAID IN THE STATE
OF MISSOURI. 

(B)  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA WAS A FINAL, VALID
ADJUDICATION THAT, UNDER PETITIONER'S CHARTER, THE BY-LAW AND THE
LIMITED PAYMENT PROVISIONS OF THE BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATES ISSUED
PURSUANT TO SAID BY-LAW WERE ULTRA VIRES OF PETITIONER AND INVALID, AND
THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ESTOPPED TO ASSERT THEIR INVALIDITY IN A SUIT
BASED UPON SAID BY-LAW TO ENFORCE THE LIMITED PAYMENT FEATURES OF THE
BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATE.  TRAPP V. SOVEREIGN CAMP OF THE WOODMEN OF THE
WORLD, 102 NEB. 562; HANER V. GRAND LODGE, A.O.U.W., 102 NEB. 563. 

(C)  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA HAVING BEEN
RENDERED IN A SUIT BROUGHT FOR THE BENEFIT OF A CLASS TO WHICH PLEASANT
BOLIN BELONGED, AND BEING A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF A CONTROVERSY AS TO
WHICH PETITIONER COULD STAND IN JUDGMENT FOR ITS MEMBERS, IS RES
JUDICATA AND BINDING UPON RESPONDENTS, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCORDED
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE COURT BELOW.  SMITH V. SWORMSTEDT, 16
HOW.  288; BERNHEIMER V. CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516; CONVERSE V. HAMILTON,
224 U.S. 243; SELIG V. HAMILTON, 234 U.S. 652; BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294
U.S. 629; PARKER V. LUEHRMANN, 126 NEB. 1; SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE ROYAL
ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531; HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. IBS, 237 U.S.
662; HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. BARBER, 245 U.S. 146. 

(D)  IF THE NEBRASKA JUDGMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED RES JUDICATA AND
BINDING UPON RESPONDENTS IN A PERSONAL SENSE, IT NEVERTHELESS ANNOUNCES
THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PETITIONER'S CHARTER UNDER THE LAWS OF
NEBRASKA; AND THE CHARTER, AS THUS INTERPRETED, WAS ENTITLED TO FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE COURT BELOW. 

(E)  THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW ON THE QUESTION OF ESTOPPEL WAS,
OF ITSELF, A DENIAL OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO PETITIONER'S CHARTER
AND THE NEBRASKA JUDGMENT BECAUSE (1) THE DECISION WAS REACHED BY
APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF MISSOURI INSTEAD OF THE LAWS OF NEBRASKA;
AND (2) THE ISSUE OF ESTOPPEL WAS FINALLY ADJUDICATED BY THE NEBRASKA
JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER. 

(F)  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA WAS THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A FRATERNAL CHARTER.  IT HELD THAT UNDER SAID CHARTER
THE BY-LAW AND THE "PAYMENTS TO CEASE" CLAUSE WERE ULTRA VIRES AND
VOID.  IT ALSO HELD THAT THE PLEA OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT AVAILABLE.  IT
IS, THEREFORE, WHOLLY IMMATERIAL WHETHER UNDER THE MISSOURI LAW THE
CERTIFICATE IS LABELED FRATERNAL OR "OLD LINE."  IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION IS PRESENT, THE PLEA OF ESTOPPEL, UNDER THE MISSOURI LAW, MUST
BE ABSENT.  THE FACT THAT NO LICENSE WAS REQUIRED OF THE ASSOCIATION IN
MISSOURI AT THE TIME WHEN THE CERTIFICATE WAS WRITTEN IN NO SENSE
AFFECTS THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE.  CANADA SOUTHERN RAILROAD V.
GEBHARD, 109 U.S. 527, 537. 

(G)  APPLICATION OF THE MISSOURI INSURANCE LAWS BY THE COURT BELOW
CHANGED AND IMPAIRED THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF PETITIONER ESTABLISHED
BY THE LAWS OF NEBRASKA, AND ITS CHARTER; AND THEY AND THE NEBRASKA
JUDGMENT WERE DENIED THE CREDIT, VALIDITY AND EFFECT TO WHICH THEY WERE
ENTITLED UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT RESTS UPON AT LEAST FOUR INDEPENDENT
GROUNDS NOT INVOLVING A FEDERAL QUESTION AND EACH OF WHICH IS ADEQUATE
TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT.  THEREFORE, THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
AND THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 

(A)  A DECISION OF THE STATE COURT BASED UPON AN ESTOPPEL DOES NOT
PRESENT A FEDERAL QUESTION. 

(B)  THE PROPOSITION THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL
INSURANCE LAWS OF MISSOURI, FOR THE REASON THAT WHEN IT WAS ISSUED, THE
CORPORATION WAS NOT LICENSED IN MISSOURI, NOT HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE
FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY LAWS, WAS A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW ADEQUATE TO
SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT, BECAUSE THE POWER OF A STATE OVER FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS THEREIN IS EQUAL TO ITS POWER OVER DOMESTIC
CORPORATIONS. 

(C)  THE CERTIFICATE WAS DELIVERED TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE INSURED IN
THE STATE OF MISSOURI.  HE PAID ALL OF THE DUES AND ASSESSMENTS IN
MISSOURI.  THIS MAKES IT A MISSOURI CONTRACT TO WHICH THE LAWS OF
MISSOURI APPLY AND BY THE LAWS OF WHICH IT IS GOVERNED; AND THE ISSUES
CONCERNING IT ARE TO BE ADJUDICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF
MISSOURI.  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. CRAVENS, 178 U.S. 389; MUTUAL LIFE
INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 293 U.S. 335; NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
MCCUE, 223 U.S. 234; EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. PETTUS, 140
U.S. 226; RAGSDALE V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, 229 MO. APP.
545; 80 S.W.2D 272; JOHNSON V. AMERICAN CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., 212 MO.
APP. 290; 249 S.W. 115; GRANT V. NORTH AMERICAN BENEFIT CORP., 223 MO.
APP. 104; 8 S.W.2D 1043; WEED V. BANK SAVINGS LIFE INS. CO., 24 S.W.2D
653; CROHN V. UNITED COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS, 170 MO. APP. 273. 

(D)  THE CERTIFICATE, BEING A MISSOURI CONTRACT, THE CONTRACT RIGHTS
THEREIN PROVIDED COULD NOT BE MATERIALLY CHANGED BY SO-CALLED BY-LAWS
SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED BY THE COMPANY, OR BY THE LAWS OF MISSOURI OR ANY
OTHER STATE. 

THE TRAPP CASE, RELIED ON BY PETITIONER, WAS NOT BINDING ON THE
COURTS OF MISSOURI IN THE INSTANT CASE. 

UNDER THE MISSOURI RULES OF PLEADING, THE DEFENSE OF RES JUDICATA MUST
BE PLEADED IN ORDER TO BE AVAILABLE. 

THE TRAPP SUIT WAS NOT BINDING AS A CLASS CASE ON THE RIGHTS OF BOLIN
AND HIS BENEFICIARIES. 

(A)  WHEN IT WAS FILED, NO RIGHT OF ACTION EXISTED ON THE BOLIN
POLICY, PAYMENTS THEREON NOT HAVING BEEN MADE FOR TWENTY YEARS. 

(B)  WHILE THE PETITION IN THE TRAPP CASE STATED THAT TRAPP BROUGHT
THE SUIT FOR HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THE PETITION DID
NOT ASK FOR RELIEF FOR ANYONE EXCEPT TRAPP; AND THE JUDGMENT DID NOT
PURPORT TO APPLY TO ANY OTHER PERSON. 

(C)  TRAPP DID NOT PLEAD OR ASSERT HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE LAWS OF
MISSOURI, THUS SEGREGATING HIMSELF FROM THE CLASS TO WHICH BOLIN
BELONGED. 

(D)  IN THE TRAPP CASE THERE WAS NO PLEA SUFFICIENT, UNDER THE
NEBRASKA LAW, TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF ESTOPPEL. 

(E)  THE TRAPP CASE WAS BASED MERELY ON A RESOLUTION OF PETITIONER'S
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, PROVIDING FOR PAID-UP CERTIFICATES, AND THE
FRATERNAL INSURANCE LAWS OF NEBRASKA, WHEREAS THE BOLIN SUIT IS BASED
ON A CERTIFICATE OR POLICY OF INSURANCE ISSUED IN MISSOURI, GOVERNED BY
THE LAWS OF MISSOURI AND PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT BOLIN ACQUIESCED IN THE TRAPP CASE, KNEW
ANYTHING ABOUT IT OR HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, AND THERE IS NO
SHOWING THAT THE RIGHTS UPON WHICH HE RELIED WERE IN ANY WAY
REPRESENTED OR ADJUDICATED IN THE TRAPP CASE. 

(F)  THERE WAS NO SHOWING IN THE RECORD OF THE TRAPP CASE THAT THE
RIGHTS OR INTERESTS OF ANY HOLDER OF A POLICY OR CERTIFICATE, UNDER THE
MISSOURI LAWS, WERE FAIRLY REPRESENTED OR PROTECTED; THAT ANY SUCH
CERTIFICATE HOLDER HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUIT OR ANY OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE HIS INTERESTS FAIRLY PROTECTED OR REPRESENTED, OR KNEW ANYTHING
ABOUT THE TRAPP SUIT OR IN ANY MANNER ACQUIESCED THEREIN.  THEREFORE,
THE TRAPP CASE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A CLASS SUIT.  OLD
WAYNE MUTUAL LIFE ASSN. V. MCDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8; AMERICAN SURETY CO.
V. BALDWIN, 287 U.S. 156. 

IF THE DECISION IN THE TRAPP CASE WERE APPLICABLE, IT IS IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 10, ART. I, THE CONTRACT CLAUSE, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES IN THAT IT HOLDS A SUBSTANTIAL PROVISION OF AN INSURANCE
CONTRACT, TO-WIT, A PROVISION THAT PAYMENTS THEREON SHOULD CEASE IN
TWENTY YEARS, TO HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED BY A SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED
STATUTE OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. 

THE AUTHORITIES CITED BY PETITIONER INVOLVE ONLY QUESTIONS OF
INTERNAL AFFAIRS OR BUSINESS MANAGEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OR CORPORATION,
AND QUESTIONS ARISING IN CORPORATE RECEIVERSHIPS OR SIMILAR
PROCEEDINGS.  NONE OF THEM INVOLVES THE CONSTRUCTION OR EFFECT OF A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CORPORATION ITSELF AND ANOTHER PARTY.  NONE OF
THEM INVOLVES THE ISSUE OF ESTOPPEL UNDER THE LAW OF THE FORUM. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE CLAIM THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT BELOW FAILED TO ACCORD FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE PUBLIC ACTS,
RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA AS REQUIRED
BY ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE PETITIONER IS A FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED UNDER
THE LAWS OF NEBRASKA, HAVING A LODGE SYSTEM, A RITUALISTIC FORM OF
WORK, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  IT HAS NO CAPITAL
STOCK, AND TRANSACTS ITS AFFAIRS WITHOUT PROFIT AND SOLELY FOR THE
MUTUAL BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES.  IT MAKES
PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF DEATH BENEFITS BY ASSESSMENTS UPON ITS
MEMBERS AND ISSUES TO MEMBERS CERTIFICATES ASSURING PAYMENT OF SUCH
BENEFITS. 

IN 1895 THE PETITIONER ADOPTED A BY-LAW AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE OF LIFE
MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATES.  UNDER THIS BY-LAW A MEMBER ENTERING THE ORDER
AT AN AGE GREATER THAN 43 YEARS WAS ENTITLED TO LIFE MEMBERSHIP WITHOUT
THE PAYMENT OF FURTHER DUES AND ASSESSMENTS WHEN THE CERTIFICATE HAD
BEEN OUTSTANDING 20 YEARS.  IN JUNE 1896, WHILE THE BY-LAW REMAINED
UNREPEALED, PLEASANT BOLIN, WHO WAS OVER 43 YEARS OF AGE, JOINED A
MISSOURI LODGE OF THE PETITIONER AND RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF
MEMBERSHIP WHICH RECITED THAT WHILE IN GOOD STANDING HE WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BENEFICIAL FUND TO THE AMOUNT OF $1,000
PAYABLE TO HIS BENEFICIARIES AND TO THE SUM OF $100 FOR PLACING A
MONUMENT AT HIS GRAVE.  THE CERTIFICATE RECITED THAT IT WAS ISSUED
SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS NAMED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
FRATERNITY AND WAS ENDORSED WITH THE WORDS "PAYMENTS TO CEASE AFTER 20
YEARS." 

AFTER BOLIN'S DEATH, THE RESPONDENTS, AS BENEFICIARIES, BROUGHT
ACTION TO RECOVER UPON THE CERTIFICATE.  THE PETITIONER'S ANSWER SET UP
THAT BOLIN HAD CEASED TO PAY THE REQUIRED DUES AND ASSESSMENTS IN JULY
1916, AND HIS CERTIFICATE HAD THEREFORE BECOME VOID; THAT THE BY-LAW
MAKING THE CERTIFICATE FULLY PAID AFTER TWENTY YEARS WAS ULTRA VIRES OF
THE ASSOCIATION AND HAD BEEN SO DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEBRASKA IN A CLASS SUIT BROUGHT BY ONE TRAPP, THE HOLDER OF A
CERTIFICATE SIMILAR TO THAT OF BOLIN; THAT, UNDER ARTICLE IV, SEC. 1,
OF THE CONSTITUTION, FULL FAITH AND CREDIT MUST BE GIVEN BY THE COURTS
OF MISSOURI TO THIS DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA.  THE
RESPONDENTS REPLIED THAT THE CONTRACT WAS MADE AND DELIVERED IN
MISSOURI AND WAS TO BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED ACCORDING TO MISSOURI
LAW; THAT, AT THE DATE OF ITS CONSUMMATION, THE PETITIONER HAD NO
LICENSE OR AUTHORITY TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN MISSOURI AS A CORPORATION
OR OTHERWISE, AND THE CERTIFICATE WAS THEREFORE TO BE CONSIDERED AS
ISSUED PURSUANT TO, AND GOVERNED BY, THE GENERAL INSURANCE LAWS OF
MISSOURI; THAT BOLIN HAVING FULLY PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
TERMS OF THE CERTIFICATE, THE PETITIONER WAS ESTOPPED TO PLEAD ULTRA
VIRES; AND THAT IN TRUTH THE CONTRACT WAS NOT ULTRA VIRES OF THE
PETITIONER. 

A JURY WAS WAIVED AND THE CASE WAS TRIED TO THE COURT.  THE
RESPONDENTS PROVED THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE AND BOLIN'S PAYMENTS
FOR TWENTY YEARS THEREAFTER.  THE PETITIONER PROVED THE ADOPTION OF THE
BY-LAW PURPORTING TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUE OF "PAYMENTS TO CEASE"
CERTIFICATES; AND PUT IN EVIDENCE AN EXEMPLIFIED COPY OF THE RECORD IN
TRAPP V. SOVEREIGN CAMP OF THE WOODMEN OF THE WORLD, 102 NEB. 562; 168
N.W. 191, WHEREIN IT WAS DECIDED THAT PETITIONER NEVER HAD POWER UNDER
THE LAW OF NEBRASKA TO ISSUE SUCH A CERTIFICATE.  JUDGMENT WENT FOR THE
RESPONDENTS.  THE PETITIONER APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI,
WHICH REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS  FN1  ON
THE GROUND THAT IT INVOLVED NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  THE LATTER
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT  FN2  AND ADHERED TO ITS DECISION ON REHEARING. 
FN3 

THE COURT BELOW BASED ITS DECISION ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 

UNDER THE LAW OF MISSOURI THE CERTIFICATE WAS A MISSOURI CONTRACT
BECAUSE IT WAS DELIVERED TO BOLIN IN MISSOURI AND HE MADE HIS PAYMENTS
THERE; ALL ISSUES RESPECTING RIGHTS ARISING OUT OF THE CONTRACT MUST,
THEREFORE, BE ADJUDICATED ACCORDING TO THE DECISIONS OF THE MISSOURI
COURTS.  THE QUESTION THEN ARISES WHAT SYSTEM OF LOCAL LAW IS
APPLICABLE,  - THAT RELATING TO FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY SOCIETIES OR THAT
APPLICABLE TO OLD LINE INSURANCE COMPANIES.  AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT
WAS MADE THERE WAS NO LOCAL STATUTE PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING OF
FOREIGN FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY SOCIETIES.  UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THE
MISSOURI COURTS THE PETITIONER MUST, THEREFORE, BE DENIED THE
IMMUNITIES EXTENDED BY STATUTE TO DOMESTIC FRATERNAL BENEFICIARY
ASSOCIATIONS AND MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN DOING BUSINESS IN MISSOURI
UNDER THE STATE'S GENERAL INSURANCE LAWS, AND THE CERTIFICATE MUST BE
REGARDED AS A CONTRACT OF GENERAL OR OLD LINE INSURANCE.  THIS
CONCLUSION IS NOT ALTERED BY THE NATURE OF THE SOCIETY GRANTING THE
INSURANCE BECAUSE THE CHARACTER OF THE INSURANCE, SO FAR AS MISSOURI IS
CONCERNED, DEPENDS ON THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT ONLY.  WHATEVER MAY BE
THE CHARACTER OF THE PETITIONER IN THE EYE OF THE NEBRASKA LAW IT NEED
NOT HAVE THE SAME CHARACTER IN MISSOURI.  WHETHER IT IS A FRATERNAL
BENEFICIARY SOCIETY WHEN SUED IN MISSOURI IS A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW. 
EVEN IF THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE BE AN ULTRA VIRES ACT UNDER THE
LAW OF NEBRASKA IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT IS SUCH UNDER THE LAW OF
MISSOURI.  THE CONTRACT IS NOT ULTRA VIRES UNDER THE LAW OF MISSOURI
OR, IF SO, THE PETITIONER MAY NOT PLEAD ULTRA VIRES BECAUSE, IN THE
LIGHT OF MISSOURI LAW, THE CONTRACT IS AN INSURANCE CONTRACT WITH AN
OLD LINE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE PETITIONER, UNDER MISSOURI
DECISIONS, CANNOT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED, AVAIL ITSELF OF THE
FACT THAT THE CONTRACT WAS IN EXCESS OF ITS CHARTER POWERS. 

THE COURT REFUSED TO GIVE FORCE OR EFFECT TO THE DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA IN TRAPP V. WOODMEN, SUPRA, SAYING THAT CASE
DID NOT HOLD THE ISSUE OF SUCH A CERTIFICATE ULTRA VIRES IN THE SENSE
THAT IT WAS PROHIBITED BY POSITIVE STATUTE; THAT THE CONTRACT BEING A
MISSOURI CONTRACT ITS ULTRA VIRES CHARACTER MUST BE ADJUDGED BY THE
LOCAL LAW IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT THE COURTS OF THE DOMICILE HAD HELD;
THAT THE RESPONDENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE RELIED ON AN ESTOPPEL OF THE
PETITIONER TO PLEAD ULTRA VIRES, WHEREAS NO SUCH ISSUE WAS PRESENTED OR
DECIDED IN THE TRAPP CASE. 

WE HOLD THAT THE JUDGMENT DENIED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE PUBLIC
ACTS, RECORDS, AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. 

FIRST.  THE BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATE WAS NOT A MERE CONTRACT TO BE
CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE WHERE IT WAS
DELIVERED.  ENTRY INTO MEMBERSHIP OF AN INCORPORATED BENEFICIARY
SOCIETY IS MORE THAN A CONTRACT; IT IS ENTERING INTO A COMPLEX AND
ABIDING RELATION AND THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERSHIP ARE GOVERNED BY THE LAW
OF THE STATE OF INCORPORATION.  ANOTHER STATE, WHEREIN THE CERTIFICATE
OF MEMBERSHIP WAS ISSUED, CANNOT ATTACH TO MEMBERSHIP RIGHTS AGAINST
THE SOCIETY WHICH ARE REFUSED BY THE LAW OF THE DOMICILE.  FN4 

SECOND.  THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT AT THE TIME THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED
DOMESTIC FRATERNAL SOCIETIES WERE EXEMPTED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
GENERAL INSURANCE LAW OF THE STATE, AND NO SIMILAR EXEMPTION WAS
EXTENDED TO FOREIGN SOCIETIES, CANNOT ENLARGE THE STATUTORY AND CHARTER
POWERS OF SUCH A FOREIGN SOCIETY.  THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR OF THE COURT
BELOW SPRINGS FROM A MISAPPREHENSION OF THE EFFECT TO BE GIVEN TO THE
ABSENCE OF PROVISIONS EXEMPTING FOREIGN BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATIONS FROM
THE STATUTES APPLICABLE GENERALLY TO OLD LINE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANIES.  MISSOURI HAS STATUTES AFFECTING THE VALIDITY AND
ENFORCIBILITY OF STIPULATIONS INSERTED IN LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES AND
OTHER STATUTES DEALING WITH PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS UPON SUCH POLICIES. 
IN 1879 A STATUTE WAS PASSED AUTHORIZING THE INCORPORATION OF FRATERNAL
BENEFICIARY SOCIETIES AND EXEMPTING THEM FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
GENERAL LAWS OF THE STATE IN RESPECT OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.  FN5  AN
ACT OF 1881 EXEMPTED BOTH DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN SOCIETIES FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE GENERAL INSURANCE LAWS.  FN6  THIS ACT DID NOT REQUIRE
THE REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN ASSOCIATIONS BUT ACCORDED THEM THE SAME
EXEMPTION AS DOMESTIC ASSOCIATIONS.  IN 1889 THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED AN
ACT REVISING THE STATUTES DEALING WITH PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND THEREIN
PROVIDED THAT DOMESTIC BENEFICIAL SOCIETIES SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO
THE GENERAL INSURANCE LAWS OF THE STATE, BUT OMITTED ANY REFERENCE TO
FOREIGN ASSOCIATIONS.  FN7  IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1897 THAT FOREIGN
BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATIONS WERE REQUIRED, AS A CONDITION OF DOING
BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, TO REGISTER AND TO FILE ANNUAL REPORTS AND
TO DESIGNATE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT AS THE
PERSON UPON WHOM PROCESS MIGHT BE SERVED.  IF THEY COMPLIED WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS STATUTE THEY WERE EXEMPTED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
GENERAL INSURANCE LAWS.  FN8  THIS ACT HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD IN
LATER REVISIONS AND, WITH CHANGES IMMATERIAL TO OUR INQUIRY, REMAINS IN
FORCE.  FROM THIS HIATUS IN THE STATUTES GOVERNING FOREIGN BENEFICIARY
ASSOCIATIONS IT RESULTED THAT WHILE FOREIGN ASSOCIATIONS WERE NOT
FORBIDDEN FROM ORGANIZING LODGES, OBTAINING MEMBERS, AND ISSUING
BENEFIT CERTIFICATES IN MISSOURI, AND THEIR CERTIFICATES SO ISSUED WERE
NOT DEEMED TO BE VOID,  FN9  CERTIFICATES ISSUED IN THE INTERIM BETWEEN
1889 AND 1897 WERE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND ACTIONS THEREON
WERE GOVERNED BY, THE PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL INSURANCE LAWS.  FN10
THE MISSOURI COURTS, HOWEVER, WERE APPARENTLY NOT CALLED UPON IN ANY OF
THE CASES AFFECTED BY THIS RULE OF DECISION TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION
OF THE POWER OF SUCH A SOCIETY, UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ITS
INCORPORATION, TO WRITE A PARTICULAR SORT OF BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATE;
FN11  BUT THIS COURT REVERSED A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
MISSOURI WHICH, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RULE
APPLICABLE TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN SOCIETIES, REEXAMINED AND REFUSED TO
GIVE EFFECT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, THE
COURT OF THE DOMICILE, WITH RESPECT TO THE POWERS OF A CONNECTICUT
ASSOCIATION.  FN12 

THE COURT BELOW WAS NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISREGARD THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW
OF THE PETITIONER AND TURN A MEMBERSHIP BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATE INTO AN
OLD LINE POLICY TO BE CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF
THE FORUM.  THE DECISION THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF ULTRA VIRES CONTRACTS
WAS TO BE APPLIED AS IF THE PETITIONER WERE A MISSOURI OLD LINE LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ERRONEOUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT WHICH HAVE UNIFORMLY HELD THAT THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF SUCH
ASSOCIATIONS ARE GOVERNED BY THE DEFINITION OF THE SOCIETY'S POWERS BY
THE COURTS OF ITS DOMICILE.  FN13 

THIRD.  THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL WAS ERRONEOUSLY INVOKED TO AVOID THE
FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE NEBRASKA JUDGMENT.  THE COURT BELOW WAS OF THE
OPINION THAT, AS THE PETITIONER HAD ISSUED A "PAYMENTS TO CEASE AFTER
20 YEARS" CERTIFICATE, AND AS BOLIN HAD FULLY PERFORMED ON HIS PART BY
PAYING ALL DUES AND ASSESSMENTS OVER THE NAMED PERIOD, THE PETITIONER
WAS ESTOPPED TO PLEAD ITS LACK OF POWER TO ISSUE SUCH A CERTIFICATE. 
THIS AGAIN WAS ON THE THEORY THAT WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE NATURE OF THE
PETITIONER'S ORGANIZATION IN NEBRASKA, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACTION
IT MUST BE TREATED AS AN OLD LINE INSURANCE COMPANY IN MISSOURI.  IT
WAS FURTHER HELD THAT NO QUESTION OF ESTOPPEL WAS DECIDED IN THE TRAPP
CASE. 

AS TO THE FIRST OF THESE POSITIONS, IT NEED ONLY BE SAID THAT THE
TRAPP CASE WAS A CLASS SUIT IN WHICH IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE
PETITIONER LACKED POWER, UNDER THE LAW OF NEBRASKA, TO ISSUE SUCH
CERTIFICATES.  IN SUCH A SUIT THE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTS ALL ITS
MEMBERS AND STANDS IN JUDGMENT FOR THEM, AND EVEN THOUGH THE SUIT HAD A
DIFFERENT OBJECT THAN THE INSTANT ONE IT IS CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL THE
MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION WITH RESPECT TO ALL RIGHTS, QUESTIONS, OR
FACTS THEREIN DETERMINED.  FN14 

WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND POSITION, IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT
TRAPP, IN THE SUIT IN NEBRASKA, PLEADED THAT THE ASSOCIATION WAS
ESTOPPED TO DENY ITS POWER TO ISSUE THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE IN
QUESTION, AND THE OPINION OF THE NEBRASKA COURT, BY REFERENCE TO A CASE
DECIDED ON THE SAME DAY, CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ISSUE OF ESTOPPEL
WAS CONSIDERED AND DETERMINED ADVERSELY TO THE PLAINTIFF. 

FOURTH.  UNDER OUR UNIFORM HOLDINGS THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO GIVE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE PETITIONER'S CHARTER EMBODIED IN THE
STATUTES OF NEBRASKA AS INTERPRETED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT.  FN15 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  BOLIN V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, W.O.W., 339 MO. 618; 98 S.W.2D 681. 

FN2  BOLIN ET AL. V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, W.O.W.,  - MO. APP. -; 112
S.W.2D 582. 

FN3  BOLIN ET AL. V. SOVEREIGN CAMP, W.O.W.,  - MO. APP. -; 112
S.W.2D 592. 

FN4  MODERN WOODMEN V. MIXER, 267 U.S. 544, 551; ROYAL ARCANUM V.
GREEN, 237 U.S. 531, 542. 

FN5  ACT OF MARCH 8, 1879; LAWS 1879; R.S. 1879, SECS. 972, 973. 

FN6  ACT OF MARCH 8, 1881; LAWS OF 1881, P. 87. 

FN7  ACT OF MAY 7, 1889; R.S. 1889, SECS. 2823, 2824. 

FN8 ACT OF MARCH 16, 1897; R.S. 1899, C. 12, ART. 11, SECS. 1408,
1409, 1410. 

FN9  SCHMIDT V. FORESTERS, 228 MO. 675, 686; 129 S.W. 653. 

FN10  KERN V. LEGION OF HONOR, 167 MO. 471, 479, 484; 67 S.W. 252;
SCHMIDT V. FORESTERS, SUPRA; MATHEWS V. MODERN WOODMEN, 236 MO. 326;
139 S.W. 151; BRASSFIELD V. MACCABEES, 92 MO. APP. 102; GRUWELL V.
KNIGHTS AND LADIES, 126 MO. APP. 496; 104 S.W. 884. 

FN11  IN KERN V. LEGION OF HONOR, SUPRA, THE COURT SAID, P. 485:
"THE CONTENTION THAT THE PLAINTIFF AS HUSBAND COULD NOT BE THE
BENEFICIARY UNDER THE LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS OR UNDER ITS CHARTER AND BY
LAWS, IS NOT OPEN TO DISCUSSION OR ADJUDICATION.  NO SUCH ISSUE WAS
RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS OR ASSERTED UPON THE TRIAL IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT.  ...  THE DEFENDANT CHOSE ITS GROUNDS OF DEFENSE, NONE OTHERS
ARE OPEN IN THIS COURT." 

FN12  BARBER V. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO., 269 MO. 21; 187 S.W. 867,
REVERSED HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. BARBER, 245 U.S. 146; SEE, ALSO,
JOHNSON V. HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO., 166 MO. APP. 261. 

FN13  HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. IBS, 237 U.S. 662; HARTFORD LIFE INS.
CO. V. BARBER, 245 U.S. 146; ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531;
MODERN WOODMEN V. MIXER, 267 U.S. 544. 

FN14  HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. IBS, SUPRA, P. 673. 

FN15  ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, SUPRA, PP. 540, 543, 546; HARTFORD LIFE
INS. CO. V. IBS, SUPRA, P. 669; HARTFORD LIFE INS. CO. V. BARBER,
SUPRA, P. 151; MODERN WOODMEN V. MIXER, SUPRA, P. 551. 
..END :



HELVERING V. WINMILL, 305 U.S. 79 


NO. 11.  ARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 93
F.2D 494, REVERSED. 


1.  BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS PAID OR INCURRED IN PURCHASING SECURITIES
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR BY A TAXPAYER ENGAGED IN BUYING AND SELLING
SECURITIES AS A BUSINESS, ARE NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS "COMPENSATION FOR
PERSONAL SERVICES," UNDER SEC. 23(A), REVENUE ACT OF 1932, BUT ARE
EXPENDITURES PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS CONSTITUTING
PART OF THE COST OF THE SECURITIES PURCHASED, DEDUCTION OF WHICH, IN
CASE OF LOSS FROM SALES, IS LIMITED BY SECS. 111 AND 23(R) OF THE ACT;
T.R. 77, ART. 282.  P. 81. 

2.  TREASURY REGULATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS LONG CONTINUED WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, APPLYING TO UNAMENDED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED
STATUTES, ARE DEEMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL AND HAVE
THE EFFECT OF LAW.  P. 82. 

3.  THE GENERAL PROVISION OF T.R. 77, ART. 121, THAT "AMONG THE ITEMS
INCLUDED IN BUSINESS EXPENSES ARE  ...  COMMISSIONS," IS LIMITED BY THE
SPECIAL PROVISION OF ID. ART. 282, DESIGNATING SECURITY PURCHASE
COMMISSIONS AS A "PART OF THE COST PRICE OF SUCH SECURITIES."  P. 83. 

4.  THE ADDITION OF SEC. 23(R) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 DID NOT
INDICATE A PURPOSE TO ALTER OR REPEAL THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
UNDER WHICH BROKERS' COMMISSIONS HAVE UNIFORMLY BEEN CONSTRUED AS A
PART OF THE COST OF THE SECURITIES PURCHASED, AND NOT AS CURRENT
BUSINESS EXPENSES.  P. 84. 

5.  CONGRESS HAS POWER TO LIMIT OR DENY DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME,
IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME TAXES.  P. 84. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. WINMILL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 633, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 35 B.T.A. 804, SUSTAINING AN
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, IN HIS 1932 INCOME TAX RETURN, DEDUCTED FROM HIS GROSS
INCOME BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS PAID AND INCURRED IN PURCHASING SECURITIES
DURING THAT TAXABLE YEAR.  SECTION 23(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932
ALLOWS AS DEDUCTIONS "ALL THE ORDINARY AND NECESSARY EXPENSES PAID OR
INCURRED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN CARRYING ON ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS,
INCLUDING A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR SALARIES OR OTHER COMPENSATION FOR
PERSONAL SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED; ...  "  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT
HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE "BUSINESS" OF BUYING AND SELLING SECURITIES AND
THAT THE BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS AMOUNTED TO "COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 23(A). 

THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT BROKERS' COMMISSIONS IN SECURITY
PURCHASES ARE "EXPENDITURES,  ... PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL
ACCOUNT" CONSTITUTING "A PART OF THE COST" OF SUCH PROPERTY AND SERVING
ONLY TO INCREASE RESPONDENT'S LOSS FROM SALES OF STOCK UNDER SECS. 111
AND 23(R) WHICH CONTROL ALLOWABLE LOSSES ON DISPOSAL OF STOCKS.  FN1
EXTENT OF GAINS REALIZED FROM SUCH SALES.  FN2  IF RESPONDENT WAS
ENGAGED IN THE "BUSINESS" OF BUYING AND SELLING SECURITIES, AND THE
BROKERS' COMMISSIONS WERE NOT A "PART OF THE COST" OF THE SECURITIES
PURCHASED, BUT WERE ORDINARY BUSINESS EXPENSES, AS DEFINED IN SEC.
23(A), RESPONDENT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DEDUCTING THE BROKERS' COMMISSIONS
FROM HIS GROSS INCOME FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR.  HOWEVER, IF THESE
COMMISSIONS REPRESENT A PART OF THE COST OF THE SECURITIES,
RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO DEDUCT IS LIMITED BY SEC. 23(R). 

THE COMMISSIONER REFUSED TO PERMIT THE DEDUCTIONS BEYOND THE EXTENT
OF STOCK LOSSES.  HIS ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 
FN3  THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE COMMISSIONS DEDUCTIBLE IF RESPONDENT
WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLING SECURITIES, AND
REMANDED FOR A FINDING AS TO THE NATURE OF HIS BUSINESS.  FN4 

ARTICLE 282, TREASURY REGULATION 77, ISSUED UNDER THE 1932 ACT,
PROVIDES THAT "COMMISSIONS PAID IN PURCHASING SECURITIES ARE A PART OF
THE COST PRICE OF SUCH SECURITIES."  IF THIS REGULATION GOVERNS, THE
RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

REGULATIONS PROMULGATED UNDER THE 1916 INCOME TAX LAW TREATED
COMMISSIONS IN SECURITY PURCHASES AS A PART OF THE SECURITIES' COST AND
NOT AS ORDINARY EXPENSE DEDUCTIONS N5.  THIS INTERPRETATION HAS
CONSISTENTLY REAPPEARED IN ALL REGULATIONS UNDER SUCCEEDING TAX
STATUTES.  FN6  IN THE PERIOD SINCE 1916 STATUTES HAVE FROM TIME TO
TIME ALTERED ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS, BUT IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT CONGRESS
SUBSTANTIALLY RETAINED THE ORIGINAL TAXING PROVISIONS ON WHICH THESE
REGULATIONS HAVE RESTED. 

TREASURY REGULATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS LONG CONTINUED WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, APPLYING TO UNAMENDED OR SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED
STATUTES, ARE DEEMED TO HAVE RECEIVED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL AND HAVE
THE EFFECT OF LAW.  FN7 

THERE HAS BEEN TACIT, IF NOT EXPRESS, JUDICIAL APPROVAL FOR THE
ADMINISTRATIVE TREATMENT OF COMMISSIONS AS AN ELEMENT OF THE COST OF
SECURITIES.  IN HUTTON V. COMMISSIONER, 39 F.2D 459, 460, THE COURT OF
APPEALS RECOGNIZED THAT "IT HAS BEEN A SETTLED RULE OF THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT THAT COMMISSIONS PAID IN PURCHASING SECURITIES ARE A CAPITAL
EXPENDITURE AS PART OF THE COST PRICE OF THE SECURITIES." 

IN RECOGNITION OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION, IT HAS BEEN SAID
HERE THAT "  ...  COMMISSIONS (PAID FOR MARKETING BONDS) DO NOT DIFFER
FROM BROKERAGE COMMISSIONS PAID UPON THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF PROPERTY. 
THE REGULATIONS HAVE CONSISTENTLY TREATED SUCH COMMISSIONS, NOT AS
ITEMS OF CURRENT EXPENSE, BUT AS ADDITIONS TO THE COST OF PROPERTY OR
DEDUCTIONS FROM THE PROCEEDS OF SALE, IN ARRIVING AT NET CAPITAL PROFIT
OR LOSS FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TAX."  FN8 

RESPONDENT POINTS TO AN APPARENT INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE GENERAL
PROVISION IN TREASURY REGULATION 77, ARTICLE 121, THAT "AMONG THE ITEMS
INCLUDED IN BUSINESS EXPENSES ARE  ... COMMISSIONS," AND ARTICLE 282
WHICH SPECIFICALLY AND PARTICULARLY DECLARES THAT "COMMISSIONS PAID IN
PURCHASING SECURITIES ARE A PART OF THE COST PRICE OF SUCH
SECURITIES."  SPECIAL PROVISIONS LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THOSE OF A
BROAD AND GENERAL NATURE RELATING TO THE SAME SUBJECT.  THE SPECIAL
DESIGNATION OF SECURITY PURCHASE COMMISSIONS AS A "PART OF THE COST
PRICE OF SUCH SECURITIES" CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 282 EVINCES THE CLEAR
INTENT TO WITHDRAW THAT SPECIAL TYPE OF COMMISSION FROM THE GENERAL
CLASSIFICATION OF ARTICLE 121.  FN9 

NOR CAN IT BE INFERRED THAT THE ADDITION OF SEC. 23(R) TO THE 1932
ACT INDICATED ANY CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO ALTER OR REPEAL THE LONG
EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF NON-DEDUCTIBLE CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES UNDER WHICH BROKERS' PURCHASE COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN
UNIFORMLY CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE COST OF SECURITIES AND NOT AS
CURRENT BUSINESS EXPENSES.  THIS NEW STATUTORY RESTRICTION OF THE
ALLOWANCE FOR LOSSES FROM SALES OF STOCK BEARS NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP TO
THE DEFINITION OF COST PRICE OF SECURITIES AS TO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO OVERTHROW AND ABANDON A SETTLED PRACTICE OF
DETERMINING THE ELEMENTS OF COST. 

THE BROKERS' PURCHASE COMMISSIONS HERE CONSTITUTED A PART OF THE
ACQUISITION COST OF THE SECURITIES INVOLVED, AND ARE NOT ALLOWABLE TO
THE TAXPAYER AS A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 23(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO DENY OR
LIMIT DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME,  FN10  HAS - BY SEC. 23(R) -
LIMITED THIS TAXPAYER'S ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION.  HE HAS A RIGHT TO A
DEDUCTION "ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF  ...  GAINS FROM  ...  SALES OR
EXCHANGES" OF STOCKS AND BONDS AS THEREIN PROVIDED.  THE FACT - IF IT
BE A FACT - THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND
SELLING SECURITIES DOES NOT ENTITLE HIM TO TAKE A DEDUCTION CONTRARY TO
THIS PROVISION. 

THE CAUSE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ACTION
IN HARMONY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, SEC. 111. 
DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF GAIN OR LOSS. 

"(A)  COMPUTATION OF GAIN OR LOSS.  - EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED
IN THIS SECTION, THE GAIN FROM THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY SHALL BE THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT REALIZED THEREFROM OVER THE
ADJUSTED BASIS PROVIDED IN SECTION 113(B), AND THE LOSS SHALL BE THE
EXCESS OF SUCH BASIS OVER THE AMOUNT REALIZED. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 113.  ADJUSTED BASIS FOR DETERMINING GAIN OR LOSS. 

"(B)  ADJUSTED BASIS.  - THE ADJUSTED BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE GAIN
OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, WHENEVER
ACQUIRED, SHALL BE THE BASIS DETERMINED UNDER SUBSECTION (A), ADJUSTED
AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED. 

"(1)  GENERAL RULE.  - PROPER ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY
SHALL IN ALL CASES BE MADE - 

"(A)  FOR EXPENDITURES, RECEIPTS, LOSSES, OR OTHER ITEMS, PROPERLY
CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT, INCLUDING TAXES AND OTHER CARRYING
CHARGES ON UNIMPROVED AND UNPRODUCTIVE REAL PROPERTY, BUT NO SUCH
ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR TAXES OR OTHER CARRYING CHARGES FOR WHICH
DEDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE TAXPAYER IN DETERMINING NET INCOME
FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR OR PRIOR TAXABLE YEARS; ...  " 

FN2  REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169. 

"SEC. 23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.  IN COMPUTING NET INCOME
THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(R)  LIMITATION ON STOCK LOSSES. 

"(1)  LOSSES FROM SALES OR EXCHANGES OF STOCKS AND BONDS (AS DEFINED
IN SUBSECTION (T) OF THIS SECTION) WHICH ARE NOT CAPITAL ASSETS (AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 101) SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE
GAINS FROM SUCH SALES OR EXCHANGES (INCLUDING GAINS WHICH MAY BE
DERIVED BY A TAXPAYER FROM THE RETIREMENT OF HIS OWN OBLIGATIONS)." 

FN3  35 B.T.A. 804. 

FN4  93 F.2D 494. 

FN5  SEE, ART. 8, PARAGRAPH 108, T.R. 33(REVISED 1918). 

FN6  ART. 293 OF T.R. 45(1918), 62(1921); ART. 292 OF T.R. 65(1924),
69(1926); ART. 282 OF T.R. 74(1928), 77(1932); ART. 24-2 OF T.R.
86(1934), 94(1936). 

FN7 UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA-MONTANA OIL CO., 288 U.S. 459, 466; OLD
MISSION CO. V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 289, 293, 294. 

FN8  HELVERING V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 293 U.S. 282, 286. 

FN9  SIMILARLY, IF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 282 ARE VALID
AND HAVE THE PRESENT EFFECT OF LAW, RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE
COMMISSIONS ARE UNCOMPENSATED LOSSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GENERAL
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 23(E)(1) OF THE 1932 ACT IS UNAVAILING. 

FN10  SEE, HELVERING V. INDEPENDENT LIFE INS. CO., 292 U.S. 371,
381. 
..END :















HINES V. LOWREY, 305 U.S. 85 


NO. 24.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 252
APP. DIV. 779 - 300 N.Y.S. 603, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 500 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT LIMITS TO $10 THE FEE
OF ANY ATTORNEY OR AGENT FOR SERVICES IN THE PREPARATION AND EXECUTION
OF NECESSARY PAPERS IN ANY APPLICATION TO THE BUREAU, EXCEPT WHERE A
JUDGMENT OR DECREE SHALL BE RENDERED IN AN ACTION UNDER SEC. 1, TIT. 19
OF THE ACT.  HELD, THE LIMITATION WAS BINDING UPON A STATE COURT IN
RESPECT OF AN ALLOWANCE FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH A
CLAIM ON A WAR RISK INSURANCE CONTRACT BY AN ATTORNEY ENGAGED BY THE
GUARDIAN OF AN INCOMPETENT VETERAN.  HINES V. STEIN, 298 U.S. 94,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 87. 

2.  SECTION 500 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, LIMITING THE AMOUNT
OF THE FEE PAYABLE TO ATTORNEYS FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION
WITH CLAIMS BEFORE THE BUREAU, IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS.  P. 91. 

HINES, ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, V. LOWREY, COMMITTEE OF THE
PERSON AND ESTATE OF GARMES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 555, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN ORDER
ALLOWING A FEE OF $1500 FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED THE ESTATE OF AN
INCOMPETENT VETERAN.  THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS HAD
INTERVENED IN OPPOSITION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PROHIBITS THE RECOGNITION OF ATTORNEYS OR CLAIM AGENTS IN THE
PRESENTATION OR ADJUDICATION OF VETERANS' WAR RISK INSURANCE CLAIMS;
LIMITS TO TEN DOLLARS THE PAYMENT FOR ASSISTING IN THE PREPARATION AND
EXECUTION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE VETERANS' BUREAU; PERMITS A COURT -
RENDERING A FAVORABLE JUDGMENT OR DECREE ON A VETERAN'S CLAIM - TO
ALLOW THE VETERAN'S ATTORNEY A FEE NOT TO EXCEED TEN PER CENT OF THE
AMOUNT RECOVERED; AND MAKES SOLICITING OR OBTAINING ANY FEE GREATER
THAN THE STATUTE PROVIDES A CRIME SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT OF A
$500 FINE AND TWO YEARS IMPRISONMENT. 

A COMMITTEE (GUARDIAN APPOINTED BY A NEW YORK STATE COURT) FOR AN
INSANE VETERAN RETAINED AN ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE THE RIGHTS OF THE
INCOMPETENT ON A WAR RISK INSURANCE CONTRACT.  THE NEW YORK COURT WAS
PETITIONED FOR AN ATTORNEY'S FEE OF $3,000.  UPON HEARING, IT APPEARED
THAT THE ATTORNEY HAD PERFORMED SERVICES OF AN INVESTIGATIONAL AND
PREPARATORY NATURE IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE VETERAN'S CLAIM; THAT
CONTRARY TO SEC. 500, HE HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE BUREAU AND
PERMITTED TO JOIN WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DISABLED WAR VETERANS IN
PRESENTING THE CLAIM TO THE BUREAU; AND THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, BUT WITHOUT
LITIGATION, JUDICIAL DECREE OR JUDGMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, THE
GOVERNMENT PAID THE GUARDIAN AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $10,000 ON THE
CLAIM.  THE NEW YORK COURT ALLOWED A FEE OF $1,500 FOR THE ATTORNEY'S
SERVICES, OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS,
WHO INTERVENED AND INSISTED THAT SEC. 500 PROHIBITED ANY FEE IN EXCESS
OF $10 IN THIS CASE.  FN2  WE CAN ASSUME, IN THE CONSIDERATION OF
QUESTIONS HERE PRESENTED, THAT VALUABLE SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE
ATTORNEY. 

RESPONDENT SEEKS TO SUSTAIN THE $1,500 FEE UPON THE THEORY THAT THE
GENERAL POWER OF THE NEW YORK COURT TO FIX FEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED
AN INCOMPETENT UNDER THAT COURT'S JURISDICTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
LIMITATION OF $10 FOR FEES AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 500.  HE URGES THAT THE
PRESENT CASE IS CONTROLLED BY THE DECISION IN HINES V. STEIN, 298 U.S.
94, 98.  IN THAT CASE THE COURT SAID, "NOTHING BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION
WOULD JUSTIFY THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO DEPRIVE STATE COURTS
OF THEIR USUAL AUTHORITY OVER FIDUCIARIES, OR TO SANCTION THE
PROMULGATION OF RULES TO THAT END BY EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OR BUREAUS." 
THIS LANGUAGE DID NOT REFER TO SEC. 500, WHICH WE NOW CONSIDER, BUT WAS
A CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF RULES PROMULGATED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECS. 4 AND 7 OF
AN ACT OF MARCH 20, 1933, C. 3, 48 STAT. 9, WHICH RULES WERE TRACEABLE
TO SECS. 111, 114 AND 115, TITLE 38, U.S.C.  THESE CODE SECTIONS ARE
BASED UPON AN ACT PASSED IN 1884. 

OBVIOUSLY, THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN RULES PROMULGATED IN FURTHERANCE
OF A LINE OF LEGISLATION DATING FROM 1884 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS
CONTROLLING IN DETERMINING THE INTENT AND EFFECT OF A SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT ACT (SEC. 500) DIFFERING IN FORM, SUBSTANCE AND HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND.  THE RULES AND STATUTES CONSTRUED IN HINES V. STEIN, SUPRA,
HAVE NO BEARING ON THIS CASE, WHICH MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE
APPLICATION OF SEC. 500. 

OF CLAIM AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS IN THE PROSECUTION OF VETERANS' INSURANCE
AND RELATED CLAIMS.  SHORTLY AFTER THE UNITED STATES ENTERED THE WORLD
WAR, CONGRESS PROVIDED A COMPREHENSIVE STATUTORY PLAN OF WAR RISK
INSURANCE FOR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.  FN3  SECTION 13 OF THAT STATUTE
CONTAINED THIS PROVISION: "THE DIRECTOR SHALL ADOPT REASONABLE AND
PROPER RULES  ...  , TO REGULATE THE MATTER OF THE COMPENSATION, IF
ANY, BUT IN NO CASE TO EXCEED TEN PER CENTUM, TO BE PAID TO CLAIM
AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH" COLLECTION OF
SOLDIERS' AND SAILORS' BENEFITS. 

MAY 20, 1918, CONGRESS AMENDED SEC. 13 OF THE 1917 ACT.  FN4  THE
HOUSE REPORT SHOWS THAT THIS AMENDMENT WAS STRONGLY URGED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, THEN ADMINISTERING THE WORLD WAR VETERANS'
ACT.  FN5  THE 1918 AMENDMENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS SEC. 500,
AND IN A CASE INVOLVING THE MEANING OF THAT AMENDMENT THIS COURT SAID,
"PETITIONER CLAIMS THAT THE INHIBITION AGAINST RECEIVING ANY SUM
GREATER THAN THREE DOLLARS (TEN DOLLARS UNDER SEC. 500) RELATES SOLELY
TO THE CLERICAL WORK OF FILLING OUT THE FORM OR AFFIDAVIT OF CLAIM, AND
DOES NOT APPLY TO USEFUL INVESTIGATION AND PREPARATORY WORK SUCH AS HE
DID.  ... 

"WE FIND NO REASON WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY DISREGARD OF THE PLAIN
LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION UNDER CONSIDERATION.  IT DECLARES THAT ANY
PERSON WHO RECEIVES A FEE OR COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF A CLAIM UNDER
THE ACT EXCEPT AS THEREIN PROVIDED SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR.  THE ONLY COMPENSATION WHICH IT PERMITS A CLAIM AGENT OR
ATTORNEY TO RECEIVE WHERE NO LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED IS
THREE DOLLARS FOR ASSISTANCE IN PREPARATION AND EXECUTION OF NECESSARY
PAPERS.  AND THE HISTORY OF THE ENACTMENT INDICATES PLAINLY ENOUGH THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT FAIL TO CHOOSE APT LANGUAGE TO EXPRESS ITS PURPOSE." 
FN6 

IN 1926, CONGRESS ENACTED ADDITIONAL LEGISLATION FOR THE SPECIFIC
PROTECTION OF INCOMPETENT VETERANS FROM ILLEGAL OR EXCESSIVE FEES WHERE
GUARDIANS HAD BEEN APPOINTED BY ANY COURT - STATE OR FEDERAL.  FN7
CONGRESS DECLARED THAT "WHENEVER IT APPEARS THAT ANY GUARDIAN, CURATOR,
CONSERVATOR OR OTHER PERSON, IN THE OPINION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, IS
NOT PROPERLY EXECUTING OR HAS NOT PROPERLY EXECUTED THE DUTIES OF HIS
TRUST OR HAS COLLECTED OR PAID, OR IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT OR PAY,
FEES, COMMISSIONS OR ALLOWANCES THAT ARE INEQUITABLE OR IN EXCESS OF
THOSE ALLOWED BY LAW FOR THE DUTIES PERFORMED  ...  , THEN AND IN THAT
EVENT THE ADMINISTRATOR IS HEREBY EMPOWERED BY HIS DULY AUTHORIZED
ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN THE COURT WHICH HAS APPOINTED SUCH FIDUCIARY,
...  AND MAKE PROPER PRESENTATION OF SUCH MATTERS.  ...  "  FN8 

THE HISTORY OF SEC. 500 MANIFESTS BEYOND DOUBT THE CLEAR
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF FEES FOR
PROSECUTION OF VETERANS' CLAIMS IN EXCESS OF THOSE FIXED BY STATUTE. 
COLLECTION OF A GREATER FEE THAN THAT FIXED IN THE STATUTE IS MADE A
CRIME, AND THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED A CONVICTION UNDER THE STATUTE. 
FN9  CONTRACTS FOR THE COLLECTION OF FEES IN EXCESS OF VALID STATUTORY
LIMITATIONS AND FOR SERVICES VALIDLY PROHIBITED BY STATUTE CANNOT
STAND, WHETHER MADE WITH A COMPETENT VETERAN OR THE GUARDIAN OF AN
INCOMPETENT VETERAN.  NOR CAN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER AN
INCOMPETENT AWARD A FEE IN VIOLATION OF A VALID STATUTE.  CONGRESS
CLEARLY INTENDED TO PROTECT ALL VETERANS, COMPETENT AND INCOMPETENT, IN
ALL COURTS, STATE AND FEDERAL, AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OR PAYMENT OF
FEES IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT FIXED BY STATUTE.  IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS
POLICY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS WAS CHARGED WITH THE
EXPRESS DUTY OF APPEARING IN ALL COURTS WHERE IT APPEARS THAT "ANY
GUARDIAN  ...  OR OTHER PERSON ...  IS ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT FEES  ...
IN EXCESS OF THOSE ALLOWED BY LAW."  THE PROGRESSIVE STRENGTHENING OF
THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATIVE POLICY PRECLUDES ANY PROBABILITY THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXEMPT MENTAL INCOMPETENTS FROM ITS PROTECTION,
AND CONGRESS ALONE IS VESTED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DETERMINE THE
WISDOM OF THIS POLICY. 

CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS IN PURSUANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY ARE
THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.  SECTION 500 IS A VALID EXERCISE OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  FN10  "THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE LAWS IN
THE SEVERAL STATES, AND JUST AS MUCH BINDING ON THE CITIZENS AND COURTS
THEREOF AS THE STATE LAWS ARE."  FN11 

NO COURT HAS RENDERED A JUDGMENT OR DECREE IN FAVOR OF THE
INCOMPETENT VETERAN AND AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, IN WHICH THE COURT AS A
PART OF ITS DECREE DETERMINED AND ALLOWED A REASONABLE FEE FOR THE
ATTORNEY OF THE VETERAN.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A JUDGMENT AND DECREE
AN ATTORNEY'S FEE OF MORE THAN $10 IS CONTRARY TO THE CONTROLLING
CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW BEING FOR MORE THAN THIS
AMOUNT IS UNAUTHORIZED AND THE CAUSE IS REVERSED. 

FN1  "AMOUNT PERMITTED TO BE PAID AGENTS OR ATTORNEYS; SOLICITATION,
ETC., OF UNAUTHORIZED FEES OR COMPENSATION; PUNISHMENT.  EXCEPT IN THE
EVENT OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 19, TITLE I OF THIS ACT, NO
CLAIM AGENT OR ATTORNEY EXCEPT THE RECOGNIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
AMERICAN RED CROSS, THE AMERICAN LEGION, THE DISABLED AMERICAN
VETERANS, AND VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, AND SUCH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR SHALL BE RECOGNIZED IN THE
PRESENTATION OR ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS UNDER PARTS II, III, AND IV, OF
THIS ACT, AND PAYMENT TO ANY ATTORNEY OR AGENT FOR SUCH ASSISTANCE AS
MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE PREPARATION AND EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY
PAPERS IN ANY APPLICATION TO THE BUREAU SHALL NOT EXCEED $10 IN ANY ONE
CASE:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT WHEREVER A JUDGMENT OR DECREE SHALL BE
RENDERED IN AN ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 19 OF TITLE I OF THIS
ACT, THE COURT, AS A PART OF ITS JUDGMENT OR DECREE, SHALL DETERMINE
AND ALLOW REASONABLE FEES FOR THE ATTORNEYS OF THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY OR
PARTIES AND APPORTION SAME IF PROPER, SAID FEES NOT TO EXCEED 10 PER
CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT RECOVERED, AND TO BE PAID BY THE BUREAU OUT OF THE
PAYMENTS TO BE MADE UNDER THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE AT A RATE NOT
EXCEEDING ONE-TENTH OF EACH OF SUCH PAYMENTS UNTIL PAID.  ANY PERSON
WHO SHALL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, SOLICIT, CONTRACT FOR, CHARGE, OR
RECEIVE, OR WHO SHALL ATTEMPT TO SOLICIT, CONTRACT FOR, CHARGE, OR
RECEIVE ANY FEE OR COMPENSATION, EXCEPT AS HEREIN PROVIDED, SHALL BE
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND FOR EACH AND EVERY OFFENSE SHALL BE
PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500 OR BY IMPRISONMENT AT HARD
LABOR FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS, OR BY BOTH SUCH FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT."  43 STAT. 628, AS AMENDED 43 STAT. 1311, C. 10, 38
U.S.C. 551. 

FN2  THE ADMINISTRATOR APPEALED AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMED. 
252 APP. DIV. 779; 300 N.Y.S. 603.  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
DENIED THE ADMINISTRATOR'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL.  13 N.E.2D 478. 
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

FN3  C. 105, 40 STAT. 398(OCTOBER, 1917). 

FN4  C. 77, 40 STAT. 555. 

FN5  HOUSE REPORT NO. 471 FROM THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE, 65TH CONG., 2ND SESSION.  A PART OF THE LETTER OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY CONTAINED IN THE REPORT WAS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE
EVILS OF THE SITUATION ARE PRESSING.  UNSCRUPULOUS ATTORNEYS AND CLAIM
AGENTS ARE CIRCULARIZING PROSPECTIVE CLAIMANTS  ...  THE HEARTLESSNESS
AND RAPACITY OF THESE PERSONS KNOWS NO BOUNDS.  IN SOME INSTANCES THEIR
BREAK-NECK RUSH FOR EMPLOYMENT HAS LED THEM TO THE LENGTH OF CRUCIFYING
THE WIVES AND MOTHERS OF THOSE IN THE SERVICE BY FALSE ANNOUNCEMENTS
THAT THEIR HUSBANDS OR SONS HAVE ALREADY FALLEN, AND IN ALMOST ALL
CASES THEY ARE SEEKING TO MULCT THE UNWARY OUT OF HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS
FOR SERVICES THAT ARE EITHER ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY OR WOULD BE AMPLY
REMUNERATED BY A NOMINAL FEE."  THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE
HOUSE BY THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE BILL WERE OF THE SAME TENOR. 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 56, PART 5, 5220-5226. 

FN6  MARGOLIN V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 93, 101, 102. 

FN7  C. 723, 44 STAT. 792; C. 10, 38 U.S.C. 450. 

FN8  IN 1935, CONGRESS ADDED THE PROVISO THAT "  ...  THE
ADMINISTRATOR IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED TO APPEAR OR INTERVENE
BY HIS DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY IN ANY COURT AS AN INTERESTED PARTY IN
ANY LITIGATION INSTITUTED BY HIMSELF OR OTHERWISE, DIRECTLY AFFECTING
MONEY PAID TO SUCH FIDUCIARY (GUARDIAN) UNDER THIS SECTION."  C. 510,
49 STAT. 607, 608. 

FN9  MARGOLIN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

FN10  MARGOLIN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; CALHOUN V. MASSIE, 253 U.S.
170. 

FN11  CLAFLIN V. HOUSEMAN, 93 U.S. 130, 136. 
..END :













WAIALUA CO. V. CHRISTIAN, 305 U.S. 91 


NO. 15.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 14, 1938.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 7, 1938.  - 93
F.2D 603 - 94 ID. 806, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RULE THAT A FEDERAL COURT WILL PAY DEFERENCE TO DECISIONS OF
TERRITORIAL COURTS ON MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN IS APPLICABLE TO
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII.  P. 107. 

2.  THIS RULE APPLIES WHERE THE QUESTIONS DECIDED CONCERN THE
INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS OF INCOMPETENT PERSONS, AND
THE RIGHTS OF A GRANTEE IN RESPECT OF IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND AFTER
THE INCOMPETENT'S DEED HAS BEEN CANCELED.  P. 108. 

3.  ALTHOUGH THE 34TH SECTION OF THE JUDICIARY ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE
TO THE TERRITORIES, THE REASONS SUPPORTING THE POLICY OF HAVING THE
STATE COURTS DECLARE THE STATE LAW LIKEWISE SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE
TERRITORIAL COURTS SHOULD BE FREE TO DECLARE THE LAW OF THE
TERRITORIES.  P. 109. 

4.  THE POWER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UPON REVIEW TO REVERSE
RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII ON THE LAW OR THE FACTS SHOULD
BE EXERCISED ONLY IN CASES OF MANIFEST ERROR.  P. 109. 

5.  DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII WHICH ARE IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND APPLICABLE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
ARE NOT MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS IN THEIR STATEMENT OR APPLICATION OF
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES, ARE TO BE ACCEPTED AS STATING THE LAW OF THE
TERRITORY.  P. 109. 

6.  IN A SUIT IN EQUITY INVOLVING QUESTIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY AND
CONSTRUCTION OF PARTICULAR CONTRACTS OF AN INCOMPETENT PERSON - VIZ., A
DEED, A LEASE, AND A CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE,  - AND A QUESTION AS TO
RIGHTS IN IMPROVEMENTS MADE UPON THE LAND BY A GRANTEE UNDER A DEED
SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELED, THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII RULED THAT THE
CONTRACTS OF AN INCOMPETENT PERSON MADE PRIOR TO AN ADJUDICATION OF
INCOMPETENCY ARE VOIDABLE, AND THAT IN DETERMINING WHETHER RELIEF
SHOULD BE GRANTED THE EQUITIES ON BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE WEIGHED.  THE
COURT CONCLUDED UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE (A) THAT THE DEED SHOULD BE
CANCELED, BUT THAT THE LEASE AND THE CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED; (B) THAT THE CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS
ASSIGNING RENTS AND PROFITS ACCRUING TO THE INCOMPETENT NOT ONLY DURING
THE TERM OF AN EXISTING LEASE, BUT THEREAFTER AS WELL; (C) THAT AN
ASSIGNEE OF THE RENTS AND PROFITS HAD MADE A VALID TRANSFER OF THEM BY
DEED; AND (D) THAT, IN RESPECT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND, THESE
SHOULD BE RESERVED TO THE GRANTEE AND RIGHTS OF USE AS BETWEEN THE
GRANTOR AND GRANTEE ADJUSTED AS PROVIDED IN THE DECREE. 

HELD, THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII'S DECISIONS OF THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVED WERE NOT MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
DISTURBED ON REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  PP. 109-111. 

WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO. V. CHRISTIAN ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 17, CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., ALSO ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CROSS WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 304 U.S. 553, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A
DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE GUARDIAN
OF AN INCOMPETENT PERSON TO SET ASIDE CERTAIN CONTRACTS AND TO RECOVER
THE RENTAL VALUE OF CERTAIN LANDS OF THE INCOMPETENT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES CONCERN THE VALIDITY OF A LEASE, A CONTRACT FOR
MAINTENANCE, AND A DEED CONVEYING OR ASSIGNING RIGHTS OF ELIZA R. P.
CHRISTIAN, AN INCOMPETENT, TO A ONE-THIRD UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN LAND ON
THE ISLAND OF OAHU, TERRITORY OF HAWAII. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII IN TWO OPINIONS ON
SEPARATE APPEALS SET ASIDE THE DEED AND REFUSED TO SET ASIDE THE
CONTRACT OR LEASE.  A DECREE WAS ENTERED DIRECTING THE RECONVEYANCE TO
THE INCOMPETENT OF HER PREVIOUSLY CONVEYED INTEREST IN THE TRACT WITH
ADJUSTMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS.  FN1  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT REFUSED TO REVIEW THE FIRST DECREE ON THE GROUND THAT
NO FINAL ORDER HAD BEEN ENTERED.  FN2  APPEALS WERE TAKEN FROM THE
SECOND DECREE BY THE INCOMPETENT AND, AFTER SEVERANCE, BY THE WAIALUA
AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, LIMITED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED
THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THAT COURT WITH
DIRECTIONS TO REMAND TO THE TRIAL COURT, WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO GRANT
RELIEF AGAINST THE DEED UPON RESTITUTION OF THE CONSIDERATION AND TO
TAKE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT TO THE ISSUES CONCERNING THE
VALIDITY OF THE LEASE AND CONTRACT.  FN3  THE PETITION FOR REHEARING
WAS DENIED.  94 F.2D 806.  CERTIORARI AND CROSS-CERTIORARI WERE SOUGHT
BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND GRANTED BY THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED BECAUSE OF THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS IN REVERSING CONCLUSIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII AS TO
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF LAW.  FN4 

THE INCOMPETENT, MRS. CHRISTIAN, WAS BORN AT MAKAHA IN THE HAWAIIAN
ISLANDS ON DECEMBER 30, 1885.  SHE WAS BROUGHT TO HONOLULU BY HER
FATHER IN THE EARLY 1890'S.  BY 1901 THEY HAD GONE TO LIVE WITH MRS.
ANNIE HOLT KENTWELL, A COUSIN AND ONE OF THE NINE CHILDREN OF OWEN J.
HOLT.  EXCEPT FOR SHORT PERIODS WHEN THE INCOMPETENT WAS IN BOARDING
SCHOOL, THEY LIVED WITH HER CONTINUOUSLY THEREAFTER.  THE INCOMPETENT'S
GRANDFATHER, R. W. HOLT, HAD DIED IN 1862, LEAVING A WILL WHICH DEVISED
AN EQUAL UNDIVIDED PORTION OF THE REAL ESTATE INVOLVED IN THESE CASES
TO EACH OF HIS THREE SONS FOR LIFE AND THEN TO THE HEIRS OF EACH IN FEE
SIMPLE.  ONE OF THESE SONS WAS JOHN DOMINIS HOLT, THE FATHER OF THE
INCOMPETENT.  THE FATHER WAS LIVING AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE
DOCUMENTS HERE QUESTIONED, DYING IN 1922. 

THAT PORTION OF THE GRANDFATHER'S ESTATE INVOLVED IN THESE CASES
CONSISTED OF APPROXIMATELY FOURTEEN THOUSAND ACRES OF LAND.  AT THE
TIME OF THE FIRST TRANSACTIONS HERE CONSIDERED, ONE OF THE SONS, OWEN
J. HOLT, HAD DIED LEAVING NINE CHILDREN, EACH ENTITLED TO A ONE-TWENTY
SEVENTH INTEREST IN FEE SIMPLE IN THE TRACTS.  A SECOND SON, JAMES R.
HOLT, WAS LIVING BUT HAD CONVEYED HIS LIFE ESTATE TO HIS SON, JAMES
LAWRENCE HOLT.  THIS SON HAD ALSO PURCHASED THE CONTINGENT REMAINDER OF
HIS BROTHER, ROBERT HOLT, AND THE LIFE ESTATE OF THE INCOMPETENT'S
FATHER, JOHN DOMINIS HOLT.  SUBJECT TO WHATEVER RISK THERE WAS THAT HIS
FATHER, JAMES R. HOLT, BORN IN 1838, WOULD HAVE OTHER CHILDREN AFTER
1905, JAMES LAWRENCE HOLT WAS, IN THE YEAR LAST MENTIONED, THE OWNER OF
A ONE-THIRD INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, PLUS THE LIFE ESTATE OF HIS
UNCLE, JOHN DOMINIS HOLT, IN ANOTHER THIRD.  JAMES LAWRENCE HOLT HAD
TRANSFERRED ALL THESE INTERESTS TO JOHN F. COLBURN AS TRUSTEE.  THE
PROPERTY IN 1905 WAS "WHOLLY UNCULTIVATED AND COVERED WITH NOXIOUS
WEEDS, INCLUDING SUCH WELL-KNOWN PESTS AS LANTANA AND KLU.  THE TAXES
AT THAT TIME WERE FOUR YEARS IN ARREARS." 

ON MARCH 17, 1905, THE ADMINISTRATOR DE BONIS NON WITH-THE-WILL
ANNEXED OF R. W. HOLT, SEVERAL OF THE HEIRS OF HIS SON, OWEN J. HOLT,
AND THE HAWAIIAN REALTY AND MATURITY COMPANY, LIMITED, EXECUTED A LEASE
TO THE WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, LIMITED, FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AT
AN ANNUAL RENTAL OF $9,000.  THE ADMINISTRATOR WAS TREATED IN THIS
LEASE AS HAVING TITLE TO TWO-THIRDS OF THE WHOLE.  THE OWNERS OF THE
CONTINGENT REMAINDERS, ONE OF WHOM WAS THE INCOMPETENT, JOINED WITH THE
LESSORS IN COVENANTING THAT THE LESSEE WHILE PAYING SAID RENT "SHALL
PEACEABLY AND QUIETLY HOLD AND ENJOY THE USE AND POSSESSION OF SAID
DEMISED PREMISES  ...  " 

ON THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 1906, THE INCOMPETENT ENTERED INTO A
CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE WITH HER COUSIN, ANNIE HOLT KENTWELL.  THIS
INSTRUMENT EVIDENCED AN ASSIGNMENT OF HER TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO
ANY AND ALL RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS DUE OR PAYABLE UNDER THE ABOVE
LEASE OR "BY VIRTUE OF BEING THE ONLY CHILD OF JOHN DOMINIS HOLT, THE
ELDER, AND DEVISEE UNDER THE WILL OF R. W. HOLT, DECEASED, TOGETHER
WITH ALL AND EVERY HER RIGHT TO DEMAND, RECEIVE, COLLECT AND RECEIPT
FOR ALL SUCH RENTS, ISSUES, AND PROFITS FROM WHOMSOEVER DUE DURING THE
TERM OF" HER NATURAL LIFE.  THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE CONTRACT WAS THE
ASSUMPTION BY MRS. KENTWELL OF THE SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE
INCOMPETENT.  THE INSTRUMENT APPEARS IN A FOOTNOTE.  FN5 

A DEED WAS EXECUTED ON MAY 2, 1910, IN WHICH THE INCOMPETENT AND HER
HUSBAND, ALBERT CHRISTIAN, HER FATHER, JOHN D. HOLT, AND ANNIE HOLT
KENTWELL, AND HER HUSBAND, WERE PARTIES GRANTOR AND JAMES LAWRENCE HOLT
WAS GRANTEE.  THIS DEED IN CONSIDERATION OF $35,000 CONVEYED "ONE
UNDIVIDED THIRD PART OF INTEREST" SUBJECT TO THE GRANTEE'S INTEREST AND
TO THE LEASE OF 1905.  THE DEED EVIDENCED THE INTENTION "TO CONVEY ALL
THE INTEREST OF THE SAID GRANTORS, WHETHER PRESENT, PROSPECTIVE OR IN
REMAINDER, VESTED OR CONTINGENT, OF EVERY NAME AND DESCRIPTION IN AND
TO SAID LANDS OR WHICH THEY OR EITHER OF THEM MAY HEREAFTER ACQUIRE IN
AND TO THE SAID LANDS."  THE DEED FURTHER DECLARED THAT THE GRANTORS
ASSIGNED AND SET OVER TO THE GRANTEE "ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS WHICH THEY
MAY HAVE ARISING OUT OF EITHER SAID INSTRUMENTS (I. E., THE ONES
DEALING WITH JAMES LAWRENCE HOLT'S INTERESTS AND THE LEASE) OR IN ANY
OTHER WAY AGAINST THE SAID JAMES LAWRENCE HOLT, THE SAID WAIALUA
AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, LIMITED, OR THE SAID JOHN F. COLBURN, SAID
TRUSTEE," WITH EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE.  THE GRANTORS FURTHER
AGREED TO WARRANT THE PROPERTY CONVEYED AGAINST THE CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
OF ALL PERSONS. 

THE GRANTEE, JAMES LAWRENCE HOLT, AND HIS TRUSTEE, JOHN F. COLBURN,
CONVEYED THE INTEREST AND RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY THIS DEED TOGETHER WITH
THE OTHER ONE-THIRD UNDIVIDED INTEREST THEN BELONGING TO JAMES LAWRENCE
HOLT TO OTHER GRANTEES.  BY SUCCESSIVE CONVEYANCES THE INCOMPETENT'S
PROPERTY, COVERED BY THE DEED OF 1910, CAME INTO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, LIMITED, A DEFENDANT IN THE TRIAL COURT. 

BEGINNING AT ABOUT THE TIME WHEN THE TRACT CAME INTO THE POSSESSION
OF WAIALUA UNDER THE LEASE, WAIALUA ACQUIRED, THROUGH VARIOUS
CONVEYANCES, FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS OF SEVEN OF THE NINE CHILDREN OF OWEN
J. HOLT.  WHEN THIS ACTION BEGAN IN 1928, WAIALUA HELD IN FEE SIMPLE BY
COLOR OF TITLE TWENTY-FIVE TWENTY-SEVENTHS OF THE PROPERTY.  UNDER THE
LEASE OF 1905 IT BEGAN TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY.  THE LEASE PROVIDED
THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD REVERT TO THE LESSORS.  AFTER THE
CONVEYANCES IN 1910 OF THE LIFE AND REMAINDER INTERESTS, COVERING TWO
THIRDS OF THE FEE, WAIALUA MADE FURTHER IMPORTANT INSTALLATIONS. 
BESIDES THE FOURTEEN THOUSAND ACRES OF THE HOLT LANDS, THE WAIALUA
PLANTATION INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND ACRES.  THE
PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED AND OPERATED AS A UNIT,  - 9,904 ACRES IN
SUGAR CANE, 11,625 ACRES IN PINEAPPLE, THE BALANCE UNCULTIVATED OR USED
FOR SERVICING THE CROP LANDS.  THE RECORD SHOWS A TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF
$630,722.12 FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE HOLT LANDS BETWEEN APRIL 1, 1905,
AND APRIL 5, 1928, WHEN WAIALUA WAS NOTIFIED THE DEED WAS QUESTIONED. 
IN ADDITION, RESERVOIRS, DITCHES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, OFF THE HOLT
LANDS BUT NECESSARY FOR THEIR USE, HAVE COST WAIALUA $514,594.94.  NO
DESCRIPTION IS NECESSARY OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS
CONSIST OF RESERVOIRS AND DITCHES, ROADS, PUMPS, COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS,
CAMPS, OVERSEERS' HOUSES, AND THE OTHER USUAL FIXTURES AND
APPURTENANCES NECESSARY FOR THE OPERATION OF A LARGE IRRIGATED
PLANTATION. 

AFTER THE LEASE HAD BEEN IN OPERATION FOR A FEW YEARS, IT WAS FOUND
THAT SOME 6,500 ACRES OF THE HOLT LANDS WERE SUITABLE FOR THE GROWING
OF PINEAPPLES.  AFTER TRYING MULTIPLE SUBTENANCY, AN AGREEMENT WAS MADE
IN 1922 WITH THE HAWAIIAN PINEAPPLE COMPANY GIVING IT AN OPTION TO
LEASE ALL THE WAIALUA PINEAPPLE LANDS AT $15 PER ACRE.  UNDER THE
OPTION WAIALUA INVESTED OVER THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN THE PINEAPPLE
COMPANY STOCK AND THE PINEAPPLE COMPANY LEASED 6,475 ACRES OF THE HOLT
LANDS FOR SEVENTEEN AND ONE-HALF YEARS FROM JANUARY 1, 1923, TO JUNE
30, 1940, WITH OPTIONAL EXTENSION, AT A PAID-UP RENTAL, REACHED BY A 5%
DISCOUNT, OF ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS. 

THE MECHANIZED SCIENTIFIC FARMING OF THE SUGAR CANE AND PINEAPPLE
LANDS WAS PROFITABLE.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT $14 PER ACRE WAS A
REASONABLE GROUND RENT FOR THE HOLT LAND USED FOR SUGAR PRODUCTION AND
THAT $15 PER ACRE WAS A REASONABLE GROUND RENT FOR THE PINEAPPLE LANDS
AFTER THE LEASE TO THE HAWAIIAN PINEAPPLE COMPANY OF JANUARY 1, 1923. 
A LESS SUM PER ACRE WAS FOUND AS A REASONABLE GROUND RENT FOR THE
PINEAPPLE LANDS PRIOR TO THAT TIME. 

IN 1926 THE WARD WAS FOR THE FIRST TIME DECLARED INCOMPETENT, AND
ANNIE HOLT KENTWELL WAS APPOINTED HER GUARDIAN IN ENGLAND.  IN 1927
MRS. KENTWELL'S BROTHER, GEORGE H. HOLT, BECAME GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE
OF THE WARD IN HONOLULU.  THE PRESENT GUARDIAN, HERMAN V. VONHOLT,
SUCCEEDED HIM PENDENTE LITE.  ON MAY 9, 1928, A PETITION WAS FILED
AGAINST WAIALUA AND JAMES LAWRENCE HOLT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TERRITORY BY THE GUARDIAN ALLEGING THE INCOMPETENCY OF THE WARD ON THE
DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED; AND THAT THE PURPORTED CONSIDERATION
WAS INADEQUATE AND WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE WARD.  NO COMPLAINT WAS
MADE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE OR THE CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE.  IT
WAS ALLEGED THAT WAIALUA INDUCED JAMES LAWRENCE HOLT, THE GRANTEE IN
THE DEED, TO SECURE THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH HOLT'S
CONNECTION WITH ANNIE HOLT KENTWELL, THE DOMINATING INFLUENCE OVER THE
INCOMPETENT.  THE GUARDIAN PRAYED FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE DEED AND
AN ACCOUNTING FOR THE RENTAL VALUE OF THE UNDIVIDED ONE-THIRD INTEREST
FROM APRIL 10, 1922, THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF THE WARD'S FATHER.  JAMES
LAWRENCE HOLT APPEARED AND ADMITTED THE FACTS RELATING TO HIS PART IN
THE TRANSACTION. 

THE TRIAL COURT ON ADEQUATE EVIDENCE FOUND THAT ELIZA CHRISTIAN WAS
INCOMPETENT AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF 1910; THAT HER
INCOMPETENCE HAD NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY A PROPER PROTECTIVE
PROCEEDING, WAS NOT "CLEARLY SELF-EVIDENT TO AN ENTIRE STRANGER" BUT
"WAS KNOWN TO JAMES L. HOLT, TO HER FATHER, JOHN DOMINIS HOLT, TO THE
KENTWELLS AND TO OTHERS WHO WERE FAMILIAR WITH HER DEPENDENCY UPON THE
KENTWELLS."  THE COURT FOUND THE PRICE INADEQUATE AND THAT IT WAS NOT
CLEARLY SHOWN THAT WAIALUA COMPANY HAD ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE
INCOMPETENCY OF ELIZA.  THE DECREE SET ASIDE THE DEED AND ENTERED AN
AWARD FOR $540,906.07 IN RENTALS, AFTER DEDUCTING THE PURCHASE PRICE OF
$30,000 AND INTEREST. 

ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII SUSTAINED THE DETERMINATION OF
THE TRIAL COURT AS TO THE CAPACITY OF THE INCOMPETENT AT THE DATE OF
THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED, FINDING THAT "SHE WAS A CONGENITAL
IMBECILE."  IT ASSUMED THAT THE WAIALUA COMPANY "HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF
ELIZA CHRISTIAN'S INCOMPETENCY."  IT HELD THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS
ADEQUATE; THAT THERE WAS NO LACHES; AND THAT LIMITATION DID NOT BAR THE
PROCEEDING.  IT AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN SETTING ASIDE
THE DEED OF MAY 2, 1910, UPON A REPAYMENT TO WAIALUA BY THE INCOMPETENT
OF THE PURCHASE PRICE, WITH INTEREST FROM MAY 2, 1910, ON A BALANCE OF
EQUITIES, A CONSIDERATION OF THE ADVANTAGES TO THE INCOMPETENT AND A
SUGGESTION THAT THE CONSIDERATION DID NOT REACH THE GRANTOR.  THE
DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT AS TO THE RECOVERY OF THE RENTALS WAS
REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT WAIALUA HAD SUCCEEDED TO ANNIE KENTWELL'S
RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT OF 1906 TO RECEIVE AND KEEP THE INCOMPETENT'S
RENTALS DURING THE TERM OF THE LEASE.  RENTALS BEYOND THE TERMINATION
OF THE LEASE WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE FIRST APPEAL.  THE CASE WAS
THEREFORE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE
LEASE OF 1905 AND THE CONTRACT OF 1906. 

ON THE REMAND THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT ELIZA WAS INCOMPETENT AT THE
TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT, THAT MRS. KENTWELL KNEW OF THE
INCOMPETENCY AND THAT WAIALUA WAS NOT AN INNOCENT PURCHASER FROM MRS.
KENTWELL, SINCE IT KNEW OF A SECRET PROFIT, RECEIVED BY JAMES LAWRENCE
HOLT AND JOHN F. COLBURN IN CONNECTION WITH THE VARIOUS CONVEYANCES BY
WHICH MRS. KENTWELL'S INTERESTS PASSED TO WAIALUA, "WHILE THESE TWO, AT
THE SAME TIME, KNEW OF THE MENTAL CONDITION OF ELIZA CHRISTIAN."  IN
CONSIDERING THE LEASE OF MARCH 17, 1905, THE COURT FOUND THAT ELIZA WAS
INCOMPETENT WHEN SHE GAVE HER ASSENT; BUT THAT WHILE THE "WAIALUA
COMPANY,  ...  IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THIS
INCOMPETENCY," A BALANCE OF EQUITIES REQUIRED A CONCLUSION AGAINST THE
VALIDITY OF THE LEASE.  THE DECREE AGAIN SET ASIDE THE DEED OF MAY 2,
1910; AWARDED RENTALS IN THE TOTAL SUM OF $606,785.75; ANNULLED THE
LEASE OF MARCH 17, 1905, IN SO FAR AS IT AFFECTED THE INCOMPETENT;
ANNULLED THE CONTRACT FOR SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE OF AUGUST 31, 1906,
AND GAVE TO WAIALUA THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE IN THE EXCLUSIVE USE AND
OCCUPATION OF RESERVOIRS, PUMPING STATIONS, IRRIGATION DITCHES AND
OTHER IMPROVEMENTS UNTIL PARTITION OR OTHER ARRANGEMENTS WERE AGREED
UPON.  APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THIS DECREE. 

IN ITS SECOND HEARING, THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII MAINTAINED ITS
FINDING AS TO THE INCOMPETENCY OF ELIZA AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF
THE DEED OF MAY 2, 1910.  IT ASSUMED THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT
IN FINDING ELIZA INCOMPETENT AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE
OF 1905 AND THE CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF 1906, AND ACCEPTED THE
FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT WAIALUA WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE ANY
KNOWLEDGE OF ELIZA'S INCOMPETENCY AT THE TIME IT TOOK THE LEASE OF
1905.  IT DETERMINED THAT THE DEED OF MAY 2, 1910, PASSED THE CONTRACT
RIGHTS ASSIGNED TO ANNIE BY ELIZA AND THAT WAIALUA SUCCEEDED TO THESE
RIGHTS AS AN INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE.  IT FURTHER HELD THAT THE
INCOMPETENT RECEIVED AN ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION FOR THE LEASE OF 1905. 
IN EFFECT IT HELD THAT THE ASSIGNMENT OF 1906 WAS ALSO FOR AN ADEQUATE
CONSIDERATION ALREADY LARGELY RECEIVED.  THE CONTRACT "WAS BENEFICIAL
TO ELIZA."  "ELIZA HAD NO INCOME OR OTHER MEANS OF SUPPORT."  "IN
ENTERING INTO THIS CONTRACT (1906) NEITHER OF THE PARTIES KNEW OR COULD
KNOW HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME WOULD ELAPSE BEFORE ELIZA WOULD BECOME
ENTITLED TO A SHARE OF THE RENTS UNDER THE LEASE  ... "  FN6 

IN THE FINAL DECREE THE DEED OF MAY 2, 1910, WAS SET ASIDE; THE LEASE
OF 1905 AND THE CONTRACT OF 1906 WERE SUSTAINED; THE INCOMPETENT WAS
REQUIRED TO PAY OR SECURE THE PAYMENT TO WAIALUA OF THE PURCHASE PRICE;
WAIALUA WAS REQUIRED TO CONVEY TO THE INCOMPETENT THE ONE-THIRD
INTEREST IN FEE SIMPLE WHICH PASSED BY THE DEED, WITH RESERVATIONS BY
WAIALUA OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OCCUPIED BY ITS IMPROVEMENTS AND CERTAIN
LANDS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR DITCHES, PIPES, SERVICE, AND ROADS
NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN AND DISTRIBUTE WATER AND OPERATE THE PLANTATION,
AND WITH PROVISIONS TO INSURE TO THE INCOMPETENT RIGHTS OF WAY FOR THE
OPERATION OF HER PROPERTIES, IF AND WHEN THE SAME WERE PARTITIONED AND
SET OFF. 

WE MIGHT SUMMARIZE THE FACTUAL SITUATION ARISING FROM THE TWO TRIALS
IN THE LOWER COURT AND THE TWO REVIEWS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII
AS FOLLOWS:  ELIZA CHRISTIAN WAS FOUND OR ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN
INCOMPETENT AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE OF 1905, THE
CONTRACT OF 1906 AND THE DEED OF 1910.  WAIALUA WAS NOT FOUND TO HAVE
KNOWN OF THIS INCOMPETENCY AT THE TIME IT RECEIVED ANY RIGHTS FLOWING
FROM ANY OF THE INSTRUMENTS.  IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE STATUS QUO WAS
RESTORED IN SO FAR AS THE DEED WAS CONCERNED BY THE REPAYMENT OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE WITH INTEREST AND THAT THE HOLT LAND COULD BE SEPARATED
FROM THE REST OF THE PLANTATION WITH PROPER ADJUSTMENT FOR
IMPROVEMENTS. 

UPON THESE FACTS THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII DETERMINED APPLICABLE
PRINCIPLES OF LAW.  THOSE CONSIDERED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WERE THE FOLLOWING: 

I. THE RULE OF LAW IN HAWAII IS THAT THE DEED, LEASE OR CONTRACT OF
AN INCOMPETENT EXECUTED PRIOR TO A JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF INCOMPETENCY
IS VOIDABLE.  A MERE SHOWING OF INCOMPETENCY WILL NOT AVOID IT.  IN
DETERMINING WHETHER IT SHOULD BE CANCELED, "ALL OF THE EQUITIES MUST BE
CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE GRANTEE OR LESSEE AS WELL
AS THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE GRANTOR OR LESSOR."  FN7 

"IT IS OUR VIEW OF THE LAW THAT A LEASE MADE BY AN INCOMPETENT, WHO
HAS NOT BEEN JUDICIALLY DECLARED INSANE, TO A LESSEE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE
OF THE INCOMPETENCY, FOR AN ADEQUATE RENTAL AND UPON OTHER TERMS THAT
ARE REASONABLE AND FAIR, WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO THE INCOMPETENT AND IS
IN EFFECT A PROVISION IN FAVOR OF THE INCOMPETENT FOR NECESSARIES FOR
HIS SUSTENANCE AND COMFORT,  - A LEASE WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY PERFORMED
AND IS ACCOMPANIED BY NO FRAUD OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF INEQUITY TO
THE INCOMPETENT,  - SHOULD NOT BE CANCELED,  - EVEN THOUGH THE LESSEE
CAN BE RESTORED TO THE STATUS QUO ANTE."  FN8 

IN ITS FIRST OPINION THE COURT HAD SAID:  "WHEN THE GRANTEE CAN BE
RESTORED TO THE POSITION IT OCCUPIED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE
CONVEYANCE, THE DEED OF THE INCOMPETENT SHOULD BE CANCELED EVEN THOUGH
IT WAS TAKEN IN IGNORANCE OF THE INCOMPETENCY AND EVEN THOUGH THE
CONSIDERATION PAID WAS ADEQUATE."  FN9 

IT DID NOT REFER IN THE SECOND OPINION TO ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
STATEMENTS BUT FOUND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CANCELED DEED AND THE
CONFIRMED LEASE AND CONTRACT, IN THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES TO THE
INCOMPETENT.  FN10 

II.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF 1906  FN11
WAS THAT IT COVERED RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS, PAYABLE TO THE
INCOMPETENT NOT ONLY FROM THE LESSEE UNDER THE 1905 LEASE BUT ALSO "THE
RENTS ACCRUING THEREAFTER FROM WHATEVER SOURCE."  FN12  THIS RULING WAS
EMBODIED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE FINAL DECREE SET OUT IN THE NOTE
BELOW.  FN13 

"BY THE DEED OF MAY 2, 1910, ANNIE KENTWELL, A MENTALLY COMPETENT
PERSON, TRANSFERRED ALL OF HER RIGHTS UNDER THE INSTRUMENT OF 1906 TO"
WAIALUA.  FN14 

III.  A COURT OF EQUITY MAY PERMIT A GRANTEE WITHOUT NOTICE OF THE
INCOMPETENCY, WHO HAS PLACED IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND OF AN INCOMPETENT
IN RELIANCE ON A CONVEYANCE SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELED, TO RESERVE THE
IMPROVEMENTS TOGETHER WITH SUCH LAND AND RIGHTS OF WAY OVER THE
INCOMPETENT'S LANDS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THEIR PROPER USE UNDER
SUITABLE CONDITIONS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE COURT.  FN15 

WHILE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ACCEPTED THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN
THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS OF HAWAII,  FN16  IT TOOK DIRECT ISSUE
WITH SOME OF THE LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
TERRITORY AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: 

I. THE GENERAL RULE OF LAW IS THAT THE DEED, LEASE OR INDENTURE  FN17
OF AN INCOMPETENT, EXECUTED PRIOR TO A JUDICIAL DECLARATION TO THAT
EFFECT, IS VOID.  "RELIEF AGAINST SUCH A CONTRACT SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED, HOWEVER, ON PROOF OF INCOMPETENCY ONLY."  "SO, IN THE CASE OF
A CONTRACT MADE BY AN INCOMPETENT, AFTER PROOF OF THE INCOMPETENCY,
RELIEF WILL BE GRANTED AGAINST THE CONTRACT, OR REFUSED, DEPENDING UPON
THE SITUATION OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIME RELIEF IS ASKED; IN OTHER
WORDS, THE SITUATION OF THE PARTIES IS THE CONTROLLING FACTOR."  FN18
"THIS  ...  DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COURT SHOULD BALANCE ALL EQUITIES OF
THE PARTIES, AS WAS DONE BY THE TRIAL COURT."  FN19  "THE RULE AS
STATED MEANS THAT IF THE PARTIES CAN BE PLACED IN STATU QUO, THE RELIEF
WILL BE GRANTED."  FN20  THIS RULE WAS HELD APPLICABLE TO HAWAII. 

APPARENTLY IN RELIANCE ON THIS RULE, THE LOWER COURT DETERMINED
RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST THE LEASE AS TO THE LESSOR, ELIZA
CHRISTIAN, OR AGAINST THE CONTRACT OR AGAINST BOTH, IF SHE WERE
INCOMPETENT AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION.  FN21  THE TERRITORIAL
SUPREME COURT HAD DENIED RELIEF "IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SUBJECT OF STATUS
QUO" AND OF COMPETENCY.  FN22 

II.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT OF MAINTENANCE OF 1906 IS THAT
THE INCOMPETENT ASSIGNED TO MRS. KENTWELL HER RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS
UNDER THE LEASE OF 1905 ONLY; THAT LATER RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS WERE
RETAINED.  FN23 

III.  THE ACTION OF THE TERRITORIAL SUPREME COURT, IN ADJUSTING
EQUITIES AS TO IMPROVEMENTS BY CROSS CONVEYANCES BETWEEN THE
INCOMPETENT AND THE SUBSEQUENT GRANTEES, IS INCORRECT. 

"HERE, IF THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO AN ALLOWANCE FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT
ALL, IT IS ENTITLED TO AN ALLOWANCE OF ONE-THIRD OF THE ENHANCED VALUE
OF THE LAND, DUE SOLELY TO THE ADDITION OF IMPROVEMENTS SINCE MAY 2,
1910.  THAT AMOUNT MAY BE MADE A LIEN AGAINST THE LAND, OR MAY BE SET
OFF AGAINST THE RENTALS, IF ANY, WHICH ARE FOUND DUE TO THE WARD." 
FN24 

STATUS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII.  - THE LOWER COURT ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OF THE APPEALS UNDER JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 128.  FN25  WHEN
THE HAWAIIAN ORGANIC ACT WAS PASSED IN 1900, NO PROVISION WAS MADE FOR
APPEALS FROM THE TERRITORIAL SUPREME COURT.  IN 1905, FOR MATTERS
INVOLVING MORE THAN $5,000, A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS
PROVIDED.  FN26  IN 1911 REVIEW OF THE TERRITORIAL SUPREME COURT WAS
PLACED UPON THE SAME BASIS AS REVIEW OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE,
WITH A CONTINUED RIGHT OF REVIEW, GENERALLY, WHERE THE AMOUNT INVOLVED
$5,000.  FN27 CERTIORARI FROM THIS COURT WAS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF
JANUARY 28, 1915, AND FOR THE FIRST TIME REVIEW BY CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS FOR CASES INVOLVING $5,000 OR OVER.  FN28  IN EACH OF THESE
SUCCESSIVE ENACTMENTS THE CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED, TO SOME DEGREE, THE
AUTONOMOUS POSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY. 

THIS RECOGNITION IS NATURAL.  THE TERRITORIAL COURT HAS GENERAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF CASES INVOLVING THE MORES AND STATUTES OF AN
ARCHIPELAGO, THE FIRST KNOWN COMPILATION OF WHOSE LAWS APPEARED IN
1842.  FN29  ISOLATED UNTIL THE DAY OF ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATION AND
AERIAL TRANSPORTATION FROM CONTINUOUS CONTACT WITH OTHER PEOPLES, AND
INHABITED BY DIVERSE STOCKS OF OCEANICA, ASIA, EUROPE AND AMERICA, IT
DEVELOPED, AS AN INDEPENDENT KINGDOM, A JURISPRUDENCE ADAPTED TO ITS
NEEDS.  THE CONSTITUTION OF KAMEHAMEHA III ESTABLISHED A SUPREME COURT
OF THE KINGDOM IN 1840 AND DEFINED ITS JURISDICTION.  FN30  THE COMMON
LAW AND THE CIVIL LAW WERE SOURCES OF INFORMATION BUT NOT OF
AUTHORITY.  FN31  UNTIL 1892,  FN32  LACUNAE WERE FILLED BY THE
JUDGES.  FN33  THE LAWS DEVELOPED WERE LARGELY LEFT IN FORCE BY THE
ORGANIC ACT.  FN34  THESE NOW INCLUDE A DECLARATORY STATUTE ON THE
SOURCE OF HAWAIIAN LAW.  FN35  THIS JUDICIAL TRADITION GIVES PRESENT
SUBSTANCE TO THE RULE OF THIS COURT THAT DEFERENCE WILL BE PAID THE
UNDERSTANDING OF TERRITORIAL COURTS ON MATTERS OF LOCAL CONCERN.  FN36 

REVIEW OF ITS DECISIONS.  - WHILE THE DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE
TERRITORIAL COURT UPON THE VALIDITY OF INSTRUMENTS EXECUTED BY
INCOMPETENTS, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT OF AN INCOMPETENT, AND
THE ADJUSTMENTS OF EQUITIES CONCERNING IMPROVEMENTS AFTER CANCELLATION
OF A CONVEYANCE, PARTAKE OF GENERAL LAW, AS WELL AS OF LOCAL LAW,  FN37
WE SEE NO REASON FOR NOT APPLYING THE RULE AS TO LOCAL MATTERS TO
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  WHILE THE 34TH SECTION OF THE JUDICIARY ACT IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO TERRITORIES, THE ARGUMENTS OF POLICY IN FAVOR OF
HAVING THE STATE COURTS DECLARE THE LAW OF THE STATE ARE APPLICABLE TO
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT TERRITORIAL COURTS SHOULD DECLARE THE
LAW OF THE TERRITORIES WITH THE LEAST POSSIBLE INTERFERENCE N38.  IT IS
TRUE THAT UNDER THE APPEAL STATUTE THE LOWER COURT HAD COMPLETE POWER
TO REVERSE ANY RULING OF THE TERRITORIAL COURT ON LAW OR FACT; FN39
BUT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS POWER SHOULD BE EXERCISED ONLY IN
CASES OF MANIFEST ERROR.  THE DIFFERENTIATIONS, IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT,
IN THE OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII, AS TO THE RULES OF LAW
APPLICABLE TO THE PROCEEDINGS TO SET ASIDE THE DEED OF 1910 AND THOSE
APPLICABLE TO SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS AS TO THE LEASE OF 1905 AND THE
CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE OF 1906, DO NOT FURNISH OCCASION FOR REVERSAL
BY THE LOWER COURT.  FN40  IN SO FAR AS THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF HAWAII ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CONSTITUTION AND APPLICABLE
STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES AND ARE NOT MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS IN THEIR
STATEMENT OR APPLICATION OF GOVERNING PRINCIPLES, THEY ARE TO BE
ACCEPTED AS STATING THE LAW OF THE TERRITORY.  UNLESS THERE IS CLEAR
DEPARTURE FROM ORDINARY LEGAL PRINCIPLES, THE PREFERENCE OF A FEDERAL
COURT AS TO THE CORRECT RULE OF GENERAL OR LOCAL LAW SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED UPON HAWAII. 

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII.  - TO ADOPT THE LEGAL
PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY THE TERRITORIAL SUPREME COURT IN THESE CASES AS
RULES OF DECISION IN THAT JURISDICTION, OR TO CONSTRUE INSTRUMENTS AS
IT INTERPRETED THEM, IS NOT MANIFEST ERROR. 

WHATEVER MAY BE THE BETTER RULE AS TO THE VOIDABLENESS OF THE
TRANSFER DOCUMENTS OF AN INCOMPETENT, IT IS NOT CLEARLY WRONG TO SELECT
THE ONE HERE CHOSEN.  FN41 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT OF MAINTENANCE BY THE TERRITORIAL
COURT OF LAST RESORT IS LIKEWISE DEFENSIBLE.  THE LOWER COURT, ITSELF,
SAID THE ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS DUE TO THE INCOMPETENT "BY VIRTUE OF BEING
...  DEVISEE UNDER THE WILL  ...  DURING THE TERM OF THE NATURAL LIFE
OF HER" THE INCOMPETENT (SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA), MIGHT MEAN "THAT THE WARD
ASSIGNED ALL RENTS INCLUDING THOSE TO WHICH SHE MIGHT BE ENTITLED UNDER
THE LEASE TO THE COMPANY AND ANY OTHER LEASE."  FN42  THE MINORITY
OPINION REACHED THIS CONCLUSION.  FN43  ALTHOUGH ON CONSIDERATION OF
THE ENTIRE CONTRACT THE MAJORITY REACHED A DIFFERENT ANSWER, THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII IS NOT MANIFESTLY
ERRONEOUS.  NOR DO WE SEE ANY OCCASION TO REEXAMINE THE INTERPRETATION
THAT THE DEED OF MAY 2, 1910(THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF WHICH ARE SET OUT
ABOVE, ANTE, P. 96), CONVEYED THE RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS, ASSIGNED
TO MRS. KENTWELL. 

THE LOWER COURT CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO APPLY HERE THE RULE THAT
THE OCCUPANT OF THE LAND OF ANOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO BE PAID, AS
COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS, A SUM EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE
IMPROVEMENTS INCREASED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, NOT EXCEEDING THE
COST.  IT IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY SO TO PENALIZE AN INNOCENT IMPROVER. 
IF HE IS A TENANT IN COMMON, PARTITION MAY BE MADE SO AS TO SET APART
TO HIM THE PORTION IMPROVED.  FN44  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE
DISCLOSED, THE ACTION OF THE HAWAIIAN COURT IN AWARDING TO WAIALUA THE
REALTY AND IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE DECREE NEED NOT BE SET ASIDE. 
DECREE OF THE LOWER COURT REVERSED AND DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
HAWAII AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 31 HAW.  817; 33 HAW. 
34. 

FN2  WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO. V. CHRISTIAN, 52 F.2D 847. 

FN3  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603.    FN4
MATOS V. ALONSO HERMANOS, 300 U.S. 429. 

FN5  "THIS INDENTURE - MADE THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST A.D. 1906, BY AND
BETWEEN - ELIZA R. P. CHRISTIAN - (THE ONLY CHILD AND HEIR OF JOHN
DOMINIS HOLT, THE ELDER) OF HONOLULU, ISLAND AND COUNTY OF OAHU,
TERRITORY OF HAWAII, OF THE FIRST PART, AND - ANNIE HOLT KENTWELL - OF
THE SAME PLACE, PARTY OF THE SECOND PART. 

"WITNESSETH - WHEREAS THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART HAS FOR MANY YEARS
LAST PAST BEEN SUPPORTED AND MAINTAINED AT THE HOME OF THE PARTY OF THE
SECOND PART, AND AT THE COST AND EXPENSE OF THE SAID PARTY OF THE
SECOND PART, AND 

"WHEREAS - THE SAID FIRST PARTY IS THE ONLY CHILD AND HEIR OF JOHN
DOMINIS HOLT, THE ELDER, BEING ALSO A DEVISEE UNDER THE WILL OF R. W.
HOLT, DECEASED, AND IS ENTITLED IN EXPECTANCY TO A CERTAIN UNDIVIDED
INTEREST OR MOIETY IN CERTAIN LANDS SITUATE AT WAIALUA, OAHU, NOW
LEASED TO THE WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, LIMITED, BY LEASE DATED THE
17TH DAY OF MARCH, 1905, AND RECORDED IN THE HAWAIIAN REGISTRY OF DEEDS
IN LIBER , FOLIO, AND 

"WHEREAS - BY VIRTUE OF BEING SUCH HEIR OF JOHN DOMINIS HOLT, THE
ELDER, AND SUCH DEVISEE UNDER THE WILL OF R. W. HOLT, DECEASED,
AFORESAID, SHE, THE SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, SHALL UPON THE DEATH
OF HIM, THE SAID JOHN DOMINIS HOLT, THE ELDER, BE ENTITLED TO HER SHARE
OF THE RENTS RESERVED IN SAID LEASE AFORESAID, WHICH SHARE OF SAID
RENTS AFORESAID IS NOW ENJOYED BY HER FATHER, THE SAID JOHN DOMINIS
HOLT, THE ELDER, AND 

"WHEREAS - THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART HAS AGREED TO SUPPORT AND TO
MAINTAIN THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART FOR AND DURING THE PERIOD OF THE
NATURAL LIFE OF HER, THE SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, 

"NOW THEREFORE THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH - THAT THE SAID - ELIZA R.
P. CHRISTIAN - IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMISES AND OF ONE DOLLAR TO
HER IN HAND PAID BY - ANNIE HOLT KENTWELL - OF HONOLULU AFORESAID, THE
RECEIPT WHEREOF IS HEREBY DULY CONFESSED AND ACKNOWLEDGED AND FOR OTHER
AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION TO THE SAID - ELIZA R. P. CHRISTIAN - MOVING
FROM SAID - ANNIE HOLT KENTWELL - , SHE, THE SAID - ELIZA R. P.
CHRISTIAN - , DOES HEREBY GIVE, SELL, ASSIGN, RELEASE, TRANSFER AND SET
OVER UNTO THE SAID - ANNIE HOLT KENTWELL - , HER HEIRS, EXECUTORS AND
ADMINISTRATORS, ALL HER TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ANY AND ALL RENTS,
ISSUES AND PROFITS TO WHICH SHE MAY HEREAFTER BE ENTITLED OR WHICH MAY
BE DUE AND PAYABLE TO HER BY, THROUGH OR UNDER THE LEASE TO THE WAIALUA
AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, LIMITED, DATED THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 1905, AND
RECORDED IN SAID LIBER    FOLIO    OR BY VIRTUE OF BEING THE ONLY CHILD
OF JOHN DOMINIS HOLT, THE ELDER, AND DEVISEE UNDER THE WILL OF R. W.
HOLT, DECEASED, TOGETHER WITH ALL AND EVERY HER RIGHT TO DEMAND,
RECEIVE, COLLECT AND RECEIPT FOR ALL SUCH RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS
FROM WHOMSOEVER DUE DURING THE TERM OF THE NATURAL LIFE OF HER, THE
SAID - ELIZA R. P. CHRISTIAN - . 

"AND - IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BETWEEN AND BY THE
PARTIES HERETO THAT THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART SHALL SUPPORT AND
MAINTAIN HER, THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART, FOR AND DURING THE NATURAL
LIFE OF SAID FIRST PART. 

"AND - IT IS FURTHER AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES
HERETO THAT IN CASE THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART SHALL SURVIVE THE PARTY
OF THE SECOND PART, THE HEIRS OF SAID SECOND PARTY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
PERFORM THE COVENANT OF THIS AGREEMENT ON THE PART OF SAID SECOND PARTY
TO BE KEPT AND PERFORMED, AND THEY SHALL DURING THE LIFE OF SAID FIRST
PARTY BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OR BENEFITS THEREOF. 

"IN WITNESS WHEREOF - THE SAID - ELIZA R. P. CHRISTIAN - AND - ANNIE
HOLT KENTWELL - HAVE HEREUNTO SET THEIR HANDS AND SEALS THE DAY AND
YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. 

          ELIZA R. P. CHRISTIAN

            ANNIE HOLT KENTWELL" 

FN6  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 33 HAW.  34, 51. 

FN7  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 33 HAW.  34, 40. 

FN8  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 33 HAW.  34, 43. 

FN9  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 31 HAW.  817, 888. 

FN10  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 33 HAW.  34, 53. 

FN11  FOOTNOTE 5. 

FN12  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 33 HAW.  34, 52. 

FN13  "THAT SAID INSTRUMENT DATED AUGUST 31, 1906, REFERRED TO IN
PARAGRAPH VII HEREOF, CONVEYED ALL RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS FROM THE
LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED OF MAY 2, 1910  ...  , WHICH HAVE ACCRUED OR
WILL ACCRUE TO ELIZA R. P. CHRISTIAN, WHETHER UNDER THE LEASE DATED
MARCH 17, 1905,  ...  OR OTHERWISE, AND FROM WHOMSOEVER DUE, FROM
AUGUST 31, 1906, THE DATE OF SAID INSTRUMENT, UNTIL THE END OF THE
NATURAL LIFE OF HER, THE SAID ELIZA R. P. CHRISTIAN, AND THAT THE
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, LIMITED, IS THE
OWNER OF ALL SAID RENTS, ISSUES AND PROFITS SO CONVEYED; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL COMPANY, LIMITED, SHALL PAY ALL TAXES AND
LAWFUL ASSESSMENTS UPON OR AGAINST SAID LAND DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE
SAID ELIZA R. P. CHRISTIAN." 

FN14  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 33 HAW.  34, 52. 

FN15  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 33 HAW.  34, 57. 

FN16  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603, 609, 612;
94 F.2D 806, 807. 

FN17  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603, 611. 

FN18  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603, 610. 

FN19  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603, 611. 

FN20  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603, 612. 

FN21  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603, 613. 

FN22  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 33 HAW.  34, 63. 

FN23  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603, 615. 

FN24  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603, 617. 

FN25  "FOURTH.  IN THE SUPREME COURTS OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII AND
OF PORTO RICO, IN ALL CIVIL CASES, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, WHEREIN THE
CONSTITUTION OR A STATUTE OR TREATY OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY
AUTHORITY EXERCISED THEREUNDER IS INVOLVED; IN ALL OTHER CIVIL CASES
WHEREIN THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS,
EXCEEDS $5,000, AND IN ALL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS."  43 STAT. 936. 

FN26  33 STAT. 1035. 

FN27  36 STAT. 1158. 

FN28  38 STAT. 804. 

FN29  PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 

FN30  "THEIR BUSINESS SHALL BE TO SETTLE ALL CASES OF DIFFICULTY
WHICH ARE LEFT UNSETTLED BY THE TAX OFFICERS AND COMMON JUDGES.  THEY
SHALL GIVE A NEW TRIAL ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE LAW.  THEY
SHALL GIVE PREVIOUS NOTICE OF THE TIME FOR HOLDING COURTS, IN ORDER
THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN DIFFICULTY MAY APPEAL.  THE DECISION OF THESE
SHALL BE FINAL.  THERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER TRIAL AFTER THEIRS.  LIFE,
DEATH, CONFINEMENT, FINE, AND FREEDOM FROM IT, ARE ALL IN THEIR HANDS,
AND THEIR DECISIONS ARE FINAL."  TRANSLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, 1842, P. 20. 

FN31  "THE REASONINGS AND ANALOGIES OF THE COMMON LAW, AND OF THE
CIVIL LAW, MAY IN LIKE MANNER BE CITED AND ADOPTED BY ANY SUCH COURT,
SO FAR AS THEY ARE DEEMED TO BE FOUNDED IN JUSTICE, AND NOT AT CONFLICT
WITH THE LAWS AND USAGES OF THIS KINGDOM."  STATUTE LAWS OF THE
HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, 1845-47, VOL. II, P. 5. 

FN32  HALL V. KENNEDY, 27 HAW.  626, 629. 

FN33  "SECTION 14.  THE JUDGES HAVE EQUITABLE AS WELL AS LEGAL
JURISDICTION, AND IN ALL CIVIL MATTERS, WHERE THERE IS NO EXPRESS LAW,
THEY ARE BOUND TO PROCEED AND DECIDE ACCORDING TO EQUITY, APPLYING
NECESSARY REMEDIES TO EVILS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED BY
LAW, AND CONSERVING THE CAUSE OF MORALS AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.  TO DECIDE
EQUITABLY, AN APPEAL IS TO BE MADE TO NATURAL LAW AND REASON, OR TO
RECEIVED USAGE, AND RESORT MAY ALSO BE HAD TO THE LAWS AND USAGES OF
OTHER COUNTRIES."  HAWAII CIVIL CODE, 1859, P. 7. 

FN34  "SEC.  1.  THAT THE PHRASE 'THE LAWS OF HAWAII,' AS USED IN
THIS ACT WITHOUT QUALIFYING WORDS, SHALL MEAN THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS
OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII, IN FORCE ON THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST,
EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-EIGHT, AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER OF THE
SOVER-EIGNTY OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." 
31 STAT. 141. 

"SEC. 6.  THAT THE LAWS OF HAWAII NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
SHALL CONTINUE IN FORCE, SUBJECT TO REPEAL OR AMENDMENT BY THE
LEGISLATURE OF HAWAII OR THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES."  31 STAT.
142. 

FN35  "COMMON LAW APPLIES EXCEPT WHEN.  THE COMMON LAW OF ENGLAND, AS
ASCERTAINED BY ENGLISH AND AMERICAN DECISIONS, IS DECLARED TO BE THE
COMMON LAW OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII IN ALL CASES, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR
BY THE LAWS OF THE TERRITORY, OR FIXED BY HAWAIIAN JUDICIAL PRECEDENT,
OR ESTABLISHED BY HAWAIIAN USAGE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO PERSON
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE
WRITTEN LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE TERRITORY."  REVISED LAWS
OF HAWAII, 1935, CH. 1, SEC. 1, P. 73. 

CF. KAKE V. HORTON, 2 HAW.  209; REX V. TIN AH CHIN, 3 HAW.  90, 95. 

FN36  MATOS V. ALONSO HERMANOS, 300 U.S. 429, 430, 432; KEALOHA V.
CASTLE, 210 U.S. 149, 154; LEWERS & COOKE V. ATCHERLY, 222 U.S. 285,
293; EWA PLANTATION CO. V. WILDER, 289 F. 664, 669. 

FN37  BLACK & WHITE TAXI CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXI CO., 276 U.S.
518, 526, 530. 

FN38  CF. SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1; ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304
U.S. 64; LEWERS & COOKE V. ATCHERLY, 222 U.S. 285, 294. 

FN39  CF. PHILIPPINE SUGAR CO. V. PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 247 U.S. 385,
390. 

FN40  CF. SIOUX REMEDY CO. V. COPE, 235 U.S. 197, 201; FIDELITY &
COLUMBIA TRUST CO. V. LOUISVILLE, 245 U.S. 54, 59. 

FN41  2 BLACK, RESCISSION AND CANCELLATION (2D ED.), SECS. 255-258; 1
WILLISTON, CONTRACTS (REV. ED., 1936-38), SEC. 254; IMPERIAL LOAN CO.
V. STONE, (1892) 1 Q.B. 599; CASEBIER V. CASEBIER, 193 KY. 490; 236
S.W. 966. 

FN42  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D 603, 614, 615. 

FN43  "IN MY OPINION THE AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 31, 1906, FROM ELIZA
CHRISTIAN TO ANNIE KENTWELL, IN CONSIDERATION OF HER SUPPORT AND
MAINTENANCE DURING THE BALANCE OF HER LIFE, PURPORTED TO CONVEY NOT
ONLY ALL THE RENTS ACCRUING TO ELIZA CHRISTIAN UNDER THE LEASE OF 1905
AFTER THE CONTINGENT REMAINDER OF ELIZA CHRISTIAN BECAME VESTED IN 1922
UPON THE DEATH OF HER FATHER, AS HELD BY THE MAJORITY OPINION, BUT ALSO
ALL THE RENTS, ISSUES, AND PROFITS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE LEASE
AND UNTIL HER DEATH."  CHRISTIAN V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO., 93 F.2D
603, 618. 

FN44  SEE HIGHLAND PARK MFG. CO. V. STEELE, 232 F. 10, 34, MODIFIED
235 F. 465; COCHRAN V. SHOENBERGER, 33 F. 397, 398; FORD V. KNAPP, 102
N.Y. 135, 140; 6 N.E. 283. 
..END :










DENVER STOCK YARD CO. V. U.S., 304 U.S. 470 


NO. 798.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1938.  - 21 F.SUPP. 
83, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN FIXING RATES, PROPERTY NOT USED OR USEFUL IN RENDERING THE
SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY NEED NOT BE INCLUDED IN RATE BASE.  P.
475. 

2.  IN FIXING RATES OF A STOCKYARD COMPANY, THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE RATE BASE: 

(A)  LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS USED FOR AN ANNUAL STOCK SHOW BUT NOT FOR
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES COVERED BY THE RATES REGULATED.  P.
475. 

(B)  TRACKAGE AND FACILITIES, FOR UNLOADING AND LOADING LIVESTOCK,
LEASED TO RAILROAD COMPANIES FOR SUBSTANTIAL RENTALS, THE STOCKYARD
SERVICES BEING CONFINED TO THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE END OF UNLOADING AND
THE BEGINNING OF LOADING.  P. 476. 

3.  THE FACTS THAT HE HAD NOT DWELT IN THE LOCALITY AND HAD NEVER
APPRAISED LAND IN THAT VICINITY OR ASSEMBLED OR APPRAISED ANY LARGE
INDUSTRIAL TRACTS, DID NOT DISQUALIFY A WITNESS, OTHERWISE EXPERIENCED
IN LAND VALUATION, FROM TESTIFYING TO THE VALUE OF LAND OF A STOCKYARD
COMPANY, IN A PROCEEDING BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN WHICH RATES
FOR STOCKYARD SERVICES WERE FIXED.  P. 477. 

4.  IN VALUING THE PROPERTY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY, AN ALLOWANCE FOR
GOING-CONCERN VALUE NEED NOT BE ITEMIZED SEPARATELY BUT MAY BE INCLUDED
IN THE VALUATION OF THE PHYSICAL ELEMENTS.  P. 478. 

5.  WHERE THE PRACTICE OF A STOCKYARD COMPANY WAS TO CHARGE ON SALES
OF LIVESTOCK MADE AT THE YARD BY PRODUCERS, BUT NOT ON RESALES MADE
THERE BY TRADERS WHO BOUGHT THERE FROM PRODUCERS, IT WAS WITHIN THE
PROVINCE OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, IN REGULATING RATES AND IN
AVOIDANCE OF DISCRIMINATION, UNDER THE STOCKYARDS ACT, TO REQUIRE THAT
REASONABLE RATES ON SUCH RESALES BE CHARGED THE TRADERS.  P. 481. 

SUCH A REQUIREMENT DID NOT CREATE UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AS BETWEEN
PRODUCERS, NOR UNLAWFULLY INVADE THE RIGHT OF THE COMPANY, AS OWNER, TO
MANAGE THE YARD AND CONTROL ITS BUSINESS POLICY. 

6.  WHETHER A STOCKYARD COMPANY IS ENTITLED, AS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT, TO HAVE ANY OF A NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCAL CHARITIES AND
CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS, SUBSCRIPTIONS ETC. INCLUDED IN ITS OPERATING
EXPENSES IN THE FIXING OF ITS RATES FOR THE FUTURE, THE COURT FINDS IT
UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER, IN VIEW OF THE VARIABILITY OF ITS PROSPECTIVE
INCOME, ITS CONTROL OVER THE ITEMS IN CONTROVERSY, AND THEIR TRIVIAL
AMOUNT.  P. 482. 

7.  A CLAIM THAT THE COSTS AND EXPENSES OF THIS LITIGATION, AMORTIZED
OVER A REASONABLE PERIOD, SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE OPERATING COSTS OF
THE APPELLANT STOCKYARD COMPANY, IN DETERMINING THE ADEQUACY OF RATES
FIXED BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED, IT NOT
HAVING BEEN PRESENTED BY THE BILL OR IN THE REQUEST FOR FINDINGS.  P.
484. 

8.  THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE OR WARRANT A FINDING
THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE A RETURN OF SIX AND ONE-HALF PER CENT. ON
THE VALUE OF THE STOCKYARD COMPANY'S PROPERTY WILL BE INADEQUATE.  P.
485.   THE RESULT. 

DENVER UNION STOCK YARD CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLORADO. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
THE BILL IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM RATES TO BE CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT
STOCK YARD COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NOVEMBER 8, 1934, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE INITIATED PROCEEDINGS
IN WHICH, FEBRUARY 17, 1937, AFTER EXTENDED INVESTIGATION, TAKING OF
MUCH EVIDENCE AND FULL HEARING, HE MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND AN ORDER,
PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM RATES TO BE CHARGED BY APPELLANT FOR SERVICES
RENDERED BY IT.  FN1  MARCH 9, 1937, IT COMMENCED THIS SUIT  FN2  TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE PRESCRIBED RATES ARE
CONFISCATORY AND THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER WOULD DEPRIVE THE
COMPANY OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED ON STIPULATIONS AND THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SECRETARY.  THE COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT, STATED
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ANNOUNCED OPINION, 21 F.SUPP.  83, AND ENTERED
DECREE DISMISSING THE BILL. 

THE CHALLENGED RATES INCLUDE MARKETING CHARGES PER HEAD; THEY ARE
APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN SALES ARE MADE, AND ARE THE SAME WITHOUT REGARD TO
THE TIME THE STOCK REMAINS IN THE PENS.  THESE ARE CALLED "YARDAGE
CHARGES."  APPELLANT MAKES NO CHARGE FOR USE, AS SUCH, OF PENS OR OTHER
FACILITIES; ITS CHARGES FOR FEED, BEDDING AND OTHER SERVICES ARE
REGULATED BY THE ORDER.  ABOUT THREE-FOURTHS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
ANIMALS RECEIVED AT THE YARD ARE SOLD THERE.  SOME ARE SOLD TO TRADERS,
ALSO CALLED DEALERS AND SPECULATORS, AND HELD IN THE YARD UNTIL SOLD
AGAIN.  APPELLANT HAS NEVER MADE ANY CHARGE AGAINST TRADERS FOR RESALES
OR REWEIGHING FOR SALE EXCEPT WHEN THE RESALE WAS THROUGH COMMISSION
MEN.  FOR THAT SERVICE, THE ORDER PRESCRIBES RATES WHICH FOR
CONVENIENCE MAY BE REFERRED TO AS "YARDAGE CHARGES TO TRADERS." 
APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES ARE NOT CONFINED TO SERVICES COVERED BY THE
ORDER.  IT UNLOADS AND LOADS LIVESTOCK FROM AND INTO CARS OF RAILROADS
SERVING THE YARD, AND RECEIVES FROM THE CARRIERS COMPENSATION NOT
REGULATED BY THE SECRETARY.  IF ENFORCED, THE ORDER WILL REDUCE REVENUE
FROM CHARGES FOR YARDAGE SERVICES BY ABOUT EIGHT AND ONE-HALF PER CENT,
AND FROM CHARGES FOR OTHER SERVICES BY ABOUT NINETEEN PER CENT;
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES IN A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT ARE NOT AFFECTED; TOTAL
REVENUE WILL BE REDUCED BY ABOUT EIGHT AND ONE-HALF PER CENT.  FN3 

TO ASCERTAIN THE AMOUNT ON WHICH APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO EARN A
RETURN, THE SECRETARY DETERMINED WHAT LAND AND STRUCTURES WERE USED AND
USEFUL FOR PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES, AND TO PRESENT VALUE OF LAND
ADDED COST OF REPRODUCTION NEW LESS DEPRECIATION OF STRUCTURES, AND
ALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF A BRIDGE AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL PLANT BEING
BUILT, AND WORKING CAPITAL.  THE TOTAL IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN
$2,792,700, WHICH THE SECRETARY ADOPTED AS RATE BASE.  HE FOUND SIX AND
ONE-HALF PER CENT TO BE A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN, $530,117 THE
REVENUE PROCURABLE IF PRESCRIBED CHARGES BE PUT IN EFFECT, AND $346,545
THE OPERATING EXPENSES, LEAVING A NET RETURN OF $183,572, SLIGHTLY MORE
THAN SIX AND ONE-HALF PER CENT ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 

APPELLANT ACCEPTS AS CORRECT THE SECRETARY'S ESTIMATE OF COST OF
REPRODUCTION LESS DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY FOUND TO BE USED AND USEFUL,
AND ALSO THE ALLOWANCES ABOVE MENTIONED.  BUT IT OBJECTS TO HIS
EXCLUSION OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS USED FOR A STOCK SHOW AND FOR
TRACKAGE AND FACILITIES FOR UNLOADING AND LOADING LIVESTOCK, TO HIS
VALUATION OF THE LAND, TO HIS TREATMENT OF GOING CONCERN VALUE, TO HIS
REFUSAL TO ALLOW CERTAIN ITEMS THAT IT CLAIMS TO BE OPERATING EXPENSES,
AND TO THE RATE OF RETURN FOUND BY HIM TO BE REASONABLE. 

THE RATE BASE.  AS OF RIGHT SAFEGUARDED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO RATES, NOT PER SE
EXCESSIVE AND EXTORTIONATE, SUFFICIENT TO YIELD A REASONABLE RATE OF
RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF PROPERTY USED, AT THE TIME IT IS BEING USED,
TO RENDER THE SERVICES.  WILLCOX V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S. 19,
41.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 434.  BLUEFIELD WATER WORKS
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S. 679, 690.  BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., 271 U.S. 23, 31.  MCCARDLE V.
INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 272 U.S. 400, 414.  LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V.
RAILROAD COMM'N, 289 U.S. 287, 305.  BUT IT IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE
INCLUDED ANY PROPERTY NOT USED AND USEFUL FOR THAT PURPOSE.  CF. ST.
JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 56. 

THE STOCK SHOW PROPERTY EXCLUDED.  THE STOCK SHOW IS HELD ON PROPERTY
OWNED BY APPELLANT AND IS CONDUCTED BY AN INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT
ORGANIZED FOR PECUNIARY PROFIT.  IT CONTINUES FOR ABOUT ONE WEEK IN
JANUARY OF EACH YEAR.  THE SECRETARY FOUND A PART OF THAT PROPERTY,
WHICH IS OPERATED BY THE COLORADO HORSE AND MULE COMPANY, TO BE USED
AND USEFUL FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES COVERED BY THE RATES REGULATED
BY HIM, AND INCLUDED IT IN THE RATE BASE.  HE APPRAISED THE REST OF THE
SHOW PROPERTY, WHICH CONSISTS OF 2.633 ACRES AND IMPROVEMENTS THEREON,
AT $219,033, BUT EXCLUDED IT AS NOT USED FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF
SERVICES COVERED BY THE RATES HE REGULATES. 

FOR PAYMENT OF EXPENSES OF THE SHOW THERE IS USED THE MONEY RECEIVED
FOR ADMISSION TO IT AND TO OTHER EVENTS ON THE PROPERTY, AND ALSO SOME
THAT IS DONATED FOR THAT PURPOSE.  APPELLANT ASSUMES THE CARRYING
CHARGES, INCLUDING INTEREST AND TAXES; WHEN THE SHOW IS UNABLE TO PAY
RENTAL SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL CHARGES, APPELLANT ABSORBS THE DEFICIT. 
IT REQUESTED FINDINGS IN SUBSTANCE AS FOLLOWS:  LARGE QUANTITIES OF
LIVESTOCK ARE ENTERED IN THE SHOW AND MUCH IS SOLD ON THE SHOW
PROPERTY.  SOME IS SOLD IN THE YARDS OPERATED BY APPELLANT.  THE SHOW
ATTRACTS BUYERS AND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WIDENS THE OUTLET FOR
PRODUCERS' STOCK, OPERATES TO INCREASE RECEIPTS, MAKES FOR IMPROVEMENT
OF STOCK RAISED AND FOR HIGHER PRICES, HAS EDUCATIONAL VALUE, AND
ADVERTISES THE MARKET.  IT IS SUPPORTED BY APPELLANT IN GOOD FAITH AND
IN THE BELIEF THAT IT STIMULATES ITS BUSINESS AND THAT OF LIVESTOCK
PRODUCERS.  THESE FACTS ARE NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT WITH THE
SECRETARY'S FINDINGS, AND MAY BE TAKEN AS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE. 
BUT THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY EXCLUDED IS USED
AND USEFUL FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES COVERED BY RATES BEING
REGULATED BY THE SECRETARY.  NONE OF THOSE SERVICES IS PERFORMED ON OR
BY THE USE OF ANY OF THAT PROPERTY.  THE SECRETARY RIGHTLY SAYS "IF IT
IS APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE STOCK SHOW INCREASES THE STOCKYARD
BUSINESS, THEN IT SHOULD REQUEST THAT A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE BE MADE
FOR ADVERTISING EXPENSE AS A CHARGE AGAINST ITS INCOME."  IN SUPPORT OF
THAT VIEW HE ADDS "ADVERTISING OR DEVELOPMENTAL EXPENSES TO FOSTER
NORMAL GROWTH ARE LEGITIMATE CHARGES UPON INCOME FOR RATE PURPOSES IF
CONFINED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF REASON.  WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. COMM'N, 294
U.S. 63, 72."  APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING
THE SECRETARY'S EXCLUSION OF THAT ITEM IS NOT SUSTAINED. 

TRACKAGE AND UNLOADING AND LOADING FACILITIES.  THE SECRETARY
APPRAISED THAT PROPERTY AT $177,108.  HE EXCLUDED IT AS NOT USED FOR
PERFORMANCE OF ANY STOCKYARD SERVICE.  APPELLANT LEASES THE TRACKAGE TO
RAILROAD CARRIERS FOR SUBSTANTIAL RENTALS.  IT DOES NOT CLAIM THAT
EXCLUSION OF THAT PART OF THE ITEM IS CONFISCATORY AND FAILS TO SHOW IT
PREJUDICIAL.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT DID NOT ERR IN UPHOLDING THE
SECRETARY'S DETERMINATION.  THE UNLOADING AND LOADING FACILITIES
INCLUDE WAYS BETWEEN DOCKS AND THE PENS WHERE THE STOCKYARD SERVICES
ARE RENDERED.  APPELLANT USES THESE FACILITIES TO UNLOAD AND LOAD
LIVESTOCK.  THAT IS A SERVICE FOR WHICH THE CARRIERS PAY APPELLANT. 
STOCKYARD SERVICES DO NOT COMMENCE UNTIL UNLOADING ENDS; THEY END WHEN
LOADING BEGINS.  SEE ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 193, 198.  THE COURT RIGHTLY REFUSED TO DISTURB THE SECRETARY'S
RULING AS TO THESE FACILITIES. 

LAND VALUE.  THE SECRETARY'S FINDING DEPENDS ON THE APPRAISAL AND
TESTIMONY OF HIS VALUATION ENGINEER.  APPELLANT MAINTAINS THAT IT IS
NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE ENGINEER WAS NOT A QUALIFIED
EXPERT WITNESS.  IT CONCEDES THAT, IF HE WAS COMPETENT, THE VALUATION
MUST BE SUSTAINED.  TO SUPPORT ITS POINT, APPELLANT RELIES ON THE FACT
THAT THE APPRAISER HAD NEVER LIVED IN DENVER OR PREVIOUSLY APPRAISED
ANY LAND THERE OR IN THAT VICINITY OR ASSEMBLED OR APPRAISED ANY LARGE
INDUSTRIAL TRACTS.  THE SIGNIFICANCE ADVERSE TO COMPETENCY THAT MIGHT
BE ATTRIBUTED TO THESE FACTS IF THEY STOOD ALONE IS NEGATIVED BY OTHERS
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  THE APPRAISER IS AN EXPERIENCED CIVIL
ENGINEER; HE WAS LONG ENGAGED IN LAND APPRAISAL WORK UNDER THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  HE LATER HAD PRIVATE PRACTICE AS
CONSULTING ENGINEER AND IN 1934 BECAME PRINCIPAL VALUATION ENGINEER OF
THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS DIVISION, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; IN THAT CAPACITY HE HAS GIVEN TESTIMONY IN A
NUMBER OF RATE PROCEEDINGS.  HIS REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY
DISCLOSES ELABORATE INVESTIGATION AND CONSIDERATION OF PRICES PAID FOR
LAND, OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION'S APPRAISALS OF LANDS IN
THE VICINITY AND OF OTHER FACTS MATERIAL TO THE ASCERTAINMENT OF VALUE
OF THE LAND IN QUESTION.  IT CANNOT REASONABLY BE SAID THAT, BECAUSE OF
HIS LACK OF EARLIER KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CONDITIONS, THE FINDING WAS MADE
WITHOUT EVIDENCE. 

GOING CONCERN VALUE.  APPELLANT MAINTAINS THAT, WHILE ADMITTING IT
EXISTS IN THE PROPERTY, THE SECRETARY FAILED TO INCLUDE IN RATE BASE
ANY ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF IT, AND THAT THE EVIDENCE REQUIRES ADDITION
OF AT LEAST $325,000 TO COVER THAT ELEMENT. 

IN SUBSTANCE, THE SECRETARY'S FINDINGS STATE:  THE STOCKYARD IS A
GOING CONCERN; IT HAS A LONG HISTORY OF EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT AND HAS
WON A REPUTATION FOR GOOD SERVICE; IT HAS BEEN FINANCIALLY SUCCESSFUL. 
HIS VALUATION ENGINEER (WHOSE FIGURES AND VALUATION ARE THE BASIS OF
THE SECRETARY'S APPRAISAL) CONSIDERED GOING CONCERN VALUE BUT DID NOT
INCLUDE A SEPARATE AMOUNT FOR IT.  IN ADOPTING THE VALUE OF THE LAND
AND THE COST OF REPRODUCTION NEW LESS DEPRECIATION OF STRUCTURES,
CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE ELEMENT OF GOING CONCERN VALUE. 
ADEQUATE ALLOWANCE HAS BEEN INCLUDED, ALTHOUGH NO SEPARATE ITEM ON ITS
ACCOUNT HAS BEEN SET FORTH.  THE FINDINGS CONTAIN A "SUMMARY OF THE
VALUE OF USED AND USEFUL LAND, THE COST OF REPRODUCTION NEW OF
STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING DIRECT CONSTRUCTION OVERHEADS,
INDIRECT OVERHEADS, INTEREST ON USED AND USEFUL LAND DURING
CONSTRUCTION, AND WORKING CAPITAL, AND THE COST OF THESE, LESS
DEPRECIATION WHERE DEPRECIATION EXISTS, OF RESPONDENT (APPELLANT) AS A
GOING CONCERN.  FN4  ...  IT IS FOUND THAT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY OF RESPONDENT AS A GOING CONCERN IS $2,792,681  ...  " 

THE SUBSTANCE OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS THAT THESE FIGURES ARE
EXCLUSIVELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO PHYSICAL ELEMENTS.  ASSUMING THAT TO BE
TRUE, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE SECRETARY FAILED TO INCLUDE PROPER
ALLOWANCE FOR GOING CONCERN.  DAYTON P. & L. CO. V. COMM'N, 292 U.S.
290, 309.  THE VALUE OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY USED IN STOCKYARD SERVICES
IS SINGLE IN SUBSTANCE.  WEST V. CHESAPEAKE & P. TEL. CO., 295 U.S.
662, 672.  WHILE IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS MADE UP OF TANGIBLE AND
INTANGIBLE ELEMENTS, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TO BE APPRAISED BY ADDING TO
COST FIGURES ATTRIBUTABLE TO MERE PHYSICAL PLANT SOMETHING TO COVER THE
VALUE OF THE BUSINESS.  KENNEBEC WATER DISTRICT V. WATERVILLE, 97 ME.
185, 220; 54 A. 6.  VALUE DEPENDS UPON USE AND IS MEASURED, OR AT LEAST
SIGNIFICANTLY INDICATED, BY THE PROFITABLENESS OF PRESENT AND
PROSPECTIVE SERVICE RENDERED AT RATES THAT ARE JUST AND REASONABLE AS
BETWEEN THE OWNER OF AND THOSE SERVED BY THE PROPERTY.  CLEVELAND, C.,
C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. BACKUS, 154 U.S. 439, 445.  NATIONAL WATERWORKS
CO. V. KANSAS CITY, 62 F. 853, 864-866.  OMAHA V. OMAHA WATER CO., 218
U.S. 180, 202.  DES MOINES GAS CO. V. DES MOINES, 238 U.S. 153, 165. 
DENVER V. DENVER UNION WATER CO., 246 U.S. 178, 192.  CF. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N V. GREAT NORTHERN UTILITIES CO., 289 U.S. 130.  IT IS
ELEMENTARY THAT VALUE OF A GOING CONCERN MAY BE LESS THAN, EQUAL TO, OR
MORE THAN, PRESENT COST OF PLANT LESS DEPRECIATION PLUS NECESSARY
SUPPLIES AND WORKING CAPITAL.  SEE GALVESTON ELECTRIC CO. V. GALVESTON,
258 U.S. 388, 396.  LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, SUPRA, 313,
314.  DAYTON P. & L. CO. V. COMM'N, UBI SUPRA.  APPELLANT'S PLANT
WITHOUT BUSINESS, PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE, WOULD BE WORTH MUCH LESS THAN
THE COST FIGURES FOUND BY THE SECRETARY TO REPRESENT VALUE. 
APPELLANT'S CLAIM, THAT THE RATE BASE INCLUDES NOTHING ON ACCOUNT OF
GOING CONCERN VALUE, IS WITHOUT FOUNDATION IN FACT. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS UPON WHICH APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE ESTABLISHED
AN AMOUNT TO BE ADDED TO RATE BASE TO COVER GOING VALUE MAY BE
SUMMARILY STATED:  (1) THE SALES CHARGE IS FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
MARKET.  THE VALUE OF THE MARKET IS NOT REFLECTED IN REPRODUCTION COST
OF STRUCTURES.  IT IS OVER AND ABOVE VALUE OF OR INVESTMENT IN PLANT. 
(2) APPELLANT HAS SPENT LARGE SUMS AND MADE GIFTS OF MONEY AND LAND AS
A RESULT OF WHICH LARGE PACKERS HAVE THEIR PLANTS AT DENVER AND BUY ON
APPELLANT'S MARKET.  (3) CATTLE OF VARIOUS OWNERS ARRIVING AT THE
DENVER MARKET BY RAIL FOR THE SAME MARKET SESSION FROM DIFFERENT
SHIPPING POINTS MAY BE SORTED INTO UNIFORM CARLOADS TO MOVE TO ANOTHER
DESTINATION ON THE THROUGH RATE FROM POINT OF SHIPMENT TO POINT OF
DESTINATION.  THE PRIVILEGE IS NOT OPEN AT CHICAGO OR ANY MISSOURI
RIVER MARKET.  (4) A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF THE STOCK RECEIVED AT
APPELLANT'S YARD IS SOLD THERE; THIS PERCENTAGE HAS PROGRESSIVELY
INCREASED.  (5) VOLUME, APPRAISED AT $10 PER CAR, APPLIED TO THE 35,000
CARS ANNUALLY RECEIVED AT THE YARD.    NONE OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS HAS
MUCH, IF ANY, BEARING ON THE ASCERTAINMENT OF GOING VALUE OR THE
APPLICATION OF THE RULE THAT IT IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN
CONFISCATION CASES.  THAT ELEMENT IS NOT SEPARATE FROM OR NECESSARILY
IN EXCESS OF REASONABLE COST FIGURES, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PLANT.  THE
SECRETARY CONSIDERED ITS LOCATION, THE VOLUME AND FLOW OF SHIPMENTS,
PERCENTAGES OF SALES TO RECEIPTS, PRIVILEGES IN TRANSIT, COST OF
SERVICE, PAST HISTORY, FUTURE PROSPECTS, AND OTHER PERTINENT FACTS. 
APPELLANT DOES NOT CLAIM THAT ITS PAST OPERATIONS CLEARLY REFLECT
EXCELLENCE OF SERVICE AND LOW COST PER UNIT IN COMPARISON WITH RESULTS
ATTAINED BY OTHER STOCKYARDS, OR THAT CONDITIONS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE
GIVE DEPENDABLE ASSURANCE OF FUTURE GROWTH AND CAPACITY TO EARN NET
RETURNS AT RELATIVELY LOW RATES.  SEE E.G. MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS
WATER CO., SUPRA, 413-415.  ITS EVIDENCE FALLS FAR SHORT OF CONDEMNING
AS ARBITRARY AND CONFISCATORY THE SECRETARY'S REFUSAL TO ADD A SEPARATE
AMOUNT TO HIS RATE BASE TO COVER GOING CONCERN VALUE. 

YARDAGE CHARGES TO TRADERS.  THESE ARE PRESCRIBED AS REASONABLE
MAXIMUM RATES TO COVER SALES FOR WHICH, AS ABOVE STATED, APPELLANT HAS
MADE NO CHARGE.  ITS FAILURE SO TO DO IS FOUND BY THE SECRETARY AND THE
LOWER COURT TO BE UNREASONABLY AND UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY, IN THAT IT
DOES MAKE CHARGES FOR SIMILAR PRIVILEGES IT FURNISHES PRODUCERS AND
OTHERS SELLING IN ITS MARKET.  THE PRESCRIBED CHARGES APPLY TO ANIMALS
SOLD BY PRODUCERS OR OTHERS TO TRADERS AND BY THE LATTER RESOLD OR
REWEIGHED FOR SALE AT THE YARD.  ON CATTLE, CALVES AND HOGS THEY ARE 50
PER CENT OF THOSE CHARGED PRODUCERS, ON SHEEP AND GOATS 40 PER CENT,
AND ON HORSES, MULES AND PURE-BRED BULLS, 100 PER CENT.  THE SECRETARY
ESTIMATES THAT IF APPELLANT EXACTS THE PRESCRIBED CHARGES TO TRADERS IT
WILL OBTAIN REVENUE FROM THAT SOURCE OF $10,960 PER YEAR, AND HE
INCLUDES THAT AMOUNT IN HIS CALCULATION OF REASONABLE RETURN. 

THERE IS CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO SPACE ASSIGNED TO
TRADERS AND DETAILS OF SERVICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SALES BY THEM.  BUT THE
EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT, AS FOUND BY THE SECRETARY AND LOWER
COURTS, APPELLANT DOES PROVIDE THEM FACILITIES AND PRIVILEGES SIMILAR
TO, THOUGH NOT PRECISELY THE SAME AS, THOSE FURNISHED TO OTHERS MAKING
SALES IN THE MARKET.  THESE CHARGES ARE NOT DISCRIMINATORY AS BETWEEN
PRODUCERS; THEY DIRECTLY BEAR BUT ONE CHARGE.  ASSUMING THAT THE CHARGE
FOR SELLING BY TRADERS WOULD OPERATE TO LESSEN PRICES OBTAINABLE BY
PRODUCERS FROM THEM, NO UNJUST DISCRIMINATION RESULTS, FOR OBVIOUSLY
CHARGES FOR THE TWO SALES OF THE SAME ANIMALS REASONABLY MAY BE MORE
THAN THAT EXACTED FOR THE FIRST ONE.  THESE RATES ARE PRESCRIBED, AND
REVENUES OBTAINABLE FROM THEM ARE INCLUDED BY THE SECRETARY IN HIS
ESTIMATE OF APPELLANT'S INCOME, TO THE END THAT IT MAY NOT EXACT FROM
PRODUCERS AND OTHERS SELLING AT THE YARD CHARGES SUFFICIENT TO COVER
THE PART OF ITS OPERATING EXPENSES THAT IS FAIRLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
SALES MADE BY TRADERS.  THE STATUTE DENOUNCES UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AND
REQUIRES APPELLANT AS A PUBLIC MARKET TO CHARGE, AND EMPOWERS THE
SECRETARY TO PRESCRIBE, RATES THAT ARE NON-DISCRIMINATORY.  THERE IS NO
GROUND FOR THE APPELLANT'S SUGGESTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ORDER
UNLAWFULLY INVADES ITS RIGHT AS OWNER TO MANAGE THE YARD AND CONTROL
ITS BUSINESS POLICY.  CF. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. CHICAGO G.W.
RY. CO., 209 U.S. 108, 118.  NORFOLK & W. RY. CO. V. WEST VIRGINIA, 236
U.S. 605, 609.  NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585,
595, 596.  BANTON V. BELT LINE RY., 268 U.S. 413, 421. 

DUES, DONATIONS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS.  APPELLANT CLAIMS AN ALLOWANCE IN
OPERATING EXPENSES OF $3000 TO $4000 A YEAR.  THE SECRETARY FOUND THAT
IT HAS REGULARLY MADE DISBURSEMENTS RANGING BETWEEN THOSE FIGURES TO
LOCAL CHARITIES, PHILANTHROPIES, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS, ETC.  FN5  HE
HELD THAT ONLY THOSE OF PECULIAR BENEFIT TO RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES AND
PATRONS SHOULD BE INCLUDED, AND ON THAT BASIS ALLOWED IN ESTIMATED
FUTURE OPERATING EXPENSES $325 A YEAR.  APPELLANT SAYS THAT THE
EXCLUSION LEAVES RETURN ABOUT $1000 SHORT OF SIX AND ONE-HALF PER CENT,
THAT NO CONTRIBUTIONS WERE MADE TO CHARITIES WHICH DID NOT CARRY ON IN
THE STOCKYARDS AREA, AND THAT NEARLY ALL OTHER ITEMS WERE BUSINESS
EXPENSES. 

BUT DECISION HERE CANNOT BE MADE TO TURN ON AN ESTIMATED MARGIN
RELATIVELY SO SMALL.  APPELLANT'S ANNUAL RECEIPTS AND SALES AT THE YARD
VARY CONSIDERABLY.  OPERATING EXPENSES MAY BE LESS OR MORE PER HEAD
THAN THE ESTIMATES THEREFOR.  PROPERTY VALUE MAY DECLINE OR ADVANCE. 
NONE OF THE EXPENDITURES IN QUESTION IS COMPULSORY.  APPELLANT MAY
WITHHOLD DUES, DONATIONS OR SUBSCRIPTIONS AS IT SEES FIT.  IT WAS NOT,
AND PROBABLY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, PROVED THAT FAILURE TO RESPOND WOULD
ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS REVENUE.  THE SECRETARY IS NOT REQUIRED TO
PRESCRIBE RATES SO LOW AS TO BE BARELY SUFFICIENT TO WITHSTAND ATTACK
ON THE GROUND OF CONFISCATION, BUT IS AT LIBERTY WITHIN LIMITS THAT HE
MAY FIND TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE TO ESTABLISH HIGHER RATES.  BANTON
V. BELT LINE RY., SUPRA, 422.  DAYTON P. & L. CO. V. COMM'N, SUPRA,
308.  COLUMBUS GAS CO. V. COMM'N, 292 U.S. 398, 414.  ATLANTIC COAST
LINE V. FLORIDA, 295 U.S. 301, 317.  CF. DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK RY. V.
UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456, 484.  IN VIEW OF THE VARIABLE ELEMENTS TO
WHICH APPELLANT'S PROSPECTIVE INCOME IS SUBJECT, ITS CONTROL OVER THE
ITEMS IN CONTROVERSY, AND THEIR TRIVIALITY, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO
DECIDE WHETHER APPELLANT AS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS ENTITLED TO HAVE
ANY OF THEM INCLUDED IN ITS FUTURE OPERATING EXPENSES. 

EXPENSES OF HEARINGS UNDER THE ACT.  THE SECRETARY FOUND IT
REASONABLE TO INCLUDE IN ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS SOME OF THE EXPENSES
INCIDENT TO FUTURE HEARINGS UNDER THE ACT, SUGGESTED THAT THEY WILL BE
LESS THAN HERETOFORE, AND ALLOWED $100 A MONTH.  THE COURT BELOW
REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION.  APPELLANT DOES NOT ATTACK THIS ALLOWANCE
AS INSUFFICIENT TO COVER EXPENSE ON ACCOUNT OF FUTURE HEARINGS.  HERE,
IT COMPLAINS THAT NOTHING IS INCLUDED "TO AMORTIZE OVER A REASONABLE
FUTURE PERIOD OR AT ALL THE COSTS AND EXPENSES OF THE PRESENT
LITIGATION." 

BUT WE ARE NOT CALLED ON TO DECIDE THAT QUESTION.  APPELLANT'S BILL
CHALLENGES THE SECRETARY'S ALLOWANCE, REFERS TO EXPENSES THERETOFORE
INCURRED IN RATE INVESTIGATIONS AND ALLEGES THAT THE ALLOWANCE "IS
WHOLLY INADEQUATE TO PERMIT PETITIONER (APPELLANT) EITHER TO REIMBURSE
ITSELF FOR EXPENDITURES FORCED UPON IT BY THE SECRETARY OR TO MEET
PROBABLE REASONABLE EXPENDITURES FOR SAID PURPOSES IN THE FUTURE, AND
THAT THE  ...  FINDING  ...  IS ARBITRARY  ...  "  AT THE TRIAL THE
SECRETARY, WITHOUT CONCEDING MATERIALITY OF THE FACTS, STIPULATED THAT
EXPENSE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDING FROM ITS COMMENCEMENT, ABOUT JANUARY
1, 1935, TO THE DATE OF THE ORDER WAS $24,654.27 AND THAT A REASONABLE
ESTIMATE OF THE EXPENSE OF LITIGATION IN THE LOWER COURT WAS $15,785. 
APPELLANT REQUESTED THE COURT TO FIND THAT ITS AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENSE
ON ACCOUNT OF HEARINGS UNDER THE ACT FOR THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD ENDING
WITH 1934 WAS $8,786.88, AND TO FIND THE FACTS STIPULATED BY THE
SECRETARY AND THAT ITS AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENSE ON ACCOUNT OF ENFORCEMENT
OF THE ACT FOR THE ELEVEN-YEAR PERIOD ENDING WITH 1934 WAS $6,216. 

THE BURDEN WAS ON APPELLANT BY DIRECT ALLEGATIONS PLAINLY TO SET
FORTH THE FACTS ON WHICH IT INTENDED AT THE TRIAL TO MAINTAIN THAT THE
RATES ARE CONFISCATORY.  AETNA INSURANCE CO. V. HYDE, 275 U.S. 440,
447, AND CASES THERE CITED.  NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE V. NEW ORLEANS,
281 U.S. 682, 686.  BEAUMONT, S.L. & W. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282
U.S. 74, 88-89.  MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORWOOD, 283 U.S. 249,
255.  ITS COMPLAINT FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE CLAIM IT NOW MAKES.  IT IS
THAT FOR EACH OF THE FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ORDER, THERE SHOULD BE ADDED TO ESTIMATED COST OF OPERATION ABOUT
$8,000 TO COVER EXPENSES OF HEARINGS BEFORE THE SECRETARY AND OF
LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  ITS REQUEST FOR FINDING WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO PRESENT THE QUESTION.  PROBABLE EXPENSE OF FUTURE
HEARINGS BEING IN ISSUE, THE SECRETARY'S STIPULATION AS TO ACTUAL COST
OF PAST HEARINGS AND PROBABLE EXPENSE OF FUTURE LITIGATION CANNOT BE
REGARDED AS CONSENT TO LITIGATE THE QUESTION OF AMORTIZATION NOT RAISED
BY THE BILL.  AS THE ISSUE WAS NOT APPROPRIATELY PRESENTED BELOW,
APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE IT DECIDED HERE. 

RATE OF RETURN.  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE
SECRETARY'S ECONOMIST AND A LOCAL INVESTMENT BANKER OF HIGH STANDING,
WHO IS ALSO A STOCKHOLDER AND DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT, THE SECRETARY AND
LOWER COURT FOUND THAT SIX AND ONE-HALF PER CENT PER ANNUM OF THE VALUE
OF THE PROPERTY IS A REASONABLE RETURN.  WE NEED NOT RESTATE THE
CONSIDERATIONS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING A REASONABLE
RATE OF RETURN.  FN6 PLAINLY THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE
OR WARRANT A FINDING THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE A RETURN OF SIX AND
ONE-HALF PER CENT ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE CONFISCATORY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  7 U.S.C. SEC. 211.  "WHENEVER AFTER FULL HEARING  ...  THE
SECRETARY IS OF THE OPINION THAT ANY RATE, CHARGE, REGULATION, OR
PRACTICE OF A STOCKYARD OWNER OR MARKET AGENCY, FOR OR IN CONNECTION
WITH THE FURNISHING OF STOCKYARD SERVICES, IS OR WILL BE UNJUST,
UNREASONABLE, OR DISCRIMINATORY, THE SECRETARY - 

"(A)  MAY DETERMINE AND PRESCRIBE WHAT WILL BE THE JUST AND REASONABLE
RATE OR CHARGE, OR RATES OR CHARGES, TO BE THEREAFTER OBSERVED IN SUCH
CASE, OR THE MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM, OR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM, TO BE CHARGED,
AND WHAT REGULATION OR PRACTICE IS OR WILL BE JUST, REASONABLE, AND
NONDISCRIMINATORY TO BE THEREAFTER FOLLOWED; AND 

"(B)  MAY MAKE AN ORDER THAT SUCH OWNER OR OPERATOR (1) SHALL CEASE
AND DESIST FROM SUCH VIOLATION TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SECRETARY
FINDS THAT IT DOES OR WILL EXIST; (2) SHALL NOT THEREAFTER PUBLISH,
DEMAND, OR COLLECT ANY RATE OR CHARGE FOR THE FURNISHING OF STOCKYARD
SERVICES OTHER THAN THE RATE OR CHARGE SO PRESCRIBED, OR IN EXCESS OF
THE MAXIMUM OR LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SO PRESCRIBED, AS THE CASE MAY BE;
AND (3) SHALL CONFORM TO AND OBSERVE THE REGULATION OR PRACTICE SO
PRESCRIBED." 

FN2  7 U.S.C. SEC. 217; 28 U.S.C. SECS. 44, 47(A). 

FN3  THE SECRETARY IN HIS BRIEF FURNISHES THE COURT THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT.  "THE REVENUES PRODUCED FROM AN APPLICATION OF THE RATES
PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS USED BY HIM AS A
RATE FACTOR ARE $530,117.  THE REVENUES PRODUCED BY AN APPLICATION OF
THE RATES UNDER INVESTIGATION TO THE VOLUME USED BY THE SECRETARY AS A
RATE FACTOR ARE $579,342.  THE $530,117 PRODUCED BY THE PRESCRIBED
RATES IS 91.5% OF THE $579,342 PRODUCED BY THE RATES UNDER
INVESTIGATION. 

"THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE METHOD AND COMPUTATIONS BY WHICH THESE
RESULTS WERE OBTAINED: 

(CHART OMITTED) 

FN4  SEE TABLE BELOW: 

(CHART OMITTED) 

FN5  THERE WERE OVER ONE HUNDRED RECIPIENTS OF DUES, DONATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS DURING THE FIVE YEARS ENDING WITH 1934.  THE
CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 1934 ARE FAIRLY ILLUSTRATIVE.  THEY ARE LISTED
BELOW.  THOSE IN ITALICS WERE MADE (IN VARYING AMOUNTS) IN EACH OF THE
FIVE YEARS; THOSE UNDERSCORED WERE ALLOWED BY THE SECRETARY. 

DENVER COMMUNITY CHEST, $1000; DENVER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, $240; U.S.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, $50; JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, $15; TICKETS AND
BOXES - STOCK SHOW, $395.50; AMERICAN STOCKYARDS ASSOCIATION, $832.56;
CHURCH DONATIONS, $115; FLOWERS, $4; UNITED APPEAL, $75; VOLUNTEERS OF
AMERICA, $10; VETERAN VOLUNTEER FIREMEN, $5; FIREMEN'S PROTECTIVE
ASSOCIATION, $15; DENVER TRAFFIC CLUB, $18; DENVER COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC
CLUB, $18; I.C.C. TRAFFIC REPORTS, $25.25; TRAFFIC SERVICE CORP., $10;
BRAND INSPECTORS - CHRISTMAS, $70; DENVER LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE, $95.53;
DENVER POST, $12; TAX PAYERS REVIEW, $5; POLICEMEN'S PROTECTIVE
ASSOCIATION, $50; LUNCHES AT AUCTION, $55; 4-H CLUB LUNCHEON, $34;
TRAFFIC RED BOOK, $8; OLD FOLKS HOME, $10; CHRISTMAS SEALS, $1; RESCUE
MISSION, $2.50; CHICAGO DROVERS JOURNAL YEARBOOK, $1; CHURCH MESSENGER,
$11; JOINT LABOR DAY COMMITTEE, $10; DENVER TOURISTS BUREAU, $100;
WEDDING GIFT, $250; GENTS DRIVING & RIDING CLUB, $10; COLORADO WOMENS
COLLEGE, $100; INTERNATIONAL VET.  CONGRESS, $25; POLICE & SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, $25; FEDERAL INCOME TAX SERVICE, $66; WESTERN LEGIONNAIRE,
$5; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, $11; AMERICAN LEGION, $5;
PROGRAM - HOLY NAME BASKET BALL, $5; OFFICE EMPLOYEES HAY RIDE, ETC.,
$3; GULDMAN COMMUNITY CENTER, $2.50; PRESIDENT'S BALL - TICKETS, $18. 

FN6  WILLCOX V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S. 19.  BLUEFIELD CO. V.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S. 679, 692.  LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS TEL.
CO., 292 U.S. 151.  DAYTON P. & L. CO. V. COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290, 311. 
ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 72. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN
..END :





IN RE LABOR BOARD, 304 U.S. 486 


NO. 21, ORIGINAL.  ARGUED MAY 23, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1938. 


1.  TO CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REVIEW
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE FILING AND SERVICE
OF THE PETITION ARE NOT ENOUGH, BUT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE BOARD'S
PROCEEDINGS ALSO MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT.  NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, SEC. 10(D)(E)(F).  P. 491. 

2.  WHERE A PETITION FOR REVIEW HAS BEEN FILED AND SERVED ON THE
BOARD, AND THE PETITIONER HAS REQUESTED THE BOARD TO FURNISH A
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF ITS PROCEEDINGS BUT NONE HAS BEEN FURNISHED AND
FILED IN THE COURT, THE BOARD RETAINS AUTHORITY, UNDER SEC. 10(D) OF
THE ACT, TO VACATE OR MODIFY ITS ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTING
ERRORS WHICH RENDER IT INADEQUATE OR UNJUST, AND THE COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN THE BOARD FROM SO DOING AND TO REQUIRE IT TO
FILE THE TRANSCRIPT.  PP. 491-494. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO OCCASION TO DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY,
RELIEF MAY BE NEEDED BY OR AVAILABLE TO A PARTY WHO HAS FILED HIS
PETITION FOR REVIEW, WHERE THE BOARD DOES NOT DESIRE TO MODIFY OR SET
ASIDE ITS ORDER BUT FAILS OR REFUSES TO FURNISH A TRANSCRIPT OF ITS
PROCEEDINGS. 

3.  THE INVESTITURE OF THE COURT WITH JURISDICTION TO REVIEW AN ORDER
OF THE LABOR BOARD ON THE MERITS, ONLY UPON THE FILING OF A TRANSCRIPT
EXHIBITING THE BOARD'S FINAL ACTION, IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. 
P. 495. 

4.  MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION ARE APPROPRIATE REMEDIES, IN THE ABSENCE
OF ADEQUATE REMEDY BY CERTIORARI, FOR UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF JURISDICTION OVER PROCEEDINGS OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  P. 496. 

IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

PETITION FOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS. 

ORIGINAL APPLICATION BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR WRITS
OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION DIRECTED TO THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  THE CAUSE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENTS, HON. JOSEPH BUFFINGTON, HON. J. WARREN DAVIS, AND HON. J.
WHITAKER THOMPSON, CIRCUIT JUDGES, UPON THEIR RETURN TO THE RULE TO
SHOW CAUSE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE MOTION BEFORE US INVOLVES A CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 10(D)(E) AND (F)
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,  FN1  PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF
ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

MAY 16, 1938, THE BOARD FILED IN THIS COURT A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A PETITION FOR WRITS OF PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE
JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT.  ATTACHED TO THE MOTION WAS THE PETITION WHICH SET FORTH THE
FOLLOWING FACTS. 

APRIL 8, 1938, THE BOARD, IN A CAUSE PENDING BEFORE IT, ISSUED AN
ORDER DIRECTING THE REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION TO DESIST FROM CERTAIN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND TO TAKE CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.  APRIL
18 REPUBLIC FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS A PETITION FOR REVIEW
ALLEGING THAT THE ORDER VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF DUE
PROCESS BECAUSE IT WAS ENTERED WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPUBLIC TO
SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS BY ARGUMENT OR BRIEF AND THUS THE BOARD HAD
DENIED IT THE HEARING TO WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED.  ON THE SAME DAY
REPUBLIC REQUESTED OF THE BOARD A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD OF
ITS PROCEEDINGS AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE BOARD REPLIED: "I HAVE
YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 18TH, AND RECEIVED TODAY A COPY OF YOUR PETITION
FOR REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S ORDER FILED IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  WE WILL
PROCEED TO GET UP THE RECORD AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE FOR CERTIFICATION
TO THE COURT." 

THE RULES OF THE BOARD EXTEND TO ANY PARTY THE RIGHT, WITHIN A
REASONABLE PERIOD AFTER THE CLOSE OF A HEARING, TO PRESENT ORAL
ARGUMENT BEFORE THE TRIAL EXAMINER AND, WITH HIS PERMISSION, TO FILE
BRIEFS.  THEY FURTHER PROVIDE THAT THE BOARD MAY DECIDE A CAUSE WITH OR
WITHOUT ALLOWING THE PARTIES TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE BOARD
ITSELF OR TO SUBMIT BRIEFS TO THE BOARD.  IT IS THE BOARD'S PRACTICE TO
GRANT LEAVE TO SUBMIT BRIEFS TO IT OR TO MAKE ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE IT
WHENEVER SO REQUESTED, BUT THE RULES DO NOT EXPRESSLY STATE THAT SUCH A
REQUEST MAY BE MADE OR THAT THE REQUEST, IF MADE, WILL BE GRANTED.  NO
SUCH REQUEST WAS MADE BY REPUBLIC AND NO BRIEF WAS RECEIVED OR ORAL
ARGUMENT HEARD BEFORE THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER OF APRIL 8, 1938.  THE
RULES ALSO PROVIDE FOR HEARING BEFORE A TRIAL EXAMINER OF CAUSES
INITIATED BY THE FILING OF CHARGES BEFORE A REGIONAL DIRECTOR UNLESS
THE CAUSE IS TRANSFERRED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD IN WASHINGTON. 
IF THE HEARING IS BEFORE AN EXAMINER HE IS TO RENDER AN INTERMEDIATE
REPORT CONTAINING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO THE
DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE, WHICH ARE TO BE SERVED UPON THE PARTIES, AND
THEY ARE ENTITLED TO TAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE INTERMEDIATE REPORT.  IN
CASES INITIATED BY CHARGES FILED WITH THE BOARD IN WASHINGTON, OR
TRANSFERRED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD, IT MAY DIRECT THE TRIAL
EXAMINER TO PREPARE AN INTERMEDIATE REPORT, BUT THE RULES DO NOT
REQUIRE THAT SUCH A REPORT SHALL BE PREPARED OR SERVED, OR THAT THE
BOARD SHALL SERVE ITS OWN PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW.  THE COMPLAINT AGAINST REPUBLIC WAS INITIATED BY CHARGES FILED
WITH THE BOARD.  THE BOARD DID NOT DIRECT THE TRIAL EXAMINER TO PREPARE
AN INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND NONE WAS PREPARED OR SERVED, NOR DID THE
BOARD SERVE ITS OWN PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF ITS ORDER. 

SUBSEQUENT TO APRIL 25, 1938, THE BOARD INSTITUTED THE PRACTICE OF
NOTIFYING THE PARTIES IN ALL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT OF THEIR RIGHT TO
SUBMIT BRIEFS TO THE BOARD AND, UPON REQUEST, TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT
TO THE BOARD; AND FURTHER DETERMINED THAT, IN CASES THEREAFTER TO BE
DECIDED, WHICH HAD BEEN INITIATED BEFORE IT, OR TRANSFERRED TO IT FOR
HEARING (EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL REASONS IN PARTICULAR CASES) AN
INTERMEDIATE REPORT SHOULD BE PREPARED BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER AND SERVED
UPON THE PARTIES OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS SHOULD BE PREPARED BY THE BOARD AND SIMILARLY SERVED WITH
EXPRESS NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR RIGHT TO TAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE
REPORT OR THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND, UPON REQUEST, TO BE HEARD BY THE
BOARD, ORALLY OR UPON BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE EXCEPTIONS.  IN CASES
ALREADY DECIDED, IN WHICH COMPLAINT HAD BEEN MADE OF THE OMISSION OF AN
INTERMEDIATE REPORT OR PROPOSED FINDINGS, OR OF THE LACK OF WRITTEN OR
ORAL ARGUMENT, THE BOARD DETERMINED TO VACATE ITS ORDERS, TO RESTORE
THE CAUSES TO ITS DOCKET, AND TO RECONSIDER AND REDETERMINE THEM AFTER
GRANTING FULL OPPORTUNITY OF EXCEPTION TO PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS AND AFTER THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PARTIES
TO SUBMIT BRIEFS AND TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD IF THEY SHOULD SO
REQUEST.  AMONG THE CASES IN THIS CATEGORY WAS THAT INVOLVING
REPUBLIC. 

APRIL 30, 1938, REPUBLIC MOVED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR A
STAY OF THE BOARD'S ORDER AND, UPON THE HEARING OF THE MOTION, THE
BOARD ADVISED THE COURT THAT IT WAS CONSIDERING VACATING THE ORDER. 
MAY 3, UPON EX PARTE APPLICATION OF REPUBLIC, THE COURT ISSUED A RULE,
RETURNABLE MAY 13, REQUIRING THE BOARD TO SHOW CAUSE WHY IT SHOULD NOT
FILE IN THE COURT A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REPUBLIC, AND MADE AN ORDER RESTRAINING THE BOARD
FROM TAKING ANY STEPS OR PROCEEDINGS WHATSOEVER IN THE CAUSE UNTIL THE
RETURN DAY OF THE RULE. 

MAY 13 THE BOARD ANSWERED THE RULE OF MAY 3 STATING THAT THE RECORD
WAS INCOMPLETE BECAUSE THE BOARD HAD DETERMINED ON MAY 3 TO VACATE THE
ORDER AND TO RESTORE THE CAUSE TO THE DOCKET FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
AND HAD BEEN PREVENTED FROM SO DOING BY THE RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED
MAY 3; THE ANSWER FURTHER SET OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10(D) OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DEPRIVE THE COURT OF JURISDICTION TO
ISSUE THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND OF JURISDICTION TO FORBID THE VACATION
OF THE BOARD'S ORDER AND TO COMPEL THE FILING OF A TRANSCRIPT OF THE
BOARD'S RECORD AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE DECISION TO VACATE THE ORDER. 
THE COURT MADE THE RULE ABSOLUTE AND ENJOINED THE BOARD FROM TAKING ANY
FURTHER STEPS OR PROCEEDINGS IN THE CAUSE UNTIL THE TRANSCRIPT WAS
FILED. 

THE PETITION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ASSERTS THAT THE
COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO TAKE THIS ACTION AND PRAYS A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE JUDGES WHO PARTICIPATED TO VACATE THE ORDER OF
MAY 13, AND A WRIT OF PROHIBITION AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION
UPON THE PETITION OF REPUBLIC TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF APRIL 8 WITHOUT
AFFORDING THE BOARD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO VACATE IT. 

UPON PRESENTATION OF THE PAPERS WE GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE THEM AND
ENTERED A RULE UPON THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE RELIEF SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AS PRAYED, RETURNABLE MAY 23, AND
DIRECTED THAT, ON THE RETURN DAY, THE PARTIES SHOULD BE HEARD UPON THE
QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO MAKE THE CHALLENGED
ORDER. 

MAY 21, THE JUDGES FILED THEIR RETURN ADMITTING THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE PETITION, EXCEPT THOSE AS TO THE RULES AND PRACTICE OF THE BOARD,
AND ITS DETERMINATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS IN THE REPUBLIC AND OTHER
CASES, WHICH IT NEITHER ADMITTED NOR DENIED.  THE RETURN SHOWED THAT
THE ORDER OF MAY 13 WAS MADE IN THE VIEW THAT, UNDER SEC. 10(F) OF THE
ACT, REPUBLIC, BY FILING AND SERVING ITS PETITION FOR RELIEF, AND BY
REQUESTING THE BOARD TO FILE, OR TO DELIVER FOR FILING, A CERTIFIED
TRANSCRIPT, COMPLIED WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE
STATUTE SO FAR AS WAS WITHIN REPUBLIC'S POWER; THAT THEREUPON IT BECAME
THE DUTY OF THE BOARD FORTHWITH TO FILE A TRANSCRIPT AND THAT, IN THE
JUDGES' OPINION, JURISDICTION OF THE COURT ATTACHED UPON SERVICE OF THE
PETITION FOR REVIEW AND COULD NOT BE DEFEATED BY THE BOARD'S FAILURE TO
PERFORM ITS STATUTORY DUTY, WHICH WAS TO FILE THE TRANSCRIPT.  THE
RETURN FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE COURT WAS OF OPINION THAT POSSIBLE DAMAGE
WOULD RESULT TO REPUBLIC FROM DELAY DUE TO THE FAILURE TO FILE THE
TRANSCRIPT AND THIS CONSIDERATION MOVED THE COURT TO A CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ACT WHICH CALLED FOR THE ENTRY OF ITS ORDER.  THE RETURN CONCLUDES
AS FOLLOWS:  "RECOGNIZING THE DEBATABLE CHARACTER OF THE QUESTION
PRESENTED ON THIS RECORD, THE RESPONDENTS SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THE
JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD JURISDICTION TO
ENTER THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF AND RECORD THEIR READINESS TO VACATE THE
SAME IF, IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE WAS
LACKING." 

AS IS INDICATED BY OUR ACTION ON THE MOTION OF THE BOARD FOR LEAVE TO
FILE, AND BY THE RETURN TO THE RULE, THE QUESTION IS SOLELY OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THIS QUESTION IS TO BE
ANSWERED IN THE LIGHT OF SEC. 10(D)(E) AND (F) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, THE PERTINENT PORTIONS OF WHICH ARE IN THE MARGIN.  FN2
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AND FOR REPUBLIC HAVE PRESENTED THEIR VIEWS
IN ORAL ARGUMENT AND BRIEFS. 

THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE IN CHARACTER.  ITS FINAL
ACTION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED IN THE
ACT.  SUBSECTION (D) OF SEC. 10, IN PLAIN TERMS, INVESTS THE BOARD WITH
AUTHORITY, AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE TRANSCRIPT SHALL HAVE BEEN FILED IN
COURT, TO MODIFY OR SET ASIDE ITS ORDER IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  THE
PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION OBVIOUSLY IS TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CORRECT ERRORS OR TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD RENDER THE ORDER
INADEQUATE OR UNJUST.  THE WORDS USED ARE "UNTIL A TRANSCRIPT OF THE
RECORD  ... SHALL HAVE BEEN FILED IN A COURT, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED,"
THE BOARD MAY VACATE OR MODIFY.  THE FOLLOWING SUBSECTIONS, (E) AND
(F), ARE THOSE TO WHICH WE TURN FOR THE CONNOTATION OF THE QUALIFYING
PHRASE.  SUBSECTION (E) GRANTS THE BOARD RESORT TO A COURT FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  THAT ENFORCEMENT IS TO BE OBTAINED BY FILING
A PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT AND FILING A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF THE
BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS.  THE SUBSECTION PROCEEDS:  "UPON SUCH FILING, THE
COURT SHALL CAUSE NOTICE THEREOF TO BE SERVED UPON" THE PERSON AGAINST
WHOM ENFORCEMENT IS ASKED.  HERE IT IS QUITE PLAIN THAT THE COURT IS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO TAKE ACTION AT THE BEHEST OF THE BOARD UNTIL
THE TRANSCRIPT SHALL HAVE BEEN FILED AND NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THE
PETITION AND THE TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN SERVED.  SUBSECTION (F) AFFORDS
RELIEF TO "ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD GRANTING
OR DENYING IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE RELIEF SOUGHT,  ...  "  SUCH A
PERSON, THE STATUTE DECLARES, "MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW" OF THE BOARD'S
ORDER BY FILING IN COURT "A WRITTEN PETITION PRAYING THAT THE ORDER OF
THE BOARD BE MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE."  A COPY OF THE PETITION IS TO BE
SERVED FORTHWITH UPON THE BOARD, AND "THEREUPON THE AGGRIEVED PARTY
SHALL FILE IN THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT" OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS. 
"UPON SUCH FILING, THE COURT SHALL PROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE
CASE OF AN APPLICATION BY THE BOARD UNDER SUBSECTION (E),  ...  "
PLAINLY THE COURT MAY NOT PROCEED TO REVIEW THE BOARD'S ORDER UNDER
EITHER SECTION UNTIL A TRANSCRIPT IS FILED. 

COUNSEL FOR REPUBLIC URGE, IN SUPPORT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S ACTION,
THAT THE WORDS, "AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED," IN SUBSECTION (D), REFER TO
THE FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT REQUIRED IN AN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING
INITIATED BY THE BOARD AUTHORIZED BY SUBSECTION (E) BUT CANNOT HAVE
REFERENCE TO A PROCEEDING FOR REVIEW INITIATED BY ANY OTHER PARTY
BEFORE THE BOARD PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (F).  THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE
DO NOT WARRANT THIS CONSTRUCTION.  TWO FILINGS ARE REQUIRED BY
SUBSECTION (F), THE FIRST OF A PETITION, THE SECOND OF A TRANSCRIPT. 
AFTER PRESCRIBING THE SECOND, THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "UPON SUCH FILING,
THE COURT SHALL PROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF AN
APPLICATION BY THE BOARD UNDER SUBSECTION (E),  ...  "  THE REFERENCE
CLEARLY IS TO THE FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOT TO THE FILING OF THE
PETITION.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ITS APPARENT INTENT IS THAT, AS ONLY THE BOARD CAN CERTIFY THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND THE PETITIONER UNDER SUBSECTION (F) MUST FILE THE
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT, SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD ENABLE THE BOARD TO
HOLD THE TRANSCRIPT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD AND THUS HARASS AND
EMBARRASS A LITIGANT, AND DELAY, AND PERHAPS DENY, ANY EFFECTIVE
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  NO SUCH CASE IS HERE PRESENTED.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION
TO DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANY, RELIEF MAY BE NEEDED BY OR AVAILABLE TO A
PARTY WHO HAS FILED HIS PETITION FOR REVIEW, WHERE THE BOARD DOES NOT
DESIRE TO MODIFY OR SET ASIDE ITS ORDER BUT FAILS OR REFUSES TO FURNISH
A TRANSCRIPT OF ITS PROCEEDINGS. 

JURISDICTION AS THE TERM IS TO BE APPLIED IN THIS INSTANCE, IS THE
POWER TO HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CONTROVERSY PRESENTED, IN A GIVEN SET
OF CIRCUMSTANCES.  A COURT HAS JURISDICTION, IN ANOTHER USE OF THE
TERM, TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION WHETHER THAT POWER IS CONFERRED UPON IT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED, BUT IF IT FINDS SUCH POWER IS NOT
GRANTED IT LACKS JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND MUST REFRAIN
FROM ANY ADJUDICATION OF RIGHTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.  SINCE THE
STATUTE EMPOWERS THE BOARD, BEFORE THE FILING OF A TRANSCRIPT, TO
VACATE OR MODIFY ITS ORDERS, CERTAINLY IT DOES NOT CONFER JURISDICTION
UPON THE REVIEWING COURT TO PROHIBIT THE EXERCISE OF THE GRANTED
POWER.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO CONFER NO JURISDICTION
UPON THE REVIEWING COURT TO PREVENT THE BOARD FROM SEASONABLY VACATING
OR MODIFYING ITS ORDER SO AS TO MAKE IT COMPORT WITH RIGHT AND
JUSTICE.  THE ACT PLAINLY INDICATES THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO GIVE THE
COURT FULL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE BOARD'S ORDER IN
THE RESPECTS INDICATED BY THE ACT ONCE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE BOARD'S
PROCEEDINGS IS BEFORE IT.  IT IS EQUALLY PLAIN THAT THE COURT IS TO
HAVE NO POWER TO PREVENT THE BOARD FROM VACATING OR MODIFYING ITS ORDER
PRIOR TO SUCH PLENARY SUBMISSION OF THE CAUSE. 

COUNSEL FOR REPUBLIC URGES THAT THE BOARD'S PETITION TO THIS COURT
INDICATES THAT IT DOES NOT INTEND IRREVOCABLY TO ABANDON ITS FORMER
ORDER BUT MERELY TO REGULARIZE IT AND RE-ENTER IT AFTER REGULARIZATION
AND THAT THE ACT GIVES NO POWER TO DO THIS AFTER THE BOARD HAS HEARD
THE CASE AND ISSUED AN ORDER.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO SPECULATE UPON
THE FUTURE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE
PETITION SHOWS THAT THE BOARD DESIRED TO AND WOULD HAVE VACATED ITS
ORDER HAD IT NOT BEEN RESTRAINED BY THE ACTION OF THE COURT.  WHAT THE
LEGAL EFFECT OF ITS FUTURE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE WE NEED NOT DECIDE. 

COUNSEL INSIST THAT REPUBLIC IS AGGRIEVED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SUBSECTION (F), BY THE BOARD'S ATTEMPT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION OF THE
PROCEEDING AND TAKE FURTHER STEPS IN IT.  BUT THE ACT GRANTS A REVIEW
AND RELIEF ONLY TO A PERSON AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF THE BOARD, AND HAD
THE COURT NOT RESTRAINED THE BOARD ITS ORDER WOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED
AND THERE NOW WOULD BE NO ORDER OUTSTANDING.  THE BOARD IS GIVEN NO
POWER OF ENFORCEMENT.  COMPLIANCE IS NOT OBLIGATORY UNTIL THE COURT, ON
PETITION OF THE BOARD OR ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED, SHALL HAVE ENTERED A
DECREE ENFORCING THE ORDER AS MADE, OR AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT. 
STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD TO VACATE ITS ORDER PRIOR TO THE
FILING OF THE TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT SEEM TO US TO DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM
A LIKE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO A MASTER IN CHANCERY TO MODIFY OR RECALL
HIS REPORT TO A COURT AFTER SUBMISSION BUT BEFORE ACTION BY THE COURT. 
NO ONE COULD SUCCESSFULLY CLAIM TO BE AGGRIEVED IN A LEGAL SENSE BY
SUCH A STATUTORY PROVISION OR ASSERT THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS
INCOMPETENT TO CONFER SUCH POWER UPON A MASTER WITH CONSEQUENT LACK OF
JURISDICTION IN THE COURT TO FORBID ITS EXERTION. 

THE INVESTITURE OF A COURT WITH JURISDICTION TO REVIEW AN ORDER ON
THE MERITS ONLY UPON THE FILING OF A TRANSCRIPT EXHIBITING THE BOARD'S
FINAL ACTION IS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AS SUGGESTED BY COUNSEL. 

WE THINK THE WRITS PRAYED ARE APPROPRIATE REMEDIES IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED.  FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.  IF THE BOARD HAD COMPLIED WITH THE
ORDERS MADE, A HEARING WOULD HAVE RESULTED RESPECTING THE LEGALITY OF
SUPPOSED ACTION OF THE BOARD WHICH WAS NOT IN LAW OR FACT THE FINAL
ACTION, REVIEW OF WHICH THE STATUTE PROVIDES.  NO ADEQUATE REMEDY WOULD
BE OPEN TO THE BOARD BY WAY OF CERTIORARI FROM THE COURT'S ULTIMATE
REVIEW OF AN ORDER WHICH THE BOARD WAS AUTHORIZED AND DESIRED TO SET
ASIDE. 

THE EXPRESSION IN THE RETURN OF READINESS TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, IF THIS COURT IS OF OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL
LACKED JURISDICTION, RENDERS THE PRESENT ISSUE OF PROCESS
SUPEREROGATORY.  SHOULD THE ORDER NOT BE VACATED AND OCCASION THUS
ARISE FOR THE AWARD OF PROCESS, THE CLERK MAY ISSUE IT UPON THE ORDER
OF A JUSTICE OF THIS COURT. 

FN1  49 STAT. 454; U.S.C., SUPP. II, TIT. 29, SEC. 160(D)(E)(F). 

FN2  "(D)  UNTIL A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD IN A CASE SHALL HAVE BEEN
FILED IN A COURT, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, THE BOARD MAY AT ANY TIME,
UPON REASONABLE NOTICE AND IN SUCH MANNER AS IT SHALL DEEM PROPER,
MODIFY OR SET ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY FINDING OR ORDER MADE OR
ISSUED BY IT. 

"(E)  THE BOARD SHALL HAVE POWER TO PETITION ANY CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS  ...  FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH ORDER AND FOR APPROPRIATE
TEMPORARY RELIEF OR RESTRAINING ORDER, AND SHALL CERTIFY AND FILE IN
THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE PROCEEDING,
INCLUDING THE PLEADINGS AND TESTIMONY UPON WHICH SUCH ORDER WAS ENTERED
AND THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD.  UPON SUCH FILING, THE COURT
SHALL CAUSE NOTICE THEREOF TO BE SERVED UPON SUCH PERSON, AND THEREUPON
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION OF THE PROCEEDING AND OF THE QUESTION
DETERMINED THEREIN,  ... 

"(F)  ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD GRANTING OR
DENYING IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE RELIEF SOUGHT MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF
SUCH ORDER IN ANY CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  ...  BY FILING IN SUCH
COURT A WRITTEN PETITION PRAYING THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD BE
MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE.  A COPY OF SUCH PETITION SHALL BE FORTHWITH
SERVED UPON THE BOARD, AND THEREUPON THE AGGRIEVED PARTY SHALL FILE IN
THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THE PROCEEDING,
CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD, INCLUDING THE PLEADING AND TESTIMONY UPON WHICH
THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF WAS ENTERED AND THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE
BOARD.  UPON SUCH FILING, THE COURT SHALL PROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER AS
IN THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION BY THE BOARD UNDER SUBSECTION (E).  ...
" 

FN3  COMPARE VIRGINIA V. RIVES, 100 U.S. 313, 329; IN RE RICE, 155
U.S. 396, 402; IN RE NEW YORK & PORTO RICO S.S. CO., 155 U.S. 523; IN
RE ATLANTIC CITY RAILROAD, 164 U.S. 633; IN RE WINN, 213 U.S. 458, 466
468; EX PARTE HARDING, 219 U.S. 363, 377; EX PARTE OKLAHOMA, 220 U.S.
191, 208; EX PARTE CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY., 255 U.S. 273, 275. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

THE CASE IS NOT HERE AS IF ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR APPEAL FOR REVIEW
OF ERROR ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE LOWER COURT.  THIS IS AN
APPLICATION FOR THE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION TO COMMAND AND
RESTRAIN ACTION BY THE JUDGES NAMED.  THESE MAY NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS
THE LOWER COURT WAS PLAINLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE
THE CASE OR THE PARTICULAR ISSUE.  IN RE NEW YORK & P.R.S.S. CO., 155
U.S. 523, 531.  EX PARTE OKLAHOMA, 220 U.S. 191, 208.  EX PARTE
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY., 255 U.S. 273, 275.  PRECISELY, THE QUESTION IS
WHETHER, ON THE FACTS HERE DISCLOSED, THE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO
CONSIDER AND DECIDE UPON THE CORPORATION'S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
DIRECTING THE BOARD TO CERTIFY AND FILE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD AND
RESTRAINING IN THE MEANTIME ANY OTHER ACTION BY IT.  THE DECISION JUST
ANNOUNCED ANSWERS AFFIRMATIVELY, AND THAT IS THE BASIS ON WHICH THE
COURT COMMANDS VACATION OF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER COURT AND PROHIBITS
IT FROM REVIEWING THE ORDER OF THE BOARD WITHOUT FIRST GIVING IT A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO VACATE ITS ORDER; THAT IS, WITHOUT GIVING THE
BOARD MORE TIME TO PROCEED UNDER SEC. 10(D).  OBVIOUSLY JURISDICTION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ATTACHED UPON THE FILING OF THE
CORPORATION'S PETITION FOR REVIEW AND SERVICE OF A COPY ON THE BOARD. 
ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 10(F) WOULD LET THE BOARD, BY REFUSING
TO CERTIFY A TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT, PREVENT JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF ITS ORDERS.  CONGRESS DID NOT SO INTEND.  WHILE THE STATUTE
EXPRESSLY REQUIRES THE PERSON AGGRIEVED TO FILE A CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT,
IT IMPLIEDLY, BUT NOT LESS PLAINLY, COMMANDS THE BOARD TO CERTIFY THE
RECORD.  THIS COURT'S DECISION RESTS ON THE STATEMENT THAT, AS THE TERM
IS TO BE APPLIED IN THIS INSTANCE, JURISDICTION IS THE POWER TO HEAR
AND DETERMINE THE CONTROVERSY PRESENTED IN A GIVEN SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES.  IF THE LOWER COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN AND
DECIDE THE CORPORATION'S MOTION, WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION MAY
NOT BE GRANTED, FOR THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR CORRECTION OF MERE ERROR
OR EVEN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. NEW YORK,
N.H. & H.R. CO., 287 U.S. 178, 203-204.  EX PARTE WHITNEY, 13 PET. 404,
408.  EX PARTE TAYLOR, 14 HOW.  3, 13.  EX PARTE RAILWAY CO., 101 U.S.
711, 720.  IN RE HAWKINS, PETITIONER, 147 U.S. 486, 490.  IN RE
ATLANTIC CITY RAILROAD, 164 U.S. 633, 635.  IN RE JAMES POLLITZ, 206
U.S. 323, 331.  CF. EX PARTE SIMONS, 247 U.S. 231, 240. 

STRIPPED OF UNNECESSARY DETAILS AND LANGUAGE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
WHICH THE LOWER COURT MADE THE CHALLENGED ORDER MAY BE STATED BRIEFLY. 

UPON CHARGES MADE BY THE STEEL WORKERS' ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, THE
BOARD, JULY 15, 1937, ISSUED COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT THE CORPORATION
WAS ENGAGING IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  THE CORPORATION JOINED ISSUE. 
BEFORE IT FILED ANSWER, HEARINGS WERE HELD BY THE BOARD, FROM JULY 21
TO JULY 24.  AFTER ANSWER, THERE WERE HEARINGS BEFORE AN EXAMINER AT
VARIOUS TIMES AND PLACES BETWEEN AUGUST 9 AND SEPTEMBER 27.  APRIL 8,
1938, THE BOARD MADE ITS DECISION AND ORDER.  IT FOUND THE CORPORATION
GUILTY OF PRACTICES DENOUNCED BY THE ACT.  IT ORDERED IT TO CEASE AND
DESIST, TO REINSTATE CERTAIN PERSONS, TO PAY SUFFICIENT TO EQUALIZE
WHAT CERTAIN PERSONS WOULD HAVE EARNED IF EMPLOYED BY THE CORPORATION
DURING SPECIFIED PERIODS, LESS THE AMOUNT THEY EARNED AT OTHER WORK
DURING THOSE PERIODS. 

APRIL 18, THE CORPORATION FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ITS
PETITION TO HAVE THE BOARD'S ORDER ADJUDGED INVALID.  THE PETITION
CHARGES THAT, IN VIOLATION OF THE CORPORATION'S RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE BOARD ORDERED THE
CORPORATION TO REINSTATE PERSONS NOT ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT TO HAVE
BEEN UNLAWFULLY DISCHARGED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE CORPORATION;
AND SO DIRECTED NOTWITHSTANDING THE CORPORATION HAD NEVER BEEN ACCORDED
OR OFFERED A HEARING OR OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING DEFENSE AS TO THE
ASSERTED RIGHTS OF THOSE PERSONS; THAT THE BOARD MADE THE ORDER WITHOUT
AFFORDING THE CORPORATION OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE BY ARGUMENT,
ORALLY OR UPON BRIEF.  IT ALLEGES THAT, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ORDER,
ABOUT FIVE THOUSAND PERSONS MAY CLAIM REINSTATEMENT, PETITIONER IS
REQUIRED TO REINSTATE OR PAY THEM AS SPECIFIED, THE AVERAGE WAGE IS
$6.50 PER DAY.  AND IT ASSERTS THAT TO DEFER REINSTATEMENT, PENDING
DECISION BY THE COURT AS TO VALIDITY OF THE ORDER, WOULD INVOLVE A RISK
OF SUCH MAGNITUDE AS IMMINENTLY TO THREATEN ITS RIGHT TO HAVE REVIEW IN
COURT.  AND THE PETITION AVERS THAT UNLESS THE ORDER BE STAYED,
IRREPARABLE INJURY AND LOSS WILL RESULT TO THE CORPORATION AND THAT IT
WILL BE DENIED REVIEW OF A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE ORDER.  IT PRAYS
SERVICE OF A COPY ON THE BOARD, CERTIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF THE
TRANSCRIPT AS REQUIRED BY LAW, INVALIDATION OF THE ORDER, DIRECTION TO
THE BOARD TO DISMISS ITS COMPLAINT, AND A STAY OF THE ORDER AND OF
PROCEEDINGS BY THE BOARD TO ENFORCE IT, EXCEPTING SUCH AS MAY BE TAKEN
IN COURT. 

APRIL 18, THE DAY ON WHICH THE CORPORATION FILED PETITION FOR REVIEW,
THE BOARD, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CORPORATION'S CLAIM AS TO ITS DUTY
UNDER THE ACT, AGREED PROMPTLY TO CERTIFY THE TRANSCRIPT AND TO FILE IT
IN COURT.  APRIL 22, THE CORPORATION FILED AN APPLICATION FOR STAY AND
TEMPORARY RELIEF.  ITS APPLICATION CITED SEC. 10(G), WHICH DECLARES
THAT COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 10(F) SHALL NOT, UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY ORDERED BY THE COURT, OPERATE AS A STAY OF THE BOARD'S
ORDER.  IT STATED:  THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION WAS TO PREVENT
IRREPARABLE LOSS AND DENIAL OF REVIEW.  IF, PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION
OF THE CASE, PETITIONER SHOULD FAIL TO MAKE REINSTATEMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER, ITS POTENTIAL WEEKLY LIABILITY WOULD EXCEED
$95,000.  ON THAT BASIS THE CORPORATION SOUGHT SUSPENSION OF THE
PORTION OF THE ORDER THAT RELATES TO REINSTATEMENT OR PAYMENT OF WAGES,
SO THAT, IF IT SHOULD BE UPHELD, THE CORPORATION'S LIABILITY TO
REINSTATE OR TO PAY WOULD COMMENCE TEN DAYS AFTER THE FINAL DECREE OF
THE COURT.  IN A BRIEF SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION, THE
CORPORATION MAINTAINED THAT THE ORDER IS INVALID BECAUSE THE
CORPORATION WAS NOT AFFORDED A FAIR AND FULL HEARING AND BECAUSE THE
ORDER IS ONE FOR REEMPLOYMENT AND NOT FOR REINSTATEMENT; AND THAT
UNLESS THE STAY BE GRANTED, THE CORPORATION WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE
FINANCIAL LOSSES. 

APRIL 30 THE CORPORATION'S MOTION CAME ON FOR HEARING.  THE BOARD
APPEARED AND ARGUED AGAINST IT.  THE COURT NEITHER GRANTED NOR DENIED
THE APPLICATION.  THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, ISSUED MAY 3, RECITES THAT AT
THE HEARING, APRIL 30, THE BOARD STATED THAT IT "WAS SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERING WITHDRAWING, MODIFYING OR CHANGING ITS ORDER IN THE CASE
AND REOPENING SAME."  THE BOARD'S APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF THAT
ORDER STATES THAT AT THE HEARING ON APRIL 30 THE BOARD ADVISED THE
COURT THAT IT WAS CONTEMPLATING VACATING ITS ORDER, AND WOULD ADVISE
THE COURT OF ITS FINAL POSITION NOT LATER THAN MAY 4, 1938; THAT, ON
MAY 3, IT NOTIFIED THE CORPORATION THAT IT HAD DEFINITELY DECIDED TO
VACATE THE ORDER; BUT THAT, BEFORE ANY STEPS TO DO SO COULD BE TAKEN,
THE COURT HAD ISSUED THE RESTRAINING ORDER.  THE BOARD MAINTAINED THAT
AS THE TRANSCRIPT HAD NOT BEEN FILED, SEC. 10(D) WAS APPLICABLE AND
THAT THE BOARD THEN HAD THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW OR VACATE THE ORDER. 

IN ITS ANSWER TO THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, THE BOARD SAYS THAT IT WAS
NOT GUILTY OF REFUSAL TO CERTIFY OR OF DILATORY TACTICS, AND THAT ON
APRIL 18 ITS COUNSEL INFORMED THE CORPORATION'S COUNSEL THAT THE BOARD
WOULD AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE PREPARE THE RECORD FOR CERTIFICATION. 
"THIS TASK OF CONSIDERABLE MAGNITUDE WAS FORTHWITH COMMENCED AND WAS
INCOMPLETE A WEEK LATER WHEN THE SUPERVENING DECISION OF THE SUPREME
COURT IN MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 1, WAS RENDERED.  ...  THERE
IS NO QUESTION IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, WHETHER THE COURT HAD
JURISDICTION TO REQUIRE THE BOARD TO FILE A RECORD WHEN SUCH FILING HAS
BEEN LONG DELAYED OR REFUSED BY THE BOARD.  THE BOARD HAS WITH ALL
PROMPTNESS ELECTED TO EXERCISE ITS POWER TO VACATE ITS ORDER UNDER SEC.
10(D), AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THAT SECTION IS
INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS EVADED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
ACT."    IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COURT DID NOT LACK JURISDICTION TO
HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CONTROVERSY PRESENTED BY THE CORPORATION'S
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE BOARD TO CERTIFY THE RECORD FOR
FILING IN COURT.  THE ACT CONTEMPLATES PROMPT ACTION.  SECTION 10(I)
DECLARES THAT PETITIONS FILED UNDER IT SHALL BE HEARD EXPEDITIOUSLY
"AND IF POSSIBLE WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN DOCKETED."  POWER
UNDER SEC. 10(D) TO CHANGE OR VACATE ITS ORDER DOES NOT ENABLE THE
BOARD TO DELAY FILING THE RECORD.  AT THE BAR COUNSEL EXPRESSED THE
OPINION THAT THE BOARD MAY VACATE AN ORDER WITHOUT NOTICE, SEC. 10(D). 
IT HAD FIFTEEN DAYS, APRIL 18 TO MAY 3, TO DECIDE WHETHER TO VACATE THE
ORDER OR JOIN ISSUE.  THAT PERIOD INCLUDED A WEEK BEFORE AND A WEEK
AFTER OUR DECISION IN MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THE BOARD DOES
NOT CLAIM THAT IT NEEDED UNTIL MAY 3 TO CERTIFY THE TRANSCRIPT.  SO THE
ISSUE BEFORE THE LOWER COURT WAS THE VERY NARROW ONE, WHETHER FOR AN
UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME THE BOARD WITHHELD THE RECORD.  AND THAT
QUESTION INVOLVES CONSIDERATION OF SUBSIDIARY ONES:  TO WHAT EXTENT, IF
AT ALL, A CERTIFICATION MAY BE DELAYED BY THE CHOICE OF THE BOARD TO
ENABLE IT TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OR REPEAL OF ITS ORDER.  WHETHER
AFTER DECISION IN MORGAN V. UNITED STATES MORE THAN A REASONABLE TIME
HAD ELAPSED.  WHILE THERE IS ROOM FOR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THESE
QUESTIONS, IT IS VERY HARD TO PERCEIVE ON WHAT GROUND IT MAY BE HELD
THAT THE COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THEM, OR EVEN TO
CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDER WAS AN ARBITRARY EXERTION OF POWER, OR THAT
RESTRAINT AGAINST FURTHER DELAY BY THE BOARD INVOLVED AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE CASE AND
OF THE ISSUES DECIDED BY THE CHALLENGED ORDER, AND THAT THEREFORE THE
BOARD'S APPLICATION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION SHOULD BE
DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :















WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL INS. CO., 304 U.S. 502 


NOS. 715 AND 716.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1938.  - 91
F.2D 894, AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  THE FILING BY A FARMER DEBTOR OF A PETITION FOR COMPOSITION AND
EXTENSION, AND AN AMENDED PETITION TO BE ADJUDGED BANKRUPT, UNDER SEC.
75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 28,
1935, DID NOT BRING WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
MORTGAGED LAND LISTED IN THE SCHEDULES AS HIS PROPERTY AND OF WHICH HE
ACQUIRED THE EQUITY DURING THE PROCEEDING, BUT IN WHICH HE HELD NO
INTEREST WHEN THE PETITIONS WERE FILED.  P. 507. 

2.  LAND IN WHICH A FARMER DEBTOR HAD AN EQUITY OF REDEMPTION, BUT
WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATION IN A PENDING PROCEEDING UNDER
SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BECAUSE HIS INTEREST IN IT WAS ACQUIRED
AFTER THE FILING OF HIS PETITION, WAS NOT BROUGHT WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE AMENDATORY ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935,
AND THE FILING OF AN AMENDED PETITION UNDER SUBSECTION (S) AS AMENDED,
WHERE THOSE EVENTS OCCURRED AFTER HIS INTEREST HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY
A FORECLOSURE OF THE MORTGAGE IN A STATE COURT FOLLOWED BY A JUDICIAL
SALE OF THE LAND AND EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD FOR REDEMPTION ALLOWED BY
THE STATE LAW.  P. 508. 

3.  LAND SUBJECT TO MORTGAGE WAS SCHEDULED BY A FARMER DEBTOR AS HIS
PROPERTY, IN A PROCEEDING FOR COMPOSITION AND EXTENSION BROUGHT UNDER
SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE LAND WHEN THE
PETITION WAS FILED, BUT LATER RECEIVED A CONVEYANCE OF IT FROM OWNERS
OF THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION.  THE MORTGAGE WAS FORECLOSED AND THE
MORTGAGEE BOUGHT IN THE LAND AT A JUDICIAL SALE, BUT THE PERIOD FOR
REDEMPTION ALLOWED BY THE STATE LAW HAD NOT EXPIRED BEFORE SEC. 75 WAS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935, AND THE DEBTOR FILED HIS
PETITION TO BE ADJUDGED BANKRUPT, UNDER SUBSECTION (S), AS SO AMENDED. 
HELD, APPLYING AMENDED SUBSECTION (N), THAT UPON THE FILING OF THE
AMENDED PETITION THE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT AND THE TIME FOR REDEMPTION WAS EXTENDED.  P. 509. 

4.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 75(N) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED,
FOR EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR REDEMPTION, HELD CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED
AGAINST A MORTGAGE CREDITOR WHO FORECLOSED BY SUIT IN AN INDIANA COURT
AND BOUGHT IN THE LAND AT A JUDICIAL SALE, BUT AS TO WHOM THE RIGHT OF
THE DEBTOR TO REDEEM, UNDER THE INDIANA LAW, HAD NOT EXPIRED WHEN HIS
PETITION TO BE ADJUDGED BANKRUPT WAS FILED UNDER SEC. 75, AS AMENDED. 
P. 513. 

THE PROVISION IS WITHIN THE BANKRUPTCY POWER AND NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE CREDITOR-PURCHASER UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IT IS NOT AN INVASION OF POWER RESERVED TO THE
STATE BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 515. 

WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 630, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF TWO ORDERS OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IN BANKRUPTCY, THE ONE STRIKING CERTAIN DESCRIBED
REAL ESTATE FROM THE DEBTOR'S SCHEDULES, THE OTHER REFUSING TO PERMIT
AN AMENDMENT OF THE SCHEDULES. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT WAS GRANTED BY THIS COURT TO REVIEW
THE JUDGMENTS IN TWO APPEALS BROUGHT TO THE LOWER COURT BY PETITIONER
HERE.  WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., 91 F.2D 894.  THE
JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED TWO ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, ENTERED THERE IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT INSTITUTED BY WRIGHT. 

THE EARLIER ORDER APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER TO STRIKE CERTAIN DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE FROM THE DEBTOR'S
SCHEDULES, AND THE LATER ORDER REFUSED TO PERMIT THE DEBTOR TO AMEND
THE SCHEDULES BY SHOWING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE DEBTOR
CLAIMED AN INTEREST IN THE SAME REAL ESTATE COVERED BY THE EARLIER
MOTION.  THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDERS DEPENDS LARGELY UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(N) OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935.  49
STAT. 942.  THESE PROVISIONS, HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THE LOWER COURT,
OPERATE TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION FROM A FORECLOSURE SALE
ALLOWED THE MORTGAGOR UNDER STATE LAW.  TO DECIDE THIS IMPORTANT
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, OUR WRITS OF CERTIORARI WERE ISSUED.  IN VIEW
OF SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, C. 754, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 401,
FN1  ENACTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE CASE BELOW, THE COURT
CERTIFIED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST WAS DRAWN IN
QUESTION IN THIS CAUSE.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DISCLAIMED INTENTION TO
INTERVENE. 

THE CONTROVERSY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SUBJECT
TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THIS
PLEXUS OF FACTS.  PETITIONER JAMES M. WRIGHT ON OCTOBER 1, 1925,
TOGETHER WITH HIS WIFE, EXECUTED A MORTGAGE TO RESPONDENT COMPANY ON A
TRACT OF LAND IN INDIANA, CONTAINING 80.31 ACRES, TO SECURE A NOTE OF
$3,000.  AT THE SAME TIME, THE SAME PARTIES EXECUTED ANOTHER MORTGAGE
TO THE RESPONDENT ON A DIFFERENT TRACT OF LAND CONTAINING 200 ACRES,
ALSO IN INDIANA, TO SECURE A NOTE OF $9,000.  IN 1931, THE FIRST TRACT
WAS DEEDED TO PETITIONER'S SON, AND THREE SEPARATE FORTY-ACRE PARCELS
FROM THE SECOND TRACT WERE DEEDED TO HIS WIFE, DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW
RESPECTIVELY.  THE PROPERTY WAS CONVEYED SUBJECT TO DEFINITE PORTIONS
OF THE INDEBTEDNESS BUT WITHOUT AN ASSUMPTION OF ANY OF THE OBLIGATION
BY THE GRANTEES. 

ON JANUARY 3, 1934, RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT TO FORECLOSE THE SMALLER
MORTGAGE, JOINING AS DEFENDANTS PETITIONER AND HIS SON.  JUDGMENT OF
FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED, JUNE 9, 1934, AND ON JULY 12, 1934, THE 80.31
ACRE TRACT WAS SOLD, ON THE FORECLOSURE SALE, TO RESPONDENT. 
RESPONDENT RECEIVED A DULY EXECUTED SHERIFF'S CERTIFICATE OF SALE. 
DELIVERY OF FINAL DEED WAS DELAYED IN VIEW OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION ALLOWED TO MORTGAGORS BY INDIANA STATUTE.  IND. ANN. STAT.
(BURNS, 1933) SECS. 2-3909, 2-4001. 

WRIGHT FILED A PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, OCTOBER
29, 1934.  IN LISTING HIS PROPERTY ON HIS SCHEDULES, HE SET FORTH ALL
280.31 ACRES, DESPITE HIS PREVIOUS CONVEYANCES OF 200.31 ACRES.  ON
DECEMBER 19, 1934, STATING THAT NO AGREEMENT OF CREDITORS COULD BE HAD,
HE AMENDED HIS PETITION UNDER SEC. 75(S), ASKING TO BE ADJUDGED A
BANKRUPT.  FN2  ON APRIL 13, 1935, PETITIONER'S SON AND DAUGHTER AND
THEIR SPOUSES DELIVERED TO HIM A QUITCLAIM DEED FOR ALL THE PROPERTY,
200.31 ACRES, HE HAD PREVIOUSLY DEEDED TO THEM AND HIS WIFE.  FN3 

ON MAY 27, 1935, RESPONDENT OBTAINED A PERSONAL JUDGMENT AGAINST
PETITIONER ON THE $9,000 NOTE, AND A DECREE OF FORECLOSURE OF THE 200
ACRE TRACT, WHICH RESPONDENT PURCHASED AT THE SHERIFF'S SALE ON JULY
20, 1935, RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF SALE.  ON AUGUST 2, 1935,
PETITIONER'S ONE-YEAR PERIOD FOR REDEEMING FROM SALE THE 80.31-ACRE
TRACT HAVING EXPIRED JULY 12, 1935, RESPONDENT SURRENDERED ITS
CERTIFICATE OF SALE AND RECEIVED A SHERIFF'S DEED TO THIS LAND. 

ON OCTOBER 11, 1935, PETITIONER AMENDED HIS PETITION AS AUTHORIZED BY
SEC. 75(S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED AUGUST 28, 1935, FOLLOWING
THE INVALIDATION BY THE DECISION IN LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, 295
U.S. 555, OF SEC. 75(S) AS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED, AND AGAIN ASKED TO BE
ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT. 

ON JULY 20, 1936, THE ONE-YEAR REDEMPTION PERIOD HAVING EXPIRED,
RESPONDENT RECEIVED FROM THE SHERIFF A FINAL DEED FOR THE 200-ACRE
TRACT.  ON JULY 29, 1936, RESPONDENT FILED A MOTION IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR NORTHERN INDIANA, WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75(S) WERE
PENDING, TO STRIKE FROM PETITIONER'S SCHEDULES, WHICH HAD BEEN FILED
OCTOBER 29, 1934, THESE 280.31 ACRES OF LAND. 

ON DECEMBER 14, 1936, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THIS MOTION, AND
ENTERED AN APPROPRIATE ORDER.  APPARENTLY THE ORDER STRUCK FROM THE
SCHEDULES EIGHTY ACRES STILL OWNED BY WRIGHT IN OCTOBER, 1934, AND
PROPERLY SCHEDULED AT THAT TIME.  LATER IN DECEMBER, 1936, PETITIONER
ASKED LEAVE TO AMEND HIS SCHEDULES TO SET FORTH THE RECONVEYANCES BY
HIS CHILDREN ON APRIL 13, 1935.  ON DECEMBER 31, 1936, THE DISTRICT
COURT DENIED THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULES.  PETITIONER
APPEALED FROM BOTH ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, STRIKING THE LAND FROM
THE SCHEDULES AND DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND.  THE APPEALS WERE
CONSOLIDATED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  AS STATED IN THE OPENING
PARAGRAPH OF THIS OPINION, THAT COURT AFFIRMED BOTH ORDERS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT.  THESE JUDGMENTS ARE UNDER REVIEW HERE. 

A FURTHER ASPECT OF THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT
MAY BE NOTED.  ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1935, PRIOR TO THE DEBTOR'S FILING OF
AN AMENDED PETITION UNDER SEC. 75(S) AS AMENDED, RESPONDENT INSTITUTED
AN ACTION IN THE STATE COURT FOR POSSESSION OF THE 80.31 ACRES.  A
JUDGMENT OVERRULING A DEFENSE GROUNDED ON THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS,
AND AWARDING POSSESSION AND DAMAGES TO RESPONDENT, WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA ON APRIL 2, 1937.  WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL
LIFE INS. CO., 212 IND. 214.  A SIMILAR JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
REST OF THE LAND WAS AFFIRMED OCTOBER 26, 1937, WRIGHT V. UNION CENTRAL
LIFE INS. CO., 212 IND. 563.  BY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND SUBSEQUENT STAY OF MANDATE, RESPONDENT
HAS BEEN RESTRAINED FROM TAKING POSSESSION OF THE LAND. 

FIRST.  (A).  BY OCTOBER 30, 1934, WHEN PETITIONER SOUGHT ADJUSTMENT
AND EXTENSION OF DEBTS UNDER SEC. 75, THE 80.31-ACRE TRACT HAD BEEN
DEEDED AWAY TO PETITIONER'S SON.  ACCORDINGLY, ALTHOUGH THIS TRACT WAS
LISTED ON PETITIONER'S SCHEDULES, IT DID NOT AT THAT TIME PASS INTO THE
HANDS OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR ADMINISTRATION.  NOR WAS THE AMENDED
PETITION UNDER SEC. 75(S), FILED ON DECEMBER 19, 1934, ANY MORE
EFFECTIVE IN BRINGING THE TRACT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT.  ON APRIL 13, 1935, THE MEMBERS OF WRIGHT'S FAMILY RELINQUISHED
ALL THEIR RIGHT AND INTEREST IN HIS LANDS, INCLUDING THIS 80.31-ACRE
TRACT, SO THAT PETITIONER THEN ACQUIRED AN INTEREST IN THE LAND.  BUT
WRIGHT'S RECEIPT OF THIS GIFT OF LAND WAS NOT EFFECTIVE IN AND OF
ITSELF TO BRING THE LAND WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 
THIS IS THE RULE APPLICABLE TO PROPERTY RECEIVED BY A BANKRUPT
SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF AN ORDINARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY, FN4
AND WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE SAME RULE SHOULD NOT APPLY TO DEBTOR
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75.  FN5 

THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN ANY CONTENTION THAT THIS 80.31-ACRE TRACT
WAS BROUGHT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT BY THE ACT OF
AUGUST 28, 1935, AMENDING SEC. 75(S), OR THE FILING OF AN AMENDED
PETITION UNDER THIS SECTION ON OCTOBER 11, 1935.  PRIOR THERETO,
JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE HAD BEEN ENTERED IN THE STATE COURT AND A
JUDICIAL SALE (AT WHICH RESPONDENT BOUGHT IN THE 80.31-ACRE TRACT) HELD
ON JULY 12, 1934.  CONVEYANCE AND DELIVERY OF POSSESSION TO THE
PURCHASER WAS DEFERRED FOR ONE YEAR, THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION UNDER THE
STATUTES OF INDIANA.  THIS PERIOD EXPIRED ON JULY 12, 1935, AND THE
SHERIFF'S DEED WAS EXECUTED ON AUGUST 2, 1935.  WITH THE DELIVERY OF
THE DEED, PRIOR TO ANY EFFECTIVE EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION,
THE PURCHASER'S RIGHTS, FLOWING FROM THE JUDICIAL SALE, WERE NO LONGER
AFFECTED BY THE COURT'S JURISDICTION OF PETITIONER AND PETITIONER'S
ESTATE UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  FN6  NOTHING IN SEC. 75 AS IT NOW
STANDS INDICATES ANY INTENTION THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS ASSUME
CONTROL OVER LAND NOT PREVIOUSLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A
BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND ALREADY COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM ANY TITLE OF THE
DEBTOR. 

(B).  ON OCTOBER 29, 1934, WHEN WRIGHT FILED HIS ORIGINAL PETITION
UNDER SEC. 75, HE WAS UNDOUBTEDLY THE OWNER OF 80 ACRES OUT OF THE 200
ACRE TRACT.  HE HAD NEVER CONVEYED AWAY THESE 80 ACRES; NO PROCEEDINGS
TO FORECLOSE THEM HAD BEEN BEGUN.  THESE 80 ACRES WERE CLEARLY WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, BUT WE SHALL NOT GIVE THEM
SEPARATE DISCUSSION, FOR THEY ARE CONTROLLED A FORTIORI BY OUR RULING
WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER 120 ACRES OUT OF THE 200-ACRE TRACT. 

(C).  THE STATUS OF THESE 120 ACRES, DEEDED IN FORTY-ACRE PARCELS, TO
THREE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, IS GOVERNED BY OTHER FACTS.  THESE PARCELS
PASSED TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE
PETITION FOR COMPOSITION ON OCTOBER 29, 1934.  PETITIONER, HOWEVER,
INCLUDED THEM IN HIS SCHEDULES.  THE GRANTEES HAD TITLE ON DECEMBER 19,
1934, WHEN PETITIONER FILED HIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PETITION FOR
COMPOSITION.  ON APRIL 13, 1935, THESE PARCELS WERE RECONVEYED TO
PETITIONER; ON MAY 27 JUDGMENT FOR FORECLOSURE WAS ENTERED AND ON JULY
20, 1935, A SALE WAS HAD.  RESPONDENT BECAME THE PURCHASER.  THE RIGHT
OF REDEMPTION EXPIRED JULY 20, 1936.  BETWEEN THE SALE AND THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION, TWO EVENTS OCCURRED.  THE
CONGRESS ENACTED THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935, WHICH ADDED TO THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 75, A NEW SUBSECTION (S) TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE
SUBSECTION (S) HELD INVALID IN LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S.
555.  THIS NEW SUBSECTION (S) WAS SUSTAINED IN WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH,
300 U.S. 440.  SECONDLY, THE PETITIONER, ON OCTOBER 11, 1935, FILED A
SECOND AMENDMENT TO HIS PETITION FOR COMPOSITION AND WAS "DULY ADJUDGED
A BANKRUPT."  BOTH OF THESE EVENTS ARE SIGNIFICANT IN REASONING OUT THE
STATUS OF THE 120 ACRES. 

IF THE RULE OF THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT IS FOLLOWED, PROPERTY
ACQUIRED AFTER THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR COMPOSITION UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75 WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO BANKRUPTCY
ADMINISTRATION.  SECTION 75(N) IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF
THE PETITION LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, AT THAT TIME, A SIMILAR
RULE, AS TO PROPERTY SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED, WOULD APPLY.  FN7  AT THE
TIME PETITIONER FILED HIS FIRST AMENDMENT, SEEKING TO BE ADJUDGED A
BANKRUPT, SUBSECTION (N) CONTINUED IN THE SAME FORM.  IT WAS CHANGED BY
THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935, TO THE LANGUAGE SHOWN BELOW.  FN8  BY THE
TERMS OF THE SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS OF SEC. 4 OF THAT ACT, ALL
RIGHTS OF REDEMPTION OF PETITIONER WHICH HAD NOT EXPIRED IN LAND WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY WERE EXTENDED.  BY THE
EARLIER SUBSECTION (N) THE LINE OF CLEAVAGE, BETWEEN PROPERTY SUBJECT
TO THE BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION AND PROPERTY FREE FROM IT, CAME AT THE
DATE WHEN THE "FARMER'S PETITION OR ANSWER WAS FILED."  WHEN THIS
LANGUAGE WAS ADOPTED THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR A PETITION IN
BANKRUPTCY UNDER SEC. 75.  THERE WAS PROVISION ONLY FOR A PETITION FOR
COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION.  FN9  BY SEC. 4 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 28,
1935, SUBSECTION (N) WAS CHANGED TO COMPORT WITH SUBSECTION 75(S),
PERMITTING A PETITIONER TO AMEND AND ASK "TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT." 
WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS THE DATE OF FILING THIS REQUEST FOR
ADJUDICATION AS BANKRUPT WHICH FIXES "THE LINE OF CLEAVAGE" AS TO THE
PROPERTY.  THIS CONCLUSION IS REALLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REASONING
GOVERNING THE RULE IN THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THERE THE FIRST
PETITION SEEKS AN ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY.  UNDER SEC. 75, IT IS
ONLY THE LATER AMENDMENT WHICH DOES.  FN10  AS THE 120 ACRES HAD BEEN
RECONVEYED TO THE PETITIONER PRIOR TO HIS FILING OF THE PETITION OF
OCTOBER 11, 1935, SEEKING ADJUDICATION AS A BANKRUPT, HIS INTEREST IN
THE 120 ACRES WAS SUBJECT TO BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION.  AS THE LAND WAS
RECONVEYED TO THE PETITIONER PRIOR TO THE DECREE OF FORECLOSURE,
PETITIONER WAS AN OWNER ENTITLED TO REDEEM AFTER THE SALE.  IND. STAT.
ANN. (BURNS, 1933) C. 40.  THE AMENDMENT OF OCTOBER 11, 1935, WAS THE
FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THE 120 ACRES INTO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND WE THINK IT HAD THAT EFFECT.    SECOND.  THE
CONCLUSION THAT ALL THE LANDS IN CONTROVERSY, EXCEPT THE 80.31-ACRE
TRACT, ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT UNDER THE
PETITIONER'S AMENDMENT ASKING TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT AND ARE LANDS
SUBJECT TO PETITIONER'S RIGHT OF REDEMPTION, AS EXTENDED BY SUBSECTION
(N) OF SEC. 75, REQUIRES THE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENTS BELOW, AS TO
THESE LANDS, UNLESS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(N), EXTENDING THE PERIOD
OF REDEMPTION, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THESE
PROVISIONS ARE A DIRECT INVASION OF THE STATE'S RIGHTS UNDER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT AND VIOLATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT'S OWN RIGHTS, BY VIRTUE OF
ITS TITLE ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE AT THE JUDICIAL SALE, IN CONTRAVENTION
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.    THE RIGHT OF THE CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE ON
THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES IS GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION IN GENERAL
TERMS.  "THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO ESTABLISH  ...  UNIFORM
LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES,"
ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, CLAUSE 4.  TO THIS SPECIFIC GRANT, THERE MUST BE
ADDED THE POWERS OF THE GENERAL GRANT OF CLAUSE EIGHTEEN.  "TO MAKE ALL
LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION
THE FOREGOING POWERS  ...  "  THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES IS INCAPABLE
OF FINAL DEFINITION.  THE CONCEPT CHANGES.  IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT
IT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE CONNOTATION OF THE PHRASE IN ENGLAND OR THE
STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE FORMULATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN11  AN
ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE JURISDICTION.  THE
SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES IS NOTHING LESS THAN "THE SUBJECT OF THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN AN INSOLVENT OR NONPAYING OR FRAUDULENT DEBTOR AND
HIS CREDITORS, EXTENDING TO HIS AND THEIR RELIEF."  FN12  THIS
DEFINITION OF JUDGE BLATCHFORD, AFTERWARDS A MEMBER OF THIS COURT, HAS
BEEN CITED WITH APPROVAL HERE.  FN13 

THE DEVELOPMENT OF BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION HAS BEEN TOWARDS RELIEVING
THE HONEST DEBTOR FROM OPPRESSIVE INDEBTEDNESS AND PERMITTING HIM TO
START AFRESH.  FN14  BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, THE CONGRESS
DELIBERATELY UNDERTOOK THE REHABILITATION OF THE DEBTOR AS WELL AS HIS
DISCHARGE FROM INDEBTEDNESS.  FN15  THIS LEGISLATION FOR REHABILITATION
HAS BEEN UPHELD AS WITHIN THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES.  FN16  BUT
RESPONDENT URGES THAT UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE CONGRESS IS CONFINED
TO LEGISLATION FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR RELATIONSHIP,
AND INSISTS THAT THE PURCHASER AT AN INDIANA JUDICIAL SALE IS NOT A
CREDITOR BUT A GRANTEE WITH RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY THE PURCHASE, SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT FROM THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM THE CREATION
OF THE DEBT.  WHILE THERE MAY BE NO RELATION OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR
BETWEEN THE BANKRUPT AND THE PURCHASER OF HIS PROPERTY AT JUDICIAL
SALE, WE THINK THE PURCHASER AT A JUDICIAL SALE DOES ENTER INTO THE
RADIUS OF THE BANKRUPTCY POWER OVER DEBTS.  HIS PURCHASE IS IN THE
LIQUIDATION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS.  THE DEBTOR HAS A RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
OF WHICH THE PURCHASER IS ADVISED, AND UNTIL THAT RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
EXPIRES THE RIGHTS OF THE PURCHASER ARE SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE
CONGRESS OVER THE RELATIONSHIP OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR AND ITS POWER TO
LEGISLATE FOR THE REHABILITATION OF THE DEBTOR.  THE PERSON WHOSE LAND
HAS BEEN SOLD AT FORECLOSURE SALE AND NOW HOLDS A RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
IS, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IN THE SAME DEBT SITUATION AS AN
ORDINARY MORTGAGOR IN DEFAULT:  BOTH ARE FACED WITH THE SAME ULTIMATE
PROSPECT, EITHER OF PAYING A CERTAIN SUM OF MONEY, OR OF BEING
COMPLETELY DIVESTED OF THEIR LAND.  WE THINK THE PROVISION FOR THE
EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION COMES CLEARLY WITHIN THE POWER OF
THE CONGRESS UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE.  BUT RESPONDENT PRESSES A
FURTHER ARGUMENT THAT THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS ARE VIOLATED. 

(A)  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS SAID TO BE VIOLATED AND THE PROPERTY OF
RESPONDENT, THE PURCHASER AT THE JUDICIAL SALE, TAKEN WITHOUT DUE
PROCESS,  FN17  BY THE PROVISION FOR EXTENSION OF THE TIME OF
REDEMPTION.  SECTION 75(N) PROVIDES THAT "THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION
SHALL BE EXTENDED  ...  FOR THE PERIOD NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION."  THE STAY MAY BE APPROVED
FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE DEBTOR SEEKS TO EFFECT A COMPOSITION,
FN18  AND, AS CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 75(S), FOR A MORATORIUM PERIOD NOT
EXCEEDING THREE YEARS, DURING WHICH THE COURT'S EQUITABLE SUPERVISION
OVER THE LAND CONTINUES, AND A REASONABLE RENTAL IS REQUIRED.  FN19
THAT SUCH AN EXTENSION IS CONSONANT WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT IS INDICATED BY OUR DECISION IN HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN.
V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, WHERE WE HELD THAT NEITHER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NOR THE CONTRACTS CLAUSE WAS
VIOLATED BY AN EMERGENCY STATE STATUTE AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF THE
PERIOD OF REDEMPTION FROM FORECLOSURE SALES, FOR A JUST AND EQUITABLE
PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING TWO YEARS, CONDITIONED ON PAYMENT BY THE MORTGAGOR
OF A REASONABLE RENTAL, AS DIRECTED BY THE COURT. 

THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT WAS MADE SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER IN THE
CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES.  IMPLIEDLY, THIS
WAS WRITTEN INTO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT.  "NOT
ONLY ARE EXISTING LAWS READ INTO CONTRACTS IN ORDER TO FIX OBLIGATIONS
AS BETWEEN PARTIES, BUT THE RESERVATION OF ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF
SOVEREIGN POWER IS ALSO READ INTO CONTRACTS AS A POSTULATE OF THE LEGAL
ORDER."  FN20  AND THE FACT THAT IN THIS CASE THE PURCHASER AT THE
FORECLOSURE SALE WAS ALSO THE MORTGAGEE IS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR. 
ANY PURCHASER AT A JUDICIAL SALE MUST PURCHASE SUBJECT TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF THE EXERCISE OF THE BANKRUPTCY POWER IN A MANNER
CONSONANT WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

WE HAVE HELD THAT SEC. 75(S) DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AFFECT THE
RIGHTS OF THE MORTGAGEE.  FN21  WE DO NOT THINK THE PROVISION FOR
EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION IN SEC. 75(N) IS INVALID.  THE
RIGHTS OF THE PURCHASER ARE PRESERVED, THE POSSIBILITY OF ENJOYMENT IS
MERELY DELAYED.  THE RIGHTS OF A PURCHASER, WHO UNDER THE STATE LAW IS
ENTITLED TO THE REDEMPTION MONEY OR POSSESSION WITHIN A YEAR, ARE NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE OF A MORTGAGEE ENTITLED, ON THE
MATURITY OF THE OBLIGATION, TO PAYMENT OR SALE OF THE PROPERTY. 

(B)  IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION THAT THE LAW IS WITHIN THE BANKRUPTCY
POWER, SCANT RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  RESPONDENT
ARGUES THAT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUGHT IN AT A FORECLOSURE SALE TO THE
EXTENDED REDEMPTION PERIOD AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 75(S) "WOULD BE
A DIRECT INVASION OF THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATE BY THE
CONSTITUTION, AND A VIOLATION OF (RESPONDENT'S) PROPERTY RIGHTS
THERETOFORE DETERMINED BY THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THAT STATE." 

IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO ALTER PROPERTY
RIGHTS, BECAUSE THE REGULATION OF RIGHTS IN PROPERTY IS A MATTER
RESERVED TO THE STATES, IT IS FUTILE.  BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
CONSTANTLY MODIFY AND AFFECT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ESTABLISHED BY STATE
LAW.  A FAMILIAR INSTANCE IS THE INVALIDATION OF TRANSFERS WORKING A
PREFERENCE, THOUGH VALID UNDER STATE LAW WHEN MADE.  RECENT DECISIONS
ILLUSTRATE OTHER INSTANCES: 

"A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY MAY AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF LIEN HOLDERS IN
MANY WAYS.  TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, IT MAY
DIRECT THAT ALL LIENS UPON PROPERTY FORMING A PART OF THE BANKRUPT'S
ESTATE BE MARSHALLED; OR THAT THE PROPERTY BE SOLD FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES
AND THE RIGHTS OF ALL LIEN HOLDERS BE TRANSFERRED TO THE PROCEEDS OF
THE SALE.  VAN HUFFEL V. HARKELRODE, 284 U.S. 225, 227.  DESPITE THE
PEREMPTORY TERMS OF A PLEDGE, IT MAY ENJOIN SALE OF THE COLLATERAL, IF
IT FINDS THAT THE SALE WOULD HINDER OR DELAY PREPARATION OR
CONSUMMATION OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NAT.
BANK & TRUST CO. V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648, 680-681. 
IT MAY ENJOIN LIKE ACTION BY A MORTGAGEE WHICH WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE
OF (SEC. 75) SUBSECTION (S) TO EFFECT REHABILITATION OF THE FARMER
MORTGAGOR."  WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. AT 470.  FN22 

SUCH ACTION DOES NOT INDICATE A DISREGARD OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS
CREATED BY STATE LAW.  THE STATE LAW STILL ESTABLISHES THE NORM TO
WHICH CONGRESS MUST SUBSTANTIALLY ADHERE; A SERIOUS DEPARTURE FROM THIS
NORM, I.E., FROM THE QUALITY OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS CREATED BY THE
STATE LAW, HAS LED TO CONDEMNATION OF THE FEDERAL ACTION AS
CONSTITUTING A DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  FN23 

PROPERTY RIGHTS DO NOT GAIN ANY ABSOLUTE INVIOLABILITY IN THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT BECAUSE CREATED AND PROTECTED BY STATE LAW.  MOST
PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE SO CREATED AND PROTECTED.  BUT IF CONGRESS IS
ACTING WITHIN ITS BANKRUPTCY POWER, IT MAY AUTHORIZE THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT TO AFFECT THESE PROPERTY RIGHTS, PROVIDED THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ARE OBSERVED. 

IN SO FAR AS THE JUDGMENTS BELOW STRUCK FROM THE SCHEDULES THE 80.31
ACRE TRACT AND REFUSED TO PERMIT AMENDMENT TO SHOW THE CHARACTER OF
APPELLANT'S INTEREST, THEY ARE AFFIRMED.  AS TO THE REST OF THE LAND IN
QUESTION, THEY ARE REVERSED.  AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. 

FN1  "WHENEVER THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS AFFECTING
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DRAWN IN QUESTION IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY
AGENCY THEREOF, OR ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF, AS SUCH OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE, IS NOT A PARTY, THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT OR
PROCEEDING SHALL CERTIFY SUCH FACT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  IN ANY
SUCH CASE THE COURT SHALL PERMIT THE UNITED STATES TO INTERVENE AND
BECOME A PARTY FOR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (IF EVIDENCE IS OTHERWISE
RECEIVABLE IN SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING) AND ARGUMENT UPON THE QUESTION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH ACT.  IN ANY SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING
THE UNITED STATES SHALL, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW,
HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS OF A PARTY AND THE LIABILITIES OF A PARTY AS TO
COURT COSTS TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR A PROPER PRESENTATION OF THE
FACTS AND LAW RELATING TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH ACT. 

FN2  THIS FACT IS STATED IN RESPONDENT'S BRIEF.  PETITIONER'S ANSWER
TO RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE OUT FROM THE SCHEDULES THE REAL ESTATE
IN CONTROVERSY ALLEGES "THAT ALL THE STEPS UNDER SAID SECTION 75 WERE
TAKEN; THAT LATER PETITIONER (WRIGHT) AMENDED HIS PETITION UNDER
SUBSECTION (S) OF SECTION 75, AS AMENDED AUGUST 28, 1935."  BY
STIPULATION THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE ANSWER WERE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE. 
THERE IS APPARENTLY NO ISSUE AS TO THE FACT OF THE FILING OF A PETITION
IN BANKRUPTCY ON DECEMBER 19, 1934. 

FN3  APPARENTLY HIS WIFE HAD DIED IN THE MEANWHILE.  THE RECORD
INDICATES THAT SHE DIED PRIOR TO MAY 27, 1935. 

FN4  EVERETT V. JUDSON, 228 U.S. 474, 478; LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT,
292 U.S. 234, 244; 4 REMINGTON, BANKRUPTCY, SECS. 1377, 1395, 1400; 1
COLLIER, BANKRUPTCY, P. 1641. 

FN5  IN CONSIDERING THIS 80.31-ACRE TRACT WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH
SUCH PROPERTY ACQUIRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING UNDER SEC. 75 AS WOULD
BE CONTROLLED BY SEC. 75(N) AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935. 
"IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
HEREIN, THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE COURTS, THE TITLE, POWERS,
AND DUTIES OF ITS OFFICERS, THE DUTIES OF THE FARMER, AND THE RIGHTS
AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPERTY OF THE FARMER AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE COURTS,
SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN
FILED AND A DECREE OF ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE
FARMER'S PETITION, ASKING TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT, WAS FILED WITH THE
CLERK OF COURT OR LEFT WITH THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FORWARDING SAME TO THE CLERK OF COURT." 

FN6  "A SHERIFF'S CERTIFICATE, HOWEVER, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE
YEAR FOR REDEMPTION, INVESTS THE HOLDER WITH AN EQUITABLE ESTATE IN THE
LAND, OF SUCH HIGH CHARACTER THAT IT ONLY REQUIRES HIS DEMAND FOR A
DEED, TO RIPEN IT INTO AN ABSOLUTE LEGAL TITLE."  HUBBLE V. BERRY, 180
IND. 513, 519. 

FN7  "(N)  THE FILING OF A PETITION PLEADING FOR RELIEF UNDER THIS
THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS
POWERS OF THE COURT, THE TITLE, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF ITS OFFICERS, THE
DUTIES OF THE FARMER, AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND
OF ALL PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE FARMER AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE COURTS, SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A
VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF
ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE FARMER'S PETITION OR
ANSWER WAS FILED." 

FN8  "(N)  THE FILING OF A PETITION OR ANSWER WITH THE CLERK OF
COURT, OR LEAVING IT WITH THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER FOR THE PURPOSE
OF FORWARDING SAME TO THE CLERK OF COURT, PRAYING FOR RELIEF UNDER
FARMER AND ALL HIS PROPERTY, WHEREVER LOCATED, FOR ALL THE PURPOSES OF
THIS SECTION, TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, INCLUDING ALL
REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, OR ANY EQUITY OR RIGHT IN ANY SUCH PROPERTY,
INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASE, CONTRACTS FOR DEED, OR
CONDITIONAL SALES CONTRACTS, THE RIGHT OR THE EQUITY OF REDEMPTION
WHERE THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION HAS NOT OR HAD NOT EXPIRED, OR WHERE A
DEED OF TRUST HAS BEEN GIVEN AS SECURITY, OR WHERE THE SALE HAS NOT OR
HAD NOT BEEN CONFIRMED, OR WHERE DEED HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED, AT THE
TIME OF FILING THE PETITION. 

"IN ALL CASES WHERE, AT THE TIME OF FILING THE PETITION, THE PERIOD
OF REDEMPTION HAS NOT OR HAD NOT EXPIRED, OR WHERE THE RIGHT UNDER A
DEED OF TRUST HAS NOT OR HAD NOT BECOME ABSOLUTE, OR WHERE THE SALE HAS
NOT OR HAD NOT BEEN CONFIRMED, OR WHERE DEED HAD NOT BEEN DELIVERED,
THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION SHALL BE EXTENDED OR THE CONFIRMATION OF SALE
WITHHELD FOR THE PERIOD NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.  THE WORDS 'PERIOD OF REDEMPTION' WHEREVER
THEY OCCUR IN THIS SECTION SHALL INCLUDE ANY STATE MORATORIUM, WHETHER
ESTABLISHED BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT OR EXECUTIVE PROCLAMATION, OR
WHERE THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION HAS BEEN EXTENDED BY A JUDICIAL DECREE. 
IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN,
THE JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF THE COURTS, THE TITLE, POWERS, AND
DUTIES OF ITS OFFICERS, THE DUTIES OF THE FARMER, AND THE RIGHTS AND
LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND OF ALL PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPERTY OF THE FARMER AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE COURTS,
SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN
FILED AND A DECREE OF ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE
FARMER'S PETITION, ASKING TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT, WAS FILED WITH THE
CLERK OF COURT OR LEFT WITH THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FORWARDING SAME TO THE CLERK OF COURT." 

FN9  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, SEC. 75(C): 

"(C)  AT ANY TIME WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THIS SECTION TAKES EFFECT,
A PETITION MAY BE FILED BY ANY FARMER, STATING THAT THE FARMER IS
INSOLVENT OR UNABLE TO MEET HIS DEBTS AS THEY MATURE, AND THAT IT IS
DESIRABLE TO EFFECT A COMPOSITION OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY HIS
DEBTS.  THE PETITION OR ANSWER OF THE FARMER SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY
HIS SCHEDULES.  THE PETITION AND ANSWER SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COURT,
BUT SHALL, ON REQUEST OF THE FARMER OR CREDITOR, BE RECEIVED BY THE
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER FOR THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE FARMER RESIDES
AND PROMPTLY TRANSMITTED BY HIM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT FOR FILING. 
IF ANY SUCH PETITION IS FILED, AN ORDER OF ADJUDICATION SHALL NOT BE
ENTERED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION." 

FN10  SECTION 75 AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED WAS A PART OF CHAPTER VIII OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, APPROVED MARCH 3, 1933, AND DID NOT CONTEMPLATE AN
ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY.  SECTION 73 OF THAT CHAPTER READS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 73.  ADDITIONAL JURISDICTION.  - IN ADDITION TO THE
JURISDICTION EXERCISED IN VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY PROCEEDINGS TO
ADJUDGE PERSONS BANKRUPT, COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY SHALL EXERCISE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RELIEF OF DEBTORS, AS PROVIDED IN

THE AMENDMENTS OF BANKRUPTCY RULES, ORDER OF JUNE 1, 1936, 298 U.S.
695, ARE BASED UPON PETITIONS FOR COMPOSITION RATHER THAN BANKRUPTCY. 
SEE PARTICULARLY GENERAL ORDER L, P. 701. 

FN11  ADAIR V. BANK OF AMERICA ASSN., 303 U.S. 350, 354; CONTINENTAL
BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648, 668. 

FN12  IN RE REIMAN, 20 FED. CAS. 490. 

FN13  CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., SUPRA, 672;
UNITED STATES V. BEKINS, ANTE, PP. 27, 47; HANOVER NATIONAL BANK V.
MOYSES, 186 U.S. 181, 187. 

FN14  WILLIAMS V. U.S. FIDELITY & G. CO., 236 U.S. 549, 554, 555;
LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, 582. 

FN15  ADAIR V. BANK OF AMERICA ASSN., SUPRA, PP. 354, 355, NOTES 2
AND 3. 

FN16  WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440, 456. 

FN17 COMPARE LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, 601. 

FN18  CF. ADAIR V. BANK OF AMERICA ASSN., 303 U.S. 350. 

FN19  SEE WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440, 460 ET SEQ. 

FN20  HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, SUPRA, AT PAGE 435. 

FN21  WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, SUPRA. 

FN22  SEE ALSO ADAIR V. BANK OF AMERICA ASSN., SUPRA, RESTRICTING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A MORTGAGE UPON THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF A CROP. 

FN23  LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






COLLINS V. YOSEMITE PARK CO., 304 U.S. 518 


NO. 870.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 28, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 31, 1938.  - 20
F.SUPP.  1009, REVERSED. 


1.  THE UNITED STATES, OWNING LAND SET ASIDE AS A NATIONAL PARK WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF A STATE, MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY ACCEPT FROM THE STATE A
CESSION OF JURISDICTION OVER IT.  THE JURISDICTION CEDED NEED NOT BE
EXCLUSIVE BUT MAY BE LIMITED BY RESERVATIONS OF POWERS IN THE STATE,
SUCH AS THE POWER TO TAX PERSONS AND THEIR PROPERTY ON THE LAND
INCLUDED.  PP. 527, 530. 

IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO VALID ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION BY CESSION
FROM A STATE THAT THE LAND INVOLVED SHALL BE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED
STATES FOR ONE OF THE PURPOSES SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE 17, SEC. 8, ART. I,
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 528. 

2.  THE TERRITORY EMBRACED IN THE YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK IN
CALIFORNIA WAS ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TREATY OF
GUADALUPE HIDALGO.  PART OF IT, KNOWN AS YOSEMITE VALLEY, WAS GRANTED
TO THE STATE, IN 1864, FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, AND WAS
REGRANTED TO THE UNITED STATES BY ACT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN 1905,
AT A TIME WHEN ANOTHER STATUTE (CAL. STAT. 1891, C. 181) PURPORTED TO
CEDE TO THE UNITED STATES, OVER LAND GRANTED TO IT, JURISDICTION FOR
ALL PURPOSES EXCEPT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE
STATE AND THE SERVICE OF CIVIL PROCESS.  THE OTHER LANDS COMPOSING THE
PARK HAVE REMAINED IN THE PROPRIETORSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE
TIME OF THE TREATY.  BY ACT OF APRIL 15, 1919, CALIFORNIA GRANTED
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE PARK AS A WHOLE, SAVING CERTAIN RIGHTS,
INCLUDING THE RIGHT "TO TAX PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS, THEIR FRANCHISES
AND PROPERTY" ON THE LANDS INCLUDED; AND THIS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ACT
OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 2, 1920.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT WHATEVER THE STATUS OF JURISDICTION EXISTING AT THE TIME OF
THEIR ENACTMENT, THESE ACTS OF CESSION AND ACCEPTANCE, OF 1919 AND
1920, ARE TO BE TAKEN AS DECLARATIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS, REACHED BY THE
RESPECTIVE SOVEREIGNTIES, STATE AND NATION, AS TO THE FUTURE
JURISDICTION AND RIGHTS OF EACH IN THE ENTIRE AREA OF YOSEMITE NATIONAL
PARK.  P. 528. 

(2)  DISTINGUISHED FROM THE RIGHT TO TAX, THE POWER TO REGULATE THE
SALE AND USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WAS NOT RESERVED BY THE STATE, AND
SUCH REGULATIONS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN THE PARK.  P. 530. 

(3)  THE RESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO TAX IS TO BE CONSTRUED WITHOUT
EMPLOYING THE RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION APPLIED TO GRANTS LIMITING A
STATE'S TAXING POWER.  P. 432. 

(4)  THIS RESERVATION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE STATE TO EXACT, FOR THE
SALE OR IMPORTATION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE PARK, THE FEES FOR
LICENSES WHICH ARE PROVIDED BY SEC. 5 OF THE CALIFORNIA ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT, THOSE PROVISIONS BEING REGULATORY IN CHARACTER. 
P. 533. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A LICENSE MAY BE
TREATED AS SEPARABLE FROM REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THOSE LICENSED. 
HERE THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPEAR IN THE FORM OF CONDITIONS TO BE
SATISFIED BEFORE A LICENSE MAY BE GRANTED. 

(5)  THE RESERVATION, HOWEVER, DOES AUTHORIZE THE STATE TO TAX SALES
IN THE PARK, UNDER SECS. 23 AND 24 OF THE ACT CITED.  P. 534. 

3.  A CORPORATION OPERATING HOTELS, CAMPS AND STORES IN THE YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK, UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
OBLIGING IT TO PAY OVER TO HIM A PORTION OF ITS EXCESS PROFITS,
IMPORTED BEER, WINE AND SPIRITS FROM PLACES OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA AND
RETAILED THEM TO CUSTOMERS IN THE PARK AT PRICES APPROVED BY THE
SECRETARY.  THE CALIFORNIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT IMPOSES A TAX
PER UNIT SOLD UPON BEER AND WINE SOLD "IN THIS STATE" BY AN IMPORTER,
AND UPON DISTILLED SPIRITS SOLD "IN THIS STATE" BY A RECTIFIER OR
WHOLESALER THEREOF.  IT DEFINES THE TERM "IN THIS STATE" AS EMBRACING
ALL TERRITORY WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF THE STATE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE COMPANY IS TAXABLE ON ITS SALES.  P. 534. 

THESE TAX PROVISIONS ARE SEPARABLE FROM THE LICENSING AND REGULATORY
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY DOES NOT IMPORT BEVERAGES INTO CALIFORNIA WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT
IT IS AN IMPORTER MAKING SALES "WITHIN THIS STATE." 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT RESTRICTING THESE TAXING PROVISIONS TO
SALES MADE BY OR TO PERSONS LICENSED UNDER THE ACT. 

ALTHOUGH THE COMPANY IS NEITHER A MANUFACTURER NOR A RECTIFIER, THE
TAX ON ITS SALES OF DISTILLED SPIRITS IS SUSTAINABLE UNDER A PROVISION
(SEC. 33) THAT "IN EXCEPTIONAL INSTANCES" THE STATE ENFORCING AGENCY
MAY SELL STAMPS, EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF TAX, "TO ON-AND OFF-SALE
DISTILLED SPIRITS LICENSEES AND OTHER PERSONS." 

(2)  OBJECTION THAT COLLECTION OF THE TAXES MAY INTERFERE WITH AN
AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES AND MAY BE TAKEN IN PART FROM THE UNITED
STATES, BECAUSE OF ITS INTEREST IN THE PROFITS FROM THE CONTRACT, IS
ANSWERED BY THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES, BY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF
QUALIFIED JURISDICTION OVER THE PARK, HAS CONSENTED TO SUCH TAXATION. 
P. 536. 

4.  THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT DID NOT CONFER UPON A STATE THE POWER
TO REGULATE THE IMPORTATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS INTO TERRITORY OVER
WHICH IT HAS CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  P.
536. 

COLLINS ET AL. V. YOSEMITE PARK & CURRY CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED THE APPELLANTS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA AND THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FROM
ENFORCING THE CALIFORNIA BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT AGAINST THE APPELLEE,
WITH RESPECT TO SALES OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS IN THE YOSEMITE NATIONAL
PARK. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLEE, THE YOSEMITE PARK AND CURRY CO., BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO
ENJOIN THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM ENFORCING THE "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT" OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,  FN1  WITHIN THE LIMITS OF YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK. 
APPELLEE IS ENGAGED IN OPERATING, WITHIN THE PARK, HOTELS, CAMPS, AND
STORES, UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, LEASING
PORTIONS OF THE PARK TO APPELLEE FOR A 20-YEAR TERM.  THE CONTRACT,
EXPRESSLY INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT THE CONGRESSIONAL DESIRE TO MAKE THE
PARK A RESORT AND PLAYGROUND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, PLACES UPON
APPELLEE THE DUTY OF FURNISHING VISITORS WITH SUNDRY FACILITIES AND
ACCOMMODATIONS.  IF IT PAYS DIVIDENDS IN EXCESS OF 6% ON ITS INVESTMENT
IT MUST PAY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR A SUM EQUAL TO 25% OF THE
EXCESS DURING THE FIRST TEN YEARS, AND 22 1/2% OF ANY EXCESS OVER 6%
EARNED DURING THE SECOND TEN YEARS.  APPELLEE SELLS LIQUORS, BEER AND
WINE TO PARK VISITORS FOR PRICES APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR.  IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS, IT IMPORTS FROM PLACES
OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA BEER, WINE, AND DISTILLED SPIRITS, WHICH IT
STORES AND SELLS WITHIN THE PARK. 

ACCORDING TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF APPELLEE'S BILL, APPELLANTS
(DEFENDANTS BELOW) ASSERT THAT THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT
APPLIES WITHIN THE PARK AND THAT APPELLEE IS OBLIGATED TO APPLY FOR
PERMITS FOR IMPORTATION AND SALE; THAT APPELLEE IS SUBJECT TO
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF IMPORTER'S LICENSES
TO PERSONS HOLDING ON-SALE RETAIL LICENSES, AND VICE VERSA; THAT
APPELLEE MUST PAY FEES AND TAXES IMPOSED BY THE ACT OR BE SUBJECT TO
PENALTIES.  ALLEGATION WAS MADE THAT APPELLANTS THREATEN TO SEIZE
BEVERAGES ON OR BEING TRANSPORTED TO APPELLEE'S PREMISES, DEMAND
RENDITION OF REPORTS AND KEEPING OF ACCOUNTS, AND THREATEN TO INSTITUTE
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST APPELLEE FOR VIOLATION OF THE
ACT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, APPELLEE'S ALLEGATIONS CONTINUE, THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR, UNDER THE CONTRACT OF LEASE, HAS APPROVED PRICES
MAKING NO ALLOWANCE FOR TAXES, AND HAS INSTRUCTED APPELLEE TO APPLY FOR
NO LICENSE AND TO PAY NO TAX UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ACT, AND THAT PAYMENT
OF SUCH LICENSE FEES OR TAXES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AS AN OPERATING
EXPENSE UNDER THE CONTRACT. 

APPELLEE BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT WITHIN YOSEMITE PARK, ON THE THEORY THAT THE PARK
IS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE SUIT
BEING ONE TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO
A SPECIFIC SITUATION, A THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS CONVENED UNDER SEC. 266
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380.  THE CASE WAS HEARD BELOW
UPON MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THIS
MOTION.  IT GRANTED A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, 20 F.SUPP.  1009, AND LATER
GRANTED THE FINAL INJUNCTION PRAYED FOR BY THE COMPLAINT, RESTRAINING
APPELLANTS (A) FROM ENTERING UPON APPELLEE'S PREMISES, EXAMINING ITS
RECORDS, SEIZING ITS BEVERAGES, OR INTERFERING WITH ITS IMPORTATION AND
SALES OF BEVERAGE WITHIN THE PARK; (B) FROM INTERFERING WITH SHIPMENTS
TO APPELLEE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE; (C) FROM INSTITUTING ANY ACTIONS
BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPORTATION,
POSSESSION, OR SALE OF LIQUORS; (D) FROM REQUIRING REPORTS THEREON; (E)
FROM ENFORCING THE ACT AS TO TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE PARK. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER NOTING THAT YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK CONSISTS
OF YOSEMITE VALLEY AND CONSIDERABLE SURROUNDING TERRITORY, FIRST
DISCUSSED WHAT IT CONCEIVED TO BE THE SITUATION IN THE VALLEY.  FN2  IT
REVIEWED THE HISTORY OF THE LAND:  THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED IT IN
1848 UNDER THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO,  FN3  RESERVED PROPRIETARY
RIGHTS WHEN CALIFORNIA BECAME A STATE IN 1850,  FN4  AND ON JUNE 30,
1864, GAVE THE VALLEY TO CALIFORNIA IN TRUST FOR PUBLIC PARK AND
RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.  FN5 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE LAND WAS
ACQUIRED AGAIN BY THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF THE JOINT OPERATION OF
THREE STATUTES:  AN 1891 CALIFORNIA LAW CEDING TO THE UNITED STATES
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER SUCH LAND AS MIGHT BE CEDED TO IT; FN6  A
1905 CALIFORNIA STATUTE RE-CEDING THE VALLEY TO THE UNITED STATES; FN7
AND THE ACT OF JUNE 11, 1906, WHEREBY CONGRESS ACCEPTED THE REGRANT AND
CONSTITUTED THE VALLEY A PART OF THE YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK.  FN8  IT
FURTHER HELD, OVER APPELLANTS' OBJECTION, THAT THERE WAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE TO THE ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER LAND CEDED TO IT FOR NATIONAL PARK
PURPOSES.  JURISDICTION OVER THE REST OF THE PARK, IT CONCLUDED, WAS IN
THE STATE UNTIL APRIL 15, 1919, WHEN IT WAS OFFERED TO THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT (WHICH HAD ALWAYS RETAINED THE PROPRIETARY INTEREST) IN A
STATUTE SAVING TO THE STATE, INTER ALIA, "THE RIGHT TO TAX PERSONS AND
CORPORATIONS, THEIR FRANCHISES AND PROPERTY ON THE LANDS INCLUDED IN
SAID PARKS."  FN9 JURISDICTION OF THE PARK WAS ASSUMED BY THE UNITED
STATES BY ACT OF JUNE 2, 1920, WHICH REFERRED TO THE STATE ACT,
INCLUDING ITS RESERVATION OF A POWER TO TAX.  FN10  THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD THIS RESERVATION INAPPLICABLE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE ACT IS CHIEFLY REGULATORY IN NATURE RATHER THAN A REVENUE
MEASURE.  CONCLUDING THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
OVER THE LAND IN QUESTION, THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINED THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE STATE ACT. 

FROM THIS FINAL DECREE OF INJUNCTION, A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT
WAS TAKEN UNDER SECS. 238 AND 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  SEVERAL
QUESTIONS WERE ARGUED ON THE APPEAL.  AT THIS POINT, REFERENCE MAY BE
CONFINED TO APPELLANTS' CONTENTION THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS NO POWER
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER LAND
CEDED TO IT BY A STATE FOR NATIONAL PARK PURPOSES.  PURSUANT TO THE ACT
OF AUGUST 24, 1937, THE COURT CERTIFIED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT IN
THIS CAUSE WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACTS OF
JUNE 11, 1906, 34 STAT. 831, AND JUNE 2, 1920, 41 STAT. 731, ACCEPTING
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE AREAS WHICH EMBRACE THE YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK.  THE UNITED STATES, REGARDING APPELLEE'S ARGUMENT AS
ADEQUATE, DETERMINED THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO INTERVENE. 

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1905, SEE NOTE 7,
CALIFORNIA CEDED AND GRANTED THE UNITED STATES TITLE TO THE "CLEFT" OR
"GORGE," KNOWN AS YOSEMITE VALLEY AND THE MARIPOSA BIG TREE GROVE.  AS
THE ACT OF MARCH 31, 1891, WAS THEN IN FORCE, SEE NOTE 6, EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RIGHT TO ADMINISTER CRIMINAL LAWS
AND SERVE CIVIL PROCESS, PASSED TO THE UNITED STATES, ON ITS
ACCEPTANCE, UNLESS THE UNITED STATES WAS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER
TO EXERCISE IT.  BY THE ACT OF JUNE 11, 1906, SEE NOTE 8, THE CONGRESS
ACCEPTED THE CESSION AND MADE THE LANDS CONVEYED A PART OF THE YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK.  THE OTHER LANDS COMPOSING THE PARK HAD BEEN IN THE
PROPRIETORSHIP OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT SINCE CESSION BY MEXICO. 
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THEM PASSED FROM THE UNITED STATES TO
CALIFORNIA BY THE ADMITTANCE OF THAT STATE TO THE UNION.  EXCEPT FOR
CERTAIN RIGHTS EXPRESSLY RESERVED, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THESE
LANDS WAS GRANTED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE ACT OF APRIL 15, 1919,
SEE NOTE 9, AND ACCEPTED BY THE CONGRESS ON JUNE 2, 1920, SEE NOTE 10. 
AS THIS ACT GRANTED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL "TERRITORY WHICH IS
NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER BE  ...  INCLUDED IN  ...  YOSEMITE NATIONAL
PARK," THE LANGUAGE OF THE CESSION AND ACCEPTANCE IS APT TO DETERMINE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, WITH THE EXPLICIT RESERVATIONS, OF THE GORGE
ALSO. 

WHATEVER THE EXISTING STATUS OF JURISDICTION AT THE TIME OF THEIR
ENACTMENT, THE ACTS OF CESSION AND ACCEPTANCE OF 1919 AND 1920 ARE TO
BE TAKEN AS DECLARATIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS, REACHED BY THE RESPECTIVE
SOVEREIGNTIES, STATE AND NATION, AS TO THE FUTURE JURISDICTION AND
RIGHTS OF EACH IN THE ENTIRE AREA OF YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK.  AS
JURISDICTION OVER THE GORGE WAS CREATED BY ONE SET OF STATUTES AND THAT
OVER THE REST OF THE PARK BY DIFFERENT LEGISLATION, THIS ADJUSTMENT WAS
DESIRABLE.  THE STATES OF THE UNION AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT MAY
MAKE MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY ARRANGEMENTS AS TO JURISDICTION OF TERRITORY
WITHIN THEIR BORDERS AND THUS IN A MOST EFFECTIVE WAY, COOPERATIVELY
ADJUST PROBLEMS FLOWING FROM OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.  FN11
JURISDICTION OBTAINED BY CONSENT OR CESSION MAY BE QUALIFIED BY
AGREEMENT OR THROUGH OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE OR RATIFICATION.  FN12  IT IS
A MATTER OF ARRANGEMENT.  THESE ARRANGEMENTS THE COURTS WILL RECOGNIZE
AND RESPECT. 

THE STATE URGES THE CONSTITUTIONAL INABILITY OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT TO ACCEPT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ANY LAND FOR PURPOSES
OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE 17, SEC. 8, ARTICLE I OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  FN13  THIS CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  THIS
COURT AT THIS TERM HAS GIVEN FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO ACQUIRE LAND UNDER CLAUSE 17 WITHOUT
TAKING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  FN14  IN THAT CASE, IT WAS SAID:
"CLAUSE 17 CONTAINS NO EXPRESS STIPULATION THAT THE CONSENT OF THE
STATE MUST BE WITHOUT RESERVATIONS.  WE THINK THAT SUCH A STIPULATION
SHOULD NOT BE IMPLIED.  WE ARE UNABLE TO RECONCILE SUCH AN IMPLICATION
WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE STATE AND ITS ADMITTED AUTHORITY TO REFUSE OR
QUALIFY CESSIONS OF JURISDICTION WHEN PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT
CONSENT OR PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY CONDEMNATION."  THE CLAUSE IS
NOT THE SOLE AUTHORITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION.  THERE IS
NO QUESTION ABOUT THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO EXERCISE
JURISDICTION SECURED BY CESSION, THOUGH THIS IS NOT PROVIDED FOR BY
CLAUSE 17.  FN15  AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH A CESSION MAY BE
QUALIFIED.  FN16  IT HAS NEVER BEEN NECESSARY, HERETOFORE, FOR THIS
COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE UNITED STATES HAS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER TERRITORY, WITHIN
THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF A STATE, ACQUIRED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN
THOSE SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE 17.  IT WAS RAISED BUT NOT DECIDED IN
ARLINGTON HOTEL V. FANT, 278 U.S. 439, 454.  IT WAS ASSUMED WITHOUT
DISCUSSION IN YELLOWSTONE PARK TRANSPORTATION CO. V. GALLATIN COUNTY,
31 F.2D 644.  FN17 

ON ACCOUNT OF THE REGULATORY PHASES OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
ACT OF CALIFORNIA, IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION HERE. 
THE UNITED STATES HAS LARGE BODIES OF PUBLIC LANDS.  THESE PROPERTIES
ARE USED FOR FORESTS, PARKS, RANGES, WILD LIFE SANCTUARIES, FLOOD
CONTROL, AND OTHER PURPOSES WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY CLAUSE 17.  IN
SILAS MASON CO. V. TAX COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 186, WE
UPHELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARRANGEMENTS OF THE STATE AND NATIONAL
GOVERNMENTS THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO ACQUIRE PRIVATE PROPERTY
FOR USE IN "THE RECLAMATION OF ARID AND SEMIARID LANDS" AND TO HOLD ITS
PURCHASES SUBJECT TO STATE JURISDICTION.  IN OTHER INSTANCES, IT MAY BE
DEEMED IMPORTANT OR DESIRABLE BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE
GOVERNMENT IN WHICH THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS LOCATED THAT EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION BE VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES BY CESSION OR CONSENT.  NO
QUESTION IS RAISED AS TO THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE LAND OR PROVIDE FOR
NATIONAL PARKS.  AS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT MAY, "BY VIRTUE OF ITS
SOVEREIGNTY" ACQUIRE LANDS WITHIN THE BORDERS OF STATES BY EMINENT
DOMAIN AND WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT,  FN18  THE RESPECTIVE SOVEREIGNTIES
SHOULD BE IN A POSITION TO ADJUST THEIR JURISDICTIONS.  THERE IS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT OF RIGHTS.  IT FOLLOWS
THAT JURISDICTION LESS THAN EXCLUSIVE MAY BE GRANTED THE UNITED
STATES.  THE JURISDICTION OVER THE YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK IS
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT AS RESERVED TO CALIFORNIA, E.
G., RIGHT TO TAX, BY THE ACT OF APRIL 15, 1919.  AS THERE IS NO
RESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE SALE OR USE OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES, SUCH REGULATORY PROVISIONS AS ARE FOUND IN THE ACT UNDER
CONSIDERATION ARE UNENFORCEABLE IN THE PARK. 

INTERPRETATION OF RESERVATIONS.  THE LOWER COURT, IN INTERPRETING THE
LANGUAGE OF THE ACTS OF GRANT AND ACCEPTANCE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT
THE SAVING OF "THE RIGHT TO TAX PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS, THEIR
FRANCHISES AND PROPERTY" WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO JUSTIFY THE
COLLECTION OF FEES FOR LICENSES UNDER SEC. 5 AND SALES UNDER SECS. 23
AND 24 OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT.  FN19  THE RETENTION OF
THE RIGHT TO CHARGE LICENSE FEES FOR FISHING WAS CONSIDERED AN
INDICATION OF ABANDONMENT OF THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE ANY OTHER LICENSE
FEES; AND FINALLY, THE REGULATORY CHARACTER OF THE CALIFORNIA ENACTMENT
WAS DEEMED TO MARK IT AS NON-ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE RESERVATION OF THE
RIGHT TO TAX.    AS THE RESPECTIVE ACTS OF STATE AND NATION WERE IN THE
NATURE OF A MUTUAL DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, THIS IS NOT AN OCCASION FOR
STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF A GRANT BY A STATE LIMITING ITS TAXING POWER. 
WITHOUT EMPLOYING THAT RULE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS LANGUAGE
IS SUFFICIENTLY BROAD TO COVER EXCISES ON SALES,  FN20  BUT NOT THE
LICENSE FEES PROVIDED FOR BY THIS ACT.  THE FACT THAT THE "RIGHT TO FIX
AND COLLECT LICENSE FEES FOR FISHING IN SAID PARKS" WAS RESERVED, IS
NOT DECISIVE.  IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE NEGOTIATORS OF THE AGREEMENT
CONSIDERED SUCH LICENSES REGULATORY IN NATURE AND THEREFORE REQUIRING
EXPRESS EXCEPTION FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, IN
ADDITION TO THE TAX EXCEPTION. 

(A)  LICENSES.  AS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS IN THE AREA OF THE
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK ONLY THE JURISDICTION SAVED UNDER THE CESSION
AND ACCEPTANCE ACTS OF 1919 AND 1920, IT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO
REGULATE THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN THE PARK.  EXCEPT AS TO THIS RESERVED
JURISDICTION, CALIFORNIA "PUT THAT AREA BEYOND THE FIELD OF OPERATION
OF HER LAWS."  FN21  WHILE THE STATE HAS, UNDER ITS RESERVATION, THE
RIGHT TO USE MEANS TO FORCE COLLECTION OF THE TAXES SAVED,  FN22  IT
SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE LICENSES REQUIRED BY SEC. 5 GO BEYOND AIDS TO THE
COLLECTION OF TAXES AND ARE TRULY REGULATORY IN CHARACTER.  THIS IS NOT
A CASE WHERE PROVISIONS REQUIRING A LICENSE MAY BE TREATED AS SEPARABLE
FROM REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THOSE LICENSED.  FN23  HERE THE
REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPEAR IN THE FORM OF CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED
BEFORE A LICENSE MAY BE GRANTED.  FN24 THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING
LICENSES FOR THE IMPORTATION OR SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE PARK
ARE INVALID. 

(B)  EXCISE TAXES.  A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION OBTAINS, HOWEVER, WITH
RESPECT TO THE EXCISE TAX PROVISIONS OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
ACT, LAYING A TAX, AT A SPECIFIED RATE PER UNIT SOLD, ON BEER, WINE,
AND DISTILLED SPIRITS SOLD "IN THIS STATE."  THE PARK COMPANY, SEEKING
TO BRING THE EXCISE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE STATED
ABOVE WITH RESPECT TO THE LICENSE FEE PROVISIONS, CONTENDS THAT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE,  FN25  THE TAXING FEATURES
CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REGULATORY FEATURES, AND THAT "THE ACT
DOES NOT EVEN PURPORT TO TAX PERSONS NOT SUBJECT TO LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS."  THUS THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT SEC. 23 IMPOSES AN
EXCISE TAX ON BEER AND WINE SOLD BY AN IMPORTER, AND APPLIES NOT TO THE
COMPANY, WHICH SELLS BEVERAGES DIRECT TO CONSUMERS, BUT ONLY TO
IMPORTERS LICENSED UNDER THE ACT, AND RESTRICTED BY THEIR LICENSE TO
SALES TO RETAIL LICENSEES. 

NEITHER PARTY CITES ANY PERTINENT STATE COURT DECISION.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE STATUTE ITSELF COMPELLING THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXCISE
TAX AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS ARE INSEPARABLE, OR REQUIRING THE COURT
TO OVERTURN THE PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT DETERMINATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS THAT THE SALES WITHIN THE PARK ARE SUBJECT TO
THE EXCISE TAX.  SECTION 23 PROVIDES THAT AN EXCISE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON
BEER AND WINE SOLD "IN THIS STATE BY (AN)  ...  IMPORTER."  REFERENCE
TO PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DEFINING THE TERMS USED IN THIS SECTION  FN26
MAKES IT PLAIN THAT ALTHOUGH APPELLEE COMPANY DOES NOT IMPORT BEVERAGES
INTO CALIFORNIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, IT IS
AN IMPORTER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ACT, AND, AS SUCH, IS SUBJECT TO THE
TAX.  THE ACT IS RESTRICTED TO SALES "IN THIS STATE," BUT THAT TERM
EMBRACES ALL TERRITORY WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS OF THE STATE. 
FN27  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT RESTRICTING THIS TAXING PROVISION TO
SALES MADE BY OR TO PERSONS LICENSED UNDER THE ACT.  SEC. 23 CLEARLY
APPLIES TO BEER AND WINE SOLD BY APPELLEE COMPANY IN THE PARK, AND IT
APPLIES TO SUCH SALES REGARDLESS OF THE APPLICABILITY VEL NON OF THE
REGULATORY OR LICENSING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

THIS STATE BY RECTIFIERS OR WHOLESALERS."  APPELLEE COMPANY DOES NOT
COME WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF EITHER OF THESE GROUPS,  FN28
BUT SEC. 24 MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH SEC. 33.  SEC. 33 PROVIDES
THAT THE "TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 24 OF THIS ACT UPON THE SALE OF DISTILLED
SPIRITS SHALL BE COLLECTED FROM RECTIFIERS AND WHOLESALERS OF DISTILLED
SPIRITS AND PAYMENT OF THE TAX SHALL BE EVIDENCED BY STAMPS ISSUED BY
THE BOARD TO SUCH RECTIFIERS AND WHOLESALERS," AND CONTINUES WITH THE
PROVISION THAT "IN EXCEPTIONAL INSTANCES THE BOARD MAY SELL SUCH STAMPS
TO ON- AND OFF-SALE DISTILLED SPIRITS LICENSEES AND OTHER PERSONS."  IN
VIEW OF THE ATYPICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE CANNOT
CONSIDER ERRONEOUS AN INTERPRETATION BY THE BOARD THAT STAMPS, TO BE
AFFIXED TO THE LIQUOR CONTAINERS, MIGHT BE ISSUED AND SOLD TO APPELLEE
COMPANY.  THESE PROVISIONS, LIKE SEC. 23, ARE INDEPENDENT OF ANY
LICENSING OR REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND MAY BE ENFORCED
INDEPENDENTLY, AS A PURELY TAX OR REVENUE MEASURE. 

THE OBJECTION THAT COLLECTION OF THE TAXES MAY NOT ONLY INTERFERE
WITH AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES BUT MAY BE ACTUALLY PARTLY
COLLECTED FROM THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF ITS INTEREST IN THE
PROFITS UNDER THE CONTRACT IS FULLY ANSWERED BY THE FACT THAT THE
UNITED STATES, BY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF QUALIFIED JURISDICTION, HAS
CONSENTED TO SUCH A TAX.  FN29 

XXI AMENDMENT.  THE STATE MAKES THE POINT THAT SEC. 2 OF THE XXI
AMENDMENT  FN30  GIVES IT THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE IMPORTATION OF
INTOXICATING LIQUORS.  RELIANCE FOR ENFORCEMENT IS PLACED UPON SECS. 49
AND 49.2 OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT.  FN31  THE ARGUMENT FOR
THIS CLAIM IS BOTTOMED UPON OUR DECISION IN STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
V. YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S. 59, WHERE WE HELD THAT A STATUTE
IMPOSING A $500 LICENSE FEE FOR IMPORTING AND A $750 LICENSE FEE FOR
BREWING BEER DID NOT VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE, BECAUSE THE WORDS OF THE XXI AMENDMENT "ARE APT TO
CONFER UPON THE STATE THE POWER TO FORBID ALL IMPORTATIONS" AND "THE
STATE MAY ADOPT A LESSER DEGREE OF REGULATION THAN TOTAL PROHIBITION"
(PP. 62, 63).  FN32 THE LOWER COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THOUGH THE
AMENDMENT MAY HAVE INCREASED "THE STATE'S POWER TO DEAL WITH THE
PROBLEM  ...  , IT DID NOT INCREASE ITS JURISDICTION."  WITH THIS
CONCLUSION, WE AGREE.  AS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE PARK WAS IN
THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE COULD NOT LEGISLATE FOR THE AREA MERELY ON
ACCOUNT OF THE XXI AMENDMENT N33.  THERE WAS NO TRANSPORTATION INTO
CALIFORNIA "FOR DELIVERY OR USE THEREIN."  THE DELIVERY AND USE IS IN
THE PARK, AND UNDER A DISTINCT SOVEREIGNTY.  WHERE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION IS IN THE UNITED STATES, WITHOUT POWER IN THE STATE TO
REGULATE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, THE XXI AMENDMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE. 
FN34 

CONCLUSION.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT STATES THAT THE DEFENDANTS, THE
STATE OFFICIALS, "ASSERT THAT SAID ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPLIES TO COMPLAINANT'S OPERATIONS WITHIN SAID
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK; ...  THAT IT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY THE FEES AND
TAXES IMPOSED BY SAID ACT AND IS SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES THEREOF FOR
THE POSSESSION AND SALE OF SAID BEVERAGES WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SAID ACT."  IN THE PRAYER OF THE BILL, THE COMPLAINANT
PRAYS FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS "FROM ENFORCING IN
ANY MANNER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, OR IN RESPECT
OF TRANSACTIONS WITHIN SAID PARK, THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA."  THE FINAL DECREE FORBIDS ENTERING UPON THE
PREMISES OF COMPLAINANT; SEIZING, IMPEDING OR INTERFERING WITH ANY
SHIPMENTS TO COMPLAINANT IN YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK; FROM INSTITUTING
ANY ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF LAW OR EQUITY FOR VIOLATIONS
OR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SAID ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT IN RESPECT
OF THE IMPORTATION, POSSESSION OR SALE IN THE PARK; FROM REQUIRING OR
DEMANDING REPORTS ON THE IMPORTATION, POSSESSION OR SALE OF SAID
BEVERAGES; FROM ENFORCING IN ANY MANNER WITHIN THE LIMITS OF YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK, OR IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS WITHIN SAID PARK, THE
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 

FROM THE PLEADINGS AND DECREE IT IS CLEAR THAT UNTIL NOW THE
CONTROVERSY HAS TURNED NOT UPON SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN
QUESTION BUT UPON ITS APPLICABILITY AS A WHOLE.  AS IN OUR JUDGMENT, AS
HERETOFORE POINTED OUT, THE TAX PROVISIONS ARE ENFORCEABLE AND THE
REGULATORY PROVISIONS UNENFORCEABLE, IT IS NECESSARY TO REVERSE THE
DECREE AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A DETERMINATION
BY THE COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF
SUCH SECTIONS OF THE ACT AS THE STATE MAY THREATEN TO ENFORCE. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  CAL. STAT. 1935, C. 330, AS AMENDED, CAL. STAT. 1937, C. 681,
758. 

FN2  THE DISCUSSION APPLIES EQUALLY TO THE MARIPOSA BIG TREE GROVE. 

FN3  9 STAT. 922. 

FN4  9 STAT. 452. 

FN5  13 STAT. 325. 

FN6  "SECTION 1.  THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEREBY CEDES TO THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER SUCH PIECE OR PARCEL OF
LAND AS MAY HAVE BEEN OR MAY BE HEREAFTER CEDED OR CONVEYED TO THE
UNITED STATES, DURING THE TIME THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE OR REMAIN THE
OWNER THEREOF, FOR ALL PURPOSES EXCEPT THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CRIMINAL LAWS OF THIS STATE AND THE SERVICE OF CIVIL PROCESS THEREIN." 
CAL. STAT. 1891, C. 181. 

FN7  "AN ACT TO RECEDE AND REGRANT UNTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
THE 'YOSEMITE VALLEY,' AND THE LAND EMBRACING THE 'MARIPOSA BIG TREE
GROVE.' 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SECTION 1.  THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RECEDE AND REGRANT
UNTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE 'CLEFT' OR 'GORGE' IN THE
GRANITE PEAK OF THE SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAINS, SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARIPOSA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE HEADWATERS OF THE MERCED RIVER,
AND KNOWN AS THE YOSEMITE VALLEY, WITH ITS BRANCHES OR SPURS, GRANTED
UNTO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN TRUST FOR PUBLIC USE, RESORT AND
RECREATION BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS ENTITLED 'AN ACT AUTHORIZING A GRANT
TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF THE YOSEMITE VALLEY AND OF THE LAND
EMBRACING THE 'MARIPOSA BIG TREE GROVE,' APPROVED JUNE 30TH, 1864; AND
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RELINQUISH UNTO THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA AND RESIGN THE TRUSTS CREATED AND GRANTED BY THE SAID ACT OF
CONGRESS. 

     .        .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 3.  THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT FROM AND AFTER ACCEPTANCE BY THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OF THE RECESSIONS AND REGRANTS HEREIN MADE,
THEREBY FOREVER RELEASING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM FURTHER COST OF
MAINTAINING THE SAID PREMISES, THE SAME TO BE HELD FOR ALL TIME BY THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR PUBLIC USE, RESORT AND RECREATION, AND
IMPOSING ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE COST OF MAINTAINING THE
SAME AS A NATIONAL PARK.  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RECESSION AND
REGRANT HEREBY MADE SHALL NOT AFFECT VESTED RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF
THIRD PERSONS."  CAL. STAT. 1905, C. 60. 

FN8  "RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT THE RECESSION AND
REGRANTING UNTO THE UNITED STATES BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF THE
CLEFT OR GORGE IN THE GRANITE PEAK OF THE SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAINS,
SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF MARIPOSA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE
HEADWATERS OF THE MERCED RIVER, AND KNOWN AS THE YOSEMITE VALLEY, WITH
ITS BRANCHES OR SPURS, GRANTED UNTO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN TRUST
FOR PUBLIC USE, RESORT, AND RECREATION BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS ENTITLED
'AN ACT AUTHORIZING A GRANT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF THE YOSEMITE
VALLEY AND OF THE LAND EMBRACING THE MARIPOSA BIG TREE GROVE,' APPROVED
JUNE THIRTIETH, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR (THIRTEENTH STATUTES,
PAGE THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE), AS WELL AS THE TRACTS EMBRACING
WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE 'MARIPOSA BIG TREE GROVE,' LIKEWISE GRANTED UNTO
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY THE AFORESAID ACT OF CONGRESS, IS HEREBY
RATIFIED AND ACCEPTED, AND THE TRACTS OF LANDS EMBRACING THE YOSEMITE
VALLEY AND THE MARIPOSA BIG TREE GROVE, AS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT OF
CONGRESS APPROVED JUNE THIRTIETH, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FOUR,
TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF FRACTIONAL SECTIONS FIVE AND SIX, TOWNSHIP
FIVE SOUTH, RANGE TWENTY-TWO EAST, MOUNT DIABLO MERIDIAN, CALIFORNIA,
LYING SOUTH OF THE SOUTH FORK OF MERCED RIVER AND ALMOST WHOLLY BETWEEN
THE MARIPOSA BIG TREE GROVE AND THE PRESENT SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, BE, AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY, RESERVED AND
WITHDRAWN FROM SETTLEMENT, OCCUPANCY, OR SALE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND SET APART AS RESERVED FOREST LANDS, SUBJECT TO ALL
THE LIMITATIONS, CONDITIONS, AND PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS
APPROVED OCTOBER FIRST, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY, ENTITLED 'AN ACT
TO SET APART CERTAIN TRACTS OF LAND IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS
FOREST RESERVATIONS,' AS WELL AS THE LIMITATIONS, CONDITIONS, AND
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED FEBRUARY SEVENTH, NINETEEN
HUNDRED AND FIVE, ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO EXCLUDE FROM THE YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA, CERTAIN LANDS THEREIN DESCRIBED, AND TO
ATTACH AND INCLUDE THE SAID LANDS IN THE SIERRA FOREST RESERVE,' AND
SHALL HEREAFTER FORM A PART OF THE YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK."  34 STAT.
831. 

FN9  "AN ACT TO CEDE TO THE UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, AND GENERAL GRANT
NATIONAL PARK IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SECTION 1.  EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION SHALL BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY
CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES OVER AND WITHIN ALL OF THE TERRITORY WHICH
IS NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER BE INCLUDED IN THOSE SEVERAL TRACTS OF LAND IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SET ASIDE AND DEDICATED FOR PARK PURPOSES BY
THE UNITED STATES AS 'YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK,' 'SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK,'
AND 'GENERAL GRANT NATIONAL PARK' RESPECTIVELY; SAVING, HOWEVER, TO THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RIGHT TO SERVE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCESS WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF THE AFORESAID PARKS IN SUITS OR PROSECUTIONS FOR OR ON
ACCOUNT OF RIGHTS ACQUIRED, OBLIGATIONS INCURRED OR CRIMES COMMITTED IN
SAID STATE OUTSIDE OF SAID PARKS; AND SAVING FURTHER, TO THE SAID STATE
THE RIGHT TO TAX PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS, THEIR FRANCHISES AND
PROPERTY ON THE LANDS INCLUDED IN SAID PARKS, AND THE RIGHT TO FIX AND
COLLECT LICENSE FEES FOR FISHING IN SAID PARKS; AND SAVING ALSO TO THE
PERSONS RESIDING IN ANY OF SAID PARKS NOW OR HEREAFTER THE RIGHT TO
VOTE AT ALL ELECTIONS HELD WITHIN THE COUNTY OR COUNTIES IN WHICH SAID
PARKS ARE SITUATE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT JURISDICTION SHALL NOT VEST
UNTIL THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THE PROPER OFFICER NOTIFIES THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA THAT THEY ASSUME POLICE JURISDICTION OVER SAID PARKS." 
CAL. STAT. 1919, C. 51. 

FN10  41 STAT. 731, 16 U.S.C. SEC. 57. 

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (APPROVED APRIL
15, 1919), CEDING TO THE UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE
TERRITORY EMBRACED AND INCLUDED WITHIN THE YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK,
SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, AND GENERAL GRANT NATIONAL PARK, RESPECTIVELY,
ARE HEREBY ACCEPTED AND SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IS HEREBY
ASSUMED BY THE UNITED STATES OVER SUCH TERRITORY, SAVING, HOWEVER, TO
THE SAID STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RIGHT TO SERVE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
PROCESS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE AFORESAID PARKS OR EITHER OF THEM IN
SUITS OR PROSECUTIONS FOR OR ON ACCOUNT OF RIGHTS ACQUIRED, OBLIGATIONS
INCURRED, OR CRIMES COMMITTED IN SAID STATE OUTSIDE OF SAID PARKS; AND
SAVING FURTHER TO THE SAID STATE THE RIGHT TO TAX PERSONS AND
CORPORATIONS, THEIR FRANCHISES AND PROPERTY ON THE LANDS INCLUDED IN
SAID PARKS, AND THE RIGHT TO FIX AND COLLECT LICENSE FEES FOR FISHING
IN SAID PARKS; AND SAVING ALSO TO THE PERSONS RESIDING IN ANY OF SAID
PARKS NOW OR HEREAFTER THE RIGHT TO VOTE AT ALL ELECTIONS HELD WITHIN
THE COUNTY OR COUNTIES IN WHICH SAID PARKS ARE SITUATED.  ALL THE LAWS
APPLICABLE TO PLACES UNDER SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL HAVE FORCE AND EFFECT IN SAID PARKS OR EITHER OF
THEM.  ALL FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE TAKING REFUGE IN SAID PARKS, OR
EITHER OF THEM, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAWS AS REFUGEES FROM
JUSTICE FOUND IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA." 

FN11  CF. FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, 114 U.S. 525, 541;
HINDERLIDER V. LAPLATA RIVER & CHERRY CREEK DITCH CO., ANTE, PP. 92,
104. 

FN12  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 146; SILAS MASON
CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 186, 203; FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V.
LOWE, SUPRA; SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S. 647, 651. 

FN13  "TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER,
OVER SUCH DISTRICT (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) AS MAY, BY CESSION
OF PARTICULAR STATES, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF CONGRESS, BECOME THE SEAT
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO EXERCISE LIKE AUTHORITY
OVER ALL PLACES PURCHASED BY THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE ERECTION OF FORTS, MAGAZINES,
ARSENALS, DOCK-YARDS, AND OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS; ... " 

FN14  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 148. 

FN15  FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, SUPRA; CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY.
CO. V. MCGLINN, 114 U.S. 542; BENSON V. UNITED STATES, 146 U.S. 325;
ARLINGTON HOTEL CO. V. FANT, 278 U.S. 439; UNITED STATES V. UNZEUTA,
281 U.S. 138; SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S. 647; STANDARD OIL
CO. V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 242; YELLOWSTONE PARK TRANSPORTATION CO. V.
GALLATIN COUNTY, 31 F.2D 644. 

FN16  FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, SUPRA. 

FN17  CF. RAINIER NAT. PARK CO. V. MARTIN, 18 F.SUPP.  481. 

FN18  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA, 147; KOHL V. UNITED
STATES, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 372. 

FN19  "SEC.  5.  THE FOLLOWING ARE THE TYPES OF LICENSES TO BE ISSUED
UNDER THIS ACT AND THE ANNUAL FEES TO BE CHARGED THEREFOR. 

(CHART OMITTED) 

"SEC. 23.  AN EXCISE TAX IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON ALL BEER AND WINE
SOLD IN THIS STATE BY A MANUFACTURER OR IMPORTER, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
IN THIS ACT PROVIDED, AT THE FOLLOWING RATES: 

"(A)  ON ALL BEER, SIXTY-TWO CENTS FOR EVERY BARREL CONTAINING THIRTY
ONE GALLONS, AND AT A PROPORTIONATE RATE FOR ANY OTHER QUANTITY; 

"(B)  ON ALL NATURAL DRY WINES ONE CENT PER WINE GALLON AND AT A
PROPORTIONATE RATE FOR ANY OTHER QUANTITY; (C) ON ALL OTHER STILL WINES
TWO CENTS PER WINE GALLON AND AT A PROPORTIONATE RATE FOR ANY OTHER
QUANTITY; (D) ON CHAMPAGNE, SPARKLING WINE, EXCEPT SPARKLING HARD
CIDER, WHETHER NATURALLY OR ARTIFICIALLY CARBONATED ONE AND ONE-HALF
CENTS PER HALF PINT OR FRACTION THEREOF, THREE CENTS PER PINT OR
FRACTION THEREOF GREATER THAN ONE-HALF PINT, SIX CENTS PER QUART OR
FRACTION THEREOF GREATER THAN ONE PINT; (E) ON SPARKLING HARD CIDER TWO
CENTS PER WINE GALLON AND AT A PROPORTIONATE RATE FOR ANY OTHER
QUANTITY."  STATUTES 1937, CH. 758; OPERATIVE JULY 1, 1937. 

"SEC. 24.  AN EXCISE TAX IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON ALL DISTILLED SPIRITS
SOLD IN THIS STATE BY RECTIFIERS OR WHOLESALERS THEREOF, AT THE
FOLLOWING RATES: 

"ON ALL DISTILLED SPIRITS OF PROOF STRENGTH OR LESS, TWO CENTS ON
EACH BOTTLE CONTAINING TWO OUNCES OR FRACTION THEREOF; FIVE CENTS ON
EACH BOTTLE CONTAINING EIGHT OUNCES OR FRACTION THEREOF GREATER THAN
TWO OUNCES; TEN CENTS ON EACH BOTTLE CONTAINING ONE PINT OR FRACTION
THEREOF GREATER THAN A HALF-PINT; SIXTEEN CENTS ON EACH BOTTLE
CONTAINING ONE-FIFTH GALLON OR FRACTION THEREOF GREATER THAN ONE PINT;
TWENTY CENTS ON EACH BOTTLE CONTAINING ONE QUART OR FRACTION THEREOF
GREATER THAN ONE-FIFTH GALLON; FORTY CENTS ON EACH BOTTLE CONTAINING
ONE-HALF GALLON OR FRACTION THEREOF, GREATER THAN ONE QUART; EIGHTY
CENTS ON EACH BOTTLE CONTAINING ONE GALLON OR FRACTION THEREOF GREATER
THAN ONE-HALF GALLON, AND AT A PROPORTIONATE RATE FOR ANY QUANTITY. 

"ALL DISTILLED SPIRITS IN EXCESS OF PROOF STRENGTH SHALL BE TAXED AT
DOUBLE THE ABOVE RATE."  STATUTES 1937, CH. 758; OPERATIVE JULY 1,
1937. 

FN20  MID-NORTHERN OIL CO. V. WALKER, 268 U.S. 45, 49; RAINIER NAT.
PARK CO. V. MARTIN, 18 F.SUPP.  481, 486, AFFIRMED, 302 U.S. 661, ON
THE AUTHORITY OF THE WALKER CASE. 

IN THIS VIEW WE NEED NOT CONSIDER APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT THAT THE
CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA FORBIDS THE RELEASE OF THE TAXING POWER. 

FN21  STANDARD OIL CO. V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 242. 

FN22  RAINIER NATIONAL PARK V. MARTIN, 18 F.SUPP.  481, 488. 

FN23  CF. ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N,
303 U.S. 419. 

FN24  ART. XX, SEC. 22, OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT
THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION "SHALL HAVE THE POWER, IN ITS
DISCRETION, TO DENY OR REVOKE ANY SPECIFIC LIQUOR LICENSE IF IT SHALL
DETERMINE FOR GOOD CAUSE THAT THE GRANTING OR CONTINUANCE OF SUCH
LICENSE WOULD BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC WELFARE OR MORALS." 

THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT, CAL. STAT. 1935, C. 330, AS
AMENDED STAT. 1937, C. 681, C. 758, CONTAINS, INTER ALIA, PROVISIONS
THAT NO PERSON MAY PERFORM ACTS AUTHORIZED BY A LICENSE, UNLESS
LICENSED (SEC. 3); THAT AN IMPORTER'S LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED ONLY TO THE
HOLDER OF A MANUFACTURER'S, RECTIFIER'S, OR WHOLESALER'S LICENSE, SEC.
6(D); THAT APPLICATION OF A REQUIRED TYPE BE FILED FOR A LICENSE (SEC.
10); THAT NO ON-SALE DISTILLED SPIRITS LICENSE SHALL BE ISSUED TO ANY
APPLICANT WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES (SEC. 12); THAT NO
DISTILLED SPIRITS LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED TO ANY PERSON OR AGENT OF ANY
PERSON WHO MANUFACTURES DISTILLED SPIRITS WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE
(SEC. 20 1/2); THAT RETAIL LICENSES MAY NOT BE GRANTED FOR PREMISES IN
CERTAIN LOCATIONS (SECS. 13-17); THAT NO RETAIL ON-SALE OR OFF-SALE
LICENSEE SHALL PURCHASE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR RESALE FROM ANY PERSON
EXCEPT A PERSON HOLDING A BEER, OR WINE, MANUFACTURER'S, A RECTIFIER'S
OR A WHOLESALER'S LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS ACT (SEC. 6.6). 

FN25  "SEC.  70.  IF ANY SECTION, SUBSECTION, CLAUSE, SENTENCE OR
PHRASE OF THIS ACT WHICH IS REASONABLY SEPARABLE FROM THE REMAINING
PORTION OF THIS ACT IS FOR ANY REASON HELD TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SUCH
DECISION SHALL NOT AFFECT THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THIS ACT.  THE
LEGISLATURE HEREBY DECLARES THAT IT WOULD HAVE PASSED THE REMAINING
PORTIONS OF THIS ACT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT ANY SUCH SECTION,
SUBSECTION, CLAUSE, SENTENCE OR PHRASE OF THIS ACT BE DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL." 

FN26  SEC. 2(K):  "'IMPORTER' MEANS ANY CONSIGNEE OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES BROUGHT INTO THIS STATE FROM WITHOUT THIS STATE WHEN SUCH
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE FOR DELIVERY OR USE WITHIN THIS STATE, ...  "
SEC. 2(W):  "'WITHIN THIS STATE' MEANS ALL TERRITORY WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THIS STATE."  SEC. 2(WL):  "'WITHOUT THE STATE' MEANS ALL
TERRITORY WITHOUT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE." 

FN27  SEE SUPRA, NOTE 26.  SEE BOUNDARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS
DEFINED IN CAL. CONST., ART. XXI, SEC. 1. 

COMPARE RAINIER NAT. PARK CO. V. MARTIN, 18 F.SUPP.  481, 486(W.D.
WASH.), AFFIRMED 302 U.S. 661. 

FN28  SEC. 2(J)  "'RECTIFIER' MEANS EVERY PERSON WHO COLORS, FLAVORS,
OR OTHERWISE PROCESSES DISTILLED SPIRITS BY DISTILLATION, BLENDING,
PERCOLATING OR OTHER PROCESSES." 

(S)  "'WHOLESALER' MEANS AND INCLUDES EVERY PERSON OTHER THAN A
MANUFACTURER OR RECTIFIER WHO IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AS A JOBBER OR
WHOLESALE MERCHANT, DEALING IN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES." 

FN29  RAINIER NAT. PARK CO. V. MARTIN, 302 U.S. 661; CF. BALTIMORE
NAT. BANK V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 209. 

FN30  "SEC.  2.  THE TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION INTO ANY STATE,
TERRITORY, OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR DELIVERY OR USE
THEREIN OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS THEREOF, IS
HEREBY PROHIBITED." 

FN31  "SEC.  49.  ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SHALL BE BROUGHT INTO THIS
STATE FROM WITHOUT THIS STATE FOR DELIVERY OR USE WITHIN THE STATE ONLY
WHEN SUCH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE CONSIGNED TO A LICENSED IMPORTER AND
ONLY WHEN CONSIGNED TO THE PREMISES OF SUCH LICENSED IMPORTER OR TO THE
PREMISES OF A PUBLIC WAREHOUSE LICENSED UNDER THIS ACT.  ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES WHICH ARE CONSIGNED TO A DESTINATION WITHIN THIS STATE SHALL
BE PRESUMED TO BE FOR DELIVERY OR USE WITHIN THIS STATE.  ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES IMPORTED INTO THIS STATE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS HEREOF
SHALL BE SEIZED BY THE BOARD.  EVERY PERSON VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS SECTION SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR."  STATUTES 1937, CH.
758; OPERATIVE JULY 1, 1937. 

"SEC. 49.2.  COMMON OR PRIVATE CARRIERS TRANSPORTING ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES INTO THIS STATE FROM WITHOUT THE STATE FOR DELIVERY OR USE
WITHIN THIS STATE MUST OBTAIN THE RECEIPT OF THE LICENSED IMPORTER,
DISTILLED SPIRITS MANUFACTURER OR DISTILLED SPIRITS MANUFACTURER'S
AGENT FOR THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SO TRANSPORTED AND DELIVERED AND, IF
THE CONSIGNEE REFUSES TO GIVE SUCH RECEIPT AND SHOW HIS LICENSE TO THE
CARRIER, THE CARRIER SHALL BE RELIEVED OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
DELIVERING SAID ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.  WHERE THE CONSIGNEE IS NOT A
LICENSED IMPORTER, DISTILLED SPIRITS MANUFACTURER OR DISTILLED SPIRITS
MANUFACTURER'S AGENT OR WHERE THE CONSIGNEE REFUSES TO GIVE HIS RECEIPT
AND SHOW HIS LICENSE THE CARRIER SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE BOARD AT
SACRAMENTO GIVING FULL DETAILS AS TO THE CHARACTER OF SHIPMENT, POINT
OF ORIGIN, DESTINATION AND ADDRESS OF THE CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE, AND
WITHIN TEN DAYS SUCH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE
BOARD AND SHALL BE FORFEITED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.  IF ANY
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SEIZED UNDER THE PRECEDING SECTION OR FORFEITED
UNDER THIS SECTION ARE SOLD BY OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD THE
COMMON CARRIER'S UNPAID FREIGHT AND STORAGE CHARGES ACCRUING ON THE
SHIPMENTS OF SUCH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SHALL BE SATISFIED OUT OF THE
PROCEEDS OF ANY SALE MADE BY THE STATE AFTER DEDUCTING THE COST OF SUCH
SALE AND ANY EXCISE TAXES ACCRUING THEREON.  EVERY PERSON VIOLATING THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR."  STATUTES
1937, CH. 758; OPERATIVE JULY 1, 1937. 

FN32  THE CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN REITERATED IN MAHONEY V. JOSEPH
TRINER CORP., ANTE, P. 401. 

FN33  STANDARD OIL CO. V. CALIFORNIA, 291 U.S. 242. 

FN34  COMPARE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. CHILES, 214 U.S. 274;
YELLOWSTONE PARK TRANSPORTATION CO. V. GALLATIN COUNTY, 31 F.2D 644. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE DECREE BELOW SHOULD BE
REVERSED BECAUSE AS STATED BY COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS, "THE ACTS OF
CESSION AND ACCEPTANCE RESERVED TO THE STATE THE RIGHT TO LEVY UPON AND
COLLECT FROM THE APPELLEE COMPANY THE TYPE OF TAX IMPOSED BY THE
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT."  ALSO, THAT DISCUSSION SHOULD BE
CONFINED TO THAT POINT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
























FED. POWER COMM'N V. EDISON CO., 304 U.S. 375 


NO. 915.  ARGUED MAY 2, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 23, 1938.  - 94 F.2D 943,
945, REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IS NOT REVIEWABLE IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER SEC. 313 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, AS
AMENDED, UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR A
REHEARING.  REVIEW DOES NOT EXTEND TO AN ORDER GRANTING A REHEARING. 
P. 381. 

2.  SECTION 313(A)(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT DOES NOT EMPOWER THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO REVIEW ORDERS OF THE POWER COMMISSION WHICH
ARE PRELIMINARY OR PROCEDURAL, BUT RELATES TO ORDERS OF A DEFINITIVE
CHARACTER DEALING WITH THE MERITS OF A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND RESULTING FROM A HEARING UPON EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS
APPROPRIATE TO THE CASE.  P. 383. 

3.  WHERE THE ONLY ORDERS MADE BY THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION WERE,
FIRST, AN ORDER FIXING A HEARING AND REQUIRING THE RESPONDENT
CORPORATIONS TO APPEAR AND PRODUCE CERTAIN INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS,
AND, SECOND, AN ORDER PURPORTING TO GRANT A REHEARING OF THE FIRST, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD NO APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO RESTRAIN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ORIGINAL ORDER UNTIL THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING WERE DETERMINED OR TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE
REHEARING AND OF EVIDENCE TO BE THERE CONSIDERED.  PP. 385, 387. 

4.  JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 262, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS
SHALL HAVE POWER "TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY
STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
JURISDICTIONS, AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW," HELD
INAPPLICABLE.  PP. 383, 387. 

5.  THE FEDERAL POWER ACT CONFERS NO AUTHORITY UPON THE COMMISSION TO
ENFORCE ITS DIRECTIONS TO APPEAR, TESTIFY OR PRODUCE BOOKS AND PAPERS
SAVE BY APPLICATION TO A FEDERAL COURT UNDER SEC. 307(C), AND
PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT IS CONFINED TO FAILURE TO OBEY THE ORDER OF THE
COURT.  P. 386. 

6.  UPON SUCH APPLICATION BY THE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS HAVE FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE
ENFORCED.  ID. 

7.  ONE WHO REFUSES TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY, OR PRODUCE BOOKS AND
PAPERS, IN OBEDIENCE TO A SUBPOENA OF THE COMMISSION IS NOT PUNISHABLE
UNDER SEC. 307(C) OF THE ACT, IF THE REFUSAL IS NOT WILFUL BUT MADE IN
GOOD FAITH AND UPON GROUNDS WHICH ENTITLE HIM TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT BEFORE OBEDIENCE IS COMPELLED.  P. 387. 

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 553, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS RESTRAINING THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION FROM PROCEEDING
WITH AN INQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION UNTIL QUESTIONS RAISED BY A PETITION
FOR REHEARING HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY IT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON JANUARY 6, 1936, THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION INSTITUTED AN
INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE "CONDITIONS, PRACTICES, AND MATTERS
REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP, OPERATION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROL" OF THE
RESPONDENT CORPORATIONS.  THE ORDER DIRECTED RESPONDENTS TO FILE WITH
THE COMMISSION COPIES OF CONTRACTS AND STATEMENTS OF WORKING
ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN RESPONDENTS AND PERSONS CONTROLLING THEM, AND
STATEMENTS OF CHARGES ON RESPONDENTS' BOOKS FOR 1934 AND 1935
REPRESENTING PAYMENTS MADE AND OBLIGATIONS INCURRED TO SUCH PERSONS. 
RESPONDENTS WERE ALSO DIRECTED TO MAKE THEIR BOOKS, RECORDS, ETC.,
AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSION'S REPRESENTATIVES.  THE
INVESTIGATION WAS INSTITUTED ON REPRESENTATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR AND
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

RESPONDENTS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THE
ORDER, AND, RESERVING THEIR RIGHT TO QUESTION ITS LEGALITY, THEY
FURNISHED VARIOUS DATA AND INFORMATION.  FOLLOWING AN EXAMINATION OF
THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF RESPONDENTS, THE COMMISSION'S EXAMINERS
SUBMITTED A REPORT ON DECEMBER 10, 1936. 

THEREUPON THE COMMISSION, ON JANUARY 26, 1937, MADE AN ORDER
PROVIDING THAT A HEARING SHOULD BE HELD ON MARCH 3, 1937.  THE ORDER
RECITED THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD REPORTED CHARGES APPEARING UPON THEIR
BOOKS WHICH REPRESENTED PAYMENTS MADE AND OBLIGATIONS INCURRED TO NAMED
PERSONS AS (A) "CONCEDED AFFILIATES" AND (B) "NOT CONCEDED AFFILIATES,"
RESPECTIVELY; THAT THE EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF
RESPONDENTS AND OF ADMITTED AFFILIATES DISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN
RESPONDENTS AND ADDITIONAL NAMED PERSONS, AND THAT THE ACCOUNTING
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMISSION HAD SUBMITTED A REPORT INDICATING
THAT CERTAIN NAMED PERSONS "CONTROL RESPONDENTS, OR ARE CONTROLLED BY
THE SAME PERSONS WHICH CONTROL RESPONDENTS."  THE ORDER THEN DIRECTED
RESPONDENTS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, AS STATED, AND TO PRESENT
INFORMATION BEARING UPON THE QUESTION OF CONTROL AND SPECIFICALLY
SHOWING (1) THEIR FORM OF ORGANIZATION, RESPECTIVELY, (2) THEIR
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OF
ORGANIZATION, (3) THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PARTNERS, DIRECTORS,
OFFICERS, TRUSTEES AND AGENTS, (4) THE OWNERSHIP HELD BY SUCH PERSONS
"IN OR OVER ANY OTHER PERSON NAMED ABOVE," AS WELL AS THE MANNER BY
WHICH SUCH OWNERSHIP WAS MAINTAINED, AND (5) SUCH OTHER DATA AS MIGHT
FROM TIME TO TIME BE REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE ORDER FURTHER
DIRECTED THAT A COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE ACCOUNTING
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE SERVED ON EACH PERSON
NAMED, AND THE COMMISSION GAVE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING WOULD BE HAD BY
THE COMMISSION SITTING JOINTLY WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
PENNSYLVANIA.  SEE FEDERAL POWER ACT, SEC. 209(B), 49 STAT. 853. 

RESPONDENTS THEN FILED WITH THE COMMISSION A PETITION FOR REHEARING
AS TO THE ORDER OF JANUARY 26, 1937, ASKING FOR THE VACATING OF THAT
ORDER AND THE TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE ORDER OF
JANUARY 6, 1936.  RESPONDENTS CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION LACKED
JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE PROPRIETY OF
CONTRACTS AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN RESPONDENTS AND THIRD
PERSONS, AND, IN PARTICULAR, (1) THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT POWER
TO INVESTIGATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPLYING INFORMATION TO A STATE
COMMISSION FOR USE IN LOCAL PROCEEDINGS FOR VIOLATIONS OF LOCAL LAW,
AND, (2) THAT AS TO THREE OF THE RESPONDENTS THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION OF THEIR PERSONS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT "PUBLIC UTILITIES"
AS DEFINED IN THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

THE COMMISSION THEREUPON ADJOURNED WITHOUT DAY THE HEARING DIRECTED
BY THE ORDER OF JANUARY 26, 1937.  LATER, THE COMMISSION GRANTED THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND ASSIGNED "THE MATTERS INVOLVED" FOR HEARING
ON APRIL 14, 1937.  RESPONDENTS THEN APPEARED AND INTRODUCED EVIDENCE
TENDING TO SUPPORT THEIR OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION. 
THE COMMISSION'S COUNSEL THEN INTRODUCED EVIDENCE ON ITS BEHALF. 
RESPONDENTS OBJECTED TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY UPON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS
IMMATERIAL TO THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR REHEARING. 
THEIR OBJECTION WAS OVERRULED AND RESPONDENTS THEN ASKED THE EXAMINER
TO CERTIFY TO THE COMMISSION THE REQUEST TO DEFINE THE ISSUES TO BE
DETERMINED ON THE PETITION FOR REHEARING AND TO INSTRUCT ITS
REPRESENTATIVES THAT NO EVIDENCE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ORDERS OF
JANUARY 6, 1936, AND JANUARY 26, 1937, BE INTRODUCED.  THE EXAMINER
REFUSED AND RESPONDENTS THEN PRESENTED A LIKE REQUEST TO THE
COMMISSION, WHICH WAS DENIED ON APRIL 20, 1937, FOR THE REASON THAT ITS
RULES OF PRACTICE DID NOT PROVIDE FOR THAT METHOD "OF INTERIM REVIEW OF
THE EXAMINER'S RULINGS."  UPON REMAND TO THE EXAMINER, HE AGAIN RULED
AGAINST RESPONDENTS, STATING THAT THEIR RIGHTS COULD "BE AMPLY
PROTECTED BY THE USUAL METHOD OF EXCEPTIONS" AND ARGUMENT THEREON. 

RESPONDENTS THEN PRESENTED, ON APRIL 21, 1937, TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS A PETITION ASKING FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE RESTRAINED FROM TAKING ANY STEPS IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE INQUIRY UNDER THE ORDERS OF JANUARY 6, 1936, OR OF
JANUARY 26, 1937, UNTIL THE PETITION FOR REHEARING HAD BEEN DISPOSED
OF, AND FROM INTRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE EXCEPT THAT WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO
THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR REHEARING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, ON JULY 6, 1937, ISSUED THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, AS PRAYED,
RETURNABLE ON OCTOBER 4, 1937, AND ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1937, GRANTED A
TEMPORARY STAY.  THE COMMISSION MADE ITS RETURN TO THE RULE AND ASKED
FOR A DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED
ITS DECISION ON JANUARY 27, 1938.  ITS DECREE REMANDED THE CASE TO THE
COMMISSION "FOR DETERMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION" OF THE
COURT, AND RESTRAINED THE COMMISSION "FROM PROCEEDING WITH ITS PROPOSED
INQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TWO ORDERS OF JANUARY
6, 1936, AND JANUARY 26, 1937, UNTIL THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING ARE DETERMINED BY IT." 

IN ITS OPINION THE COURT STATED THAT THE ONLY ISSUES OF FACT RAISED
BY THE PETITION FOR REHEARING AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE
THAT THREE OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE NOT "PUBLIC UTILITIES" AS DEFINED BY
THE FEDERAL POWER ACT AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION WAS TO
SUPPLY INFORMATION TO THE PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION FOR USE IN LOCAL
PROCEEDINGS DESIGNED TO IMPOSE PENALTIES UNDER THE STATE LAW.  94 F.2D
943, 945.  THE COURT SAID (ID., P. 946): 

"COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED AND
GRANTED IT WAS THE PLAIN DUTY OF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION TO DETERMINE
THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITION.  WE ARE GOING TO REMAND THE CASE FOR
SUCH DETERMINATION.  IN DOING SO THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED SHOULD BE
STRICTLY CONFINED TO THE TWO ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITION AND NOT
EXTENDED TO THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION PROPOSED IN THE ORDERS OF
JANUARY 6, 1936, AND JANUARY 26, 1937.  THE RELATION OF THE EVIDENCE TO
THE TWO QUESTIONS INVOLVED SHOULD BE APPARENT AND LOGICAL AND NOT FAR
FETCHED AND REMOTELY INFERENTIAL.  SOME OF THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED WHEN
THE CASE WAS BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMISSION ON REHEARING WAS NOT
RELEVANT AND MATERIAL.  IF BOTH SIDES WILL SEEK TO PRODUCE ONLY SUCH
EVIDENCE AS IS CLEARLY ADMISSIBLE, WE VENTURE TO HOPE THAT THE
DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES WILL BE SPEEDY, FINAL AND SATISFACTORY. 

"IN REMANDING THE CASE WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE
QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED.  THE DETERMINATION OF THEM IS FOR THE FEDERAL
COMMISSION UNDER RELEVANT AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE.  THE ACT HAS PROVIDED
A REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF THE ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL COMMISSION AND NO
ORDER ON THE MERITS IS NOW BEFORE US.  THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN SO
THAT THE QUESTIONS WOULD NOT BE MOOT IF AND WHEN THEY COME HERE." 

THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI AND THE CAUSE HAS BEEN ARGUED.  WE ARE
OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD NO JURISDICTION TO
ENTER THE DECREE. 

FIRST.  THERE WAS NO ORDER OF THE COMMISSION BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR REVIEW.  APART FROM THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ORDER OF
JANUARY 6, 1936, OR THAT OF JANUARY 26, 1937, CAN BE REGARDED AS
REVIEWABLE, NO APPLICATION FOR SUCH A REVIEW HAD BEEN MADE. 

THE PROVISION CONFERRING APPELLATE JURISDICTION ON THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS IN RELATION TO ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION IS
FOUND IN SEC. 313 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
AUGUST 26, 1935, C. 687, 49 STAT. 860, 861.  FN1  SECTION 313(A)
PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION MAY
APPLY FOR A REHEARING WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER ITS ISSUANCE AND THAT NO
PROCEEDING TO REVIEW ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE BROUGHT
UNLESS THERE HAS BEEN AN APPLICATION FOR A REHEARING THEREON. 

RESPONDENTS SAY THAT UNDER THIS PROVISION THEY COULD NOT ASK REVIEW
OF THE ORDER OF JANUARY 26, 1937, UNTIL THEY HAD SOUGHT A REHEARING. 
THEY DID SEEK A REHEARING AND IT WAS GRANTED.  NO APPEAL FROM THE ORDER
GRANTING IT WOULD LIE AND NONE WAS ATTEMPTED.  RESPONDENTS DO NOT
CONTEND THAT THERE WAS ANY APPEAL FROM AN ORDER, OR ANY APPLICATION FOR
A REVIEW OF AN ORDER, PENDING BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  ON
THE CONTRARY, RESPONDENTS SAY THAT THE COMMISSION "HAS NEVER PASSED
UPON THE OBJECTIONS RAISED IN RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR REHEARING WITH
RESPECT TO THE ORDER OF JANUARY 26, 1937"; THAT "CONCEDEDLY, THE MINUTE
OF THE COMMISSION GRANTING A REHEARING DID NOT PURPORT TO DECIDE THE
OBJECTIONS RAISED IN THE PETITION FOR REHEARING"; AND THAT "UNTIL THE
COMMISSION HAS MADE AN ORDER DETERMINING THOSE OBJECTIONS, RESPONDENTS
WILL NOT BE IN A POSITION TO PERFECT AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SHOULD THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION MAKE THAT NECESSARY." 

SECOND.  RESPONDENTS SEEK TO SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY SEC. 262 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS SHALL HAVE POWER
"TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY
BE NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, AND
AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS COULD INTERVENE TO PROTECT ITS PROSPECTIVE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.  WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS CONTENTION IS
UNSOUND AND THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED HAD NO APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO PROTECT. 

THE ARGUMENT PROCEEDS ON THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF JANUARY 26, 1937,
DESPITE ITS PRELIMINARY CHARACTER, WAS A REVIEWABLE ORDER SUBJECT ONLY
TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN APPLICATION FOR REHEARING SHOULD FIRST BE
MADE.  RELIANCE IS PLACED ON SEC. 313(B) OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT THAT
"ANY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER ISSUED
BY THE COMMISSION IN SUCH PROCEEDING MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS."  BUT NEITHER THIS LANGUAGE, NOR THAT
OF SEC. 313(A), SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING A REVIEW OF EVERY
ORDER THAT THE COMMISSION MAY MAKE, ALBEIT OF A MERELY PROCEDURAL
CHARACTER.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION, AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSTANT
DELAYS IN THE COURSE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING FOR THE PURPOSE
OF REVIEWING MERE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OR INTERLOCUTORY DIRECTIONS,
WOULD DO VIOLENCE TO THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION. 

THE CONTEXT IN SEC. 313(B) INDICATES THE NATURE OF THE ORDERS WHICH
ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW.  UPON SERVICE OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE
COMMISSION IS TO CERTIFY AND FILE WITH THE APPELLATE COURT "A
TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF WAS
ENTERED."  THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES A CASE IN WHICH THE COMMISSION HAS
TAKEN EVIDENCE AND MADE FINDINGS.  ITS FINDINGS, IF SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE, ARE TO BE CONCLUSIVE.  THE APPELLATE COURT MAY ORDER
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION
MAY THEREUPON MAKE MODIFIED OR NEW FINDINGS.  THE PROVISION FOR REVIEW
THUS RELATES TO ORDERS OF A DEFINITIVE CHARACTER DEALING WITH THE
MERITS OF A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND RESULTING FROM A
HEARING UPON EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS APPROPRIATE TO THE
CASE. 

THERE ARE PERSUASIVE ANALOGIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS FOR
THE REVIEW OF THE ORDERS OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.  THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, FN2  PROVIDES FOR CASES BROUGHT
TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, OR SUSPEND "ANY ORDER" OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  BUT THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT "THERE ARE MANY ORDERS OF THE
COMMISSION WHICH ARE NOT JUDICIALLY REVIEWABLE UNDER THIS PROVISION." 
SEE UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 309,
AND CASES CITED.  IN UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 244 U.S.
82, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION HAD MADE AN ORDER FOR A HEARING
UPON AN ISSUE OF REPARATION.  THE RAILROAD COMPANY CONTENDED THAT THE
COMMISSION HAD NO JURISDICTION TO AWARD DAMAGES IN THE CASE PRESENTED. 
A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ENJOINING THE COMMISSION FROM
PROCEEDING WITH THE HEARING WAS REVERSED BY THIS COURT WITH DIRECTIONS
TO DISMISS THE PETITION.  THE "ORDER" WAS NOT OF THE SORT WHICH BROUGHT
IT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE.  IT WAS A MERE STEP IN
PROCEDURE.  SEE, ALSO, NEW YORK, O. & W. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 14
F.2D 850, AFFIRMED 273 U.S. 652.  NEGATIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ARE
NOT REVIEWABLE.  PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 282;
LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 412, 414.  A FINAL
REPORT BY THE COMMISSION ON VALUE UNDER SEC. 19A OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT, THOUGH CALLED AN ORDER, IS NOT REVIEWABLE.  UNITED STATES
V. LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE R. CO., SUPRA.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V.
ATLANTA, B. & C.R. CO., 282 U.S. 522, 527; GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 172, 181, 182; UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303
U.S. 226; SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 596.  WITH RESPECT TO
OTHER REGULATORY BODIES, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MERE PRELIMINARY OR
PROCEDURAL ORDERS ARE NOT WITHIN THE STATUTES PROVIDING FOR REVIEW BY
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. FEDERAL TRADE
COMM'N, 280 F. 45, 48; AMES BALDWIN WYOMING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, 73 F.2D 489, 490; JONES V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMM'N, 79 F.2D 617, 619; 298 U.S. 1, 14.  SO, ATTEMPTS TO ENJOIN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BECAUSE OF A SUPPOSED OR THREATENED INJURY, AND
THUS OBTAIN JUDICIAL RELIEF BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED, HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE AT WAR WITH THE LONG-SETTLED
RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.  MYERS V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING
CORP., 303 U.S. 41.  SEE, ALSO, SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N V.
ANDREWS, 88 F.2D 441. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF JANUARY 26, 1937, (A) FIXED A DATE FOR
HEARING, (B) REQUIRED RESPONDENTS TO APPEAR, AND (C) REQUIRED THEM TO
PRODUCE THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS DESCRIBED.  IN FIXING A DATE FOR
HEARING, THE ORDER WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A NOTICE.  UNITED STATES V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., SUPRA, P. 89.  THE STATUTE CONFERS NO
AUTHORITY UPON THE COMMISSION TO ENFORCE ITS DIRECTIONS TO APPEAR,
TESTIFY OR PRODUCE BOOKS AND PAPERS SAVE BY APPLICATION TO A FEDERAL
COURT UNDER SEC. 307(C).  FN3  UPON SUCH AN APPLICATION, THE COURT MAY
REQUIRE ATTENDANCE, TESTIMONY AND THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS AND PAPERS
TOUCHING THE MATTER UNDER INVESTIGATION AND FAILURE TO OBEY SUCH AN
ORDER OF THE COURT MAY BE PUNISHED BY IT AS A CONTEMPT.  WE THINK THAT
THIS PROVISION EMBRACES ALL CASES OF ALLEGED "CONTUMACY" ON THE PART OF
ANY PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO ATTEND, GIVE TESTIMONY, OR PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS.  UPON SUCH AN APPLICATION BY THE COMMISSION FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER, RESPONDENTS WOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTEST ITS VALIDITY.  SEE JONES V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM'N,
SUPRA.  IN THE INSTANT CASE NO SUCH APPLICATION BY THE COMMISSION HAS
BEEN MADE.  SECTION 307(C) ALSO PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY
FAILS OR REFUSES TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY, OR PRODUCE BOOKS AND PAPERS, IN
OBEDIENCE TO THE SUBPOENA OF THE COMMISSION, SHALL BE GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR AND BE SUBJECT TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  THE QUALIFICATION
THAT THE REFUSAL MUST BE "WILLFUL" FULLY PROTECTS ONE WHOSE REFUSAL IS
MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND UPON GROUNDS WHICH ENTITLE HIM TO THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BEFORE OBEDIENCE IS COMPELLED. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF JANUARY 26, 1937, LAY OUTSIDE ANY APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE UPON THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  IN THAT VIEW, SEC. 262 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE GIVES NO SUPPORT
TO THE DECREE UNDER REVIEW AND ITS INJUNCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
COMMISSION MUST BE REGARDED AS UNAUTHORIZED. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE RESPONDENTS' PETITION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  313.  (A)  ANY PERSON, STATE, MUNICIPALITY, OR STATE
COMMISSION AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION IN A
PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT TO WHICH SUCH PERSON, STATE, MUNICIPALITY, OR
STATE COMMISSION IS A PARTY MAY APPLY FOR A REHEARING WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER.  THE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
SHALL SET FORTH SPECIFICALLY THE GROUND OR GROUNDS UPON WHICH SUCH
APPLICATION IS BASED.  UPON SUCH APPLICATION THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE
POWER TO GRANT OR DENY REHEARING OR TO ABROGATE OR MODIFY ITS ORDER
WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING.  UNLESS THE COMMISSION ACTS UPON THE
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER IT IS FILED, SUCH
APPLICATION MAY BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DENIED.  NO PROCEEDING TO REVIEW
ANY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE BROUGHT BY ANY PERSON UNLESS SUCH
PERSON SHALL HAVE MADE APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR A REHEARING
THEREON. 

"(B)  ANY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER
ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION IN SUCH PROCEEDING MAY OBTAIN A REVIEW OF SUCH
ORDER IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ANY
CIRCUIT WHEREIN THE LICENSEE OR PUBLIC UTILITY TO WHICH THE ORDER
RELATES IS LOCATED OR HAS ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY FILING
IN SUCH COURT, WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION UPON
THE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING, A WRITTEN PETITION PRAYING THAT THE
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION BE MODIFIED OR SET ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 
A COPY OF SUCH PETITION SHALL FORTHWITH BE SERVED UPON ANY MEMBER OF
THE COMMISSION AND THEREUPON THE COMMISSION SHALL CERTIFY AND FILE WITH
THE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF
WAS ENTERED.  UPON THE FILING OF SUCH TRANSCRIPT SUCH COURT SHALL HAVE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM, MODIFY, OR SET ASIDE SUCH ORDER IN
WHOLE OR IN PART.  NO OBJECTION TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE
CONSIDERED BY THE COURT UNLESS SUCH OBJECTION SHALL HAVE BEEN URGED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN THE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING UNLESS THERE IS
REASONABLE GROUND FOR FAILURE SO TO DO.  THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSION
AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL BE
CONCLUSIVE.  IF ANY PARTY SHALL APPLY TO THE COURT FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AND SHALL SHOW TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT
THAT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE COURT MAY ORDER SUCH ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND TO BE ADDUCED UPON THE
HEARING IN SUCH MANNER AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS TO THE
COURT MAY SEEM PROPER.  THE COMMISSION MAY MODIFY ITS FINDINGS AS TO
THE FACTS BY REASON OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO TAKEN, AND IT SHALL
FILE WITH THE COURT SUCH MODIFIED OR NEW FINDINGS WHICH, IF SUPPORTED
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE, AND ITS RECOMMENDATION,
IF ANY, FOR THE MODIFICATION OR SETTING ASIDE OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER. 
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE COURT, AFFIRMING, MODIFYING, OR SETTING
ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY SUCH ORDER OF THE COMMISSION, SHALL BE
FINAL, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPON
CERTIORARI OR CERTIFICATION AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 239 AND 240 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED (U.S.C., TITLE 28, SECS. 346 AND 347)." 

FN2  28 U.S.C. 47. 

FN3  SUBDIVISION (C) OF SEC. 307 OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT IS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"(C)  IN CASE OF CONTUMACY BY, OR REFUSAL TO OBEY A SUBPENA ISSUED
TO, ANY PERSON, THE COMMISSION MAY INVOKE THE AID OF ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF WHICH SUCH INVESTIGATION OR
PROCEEDING IS CARRIED ON, OR WHERE SUCH PERSON RESIDES OR CARRIES ON
BUSINESS, IN REQUIRING THE ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND
THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS, PAPERS, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDA, CONTRACTS,
AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER RECORDS.  SUCH COURT MAY ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING
SUCH PERSON TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR MEMBER OR OFFICER
DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION, THERE TO PRODUCE RECORDS, IF SO ORDERED,
OR TO GIVE TESTIMONY TOUCHING THE MATTER UNDER INVESTIGATION OR IN
QUESTION; AND ANY FAILURE TO OBEY SUCH ORDER OF THE COURT MAY BE
PUNISHED BY SUCH COURT AS A CONTEMPT THEREOF.  ALL PROCESS IN ANY SUCH
CASE MAY BE SERVED IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHEREOF SUCH PERSON IS AN
INHABITANT OR WHEREVER HE MAY BE FOUND OR MAY BE DOING BUSINESS.  ANY
PERSON WHO WILLFULLY SHALL FAIL OR REFUSE TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY OR TO
ANSWER ANY LAWFUL INQUIRY OR TO PRODUCE BOOKS, PAPERS, CORRESPONDENCE,
MEMORANDA, CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, OR OTHER RECORDS, IF IN HIS OR ITS
POWER SO TO DO, IN OBEDIENCE TO THE SUBPENA OF THE COMMISSION, SHALL BE
GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND, UPON CONVICTION, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A
FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000 OR TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF NOT MORE
THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














OKLAHOMA V. COOK, 304 U.S. 387 


NO. - , ORIGINAL.  - DECIDED MAY 23, 1938.  - LEAVE TO FILE DENIED. 


THIS COURT CAN NOT TAKE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF A SUIT BY A STATE TO
ENFORCE THE STATUTORY LIABILITY OF A STOCKHOLDER OF A STATE BANK, IN
PROCESS OF LIQUIDATION THROUGH A STATE OFFICER, WHERE THE STATE,
ALTHOUGH VESTED BY ITS LAWS WITH LEGAL TITLE TO THE BANK'S ASSETS AND
TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION SUED ON, IS ACTING MERELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
BANK'S CREDITORS AND DEPOSITORS.  PP. 392-396. 

OKLAHOMA EX REL. JOHNSON, BANK COMMISSIONER, V. COOK. 

UPON APPLICATION OF THE STATE FOR LEAVE TO BRING AN ORIGINAL ACTION,
AND RESPONSE OF THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT TO A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, UPON THE RELATION OF ITS BANK COMMISSIONER,
ASKS LEAVE TO BRING SUIT IN THIS COURT TO ENFORCE THE STATUTORY
LIABILITY OF A SHAREHOLDER OF A STATE BANK WHICH IS IN COURSE OF
LIQUIDATION. 

THE STATUTES OF OKLAHOMA PROVIDE THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS OF EVERY BANK
ORGANIZED UNDER THE STATE LAW "SHALL BE ADDITIONALLY LIABLE FOR THE
AMOUNT OF STOCK OWNED."  OKLA. STAT. 1931, SEC. 9130.  THE BANK
COMMISSIONER, WHEN SATISFIED OF THE INSOLVENCY OF A BANK, MAY TAKE
POSSESSION OF ITS ASSETS AND "PROCEED TO WIND UP ITS AFFAIRS AND
ENFORCE THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS."  ID., SEC. 9172. 
THAT LIABILITY BECOMES DUE WHEN THE BANK COMMISSIONER TAKES POSSESSION
OF THE BANK AND HIS ORDER FINDING THE BANK TO BE INSOLVENT IS
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF THAT FACT.  ID., SEC. 9174.  THE BANK
COMMISSIONER IS AUTHORIZED TO "PROSECUTE ALL SUITS NECESSARY FOR THE
LIQUIDATION OF THE ASSETS OF THE INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS TAKEN OVER BY
HIM" AND SUCH SUITS ARE TO BROUGHT "IN THE NAME OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA, ON THE RELATION OF THE BANK COMMISSIONER."  IF, AFTER
LIQUIDATION AND PAYMENT IN FULL OF DEPOSITORS AND CREDITORS, ANY ASSETS
REMAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE BANK COMMISSIONER, THEY REVERT TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS.  ID., SEC. 9173. 

THE STATUTES FURTHER PROVIDE THAT "THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ON THE
RELATION OF THE BANK COMMISSIONER, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE OWNER OF
ALL OF THE ASSETS OF FAILED BANKS IN HIS HANDS FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT
OF THE DEPOSITORS AND CREDITORS OF SAID BANK."  ID., SEC. 9179.  NO
COSTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY THE STATE IN ANY SUIT IN WHICH THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ON THE RELATION OF THE BANK COMMISSIONER, IS A
PARTY, AND PREFERENCE IS DIRECTED TO BE GIVEN IN THE COURTS OF THE
STATE TO ALL MATTERS PENDING IN SUCH SUITS.  ID. 

THE PROPOSED COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT IN MAY, 1931, THE BANK
COMMISSIONER TOOK POSSESSION OF THE OSAGE BANK OF FAIRFAX, OSAGE
COUNTY, FINDING IT TO BE INSOLVENT, AND PROCEEDED TO WIND UP ITS
AFFAIRS AND ENFORCE THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS; THAT
THE DEFENDANT, R.M. COOK, WAS THE OWNER OF SIXTY-NINE SHARES OF THE
CAPITAL STOCK OF THE BANK OF THE PAR VALUE OF $100, AND BECAME LIABLE
TO THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, UPON THE RELATION OF ITS BANK COMMISSIONER,
IN THE SUM OF $6900, WITH INTEREST; THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS PAID THE SUM
OF $2300 IN PART SATISFACTION AND THAT THE BALANCE IS DUE; THAT THE
BANK COMMISSIONER HAS LIQUIDATED ALL THE ASSETS OF THE BANK EXCEPT THE
CLAIM HERE PRESENTED AND CERTAIN OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST OTHER
STOCKHOLDERS; THAT DIVIDENDS HAVE BEEN PAID TO DEPOSITORS AND CREDITORS
AMOUNTING TO NINETY-ONE PER CENT.  OF THEIR CLAIMS AND THAT THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTORY LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT IS NECESSARY TO
DISCHARGE THE LIABILITIES OF THE BANK. 

IN ANSWER TO THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO BRING THIS SUIT
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE CAUSE
OF ACTION IS NOT WITHIN ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, CLAUSE 2, OF THE
CONSTITUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT. 

THE PURPOSE IN CREATING THE STOCKHOLDER'S LIABILITY, THE AUTHORITY
CONFERRED UPON THE BANK COMMISSIONER TO ENFORCE IT, AND THE RELATION OF
THE STATE TO ITS ENFORCEMENT, ARE CLEARLY SET FORTH IN THE DECISIONS OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.  IN STATE EX REL. MOTHERSEAD V. KELLY,
141 OKLA. 36; 284 P. 65, THE COURT SAID: 

"WHAT IS THIS STOCKHOLDER'S LIABILITY AND FOR WHOSE BENEFIT IS IT
CREATED? 

"IT WAS DESIGNED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS AND CONSTITUTES
A FUND AVAILABLE ONLY WHEN THE BANK IS INSOLVENT AND THUS RENDERED
UNABLE TO MEET ITS LIABILITIES IN FULL.  THE CORPORATION ITSELF HAS NO
AUTHORITY OVER THE FUND AND CANNOT EITHER COMPEL ITS PAYMENT OR BY ANY
ACT ON ITS PART RELEASE THE STOCKHOLDER THEREFROM.  IT AMOUNTS, FOR ALL
PRACTICAL PURPOSES, TO A RESERVE OR TRUST FUND, TO BE RESORTED TO ONLY
IN PROCEEDINGS IN LIQUIDATION, WHEN NECESSARY TO MEET THE PAYMENT OF
OBLIGATIONS OF THE CORPORATION.  IT IS LIMITED TO AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
THE PAR VALUE OF THE STOCK HELD AND OWNED BY EACH STOCKHOLDER AND
EXISTS IN FAVOR OF THE CREDITORS COLLECTIVELY, NOT SEPARATELY, AND IN
PROPORTION TO THE AMOUNT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS AGAINST THE
CORPORATION.  ...  "  (ID., PP. 37, 38; 284 P. 66.) 

THE COURT ADDED THAT "THE BANK COMMISSIONER ALONE IS EMPOWERED BY LAW
TO PROSECUTE AN ACTION TO ENFORCE THE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY."  ID.,
P. 41; 284 P. 69.  SEE ALSO AMERICAN EXCHANGE BANK V. ROWSEY, 144 OKLA.
172, 173; 289 P. 726; GRIFFIN V. BREWER, 167 OKLA. 654, 655; 31 P.2D
619. 

IN STATE EX REL. MURRAY V. PURE OIL CO., 169 OKLA. 507; 37 P.2D 608,
REFERRING TO THE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE BANK
COMMISSIONER TO INSTITUTE ALL SUITS NECESSARY FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF
THE ASSETS OF THE INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS TAKEN OVER BY HIM AND
PROVIDING THAT SUCH SUITS SHALL BE BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE STATE, ON
THE RELATION OF THE BANK COMMISSIONER, THE COURT SAID: 

"SINCE THE STATE IS THE PROPER PARTY PLAINTIFF BY VIRTUE OF THE ABOVE
STATUTE, IT MAY MAINTAIN THE ACTION REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS THE
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST OR MERELY A NOMINAL PLAINTIFF FOR THE USE AND
BENEFIT OF DEPOSITORS AND CREDITORS.  AN ACTION MAY BE MAINTAINED BY
ONE EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE EVEN THOUGH THAT PERSON IS NOT IN
FACT THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.  SECTION 144, O.S. 1931.  ... 

"THE PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS OF INSOLVENT STATE BANKS IS A DISTINCT
ECONOMIC POLICY OF THE STATE.  ...  IN SO FAR AS THE OBJECT OF THIS
ACTION IS TO FURTHER THE ESTABLISHED ECONOMIC POLICY OF THE STATE, THE
STATE MAY BE SAID TO HAVE A REAL INTEREST CREATED BY ITS GOVERNMENTAL
POLICY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE NOMINAL INTEREST, EVEN THOUGH THE
PECUNIARY BENEFITS OF THE LITIGATION, IF ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL, GO TO
THE DEPOSITORS AND CREDITORS OF THE INSOLVENT BANK. 

"THE STATUTE (SECTION 9173, SUPRA) WHICH AUTHORIZES THE STATE TO BE A
PARTY PLAINTIFF NAMES THE BANK COMMISSIONER AS THE PROPER OFFICER TO
INSTITUTE LEGAL ACTIONS AND CARRY OUT THIS ECONOMIC POLICY.  ... 

"THE NATURE OF THE POWERS VESTED BY LAW IN THE BANK COMMISSIONER HAVE
BEEN MANY TIMES CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT AND THEIR EXCLUSIVE CHARACTER
RECOGNIZED.  ... 

"IT WAS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT LITIGATION OF THIS CHARACTER
SHOULD BE INSTITUTED AND CONDUCTED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF THE
BANK COMMISSIONER THROUGH THE STAFF OF LEGAL ASSISTANTS PROVIDED BY LAW
FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND NOT BY THE GOVERNOR, NOR THROUGH INDEPENDENT
ACTION."  ID., PP. 509-512; 37 P.2D 610. 

AGAIN, IN RICHISON V. STATE EX REL. BARNETT, 176 OKLA. 537, 539; 56
P.2D 840, 843, THE COURT OBSERVED: 

"UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 40, O.S. 1931(SEC.  9168
ET SEQ.) THE STATE HAS ASSUMED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AND CONTROL OF
THE AFFAIRS OF INSOLVENT BANKING INSTITUTIONS.  BY OPERATION OF LAW THE
BANK COMMISSIONER IS THE OFFICER THROUGH WHICH THE STATE LIQUIDATES THE
ASSETS AND WINDS UP THE AFFAIRS OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS.  WHILE ENGAGED IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH STATUTORY DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS THE BANK
COMMISSIONER IS PERFORMING DUTIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC WHO WERE DEPOSITORS IN SUCH INSTITUTION." 

THE STATE COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT
RUN AGAINST THE STATE IN AN ACTION TO ENFORCE THE STATUTORY LIABILITY
OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.  STATE EX REL. SHULL V. MCLAUGHLIN, 159 OKLA. 4;
12 P.2D 1106.  AND THE SAME RULE APPLIES TO ACTIONS ON PROMISSORY NOTES
AND OTHER CLAIMS TAKEN OVER BY THE BANK COMMISSIONER AS ASSETS OF AN
INSOLVENT BANK.  WHITE V. STATE, 94 OKLA. 7; 220 P. 624; LEVER V. STATE
EX REL. SHULL, 157 OKLA. 162; 111 P.2D 498; RICHISON V. STATE EX REL.
BARNETT, SUPRA. 

MAY THE STATE THROUGH ITS BANK COMMISSIONER INVOKE OUR ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE CLAIMS OF THIS CHARACTER FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS? 

TO BRING A CASE WITHIN THAT JURISDICTION, IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT A
STATE IS PLAINTIFF.  FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12, 17.  NOR IS IT
ENOUGH THAT A STATE HAS ACQUIRED THE LEGAL TITLE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, WHERE THE RECOVERY IS SOUGHT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ANOTHER WHO IS THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.  NEW HAMPSHIRE V. LOUISIANA,
NEW YORK V. LOUISIANA, 108 U.S. 76.  IN THOSE CASES, PROVISION WAS MADE
BY STATUTES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND NEW YORK FOR THE ASSIGNMENT TO THE
STATE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF ANOTHER STATE.  THEREUPON IT BECAME THE
DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE, IF IN HIS OPINION THE CLAIM
WAS A VALID ONE, TO BRING SUIT IN THE NAME OF THE STATE IN THIS COURT
IN ORDER TO ENFORCE COLLECTION.  THE MONEY COLLECTED WAS TO BE HELD IN
TRUST, AS STATED, AND TO BE PAID OVER TO THE ASSIGNOR OF THE CLAIM. 
ID., PP. 77, 79.  THE STATES, RESPECTIVELY, ACQUIRED TITLE TO BONDS OF
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND FILED IN THIS COURT BILLS IN EQUITY IN THE
NAME OF THE STATE TO ENFORCE RECOVERY.  THE BILLS WERE DISMISSED.  THE
FACT THAT THE EFFORT WAS MADE TO USE THE NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT STATES
IN ORDER TO EVADE THE APPLICATION OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT WAS
UNDOUBTEDLY A CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION, BUT THAT CONSIDERATION DERIVED
ITS FORCE FROM THE FACT THAT THE STATE WAS NOT SEEKING A RECOVERY IN
ITS OWN INTEREST, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE THE REAL BENEFICIARIES. 

THE UNDERLYING POINT OF THE DECISION WAS THAT IN DETERMINING THE
SCOPE OF OUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER CLAUSE 2 OF SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE
III OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE MUST LOOK BEYOND THE MERE LEGAL TITLE OF
THE COMPLAINING STATE TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION ASSERTED AND TO THE NATURE
OF THE STATE'S INTEREST.  SO, WHEN IT APPEARED IN A LATER CASE THAT A
STATE, INVOKING THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT TO ENFORCE THE
BONDS OF ANOTHER STATE, WAS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE BONDS AND WAS
PROSECUTING THE CLAIM UPON ITS OWN BEHALF, THIS COURT TOOK
JURISDICTION.  SOUTH DAKOTA V. NORTH CAROLINA, 192 U.S. 286.  THERE THE
COURT FOUND THAT, WHILE THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ACQUIRED BY GIFT THE
BONDS OF NORTH CAROLINA, THERE COULD NOT BE "ANY QUESTION RESPECTING
THE TITLE OF SOUTH DAKOTA."  THEY WERE NOT HELD, THE COURT SAID, BY THE
STATE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF INDVIDUAL OWNERS AS IN THE CASE OF NEW
HAMPSHIRE V. LOUISIANA, 108 U.S. 76, AND THE MOTIVE WHICH INDUCED THE
TRANSACTION WAS NOT DEEMED TO "AFFECT ITS VALIDITY OR THE QUESTION OF
JURISDICTION."  THE CASE WAS THUS ONE "DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE PROPERTY
RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF A STATE."  ID., PP. 314, 318. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT IN A MATTER THAT IS JUSTICIABLE
(SEE MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 485), THE INTERESTS OF THE
STATE ARE NOT DEEMED TO BE CONFINED TO THOSE OF A STRICTLY PROPRIETARY
CHARACTER BUT EMBRACE ITS "QUASI-SOVEREIGN" INTERESTS WHICH ARE
"INDEPENDENT OF AND BEHIND THE TITLES OF ITS CITIZENS, IN ALL THE EARTH
AND AIR WITHIN ITS DOMAIN."  GEORGIA V. TENNESSEE COPPER CO., 206 U.S.
230, 237.  THUS, WE HAVE HELD THAT A STATE MAY SUE TO RESTRAIN THE
DIVERSION OF WATER FROM AN INTERSTATE STREAM, KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206
U.S. 46, 95, 96, OR AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE FLOW OF NATURAL GAS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, PENNSLYVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262 U.S. 553, 592;
OR TO PREVENT INJURIES THROUGH THE POLLUTION OF STREAMS OR THE
POISONING OF THE AIR BY THE GENERATION OF NOXIOUS GASES DESTRUCTIVE OF
CROPS AND FORESTS, WHETHER THE INJURY BE DUE TO THE ACTION OF ANOTHER
STATE OR OF INDIVIDUALS, MISSOURI V. ILLINOIS, 180 U.S. 208, 200 U.S.
496; GEORGIA V. TENNESSEE COPPER CO., SUPRA; NORTH DAKOTA V. MINNESOTA,
263 U.S. 365, 373, 374; WISCONSIN V. ILLINOIS, 278 U.S. 367, 281 U.S.
179. 

BUT THIS PRINCIPLE DOES NOT GO SO FAR AS TO PERMIT RESORT TO OUR
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION IN THE NAME OF THE STATE BUT IN REALITY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS, ALBEIT THE STATE ASSERTS AN ECONOMIC
INTEREST IN THE CLAIMS AND DECLARES THEIR ENFORCEMENT TO BE A MATTER OF
STATE POLICY.  IN KANSAS V. UNITED STATES, 204 U.S. 331, THE STATE
ASKED LEAVE TO FILE A BILL OF COMPLAINT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND
OTHERS, SEEKING A DECREE ADJUDGING THE STATE TO BE THE OWNER, AS
TRUSTEE FOR A RAILWAY COMPANY, OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF LAND TO THE
EXTENT OF A GRANT ALONG THE LINE OF THE RAILROAD THROUGH THE CREEK
NATION IN THE INDIAN TERRITORY.  THE COURT SAID THAT IT APPEARED UPON
THE FACE OF THE BILL THAT THE STATE WAS ONLY NOMINALLY A PARTY, THAT
THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST WAS THE RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THAT OUR
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION "COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED."  ID., PP. 340, 341. 
THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE UNITED STATES WAS THE REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST AS DEFENDANT AND COULD NOT BE SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, BUT
THE OTHER QUESTION WAS PRESENTED AND PASSED UPON. 

IN OKLAHOMA V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 220 U.S. 277, THE STATE
SOUGHT TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION IN THIS COURT AGAINST THE CARRIER TO
RESTRAIN IT FROM CHARGING UNREASONABLE RATES WITHIN OKLAHOMA.  SETTING
FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL GRANT UNDER WHICH THE RAILWAY IN QUESTION WAS
OPERATED AND INSISTING THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CHARGE THE
INHABITANTS OF OKLAHOMA A GREATER FREIGHT RATE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF CERTAIN COMMODITIES THAN THAT AUTHORIZED FOR SIMILAR SERVICE IN
KANSAS, THE STATE ALLEGED ITS INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS
COMMUNITIES AND IN THE SUCCESS OF ITS INDUSTRIES, AND THE MENACE TO THE
FUTURE OF THE STATE THROUGH WHAT WAS DEEMED TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE
CONDITIONS OF THE GRANT.  BUT THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE STATE WAS
NOT SEEKING TO PROTECT A DIRECT INTEREST OF ITS OWN IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMODITIES IN QUESTION, BUT WAS ENDEAVORING TO
COMPEL THE RAILWAY COMPANY TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF THE SHIPPERS OF
THESE COMMODITIES.  ID., PP. 286, 287.  THE BILL WAS DISMISSED.  THE
COURT SUMMARIZED ITS CONCLUSION IN THESE WORDS: 

"WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE WORDS, IN THE CONSTITUTION,
CONFERRING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ON THIS COURT, IN A SUIT 'IN WHICH A
STATE SHALL BE A PARTY' ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS CONFERRING SUCH
JURISDICTION IN EVERY CAUSE IN WHICH THE STATE ELECTS TO MAKE ITSELF
STRICTLY A PARTY PLAINTIFF OF RECORD AND SEEKS NOT TO PROTECT ITS OWN
PROPERTY, BUT ONLY TO VINDICATE THE WRONGS OF SOME OF ITS PEOPLE OR TO
ENFORCE ITS OWN LAWS OR PUBLIC POLICY AGAINST WRONGDOERS, GENERALLY." 
ID., P. 289. 

SEE, ALSO, LOUISIANA V. TEXAS, 176 U.S. 1. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE STATE HAS TAKEN THE LEGAL TITLE TO THE
ASSETS OF THE INSOLVENT BANK WHICH IS BEING LIQUIDATED AND TO THE
CLAIMS AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS BY REASON OF THEIR STATUTORY LIABILITY. 
BUT RECOVERY IS SOUGHT SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DEPOSITORS AND
CREDITORS OF THE BANK.  STATE EX REL. MOTHERSEAD V. KELLY, SUPRA; STATE
EX REL. MURRAY V. PURE OIL CO., SUPRA; RICHISON V. STATE EX REL.
BARNETT, SUPRA.  CONSTITUTING THE STATE A VIRTUAL TRUSTEE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE CREDITORS OF THE BANK DID NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL
QUALITY OF THE RIGHTS ASSERTED OR AVAIL TO CONFER JURISDICTION UPON
THIS COURT TO ENTERTAIN A SUIT FOR THEIR ENFORCEMENT.  NEW HAMPSHIRE V.
LOUISIANA, NEW YORK V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA; KANSAS V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; OKLAHOMA V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., SUPRA.  THE TAKING OF
THE LEGAL TITLE BY THE STATE IS A MERE EXPEDIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTION. 

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE STATE NOT ONLY UNDERTAKES TO ENFORCE THE
STATUTORY LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS BUT, AS THE STATE TAKES TITLE TO
ALL THE ASSETS OF THE INSOLVENT BANK, SUITS UPON PROMISSORY NOTES AND
VARIOUS CLAIMS OF THE BANK IN THE COURSE OF THE LIQUIDATION ARE TO BE
BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE STATE ACTING THROUGH ITS BANK COMMISSIONER. 
THE DECLARED POLICY AND ASSERTED ECONOMIC INTEREST OF THE STATE ATTACH
AS WELL TO THE PROSECUTION OF ALL SUCH SUITS.  IF THE CONTENTION OF THE
STATE WERE ACCEPTED, IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT SUITS UPON CLAIMS OF THE BANK
AGAINST CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES COULD BE BROUGHT IN THIS COURT.  MANY
STATES HAVE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR THE LIQUIDATION THROUGH STATE
OFFICERS OF INSOLVENT BANKS, TRUST COMPANIES, INSURANCE COMPANIES,
ETC., AND IF, BY THE SIMPLE EXPEDIENT OF PROVIDING THAT THE TITLE TO
THE ASSETS OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS SHOULD VEST IN THE STATE AND THAT SUITS
IN THE COURSE OF LIQUIDATION SHOULD BE PROSECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE
STATE, RESORT TO OUR ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WERE PERMITTED, THE ENORMOUS
BURDEN WHICH WOULD THEREBY BE IMPOSED UPON THIS COURT CAN READILY BE
IMAGINED,  - A BURDEN FOREIGN TO THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF STRICT
ADHERENCE TO THE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATE MUST SHOW A DIRECT
INTEREST OF ITS OWN AND NOT MERELY SEEK RECOVERY FOR THE BENEFIT OF
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST. 

THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT IS DENIED.  MOTION DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











HUDSON V. MOONIER, 304 U.S. 397 


NO. 938.  - DECIDED MAY 23, 1938.  - CERTIORARI GRANTED - 94 F.2D 193,
REVERSED. 


THE LIABILITY OF THE LESSOR OF A TRUCK FOR PERSONAL INJURIES TO A
THIRD PARTY, IN ITS OPERATION, DUE TO LESSOR'S BREACH OF A DUTY TO
MAINTAIN IT IN SAFE CONDITION, DEPENDS UPON THE LEX LOCI DELICTI.  ERIE
RAILROAD V. TOMPKINS, ANTE, P. 64. 

HUDSON ET AL. V. MOONIER. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A RECOVERY IN
AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM A STATE
COURT. 

PER CURIAM. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO THE DEFENDANTS' NEGLIGENCE.  HE WAS STRUCK BY A
TRUCK WHICH WAS OPERATED WITHOUT PROPER EQUIPMENT, IN THAT IT HAD NO
HORN OR OTHER SIGNALING DEVICE.  HE SUED THE DRIVER AND ALSO THE PERSON
WHO HAD LEASED THE TRUCK TO THE DRIVER'S EMPLOYER UPON THE GROUND THAT
THE LESSOR WAS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF MAINTAINING THE TRUCK IN A
REASONABLY SAFE CONDITION. 

JUDGMENT AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  THE COURT TREATED THE QUESTION OF THE LIABILITY OF THE LESSOR
AS ONE OF GENERAL LAW.  THE COURT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE LAW OF
MISSOURI WHERE THE INJURY OCCURRED.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, ANTE, P.
64. 

CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










LACLEDE GAS CO. V. COMM'N, 304 U.S. 398 


NO. 947.  - DECIDED MAY 23, 1938.  - APPEAL FROM 341 MO. 920 - 110
S.W.2D 749, DISMISSED. 


IN A CASE INVOLVING THE ADEQUACY OF RATES FIXED FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY,
A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE RATE-FIXING
COMMISSION FOR A REEXAMINATION WHICH MAY RESULT IN A NEW BASIS OF FAIR
VALUE AND A NEW SCHEDULE OF RATES, IS NOT FINAL FOR PURPOSES OF REVIEW
HERE. 

LACLEDE GAS LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

PER CURIAM. 

APPELLEE, THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, MOVES TO DISMISS
THE APPEAL UPON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO FINAL JUDGMENT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI HAD BEFORE IT AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT WHICH HAD AFFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION FIXING THE VALUE FOR RATE MAKING PURPOSES OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY AND ORDERING A REDUCTION IN RATES.  THE
COMPANY CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS CONFISCATORY, IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE
SUPREME COURT REVIEWED AT LENGTH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION AND
CONCLUDED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A REEXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSION OF
CERTAIN QUESTIONS OF FACT AS TO ELEMENTS OF VALUE.  AFTER STATING THESE
QUESTIONS, THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS: 

"SUBJECT TO THE FOREGOING, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT TO REMAND TO THE
COMMISSION THAT IT MAY REHEAR AND DETERMINE THE FACTS ON THE FOUR
POINTS ABOVE MENTIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS IN THIS OPINION." 
110 S.W.(2D) 749, 780. 

THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT UNDER THE STATUTES OF
MISSOURI (R.S. MO. 1929, SEC. 5234) THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
REVIEWS THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION JUDICIALLY, LUSK V. ATKINSON, 268
MO. 109, 118; 186 S.W. 703; STATE EX REL. DETROIT-CHICAGO MOTOR BUS CO.
V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 324 MO. 270, 275; 23 S.W.2D 115; STATE EX
REL. ST. LOUIS V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 329 MO. 918, 927; 47 S.W.2D
102; STATE EX REL. KANSAS CITY P. & L. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
335 MO. 1248, 1265; 76 S.W.2D 343; THAT THE COMMISSION ACTS
LEGISLATIVELY (ID.); THAT, ON THE REMAND IN THIS CASE, EACH OF THE
MATTERS MENTIONED BY THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND THAT IT MAY PROCEED ANEW IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION IN THEIR
DETERMINATION.  THE COMMISSION ADDS: 

"THE COMMISSION MAY, THEREFORE, MAKE A NEW FINDING OF 'FAIR VALUE'
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE FOUND, AS OF THE DATE OF THE
FORMER HEARING.  MOREOVER, SUCH A NEW FINDING OF 'FAIR VALUE' TOGETHER
WITH NEW FINDINGS CONCERNING THE ALLOWANCE FOR ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AND
AMORTIZATION OF COST OF CHANGE-OVER EXPENSE WOULD NECESSITATE THE
FIXING OF A NEW RATE SCHEDULE. 

"FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS REMANDED FOR REHEARING, IT
IS CONCEIVABLE THAT THE COMMISSION MAY REACH CONCLUSIONS WHICH WOULD
CONSTITUTE THE BASIS OF ANOTHER APPEAL. 

"FOR THE REASONS STATED APPELLEE CONTENDS THAT THERE IS NOT YET A
FINAL JUDGMENT FROM WHICH AN APPEAL CAN BE TAKEN." 

WE THINK THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE COMMISSION IS WELL TAKEN. 

APPELLANT URGES THAT, UNDER THE MANDATE OF THE SUPREME COURT, IT
WOULD BE THE DUTY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO PROCEED AT ONCE TO EXECUTE
ITS JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE RATE REDUCTION ORDER, BY DISTRIBUTING TO THE
CUSTOMERS OF APPELLANT THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD BY A DESIGNATED
DEPOSITARY, UNDER ORDER OF THE COURT, PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION
OF THE VALIDITY OF THE RATE ORDER.  NO RULING OF THE STATE COURT FOR
SUCH A DISTRIBUTION IS BEFORE US.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
DOES NOT DIRECT THE PAYMENT OVER OF THE AMOUNTS ON DEPOSIT, AND THE
DIRECTION OF THE COURT FOR REMAND TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER
EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS STATED APPARENTLY LEAVES IN ABEYANCE THE
FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE RATE ORDER AND MAY RESULT,
AS THE COMMISSION STATES, IN ACTION WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE THE BASIS OF
ANOTHER APPEAL.  THE SUPREME COURT EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THE AFFIRMANCE
OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF
REEXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSION AS DIRECTED. 

AS WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE UPON THE RECORD BEFORE US THAT THE STATE
COURT HAS FINALLY DISPOSED OF THE CONTROVERSY THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE
APPEAL MUST BE GRANTED.  DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







MAHONEY V. TRINER CORP., 304 U.S. 401 


NO. 761.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 23, 1938.  - 20 F.SUPP. 
1019, REVERSED. 


1.  SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE IS INAPPLICABLE TO IMPORTED INTOXICATING LIQUOR.  P.
403. 

2.  A MINNESOTA STATUTE PROVIDES THAT NO LICENSED MANUFACTURER OR
WHOLESALER SHALL IMPORT ANY BRAND OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS CONTAINING
MORE THAN 25% OF ALCOHOL BY VOLUME, READY FOR SALE WITHOUT FURTHER
PROCESSING, UNLESS SUCH BRAND IS REGISTERED IN THE PATENT OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES.  HELD VALID UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT AS APPLIED
TO A FOREIGN CORPORATION, LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND ENGAGED THERE IN
WHOLESALING LIQUOR IMPORTED, READY FOR SALE, FROM ANOTHER STATE, UNDER
BRANDS NOT REGISTERED,  - NOTWITHSTANDING THE DISCRIMINATION ARISING IN
FAVOR OF LIQUOR PROCESSED WITHIN THE STATE AND IN FAVOR OF IMPORTED
BRANDS THAT ARE REGISTERED.  P. 404. 

3.  INDEPENDENTLY OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT, A STATE HAS POWER TO
TERMINATE LICENSES TO SELL INTOXICATING LIQUORS.  P. 404. 

MAHONEY, LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSIONER, ET AL. V. JOSEPH TRINER CORP. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINING
THE ENFORCEMENT OF A LIQUOR REGULATION.  SEE ALSO 11 F.SUPP.  145. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PROVIDES: 

"THE TRANSPORTATION OR IMPORTATION INTO ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES FOR DELIVERY OR USE THEREIN OF
INTOXICATING LIQUORS, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS THEREOF, IS HEREBY
PROHIBITED." 

THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT WAS PROCLAIMED DECEMBER 5, 1933.  IN
FEBRUARY, 1934, JOSEPH TRINER CORPORATION, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION
ENGAGED THERE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS, COMPLIED WITH
THE MINNESOTA FOREIGN CORPORATIONS LAW; SECURED FROM THE LIQUOR CONTROL
COMMISSIONER A LICENSE TO SELL SUCH LIQUORS WITHIN MINNESOTA AT
WHOLESALE; AND THEREAFTER CARRIED ON IN THAT STATE THE BUSINESS OF
SELLING TO RETAILERS LIQUORS MANUFACTURED BY IT IN ILLINOIS.  THE
LEGISLATURE OF MINNESOTA ENACTED CHAPTER 390, APPROVED APRIL 29, 1935,
WHICH PROVIDES: 

"NO LICENSED MANUFACTURER OR WHOLESALER SHALL IMPORT ANY BRAND OR
BRANDS OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS CONTAINING MORE THAN 25 PER CENT. OF
ALCOHOL BY VOLUME READY FOR SALE WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESSING UNLESS SUCH
BRAND OR BRANDS SHALL BE DULY REGISTERED IN THE PATENT OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES." 

THE BUSINESS OF JOSEPH TRINER CORPORATION IN MINNESOTA INCLUDED
SELLING MANY BRANDS OF LIQUORS CONTAINING MORE THAN 25 PER CENT. OF
ALCOHOL WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REGISTERED IN THE PATENT OFFICE; AND AT THE
TIME OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE IT HAD THERE A STOCK OF SUCH
LIQUORS.  TO ENJOIN THE LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSIONER OF MINNESOTA FROM
INTERFERING WITH THE BUSINESS, IT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE FEDERAL
COURT FOR THAT STATE; ALLEGED THAT THE STATUTE OF 1935 VIOLATED THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION; ALLEGED DANGER OF IRREPARABLE INJURY; AND SOUGHT BOTH A
PRELIMINARY AND A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  THE SEVERAL STATE OFFICIALS
CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ENFORCING THE STATUTE WERE JOINED AS
DEFENDANTS. 

THE CASE WAS HEARD BY THREE JUDGES UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE.  THE COURT, HOLDING THAT IT HAD BOTH FEDERAL AND EQUITY
JURISDICTION, GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, 11 F.SUPP.  145; AND
LATER A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, 20 F.SUPP.  1019.  THE STATE OFFICIALS
APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  THE SOLE CONTENTION OF JOSEPH TRINER
CORPORATION IS THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. 
THE STATE OFFICIALS INSIST THAT THE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE IS A
REASONABLE REGULATION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC; AND ALSO, THAT SINCE THE
ADOPTION OF THE TWENTY-FIRST MAENDMENT, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO IMPORTED INTOXICATING LIQUOR.  AS WE ARE OF OPINION
THAT THE LATTER CONTENTION IS SOUND, WE SHALL NOT DISCUSS WHETHER THE
STATUTORY PROVISION IS A REASONABLE REGULATION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC. 

FIRST.  THE STATUTE CLEARLY DISCRIMINATES IN FAVOR OF LIQUOR
PROCESSED WITHIN THE STATE AS AGAINST LIQUOR COMPLETELY PROCESSED
ELSEWHERE.  FOR ONLY THAT LOCALLY PROCESSED MAY BE SOLD REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE BRAND HAS BEEN REGISTERED.  THAT, UNDER THE AMENDMENT,
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IMPORTED LIQUOR IS PERMISSIBLE ALTHOUGH IT IS
NOT AN INCIDENT OF REASONABLE REGULATION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC, WAS
SETTLED BY STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION V. YOUNG'S MARKET CO., 299 U.S.
59, 62, 63.  THERE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT, BY REASON OF THE
DISCRIMINATION INVOLVED, A STATUTE IMPOSING A $500 LICENSE FEE FOR
IMPORTING BEER VIOLATED BOTH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE.  IN SUSTAINING ITS VALIDITY WE SAID: 

"THE WORDS USED (IN THE AMENDMENT) ARE APT TO CONFER UPON THE STATE
THE POWER TO FORBID ALL IMPORTATIONS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE
CONDITIONS WHICH IT (THE STATE) PRESCRIBES.  ... 

"THE PLAINTIFFS ARGUE THAT LIMITATION OF THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF THE
TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT IS SANCTIONED BY ITS HISTORY; AND BY THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ON THE WILSON ACT, THE WEBB-KENYON ACT AND THE
REED AMENDMENT.  AS WE THINK THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, WE
DO NOT DISCUSS THESE MATTERS.  ... 

"THE CLAIM THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE REGULATIONS ARE VOID
UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE MAY BE BRIEFLY DISPOSED OF.  A
CLASSIFICATION RECOGNIZED BY THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT CANNOT BE
DEEMED FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH." 

SECOND.  JOSEPH TRINER CORPORATION INSISTS THAT THE STATUTE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT PERMITS UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN
IMPORTED BRANDS.  THAT IS, THE REGISTERED BRANDS OF OTHER FOREIGN
MANUFACTURERS MAY BE IMPORTED WHILE ITS UNREGISTERED BRANDS MAY NOT BE,
ALTHOUGH "IDENTICAL IN KIND, INGREDIENT AND QUALITY."  WE ARE ASKED TO
LIMIT THE POWER CONFERRED BY THE AMENDMENT SO THAT ONLY THOSE
IMPORTATIONS MAY BE FORBIDDEN WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
VIOLATE A REASONABLE REGULATION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.  TO DO SO WOULD,
AS STATED IN THE YOUNG'S MARKET CASE, P. 62, "INVOLVE NOT A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE AMENDMENT, BUT A REWRITING OF IT." 

THIRD.  THE FACT THAT JOSEPH TRINER CORPORATION HAD, WHEN THE STATUTE
WAS PASSED, A VALID LICENSE AND A STOCK OF LIQUORS IN MINNESOTA
IMPORTED UNDER IT, IS IMMATERIAL.  INDEPENDENTLY OF THE TWENTY-FIRST
AMENDMENT, THE STATE HAD POWER TO TERMINATE THE LICENSE.  MUGLER V.
KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623; PREMIER-PABST SALES CO. V. GROSSCUP, 298 U.S.
226, 228.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







HELVERING V. GERHARDT, 304 U.S. 405 


NO. 779.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 8, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 23, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
999, REVERSED. 


1.  THE IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL TAXATION IMPLIED FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE STATES IS TO BE NARROWLY LIMITED, 

FIRST, BECAUSE THE METHOD OF EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER,
BY, AND UPON, ALL THE PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS
AFFORDS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST ITS ABUSE AT THE EXPENSE OF STATE
SOVEREIGNTY; AND, 

SECONDLY, BECAUSE THE IMMUNITY IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE NATIONAL
SOVEREIGN POWER TO TAX AND IF ENLARGED BEYOND THE NECESSITY OF
PROTECTING THE STATES, ITS BURDEN IS THROWN UPON THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT WITH BENEFIT ONLY TO A PRIVILEGED CLASS OF TAXPAYERS.  P.
416. 

2.  THE IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL TAXATION OF INCOME RECEIVED BY
INDIVIDUALS AS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO A STATE, DOES NOT
EXTEND TO CASES WHERE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX TO A STATE FUNCTION IS NOT
SHOWN TO BE ACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIAL, AND NOT CONJECTURAL.  P. 421. 

THIS PRINCIPLE APPLIES EVEN THOUGH THE FUNCTION BE THOUGHT IMPORTANT
ENOUGH TO DEMAND IMMUNITY FROM A TAX UPON THE STATE ITSELF.  P. 420. 

3.  THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY IS A BI-STATE CORPORATION CREATED
BY COMPACT BETWEEN THE STATES OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY APPROVED BY
CONGRESS.  PURSUANT TO THE COMPACT AND LEGISLATION OF THE TWO STATES,
IT HAS ACQUIRED AND OPERATES TERMINAL AND TRANSFER FACILITIES WITHIN A
DISTRICT EMBRACING THE PORT OF NEW YORK AND LYING PARTLY IN EACH OF THE
STATES.  IT HAS CONSTRUCTED INTERSTATE BRIDGES AND TUNNELS FOR
VEHICLES, USING FUNDS ADVANCED BY THE TWO STATES OR DERIVED FROM SALE
OF ITS BONDS.  IT OPERATES AN INTERSTATE BUS LINE OVER ONE OF THE
BRIDGES AND A TERMINAL FOR INTERCHANGE OF FREIGHT BETWEEN TRUCKS AND
RAILROADS.  IT COLLECTS TOLLS FOR USE OF THE BRIDGES AND TUNNELS, AND
DERIVES INCOME FROM OPERATION OF THE BUS LINE AND TERMINAL BUILDING BUT
HAS NO STOCK OR STOCKHOLDERS AND IS OWNED BY NO PRIVATE PERSONS OR
CORPORATIONS.  ITS PROJECTS ARE SAID TO BE OPERATED IN BEHALF OF THE
TWO STATES AND IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC, AND NONE OF ITS PROFITS
ENURE TO THE BENEFIT OF PRIVATE PERSONS.  ITS PROPERTY AND THE BONDS
AND OTHER SECURITIES ISSUED BY IT ARE EXEMPT BY STATUTE FROM STATE
TAXATION.  A RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS CONSENTING TO THE AUTHORITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF PORT IMPROVEMENT DECLARES THAT ITS ACTIVITIES
WILL PROMOTE AND FACILITATE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, PROVIDE
BETTER AND CHEAPER TRANSPORTATION, AND AID IN PROVIDING BETTER POSTAL,
MILITARY, AND OTHER SERVICES OF VALUE TO THE NATION.  STATUTES OF THE
TWO STATES DECLARE THAT IN THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
OF THE BRIDGES AND TUNNELS IT SHALL BE REGARDED AS PERFORMING A
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AND SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PAY NO TAXES OR
ASSESSMENTS UPON ANY OF THE PROPERTY THEREIN ACQUIRED BY IT.  HELD: 

(1)  THE SALARIES OF A CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER AND TWO ASSISTANT
GENERAL MANAGERS, EMPLOYEES OF THE PORT AUTHORITY, ARE TAXABLE BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  PP. 408, 424. 

THESE EMPLOYEES EACH TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE.  NEITHER THE COMPACT NOR
ANY STATE STATUTE APPEARS TO HAVE CREATED AN OFFICE OR PRESCRIBED AN
OATH OR DEFINED THE FUNCTION OF SUCH EMPLOYEES.  THEIR OCCUPATIONS ARE
NOT SHOWN TO BE DIFFERENT IN METHODS OR DUTIES FROM SIMILAR EMPLOYMENTS
IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY.  A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX LAID ON THEIR NET
INCOME, IN COMMON WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY,
COULD BY NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY BE CONSIDERED TO PRECLUDE THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTION WHICH NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY HAVE
UNDERTAKEN, OR TO OBSTRUCT IT MORE THAN LIKE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES ARE
OBSTRUCTED BY TAXATION.  EVEN THOUGH, TO SOME UNASCERTAINABLE EXTENT,
THE TAX DEPRIVES THE STATES OF THE ADVANTAGE OF PAYING LESS THAN THE
STANDARD RATE FOR THE SERVICES WHICH THEY ENGAGE, IT DOES NOT CURTAIL
ANY OF THOSE FUNCTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN THOUGHT HITHERTO TO BE ESSENTIAL
TO THEIR CONTINUED EXISTENCE AS STATES.  THE EFFECT OF THE IMMUNITY IF
ALLOWED, WOULD BE TO RELIEVE THE TAXPAYERS OF THEIR DUTY OF FINANCIAL
SUPPORT TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO SECURE TO THE STATE A
THEORETICAL ADVANTAGE SO SPECULATIVE IN ITS CHARACTER AND MEASUREMENT
AS TO BE UNSUBSTANTIAL.  PP. 410 ET SEQ. 

(2)  THE COURT EXPRESSES NO OPINION AS TO WHETHER A FEDERAL TAX MAY
BE IMPOSED UPON THE PORT AUTHORITY ITSELF WITH RESPECT TO ITS RECEIPT
OF INCOME OR ITS OTHER ACTIVITIES.  P. 424. 

4.  BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 352, IS LIMITED TO THE DECISION
THAT THE FUNCTION OF THE STATE IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH THE TAXPAYER
RECEIVED THE SALARY TAXED WAS ESSENTIALLY GOVERNMENTAL IN CHARACTER;
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE BURDEN RESULTING TO THE STATE FROM THE TAX ON
HIS SALARY WAS SO INDIRECT OR CONJECTURAL AS TO BE BUT AN INCIDENT OF
THE COEXISTENCE OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS, AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, WAS NOT CONSIDERED.  PP. 422-423. 

5.  THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 116 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932
DO NOT AUTHORIZE EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF THE SALARIES OF
EMPLOYEES OF A STATE OR STATE-OWNED CORPORATION.  P. 423. 

6.  EMPLOYEES OF THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF
THE STATE OR OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF IT WITHIN THE MEANING OF
TREASURY REGULATIONS 77, ART. 643, UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  P.
423. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. GERHARDT.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 780, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. WILSON; AND NO. 781, SAME V. MULCAHY, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 630, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SUSTAINING DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HOLDING THE
SALARIES OF THE PRESENT RESPONDENTS IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL TAXATION. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF A FEDERAL
INCOME TAX FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 1932 AND 1933 ON SALARIES RECEIVED BY
RESPONDENTS, AS EMPLOYEES OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY, PLACES AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE STATES OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. 

THE PORT AUTHORITY IS A BI-STATE CORPORATION, CREATED BY COMPACT
BETWEEN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, LAWS OF N.Y., 1921, C. 154; LAWS OF
N.J., 1921, C. 151, APPROVED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES BY
JOINT RESOLUTION OF AUGUST 23, 1921, C. 77, 42 STAT. 174.  THE COMPACT
AUTHORIZED THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE AND OPERATE "ANY TERMINAL OR
TRANSPORTATION FACILITY" WITHIN A SPECIFIED DISTRICT EMBRACING THE PORT
OF NEW YORK AND LYING PARTIALLY WITHIN EACH STATE.  IT DIRECTED THE
AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR IMPROVING THE PORT AND
FACILITATING ITS USE, BY THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF BRIDGES,
TUNNELS, TERMINALS AND OTHER FACILITIES.  THE AUTHORITY MADE SUCH A
RECOMMENDATION IN ITS REPORT OF DECEMBER, 1921, ADOPTED BY THE TWO
STATES IN 1922.  LAWS OF N.Y., 1922, C. 43; LAWS OF N.J., 1922, C. 9. 

IN CONFORMITY TO THE PLAN, AND PURSUANT TO FURTHER LEGISLATION OF THE
TWO STATES, THE AUTHORITY HAS CONSTRUCTED THE OUTERBRIDGE CROSSING
BRIDGE, THE GOETHALS BRIDGE, THE BAYONNE BRIDGE, AND THE GEORGE
WASHINGTON BRIDGE, INTERSTATE VEHICULAR BRIDGES ALL PASSING OVER WATERS
OF THE HARBOR OR ADJACENT TO IT.  IT HAS ALSO CONSTRUCTED THE HOLLAND
TUNNEL AND THE LINCOLN TUNNEL, INTERSTATE VEHICULAR TUNNELS PASSING
UNDER THE HUDSON RIVER.  THESE ENTERPRISES WERE FINANCED IN LARGE PART
BY FUNDS ADVANCED BY THE TWO STATES AND BY THE PORT AUTHORITY'S ISSUE
AND SALE OF ITS BONDS.  IN ADDITION, THE AUTHORITY OPERATES AN
INTERSTATE BUS LINE OVER THE GOETHALS BRIDGE.  IT HAS ERECTED AND
OPERATES THE PORT AUTHORITY COMMERCE BUILDING IN NEW YORK CITY, WHICH
HOUSES INLAND TERMINAL NO. 1, DEVOTED TO USE AS A FREIGHT TERMINAL IN
CONNECTION WITH A PLAN TO COORDINATE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND
REDUCE CONGESTION.  THE TERMINAL HAS NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION WITH ANY
RAILROAD FACILITIES, DOCK OR PIER, BUT IS USED AS A TRANSFER TERMINAL
FOR INTERCHANGE OF FREIGHT BROUGHT BY TRUCK FROM AND TO THE TERMINAL
AND TO AND FROM EIGHT RAILROAD TERMINALS. 

THE PORT AUTHORITY COLLECTS TOLLS FOR THE USE OF THE BRIDGES AND
TUNNELS, AND DERIVES INCOME FROM THE OPERATION OF THE BUS LINE AND
TERMINAL BUILDING, BUT IT HAS NO STOCK AND NO STOCKHOLDERS, AND IS
OWNED BY NO PRIVATE PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS.  ITS PROJECTS ARE ALL SAID
TO BE OPERATED IN BEHALF OF THE TWO STATES AND IN THE INTERESTS OF THE
PUBLIC, AND NONE OF ITS PROFITS ENURE TO THE BENEFIT OF PRIVATE
PERSONS.  ITS PROPERTY AND THE BONDS AND OTHER SECURITIES ISSUED BY IT
ARE EXEMPT BY STATUTE FROM STATE TAXATION.  THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF
CONGRESS CONSENTING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF PORT IMPROVEMENT, PUB.
RES. NO. 66, 67TH CONG., H. J. RESOLUTION NO. 337, JULY 1, 1922,
DECLARES THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PORT AUTHORITY UNDER THE PLAN "WILL
THE BETTER PROMOTE AND FACILITATE COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES AND
BETWEEN THE STATES AND FOREIGN NATIONS AND PROVIDE BETTER AND CHEAPER
TRANSPORTATION OF PROPERTY AND AID IN PROVIDING BETTER POSTAL,
MILITARY, AND OTHER SERVICES OF VALUE TO THE NATION."  STATUTES OF NEW
YORK AND NEW JERSEY RELATING TO THE VARIOUS PROJECTS OF THE PORT
AUTHORITY DECLARE THAT THEY ARE "IN ALL RESPECTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
PEOPLE OF THE TWO STATES, FOR THE INCREASE OF THEIR COMMERCE AND
PROSPERITY, AND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR HEALTH AND LIVING
CONDITIONS, AND THE PORT AUTHORITY SHALL BE REGARDED AS PERFORMING A
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IN UNDERTAKING THE SAID CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
AND OPERATION AND IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE
SAID (BRIDGES AND TUNNELS) AND SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PAY NO TAXES OR
ASSESSMENTS UPON ANY OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY IT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH" BRIDGES AND TUNNELS. 
LAWS OF N.J., 1925, C. 37, SEC. 7; LAWS OF N.Y., 1925, C. 210, SEC. 7;
LAWS OF N.J., 1926, C. 6, SEC. 7; LAWS OF N.Y., 1926, C. 761, SEC. 7;
LAWS OF N.J., 1927, C. 3, SEC. 7; LAWS OF N.Y., 1927, C. 300, SEC. 7;
LAWS OF N.J., 1931, C. 4, SEC. 14; LAWS OF N.Y., 1931, C. 47, SEC. 14. 

THE RESPONDENTS, DURING THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION, WERE
RESPECTIVELY A CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER AND TWO ASSISTANT GENERAL
MANAGERS, EMPLOYED BY THE AUTHORITY AT ANNUAL SALARIES RANGING BETWEEN
$8,000 AND $15,000.  ALL TOOK OATHS OF OFFICE, ALTHOUGH NEITHER THE
COMPACT NOR THE RELATED STATUTES APPEAR TO HAVE CREATED ANY OFFICE TO
WHICH ANY OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE APPOINTED, OR DEFINED THEIR DUTIES OR
PRESCRIBED THAT THEY SHOULD TAKE AN OATH.  THE SEVERAL RESPONDENTS
HAVING FAILED TO RETURN THEIR RESPECTIVE SALARIES AS INCOME FOR THE
TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION, THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINED DEFICIENCIES
AGAINST THEM.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND THAT THE PORT AUTHORITY
WAS ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC FUNCTION FOR THE STATES OF
NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, AND RULED THAT THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY
THE AUTHORITY'S EMPLOYEES WAS EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 92 F.2D 999, AFFIRMED WITHOUT
OPINION ON THE AUTHORITY OF BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 85 F.2D 32, REV'D,
300 U.S. 352; COMMISSIONER V. TEN EYCK, 76 F.2D 515, AND NEW YORK EX
REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
THE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED. 

THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS NO EXPRESS LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF
EITHER A STATE OR THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX THE OTHER, OR ITS
INSTRUMENTALITIES.  THE DOCTRINE THAT THERE IS AN IMPLIED LIMITATION
STEMS FROM MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD
THAT A STATE TAX LAID SPECIFICALLY UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF ISSUING BANK
NOTES, AND IN FACT APPLICABLE ALONE TO THE NOTES OF NATIONAL BANKS, WAS
INVALID SINCE IT IMPEDED THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
POWER TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A BANK, IMPLIED AS AN INCIDENT TO THE
BORROWING, TAXING, WAR AND OTHER POWERS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT WAS
HELD THAT CONGRESS, HAVING POWER TO ESTABLISH A BANK BY LAWS WHICH,
WHEN ENACTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, ARE SUPREME, ALSO HAD POWER TO
PROTECT THE BANK BY STRIKING DOWN STATE ACTION IMPEDING ITS OPERATIONS;
AND IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE STATE TAX IN QUESTION WAS SO INCONSISTENT
WITH CONGRESS'S CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION IN ESTABLISHING THE BANK AS TO
COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO FORBID APPLICATION OF
THE TAX TO THE FEDERAL BANK NOTES.  FN1 CF. OSBORN V. BANK OF UNITED
STATES, 9 WHEAT.  738, 865-868. 

IN SUSTAINING THE IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION, THE OPINION OF THE
COURT, BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, RECOGNIZED A CLEAR DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE EXTENT OF THE POWER OF A STATE TO TAX NATIONAL BANKS AND
THAT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX STATE INSTRUMENTALITIES.  HE WAS
CAREFUL TO POINT OUT NOT ONLY THAT THE TAXING POWER OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT IS SUPREME, BY REASON OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT, BUT THAT
IN LAYING A FEDERAL TAX ON STATE INSTRUMENTALITIES THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATES, ACTING THROUGH THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, ARE LAYING A TAX ON THEIR
OWN INSTITUTIONS AND CONSEQUENTLY ARE SUBJECT TO POLITICAL RESTRAINTS
WHICH CAN BE COUNTED ON TO PREVENT ABUSE.  STATE TAXATION OF NATIONAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES IS SUBJECT TO NO SUCH RESTRAINT, FOR THE PEOPLE
OUTSIDE THE STATE HAVE NO REPRESENTATIVES WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE
LEGISLATION; AND IN A REAL SENSE, AS TO THEM, THE TAXATION IS WITHOUT
REPRESENTATION.  THE EXERCISE OF THE NATIONAL TAXING POWER IS THUS
SUBJECT TO A SAFEGUARD WHICH DOES NOT OPERATE WHEN A STATE UNDERTAKES
TO TAX A NATIONAL INSTRUMENTALITY.  FN2 

IT WAS PERHAPS ENOUGH TO HAVE SUPPORTED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TAX
WAS INVALID, THAT IT WAS AIMED SPECIFICALLY AT NATIONAL BANKS AND THUS
OPERATED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE EXERCISE BY THE CONGRESS OF A
NATIONAL POWER.  SUCH DISCRIMINATION WAS LATER RECOGNIZED TO BE IN
ITSELF A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR HOLDING INVALID ANY FORM OF STATE
TAXATION ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE USE OR ENJOYMENT OF FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES.  MILLER V. MILWAUKEE, 272 U.S. 713; CF. PACIFIC CO.,
LTD. V. JOHNSON, 285 U.S. 480, 493.  BUT LATER CASES HAVE DECLARED THAT
FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES ARE SIMILARLY IMMUNE FROM NON-DISCRIMINATORY
STATE TAXATION - FROM THE TAXATION OF OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE BORROWING POWER, WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2
PET. 449; AND FROM A TAX ON "OFFICES" LEVIED UPON THE OFFICE OF A
CAPTAIN OF A REVENUE CUTTER.  DOBBINS V. ERIE COUNTY, 16 PET. 435. 
FN3 

THAT THE TAXING POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NEVERTHELESS
SUBJECT TO AN IMPLIED RESTRICTION WHEN APPLIED TO STATE
INSTRUMENTALITIES WAS FIRST DECIDED IN COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113,
WHERE THE SALARY OF A STATE OFFICER, A PROBATE JUDGE, WAS HELD TO BE
IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  THE QUESTION THERE PRESENTED TO THE
COURT WAS NOT ONE OF INTERFERENCE WITH A GRANTED POWER IN A FIELD IN
WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SUPREME, BUT A LIMITATION BY
IMPLICATION UPON THE GRANTED FEDERAL POWER TO TAX.  IN RECOGNIZING THAT
IMPLICATION FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE
CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE STATES AS GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, AND THEIR
PRESERVATION FROM DESTRUCTION BY THE NATIONAL TAXING POWER.  THE
IMMUNITY WHICH IT IMPLIED WAS SUSTAINED ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS ONE DEEMED
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE STATES FROM DESTRUCTION BY THE FEDERAL
TAXATION OF THOSE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS WHICH THEY WERE EXERCISING
WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED AND WHICH WERE ESSENTIAL TO THEIR
CONTINUED EXISTENCE. 

THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE STATES WERE IN EXISTENCE AS SUCH
ENTITIES WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED; THAT THE CONSTITUTION
GUARANTEED TO THEM A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND UNDERTOOK TO
PROTECT THEM FROM INVASION AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; THAT IT PRESUPPOSES
THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE STATES  FN4  AND THEIR CONTINUED
PERFORMANCE, FREE OF INHIBITION BY THE NATIONAL TAXING POWER, OF "THE
HIGH AND RESPONSIBLE DUTIES ASSIGNED TO THEM IN THE CONSTITUTION  ...
AND, MORE ESPECIALLY, THOSE MEANS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH ARE THE
CREATION OF THEIR SOVEREIGN AND RESERVED RIGHTS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, AND THE APPOINTMENT OF
OFFICERS TO ADMINISTER THEIR LAWS.  WITHOUT THIS POWER, AND THE
EXERCISE OF IT," THE COURT DECLARED, "WE RISK NOTHING IN SAYING THAT NO
ONE OF THE STATES UNDER THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION COULD LONG PRESERVE ITS EXISTENCE.  A DESPOTIC GOVERNMENT
MIGHT.  WE HAVE SAID THAT ONE OF THE RESERVED POWERS WAS THAT TO
ESTABLISH A JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT  ...  ALL OF THE THIRTEEN STATES WERE
IN THE POSSESSION OF THIS POWER, AND HAD EXERCISED IT AT THE ADOPTION
OF THE CONSTITUTION; AND IT IS NOT PRETENDED THAT ANY GRANT OF IT TO
THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IS FOUND IN THAT INSTRUMENT."  11 WALL.  125,
126. 

WE NEED NOT STOP TO INQUIRE HOW FAR, AS INDICATED IN MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, SUPRA, THE IMMUNITY OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES FROM STATE
TAXATION RESTS ON A DIFFERENT BASIS FROM THAT OF STATE
INSTRUMENTALITIES; OR WHETHER OR TO WHAT DEGREE IT IS MORE EXTENSIVE. 
AS TO THOSE QUESTIONS, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS MAY BE CONTROLLING WHICH
ARE NOT PERTINENT HERE.  IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE
STATE IMMUNITY FROM THE NATIONAL TAXING POWER, WHEN RECOGNIZED IN
COLLECTOR V. DAY, SUPRA, WAS NARROWLY LIMITED TO A STATE JUDICIAL
OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A FUNCTION WHICH PERTAINED TO
STATE GOVERNMENTS AT THE TIME THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED, WITHOUT
WHICH NO STATE "COULD LONG PRESERVE ITS EXISTENCE." 

THERE ARE COGENT REASONS WHY ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION UPON THE
TAXING POWER GRANTED TO CONGRESS, SO FAR AS IT CAN BE PROPERLY RAISED
BY IMPLICATION, SHOULD BE NARROWLY LIMITED.  ONE, AS WAS POINTED OUT BY
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, 435-436, AND
WESTON V. CHARLESTON, SUPRA, 465-466, IS THAT THE PEOPLE OF ALL THE
STATES HAVE CREATED THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND ARE REPRESENTED IN
CONGRESS.  THROUGH THAT REPRESENTATION THEY EXERCISE THE NATIONAL
TAXING POWER.  THE VERY FACT THAT WHEN THEY ARE EXERCISING IT THEY ARE
TAXING THEMSELVES, SERVES TO GUARD AGAINST ITS ABUSE THROUGH THE
POSSIBILITY OF RESORT TO THE USUAL PROCESSES OF POLITICAL ACTION WHICH
PROVIDES A READIER AND MORE ADAPTABLE MEANS THAN ANY WHICH COURTS CAN
AFFORD, FOR SECURING ACCOMMODATION OF THE COMPETING DEMANDS FOR
NATIONAL REVENUE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND FOR REASONABLE SCOPE FOR THE
INDEPENDENCE OF STATE ACTION, ON THE OTHER.    ANOTHER REASON RESTS
UPON THE FACT THAT ANY ALLOWANCE OF A TAX IMMUNITY FOR THE PROTECTION
OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE
NATION TO TAX.  ENLARGEMENT OF THE ONE INVOLVES DIMINUTION OF THE
OTHER.  WHEN ENLARGEMENT PROCEEDS BEYOND THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING
THE STATE, THE BURDEN OF THE IMMUNITY IS THROWN UPON THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT WITH BENEFIT ONLY TO A PRIVILEGED CLASS OF TAXPAYERS.  SEE
METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514; CF. THOMSON V. PACIFIC
RAILROAD, 9 WALL.  579, 588, 590.  WITH THE STEADY EXPANSION OF THE
ACTIVITY OF STATE GOVERNMENTS INTO NEW FIELDS THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN THE
PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS NOT KNOWN TO THE STATES WHEN THE CONSTITUTION
WAS ADOPTED, AND HAVE TAKEN OVER THE MANAGEMENT OF BUSINESS ENTERPRISES
ONCE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO THE
NATIONAL TAXING POWER.  IN A COMPLEX ECONOMIC SOCIETY TAX BURDENS LAID
UPON THOSE WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY HAVE DEALINGS WITH THE STATES,
TEND, TO SOME EXTENT NOT CAPABLE OF PRECISE MEASUREMENT, TO BE PASSED
ON ECONOMICALLY AND THUS TO BURDEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  BUT IF
EVERY FEDERAL TAX WHICH IS LAID ON SOME NEW FORM OF STATE ACTIVITY, OR
WHOSE ECONOMIC BURDEN REACHES IN SOME MEASURE THE STATE OR THOSE WHO
SERVE IT, WERE TO BE SET ASIDE AS AN INFRINGEMENT OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY,
IT IS EVIDENT THAT A RESTRICTION UPON NATIONAL POWER, DEVISED ONLY AS A
SHIELD TO PROTECT THE STATES FROM CURTAILMENT OF THE ESSENTIAL
OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT WHICH THEY HAVE EXERCISED FROM THE BEGINNING,
WOULD BECOME A READY MEANS FOR STRIKING DOWN THE TAXING POWER OF THE
NATION.  SEE SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437, 454-455. 
ONCE IMPAIRED BY THE RECOGNITION OF A STATE IMMUNITY FOUND TO BE
EXCESSIVE, RESTORATION OF THAT POWER IS NOT LIKELY TO BE SECURED
THROUGH THE ACTION OF STATE LEGISLATURES; FOR THEY ARE WITHOUT THE
INDUCEMENTS TO ACT WHICH HAVE OFTEN PERSUADED CONGRESS TO WAIVE
IMMUNITIES THOUGHT TO BE EXCESSIVE.  FN5 

IN TACIT RECOGNITION OF THE LIMITATION WHICH THE VERY NATURE OF OUR
FEDERAL SYSTEM IMPOSES ON STATE IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION IN ORDER TO
AVOID AN EVER EXPANDING ENCROACHMENT UPON THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER,
THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO ENLARGE THE IMMUNITY SUBSTANTIALLY BEYOND
THOSE LIMITS MARKED OUT IN COLLECTOR V. DAY, SUPRA.  IT HAS BEEN
SUSTAINED WHERE, AS IN COLLECTOR V. DAY, THE FUNCTION INVOLVED WAS ONE
THOUGHT TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A STATE GOVERNMENT:  AS
WHERE THE ATTEMPT WAS TO TAX INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTMENTS OF A
MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISION OF A STATE, UNITED STATES V. RAILROAD CO., 17
WALL.  322; TO TAX INCOME RECEIVED BY A PRIVATE INVESTOR FROM STATE
BONDS, AND THUS THREATEN IMPAIRMENT OF THE BORROWING POWER OF THE
STATE, POLLOCK V. FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429; CF. WESTON V.
CHARLESTON, SUPRA, 465-466; OR TO TAX THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE TO A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF EQUIPMENT FOR ITS POLICE FORCE, INDIAN
MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570. 

BUT THE COURT HAS REFUSED TO EXTEND THE IMMUNITY TO A STATE CONDUCTED
LIQUOR BUSINESS, SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; OHIO V.
HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360, OR TO A STREET RAILWAY BUSINESS TAKEN OVER AND
OPERATED BY STATE OFFICERS AS A MEANS OF EFFECTING A LOCAL PUBLIC
POLICY.  HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S. 214.  IT HAS SUSTAINED THE
IMPOSITION OF A FEDERAL EXCISE TAX LAID ON THE PRIVILEGE OF EXERCISING
CORPORATE FRANCHISES GRANTED BY A STATE TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANIES. 
FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 157.  IN EACH OF THESE CASES IT
WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE STATE FUNCTION AFFECTED WAS ONE WHICH COULD BE
CARRIED ON BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, AND THAT THEREFORE IT WAS NOT ONE
WITHOUT WHICH A STATE COULD NOT CONTINUE TO EXIST AS A GOVERNMENTAL
ENTITY.  THE IMMUNITY HAS BEEN STILL MORE NARROWLY RESTRICTED IN THOSE
CASES WHERE SOME PART OF THE BURDEN OF A TAX COLLECTED NOT FROM A STATE
TREASURY BUT FROM INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS, IS SAID TO BE PASSED ON TO THE
STATE.  IN THESE CASES THE FUNCTION HAS BEEN EITHER HELD OR ASSUMED TO
BE OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT ITS PERFORMANCE BY THE STATE IS IMMUNE FROM
DIRECT FEDERAL INTERFERENCE; YET THE INDIVIDUALS WHO PERSONALLY DERIVED
PROFIT OR COMPENSATION FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT IN CARRYING OUT THE
FUNCTION WERE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  FN6 

IN A PERIOD MARKED BY A CONSTANT EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
AND THE STEADY MULTIPLICATION OF THE COMPLEXITIES OF TAXING SYSTEMS, IT
IS PERHAPS TOO MUCH TO EXPECT THAT THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS MARKING
THE BOUNDARIES OF STATE IMMUNITY SHOULD PRESENT A COMPLETELY LOGICAL
PATTERN.  BUT THEY DISCLOSE NO PURPOSEFUL DEPARTURE FROM, AND INDEED
DEFINITELY ESTABLISH, TWO GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF LIMITATION FOR HOLDING
THE TAX IMMUNITY OF STATE INSTRUMENTALITIES TO ITS PROPER FUNCTION. 
THE ONE, DEPENDENT UPON THE NATURE OF THE FUNCTION BEING PERFORMED BY
THE STATE OR IN ITS BEHALF, EXCLUDES FROM THE IMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
THOUGHT NOT TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
EVEN THOUGH THE TAX BE COLLECTED FROM THE STATE TREASURY.  THE STATE
ITSELF WAS TAXED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON THE LIQUOR BUSINESS
IN SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND IN OHIO V. HELVERING,
SUPRA; AND A TAX ON THE INCOME OF A STATE OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE
MANAGEMENT OF A STATE-OWNED CORPORATION OPERATING A STREET RAILROAD WAS
SUSTAINED IN HELVERING V. POWERS, SUPRA, BECAUSE IT WAS THOUGHT THAT
THE FUNCTIONS DISCOURAGED BY THESE TAXES WERE NOT INDISPENSABLE TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF A STATE GOVERNMENT.  THE OTHER PRINCIPLE, EXEMPLIFIED BY
THOSE CASES WHERE THE TAX LAID UPON INDIVIDUALS AFFECTS THE STATE ONLY
AS THE BURDEN IS PASSED ON TO IT BY THE TAXPAYER, FORBIDS RECOGNITION
OF THE IMMUNITY WHEN THE BURDEN ON THE STATE IS SO SPECULATIVE AND
UNCERTAIN THAT IF ALLOWED IT WOULD RESTRICT THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER
WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY CORRESPONDING TANGIBLE PROTECTION TO THE STATE
GOVERNMENT; EVEN THOUGH THE FUNCTION BE THOUGHT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO
DEMAND IMMUNITY FROM A TAX UPON THE STATE ITSELF, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY
PROTECTED FROM A TAX WHICH WELL MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY OR ENTIRELY
ABSORBED BY PRIVATE PERSONS.  METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, SUPRA;
WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216. 

WITH THESE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES IN MIND WE TURN TO THEIR
APPLICATION IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE.  THE CHALLENGED
TAXES LAID UNDER SEC. 22, REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169,
178, ARE UPON THE NET INCOME OF RESPONDENTS, DERIVED FROM THEIR
EMPLOYMENT IN COMMON OCCUPATIONS NOT SHOWN TO BE DIFFERENT IN THEIR
METHODS OR DUTIES FROM THOSE OF SIMILAR EMPLOYEES IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY. 
THE TAXPAYERS ENJOY THE BENEFITS AND PROTECTION OF THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THEY ARE UNDER A DUTY TO SUPPORT ITS GOVERNMENT AND ARE
NOT BEYOND THE REACH OF ITS TAXING POWER.  A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX
LAID ON THEIR NET INCOME, IN COMMON WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER MEMBERS OF
THE COMMUNITY, COULD BY NO REASONABLE PROBABILITY BE CONSIDERED TO
PRECLUDE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTION WHICH NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY
HAVE UNDERTAKEN, OR TO OBSTRUCT IT MORE THAN LIKE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES
ARE OBSTRUCTED BY OUR TAXING SYSTEM.  EVEN THOUGH, TO SOME
UNASCERTAINABLE EXTENT, THE TAX DEPRIVES THE STATES OF THE ADVANTAGE OF
PAYING LESS THAN THE STANDARD RATE FOR THE SERVICES WHICH THEY ENGAGE,
IT DOES NOT CURTAIL ANY OF THOSE FUNCTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN THOUGHT
HITHERTO TO BE ESSENTIAL TO THEIR CONTINUED EXISTENCE AS STATES.  AT
MOST IT MAY BE SAID TO INCREASE SOMEWHAT THE COST OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE, IN AN INTERDEPENDENT ECONOMIC SOCIETY, THE
TAXATION OF INCOME TENDS TO RAISE (TO SOME EXTENT WHICH ECONOMISTS ARE
NOT ABLE TO MEASURE, SEE INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
P. 581, FOOTNOTE 1) THE PRICE OF LABOR AND MATERIALS.  THE EFFECT OF
THE IMMUNITY IF ALLOWED WOULD BE TO RELIEVE RESPONDENTS OF THEIR DUTY
OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO SECURE TO
THE STATE A THEORETICAL ADVANTAGE SO SPECULATIVE IN ITS CHARACTER AND
MEASUREMENT AS TO BE UNSUBSTANTIAL.  A TAX IMMUNITY DEVISED FOR
PROTECTION OF THE STATES AS GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES CANNOT BE PRESSED SO
FAR. 

THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE LESSENED
IF ALL THOSE WHO DEAL WITH IT WERE TAX EXEMPT WAS NOT THOUGHT TO BE AN
ADEQUATE BASIS FOR TAX IMMUNITY IN METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, SUPRA,
IN GROUP NO. 1 OIL CORP. V. BASS, 283 U.S. 279, IN BURNET V. JERGINS
TRUST, 288 U.S. 508; OR IN HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., 303
U.S. 376.  FN7  WHEN IMMUNITY IS CLAIMED FROM A TAX LAID ON PRIVATE
PERSONS, IT MUST CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE BURDEN UPON THE STATE FUNCTION
IS ACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIAL, NOT CONJECTURAL.  WILLCUTS V. BUNN, SUPRA,
231.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH SALARIES IN BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONS WHOSE
STANDARDS OF COMPENSATION ARE OTHERWISE FIXED BY COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMMUNITY OF STATE EMPLOYEES FROM INCOME TAX IS
TO A HIGH DEGREE CONJECTURAL. 

THE BASIS UPON WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL TAX IMMUNITY OF A STATE HAS BEEN
SUPPORTED IS THE PROTECTION WHICH IT AFFORDS TO THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE
OF THE STATE.  TO ATTAIN THAT END IT IS NOT ORDINARILY NECESSARY TO
CONFER ON THE STATE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER PRIVATE PERSONS IN
CARRYING ON THE OPERATIONS OF ITS GOVERNMENT.  THERE IS NO SUCH
NECESSITY HERE, AND THE RESULTING IMPAIRMENT OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO
TAX ARGUES AGAINST THE ADVANTAGE.  THE STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS
MUST CO-EXIST.  EACH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY TAXATION OF THOSE WHO ARE
CITIZENS OF BOTH.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF SUCH TAXES
MAY BE PASSED ON TO A STATE GOVERNMENT AND THUS INCREASE TO SOME
EXTENT, HERE WHOLLY CONJECTURAL, THE EXPENSE OF ITS OPERATION,
INFRINGES NO CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.  SUCH BURDENS ARE BUT NORMAL
INCIDENTS OF THE ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORY OF TWO
GOVERNMENTS, EACH POSSESSED OF THE TAXING POWER. 

DURING THE PRESENT TERM WE HAVE HELD THAT THE COMPENSATION OF A STATE
EMPLOYEE PAID FROM THE STATE TREASURY FOR HIS SERVICE IN LIQUIDATING AN
INSOLVENT CORPORATION, WHERE THE STATE WAS REIMBURSED FROM THE
CORPORATE ASSETS, WAS SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX.  MCLOUGHLIN V.
COMMISSIONER, 303 U.S. 218.  BUT THE COURT HAS NEVER RULED EXPRESSLY ON
THE PRECISE QUESTION WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS IMMUNITY FROM
FEDERAL INCOME TAX TO THE SALARIES OF STATE EMPLOYEES PERFORMING, AT
THE EXPENSE OF THE STATE, SERVICES OF THE CHARACTER ORDINARILY CARRIED
ON BY PRIVATE CITIZENS.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1917, CONSIDERED IN METCALF
& EDDY V. MITCHELL, SUPRA, EXEMPTED THE SALARIES OF ALL STATE EMPLOYEES
FROM INCOME TAX.  BUT IT WAS HELD IN THAT CASE THAT NEITHER THE
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY NOR THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION EXTENDED TO
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  IN BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, THE
APPLICABLE TREASURY REGULATION UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RELIED
EXEMPTED FROM INCOME TAX THE COMPENSATION OF "STATE OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES" FOR "SERVICES RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXERCISE OF AN
ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OF THE STATE."  THE SOLE CONTENTION OF
THE GOVERNMENT WAS THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE NEW YORK CITY WATER
SUPPLY SYSTEM WAS NOT AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OF THE STATE. 
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT ATTACK THE REGULATION.  NO CONTENTION WAS MADE
BY IT OR CONSIDERED OR DECIDED BY THE COURT THAT THE BURDEN OF THE TAX
ON THE STATE WAS SO INDIRECT OR CONJECTURAL AS TO BE BUT AN INCIDENT OF
THE COEXISTENCE OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS, AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.  IF DETERMINATION OF THAT POINT WAS IMPLICIT
IN THE DECISION IT MUST BE LIMITED BY WHAT IS NOW DECIDED. 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION APPLICABLE IN THE BRUSH
CASE WERE CONTINUED IN REGULATIONS 77, ARTICLE 643, UNDER THE 1932
REVENUE ACT, UNTIL JANUARY 7, 1938, WHEN THEY WERE AMENDED TO PROVIDE
THAT "COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO A STATE IS TO BE
INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME UNLESS THE PERSON RECEIVES SUCH COMPENSATION
FROM THE STATE AS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF AND SUCH COMPENSATION
IS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." 
THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 116 OF THE 1932 ACT DO NOT AUTHORIZE
THE EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF THE SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES OF A STATE
OR A STATE-OWNED CORPORATION.  IF THE REGULATION BE DEEMED TO EMBRACE
THE EMPLOYEES OF A STATEOWNED CORPORATION SUCH AS THE PORT AUTHORITY,
IT WAS UNAUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE.  BUT WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT
EMPLOYEES OF THE PORT AUTHORITY ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OR A
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF IT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REGULATION AS
ORIGINALLY PROMULGATED - AN ADDITIONAL REASON WHY THE REGULATION, EVEN
BEFORE THE 1938 AMENDMENT, WAS INEFFECTUAL TO EXEMPT THE SALARIES HERE
INVOLVED. 

THE REASONING UPON WHICH THE DECISION IN INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA, WAS RESTED IS NOT CONTROLLING HERE.  TAXATION OF
THE SALE TO A STATE, WHICH WAS THOUGHT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE
IMMUNITY THERE, IS NOT NOW INVOLVED.  WHETHER THE ACTUAL EFFECT UPON
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE STATE FUNCTION DIFFERED FROM THAT OF THE PRESENT
TAX WE DO NOT NOW INQUIRE.  COMPARE WHEELER LUMBER BRIDGE & SUPPLY CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 572. 

AS WAS POINTED OUT IN METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, SUPRA, 524, THERE
MAY BE STATE AGENCIES OF SUCH A CHARACTER AND SO INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED
WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF AN INDISPENSABLE FUNCTION OF STATE GOVERNMENT
THAT ANY TAXATION OF THEM WOULD THREATEN SUCH INTERFERENCE WITH THE
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF AS TO BE CONSIDERED BEYOND THE REACH OF
THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER.  IF THE TAX CONSIDERED IN COLLECTOR V. DAY,
SUPRA, UPON THE SALARY OF AN OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF AN
INDISPENSABLE FUNCTION OF THE STATE WHICH CANNOT BE DELEGATED TO
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, MAY BE REGARDED AS SUCH AN INSTANCE, THAT IS NOT
THE CASE PRESENTED HERE.   EXPRESSING NO OPINION WHETHER A FEDERAL TAX
MAY BE IMPOSED UPON THE PORT AUTHORITY ITSELF WITH RESPECT TO ITS
RECEIPT OF INCOME OR ITS OTHER ACTIVITIES, WE DECIDE ONLY THAT THE
PRESENT TAX NEITHER PRECLUDES NOR THREATENS UNREASONABLY TO OBSTRUCT
ANY FUNCTION ESSENTIAL TO THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENT.  SO MUCH OF THE BURDEN OF THE TAX LAID UPON RESPONDENTS'
INCOME AS MAY REACH THE STATE IS BUT A NECESSARY INCIDENT TO THE CO
EXISTENCE WITHIN THE SAME ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT OF THE TWO TAXING
SOVEREIGNS, AND HENCE IS A BURDEN THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION PRESUPPOSES.  THE IMMUNITY, IF ALLOWED, WOULD IMPOSE TO AN
INADMISSIBLE EXTENT A RESTRICTION UPON THE TAXING POWER WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION HAS GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IT FOLLOWS THAT IN CONSIDERING THE IMMUNITY OF FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES FROM STATE TAXATION TWO FACTORS MAY BE OF IMPORTANCE
WHICH ARE LACKING IN THE CASE OF A CLAIMED IMMUNITY OF STATE
INSTRUMENTALITIES FROM FEDERAL TAXATION.  SINCE THE ACTS OF CONGRESS
WITHIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER ARE SUPREME, THE VALIDITY OF STATE
TAXATION OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES MUST DEPEND (A) ON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO CREATE THE INSTRUMENTALITY AND (B) ITS INTENT TO PROTECT IT
FROM STATE TAXATION.  CONGRESS MAY CURTAIL AN IMMUNITY WHICH MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE IMPLIED, VAN ALLEN V. THE ASSESSORS, 3 WALL.  573, OR
ENLARGE IT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE, CONGRESS BEING SILENT, THE COURT
WOULD SET ITS LIMITS.  BANK V. SUPERVISORS, 7 WALL.  26, 30, 31; SEE
THOMSON V. PACIFIC RAILROAD, 9 WALL.  579, 588, 590; SHAW V. GIBSON
ZAHNISER OIL CORP., 276 U.S. 575, 581, AND CASES CITED; JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, 161. 

THE ANALYSIS IS COMPARABLE WHERE THE QUESTION IS WHETHER FEDERAL
CORPORATE INSTRUMENTALITIES ARE IMMUNE FROM STATE JUDICIAL PROCESS. 
FEDERAL LAND BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229, 234-235. 

FN2  "THE PEOPLE OF ALL THE STATES HAVE CREATED THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT, AND HAVE CONFERRED UPON IT THE GENERAL POWER OF TAXATION. 
THE PEOPLE OF ALL THE STATES, AND THE STATES THEMSELVES, ARE
REPRESENTED IN CONGRESS, AND, BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, EXERCISE THIS
POWER.  WHEN THEY TAX THE CHARTERED INSTITUTIONS OF THE STATES, THEY
TAX THEIR CONSTITUENTS; AND THESE TAXES MUST BE UNIFORM.  BUT, WHEN A
STATE TAXES THE OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT
ACTS UPON INSTITUTIONS CREATED, NOT BY THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS, BUT BY
PEOPLE OVER WHOM THEY CLAIM NO CONTROL.  IT ACTS UPON THE MEASURES OF A
GOVERNMENT CREATED BY OTHERS AS WELL AS THEMSELVES, FOR THE BENEFIT OF
OTHERS IN COMMON WITH THEMSELVES.  THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WHICH ALWAYS
EXISTS, AND ALWAYS MUST EXIST, BETWEEN THE ACTION OF THE WHOLE ON A
PART, AND THE ACTION OF A PART ON THE WHOLE - BETWEEN THE LAWS OF A
GOVERNMENT DECLARED TO BE SUPREME, AND THOSE OF A GOVERNMENT WHICH,
WHEN IN OPPOSITION TO THOSE LAWS, IS NOT SUPREME."  CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 435-436. 

FN3  IN THESE CASES, AND PARTICULARLY IN WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET.
449, AS IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, EMPHASIS WAS LAID ON THE FACT THAT BY
STATE ACTION AN IMPEDIMENT WAS LAID UPON THE EXERCISE OF A POWER WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WAS SUPREME.  IN WESTON V.
CHARLESTON, SUPRA, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL SAID (PP. 465, 466): 

"CAN ANYTHING BE MORE DANGEROUS, OR MORE INJURIOUS, THAN THE
ADMISSION OF A PRINCIPLE WHICH AUTHORIZES EVERY STATE AND EVERY
CORPORATION IN THE UNION WHICH POSSESSES THE RIGHT OF TAXATION, TO
BURTHEN THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER (THE BORROWING POWER) AT THEIR
DISCRETION? 

"IF THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE THE TAX EXISTS, IT IS A RIGHT WHICH IN ITS
NATURE ACKNOWLEDGES NO LIMITS.  IT MAY BE CARRIED TO ANY EXTENT WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OR CORPORATION WHICH IMPOSES IT, WHICH
THE WILL OF EACH STATE AND CORPORATION MAY PRESCRIBE.  A POWER WHICH IS
GIVEN BY THE WHOLE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR THEIR COMMON GOOD, WHICH IS TO
BE EXERCISED AT THE MOST CRITICAL PERIODS FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT
PURPOSES, ON THE FREE EXERCISE OF WHICH THE INTERESTS CERTAINLY,
PERHAPS THE LIBERTY OF THE WHOLE MAY DEPEND; MAY BE BURTHENED, IMPEDED,
IF NOT ARRESTED, BY ANY OF THE ORGANIZED PARTS OF THE CONFEDERACY." 
COMPARE HOLMES, J., IN PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218, 223. 

FN4  IN 1871, WHEN COLLECTOR V. DAY WAS DECIDED, THE COURT HAD NOT
YET BEEN CALLED ON TO DETERMINE HOW FAR THE CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS HAD
BROADENED THE FEDERAL POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE STATES.  THE
SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, HAD NOT YET BEEN DECIDED, ALTHOUGH
THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN ONCE BEFORE THE COURT ON MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS,
10 WALL.  141.  THE FACT THAT THE TAXING POWER HAD RECENTLY BEEN USED
WITH DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT UPON A STATE INSTRUMENTALITY, VEAZIE BANK V.
FENNO, 8 WALL.  533, HAD SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY OF SIMILAR ATTACKS
UPON THE EXISTENCE OF STATES THEMSELVES.  COMPARE LANE COUNTY V.
OREGON, 7 WALL.  71, 76-77; SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, 82. 

FN5  COMPARE NOTES 1 AND 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF TAXPAYERS HAVE BEEN HELD SUBJECT TO
FEDERAL INCOME TAX NOTWITHSTANDING ITS POSSIBLE ECONOMIC BURDEN ON THE
STATE:  THOSE WHO DERIVE INCOME OR PROFITS FROM THEIR PERFORMANCE OF
STATE FUNCTIONS AS INDEPENDENT ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, METCALF & EDDY
V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, OR FROM THE RESALE OF STATE BONDS, WILLCUTS
V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216; THOSE ENGAGED AS LESSEES OF THE STATE IN
PRODUCING OIL FROM STATE LANDS, THE ROYALTIES FROM WHICH, PAYABLE TO
THE STATE, ARE DEVOTED TO PUBLIC PURPOSES, GROUP NO. 1 OIL CORP. V.
BASS, 283 U.S. 279; BURNET V. JERGINS TRUST, 288 U.S. 508; BANKLINE OIL
CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 303 U.S. 362, HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS
CORP., 303 U.S. 376, OVERRULING BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285
U.S. 393.  SIMILARLY FEDERAL TAXATION OF PROPERTY TRANSFERRED AT DEATH
TO A STATE OR ONE OF ITS MUNICIPALITIES WAS UPHELD IN SNYDER V.
BETTMAN, 190 U.S. 249, CF. GREINER V. LEWELLYN, 258 U.S. 384; AND A
FEDERAL TAX ON THE TRANSPORTATION OF MERCHANDISE IN PERFORMANCE OF A
CONTRACT TO SELL AND DELIVER IT TO A COUNTY WAS SUSTAINED IN WHEELER
LUMBER BRIDGE & SUPPLY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 572; CF. INDIAN
MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570.  A FEDERAL EXCISE TAX ON
CORPORATIONS, MEASURED BY INCOME, INCLUDING INTEREST RECEIVED FROM
STATE BONDS, WAS UPHELD IN FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 162,
ET SEQ.; SEE NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 508,
527; COMPARE THE DISCUSSION IN EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282
U.S. 379, 389, AND IN PACIFIC CO., LTD. V. JOHNSON, 285 U.S. 480, 490. 

FN7  UPON FULL CONSIDERATION, THE SAME PRINCIPLE WAS RECENTLY APPLIED
IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134, ALTHOUGH THE
LIMITATION THERE WAS UPON THE IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE THAT THIS CAUSE SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR THE REASONS EXPRESSED
IN THAT PART OF THE OPINION JUST READ POINTING OUT THAT:  RESPONDENTS,
THOUGH EMPLOYEES OF THE NEW YORK PORT AUTHORITY, ARE CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES; THE TAX LEVIED UPON THEIR INCOMES FROM THE AUTHORITY IS
THE SAME AS THAT PAID BY OTHER CITIZENS RECEIVING EQUAL NET INCOMES;
AND PAYMENT OF THIS NON-DISCRIMINATORY INCOME TAX BY RESPONDENTS CANNOT
IMPAIR OR DEFEAT IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK.  A CITIZEN WHO RECEIVES HIS INCOME FROM A STATE,
OWES THE SAME OBLIGATION TO THE UNITED STATES AS OTHER CITIZENS WHO
DRAW THEIR SALARIES FROM PRIVATE SOURCES OR THE UNITED STATES AND PAY
FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. 

WHILE I BELIEVE THESE REASONS, WITHOUT MORE, ARE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT
THE TAX, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE THIS RESULT WITH THE
PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED IN COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, AND LATER
DECISIONS APPLYING THAT PRINCIPLE.  THIS LEADS ME TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT WE SHOULD REVIEW AND REEXAMINE THE RULE BASED UPON COLLECTOR V.
DAY.  THAT COURSE WOULD LOGICALLY REQUIRE THE ENTIRE SUBJECT OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX IMMUNITY TO BE REVIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
EFFECT OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO LEVY A TAX ON
INCOMES "FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED"; AND, IN THAT EVENT, THE
DECISIONS INTERPRETING THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO BE REEXAMINED.  FN1 

FROM TIME TO TIME, THIS COURT HAS RELIED UPON A DOCTRINE EVOLVED FROM
COLLECTOR V. DAY, UNDER WHICH INCOMES RECEIVED FROM STATE ACTIVITIES
THOUGHT BY THE COURT TO BE NON-ESSENTIAL ARE HELD TAXABLE, WHILE
INCOMES FROM ACTIVITIES THOUGHT TO BE ESSENTIAL ARE HELD NON-TAXABLE. 
THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THIS CASE REFERS TO THAT DOCTRINE. 
APPLICATION OF THIS TEST HAS CREATED "A ZONE OF DEBATABLE GROUND WITHIN
WHICH THE CASES MUST BE PUT UPON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF THE LINE BY
WHAT THIS COURT HAS CALLED THE GRADUAL PROCESS OF HISTORICAL AND
JUDICIAL 'INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION.'"  BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S.
352, 365.  UNDER THIS RULE THE TAX STATUS OF EVERY STATE EMPLOYEE
REMAINS UNCERTAIN UNTIL THIS COURT PASSES UPON THE CLASSIFICATION OF
HIS PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENT.  THE RESULT IS A CONFUSION IN THE FIELD OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX IMMUNITY WHICH I BELIEVE COULD BE CLARIFIED BY
COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE SUBJECT.  TESTING TAXABILITY BY JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION THAT STATE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL OR NON
ESSENTIAL, CONTRIBUTES MUCH TO THE EXISTING CONFUSION.  I BELIEVE THE
PRESENT CASE AFFORDS OCCASION FOR APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY ABANDONMENT
OF SUCH A TEST, PARTICULARLY SINCE RECENT DECISIONS  FN2  HAVE ALREADY
SUBSTANTIALLY ADVANCED TOWARD A REEXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY ILLUSTRATES THE NECESSITY FOR FURTHER
REEXAMINATION.  NEW YORK CREATED THE PORT AUTHORITY WITH POWER TO
ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES WHICH THAT STATE BELIEVED TO BE ESSENTIAL.  YET,
UNDER THIS TEST, NEW YORK'S DETERMINATION IS NOT FINAL UNTIL REVIEWED
IN A TAX LITIGATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND A SINGLE CITIZEN. 

CONCEPTIONS OF "ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS" VARY WITH INDIVIDUAL
PHILOSOPHIES.  SOME BELIEVE THAT "ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS"
INCLUDE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF WATER PLANTS, POWER AND
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, ETC.  OTHERS DENY THAT SUCH OWNERSHIP AND
OPERATION COULD EVER BE "ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS" ON THE
GROUND THAT SUCH FUNCTIONS "COULD BE CARRIED ON BY PRIVATE
ENTERPRISE."  A FEDERAL INCOME TAX LEVIED AGAINST THE MANAGER OF THE
STATE-OPERATED ELEVATED RAILWAY COMPANY OF BOSTON WAS SUSTAINED EVEN
THOUGH THIS MANAGER WAS A PUBLIC OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR OF
MASSACHUSETTS "WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE COUNCIL."  FN3  ON
THE OTHER HAND, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS DENIED - ALTHOUGH WITH
STRONG DISSENT - THE RIGHT TO COLLECT AN INCOME TAX FROM THE CHIEF
ENGINEER IN CHARGE OF NEW YORK CITY'S MUNICIPALLY OWNED WATER SUPPLY. 
FN4  AN IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION WHICH TAXES INCOME OF AN
OFFICER OF A STATE-OPERATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND EXEMPTS INCOME OF
THE MANAGER OF A MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS SYSTEM MANIFESTS THE UNCERTAINTY
CREATED BY THE "ESSENTIAL" AND "NON-ESSENTIAL" TEST. 

THERE IS NOT, AND THERE CANNOT BE, ANY UNCHANGING LINE OF DEMARCATION
BETWEEN ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  MANY
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF TODAY HAVE AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST BEEN NON
GOVERNMENTAL.  THE GENIUS OF OUR GOVERNMENT PROVIDES THAT, WITHIN THE
SPHERE OF CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION, THE PEOPLE - ACTING NOT THROUGH THE
COURTS BUT THROUGH THEIR ELECTED LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES - HAVE THE
POWER TO DETERMINE AS CONDITIONS DEMAND, WHAT SERVICES AND FUNCTIONS
THE PUBLIC WELFARE REQUIRES. 

SURELY, THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS NO IMPERATIVE MANDATE THAT PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES - OR OTHERS - DRAWING EQUAL SALARIES (INCOME) SHOULD BE
DIVIDED INTO TAXPAYING AND NON-TAXPAYING GROUPS.  ORDINARILY SUCH A
RESULT IS DISCRIMINATION.  UNIFORM TAXATION UPON THOSE EQUALLY ABLE TO
BEAR THEIR FAIR SHARES OF THE BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF
EVERY JUST GOVERNMENT.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT
EMPOWERING CONGRESS TO "COLLECT TAXES ON INCOMES, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE
DERIVED" - GIVEN ITS MOST OBVIOUS MEANING - IS BROAD ENOUGH TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS PURPOSE. 

FN1  SEE, BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1; PECK & CO.
V. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165, 172; EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189; EVANS V.
GORE, 253 U.S. 245. 

FN2  SEE, JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134; HELVERING V.
BANKLINE OIL CO., 303 U.S. 362; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP.,
303 U.S. 376(OVERRULING GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501 AND BURNET
V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393). 

FN3  HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S. 214, 222, 223. 

FN4  BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 352; CF., METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

SO FAR AS CONCERNS LIABILITY FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX, THE SALARIES
PAID BY THE PORT AUTHORITY TO ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ARE NOT
DISTINGUISHABLE FROM SALARIES PAID BY STATES TO THEIR OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD
THEREFORE BE AFFIRMED ON THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND
(1819) 4 WHEAT.  316, THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION STATES ARE WITHOUT
POWER TO TAX INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN COLLECTOR V.
DAY (1871) 11 WALL.  113, THAT THE UNITED STATES IS WITHOUT POWER TO
TAX THE SALARY OF A STATE OFFICER.  THAT PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN
A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS.  IN INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES
(1931) 283 U.S. 570, WE HELD THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT POWER TO TAX THE
SALE OF A MOTORCYCLE TO A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR USE IN ITS POLICE
SERVICE.  THE COURT, SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, SAID
(P. 575): 

"IT IS AN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF DUAL
GOVERNMENT THAT THE INSTRUMENTALITIES, MEANS AND OPERATIONS WHEREBY THE
UNITED STATES EXERCISES ITS GOVERNMENTAL POWERS ARE EXEMPT FROM
TAXATION BY THE STATES, AND THAT THE INSTRUMENTALITIES, MEANS AND
OPERATIONS WHEREBY THE STATES EXERT THE GOVERNMENTAL POWERS BELONGING
TO THEM ARE EQUALLY EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY THE UNITED STATES.  THIS
PRINCIPLE IS IMPLIED FROM THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE NATIONAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE SPHERES AND FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION WHICH LOOK TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DUAL SYSTEM. 
COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, 125, 127; WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S.
216, 224-225.  WHERE THE PRINCIPLE APPLIES IT IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE
AMOUNT OF THE PARTICULAR TAX OR THE EXTENT OF THE RESULTING
INTERFERENCE, BUT IS ABSOLUTE.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316,
430; UNITED STATES V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 17 WALL.  322, 327;
JOHNSON V. MARYLAND, 254 U.S. 51, 55-56; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257
U.S. 501, 505; CRANDALL V. NEVADA, 6 WALL.  35, 44-46." 

FOLLOWING THAT CASE, WE RECENTLY APPLIED THE PRINCIPLE IN N.Y. EX
REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES (JANUARY 4, 1937) 299 U.S. 401, TO PREVENT THE
STATE OF NEW YORK FROM TAXING THE SALARY OF COUNSEL OF THE PANAMA
RAILWAY COMPANY, A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY, AND IN BRUSH V.
COMMISSIONER (MARCH 15, 1937) 300 U.S. 352, TO PREVENT THE UNITED
STATES FROM TAXING THE SALARY OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE BUREAU OF
WATER SUPPLY FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK.  IN HELVERING V. THERRELL
(FEBRUARY 28, 1938) 303 U.S. 218, HOLDING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS POWER TO TAX COMPENSATION PAID TO ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS OUT OF
CORPORATE ASSETS FOR NECESSARY SERVICES RENDERED ABOUT THE LIQUIDATION
OF INSOLVENT CORPORATIONS BY STATE OFFICERS PROCEEDING UNDER HER
STATUTES, WE SAID (P. 223): 

"AMONG THE INFERENCES WHICH DERIVE NECESSARILY FROM THE CONSTITUTION
ARE THESE:  NO STATE MAY TAX APPROPRIATE MEANS WHICH THE UNITED STATES
MAY EMPLOY FOR EXERCISING THEIR DELEGATED POWERS; THE UNITED STATES MAY
NOT TAX INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH A STATE MAY EMPLOY IN THE DISCHARGE OF
HER ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL DUTIES - THAT IS THOSE DUTIES WHICH THE
FRAMERS INTENDED EACH MEMBER OF THE UNION WOULD ASSUME IN ORDER
ADEQUATELY TO FUNCTION UNDER THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION." 

THE COURT SEEMINGLY ADMITTING THAT IT WOULD BE FUTILE TO ATTEMPT TO
DISTINGUISH THE CASES NOW BEFORE US FROM THE BRUSH CASE, OVERRULES IT
BY DECLARING THAT IT MUST BE LIMITED BY WHAT IS NOW DECIDED.  THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL DID NOT IN ANY MANNER RAISE THE POINT ON WHICH THE
COURT PUTS THIS DECISION.  HE SOUGHT REVERSAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE
PORT AUTHORITY'S ACTIVITIES ARE PROPRIETARY IN NATURE; THAT IT IS NOT
AN AGENCY CREATED BY THE STATES ALONE; THAT IT OPERATES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE SUBJECT TO THE PARAMOUNT POWER OF CONGRESS.  INDEED, HE
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED INTENTION TO ASK RE-EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
IMMUNITY ON WHICH THE BRUSH CASE RESTS.  IN SUBSTANCE, AS WELL AS IN
THE LANGUAGE USED, THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED SUBSTITUTES FOR THAT
DOCTRINE THE PROPOSITION THAT, ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL TAX MAY INCREASE
COST OF STATE GOVERNMENTS, IT MAY BE IMPOSED IF IT DOES NOT CURTAIL
FUNCTIONS ESSENTIAL TO THEIR EXISTENCE.  EXPRESSLY OR SUB SILENTIO, IT
OVERRULES A CENTURY OF PRECEDENTS.  CF. JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO.
(DECEMBER 6, 1937) 302 U.S. 134, 152, 161; HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN
PRODUCERS CORPORATION (MARCH 7, 1938) 303 U.S. 376.  AS THEY STOOD WHEN
THE CASES NOW BEFORE US WERE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, OUR
DECISIONS REQUIRED IT TO HOLD THAT THE SALARIES PAID BY THE PORT
AUTHORITY TO RESPONDENTS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TAXATION.  I WOULD
AFFIRM ITS JUDGMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




















AETNA INS. CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO., 304 U.S. 430 


NO. 773.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 26, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 23, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
576, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE PURPOSE OF A STIPULATION FIXING THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL IN A
MARINE HULL INSURANCE POLICY UNDERTAKING TO INDEMNIFY INSURED
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ACTUAL VALUE IS TO DISPENSE WITH PROOF OF VALUE IN
ESTABLISHING THE EXTENT OF LIABILITY ASSUMED ON THE POLICY.  P. 434. 

2.  SUCH A VALUATION CLAUSE, BEYOND ITS CONTROLLING EFFECT IN
DETERMINING THE INSURANCE LIABILITY, DOES NOT OPERATE, EITHER AS AN
ESTOPPEL OR BY AGREEMENT, TO EXCLUDE PROOF OF ACTUAL VALUE, WHEN
RELEVANT.  P. 435. 

3.  THE VALUED POLICY, LIKE AN OPEN POLICY, IS A CONTRACT OF
INDEMNITY; IN EITHER CASE THE INDEMNITOR IS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
INSURED'S RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF THE SHIP ONLY BY WAY OF
SUBROGATION, THE SOLE OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO MAKE INDEMNITY TO THE
INSURED UP TO THE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY THE MEASURE OF THE LIABILITY OF
THE INSURER.  P. 436. 

4.  THERE IS NO ANALOGY BETWEEN THE INSURER'S RIGHT TO BE SUBROGATED
TO THE FRUITS OF THE INSURED'S RECOVERY FROM A WRONGDOER AND THE
INSURER'S RIGHT TO A WRECK WHICH IS HIS BY ABANDONMENT.  P. 437. 

5.  UNDERWRITERS INSURED THE HULL OF A VESSEL BY POLICIES IN WHICH
THE VALUE OF THE HULL WAS AGREED UPON AT AN AMOUNT STATED, AND EACH OF
WHICH PROVIDED FOR A STIPULATED INDEMNITY TO THE OWNER IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE VESSEL.  THE AGREED VALUE WAS LESS THAN THE
ACTUAL VALUE OF THE HULL, SO THAT THE OWNER WAS UNINSURED FOR THE
DIFFERENCE.  AS PROTECTION AGAINST THE RISK, THE OWNER PROCURED FROM
ENGLISH UNDERWRITERS ADDITIONAL P.P.I. (POLICY PROOF OF INTEREST)
POLICIES, WHICH WAIVED ALL RIGHT OF SUBROGATION AND WERE "HONOR"
POLICIES PAYABLE ONLY AT THE OPTION OF THE INSURERS BECAUSE
UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE APPLICABLE ACT OF PARLIAMENT.  UPON A TOTAL
LOSS OF THE VESSEL BY COLLISION WITH A VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES, ALL
THE POLICIES WERE PAID IN FULL.  THEREAFTER THE OWNER AND THE
UNDERWRITERS UPON THE VALUED POLICIES JOINED IN PRESSING THEIR CLAIMS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, AND, IN A SUIT UNDER A SPECIAL ACT OF
CONGRESS NOT ALLOWING RECOVERY OF INTEREST, THERE WAS RECOVERY OF THE
VALUE OF THE VESSEL, MUCH EXCEEDING THE TOTAL INSURANCE.  HELD THAT IN
THE ADJUSTMENT, THE INSURERS UPON THE VALUED POLICIES WERE ENTITLED BY
WAY OF SUBROGATION TO NO MORE THAN THE AMOUNTS THEY HAD PAID ON THEIR
POLICIES, WITHOUT INTEREST, LESS THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES OF THE
EXPENSES ATTENDING THE RECOVERY.  NORTH OF ENGLAND IRON S.S. INS. ASSN.
V. ARMSTRONG, (1870) L.R. 5 Q.B. 244, DISAPPROVED.  P. 438. 

THE INSURERS SUBMITTED NO INTEREST COMPUTATIONS AND MADE NO EFFORT TO
SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE OWNER HAD RECEIVED MORE THAN
INDEMNITY FOR THE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF SO MUCH OF THE LOSS AS WAS NOT
COVERED BY INSURANCE. 

AETNA INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED FRUIT CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 774, UNION MARINE & GENERAL INS. CO. V. UNITED
FRUIT CO., AND NO. 775, BOSTON INSURANCE CO. V. SAME, ALSO ON WRITS OF
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 631, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCES, WITH MODIFICATIONS,
OF JUDGMENTS FOR INTEREST AND EXPENSES RECOVERED BY THREE MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANIES IN ACTIONS AT LAW AGAINST THE OWNER OF A LOST
VESSEL.  BY AGREEMENT, THE ACTIONS WERE TRIED TOGETHER TO THE COURT AND
ONE JUROR.  THE TRIAL COURT DIRECTED VERDICTS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS HOW FAR HULL INSURERS UPON A VALUED
MARINE INSURANCE POLICY ARE ENTITLED, IN CASE OF TOTAL LOSS, TO
PARTICIPATE BY WAY OF SUBROGATION IN A RECOVERY BY THE INSURED AGAINST
A TORTFEASOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOSS. 

IN 1918 PETITIONERS, WITH SEVERAL OTHER UNDERWRITERS, INSURED THE
HULL OF RESPONDENT'S VESSEL, THE "ALMIRANTE," BY POLICIES IN WHICH IT
WAS AGREED THAT THE VALUE OF THE HULL WAS $632,610, MATERIALLY LESS
THAN ITS TRUE VALUE.  THE POLICIES PROVIDED FOR A STIPULATED INDEMNITY
TO THE OWNER "IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL," AND THAT THE
OWNER WAS FREE TO EFFECT OTHER INSURANCE TO ANY AMOUNT AND WITHOUT
DISCLOSURE OF THE AMOUNTS SO INSURED.  AS THE TOTAL OF THE VALUED
POLICIES WAS $582,002.25, RESPONDENT WAS CO-INSURER FOR ABOUT $50,000;
AND SO FAR AS THE VALUED HULL POLICIES WERE CONCERNED IT WAS UNINSURED,
TO THE EXTENT OF ANY LOSS, IN EXCESS OF THE STIPULATED VALUE.  AS
PROTECTION AGAINST THESE RISKS, RESPONDENT PROCURED FROM ENGLISH
UNDERWRITERS ADDITIONAL P.P.I. (POLICY PROOF OF INTEREST) INSURANCE,
AGGREGATING $*65,105, PARTLY UPON HULL AND PARTLY AGAINST OTHER LOSSES
INCIDENTAL TO TOTAL LOSS OF THE VESSEL.  THE P.P.I. POLICIES WAIVED ALL
RIGHTS OF SUBROGATION AND WERE "HONOR" POLICIES, CONCEDEDLY PAYABLE
ONLY AT THE OPTION OF THE INSURERS BECAUSE UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE ACT
OF PARLIAMENT OF DECEMBER 31, 1906, SEC. 4.  EDWARDS & CO. V. MOTOR
UNION INS. CO., (1922) 2 K.B.D. 249. 

IN 1918 THE "ALMIRANTE" BECAME A TOTAL LOSS AS THE RESULT OF A
COLLISION WITH THE S.S. "HISKO," A VESSEL BELONGING TO THE UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT.  THE UNDERWRITERS OF BOTH THE VALUED POLICIES AND
THE P.P.I. POLICIES PAID THEM IN FULL.  THE FORMER JOINED WITH
RESPONDENT IN RETAINING ATTORNEYS TO PRESS THE CLAIMS FOR COLLISION
DAMAGES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES UNDER A SPECIAL ACT OF CONGRESS, RESULTED IN A RECOVERY WHICH
INCLUDED $1,750,000 AS THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL, BUT WITHOUT INTEREST
SINCE THE ACT DID NOT AUTHORIZE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST.  COMPARE BOSTON
SAND & GRAVEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 41, 47.  DISTRIBUTION OF
THE PROCEEDS OF THE SUIT WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMPUTATION BY
INSURANCE ADJUSTERS WHO APPORTIONED THE EXPENSES OF THE SUIT AMONG
RESPONDENT AND THE UNDERWRITERS, AND ALLOTTED TO THE LATTER THE AMOUNTS
THEY HAD PAID ON THEIR POLICIES WITHOUT INTEREST, LESS THEIR RESPECTIVE
SHARES OF THE EXPENSES. 

PETITIONERS, WHO ARE UNDERWRITERS ON SOME OF THE VALUED HULL
POLICIES, BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN
NEW YORK TO PARTICIPATE IN RESPONDENT'S RECOVERY AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  RELYING ON THE VALUATION CLAUSE OF THEIR POLICIES AS
CONCLUSIVELY FIXING THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL FOR ALL PURPOSES OF THE
ADJUSTMENT, THEY CONTEST THE ALLOTMENT, INSISTING THAT THEY SHOULD BEAR
NO PART OF THE EXPENSES, AND THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON THE
AMOUNTS OF THEIR POLICIES FROM THE SEVERAL DATES ON WHICH THEY WERE
PAID.  THEY ALSO MAKE, BUT DO NOT STRESS HERE, THE POINT THAT THE HULL
INSURERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE WHOLE RECOVERY.  THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE FULL AMOUNT WHICH PETITIONERS HAD PAID ON THEIR
POLICIES WITHOUT DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES, BUT WITHOUT ADDITION OF
INTEREST.  18 F.SUPP.  441.  ON APPEAL BY BOTH PARTIES, THE COURT OF
APPEALS HELD THAT PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO NEITHER INTEREST NOR
EXPENSES, AND MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  92 F.2D 576.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 631, BECAUSE OF THE ADMITTED CONFLICT OF
THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH IN NORTH OF
ENGLAND IRON S.S. INS. ASSN. V. ARMSTRONG (1870) L.R. 5 Q.B. 244.  SEE
QUEEN INSURANCE CO. V. GLOBE & RUTGERS FIRE INS. CO., 263 U.S. 487,
493; GULF REFINING CO. V. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., 279 U.S. 708, 715. 

PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT TURNS UPON THEIR CONTENTION THAT THE VALUATION
CLAUSE, EITHER BY ESTOPPEL OR BY CONTRACT, IS CONCLUSIVE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES FOR ALL PURPOSES AND THAT AS RESPONDENT HAS RECOVERED FROM THE
GOVERNMENT MORE THAN THE STIPULATED VALUE OF THE VESSEL, PETITIONERS
ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE RECOVERY, AT LEAST TO THE FULL
EXTENT OF THE PAYMENTS ON THEIR POLICIES WITH INTEREST.  WE THINK THAT
THE VALUATION CLAUSE IN ITS USUAL FORM DOES NOT OPERATE AS AN ESTOPPEL
OR BY AGREEMENT TO FORECLOSE PROOF THAT ACTUAL VALUE EXCEEDS AGREED
VALUE WHEN THE QUESTION IS OF THE INSURER'S RIGHT TO SUBROGATION.  THE
APPLICATION OF THE AGREED VALUE TO THE INSURANCE ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT
DEPEND UPON ESTOPPEL, GULF REFINING CO. V. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO.,
SUPRA, 712; BRITISH & FOREIGN MARINE INS. CO. V. MALDONADO & CO., 182
F. 744, AND THERE CAN BE NO BASIS FOR AN ESTOPPEL AT LEAST WHERE, AS
HERE, THE POLICY PROVISIONS UNDERTAKE TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURED
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL AND CONTEMPLATE THAT THE
INSURED MAY EFFECT OTHER INSURANCE.  THE VALUATION STIPULATION FIXES IN
ADVANCE OF LOSS THE VALUE OF THE VESSEL, SO AS TO AVOID THE NECESSITY
OF PROOF OF VALUE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE EXTENT OF THE LIABILITY
ASSUMED ON THE POLICY.  THE AGREED VALUE, HONESTLY ARRIVED AT, THUS
STANDS IN THE PLACE OF PRIME VALUE UNDER AN OPEN MARINE POLICY, GULF
REFINING CO. V. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., SUPRA, 711; ST. PAUL FIRE &
MARINE INS. CO. V. PURE OIL CO., 63 F.2D 771, AND RESEMBLES, IN ITS
PRACTICAL OPERATION, A STIPULATION FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. 

BUT BEYOND ITS CONTROLLING EFFECT IN DETERMINING THE INSURANCE
LIABILITY, THE CLAUSE DOES NOT OPERATE TO EXCLUDE PROOF OF ACTUAL VALUE
WHEN RELEVANT.  EVEN IN AN ACTION ON THE POLICY THE ACTUAL RATHER THAN
THE AGREED VALUE HAS BEEN HELD TO BE CONTROLLING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL LOSS.  BRADLIE V.
MARYLAND INS. CO., 12 PET. 378, 399; IRVING V. MANNING, 6 C.B. 391(H.
OF L.).  IN THE CASE OF PARTIAL INSURANCE OF CARGO UNDER A VALUED
POLICY THE INSURED IS TREATED AS A CO-INSURER AND IS ALLOWED TO RECOVER
ON THE POLICY ONLY SUCH PROPORTION OF THE LOSS AS THE INSURED VALUE
BEARS TO THE ACTUAL VALUE, A COMPUTATION WHICH NECESSARILY REQUIRES
PROOF OF THE ACTUAL VALUE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE CO-INSURANCE
RELATIONSHIP.  GULF REFINING CO. V. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., SUPRA,
710-711; SEE INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION CO. V. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO.,
100 F. 304, 318, AFF'D PER CURIAM 108 F. 987; ARNOULD ON MARINE
INSURANCE, 11TH EDITION, SEC. 340; ELDRIDGE ON MARINE POLICIES, 2ND
EDITION, P. 90.  IT IS TRUE, AS WAS POINTED OUT IN GULF REFINING CO. V.
ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., SUPRA, THAT IN CASE OF VALUED HULL POLICIES
LOSSES RESULTING IN REPAIRS ARE CUSTOMARILY PAID IN FULL, NOT BECAUSE
OF AGREEMENT OR ESTOPPEL BUT BECAUSE PARTIAL LOSSES TO HULL USUALLY
RESULT IN REPAIRS WITHOUT ANY VALUATION OF THE HULL AND THE RULE THAT
THE RECOVERY SHALL BE MEASURED BY REPAIRS HAS BEEN FOUND MORE
CONVENIENT IN PRACTICE THAN ONE REQUIRING DETERMINATION OF THE SOUND
VALUE OF THE SHIP.  SEE LOHRE V. AITCHISON, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 501, 507. 
THE SAME RULE AS IN THE CASE OF CARGO INSURANCE HAS BEEN APPLIED WHEN
REPAIRS WERE NOT MADE, AND VALUE WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE SALE OF THE
VESSEL, PITMAN V. UNIVERSAL MARINE INS. CO., L.R. 9 Q.B.D. 192, AND IN
THE CASE OF GENERAL AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION BY THE HULL.  S.S. "BALMORAL"
CO. V. MARTEN, (1902) APP. CAS. 511, 514, 515.  THE PECULIAR RULE OF
THE INSURER'S LIABILITY FOR PARTIAL LOSS TO HULL WHEN REPAIRS ARE MADE
DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE VALUATION CLAUSE AND AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR
TREATING IT AS EXCLUDING THE INSURED AS CO-INSURER WHEN THERE IS A
TOTAL LOSS. 

THESE VARIATIONS IN THE EFFECT OF THE VALUATION CLAUSE, IN FIXING THE
LIABILITY OF THE INSURER, DO NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE VALUED
POLICY AS A CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY, OR AFFORD ANY BASIS FOR ALTERATION
OF HIS RIGHTS AS AN INDEMNITOR.  WHETHER UPON A VALUED OR AN OPEN
POLICY, HE IS ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE INSURED'S RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
ONLY BY WAY OF SUBROGATION, WHOSE SOLE OBJECT AND JUSTIFICATION IS TO
MAKE INDEMNITY TO THE INSURED UP TO THE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY, THE
MEASURE OF THE LIABILITY OF THE INSURER.  STANDARD MARINE INS. CO. V.
SCOTTISH METROPOLITAN ASSURANCE CO., 283 U.S. 284, 288; AETNA CASUALTY
& SURETY CO. V. PHOENIX NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., 285 U.S. 209, 214;
CHAPMAN V. HOAGE, 296 U.S. 526, 531.  THE DOCTRINE NOW CONTENDED FOR,
WOULD REQUIRE A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM THE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH
SUBROGATION IS FOUNDED.  CONSISTENTLY APPLIED, IT WOULD IN SOME CASES
DEPRIVE THE INSURED OF INDEMNITY, AND INDEED MIGHT ENABLE THE INSURER
TO MAKE A PROFIT BY RECOVERING MORE FROM THE INSURED THAN THE AMOUNTS
PAID ON THE POLICY.  WE ARE UNABLE TO SANCTION A DOCTRINE INVOLVING
SUCH CONSEQUENCES. 

NO QUESTION IS RAISED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OR APPEARS TO
HAVE BEEN RAISED BELOW AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ADJUSTMENT
STATEMENT, IF THE VALUATION CLAUSE DOES NOT FORECLOSE PROOF OF ACTUAL
VALUE AND IF RESPONDENT IS THEREFORE TO BE REGARDED AS A CO-INSURER OF
THE HULL IN EVENT OF TOTAL LOSS.  PETITIONERS MAKE NO CONTENTION THAT
RESPONDENT, IF SO REGARDED, HAS RECEIVED MORE THAN APPROPRIATE
INDEMNITY AFTER THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE COLLISION
SUIT.  THE TOTAL INSURANCE RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT FROM THE INSURERS IN
1918 AND 1919, AGGREGATING $886,068, WAS APPROXIMATELY $863,932 LESS
THAN THE PRIME VALUE OF THE VESSEL, WHICH SOME THIRTEEN YEARS LATER IT
RECOVERED IN THE COLLISION SUIT, WITHOUT ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND
AFTER THE EXPENDITURE OF MORE THAN $300,000 AS COSTS OF THE
LITIGATION.  PETITIONERS SUBMIT NO INTEREST COMPUTATIONS AND HAVE
OTHERWISE MADE NO EFFORT TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT
RESPONDENT HAS RECEIVED MORE THAN INDEMNITY FOR THE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF
AS MUCH OF THE LOSS AS WAS NOT COVERED BY INSURANCE. 

SINCE THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN APPORTIONED BY CHARGING THE INSURED WITH
A PROPORTION GREATER THAN ITS SHARE OF THE RISK, AND THE APPORTIONMENT
IS NOT ASSAILED EXCEPT AS IT MAY BE WHOLLY PRECLUDED BY THE VALUATION
CLAUSE, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE DISTRIBUTION OF
EXPENSE SHOULD BE UPON PRINCIPLES OF CO-INSURANCE OR WHETHER THE
INSURED SHOULD BE FULLY INDEMNIFIED FOR IT BEFORE THE INSURER IS
ENTITLED TO SUBROGATION. 

PETITIONERS POINT TO NO PRACTICE OF UNDERWRITERS WITH RESPECT TO THE
VALUED POLICY OR ITS RATE OF PREMIUM AS COMPARED WITH THAT FOR THE OPEN
POLICY, WHICH SUPPORTS THE RULE FOR WHICH THEY CONTEND.  BUT THEY
INSIST THAT IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN ENGLAND AND HAS BECOME SO WELL
SETTLED IN NEW YORK WHERE THE INSURANCE WAS EFFECTED, THAT IT MUST BE
TAKEN TO BE AN IMPLIED TERM OF THE POLICIES.  IT IS TRUE THAT NORTH OF
ENGLAND IRON S.S. INS. ASSN. V. ARMSTRONG, SUPRA, LENDS SUPPORT TO
PETITIONERS' ARGUMENT.  THERE, UPON A TOTAL LOSS, THE INSURED HAD
RECOVERED AS COLLISION DAMAGES AN AMOUNT LESS THAN THE AGREED VALUATION
AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE INSURER, WHO HAD PAID THE POLICY IN FULL, WAS
ENTITLED TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE ENTIRE RECOVERY.  THE COURT THOUGHT
THAT THE CASE WAS ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF ABANDONMENT IN CASE OF A
CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL LOSS WHERE THE UNDERWRITER, BY VIRTUE OF THE
ABANDONMENT, IS ENTITLED TO THE WRECK AND TO SUCH PROFIT FROM IT AS HE
CAN MAKE.  PURSUING THE LOGIC OF ITS REASONING, THE COURT DECLARED THAT
THE INSURER WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE INSURED'S FULL RECOVERY
EVEN IF IT EXCEEDED THE AGREED VALUE.  BUT IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT THERE IS
NO ANALOGY BETWEEN THE INSURER'S RIGHT TO BE SUBROGATED TO THE FRUITS
OF THE INSURED'S RECOVERY FROM A WRONGDOER AND THE INSURER'S RIGHT TO A
WRECK WHICH IS HIS BY ABANDONMENT.  THE POTOMAC, 105 U.S. 630, 634; THE
ST. JOHNS, 101 F. 469, 472(S.D.N.Y.); ARNOULD ON MARINE INSURANCE, 11TH
EDITION, SECS. 1228-1230. 

NORTH OF ENGLAND IRON S.S. INS. ASSN. V. ARMSTRONG, SUPRA, WAS CITED
IN THE POTOMAC, SUPRA, 635, AND IN MOBILE & MONTGOMERY RY. CO. V.
JUREY, 111 U.S. 584, 594, 595, NEITHER OF WHICH INVOLVED THE QUESTION
NOW PRESENTED.  IT WAS FOLLOWED IN THE ST. JOHNS, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT
OF ALLOWING A PROFIT TO THE INSURER.  IN THE LIVINGSTONE, 130 F.
746(C.C.A. 2), THE CLAIM OF A VALUED HULL INSURER TO THE WHOLE
COLLISION RECOVERY, WHICH EXCEEDED THE AGREED VALUE, WAS DENIED UPON
REASONING WHICH REJECTED THAT OF NORTH OF ENGLAND IRON S.S. INS. ASSN.
V. ARMSTRONG, SUPRA, AND THE ST. JOHNS, SUPRA, AND CALLS FOR AFFIRMANCE
OF THE JUDGMENT HERE.  INTEREST WAS ALLOWED TO THE INSURER, APPARENTLY
BECAUSE INTEREST ON THE FULL VALUE OF THE VESSEL HAD BEEN RECOVERED IN
THE DAMAGE SUIT.  WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE POINT THE COURT BY ITS MANDATE
DIRECTED PAYMENT TO THE UNDERWRITERS OF THE FULL AMOUNT OF THEIR
POLICIES WITHOUT DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES.  BUT AS IT CONSIDERED THAT THE
INSURER'S RIGHT OF RECOVERY RESTED UPON SUBROGATION UNAFFECTED BY THE
VALUATION CLAUSE, WE CANNOT REGARD THE CASE AS AN INTENTIONAL DEPARTURE
FROM THE RULE THAT THE INSURER IS ENTITLED TO SUBROGATION ONLY AFTER
THE INSURED IS APPROPRIATELY INDEMNIFIED, OR AS ESTABLISHING ANY RULE
THAT THE VALUATION CLAUSE FORECLOSES PROOF OF ACTUAL VALUE AS A STEP IN
MEASURING THE INSURER'S RECOVERY BY WAY OF SUBROGATION.    WE RECOGNIZE
THAT ESTABLISHED DOCTRINES OF ENGLISH MARITIME LAW ARE TO BE ACCORDED
RESPECT HERE, QUEEN INS. CO. V. GLOBE & RUTGERS FIRE INS. CO., SUPRA,
493; GULF REFINING CO. V. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., SUPRA, 715, BUT THE
PRONOUNCEMENT IN NORTH OF ENGLAND IRON S.S. INS. ASSN. V. ARMSTRONG,
SUPRA, HAS NEVER BEEN ADOPTED BY AN ENGLISH APPELLATE COURT.  IT WAS
DOUBTED BY EMINENT JUDGES IN BURNAND V. RODOCANACHI SONS & CO., (1882)
L.R. 7 APP. CAS. 333, 342, AND IN THAMES & MERSEY MARINE INS. CO. V.
BRITISH & CHILEAN S.S. CO., (1915) L.R. 2 K.B. 214, 221.  ITS
REASONING, CONFLICTING AS IT DOES WITH ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF
MARITIME INSURANCE LAW, AND FOUND TO BE INCAPABLE OF CONSISTENT
APPLICATION BOTH IN THE ST. JOHNS, SUPRA, 474-475, AND IN THE
LIVINGSTONE, SUPRA, 750, SHOULD BE REJECTED HERE.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





ALLEN V. REGENTS, 304 U.S. 439 


NO. 882.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 29, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 23, 1938.  - 93 F.2D
887, REVERSED. 


1.  SUBSTITUTION OF THE OFFICIAL SUCCESSOR TO A COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE WHO RESIGNED AND DIED PENDING A SUIT TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION OF
A TAX ASSESSMENT, HELD PROPER UNDER SEC. 11, ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925. 
P. 444. 

2.  R.S. SEC. 3224, PROVIDING THAT "NO SUIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RESTRAINING THE COLLECTION OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY TAX SHALL BE MAINTAINED
IN ANY COURT," IS INAPPLICABLE IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE THERE IS NO
PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW.  P. 445. 

3.  A CORPORATION, CREATED BY A STATE AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
STATE, AND HAVING CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF STATE EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS, SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION BY DISTRAINT OF SUMS
ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE IN CONSEQUENCE OF
NEGLECT TO COLLECT AND PAY OVER THE FEDERAL TAX, REVENUE ACT OF 1926,
SEC. 500(A)(1), AS AMENDED, ON ADMISSIONS TO INTERCOLLEGIATE FOOTBALL
GAMES PLAYED AT THOSE INSTITUTIONS.  THE CORPORATION CONTENDED THAT THE
EXACTION WOULD UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BURDEN A GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY OF THE
STATE.  THE TICKETS OF ADMISSION TO THE GAMES IN QUESTION BORE PRINTED
NOTICES TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CORPORATION WAS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY
ADMISSION TAX, BUT THAT AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT THERETO WAS BEING
COLLECTED AS PART OF THE PRICE OF ADMISSION AND WOULD BE RETAINED AS
SUCH, UNLESS IT SHOULD LATER BE DETERMINED THAT THE CORPORATION WAS
LIABLE FOR THE TAX.  HELD, THE SUIT WAS WITHIN THE EQUITY JURISDICTION
OF THE FEDERAL COURT.  PP. 445, 448. 

THE STATE WAS ENTITLED TO A DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
STATUTE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IMPOSED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN,
AND THE ISSUE COULD NOT ADEQUATELY BE RAISED BY ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. 

4.  A CORPORATION CREATED BY THE STATE AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
STATE AND HAVING CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF STATE EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS, AT WHICH ATHLETIC EXHIBITIONS ARE HELD AND THE PUBLIC ARE
CHARGED FOR ADMISSION, MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE REQUIRED TO COLLECT,
MAKE RETURN OF, AND PAY TO THE UNITED STATES THE ADMISSIONS TAX IMPOSED
BY REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC. 500(A)(1), AS AMENDED BY REVENUE ACT OF
1932, SEC. 711.  P. 449. 

5.  THE TAX IMMUNITY IMPLIED FROM THE DUAL SOVEREIGNTY RECOGNIZED BY
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO BUSINESS ENTERPRISES CONDUCTED BY
THE STATES FOR GAIN.  P. 453. 

ALLEN, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM OF GEORGIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 634, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
ENJOINING A UNITED STATES COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FROM
DISTRAINING BANK DEPOSITS REPRESENTING MONEYS CLAIMS BY THE REGENTS OF
THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, A STATE INSTRUMENTALITY, RESPONDENT
IN THIS CASE.  SEE ALSO 10 F.SUPP.  901; 18 ID. 62; 81 F.2D 577. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION ON THE MERITS IS WHETHER THE EXACTION OF THE FEDERAL
ADMISSIONS TAX, IN RESPECT OF ATHLETIC CONTESTS IN WHICH TEAMS
REPRESENTING COLLEGES CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENT PARTICIPATE,
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BURDENS A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OF THE STATE OF
GEORGIA.  THE PETITION ALSO CHALLENGES THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO
MAINTAIN A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX AND TO SUBSTITUTE
AS DEFENDANT THE SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR ORIGINALLY
IMPLEADED.  THE COURT BELOW DECIDED ALL THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER.  FN1  BECAUSE OF THEIR IMPORTANCE WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI. 

SEC. 711 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932  FN3  IMPOSES "A TAX OF 1 CENT FOR
EACH 10 CENTS OR FRACTION THEREOF OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR ADMISSION TO
ANY PLACE  ...  TO BE PAID BY THE PERSON PAYING FOR SUCH ADMISSION;
..."  FN4 SUBSECTION (D) COMMANDS THAT THE PRICE (EXCLUSIVE OF THE TAX
TO BE PAID BY THE PERSON PAYING FOR ADMISSION) AT WHICH EVERY ADMISSION
TICKET IS SOLD SHALL BE CONSPICUOUSLY PRINTED, STAMPED, OR WRITTEN ON
THE FACE OR BACK OF THAT PORTION OF THE TICKET WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN UP
BY THE MANAGEMENT AND IMPOSES A PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ITS
TERMS.  SECTION 502 REQUIRES THE PERSON RECEIVING PAYMENTS FOR
ADMISSIONS TO COLLECT THE TAX AND MAKE RETURN IN SUCH FORM AS THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE MAY PRESCRIBE BY REGULATION.  SECTION
1102(A)  FN5  IMPOSES THE DUTY ON PERSONS WHO COLLECT THE TAX TO KEEP
RECORDS AND RENDER STATEMENTS, UNDER OATH, AND TO MAKE RETURNS AS
REQUIRED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  SECTION 1114  FN6  (B) AND
(D) FIXES PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COLLECT OR PAY OVER AND SUBSECTION
(E) PROVIDES FOR THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF ONE COLLECTING THE ADMISSION
CHARGE AND FOR DISTRAINT BY THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR TAXES
AND PENALTIES.  SECTION 607 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934  FN7  REQUIRES
THE PERSON CHARGED WITH THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX TO HOLD THE AMOUNT
COLLECTED AS A SPECIAL FUND IN TRUST FOR THE UNITED STATES, CONFERS THE
RIGHT TO ASSESS HIM WITH THE AMOUNT SO COLLECTED AND WITHHELD,
INCLUDING PENALTIES, AND, IN CONNECTION WITH R.S. 3187,  FN8
AUTHORIZES THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO DISTRAIN THEREFOR. 

THE RESPONDENT IS A PUBLIC CORPORATION, CREATED BY GEORGIA AS AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE, HAVING CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA AND THE GEORGIA SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY.  ATHLETICS
AT THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE CONDUCTED UNDER THE RESPONDENT'S AUTHORITY BY
TWO CORPORATIONS, THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION AND
THE GEORGIA TECH.  ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.  THE EXPENSE OF PHYSICAL
EDUCATION AND ATHLETIC PROGRAMS AT EACH SCHOOL IS DEFRAYED ALMOST
ENTIRELY FROM THE ADMISSION CHARGES TO ATHLETIC CONTESTS AND STUDENTS'
ATHLETIC FEES COLLECTED FOR THE PURPOSE.  DURING SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER
1934 FOOTBALL GAMES WERE PLAYED AT THE INSTITUTIONS, FOR WHICH
ADMISSIONS WERE CHARGED AND COLLECTED BY THE ASSOCIATIONS.  EACH TICKET
SHOWED ON ITS FACE THE ADMISSION PRICE, THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX, AND THE
TOTAL OF THE TWO, AND ALSO CARRIED THE FOLLOWING PRINTED NOTICE: 

"THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA (OR GEORGIA SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY) BEING AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, CONTENDS
THAT IT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY ADMISSION TAX.  THE AMOUNT STATED AS A
TAX IS SO STATED BECAUSE THE UNIVERSITY IS REQUIRED TO DO SO BY
TREASURY REGULATIONS PENDING A DECISION AS TO ITS LIABILITY IN THIS
RESPECT.  THIS AMOUNT IS COLLECTED BY THE UNIVERSITY AS A PART OF THE
ADMISSION AND WILL BE RETAINED AS SUCH UNLESS IT IS FINALLY DETERMINED
THAT THE UNIVERSITY IS ITSELF LIABLE FOR THE TAX." 

EACH ASSOCIATION DEPOSITED THE TOTAL COLLECTED AS THE DISPUTED TAX IN
A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT, APART FROM ITS OTHER FUNDS, BUT MADE NO RETURN
THEREOF.  THE COLLECTOR PREPARED RETURNS FOR THE AMOUNTS.  IN
CONSEQUENCE OF THE ASSOCIATIONS' NEGLECT TO PAY THE AMOUNTS SO
RETURNED, THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED EACH ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT
SHOWN BY RETURN MADE FOR IT AND CERTIFIED THE ASSESSMENTS TO THE
COLLECTOR, WHO MADE DEMANDS FOR PAYMENT.  THESE WERE IGNORED AND THE
COLLECTOR FILED LIENS, ISSUED WARRANTS, AND LEVIED UPON THE DEPOSIT
ACCOUNTS.  THE RESPONDENT THEN BROUGHT SUIT IN WHICH IT PRAYED A DECREE
THAT, AS AN AGENCY OF THE STATE PERFORMING AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION IN THE CONDUCT OF THE GAMES, IT WAS IMMUNE FROM THE TAX, AND
SOUGHT INJUNCTIONS, TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT, TO RESTRAIN THE COLLECTOR
FROM PROCEEDING FURTHER TO COLLECT THE SUMS DEMANDED.  FROM A DECREE
AWARDING A FINAL INJUNCTION THE COLLECTOR APPEALED; BUT, PENDING
APPEAL, HE RESIGNED AND, BEFORE THE HEARING, DIED.  OVER OBJECTION THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ORDERED THE PETITIONER SUBSTITUTED AS
APPELLANT AND AFFIRMED THE DECREE.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE COURT
BELOW RIGHTLY DECIDED THE PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS BUT ERRED AS TO THE
MERITS. 

FIRST.  IF THE SUIT WAS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST HIS PREDECESSOR IN
OFFICE THE SUBSTITUTION OF PETITIONER WAS LAWFUL.  WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL
OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT SUITS AGAINST OFFICERS TO RESTRAIN ACTION IN
EXCESS OF THEIR AUTHORITY OR IN VIOLATION OF STATUTORY OR
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ARE IN THEIR NATURE PERSONAL AND THAT A
SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE IS NOT PRIVY TO HIS PREDECESSOR IN RESPECT OF THE
ALLEGED WRONGFUL CONDUCT.  FN9  AS A RESULT OF THE INCONVENIENCE
RESULTING FROM THE LACK OF POWER TO SUBSTITUTE ONE WHO SUCCEEDED TO THE
OFFICE OF AN ALLEGED OFFENDING OFFICIAL, TO WHICH THIS COURT HAS CALLED
ATTENTION,  FN10  CONGRESS ADOPTED THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925,  FN11
WHICH PROVIDES: 

"...  WHERE, DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN ACTION, SUIT, OR OTHER
PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY OR AGAINST AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES  ...
AND RELATING TO THE PRESENT OR FUTURE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES,
SUCH OFFICER DIES, RESIGNS, OR OTHERWISE CEASES TO HOLD SUCH OFFICE, IT
SHALL BE COMPETENT FOR THE COURT WHEREIN THE ACTION, SUIT, OR
PROCEEDING IS PENDING, WHETHER THE COURT BE ONE OF FIRST INSTANCE OR AN
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, TO PERMIT THE CAUSE TO BE CONTINUED AND MAINTAINED
BY OR AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE OF SUCH OFFICER,  ..." 

THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE PETITIONER ASSERTED THAT, UNLESS
RESTRAINED, HE WOULD CONTINUE IN THE COURSE PURSUED BY HIS
PREDECESSOR.  THE ANSWER DID NOT DENY THIS ALLEGATION BUT RELIED UPON
THE CLAIM THAT THE PRESENT COLLECTOR IS NOT PRIVY TO THE ACTS OF THE
FORMER ONE.  IN EX PARTE LA PRADE, 289 U.S. 444, THIS COURT RESERVED
THE QUESTION WHETHER IN SUCH A SITUATION THE SUCCESSOR MIGHT BE
SUBSTITUTED.  AS THE PRESENT CASE IS WITHIN THE LETTER OF THE ACT AND
WITHIN THE INCONVENIENCE INTENDED TO BE OBVIATED BY ITS ADOPTION, THE
SUBSTITUTION WAS PROPERLY PERMITTED. 

SECOND.  IF THE TAX, THE COLLECTION OF WHICH WAS THREATENED,
CONSTITUTED AN INADMISSIBLE BURDEN UPON A GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY OF THE
STATE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED RENDER THE CAUSE ONE OF EQUITABLE
COGNIZANCE AND TAKE IT OUT OF THE PROHIBITION OF R.S. 3224.  FN12  THE
RESPONDENT HAS LONG BEEN OF OPINION THAT EXACTION OF THE TAX IN RESPECT
OF GAMES PLAYED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA AND THE
GEORGIA SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY CONSTITUTES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN
UPON AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY OF GEORGIA.  AT FIRST THE
RESPONDENT COLLECTED THE TAX AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT, PAID IT OVER TO
THE TREASURY, AND MADE CLAIM FOR REFUND.  THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE TAX WAS PAID BY THE PATRON OF THE GAME, AND THAT THE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS AND THE RESPONDENT WERE MERE COLLECTING AGENTS
HAVING NO INTEREST IN THE FUND WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY REPAYMENT TO THEM IF
IT HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY COLLECTED.  BELIEVING THE BASIS OF THE
COMMISSIONER'S REFUSAL TO REFUND WAS SOUND,  FN13  THE RESPONDENT THEN
RESORTED TO THE EXPEDIENT OF COLLECTING THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX UNDER THE
RESERVATION PRINTED UPON THE TICKETS. 

THE BILL, AFTER RECITING THE FACTS AS ABOVE SUMMARIZED, ALLEGES THAT
THE STATUTE IMPOSES A TAX UPON THE INDIVIDUALS WHO PURCHASE TICKETS,
BUT, PROPERLY CONSTRUED, IS INAPPLICABLE TO THOSE PURCHASING TICKETS TO
THE FOOTBALL GAMES IN QUESTION.  IT FURTHER ASSERTS THAT, IN RESPECT OF
THOSE GAMES, NEITHER THE RESPONDENT NOR THE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS
COLLECTED ANY TAX FROM PURCHASERS OF ADMISSIONS; THAT IF THE STATUTE BE
CONSTRUED TO JUSTIFY THE COLLECTOR IN SEEKING TO FORCE RESPONDENT TO
PAY SUMS REPRESENTING ALLEGED TAXES DUE FROM NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS AN ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE WITH AND CONTROL AND TO
BURDEN THE STATE'S EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND UNLAWFULLY TO IMPOSE ON
THE STATE GOVERNMENT THE DUTY OF COLLECTING TAXES FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT; THAT THE ACTION OF THE PETITIONER IN ISSUING WARRANTS OF
DISTRAINT IS EITHER AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT FROM RESPONDENT TAXES ALLEGED
TO BE DUE FROM VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS, OR TO IMPOSE UPON THE RESPONDENT
PENALTIES, CRIMINAL AND PUNITIVE IN NATURE. 

THE PETITIONER INSISTS THE BILL SHOWS THE TAX WAS IN FACT COLLECTED
FROM THE PATRONS OF THE GAMES, AND THE ALLEGATION THAT NO TAX WAS
COLLECTED IS A MERE CONCLUSION OF LAW WHICH THE COURT SHOULD IGNORE;
THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE IN THIS SUIT
FOR INJUNCTION WHETHER OR NOT TAXES HAD BEEN COLLECTED BY RESPONDENT;
THAT THE REVENUE ACT IMPOSES NO LIABILITY FOR THE TAX UPON THE VENDOR
OF THE TICKETS WHO FAILS TO COLLECT, ALTHOUGH IT DOES IMPOSE A PENALTY
FOR WILFUL FAILURE TO COLLECT THE TAX AND OTHER PENALTIES; THAT, AS THE
RESPONDENT COLLECTED THE TAX, IT HAS NO STANDING IN ITS CAPACITY AS A
COLLECTING AGENT TO DENY THE VALIDITY OF THE EXACTION, AND, AS A
COLLECTING AGENT, COULD NOT CREATE A RIGHT TO RESIST COLLECTION BY THE
GOVERNMENT BY FORCING A STIPULATION UPON PURCHASERS OF TICKETS THAT THE
AMOUNT COLLECTED SHOULD BELONG TO THE AGENT IF IT WERE ABLE TO DEFEAT
THE GOVERNMENT; THAT, AS SUCH AGENT, RESPONDENT HAS NO INTEREST ADVERSE
TO THE UNITED STATES; THAT THE STIPULATION IN QUESTION DID NOT AMOUNT
TO AN ASSIGNMENT OF A TICKET PURCHASER'S CLAIM FOR REFUND OR, IF IT
DID, THE PURCHASER HAS THEREBY LOST HIS RIGHT TO RECOVER THE TAX BY
REASON OF THE PROHIBITION OF ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES EMBODIED IN R.S. 3477; FN14  THAT RESPONDENT OR THE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATIONS WOULD HAVE HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW FOR RECOVERY OF
THE AMOUNTS ASSESSED AGAINST THEM HAD THEY PAID THE ASSESSMENTS; AND
FINALLY THAT R.S. 3224  FN15  PROHIBITS THE ISSUE OF AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST COLLECTION. 

TO THESE CONTENTIONS RESPONDENT REPLIES THAT WHILE IT PLACED THE
REQUIRED INFORMATION ON THE TICKET AND SEGREGATED THE EQUIVALENT OF THE
TAX FROM THE PROCEEDS OF TICKETS SOLD TO AVOID THE IMPOSITION OF
PENALTIES ON ITS PERSONNEL, THE NOTATION ON THE TICKETS SHOWS THAT IT
DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO COLLECT AND DID NOT IN FACT COLLECT THE TAX; THAT,
BY REFUSAL TO COLLECT, IT TOOK ITSELF OUT OF THE CATEGORY OF AN AGENT
WHO VOLUNTARILY ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT; THAT, WHILE THE
STATUTE PLACES NO LIABILITY UPON RESPONDENT FOR THE TAX AS SUCH, IT
IMPOSES UPON THE RESPONDENT CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR REFUSAL TO
COLLECT IT; THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT AN ASSIGNEE OF THE CLAIMS OF ITS
PATRONS, BUT, IF THE TAX IS INVALID, IS OWNER IN ITS OWN RIGHT OF THE
ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID BY EACH PURCHASER; THAT RESPONDENT HAS NO REMEDY AT
LAW BECAUSE IF IT HAD PAID THE TAX OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS IT COULD NOT
HAVE CLAIMED REFUND OF PAYMENT THUS VOLUNTARILY MADE FOR ITS PATRONS'
ACCOUNTS; THAT STATE OFFICIALS MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO COLLECT AN
ILLEGAL TAX AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO CONTESTING ITS VALIDITY; THAT
SEC. 3224 HAS NO APPLICATION TO THIS SUIT. 

THE DISPUTE AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF A SUIT IN EQUITY MUST BE RESOLVED
IN THE LIGHT OF THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY.  THE RESPONDENT IN GOOD
FAITH BELIEVES THAT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN IS LAID DIRECTLY UPON
ITS TRANSACTIONS IN THE SALE OF LICENSES TO WITNESS ATHLETIC
EXHIBITIONS CONDUCTED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE AND FOR AN ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE.  THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE A DETERMINATION OF
THE QUESTION WHETHER SUCH BURDEN IS IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED
AND APPLIED.  IT IS NOT BOUND TO SUBJECT ITS PUBLIC OFFICERS AND THEIR
SUBORDINATES TO PAINS AND PENALTIES CRIMINAL AND CIVIL IN ORDER TO HAVE
THIS QUESTION SETTLED, IF NO PART OF THE SUM COLLECTED WAS A TAX, AND
IF THE ASSESSMENT WAS IN TRUTH THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY FOR FAILURE
TO EXACT A TAX ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES.  AND IF THE RESPONDENT
IS RIGHT THAT THE STATUTE IS INVALID AS APPLIED TO ITS EXHIBITIONS, IT
OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TO INCUR THE EXPENSE AND BURDEN OF COLLECTION,
RETURN, AND PROSECUTION OF CLAIM FOR REFUND OF A TAX UPON OTHERS WHICH
THE STATE MAY NOT LAWFULLY BE REQUIRED TO COLLECT.  THESE EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES WE THINK JUSTIFY RESORT TO EQUITY.    WHAT WE HAVE SAID
INDICATES THAT R.S. 3224, SUPRA, DOES NOT OUST THE JURISDICTION.  THE
STATUTE IS INAPPLICABLE IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE THERE IS NO PLAIN,
ADEQUATE, AND COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW.  FN16  THIS IS SUCH A CASE, FOR
HERE THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT OF A TAX PAYABLE BY RESPONDENT BUT OF A
PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COLLECT IT FROM ANOTHER.  THE ARGUMENT THAT NO
REMEDY NEED BE AFFORDED THE RESPONDENT IS BOTTOMED ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT IT IS A MERE COLLECTING AGENT WHICH CANNOT BE HURT BY COLLECTING
AND PAYING OVER THE TAX; BUT THIS ARGUMENT ASSUMES FIRST, THAT
RESPONDENT DID IN TRUTH COLLECT A TAX AND, SECOND, THAT THE IMPOSITION
OF THE TAX ON THE PURCHASE OF ADMISSIONS CANNOT BURDEN A STATE
ACTIVITY.  THIS IS ARGUING IN A CIRCLE, FOR THESE ARE THE SUBSTANTIAL
MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY.  WE HOLD THAT THE BILL STATES A CASE IN EQUITY
AS, UPON THE SHOWING MADE, THE RESPONDENT WAS UNABLE BY ANY OTHER
PROCEEDING ADEQUATELY TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORT TO ENFORCE PAYMENT. 

THIRD.  WE COME THEN TO THE MERITS.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES WE ASSUME
THE TRUTH OF THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE RESPONDENT:
THAT IT IS A PUBLIC INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT CARRYING
OUT A PART OF THE STATE'S PROGRAM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION; THAT PUBLIC
EDUCATION IS A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION; THAT THE HOLDING OF ATHLETIC
CONTESTS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PROGRAM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
CONDUCTED BY GEORGIA; THAT THE MEANS BY WHICH THE STATE CARRIES OUT
THAT PROGRAM ARE FOR DETERMINATION BY THE STATE AUTHORITIES, AND THEIR
DETERMINATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY ANY BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT; THAT A STATE ACTIVITY DOES NOT CEASE TO BE GOVERNMENTAL
BECAUSE IT PRODUCES SOME INCOME; THAT THE TAX IS IMPOSED DIRECTLY ON
THE STATE ACTIVITY AND DIRECTLY BURDENS THAT ACTIVITY; THAT THE BURDEN
OF COLLECTING THE TAX IS PLACED IMMEDIATELY ON A STATE AGENCY.  THE
PETITIONER STOUTLY COMBATS MANY OF THESE PROPOSITIONS.  WE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO PASS UPON THEIR VALIDITY SINCE, EVEN IF ALL ARE ACCEPTED,
WE THINK THE TAX WAS LAWFULLY IMPOSED AND THE RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGATED
TO COLLECT, RETURN AND PAY IT TO THE UNITED STATES. 

THE RECORD DISCLOSES THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS:  THE STADIUM OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA HAS A SEATING CAPACITY OF 30,000, COST $180,000,
AND WAS PAID FOR BY BORROWED MONEY WHICH IS BEING REPAID BY THE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, WHOSE CHIEF SOURCE OF REVENUE IS ADMISSIONS TO
THE CONTESTS IN THE STADIUM.  $158,000 OF THE AMOUNT BORROWED HAS BEEN
REPAID SINCE THE STADIUM WAS COMPLETED IN 1929.  THE STUDENT ENROLLMENT
IS ABOUT 2,400.  EACH STUDENT PAYS AN ANNUAL ATHLETIC FEE OF $10.00
WHICH CONFERS THE PRIVILEGE OF FREE ADMISSION TO ALL THE SCHOOL'S
ATHLETIC EVENTS.  ALL ADMISSIONS COLLECTED, AND THE TAX PAID ON THEM,
ARE PAID BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC, NONE BY THE STUDENTS.  FN17 THE TOTAL
RECEIPTS OF THE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION FROM ALL SOURCES FOR THE YEAR
ENDING AUGUST 31, 1935, WERE $91,620.25 OF WHICH $71,323.27 CAME FROM
ADMISSIONS TO FOOTBALL GAMES. 

THE STADIUM OF THE GEORGIA SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY HAS A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 29,000.  IT COST $275,000 AND WAS PAID FOR BY A GIFT OF
$50,000 AND FROM ADMISSIONS CHARGED AND STUDENT FEES.  THE ENROLLMENT
IS ABOUT 2,000 STUDENTS, EACH OF WHOM PAYS AN ANNUAL ATHLETIC FEE OF
$7.50 WHICH GIVES THE PRIVILEGE OF FREE ADMISSION TO ALL GAMES.  ALL
ADMISSIONS COLLECTED, AND THE TAX PAID ON THEM, ARE PAID BY THE GENERAL
PUBLIC, NONE BY THE STUDENTS.  FN17  THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1934, WERE
$119,436.75 OF WHICH $74,168.51 CAME FROM ADMISSIONS TO FOOTBALL
GAMES. 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE EXHIBITION ENTERPRISES ARE COMPARATIVELY
LARGE AND ARE THE MEANS OF PROCURING SUBSTANTIAL AID FOR THE SCHOOLS'
PROGRAMS OF ATHLETICS AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION.  IN FINAL ANALYSIS THE
QUESTION WE MUST DECIDE IS WHETHER, BY ELECTING TO SUPPORT A
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY THROUGH THE CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS COMPARABLE IN
ALL ESSENTIALS TO THOSE USUALLY CONDUCTED BY PRIVATE OWNERS, A STATE
MAY WITHDRAW THE BUSINESS FROM THE FIELD OF FEDERAL TAXATION. 

WHEN A STATE EMBARKS IN A BUSINESS WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE TAXABLE,
THE FACT THAT IN SO DOING IT IS EXERCISING A GOVERNMENTAL POWER DOES
NOT RENDER THE ACTIVITY IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL TAXATION.  IN SOUTH
CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437, IT APPEARED THAT SOUTH
CAROLINA HAD ESTABLISHED DISPENSARIES FOR THE SALE OF LIQUOR AND
PROHIBITED SALE BY OTHER THAN OFFICIAL DISPENSERS.  IT WAS HELD THAT
THE UNITED STATES COULD REQUIRE THE DISPENSERS TO TAKE LICENSES AND TO
PAY LICENSE TAXES UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS APPLICABLE TO DEALERS
IN INTOXICATING LIQUORS, AND THIS NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATE HAD
ESTABLISHED THE DISPENSARY SYSTEM IN THE VALID EXERCISE OF HER POLICE
POWER.  IN OHIO V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360, IT WAS SHOWN THAT OHIO, IN
THE EXERCISE OF THE SAME POWER, HAD CREATED A MONOPOLY OF THE
DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS THROUGH STORES OWNED,
MANAGED, AND CONTROLLED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE STATE.  IT WAS SOUGHT TO
ENJOIN THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND HIS SUBORDINATES FROM
ENFORCING AGAINST THE STATE, HER OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYES,
PENALTIES FOR THE NONPAYMENT OF FEDERAL EXCISES ON THE SALE OF LIQUOR. 
RELIEF WAS DENIED AND THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA CASE
WERE REAFFIRMED.  IN HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S. 214, THE COURT FOUND
THAT MASSACHUSETTS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER, HAD APPOINTED
A BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO OPERATE A STREET RAILWAY COMPANY'S PROPERTIES
FOR A LIMITED TIME.  IT WAS HELD THAT THOUGH THE TRUSTEES WERE STATE
OFFICERS, THEIR SALARIES WERE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX BECAUSE THE
STATE COULD NOT WITHDRAW SOURCES OF REVENUE FROM THE FEDERAL TAXING
POWER BY ENGAGING IN A BUSINESS WHICH WENT BEYOND USUAL GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS AND TO WHICH, BY REASON OF ITS NATURE, THE FEDERAL TAXING
POWER WOULD NORMALLY EXTEND. 

THE LEGISLATION CONSIDERED IN SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
PROVIDED FOR A DIVISION OF THE PROFITS OF THE DISPENSARY SYSTEM BETWEEN
THE STATE TREASURY AND CITIES AND COUNTIES.  THUS THE ENTERPRISE
CONTRIBUTED DIRECTLY TO THE SUSTENANCE OF EVERY GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY
OF THE STATE.  IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, INSTEAD OF COVERING THE
PROCEEDS OR PROFITS OF THE EXHIBITIONS INTO THE STATE TREASURY, THE
PLAN IN ACTUAL OPERATION APPROPRIATES THESE MONIES IN EASE OF WHAT THE
STATE DEEMS ITS GOVERNMENTAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC
EDUCATION.  THE DIFFERENCE IN METHOD IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.  THE IMPORTANT
FACT IS THAT THE STATE, IN ORDER TO RAISE FUNDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES,
HAS EMBARKED IN A BUSINESS HAVING THE INCIDENTS OF SIMILAR ENTERPRISES
USUALLY PROSECUTED FOR PRIVATE GAIN.  IF IT BE CONCEDED THAT THE
EDUCATION OF ITS PROSPECTIVE CITIZENS IS AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION OF GEORGIA, AS NECESSARY TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE STATE AS
IS THE MAINTENANCE OF ITS EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL
BRANCHES, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IF THE STATE ELECTS TO PROVIDE THE
FUNDS FOR ANY OF THESE PURPOSES BY CONDUCTING A BUSINESS, THE
APPLICATION OF THE AVAILS IN AID OF NECESSARY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS
WITHDRAWS THE BUSINESS FROM THE FIELD OF FEDERAL TAXATION. 

UNDER THE TEST LAID DOWN IN HELVERING V. GERHARDT, ANTE, P. 405,
HOWEVER ESSENTIAL A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE
STATE, THE CONDUCT OF EXHIBITIONS FOR ADMISSIONS PAID BY THE PUBLIC IS
NOT SUCH A FUNCTION OF STATE GOVERNMENT AS TO BE FREE FROM THE BURDEN
OF A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX LAID ON ALL ADMISSIONS TO PUBLIC
EXHIBITIONS FOR WHICH AN ADMISSION FEE IS CHARGED. 

THE OPINION IN SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AT PAGES 454
457, POINTS OUT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE FEDERAL POWER TO TAX WHICH MIGHT
RESULT FROM A CONTRARY DECISION.  FN18 

MOREOVER, THE IMMUNITY IMPLIED FROM THE DUAL SOVEREIGNTY RECOGNIZED
BY THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO BUSINESS ENTERPRISES CONDUCTED
BY THE STATES FOR GAIN.  AS WAS SAID IN SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, AT P. 457:  "LOOKING, THEREFORE, AT THE CONSTITUTION IN
THE LIGHT OF THE CONDITIONS SURROUNDING AT THE TIME OF ITS ADOPTION, IT
IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FRAMERS IN GRANTING FULL POWER OVER LICENSE TAXES
TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT MEANT THAT THAT POWER SHOULD BE COMPLETE,
AND NEVER THOUGHT THAT THE STATES BY EXTENDING THEIR FUNCTIONS COULD
PRACTICALLY DESTROY IT."  COMPARE HELVERING V. THERRELL, 303 U.S. 218. 
THE DECREE IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THE DEFENDANT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS W. E. PAGE, THE
PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE.  THAT COURT DISMISSED THE BILL.  10
F.SUPP.  901.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  81 F.2D 577. 
AFTER ANSWER AND A HEARING ON THE MERITS THE DISTRICT COURT AWARDED AN
INJUNCTION.  18 F.SUPP.  62.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PERMITTED
THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE PETITIONER FOR PAGE AND AFFIRMED THE DECREE BY
A DIVIDED COURT.  93 F.2D 887. 

FN2  C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, 91; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SECS. 940-944. 

FN3  C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, 271; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 940(A)(2). 

FN4  EXEMPTIONS TOUCHING ADMISSIONS OF CERTAIN PERSONS AND ALL
ADMISSIONS TO SPECIFIED TYPES OF ENTERTAINMENT OR EXHIBITIONS ARE NOT
INVOLVED.  SUBSECTION (E), 47 STAT. 271. 

FN5  44 STAT. 112; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 960. 

FN6  44 STAT. 116; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SECS. 494, 856, 921. 

FN7  C. 277, 48 STAT. 680, 768; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 1551. 

FN8  U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 1580. 

FN9  PENNOYER V. MCCONNAUGHY, 140 U.S. 1, 10; UNITED STATES EX REL.
BERNARDIN V. BUTTERWORTH, 169 U.S. 600, 603-604; PHILADELPHIA COMPANY
V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 620-621; IRWIN V. WRIGHT, 258 U.S. 219, 222. 

FN10  SEE EX PARTE LA PRADE, 289 U.S. 444, 456-459. 

FN11 C. 229, 43 STAT. 936, U.S.C. TIT. 28, SEC. 780. 

FN12  U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 1543. 

FN13  COMPARE SHANNOPIN COUNTRY CLUB V. HEINER, 2 F.2D 393; LAFAYETTE
WORSTED CO. V. PAGE, 6 F.2D 399; UNION PACIFIC RY. CO. V. BOWERS, 33
F.2D 102; WOURDACK V. BECKER, 55 F.2D 840; BUT SEE BUILDERS' CLUB V.
UNITED STATES, 14 F.SUPP.  1020. 

FN14  U.S.C. TIT. 31, SEC. 203. 

FN15  "NO SUIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING THE ASSESSMENT OR
COLLECTION OF ANY TAX SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT."  U.S.C. TIT.
26, SEC. 1543. 

FN16  MILLER V. STANDARD NUT MARGARINE CO., 284 U.S. 498, 509. 

FN17  STUDENT ATHLETIC FEES ARE NOT TREATED AS ADMISSIONS SUBJECT TO
THE TAX.  SEE CUMULATIVE BULLETIN XI-2(JULY-DECEMBER 1932), P. 522. 

FN18  "MINGLING THE THOUGHT OF PROFIT WITH THE NECESSITY OF
REGULATION MAY INDUCE THE STATE TO TAKE POSSESSION, IN LIKE MANNER, OF
TOBACCO, OLEOMARGARINE, AND ALL OTHER OBJECTS OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAX. 
IF ONE STATE FINDS IT THUS PROFITABLE OTHER STATES MAY FOLLOW, AND THE
WHOLE BODY OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAX BE THUS STRICKEN DOWN."  (P. 454.) 

"THE SAME ARGUMENT WHICH WOULD EXEMPT THE SALE BY A STATE OF LIQUOR,
TOBACCO, ETC., FROM A LICENSE TAX WOULD EXEMPT THE IMPORTATION OF
MERCHANDISE BY A STATE FROM IMPORT DUTY."  (P. 455.)  (COMPARE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 48, 59.) 

"OBVIOUSLY, IF THE POWER OF THE STATE IS CARRIED TO THE EXTENT
SUGGESTED, AND WITH IT IS RELIEF FROM ALL FEDERAL TAXATION, THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BE LARGELY CRIPPLED IN ITS REVENUES.  INDEED,
IF ALL THE STATES SHOULD CONCUR IN EXERCISING THEIR POWERS TO THE FULL
EXTENT, IT WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NATION TO COLLECT ANY
REVENUES.  IN OTHER WORDS, IN THIS INDIRECT WAY IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE
COMPETENCY OF THE STATES TO PRACTICALLY DESTROY THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT."  (P. 455.) 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 

CONGRESS, BY R.S. SEC. 3224, HAS DECLARED THAT "NO SUIT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING THE ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX SHALL BE
MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT."  WHILE I AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT
ON THE MERITS, I AM NOT PERSUADED THAT THIS STATUTE DOES NOT MEAN WHAT
IT SAYS, OR THAT THE SUIT IS NOT ONE TO RESTRAIN COLLECTION OF THE
TAX.  I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE, AS I DID IN MILLER V. STANDARD NUT MARGARINE
CO., 284 U.S. 498, 511, THAT THE STATUTE DEPRIVED THE DISTRICT COURT OF
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN RESPONDENT'S SUIT, AND THAT THE JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE REVERSED WITH DIRECTION THAT THE CAUSE BE DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURRING IN THE RESULT. 

EXCEPT FOR THE HOLDING THAT INJUNCTION IS A PROPER REMEDY TO TEST THE
POSITION OF THE REGENTS, I AGREE WITH THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  AS
EVEN A SMALL BREACH IN THE GENERAL SCHEME OF TAXATION GIVES AN OPENING
FOR THE DISORGANIZATION OF THE WHOLE PLAN, IT SEEMS DESIRABLE TO
EXPRESS DISSENT FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT THE REGENTS MAY UTILIZE THE
SUMMARY REMEDY OF INJUNCTION, OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT, AS
A MEANS OF TESTING THE APPLICABILITY OF A TAX LAW TO THEM. 

THE FACTS SET OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND AGREEMENT
UNDER WHICH THE MONEY THREATENED TO BE DISTRAINED WAS COLLECTED MAKE IT
QUITE CLEAR, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT THE REGENTS COLLECTED TAX MONEYS FROM
THE SPECTATORS.  ANY ALLEGATION IN THE PETITION TO THE CONTRARY IS AN
ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION OF LAW.  THE COLLECTOR SOUGHT TO COVER THIS MONEY
INTO THE TREASURY.  SECTION 502(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926; FN1
SEC. 607 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934  FN2  AND SEC. 3224 OF THE REVISED
STATUTES  FN3  MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO INJUNCTION WILL LIE TO RESTRAIN
SUCH ACTION.  FN4 

BY THE COURTS WITHOUT DEVIATION.  EXCEPTIONS WERE MADE TO PROTECT
TAXPAYERS AGAINST COLLECTION OF PENALTIES.  FN5  IN AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE
OF "SPECIAL AND EXTRAORDINARY" CIRCUMSTANCES,  FN6  WHERE A "VALID  ...
TAX COULD BY NO LEGAL POSSIBILITY HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AGAINST
RESPONDENT  ..."  THIS COURT PERMITTED AN INJUNCTION.  "SPECIAL AND
EXTRAORDINARY" CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE MULTIPLIED.  HERE THE LOWER COURT
FOUND THEM "DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT THE REGENTS HAD ACTUALLY PAID
THE TAX IN FORMER YEARS, AND FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND WHICH WAS DENIED
ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD NOT BORNE THE BURDEN OF ANY PART THEREOF." 
IT MAY BE ASSUMED, AND PETITIONER ADMITS, THAT RESPONDENTS MAY NOT PAY
THE MONEYS AND THEN SUE TO RECOVER THEM.  THE FALLACY UNDERLYING THE
OPINION OF THE COURT IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOME REMEDY IS NECESSARY. 
RESPONDENTS, BEING MERELY COLLECTORS OF TAX MONEYS, ARE NOT ENTITLED
EITHER TO ENJOIN COLLECTION OF THESE MONEYS OR TO PAY AND SUE TO
RECOVER THEM. 

THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE STATE OF GEORGIA SHOULD RISK OR ASK ITS
AGENTS TO RISK PENALTIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS TAX IS COLLECTIBLE. 
RESPONDENTS WOULD LOSE NOTHING BY COLLECTING THE TAX AND TURNING IT
OVER TO THE UNITED STATES.  IF THEY DESIRE TO STAND UPON THEIR OWN
CONCEPTION OF THE LAW AND REFUSE TO COLLECT THE TAX, THEY MUST TAKE THE
RISKS OF SUCH ACTION.  EVERY OTHER TAXPAYER OR COLLECTOR OF ADMISSION
TAXES MUST MAKE THE SAME CHOICE. 

THE PROMPT COLLECTION OF REVENUE IS ESSENTIAL TO GOOD GOVERNMENT. 
SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS ARE A MATTER OF RIGHT.  FN7  THE GOVERNMENT HAS
BEEN SEDULOUS TO MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF CORRECTIVE JUSTICE.  FN8  ANY
DEPARTURE FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF "PAY FIRST AND LITIGATE LATER"
THREATENS AN ESSENTIAL SAFEGUARD TO THE ORDERLY FUNCTIONING OF
GOVERNMENT.  HERE AN INJUNCTION IS APPROVED WHEN THE PETITIONER BELOW
HAD LITTLE MORE LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX THAN A
CURIOSITY TO KNOW WHETHER THE CUSTOMERS OF ITS ATHLETIC SPECTACLES, THE
REAL TAXPAYERS, WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO SUCH AN EXACTION. 

I AM AUTHORIZED TO SAY THAT MR. JUSTICE STONE CONCURS IN THIS
OPINION.  MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THIS OPINION EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS
IT APPROVES THE REASONING OF THE COURT ON THE QUESTION OF STATE
IMMUNITY FROM INTERFERENCE BY FEDERAL TAXATION. 

FN1  SEC. 502(A).  EVERY PERSON RECEIVING ANY PAYMENTS FOR SUCH
ADMISSION, DUES, OR FEES SHALL COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY
ORGANIZATION HAVING LIFE MEMBERS SHALL COLLECT FROM SUCH MEMBERS THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTION 501.  SUCH PERSONS SHALL MAKE
MONTHLY RETURNS UNDER OATH, IN DUPLICATE, AND PAY THE TAXES SO
COLLECTED TO THE COLLECTOR OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PRINCIPAL
OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS IS LOCATED.  (U.S.C., TITLE 26, SECS. 955,
956.) 

FN2  SEC. 607.  ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY FOR TAXES COLLECTED. 
WHENEVER ANY PERSON IS REQUIRED TO COLLECT OR WITHHOLD ANY INTERNAL
REVENUE TAX FROM ANY OTHER PERSON AND TO PAY SUCH TAX OVER TO THE
UNITED STATES, THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX SO COLLECTED OR WITHHELD SHALL BE
HELD TO BE A SPECIAL FUND IN TRUST FOR THE UNITED STATES.  THE AMOUNT
OF SUCH FUND SHALL BE ASSESSED, COLLECTED, AND PAID IN THE SAME MANNER
AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME PROVISIONS AND LIMITATIONS (INCLUDING
PENALTIES) AS ARE APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE TAXES FROM WHICH SUCH
FUND AROSE.  (U.S.C., TITLE 26, SEC. 1551.) 

FN3  SEC. 3224.  NO SUIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTRAINING THE
ASSESSMENT OR COLLECTION OF ANY TAX SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT. 
(U.S.C., TITLE 26, SEC. 1543.) 

FN4  GOUGE V. HART, 250 F. 802(W.D. VA.), APPEAL DISMISSED, 251 U.S.
542; RALSTON V. HEINER, 24 F.2D 416(C.C.A. 3D); CALKINS V. SMIETANKA,
240 F. 138(N.D. ILL.); SEAMAN V. GUARANTY TRUST CO., 1 F.2D
391(S.D.N.Y.). 

FN5  LIPKE V. LEDERER, 259 U.S. 557; REGAL DRUG CORP. V. WARDELL, 260
U.S. 386. 

FN6  MILLER V. NUT MARGARINE CO., 284 U.S. 498. 

FN7  CHEATHAM V. UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 85, 88, 89. 

FN8  COMPARE ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION. 

SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX, THE UNIVERSITY IS THE
STATE.  IT IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY CARRYING ON THE STATE'S PROGRAM OF
PUBLIC EDUCATION.  THE HOLDING OF THE ATHLETIC CONTESTS IN QUESTION IS
AN INTEGRAL PART OF THAT PROGRAM AND DOES NOT CEASE TO BE SUCH BECAUSE
IT PRODUCES INCOME.  THE TAX IS IMPOSED DIRECTLY ON AND BURDENS THAT
ACTIVITY OF THE STATE.  THE COURT ASSUMES THE FACTS ABOVE STATED AND
DECIDES THE CASE ON THAT BASIS.  THE TAX IS LAID ON THE CHARGE PAID FOR
ADMISSION, IS TO BE BORNE BY THE PERSON PAYING FOR ADMISSION, AND IS TO
BE COLLECTED BY THE STATE AND HANDED OVER TO THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS
HARD TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE COLLECTION BY THE STATE OF FEES FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF ATTENDANCE BRINGS, EVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF FEDERAL
TAXATION, ITS WORK OF EDUCATION TO THE LEVEL OF SELLING INTOXICATING
LIQUOR, SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437; OHIO V.
HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360, OPERATING A RAILWAY, HELVERING V. POWERS, 293
U.S. 214, OR CONDUCTING ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.  THE TAX SEEMS
PLAINLY WITHIN THE RULE OF STATE IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL TAXATION AS
HITHERTO UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED.  I WOULD AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :














JOHNSON V. ZERBST, 304 U.S. 458 


NO. 699.  ARGUED APRIL 4, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 23, 1938.  - 92 F.2D 748,
REVERSED. 


1.  A PERSON CHARGED WITH CRIME IN A FEDERAL COURT IS ENTITLED BY THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE.  P. 462. 

2.  THIS RIGHT MAY BE WAIVED; BUT THE WAIVER MUST BE AN INTELLIGENT
ONE; AND WHETHER THERE WAS SUCH MUST DEPEND UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING BACKGROUND, EXPERIENCE, AND CONDUCT OF
ACCUSED.  P. 464. 

3.  IT IS A DUTY OF A FEDERAL COURT IN THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE
TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO COUNSEL, AND, IF HE HAS NO
COUNSEL, TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE HAS INTELLIGENTLY AND COMPETENTLY
WAIVED THE RIGHT.  IT WOULD BE FITTING THAT SUCH DETERMINATION BE MADE
A MATTER OF RECORD.  P. 465. 

4.  IF THE ACCUSED IS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND HAS NOT
COMPETENTLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT STANDS AS A JURISDICTIONAL BAR TO A VALID CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS LIFE OR HIS LIBERTY.  P. 468. 

5.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WAS INTELLIGENTLY
AND COMPETENTLY WAIVED BY THE PRISONER AT HIS TRIAL MAY BE DETERMINED
IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS ON PROOFS ALIUNDE.  P. 467. 

JOHNSON V. ZERBST, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 629, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT DISCHARGING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  SEE 13
F.SUPP.  253. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, WHILE IMPRISONED IN A FEDERAL PENITENTIARY, WAS DENIED
HABEAS CORPUS BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  FN1  LATER, THAT COURT GRANTED
PETITIONER A SECOND HEARING, PROMPTED BY "THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THE CASE AND THE DESIRE OF THE COURT TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT ANY ADDITIONAL FACTS AND VIEWS WHICH PETITIONER DESIRED TO
PRESENT."  UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND PETITION, THE COURT FOUND
THAT IT DID "NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFER FROM THE" FIRST, "AND FOR THE
REASONS STATED IN THE DECISION IN THAT CASE" THE SECOND PETITION WAS
ALSO DENIED. 

PETITIONER IS SERVING SENTENCE UNDER A CONVICTION IN A UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR POSSESSING AND UTTERING COUNTERFEIT MONEY.  IT
APPEARS FROM THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE DENYING HABEAS CORPUS
THAT HE BELIEVED PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED, IN THE TRIAL COURT, OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT THAT
"IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT  ...
TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE."  FN2  HOWEVER, HE
HELD THAT PROCEEDINGS DEPRIVING PETITIONER OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WERE NOT SUFFICIENT "TO MAKE THE TRIAL VOID
AND JUSTIFY ITS ANNULMENT IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, BUT THAT THEY
CONSTITUTED TRIAL ERRORS OR IRREGULARITIES WHICH COULD ONLY BE
CORRECTED ON APPEAL." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED  FN3  AND WE GRANTED CERTIORARI DUE TO
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED.  FN4 

THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT: 

PETITIONER AND ONE BRIDWELL WERE ARRESTED IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH
CAROLINA, NOVEMBER 21, 1934, CHARGED WITH FELONIOUSLY UTTERING AND
PASSING FOUR COUNTERFEIT TWENTY-DOLLAR FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES AND
POSSESSING TWENTY-ONE SUCH NOTES.  BOTH WERE THEN ENLISTED MEN IN THE
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, ON LEAVE.  THEY WERE BOUND OVER TO AWAIT
ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES GRAND JURY, BUT WERE KEPT IN JAIL DUE TO
INABILITY TO GIVE BAIL.  JANUARY 21, 1935, THEY WERE INDICTED; JANUARY
23, 1935, THEY WERE TAKEN TO COURT AND THERE FIRST GIVEN NOTICE OF THE
INDICTMENT; IMMEDIATELY WERE ARRAIGNED, TRIED, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED
THAT DAY TO FOUR AND ONE-HALF YEARS IN THE PENITENTIARY; AND JANUARY
25, WERE TRANSPORTED TO THE FEDERAL PENITENTIARY IN ATLANTA.  WHILE
COUNSEL HAD REPRESENTED THEM IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS BEFORE THE
COMMISSIONER IN WHICH THEY - SOME TWO MONTHS BEFORE THEIR TRIAL - WERE
BOUND OVER TO THE GRAND JURY, THE ACCUSED WERE UNABLE TO EMPLOY COUNSEL
FOR THEIR TRIAL.  UPON ARRAIGNMENT, BOTH PLEADED NOT GUILTY, SAID THAT
THEY HAD NO LAWYER, AND - IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY OF THE COURT -
STATED THAT THEY WERE READY FOR TRIAL.  THEY WERE THEN TRIED, CONVICTED
AND SENTENCED, WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

"BOTH PETITIONERS LIVED IN DISTANT CITIES OF OTHER STATES AND NEITHER
HAD RELATIVES, FRIENDS, OR ACQUAINTANCES IN CHARLESTON.  BOTH HAD
LITTLE EDUCATION AND WERE WITHOUT FUNDS.  THEY TESTIFIED THAT THEY HAD
NEVER BEEN GUILTY OF NOR CHARGED WITH ANY OFFENSE BEFORE, AND THERE WAS
NO EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL OF THESE STATEMENTS."  FN5  IN THE HABEAS
CORPUS HEARING, PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE DEVELOPED THAT NO REQUEST WAS
DIRECTED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE TO APPOINT COUNSEL, BUT THAT SUCH REQUEST
WAS MADE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHO REPLIED THAT IN THE STATE OF
TRIAL (SOUTH CAROLINA) THE COURT DID NOT APPOINT COUNSEL UNLESS THE
DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH A CAPITAL CRIME.  THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
DENIED THAT PETITIONER MADE REQUEST TO HIM FOR COUNSEL OR THAT HE HAD
INDICATED PETITIONER HAD NO RIGHT TO COUNSEL.  THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY TESTIFIED THAT BRIDWELL "CROSS-EXAMINED THE WITNESSES"; AND,
IN HIS OPINION, DISPLAYED MORE KNOWLEDGE OF PROCEDURE THAN THE NORMAL
LAYMAN WOULD POSSESS.  HE DID NOT RECALL WHETHER BRIDWELL ADDRESSED THE
JURY OR NOT, BUT THE CLERK OF THE TRIAL COURT TESTIFIED "THAT MR.
JOHNSON (BRIDWELL?)  CONDUCTED HIS DEFENCE ABOUT AS WELL AS THE AVERAGE
LAYMAN USUALLY DOES IN CASES OF A SIMILAR NATURE."  CONCERNING WHAT HE
SAID TO THE JURY AND HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES, BRIDWELL
TESTIFIED "I TRIED TO SPEAK TO THE JURY AFTER THE EVIDENCE WAS IN
DURING MY TRIAL OVER IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.  I TOLD
THE JURY, 'I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF A HOODLUM AS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
HAS MADE ME OUT SEVERAL TIMES.'  I TOLD THE JURY THAT I WAS NOT A
NATIVE OF NEW YORK AS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY STATED, BUT WAS FROM
MISSISSIPPI AND ONLY STATIONED FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN NEW YORK.  I
ONLY SAID FIFTEEN OR TWENTY WORDS.  I SAID I DIDN'T THINK I WAS A
HOODLUM AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ONE OF VERY LONG STANDING BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T KEEP THEM IN THE MARINE CORPS. 

"I OBJECTED TO ONE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.  I DIDN'T ASK HIM ANY
QUESTIONS, I ONLY OBJECTED TO HIS WHOLE TESTIMONY.  AFTER THE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY WAS FINISHED WITH THE WITNESS, HE SAID, 'YOUR
WITNESS,' AND I GOT UP AND OBJECTED TO THE TESTIMONY ON THE GROUNDS
THAT IT WAS ALL FALSE, AND THE TRIAL JUDGE SAID ANY OBJECTION I HAD I
WOULD HAVE TO BRING PROOF OR DISPROOF." 

REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE ON THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, THE
DISTRICT COURT SAID  FN6  THAT, AFTER TRIAL, PETITIONER AND JOHNSON "
...  WERE REMANDED TO JAIL, WHERE THEY ASKED THE JAILER TO CALL A
LAWYER FOR THEM, BUT WERE NOT PERMITTED TO CONTACT ONE.  THEY DID NOT,
HOWEVER, UNDERTAKE TO GET ANY MESSAGE TO THE JUDGE. 

"  ...  JANUARY 25TH, THEY WERE TRANSPORTED BY AUTOMOBILE TO THE
FEDERAL PENITENTIARY IN ATLANTA, GA., ARRIVING  ...  THE SAME DAY. 

"THERE, AS IS THE CUSTOM, THEY WERE PLACED IN ISOLATION AND SO KEPT
FOR SIXTEEN DAYS WITHOUT BEING PERMITTED TO COMMUNICATE WITH ANY ONE
EXCEPT THE OFFICERS OF THE INSTITUTION, BUT THEY DID SEE THE OFFICERS
DAILY.  THEY MADE NO REQUEST OF THE OFFICERS TO BE PERMITTED TO SEE A
LAWYER, NOR DID THEY ASK THE OFFICERS TO PRESENT TO THE TRIAL JUDGE A
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR NOTICE THAT THEY
DESIRED TO MOVE FOR A NEW TRIAL OR TO TAKE AN APPEAL. 

"ON MAY 15, 1935, PETITIONERS FILED APPLICATIONS FOR APPEAL WHICH
WERE DENIED BECAUSE FILED TOO LATE." 

THE "  ...  TIME FOR FILING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND FOR TAKING AN
APPEAL HAS BEEN LIMITED TO THREE AND FIVE DAYS."  FN7 

ONE.  THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES THAT "IN ALL CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT  ...  TO HAVE THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE."  THIS IS ONE OF THE SAFEGUARDS
OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT DEEMED NECESSARY TO INSURE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN
RIGHTS OF LIFE AND LIBERTY.  OMITTED FROM THE CONSTITUTION AS
ORIGINALLY ADOPTED, PROVISIONS OF THIS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS WERE
SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST CONGRESS CONVENED UNDER THAT CONSTITUTION AS
ESSENTIAL BARRIERS AGAINST ARBITRARY OR UNJUST DEPRIVATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS.  THE SIXTH AMENDMENT STANDS AS A CONSTANT ADMONITION THAT IF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS IT PROVIDES BE LOST, JUSTICE WILL NOT
"STILL BE DONE."  FN8  IT EMBODIES A REALISTIC RECOGNITION OF THE
OBVIOUS TRUTH THAT THE AVERAGE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE THE PROFESSIONAL
LEGAL SKILL TO PROTECT HIMSELF WHEN BROUGHT BEFORE A TRIBUNAL WITH
POWER TO TAKE HIS LIFE OR LIBERTY, WHEREIN THE PROSECUTION IS PRESENTED
BY EXPERIENCED AND LEARNED COUNSEL.  THAT WHICH IS SIMPLE, ORDERLY AND
NECESSARY TO THE LAWYER, TO THE UNTRAINED LAYMAN MAY APPEAR INTRICATE,
COMPLEX AND MYSTERIOUS.  CONSISTENTLY WITH THE WISE POLICY OF THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT AND OTHER PARTS OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL CHARTER, THIS COURT HAS
POINTED TO "  ...  THE HUMANE POLICY OF THE MODERN CRIMINAL LAW  ...  "
WHICH NOW PROVIDES THAT A DEFENDANT "  ...  IF HE BE POOR,  ...  MAY
HAVE COUNSEL FURNISHED HIM BY THE STATE  ...  NOT INFREQUENTLY  ...
MORE ABLE THAN THE ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE."  FN9 

THE "  ...  RIGHT TO BE HEARD WOULD BE, IN MANY CASES, OF LITTLE
AVAIL IF IT DID NOT COMPREHEND THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY COUNSEL.  EVEN
THE INTELLIGENT AND EDUCATED LAYMAN HAS SMALL AND SOMETIMES NO SKILL IN
THE SCIENCE OF LAW.  IF CHARGED WITH CRIME, HE IS INCAPABLE, GENERALLY,
OF DETERMINING FOR HIMSELF WHETHER THE INDICTMENT IS GOOD OR BAD.  HE
IS UNFAMILIAR WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.  LEFT WITHOUT THE AID OF
COUNSEL HE MAY BE PUT ON TRIAL WITHOUT A PROPER CHARGE, AND CONVICTED
UPON INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE, OR EVIDENCE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OR
OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE.  HE LACKS BOTH THE SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE
ADEQUATELY TO PREPARE HIS DEFENCE, EVEN THOUGH HE HAVE A PERFECT ONE. 
HE REQUIRES THE GUIDING HAND OF COUNSEL AT EVERY STEP IN THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM."  FN10  THE SIXTH AMENDMENT WITHHOLDS FROM
FEDERAL COURTS,  FN11  IN ALL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THE POWER AND
AUTHORITY TO DEPRIVE AN ACCUSED OF HIS LIFE OR LIBERTY UNLESS HE HAS OR
WAIVES THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 

TWO.  THERE IS INSISTENCE HERE THAT PETITIONER WAIVED THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT SO FIND.  IT HAS BEEN
POINTED OUT THAT "COURTS INDULGE EVERY REASONABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST
WAIVER" OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS  FN12  AND THAT WE "DO NOT
PRESUME ACQUIESCENCE IN THE LOSS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS."  FN13  A
WAIVER IS ORDINARILY AN INTENTIONAL RELINQUISHMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A
KNOWN RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE.  THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN
AN INTELLIGENT WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL MUST DEPEND, IN EACH
CASE, UPON THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THAT
CASE, INCLUDING THE BACKGROUND, EXPERIENCE, AND CONDUCT OF THE
ACCUSED. 

PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276, DECIDED THAT AN ACCUSED MAY,
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSENT TO A JURY OF ELEVEN AND WAIVE THE
RIGHT TO TRIAL AND VERDICT BY A CONSTITUTIONAL JURY OF TWELVE MEN.  THE
QUESTION OF WAIVER WAS THERE CONSIDERED ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE
CONVICTION, AND NOT BY COLLATERAL ATTACK ON HABEAS CORPUS.  HOWEVER,
THAT DECISION MAY BE HELPFUL IN INDICATING HOW, AND IN WHAT MANNER, AN
ACCUSED MAY - BEFORE HIS TRIAL RESULTS IN FINAL JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION
- WAIVE THE RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  THE PATTON CASE NOTED
APPROVINGLY A STATE COURT DECISION  FN14  POINTING OUT THAT THE HUMANE
POLICY OF MODERN CRIMINAL LAW HAD ALTERED CONDITIONS WHICH HAD EXISTED
IN THE "DAYS WHEN THE ACCUSED COULD NOT TESTIFY IN HIS OWN BEHALF,
(AND) WAS NOT FURNISHED COUNSEL," AND WHICH HAD MADE IT POSSIBLE TO
CONVICT A MAN WHEN HE WAS "WITHOUT MONEY, WITHOUT COUNSEL, WITHOUT
ABILITY TO SUMMON WITNESSES AND NOT PERMITTED TO TELL HIS OWN STORY,
...  " 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
INVOKES, OF ITSELF, THE PROTECTION OF A TRIAL COURT, IN WHICH THE
ACCUSED - WHOSE LIFE OR LIBERTY IS AT STAKE - IS WITHOUT COUNSEL.  THIS
PROTECTING DUTY IMPOSES THE SERIOUS AND WEIGHTY RESPONSIBILITY UPON THE
TRIAL JUDGE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS AN INTELLIGENT AND
COMPETENT WAIVER BY THE ACCUSED.  WHILE AN ACCUSED MAY WAIVE THE RIGHT
TO COUNSEL, WHETHER THERE IS A PROPER WAIVER SHOULD BE CLEARLY
DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL COURT, AND IT WOULD BE FITTING AND APPROPRIATE
FOR THAT DETERMINATION TO APPEAR UPON THE RECORD. 

THREE.  THE DISTRICT COURT, HOLDING PETITIONER COULD NOT OBTAIN
RELIEF BY HABEAS CORPUS, SAID: 

"IT IS UNFORTUNATE, IF PETITIONERS LOST THEIR RIGHT TO A NEW TRIAL
THROUGH IGNORANCE OR NEGLIGENCE, BUT SUCH MISFORTUNE CANNOT GIVE THIS
COURT JURISDICTION IN A HABEAS CORPUS CASE TO REVIEW AND CORRECT THE
ERRORS COMPLAINED OF." 

THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS
TO PROTECT AN ACCUSED FROM CONVICTION RESULTING FROM HIS OWN IGNORANCE
OF HIS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND THE GUARANTY WOULD BE
NULLIFIED BY A DETERMINATION THAT AN ACCUSED'S IGNORANT FAILURE TO
CLAIM HIS RIGHTS REMOVES THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  TRUE,
HABEAS CORPUS CANNOT BE USED AS A MEANS OF REVIEWING ERRORS OF LAW AND
IRREGULARITIES - NOT INVOLVING THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION - OCCURRING
DURING THE COURSE OF TRIAL; FN15  AND THE "WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CANNOT
BE USED AS A WRIT OF ERROR."  FN16  THESE PRINCIPLES, HOWEVER, MUST BE
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED SO AS TO PRESERVE - NOT DESTROY - CONSTITUTIONAL
SAFEGUARDS OF HUMAN LIFE AND LIBERTY.  THE SCOPE OF INQUIRY IN HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN BROADENED - NOT NARROWED - SINCE THE
ADOPTION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  IN SUCH A PROCEEDING, "IT WOULD BE
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS TO CONFINE THE INQUIRY TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT"  FN17  AND THE PETITIONED COURT HAS "POWER
TO INQUIRE WITH REGARD TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE INFERIOR COURT,
EITHER IN RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OR TO THE PERSON, EVEN IF SUCH
INQUIRY  ...  (INVOLVES) AN EXAMINATION OF FACTS OUTSIDE OF, BUT NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH, THE RECORD."  FN18  CONGRESS HAS EXPANDED THE RIGHTS
OF A PETITIONER FOR HABEAS CORPUS  FN19  AND THE "  ...  EFFECT IS TO
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BARE LEGAL REVIEW THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE LIMIT
OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMON-LAW PRACTICE, AND UNDER THE ACT
OF 31 CAR.  II, C. 2, A MORE SEARCHING INVESTIGATION, IN WHICH THE
APPLICANT IS PUT UPON HIS OATH TO SET FORTH THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER
RESPECTING THE CAUSES OF HIS DETENTION, AND THE COURT, UPON DETERMINING
THE ACTUAL FACTS, IS TO 'DISPOSE OF THE PARTY AS LAW AND JUSTICE
REQUIRE.'    "THERE BEING NO DOUBT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS TO
THUS LIBERALIZE THE COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ON HABEAS CORPUS IN ORDER TO
SAFEGUARD THE LIBERTY OF ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES AGAINST INFRINGEMENT THROUGH ANY VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OR A LAW OR TREATY ESTABLISHED THEREUNDER, IT RESULTS THAT
UNDER THE SECTIONS CITED A PRISONER IN CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE FINAL
JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION MAY HAVE A JUDICIAL
INQUIRY IN A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES INTO THE VERY TRUTH AND
SUBSTANCE OF THE CAUSES OF HIS DETENTION, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BECOME
NECESSARY TO LOOK BEHIND AND BEYOND THE RECORD OF HIS CONVICTION TO A
SUFFICIENT EXTENT TO TEST THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT TO
PROCEED TO A JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM.  ... 

"  ...  IT IS OPEN TO THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES UPON AN
APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO LOOK BEYOND FORMS AND
INQUIRE INTO THE VERY SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER,  ...  "  FN20 

PETITIONER, CONVICTED AND SENTENCED WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL, CONTENDS THAT HE WAS IGNORANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, AND
INCAPABLE OF PRESERVING HIS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DURING
TRIAL.  URGING THAT - AFTER CONVICTION - HE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN A
LAWYER; WAS IGNORANT OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN NEW TRIAL OR APPEAL
AND THE TIME LIMITS GOVERNING BOTH; AND THAT HE DID NOT POSSESS THE
REQUISITE SKILL OR KNOWLEDGE PROPERLY TO CONDUCT AN APPEAL, HE SAYS
THAT IT WAS - AS A PRACTICAL MATTER - IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO OBTAIN
RELIEF BY APPEAL.  IF THESE CONTENTIONS BE TRUE IN FACT, IT NECESSARILY
FOLLOWS THAT NO LEGAL PROCEDURAL REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO GRANT RELIEF
FOR A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, UNLESS THE COURTS PROTECT
PETITIONER'S RIGHTS BY HABEAS CORPUS.  OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE LAW
PROVIDES NO EFFECTIVE REMEDY FOR SUCH A DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS AFFECTING
LIFE AND LIBERTY, IT MAY WELL BE SAID - AS IN MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294
U.S. 103, 113 - THAT IT "FALLS WITH THE PREMISE."  TO DEPRIVE A CITIZEN
OF HIS ONLY EFFECTIVE REMEDY WOULD NOT ONLY BE CONTRARY TO THE
"RUDIMENTARY DEMANDS OF JUSTICE"  FN21  BUT DESTRUCTIVE OF A
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PREVENT INJUSTICE. 

SINCE THE SIXTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLES ONE CHARGED WITH
CRIME TO THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
MANDATE IS AN ESSENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITE TO A FEDERAL
COURT'S AUTHORITY TO DEPRIVE AN ACCUSED OF HIS LIFE OR LIBERTY.  WHEN
THIS RIGHT IS PROPERLY WAIVED, THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS NO LONGER A
NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO PROCEED TO CONVICTION
AND SENTENCE.  IF THE ACCUSED, HOWEVER, IS NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
AND HAS NOT COMPETENTLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT, THE SIXTH AMENDMENT STANDS AS A JURISDICTIONAL BAR TO A VALID
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS LIFE OR HIS LIBERTY.  A
COURT'S JURISDICTION AT THE BEGINNING OF TRIAL MAY BE LOST "IN THE
COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS" DUE TO FAILURE TO COMPLETE THE COURT - AS
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT REQUIRES - BY PROVIDING COUNSEL FOR AN ACCUSED WHO
IS UNABLE TO OBTAIN COUNSEL, WHO HAS NOT INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY, AND WHOSE LIFE OR LIBERTY IS AT STAKE.  FN22
IF THIS REQUIREMENT OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE
COURT NO LONGER HAS JURISDICTION TO PROCEED.  THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION PRONOUNCED BY A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS VOID, AND ONE
IMPRISONED THEREUNDER MAY OBTAIN RELEASE BY HABEAS CORPUS.  FN23  A
JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES - TO WHOM A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS IS
ADDRESSED - SHOULD BE ALERT TO EXAMINE "THE FACTS FOR HIMSELF WHEN IF
TRUE AS ALLEGED THEY MAKE THE TRIAL ABSOLUTELY VOID."  FN24 

IT MUST BE REMEMBERED, HOWEVER, THAT A JUDGMENT CAN NOT BE LIGHTLY
SET ASIDE BY COLLATERAL ATTACK, EVEN ON HABEAS CORPUS.  WHEN
COLLATERALLY ATTACKED, THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT CARRIES WITH IT A
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY.  FN25  WHERE A DEFENDANT, WITHOUT COUNSEL,
ACQUIESCES IN A TRIAL RESULTING IN HIS CONVICTION AND LATER SEEKS
RELEASE BY THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE BURDEN OF
PROOF RESTS UPON HIM TO ESTABLISH THAT HE DID NOT COMPETENTLY AND
INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. 
IF IN A HABEAS CORPUS HEARING, HE DOES MEET THIS BURDEN AND CONVINCES
THE COURT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT HE NEITHER HAD COUNSEL
NOR PROPERLY WAIVED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL, IT IS THE DUTY
OF THE COURT TO GRANT THE WRIT. 

IN THIS CASE, PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED WITHOUT ENJOYING THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.  BELIEVING HABEAS CORPUS WAS NOT AN AVAILABLE
REMEDY, THE DISTRICT COURT BELOW MADE NO FINDINGS AS TO WAIVER BY
PETITIONER.  IN THIS STATE OF THE RECORD WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO REMAND
THE CAUSE.  IF - ON REMAND - THE DISTRICT COURT FINDS FROM ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER HAS SUSTAINED THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTING UPON
HIM AND THAT HE DID NOT COMPETENTLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVE HIS RIGHT
TO COUNSEL, IT WILL FOLLOW THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION TO PROCEED TO JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION OF PETITIONER, AND
HE WILL THEREFORE BE ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS PETITION GRANTED.  IF
PETITIONER FAILS TO SUSTAIN THIS BURDEN, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE
WRIT. 

THE CAUSE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ACTION
IN HARMONY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  13 F.SUPP.  253. 

FN2  THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT "IN ALL
CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY
AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT
WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH DISTRICT SHALL HAVE
BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, AND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE
AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES
AGAINST HIM; TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS
FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENCE." 

FN3  92 F.2D 748. 

FN4  303 U.S. 629. 

FN5  OPINION OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, 13 F.SUPP.  253, 254. 

FN6  13 F.SUPP.  253, 254. 

FN7  13 F.SUPP.  AT 256; SEE, RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
(CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES), ADOPTED MAY 7, 1934, II, III. 

FN8  CF., PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319, 325. 

FN9  PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276, 308. 

FN10  POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 68, 69. 

FN11  CF., BARRON V. THE MAYOR, 7 PET. 243, 247; EDWARDS V. ELLIOTT,
21 WALL.  532, 557. 

FN12  AETNA INS. CO. V. KENNEDY, 301 U.S. 389, 393; HODGES V. EASTON,
106 U.S. 408, 412. 

FN13  OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 301 U.S.
292, 307. 

FN14  HACK V. STATE, 141 WIS. 346, 351; 124 N.W. 492. 

FN15  CF., EX PARTE WATKINS, 3 PET. 193; KNEWAL V. EGAN, 268 U.S.
442; HARLAN V. MCGOURIN, 218 U.S. 442. 

FN16  WOOLSEY V. BEST, 299 U.S. 1, 2. 

FN17  FRANK V. MANGUM, 237 U.S. 309, 327. 

FN18  IN RE MAYFIELD, 141 U.S. 107, 116; CUDDY, PETITIONER, 131 U.S.
280. 

FN19  28 U.S.C., CH. 14, SEC. 451, ET SEQ. 

FN20  FRANK V. MANGUM, SUPRA, 330, 331; CF., MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261
U.S. 86; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, 294 U.S. 103; HANS NIELSEN, PETITIONER, 131
U.S. 176. 

FN21  CF., MOONEY V. HOLOHAN, SUPRA, 112. 

FN22  CF., FRANK V. MANGUM, SUPRA, 327. 

FN23  HANS NIELSEN, PETITIONER, SUPRA. 

FN24  CF., MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86, 92; PATTON V. UNITED
STATES, 281 U.S. 276, 312, 313. 

FN25  CUDDY, PETITIONER, SUPRA 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THE REVERSAL. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
PETITIONER WAIVED THE RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL, THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD
JURISDICTION, AND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




LONE STAR GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 304 U.S. 224 


NO. 313.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 86 S.W.2D
484, 506, REVERSED. 


1.  A SPECIAL ISSUE SUBMITTED TO A JURY AS TO WHETHER A GAS RATE FIXED
BY A TEXAS COMMISSION WAS "UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST" TO THE DEFENDANT
GAS COMPANY,  - HELD TANTAMOUNT TO THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION, IN VIEW
OF INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN THE JURY ON THE MEANING OF "FAIR RETURN" AND
"UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST."  CF. UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. TEXAS,
303 U.S. 123, 141.  P. 231. 

2.  UNDER THE TEXAS LAW, THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO SUBSTITUTE FINDINGS MADE BY ITSELF FOR THE DETERMINATIONS
OF A JURY IN A RATE CASE.  P. 231. 

3.  A TEXAS CORPORATION PRODUCED AND PURCHASED GAS IN TEXAS AND
OKLAHOMA WHICH IT PIPED AND DISPOSED OF TO DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES,
CLOSELY AFFILIATED WITH ITSELF THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP.  THE
DISTRIBUTORS SOLD IT TO CONSUMERS IN TEXAS CITIES.  MOST OF IT WAS
PROCURED AND TRANSPORTED ENTIRELY IN TEXAS; BUT SOME, MOVING FROM
TEXAS, WAS PIPED FOR A DISTANCE IN OKLAHOMA AND BACK INTO TEXAS, WHILE
A LESSER PROPORTION WAS PROCURED IN OKLAHOMA AND PIPED INTO TEXAS. 
THIS LAST PORTION, AFTER REACHING TEXAS, WAS RUN THROUGH EXTRACTION
PLANTS, LEAVING THE RESIDUE OF IT CHANGED IN COMPOSITION AND THERMIC
VALUE; MUCH OF IT WAS STORED THERE; AND, IN PASSING THROUGH THE
PIPELINE SYSTEM, IT WAS COMMINGLED WITH THE TEXAS GAS AND DIVIDED AND
REDIVIDED UNTIL TRACING OR IDENTIFICATION BY VOLUME AT ANY "CITY GATE"
DELIVERY WAS MADE IMPOSSIBLE; AT VARIOUS POINTS BEFORE DELIVERY ITS
PRESSURE WAS REDUCED AND THE GAS EXPANDED.  THE COMPANY ALSO SOLD GAS
IN OKLAHOMA.  A TEXAS COMMISSION HAVING BEFORE IT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES CHARGED BY THE DISTRIBUTORS TO TEXAS
CONSUMERS, FOUND IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE
CHARGE FOR THE GAS DELIVERED TO THE DISTRIBUTORS BY THE PIPELINE
COMPANY AT THE "CITY GATES," AND IN SO DOING MADE AN ORDER FIXING THE
CHARGE BASED ON ALL OF THE PROPERTY AND OPERATIONS OF THE PIPELINE
COMPANY CONSIDERED AS AN INTEGRATED WHOLE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

(A)  IT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION. 
P. 236. 

(B)  IT COULD NOT BE REGARDED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS REGULATING
SALES AND DELIVERIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ID. 

(C)  THE DISTRIBUTORS AND THE PIPELINE COMPANY WERE BUT ARMS OF THE
SAME ORGANIZATION DOING AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN TEXAS, AND THE
COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO ASCERTAIN AND DETERMINE WHAT WAS A
REASONABLE CHARGE FOR THE GAS SUPPLIED THROUGH THIS ORGANIZATION TO
CONSUMERS WITHIN THE STATE.  P. 237. 

(D)  THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE PIPE LINES CUT ACROSS A CORNER OF
ANOTHER STATE DID NOT MAKE IT ANY THE LESS A PART OF A SYSTEM SERVING
TEXAS GAS TO COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS; AND THE COMMISSION, IN TAKING
ACCOUNT OF THIS LINE AS PART OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE INTRASTATE
PIPELINE RATE SHOULD BE BASED, WAS NOT REGULATING, OR IMPOSING ANY
BURDEN UPON, INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR CONFLICTING WITH ANY FEDERAL
REGULATION.  P. 238. 

(E)  THE MANNER IN WHICH THE GAS PURCHASED IN AND PIPED FROM OKLAHOMA
WAS TREATED AND HANDLED IN TEXAS MADE IT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE GAS
SUPPLIED TO THE TEXAS COMMUNITIES IN THE PIPELINE COMPANY'S INTRASTATE
BUSINESS, AND THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDER IT IN FIXING THE
RATE.  P. 238. 

(2)  THIS WAS NOT A CASE WHERE THE SEGREGATION OF INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE PROPERTIES AND BUSINESSES WAS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO CONFINE
THE EXERCISE OF STATE POWER TO ITS OWN PROVINCE.  CF. SMITH V. ILLINOIS
BELL TELEPHONE CO., 282 U.S. 133, 148, 149.  P. 241. 

(3)  THE COMMISSION HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE PIPELINE COMPANY'S
PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS AS AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM IN FIXING THE TEXAS
RATE, THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, ON THE SAME BASIS, IN AN EFFORT TO PROVE THE
RATE CONFISCATORY; AND THE COMPANY HAVING SUCCEEDED IN THIS AND WON A
JUDGMENT HOLDING THE RATE CONFISCATORY, IT WAS ERROR FOR THE APPELLATE
COURT TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND UPHOLD THE RATE BECAUSE THE COMPANY
HAD FAILED TO MAKE A PROPER SEGREGATION OF INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE
PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS.  P. 240. 

LONE STAR GAS CO. V. TEXAS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF TEXAS WHICH
SUSTAINED A RATE ON GAS, FIXED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION, THEREIN
REVERSING A JUDGMENT TO THE CONTRARY, ADJUDGING THE RATE CONFISCATORY,
IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION TO ENFORCE IT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS BROUGHT THIS ACTION, UNDER ARTICLE
6059 OF THE REVISED CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS, TO ENFORCE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1933, PRESCRIBING THE RATE FOR
DOMESTIC GAS SUPPLIED BY APPELLANT, LONE STAR GAS COMPANY, TO
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES IN TEXAS.  THE RATE WAS FIXED AT NOT TO EXCEED
32 CENTS PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET INSTEAD OF THE EXISTING CHARGE OF 40
CENTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, UPON THE VERDICT OF A JURY
FINDING THE PRESCRIBED RATE TO BE UNREASONABLE, DENIED RELIEF AND
ENJOINED THE COMMISSION AND THE STATE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT
AND HELD THE ORDER TO BE VALID.  86 S.W.(2D) 484.  REHEARING WAS
DENIED.  86 S.W.(2D) 506.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE REFUSED WRIT
OF ERROR AND THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL. 

APPELLANT, A TEXAS CORPORATION, OPERATES ABOUT 4,000 MILES OF PIPE
LINES LOCATED IN TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA THROUGH WHICH IT TRANSPORTS NATURAL
GAS TO THE "CITY GATES" OF ABOUT 300 CITIES AND TOWNS IN THOSE STATES
AND SELLS AND DELIVERS THE GAS IN WHOLESALE QUANTITIES TO DISTRIBUTING
COMPANIES.  THE LATTER COMPANIES, WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS, ARE AFFILIATED
WITH APPELLANT, BEING SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SAME PARENT CORPORATION.  ONE
OF APPELLANT'S PIPE LINES EXTENDS FROM A GAS FIELD IN WHEELER COUNTY,
TEXAS, A PART OF THE TEXAS PANHANDLE FIELD, CROSSES THE SOUTHWESTERN
CORNER OF OKLAHOMA, IS TAPPED FOR GAS DELIVERED AT HOLLIS, OKLAHOMA,
AND RETURNING INTO TEXAS RUNS GENERALLY IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION TO
VARIOUS TEXAS POINTS.  AT OKLAUNION, TEXAS, THE LINE IS TAPPED BY A
BRANCH LINE WHICH EXTENDS NORTHWARD INTO OKLAHOMA AND SUPPLIES CERTAIN
CITIES IN THAT STATE.  AT PETROLIA, TEXAS, THE LINE IS JOINED BY LINES
COMING FROM OKLAHOMA. 

THE COMMISSION DEALT SOLELY WITH THE RATE FOR THE GAS DELIVERED IN
TEXAS.  THIS CONSISTED (1) OF GAS PRODUCED OR PURCHASED IN TEXAS AND
TRANSPORTED AND DELIVERED ENTIRELY WITHIN THAT STATE, BEING UPWARDS OF
70 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL; (2) THAT PRODUCED OR PURCHASED IN OKLAHOMA
AND TRANSPORTED THROUGH APPELLANT'S LINES INTO TEXAS WHICH, ON
APPELLANT'S CALCULATION, AMOUNTED AT THE AVERAGE OF THE FIVE-YEAR
PERIOD 1929-1933 TO ABOUT 11 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL; AND (3) THAT
PRODUCED OR PURCHASED IN THE PANHANDLE FIELD IN WHEELER COUNTY, TEXAS,
AMOUNTING ON THE SAME COMPUTATION TO ABOUT 17 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL. 

THE COMMISSION GAVE A FULL HEARING IN WHICH APPELLANT PARTICIPATED. 
THE COMMISSION TREATED APPELLANT'S PROPERTIES AS AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM,
AND IN THAT WAY "CONSIDERED THE OKLAHOMA PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS AND
THE EFFECT THEREOF ON THE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES WITHIN TEXAS,"
FIXING THE RATE "FOR APPLICATION WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF TEXAS." 
APPELLANT MADE NO OBJECTION TO THAT COURSE.  THE COMMISSION DETERMINED
THE RATE BASE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1931, AT $46,246,617.53, BEING
$4,674,285.91 FOR PRODUCTION PROPERTIES AND $41,572,331.62 FOR
TRANSMISSION PROPERTIES.  THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED APPELLANT'S
REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR A SIX-YEAR PERIOD, 1927 TO 1932, AND MADE THE
RATE ON THE BASIS OF SIX PER CENT. AS A MINIMUM FAIR RATE OF RETURN. 

APPELLANT BROUGHT SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT, ATTACKING THE RATE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, BUT THAT COURT STAYED ITS PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE
PRESENT ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION.  IN THIS ACTION APPELLANT
FIRST SUBMITTED PLEAS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT, AND PLEAS
IN ABATEMENT, WHICH WERE OVERRULED.  IN ITS ANSWER APPELLANT ATTACKED
THE RATE ORDER UPON THE GROUNDS (1) THAT TRANSPORTATION AND SALES TO
LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES THROUGH HIGH PRESSURE LINES "OF GAS
PRODUCED IN WHEELER COUNTY, TEXAS, AND TRANSPORTED INTO AND THROUGH
OKLAHOMA AND BACK INTO TEXAS WITHOUT INTERRUPTION" CONSTITUTED
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THAT THE ORDER VIOLATED THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION; AND THAT THE SAME WAS TRUE OF THE GAS
PRODUCED OR PURCHASED BY APPELLANT IN OKLAHOMA AND TRANSPORTED IN HIGH
PRESSURE LINES TO TEXAS FOR SALE AND DELIVERY THERE; AND (2) THAT THE
PRESCRIBED RATE WAS CONFISCATORY AND REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE TRIAL ON THE MERITS, BEFORE A JURY, WAS BEGUN ON JUNE 11, 1934,
AND WAS ENTIRELY DE NOVO.  THE STATE INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER (TO WHICH APPELLANT UNSUCCESSFULLY OBJECTED AS BEING
VOID IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE APPLICABLE TO ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS),
THE STAY ORDER GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL COURT, AND A STIPULATION THAT THE
PRESCRIBED RATE HAD NOT BEEN PUT INTO EFFECT.  THE RECORD OF EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS OFFERED BUT WAS NOT RECEIVED.  ON THIS FORMAL
PROOF THE STATE RESTED.  APPELLANT MOVED FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WHICH
WAS DENIED AND APPELLANT THEN WENT FORWARD WITH ITS EVIDENCE.  THE
REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION UPON WHICH THE ORDER WAS BASED
WERE INTRODUCED.  IN REBUTTAL OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, APPELLANT
SUBMITTED AN APPRAISAL OF ITS PROPERTIES AS AN INTEGRATED OPERATING
SYSTEM AS OF JANUARY 1, 1933.  THAT APPRAISAL WAS VOLUMINOUS, SHOWING
$73,983,405.57 AS THE COST OF REPRODUCTION NEW.  EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED
AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE DEDUCTED FOR ACCRUED DEPRECIATION AND ON THAT
BASIS THE FAIR VALUE WAS CLAIMED TO BE $69,738,021.16.  THE APPRAISAL
WAS LATER BROUGHT DOWN TO MAY 1, 1934, SHOWING AN INCREASE IN MATERIAL
AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1933, AND MAY 1, 1934, OF
$1,579,381.72.  THE BOOK COSTS OF THE PROPERTIES WERE ALSO INTRODUCED,
RANGING FROM $47,776,749.63, ON DECEMBER 31, 1931, TO $49,858,751.23 AS
OF APRIL 30, 1934.  APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT THE BOOKS UNDERSTATED THE
ACTUAL COSTS.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNUAL ACCRUALS
TO PROVIDE FOR DEPRECIATION, DEPLETION AND AMORTIZATION.  THE OPERATING
EXPENSES AND REVENUES WERE SHOWN FOR THE YEARS 1931, 1932 AND 1933, AND
FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDING APRIL 30, 1934.  IN THIS EVIDENCE THERE
WAS NO SEGREGATION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTIES OR OPERATIONS AS BETWEEN
TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA OR BETWEEN INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE BUSINESS,
APPELLANT INSISTING THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO ATTACK THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER UPON THE SAME INCLUSIVE BASIS WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD USED. 

THE STATE INSISTED THAT IF APPELLANT WISHED TO MAINTAIN AS A DEFENSE
THAT THE ORDER WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT SOUGHT TO REGULATE OPERATIONS
WHICH WERE EXEMPT FROM STATE CONTROL, APPELLANT SHOULD MAKE A
SEGREGATION, FIRST AS BETWEEN ITS ADMITTEDLY INTRASTATE OPERATIONS AND
THOSE CLAIMED TO BE INTERSTATE, AND SECOND, AS BETWEEN TEXAS AND
OKLAHOMA PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS.  AFTER THE VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE
ABOVE MENTIONED HAD BEEN TAKEN, APPELLANT, STILL CONTENDING THAT SUCH
AN ISSUE WAS NOT PROPERLY RAISED AS THE ACTION UNDER THE TEXAS STATUTE
WAS IN THE NATURE OF AN APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WHICH WAS
INDIVISIBLE, PRESENTED EVIDENCE BASED UPON "A SEGREGATION OF ITS
'INTEGRATED OPERATING SYSTEM' AS BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE
COMMERCE."  APPELLANT STATES THAT THIS SEGREGATION WAS BASED "UPON THE
ACTUAL USE OF ITS PROPERTIES IN THE TWO CLASSES OF COMMERCE."  THE FAIR
VALUE OF ITS INTRASTATE PROPERTY WAS THUS CLAIMED TO BE $38,350,882.32
AND THE NET AMOUNT AVAILABLE AT THE COMMISSION'S RATE FOR RETURN ON
INTRASTATE DELIVERIES OF GAS AS LESS THAN FOUR PER CENT.  IN THIS
SEGREGATION APPELLANT'S LINE USED IN TRANSPORTING GAS FROM WHEELER
COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE PANHANDLE FIELD, THROUGH OKLAHOMA AND THENCE INTO
TEXAS, WAS ALLOCATED TO INTERSTATE OPERATIONS. 

IN REBUTTAL, THE STATE OFFERED EVIDENCE BASED UPON A DIFFERENT METHOD
OF SEGREGATING APPELLANT'S PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS.  THIS METHOD
PROCEEDED UPON THE BASIS OF GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, THAT IS, THERE WERE
ALLOCATED TO OKLAHOMA AND TEXAS RESPECTIVELY THE PROPERTIES PHYSICALLY
LOCATED IN EACH STATE AND THE REVENUES AND EXPENSES WERE DIVIDED ON THE
SAME GEOGRAPHICAL BASIS.  IN THAT WAY THE PROPERTIES ALLOCATED TO TEXAS
WERE VALUED AT $40,256,862.39, AND THE NET REVENUE WHICH WOULD BE
AVAILABLE AT THE COMMISSION'S RATE WAS ESTIMATED TO BE, FOR THE LAST
TWO YEARS OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD, NEARLY SEVEN PER CENT.  APPELLANT
COMPLAINS OF THIS APPRAISAL UPON THE GROUND THAT IT EXCLUDED THE
PRODUCTION PROPERTIES LOCATED IN TEXAS WHICH APPELLANT CLAIMED HAD AN
ACTUAL COST OF $5,191,539.42 AS OF MARCH 31, 1934, AND THAT THE STATE
SUBSTITUTED THEREFOR AN ARBITRARY AND INADEQUATE ANNUAL ALLOWANCE ON
THE BASIS OF THE FIELD PRICE FOR THE VOLUME OF GAS PRODUCED. 

WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSED, EACH PARTY MOVED THAT A VERDICT BE
DIRECTED IN ITS FAVOR AND BOTH MOTIONS WERE DENIED.  THE COURT GAVE TO
THE JURY A SERIES OF INSTRUCTIONS EMBRACING DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS OF
"FAIR RETURN," "FAIR VALUE," "USED AND USEFUL" - AS APPLYING TO THE
PROPERTY ACTUALLY USED BY APPELLANT IN THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION,
SALE AND DELIVERY OF NATURAL GAS TO ITS CUSTOMERS AND ALSO TO THE
PROPERTY ACQUIRED IN GOOD FAITH AND HELD BY APPELLANT FOR USE IN THE
REASONABLY NEAR FUTURE IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO FURNISH ADEQUATE AND
UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE - "OPERATING EXPENSES," "ANNUAL DEPRECIATION,"
"REPRODUCTION COST NEW," AND "GOING VALUE."  THE JURY WERE INSTRUCTED
THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF WAS UPON THE DEFENDANT (APPELLANT) "TO SHOW BY
CLEAR AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE" THAT THE RATE FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS "UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST AS TO IT," AND THE
COURT EXPLAINED THAT BY THAT PHRASE WAS MEANT THAT THE RATE PRESCRIBED
IN THE COMMISSION'S ORDER "WAS SO LOW AS TO HAVE NOT PROVIDED FOR A
FAIR RETURN UPON THE FAIR VALUE OF DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL
IN SUPPLYING THE SERVICE FURNISHED BY SAID DEFENDANT."  WITH THESE
INSTRUCTIONS THE COURT SUBMITTED TO THE JURY A SINGLE SPECIAL ISSUE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"DO YOU FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT, AS APPLIED TO
POINTS IN TEXAS, THE ORDER OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS, BEARING
DATE OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1933, PROVIDING FOR A RATE OF NOT EXCEEDING 32
CENTS PER THOUSAND CUBIC FEET OF GAS SOLD TO THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES
AT THE GATES OF POINTS SERVED, IS UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST AS TO THE
DEFENDANT, LONE STAR GAS COMPANY?  ANSWER THIS QUESTION 'YES' OR
'NO'". 

THE JURY ANSWERED THE QUESTION "YES."  JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED
ACCORDINGLY ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S RATE. 

IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF "FAIR RETURN" AND "UNREASONABLE AND
UNJUST" IN THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
ISSUE FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE WAS IN SUBSTANCE WHETHER THE RATE WAS
CONFISCATORY.  WE SO REGARDED A LIKE SUBMISSION IN THE CASE OF UNITED
GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123.  THERE THE JURY'S
VERDICT SUSTAINED THE RATE BUT THAT FACT DOES NOT ALTER THE NATURE OF
THE ISSUE SUBMITTED. 

UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE THE ISSUES OF FACT WERE DETERMINED IN THE
TRIAL COURT AND ON THE APPEAL THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS HAD NO
AUTHORITY TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT.  "WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS WITHOUT
CONFLICT, IT MAY RENDER JUDGMENT.  BUT WHERE THERE IS ANY CONFLICT IN
THE EVIDENCE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE, IT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO SUBSTITUTE ITS
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT."  POST V. STATE, 106
TEX. 500, 501; 171 S.W. 707; UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. TEXAS,
SUPRA. 

THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS HELD THAT THE BURDEN WAS HEAVILY UPON THE
COMPANY (APPELLANT HERE) TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE
THAT THE 32-CENT RATE WOULD NOT AFFORD A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN ON
THE PROPERTY USED IN THE TEXAS PUBLIC SERVICE, THAT THE COMPANY DID NOT
MEET "THIS BURDEN AND QUANTUM OF PROOF," AND THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN OVERRULING THE STATE'S MOTIONS FOR AN INSTRUCTED VERDICT.  THE COURT
VIEWED THE APPEAL AS PRESENTING TWO MAIN DIVISIONS, (1) CERTAIN
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE RATE ORDER, AND (2) THE LEGAL
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER WAS CONFISCATORY OR
UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST.  UNDER THE FIRST DIVISION, THE COURT
CONSIDERED THAT THERE WERE THREE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS, (A)
INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE, (B) INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT
TO CONTRACT, AND (C) CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH THE OPERATIONS OF APPELLANT
AND ITS CORPORATE AFFILIATES IN TEXAS AS "A SINGLE AND INTEGRATED
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE."  ON THE FIRST TWO ISSUES ABOVE-MENTIONED THE
COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF THE STATE, AND ON THE CONFISCATION ISSUE THE
COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PRESCRIBED RATE WOULD
YIELD A FAIR RETURN WAS ONE OF FACT AND PASSED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF
THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. 

HOLDING THAT THE RATE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION WAS PRESUMED TO BE
VALID, AND REFERRING TO THE AUTHORITIES AS TO THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW, THE COURT SET FORTH THE FIVE PRIMARY FACTORS ESSENTIAL TO THE
CORRECT DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE, VIZ., THE PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY USED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE, THE REASONABLE
ANNUAL ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION, THE REASONABLY NECESSARY OPERATING
EXPENSES, THE REASONABLE OPERATING REVENUES, AND THE REASONABLE RATE OF
RETURN.    BUT IN DEALING WITH THE EVIDENCE UPON THESE QUESTIONS, THE
COURT APPLIED A DIFFERENT CRITERION FROM THAT ADOPTED BY THE
COMMISSION.  THE COURT HELD THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO SEGREGATE THE
PROPERTY USED IN TEXAS, AS WELL AS THAT USED CONJOINTLY IN TEXAS AND
OKLAHOMA.  THE COURT SPOKE DEFINITELY UPON THIS POINT, SAYING - 
"SINCE APPELLEE (APPELLANT HERE) WAS ENGAGED IN THE INTEGRATED BUSINESS
OF PRODUCING, PURCHASING, TRANSPORTING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS TO THE
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES AT THE CITY GATES OF SOME 300 CITIES AND TOWNS
IN TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA, IT BECAME NECESSARY TO ALLOCATE OR SEGREGATE THE
PROPERTY USED IN TEXAS AS WELL AS THAT USED CONJOINTLY IN BOTH STATES,
IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY USED IN THE TEXAS
PUBLIC SERVICE, THE ANNUAL DEPRECIATION THEREOF AND THE TEXAS OPERATING
EXPENSES AND REVENUE." 

THE COURT THEN SET FORTH THE DIFFERENT METHODS OF SEGREGATION WHICH
THE PARTIES HAD ADOPTED.  THE COURT SAID THAT THE STATE'S METHOD
ALLOCATED "TO TEXAS OPERATIONS, OR TO INTRASTATE COMMERCE THE VALUE OF
ALL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE PHYSICAL BOUNDARY OF TEXAS."  THE
"SHORT SECTION" OF PIPE LINE "FROM TEXAS PANHANDLE FIELD ACROSS THE
CORNER OF OKLAHOMA AND BACK INTO TEXAS WAS ALSO ALLOCATED TO TEXAS
OPERATIONS."  "GAS SALES ADJUSTMENT" WAS MADE BY WHICH "TEXAS OR
INTRASTATE OPERATIONS" WERE CHARGED WITH THE NET AMOUNT OF OKLAHOMA
PRODUCED GAS FOR THE SIX-YEAR PERIOD 1929 TO 1934.  THE COURT OBSERVED
THAT "NO CHARGE AGAINST OKLAHOMA OR INTERSTATE OPERATIONS WAS MADE FOR
THE USE OF THE TRANSMISSION LINES AND FOR EQUIPMENT WITHIN TEXAS; THE
EFFECT OF WHICH WAS TO GIVE FREE TRANSPORTATION IN TEXAS OF ALL
OKLAHOMA PRODUCED GAS."  TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA EXPENSES AND REVENUES "WERE
ALLOCATED IN GENERAL ACCORD WITH THE SEGREGATION OF THE PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES."  THE COURT STATED THAT UNDER THAT METHOD THE FAIR VALUE
"OF THE PROPERTY UNDEPRECIATED USED IN TEXAS PUBLIC SERVICE WAS
$40,256,862.39" ACCORDING TO THE CALCULATIONS OF THE STATE'S EXPERTS;
AND THAT AFTER DEDUCTING OPERATING EXPENSES AND ANNUAL DEPRECIATION
"THERE REMAINED FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD, BEING
THE TWO LOWEST REVENUE YEARS," TEXAS NET REVENUE "WHICH WOULD YIELD A
RETURN OF 6.74% AND 6.76% RESPECTIVELY." 

THE COURT THEN REFERRED TO THE METHOD OF SEGREGATION USED BY THE
COMPANY BY WHICH ALL THE GAS PRODUCED OR PURCHASED IN THE TEXAS
PANHANDLE FIELD AND TRANSPORTED INTO TEXAS, AND ALL OKLAHOMA PRODUCED
GAS, WERE ALLOCATED TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THAT THE ALLOCATION WAS
MADE BY A DETERMINATION OF THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF THE OKLAHOMA AND
TEXAS PANHANDLE GAS ON THE ONE HAND AND THE WEST TEXAS GAS WITH WHICH
IT WAS COMMINGLED IN PIPE LINES ON THE OTHER; THAT THE COMPANY HAD
ALLOCATED OPERATING EXPENSES AND REVENUE BETWEEN THE TWO STATES UPON
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME BASIS; AND THAT IN THIS MANNER THE FAIR VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY USED IN THE TEXAS PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE BASIS OF
REPRODUCTION COST NEW, LESS DEPRECIATION, WAS SAID TO BE
$38,350,882.32.  THE COURT HELD THAT GAS FROM THE TEXAS PANHANDLE FIELD
DID NOT MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND HENCE THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE
COMPANY'S EXPERTS WAS BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION AND "PROVED
NOTHING MATERIAL TO THIS CASE"; THAT THE COMPANY HAD OFFERED NO OTHER
PROOF UPON A CORRECT SEGREGATION OR ALLOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, AND
THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAD ERRED IN REFUSING THE STATE'S MOTION FOR AN
INSTRUCTED VERDICT AND FOR A JUDGMENT DECLARING THE RATE ORDER "TO BE
VALID IN EVERY RESPECT." 

THE COURT'S SPECIFIC RULING UPON THIS POINT IS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENT OF ITS CONCLUSION: 

"THE BURDEN WAS UPON APPELLEE TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE A PROPER SEGREGATION OF INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE PROPERTIES
AND BUSINESS, AND TO SHOW THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN
INTRASTATE BUSINESS OR COMMERCE AND THE COMPENSATION IT WOULD RECEIVE
UNDER THE RATE COMPLAINED OF UPON SUCH VALUATION.  HAVING FAILED TO
MAKE A PROPER SEGREGATION OF INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE PROPERTIES,
APPELLEE DID NOT ADDUCE THE QUANTUM AND CHARACTER OF PROOF NECESSARY TO
ESTABLISH THE INVALIDITY OF THE RATE AS BEING CONFISCATORY, OR
UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST." 

THE COURT ADVERTED TO THE EFFECT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THEORY IN THE
TWO METHODS OF SEGREGATION "WITH RESPECT TO THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY USED IN TEXAS PUBLIC SERVICE, THE ANNUAL DEPRECIATION THEREOF,
AND PARTICULARLY AS TO THE OPERATING EXPENSES AND REVENUES."  THE COURT
CHARACTERIZED THE ANNUAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES AS SPECULATIVE AND
PLAINLY EXCESSIVE.  THE COURT SAID THAT WITH RESPECT TO OPERATING
EXPENSES, EXCEPT AS TO A FEW CONTROVERTED ITEMS, AND WITH RESPECT TO
REVENUES, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE TESTIMONY "AS TO
TOTALS OF BOTH TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA FOR THE YEARS OF THE ACCOUNTING
PERIOD" BUT THAT THE SAME CONTROVERSY AROSE "AS TO A PROPER SEGREGATION
OF SUCH EXPENSES AND REVENUES TO EACH STATE"; AND SINCE, AS ALREADY
POINTED OUT, THE COMPANY HAD "FAILED TO MAKE PROPER SEGREGATION OF THE
EXPENSES AND REVENUES, IT FAILED TO PROVE ITS CASE." 

THE COURT THEN CRITICISED CERTAIN ITEMS OF OPERATING EXPENSES AS
CONTRARY TO THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCES OF THE COMPANY OR SO LARGE AS TO BE
EXCESSIVE UPON THEIR FACE, REFERRING IN PARTICULAR TO THE ITEMS OF
"FEDERAL TAXES," MANAGEMENT FEES CHARGED BY THE HOLDING CORPORATION,
NEW BUSINESS EXPENSES, CANCELED AND SURRENDERED LEASES, REGULATORY
COMMISSION AND GENERAL EXPENSES, AND GOING VALUE.  THE COURT ALSO TOOK
THE VIEW THAT NO REASON EXISTED WHY A SIX PER CENT. RATE OF RETURN
SHOULD BE DECLARED CONFISCATORY. 

THAT THE JUDGMENT OF REVERSAL WAS RESTED UPON THE PROPOSITION THAT
THERE WAS A FAILURE OF PROOF ON THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION BY REASON OF
THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAD FAILED TO MAKE A PROPER SEGREGATION OF
ITS INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS IS FULLY
CONFIRMED BY THE FURTHER OPINION OF THE COURT IN DENYING THE COMPANY'S
MOTION FOR A REHEARING, WHEN THE COURT SAID: 

"WE HELD THAT AS A MATTER OF LAW APPELLEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH BY
CLEAR AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THE ULTIMATE FACT ISSUE, TO WIT:
WHETHER THE RATE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION WAS SO LOW AS NOT TO AFFORD A
REASONABLE RETURN ON THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY USED IN THE TEXAS
PUBLIC SERVICE.  APPELLEE WAS AFFORDED A SEVEN MONTHS HEARING BEFORE
THE COMMISSION AND A THREE MONTHS TRIAL ON APPEAL TO THE COURT.  IT
MADE NO SEGREGATION AS BETWEEN ITS TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA PROPERTIES AND
OPERATIONS; AND DID NOT PROVE THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY USED IN
THE TEXAS PUBLIC SERVICE.  THE QUESTION OF THE VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY
DETERMINES THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATE AND PROBABLY, IN THE ULTIMATE
ANALYSIS, ADEQUACY OF SERVICE AND PRINCIPLES OF FINANCING." 

THE COURT ADDED THAT THE VALUATION OF SUCH PUBLIC SERVICE PROPERTY
WAS IN THE MAIN A MATTER OF ESTIMATE OR OPINION; THAT A SCIENTIFIC
STANDARD OF ABSOLUTE VALUE WAS UNATTAINABLE; AND THAT BECAUSE OF THIS
UNCERTAINTY, EXCEPT WHERE THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS GROSS OVER OR
UNDER VALUATION, OR "MISTAKE, INEQUALITY OR FRAUD" IN THE APPRAISAL,
THE FINDING OF VALUE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION IS GENERALLY GIVEN
FINALITY AND THAT THIS ESPECIALLY WAS THE RULE IN THE ABSENCE OF AN
ACTUAL TEST UNDER THE NEW RATE. 

FIRST.  WE AGREE WITH THE STATE COURT THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER DID
NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF APPELLANT UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF GAS.  COMPARE HANLEY V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO.,
187 U.S. 617; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. SPEIGHT, 254 U.S. 17;
MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. STROUD, 267 U.S. 404.  NOR, IN VIEW OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INSTANT CASE, CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE COMMISSION
WAS UNDERTAKING TO REGULATE SALES AND DELIVERIES OF GAS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  COMPARE MISSOURI V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO., 265 U.S. 298;
PEOPLES NATURAL GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 270 U.S. 550;
EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 465; STATE TAX COMMISSION
V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 284 U.S. 41; STATE CORPORATION
COMMISSION V. WICHITA GAS CO., 290 U.S. 561.  THE DISTRIBUTING
COMPANIES IN TEXAS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE AT WAXAHACHIE AND
GAINESVILLE (THE AMOUNT OF DELIVERIES THERE BEING NEGLIGIBLE IN
COMPARISON WITH APPELLANT'S TOTAL GAS BUSINESS), ARE APPELLANT'S
AFFILIATES.  THE LONE STAR GAS CORPORATION, ORGANIZED IN DELAWARE,
HOLDS MORE THAN 99 PER CENT. OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF APPELLANT AND OWNS
OR CONTROLS A LIKE PROPORTION OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THE DISTRIBUTING
COMPANIES.  THUS, THE LATTER COMPANIES AND APPELLANT ARE BUT ARMS OF
THE SAME ORGANIZATION DOING AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN TEXAS AND THE
COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO ASCERTAIN AND DETERMINE WHAT WAS A
REASONABLE CHARGE FOR THE GAS SUPPLIED THROUGH THIS ORGANIZATION TO
CONSUMERS WITHIN THE STATE.  WESTERN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, 285 U.S. 119, 124; DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, 292 U.S. 290, 295; AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232, 239.  IT APPEARS THAT THERE WERE
PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE REASONABLENESS
OF THE RATES CHARGED BY THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES TO CONSUMERS IN MANY
COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS, AND IN RELATION TO THOSE PROCEEDINGS THE
COMMISSION FOUND IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE
CHARGE FOR THE GAS DELIVERED BY APPELLANT TO THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES
AT THE "CITY GATES."  IT WAS OBVIOUSLY TO THE CONVENIENCE OF BOTH THE
COMMISSION AND APPELLANT THAT THIS ESSENTIAL FACTOR SHOULD BE
ASCERTAINED IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING AND THE COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION,
WHICH LED TO THE ORDER NOW IN QUESTION, WAS UNDERTAKEN TO THAT END.  WE
THINK THAT APPELLANT'S SALES AND DELIVERIES OF GAS IN TEXAS TO THE
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES MUST BE REGARDED AS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE
INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN THE CONDUCT OF WHICH THE APPELLANT AND THE
DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES WERE VIRTUAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE SAME
ENTERPRISE. 

APPELLANT'S PIPE LINE FROM THE TEXAS PANHANDLE FIELD IN WHEELER
COUNTY LED FROM PRODUCTION PROPERTIES IN TEXAS TO DISTRIBUTING POINTS
IN THE SAME STATE.  THE FACT THAT THE LINE CUT ACROSS A CORNER OF
OKLAHOMA DID NOT MAKE IT ANY THE LESS A PART OF THE SYSTEM SERVING
TEXAS GAS TO COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS.  IN ASCERTAINING WHAT WOULD BE A
REASONABLE RATE OF CHARGE FOR THIS TEXAS GAS SUPPLIED TO TEXAS
CONSUMERS, IT WAS NOT ONLY FAIR BUT MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCTION PROPERTIES IN TEXAS FROM WHICH THE
GAS WAS TAKEN AND ALSO THE VALUE OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE BY WHICH THE
GAS WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITY GATES OF THE TEXAS COMMUNITIES.  IT IS
FUTILE TO CONTEND THAT IN MAKING ITS CALCULATIONS ON THAT BASIS, THE
COMMISSION WAS REGULATING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR IMPOSING ANY
BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE HANLEY, SPEIGHT AND STROUD CASES,
SUPRA, UPON WHICH APPELLANT RELIES, ARE NOT IN POINT.  IN SEEKING TO
ASSURE A JUST DETERMINATION OF A REASONABLE CHARGE FOR THE SALES AND
DELIVERIES IN THE INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN TEXAS, THE STATE WAS
PROTECTING ITS LOCAL INTERESTS AND ITS ACTION WAS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
ANY FEDERAL REGULATION.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 402. 

WE THINK THAT THE VALUE OF THE PIPE LINE FROM THE TEXAS PANHANDLE
FIELD WAS PROPERLY INCLUDED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE RATE BASE. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE GAS PRODUCED OR PURCHASED BY APPELLANT IN
OKLAHOMA AND TRANSPORTED BY ITS PIPE LINES TO TEXAS, THE STATE COURT
OBSERVED THAT THE OKLAHOMA GAS WAS RUN THROUGH EXTRACTION PLANTS IN
TEXAS, LEAVING THE RESIDUE GAS CHANGED IN ITS COMPOSITION AND WITH ITS
HEATING VALUE LOWERED; THAT LARGE AMOUNTS OF THE OKLAHOMA GAS WERE RUN
THROUGH AND STORED IN WELLS IN TEXAS; THAT, PASSING INTO APPELLANT'S
PIPE LINE SYSTEM, THAT GAS WAS COMMINGLED WITH TEXAS GAS AND DIVIDED
AND REDIVIDED UNTIL IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRACE OR IDENTIFY IT BY VOLUME
AT ANY CITY GATE OF DELIVERY; THAT AT VARIOUS POINTS BEFORE DELIVERY
ITS PRESSURE WAS REDUCED AND THE GAS ALLOWED TO EXPAND; AND THAT THE
AMOUNT OF OKLAHOMA GAS AS A WHOLE WAS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE
AMOUNT OF THE TEXAS GAS WITH WHICH IT WAS MIXED.  APPELLANT REFERS TO
THE TESTIMONY OF ITS WITNESS THAT THE COMPOSITION OF THE GAS, AFTER
CERTAIN HEAVY HYDRO-CARBONS WERE REMOVED AT THE GASOLINE PLANTS,
REMAINED PRACTICALLY THE SAME, THAT ITS FORWARD MOVEMENT WAS NOT
STOPPED, AND THAT NOT ALL OF THE GAS COMING FROM OKLAHOMA WAS STORED IN
TEXAS.  APPELLANT ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE STATE COURT ERRED IN SAYING
THAT ONLY ABOUT FOUR PER CENT. OF ITS TOTAL GAS CAME FROM OKLAHOMA,
INSISTING THAT THE CORRECT FIGURE WAS ABOUT ELEVEN PER CENT.  THE
DISCREPANCY IS APPARENTLY EXPLAINED BY THE FACT THAT THE STATE COURT'S
FIGURE WAS TAKEN FROM THE RESULTS OF THE YEAR 1933 WHILE THAT OF THE
APPELLANT IS FOR THE FIVE YEARS OF ITS ACCOUNTING PERIOD.  IT WOULD
SEEM, HOWEVER, THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE GAS TRANSPORTED FROM OKLAHOMA
INTO TEXAS WAS AT A DIMINISHING RATE.  ASIDE FROM THAT, WE THINK THAT
THE PROVED MANNER IN WHICH THE GAS FROM OKLAHOMA WAS TREATED AND
HANDLED IN TEXAS MADE IT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE GAS SUPPLIED TO THE
TEXAS COMMUNITIES IN APPELLANT'S INTRASTATE BUSINESS AND THAT THE
COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED SO TO CONSIDER IT IN FIXING ITS RATE. 

IT IS IN THIS LIGHT THAT THE INCLUSION BY THE COMMISSION IN ITS
CALCULATIONS OF APPELLANT'S PRODUCING PROPERTIES IN OKLAHOMA AND ITS
TRANSMISSION LINES TO TEXAS MUST BE CONSIDERED.  THE PURPOSE OF THESE
CALCULATIONS WAS TO GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO APPELLANT FOR ITS INVESTMENT
AND OPERATING EXPENSES IN DETERMINING A RATE FOR THE GAS SOLD AND
DELIVERED IN TEXAS.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT ATTEMPT TO FIX A RATE FOR
GAS SUPPLIED TO OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES AND DID NOT IMPINGE UPON THE
JURISDICTION OF OKLAHOMA.  THERE IS NO GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE
COMMISSION'S METHOD OF CALCULATION EITHER CREATED ANY BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR OPERATED TO APPELLANT'S INJURY IN RELATION TO
ITS INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN TEXAS.  NOT ONLY IS THE CONTRARY A FAIR
INFERENCE FROM THE FACT THAT APPELLANT RAISED NO OBJECTION TO THIS
METHOD BEFORE THE COMMISSION, BUT THE STATE POINTS TO THE EVIDENCE
WHICH APPEARS TO SHOW THAT THE OKLAHOMA OPERATIONS WERE MORE EXPENSIVE
THAN THOSE IN TEXAS AND THAT THE COMMISSION'S CALCULATIONS ACTUALLY
PRODUCED A RESULT MORE FAVORABLE TO APPELLANT THAN ONE WHICH WOULD HAVE
FOLLOWED ANY SEGREGATION.  APPELLANT DOES NOT SUCCESSFULLY MEET THIS
CONTENTION. 

SECOND.  CONCLUDING THAT APPELLANT HAD NO TENABLE OBJECTION TO THE
METHOD ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION IN TREATING APPELLANT'S PROPERTY AS AN
INTEGRATED OPERATING SYSTEM, AND MAKING ITS FINDINGS AS TO VALUE,
EXPENSES, AND REVENUES ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE
FAIR RATE FOR THE GAS SOLD AND DELIVERED IN TEXAS, WE COME TO THE ISSUE
OF CONFISCATION. 

THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS PRESUMPTIVELY VALID, AS THE STATE COURT
HELD, BUT IT WAS OPEN TO ATTACK IN THIS ACTION UNDER THE STATE
STATUTE.  APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF VALUE, OPERATING EXPENSES, REVENUES AND
RETURN, UPON WHICH THE ORDER RESTED.  APPELLANT PRESENTED MUCH
TESTIMONY AND ELABORATE STATISTICAL DATA FOR THAT PURPOSE, TREATING ITS
PROPERTY AND BUSINESS AS THE COMMISSION HAD TREATED THEM.  APPELLANT
CLAIMED THAT THIS EVIDENCE SHOWED A FAR HIGHER VALUE FOR ITS PROPERTIES
THAN THE COMMISSION HAD ALLOWED AND THAT THE RATE IMPOSED WAS
CONFISCATORY.  THE TRIAL COURT SUBMITTED THAT EVIDENCE TO THE JURY,
UNDER A PROPER INSTRUCTION AS TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTING UPON
APPELLANT, AND THE JURY FOUND IN APPELLANT'S FAVOR. 

THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT UPON A DISTINCT
GROUND.  THAT WAS THAT APPELLANT HAD NOT SUSTAINED ITS BURDEN OF PROOF
BECAUSE IT HAD FAILED TO MAKE "A PROPER SEGREGATION OF INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS."  THUS, THE NECESSITY FOR THAT
SEGREGATION WAS MADE THE CRITERION.  THAT IS CLEARLY SHOWN BOTH FROM
THE COURT'S MAIN OPINION AND ITS OPINION UPON REHEARING FROM WHICH WE
HAVE QUOTED.  "HAVING FAILED TO MAKE A PROPER SEGREGATION OF INTERSTATE
AND INTRASTATE PROPERTIES," SAID THE COURT, "APPELLEE (APPELLANT HERE)
DID NOT ADDUCE THE QUANTUM AND CHARACTER OF PROOF NECESSARY TO
ESTABLISH THE INVALIDITY OF THE RATE AS BEING CONFISCATORY, OR
UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST." 

WE THINK THAT THIS RULING AS TO THE NECESSITY OF SEGREGATION, AND
THAT THE SUFFICIENCY OF APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY
THAT CRITERION, WAS ERRONEOUS.  THIS WAS NOT A CASE WHERE THE
SEGREGATION OF PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS WAS ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO
CONFINE THE EXERCISE OF STATE POWER TO ITS OWN PROPER PROVINCE. 
COMPARE SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., 282 U.S. 133, 148, 149. 
HERE, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE COMMISSION IN ITS METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE
PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OF APPELLANT AS AN INTEGRATED OPERATING SYSTEM
DID NOT TRANSCEND THE LIMITS OF THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OR APPLY AN
IMPROPER CRITERION IN ITS DETERMINATIONS.  BUT IF IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SHOWN THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO MAKE ITS FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO
APPELLANT'S PROPERTY AND BUSINESS UPON THE BASIS IT ADOPTED IN ORDER TO
FIX A FAIR RATE FOR THE SALES AND DELIVERIES IN TEXAS, APPELLANT WAS
ENTITLED TO ASSAIL THOSE FINDINGS UPON THE SAME BASIS.  IF THE FINDINGS
OF THE COMMISSION AS TO VALUE AND OTHER BASIC ELEMENTS WERE TO BE TAKEN
AS PRESUMPTIVELY CORRECT AND APPELLANT COULD NOT SUCCEED SAVE BY
OVERCOMING THOSE DETERMINATIONS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF,
APPELLANT COULD NOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE AS TO ITS
PROPERTY AND BUSINESS AS AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM AND TO HAVE THE
SUFFICIENCY OF ITS EVIDENCE ASCERTAINED BY THE CRITERION WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAD PROPERLY USED IN THE SAME MANNER IN REACHING ITS
CONCLUSION AS TO THE TEXAS RATE.  NEITHER THE FACT THAT APPELLANT,
BECAUSE OF THE INSISTENCE OF THE STATE THAT THE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS
SHOULD BE SEGREGATED, FINALLY INTRODUCED EVIDENCE FOR THAT PURPOSE, NOR
THE INADEQUACY OF ITS METHOD OF SEGREGATION, COULD DETRACT FROM THE
FORCE OF THE PROOF IT HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED IN DIRECT REBUTTAL OF THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS.  THE EFFORT AT SEGREGATION CAME AFTER VOLUMINOUS
TESTIMONY HAD BEEN TAKEN WHICH FULLY PRESENTED APPELLANT'S CASE WITH
RESPECT TO THE VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY AND THE RESULT OF ITS OPERATIONS
AS AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM AND THE BEARING OF THIS EVIDENCE UPON THE
CONTESTED RATE.  THIS PROOF COULD NOT BE IGNORED BECAUSE OF A FUTILE
ATTEMPT, IN RESPONSE TO THE STATE'S PRESSURE, TO FIND AN ALTERNATIVE
GROUND TO SUPPORT THE ATTACK UPON THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE FIRST
AND PRIMARY GROUND REMAINED AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE AS THE TRIER OF THE FACTS THAT THE COMMISSION'S RATE WAS
CONFISCATORY COULD NOT PROPERLY BE SET ASIDE BY THE APPLICATION OF AN
UNTENABLE STANDARD OF PROOF AND IN DISREGARD OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAD
BEEN APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND HAD BEEN
PROPERLY SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :








GARMENT WORKERS V. DONNELLY CO., 304 U.S. 243 


NO. 801.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - DECREE IN
21 F.SUPP.  807 VACATED. 


1.  A SUIT BY AN EMPLOYER AND A UNION OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO ENJOIN
ANOTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION FROM PICKETING, BOYCOTTING AND OTHER
INTERFERENCES WITH HIS BUSINESS, UPON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTS
COMPLAINED OF ARE IN FURTHERANCE OF A CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST AND CLAYTON ACTS, IS TRIABLE BEFORE A SINGLE
DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A DECREE OF INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION GRANTED
THEREIN IS APPEALABLE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND NOT DIRECTLY
TO THIS COURT.  P. 247. 

2.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUG. 24, 1937, FOR A
DETERMINATION BY THREE JUDGES AND DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT, DOES NOT
APPLY WHERE AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS MERELY "DRAWN IN QUESTION"; BUT ONLY
WHERE THERE IS AN APPLICATION TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS.  P. 248. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CONTENTION OF PLAINTIFFS THAT THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT (LIMITING JURISDICTION TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR
DISPUTES) WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF DEFENDANTS AND WOULD BE
INVALID IF OTHERWISE INTERPRETED, WAS BUT AN ANTICIPATION OF A DEFENSE
AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION IN ANY PROPER
SENSE OF THE TERM AS USED IN SEC. 3. 

3.  THIS COURT IN CASES OF DECREES PURPORTING TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED
UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUG. 24, 1937, HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE COURT BELOW HAS ACTED WITHIN THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE
STATUTE AND TO MAKE SUCH CORRECTIVE ORDER AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE STATUTE IMPOSES.  WHERE APPEAL
HAS ERRONEOUSLY BEEN TAKEN TO THIS COURT AND THE TIME FOR APPEAL TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS EXPIRED, THE DECREE WILL BE VACATED AND
THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE
TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY OF THAT SECTION.  P. 251. 

INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION ET AL. V. DONNELLY
GARMENT CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THREE JUDGES SITTING,
DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS, AND GRANTING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION. 
THE SUIT, BROUGHT BY THE DONNELLY GARMENT COMPANY, IN WHICH THE
DONNELLY GARMENT WORKERS' UNION JOINED AS PLAINTIFF, WAS TO ENJOIN THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION FROM PERPETRATING ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN
AND CLAYTON ACTS.  FOR OPINIONS BELOW, SEE 21 F.SUPP.  807, 814, 817;
20 ID. 767. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS IS A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, THREE JUDGES SITTING, DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
AND GRANTING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER
SUCH AN APPEAL LIES. 

APPELLANTS RELY UPON THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, C. 754, 50 STAT.
751.  SECTION 3 OF THAT ACT, THE FULL TEXT OF WHICH IS QUOTED IN THE
MARGIN,  FN1  PROVIDES THAT "NO INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
SUSPENDING OR RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION, OR EXECUTION OF,
OR SETTING ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UPON THE
GROUND THAT SUCH ACT OR ANY PART THEREOF IS REPUGNANT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES" SHALL BE GRANTED BY A DISTRICT COURT
"UNLESS THE APPLICATION FOR THE SAME" SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY
THREE JUDGES.  WHEN THERE IS AN APPLICATION FOR SUCH AN INJUNCTION,
THREE JUDGES ARE TO BE CONVENED AND THE HEARING OF THE APPLICATION IS
TO BE EXPEDITED.  AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT FROM A
DECREE "GRANTING OR DENYING, AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, AN INTERLOCUTORY
OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN SUCH CASE." 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INSTANT CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN
THESE PROVISIONS.  THIS IS NOT A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ACT OF CONGRESS AND NO APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR SUCH AN INJUNCTION. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT ON JULY 5, 1937, BY THE APPELLEES, DONNELLY
GARMENT COMPANY AND DONNELLY GARMENT SALES COMPANY, TO OBTAIN AN
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE APPELLANTS, INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT
WORKERS' UNION, ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS, FROM COMMITTING CERTAIN ACTS
ALLEGED TO BE IN FURTHERANCE OF A CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE
SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT AND THE CLAYTON ACT (15 U.S.C., C. 1).  THE
CONDUCT SOUGHT TO BE RESTRAINED CONSISTED OF PICKETING, BOYCOTTING AND
CERTAIN INTERFERENCES WITH PLAINTIFFS' BUSINESS, THEIR EMPLOYEES AND
CUSTOMERS.  APPELLEE, DONNELLY GARMENT WORKERS' UNION AND ITS
REPRESENTATIVES WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AND SOUGHT SIMILAR RELIEF. 
THEIR PETITION IN INTERVENTION ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS (APPELLANTS)
HAD NOT BEEN AND WERE NOT ENGAGED IN A LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 23, 1932, C. 90, 47 STAT. 70, KNOWN AS
THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, NOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS
OF JULY 5, 1935, C. 372, 49 STAT. 449, KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, AND THAT NO LABOR DISPUTE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS
LITIGATION.  THEY FURTHER STATED THAT "IF THE ACTIONS AND COURSE OF
CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANTS" WERE CONSTRUED TO BE A "LABOR DISPUTE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THOSE STATUTES, THE LATTER WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS SO INTERPRETED, BECAUSE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF ARTICLE
II, SEC. 30, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.  BY THEIR
AMENDED BILL OF COMPLAINT, APPELLEES, THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS, MADE
SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA
ACT AND ITS INVALIDITY IF HELD APPLICABLE. 

ON THE PRESENTATION OF THE BILL, THE DISTRICT JUDGE GRANTED A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ENJOINING THE DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT OF WHICH
COMPLAINT WAS MADE.  A MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT WAS DENIED ON AUGUST 13, 1937.  20 F.SUPP.  767. 
AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, THE DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFIED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT AND OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT HAD BEEN
"DRAWN IN QUESTION."  ON THE REQUEST OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, A COURT OF
THREE JUDGES WAS CONSTITUTED.  THE MOTION OF THE DEFENDANTS TO DISMISS
THE BILL AND TO VACATE THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THE MOTION
OF THE PLAINTIFFS FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE
DEFENDANTS FROM COMMITTING THE ALLEGED UNLAWFUL ACTS IN PURSUANCE OF A
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS, WERE THEN HEARD.  THE
MOTION TO DISMISS WAS DENIED AND THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS
GRANTED AS PRAYED.  21 F.SUPP.  807. 

THERE WAS NO APPLICATION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS.  IN CONSIDERING THE
APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS FROM PICKETING,
BOYCOTTING, ETC., THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE GROUND OF DEFENSE
WAS THE DEFENDANTS' CONTENTION THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT DEPRIVED
THE DISTRICT COURT OF JURISDICTION.  THE COURT HELD THAT THAT ACT HAD
NO APPLICATION TO THE CONTROVERSY AND THAT IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO
RESOLVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED AS TO ITS VALIDITY.  ID.,
PP. 811, 814. 

THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, CAREFULLY DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN THE
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS TO WHICH ITS PROVISIONS ARE ADDRESSED.  SECTION 1
APPLIES "WHENEVER THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS
AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS DRAWN IN QUESTION" IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES, OR
ITS AGENCY, OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS SUCH, IS NOT A PARTY.  THE FACT THAT
SUCH A QUESTION IS INVOLVED MUST BE CERTIFIED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND THE UNITED STATES MUST BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE WITH ALL THE
RIGHTS OF A PARTY.  TO MAKE THAT PROVISION APPLICABLE IT IS ENOUGH THAT
A QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS
INVOLVED, HOWEVER IT MAY ARISE.  THE QUESTION MAY BE RAISED BY ANY
PARTY AND THE SECTION IS NOT LIMITED TO CASES WHERE AN INJUNCTION IS
SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT.  APART FROM PROVIDING
FOR INTERVENTION, AND THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT, SEC. 1 DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGE IN PROCEDURE
IN THE HEARING OF THE CAUSE OR IN RELATION TO APPEAL. 

OR ITS AGENCY, OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AS SUCH, IS A PARTY OR IN WHICH THE
UNITED STATES HAS INTERVENED AND IN WHICH "THE DECISION IS AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS."  IN THAT EVENT, AN APPEAL
MAY BE TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT.  THAT SECTION APPLIES, HOWEVER THE
QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY MAY ARISE, PROVIDED THE UNITED STATES IS
OR HAS BECOME A PARTY AND THE DECISION IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE
ACT.  THAT SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A COURT OF THREE JUDGES, AND NO
PROVISION IS MADE FOR A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT IF THE DECISION IS
IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT. 

THE PROVISION IN SEC. 3 FOR A DETERMINATION BY THREE JUDGES AND FOR A
DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT IS LIMITED TO THE PARTICULAR CLASS OF CASES
THERE DESCRIBED.  SECTION 3 DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A CASE WHERE THE
VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS MERELY DRAWN IN QUESTION, ALBEIT THAT
QUESTION BE DECIDED, BUT ONLY FOR A CASE WHERE THERE IS AN APPLICATION
FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  THE CAREFUL CHOICE OF LANGUAGE IN
THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE ACT POINTS CLEARLY TO A DISTINCTION IN
CATEGORIES.  HAD CONGRESS INTENDED THE PROVISION IN SEC. 3, FOR THREE
JUDGES AND DIRECT APPEAL, TO APPLY WHENEVER A QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY
OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS BECAME INVOLVED, CONGRESS WOULD NATURALLY HAVE
USED THE FAMILIAR PHRASE "DRAWN IN QUESTION," AS IN THE FIRST SECTION
OF THE ACT.  WHILE THERE ARE SOME VARIATIONS IN TEXT, THE PROVISION IN
SEC. 3 HAS A MANIFEST ANALOGY TO THAT OF SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
(28 U.S.C. 380) PROVIDING FOR THREE JUDGES AND A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS
COURT IN CASE OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE BY RESTRAINING THE ACTION OF STATE
OFFICERS.  THAT PROVISION IS HINGED ON AN APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION,
AND NOT ON THE MERE DRAWING IN QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
STATE ENACTMENT.  COMPARE SMITH V. WILSON, 273 U.S. 388, 391; STRATTON
V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 282 U.S. 10, 15. 

THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 3 TURNS ON THE PRESENTATION
OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A
FEDERAL STATUTE.  IT IS WHEN "SUCH APPLICATION" IS PRESENTED TO A JUDGE
THAT THE PARTICIPATION OF TWO OTHER JUDGES IS TO BE REQUESTED.  IT IS
"SUCH APPLICATION" WHICH IS NOT TO BE HEARD OR DETERMINED BEFORE AT
LEAST FIVE DAYS' NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THE JUDGE TO WHOM
"THE APPLICATION IS MADE" MAY GRANT A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND
THE COURT "AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUCH APPLICATION" MAY CONTINUE THE
TEMPORARY STAY.  AND IT IS THE HEARING "UPON ANY SUCH APPLICATION FOR
AN INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION" THAT IS TO BE GIVEN
PRECEDENCE AND EXPEDITED.  APPEAL IS TO BE TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT
WHERE THE DECREE GRANTS OR DENIES "AN INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION IN SUCH CASE." 

THE CONTENTION OF PLAINTIFFS THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT WAS NOT
APPLICABLE TO THE CONDUCT OF DEFENDANTS AND WOULD BE INVALID IF
OTHERWISE INTERPRETED WAS BUT AN ANTICIPATION OF A DEFENSE AND DID NOT
CONSTITUTE AN APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION IN ANY PROPER SENSE OF THE
TERM AS USED IN SEC. 3.  THE ONLY APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION WAS ONE
TO RESTRAIN THE DEFENDANTS FROM COMMITTING ACTS IN PURSUANCE OF THE
ALLEGED CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS.  THE STATUTE
DID NOT REQUIRE A DECISION BY THREE JUDGES UPON THAT APPLICATION OR
AUTHORIZE A DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS COURT. 

BUT ALTHOUGH THE MERITS CANNOT BE REVIEWED HERE, THIS COURT, BY
VIRTUE OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN CASES OF DECREES PURPORTING TO
BE ENTERED UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, AS IN CASES OF DECREES
PURPORTING TO BE ENTERED UNDER SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE,
NECESSARILY HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COURT BELOW HAS
ACTED WITHIN THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE AND TO MAKE SUCH
CORRECTIVE ORDER AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
LIMITATIONS WHICH THE STATUTE IMPOSES.  WE HAVE SAID THAT SUCH A CASE
IS ANALOGOUS TO THOSE IN WHICH THIS COURT, FINDING THAT THE COURT BELOW
HAS ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION, EXERCISES ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO
CORRECT THE IMPROPER ACTION.  GULLY V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 292
U.S. 16, 18; OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292
U.S. 386, 392; WALL V. MCNEE, 296 U.S. 547; UNITED STATES V. CORRICK,
298 U.S. 435, 440.  AS APPELLANTS BY MISTAKENLY APPEALING DIRECTLY TO
THIS COURT HAVE LOST THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE DECREE REVIEWED ON
ITS MERITS, AS THE TIME FOR APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS
EXPIRED, OUR APPROPRIATE ACTION, WITHOUT PASSING UPON THE MERITS, IS TO
VACATE THE DECREE BELOW AND TO REMAND THE CAUSE TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TO BE TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY OF SEC. 3 OF THE ACT
OF AUGUST 24, 1937.  GULLY V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., SUPRA;
OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., SUPRA.  JUDGMENT
VACATED. 

FN1  THE FIRST THREE SECTIONS OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, ARE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT WHENEVER THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST
IS DRAWN IN QUESTION IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN ANY SUIT OR
PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, OR ANY
OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF, AS SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, IS NOT A
PARTY, THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT OR PROCEEDING SHALL
CERTIFY SUCH FACT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  IN ANY SUCH CASE THE COURT
SHALL PERMIT THE UNITED STATES TO INTERVENE AND BECOME A PARTY FOR
PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (IF EVIDENCE IS OTHERWISE RECEIVABLE IN SUCH
SUIT OR PROCEEDING) AND ARGUMENT UPON THE QUESTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH ACT.  IN ANY SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING THE
UNITED STATES SHALL, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW, HAVE
ALL THE RIGHTS OF A PARTY AND THE LIABILITIES OF A PARTY AS TO COURT
COSTS TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR A PROPER PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS
AND LAW RELATING TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH ACT. 

"SEC. 2.  IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY AGENCY THEREOF, OR ANY OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE THEREOF, AS SUCH OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, IS A PARTY, OR IN WHICH
THE UNITED STATES HAS INTERVENED AND BECOME A PARTY, AND IN WHICH THE
DECISION IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, AN
APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BY THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OTHER PARTY TO SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING UPON
APPLICATION THEREFOR OR NOTICE THEREOF WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE
ENTRY OF A FINAL OR INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT, DECREE, OR ORDER; AND IN
THE EVENT THAT ANY SUCH APPEAL IS TAKEN, ANY APPEAL OR CROSS-APPEAL BY
ANY PARTY TO THE SUIT OR PROCEEDING TAKEN PREVIOUSLY, OR TAKEN WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF AN APPEAL UNDER THIS SECTION, SHALL ALSO BE
OR BE TREATED AS TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.  IN THE EVENT THAT AN APPEAL IS TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION, THE
RECORD SHALL BE MADE UP AND THE CASE DOCKETED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE TIME SUCH APPEAL IS
ALLOWED, UNDER SUCH RULES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE PROPER COURTS. 
APPEALS UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE HEARD BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME AND SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER ALL OTHER MATTERS NOT OF A LIKE CHARACTER.  THIS SECTION SHALL NOT
BE CONSTRUED TO BE IN DEROGATION OF ANY RIGHT OF DIRECT APPEAL TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER EXISTING PROVISIONS OF LAW. 

"SEC. 3.  NO INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION SUSPENDING OR
RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT, OPERATION OR EXECUTION OF, OR SETTING
ASIDE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY ACT OF CONGRESS UPON THE GROUND THAT
SUCH ACT OR ANY PART THEREOF IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL BE ISSUED OR GRANTED BY ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR BY ANY JUDGE THEREOF, OR BY ANY CIRCUIT JUDGE ACTING
AS DISTRICT JUDGE, UNLESS THE APPLICATION FOR THE SAME SHALL BE
PRESENTED TO A CIRCUIT OR DISTRICT JUDGE, AND SHALL BE HEARD AND
DETERMINED BY THREE JUDGES, OF WHOM AT LEAST ONE SHALL BE A CIRCUIT
JUDGE.  WHEN ANY SUCH APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO A JUDGE, HE SHALL
IMMEDIATELY REQUEST THE SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE (OR IN HIS ABSENCE, THE
PRESIDING CIRCUIT JUDGE) OF THE CIRCUIT IN WHICH SUCH DISTRICT COURT IS
LOCATED TO DESIGNATE TWO OTHER JUDGES TO PARTICIPATE IN HEARING AND
DETERMINING SUCH APPLICATION.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SENIOR
CIRCUIT JUDGE OR THE PRESIDING CIRCUIT JUDGE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TO
DESIGNATE IMMEDIATELY TWO OTHER JUDGES FROM SUCH CIRCUIT FOR SUCH
PURPOSE, AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE JUDGES SO DESIGNATED TO
PARTICIPATE IN SUCH HEARING AND DETERMINATION.  SUCH APPLICATION SHALL
NOT BE HEARD OR DETERMINED BEFORE AT LEAST FIVE DAYS' NOTICE OF THE
HEARING HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TO SUCH OTHER
PERSONS AS MAY BE DEFENDANTS IN THE SUIT:  PROVIDED, THAT IF OF OPINION
THAT IRREPARABLE LOSS OR DAMAGE WOULD RESULT TO THE PETITIONER UNLESS A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS GRANTED, THE JUDGE TO WHOM THE
APPLICATION IS MADE MAY GRANT SUCH TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AT ANY
TIME BEFORE THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION, BUT SUCH
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE ONLY UNTIL SUCH
HEARING AND DETERMINATION UPON NOTICE AS AFORESAID, AND SUCH TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER SHALL CONTAIN A SPECIFIC FINDING, BASED UPON EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED TO THE COURT MAKING THE ORDER AND IDENTIFIED BY REFERENCE
THERETO, THAT SUCH IRREPARABLE LOSS OR DAMAGE WOULD RESULT TO THE
PETITIONER AND SPECIFYING THE NATURE OF THE LOSS OR DAMAGE.  THE SAID
COURT MAY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUCH APPLICATION, UPON A LIKE
FINDING, CONTINUE THE TEMPORARY STAY OR SUSPENSION, IN WHOLE OR IN
PART, UNTIL DECISION UPON THE APPLICATION.  THE HEARING UPON ANY SUCH
APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHALL BE GIVEN
PRECEDENCE AND SHALL BE IN EVERY WAY EXPEDITED AND BE ASSIGNED FOR A
HEARING AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE DAY.  AN APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN
DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPON APPLICATION
THEREFOR OR NOTICE THEREOF WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF THE
ORDER, DECREE, OR JUDGMENT GRANTING OR DENYING, AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING, AN INTERLOCUTORY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN SUCH CASE.  IN THE
EVENT THAT AN APPEAL IS TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION, THE RECORD SHALL BE
MADE UP AND THE CASE DOCKETED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WITHIN SIXTY DAYS FROM THE TIME SUCH APPEAL IS ALLOWED, UNDER SUCH
RULES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE PROPER COURTS.  APPEALS UNDER THIS
EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME AND SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER MATTERS
NOT OF A LIKE CHARACTER.  THIS SECTION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE IN
DEROGATION OF ANY RIGHT OF DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES UNDER EXISTING PROVISIONS OF LAW." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















WATER SERVICE CO. V. REDDING, 304 U.S. 252 


NO. 976.  MOTION TO DISMISS.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 22 F.SUPP. 
641, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SUIT BEFORE A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, CONVENED UNDER
SEC. 3, ACT OF AUG. 24, 1937, TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL STATUTES
ON THE GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, IF NO
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION IS PRESENTED; AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
QUESTION THE COURT CAN NOT PROCEED TO THE DETERMINATION OF LOCAL
QUESTIONS BUT MUST DISMISS THE BILL.  P. 254. 

2.  LACK OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH THUS DEFEATS THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT MAY APPEAR FROM A DECISION OF THIS
COURT IN ANOTHER CASE RENDERED AFTER THE FILING OF THE BILL IN THE
DISTRICT COURT AND AFTER PRESENTATION OF A MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION.  P. 255. 

3. A WATER SERVICE COMPANY SUED TO ENJOIN A CITY FROM RECEIVING A
GRANT OF FEDERAL FUNDS UNDER TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
RECOVERY ACT, AND FROM USING PROCEEDS OF CITY BONDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSTRUCTING A MUNICIPAL WATER PLANT, CLAIMING THAT THE GRANT WAS IN
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL STATUTES, AND THE
BOND ISSUE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES OF
CALIFORNIA.  HELD, THAT IN VIEW OF THIS COURT'S LATER DECISION IN
ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL
FEDERAL QUESTION; AND THAT THE QUESTION OF THE BOND ISSUE WAS DISTINCT
AND LOCAL.  P. 255. 

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO. ET AL. V. CITY OF REDDING ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES,
DISMISSING A BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY APPELLANTS, CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY
AND CARLO VEGLIA, TO ENJOIN THE CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA, FROM
RECEIVING A GRANT OF $162,000, ALLOTTED BY THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS UNDER TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT AND
SUPPLEMENTAL LEGISLATION,  FN1  TO AID THE CITY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS SYSTEM; AND ALSO TO ENJOIN THE CITY FROM
EXPENDING THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF $200,000 OF THE CITY'S BONDS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING SUCH A PLANT.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
ALLEGED THAT THE GRANT OF FEDERAL FUNDS AND THE LEGISLATION SAID TO
AUTHORIZE IT WERE INVALID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (ARTICLE I,
SECS. 1, 8 AND 9; ARTICLE II, SECS. 1 AND 3; AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT),
AND ALSO THAT THE GRANT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL STATUTES
CITED.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE
CASE OF ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464.  THE BOND ISSUE OF
THE CITY WAS ALLEGED TO BE INVALID UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES
OF CALIFORNIA. 

TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS WERE SOUGHT AND THE DISTRICT
COURT, COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES, CONVENED UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF
AUGUST 24, 1937(50 STAT. 751, 752), DECIDED THAT THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
STATED NO CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE COGNIZANCE OF THE COURT.  THE
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER WAS DISSOLVED AND THE COMPLAINT WAS
DISMISSED.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL.  APPELLEES MOVE TO DISMISS
OR AFFIRM. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE RAISED
WAS IDENTICAL WITH THAT PRESENTED IN ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, SUPRA;
THAT THE ASSERTED DISTINCTION THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION OF DEFENDANTS,
THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATOR NOT BEING A PARTY, WAS MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE
OR PURPOSE TO INJURE OR COERCE THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY, WAS OF NO AVAIL,
AS THE CITY WAS FREE TO BARGAIN WITH THE PLAINTIFF AND TO CONSTRUCT A
RIVAL SYSTEM IF THE PLAINTIFF CHOSE NOT TO SELL ITS PLANT AND THE
MOTIVE ACTUATING THE CITY IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS RIGHTS WAS
IMMATERIAL.  SEE ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 139,
145.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION, THE COURT RULED
THAT THE CHARGE THAT THE BONDS OF THE CITY WERE INVALID UNDER THE STATE
LAW PRESENTED A PURELY LOCAL ISSUE WHICH THE COURT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO
CONSIDER. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THESE RULINGS WERE CORRECT.  WE HAVE HELD
THAT SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE DOES NOT APPLY UNLESS THERE IS A
SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE STATUTE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AS THERE DESCRIBED.  IT IS THEREFORE THE DUTY OF A
DISTRICT JUDGE, TO WHOM AN APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE STATUTE OR ORDER IS MADE, TO SCRUTINIZE THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION
IS PRESENTED, AS OTHERWISE THE PROVISION FOR THE CONVENING OF A COURT
OF THREE JUDGES IS NOT APPLICABLE.  EX PARTE BUDER, 271 U.S. 461, 467;
EX PARTE PORESKY, 290 U.S. 30.  WE THINK THAT A SIMILAR RULE GOVERNS
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, AS TO THE
PARTICIPATION OF THREE JUDGES IN PASSING UPON APPLICATIONS FOR
INJUNCTIONS RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL STATUTES UPON THE
GROUND OF CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY.  HAD THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF
ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, SUPRA, AND OF DUKE POWER CO. V. GREENWOOD
COUNTY, 302 U.S. 485, BEEN RENDERED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION WOULD
HAVE BEEN PRESENTED.  THE LACK OF SUBSTANTIALITY IN A FEDERAL QUESTION
MAY APPEAR EITHER BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT MERIT OR BECAUSE ITS
UNSOUNDNESS SO CLEARLY RESULTS FROM THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT AS TO FORECLOSE THE SUBJECT.  LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN,
289 U.S. 103, 105, 106.  AND, HERE, ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF COMPLAINT HAD
BEEN PREVIOUSLY FILED, AND A MOTION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
PRESENTED, IT WAS APPARENT AFTER OUR DECISIONS IN THE CASES CITED THAT
THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE AND IT BECAME THE DUTY OF
THE DISTRICT COURT TO DISMISS THE BILL OF COMPLAINT UPON THAT GROUND. 

IN OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC CO. V. OKLAHOMA PACKING CO., 292 U.S. 386,
391, WE HAD OCCASION TO OBSERVE THAT "THE THREE JUDGE PROCEDURE IS AN
EXTRAORDINARY ONE, IMPOSING A HEAVY BURDEN ON FEDERAL COURTS, WITH
ATTENDANT EXPENSE AND DELAY"; THAT "THAT PROCEDURE, DESIGNED FOR A
SPECIFIC CLASS OF CASES, SHARPLY DEFINED, SHOULD NOT BE LIGHTLY
EXTENDED"; AND THAT RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON APPELLATE REVIEW IN THIS
COURT "WOULD LIKEWISE BE MEASURABLY IMPAIRED WERE GROUNDLESS
ALLEGATIONS THUS TO SUFFICE."  WE CONCLUDED THAT "WHEN IT BECOMES
APPARENT THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS NO CASE FOR THREE JUDGES, THOUGH THEY
MAY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY CONVENED, THEIR ACTION IS NO LONGER
PRESCRIBED." 

IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE PRESENTATION OF A LOCAL QUESTION IN THE
INSTANT CASE AS TO THE INVALIDITY OF THE CITY'S BONDS UNDER THE STATE
LAW DID NOT SUFFICE TO SAVE JURISDICTION.  WHILE, IF THE COURT HAD
JURISDICTION BY REASON OF THE PRESENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL
QUESTION, IT COULD PROCEED TO PASS UPON THE LOCAL ISSUE (LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE R. CO. V. GARRETT, 231 U.S. 298, 303; DAVIS V. WALLACE, 257
U.S. 478, 482; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 393, 394; RAILROAD
COMMISSION V. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 302 U.S. 388, 391), IT WAS
THE PRESENCE OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH GAVE THE COURT THAT
AUTHORITY, AND IN ITS ABSENCE, THROUGH LACK OF SUBSTANCE, THE COURT WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO GO FURTHER.  IN NORUMBEGA CO. V. BENNETT, 290 U.S. 598,
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, CONSIDERING THAT A FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WAS INVOLVED, PASSED UPON THE QUESTION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE STATUTE AND, DENYING A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION, DISMISSED THE BILL OF COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF
EQUITY.  3 F.SUPP.  500, 502.  THIS COURT REVERSED THE DECREE AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL OF COMPLAINT FOR
THE WANT OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL
FEDERAL QUESTION. 

WE THINK THAT THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT A
COURT OF THREE JUDGES SHOULD BE CONVENED, OR, IF CONVENED, SHOULD
CONTINUE TO ACT, MERELY FOR THE DECISION OF A LOCAL QUESTION WHERE NO
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION IS INVOLVED.  WE AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT
COURT THAT THE ATTEMPT TO BLEND THE CONTENTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF
THE BOND ISSUE UNDER STATE LAW WITH THE QUESTION AS TO THE AUTHORITY TO
MAKE THE FEDERAL GRANT UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTES, SO AS TO GIVE THE
FORMER THE ASPECT OF A FEDERAL QUESTION, IS UNAVAILING.  THE LOCAL
QUESTION AND THE FEDERAL QUESTION ARE DISTINCT.  SEE HURN V. OURSLER,
289 U.S. 238, 245, 246. 

THE COURT BELOW RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE BILL OF COMPLAINT AND THE
MOTION TO AFFIRM ITS DECREE IS GRANTED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACTS OF JUNE 6, 1933, C. 90, 48 STAT. 200-210; APRIL 8, 1935, C.
48, 49 STAT. 115, 119; JUNE 29, 1937, C. 401, SECS. 201-207, 50 STAT.
352. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




TRADE COMM'N V. GOODYEAR CO., 304 U.S. 257 


NO. 756.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
677, 679, REVERSED. 


1.  THE AMENDMENT, JUNE 16, 1936, OF SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, WITH
RESPECT TO PERMISSIBILITY OF PRICE DISCRIMINATIONS BASED ON QUANTITIES
SOLD, WAS NOT INTENDED TO AFFECT ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ISSUED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT.  P. 258. 

2.  ABANDONMENT OF A PRICE ARRANGEMENT FOUND ILLEGAL AND ORDERED
DISCONTINUED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, DOES NOT DEPRIVE
RESPONDENT OF THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE LEGALITY OF THE PRACTICE AND THE
VALIDITY OF THE ORDER DETERMINED ON REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  THE CONTROVERSY DOES NOT BECOME MOOT.  P. 260. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 631, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN SEPTEMBER, 1933, THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CHARGED RESPONDENT,
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, WITH THE VIOLATION OF SEC. 2 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT (15 U.S.C. 13) IN SELLING TIRES, TUBES, ETC. TO SEARS,
ROEBUCK & COMPANY AT DISCRIMINATORY PRICES.  RESPONDENT, INVOKING THE
FIRST PROVISO IN SEC. 2,  FN1  CONTENDED THAT ITS CONTRACTS WITH SEARS,
ROEBUCK & COMPANY FOR SALES INVOLVING LOWER NET PRICES THAN THOSE
CHARGED TO INDEPENDENT DEALERS WERE MADE BECAUSE OF THE GREAT
DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITIES SOLD.  AFTER HEARING, THE COMMISSION RULED
THAT IT DID NOT CONSIDER A DIFFERENCE IN PRICE TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF
QUANTITY UNLESS IT WAS BASED ON A DIFFERENCE IN COST AND WAS REASONABLY
RELATED TO AND APPROXIMATELY NO MORE THAN THAT DIFFERENCE.  IN MARCH,
1936, THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO DESIST
FROM DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICES AS DESCRIBED. 

PENDING THE HEARING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF RESPONDENT'S
PETITION FOR REVIEW, THE CONGRESS AMENDED SEC. 2 OF THE CLAYTON ACT. 
ACT OF JUNE 19, 1936, C. 592, 49 STAT. 1526.  THE FIRST PROVISO WAS
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT DIFFERENTIALS
WHICH MAKE ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF
MANUFACTURE, SALE, OR DELIVERY, RESULTING FROM THE DIFFERING METHODS OR
QUANTITIES IN WHICH SUCH COMMODITIES ARE TO SUCH PURCHASERS SOLD OR
DELIVERED:  ...  " 

THEREUPON, RESPONDENT INFORMED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT IN
VIEW OF THIS PROVISION RESPONDENT HAD CEASED TO MANUFACTURE TIRES FOR
SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY UNDER THE TERMS OF ITS EXISTING CONTRACT;
THAT, TO DISPOSE OF THE STOCK ON HAND, THE PARTIES HAD MADE A NEW PRICE
ARRANGEMENT DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO THE NEW LAW; AND THAT WITHIN THE
YEAR ALL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY
CEASED AND OBLIGATIONS WERE TERMINATED BY MUTUAL RELEASES.  92 F.2D
677, 679. 

CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS NO CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS TO
THE ILLEGAL CHARACTER OF RESPONDENT'S PRACTICES UNDER THE AMENDED ACT,
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THE CASE HAD BECOME MOOT. 
IN THAT VIEW THE COURT SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AND
REMANDED THE CASE "BUT WITHOUT DIRECTION TO THE COMMISSION TO DISMISS
THE COMPLAINT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ITS FILING A SUPPLEMENTAL
COMPLAINT IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IF UNDER SEC. 2 OF THE AMENDATORY
ACT THIS MAY NOW BE DONE" AS TO WHICH THE COURT EXPRESSED NO OPINION. 
ID., P. 681. 

BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE RESPONDENT CONTENDED BELOW, AND CONTEND
HERE, THAT THE CASE HAS NOT BECOME MOOT.  WHILE THEY DISAGREE IN THEIR
REASONING, THEY COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION UPON THIS POINT, AND BOTH
ASK THAT THE CASE BE REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITH
DIRECTIONS TO DETERMINE IT UPON THE MERITS.  WE THINK THAT THEIR
CONCLUSION IS CORRECT AND THAT THE REMAND SHOULD BE MADE. 

THE COMMISSION HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY PERSON IS VIOLATING OR
HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND UPON HEARING SO FINDS, THE
COMMISSION SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM SUCH VIOLATIONS.  IN CASE OF FAILURE TO OBEY ITS ORDER, THE
COMMISSION MAY APPLY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR ENFORCEMENT. 
AND ANYONE REQUIRED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM A VIOLATION CHARGED MAY
SEEK REVIEW IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, PRAYING THAT THE ORDER BE
SET ASIDE.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 19, 1936, SHOW CLEARLY
THAT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ENTERED BEFORE ITS PASSAGE ARE TO
REMAIN IN EFFECT.  SECTION 2 OF THAT ACT PROVIDES THAT NOTHING THEREIN
CONTAINED SHALL "AFFECT RIGHTS OF ACTION ARISING, OR LITIGATION
PENDING, OR ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ISSUED AND IN EFFECT
OR PENDING ON REVIEW, BASED ON SECTION 2 OF SAID ACT OF OCTOBER 15,
1914, PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT." 

DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRACTICE WHICH THE COMMISSION FOUND TO
CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE ACT DID NOT RENDER THE CONTROVERSY MOOT. 
UNITED STATES V. TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSN., 166 U.S. 290, 309, 310;
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, 219 U.S. 433,
452; SOUTHERN PACIFIC TERMINAL CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
219 U.S. 498, 514-516; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA
GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261; GUARANTEE VETERINARY CO. V. FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION, 285 F. 853, 859, 860; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE V. FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION, 13 F.2D 673, 686, 687.  THE COMMISSION, RECITING ITS
FINDINGS AND THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT HAD VIOLATED THE ACT,
REQUIRED RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE PARTICULAR
DISCRIMINATIONS WHICH THE ORDER DESCRIBED.  THAT IS A CONTINUING
ORDER.  ITS EFFICACY, IF VALID, WAS NOT AFFECTED BY THE SUBSEQUENT
PASSAGE OR THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDATORY ACT.  AS A CONTINUING
ORDER, THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT IF IT IS
DISOBEYED.  BUT UNDER THE STATUTE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO SEEK
REVIEW OF THE ORDER AND TO HAVE IT SET ASIDE IF FOUND TO BE INVALID. 
THE QUESTION WHICH BOTH PARTIES SOUGHT TO HAVE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DECIDE WAS WHETHER RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE
ORIGINAL STATUTE.  UPON THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS SUCH A VIOLATION,
THE COMMISSION BASED ITS ORDER.  NEITHER THE TRANSACTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO
THAT ORDER NOR THE PASSAGE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT DEPRIVED THE
RESPONDENT OF ITS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER AND TO HAVE ITS VALIDITY
DETERMINED, OR THE COMMISSION OF ITS RIGHT TO HAVE ITS ORDER MAINTAINED
IF VALIDLY MADE. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE MERITS. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THAT PROVISO, IN THE ORIGINAL ACT, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL PREVENT DISCRIMINATION
IN PRICE BETWEEN PURCHASERS OF COMMODITIES ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN
THE GRADE, QUALITY, OR QUANTITY OF THE COMMODITIES SOLD, OR THAT MAKES
ONLY DUE ALLOWANCE FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF SELLING OR
TRANSPORTATION, OR DISCRIMINATION IN PRICE IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT
COMMUNITIES MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO MEET COMPETITION; ...  " 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






N.Y. LIFE INS. CO. V. JACKSON, 304 U.S. 261 


NO. 869.  DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - CERTIORARI GRANTED - 94 F.2D 288,
VACATED. 


QUESTIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INSURANCE POLICY ARE TO BE DECIDED
BY THE FEDERAL COURTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF
STATE LAW.  ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, ANTE, P. 64. 

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. JACKSON ET AL. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT ENFORCING AN INSURANCE
POLICY, ON A CROSS BILL, IN A SUIT TO SET IT ASIDE. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY PETITIONER, NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
TO CANCEL THE REINSTATEMENT OF AN INSURANCE POLICY UPON THE GROUND THAT
IT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD.  THE DEFENDANTS, THE INSURED AND THE
BENEFICIARY, DENIED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSURED FOR ANY
MISREPRESENTATIONS BY REASON OF HIS MENTAL INCAPACITY AT THE TIME. 
THEY ALSO FILED A CROSS BILL SEEKING THE PAYMENT OF THE MONTHLY
DISABILITY BENEFITS FOR WHICH THE POLICY PROVIDED.  DECREE WAS RENDERED
IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THEIR CROSS BILL.  THE DECREE DECLARED VOID
THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE POLICY BUT HELD IT TO BE IN FULL FORCE FROM
THE DATE OF ITS ISSUE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  94 F.2D
288. 

THE STIPULATION OF FACTS STATED THAT THE INSURED AT THE TIME OF THE
ISSUE OF THE POLICY IN 1927 WAS A RESIDENT OF MISSOURI AND THAT THE
POLICY WAS DELIVERED TO THE INSURED IN THAT STATE.  FINDINGS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT FOLLOWED THE STIPULATION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED THE QUESTION WHETHER UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY THE INSURER WAS LIABLE FOR DISABILITY
BENEFITS TO THE INSURED WHO BECAME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED
DURING THE PERIOD OF GRACE FOLLOWING THE DATE ON WHICH A SEMI-ANNUAL
PREMIUM PAYMENT FELL DUE WHERE THE PREMIUM WAS NOT PAID UNTIL AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF GRACE.  THE COURT CONSIDERED THE QUESTION
AS ONE OF GENERAL LAW.  ITS DECISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ACCORDING TO
THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF THE STATE LAW WHICH GOVERNED THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, ANTE, P. 64;
RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., ANTE, P. 202. 

CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IS VACATED, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  JUDGMENT VACATED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















ROSENTHAL V. N.Y. LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 263 


NO. 924.  DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - CERTIORARI GRANTED - 94 F.2D 675,
VACATED. 


QUESTIONS CONCERNING REINSTATEMENT, LAPSE, CONTESTABILITY AND
EXTENSION OF INSURANCE POLICIES ARE TO BE DECIDED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW.  ERIE RAILROAD V.
TOMPKINS, ANTE, P. 64. 

ROSENTHAL V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE CANCELING
INSURANCE REINSTATEMENTS FOR FRAUD AND DISMISSING COUNTERCLAIMS. 

PER CURIAM. 

RESPONDENT, NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO
CANCEL TWO REINSTATEMENTS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY UPON THE GROUND THAT
THEY WERE FRAUDULENTLY PROCURED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, HELD THAT
THE AGREEMENT BY WHICH A LAPSED POLICY IS REINSTATED IS A NEW
AGREEMENT, AS REGARDS THE EFFECT OF THE INCONTESTABLE CLAUSE IN THE
POLICY, AND THAT CLAUSE RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE REINSTATEMENT WHERE
THE DEFENSE IS FRAUD IN ITS PROCUREMENT; AND, FURTHER, THAT THE
EXTENDED INSURANCE UNDER THE POLICY IN QUESTION WAS TO BE CALCULATED
FROM THE ANNIVERSARY DATE OF THE ISSUE OF THE POLICY AND NOT FROM THE
ANNIVERSARY DATE OF THE PAYMENT OF THE FIRST PREMIUM.  94 F.2D 675. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE POLICY WAS ISSUED UPON THE JOINT
LIVES OF RESIDENTS OF MISSOURI AND WAS APPLIED FOR AND DELIVERED TO THE
INSURED IN THAT STATE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE
QUESTIONS, AS ABOVE STATED, AS MATTERS OF GENERAL LAW ACCORDING TO THE
VIEW OF THE COURT AS TO THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY.  PETITIONER SOUGHT A
REHEARING UPON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
POLICY WAS GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF MISSOURI.  REHEARING WAS DENIED. 

WHILE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE DECISION BELOW IS NOT IN CONFLICT
WITH THE LOCAL LAW, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO DETERMINE THAT
QUESTION.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED ARE
THOSE OF STATE LAW AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE
DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURT.  ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, ANTE, P. 64;
RUHLIN V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., ANTE, P. 202. 

CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IS VACATED, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  JUDGMENT VACATED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















LANG V. COMMISSIONER, 304 U.S. 264 


NO. 919.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938. 


1.  UNDER SEC. 301(G) REVENUE ACT, 1926, AND T.R. 70, ARTS. 25 AND 28,
PROMULGATED THEREUNDER, ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE INSURANCE (IN EXCESS OF
THE $40,000 EXEMPTION) COLLECTED ON POLICIES ISSUED ON THE LIFE OF A
DECEDENT AFTER HIS MARRIAGE AND PAYABLE TO HIS WIFE, IS TO BE RECKONED
AS PART OF HIS GROSS ESTATE, WHERE THE MARRIAGE WAS GOVERNED BY THE
COMMUNITY LAW OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND ALL OF THE PREMIUMS WERE
PAID FROM THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY.  P. 267. 

2.  THE RULING IS THE SAME, WHERE THE FACTS ARE AS ABOVE STATED
EXCEPT THAT THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE POLICIES WERE THE CHILDREN OF THE
MARRIAGE.  ID. 

3.  BUT WHERE THE POLICY WAS ISSUED BEFORE THE MARRIAGE, AND THE
PREMIUMS WERE PAID IN PART FROM THE HUSBAND'S FUNDS AND IN PART FROM
COMMUNITY FUNDS, THE WIFE BEING THE BENEFICIARY NAMED IN THE POLICY,
THE AMOUNT TO BE RECKONED AS PART OF THE HUSBAND'S GROSS ESTATE, IS THE
AMOUNT COLLECTED DIMINISHED BY ONE-HALF OF THAT PROPORTION OF IT WHICH
THE PREMIUMS SATISFIED WITH COMMUNITY FUNDS BEAR TO ALL PREMIUMS PAID. 
ID. 

4.  THE DEFINITION IN T.R. 70, ARTS. 25 AND 28, OF THE EXPRESSION
"POLICIES TAKEN OUT BY THE DECEDENT UPON HIS OWN LIFE," FOUND IN THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, HAVING BEEN CONTAINED IN EARLIER REGULATIONS UNDER
EARLIER REVENUE ACTS USING THE SAME EXPRESSION, MUST BE TREATED
(NOTHING ELSE APPEARING) AS APPROVED BY CONGRESS.  P. 268. 

LANG, EXECUTOR, ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CERTIFIED IN RELATION TO AN ESTATE TAX
ASSESSMENT UPHELD BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 34 B.T.A. 337, AND ON
REVIEW BY THE COURT BELOW. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS CERTIFIED PROPOSITIONS OF LAW
CONCERNING WHICH INSTRUCTIONS ARE DESIRED FOR DECISION OF A PENDING
CAUSE.  U.S.C., TITLE 28, SEC. 346. 

IN 1905 JULIUS C. LANG MARRIED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, WHERE
COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS HAVE LONG OBTAINED, AND BOTH PARTIES CONTINUED
TO BE DOMICILED THERE UNTIL HE DIED IN 1929.  AT HIS DEATH SEVENTEEN
POLICIES OF INSURANCE UPON HIS LIFE - TOTALING ABOVE $200,000.00 - WERE
IN FORCE.  EACH POLICY REQUIRED ADVANCED PAYMENT OF ONE PREMIUM. 
FOURTEEN SPECIFIED THE WIFE AS SOLE BENEFICIARY; CHILDREN WERE THE
BENEFICIARIES IN THREE.  THREE OF THOSE PAYABLE TO THE WIFE WERE
OBTAINED BY THE ASSURED PRIOR TO MARRIAGE AND EARLY PREMIUM PAYMENTS
UPON THEM CAME FROM HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY; LATER ONES FROM COMMUNITY
FUNDS.  APPLICATION FOR FOURTEEN POLICIES FOLLOWED THE MARRIAGE AND ALL
PREMIUMS THEREON WERE PAID FROM COMMUNITY FUNDS. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE RULED THAT UNDER SEC. 302(G),
REVENUE ACT 1926, C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS FROM ALL
POLICIES SHOULD BE RECKONED AS PART OF THE ASSURED'S GROSS ESTATE
SUBJECT TO THE PERMITTED EXEMPTION OF $40,000, AND MADE AN ASSESSMENT
ACCORDINGLY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AFFIRMED. 

THE EXEMPTION IS NOT CONTROVERTED AND BY ADMISSION EACH POLICY
PERMITTED THE ASSURED TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARY.  THE POINT FOR
CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS OF A
POLICY, PREMIUMS ON WHICH WERE PAID OUT OF COMMUNITY FUNDS, MUST BE
TREATED AS PART OF THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE. 

THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT THE LAWS OF WASHINGTON ESTABLISH A
COMMUNITY BETWEEN SPOUSES WHICH IS A SEPARATE ENTITY, "JUST AS A
CORPORATION OR AN ASSOCIATION," AND THAT LIFE INSURANCE PURCHASED WITH
ITS FUNDS IS COMMUNITY PROPERTY WHOSE CHARACTER THE HUSBAND CANNOT
DEFEAT THROUGH CHANGE OF BENEFICIARY. 

ACCEPTING AS CORRECT, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE
LOCAL LAW, ALSO TREATING THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE CERTIFICATE AS THE
ESSENTIAL ONES, WE COME TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR
INSTRUCTIONS WHICH ARE RESTATED IN ORDER MORE DEFINITELY TO INDICATE
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR SIGNIFICANCE. 

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOCAL LAW APPROVED BELOW IS CERTAINLY A
TENABLE ONE AND FINDS SUPPORT IN GRAHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 95 F.2D 174;
OCCIDENTAL LIFE CO. V. POWERS, 192 WASH. 475; POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S.
101, 113. 

OCCASION FOR THE CERTIFICATE DID NOT ARISE FROM DOUBTS RELATING TO
THE MEANING OF THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS OF WASHINGTON, BUT FROM
UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE 1926 REVENUE ACT TO AN
ESTATE UNDER ADMINISTRATION IN THAT STATE.  THE COURT WAS PERPLEXED BY
BANK OF AMERICA V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 90 F.2D 981, 983,
WHICH AFFIRMED THAT THE OPERATION OF THAT ACT IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON
LOCAL LAW AND "THEREFORE WHATEVER THE LOCAL LAW MAY BE WE BELIEVE IT TO
BE IMMATERIAL."  THIS STATEMENT IS NOT ACCURATE AND CONFLICTS WITH WHAT
WE HAVE SAID.  POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101, 111, 112; BLAIR V.
COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5, 9, 10. 

1.  MUST THE TOTAL OR ONLY ONE-HALF OF THE PROCEEDS COLLECTED UNDER
THE INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED AFTER MARRIAGE ON THE DECEASED HUSBAND'S
LIFE BE RECKONED AS PART OF HIS GROSS ESTATE, THE WIFE BEING SOLE
BENEFICIARY AND ALL PREMIUMS HAVING BEEN PAID FROM COMMUNITY FUNDS?  TO
THIS WE ANSWER, ONLY ONE-HALF. 

2.  MUST THE TOTAL PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY UPON A DECEDENT'S LIFE,
TAKEN OUT AFTER MARRIAGE, CHILDREN BEING THE SOLE BENEFICIARIES, AND
ALL PREMIUMS HAVING BEEN PAID FROM COMMUNITY FUNDS, BE RECKONED AS PART
OF HIS GROSS ESTATE; OR, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS ONLY ONE-HALF TO BE
INCLUDED?  TO THIS WE REPLY, ONLY ONE-HALF SHOULD BE INCLUDED. 

3.  MUST ALL PROCEEDS OF THE POLICIES ISSUED BEFORE MARRIAGE UPON THE
DECEASED HUSBAND'S LIFE BE RECKONED AS PART OF HIS GROSS ESTATE, THE
WIFE BEING SOLE BENEFICIARY, THE FIRST PREMIUM HAVING BEEN PAID FROM
HIS SEPARATE FUNDS, AND ALL SUBSEQUENT ONES FROM COMMUNITY FUNDS; OR,
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IS THE TOTAL RECEIVED UNDER THE POLICY REDUCED BY
ONE-HALF OF THAT PROPORTION OF SUCH TOTAL WHICH PREMIUMS SATISFIED WITH
COMMUNITY FUNDS BEAR TO ALL PREMIUMS PAID, THE AMOUNT TO BE REGARDED AS
BELONGING TO THE GROSS ESTATE?  TO THIS WE REPLY, ONLY THE TOTAL
PROCEEDS LESS ONE-HALF OF THE INDICATED PROPORTION BECOMES PART OF THE
GROSS ESTATE. 

OF THE NET ESTATE OF EVERY DECEDENT, ETC.  AND SEC. 302 PROVIDES - 

"THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR
PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(G)  TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY THE EXECUTOR AS
INSURANCE UNDER POLICIES TAKEN OUT BY THE DECEDENT UPON HIS OWN LIFE;
AND TO THE EXTENT OF THE EXCESS OVER $40,000 OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE
BY ALL OTHER BENEFICIARIES AS INSURANCE UNDER POLICIES TAKEN OUT BY THE
DECEDENT UPON HIS OWN LIFE." 

THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1918, 1921 AND 1924 CONTAIN SIMILAR PROVISIONS
RELATIVE TO "POLICIES TAKEN OUT BY THE DECEDENT UPON HIS OWN LIFE." 

TREASURY REGULATIONS 37 PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918
PROVIDE - 

"ART. 32.  ...  THE TERM 'INSURANCE' REFERS TO LIFE INSURANCE OF
EVERY DESCRIPTION  ... INSURANCE IS DEEMED TO BE TAKEN OUT BY THE
DECEDENT IN ALL CASES WHERE HE PAYS THE PREMIUMS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, WHETHER OR NOT HE MAKES THE APPLICATION.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE INSURANCE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE, EVEN
THOUGH THE APPLICATION IS MADE BY THE DECEDENT, WHERE THE PREMIUMS ARE
ACTUALLY PAID BY SOME OTHER PERSON OR CORPORATION, AND NOT OUT OF FUNDS
BELONGING TO, OR ADVANCED BY, THE DECEDENT.  ..."  AND THERE ARE
SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN TREASURY REGULATIONS 63, ART. 27, PROMULGATED
UNDER 1921 REVENUE ACT. 

TREASURY REGULATIONS 68 PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT 1924 - 

"ART. 25.  ... 

"THE TERM 'INSURANCE' REFERS TO LIFE INSURANCE OF EVERY DESCRIPTION
...  INSURANCE IS DEEMED TO BE TAKEN OUT BY THE DECEDENT IN ALL CASES
WHERE HE PAYS ALL THE PREMIUMS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, WHETHER
OR NOT BE MAKES THE APPLICATION.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE INSURANCE IS
NOT DEEMED TO BE TAKEN OUT BY THE DECEDENT, EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICATION
IS MADE BY HIM, WHERE ALL THE PREMIUMS ARE ACTUALLY PAID BY THE
BENEFICIARY.  WHERE A PORTION OF THE PREMIUMS WERE PAID BY THE
BENEFICIARY AND THE REMAINING PORTION BY THE DECEDENT THE INSURANCE
WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT BY THE LATTER IN THE PROPORTION
THAT THE PREMIUMS PAID BY HIM BEAR TO THE TOTAL OF PREMIUMS PAID." 

"ART. 28.  THE AMOUNT TO BE RETURNED WHERE THE POLICY IS PAYABLE TO
OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE IS THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE.  WHERE THE
PROCEEDS OF A POLICY ARE PAYABLE TO A BENEFICIARY OTHER THAN TO OR FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE, AND ALL THE PREMIUMS WERE PAID BY THE
DECEDENT, THE AMOUNT TO BE LISTED ON SCHEDULE C OF THE RETURN IS THE
FULL AMOUNT RECEIVABLE, BUT WHERE THE PROCEEDS ARE SO PAYABLE AND ONLY
A PORTION OF THE PREMIUMS WERE PAID BY THE DECEDENT, THE AMOUNT TO BE
LISTED ON SUCH SCHEDULE IS THAT PROPORTION OF THE INSURANCE RECEIVABLE
WHICH THE PREMIUMS PAID BY THE DECEDENT BEARS TO THE TOTAL PREMIUMS
PAID.  ..."  ARTS. 25 AND 28, TREASURY REGULATIONS 70, PROMULGATED
UNDER REVENUE ACT 1926, CONTAIN PROVISIONS IDENTICAL WITH THOSE JUST
QUOTED. 

TREASURY REGULATIONS 70 WERE IN FORCE WHEN LANG DIED AND ARE
APPLICABLE TO HIS ESTATE.  IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER THE
MEANING, VALIDITY OR EFFECT OF THE CHANGES INTRODUCED BY REGULATIONS
80. 

ARTICLES 25 AND 28 OF REGULATIONS 70 DEFINE THE WORDS "POLICIES TAKEN
OUT BY THE DECEDENT UPON HIS OWN LIFE."  EARLIER REGULATIONS GAVE THE
SAME DEFINITION.  NOTHING ELSE APPEARING, IT MUST BE TREATED AS
APPROVED BY CONGRESS.  HELVERING V. BLISS, 293 U.S. 144, 151.  COUNSEL
FOR THE COMMISSIONER SUGGEST THAT IT IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE STATUTE,
UNREASONABLE AND WITHOUT EFFECT; BUT WE THINK THIS OBJECTION IS CLEARLY
UNTENABLE. 

UNDER THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY STATUTES OF WASHINGTON, AS INTERPRETED
BELOW, ONE-HALF OF THE AMOUNTS OF COMMUNITY FUNDS APPLIED TO PAYMENT OF
PREMIUMS WAS PROPERTY OF THE WIFE.  TO THAT EXTENT SHE PAID THESE
PREMIUMS.  WHERE SHE IS THE BENEFICIARY, UNDER THE WORDS OF THE
REGULATIONS SHE BECAME ENTITLED TO THE PROCEEDS OF THE POLICY IN
PROPORTION TO THE AMOUNT SO PAID. 

WHERE CHILDREN WERE NAMED BENEFICIARIES AND PREMIUMS WERE PAID FROM
COMMUNITY FUNDS THE SITUATION IS NOT WITHIN THE PRECISE WORDS OF THE
REGULATIONS; BUT THE RATHER OBVIOUS REASON UNDERLYING THE DEFINITION OF
WHAT CONSTITUTES A POLICY "TAKEN OUT BY THE ASSURED" SHOULD BE
RESPECTED.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR DECLARATION IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED INSURANCE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR WITH THE FUNDS OF
ANOTHER THAN THE INSURED AND NOT PAYABLE TO THE LATTER'S ESTATE, SHOULD
BE RECKONED AS PART OF SUCH ESTATE FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION.  SEE
IGLEHART V. COMMISSIONER, 77 F.2D 704, 711. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















HEINER V. MELLON, 304 U.S. 271 


NOS. 144 AND 145.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 89
F.2D 141, REVERSED. 


THE STOCK AND BUSINESS OF TWO CORPORATIONS WERE TAKEN OVER BY TWO
PARTNERSHIPS, FORMED BY THE THREE STOCKHOLDERS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
LIQUIDATION.  ONE OF THE PARTNERS DIED IN 1919, BUT THE LIQUIDATION WAS
CARRIED ON BY THE SURVIVORS AS THERETOFORE.  HELD: 

1.  THAT NET PROFITS MADE IN 1920 IN DISPOSING OF PARTNERSHIP ASSETS
WERE TAXABLE, UNDER REVENUE ACT, 1918, SEC. 218(A), TO THE SURVIVING
PARTNERS TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES.  P. 274. 

THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM IS BASED ON ANNUAL ACCOUNTING.  THE FACT THAT
IT COULD NOT BE KNOWN UNTIL A LATER YEAR, WHEN THE LIQUIDATION WAS
COMPLETE, WHETHER THE ENTERPRISE HAD BEEN PROFITABLE, IS OF NO LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE. 

2.  THE FACT THAT THE PARTNERSHIP HAD BEEN DISSOLVED BY THE DEATH DID
NOT AFFECT THIS TAX LIABILITY OF THE SURVIVING PARTNERS.  P. 277. 

UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT, WHICH WAS APPLICABLE,
ON DISSOLUTION THE PARTNERSHIP IS NOT TERMINATED, BUT CONTINUES UNTIL
THE WINDING UP OF THE PARTNERSHIP AFFAIRS IS COMPLETED. 

3.  ART. 1570, T.R. 45, DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT DISSOLUTION CAPITALIZES
ALL INTEREST OF THE PARTNER IN FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PROFITS; IT DEALS
ONLY WITH THE DETERMINATION OF A PARTNER'S GAIN OR LOSS ON HIS
INVESTMENT WHEN HE COMPLETELY SEVERS HIS CONNECTION WITH THE
PARTNERSHIP AND ITS ASSETS.  P. 277. 

4.  THE DISSOLUTION DID NOT MAKE THE SURVIVING PARTNERS TRUSTEES
TAXABLE ONLY AS FIDUCIARIES UNDER REVENUE ACT, 1918, SEC. 219.  P.
278. 

THE FACT THAT THEY MAY BE SO DENOMINATED BY THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA
IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS USED IN A
FEDERAL REVENUE ACT, LOCAL LAW IS NOT CONTROLLING. 

5.  IN SEC. 218(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918 THE TERM "DISTRIBUTIVE
SHARE" DOES NOT MEAN THE SHARE CURRENTLY DISTRIBUTABLE UNDER THE STATE
LAW, BUT MEANS THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE PARTNER IN THE NET INCOME
OF THE PARTNERSHIP.  P. 280. 

HEINER, FORMER COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. MELLON ET AL.,
EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 672, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF RECOVERIES IN
TWO ACTIONS AGAINST A FORMER COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE BY TAXPAYERS
WHO HAD PAID DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS UNDER PROTEST. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES, TRIED BELOW IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR WESTERN
PENNSYLVANIA AND ARGUED TOGETHER HERE, ARISE FROM THE SAME FACTS AND
PRESENT THE SAME QUESTIONS OF LAW.  EACH ACTION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST D.
B. HEINER, AS FORMER COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND INDIVIDUALLY, TO
RECOVER AN AMOUNT PAID UNDER PROTEST BY THE TAXPAYER IN 1927 UPON A
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF HIS 1920 INCOME TAX.  THE AMOUNTS TAXED AS
ADDITIONAL INCOME WERE THE DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES OF CERTAIN PROFITS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED BY EACH IN 1920 AS A PARTNER IN TWO FIRMS. 
DUE DEMAND FOR A REFUND WAS MADE.  IN NO. 144 THE TAXPAYER WAS A. W.
MELLON; IN NO. 145, R. B. MELLON.  BOTH HAVING DIED, THE SUITS ARE BY
THEIR EXECUTORS.  IN NO. 144, THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR
$202,502.22 WITH INTEREST (14 F.SUPP.  424); IN NO. 145 FOR $187,787.17
WITH INTEREST.  THESE JUDGMENTS WERE AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. 
89 F.2D 141.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF ALLEGED CONFLICT AS TO
APPLICABLE RULES OF LAW IMPORTANT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE
LAWS. 

THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE RELEVANT FACTS.  PRIOR TO DECEMBER 12,
1918, A. W. MELLON, R. B. MELLON AND H. C. FRICK EACH OWNED ONE-THIRD
OF THE ENTIRE CAPITAL STOCK OF TWO DISTILLING CORPORATIONS - A.
OVERHOLT & COMPANY AND WEST OVERTON DISTILLING COMPANY.  ON THAT DATE
THOSE THREE INDIVIDUALS FORMED TWO PARTNERSHIPS IN WHICH EACH PARTNER
WAS TO HAVE A ONE-THIRD INTEREST.  IN JANUARY 1919 THEY CAUSED TO BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE PARTNERSHIP CALLED A. OVERHOLT & COMPANY ALL THE
ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION OF THAT NAME; AND TO THE PARTNERSHIP CALLED
WEST OVERTON DISTILLING COMPANY, ALL THE ASSETS OF THAT CORPORATION. 
THESE ASSETS INCLUDED LARGE WHISKEY INVENTORIES IN BONDED WAREHOUSES. 
NEITHER CORPORATION HAD DISTILLED ANY WHISKEY AFTER 1916.  LIQUIDATION
OF THE BUSINESSES OF EACH HAD BEEN STARTED BY THE TWO CORPORATIONS IN
1918; AND THE PARTNERSHIPS HAD BEEN ORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
LIQUIDATING THEM.  THE BUSINESS OF EACH PARTNERSHIP IN 1920, HAD, LIKE
ITS BUSINESS IN 1919, CONSISTED IN THE SALE OF WHISKEY CERTIFICATES AND
THE STORAGE, BOTTLING, CASING AND SALE OF THE STOCK OF WHISKEY.  IT WAS
NOT UNTIL 1925 THAT THE ASSETS OF THE PARTNERSHIPS THEN REMAINING WERE
SOLD IN BULK, AND THE PROCEEDS DISTRIBUTED AMONG THOSE ENTITLED
THERETO. 

FRICK DIED DECEMBER 2, 1919; BUT THROUGHOUT 1920 THE BUSINESSES OF A.
OVERHOLT & COMPANY AND OF WEST OVERTON DISTILLING COMPANY WERE
CONDUCTED, AND THEIR BOOKS WERE KEPT, IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE
BUSINESSES HAD BEEN CONDUCTED AND BOOKS HAD BEEN KEPT BY THE
PARTNERSHIPS IN 1919, AND BY THE CORPORATIONS IN 1918.  FOR 1920 THE
PARTNERSHIP RETURNS OF THE TWO CONCERNS DISCLOSED FACTS FROM WHICH IT
APPEARED THAT SUBSTANTIAL GAINS HAD BEEN MADE FROM THE SALE OF
WHISKEY.  BUT THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT REPORTED AS INCOME OF THE
PARTNERSHIPS; AND NEITHER A. W. MELLON NOR R. B. MELLON INCLUDED IN
THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1920 ANY AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF THEM.  THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DETERMINED THAT THESE SUMS WERE
DISTRIBUTIVE PROFITS; THAT THE RETURNS OF TAXABLE INCOME OF A. W.
MELLON AND OF R. B. MELLON FOR THE YEAR 1920 SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED ONE
THIRD OF THE PROFITS IN THAT YEAR OF EACH FIRM FROM THE SALE OF
WHISKEY; AND MADE A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT ON A. W. MELLON OF
$190,419.70 AND ON R. B. MELLON OF $175,259.70. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918  FN1  GOVERNS TAXATION OF 1920 INCOME. 
BUSINESS IN PARTNERSHIP SHALL BE LIABLE IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES
FOR THE INCOME TAX ON PROFITS EARNED THEREIN, AND THAT IN COMPUTING THE
NET INCOME OF EACH PARTNER THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED HIS DISTRIBUTIVE
SHARE, WHETHER DISTRIBUTED OR NOT, OF THE NET INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP
FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR.  SECTION 224 PROVIDES THAT THE PARTNERSHIP SHALL
FILE AN INFORMATIONAL RETURN SETTING FORTH THE ITEMS OF ITS GROSS
INCOME, THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED AND THE DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF NET INCOME
TO WHICH EACH PARTNER IS ENTITLED. 

THE TWO MELLONS FILED THEIR INDIVIDUAL RETURNS FOR 1920, AND ALSO THE
INFORMATIONAL PARTNERSHIP RETURNS FOR THAT YEAR.  WHILE THE MELLONS
CLAIMED THAT THEY WERE NOT TAXABLE ON THEIR SHARES OF THE PROFITS FROM
WHISKEY SOLD IN 1920, THEY RECOGNIZED THAT THEY WERE TAXABLE FOR THEIR
SHARES OF THESE OTHER PROFITS OF THE CONCERNS EARNED IN 1920.  THE
PARTNERSHIP RETURNS IN THE CASE OF EACH CONCERN SHOWED A GAIN ARISING
FROM STORAGE, BOTTLING AND CASING OPERATIONS, SALES OF BARRELS,
INTEREST AND RENTALS.  ONE-THIRD OF EACH OF THESE PROFITS WAS ENTERED
BY EACH OF THE MELLONS IN HIS INDIVIDUAL RETURN AS HIS DISTRIBUTIVE
SHARE OF THE PROFITS OF THE TWO PARTNERSHIPS. 

FIRST.  THE PRIMARY QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE NET PROFITS
MADE BY THE TWO PARTNERSHIPS IN 1920 FROM THE SALES OF WHISKEY WERE IN
THEIR NATURE TAXABLE INCOME.  THROUGHOUT 1920, A. OVERHOLT & COMPANY
AND THE WEST OVERTON DISTILLING COMPANY WERE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS.  THE
MERE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PARTNERSHIPS WAS TO LIQUIDATE THE
ASSETS TAKEN OVER FROM THE CORPORATIONS IS NOT OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE. 
PROFITS MADE IN THE BUSINESS OF LIQUIDATION ARE TAXABLE IN THE SAME WAY
AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF MADE IN AN EXPANDING BUSINESS.  NOR IS IT
OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE LIQUIDATION WAS NOT COMPLETED UNTIL 1925
AND THAT UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE LIQUIDATION IT COULD NOT BE KNOWN
WHETHER THE BUSINESS VENTURE, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, HAD BEEN PROFITABLE. 
THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX SYSTEM IS BASED ON AN ANNUAL ACCOUNTING.  FN2
UNDER THAT LAW THE QUESTION WHETHER TAXABLE PROFITS HAVE BEEN MADE IS
DETERMINED ANNUALLY BY THE RESULT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE YEAR. 

PURCHASING REAL ESTATE, SUBDIVIDING AND SELLING IT IN PARCELS IS, IN
ESSENCE, A LIQUIDATING BUSINESS.  THE CLAIM HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY MADE
THAT NO INCOME WAS REALIZED UNTIL THE INVESTMENT WAS RECOUPED; BUT THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAS UNIFORMLY HELD IN ACCORD WITH ARTICLE 43 OF
REGULATIONS 45(AND LATER REGULATIONS) THAT THE COST OF THE REAL ESTATE
MUST BE APPORTIONED AMONG ALL THE LOTS, AND INCOME RETURNED UPON THE
SALES IN EACH YEAR, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF LOTS REMAINING
UNDISPOSED OF AT THE CLOSE OF THE TAX YEAR.  FN3  A LIKE RULE HAS BEEN
APPLIED WHERE THE TAXPAYER HAD PURCHASED PERSONAL PROPERTY IN A BLOCK
AND WAS ENGAGED IN SELLING IT IN PARCELS.  THE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS NO
TAXABLE INCOME UNTIL THE CAPITAL HAD BEEN RETURNED WAS REJECTED.  FN4 

THE FACT THAT IT MIGHT PROVE THAT WHEN THE BUSINESS WAS FULLY
LIQUIDATED THE PROFITS OF 1920 WERE OFFSET BY HEAVY LOSS OF LATER YEARS
IS IMMATERIAL.  LOSSES SUFFERED BY A TAXPAYER IN A LATER YEAR MAY BE
DEDUCTED FROM PROFITS, IF ANY, EARNED BY HIM IN THAT LATER YEAR; BUT
THE TAX ON A YEAR'S INCOME MAY NOT BE WITHHELD BECAUSE LOSSES MAY
THEREAFTER OCCUR.  IF A. OVERHOLT & COMPANY AND WEST OVERTON DISTILLING
COMPANY HAD REMAINED CORPORATIONS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGED TO MAKE
EACH YEAR RETURN OF THE PROFITS MADE THEREIN AND PAY TAXES ANNUALLY
THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF LIQUIDATION ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT ULTIMATELY PROVE
THAT THE LOSSES OF THE LATER YEARS EXCEEDED THE PROFITS OF THE EARLIER
ONES.  FN5  LIKEWISE, IF THE CONCERNS HAD EACH BEEN OWNED BY A SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL, THE FACT THAT HIS SOLE BUSINESS WAS LIQUIDATING THE CONCERN
WOULD NOT HAVE RELIEVED HIM FROM PAYING ANNUALLY TAXES ON THE NET
PROFITS.  NO GOOD REASON IS SUGGESTED WHY A DIFFERENT RULE SHOULD APPLY
TO PARTNERSHIPS. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT GAINS FROM THE SALE OF WHISKEY IN 1920 WERE INCOME
OF THAT YEAR.  THE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME WAS DETERMINABLE FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP BOOKS.  SECTION 212(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918 PROVIDES
THAT THE NET INCOME SHALL BE COMPUTED "IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF
ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED IN KEEPING THE BOOKS OF" THE TAXPAYER,
AND IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE METHOD EMPLOYED CLEARLY FAILED TO REFLECT
NET INCOME. 

SECOND.  THE FACT THAT THE PARTNERSHIPS HAD BEEN DISSOLVED BY FRICK'S
DEATH BEFORE 1920 DOES NOT AFFECT THE LIABILITY OF THE MELLONS AS
SURVIVING PARTNERS FOR INCOME TAXES ON THEIR DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES OF THE
NET PROFITS MADE IN THAT YEAR.  COMPARE ROSSMOORE V. ANDERSON, 1
F.SUPP.  35(S.D.N.Y.), AFFIRMED, 67 F.2D 1009(C.C.A. 2); ROSSMOORE V.
COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 520(C.C.A. 2).  THE BUSINESS OF A. OVERHOLT &
COMPANY DID NOT TERMINATE ON FRICK'S DEATH.  ALTHOUGH DISSOLVED, THE
PARTNERSHIPS AND THE BUSINESS CONTINUED, SINCE, AS STATED IN THE
PENNSYLVANIA UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT:  "ON DISSOLUTION THE PARTNERSHIP
IS NOT TERMINATED, BUT CONTINUES UNTIL THE WINDING UP OF THE
PARTNERSHIP AFFAIRS IS COMPLETED."  FN6  THROUGHOUT THE YEAR 1920, THE
BUSINESS OF SELLING STOCK ON HAND AND DERIVING INCOME THEREFROM WAS
CARRIED ON PRECISELY AS IT HAD BEEN THERETOFORE, AND FOR THE SAME
PURPOSE.  ARTICLE 424 OF REGULATIONS 45 RECOGNIZES THAT EVEN IN THE
HANDS OF A RECEIVER A PARTNERSHIP MUST FILE A RETURN. 

THIRD.  THE MELLONS CONTEND, AND THE COURT BELOW HELD, THAT THE
PARTNERS' INTERESTS IN THE PARTNERSHIPS WERE CAPITALIZED UPON
DISSOLUTION, SO THAT UNTIL THE LIQUIDATION RETURNED TO THEM THE COST OF
THEIR INTERESTS, NO TAXABLE INCOME WAS RECEIVED; THAT ARTICLE 1570 OF
REGULATIONS 45 SO PROVIDES; AND THAT THIS DID NOT TAKE PLACE BEFORE
1925.  BUT, AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, TECHNICAL DISSOLUTION DOES NOT
AFFECT THE LIABILITY OF A PARTNER UNDER SEC. 218 FOR TAXES ON HIS
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP'S INCOME; AND ARTICLE 1570 DOES
NOT ESTABLISH ANY RULE THAT DISSOLUTION CAPITALIZES THE INTEREST OF A
PARTNER IN FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PROFITS.  THE ARTICLE PROVIDES: 

"WHEN A PARTNER RETIRES FROM A PARTNERSHIP, OR IT IS DISSOLVED, HE
REALIZES A GAIN OR LOSS MEASURED BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE
RECEIVED FOR HIS INTEREST AND THE COST TO HIM OR (IF ACQUIRED PRIOR
THERETO) THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS OF MARCH 1, 1913, OF HIS INTEREST IN
THE PARTNERSHIP, INCLUDING IN SUCH COST OR VALUE THE AMOUNT OF HIS
SHARE IN ANY UNDISTRIBUTED PARTNERSHIP NET INCOME EARNED SINCE FEBRUARY
28, 1913, ON WHICH INCOME TAX HAS BEEN PAID.  ..." 

THIS ARTICLE IS IN NO WAY INCONSISTENT WITH THE TAXATION OF A PARTNER
ON HIS SHARE OF THE INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP EARNED IN A SINGLE YEAR
AFTER DISSOLUTION BUT BEFORE COMPLETION OF LIQUIDATION AND
DISTRIBUTION.  IT DEALS ONLY WITH THE DETERMINATION OF A PARTNER'S GAIN
OR LOSS ON HIS INVESTMENT WHEN HE COMPLETELY SEVERS HIS CONNECTION WITH
THE PARTNERSHIP AND ITS ASSETS.  THE GAIN OR LOSS IS DETERMINED
SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE THAT ON ANY OTHER BUSINESS VENTURE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL, TREATED AS A WHOLE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROFITS FROM
THE SALE OF WHISKEY IN 1920 WERE CURRENT INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR
THAT YEAR, NOT DIFFERENT IN THEIR NATURE FROM THE PROFITS FROM STORAGE,
BOTTLING, CASING, AND SIMILAR OPERATIONS WHICH THE MELLONS RETURNED AS
INCOME.  ARTICLE 1570 DOES NOT DEAL WITH THIS SITUATION. 

FOURTH.  THE MELLONS CONTEND THAT BECAUSE THE PARTNERSHIPS WERE
DISSOLVED BY THE DEATH OF FRICK IN 1919, A. W. MELLON AND R. B. MELLON,
BEING SURVIVING PARTNERS, BECAME BY OPERATION OF LAW LIQUIDATING
TRUSTEES; THAT ANY INCOME EARNED IN 1920 FROM OPERATIONS OF THE
DISSOLVED PARTNERSHIPS WAS INCOME TO THE MELLONS ONLY IN THEIR
FIDUCIARY CAPACITY AS SUCH TRUSTEES; THAT UNDER SEC. 219 OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1918 THE TRUST ESTATE WAS A SEPARATE TAXABLE ENTITY; THAT IF ANY
INCOME TAX WAS DUE, IT WAS THEREFORE DUE FROM THE TRUST, AND THAT ITS
ASSESSMENT IS NOW BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER ASSESSMENT OF THE
TAX ON THIS THEORY IS NOW OUTLAWED, OR WHETHER, AS THE COLLECTOR URGES,
RECOVERY IS PRECLUDED IN ANY EVENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF STONE V.
WHITE, 301 U.S. 532; FOR WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MELLONS ARE NOT
TRUSTEES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 219.  THE FACT THAT THEY MAY BE SO
DENOMINATED BY THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  IT IS WELL
SETTLED THAT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS USED IN A FEDERAL
REVENUE ACT, LOCAL LAW IS NOT CONTROLLING UNLESS THE FEDERAL STATUTE
"BY EXPRESS LANGUAGE OR NECESSARY IMPLICATION, MAKES ITS OWN OPERATION
DEPENDENT UPON STATE LAW."  "THE STATE LAW CREATES LEGAL INTERESTS, BUT
THE FEDERAL STATUTE DETERMINES WHEN AND HOW THEY SHALL BE TAXED." 
BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110.  FN7  WE THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH, THE INCOME EARNED IN 1920 WAS INCOME
OF A PARTNERSHIP "CARRYING ON BUSINESS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 218
RATHER THAN OF A TRUST UNDER SEC. 219. 

THE OBLIGATION OF THE MELLONS TO PAY, UNDER THE FEDERAL LAW, TAXES ON
THE PROFITS MADE IN 1920 FROM SALES OF WHISKEY IS IN NO WAY AFFECTED BY
THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE TO ACCOUNT TO THE
FRICK ESTATE FOR ITS INTEREST IN THE TWO PARTNERSHIPS BEING
LIQUIDATED.  THE SURVIVING PARTNERS CONTINUED DURING 1920 TO CONDUCT
THE BUSINESS FROM WHICH THEY EARNED PROFITS.  ON SUCH INCOME THE
FEDERAL LAW REQUIRED THAT TAXES BE PAID.  IT DID NOT REQUIRE THAT THE
PAYMENTS BE MADE FROM THE PARTNERSHIP ASSETS.  HOW THE ASSETS SHALL BE
DISPOSED OF, AND WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH THE PROCEEDS WHEN REALIZED,
ARE MATTERS WHICH MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OR BY
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTNERS.  BUT HOWEVER THE ASSETS ARE REQUIRED BY THE
LAW OF THE STATE TO BE DISPOSED OF, OR THE PROCEEDS APPLIED, THE
FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THAT TAXES BE PAID IF, IN DISPOSING OF THEM WITHIN
THE YEAR THE BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED AND PROFITS ARE MADE.    FIFTH.  THE
MELLONS CONTEND THAT UNDER THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA NO DISTRIBUTION OF
PROFITS COULD LAWFULLY HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE SURVIVING PARTNERS AS
LIQUIDATING TRUSTEES UNTIL ALL DEBTS AND LIABILITIES, CONTINGENT OR
OTHERWISE, HAD BEEN PAID OR SATISFIED, AND THE PARTNERS' CAPITAL
RETURNED; AND THAT ALTHOUGH THE BUSINESS OF THE PARTNERSHIPS HAD BEEN
CARRIED ON AFTER DISSOLUTION PRECISELY AS BEFORE, AND THE PARTNERSHIP
ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR 1920 SHOWED LARGE PROFITS EARNED, THEIR
RESPECTIVE SHARES OF THEM WERE NOT DISTRIBUTABLE AND COULD NOT BE
DEEMED TAXABLE INCOME OF THE PARTNERS. 

BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME OF EACH PARTNER HIS
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE, WHETHER DISTRIBUTED OR NOT, OF THE NET INCOME OF
THE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR.  ..."  IF "DISTRIBUTIVE" MEANT
"CURRENTLY DISTRIBUTABLE UNDER STATE LAW," THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE
MELLONS MIGHT HAVE SOME FORCE.  BUT IT DOES NOT.  ARTICLE 322 OF
REGULATIONS 45(AND CORRESPONDING ARTICLES OF SUBSEQUENT REGULATIONS)
DEFINES "DISTRIBUTIVE" AS MEANING "PROPORTIONATE."  COMPARE EARLE V.
COMMISSIONER, 38 F.2D 965, 967-68(C.C.A. 1).  AND SEC. 220 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1918, TAXING TO THE SHAREHOLDERS THE INCOME OF A
CORPORATION IMPROPERLY ACCUMULATING ITS GAINS AND PROFITS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SURTAX, ASSUMES THAT THE TWO WORDS ARE SYNONYMOUS. 
THE TAX IS THUS IMPOSED UPON THE PARTNER'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE
NET INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP, AND THE FACT THAT IT MAY NOT BE
CURRENTLY DISTRIBUTABLE, WHETHER BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES OR BY
OPERATION OF LAW, IS NOT MATERIAL.  FN8  NO CLAIM IS MADE THAT THE
PROPORTIONATE INTERESTS OF THE SURVIVING PARTNERS WAS IMPROPERLY
DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER. 

SIXTH.  FINALLY, THE MELLONS CONTEND THAT IN 1928 AND 1929 THE
COMMISSIONER DETERMINED THAT NO PROFIT WAS REALIZED UNTIL FINAL
LIQUIDATION OF THE PARTNERSHIPS IN 1925, AND THAT INCOME TAXES FOR THAT
YEAR HAVE BEEN COLLECTED ON THIS THEORY AND NOT YET REFUNDED.  THE
COMMISSIONER'S ALLEGED CHANGE OF POSITION IS NOT HERE IMPORTANT.  IT IS
NOT SHOWN THAT REFUND OF THESE TAXES IS NOW BARRED.  NOR IS IT
NECESSARY FOR US TO CONSIDER THE COST TO THE MELLONS OF THEIR INTEREST
IN THESE PARTNERSHIPS, OR WHETHER THE MELLONS' 1925 INCOME TAXES WERE
ERRONEOUSLY ASSESSED AND COLLECTED, OR WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER
CORRECTLY SETTLED THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE FRICK ESTATE.  NONE OF THESE
QUESTIONS HAS ANY BEARING UPON THE DETERMINATION OF THE CASE BEFORE US.
REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF FEBRUARY 24, 1919, C. 18, 40 STAT. 1057. 

FN2  BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS CO., 282 U.S. 359, 365; BURNET V.
THOMPSON OIL & GAS CO., 283 U.S. 301, 306; WOOLFORD REALTY CO. V. ROSE,
286 U.S. 319, 326; BROWN V. HELVERING, 291 U.S. 193, 198-99; HELVERING
V. MORGAN'S INC., 293 U.S. 121, 126-127; GUARANTY TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 303 U.S. 493, 497-498. 

FN3  J. S. CULLINAN, 5 B.T.A. 996, 19 B.T.A. 930; THOMAS J. AVERY, 11
B.T.A. 958; BRODIE C. NALLE, 19 B.T.A. 427; FREDERIKA SKINNER, 20
B.T.A. 491.  SEE ALSO B. S. ROBERTS, 7 B.T.A. 1162; HANNIBAL MISSOURI
LAND CO., 9 B.T.A. 1072; D. C. CLARKE, 22 B.T.A. 314, 325; BISCAYNE BAY
ISLANDS CO., 23 B.T.A. 731; SEARLES REAL ESTATE TRUST, 25 B.T.A. 1115. 
COMPARE PERKINS V. THOMAS, 86 F.2D 954, 956(C.C.A. 5), AFFIRMED ON
OTHER GROUNDS, 301 U.S. 655; SEE ALSO ELMHURST CEMETERY CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 37. 

FN4  SANTA MARIA GAS CO., 10 B.T.A. 1412; AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CORP.,
20 B.T.A. 188; BANCITALY CORP., 34 B.T.A. 494.  COMPARE WESER BROS.,
INC., 12 B.T.A. 1394; C. H. SWIFT & SONS, INC., 13 B.T.A. 138; DEER
ISLAND LOGGING CO., 14 B.T.A. 1027; O. H. HIMELICK, 32 B.T.A. 792. 

FN5  SEE REGULATIONS 45, ART. 547; TAZEWELL ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER
CO. V. STROTHER, 84 F.2D 327(C.C.A. 4); NORTHWEST UTILITIES SECURITIES
CORP. V. HELVERING, 67 F.2D 619(C.C.A. 8); FIRST NAT. BANK OF GREELEY
V. UNITED STATES, 86 F.2D 938(C.C.A. 10).  COMPARE BURNET V. LEXINGTON
ICE & COLD STORAGE CO., 62 F.2D 906(C.C.A. 4); TAYLOR OIL & GAS CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 47 F.2D 108(C.C.A. 5); HELLEBUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 65 F.2D
902(C.C.A. 6); WHITNEY REALTY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 80 F.2D 429(C.C.A.
6). 

FN6  PA. LAWS 1915, NO. 15, SEC. 30, PA. STAT. ANN. (PURDON, 1930)
TIT. 59, SEC. 92. 

FN7  SEE ALSO BURK-WAGGONER OIL ASSN. V. HOPKINS, 269 U.S. 110, 113,
114; PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 555-56; THOMAS V. PERKINS, 301
U.S. 655, 659; BIDDLE V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 573, 582.  COMPARE
CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 1, 8-11; UNITED STATES V.
ROBBINS, 269 U.S. 315, 327-28; CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376, 378;
TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497, 503.  SEE ALSO HART V.
COMMISSIONER, 54 F.2D 848, 851(C.C.A. 1); FIDELITY-PHILADELPHIA TRUST
CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 47 F.2D 36, 38(C.C.A. 3); ROSENBERGER V. MCCAUGHN,
25 F.2D 699(C.C.A. 3); EAGAN V. COMMISSIONER, 43 F.2D 881, 883(C.C.A.
5); FRITZ V. COMMISSIONER, 76 F.2D 460, 461-62(C.C.A. 5). 

FN8  COMPARE EARLE V. COMMISSIONER, 38 F.2D 965(C.C.A. 1); HILL V.
COMMISSIONER, 38 F.2D 165, 168(C.C.A. 1); POPE V. COMMISSIONER, 39 F.2D
420(C.C.A. 1); RUPRECHT V. COMMISSIONER, 39 F.2D 458(C.C.A. 5);
BENEDICT V. PRICE, 38 F.2D 309(E.D.N.Y.); W. FRANK CARTER, 36 B.T.A.
60.  SEE ALSO O.D. 187, 1 C.B. 174. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















HELVERING V. NATIONAL GROCERY CO., 304 U.S. 282 


NO. 723.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 11, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
931, REVERSED. 


CORPORATION, HOWEVER CREATED OR ORGANIZED, IS FORMED OR AVAILED OF FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE IMPOSITION OF THE SURTAX UPON ITS
SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF PERMITTING ITS GAINS AND PROFITS TO
ACCUMULATE INSTEAD OF BEING DIVIDED OR DISTRIBUTED, THERE SHALL BE
LEVIED, COLLECTED AND PAID FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR UPON THE NET INCOME OF
SUCH CORPORATION AN ADDITIONAL TAX EQUAL TO 50 PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT
OF SUCH INCOME, AND THAT THE FACT THAT THE GAINS OR PROFITS ARE
PERMITTED TO ACCUMULATE BEYOND THE REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS,
SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A PURPOSE TO ESCAPE THE SURTAX.  FROM
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT'S ACCUMULATIONS IN A TAXABLE YEAR WERE BEYOND SUCH NEEDS;
THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION, AND THAT THE
CORPORATION WAS AVAILED OF FOR THE INTERDICTED PURPOSE.  THE
CORPORATION HAD BUT ONE STOCKHOLDER, SO THAT RIGHTS OF MINORITY
STOCKHOLDERS WERE NOT INVOLVED.  HELD: 

(1)  THE ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE TENTH AMENDMENT BY INTERFERING WITH
THE RIGHT OF THE CORPORATION TO DECLARE OR WITHHOLD DIVIDENDS.  IT
MERELY LAYS THE TAX UPON CORPORATIONS THAT USE THEIR POWERS TO PREVENT
IMPOSITION UPON THEIR STOCKHOLDERS OF THE FEDERAL SURTAXES.  P. 286. 

(2)  THE ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IMPOSING, NOT A TAX UPON
INCOME, BUT A PENALTY TO FORCE DISTRIBUTION OF CORPORATE EARNINGS IN
ORDER TO CREATE A BASIS FOR TAXATION AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS.  P. 288. 

CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE PENALTIES IN PROTECTION OF THE REVENUE. 
HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391. 

(3)  THE TAX IS NOT OBJECTIONABLE AS A DIRECT TAX ON A MERE PURPOSE -
A STATE OF MIND.  P. 289. 

IT IS A TAX ON THE INCOME OF THE CORPORATION.  THE EXISTENCE OF THE
DEFINED PURPOSE MERELY DETERMINES THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX. 

(4)  THE STANDARD PRESCRIBED TO GUIDE THE COMMISSIONER IN ASSESSING,
OR THE CORPORATE DIRECTORS IN AVOIDING, THE ADDITIONAL TAX, IS NOT TOO
VAGUE.  P. 289. 

(5)  THE RETROACTIVE ASSESSMENT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
OBJECTIONABLE.  P. 290. 

(6)  THE STATUTE DOES NOT DELEGATE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE
COMMISSIONER.  P. 290. 

(7)  DEPRECIATION IN ANY OF THE ASSETS IS EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED
BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN DETERMINING THE
ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCUMULATION OF PROFITS WAS IN EXCESS OF THE
REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS.  BUT DEPRECIATION IN THE MARKET VALUE
OF SECURITIES WHICH THE CORPORATION CONTINUES TO HOLD DOES NOT, AS
MATTER OF LAW, PRECLUDE A FINDING THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF THE YEAR'S
PROFITS WAS IN EXCESS OF THE REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS.  P.
291. 

(8)  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF A HUGE SURPLUS BY THE TAXPAYER - A
CHAIN GROCERY COMPANY - WAS NOT WITH A PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOR THE
EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS, BUT TO ENABLE THE SOLE STOCKHOLDER TO ESCAPE
SURTAXES.  P. 291. 

(9)  TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, DRAW INFERENCES FROM IT AND DECLARE THE
RESULT IS A FUNCTION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 294. 

HELVERING V. NATIONAL GROCERY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 630, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS WHICH OVERRULED A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 35
B.T.A. 163, SUSTAINING A DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NATIONAL GROCERY COMPANY IS A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, WHICH OPERATES
CHAIN STORES.  SINCE 1911 IT HAS HAD $200,000 CAPITAL STOCK, ALL OWNED
BENEFICIALLY BY HENRY KOHL.  IN THE YEAR ENDING JANUARY 31, 1931, THE
CORPORATION'S BOOKS SHOWED A NET PROFIT OF $682,850.38, AFTER PAYING
$104,000 TO KOHL AS SALARY AND THE REGULAR FEDERAL CORPORATION INCOME
TAX OF 12 PER CENT.  ITS SURPLUS, AS SHOWN BY ITS BOOKS, INCREASED
DURING THE YEAR FROM $7,245,824.26 TO $7,938,965.54; THAT IS
$693,141.28.  IT PAID NO DIVIDEND. 

PROVIDES: 

"(A)  IF ANY CORPORATION, HOWEVER CREATED OR ORGANIZED, IS FORMED OR
AVAILED OF FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE IMPOSITION OF THE SURTAX
UPON ITS SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF PERMITTING ITS GAINS AND
PROFITS TO ACCUMULATE INSTEAD OF BEING DIVIDED OR DISTRIBUTED, THERE
SHALL BE LEVIED, COLLECTED AND PAID FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR UPON THE NET
INCOME OF SUCH CORPORATION A TAX EQUAL TO 50 PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT
THEREOF, WHICH SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTION 13. 
... 

"(B)  THE FACT  ...  THAT THE GAINS OR PROFITS ARE PERMITTED TO
ACCUMULATE BEYOND THE REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS, SHALL BE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF A PURPOSE TO ESCAPE THE SURTAX." 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, HAVING FOUND THAT THE
CORPORATION HAD BEEN AVAILED OF FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE
IMPOSITION OF THE SURTAX UPON KOHL BY PERMITTING THE GAINS AND PROFITS
TO ACCUMULATE, ASSESSED UPON IT, UNDER SEC. 104, A DEFICIENCY TAX OF
$477,322.81 FOR THE TAX YEAR, IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR CORPORATION
INCOME TAX, WHICH HAD BEEN PAID.  THIS AMOUNT, TOGETHER WITH $37.87
ADMITTEDLY DUE, CONSTITUTES THE TOTAL DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF
$477,360.68. 

THE CORPORATION PETITIONED FOR A REDETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS.  BEFORE THE BOARD A LARGE VOLUME OF EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED
WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER.  IT DETAILED, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, THE FINANCIAL HISTORY OF THE BUSINESS FROM ITS
INCEPTION.  THERE WERE 35 ELABORATE EXHIBITS, MANY OF THEM PREPARED
FROM THE BOOKS WITH THE CO-OPERATION OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE CORPORATION
AND FOR THE COMMISSIONER.  TWENTY-FOUR OF THE EXHIBITS WERE INTRODUCED
BY THE TAXPAYER; ELEVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER.  THE TAXPAYER ALSO
PRESENTED AS WITNESSES KOHL AND THE TREASURER OF THE CORPORATION, WHO
TESTIFIED ORALLY TO THE HISTORY OF THE BUSINESS, ITS PRACTICES AND
AIMS; LOCAL BANK OFFICIALS WHO TESTIFIED AS EXPERTS TO THE WISDOM OF
ACCUMULATING THE PROFITS; AND OTHER EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED TO THE
DEPRECIATION IN 1930 OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SECURITIES HELD BY THE
CORPORATION AND OF ITS REAL ESTATE.  THE BOARD, BY A BARE MAJORITY, FN1
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION.  IN STATING ITS
CONCLUSIONS, IT FOUND AS FOLLOWS: 

"WE FIND AS A FACT THAT THE PETITIONER'S ACCUMULATION OF EARNINGS WAS
FAR IN EXCESS OF THE 'REASONABLE NEEDS' OF THE CORPORATE BUSINESS. 

"WE ARE ALSO OF OPINION THAT THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD DOES NOT REBUT
THE PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION CREATED BY THE STATUTE THAT THE
ACCUMULATION OF EARNINGS BEYOND THE 'REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS'
WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE IMPOSITION OF THE SURTAX UPON ITS
SOLE STOCKHOLDER.  ... 

"UPON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US WE HAVE MADE THE FINDING THAT THE
PETITIONER WAS 'AVAILED OF' DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31,
1931, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE IMPOSITION OF THE SURTAX UPON
ITS SOLE STOCKHOLDER 'THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF PERMITTING ITS GAINS AND
PROFITS TO ACCUMULATE INSTEAD OF BEING DIVIDED OR DISTRIBUTED.'" 

THE CORPORATION THEN PETITIONED FOR A REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  IT REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE BOARD; AND DID SO ON THE GROUND
THAT THERE WAS BEFORE THE BOARD "NO PROOF, SUBSTANTIAL OR OTHERWISE, TO
SUPPORT ITS IMPOSITION OF" THE TAX.  CERTIORARI WAS SOUGHT BY THE
COMMISSIONER, WHO URGED THAT IN SO DECIDING THE COURT HAD DEPARTED FROM
THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
REVENUE LAWS OF THE MATTER PRESENTED. 

THE CORPORATION MAKES HERE TWO CONTENTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT
WHICH WERE NOT DISCUSSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  IT CHALLENGES THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE AND ALSO URGES THAT IN HOLDING THAT
THERE WERE "GAINS AND PROFITS" THE COMMISSIONER AND THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS MISCONSTRUED THE STATUTE.  THESE CONTENTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED
BEFORE EXAMINING THE ALLEGED LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS
OF THE BOARD. 

FIRST.  THE NATIONAL GROCERY COMPANY CONCEDES THAT SEC. 104 IS
CONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO A CORPORATION ORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PREVENTING THE IMPOSITION OF SURTAXES UPON ITS SHAREHOLDERS; FN2  BUT
URGES FIVE REASONS WHY IT SHOULD BE HELD VOID AS APPLIED TO A
LEGITIMATE BUSINESS CORPORATION WHICH IS "AVAILED OF" FOR THE FORBIDDEN
PURPOSE.  NONE OF THESE REASONS IS SOUND. 

1.  IT IS SAID THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE TENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE
IT INTERFERES WITH THE POWER TO DECLARE OR TO WITHHOLD DIVIDENDS - A
POWER WHICH THE STATE CONFERRED UPON THE CORPORATION.  THE STATUTE IN
NO WAY LIMITS THE POWERS OF THE CORPORATION.  IT MERELY LAYS THE TAX
UPON CORPORATIONS WHICH USE THEIR POWERS TO PREVENT IMPOSITION UPON
THEIR STOCKHOLDERS OF THE FEDERAL SURTAXES.  "CONGRESS IN RAISING
REVENUE HAS INCIDENTAL POWER TO DEFEAT OBSTRUCTIONS TO THAT INCIDENCE
OF TAXES WHICH IT CHOOSES TO IMPOSE."  UNITED BUSINESS CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, 62 F.2D 754, 756. 

KOHL'S PERSONAL INCOME TAX FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1931 WAS
$32,034.74.  IF HE HAD INCLUDED IN HIS PERSONAL RETURN OF TAXABLE
INCOME THE CORPORATION'S ENTIRE NET INCOME FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1930
1931, AN ADDITIONAL TAX UPON HIM OF OVER $115,000 WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE;
FN3  AND NO TAX WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSABLE AGAINST THE CORPORATION
UNDER SEC. 104.  FOR THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY PROVIDES, IN PARAGRAPH (D),
THAT THE CORPORATION SHALL NOT BE SO TAXED, IF THE STOCKHOLDERS MAKE
THE RETURN REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE SURTAX: 

"(D)  THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY IF ALL THE
SHAREHOLDERS OF THE CORPORATION INCLUDE (AT THE TIME OF FILING THEIR
RETURNS) IN THEIR GROSS INCOME THEIR ENTIRE DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES,
WHETHER DISTRIBUTED OR NOT, OF THE NET INCOME OF THE CORPORATION FOR
SUCH YEAR.  ANY AMOUNT SO INCLUDED IN THE GROSS INCOME OF A SHAREHOLDER
SHALL BE TREATED AS A DIVIDEND RECEIVED.  ANY SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTION
MADE BY THE CORPORATION OUT OF THE EARNINGS OR PROFITS FOR SUCH TAXABLE
YEAR SHALL, IF DISTRIBUTED TO ANY SHAREHOLDER WHO HAS SO INCLUDED IN
HIS GROSS INCOME HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE, BE EXEMPT FROM TAX IN THE
AMOUNT OF THE SHARE SO INCLUDED." 

2.  IT IS SAID THAT THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE
LIABILITY IMPOSED IS NOT A TAX UPON INCOME, BUT A PENALTY DESIGNED TO
FORCE CORPORATIONS TO DISTRIBUTE EARNINGS IN ORDER TO CREATE A BASIS
FOR TAXATION AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDERS.  IF THE BUSINESS HAD BEEN
CARRIED ON BY KOHL INDIVIDUALLY ALL THE YEAR'S PROFITS WOULD HAVE BEEN
TAXABLE TO HIM.  IF, HAVING A PARTNER, THE BUSINESS HAD BEEN CARRIED ON
AS A PARTNERSHIP, ALL THE YEAR'S PROFITS WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXABLE TO THE
PARTNERS INDIVIDUALLY, ALTHOUGH THESE HAD BEEN RETAINED BY THE
PARTNERSHIP UNDISTRIBUTED.  SEE HEINER V. MELLON, ANTE, P. 271.  KOHL,
THE SOLE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS, COULD NOT BY CONDUCTING IT AS A
CORPORATION, PREVENT CONGRESS, IF IT CHOSE TO DO SO, FROM LAYING ON HIM
INDIVIDUALLY THE TAX ON THE YEAR'S PROFITS.  FN4  IF IT PREFERRED,
CONGRESS COULD LAY THE TAX UPON THE CORPORATION, AS WAS DONE BY SEC.
104.  THE PENAL NATURE OF THE IMPOSITION DOES NOT PREVENT ITS BEING
VALID, AS THE TAX WAS OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 
COMPARE HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391. 

3.  IT IS SAID THAT SEC. 104 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE
LIABILITY IS LAID UPON THE MERE PURPOSE TO PREVENT IMPOSITION OF THE
SURTAXES, NOT UPON THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THAT PURPOSE; AND THAT, THUS,
IT IS A DIRECT TAX ON THE STATE OF MIND.  BUT THIS IS NOT SO.  THE TAX
IS LAID "UPON THE NET INCOME OF SUCH CORPORATION."  THE EXISTENCE OF
THE DEFINED PURPOSE IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE
TAX LIABILITY, BUT THIS DOES NOT PREVENT IT FROM BEING A TRUE INCOME
TAX WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE INSTANCES ARE
MANY IN WHICH PURPOSE OR STATE OF MIND DETERMINES THE INCIDENCE OF AN
INCOME TAX.  FN5 

4.  IT IS SAID THAT SEC. 104 AS APPLIED DEPRIVED THE CORPORATION OF
ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE,
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS IN THAT NO STANDARD OR FORMULA IS SPECIFIED TO
GUIDE THE COMMISSIONER IN ASSESSING, OR THE CORPORATE DIRECTORS IN
AVOIDING, THE ADDITIONAL TAX; THAT IT IS ASSESSED RETROACTIVELY; AND
THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO NON-ASSENTING MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS.  THE
PRESCRIBED STANDARD IS NOT TOO VAGUE.  AS JUDGE LEARNED HAND SAID IN
UNITED BUSINESS CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 62 F.2D 754, 756: 

"STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, FIXED NO MORE DEFINITELY, ARE COMMON IN THE
LAW; THE WHOLE LAW OF TORTS IS PERVADED BY THEM; MUCH OF ITS COMMANDS
ARE THAT A MAN MUST ACT AS THE OCCASION DEMANDS, THE STANDARD BEING
AVAILABLE TO ALL.  THE VICE OF FIXING MAXIMUM PRICES IS THAT IT
REQUIRES RECOURSE TO STANDARDS BEYOND ASCERTAINMENT BY SELLERS, BY
WHICH THEREFORE THEY CANNOT IN PRACTICE REGULATE THEIR DEALINGS.  THAT
IS NOT TRUE OF THE REASONABLE NEEDS OF A BUSINESS, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY
WITHIN THE KEN OF THE MANAGERS, THE SUPPOSITITIOUS STANDARD, THOUGH
INDEED OBJECTIVE, BEING AS ACCESSIBLE AS THOSE FOR EXAMPLE OF THE
PRUDENT DRIVING OF A MOTOR CAR, OR OF THE DILIGENCE REQUIRED IN MAKING
A SHIP SEAWORTHY, OR OF THE EXTENT OF PROPER INQUIRY INTO THE SOLVENCY
OF A DEBTOR." 

CLEARLY, RETROACTIVE ASSESSMENT IS NO MORE OBJECTIONABLE HERE THAN IN
THE CASE OF PENALTIES FOR FRAUD OR NEGLIGENCE.  HELVERING V. MITCHELL,
SUPRA.  AND SINCE NO MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS ARE HERE INVOLVED, THE LAST
OBJECTION NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED.  CASTILLO V. MCCONNICO, 168 U.S. 674,
680; ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 302 U.S. 22, 27. 

5.  IT IS SAID THAT SEC. 104 IS VOID BECAUSE IT DELEGATES TO THE
COMMISSIONER LEGISLATIVE POWER.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT IF THE
CORPORATION IS AVAILED OF FOR THE FORBIDDEN PURPOSE, THE TAX "SHALL BE
LEVIED, COLLECTED, AND PAID"; AND CERTAIN FACTS ARE MADE PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS PURPOSE.  NO POWER IS DELEGATED TO
THE COMMISSIONER SAVE THAT OF FINDING FACTS UPON EVIDENCE. 

SECOND.  THE CORPORATION CONTENDS, AS A MATTER OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION, THAT SEC. 104 WAS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE WERE NO
"GAINS AND PROFITS" WITHIN THE TAX YEAR.  CONCEDING THAT NET INCOME OF
$863,787.22 WAS EARNED,  FN6  IT ASSERTS THAT THERE WERE "NO GAINS AND
PROFITS" BECAUSE THE DEPRECIATION IN THE SECURITIES OWNED, NONE OF
WHICH WERE SOLD, EXCEEDED $2,000,000.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE WORD
"GAINS" WAS NOT USED AS SYNONYMOUS WITH "PROFITS," BUT TO EXPRESS
CONTEMPLATED UNREALIZED INCREASES OR ACCESSION IN NET WORTH OF THE
ASSETS; AND THAT ASSESSABILITY UNDER SEC. 104 DEPENDS NOT UPON GAINS OR
PROFITS - BUT UPON THE AGGREGATE OF GAINS (OR LOSSES) AND PROFITS,
SINCE PRUDENT DIRECTORS WOULD TAKE THESE INTO CONSIDERATION IN
DETERMINING WHETHER A DIVIDEND SHOULD BE DECLARED.  DEPRECIATION IN ANY
OF THE ASSETS IS EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE
BOARD IN DETERMINING THE ISSUE OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCUMULATION OF
PROFITS WAS IN EXCESS OF THE REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS.  BUT
OBVIOUSLY DEPRECIATION IN THE MARKET VALUE OF SECURITIES WHICH THE
CORPORATION CONTINUES TO HOLD DOES NOT, AS MATTER OF LAW, PRECLUDE A
FINDING THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF THE YEAR'S PROFITS WAS IN EXCESS OF
THE REASONABLE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS. 

THIRD.  THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS.  THE CORPORATION HELD ON JANUARY 31, 1930, BONDS AND
STOCKS VALUED AT $2,779,718.07; ON JANUARY 31, 1931 IT HELD
$2,989,452.74 - AN INCREASE OF $209,734.67.  THE LIST OF THESE BONDS
AND STOCKS SHOWED THAT THEY WERE IN NO WAY RELATED TO A GROCERY
BUSINESS.  FN7  THAT THERE WAS NO NEED OF ACCUMULATING ANY PART OF THE
YEAR'S EARNINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE BUSINESS WAS SHOWN BY
THE BALANCE SHEET.  COMPARING THE CASH ON HAND WITH THE OUTSTANDING
INDEBTEDNESS, IT APPEARS THAT THE $1,332,332.28 CASH ON HAND JANUARY
31, 1930 EXCEEDED THE $1,161,121.96 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, NOTES AND
MORTGAGE, BY $171,210.32.  ON JANUARY 31, 1931, THE EXCESS OF CASH OVER
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE WAS $1,136,820.55.  THESE WERE THEN ONLY $269,140.49;
AND THE CASH ON HAND WAS $1,405,961.04.  THE NOTES PAYABLE AND THE
MORTGAGE HAD BEEN DISCHARGED. 

THAT THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATING THIS HUGE SURPLUS WAS TO ESCAPE THE
IMPOSITION UPON KOHL OF SURTAXES, WAS INDICATED BY THE FOLLOWING
FACTS.  THE $4,395,413.78 AGGREGATE OF BONDS, STOCKS, AND EXCESS CASH
JANUARY 31, 1931, REPRESENTS ABOUT FOUR-FIFTHS OF THE TOTAL
ACCUMULATION OF THE SURPLUS PROFITS DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS, WHICH
AMOUNTED TO $5,742,455.35.  FN8  IF THE SURPLUS PROFITS OF THE FISCAL
YEAR 1930-1931 HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDENDS, THE ADDITIONAL
SURTAXES PAYABLE THEREON BY KOHL IN THE YEAR 1931 WOULD HAVE BEEN AT
LEAST $90,744.56, AND FOR THE PRECEDING NINE YEARS WOULD HAVE
AGGREGATED $1,240,852.30.  FN9    FURTHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
BOARD'S FINDINGS THAT IN THE TAX YEAR DIVIDENDS WERE OMITTED AND THE
SURPLUS ACCUMULATED IN ORDER TO ENABLE KOHL TO ESCAPE THESE SURTAXES IS
FURNISHED BY THE FOLLOWING FACTS:  KOHL DREW HIS SALARY OF $104,000 A
YEAR; AND THAT SUM, AS AN EXPENSE OF THE BUSINESS, WAS DEDUCTED BEFORE
CALCULATING THE CORPORATION'S PROFIT ON WHICH IT PAID TAXES UNDER SEC.
13.  HE NEEDED PERSONALLY FURTHER SUMS AND TOOK THESE IN THE FORM OF
LOANS.  IN THE TAX YEAR KOHL BORROWED FROM THE CORPORATION $140,000. 
HIS AGGREGATE INDEBTEDNESS ON JANUARY 31, 1931 FOR BORROWINGS DURING
SEVEN YEARS, WAS $610,000.  AS WAS STATED IN UNITED BUSINESS CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, P. 755:  "THESE LOANS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH A
PURPOSE TO STRENGTHEN THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE PETITIONER, BUT
ENTIRELY ACCORD WITH A DESIRE TO GET THE EQUIVALENT OF HIS DIVIDENDS
UNDER ANOTHER GUISE."  FN10 

SINCE KOHL WAS THE SOLE OWNER OF THE CORPORATION, THE BUSINESS WOULD
HAVE BEEN AS WELL PROTECTED AGAINST UNEXPECTED DEMANDS FOR CAPITAL, AND
ASSURED OF CAPITAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY POSSIBLE EXPANSION, BY HIS
PERSONAL OWNERSHIP OF THE SECURITIES AS BY THE CORPORATION'S OWNING
THEM.  MOREOVER, NO CONCEIVABLE EXPANSION COULD HAVE UTILIZED SO LARGE
A SURPLUS.  FN11  THE HIGH TAXES WERE FIRST IMPOSED IN 1919.  FN12
AFTER THAT TIME NO DIVIDEND WAS PAID UNTIL AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE
TAXABLE YEAR HERE INVOLVED. 

THUS, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PRESUMPTION PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 104(B)
THERE WAS AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS. 

FOURTH.  THE COURT OF APPEALS, INSTEAD OF LIMITING ITS REVIEW TO
ASCERTAINING WHETHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS
AND DECISION, MADE ON ALL THE EVIDENCE, AS UPON A TRIAL DE NOVO, IN
EFFECT, AN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF THE MATTERS WHICH HAD BEEN IN
ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DO SO.
HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131-32.  TO DRAW INFERENCES, TO
WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND TO DECLARE THE RESULT WAS THE FUNCTION OF THE
BOARD.  HULBURD V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 300, 306; ELMHURST CEMETERY
CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 37, 40. 

FIFTH.  THE COURT EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT THE BOARD FAILED TO
CONSIDER RELEVANT AND CONTROLLING FACTS, THAT IT RELIED UPON IMPROPER
EVIDENCE IN REACHING ITS CONCLUSION, AND THAT IT FAILED TO MAKE THE
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO
JUSTIFY THAT VIEW.  THE FINDINGS QUOTED ABOVE ARE SPECIFIC.  THE BOARD
WAS NOT OBLIGED TO ACCEPT AS TRUE KOHL'S STATEMENT OF HIS INTENTION AND
PURPOSES; OR TO ACCEPT AS SOUND THE OPINION OF HIS EXPERTS.  IT WAS
ERROR TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BOARD.  THERE IS NO OCCASION TO
REMAND THE CASE TO IT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  MR. MELLOTT, WHO STATED THE VIEWS OF THE MINORITY, SAID:  "THIS
BEING A 'FACT CASE', IT IS WITH SOME RELUCTANCE THAT I REACH A
CONCLUSION AT VARIANCE WITH THAT OF THE MEMBER WHO HEARD THE TESTIMONY
OF THE WITNESSES AND HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF OBSERVING THEIR MANNER AND
DEMEANOR WHILE TESTIFYING.  ..." 

FN2  CITING UNITED BUSINESS CORP. V. COMMISSIONER, 62 F.2D 754(C.C.A.
2); A.D. SAENGER, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, 84 F.2D 23(C.C.A. 5); ALMOURS
SECURITIES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, 91 F.2D 427(C.C.A. 5); WILLIAMS INV.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 3 F.SUPP.  225(CT. CL.).  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES
V. R.C. TWAY COAL CO., 75 F.2D 336(C.C.A. 6); KECK INV. CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 77 F.2D 244(C.C.A. 9). 

FN3  IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE WHAT KOHL'S EXACT ADDITIONAL
SURTAX LIABILITY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD HE INCLUDED THE CORPORATION'S
INCOME FOR 1930-1931 IN HIS PERSONAL RETURN FOR 1931, SINCE THAT RETURN
IS NOT IN EVIDENCE.  A MINIMUM FIGURE, HOWEVER, MAY BE OBTAINED.  THE
CORPORATION'S "NET INCOME," AS DEFINED IN SEC. 104, WAS $954,645.62. 
THERE MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM THIS $103,654.47 FOR CORPORATION INCOME
TAX; AND $100,000 WAS DISTRIBUTED AS A DIVIDEND IN 1931 AND INCLUDED IN
COMPUTING THE TAX PAID BY KOHL IN THAT YEAR.  EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE
REMAINING $750,991.15 WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED HIS ENTIRE NET INCOME FOR
1931, AND THAT THE MAXIMUM DEDUCTION OF 15% OF THIS AMOUNT FOR
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN, A SURTAX OF $119,328.50
WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE. 

FN4  THE FIRST STATUTE WHICH PROVIDED FOR TAXATION WHERE CORPORATE
PROFITS ARE ACCUMULATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING THE IMPOSITION OF
SURTAXES UPON STOCKHOLDERS WAS THE TARIFF ACT OF 1913, SEC. 2A,
SUBDIV.  1, 38 STAT. 166.  IN THAT ACT, IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916,
SEC. 3, 39 STAT. 758, AND IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, SEC. 220, 40
STAT. 1072, THE TAX WAS LAID UPON THE SHAREHOLDER.  IN ALL LATER
REVENUE ACTS, THE TAX IS LAID UPON THE CORPORATION.  1921 ACT, SEC.
220, 42 STAT. 247; 1924 ACT, SEC. 220, 43 STAT. 277; 1926 ACT, SEC.
220, 44 STAT. 34; 1928 ACT, SEC. 104, 45 STAT. 814; 1932 ACT, SEC. 104,
47 STAT. 195; 1934 ACT, SEC. 102, 48 STAT. 702; 1936 ACT, SEC. 102, 49
STAT. 1676. 

THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1918 AND 1921, SECS. 218(E) AND 218(D),
RESPECTIVELY, ALSO TAXED THE SHAREHOLDERS OF "PERSONAL SERVICE
CORPORATIONS" LIKE PARTNERS.  SECTION 112(K) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932
AND SEC. 112(I) OF THE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936 PROVIDE FOR THE DISREGARD
OF THE CORPORATE ENTITY IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ARE
USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING FEDERAL TAXES.  AND SEC. 201 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT. 818, PROVIDES THAT THE ADJUSTED
UNDISTRIBUTED NET INCOME OF FOREIGN PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANIES MUST BE
INCLUDED IN THE GROSS INCOME OF THEIR UNITED STATES SHAREHOLDERS. 
COMPARE ALSO SOUTHERN PAC. CO. V. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 336; GULF OIL
CORP. V. LEWELLYN, 248 U.S. 71; GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465. 

FN5  FOR EXAMPLE, SEC. 293(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 PROVIDES
THAT IF ANY PART OF A DEFICIENCY IS DUE TO "FRAUD WITH INTENT TO EVADE
TAX," THERE SHALL BE AN "ADDITION TO THE TAX" OF 50% OF THE
DEFICIENCY.  HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391.  WHETHER A PAYMENT
RECEIVED IS COMPENSATION WITHIN SEC. 22(A) OR IS A GIFT WITHIN SEC.
22(B)(3) IS LARGELY A MATTER OF INTENTION.  COMPARE BOGARDUS V.
COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 34, 45.  SIMILARLY, THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF LOSSES
UNDER SEC. 23(E) MAY DEPEND UPON WHETHER THE TAXPAYER'S MOTIVE IN
ENTERING INTO THE TRANSACTION WAS PRIMARILY PROFIT.  COMPARE HEINER V.
TINDLE, 276 U.S. 582; STUART V. COMMISSIONER, 84 F.2D 368(C.C.A. 1);
GOLDSBOROUGH V. BURNET, 46 F.2D 432(C.C.A. 4); BEAUMONT V. HELVERING,
63 APP. D.C. 387; 73 F.2D 110, 113; DRESSER V. UNITED STATES, 55 F.2D
499(CT. CL.).  AND SEC. 112(K) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932(AND SEC.
112(I) OF THE ACTS OF 1934 AND 1936) PROVIDES THAT A FOREIGN
CORPORATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CORPORATION FOR PURPOSES OF
CERTAIN OF THE NON-RECOGNITION PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION UNLESS "IT
HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT SUCH
EXCHANGE OR DISTRIBUTION IS NOT IN PURSUANCE OF A PLAN HAVING AS ONE OF
ITS PRINCIPAL PURPOSES THE AVOIDANCE OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES." 

FN6  THE CORPORATION REPORTED IN ITS RETURN AN INCOME OF
$863,471.67.  THIS WAS INCREASED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO $863,787.22,
AND IS NOT NOW DISPUTED. 

FN7  THE STOCK HELD JANUARY 31, 1931, OF THE AGGREGATE COST OF
$2,676,061.47, CONSISTED OF ISSUES OF 147 DIFFERENT CORPORATIONS.  OF
INDUSTRIALS THERE WERE 61.  OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, 27.  OF INSURANCE
COMPANIES, 18.  OF INVESTMENT TRUSTS, 13.  OF BANKS AND TRUST
COMPANIES, 28.  THERE WERE, BESIDES, GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL, RAILROAD,
PUBLIC UTILITY, INDUSTRIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS BONDS WHICH COST
$313,391.27. 

FN8  THE PROFITS FOR THESE YEARS (AFTER DEDUCTING FEDERAL CORPORATION
INCOME TAXES PAID) ARE LISTED IN NOTE 9, INFRA. 

FN9  KOHL'S INDIVIDUAL RETURNS WERE MADE ON A CALENDAR YEAR CASH
BASIS.  FOR THE FISCAL YEAR HERE IN QUESTION, JANUARY 31, 1930 TO
JANUARY 31, 1931, THE CORPORATION'S BOOKS SHOWED A PROFIT OF
$682,850.38 AFTER DEDUCTING KOHL'S SALARY AND THE 12% CORPORATION
INCOME TAX PAID.  A DIVIDEND OF $100,000 WAS PAID IN 1931.  HAD THE
REMAINING $582,850.38 BEEN ENTIRELY DISTRIBUTED IN THAT YEAR, KOHL
WOULD HAVE INCURRED AN ADDITIONAL SURTAX LIABILITY OF $90,744.56, EVEN
IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION WOULD HAVE
CONSTITUTED HIS ENTIRE NET INCOME FOR THAT YEAR AND THAT THE 15%
MAXIMUM CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS DEDUCTION COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN.  (IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE WHAT HIS EXACT SURTAX LIABILITY FOR 1931
WOULD HAVE BEEN, INASMUCH AS HIS PERSONAL RETURN FOR THAT YEAR IS NOT
IN EVIDENCE.)  COMPARE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

IF THE CORPORATION HAD DISTRIBUTED ITS PROFITS FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR
IMMEDIATELY AFTER ITS CLOSE ON JANUARY 31, KOHL'S ADDITIONAL SURTAX
LIABILITY FOR THE NINE PRECEDING YEARS WOULD HAVE BEEN AS FOLLOWS: 

(CHART OMITTED) 

FN10  COMPARE A.D. SAENGER, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, 84 F.2D 23(C.C.A.
5); UNITED STATES V. R.C. TWAY COAL CO., 75 F.2D 336, 340(C.C.A. 6). 

FN11  IN THE TEN YEARS THE NUMBER OF STORES IN THE CHAIN HAD BEEN
INCREASED FROM 358 TO 815.  EVEN ON KOHL'S OWN ESTIMATE THAT "INCLUDING
EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO HAVE ABOUT $5000 PER STORE," THIS EXPANSION
COULD ACCOUNT FOR ONLY $2,285,000 OF THE $5,742,455.35 OF PROFITS
ACCUMULATED OVER THAT PERIOD. 

FN12  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, 40 STAT. 1057, WHICH WAS NOT ENACTED
UNTIL FEBRUARY 24, 1919, IMPOSED A SURTAX OF AS MUCH AS 65% ON INCOME
IN EXCESS OF $1,000,000.  THE MAXIMUM RATE UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1916, 39 STAT. 756, WAS ONLY 13% ON INCOME IN EXCESS OF $2,000,000. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














ST. LOUIS ETC. RY. V. BROWNSVILLE DIST., 304 U.S. 295 


NO. 300.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 91 F.2D 502,
REVERSED. 


1.  THOUGH NOT BOUND TO FURNISH CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION IN MEXICO,
CARRIERS MAY NOT DISCRIMINATE UNREASONABLY BETWEEN SHIPPERS, PLACES, OR
CLASSES OF TRAFFIC WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IN THE FURNISHING OF
EQUIPMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION BEYOND THE BOUNDARY.  P. 300. 

2.  THE RAIL CONNECTION OF THE PORT OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS, WITH
MATAMOROS, MEXICO, WAS OVER LINE OF CARRIER A TO LINE OF CONNECTING
CARRIER B; OVER B TO A BRIDGE, AND ACROSS THE RIO GRANDE TO LINES IN
MEXICO.  A OWNED NO CARS BUT CONFINED ITSELF TO SWITCHING SERVICE; B
WAS ENGAGED IN TRAFFIC BETWEEN OTHER TEXAS PORTS AND MEXICO, BUT
PARTICIPATION IN TRAFFIC BETWEEN PORT OF BROWNSVILLE AND MEXICO WAS
CONFINED TO INTERMEDIATE SWITCHING SERVICE, THE CHARGE FOR WHICH WAS
SPECIFIED IN ITS TARIFF.  THERE WAS NO JOINT RATE APPLICABLE OVER THE
TRACKS OF A AND B, THE BRIDGE AND ANY RAILWAY IN MEXICO, NOR DID THE
TARIFFS OF A AND B CONTAIN ANY PROVISION RELATING TO THE FURNISHING OF
CARS FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION.  B FURNISHED CARS FOR LINE HAULS FROM THE
OTHER PORTS BUT REFUSED TO PERMIT CARS DELIVERED BY IT TO A TO BE
RELOADED FOR SHIPMENT INTO MEXICO, OR TO DELIVER CARS TO A FOR LOADING
AT THE PORT OF BROWNSVILLE, OR, IF LOADED THERE, TO SWITCH THEM EN
ROUTE TO MEXICO.  IN AN ACTION OF MANDAMUS BY THE PORT OF BROWNSVILLE,
AND SHIPPERS, HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REQUIRE
EITHER A OR B TO FURNISH CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THAT PORT AND
MEXICO.  PP. 299-300. 

(2)  THE QUESTION OF DISCRIMINATION BY B BETWEEN THAT AND OTHER
PORTS, WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION FOR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.  ID. 

ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE & MEXICO RY. CO. ET AL. V. BROWNSVILLE
NAVIGATION DISTRICT ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 669, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS, FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS APPLIED TO THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS TO OBTAIN A WRIT OF MANDAMUS  FN1  COMMANDING
PETITIONERS TO TRANSPORT CERTAIN TRAFFIC AND TO FURNISH AND CONTINUE
FOR ALL TIME TO FURNISH CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BETWEEN THE
PORT OF BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS, AND MATAMOROS, MEXICO.  PETITIONERS BY
PLEAS TO THE JURISDICTION ASSERTED THAT THE QUESTIONS RAISED WERE
ESSENTIALLY ADMINISTRATIVE AND THAT THEREFORE RESORT MUST FIRST BE HAD
TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD
EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUES TENDERED BY THE PLEAS, SUSTAINED THE
PETITIONERS' CONTENTION AND DISMISSED THE CASE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REVERSED.  91 F.2D 502.  THIS COURT GRANTED A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI. 

THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RIO GRANDE
OPPOSITE MATAMOROS.  THE RESPONDENT NAVIGATION DISTRICT, CALLED THE
"PORT OF BROWNSVILLE," WAS INCORPORATED UNDER TEXAS LAW; FN2 IT
INCLUDES A CHANNEL EXTENDING FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO ABOUT 17 MILES TO
A TURNING BASIN WHICH IS LOCATED OUTSIDE, AND ABOUT FIVE MILES FROM THE
CENTER OF, BROWNSVILLE.  THE PORT HAS NO LOCOMOTIVE OR CARS; IT HAS
FACILITIES AT THE BASIN TO LOAD AND UNLOAD VESSELS, AND A RAILROAD
TRACK EXTENDING FROM THE BASIN ABOUT A MILE, TO JUNCTION, AT THE
BOUNDARY OF THE DISTRICT, WITH A SHORT BRANCH OR SPUR OF PETITIONER,
THE PORT ISABEL & RIO GRANDE VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY.  EACH OF THE OTHER
TWO RESPONDENTS IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AT THE PORT AS STEVEDORE,
FREIGHT BROKER, AND FORWARDING AGENT.  ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE DIRECTLY
INTERESTED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BETWEEN THE PORT OF
BROWNSVILLE AND POINTS IN MEXICO VIA MATAMOROS. 

PETITIONER THOMPSON, AS TRUSTEE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, OPERATES THE ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE & MEXICO RAILWAY
AND OTHER LINES OF THE MISSOURI PACIFIC SYSTEM FOR TRANSPORTATION
BETWEEN GULF PORTS IN TEXAS AND RIO GRANDE CROSSINGS INTO MEXICO.  THE
PORT ISABEL, IN ALL ABOUT 26 MILES LONG, EXTENDS FROM THE GULF TO
TRACKS OPERATED BY THE TRUSTEE IN THE CITY OF BROWNSVILLE.  THE
BROWNSVILLE & MATAMOROS BRIDGE COMPANY HAS A BRIDGE AND RAILROAD TRACKS
CONNECTING THE TRUSTEE'S TRACKS IN BROWNSVILLE WITH THE NATIONAL
RAILWAYS OF MEXICO IN MATAMOROS.  SHIPMENTS BETWEEN THE PORT OF
BROWNSVILLE AND MATAMOROS MUST MOVE ABOUT A MILE OVER THE TRACKS OF THE
NAVIGATION DISTRICT, 7.4 MILES OVER THE PORT ISABEL, 2.49 MILES OVER
THE TRUSTEE'S TRACKS AND 1.24 MILES OVER THE BRIDGE COMPANY'S RAILS. 

THERE IS NO JOINT RATE APPLICABLE TO TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE PORT
AND MATAMOROS OR ANY OTHER POINT IN MEXICO OVER THE TRACKS OF
PETITIONERS, THE BRIDGE COMPANY AND ANY RAILWAY IN MEXICO.  THE SERVICE
PERFORMED BY EACH PETITIONER IS COVERED BY A SWITCHING CHARGE SPECIFIED
IN ITS TARIFF FILED WITH THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  NEITHER
THE TARIFF OF THE PORT ISABEL NOR THAT OF THE TRUSTEE CONTAINS ANY
RULE, REGULATION OR PROVISION RELATING TO THE FURNISHING OF CARS FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION IN QUESTION.  THE PORT ISABEL PERFORMS THE INITIAL
MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC FROM THE PORT; IT HAS NO CARS OR MEANS TO ACQUIRE
ANY.  THE MEXICAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ARE THE INITIAL CARRIERS OF TRAFFIC
IN THE OTHER DIRECTION; THEY REFUSE TO PERMIT THEIR CARS TO LEAVE
MEXICO. 

THE TRUSTEE FURNISHES CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION FROM THE PORTS OF
CORPUS CHRISTI AND HOUSTON TO GATEWAYS AT RIO GRANDE CROSSINGS,
INCLUDING LAREDO AND BROWNSVILLE; IN ALL THAT TRANSPORTATION HE HAS
SUBSTANTIAL LINE HAULS.  BUT HE REFUSES TO PERMIT CARS DELIVERED BY HIM
TO THE PORT ISABEL AND TAKEN BY THE LATTER TO THE BASIN FOR UNLOADING
TO BE RELOADED FOR SHIPMENT INTO MEXICO, AND REFUSES TO DELIVER TO THE
PORT ISABEL CARS UNDER HIS CONTROL TO BE LOADED AT THE PORT; AND IF
LOADED THERE FOR TRANSPORTATION INTO MEXICO HE REFUSES TO SWITCH THEM
EN ROUTE.  WITHOUT REGARD TO OWNERSHIP, CONTROL OR DISTRIBUTION, THE
PORT ISABEL IS WILLING TO SWITCH CARS BETWEEN THE PORT AND ITS JUNCTION
WITH THE TRUSTEE'S TRACKS. 

AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THIS CASE, RESPONDENTS FILED WITH
THE COMMISSION A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT PETITIONERS, PRINCIPALLY BY
THEIR FAILURE TO FURNISH EQUIPMENT, REFUSED TO PERMIT TRAFFIC TO MOVE
BETWEEN THE PORT AND MATAMOROS, IN VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 6 OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AND THAT THE TRUSTEE'S REFUSAL TO PERMIT SUCH
USE OF HIS EQUIPMENT, WHILE PERMITTING IT BETWEEN OTHER PORTS AND
MEXICO, VIOLATES SEC. 3 OF THE ACT.  THEY PRAYED AN ORDER REQUIRING
PETITIONERS TO FURNISH EQUIPMENT AND TO REMOVE THE PREJUDICE AND
PREFERENCE ALLEGED.  AFTER HEARING BY THE COMMISSION BUT BEFORE ITS
REPORT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION, IN WHICH
IT HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GRANT MANDAMUS,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT ALLEGED UNREASONABLE AND
PREJUDICIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE PORT OF BROWNSVILLE.  AFTER THIS
COURT GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, RESPONDENTS FILED A PETITION WITH
THE COMMISSION ASKING IT TO DEFER ACTING UPON THEIR ALLEGATIONS OF
VIOLATION OF SECS. 1 AND 6.  AND THE COMMISSION DID LIMIT ITS DECISION
TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 3.  IT HELD THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE
TRUSTEE TO FURNISH CARS WAS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICIAL OR PREFERENTIAL. 

THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT COMPLAIN THAT PETITIONERS REFUSE TO SWITCH
CARS FURNISHED BY OTHER CARRIERS OR BY THE PORT ITSELF.  THEIR
GRIEVANCE IS NOT THAT PETITIONERS REFUSE TO DO THE SWITCHING COVERED BY
THEIR TARIFFS AT THE SPECIFIED RATES; IT IS THAT IN APPLYING THEIR
TARIFFS, THEY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE PORT OF BROWNSVILLE IN ORDER TO
DIVERT TRAFFIC TO OTHER PORTS AND GATEWAYS SO THAT THE TRUSTEE MAY
OBTAIN SUBSTANTIAL LINE HAULS.  THE ACT EXTENDS TO TRANSPORTATION ONLY
SO FAR AS IT TAKES PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY.  PETITIONERS ARE NOT BOUND BY
ANY LAW, REGULATION, OR TARIFF TO FURNISH CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION IN
MEXICO.  BUT THAT FREEDOM FROM OBLIGATION DOES NOT IMPLY THAT, IN
FURNISHING EQUIPMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION BEYOND THE BOUNDARY,
PETITIONERS MAY UNREASONABLY DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN SHIPPERS, PLACES, OR
CLASSES OF TRAFFIC WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  CF. LEWIS-SIMAS-JONES CO.
V. SOUTHERN PAC. CO., 283 U.S. 654. 

AS THE PORT ISABEL DOES NOT OWN OR CONTROL ANY FREIGHT CARS,
RESPONDENTS MAY NOT HAVE RELIEF ON THE GROUND THAT THE FAILURE OF THAT
CARRIER TO FURNISH THEM IS UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION.  AS THE TRUSTEE
PARTICIPATES IN TRAFFIC BETWEEN THE BASIN AND POINTS IN MEXICO ONLY TO
THE EXTENT OF AN INTERMEDIATE SWITCHING MOVEMENT, HE IS NOT, AS A
MATTER OF LAW, BOUND TO FURNISH CARS EVEN FOR THE PART OF THE
TRANSPORTATION THAT IS PERFORMED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.  THE
QUESTION, WHETHER THE DISCRIMINATION IN THE APPLICATION OF HIS TARIFF
COVERING THE SWITCHING MOVEMENT IS UNREASONABLE, IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE
ONE.  APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION OF IT MAY EXTEND TO MANY FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING THE INFLUENCE, IF ANY, OF THE DISCRIMINATION
UPON THE TRUSTEE'S LINE HAULS BETWEEN OTHER TEXAS PORTS AND POINTS IN
MEXICO, AND TO THE BROAD FIELD OF COMPETITION LEGITIMATELY AVAILABLE TO
CARRIERS, SHIPPERS AND COMMODITIES SEEKING TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND MEXICO.  AND THE ASCERTAINMENT OF APPROPRIATE REMEDY
FOR DISCRIMINATION CONDEMNED CALLS FOR ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION INVOLVING, IT MAY BE, INVESTIGATION OF NUMEROUS
CONDITIONS AFFECTING TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES.  AND AS
DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS OF PETITIONERS' REFUSAL TO FURNISH CARS
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IN QUESTION AND THE PRESCRIBING OF CHANGE IN THE
SERVICE, IF ANY IS TO BE ORDERED, ARE PRIMARILY WITHIN THE REGULATORY
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION, THE DISTRICT COURT RIGHTLY HELD THAT IT WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND DISMISSED THE CAUSE.  TEXAS & PAC. RY. CO. V.
ABILENE COTTON OIL CO., 204 U.S. 426.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. U.S.
EX REL. PITCAIRN COAL CO., 215 U.S. 481, 493.  MORRISDALE COAL CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 230 U.S. 304, 313.  TEXAS & PAC. RY. CO. V.
AMERICAN TIE CO., 234 U.S. 138, 146.  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V.
MERCHANTS ELEVATOR CO., 259 U.S. 285, 291.  CF. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V.
CLARK COAL CO., 238 U.S. 456, 468.  THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  AS DEFINING JURISDICTION, RESPONDENTS RELY ON JUDICIAL CODE,
SEC. 24(8), 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41: "THE DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION  ...  (8) OF ALL SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS ARISING UNDER ANY
LAW REGULATING COMMERCE"; AND ON 49 U.S.C. SEC. 49: "THE DISTRICT
COURTS  ... SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION UPON THE RELATION OF ANY PERSON OR
...  CORPORATION, ALLEGING SUCH VIOLATION BY A COMMON CARRIER, OF ANY
OF THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 1 OF THIS TITLE (INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT),
AS PREVENTS THE RELATOR FROM HAVING INTERSTATE TRAFFIC MOVED BY SAID
COMMON CARRIER AT THE SAME RATES AS ARE CHARGED, OR UPON TERMS OR
CONDITIONS AS FAVORABLE AS THOSE GIVEN BY SAID COMMON CARRIER FOR LIKE
TRAFFIC UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIONS TO ANY OTHER SHIPPER, TO ISSUE A WRIT
...  OF MANDAMUS AGAINST SAID COMMON CARRIER, COMMANDING SUCH COMMON
CARRIER TO MOVE AND TRANSPORT THE TRAFFIC, OR TO FURNISH CARS OR OTHER
FACILITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PARTY APPLYING FOR THE WRIT  ...
" 

AS IMPOSING DUTIES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE
INSTITUTED, RESPONDENTS RELY ON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 1(3): 

"  ...  THE TERM 'TRANSPORTATION' AS USED IN THIS ACT SHALL INCLUDE
LOCOMOTIVES, CARS, AND OTHER VEHICLES  ...  IRRESPECTIVE OF OWNERSHIP
OR OF ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR THE USE THEREOF, AND ALL
SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE  ...  HANDLING OF PROPERTY
TRANSPORTED." 

SEC. 1(4)  "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF EVERY COMMON CARRIER  ...
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF ...  PROPERTY TO PROVIDE AND FURNISH
SUCH TRANSPORTATION UPON REASONABLE REQUEST THEREFOR,  ... AND TO
PROVIDE REASONABLE FACILITIES FOR OPERATING THROUGH ROUTES  ...  " 

SEC. 1(11)  "IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF EVERY CARRIER  ...  TO FURNISH
SAFE AND ADEQUATE CAR SERVICE AND TO ESTABLISH, OBSERVE, AND ENFORCE
JUST AND REASONABLE RULES, REGULATIONS, AND PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO
CAR SERVICE; AND EVERY UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE RULE, REGULATION, AND
PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO CAR SERVICE IS PROHIBITED AND DECLARED TO BE
UNLAWFUL." 

SEC. 6(1)  "EVERY COMMON CARRIER ...  SHALL FILE WITH THE COMMISSION
...  SCHEDULES SHOWING ALL THE RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES FOR
TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN DIFFERENT POINTS ON ITS OWN ROUTE AND BETWEEN
POINTS ON ITS OWN ROUTE AND POINTS ON THE ROUTE OF ANY OTHER CARRIER. 
...  IF NO JOINT RATE OVER THE THROUGH ROUTE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE
SEVERAL CARRIERS IN SUCH THROUGH ROUTE SHALL FILE  ...  THE SEPARATELY
ESTABLISHED RATES, FARES, AND CHARGES APPLIED TO THE THROUGH
TRANSPORTATION  ...  " 

FN2  CH. 192, HOUSE BILL 724, 41ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















LOWE BROS. CO. V. U.S., 304 U.S. 302 


NO. 864.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
905, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(20), AS AMENDED, A SUIT AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES TO RECOVER INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES WRONGFULLY COLLECTED,
IN EXCESS OF $10,000, WILL NOT LIE IN THE DISTRICT COURT UNLESS THE
OVERPAYMENT WAS COLLECTED BY A COLLECTOR WHO COULD HAVE BEEN SUED
PERSONALLY BUT WHO, WHEN THE PROCEEDING BEGAN, WAS DEAD OR OUT OF
OFFICE.  P. 304. 

2.  WHERE THE CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WAS FOR AN OVERPAYMENT
FOR 1917, MORE THAN $10,000, ALLEGED TO HAVE RESULTED FROM THE ACTION
OF THE COMMISSIONER IN CREDITING AGAINST A BARRED DEFICIENCY OF THAT
YEAR AN OVERPAYMENT FOR 1918 - HELD THAT THE SUIT WOULD NOT LIE IN THE
DISTRICT COURT UNDER JUD.  CODE SEC. 24(20) AS AMENDED, SINCE THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER, IF A COLLECTION, WAS NOT THE ACTION OF THE
COLLECTOR AND OCCURRED IN A LATER YEAR IN WHICH NO OVERPAYMENT WAS
MADE.  P. 306. 

3.  APPLICATION OF AN OVERPAYMENT TO AN EARLIER DEFICIENCY IS
EFFECTED THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER'S APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE OF
OVERPAYMENTS.  THE CERTIFICATION OF THE OVERPAYMENT BY THE COLLECTOR TO
THE COMMISSIONER, A MERE MINISTERIAL ACT, COULD SUBJECT THE COLLECTOR
TO NO PERSONAL LIABILITY.  ID. 

LOWE BROTHERS CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 633, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A SUIT TO RECOVER AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF TAXES FROM THE
UNITED STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES HAVE JURISDICTION, UNDER SEC. 24(20) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, OF A SUIT BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER INCOME AND
EXCESS PROFITS TAXES IN AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF $10,000 WHEN THE
RECOVERY SOUGHT IS OF AN OVERPAYMENT OF TAXES FOR ONE YEAR, EFFECTED BY
CREDITING AGAINST A BARRED DEFICIENCY FOR THAT YEAR AN OVERPAYMENT FOR
ANOTHER YEAR. 

PETITIONER  FN1  OVERPAID INCOME AND EXCESS PROFITS TAXES FOR 1918. 
THE COMMISSIONER, ON MAY 15, 1924, SIGNED A SCHEDULE OF OVERPAYMENTS BY
WHICH HE APPROVED A CREDIT AS OF APRIL 24, 1924 OF A PART OF THE 1918
OVERPAYMENT, IN AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING $10,000, AGAINST A TAX DEFICIENCY
OF PETITIONER FOR 1917, THE COLLECTION OF WHICH WAS THEN BARRED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THE COLLECTOR IN OFFICE IN 1924, WHEN THE
CREDIT WAS ALLOWED, HAVING RETIRED, PETITIONER BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTHERN OHIO, TO
RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE CREDIT.  THE PETITION ALLEGES OVERPAYMENT OF
THE 1917 TAX BY REASON OF THE CREDIT, AND DEMANDS ITS RECOVERY. 
PETITIONER HAS NEITHER ALLEGED NOR PROVED ANY CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE
1918 OVERPAYMENT, RECOVERY OF WHICH, WITHOUT SUCH CLAIM, WAS BARRED BY
LIMITATION. 

THE TRIAL COURT, CONSTRUING THE SUIT AS ONE TO RECOVER AN OVERPAYMENT
OF 1917 TAXES, AS PETITIONER CONCEDED IN OPEN COURT, GAVE JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CREDIT OF THE 1918
OVERPAYMENT UPON THE BARRED DEFICIENCY FOR 1917 WAS NOT A PAYMENT OF
THE 1917 TAX SINCE THE CREDIT IS "VOID" UNDER THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS,
607 AND 609, OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED ON A DIFFERENT GROUND, HOLDING THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 24(20) OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(20), WHICH CONFERS JURISDICTION ON
THE DISTRICT COURT OF SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER TAXES
ERRONEOUSLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED IN EXCESS OF $10,000, ONLY IF THE
COLLECTOR BY WHOM THE TAX WAS COLLECTED IS DEAD OR IS NOT IN OFFICE
WHEN THE SUIT IS BROUGHT.  92 F.2D 905.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, UPON A
PETITION PRESENTING THE SINGLE QUESTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN ORDER TO RESOLVE AN ASSERTED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
DECISION BELOW AND THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
IN UNITED STATES V. PIEDMONT MFG. CO., 89 F.2D 296. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, FOLLOWING UNITED STATES V. PIEDMONT MFG. CO.,
SUPRA, AND ITS OWN DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. JOHN GALLAGHER CO., 83
F.2D 368, THOUGHT THAT THE CREDIT OF THE 1918 OVERPAYMENT OF THE 1917
TAX WAS NOT VOID, BUT VOIDABLE ONLY AT THE ELECTION OF THE TAXPAYER AND
WAS CONSEQUENTLY AN OVERPAYMENT OF 1917 TAXES FOR WHICH RECOVERY MIGHT
BE HAD IN A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION.  BUT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION
IN UNITED STATES V. REEVES BROS. CO., 83 F.2D 121, AND THAT OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN MOSES V. UNITED STATES, 61
F.2D 791, IT HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
BECAUSE THE COLLECTION OF THE 1917 TAX, EFFECTED BY THE ALLOWANCE OF
THE CREDIT, WAS NOT MADE BY A COLLECTOR AND THUS DID NOT SATISFY THE
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT. 

THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS JURISDICTION OF SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES BROUGHT TO RECOVER INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE AMOUNT INVOLVED.  SEC. 145 J.C., 28 U.S.C., SEC.
250.  BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF 1921, C. 136, 42 STAT. 311(CONTINUED BY
REVENUE ACT OF 1924, 43 STAT. 348, AND, SO FAR AS NOW MATERIAL, IN THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44 STAT. 121), SEC. 24(20) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
GAVE JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURTS, CONCURRENT WITH THE COURT OF
CLAIMS, OF SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER "CLAIMS NOT
EXCEEDING TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOUNDED UPON  ...  ANY LAW OF CONGRESS
...  OR UPON ANY CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES  ..."  C. 231, 36 STAT. 1093.  BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER
THE AMENDMENT, DISTRICT COURTS ALSO HAD JURISDICTION OF SUITS AGAINST A
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE BROUGHT TO RECOVER, IN ANY AMOUNT,
INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES WHICH HE HAD ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED.  SEC. 24(5)
J.C., 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(5).  SUCH SUITS BROUGHT AGAINST THE COLLECTOR
SURVIVE HIS RETIREMENT FROM OFFICE AND DO NOT ABATE UPON HIS DEATH. 
PATTON V. BRADY, 184 U.S. 608; SMIETANKA V. INDIANA STEEL CO., 257 U.S.
1; UNION TRUST CO. V. WARDELL, 258 U.S. 537. 

BY THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 24(20) THE JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS
WAS EXTENDED SO AS TO EMBRACE SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO
RECOVER TAXES "EVEN IF THE CLAIM EXCEEDS $10,000, IF THE COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE BY WHOM SUCH TAX  ...  WAS COLLECTED IS DEAD OR IS NOT
IN OFFICE AS COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE AT THE TIME SUCH SUIT OR
PROCEEDING IS COMMENCED."  SINCE THE SUIT ALLOWED AGAINST THE COLLECTOR
BEFORE THE AMENDMENT WAS BASED ON HIS PERSONAL LIABILITY, SAGE V.
UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 33; SMIETANKA V. INDIANA STEEL CO., SUPRA, NO
SUCH SUIT WILL LIE UNLESS HE HAS COLLECTED THE TAX.  THE OBVIOUS
PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT WAS TO PERMIT A SUBSTITUTION OF A SUIT AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SUIT PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED AGAINST THE COLLECTOR
WHENEVER THE AMOUNT CLAIMED EXCEEDS $10,000 AND THE COLLECTOR IS OUT OF
OFFICE.  THIS IS MADE EVIDENT BY THE WORDS OF THE AMENDMENT WHICH
AUTHORIZE THE SUBSTITUTION ONLY WHEN THE COLLECTION IS MADE BY THE
COLLECTOR WHEN IN OFFICE. 

AS WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT NO SUIT COULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AGAINST
THE COLLECTOR TO RECOVER THE ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT SUIT. 
IF THE 1917 TAX CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED AT ALL, AS TO WHICH
WE EXPRESS NO OPINION, IT WAS COLLECTED BY THE ACTION OF THE
COMMISSIONER IN CREDITING AGAINST THE 1917 DEFICIENCY THE 1918
OVERPAYMENT.  IN 1924, THE YEAR OF THE CLAIMED OVERPAYMENT, THE
COLLECTOR RECEIVED NO OVERPAYMENT OF PETITIONER'S TAX FOR ANY YEAR.  IF
THE 1917 TAXES WERE THEN COLLECTED IT WAS BY VIRTUE OF THE APPLICATION
TO THE 1917 DEFICIENCY OF MONEYS ALREADY IN THE TREASURY.  THE
COLLECTOR WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH APPLICATION.  IT WAS THE
COMMISSIONER'S APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE OF OVERPAYMENTS WHICH WAS
EFFECTIVE FOR THAT PURPOSE.  GIRARD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270
U.S. 163, 170, 171; UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 282 U.S. 468.  THE
CERTIFICATION OF THE OVERPAYMENT BY THE COLLECTOR TO THE COMMISSIONER,
A MERE MINISTERIAL ACT, COULD SUBJECT THE COLLECTOR TO NO PERSONAL
LIABILITY. 

IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES THE COLLECTOR
IS RELIEVED FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY EXCEPT IN THE CASE WHERE THE
DISTRICT COURT IS OF OPINION THAT HE ACTED WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, SAGE
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 37, AND THAT SUCH SUITS AGAINST THE COLLECTOR
ARE COMMONLY BUT A MEANS OF COLLECTING THE OVERPAYMENT FROM THE UNITED
STATES.  MOORE ICE CREAM CO. V. ROSE, 289 U.S. 373, 382.  BUT NO
STATUTE HAS ENLARGED THE COLLECTOR'S COMMON LAW LIABILITY TO SUIT, AND
WE CANNOT IGNORE THE WORDS OF THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 24(20) WHICH, IN
PROVIDING FOR A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN LIEU OF ONE AGAINST
THE COLLECTOR, MAKE COLLECTION BY HIM THE SINE QUA NON OF
JURISDICTION. 

GRAHAM & FOSTER V. GOODCELL, 282 U.S. 409, DID NOT DEAL WITH THE
POINT HERE CONSIDERED.  THE ONLY ONE OF THE SEVERAL CASES DECIDED THERE
INVOLVING A CREDIT OF AN OVERPAYMENT FOR ONE YEAR AGAINST A DEFICIENCY
FOR ANOTHER, BOSTON PRESSED METAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, WAS A SUIT
BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR LESS THAN $10,000.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AS PETITIONER STANDS IN THE PLACE OF ITS CORPORATE PREDECESSOR
BY VIRTUE OF A MERGER, AND AS THEIR RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE PRESENT
SUIT MAY BE TREATED AS IDENTICAL, BOTH WILL BE REFERRED TO AS
"PETITIONER." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :















ADAMS MFG. CO. V. STOREN, 304 U.S. 307 


NO. 641.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 31, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 212
IND. 343 - 7 N.E.2D 941, AFFIRMED IN PART - REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  INDIANA GROSS INCOME TAX ACT OF 1933 IMPOSES A TAX UPON GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM COMMERCE.  P. 309. 

2.  IT CAN NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED TO THE GROSS RECEIPTS
DERIVED BY AN INDIANA CORPORATION FROM SALES IN OTHER STATES OF GOODS
MANUFACTURED BY IT IN INDIANA.  P. 311. 

3.  THE INDIANA ACT OF MAR. 9, 1903, WHICH DECLARED "THAT ALL BONDS,
NOTES AND OTHER EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS HEREAFTER ISSUED BY THE STATE
OF INDIANA OR BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS WITHIN THE STATE UPON WHICH THE
SAID STATE OR THE SAID MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS PAY INTEREST SHALL BE
EXEMPT FROM TAXATION," IS CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER
PROVISIONS WITH WHICH IT IS ASSOCIATED IN THE CODIFICATION OF MARCH 11,
1919, AND WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE STATE HAD NO INCOME TAX
LAW.  SO CONSIDERING IT, THE CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIANA CONFINING THE EXEMPTION TO TAXATION AD VALOREM IS NOT
PLAINLY WRONG; CONSEQUENTLY, THE CLAIM THAT TO INCLUDE THE INTEREST
FROM SUCH OBLIGATIONS IN A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS WOULD IMPAIR THE
CONTRACT RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO BOUGHT IN RELIANCE ON THE EXEMPTION, MUST
FAIL.  P. 314. 

J. D. ADAMS MANUFACTURING CO. V. STOREN, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM THE REVERSAL OF A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECLARING A TAXING
ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN CERTAIN PARTS, AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INDIANA
GROSS INCOME TAX ACT OF 1933 FN1  AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED BURDENS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT IN
CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE I, SECS. 8 AND 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

MEANS, INTER ALIA, GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM TRADES, BUSINESSES, OR
COMMERCE, AND RECEIPTS FROM INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL, INCLUDING INTEREST. 
RATES TO THE GROSS INCOME OF EVERY RESIDENT OF THE STATE AND THE GROSS
INCOME OF EVERY NON-RESIDENT DERIVED FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE STATE. 
BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN COMMERCE BETWEEN THIS STATE AND OTHER STATES OF
THE UNITED STATES, OR BETWEEN THIS STATE AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES, TO THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE STATE OF INDIANA IS PROHIBITED FROM TAXING UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA." 

THE APPELLANT, AN INDIANA CORPORATION, MANUFACTURES ROAD MACHINERY
AND EQUIPMENT AND MAINTAINS ITS HOME OFFICE, PRINCIPAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS, AND FACTORY IN THE STATE.  IT SELLS EIGHTY PER CENT. OF ITS
PRODUCTS TO CUSTOMERS IN OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES UPON ORDERS
TAKEN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT THE HOME OFFICE.  SHIPMENTS ARE MADE FROM
THE FACTORY AND PAYMENTS ARE REMITTED TO THE HOME OFFICE.  PURSUANT TO
A PRACTICE OF INVESTING SURPLUS FUNDS NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED IN ITS
BUSINESS, THE APPELLANT OWNS AND RECEIVES INTEREST UPON BONDS AND NOTES
OF INDIANA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS WHICH, AT THE TIME THEY WERE ISSUED,
WERE DECLARED BY STATUTE TO BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. 

UPON THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT, THE APPELLANT FILED A PETITION IN A
STATE CIRCUIT COURT IN WHICH, AFTER RECITING THESE FACTS, IT ALLEGED
THAT THE APPELLEES WERE DEMANDING THAT IT REPORT AND PAY TAXES UPON
INCOME RECEIVED IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE AND INCOME RECEIVED
AS INTEREST UPON SECURITIES EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION BY THE STATE LAW AND
THAT THESE DEMANDS, TOGETHER WITH PENALTIES SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE
FOR FAILURE TO MAKE RETURN AND PAY THE TAX, WOULD BE ENFORCED UNLESS
PREVENTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.  THE PRAYER WAS FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ACT, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED BY THE
APPELLEES, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  AFTER ISSUE JOINED THE FACTS WERE
STIPULATED AND THE COURT MADE FINDINGS AND ENTERED A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR
OF THE APPELLANT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA REVERSED THE JUDGMENT,
HOLDING THAT THE TAX DEMANDED DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BURDEN THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN WHICH APPELLANT IS ENGAGED AND DOES NOT IMPAIR
THE OBLIGATION OF ANY CONTRACT OF THE STATE EXEMPTING MUNICIPAL
SECURITIES FROM TAXATION.  FN2 

1.  WILL THE THREATENED IMPOSITION OF THE TAX ON THE GROSS INCOME
FROM THE APPELLANT'S SALES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONTRAVENE ARTICLE I,
SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH REPOSES IN CONGRESS POWER TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE? 

THE TITLE OF THE ACT DECLARES THAT IT IS A REVENUE MEASURE IMPOSING A
TAX UPON "THE RECEIPT OF GROSS INCOME."  THE STATUTE DEFINES GROSS
INCOME AS MEANING THE GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM TRADES, BUSINESSES,
OR COMMERCE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA IN ITS OPINION STATES:  "THE
STATUTE HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION LEVIES A TAX UPON ALL WHO ARE
DOMICILED WITHIN THE STATE, BASED UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOMICILE, AND
TRANSACTING BUSINESS, AND RECEIVING GROSS INCOME, WITHIN THE STATE, AND
MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF GROSS INCOME."  FN3 

THE TAX IS NOT AN EXCISE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOMICILE ALONE, SINCE
IT IS LEVIED UPON THE GROSS INCOME OF NONRESIDENTS FROM SOURCES WITHIN
THE STATE.  NOR IS IT FOR THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS, SINCE IN MANY
INSTANCES IT HITS THE RECEIPT OF INCOME BY ONE WHO CONDUCTS NO
BUSINESS.  IT IS NOT A CHARTER FEE OR A FRANCHISE FEE MEASURED BY THE
VALUE OF GOODS MANUFACTURED OR THE AMOUNT OF SALES, SUCH AS THE STATE
WOULD BE COMPETENT TO DEMAND FROM DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN CORPORATIONS FOR
THE PRIVILEGE CONFERRED.  FN4  IT IS NOT AN EXCISE UPON THE PRIVILEGE
OF PRODUCING OR MANUFACTURING WITHIN THE STATE, MEASURED BY VOLUME OF
PRODUCTION OR THE AMOUNT OF SALES.  FN5  IT IS NOT A TAX IN LIEU OF AD
VALOREM TAXES UPON PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE INOFFENSIVE TO THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE,  FN6  SINCE THE APPELLANT PAYS LOCAL AND STATE TAXES UPON ITS
PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE AND IT APPEARS THAT THESE, AS RESPECTS
APPELLANT AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HAVE NOT BEEN REDUCED.  THE
ACT, MOREOVER, IS SILENT AS TO THE TAX BEING IN LIEU OF PROPERTY
TAXES.  THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT SUGGESTS THAT THE STATUTE WAS
ADOPTED AS PART OF A SCHEME FOR THE REDUCTION OF LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES
AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF A GROSS INCOME TAX, BUT, AS APPELLANT POINTS
OUT, PROVISION FOR REDUCTION OF PROPERTY TAXES WAS MADE BY LEGISLATION
PASSED IN 1932.  FN7 

THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, PURSUANT TO
AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE ACT, TREAT THE EXACTION AS A GROSS RECEIPTS
TAX; FN8  AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS IN HIS BRIEF THAT IT IS A
PRIVILEGE TAX UPON THE RECEIPT OF GROSS INCOME.  WE THINK THIS A
CORRECT DESCRIPTION. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE TAX IS WHAT IT PURPORTS TO BE, - A TAX UPON
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM COMMERCE.  APPELLANT'S SALES TO CUSTOMERS IN OTHER
STATES AND ABROAD ARE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE ACT, AS
CONSTRUED, IMPOSES A TAX OF ONE PER CENT. ON EVERY DOLLAR RECEIVED FROM
THESE SALES. 

THE VICE OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE SALES
IS THAT THE TAX INCLUDES IN ITS MEASURE, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT,
RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM ACTIVITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND THAT THE
EXACTION IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT IF LAWFUL IT MAY IN SUBSTANCE BE
LAID TO THE FULLEST EXTENT BY STATES IN WHICH THE GOODS ARE SOLD AS
WELL AS THOSE IN WHICH THEY ARE MANUFACTURED.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WOULD THUS BE SUBJECTED TO THE RISK OF A DOUBLE TAX BURDEN TO WHICH
INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS NOT EXPOSED, AND WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
FORBIDS.  FN9  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT SUCH A TAX IS A REGULATION
OF, AND A BURDEN UPON, INTERSTATE COMMERCE PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE I,
SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN10  THE OPINION OF THE STATE SUPREME
COURT STRESSES THE GENERALITY AND NONDISCRIMINATORY CHARACTER OF THE
EXACTION, BUT IT IS SETTLED THAT THIS WILL NOT SAVE THE TAX IF IT
DIRECTLY BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN11 

THE STATE COURT AND THE APPELLEES RELY STRONGLY UPON AMERICAN MFG.
CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, AS SUPPORTING THE TAX ON APPELLANT'S
TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM COMMERCE WITH CITIZENS OF THE STATE
AND THOSE OF OTHER STATES OR FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  BUT THAT CASE DEALT
WITH A MUNICIPAL LICENSE FEE FOR PURSUING THE OCCUPATION OF A
MANUFACTURER IN ST. LOUIS.  THE EXACTION WAS NOT AN EXCISE LAID UPON
THE TAXPAYER'S SALES OR UPON THE INCOME DERIVED FROM SALES.  THE TAX ON
THE PRIVILEGE FOR THE ENSUING YEAR WAS MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE
PAST YEAR'S SALES.  FN12 THE TAXPAYER HAD DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR
REMOVED SOME OF THE GOODS MANUFACTURED TO A WAREHOUSE IN ANOTHER STATE
AND, UPON SALE, DELIVERED THEM FROM THE WAREHOUSE.  IT CONTENDED THAT
THE CITY WAS WITHOUT POWER TO INCLUDE THESE SALES IN THE MEASURE OF THE
TAX FOR THE COMING YEAR.  THE COURT HELD, HOWEVER, THAT THE TAX WAS
UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF MANUFACTURING WITHIN THE STATE AND IT WAS
PERMISSIBLE TO MEASURE THE TAX BY THE SALES PRICE OF THE GOODS PRODUCED
RATHER THAN BY THEIR VALUE AT THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE.  IF THE TAX
THERE UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN A SALES TAX THE CITY COULD NOT HAVE
MEASURED IT BY SALES CONSUMMATED IN ANOTHER STATE.  THAT THE TAX IN THE
PRESENT CASE IS NOT A TAX ON THE MANUFACTURE BUT A TAX ON GROSS SALES,
IS EVIDENT FROM THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE ACT AND
CONFIRMED BY AN AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE ADOPTED IN 1937 UNDER WHICH,
IF THE APPELLANT HAD SHIPPED ITS PRODUCTS TO ANOTHER STATE AND THENCE
SOLD THEM (AS DID THE AMERICAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY), THE RECEIPTS
FROM THE SALES WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE GROSS INCOME REACHED BY THE
ACT.  FN13 

SO FAR AS THE SALE PRICE OF THE GOODS SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
INCLUDES COMPENSATION FOR A PURELY INTRASTATE ACTIVITY, THE MANUFACTURE
OF THE GOODS SOLD, IT MAY BE REACHED FOR LOCAL TAXATION BY A TAX ON THE
PRIVILEGE OF MANUFACTURING, MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE GOODS
MANUFACTURED N14, OR BY OTHER PERMISSIBLE FORMS OF LEVY UPON THE
INTRASTATE TRANSACTION.  FN15  IT IS BECAUSE THE TAX, FORBIDDEN AS TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, REACHES INDISCRIMINATELY AND WITHOUT
APPORTIONMENT, THE GROSS COMPENSATION FOR BOTH INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES THAT IT MUST FAIL IN ITS ENTIRETY SO FAR AS
APPLIED TO RECEIPTS FROM SALES INTERSTATE. 

WE HOLD THAT, AS RESPECTS THE APPELLANT'S SALES OF ITS MANUFACTURED
PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, THE STATUTE CANNOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE ENFORCED. 

2.  WILL THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON THE
BONDS OF INDIANA MUNICIPALITIES VIOLATE ARTICLE I, SEC. 10 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES? 

BY AN ACT OF MARCH 9, 1903, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO EXEMPT FROM TAXATION
ALL BONDS, NOTES AND OTHER EVIDENCES OF INTEREST-BEARING DEBT ISSUED BY
THE STATE OR BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS," IT WAS PROVIDED "THAT ALL
BONDS, NOTES AND OTHER EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS HEREAFTER ISSUED BY
THE STATE OF INDIANA OR BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS WITHIN THE STATE UPON
WHICH THE SAID STATE OR THE SAID MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS PAY INTEREST
SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  N16  BY AN ACT OF MARCH 11, 1919, TAX
LAWS OF THE STATE WERE CODIFIED AND THE ACT OF 1903 WAS INCORPORATED
WITHOUT CHANGE AS CLAUSE TWENTIETH OF SEC. 5 OF THE CODIFICATION N17. 
THE SECTION HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED BUT THE TWENTIETH CLAUSE REMAINED
UNCHANGED AT THE DATE OF THE PASSAGE OF THE GROSS INCOME TAX ACT OF
1933. 

THE APPELLANT INSISTS THAT THE EXEMPTION GRANTED IN THE ACTS OF 1903
AND 1919, CONSTITUTES A CONTRACT WITH PURCHASERS OF MUNICIPAL
SECURITIES THE OBLIGATION OF WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPAIRED BY
THE ATTEMPT TO TAX THE INTEREST THEY YIELD.  THE STATE REPLIES THAT THE
ACTS WERE NOT INTENDED TO CREATE A CONTRACT AND DID NOT IN FACT DO SO,
BUT THAT IF THEY DID, THE COVENANT DID NOT EMBRACE INTEREST PAYABLE ON
MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS BUT ONLY AD VALOREM TAXATION UPON THEM. 

WHEN THE EXEMPTION LAWS WERE ADOPTED THE STATE HAD NO INCOME TAX
LAW.  WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH THE ACT OF
1903 IS TO BE CONSTRUED, ITS SETTING, AS A PORTION OF THE TAX
CODIFICATION OF 1919, IS SIGNIFICANT.  THE LATTER DEALS WITH TWO FORMS
OF TAXATION,  - POLL TAXES AND PROPERTY TAXES.  IT EMBODIES A
COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
OF INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND CORPORATIONS, INCLUDING PUBLIC
UTILITIES; MAKES PROVISION FOR A RETURN BY TAXPAYERS OF COMPLETE
INVENTORIES OF PROPERTY AND, IN THE CASE OF CORPORATIONS, OF THE EXCESS
VALUE OF CAPITAL STOCK AND SURPLUS AND OF THE VALUE OF FRANCHISES OR
PRIVILEGES ENJOYED; AND PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION OF A RATE AD VALOREM BY VARIOUS PUBLIC
BODIES.  THE STATUTE HAS NOTHING TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO LICENSE,
OCCUPATION, PRIVILEGE OR OTHER EXCISE TAXES.  IN SEC. 25 IT PROVIDES
THAT "WHERE BONDS OR STOCKS ARE NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER BE EXEMPTED FROM
TAXATION, THE ACCRUED INTEREST ON SUCH BONDS OR DIVIDENDS ON SUCH STOCK
SHALL BE LISTED AND ASSESSED, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPTED, WITHOUT REGARD
TO THE TIME WHEN THE SAME IS TO BE PAID."  THUS THE LEGISLATURE
DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE BONDS THEMSELVES AND THE INTEREST ACCRUED
UPON THEM AS SEPARATE SUBJECTS OF ASSESSMENT AND AD VALOREM TAXATION. 
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT EXEMPTIONS FROM
TAXATION ARE NOT FAVORED BUT ARE TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  FN18 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING FACTS WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CASE
IS CONTROLLED BY HALE V. IOWA STATE BOARD, 302 U.S. 95.  WE ARE UNABLE,
THEREFORE, TO HOLD THAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IS PLAINLY
WRONG, EVEN UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IN ADOPTING THE STATUTORY
EXEMPTION THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO, AND IN FACT DID, CONTRACT WITH
PURCHASERS OF MUNICIPAL BONDS. 

AS RESPECTS THE TAX DEMANDED ON APPELLANT'S GROSS INCOME FROM ITS
BUSINESS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND, AS
RESPECTS THE TAX ON INTEREST RECEIVED FROM OBLIGATIONS ISSUED BY
MUNICIPALITIES OF THE STATE, THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.  THE CAUSE WILL
BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART. 

FN1  INDIANA ACTS 1933, C. 50; IND. STAT. ANN. (BURNS) SEC. 64-2601
FF. 

FN2  212 IND. 343; 7 N.E.(2D) 941.    FN3  COMPARE MILES V.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 209 IND. 172, 188; 199 N.E. 372, 379. 

FN4  COMPARE MATSON NAVIGATION CO. V. STATE BOARD, 297 U.S. 441,
444. 

FN5  COMPARE AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459; OLIVER
IRON CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172; HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S.
284; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165. 

FN6  COMPARE POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. ADAMS, 155 U.S. 688;
UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335:  PULLMAN CO. V.
RICHARDSON, 261 U.S. 330. 

FN7  INDIANA ACTS OF 1932, C. 10, P. 17.    FN8  ARTICLE 2 OF THE
REGULATIONS STATES "THE GROSS INCOME TAX OF 1933 IS PRIMARILY AND IN
EFFECT A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX  ...  " ARTICLE 16 STATES THAT THE "TAX
SHALL APPLY TO AND BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED UPON ALL GROSS INCOME
RECEIVED  ...  " 

FN9  SEE WESTERN LIVESTOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250. 

FN10  COOK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 97 U.S. 566; FARGO V. MICHIGAN, 121 U.S.
230; PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326;
GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217; MEYER V. WELLS,
FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 400;
CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292; UNITED STATES GLUE CO.
V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321, 328; NEW JERSEY TELEPHONE CO. V. TAX BOARD,
280 U.S. 338, 349; FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 297
U.S. 650, 655; PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S.
90; WESTERN LIVESTOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250. 

FN11  CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292; SPALDING & BROS.
V. EDWARDS, 262 U.S. 66, 69; COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TEL. CO., 294
U.S. 384, 393. 

FN12  COMPARE BASS, RATCLIFF & GRETTON V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 266 U.S.
271, 280; EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, 387-8. 

FN13  REGULATIONS 193(4) "PERSONS RESIDENT AND/OR DOMICILED IN
INDIANA WHO ARE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS, THE LEGAL SITUS AND LOCATION OF
WHICH IS IN STATES OTHER THAN INDIANA, AND THE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH
BUSINESS ARE CARRIED ON IN STATES OTHER THAN INDIANA, WILL NOT BE
REQUIRED TO PAY TAX UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS THEREFROM." 

ACTS OF INDIANA, 1937, C. 117, P. 609:  "THAT WITH RESPECT TO
INDIVIDUALS RESIDENT IN INDIANA AND CORPORATIONS INCORPORATED UNDER THE
LAWS OF INDIANA AUTHORIZED TO DO AND DOING BUSINESS IN ANY OTHER STATE
AND/OR FOREIGN COUNTRY, THE TERM 'GROSS INCOME' SHALL NOT INCLUDE GROSS
RECEIPTS RECEIVED FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE THE STATE OF INDIANA IN CASES
WHERE SUCH GROSS RECEIPTS ARE RECEIVED FROM A TRADE OR BUSINESS
SITUATED AND REGULARLY CARRIED ON AT A LEGAL SITUS OUTSIDE THE STATE OF
INDIANA, OR FROM ACTIVITIES INCIDENT THERETO ...  " 

FN14  OLIVER IRON MINING CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172; HOPE NATURAL GAS
CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284; AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA. 

FN15  UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165; FEDERAL COMPRESS
CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17; CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584. 

FN16  ACTS OF INDIANA, 1903, C. CLXXIX, P. 322. 

FN17  ACTS OF INDIANA, 1919, C. 59, SEC. 5(TWENTIETH) P. 203. 

FN18  SOUTH BEND V. UNIVERSITY, 69 IND. 344, 348; READ V. YEAGER, 104
IND. 195, 199; 3 N.E. 856. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE REVERSED IN TOTO. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING IN PART. 

THE INDIANA STATUTE OF 1933 HERE INVALIDATED IMPOSES "A TAX, MEASURED
BY THE AMOUNT OR VOLUME OF GROSS INCOME,  ...  UPON ALL RESIDENTS OF
THE STATE OF INDIANA, AND UPON THE GROSS INCOME DERIVED FROM SOURCES
WITHIN THE STATE OF INDIANA, OF ALL PERSONS AND  ...  COMPANIES,  ...
WHO ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF  ...  INDIANA, BUT ARE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN
INDIANA."  THE TAX IS GENERAL IN EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STATE,
APPLYING TO ALL WHO DO BUSINESS AND WHO RECEIVE ANNUAL INCOMES IN THE
STATE ABOVE $1,000.00(WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS).  IT FALLS UNIFORMLY UPON
ALL SUCH GROSS INCOMES WHETHER DERIVED FROM INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE
BUSINESS OR FROM INVESTMENTS, INTEREST OR SERVICES.  FN1  THERE IS NO
CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE WAS INSPIRED BY ANY SPIRIT OF ANTAGONISM OR
HOSTILITY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THAT IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN AMOUNT OR METHOD OF APPLICATION. 

CONCURRENTLY WITH THE PASSAGE OF THIS REVENUE ACT, THE INDIANA
LEGISLATURE LIMITED THE TAX THAT COULD BE IMPOSED UPON OTHER FORMS OF
PROPERTY BY THE STATE OR ANY "TAXING UNITS WITHIN THE STATE."  FN2  THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA IN THE OPINION BELOW  FN3  SAID: 

"LEGISLATIVE HISTORY INDICATES THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE GROSS
INCOME TAX LAW WAS TO REDISTRIBUTE GOVERNMENTAL BURDENS AND RELIEVE
PROPERTY OF A TAX BURDEN WHICH WAS THOUGHT TO BE TOO GREAT."  INDIANA
PASSED THIS GROSS INCOME TAX LAW AT A TIME WHEN DEPRESSED ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS WERE CAUSING THE FISCAL POLICIES OF MANY STATES TO TURN
TOWARD SIMILAR LEGISLATION.  FN4  SERIOUS FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES OF THE
STATES STIMULATED EFFORTS TO FIND NEW SOURCES OF TAXATION, AND THE
WIDESPREAD BELIEF THAT PROPERTY WAS BEARING AN UNFAIR BURDEN OF TAXES
ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE LEVYING OF THESE NEW TAXES.  FN5 

APPELLANT IS AN INDIANA CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
MANUFACTURING AND SELLING ROAD MACHINERY.  ALL OF THE MACHINERY IS
MANUFACTURED IN INDIANA.  ITS OFFICE, ONLY PLANT AND ALL ITS PROPERTIES
ARE LOCATED IN INDIANA.  ITS PRODUCTS ARE SOLD TO ULTIMATE PURCHASERS
IN INDIANA AND OTHER STATES BY INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS OR THROUGH
SALES AGENTS OF APPELLANT.  ALL SALES MUST BE APPROVED BY, AND ALL
PAYMENTS MADE TO APPELLANT'S OFFICE IN INDIANA.  WHILE APPELLANT IS
THUS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OBVIOUSLY, A MAJOR PORTION OF ITS
ACTIVITIES TAKES PLACE IN INDIANA. 

THE PREVAILING JUDGMENT HERE IS THAT INDIANA CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY
IMPOSE THIS TAX MEASURED BY THE GROSS INCOME RECEIVED BY APPELLANT IN
INDIANA FROM THAT SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS PRODUCTS (MANUFACTURED IN
INDIANA) SOLD TO PURCHASERS IN OTHER STATES.  IT IS HELD THAT THE TAX,
THUS APPLIED, IS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 8, ARTICLE 1 OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT 

"THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ...  TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES,  ...  " 

THE INDIANA TAX IS NOT INVALIDATED ON THE GROUND THAT IT VIOLATES ANY
LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS UNDER THIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THIS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES "LIKE ALL OTHERS
VESTED IN CONGRESS, IS COMPLETE IN ITSELF, MAY BE EXERCISED TO ITS
UTMOST EXTENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGES NO LIMITATIONS, OTHER THAN ARE
PRESCRIBED IN THE CONSTITUTION."  FN6 

THE QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER - IN THE ABSENCE OF REGULATORY
LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS CONDEMNING STATE TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE - THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, OF ITSELF, PROHIBITS ALL
SUCH STATE TAXES, AS "REGULATIONS" OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EVEN THOUGH
GENERAL, UNIFORM AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY. 

ALL STATE TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE DO NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST, OR IMPOSE EXTRAORDINARY BURDENS UPON, THAT
COMMERCE.  THOSE THAT DO NOT, DO NO MORE THAN IMPOSE A NORMAL BURDEN OF
GOVERNMENT UPON THAT COMMERCE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME STATE GROSS
INCOME TAXES MAY BE DESIGNED OR APPLIED SO AS SERIOUSLY TO IMPEDE THE
FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IF INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHOULD BE SO
IMPEDED, CONGRESS MIGHT - UNDER ITS COMMERCE POWER - FIND IT "NECESSARY
AND PROPER" TO CONDEMN ALL STATE TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS, IN ORDER TO
"CARRY INTO EXECUTION" ITS GRANTED POWER TO REGULATE AND PROTECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN7  WE ARE NOT HERE CONFRONTED WITH SUCH A
CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT.  SHOULD THE INDIANA LAW, AND ALL STATE TAXES
ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS SUCH - IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH ENACTMENT - BE CONDEMNED AS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE? 

"TAXATION" AND "REGULATION" ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS; ALL STATE, COUNTY OR
CITY TAXES THAT AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE DO NOT "REGULATE" IT IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE; UNQUESTIONABLY, TAXES CAN BE LEVIED FOR REVENUE
ONLY.  AS POINTED OUT BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN GALVESTON, H. & S.A. CO.
V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 225, INVOLVING A STATE TAX WHICH WAS NOT
GENERAL BUT WAS LEVIED ONLY ON GROSS RECEIPTS LAID ON RAILROADS: 

"IT BEING ONCE ADMITTED, AS OF COURSE IT MUST BE, THAT NOT EVERY LAW
THAT AFFECTS COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES IS A REGULATION OF IT IN A
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, NICE DISTINCTIONS ARE TO BE EXPECTED."  THE
MAJORITY THERE FOUND THAT THE TAX ON INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION VIOLATED
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE DISSENT, APPLYING THE SIMILAR PRINCIPLE THAT
EVERY GROSS RECEIPTS TAX IS NOT NECESSARILY A REGULATION, INSISTED THAT
THE PARTICULAR GROSS RECEIPTS TAX INVOLVED DID NOT "ATTEMPT TO REGULATE
COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES" AND SHOULD NOT "BE TAKEN AS A TAX ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE SENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION; FOR ITS OPERATION
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ONLY INCIDENTAL, NOT DIRECT."  BOTH OPINIONS
RECOGNIZED A DISTINCTION BETWEEN TAXES FOR REVENUE, WHICH INCIDENTALLY
AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND OTHER TAXES WHICH DIRECTLY REGULATE
COMMERCE.  MORE RECENTLY, THIS COURT HAS SAID IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK V.
BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250, 259: 

"RECOGNIZING THAT NOT EVERY LOCAL LAW THAT AFFECTS COMMERCE IS A
REGULATION OF IT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT
LOCAL TAXES MAY BE LAID ON PROPERTY USED IN THE COMMERCE; THAT ITS
VALUE FOR TAXATION MAY INCLUDE THE AUGMENTATION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
COMMERCE IN WHICH IT IS EMPLOYED; AND, FINALLY, THAT THE EQUIVALENT OF
THAT VALUE MAY BE COMPUTED BY A MEASURE RELATED TO GROSS RECEIPTS WHEN
A TAX OF THE LATTER IS SUBSTITUTED FOR A TAX OF THE FORMER."  FN8 

MANY CASES RELIED ON TO SUPPORT THE PREVAILING JUDGMENT HERE HOLD
THAT STATE GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES IMPOSED ON INTERSTATE "TRANSPORTATION"
VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  WHILE THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED, IT WAS FULLY CLARIFIED AND
DELIMITED IN PHILADELPHIA & SOU.  S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S.
326, 341, 342, 344, 345, AND THAT DECISION HAS SERVED AS THE
AUTHORITATIVE BASIS FOR SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS: 

"THE TAX IN THE PRESENT CASE IS LAID UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR
TRANSPORTATION AS SUCH.  THOSE RECEIPTS ARE FOLLOWED AND CAUSED TO BE
ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE COMPANY, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR.  IT IS THOSE SPECIFIC
RECEIPTS, OR THE AMOUNT THEREOF, (WHICH IS THE SAME THING,) FOR WHICH
THE COMPANY IS CALLED UPON TO PAY THE TAX.  THEY ARE TAXED, NOT ONLY
BECAUSE THEY ARE MONEY, OR ITS VALUE, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE RECEIVED
FOR TRANSPORTATION.  NO DOUBT A SHIPOWNER, LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN, MAY
BE PERSONALLY TAXED FOR THE AMOUNT OF HIS PROPERTY OR ESTATE, WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH IT WAS DERIVED, WHETHER FROM COMMERCE,
OR BANKING, OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYMENT.  BUT THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
THING FROM LAYING A SPECIAL TAX UPON HIS RECEIPTS IN A PARTICULAR
EMPLOYMENT.  ... 

"IT (THE TAX UNDER CONSIDERATION) IS NOT A GENERAL TAX ON THE INCOME
OF ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE; BUT A SPECIAL TAX ON
TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES.  CONCEDING, HOWEVER, THAT AN INCOME TAX MAY
BE IMPOSED ON CERTAIN CLASSES OF THE COMMUNITY, DISTINGUISHED BY THE
CHARACTER OF THEIR OCCUPATIONS; THIS IS NOT AN INCOME TAX ON THE CLASS
TO WHICH IT REFERS, BUT A TAX ON THEIR RECEIPTS FOR TRANSPORTATION  ...
IT IS CLEARLY NOT SUCH, BUT A TAX ON TRANSPORTATION ONLY." 

PREVIOUS DECISIONS HAD HELD THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DID NOT PROHIBIT
STATE TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN9  THE
EFFECT OF THESE PRIOR DECISIONS WAS MODIFIED BY THE PHILADELPHIA
STEAMSHIP CO. CASE.  THE LATTER CASE DECIDED (CONTRARY TO THE PREVIOUS
DECISIONS) THAT A STATE TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS RECEIVED FOR ACTUAL
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IS PROHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  IN
THAT CASE THE TAX INVALIDATED WAS A SELECTIVE TAX APPLIED TO THE
PARTICULAR BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT DID NOT
DECIDE WHETHER A STATE COULD CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSE A GENERAL GROSS
INCOME TAX (SUCH AS INDIANA'S) TO AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS (SUCH AS
APPELLANT'S) NOT INVOLVING TRANSPORTATION.  CREW LEVICK CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292, DECEMBER, 1917, AND UNITED STATES GLUE CO.
V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321, JUNE, 1918, MARKED THE ALL-INCLUSIVE
CONDEMNATION OF STATE TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
AS A CLASS - WITHOUT REGARD TO DISCRIMINATION OR GENERALITY. 

HOWEVER, AS POINTED OUT IN THE OPINION, THE "BARE QUESTION" IN THE
CREW LEVICK CASE WAS "WHETHER A STATE TAX IMPOSED UPON THE BUSINESS OF
SELLING GOODS IN FOREIGN COMMERCE, INSOFAR AS IT IS MEASURED BY THE
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM MERCHANDISE SHIPPED TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES, IS IN
EFFECT A REGULATION OF FOREIGN COMMERCE OR AN IMPOST UPON EXPORTS,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PERTINENT CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION."  THE TAX THERE INVOLVED WAS NOT A GENERAL INCOME TAX
BEARING UNIFORMLY UPON ALL BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE.  WHEN THE OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES GLUE CO. CASE - WHERE A GROSS INCOME TAX WAS NOT
IN ISSUE - INDICATED APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL RULE SO AS TO CONDEMN - AS A CLASS - ALL STATE TAXES ON
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE COURT CLEARLY SET OUT ITS
REASONS FOR THE EXTENSION.  THE COURT SAID THAT THE DISTINCTION: 

"  ...  BETWEEN A TAX MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS AND ONE MEASURED BY
NET INCOME, RECOGNIZED BY OUR DECISIONS, IS MANIFEST AND SUBSTANTIAL,
AND IT AFFORDS A CONVENIENT AND WORKABLE BASIS OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN A
DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE BURDEN UPON THE BUSINESS AFFECTED AND A CHARGE
THAT IS ONLY INDIRECT AND INCIDENTAL.  A TAX UPON GROSS RECEIPTS
AFFECTS EACH TRANSACTION IN PROPORTION TO ITS MAGNITUDE AND
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS PROFITABLE OR OTHERWISE.  CONCEIVABLY IT
MAY BE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROFIT AND LOSS, OR TO
SO DIMINISH THE PROFIT AS TO IMPEDE OR DISCOURAGE THE CONDUCT OF THE
COMMERCE.  A TAX UPON THE NET PROFIT HAS NOT THE SAME DETERRENT EFFECT,
SINCE IT DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL UNLESS A GAIN IS SHOWN OVER AND ABOVE
EXPENSES AND LOSSES, AND THE TAX CANNOT BE HEAVY UNLESS THE PROFITS ARE
LARGE.  SUCH A TAX, WHEN IMPOSED UPON NET INCOMES FROM WHATEVER SOURCE
ARISING, IS BUT A METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING THE COST OF GOVERNMENT, LIKE A
TAX UPON PROPERTY, OR UPON FRANCHISES TREATED AS PROPERTY; AND IF THERE
BE NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EITHER IN THE
ADMEASUREMENT OF THE TAX OR IN THE MEANS ADOPTED FOR ENFORCING IT, IT
CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE ORDINARY AND GENERAL BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT, FROM
WHICH PERSONS AND CORPORATIONS OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE STATES ARE NOT EXEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY
HAPPEN TO BE ENGAGED IN COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES."  PP. 328-329. 

A TAX UPON PROPERTY USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EVEN WITH AN
AUGMENTED VALUE DUE TO SUCH USE, IS NOT A REGULATION OF COMMERCE, IS
VALID AND IS WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE STATE.  FN10  YET, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A TAX ON PROPERTY DOES NOT TURN UPON WHETHER
THE PROPERTY IS PROFITABLE TO ITS OWNER.  GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE - AS FROM ALL SOURCES - VARY AND WILL PROBABLY RISE
AND FALL WITH PROPERTY VALUES.  THEREFORE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT EXACTED
FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX CAN FLUCTUATE JUST
AS THE TOTAL PAID UNDER A PROPERTY TAX.  SINCE PROPERTY AND CORPORATE
FRANCHISES USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY TAXED BY
STATES, WHETHER PROFITABLE OR UNPROFITABLE, IT SEEMS DIFFICULT TO
JUSTIFY A CONSTITUTIONAL TEST FOR STATE INCOME TAXES BASED UPON
EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF PROFIT. 

THE APPLICATION OF SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL TEST WILL - AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER - INEVITABLY RESULT IN EXEMPTING ALL ENTERPRISES ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM ALL STATE GROSS INCOME TAXES ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE RECEIPTS, WHETHER PROFITABLE OR NOT.  AT THE SAME TIME, LOCAL
INTRASTATE ENTERPRISES, DOING BUSINESS IN THE SAME COMMUNITIES, MUST
PAY STATE GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES WHETHER PROFITABLE OR UNPROFITABLE. 
SUCH A CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE - DESIGNED TO PREVENT A
STATE FROM IMPOSING UNFAIR TAX BURDENS UPON THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE - ACTUALLY SERVES TO IMPOSE AN UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY
BURDEN UPON LOCAL INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  FAILURE OF AN INTERSTATE
BUSINESS TO MAKE A PROFIT DOES NOT RELIEVE THE STATE OF ITS BURDEN IN
AFFORDING PROTECTION FOR THAT BUSINESS.  WHILE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IS CHARGED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF PROTECTING AND FOSTERING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY PROPER REGULATION  FN11  IT HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO
PROVIDE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION FOR THOSE ENGAGED IN SUCH
COMMERCE.  HOWEVER DESIRABLE IT MAY BE, AS A TAX POLICY, TO TAX IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ABILITY TO PAY, THE FAILURE TO MAKE A PROFIT SHOULD NOT
OF ITSELF CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION FROM A TAX WHICH THE STATE
MIGHT OTHERWISE IMPOSE.  FN12  AND, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, STATE TAXING
AUTHORITIES MAY BE MOVED BY THE CONSIDERATION THAT PROFITS ARE NOT
ALWAYS CAPABLE OF ASCERTAINMENT WITH COMPLETE ACCURACY AND CERTAINTY. 
FN13 

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, HOWEVER, THAT INDIANA MIGHT BY LAW APPORTION
TO ITSELF THAT PART OF A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE
TO WHICH IT IS ENTITLED.  SUCH AN APPORTIONMENT BY INDIANA WOULD, IN
EFFECT, FIX THE PORTION OF SUCH A TAX FOR THE OTHER FORTY-SEVEN STATES
WHICH APPELLANT'S INTERSTATE BUSINESS MIGHT TOUCH.  INDIANA HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT, HOW, WHEN OR TO WHAT EXTENT OTHER STATES
MAY TAX WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOUNDARIES.  IF SUCH POWER OF
APPORTIONMENT OR ALLOCATION EXISTS AT ALL, IT MUST BE TRUE THAT THE
ONLY REPOSITORY OF A POWER TOUCHING COMPLEX AND NATIONAL ASPECTS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT INDIANA, NOT THE JUDICIARY - BUT THE
NATIONAL CONGRESS. 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE CONSTITUTES A LARGE PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE
NATION.  UNTIL CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY POWER OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FIXES A DIFFERENT POLICY, IT WOULD APPEAR
DESIRABLE THAT THE STATES SHOULD REMAIN FREE TO ADOPT TAX SYSTEMS
IMPOSING UNIFORM AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAXES UPON INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE BUSINESS ALIKE. 

IT IS ALSO URGED THAT A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
IS INVALID BECAUSE IT MIGHT RESULT IN MULTIPLE BURDENS ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FN14  THE POSSIBILITY IS SUGGESTED THAT THE STATES MAY USE
GROSS INCOME TAXES TO CREATE DIRECT, EXTRAORDINARY, AND UNJUST BURDENS
UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THAT THIS POSSIBILITY REQUIRES THAT ALL
STATE TAXES ON GROSS INTERSTATE COMMERCE RECEIPTS BE CONDEMNED AS
WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  CONGRESS WAS
UNDOUBTEDLY GIVEN THE EXCLUSIVE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE IN ORDER
THAT UNDUE, UNJUST AND UNFAIR BURDENS MIGHT NOT BE IMPOSED UPON SUCH
COMMERCE.  FN15  IT WAS NOT INTENDED, HOWEVER, THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE
SHOULD ENJOY A PREFERRED STATUS OVER INTRASTATE BUSINESS OR TO REMOVE
THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE ORDINARY AND USUAL
BURDENS OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH AFFORDS SUCH COMMERCE PROTECTION.  FN16
A COURT MAY ACT TO PROTECT A LITIGANT FROM UNFAIR AND UNJUST BURDENS
UPON THE LITIGANT'S INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  YET, IT WOULD SEEM THAT ONLY
CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO FORMULATE RULES, REGULATIONS AND LAWS TO
PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM MERELY POSSIBLE FUTURE UNFAIR
BURDENS.  HERE THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE ANY CHARGE OR PROOF OF AN
EXISTING EXTRAORDINARY, UNFAIR OR MULTIPLE TAX BURDEN ON APPELLANT. 
THE TAX BURDEN FROM WHICH APPELLANT IS HERE EXEMPTED IS ONE WHICH THE
LOCAL TAXPAYERS OF INDIANA MUST BEAR.  AS A RESULT, AN UNJUST AND
UNFAIR BURDEN IS ACTUALLY IMPOSED UPON INTRASTATE BUSINESS, BECAUSE OF
AN APPREHENSION OF A POSSIBLE FUTURE INJURY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THE CONTROL OF FUTURE CONDUCT, THE PREVENTION OF FUTURE INJURIES AND
THE FORMULATION OF REGULATORY RULES IN THE FIELDS OF COMMERCE AND
TAXATION, ALL PRESENT LEGISLATIVE PROBLEMS. 

THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED, AND THE MAJORITY OPINION REFERS APPROVINGLY
TO A MUNICIPAL LICENSE TAX IN MISSOURI, IMPOSED IN ADDITION TO AN AD
VALOREM PROPERTY TAX, IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF THE LICENSE WAS MEASURED
BY THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR THE INTERSTATE SALE OF GOODS MANUFACTURED
WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY.  FN17  IT IS TRUE THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE
LICENSE FOR A SUCCEEDING YEAR WAS THERE MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE
AMOUNT OF SALES FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR, WHILE THE INDIANA TAX IS PAID
QUARTERLY DURING THE YEAR OF SALE.  HOWEVER, IF WE LOOK TO SUBSTANCE
AND EFFECT, DISREGARD THE NOMINAL DESIGNATION OF EACH TAX, AND CONSIDER
THE REALITIES OF THE TWO TAXES, THE TAX BURDENS ARE IDENTICAL UNDER THE
APPROVED MISSOURI TAX AND THE DISAPPROVED INDIANA TAX.  FN18  NUMEROUS
OTHER DECISIONS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE PRINCIPLE OF INCLUDING RECEIPTS
FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE FIGURE (NOT WHOLLY DERIVED FROM SUCH
COMMERCE) USED IN MEASURING THE AMOUNT OF A STATE EXCISE TAX.  FN19 

IT HAS BEEN OFTEN SAID THAT NO FORMULA CAN BE DEVISED FOR DETERMINING
IN ALL CASES WHETHER OR NOT A STATE TAX IS PROHIBITED BY THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, AND THAT "THE QUESTION IS INHERENTLY A PRACTICAL ONE, DEPENDING
FOR ITS DECISION ON THE SPECIAL FACTS OF EACH CASE,  ...  "  FN20  A
FORMULA WHICH ARBITRARILY STAMPS EVERY STATE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX AS A
VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, ON THE GROUND THAT IT CAN BE USED FOR
CUMULATIVE TAX PURPOSES, LEAVES UNANSWERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT OTHER
TAXES, PREVIOUSLY HELD VALID, MAY BE USED WITH LIKE EFFECTS ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT IN MANY CASES, AS HERE,
SUCH A TAX CAN BE FAIRLY AND UNIFORMLY APPLIED TO BOTH INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE COMMERCE; AND IN EFFECT ACTUALLY DENIES A STATE THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING SUCH A TAX UNLESS WILLING TO IMPOSE UNJUST AND
UNEQUAL BURDENS UPON ITS OWN CITIZENS ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE. 

THE RECEIPT OF INCOME IS A TAXABLE EVENT AND NEED NOT NECESSARILY
ENJOY THE IMMUNITY OF THE INCOME'S SOURCE.  FN21  APPELLANT'S RECEIPT
OF GROSS INCOME COULD BE TAXES IN ONE STATE ONLY, BECAUSE APPELLANT
RECEIVED INCOME ONLY IN INDIANA.  A SALES TAX MIGHT POSSIBLY BE IMPOSED
UPON INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTORS OF APPELLANT'S PRODUCTS WHO DO BUSINESS
IN OTHER STATES.  SUCH TAX WOULD BE CONSTITUTIONAL ONLY IF IT DID NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST APPELLANT'S PRODUCTS.  FN22 DISTRIBUTORS IN STATES
OTHER THAN INDIANA DO BUSINESS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
STATES.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NON-DISCRIMINATORY SALES TAXES IN
THOSE STATES UPON THE DISTRIBUTORS CREATE NO UNFAIR MULTIPLICATION OF
TAXES AND WOULD NOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL N23.  THE MANUFACTURER WHO
RECEIVES PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS OF INDIANA AND THE DISTRIBUTORS WHO
RECEIVE PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATES IN WHICH PRODUCTS ARE
SOLD, SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO UNIFORM, NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAXES IMPOSED BY
THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE STATES IN WHICH BOTH DO BUSINESS UNDER STATE
PROTECTION. 

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE GRADUALLY EVOLVED THE
PRINCIPLE THAT NON-ACTION BY CONGRESS IS TANTAMOUNT TO A CONGRESSIONAL
DECLARATION THAT THE FLOW OF COMMERCE FROM STATE TO STATE MUST BE FREE
FROM UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY BURDENS.  FN24  THROUGHOUT THE DECISIONS
UPON THE QUESTION HAS RUN RECOGNITION OF THE SUPREME POWER OF CONGRESS
TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE COURTS HAVE STRICKEN DOWN
STATE TAXES WHEN FOUND TO RAISE BARRIERS IMPEDING THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES, BUT NOT OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE BETWEEN
CITIZENS WITHIN A SINGLE STATE.  COURTS - IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE - HAVE ACTED BECAUSE
THERE "  ...  WOULD OTHERWISE BE NO SECURITY AGAINST CONFLICTING
REGULATIONS OF DIFFERENT STATES, EACH DISCRIMINATING IN FAVOR OF ITS
OWN PRODUCTS AND CITIZENS, AND AGAINST THE PRODUCTS AND CITIZENS OF
OTHER STATES.  ...  IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC HISTORY THAT THE OBJECT OF
VESTING IN CONGRESS THE RIGHT TO REGULATE COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS
AND AMONG THE STATES WAS TO INSURE UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION AGAINST
CONFLICTING AND DISCRIMINATING STATE LEGISLATION."  FN25  WITH
REFERENCE TO BORDERLINE LAWS, IT HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY POINTED OUT
THAT THERE "  ...  IS ALSO, IN ADDITION TO THE RESTRAINT WHICH THOSE
PROVISIONS (THE COMMERCE CLAUSE) IMPOSE BY THEIR OWN FORCE ON THE
STATES THE UNQUESTIONED POWER OF CONGRESS, UNDER THE AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES, TO INTERPOSE, BY THE EXERCISE OF
THIS POWER, IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO PREVENT THE STATES FROM ANY
OPPRESSIVE INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREE INTERCHANGE OF COMMODITIES BY THE
CITIZENS OF ONE STATE WITH THOSE OF ANOTHER."  FN26 

IF IT BE TRUE, AS URGED, THAT SOME STATE GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES MAY
POSSIBLY IN THE FUTURE BE MULTIPLIED SO AS TO BURDEN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE UNFAIRLY, IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT OTHER STATE GROSS RECEIPTS
TAXES (AS THE INDIANA TAX) MAY NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
MULTIPLICATION, RESULT IN SUCH BURDENS.  SINCE THE PRESENT LITIGATION
HAS DEVELOPED THAT NO SUCH UNFAIR BURDENS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UPON
APPELLANT'S INTERSTATE BUSINESS, APPELLANT CAN ONLY BE EXEMPTED FROM
PAYMENT OF THIS TAX BY APPLICATION OF A REGULATORY RULE OR LAW WHICH
CONDEMNS ALL SUCH STATE TAXES - WHETHER FAIR OR UNFAIR.  IF SUCH A
GENERAL RULE OR LAW IS TO BE PROMULGATED IT WOULD SEEM THAT UNDER OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS SUCH A REGULATORY POLICY
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND DETERMINED BY CONGRESS UNDER ITS EXCLUSIVE
GRANT.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH FOR JUDICIAL PROTECTION WHEN A LITIGANT
ACTUALLY PROVES, IN A PARTICULAR CASE, THAT STATE GROSS RECEIPTS TAXES
LEVIED AGAINST THE LITIGANT HAVE RESULTED IN UNFAIR AND UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE LITIGANT BECAUSE OF ENGAGEMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  MANY ARGUMENTS - WHICH WE MIGHT BELIEVE TO BE SOUND - CAN BE
ADVANCED AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY OF A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX.  THESE
OBJECTIONS, HOWEVER, ARE NOT THE CRITERION OF ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY. 
WITH THE WISDOM OF SUCH FISCAL POLICY OF A STATE WE ARE NOT CONCERNED. 
FN27  THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WILL BEST BE FOSTERED,
PRESERVED AND PROTECTED - IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT REGULATION BY THE
CONGRESS - BY LEAVING THOSE ENGAGED IN IT IN THE VARIOUS STATES SUBJECT
TO THE ORDINARY AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAXES OF THE STATES FROM WHICH
THEY RECEIVE GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION.  FOR THESE REASONS I BELIEVE THAT
THE ENTIRE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE GENERALITY OF THIS TAX IS MADE CLEAR IN ITS DEFINITION OF
GROSS INCOME AS INCLUDING, WITH MINOR EXCEPTIONS, "THE GROSS RECEIPTS
OF THE TAXPAYER RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES, AND THE
GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE TAXPAYER DERIVED FROM TRADES, BUSINESSES OR
COMMERCE, AND THE GROSS RECEIPTS PROCEEDING OR ACCRUING FROM THE SALE
OF PROPERTY, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, REAL OR PERSONAL, OR SERVICE, OR
ANY OR ALL OF THE FOREGOING, AND ALL RECEIPTS BY REASON OF THE
INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL, INCLUDING INTEREST, DISCOUNT, RENTALS,
ROYALTIES, FEES, COMMISSIONS OR OTHER EMOLUMENTS, HOWEVER DESIGNATED,
...  "  SECTION (F), C. 50, INDIANA ACTS 1933. 

FN2  ACTS OF INDIANA, 1933, P. 1085(ACT APPROVED MARCH 9, 1933).  THE
GROSS INCOME TAX LAW WAS APPROVED FEBRUARY 27, 1933, ACTS 1933,
INDIANA, C. 50, 78TH SESSION, P. 388. 

FN3  7 N.E.(2D) 941, 945. 

FN4  "THE OBTAINING OF FUNDS TO REPLENISH IMPOVERISHED TREASURIES WAS
THE PRINCIPAL GOAL OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES IN 1933.  RELIEF TO
PROPERTY ALSO WAS A MUCH SOUGHT AFTER END.  PROPERTY RELIEF WAS
ACCORDED THROUGH REDUCED APPROPRIATIONS, LOWERED TAX LIMITS, AND
COLLECTION LENIENCY.  THE DRIVE FOR NEW REVENUE RESULTED IN THE
ADOPTION OF GROSS INCOME OR GROSS SALES TAXES IN FIFTEEN STATES.  ... 
"THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROSS INCOME OR GROSS SALES TAXES IS PROBABLY
THE OUTSTANDING TAX NEWS OF THE YEAR."  THE TAX MAGAZINE, VOL. 12,
FEBRUARY, 1934, P. 63, "STATE TAX LEGISLATION, 1933," RAYMOND E.
MANNING.  ID., SEE P. 365, "CHART OF STATE SALES, GROSS INCOME, AND
LICENSE TAXES." 

FN5  "INDIANA'S FISCAL STRAIN WAS NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE STATE
GOVERNMENT UNTIL THE $1.50 PROPERTY TAX LIMITATION ADOPTED BY THE
LEGISLATURE IN 1932 CUT ALMOST IN HALF THE STATE RATE ON PROPERTY,
WHICH HAD BEEN FURNISHING NOT FAR FROM ONE-FOURTH OF TOTAL STATE
REVENUES (INCLUDING MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES).  COUPLED WITH A DRASTIC
SHRINKAGE IN ASSESSED VALUATIONS AND A DEMAND FOR INCREASED STATE AID
TO LOCALITIES, THIS MADE IT IMPERATIVE FOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO SEEK
NEW REVENUE SOURCES EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER TAX YIELDS HAD BEEN HOLDING
UP FAIRLY WELL THROUGH 1931-32.  ... 

"IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LOCAL TAX SITUATION WAS THE CHIEF FACTOR
BRINGING ABOUT THE SWEEPING CHANGE IN THE STATE'S OWN SYSTEM.  FOR ONE
NOT INTIMATELY ACQUAINTED WITH CONDITIONS IN INDIANA IT IS NOT EASY TO
LOCATE FROM THE AVAILABLE DATA THE PRECISE SOURCES OF TROUBLE, BUT
WHATEVER THEY MAY HAVE BEEN, THE TAX LIMITATION LAW CRYSTALLIZED THEM,
AND THE RESULT IS A THREATENED BREAKDOWN OF GOVERNMENTAL FINANCE IN
MANY LOCALITIES, UNLESS THE STATE SUCCEEDS IN CARRYING OUT ITS GREATLY
INCREASED PROGRAM OF AID TO LOCALITIES THROUGH HIGHWAY AND SCHOOL
MONEYS.  ... 

"THE CAMPAIGN IN SUPPORT OF THE (GROSS RECEIPTS) TAX  ...  WAS LED BY
THE INDIANA FARM BUREAU, WHICH SECURED THE SIGNATURES OF A LARGE NUMBER
OF FARMERS ON A PETITION URGING THE PASSAGE OF A SALES TAX.  ON
FEBRUARY 12 A MEETING OF FARMERS AND OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WAS HELD,
AND SEVERAL THOUSAND MARCHED TO THE CAPITOL.  FOR SEVERAL YEARS THE
BUREAU HAD BEEN URGING THE REDUCTION OF PROPERTY TAXES, AND PARTLY AS A
RESULT OF ITS EFFORTS THE $1.50 LAW WAS PASSED IN THE SPECIAL SESSION
OF 1932, LIMITING THE STATE LEVY TO 15 CENTS AND ALL LOCAL LEVIES TO
$1.35 PER $100 OF ASSESSED VALUE.  ... 

"THE INDIANAPOLIS REAL ESTATE BOARD, IN ADDITION TO COOPERATING WITH
THE INDIANA FARM BUREAU, WORKED WITH THE INDIANA REAL ESTATE
ASSOCIATION AND THE FEDERATION OF COMMUNITY CIVIC CLUBS.  A MEETING OF
ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS, HELD ON FEBRUARY 10, 1933, PASSED RESOLUTIONS
FAVORING THE SALES TAX." 

"THE SALES TAX IN THE AMERICAN STATES," HAIG AND SHOUP, (1934,
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS), 238, 241, 242. 

FN6  CF. GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 196, 197.  SINCE CONGRESS HAS
NOT ACTED UPON THIS SUBJECT, THE PRESENT CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE A
MANIFESTATION BY CONGRESS OF ITS PARAMOUNT AND EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE AN ASPECT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITH WHICH THE STATES MAY
DEAL (BECAUSE OF ITS LOCAL NATURE) UNTIL CONGRESS ACTS.  CF. NEW YORK
CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. COUNTY OF HUDSON, 227 U.S. 248. 

FN7  CF. HOUSTON, E. & W.T. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES (THE SHREVEPORT
CASE), 234 U.S. 342, 350 ET SEQ. 

FN8 "  ...  THE BARE FACT THAT ONE IS CARRYING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
DOES NOT RELIEVE HIM FROM MANY FORMS OF STATE TAXATION WHICH ADD TO THE
COST OF HIS BUSINESS.  HE IS SUBJECT TO A PROPERTY TAX ON THE
INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED IN THE COMMERCE,  ...  AND IF THE PROPERTY DEVOTED
TO INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IS USED BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE
A TAX FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO ITS USE WITHIN THE STATE WILL BE
SUSTAINED.  ...  NET EARNINGS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE SUBJECT TO
INCOME TAX,  ...  AND IF THE COMMERCE IS CARRIED ON BY A CORPORATION A
FRANCHISE TAX MAY BE IMPOSED, MEASURED BY THE NET INCOME FROM BUSINESS
DONE WITHIN THE STATE, INCLUDING SUCH PORTION OF THE INCOME DERIVED
FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS MAY BE JUSTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS DONE
WITHIN THE STATE BY FAIR METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT.  ...  ALL OF THESE
TAXES IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ADD TO THE EXPENSE OF CARRYING ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND IN THAT SENSE BURDEN IT; BUT THEY ARE NOT FOR
THAT REASON PROHIBITED."  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303
U.S. 250, 255. 

FN9  "  ...  IT IS NOT EVERYTHING THAT AFFECTS COMMERCE THAT AMOUNTS
TO A REGULATION OF IT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION.  ... 

"  ... WE THINK IT MAY SAFELY BE LAID DOWN THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF
RAILROAD OR CANAL COMPANIES, AFTER THEY HAVE REACHED THE TREASURY OF
THE CARRIERS, THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE BEEN DERIVED IN PART FROM
TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BETWEEN STATES, HAVE BECOME SUBJECT TO
LEGITIMATE TAXATION.  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT NET EARNINGS OF SUCH
CORPORATIONS ARE TAXABLE BY STATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY AFTER
THEIR SOURCES, AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO STATE ANY WELL-FOUNDED
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LAWFULNESS OF A TAX UPON THEM AND THAT OF A TAX
UPON GROSS RECEIPTS, OR BETWEEN THE EFFECTS THEY WORK UPON COMMERCE,
EXCEPT PERHAPS IN DEGREE."  STATE TAX ON RAILWAY GROSS RECEIPTS, 15
WALL.  284, 293, 296. 

"THE TAX (15 WALL.  284) ON GROSS RECEIPTS WAS HELD NOT TO BE
REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE IMPOSED ON THE RAILROAD
COMPANIES IN THE NATURE OF A GENERAL INCOME TAX, AND INCAPABLE OF BEING
TRANSFERRED AS A BURDEN UPON THE PROPERTY CARRIED FROM ONE STATE TO
ANOTHER.  ... 

"  ...  IT IS AS IMPORTANT TO LEAVE THE RIGHTFUL POWERS OF THE STATE
IN RESPECT TO TAXATION UNIMPAIRED AS TO MAINTAIN THE POWERS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THEIR INTEGRITY. 

"IN THE SECOND OF THE CASES RECENTLY DECIDED, THE WHOLE COURT AGREED
THAT A TAX ON BUSINESS CARRIED ON WITHIN THE STATE AND WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN ITS CITIZENS AND THE CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES,
MIGHT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSED AND COLLECTED.  ... 

"IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT CONGRESS HAS NEVER UNDERTAKEN TO EXERCISE
THIS POWER IN ANY MANNER INCONSISTENT WITH THE MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL CASES IN WHICH THE COURT HAS
ASSERTED THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO LEGISLATE, IN THE ABSENCE OF
LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS, UPON SUBJECTS OVER WHICH THE CONSTITUTION HAS
CLOTHED THAT BODY WITH LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY."  OSBORNE V. MOBILE, 16
WALL.  479, 481, 482. 

FN10  CF. CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450, 453, 454;
UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335, 345, 347. 

FN11  DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 456,
478. 

FN12  STATE RAILROAD TAX CASES, 92 U.S. 575, 606; CF., OHIO TAX
CASES, 232 U.S. 576, 590. 

FN13  CF., WITH REFERENCE TO A STATE TAX LAW ASSAILED AS VIOLATIVE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO:  "BUT PROFITS
THEMSELVES ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF ASCERTAINMENT WITH CERTAINTY AND
PRECISION EXCEPT AS THE RESULT OF INQUIRIES TOO MINUTE TO BE
PRACTICABLE.  THE RETURNS OF THE TAXPAYER CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF
JUDGMENT AS WELL AS FOR A TRANSCRIPT OF THE FIGURES ON HIS BOOKS.  THEY
ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE INACCURACIES, ALMOST WITHOUT NUMBER.  SALARIES
OF SUPERINTENDENCE, FIGURING AS EXPENSES, MAY HAVE BEEN SWOLLEN
INORDINATELY; APPRAISALS OF PLANT, OF MERCHANDISE, OF PATENTS, OF WHAT
NOT, MAY BE ERRONEOUS OR EVEN FRAUDULENT.  IN THE WORDS OF A STUDENT OF
THE PROBLEM, 'STATEMENTS OF PROFITS ARE AFFECTED BOTH BY ACCOUNTING
METHODS AND BY THE OPTIMISTIC OR PESSIMISTIC LIGHT IN WHICH THE FUTURE
IS VIEWED AT THE TIME WHEN THE ACCOUNTS ARE MADE UP.'  ...  THESE
DIFFICULTIES AND DANGERS BEAR WITNESS TO THE MISFORTUNE OF FORCING
METHODS OF TAXATION WITHIN A PROCRUSTEAN FORMULA.  IF THE STATE
DISCERNS IN BUSINESS OPERATIONS UNIFORMITIES AND AVERAGES THAT SEEM TO
POINT THE WAY TO A SYSTEM EASIER TO ADMINISTER THAN ONE BASED UPON A
REPORT OF PROFITS, AND YET LIKELY IN THE LONG RUN TO WORK OUT
APPROXIMATE EQUALITY, IT OUGHT NOT TO BE DENIED THE POWER TO FRAME ITS
LAWS ACCORDINGLY."  STEWART DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294 U.S. 550, 576
577. 

FN14  SEE WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250. 

FN15  PHILADELPHIA & SOU.  S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326,
346. 

FN16  SEE WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123, 137. 

FN17  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459. 

FN18  APPARENTLY, IF THE INDIANA TAX HAD BEEN "ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
MANUFACTURING, MEASURED BY THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALES OF THE
MANUFACTURED GOODS, BOTH INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE" INSTEAD OF
DESIGNATED AS "A TAX, MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OR VOLUME OF GROSS INCOME"
RECEIVED FROM MANUFACTURING AND SALES INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE, THE
TAX WOULD BE HELD VALID.  SEE, WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE,
303 U.S. 250. 

FN19  HUMP HAIRPIN CO. V. EMMERSON, 258 U.S. 290, 294; MAINE V. GRAND
TRUNK RAILWAY CO., 142 U.S. 217; WISCONSIN & MICHIGAN RY. CO. V.
POWERS, 191 U.S. 379; UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S.
335, 343. 

FN20  HUMP HAIRPIN CO. V. EMMERSON, SUPRA, AT 295. 

FN21  IN SUSTAINING AN INCOME TAX LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
AGAINST A CHALLENGE THAT IT VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IT WAS
SAID:  "THAT THE RECEIPT OF INCOME BY A RESIDENT OF THE TERRITORY OF A
TAXING SOVEREIGNTY IS A TAXABLE EVENT IS UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED. 
DOMICIL ITSELF AFFORDS A BASIS FOR SUCH TAXATION.  ENJOYMENT OF THE
PRIVILEGES OF RESIDENCE IN THE STATE AND THE ATTENDANT RIGHT TO INVOKE
THE PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS ARE INSEPARABLE FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR
SHARING THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT.  "TAXES ARE WHAT WE PAY FOR CIVILIZED
SOCIETY.'  ...  NEITHER THE PRIVILEGE NOR THE BURDEN IS AFFECTED BY THE
CHARACTER OF THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED.  FOR THAT
REASON INCOME IS NOT NECESSARILY CLOTHED WITH THE TAX IMMUNITY ENJOYED
BY ITS SOURCE.  ...  IT MAY TAX NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ALTHOUGH A TAX ON THE COMMERCE IS FORBIDDEN, UNITED
STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321; SHAFFER V. CARTER,  ...
(252 U.S. 37, 50)."  NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308,
312, 313.  THE DISSENT CALLED ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT NOT ONLY WAS
THE NEW YORK TAXPAYER SUBJECT TO AN INCOME TAX IN THAT STATE BY THE
DECISION, BUT THAT "NEW JERSEY, IN ADDITION TO TAX ON THE LAND MEASURED
BY ITS VALUE, MAY LAY A TAX UPON THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE OWNER FOR
ITS USE."  ID., P. 318. 

FN22  "'A STATE TAX UPON MERCHANDISE BROUGHT IN FROM ANOTHER STATE,
OR UPON ITS SALES, WHETHER IN ORIGINAL PACKAGES OR NOT, AFTER IT HAS
REACHED ITS DESTINATION AND IS IN A STATE OF REST, IS LAWFUL ONLY WHEN
THE TAX IS NOT DISCRIMINATING IN ITS INCIDENCE AGAINST THE MERCHANDISE
BECAUSE OF ITS ORIGIN IN ANOTHER STATE.'  SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON,
(262 U.S. 506) AT P. 516.  ...  NEITHER THE POWER TO TAX NOR THE POLICE
POWER MAY BE USED BY THE STATE OF DESTINATION WITH THE AIM AND EFFECT
OF ESTABLISHING AN ECONOMIC BARRIER AGAINST COMPETITION WITH THE
PRODUCTS OF ANOTHER STATE OR THE LABOR OF ITS RESIDENTS.  ...  THEY ARE
THUS HOSTILE IN CONCEPTION AS WELL AS BURDENSOME IN RESULT.  THE FORM
OF THE PACKAGES IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS IMMATERIAL, WHETHER THEY ARE
ORIGINAL OR BROKEN."  BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 526,
527. 

FN23  SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S. 506. 

FN24  SEE PHILADELPHIA & SOU.  S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA. 

FN25  COUNTY OF MOBILE V. KIMBALL, 102 U.S. 691, 697. 

FN26  WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123, 140. 

FN27  CF. PURITY EXTRACT CO. V. LYNCH, 226 U.S. 192. 
..END :
























LABOR BOARD V. MACKAY CO., 304 U.S. 333 


NO. 706.  ARGUED APRIL 5, 6, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 87 F.2D
611 - 92 ID. 761, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A
PETITION FOR REHEARING, FILED AT THE SAME TERM AND IN TIME UNDER ITS
RULES, OF A JUDGMENT DENYING AN APPLICATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER; AND THE THREE MONTHS
WITHIN WHICH A PETITIONER MUST APPLY TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI TO
REVIEW THE DECISION IN SUCH CASE RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER
ENTERED UPON THE PETITION FOR REHEARING.  P. 343. 

2.  FOLLOWING THE FAILURE OF NEGOTIATIONS LOOKING TO AN AGREEMENT IN
RESPECT OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYEES OF A COMPANY
ENGAGED IN THE TRANSMISSION AND RECEIPT OF RADIO, TELEGRAPH AND CABLE
MESSAGES, INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN, WENT ON A STRIKE.  THE COMPANY
BROUGHT EMPLOYEES FROM ITS OFFICES IN OTHER CITIES TO TAKE THE PLACES
OF THE STRIKERS.  SUBSEQUENTLY, ALL BUT FIVE OF THOSE WHO HAD BEEN ON
STRIKE WERE TAKEN BACK INTO THE EMPLOY OF THE COMPANY.  A PROCEEDING
WAS HAD BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UPON A COMPLAINT
AGAINST THE COMPANY CHARGING THAT ITS NON-EMPLOYMENT OF THE FIVE WAS A
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM ON ACCOUNT OF UNION ACTIVITIES AND THAT IT
WAS GUILTY OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  AFTER A HEARING, AND UPON
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THE BOARD ORDERED THE COMPANY
TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCHARGING OR THREATENING TO DISCHARGE, ANY
OF ITS EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION OR ON ACCOUNT
OF UNION ACTIVITIES; TO REFRAIN FROM INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN RESPECT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING; AND REQUIRED THE COMPANY TO REINSTATE TO THEIR FORMER
POSITIONS, WITH BACK PAY, THE FIVE MEN WHO HAD NOT BEEN REEMPLOYED, AND
TO POST NOTICES TO THE EFFECT THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNION WOULD NOT BE
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.  HELD: 

(1)  UNDER THE FINDINGS, THE STRIKE WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN
CONNECTION WITH, A "LABOR DISPUTE" AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(9) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE BOARD TO
FIND WHAT THE STATE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WAS WHEN THE STRIKE WAS CALLED;
NOR, IN SO MANY WORDS, THAT A "LABOR DISPUTE" EXISTED.  P. 344. 

(2)  THEIR WORK HAVING CEASED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN CONNECTION
WITH, A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE, SEC. 2(3), THE STRIKERS REMAINED
"EMPLOYEES" OF THE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, AND WERE
PROTECTED AGAINST THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES DENOUNCED BY IT.  P. 345. 

(3)  DISCRIMINATION IN REINSTATING EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN ON STRIKE
BY EXCLUDING CERTAIN OF THEM FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THEY HAD BEEN
ACTIVE IN THE UNION, WAS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, PROHIBITED BY SEC. 8
OF THE ACT.  P. 346. 

HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR THE COMPANY TO
REPLACE ITS STRIKING EMPLOYEES WITH OTHERS IN AN EFFORT TO CARRY ON THE
BUSINESS; NOR WAS THE COMPANY BOUND LATER TO DISCHARGE SUCH OTHERS IN
ORDER TO REINSTATE THE STRIKERS.  P. 345. 

(4)  THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT, IN REINSTATING EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN
ON STRIKE, THE COMPANY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THOSE WHO HAD BEEN MOST
ACTIVE IN THE UNION, WAS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  P. 346. 

(5)  THE PROVISION OF THE ACT CONTINUING THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER
AND EMPLOYEE IN THE CASE OF A STRIKE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN
CONNECTION WITH, A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 347. 

IN THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER, CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE UPON
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS REASONABLE REGULATIONS CALCULATED TO PROTECT
COMMERCE AGAINST THREATENED INDUSTRIAL STRIFE. 

(6)  THE AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF ORDERED BY THE BOARD WAS WITHIN ITS
POWERS AND ITS ORDER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.  P. 348. 

(A)  COMPLETE RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE FIVE MEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
JUSTIFIED THEIR BEING GIVEN THEIR FORMER POSITIONS AND REIMBURSEMENT
FOR LOSS RESULTING FROM THE DISCRIMINATION.  P. 348. 

(B)  IN RESPECT OF BACK PAY FOR THOSE ORDERED TO BE REINSTATED,
DEDUCTIONS ARE TO BE ALLOWED FOR ALL SUMS EARNED TO THE DATE OF
REINSTATEMENT.  P. 348. 

(C)  THE CLAUSE OF THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE POSTING OF NOTICES TO
BE READ IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER PARTS FORBIDDING DISCHARGE ON ACCOUNT
OF UNION ACTIVITY AND NOT AS REQUIRING NOTICE THAT REINSTATED EMPLOYEES
WOULD NOT BE DISCHARGED FOR ANY REASON WHATEVER.  P. 348. 

(7)  A CLAIM THAT THE COMPANY WAS DENIED A HEARING WITH RESPECT TO
THE OFFENSE FOUND BY THE BOARD, BECAUSE OF VARIANCE BETWEEN THE
FINDINGS AND THE CHARGES ON WHICH THE COMPLAINT WAS BASED, EXAMINED AND
REJECTED.  P. 349. 

3.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY, AND PRIOR TO ORAL ARGUMENT
BEFORE THE TRIAL EXAMINER, THE BOARD BROUGHT THE PROCEEDING BEFORE IT,
HEARD ORAL ARGUMENT AND RECEIVED BRIEFS, AFTER WHICH IT MADE ITS
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  THE ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS OF
THE PARTIES WERE CLEARLY DEFINED.  HELD, THE SUBMISSION OF A TENTATIVE
REPORT BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER AND A HEARING ON EXCEPTIONS TO THAT REPORT
WERE NOT ESSENTIAL.  P. 350. 

4.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES NO PARTICULAR FORM OF PROCEDURE;
IT PROTECTS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.  P. 351. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 630, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING AN APPLICATION
OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED  FN1  TO DECREE ENFORCEMENT OF
AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  FN2  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT OF DECISION.  FN3 

THE RESPONDENT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, IS ENGAGED IN THE
TRANSMISSION AND RECEIPT OF TELEGRAPH, RADIO, CABLE, AND OTHER MESSAGES
BETWEEN POINTS IN CALIFORNIA AND POINTS IN OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.  IT MAINTAINS AN OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO FOR THE TRANSACTION
OF ITS BUSINESS WHEREIN IT EMPLOYS UPWARDS OF SIXTY SUPERVISORS,
OPERATORS AND CLERKS, MANY OF WHOM ARE MEMBERS OF LOCAL NO. 3 OF THE
AMERICAN RADIO TELEGRAPHISTS ASSOCIATION, A NATIONAL LABOR
ORGANIZATION; THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE LOCAL COMPRISING "POINT-TO-POINT"
OR LAND OPERATORS EMPLOYED BY RESPONDENT AT SAN FRANCISCO.  AFFILIATED
WITH THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ALSO WERE LOCALS WHOSE MEMBERS ARE
EXCLUSIVELY MARINE OPERATORS WHO WORK UPON OCEANGOING VESSELS.  THE
RESPONDENT, AT ITS SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE, DEALT WITH COMMITTEES OF LOCAL
NO. 3; AND ITS PARENT COMPANY, WHOSE HEADQUARTERS WERE IN NEW YORK,
DEALT WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION.  DEMAND WAS
MADE BY THE LATTER FOR THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS RESPECTING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF MARINE AND POINT-TO-POINT OPERATORS.  ON
SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION CONFERRED WITH
OFFICERS OF THE RESPONDENT AND ITS PARENT COMPANY THE LATTER REQUESTED
POSTPONEMENT OF DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENTS AND THE UNION
ACCEDED TO THE REQUESTS.  IN SEPTEMBER 1935 THE UNION PRESSED FOR
IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS AND TOOK THE POSITION THAT NO
CONTRACT WOULD BE CONCLUDED BY THE ONE CLASS OF OPERATORS UNLESS AN
AGREEMENT WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY MADE WITH THE OTHER.  LOCAL NO. 3 SENT A
REPRESENTATIVE TO NEW YORK TO BE IN TOUCH WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS AND HE
KEPT ITS OFFICERS ADVISED AS TO WHAT THERE OCCURRED.  THE LOCAL ADOPTED
A RESOLUTION TO THE EFFECT THAT IF SATISFACTORY TERMS WERE NOT OBTAINED
BY SEPTEMBER 23 A STRIKE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO POINT-TO-POINT OPERATORS
SHOULD BE CALLED.  THE NATIONAL OFFICERS DETERMINED ON A GENERAL STRIKE
IN VIEW OF THE UNSATISFACTORY STATE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.  THIS FACT WAS
COMMUNICATED TO LOCAL NO. 3 BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE IN NEW YORK AND THE
LOCAL OFFICERS CALLED OUT THE EMPLOYES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE.  AT
MIDNIGHT FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1935, ALL THE MEN THERE EMPLOYED WENT ON
STRIKE.  THE RESPONDENT, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SERVICE, BROUGHT EMPLOYES
FROM ITS LOS ANGELES OFFICE AND OTHERS FROM THE NEW YORK AND CHICAGO
OFFICES OF THE PARENT COMPANY TO FILL THE STRIKERS' PLACES. 

ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO STRIKERS RETURNED TO WORK
SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR MONDAY, THE STRIKE PROVED UNSUCCESSFUL IN OTHER
PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AND, BY MONDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 7TH, A NUMBER OF
THE MEN BECAME CONVINCED THAT IT WOULD FAIL AND THAT THEY HAD BETTER
RETURN TO WORK BEFORE THEIR PLACES WERE FILLED WITH NEW EMPLOYES.  ONE
OF THEM TELEPHONED THE RESPONDENT'S TRAFFIC SUPERVISOR MONDAY EVENING
TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE MEN MIGHT RETURN.  HE WAS TOLD THAT THE
RESPONDENT WOULD TAKE THEM BACK AND IT WAS ARRANGED THAT THE OFFICIAL
SHOULD MEET THE EMPLOYES AT A DOWNTOWN HOTEL AND MAKE A STATEMENT TO
THEM.  BEFORE LEAVING THE COMPANY'S OFFICE FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE
SUPERVISOR CONSULTED WITH HIS SUPERIOR, WHO TOLD HIM THAT THE MEN MIGHT
RETURN TO WORK IN THEIR FORMER POSITIONS BUT THAT, AS THE COMPANY HAD
PROMISED ELEVEN MEN BROUGHT TO SAN FRANCISCO THEY MIGHT REMAIN IF THEY
SO DESIRED, THE SUPERVISOR WOULD HAVE TO HANDLE THE RETURN OF THE
STRIKING EMPLOYES IN SUCH FASHION AS NOT TO DISPLACE ANY OF THE NEW MEN
WHO DESIRED TO CONTINUE IN SAN FRANCISCO.  A LITTLE LATER THE
SUPERVISOR MET TWO OF THE STRIKING EMPLOYES AND GAVE THEM A LIST OF ALL
THE STRIKERS, TOGETHER WITH THEIR ADDRESSES, AND THE TELEPHONE NUMBERS
OF THOSE WHO HAD TELEPHONES, AND IT WAS ARRANGED THAT THESE TWO
EMPLOYES SHOULD TELEPHONE THE STRIKERS TO COME TO A MEETING AT THE
HOTEL BELLEVUE IN THE EARLY HOURS OF TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8TH.  IN
FURNISHING THIS LIST THE SUPERVISOR STATED THAT THE MEN COULD RETURN TO
WORK IN A BODY BUT HE CHECKED OFF THE NAMES OF ELEVEN STRIKERS WHO HE
SAID WOULD HAVE TO FILE APPLICATIONS FOR REINSTATEMENT, WHICH
APPLICATIONS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF AN EXECUTIVE OF THE
COMPANY IN NEW YORK.  BECAUSE OF THIS STATEMENT THE TWO EMPLOYES, IN
NOTIFYING THE STRIKERS OF THE PROPOSED MEETING, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF
THE SUPERVISOR, OMITTED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE ELEVEN MEN WHOSE NAMES
HAD BEEN CHECKED OFF.  THIRTY-SIX MEN ATTENDED THE MEETING.  SOME OF
THE ELEVEN IN QUESTION HEARD OF IT AND ATTENDED.  THE SUPERVISOR
APPEARED AT THE MEETING AND REITERATED HIS STATEMENT THAT THE MEN COULD
GO BACK TO WORK AT ONCE, BUT READ FROM A LIST THE NAMES OF THE ELEVEN
WHO WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FILE APPLICATIONS FOR REINSTATEMENT TO BE
PASSED UPON IN NEW YORK.  THOSE PRESENT AT THE MEETING VOTED ON THE
QUESTION OF IMMEDIATELY RETURNING TO WORK, AND THE PROPOSITION WAS
CARRIED.  MOST OF THE MEN LEFT THE MEETING AND WENT TO THE RESPONDENT'S
OFFICE TUESDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 8TH, WHERE ON THAT DAY THEY RESUMED
THEIR USUAL DUTIES.  THEN OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER, SIX OF THE ELEVEN IN
QUESTION TOOK THEIR PLACES AND RESUMED THEIR WORK WITHOUT CHALLENGE. 
IT TURNED OUT THAT ONLY FIVE OF THE NEW MEN BROUGHT TO SAN FRANCISCO
DESIRED TO STAY. 

FIVE STRIKERS WHO WERE PROMINENT IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNION AND
IN CONNECTION WITH THE STRIKE, WHOSE NAMES APPEARED UPON THE LIST OF
ELEVEN, REPORTED AT THE OFFICE AT VARIOUS TIMES BETWEEN TUESDAY AND
THURSDAY.  EACH OF THEM WAS TOLD THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO FILL OUT AN
APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT; THAT THE ROLL OF EMPLOYES WAS COMPLETE, AND
THAT HIS APPLICATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY VACANCY
THAT MIGHT THEREAFTER OCCUR.  THESE MEN NOT HAVING BEEN REINSTATED IN
THE COURSE OF THREE WEEKS, THE SECRETARY OF LOCAL NO. 3 PRESENTED A
CHARGE TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
VIOLATED SEC. 8(1) AND (3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  FN4
THEREUPON THE BOARD FILED A COMPLAINT CHARGING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
DISCHARGED, AND WAS REFUSING TO EMPLOY, THE FIVE MEN WHO HAD NOT BEEN
REINSTATED TO THEIR POSITIONS, FOR THE REASON THAT THEY HAD JOINED AND
ASSISTED THE LABOR ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS LOCAL NO. 3 AND HAD ENGAGED IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES WITH OTHER EMPLOYES OF THE RESPONDENT, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND OTHER MUTUAL AID AND PROTECTION;
THAT BY SUCH DISCHARGE RESPONDENT HAD INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED, AND
COERCED THE EMPLOYES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC.
7  FN5  OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND SO HAD BEEN GUILTY OF
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT. 
THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE DISCHARGE OF THESE MEN WAS A
DISCRIMINATION IN RESPECT OF THEIR HIRE AND TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT AND A
DISCOURAGEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP IN LOCAL NO. 3, AND THUS AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT. 

THE RESPONDENT FILED AN ANSWER DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINT, AND MOVED TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND THAT THE
ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE MOTION WAS TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT BY THE
BOARD'S EXAMINER AND THE CASE PROCEEDED TO HEARING.  AFTER THE
COMPLETION OF ITS TESTIMONY, THE BOARD FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT TO
COMPORT WITH THE EVIDENCE, IN WHICH IT CHARGED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD
REFUSED TO RE-EMPLOY THE FIVE OPERATORS FOR THE REASON THAT THEY HAD
JOINED AND ASSISTED THE LABOR ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS LOCAL NO. 3 AND
ENGAGED WITH OTHER EMPLOYES IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND OTHER MUTUAL AID AND PROTECTION; THAT THE
REFUSAL TO RE-EMPLOY THEM RESTRAINED AND COERCED THE EMPLOYES IN THE
EXERCISE OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 AND SO CONSTITUTED AN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE WITHIN SEC. 8(1) OF THE ACT.  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
FURTHER ASSERTED THAT THE REFUSAL TO RE-EMPLOY THE MEN DISCRIMINATED IN
REGARD TO THEIR HIRE AND TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT AND DISCOURAGED
MEMBERSHIP IN LOCAL NO. 3 AND THUS AMOUNTED TO AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
UNDER SEC. 8(3) OF THE ACT.  THE RESPONDENT ENTERED A GENERAL DENIAL TO
THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE.  AT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE TESTIMONY, THE BOARD TRANSFERRED THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER HEARING
BEFORE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AT WASHINGTON, AND AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT
AND THE FILING OF A BRIEF, MADE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT. 

THE SUBSIDIARY OR EVIDENTIARY FACTS WERE FOUND IN GREAT DETAIL AND,
UPON THE FOOTING OF THEM, THE BOARD REACHED CONCLUSIONS OF FACT TO THE
EFFECT THAT LOCAL NO. 3 IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT; THAT "BY REFUSING TO REINSTATE TO EMPLOYMENT" THE FIVE MEN IN
QUESTION, "THEREBY DISCHARGING SAID EMPLOYES," THE RESPONDENT BY "EACH
OF SAID DISCHARGES," DISCRIMINATED IN REGARD TO TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT
AND THEREBY DISCOURAGED MEMBERSHIP IN THE LABOR ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS
LOCAL NO. 3, AND, BY THE DESCRIBED ACTS "HAS INTERFERED WITH,
RESTRAINED, AND COERCED ITS EMPLOYES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS
GUARANTEED BY SECTION 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT."  AS
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8,
SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (3), AND SEC. 2, SUBSECTIONS (6) AND (7)  FN6 OF
THE ACT.  IT ENTERED AN ORDER THAT RESPONDENT CEASE AND DESIST FROM
DISCHARGING, OR THREATENING TO DISCHARGE, ANY OF ITS EMPLOYES FOR THE
REASON THAT THEY HAD JOINED OR ASSISTED LOCAL NO. 3 OR OTHERWISE
ENGAGED IN UNION ACTIVITIES; FROM INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING OR
COERCING ITS EMPLOYES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC.
7 OF THE ACT; OFFER THE FIVE MEN IMMEDIATE AND FULL REINSTATEMENT TO
THEIR FORMER POSITIONS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED, AND MAKE EACH OF THEM WHOLE FOR ANY LOSS OF WAGES
DUE TO THEIR DISCHARGE; POST NOTICES THAT THE RESPONDENT WOULD NOT
DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEMBERS OF, OR THOSE DESIRING TO
BECOME MEMBERS OF, THE UNION, AND KEEP THE NOTICES POSTED FOR THIRTY
DAYS. 

AS PERMITTED BY THE ACT, THE BOARD FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD OF ITS PROCEEDING, AND A PETITION
FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER.  IN ITS ANSWER THE RESPONDENT DENIED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACT VIOLATED ARTICLE
III, AND THE FIFTH, SEVENTH, AND TENTH AMENDMENTS, OF THE CONSTITUTION;
THAT THE ORDER AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION BECAUSE ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS, AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE; THAT THE TRIAL
EXAMINER ERRED IN HIS RULINGS ON EVIDENCE; THAT THE BOARD ERRED IN
OVERRULING EXCEPTIONS TO HIS RULINGS, AND THAT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE ERRONEOUS. 

UPON THE HEARING BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ONE JUDGE HELD
THAT THE ACTION OF THE BOARD WAS WITHIN THE POWER SOUGHT TO BE
CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE STATUTE BUT THAT THE GRANT OF POWER VIOLATED
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND THE AWARD OF BACK
PAY TO THE EMPLOYES, WITHOUT A JURY TRIAL, VIOLATED THE SEVENTH
AMENDMENT.  ANOTHER JUDGE HELD THAT AS THE STATUTE DEFINED EMPLOYES TO
INCLUDE A PERSON WHOSE WORK HAD CEASED "AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN
CONNECTION WITH, ANY CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE," AND SINCE THERE WAS NO
ALLEGATION, EVIDENCE, OR FINDING AS TO SUCH A DISPUTE, THE STRIKERS HAD
CEASED TO BE EMPLOYES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT AND THE
RESPONDENT'S TREATMENT OF THEM COULD NOT VIOLATE THE ACT.  ONE JUDGE
DISSENTED, HOLDING THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS WITHIN ITS STATUTORY
AUTHORITY AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION.  A PETITION AND
SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR REHEARING WERE GRANTED AND, AFTER ARGUMENT,
THE COURT REAFFIRMED ITS FORMER DECISION.  THE JUDGE WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY
DECLARED THE BOARD'S ACTION WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, BUT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, CONSTRUED THE ACT AS NOT INTENDED TO WORK THE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULT OF COMPELLING AN EMPLOYER TO ENTER INTO A
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AGAINST HIS WILL AND, HENCE, AS REQUIRING ONLY
THAT THE STRIKERS BE REINSTATED TO THE POSITION OF APPLICANTS FOR
EMPLOYMENT RATHER THAN EMPLOYES.  THE OTHER JUDGES ADHERED TO THE VIEWS
THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED. 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT MEN WHO
STRUCK BECAUSE OF A FAILURE OF NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING WAGES AND TERMS
OF EMPLOYMENT CEASED TO BE EMPLOYES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE;
ERRED IN NOT HOLDING IT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, FORBIDDEN BY THE
STATUTE, FOR AN EMPLOYER TO DISCRIMINATE BECAUSE OF UNION ACTIVITIES IN
THE REINSTATEMENT OF MEN WHO HAVE GONE ON STRIKE BECAUSE OF A FAILURE
OF NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING WAGES AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT; ERRED IN
FAILING TO HOLD THAT THE ACT AUTHORIZES THE BOARD TO ORDER
REINSTATEMENT OF PERSONS THUS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST; AND ONE OF THE
JUDGES ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACT, IF CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE THE
BOARD TO REQUIRE SUCH REINSTATEMENT, VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT IT WAS NOT ACCORDED DUE
PROCESS OF LAW, BECAUSE THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGED IN THE
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WAS ABANDONED AND THE ACTION OF THE BOARD WAS BASED
UPON A CONCLUSION OF FACT NOT WITHIN THE ISSUES PRESENTED; THAT THERE
IS NO BASIS FOR THE BOARD'S ORDER, BECAUSE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE
STRIKERS CEASED WORK AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY
LABOR DISPUTE, AS DEFINED IN THE STATUTE; THAT THE ACT DOES NOT EMPOWER
THE BOARD TO COMPEL AN EMPLOYER TO RE-EMPLOY OR REINSTATE THOSE WHO
HAVE ABANDONED NEGOTIATIONS AND GONE ON STRIKE PRIOR TO ANY UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICE, WHERE THE EMPLOYER, AFTER THE STRIKE IS EFFECTIVE, AND
BEFORE COMMITTING ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, HAS PERMANENTLY EMPLOYED
OTHERS IN PLACE OF THE STRIKERS; THAT, IF THE ACT BE HELD TO AUTHORIZE
THE BOARD'S ORDER, IT VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; THAT ARTICLE III OF
THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THE COURT RENDER ITS INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT UPON THE QUASI-JURISDICTIONAL FACTS UPON WHICH THE BOARD'S
ORDER WAS BASED; THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER WAS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS,
SO ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AS TO WARRANT THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO
ENFORCE IT; AND THAT THE CASE IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE US BECAUSE
CERTIORARI WAS NOT SOUGHT WITHIN THE TIME FIXED BY LAW. 

WE HOLD THAT WE HAVE JURISDICTION; THAT THE BOARD'S ORDER IS WITHIN
ITS COMPETENCE AND DOES NOT CONTRAVENE ANY PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

FIRST.  WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS PRESCRIBED BY THE RULES OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS THE PETITIONER MOVED FOR A REHEARING AND FOR LEAVE, IF
DEEMED APPROPRIATE, TO TAKE FURTHER EVIDENCE AND ADD THE SAME TO THE
RECORD BEFORE THE BOARD.  WHILE THIS APPLICATION WAS PENDING A
SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS PRESENTED.  DURING THE TERM THE
COURT ENTERTAINED BOTH PETITIONS AND GRANTED A REHEARING AND, AFTER
ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS, WROTE FURTHER OPINIONS BASED
UPON THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING.  WE THINK THE COURT HAD NOT LOST
JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE; THAT ITS FINAL JUDGMENT WAS THE ORDER
ENTERED UPON THE PETITIONS FOR REHEARING; AND THAT THE THREE MONTHS
WITHIN WHICH THE PETITIONER MUST APPLY FOR CERTIORARI RAN FROM THE DATE
OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REHEARING AND CONFIRMING THE
ORIGINAL ORDER. 

SECOND.  UNDER THE FINDINGS THE STRIKE WAS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN
CONNECTION WITH, A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(9) OF THE
ACT.  THAT THERE WERE PENDING NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE EXECUTION OF A
CONTRACT TOUCHING WAGES AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF POINT
TO-POINT OPERATORS CANNOT BE DENIED.  BUT IT IS SAID THE RECORD FAILS
TO DISCLOSE WHAT CAUSED THESE NEGOTIATIONS TO FAIL OR TO SHOW THAT THE
RESPONDENT WAS IN ANY WISE IN FAULT IN FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE
UNION'S DEMANDS; AND, THEREFORE, FOR ALL THAT APPEARS, THE STRIKE WAS
NOT CALLED BY REASON OF FAULT OF THE RESPONDENT.  THE ARGUMENT CONFUSES
A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE WITH AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE DEFINED IN SEC. 8
OF THE ACT.  TRUE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT HAD BEEN GUILTY
OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE PRIOR TO THE STRIKE, BUT WITHIN THE INTENT
OF THE ACT THERE WAS AN EXISTING LABOR DISPUTE IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH
THE STRIKE WAS CALLED.  THE FINDING IS THAT THE STRIKE WAS DEEMED
"ADVISABLE IN VIEW OF THE UNSATISFACTORY STATE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS" IN
NEW YORK.  IT WAS UNNECESSARY FOR THE BOARD TO FIND WHAT WAS IN FACT
THE STATE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS IN NEW YORK WHEN THE STRIKE WAS CALLED,
OR IN SO MANY WORDS THAT A LABOR DISPUTE AS DEFINED BY THE ACT
EXISTED.  THE WISDOM OR UNWISDOM OF THE MEN, THEIR JUSTIFICATION OR
LACK OF IT, IN ATTRIBUTING TO RESPONDENT AN UNREASONABLE OR ARBITRARY
ATTITUDE IN CONNECTION WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS, CANNOT DETERMINE WHETHER,
WHEN THEY STRUCK, THEY DID SO AS A CONSEQUENCE OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH
A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE. 

THIRD.  THE STRIKERS REMAINED EMPLOYES UNDER SEC. 2(3) OF THE ACT
WHICH PROVIDES:  "THE TERM 'EMPLOYEE' SHALL INCLUDE  ...  ANY
INDIVIDUAL WHOSE WORK HAS CEASED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN CONNECTION
WITH, ANY CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE OR BECAUSE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, AND WHO HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT EMPLOYMENT,  ...  "  WITHIN THIS DEFINITION THE STRIKERS
REMAINED EMPLOYES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND WERE PROTECTED AGAINST
THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES DENOUNCED BY IT. 

FOURTH.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE BOARD LACKED JURISDICTION BECAUSE
RESPONDENT WAS AT NO TIME GUILTY OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE.  SECTION
8 OF THE ACT DENOMINATES AS SUCH PRACTICE ACTION BY AN EMPLOYER TO
INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
RIGHTS TO ORGANIZE, TO FORM, JOIN OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, AND TO
ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION, OR "BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO
...  TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO
ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:  ...  "
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AND NO FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS GUILTY OF
ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS IN NEW
YORK.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS THAT THE RESPONDENT
WAS NEGOTIATING WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNION.  NOR
WAS IT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE TO REPLACE THE STRIKING EMPLOYES WITH
OTHERS IN AN EFFORT TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS.  ALTHOUGH SEC. 13
PROVIDES, "NOTHING IN THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO INTERFERE
WITH OR IMPEDE OR DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE RIGHT TO STRIKE," IT DOES NOT
FOLLOW THAT AN EMPLOYER, GUILTY OF NO ACT DENOUNCED BY THE STATUTE, HAS
LOST THE RIGHT TO PROTECT AND CONTINUE HIS BUSINESS BY SUPPLYING PLACES
LEFT VACANT BY STRIKERS.  AND HE IS NOT BOUND TO DISCHARGE THOSE HIRED
TO FILL THE PLACES OF STRIKERS, UPON THE ELECTION OF THE LATTER TO
RESUME THEIR EMPLOYMENT, IN ORDER TO CREATE PLACES FOR THEM.  FN7 THE
ASSURANCE BY RESPONDENT TO THOSE WHO ACCEPTED EMPLOYMENT DURING THE
STRIKE THAT IF THEY SO DESIRED THEIR PLACES MIGHT BE PERMANENT WAS NOT
AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE NOR WAS IT SUCH TO REINSTATE ONLY SO MANY OF
THE STRIKERS AS THERE WERE VACANT PLACES TO BE FILLED.  BUT THE CLAIM
PUT FORWARD IS THAT THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE INDULGED BY THE
RESPONDENT WAS DISCRIMINATION IN REINSTATING STRIKING EMPLOYES BY
KEEPING OUT CERTAIN OF THEM FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THEY HAD BEEN
ACTIVE IN THE UNION.  AS WE HAVE SAID, THE STRIKERS RETAINED, UNDER THE
ACT, THE STATUS OF EMPLOYES.  ANY SUCH DISCRIMINATION IN PUTTING THEM
BACK TO WORK IS, THEREFORE, PROHIBITED BY SEC. 8. 

FIFTH.  THE BOARD'S FINDINGS AS TO DISCRIMINATION ARE SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE.  WE SHALL NOT ATTEMPT A DISCUSSION OF THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS
AS TO THE PROPER CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE TESTIMONY.  THERE WAS
EVIDENCE, WHICH THE BOARD CREDITED, THAT SEVERAL OF THE FIVE MEN IN
QUESTION WERE TOLD THAT THEIR UNION ACTIVITIES MADE THEM UNDESIRABLE TO
THEIR EMPLOYER; AND THAT SOME OF THEM DID NOT RETURN TO WORK WITH THE
GREAT BODY OF THE MEN AT 6 O'CLOCK ON TUESDAY MORNING BECAUSE THEY
UNDERSTOOD THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GO TO WORK UNTIL THE SUPERIOR
OFFICIALS HAD PASSED UPON THEIR APPLICATIONS.  WHEN THEY DID APPLY AT
TIMES BETWEEN TUESDAY MORNING AND THURSDAY THEY WERE EACH TOLD THAT THE
QUOTA WAS FULL AND THAT THEIR APPLICATIONS COULD NOT BE GRANTED IN ANY
EVENT UNTIL A VACANCY OCCURRED.  THIS WAS ON THE GROUND THAT FIVE OF
THE ELEVEN NEW MEN REMAINED AT WORK IN SAN FRANCISCO.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, SIX OF THE ELEVEN STRIKERS LISTED FOR SEPARATE TREATMENT WHO
REPORTED FOR WORK EARLY TUESDAY MORNING, OR WITHIN THE NEXT DAY OR SO,
WERE PERMITTED TO GO BACK TO WORK AND WERE NOT COMPELLED TO AWAIT THE
APPROVAL OF THEIR APPLICATIONS.  IT APPEARS THAT ALL OF THE MEN WHO HAD
BEEN ON STRIKE SIGNED APPLICATIONS FOR REEMPLOYMENT SHORTLY AFTER THEIR
RESUMPTION OF WORK.  THE BOARD FOUND, AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT ITS
FINDING IS UNSUPPORTED, THAT, IN TAKING BACK SIX OF THE ELEVEN MEN AND
EXCLUDING FIVE WHO WERE ACTIVE UNION MEN, THE RESPONDENT'S OFFICIALS
DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THE LATTER ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR UNION ACTIVITIES
AND THAT THE EXCUSE GIVEN THAT THEY DID NOT APPLY UNTIL AFTER THE QUOTA
WAS FULL WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND NOT THE TRUE REASON FOR THE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT BOUND TO DISPLACE MEN HIRED
TO TAKE THE STRIKERS' PLACES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE POSITIONS FOR THEM. 
IT MIGHT HAVE REFUSED REINSTATEMENT ON THE GROUND OF SKILL OR ABILITY,
BUT THE BOARD FOUND THAT IT DID NOT DO SO.  IT MIGHT HAVE RESORTED TO
ANY ONE OF A NUMBER OF METHODS OF DETERMINING WHICH OF ITS STRIKING
EMPLOYES WOULD HAVE TO WAIT BECAUSE FIVE MEN HAD TAKEN PERMANENT
POSITIONS DURING THE STRIKE, BUT IT IS FOUND THAT THE PREPARATION AND
USE OF THE LIST, AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY RESPONDENT, WERE WITH THE
PURPOSE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THOSE MOST ACTIVE IN THE UNION.  THERE
IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THESE FINDINGS. 

SIXTH.  THE BOARD'S ORDER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE
RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE CEASED AT
THE INCEPTION OF THE STRIKE.  THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE ACT IS THAT IF
MEN STRIKE IN CONNECTION WITH A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE THEIR ACTION IS
NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A RENUNCIATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION AND
THEY REMAIN EMPLOYES FOR THE REMEDIAL PURPOSES SPECIFIED IN THE ACT. 
WE HAVE HELD THAT, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER, CONGRESS MAY
IMPOSE UPON CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS REASONABLE REGULATIONS CALCULATED
TO PROTECT COMMERCE AGAINST THREATENED INDUSTRIAL STRIFE.  NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 48. 
THE BOARD'S ORDER THERE SUSTAINED REQUIRED THE REINSTATEMENT OF
DISCHARGED EMPLOYES.  THE REQUIREMENT INTERFERED WITH FREEDOM OF
CONTRACT WHICH THE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE ENJOYED EXCEPT FOR THE MANDATE
OF THE STATUTE.  THE PROVISION OF THE ACT CONTINUING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE IN THE CASE OF A STRIKE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR
IN CONNECTION WITH, A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE IS A REGULATION OF THE SAME
SORT AND WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE OF OUR DECISION. 

SEVENTH.  THE AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF ORDERED BY THE BOARD WAS WITHIN ITS
POWERS AND ITS ORDER WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS. 

AS WE HAVE HELD IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA
GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261, THE RELIEF WHICH THE STATUTE EMPOWERS
THE BOARD TO GRANT IS TO BE ADAPTED TO THE SITUATION WHICH CALLS FOR
REDRESS.  ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS, FIVE MEN WHO TOOK PART IN THE
STRIKE WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN CONNECTION WITH A BLANKET OFFER TO
REINSTATE STRIKING EMPLOYES.  THE BOARD ENJOINED FURTHER DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST EMPLOYES BY REASON OF UNION AFFILIATION, BUT IT COULD NOT GRANT
COMPLETE RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE FIVE MEN SHORT OF ORDERING THAT THE
DISCRIMINATION BE NEUTRALIZED BY THEIR BEING GIVEN THEIR FORMER
POSITIONS AND REIMBURSED FOR THE LOSS DUE TO THEIR LACK OF EMPLOYMENT
CONSEQUENT UPON THE RESPONDENT'S DISCRIMINATION.  THE ORDER IS
CRITICIZED AS ARBITRARY IN THAT IT IS SAID TO AWARD BACK PAY TO DATE OF
REINSTATEMENT WITH DEDUCTIONS ONLY FOR WHAT WAS EARNED TO THE DATE OF
THE ORDER.  WE DO NOT SO READ IT, AND THE BOARD ADMITS THAT CREDIT MUST
BE GIVEN FOR ALL SUMS EARNED TO DATE OF REINSTATEMENT, AND SO CONSTRUES
THE ORDER.  IT IS FURTHER SAID THAT THE ORDER ARBITRARILY AND
UNREASONABLY REQUIRES THE NOTICES TO BE POSTED TO STATE THAT RESPONDENT
WILL NOT DISCHARGE ITS REINSTATED EMPLOYES FOR ANY REASON WHATEVER. 
THIS CLAUSE OF THE ORDER IS INARTIFICIALLY DRAWN, AND COUNSEL FOR THE
BOARD ADMIT THAT IT SHOULD BE READ IN CONNECTION WITH THE REMAINDER OF
THE ORDER FORBIDDING DISCHARGE ON THE GROUND OF UNION ACTIVITY. 

EIGHTH.  THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT DENIED A HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE
OFFENSE FOUND BY THE BOARD.  THE RESPONDENT SAYS THAT IT WAS SUMMONED
TO ANSWER A COMPLAINT THAT IT DISCRIMINATED BY DISCHARGING THE FIVE MEN
AND THAT, AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS IN, THIS COMPLAINT WAS WITHDRAWN
AND A NEW ONE PRESENTED ASSERTING THAT ITS REFUSAL TO RE-EMPLOY THE
FIVE MEN WAS THE HEAD AND FRONT OF ITS OFFENDING.  THEN IT IS SAID THAT
WHEN THE BOARD CAME TO MAKE ITS FINDING IT REVERTED TO THE POSITION
THAT WHAT THE RESPONDENT DID HAD NOT BEEN A FAILURE TO EMPLOY BUT A
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE.  THUS THE RESPONDENT CLAIMS THAT IT IS FOUND GUILTY
OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE ISSUES UPON WHICH
THE CASE WAS TRIED.  THE POSITION IS HIGHLY TECHNICAL.  ALL PARTIES TO
THE PROCEEDING KNEW FROM THE OUTSET THAT THE THING COMPLAINED OF WAS
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN MEN BY REASON OF THEIR ALLEGED UNION
ACTIVITIES.  IF THERE WAS A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE THE MEN WERE STILL
EMPLOYES BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 2(3), AND THE REFUSAL TO LET THEM WORK WAS A
DISCHARGE.  THE RESPONDENT SAYS THAT AS THE BOARD FAILED TO FIND, IN SO
MANY WORDS, THAT THERE WAS A CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE, ITS CONCLUSION OF
FACT THAT THE MEN WERE DISCHARGED HAS NO BASIS.  BUT THE BOARD FOUND
THAT THE STRIKE WAS CALLED BECAUSE THE STRIKERS WERE INFORMED THAT THE
NEGOTIATIONS FOR A WORKING AGREEMENT IN NEW YORK WERE NOT PROCEEDING
SATISFACTORILY.  WE THINK ITS ACTION CANNOT BE OVERTURNED FOR THE MERE
REASON THAT IT FAILED TO CHARACTERIZE THE SITUATION AS A CURRENT LABOR
DISPUTE.  THE RESPONDENT FURTHER URGES THAT, WHEN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
WAS FILED AND THE ORIGINAL ONE WITHDRAWN, THE CHARGE IT HAD TO MEET WAS
A REFUSAL TO RE-EMPLOY; THAT THE PHRASE "RE-EMPLOY" MEANS "EMPLOY
ANEW"; THAT IF THE BOARD HAD FOUND A FAILURE TO EMPLOY THE FIVE MEN
BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT, THE FINDINGS WOULD HAVE
FOLLOWED THE COMPLAINT, WHEREAS THE BOARD, IN ITS CONCLUSIONS OF FACT,
REFERRED TO RESPONDENT'S ACTION AS "REFUSAL TO REINSTATE TO EMPLOYMENT"
AND AS A DISCHARGE; AND THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE FINDINGS DO NOT FOLLOW
THE PLEADINGS.    A REVIEW OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT AT NO TIME DURING
THE HEARINGS WAS THERE ANY MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF
THE BOARD'S COMPLAINT.  THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE, PRO AND CON, WAS DIRECTED
TO THE QUESTION WHETHER, WHEN THE STRIKE FAILED AND THE MEN DESIRED TO
COME BACK AND WERE TOLD THAT THE STRIKE WOULD BE FORGOTTEN AND THAT
THEY MIGHT COME BACK IN A BODY SAVE FOR ELEVEN MEN WHO WERE SINGLED OUT
FOR DIFFERENT TREATMENT, SIX OF WHOM, HOWEVER, WERE TREATED LIKE
EVERYONE ELSE, THE RESPONDENT DID IN FACT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
REMAINING FIVE BECAUSE OF UNION ACTIVITY.  WHILE THE RESPONDENT WAS
ENTITLED TO KNOW THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST IT, AND TO EXPLAIN
ITS CONDUCT, IN AN EFFORT TO MEET THAT COMPLAINT, WE FIND FROM THE
RECORD THAT IT UNDERSTOOD THE ISSUE AND WAS AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY
TO JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF ITS OFFICERS AS INNOCENT RATHER THAN
DISCRIMINATORY. 

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONY, AND PRIOR TO ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE
THE EXAMINER, THE BOARD TRANSFERRED THE PROCEEDING TO WASHINGTON TO BE
FURTHER HEARD BEFORE THE BOARD.  IT DENIED RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
RESUBMIT THE CAUSE TO THE TRIAL EXAMINER WITH DIRECTIONS TO PREPARE AND
FILE AN INTERMEDIATE REPORT.  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE
RESPONDENT ASSIGNED ERROR TO THIS RULING.  IT APPEARS THAT ORAL
ARGUMENT WAS HAD AND A BRIEF WAS FILED WITH THE BOARD AFTER WHICH IT
MADE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  THE RESPONDENT NOW
ASSERTS THAT THE FAILURE OF THE BOARD TO FOLLOW ITS USUAL PRACTICE OF
THE SUBMISSION OF A TENTATIVE REPORT BY THE TRIAL EXAMINER AND A
HEARING ON EXCEPTIONS TO THAT REPORT DEPRIVED THE RESPONDENT OF
OPPORTUNITY TO CALL TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION THE ALLEGED FATAL VARIANCE
BETWEEN THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT AND THE BOARD'S FINDINGS. 
WHAT WE HAVE SAID SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES THAT THE ISSUES AND
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES WERE CLEARLY DEFINED AND AS NO OTHER
DETRIMENT OR DISADVANTAGE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE ENSUED FROM THE BOARD'S
PROCEDURE THE MATTER IS NOT ONE CALLING FOR A REVERSAL OF THE ORDER. 
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES NO PARTICULAR FORM OF PROCEDURE; IT
PROTECTS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS.  COMPARE MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S.
468, 478.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS DENIED A FULL AND
ADEQUATE HEARING MUST BE REJECTED. 

NINTH.  THE OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT ARE OVERRULED BECAUSE
FORECLOSED BY EARLIER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  87 F.2D 611; 92 F.2D 761. 

FN2  1 N.L.R.B. 201. 

FN3  SEE JEFFERY-DEWITT INSULATOR CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 91 F.2D 134; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. BELL OIL & GAS
CO., 91 F.2D 509; NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. CARLISLE LUMBER
CO., 94 F.2D 138; BLACK DIAMOND S.S. CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, 94 F.2D 875. 

FN4  U.S.C. SUPP. II, TIT. 29, SEC. 158(1) AND (3). 

FN5  U.S.C. SUPP. II, TIT. 29, SEC. 157. 

FN6  U.S.C. SUPP. II, TIT. 29, SEC. 152(6)(7). 

FN7  COMPARE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. BELL OIL & GAS CO., 91
F.2D 509. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :













TAFT V. COMMISSIONER, 304 U.S. 351 


NO. 746.  ARGUED APRIL 25, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
667, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A DECEDENT IN HER LIFETIME PROMISED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS TO
ESTABLISH AN ENDOWMENT FUND AND TO PAY SALARIES OF ORCHESTRAL MUSICIANS
AND A DIRECTOR OF ART. THE PROMISES WERE ACCEPTED AND ACTED UPON, AND
UNDER THE STATE LAW WERE BINDING UPON HER ESTATE.  HELD THAT IN VALUING
THE ESTATE FOR TAXATION UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, THE EXECUTOR WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER THE PROMISES, AS BEING
CLAIMS CONTRACTED "FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR
MONEY'S WORTH," SEC. 303(A)(1), OR AS "TRANSFERS," TO OR FOR THE USE OF
THE PROMISEE CORPORATIONS, ID. SEC. 303(A)(3).  PP. 355, 357. 

2.  THE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 303(A)(1) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SHOWS THAT A PROMISE BY A DECEDENT TO PAY
MONEY TO A CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, WHERE THE ONLY
CONSIDERATION WAS A STIPULATED APPLICATION OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED, DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE A CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE CONTRACTED FOR AN ADEQUATE
AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FACT THAT UNDER LOCAL LAW THE PROMISE IS ENFORCEABLE.  P. 355. 

3.  A BINDING PROMISE BY A DECEDENT TO PAY MONEY TO A CHARITABLE OR
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, NOT ATTENDED BY ANY ALLOCATION OF FUNDS IN
DECEDENT'S LIFETIME, IS NOT A "TRANSFER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
303(A)(3), REVENUE ACT OF 1926; AND PAYMENT BY THE EXECUTOR DOES NOT
MAKE IT SUCH BY RELATION.  P. 357. 

4.  ONLY SUCH TRANSFERS INTER VIVOS AS ARE TESTAMENTARY IN CHARACTER
ARE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SUBSECTION (3), SUPRA.  P. 358. 

TAFT, EXECUTOR, V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 631, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS WHICH AFFIRMED A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 33
B.T.A. 671, SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS IN THE
VALUATION OF AN ESTATE FOR TAXATION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE PETITIONER, AS EXECUTOR, MAY
DEDUCT FROM THE GROSS ESTATE AMOUNTS PAYABLE PURSUANT TO THE DECEDENT'S
BINDING PROMISES AS CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE INCURRED BONA FIDE AND
FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 303(A)(1), OR AS TRANSFERS TO CHARITABLE OR
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER SEC. 303(A)(3), OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926.  FN1  THE DEDUCTIONS WERE OF AMOUNTS OWING AT THE DECEDENT'S
DEATH UPON THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. 

BY LETTER THE DECEDENT AGREED WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI TO
ESTABLISH A FUND AS A MEMORIAL TO HER HUSBAND, STATING THAT SHE WOULD
MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE TRUSTEES OF THE FUND, WHOM SHE NAMED, DURING THE
ENSUING YEAR, $50,000, DURING THE FOLLOWING YEAR $75,000, AND, IN EACH
SUCCEEDING YEAR, $100,000 OR SUCH OTHER INCOME AS MIGHT BE DERIVED FROM
A FUND OF $2,000,000 WHICH SHE WOULD ULTIMATELY TRANSFER TO THE
TRUSTEES.  THE LETTER OUTLINED THE TERMS OF THE TRUST TO WHICH THE
INCOME WAS TO BE DEVOTED.  THE OFFER WAS FORMALLY ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE UNIVERSITY AND, PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT, THE
DECEDENT MADE PAYMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES AND HER EXECUTOR CONTINUED TO
PAY SUMS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL.  THE UNIVERSITY IS AN
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND NO PROFIT ENURES TO ANYONE FROM ITS
OPERATION. 

BEING DEEPLY INTERESTED IN THE CINCINNATI INSTITUTE OF FINE ARTS AND
ITS WORK, AND HAVING JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND AND AS AN INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTED LARGE SUMS TO THIS WORK, THE DECEDENT, TO OBVIATE THE
NECESSITY OF REDUCING THE PERSONNEL OF THE ORCHESTRA THE INSTITUTE
CONDUCTS, AGREED WITH THE INSTITUTE THAT IF IT WOULD RETAIN TWO
MUSICIANS SHE WOULD PAY THEIR SALARIES UNDER CONTRACTS COVERING TWO
YEARS.  IN RELIANCE UPON HER PROMISE THE INSTITUTE RE-ENGAGED THE TWO
MEN.  THE DECEDENT PAID THE AMOUNT OF THEIR SALARIES PRIOR TO HER DEATH
AND PETITIONER, AS EXECUTOR, PAID THEM TO THE END OF THE CONTRACT
TERM.  THE INSTITUTE WOULD NOT HAVE RE-EMPLOYED THESE MEN EXCEPT FOR
THE AGREEMENT.  IT IS A CHARITABLE CORPORATION ORGANIZED FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF A SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA AND OTHER ACTIVITIES, AND NO PROFIT
ENURES TO ANYONE FROM ITS OPERATIONS. 

THE DECEDENT AGREED BY LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CINCINNATI INSTITUTE
OF FINE ARTS THAT IF IT WOULD EMPLOY A DIRECTOR OF ART SHE WOULD
CONTRIBUTE $10,000 TOWARDS HIS SALARY.  IN RELIANCE UPON THIS
UNDERTAKING THE INSTITUTION ENGAGED SUCH A DIRECTOR AT A SALARY OF
$10,000 PER ANNUM.  SHE PAID THE STIPULATED AMOUNT FOR ONE AND ONE-HALF
YEARS PRIOR TO HER DEATH AND THE PETITIONER, AS EXECUTOR, PAID FOR ONE
YEAR SUBSEQUENT TO HER DEATH.  THERE WERE NO AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE
EMPLOYMENT OF A DIRECTOR EXCEPT THOSE RECEIVED FROM THE DECEDENT AND
THE INSTITUTE WOULD NOT HAVE EMPLOYED ONE EXCEPT FOR HER AGREEMENT.  IT
IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND DOES NOT OPERATE FOR PROFIT. 

IN 1930 THE DECEDENT AGREED WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI THAT IF
IT WOULD ENGAGE A NAMED PERSON AS PROFESSOR TO GIVE A SPECIFIED COURSE
OF INSTRUCTION SHE WOULD PAY THE UNIVERSITY THE AMOUNT OF HIS SALARY. 
SHE HAD MADE SIMILAR ARRANGEMENTS FOR PRIOR YEARS.  THE UNIVERSITY
EMPLOYED THE PROFESSOR AND WOULD NOT HAVE DONE SO EXCEPT FOR HER
AGREEMENT.  AT THE TIME OF HER DEATH A SUM REMAINED DUE ACCORDING TO
HER PROMISE WHICH THE PETITIONER PAID. 

THE TOTAL CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE OBLIGATIONS WAS
$2,015,420.  UNDER THE LAW OF OHIO, THE DECEDENT'S PROMISES WERE AND
ARE LEGALLY BINDING AND ENFORCEABLE AGAINST HER ESTATE.  THE
COMMISSIONER RULED, AND THE BOARD  FN2  AND THE COURT BELOW  FN3  HAVE
HELD, THAT THE ESTATE'S OBLIGATIONS IN QUESTION, THOUGH CONTRACTED BONA
FIDE, WERE NOT INCURRED FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY
OR MONEY'S WORTH AS REQUIRED BY CLAUSE (1), AND PAYMENTS OF THE SUMS
PROMISED ARE NOT TRANSFERS TO OR FOR THE USE OF ANY CORPORATION
ORGANIZED AND OPERATING EXCLUSIVELY FOR CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (3), OF SEC. 303(A) OF THE ACT. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED CONFLICT OF DECISION.  FN4 

1.  THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE WERE NOT INCURRED OR CONTRACTED FOR
AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  THE TERMS USED, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE DECEDENT AS TO THE EXPENDITURE OF THE
MONEY PROMISED AND THE STIPULATION ON THE PART OF THE PAYEE TO EXPEND
IT IN THAT FASHION, OR ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS, DO NOT
CONSTITUTE AN ADEQUATE OR A FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S
WORTH WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  IF THERE WERE DOUBT ABOUT THE
MATTER THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE STATUTE AND THE TREASURY
REGULATIONS WOULD REQUIRE US SO TO HOLD.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916
PERMITTED THE DEDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE
"ALLOWED BY THE LAWS OF THE JURISDICTION  ...  UNDER WHICH THE ESTATE
IS BEING ADMINISTERED."  FN5  THE ACTS OF 1918 AND 1921 CONTAIN LIKE
PROVISIONS.  FN6  UNDER THESE ACTS THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION WOULD HAVE
BEEN DEDUCTIBLE AS ENFORCEABLE BY STATE LAW IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE
OF THE CONSIDERATION.  FN7  THE ACT OF 1924 ALTERED EXISTING LAW AND
AUTHORIZED THE DEDUCTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST AN ESTATE ONLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT THEY WERE "INCURRED OR CONTRACTED BONA FIDE AND FOR A FAIR
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH."  FN8  CONGRESS HAD REASON TO
THINK THAT THE PHRASE "FAIR CONSIDERATION" WOULD BE HELD TO COMPREHEND
AN INSTANCE OF A PROMISE WHICH WAS HONEST, REASONABLE, AND FREE FROM
SUSPICION WHETHER OR NOT THE CONSIDERATION FOR IT WAS, STRICTLY
SPEAKING, ADEQUATE.  FN9  THE WORDS "ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION"
WERE SUBSTITUTED BY SEC. 303(A)(1) OF THE ACT OF 1926.  THERE MUST HAVE
BEEN SOME REASON FOR THESE SUCCESSIVE CHANGES.  IT SEEMS EVIDENT THAT
THE PURPOSE WAS TO NARROW THE CLASS OF DEDUCTIBLE CLAIMS, AND WE ARE
NOT AT LIBERTY TO IGNORE THIS PURPOSE. 

THE REGULATIONS OF THE TREASURY PROMULGATED UNDER THE ACT OF 1924 AND
THE FIRST EDITION APPLICABLE TO THAT OF 1926, PARAPHRASED THE STATUTORY
LANGUAGE.  FN10  THE 1929 EDITION OF REGULATION 70, ART. 36, PROVIDES
IN PART:  "A PLEDGE OR A SUBSCRIPTION EVIDENCED BY A PROMISSORY NOTE OR
OTHERWISE, EVEN THOUGH ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE ESTATE, IS DEDUCTIBLE
ONLY TO THE EXTENT SUCH PLEDGE OR SUBSCRIPTION WAS MADE FOR AN ADEQUATE
AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN CASH OR ITS EQUIVALENT RECEIVED THEREFOR BY
THE DECEDENT."  FN11  SINCE 1929 THE REGULATIONS HAVE EXCLUDED
DEDUCTIONS SUCH AS THOSE IN ISSUE HERE.  MEANTIME THE ESTATE TAX
PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN AMENDED FOUR TIMES AND THE SECTION UNDER WHICH THE
REGULATIONS WERE PROMULGATED HAS BEEN AMENDED TWICE.  WE MUST ASSUME
THAT CONGRESS WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PUT UPON THE SECTION
BY THE TREASURY AND WAS SATISFIED WITH IT.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
FN12  AND THE COURTS,  FN13  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT,  FN14  HAVE HELD THAT A PROMISE TO PAY
MONEY TO A CHARITABLE OR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, WHERE THE ONLY
CONSIDERATION WAS A STIPULATED APPLICATION OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED, DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE A CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE CONTRACTED FOR AN ADEQUATE
AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FACT THAT UNDER LOCAL LAW THE PROMISE IS ENFORCEABLE.  IN THIS VIEW WE
AGREE. 

2.  PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO THE PROMISES ARE NOT TRANSFERS WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 303(A)(3).  THE COURT BELOW EXCLUDED THE PAYMENTS FROM
THE OPERATION OF THAT SECTION UPON TWO GROUNDS.  BOTH, AS WE THINK, ARE
VALID.  THE PETITIONER'S PAYMENT, AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH, OF A SUM
PROMISED DURING HER LIFE, IS NOT APPROPRIATELY DESIGNATED A TRANSFER. 
TRUE THE DECEDENT HAS PROMISED TO MAKE A TRANSFER BUT FULFILLMENT OF
THE PROMISE BY THE EXECUTOR DOES NOT RELATE BACK TO THE TIME THE
PROMISE WAS MADE SO AS TO CONVERT HER PROMISE INTO A TRANSFER BY HER. 
HERE THE SUBJECT OF THE TRANSFER WAS NOT IDENTIFIED BY ANY ALLOCATION
OF DECEDENT'S FUNDS DURING HER LIFE.  THIS FACT ADDS POINT TO THE VIEW
THAT SHE MADE NO TRANSFER. 

SUBSECTION (3) APPLIES ONLY TO TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITIONS.  THE PHRASE
IS "THE AMOUNT OF ALL BEQUESTS, LEGACIES, DEVISES, OR TRANSFERS" TO
CERTAIN SPECIFIED RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY OR
EDUCATIONAL USES.  THE RIGHT TO THE DEDUCTION IS QUALIFIED BY THE
PROVISION "THE AMOUNT OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH FOR ANY
TRANSFER SHALL NOT EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY
REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE."  THE ONLY TRANSFERS
REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE ARE THOSE MADE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH OR TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT
OR AFTER DEATH.  FN15  IN OTHER WORDS, ONLY SUCH TRANSFERS AS ARE
TESTAMENTARY IN CHARACTER ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS ESTATE, AND
IT FOLLOWS THAT ONLY THOSE OF THAT CHARACTER ARE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER
SUBSECTION (3).  THOSE HERE IN QUESTION WERE CLEARLY NOT SUCH.  THERE
IS NO CLAIM THAT THE AGREEMENTS WERE MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH OR
TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER DEATH. 

3.  THE PETITIONER URGES THAT ALL OF THE REVENUE ACTS HAVE GRANTED
LIBERAL DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF INCOME TAX AND ESTATE TAX FOR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES.  HE SAYS THAT IF
THE BENEFACTIONS IN QUESTION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE FORM OF BEQUESTS OR
GIFTS TO TAKE EFFECT AT DEATH THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF THE RIGHT
TO THE CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS.  HE URGES, THEREFORE, THAT WE SHOULD ADOPT A
LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT TO EFFECTUATE THE INTENT OF CONGRESS
EVEN THOUGH THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE STRICT
MEANING OF THE WORDS USED.  BUT WE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPECULATE AS TO
THE REASONS WHY THE POLICY EVIDENCED WITH RESPECT TO OTHER FORMS OF
GIFT WAS NOT EXTENDED TO CLAIMS UPON PROMISES ENFORCEABLE BY STATE
LAW.  WE ARE BOUND TO OBSERVE THE ALTERATIONS MADE IN THE SUCCESSIVE
ACTS WHICH, IN THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED, EXCLUDE
DEDUCTION OF ENFORCEABLE CLAIMS OF THE SORT HERE INVOLVED, EVEN THOUGH
THE CASE BE A HARD ONE.  THE TESTATRIX WAS BOUND TO BRING HER
TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE LETTER OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE
REGULATIONS AT THE RISK THAT NON-COMPLIANCE MIGHT DEPRIVE HER ESTATE OF
TAX IMMUNITY AS RESPECTS THE PLEDGES. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  303.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE TAX THE VALUE OF THE NET
ESTATE SHALL BE DETERMINED - 

"(A)  IN THE CASE OF A RESIDENT, BY DEDUCTING FROM THE VALUE OF THE
GROSS ESTATE - 

"(1)  SUCH AMOUNTS FOR FUNERAL EXPENSES, ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES,
CLAIMS AGAINST THE ESTATE, UNPAID MORTGAGES UPON, OR ANY INDEBTEDNESS
IN RESPECT TO, PROPERTY  ...  TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH CLAIMS,
MORTGAGES, OR INDEBTEDNESS WERE INCURRED OR CONTRACTED BONA FIDE AND
FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH,  ... 

"(3)  THE AMOUNT OF ALL BEQUESTS, LEGACIES, DEVISES, OR TRANSFERS, TO
OR FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY STATE, TERRITORY, ANY
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FOR
EXCLUSIVELY PUBLIC PURPOSES, OR TO OR FOR THE USE OF ANY CORPORATION
ORGANIZED AND OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE,
SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE
ENCOURAGEMENT OF ART AND THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN OR
ANIMALS, NO PART OF THE NET EARNINGS OF WHICH INURES TO THE BENEFIT OF
ANY PRIVATE STOCKHOLDER OR INDIVIDUAL,  ..." 

FN2  33 B.T.A. 671. 

FN3  92 F.2D 667. 

FN4  SEE TURNER V. COMMISSIONER, 85 F.2D 919; COMMISSIONER V. BRYN
MAWR TRUST CO., 87 F.2D 607; PORTER V. COMMISSIONER, 60 F.2D 673;
BRETZFELDER V. COMMISSIONER, 86 F.2D 713; LOCKWOOD V. MCGOWAN, 86 F.2D
1005. 

FN5  REVENUE ACT OF 1916, SEC. 203(A)(1), 39 STAT. 756, 778. 

FN6  REVENUE ACT OF 1918, SEC. 403(A)(1), 40 STAT. 1057, 1098;
REVENUE ACT OF 1921, SEC. 403(A)(1), 42 STAT. 227, 279. 

FN7  ATKINS V. COMMISSIONER, 30 F.2D 761. 

FN8  REVENUE ACT OF 1924, SEC. 303(A)(1), 43 STAT. 253, 305. 

FN9  SEE FERGUSON V. DICKSON, 300 F. 961, 964. 

FN10  REGULATIONS 68, ARTS. 29, 36; REGULATIONS 70(1926 ED.)  ARTS. 
29, 36. 

FN11  SEE ALSO REGULATIONS 80, 1934 ED., ART. 36; REGULATIONS 80,
1937 ED., ART. 36. 

FN12  PORTER V. COMMISSIONER, 23 B.T.A. 1016, 1025; TURNER V.
COMMISSIONER, 31 B.T.A. 446; SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER,
35 B.T.A. 259, 265. 

FN13  PORTER V. COMMISSIONER, 60 F.2D 673; BRETZFELDER V.
COMMISSIONER, 86 F.2D 713; GLASER V. COMMISSIONER, 69 F.2D 254; CARNEY
V. BENZ, 90 F.2D 747, 749; LOCKWOOD V. MCGOWAN, 13 F.SUPP.  966,
AFFIRMED 86 F.2D 1005.    FN14  TURNER V. COMMISSIONER, 85 F.2D 919;
COMMISSIONER V. BRYN MAWR TRUST CO., 87 F.2D 607, 609. 

FN15  SEE SEC. 302(C), 44 STAT. 70.  "THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE
OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME
OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY,  ...  (C) TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST
THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER,  ...  IN
CONTEMPLATION OF OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
AT OR AFTER HIS DEATH, EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE FOR AN
ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  ..."  SEE
ALSO SUBSECTION (D), 44 STAT. 71.    MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART
IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :















ZERBST V. KIDWELL, 304 U.S. 359 


NO. 782.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
756, REVERSED. 


A PRISONER SENTENCED TO A FEDERAL PENAL INSTITUTION FOR AN OFFENSE
COMMITTED WHILE HE WAS ON PAROLE FROM SUCH AN INSTITUTION MAY BE
REQUIRED BY THE PAROLE BOARD TO SERVE THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF HIS
FIRST SENTENCE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF HIS SECOND SENTENCE.  P. 363. 

ZERBST, WARDEN, V. KIDWELL* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 783, ZERBST, WARDEN, V. SMITH; NO. 784, SAME V.
COLLINS; NO. 785, SAME V. OWENS; NO. 786, SAME V. PEEL; NO. 787, SAME
V. JONES; NO. 788, SAME V. STONE; AND NO. 789, SAME V. SULLIVAN, ALSO
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 632, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS AFFIRMING ORDERS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DISCHARGING PRISONERS FROM CUSTODY, IN HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDINGS. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS WERE PAROLED BEFORE COMPLETING SENTENCES IN FEDERAL
PRISONS.  FN1  BEFORE EXPIRATION OF THEIR SENTENCES AND WHILE ON
PAROLE, THEY COMMITTED SECOND FEDERAL OFFENSES, FOR WHICH THEY WERE
CONVICTED, SENTENCED, AND THEREAFTER COMPLETELY SERVED SENTENCES IN THE
ATLANTA PENITENTIARY.  RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT, FROM THE MOMENT OF
THEIR IMPRISONMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY UNDER THE SECOND SENTENCES, THEY
ALSO BEGAN SERVICE OF THE UNEXPIRED PART OF THEIR ORIGINAL SENTENCES. 
IF THIS CONTENTION IS CORRECT RESPONDENTS HAVE ALSO COMPLETELY SERVED
THE UNEXPIRED PARTS OF THE FIRST SENTENCES. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN RESPONDENTS VIOLATED THEIR
PAROLES BY COMMITTING THE SECOND FEDERAL CRIMES, THEY WERE NO LONGER IN
CUSTODY UNDER THE FIRST SENTENCES; SERVICE OF THE FIRST SENTENCES WAS
INTERRUPTED AND SUSPENDED AND WAS NOT RESUMED BEFORE COMPLETION OF
SERVICE OF THE SECOND SENTENCES; AND THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF THE
SECOND SENTENCES, THE BOARD OF PAROLE HAS AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE
COMPLETION OF THE FIRST SENTENCES, SERVICE OF WHICH CEASED DUE TO THE
INTERRUPTION BY PAROLE VIOLATIONS. 

AFTER COMPLETION OF SERVICE OF THE SECOND SENTENCES, RESPONDENTS WERE
HELD IN CUSTODY BY THE WARDEN OF THE PENITENTIARY UNDER WARRANTS OF A
MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF PAROLE.  THE
DISTRICT COURT, BELIEVING THE FIRST SENTENCES "BEGAN TO RUN AGAIN THE
MOMENT  ... (RESPONDENTS WERE) RECEIVED AT THE PENITENTIARY,"
DISCHARGED RESPONDENTS FROM CUSTODY ON HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS.  FN2
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN3  DUE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  FN4 

WHEN RESPONDENT COMMITTED A FEDERAL CRIME WHILE ON PAROLE, FOR WHICH
HE WAS ARRESTED, CONVICTED, SENTENCED AND IMPRISONED, NOT ONLY WAS HIS
PAROLE VIOLATED, BUT SERVICE OF HIS ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS INTERRUPTED
AND SUSPENDED.  THEREAFTER, HIS IMPRISONMENT WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIS
SECOND SENTENCE ONLY, AND HIS RIGHTS AND STATUS AS TO HIS FIRST
SENTENCE WERE "ANALOGOUS TO THOSE OF AN ESCAPED CONVICT."  FN5  NOT
ONLY HAD HE - BY HIS OWN CONDUCT - FORFEITED THE PRIVILEGES GRANTED HIM
BY PAROLE, BUT SINCE HE WAS NO LONGER IN EITHER ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE
CUSTODY UNDER HIS FIRST SENTENCE, SERVICE UNDER THE SECOND SENTENCE CAN
NOT BE CREDITED TO THE FIRST WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE PLAIN INTENT
AND PURPOSE OF THE STATUTES PROVIDING FOR A PAROLE SYSTEM. 

THE PAROLE BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED SOLE AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST AND RETURN TO CUSTODY OF A PRISONER WHO
VIOLATES HIS PAROLE.  FN6  A MEMBER OF THE BOARD ORDERED THAT
RESPONDENT BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY AFTER COMPLETION OF THE SECOND
SENTENCE.  UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE SECOND SENTENCE - AND BEFORE THE
WARRANT WAS SERVED - RESPONDENT WAS IMPRISONED ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE
SECOND SENTENCE.  THERE IS, THEREFORE, NO QUESTION AS TO CONCURRENT
SERVICE OF SENTENCES, UNLESS - AS RESPONDENT CONTENDS - SEC. 723(C)
FN6  REQUIRED THAT THE UNEXPIRED PART OF RESPONDENT'S FIRST SENTENCE
BEGIN WHEN HE WAS IMPRISONED UNDER THE SECOND SENTENCE.  THAT SECTION
PROVIDES: 

"  ...  THE BOARD OF PAROLE  ...  OR ANY MEMBER THEREOF, SHALL HAVE
THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE WARRANTS FOR THE RETAKING OF ANY
UNITED STATES PRISONER WHO HAS VIOLATED HIS PAROLE.  THE UNEXPIRED TERM
OF IMPRISONMENT OF ANY SUCH PRISONER SHALL BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE DATE
HE IS RETURNED TO THE INSTITUTION, AND THE TIME THE PRISONER WAS ON
PAROLE SHALL NOT DIMINISH THE TIME HE WAS ORIGINALLY SENTENCED TO
SERVE." 

OBVIOUSLY, THIS PROVISION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A PAROLE VIOLATOR'S
ORIGINAL, UNEXPIRED SENTENCE SHALL BEGIN TO RUN FROM THE DATE HE IS
IMPRISONED FOR A NEW AND SEPARATE OFFENSE.  IT CAN ONLY REFER TO
REIMPRISONMENT ON THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE UNDER ORDER OF THE PAROLE
BOARD. 

SINCE SERVICE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE WAS INTERRUPTED BY PAROLE
VIOLATION, THE FULL TERM OF THAT SENTENCE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED.  JUST
AS RESPONDENT'S OWN MISCONDUCT (PAROLE VIOLATION) HAS PREVENTED
COMPLETION OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE, SO HAS IT CONTINUED THE AUTHORITY
OF THE BOARD OVER RESPONDENT UNTIL THAT SENTENCE IS COMPLETED AND
EXPIRES.  DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY IN THE BOARD TO REVOKE A PAROLE AT
ANY TIME BEFORE EXPIRATION OF A PAROLEE'S SENTENCE WAS PROVIDED - AND
IS NECESSARY - AS A MEANS OF INSURING THE PUBLIC THAT PAROLE VIOLATORS
WOULD BE PUNISHED.  FN7  THE PROPER WORKING OF THE PAROLE SYSTEM
REQUIRES THAT THE BOARD HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE, GUIDE AND CONTROL
PAROLE VIOLATORS WHOSE SENTENCES HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED.  IT IS NOT
REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT A PAROLEE WHOSE
CONDUCT MEASURES UP TO PAROLE STANDARDS SHOULD REMAIN UNDER CONTROL OF
THE BOARD UNTIL EXPIRATION OF THE TERM OF HIS SENTENCE, BUT THAT
MISCONDUCT OF A PAROLE VIOLATOR COULD RESULT IN REDUCING THE TIME
DURING WHICH THE BOARD HAS CONTROL OVER HIM TO A PERIOD LESS THAN HIS
ORIGINAL SENTENCE. 

PAROLE IS INTENDED TO BE A MEANS OF RESTORING OFFENDERS WHO ARE GOOD
SOCIAL RISKS TO SOCIETY; TO AFFORD THE UNFORTUNATE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY
BY CLEMENCY - UNDER GUIDANCE AND CONTROL OF THE BOARD.  FN8  UNLESS A
PAROLE VIOLATOR CAN BE REQUIRED TO SERVE SOME TIME IN PRISON IN
ADDITION TO THAT IMPOSED FOR AN OFFENCE COMMITTED WHILE ON PAROLE, HE
NOT ONLY ESCAPES PUNISHMENT FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF HIS ORIGINAL
SENTENCE, BUT THE DISCIPLINARY POWER OF THE BOARD WILL BE PRACTICALLY
NULLIFIED.  IF THE PAROLE LAWS SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS RESPONDENT
CONTENDS, PAROLE MIGHT BE MORE RELUCTANTLY GRANTED, CONTRARY TO THE
BROAD HUMANE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO GRANT RELIEF FROM IMPRISONMENT TO
DESERVING PRISONERS.  FN9 

RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT COMPLETED SERVICE OF THEIR ORIGINAL SENTENCES
AND WERE NOT ENTITLED TO RELEASE.  THE CAUSES ARE REVERSED AND REMANDED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SOME WERE RELEASED WITH CREDIT FOR GOOD CONDUCT BUT ARE TREATED
AS ON PAROLE UNTIL THEIR MAXIMUM TERMS HAVE EXPIRED.  18 U.S.C., C. 22,
SEC. 716(B). 

FN2  19 F.SUPP.  475.  RESPONDENTS FILED SEPARATE PETITIONS FOR HABEAS
CORPUS RAISING SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL ISSUES, WHICH WILL BE TREATED
TOGETHER HERE, AND THE RESPONDENTS WILL BE DEALT WITH AS ONE. 

FN3  92 F.2D 756. 

FN4  303 U.S. 632. 

FN5  ANDERSON V. CORALL, 263 U.S. 193, 196, 197. 

FN6  18 U.S.C., C. 22, SEC. 723(C). 

FN7  THE PAROLE SYSTEM WAS INTENDED TO MAKE PAROLE DISCRETIONARY "AND
REVOCABLE AT ANY TIME ... (THE PAROLE AUTHORITY) MAY ELECT TO REVOKE
IT," CONG. REC., VOL. 45, P. 6374.  "  ...  THE PRISONER IS UNDER THE
ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THAT BOARD, AND HE MAY BE APPREHENDED AND RETURNED
AT ANY TIME ON VIOLATION OF HIS PAROLE.  THOSE ARE THE SAFEGUARDS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY."  ID., P. 6377. 

THE GOVERNING ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT:  "  ...  IF SAID (RETAKEN)
PRISONER SHALL HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO SAID PRISON, HE SHALL BE GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF PAROLE, AND THE BOARD MAY
THEN, OR AT ANY TIME IN ITS DISCRETION, REVOKE THE ORDER AND TERMINATE
SUCH PAROLE OR MODIFY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF.  ...  "  18
U.S.C., C. 22, SEC. 719. 

FN8  SEE CONG. RECORD, VOL. 45, P. 6374; UNITED STATES V. MURRAY, 275
U.S. 347, 357. 

FN9  CF., UNITED STATES V. FARRELL, 87 F.2D 957, 961. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 
..END :



















GEN. ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH CO., 304 U.S. 364 


NO. 453.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 7, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 16, 1938.  - 91 F.2D
904, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PRODUCT CLAIMS 25-27, OF PATENT NO. 1,410,499, TO PACZ, FOR A
FILAMENT FOR ELECTRIC INCANDESCENT LAMPS OR OTHER DEVICES, COMPOSED
SUBSTANTIALLY OF TUNGSTEN AND MADE UP MAINLY OF A NUMBER OF
COMPARATIVELY LARGE GRAINS OF SUCH SIZE AND CONTOUR AS TO PREVENT
SUBSTANTIAL SAGGING AND OFFSETTING DURING A NORMAL OR COMMERCIALLY
USEFUL LIFE FOR SUCH A LAMP OR OTHER DEVICE, HELD VOID FOR WANT OF A
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE DISCLOSURE.  R.S. SEC. 4888; 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33. 
P. 368. 

2.  CLAIMED INVENTIONS, IMPROVEMENTS AND DISCOVERIES, TURNING ON
POINTS SO REFINED AS THE GRANULAR STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTS, REQUIRE
PRECISE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE NEW CHARACTERISTIC FOR WHICH PROTECTION IS
SOUGHT.  IN A LIMITED FIELD THE VARIANT MUST BE CLEARLY DEFINED.  P.
369. 

3.  A PATENTEE MAY NOT BROADEN HIS PRODUCT CLAIMS BY DESCRIBING THE
PRODUCT IN TERMS OF FUNCTION.  P. 370. 

4.  A LIMITED USE OF TERMS OF EFFECT OR RESULT, WHICH ACCURATELY
DEFINE THE ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OF A PRODUCT TO ONE SKILLED IN THE ART,
MAY IN SOME INSTANCES BE PERMISSIBLE AND EVEN DESIRABLE, BUT A
CHARACTERISTIC ESSENTIAL TO NOVELTY MAY NOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE
OLD ART SOLELY BY ITS TENDENCY TO REMEDY THE PROBLEMS IN THE ART MET BY
THE PATENT.  P. 371. 

5.  THE DIFFICULTY OF MAKING ADEQUATE DESCRIPTION MAY HAVE SOME
BEARING ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DESCRIPTION ATTEMPTED, BUT IT CAN NOT
JUSTIFY A CLAIM DESCRIBING NOTHING NEW EXCEPT PERHAPS IN FUNCTIONAL
TERMS.  P. 372. 

6.  A PATENTEE WHO DOES NOT DISTINGUISH HIS PRODUCT FROM WHAT IS OLD
EXCEPT BY REFERENCE, EXPRESS OR CONSTRUCTIVE, TO THE PROCESS BY WHICH
HE PRODUCED IT, CAN NOT SECURE A MONOPOLY ON THE PRODUCT BY WHATEVER
MEANS PRODUCED.  P. 373. 

7.  THE PRODUCT CLAIMS IN QUESTION, WHICH SEEK TO MONOPOLIZE THE
PRODUCT HOWEVER CREATED, MAY NOT BE SAVED BY A LIMITATION TO PRODUCTS
MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCESSES SET OUT IN THE SPECIFICATION.  P.
374. 

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. WABASH APPLIANCE CORP. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 676, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE FOR
INJUNCTION AND ACCOUNTING IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, BROUGHT THIS PATENT
INFRINGEMENT SUIT BASED ON PACZ PATENT NO. 1,410,499, RELATING TO A
TUNGSTEN FILAMENT FOR INCANDESCENT LAMPS.  THE PATENT, ISSUED MARCH 21,
1922, ON AN APPLICATION FILED FEBRUARY 20, 1917, CONTAINS PROCESS AND
PRODUCT CLAIMS; ONLY THE LATTER ARE HERE INVOLVED.  THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR EASTERN NEW YORK HELD CLAIMS 25, 26 AND 27 VALID AND INFRINGED, AND
GAVE PETITIONER A DECREE FOR AN INJUNCTION AND ACCOUNTING.  17 F.SUPP. 
901.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT HELD THAT
PETITIONER'S PRODUCT WAS ANTICIPATED BY FILAMENTS PRODUCED UNDER THE
TEACHINGS OF THE COOLIDGE PATENT NO. 1,082,933, AND REVERSED WITH
DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  91 F.2D 904.  THIS
DECISION CONFLICTED WITH THAT HANDED DOWN BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, ANRAKU V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 80 F.2D 958, WHICH
HELD THE SAME CLAIMS VALID AND INFRINGED.  TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT,
THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

IN INCANDESCENT LAMPS, THE TUNGSTEN FILAMENT, THROUGH WHICH THE
ELECTRIC CURRENT PASSES, GROWS MORE LUMINOUS THAN THE CARBON FILAMENT
OF THE EARLY DAYS OF THE ART. THERE WERE FAULTS OF "OFFSETTING" AND
"SAGGING," HOWEVER, AFFECTING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE FIRST TUNGSTEN
FILAMENTS.  "OFFSETTING" OCCURS WHEN, DURING HEATING IN THE USE OF THE
LAMP, THE FILAMENT FORMS CRYSTALS WHICH EXTEND THEIR BOUNDARIES ACROSS
THE ENTIRE DIAMETER OF THE FILAMENT, SUBSTANTIALLY PERPENDICULAR TO ITS
AXIS.  THE CRYSTALS IN THE FILAMENT THUS COME TO HAVE AN APPEARANCE,
SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS TO THE JOINTS IN A BAMBOO ROD.  LATERAL SLIPPING OF
THE CRYSTALS REDUCES THE CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA AT THE POINT OF CONTACT
OF THE CRYSTALS WITH THE RESULT THAT THE TEMPERATURE AT THAT POINT IS
INCREASED, THUS HASTENING THE BURNOUT, AND THE FILAMENT IS WEAKENED. 
"SAGGING" IS A CHANGE OF POSITION BY THE FILAMENT DURING
INCANDESCENCE.  IT ELONGATES AND THUS IS FORCED OUT OF THE PLANE IT
OCCUPIED BETWEEN FIXED SUPPORTS.  SAGGING HAS MANY OBJECTIONS.  THE
SAGGING FILAMENT MAY TOUCH THE GLASS AND END THE LIFE OF THE LAMP.  IN
GAS-FILLED LAMPS, WHEN SAGGING CAUSES THE COILS TO SPREAD APART, THE
GAS FLOWS IN BETWEEN THE COILS AND UNDULY COOLS THE FILAMENT. 
COMBATTING SAGGING BY ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS IS ALSO SAID TO COOL THE
FILAMENT, AND REDUCE ELECTRICAL EFFICIENCY. 

PACZ UNDERTOOK TO REMEDY THESE FAULTS.  HE CARRIED OUT MANY
EXPERIMENTS, AND HIS 218TH EFFORT, MADE WHILE HE WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF
PETITIONER COMPANY, YIELDED THE DISCOVERY DISCLOSED BY THE PATENT IN
SUIT.  THE SPECIFICATION ASSERTS THAT BY MEANS OF HIS INVENTION "THE
SAGGING IS SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATED AND 'OFFSETTING' OF THE FILAMENT IS
SUBSTANTIALLY PREVENTED, DURING A NORMAL OR COMMERCIALLY USEFUL LIFE OF
THE LAMP."  HE BRINGS "INTO INTIMATE ASSOCIATION WITH TUNGSTEN A
MATERIAL (AN ALKALINE SILICATE) WHICH WILL HAVE THE DESIRED INFLUENCE
UPON THE GRAIN GROWTH OF THE METAL."  THE SPECIFICATION CONTINUES AS
FOLLOWS: 

"WHEN THE METAL REACHES THE TEMPERATURE AT WHICH EXTENSIVE GRAIN
GROWTH WOULD ORDINARILY TAKE PLACE, THE PRESENCE OF THIS MATERIAL
INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE TUNGSTEN PARTICLES HAS A MARKED EFFECT
ON THE SHAPE AND SIZE OF THE TUNGSTEN GRAINS.  THE INGOT OF TUNGSTEN
THUS PRODUCED, WHETHER IT BE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE GRAINS HAVE NOT
REACHED THE EQUILIBRIUM GRAIN SIZE OR TO OTHER CAUSES, IS PARTICULARLY
SUSCEPTIBLE TO GRAIN GROWTH DURING SUBSEQUENT HEAT TREATMENTS. 

"THE PROBABLE REASON WHY FILAMENTS MADE ACCORDING TO MY INVENTION DO
NOT SAG, IS THAT THE STRUCTURE IS COMPARATIVELY COARSE GRAINED.  THE
COARSE GRAINED FILAMENT PRODUCED BY MEANS OF MY INVENTION DOES NOT
'OFFSET' SO AS TO CUT SHORT THE LIFE OF THE LAMP APPRECIABLY." 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT PACZ'S PATENT EXHIBITED NOVELTY AND
INVENTION; THAT PACZ PRODUCED LARGE CRYSTALS EARLY IN THE LIFE OF THE
LAMP; THAT ALTHOUGH COARSE-GRAINED AND THUS NON-SAGGING, FILAMENTS
MEANT "OFFSETTING" TO THE ART, WHERE IT WAS "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" THAT
GRAINS LARGE ENOUGH TO EXTEND ACROSS THE FILAMENT INDUCED SLIPPAGE,
PACZ PROCURED A PARTICULAR KIND OF COARSE-GRAINED FILAMENT WHICH DID
NOT "OFFSET" BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GRAINS,
THEIR CONTOUR BEING "A VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT." 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE PACZ PRODUCT WAS
ANTICIPATED BY PATENT NO. 1,082,933, ISSUED DECEMBER 30, 1913, TO
WILLIAM D. COOLIDGE FOR A PROCESS OF PRODUCING DUCTILE TUNGSTEN FOR
INCANDESCENT ELECTRIC LAMP FILAMENTS AND FOR THE PRODUCT ITSELF. 

THE QUESTION BEFORE THIS COURT IS THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIMS IN
SUIT.  CLAIM 25, WHICH IS TYPICAL, FN1  READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"25.  A FILAMENT FOR ELECTRIC INCANDESCENT LAMPS OR OTHER DEVICES,
COMPOSED SUBSTANTIALLY OF TUNGSTEN AND MADE UP MAINLY OF A NUMBER OF
COMPARATIVELY LARGE GRAINS OF SUCH SIZE AND CONTOUR AS TO PREVENT
SUBSTANTIAL SAGGING AND OFFSETTING DURING A NORMAL OR COMMERCIALLY
USEFUL LIFE FOR SUCH A LAMP OR OTHER DEVICE." 

WE NEED NOT INQUIRE WHETHER PACZ EXHIBITED INVENTION, OR WHETHER HIS
PRODUCT WAS ANTICIPATED.  THE CLAIM IS INVALID ON ITS FACE.  IT FAILS
TO MAKE A DISCLOSURE SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS
OF R.S. SEC. 4888, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33.  THAT SECTION REQUIRES THAT AN
APPLICANT FOR A PATENT FILE A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF HIS DISCOVERY OR
INVENTION "IN SUCH FULL, CLEAR, CONCISE, AND EXACT TERMS AS TO ENABLE
ANY PERSON SKILLED IN THE ART OR SCIENCE TO WHICH IT APPERTAINS  ...
TO MAKE, CONSTRUCT, COMPOUND AND USE THE SAME; ...  AND HE SHALL
PARTICULARLY POINT OUT AND DISTINCTLY CLAIM THE PART, IMPROVEMENT, OR
COMBINATION WHICH HE CLAIMS AS HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY."  WE MAY
ASSUME THAT PACZ HAS SUFFICIENTLY INFORMED THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART HOW
TO MAKE AND USE HIS FILAMENT.  THE STATUTE HAS ANOTHER COMMAND. 
RECOGNIZING THAT MOST INVENTIONS REPRESENT IMPROVEMENTS ON SOME
EXISTING ARTICLE, PROCESS OR MACHINE, AND THAT A DESCRIPTION OF THE
INVENTION MUST IN LARGE PART SET OUT WHAT IS OLD IN ORDER TO FACILITATE
THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS NEW, CONGRESS REQUIRES OF THE APPLICANT "A
DISTINCT AND SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF WHAT HE CLAIMS TO BE NEW, AND TO BE
HIS INVENTION."  FN2  PATENTS, WHETHER BASIC OR FOR IMPROVEMENTS, MUST
COMPLY ACCURATELY AND PRECISELY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AS TO
CLAIMS OF INVENTION OR DISCOVERY.  THE LIMITS OF A PATENT MUST BE KNOWN
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PATENTEE, THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE INVENTIVE
GENIUS OF OTHERS AND THE ASSURANCE THAT THE SUBJECT OF THE PATENT WILL
BE DEDICATED ULTIMATELY TO THE PUBLIC.  FN3  THE STATUTE SEEKS TO GUARD
AGAINST UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGES TO THE PATENTEE AND DISADVANTAGES TO
OTHERS ARISING FROM UNCERTAINTY AS TO THEIR RIGHTS.  FN4  THE INVENTOR
MUST "INFORM THE PUBLIC DURING THE LIFE OF THE PATENT OF THE LIMITS OF
THE MONOPOLY ASSERTED, SO THAT IT MAY BE KNOWN WHICH FEATURES MAY BE
SAFELY USED OR MANUFACTURED WITHOUT A LICENSE AND WHICH MAY NOT."  FN5
THE CLAIMS "MEASURE THE INVENTION."  FN6 PATENTEES MAY REASONABLY
ANTICIPATE THAT CLAIMED INVENTIONS, IMPROVEMENTS AND DISCOVERIES,
TURNING ON POINTS SO REFINED AS THE GRANULAR STRUCTURE OF PRODUCTS,
REQUIRE PRECISE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE NEW CHARACTERISTIC FOR WHICH
PROTECTION IS SOUGHT.  IN A LIMITED FIELD THE VARIANT MUST BE CLEARLY
DEFINED.  THIS WAS ONE IN A SERIES OF PATENTS.  UNITED STATES V.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476, 480. 

PACZ DID NOT ADEQUATELY SET OUT "WHAT HE CLAIMS TO BE NEW."  THE
TUNGSTEN FILAMENT "MADE UP MAINLY OF A NUMBER OF COMPARATIVELY LARGE
GRAINS," DIFFERENTIATES THE CLAIMED INVENTION FROM TUNGSTEN DRAWN INTO
A SINGLE CRYSTAL (SCHALLER NO. 1,256,930), AND FROM COOLIDGE'S FINE
GRAINED THORIATED FILAMENT, BUT SERVES APTLY TO DESCRIBE THE PRODUCT OF
EARLIER MANUFACTURE, WITH ITS LARGE REGULAR GRAINS SUBJECT TO
OFFSETTING.  ACCORDING TO THE DISTRICT COURT, THE EARLIEST, SO-CALLED
"SQUIRTED," TUNGSTEN FILAMENTS, ALSO "CONSISTED OF COMPARATIVELY LARGE
CRYSTALS, MANY OF WHICH WERE LARGE ENOUGH TO EXTEND CLEAR ACROSS THE
FILAMENT, BUT THEY SHIFTED."  17 F.SUPP.  AT 902.  THE FAILURE OF THE
PATENTEE TO MAKE CLAIM TO A DISTINCT IMPROVEMENT IS MADE CLEAR BY
COMPARISON OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIMS UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH
DESCRIPTIONS OF OFFSET DIFFICULTIES RECOGNIZED BY OTHER INVENTORS. 
FN7 

THE CLAIM FURTHER STATES THAT THE GRAINS MUST BE "OF SUCH SIZE AND
CONTOUR AS TO PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL SAGGING AND OFFSETTING" DURING A
COMMERCIALLY USEFUL LIFE FOR THE LAMP.  THE CLAUSE IS INADEQUATE AS A
DESCRIPTION OF THE STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GRAINS.  APART
FROM THE STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEIR FUNCTION, NOTHING SAID ABOUT
THEIR SIZE DISTINGUISHES THE EARLIEST FILAMENTS, AND NOTHING WHATEVER
IS SAID WHICH IS DESCRIPTIVE OF THEIR CONTOUR (TERMED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT A "VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT"), NOT EVEN THAT THEY ARE IRREGULAR. 

THE CLAIM USES INDETERMINATE ADJECTIVES WHICH DESCRIBE THE FUNCTION
OF THE GRAINS TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY STRUCTURAL DEFINITION, AND THUS
FALLS WITHIN THE CONDEMNATION OF THE DOCTRINE THAT A PATENTEE MAY NOT
BROADEN HIS PRODUCT CLAIMS BY DESCRIBING THE PRODUCT IN TERMS OF
FUNCTION.  FN8  CLAIM 25 VIVIDLY ILLUSTRATES THE VICE OF A DESCRIPTION
IN TERMS OF FUNCTION.  "AS A DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION IT IS
INSUFFICIENT AND IF ALLOWED WOULD EXTEND THE MONOPOLY BEYOND THE
INVENTION."  FN9  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RELIED ON
THE FACT THAT THE DESCRIPTION IN THE CLAIMS IS NOT "WHOLLY"
FUNCTIONAL.  FN10  80 F.2D 958, 963.  BUT THE VICE OF A FUNCTIONAL
CLAIM EXISTS NOT ONLY WHEN A CLAIM IS "WHOLLY" FUNCTIONAL, IF THAT IS
EVER TRUE, BUT ALSO WHEN THE INVENTOR IS PAINSTAKING WHEN HE RECITES
WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SEEN, AND THEN USES CONVENIENTLY FUNCTIONAL
LANGUAGE AT THE EXACT POINT OF NOVELTY.  FN11 

A LIMITED USE OF TERMS OF EFFECT OR RESULT, WHICH ACCURATELY DEFINE
THE ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OF A PRODUCT TO ONE SKILLED IN THE ART, MAY IN
SOME INSTANCES BE PERMISSIBLE AND EVEN DESIRABLE, BUT A CHARACTERISTIC
ESSENTIAL TO NOVELTY MAY NOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OLD ART SOLELY
BY ITS TENDENCY TO REMEDY THE PROBLEMS IN THE ART MET BY THE PATENT. 
AND WE MAY DOUBT WHETHER THE LANGUAGE USED IN CLAIM 25, TAKEN BY
ITSELF, CONVEYED DEFINITE MEANING TO THOSE SKILLED IN THE ART OF
INCANDESCENT LIGHTING.  FN12 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BELOW SUGGESTED THAT "IN VIEW OF THE
DIFFICULTY, IF NOT IMPOSSIBILITY, OF DESCRIBING ADEQUATELY A NUMBER OF
MICROSCOPIC AND HETEROGENEOUS SHAPES OF CRYSTALS, IT MAY BE THAT PACZ
MADE THE BEST DISCLOSURE POSSIBLE,  ...  "  BUT CONGRESS REQUIRES, FOR
THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC, THAT THE INVENTOR SET OUT A DEFINITE
LIMITATION OF HIS PATENT; THAT CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED BEFORE THE
MONOPOLY IS GRANTED.  FN13  THE DIFFICULTY OF MAKING ADEQUATE
DESCRIPTION MAY HAVE SOME BEARING ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DESCRIPTION
ATTEMPTED, BUT IT CANNOT JUSTIFY A CLAIM DESCRIBING NOTHING NEW EXCEPT
PERHAPS IN FUNCTIONAL TERMS.  IT MAY BE DOUBTED WHETHER ONE WHO
DISCOVERS OR INVENTS A PRODUCT HE KNOWS TO BE NEW WILL EVER FIND IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO DESCRIBE SOME ASPECT OF ITS NOVELTY. 

THE PRODUCT CLAIMS HERE INVOLVED CANNOT BE VALIDATED BY REFERENCE TO
THE SPECIFICATION.  ASSUMING THAT IN A PROPER CASE A CLAIM MAY BE
UPHELD BY REFERENCE TO THE DESCRIPTIVE PART OF THE SPECIFICATION IN
ORDER TO GIVE DEFINITE CONTENT TO ELEMENTS STATED IN THE CLAIM IN BROAD
OR FUNCTIONAL TERMS,  FN14  THE SPECIFICATION OF THE PACZ PATENT DOES
NOT ATTEMPT IN ANY WAY TO DESCRIBE THE FILAMENT, EXCEPT BY MENTION OF
ITS COARSE-GRAINED QUALITY.  EVEN ASSUMING THAT DEFINITENESS MAY BE
IMPARTED TO THE PRODUCT CLAIM BY THAT PART OF THE SPECIFICATION WHICH
PURPORTEDLY DETAILS ONLY A METHOD OF MAKING THE PRODUCT,  FN15  THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE PACZ PROCESS IS LIKEWISE SILENT AS TO THE NATURE OF
THE FILAMENT PRODUCT.  ALTHOUGH IN SOME INSTANCES A CLAIM MAY VALIDLY
DESCRIBE A NEW PRODUCT WITH SOME REFERENCE TO THE METHOD OF PRODUCTION,
FN16  A PATENTEE WHO DOES NOT DISTINGUISH HIS PRODUCT FROM WHAT IS OLD
EXCEPT BY REFERENCE, EXPRESS OR CONSTRUCTIVE, TO THE PROCESS BY WHICH
HE PRODUCED IT, CANNOT SECURE A MONOPOLY ON THE PRODUCT BY WHATEVER
MEANS PRODUCED.  "EVERY PATENT FOR A PRODUCT OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER
MUST IDENTIFY IT SO THAT IT CAN BE RECOGNIZED ASIDE FROM THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS FOR MAKING IT, OR ELSE NOTHING CAN BE HELD
TO INFRINGE THE PATENT WHICH IS NOT MADE BY THAT PROCESS."  FN17 

FINALLY, THE PRODUCT CLAIMS MAY NOT BE SAVED BY A LIMITATION TO
PRODUCTS PRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCESS SET OUT IN THE
SPECIFICATION.  THIS CONSTRUCTION, THOUGH POSSIBLY OF NO AVAIL AGAINST
RESPONDENT, MIGHT ADD TO THE PROTECTION AFFORDED PETITIONER BY THE
PROCESS CLAIMS, IF THEY ARE VALID, IN VIEW OF ITS APPLICATION TO
FILAMENTS PRODUCED ABROAD.  BUT PUTTING ASIDE QUESTIONS AS TO THE
GENERAL PROPRIETY OF SUCH A CONSTRUCTION,  FN18  UNLESS THE CLAIM USES
LANGUAGE EXPLICITLY REFERRING TO THE METHOD OF PREPARATION, OR
DESCRIBING THE PRODUCT IN PHRASES SUGGESTIVE OF THAT PROCESS,  FN19  TO
SAVE THE PRODUCT CLAIM IN THIS FASHION WOULD CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER
IMPORTATION INTO THE CLAIM OF A FACTOR NOWHERE DESCRIBED THERE.  FN20
THE CLAIMS IN SUIT SEEK TO MONOPOLIZE THE PRODUCT HOWEVER CREATED, AND
MAY NOT BE REWORDED, IN AN EFFORT TO ESTABLISH THEIR VALIDITY, TO COVER
ONLY THE PRODUCTS OF THE PROCESS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATION, OR ITS
EQUIVALENT.    FOR REASONS SET OUT, CLAIMS 25, 26, 27 ARE INVALID.  THE
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "26.  A DRAWN FILAMENT FOR ELECTRIC INCANDESCENT LAMPS OR OTHER
DEVICES, COMPOSED SUBSTANTIALLY OF TUNGSTEN AND MADE UP MAINLY OF A
NUMBER OF COMPARATIVELY LARGE GRAINS OF SUCH SIZE AND CONTOUR AS TO
PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL SAGGING AND OFF-SETTING DURING A NORMAL OR
COMMERCIALLY USEFUL LIFE FOR SUCH A LAMP OR OTHER DEVICE. 

"27.  A FILAMENT FOR ELECTRIC INCANDESCENT LAMPS OR OTHER DEVICES,
COMPOSED OF TUNGSTEN CONTAINING LESS THAN THREE-FOURTHS OF ONE PERCENT
OF NON-METALLIC MATERIAL AND MADE UP MAINLY OF COMPARATIVELY LARGE
GRAINS OF SUCH SIZE AND CONTOUR AS TO PREVENT SUBSTANTIAL SAGGING OR
OFFSETTING DURING A NORMAL OR COMMERCIALLY USEFUL LIFE FOR SUCH A LAMP
OR OTHER DEVICE." 

FN2  MERRILL V. YEOMANS, 94 U.S. 568, 570. 

FN3  CF. THE INCANDESCENT LAMP PATENT, 159 U.S. 465, 474 FF. 

FN4  SEE BROOKS V. FISKE, 15 HOW.  212, 215. 

FN5  PERMUTIT CO. V. GRAVER CORP., 284 U.S. 52, 60; GRANT V. RAYMOND,
6 PET. 218, 247. 

FN6  CONTINENTAL PAPER BAG CO. V. EASTERN PAPER BAG CO., 210 U.S.
405, 419. 

FN7  "WHEN THIS CRYSTALLIZATION BECOMES EXCESSIVE THE CRYSTALS MAY,
IN THE CASE OF A FILAMENT, BECOME SO LARGE AS TO EXTEND ACROSS THE
ENTIRE SECTION OF THE FILAMENT AND THEREUPON THE SECTIONS MAY MOVE
LATERALLY UPON EACH OTHER AND PRODUCE THE CONDITION KNOWN AS
'OFFSETTING.'  I SHALL HEREINAFTER DESCRIBE MORE IN DETAIL THE SPECIAL
METHOD WHICH I EMPLOY FOR MINIMIZING THE LOSS IN DUCTILITY AND FOR
PREVENTING THIS OFFSETTING EFFECT."  COOLIDGE PATENT, NO. 1,082,933. 

"SUCH CRYSTALS SEEM TO INCREASE IN SIZE IN MUCH THE SAME MANNER AS
CRYSTALS FORMED IN LIQUID SOLUTIONS, AND, IF THE CRYSTALS BECOME LARGE
ENOUGH TO EXTEND ALMOST OR ENTIRELY ACROSS THE FILAMENT, ADJACENT
CRYSTALS TEND TO SLIP ALONG THEIR CLEAVAGE PLANES THEREBY GIVING THE
FILAMENT THE OFFSET OR FAULTED APPEARANCE ABOVE REFERRED TO."  MYERS
AND HALL PATENT, NO. 1,363,162. 

FN8  HOLLAND FURNITURE CO. V. PERKINS GLUE CO., 277 U.S. 245, 256
258, AND CASES CITED. 

FN9  277 U.S. AT 258. 

FN10  PRESUMABLY THAT COURT WOULD HAVE ASSENTED TO THE CONDEMNATION
OF OTHER PRODUCT CLAIMS OF THE PATENT IN SUIT, CONTAINING EVEN LESS
DESCRIPTION THAN THE ONES UNDER DISCUSSION: 

"28.  A COILED FILAMENT COMPOSED SUBSTANTIALLY OF TUNGSTEN AND CAPABLE
OF USE IN AN ELECTRIC INCANDESCENT LAMP WITHOUT EITHER SUBSTANTIAL
SAGGING OR OFFSETTING DURING A NORMAL OR COMMERCIALLY USEFUL LIFE. 

"29.  A COILED FILAMENT COMPOSED MAINLY OF DRAWN TUNGSTEN AND CAPABLE
OF USE IN AN ELECTRIC INCANDESCENT LAMP WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL SAGGING AND
WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL OFFSETTING DURING A NORMAL OR COMMERCIALLY USEFUL
LIFE." 

FN11  SEE GYNEX CORP. V. DILEX INSTITUTE, 85 F.2D 103, 105; DAVIS CO.
V. NEW DEPARTURE CO., 217 F. 775, AT 782. 

FN12  THERE IS NO SHOWING WHETHER, UNDER ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES IN
THE SCIENCE, THE LANGUAGE INDICATED GRAINS EXTENDING ACROSS THE WIDTH
OF FILAMENT, AND IF SO WHETHER THE BOUNDARIES WERE IRREGULAR, OR
REGULAR BUT NOT PERPENDICULAR TO THE AXIS OF THE FILAMENT; OR WHETHER
THE LANGUAGE INDICATED GRAINS LARGER THAN THE FINE GRAINS OF COOLIDGE'S
THORIATED FILAMENT BUT NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO EXTEND ACROSS THE ENTIRE

INDEED, THOSE MERELY SKILLED MIGHT HAVE SUSPECTED THE ABSENCE OF
CRYSTALS LARGE ENOUGH TO EXTEND ACROSS THE ENTIRE SECTION OF THE
FILAMENT, IN VIEW OF THE EFFORTS OF OTHER PATENTEES TO AVOID SUCH
CRYSTALS, (COOLIDGE, NO. 1,082,933, P. 2, 1.  13; MYERS AND HALL, NO.
1,363,162, P. 1, 1.  56), AND IN VIEW OF THE "COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE
ART THAT WHERE GRAIN BOUNDARIES, LARGE ENOUGH TO EXTEND ACROSS THE
FILAMENT, WERE PRODUCED, THERE WOULD BE BOUND TO BE SLIPPAGE" (17
F.SUPP.  901, AT 903); YET THOSE ARE THE CRYSTALS FOUND IN RESPONDENT'S
LAMPS. 

FN13  DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS MAY APPLY UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 23,
1930, C. 312, SEC. 2, 46 STAT. 376, 35 U.S.C. SEC. 33, PROVIDING THAT
NO "PLANT PATENT SHALL BE DECLARED INVALID ON THE GROUND OF NON
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION IF THE DESCRIPTION IS MADE AS COMPLETE AS
IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE." 

FN14  COMPARE MITCHELL V. TILGHMAN, 19 WALL.  287, 391; WESTINGHOUSE
V. BOYDEN POWER BRAKE CO., 170 U.S. 537, 557-558. 

FN15  COMPARE HOLLAND FURNITURE CO. V. PERKINS GLUE CO., 277 U.S. AT
255, WITH UNITED STATES REPAIR & GUARANTEE CO. V. ASSYRIAN ASPHALT CO.,
183 U.S. 591, AT 600-601. 

FN16  CF. DUNN WIRE-CUT LUG BRICK CO. V. TORONTO FIRE CLAY CO., 259
F. 258, 261; TRUSSELL MFG. CO. V. WILSON-JONES CO., 50 F.2D 1027,
1029. 

FN17  COCHRANE V. BADISCHE ANILIN & SODA FABRIK, 111 U.S. 293, 310. 
SEE ALSO HIDE-ITE LEATHER CO. V. FIBER PRODUCTS CO., 226 F. 34, 36; CF.
MAURER V. DICKERSON, 113 F. 870, 874. 

SEE ALSO NATIONAL CARBON CO. V. WESTERN SHADE CLOTH CO., 93 F.2D 94,
97: 

"IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT A CLAIM FOR A PRODUCT PRODUCED BY ANY PROCESS
WHICH WILL PRODUCE A LIKE RESULT COVERS THE PRODUCT ONLY WHEN MADE BY
EQUIVALENT PROCESSES.  PICKHARDT V. PACKARD (C.C.), 22 F. 530." 

FN18  STEINFUR PATENTS CORP. V. WILLIAM BEYER, INC., 62 F.2D 238,
241; BUONO V. YANKEE MAID DRESS CORP., 77 F.2D 274, 279; DUNN WIRE-CUT
LUG BRICK CO. V. TORONTO FIRE CLAY CO., 259 F. 258, 261-262. 

FN19  SMITH V. GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE CO., 93 U.S. 486; COCHRANE
V. BADISCHE ANILIN & SODA FABRIK, 111 U.S. 293, 310; PLUMMER V.
SARGENT, 120 U.S. 442, 448; DOWNES V. TETER-HEANY DEVELOPMENT CO., 150
F. 122; HIDE-ITE LEATHER CO. V. FIBER PRODUCTS CO., 226 F. 34. 

FN20  COMPARE MCCARTY V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 160 U.S. 110, 116;
ALTOONA PUBLIX THEATRES V. AMERICAN TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477,
487. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :









CROWN CORK CO. V. GUTMANN CO., 304 U.S. 159 


NO. 72.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 2, 1938.  - 86 F.2D
698, REVERSED. 


1.  REVIEW ON CERTIORARI IS CONFINED TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE
PETITION FOR THE WRIT.  P. 161. 

2.  ABANDONMENT, AS A DEFENSE IN A SUIT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, MUST
BE PLEADED OR NOTICED, UNDER R.S. SEC. 4920.  P. 165. 

AN APPLICANT FOR PATENT DOES NOT ABANDON AN INVENTION BY WITHDRAWING
THE DISCLOSURE OF IT, AND A CORRESPONDING CLAIM, FROM AN EARLIER
APPLICATION, WHEN THE SAME DISCLOSURE IS KEPT CONTINUOUSLY BEFORE THE
PATENT OFFICE THROUGH HIS SUCCESSIVE DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS. 

THE CONTINUITY SO MAINTAINED SHOWS AN INTENTION TO RETAIN, NOT TO
ABANDON, THE INVENTION. 

3.  W APPLIED FOR AND OBTAINED PATENT FOR A METHOD OF APPLYING
"CENTER SPOTS" TO THE CORK CUSHIONS OF CROWN CAPS USED TO SEAL BOTTLES
CONTAINING BEVERAGES UNDER PRESSURE, THE CENTER SPOTS SERVING TO
PREVENT CONTACT OF THE LIQUID WITH THE CORK.  THE PATENTED METHOD
REQUIRED SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF PRESSURE AND HEAT TO THE CENTER
SPOT TO MAKE IT STICK TO THE CORK CUSHION IN THE CAP AT THE TIME OF
ASSEMBLY.  A DISCLOSURE OF THE MEANS OF APPLYING THE HEAT BY PREHEATING
THE CROWN CAPS WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE PATENT
ISSUED, BUT WAS PRESERVED IN DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS.  BEFORE THE
PATENT ISSUED, J FILED APPLICATION CLAIMING THIS MEANS OF PREHEATING
AND LATER OBTAINED PATENT.  A YEAR THEREAFTER, BUT MORE THAN TWO YEARS
AFTER THE DATE OF HIS OWN PATENT, W COPIED J'S CLAIMS IN A DIVISIONAL
APPLICATION, UPON WHICH, AFTER INTERFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, HE WAS AWARDED
A PATENT.  HELD: THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF INTERVENING RIGHTS, THE DELAY
OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS NEEDED NO SPECIAL EXCUSE AND DID NOT INVALIDATE
THE DIVISIONAL PATENT.  WEBSTER CO. V. SPLITDORF CO., 264 U.S. 463,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 165. 

4.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ABANDONMENT OR INTERVENTION OF ADVERSE RIGHTS,
MERE DELAY OF NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN FILING DIVISIONAL APPLICATION
AFTER AN INTERVENING PATENT OR PUBLICATION, DOES NOT OPERATE TO ENLARGE
THE PATENT MONOPOLY BEYOND THAT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PATENT LAW.  R.S.
SEC. 4886.  P. 167. 

CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. V. FERDINAND GUTMANN CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 664, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE, 14
F.SUPP.  255, SUSTAINING TWO PATENTS AND ENJOINING INFRINGEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER SUED RESPONDENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN NEW YORK
TO ENJOIN INFRINGEMENTS OF PATENTS, TWO OF WHICH ARE HERE INVOLVED. 
ONE IS WARTH REISSUE PATENT, NO. 19,117, DATED MARCH 20, 1934.  THE
OTHER IS WARTH PATENT, NO. 1,967,195, DATED JULY 17, 1934, A DIVISIONAL
PATENT.  BOTH RELATE TO METHODS FOR APPLYING SMALL DISKS OF PAPER OR
FOIL, KNOWN AS CENTER SPOTS, TO CORK CUSHIONS OF CROWN CAPS.  THESE
CAPS ARE USED TO SEAL BOTTLES CONTAINING PRESSURE BEVERAGES.  THE
CENTER SPOT PREVENTS CONTACT OF THE LIQUID WITH THE CORK.  THE DISTRICT
COURT ADJUDGED BOTH PATENTS VALID AND INFRINGED.  14 F.SUPP.  255.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THE REISSUE PATENT NOT
INFRINGED AND THE DIVISIONAL ONE INVALID BECAUSE OF LACHES IN FILING
THE APPLICATION ON WHICH IT WAS GRANTED.  86 F.(2D) 698. 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT, GRANTED 302
U.S. 664, ARE THESE: 

1.  "DOES THIS COURT'S DECISION IN WEBSTER CO. V. SPLITDORF CO. (264
U.S. 463) MEAN THAT, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF INTERVENING ADVERSE RIGHTS,
AN EXCUSE MUST BE SHOWN FOR A LAPSE OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN
PRESENTING CLAIMS IN A DIVISIONAL APPLICATION REGULARLY FILED AND
PROSECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PATENT OFFICE RULES?" 

2.  "WHERE THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN TWO YEARS DELAY IN ASSERTING
SPECIFIC CLAIMS IN A DIVISIONAL APPLICATION, IS IT AN EXCUSE FOR THE
DELAY THAT THERE WERE CLAIMS IN THE PARENT PATENT WHICH, ON THEIR FACE,
COVERED AND WERE REASONABLY BELIEVED TO COVER, THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF
THE DIVISIONAL CLAIMS, EVEN IF A COURT LATER INTERPRETED THE PARENT
PATENT CLAIMS NOT TO COVER SUCH SUBJECT-MATTER?" 

OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE WILL BE LIMITED TO THESE QUESTIONS. 
WASHINGTON COACH CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 301 U.S. 142, 146.  MOREHEAD V.
N.Y. EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587, 604, 605.  CLARK V. WILLIARD, 294
U.S. 211, 216.  ALICE STATE BANK V. HOUSTON PASTURE CO., 247 U.S. 240,
242.  THE FIRST CALLS FOR DECISION UPON A SINGLE POINT.  IT
SPECIFICALLY ASSUMES THE ABSENCE OF INTERVENING RIGHTS AND THAT THE
APPLICATION WAS APPROPRIATELY MADE.  THERE IS NO QUESTION AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF EITHER THE ORIGINAL OR REISSUE PATENTS. 

WARTH FILED HIS FIRST APPLICATION JANUARY 7, 1927, AND HIS SECOND
NOVEMBER 7, 1930.  FN1  FROM THESE CAME THE ORIGINAL PATENT, JANUARY 6,
1931.  IT WAS TO CORRECT AN ERROR IN THE SPECIFICATION THAT THE REISSUE
PATENT WAS GRANTED.  BEFORE ISSUE OF THE ORIGINAL PATENT JOHNSON,
NOVEMBER 26, 1929, FILED APPLICATION ON WHICH A PATENT ISSUED APRIL 5,
1932.  APRIL 4, 1933, TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ORIGINAL
PATENT WAS GRANTED WARTH, HE CARVED FROM HIS SECOND APPLICATION A
DIVISIONAL ONE IN WHICH HE COPIED THE CLAIMS OF THE JOHNSON PATENT.  IN
THE INTERFERENCE DECLARED UPON THE CONFLICT, THE PATENT OFFICE HELD
WARTH'S DIVISIONAL APPLICATION ENTITLED TO THE FILING DATE OF HIS FIRST
ONE, AND AWARDED THE CLAIMS OF THE JOHNSON PATENT TO HIM AS PRIOR
INVENTOR.  THESE ARE THE CLAIMS HELD TOO LATE BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS. 

THE CLAIMS OF THE REISSUE PATENT INVOLVED ARE SHOWN IN THE MARGIN. 
FN2  THE IMPORTANT FEATURE IS SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF PRESSURE AND
HEAT TO THE CENTER SPOT TO MAKE IT STICK TO THE CORK CUSHION IN THE
CAP.  NEITHER THESE NOR ANY OTHER CLAIMS OF THE PATENT SPECIFY MEANS TO
BE EMPLOYED TO FURNISH THE HEAT.  THE CLAIMS IN SUIT OF THE DIVISIONAL
PATENT  FN3  COVER MEANS TO SUPPLY HEAT TO BE APPLIED TO THE CENTER
SPOTS WHEN SUBJECTED TO PRESSURE.  THE IMPORTANT FEATURE IS "HEATING
THE PADS (CORK CUSHIONS) IN THE CAPS" BEFORE PLACING THE SPOTS UPON
THEM. 

THE FIRST APPLICATION, JANUARY 7, 1927, STATED:  "IT MAY BE DESIRABLE
TO SECURE THE METAL FOIL SPOT IN POSITION, PRIOR TO THE HEAT AND
PRESSURE STEPS, SUFFICIENTLY TO PREVENT DISLODGEMENT OF THE SPOT DURING
ANY INTERVAL BETWEEN ASSEMBLING AND FINAL STICKING.  THIS MAY BE
ACCOMPLISHED, FOR EXAMPLE, BY PREHEATING THE ASSEMBLED CROWN, TO SOFTEN
THE COATING AS SOON AS THE METAL FOIL SPOT IS DEPOSITED."  THAT
APPLICATION CONTAINED CLAIMS, CONSTRUED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
TO BE BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER THAT DISCLOSURE.  THE PATENT OFFICE CALLED
FOR DRAWINGS TO ILLUSTRATE MEANS FOR CARRYING OUT THE METHOD CLAIMED. 
ACCORDINGLY, WARTH SHOWED, BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION, THAT HEAT MIGHT BE
FURNISHED BY THE PUNCH USED TO CUT THE SPOTS FROM THE ADHESIVE MATERIAL
AND PLACE THEM UPON THE CORK IN THE CAP, WHERE BY THE SAME STROKE OF
THE PLUNGER, THEY MIGHT BE SUBJECTED TO PRESSURE.  WHEN HE FILED THE
DRAWINGS, DECEMBER 3, 1930, HE CANCELED FROM THE FIRST APPLICATION THE
STATEMENT JUST QUOTED AND CANCELED THE CLAIMS ORIGINALLY FILED.  THE
SECOND APPLICATION HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED.  BOTH CONTAINED ANOTHER
STATEMENT:  "IN CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION ACCORDING TO WHAT IS NOW
CONSIDERED THE BEST PRACTICE, THE COATING WILL BE SOFTENED BY HEAT
AFTER THE CROWN IS ASSEMBLED.  THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ANY SUITABLE
MANNER, AS BY A HEATED PLUNGER OR A PLUNGER AND HEATED TABLE.  THE HEAT
SOFTENS THE COATING AND RENDERS IT ADHESIVE.  ...  "  SO FAR AS
CONCERNS THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS BROAD ENOUGH TO
INCLUDE MEANS FOR SUPPLYING HEAT BY THE PUNCH AS SHOWN BY THE DRAWINGS,
AND THE PREHEATING METHOD CLAIMED IN THE DIVISIONAL APPLICATION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND NO ADVERSE USE OF THE PREHEATING METHOD
PRIOR TO THE FILING DATE OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE REISSUE PATENT. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT DISTURB THAT FINDING.  IT FOUND
THAT WARTH'S DISCLOSURE OF THE PREHEATING METHOD WAS CONTINUOUSLY
BEFORE THE PATENT OFFICE FROM THE DATE OF HIS FIRST APPLICATION, BUT
THAT THERE WAS NO CLAIM FOR THE PREHEATING METHOD ON FILE FROM DECEMBER
3, 1930, UNTIL APRIL 4, 1933, WHEN HE FILED APPLICATION FOR THE
DIVISIONAL PATENT.  IT HELD, CITING WEBSTER CO. V. SPLITDORF CO.,
SUPRA, THAT PRIMA FACIE THE TWO YEAR LIMIT APPLIES TO DIVISIONAL
APPLICATIONS, AND THAT AN APPLICANT WHO WAITS LONGER BEFORE CLAIMING AN
INVENTION DISCLOSED IN HIS PATENT MUST JUSTIFY HIS DELAY BY PROOF OF
SOME EXCUSE.  IT SAID, 86 F.(2D) 702, "NO SUCH EXCUSE APPEARS HERE. 
HAD WARTH CHOSEN TO RETAIN IN HIS PARENT APPLICATION BROAD GENERIC
CLAIMS WHICH MIGHT COVER THE PREHEATING METHOD, THEN INDEED THE
SPLITDORF RULE MIGHT NOT BE APPLICABLE  ...  BUT  ...  FOR A PERIOD OF
MORE THAN TWO YEARS WARTH APPARENTLY DID NOT WISH TO CLAIM THE
PREHEATING METHOD, HAVING DELIBERATELY CANCELED THE PREHEATING
SPECIFICATION FROM HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND SHAPED HIS CLAIMS SO AS
TO EXCLUDE IT AND HIS PATENT HAVING BEEN GRANTED JANUARY 6, 1931.  HE
MADE NO CLAIM FOR PREHEATING UNTIL MORE THAN TWO YEARS THEREAFTER,
NAMELY, APRIL 4, 1933.  IN THE MEANTIME A PATENT CONTAINING CLAIMS FOR
THE PREHEATING METHOD HAD BEEN GRANTED TO JOHNSON ON APRIL 5, 1932, AND
IT WAS WARTH'S DISCOVERY OF THIS FACT WHICH STIRRED HIM TO ACTION.  AS
IN THE SPLITDORF CASE, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THIS COMPETITOR, WARTH MIGHT
NEVER HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBJECT WORTH CLAIMING AS AN INVENTION."  THE
COURT MEANT THAT WARTH HAD REALLY ABANDONED HIS INVENTION.  SEE WESTERN
ELECTRIC CO. V. GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CO., 91 F.(2D) 922, 927. 

BUT, AS ABANDONMENT WAS NOT PLEADED AS A DEFENSE, R.S. SEC. 4920, AND
AS WARTH'S DISCLOSURE WAS CONTINUOUSLY BEFORE THE PATENT OFFICE,
CLEARLY WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANCE ADVERSE TO THE PETITIONER IS THE FACT
THAT WARTH FORMALLY CANCELED ONE DISCLOSURE FROM HIS FIRST APPLICATION
AND WITH IT CLAIMS THOUGHT BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BROAD ENOUGH
TO COVER THE DISCLOSURE.  THE CONTINUITY SO MAINTAINED SHOWS THAT WARTH
INTENDED TO RETAIN, NOT TO ABANDON, THE DISCLOSED INVENTION.  SEE
GODFREY V. EAMES, 1 WALL.  317, 325-326.  CLARK BLADE & RAZOR CO. V.
GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO., 194 FED. 421, 422. 

THIS CASE IS NOT LIKE WEBSTER CO. V. SPLITDORF CO., SUPRA.  IN THAT
CASE, THERE CAME HERE THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS OF A
PATENT ISSUED TO KANE IN 1918.  IN 1910 KANE HAD FILED HIS FIRST
APPLICATION, ON WHICH PATENT ISSUED IN 1916.  IN 1913 A PATENT COVERING
THE SAME SUBJECT-MATTER ISSUED TO THE PODLESAKS, TO WHOM A REISSUE
PATENT WAS GRANTED IN 1915.  LATER IN 1915, KANE FILED A DIVISIONAL
APPLICATION WHICH COPIED THE CLAIMS OF THE PODLESAK PATENT.  THEY WERE
DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE PODLESAKS.  THEREAFTER, JUNE 17, 1918, KANE
AMENDED HIS DIVISIONAL APPLICATION BY ADDING CLAIMS WHICH WERE ALLOWED,
AND SEPTEMBER 24, 1918, PATENT ISSUED TO WEBSTER ELECTRIC COMPANY,
KANE'S ASSIGNEE.  IN 1915, IT HAD BROUGHT THE SUIT AGAINST THE
SPLITDORF COMPANY.  OCTOBER 25, 1918, IT FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL
BRINGING IN CLAIMS OF THE PATENT ISSUED SEPTEMBER 24, 1918. 

THIS COURT POINTED OUT (P. 465) THAT THE CLAIMS IN QUESTION "WERE FOR
THE FIRST TIME PRESENTED TO THE PATENT OFFICE, BY AN AMENDMENT TO A
DIVISIONAL APPLICATION EIGHT YEARS AND FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE FILING OF
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, FIVE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL
PODLESAK PATENT, DISCLOSING THE SUBJECT MATTER, AND THREE YEARS AFTER
THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRESENT SUIT."  WE SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS
DOUBTFUL WHETHER THE CLAIMS WERE NOT SO ENLARGED AS TO PRECLUDE
ALLOWANCE UNDER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION; WE FOUND THAT KANE, DEEMING
THEIR SUBJECT-MATTER NOT INVENTION, DID NOT INTEND TO ASSERT THEM, AND,
PRIOR TO 1918, DID NOT ENTERTAIN AN INTENTION TO HAVE THEM COVERED BY
PATENT.  DURING ALL OF THIS TIME THEIR SUBJECT MATTER WAS DISCLOSED AND
IN GENERAL USE; KANE AND HIS ASSIGNEE SIMPLY STOOD BY AND AWAITED
DEVELOPMENTS.  IT WAS UPON THE REASONS SO STATED THAT THIS COURT
DECLARED (P. 466) "WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN SAYING THAT THE DELAY WAS
UNREASONABLE, AND, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN BY THE RECORD,
CONSTITUTES LACHES, BY WHICH THE PETITIONER LOST WHATEVER RIGHTS IT
MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO." 

UPON A REVIEW OF EARLIER CASES WE CONDEMNED THE LOWER COURT'S
STATEMENT (283 FED. 83, 93) THAT CHAPMAN V. WINTROATH, 252 U.S. 126,
FIXED THE TIME WITHIN WHICH APPLICATION FOR A DIVISIONAL PATENT MIGHT
BE MADE AT TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF THE ISSUE OF THE PARENT PATENT.  WE
SHOWED THAT THE CHAPMAN CASE HELD THAT AN INVENTOR, WHOSE APPLICATION
DISCLOSED BUT DID NOT CLAIM AN INVENTION LATER PATENTED TO ANOTHER, WAS
NOT REQUIRED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER ISSUE OF THE OTHER PATENT, TO FILE
DIVISIONAL APPLICATION CLAIMING THE INVENTION AND SO TO RAISE ISSUE OF
INTERFERENCE, BUT THAT, BY ANALOGY, THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD UNDER R.S. SEC.
4886  FN4  APPLIED RATHER THAN THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD OF R.S. SEC. 4894,
FN5  AND THAT THE OPINION DID NOT FIX A HARD AND FAST RULE TO BE
APPLIED IN EVERY CASE OF A DIVISIONAL APPLICATION.  THEN WE SAID (P.
471):  "OUR CONCLUSION, THEREFORE, IS THAT, IN CASES INVOLVING LACHES,
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL, OR INTERVENING PRIVATE OR PUBLIC RIGHTS, THE TWO
YEAR TIME LIMIT PRIMA FACIE APPLIES TO DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS, AND CAN
ONLY BE AVOIDED BY PROOF OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING A LONGER
DELAY.  IN OTHER WORDS, WE FOLLOW IN THAT RESPECT THE ANALOGY FURNISHED
BY THE PATENT REISSUE CASES."  THAT STATEMENT IS NOT DIRECTLY
APPLICABLE TO THE PRECISE QUESTION OF LACHES UPON WHICH THE CASE
TURNED, BUT WAS MADE IN REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION ARISING UPON THE
LOWER COURT'S ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF CHAPMAN V. WINTROATH.  SEE
WAGENHORST V. HYDRAULIC STEEL CO., 27 F.(2D) 27, 29-30.  WIREBOUNDS
PATENTS CO. V. SARANAC CORP., 37 F.(2D) 830, 840-841.  UTAH RADIO
PRODUCTS CO. V. BOUDETTE, 78 F.(2D) 793, 799.  IT IS CLEAR THAT, IN THE
ABSENCE OF INTERVENING ADVERSE RIGHTS, THE DECISION IN WEBSTER CO. V.
SPLITDORF CO. DOES NOT MEAN THAT AN EXCUSE MUST BE SHOWN FOR A LAPSE OF
MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN PRESENTING THE DIVISIONAL APPLICATION.  WHERE
THERE IS NO ABANDONMENT, MERE DELAY IN FILING A DIVISIONAL APPLICATION
FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER AN INTERVENING PATENT OR PUBLICATION,
DOES NOT OPERATE TO ENLARGE THE PATENT MONOPOLY BEYOND THAT
CONTEMPLATED BY THE STATUTE.  BY R.S. SEC. 4886, DELAY IN FILING AN
APPLICATION FOR NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER AN INTERVENING PATENT OR
PUBLICATION DOES NOT BAR A PATENT UNLESS THE INVENTION "IS PROVED TO
HAVE BEEN ABANDONED."  SEE WIREBOUNDS PATENTS CO. V. SARANAC CORP., 37
F.(2D) 830, 840, 841; 65 F.(2D) 904, 905, 906.  AND, AS NONE NEED BE
SHOWN, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO DECIDE WHETHER THE FACTS STATED IN THE
SECOND QUESTION ARE SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE AN EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY
REFERRED TO. 

AS OUR DECISION IS LIMITED TO THE FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE REVERSED AND THE CASE
WILL BE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR DECISION OF THE OTHER ISSUES IN THE
CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE FIRST APPLICATION EXTENDED TO MATERIALS TO BE USED IN MAKING
CENTER SPOTS AS WELL AS TO METHODS FOR APPLYING THEM.  THE SECOND
APPLICATION, BECAUSE OF A REQUIREMENT OF THE PATENT OFFICE, OMITTED
DISCLOSURES AS TO MATERIALS BUT INCLUDED THOSE AS TO METHODS THAT THE
FIRST CONTAINED.    FN2  CLAIM 1.  "THE IMPROVED METHOD OF
MANUFACTURING CAPS OF THE TYPE HAVING AN INTERIOR DISC OF CUSHION
MATERIAL PROVIDED ON ITS EXPOSED FACE WITH A CENTER SPOT, WHICH
COMPRISES PROVIDING SPOT MATERIAL IN STRIP FORM HAVING ONE SURFACE
FORMED OF AN EXPOSED CONTINUOUS COATING OF WATER RESISTANT ADHESIVE
WHICH IS NORMALLY HARD AT ROOM TEMPERATURE BUT BECOMES TACKY UPON THE
APPLICATION OF HEAT AND HAVING ANOTHER SURFACE TO BE EXPOSED TO THE
CONTENTS OF A CAPPED CONTAINER, CUTTING FROM SAID STRIP A FACING SPOT
HAVING ONE SURFACE COMPLETELY COATED WITH SAID ADHESIVE WITH A CAP
DISPOSED BENEATH THE PORTION OF THE STRIP FROM WHICH THE SPOT IS CUT,
WHEREBY THE CUTTING OPERATION POSITIONS THE SPOT UPON THE CUSHION
MATERIAL WITH THE COATING BETWEEN THE SPOT AND THE CUSHION MATERIAL,
AND UPON ASSEMBLY APPLYING SIMULTANEOUSLY TO THE SPOT PRESSURE AND
SUFFICIENT HEAT TO RENDER THE ADHESIVE TACKY, THEREBY CAUSING THE SPOT
TO ADHERE TO THE CUSHION MATERIAL, AND THEREAFTER PERMITTING THE
ADHESIVE TO COOL AND HARDEN." 

CLAIM 3 REPEATS THE WORDS OF CLAIM 1 AND ADDS THESE WORDS, "WHILE
SUBJECTING THE ASSEMBLED UNIT TO PRESSURE." 

FN3  THESE CLAIMS ARE FULLY INDICATED IMMEDIATELY BELOW.  THE
INSERTIONS IN BRACKETS GIVE EQUIVALENT TERMS USED IN THE CLAIMS OF THE
REISSUE PATENT. 

CLAIM 1.  "THE METHOD OF ASSEMBLING LININGS (CENTER SPOTS) FOR
SEALING PADS (CUSHION MATERIAL) IN RECEPTACLE CLOSURE CAPS, CONSISTING
IN PROVIDING CAPS WITH SEALING PADS THEREIN AND A WEB OF LINING
MATERIAL ARRANGED WITH AN ADHESIVE SURFACE NON-VISCOUS AT NORMAL
TEMPERATURE, HEATING THE PADS IN THE CAPS, SEVERING LININGS FROM THE
WEB OF LINING MATERIAL AND ASSEMBLING THE LININGS AS THEY ARE SEVERED
FROM THE WEB IN THE CAPS WITH THE ADHESIVE SURFACE IN CONTACT WITH THE
HEATED PADS TO RENDER THE ADHESIVE VISCOUS AND EFFECT ADHESION OF THE
LININGS TO THE PADS." 

CLAIM 2 REPEATS THE WORDS OF CLAIM 1 AND ADDS THESE WORDS, "AND THEN
PLACING THE LININGS IN THE CAPS UNDER HEAT AND PRESSURE TO EFFECT AN
INTIMATE ADHESION BETWEEN THE LININGS AND PADS." 

CLAIM 3 REPEATS THE WORDS OF CLAIM 1 AND THE ADDITION OF CLAIM 2 AND
ADDS THESE WORDS, "AND THEN PLACING THE LININGS ASSEMBLED IN THE CAPS
UNDER PRESSURE DURING THE COOLING THEREOF." 

FN4  R.S. SEC. 4886, AS AMENDED MARCH 3, 1897(29 STAT. 692):  "ANY
PERSON WHO HAS INVENTED OR DISCOVERED ANY NEW AND USEFUL ART, MACHINE,
MANUFACTURE, OR COMPOSITION OF MATTER, OR ANY NEW AND USEFUL
IMPROVEMENTS THEREOF, NOT KNOWN OR USED BY OTHERS IN THIS COUNTRY,
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, AND NOT PATENTED OR
DESCRIBED IN ANY PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THIS OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY,
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, OR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR
TO HIS APPLICATION, AND NOT IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE IN THIS COUNTRY
FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO HIS APPLICATION, UNLESS THE SAME IS
PROVED TO HAVE BEEN ABANDONED, MAY, UPON PAYMENT OF THE FEES REQUIRED
BY LAW, AND OTHER DUE PROCEEDING HAD, OBTAIN A PATENT THEREFOR."  (THE
STATUTE HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED, BUT NOT TO CHANGE THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD. 
SEE 35 U.S.C. SEC. 31.) 

CF. R.S. SEC. 4887(35 U.S.C. SEC. 32), RELATING TO INVENTIONS
PATENTED ABROAD; R.S. SEC. 4897(35 U.S.C. SEC. 38), RELATING TO RENEWAL
APPLICATION AFTER FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENT AS TO PAYMENT OF
FINAL FEE; R.S. SEC. 4920(35 U.S.C. SEC. 69), RELATING TO DEFENSE OF
PRIOR INVENTION. 

FN5  R.S. SEC. 4894, AS AMENDED MARCH 3, 1897(29 STAT. 693).  "ALL
APPLICATIONS FOR PATENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED AND PREPARED FOR
EXAMINATION WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION, AND IN
DEFAULT THEREOF, OR UPON FAILURE OF THE APPLICANT TO PROSECUTE THE SAME
WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER ANY ACTION THEREIN, OF WHICH NOTICE SHALL HAVE
BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT, THEY SHALL BE REGARDED AS ABANDONED BY THE
PARTIES THERETO, UNLESS IT BE SHOWN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS THAT SUCH DELAY WAS UNAVOIDABLE."  (THE STATUTE
HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED TO REDUCE THE PERIOD TO SIX MONTHS.  SEE 35
U.S.C. SEC. 37.) 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THIS COURT DECLARED IN WEBSTER CO. V. SPLITDORF CO., 264 U.S. 463,
466, 471: 

"IN SUITS TO ENFORCE REISSUE PATENTS, THE SETTLED RULE OF THIS COURT
IS THAT A DELAY FOR TWO YEARS OR MORE WILL 'INVALIDATE THE REISSUE,
UNLESS THE DELAY IS ACCOUNTED FOR AND EXCUSED BY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES,
WHICH SHOW IT TO HAVE BEEN NOT UNREASONABLE.'  ... 

"OUR CONCLUSION, THEREFORE, IS THAT IN CASES INVOLVING LACHES,
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL OR INTERVENING PRIVATE OR PUBLIC RIGHTS, THE TWO
YEAR LIMIT PRIMA FACIE APPLIES TO DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS AND CAN ONLY
BE AVOIDED BY PROOF OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING A LONGER
DELAY.  IN OTHER WORDS, WE FOLLOW IN THAT RESPECT THE ANALOGY FURNISHED
BY THE PATENT REISSUE CASES."  THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN THE SPLITDORF CASE
WAS BASED UPON A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS OF THIS COURT EXTENDING FROM
MILLER V. BRASS CO., 104 U.S. 350, DECIDED IN 1882. 

THE MAJORITY OPINION ABANDONS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE SPLITDORF CASE
THAT EITHER LACHES OR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL OR INTERVENING PRIVATE RIGHTS
OR INTERVENING PUBLIC RIGHTS - IN THE ABSENCE OF PROVED SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES - BARS A DIVISIONAL PATENT AFTER A LAPSE OF AN
UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF TIME - PRIMA FACIE TWO YEARS.  IT IS NOW HELD
THAT NEITHER LACHES NOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL MAY ALONE INVALIDATE A
PATENT WITHOUT PROOF OF "INTERVENING ADVERSE RIGHTS."  THE AUTHORITIES
RELIED ON IN THE SPLITDORF CASE EMPHASIZED THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC -
APART FROM PROVABLE ADVERSE USE BY INDIVIDUALS - TO REQUIRE AN
APPLICANT TO PURSUE HIS RIGHT TO A PATENT DILIGENTLY AND WITHOUT
ENLARGEMENT OF CLAIMS AFTER FILING AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION.  FN1  "ANY
PRACTICE BY THE INVENTOR AND APPLICANT FOR A PATENT THROUGH WHICH HE
DELIBERATELY AND WITHOUT EXCUSE POSTPONES BEYOND THE DATE OF THE ACTUAL
INVENTION, THE BEGINNING OF THE TERM OF MONOPOLY, AND THUS PUTS OFF THE
FREE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT OF THE USEFUL INVENTION, IS AN EVASION OF THE
STATUTE AND DEFEATS ITS BENEVOLENT AIM."  FN2 

THERE IS A FURTHER DEPARTURE FROM THE SPLITDORF CASE IN THE HOLDING
THAT TWO YEARS DELAY IN FILING A DIVISIONAL APPLICATION AFTER AN
INTERVENING PATENT DOES NOT - IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL ABANDONMENT OF
THE INVENTION - BAR THE RIGHT TO A "DIVISIONAL" PATENT.  ABANDONMENT IS
BUT ONE OF MANY GROUNDS FOR INVALIDATING A PATENT.  EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL,
INTERVENING PUBLIC RIGHTS, OR UNJUSTIFIED AND UNEXPLAINED LACHES WERE
CONSIDERED IN THE SPLITDORF CASE AND CASES THERE RELIED ON TO BE
INDIVIDUALLY SUFFICIENT BARS, WITHOUT PROOF OF ABANDONMENT. 
UNJUSTIFIED DELAY AND ABANDONMENT ARE SEPARATE DEFENSES.  IF PROOF OF
ABANDONMENT IS TO BE A PREREQUISITE, LACHES AS A SEPARATE DEFENSE IS
DESTROYED, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FOR MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS. 
UNREASONABLE DELAY WHICH SERVES TO POSTPONE THE BEGINNING OF THE
SEVENTEEN YEAR MONOPOLY LIMITATION, NOT ONLY IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT
ABANDONMENT OF THE INVENTION, BUT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE.  WITH THE
DESTRUCTION OF THE DEFENSE OF LACHES THE PUBLIC LOSES THE BENEFIT OF
THE PRINCIPLE THAT "AN INVENTOR CANNOT WITHOUT CAUSE HOLD HIS
APPLICATION PENDING DURING A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS, LEAVING THE PUBLIC
UNCERTAIN, WHETHER HE INTENDS EVER TO PROSECUTE IT, AND KEEPING THE
FIELD OF HIS INVENTION CLOSED AGAINST OTHER INVENTIONS."  FN3 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOLLOWING THIS SETTLED PRINCIPLE - NOW ABANDONED
- SAID:  FN4  "WE THINK THEY (CLAIMS IN THE PATENT) ARE INVALID FOR
LACHES IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR THEM.  (CITING WEBSTER CO. V.
SPLITDORF CO.).  ...  THESE CIRCUMSTANCES (FACTS OF THIS CASE) INVITE
OPERATION OF THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
AGAINST OBTAINING IN EFFECT AN EXTENSION OF A PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY BY
APATHY AND UNEXCUSED DELAY IN BRINGING FORWARD BY DIVISIONAL OR REISSUE
APPLICATIONS CLAIMS BROADER THAN THOSE ORIGINALLY SOUGHT." 

WHILE "DIVISIONAL" APPLICATIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED
BY STATUTE THE COURTS HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THEIR USE AS A PART OF
PATENT OFFICE PROCEDURE.  PETITIONER'S PATENT WHICH THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOUND BARRED BY LACHES WAS GRANTED ON A "DIVISIONAL"
APPLICATION.  PATENT OFFICE REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE LIMITED EACH
APPLICATION FOR A PATENT TO A SINGLE INVENTION AND HAVE REQUIRED A
"DIVISION" OF AN APPLICATION CONTAINING CLAIMS FOR TWO SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT INVENTIONS, APPARENTLY GAVE RISE TO THE PROCEDURAL DEVICE OF
"DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS."  THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA ACTING IN A SPECIAL APPELLATE CAPACITY  FN5  AND THE PATENT
OFFICE, HAVE TREATED A "DIVISIONAL," PROPERLY USED, IN SOME RESPECTS,
AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN AMENDMENT.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CONCEPTION
"DIVISIONALS" HAVE BEEN FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, TREATED AS
"CONTINUATIONS" OF ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS AND GIVEN THE PRIORITY OF
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS.  THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION WAS REACHED THAT AFTER
AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION MERGED IN A PATENT, A "DIVISIONAL" APPLICATION
COULD NOT BE ATTACHED TO, OR CONSIDERED AS A "CONTINUATION" OF IT,
BECAUSE "THERE WAS NOTHING TO BE CONTINUED."  FN6  AFTER A PATENT IS
GRANTED IT PASSES "BEYOND THE CONTROL AND JURISDICTION" OF THE PATENT
OFFICE; THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CLOSED AND THE APPLICATION CAN NEITHER BE
AMENDED NOR SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR A NEW "DIVISIONAL" OR "CONTINUING"
APPLICATION.  FN7 

HERE AN APPLICATION FOR A PROCESS PATENT WAS FILED IN 1927. 
NOVEMBER, 1930, IN RESPONSE TO PATENT OFFICE REQUIREMENT, A
"DIVISIONAL" APPLICATION WAS FILED FOR A PRODUCT PATENT.  JANUARY,
1931, A PROCESS PATENT WAS GRANTED ON THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.  MORE
THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION HAD MERGED INTO A PROCESS
PATENT ANOTHER APPLICATION DESIGNATED AS A "DIVISIONAL" WAS FILED
(APRIL 4, 1933), FOR A SECOND PROCESS PATENT - HERE INVOLVED.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THIS DELAY OF SIX YEARS TO BE WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE.  DISREGARDING THE PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED
REQUIREMENT THAT JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE MUST BE PROVEN FOR SUCH
DELAY, THE MAJORITY NOW HOLD THAT AN APPLICANT CAN, FOR SIX YEARS,
DELAY HIS CLAIM FOR AN ALLEGED DISCOVERY WITHOUT EXCUSE, JUSTIFICATION,
OR REASON FOR THE DELAY.  THIS IS PERMITTED DESPITE THE FACT THAT
UNCLAIMED DISCLOSURE OF THE ALLEGED INVENTION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE 1927
PROCESS APPLICATION AND IN THE 1930 PRODUCT APPLICATION. 

CONGRESS - GIVEN THE POWER BY THE CONSTITUTION - HAS FIXED THE
STATUTORY LIMIT OF A PATENT MONOPOLY AT SEVENTEEN YEARS.  FN8  BY THE
PROCEDURAL DEVICE OF A "DIVISIONAL" APPLICATION, DESIGNED TO PROTECT
RIGHTS GRANTED AN INVENTOR BY STATUTE, PETITIONER HAS CARVED FOR ITSELF
PRIORITY MONOPOLY RIGHTS, BEGINNING IN 1927 AND LASTING UNTIL 1951 -
TWENTY-FOUR YEARS, OR SEVEN YEARS MORE THAN CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED. 

IN THE REMEDY OF REISSUE PROVIDED BY STATUTE FOR APPLICANTS WHOSE
CLAIMS FAIL TO PROTECT THEIR ENTIRE DISCOVERIES,  FN9  CONGRESS HAS
BEEN ALERT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM SUCH AN EXTENSION OF MONOPOLY.  A
REISSUE PATENT MUST BE BASED ON OATH THAT AN APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL
PATENT FAILED TO COVER ITS ACTUAL INVENTION AS A RESULT OF ACCIDENT,
INADVERTENCE OR MISTAKE, AND RUNS ONLY FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF A
SEVENTEEN YEAR PATENT GRANT.  THE USE OF "DIVISIONALS" OR
"CONTINUATIONS," NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE DEFENSE OF LACHES OR
UNREASONABLE DELAY, WILL PERMIT AN APPLICANT TO OBTAIN, BY A
NONSTATUTORY PROCEDURAL DEVICE, MONOPOLY PRIVILEGES DENIED BY THE
REISSUE STATUTE. 

THE ESSENTIAL ADDITIONAL CLAIM IN PETITIONER'S 1934 "DIVISIONAL"
PATENT WAS ONLY MENTIONED IN THE 1927 ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND THE 1930
"DIVISIONAL" APPLICATION BY WAY OF CASUAL SUGGESTION AND INCIDENTAL
ILLUSTRATION.  FN10  EVEN THIS CASUAL SUGGESTION WAS STRICKEN FROM THE
1927 APPLICATION IN DECEMBER, 1930.  THESE SUGGESTIVE ILLUSTRATIONS DID
NOT CONSTITUTE PARTS OF THE INVENTIONS WHICH THE 1927 AND 1930
APPLICATIONS SOUGHT TO COVER OR SECURE.  FN11  THE SPECULATIVE
SUGGESTIONS - FROM SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR DIFFERENT INVENTIONS - ARE
PIECED TOGETHER AND HELD SUFFICIENT TO "CONTINUE" THE 1927 APPLICATION
(AFTER ITS MERGER IN A PATENT) AND THE 1930 APPLICATION, AS SUPPORT FOR
THE RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF A CLAIM MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 1933. 
AS A RESULT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE DEFENSE OF LACHES IN APPLYING FOR
"DIVISIONAL" APPLICATIONS, THOSE FAMILIAR WITH A GIVEN FIELD OF
INDUSTRY MAY NOW INSERT SPECULATIVE CONJECTURES AS DISCLOSURES IN
VARIOUS APPLICATIONS AND PERMIT THEM TO LIE DORMANT UNTIL A COMPETITOR
REDUCES SPECULATION TO PRACTICALITY.  THEN, BY THE DEVICE OF A
"DIVISIONAL," OR IF NEED BE, AS HERE, BY "DIVISIONAL" ON "DIVISIONAL,"
SUCH A COMPETITOR CAN BE PURSUED WITH INFRINGEMENT SUITS AND HARASSED
INTO SURRENDERING HIS BUSINESS TO AN INGENIOUSLY DILATORY APPLICANT. 
FN12  THUS, SWEEPING, INDEFINITE AND UNCLAIMED DISCLOSURES, AND ADROIT
USE OF "DIVISIONALS" - WHICH LACHES AND UNREASONABLE DELAY ARE NO
LONGER SUFFICIENT TO BAR - ARE PERMITTED TO EXTEND A PATENT'S STATUTORY
LIFE AND TO INCREASE A PATENTEE'S REWARD BEYOND THAT GRANTED BY
CONGRESS. 

"'THE PATENT LAWS ARE FOUNDED IN A LARGE PUBLIC POLICY TO PROMOTE THE
PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS.  THE PUBLIC, THEREFORE, IS A
MOST MATERIAL PARTY TO, AND SHOULD BE DULY CONSIDERED IN, EVERY
APPLICATION FOR A PATENT.  ...  BUT THE ARTS AND SCIENCES WILL
CERTAINLY NOT BE PROMOTED BY GIVING ENCOURAGEMENT TO INVENTORS TO
WITHHOLD AND CONCEAL THEIR INVENTIONS FOR AN INDEFINITE TIME, OR TO A
TIME WHEN THEY MAY USE AND APPLY THEIR INVENTIONS TO THEIR OWN
EXCLUSIVE ADVANTAGE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, AND CERTAINLY
NOT IF THE INVENTOR IS ALLOWED TO CONCEAL HIS INVENTION TO BE BROUGHT
FORWARD IN SOME AFTER TIME TO THWART AND DEFEAT A MORE DILIGENT AND
ACTIVE INVENTOR, WHO HAS PLACED THE BENEFIT OF HIS INVENTION WITHIN THE
REACH AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUBLIC.'"  FN13    FN1  SEE, MILLER V. BRASS
CO., 104 U.S. 350, 355; JAMES V. CAMPBELL, 104 U.S. 356, 371; MAHN V.
HARWOOD, 112 U.S. 354, 360; IVES V. SARGENT, 119 U.S. 652, 662; TOPLIFF
V. TOPLIFF, 145 U.S. 156, 170, 171; WOLLENSAK V. SARGENT & CO., 151
U.S. 221, 228. 

FN2  WOODBRIDGE V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 50, 56. 

FN3  PLANING-MACHINE CO. V. KEITH, 101 U.S. 479, 485. 

FN4  86 F.(2D) 698, 702. 

FN5  FRASCH V. MOORE, 211 U.S. 1, 9, 10; BUTTERWORTH V. HOE, 112 U.S.
50, 60. 

FN6  IN RE SPITTELER, 31 APP. D.C. 271, 274, 275.  "  ...  'IT IS
WELL ESTABLISHED THAT FOR ONE APPLICATION TO BE A DIVISION, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE LAW, OF ANOTHER, THE TWO MUST AT SOME TIME BE CO
PENDING,' ...  SARFERT V. MEYER, 1902 C.D. 30; IN RE SPITTELER, 31 APP.
D.C. 271, 1908 C.D. 374; ...  WAINWRIGHT V. PARKER, 32 APP. D.C. 431,
1909 C.D. 379.  ... 

"  ...  AN APPLICATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CONTINUANCE OF A
PATENT GRANTED PRIOR TO THE FILING THEREOF, SINCE AFTER THE APPLICATION
HAS EVENTUATED INTO A PATENT THERE IS NOTHING LEFT PENDING BEFORE THE
PATENT OFFICE UPON WHICH IT COULD ACT OR TO WHICH THE LATER APPLICATION
COULD ATTACH.  IN RE SPITTELER, 31 APP. D.C. 271, 134 O.G. 1301;
WAINWRIGHT V. PARKER, 32 APP. D.C. 431, 142 O.G. 1115, 1909 C.D. 379." 
FESSENDEN V. WILSON, 48 F.(2D) 422, 424. 

FN7  SEE, MCCORMICK MACHINE CO. V. AULTMAN, 169 U.S. 606, 608, 609. 

FN8  35 U.S.C., C. 2, SEC. 40. 

FN9  35 U.S.C., C. 2, SEC. 64. 

FN10  THE ESSENTIAL ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF THE 1934 DIVISIONAL PROCESS
PATENT WAS FOR "PREHEATING" CORK USED IN MAKING BOTTLE CAPS.  THE
INCIDENTAL REFERENCE TO PREHEATING IN THE 1927 APPLICATION WAS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"IT MAY BE DESIRABLE TO SECURE THE METAL FOIL SPOT IN POSITION, PRIOR
TO THE HEAT AND PRESSURE STEPS, SUFFICIENTLY TO PREVENT DISLODGMENT OF
THE SPOT DURING ANY INTERVAL BETWEEN ASSEMBLING AND FINAL STICKING. 
THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED, FOR EXAMPLE, BY PREHEATING THE ASSEMBLED
CROWN, TO SOFTEN THE COATING AS SOON AS THE METAL FOIL SPOT IS
DEPOSITED.  OR THE COATING MAY BE SOFTENED BY MOISTENING SLIGHTLY WITH
A SOLVENT, SUCH AS BENZOL.  IN EITHER CASE THE COATING BECOMES TACKY
ENOUGH TO HOLD THE METAL FOIL FROM GETTING OUT OF POSITION DURING
ORDINARY PASSAGE THROUGH ASSEMBLING APPARATUS." 

THE 1930 DIVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR A PRODUCT PATENT MERELY SUGGESTED
THAT "IT MAY BE DESIRABLE TO SECURE THE SPOT IN POSITION, PRIOR TO THE
HEAT AND PRESSURE STEPS, SUFFICIENTLY TO PREVENT DISLODGEMENT OF THE
SPOT DURING ANY INTERVAL BETWEEN ASSEMBLING AND FINAL STICKING.  THIS
MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED, FOR EXAMPLE, BY PREHEATING THE ASSEMBLED CROWN, TO
SOFTEN THE COATING, AS SOON AS THE METAL FOIL IS DEPOSITED." 

FN11  CF., CORBIN CABINET LOCK CO. V. EAGLE LOCK CO., 150 U.S. 38,
42, 43. 

FN12  CF., ATLANTIC WORKS V. BRADY, 107 U.S. 192, 200. 

FN13  WOODBRIDGE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 61. 
..END :























GENERAL PICTURES CO. V. ELECTRIC CO., 304 U.S. 175 


NO. 357.  ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 14, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 2, 1938.  - 91
F.2D 922, AFFIRMED. 


1.  REVIEW BY CERTIORARI IS CONFINED TO QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT
FORWARD BY THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT.  P. 177. 

THE SUPPORTING BRIEF IS NOT A PART OF THE PETITION FOR THIS PURPOSE;
SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR IN THAT BRIEF DO NOT EXPAND OR ADD TO THE
QUESTIONS STATED IN THE PETITION; THEY SERVE MERELY TO IDENTIFY AND
CHALLENGE RULINGS UPON WHICH IS GROUNDED ULTIMATE DECISION OF THE
MATTER INVOLVED.  P. 178. 

2.  A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WILL NOT BE GRANTED IN A PATENT CASE TO
BRING UP QUESTIONS OF ACQUIESCENCE AND ESTOPPEL DEPENDENT ON QUESTIONS
OF FACT, AS TO WHICH THERE WERE CONCURRENT FINDINGS BELOW; NOR TO
REVIEW QUESTIONS OF ANTICIPATION AND INVENTION AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO
CONFLICT BETWEEN DECISIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  P. 178. 

3.  THE OWNER OF PATENTS IN VACUUM TUBE AMPLIFIERS USED THE
INVENTIONS COMMERCIALLY, THROUGH ITS EXCLUSIVELY LICENSED SUBSIDIARIES,
IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING TALKING-PICTURE EQUIPMENT EMBODYING THE
INVENTIONS AND SUPPLYING THE EQUIPMENT TO THEATERS.  IT ALSO GRANTED
NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSES TO OTHERS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO THE MAKING AND
SELLING OF THE PATENTED AMPLIFIERS FOR PRIVATE USES, NAMELY, FOR RADIO
BROADCAST RECEPTION, RADIO AMATEUR RECEPTION, AND RADIO EXPERIMENTAL
RECEPTION.  ONE OF THE NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES MADE THE PATENTED
AMPLIFIERS AND SOLD THEM TO A TALKING PICTURES CORPORATION, KNOWING
THAT THE PURCHASER WOULD INCLUDE THEM IN TALKING-PICTURE EQUIPMENT TO
BE LEASED TO THEATERS.  BOTH PARTIES KNEW THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE
VENDOR'S LICENSE AND INTENTIONALLY DISREGARDED NOTICES STATING THOSE
RESTRICTIONS, WHICH WERE AFFIXED TO THE ARTICLES.  HELD, THAT THE
RESTRICTIONS OF THE VENDOR'S LICENSE WERE VALID UNDER THE PATENT LAW;
THAT THE PURCHASER WAS NOT "A PURCHASER IN THE ORDINARY CHANNELS OF
TRADE"; THAT THE SALES WERE NOT SALES UNDER THE PATENT, BUT WERE
WITHOUT AUTHORITY FROM THE PATENT-OWNER; AND THAT BOTH VENDOR AND
PURCHASER WERE GUILTY OF INFRINGEMENT.  P. 179. 

THE EFFECT OF THE LICENSE NOTICE IS NOT CONSIDERED. 

4.  THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW, AS TO TWO OF THE
PATENTS INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION, THAT THERE WAS NO PUBLIC USE OF
THE INVENTIONS PRIOR TO THE DATES OF DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS ON WHICH
THE PATENTS ISSUED, ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND ACCEPTED BY THIS
COURT.  P. 182. 

5.  INVENTIONS, DISCLOSED BUT NOT CLAIMED IN APPLICATIONS FOR PATENT,
WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CLAIMED AND PATENTED THROUGH CONTINUATION
APPLICATIONS VOLUNTARILY FILED BY THE APPLICANT.  THE PATENTEE'S USE,
WHICH WAS THE ONLY "PUBLIC USE," WAS FOR LESS THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS BUT FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE
CONTINUATION APPLICATIONS.  HELD THAT THE CONTINUATION APPLICATIONS
WERE IN TIME, NO ADVERSE RIGHTS HAVING INTERVENED MORE THAN TWO YEARS
BEFORE THEY WERE FILED, AND THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE CLAIMS THEREIN
WERE THE DATES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS.  R.S. SEC. 4886.  CROWN
CORK & SEAL CO. V. GUTMANN CO., ANTE, P. 159.  P. 182. 

GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELECTRIC CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 674, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF DECREES
SUSTAINING PATENTS, ENJOINING INFRINGEMENT, AND ORDERING ACCOUNTINGS,
IN THREE SUITS THAT WERE HEARD TOGETHER.  ON MAY 31, A REHEARING WAS
ORDERED UPON THE FIRST TWO OF THE QUESTIONS STATED ON P. 177 OF THIS
OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THREE SUITS WERE BROUGHT BY RESPONDENTS AGAINST PETITIONER IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TO RESTRAIN
INFRINGEMENTS, BASED ON DIFFERENT PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS IN VACUUM TUBE
AMPLIFIERS WHICH HAVE BEEN USED IN WIRE AND RADIO TELEPHONY, TALKING
MOTION PICTURES, AND OTHER FIELDS.  IN ALL THERE WERE IN SUIT SEVEN
PATENTS.  THE CASES WERE TRIED TOGETHER AND ARE TREATED AS ONE.  THE
LOWER COURTS HELD ONE OF THE PATENTS INVALID, AND THAT RULING IS NOT
CHALLENGED HERE.  THEY CONCURRED IN HOLDING SIX OF THE PATENTS VALID
AND INFRINGED BY PETITIONER.  16 F.SUPP.  293; 91 F.(2D) 922.  THIS
COURT GRANTED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

UNDER THE CAPTION "QUESTIONS PRESENTED" THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
CERTIORARI SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING: 

"1.  CAN THE OWNER OF A PATENT, BY MEANS THEREOF, RESTRICT THE USE
MADE OF A DEVICE MANUFACTURED UNDER THE PATENT, AFTER THE DEVICE HAS
PASSED INTO THE HANDS OF A PURCHASER IN THE ORDINARY CHANNELS OF TRADE,
AND FULL CONSIDERATION PAID THEREFOR? 

"2.  CAN A PATENT OWNER, MERELY BY A 'LICENSE NOTICE' ATTACHED TO A
DEVICE MADE UNDER THE PATENT, AND SOLD IN THE ORDINARY CHANNELS OF
TRADE, PLACE AN ENFORCEABLE RESTRICTION ON THE PURCHASER THEREOF AS TO
THE USE TO WHICH THE PURCHASER MAY PUT THE DEVICE? 

"3.  CAN AN INVENTOR WHO HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR PATENT, SHOWING
AND DESCRIBING BUT NOT CLAIMING CERTAIN INVENTIONS, OBTAIN A VALID
PATENT FOR SAID INVENTIONS BY VOLUNTARILY FILING A 'DIVISIONAL' OR
'CONTINUATION' APPLICATION FOR SAID UNCLAIMED INVENTIONS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO PUBLIC USE OF THE SAID UNCLAIMED INVENTIONS BY HIM
OR HIS ASSIGNEE OR LICENSEE?" 

THE BRIEF SUPPORTING THE PETITION CONTAINS SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR
RELATING TO DECISION OF TWO OTHER QUESTIONS.  ONE IS WHETHER, BY
ACCEPTANCE AND RETENTION OF ROYALTIES PAID BY THE LICENSED
MANUFACTURER, RESPONDENTS ACQUIESCED IN THE INFRINGEMENT AND ARE
ESTOPPED FROM MAINTAINING THE SUIT.  THE OTHER IS WHETHER THE PATENTS
UPHELD ARE INVALID BECAUSE OF ANTICIPATION BY, OR WANT OF INVENTION
OVER, THE PRIOR PATENTED ART. THAT BRIEF IS CONFINED TO THE THREE
QUESTIONS DEFINITELY STATED IN THE PETITION.  BUT PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON
THE MERITS EXTENDS TO THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS REFLECTED BY THE
SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS. 

1.  OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE WILL BE LIMITED TO THE QUESTIONS
SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT FORWARD BY THE PETITION.  RULE 38, PARAGRAPH 2,
CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING.  "THE PETITION SHALL CONTAIN ONLY A SUMMARY AND
SHORT STATEMENT OF THE MATTER INVOLVED AND THE REASONS RELIED ON FOR
THE ALLOWANCE OF THE WRIT.  A SUPPORTING BRIEF MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE
PETITION, BUT, WHETHER SO INCLUDED OR PRESENTED SEPARATELY, IT MUST BE
DIRECT, CONCISE AND IN CONFORMITY WITH RULES 26 AND 27.  A FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR DENYING
THE PETITION.  ...  "  EVIDENTLY PETITIONER, BY THE "QUESTIONS
PRESENTED" INTENDED TO STATE THE ISSUES IT DEEMED TO ARISE ON ITS
"STATEMENT OF THE MATTER INVOLVED," FOR NEITHER THE PETITION NOR
SUPPORTING BRIEF PURPORT TO APPLY FOR REVIEW OF ANY OTHER QUESTION. 
WHETHER INCLUDED IN THE PETITION, OR SEPARATELY PRESENTED, THE
SUPPORTING BRIEF IS NOT A PART OF THE PETITION, AT LEAST FOR THE
PURPOSE OF STATING THE QUESTIONS ON WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT.  THE
SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR IN THAT BRIEF DO NOT EXPAND OR ADD TO THE
QUESTIONS STATED IN THE PETITION; THEY SERVE MERELY TO IDENTIFY AND
CHALLENGE RULINGS UPON WHICH IS GROUNDED ULTIMATE DECISION OF THE
MATTER INVOLVED. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LOWER COURTS' DECISION ON EITHER OF THE ADDED
QUESTIONS TO WARRANT REVIEW HERE.  WHETHER RESPONDENTS ACQUIESCED IN
THE INFRINGEMENT AND ARE ESTOPPED DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS.  GRANTING OF
THE WRIT WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED MERELY TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE OR
INFERENCES DRAWN FROM IT.  SOUTHERN POWER CO. V. N.C. PUBLIC SERVICE
CO., 263 U.S. 508.  UNITED STATES V. JOHNSTON, 268 U.S. 220, 227. 
MOREOVER, THE DECISION ON THAT POINT RESTS ON CONCURRENT FINDINGS. 
THEY ARE NOT TO BE DISTURBED UNLESS PLAINLY WITHOUT SUPPORT.  UNITED
STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1, 14.  UNITED STATES V.
MCGOWAN, 290 U.S. 592.  ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464. 
THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.  NOR WOULD THE WRIT BE GRANTED TO
REVIEW THE QUESTIONS OF ANTICIPATION AND INVENTION THAT PETITIONER
ARGUES, FOR AS TO THEM THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN DECISIONS OF
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.  LAYNE & BOWLER CORP. V. WESTERN WELL WORKS,
261 U.S. 387, 393.  KELLER V. ADAMS-CAMPBELL CO., 264 U.S. 314, 319
320.  CF. STILZ V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 144, 147-148.  THE WRIT DID
NOT ISSUE TO BRING UP EITHER OF THESE QUESTIONS.  CROWELL V. BENSON,
285 U.S. 22, 65. 

ONE HAVING OBTAINED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW SPECIFIED
QUESTIONS IS NOT ENTITLED HERE TO OBTAIN DECISION ON ANY OTHER ISSUE. 
CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. V. GUTMANN CO., ANTE, P. 159.  PETITIONER IS NOT
HERE ENTITLED TO DECISION ON ANY QUESTION OTHER THAN THOSE FORMALLY
PRESENTED BY ITS PETITION FOR THE WRIT. 

2.  THE RESPONDENT AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. OWNS THE
PATENTS.  AMPLIFIERS HAVING THESE INVENTIONS ARE USED IN DIFFERENT
FIELDS.  ONE, KNOWN AS THE COMMERCIAL FIELD, INCLUDES TALKING PICTURE
EQUIPMENT FOR THEATERS.  ANOTHER, CALLED THE PRIVATE FIELD, EMBRACES
RADIO BROADCAST RECEPTION, RADIO AMATEUR RECEPTION, AND RADIO
EXPERIMENTAL RECEPTION.  THE OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE SUBSIDIARIES OF THE
TELEPHONE COMPANY AND EXCLUSIVE LICENSEES IN THE COMMERCIAL FIELD OF
RECORDING AND REPRODUCING SOUND; DURING THE TIME OF THE INFRINGEMENT
ALLEGED, THEY WERE ENGAGED IN MAKING AND SUPPLYING TO THEATERS TALKING
PICTURE EQUIPMENT INCLUDING AMPLIFIERS EMBODYING THE INVENTIONS COVERED
BY THE PATENTS IN SUIT.  THE PETITIONER ALSO FURNISHED TO THEATERS
TALKING PICTURE EQUIPMENT INCLUDING AMPLIFIERS WHICH EMBODY THE
INVENTION COVERED BY THE PATENTS IN SUIT.  RESPONDENTS' CHARGE IS THAT
BY SO DOING PETITIONER INFRINGES THEM. 

THE AMERICAN TRANSFORMER COMPANY WAS ONE OF A NUMBER OF MANUFACTURERS
HOLDING NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSES LIMITED TO THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF
THE AMPLIFIERS FOR PRIVATE USE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM COMMERCIAL USE. 
THESE LICENSES WERE GRANTED BY THE RADIO CORPORATION, ACTING FOR ITSELF
AND THE RESPONDENT TELEPHONE COMPANY, AND WERE ASSENTED TO BY THE
LATTER.  THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY'S LICENSE WAS EXPRESSLY CONFINED TO
THE RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL THE PATENTED AMPLIFIERS FOR RADIO
AMATEUR RECEPTION, RADIO EXPERIMENAL RECEPTION, AND HOME BROADCAST
RECEPTION.  IT HAD NO RIGHT TO SELL THE AMPLIFIERS FOR USE IN THEATERS
AS A PART OF TALKING PICTURE EQUIPMENT. 

NEVERTHELESS, IT KNOWINGLY DID SELL THE AMPLIFIERS IN CONTROVERSY TO
PETITIONER FOR THAT USE.  PETITIONER ADMITS THAT THE TRANSFORMER
COMPANY KNEW THAT THE AMPLIFIERS IT SOLD TO PETITIONER WERE TO BE USED
IN THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY.  THE PETITIONER, WHEN PURCHASING FROM
THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY FOR THAT USE, HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE
LATTER HAD NO LICENSE TO MAKE SUCH A SALE.  IN COMPLIANCE WITH A
REQUIREMENT OF THE LICENSE, THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY AFFIXED TO
AMPLIFIERS SOLD BY IT UNDER THE LICENSE A NOTICE STATING IN SUBSTANCE
THAT THE APPARATUS WAS LICENSED ONLY FOR RADIO AMATEUR, EXPERIMENTAL
AND BROADCAST RECEPTION UNDER THE PATENTS IN QUESTION.  TO THE
AMPLIFIERS SOLD TO PETITIONER OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE LICENSE, IT ALSO
AFFIXED NOTICES IN THE FORM DESCRIBED, BUT THEY WERE INTENDED BY BOTH
PARTIES TO BE DISREGARDED. 

PETITIONER PUTS ITS FIRST QUESTION IN AFFIRMATIVE FORM:  "THE OWNER
OF A PATENT CANNOT, BY MEANS OF THE PATENT, RESTRICT THE USE MADE OF A
DEVICE MANUFACTURED UNDER THE PATENT AFTER THE DEVICE HAS PASSED INTO
THE HANDS OF A PURCHASER IN THE ORDINARY CHANNELS OF TRADE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION PAID THEREFOR."  BUT THAT PROPOSITION IGNORES CONTROLLING
FACTS.  THE PATENT OWNER DID NOT SELL TO PETITIONER THE AMPLIFIERS IN
QUESTION OR AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY TO SELL THEM OR ANY
AMPLIFIERS FOR USE IN THEATERS OR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL USE.  THE SALES
MADE BY THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY TO PETITIONER WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
ITS LICENSE AND NOT UNDER THE PATENT.  BOTH PARTIES KNEW THAT FACT AT
THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTIONS.  THERE IS NO GROUND FOR THE ASSUMPTION
THAT PETITIONER WAS "A PURCHASER IN THE ORDINARY CHANNELS OF TRADE." 

THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY WAS NOT AN ASSIGNEE; IT DID NOT OWN THE
PATENTS OR ANY INTEREST IN THEM; IT WAS A MERE LICENSEE UNDER A NON
EXCLUSIVE LICENSE, AMOUNTING TO NO MORE THAN "A MERE WAIVER OF THE
RIGHT TO SUE."  DE FOREST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 273 U.S. 236, 242. 
PERTINENT WORDS OF THE LICENSE ARE THESE:  "TO MANUFACTURE  ...  AND TO
SELL ONLY FOR RADIO AMATEUR RECEPTION, RADIO EXPERIMENTAL RECEPTION AND
RADIO BROADCAST RECEPTION.  ...  "  PATENT OWNERS MAY GRANT LICENSES
EXTENDING TO ALL USES OR LIMITED TO USE IN A DEFINED FIELD.  RUBBER
COMPANY V. GOODYEAR, 9 WALL.  788, 799-800.  GAMEWELL FIRE-ALARM
TELEGRAPH CO. V. BROOKLYN, 14 FED. 255.  DORSEY RAKE CO. V. BRADLEY
CO., FED. CAS. NO. 4,015, 7 FED. CAS. 946, 947.  ROBINSON ON PATENTS,
SECS. 808, 824.  UNQUESTIONABLY, THE OWNER OF A PATENT MAY GRANT
LICENSES TO MANUFACTURE, USE OR SELL UPON CONDITIONS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THE SCOPE OF THE MONOPOLY.  BEMENT V. NATIONAL HARROW CO., 186
U.S. 70, 93.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 272 U.S. 476,
489.  THERE IS HERE NO ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE PATENT OWNER TO
EXTEND THE SCOPE OF THE MONOPOLY BEYOND THAT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PATENT
STATUTE.  CF. CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27,
33.  LEITCH MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458.  THERE IS NO WARRANT
FOR TREATING THE SALES OF AMPLIFIERS TO PETITIONER AS IF MADE UNDER THE
PATENTS OR THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR OWNER.  R.S. SECS. 4884 AND 4898(35
U.S.C. SECS. 40 AND 47).  MOORE V. MARSH, 7 WALL.  515, 521.  WATERMAN
V. MACKENZIE, 138 U.S. 252, 256.  GAYLER V. WILDER, 10 HOW.  477, 494. 
UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA.  ROBINSON ON PATENTS,
SECS. 762, 763, 792, 806 ET SEQ. 

THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY COULD NOT CONVEY TO PETITIONER WHAT BOTH KNEW
IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SELL.  MITCHELL V. HAWLEY, 16 WALL.  544,
550.  BY KNOWINGLY MAKING THE SALES TO PETITIONER OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
ITS LICENSE, THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY INFRINGED THE PATENTS EMBODIED IN
THE AMPLIFIERS.  RUBBER CO. V. GOODYEAR, SUPRA.  BEMENT V. NATIONAL
HARROW CO., SUPRA.  UNITED STATES V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA.
VULCAN MFG. CO. V. MAYTAG CO., 73 F.(2D) 136, 139.  L.E. WATERMAN CO.
V. KLINE, 234 FED. 891, 893.  PORTER NEEDLE CO. V. NAT. NEEDLE CO., 17
FED. 536.  PETITIONER, HAVING WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS BOUGHT AT
SALES CONSTITUTING INFRINGEMENT, DID ITSELF INFRINGE THE PATENTS
EMBODIED IN THE AMPLIFIERS WHEN IT LEASED THEM FOR USE AS TALKING
PICTURE EQUIPMENT IN THEATERS.  MITCHELL V. HAWLEY, UBI SUPRA.
AMERICAN COTTON-TIE SUPPLY CO. V. BULLARD, FED. CAS. NO. 294, 1 FED.
CAS. 625, 629, 630.  SEE ROBINSON ON PATENTS, SEC. 824.  SEE HOLIDAY V.
MATTHESON, 24 FED. 185, 186.  GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. CONTINENTAL LAMP
WORKS, 280 FED. 846, 851.  AS PETITIONER AT THE TIME IT BOUGHT THE
AMPLIFIERS KNEW THAT THE SALES CONSTITUTED INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENTS
EMBODIED IN THEM, PETITIONER'S SECOND QUESTION, AS TO EFFECT OF THE
LICENSE NOTICE, NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED. 

3.  PETITIONER'S AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT OF ITS THIRD QUESTION IS:  "AN
INVENTOR WHO HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR PATENT SHOWING AND
DESCRIBING, BUT NOT CLAIMING, CERTAIN INVENTIONS CANNOT OBTAIN A VALID
PATENT FOR SAID INVENTIONS BY VOLUNTARILY FILING A 'DIVISIONAL' OR
'CONTINUATION' APPLICATION FOR SAID UNCLAIMED INVENTIONS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO PUBLIC USE OF THE SAID UNCLAIMED INVENTIONS BY HIM
OR HIS ASSIGNEE OR LICENSEE."  IT MAKES THAT CONTENTION AS TO FOUR
PATENTS:  ARNOLD PATENT NO. 1,403,475, DATED JANUARY 17, 1922; ARNOLD
PATENT NO. 1,465,332, DATED APRIL 21, 1923; ARNOLD PATENT NO.
1,329,283, DATED JANUARY 27, 1920; AND ARNOLD PATENT NO. 1,448,550,
DATED MARCH 13, 1923. 

THE DISTRICT COURT AND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT THERE WAS
NO PUBLIC USE OF EITHER OF THE INVENTIONS OF THE FIRST TWO PATENTS
PRIOR TO THE FILING DATES OF THE DIVISIONAL APPLICATIONS UPON WHICH
THEY ISSUED.  THESE FINDINGS WERE MADE UPON ADEQUATE EVIDENCE AND
PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS AS TO THEM WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED HERE. 

THE SUBJECTS MATTER OF THE CLAIMS OF THE OTHER TWO PATENTS WERE
DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS AND WERE CLAIMED IN THE
CONTINUATION APPLICATIONS UPON WHICH THEY ISSUED.  THE PATENTEE'S USE
WAS THE ONLY "PUBLIC USE" OF THE INVENTIONS COVERED BY THEM.  AND THAT
DID NOT PRECEDE BY AS MUCH AS TWO YEARS THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL
APPLICATIONS.  THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF THE CLAIMS OF THE CONTINUATION
APPLICATIONS ARE THOSE OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF
INTERVENING ADVERSE RIGHTS FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE
CONTINUATION APPLICATIONS, THEY WERE IN TIME* .  R.S. SEC. 4886(35
U.S.C. SEC. 31).  CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. V. GUTMANN CO., ANTE, P. 159. 
*THIS SENTENCE OF THE OPINION IS REPORTED AS AMENDED BY ORDER OF MAY
16, 1938, POST, P. 546.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE.    MR. JUSTICE
BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE DECISIONS IN THIS CASE AND CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. V. GUTMANN CO.,
ANTE, P. 159, WILL INEVITABLY RESULT IN A SWEEPING EXPANSION OF THE
STATUTORY BOUNDARIES CONSTITUTIONALLY FIXED BY CONGRESS TO LIMIT THE
SCOPE AND DURATION OF PATENT MONOPOLIES. 

THE AREA OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY IS EXPANDED BY THE HOLDING THAT THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT GRANTED AN INVENTOR TO "MAKE, USE AND VEND" HIS
PATENTED COMMERCIAL DEVICE, PERMITS THE INVENTOR'S CORPORATE ASSIGNEE
(AND OTHER "PATENT POOL" PARTICIPANTS) TO CONTROL HOW, AND WHERE THE
DEVICE CAN BE USED BY A PURCHASER WHO BOUGHT IT IN THE OPEN MARKET. 
FN1 

PETITIONER BOUGHT AMPLIFYING TUBES FROM THE AMERICAN TRANSFORMER
COMPANY, A LICENSEE AUTHORIZED TO "MANUFACTURE  ...  AND SELL ONLY FOR
RADIO AMATEUR RECEPTION, RADIO EXPERIMENTAL RECEPTION AND RADIO
BROADCAST RECEPTION."  THE DEVICES ARE OF A STANDARD AND UNIFORM TYPE
GENERALLY USEFUL IN MANY "FIELDS." 

WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH THE RIGHT OF RESPONDENTS UNDER THE
CONTRACT WITH THE LICENSEE, AMERICAN TRANSFORMER COMPANY.  RESPONDENTS
DO NOT - IN FACT, COULD NOT - RELY ON THE CONTRACT MADE WITH THE
TRANSFORMER COMPANY, IN THIS SUIT AGAINST PETITIONER WHICH IN NO WAY
WAS A PARTY TO THAT CONTRACT.  IF THE TRANSFORMER COMPANY VIOLATED ITS
CONTRACT RESPONDENTS' REMEDY WAS BY SUIT AGAINST THE TRANSFORMER
COMPANY FOR THE BREACH.  NO QUESTION OF MALICIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
CONTRACTUAL INTERESTS IS PRESENTED.  RESPONDENTS INSIST ONLY THAT UNDER
THEIR PATENTS, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE USE OF THESE WIDELY
USED TUBES IN THE HANDS OF PURCHASERS FROM ONE AUTHORIZED BY
RESPONDENTS TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL THEM. 

THE MERE FACT THAT THE PURCHASER OF A STANDARD AND UNIFORM PIECE OF
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT HAS KNOWLEDGE THAT HIS VENDOR HAS CONTRACTED WITH
AN OWNER OF A PATENT ON THE EQUIPMENT NOT TO SELL THE EQUIPMENT FOR
CERTAIN AGREED PURPOSES DOES NOT ENLARGE THE SCOPE OR EFFECT OF THE
PATENT MONOPOLY.  THE PATENT STATUTE ONLY GIVES THE PATENTEE THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO MAKE, USE AND VEND HIS PATENTED ARTICLE. 

WHERE A LICENSEE - AUTHORIZED TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL - CONTRACTS
WITH THE PATENTEE TO ATTACH A NOTICE TO EACH PATENTED ARTICLE (A
MACHINE) OF "THE CONDITIONS OF ITS USE AND THE SUPPLIES WHICH MUST BE
USED IN THE OPERATION OF IT, UNDER PAIN OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT,"
THIS COURT HAS SAID:  "THE STATUTES RELATING TO PATENTS DO NOT PROVIDE
FOR ANY SUCH NOTICE AND  ...  (THE PATENTEE) CAN DERIVE NO AID FROM
THEM  ...  (IN A SUIT AGAINST A PURCHASER FROM THE LICENSEE).  ... 

"THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE USE OF THE PATENTED MACHINE MAY VALIDLY BE
RESTRICTED TO SPECIFIC SUPPLIES OR OTHERWISE BY SPECIAL CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE OWNER OF A PATENT AND THE PURCHASER OR LICENSEE IS A
QUESTION OUTSIDE THE PATENT LAW AND WITH IT WE ARE NOT HERE
CONCERNED."  FN2 

A PATENTEE HAS NO RIGHT UNDER THE PATENT LAWS TO FIX THE RESALE PRICE
OF HIS PATENTED ARTICLE FN3  OR TO REQUIRE THAT SPECIFIED UNPATENTED
MATERIALS BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH IT.  FN4  THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
VEND DOES NOT - ANY MORE THAN THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE - EMPOWER A
PATENTEE TO EXTEND HIS MONOPOLY INTO THE COUNTRY'S CHANNELS OF TRADE
AFTER MANUFACTURE AND SALE WHICH PASSES TITLE.  IT IS NOT CONTENDED
THAT PETITIONER DID NOT OBTAIN TITLE TO THE TUBES. 

THE PATENT STATUTE WHICH PERMITS A PATENTEE TO "MAKE, USE AND VEND"
CONFERS NO POWER TO FIX AND RESTRICT THE USES TO WHICH A MERCHANTABLE
COMMODITY CAN BE PUT AFTER IT HAS BEEN BOUGHT IN THE OPEN MARKET FROM
ONE WHO WAS GRANTED AUTHORITY TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL IT.  NEITHER THE
RIGHT TO MAKE, NOR THE RIGHT TO USE, NOR THE RIGHT TO SELL A CHATTEL,
INCLUDES THE RIGHT - DERIVED FROM PATENT MONOPOLY APART FROM CONTRACT -
TO CONTROL THE USE OF THE SAME CHATTEL BY ANOTHER WHO HAS PURCHASED IT.
A LICENSE TO SELL A WIDELY USED MERCHANTABLE CHATTEL MUST BE AS TO
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS - IF ANYTHING - A TRANSFER OF THE PATENTEE'S
ENTIRE RIGHT TO SELL; IT CANNOT - AS TO NON-CONTRACTING PARTIES -
RESTRICT THE USE OF ORDINARY ARTICLES OF PURCHASE BOUGHT IN THE OPEN
MARKET.  "THE WORDS USED IN THE STATUTE ARE FEW, SIMPLE AND FAMILIAR,
...  AND THEIR MEANING WOULD SEEM NOT TO BE DOUBTFUL IF WE CAN AVOID
READING INTO THEM THAT WHICH THEY REALLY DO NOT CONTAIN."  FN5
PETITIONER IS HELD LIABLE FOR USING AN ORDINARY VACUUM AMPLIFYING TUBE
BOUGHT FROM ONE WHO HAD TITLE AND THE RIGHT TO SELL.  NOTICE TO
PETITIONER THAT THE VENDOR WAS VIOLATING ITS (THE VENDOR'S) CONTRACT
WITH RESPONDENTS GAVE THE LATTER NO RIGHT UNDER THE PATENT AND IMPOSED
NO RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE PATENT.  PETITIONER BECAME THE OWNER OF THE
TUBES. 

AT THIS TIME A GREAT PORTION OF THE COMMON ARTICLES OF COMMERCE AND
TRADE IS PATENTED.  A LARGE PART OF THE MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT USED IN
PRODUCING GOODS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY IS PATENTED.  MANY SMALL PARTS
ESSENTIAL TO THE OPERATION OF MACHINERY ARE PATENTED.  PATENTED
ARTICLES ARE EVERYWHERE.  THOSE WHO ACQUIRE CONTROL OF NUMEROUS
PATENTS, COVERING WIDE FIELDS OF INDUSTRY AND BUSINESS, CAN - BY VIRTUE
OF THEIR PATENTS - WIELD TREMENDOUS INFLUENCE ON THE COMMERCIAL LIFE OF
THE NATION.  IF THE EXCLUSIVE PATENT PRIVILEGE TO "MAKE, USE AND VEND"
INCLUDES THE FURTHER PRIVILEGE AFTER SALE, TO CONTROL - APART FROM
CONTRACT - THE USE OF ALL PATENTED MERCHANTABLE COMMODITIES, A STILL
MORE SWEEPING POWER CAN BE EXERCISED BY PATENT OWNERS.  THIS RECORD
INDICATES THE POSSIBLE EXTENT OF A POWER TO DIRECT AND CENSOR THE
ULTIMATE USE OF THE MULTITUDINOUS PATENTED ARTICLES WITH WHICH THE
NATION'S DAILY LIFE IS CONCERNED. 

THIS RECORD SHOWS THAT THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY SYSTEM, THE RADIO
CORPORATION SYSTEM, AND THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
SYSTEM ARE PARTICIPANTS IN A "PATENT POOL."  THIS "PATENT POOL"
CONTROLS RESPONDENTS' PATENTS.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THIS "PATENT
POOL" OPERATES UNDER CROSS LICENSING AGREEMENTS, IN THE UNITED STATES
AND IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  IT APPEARS THAT THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
AND THE RADIO CORPORATION HAVE "AGREED THAT THE RADIO CORPORATION SHALL
NOT RESELL PATENTED ARTICLES EXCEPT AS A PART OF THE RADIO SYSTEM," AND
THAT THE RADIO CORPORATION "AGREES TO USE CARE NOT TO ENTER WITH ANY
PATENT DEVICE, PROCESS OR SYSTEM INTO THE FIELD OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY OR TO ENCOURAGE OR AID OTHERS TO DO SO."  THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
AGREEMENT APPEARS THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF THE "PATENT POOL"
PARTICIPANTS TO PROTECT FOR EACH OTHER CERTAIN ALLOCATED "FIELDS" IN
THE PRODUCTION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN ELECTRICAL NECESSITIES
USED IN EVERYTHING INVOLVING MODERN COMMUNICATIONS.  ALTHOUGH THE
PATENT LAWS CONTEMPLATE AND AUTHORIZE BUT ONE PATENT MONOPOLY FOR ONE
INVENTION, MANY SEPARATE PATENTS AUTHORIZING SINGLE PATENT MONOPOLIES
ARE MERGED IN THIS "PATENT POOL."  THUS, ALL THESE SEPARATE PATENT
MONOPOLIES ARE COMBINED AND IN MANY RESPECTS ARE MADE TO FUNCTION AS
ONE.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT FROM THIS LARGER COMBINATION - COMPLETELY
OUTSIDE THE CONCEPTION IN THE PATENT STATUTES OF SINGLE AND SEPARATE
MONOPOLIES - ALLOTMENTS OF SUB-MONOPOLIES ARE MADE IN THE RESPECTIVE
"FIELDS," FROM WHICH EMANATE IN TURN OTHER SUB-MONOPOLIES.  THIS COURT
HAS PREVIOUSLY DIRECTED ATTENTION TO THE TENDENCY OF SUCH COMBINATIONS
TO STIMULATE PATENT LAW ABUSES, IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:  "IT WAS NOT
UNTIL THE TIME CAME IN WHICH THE FULL POSSIBILITIES SEEM FIRST TO HAVE
BEEN APPRECIATED OF UNITING, IN ONE, MANY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS THROUGH
CORPORATE ORGANIZATION AND OF GATHERING GREAT PROFITS IN SMALL
PAYMENTS, WHICH ARE NOT REALIZED OR RESENTED, FROM MANY, RATHER THAN
SMALLER OR EVEN EQUAL PROFITS IN LARGER PAYMENTS, WHICH ARE FELT AND
MAY BE REFUSED, FROM A FEW, THAT IT CAME TO BE THOUGHT THAT THE 'RIGHT
TO USE  ...  THE INVENTION' OF A PATENT GAVE TO THE PATENTEE OR HIS
ASSIGNS THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT THE USE OF IT TO MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES
NOT DESCRIBED IN THE PATENT AND NOT BY ITS TERMS MADE A PART OF THE
THING PATENTED."  FN6 

ARTICLES MANUFACTURED UNDER THE PATENTS THUS CONTROLLED ARE WIDELY
USED IN THE MODERN ELECTRICAL FIELD.  THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE TO
EXERCISE THE UNRESTRAINED POWER TO DETERMINE THE ULTIMATE USES OF ALL
THESE IMPORTANT MERCHANTABLE ARTICLES SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET, IS A
POWER I DO NOT BELIEVE CONGRESS HAS CONFERRED.  A POWER SO FAR REACHING
- APART FROM CONTRACT - HAS NOT BEEN EXPRESSLY GRANTED IN ANY STATUTE,
AND SHOULD NOT BE READ INTO THE LAW BY IMPLICATION. 

SECOND.  THE NUMEROUS PATENTS ACQUIRED BY RESPONDENTS ALL RELATE TO
CLAIMED INVENTIONS MADE BETWEEN 1912 AND 1916; YET, SOME OF THESE
PATENTS DO NOT EXPIRE UNTIL 1940.  PATENT NO. 1448550 ILLUSTRATES MOST
OF THE PATENTS INVOLVED.  IT IS DESIGNATED AS THE "CONTINUATION" OF TWO
EARLIER APPLICATIONS FILED SEPTEMBER 3, 1915 AND NOVEMBER 2, 1915. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1919 - MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AFTER RESPONDENTS' COMMERCIAL
USE - THE "CONTINUATION" APPLICATION WAS FILED AND MARCH 13, 1923, THE
PATENT WAS GRANTED.  BY THIS PROCESS OF "DIVISIONALS" OR
"CONTINUATIONS" A SEVENTEEN YEAR PATENT MONOPOLY IS PERMITTED TO BEGIN
IN 1923, THEORETICALLY BASED ON ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS WHICH WERE FILED
IN 1915. 

CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT TWO YEARS' PUBLIC USE OF AN INVENTION
PRIOR TO APPLICATION BARS THE RIGHT TO PATENT  FN7  AND NO PATENT
RIGHTS ARE AWARDED FOR DISCLOSURES IN AN APPLICATION WHICH ARE NOT
CLAIMED.  FN8  HERE, HOWEVER, APPROVAL IS GIVEN PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS
AS THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND AND THE RECORD SHOWS - PUBLICLY USED FOR
MORE THAN TWO YEARS BEFORE APPLICATIONS ACTUALLY CLAIMING THE INVENTION
WERE FILED.  THIS APPROVAL IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT DISCLOSURES
(UNCLAIMED) WERE MADE IN PRIOR AND SEPARATE APPLICATIONS WHICH HAD NOT
BEEN PRECEDED BY TWO YEARS' PUBLIC USE.  "DIVISIONAL" OR "CONTINUATION"
APPLICATIONS - UNAUTHORIZED BY ANY STATUTE - ARE PERMITTED TO GIVE
PRIORITY FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS, IN EFFECT BARRING ALL
OTHER INVENTIONS FROM THAT DATE AND NULLIFYING THE STATUTE OF TWO
YEARS' PUBLIC USE.  THUS FOR YEARS RESPONDENTS OBTAINED NO PATENT ON
THEIR INVENTIONS FOR LACK OF CLAIM.  NO ONE ELSE COULD SAFELY OBTAIN A
PATENT BECAUSE OF THE CERTAINTY THAT RESPONDENTS WOULD LATER CLAIM
UNDER A "DIVISIONAL" OR "CONTINUATION." 

THE STATUTE PROVIDES NO EXCEPTION OF PUBLIC USE BY THE INVENTOR AND,
IF HE USES HIS COMPLETED INVENTION IN THE ORDINARY CONDUCT OF HIS
BUSINESS - FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO HIS APPLICATION - THE
DISCOVERY IS ABANDONED TO THE PUBLIC AND HE CANNOT THEREAFTER OBTAIN A
PATENT.  FN9  SUCH AN EXCEPTION - GRAFTED ONTO THE STATUTE - WOULD BE
DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO ITS AIM AND PURPOSE, AND WOULD ENABLE INVENTORS TO
OBTAIN ALL THE BENEFITS OF MONOPOLY BY SIMPLY MAKING UNCLAIMED
DISCLOSURES, BLANKETING THE FIELD, AND WAITING UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE
ATTEMPTED TO CLAIM A PATENT ON THE SAME INVENTION.  THEN, BY MEANS OF
"DIVISIONAL" OR "CONTINUATION" APPLICATIONS, PATENT COULD BE OBTAINED. 
NO SUCH EXPANSION OF THE PATENT STATUTES IS JUSTIFIED.  FN10  I BELIEVE
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

FN1  THE PATENTED DEVICE HERE IS AN AMPLIFYING TUBE, AND THE OPINION
OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE STATED:  "THE AMPLIFYING DEVICES REQUIRED TUBES
WHICH THE DEFENDANT PROCURED IN THE OPEN MARKET BY PURCHASE FROM
AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTORS; EACH TUBE CARTON BORE A LICENSE NOTICE READING
AS FOLLOWS:

                       'LICENSE NOTICE. 

"IN CONNECTION WITH DEVICES IT SELLS, RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA
HAS RIGHTS UNDER PATENTS HAVING CLAIMS (A) ON THE DEVICES THEMSELVES
AND (B) ON COMBINATION OF THE DEVICES WITH OTHER DEVICES OR ELEMENTS,
AS FOR EXAMPLE IN VARIOUS CIRCUITS AND HOOKUPS.'" 

FN2  MOTION PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., 243 U.S. 502, 509; SEE
KEELER V. STANDARD FOLDING BED CO., 157 U.S. 659. 

FN3  BAUER & CIE V. O'DONNELL, 229 U.S. 1; STRAUS V. VICTOR TALKING
MACH. CO., 243 U.S. 490; BOSTON STORE V. AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO., 246
U.S. 8; CF. BOBBS-MERRILL CO. V. STRAUS, 210 U.S. 339. 

FN4  MOTION PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., SUPRA; CARBICE CORP.
V. AMERICAN PATENTS CORP., 283 U.S. 27; LEITCH MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO.,
302 U.S. 458. 

FN5  MOTION PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO., SUPRA, AT 510. 

FN6  MOTION PICTURE CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM CO. SUPRA, 513-514. 

IN THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AND THE
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, THIS APPEARS:

                            "ARTICLE VIII. 

                    "ACQUISITION OF PATENT RIGHTS. 

"NEITHER PARTY SHALL ACQUIRE FROM OTHERS RIGHTS TO DO UNDER UNITED
STATES PATENTS OR INVENTIONS, OR RIGHTS TO USE SECRET PROCESSES,
APPLICABLE TO THE FIELDS OF THE OTHER PARTY, OF SUCH LIMITED CHARACTER
THAT THE OTHER PARTY DOES NOT, BY THE OPERATION OF THIS AGREEMENT,
RECEIVE LICENSES THEREUNDER OF THE SCOPE AND WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE
FIELDS HEREIN SET FORTH, UNLESS THE PARTY PROPOSING TO ACQUIRE SUCH
RIGHTS SHALL FIRST HAVE GIVEN THE OTHER PARTY AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
REPRESENTED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS AND THEREBY TO ACQUIRE RIGHTS FOR ITS
FIELD." 

FN7  35 U.S.C., C. 2, SEC. 31. 

FN8  CF., THE CORN-PLANTER PATENT, 23 WALL.  181, 224; MILLER V.
BRASS CO., 104 U.S. 350, 352; MCCLAIN V. ORTMAYER, 141 U.S. 419, 423,
424; BUFFINGTON'S IRON BUILDING CO. V. EUSTIS, 65 FED. 804, 807; ELY
NORRIS SAFE CO. V. MOSLER SAFE CO., 62 F.(2D) 524, 526.    FN9  "A
SINGLE SALE TO ANOTHER OF SUCH A MACHINE AS THAT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN IN
USE BY THE COMPLAINANT MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF HIS
APPLICATION WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE DEFEATED HIS RIGHT TO A PATENT; AND
YET, DURING THAT PERIOD IN WHICH ITS USE BY ANOTHER WOULD HAVE DEFEATED
ITS RIGHT, HE HIMSELF USED IT, FOR THE SAME PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN USED BY A PURCHASER.  WHY SHOULD THE SIMILAR USE BY HIMSELF
NOT BE COUNTED AS STRONGLY AGAINST HIS RIGHTS AS THE USE BY ANOTHER TO
WHOM HE HAD SOLD IT, UNLESS HIS USE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MOTIVE
AND FOR THE PURPOSE, BY FURTHER EXPERIMENT, OF COMPLETING THE
SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF HIS INVENTION?"  SMITH & GRIGGS MFG. CO. V.
SPRAGUE, 123 U.S. 249, 257; INTERNATIONAL TOOTH CROWN CO. V. GAYLORD,
140 U.S. 55; SEE A. SCHRADER'S SONS, INC. V. WEIN SALES CORP., 9 F.(2D)
306, 208. 

FN10  CF., "THE PATENT LAW WAS DESIGNED FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, AS
WELL AS FOR THE BENEFIT OF INVENTORS.  ... 

"  ...  A TERM OF FOURTEEN (NOW SEVENTEEN) YEARS WAS DEEMED
SUFFICIENT FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF AN INVENTION BY
THE INVENTOR; BUT IF HE MAY DELAY AN APPLICATION FOR HIS PATENT, AT
PLEASURE, ALTHOUGH HIS INVENTION BE CARRIED INTO PUBLIC USE, HE MAY
EXTEND THE PERIOD BEYOND WHAT THE LAW INTENDED TO GIVE HIM."  SHAW V.
COOPER, 7 PET. 292, 320, 322. 
..END :











PACIFIC NATIONAL CO. V. WELCH, 304 U.S. 191 


NO. 528.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 2, 1938.  - 91 F.2D 590,
AFFIRMED. 


A TAXPAYER WHO, IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1928, REPORTED INCOME
FROM SALES OF PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE DEFERRED PAYMENT METHOD,
ALTHOUGH HE MIGHT HAVE USED THE INSTALLMENT METHOD, IS NOT ENTITLED,
UPON A CLAIM FOR REFUND, AFTER THE TIME FOR FILING THE RETURN HAS
EXPIRED, TO HAVE THE INCOME COMPUTED ACCORDING TO THE INSTALLMENT
METHOD, AT LEAST WHERE IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE DEFERRED PAYMENT
METHOD, RIGHTLY APPLIED, DOES NOT CLEARLY REFLECT HIS INCOME.  P. 192. 

PACIFIC NATIONAL CO. V. WELCH, FORMER COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 679, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
REJECTING A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

MARCH 14, 1929, PETITIONER FILED ITS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR 1928.  THE
RETURN REPORTED $137,007.17 AS PROFIT RESULTING FROM SALES OF LOTS IN
THAT YEAR.  THAT FIGURE WAS ARRIVED AT BY ADDING TO THE CASH PAID IN
1928, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALES, THE AMOUNTS LATER TO BE PAID, AND BY
DEDUCTING FROM THE TOTAL THE COST OF LOTS AND IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPENSES
OF THE SALES. 

IN 1931 PETITIONER FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE ENTIRE TAX ON THE
GROUND THAT THE SALES HAD BEEN MADE ON THE INSTALLMENT BASIS, BUT THE
PROFITS HAD BEEN REPORTED AS IF THE SALES WERE FOR CASH, AND THAT THIS
WAS ERRONEOUS.  THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED.  PETITIONER SUED; TRIAL BY JURY
HAVING BEEN WAIVED, THE DISTRICT COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND HELD
THAT PETITIONER REPORTED INCOME AS AUTHORIZED BY THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928 AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, AND THEREBY MADE AN ELECTION WHICH
BECAME BINDING ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING THE
RETURN.  ACCORDINGLY IT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  UPON THE SAME
GROUND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  91 F.(2D) 590.  THE
DECISION BELOW BEING IN CONFLICT WITH THAT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN
KAPLAN V. UNITED STATES, 18 F.SUPP.  965, WE GRANTED A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI. 

UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS, PETITIONER COULD HAVE
CHOSEN EITHER OF TWO METHODS FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT AND REPORT OF GAIN
OR LOSS ON THE SALES.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT. 791,
ESTABLISHES BOTH.  DEFINING ONE, THE "DEFERRED PAYMENT METHOD," IT
DECLARES THAT GROSS INCOME INCLUDES PROFITS FROM SALES, SEC. 22(A);
REGULATES THE COMPUTATION OF GAIN OR LOSS, SEC. 22(E); DEFINES GAIN TO
BE THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT REALIZED OVER THE BASIS, SECS. 111(A), 113;
AND PROVIDES THAT THE "AMOUNT REALIZED" SHALL BE THE SUM OF ANY MONEY
RECEIVED PLUS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY (OTHER THAN MONEY)
RECEIVED, SEC. 111(C).  REGULATIONS 74, ART. 352.  DEFINING THE OTHER,
THE "INSTALLMENT METHOD," IT PROVIDES THAT, IN THE CASE OF A CASUAL
SALE OR OTHER CASUAL DISPOSITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR A PRICE
EXCEEDING $1000 OR IN THE CASE OF SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF REAL
PROPERTY, IF PAYMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR IN WHICH THE
SALE WAS MADE DO NOT EXCEED 40 PER CENT. OF THE SELLING PRICE, THE
INCOME MAY, UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED, BE RETURNED ON THE
INSTALLMENT METHOD (SEC. 44(B)); I.E., THE TAXPAYER MAY RETURN IN ANY
TAXABLE YEAR THAT PROPORTION OF THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS ACTUALLY
RECEIVED IN THAT YEAR WHICH THE GROSS PROFIT REALIZED OR TO BE REALIZED
WHEN PAYMENT IS COMPLETED BEARS TO TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE.  SEE SEC.
44(A). 

REGULATIONS 74 PERMIT THE VENDOR TO RETURN INCOME FROM INSTALLMENT
SALES ON THE STRAIGHT ACCRUAL OR CASH RECEIPTS BASIS; WHEN SO REPORTED
THE SALES ARE TREATED AS DEFERRED PAYMENT SALES NOT ON THE INSTALLMENT
PLAN.  ART. 353.  IN ASCERTAINING THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT OR LOSS FROM
THAT CLASS OF SALES, THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDOR ARE
TAKEN AT THEIR FAIR MARKET VALUE; IF THEY HAVE NONE, THE PAYMENTS IN
CASH OR OTHER PROPERTY HAVING A FAIR MARKET VALUE SHALL BE APPLIED
AGAINST AND REDUCE THE BASIS OF THE PROPERTY SOLD, AND IF IN EXCESS OF
SUCH BASIS, SHALL BE TAXABLE TO THE EXTENT OF THE EXCESS.  GAIN OR LOSS
IS REALIZED WHEN THE OBLIGATIONS ARE DISPOSED OF OR SATISFIED, THE
AMOUNT BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REDUCED BASIS AND THE AMOUNT
REALIZED THEREFOR.  ART. 354. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, HAVING FILED A RETURN ACCORDING TO THE
DEFERRED PAYMENT METHOD, THE TAXPAYER BY FILING CLAIM FOR REFUND IS
ENTITLED TO HAVE THE PROFIT FROM THE SALES COMPUTED ON THE INSTALLMENT
METHOD. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE INSTALLMENT METHOD ALONE DISCLOSES ITS
INCOME FROM THE SALES OF LOTS AND THAT THE DEFERRED PAYMENT METHOD
FAILED CLEARLY TO REFLECT INCOME. 

CONCEDING THAT ITS RETURN MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
EITHER METHOD, PETITIONER SAYS THAT, BEING IGNORANT OF BOTH, IT TREATED
THE SALES AS IF MADE FOR CASH AT FIGURES MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACTS. 
ITS ARGUMENT, THEREFORE, RESTS UPON THE ASSERTION, WHICH WE ASSUME TO
BE TRUE, THAT THE PROMISES OF PURCHASERS TO PAY INSTALLMENTS WERE WORTH
LESS THAN FACE VALUE.  BUT THAT FACT HAS NO BEARING UPON THE QUESTION
WHETHER PROPER APPLICATION OF THE DEFERRED PAYMENT METHOD WOULD CLEARLY
REFLECT INCOME, FOR THAT METHOD PERMITS INSTALLMENTS TO BE TAKEN AT
MARKET VALUE AND, IF THEY HAVE NO MARKET VALUE, ALLOWS POSTPONEMENT OF
ASCERTAINMENT OF GAIN OR LOSS UNTIL REALIZED.  WHILE PETITIONER'S
RETURN MAY HAVE BEEN AN INEPT APPLICATION OF THE DEFERRED PAYMENT
METHOD, THERE IS NOTHING IN IT OR THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM FOR REFUND
THAT GIVES ANY SUPPORT TO THE IDEA THAT, IF RIGHTLY APPLIED, THAT
METHOD WOULD NOT CLEARLY REFLECT INCOME. 

THE PARTIES AGREE THAT, IF ALLOWED TO CHANGE TO THE INSTALLMENT
METHOD, PETITIONER WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A REFUND IN SOME AMOUNT.  BUT
THAT FACT HAS NO TENDENCY TO DISCREDIT THE DEFERRED PAYMENT METHOD AS
INAPPLICABLE.  THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION IS ONLY
ONE OF MANY CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE
TAXPAYER WHEN DECIDING WHICH METHOD TO EMPLOY.  THE ONE THAT WILL
PRODUCE A HIGHER TAX MAY BE PREFERABLE BECAUSE OF PROBABLE EFFECT ON
AMOUNT OF TAXES IN LATER YEARS.  IN CASE OF OVERSTATEMENT AND
OVERPAYMENT, THE TAXPAYER MAY OBTAIN REFUND CALCULATED ACCORDING TO THE
METHOD ON WHICH THE RETURN WAS MADE.  CHANGE FROM ONE METHOD TO THE
OTHER, AS PETITIONER SEEKS, WOULD REQUIRE RECOMPUTATION AND
READJUSTMENT OF TAX LIABILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND IMPOSE
BURDENSOME UNCERTAINTIES UPON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 
IT WOULD OPERATE TO ENLARGE THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR FILING RETURNS
(SEC. 53(A)) TO INCLUDE THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR RECOVERING OVERPAYMENTS
(SEC. 322(B)).  THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
PERMIT A TAXPAYER, AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TIME WITHIN WHICH RETURN IS
TO BE MADE, TO HAVE HIS TAX LIABILITY COMPUTED AND SETTLED ACCORDING TO
THE OTHER METHOD.  BY REPORTING INCOME FROM THE SALES IN QUESTION
ACCORDING TO THE DEFERRED PAYMENT METHOD, PETITIONER MADE AN ELECTION
THAT IS BINDING UPON IT AND THE COMMISSIONER.*  AFFIRMED. 

*COMMISSIONER V. MOORE, 48 F.(2D) 526, 528, CERTIORARI DENIED 284
U.S. 620.  MARKS V. UNITED STATES, 18 F.SUPP.  911, 913.  SYLVIA S.
STRAUSS, 33 B.T.A. 855, AFFIRMED 87 F.(2D) 1018.  MAX VIAULT, 36 B.T.A.
430, 431.  SARAH BRIARLY, 29 B.T.A. 256, 258.  LOUIS WERNER SAW MILL
CO., 26 B.T.A. 141, 144-145.  LIBERTY REALTY CORP., 26 B.T.A. 1119. 
MORGAN RUNDEL, 21 B.T.A. 1019.  JOHNSON REALTY TRUST, 21 B.T.A. 1333. 
CF. UNITED STATES V. PETTIGREW, 81 F.(2D) 666; ROSE V. GRANT, 39 F.(2D)
340; ALAMEDA INV. CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 33 F.(2D) 120; BUTTOLPH V.
COMMISSIONER, 29 F.(2D) 695; SAFETY ELECTRIC PRODUCTS CO. V. HELVERING,
70 F.(2D) 439; DR. PEPPER BOTTLING CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 69 F.(2D) 768;
RADIANT GLASS CO. V. BURNET, 60 APP. D.C. 351; 54 F.(2D) 718. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :























UNITED STATES V. KAPLAN, 304 U.S. 195 


NO. 667.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 4, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 2, 1938.  - 18
F.SUPP.  965, REVERSED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF PACIFIC NATIONAL CO. V. WELCH, ANTE, P.
191. 

UNITED STATES V. KAPLAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 629, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE
TAXPAYER IN A SUIT FOR REFUND OF INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE IN A JOINT RETURN OF INCOME TAX FOR 1929
REPORTED A PROFIT OF $194,000 FROM THE SALE OF 25 SHARES OF THE STOCK
OF "NO. 1100 PARK AVENUE," AND DISCLOSED TAX OF $2,084.20, WHICH WAS
PAID.  THE TAXABLE INCOME WAS LESS THAN THE PROFIT IN QUESTION.  IT
RESULTED FROM THE SALE BY HIM, APRIL 11, 1929, FOR A NET PRICE OF
$240,000 OF STOCK BOUGHT IN 1928 FOR $46,000.  THE BUYER AGREED TO PAY
$25,000 CASH AND THE BALANCE IN INSTALLMENTS OF $1,875 A MONTH.  FOR
1930, RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE FILED A RETURN SHOWING NO TAXABLE
INCOME.  FOR 1931 AND 1932, RESPONDENT FILED NO RETURNS.  IN 1932 HE
FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE ENTIRE 1929 INCOME TAX.  THE GROUND FOR
THE CLAIM WAS THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO REPORT THE SALE ON THE
INSTALLMENT BASIS.  THE FINDINGS INDICATE THAT THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS
WERE WORTH LESS THAN FACE VALUE; AFTER RESPONDENT AND HIS WIFE (TO WHOM
HE ASSIGNED THE CONTRACT) HAD RECEIVED $55,000, THEY AGREED TO ACCEPT
$75,000 MORE AS FULL PAYMENT.  THE COMMISSIONER REJECTED THE CLAIM AND
THIS SUIT FOLLOWED.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS GAVE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT.  18
F.SUPP.  965.  THIS COURT GRANTED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION AND THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN PACIFIC NATIONAL CO. V. WELCH, 91 F.(2D) 590,
THIS DAY AFFIRMED, ANTE, P. 191.  THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED IS THE
SAME AS THE ONE DECIDED IN THAT CASE.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW
MUST BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :









ARKANSAS OIL CO. V. LOUISIANA, 304 U.S. 197 


NO. 760.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 2, 1938.  - 176 SO. 686,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATUTE OF LOUISIANA PROVIDES THAT A PERSON WHO HAS PRODUCED OIL
UNDER A LEASE GRANTED BY THE LAST RECORD OWNER HOLDING UNDER A DEED
SUFFICIENT IN TERMS TO TRANSFER TITLE, SHALL, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SUIT
TO TEST TITLE, BE PRESUMED TO BE THE TRUE OWNER OF THE OIL; THAT IT
SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR A PURCHASER OF OIL FROM SUCH A PERSON TO WITHHOLD
PAYMENT THEREFOR; AND THAT A PURCHASER MAKING PAYMENT TO SUCH A PERSON
SHALL BE FULLY PROTECTED AGAINST ALL OTHER CLAIMANTS.  HELD THAT, UPON
THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, A PURCHASER THUS REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT WAS
NOT DEPRIVED OF ANY RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  P. 198. 

THOUGH THE PURCHASER HERE CLAIMED THAT IT WOULD BE LEFT LIABLE TO THE
"TRUE OWNER," IT APPEARED THAT THERE HAD ELAPSED NEARLY ELEVEN YEARS
SINCE THE DEED WAS MADE TO THE LAST RECORD OWNER, AND FOUR YEARS SINCE
THE OIL WAS PURCHASED AND DELIVERED; IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT THERE WAS
ANY OTHER CLAIMANT, NOR THAT THE PURCHASER HAD TENDERED PAYMENT INTO
COURT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE "TRUE OWNER," AS IT MIGHT HAVE DONE UNDER
THE STATE LAW. 

2.  A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WILL NOT BE DECIDED UNLESS ITS DECISION
BE NECESSARY ON THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT.  P. 202. 

ARKANSAS FUEL OIL CO. V. LOUISIANA EX REL. MUSLOW. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, OF LOUISIANA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF THE RELATOR IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF OIL SOLD AND
DELIVERED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT (DEFENDANT BELOW) CHALLENGES ACT 64 OF 1934 OF LOUISIANA ON
THE GROUND THAT THE ACT "IF ENFORCED  ...  , IN THE MANNER RELIED UPON
...  , WOULD REQUIRE  ...  (APPELLANT) TO PAY TO ...  (APPELLEE) THE
VALUE OF PROPERTY WHICH DID NOT BELONG AND NEVER HAS BELONGED TO  ...
(APPELLEE), THEREBY LEAVING (APPELLANT) RESPONSIBLE AND LIABLE TO THE
TRUE OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY FOR THE VALUE THEREOF, AND IN THAT MANNER
DEPRIVING  ...  (APPELLANT) OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW,
AND DENYING TO IT THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS CONTRARY TO THE
PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA." 

THE ACT (THE PERTINENT PART OF WHICH IS SET OUT BELOW)  FN1  PROVIDES
THAT A PURCHASER OF OIL CAN EXTINGUISH THE INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE OIL (AS
AGAINST ALL OTHER PARTIES) BY PAYING THE PERSON WHO DRILLED AND SOLD IT
UNDER A LEASE FROM THE LAST "RECORD OWNER," IF THE RECORDED INSTRUMENT
OF CONVEYANCE IS SUFFICIENT TO PASS TITLE IN LOUISIANA, AND IN THE
ABSENCE OF ANY SUIT FILED TO TEST THE TITLE OF THE LAND OR OIL OR DUE
NOTICE BY REGISTERED MAIL OF THE FILING OF SUCH SUIT.  SECTION 3
AUTHORIZED PURCHASERS TO DELAY PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES PREVIOUSLY MADE
UNTIL A LAPSE OF SIXTY DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT (AUGUST 1,
1934), AND DENIED PROTECTION TO PURCHASERS WHO PAID THE "LAST RECORD"
OWNER BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THAT PERIOD.  THE LOUISIANA COURT OF
APPEAL DECIDED THIS SIXTY-DAY PERIOD WAS IN EFFECT A SHORT STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS AS AGAINST ANY POSSIBLE OWNERS NOT SHOWN OF RECORD. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF CADDO PARISH RENDERED JUDGMENT FOR APPELLEE. 
THE LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, SUSTAINED  FN2  AND THE
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA DENIED CERTIORARI.  THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF
THE LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL GRANTED AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER
AUTHORITY OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344(A). 

THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT: 

MAY 24, 1927, ACKERMAN OIL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, BY ITS PRESIDENT
AND SECRETARY, EXECUTED A DEED TO A.C. BEST AND SHERMAN G. SPURR FOR
THE LAND IN QUESTION, WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED AS PROVIDED BY LOUISIANA
LAW.  APRIL 18, 1933, BEST AND SPURR EXECUTED AN OIL LEASE TO HYMAN
MUSLOW (APPELLEE) UNDER WHICH THE OWNERS WOULD RECEIVE 1/8 OF THE OIL
PRODUCED AND MUSLOW 7/8.  THEREAFTER, MUSLOW ENTERED UPON THE LEASED
LAND; EQUIPPED A WELL; CONTRACTED TO SELL OIL TO THE LOUISIANA OIL
REFINING CORPORATION; FN3  LAID A MILE AND A HALF PIPE-LINE TO
APPELLANT'S LINE AND, BETWEEN JULY, 1933, AND SEPTEMBER, 1934,
DELIVERED OIL TO APPELLANT UNDER THE CONTRACT OF SALE.  MAY 20, 1935,
MUSLOW FILED SUIT UNDER THE 1934 ACT FOR MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE PAYMENT
FOR THE OIL.  AN ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS ISSUED RETURNABLE MAY
28, 1935, ON WHICH DATE THE COMPANY FILED PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY UNDER
SEC. 77-B OF THE NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY ACT.  APPELLANT LATER ANSWERED AND
DID NOT QUESTION THAT IT OWED SOMEONE $445.00 FOR THE OIL, BUT ASSERTED
THAT THE CONVEYANCE TO BEST AND SPURR WAS NOT TRANSLATIVE OF TITLE TO
THE OIL DUE TO INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION AND LACK OF AUTHORITY ON THE
PART OF THE CORPORATE OFFICERS WHO SIGNED THE DEED.  DENIAL WAS MADE
THAT BEST AND SPURR WERE THE TRUE OWNERS OF THE LAND, ON THE SAME
GROUNDS.  THE COURTS OF LOUISIANA DECIDED THESE QUESTIONS AGAINST
APPELLANT.  APPELLANT ALSO ALLEGED THAT " ...  THE SAID LANDS, HAVING
BEEN FORFEITED TO THE STATE OF LOUISIANA FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES ON
JULY 31, 1915, AS APPEARS FROM THE FORFEITURE  ...  ARE THE PROPERTY OF
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA."  CONCERNING THE STATUTE UNDER ATTACK, THE
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA HAS SAID:  FN4 

"WE EXPERIENCE LITTLE DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENT IN ADOPTING THIS ACT.  IT SUPPLIED A LONG-FELT NEED, AND IN ITS
OPERATIVE EFFECT WILL SERVE TO PREVENT IMPOSITION UPON AND UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THOSE WHOM IT WAS INTENDED TO PROTECT.  THE ACT
ESTABLISHES A RULE OF CONDUCT FOR THE PROTECTION OF LESSORS, THEIR
ASSIGNEES UNDER OIL AND GAS LEASES, AND ALSO A RULE OF SECURITY AND
SAFETY FOR LESSEES AND THOSE HOLDING UNDER OR PURCHASING FROM THEM. 
...  THE ACT WAS DESIGNED ALSO TO PROTECT THOSE PERSONS WHOSE RIGHTS
AROSE FROM OR ARE BASED UPON CONTRACTS WITH THE LAST RECORD OWNER OF
THE LAND COVERED THEREBY, AND TO THOSE WHO DEAL WITH OR ACQUIRE FROM
SUCH PERSONS." 

APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THIS LAW AS APPLIED WOULD ENABLE MUSLOW TO
RECOVER THE VALUE OF THE OIL DELIVERED TO APPELLANT "WHICH  ...
(MUSLOW) DID NOT OWN" AND THAT APPELLANT WOULD ALSO BE LEFT RESPONSIBLE
TO THE TRUE OWNER OF THE OIL.  THE COURT BELOW SAID THAT "OVER EIGHT
YEARS HAD ELAPSED WHEN THIS SUIT WAS FILED AND THE COMPANY, (TRANSFEROR
IN THE DEED OF RECORD) THE ONLY PERSON TO COMPLAIN, HAD NOT RAISED ITS
VOICE IN PROTEST OF ITS OFFICERS' ACTIONS."  ALTHOUGH NEARLY ELEVEN
YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE DEED WAS MADE TO BEST AND SPURR AND ALMOST
FOUR YEARS SINCE APPELLANT PURCHASED, RECEIVED AND DID NOT PAY FOR THE
OIL, THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY OTHER
CLAIMANT OR PURPORTED OWNER OF THE LAND NOR DOES IT SHOW ANY EFFORT BY
APPELLANT TO PAY THE MONEY INTO COURT FOR THE BENEFIT OF A "TRUE
OWNER," AS IT MIGHT UNDER LOUISIANA LAW.  FN5  THE ONLY SUGGESTION
APPELLANT HAS MADE AS TO ANY OWNER NOT OF "RECORD" WAS THAT THE
PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.  THAT STATE - ALLEGED BY
APPELLANT TO BE THE TRUE OWNER OF THE LAND FROM WHICH THE OIL WAS
OBTAINED - PASSED THE 1934 ACT AND ITS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT PAYMENT TO
MUSLOW WILL RELIEVE APPELLANT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS.  APPELLANT SEEKS TO
ESCAPE PAYMENT TO MUSLOW FOR THE OIL WHICH IT PURCHASED IN 1934 ON THE
GROUND THAT SUCH PAYMENT WOULD NOT DISCHARGE THE INDEBTEDNESS TO A
"TRUE OWNER" - ALLEGED TO BE THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.  THE LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL SPEAKING IN THIS CASE HAS DECLARED THAT THE STATUTE
"PROTECTS THE PURCHASER IN PAYING THE PRICE TO THE ONE FROM WHOM THE
OIL HAS BEEN PURCHASED; AND, UNDER THE EXPRESS DECLARATIONS OF THE ACT,
NO RECOURSE MAY THEREAFTER BE HAD BY ANY THIRD PERSON OR ADVERSE
CLAIMANT AGAINST SUCH BUYER."  SINCE NO ADVERSE CLAIMANT TO THE LAND
HAS APPEARED IN ELEVEN YEARS, IT IS CLEAR UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THIS CASE THAT PAYMENT FOR THE OIL BOUGHT FROM MUSLOW IN 1933 AND
1934 WILL NOT DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF ANY RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

"IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON OCCURRENCE - INDEED, IT IS ALMOST THE
UNDEVIATING RULE OF THE COURTS, BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL - NOT TO DECIDE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS (OF THE VALIDITY OF A STATE ACT) UNTIL THE
NECESSITY FOR SUCH DECISION ARISES IN THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT." 
BAKER V. GRICE, 169 U.S. 284, 292.  WE SEE NO SUCH NECESSITY HERE.  THE
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "  ...  ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION THAT HAS ACTUALLY
DRILLED OR OPENED ON ANY LAND IN THIS STATE, UNDER A MINERAL LEASE
GRANTED BY THE LAST RECORD OWNER, AS AFORESAID, OF SUCH LAND OR OF THE
MINERALS THEREIN OR THEREUNDER IF THE MINERAL RIGHTS IN AND TO SAID
LAND HAVE BEEN ALIENATED, WHO HOLDS UNDER AN INSTRUMENT SUFFICIENT IN
TERMS TO TRANSFER THE TITLE TO SUCH REAL PROPERTY, ANY WELL OR MINE
PRODUCING OIL, GAS OR OTHER MINERALS SHALL BE PRESUMED TO BE HOLDING
UNDER LEASE FROM THE TRUE OWNER OF SUCH LAND OR MINERAL RIGHTS AND THE
LESSOR, ROYALTY OWNER, LESSEE OR PRODUCER, OR PERSONS HOLDING FROM THEM
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL OIL, GAS OR OTHER MINERALS SO PRODUCED, OR TO
THE REVENUES OR PROCEEDS DERIVED THEREFROM, UNLESS AND UNTIL A SUIT
TESTING THE TITLE OF THE LAND OR MINERAL RIGHTS EMBRACED IN SAID LEASE
IS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE PARISH WHEREIN IS LOCATED SAID
REAL PROPERTY.  A DULY RECORDED MINERAL LEASE FROM SUCH LAST RECORD
OWNER SHALL BE FULL AND SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY FOR ANY PURCHASER OF OIL,
GAS OR OTHER MINERALS PRODUCED BY THE WELL OR MINE AFORESAID TO MAKE
PAYMENT OF THE PRICE OF SAID PRODUCTS TO ANY PARTY IN INTEREST UNDER
SAID MINERAL LEASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SUIT TO TEST
TITLE OR OF RECEIPT, BY SUCH PURCHASER, OF DUE NOTIFICATION BY
REGISTERED MAIL OF ITS FILING, AND ANY PAYMENT SO MADE SHALL FULLY
PROTECT THE PURCHASER MAKING THE SAME; AND SO FAR AS SAID PURCHASER IS
CONCERNED AS AGAINST ALL OTHER PARTIES THE PRODUCER OF SUCH OIL, GAS OR
OTHER MINERALS SHALL BE CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED TO BE THE TRUE AND LAWFUL
OWNER THEREOF." 

FN2  STATE V. LOUISIANA OIL RFG.  CO., 176 SO. 686. 

FN3  THE LOUISIANA OIL REFINING CORPORATION WENT THROUGH
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77-B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AFTER
SUIT WAS ORIGINALLY FILED AGAINST IT BY MUSLOW.  THE ARKANSAS FUEL OIL
CO. SUCCEEDED TO ITS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND WAS SUBSTITUTED AS
DEFENDANT. 

FN4  STATE V. HOPE PRODUCING CO., 167 SO. 506, 510. 

FN5  ACTS OF LA., NO. 123, 1922; LA. GEN. STAT. (DART) SEC. 1556-63;
CF. SHELL PETROLEUM CORP. V. CARTER, 187 LA. 382; 175 SO. 1; SEE
CASSARD V. WOOLWORTH, 165 LA. 571, 575; 115 SO. 755. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















RUHLIN V. N.Y. LIFE INS. CO., 304 U.S. 202 


NO. 596.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 2, 1938.  - 93 F.2D 416,
REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE AN INSURANCE POLICY BY ITS TERMS IS INCONTESTABLE AFTER A
TIME LIMITED EXCEPT FOR NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUM AND "EXCEPT AS TO
PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO DISABILITY AND DOUBLE INDEMNITY
BENEFITS," THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LATTER EXCEPTION EMBRACES, AND
EXCLUDES FROM THE LIMITATION, THE RIGHT OF THE INSURER TO RESCIND THE
AGREEMENT TO PAY DISABILITY AND DOUBLE INDEMNITY BENEFITS BECAUSE OF
FRAUD IN THE APPLICATION, IS NOT A QUESTION OF "GENERAL LAW" WHICH A
FEDERAL COURT MAY DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY, BUT A QUESTION OF STATE LAW
WHICH THE FEDERAL COURT MUST DETERMINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISIONS
OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE COURT.  ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS, ANTE,
P. 64.  P. 204. 

2.  THE DOCTRINE OF ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS IS APPLICABLE TO A
QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION OF A CONTRACT ARISING IN A SUIT IN EQUITY.  P.
205. 

3.  CONFLICT AMONG THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS ON QUESTIONS OF
STATE LAW IS NOT OF ITSELF A REASON FOR GRANTING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 
P. 206. 

4.  THE PETITION IN THIS CASE DID NOT SHOW, AS A BASIS FOR
CERTIORARI, THAT THE IMPORTANT QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW INVOLVED WAS
DECIDED BELOW "IN A WAY PROBABLY IN CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL
DECISIONS," OR THAT THE DECISION WAS "PROBABLY UNTENABLE" AND THEREFORE
PROBABLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATE LAW AS YET UNDECLARED BY THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  RULE 38(5)(B). 

5.  WHERE A SUIT DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INSURANCE POLICY
WAS PRESENTED AND DECIDED BELOW ON THE MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION WAS A QUESTION OF "GENERAL" OR "FEDERAL" LAW, THIS COURT,
ON CERTIORARI, DECLINED TO DECIDE UPON THE RULE OF STATE LAW
APPLICABLE, BUT VACATED THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OPINION
AND WITH DIRECTIONS TO PERMIT SUCH AMENDMENTS OF THE PLEADINGS AS MIGHT
BE NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  P. 206. 

RUHLIN ET AL. V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 681, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF AN
INTERLOCUTORY DECREE ENJOINING THE INSTITUTION OF ACTIONS ON CERTAIN
INSURANCE POLICIES, INCLUDING AN ACTION IN A STATE COURT, PENDING THE
DETERMINATION OF A SUIT TO CANCEL THE POLICIES IN PART, FOR FRAUD. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON FEBRUARY 14, 1935, THE NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT
HERE, FILED ITS BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN
PENNSYLVANIA TO RESCIND, BECAUSE OF CERTAIN MISREPRESENTATIONS, THE
DISABILITY AND DOUBLE INDEMNITY PROVISIONS IN FIVE POLICIES ISSUED ON
THE LIFE OF DEFENDANT JOHN G. RUHLIN, AND MADE IN FAVOR OF THE OTHER
DEFENDANTS AS BENEFICIARIES. 

THE BILL ALLEGED THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS A MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND
LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN PITTSBURGH, PA.; THAT THE DEFENDANTS
ARE TEMPORARILY LIVING IN PENNSYLVANIA, THOUGH PLAINTIFF DOES NOT KNOW
WHERE THEIR LEGAL RESIDENCE IS; THAT ON DECEMBER 1, 1928, PLAINTIFF
WROTE TWO POLICIES OF LIFE INSURANCE ON THE LIFE OF JOHN G. RUHLIN, IN
THE FACE AMOUNTS OF $10,000 AND $5,000; THAT ON JULY 7, 1930, IT WROTE
THREE ADDITIONAL, SIMILAR POLICIES IN THE FACE AMOUNT OF $4,000 EACH;
THAT CERTAIN QUESTIONS IN THE APPLICATIONS WERE ANSWERED FALSELY AND
FRAUDULENTLY BY THE INSURED; THAT ON NOVEMBER 1, 1934, JOHN G. RUHLIN
PRESENTED A CLAIM FOR TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER
EACH OF THE FIVE POLICIES.  THE COMPANY TENDERED INTO COURT THE SUM OF
$1,045.42, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF PREMIUMS PAID FOR DISABILITY AND
DOUBLE INDEMNITY BENEFITS, AND PRAYED THAT THE DISABILITY AND DOUBLE
INDEMNITY PROVISIONS BE RESCINDED, AND FOR OTHER RELIEF NOT MATERIAL
HERE. 

THE DEFENDANTS FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND
THAT THE POLICIES HAD BECOME INCONTESTABLE, SINCE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT
MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF EACH POLICY INVOLVED.  THE
"INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE" OF EACH OF THE POLICIES READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"INCONTESTABILITY. - THIS POLICY SHALL BE INCONTESTABLE AFTER TWO
YEARS FROM ITS DATE OF ISSUE EXCEPT FOR NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUM AND
EXCEPT AS TO PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO DISABILITY AND
DOUBLE INDEMNITY BENEFITS." 

THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER, HOLDING THAT, IN VIEW OF THEIR
EXPRESS TERMS, THE INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSES HAD NO APPLICATION TO
LIABILITY FOR DISABILITY AND DOUBLE INDEMNITY BENEFITS.  IT RECOGNIZED
THAT ITS DECISION WAS CONTRARY TO THAT REACHED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. KAUFMAN, 78
F.(2D) 398, AND BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT,
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. TRUESDALE, 79 F.(2D) 481, WHICH HAD HELD THAT
THE EXCEPTION IN THE INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE RELATED ONLY TO PROVISIONS
AND CONDITIONS ACTUALLY SET FORTH IN THE POLICY ITSELF, COMPARE
STROEHMANN V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 300 U.S. 435, AND THAT FRAUD WAS
NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF THOSE PROVISIONS.  RUHLIN PETITIONED FOR
CERTIORARI, ASSERTING THE CONFLICT OF CIRCUITS.  THE COMPANY FILED A
MEMORANDUM ADMITTING THE CONFLICT, AND RAISING NO OBJECTION TO THE
GRANTING OF THE WRIT.  BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT OF CIRCUITS, THE COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

IT WAS STATED IN CARPENTER V. PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INS. CO., 16 PET.
495, 511, THAT QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF
CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE ARE "QUESTIONS OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW," AND
THAT STATE DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT, THOUGH ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT,
"CANNOT CONCLUDE THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT."  A LIMITATION WAS PUT ON
THIS DOCTRINE IN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 293 U.S. 335, 340. 
PUTTING ASIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF POWER, THE COURT INTERPRETED A SPECIFIC
PROVISION OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, WHERE DELIVERY WAS MADE. 
"ALL THAT IS HERE FOR OUR DECISION IS THE MEANING, THE TACIT
IMPLICATIONS, OF A PARTICULAR SET OF WORDS, WHICH, AS EXPERIENCE HAS
SHOWN, MAY YIELD A DIFFERENT ANSWER TO THIS READER AND TO THAT ONE. 
WITH CHOICE SO 'BALANCED WITH DOUBT,' WE ACCEPT AS OUR GUIDE THE LAW
DECLARED BY THE STATE WHERE THE CONTRACT HAD ITS BEING."  THE DECISION
IN ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, ANTE, P. 64, GOES FURTHER, AND SETTLES THE
QUESTION OF POWER.  THE SUBJECT IS NOW TO BE GOVERNED, EVEN IN THE
ABSENCE OF STATE STATUTE, BY THE DECISIONS OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE
COURT.  THE DOCTRINE APPLIES THOUGH THE QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION ARISES
NOT IN AN ACTION AT LAW, BUT IN A SUIT IN EQUITY.  COMPARE MASON V.
UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 545, 557, 558. 

HAD ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS BEEN ANNOUNCED AT SOME PRIOR DATE THE
COURSE OF THIS CASE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.  THIS COURT MIGHT NOT
HAVE ISSUED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  RULE 38(5) OF THE SUPREME COURT
RULES INDICATES THAT THIS COURT WILL CONSIDER, AS A REASON FOR GRANTING
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, THE FACT THAT "A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS
RENDERED A DECISION IN CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF ANOTHER CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS ON THE SAME MATTER."  SINCE JURISDICTION TO BRING UP
CASES BY CERTIORARI FROM THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS WAS GIVEN TO
THIS COURT IN ORDER "TO SECURE UNIFORMITY OF DECISION," MAGNUM IMPORT
CO. V. COTY, 262 U.S. 159, 163, A SHOWING OF A CONFLICT OF CIRCUITS ON
A MATTER CONCERNING WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS HAD NEVER DENIED THEIR
RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT PROMPTED THIS COURT TO GRANT THE WRIT. 
E.G., ASCHENBRENNER V. U.S. FIDELITY & G. CO., 292 U.S. 80, 82;
STROEHMANN V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 300 U.S. 435, 440.  AS TO QUESTIONS
CONTROLLED BY STATE LAW, HOWEVER, CONFLICT AMONG CIRCUITS IS NOT OF
ITSELF A REASON FOR GRANTING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  THE CONFLICT MAY BE
MERELY COROLLARY TO A PERMISSIBLE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN THE STATE
COURTS.  THE RULES INDICATE THAT THE COURT WILL BE PERSUADED TO GRANT
CERTIORARI WHERE A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS "HAS DECIDED AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW IN A WAY PROBABLY IN CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE
LOCAL DECISIONS."  NO SUCH SHOWING WAS ATTEMPTED BY THE PETITION.  NOR
WAS IT CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION BELOW WAS "PROBABLY UNTENABLE" AND
THEREFORE PROBABLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE STATE LAW AS YET UNANNOUNCED BY
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE. 

NO DECISION AT THE PRESENT TIME COULD RECONCILE ANY "CONFLICT OF
CIRCUITS," OR DO MORE THAN ENUNCIATE A TENTATIVE RULE TO GUIDE
PARTICULAR FEDERAL COURTS.  THEREFORE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT IT IS
ADEQUATELY PRESENTED ON THE RECORD, WE DECLINE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF
STATE LAW.  HOWEVER, WE SHALL NOT DISMISS THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS
IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.  IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE QUESTION IN THE
CASE WAS REGARDED BELOW, BOTH BY THE COURTS AND BY COUNSEL, AS ONE OF
"GENERAL" OR "FEDERAL" LAW, THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT THE
JUDGMENT BE VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF STATE LAW.  SEE VILLA V. VAN SCHAICK, 299 U.S.
152, 155-156; DUKE POWER CO. V. GREENWOOD COUNTY, 299 U.S. 259, 267
268; WATTS, WATTS & CO. V. UNIONE AUSTRIACA, 248 U.S. 9, 21. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN RENDERING JUDGMENT
ON REARGUMENT, SAID (SEE 93 F.(2D) 416, 417): 

"FURTHERMORE, BOTH THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK AND THE SUPREME
COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAVE HELD THAT THE INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE HERE
INVOLVED CLEARLY EXCEPTS THE DOUBLE INDEMNITY AND DISABILITY PROVISIONS
FROM ITS OPERATION.  STEINBERG V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 263 N.Y. 45,
188 N.E. 152; MANHATTAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. SCHWARTZ, 274 N.Y. 374, 9
N.E.2D 16; GUISE V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., (127 PA. SUPER.  127,) 191
ATL. 626.  WE HAVE READ THE RECENT OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA IN THE CASE OF COODLEY V. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., 7
CAL.2D 269, (70 P.2D 602) AND THE OPINION OF JUDGE COUGHLIN IN THE CASE
OF NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. THOMAS, 27 D. & C. 215, BUT ARE NOT
PERSUADED THAT THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE ERRED.  SINCE THE COMPANY IS
DOMICILED IN NEW YORK AND THE INSURED LIVES IN PENNSYLVANIA AND 'ALL
THAT IS HERE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS THE MEANING, THE TACIT
IMPLICATIONS, OF A PARTICULAR SET OF WORDS,' 'FOR THE SAKE OF HARMONY
AND TO AVOID CONFUSION' WE SHALL FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THOSE COURTS
AND HOLD THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS NOT BARRED BY THE
INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE FROM RESCINDING THE DOUBLE INDEMNITY AND
DISABILITY PROVISIONS.  MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 293 U.S. 340;
TRAINOR V. AETNA CASUALTY COMPANY, 290 U.S. 47, 54." 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY HERE TO CONSIDER WHETHER, IN THE DETERMINATION OF
THE SUBSTANTIVE PENNSYLVANIA RULE, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS
CORRECT IN DECLINING TO FOLLOW THE NISI PRIUS THOMAS CASE, DIRECTLY IN
POINT, AND IN APPLYING THE GUISE CASE, WHICH WAS DECIDED BY AN
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (127 PA. SUPER.  127; 191 A. 626), AND NOT
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE AS THE COURT BELOW STATED, AND WHICH
INVOLVED A DEFENSE OF COVERAGE, AVAILABLE EVEN UNDER AN ORDINARY
INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE AS THE OPINION IN THE GUISE CASE CLEARLY STATES
(127 PA. SUPER.  AT 133; 191 A. 626).  FN1 

A DIFFERENT CASE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, AND THE FACTS AND
AUTHORITIES DEVELOPED IN ANOTHER FASHION, IF THE PARTIES HAD HAD IN
MIND FROM THE FIRST THE RULE THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT WOULD HAVE
APPLIED.  THE PLEADINGS MIGHT HAVE SHOWN IN WHAT PLACE THE POLICY WAS
DELIVERED,  FN2  AND PERHAPS OTHER FACTS ATTENDING THE MAKING OF THE
INSURANCE CONTRACT.  IT MAY BE NOTED THAT PETITIONER'S BRIEF ASSERTS,
WITHOUT RECORD REFERENCE, THAT THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE FIRST TWO
POLICIES WERE MADE IN PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE
REMAINING THREE POLICIES WERE MADE IN OHIO.  BUT AS THE RECORD STANDS,
WE KNOW ONLY THAT AT THE TIME OF BRINGING SUIT THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
WAS INCORPORATED IN NEW YORK, AND LAWFULLY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN
PITTSBURGH, AND THAT THE DEFENDANTS WERE THEN TEMPORARILY LIVING IN
PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPLICATION OF THE "STATE LAW" TO THE PRESENT CASE, OR ANY OTHER
CONTROVERSY CONTROLLED BY ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, DOES NOT PRESENT THE
DISPUTANTS WITH DUTIES DIFFICULT OR STRANGE.  THE PARTIES AND THE
FEDERAL COURTS MUST NOW SEARCH FOR AND APPLY THE ENTIRE BODY OF
SUBSTANTIVE LAW GOVERNING AN IDENTICAL ACTION IN THE STATE COURTS. 
HITHERTO, EVEN IN WHAT WERE TERMED MATTERS OF "GENERAL" LAW, COUNSEL
HAD TO INVESTIGATE THE ENACTMENTS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE.  NOW THEY
MUST MERELY BROADEN THEIR INQUIRY TO INCLUDE THE DECISIONS OF THE STATE
COURTS, JUST AS THEY WOULD IN A CASE TRIED IN THE STATE COURT, AND JUST
AS THEY HAVE ALWAYS DONE IN ACTIONS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
INVOLVING WHAT WERE KNOWN AS MATTERS OF "LOCAL" LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT,
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION, WITH
DIRECTIONS TO PERMIT SUCH AMENDMENTS OF THE PLEADINGS AS MAY BE
NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  JUDGMENT VACATED. 

FN1  THE SUPERIOR COURT SAID (127 PA. SUPER.  AT 133; 191 A. 626): 

"AN EXAMINATION OF THE CLAUSES DISCLOSES THAT THE DISABILITY
PROVISIONS OF THE POLICIES ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM THEIR
OPERATION.  EVEN IF THAT EXEMPTION HAD NOT BEEN INSERTED, THE CLAUSES
WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE INTERPOSITION OF THE DEFENSE HERE SET UP.
MAYER V. PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 121 PA. SUPERIOR
CT. 475, 184 A. 267." 

FN2  UNDER THE GENERAL DOCTRINE THE INTERPRETATION OF AN INSURANCE
CONTRACT DEPENDS ON THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE POLICY IS
DELIVERED.  MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 293 U.S. AT 339.  WE DO
NOT NOW DETERMINE WHICH PRINCIPLE MUST BE ENFORCED IF THE PENNSYLVANIA
COURTS FOLLOW A DIFFERENT CONFLICT OF LAWS RULE. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






PETROLEUM CO. V. COMM'N, 304 U.S. 209 


NO. 705.  ARGUED APRIL 4, 5, 1938.  - DECIDED MAY 2, 1938.  - 12
F.SUPP.  254, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE ACT OF MAY 14, 1934, RESTRICTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF STATE COMMISSIONS
AFFECTING PUBLIC UTILITY RATES, IS INAPPLICABLE TO AN ORDER OF A
COMMISSION COMMANDING A CORPORATION TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE ON A CERTAIN
DATE, MADE WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING.  P. 214. 

2.  IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL A PROJECTED INQUIRY BY A
STATE AGENCY INTO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES OF A GAS COMPANY, THE
EXPENSE TO THE COMPANY OF COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER BY SHOWING THE
ORIGINAL AND HISTORICAL COSTS OF ITS PROPERTIES, COST OF REPRODUCTION
AS A GOING CONCERN, AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF VALUE RECOGNIZED BY LAW IN
FIXING RATES, IS PART OF THE AMOUNT OR VALUE IN CONTROVERSY.  P. 215. 

3.  THE OBJECTION THAT A SUIT IS NOT WITHIN EQUITY JURISDICTION
BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE REMEDY AT
LAW (JUD.  CODE SEC. 267) MAY BE TAKEN BY TRIAL OR APPELLATE COURT SUA
SPONTE.  P. 216. 

4.  THE ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY WHICH WILL DEFEAT EQUITY JURISDICTION
MUST BE A REMEDY AVAILABLE IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  P. 217. 

5.  A GAS CORPORATION OWNING VERY VALUABLE PROPERTY AND DOING A LARGE
BUSINESS SOUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT TO ENJOIN A STATE COMMISSION FROM
CARRYING ON PROCEEDINGS TO FIX THE COMPANY'S RATES, IN ALLEGED EXCESS
OF THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION AND IN VIOLATION OF THE COMPANY'S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  HELD, THAT A LOSS OF $25,000, IN PREPARING AND
PRESENTING THE COMPANY'S CASE BEFORE THE COMMISSION, WOULD NOT
CONSTITUTE IRREPARABLE INJURY JUSTIFYING EQUITABLE INTERVENTION.  MYERS
V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41.  P. 218. 

WHEN THE ONLY GROUND FOR INTERFERING WITH THE STATE PROCEDURE IS THE
REASONABLE COST OF PREPARING FOR A HEARING, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR
EQUITABLE INTERVENTION.  P. 221. 

PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
DISMISSED A BILL FOR AN INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A FINAL DECREE DISMISSING APPELLANT'S BILL OF
COMPLAINT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION IN EQUITY.  IT WAS ENTERED BY THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SITTING WITH THREE JUDGES UNDER JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 266.  21 F.SUPP. 
254.  THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
KENTUCKY FROM PROSECUTING AN INVESTIGATION OF WHOLESALE RATES FOR GAS
MARKETED BY CONTRACT IN KENTUCKY BY APPELLANT, ON THE GROUND THAT ANY
REGULATION OF THE RATES CHARGED BY APPELLANT TO ITS CUSTOMERS WOULD BE
BEYOND THE STATUTORY POWER OF THE COMMISSION, SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS
NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY, AND WOULD RESULT IN A DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, A DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND A
VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACTS CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE
CONSTITUTIONS, AFFECTING CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF
THE REGULATORY ACT  FN1  OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF KENTUCKY.  AS
GROUNDS FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE
REMEDY AND THAT IRREPARABLE INJURY WOULD BE INFLICTED UPON APPELLANT BY
THE LARGE EXPENSE ENTAILED IN PREPARATION FOR THE INVESTIGATION. 

APPELLANT IS A CORPORATION SOLELY OF THE STATE OF MAINE, ENGAGED IN
THE PRODUCTION AND PURCHASE OF NATURAL GAS AT VARIOUS FIELDS IN
KENTUCKY AND THE TRANSMISSION OF THAT GAS THROUGH WHOLLY INTRASTATE
PIPE LINES TO DISTRIBUTING AGENCIES AT THE "CITY GATES" OF VARIOUS
MUNICIPALITIES OF THAT COMMONWEALTH.  APPELLANT SELLS TO THREE
DISTRIBUTING AGENCIES:  A PARTNERSHIP, A CORPORATION ENTIRELY FREE OF
CONNECTION WITH APPELLANT, AND A CORPORATION IN WHICH APPELLANT OWNS A
DOMINANT INTEREST.  IT OFFERS TO SELL AND SELLS ITS COMMODITY BY
SEPARATE CONTRACTS ONLY TO THE DISTRIBUTING AGENCIES NAMED IN THE
BILL.  ALL OF THESE AGENCIES, WITH ONE IMMATERIAL EXCEPTION, ARE THE
OWNERS OF UNEXPIRED FRANCHISES PURCHASED FROM THE RESPECTIVE
MUNICIPALITIES WHICH THEY SERVE.  EITHER BY THESE FRANCHISES OR BY
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRACT, THE RATES ARE FIXED FOR RETAIL SALES OF GAS. 
ACTING PURSUANT TO STATUTORY PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING INVESTIGATIONS OF
THE RATES OF DEFINED UTILITIES, THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
KENTUCKY ISSUED ON MAY 29, 1937, AN ORDER, PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF
WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN2  RECITING THAT APPELLANT IS AN
OPERATING UTILITY SUBJECT TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, SETTING A
DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AND ORDERING APPELLANT TO APPEAR AT SUCH
HEARING AND PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THE REASONABLENESS OF ITS RATES AND
CHARGES, AND ALSO TO MAKE ITS RECORDS AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION. 

APPELLANT FILED A PLEA TO THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, IN SUBSTANCE
SETTING UP THE OBJECTIONS SUBSEQUENTLY URGED IN THE BILL UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  THE COMMISSION OVERRULED THIS PLEA AND RESET THE
INVESTIGATION FOR HEARING ON THE MERITS.  THE APPELLANT FILED AN
APPLICATION FOR A REHEARING OF THIS ORDER.  THOUGH THE COMMISSION HAS
NOT FORMALLY PASSED UPON THIS APPLICATION IT ADMITS THAT IT INTENDED
AND THREATENED TO PROCEED WITH THE INVESTIGATION, DETERMINE AND FIX A
FAIR RATE FOR APPELLANT'S GAS, AND THAT IT WOULD HAVE SO PROCEEDED BUT
FOR THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OBTAINED BY APPELLANT UPON THE
FILING OF THE BILL IN QUESTION. 

APPELLANT'S BILL ALLEGED THAT IT WAS THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE
COMMISSION TO LOWER APPELLANT'S RATES, THAT THESE RATES WERE NOT
SUBJECT TO THE REGULATORY JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, THAT ANY
REDUCTION WOULD VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND IMPAIR THE
OBLIGATIONS OF ITS CONTRACTS, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CONTRACTS CLAUSES
OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.  IT WAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT
THE INVESTIGATION, AND THE ORDERS ENTERED THEREIN, ARE UNLAWFUL AND
UNREASONABLE, AND, IF FURTHER PROSECUTED, WOULD PUT APPELLANT TO
CONSIDERABLE UNLAWFUL AND NEEDLESS EXPENSE.  THE COMMISSION FILED AN
ANSWER ASSERTING THAT APPELLANT WAS SUBJECT TO ITS REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.  IT DENIED ANY PURPOSE ON ITS PART TO ATTEMPT TO LOWER
THE CONTRACT PRICE WHICH APPELLANT CHARGED THE DISTRIBUTING AGENCIES
BUT AVERRED THAT IT WOULD INSTITUTE AND CONDUCT A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
AND PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE A FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE OR RATE TO BE
CHARGED BY APPELLANT AND TO FIX SAID PRICE OR RATE. 

THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT AS THE ORDER
CHALLENGED COULD BE ENFORCED ONLY BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, THERE
EXISTED NO IMMEDIATELY THREATENED IRREPARABLE INJURY OR DAMAGE TO THE
APPELLANT WITHIN THE EQUITY JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS, THE BILL WAS DISMISSED.  THE
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ATTACK THIS CONCLUSION.  WE AFFIRM THE DECREE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FIRST.  THE POINT IS MADE BY APPELLEES THAT INJUNCTION IS PROHIBITED
BY THE JOHNSON ACT OF MAY 14, 1934, C. 283, SEC. 1, 48 STAT. 775, 28
U.S.C. SEC. 41(1).  THIS ACT WITHDRAWS FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS
JURISDICTION OF ANY SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ORDER OF A
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION WHERE SUCH ORDER "(1) AFFECTS RATES
CHARGEABLE BY A PUBLIC UTILITY, (2) DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND (3) HAS BEEN MADE AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE AND HEARING,
AND WHERE A PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND EFFICIENT REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW OR IN
EQUITY IN THE COURTS OF SUCH STATE."  THE JOHNSON ACT DOES NOT APPLY
HERE BECAUSE THE ORDER COMPLAINED OF, I.E., THAT OF MAY 29, 1937, WAS
ENTERED WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING.  THOUGH IT IS ENTITLED A "NOTICE OF
INVESTIGATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE," WHICH WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE
METHOD OF INITIATING AN INVESTIGATION, IN FACT THE ORDER COMMANDS
APPELLANT TO PRODUCE CERTAIN EVIDENCE ON A DESIGNATED DATE, AND NOT
MERELY TO SHOW CAUSE ON THAT DATE WHY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE PRODUCED. 
THE ORDER OF JUNE 29, 1937, OVERRULING THE PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION, IS
NOT FINAL BUT IS PENDING ON AN APPLICATION FOR REHEARING. 

SECOND.  THIS PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 24(1)
OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(1).  JURISDICTION WAS
CHALLENGED BY THE COMMISSION ON THE GROUND THAT THE VALUE OF THE MATTER
IN CONTROVERSY WAS NOT IN EXCESS OF $3,000.  TO SHOW THE REQUISITE
AMOUNT, APPELLANT ALLEGED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO EXPEND $25,000
TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED BY THE ORDER.  IT WAS FOUND BY THE
DISTRICT COURT FROM THE TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL THAT "THE EXPENSE TO
PLAINTIFF OF COMPLYING WITH SAID ORDERS WOULD BE MORE THAN $3,000.00 IN
EMPLOYING APPRAISERS, GEOLOGISTS, ENGINEERS, ACCOUNTANTS, ETC., TO SHOW
THE ORIGINAL AND HISTORICAL COST OF ITS PROPERTIES, COST OF
REPRODUCTION AS A GOING CONCERN, AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF VALUE RECOGNIZED
BY THE LAW OF THE LAND FOR RATE MAKING PURPOSES." 

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING IS TO STOP THE INVESTIGATION OF THE
RATES UNDER THE ORDER ISSUED.  SINCE THE NECESSARY EXPENSE OF PRODUCING
THE INFORMATION DEMANDED BY THE ORDER EXCEEDS THE JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNT, THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS AT LEAST THIS SUM. 
THIS PURPOSE OR OBJECT IS ANALOGOUS TO THOSE SOUGHT IN INJUNCTIONS TO
RESTRAIN A CONTINUING TRESPASS, WHERE THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY INCLUDES THE COST OF REMEDYING THE CONDITION AS PART OF THE
VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY, NAMELY, THE PREVENTION OF
INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS.  FN3  OTHER EXAMPLES ARE FOUND IN
A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A TAX STATUTE, WHERE THE AMOUNT OF
THE TAX IS THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY,  FN4  AND IN A SUIT
TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN A TRACK,
WHERE THE VALUE OF THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS THE COST OF
COMPLIANCE.  FN5  WHERE "EXPENSES INCIDENT TO COMPLIANCE" WITH A
REGULATORY STATUTE EXCEED $3,000, THE JURISDICTION IS CLEAR.  FN6
THERE IS NO CONTENTION HERE EITHER THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER LEFT
APPELLANT WITH ANY LESS EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVE, OR THAT THE WORTH OF
APPELLANT'S ENTIRE BUSINESS IS LESS THAN $3,000.  IN UNDERTAKING TO
ENJOIN THIS INVESTIGATION, THE COST INCIDENT TO MAKING A SHOWING
REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION IS NOT COLLATERAL OR INCIDENTAL TO THE
PURPOSE OF THE INJUNCTION, BUT A THREATENED EXPENSE FROM WHICH RELIEF
IS SOUGHT.  WHETHER SUCH IRRECOVERABLE COST IS AN IRREPARABLE INJURY
AGAINST WHICH EQUITY WILL PROTECT IS CONSIDERED LATER IN THIS OPINION. 
THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE, AS A FEDERAL COURT. 

THIRD.  WE NEXT CONSIDER WHETHER THE SUIT MUST BE DISMISSED PURSUANT
TO SEC. 267 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 384, WHICH DECLARES
THAT NO SUIT IN EQUITY SHALL BE SUSTAINED "WHERE A PLAIN, ADEQUATE, AND
COMPLETE REMEDY MAY BE HAD AT LAW."  THOUGH THIS CONTENTION WAS NOT
RAISED BELOW BY THE COMMISSION, "EITHER THE TRIAL COURT OR THE
APPELLATE MAY, OF ITS OWN MOTION, TAKE THE OBJECTION."  FN7  FOR
DETERMINATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF THIS REMEDY WE MUST HERE ASSUME THE
ALLEGATIONS OF APPELLANT THAT, UNLESS AN INJUNCTION IS GRANTED,
IRREPARABLE INJURY WILL FLOW FROM ITS COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER OF MAY
29. 

IT IS SETTLED THAT NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW EXISTS, SO AS TO DEPRIVE
FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY JURISDICTION, UNLESS IT IS AVAILABLE IN THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  FN8 IF APPELLANT IGNORES THE COMMISSION'S ORDER,
ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE ORDER MAY BE
INSTITUTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY.  KY. STAT. ANN. (CARROLL'S
8TH ED., BALDWIN'S 1936 REVISION) SECS. 3952-13 AND -61.  BUT THIS
PROCEEDING COULD NEITHER BE BEGUN NOR REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL COURT. 
APART FROM THE DIFFICULTY OF MAINTAINING SUCH AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL
COURTS, IN VIEW OF ITS PENAL NATURE, THE STATE WOULD BE PROCEEDING AS
PLAINTIFF TO ENFORCE ITS LAWS; ITS COMPLAINT WOULD NOT BE GROUNDED ON
THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THERE WOULD NOT BE
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, THE STATES NOT BEING "CITIZENS" WITHIN THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  FN9 THERE IS EQUITABLE JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN THE
PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF APPELLANT'S RATES, IF THE ORDER OF MAY 29,
QUOTED ABOVE, CARRIES A THREAT OF IMMINENT, IRREPARABLE INJURY. 

FOURTH.  THE BILL ASKS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO RESTRAIN THE COMMISSION
FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING THE "INVESTIGATION" INTO THE PRICE OF GAS SOLD
UNDER APPELLANTS CONTRACTS TO THE DISTRIBUTING AGENCIES.  TWO DECISIONS
DEALING WITH ORDERS FOR FURNISHING INFORMATION HAVE RECENTLY BEEN
HANDED DOWN BY THIS COURT.  FN10  IN BOTH CASES THIS COURT DEALT WITH
THE MERITS OF THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS, DETERMINING THAT THERE WAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR SAYING THAT "ANY PERSON IS IMMUNE FROM GIVING
INFORMATION APPROPRIATE TO A LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL INQUIRY."  HERE
THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED ORDER.  TO
JUSTIFY THE USE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY POWER OF A COURT OF EQUITY
SOMETHING MORE MUST BE INVOLVED THAN AN APPLICATION OF A STATUTE IN AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER AGAINST COMPLAINANT.  THERE MUST BE AN
ALLEGATION AND PROOF OF THREATENED INJURY UNDER SOME OF THE RECOGNIZED
SOURCES OF EQUITABLE JURISDICTION.  FN11  THE ONE MOST FREQUENTLY
RELIED UPON IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASES, AND PLEADED HERE, IS IRREPARABLE
INJURY.  FN12  TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE ORDER WILL
COST $25,000, ARISING FROM THE NECESSITY OF PREPARING FOR THE HEARING
ON RATES.  IS THIS IRRECOVERABLE EXPENSE A THREATENED IRREPARABLE
INJURY WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY WILL GUARD AGAINST BY INJUNCTION? 
WHETHER OR NOT EQUITABLE RELIEF WILL BE GRANTED RESTS IN THE SOUND
DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  FN13 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE INJURY WHICH FLOWS FROM THE THREAT OF ENFORCEMENT
OF AN ALLEGEDLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, REGULATORY STATE STATUTE WITH
PENALTIES SO HEAVY AS TO FORBID THE RISK OF CHALLENGE IN PROCEEDINGS TO
ENFORCE IT, HAS BEEN GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS IRREPARABLE AND SUFFICIENT
TO JUSTIFY AN INJUNCTION.  FN14  THE COMMISSION URGES THAT SINCE THERE
IS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPELLANT TO CONTEST IN A STATE COURT ANY
EFFORT TO REGULATE OR PUNISH FOR DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDERS, WITH ULTIMATE
REVIEW BY THIS COURT, THERE IS NO IRREPARABLE INJURY, AND THAT THE
DANGERS OF LOWERED RATES AND THREATENED PUNISHMENTS CAN BE OVERCOME BY
OPPOSITION WHEN AN EFFORT IS MADE TO ENFORCE THEM.  THE CASE OF FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION V. CLAIRE FURNACE CO., 274 U.S. 160, WHERE AN EFFORT
WAS MADE TO SECURE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF A FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION ORDER TO PRODUCE INFORMATION, HAS BEEN CITED AS A
PRECEDENT.  THERE WERE HEAVY PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THAT ORDER
FN15  BUT THE OPINION DISCUSSED THE ISSUES FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY.  FN16  APPELLANT HERE INSISTS
THAT IT IS COMPELLED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN COMPLIANCE, AT A HEAVY COST, OR
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH OBVIOUS RISKS OF SEVERE, THOUGH NON-RECURRING AND
NON-CUMULATIVE, PENALTIES; FN17  AND THAT TO STAND BY SUBJECTS
APPELLANT TO THE FURTHER RISK THAT THE COMMISSION WILL FIX ITS RATES ON
THE COMMISSION'S EVIDENCE ALONE.  FN18  WE MAY ASSUME, WITHOUT
DECIDING, THAT THE RISK OF THESE PENALTIES WOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY GREAT
TO REQUIRE THE INTERPOSITION OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO PROTECT APPELLANT
AGAINST A REGULATORY ORDER.    COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER, HOWEVER,
SUBJECTS APPELLANT ONLY TO AN EXPENSE IN PREPARING FOR AND CARRYING OUT
AN INVESTIGATION.  IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT THE EXPENSE IS
DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT, VALUED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT AS IN EXCESS OF $1,500,000, AND INVOLVING SALES OF ABOUT ONE
BILLION CUBIC FEET PER ANNUM, AT A PRICE OF $350,000.  NO ORDER HAS
BEEN ENTERED FIXING RATES OR REGULATING CONDUCT.  THE NECESSITY TO
EXPEND FOR THE INVESTIGATION OR TO TAKE THE RISK FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE INJUNCTION.  IT IS NOT THE SORT OF IRREPARABLE
INJURY AGAINST WHICH EQUITY PROTECTS.  FN19 

THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN COMPLAINTS OF IRRECOVERABLE AND IRREPARABLE
COST AND DAMAGE IN PROCEEDINGS TO ENJOIN HEARINGS, INITIATED BY A
FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IN A MATTER ALLEGED BY COMPLAINANTS TO BE
BEYOND THE AGENCY'S POWERS, WAS CONSIDERED IN MYERS V. BETHLEHEM
SHIPBUILDING CORP., 303 U.S. 41.  IN AN EFFORT TO ENJOIN HEARINGS BY
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE CORPORATION ALLEGED (SEE 303
U.S. AT 47): 

"THAT HEARINGS WOULD, AT BEST, BE FUTILE; AND THAT THE HOLDING OF
THEM WOULD RESULT IN IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE CORPORATION, NOT ONLY BY
REASON OF THEIR DIRECT COST AND THE LOSS OF TIME OF ITS OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE HEARINGS WOULD CAUSE SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT
OF THE GOOD WILL AND HARMONIOUS RELATIONS EXISTING BETWEEN THE
CORPORATION AND ITS EMPLOYEES, AND THUS SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE EFFICIENCY
OF ITS OPERATIONS." 

FURTHER ALLEGATIONS POINTED OUT SIMILAR SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES IN
PRECEDING INVESTIGATIONS.  SEE NOTE 4 IDEM.  WHILE OTHER GROUNDS WERE
FACTORS IN OUR CONCLUSION TO REVERSE THE DECREE FOR AN INJUNCTION, WE
SAID (P. 51): 

"LAWSUITS ALSO OFTEN PROVE TO HAVE BEEN GROUNDLESS; BUT NO WAY HAS
BEEN DISCOVERED OF RELIEVING A DEFENDANT FROM THE NECESSITY OF A TRIAL
TO ESTABLISH THE FACT." 

IT MAY BE SUGGESTED THAT IN THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CASE THE
EMPLOYER HAD NOT PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ITS CONTENTION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, AND THAT PROOF OF THAT IMMUNITY WOULD HAVE
CONSTITUTED NO GREATER INJURY IF PRESENTED TO THE BOARD THAN THE
COURTS, WHEREAS HERE THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY BEEN OVERRULED BY THE
COMMISSION ON THE QUESTION OF APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, AND
SO WOULD BE SUBJECT TO GREATER EXPENSE BY PRESENTING FURTHER EVIDENCE
ON ANOTHER MATTER BEFORE THE COMMISSION THAN BY PROCEEDING IN AN EQUITY
COURT AND THERE CONTESTING THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  THIS WAS THE
ARGUMENT PRESENTED TO THE COURT, BUT NOT DISCUSSED, IN UNITED STATES V.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 244 U.S. 82, 85-86.  THE SITUATION IS STILL
CONTROLLED BY THE ABIDING AND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THIS ASPECT OF
THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CASE, THAT THE EXPENSE AND ANNOYANCE OF
LITIGATION IS "PART OF THE SOCIAL BURDEN OF LIVING UNDER GOVERNMENT." 
FN20  THE AUTHORITY IN OTHER COURTS IS IN ACCORD.  FN21 

FIFTH.  OUR CONCLUSION THAT THIS IS NOT A THREATENED INJURY
JUSTIFYING INTERVENTION IS STRENGTHENED BY A BALANCING OF
CONVENIENCES.  BY THE PROCESS OF INJUNCTION THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE
ASKED TO STOP AT THE THRESHOLD, THE EFFORT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION OF KENTUCKY TO INVESTIGATE MATTERS ENTRUSTED TO ITS CARE BY
A STATUTE OF THAT COMMONWEALTH OBVIOUSLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF STATE
AUTHORITY IN MANY OF ITS PROVISIONS.  THE PRESERVATION OF THE AUTONOMY
OF THE STATES IS FUNDAMENTAL IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  THE
EXTRAORDINARY POWERS OF INJUNCTION SHOULD BE EMPLOYED TO INTERFERE WITH
THE ACTION OF THE STATE OR THE DEPOSITARIES OF ITS DELEGATED POWERS,
ONLY WHEN IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT THE WEIGHT OF CONVENIENCE IS UPON THE
SIDE OF THE PROTESTANT.  FN22  "ONLY A CASE OF MANIFEST OPPRESSION WILL
JUSTIFY A FEDERAL COURT IN LAYING SUCH A CHECK UPON ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICERS ACTING COLORE OFFICII IN A CONSCIENTIOUS ENDEAVOR TO FULFILL
THEIR DUTY TO THE STATE."  FN23  THE KENTUCKY STATUTE IN QUESTION
CONTAINS DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR HEARINGS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.  FN24
THESE INCLUDE NOTICE, PROCEDURAL RULES BEFORE THE COMMISSION, RIGHT TO
COUNSEL, PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE, SERVICE OF ORDERS, REHEARING, PROCESS
FOR PARTIES AND WITNESSES, DEPOSITIONS, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS, REVIEW
OF ORDERS BY COURT AND APPEAL TO THE STATE COURT OF LAST RESORT.  THE
COMPULSORY AND PUNITIVE POWERS OF THE COMMISSION ARE EXERCISED THROUGH
JUDICIAL PROCESS.  WHEN THE ONLY GROUND FOR INTERFERING WITH THE STATE
PROCEDURE IS THE COST OF PREPARING FOR A HEARING, THERE IS NO OCCASION
FOR EQUITABLE INTERVENTION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACTS OF 1934, C. 145, AS AMENDED BY ACTS OF 1936, C. 92. 

FN2  "NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. 

"WHEREAS, AN EXAMINATION OF THE REPORTS OF SEVERAL WHOLESALE AND
RETAIL GAS UTILITIES SERVING IN THIS STATE, SHOW THAT THEY PURCHASE GAS
AT WHOLESALE RATES FROM THE PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC., LEXINGTON,
KENTUCKY; AND 

"WHEREAS, THE COMMISSION HAS FOUND UNDER SECTIONS 3952-1-12-13, AND
14 THAT THE PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC., IS AN OPERATING UTILITY IN THE
STATE OF KENTUCKY, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMISSION;
AND 

"WHEREAS, IT IS APPARENT FROM A COMPARISON OF THESE RATES WITH THOSE
OF OTHER COMPANIES RENDERING A SIMILAR CLASS OF SERVICE IN KENTUCKY
THAT THESE RATES MAY BE EXCESSIVE; AND 

"WHEREAS, THESE WHOLESALE RATES BEAR A DEFINITE RELATIONSHIP TO THE
COST OF GAS TO CONSUMERS IN THE FOLLOWING TOWNS AND COMMUNITIES,
NAMELY, CORBIN, SOMERSET, BARBOURVILLE, MANCHESTER, BURNING SPRINGS,
RICHMOND, IRVINE-RAVENNA, LONDON, WINCHESTER, MT. STERLING, CYNTHIANA,
GEORGETOWN, LEXINGTON, PARIS, FRANKFORT, VERSAILLES, MIDWAY, AND NORTH
MIDDLETOWN; AND 

"WHEREAS, AUTHORITY TO INITIATE THIS INVESTIGATION IS VESTED IN THE
COMMISSION BY SECTIONS 3952-12-13, AND 14 OF THE KENTUCKY STATUTES, 

"NOW, THEREFORE, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, THAT THE COMMISSION HAS
ENTERED UPON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ABOVE MATTERS AND THAT A PUBLIC
HEARING WILL BE HELD RELATIVE TO SAID MATTERS AT THE OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSION ON JUNE 29, 1937, AT WHICH TIME AND PLACE ANY PERSON
INTERESTED MAY APPEAR AND PRESENT SUCH EVIDENCE AS MAY BE PROPER IN THE
PREMISES; AND 

"WHEREAS, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION FINDS THE BURDEN OF
PROOF UPON THE UTILITY TO SHOW THAT RATES AND CHARGES ARE FAIR AND
REASONABLE, AND NOT ARBITRARY, 

"NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 

"1.  THAT OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PETROLEUM EXPLORATION,
INC., APPEAR AT SUCH HEARING AND PRESENT EVIDENCE, IF ANY IT CAN, AS
WILL SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THE FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS OF ITS PRESENT
RATES AND CHARGES FOR GAS WHICH IT IS SELLING TO COMPANIES THAT ARE IN
TURN SELLING THE SAME GAS AT WHOLESALE OR RETAIL IN THIS STATE, OR
SUBMIT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION SUCH CHANGES AND REVISIONS AS
WILL MAKE SUCH RATES OR CHARGES FAIR AND REASONABLE." 

(SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OMITTED HERE RELATE TO A REQUIREMENT FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON CONTRACTS BETWEEN APPELLANT AND OTHER
PARTIES.  EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONTRACTS WAS DENIED BY APPELLANT, AND NO
EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THEM WAS OFFERED.) 

"4.  THAT ALL BOOKS, ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, CORRESPONDENCE AND MEMORANDA
OF THE PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC., BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION
BY THE COMMISSION'S REPRESENTATIVES. 

"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE PETROLEUM EXPLORATION, INC., OF THE
ABOVE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION. 

"DATED AT FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY, THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 1937." 

FN3  GLENWOOD LIGHT CO. V. MUTUAL LIGHT CO., 239 U.S. 121, 125.  THE
PLEADINGS AND PROOF IN THE PRESENT CASE DO NOT IN TERMS RAISE THE
QUESTION OF THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT BUSINESS FREE OF
INTERFERENCE BY THE COMMISSION.  SCOTT V. DONALD, 165 U.S. 107; CF.
GLENWOOD LIGHT CO. V. MUTUAL LIGHT CO., SUPRA, 124. 

FN4  HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263. 

FN5  WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 261 U.S. 264. 

FN6  PACKARD V. BANTON, 264 U.S. 140, 142, 143. 

FN7  SEE TWIST V. PRAIRIE OIL & GAS CO., 274 U.S. 684, 690.  ALTHOUGH
THE OBJECTION DOES NOT GO TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AS A FEDERAL
COURT AND MAY BE WAIVED AND NOT CONSIDERED IF NOT TIMELY RAISED (REYNES
V. DUMONT, 130 U.S. 354, 395), IF IT BE OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS AN
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW, THE COURT ACTS SUA SPONTE TO PRESERVE THE
COURTS OF EQUITY AS A FORUM FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTION OF SEC. 267 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 
PARKER V. WINNIPISEOGEE LAKE COTTON & WOOLEN CO., 2 BLACK 545, 550;
WRIGHT V. ELLISON, 1 WALL.  16, 22; OELRICHS V. SPAIN, 15 WALL.  211,
228; SINGER SEWING MACHINE CO. V. BENEDICT, 229 U.S. 481, 486;
HENRIETTA MILLS V. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, 281 U.S. 121, 123, 128.  CF.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. CLAIRE FURNACE CO., 274 U.S. 160.  IT IS A
QUESTION OF "WHETHER THE CASE IS ONE FOR THE PECULIAR TYPE OF RELIEF"
GRANTED BY COURTS OF EQUITY.  DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN INS. ASSN., 296
U.S. 64, 69. 

FN8  DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN INS. ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 69, AND CASES
CITED; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. OSBORNE, 265 U.S. 14, 16. 

FN9  POSTAL TEL. CABLE CO. V. ALABAMA, 155 U.S. 482, 487; MINNESOTA
V. NORTHERN SECURITIES CO., 194 U.S. 48, 63; ARKANSAS V. KANSAS & TEXAS
COAL CO., 183 U.S. 185, 188; CITY BANK CO. V. SCHNADER, 291 U.S. 24,
29. 

FN10  NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300, 306; ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA GAS CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, ANTE, P. 61. 

FN11  DOWS V. CHICAGO, 11 WALL.  108; CRUICKSHANK V. BIDWELL, 176
U.S. 73, 81; MCCHORD V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 183 U.S. 483,
495; SHELTON V. PLATT, 139 U.S. 591, 596; BOISE ARTESIAN WATER CO. V.
BOISE CITY, 213 U.S. 276, 281. 

FN12  SEE IRREPARABLE INJURY IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASES, 46 YALE LAW
JOURNAL 255(1936). 

FN13  DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN INS. ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, 70. 

FN14  EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, 165; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263
U.S. 197, 215, 216; PACKARD V. BANTON, 264 U.S. 140, 143. 

FN15  SECS. 9 AND 10 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1914, C. 311, 38
STAT. 722, 15 U.S.C. SECS. 49, 50. 

FN16  CF. DALTON ADDING MACHINE CO. V. STATE CORPORATION COMM'N, 236
U.S. 699. 

FN17  KY. STAT. ANN. SEC. 3952-61 PROVIDES:  "PENALTIES.  - EVERY
OFFICER, AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY UTILITY AS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 1
HEREOF, OR OTHER PERSON WHO SHALL WILLFULLY VIOLATE ANY PROVISIONS OF
THIS ACT, OR WHO PROCURES, AIDS OR ABETS ANY VIOLATION OF THIS ACT BY
ANY SUCH UTILITY SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION
THEREOF SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND ($1,000.00) DOLLARS,
OR BE CONFINED IN JAIL NOT MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS, OR BOTH; AND IF
ANY SUCH UTILITY SHALL BE A PRIVATE CORPORATION AND SHALL VIOLATE ANY
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, OR SHALL DO ANY ACT HEREIN PROHIBITED,
OR SHALL FAIL AND REFUSE TO PERFORM ANY DUTY IMPOSED UPON IT UNDER THIS
ACT FOR WHICH NO PENALTY HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY LAW, OR WHO SHALL FAIL,
NEGLECT OR REFUSE TO OBEY ANY LAWFUL REQUIREMENT OR ORDER MADE BY THE
COMMISSION, FOR EVERY SUCH VIOLATION, FAILURE OR REFUSAL SUCH UTILITY
SHALL FORFEIT AND PAY INTO THE TREASURY A SUM NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FIVE
($25.00) DOLLARS, NOR MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND ($1,000.00) DOLLARS, FOR
EACH SUCH OFFENSE, SAID SUM OR SUMS TO BE PAID TO THE TREASURER AND
CREDITED TO THE GENERAL FUND.  IN CONSTRUING AND ENFORCING THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION THE ACT, OMISSION OR FAILURE OF ANY OFFICER,
AGENT OR OTHER PERSON ACTING FOR OR EMPLOYED BY ANY UTILITY ACTING
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT SHALL IN EVERY CASE BE DEEMED TO BE
THE ACT, OMISSION OR FAILURE OF SUCH UTILITY."  THERE IS ALSO PROVISION
FOR PROCEEDINGS BY MANDAMUS OR INJUNCTION TO COMPEL OBEDIENCE TO THE
ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION.  KY. STAT. ANN. SEC. 3952-13. 

THE MINORITY OPINION BELOW CONSTRUED THIS AS FOLLOWS:  "WHEN THE
VIOLATOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL, THE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
ORDERS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ARE NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR
CONFINEMENT IN JAIL FOR NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BOTH, AND IF A
CORPORATION, NOT LESS THAN $25 OR MORE THAN $1,000 FOR EACH VIOLATION,
THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF TO BE BY THE FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY."  21 F.SUPP.  254, AT 259. 

THE APPELLANT ARGUES IN THIS COURT THAT FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE
EVIDENCE MAY SUBJECT IT TO A FINE AND ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO
CRIMINAL PENALTIES.  NEITHER THE MAJORITY BELOW NOR THE COMMISSION IN
THIS COURT EXPRESSES A CONTRARY VIEW. 

FN18  KY. STAT. ANN. SEC. 3952-14. 

FN19  CF. LAWRENCE V. ST. LOUIS-S.F. RY. CO., 274 U.S. 588, 592. 

FN20  BRADLEY LUMBER CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 84 F.(2D) 97, 100(C.C.A.
5). 

WHETHER EXPENSE, IN THIS INSTANCE, MAY BE AVOIDED BY A CHALLENGE OF
THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE PLEA OF APPELLANT TO
THE JURISDICTION (SEE KY. STAT. ANN. SEC. 3952-44), IS NOT WITHIN OUR
PROVINCE TO DECIDE. 

FN21  THE SUGGESTION THAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY BE ENJOINED FROM
FURTHER, AND EXPENSIVE, PROCEEDINGS AFTER ITS ALLEGEDLY ERRONEOUS
DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 280 FED. 45, 48-49(C.C.A. 8);
PITTSBURGH & W. VA. RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 52 APP. D.C.
40; 280 FED. 1014, 1015-6; PARAMINO LUMBER CO. V. MARSHALL, 18 F.SUPP. 
645, 647(D. WASH.).  COMPARE STATE EX REL. CARRAU V. SUPERIOR COURT, 30
WASH. 700; 71 P. 648; EDWARD HINES YELLOW PINE TRUSTEES V. KNOX, 144
MISS.  560, 572-573; 108 SO. 907. 

FN22  GILCHRIST V. INTERBOROUGH CO., 279 U.S. 159, 207; PENNSYLVANIA
V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185; MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S. 521, 525;
CF. HARRISONVILLE V. DICKEY CLAY CO., 289 U.S. 334, 338. 

FN23  HAWKS V. HAMILL, 288 U.S. 52, 61.    FN24  KY. STAT. ANN. SECS.
3952-33 TO -51 INCLUSIVE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE CONCURS, EXCEPT THAT HE EXPRESSES NO OPINION ON THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE JOHNSON ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :












MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 304 U.S. 1 


NO. 581.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 11, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  -
PETITION FOR REHEARING DENIED MAY 31, 1938.  - 23 F.SUPP.  380,
REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FIXING THE MAXIMUM RATES
TO BE CHARGED BY MARKET AGENCIES (COMMISSION MEN) AT STOCKYARDS HELD
VOID FOR FAILURE TO ALLOW THE "FULL HEARING" BEFORE THE SECRETARY
REQUIRED BY THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES,
298 U.S. 468.  P. 13. 

2.  IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL CHARACTER, THE
LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF THE CITIZEN MUST BE PROTECTED BY THE
RUDIMENTARY REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PLAY.  THESE DEMAND A FAIR AND OPEN
HEARING.  P. 14. 

3.  IN REQUIRING A "FULL HEARING," THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT HAS
REGARD TO JUDICIAL STANDARDS, - NOT IN ANY TECHNICAL SENSE, BUT WITH
RESPECT TO THOSE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF FAIRNESS WHICH ARE OF THE
ESSENCE OF DUE PROCESS IN A PROCEEDING OF A JUDICIAL NATURE.  THOSE
REQUIREMENTS RELATE NOT ONLY TO THE TAKING AND CONSIDERATION OF
EVIDENCE BUT ALSO TO THE CONCLUDING, AS WELL AS TO THE BEGINNING AND
INTERMEDIATE, STEPS IN THE PROCEDURE.  P. 19. 

4.  THE PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN BY A GENERAL NOTICE OF INQUIRY INTO THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE RATES OF MARKET AGENCIES AT THE KANSAS CITY
STOCKYARDS.  THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF TESTIMONY WERE TAKEN BY AN EXAMINER
AND NUMEROUS COMPLICATED EXHIBITS WERE INTRODUCED, BEARING UPON ALL
PHASES OF THE BROAD SUBJECT OF THE BUSINESSES IN QUESTION.  APPELLANTS'
REQUEST THAT THE EXAMINER PREPARE A TENTATIVE REPORT, TO BE SUBMITTED
AS A BASIS FOR EXCEPTIONS AND ARGUMENT, WAS REFUSED.  ORAL ARGUMENT,
BEFORE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY, WAS GENERAL AND SKETCHY AND DID NOT
REVEAL IN ANY APPROPRIATE MANNER THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIMS.  THE
GOVERNMENT SUBMITTED NO BRIEF AND FURNISHED NO STATEMENT OF ITS
CONTENTIONS.  NUMEROUS AND ELABORATE FINDINGS WERE PREPARED BY
SUBORDINATES WHO HAD CONDUCTED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND
WERE SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY, WHO ACCEPTED THEM, WITH CERTAIN RATE
ALTERATIONS.  NO OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED THE APPELLANTS TO EXAMINE THE
FINDINGS UNTIL THEY WERE SERVED WITH THE ORDER FIXING RATES WHICH THEY
CLAIM TO BE CONFISCATORY.  A REHEARING WAS REFUSED BY THE SECRETARY. 
THE SECRETARY DID NOT READ THE TESTIMONY, BUT EXAMINED IT SOMEWHAT TO
GET ITS DRIFT; HE DID NOT HEAR THE ORAL ARGUMENT BUT READ A TRANSCRIPT
OF IT AND THE APPELLANTS' BRIEFS, AND CONFERRED EX PARTE CONCERNING THE
FINDINGS WITH THE SUBORDINATES WHO PREPARED THEM.  HELD: 

(1)  THE RIGHT TO A "FULL HEARING" EMBRACES NOT ONLY THE RIGHT TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE BUT ALSO A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THE CLAIMS
OF THE OPPOSING PARTY AND TO MEET THEM.  THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT ARGUMENT
IMPLIES THAT OPPORTUNITY; OTHERWISE THE RIGHT MAY BE BUT A BARREN ONE. 
THOSE WHO ARE BROUGHT INTO CONTEST WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN A QUASI
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AIMED AT THE CONTROL OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE
ENTITLED TO BE FAIRLY ADVISED OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSES AND TO BE
HEARD UPON ITS PROPOSALS BEFORE IT ISSUES ITS FINAL COMMAND.  P. 18. 

(2)  NO SUCH REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS ACCORDED IN THIS CASE.  P.
19. 

(3)  IN ALL SUBSTANTIAL ASPECTS, THE PROCEEDING WAS AN ADVERSARY ONE
A PROSECUTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE OWNERS OF THE MARKET AGENCIES
THREATENING THE EXISTENCE OF THE AGENCIES AND THE OWNERS' MEANS OF
LIVELIHOOD.  P. 20. 

(4)  AN EARLIER ORDER CONTAINING FINDINGS OF FACTS AND FIXING A
SCHEDULE OF RATES, WHICH WAS SET ASIDE BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS, COULD NOT AVAIL TO REMEDY THE DEFECTS IN THE CONDUCT OF THE
LATTER PROCEEDING HERE IN QUESTION.  P. 21. 

(5)  THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY IN ACCEPTING AND MAKING AS HIS OWN
THE FINDINGS WHICH HAD BEEN PREPARED BY THE ACTIVE PROSECUTORS FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, AFTER AN EX PARTE DISCUSSION WITH THEM AND WITHOUT
ACCORDING ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE RESPONDENTS IN THE
PROCEEDING TO KNOW THE CLAIMS THUS PRESENTED AND TO CONTEST THEM, WAS
MORE THAN AN IRREGULARITY IN PROCEDURE; IT WAS A VITAL DEFECT.  P. 21. 

5.  A PETITION FOR REHEARING BASED UPON THE GROUNDS OF INCONSISTENCY
OF THE DECISION ON THIS APPEAL WITH RULINGS ON THE EARLIER APPEAL, 298
U.S. 468, AND UPON THE GROUND OF SURPRISE - IS DENIED.  P. 23. 

6.  QUESTIONS AS TO THE DISPOSITION OF MONEYS IMPOUNDED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT REPRESENTING CHARGES FOR MARKET-AGENCY SERVICES PAID IN
EXCESS OF THE RATES FIXED BY THE VOID ORDER, ARE FOR THAT COURT TO
DECIDE.  P. 26. 

MORGAN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, CONSTITUTED OF THREE
JUDGES, WHICH DISMISSED THE BILLS IN FIFTY SUITS, CONSOLIDATED FOR
HEARING, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF MAXIMUM RATES FIXED BY THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR MARKET AGENCIES AT THE KANSAS CITY STOCK
YARDS.  A FORMER APPEAL IS REPORTED IN 298 U.S. 468.  THE PRESENT
REPORT INCLUDES AN OPINION DELIVERED MAY 31, 1938, DENYING A
REHEARING.  SUMMARIES OF THE ARGUMENTS ON THE PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS ARE
EXTRACTED FROM THE MAIN BRIEFS USED ON THE HEARING. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A "FULL
HEARING," THAT THE SECRETARY, IN PERSON, SHOULD HEAR ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE OR THAT HE SHOULD READ IT ALL.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF A "FULL HEARING" ARE NOT MET IF, AS TESTIFIED TO BY THE
SECRETARY IN THIS CASE, THE ORDER MERELY REPRESENTS HIS "INDEPENDENT
CONCLUSION AS BASED UPON THE FINDINGS" OF HIS SUBORDINATES, OR HIS "OWN
INDEPENDENT REACTIONS TO THE FINDINGS OF" SUCH SUBORDINATES.  IT IS NOT
ENOUGH THAT HE HAS EXERCISED AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF HIS OWN
PREDICATED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY OTHERS.  NOR THAT HE HAS
SATISFIED HIMSELF, AS AN EXECUTIVE MIGHT, AFTER MAKING SOME INQUIRIES
OF HIS SUBORDINATES, THAT HE IS WILLING TO ADOPT THEIR FINDINGS.  HE
IS, AS STATED BY THIS COURT, "THE TRIER OF THE FACTS" AND AS SUCH
REQUIRED TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE FINDINGS DEPEND, AND UPON
WHICH, IN TURN, HIS CONCLUSIONS AND ULTIMATE DETERMINATIONS ARE BASED. 
THIS DUTY MAY NOT BE DELEGATED TO OR PERFORMED BY OTHERS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE "EVIDENCE  ...  TAKEN MAY BE SIFTED AND ANALYZED
BY COMPETENT SUBORDINATES," 298 U.S. 481, BUT THIS CLEARLY MEANS THAT
THE SIFTING AND ANALYSIS MUST BE OF THE EVIDENCE AS A WHOLE UPON ANY
CONTROVERTED ISSUE OF FACT OR IN RESPECT OF WHICH ANY ULTIMATE FINDINGS
OF FACT MUST BE BASED.  IT MAY NOT BE A ONE-SIDED ANALYSIS.  IF VARIANT
OR CONTRARY INFERENCES MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE, THE SUBORDINATES
MAY NOT CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM BUT MUST FAIRLY PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF THE
EVIDENCE, SO THAT THE AUTHORIZED TRIBUNAL MAY MAKE HIS CHOICE.  IF AN
ULTIMATE OR EVIDENTIARY FINDING OF FACT, CONTROVERSIAL IN CHARACTER,
REQUIRES FOR ITS DETERMINATION CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE RELATING TO
DIFFERENT BUT RELATED SUBJECTS, WITHOUT THE WEIGHING OF ALL OF WHICH NO
ULTIMATE OR EVIDENTIARY FINDING MAY BE MADE, THEN SUCH ANALYSIS MUST
FAIRLY SET FORTH THESE SEVERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF EVIDENCE AND THEIR
RELATION TO THE POSSIBLE ULTIMATE OR EVIDENTIARY INFERENCES PRESENTED. 
TO WHAT EXTENT THE SECRETARY MAY RELY UPON SUCH ANALYSES WITHOUT
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD HIMSELF IN RESPECT OF CONTROVERTED QUESTIONS,
IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS.  THIS IS SO BECAUSE IT PLAINLY APPEARS
FROM THE RECORD AS A WHOLE THAT NO SUCH ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE WAS
MADE AND SUBMITTED TO HIM BY ANY SUBORDINATE. 

THE LAW IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE MECHANICS EMPLOYED.  WHAT IT DOES
REQUIRE IS THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL BE THOSE OF THE SECRETARY
HIMSELF, MADE ONLY AFTER A WEIGHING AND APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE,
HOWEVER THAT EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED TO HIM FOR CONSIDERATION. 

IN LEAVING THE FINDINGS OF FACT TO HIS SUBORDINATES, THE SECRETARY
PROCEEDED UPON THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE DELEGATION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE POWER TO FIX RATES WAS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RATHER THAN TO THE SECRETARY IN PERSON. 

THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FINDINGS, SUBMITTED TO THE
SECRETARY AND ACCEPTED BY HIM, WERE PREPARED, DISCLOSES THE ABSENCE OF
ANY QUASI-JUDICIAL WEIGHING OR APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE BY THOSE WHO
PREPARED THEM.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT NEITHER THE EVIDENCE NOR THE
ARGUMENT WAS THEREAFTER WEIGHED OR APPRAISED BY THE SECRETARY. 

THE FINDINGS PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY'S SUBORDINATES DO NOT
CONSTITUTE SUCH A "SIFTING AND ANALYZING" OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO ABSOLVE
THE SECRETARY FROM WEIGHING AND APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE ITSELF. 

THE SECRETARY DID NOT WEIGH AND APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING
SALESMANSHIP PERFORMANCE, THE FINDINGS CONCERNING WHICH ARE BASED ON
THE FLIMSIEST KIND OF EVIDENCE AND ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL. 

THE SECRETARY ACCEPTED WITHOUT CHANGE FINDINGS MADE BY HIS
SUBORDINATES IN RESPECT OF SALES PERFORMANCE, APPARENTLY UNDER THE
MISAPPREHENSION THAT THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL PERFORMANCE, WITHOUT
ANY EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT THEREOF, WHICH, IF MADE,
WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED THE CONTRARY. 

THE SECRETARY DID NOT WEIGH AND APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE
ORDER'S SO-CALLED REASONABLE COST ASSIGNED TO BUSINESS-GETTING AND
MAINTAINING WAS PREDICATED. 

THE SECRETARY DID NOT WEIGH AND APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE BEARING UPON
THE REASONABLE COST OF YARDING OR OFFICE SALARIES, BUT ACCEPTED THE
FINDINGS SUBMITTED UPON A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THEIR IMPORT. 

NEITHER THE FRAGMENTARY ORAL STATEMENTS OF HIS SUBORDINATES AS TO
WHAT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE WAS NOR THE SECRETARY'S HIT OR MISS
"INVESTIGATION INTO" THE RECORD IS AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR HIS
WEIGHING AND APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE AS A WHOLE. 

THE ALTERING BY THE SECRETARY OF A FEW RATES IN THE TENTATIVE ORDER
IN NO WAY TENDS TO PROVE HE WEIGHED AND APPRAISED THE EVIDENCE.  HAD HE
FILLED IN A WHOLLY BLANK SCHEDULE HE WOULD BE NO BETTER OFF. 

THE INEXORABLE REQUIREMENT OF A FAIR TRIAL BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL
TRIBUNAL, WHICH SHALL RENDER JUDGMENT UPON THE EVIDENCE, IS NOT MET
WHERE, WITHOUT ANY ALLEGATION THAT ANY RATES ARE UNREASONABLE, AND
WITHOUT ANY DISCLOSURE OF THEIR CONTENTIONS AS TO THE ULTIMATE FACTS
PROVED OR THE PRINCIPLES INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO THEM, THE FINDINGS
AND ORDER TO BE MADE ARE PREPARED BY OPPOSING COUNSEL AND, WITHOUT THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANTS OR THEIR COUNSEL, SUBMITTED TO THE TRIER OF
THE FACTS WHO, AFTER PRIVATE UNRECORDED CONFERENCES WITH OPPOSING
COUNSEL, ISSUES AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH, WITHOUT HIMSELF
WEIGHING OR APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE UPON CONTROVERTED ISSUES. 

THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION OR SUGGESTION IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF
INQUIRY THAT ANY OF APPELLANTS' RATES WERE UNJUST, OR UNREASONABLE OR
DISCRIMINATORY.  THE "ORDER GRANTING REHEARING" WAS NOT MORE EXPLICIT
IN THESE RESPECTS. 

COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT, IN HIS ARGUMENT, PRESENTED NO ISSUES OF
FACT.  WHERE HE DID REFER TO INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES HE PAID THEM THE
HIGHEST POSSIBLE COMPLIMENT AS TO EFFICIENCY OF OPERATION.  HE STATED
THAT IN HIS OPINION THE RATES UNDER INVESTIGATION WERE NOT
DISCRIMINATORY AND THAT NONE OF THE APPELLANTS WERE MAKING TOO MUCH
MONEY UNDER THE EXISTING RATES. 

NOTHING OCCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE ORAL ARGUMENT TO FORECAST THE
FACT THAT THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WAS NOT TO PASS UPON THE ISSUES BUT
WAS TO RETIRE FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE.  NO STATEMENT
INDICATED THAT A TENTATIVE REPORT WAS TO BE PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEYS
FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND A GOVERNMENT ECONOMIST, AN IMPORTANT WITNESS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT.  IT WAS NOT SUGGESTED THAT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
ORDER, WITHOUT HAVING BEEN FIRST SERVED UPON COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS,
WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE SECRETARY PERSONALLY AND DISCUSSED WITH HIM
BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN UNRECORDED CONFERENCES, OUT OF
THE PRESENCE OF APPELLANTS' COUNSEL.  APPELLANTS' COUNSEL, WITHOUT THE
BENEFIT OF A COMPLAINT CONTAINING SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE
UNREASONABLENESS OF ANY RATES, HAVING BEFORE HIM IN THE EVIDENCE A COST
STUDY PREPARED AFTER EXTENSIVE AUDITS BY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTANTS SHOWING
EXPERIENCED COSTS TO BE IN EXCESS OF RECEIPTS UNDER EXISTING RATES, AND
WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE TENTATIVE REPORT, PREPARED
A BRIEF WHICH WAS FILED WITH THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY.  NO BRIEFS WERE
FILED OR SERVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND ORDER SO PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN MEMORANDA PREPARED IN PART BY THE
ECONOMIST WHO WAS A GOVERNMENT WITNESS IN THE CASE, WAS PRESENTED TO
THE SECRETARY.  THE SECRETARY, ACCORDING TO HIS TESTIMONY, AFTER
EXAMINING THE RECORD CASUALLY, TOOK THE ORDER, THE BRIEFS, AND
TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENT HOME WITH HIM.  HE STATES THAT HE READ THE
TENTATIVE ORDER AND PART, AT LEAST, OF THE BRIEFS.  AFTER DISCUSSING
THE MATTER WITH COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN PRIVATE UNRECORDED
CONFERENCES, HE CHANGED, TO AN UNIMPORTANT EXTENT, A FEW FIGURES
EXPRESSING INDIVIDUAL RATES, AND SIGNED THE ORDER AS PROPOSED,
OTHERWISE UNCHANGED, ON JUNE 14, 1933. 

THIS HE DID WITHOUT WEIGHING OR APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE ON
CONTROVERTED ISSUES OF FACT AND WITHOUT FAMILIARIZING HIMSELF WITH ANY
PART THEREOF EXCEPT AS COMMUNICATED TO HIM IN EX PARTE ORAL
CONVERSATIONS WITH HIS SUBORDINATES INCLUDING THE ATTORNEY PROSECUTING
THE CASE.  NO RECORD WAS KEPT OF THESE CONVERSATIONS, BUT IT APPEARS
THEY WERE FRAGMENTARY AND UNACCOMPANIED BY ANY WEIGHING AND APPRAISING
OF THE EVIDENCE BY THE SECRETARY.  AND THIS ALTHOUGH THE FINDINGS
ACCEPTED ARE DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO STATEMENTS IN APPELLANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE BRIEFS.  SUCH A COURSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
CONSTITUTES NEITHER A FULL HEARING NOR DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE MORE EXTENSIVE THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE IMPLEMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BECOMES - AND ITS USE IS DAILY BECOMING MORE
WIDESPREAD - AND THE MORE CREDIT WHICH IS GIVEN TO ITS DECISIONS, THE
MORE IMPORTANT IS IT THAT STRICT REGULARITY BE OBSERVED IN THE CONDUCT
OF ITS HEARINGS AND THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF A FULL AND FAIR HEARING
AND OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW BE ACCORDED.  SEE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE HEWART,
"THE NEW DESPOTISM," PP. 50-51. 

IT IS NOT CONTENDED BY APPELLANTS THAT IN CASES WHERE A FAIR AND
PROPER METHOD HAS BEEN ADOPTED FOR LIMITING THE ISSUES, WHETHER IT BE A
TENTATIVE REPORT OF THE EXAMINER OR OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL PASSING
JUDGMENT MUST REVIEW OR APPRAISE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO
NONCONTROVERSIAL AS WELL AS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.  NOR IS IT CONTENDED
THAT IN ORDER THAT THERE BE A FULL HEARING, ORAL ARGUMENT OR ORAL
PRESENTATION IS ESSENTIAL IN EVERY INSTANCE - FOR BY OTHER METHODS THE
TRIER OF THE FACTS MAY BECOME SO ADEQUATELY INFORMED AS TO ENABLE
HIMSELF TO PROPERLY APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE.  NOR IS IT CONTENDED THAT
THE ORDER IS VOID SOLELY BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEYS FOR
THE PROSECUTION, ASSISTED BY A WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, PREPARED
IT,  - FOR HAD SUCH AN ORDER, SO PREPARED, BEEN FOLLOWED BY
PRESENTATION OF IT TO COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
REFUTE THE CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED THEREIN BEFORE HIM WHOSE DUTY IT WAS
TO RESOLVE THE EVIDENCE INTO FINDINGS, THE REQUIREMENT OF A FAIR TRIAL
COULD BE MET IF THE SECRETARY WEIGHED AND APPRAISED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE
UPON THE FINDINGS QUESTIONED BY APPELLANTS' COUNSEL.  A COURT OR
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MAY FOR ITS CONVENIENCE REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF
ISSUES UPON WRITTEN STATEMENT - IF SUCH WRITTEN STATEMENTS ARE, UNDER
CONDITIONS FAIRLY PERMITTING REPLY, MADE KNOWN TO OPPOSING PARTIES. 
EVIDENCE MAY FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF THE ONE CHARGED WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF DECISION BE FAIRLY ANALYZED BY IMPARTIAL AND
COMPETENT ASSISTANTS, UNBIASED BY PREVIOUS PARTISAN CONNECTION WITH THE
PROCEEDING.  WHERE, HOWEVER, ISSUES ARE NOT DEFINED AND LIMITED BY
MEANS AND METHODS FAIR TO ALL PERSONS AFFECTED OR TO BE AFFECTED, FAIR
ANALYSES OR SYNOPSES OF THE EVIDENCE ARE NOT PREPARED BY IMPARTIAL OR
COMPETENT ASSISTANTS, AND THE ONE DECIDING THE ISSUES DOES NOT
PERSONALLY REVIEW AND WEIGH AND APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE, A FULL HEARING
IS NOT HAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENTS. 

ASSUMING THAT, AS CLAIMED, THE SECRETARY READ ORAL AND WRITTEN
ARGUMENT, NEVERTHELESS IT IS CLEAR THAT HE DID NOT JUDICIALLY WEIGH AND
APPRAISE THE SAME, SINCE HE ADMITTEDLY ADOPTED THE VITALLY IMPORTANT
INFERENCES DRAWN BY HIS SUBORDINATES FROM THE EVIDENCE, AND REJECTED
THE WIDELY DIFFERING INFERENCES ASSERTED BY APPELLANTS IN THEIR BRIEFS,
WITHOUT WEIGHING OR APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH EITHER SET OF
INFERENCES WAS BASED. 

THE ORDER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE UNSUPPORTED BY ESSENTIAL
FINDINGS OF BASIC FACTS, BECAUSE THE FUNDAMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
THEREIN ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BECAUSE BASED UPON
AN ERRONEOUS CONCEPTION OF THE LAW AND OF THE POWERS OF THE SECRETARY,
BECAUSE BASED UPON A DEPARTURE FROM RECOGNIZED AND ACCEPTED STANDARDS,
BOTH OF REASONABLENESS AND OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE, AND BECAUSE
ARBITRARILY MADE. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE DECISION OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICER, MADE
UPON A PROPER RECORD AFTER FULL HEARING OF ARGUMENT, MAY BE DECLARED TO
BE VOID ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS INSUFFICIENTLY CONSIDERED IS WITHOUT
PRECEDENT.  IN ITS PRIOR DECISION, THIS COURT HELD THAT WHERE IT WAS
ALLEGED THAT THE SECRETARY HEARD NEITHER EVIDENCE NOR ARGUMENT A CASE
WAS MADE FOR JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION.  IT DID NOT HOLD THAT WHERE HE HAD
HEARD ARGUMENT, JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION MAY TEST THE ADEQUACY OF HIS
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE.  THE DETAILED FACTS OF THE
SECRETARY'S PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE AND THE
DETAILED MENTAL PROCESSES WHICH HE EMPLOYED IN REACHING HIS
DETERMINATION ARE NOT A PROPER SUBJECT FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY. 
APPELLANTS' CONTENTION IS, IN ESSENCE, AN ENDEAVOR TO AVOID, BY A NOVEL
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE ESTABLISHED RULE THAT THE FINDINGS OF
A QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICER, MADE AFTER HEARING OR READING FULL ARGUMENT
ON A PROPER RECORD SUBMITTED TO HIM, CAN BE ATTACKED ONLY BY SHOWING
THAT THE FINDINGS ARE IN FACT UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.    THE
QUESTION OF THE SCOPE OF THE ISSUE IS NOT OF CONTROLLING IMPORTANCE IN
THE PRESENT CASE.  SHOULD THIS COURT DECIDE THAT IT IS FREE TO LOOK
BEHIND THE FACT THAT THE SECRETARY READ AND CONSIDERED APPELLANTS'
ARGUMENTS, IT WILL FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE SECRETARY
FULLY COMPLIED WITH ANY PROCEDURAL STANDARD THAT MAY REASONABLY BE
IMPOSED. 

THE SECRETARY MADE HIS DECISION ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN PERSONAL
CONSIDERATION AND APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT.  THE
TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD WAS IN HIS POSSESSION AND, WHILE HE DID NOT READ
IT CONSECUTIVELY OR IN FULL, HE CONSULTED IT WHEREVER IN HIS JUDGMENT
SUCH CONSULTATION WAS NECESSARY.  AS A GUIDE TO HIS EXAMINATION OF THE
RECORD HE STUDIED THE ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANTS DIRECTED TO THE EVIDENCE
AND COMPARED THEM WITH THE VOLUMINOUS FINDINGS OF FACT, WHICH
CONSTITUTED A SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE.  HAVING READ AND
CONSIDERED THE TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE ARGUMENTS OF
APPELLANTS, HE MADE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RECORD - ASSISTED BY
CONSULTATION WITH MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT - FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSIDERING AND APPRAISING THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE FINDINGS WERE
MADE.  UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY ESTABLISHES THAT THE SECRETARY, IN THE
EXERCISE OF HIS INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, ALTERED THREE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT ITEMS IN THE TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF RATES.  WITH RESPECT TO
ALL THE NUMEROUS QUESTIONS RAISED BY APPELLANTS, PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE
EXISTS TO SHOW INDEPENDENT INQUIRY AND THE EXERCISE OF INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT BY THE SECRETARY.  BY ASSERTING THAT THE SECRETARY DID NOT
GIVE THEM A FAIR HEARING, APPELLANTS HAVE ASSUMED THE BURDEN OF PROVING
BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE SECRETARY DID NOT CONSIDER
THEIR ARGUMENTS OR THE EVIDENCE TO WHICH THOSE ARGUMENTS RELATED. 

APPELLANTS RENEW THEIR OBJECTION THAT THEY WERE NOT GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO FILE EXCEPTIONS TO AN EXAMINER'S REPORT OR TO TENTATIVE
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND TO PRESENT ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THOSE
EXCEPTIONS.  THIS COURT HAS ALREADY PASSED ON THIS ARGUMENT.  (CITING
MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 478.)  THE PRACTICE WHICH THE
COURT DESCRIBED AS DESIRABLE HAS NOW BEEN ESTABLISHED IN PROCEEDINGS
UNDER SEC. 307 OF THE ACT.  SEE ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1936, 1 FEDERAL
REGISTER 1362.  IT REMAINS TRUE, HOWEVER, THAT THE FAILURE TO FOLLOW IT
IS NOT FATAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE HEARING. 

APPELLANTS ALSO COMPLAIN THAT IN HIS ORAL ARGUMENT COUNSEL FOR THE
DEPARTMENT DID NOT APPRISE THEM OF THE ISSUES WHICH THEY MIGHT BE
EXPECTED TO MEET, AND THEY REFER TO STATEMENTS HE MADE WHICH WERE IN
AGREEMENT WITH THEIR CONTENTIONS.  IT IS NOT TO BE SUPPOSED THAT THE
APPELLANTS WERE PREJUDICED BY SUCH FRIENDLY STATEMENTS IN ORAL ARGUMENT
OR THAT APPELLANTS' COUNSEL NEEDED THE ASSISTANCE OF GOVERNMENT
COUNSEL, OR OF AN EXAMINER'S REPORT, OR OF TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT,
TO DETERMINE WHAT THE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE PROCEEDING WERE.  IT IS
COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT OFTEN IN ORDINARY LITIGATION THE ARGUMENT
ADDRESSED BY COUNSEL TO THE COURT IS MADE BEFORE THE SUBMISSION OF
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND THAT THE ARGUMENT
OF OPPOSING COUNSEL DOES NOT IN EVERY CASE DISCLOSE WITH CLARITY THE
ISSUES ON WHICH THE CASE IS TO BE DECIDED.  SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN
THEY EXIST CAN HARDLY BE SAID TO AMOUNT TO A DENIAL OF A FULL HEARING. 

FURTHERMORE, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT, AT THE TIME OF THE ORAL ARGUMENT
AND WHEN PETITIONERS FILED THEIR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF WITH THE SECRETARY,
THEY HAD BEFORE THEM AN ORDER, WHICH HAD BEEN SIGNED ON MAY 18, 1932,
BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, CONTAINING FINDINGS OF FACT AND FIXING
A SCHEDULE OF RATES.  AT THE TIME THE REHEARING WAS GRANTED, THE
SECRETARY HAD SET THIS ORDER ASIDE.  THE RECORD UPON WHICH THAT ORDER
HAD BEEN MADE WAS A PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE SECRETARY AT THE TIME
OF THE REHEARING, AND THE ORDER SERVED TO INFORM THE APPELLANTS OF THE
NATURE OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED.  THAT IT DID SO INFORM THEM IS SHOWN BY
THE FACT THAT MUCH OF APPELLANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF WAS DEVOTED TO A
DISCUSSION OF THIS ORDER, AND THAT IN THE COURSE OF THAT DISCUSSION
THEY ADVANCED MOST OF THE CONTENTIONS WHICH THEY MAKE WITH RESPECT TO
THE ORDER NOW UNDER ATTACK. 

APPELLANTS ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THIS PRESENT SITUATION FROM ONE IN
WHICH A COURT ADOPTS FINDINGS PREPARED BY COUNSEL ON THE GROUND THAT A
COURT AFFORDS OPPOSING COUNSEL AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT FINDINGS OF HIS
OWN OR TO EXCEPT TO THE FINDINGS WHICH ARE ADOPTED.  THERE IS NO FORCE
IN THIS DISTINCTION.  ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANTS WERE NOT GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXCEPT TO THE TENTATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT, THEY HAD AN
UNRESTRICTED OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT FINDINGS OF THEIR OWN TO THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WHICH HE COULD HAVE CONSIDERED.  THEY DID NOT
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT OPPORTUNITY; BUT THAT IS NOT A CIRCUMSTANCE
WHICH CAN BE HELD AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.  THERE IS NO
LOGIC IN APPELLANTS' SUGGESTION THAT THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS IS DONE
INDEPENDENTLY IF OPPOSING COUNSEL HAS A CHANCE TO CRITICIZE THOSE
FINDINGS, BUT MUST BE PRESUMED NOT TO HAVE BEEN DONE INDEPENDENTLY IF
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CRITICIZE IS NOT AFFORDED. 

THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY IS BASED UPON CORRECT PRINCIPLES OF LAW
AND IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FIXING MAXIMUM RATES TO BE CHARGED BY MARKET
AGENCIES AT THE KANSAS CITY STOCK YARDS.  PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT,
1921, 42 STAT. 159; 7 U.S.C. 181-229.  THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE
JUDGES DISMISSED THE BILLS OF COMPLAINT IN FIFTY SUITS (CONSOLIDATED
FOR HEARING) CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE RATES, AND THE PLAINTIFFS
BRING THIS DIRECT APPEAL.  7 U.S.C. 217; 28 U.S.C. 47. 

THE CASE COMES HERE FOR THE SECOND TIME.  ON THE FORMER APPEAL WE
MET, AT THE THRESHOLD OF THE CONTROVERSY, THE CONTENTION THAT THE
PLAINTIFFS HAD NOT BEEN ACCORDED THE HEARING WHICH THE STATUTE MADE A
PREREQUISITE TO A VALID ORDER.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAD STRUCK FROM
PLAINTIFFS' BILLS THE ALLEGATIONS THAT THE SECRETARY HAD MADE THE ORDER
WITHOUT HAVING HEARD OR READ THE EVIDENCE AND WITHOUT HAVING HEARD OR
CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED, AND THAT HIS SOLE INFORMATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROCEEDING WAS DERIVED FROM CONSULTATION WITH EMPLOYEES
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.  WE HELD THAT IT WAS ERROR TO STRIKE
THESE ALLEGATIONS, THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO ANSWER
THEM, AND THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER PLAINTIFFS HAD A PROPER HEARING
SHOULD BE DETERMINED.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468. 

AFTER THE REMAND, THE BILLS WERE AMENDED AND INTERROGATORIES WERE
DIRECTED TO THE SECRETARY WHICH HE ANSWERED.  THE COURT RECEIVED THE
EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN INTRODUCED AT ITS PREVIOUS HEARING, TOGETHER
WITH ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY BEARING UPON THE NATURE OF THE HEARING
ACCORDED BY THE SECRETARY.  THIS EVIDENCE EMBRACED THE TESTIMONY OF THE
SECRETARY AND OF SEVERAL OF HIS ASSISTANTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT
RENDERED AN OPINION, WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
HOLDING THAT THE HEARING BEFORE THE SECRETARY WAS ADEQUATE AND, ON THE
MERITS, THAT HIS ORDER WAS LAWFUL.  ON THIS APPEAL, PLAINTIFFS AGAIN
CONTEND (1) THAT THE SECRETARY'S ORDER WAS MADE WITHOUT THE HEARING
REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE AND (2) THAT THE ORDER WAS ARBITRARY AND
UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 

THE FIRST QUESTION GOES TO THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE ACTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES ENTRUSTED BY THE CONGRESS WITH BROAD CONTROL
OVER ACTIVITIES WHICH IN THEIR DETAIL CANNOT BE DEALT WITH DIRECTLY BY
THE LEGISLATURE.  THE VAST EXPANSION OF THIS FIELD OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATION IN RESPONSE TO THE PRESSURE OF SOCIAL NEEDS IS MADE POSSIBLE
UNDER OUR SYSTEM BY ADHERENCE TO THE BASIC PRINCIPLES THAT THE
LEGISLATURE SHALL APPROPRIATELY DETERMINE THE STANDARDS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND THAT IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OF A QUASI
JUDICIAL CHARACTER THE LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF THE CITIZEN SHALL BE
PROTECTED BY THE RUDIMENTARY REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PLAY.  THESE DEMAND
"A FAIR AND OPEN HEARING,"  - ESSENTIAL ALIKE TO THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION AND TO THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC
CONFIDENCE IN THE VALUE AND SOUNDNESS OF THIS IMPORTANT GOVERNMENTAL
PROCESS.  SUCH A HEARING HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS AN "INEXORABLE
SAFEGUARD."  ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38,
73; OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, 301 U.S.
292, 304, 305; RAILROAD COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA V. PACIFIC GAS &
ELECTRIC CO., 302 U.S. 388, 393; MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  AND
IN EQUIPPING THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WITH EXTRAORDINARY POWERS
UNDER THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT, THE CONGRESS EXPLICITLY
RECOGNIZED AND EMPHASIZED THIS REQUIREMENT BY MAKING HIS ACTION DEPEND
UPON A "FULL HEARING."  SEC. 310.  FN1 

IN THE RECORD NOW BEFORE US THE CONTROLLING FACTS STAND OUT CLEARLY. 
THE ORIGINAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS BEGUN ON APRIL 7, 1930, WHEN
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE ISSUED AN ORDER OF INQUIRY AND NOTICE OF
HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CHARGES OF APPELLANTS
FOR STOCKYARDS SERVICES AT KANSAS CITY.  THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE BEFORE
AN EXAMINER OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS BEGUN ON DECEMBER 3, 1930, AND
CONTINUED UNTIL FEBRUARY 10, 1931.  THE GOVERNMENT AND APPELLANTS WERE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND VOLUMINOUS TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS WERE
INTRODUCED.  IN MARCH, 1931, ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HAD BEFORE THE ACTING
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND APPELLANTS SUBMITTED A BRIEF.  ON MAY 18,
1932, THE SECRETARY ISSUED HIS FINDINGS AND AN ORDER PRESCRIBING
MAXIMUM RATES.  IN VIEW OF CHANGED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, THE SECRETARY
VACATED THAT ORDER AND GRANTED A REHEARING.  THAT WAS BEGUN ON OCTOBER
6, 1932, AND THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE WAS CONCLUDED ON NOVEMBER 16,
1932.  THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED AT THE FIRST HEARING WAS RE-SUBMITTED AND
THIS WAS SUPPLEMENTED BY ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS.  ON MARCH
24, 1933, ORAL ARGUMENT WAS HAD BEFORE REXFORD G. TUGWELL AS ACTING
SECRETARY. 

IT APPEARS THAT THERE WERE ABOUT 10,000 PAGES OF TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL
EVIDENCE AND OVER 1,000 PAGES OF STATISTICAL EXHIBITS.  THE ORAL
ARGUMENT WAS GENERAL AND SKETCHY.  APPELLANTS SUBMITTED THE BRIEF WHICH
THEY HAD PRESENTED AFTER THE FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND A
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DEALING WITH THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED UPON THE
REHEARING.  NO BRIEF WAS AT ANY TIME SUPPLIED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  APART
FROM WHAT WAS SAID ON ITS BEHALF IN THE ORAL ARGUMENT, THE GOVERNMENT
FORMULATED NO ISSUES AND FURNISHED APPELLANTS NO STATEMENT OR SUMMARY
OF ITS CONTENTIONS AND NO PROPOSED FINDINGS.  APPELLANTS' REQUEST THAT
THE EXAMINER PREPARE A TENTATIVE REPORT, TO BE SUBMITTED AS A BASIS FOR
EXCEPTIONS AND ARGUMENT, WAS REFUSED. 

FINDINGS WERE PREPARED IN THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, WHOSE REPRESENTATIVES HAD CONDUCTED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT, AND WERE SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY, WHO SIGNED THEM,
WITH A FEW CHANGES IN THE RATES, WHEN HIS ORDER WAS MADE ON JUNE 14,
1933.  THESE FINDINGS, 180 IN NUMBER, WERE ELABORATE.  THEY DEALT WITH
THE PRACTICES AND FACILITIES AT THE KANSAS CITY LIVESTOCK MARKET, THE
CHARACTER OF APPELLANTS' BUSINESS AND SERVICES, THEIR RATES AND THE
VOLUME OF THEIR TRANSACTIONS, THEIR GROSS REVENUES, THEIR METHODS IN
GETTING AND MAINTAINING BUSINESS, THEIR JOINT ACTIVITIES, THE ECONOMIC
CHANGES SINCE THE YEAR 1929, THE PRINCIPLES WHICH GOVERNED THE
DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE COMMISSION RATES, THE CLASSIFICATION OF
COST ITEMS, THE REASONABLE UNIT COSTS PLUS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF
PROFITS TO BE COVERED INTO REASONABLE COMMISSION RATES, THE REASONABLE
AMOUNTS TO BE INCLUDED FOR SALESMANSHIP, YARDING SALARIES AND EXPENSES,
OFFICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES, BUSINESS GETTING AND MAINTAINING
EXPENSES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSES, INSURANCE, INTEREST ON
CAPITAL, AND PROFITS, TOGETHER WITH SUMMARY AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE RATE STRUCTURE.  UPON THE BASIS OF THE REASONABLE COSTS AS THUS
DETERMINED, THE SECRETARY FOUND THAT APPELLANTS' SCHEDULES OF RATES
WERE UNREASONABLE AND UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY AND FIXED THE MAXIMUM
SCHEDULES OF THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES THEREAFTER TO BE CHARGED. 

NO OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO APPELLANTS FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE
FINDINGS THUS PREPARED IN THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY UNTIL THEY WERE
SERVED WITH THE ORDER.  APPELLANTS SOUGHT A REHEARING BY THE SECRETARY
BUT THEIR APPLICATION WAS DENIED ON JULY 6, 1933, AND THESE SUITS
FOLLOWED. 

THE PART TAKEN BY THE SECRETARY HIMSELF IN THE DEPARTMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS IS SHOWN BY HIS FULL AND CANDID TESTIMONY.  THE EVIDENCE
HAD BEEN RECEIVED BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE.  HE DID NOT HEAR THE ORAL
ARGUMENT.  THE BULKY RECORD WAS PLACED UPON HIS DESK AND HE DIPPED INTO
IT FROM TIME TO TIME TO GET ITS DRIFT.  HE DECIDED THAT PROBABLY THE
ESSENCE OF THE EVIDENCE WAS CONTAINED IN APPELLANTS' BRIEFS.  THESE,
TOGETHER WITH THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE ORAL ARGUMENT, HE TOOK HOME WITH
HIM AND READ.  HE HAD SEVERAL CONFERENCES WITH THE SOLICITOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE OFFICIALS IN THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY AND
DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED FINDINGS.  HE TESTIFIED THAT HE CONSIDERED THE
EVIDENCE BEFORE SIGNING THE ORDER.  THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS ACTION IS
STATED IN HIS ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ORDER REPRESENTED HIS
INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION, AS FOLLOWS:    "MY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WOULD
BE THAT THAT VERY DEFINITELY WAS MY INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION AS BASED ON
THE FINDINGS OF THE MEN IN THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY.  I WOULD SAY,
I WILL TRY TO PUT IT AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE, THAT IT REPRESENTED MY
OWN INDEPENDENT REACTIONS TO THE FINDINGS OF THE MEN IN THE BUREAU OF
ANIMAL INDUSTRY." 

SAVE FOR CERTAIN RATE ALTERATIONS, HE "ACCEPTED THE FINDINGS." 

IN THE LIGHT OF THIS TESTIMONY THERE IS NO OCCASION TO DISCUSS THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE SECRETARY EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE, AND WE AGREE WITH
THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT IT WAS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT
TO PROBE THE MENTAL PROCESSES OF THE SECRETARY IN REACHING HIS
CONCLUSIONS IF HE GAVE THE HEARING WHICH THE LAW REQUIRED.  THE
SECRETARY READ THE SUMMARY PRESENTED BY APPELLANTS' BRIEFS AND HE
CONFERRED WITH HIS SUBORDINATES WHO HAD SIFTED AND ANALYZED THE
EVIDENCE.  WE ASSUME THAT THE SECRETARY SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTOOD ITS
PURPORT.  BUT A "FULL HEARING" - A FAIR AND OPEN HEARING - REQUIRES
MORE THAN THAT.  THE RIGHT TO A HEARING EMBRACES NOT ONLY THE RIGHT TO
PRESENT EVIDENCE BUT ALSO A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THE CLAIMS
OF THE OPPOSING PARTY AND TO MEET THEM.  THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT ARGUMENT
IMPLIES THAT OPPORTUNITY; OTHERWISE THE RIGHT MAY BE BUT A BARREN ONE. 
THOSE WHO ARE BROUGHT INTO CONTEST WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN A QUASI
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AIMED AT THE CONTROL OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE
ENTITLED TO BE FAIRLY ADVISED OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSES AND TO BE
HEARD UPON ITS PROPOSALS BEFORE IT ISSUES ITS FINAL COMMAND. 

NO SUCH REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS ACCORDED APPELLANTS.  THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED BY A NOTICE OF INQUIRY INTO THE
REASONABLENESS OF APPELLANTS' RATES.  NO SPECIFIC COMPLAINT WAS
FORMULATED AND, IN A PROCEEDING THUS BEGUN BY THE SECRETARY ON HIS OWN
INITIATIVE, NONE WAS REQUIRED.  THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEFINITE
COMPLAINT, AND IN A SWEEPING INVESTIGATION, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF
TESTIMONY WERE TAKEN BY THE EXAMINER AND NUMEROUS COMPLICATED EXHIBITS
WERE INTRODUCED BEARING UPON ALL PHASES OF THE BROAD SUBJECT OF THE
CONDUCT OF THE MARKET AGENCIES.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPORT BY THE
EXAMINER OR ANY FINDINGS PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND THUS WITHOUT
ANY CONCRETE STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIMS, THE PARTIES
APPROACHED THE ORAL ARGUMENT. 

NOR DID THE ORAL ARGUMENT REVEAL THESE CLAIMS IN ANY APPROPRIATE
MANNER.  THE DISCUSSION BY COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT WAS "VERY
GENERAL," AS HE SAID, IN ORDER NOT TO TAKE UP "TOO MUCH TIME."  IT
DEALT WITH GENERALITIES BOTH AS TO PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURE.  COUNSEL
FOR APPELLANTS THEN DISCUSSED THE EVIDENCE FROM HIS STANDPOINT.  THE
GOVERNMENT'S COUNSEL CLOSED BRIEFLY, WITH A FEW ADDITIONAL AND GENERAL
OBSERVATIONS.  THE ORAL ARGUMENT WAS OF THE SORT WHICH MIGHT SERVE AS A
PREFACE TO A DISCUSSION OF DEFINITE POINTS IN A BRIEF, BUT THE
GOVERNMENT DID NOT SUBMIT A BRIEF.  AND THE APPELLANTS HAD NO FURTHER
INFORMATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCRETE CLAIMS UNTIL THEY WERE SERVED
WITH THE SECRETARY'S ORDER. 

CONGRESS, IN REQUIRING A "FULL HEARING," HAD REGARD TO JUDICIAL
STANDARDS,  - NOT IN ANY TECHNICAL SENSE BUT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE
FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF FAIRNESS WHICH ARE OF THE ESSENCE OF DUE
PROCESS IN A PROCEEDING OF A JUDICIAL NATURE.  IF IN AN EQUITY CAUSE, A
SPECIAL MASTER OR THE TRIAL JUDGE PERMITTED THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY TO
FORMULATE THE FINDINGS UPON THE EVIDENCE, CONFERRED EX PARTE WITH THE
PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY REGARDING THEM, AND THEN ADOPTED HIS PROPOSALS
WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO HIS OPPONENT TO KNOW THEIR CONTENTS
AND PRESENT OBJECTIONS, THERE WOULD BE NO HESITATION IN SETTING ASIDE
THE REPORT OR DECREE AS HAVING BEEN MADE WITHOUT A FAIR HEARING.  THE
REQUIREMENTS OF FAIRNESS ARE NOT EXHAUSTED IN THE TAKING OR
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE BUT EXTEND TO THE CONCLUDING PARTS OF THE
PROCEDURE AS WELL AS TO THE BEGINNING AND INTERMEDIATE STEPS. 

THE ANSWER THAT THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SECRETARY WAS NOT OF AN
ADVERSARY CHARACTER, AS IT WAS NOT UPON COMPLAINT BUT WAS INITIATED AS
A GENERAL INQUIRY, IS FUTILE.  IT HAS REGARD TO THE MERE FORM OF THE
PROCEEDING AND IGNORES REALITIES.  IN ALL SUBSTANTIAL RESPECTS, THE
GOVERNMENT ACTING THROUGH THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY OF THE
DEPARTMENT WAS PROSECUTING THE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE OWNERS OF THE
MARKET AGENCIES.  THE PROCEEDING HAD ALL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF
CONTESTED LITIGATION, WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS COUNSEL ON THE ONE
SIDE AND THE APPELLANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL ON THE OTHER.  IT IS IDLE TO
SAY THAT THIS WAS NOT A PROCEEDING IN REALITY AGAINST THE APPELLANTS
WHEN THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THEIR AGENCIES WAS PUT IN JEOPARDY.  UPON
THE RATES FOR THEIR SERVICES THE OWNERS DEPENDED FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD,
AND THE PROCEEDING ATTACKED THEM AT A VITAL SPOT.  THIS IS WELL SHOWN
BY THE FACT THAT, ON THE MERITS, APPELLANTS ARE HERE CONTENDING THAT
UNDER THE SECRETARY'S ORDER MANY OF THESE AGENCIES, ALTHOUGH NOT FOUND
TO BE INEFFICIENT OR WASTEFUL, WILL BE LEFT WITH DEFICITS INSTEAD OF
REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR THEIR SERVICES AND WILL BE COMPELLED TO GO
OUT OF BUSINESS.  AND TO THIS THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDS THAT IF AS A
RESULT OF THE PRESCRIBED RATES SOME AGENCIES MAY BE UNABLE TO CONTINUE,
BECAUSE THROUGH EXISTING COMPETITION THERE ARE TOO MANY, THAT FACT WILL
NOT INVALIDATE THE ORDER.  WHILE WE ARE NOT NOW DEALING WITH THE
MERITS, THE BREADTH OF THE SECRETARY'S DISCRETION UNDER OUR RULINGS
APPLICABLE TO SUCH A PROCEEDING (TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED
STATES, 280 U.S. 420; ACKER V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 426) PLACES IN A
STRONG LIGHT THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING THE ESSENTIALS OF A FULL AND
FAIR HEARING, WITH THE RIGHT OF THE APPELLANTS TO HAVE A REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW THE CLAIMS ADVANCED AGAINST THEM AS SHOWN BY THE
FINDINGS PROPOSED BY THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY. 

EQUALLY UNAVAILING IS THE CONTENTION THAT THE FORMER SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE HAD MADE AN ORDER IN MAY, 1932, CONTAINING FINDINGS OF FACT
AND FIXING A SCHEDULE OF RATES, OF WHICH APPELLANTS WERE APPRISED. 
BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, THE SECRETARY HIMSELF HAD
SET ASIDE THAT ORDER AND DIRECTED A REHEARING.  THIS NECESSARILY
INVOLVED, AS THE SECRETARY FOUND, A CONSIDERATION "OF CHANGES BOTH
GENERAL AND PARTICULAR" WHICH HAD "OCCURRED SINCE THE YEAR 1929" AND
BROUGHT UP ALL THE QUESTIONS PERTINENT TO THE NEW SITUATION TO WHICH
THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UPON THE REHEARING WAS DIRECTED.  THE FORMER
FINDINGS AND ORDER WERE NO LONGER IN EFFECT AND IT IS WITH THE CONDUCT
OF THE LATER PROCEEDING THAT WE ARE CONCERNED. 

THE GOVERNMENT ADVERTS TO AN OBSERVATION IN OUR FORMER OPINION THAT,
WHILE IT WAS GOOD PRACTICE - WHICH WE APPROVED - TO HAVE THE EXAMINER,
RECEIVING THE EVIDENCE IN SUCH A CASE, PREPARE A REPORT AS A BASIS FOR
EXCEPTIONS AND ARGUMENT, WE COULD NOT SAY THAT THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF
PROCEDURE WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDING.  THAT IS
TRUE, FOR, AS WE SAID, WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES "RELATES TO SUBSTANCE
AND NOT FORM."  CONCEIVABLY, THE SECRETARY, IN A CASE THE NARROW LIMITS
OF WHICH MADE SUCH A PROCEDURE PRACTICABLE, MIGHT HIMSELF HEAR THE
EVIDENCE AND THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES AND MAKE HIS FINDINGS UPON
THE SPOT.  AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE BEING IN, THE SECRETARY MIGHT RECEIVE
THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF BOTH PARTIES, EACH BEING NOTIFIED OF THE
PROPOSALS OF THE OTHER, HEAR ARGUMENT THEREON AND MAKE HIS OWN
FINDINGS.  BUT WHAT WOULD NOT BE ESSENTIAL TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE
HEARING IF THE SECRETARY HIMSELF MAKES THE FINDINGS IS NOT A CRITERION
FOR A CASE IN WHICH THE SECRETARY ACCEPTS AND MAKES AS HIS OWN THE
FINDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY THE ACTIVE PROSECUTORS FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, AFTER AN EX PARTE DISCUSSION WITH THEM AND WITHOUT
ACCORDING ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE RESPONDENTS IN THE
PROCEEDING TO KNOW THE CLAIMS THUS PRESENTED AND TO CONTEST THEM.  THAT
IS MORE THAN AN IRREGULARITY IN PRACTICE; IT IS A VITAL DEFECT. 

THE MAINTENANCE OF PROPER STANDARDS ON THE PART OF ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS IS OF THE
HIGHEST IMPORTANCE AND IN NO WAY CRIPPLES OR EMBARRASSES THE EXERCISE
OF THEIR APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS IN THEIR
MANIFEST INTEREST.  FOR, AS WE SAID AT THE OUTSET, IF THESE MULTIPLYING
AGENCIES DEEMED TO BE NECESSARY IN OUR COMPLEX SOCIETY ARE TO SERVE THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE CREATED AND ENDOWED WITH VAST POWERS, THEY
MUST ACCREDIT THEMSELVES BY ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHERISHED
JUDICIAL TRADITION EMBODYING THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF FAIR PLAY. 

AS THE HEARING WAS FATALLY DEFECTIVE, THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY WAS
INVALID.  IN THIS VIEW, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON THE MERITS.  THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 310 OF THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT (42 STAT. 159,
166; 7 U.S.C. 211) PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 310.  WHENEVER AFTER FULL HEARING UPON A COMPLAINT MADE AS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 309, OR AFTER FULL HEARING UNDER AN ORDER FOR
INVESTIGATION AND HEARING MADE BY THE SECRETARY ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE,
EITHER IN EXTENSION OF ANY PENDING COMPLAINT OR WITHOUT ANY COMPLAINT
WHATEVER, THE SECRETARY IS OF THE OPINION THAT ANY RATE, CHARGE,
REGULATION, OR PRACTICE OF A STOCKYARD OWNER OR MARKET AGENCY, FOR OR
IN CONNECTION WITH THE FURNISHING OF STOCKYARD SERVICES, IS OR WILL BE
UNJUST, UNREASONABLE, OR DISCRIMINATORY, THE SECRETARY - 

"(A)  MAY DETERMINE AND PRESCRIBE WHAT WILL BE THE JUST AND
REASONABLE RATE OR CHARGE, OR RATES OR CHARGES, TO BE THEREAFTER
OBSERVED IN SUCH CASE, OR THE MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM, OR MAXIMUM AND
MINIMUM, TO BE CHARGED, AND WHAT REGULATION OR PRACTICE IS OR WILL BE
JUST, REASONABLE, AND NONDISCRIMINATORY TO BE THEREAFTER FOLLOWED;
..." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

A PETITION FOR REHEARING, FILED ON MAY 20, 1938, WAS DENIED ON MAY
31, 1938. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL MOVES FOR A REHEARING OF THIS CASE UPON TWO
GROUNDS: 

FIRST.  THE FIRST GROUND IS THAT THE COURT HAS REVERSED ITSELF; THAT
THE PRESENT DECISION IS "DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE CASE" AS
ESTABLISHED BY THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE FORMER APPEAL, MORGAN V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468; AND THAT "A PROCEDURAL OMISSION"
PREVIOUSLY HELD "TO BE OF NO SIGNIFICANCE" IS NOW REGARDED AS "FATALLY
DEFECTIVE." 

THESE ASSERTIONS ARE UNWARRANTED.  NOT ONLY ARE THE TWO DECISIONS
CONSISTENT, BUT THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN OUR FORMER OPINION WAS APPLIED
AND WAS DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT APPEAL.  AND THE GOVERNMENT IS IN NO
POSITION TO CLAIM SURPRISE.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A FAIR
HEARING IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE SITUATION DISCLOSED BY
THE SECRETARY'S TESTIMONY AND THE OTHER EVIDENCE, WAS FULLY ARGUED AT
THE BAR.  APPELLANTS PRESENTED, BOTH ORALLY AND IN AN ELABORATE BRIEF,
WITH COPIOUS REFERENCES TO THE RECORD, THE CONTENTION WHICH WE
SUSTAINED. 

THE FIRST APPEAL WAS BROUGHT TO THIS COURT BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HAD
BEEN DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THAT THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
HAD FAILED TO GIVE THEM THE FULL HEARING WHICH THE STATUTE REQUIRED. 
THEIR ALLEGATIONS TO THAT EFFECT HAD BEEN STRUCK OUT BY THE DISTRICT
COURT.  8 F.SUPP.  766.  WE HELD ITS RULING TO BE ERRONEOUS AND THAT
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS HAD A PROPER HEARING SHOULD BE
DETERMINED, SAYING: 

"BUT THERE MUST BE A HEARING IN A SUBSTANTIAL SENSE.  AND TO GIVE THE
SUBSTANCE OF A HEARING, WHICH IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING
DETERMINATIONS UPON EVIDENCE, THE OFFICER WHO MAKES THE DETERMINATIONS
MUST CONSIDER AND APPRAISE THE EVIDENCE WHICH JUSTIFIES THEM." 

THE CASE WAS THEN TRIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THAT ISSUE.  FROM
THE SECRETARY'S FRANK DISCLOSURE IT APPEARED THAT FINDINGS OF FACT
NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER HAD NOT BEEN MADE BY HIM UPON HIS OWN
CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE BUT AS STATED BELOW.  BECAUSE SUCH ACTION
FAILS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF A FULL HEARING STATED IN OUR FIRST
OPINION AND QUOTED ABOVE, WE REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT WHICH SUSTAINED THE ORDER. 

TESTIMONY OF THE SECRETARY AND HIS ASSOCIATES, DISCLOSED WHAT HAD
ACTUALLY OCCURRED.  IT APPEARED THAT THE ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY HAD BEEN GENERAL AND SKETCHY; THAT, ASIDE FROM THE
ORAL ARGUMENT, WHICH DID NOT REVEAL THE CLAIMS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY
APPROPRIATE MANNER, THE GOVERNMENT HAD SUBMITTED NO BRIEF AND NO
STATEMENT OF ITS CONTENTIONS HAD BEEN FURNISHED; THAT IN THIS SITUATION
FINDINGS HAD BEEN PREPARED IN THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, WHOSE REPRESENTATIVES HAD CONDUCTED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT; THAT THESE FINDINGS, 180 IN NUMBER, WERE ELABORATE,
DEALING WITH ALL PHASES OF THE PRACTICES AND FACILITIES AT THE KANSAS
CITY LIVE-STOCK MARKET, THE SERVICES AND METHODS OF THE PLAINTIFFS, AND
THE COSTS AND PROFITS WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOWED THEM AS REASONABLE. 
THESE FINDINGS, PREPARED NOT BY THE SECRETARY BUT BY THOSE WHO HAD
PROSECUTED THE CASE FOR THE GOVERNMENT, WERE ADOPTED BY THE SECRETARY
WITH CERTAIN RATE ALTERATIONS.  NO OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE
PLAINTIFFS FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE FINDINGS THUS PREPARED UNTIL THEY
WERE SERVED WITH THE SECRETARY'S ORDER AND THEIR REQUEST FOR A
REHEARING WAS DENIED. 

THE STATEMENT MADE IN THE PETITION FOR REHEARING THAT THE PRESENT
DECISION IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF THE CASE AS DECLARED IN OUR FIRST
OPINION IS WHOLLY UNFOUNDED.  OUR DECISION WAS NOT RESTED UPON THE
ABSENCE OF AN EXAMINER'S REPORT.  SO FAR FROM DEPARTING FROM OUR FORMER
OPINION, OR FROM THE STATEMENT THAT THE MERE MATTER OF THE PRESENCE OR
ABSENCE OF AN EXAMINER'S REPORT WAS NOT ITSELF DETERMINATIVE, WE
REITERATED BOTH THAT STATEMENT AND THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING IT IN OUR
OPINION ON THE PRESENT APPEAL.  WE SAID:    "THOSE WHO ARE BROUGHT INTO
CONTEST WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AIMED AT THE
CONTROL OF THEIR ACTIVITIES ARE ENTITLED TO BE FAIRLY ADVISED OF WHAT
THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSES AND TO BE HEARD UPON ITS PROPOSALS BEFORE IT
ISSUES ITS FINAL COMMAND. 

"NO SUCH REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS ACCORDED APPELLANTS.  ... 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"THE GOVERNMENT ADVERTS TO AN OBSERVATION IN OUR FORMER OPINION THAT,
WHILE IT WAS GOOD PRACTICE - WHICH WE APPROVED - TO HAVE THE EXAMINER,
RECEIVING THE EVIDENCE IN SUCH A CASE, PREPARE A REPORT AS A BASIS FOR
EXCEPTIONS AND ARGUMENT, WE COULD NOT SAY THAT THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF
PROCEDURE WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDING.  THAT IS
TRUE, FOR, AS WE SAID, WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES 'RELATES TO SUBSTANCE
AND NOT FORM.'  CONCEIVABLY THE SECRETARY, IN A CASE THE NARROW LIMITS
OF WHICH MADE SUCH A PROCEDURE PRACTICABLE, MIGHT HIMSELF HEAR THE
EVIDENCE AND THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES AND MAKE HIS FINDINGS UPON
THE SPOT.  AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE BEING IN, THE SECRETARY MIGHT RECEIVE
THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF BOTH PARTIES, EACH BEING NOTIFIED OF THE
PROPOSALS OF THE OTHER, HEAR ARGUMENT THEREON AND MAKE HIS OWN
FINDINGS." 

AND, THEN, POINTING OUT THE DISTINCTION AND THE SERIOUS DEFECT IN THE
PROCEDURE IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE ADDED: 

"BUT WHAT WOULD NOT BE ESSENTIAL TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE HEARING IF
THE SECRETARY HIMSELF MAKES THE FINDINGS IS NOT A CRITERION FOR A CASE
IN WHICH THE SECRETARY ACCEPTS AND MAKES AS HIS OWN THE FINDINGS WHICH
HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY THE ACTIVE PROSECUTORS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AFTER
AN EX PARTE DISCUSSION WITH THEM AND WITHOUT ACCORDING ANY REASONABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO THE RESPONDENTS IN THE PROCEEDING TO KNOW THE CLAIMS
THUS PRESENTED AND TO CONTEST THEM.  THAT IS MORE THAN AN IRREGULARITY
IN PRACTICE; IT IS A VITAL DEFECT." 

THE DISTINCTION WAS AGAIN BROUGHT OUT IN OUR RECENT DECISION IN THE
CASE OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MACKAY RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO.,
POST, P. 333, WHERE THE MERE ABSENCE OF AN EXAMINER'S REPORT WAS FOUND
NOT TO BE CONTROLLING, AS THE RECORD SHOWED THAT IN THAT CASE THE
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES HAD BEEN CLEARLY DEFINED AND THAT THERE HAD
BEEN IN THE SUBSTANTIAL SENSE A FULL AND ADEQUATE HEARING. 

THE EFFORT TO ESTABLISH A CASE FOR REHEARING, EITHER BECAUSE OF AN
ASSERTED INCONSISTENCY IN OUR RULINGS OR BECAUSE OF LACK OF OPPORTUNITY
FOR FULL ARGUMENT, IS FUTILE. 

SECOND.  THE SECOND GROUND UPON WHICH A REHEARING IS SOUGHT IS THAT
THERE IS IMPOUNDED IN THE DISTRICT COURT A LARGE SUM REPRESENTING
CHARGES PAID IN EXCESS OF THE RATES FIXED BY THE SECRETARY.  THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL RAISES QUESTIONS BOTH OF SUBSTANCE AND PROCEDURE AS
TO THE DISPOSITION OF THESE MONEYS.  THESE QUESTIONS ARE APPROPRIATELY
FOR THE DISTRICT COURT AND THEY ARE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE US UPON THE
PRESENT RECORD.  WE HAVE RULED THAT THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY IS
INVALID BECAUSE THE REQUIRED HEARING WAS NOT GIVEN.  WE REMAND THE CASE
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH OUR
OPINION.  WHAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THE SECRETARY MAY SEE FIT TO TAKE IN
THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISION, OR WHAT DETERMINATIONS MAY BE MADE BY THE
DISTRICT COURT IN RELATION TO ANY SUCH PROCEEDINGS, ARE NOT MATTERS
WHICH WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO FORECAST OR HYPOTHETICALLY TO DECIDE. 

THE PETITION FOR REHEARING IS DENIED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OF THIS PETITION. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. BEKINS, 304 U.S. 27 


NOS. 757 AND 772.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  -
21 F.SUPP.  129, REVERSED. 


1.  PROCEEDINGS FOR VOLUNTARY COMPOSITION OF DEBTS WITHOUT
ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE BANKRUPTCY
POWER.  P. 47. 

2.  CALIFORNIA LAW, 1934, EXTRA SESS., GAVE THE STATE'S CONSENT TO
THE APPLICATION TO STATE "TAXING DISTRICTS," OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND
AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING CHAPTER X, ADDED TO THAT ACT AUG. 16, 1937.  P.
47. 

3.  THE OMISSION FROM C. X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF A PROVISION
SPECIFICALLY REQUIRING THAT THE PETITION OF A STATE TAXING DISTRICT
UNDER THAT CHAPTER BE APPROVED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OF THE STATE,
HELD UNIMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE LEGISLATION WHERE
THE STATE HAS ACTUALLY CONSENTED.  P. 49. 

4.  IN CONDITIONING THE CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN OF COMPOSITION UPON
PROOF THAT THE PETITIONING TAXING DISTRICT IS "AUTHORIZED BY LAW" TO
TAKE ALL ACTION NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PLAN, C. X OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT REFERS TO THE LAW OF THE STATE.  P. 49. 

5.  CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, ADOPTED AUG. 16, 1937, EMPOWERS
THE COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY TO ENTERTAIN AND PASS UPON PETITIONS BY STATE
TAXING AGENCIES OR INSTRUMENTALITIES, INCLUDING IRRIGATION DISTRICTS,
FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THEIR INDEBTEDNESS PAYABLE OUT OF ASSESSMENTS OR
TAXES LEVIED AGAINST AND CONSTITUTING LIENS UPON PROPERTY IN THEIR
DISTRICTS OR OUT OF INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM OR FROM SALE OF WATER,
ETC.  THE PLAN OF COMPOSITION MUST BE APPROVED BY CREDITORS OWNING NOT
LESS THAN 51% OF THE SECURITIES AFFECTED BY THE PLAN AND CAN NOT BE
CONFIRMED UNLESS ACCEPTED BY CREDITORS HOLDING 66 2/3% OF THE AGGREGATE
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE DISTRICT.  THERE MUST BE CONSENT BY THE STATE; AND
THE JUDGE MUST BE SATISFIED THAT THE DISTRICT IS AUTHORIZED BY LOCAL
LAW TO CARRY OUT THE PLAN.  THE STATUTE AIMS TO RELIEVE SERIOUS
DISTRESS EXISTING IN MANY SUCH IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS WHERE, BECAUSE OF
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, PROPERTY OWNERS CAN NOT PAY ASSESSMENTS, AND
TAXATION IS USELESS, SO THAT THE DISTRICTS CAN NOT MEET THEIR
OBLIGATIONS AND CREDITORS ARE HELPLESS.  A REMEDY THROUGH COMPOSITION
OF THE DEBTS OF THE DISTRICT COULD NOT BE AFFORDED BY STATE LAW
UNAIDED, BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
HELD THAT THE STATUTE IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE BANKRUPTCY POWER. 
ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY DISTRICT, 298 U.S. 513, DISTINGUISHED.  P.
49. 

6.  THE ABILITY TO CONTRACT AND TO GIVE CONSENTS BEARING UPON THE
EXERTION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER IS OF THE ESSENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY.  P.
51. 

7.  THE RESERVATION TO THE STATES BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT, DID NOT
DESTROY, BUT PROTECTED, THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE CONTRACTS AND GIVE CONSENTS
WHERE THAT ACTION WOULD NOT CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 52. 

8.  COOPERATION BETWEEN NATION AND STATE THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE
POWERS OF EACH, TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF
BOTH, IS CONSISTENT WITH AN INDESTRUCTIBLE UNION OF INDESTRUCTIBLE
STATES.  P. 53. 

9.  CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, HELD NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, AS APPLIED TO CREDITORS OF A STATE IRRIGATION DISTRICT,
WHICH SOUGHT A COMPOSITION OF ITS DEBTS UNDER THAT CHAPTER.  P. 54. 

UNITED STATES V. BEKINS ET AL., TRUSTEES, ET AL. 

LINDSAY-STRATHMORE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. BEKINS ET AL., TRUSTEES, ET
AL. 

APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEALS FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING A PETITION FOR
CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN OF COMPOSITION PRESENTED BY THE ABOVE-NAMED
IRRIGATION DISTRICT UNDER C. X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE DISTRICT AND
THE UNITED STATES, WHICH HAD BEEN NOTIFIED AND HAD INTERVENED, TOOK
SEPARATE APPEALS.  THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS ARE EXTRACTED FROM A
STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF THE HEARING. 

AS WE UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES HERE PRESENTED, THERE IS NO QUESTION
INVOLVING THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, AND THERE IS NO QUESTION WITH
REGARD TO THE MECHANICS OF THE LAW.  THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR
NOT LEGISLATION EMBODIED IN SECS. 81, 82 AND 83 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
AS AMENDED, WHICH SECTIONS WE KNOW AS THE MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCY ACT,
IMPINGES UPON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE. 

IN THIS PARTICULAR LITIGATION THE QUESTION ARISES WITH REFERENCE TO
AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 

BRIEFLY VISUALIZING THE TRANSACTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THAT DISTRICT
AND THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WE OBSERVE THAT A GROUP OF FARMERS
OWNING CONTIGUOUS LANDS, DESIRING TO CULTIVATE THOSE LANDS UNDER
IRRIGATION, AVAILED THEMSELVES OF THE FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA FOR PUTTING A BLANKET MORTGAGE ON THOSE LANDS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF BRINGING WATER TO THOSE LANDS TO AID THEM IN THE BUSINESS OF
FARMING. 

THAT DISTRICT EXERCISED, UNDER DELEGATION FROM THE STATE, POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN AND POWER OF TAXATION.  IT DID NOT RELIEVE THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA OF ANY GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY THERETOFORE EXERCISED BY
IT. 

IT SEEMS TO US THAT IN SO FAR AS DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION DISTRICTS
ARE CONCERNED, THEY HAVE MORE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A RAILROAD
CORPORATION THAN THEY DO OF AN ORDINARY MUNICIPALITY.  A RAILROAD
CORPORATION, BY DELEGATION, EXERCISES THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN -
PROBABLY AS HIGH A RIGHT AND POWER AS GOVERNMENT HAS - YET IT DOES NOT
THEREBY BECOME A PART OF THE STATE. 

BUT I DO NOT DESIRE TO TAKE THE TIME OF THE COURT IN DISCUSSING THE
DIFFERENCES, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, BETWEEN AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND
AN ORDINARY MUNICIPALITY, BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT COVER THEM
ALL. 

WHEN WE COME TO EXAMINE WHAT HAPPENED AS THE RESULT OF THIS
LEGISLATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE SOVEREIGNTY AND DIGNITY OF THE
MUNICIPALITY, OR OF THE STATE, HOWEVER IT MAY BE CONSIDERED, WE
DISCOVER THAT EVERY DEBT WHICH COULD BE COMPOSED UNDER THIS ACT IS A
DEBT WHICH, UNDER THE THEN EXISTING LAW, WOULD CONSTITUTE A BASIS OF
LITIGATION IN AN ORDINARY SUIT AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITY. 

THE MUNICIPALITY, THEREFORE, BEFORE THIS LAW WAS ENACTED, COULD BE
BROUGHT INTO COURT FOR THESE SAME DEBTS BY THE PROCESS OF THE COURT,
AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MUNICIPALITY, THE ISSUES TRIED AS THOUGH THE
MUNICIPALITY WERE AN ORDINARY DEFAULTER, JUDGMENT HAD IN THE ORDINARY
WAY; AND IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE
MUNICIPALITY COULD BE BROUGHT INTO COURT AGAIN AND SUBJECTED TO THE
COERCION OF THE COURT, EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF THE INCARCERATION OF ITS
OFFICERS.  ... 

IN A SIMILAR SITUATION THIS SAME MUNICIPALITY, WHICH THERETOFORE
COULD BE BROUGHT INTO COURT BY THE MIGHT OF THE COURT AND WITHOUT
REGARD TO ITS CONSENT, UNDER THIS ACT COMES INTO THAT COURT AS A
SOVEREIGN WOULD COME, A COMPLETE SOVEREIGN.  IT COMES IN UNDER ITS OWN
WILL.  NOBODY IS COMPELLING IT TO COME.  NOBODY CAN COMPEL IT TO COME
UNDER THIS ACT.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO ARRANGE ITS
INDEBTEDNESS - IT HAD BEEN SITTING AROUND A TABLE WITH ITS CREDITORS,
AND THEY HAD AGREED.  IN THE INSTANT CASE 87 PER CENT. AGREED THAT 59
CENTS ON THE DOLLAR WAS THE BEST THING FOR EVERYBODY CONCERNED. 

SO THIS MUNICIPALITY, BY AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT, GOES INTO THAT SAME
COURTHOUSE, BEFORE THE SAME JUDGE, LEADING A PROCESSION OF ITS
CONSENTING CREDITORS, AND SAYS TO THE JUDGE, "WE HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS
AGREEMENT, 87 PER CENT.  THERE ARE 13 PER CENT. WHO DO NOT CONSENT. 
WILL YOU BE GOOD ENOUGH TO EXAMINE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS
AGREEMENT IS FAIR TO THE 13 PER CENT. AND THAT IT DOES NOT DO SOME
OTHER THINGS PROVIDED AGAINST IN THE LAW."  IT TELLS THE COURT ALSO, "I
AM HERE BECAUSE, FIRST, I WAS CREATED BY A SOVEREIGN STATE IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS SOVEREIGN POWERS.  THAT SOVEREIGN GAVE ME AUTHORITY TO
COME HERE.  THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE MYSELF AND MY CREDITORS CAN GO, AND
WON'T YOU PLEASE WRITE OUR AGREEMENT INTO THE BOOK OF JUDGMENTS." 

EVEN IF IT WERE AN ORDINARY LAWSUIT, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, THERE IS NO
HIGHER ACT OF SOVEREIGNTY THAN FOR THE SOVEREIGN VOLUNTARILY TO SUBMIT
ITSELF TO THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES IT ALL
THE TIME, THE STATES DO IT; AND WE HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT, WHEN A
SOVEREIGN VOLUNTARILY SUBMITS ITSELF TO TRIAL AND JUDGMENT, BY THAT
SUBMISSION IT IMPAIRS ITS SOVEREIGNTY OR THEREBY MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO
BE SUED WITHOUT ITS WILL. 

MAY I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT, INSTEAD OF IMPINGING
UPON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE, THIS ACT CLEARLY IS IN LINE WITH THE
NATURE AND PHILOSOPHY OF SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE, AND THAT TO DECLARE
THIS ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL WOULD IMPINGE UPON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE
STATE.  SUCH A DETERMINATION WOULD DENY TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN
THIS MATTER, THE RIGHT TO HAVE A SOVEREIGN WILL WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT
IT WILL PERMIT ITS CREATURES TO DO. 

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE THERE HAS BEEN CONSENT.  FIRST, THE CONSENT
OF THE CREATOR, CALIFORNIA; CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, THE POLICY-FIXING
AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; CONSENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY ITSELF,
AND CONSENT OF THE CREDITORS.  NOW, IF WE ARE TO DENY THESE AGENCIES,
WHICH SPEAK THE VOICE OF SOVEREIGNTY AND THE JUDGMENT AND WILL OF THE
PRIVATE CITIZEN, THE RIGHT THUS TO SPEAK, WHAT BECOMES OF THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY? 

IF THE CREDITORS CONSENT, AND THE MUNICIPALITY CONSENTS, AND THE
STATE CONSENTS, AND THE POLICY-FIXING AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
CONSENTS, WITH ALL RESPECT, WHOSE ELSE BUSINESS IS IT, IF THEY ARE
SOVEREIGN? 

WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT TO DENY TO A SOVEREIGN THE RIGHT TO HAVE
A SOVEREIGN WILL AND TO MAKE THAT WILL EFFECTIVE, DENIES TO IT THE VERY
ESSENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY. 

I AM PRIVILEGED TO TAKE A LONGER TIME OF THE COURT, BUT I COULD NOT
ADD TO THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT I HAVE SAID.  WE APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE
COURT PERMITTING ME TO APPEAR. 

THE DISTRICT IS UTTERLY UNABLE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS IN DUE COURSE,
AND IT IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO CARRY OUT A PLAN OF COMPOSITION. 

IT ASKS THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO SERVE THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY STATUTE
TO BRING IN THE DISSENTING CREDITORS, TO GRANT HEARINGS, TO HOLD
INQUIRY AS TO THE REASONABLENESS AND FAIRNESS OF THE PLAN, TO STAY ALL
SUITS THAT MIGHT BE BROUGHT TO INTERFERE WITH THE DISTRICT OR ITS
PROPERTY MEANWHILE, AND THAT THE COURT, IF IT FINALLY APPROVES THE
PLAN, ENTER AN ORDER AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE ACT, DISCHARGING THE
DISTRICT FROM ALL FURTHER OBLIGATIONS UNDER THESE OUTSTANDING BONDS
WHICH WOULD BE COMPOSED BY A PAYMENT OF 59 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR. 

THE MEASURE RECEIVED CAREFUL CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEES OF
THE HOUSE AND SENATE, AMENDMENTS WERE MADE WITH A VIEW TO INSURING
CONSTITUTIONALITY, AND THE CONGRESS CONCLUDED AFTER FULL DISCUSSION
THAT THE BILL AS ENACTED WAS FREE FROM THE OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES WHICH
HAD BEEN HELD FATAL TO THE ORIGINAL ACT.  (C. IX.  SEE ASHTON V.
CAMERON COUNTY DIST., 298 U.S. 513.) 

THE ONLY JURISDICTION THAT IS CONFERRED, IS THE JURISDICTION TO
COMPOSE 

"  ...  INDEBTEDNESS OF OR AUTHORIZED BY ANY TAXING AGENCIES OR
INSTRUMENTALITIES HEREINAFTER NAMED, WHICH ARE PAYABLE OUT OF
ASSESSMENTS OR TAXES OR BOTH, OR OUT OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY
FORECLOSURE BY THE DISTRICT, OR OUT OF INCOME BY SUCH TAXING
DISTRICTS." 

THESE DISTRICTS ARE THEN ENUMERATED IN SEPARATE SUBDIVISIONS. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE SUBDIVISIONS AND OF THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE WAS
CLEARLY STATED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR BY JUDGE SUMNERS. 

MR. SUMNERS FRANKLY STATED THAT THE SIXTH CLASSIFICATION, THE
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, IMPLIED PROCEEDINGS THAT WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE ASHTON CASE.  HE FELT, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT
ONLY THE RIGHT, BUT THE DUTY OF CONGRESS TO PRESENT THE QUESTION ONCE
MORE TO THIS COURT, SINCE THE DECISION, IF ALLOWED TO STAND, THREATENED
GRAVE IMPAIRMENT TO THE POWERS OF THE STATES, IN THAT IT FORBADE THEM
TO AUTHORIZE THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO ENTER INTO BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS. 

THE CASE BEFORE THIS COURT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE SIXTH SUBDIVISION,
BUT INVOLVES SUBDIVISION 1, SO THAT IF IT BE HELD THAT THE LAW IS
CONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS APPLICATION TO THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT, EVEN
THOUGH IT COULD BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO DISTRICTS
COVERED BY SUBDIVISION 6, WE ARE ENTITLED TO PREVAIL. 

THE POWER TO LEGISLATE ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES FREQUENTLY HAS
BEEN PASSED UPON BY THIS COURT.  AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF
THIS CLAUSE AT THE HANDS OF THIS COURT IN OVER A CENTURY HAS FOLLOWED
OUT THE GENERAL CONCEPTION OF THE BREADTH AND SWEEP OF THAT POWER AS IT
SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED AT THE TIME THE POWER WAS GIVEN. 

THE WHOLE METHOD AND PURPOSE OF BANKRUPTCY HAS CHANGED WITH THAT
CENTURY OF INTERPRETATION.  BANKRUPTCY AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME, AND
AS IT EXISTED IN THE FIRST BANKRUPTCY ACT PASSED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN 1800, WAS A REMEDY OF THE CREDITOR, A FURTHER REMEDY,
AGAINST THE DEBTOR. 

IT IS NOW A NEW OPPORTUNITY IN LIFE, AND A CLEAR FIELD FOR FURTHER
EFFORTS TO THE BANKRUPT, UNHAMPERED BY THE PRESSURE AND DISCOURAGEMENT
OF PREEXISTING DEBTS.  CERTAINLY IF THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT, NO
REASON APPEARS WHY IT SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO PRIVATE DEBTORS AND NOT TO
PUBLIC DEBTORS.  MANY SUBDIVISIONS OF THE BODIES WHICH COMPOSED THE
UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION WERE
THEMSELVES AT THAT TIME IN DEFAULT, AND IN NEED, BUT THERE WAS NO
SUGGESTION THAT PUBLIC DEBTORS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF
THE BANKRUPTCY POWER, ALTHOUGH, WE MUST GRANT, AT THAT TIME THE
BANKRUPTCY POWER WAS CONCEIVED TO BE A NARROWER POWER THAN IT HAS SINCE
BECOME. 

THERE IS EQUAL URGENCY FOR APPLYING THIS ACT TO PUBLIC DEBTORS - AN
URGENCY EQUAL TO ANY THAT HAS EVER EXISTED FOR EXTENDING IT TO PRIVATE
DEBTORS. 

THE STATISTICS ARE IN THE BRIEF, AND I WILL NOT DWELL UPON THEM AT
LENGTH, BUT OVER 2,000 IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS WERE IN DEFAULT IN 1934. 
CITIES AS LARGE AS DETROIT AND MIAMI AND ASHEVILLE WERE IN DEFAULT.  41
OF THE 48 STATES HAD DEFAULTS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS.  THE DEFAULTED
BONDS WERE BETWEEN ONE BILLION AND TWO BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION,
AND IN 1938, WHEN THE CONGRESS WAS RECONSIDERING THIS MATTER, OVER
3,000 UNITS OF GOVERNMENT WERE FOUND TO BE IN DEFAULT. 

THE CREDITORS IN THOSE CASES STOOD WITHOUT A PRACTICABLE REMEDY. 
THERE IS USUALLY NO PROPERTY OF A DISTRICT SUBJECT TO EXECUTION. 
TAXPAYERS ARE NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE.  MANDAMUS TO LAY TAXES IS FUTILE,
BECAUSE IT RESULTS ONLY IN ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE DEFAULTED.  TAX SALES
DRIVE DOWN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY, AND ADD FURTHER TAX DELINQUENCIES. 
THE EXPERIENCE OF THOSE CREDITORS - WHO WERE THEMSELVES LARGELY
INSTRUMENTAL IN THE PRESSURE WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE ENACTMENT OF THESE
ACTS - THE EXPERIENCE OF THOSE CREDITORS WAS THAT THEY WERE WITHOUT
PRACTICABLE REMEDIES.  THIS WAS BECAUSE, THOUGH THE ONLY POSSIBLE
REMEDY WAS A REMEDY BY AGREEMENT, IT WAS ALMOST ALWAYS SUBJECT TO
DEFEAT.  EVEN THOUGH A GREAT MAJORITY OF THE CREDITORS AGREED WITH THE
DISTRICT ON A PRACTICAL COURSE TO RESTORE SOME VALUE TO THE DEFAULTED
BONDS AND TO REHABILITATE THE DISTRICT SO THAT IT COULD GO ON AND
EXERCISE ITS PUBLIC FUNCTIONS, ANY CREDITOR WHO HAD A HIGH ESTIMATE OF
THE NUISANCE VALUE OF HIS PARTICULAR SECURITY WAS IN A POSITION TO
BLOCK THE SETTLEMENT, WHICH REQUIRED UNANIMOUS ACTION. 

THEREFORE THE ONLY REMEDY AVAILABLE TO DISTRICTS, OR AVAILABLE TO
CREDITORS, IS THE PRACTICABLE PLAN OF COMPOSITION, IN WHICH NUISANCE
VALUES SHALL BE RULED OUT, AND IN WHICH EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF THESE
CREDITORS WILL PREVAIL. 

AND IT IS CLEAR THAT THAT POWER, AS ATTEMPTED TO BE EXERCISED BY THIS
STATUTE, IS WITHIN THE GENERAL BANKRUPTCY POWER OF THE CONGRESS.  IT IS
EQUALLY CLEAR IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE.  THE STATES
GRANTED THEIR POWER OVER BANKRUPTCIES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THEY
WERE EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN TO PASS LAWS IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF
CONTRACTS.  IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT A STATUTE OF CONGRESS WHICH
EXERCISES A POWER TWICE DENIED TO THE STATES - DENIED ONCE BY
DELEGATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND DENIED ONCE BY EXPRESS
PROHIBITION - CAN BE AN INVASION OF STATES' RIGHTS. 

THERE IS ONE THING THE STATES CAN DO.  THE STATE CAN CONNIVE AT
REPUDIATION.  IT CAN REFUSE TO EXTEND REMEDIES.  IT CAN FALL BACK ON
ITS POWER TO NULLIFY A CONTRACT AND REFUSE TO APPROVE.  THAT, NEITHER
IN POINT OF GOOD FINANCE, NOR OF GOOD MORALS, IS A DESIRABLE
SITUATION.  IN ORDER THAT THE SITUATION MAY BE FRANKLY FACED, AND THAT
SOUNDER REMEDIES MAY BE PRACTICABLY APPLIED, THERE MUST BE AN ESCAPE
FROM THE LIMITATION IMPOSED UPON THE STATE, AND THAT ESCAPE MUST BE
FOUND IN THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.   THIS POWER NOT ONLY WAS
DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES, BUT IT WAS DENIED TO THE STATES, AND IT
IS CLEAR THE TENTH AMENDMENT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HAS NO FUNCTION
WHATEVER TO PERFORM IN THIS CASE.  ONCE A DELEGATED POWER IS FOUND
THERE IS THEN NO ROOM FOR THE OPERATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 

THERE IS THEN NO QUESTION OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY INVOLVED, SINCE WE
HAVE A GRANTED POWER. 

THEN THERE IS THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED HERE THAT FROM THE NECESSITIES OF
OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE OF THE DUAL NATURE OF OUR SYSTEM, THERE
IS A NECESSITY TO PRESERVE THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATE AND TO PROTECT
ITS SOVEREIGNTY, AND THAT THEREFORE THIS POWER, EVEN THOUGH IT BE A
DELEGATED POWER, CANNOT BE EXERCISED IF IT IMPINGES UPON WHAT WOULD BE
CALLED SOVEREIGN POWERS OR INDEPENDENT POWERS OF THE STATE.  I SUBMIT
THAT THE TENTH AMENDMENT ITSELF DENIES THAT ARGUMENT. 

IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST POINT OUT THE DELEGATION OF ITS
POWERS, THE TENTH AMENDMENT EQUALLY HOLDS THE ADVOCATES OF THE RIGHTS
OF SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES TO THE WORDING OF THE INSTRUMENT.  IT
CLEARLY PROHIBITS USING THE THEORY OF NECESSITY, THE THEORY OF THE
NATURE OF GOVERNMENT, OR OTHER PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS, FOR CUTTING DOWN
GRANTED POWERS. 

NOW, THERE IS AN EFFORT IN THE BRIEF OF OUR ADVERSARY TO COMPARE THIS
POWER WITH THE TAXING POWER, AND TO HOLD THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN
IMMUNITIES TO THE STATE AND TO STATE AGENCIES UNDER THE TAXING POWER, A
SIMILAR IMMUNITY MUST BE WRITTEN INTO THE BANKRUPTCY POWER.  THAT
ARGUMENT STARTS BY ASSERTING THE THEORY THAT THE BANKRUPTCY POWER IS
FOUND IN THE SAME SUBSECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE GRANT OF THE
TAXING POWER.  SO ARE THE POWERS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
TO PUNISH COUNTERFEITERS.  THE TAXING AND BANKRUPTCY POWERS ARE NOT
PARALLEL POWERS; AND NO ARGUMENT BASED ON THE ONE CAN BE APPLIED TO THE
OTHER.  THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX IS SUBJECT TO
QUALIFICATION, AND THE BANKRUPTCY POWER IS NOT.  THE POWER TO TAX IS TO
PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND HENCE IT
MAY VERY WELL BE THAT WHERE YOU HAVE A PLAN OF WHICH THE TAX IS A PART,
SUCH AS THIS COURT HELD THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT TO BE, OR THE
CHILD LABOR ACT, THEN YOU ARE LED TO AN INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE
TAXING PLAN ITSELF IS LOCAL OR IS GENERAL, IS NATIONAL OR IS WITHIN
POWERS RESERVED TO LOCALITIES.  THE VERY NATURE OF THE TAXING POWER, AS
IT EXISTS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, MAY DEMAND THAT INQUIRY; BUT THERE
IS NO SUCH QUALIFICATION IN THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE.  THAT REQUIRES ONLY
UNIFORMITY. 

WHEN WE CONSIDER IMMUNITY AS IT EXISTS IN THE STATES FROM FEDERAL
TAXES, AND AS IT EXISTS IN THE GOVERNMENT FROM STATE TAXATION, WE ARE
DEALING WITH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.  THE POWER OF TAXATION DERIVES
FROM THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOVEREIGN AND SUBJECT.  THAT RELATIONSHIP
DERIVED ORIGINALLY FROM THE DUTY OF A SOVEREIGN TO PROTECT, AND FROM
THE DUTY OF THE SUBJECT TO ASSIST THE SOVEREIGN IN MAINTAINING THAT
PROTECTION.  WE FIND NO STATE HAS ASSUMED SUCH A DUTY TOWARD THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; WE FIND NO STATE HAS ASSUMED A RELATIONSHIP TOWARD
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH IN THE NATURE OF THE TAXING POWER MAKES IT
APPLICABLE, ONE TO THE OTHER. 

THE VERY NATURE OF THE TAXING POWER IMPLIES THAT IT IS EXERTED BY THE
SOVEREIGN AGAINST THE CITIZEN, AND NOT AGAINST ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL
BODY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE RELATIONSHIP IS THAT OF AN EQUAL
SOVEREIGN, OR THAT OF A SUBSIDIARY GOVERNMENTAL GROUP. 

TAX BURDENS, OF COURSE, ARE INVOLUNTARY BURDENS AND, AS THIS COURT
HAS SAID, MAY BE DESTRUCTIVE.  THE POWER TO TAX MAY BE THE POWER TO
DESTROY, AND IT MAY BE LAID UPON A STATE AS A STATE ONLY WHEN IT HAS
ASSUMED THAT OBLIGATION, OR IF THE LIABILITY TO TAXATION IS TO BE
IMPLIED FROM THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TAXPAYER. 

BANKRUPTCY IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND OF POWER.  IT IS MERELY THE
OPENING, IN THIS CASE, OF A FORUM TO WHICH THIS STATE MAY RESORT, AS WE
MAY OPEN A FORUM TO WHICH FOREIGN CREDITORS OR FOREIGN DEBTORS MAY
RESORT. 

NO COMPULSION UPON ANY STATE OR STATE AGENCY IS HERE INVOLVED.  THIS
IS A VOLUNTARY ACT, AND IT RAISES NO QUESTIONS UNDER THE ELEVENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT, WITHOUT ANY CONSENT OF A SOVEREIGN STATE,
ITS TAXING AGENCIES MAY BE SUED.  MANDAMUS MAY LIE AGAINST A TAXING
DISTRICT.  AND IT HAS BEEN HELD IN ONE CASE THAT, WHERE A STATE LAW
PROVIDES A SIMILAR REMEDY, A RECEIVER MAY BE APPOINTED TO GO INTO SUCH
A DISTRICT AND TAKE OVER ITS AFFAIRS AND OPERATIONS. 

EVEN THE TAXING IMMUNITY CAN BE WAIVED.  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT A
STATE MAY WAIVE THE TAX IMMUNITY OF ITS AGENCIES, AND THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MAY WAIVE THE TAX IMMUNITY OF THE AGENCIES WHICH IT
CREATES.  IN THIS CASE THIS BANKRUPTCY ACT CAN NEVER APPLY TO ANY
DISTRICT UNLESS THERE IS A FINDING THAT THE LAW OF THE STATE AUTHORIZES
IT TO SEEK THAT REMEDY AND AUTHORIZES IT TO CARRY THAT REMEDY TO
COMPLETION. 

IT IS TRUE WE HAVE A DUAL SYSTEM OF STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS,
BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY CAN NOT COOPERATE FOR THE COMMON
NEED.  THAT QUESTION WAS SETTLED BY THIS COURT IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY
CASES.  (301 U.S. 548, 619.) 

NOW, WE FIND THE STATE AND THE NATION CONFRONTED WITH THIS DIFFICULTY
ARISING OUT OF THE LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF THE STATE TO DEAL WITH
ITS OWN TAXING AGENCIES AND THEIR DEBTS.  WE FIND THESE DEFAULTED BONDS
IN THE CHANNELS OF TRADE.  WE FIND TAXING DISTRICTS IMPAIRED IN THEIR
CAPACITY TO CARRY ON AND PERFORM THE VERY FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH THEY WERE
CREATED, AND WE SAY THAT THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY IN THE TWO UNITS, THE
STATE AND THE NATION, WITHOUT EITHER ONE OF THEM IN THE LEAST RECEDING
FROM ITS SOVEREIGNTY, SETTING UP TOGETHER A COMMON REMEDY. 

MR. KNUPP FOR THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT EXPLAINED THE CHARACTER OF THE
DISTRICT, THE HISTORY AND EXTENT OF ITS INDEBTEDNESS AND THE
HOPELESSNESS OF ITS FINANCIAL SITUATION.  THE COURT BELOW HAD
MISCONCEIVED THE ASHTON CASE AND THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE NEW
LEGISLATION.  THE PRESENT ACT AIMS TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, PUBLIC AGENCIES, AND THEIR FISCAL AFFAIRS.  IT
DEALS WITH VOLUNTARY COMPOSITION.  CHAPTER IX GAVE POWER TO THE COURT
TO CHANGE THE PROPOSED PLAN OF COMPOSITION.  NOT SO CHAPTER X. CHAPTER
IX GAVE POWER TO INTERFERE WITH FISCAL POWERS AND POLICIES OF THE
PUBLIC DEBTOR.  WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440, IS APPLICABLE. 

MR. COOK ON BEHALF OF APPELLEES EXPLAINED THE PECULIAR IMPORTANCE OF
IRRIGATION IN CALIFORNIA.  THE CONTROL OF WATER IS A PUBLIC TRUST,
EMBEDDED IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND EXECUTED THROUGH ITS LAWS.  THE
WORK OF THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT IS WORK THAT THE STATE MIGHT ITSELF
DIRECTLY PERFORM, WITHOUT GIVING THE LAND OWNERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT
ANY VOICE IN THE SELECTION OF MANAGERS AND TRUSTEES.  BUT CALIFORNIA,
IN ORDER THAT IT MIGHT CARRY OUT WHAT IT CONCEIVED TO BE A STATE
FUNCTION, HAS PERMITTED THE ORGANIZATION OF SOMETHING LIKE 100
IRRIGATION DISTRICTS IN THE STATE AND HAS CONFERRED UPON THOSE
DISTRICTS SOVEREIGN POWERS, THE POWER OF TAXATION, THE POWER TO BORROW
MONEY. 

THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF COULD PERFORM THOSE FUNCTIONS DIRECTLY BY SOME
DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE.  INSTEAD OF THAT, IT CHOSE TO GIVE THE PEOPLE
GREATER CONTROL, BECAUSE THEY WERE VITALLY INTERESTED.  IT COULD HAVE
RAISED REVENUES BY DIRECT TAXATION UPON THE ENTIRE STATE, BECAUSE THE
PURPOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC.  BUT REALIZING THAT GREATER JUSTICE
WOULD BE DONE, IT ALLOCATED THE INDEBTEDNESS TO THE DISTRICTS MORE
DIRECTLY AFFECTED, AND THEREBY PERMITTED THE PEOPLE IN THOSE DISTRICTS
TO HAVE A VOICE IN THOSE AFFAIRS. 

ONE OF THE GREATEST POWERS IS THAT OF BORROWING MONEY.  THERE IS A
MISUNDERSTANDING HERE AS TO WHAT FISCAL POWER IS AFFECTED BY THIS ACT. 
IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE ACT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE WHICH COULD
POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THOUGHT OF IN ORDER TO RELIEVE THE COURT FROM THE
NECESSITY OF MAKING A DIRECT ORDER ON THE DISTRICT, BUT THE EFFECT UPON
THE FISCAL POWERS GOES BACK TO THE TIME OF THE BORROWING OF THE MONEY. 

EACH HOLDER OF A BOND AND COUPON IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OUT OF THE
BOND VALUES OF THE DISTRICT IN THE ORDER IN WHICH HIS BOND OR COUPON
HAS BEEN PRESENTED.  THAT MAKES EACH BOND AND COUPON A SEPARATE CLASS,
AND THE ONE PRESENTED TODAY IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BEFORE THE ONE
PRESENTED TOMORROW. 

THIS ACT WOULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS RESPECTS THE FISCAL POWERS OF
THE DISTRICT AND STATE AS WOULD AN EXERCISE OF POWERS TO TAX INCOME
FROM THE BONDS - IT WOULD TEND MUCH MORE TO DESTROY, BECAUSE UNDER THIS
ACT YOU TAKE THE PRINCIPAL, WHEREAS UNDER THE INCOME ACT, YOU CAN TAKE
ONLY A PORTION OF THE INTEREST. 

IF THIS POWER UNDER THIS ACT IS SUSTAINED, OUR GREAT CITIES,  - ALL
THE TAXING DISTRICTS, SEWER DISTRICTS, ROAD DISTRICTS, RECLAMATION
DISTRICTS OF CALIFORNIA - COULD BE FORCED INTO BANKRUPTCY. 

I BELIEVE IT IS TRUE THAT A SOVEREIGN STATE AS WELL AS A SOVEREIGN
NATION DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABDICATE ANY SOVEREIGN FUNCTION WHICH
IS ESSENTIAL TO ITS SOVEREIGNTY.  PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S.
330. 

THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT GIVES US NO HELP.  THE STATE MAY WAIVE ITS
RIGHT NOT TO BE SUED.  THE FACT THAT THESE DISTRICTS CAN BE BROUGHT
INTO COURT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS IN NO MANNER DETRACTS FROM ANY
ESSENTIAL OF SOVEREIGNTY, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF IN SUCH CASE BROUGHT
AGAINST THE STATE IS MERELY PERMITTED TO OBTAIN AN ADJUDICATION OF
WHATEVER RIGHTS HE MAY HAVE.  HE IS NOT BY WAIVER OF THE IMMUNITY
AGAINST SUIT GIVEN THE RIGHT TO ASSERT OTHER OR DIFFERENT RIGHTS. 

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT SEEM TO US TO BE ANALOGOUS. 

I KNOW OF NO PRINCIPLE PERMITTING STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TO
WAIVE THEIR POWER TO TAX,  - A POWER ESSENTIAL TO SOVEREIGNTY. 

THE BANKRUPTCY POWER IS NOT A POWER ESSENTIAL TO THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT.  IT WAS GIVEN TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FOR CONVENIENCE,
FOR UNIFORMITY.  IT IS A SORT OF REGULATORY OR POLICE POWER GRANTED TO
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, AND THEREFORE IF IT COMES IN CONFLICT WITH THE
POWER OF THE STATE, WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE, IT MUST GIVE WAY COMPLETELY. 

THIS IS A BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHETHER IT BE CALLED READJUSTMENT, OR
WHETHER IT BE CALLED COMPOSITION.  THE EFFECT OF IT IS TO COMPEL
CERTAIN PERSONS TO ACCEPT SOMETHING WHICH THEY HAVE NOT CONTRACTED TO
ACCEPT.  THE DIFFERENCE IN NOMENCLATURE BETWEEN CALLING THIS DISTRICT A
TAXING AGENCY OR A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, IT SEEMS QUITE OBVIOUS COULD
HAVE NO EFFECT UPON THE INHERENT POWERS WHICH CONGRESS MAY HAVE. 

MR. COOK COMPARED CHAPTER X WITH CHAPTER IX.  ONE ESSENTIAL
DIFFERENCE IS THAT C. X DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONSENT OF THE STATE. 

THE CALIFORNIA ENABLING ACT AUTHORIZED THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER
C. IX. 

MR. CHILDERS, ON BEHALF OF APPELLEES, MAINTAINED THAT CHAPTERS IX AND
X WERE ALIKE OBJECTIONABLE.  THE SAME CLASSES OF AGENCIES ARE DEALT
WITH - ARMS OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE STATE.  THE ASHTON CASE
DECIDES THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS DOES NOT EXTEND OVER THE SOVEREIGN
FUNCTION OF A STATE. 

IF THE POWER OF BANKRUPTCY EXTENDS OVER THESE STATE MANDATORIES IN A
LITTLE WAY, THAT IS, IN A VOLUNTARY PROCEEDING, IT MUST FOLLOW THAT IT
MAY BE EXERCISED AGAINST THESE MANDATORIES WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE STATE.  THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP IS TO MAKE
THAT SAME POWER APPLY TO THE STATE ITSELF.  CONGRESS MUST HAVE ALL THE
POWER OR NONE; AND THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE
ASHTON CASE.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THIS STATUTE THAT WOULD SEEM
MATERIALLY TO DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM THE ASHTON CASE. 

TO THE GREAT POWERS ASSIGNED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE
CONSTITUTION, THE STATES ARE POWERLESS TO ADD.  THOSE POWERS ARE QUITE
SUFFICIENT IN THEMSELVES.  THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED HAVE BEEN RESERVED
TO THE STATES AND TO THE PEOPLE, AND AS THIS COURT SAID IN UNITED
STATES V. BUTLER, THE TENTH AMENDMENT WAS TO MAKE DOUBLY SURE. 

IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO ULTIMATELY HAVE THE SOVEREIGN POWER; AND THE
STATE IS NOT IN POSITION TO SURRENDER THOSE NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF
SOVEREIGNTY BY WHICH IT MUST EXIST. 

A STATE, THROUGH ITS LEGISLATURE, MAY CONSENT TO BE SUED, MAY
SURRENDER ITS SOVEREIGNTY IN A SUIT, BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THE POWERS
NOT PROHIBITED, AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FOR THE
PEOPLE TO THAT EXTENT.  BUT IT IS PROHIBITED FROM PASSING ANY LAW
IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACT.  BANKRUPTCY IS NECESSARILY AN
IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS.  THE TAXING POWER IS ONE OF THE
HIGHEST ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY.  IF THE UNITED STATES CAN APPLY THE
BANKRUPTCY POWER TO A STATE, THEN IT CAN CONTROL IN THE FISCAL AFFAIRS
OF THE STATE. 

THOUGH THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT, STATE OR FEDERAL
GOVERNMENTS MAY NOT TAX EACH OTHER'S INSTRUMENTALITIES, BECAUSE THAT
WOULD BE TO AFFECT THEIR SOVEREIGN FUNCTIONS.  IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF
THE SIZE OF THE TAX. 

THIS MUST BE TRUE OF BANKRUPTCY.  AS SOON AS IT TOUCHES THE STATE IN
THE REMOTEST DEGREE, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE POWER COULD NOT EXIST. 

THERE SURELY CANNOT BE A LITTLE BANKRUPTCY.  SURELY CONGRESS MUST
HAVE THE WHOLE POWER OR NONE. 

THE POWER IN BANKRUPTCY WOULD SEEM TO BE MUCH MORE SINISTER THAN THE
POWER TO TAX, BECAUSE THE POWER TO TAX OPERATES ORDINARILY IN AN EVEN,
LIKE MANNER. 

THE STATE, OF COURSE, IS PROHIBITED BY THE CONTRACT CLAUSE FROM
IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATIONS OF A CONTRACT.  NOW, IT WOULD SEEM THAT
REGARDLESS OF WHAT SORT OF STATUTE A STATE MIGHT PASS, IT CAN NOT ADD
TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM THE POWER OF CONGRESS IN THAT REGARD.  IF A
CONSENT IS NEEDED TO MAKE AN ACT OF CONGRESS EFFECTIVE, THEN IT MUST BE
THAT THE POWER DOES NOT EXIST.  IF CONGRESS MUST LOOK TO ANOTHER
SOVEREIGN FOR ITS POWER, IT CAN NOT HAVE THE POWER.    IRRIGATION
DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA EXERCISE GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  THE
LEGISLATURE HAS PLENARY POWER OVER THEM.  THEY ARE STATE AGENCIES. 

THE LEGISLATURE CAN DESTROY THEM BY SIMPLY REPEALING THE ACT UNDER
WHICH THEY EXIST, AND THE STATE CAN GO OUT AND DO THE WORK ITSELF, BY
ITS OWN AGENTS DIRECTLY.  THE BETTER CONSIDERED CASES HOLD THAT THE
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY ONE OF THESE DISTRICTS
IS IN THE STATE ITSELF.  IT DOES NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE IN THIS
CONNECTION WHETHER IT IS IN THE STATE OR THE LAND OWNER.  THE DISTRICT,
AS A LEGAL ENTITY, IS NOT THE BENEFICIAL OWNER.  IF THE BENEFICIAL
INTEREST IS IN THE LAND OWNER, HE MUST BE BROUGHT INTO COURT. 

HOW COULD THERE WELL BE A BANKRUPTCY OF ONE OF THESE PUBLIC AGENCIES
THAT CAN NOT RESPOND TO A JUDGMENT?  IT HAS NO PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT
TO EXECUTION. 

IN ANSWER TO QUESTIONS FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. CHILDERS CONCEDED
THAT, UNDER CHAPTER X, NO PLAN OF COMPOSITION CAN GO THROUGH UNLESS
APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT; AND THAT THE CALIFORNIA ACT OF 1934 GAVE
CONSENT TO THE SUBMISSION OF SUCH A PLAN UNDER CHAPTER IX, IF NOT UNDER
CHAPTER X; BUT HE MAINTAINED THAT, EVEN SO, THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY
POWER CAN NOT BE APPLIED. 

ALL THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, WHETHER POSSESSED BY THE NATION OR A
STATE, CAN NOT BE ASSERTED TO EFFECT THE COMPOSITION OF AN INDEBTEDNESS
OF SUCH A DISTRICT. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE.  SO THAT THE STATE WOULD BE PROHIBITED TO EFFECT A
COMPOSITION OF 60 PER CENT., NO MATTER HOW FAIR IT IS, AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE PROHIBITED, ALTHOUGH THIS DISTRICT HAS AN ECONOMIC
PLIGHT WHICH NEEDS RELIEF FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
DISTRICT, AND INCIDENTALLY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE.  THERE IS NO POWER
IN THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST A CREDITOR TO PROVIDE FOR THAT RELIEF? 

MR. CHILDERS.  THAT IS RIGHT.  AND THE REMEDY WOULD BE MUCH WORSE, I
BELIEVE, THAN THE DISEASE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE.  REMEDIES OFTEN ARE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS.  WHAT POWER IS THERE IN A STATE GOVERNMENT OR
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT TO REPUDIATE DEBTS? 

MR. CHILDERS.  I THINK THAT IS ANSWERED.  I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY
POWER, AND I DON'T THINK THE POWER OUGHT TO BE THERE.  AS A MATTER OF
ECONOMICS, I BELIEVE IT WOULD DO MUCH MORE HARM TO THESE DISTRICTS THAN
IT COULD POSSIBLY DO GOOD.  AND IF THE POWER EXISTED, THE POWER MIGHT
BE EXERCISED ALL THE WAY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE DIRECT APPEALS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937,
C. 754, 50 STAT. 751.  THEY PRESENT THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 16, 1937, 50 STAT. 653, AMENDING THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT BY ADDING CHAPTER X PROVIDING FOR THE COMPOSITION OF
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE TAXING AGENCIES OR INSTRUMENTALITIES THEREIN
DESCRIBED.  A CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
UNITED STATES INTERVENED.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE STATUTE INVALID
AS APPLIED TO THE APPELLANT AND DISMISSED ITS PETITION FOR
COMPOSITION.  THE COURT CONSIDERED ITSELF BOUND BY THE DECISION IN
ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY DISTRICT, 298 U.S. 513. 

APPELLANT, THE LINDSAY-STRATHMORE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, WAS ORGANIZED
IN THE YEAR 1915 UNDER THE CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION DISTRICT ACT OF MARCH
31, 1897(CAL.  STAT.  1897, P. 254).  IT COMPRISES ABOUT 15,260 ACRES
IN TULARE COUNTY.  IT IS AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND TAXING AGENCY
CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING IRRIGATION
PROJECTS AND WORKS DEVOTED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS FOR AGRICULTURAL
PURPOSES.  ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1937, IT PRESENTED ITS PETITION FOR THE
CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN OF COMPOSITION.  THE PETITION ALLEGED
INSOLVENCY; THAT ITS INDEBTEDNESS CONSISTED OF OUTSTANDING BONDS
AGGREGATING $1,427,000 IN PRINCIPAL, WITH UNPAID INTEREST OF
$439,085.15; THAT NO INTEREST OR PRINCIPAL FALLING DUE SINCE JULY 1,
1933, HAD BEEN PAID; THAT THE LOW PRICE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS HAD
PREVENTED THE OWNERS OF LAND WITHIN THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT FROM
MEETING THEIR ASSESSMENTS; THAT UPON THE ASSESSMENT LEVIED BY THE
DISTRICT IN THE YEAR 1932 THERE WAS A DELINQUENCY OF 47 PER CENT. AND
THAT SINCE THAT YEAR THERE HAD BEEN LEVIED ONLY AN ASSESSMENT OF
SUFFICIENT AMOUNT TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE ITS WORKS; THAT THE
DISTRICT'S PLAN FOR THE COMPOSITION OF ITS DEBTS PROVIDED FOR THE
PAYMENT IN CASH OF A SUM EQUAL TO 59.978 CENTS FOR EACH DOLLAR OF THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS OUTSTANDING BONDS IN SATISFACTION OF ALL
AMOUNTS DUE; THAT CREDITORS OWNING ABOUT 87 PER CENT. IN THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF THE BONDS HAD ACCEPTED THE PLAN AND CONSENTED TO THE FILING
OF THE PETITION; AND THAT PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT REQUIRED WAS TO BE MADE
FROM THE PROCEEDS OF A LOAN WHICH THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION HAD AGREED TO MAKE UPON NEW REFUNDING SERIAL BONDS EQUAL TO
THE AMOUNT BORROWED AND BEARING INTEREST AT FOUR PER CENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT APPROVED THE PETITION AS FILED IN GOOD FAITH AND
DIRECTED THE CREDITORS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE
STAYING THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUITS UPON THE SECURITIES AFFECTED BY THE
PLAN.  THE APPELLEES AS BONDHOLDERS APPEARED AND MOVED TO DISMISS THE
PETITION UPON THE GROUND THAT CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT VIOLATED
THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  IT
APPEARED FROM THE RETURN TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THAT THESE
CREDITORS HAD OBTAINED AN ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE FROM THE STATE
COURT DIRECTING THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT
UPON THE LANDS WITHIN THE DISTRICT SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE AMOUNTS DUE
THE COMPLAINING CREDITORS, AND THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THAT COURT HAD
BEEN SUSPENDED PENDING THE PROCEEDING IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 

FIRST.  CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS LIMITED TO VOLUNTARY
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE COMPOSITION OF DEBTS.  ASIDE FROM THE QUESTION AS
TO THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO PROVIDE THIS METHOD OF RELIEF FOR THE
DESCRIBED TAXING AGENCIES, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A PROCEEDING FOR
COMPOSITION IS IN ITS NATURE WITHIN THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY POWER. 
COMPOSITIONS WERE AUTHORIZED BY THE BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1867, AS AMENDED
BY THE ACT OF 1874, C. 390, SEC. 17, 18 STAT. 182.  IT IS UNNECESSARY
TO THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A PROCEEDING THAT IT SHOULD RESULT IN AN
ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY.  IN RE REIMAN, 20 FED. CAS. 490, 496, 497;
CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648,
672, 673.  IN THE CONTINENTAL BANK CASE, IN THE COURSE OF A FULL
CONSIDERATION OF THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY POWER AND OF THE
EVOLUTION OF ITS EXERCISE, WE SAID: 

"THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE OLD PROVISION FOR A COMPOSITION IS NOT
OPEN TO DOUBT.  IN RE REIMAN, 20 FED. CAS. 490, 496-497, CITED WITH
APPROVAL IN HANOVER NATIONAL BANK V. MOYSES, SUPRA. (186 U.S. AT P.
187.)  THAT PROVISION WAS THERE SUSTAINED UPON THE BROAD GROUND THAT
THE 'SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES' WAS NOTHING LESS THAN 'THE SUBJECT OF THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN AN INSOLVENT OR NONPAYING OR FRAUDULENT DEBTOR, AND
HIS CREDITORS, EXTENDING TO HIS AND THEIR RELIEF.'  THAT IT WAS NOT
NECESSARY FOR THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE CARRIED THROUGH IN BANKRUPTCY WAS
HELD NOT TO WARRANT THE OBJECTION THAT THE PROVISION DID NOT CONSTITUTE
A LAW ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES." 

SECOND.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION WHETHER CHAPTER X
WOULD BE VALID AS APPLIED TO THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE CONSENT OF THE STATE WHICH CREATED IT, FOR THE STATE HAS GIVEN ITS
CONSENT.  WE THINK THAT THIS SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS FROM THE STATUTE OF
CALIFORNIA ENACTED IN 1934.  LAWS OF 1934, EX. SESS., CH. 4.  THIS
STATUTE (SEC. 1) ADOPTS THE DEFINITION OF "TAXING DISTRICTS" AS
DESCRIBED IN AN AMENDMENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, TO WIT CHAPTER IX
APPROVED MAY 24, 1934, AND FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND
"ACTS AMENDATORY AND SUPPLEMENTARY THERETO, AS THE SAME MAY BE AMENDED
FROM TIME TO TIME, ARE HEREIN REFERRED TO AS THE 'FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY
STATUTE'."  CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS AN AMENDMENT AND APPEARS
TO BE EMBRACED WITHIN THE STATE'S DEFINITION.  WE HAVE NOT BEEN
REFERRED TO ANY DECISION TO THE CONTRARY.  SECTION 3 OF THE STATE ACT
THEN PROVIDES THAT ANY TAXING DISTRICT IN THE STATE IS AUTHORIZED TO
FILE THE PETITION MENTIONED IN THE "FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STATUTE." 
SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS EMPOWER THE TAXING DISTRICT UPON THE CONDITIONS
STATED TO CONSUMMATE A PLAN OF READJUSTMENT IN THE EVENT OF ITS
CONFIRMATION BY THE FEDERAL COURT.  THE STATUTE CONCLUDES WITH A
STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR ITS PASSAGE, AS FOLLOWS: 

"THERE EXIST THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
WHICH MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY THEIR TAXES AND
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UPON REAL OR TAXABLE PROPERTY.  THE BURDEN
OF SUCH TAXES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IS SO ONEROUS IN AMOUNT THAT
GREAT DELINQUENCIES HAVE OCCURRED IN THE COLLECTION THEREOF AND
SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE ABILITY OF TAXING DISTRICTS TO OBTAIN THE REVENUE
NECESSARY TO CONDUCT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND TO PAY OBLIGATIONS
REPRESENTED BY BONDS.  IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT FINANCIAL RELIEF, AS SET
FORTH IN THIS ACT, BE IMMEDIATELY AFFORDED TO SUCH TAXING DISTRICTS IN
ORDER TO AVOID SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR TAXING SYSTEMS, WITH
CONSEQUENT CRIPPLING OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE. 
THIS ACT WILL AID IN ACCOMPLISHING THIS NECESSARY RESULT AND SHOULD
THEREFORE GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY." 

WHILE THE FACTS THUS STATED RELATED TO CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA,
SIMILAR CONDITIONS EXISTED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AND IT WAS
THIS SERIOUS SITUATION WHICH LED THE CONGRESS TO ENACT CHAPTER IX AND
LATER CHAPTER X. FN1 

OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEC. 80(K) OF
CHAPTER IX AND SEC. 83(I) OF CHAPTER X OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IN THE
OMISSION FROM THE LATTER OF THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE APPROVAL OF THE
PETITION BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY OF THE STATE WHENEVER SUCH APPROVAL
IS NECESSARY BY VIRTUE OF THE LOCAL LAW.  WE ATTACH NO IMPORTANCE TO
THIS OMISSION.  IT IS IMMATERIAL, IF THE CONSENT OF THE STATE IS NOT
REQUIRED TO MAKE THE FEDERAL PLAN EFFECTIVE, AND IT IS EQUALLY
IMMATERIAL IF THE CONSENT OF THE STATE HAS BEEN GIVEN, AS WE THINK IT
HAS IN THIS CASE.  IT SHOULD ALSO BE OBSERVED THAT CHAPTER X, SEC.
83(E) PROVIDES AS A CONDITION OF CONFIRMATION OF A PLAN OF COMPOSITION
THAT IT MUST APPEAR THAT THE PETITIONER "IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO TAKE
ALL ACTION NECESSARY TO BE TAKEN BY IT TO CARRY OUT THE PLAN," AND, IF
THE JUDGE IS NOT SATISFIED ON THAT POINT AS WELL AS ON THE OTHERS
MENTIONED, HE MUST ENTER AN ORDER DISMISSING THE PROCEEDING.  THE
PHRASE "AUTHORIZED BY LAW" MANIFESTLY REFERS TO THE LAW OF THE STATE. 

THIRD.  WE ARE THUS BROUGHT TO THE INQUIRY WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF
THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY POWER IN DEALING WITH A COMPOSITION OF THE DEBTS
OF THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, UPON ITS VOLUNTARY APPLICATION AND WITH THE
STATE'S CONSENT, MUST BE DEEMED TO BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH THE ESSENTIAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATE AS PRESERVED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

IN ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY DISTRICT, SUPRA, THE COURT CONSIDERED
THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER IX AUTHORIZING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO
ENTERTAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE "READJUSTMENT OF THE DEBTS" OF "POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS" OF A STATE "MIGHT MATERIALLY RESTRICT ITS CONTROL OVER
ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS," AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID; THAT IF OBLIGATIONS OF
STATES OR THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS MIGHT BE SUBJECTED TO THE
INTERFERENCE CONTEMPLATED BY CHAPTER IX, THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE "FREE
TO MANAGE THEIR OWN AFFAIRS." 

IN ENACTING CHAPTER X THE CONGRESS WAS ESPECIALLY SOLICITOUS TO
AFFORD NO GROUND FOR THIS OBJECTION.  IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,  FN2 WHICH WAS ADOPTED
BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,  FN3  IN DEALING WITH THE
BILL PROPOSING TO ENACT CHAPTER X, THE SUBJECT WAS CAREFULLY
CONSIDERED.  THE COMMITTEE SAID: 

"COMPOSITIONS ARE APPROVABLE ONLY WHEN THE DISTRICTS OR AGENCIES FILE
VOLUNTARY PROCEEDINGS IN COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY, ACCOMPANIED BY PLANS
APPROVED BY 51 PER CENT OF ALL THE CREDITORS OF THE DISTRICT OR AGENCY,
AND BY EVIDENCE OF GOOD FAITH.  EACH PROCEEDING IS SUBJECT TO AMPLE
NOTICE TO CREDITORS, THOROUGH HEARINGS, COMPLETE INVESTIGATIONS, AND
APPEALS FROM INTERLOCUTORY AND FINAL DECREES.  THE PLAN OF COMPOSITION
CANNOT BE CONFIRMED UNLESS ACCEPTED IN WRITING BY CREDITORS HOLDING AT
LEAST 66 2/3 PERCENT OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS OF THE
PETITIONING DISTRICT OR TAXING AGENCY, AND UNLESS THE JUDGE IS
SATISFIED THAT THE TAXING DISTRICT IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO CARRY OUT
THE PLAN, AND UNTIL A SPECIFIC FINDING BY THE COURT THAT THE PLAN OF
COMPOSITION IS FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
CREDITORS.  ... 

"THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY IS NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE SWEEPING
CHARACTER OF THE HOLDING OF THE SUPREME COURT ABOVE REFERRED TO (IN THE
ASHTON CASE), AND BELIEVES THAT H.R. 5969 IS NOT INVALID OR CONTRARY TO
THE REASONING OF THE MAJORITY OPINION.  ... 

"THE BILL HERE RECOMMENDED FOR PASSAGE EXPRESSLY AVOIDS ANY
RESTRICTION ON THE POWERS OF THE STATES OR THEIR ARMS OF GOVERNMENT IN
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS AND DUTIES.  NO INTERFERENCE
WITH THE FISCAL OR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS OF A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION IS
PERMITTED.  THE TAXING AGENCY ITSELF IS THE ONLY INSTRUMENTALITY WHICH
CAN SEEK THE BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.  NO INVOLUNTARY
PROCEEDINGS ARE ALLOWABLE, AND NO CONTROL OR JURISDICTION OVER THAT
PROPERTY AND THOSE REVENUES OF THE PETITIONING AGENCY NECESSARY FOR
ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES IS CONFERRED BY THE BILL.  ... 
"THERE IS NO HOPE FOR RELIEF THROUGH STATUTES ENACTED BY THE STATES,
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE PASSING OF STATE LAWS IMPAIRING
THE OBLIGATIONS OF EXISTING CONTRACTS.  THEREFORE, RELIEF MUST COME
FROM CONGRESS, IF AT ALL.  THE COMMITTEE ARE NOT PREPARED TO ADMIT THAT
THE SITUATION PRESENTS A LEGISLATIVE NO-MAN'S LAND.  ...  IT IS THE
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE THAT THE PRESENT BILL REMOVES THE OBJECTIONS
TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE, AND GIVES A FORUM TO ENABLE THOSE
DISTRESSED TAXING AGENCIES WHICH DESIRE TO ADJUST THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND
WHICH ARE CAPABLE OF REORGANIZATION, TO MEET THEIR CREDITORS UNDER
NECESSARY JUDICIAL CONTROL AND GUIDANCE AND FREE FROM COERCION, AND TO
AFFECT SUCH ADJUSTMENT ON A PLAN DETERMINED TO BE MUTUALLY
ADVANTAGEOUS." 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMMITTEE'S POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN AND
THAT CHAPTER X IS A VALID ENACTMENT.  THE STATUTE IS CAREFULLY DRAWN SO
AS NOT TO IMPINGE UPON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.  THE STATE RETAINS
CONTROL OF ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS.  THE BANKRUPTCY POWER IS EXERCISED IN
RELATION TO A MATTER NORMALLY WITHIN ITS PROVINCE AND ONLY IN A CASE
WHERE THE ACTION OF THE TAXING AGENCY IN CARRYING OUT A PLAN OF
COMPOSITION APPROVED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS AUTHORIZED BY STATE
LAW.  IT IS OF THE ESSENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE CONTRACTS
AND GIVE CONSENTS BEARING UPON THE EXERTION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER. 
THIS IS CONSTANTLY ILLUSTRATED IN TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS IN THE
INTERNATIONAL FIELD BY WHICH GOVERNMENTS YIELD THEIR FREEDOM OF ACTION
IN PARTICULAR MATTERS IN ORDER TO GAIN THE BENEFITS WHICH ACCRUE FROM
INTERNATIONAL ACCORD.  OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 4TH ED., VOL. 1,
SECS. 493, 494; HYDE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. 2, SEC. 489; PERRY V.
UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330, 353; STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301
U.S. 548, 597.  THE RESERVATION TO THE STATES BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT
PROTECTED, AND DID NOT DESTROY, THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE CONTRACTS AND GIVE
CONSENTS WHERE THAT ACTION WOULD NOT CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE STATES WITH THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS MAY
ENTER INTO COMPACTS WITH EACH OTHER AND THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH COMPACTS
MAY LIMIT THE AGREEING STATES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
POWERS.  CONST., ART. I, SEC. 10, SUBD. 3.  POOLE V. FLEEGER, 11 PET.
185, 209; RHODE ISLAND V. MASSACHUSETTS, 12 PET. 657, 725; HINDERLIDER
V. LA PLATA RIVER CO., POST, P. 92.  THE STATE IS FREE TO MAKE
CONTRACTS WITH INDIVIDUALS AND GIVE CONSENTS UPON WHICH THE OTHER
CONTRACTING PARTY MAY RELY WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR USE OF
GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.  SEE FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87, 137; NEW
JERSEY V. WILSON, 7 CRANCH 164; DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4
WHEAT.  518, 643, 644; CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 11 PET.
420, 549; JEFFERSON BRANCH BANK V. SKELLY, 1 BLACK 436, 446.  WHILE THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ARE IMMUNE FROM TAXATION
BY A STATE, THE STATE MAY TAX THEM IF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CONSENTS
(BALTIMORE NATIONAL BANK V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 209, 211, 212)
AND BY A PARITY OF REASONING THE CONSENT OF THE STATE COULD REMOVE THE
OBSTACLE TO THE TAXATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE AGENCIES TO
WHICH THE CONSENT APPLIED. 

NOR DID THE FORMATION OF AN INDESTRUCTIBLE UNION OF INDESTRUCTIBLE
STATES MAKE IMPOSSIBLE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE NATION AND THE STATES
THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EACH TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE CITIZENS OF BOTH.  WE HAD RECENT OCCASION TO CONSIDER
THAT QUESTION IN THE CASE OF STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA, IN
RELATION TO THE OPERATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF AUGUST 14,
1935.  49 STAT. 620.  THE QUESTION WAS RAISED WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS IN
RELATION TO SEC. 904 OF THE STATUTE AND THE PARTS OF SEC. 903,
COMPLEMENTARY THERETO, BY WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IS
AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE AND HOLD IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND ALL
MONEYS DEPOSITED THEREIN BY A STATE AGENCY FOR A STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
FUND AND TO INVEST IN OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUCH PORTION OF
THE FUND AS IS NOT IN HIS JUDGMENT REQUIRED TO MEET CURRENT
WITHDRAWALS.  THE CONTENTION WAS THAT ALABAMA IN CONSENTING TO THAT
DEPOSIT HAD "RENOUNCED THE PLENITUDE OF POWER INHERENT IN HER
STATEHOOD."  301 U.S. AT PP. 595, 596.  WE FOUND THE CONTENTION TO BE
UNSOUND.  AS THE STATES WERE AT LIBERTY UPON OBTAINING THE CONSENT OF
CONGRESS TO MAKE AGREEMENTS WITH ONE ANOTHER, WE SAW NO ROOM FOR DOUBT
THAT THEY MAY DO THE LIKE WITH CONGRESS IF THE ESSENCE OF THEIR
STATEHOOD IS MAINTAINED WITHOUT IMPAIRMENT.  AND WE ADDED THAT "NOWHERE
IN OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT - IN THE LIMITATIONS EXPRESS OR IMPLIED OF
OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION - DO WE FIND THAT SHE (THE STATE) IS
PROHIBITED FROM ASSENTING TO CONDITIONS THAT WILL ASSURE A FAIR AND
JUST REQUITAL FOR BENEFITS RECEIVED." 

IN THE INSTANT CASE WE HAVE COOPERATION TO PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR A
SERIOUS CONDITION IN WHICH THE STATES ALONE WERE UNABLE TO AFFORD
RELIEF.  IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, SUCH AS THE PETITIONER, WERE IN
DISTRESS.  ECONOMIC DISASTER HAD MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MEET
THEIR OBLIGATIONS.  AS THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE DISTRICT COULD NOT PAY ADEQUATE ASSESSMENTS, THE POWER OF TAXATION
WAS USELESS.  THE CREDITORS OF THE DISTRICT WERE HELPLESS.  THE NATURAL
AND REASONABLE REMEDY THROUGH COMPOSITION OF THE DEBTS OF THE DISTRICT
WAS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER STATE LAW BY REASON OF THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED
BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION UPON THE IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS BY STATE
LEGISLATION.  THE BANKRUPTCY POWER IS COMPETENT TO GIVE RELIEF TO
DEBTORS IN SUCH A PLIGHT AND, IF THERE IS ANY OBSTACLE TO ITS EXERCISE
IN THE CASE OF THE DISTRICTS ORGANIZED UNDER STATE LAW IT LIES IN THE
RIGHT OF THE STATE TO OPPOSE FEDERAL INTERFERENCE.  THE STATE STEPS IN
TO REMOVE THAT OBSTACLE.  THE STATE ACTS IN AID, AND NOT IN DEROGATION,
OF ITS SOVEREIGN POWERS.  IT INVITES THE INTERVENTION OF THE BANKRUPTCY
POWER TO SAVE ITS AGENCY WHICH THE STATE ITSELF IS POWERLESS TO
RESCUE.  THROUGH ITS COOPERATION WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT THE
NEEDED RELIEF IS GIVEN.  WE SEE NO GROUND FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, IN THE INTEREST OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY, HAS REDUCED
BOTH SOVEREIGNS TO HELPLESSNESS IN SUCH A CASE. 

FOURTH.  AS THE BANKRUPTCY POWER MAY BE EXERTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO A
PLAN FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE DEBTS OF AN INSOLVENT DEBTOR, WE FIND
NO MERIT IN APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IN RE
REIMAN, SUPRA; CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO.,
SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
THE JUDICIARY ON S. 1868 AND H.R. 5950, 1934, 73RD CONG., 2ND SESS.;
HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON H.R. 1670,
ETC., 1933, 73RD CONG., 1ST SESS.; ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY DISTRICT,
298 U.S. 513, 533, 534. 

FN2  H. REP. NO. 517, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN3  SEN. REP. NO. 911, 75TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
THE PRINCIPLE APPROVED IN ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY DISTRICT, 298 U.S.
513, IS CONTROLLING HERE AND REQUIRES AFFIRMATION OF THE QUESTIONED
DECREE. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







INTERSTATE CIRCUIT V. U.S., 304 U.S. 55 


NO. 709.  ARGUED APRIL 5, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  - DECREE IN
20 F.SUPP.  868, SET ASIDE AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 


1.  UNDER EQUITY RULE 70 1/2 IT IS THE DUTY OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO
MAKE SPECIAL, FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT, AND STATE SEPARATELY ITS
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THEREON, DETERMINING ALL THE ISSUES IN THE CASE. 
THE OPINION OF THAT COURT IN THIS CASE WAS NOT A SUBSTITUTE. 

2.  COMPLIANCE WITH THIS RULE IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN AN
ANTITRUST CASE WHICH COMES TO THIS COURT BY DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE
TRIAL COURT.  P. 56. 

INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES* . 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 710, PARAMOUNT PICTURES DISTRIBUTING CO. ET AL. V.
UNITED STATES, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
CARRYING OUT OF AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, BETWEEN DISTRIBUTORS AND EXHIBITORS OF MOTION PICTURE FILMS. 
THE RESTRAINT WAS ALLEGED TO CONSIST IN PROVISIONS IN LICENSE
AGREEMENTS WHICH PREVENTED ANY "FEATURE PICTURE" OF THE DISTRIBUTORS,
WHICH HAD BEEN SHOWN "FIRST-RUN" IN A THEATER OF THE DEFENDANT
EXHIBITOR AT AN ADMISSION PRICE OF 40 CENTS OR MORE, FROM THEREAFTER
BEING EXHIBITED IN THE SAME LOCALITY AT AN ADMISSION PRICE OF LESS THAN
25 CENTS OR ON THE SAME PROGRAM WITH ANOTHER FEATURE PICTURE. 

THE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY AN AGREED STATEMENT OF CERTAIN FACTS
AND BY ORAL TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF EACH PARTY.  THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTERED A FINAL DECREE ADJUDGING THAT IN MAKING THE RESTRICTIVE
AGREEMENTS THE DISTRIBUTORS HAD ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY WITH THE
EXHIBITOR, INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. AND ITS OFFICERS, IN VIOLATION OF
THE ANTI-TRUST ACT AND GRANTING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE RESTRICTIONS.  20 F.SUPP.  868.  THE CASE COMES HERE
ON DIRECT APPEAL.  ACTS OF FEB. 11, 1903, C. 544, 32 STAT. 823;
FEBRUARY 13, 1925, C. 229.  28 U.S.C. 345. 

EQUITY RULE 70 1/2 PROVIDES: 

"IN DECIDING SUITS IN EQUITY, INCLUDING THOSE REQUIRED TO BE HEARD
BEFORE THREE JUDGES, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE SHALL FIND THE FACTS
SPECIALLY AND STATE SEPARATELY ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THEREON; ... 

"SUCH FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SHALL BE ENTERED OF RECORD AND, IF AN
APPEAL IS TAKEN FROM THE DECREE, SHALL BE INCLUDED BY THE CLERK IN THE
RECORD WHICH IS CERTIFIED TO THE APPELLATE COURT UNDER RULES 75 AND
76." 

THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THIS RULE.  THE COURT MADE NO
FORMAL FINDINGS.  THE COURT DID NOT FIND THE FACTS SPECIALLY AND STATE
SEPARATELY ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS THE RULE REQUIRED.  THE STATEMENTS
IN THE DECREE THAT IN MAKING THE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS THE PARTIES HAD
ENGAGED IN AN ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY WERE BUT ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS AND DID
NOT DISPENSE WITH THE NECESSITY OF PROPERLY FORMULATING THE UNDERLYING
FINDINGS OF FACT. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT WAS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REQUIRED
FINDINGS.  A DISCUSSION OF PORTIONS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE COURT'S
REASONING IN ITS OPINION DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE SPECIAL AND FORMAL
FINDINGS BY WHICH IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT APPROPRIATELY AND
SPECIFICALLY TO DETERMINE ALL THE ISSUES WHICH THE CASE PRESENTS.  THIS
IS AN ESSENTIAL AID TO THE APPELLATE COURT IN REVIEWING AN EQUITY CASE
(RAILROAD COMMISSION V. MAXCY, 281 U.S. 82, AND CASES CITED) AND
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULE IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN AN ANTI-TRUST
CASE WHICH COMES TO THIS COURT BY DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE DISTRIBUTORS WERE PARTIES TO A
COMMON PLAN CONSTITUTING A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF COMMERCE; THAT
EACH DISTRIBUTOR WOULD BENEFIT BY UNANIMOUS ACTION, WHEREAS OTHERWISE
THE RESTRICTIONS WOULD PROBABLY INJURE THE DISTRIBUTORS WHO IMPOSED
THEM, AND THAT PRUDENCE DICTATED THAT "NO DISTRIBUTOR AGREE TO IMPOSE
THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING THAT HIS
FELLOWS WOULD DO LIKEWISE"; THAT THE RESTRAINTS WERE UNREASONABLE AND
THAT THEY HAD THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF RAISING AND MAINTAINING THE
LEVEL OF ADMISSION PRICES; THAT EVEN IF THE DISTRIBUTORS ACTED
INDEPENDENTLY AND NOT AS PARTICIPANTS IN A JOINT UNDERTAKING, STILL THE
RESTRAINTS WERE UNREASONABLE IN THEIR EFFECT UPON THE EXHIBITOR'S
COMPETITORS. 

APPELLANTS, ASSERTING COPYRIGHT PRIVILEGES, CONTEND THAT THE
RESTRICTIONS WERE REASONABLE; THAT THEY WERE INTENDED SIMPLY TO PROTECT
THE LICENSEE FROM WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE AN UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE
BY THE DISTRIBUTORS WITH THE ENJOYMENT OF THE GRANTED RIGHT OF
EXHIBITION; THAT THERE WAS NO COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY AMONG THE
DISTRIBUTORS; THAT IT WAS TO THE INDEPENDENT ADVANTAGE OF EACH
DISTRIBUTOR TO IMPOSE THE RESTRICTIONS IN ITS OWN AGREEMENT AND THAT
THE CONTENTION THAT LESS THAN SUBSTANTIALLY UNANIMOUS ACTION WOULD HAVE
INJURED THE DISTRIBUTORS IN MAKING SUCH AGREEMENTS WAS CONTRARY TO THE
EVIDENCE; AND THAT THE RESTRICTIONS DID NOT HAVE AN INJURIOUS EFFECT. 

WE INTIMATE NO OPINION UPON ANY OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THESE
RIVAL CONTENTIONS, BUT THEY POINT THE IMPORTANCE OF SPECIAL AND
ADEQUATE FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESCRIBED EQUITY PRACTICE. 

THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE COURT TO STATE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS REQUIRED BY EQUITY RULE 70 1/2.  IT IS SO
ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK THINK THAT THE FINDINGS IN
THE OPINION AND DECREE BELOW, WHILE INFORMAL, ARE SUFFICIENT FOR
PURPOSES OF DECISION, AND THAT THE CASE SHOULD THEREFORE BE DECIDED NOW
WITHOUT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BELOW; THE MORE SO BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST INVOLVED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























B. & O.R. CO. V. U.S., 304 U.S. 58 


NO. 638.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  -
AFFIRMED. 


IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
AFFECTING RATES ON COKE, HELD: 

1.  UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER CANCELING
CERTAIN SCHEDULES AND FIXING FUTURE MAXIMUM RATES, WHICH ORDER HAD
LATER BEEN SUPPLEMENTED BY ANOTHER OF THE ORDERS ATTACKED.  P. 59. 

2.  A CONSTRUCTION OF AN ORDER, ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION, AND
RENDERING IT VALID, IS TO BE ACCEPTED RATHER THAN ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION
WHICH EXTENDS IT BEYOND THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION.  P. 60. 

3.  OBJECTIONS TO AN ORDER, THAT IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE, DISREGARDS ORDINARY STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING REASONABLENESS
OF RATES, IS NOT SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY FINDINGS, AND REPRESENTS A MERE
ATTEMPT TO EQUALIZE GEOGRAPHICAL AND TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGES,
FORTUNE AND OPPORTUNITIES, ARE ANSWERED IN THIS CASE BY FINDINGS OF THE
COURT BELOW, ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED.  P. 60. 

BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE DISMISSING A BILL TO SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS, NINETEEN RAILROADS OPERATING WITHIN WHAT IS KNOWN AS
CENTRAL TERRITORY - OHIO, INDIANA, ILLINOIS AND MICHIGAN - BY THEIR
BILL FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, JULY
22, 1936, CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF TWO INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
ORDERS AFFECTING THE RATE STRUCTURE ON COKE MOVING INTO THAT TERRITORY
FROM SOUTHERN POINTS.  QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF THESE RATES HAVE OFTEN
BEEN BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THE COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT UPON THE
EVIDENCE AND DISMISSED THE BILL WITHOUT OPINION. 

THE FIRST CHALLENGED ORDER, DATED MARCH 11, 1935, FOLLOWED AN EARLIER
SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN PROPOSED SCHEDULES AND AN INVESTIGATION.  IT
CANCELLED THESE SCHEDULES AND DETERMINED WHAT THEREAFTER WOULD BE
MAXIMUM REASONABLE RATES UPON A MILEAGE BASIS.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE
PROCEEDINGS HAVING BEEN REOPENED, THIS ORDER WAS MODIFIED AND
REAFFIRMED.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE THINK THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY
DECLINED TO PASS UPON ITS VALIDITY. 

THE SECOND CHALLENGED ORDER, APRIL 30, 1936, FOLLOWED ONE ENTERED
APRIL 15, 1936, WHICH UPON PETITION AND REPLIES REOPENED THE
PROCEEDINGS FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE RECORD AS IT THEN STOOD.  THE
LATER ORDER AFFIRMED FORMER FINDINGS THAT THE SCHEDULES SUSPENDED BY
THE ONE OF MARCH 11, 1935, HAD NOT BEEN JUSTIFIED, AND PRESCRIBED
FUTURE MAXIMUM RATES UPON A MILEAGE BASIS.  THESE WERE LOWER (SOME TEN
PER CENT.) THAN THOSE AUTHORIZED PRIOR TO 1935. 

HERE, COUNSEL SPECIALLY INSIST THIS SECOND ORDER EXCEEDED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION SINCE IT UNDERTOOK TO DETERMINE RATES
CONCERNING WHICH THERE HAD BEEN NO PROPER NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY FOR
HEARING.  BUT THIS CONTENTION RESTS UPON AN ASSUMED CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ORDER NOT OBVIOUSLY CORRECT.  THE COMMISSION HAS NOT SO CONSTRUED IT,
NOR HAS THAT BODY BEEN ASKED SO TO DO, OR FOR ANY FURTHER ACTION IN
RESPECT OF IT.  ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION BRINGS THE ORDER CLEARLY WITHIN
THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE COMMISSION.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
APPELLANTS CANNOT PREVAIL ON THIS POINT. 

APPELLANTS FURTHER URGE THAT THE ORDER IS CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DISREGARDS
ORDINARY STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING REASONABLENESS OF RATES, IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY NECESSARY FINDINGS, AND REPRESENTS A MERE ATTEMPT TO
EQUALIZE GEOGRAPHICAL AND TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGES, FORTUNE AND
OPPORTUNITIES.  THE FINDINGS BY THE COURT BELOW WE THINK ARE ADEQUATELY
SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  THEY NEGATIVE THESE CLAIMS AND LEAVE NO
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR OUR INTERFERENCE WITH THE ACTION THERE TAKEN. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CAUSE. 
..END :














ARKANSAS GAS CO. V. DEP'T, 304 U.S. 61 


NO. 645.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  - 194 ARK.
354 - 108 S.W.2D 586, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CORPORATION ACQUIRED NATURAL GAS IN LOUISIANA, PIPED IT INTO
ARKANSAS, AND THERE DISPOSED OF IT, PARTLY BY SELLING IT AS A PUBLIC
UTILITY TO CONSUMERS IN CITIES - AN ACTIVITY CARRIED ON THROUGH A
SPECIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE CORPORATE BUSINESS - AND PARTLY BY SALES TO
SELECTED INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER CUSTOMERS, UNDER SPECIAL CONTRACTS MADE
IN LOUISIANA, DELIVERY OF GAS BEING MADE TO THEM DIRECTLY FROM THE MAIN
PIPELINE, OR THROUGH CONNECTING SPURS.  HELD, THAT A GENERAL ORDER OF
AN ARKANSAS STATE AGENCY REQUIRING ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES TO FILE
SCHEDULES OF THEIR RATES IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN APPLIED TO THE
SALES UNDER THE SPECIAL CONTRACTS EVEN THOUGH THEY BE SALES IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 62. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MAY BE HIGHLY IMPORTANT FOR THE STATE, WHICH
REGULATES LOCAL RATES, TO HAVE INFORMATION OF ALL THE OPERATIONS. 
MERELY REQUIRING COMPREHENSIVE REPORTS OF SUCH OPERATIONS WOULD NOT
MATERIALLY BURDEN OR UNDULY INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

2.  THE COURT IS NOT CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SALES UNDER
THE SPECIAL CONTRACTS ARE SUBJECT TO RATE REGULATION BY ARKANSAS.  P.
63. 

ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED THAT OF A COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE HOLDING INVALID AN ORDER OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES.  THE CASE GOT INTO THE LATTER COURT BY PETITION FOR A REVIEW
OF THE ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, LAWFULLY PURCHASES AND PRODUCES
NATURAL GAS IN TEXAS AND LOUISIANA AND THEREAFTER TRANSPORTS AND
DELIVERS IT THROUGH PIPE LINES TO SELECTED INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC
UTILITY DISTRIBUTING CORPORATIONS - SO-CALLED "PIPE LINE CUSTOMERS" -
AT POINTS IN ARKANSAS.  THESE DELIVERIES ARE MADE UNDER CONTRACTS
ENTERED INTO AT SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA, AND ARE EFFECTED BY TAPPING A
MAIN PIPE LINE OR THROUGH CONNECTING SPURS.  THEY AMOUNT ANNUALLY TO
SOME EIGHT BILLION CUBIC FEET. 

APPELLANT, BY ADMISSION, ALSO MAINTAINS A DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT,
THROUGH WHICH IT ACTS AS A PUBLIC UTILITY, FOR THE LOCAL SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF GAS IN MANY ARKANSAS TOWNS; BUT THIS ORGANIZATION IS
DISTINCT FROM THE ONE WHICH SUPPLIES PIPE LINE CUSTOMERS. 

THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, PROCEEDING UNDER A LOCAL
STATUTE, IN APRIL 1935 ISSUED A GENERAL ORDER (NO. 13) REQUIRING PUBLIC
UTILITIES TO FILE, UPON SPECIFIED FORMS, SCHEDULES OF RATES, CHARGES,
ETC.  APPELLANT PRESENTED SUCH SCHEDULES FOR LOCAL UTILITY SERVICE IN
THE STATE, BUT DECLINED TO FILE COPIES OF CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, ETC.,
FOR SALES AND DELIVERIES TO PIPE LINE CUSTOMERS. 

THEREUPON THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR THIS
FAILURE.  IN RESPONSE APPELLANT "SET FORTH THAT THE SALE AND DELIVERY
OF GAS FROM ITS TEXAS AND LOUISIANA FIELDS TO ITS PIPE LINE AND
INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN ARKANSAS CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
THAT IN MAKING SUCH SALES AND DELIVERIES IT WAS AND IS NOT ACTING AS A
PUBLIC UTILITY, AND THAT ACCORDINGLY THE SALE AND DELIVERY OF SAID GAS
AND THE RATES, SCHEDULES AND CHARGES UPON WHICH THE SAME IS DELIVERED
AND SOLD WERE AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT
AND ARE BEYOND ITS POWER TO REGULATE, AND THAT ORDER NO. 13 IS NOT
LEGALLY APPLICABLE TO SAID BUSINESS." 

AFTER A HEARING UPON THE CITATION AND RESPONSE AND MUCH EVIDENCE,
APRIL 30, 1936, THE DEPARTMENT ORDERED COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL
ORDER.  THE MATTER THEN WENT FOR REVIEW TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, PULASKI
COUNTY, AND IT HELD THE CHALLENGED ORDER INVALID.  UPON APPEAL, THE
SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SALES AND DELIVERIES IN QUESTION WERE NOT
FREE FROM STATE REGULATION BECAUSE PARTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
DIRECTED COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S GENERAL ORDER. 

THE QUESTION FOR PRESENT DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THIS GENERAL ORDER,
VALID UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE, WHICH ONLY COMPELS APPELLANT TO FILE
CERTAIN DESIGNATED INFORMATION, AMOUNTS TO AN INFRINGEMENT OF ANY RIGHT
OR PRIVILEGE GUARANTEED TO IT BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AND TO THIS
A NEGATIVE ANSWER MUST BE GIVEN. 

IF, AS CLAIMED, CERTAIN OF APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES IN ARKANSAS ARE
PARTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THAT ALONE (AND NO OTHER DEFENSE IS
RELIED UPON) WOULD NOT SUFFICE TO JUSTIFY REFUSAL TO FURNISH THE
INFORMATION PRESENTLY DEMANDED BY THE STATE. 

APPELLANT OPERATES LOCALLY AT MANY PLACES IN ARKANSAS, ALSO DELIVERS
WITHIN THE STATE GREAT QUANTITIES OF GAS SAID TO MOVE WITHOUT
INTERRUPTION FROM ANOTHER STATE.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT MAY BE
HIGHLY IMPORTANT FOR THE STATE AUTHORITIES TO HAVE INFORMATION
CONCERNING ALL ITS OPERATIONS.  WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE THAT MERELY TO
REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE REPORTS COVERING ALL OF THEM WOULD MATERIALLY
BURDEN OR UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE BETWEEN THE
STATES. 

IN CASE THE DEPARTMENT UNDERTAKES BY SOME FUTURE ACTION TO IMPOSE
WHAT MAY BE DEEMED UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OR BURDEN UPON APPELLANT'S
INTERSTATE BUSINESS, THROUGH RATE REGULATION OR OTHERWISE, THAT MAY BE
CONTESTED.  THE RULE HERE OFTEN ANNOUNCED IS THAT NO CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION WILL BE PASSED UPON UNLESS NECESSARY FOR DISPOSITION OF THE
PENDING CAUSE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CAUSE. 
..END :









ERIE R. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64 


NO. 367.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  - 90 F.2D
603, REVERSED. 


1.  THE LIABILITY OF A RAILROAD COMPANY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY NEGLIGENT
OPERATION OF ITS TRAIN TO A PEDESTRIAN ON A MUCH-USED, BEATEN PATH ON
ITS RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG AND NEAR THE RAILS, DEPENDS, IN THE ABSENCE OF A
FEDERAL OR STATE STATUTE, UPON THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE
ACCIDENT OCCURRED.  PP. 71 ET SEQ. 

2.  A FEDERAL COURT EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH A CASE ON THE
GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, IS NOT FREE TO TREAT THIS QUESTION
AS ONE OF SO-CALLED "GENERAL LAW," BUT MUST APPLY THE STATE LAW AS
DECLARED BY THE HIGHEST STATE COURT.  SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1,
OVERRULED.  ID. 

3.  THERE IS NO FEDERAL GENERAL COMMON LAW.  CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO
DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW APPLICABLE IN A STATE WHETHER
THEY BE LOCAL IN THEIR NATURE OR "GENERAL," WHETHER THEY BE COMMERCIAL
LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW OF TORTS.  AND NO CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION
PURPORTS TO CONFER SUCH A POWER UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS.  EXCEPT IN
MATTERS GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR BY ACTS OF CONGRESS,
THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IN ANY CASE IS THE LAW OF THE STATE.  AND WHETHER
THE LAW OF THE STATE SHALL BE DECLARED BY ITS LEGISLATURE IN A STATUTE
OR BY ITS HIGHEST COURT IN A DECISION IS NOT A MATTER OF FEDERAL
CONCERN.  P. 78. 

4.  IN DISAPPROVING THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON, THE COURT DOES
NOT HOLD UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEC. 34 OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789
OR ANY OTHER ACT OF CONGRESS.  IT MERELY DECLARES THAT BY APPLYING THE
DOCTRINE OF THAT CASE RIGHTS WHICH ARE RESERVED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO
THE SEVERAL STATES HAVE BEEN INVADED.  P. 79. 

ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 671, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED AGAINST THE RAILROAD COMPANY IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES.  THE ACCIDENT WAS IN PENNSYLVANIA.  THE ACTION WAS IN NEW
YORK, JURISDICTION BEING BASED ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA DECISIONS DENYING PERMISSIVE RIGHTS ON LONGITUDINAL
PATHWAYS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM CROSSINGS SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED DUE
CONSIDERATION IN RECOGNITION OF THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLE THAT THE LAW
TO BE APPLIED IS THE LEX LOCI DELICTI.  RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS,
SEC. 380, P. 462. 

WHATEVER DIFFICULTIES THERE MAY BE IN ASCERTAINING THE PERTINENT
PENNSYLVANIA LAW OR IN FIXING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS
ARE BOUND TO RECOGNIZE THE PERTINENT DECISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
COURTS, IT IS SETTLED BEYOND QUESTION THAT IT IS THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW
WHICH THE FEDERAL COURTS, QUITE AS TRULY AS THE STATE COURTS, ARE BOUND
TO ASCERTAIN AND APPLY.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FEDERAL COMMON LAW
APPLICABLE IN SUCH CASES.  BUCHER V. CHESHIRE RAILROAD CO., 125 U.S.
555, 583-584; SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465, 478-479.  SEE ALSO
CARROLL COUNTY V. SMITH, 111 U.S. 556, 563; MCGUIRE V. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
CO., 87 F.2D 112; BOSTON & MAINE R. V. BRESLIN, 80 F.2D 749, (CERT.
DENIED, 297 U.S. 715); MOORE V. BACKUS, 78 F.2D 571, (CERT. DENIED, 296
U.S. 640); REED & BARTON CORP. V. MAAS, 73 F.2D 359; PUBLIC SERVICE RY.
CO. V. WURSTHORN, 278 F. 408, (CERT. DENIED, 259 U.S. 585); KEYSTONE
WOOD CO. V. SUSQUEHANNA BOOM CO., 240 F. 296, (CERT. DENIED, 243 U.S.
655); SNARE & TRIEST CO. V. FRIEDMAN, 169 F. 1, 11, (CERT. DENIED, 214
U.S. 518). 

ALTHOUGH EACH STATE UNQUESTIONABLY HAS THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE
PARTICULAR CONCEPTION OF THE COMMON LAW ADOPTED BY IT, AND ALTHOUGH THE
COMMON LAW IS ACCLAIMED AS BEING ADAPTABLE TO CHANGING CONDITIONS, THE
OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW IS AN UNQUALIFIED PRONOUNCEMENT THAT IT IS
BEYOND THE POWER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS TO DETERMINE OR EVOLVE THE
LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA AS TO PERMISSIVE RIGHTS ON RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY
IN PENNSYLVANIA.  IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR THAT THIS IS A SWEEPING
REPUDIATION OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IS THAT OF THE
STATE. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA DECISIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS CONTROLLING
BECAUSE THEY HAD ESTABLISHED THE RULE OF LAW WITH SUFFICIENT
DEFINITENESS AND FINALITY TO CONSTITUTE IT A LOCAL RULE OF PROPERTY,
ACTION OR CONDUCT, EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTION MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN
REGARDED AS MAINLY ONE OF GENERAL LAW. 

WE DO NOT QUESTION THE FINALITY OF THE HOLDING OF THIS COURT IN SWIFT
V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1, THAT THE "LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES" REFERRED TO
IN THE RULES OF DECISION ACT DO NOT INCLUDE STATE COURT DECISIONS AS
SUCH.  BUT WHETHER BY VIRTUE OF THE ACT OR OF COMITY, IT IS WELL
SETTLED THAT SUCH DECISIONS ARE PERTINENT AND, UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES, CONTROLLING IN ASCERTAINING OR DETERMINING THE LAW OF
THE STATE. 

IT WOULD BE IDLE TO DENY THAT THIS COURT, IN MATTERS OF A GENERAL
NATURE, HAS EXHIBITED A MARKED RELUCTANCE TO RECOGNIZE NONCONFORMIST
STATE RULES AS SETTLING THE QUESTION OF STATE LAW.  BUT EVEN IN CASES
WHERE AN ASSERTED RULE OF THE STATE COURTS HAS BEEN REJECTED, IT HAS
BEEN STATED OR IMPLIED THAT THE ASSERTED RULE WOULD GOVERN IF
SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED.  EXPRESSIONS TO THIS EFFECT OCCUR WITH SUCH
FREQUENCY AND CONSISTENCY THAT THEY MUST BE RECOGNIZED AS FORMING A
PART OF THE GENERAL DOCTRINE ON THE SUBJECT. 

AS A MATTER OF COMITY AT LEAST AND BY VIRTUE OF THE RULES OF DECISION
ACT AS WELL, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE BOUND TO RECOGNIZE AN ASSERTED RULE
OF STATE LAW WHERE THE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF STATE DECISIONS IS
SUFFICIENTLY CONCLUSIVE, IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE ASSERTED RULE IS
ESTABLISHED WITH SUFFICIENT DEFINITENESS AND FINALITY. 

THE IMPLICATION FROM THE SWIFT CASE WOULD SEEM TO BE THAT THE FEDERAL
COURTS WOULD FOLLOW THE STATE RULE IF ESTABLISHED WITH SUCH
DEFINITENESS AND FINALITY THAT THE STATE COURTS WOULD NO LONGER RESORT
TO THE GENERAL SOURCES OF THE COMMON LAW OR TO GENERAL REASONING AND
LEGAL ANALOGIES, BUT WOULD REGARD THE QUESTION AS FORECLOSED IN THE
STATE. 

THIS COURT HAS SO INDICATED IN MANY CASES WHERE THE CONCLUSION WAS
THAT THERE WAS NO STATE RULE SO FIRMLY ESTABLISHED AS TO EXCLUDE RESORT
TO GENERAL PRINCIPLES.  CARPENTER V. PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INS. CO., 16
PET. 495; LANE V. VICK, 3 HOW.  464; CHICAGO V. ROBBINS, 2 BLACK 418;
YATES V. MILWAUKEE, 10 WALL.  497; NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. LOCKWOOD,
17 WALL.  357; BURGESS V. SELIGMAN, 107 U.S. 20; BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO. V. BAUGH, 149 U.S. 368; BARBER V. PITTSBURGH, F.W. & C. RY. CO.,
166 U.S. 83; KUHN V. FAIRMONT COAL CO., 215 U.S. 349; BLACK & WHITE
TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276 U.S. 518. 

OBVIOUSLY, A CASE IS NOT REGARDED AS DEPENDING "UPON THE DOCTRINES OF
COMMERCIAL LAW AND GENERAL JURISPRUDENCE" WHEN THE APPLICABLE STATE
RULE IS ESTABLISHED BY STATE STATUTE, EVEN THOUGH THE STATUTE DEALS
WITH A MATTER WHICH BUT FOR THE STATUTE WOULD UNQUESTIONABLY COME
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF COMMERCIAL LAW AND GENERAL JURISPRUDENCE.  BURNS
MORTGAGE CO. V. FRIED, 292 U.S. 487; MARINE BANK V. KALT-ZIMMERS CO.,
293 U.S. 357.  IT WOULD SEEM EQUALLY OBVIOUS THAT A CASE IS NOT TO BE
REGARDED AS DEPENDING "UPON THE DOCTRINES OF COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL
JURISPRUDENCE" WHEN THERE IS AN APPLICABLE STATE RULE OF PROPERTY,
ACTION OR CONDUCT, DEFINITELY AND FINALLY ESTABLISHED AS SUCH BY
DECISIONS OF THE HIGHEST STATE COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE DECISIONS DEAL
WITH A MATTER WHICH BUT FOR SUCH ESTABLISHED RULE WOULD UNQUESTIONABLY
COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF COMMERCIAL LAW AND GENERAL JURISPRUDENCE. 
SNARE & TRIEST CO. V. FRIEDMAN, 169 F. 1, 12; 214 U.S. 518; BUCHER V.
CHESHIRE RAILROAD CO., 125 U.S. 555; BYRNE V. KANSAS CITY, FT. S. &
M.R. CO., 61 F. 605. 

THE PENNSYLVANIA DECISIONS DENYING PERMISSIVE RIGHTS ON LONGITUDINAL
PATHWAYS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM CROSSINGS, DECLARE A PENNSYLVANIA RULE
SUFFICIENTLY LOCAL IN NATURE TO BE CONTROLLING, EVEN THOUGH MORE
DEFINITENESS AND FINALITY MIGHT BE REQUIRED IN A RULE OF A MORE GENERAL
NATURE.  IT RESTS EXPRESSLY ON A LOCAL POLICY RELATING TO THE EFFICIENT
OPERATION OF RAILROADS, A POLICY WHICH PRESUMABLY WAS DICTATED BY LOCAL
CONDITIONS. 

IN CASES INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF GENERAL LAW, FEDERAL COURTS WILL
EXERCISE THEIR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. 

THIS DOCTRINE, WHICH IS NOW ELEMENTARY, FOUND ITS INCEPTION IN SWIFT
V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1; HAS CONSTANTLY BEEN REAFFIRMED BY THIS COURT AND
WAS MOST RECENTLY APPLIED IN THE CASE OF BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB CO. V.
BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276 U.S. 518. 

DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, AS WELL AS LOGIC AND REASON, HAVE
ESTABLISHED THAT QUESTIONS OF THE TYPE HERE PRESENTED, INVOLVING
RAILROAD ACCIDENTS, ARE QUESTIONS OF GENERAL LAW, UPON WHICH
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT MAY BE EXERCISED BY FEDERAL COURTS.  (CITING
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BAUGH, 149 U.S. 368, AND MANY OTHER CASES.) 

THERE IS NO DOCTRINE THAT WHERE A RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN A
STATE, THE QUESTION IS ONE OF LOCAL LAW AND FEDERAL COURTS MUST FOLLOW
THE RULE EVEN THOUGH THE RULE MIGHT OTHERWISE BE REGARDED AS ONE OF
GENERAL LAW. 

EVEN IF A QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW WERE HERE INVOLVED, THE SAME RESULT
MUST BE REACHED, SINCE PETITIONER RELIES UPON A SOLITARY PENNSYLVANIA
DECISION, CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT OF PENNSYLVANIA DECISIONS, AND
OF DOUBTFUL APPLICABILITY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT BAR. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE OFT-CHALLENGED DOCTRINE OF
SWIFT V. TYSON  FN1  SHALL NOW BE DISAPPROVED. 

TOMPKINS, A CITIZEN OF PENNSYLVANIA, WAS INJURED ON A DARK NIGHT BY A
PASSING FREIGHT TRAIN OF THE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY WHILE WALKING ALONG
ITS RIGHT OF WAY AT HUGHESTOWN IN THAT STATE.  HE CLAIMED THAT THE
ACCIDENT OCCURRED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE IN THE OPERATION, OR MAINTENANCE,
OF THE TRAIN; THAT HE WAS RIGHTFULLY ON THE PREMISES AS LICENSEE
BECAUSE ON A COMMONLY USED BEATEN FOOTPATH WHICH RAN FOR A SHORT
DISTANCE ALONGSIDE THE TRACKS; AND THAT HE WAS STRUCK BY SOMETHING
WHICH LOOKED LIKE A DOOR PROJECTING FROM ONE OF THE MOVING CARS.  TO
ENFORCE THAT CLAIM HE BROUGHT AN ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR
SOUTHERN NEW YORK, WHICH HAD JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE COMPANY IS A
CORPORATION OF THAT STATE.  IT DENIED LIABILITY; AND THE CASE WAS TRIED
BY A JURY. 

THE ERIE INSISTED THAT ITS DUTY TO TOMPKINS WAS NO GREATER THAN THAT
OWED TO A TRESPASSER.  IT CONTENDED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT ITS DUTY
TO TOMPKINS, AND HENCE ITS LIABILITY, SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW; THAT UNDER THE LAW OF
PENNSYLVANIA, AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT, PERSONS WHO USE
PATHWAYS ALONG THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY - THAT IS A LONGITUDINAL
PATHWAY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A CROSSING - ARE TO BE DEEMED
TRESPASSERS; AND THAT THE RAILROAD IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO
UNDISCOVERED TRESPASSERS RESULTING FROM ITS NEGLIGENCE, UNLESS IT BE
WANTON OR WILFUL.  TOMPKINS DENIED THAT ANY SUCH RULE HAD BEEN
ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COURTS; AND CONTENDED
THAT, SINCE THERE WAS NO STATUTE OF THE STATE ON THE SUBJECT, THE
RAILROAD'S DUTY AND LIABILITY IS TO BE DETERMINED IN FEDERAL COURTS AS
A MATTER OF GENERAL LAW. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE REFUSED TO RULE THAT THE APPLICABLE LAW PRECLUDED
RECOVERY.  THE JURY BROUGHT IN A VERDICT OF $30,000; AND THE JUDGMENT
ENTERED THEREON WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH
HELD, 90 F.2D 603, 604, THAT IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE
LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA WAS AS CONTENDED, BECAUSE THE QUESTION WAS ONE NOT
OF LOCAL, BUT OF GENERAL, LAW AND THAT "UPON QUESTIONS OF GENERAL LAW
THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE FREE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A LOCAL STATUTE, TO
EXERCISE THEIR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS; AND IT IS
WELL SETTLED THAT THE QUESTION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A RAILROAD FOR
INJURIES CAUSED BY ITS SERVANTS IS ONE OF GENERAL LAW.  ...  WHERE THE
PUBLIC HAS MADE OPEN AND NOTORIOUS USE OF A RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY FOR A
LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE COMPANY OWES TO PERSONS
ON SUCH PERMISSIVE PATHWAY A DUTY OF CARE IN THE OPERATION OF ITS
TRAINS.  ...  IT IS LIKEWISE GENERALLY RECOGNIZED LAW THAT A JURY MAY
FIND THAT NEGLIGENCE EXISTS TOWARD A PEDESTRIAN USING A PERMISSIVE PATH
ON THE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY IF HE IS HIT BY SOME OBJECT PROJECTING
FROM THE SIDE OF THE TRAIN." 

THE ERIE HAD CONTENDED THAT APPLICATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE WAS
REQUIRED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, BY SEC. 34 OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT
OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, C. 20, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 725, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE CONSTITUTION,
TREATIES, OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES OTHERWISE REQUIRE OR
PROVIDE, SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF DECISION IN TRIALS AT COMMON
LAW, IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CASES WHERE THEY APPLY." 

BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FEDERAL COURT
WAS FREE TO DISREGARD THE ALLEGED RULE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COMMON LAW,
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

FIRST.  SWIFT V. TYSON, 16 PET. 1, 18, HELD THAT FEDERAL COURTS
EXERCISING JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP NEED
NOT, IN MATTERS OF GENERAL JURISPRUDENCE, APPLY THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF
THE STATE AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT; THAT THEY ARE FREE TO
EXERCISE AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT THE COMMON LAW OF THE STATE
IS - OR SHOULD BE; AND THAT, AS THERE STATED BY MR. JUSTICE STORY: 

"THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SECTION LIMITED ITS
APPLICATION TO STATE LAWS STRICTLY LOCAL, THAT IS TO SAY, TO THE
POSITIVE STATUTES OF THE STATE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF ADOPTED BY
THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS, AND TO RIGHTS AND TITLES TO THINGS HAVING A
PERMANENT LOCALITY, SUCH AS THE RIGHTS AND TITLES TO REAL ESTATE, AND
OTHER MATTERS IMMOVABLE AND INTRATERRITORIAL IN THEIR NATURE AND
CHARACTER.  IT NEVER HAS BEEN SUPPOSED BY US, THAT THE SECTION DID
APPLY, OR WAS INTENDED TO APPLY, TO QUESTIONS OF A MORE GENERAL NATURE,
NOT AT ALL DEPENDENT UPON LOCAL STATUTES OR LOCAL USAGES OF A FIXED AND
PERMANENT OPERATION, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ORDINARY
CONTRACTS OR OTHER WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS, AND ESPECIALLY TO QUESTIONS OF
GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW, WHERE THE STATE TRIBUNALS ARE CALLED UPON TO
PERFORM THE LIKE FUNCTIONS AS OURSELVES, THAT IS, TO ASCERTAIN UPON
GENERAL REASONING AND LEGAL ANALOGIES, WHAT IS THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF
THE CONTRACT OR INSTRUMENT, OR WHAT IS THE JUST RULE FURNISHED BY THE
PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL LAW TO GOVERN THE CASE." 

THE COURT IN APPLYING THE RULE OF SEC. 34 TO EQUITY CASES, IN MASON
V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 545, 559, SAID:  "THE STATUTE, HOWEVER, IS
MERELY DECLARATIVE OF THE RULE WHICH WOULD EXIST IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
STATUTE."  FN2  THE FEDERAL COURTS ASSUMED, IN THE BROAD FIELD OF
"GENERAL LAW," THE POWER TO DECLARE RULES OF DECISION WHICH CONGRESS
WAS CONFESSEDLY WITHOUT POWER TO ENACT AS STATUTES.  DOUBT WAS
REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION GIVEN
SEC. 34,  FN3  AND AS TO THE SOUNDNESS OF THE RULE WHICH IT
INTRODUCED.  FN4  BUT IT WAS THE MORE RECENT RESEARCH OF A COMPETENT
SCHOLAR, WHO EXAMINED THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO IT BY THE COURT WAS ERRONEOUS; AND THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE SECTION WAS MERELY TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT, IN ALL MATTERS
EXCEPT THOSE IN WHICH SOME FEDERAL LAW IS CONTROLLING, THE FEDERAL
COURTS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP CASES WOULD
APPLY AS THEIR RULES OF DECISION THE LAW OF THE STATE, UNWRITTEN AS
WELL AS WRITTEN.  FN5    CRITICISM OF THE DOCTRINE BECAME WIDESPREAD
AFTER THE DECISION OF BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW
TAXICAB CO., 276 U.S. 518.  FN6  THERE, BROWN AND YELLOW, A KENTUCKY
CORPORATION OWNED BY KENTUCKIANS, AND THE LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE
RAILROAD, ALSO A KENTUCKY CORPORATION, WISHED THAT THE FORMER SHOULD
HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF SOLICITING PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE
TRANSPORTATION AT THE BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY, RAILROAD STATION; AND
THAT THE BLACK AND WHITE, A COMPETING KENTUCKY CORPORATION, SHOULD BE
PREVENTED FROM INTERFERING WITH THAT PRIVILEGE.  KNOWING THAT SUCH A
CONTRACT WOULD BE VOID UNDER THE COMMON LAW OF KENTUCKY, IT WAS
ARRANGED THAT THE BROWN AND YELLOW REINCORPORATE UNDER THE LAW OF
TENNESSEE, AND THAT THE CONTRACT WITH THE RAILROAD SHOULD BE EXECUTED
THERE.  THE SUIT WAS THEN BROUGHT BY THE TENNESSEE CORPORATION IN THE
FEDERAL COURT FOR WESTERN KENTUCKY TO ENJOIN COMPETITION BY THE BLACK
AND WHITE; AN INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COURT WAS SUSTAINED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS; AND THIS COURT, CITING MANY DECISIONS IN WHICH
THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON HAD BEEN APPLIED, AFFIRMED THE DECREE. 

SECOND.  EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON, HAD
REVEALED ITS DEFECTS, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL; AND THE BENEFITS EXPECTED
TO FLOW FROM THE RULE DID NOT ACCRUE.  PERSISTENCE OF STATE COURTS IN
THEIR OWN OPINIONS ON QUESTIONS OF COMMON LAW PREVENTED UNIFORMITY; FN7
AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF DISCOVERING A SATISFACTORY LINE OF
DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE PROVINCE OF GENERAL LAW AND THAT OF LOCAL LAW
DEVELOPED A NEW WELL OF UNCERTAINTIES.  FN8 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MISCHIEVOUS RESULTS OF THE DOCTRINE HAD BECOME
APPARENT.  DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED IN ORDER
TO PREVENT APPREHENDED DISCRIMINATION IN STATE COURTS AGAINST THOSE NOT
CITIZENS OF THE STATE.  SWIFT V. TYSON INTRODUCED GRAVE DISCRIMINATION
BY NON-CITIZENS AGAINST CITIZENS.  IT MADE RIGHTS ENJOYED UNDER THE
UNWRITTEN "GENERAL LAW" VARY ACCORDING TO WHETHER ENFORCEMENT WAS
SOUGHT IN THE STATE OR IN THE FEDERAL COURT; AND THE PRIVILEGE OF
SELECTING THE COURT IN WHICH THE RIGHT SHOULD BE DETERMINED WAS
CONFERRED UPON THE NON-CITIZEN.  FN9  THUS, THE DOCTRINE RENDERED
IMPOSSIBLE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.  IN ATTEMPTING TO PROMOTE
UNIFORMITY OF LAW THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, THE DOCTRINE HAD
PREVENTED UNIFORMITY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW OF THE STATE. 

THE DISCRIMINATION RESULTING BECAME IN PRACTICE FARREACHING.  THIS
RESULTED IN PART FROM THE BROAD PROVINCE ACCORDED TO THE SO-CALLED
"GENERAL LAW" AS TO WHICH FEDERAL COURTS EXERCISED AN INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT.  FN10  IN ADDITION TO QUESTIONS OF PURELY COMMERCIAL LAW,
"GENERAL LAW" WAS HELD TO INCLUDE THE OBLIGATIONS UNDER CONTRACTS
ENTERED INTO AND TO BE PERFORMED WITHIN THE STATE, FN11  THE EXTENT TO
WHICH A CARRIER OPERATING WITHIN A STATE MAY STIPULATE FOR EXEMPTION
FROM LIABILITY FOR HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE OR THAT OF HIS EMPLOYEE; FN12
THE LIABILITY FOR TORTS COMMITTED WITHIN THE STATE UPON PERSONS
RESIDENT OR PROPERTY LOCATED THERE, EVEN WHERE THE QUESTION OF
LIABILITY DEPENDED UPON THE SCOPE OF A PROPERTY RIGHT CONFERRED BY THE
STATE; FN13  AND THE RIGHT TO EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.  FN14
FURTHERMORE, STATE DECISIONS CONSTRUING LOCAL DEEDS, FN15  MINERAL
CONVEYANCES,  FN16  AND EVEN DEVISES OF REAL ESTATE  FN17  WERE
DISREGARDED.  FN18 

IN PART THE DISCRIMINATION RESULTED FROM THE WIDE RANGE OF PERSONS
HELD ENTITLED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE FEDERAL RULE BY RESORT TO THE
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION.  THROUGH THIS JURISDICTION
INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS WILLING TO REMOVE FROM THEIR OWN STATE AND BECOME
CITIZENS OF ANOTHER MIGHT AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE FEDERAL RULE.  FN19
AND, WITHOUT EVEN CHANGE OF RESIDENCE, A CORPORATE CITIZEN OF THE STATE
COULD AVAIL ITSELF OF THE FEDERAL RULE BY RE-INCORPORATING UNDER THE
LAWS OF ANOTHER STATE, AS WAS DONE IN THE TAXICAB CASE. 

THE INJUSTICE AND CONFUSION INCIDENT TO THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V.
TYSON HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY URGED AS REASONS FOR ABOLISHING OR LIMITING
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION.  FN20  OTHER LEGISLATIVE RELIEF
HAS BEEN PROPOSED.  FN21  IF ONLY A QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
WERE INVOLVED, WE SHOULD NOT BE PREPARED TO ABANDON A DOCTRINE SO
WIDELY APPLIED THROUGHOUT NEARLY A CENTURY.  FN22  BUT THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COURSE PURSUED HAS NOW BEEN MADE CLEAR AND
COMPELS US TO DO SO. 

THIRD.  EXCEPT IN MATTERS GOVERNED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OR BY
ACTS OF CONGRESS, THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IN ANY CASE IS THE LAW OF THE
STATE.  AND WHETHER THE LAW OF THE STATE SHALL BE DECLARED BY ITS
LEGISLATURE IN A STATUTE OR BY ITS HIGHEST COURT IN A DECISION IS NOT A
MATTER OF FEDERAL CONCERN.  THERE IS NO FEDERAL GENERAL COMMON LAW. 
CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW
APPLICABLE IN A STATE WHETHER THEY BE LOCAL IN THEIR NATURE OR
"GENERAL," BE THEY COMMERCIAL LAW OR A PART OF THE LAW OF TORTS.  AND
NO CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION PURPORTS TO CONFER SUCH A POWER UPON THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE FIELD WHEN PROTESTING IN
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BAUGH, 149 U.S. 368, 401, AGAINST IGNORING
THE OHIO COMMON LAW OF FELLOW SERVANT LIABILITY: 

"I AM AWARE THAT WHAT HAS BEEN TERMED THE GENERAL LAW OF THE COUNTRY
WHICH IS OFTEN LITTLE LESS THAN WHAT THE JUDGE ADVANCING THE DOCTRINE
THINKS AT THE TIME SHOULD BE THE GENERAL LAW ON A PARTICULAR SUBJECT -
HAS BEEN OFTEN ADVANCED IN JUDICIAL OPINIONS OF THIS COURT TO CONTROL A
CONFLICTING LAW OF A STATE.  I ADMIT THAT LEARNED JUDGES HAVE FALLEN
INTO THE HABIT OF REPEATING THIS DOCTRINE AS A CONVENIENT MODE OF
BRUSHING ASIDE THE LAW OF A STATE IN CONFLICT WITH THEIR VIEWS.  AND I
CONFESS THAT, MOVED AND GOVERNED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE GREAT NAMES OF
THOSE JUDGES, I HAVE, MYSELF, IN MANY INSTANCES, UNHESITATINGLY AND
CONFIDENTLY, BUT I THINK NOW ERRONEOUSLY, REPEATED THE SAME DOCTRINE. 
BUT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE GREAT NAMES WHICH MAY BE CITED IN FAVOR OF THE
DOCTRINE, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE DOCTRINE HAS
BEEN REITERATED, THERE STANDS, AS A PERPETUAL PROTEST AGAINST ITS
REPETITION, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH RECOGNIZES AND
PRESERVES THE AUTONOMY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATES - INDEPENDENCE IN
THEIR LEGISLATIVE AND INDEPENDENCE IN THEIR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS. 
SUPERVISION OVER EITHER THE LEGISLATIVE OR THE JUDICIAL ACTION OF THE
STATES IS IN NO CASE PERMISSIBLE EXCEPT AS TO MATTERS BY THE
CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED OR DELEGATED TO THE UNITED
STATES.  ANY INTERFERENCE WITH EITHER, EXCEPT AS THUS PERMITTED, IS AN
INVASION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE AND, TO THAT EXTENT, A DENIAL OF
ITS INDEPENDENCE." 

THE FALLACY UNDERLYING THE RULE DECLARED IN SWIFT V. TYSON IS MADE
CLEAR BY MR. JUSTICE HOLMES.  FN23  THE DOCTRINE RESTS UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THERE IS "A TRANSCENDENTAL BODY OF LAW OUTSIDE OF ANY
PARTICULAR STATE BUT OBLIGATORY WITHIN IT UNLESS AND UNTIL CHANGED BY
STATUTE," THAT FEDERAL COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO USE THEIR JUDGMENT AS
TO WHAT THE RULES OF COMMON LAW ARE; AND THAT IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
"THE PARTIES ARE ENTITLED TO AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT ON MATTERS OF
GENERAL LAW":  "BUT LAW IN THE SENSE IN WHICH COURTS SPEAK OF IT TODAY
DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT SOME DEFINITE AUTHORITY BEHIND IT.  THE COMMON
LAW SO FAR AS IT IS ENFORCED IN A STATE, WHETHER CALLED COMMON LAW OR
NOT, IS NOT THE COMMON LAW GENERALLY BUT THE LAW OF THAT STATE EXISTING
BY THE AUTHORITY OF THAT STATE WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN
IN ENGLAND OR ANYWHERE ELSE.  ... "THE AUTHORITY AND ONLY AUTHORITY IS
THE STATE, AND IF THAT BE SO, THE VOICE ADOPTED BY THE STATE AS ITS OWN
(WHETHER IT BE OF ITS LEGISLATURE OR OF ITS SUPREME COURT) SHOULD UTTER
THE LAST WORD." 

THUS THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON IS, AS MR. JUSTICE HOLMES SAID,
"AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASSUMPTION OF POWERS BY COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES WHICH NO LAPSE OF TIME OR RESPECTABLE ARRAY OF OPINION SHOULD
MAKE US HESITATE TO CORRECT."  IN DISAPPROVING THAT DOCTRINE WE DO NOT
HOLD UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEC. 34 OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 OR
ANY OTHER ACT OF CONGRESS.  WE MERELY DECLARE THAT IN APPLYING THE
DOCTRINE THIS COURT AND THE LOWER COURTS HAVE INVADED RIGHTS WHICH IN
OUR OPINION ARE RESERVED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE SEVERAL STATES. 

FOURTH.  THE DEFENDANT CONTENDED THAT BY THE COMMON LAW OF
PENNSYLVANIA AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT IN FALCHETTI V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 307 PA. 203; 160 A. 859, THE ONLY DUTY OWED TO THE
PLAINTIFF WAS TO REFRAIN FROM WILFUL OR WANTON INJURY.  THE PLAINTIFF
DENIED THAT SUCH IS THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW.  FN24  IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS THE PARTIES DISCUSSED AND CITED MANY DECISIONS
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED
THAT THE QUESTION OF LIABILITY IS ONE OF GENERAL LAW; AND ON THAT
GROUND DECLINED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF STATE LAW.  AS WE HOLD THIS WAS
ERROR, THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CASE REMANDED TO IT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH OUR OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  16 PET. 1(1842).  LEADING CASES APPLYING THE DOCTRINE ARE
COLLECTED IN BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO.,
276 U.S. 518, 530, 531.  DISSENT FROM ITS APPLICATION OR EXTENSION WAS
EXPRESSED AS EARLY AS 1845 BY MR. JUSTICE MCKINLEY (AND MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE TANEY) IN LANE V. VICK, 3 HOW.  464, 477.  DISSENTING OPINIONS
WERE ALSO WRITTEN BY MR. JUSTICE DANIEL IN ROWAN V. RUNNELS, 5 HOW. 
134, 140; BY MR. JUSTICE NELSON IN WILLIAMSON V. BERRY, 8 HOW.  495,
550, 558; BY MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL IN PEASE V. PECK, 18 HOW.  595, 599,
600; AND BY MR. JUSTICE MILLER IN GELPCKE V. CITY OF DUBUQUE, 1 WALL. 
175, 207, AND BUTZ V. CITY OF MUSCATINE, 8 WALL.  575, 585.  VIGOROUS
ATTACK UPON THE ENTIRE DOCTRINE WAS MADE BY MR. JUSTICE FIELD IN
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BAUGH, 149 U.S. 368, 390, AND BY MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES IN KUHN V. FAIRMONT COAL CO., 215 U.S. 349, 370, AND IN THE
TAXICAB CASE, 276 U.S. AT 532. 

FN2  IN HAWKINS V. BARNEY'S LESSEE, 5 PET. 457, 464, IT WAS STATED
THAT SEC. 34 "HAS BEEN UNIFORMLY HELD TO BE NO MORE THAN A DECLARATION
OF WHAT THE LAW WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT IT:  TO WIT, THAT THE LEX LOCI
MUST BE THE GOVERNING RULE OF PRIVATE RIGHT, UNDER WHATEVER
JURISDICTION PRIVATE RIGHT COMES TO BE EXAMINED."  SEE ALSO BANK OF
HAMILTON V. DUDLEY'S LESSEE, 2 PET. 492, 525.  COMPARE JACKSON V. CHEW,
12 WHEAT.  153, 162, 168; LIVINGSTON V. MOORE, 7 PET. 469, 542. 

FN3  PEPPER, THE BORDER LAND OF FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS (1889)
57; GRAY, THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF LAW (1909 ED.)  SECS.  533-34;
TRICKETT, NON-FEDERAL LAW ADMINISTERED IN FEDERAL COURTS (1906) 40 AM.
L. REV. 819, 821-24. 

FN4  STREET, IS THERE A GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW OF THE UNITED STATES
(1873) 21 AM. L. REG. 473; HORNBLOWER, CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE AND
FEDERAL DECISIONS (1880) 14 AM. L. REV. 211; MEIGS, DECISIONS OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS ON QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW (1882) 8 SO. L. REV. (N. S.) 
452, (1911) 45 AM. L. REV. 47; HEISKELL, CONFLICT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND
STATE DECISIONS (1882) 16 AM. L. REV. 743; RAND, SWIFT V. TYSON VERSUS
GELPCKE V. DUBUQUE (1895) 8 HARV. L. REV. 328, 341-43; MILLS, SHOULD
FEDERAL COURTS IGNORE STATE LAWS (1900) 34 AM. L. REV. 51; CARPENTER,
COURT DECISIONS AND THE COMMON LAW (1917) 17 COL. L. REV. 593, 602-03. 

FN5  CHARLES WARREN, NEW LIGHT ON THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789(1923) 37 HARV. L. REV. 49, 51-52, 81-88, 108. 

FN6  SHELTON, CONCURRENT JURISDICTION - ITS NECESSITY AND ITS DANGERS
(1928) 15 VA. L. REV. 137; FRANKFURTER, DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL POWER
BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS (1928) 13 CORN.  L.Q. 499, 524-30;
JOHNSON, STATE LAW AND THE FEDERAL COURTS (1929) 17 KY. L.J. 355;
FORDHAM, THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNIFORM STATE LAWS
(1929) 7 N.C.L. REV. 423; DOBIE, SEVEN IMPLICATIONS OF SWIFT V. TYSON
(1930) 16 VA. L. REV. 225; DAWSON, CONFLICT OF DECISIONS BETWEEN STATE
AND FEDERAL COURTS IN KENTUCKY, AND THE REMEDY (1931) 20 KY. L.J. 1;
CAMPBELL, IS SWIFT V. TYSON AN ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST ABOLISHING
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION (1932) 18 A.B.A.J. 809; BALL,
REVISION OF FEDERAL DIVERSITY JURISDICTION (1933) 28 ILL. L. REV. 356,
362-64; FORDHAM, SWIFT V. TYSON AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF STATE STATUTES
(1935) 41 W. VA. L.Q. 131. 

FN7  COMPARE MR. JUSTICE MILLER IN GELPCKE V. CITY OF DUBUQUE, 1
WALL.  175, 209.  THE CONFLICTS LISTED IN HOLT, THE CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS (1888) 160 ET SEQ. COVER
TWENTY-EIGHT PAGES.  SEE ALSO FRANKFURTER, SUPRA NOTE 6, AT 524-30;
DAWSON, SUPRA NOTE 6; NOTE, AFTERMATH OF THE SUPREME COURT'S STOP, LOOK
AND LISTEN RULE (1930) 43 HARV. L. REV. 926; CF. YNTEMA AND JAFFIN,
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION (1931) 79 U. OF PA. L.
REV. 869, 881-86.  MOREOVER, AS POINTED OUT BY JUDGE AUGUSTUS N. HAND
IN COLE V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 43 F.2D 953, 956-57, DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT ON COMMON LAW QUESTIONS ARE LESS LIKELY THAN FORMERLY TO PROMOTE
UNIFORMITY. 

FN8  COMPARE 2 WARREN, THE SUPREME COURT IN UNITED STATES HISTORY
(REV. ED. 1935) 89:  "PROBABLY NO DECISION OF THE COURT HAS EVER GIVEN
RISE TO MORE UNCERTAINTY AS TO LEGAL RIGHTS; AND THOUGH DOUBTLESS
INTENDED TO PROMOTE UNIFORMITY IN THE OPERATION OF BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS, ITS CHIEF EFFECT HAS BEEN TO RENDER IT DIFFICULT FOR
BUSINESS MEN TO KNOW IN ADVANCE TO WHAT PARTICULAR TOPIC THE COURT
WOULD APPLY THE DOCTRINE.  ...  "  THE FEDERAL DIGEST, THROUGH THE 1937
VOLUME, LISTS NEARLY 1000 DECISIONS INVOLVING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
QUESTIONS OF GENERAL AND OF LOCAL LAW.    FN9  IT WAS EVEN POSSIBLE FOR
A NON-RESIDENT PLAINTIFF DEFEATED ON A POINT OF LAW IN THE HIGHEST
COURT OF A STATE NEVERTHELESS TO WIN OUT BY TAKING A NONSUIT AND
RENEWING THE CONTROVERSY IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  COMPARE GARDNER V.
MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO., 150 U.S. 349; HARRISON V. FOLEY, 206 FED.
57(C.C.A. 8); INTERSTATE REALTY & INV. CO. V. BIBB COUNTY, 293 FED.
721(C.C.A. 5); SEE MILLS, SUPRA NOTE 4, AT 52. 

FN10  FOR A RECENT SURVEY OF THE SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE, SEE SHARP &
BRENNAN, THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON SINCE
1900(1929) 4 IND. L.J. 367. 

FN11  BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276
U.S. 518; ROWAN V. RUNNELS, 5 HOW.  134, 139; BOYCE V. TABB, 18 WALL. 
546, 548; JOHNSON V. CHAS. D. NORTON CO., 159 FED. 361(C.C.A. 6); KEENE
FIVE CENT SAV. BANK V. REID, 123 FED. 221(C.C.A. 8). 

FN12  RAILROAD CO. V. LOCKWOOD, 17 WALL.  357, 367-68; LIVERPOOL &
G.W. STEAM CO. V. PHENIX INS. CO., 129 U.S. 397, 443; EELS V. ST.
LOUIS, K. & N.W. RY. CO., 52 FED. 903(C.C.S.D. IOWA); FOWLER V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 229 FED. 373(C.C.A. 2). 

FN13  CHICAGO V. ROBBINS, 2 BLACK 418, 428.  COMPARE YATES V.
MILWAUKEE, 10 WALL.  497, 506-07; YEATES V. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO., 137
FED. 943(C.C.N.D. ILL.); CURTIS V. CLEVELAND, C.C. & ST. L. RY. CO.,
140 FED. 777(C.C.E.D. ILL.).  SEE ALSO HOUGH V. RAILWAY CO., 100 U.S.
213, 226; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BAUTH, 149 U.S. 368; GARDNER V.
MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO., 150 U.S. 349, 358; BEUTLER V. GRAND TRUNK
JUNCTION RY. CO., 224 U.S. 85; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. GOODMAN, 275
U.S. 66; POKORA V. WABASH RY. CO., 292 U.S. 98; COLE V. PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO., 43 F.(2D) 953(C.C.A. 2). 

FN14  LAKE SHORE & M.S. RY. CO. V. PRENTICE, 147 U.S. 101, 106;
NORFOLK & P. TRACTION CO. V. MILLER, 174 FED. 607(C.C.A. 4); GREENE V.
KEITHLEY, 86 F.(2D) 239(C.C.A. 8). 

FN15  FOXCROFT V. MALLET, 4 HOW.  353, 379; MIDLAND VALLEY R. CO. V.
SUTTER, 28 F.(2D) 163(C.C.A. 8); MIDLAND VALLEY R. CO. V. JARVIS, 29
F.(2D) 539(C.C.A. 8). 

FN16  KUHN V. FAIRMONT COAL CO., 215 U.S. 349; MID-CONTINENT
PETROLEUM CORP. V. SAUDER, 67 F.(2D) 9, 12(C.C.A. 10), REVERSED ON
OTHER GROUNDS, 292 U.S. 272. 

FN17  LANE V. VICK, 3 HOW.  464, 476; BARBER V. PITTSBURGH, F.W. &
C.R. CO., 166 U.S. 83, 99-100; MESSINGER V. ANDERSON, 171 FED. 785, 791
792(C.C.A. 6), REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 225 U.S. 436; KNOX & LEWIS V.
ALWOOD, 228 FED. 753(S.D. GA.). 

FN18  COMPARE, ALSO, WILLIAMSON V. BERRY, 8 HOW.  495; WATSON V.
TARPLEY, 18 HOW.  517; GELPCKE V. CITY OF DUBUQUE, 1 WALL.  175. 

FN19  SEE CHEEVER V. WILSON, 9 WALL.  108, 123; ROBERTSON V. CARSON,
19 WALL.  94, 106-07; MORRIS V. GILMER, 129 U.S. 315, 328; DICKERMAN V.
NORTHERN TRUST CO., 176 U.S. 181, 192; WILLIAMSON V. OSENTON, 232 U.S.
619, 625. 

FN20  SEE, E.G., HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON S. 937, S. 939, AND S. 3243, 72D CONG.,
1ST SESS. (1932) 6-8; HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY ON H.R. 10594, H.R. 4526, AND H.R. 11508, 72D CONG., 1ST
SESS., SER.  12(1932) 97-104; SEN. REP. NO. 530, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.
(1932) 4-6; COLLIER, A PLEA AGAINST JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY
(1913) 76 CENT. L.J. 263, 264, 266; FRANKFURTER, SUPRA NOTE 6; BALL,
SUPRA NOTE 6; WARREN, CORPORATIONS AND DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP (1933)
19 VA. L. REV. 661, 686. 

FN21  THUS, BILLS WHICH WOULD ABROGATE THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON
HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED.  S. 4333, 70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; S. 96, 71ST
CONG., 1ST SESS.; H.R. 8094, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS.  SEE ALSO MILLS,
SUPRA NOTE 4, AT 68-69; DOBIE, SUPRA NOTE 6, AT 241; FRANKFURTER, SUPRA
NOTE 6, AT 530; CAMPBELL, SUPRA NOTE 6, AT 811.  STATE STATUTES ON
CONFLICTING QUESTIONS OF "GENERAL LAW" HAVE ALSO BEEN SUGGESTED.  SEE
HEISKELL, SUPRA NOTE 4, AT 760; DAWSON, SUPRA NOTE 6; DOBIE, SUPRA NOTE
6, AT 241. 

FN22  THE DOCTRINE HAS NOT BEEN WITHOUT DEFENDERS.  SEE ELIOT, THE
COMMON LAW OF THE FEDERAL COURTS (1902) 36 AM. L. REV. 498, 523-25;
A.B. PARKER, THE COMMON LAW JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS
(1907) 17 YALE L.J. 1; SCHOFIELD, SWIFT V. TYSON:  UNIFORMITY OF JUDGE
MADE STATE LAW IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS (1910) 4 ILL. L. REV. 533;
BROWN, THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS BASED ON DIVERSITY OF
CITIZENSHIP (1929) 78 U. OF PA. L. REV. 179, 189-91; J.J. PARKER, THE
FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND RECENT ATTACKS UPON IT (1932) 18 A.B.A.J. 433,
438; YNTEMA, THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN CONTROVERSIES
BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES (1933) 19 A.B.A.J. 71, 74-75;
BEUTEL, COMMON LAW JUDICIAL TECHNIQUE AND THE LAW OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS - TWO UNFORTUNATE DECISIONS (1934) 9 TULANE L. REV. 64. 

FN23  KUHN V. FAIRMONT COAL CO., 215 U.S. 349, 370-372; BLACK & WHITE
TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276 U.S. 518, 532-36. 

FN24  TOMPKINS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ALLEGED RULE OF THE FALCHETTI
CASE IS NOT IN ANY EVENT APPLICABLE HERE BECAUSE HE WAS STRUCK AT THE
INTERSECTION OF THE LONGITUDINAL PATHWAY AND A TRANSVERSE CROSSING. 
THE COURT BELOW FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THIS CONTENTION, AND
WE LEAVE THE QUESTION OPEN. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER. 

THE CASE PRESENTED BY THE EVIDENCE IS A SIMPLE ONE.  PLAINTIFF WAS
SEVERELY INJURED IN PENNSYLVANIA.  WHILE WALKING ON DEFENDANT'S RIGHT
OF WAY ALONG A MUCH-USED PATH AT THE END OF THE CROSS TIES OF ITS MAIN
TRACK, HE CAME INTO COLLISION WITH AN OPEN DOOR SWINGING FROM THE SIDE
OF A CAR IN A TRAIN GOING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.  HAVING BEEN
WARNED BY WHISTLE AND HEADLIGHT, HE SAW THE LOCOMOTIVE APPROACHING AND
HAD TIME AND SPACE ENOUGH TO STEP ASIDE AND SO AVOID DANGER.  TO
JUSTIFY HIS FAILURE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY, HE SAYS THAT UPON MANY OTHER
OCCASIONS HE HAD SAFELY WALKED THERE WHILE TRAINS PASSED. 

INVOKING JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP,
PLAINTIFF, A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF PENNSYLVANIA, BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO
RECOVER DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, IN THE
FEDERAL COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF THAT STATE.  THE ISSUES WERE
WHETHER NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES
AND WHETHER NEGLIGENCE OF PLAINTIFF CONTRIBUTED.  HE CLAIMED THAT, BY
HAULING THE CAR WITH THE OPEN DOOR, DEFENDANT VIOLATED A DUTY TO HIM. 
THE DEFENDANT INSISTED THAT IT VIOLATED NO DUTY AND THAT PLAINTIFF'S
INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE.  THE JURY GAVE HIM A
VERDICT ON WHICH THE TRIAL COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  90 F.(2D) 603. 

DEFENDANT MAINTAINED, CITING FALCHETTI V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 307
PA. 203; 160 A. 859, AND KOONTZ V. B. & O.R. CO., 309 PA. 122; 163 A.
212, THAT THE ONLY DUTY OWED PLAINTIFF WAS TO REFRAIN FROM WILLFULLY OR
WANTONLY INJURING HIM; IT ARGUED THAT THE COURTS OF PENNSYLVANIA HAD SO
RULED WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS USING A CUSTOMARY LONGITUDINAL PATH, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM ONE CROSSING THE TRACK.  THE PLAINTIFF INSISTED THAT
THE PENNSYLVANIA DECISIONS DID NOT ESTABLISH THE RULE FOR WHICH THE
DEFENDANT CONTENDED.  UPON THAT ISSUE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID
(P. 604):  "WE NEED NOT GO INTO THIS MATTER SINCE THE DEFENDANT
CONCEDES THAT THE GREAT WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IN OTHER STATES IS TO THE
CONTRARY.  THIS CONCESSION IS FATAL TO ITS CONTENTION, FOR UPON
QUESTIONS OF GENERAL LAW THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE FREE, IN ABSENCE OF A
LOCAL STATUTE, TO EXERCISE THEIR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT THE
LAW IS; AND IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE QUESTION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF A RAILROAD FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY ITS SERVANTS IS ONE OF GENERAL
LAW."  UPON THAT BASIS THE COURT HELD THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE
NEGLIGENCE OF DEFENDANT.  IT ALSO HELD THE QUESTION OF CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE ONE FOR THE JURY. 

DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI PRESENTED TWO QUESTIONS:
WHETHER ITS DUTY TOWARD PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AS FOUND BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
AND WHETHER THE EVIDENCE CONCLUSIVELY SHOWED PLAINTIFF GUILTY OF
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.  PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT, AS ALWAYS HERETOFORE
HELD BY THIS COURT, THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY
NEGLIGENCE ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY GENERAL LAW AGAINST WHICH LOCAL
DECISIONS MAY NOT BE HELD CONCLUSIVE; THAT DEFENDANT RELIES ON A
SOLITARY PENNSYLVANIA CASE OF DOUBTFUL APPLICABILITY AND THAT, EVEN IF
THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF THAT STATE WERE DEEMED CONTROLLING, THE
SAME RESULT WOULD HAVE TO BE REACHED. 

NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WAS SUGGESTED OR ARGUED BELOW OR HERE. 
AND AS A GENERAL RULE, THIS COURT WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY QUESTION NOT
RAISED BELOW AND PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.  OLSON V. UNITED STATES,
292 U.S. 246, 262.  JOHNSON V. MANHATTAN RY. CO., 289 U.S. 479, 494. 
GUNNING V. COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90, 98.  HERE IT DOES NOT DECIDE EITHER OF
THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BUT, CHANGING THE RULE OF DECISION IN FORCE
SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, REMANDS THE CASE TO BE ADJUDGED
ACCORDING TO A STANDARD NEVER BEFORE DEEMED PERMISSIBLE. 

THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED STATES THAT "THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS
WHETHER THE OFT-CHALLENGED DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON (1842, 16 PET. 1)
SHALL NOW BE DISAPPROVED." 

THAT CASE INVOLVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789,
SEC. 34:  "THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE
CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES OTHERWISE
REQUIRE OR PROVIDE, SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF DECISION IN TRIALS AT
COMMON LAW IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN CASES WHERE THEY
APPLY."  EXPRESSING THE VIEW OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT, MR.
JUSTICE STORY SAID (P. 18):  "IN THE ORDINARY USE OF LANGUAGE IT WILL
HARDLY BE CONTENDED THAT THE DECISIONS OF COURTS CONSTITUTE LAWS.  THEY
ARE, AT MOST, ONLY EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE LAWS ARE, AND NOT OF THEMSELVES
LAWS.  THEY ARE OFTEN RE-EXAMINED, REVERSED, AND QUALIFIED BY THE
COURTS THEMSELVES, WHENEVER THEY ARE FOUND TO BE EITHER DEFECTIVE, OR
ILL-FOUNDED, OR OTHERWISE INCORRECT.  THE LAWS OF A STATE ARE MORE
USUALLY UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THE RULES AND ENACTMENTS PROMULGATED BY THE
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY THEREOF, OR LONG ESTABLISHED LOCAL CUSTOMS HAVING
THE FORCE OF LAWS.  IN ALL THE VARIOUS CASES, WHICH HAVE HITHERTO COME
BEFORE US FOR DECISION, THIS COURT HAVE UNIFORMLY SUPPOSED, THAT THE
TRUE INTERPRETATION OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SECTION LIMITED ITS
APPLICATION TO STATE LAWS STRICTLY LOCAL, THAT IS TO SAY, TO THE
POSITIVE STATUTES OF THE STATE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF ADOPTED BY
THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS, AND TO RIGHTS AND TITLES TO THINGS HAVING A
PERMANENT LOCALITY, SUCH AS THE RIGHTS AND TITLES TO REAL ESTATE, AND
OTHER MATTERS IMMOVABLE AND INTRATERRITORIAL IN THEIR NATURE AND
CHARACTER.  IT NEVER HAS BEEN SUPPOSED BY US, THAT THE SECTION DID
APPLY, OR WAS DESIGNED TO APPLY, TO QUESTIONS OF A MORE GENERAL NATURE,
NOT AT ALL DEPENDENT UPON LOCAL STATUTES OR LOCAL USAGES OF A FIXED AND
PERMANENT OPERATION, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ORDINARY
CONTRACTS OR OTHER WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS, AND ESPECIALLY TO QUESTIONS OF
GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAW, WHERE THE STATE TRIBUNALS ARE CALLED UPON TO
PERFORM THE LIKE FUNCTIONS AS OURSELVES, THAT IS, TO ASCERTAIN UPON
GENERAL REASONING AND LEGAL ANALOGIES, WHAT IS THE TRUE EXPOSITION OF
THE CONTRACT OR INSTRUMENT, OR WHAT IS THE JUST RULE FURNISHED BY THE
PRINCIPLES OF COMMERCIAL LAW TO GOVERN THE CASE.  AND WE HAVE NOT NOW
THE SLIGHTEST DIFFICULTY IN HOLDING, THAT THIS SECTION, UPON ITS TRUE
INTENDMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO LOCAL STATUTES AND
LOCAL USAGES OF THE CHARACTER BEFORE STATED, AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO
CONTRACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF A COMMERCIAL NATURE, THE TRUE
INTERPRETATION AND EFFECT WHEREOF ARE TO BE SOUGHT, NOT IN THE
DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS, BUT IN THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND
DOCTRINES OF COMMERCIAL JURISPRUDENCE.  UNDOUBTEDLY, THE DECISIONS OF
THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS UPON SUCH SUBJECTS ARE ENTITLED TO, AND WILL
RECEIVE, THE MOST DELIBERATE ATTENTION AND RESPECT OF THIS COURT; BUT
THEY CANNOT FURNISH POSITIVE RULES, OR CONCLUSIVE AUTHORITY, BY WHICH
OUR OWN JUDGMENTS ARE TO BE BOUND UP AND GOVERNED." 

THE DOCTRINE OF THAT CASE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT IN AN
UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, IT WAS NOT QUESTIONED
UNTIL MORE THAN 50 YEARS LATER, AND THEN BY A SINGLE JUDGE.  FN1
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BAUGH, 149 U.S. 368, 390.  IN THAT CASE, MR.
JUSTICE BREWER, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, TRULY SAID (P. 373):  "WHATEVER
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION MAY HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED, HAVE NOT BEEN ON THE
QUESTION WHETHER A MATTER OF GENERAL LAW SHOULD BE SETTLED BY THE
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT, RATHER THAN THROUGH AN ADHERENCE TO
THE DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURTS, BUT UPON THE OTHER QUESTION, WHETHER
A GIVEN MATTER IS ONE OF LOCAL OR OF GENERAL LAW." 

AND SINCE THAT DECISION, THE DIVISION OF OPINION IN THIS COURT HAS
BEEN ONE OF THE SAME CHARACTER AS IT WAS BEFORE.  IN 1910, MR. JUSTICE
HOLMES, SPEAKING FOR HIMSELF AND TWO OTHER JUSTICES, DISSENTED FROM THE
HOLDING THAT A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS BOUND TO EXERCISE ITS OWN
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONVEYANCE MADE BEFORE
THE STATE COURTS HAD RENDERED AN AUTHORITATIVE DECISION AS TO ITS
MEANING AND EFFECT.  KUHN V. FAIRMONT COAL CO., 215 U.S. 349.  BUT THAT
DISSENT ACCEPTED (P. 371) AS "SETTLED" THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON,
AND INSISTED (P. 372) MERELY THAT THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS BY
NATURE AND NECESSITY PECULIARLY LOCAL.    THEREAFTER, AS BEFORE, THE
DOCTRINE WAS CONSTANTLY APPLIED N2.  IN BLACK & WHITE TAXICAB CO. V.
BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276 U.S. 518, THREE JUDGES DISSENTED.  THE
WRITER OF THE DISSENT, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, SAID, HOWEVER (P. 535):  "I
SHOULD LEAVE SWIFT V. TYSON UNDISTURBED, AS I INDICATED IN KUHN V.
FAIRMONT COAL CO., BUT I WOULD NOT ALLOW IT TO SPREAD THE ASSUMED
DOMINION INTO NEW FIELDS." 

NO MORE UNQUALIFIED APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE CAN BE FOUND THAN IN
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT SPEAKING THROUGH MR. JUSTICE HOLMES.  UNITED
ZINC CO. V. BRITT, 258 U.S. 268.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. GOODMAN,
275 U.S. 66, 70.  WITHOUT IN THE SLIGHTEST DEPARTING FROM THAT
DOCTRINE, BUT IMPLICITLY APPLYING IT, THE STRICTNESS OF THE RULE LAID
DOWN IN THE GOODMAN CASE WAS SOMEWHAT AMELIORATED BY POKORA V. WABASH
RY. CO., 292 U.S. 98. 

WHENEVER POSSIBLE, CONSISTENTLY WITH STANDARDS SUSTAINED BY REASON
AND AUTHORITY CONSTITUTING THE GENERAL LAW, THIS COURT HAS FOLLOWED
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS.  MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON,
293 U.S. 335, 339.  SEE BURGESS V. SELIGMAN, 107 U.S. 20, 34.  BLACK &
WHITE TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., SUPRA, 530. 
UNQUESTIONABLY THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
UPON WHICH DECISION OF THIS CASE DEPENDS ARE QUESTIONS OF GENERAL LAW. 
HOUGH V. RAILWAY CO., 100 U.S. 213, 226.  LAKE SHORE & M.S. RY. CO. V.
PRENTICE, 147 U.S. 101.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. BAUGH, SUPRA.
GARDNER V. MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO., 150 U.S. 349, 358.  CENTRAL VERMONT
RY. CO. V. WHITE, 238 U.S. 507, 512.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
GOODMAN, SUPRA.  POKORA V. WABASH RY. CO., SUPRA. 

WHILE AMENDMENTS TO SEC. 34 HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN SUGGESTED,
THE SECTION STANDS AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED.  EVIDENTLY CONGRESS HAS
INTENDED THROUGHOUT THE YEARS THAT THE RULE OF DECISION AS CONSTRUED
SHOULD CONTINUE TO GOVERN FEDERAL COURTS IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW.  THE
OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED SUGGESTS THAT MR. WARREN'S RESEARCH HAS
ESTABLISHED THAT FROM THE BEGINNING THIS COURT HAS ERRONEOUSLY
CONSTRUED SEC. 34.  BUT THAT AUTHOR'S "NEW LIGHT ON THE HISTORY OF THE
FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789" DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE AUTHORITATIVE AND
WAS INTENDED TO BE NO MORE THAN SUGGESTIVE.  THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO
HIS DISCOVERY HAS NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED AT THIS BAR.  NOR DOES THE
OPINION INDICATE THE GROUND DISCLOSED BY THE RESEARCH.  IN HIS
DISSENTING OPINION IN THE TAXICAB CASE, MR. JUSTICE HOLMES REFERRED TO
MR. WARREN'S WORK BUT FAILED TO PERSUADE THE COURT THAT "LAWS" AS USED
IN SEC. 34 INCLUDED VARYING AND POSSIBLY ILL-CONSIDERED RULINGS BY THE
COURTS OF A STATE ON QUESTIONS OF COMMON LAW.  SEE, E.G., SWIFT V.
TYSON, SUPRA, 16-17.  IT WELL MAY BE THAT, IF THE COURT SHOULD NOW CALL
FOR ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL ON THE BASIS OF MR. WARREN'S RESEARCH, IT WOULD
ADHERE TO THE CONSTRUCTION IT HAS ALWAYS PUT UPON SEC. 34.  INDEED, THE
OPINION IN THIS CASE SO INDICATES.  FOR IT DECLARES:  "IF ONLY A
QUESTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WERE INVOLVED, WE SHOULD NOT BE
PREPARED TO ABANDON A DOCTRINE SO WIDELY APPLIED THROUGHOUT A CENTURY. 
BUT THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COURSE PURSUED HAS NOW BEEN MADE
CLEAR AND COMPELS US TO DO SO."  THIS MEANS THAT, SO FAR AS CONCERNS
THE RULE OF DECISION NOW CONDEMNED, THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, PASSED
TO ESTABLISH JUDICIAL COURTS TO EXERT THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND ESPECIALLY SEC. 34 OF THAT ACT AS CONSTRUED, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THAT FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOW BOUND TO FOLLOW DECISIONS
OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE CONTROVERSIES ARISE; AND THAT
CONGRESS IS POWERLESS OTHERWISE TO ORDAIN.  IT IS HARD TO FORESEE THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE RADICAL CHANGE SO MADE.  OUR OPINION IN THE TAXICAB
CASE CITES NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH SERVE IN PART TO
INDICATE THE FIELD FROM WHICH IT IS NOW INTENDED FOREVER TO BAR THE
FEDERAL COURTS.  IT EXTENDS TO ALL MATTERS OF CONTRACTS AND TORTS NOT
POSITIVELY GOVERNED BY STATE ENACTMENTS.  COUNSEL SEARCHING FOR
PRECEDENT AND REASONING TO DISCLOSE COMMON-LAW PRINCIPLES ON WHICH TO
GUIDE CLIENTS AND CONDUCT LITIGATION ARE BY THIS DECISION TOLD THAT AS
TO ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OTHER FEDERAL
COURTS ARE NO LONGER ANYWHERE AUTHORITATIVE. 

THIS COURT HAS OFTEN EMPHASIZED ITS RELUCTANCE TO CONSIDER
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, AND THAT LEGISLATION WILL NOT BE HELD INVALID
AS REPUGNANT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW IF THE CASE MAY BE DECIDED UPON ANY
OTHER GROUND.  IN VIEW OF GRAVE CONSEQUENCES LIABLE TO RESULT FROM
ERRONEOUS EXERTION OF ITS POWER TO SET ASIDE LEGISLATION, THE COURT
SHOULD MOVE CAUTIOUSLY, SEEK ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, ACT ONLY AFTER
AMPLE DELIBERATION, SHOW THAT THE QUESTION IS BEFORE THE COURT, THAT
ITS DECISION CANNOT BE AVOIDED BY CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE ASSAILED
OR OTHERWISE, INDICATE PRECISELY THE PRINCIPLE OR PROVISION OF THE
CONSTITUTION HELD TO HAVE BEEN TRANSGRESSED, AND FULLY DISCLOSE THE
REASONS AND AUTHORITIES FOUND TO WARRANT THE CONCLUSION OF INVALIDITY. 
THESE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST THE IMPROVIDENT USE OF THE GREAT POWER TO
INVALIDATE LEGISLATION ARE SO WELL-GROUNDED AND FAMILIAR THAT STATEMENT
OF REASONS OR CITATION OF AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT THEM IS NO LONGER
NECESSARY.  BUT SEE E.G.:  CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 11
PET. 420, 553; TOWNSHIP OF PINE GROVE V. TALCOTT, 19 WALL.  666, 673;
CHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO. V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339, 345; BAKER V. GRICE,
169 U.S. 284, 292; MARTIN V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 205 U.S. 135, 140. 

SO FAR AS APPEARS, NO LITIGANT HAS EVER CHALLENGED THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH THE RULE AS CONSTRUED.  IT HAS SO LONG ENDURED
THAT ITS DESTRUCTION NOW WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION CANNOT BE
JUSTIFIED.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE OPINION TO SUGGEST THAT
CONSIDERATION OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS NECESSARY TO A DECISION
OF THE CASE.  BY WAY OF REASONING, IT CONTAINS NOTHING THAT REQUIRES
THE CONCLUSION REACHED.  ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT
THAT CONCLUSION.  AGAINST THE PROTEST OF THOSE JOINING IN THIS OPINION,
THE COURT DECLINES TO ASSIGN THE CASE FOR REARGUMENT.  IT MAY NOT
JUSTLY BE ASSUMED THAT THE LABOR AND ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL FOR THE
PARTIES WOULD NOT DISCLOSE THE RIGHT CONCLUSION AND AID THE COURT IN
THE STATEMENT OF REASONS TO SUPPORT IT.  INDEED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
APPROPRIATE TO GIVE CONGRESS OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE DEVESTING
IT OF POWER TO PRESCRIBE RULES OF DECISION TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE COURTS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEE MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52, 176. 

THE COURSE PURSUED BY THE COURT IN THIS CASE IS REPUGNANT TO THE ACT
OF CONGRESS OF AUGUST 24, 1937, 50 STAT. 751.  IT DECLARES:  "THAT
WHENEVER THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY ACT OF CONGRESS AFFECTING THE
PUBLIC INTEREST IS DRAWN IN QUESTION IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY AGENCY
THEREOF, OR ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF, AS SUCH OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE, IS NOT A PARTY, THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE SUIT OR
PROCEEDING SHALL CERTIFY SUCH FACT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  IN ANY
SUCH CASE THE COURT SHALL PERMIT THE UNITED STATES TO INTERVENE AND
BECOME A PARTY FOR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE (IF EVIDENCE IS OTHERWISE
RECEIVABLE IN SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING) AND ARGUMENT UPON THE QUESTION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH ACT.  IN ANY SUCH SUIT OR PROCEEDING
THE UNITED STATES SHALL, SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW,
HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS OF A PARTY AND THE LIABILITIES OF A PARTY AS TO
COURT COSTS TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR A PROPER PRESENTATION OF THE
FACTS AND LAW RELATING TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SUCH ACT."  THAT
PROVISION EXTENDS TO THIS COURT.  SEC. 5.  IF DEFENDANT HAD APPLIED FOR
AND OBTAINED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI UPON THE CLAIM THAT, AS NOW HELD,
CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO PRESCRIBE THE RULE OF DECISION, SEC. 34 AS
CONSTRUED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE THE
PRESCRIBED CERTIFICATE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN ORDER THAT THE UNITED
STATES MIGHT INTERVENE AND BE HEARD ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 
WITHIN THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE AND ITS TRUE INTENT AND MEANING, THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT MEASURE HAS BEEN "DRAWN IN QUESTION." 
CONGRESS INTENDED TO GIVE THE UNITED STATES THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD IN
EVERY CASE INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ACT AFFECTING THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  IN VIEW OF THE RULE THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF CHALLENGE OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY, STATUTES WILL NOT HERE BE INVALIDATED ON THAT
GROUND, THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937 EXTENDS TO CASES WHERE
CONSTITUTIONALITY IS FIRST "DRAWN IN QUESTION" BY THE COURT.  NO
EXTRAORDINARY OR UNUSUAL ACTION BY THE COURT AFTER SUBMISSION OF THE
CAUSE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO FRUSTRATE THE WHOLESOME PURPOSE OF THAT
ACT.  THE DUTY IT IMPOSES OUGHT HERE TO BE WILLINGLY ASSUMED.  IF IT
WERE DOUBTFUL WHETHER THIS CASE IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACT, THE
COURT SHOULD GIVE THE UNITED STATES OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVENE AND, IF SO
ADVISED, TO PRESENT ARGUMENT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, FOR
UNDOUBTEDLY IT IS ONE OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.  THAT WOULD BE TO
CONSTRUE THE ACT ACCORDING TO ITS MEANING. 

THE COURT'S OPINION IN ITS FIRST SENTENCE DEFINES THE QUESTION TO BE
WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON SHALL NOW BE DISAPPROVED; IT
RECITES (P. 72) THAT CONGRESS IS WITHOUT POWER TO PRESCRIBE RULES OF
DECISION THAT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY FEDERAL COURTS AS A RESULT OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 34 IN SWIFT V. TYSON AND SINCE; AFTER DISCUSSION,
IT DECLARES (PP. 77-78) THAT "THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COURSE
PURSUED (MEANING THE RULE OF DECISION RESULTING FROM THAT CONSTRUCTION)
COMPELS" ABANDONMENT OF THE DOCTRINE SO LONG APPLIED; AND THEN NEAR THE
END OF THE LAST PAGE THE COURT STATES THAT IT DOES NOT HOLD SEC. 34
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT MERELY THAT, IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V.
TYSON CONSTRUING IT, THIS COURT AND THE LOWER COURTS HAVE INVADED
RIGHTS WHICH ARE RESERVED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE SEVERAL STATES. 
BUT, PLAINLY THROUGH THE FORM OF WORDS EMPLOYED, THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
DECISION APPEARS; IT STRIKES DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEC. 34 AS
CONSTRUED BY OUR DECISIONS; IT DIVESTS THE CONGRESS OF POWER TO
PRESCRIBE RULES TO BE FOLLOWED BY FEDERAL COURTS WHEN DECIDING
QUESTIONS OF GENERAL LAW.  IN THAT BROAD FIELD IT COMPELS THIS AND THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS TO FOLLOW DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF A PARTICULAR
STATE. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE RULE NEED NOT
BE CONSIDERED, BECAUSE UNDER THE LAW, AS FOUND BY THE COURTS OF
PENNSYLVANIA AND GENERALLY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE
EVIDENCE REQUIRED A FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF WAS GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE
THAT CONTRIBUTED TO CAUSE HIS INJURIES AND THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW
SHOULD BE REVERSED UPON THAT GROUND. 

FN1  MR. JUSTICE FIELD FILED A DISSENTING OPINION, SEVERAL SENTENCES
OF WHICH ARE QUOTED IN THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED.  THE DISSENT FAILED
TO IMPRESS ANY OF HIS ASSOCIATES.  IT ASSUMES THAT ADHERENCE TO SEC. 34
AS CONSTRUED INVOLVES A SUPERVISION OVER LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL ACTION
OF THE STATES.  THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THAT SUGGESTION.  CLEARLY
THE DISSENT OF THE LEARNED JUSTICE RESTS UPON MISAPPREHENSION OF THE
RULE.  HE JOINED IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE FOR MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A
CENTURY BEFORE HIS DISSENT.  THE REPORTS DO NOT DISCLOSE THAT HE
OBJECTED TO IT IN ANY LATER CASE.  CF. OAKES V. MASE, 165 U.S. 363. 

FN2  IN SALEM TRUST CO. V. MANUFACTURERS' FINANCE CO., 264 U.S. 182,
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS CONCURRED (P. 200) IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT UPON A QUESTION OF GENERAL LAW ON THE GROUND THAT
THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES WERE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE REED. 

I CONCUR IN THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THIS CASE, IN THE DISAPPROVAL
OF THE DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON, AND IN THE REASONING OF THE MAJORITY
OPINION EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS IT RELIES UPON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE "COURSE PURSUED" BY THE FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE "DOCTRINE OF SWIFT V. TYSON," AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT THE
WORDS "THE LAWS," AS USED IN SEC. 34, LINE ONE, OF THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1789, DO NOT INCLUDE IN THEIR MEANING
"THE DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS."  MR. JUSTICE STORY, IN DECIDING
THAT POINT, SAID (16 PET. 19):  "UNDOUBTEDLY, THE DECISIONS OF THE
LOCAL TRIBUNALS UPON SUCH SUBJECTS ARE ENTITLED TO, AND WILL RECEIVE,
THE MOST DELIBERATE ATTENTION AND RESPECT OF THIS COURT; BUT THEY
CANNOT FURNISH POSITIVE RULES, OR CONCLUSIVE AUTHORITY, BY WHICH OUR
OWN JUDGMENTS ARE TO BE BOUND UP AND GOVERNED." 

TO DECIDE THE CASE NOW BEFORE US AND TO "DISAPPROVE" THE DOCTRINE OF
SWIFT V. TYSON REQUIRES ONLY THAT WE SAY THAT THE WORDS "THE LAWS"
INCLUDE IN THEIR MEANING THE DECISIONS OF THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS.  AS THE
MAJORITY OPINION SHOWS, BY ITS REFERENCE TO MR. WARREN'S RESEARCHES AND
THE FIRST QUOTATION FROM MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, THAT THIS COURT IS NOW OF
THE VIEW THAT "LAWS" INCLUDES "DECISIONS," IT IS UNNECESSARY TO GO
FURTHER AND DECLARE THAT THE "COURSE PURSUED" WAS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL,"
INSTEAD OF MERELY ERRONEOUS. 

THE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" COURSE REFERRED TO IN THE MAJORITY OPINION IS
APPARENTLY THE RULING IN SWIFT V. TYSON THAT THE SUPPOSED OMISSION OF
CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE AS TO THE EFFECT OF DECISIONS LEAVES FEDERAL
COURTS FREE TO INTERPRET GENERAL LAW FOR THEMSELVES.  I AM NOT AT ALL
SURE WHETHER, IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL STATUTORY DIRECTION, FEDERAL
COURTS WOULD BE COMPELLED TO FOLLOW STATE DECISIONS.  THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT DOUBT ABOUT THE MATTER IN 1789 TO INDUCE THE FIRST CONGRESS
TO LEGISLATE.  NO FORMER OPINIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE PASSED UPON IT.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES EVIDENTLY SAW NOTHING "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" WHICH
REQUIRED THE OVERRULING OF SWIFT V. TYSON, FOR HE SAID IN THE VERY
OPINION QUOTED BY THE MAJORITY, "I SHOULD LEAVE SWIFT V. TYSON
UNDISTURBED, AS I INDICATED IN KUHN V. FAIRMONT COAL CO., BUT I WOULD
NOT ALLOW IT TO SPREAD THE ASSUMED DOMINION INTO NEW FIELDS."  BLACK &
WHITE TAXICAB CO. V. BROWN & YELLOW TAXICAB CO., 276 U.S. 518, 535.  IF
THE OPINION COMMITS THIS COURT TO THE POSITION THAT THE CONGRESS IS
WITHOUT POWER TO DECLARE WHAT RULES OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW SHALL GOVERN THE
FEDERAL COURTS, THAT CONCLUSION ALSO SEEMS QUESTIONABLE.  THE LINE
BETWEEN PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE LAW IS HAZY BUT NO ONE DOUBTS
FEDERAL POWER OVER PROCEDURE.  WAYMAN V. SOUTHARD, 10 WHEAT.  1.  THE
JUDICIARY ARTICLE AND THE "NECESSARY AND PROPER" CLAUSE OF ARTICLE ONE
MAY FULLY AUTHORIZE LEGISLATION, SUCH AS THIS SECTION OF THE JUDICIARY
ACT. 

IN THIS COURT, STARE DECISIS, IN STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, IS A USEFUL
RULE, NOT AN INEXORABLE COMMAND.  BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285
U.S. 393, DISSENT, P. 406, NOTE 1.  COMPARE READ V. BISHOP OF LINCOLN,
(1892) A.C. 644, 655; LONDON STREET TRAMWAYS CO. V. LONDON COUNTY
COUNCIL, (1898) A.C. 375, 379.  IT SEEMS PREFERABLE TO OVERTURN AN
ESTABLISHED CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS, RATHER THAN, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366. 

THERE IS NO OCCASION TO DISCUSS FURTHER THE RANGE OR SOUNDNESS OF
THESE FEW PHRASES OF THE OPINION.  IT IS SUFFICIENT NOW TO CALL
ATTENTION TO THEM AND EXPRESS MY OWN NON-ACQUIESCENCE. 
..END :




















HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA CO., 304 U.S. 92 


NO. 437.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 11, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  -
101 COLO. 73 - 70 P.2D 849, REVERSED. 


1.  THE WATER OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM, USED BENEFICIALLY IN EACH OF
THE TWO STATES THROUGH WHICH IT FLOWS, MUST BE EQUITABLY APPORTIONED
BETWEEN THE TWO.  P. 101. 

THE CLAIM THAT ON INTERSTATE STREAMS THE UPPER STATE HAS SUCH
OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF THE WHOLE STREAM AS ENTITLES IT TO DIVERT ALL
THE WATER, REGARDLESS OF ANY INJURY OR PREJUDICE TO THE LOWER STATE,
HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY DENIED BY THIS COURT.  P. 102. 

2.  A DECREE OF A STATE COURT CAN NOT CONFER A RIGHT IN THE WATER OF
AN INTERSTATE STREAM IN EXCESS OF THE STATE'S EQUITABLE PORTION OF SUCH
WATER.  P. 102. 

3.  A DECREE OF A STATE COURT ADJUDICATING TO A LOCAL USER A RIGHT IN
THE WATER OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM IN EXCESS OF THE STATE'S EQUITABLE
PORTION THEREOF IS NOT RES JUDICATA AS TO ANOTHER STATE AND ITS
CITIZENS WHO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO DIVERT WATER FROM THE STREAM IN SUCH
OTHER STATE, AND WHO WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS.  P. 103. 

4.  IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF A COMPACT BETWEEN STATES
FOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATER OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM THAT THERE
BE JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISION IN RESPECT OF EXISTING RIGHTS. 
P. 104. 

5.  WHETHER THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATER OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM BE
MADE BY COMPACT BETWEEN THE UPPER AND LOWER STATES WITH THE CONSENT OF
CONGRESS OR BY A DECREE OF THIS COURT, THE APPORTIONMENT IS BINDING
UPON THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE AND ALL WATER CLAIMANTS, INCLUDING
GRANTEES WHOSE RIGHTS ANTEDATE THE COMPACT OR DECREE.  P. 106. 

6.  A COMPACT BETWEEN TWO STATES FOR APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATER OF AN
INTERSTATE STREAM MAY PROVIDE FOR DIVISION OF THE WATER AT TIMES, AND
AT OTHER TIMES FOR THE USE OF THE ENTIRE FLOW BY ONE STATE OR THE OTHER
IN ALTERNATING PERIODS; AND AUTHORITY MAY VALIDLY BE DELEGATED TO THE
STATES' ENGINEERS TO DETERMINE WHEN THE USE SHOULD BE ROTATED.  P.
108. 

SO HELD WHERE THE EVIDENCE CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED THAT, AT THE
TIMES WHEN ROTATION WAS DETERMINED UPON, THE STREAM COULD IN THAT WAY
BE MORE EFFICIENTLY USED. 

7.  NO VITIATING INFIRMITY BEING HERE SHOWN IN THE PROCEEDINGS
PRELIMINARY TO THE LA PLATA RIVER COMPACT OR IN ITS APPLICATION, THE
APPORTIONMENT MADE BY IT BETWEEN COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO OF THE WATER
OF THE LA PLATA RIVER COULD NOT BE HELD TO DEPRIVE A COLORADO
APPROPRIATOR OF ANY VESTED RIGHT, EVEN THOUGH A RIGHT HAD PREVIOUSLY
BEEN ADJUDICATED TO HIM IN A WATER PROCEEDING IN A COURT OF THAT
STATE.  P. 108. 

8.  THE ASSENT OF CONGRESS TO THE LA PLATA RIVER COMPACT BETWEEN
COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO DOES NOT MAKE THE COMPACT A "TREATY OR STATUTE
OF THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE, AND A DECISION OF THE STATE COURT AGAINST ITS VALIDITY IS NOT
APPEALABLE TO THIS COURT.  P. 109. 

9.  A CLAIM BASED ON THE EQUITABLE INTERSTATE APPORTIONMENT OF WATER,
LIKE ONE BASED ON THE PROPER LOCATION OF A STATE BOUNDARY, IS NOT
WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 109. 

10.  THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO IN THIS CASE,
RESTRAINING THE STATE ENGINEER FROM TAKING ACTION REQUIRED BY THE LA
PLATA RIVER COMPACT, DENIED AN IMPORTANT CLAIM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
AND IS REVIEWABLE BY THIS COURT ON CERTIORARI UNDER SEC. 237(B) OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE.  P. 110. 

11.  WHETHER THE WATER OF A STREAM MUST BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE
TWO STATES THROUGH WHICH IT FLOWS IS A FEDERAL QUESTION, UPON WHICH
NEITHER THE STATUTES NOR DECISIONS OF EITHER STATE CAN BE CONCLUSIVE. 
P. 110. 

12.  THAT THE STATES WHICH ARE PARTIES TO A COMPACT ARE NOT PARTIES
TO THE SUIT AND CAN NOT BE MADE SO, DOES NOT DEPRIVE THIS COURT OF
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF THE COMPACT.  P.
110. 

HINDERLIDER, STATE ENGINEER, ET AL. V. LA PLATA RIVER & CHERRY CREEK
DITCH CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT REQUIRING WATER OFFICIALS OF
COLORADO TO PERMIT DIVERSION OF WATER FROM THE LA PLATA RIVER BY THE
RESPONDENT DITCH COMPANY, NOTWITHSTANDING CONTRARY PROVISIONS OF THE LA
PLATA RIVER COMPACT.  APPEAL DISMISSED; CERTIORARI GRANTED. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS FILED A MEMORANDUM BY WHICH HE SOUGHT TO
MAINTAIN THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF AUG. 24, 1937, C. 754,
50 STAT. 751, THIS COURT IS "A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" AND THE
STATE COMPACT HERE IN QUESTION, APPROVED BY CONGRESS, IS AN "ACT OF
CONGRESS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST," THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHICH
IS DRAWN IN QUESTION ON THE APPEAL.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ACTING
SOLICITOR GENERAL BELL ALSO FILED A MEMORANDUM SUGGESTING THE INTEREST
OF THE UNITED STATES IN INTERSTATE WATER COMPACTS AND INTERSTATE
COMPACTS GENERALLY. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE LA PLATA RIVER AND CHERRY CREEK DITCH COMPANY, A COLORADO
CORPORATION, OWNS A DITCH BY WHICH IT DIVERTS FROM THAT RIVER IN
COLORADO WATER FOR IRRIGATION.  ON JULY 5, 1928, IT BROUGHT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR LA PLATA COUNTY A SUIT WHICH CHARGED THAT SINCE JUNE
24, 1928, THE DEFENDANTS, HINDERLIDER, STATE ENGINEER OF COLORADO, AND
HIS SUBORDINATES HAVE SO ADMINISTERED THE WATER OF THE RIVER AS TO
DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF OF WATER WHICH IT CLAIMS THE RIGHT TO DIVERT.  A
MANDATORY INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT. 

THE DEFENDANTS ADMIT THAT IN ADMINISTERING THE WATER OF THE STREAM
DURING THE PERIOD NAMED THEY SHUT THE HEADGATE OF THE DITCH COMPANY SO
AS TO DEPRIVE IT OF WATER FOR PURPOSES OF IRRIGATION; BUT ASSERT THAT
THEY DID SO PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LA PLATA RIVER COMPACT
ENTERED INTO BY THE STATES OF COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO WITH THE CONSENT
OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE COMPACT PROVIDES THAT EACH
STATE SHALL RECEIVE A DEFINITE SHARE OF WATER UNDER THE VARYING
CONDITIONS WHICH OBTAIN DURING THE YEAR, AND, AMONG OTHER THINGS:  FN1 

"1.  AT ALL TIMES BETWEEN THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER AND THE 15TH DAY OF
THE SUCCEEDING FEBRUARY EACH STATE SHALL HAVE THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO
THE USE OF ALL WATER WHICH MAY FLOW WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES. 

"2.  BY REASON OF THE USUAL ANNUAL RISE AND FALL, THE FLOW OF SAID
RIVER BETWEEN THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY AND THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER OF
EACH YEAR SHALL BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE STATES IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER: 

"(A)  EACH STATE SHALL HAVE THE UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO USE ALL THE
WATERS WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES IN EACH DAY WHEN THE MEAN DAILY FLOW AT
THE INTERSTATE STATION IS ONE HUNDRED CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, OR MORE. 

"(B)  ON ALL OTHER DAYS, THE STATE OF COLORADO SHALL DELIVER AT THE
INTERSTATE STATION A QUANTITY OF WATER EQUIVALENT TO ONE-HALF OF THE
MEAN FLOW AT THE HESPERUS STATION FOR THE PRECEDING DAY, BUT NOT TO
EXCEED ONE HUNDRED CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. 

"3.  WHENEVER THE FLOW OF THE RIVER IS SO LOW THAT IN THE JUDGMENT OF
THE STATE ENGINEERS OF THE STATES THE GREATEST BENEFICIAL USE OF ITS
WATERS MAY BE SECURED BY DISTRIBUTING ALL OF ITS WATER SUCCESSIVELY TO
THE LANDS IN EACH STATE IN ALTERNATING PERIODS, IN LIEU OF DELIVERY OF
WATER AS PROVIDED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THIS ARTICLE, THE USE OF
THE WATERS MAY BE SO ROTATED BETWEEN THE TWO STATES IN SUCH MANNER, FOR
SUCH PERIODS, AND TO CONTINUE FOR SUCH TIME AS THE STATE ENGINEERS MAY
JOINTLY DETERMINE." 

FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF WATER RIGHTS, COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO EACH
SET UP AN ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM WITH THE STATE ENGINEERS AT ITS HEAD. 
THE STATE ENGINEERS AGREED THAT, IN ORDER TO PUT THE WATER TO ITS MOST
EFFICIENT USE IN THE HOT SUMMER MONTHS OF 1928, WHEN THE RIVER WAS VERY
LOW, THE WHOLE OF THE AVAILABLE SUPPLY SHOULD BE ROTATED BETWEEN THE
TWO STATES.  IN OTHER WORDS, THAT EACH STATE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO
ENJOY THE ENTIRE FLOW OF THE RIVER DURING ALTERNATING TEN-DAY PERIODS. 
DURING THE TEN DAYS COMMENCING JUNE 24, 1928, ALL THE WATER OF THE
RIVER (EXCEPT SMALL AMOUNTS DIVERTED IN COLORADO FOR DOMESTIC AND STOCK
REQUIREMENTS) WAS THUS ALLOWED TO PASS TO NEW MEXICO; AND DURING THE
SUCCEEDING TEN-DAY PERIOD ALL THE WATER IN THE STREAM WAS SIMILARLY
ALLOWED TO BE DIVERTED IN COLORADO.  THE DEFENDANT WATER OFFICIALS
CONTEND THAT IN SO ROTATING THE WATER OF THE STREAM THEY ADMINISTERED
IT AS REQUIRED BY THE COMPACT AND WISELY. 

THE LA PLATA RIVER RISES IN THE MOUNTAINS OF COLORADO, FLOWS IN A
SOUTHERLY DIRECTION UNTIL IT REACHES THE BOUNDARY OF NEW MEXICO AND IN
THE LATTER STATE UNTIL IT EMPTIES INTO THE SAN JUAN RIVER.  THE STREAM
IS NON-NAVIGABLE; HAS A NARROW WATERSHED; AND A LARGE RUN-OFF IN THE
EARLY SPRING.  THEN THE QUANTITY FLOWING BEGINS TO FALL RAPIDLY; AND
DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS LITTLE WATER IS AVAILABLE FOR IRRIGATION.  IN
EACH STATE THE WATER OF THE STREAM HAS LONG BEEN USED FOR IRRIGATION;
AND EACH ADOPTED THE SO-CALLED APPROPRIATION DOCTRINE OF WATER USE. 
FN2  UNDER THAT DOCTRINE THE FIRST PERSON WHO ACTS TOWARD THE DIVERSION
OF WATER FROM A NATURAL STREAM AND THE APPLICATION OF SUCH WATER TO A
BENEFICIAL USE HAS THE FIRST RIGHT, PROVIDED HE DILIGENTLY CONTINUES
HIS ENTERPRISE TO COMPLETION AND BENEFICIALLY APPLIES THE WATER.  THE
RIGHTS OF SUBSEQUENT APPROPRIATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO RIGHTS ALREADY HELD
IN THE STREAM. 

THE RELATIVE RIGHTS OF ALL CLAIMANTS TO DIVERT IN COLORADO WATER FROM
THE LA PLATA RIVER WERE ADJUDICATED IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THE COLORADO
STATUTES.  BY DECREE THEREIN OF JANUARY 12, 1898(AND LATER AMENDED) THE
DITCH COMPANY WAS DECLARED ENTITLED TO DIVERT 39 1/4 CUBIC FEET OF
WATER PER SECOND, SUBJECT TO FIVE SENIOR PRIORITIES AGGREGATING 19
SECOND FEET.  ON JUNE 24, 1928, THERE WAS IN THE STREAM, AT THE
RECOGNIZED COLORADO GAUGING STATION, 57 SECOND FEET OF WATER.  THE
DITCH COMPANY CLAIMED THAT BY REASON OF THE 1898 DECREE IT WAS ENTITLED
TO ALL THE WATER IN THE STREAM EXCEPT THAT REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE
COLORADO PRIORITIES.  IF IT HAD BEEN PERMITTED TO DRAW ALL THAT WATER,
NONE WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE NEW MEXICO WATER CLAIMANTS, WHO,
UNDER SIMILAR LAWS, HAD MADE APPROPRIATIONS.  SOME OF THEM WERE EARLIER
IN DATE THAN THE DITCH COMPANY'S. 

THE CASE WAS FIRST HEARD IN THE DISTRICT COURT ON EVIDENCE IN 1930. 
THE DITCH COMPANY OBJECTED AT THE TRIAL TO THE ADMISSION OR
CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPACT.  IT INSISTED THAT THE COMPACT ATTEMPTED
TO SURRENDER TO NEW MEXICO, AND THUS DESTROY, VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS OF
COLORADO CITIZENS; THAT THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF ITS
CONTRACT; AND THAT THE COMPACT IN SO FAR AS IT "APPLIES OR IS INTENDED
TO APPLY TO PRIVATE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR CITIZENS OF COLORADO,
OR TO BE USED AS A DEFENSE OF OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ACTS OF THE
STATE ENGINEER OR HIS SUBORDINATES IN INTERFERING WITH OR VIOLATING THE
PRIVATE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF COLORADO, OR IN ATTEMPTING TO DISREGARD,
IGNORE OR SET ASIDE THE DECREES OF THIS (DISTRICT) COURT FOR THE
DISTRIBUTION OF WATER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECREES, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID" IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF
THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND OF
SEC. 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF COLORADO. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE OBJECTION; FOUND IN SUBSTANCE THE
FACTS STATED ABOVE; HELD THAT THE COMPACT JUSTIFIED THE ACTION OF
DEFENDANTS; AND ENTERED A DECREE THAT THE BILL BE DISMISSED, EACH PARTY
TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS.  THAT JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE (ONE JUDGE DISSENTING), LA PLATA RIVER & CHERRY CREEK
DITCH CO. V. HINDERLIDER, 93 COLO. 128; 25 P.2D 187.  THE OPINION
DECLARED: 

"THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST PRETENSE, EITHER IN THIS COMPACT ITSELF
OR IN THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING UP TO IT, TO A DECISION OF THE QUESTION
OF WHAT WATER COLORADO OWNS, OR WHAT WATER NEW MEXICO OWNS, OR WHAT
THEIR RESPECTIVE CITIZENS OWN.  IT IS A MERE COMPROMISE OF PRESUMABLY
CONFLICTING CLAIMS, A TRADING THEREIN, IN WHICH THE PROPERTY OF
CITIZENS IS BARTERED, WITHOUT NOTICE OR HEARING AND WITH NO REGARD TO
VESTED RIGHTS." 

AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF FINAL JUDGMENT
BELOW.  HINDERLIDER V. LA PLATA RIVER & CHERRY CREEK DITCH CO., 291
U.S. 650.  THE CASE WAS THEN RETRIED BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE SAME
PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE; AND, PURSUANT TO THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF COLORADO, A DECREE WAS ENTERED WHICH, AFTER RECITING IN
SUBSTANCE THE FACTS ABOVE STATED, DECLARED: 

"6.  THAT THE SAID LA PLATA RIVER COMPACT, ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
STATES OF COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DEFENSE TO THE
ACTIONS OF SAID DEFENDANT WATER OFFICIALS COMPLAINED OF BY PLAINTIFF,
AND IS NOT AVAILABLE TO SAID DEFENDANT WATER OFFICIALS, AS A LEGAL
DEFENSE OR JUSTIFICATION, FOR THEIR ACTS IN CLOSING AND SHUTTING DOWN
THE HEADGATE OF PLAINTIFF AND IN DEPRIVING THE SAID PLAINTIFF, THEREBY,
OF ITS RIGHT TO THE USE OF THE WATERS FROM SAID LA PLATA RIVER FOR
IRRIGATION PURPOSES, AS PROVIDED BY THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF SAID
DECREE OF ADJUDICATION OF JANUARY 12, 1898." 

THE DECREE SPECIFICALLY: 

"(3)  ENJOINED AND COMMANDED (THE DEFENDANTS) TO PERMIT THE DIVERSION
THROUGH THE PLAINTIFF'S HEADGATE (OF) WATER FOR PLAINTIFF'S DITCH IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF SAID DECREE AT ANY AND ALL TIMES WHEN
THERE IS WATER IN SAID STREAM TO WHICH SAID DECREE, UNDER ITS TERMS AND
CONDITIONS WOULD APPLY; ...  " 

THIS SECOND JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE; AN ADDITIONAL OPINION BEING DELIVERED BY THE COURT,
AND A DISSENT BY A DIFFERENT JUSTICE.  101 COLO. 73; 70 P.2D 849.  AN
APPEAL TO THIS COURT WAS ALLOWED BY THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE
STATE.  FN3  PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS, AUGUST 24, 1937, C. 754,
50 STAT. 751, THE ATTENTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES WAS DIRECTED TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE VALIDITY OF A FEDERAL
STATUTE IS INVOLVED, 302 U.S. 646.  HE FILED MEMORANDA IN WHICH HE
CONTENDED THAT: 

"(1)  THIS COURT IS INCLUDED IN THE COURTS TO WHICH SECTION 1 OF THE
ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1937, IS APPLICABLE; (2) THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
COMPACT IS DRAWN IN QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION ON THIS POINT IS
NECESSARY; (3) A COMPACT IS AN ACT OF CONGRESS; AND (4) IT IS AN ACT
'AFFECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST.'" 

OPPOSING SOME OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, A BRIEF
WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF DELAWARE, MARYLAND, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK,
VIRGINIA, THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY AND THE DELAWARE RIVER JOINT
COMMISSION. 

THE DITCH COMPANY MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, CONTENDING, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE COMPACT WAS APPROVED BY
CONGRESS DOES NOT MAKE IT A FEDERAL STATUTE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
JURISDICTIONAL ACT AUTHORIZING APPEALS.  DECISION ON THE MOTION TO
DISMISS WAS POSTPONED TO THE HEARING ON THE MERITS.  FOR REASONS TO BE
STATED, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CASE IS NOT REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL;
THAT IT PRESENTS A FEDERAL QUESTION REVIEWABLE ON CERTIORARI; THAT
BECAUSE OF ITS IMPORTANCE CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED; AND THAT THE
JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED. 

FIRST.  AS THE LA PLATA RIVER FLOWS FROM COLORADO INTO NEW MEXICO AND
IN EACH STATE THE WATER IS USED BENEFICIALLY, IT MUST BE EQUITABLY
APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE TWO.  THE DECISION BELOW IN EFFECT IGNORES THAT
RULE.  IT HOLDS IMMATERIAL THE FACT THAT THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WERE
BEING DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPACT, AND DOES SO ON THE GROUND
THAT THE COMPACT IN AUTHORIZING DIVERSION AND ROTATION VIOLATED RIGHTS
AWARDED BY THE JANUARY 12, 1898 DECREE IN THE COLORADO WATER
PROCEEDING; HOLDS THAT THE DECREE AWARDED TO THE DITCH COMPANY THE
RIGHT TO DIVERT FROM THE RIVER 39 1/4 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (SUBJECT
ONLY TO THE SENIOR COLORADO PRIORITIES OF 19 SECOND FEET), EVEN IF BY
SO DOING IT EXHAUSTS THE WHOLE FLOW OF THE STREAM AND LEAVES NOTHING
FOR THE NEW MEXICO CLAIMANTS; AND HOLDS THAT THE RIGHT SO AWARDED IS A
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT WHICH THE TWO STATES, ALTHOUGH ACTING WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES, LACKED POWER TO DIMINISH OR MODIFY EXCEPT
BY A CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION.  NO SUCH
PROCEEDING WAS PROVIDED FOR IN THE COMPACT AND NONE WAS HAD OTHERWISE. 

IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE RIGHT ADJUDICATED BY THE DECREE OF JANUARY
12, 1898 TO THE DITCH COMPANY IS A PROPERTY RIGHT, INDEFEASIBLE SO FAR
AS CONCERNS THE STATE OF COLORADO, ITS CITIZENS, AND ANY OTHER PERSON
CLAIMING WATER RIGHTS THERE.  BUT THE COLORADO DECREE COULD NOT CONFER
UPON THE DITCH COMPANY RIGHTS IN EXCESS OF COLORADO'S SHARE OF THE
WATER OF THE STREAM; AND ITS SHARE WAS ONLY AN EQUITABLE PORTION
THEREOF. 

THE CLAIM THAT ON INTERSTATE STREAMS THE UPPER STATE HAS SUCH
OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL OF THE WHOLE STREAM AS ENTITLES IT TO DIVERT ALL
THE WATER, REGARDLESS OF ANY INJURY OR PREJUDICE TO THE LOWER STATE,
HAS BEEN MADE BY COLORADO IN LITIGATION CONCERNING OTHER INTERSTATE
STREAMS, BUT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY DENIED BY THIS COURT.  THE RULE OF
EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT WAS SETTLED BY KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46,
97.  IT WAS DISCUSSED AGAIN IN WYOMING V. COLORADO, 259 U.S. 419, 466,
WHERE THE COURT SAID:    "THE CONTENTION OF COLORADO THAT SHE AS A
STATE RIGHTFULLY MAY DIVERT AND USE, AS SHE MAY CHOOSE, THE WATERS
FLOWING WITHIN HER BOUNDARIES IN THIS INTERSTATE STREAM, REGARDLESS OF
ANY PREJUDICE THAT THIS MAY WORK TO OTHERS HAVING RIGHTS IN THE STREAM
BELOW HER BOUNDARY, CAN NOT BE MAINTAINED.  THE RIVER THROUGHOUT ITS
COURSE IN BOTH STATES IS BUT A SINGLE STREAM WHEREIN EACH STATE HAS AN
INTEREST WHICH SHOULD BE RESPECTED BY THE OTHER.  A LIKE CONTENTION WAS
SET UP BY COLORADO IN HER ANSWER IN KANSAS V. COLORADO AND WAS ADJUDGED
UNTENABLE.  FURTHER CONSIDERATION SATISFIES US THAT THE RULING WAS
RIGHT." 

AND IN NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 283 U.S. 336, 342-43, THE COURT SAID
OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM: 

"IT OFFERS A NECESSITY OF LIFE THAT MUST BE RATIONED AMONG THOSE WHO
HAVE POWER OVER IT.  NEW YORK HAS THE PHYSICAL POWER TO CUT OFF ALL THE
WATER WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.  BUT CLEARLY THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A
POWER TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE INTEREST OF LOWER STATES COULD NOT BE
TOLERATED.  AND ON THE OTHER HAND EQUALLY LITTLE COULD NEW JERSEY BE
PERMITTED TO REQUIRE NEW YORK TO GIVE UP ITS POWER ALTOGETHER IN ORDER
THAT THE RIVER MIGHT COME DOWN TO IT UNDIMINISHED.  BOTH STATES HAVE
REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL INTERESTS IN THE RIVER THAT MUST BE RECONCILED AS
BEST THEY MAY BE." 

THE DECREE OBVIOUSLY IS NOT RES JUDICATA SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE STATE
OF NEW MEXICO AND ITS CITIZENS WHO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO DIVERT WATER FROM
THE STREAM IN NEW MEXICO.  AS THEY WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE COLORADO
PROCEEDINGS, THEY REMAIN FREE TO CHALLENGE THE CLAIM OF THE DITCH
COMPANY THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO TAKE IN COLORADO ALL THE WATER OF THE
STREAM AND LEAVE NOTHING FOR THEM.  FN4 

SECOND.  THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE COMPACT WAS, AS THE PREAMBLE
RECITES, EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT: 

"THE STATE OF COLORADO AND THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, DESIRING TO
PROVIDE FOR THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WATERS OF THE LA PLATA
RIVER AND TO REMOVE ALL CAUSES OF PRESENT AND FUTURE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN THEM WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND BEING MOVED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF
INTERSTATE COMITY, PURSUANT TO ACTS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LEGISLATURES,
HAVE RESOLVED TO CONCLUDE A COMPACT FOR THESE PURPOSES AND HAVE NAMED
AS THEIR COMMISSIONERS:  DELPH E. CARPENTER, FOR THE STATE OF COLORADO,
AND STEPHEN B. DAVIS, JR., FOR THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, WHO HAVE AGREED
UPON THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES." 

THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO HELD THE COMPACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BECAUSE, FOR AUGHT THAT APPEARS, IT EMBODIES NOT A JUDICIAL, OR QUASI
JUDICIAL, DECISION OF CONTROVERTED RIGHTS, BUT A TRADING COMPROMISE OF
CONFLICTING CLAIMS.  THE ASSUMPTION THAT A JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL
DECISION OF THE CONTROVERTED CLAIMS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF A
COMPACT ADJUSTING THEM, RESTS UPON MISCONCEPTION.  IT IGNORES THE
HISTORY AND ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO MEANS PROVIDED BY THE
CONSTITUTION FOR ADJUSTING INTERSTATE CONTROVERSIES.  THE COMPACT - THE
LEGISLATIVE MEANS - ADAPTS TO OUR UNION OF SOVEREIGN STATES THE AGE-OLD
TREATY-MAKING POWER OF INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATIONS.  ADJUSTMENT BY
COMPACT WITHOUT A JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF EXISTING
RIGHTS HAD BEEN PRACTICED IN THE COLONIES,  FN5  WAS PRACTICED BY THE
STATES BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION,  FN6  AND HAD BEEN
EXTENSIVELY PRACTICED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR NEARLY HALF A CENTURY
BEFORE THIS COURT FIRST APPLIED THE JUDICIAL MEANS IN SETTLING THE
BOUNDARY DISPUTE IN RHODE ISLAND V. MASSACHUSETTS, 12 PET. 657, 723
25.  FN7 

THE EXTENT OF THE EXISTING EQUITABLE RIGHTS OF COLORADO AND OF NEW
MEXICO IN THE LA PLATA RIVER COULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY A
SUIT IN THIS COURT, AS WAS DONE IN KANSAS V. COLORADO, SUPRA, IN
RESPECT TO RIGHTS IN THE ARKANSAS RIVER AND IN WYOMING V. COLORADO,
SUPRA, IN RESPECT TO THE LARAMIE.  FN8  BUT RESORT TO THE JUDICIAL
REMEDY IS NEVER ESSENTIAL TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF INTERSTATE
CONTROVERSIES, UNLESS THE STATES ARE UNABLE TO AGREE UPON THE TERMS OF
A COMPACT, OR CONGRESS REFUSES ITS CONSENT.  THE DIFFICULTIES INCIDENT
TO LITIGATION HAVE LED STATES TO RESORT, WITH FREQUENCY, TO ADJUSTMENT
OF THEIR CONTROVERSIES BY COMPACT, EVEN WHERE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE WAS
THE RELATIVELY SIMPLE ONE OF A BOUNDARY.  IN TWO SUCH CASES THIS COURT
SUGGESTED "THAT THE PARTIES ENDEAVOR WITH THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO
ADJUST THEIR BOUNDARIES."  WASHINGTON V. OREGON, 214 U.S. 205, 217,
218; MINNESOTA V. WISCONSIN, 252 U.S. 273, 283.  FN9  IN NEW YORK V.
NEW JERSEY, 256 U.S. 296, 313, WHICH INVOLVED A MORE INTRICATE PROBLEM
OF RIGHTS IN INTERSTATE WATERS, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT TREATY-MAKING
BE RESORTED TO WAS MORE SPECIFIC; FN10  AND COMPACTS FOR THE
APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATER OF INTERSTATE STREAMS HAVE BEEN COMMON. 
FN11 

THIRD.  WHETHER THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATER OF AN INTERSTATE
STREAM BE MADE BY COMPACT BETWEEN THE UPPER AND LOWER STATES WITH THE
CONSENT OF CONGRESS OR BY A DECREE OF THIS COURT, THE APPORTIONMENT IS
BINDING UPON THE CITIZENS OF EACH STATE AND ALL WATER CLAIMANTS, EVEN
WHERE THE STATE HAD GRANTED THE WATER RIGHTS BEFORE IT ENTERED INTO THE
COMPACT.  THAT THE PRIVATE RIGHTS OF GRANTEES OF A STATE ARE DETERMINED
BY THE ADJUSTMENT BY COMPACT OF A DISPUTED BOUNDARY WAS SETTLED A
CENTURY AGO IN POOLE V. FLEEGER, 11 PET. 185, 209, WHERE THE COURT
SAID: 

"IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED, THAT IT IS A PART OF THE GENERAL RIGHT OF
SOVEREIGNTY, BELONGING TO INDEPENDENT NATIONS, TO ESTABLISH AND FIX THE
DISPUTED BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES; AND THE
BOUNDARIES SO ESTABLISHED AND FIXED BY COMPACT BETWEEN NATIONS, BECOME
CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL THE SUBJECTS AND CITIZENS THEREOF, AND BIND THEIR
RIGHTS; AND ARE TO BE TREATED, TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, AS THE TRUE
AND REAL BOUNDARIES.  THIS IS A DOCTRINE UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED IN THE
LAW AND PRACTICE OF NATIONS.  IT IS A RIGHT EQUALLY BELONGING TO THE
STATES OF THIS UNION; UNLESS IT HAS BEEN SURRENDERED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  SO FAR FROM THERE BEING ANY
PRETENSE OF SUCH A GENERAL SURRENDER OF THE RIGHT, IT IS EXPRESSLY
RECOGNIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND GUARDED IN ITS EXERCISE BY A SINGLE
LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION, REQUIRING THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS." 

IN RHODE ISLAND V. MASSACHUSETTS, 12 PET. 657, 725, THE COURT,
DISCUSSING THE ORIGIN AND SCOPE OF THE COMPACT CLAUSE, SAID: 

"IF CONGRESS CONSENTED, THEN THE STATES WERE IN THIS RESPECT RESTORED
TO THEIR ORIGINAL INHERENT SOVEREIGNTY; SUCH CONSENT BEING THE SOLE
LIMITATION IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION, WHEN GIVEN, LEFT THE STATES AS
THEY WERE BEFORE, AS HELD BY THIS COURT IN POOLE V. FLEEGER, 11 PET.
209; WHEREBY THEIR COMPACTS BECAME OF BINDING FORCE, AND FINALLY
SETTLED THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THEM; OPERATING WITH THE SAME EFFECT AS A
TREATY BETWEEN SOVEREIGN POWERS.  THAT IS, THAT THE BOUNDARIES SO
ESTABLISHED AND FIXED BY COMPACT BETWEEN NATIONS, BECOME CONCLUSIVE
UPON ALL SUBJECTS AND CITIZENS THEREOF, AND BIND THEIR RIGHTS; AND ARE
TO BE TREATED TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, AS THE TRUE REAL
BOUNDARIES." 

SEE ALSO GARCIA V. LEE, 12 PET. 511, 521; COFFEE V. GROOVER, 123 U.S.
1, 29, 30, 31; VIRGINIA V. TENNESSEE, 148 U.S. 503, 525. 

THE RULE AS APPLIED TO THE APPORTIONMENT BY JUDICIAL DECREE OF THE
WATER OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM WAS STATED IN WYOMING V. COLORADO, 286
U.S. 494, 508: 

"BUT IT IS SAID THAT WATER CLAIMS OTHER THAN THE TUNNEL APPROPRIATION
COULD NOT BE, AND WERE NOT, AFFECTED BY THE DECREE, BECAUSE THE
CLAIMANTS WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE SUIT OR REPRESENTED THEREIN.  IN THIS
THE NATURE OF THE SUIT IS MISCONCEIVED.  IT WAS BETWEEN STATES, EACH
ACTING AS A QUASI-SOVEREIGN AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INTERESTS AND
RIGHTS OF HER PEOPLE IN A CONTROVERSY WITH THE OTHER.  COUNSEL FOR
COLORADO INSISTED IN THEIR BRIEF IN THAT SUIT THAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS
'NOT BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES' BUT 'BETWEEN THE TWO SOVEREIGNTIES OF
WYOMING AND COLORADO'; AND THIS COURT IN ITS OPINION ASSENTED TO THAT
VIEW, BUT OBSERVED THAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS ONE OF IMMEDIATE AND DEEP
CONCERN TO BOTH STATES AND THAT THE INTERESTS OF EACH WERE INDISSOLUBLY
LINKED WITH THOSE OF HER APPROPRIATORS.  259 U.S. 468.  DECISIONS IN
OTHER CASES ALSO WARRANT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE WATER CLAIMANTS IN
COLORADO, AND THOSE IN WYOMING, WERE REPRESENTED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE
STATES AND ARE BOUND BY THE DECREE." 

FOURTH.  AS THE STATES HAD POWER TO BIND BY COMPACT THEIR RESPECTIVE
APPROPRIATORS BY DIVISION OF THE FLOW OF THE STREAM, THEY HAD POWER TO
REACH THAT END EITHER BY PROVIDING FOR A CONTINUOUS EQUAL DIVISION OF
THE WATER FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE STREAM, OR BY PROVIDING FOR
ALTERNATE PERIODS OF FLOW TO THE ONE STATE AND TO THE OTHER OF ALL THE
WATER IN THE STREAM.  TO SECURE "THE GREATEST BENEFICIAL USE OF" THE
WATER IN THE STREAM, THE COMPACT PROVIDED THAT THE WATER MAY BE
"ROTATED BETWEEN THE TWO STATES, IN SUCH MANNER FOR SUCH PERIODS, AND
TO CONTINUE FOR SUCH TIME AS THE STATE ENGINEERS MAY JOINTLY
DETERMINE."  THAT SUCH ALTERNATE ROTATING FLOW WAS THEN A MORE
EFFICIENT USE OF THE STREAM THAN IF THE FLOW HAD BEEN STEADILY DIVIDED
EQUALLY BETWEEN THE COLORADO AND THE NEW MEXICO APPROPRIATORS WAS
CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.  THAT IS, THE ROTATING SUPPLY
WHICH THE COMPACT AUTHORIZED, AND THE TWO STATE ENGINEERS AGREED UPON,
WAS CLEARLY MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE DITCH COMPANY THAN TO HAVE GIVEN TO
IT AND OTHER COLORADO APPROPRIATORS STEADILY ONE-HALF OF THE WATER IN
THE RIVER.  THE DELEGATION TO THE STATE ENGINEERS OF THE AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE WHEN THE WATERS SHOULD BE SO ROTATED WAS A MATTER OF DETAIL
CLEARLY WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT THE
AUTHORITY CONFERRED WAS ABUSED. 

FIFTH.  AS COLORADO POSSESSED THE RIGHT ONLY TO AN EQUITABLE SHARE OF
THE WATER IN THE STREAM, THE DECREE OF JANUARY 12, 1898, IN THE
COLORADO WATER PROCEEDING DID NOT AWARD TO THE DITCH COMPANY ANY RIGHT
GREATER THAN THE EQUITABLE SHARE.  HENCE THE APPORTIONMENT MADE BY THE
COMPACT CAN NOT HAVE TAKEN FROM THE DITCH COMPANY ANY VESTED RIGHT,
UNLESS THERE WAS IN THE PROCEEDINGS LEADING UP TO THE COMPACT OR IN ITS
APPLICATION, SOME VITIATING INFIRMITY.  NO SUCH INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY
HAS BEEN SHOWN.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION IN THE PLEADINGS, NO EVIDENCE
IN THE RECORD, NO SUGGESTION IN BRIEF OR ARGUMENT, THAT THE
APPORTIONMENT AGREED UPON BY THE COMMISSIONERS WAS ENTERED INTO WITHOUT
DUE ENQUIRY; OR THAT IT WAS NOT AN HONEST EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT; OR EVEN
THAT IT WAS, OR IS, INEQUITABLE.  THE FACT THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
JOINT COMMISSIONERS WAS AUTHORIZED IN 1921, THAT THEIR AGREEMENT WAS
NOT ADOPTED BY THE STATES UNTIL 1923, AND THAT IT WAS NOT APPROVED BY
CONGRESS UNTIL 1925 SHOWS THAT THERE WAS AMPLE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION
BY ALL CONCERNED.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE DITCH COMPANY, OR
INDEED ANYONE ELSE, WAS DENIED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD; OR EVEN THAT ANY WATER CLAIMANT OBJECTED TO THE TERMS OF THE
COMPACT.  IT APPEARS THAT ALTHOUGH THE STATE OF COLORADO WAS NOT
PERMITTED TO INTERVENE IN THIS LITIGATION, COLORADO V. LA PLATA RIVER &
C.C. DITCH CO., 101 COLO. 368; 73 P.2D 997, ITS ATTORNEY GENERAL
REPRESENTED THE STATE'S WATER OFFICIALS.  MOREOVER, THE COMPACT
PROVIDES IN ARTICLE VI THAT IT "MAY BE MODIFIED OR TERMINATED AT ANY
TIME BY MUTUAL CONSENT"; AND THERE IS NOT EVEN A SUGGESTION THAT EITHER
STATE, OR THE DITCH COMPANY, HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO MODIFY OR
TERMINATE IT. 

SIXTH.  THE WATER OFFICIALS RELY FOR THEIR DEFENSE UPON THE RULE
REQUIRING EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATER OF AN INTERSTATE STREAM
AND THE ACTION OF CONGRESS IN APPROVING THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE EQUITABLE
APPORTIONMENT WHICH THE STATES MADE BY THEIR COMPACTS.  THE ASSENT OF
CONGRESS TO THE COMPACT BETWEEN COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO DOES NOT MAKE
IT A "TREATY OR STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, AND NO QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF
THE CONSENT IS PRESENTED.  PEOPLE V. CENTRAL RAILROAD, 12 WALL.  455. 
A CLAIM BASED ON THE EQUITABLE INTERSTATE APPORTIONMENT OF WATER, LIKE
ONE BASED ON THE PROPER LOCATION OF A STATE BOUNDARY, IS NOT WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 237(A).  RUST LAND & LUMBER CO. V. JACKSON, 250 U.S.
71.  THE APPEAL MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED.  BUT IN HOLDING THAT THE
STATE ENGINEER AND HIS SUBORDINATES SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM TAKING
ACTION REQUIRED BY THE COMPACT THE STATE COURT DENIED AN IMPORTANT
CLAIM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHICH MAY BE REVIEWED ON CERTIORARI BY
THIS COURT UNDER SEC. 237(B).  FOR THE DECISION BELOW NECESSARILY RESTS
UPON THE PREMISE THAT AT THE TIME THE COMPACT WAS MADE COLORADO WAS
ABSOLUTELY ENTITLED TO AT LEAST 58 1/4 CUBIC FEET OF WATER PER SECOND
REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT LEFT FOR NEW MEXICO.  THE JUDGMENT CANNOT
STAND IF THIS DETERMINATION IS ERRONEOUS.  FOR WHETHER THE WATER OF AN
INTERSTATE STREAM MUST BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE TWO STATES IS A
QUESTION OF "FEDERAL COMMON LAW" UPON WHICH NEITHER THE STATUTES NOR
THE DECISIONS OF EITHER STATE CAN BE CONCLUSIVE.  KANSAS V. COLORADO,
206 U.S. 46, 95, 97-98; CONNECTICUT V. MASSACHUSETTS, 282 U.S. 660, 669
71; NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 283 U.S. 336, 342-43; WASHINGTON V. OREGON,
297 U.S. 517, 528.  JURISDICTION OVER CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING RIGHTS
IN INTERSTATE STREAMS IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THOSE CONCERNING
BOUNDARIES.  THESE HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS PRESENTING FEDERAL
QUESTIONS.  FN12 

IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
THE VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF THE COMPACT BECAUSE COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO,
THE PARTIES TO IT, ARE NOT PARTIES TO THIS SUIT AND CANNOT BE MADE SO.
THE CONTENTION IS UNSOUND.  THE CASES ARE MANY WHERE TITLE TO LAND
DEPENDENT UPON THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN STATES HAS BEEN PASSED UPON BY THIS
COURT UPON REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS OF FEDERAL AND OF STATE COURTS IN SUITS
BETWEEN PRIVATE LITIGANTS.  FN13  REVERSED.    FN1  THE COMPACT HAD ITS
INCEPTION IN 1921 WHEN THE LEGISLATURE OF EACH STATE AUTHORIZED THE
APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSIONER WHO SHALL REPRESENT THE STATE "UPON A
JOINT COMMISSION  ...  TO BE CONSTITUTED BY SAID STATES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF NEGOTIATING AND ENTERING INTO A COMPACT OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAID
STATES, WITH THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, RESPECTING THE FUTURE UTILIZATION
AND DISPOSITION OF THE WATERS OF THE LA PLATA RIVER, AND ALL STREAMS
TRIBUTARY THERETO, AND FIXING AND DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF EACH OF
SAID STATES TO THE USE, BENEFIT AND DISPOSITION OF THE WATERS OF SAID
STREAM, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY COMPACT OR AGREEMENT SO ENTERED
INTO ON BEHALF OF SAID STATES SHALL NOT BE BINDING OR OBLIGATORY UPON
EITHER OF SAID STATES OR THE CITIZENS THEREOF, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE
SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF BOTH
STATES, AND BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES."  COLO. SESSION LAWS,
1921, P. 803; SESSION LAWS OF NEW MEXICO, 1921, P. 322. 

THE COMPACT DRAFTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS WAS RATIFIED BY THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OF NEW MEXICO ON FEBRUARY 7, 1923(SESSION LAWS OF NEW MEXICO,
1923, P. 13) AND BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF COLORADO ON APRIL 13,
1923(COLORADO SESSION LAWS, 1923, P. 696.) 

THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS WAS GRANTED BY ACT OF JANUARY 29, 1925, 43
STAT. 796. 

FN2  COLORADO CONSTITUTION, ART. XVI, SEC. 5, PROVIDES:  "THE WATER
OF EVERY NATURAL STREAM, NOT HERETOFORE APPROPRIATED, WITHIN THE STATE
OF COLORADO, IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC, AND
THE SAME IS DEDICATED TO THE USE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED."  ARTICLE XVI, SEC. 6, PROVIDES
IN PART:  "THE RIGHT TO DIVERT UNAPPROPRIATED WATERS OF ANY NATURAL
STREAM TO BENEFICIAL USES SHALL NEVER BE DENIED.  PRIORITY OF
APPROPRIATION SHALL GIVE THE BETTER RIGHT AS BETWEEN THOSE USING THE
WATER FOR THE SAME PURPOSE."  FOR THE LAW OF NEW MEXICO, SEE ITS
CONSTITUTION, ART. XVI, SECS. 2 AND 3. 

FN3  THE FIRST JUDGMENT IN THE TRIAL COURT WAS ENTERED JUNE 16, 1930;
THE FIRST JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO ON JULY 3, 1933;
THE DISMISSAL BY THIS COURT OF THE FIRST APPEAL ON MARCH 12, 1934; THE
SECOND JUDGMENT IN THE TRIAL COURT ON MAY 12, 1936; THE SECOND JUDGMENT
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO ON JULY 6, 1937. 

FN4  WASHINGTON V. OREGON, 297 U.S. 517, 528.  COMPARE FOWLER V.
LINDSEY, 3 DALL.  411, 412; ARKANSAS V. TENNESSEE, 246 U.S. 158, 176. 

FN5  NINE COLONIAL BOUNDARY AGREEMENTS ARE LISTED BY FRANKFURTER AND
LANDIS, THE COMPACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION - A STUDY IN INTERSTATE
ADJUSTMENTS (1925) 34 YALE L.J. 685, 730-32. 

FN6  FIVE AGREEMENTS MADE UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION HAVE
BEEN FOUND.  SEE FRANKFURTER AND LANDIS, SUPRA NOTE 5, AT 732-34. 

FN7  NINE COMPACTS WERE APPARENTLY EXECUTED IN THIS PERIOD (ALTHOUGH
FIVE OF THESE WERE WITHOUT EXPRESS CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT).  SEE
FRANKFURTER AND LANDIS, SUPRA NOTE 5, AT 735-37, 749-52.  SEE ALSO ELY,
OIL CONSERVATION THROUGH INTERSTATE AGREEMENT (1933) 371-72, 389-91;
(JUNE 1936) 9 STATE GOVERNMENT 118; DODD, INTERSTATE COMPACTS (1936) 70
U.S.L. REV. 557, 574.  THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK IN
1833 PUT AN END TO THE BOUNDARY SUIT BEGUN IN 1829.  NEW JERSEY V. NEW
YORK, 3 PET. 461, 5 PET. 284, 6 PET. 323. 

FN8  SEE ALSO CONNECTICUT V. MASSACHUSETTS, 282 U.S. 660, 283 U.S.
789(CONNECTICUT RIVER); NEW JERSEY V. NEW YORK, 283 U.S. 336,
805(DELAWARE RIVER); WYOMING V. COLORADO, 286 U.S. 494, 298 U.S.
573(LARAMIE RIVER); WASHINGTON V. OREGON, 297 U.S. 517(WALLA WALLA
RIVER).  THREE OTHER WATER APPORTIONMENT SUITS ARE PENDING IN THIS
COURT.  COLORADO V. KANSAS, ORIGINAL NO. 6(ARKANSAS RIVER); NEBRASKA V.
WYOMING, 295 U.S. 40, ORIGINAL NO. 9(NORTH PLATTE RIVER); TEXAS V. NEW
MEXICO, ORIGINAL NO. 11(RIO GRANDE). 

FN9  THE LONG DRAWN OUT IRRITATING BOUNDARY LITIGATION, RHODE ISLAND
V. MASSACHUSETTS, 7 PET. 651; 11 PET. 226; 12 PET. 657, 755; 13 PET.
23; 14 PET. 210; 15 PET. 233; 4 HOW.  591; WAS FINALLY SETTLED BY A
COMPACT.  SEE FRANKFURTER AND LANDIS, SUPRA NOTE 5, AT 696, 737-38. 

FN10  "WE CANNOT WITHHOLD THE SUGGESTION, INSPIRED BY THE
CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE, THAT THE GRAVE PROBLEM OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL
PRESENTED BY THE LARGE AND GROWING POPULATIONS LIVING ON THE SHORES OF
NEW YORK BAY IS ONE MORE LIKELY TO BE WISELY SOLVED BY COOPERATIVE
STUDY AND BY CONFERENCE AND MUTUAL CONCESSION ON THE PART OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATES SO VITALLY INTERESTED IN IT THAN BY
PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT HOWEVER CONSTITUTED."  (P. 313.) 

FN11  CONGRESS HAS CONSENTED TO 15 SUCH COMPACTS, OF WHICH 5 HAVE
BEEN RATIFIED BY TWO OR MORE OF THE CONTRACTING STATES.  SEE STATE
GOVERNMENT, SUPRA NOTE 7, AT 120-21.  SEE ALSO ELY, SUPRA NOTE 7, AT
381-88; DODD, SUPRA NOTE 7, AT 574-78. 

FN12  CISSNA V. TENNESSEE, 246 U.S. 289, 295; COMPARE RUST LAND &
LUMBER CO. V. JACKSON, 250 U.S. 71, 76.  IN HOWARD V. INGERSOLL, 13
HOW.  381, THIS COURT REVERSED THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA'S DECISION
LOCATING THE ALABAMA-GEORGIA BOUNDARY, WHICH DEPENDED UPON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A CESSION OF TERRITORY BY GEORGIA TO THE UNITED STATES
IN 1802.  COMPARE COFFEE V. GROOVER, 123 U.S. 1.  THE DECISIONS ARE NOT
UNIFORM AS TO WHETHER THE INTERPRETATION OF AN INTERSTATE COMPACT
PRESENTS A FEDERAL QUESTION.  COMPARE PEOPLE V. CENTRAL RAILROAD, 12
WALL.  455, WITH WEDDING V. MEYLER, 192 U.S. 573, AND WHARTON V. WISE,
153 U.S. 155. 

FN13  COMPARE HANDLY'S LESSEE V. ANTHONY, 5 WHEAT.  374; HOWARD V.
INGERSOLL, 13 HOW.  381; POOLE V. FLEEGER, 11 PET. 185; COFFEE V.
GROOVER, 123 U.S. 1; ST. LOUIS V. RUTZ, 138 U.S. 226; MOORE V. MCGUIRE,
205 U.S. 214; CISSNA V. TENNESSEE, 246 U.S. 289; MARINE RY. & COAL CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 257 U.S. 47; SMOOT SAND & GRAVEL CORP. V. WASHINGTON
AIRPORT, 283 U.S. 348. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















U.S. V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, 304 U.S. 111 


NO. 668.  ARGUED MARCH 31, APRIL 1, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  -
85 CT. CLS. 331, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY NOT BE REFERRED TO FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ALTERING OR MODIFYING THE SCOPE OF UNAMBIGUOUS FINDINGS.  P.
115. 

2.  THE RIGHT OF THE SHOSHONE TRIBE IN THE LANDS SET APART FOR IT,
UNDER THE TREATY OF JULY 3, 1868, WITH THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDED THE
MINERAL AND TIMBER RESOURCES OF THE RESERVATION; AND THE VALUE OF THESE
WAS PROPERLY INCLUDED IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION DUE FOR SO
MUCH OF THE LANDS AS WAS TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES.  P. 118. 

3.  THE PHRASE "ABSOLUTE AND UNDISTURBED USE AND OCCUPATION" IN THE
TREATY IS TO BE READ, WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE TREATY, IN THE LIGHT OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE ARRANGEMENT MADE, THE RELATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES,
AND THE SETTLED POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO DEAL FAIRLY WITH THE INDIAN
TRIBES.  P. 116. 

4.  TREATIES MADE BY THE UNITED STATES WITH INDIAN TRIBES ARE NOT TO
BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY, BUT RATHER IN THE SENSE IN WHICH NATURALLY THE
INDIANS WOULD UNDERSTAND THEM.  P. 116. 

UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE OF INDIANS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 303 U.S. 629, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE INDIAN TRIBE UNDER THE SPECIAL
JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF MARCH 3, 1927.  FOR AN EARLIER PHASE OF THE CASE,
SEE 299 U.S. 476. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SHOSHONE TRIBE BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF PART OF
ITS RESERVATION TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES BY PUTTING UPON IT, WITHOUT
THE TRIBE'S CONSENT, A BAND OF ARAPAHOE INDIANS.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS
FOUND THE TAKING TO HAVE BEEN IN AUGUST, 1891, ASCERTAINED VALUE AS OF
THAT DATE, ON THAT BASIS FIXED THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION, AND GAVE
JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.  WE HELD, 299 U.S. 476, THAT THE COURT ERRED AS
TO THE DATE OF THE TAKING, DECLARED IT TO HAVE BEEN MARCH 19, 1878,
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. 
THEN THE LOWER COURT PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE TRIBE'S
RIGHT AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING, AND THE AMOUNT TO BE ADDED TO PRODUCE
THE PRESENT WORTH OF THE MONEY EQUIVALENT OF THE PROPERTY, PAID
CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE TAKING.  IT HEARD EVIDENCE, MADE ADDITIONAL
FINDINGS, AND GAVE PLAINTIFF JUDGMENT FOR $4,408,444.23, WITH INTEREST
FROM ITS DATE UNTIL PAID.  THIS COURT GRANTED WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER, AS THE UNITED STATES
CONTENDS, THE COURT OF CLAIMS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT OF THE
TRIBE INCLUDED THE TIMBER AND MINERAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE
RESERVATION. 

THE FINDINGS SHOW:  THE UNITED STATES, BY THE TREATY OF JULY 2, 1863,
SET APART FOR THE SHOSHONE TRIBE A RESERVATION OF 44,672,000 ACRES
LOCATED IN COLORADO, UTAH, IDAHO AND WYOMING.  BY THE TREATY OF JULY 3,
1868, THE TRIBE CEDED THAT RESERVATION TO THE UNITED STATES.  AND BY IT
THE UNITED STATES AGREED THAT THE "DISTRICT OF COUNTRY" 3,054,182 ACRES
DEFINITELY DESCRIBED "SHALL BE AND THE SAME IS SET APART FOR THE
ABSOLUTE AND UNDISTURBED USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE SHOSHONE INDIANS
...  , AND THE UNITED STATES NOW SOLEMNLY AGREES THAT NO PERSONS," WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT IMPORTANT HERE, "SHALL EVER BE PERMITTED TO PASS OVER,
SETTLE UPON, OR RESIDE IN" THAT TERRITORY.  THE INDIANS AGREED THAT
THEY WOULD MAKE THE RESERVATION THEIR PERMANENT HOME.  THE TREATY
PROVIDED THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE TRIBE HAVING SPECIFIED
QUALIFICATIONS, MIGHT SELECT A TRACT WITHIN THE RESERVATION WHICH
SHOULD THEN CEASE TO BE HELD IN COMMON, AND BE OCCUPIED AND HELD IN THE
EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF THE PERSON SELECTING IT, AND OF HIS FAMILY,
WHILE HE OR THEY CONTINUED TO CULTIVATE IT.  IT DECLARED:  "  ...
CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE FOR PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIAN SETTLERS
...  AND MAY FIX THE CHARACTER OF THE TITLE HELD BY EACH.  THE UNITED
STATES MAY PASS SUCH LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF ALIENATION AND DESCENT OF
PROPERTY AS BETWEEN INDIANS, AND ON ALL SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE INDIANS ON SAID RESERVATION, AND THE INTERNAL POLICE
THEREOF, AS MAY BE THOUGHT PROPER." 

THE TREATY EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION; THE UNITED STATES
AGREED TO PROVIDE A SCHOOLHOUSE AND TEACHER FOR EVERY THIRTY CHILDREN,
AND THE TRIBE PROMISED TO SEND THE CHILDREN TO SCHOOL.  THE UNITED
STATES ALSO AGREED TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTION BY A FARMER FOR MEMBERS
CULTIVATING THE SOIL, CLOTHING FOR MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE, AND A
PHYSICIAN, CARPENTER, MILLER, ENGINEER AND BLACKSMITH.  IT STIPULATED
THAT NO TREATY FOR THE CESSION OF ANY PORTION OF THE RESERVATION HELD
IN COMMON SHOULD BE VALID AS AGAINST THE INDIANS, UNLESS SIGNED BY AT
LEAST A MAJORITY OF ALL INTERESTED MALE ADULTS; AND THAT NO CESSION BY
THE TRIBE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO DEPRIVE ANY MEMBER OF HIS RIGHT TO ANY
TRACT OF LAND SELECTED BY HIM. 

WHEN THE TREATY OF 1868 WAS MADE, THE TRIBE CONSISTED OF FULL BLOOD
BLANKET INDIANS, UNABLE TO READ, WRITE, OR SPEAK ENGLISH.  UPON
CONSUMMATION OF THE TREATY, THE TRIBE WENT, AND HAS SINCE REMAINED,
UPON THE RESERVATION.  IT WAS KNOWN TO CONTAIN VALUABLE MINERAL
DEPOSITS - GOLD, OIL, COAL AND GYPSUM.  IT INCLUDED MORE THAN 400,000
ACRES OF TIMBER, EXTENSIVE WELL-GRASSED BENCH LANDS AND FERTILE RIVER
VALLEYS CONVENIENTLY IRRIGABLE.  IT WAS WELL PROTECTED BY MOUNTAIN
RANGES AND A DIVIDE, AND WAS THE CHOICEST AND BEST-WATERED PORTION OF
WYOMING. 

IN 1904 THE SHOSHONES AND ARAPAHOES CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES
1,480,000 ACRES TO BE HELD BY IT IN TRUST FOR THE SALE OF SUCH TIMBER
LANDS, TIMBER AND OTHER PRODUCTS, AND FOR THE MAKING OF LEASES FOR
VARIOUS PURPOSES.  THE NET PROCEEDS WERE TO BE CREDITED TO THE
INDIANS.  FROM 1907 TO 1919 THERE WERE ALLOTTED TO MEMBERS OF THE
TRIBES 245,058 ACRES. 

THE COURT'S FINDING OF THE ULTIMATE FACT IS:  "THE FAIR AND
REASONABLE VALUE OF A ONE-HALF UNDIVIDED INTEREST OF THE SHOSHONE OR
WIND RIVER RESERVATION OF A TOTAL OF 2,343,540 ACRES, WHICH WAS TAKEN
BY THE UNITED STATES ON MARCH 19, 1878, FROM THE SHOSHONE TRIBE OF
INDIANS FOR THE NORTHERN ARAPAHOE TRIBE, WAS, ON MARCH 19, 1878,
$1,581,889.50."  THAT IS $1.35 PER ACRE FOR 1,171,770 ACRES, ONE-HALF
OF THE RESERVATION IN 1878, AT THE TIME OF TAKING.  THE UNITED STATES
DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE PRINCIPLE OR BASIS UPON WHICH THE COURT
DETERMINED THE AMOUNT TO BE ADDED TO CONSTITUTE JUST COMPENSATION. 

THE SUBSTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POINT IS THAT IN FIXING THE VALUE
OF THE TRIBE'S RIGHT, THE LOWER COURT INCLUDED AS BELONGING TO THE
TRIBE SUBSTANTIAL ELEMENTS OF VALUE, ASCRIBABLE TO MINERAL AND TIMBER
RESOURCES, WHICH IN FACT BELONGED TO THE UNITED STATES. 

IT CONTENDS THAT THE SHOSHONES' RIGHT TO USE AND OCCUPY THE LANDS OF
THE RESERVATION DID NOT INCLUDE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TIMBER AND
MINERALS AND THAT THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW DEPARTS FROM THE
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW REGARDING INDIAN LAND TENURE AND THE UNIFORM
POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT IN DEALING WITH INDIAN TRIBES.  IT ASKS FOR
REVERSAL WITH "DIRECTIONS TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE INDIANS' RIGHT
OF USE AND OCCUPANCY BUT TO EXCLUDE THEREFROM 'THE NET VALUE OF THE
LANDS' AND 'THE NET VALUE OF ANY TIMBER OR MINERALS.'" 

THE FINDINGS ARE UNAMBIGUOUS; THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION.  THE
OPINION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY NOT BE REFERRED TO FOR THE PURPOSE
OF EKING OUT, CONTROLLING, OR MODIFYING THE SCOPE OF THE FINDINGS. 
STONE V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 380, 383.  LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 533, 539-540.  CF. AMERICAN PROPELLER CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 475, 479-480. 

IN THIS CASE WE HAVE HELD, 299 U.S. 476, 484, THAT THE TRIBE HAD THE
RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY WITH ALL ITS BENEFICIAL INCIDENTS; THAT, THE RIGHT
OF OCCUPANCY BEING THE PRIMARY ONE AND AS SACRED AS THE FEE, DIVISION
BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE SHOSHONES' RIGHT WITH THE ARAPAHOES WAS AN
APPROPRIATION OF THE LAND PRO TANTO; THAT ALTHOUGH THE UNITED STATES
ALWAYS HAD LEGAL TITLE TO THE LAND AND POWER TO CONTROL AND MANAGE THE
AFFAIRS OF THE INDIANS, IT DID NOT HAVE POWER TO GIVE TO OTHERS OR TO
APPROPRIATE TO ITS OWN USE ANY PART OF THE LAND WITHOUT RENDERING, OR
ASSUMING THE OBLIGATION TO PAY, JUST COMPENSATION TO THE TRIBE, FOR
THAT WOULD BE, NOT THE EXERCISE OF GUARDIANSHIP OR MANAGEMENT, BUT
CONFISCATION. 

IT WAS NOT THEN NECESSARY TO CONSIDER, BUT WE ARE NOW CALLED UPON TO
DECIDE, WHETHER, BY THE TREATY, THE TRIBE ACQUIRED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP
OF THE MINERALS AND TIMBER ON THE RESERVATION.  THE PHRASE "ABSOLUTE
AND UNDISTURBED USE AND OCCUPATION" IS TO BE READ, WITH OTHER PARTS OF
THE DOCUMENT, HAVING REGARD TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ARRANGEMENT MADE, THE
RELATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND THE SETTLED POLICY OF THE UNITED
STATES FAIRLY TO DEAL WITH INDIAN TRIBES.  IN TREATIES MADE WITH THEM
THE UNITED STATES SEEKS NO ADVANTAGE FOR ITSELF; FRIENDLY AND DEPENDENT
INDIANS ARE LIKELY TO ACCEPT WITHOUT DISCRIMINATING SCRUTINY THE TERMS
PROPOSED.  THEY ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED NARROWLY, AS SOMETIMES MAY BE
WRITINGS EXPRESSED IN WORDS OF ART EMPLOYED BY CONVEYANCERS, BUT ARE TO
BE CONSTRUED IN THE SENSE IN WHICH NATURALLY THE INDIANS WOULD
UNDERSTAND THEM.  WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, 582.  JONES V.
MEEHAN, 175 U.S. 1, 11.  STARR V. LONG JIM, 227 U.S. 613, 622-623. 

THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF THE TREATY WAS THAT THE SHOSHONES SHOULD
HAVE, AND PERMANENTLY DWELL IN, THE DEFINED DISTRICT OF COUNTRY.  TO
THAT END THE UNITED STATES GRANTED AND ASSURED TO THE TRIBE PEACEABLE
AND UNQUALIFIED POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN PERPETUITY.  MINERALS AND
STANDING TIMBER ARE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE LAND ITSELF.  UNITED
STATES V. COOK, 19 WALL.  591.  BRITISH-AMERICAN OIL CO. V. BOARD, 299
U.S. 159, 164-165.  FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THE TRIBE OWNED THE
LAND.  GRANTS OF LAND SUBJECT TO THE INDIAN TITLE BY THE UNITED STATES,
WHICH HAD ONLY THE NAKED FEE, WOULD TRANSFER NO BENEFICIAL INTEREST. 
LEAVENWORTH, L. & G.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 733, 742-743. 
BEECHER V. WETHERBY, 95 U.S. 517, 525.  THE RIGHT OF PERPETUAL AND
EXCLUSIVE OCCUPANCY OF THE LAND IS NOT LESS VALUABLE THAN FULL TITLE IN
FEE.  SEE HOLDEN V. JOY, 17 WALL.  211, 244.  WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 195 U.S. 540, 557. 

THE TREATY, THOUGH MADE WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WERE MINERAL
DEPOSITS AND STANDING TIMBER IN THE RESERVATION, CONTAINS NOTHING TO
SUGGEST THAT THE UNITED STATES INTENDED TO RETAIN FOR ITSELF ANY
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THEM.  THE WORDS OF THE GRANT, COUPLED WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S AGREEMENT TO EXCLUDE STRANGERS, NEGATIVE THE IDEA THAT THE
UNITED STATES RETAINED BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP.  THE GRANT OF RIGHT TO
MEMBERS OF THE TRIBE SEVERALLY TO SELECT AND HOLD TRACTS ON WHICH TO
ESTABLISH HOMES FOR THEMSELVES AND FAMILIES, AND THE RESTRAINT UPON
CESSION OF LAND HELD IN COMMON OR INDIVIDUALLY, SUGGEST BENEFICIAL
OWNERSHIP IN THE TRIBE.  AS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN A GUARDIAN AND HIS
WARDS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED FAVORABLY TO THE LATTER, DOUBTS, IF THERE
WERE ANY, AS TO OWNERSHIP OF LANDS, MINERALS OR TIMBER WOULD BE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE TRIBE.  THE CESSION IN 1904 BY THE TRIBE TO
THE UNITED STATES IN TRUST REFLECTS A CONSTRUCTION BY THE PARTIES THAT
SUPPORTS THE TRIBE'S CLAIM, FOR IF IT DID NOT OWN, CREATION OF A TRUST
TO SELL OR LEASE FOR ITS BENEFIT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNNECESSARY AND
INCONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES. 

ALTHOUGH THE UNITED STATES RETAINED THE FEE, AND THE TRIBE'S RIGHT OF
OCCUPANCY WAS INCAPABLE OF ALIENATION OR OF BEING HELD OTHERWISE THAN
IN COMMON, THAT RIGHT IS AS SACRED AND AS SECURELY SAFEGUARDED AS IS
FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE TITLE.  CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA, 5 PET. 1, 48. 
WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, SUPRA, 580.  SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY
THE TREATY, THE SHOSHONE TRIBE HAD THE RIGHT THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN
UNDERSTOOD TO BELONG TO INDIANS, UNDISTURBED POSSESSORS OF THE SOIL
FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL.  PROVISIONS IN AID OF TEACHING CHILDREN AND OF
ADULT EDUCATION IN FARMING, AND TO SECURE FOR THE TRIBE MEDICAL AND
MECHANICAL SERVICE, TO SAFEGUARD TRIBAL AND INDIVIDUAL TITLES, WHEN
TAKEN WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE TREATY, PLAINLY EVIDENCE PURPOSE ON THE
PART OF THE UNITED STATES TO HELP TO CREATE AN INDEPENDENT PERMANENT
FARMING COMMUNITY UPON THE RESERVATION.  OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WOULD
FURTHER THAT PURPOSE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF DEFINITE EXPRESSION OF
INTENTION SO TO DO, THE UNITED STATES WILL NOT BE HELD TO HAVE KEPT IT
FROM THEM.  THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO PRESCRIBE TITLE BY
WHICH INDIVIDUAL INDIANS MAY HOLD TRACTS SELECTED BY THEM WITHIN THE
RESERVATION, TO PASS LAWS REGULATING ALIENATION AND DESCENT AND FOR THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE TRIBE AND ITS PEOPLE UPON THE RESERVATION DETRACTS
NOTHING FROM THE TRIBE'S OWNERSHIP, BUT WAS RESERVED FOR THE MORE
CONVENIENT DISCHARGE OF THE DUTIES OF THE UNITED STATES AS GUARDIAN AND
SOVEREIGN. 

UNITED STATES V. COOK, SUPRA, GIVES NO SUPPORT TO THE CONTENTION THAT
IN ASCERTAINING JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE INDIAN RIGHT TAKEN, THE VALUE
OF MINERAL AND TIMBER RESOURCES IN THE RESERVATION SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. 
THAT CASE DID NOT INVOLVE ADJUDICATION OF THE SCOPE OF INDIAN TITLE TO
LAND, MINERALS OR STANDING TIMBER, BUT ONLY THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED
STATES TO REPLEVIN LOGS CUT AND SOLD BY A FEW UNAUTHORIZED MEMBERS OF
THE TRIBE.  WE HELD THAT, AS AGAINST THE PURCHASER FROM THE WRONGDOERS,
THE UNITED STATES WAS ENTITLED TO POSSESSION.  IT WAS NOT THERE DECIDED
THAT THE TRIBE'S RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY IN PERPETUITY DID NOT INCLUDE
OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND OR MINERAL DEPOSITS OR STANDING TIMBER UPON THE
RESERVATION, OR THAT THE TRIBE'S RIGHT WAS THE MERE EQUIVALENT OF, OR
LIKE, THE TITLE OF A LIFE TENANT. 

THE LOWER COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE RIGHT OF THE SHOSHONE
TRIBE INCLUDED THE TIMBER AND MINERALS WITHIN THE RESERVATION. 
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DISSENTS. 
..END :






U.S. V. KLAMATH INDIANS, 304 U.S. 119 


NO. 707.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 4, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  - 85 CT.
CLS. 451, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A TREATY BY WHICH THE KLAMATH AND OTHER TRIBES OF INDIANS CEDED
LAND WHICH THEY HAD HELD IN IMMEMORIAL POSSESSION, PART WAS RETAINED,
"UNTIL OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT," TO BE SET APART AS A
RESIDENCE FOR THE INDIANS AND "HELD AND REGARDED AS AN INDIAN
RESERVATION."  PART OF THE RESERVED LAND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROPRIATED
BY THE UNITED STATES.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE WORDS QUOTED DID NOT DETRACT FROM THE TRIBES' RIGHT OF
OCCUPANCY.  P. 122. 

(2)  IN ASCERTAINING JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND APPROPRIATED, THE
VALUE OF THE STANDING TIMBER SHOULD BE INCLUDED.  ID. 

(3)  WHILE THE UNITED STATES HAS POWER TO CONTROL AND MANAGE THE
AFFAIRS OF ITS INDIAN WARDS IN GOOD FAITH FOR THEIR WELFARE, THAT POWER
IS SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, AND DOES NOT ENABLE THE
UNITED STATES WITHOUT PAYING JUST COMPENSATION THEREFOR TO APPROPRIATE
LANDS OF AN INDIAN TRIBE TO ITS OWN USE OR TO HAND THEM OVER TO
OTHERS.  P. 123. 

(4)  THE TAKING OF PROPERTY BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE EXERTION OF
ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IMPLIES A PROMISE TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION,
I.E., VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING PLUS AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO
PRODUCE THE FULL EQUIVALENT OF THAT VALUE PAID CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH
THE TAKING.  ID. 

2.  PART OF THE UNALLOTTED PORTION OF AN INDIAN RESERVATION WAS
CONVEYED TO A ROAD COMPANY BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UNDER
AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS IN EXCHANGE FOR A RECONVEYANCE OF ALLOTTED LAND
WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVEYED BY MISTAKE.  HELD A VALID EXERTION
OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, IMPLYING A PROMISE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO
PAY JUST COMPENSATION TO THE INDIANS.  P. - . 

IT WAS NOT A CASE OF LANDS "WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED," AS TO WHICH THE
ACT OF MAY 26, 1920, WHICH FIRST CONFERRED JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE,
CONFINED THE DAMAGES TO VALUE OF THE LANDS AT TIME OF APPROPRIATION. 
P. 124. 

CONGRESS, BY THE ACT OF MAY 15, 1936, CONFERRING ADDITIONAL
JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE UPON THE COURT OF CLAIMS, INTENDED TO GRANT
TO THE INDIANS THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR CLAIM FOR JUST COMPENSATION,
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, FOR THE LAND TAKEN, JUDICIALLY DETERMINED
WITHOUT REGARD TO AN EARLIER SETTLEMENT AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
RELEASE.  P. 125. 

UNITED STATES V. KLAMATH AND MOADOC TRIBES OF INDIANS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

APPEAL, UNDER THE SPECIAL JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF MAY 15, 1936, FROM A
JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE INDIANS' CLAIM TO COMPENSATION FOR LAND TAKEN
BY THE UNITED STATES.  FOR AN EARLIER PHASE, SEE 296 U.S. 244. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CONGRESS, BY ACT OF MAY 26, 1920,  FN1  GAVE TO THE LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION OF CLAIMS OF RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THEY
SUED TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF 87,000 ACRES OF LAND ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
TAKEN FROM THEM BY THE UNITED STATES AUGUST 22, 1906.  THE COURT OF
CLAIMS MADE SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT, STATED ITS CONCLUSION OF LAW AND
DISMISSED THE CASE.  WE AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACT DID NOT
CONFER JURISDICTION OF RELEASED CLAIMS AND THAT THIS CLAIM HAD BEEN
RELEASED.  296 U.S. 244.  THEN, BY ACT OF MAY 15, 1936,  FN2  THE
CONGRESS ENACTED "THAT IN THE SUIT NUMBERED E-346(THIS SUIT) HERETOFORE
INSTITUTED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY THE KLAMATH AND MODOC TRIBES AND
YAHOOSKIN BAND OF SNAKE INDIANS UNDER AN ACT  ...  APPROVED MAY 26,
1920, JURISDICTION IS HEREBY CONFERRED UPON SAID COURT, AND IT IS
HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY RELEASE OR
SETTLEMENT, TO REINSTATE AND RETRY SAID CASE AND TO HEAR AND DETERMINE
THE CLAIMS OF THE PLAINTIFFS ON THE MERITS, AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT
THEREON UPON THE PRESENT PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS OF FACT,
WITH THE RIGHT OF APPEAL, RATHER THAN BY CERTIORARI, TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BY EITHER PARTY:  PROVIDED, THAT ANY PAYMENT
HERETOFORE MADE TO THE SAID INDIANS BY THE UNITED STATES IN CONNECTION
WITH ANY RELEASE OR SETTLEMENT SHALL BE CHARGED AS AN OFFSET, BUT SHALL
NOT BE TREATED AS AN ESTOPPEL." 

THE FINDINGS SHOW:  IN 1864 PLAINTIFFS HELD BY IMMEMORIAL POSSESSION
MORE THAN 20,000,000 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN WHAT NOW CONSTITUTES OREGON
AND CALIFORNIA.  BY AN ACT  FN3  OF MARCH 25 OF THAT YEAR THE PRESIDENT
WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONCLUDE WITH THEM A TREATY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE
COUNTRY THEY OCCUPIED.  THE TREATY WAS MADE OCTOBER 14 FOLLOWING.  FN4
A PROVISO SETS APART A TRACT RETAINED OUT OF THE COUNTRY A PART OF
WHICH WAS CEDED, TO BE HELD UNTIL OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT,
AS A RESIDENCE FOR PLAINTIFFS, WITH SPECIFIED PRIVILEGES.  RIGHTS OF
WAY FOR PUBLIC ROADS WERE RESERVED.  FN5  SHORTLY BEFORE THE TREATY WAS
MADE CONGRESS GRANTED OREGON, TO AID IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MILITARY
ROAD, THE ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS FOR THREE IN WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF THE
PROPOSED ROAD.  FN6  OREGON ACCEPTED THE GRANT AND ASSIGNED IT TO THE
ROAD COMPANY WHICH UNDERTOOK TO CONSTRUCT THE ROAD.  CONGRESS
RECOGNIZED THE ASSIGNMENT.  FN7  PATENTS WERE ISSUED TO THE STATE AND
TO THE ROAD COMPANY FOR IN ALL 420,240.67 ACRES, TITLE TO WHICH WAS
LATER ACQUIRED BY A LAND COMPANY.  EXCLUSIVE OF RIGHT OF WAY, 111,385
ACRES SO ACQUIRED BY THAT COMPANY WERE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
RESERVATION AND HAD BEEN ALLOTTED IN SEVERALTY TO MEMBERS OF THE
TRIBE.  THE UNITED STATES BROUGHT SUIT BUT FAILED TO RECOVER THAT
AREA.  FN8  CONGRESS BY ACT OF JUNE 21, 1906,  FN9  AUTHORIZED THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO EXCHANGE UNALLOTTED LANDS IN THE
RESERVATION FOR THE ALLOTTED LANDS BY MISTAKE EARLIER CONVEYED.  HE
MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE LAND COMPANY PURSUANT TO WHICH, ON AUGUST
22, 1906, IT CONVEYED THE ALLOTTED LANDS BACK TO THE UNITED STATES AND
IN RETURN THE LATTER CONVEYED TO THE COMPANY 87,000 ACRES OF UNALLOTTED
LANDS.  THAT TRANSFER WAS MADE WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF
PLAINTIFFS AND WITHOUT GIVING THEM ANY COMPENSATION FOR THE LANDS SO
TAKEN FROM THEIR RESERVATION.  LATER, HOWEVER, THE UNITED STATES PAID
THEM $108,750 FOR WHICH THEY RELEASED THEIR CLAIM.  FN10  THERE WAS
THEN UPON THE LAND 1,713,000,000 BOARD FEET OF MERCHANTABLE TIMBER OF
THE VALUE OF $1.50 PER THOUSAND; THE VALUE OF THE LANDS INCLUDING
TIMBER WAS $2,980,000.  FROM THAT AMOUNT THE COURT SUBTRACTED THE
$108,750 AND TO THE REMAINDER ADDED 5 PER CENT. PER ANNUM TO DATE OF
JUDGMENT; FROM THE TOTAL TOOK THE AMOUNT IT FOUND THE UNITED STATES
ENTITLED TO SET OFF AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM (ACT OF MAY 26, 1920, 41
STAT. 623, SEC. 2), AND AS OF JUNE 7, 1937, GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
BALANCE $5,313,347.32, WITH INTEREST ON A PART OF THAT AMOUNT UNTIL
PAID. 

1.  THE UNITED STATES CONTENDS THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
INCLUDING THE VALUE OF THE TIMBER.  THE TRACT TAKEN WAS A PART OF THE
RESERVATION RETAINED BY PLAINTIFFS OUT OF THE COUNTRY HELD BY THEM IN
IMMEMORIAL POSSESSION, FROM WHICH WAS MADE THE CESSION BY THE TREATY OF
OCTOBER 14, 1864.  THE CLAUSE DECLARING THAT THE DISTRICT RETAINED
SHOULD, UNTIL OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT, BE SET APART AS A
RESIDENCE FOR THE INDIANS AND "HELD AND REGARDED AS AN INDIAN
RESERVATION" CLEARLY DID NOT DETRACT FROM THE TRIBES' RIGHT OF
OCCUPANCY.  THE WORTH ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TIMBER WAS A PART OF THE
VALUE OF THE LAND UPON WHICH IT WAS STANDING.  PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED
TO HAVE THAT ELEMENT OF VALUE INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE COMPENSATION
FOR THE LANDS TAKEN.  UNITED STATES V. SHOSHONE TRIBE, ANTE, P. 111. 

2.  THE UNITED STATES ALSO CONTENDS THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN
ALLOWING INTEREST AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON THE UNPAID VALUE OF THE
87,000 ACRES FROM THE TIME OF THE EXCHANGE TO THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT,
AND TO SUPPORT THAT CONTENTION ARGUES THAT THERE WAS NO EXERCISE OF THE
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT OF 1920 LIMITED
RECOVERY TO THE VALUE OF THE LAND ON THE DATE OF THE TAKING, WITHOUT
INTEREST. 

IT IS APPROPRIATE FIRST TO OBSERVE THAT WHILE THE UNITED STATES HAS
POWER TO CONTROL AND MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF ITS INDIAN WARDS IN GOOD
FAITH FOR THEIR WELFARE, THAT POWER IS SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS, AND DOES NOT ENABLE THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT PAYING JUST
COMPENSATION THEREFOR TO APPROPRIATE LANDS OF AN INDIAN TRIBE TO ITS
OWN USE OR TO HAND THEM OVER TO OTHERS.  CHIPPEWA INDIANS V. UNITED
STATES, 301 U.S. 358, 375, AND CASES CITED.  NOR IS IT QUITE ACCURATE
TO SAY THAT INTEREST AS SUCH IS ADDED TO VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE
TAKING IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT JUST COMPENSATION SUBSEQUENTLY ASCERTAINED
AND PAID.  THE ESTABLISHED RULE IS THAT THE TAKING OF PROPERTY BY THE
UNITED STATES IN THE EXERTION OF ITS POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IMPLIES A
PROMISE TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION, I.E., VALUE AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING
PLUS AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE THE FULL EQUIVALENT OF THAT VALUE
PAID CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE TAKING.  JACOBS V. UNITED STATES, 290
U.S. 13, 16-17, AND CASES CITED.  THE LANDS HERE IN QUESTION ARE NOT
THE ALLOTTED AREAS MAKING UP THE 111,385 ACRES THAT THE UNITED STATES
CONVEYED BY MISTAKE AND THROUGH ERROR IN THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION, AS
ITS COUNSEL HERE SAYS, FAILED TO RECOVER.  FN11  PLAINTIFFS SEEK
COMPENSATION FOR THE 87,000 ACRES GIVEN TO THE LAND COMPANY IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE ALLOTTED AREAS WHICH THE LATTER THEN OWNED. 

HAVING BEEN INFORMED OF THE FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER
THE ALLOTTED LANDS, CONGRESS, BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1905, DIRECTED THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ASCERTAIN "ON WHAT TERMS THE SAID COMPANY
WILL EXCHANGE SUCH LANDS (THE 111,385 ACRES OF ALLOTTED LANDS) FOR
OTHER LANDS, NOT ALLOTTED TO INDIANS, WITHIN THE ORIGINAL BOUNDARIES OF
SAID RESERVATION."  FN12 THE SECRETARY HAVING REPORTED, THE CONGRESS BY
THE ACT OF JUNE 21, 1906 AUTHORIZED HIM TO EXCHANGE 87,000 ACRES OF THE
TRIBES' LANDS FOR LANDS THERETOFORE ERRONEOUSLY CONVEYED.  THE EXCHANGE
HAVING BEEN CONSUMMATED, CONGRESS BY ACT OF APRIL 30, 1908  FN13
APPROPRIATED $108,750 AS COMPENSATION.  THAT AMOUNT WAS PAID PLAINTIFFS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT; THEY GAVE THE RELEASE HERE HELD VALID, 296
U.S. 244.  THE ACT OF MAY 15, 1936 FOLLOWED. 

THE UNITED STATES ARGUES THAT THE RULE OF JUST COMPENSATION DOES NOT
APPLY BECAUSE "THE TRACT WAS LOST BY MISTAKE RATHER THAN TAKEN BY THE
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN."  BUT AS TO THE 87,000 ACRES HERE INVOLVED
THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THAT ASSERTION.  UNQUESTIONABLY CONGRESS HAD
POWER TO DIRECT THE EXCHANGE AND FOR THAT PURPOSE TO AUTHORIZE
EXPROPRIATION OF PLAINTIFFS' LANDS.  THE VALIDITY OF ITS ENACTMENTS IS
NOT QUESTIONED.  THE TAKING WAS TO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO DISCHARGE
ITS OBLIGATION, WHETHER LEGAL OR MERELY MORAL IS IMMATERIAL, TO MAKE
RESTITUTION OF THE ALLOTTED LANDS.  THE TAKING WAS IN INVITUM,
SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW, A VALID EXERTION OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER
OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  IT THEREFORE IMPLIED A PROMISE ON THE PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT TO PAY PLAINTIFFS JUST COMPENSATION.  JACOBS V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA. 

THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OF 1920 INVOKED BY THE UNITED STATES IS:
"THAT IF IT BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THE SAID SUIT
HEREIN AUTHORIZED THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS WRONGFULLY
APPROPRIATED ANY LANDS BELONGING TO THE SAID INDIANS, DAMAGES THEREFOR
SHALL BE CONFINED TO THE VALUE OF THE SAID LAND AT THE TIME OF SAID
APPROPRIATION.  ...  "  AS SHOWN ABOVE, THE 87,000 ACRES WERE TAKEN BY
VALID EXERTION OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.  THE TAKING WAS
CONSUMMATED PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF 1906; IT WAS RATIFIED BY
APPROPRIATION AND PAYMENT UNDER THE ACT OF 1908.  IT IMPLIED A PROMISE
TO PAY JUST COMPENSATION.  CLEARLY THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE NOT
"WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED." 

MOREOVER THE CONGRESS BY THE ACT OF MAY 15, 1936 INTENDED TO GRANT TO
THE PLAINTIFFS THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR CLAIM FOR JUST COMPENSATION
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE 87,000 ACRES JUDICIALLY DETERMINED
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SETTLEMENT AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RELEASE.  FN14
IT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE LOWER COURT TO DETERMINE THE CLAIM OF
PLAINTIFFS ON THE MERITS AND TO ENTER JUDGMENT THEREON "UPON THE
PRESENT PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT."  UNQUESTIONABLY THE
FINDINGS OF FACT ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  41 STAT. 623. 

FN2  49 STAT. 1276. 

FN3  13 STAT. 37. 

FN4  RATIFIED JULY 2, 1866; PROCLAIMED FEBRUARY 17, 1870.  16 STAT.
707. 

FN5  16 STAT. 708. 

FN6  ACT OF JULY 2, 1864, 13 STAT. 355. 

FN7  ACT OF JUNE 18, 1874, 18 STAT. 80. 

FN8  UNITED STATES V. DALLAS ROAD CO., 140 U.S. 599.  UNITED STATES
V. CALIFORNIA & OREGON LAND CO., 148 U.S. 31.  UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA & OREGON LAND CO., 192 U.S. 355. 

FN9  34 STAT. 325. 

FN10  THE RELEASE WAS HELD VALID IN KLAMATH INDIANS V. UNITED STATES,
296 U.S. 244. 

FN11  SEE FOOTNOTE 8, SUPRA. 

FN12  33 STAT. 1033. 

FN13  35 STAT. 70. 

FN14  A LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO THE COMMITTEE ON
INDIAN AFFAIRS ON THE PROPOSED ACT OF 1936 SAID IN PART:  "THE BILL NOW
HERE SEEKS TO AUTHORIZE 'EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION' OF THE CLAIM
OF THESE INDIANS FOR THE LAND TAKEN FROM THEIR RESERVATION AND GIVEN TO
THE CALIFORNIA & OREGON LAND CO., WHICH THE COURTS HAVE PLAINLY
INDICATED TO HAVE BEEN FOR AN INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION."  H. REP. NO.
2354, 74TH CONG., 2D SESS. 

THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS STATED:  "THE
PENDING BILL TO AMEND THE JURISDICTIONAL ACT IS LIMITED SOLELY TO THE
OBJECT OF GIVING EFFECT TO THIS SUGGESTION OF THE SUPREME COURT BY
GRANTING THE KLAMATH TRIBES THE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR CLAIM FOR JUST
COMPENSATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE TAKING OF THE 87,000 ACRES
OF THEIR LANDS JUDICIALLY DETERMINED ON ITS MERITS WITHOUT REGARD TO
THE GROSSLY INEQUITABLE SETTLEMENT HERETOFORE MADE."  H. REP. NO. 2354,
74TH CONG., 2ND SESS. 

THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS STATED:  "THE
PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS TO ENABLE THESE INDIAN TRIBES TO OBTAIN JUST
COMPENSATION FOR THE TAKING OF A PART OF THEIR RESERVATION IN THE STATE
OF OREGON BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UNDER AUTHORITY OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS APPROVED JUNE 21, 1906."  S. REP. NO. 1749, 74TH CONG., 2ND
SESS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO
PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :
























GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. U.S., 304 U.S. 126 


NO. 566.  ARGUED MARCH 28, 29, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  - 91
F.2D 898, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RULE WHICH EXEMPTS THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATES FROM THE
OPERATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS RESTS NOT UPON ANY INHERITED
NOTION OF ROYAL PREROGATIVE BUT UPON THE PUBLIC POLICY OF PROTECTING
THE PUBLIC RIGHTS, AND THEREBY THE CITIZEN, FROM INJURY THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE OF PUBLIC OFFICERS.  P. 132. 

2.  THE BENEFIT OF THIS RULE DOES NOT EXTEND TO A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN
SUING IN A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT.  P. 133. 

IN SUCH CASES, THE REASON FOR THE RULE - THE CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC
POLICY ABOVE MENTIONED - ARE ABSENT. 

3.  THE RIGHTS OF A SOVEREIGN STATE ARE VESTED IN THE STATE RATHER
THAN IN ANY PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT WHICH MAY PURPORT TO REPRESENT IT,
AND SUIT IN ITS BEHALF MAY BE MAINTAINED IN OUR COURTS ONLY BY THAT
GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT OF OUR
OWN GOVERNMENT AS THE AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT OF THE FOREIGN STATE.  P.
136. 

4.  WHAT GOVERNMENT IS TO BE REGARDED HERE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A
FOREIGN SOVEREIGN STATE IS A POLITICAL RATHER THAN A JUDICIAL QUESTION,
AND IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT OF OUR GOVERNMENT. 
THE ACTION OF THAT DEPARTMENT IN RECOGNIZING A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND
IN RECEIVING ITS DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES IS CONCLUSIVE ON ALL
DOMESTIC COURTS, WHICH ARE BOUND TO ACCEPT THAT DETERMINATION, ALTHOUGH
THEY ARE FREE TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES IN
LITIGATIONS PENDING BEFORE THEM.  P. 137. 

5.  AFTER THE OVERTHROW OF THE IMPERIAL RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THE
UNITED STATES RECOGNIZED, MARCH 22, 1917, THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF
RUSSIA; AND THEREAFTER THE UNITED STATES CONTINUED TO RECOGNIZE THE
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT AND TO RECOGNIZE, AS ITS REPRESENTATIVES IN THIS
COUNTRY, ITS AMBASSADOR AND THE FINANCIAL ATTACHE OF ITS EMBASSY,  -
UNTIL NOVEMBER 16, 1933, WHEN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, WHICH ON NOVEMBER
7, 1917, HAD OVERTHROWN THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, WAS FOR THE FIRST
TIME RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES.  AT THAT SAME TIME THE UNITED
STATES, THROUGH AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND A REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, TOOK FROM THAT GOVERNMENT AN ASSIGNMENT OF
ALL "AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE OR THAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE DUE IT, AS
THE SUCCESSOR OF PRIOR GOVERNMENTS OF RUSSIA, OR OTHERWISE, FROM
AMERICAN NATIONALS, INCLUDING CORPORATIONS  ...  "  THE UNITED STATES,
AS SUCH ASSIGNEE, THEN SUED IN A FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK TO RECOVER
FROM A NEW YORK BANK THE AMOUNT OF A DEPOSIT WHICH HAD STOOD TO THE
CREDIT OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT.  THE BANK SET UP THE NEW YORK
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CLAIMING THAT IN FEBRUARY, 1918, IT HAD OFF-SET
THE DEPOSIT AGAINST INDEBTEDNESS DUE IT BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND
THAT ON THAT DATE IT HAD REPUDIATED ALL LIABILITY ON THE DEPOSIT
ACCOUNT, AND THAT, PRIOR TO JUNE 30, 1922, IT HAD GIVEN DUE NOTICE OF
SUCH REPUDIATION TO BOTH THE FINANCIAL ATTACHE AND THE AMBASSADOR OF
THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT, THUS STARTING THE RUNNING OF THE LIMITATION
PERIOD.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT SUCH NOTICE OF REPUDIATION, GIVEN TO THE THEN DULY
RECOGNIZED DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES, WAS NOTICE TO THE RUSSIAN
STATE.  P. 139. 

(2)  THAT THE LATER RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT LEFT
UNAFFECTED THOSE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREVIOUS RECOGNITION OF THE
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH ATTACHED TO
ACTION TAKEN HERE PRIOR TO THE LATER RECOGNITION.  P. 140. 

(3)  THAT IF THE STATUTORY PERIOD HAS RUN AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES, AS ASSIGNEE, IS
LIKEWISE BARRED SINCE: 

(A)  PROOF THAT THE STATUTORY PERIOD HAD RUN BEFORE THE ASSIGNMENT
OFFENDS AGAINST NO POLICY OF PROTECTING THE DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN.  IT
DEPRIVES THE UNITED STATES OF NO RIGHT, FOR THE PROOF DEMONSTRATES THAT
THE UNITED STATES NEVER ACQUIRED A RIGHT FREE OF A PREEXISTING
INFIRMITY, THE RUNNING OF LIMITATIONS AGAINST ITS ASSIGNOR, WHICH
PUBLIC POLICY DOES NOT FORBID.  P. 141. 

(B)  ASSUMING THAT THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE BANK AND THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE BEEN ALTERED, AND THE BANK'S RIGHT TO PLEAD THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CURTAILED, BY FORCE OF AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF NOVEMBER 16, 1933, PURPORTING TO
ENLARGE THE ASSIGNED RIGHTS IN THE HANDS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO
FREE IT FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAILURE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
TO PROSECUTE ITS CLAIM WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD.  P. 142. 

(4)  EVEN THE LANGUAGE OF A TREATY WILL BE CONSTRUED, WHEREVER
REASONABLY POSSIBLE, SO AS NOT TO OVERRIDE STATE LAWS OR TO IMPAIR
RIGHTS ARISING UNDER THEM.  P. 143. 

GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 681, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION BY THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER
FROM THE PRESENT PETITIONER THE AMOUNT OF A BANK DEPOSIT WHICH THE
UNITED STATES CLAIMED AS ASSIGNEE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.  THE
MOTION WAS BASED ON THE NEW YORK STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE WHETHER, IN A SUIT AT LAW
BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER THE DEPOSIT OF A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT WITH A NEW YORK BANK, SUCH GOVERNMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE
LOCAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AS ARE PRIVATE LITIGANTS; AND, IF SO,
WHETHER THE ASSIGNMENT OF NOVEMBER 16, 1933, BY THE RUSSIAN SOVIET
GOVERNMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OF THE RIGHT OF THE FORMER TO THE BANK
ACCOUNT RESTRICTS OR OVERRIDES THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  A SUBSIDIARY QUESTION IS WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, IF OTHERWISE
APPLICABLE, WAS AFFECTED BY OUR NONRECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT
DURING THE INTERVAL OF APPROXIMATELY SIXTEEN YEARS BETWEEN RECOGNITION
OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA AND RECOGNITION OF ITS
SUCCESSOR. 

ON JULY 15, 1916, THE IMPERIAL RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OPENED A BANK
ACCOUNT WITH PETITIONER, THE GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY, A NEW YORK BANKING
CORPORATION.  ON MARCH 16, 1917, THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT WAS OVERTHROWN
AND WAS SUCCEEDED BY THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA WHICH WAS
RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES ON MARCH 22, 1917.  ON JULY 5, 1917,
MR. BORIS BAKHMETEFF WAS OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDENT AS THE
AMBASSADOR OF RUSSIA.  ON JULY 12, 1917, THE ACCOUNT BEING OVERDRAWN,
$5,000,000 WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT BY MR. SERGE UGHET, FINANCIAL
ATTACHE OF THE RUSSIAN EMBASSY IN THE UNITED STATES.  ON NOVEMBER 7,
1917, THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT WAS OVERTHROWN AND WAS SUCCEEDED BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, WHICH WILL
BE REFERRED TO AS THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.  AT THAT TIME THERE REMAINED
ON DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT THE SUM OF APPROXIMATELY $5,000,000.  ON
NOVEMBER 28, 1917, THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT DISMISSED BAKHMETEFF AS
AMBASSADOR AND UGHET AS FINANCIAL ATTACHE.  BUT THE UNITED STATES
CONTINUED TO RECOGNIZE BAKHMETEFF AS AMBASSADOR UNTIL ON JUNE 30, 1922,
HE WITHDREW FROM HIS REPRESENTATION OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. 
THEREAFTER, UNTIL NOVEMBER 16, 1933, IT CONTINUED TO RECOGNIZE THE
FINANCIAL ATTACHE, AND AFTER THE RETIREMENT OF BAKHMETEFF AS AMBASSADOR
IT RECOGNIZED THE FORMER AS CUSTODIAN OF RUSSIAN PROPERTY IN THE UNITED
STATES. 

ON NOVEMBER 16, 1933, THE UNITED STATES RECOGNIZED THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT, AND ON THAT DATE TOOK FROM IT AN ASSIGNMENT OF ALL "AMOUNTS
ADMITTED TO BE DUE THAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE DUE IT, AS THE SUCCESSOR OF
PRIOR GOVERNMENTS OF RUSSIA, OR OTHERWISE, FROM AMERICAN NATIONALS,
INCLUDING CORPORATIONS  ...  "  AFTER MAKING DEMAND UPON THE PETITIONER
FOR PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE OF THE ACCOUNT THE UNITED STATES, ON
SETEMBER 21, 1934, BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTHERN NEW YORK TO RECOVER THE DEPOSIT.  PETITIONER THEN MOVED UNDER
THE CONFORMITY ACT, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 724; NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT,
SEC. 307; AND RULES 107 AND 120 OF THE NEW YORK RULES OF CIVIL
PRACTICE, TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECOVERY WAS
BARRED BY THE NEW YORK SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION PETITIONER SUBMITTED NUMEROUS AFFIDAVITS,
TWO DEPOSITIONS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY PROOF TENDING TO SHOW THAT ON
FEBRUARY 25, 1918, IT HAD APPLIED THE BALANCE OF THE ACCOUNT AS A
CREDIT AGAINST INDEBTEDNESS ALLEGED TO BE DUE TO IT BY THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT BY REASON OF THE LATTER'S SEIZURE OF CERTAIN RUBLE DEPOSIT
ACCOUNTS OF PETITIONER IN RUSSIAN PRIVATE BANKS; THAT ON THAT DATE IT
HAD REPUDIATED ALL LIABILITY ON THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT; AND THAT IT HAD
THEN GIVEN NOTICE OF SUCH REPUDIATION TO THE FINANCIAL ATTACHE OF THE
RUSSIAN EMBASSY AND LATER BOTH TO THE FINANCIAL ATTACHE AND TO
BAKHMETEFF AS AMBASSADOR.  THE UNITED STATES SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS AND
EXHIBITS IN OPPOSITION.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONER HAD
REPUDIATED LIABILITY ON THE ACCOUNT ON FEBRUARY 25, 1918; THAT IT HAD
GIVEN DUE NOTICE OF REPUDIATION PRIOR TO JUNE 30, 1922 TO BOTH THE
FINANCIAL ATTACHE AND AMBASSADOR BAKHMETEFF; AND THAT RECOVERY WAS
BARRED BY THE APPLICABLE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF NEW YORK. 
NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 48.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONER, HOLDING THAT THE
NEW YORK STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT RUN AGAINST A FOREIGN
SOVEREIGN.  91 F.(2D) 898.  MOVED BY THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN
THE FEDERAL COURTS, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,
BOTH BECAUSE A FOREIGN, LIKE A DOMESTIC, SOVEREIGN IS NOT SUBJECT TO
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, AND ITS IMMUNITY AS IN THE CASE OF A DOMESTIC
SOVEREIGN CONSTITUTES AN IMPLIED EXCEPTION TO THAT STATUTE AND TO THE
CONFORMITY ACT; AND BECAUSE IN ANY CASE, SINCE NO SUIT TO RECOVER THE
DEPOSIT COULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED IN NEW YORK BY THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT
PRIOR TO ITS RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES, AND SINCE ACCORDING TO
NEW YORK LAW THE STATUTE DOES NOT RUN DURING THE PERIOD WHEN SUIT
CANNOT BE BROUGHT, THE PRESENT SUIT IS NOT BARRED.  IT IS INSISTED
FURTHER THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE LOCAL
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THE UNITED STATES IS NOT SO BOUND, BOTH BECAUSE
THE NEW YORK STATUTE WHICH BARS THE REMEDY BUT DOES NOT EXTINGUISH THE
RIGHT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE UNITED STATES, AND BECAUSE THE STATUTE
IS INOPERATIVE AND INEFFECTIVE SINCE IT CONFLICTS WITH AND IMPEDES THE
EXECUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND
THE UNITED STATES BY WHICH THE ASSIGNMENT WAS EFFECTED.  FINALLY, THE
GOVERNMENT ASSAILS THE FINDING OF FACT OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT
PETITIONER REPUDIATED THE LIABILITY UPON THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, AND
CONTENDS THAT NOTICE OF THE REPUDIATION GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT WAS INEFFECTIVE TO SET
THE STATUTE RUNNING AGAINST THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND IN FAVOR OF
PETITIONER. 

FIRST.  THE RULE QUOD NULLUM TEMPUS OCCURRIT REGI - THAT THE
SOVEREIGN IS EXEMPT FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS LACHES, AND FROM THE
OPERATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS - APPEARS TO BE A VESTIGIAL
SURVIVAL OF THE PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN.  SEE MAGDALEN COLLEGE CASE,
11 CO. REP. 66B, 74B; HOBART, L.C.J. IN SIR EDWARD COKE'S CASE, GODB. 
289, 295; BRACTON, DE LEGIBUS, LIB.  II, C. 5, SEC. 7.  BUT WHETHER OR
NOT THAT ALONE ACCOUNTS FOR ITS ORIGIN, THE SOURCE OF ITS CONTINUING
VITALITY WHERE THE ROYAL PRIVILEGE NO LONGER EXISTS IS TO BE FOUND IN
THE PUBLIC POLICY NOW UNDERLYING THE RULE EVEN THOUGH IT MAY IN THE
BEGINNING HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT POLICY BASIS.  COMPARE MAINE, ANCIENT
LAW (10TH ED., 1930) 32 ET SEQ. "THE TRUE REASON  ...  IS TO BE FOUND
IN THE GREAT PUBLIC POLICY OF PRESERVING THE PUBLIC RIGHTS, REVENUES,
AND PROPERTY FROM INJURY AND LOSS, BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS.  AND THOUGH THIS IS SOMETIMES CALLED A PREROGATIVE RIGHT, IT
IS IN FACT NOTHING MORE THAN A RESERVATION, OR EXCEPTION, INTRODUCED
FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, AND EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO ALL GOVERNMENTS." 
STORY, J., IN UNITED STATES V. HOAR, FED. CAS. NO. 15,373, P. 330. 
REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND INDEPENDENTLY OF THE ROYAL
PREROGATIVE ONCE THOUGHT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY IT, THE RULE IS
SUPPORTABLE NOW BECAUSE ITS BENEFIT AND ADVANTAGE EXTEND TO EVERY
CITIZEN, INCLUDING THE DEFENDANT, WHOSE PLEA OF LACHES OR LIMITATION IT
PRECLUDES; AND ITS UNIFORM SURVIVAL IN THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN
GENERALLY ACCOUNTED FOR AND JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF POLICY RATHER THAN
UPON ANY INHERITED NOTIONS OF THE PERSONAL PRIVILEGE OF THE KING. 
UNITED STATES V. KIRKPATRICK, 9 WHEAT.  720, 735; UNITED STATES V.
KNIGHT, 14 PET. 301, 315; UNITED STATES V. THOMPSON, 98 U.S. 486, 489;
FINK V. O'NEIL, 106 U.S. 272, 281; UNITED STATES V. NASHVILLE, C. & ST.
L. R. CO., 118 U.S. 120, 125.  SO COMPLETE HAS BEEN ITS ACCEPTANCE THAT
THE IMPLIED IMMUNITY OF THE DOMESTIC "SOVEREIGN," STATE OR NATIONAL,
HAS BEEN UNIVERSALLY DEEMED TO BE AN EXCEPTION TO LOCAL STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS WHERE THE GOVERNMENT, STATE OR NATIONAL, IS NOT EXPRESSLY
INCLUDED; AND TO THE CONFORMITY ACT.  SEE UNITED STATES V. THOMPSON,
SUPRA. 

WHETHER THE BENEFIT OF THE RULE SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO A FOREIGN
SOVEREIGN SUING IN A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT IS A QUESTION TO WHICH NO
CONCLUSIVE ANSWER IS TO BE FOUND IN THE AUTHORITIES.  DILIGENT SEARCH
OF COUNSEL HAS REVEALED NO JUDICIAL DECISION SUPPORTING SUCH AN
APPLICATION OF THE RULE IN THIS OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY.  THE ALLEGED
IMMUNITY WAS DOUBTED IN FRENCH REPUBLIC V. SARATOGA VICHY SPRING CO.,
191 U.S. 427, 437, AND IN COMMISSIONERS OF THE SINKING FUND V. BUCKNER,
48 FED. 533.  IT WAS REJECTED IN WESTERN LUNATIC ASYLUM V. MILLER, 29
W. VA. 326, 329; 1 S.E. 740, AND WAS DISREGARDED IN ROYAL ITALIAN
GOVERNMENT V. INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF Y.M.C.A., 273 N.Y. 468; 6
N.E.2D 407, WHERE NEITHER APPELLATE COURT DELIVERED AN OPINION. 

THE ONLY SUPPORT FOUND BY THE COURT BELOW FOR A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION
IS A REMARK IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN UNITED STATES V. NASHVILLE,
C. & ST. L.R. CO., SUPRA, WHERE ITS HOLDING THAT THE UNITED STATES,
SUING IN A FEDERAL COURT, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS, WAS SAID TO REST UPON A GREAT PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC POLICY
"APPLICABLE TO ALL GOVERNMENTS ALIKE."  THE STATEMENT IS BUT A
PARAPHRASE, WHICH HAS FREQUENTLY APPEARED IN JUDICIAL OPINION,  FN1  OF
MR. JUSTICE STORY'S STATEMENT IN UNITED STATES V. HOAR, SUPRA, ALREADY
QUOTED.  HIS REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC POLICY SUPPORTING THE RULE THAT
LIMITATION DOES NOT RUN AGAINST A DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN AS "EQUALLY
APPLICABLE TO ALL GOVERNMENTS" WAS OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED TO POINT OUT THAT
THE POLICY IS AS APPLICABLE TO OUR OWN AS TO A MONARCHICAL FORM OF
GOVERNMENT, AND IS THEREFORE NOT TO BE DISCARDED BECAUSE OF ITS FORMER
IDENTITY WITH THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE.  WE CAN FIND IN THAT PRONOUNCEMENT
AND IN ITS LATER VERSIONS NO INTIMATION THAT THE POLICY UNDERLYING
EXEMPTION OF THE DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN SUPPORTS ITS EXTENSION TO A FOREIGN
SOVEREIGN SUING IN OUR COURTS. 

IT IS TRUE THAT UPON THE PRINCIPLE OF COMITY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNS AND
THEIR PUBLIC PROPERTY ARE HELD NOT TO BE AMENABLE TO SUIT IN OUR COURTS
WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.  SEE THE EXCHANGE, 7 CRANCH 116; BERIZZI BROS.
CO. V. S.S. PESARO, 271 U.S. 562, COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. THE NAVEMAR, 303
U.S. 68.  BUT VERY DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS APPLY WHERE THE FOREIGN
SOVEREIGN AVAILS ITSELF OF THE PRIVILEGE, LIKEWISE EXTENDED BY COMITY,
OF SUING IN OUR COURTS.  SEE THE SAPPHIRE, 11 WALL.  164, 167; RUSSIAN
S. F.S. REPUBLIC V. CIBRARIO, 235 N.Y. 255; 139 N.E. 259.  BY
VOLUNTARILY APPEARING IN THE ROLE OF SUITOR IT ABANDONS ITS IMMUNITY
FROM SUIT AND SUBJECTS ITSELF TO THE PROCEDURE AND RULES OF DECISION
GOVERNING THE FORUM WHICH IT HAS SOUGHT.  EVEN THE DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN
BY JOINING IN SUIT ACCEPTS WHATEVER LIABILITIES THE COURT MAY DECIDE TO
BE A REASONABLE INCIDENT OF THAT ACT.  UNITED STATES V. THE THEKLA, 266
U.S. 328, 340, 341; UNITED STATES V. STINSON, 197 U.S. 200, 205; THE
DAVIS, 10 WALL.  15; THE SIREN, 7 WALL.  152, 159.  FN2  AS IN THE CASE
OF THE DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN IN LIKE SITUATION, THOSE RULES, WHICH MUST BE
ASSUMED TO BE FOUNDED ON PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE APPLICABLE TO
INDIVIDUALS, ARE TO BE RELAXED ONLY IN RESPONSE TO SOME PERSUASIVE
DEMAND OF PUBLIC POLICY GENERATED BY THE NATURE OF THE SUITOR OR OF THE
CLAIM WHICH IT ASSERTS.  THAT THIS IS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE
SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS IN THE MANY INSTANCES IN WHICH COURTS HAVE
NARROWLY RESTRICTED THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE NULLUM TEMPUS IN THE
CASE OF THE DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN.  FN3 IT LIKEWISE APPEARS FROM THOSE
CASES WHICH JUSTIFY THE RULE AS APPLIED TO THE UNITED STATES SUING IN A
STATE COURT, ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS SOVEREIGN WITHIN THE STATE AND
THAT INVOCATION OF THE RULE NULLUM TEMPUS PROTECTS THE PUBLIC INTEREST
THERE AS WELL AS IN EVERY OTHER STATE.  UNITED STATES V. BEEBE, 127
U.S. 338; SWEARINGEN V. UNITED STATES, 11 GILL.  & J. 373; MCNAMEE V.
UNITED STATES, 11 ARK. 148; CF. UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S.
175, 186. 

WE ARE UNABLE TO DISCERN IN THE CASE WHERE A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN, BY
SUIT, SEEKS JUSTICE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE FORUM, ANY OF THE
CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY WHICH SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE
RULE NULLUM TEMPUS TO A DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN.  THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
IS A STATUTE OF REPOSE, DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS FROM STALE AND
VEXATIOUS CLAIMS, AND TO MAKE AN END TO THE POSSIBILITY OF LITIGATION
AFTER THE LAPSE OF A REASONABLE TIME.  IT HAS LONG BEEN REGARDED BY
THIS COURT AND BY THE COURTS OF NEW YORK AS A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE, IN
ITSELF SERVING A PUBLIC INTEREST.  BELL V. MORRISON, 1 PET. 351, 360;
M'CLUNY V. SILLIMAN, 3 PET. 270, 278; CAMPBELL V. HAVERHILL, 155 U.S.
610, 617; UNITED STATES V. OREGON LUMBER CO., 260 U.S. 290; BROOKLYN
BANK V. BARNABY, 197 N.Y. 210, 227; 90 N.E. 834; SCHMIDT V. MERCHANTS
DESPATCH TRANSPORTATION CO., 270 N.Y. 287, 302; 200 N.E. 824.  DENIAL
OF ITS PROTECTION AGAINST THE DEMAND OF THE DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN IN THE
INTEREST OF THE DOMESTIC COMMUNITY OF WHICH THE DEBTOR IS A PART COULD
HARDLY BE THOUGHT TO ARGUE FOR A LIKE SURRENDER OF THE LOCAL INTEREST
IN FAVOR OF A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN AND THE COMMUNITY WHICH IT REPRESENTS. 
WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE FORUM GOES SO FAR.    WE
LAY ASIDE QUESTIONS NOT PRESENTED HERE WHICH MIGHT ARISE IF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS FOREIGN AFFAIRS, BY TREATY
OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ACTION, SHOULD UNDERTAKE TO RESTRICT THE
APPLICATION OF LOCAL STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AGAINST FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS, OR IF THE STATES IN ENACTING THEM SHOULD DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST SUITS BROUGHT BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.  WE DECIDE ONLY THAT IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ACTION THE LIMITATION STATUTES OF THE FORUM RUN
AGAINST A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT SEEKING A REMEDY AFFORDED BY THE FORUM, AS
THEY RUN AGAINST PRIVATE LITIGANTS. 

SECOND.  RESPONDENT, RELYING ON THE NEW YORK RULES THAT THE STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT RUN AGAINST A SUIT TO RECOVER A BANK ACCOUNT
UNTIL LIABILITY UPON IT IS REPUDIATED, TILLMAN V. GUARANTY TRUST CO.,
253 N.Y. 295; 171 N.E. 61, AND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT
RUN AGAINST A PLAINTIFF WHO HAS NO FORUM IN WHICH TO ASSERT HIS RIGHTS,
OSWEGO & SYRACUSE R. CO. V. STATE, 226 N.Y. 351, 359, 362; 124 N.E. 8;
CAYUGA COUNTY V. STATE, 153 N.Y. 279, 291; 47 N.E. 288; PARMENTER V.
STATE, 135 N.Y. 154, 163; 31 N.E. 1035, ARGUES THAT UNTIL RECOGNITION
OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT THERE WAS NO PERSON TO WHOM NOTICE OF
PETITIONER'S REPUDIATION COULD BE GIVEN AND NO COURT IN WHICH SUIT
COULD BE MAINTAINED TO RECOVER THE DEPOSIT. 

IT IS NOT DENIED THAT, IN CONFORMITY TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED
PRINCIPLES, THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT COULD NOT MAINTAIN A SUIT IN OUR
COURTS BEFORE ITS RECOGNITION BY THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  FOR THIS REASON ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS WAS
DENIED TO THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT BEFORE RECOGNITION.  THE PENZA, 277
FED. 91; THE ROGDAI, 278 FED. 294; RUSSIAN S.F.S. REPUBLIC V. CIBRARIO,
235 N.Y. 255; PREOBAZHENSKI V. CIBRARIO, 192 N.Y. SUPP. 275.  BUT THE
ARGUMENT IGNORES THE PRINCIPLE CONTROLLING HERE AND RECOGNIZED BY THE
COURTS OF NEW YORK THAT THE RIGHTS OF A SOVEREIGN STATE ARE VESTED IN
THE STATE RATHER THAN IN ANY PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT WHICH MAY PURPORT TO
REPRESENT IT, THE SAPPHIRE, SUPRA, 168, AND THAT SUIT IN ITS BEHALF MAY
BE MAINTAINED IN OUR COURTS ONLY BY THAT GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED BY THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT AS THE
AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT OF THE FOREIGN STATE.  JONES V. UNITED STATES,
137 U.S. 202, 212; RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 293 FED.
133, 135, AFF'D SUB NOM. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. STATE OF RUSSIA, 21
F.(2D) 396, 409; MATTER OF LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 265 U.S. 573; RUSSIAN
S.F.S. REPUBLIC V. CIBRARIO, SUPRA; MOORE, INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST,
SECS. 75, 78. 

WHAT GOVERNMENT IS TO BE REGARDED HERE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN
SOVEREIGN STATE IS A POLITICAL RATHER THAN A JUDICIAL QUESTION, AND IS
TO BE DETERMINED BY THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
OBJECTIONS TO ITS DETERMINATION AS WELL AS TO THE UNDERLYING POLICY ARE
TO BE ADDRESSED TO IT AND NOT TO THE COURTS.  ITS ACTION IN RECOGNIZING
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND IN RECEIVING ITS DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES IS
CONCLUSIVE ON ALL DOMESTIC COURTS, WHICH ARE BOUND TO ACCEPT THAT
DETERMINATION, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE FREE TO DRAW FOR THEMSELVES ITS LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES IN LITIGATIONS PENDING BEFORE THEM.  JONES V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 212; AGENCY OF CANADIAN CAR & F. CO. V. AMERICAN CAN
CO., 258 FED. 363; LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. STATE OF RUSSIA, SUPRA. 

WE ACCEPT AS CONCLUSIVE HERE THE DETERMINATION OF OUR OWN STATE
DEPARTMENT THAT THE RUSSIAN STATE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE PROVISIONAL
GOVERNMENT THROUGH ITS DULY RECOGNIZED REPRESENTATIVES FROM MARCH 16,
1917 TO NOVEMBER 16, 1933, WHEN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT WAS RECOGNIZED. 
FN4  THERE WAS AT ALL TIMES DURING THAT PERIOD A RECOGNIZED DIPLOMATIC
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RUSSIAN STATE TO WHOM NOTICE CONCERNING ITS
INTERESTS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES COULD BE COMMUNICATED, AND TO WHOM
OUR COURTS WERE OPEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSECUTING SUITS IN BEHALF OF
THE RUSSIAN STATE.  IN FACT, DURING THAT PERIOD SUITS WERE BROUGHT IN
ITS BEHALF IN BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS, WHICH CONSISTENTLY
RULED THAT THE RECOGNIZED AMBASSADOR AND FINANCIAL ATTACHE WERE
AUTHORIZED TO MAINTAIN THEM.  FN5 

WE DO NOT STOP TO INQUIRE WHAT THE "ACTUAL" AUTHORITY OF THOSE
DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES MAY HAVE BEEN.  WHEN THE QUESTION IS OF THE
RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, IT IS ENOUGH THAT OUR COURTS
HAVE BEEN OPEN TO SUIT ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIAN STATE IN WHOM THE RIGHT
TO SUE UPON THE PETITIONER'S PRESENT CLAIM WAS VESTED, AND THAT THE
POLITICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT HAS ACCORDED RECOGNITION TO A
GOVERNMENT OF THAT STATE, RECEIVED ITS DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES, AND
EXTENDED TO THEM THE PRIVILEGE OF MAINTAINING SUIT IN OUR COURTS IN
BEHALF OF THEIR STATE.  THE RIGHT AND OPPORTUNITY TO SUE UPON THE CLAIM
AGAINST PETITIONER WAS NOT SUSPENDED; AND NOTICE OF REPUDIATION OF THE
LIABILITY GIVEN TO THE DULY RECOGNIZED DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES MUST,
SO FAR AS OUR OWN COURTS ARE CONCERNED, BE TAKEN AS NOTICE TO THE STATE
WHICH THEY REPRESENTED. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, AN
ACTION WHICH FOR MANY PURPOSES VALIDATED HERE THAT GOVERNMENT'S
PREVIOUS ACTS WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORY, SEE UNDERHILL V. HERNANDEZ, 168
U.S. 250; OETJEN V. CENTRAL LEATHER CO., 246 U.S. 297; RICAUD V.
AMERICAN METAL CO., 246 U.S. 304; UNITED STATES V. BELMONT, 301 U.S.
324; DOUGHERTY V. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, 266 N.Y. 71, 84,
85; 193 N.E. 897; LUTHER V. SAGOR & CO., (1921) 3 K.B.D. 532, OPERATES
TO SET AT NAUGHT ALL THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PRIOR RECOGNITION BY
THE UNITED STATES OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS
REPRESENTATIVES, AS THOUGH SUCH RECOGNITION HAD NEVER BEEN ACCORDED. 
THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO SAYING THAT THE JUDGMENTS IN SUITS MAINTAINED
HERE BY THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT,
VALID WHEN RENDERED, BECAME INVALID UPON RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT.  THE ARGUMENT THUS IGNORES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
EFFECT OF OUR RECOGNITION OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO ITS
ACTS WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORY PRIOR TO RECOGNITION, AND THE EFFECT UPON
PREVIOUS TRANSACTIONS CONSUMMATED HERE BETWEEN ITS PREDECESSOR AND OUR
OWN NATIONALS.  THE ONE OPERATES ONLY TO VALIDATE TO A LIMITED EXTENT
ACTS OF A DE FACTO GOVERNMENT WHICH BY VIRTUE OF THE RECOGNITION, HAS
BECOME A GOVERNMENT DE JURE.  BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT RECOGNITION
RENDERS OF NO EFFECT TRANSACTIONS HERE WITH A PRIOR RECOGNIZED
GOVERNMENT IN CONFORMITY TO THE DECLARED POLICY OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. 
THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE RECOGNITION BY OUR GOVERNMENT IS THAT OUR
NATIONALS MAY BE CONCLUSIVELY ADVISED WITH WHAT GOVERNMENT THEY MAY
SAFELY CARRY ON BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND WHO ITS REPRESENTATIVES ARE. 
IF THOSE TRANSACTIONS, VALID WHEN ENTERED INTO, WERE TO BE DISREGARDED
AFTER THE LATER RECOGNITION OF A SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENT, RECOGNITION
WOULD BE BUT AN IDLE CEREMONY, YIELDING NONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF
ESTABLISHED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS IN ENABLING BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS TO
PROCEED, AND AFFORDING NO PROTECTION TO OUR OWN NATIONALS IN CARRYING
THEM ON. 

SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED NO COURT HAS SANCTIONED SUCH A DOCTRINE. 
THE NOTION THAT THE JUDGMENT IN SUITS MAINTAINED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL
SUCCESSOR GOVERNMENTS, WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., SUPRA.  AN APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF
PROHIBITION WAS DENIED BY THIS COURT.  265 U.S. 573.  WE CONCLUDE THAT
THE RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT LEFT UNAFFECTED THOSE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THE PREVIOUS RECOGNITION OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT
AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH ATTACHED TO ACTION TAKEN HERE PRIOR TO
THE LATER RECOGNITION. 

THIRD.  IF THE CLAIM OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WAS BARRED BY
LIMITATION THE UNITED STATES AS ITS ASSIGNEE CAN BE IN NO BETTER
POSITION EITHER BECAUSE OF THE RULE NULLUM TEMPUS OR BY VIRTUE OF THE
TERMS OF THE ASSIGNMENT.  WE NEED WASTE NO TIME ON REFINEMENTS UPON THE
SUGGESTED DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIGHTS AND REMEDIES, FOR WE MAY ASSUME
FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED BY THE ASSIGNMENT
WHATEVER RIGHTS THEN SURVIVED THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE AGAINST THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, AND THAT IT MAY ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS SUBJECT TO SUCH
PLEA OF LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE MADE BY PETITIONER. 

AS HAS ALREADY BEEN NOTED, THE RULE NULLUM TEMPUS RESTS ON THE PUBLIC
POLICY OF PROTECTING THE DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN FROM OMISSIONS OF ITS OWN
OFFICERS AND AGENTS WHOSE NEGLECT, THROUGH LAPSE OF TIME, WOULD
OTHERWISE DEPRIVE IT OF RIGHTS.  BUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE ADMIT OF NO APPEAL TO SUCH A POLICY.  THERE HAS BEEN NO NEGLECT OR
DELAY BY THE UNITED STATES OR ITS AGENTS, AND IT HAS LOST NO RIGHTS BY
ANY LAPSE OF TIME AFTER THE ASSIGNMENT.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
EXEMPTION OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEGLECT OF
ITS OWN AGENTS IS ENOUGH TO RELIEVE IT FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE CLAIM.  PROOF, UNDER A
PLEA OF LIMITATION, THAT THE SIX-YEAR STATUTORY PERIOD HAD RUN BEFORE
THE ASSIGNMENT OFFENDS AGAINST NO POLICY OF PROTECTING THE DOMESTIC
SOVEREIGN.  IT DEPRIVES THE UNITED STATES OF NO RIGHT, FOR THE PROOF
DEMONSTRATES THAT THE UNITED STATES NEVER ACQUIRED A RIGHT FREE OF A
PREEXISTING INFIRMITY, THE RUNNING OF LIMITATIONS AGAINST ITS ASSIGNOR,
WHICH PUBLIC POLICY DOES NOT FORBID.  UNITED STATES V. BUFORD, 3 PET.
12, 30; KING V. MORRALL, 6 PRICE 24, 28, 30. 

ASSUMING THAT THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF PETITIONER AND THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE BEEN ALTERED AND THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO PLEAD
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CURTAILED BY FORCE OF AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, WE CAN FIND NOTHING IN
THE AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF NOVEMBER 16, 1933, WHICH PURPORTS TO
ENLARGE THE ASSIGNED RIGHTS IN THE HANDS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR TO
FREE IT FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAILURE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
TO PROSECUTE ITS CLAIM WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD. 

THE AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT ARE EMBODIED IN A LETTER OF MR.
LITVINOV, PEOPLE'S COMMISSAR OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT, TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT'S LETTER OF THE SAME
DATE IN REPLY.  SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT THE DOCUMENT SIGNED IN BEHALF OF
THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT MAKES MENTION OF "AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE OR
THAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE DUE IT AS THE SUCCESSOR OF PRIOR GOVERNMENTS OR
OTHERWISE FROM AMERICAN NATIONALS, INCLUDING CORPORATIONS, COMPANIES,
PARTNERSHIPS OR ASSOCIATIONS."  IT PURPORTS TO "RELEASE AND ASSIGN ALL
SUCH AMOUNTS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES" AND THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT AGREES, PREPARATORY TO FINAL SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS BETWEEN IT
AND THE UNITED STATES AND THE CLAIMS OF THEIR NATIONALS, "NOT TO MAKE
ANY CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO  ...  (B) ACTS DONE OR SETTLEMENTS MADE BY
OR WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, OR PUBLIC OFFICIALS OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR ITS NATIONALS, RELATING TO PROPERTY, CREDITS, OR
OBLIGATIONS OF ANY GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA OR NATIONALS THEREOF."  THE
RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT IS EXPRESSED
IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: 

"I AM GLAD TO HAVE THESE UNDERTAKINGS BY YOUR GOVERNMENT AND I SHALL
BE PLEASED TO NOTIFY YOUR GOVERNMENT IN EACH CASE OF ANY AMOUNT
REALIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE RELEASE AND
ASSIGNMENT TO IT OF THE AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE, OR THAT MAY BE
FOUND TO BE DUE." 

THERE IS NOTHING IN EITHER DOCUMENT TO SUGGEST THAT THE UNITED STATES
WAS TO ACQUIRE OR EXERT ANY GREATER RIGHTS THAN ITS TRANSFEROR OR THAT
THE PRESIDENT BY MERE EXECUTIVE ACTION PURPORTED OR INTENDED TO ALTER
OR DIMINISH THE RIGHTS OF THE DEBTOR WITH RESPECT TO ANY ASSIGNED
CLAIMS, OR THAT THE UNITED STATES, AS ASSIGNEE, IS TO DO MORE THAN THE
SOVIET GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE DONE AFTER DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION - THAT
IS, COLLECT THE CLAIMS IN CONFORMITY TO LOCAL LAW.  EVEN THE LANGUAGE
OF A TREATY WHEREVER REASONABLY POSSIBLE WILL BE CONSTRUED SO AS NOT TO
OVERRIDE STATE LAWS OR TO IMPAIR RIGHTS ARISING UNDER THEM.  UNITED
STATES V. ARREDONDO, 6 PET. 691, 748; HAVER V. YAKER, 9 WALL.  32, 34;
DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 222, 230; NIELSEN V. JOHNSON, 279
U.S. 47, 52; TODOK V. UNION STATE BANK, 281 U.S. 449, 454.  THE
ASSIGNMENT LEFT UNAFFECTED THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER TO SET UP AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES THE PREVIOUS RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

FOURTH.  RESPONDENT ASSAILS THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT
THERE WAS AN UNQUALIFIED REPUDIATION BY PETITIONER OF ITS LIABILITY ON
THE ACCOUNT, AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION PRESENTS AN ELABORATE
REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.  THE EVIDENCE IS SAID TO ESTABLISH THAT
PETITIONER'S ALLEGED REPUDIATION WAS TENTATIVE AND CONDITIONAL, TO
AWAIT NEGOTIATIONS WITH A STABLE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT UPON ITS
RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES.  IF THIS CONTENTION BE REJECTED,
RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT AT LEAST THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE EVIDENCE
AND IN THE INFERENCES WHICH MAY BE DRAWN FROM IT WHICH, UNDER THE LOCAL
PRACTICE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY A FULL TRIAL RATHER THAN
SUMMARILY ON MOTION.  AS THESE QUESTIONS WERE NOT PASSED ON BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS, THE CASE WILL BE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED.    FN1  UNITED
STATES V. KNIGHT, 14 PET. 301, 315; GIBSON V. CHOUTEAU, 13 WALL.  92,
99; UNITED STATES V. THOMPSON, 98 U.S. 486, 490; FINK V. O'NEIL, 106
U.S. 272, 281. 

FN2  A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN AS SUITOR IS SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL RULES OF
THE DOMESTIC FORUM AS TO COSTS, REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS V. SOTO, 112 N.Y.
310; 19 N.E. 845; EMPEROR OF BRAZIL V. ROBINSON, 5 DOWL.  PR. 522;
OTHO, KING OF GREECE, V. WRIGHT, 6 DOWL.  PR. 12; THE BEATRICE, 36 L.J.
REP. ADM. (N.S.)  10; QUEEN OF HOLLAND V. DRUKKER, (1928) CH. 877, 884,
ALTHOUGH THE LOCAL SOVERIGN DOES NOT PAY COSTS.  UNITED STATES V.
VERDIER, 164 U.S. 213, 219.  THE FOREIGN SOVEREIGN SUING AS A PLAINTIFF
MUST GIVE DISCOVERY.  ROTHSCHILD V. QUEEN OF PORTUGAL, 3 Y. & C. EX.
594, 596; UNITED STATES V. WAGNER, L.R. 2 CH. APP. 582, 592, 595;
PRIOLEAU V. UNITED STATES, L.R. 2 EQ. 659.  A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN
PLAINTIFF "SHOULD SO FAR AS THE THING CAN BE DONE BE PUT IN THE SAME
POSITION AS A BODY CORPORATE."  REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA V. ERLANGER,
L.R. 1 CH. D. 171, 174; REPUBLIC OF PERU V. WEGUELIN, L.R. 20 EQ. 140,
141; CF. KING OF SPAIN V. HULLETT, 7 BLIGH N.S. 359, 392. 

FN3 THE PRESUMPTION OF A GRANT BY LAPSE OF TIME WILL BE INDULGED
AGAINST THE DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN.  UNITED STATES V. CHAVES, 159 U.S. 452,
464.  THE RULE NULLUM TEMPUS HAS NEVER BEEN EXTENDED TO AGENCIES OR
GRANTEES OF THE LOCAL SOVEREIGN SUCH AS MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTY BOARDS,
SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE LIKE.  METROPOLITAN R. CO. V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 132 U.S. 1; BOONE COUNTY V. BURLINGTON & MISSOURI RIVER R.
CO., 139 U.S. 684, 693.  IT HAS BEEN HELD NOT TO RELIEVE THE SOVEREIGN
FROM GIVING THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY LOCAL LAW TO CHARGE ENDORSERS OF
NEGOTIABLE PAPER, UNITED STATES V. BARKER, 12 WHEAT.  559; CF. COOKE V.
UNITED STATES, 91 U.S. 389, 398; WILBER NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES,
294 U.S. 120, 124, AND IN TAX CASES HAS BEEN NARROWLY CONSTRUED AGAINST
THE DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN.  BOWERS V. NEW YORK & ALBANY LIGHTERAGE CO. 273
U.S. 346, 350.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. KNIGHT, 14 PET. 301; FINK V.
O'NEIL, 106 U.S. 272. 

FN4  THE UNITED STATES ACCORDED RECOGNITION TO THE PROVISIONAL
GOVERNMENT MARCH 16, 1917 AND CONTINUED TO RECOGNIZE IT UNTIL NOVEMBER
16, 1933, WHEN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT WAS RECOGNIZED.  DURING THAT
PERIOD THE UNITED STATES DECLINED TO RECOGNIZE THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT OR
TO RECEIVE ITS ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE, AND SO CERTIFIED IN
LITIGATIONS PENDING IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  THE PENZA, SUPRA; THE
ROGDAI, SUPRA.  IT RECOGNIZED MR. BAKHMETEFF AS RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR FROM
JULY 5, 1917 UNTIL JUNE 30, 1922, WHEN HE RETIRED, HAVING DESIGNATED
MR. UGHET AS CUSTODIAN OF RUSSIAN PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES.  MR.
UGHET, AFTER HIS APPOINTMENT AS FINANCIAL ATTACHE APRIL 7, 1917,
CONTINUED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS SUCH BY THE UNITED STATES UNTIL NOVEMBER
16, 1933.  HE WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES AS CHARGE D'AFFAIRES
AD INTERIM, DURING THE ABSENCE OF THE AMBASSADOR FROM DECEMBER 3, 1918
TO JULY 31, 1919.  THEIR DIPLOMATIC STATUS AS STATED WAS CERTIFIED IN
THE PRESENT SUIT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WHO STATED THAT HE
CONSIDERED MR. UGHET'S STATUS UNAFFECTED BY THE TERMINATION OF THE
AMBASSADOR'S DUTIES. 

THEIR STATUS WAS CERTIFIED TO BY THE DEPARTMENT ON OCTOBER 31, 1918
AND JULY 2, 1919, RESPECTIVELY, IN RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT V. LEHIGH VALLEY
R. CO., 293 FED. 133.  MR. BAKHMETEFF'S STATUS AS AMBASSADOR WAS
CERTIFIED MAY 18, 1919 IN AGENCY OF CANADIAN CAR & FOUNDRY CO. V.
AMERICAN CAN CO., 258 FED. 363, 368; ON APRIL 6, 1920 IN THE ROGDAI,
278 FED. 294, 295; ON JUNE 24, 1919 IN THE PENZA, 277 FED. 91, 93. 
CERTIFICATE WITH RESPECT TO BOTH MR. BAKHMETEFF AND MR. UGHET WAS GIVEN
FEBRUARY 19, 1923 AND WITH RESPECT TO MR. UGHET DECEMBER 22, 1927.  ON
THE FAITH OF THE TWO LAST MENTIONED CERTIFICATES THE COURT, IN THE
LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD CASE, SUPRA, AS STATED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S BRIEF
IN THE PRESENT CASE, ORDERED TO BE PAID TO MR. UGHET APPROXIMATELY
$1,000,000, OF WHICH MORE THAN $700,000 WAS PAID TO THE UNITED STATES
TREASURER "ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST DUE ON OBLIGATIONS OF THE PROVISIONAL
GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA BY THE TREASURER." 

FN5  RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO., 293 FED. 133; 293
FED. 135, AFF'D 21 F.(2D) 396; STATE OF RUSSIA V. BANKERS' TRUST CO., 4
F.SUPP.  417, 419, AFF'D 83 F.(2D) 236.  SEE ALSO AGENCY OF CANADIAN
CAR & FOUNDRY CO. V. AMERICAN CAN CO., 258 FED. 363. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





U.S. V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 304 U.S. 144 


NO. 640.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  - 7 F.SUPP. 
500, REVERSED. 


THE FILLED MILK ACT OF CONGRESS OF MAR. 4, 1923, DEFINES THE TERM
FILLED MILK AS MEANING ANY MILK, CREAM, OR SKIMMED MILK, WHETHER OR NOT
CONDENSED OR DRIED, ETC., TO WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED, OR WHICH HAS BEEN
BLENDED OR COMPOUNDED WITH, ANY FAT OR OIL OTHER THAN MILK FAT, SO THAT
THE RESULTING PRODUCT IS IN IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF MILK, CREAM, OR
SKIMMED MILK, WHETHER OR NOT CONDENSED, DRIED, ETC.; IT DECLARES THAT
FILLED MILK, AS SO DEFINED, "IS AN ADULTERATED ARTICLE OF FOOD,
INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, AND ITS SALE CONSTITUTES A FRAUD UPON
THE PUBLIC"; AND IT FORBIDS AND PENALIZES THE SHIPMENT OF SUCH FILLED
MILK IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED FOR SHIPPING
INTERSTATE CERTAIN PACKAGES OF AN ARTICLE DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT
AS A COMPOUND OF CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK AND COCONUT OIL MADE IN THE
IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF CONDENSED MILK OR CREAM, AND FURTHER
CHARACTERIZED BY THE INDICTMENT, IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, AS "AN
ADULTERATED ARTICLE OF FOOD, INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH."  HELD: 

1.  THAT UPON ITS FACE, AND AS SUPPORTED BY JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE,
INCLUDING FACTS FOUND IN THE REPORTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES,
THE ACT IS PRESUMPTIVELY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE POWER TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS.  DEMURRER TO THE
INDICTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVERRULED.  HEBE CO. V. SHAW, 248 U.S.
297.  P. 147. 

2.  IT IS NO VALID OBJECTION THAT THE PROHIBITION OF THE ACT DOES NOT
EXTEND TO OLEOMARGARINE OR OTHER BUTTER SUBSTITUTES IN WHICH VEGETABLE
FATS OR OILS REPLACE BUTTER.  P. 151. 

3.  THE STATUTORY CHARACTERIZATION OF FILLED MILK AS INJURIOUS TO
HEALTH AND AS A FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC MAY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
CASE, BE CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION OF LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS DEEMED TO
SUPPORT THE ACT AS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER,
AIDING INFORMED JUDICIAL REVIEW BY REVEALING THE RATIONALE OF THE
LEGISLATION, AS DO THE REPORTS OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES.  P. 152. 

UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A
DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE "FILLED MILK ACT" OF
CONGRESS OF MARCH 4, 1923(C. 262, 42 STAT. 1486, 21 U.S.C. SECS. 61
63),  FN1  WHICH PROHIBITS THE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF
SKIMMED MILK COMPOUNDED WITH ANY FAT OR OIL OTHER THAN MILK FAT, SO AS
TO RESEMBLE MILK OR CREAM, TRANSCENDS THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR INFRINGES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

APPELLEE WAS INDICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN ILLINOIS FOR
VIOLATION OF THE ACT BY THE SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF CERTAIN
PACKAGES OF "MILNUT," A COMPOUND OF CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK AND COCONUT
OIL MADE IN IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF CONDENSED MILK OR CREAM.  THE
INDICTMENT STATES, IN THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE, THAT MILNUT "IS AN
ADULTERATED ARTICLE OF FOOD, INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH," AND THAT
IT IS NOT A PREPARED FOOD PRODUCT OF THE TYPE EXCEPTED FROM THE
PROHIBITION OF THE ACT.  THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THE
INDICTMENT ON THE AUTHORITY OF AN EARLIER CASE IN THE SAME COURT,
UNITED STATES V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO., 7 F.SUPP.  500.  THE CASE WAS
BROUGHT HERE ON APPEAL UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT OF MARCH 2, 1907,
34 STAT. 1246, 18 U.S. C. SEC. 682.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT HAS MEANWHILE, IN ANOTHER CASE, UPHELD THE FILLED MILK
ACT AS AN APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE POWER IN CAROLENE
PRODUCTS CO. V. EVAPORATED MILK ASSN., 93 F.(2D) 202. 

APPELLEE ASSAILS THE STATUTE AS BEYOND THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND HENCE AN INVASION OF A FIELD OF ACTION SAID TO
BE RESERVED TO THE STATES BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT.  APPELLEE ALSO
COMPLAINS THAT THE STATUTE DENIES TO IT EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
AND, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, DEPRIVES IT OF ITS PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, PARTICULARLY IN THAT THE STATUTE PURPORTS
TO MAKE BINDING AND CONCLUSIVE UPON APPELLEE THE LEGISLATIVE
DECLARATION THAT APPELLEE'S PRODUCT "IS AN ADULTERATED ARTICLE OF FOOD
INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND ITS SALE CONSTITUTES A FRAUD ON THE
PUBLIC." 

FIRST.  THE POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE IS THE POWER "TO PRESCRIBE THE
RULE BY WHICH COMMERCE IS TO BE GOVERNED," GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT. 
1, 196, AND EXTENDS TO THE PROHIBITION OF SHIPMENTS IN SUCH COMMERCE. 
REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137; LOTTERY CASE, 188 U.S. 321; UNITED
STATES V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366; HOPE V. UNITED STATES,
227 U.S. 308; CLARK DISTILLING CO. V. WESTERN MARYLAND R. CO., 242 U.S.
311; UNITED STATES V. HILL, 248 U.S. 420; MCCORMICK & CO. V. BROWN, 286
U.S. 131.  THE POWER "IS COMPLETE IN ITSELF, MAY BE EXERCISED TO ITS
UTMOST EXTENT AND ACKNOWLEDGES NO LIMITATIONS OTHER THAN ARE PRESCRIBED
BY THE CONSTITUTION."  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, SUPRA, 196.  HENCE CONGRESS IS
FREE TO EXCLUDE FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARTICLES WHOSE USE IN THE
STATES FOR WHICH THEY ARE DESTINED IT MAY REASONABLY CONCEIVE TO BE
INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, MORALS OR WELFARE, REID V. COLORADO,
SUPRA; LOTTERY CASE, SUPRA; HIPOLITE EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S.
45; HOPE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, OR WHICH CONTRAVENE THE POLICY OF THE
STATE OF THEIR DESTINATION.  KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO., 299 U.S. 334.  SUCH REGULATION IS NOT A FORBIDDEN
INVASION OF STATE POWER EITHER BECAUSE ITS MOTIVE OR ITS CONSEQUENCE IS
TO RESTRICT THE USE OF ARTICLES OF COMMERCE WITHIN THE STATES OF
DESTINATION, AND IS NOT PROHIBITED UNLESS BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  AND IT IS NO OBJECTION TO THE EXERTION OF THE
POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT ITS EXERCISE IS ATTENDED BY
THE SAME INCIDENTS WHICH ATTEND THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE
STATES.  SEVEN CASES V. UNITED STATES, 239 U.S. 510, 514; HAMILTON V.
KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES & WAREHOUSE CO., 251 U.S. 146, 156.  THE
PROHIBITION OF THE SHIPMENT OF FILLED MILK IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS A
PERMISSIBLE REGULATION OF COMMERCE, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

SECOND.  THE PROHIBITION OF SHIPMENT OF APPELLEE'S PRODUCT IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  TWENTY
YEARS AGO THIS COURT, IN HEBE CO. V. SHAW, 248 U.S. 297, HELD THAT A
STATE LAW WHICH FORBIDS THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF A PRODUCT ASSUMED
TO BE WHOLESOME AND NUTRITIVE, MADE OF CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK,
COMPOUNDED WITH COCONUT OIL, IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO SECURE A MINIMUM OF
PARTICULAR NUTRITIVE ELEMENTS IN A WIDELY USED ARTICLE OF FOOD AND TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM FRAUDULENT SUBSTITUTIONS, WAS NOT DOUBTED; AND
THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS AMPLE SCOPE FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT THAT PROHIBITION OF THE OFFENDING ARTICLE WAS AN APPROPRIATE
MEANS OF PREVENTING INJURY TO THE PUBLIC. 

WE SEE NO PERSUASIVE REASON FOR DEPARTING FROM THAT RULING HERE,
WHERE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED; AND SINCE NONE IS SUGGESTED, WE
MIGHT REST DECISION WHOLLY ON THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. 
BUT AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE ALSO SUSTAINS THE STATUTE.  IN TWENTY YEARS
EVIDENCE HAS STEADILY ACCUMULATED OF THE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH
FROM THE GENERAL CONSUMPTION OF FOODS WHICH HAVE BEEN STRIPPED OF
ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF HEALTH.  THE FILLED MILK ACT
WAS ADOPTED BY CONGRESS AFTER COMMITTEE HEARINGS, IN THE COURSE OF
WHICH EMINENT SCIENTISTS AND HEALTH EXPERTS TESTIFIED.  AN EXTENSIVE
INVESTIGATION WAS MADE OF THE COMMERCE IN MILK COMPOUNDS IN WHICH
VEGETABLE OILS HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR NATURAL MILK FAT, AND OF THE
EFFECT UPON THE PUBLIC HEALTH OF THE USE OF SUCH COMPOUNDS AS A FOOD
SUBSTITUTE FOR MILK.  THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT
THE HEARINGS WERE EMBODIED IN REPORTS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
AGRICULTURE, H.R. NO. 365, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AND THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, SEN. REP. NO. 987, 67TH CONG.,
4TH SESS.  BOTH COMMITTEES CONCLUDED, AS THE STATUTE ITSELF DECLARES,
THAT THE USE OF FILLED MILK AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR PURE MILK IS GENERALLY
INJURIOUS TO HEALTH AND FACILITATES FRAUD ON THE PUBLIC.  FN2 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH COMPELS A LEGISLATURE,
EITHER NATIONAL OR STATE, TO IGNORE SUCH EVIDENCE, NOR NEED IT
DISREGARD THE OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH AMPLY SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSIONS OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES THAT THE DANGER IS GREATLY ENHANCED WHERE
AN INFERIOR PRODUCT, LIKE APPELLEE'S, IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A
VALUABLE FOOD OF ALMOST UNIVERSAL USE, THUS MAKING FRAUDULENT
DISTRIBUTION EASY AND PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER DIFFICULT.  FN3 

HERE THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE IS INOPERATIVE UNLESS THE PRODUCT
IS "IN IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF MILK, CREAM, OR SKIMMED MILK, WHETHER
OR NOT CONDENSED."  WHETHER IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE PUBLIC WOULD BE
ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY THE PROHIBITION OF FALSE LABELS AND FALSE
BRANDING IMPOSED BY THE PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, OR WHETHER IT WAS
NECESSARY TO GO FARTHER AND PROHIBIT A SUBSTITUTE FOOD PRODUCT THOUGHT
TO BE INJURIOUS TO HEALTH IF USED AS A SUBSTITUTE WHEN THE TWO ARE NOT
DISTINGUISHABLE, WAS A MATTER FOR THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT AND NOT THAT
OF COURTS.  HEBE CO. V. SHAW, SUPRA; SOUTH CAROLINA V. BARNWELL BROS.
INC., 303 U.S. 177.  IT WAS UPON THIS GROUND THAT THE PROHIBITION OF
THE SALE OF OLEOMARGARINE MADE IN IMITATION OF BUTTER WAS HELD NOT TO
INFRINGE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN POWELL V. PENNSYLVANIA, 127 U.S.
678; CAPITAL CITY DAIRY CO. V. OHIO, 183 U.S. 238.  COMPARE MCCRAY V.
UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, 63; PURITY EXTRACT & TONIC CO. V. LYNCH,
226 U.S. 192. 

APPELLEE RAISES NO VALID OBJECTION TO THE PRESENT STATUTE BY ARGUING
THAT ITS PROHIBITION HAS NOT BEEN EXTENDED TO OLEOMARGARINE OR OTHER
BUTTER SUBSTITUTES IN WHICH VEGETABLE FATS OR OILS ARE SUBSTITUTED FOR
BUTTER FAT.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT HAS NO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, AND
EVEN THAT OF THE FOURTEENTH, APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE STATES, DOES NOT
COMPEL THEIR LEGISLATURES TO PROHIBIT ALL LIKE EVILS, OR NONE.  A
LEGISLATURE MAY HIT AT AN ABUSE WHICH IT HAS FOUND, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS
FAILED TO STRIKE AT ANOTHER.  CENTRAL LUMBER CO. V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 226
U.S. 157, 160; MILLER V. WILSON, 236 U.S. 373, 384; HALL V. GEIGER
JONES CO., 242 U.S. 539, 556; FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK V. FEDERAL
RESERVE BANK, 262 U.S. 649, 661. 

THIRD.  WE MAY ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT NO PRONOUNCEMENT OF A
LEGISLATURE CAN FORESTALL ATTACK UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
PROHIBITION WHICH IT ENACTS BY APPLYING OPPROBRIOUS EPITHETS TO THE
PROHIBITED ACT, AND THAT A STATUTE WOULD DENY DUE PROCESS WHICH
PRECLUDED THE DISPROOF IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF ALL FACTS WHICH WOULD
SHOW OR TEND TO SHOW THAT A STATUTE DEPRIVING THE SUITOR OF LIFE,
LIBERTY OR PROPERTY HAD A RATIONAL BASIS. 

BUT SUCH WE THINK IS NOT THE PURPOSE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTORY
CHARACTERIZATION OF FILLED MILK AS INJURIOUS TO HEALTH AND AS A FRAUD
UPON THE PUBLIC.  THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER IT HERE AS MORE THAN A
DECLARATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS DEEMED TO SUPPORT AND JUSTIFY
THE ACTION TAKEN AS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER,
AIDING INFORMED JUDICIAL REVIEW, AS DO THE REPORTS OF LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEES, BY REVEALING THE RATIONALE OF THE LEGISLATION.  EVEN IN THE
ABSENCE OF SUCH AIDS THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS SUPPORTING THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT IS TO BE PRESUMED, FOR REGULATORY LEGISLATION AFFECTING
ORDINARY COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS IS NOT TO BE PRONOUNCED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS MADE KNOWN OR
GENERALLY ASSUMED IT IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER AS TO PRECLUDE THE
ASSUMPTION THAT IT RESTS UPON SOME RATIONAL BASIS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE
AND EXPERIENCE OF THE LEGISLATORS.  FN4  SEE METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INS.
CO. V. BROWNELL, 294 U.S. 580, 584, AND CASES CITED.  THE PRESENT
STATUTORY FINDINGS AFFECT APPELLEE NO MORE THAN THE REPORTS OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES; AND SINCE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE STATUTORY
FINDINGS THEY WOULD BE PRESUMED, THEIR INCORPORATION IN THE STATUTE IS
NO MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN SURPLUSAGE. 

WHERE THE EXISTENCE OF A RATIONAL BASIS FOR LEGISLATION WHOSE
CONSTITUTIONALITY IS ATTACKED DEPENDS UPON FACTS BEYOND THE SPHERE OF
JUDICIAL NOTICE, SUCH FACTS MAY PROPERLY BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF
JUDICIAL INQUIRY, BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194,
AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE PREDICATED UPON THE EXISTENCE OF
A PARTICULAR STATE OF FACTS MAY BE CHALLENGED BY SHOWING TO THE COURT
THAT THOSE FACTS HAVE CEASED TO EXIST.  CHASTLETON CORPORATION V.
SINCLAIR, 264 U.S. 543.  SIMILARLY WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE, VALID ON ITS FACE, MAY BE ASSAILED BY
PROOF OF FACTS TENDING TO SHOW THAT THE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO A
PARTICULAR ARTICLE IS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN REASON BECAUSE THE ARTICLE,
ALTHOUGH WITHIN THE PROHIBITED CLASS, IS SO DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS OF
THE CLASS AS TO BE WITHOUT THE REASON FOR THE PROHIBITION, RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, 349, 351, 352; SEE
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 379; CF. MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298
U.S. 407, 413, THOUGH THE EFFECT OF SUCH PROOF DEPENDS ON THE RELEVANT
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, AS FOR EXAMPLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
DIFFICULTY OF EXCLUDING THE ARTICLE FROM THE REGULATED CLASS. 
CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495, 511-512; SOUTH
CAROLINA V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 192-193.  BUT BY THEIR VERY
NATURE SUCH INQUIRIES, WHERE THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT IS DRAWN IN
QUESTION, MUST BE RESTRICTED TO THE ISSUE WHETHER ANY STATE OF FACTS
EITHER KNOWN OR WHICH COULD REASONABLY BE ASSUMED AFFORDS SUPPORT FOR
IT.  HERE THE DEMURRER CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE ON ITS
FACE AND IT IS EVIDENT FROM ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS PRESENTED TO
CONGRESS, AND THOSE OF WHICH WE MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE, THAT THE
QUESTION IS AT LEAST DEBATABLE WHETHER COMMERCE IN FILLED MILK SHOULD
BE LEFT UNREGULATED, OR IN SOME MEASURE RESTRICTED, OR WHOLLY
PROHIBITED.  AS THAT DECISION WAS FOR CONGRESS, NEITHER THE FINDING OF
A COURT ARRIVED AT BY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE, NOR THE VERDICT OF A JURY
CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR IT.  PRICE V. ILLINOIS, 238 U.S. 446, 452; HEBE
CO. V. SHAW, SUPRA, 303; STANDARD OIL CO. V. MARYSVILLE, 279 U.S. 582,
584; SOUTH CAROLINA V. BARNWELL BROS., INC., SUPRA, 191, CITING
WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 299. 

THE PROHIBITION OF SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF APPELLEE'S
PRODUCT, AS DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT, IS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE
OF THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AS THE STATUTE IS NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE THE DEMURRER SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVERRULED
AND THE JUDGMENT WILL BE REVERSED. 

FN1  THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE STATUTE ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 61.  ...  (C) THE TERM 'FILLED MILK' MEANS ANY MILK, CREAM,
OR SKIMMED MILK, WHETHER OR NOT CONDENSED, EVAPORATED, CONCENTRATED,
POWDERED, DRIED, OR DESICCATED, TO WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED, OR WHICH HAS
BEEN BLENDED OR COMPOUNDED WITH, ANY FAT OR OIL OTHER THAN MILK FAT, SO
THAT THE RESULTING PRODUCT IS IN IMITATION OR SEMBLANCE OF MILK, CREAM,
OR SKIMMED MILK, WHETHER OR NOT CONDENSED, EVAPORATED, CONCENTRATED,
POWDERED, DRIED, OR DESICCATED.  ...    "SECTION 62.  ...  IT IS HEREBY
DECLARED THAT FILLED MILK, AS HEREIN DEFINED, IS AN ADULTERATED ARTICLE
OF FOOD, INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, AND ITS SALE CONSTITUTES A
FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO  ...
SHIP OR DELIVER FOR SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, ANY
FILLED MILK." 

THAN $1,000 OR IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BOTH  ...  " 
FN2  THE REPORTS MAY BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS:  THERE IS AN EXTENSIVE
COMMERCE IN MILK COMPOUNDS MADE OF CONDENSED MILK FROM WHICH THE BUTTER
FAT HAS BEEN EXTRACTED AND AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF VEGETABLE OIL,
USUALLY COCONUT OIL, SUBSTITUTED.  THESE COMPOUNDS RESEMBLE MILK IN
TASTE AND APPEARANCE AND ARE DISTRIBUTED IN PACKAGES RESEMBLING THOSE
IN WHICH PURE CONDENSED MILK IS DISTRIBUTED.  BY REASON OF THE
EXTRACTION OF THE NATURAL MILK FAT THE COMPOUNDED PRODUCT CAN BE
MANUFACTURED AND SOLD AT A LOWER COST THAN PURE MILK.  BUTTER FAT,
WHICH CONSTITUTES AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE FOOD VALUE OF PURE MILK, IS
RICH IN VITAMINS, FOOD ELEMENTS WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO PROPER NUTRITION
AND ARE WANTING IN VEGETABLE OILS.  THE USE OF FILLED MILK AS A DIETARY
SUBSTITUTE FOR PURE MILK RESULTS, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF CHILDREN,
IN UNDERNOURISHMENT, AND INDUCES DISEASES WHICH ATTEND MALNUTRITION. 
DESPITE COMPLIANCE WITH THE BRANDING AND LABELING REQUIREMENTS OF THE
PURE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, THERE IS WIDESPREAD USE OF FILLED MILK AS A
FOOD SUBSTITUTE FOR PURE MILK.  THIS IS AIDED BY THEIR IDENTICAL TASTE
AND APPEARANCE, BY THE SIMILARITY OF THE CONTAINERS IN WHICH THEY ARE
SOLD, BY THE PRACTICE OF DEALERS IN OFFERING THE INFERIOR PRODUCT TO
CUSTOMERS AS BEING AS GOOD AS OR BETTER THAN PURE CONDENSED MILK SOLD
AT A HIGHER PRICE, BY CUSTOMERS' IGNORANCE OF THE RESPECTIVE FOOD
VALUES OF THE TWO PRODUCTS, AND IN MANY SECTIONS OF THE COUNTRY BY
THEIR INABILITY TO READ THE LABELS PLACED ON THE CONTAINERS.  LARGE
AMOUNTS OF FILLED MILK, MUCH OF IT SHIPPED AND SOLD IN BULK, ARE
PURCHASED BY HOTELS AND BOARDING HOUSES, AND BY MANUFACTURERS OF FOOD
PRODUCTS, SUCH AS ICE CREAM, TO WHOSE CUSTOMERS LABELING RESTRICTIONS
AFFORD NO PROTECTION. 

FN3  THERE IS NOW AN EXTENSIVE LITERATURE INDICATING WIDE RECOGNITION
BY SCIENTISTS AND DIETITIANS OF THE GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC
HEALTH OF BUTTER FAT AND WHOLE MILK AS THE PRIME SOURCE OF VITAMINS,
WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL GROWTH PRODUCING AND DISEASE PREVENTING ELEMENTS IN
THE DIET.  SEE DR. HENRY C. SHERMAN, THE MEANING OF VITAMIN A, IN
SCIENCE, DEC. 21, 1928, P. 619; DR. E. V. MCCOLLUM ET AL., THE NEWER
KNOWLEDGE OF NUTRITION (1929 ED.), PP. 134, 170, 176, 177; DR. A. S.
ROOT, FOOD VITAMINS (N. CAR.  STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, MAY 1931), P. 2;
DR. HENRY C. SHERMAN, CHEMISTRY OF FOOD AND NUTRITION (1932), P. 367;
DR. MARY S. ROSE, THE FOUNDATIONS OF NUTRITION (1933), P. 237. 

WHEN THE FILLED MILK ACT WAS PASSED, ELEVEN STATES HAD RIGIDLY
CONTROLLED THE EXPLOITATION OF FILLED MILK, OR FORBIDDEN IT
ALTOGETHER.  H.R. 365, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS.  SOME THIRTY-FIVE STATES
HAVE NOW ADOPTED LAWS WHICH IN TERMS, OR BY THEIR OPERATION, PROHIBIT
THE SALE OF FILLED MILK.  ALA. AGRI.  CODE, 1927, SEC. 51, ART. 8;
ARIZ. REV. CODE, 1936 SUPP., SEC. 943Y; POPE'S ARK. DIG.  1937, SEC.
3103; DEERING'S CAL. CODE, 1933 SUPP., TIT. 149, ACT 1943, P. 1302;
CONN. GEN. STAT., 1930, SEC. 2487, C. 135; DEL. REV. CODE, 1935, SEC.
649; FLA. COMP. GEN. LAWS, 1927, SECS. 3216, 7676; GA. CODE, 1933, SEC.
42-511; IDAHO CODE, 1932, TIT. 36, SECS. 502-504; JONES ILL. STAT.
ANN., 1937 SUPP., SEC. 53.020(1), (2), (3); BURNS IND. STAT., 1933,
SEC. 35-1203; IOWA CODE, 1935, SEC. 3062; KAN. GEN. STAT., 1935, C. 65,
SEC. 707; MD. ANN. CODE, ART. 27, SEC. 281; MASS. ANN. LAWS, 1933, SEC.
17-A, C. 94; MICH. COMP. LAWS, 1929, SEC. 5358; MASON'S MINN. STAT.,
1927, SEC. 3926; MO. REV. STAT., 1929, SECS. 12408-12413; MONT. REV.
CODE, ANDERSON AND MCFARLAND, 1935, C. 240, SEC. 2620.39; NEB. COMP.
STAT., 1929, SEC. 81-1022; N.H. PUB. L. 1926, V. 1, C. 163, SEC. 37, P.
619; N.J. COMP. STAT., 1911-1924, SEC. 81-8J, P. 1400; CAHILL'S N.Y.
CONS.  LAWS, 1930, SEC. 60, C. 1; N.D. COMP. LAWS, 1913-1925, POL. 
CODE, C. 38, SEC. 2855(A) 1; PAGE'S OHIO GEN. CODE, SEC. 12725;
PURDON'S PENNA.  STAT., 1936, TIT. 31, SECS. 553, 582; S.D. COMP. LAWS,
1929, C. 192, SEC. 7926-0, P. 2493; WILLIAMS TENN. CODE, 1934, C. 15,
SECS. 6549, 6551; VERNON'S TEX. PEN.  CODE, TIT. 12, C. 2, ART. 713A;
UTAH REV. STAT., 1933, SECS. 3-10-59, 3-10-60; VT. PUB. L., 1933, TIT.
34, C. 303, SEC. 7724, P. 1288; VA. 1936 CODE, SEC. 1197C; W. VA. 1932
CODE, SEC. 2036; WIS. STAT., 11TH ED. 1931, C. 98, SEC. 98.07, P. 1156;
CF. N. MEX.  ANN.  STAT., 1929, SECS. 25-104, 25-108.  THREE OTHERS
HAVE SUBJECTED ITS SALE TO RIGID REGULATIONS.  COLO. L. 1921, C. 30,
SEC. 1007, P. 440; ORE.  1930 CODE, V. 2, C. XII, SECS. 41-1208 TO 41
1210; REMINGTON'S WASH. REV. STAT., V. 7, TIT. 40, C. 13, SECS. 6206,
6207, 6713, 6714, P. 360, ET SEQ. 

FN4  THERE MAY BE NARROWER SCOPE FOR OPERATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF
CONSTITUTIONALITY WHEN LEGISLATION APPEARS ON ITS FACE TO BE WITHIN A
SPECIFIC PROHIBITION OF THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH AS THOSE OF THE FIRST
TEN AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE DEEMED EQUALLY SPECIFIC WHEN HELD TO BE
EMBRACED WITHIN THE FOURTEENTH.  SEE STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S.
359, 369-370; LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444, 452. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER NOW WHETHER LEGISLATION WHICH RESTRICTS
THOSE POLITICAL PROCESSES WHICH CAN ORDINARILY BE EXPECTED TO BRING
ABOUT REPEAL OF UNDESIRABLE LEGISLATION, IS TO BE SUBJECTED TO MORE
EXACTING JUDICIAL SCRUTINY UNDER THE GENERAL PROHIBITIONS OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT THAN ARE MOST OTHER TYPES OF LEGISLATION.  ON
RESTRICTIONS UPON THE RIGHT TO VOTE, SEE NIXON V. HERNDON, 273 U.S.
536; NIXON V. CONDON, 286 U.S. 73; ON RESTRAINTS UPON THE DISSEMINATION
OF INFORMATION, SEE NEAR V. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, 283 U.S. 697, 713
714, 718-720, 722; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233; LOVELL
V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA; ON INTERFERENCES WITH POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS, SEE
STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, SUPRA, 369; FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380;
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 373-378; HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301
U.S. 242; AND SEE HOLMES, J., IN GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 673;
AS TO PROHIBITION OF PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY, SEE DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299
U.S. 353, 365. 

NOR NEED WE ENQUIRE WHETHER SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS ENTER INTO THE
REVIEW OF STATUTES DIRECTED AT PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS, PIERCE V. SOCIETY
OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, OR NATIONAL, MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390;
BARTELS V. IOWA, 262 U.S. 404; FARRINGTON V. TOKUSHIGE, 273 U.S. 484,
OR RACIAL MINORITIES, NIXON V. HERNDON, SUPRA; NIXON V. CONDON, SUPRA:
WHETHER PREJUDICE AGAINST DISCRETE AND INSULAR MINORITIES MAY BE A
SPECIAL CONDITION, WHICH TENDS SERIOUSLY TO CURTAIL THE OPERATION OF
THOSE POLITICAL PROCESSES ORDINARILY TO BE RELIED UPON TO PROTECT
MINORITIES, AND WHICH MAY CALL FOR A CORRESPONDINGLY MORE SEARCHING
JUDICIAL INQUIRY.  COMPARE MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 428;
SOUTH CAROLINA V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177, 184, N. 2, AND CASES
CITED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT AND IN ALL OF THE OPINION
EXCEPT THE PART MARKED "THIRD." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS THINKS THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT.  PRIMA FACIE THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE
INDICTMENT ARE SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE. 
BUT THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENT CONCLUSIVELY TO ESTABLISH GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED.  AT THE TRIAL IT MAY INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE
DECLARATION OF THE ACT THAT THE DESCRIBED PRODUCT IS INJURIOUS TO
PUBLIC HEALTH AND THAT THE SALE OF IT IS A FRAUD UPON THE PUBLIC ARE
WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL FOUNDATION.  MOBILE, J. & K.C.R. CO. V.
TURNIPSEED, 219 U.S. 35, 43.  MANLEY V. GEORGIA, 279 U.S. 1, 6.  THE
PROVISIONS ON WHICH THE INDICTMENT RESTS SHOULD IF POSSIBLE BE
CONSTRUED TO AVOID THE SERIOUS QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.  FEDERAL
TRADE COMM'N V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298, 307.  PANAMA R. CO.
V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375, 390.  MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. BOONE, 270
U.S. 466, 472.  RICHMOND CO. V. UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 331, 346.  IF
CONSTRUED TO EXCLUDE FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHOLESOME FOOD PRODUCTS
THAT DEMONSTRABLY ARE NEITHER INJURIOUS TO HEALTH NOR CALCULATED TO
DECEIVE, THEY ARE REPUGNANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  WEAVER V. PALMER
BROS. CO., 270 U.S. 402, 412-13.  SEE PEOPLE V. CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO.,
345 ILL. 166.  CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 365 ILL. 62; 5
N.E.2D 447.  CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. THOMSON, 276 MICH. 172; 267 N.W.
608.  CAROLENE PRODUCTS CO. V. BANNING, 131 NEB. 429; 268 N.W. 313. 
THE ALLEGATION OF THE INDICTMENT THAT MILNUT "IS AN ADULTERATED ARTICLE
OF FOOD, INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH," TENDERS AN ISSUE OF FACT TO
BE DETERMINED UPON EVIDENCE. 
..END :



















U.S. V. PAN AMERICAN CORP., 304 U.S. 156 


NO. 514.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 30, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 25, 1938.  - 18
F.SUPP.  624, REVERSED. 


1.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DID NOT EXCEED THE POWERS
CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, IN ORDERING CARRIERS
SERVING CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL PLANTS TO DISCONTINUE THE PRACTICE OF MAKING
ALLOWANCES ON THE LINE-HAUL RATES TO THE OWNERS OF THE PLANTS FOR
MOVING, WITH PLANT FACILITIES, CARS BETWEEN INTERCHANGE TRACKS AND
POINTS WITHIN THE PLANTS, THE COMMISSION HAVING FOUND, IN RESPECT OF
EACH OF THE PLANTS INVOLVED, THAT THE CARRIER'S OBLIGATION OF DELIVERY
WAS FULFILLED BY PLACING OR RECEIVING CARS ON THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS
AND THAT THE MOVING AND SPOTTING OF CARS IN THE PLANTS FORMED NO PART
OF THE SERVICE COVERED BY THE LINE-HAUL RATE.  UNITED STATES V.
AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S. 402.  P. 158. 

2.  EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS AND ORDERS IN EACH OF THE CASES HERE INVOLVED WERE SUPPORTED
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  ID. 

3.  THE VALUE AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ON QUESTIONS OF FACT, AND
THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN THEREFROM, ARE FOR THE COMMISSION, AND ITS
DETERMINATION THEREOF IS CONCLUSIVE.  ID. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 530, UNITED STATES ET AL. V. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING
CO. ET AL., ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 

APPEALS FROM DECREES OF SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED DISTRICT COURTS,
SETTING ASIDE AND ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE APPEALS ARE FROM DECREES OF SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED DISTRICT
COURTS, SETTING ASIDE AND ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN NINE CASES WHICH WERE CONSOLIDATED
FOR HEARING AND DECIDED IN A SINGLE OPINION.  FN1  THE ORDERS OF THE
COMMISSION WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF ATTACK COMMANDED THE RAILROAD OR
RAILROADS SERVING INDUSTRIAL PLANTS OF THE APPELLEES TO CEASE AND
DESIST FROM THE PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES FOR SWITCHING SERVICES PERFORMED
BY PLANT FACILITIES.  THEY RESULTED FROM A GENERAL REPORT IN WHICH THE
COMMISSION AFTER INVESTIGATION ANNOUNCED GENERAL CONCLUSIONS RESPECTING
SWITCHING SERVICES BY CARRIERS IN INDUSTRIAL PLANTS, AND PAYMENT OF
ALLOWANCES OUT OF THE LINE-HAUL RATE TO AN INDUSTRY PERFORMING THE
SERVICE,  FN2  AND SUBSEQUENT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS WITH RESPECT TO
SPECIFIC PLANTS.  FN3  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED AT EACH OF THE PLANTS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE CARRIERS'
OBLIGATION OF DELIVERY WAS FULFILLED BY PLACING OR RECEIVING CARS ON
INTERCHANGE TRACKS AND THAT THE MOVING AND SPOTTING OF CARS IN THE
INDUSTRIES' PLANTS FORMED NO PART OF THE SERVICE COVERED BY THE LINE
HAUL RATE.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE PRACTICE OF MAKING AN ALLOWANCE OUT
OF THE RATE TO THE OWNER OF THE PLANT FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
SPOTTING SERVICE WAS UNLAWFUL AND SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED. 

THE APPELLEES, IN THEIR COMPLAINTS, ASSERTED THAT IN MAKING ITS
ORDERS THE COMMISSION EXCEEDED THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THESE CONTENTIONS ARE THE SAME AS THOSE
CONSIDERED IN UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S.
402, AND ARE FORECLOSED BY THE DECISION THEREIN. 

THE APPELLEES CHARGED THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND ORDERS WERE
NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD WITH
THEM UPON THIS POINT.  WE HAVE EXAMINED THE RECORD AND ARE OF OPINION
THAT IN EACH CASE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS.  NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED BY A DETAILED
RECITAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IT MUST SUFFICE TO SAY THAT, WHILE THE
CONDITIONS IN THE VARIOUS PLANTS DIFFERED, IN ALL OF THE CASES THE
COMMISSION HAD BEFORE IT MAPS EXHIBITING THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF
THE PLANT TRACKAGE, ITS RELATION AND ACCESSIBILITY TO THE MAIN LINE
TRACKS OF THE CARRIERS CONCERNED, AND PROOFS AS TO THE VOLUME AND
NATURE OF INTRA-PLANT CAR MOVEMENTS, THE AMOUNT OF ENGINE SERVICE
REQUIRED AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTS.  THE VALUE AND WEIGHT OF THE
EVIDENCE GIVEN BY RAILROAD AND PLANT EXECUTIVES, AND THE INFERENCES TO
BE DRAWN FROM IT, WERE FOR THE COMMISSION.  IN SOME INSTANCES THE
INCONVENIENCE AND DELAY TO THE CARRIERS IN PERFORMING PLANT SERVICES
WERE MORE OBVIOUS THAN IN OTHERS BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT IN ANY
CASE THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS WERE NOT BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
THE ORDERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, AND THE DECREES MUST BE
REVERSED. 

FN1  18 F.SUPP.  624.  A CIRCUIT JUDGE AND TWO DISTRICT JUDGES SAT AS
A DISTRICT COURT FOR EACH OF THE DISTRICTS TO HEAR THE CASES. 

FN2  EX PARTE NO. 104, PRACTICES OF CARRIERS AFFECTING OPERATING
REVENUES OR EXPENSES, PART II, TERMINAL SERVICES, 209 I.C.C. 11. 

FN3  MEXICAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF LA. INC. TERMINAL ALLOWANCE,
209 I.C.C. 394; CELOTEX COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 209 I.C.C. 764;
GREAT SOUTHERN LUMBER COMPANY-BOGALUSA PAPER COMPANY TERMINAL
ALLOWANCE, 209 I.C.C. 793; STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF LOUISIANA TERMINAL
ALLOWANCE, 209 I.C.C. 68; HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. TERMINAL ALLOWANCE,
209 I.C.C. 727; MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 209
I.C.C. 93; TEXAS COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE AT HOUSTON, TEX., 209
I.C.C. 767; GULF REFINING COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 209 I.C.C. 756;
TEXAS COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCES AT PORT ARTHUR, TEXAS, 213 I.C.C.
583. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :











HALE V. KENTUCKY, 303 U.S. 613 


NO. 680.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 11, 1938.  - 269 KY.
743 -  108 S.W.2D 716, REVERSED. 


PROOFS HELD SUFFICIENT TO SHOW A SYSTEMATIC AND ARBITRARY EXCLUSION OF
NEGROES FROM JURY LISTS BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE OR COLOR, CONSTITUTING A
DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND ENTITLING THE
PETITIONER, A NEGRO CONVICTED OF MURDER, TO A NEW TRIAL.  P. 616. 

HALE V. KENTUCKY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 629, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A SENTENCE
FOR MURDER. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONER, A NEGRO, WAS INDICTED IN 1936 FOR MURDER IN MCCRACKEN
COUNTY, KENTUCKY.  HE MOVED TO SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT UPON THE GROUND
THAT THE JURY COMMISSIONERS HAD EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST FROM WHICH THE
GRAND JURY WAS DRAWN ALL PERSONS OF AFRICAN DESCENT BECAUSE OF THEIR
RACE AND COLOR AND THUS DENIED TO HIM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN SUPPORT OF
HIS MOTION, HE PRESENTED AN AFFIDAVIT SHOWING THAT THE POPULATION OF
MCCRACKEN COUNTY WAS APPROXIMATELY 48,000 OF WHICH 8,000 WERE NEGROES;
THAT THE ASSESSOR'S BOOKS FOR THE COUNTY CONTAINED THE NAMES OF
APPROXIMATELY 6,000 WHITE PERSONS AND 700 NEGROES WHO WERE QUALIFIED
FOR JURY SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KENTUCKY STATUTES, SEC. 2241;
THAT THE JURY COMMISSIONERS FILLED THE WHEEL FOR JURY SERVICE FOR 1936
WITH BETWEEN 500 AND 600 NAMES EXCLUSIVELY OF WHITE CITIZENS AND THAT
NO NEGRO WAS EXCLUDED "BECAUSE HE WAS NOT AN INTELLIGENT, SOBER,
DISCREET AND IMPARTIAL CITIZEN, RESIDENT HOUSEKEEPER" OF THE COUNTY OR
NOT OF THE REQUISITE AGE; THAT THE FAILURE TO DRAW ANY NEGRO FOR
SERVICE WAS NOT DUE TO ANY OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS MENTIONED IN THE
KENTUCKY STATUTES, SEC. 2248.  THE AFFIDAVIT FURTHER STATED THAT
PETITIONER COULD PROVE BY SHERIFFS OF MCCRACKEN COUNTY, SERVING
RESPECTIVELY FROM 1906 TO 1936, THAT DURING THEIR TERMS NO NEGROES HAD
BEEN SUMMONED FOR SERVICE ON ANY GRAND OR PETIT JURY IN THE COUNTY NOR
WAS THE NAME OF ANY NEGRO PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE SHERIFF TO BE SO
SUMMONED; ALSO THAT PETITIONER COULD PROVE BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THAT
FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR TO 1936 NEGRO CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY HAD SERVED ON
JURIES IN THE FEDERAL COURT AT PADUCAH; ALSO THAT PETITIONER COULD
PROVE BY MANY NAMED CITIZENS OF STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY THAT FOR A
LONG PERIOD OF YEARS THERE WERE NEGROES WHO WERE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY
AND QUALIFIED FOR SERVICE ON JURIES IN THE STATE COURT.  PETITIONER
ALLEGED THAT THE PROOF WOULD SHOW "A LONG CONTINUED, UNVARYING AND
WHOLESALE EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM JURY SERVICE IN THIS COUNTY ON
ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE AND COLOR," AND THAT THIS PRACTICE HAD BEEN
"SYSTEMATIC AND ARBITRARY" ON THE PART OF THE OFFICERS AND
COMMISSIONERS SELECTING NAMES FOR JURY SERVICE FOR A PERIOD OF FIFTY
YEARS OR LONGER. 

PETITIONER FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT HE HAD LEARNED
THAT IN ONE CASE IN THE STATE COURT IN 1921 THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD
DIRECTED A NEGRO JURY TO BE SUMMONED FROM BYSTANDERS, BUT THAT THOSE
NEGRO JURORS WERE NOT ON THE JURY PANEL. 

THE ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE STIPULATED THAT THE ORIGINAL AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVITS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE AND THAT THE
WITNESSES NAMED WOULD TESTIFY AS THEREIN SET FORTH.  NO EVIDENCE TO THE
CONTRARY WAS INTRODUCED BY THE STATE.  THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE
INDICTMENT WAS OVERRULED.  PETITIONER THEN MOVED TO DISCHARGE THE
ENTIRE PANEL OF THE JURY FOR CAUSE, UPON THE SAME FACTS, AND THE MOTION
WAS DENIED. 

PETITIONER, HAVING RESERVED HIS EXCEPTIONS, PLEADED NOT GUILTY AND
THE TRIAL PROCEEDED.  HE WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO DEATH.  THE
JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE.  269 KY.
743; 108 S.W.2D 716.  IT APPEARS FROM AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF MCCRACKEN COUNTY THAT BY INADVERTENCE A COPY OF THE
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT WAS OMITTED FROM THE RECORD BEFORE
THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THAT COURT, AFTER A SUMMARY OF THE FACTS SHOWN
BY THE RECORD SAID THAT THE CASE WAS ONE "WHERE THE PROOF MIGHT BE
REGARDED AS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE GROUND UPON WHICH THE MOTION WAS
EVIDENTLY MADE, BUT THERE IS WANTING IN THE RECORD A SUFFICIENT
STATEMENT OF THOSE GROUNDS TO PERMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT PROOF. 
THE FAILURE SO POINTED OUT IS ANALOGOUS," THE COURT SAID, "TO A CASE
WHERE THERE IS PROOF WITHOUT PLEADING, AND THE RULE IS THAT 'PLEADING
WITHOUT PROOF OR PROOF WITHOUT PLEADING' ARE EACH UNAVAILABLE." 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING, THE MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN OMITTED FROM THE
RECORD WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  REHEARING
WAS DENIED.  ON PETITION TO THIS COURT FOR CERTIORARI THE PARTIES
STIPULATED THAT THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT AS FILED BY
PETITIONER IN THE TRIAL COURT MIGHT BE READ AND CONSIDERED AS A PROPER
PART OF THE RECORD.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

ON ARGUMENT AT THIS BAR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE EXPRESSLY
DISCLAIMED RELIANCE UPON THE OMISSION FROM THE ORIGINAL RECORD ON
APPEAL OF THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT, AS THE FACT OF THE
MOTION HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS UPON
THE APPLICATION FOR REHEARING, AND CONCEDED THAT IF THE FACTS SET FORTH
IN THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED UPON THAT MOTION WERE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW A
DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFFIDAVITS, WHICH BY THE STIPULATION
OF THE STATE WERE TO BE TAKEN AS PROOF, AND WERE UNCONTROVERTED,
SUFFICED TO SHOW A SYSTEMATIC AND ARBITRARY EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM
THE JURY LISTS SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE OR COLOR, CONSTITUTING A
DENIAL OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED TO PETITIONER BY
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  NEAL V. DELAWARE, 103 U.S. 370, 397; CARTER
V. TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442, 447; NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







SHANNAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 596 


NO. 502.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, MARCH 1, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 4, 1938. 
20 F.SUPP.  1002, AFFIRMED. 


THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT CONFERS UPON THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
CERTAIN DUTIES RESPECTING MEDIATION OR ARBITRATION OF LABOR
CONTROVERSIES ON RAILROAD CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACT, WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE TERM "CARRIER" SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY
STREET, INTERURBAN, OR SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY NOT OPERATING AS A
PART OF A GENERAL STEAM-RAILROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION, ETC., AND
DIRECTS THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UPON REQUEST OF THE
MEDIATION BOARD OR UPON COMPLAINT OF ANY PARTY INTERESTED TO DETERMINE
AFTER HEARING WHETHER ANY LINE OPERATED BY ELECTRIC POWER FALLS WITHIN
THE PROVISO.  HELD: 

1.  THAT A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION FINDING A RAILWAY NOT TO BE A
STREET, INTERURBAN, OR SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE PROVISO WAS NOT AN "ORDER," EITHER IN FORM OR IN SUBSTANCE, BUT A
DETERMINATION OF FACT, NEGATIVE IN CHARACTER, AND NOT ENFORCEABLE BY
THE COMMISSION OR BY THE BOARD.  THEREFORE IT WAS NOT REVIEWABLE UNDER
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF 1913.  P. 599. 

2.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THE DECISION IS REVIEWABLE AS AN "ORDER" UNDER
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, BECAUSE IT FIXES THE STATUS OF THE CARRIER
AS SUBJECT TO OBLIGATIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WILFUL FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH WHICH IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR,  - IS CONSIDERED AND
REJECTED.  P. 601. 

SHANNAHAN ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION A BILL TO SET ASIDE AN ALLEGED ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAD
JURISDICTION OF THIS CONTROVERSY UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF
OCTOBER 22, 1913.  FN1 

THE CHICAGO SOUTH SHORE AND SOUTH BEND RAILROAD IS AN INTERSTATE
ELECTRIC RAILWAY SUBJECT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  ON AUGUST 9,
1934, THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD REQUESTED THE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THAT CARRIER FELL WITHIN THE EXEMPTION FROM THE SCOPE
OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  AS AMENDED JUNE 21, 1934, 48 STAT. 1185, C.
691(45 U.S.C. SEC. 151).  THAT ACT CONFERS UPON THE NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD CERTAIN DUTIES IN RESPECT TO CARRIERS BY RAILROAD SUBJECT TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION: 

"PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE TERM 'CARRIER' SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY
STREET, INTERURBAN, OR SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY, UNLESS SUCH RAILWAY
IS OPERATING AS A PART OF A GENERAL STEAM-RAILROAD SYSTEM OF
TRANSPORTATION, BUT SHALL NOT EXCLUDE ANY PART OF THE GENERAL STEAM
RAILROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORTATION NOW OR HEREAFTER OPERATED BY ANY
OTHER MOTIVE POWER.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS HEREBY
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED UPON REQUEST OF THE MEDIATION BOARD OR UPON
COMPLAINT OF ANY PARTY INTERESTED TO DETERMINE AFTER HEARING WHETHER
ANY LINE OPERATED BY ELECTRIC POWER FALLS WITHIN THE TERMS OF THIS
PROVISO." 

AFTER DUE HEARING HAD, AT WHICH THE SOUTH SHORE INTRODUCED EVIDENCE
AND FILED ITS BRIEF, THE MATTER WAS ARGUED ORALLY BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, WHICH, ON FEBRUARY 14, 1936, MADE ITS REPORT AND THE
FOLLOWING DETERMINATION (214 I.C.C. 167, 173): 

"WE FIND THAT THE LINE OF THE CHICAGO, SOUTH SHORE AND SOUTH BEND
RAILROAD IS NOT A STREET, INTERURBAN, OR SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXEMPTION PROVISO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF
THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT." 

NO ORDER WAS ENTERED THEREON BY THE COMMISSION. 

SHANNAHAN AND JACKSON, WHO HAD BEEN APPOINTED TRUSTEES OF THE SOUTH
SHORE BY THE FEDERAL COURT FOR NORTHERN INDIANA, AND HAD FILED THEIR
APPEARANCE IN THE PROCEEDING, APPLIED FOR A REHEARING.  AN ORDER WAS
ENTERED DENYING THE SAME.  THEREUPON, THE TRUSTEES FILED THIS SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, INVOKING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNDER
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, TO SET ASIDE THE
ALLEGED ORDER.  THEY DO NOT DENY THAT THE SOUTH SHORE IS AN INTERSTATE
CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION; AND THAT THE ACT
IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  THEIR CONTENTION IS THAT: 

"A CORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE UNDISPUTED FACTS LEADS TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LINES OF THE RAILROAD OF APPELLANTS ARE AN
ELECTRIC INTERURBAN RAILWAY UNDER THE EXEMPTION PROVISO OF THE FIRST
DIVISION OF SECTION 1 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND THAT THERE IS NO
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION AND DETERMINATION OF THE
COMMISSION." 

THE COMMISSION INTERVENED.  ITS ANSWER, AND THAT OF THE UNITED
STATES, CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION WAS NOT AN "ORDER" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  THE CASE WAS HEARD BEFORE THREE JUDGES
ON THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE; AND A DECREE WAS ENTERED DISMISSING THE
BILL FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  20 F.SUPP. 
1002.  THE TRUSTEES APPEALED. 

FIRST.  THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMISSION IS LIMITED TO THE
DETERMINATION OF A FACT.  ITS DECISION IS NOT EVEN IN FORM AN ORDER. 
IT "HAD NO CHARACTERISTIC OF AN ORDER, AFFIRMATIVE OR NEGATIVE." 
UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO., 244 U.S. 82, 89; UNITED STATES
V. ATLANTA, B. & C.R. CO., 282 U.S. 522, 527-28.  COMPARE LEHIGH VALLEY
R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 412, 414.  BUT EVEN IF THIS
DIFFICULTY IS OVERLOOKED, OTHERS ARE INSUPERABLE.  THE DECISION NEITHER
COMMANDS NOR DIRECTS ANYTHING TO BE DONE.  "IT WAS MERELY PREPARATION
FOR POSSIBLE ACTION IN SOME PROCEEDING WHICH MAY BE INSTITUTED IN THE
FUTURE."  UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299,
310.  THE DETERMINATION IS THUS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE COMMISSION; THE
ONLY ACTION WHICH COULD EVER BE TAKEN ON IT WOULD BE BY SOME OTHER
BODY.  IT IS AS CLEARLY "NEGATIVE" AS ORDERS BY WHICH THE COMMISSION
REFUSES TO TAKE REQUESTED ACTION.  UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, ANTE, P.
226.  FN2  AS SUCH, IT IS NOT REVIEWABLE UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES
ACT. 

SECOND.  MOREOVER, THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION IS NOT EVEN A
DECISION WHICH THE MEDIATION BOARD, BY WHOM IT WAS SOUGHT, IS EMPOWERED
TO ENFORCE.  THE ACT CONFERS UPON THE BOARD NO POWER OVER ANY CARRIER. 
IT MERELY IMPOSES UPON THE BOARD POSSIBLE DUTIES IN RESPECT TO
INTERSTATE CARRIERS BY RAILROAD NOT EXEMPTED BY THE PROVISO.  THE
BOARD'S DUTIES, IN CASE OF DISPUTE BETWEEN CARRIER AND EMPLOYEES,
REQUIRE IT: 

(1)  TO "PROMPTLY PUT ITSELF IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE PARTIES TO
(THE) CONTROVERSY, AND  ... USE ITS BEST EFFORTS, BY MEDIATION, TO
BRING THEM TO AGREEMENT."  WHEN A DISPUTE IS SETTLED THROUGH THESE
EFFORTS A MEDIATION AGREEMENT IS SIGNED, AND SHOULD ANY QUESTION ARISE
SUBSEQUENTLY REGARDING THE MEANING OR APPLICATION OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT,
THE BOARD IS REQUIRED UPON REQUEST OF EITHER PARTY "AND AFTER A HEARING
OF BOTH SIDES (TO) GIVE ITS INTERPRETATION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS." 

(2)  IF THE MEDIATING EFFORTS PROVE UNSUCCESSFUL, IT IS THE BOARD'S
DUTY TO "AT ONCE ENDEAVOR AS ITS FINAL REQUIRED ACTION  ...  TO INDUCE
THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT THEIR CONTROVERSY TO ARBITRATION, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF" THE ACT.  IF ARBITRATION IS AGREED UPON IT MAY
BECOME THE BOARD'S DUTY TO NAME A THIRD ARBITRATOR IF THE TWO NAMED BY
THE PARTIES FAIL TO SELECT HIM. 

(3)  IF ARBITRATION IS REFUSED AND THE DISPUTE THREATENS
"SUBSTANTIALLY TO INTERRUPT COMMERCE TO A DEGREE SUCH AS TO DEPRIVE ANY
BOARD IS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE PRESIDENT. 

(4)  IF, IN SELECTING REPRESENTATIVES TO DEAL WITH THE CARRIERS,
DISPUTES ARISE AMONG EMPLOYEES AS TO WHAT ORGANIZATION THEY DESIRE TO
REPRESENT THEM, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE BOARD, ON REQUEST OF EITHER
PARTY, TO INVESTIGATE AND TO CERTIFY IN WRITING TO THE PARTIES AND TO
THE CARRIER THE NAMES OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE
BEEN DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES. 

(5)  IF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD UNDERTAKES
ARBITRATION, AND IT FAILS TO SELECT A REFEREE, THE MEDIATION BOARD HAS
THE DUTY OF DOING SO. 

IN ORDER NOT TO FAIL IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE DUTIES THE MEDIATION
BOARD HAD TO SATISFY ITSELF WHETHER THE SOUTH SHORE WAS A RAILROAD
WITHIN THE EXEMPTION PROVISO.  TO THAT END, IT APPLIED TO THE
COMMISSION FOR ITS DETERMINATION.  IF IT HAD OMITTED TO DO SO, THE
APPLICATION MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE "UPON COMPLAINT OF ANY PARTY
INTERESTED."  THE DETERMINATION, WHETHER APPLIED FOR BY THE BOARD, BY A
CARRIER, OR BY EMPLOYEES, IS CLEARLY NOT AN ORDER ENFORCEABLE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE CASES CONSTRUING AND APPLYING THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT.  IT IS A DECISION ON A CONTROVERTED MATTER,
COMPARABLE TO THOSE CONSIDERED IN UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & SALT
LAKE R. CO, 273 U.S. 299, IN GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
277 U.S. 172, IN UNITED STATES V. ATLANTA, B & C.R. CO., 282 U.S. 522,
AND IN UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, ANTE, P. 226, WHICH WERE HELD NOT TO
BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT. 

THIRD. THE TRUSTEES ARGUE THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION IS
AN AFFIRMATIVE "ORDER, BECAUSE IT FIXED FOR THE FIRST TIME, BY THE ONLY
BODY AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO DO SO, THE STATUS OF THE CARRIER"; THAT BY
FIXING THE STATUS, THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT ARE FIXED
UPON THE CARRIER; AND THAT WILFUL FAILURE OR REFUSAL OF ANY CARRIER TO
COMPLY WITH CERTAIN OF THE OBLIGATIONS IS MADE A MISDEMEANOR.  FN3 

LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, SHOWS THAT THE
DETERMINATION OF A STATUS OR SIMILAR MATTER IS NOT ACTION SUBJECT TO
REVIEW UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT EVEN IF DISREGARD OF THE
DETERMINATION MAY SUBJECT THE CARRIER TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.  FN4
THE PANAMA CANAL ACT, 37 STAT. 560, PROHIBITED, AFTER JULY 1, 1914, ANY
OWNERSHIP BY A RAILROAD IN ANY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER WHERE THE
RAILROAD MIGHT COMPETE WITH THE WATER CARRIER; PRESCRIBED A HEAVY
PENALTY FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBITION; AND CONFERRED UPON THE
COMMISSION JURISDICTION: 

"TO DETERMINE QUESTIONS OF FACT AS TO THE COMPETITION OR POSSIBILITY
OF COMPETITION, AFTER FULL HEARING, ON THE APPLICATION OF ANY RAILROAD
COMPANY OR OTHER CARRIER.  SUCH APPLICATION MAY BE FILED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER ANY EXISTING SERVICE IS IN VIOLATION OF
THIS SECTION AND PRAY FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING THE CONTINUANCE OF ANY
VESSEL OR VESSELS ALREADY IN OPERATION ..." 

THEREUPON IN JANUARY, 1914, THE LEHIGH VALLEY FILED WITH THE
COMMISSION A PETITION FOR A HEARING ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
SERVICES OF A STEAMBOAT LINE OWNED BY IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE
ABOVE SECTION AND FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME.  THE COMMISSION HELD THAT,
BY VIRTUE OF THE ARRANGEMENTS FOUND TO EXIST, THE RAILROAD DID OR MIGHT
COMPETE WITH ITS BOAT LINE; AND DISMISSED THE PETITION.  THIS COURT
HELD THAT THE RISK TO WHICH THE RAILROAD WAS LEFT SUBJECT DID NOT COME
FROM THE ORDER, BUT FROM THE STATUTE WHICH CONTAINED THE PROHIBITION
AND PROVIDED A PENALTY; THAT, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE
ORDER; AND THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION UNDER THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  COMPARE ALSO PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 469, 476-77. 

FOURTH.  WHETHER THE DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION IS REVIEWABLE IN
A DISTRICT COURT BY SOME JUDICIAL PROCEDURE OTHER THAN THAT OF THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER.  COMPARE
UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, SUPRA, AND LEHIGH VALLEY RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA. FN5  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 32, 38 STAT. 208, 219, 220, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(28), 46, 47. 

FN2  SEE ALSO PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 282;
HOOKER V. KNAPP, 225 U.S. 302; LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
243 U.S. 412, 414; MANUFACTURERS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S.
457, 482-83; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
768, 781; PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 469,
475-77; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 235, 238; UNITED
STATES V. CORRICK, 298 U.S. 435, 438. 

FN3  45 U.S.C. SEC. 152(10).  THAT DECLARES:  "THE WILLFUL FAILURE OR
REFUSAL OF ANY CARRIER, ITS OFFICERS OR AGENTS, TO COMPLY WITH THE
TERMS OF THE THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SEVENTH OR EIGHTH PARAGRAPH OF THIS
INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE OR COERCION IN THE DESIGNATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES.  THE FOURTH ASSURES THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND FORBIDS
CARRIERS TO MAINTAIN OR FINANCIALLY ASSIST ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION.  THE
FIFTH PROHIBITS CARRIERS FROM REQUIRING ANY PERSON SEEKING EMPLOYMENT
TO SIGN ANY CONTRACT TO JOIN OR NOT TO JOIN A LABOR UNION.  THE SEVENTH
PROHIBITS CARRIERS FROM CHANGING RATES OF PAY, RULES OR WORKING
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES AS A CLASS EXCEPT AS PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 156. 
THE EIGHTH REQUIRES CARRIERS TO NOTIFY ITS EMPLOYEES BY PRINTED NOTICES
IN SUCH FORM AS SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE MEDIATION BOARD THAT ALL
DISPUTES WILL BE HANDLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
ACT. 

FN4  FOR DETAILS, SEE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN
PENNSYLVANIA, 234 FED. 682. 

FN5  IN UTAH-IDAHO CENT. RY. V. SHIELDS (UNREPORTED), D. UTAH, OCT.
15, 1936, AND IN HUDSON & MANHATTAN RY. V. HARDY, S.D.N.Y., FEB. 21,
1938, 22 F.SUPP.  105(WHERE JURISDICTION UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES
ACT WAS SPECIFICALLY DENIED), THE ELECTRIC RAILWAYS INVOLVED WERE
DECLARED IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SINGLE JUDGES TO BE WITHIN THE PROVISO
EXCLUDING THEM FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT, AND FINAL INJUNCTIONS
AGAINST PROSECUTION FOR PENALTIES WERE GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN 214 I.C.C. 707 AND 216 I.C.C. 745,
RESPECTIVELY, HAD REACHED THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION.  IN TEXAS ELECTRIC
RY. V. EASTUS (UNREPORTED), N.D. TEX., JUNE 4, 1936, A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION WAS LIKEWISE GRANTED IN SPITE OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION
IN 208 I.C.C. 193.  FROM INFORMAL SOURCES IT HAS BEEN LEARNED THAT
SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED IN OTHER CASES.  CHICAGO
WAREHOUSE & TERM.  CO. V. IGOE, N.D. ILL., AND CHICAGO TUNNEL CO. V.
IGOE, N.D. ILL., TO REVIEW 214 I.C.C. 81; HUDSON & MANHATTAN RY. V.
QUINN, D.N.J., TO REVIEW 216 I.C.C. 745; NEW YORK, W. & B.R. CO. V.
HARDY, S.D.N.Y., TO REVIEW 218 I.C.C. 253. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





COVERDALE V. PIPE LINE CO., 303 U.S. 604 


NO. 458.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - DECIDED APRIL 4, 1938.  - 20
F.SUPP.  676, REVERSED. 


A CORPORATION PRODUCED AND PURCHASED NATURAL GAS IN LOUISIANA, PIPED
IT FROM THE WELLS TO THE LOUISIANA TERMINUS OF ITS INTERSTATE PIPELINE,
AND INTRODUCED IT INTO THAT LINE UNDER INCREASED PRESSURE INDUCED BY
THE POWER OF GAS ENGINES OPERATING GAS COMPRESSORS.  NEARLY ALL OF THE
GAS WAS TRANSPORTED AND DISPOSED OF IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE
INCREASE OF PRESSURE WAS ESSENTIAL TO ITS MOVEMENT THROUGH THE
PIPELINE.  AS A COMPLEMENT TO TAXATION OF THE GENERATION AND SALE OF
ELECTRICITY, LOUISIANA LAID A PRIVILEGE TAX ON OPERATION OF MACHINES
FOR PRODUCTION OF MECHANICAL POWER USED BY THE OPERATOR IN HIS BUSINESS
WITHIN THE STATE, THE TAX BEING MEASURED ON THE HORSEPOWER CAPACITY OF
SUCH MACHINES.  HELD: 

1.  THAT, APPLIED TO THE OPERATION OF THE CORPORATION'S GAS ENGINES,
THE TAX WAS NOT INVALID AS A BURDEN ON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P.
609. 

2.  TAXATION BY THE STATES OF THE BUSINESS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
FORBIDDEN ONLY BECAUSE IT IS DEEMED AN INTERFERENCE WITH THAT COMMERCE,
THE UNIFORM REGULATION OF WHICH IS NECESSARILY RESERVED TO THE
CONGRESS.  P. 610. 

3.  EXEMPTION OF THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE
TAXATION OTHERS BEAR SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE NECESSITY OF
KEEPING THAT COMMERCE FREE FROM INTERFERENCE.  P. 610. 

4.  PRIVILEGES CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE
REGARDED AS DISTINCT FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION.  P. 610. 

5.  WHILE THE ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR UNITS ARE CONNECTED DIRECTLY, ON
A COMMON BED PLATE, THEIR FUNCTIONS ARE AS COMPLETELY SEPARATE AS IF
THEY OPERATED THROUGH BELTING.  WHILE THE USE OF THE ENGINE FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF POWER SYNCHRONIZES WITH THE TRANSMISSION OF THAT POWER TO
THE COMPRESSOR, PRODUCTION OCCURS PRIOR TO TRANSMISSION.  CF. UTAH
POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165.  P. 611. 

6.  THE TAX IS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION IN FORM OR APPLICATION AS
BETWEEN INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE AND IS NOT SUCH AS CAN BE
IMPOSED BY MORE THAN ONE STATE.  IT OBVIOUSLY ADDS TO THE COST OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT INCREASED COST ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
INVALIDATE THE TAX AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH THAT COMMERCE.  CF. WESTERN
LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, ANTE, P. 250.  P. 612. 

COVERDALE, SHERIFF AND EX-OFFICIO TAX COLLECTOR, V. ARKANSAS-LOUISIANA
PIPE LINE CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT WHICH
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED THE SHERIFF FROM ENFORCING A STATE TAX FOUND TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  SEE ALSO 17 F.SUPP.  34, 36. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A STATE STATUTE IMPOSING A PRIVILEGE TAX ON
THE PRODUCTION OF MECHANICAL POWER CONTRAVENES THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
CLAUSE IN SO FAR AS IT IS APPLIED TO AN ENGINE USED TO SUPPLY
MECHANICAL POWER TO A COMPRESSOR WHICH INCREASES THE PRESSURE OF
NATURAL GAS AND THUS PERMITS IT TO BE TRANSPORTED TO PURCHASERS IN
OTHER STATES. 

ACT NO. 6 OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF 1932 OF THE LOUISIANA
LEGISLATURE, WITH CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS NOT MATERIAL
HERE, PROVIDES FOR A LICENSE TAX TO BE PAID BY EVERYONE ENGAGED WITHIN
THE STATE IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OR GENERATING ELECTRICITY
FOR HEAT, LIGHT OR POWER, SEC. 1, OR OF SELLING ELECTRICITY NOT
MANUFACTURED OR GENERATED BY HIM OR IT, SEC. 2.  SECTION 3 PROVIDES
THAT EVERY PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION, OR ASSOCIATION, ENGAGED WITHIN
THE STATE IN ANY BUSINESS, WHICH USES IN THE CONDUCT OF THAT BUSINESS
ELECTRICAL OR MECHANICAL POWER OF MORE THAN TEN HORSEPOWER AND DOES NOT
PROCURE ALL THE POWER FROM A TAXPAYER SUBJECT TO SEC. 1 OR SEC. 2,
"SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF AN EXCISE, LICENSE, OR PRIVILEGE
TAX OF ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) PER ANNUM FOR EACH HORSEPOWER OF CAPACITY OF
THE MACHINERY OR APPARATUS, KNOWN AS THE 'PRIME MOVER' OR 'PRIME
MOVERS,' OPERATED BY SUCH PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION OF
PERSONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING POWER FOR USE IN THE CONDUCT OF
SUCH BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION;..." 

APPELLEE IS ENGAGED WITHIN LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS, AND TEXAS, IN THE
BUSINESS OF PRODUCING AND BUYING, TRANSPORTING AND SELLING NATURAL
GAS.  THE GAS IS OBTAINED FROM THE MONROE AND RICHLAND FIELDS IN
LOUISIANA, AND TRANSPORTED THROUGH APPELLEE'S 20-INCH PIPE LINE, ONE OF
THE LARGEST IN THE SOUTHWEST, WHICH EXTENDS FROM STERLINGTON,
LOUISIANA, TO BLANCHARD, LOUISIANA, WHERE ONE BRANCH GOES WEST INTO
TEXAS, AND THE OTHER NORTH INTO TEXAS AND ARKANSAS UP TO LITTLE ROCK. 
NINETY-SIX AND 6/10 PER CENT. (96.6%) OF THE GAS TRANSPORTED THROUGH
THIS LINE DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1933, WAS DELIVERED
OUTSIDE THE STATE OF LOUISIANA. 

THE NATURAL GAS CANNOT BE TRANSMITTED THROUGH THIS PIPE LINE FOR
THESE DISTANCES IN AMOUNTS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEEDS OF APPELLEE'S
CUSTOMERS, UNLESS IT IS DELIVERED INTO THE PIPE LINE AT A PRESSURE
HIGHER THAN THAT AT WHICH IT COMES FROM THE WELLS.  ACCORDINGLY,
APPELLEE MAINTAINS IN LOUISIANA, AT THE POINT OF INTAKE INTO THE LINE,
ITS "MUNCE COMPRESSOR STATION" WHERE ARE LOCATED TEN PUMPS, OR NATURAL
GAS COMPRESSORS, WHICH OPERATE TO INCREASE THE PRESSURE OF THE GAS TO
THE REQUIRED EXTENT.  THESE COMPRESSORS ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO TEN
FOUR-CYLINDER 1,000 HORSEPOWER COOPER BESSEMER INTERNAL COMBUSTION GAS
BURNING ENGINES.  THERE ARE ALSO TWO 250 HORSEPOWER GAS BURNING ENGINES
FOR GENERAL POWER SERVICE AT THE STATION.  THE TAX IS LAID ON THE
PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING THESE TWELVE GAS ENGINES, KNOWN AS "PRIME
MOVERS,"  FN1  AND IS IMPOSED AT THE RATE OF $1 PER HORSEPOWER CAPACITY
OF THE ENGINE - I.E., A TOTAL TAX OF $10,500. 

APPELLEE'S COMPLAINT, SETTING FORTH THESE FACTS, WAS FILED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN LOUISIANA.  IT PRAYED THAT THE TAX BE
DECLARED INVALID AND THAT THE APPELLANT, SHERIFF, BE ENJOINED FROM
SELLING APPELLEE'S PROPERTY TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF $7,316, PLUS CERTAIN
PENALTIES AND ATTORNEY FEES, AS THE BALANCE OF THE "PRIME MOVER TAX"
DUE FOR THE YEAR ENDING JULY 31, 1933.  FN2 AN EX PARTE TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER WAS ISSUED.  A STATUTORY THREE-JUDGE COURT WAS
CONVENED, AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION GRANTED, 17 F.SUPP.  34.  THE
STATUTE WAS HELD INVALID FOR THE REASON, AMONG OTHERS, THAT AS APPLIED
TO THIS CASE IT IMPOSED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  ON A REHEARING, THE COURT, WITH ONE DISSENT, DETERMINED
AGAIN THAT IT WAS INVALID, WITH THE VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS
THE SOLE BASIS OF DECISION, 17 F.SUPP.  36.  FN3  AFTER ANSWER AND
SUBMISSION OF AFFIDAVITS BY BOTH PARTIES, THE COURT GRANTED A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION, 20 F.SUPP.  676.  THE CASE WAS BROUGHT HERE ON DIRECT
APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE, SECS. 238(3), 266, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 345(3) 380. 

FIRST.  THE CHARACTER OF THE TAX ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CLEAR. 
IT IS A REVENUE MEASURE OBTAINING FUNDS BY LEVYING A PRIVILEGE TAX ON
THOSE GENERATING OR SELLING ELECTRICITY IN LOUISIANA.  SECS. 1 AND 2. 
PRESUMABLY TO PROTECT THIS SOURCE OF REVENUE AGAINST TAX-FREE
COMPETITION, SEC. 3,  FN4  WITH BROAD EXEMPTIONS NOT ASSAILED HERE,
SUBJECTS THE USERS OF ELECTRICAL OR MECHANICAL POWER, NOT PROCURED FROM
THOSE SUBJECT TO SEC. 1 OR SEC. 2, TO A TAX OF ONE DOLLAR PER ANNUM FOR
EACH HORSEPOWER OF CAPACITY OF THE MACHINERY OPERATED BY THE TAXPAYER
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING THIS POWER.  THE STATE COURT HAS HELD THAT
THE MACHINES BUT ON THOSE WHO USE THEM IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR
BUSINESS, STATE V. H.L. HUNT, INC., 182 LA. 1075, 1079-1080; 162 SO.
777, A DECISION ACCEPTED, SO FAR AS THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX IS
CONCERNED, AS A MATTER OF LOCAL LAW CONCLUSIVE ON US.  ST. LOUIS &
S.W.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 235 U.S. 350, 362; STORAASLI V. MINNESOTA, 283
U.S. 57, 62.  WE REGARD THE TAX AS ONE UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF PRODUCING
THE POWER. 

SECOND.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATE STATUTE MAKES IT QUITE CERTAIN
THAT THIS PRIVILEGE TAX FALLS ALIKE ON THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR
IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, OR IN BOTH.  WHILE A PRIVILEGE TAX BY A STATE
FOR ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE BUSINESS HAS FREQUENTLY MET THE CONDEMNATION
OF THIS COURT AS A REGULATION OF COMMERCE,  FN5  PRIVILEGE TAXES FOR
"CARRYING ON A LOCAL BUSINESS," EVEN THOUGH MEASURED BY INTERSTATE
BUSINESS, HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.  AMERICAN MFG. CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250
U.S. 459; FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 145 U.S. 1; FN6
CF. WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, ANTE, P. 250.  THE PRESENT
CASE FALLS WELL WITHIN THE LINE OF STATE TAX AUTHORITY. 

TAXATION BY THE STATES OF THE BUSINESS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
FORBIDDEN ONLY BECAUSE IT IS DEEMED AN INTERFERENCE WITH THAT COMMERCE,
THE UNIFORM REGULATION OF WHICH IS NECESSARILY RESERVED TO THE
CONGRESS.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 400.  AS THIS SOURCE OF
REVENUE, EVEN IF TREATED IN A NON-DISCRIMINATORY MANNER, IS WITHDRAWN
FROM LOCAL REACH BY INFERENCE FROM THE DELEGATED GRANT, THE EXEMPTION
OF THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE TAXATION OTHERS BEAR
SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE NECESSITY OF KEEPING THAT COMMERCE
FREE FROM INTERFERENCE.  CONSEQUENTLY, PROPERTY TAXES ON THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OR NET INCOME TAXES ON THE PROCEEDS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ARE UPHELD.  CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450;
UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321. 

PRIVILEGES CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE COMMERCE MAY BE REGARDED AS
DISTINCT FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION.  SO, LOCAL PRIVILEGE TAXES ON
STORAGE IN TRANSIT, COMPRESSING OR DEALING IN COTTON, ALREADY MOVING IN
ITS INTERSTATE JOURNEY FROM PLANTATION TO MILL, ARE VALIDATED AS
IMPOSED UPON OPERATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMODITY WITHDRAWN FROM
THE TRANSPORTATION MOVEMENT.  FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S.
17, 21; CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584; CF. MINNESOTA V.
BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1.  AND SIMILAR TAXES ARE UPHELD FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
MINING ORES OR PRODUCING GAS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE "PRACTICAL
CONTINUITY" OF THE TAXED PRODUCTIVE OPERATION AND THE INTERSTATE
MOVEMENT.  OLIVER IRON MIN. CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172; HOPE NATURAL GAS
CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284.  IN UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286
U.S. 165, AN IDAHO STATUTE TAXING THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AT SO
MUCH A KILOWATT HOUR WAS UPHELD BECAUSE A DIFFERENCE WAS PERCEIVED
BETWEEN THE CONVERSION OF THE MECHANICAL ENERGY OF FALLING WATER INTO
ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE LATTER.  THE TAX HERE
IMPOSED ON THE OPERATION OF THE MACHINERY IS OF THE SAME TYPE. 

THE POWER USED BY THE APPELLEE IS OBTAINED FROM INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINES WHICH TRANSFORM THE POTENTIAL ENERGY OF NATURAL GAS INTO
MECHANICAL POWER, TRANSMITTED BY PISTON AND PISTON-ROD FROM THE
COMBUSTION CHAMBER OF THE ENGINE TO THE COMPRESSION CHAMBER OF THE
COMPRESSOR.  WHILE THE ENGINE AND COMPRESSOR UNITS ARE ASSEMBLED ON A
COMMON BED PLATE, THEIR FUNCTIONS ARE THUS SEEN TO BE AS COMPLETELY
SEPARATE AS IF THEY OPERATED THROUGH BELTING.  THE ENGINE IS THE "PRIME
MOVER" OF THE TAX ACT, PRODUCING POWER TO DRIVE THE COMPRESSOR.  WHILE
THE USE OF THE ENGINE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF POWER SYNCHRONIZES WITH THE
TRANSMISSION OF THAT POWER TO THE COMPRESSOR, PRODUCTION OCCURS PRIOR
TO TRANSMISSION.  IT IS JUST AS MUCH LOCAL AS THE GENERATION OF
ELECTRICAL POWER. 

HELSON V. KENTUCKY, 279 U.S. 245, STATE TAX COMMISSION V. INTERSTATE
NATURAL GAS CO., 284 U.S. 41, AND COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TEL. CO.,
294 U.S. 384, ARE PRESSED UPON US AS CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES FOR THE
INVALIDATION OF THE TAX.  WE THINK THEY BELONG TO THE CATEGORY OF CASES
WHICH CONSTRUE THE STATE TAX ACTS INVOLVED AS TAXES ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES RATHER THAN ON OPERATIONS CLOSELY
CONNECTED WITH BUT DISTINCT FROM THAT COMMERCE.  IN THE INTERSTATE CASE
AND THE COONEY CASE TAXES LEVIED ON THE BUSINESS OF ENGAGING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WERE HELD INVALID.  LIKEWISE, IN THE HELSON CASE,
THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE TAX ON GASOLINE BROUGHT INTO THE STATE
AND USED ON AN INTERSTATE FERRY WAS ANALOGOUS TO A TAX ON THE USE OF
THE FERRY ITSELF IN TRANSIT AND THEREFORE WITHIN THE RULE PROHIBITING
STATE TAXES ON COMMERCE.  A NARROW DISTINCTION IN FACT EXISTS BETWEEN
THE TAX HELD INVALID IN THE HELSON CASE AND THE VALID TAX CONSIDERED IN
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, WHERE A TAX ON
GASOLINE BROUGHT INTO THE STATE, STORED AND THEN USED TO DRIVE ENGINES
IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION, WAS HELD VALID.  THE STORAGE AND
WITHDRAWAL WAS AN INTRASTATE, TAXABLE EVENT.  SEE ALSO EDELMAN V.
BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, 289 U.S. 249, 252; GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY, 286
U.S. 472, 479. 

THIRD.  TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS CHALLENGED STATE TAX ENACTMENT IS
INVALID AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE UNDER THE DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT, THE CONNECTION OF THE PRIVILEGE TAXED WITH INTERSTATE
COMMERCE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED.  OTHER FACTORS ALSO SHOW THAT THE TAX
HERE DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE TAX IS WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION IN FORM OR APPLICATION AS BETWEEN INTER- AND INTRA-STATE
COMMERCE AND IT CANNOT BE IMPOSED BY MORE THAN ONE STATE.  THE COURSE
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS CLOGGED BY TAXES DESIGNED OR APPLIED SO AS TO
HAMPER ITS FREE FLOW.  SECTION THREE, HOWEVER, BEARING EQUALLY ON ALL
USE, IS ONLY COMPLEMENTARY TO THE TAXES OF SECTIONS ONE AND TWO. 
HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577, 584.  IT BEARS GENERALLY ON
ALL USE OF POWER AND IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY.  IT OBVIOUSLY ADDS TO THE
COST OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT INCREASED COST ALONE IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE THE TAX AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH THAT
COMMERCE.  WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, ANTE, P. 254. 

IT WAS HELD BY THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THIS IS A TAX WHICH MAY BE
LEVIED BY OTHER STATES AND SO IS INVALID, AND THAT A STATE'S DESIRE TO
SAVE GAS FOR ITS CITIZENS MAY INDUCE IT TO RAISE THE PRIVILEGE TAX TO
PROHIBITORY RATES.  IT IS TRUE THAT EACH STATE THROUGH WHICH A PIPE
LINE PASSES COULD LAY A TAX ON THE USE OF ENGINES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
POWER, BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE MULTIPLE TAXATION "MERELY BECAUSE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS BEING DONE," AS DISCUSSED IN WESTERN LIVE STOCK
V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, ANTE, P. 255, AND THE AUTHORITIES THERE CITED. 
IT WOULD NOT BE A TAX ON THE SAME ACTIVITY, EITHER IN FORM OR IN
SUBSTANCE.  LIKE A PROPERTY TAX ON THE PIPES OR EQUIPMENT IN DIFFERENT
STATES, IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT TAX, ON A DIFFERENT AND WHOLLY SEPARATE
SUBJECT MATTER, WITH NO CUMULATIVE EFFECT CAUSED BY THE INTERSTATE
CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS.  IT WOULD NOT BE MULTIPLE TAXATION FOR EACH
STATE TO TAX THE "BOOSTER STATION" AD VALOREM AS PROPERTY.  NEITHER IS
IT PROHIBITED MULTIPLE TAXATION TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF OTHER
PRIVILEGE TAXES ON THE PRODUCTION OF POWER.  IT IS LENGTH OF LINE, NOT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH MAKES ANOTHER TAX POSSIBLE. 

THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS TERM, USED IN SEC. 3, SUPRA, IS NOT DEFINED ELSEWHERE IN
THE STATUTE.  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (2D ED.
UNABRIDGED, 1936) P. 1964, CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING:  "PRIME MOVER. 
MECH....  B AN INITIAL SOURCE OF MOTIVE POWER, AS AN ENGINE, OR
MACHINE, THE OBJECT OF WHICH IS TO RECEIVE AND MODIFY FORCE AND MOTION
AS SUPPLIED BY SOME NATURAL SOURCE, AND APPLY THEM TO DRIVE OTHER
MACHINERY, AS A WATER WHEEL, A WATER-PRESSURE ENGINE, A WIND-MILL, A
TURBINE, A TIDAL MOTOR, A STEAM ENGINE OR OTHER HEAT ENGINE, ETC."  AS
EXPLANED BY EXPERT WITNESSES FOR THE APPELLANT, THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION
GAS ENGINE IS A PRIME MOVER WHICH CONVERTS HEAT ENERGY, CONTAINED IN
THE NATURAL GAS AS FUEL, INTO MECHANICAL ENERGY, THEN SUPPLIED TO AND
USED BY THE COMPRESSOR UNIT.    FN2  APPELLEE ALLEGED THAT IT HAD PAID
PART OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE IN ORDER TO AVOID A FORCED
SALE. 

FN3  THE FIRST OPINION ALSO HELD THE STATUTE INVALID IN ITS ENTIRETY
(ON THE AUTHORITY OF UNION SULPHUR CO. V. REID, 17 F.SUPP.  27), AS A
PROPERTY TAX LAID AT A RATE PROHIBITED BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION, AND
AS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION WITHOUT ANY
REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE STATE SUPERVISOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.  AFTER
THE DECISION IN STATE V. H.L. HUNT, INC., 182 LA. 1073; 162 SO. 177,
HOLDING THE TAX A LICENSE RATHER THAN A PROPERTY TAX, CONSONANT WITH
BOTH THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE DISTRICT
COURT GRANTED A REHEARING.  THE SECOND OPINION CONCEDED THE GENERAL
VALIDITY OF THE ACT, BUT HELD IT AN UNDUE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AS APPLIED TO APPELLEE. 

FN4  "SECTION 3.  IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER TAXES OF EVERY KIND
IMPOSED BY LAW, EVERY PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION OF
PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA IN ANY BUSINESS OR
OCCUPATION, WHICH PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS
USES IN THE CONDUCT OF SUCH BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION, AT ANY TIME,
ELECTRICAL OR MECHANICAL POWER OF MORE THAN TEN HORSEPOWER AND DOES NOT
PROCURE ALL THE POWER REQUIRED IN THE CONDUCT OF SUCH BUSINESS OR
OCCUPATION FROM A PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS
SUBJECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTION 1 OR SECTION 2 OF THIS ACT, SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF AN EXCISE, LICENSE OR PRIVILEGE TAX OF ONE
DOLLAR ($1.00) PER ANNUM FOR EACH HORSEPOWER OF CAPACITY OF THE
MACHINERY OR APPARATUS, KNOWN AS THE 'PRIME MOVER' OR 'PRIME MOVERS',
OPERATED BY SUCH PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING POWER FOR USE IN THE CONDUCT OF SUCH
BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION; PROVIDED THAT ANY USER OF POWER SECURING ALL OR
ANY PART OF THE POWER REQUIRED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OR
OCCUPATION OF SUCH USER FROM A PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION
OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE TAX IMPOSED BY SECTION 1 OR SECTION 2 OF THIS
ACT, SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION 3, OR FOR
A GREATER TAX UNDER THIS SECTION 3, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BECAUSE OF THE
EMPLOYMENT OF STAND-BY POWER FACILITIES BY SUCH USER DURING PERIODS OF
FAILURE OF THE SUPPLY OF PURCHASED POWER; AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ANY
PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS THE PRINCIPAL USE
OF WHOSE ELECTRIC FACILITIES IS THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY FOR SALE,
SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL TAX UNDER THIS SECTION 3 ON THE
HORSEPOWER CAPACITY OF ANY MACHINERY OR APPARATUS USED IN THE
GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY; AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN COMPUTING THE
TAX IMPOSED BY THIS SECTION 3, THERE SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE
HORSEPOWER CAPACITY OF ALL MACHINERY AND APPARATUS OPERATED, THAT PART
OF SUCH CAPACITY USED IN A MECHANICAL, AGRICULTURAL OR HORTICULTURAL
PURSUIT, OR ANY OTHER OCCUPATION EXEMPT FROM A LICENSE TAX UNDER
OPERATING A SAWMILL OR A MILL FOR GRINDING SUGARCANE OR PRODUCING RAW
SUGAR, OR IN CONDUCTING ANY BUSINESS OF SELLING ELECTRICITY OR ANY
BUSINESS CONDUCTED UNDER ANY FRANCHISE OR PERMIT GRANTED BY THE STATE
OF LOUISIANA OR ANY SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR IN PROPELLING OR MOTIVATING
ANY AUTOMOBILE, TRUCK, TUG, VESSEL, OR OTHER SELF-PROPELLED VEHICLE, ON
LAND, WATER OR AIR." 

FN5  COONEY V. MOUNTAIN STATES TEL. CO., 294 U.S. 384, 392, AND CASES
CITED IN NOTE FOUR; PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. V. STATE TAX COMM'N,
302 U.S. 90; FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. STATE TAX CMM'N, 297 U.S. 650;
SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 170, 175. 

FN6  BUT SEE CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292, 296. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF THE OPINION THE DECREE SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DETERMINATION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :



ELECTRIC BOND CO. V. COMM'N., 303 U.S. 419 


NO. 636.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 8, 9, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  -
92 F.2D 580, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SYSTEM OF HOLDING COMPANIES CONTROLLED, THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP,
THE OPERATIONS OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES WHICH SERVED GAS AND ELECTRICITY
TO THE PUBLIC IN MANY STATES, PARTLY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SOME OF
THE HOLDING COMPANIES WERE THEMSELVES PARTLY ENGAGED IN SELLING,
PURCHASING OR TRANSMITTING ELECTRICITY ACROSS STATE LINES.  THE SYSTEM
FURNISHED EXPERT SERVICE, AND PERFORMED CONSTRUCTION WORK, FOR THE
SUBSIDIARY UTILITIES, AND IN SO DOING MADE CONTINUOUS AND EXTENSIVE USE
OF THE MAILS AND THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AND
SUCH INSTRUMENTALITIES WERE FROM TIME TO TIME USED IN OTHER
TRANSACTIONS, SUCH AS THE DISTRIBUTION OF SECURITIES.  HELD THAT THE
HOLDING COMPANIES WERE ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE REACH OF
CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION.  P. 431. 

2.  SECTION 5 OF TITLE I OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY ACT OF AUG. 26, 1935,
REQUIRES HOLDING COMPANIES, AS DEFINED, TO REGISTER WITH THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND TO FILE A REGISTRATION STATEMENT GIVING
INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE ORGANIZATION, FINANCIAL STRUCTURE AND
NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE REGISTRANTS TOGETHER WITH VARIOUS DETAILS
OF OPERATIONS.  SECTION 4(A) PROHIBITS THE USE OF THE MAILS AND THE
FACILITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THOSE COMPANIES WHICH FAIL TO
REGISTER.  SECTION 32 PROVIDES THAT IF ANY PROVISION OF THE TITLE
SHOULD BE HELD INVALID THE OTHERS SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED.  HELD: 

(1)  THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE REVERSES THE PRESUMPTION OF
INSEPARABILITY.  P. 433. 

(2)  SECTIONS 4(A) AND 5 ARE NOT SO WOVEN INTO THE TITLE THAT THERE
IS ANY INHERENT OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN ENFORCING THEM SEPARATELY
WHILE RESERVING ALL QUESTIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE TITLE.  P. 434. 

(3)  ALTHOUGH REGISTRATION UNDERLIES AND PRECEDES THE APPLICATION OF
THE OTHER REGULATORY PROVISIONS, SECS. 4(A) AND 5 WERE INTENDED TO BE
INDEPENDENTLY OPERATIVE AND ENFORCEABLE AS REGULATIONS REQUIRING
HOLDING COMPANIES TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR BY SEC. 5(B) IN
REGISTRATION STATEMENTS.  P. 435. 

(4)  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS
VIEW.  P. 438. 

3.  CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE CAN NOT ESCAPE
REGULATION BY ACTING THROUGH SUBSIDIARIES.  P. 440. 

4.  IN VIEW OF THE RELATION OF THE HOLDING COMPANIES IN THIS CASE TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY, CONGRESS HAD POWER TO
EXACT OF THEM THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SEC. 5 OF TITLE I OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY ACT, AND TO VISIT THEIR FAILURE WITH THE PENALTIES
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 4(A), RESTRAINING THEIR USE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND POSTAL FACILITIES WHILE THEY REMAIN HOLDING COMPANIES AND REFUSE TO
REGISTER.  P. 439. 

5.  IN A SUIT BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION UNDER SEC.
18(F), TITLE I, PUBLIC UTILITY ACT, BROUGHT TO ENFORCE ONLY COMPLIANCE
WITH SECS. 4(A) AND 5, THE REQUIREMENTS AND VALIDITY OF THE OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE TITLE NOT BEING INVOLVED IN THE ACTUAL CONTROVERSY,
HELD THAT A COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-BILL BY WHICH THE DEFENDANTS
INVOKED THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, AND SOUGHT TO HAVE THE
OTHER PROVISIONS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED.  P.
443. 

ELECTRIC BOND & SHARE CO. ET AL. V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM'N ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 681, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT WHICH GRANTED AN INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED A COUNTERCLAIM
AND CROSS-BILL IN A SUIT AGAINST NUMEROUS CORPORATIONS, BROUGHT BY THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 18(F) OF TITLE I OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY ACT OF 1935.  OTHER CORPORATIONS HAD INTERVENED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT AS DEFENDANTS.  THE INJUNCTION FORBADE THE HOLDING
COMPANY DEFENDANTS, AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUED TO BE HOLDING COMPANIES
AND FAILED TO REGISTER, FROM USING THE MAILS OR THE FACILITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS BANNED BY SEC. 4(A) OF THE ACT.  THE
COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-BILL PRAYED FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECLARING
THE WHOLE TITLE VOID, AND THAT THE COMMISSION AND ITS MEMBERS, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE POSTMASTER GENERAL BE ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING
ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS.  SEE THE OPINION OF MACK, CIRCUIT JUDGE, IN 18
F.SUPP.  131. 

THE ACT IS WHOLLY INVALID BECAUSE OF ITS SCOPE AND ALLINCLUSIVE
PROVISIONS.  IT INSEPARABLY COMMINGLES INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE
COMPANIES AND ACTIVITIES BY COMMON DEFINITIONS AND PROVISIONS AND
CANNOT BE CONFINED BY JUDICIAL LIMITATION TO COMPANIES OR ACTIVITIES
WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS. 

IT MUST BE REGARDED AS A WHOLE AND READ IN ITS ENTIRETY TO DETERMINE
THE SEPARABILITY OF ANY SECTION OR SECTIONS.  PARTICULAR SECTIONS
CANNOT BE ISOLATED AND CONSIDERED IN A VACUUM WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR
SETTING AND CONTEXT AND THEIR FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE ACT AS A
WHOLE. 

THUS READING SECS. 4(A) AND 5(SEPARATED BY THE DECISION OF THE COURTS
BELOW FROM THE REGULATORY OR CONTROL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT) IT IS CLEAR
THAT THEY ARE NOT A SUBSTANTIVE REGULATION BY THEMSELVES BUT ARE PURELY
AUXILIARY TO SUCH REGULATORY OR CONTROL PROVISIONS, SPECIFICALLY SECS.
6 TO 13. 

THEIR INSEPARABILITY IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE DECLARED SCOPE AND
PURPOSE OF THE ACT (SEC. 1) WHICH MAKES MANIFEST THAT IT WAS THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS BY ITS ENACTMENT TO CONTROL PUBLIC UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANIES, EVEN TO THE POINT OF THEIR DESTRUCTION. 

IN THIS LIGHT, SECS. 6 TO 13(THE CONTROL SECTIONS) ARE THE BONE AND
SINEW OF THE ACT.  THEY ARE THE SECTIONS WHICH CONGRESS RELIED UPON TO
ACCOMPLISH ITS DECLARED PURPOSE OF "ELIMINATING" THE EVILS IN PUBLIC
UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS. 

IMPLEMENT THIS SYSTEM OF CONTROLS.  4(A) COERCES HOLDING COMPANIES TO
REGISTER AND THEREBY TO SUBMIT TO SUCH CONTROLS.  5(A) PROVIDES THE
MECHANICS FOR REGISTRATION, AND 5(B) PROVIDES FOR FURNISHING THE BASIC
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE COMPANIES UPON WHICH THE CONTROLS SPECIFIED
BY 6 TO 13 ARE TO OPERATE. 

REGULATION BY PUBLICITY.  NOT ONLY WAS NO SUCH INDEPENDENT FUNCTION
INTENDED, BUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE ACT, THEY
CANNOT PERFORM ANY SUCH FUNCTION.  THE CONTENTS OF THE REGISTRATION
STATEMENT PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 5(B) DO NOT RELATE TO, AND THUS CANNOT
REGULATE, THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED BY 4(A), BUT DO RELATE TO, AND
FURNISH THE BASIC INFORMATION FOR, THE APPLICATION OF THE CONTROL
SYSTEM.  THE CONTENTS OF THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT MAY NOT BE
DISCLOSED EXCEPT IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION (22). 
CONSEQUENTLY, REGULATION BY PUBLICITY IS NOT ITS FUNCTION. 

IF SECS. 4(A) AND 5 BE REGARDED AS A SEPARABLE STATUTORY ENACTMENT,
THEY ARE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL, VALID AND REASONABLE REGULATION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE MAILS.  SECTION 5(A) IS NOT A REGULATION OF
COMMERCE OR THE MAILS, NOR IS IT CLAIMED TO BE.  AS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN,
5(B) RELIED UPON ALONE TO SUPPORT THE PENALTIES OF 4(A) IS NOT
REGULATORY OF THE TRANSACTIONS THEREBY PROHIBITED NOR OF ANY BUSINESS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

CONSIDERED ALONE, SEC. 5(B) IS A NAKED GRANT OF INQUISITORIAL OR
VISITATORIAL POWER AND IS INVALID BECAUSE NOT AN EXERCISE OF ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  UNLESS THE COMMISSION HAS SOME FUNCTION TO
PERFORM WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION FURNISHED, IT BECOMES AN
UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE COMMISSION, SINCE THE
FORM AND CONTENT ARE TO BE PRESCRIBED ENTIRELY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS
OF THE COMMISSION IN ITS CONCEPT OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE
INTEREST OF INVESTORS AND CONSUMERS. 

PENALTY, CANNOT VALIDATE REGULATIONS WITH WHICH IT COERCES COMPLIANCE. 

ASSUMING POWER TO EXCLUDE HOLDING COMPANIES FROM INTERSTATE BUSINESS
AND NORMAL USE OF THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, SUCH POWER CANNOT BE USED TO COERCE COMPLIANCE WITH
UNCONSTITUTIONAL REGULATION.  STANDING BY ITSELF AS A NAKED PENALTY,
SEC. 4(A) CONTRAVENES THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION. 

IF, THEREFORE, THE DECREE CANNOT BE SUPPORTED ON THE FOUNDATION OF
SECS. 4(A) AND 5 STANDING ALONE, IT IS NECESSARY TO FIND SUCH SUPPORT
IN THE SUBSTANTIVE REGULATORY SYSTEM OF THE ACT, I.E., THE CONTROLS OF
SECS. 6 TO 13. 

THESE SECTIONS DO NOT REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE USE OF THE
MAILS.  THE COMPANIES WHICH COMPRISE THE ELECTRIC AND GAS UTILITY
INDUSTRY ARE NOT, AS SUCH, INSTRUMENTALITIES OR AGENTS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, NOR IS THEIR BUSINESS, AS SUCH, INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SOME OF
THE COMPANIES DO ENGAGE IN PARTICULAR BUSINESS OR TRANSACTIONS WHICH
CONSTITUTE INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND WHICH MAY BE REGULATED, BUT OTHER
COMPANIES DO NO SUCH BUSINESS.  THIS ACT PREDICATES THE REGULATION OF
ALL ALIKE MERELY ON THE HOLDING COMPANY RELATIONSHIP AND NOT UPON
ENGAGEMENT IN ANY BUSINESS OR ACTIVITIES WHICH CONSTITUTE OR AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

NOR ARE THE CONTROL SECTIONS PREDICATED UPON OR CONFINED TO THE
REGULATION OF ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTING OR DIRECTLY AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR THE USE OF THE MAILS.  THEY RELATE TO THE ISSUE AND SALE OF
SECURITIES (SECS. 6-7); TO THE ACQUISITION OF ASSETS OR SECURITIES
(SECS. 8-10); TO SUNDRY CORPORATE AND FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS (SEC. 12);
TO THE REORGANIZATION OR DISSOLUTION OF HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEMS (SEC.
11); AND TO THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICE, SALES AND CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS (SEC. 13).  IN NONE OF THESE SECTIONS IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OR THE USE OF THE MAILS A CONDITION OF THE REGULATION OF A PARTICULAR
TRANSACTION, NOR NEED THE COMPANY WHOSE TRANSACTIONS ARE SO REGULATED
BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR ACTIVITIES DIRECTLY AFFECTING SUCH
COMMERCE. 

CONVERSELY, THE ACT INVADES THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES, IN
VIOLATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT, IN ITS INTERFERENCE WITH PURELY
INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS, AND IN ITS CONTROL OF PURELY INTRASTATE
CORPORATIONS IN THE EXERCISE OF CHARTER POWERS GIVEN THEM BY THE STATES
OF THEIR INCORPORATION. 

THE ABSENCE OF ANY STANDARD FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN THE
VARIOUS MATTERS ENTRUSTED TO ITS CONTROL, EXCEPT ITS UNTRAMMELLED
CONCEPTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE INTEREST OF INVESTORS AND
CONSUMERS, MAKES THE ACT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWERS TO THE COMMISSION, IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 1 OF THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE ACT IS LACKING IN DUE PROCESS AND OFFENDS AGAINST THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  FUNDAMENTALLY, ITS ESSENTIAL CONCEPT IS NOT REGULATION BY
PRESCRIBED STANDARDS OF LAW, BUT THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF
CORPORATIONS FROM THEIR DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS TO THE COMMISSION,
IN TERMS SO BROAD THAT MANAGEMENT IS TRANSFERRED FROM THE OWNERS OF THE
PROPERTY TO THE PUBLIC.  THIS POWER EXTENDS TO THE CONTROL OF THEIR
ESSENTIAL ACTIVITIES, AND EVEN TO THE DISPOSAL OF THEIR PROPERTY AND
ASSETS, AND THE REORGANIZATION OF THE COMPANIES THEMSELVES. 

IF THE DECREE OF THE COURT BELOW IS CORRECT IN REQUIRING DEFENDANTS
TO REGISTER, ON THE THEORY OF THE SEPARABILITY OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5
UNSUPPORTED BY THE CONTROL PROVISIONS, THE DEFENDANTS, BEING UNDER A
DUTY TO REGISTER, AND BEING THREATENED WITH IRREPARABLE INJURY BY THE
CONTROLS OF THE ACT, HAVE A RIGHT TO RELIEF UNDER THEIR CROSSBILL
EITHER BY WAY OF INJUNCTION OR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AGAINST THOSE
CONTROL SECTIONS WHICH BECOME APPLICABLE TO THEM IMMEDIATELY UPON
REGISTRATION. 

IF THE HOLDING COMPANIES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT THE RIGHT TO QUESTION
THESE CONTROLS BY THEIR CROSS-BILL, THE INTERVENING SUBSIDIARY
DEFENDANTS, IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED IN ALL RESPECTS EQUALLY WITH THEIR
PARENT HOLDING COMPANIES BY THE REGISTRATION OF THE LATTER, HAVE THE
RIGHT BY THEIR INTERVENTION AND CROSS-BILLS TO OBTAIN AN ADJUDICATION
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTROLS OF THE ACT TO WHICH THEY ARE THEREBY
SUBJECTED ARE CONSTITUTIONAL AS TO THEM. 

THE BILL AND ANSWER INVOLVE SOLELY THE VALIDITY OF THE REGISTRATION
PROVISIONS. 

THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS ARE NOT INHERENTLY INSEPARABLE FROM THE
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  COMPLIANCE WITH THEM DOES NOT PREJUDICE
THE RIGHT OF A REGISTRANT TO CONTEST OTHER PROVISIONS.  THEY ARE
CAPABLE OF SEPARATE OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT CORROBORATES THE PRESUMPTION OF
SEPARABILITY. 

THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS ARE A SUBSTANTIAL REGULATORY MEASURE IN
THEMSELVES AND WOULD NOT BE TOO FRAGMENTARY TO STAND ALONE. 

DEFENDANTS CAN NOT ATTACK PROVISIONS OF THE ACT NOT OTHERWISE IN
CONTROVERSY MERELY TO SHOW THAT THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS WOULD BE
TOO FRAGMENTARY TO STAND IF SUCH OTHER PROVISIONS WERE INVALID. 

THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS ARE A VALID EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL POWER
OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE MAILS. 

THE ACTIVITIES ENUMERATED IN SEC. 4(A) ARE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
REGULATION BY THE INFORMATORY PROCESS. 

CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO PREVENT THE USE OF THE CHANNELS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE POSTAL FACILITIES FOR A PURPOSE OR IN A
MANNER DEEMED CONTRARY TO SOUND PUBLIC POLICY. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IS NOT LIMITED TO
FORBIDDING THE TRANSPORTATION OF ARTICLES INTRINSICALLY HARMFUL. 

THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO MEET EVILS WHICH ARE NOT
SPREAD OR PERPETUATED BY THE USE OF THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS NOT HERE INVOLVED. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE USE OF THE CHANNELS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE MAILS IS NOT ABRIDGED BY THE FACT THAT THE
USE OF SUCH CHANNELS OF INTERCOURSE IS INCIDENTAL OR SPORADIC OR IS NOT
THE MAJOR ACTIVITY OF THE USER. 

THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS DO NOT VIOLATE ANY RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO
THE DEFENDANTS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THEY INVOLVE NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF POWER. 

THE CROSS-BILL PRESENTED NO CASE OR CONTROVERSY BUT SOUGHT ONLY AN
ADVISORY OPINION ON HYPOTHETICAL FACTS. 

AS A SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION, THE CROSS-BILL, IN THE ABSENCE OF
THREATS OF ENFORCEMENT BY THE CROSS-DEFENDANTS, PRESENTS NO CONTROVERSY
WITH THEM. 

AS A SUIT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, THE CROSS-BILL, IN THE ABSENCE
OF THREATS OF ENFORCEMENT BY THE CROSS-DEFENDANTS, PRESENTS NO "ACTUAL
CONTROVERSY" WITH THEM. 

EVEN IF THE CROSS-BILL HAD PRESENTED A CONTROVERSY WITH THE CROSS
DEFENDANTS, THE DISTRICT COURT COULD NOT PROPERLY HAVE GRANTED
DEFENDANTS AN INJUNCTION OR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE
PROVED NO DAMAGE, IRREPARABLE OR OTHERWISE. 

DEFENDANTS DO NOT SEEK EQUITY WITH CLEAN HANDS IN BRINGING, BEFORE
THEY HAVE REGISTERED, A CROSS-BILL WHICH PRESUPPOSES THAT THEIR FAILURE
TO REGISTER IS UNLAWFUL. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO ENFORCE
THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5 OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 1935.  49 STAT. 803, 812, 813.  THESE SECTIONS PROVIDE
FOR REGISTRATION WITH THE COMMISSION OF HOLDING COMPANIES, AS DEFINED,
SEC. 5(A), AND PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE MAILS AND THE INSTRUMENTALITIES
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THOSE COMPANIES WHICH FAIL TO REGISTER.  SEC.
4(A).  SECTION 5(B) PROVIDES FOR THE FILING OF A REGISTRATION STATEMENT
GIVING INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE ORGANIZATION, FINANCIAL
STRUCTURE AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE REGISTRANT, TOGETHER WITH
VARIOUS DETAILS OF OPERATIONS. 

DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING INTERVENORS, CONTESTED THE VALIDITY OF THESE
PROVISIONS AND SOUGHT BY CROSS BILL A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ACT
WAS INVALID IN ITS ENTIRETY, AS BEING IN EXCESS OF THE POWERS GRANTED
TO CONGRESS BY SEC. 8 OF ARTICLE I, AND IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1 OF
ARTICLE I AND OF THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF SECS.
4(A) AND 5, AND GRANTED AN INJUNCTION ACCORDINGLY.  THE CROSS BILL WAS
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF EQUITY AND FOR LACK OF ANY ACTUAL CONTROVERSY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT OF 1934.  18
F.SUPP.  131.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DECREE.  92
F.(2D) 580.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE ELECTRIC BOND AND SHARE COMPANY AND
FOURTEEN ASSOCIATED PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES.  OF THESE, IT APPEARS
THAT SEVEN HAVE CEASED TO BE HOLDING COMPANIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE ACT, TWO  FN1  BEFORE THE CAUSE WAS HEARD BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND
FIVE  FN2 SINCE THE DECREE.  THE REMAINING COMPANIES AGAINST WHOM THE
DECREE OF INJUNCTION RUNS ARE ELECTRIC BOND AND SHARE COMPANY, AMERICAN
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, NATIONAL
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CORPORATION, LEHIGH POWER
SECURITIES CORPORATION, UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, AND PACIFIC POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY.    THE DECREE PROVIDES IN SUBSTANCE, AS TO EACH OF THESE
DEFENDANTS, THAT AFTER A DAY SPECIFIED AND UNTIL SUCH DEFENDANT SHALL
CEASE TO BE A HOLDING COMPANY AS DEFINED IN THE ACT, OR SHALL REGISTER
WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 5(A),
IT SHALL NOT CARRY ON ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
THROUGH THE MAILS WHICH ARE FORBIDDEN TO NON-REGISTERED HOLDING
COMPANIES BY PARAGRAPHS (1), (2), (3), (4) AND (6) OF SEC. 4(A).  THE
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5 ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN3 

THE DECREE FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE INJUNCTION AND THE DISMISSAL OF
THE CROSS BILL SHALL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE "TO ANY RIGHTS OR REMEDIES IN
LAW OR IN EQUITY" WHICH DEFENDANTS MAY HAVE AFTER REGISTRATION, AND
LEAVES DEFENDANTS FREE TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF ANY OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OTHER THAN SECS. 4(A) AND 5.  THE DISMISSAL OF
THE CROSS BILL IS ALSO DECLARED TO BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE "TO ANY RIGHTS
OR REMEDIES IN LAW OR IN EQUITY" WHICH THE INTERVENING DEFENDANTS "MAY
HAVE OR BE ENTITLED TO UPON THE ACT BEING MADE APPLICABLE TO THEM BY
THE REGISTRATION OF ANY HOLDING COMPANY OF WHICH THEY ARE SUBSIDIARY
COMPANIES."  ALL RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING INTERVENORS, ARE THUS
FULLY RESERVED WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION TO THEM OF ANY PROVISION
OF THE ACT OUTSIDE OF THOSE CONTAINED IN THE PARTICULAR SECTIONS WHICH
ARE ENFORCED BY THE DECREE. 

PETITIONERS INSIST THAT THE ACT IS INVALID AS A WHOLE; THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5 ARE NOT SEPARABLE FROM THE REMAINDER;
THAT THESE PROVISIONS, IF SEPARATELY CONSIDERED, DO NOT CONSTITUTE A
VALID REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE MAILS; AND THAT THE
CROSS BILL PRESENTED A CONTROVERSY UPON THE MERITS OF WHICH THE
DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING INTERVENORS, WERE ENTITLED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT. 

FIRST.  THE INITIAL QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES,
AGAINST WHICH THE DECREE FOR INJUNCTION RUNS, ARE ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES
WHICH BRING THEM WITHIN THE AMBIT OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.  UPON
THIS POINT THERE SEEMS TO BE NO SERIOUS CONTROVERSY, AND FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT DECISION WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO MAKE A
COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF THE CORPORATE SETUP AND OPERATIONS OF THE
RESPECTIVE DEFENDANTS.  THE FACTS WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN AN ELABORATE
STIPULATION WHICH UNDERLAY THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT.  A
BRIEF STATEMENT ADDRESSED TO THE POINT NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION WILL
SUFFICE. 

ELECTRIC BOND AND SHARE COMPANY IS STYLED IN THE FINDINGS AS "THE TOP
HOLDING COMPANY" IN "A HOLDING-COMPANY SYSTEM" IN WHICH ALL THE OTHER
DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENING DEFENDANTS TOGETHER WITH NUMEROUS OTHER
COMPANIES ARE SUBSIDIARIES.  ELECTRIC BOND AND SHARE COMPANY OWNS
SUBSTANTIAL MINORITIES OF THE VOTING STOCKS OF THE DEFENDANTS AMERICAN
GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, NATIONAL
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, AND ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT CORPORATION.  THESE
COMPANIES IN TURN OWN DIRECTLY OR THROUGH SUBHOLDING COMPANIES
SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITIES, IN SOME CASES APPROXIMATING COMPLETE OWNERSHIP
AND IN ALL CASES SUFFICIENT TO INSURE VOTING CONTROL, OF THE COMMON
STOCKS OF OPERATING GAS AND ELECTRIC UTILITIES.  THE "ELECTRIC
OPERATIONS" OF SUBSIDIARIES IN THE BOND AND SHARE SYSTEM ARE CONDUCTED
IN THIRTY-TWO STATES.  SOME OPERATE ONLY WITHIN A SINGLE STATE, SOME IN
TWO OR MORE STATES, TRANSMITTING ENERGY ACROSS STATE LINES FOR THEIR
OWN ACCOUNT, AND SOME SELL ENERGY AT WHOLESALE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

UNTIL SHORTLY PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THIS SUIT ELECTRIC BOND AND
SHARE COMPANY RENDERED SERVICES TO BOTH HOLDING AND OPERATING COMPANIES
UNDER SERVICE CONTRACTS.  AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE ACT, IT FORMED A
WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY, EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED, TO TAKE OVER THE
SERVICING OF THE OPERATING COMPANIES, AND THE SERVICING OF THE HOLDING
COMPANIES WAS DISCONTINUED.  THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICE CONTRACTS BY
EBASCO, OPERATING AS A SUBSIDIARY AND ON BEHALF OF ELECTRIC BOND AND
SHARE COMPANY, CONSTITUTES AN EXTENSIVE BUSINESS IN RENDERING
CONTINUOUS EXPERT, SPECIALIZED, AND TECHNICAL SERVICE, ADVICE, AND
ASSISTANCE TO THE SERVICED COMPANIES UPON EVERY PHASE OF THE UTILITY
ENTERPRISE.  PHOENIX ENGINEERING CORPORATION, A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY
OF EBASCO, PERFORMS CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR SUBSIDIARY PUBLIC-UTILITY
COMPANIES IN THE BOND AND SHARE SYSTEM.  THE AMERICAN GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY ALSO PERFORMS SERVICES FOR SUBSIDIARY OPERATING COMPANIES. 

WE NEED NOT GO FURTHER IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATIONS OF THESE
COMPANIES, AS PETITIONERS CONCEDE THAT THE CARRYING OUT OF THESE
SERVICE CONTRACTS, AS FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT, INVOLVES CONTINUOUS AND
EXTENSIVE USE OF THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS ARE CAREFUL TO QUALIFY THE CONCESSION BY
SAYING THAT THEY AGREE WITH THE TRIAL COURT THAT "THIS IS NOT TO SAY
THAT THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OF EBASCO OR AMERICAN GAS CONSTITUTES
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO UNLIMITED FEDERAL
REGULATION." 

PETITIONERS ALSO STATE WITH RESPECT TO AMERICAN POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY, NATIONAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, AND ELECTRIC POWER & LIGHT
CORPORATION, THAT WHILE IT IS INSISTED THAT THESE ARE SIMPLY INVESTMENT
HOLDING COMPANIES AND THAT THEIR BUSINESS AS SUCH IS NOT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THEY MAY "FROM TIME TO TIME ENGAGE IN TRANSACTIONS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR MAY USE THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS, SUCH AS THE DISTRIBUTION OF
SECURITIES, IN SUCH MANNER THAT THOSE PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES BECOME THE
SUBJECT OF FEDERAL REGULATION." 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT ONE OR MORE SUBSIDIARY ELECTRIC-UTILITY
COMPANIES OF LEHIGH POWER SECURITIES CORPORATION "ARE REGULARLY ENGAGED
IN SELLING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSMITTING SOME ELECTRIC ENERGY ACROSS
STATE LINES"; AND THAT UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND PACIFIC POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY ARE BOTH HOLDING COMPANIES AND ELECTRIC-UTILITY COMPANIES
AND THAT THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY ACROSS STATE LINES IS PART
OF THE ENTERPRISE OF EACH. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY THE STIPULATION, WE
PERCEIVE NO GROUND FOR A CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFENDANT COMPANIES WHICH
ARE ENJOINED ARE NOT ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE REACH OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL POWER. 

SECOND.  CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT IN ITS ENTIRETY,
PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT SECS. 4(A) AND 5 CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THUS BE SEPARATELY SUSTAINED AND
ENFORCED.  THEY URGE THAT THESE SECTIONS ARE PURELY AUXILIARY TO THE
SUBSEQUENT OR "CONTROL PROVISIONS" OF THE ACT (SECS. 6 TO 13); THAT THE
OBJECT OF THIS SUIT IS TO COMPEL SUBMISSION TO AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF
CONTROL AND THAT THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ACT AS A WHOLE, "OR
ENOUGH TO ACCOMPLISH ITS GENERAL PLAN," IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  THEY INSIST
THAT THIS QUESTION MUST BE DETERMINED BEFORE THEY MAY BE COMPELLED TO
REGISTER. 

(1)  IN THIS BRANCH OF THE CASE, PETITIONERS ADDRESS THEIR ARGUMENT
TO THE INTENT OF CONGRESS, RATHER THAN TO ITS POWER.  BUT CONGRESS HAS
DEFINED ITS INTENT AS TO SEPARABILITY.  SECTION 32 OF THE ACT
PROVIDES: 

"IF ANY PROVISION OF THIS TITLE  FN4  OR THE APPLICATION OF SUCH
PROVISION TO ANY PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL BE HELD INVALID, THE
REMAINDER OF THE TITLE AND THE APPLICATION OF SUCH PROVISION TO PERSONS
OR CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN THOSE AS TO WHICH IT IS HELD INVALID SHALL
NOT BE AFFECTED THEREBY." 

THIS PROVISION REVERSES THE PRESUMPTION OF INSEPARABILITY - THAT THE
LEGISLATURE INTENDED THE ACT TO BE EFFECTIVE AS AN ENTIRETY OR NOT AT
ALL.  CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED THE OPPOSITE PRESUMPTION OF
DIVISIBILITY.  WILLIAMS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 278 U.S. 235, 242; UTAH
POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165, 184; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V.
CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, 235.  CONGRESS HAS THUS SAID THAT
THE STATUTE IS NOT AN INTEGRATED WHOLE, WHICH AS SUCH MUST BE SUSTAINED
OR HELD INVALID.  ON THE CONTRARY, WHEN VALIDITY IS IN QUESTION,
DIVISIBILITY AND NOT INTEGRATION IS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE.  INVALID
PARTS ARE TO BE EXCISED AND THE REMAINDER ENFORCED.  WHEN WE ARE
SEEKING TO ASCERTAIN THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, WE MUST GIVE HEED TO
THIS EXPLICIT DECLARATION. 

(2)  IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5 ARE NOT SO
INTERWOVEN WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THAT THERE IS ANY
INHERENT OR PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN THE SEPARATION AND INDEPENDENT
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FORMER WHILE RESERVING ALL QUESTIONS AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE LATTER.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
WAS FORMULATED IN THAT VIEW.  RULE 4 OF THE COMMISSION PROVIDED THAT
ANY PERSON, IN FILING ANY STATEMENT UNDER THE ACT, MIGHT INCLUDE AN
EXPRESS RESERVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS.  IT WAS ON THE
BASIS OF THAT CONSTRUCTION THAT THIS SUIT WAS PROSECUTED AND WAS
LIMITED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5.  ALL RIGHTS AND
REMEDIES AS TO ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE, AS WE HAVE SEEN,
EXPRESSLY RESERVED TO THE DEFENDANTS BY THE DECREE.  NOR CAN IT BE SAID
THAT THIS RESERVATION IS ILLUSORY.  IF THIS DECREE IS AFFIRMED, IT WILL
CONSTITUTE A SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION THAT REGISTRATION WILL BE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO FUTURE CHALLENGE OF THE VALIDITY OF ANY PROVISION OF THE
ACT, OR REQUIREMENT OF THE COMMISSION, OUTSIDE OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5.  IT
IS IDLE TO CONTEND THAT REGISTRATION PURSUANT TO THE DECREE WILL
SUBJECT THE DEFENDANTS TO THE ACT AS AN INTEGRATED WHOLE OR BRING INTO
OPERATION AGAINST THEM WHAT THE DECREE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES. 

(3)  ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO PRACTICAL OBSTACLE TO THE SEPARATE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5, THE ARGUMENT IS
PRESSED THAT IN REASON AND DESIGN THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL UNITY OF THESE
PROVISIONS AND THE SO-CALLED "CONTROL PROVISIONS" WHICH FORBIDS SUCH
ENFORCEMENT.  PETITIONERS URGE THAT SECS. 4(A) AND 5 "MERELY IMPLEMENT
THE SYSTEM OF CONTROLS"; THAT THE POLICY OF THE ACT AS DECLARED IN SEC.
1(C) IS TO COMPEL "THE SIMPLIFICATION AND THE ELIMININATION OF HOLDING
COMPANY SYSTEMS"; AND THAT THE OBJECTIVE CANNOT BE ATTAINED BY
INFORMATORY PROCESSES BUT ONLY BY SUCH REGULATION OR CONTROL AS WILL
"ELIMINATE" THE EVILS. 

THE GOVERNMENT REPLIES THAT WHILE THE OTHER PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE
ONLY TO REGISTERED COMPANIES AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES, SECS. 4(A) AND 5
ARE DRAFTED SO AS TO BE OPERATIVE INDEPENDENTLY AND THAT THE
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE "AN EFFECTIVE INSTRUMENT
OF INFORMATORY REGULATION."  "IF, FOR EXAMPLE," ARGUES THE GOVERNMENT,
"SECTION 11 DEALING WITH CORPORATE REORGANIZATIONS WERE ADJUDGED
INVALID, THERE IS NO INHERENT REASON WHY THE OTHER REGULATORY
PROVISIONS COULD NOT BE ENFORCED AS THE CONGRESS PROVIDED.  AND IF
IS NO INHERENT REASON WHY THE REGISTRATION PROVISIONS, OR SECTIONS 6
AND 7 REGULATING SECURITY ISSUES, OR SECTIONS 8, 9 AND 10 DEALING WITH
UTILITY ACQUISITIONS, COULD NOT BE ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THEIR TERMS."  "LIKEWISE," IT IS SAID, "THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE
REGISTRATION PROVISION - REGULATION BY THE INFORMATORY PROCESS - ARE
THE SAME WHETHER REGISTRATION IS CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATE STATUTE
REGULATING UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES, OR AS BUT ONE PART OF A
COMPREHENSIVE STATUTE CONTAINING MANY DIFFERENT REGULATIONS OF UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANIES."  MOREOVER, AS OBSERVED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, SEC.
1(C) IN ITS ENTIRETY NEGATIVES ANY CONCLUSION THAT THE SIMPLIFICATION
AND ELIMINATION OF HOLDING COMPANIES "IS THE SOLE POLICY OR THE WHOLE
END AND OBJECT OF THE ACT, WHICH, AS STATED, IS 'TO MEET THE PROBLEMS
AND ELIMINATE THE EVILS, AS ENUMERATED IN THIS SECTION, CONNECTED WITH
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES,'" AND THUS "SIMPLIFICATION AND
ELIMINATION" ARE BUT A MEANS AND NOT "THE EXCLUSIVE MEANS" DEEMED TO BE
ESSENTIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF EFFECTUATING SUCH POLICY "IN WHOLE OR
INSOFAR AS MAY BE CONSTITUTIONALLY POSSIBLE." 

WE THINK THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ACT IS FRAMED AND THE VARIETY
OF PROVISIONS IT CONTAINS, WHEN VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESUMPTION
OF DIVISIBILITY, JUSTIFY THAT CONCLUSION.  THE FACT THAT REGISTRATION
UNDERLIES THE APPLICATION OF SUBSEQUENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE
DOES NOT PREVENT THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5 FROM HAVING A
PURPOSE AND A VALUE OF THEIR OWN.  SECTION 5 NOT ONLY PROVIDES IN
PARAGRAPH (A) FOR THE FILING OF A "NOTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION" BUT
ALSO REQUIRES BY PARAGRAPH (B) EVERY REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY TO
SUBMIT, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER REGISTRATION, A "REGISTRATION
STATEMENT" CONTAINING A VARIETY OF DETAILED INFORMATION AS TO CORPORATE
STRUCTURE AND ACTIVITIES.  THUS SEC. 5(B) IS ITSELF A "CONTROL"
PROVISION, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY OPERATIVE.  THE DUTY TO SUPPLY THE
DESCRIBED INFORMATION IS SEPARATELY AND DEFINITELY PRESCRIBED. 

IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT A REQUIREMENT OF THIS SORT IS A REGULATION
WHICH CONGRESS COULD HAVE REGARDED AS IMPORTANT IN ITSELF AND COULD
HAVE MADE THE SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE STATUTE.  THE FACT THAT IT IS FOUND
IN A STATUTE IMPOSING OTHER REGULATIONS, OR THAT IT PRECEDES THE
APPLICATION OF THE OTHERS, DOES NOT DEPRIVE IT OF ITS ESSENTIAL
CHARACTER AND ITS CAPACITY TO STAND ALONE.  REGULATION REQUIRING THE
SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION IS A FAMILIAR CATEGORY.  INFORMATION BEARING
UPON ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE WITHIN THE RANGE OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER MAY
BE SOUGHT NOT ONLY BY CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION AS AN AID TO
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, BUT THROUGH THE CONTINUOUS SUPERVISION OF AN
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. BRIMSON,
154 U.S. 447, 474; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. GOODRICH TRANSIT
CO., 224 U.S. 194, 211; AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 299 U.S. 232, 235, 237.  CONGRESS MAY USE THIS METHOD IN
CONNECTION WITH A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME OF REGULATION, AS, FOR EXAMPLE,
IN THE CASE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; OR CONGRESS MAY EMPLOY THIS INFORMATORY
PROCESS INDEPENDENTLY.  AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE LATTER IS FOUND IN THE
STATUTE RELATING TO NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS, ENJOYING THE PRIVILEGES
ACCORDED TO SECOND CLASS MAIL, WHICH REQUIRES AN ANNUAL STATEMENT
SETTING FORTH THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE EDITOR, PUBLISHER,
BUSINESS MANAGER, OWNER, AND, IN CASE OF OWNERSHIP BY A CORPORATION,
THE STOCKHOLDERS, AND ALSO THE NAMES OF KNOWN BONDHOLDERS OR OTHER
SECURITY HOLDERS, TOGETHER WITH A STATEMENT AS TO CIRCULATION.  39
U.S.C. 233.  SEE LEWIS PUBLISHING CO. V. MORGAN, 229 U.S. 288. 

PETITIONERS REFER TO THE LIMITATIONS UPON PUBLICITY CONTAINED IN SEC.
22 AND CONTRAST THIS PROVISION WITH THAT OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933,
SEC. 6(D), 48 STAT. 74, 78.  BUT SEC. 22 PROVIDES THAT THE INFORMATION
SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC WHEN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION
ITS DISCLOSURE WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE INTEREST OF
INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS.  THE LIMITATIONS ARE PLAINLY INTENDED TO
SAFEGUARD PARTICULAR INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS OF A PRIVATE
OR CONFIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND AS NOT DIRECTLY CONCERNING THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  THEY DO NOT DETRACT FROM THE VALUE WHICH MAY BE DEEMED TO
ATTACH TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DESCRIBED INFORMATION SHOULD BE
FURNISHED, WHETHER AS AN AID TO LEGISLATION OR AS FACILITATING
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OR AS SECURING A DESIRABLE PUBLICITY. 

BOTH PARTIES INVOKE THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT.  PETITIONERS
CONTEND THAT THIS SHOWS THAT CONTROL, NOT PUBLICITY, WAS INTENDED.  THE
GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUPPORTS THE
PRESUMPTION OF SEPARABILITY.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REVIEW THE DETAILS
OF THE ARGUMENTS OR THE CITED STATEMENTS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HALLS. 
THE ACT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY.  THE GOVERNMENT
POINTS TO SIX GROUPS OF REGULATORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT,
VIZ., REGISTRATION (SECS. 4 AND 5); ISSUANCE OF SECURITIES (SECS. 6 AND
7); ACQUISITION OF SECURITIES AND UTILITY ASSETS (SECS. 8, 9 AND 10);
CORPORATE SIMPLIFICATION AND REORGANIZATION (SEC. 11); SERVICE
CONTRACTS AND OTHER INTER-COMPANY TRANSACTIONS (SECS. 12 AND 13); AND
REPORTS AND ACCOUNTS (SECS. 14 AND 15).  WE SEE NOTHING IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT WHICH REQUIRES THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL
THESE GROUPS WERE INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE A UNITARY SYSTEM, NO PART OF
WHICH CAN FAIL WITHOUT DESTROYING THE REST.  ON THE CONTRARY, WE THINK
THAT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS IS THAT THESE VARIOUS GROUPS OF
REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF EACH GROUP, SHOULD BE
REGARDED AS SEPARABLE SO THAT, IF ANY SUCH GROUP OR PROVISION SHOULD BE
FOUND TO BE INVALID, THAT INVALIDITY SHOULD NOT EXTEND TO THE REMAINING
PARTS IF BY REASON OF THEIR NATURE AND AS A PRACTICAL MATTER THEY COULD
BE SEPARATELY SUSTAINED AND ENFORCED. 

CONGRESS PROVIDED IN SEC. 18(F) THAT THE COMMISSION MIGHT BRING AN
ACTION TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH THE ACT OR ANY RULE, REGULATION OR
ORDER THEREUNDER, AND THAT UPON A PROPER SHOWING A PERMANENT OR
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION OR DECREE SHOULD BE GRANTED.  IN PURSUANCE OF THAT
AUTHORITY, THE PRESENT ACTION WAS BROUGHT SOLELY TO ENFORCE THE
PROVISIONS OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5.  WE FIND NO BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT
THESE PROVISIONS CANNOT BE SEPARATELY ENFORCED IF THEY ARE VALID AND WE
TURN TO THAT QUESTION.  IN VIEW OF THIS CONCLUSION AS TO SEPARABILITY,
IT IS UNNECESSARY TO GO THROUGH THE STATUTE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
WHETHER OTHER PROVISIONS ARE VALID OR INVALID, AND WE DO NOT INTIMATE
THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE FOUND IN ANY EVENT A WORKABLE SYSTEM IN
ADDITION TO THE REGISTRATION SECTIONS. 

THIRD. PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT, STANDING BY THEMSELVES, SECS. 4(A)
AND 5 TRANSGRESS CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.  THESE SECTIONS HAVE
THREE PARTS.  SECTION 5(A) PROVIDES FOR THE FILING OF A NOTIFICATION OF
REGISTRATION.  SECTION 5(B) MAKES IT THE DUTY OF EVERY REGISTERED
HOLDING COMPANY TO FILE A REGISTRATION STATEMENT, WITH DOCUMENTS AND
CERTAIN DETAILED INFORMATION, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER
REGISTRATION.  SECTION 4(A) PRESCRIBES THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO
REGISTER UNDER SEC. 5.  AS THE REQUIREMENT OF INFORMATION IS IN ITSELF
A PERMISSIBLE AND USEFUL TYPE OF REGULATION (INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. BRIMSON, SUPRA; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V.
GOODRICH TRANSIT CO., SUPRA; AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA), THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PARTICULAR DEMAND,
HERE ASSAILED, CAN BE VALIDLY ADDRESSED TO THE DEFENDANTS ENJOINED BY
THE DECREE, AND, IF SO, WHETHER IT EXCEEDS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS
BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER AND EXTENT OF THE INFORMATION SOUGHT. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT BASED UPON THE STIPULATION OF
FACTS LEAVE NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THESE DEFENDANTS ARE ENGAGED IN
TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THAT THEY CONDUCT SUCH
TRANSACTIONS THROUGH THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF SUBSIDIARIES CANNOT AVAIL
TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE REACH OF THE FEDERAL POWER.  IT IS THE
SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THEY DO, AND NOT THE FORM IN WHICH THEY CLOTHE THEIR
TRANSACTIONS, WHICH MUST AFFORD THE TEST.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
CONFIDED TO CONGRESS COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IF IT WERE DEEMED TO
DEPEND UPON THE MERE MODAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THOSE SEEKING TO ESCAPE ITS
EXERCISE.  COMPARE NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S.
197.  WE NEED NOT NOW DETERMINE TO WHAT PRECISE EXTENT THESE DEFENDANTS
ARE ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THEY DO
HAVE CONTINUOUS AND EXTENSIVE OPERATIONS IN THAT COMMERCE, AND CONGRESS
CANNOT BE DENIED THE POWER TO DEMAND THE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD
FURNISH A GUIDE TO THE REGULATION NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE
NATIONAL INTEREST.  REGULATION IS ADDRESSED TO PRACTICES WHICH APPEAR
TO NEED SUPERVISION, CORRECTION OR CONTROL.  AND TO DETERMINE WHAT
REGULATION IS ESSENTIAL OR SUITABLE, CONGRESS IS ENTITLED TO CONSIDER
AND TO ESTIMATE WHATEVER EVILS EXIST. 

CONGRESS HAS SET FORTH IN THE ACT WHAT IT CONSIDERS TO BE THE FACTUAL
SITUATION AND THE NEED OF FEDERAL SUPERVISION.  THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
IS FOUND IN PARAGRAPH (A) OF SEC. 1: 

"PUBLIC-UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES AND THEIR SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES ARE
AFFECTED WITH A NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN THAT, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
(1) THEIR SECURITIES ARE WIDELY MARKETED AND DISTRIBUTED BY MEANS OF
THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND ARE SOLD TO
A LARGE NUMBER OF INVESTORS IN DIFFERENT STATES; (2) THEIR SERVICE,
SALES, CONSTRUCTION, AND OTHER CONTRACTS AND ARRANGEMENTS ARE OFTEN
MADE AND PERFORMED BY MEANS OF THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; (3) THEIR SUBSIDIARY PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANIES
OFTEN SELL AND TRANSPORT GAS AND ELECTRIC ENERGY BY THE USE OF MEANS
AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE; (4) THEIR PRACTICES IN
RESPECT OF AND CONTROL OVER SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES OFTEN MATERIALLY
AFFECT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN WHICH THOSE COMPANIES ENGAGE; (5)
THEIR ACTIVITIES EXTENDING OVER MANY STATES ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE OF
EFFECTIVE CONTROL BY ANY STATE AND MAKE DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE,
EFFECTIVE STATE REGULATION OF PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANIES." 

CONGRESS HAS FURTHER DECLARED IN PARAGRAPH (B) OF THAT SECTION, UPON
THE BASIS OF FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE REPORTS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION AND OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE OF
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND OTHERWISE ASCERTAINED, THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND THE INTEREST OF
INVESTORS AND CONSUMERS MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE OPERATION OF
PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANIES.  AND AFTER THIS CATALOGUE OF THE
ABUSES WHICH MAY EXIST IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED, CONGRESS
DECLARES IT TO BE ITS POLICY "TO MEET THE PROBLEMS AND ELIMINATE THE
EVILS AS ENUMERATED IN THIS SECTION, CONNECTED WITH PUBLIC-UTILITY
HOLDING COMPANIES WHICH ARE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR IN
ACTIVITIES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT OR BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 
WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO STATE THE LIMITS OF PERMISSIBLE REGULATION IN THE
EXECUTION OF THIS DECLARED POLICY, WE HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT FROM
THESE DEFENDANTS, WITH THEIR HIGHLY IMPORTANT RELATION TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE AND THE NATIONAL ECONOMY, CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO DEMAND THE
FULLEST INFORMATION AS TO ORGANIZATION, FINANCIAL STRUCTURE AND ALL THE
ACTIVITIES WHICH COULD HAVE ANY BEARING UPON THE EXERCISE OF
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.  THE REGULATION FOUND IN SEC. 5(B) GOES NO
FURTHER THAN TO REQUIRE THIS INFORMATION AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT
ITS VALIDITY MUST BE SUSTAINED. 

SEC. 5, AND THAT SECTION AS AN INCIDENT TO REGISTRATION IMPOSES THE
DUTY TO FILE THE DESCRIBED REGISTRATION STATEMENT.  TREATING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECS. 4(A) AND 5 AS A SEPARABLE PART OF THE ACT, THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT PENALTY MAY BE VALIDLY IMPOSED. 

IN THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF ITS RULES,
CONGRESS HAS A WIDE DISCRETION.  SANCTIONS MAY BE OF VARIOUS TYPES. 
SEE HELVERING V. MITCHELL, ANTE, P. 391.  THEY MAY INVOLVE THE LOSS OF
A PRIVILEGE WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE ENJOYED.  ID. NOTE 2.  WHEN
CONGRESS LAYS DOWN A VALID RULE TO GOVERN THOSE ENGAGED IN TRANSACTIONS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CONGRESS MAY DENY TO THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE RULE
THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS.  CHAMPION V. AMES, 188 U.S.
321; UNITED STATES V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366, 415; BROOKS
V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S. 432, 436, 437; GOOCH V. UNITED STATES, 297
U.S. 124; KENTUCKY WHIP & COLLAR CO. V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 299
U.S. 334, 346, 347.  AND WHILE CONGRESS MAY NOT EXERCISE ITS CONTROL
OVER THE MAILS TO ENFORCE A REQUIREMENT WHICH LIES OUTSIDE ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVINCE, WHEN CONGRESS LAYS DOWN A VALID REGULATION
PERTINENT TO THE USE OF THE MAILS, IT MAY WITHDRAW THE PRIVILEGE OF
THAT USE FROM THOSE WHO DISOBEY.  CHAMPION V. AMES, SUPRA; LEWIS
PUBLISHING CO. V. MORGAN, 229 U.S. 288. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PENALTY ATTACHES TO THE USE OF THE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF COMMERCE AND OF THE MAILS BY THOSE WHO, ENGAGED IN
THAT USE, REFUSE TO SUBMIT TO SEC. 5 AND THUS THROUGH REGISTRATION AND
THE STATEMENT WHICH IS INCIDENT TO REGISTRATION TO SUPPLY THE
INFORMATION WHICH CONGRESS IS ENTITLED TO DEMAND, AND HAS DEMANDED,
WITH RESPECT TO THEIR ORGANIZATION AND PRACTICES.  EACH ONE OF THE
PARAGRAPHS OF SEC. 4(A), AS RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 5, IS
ADDRESSED TO THOSE IN THAT CLASS.  WE THINK THAT THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH
A PENALTY DOES NOT TRANSGRESS ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 

THE DECREE ENFORCES THIS PENALTY BY INJUNCTION AS THE ACT ITSELF
AUTHORIZES.  SEC. 18(F).  THE TERMS OF THE INJUNCTION FOLLOW CLOSELY
THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 4(A) AND DO NOT EXTEND BEYOND THEM.  TO ESCAPE
THE PENALTY AND THE ENFORCING PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE, ALL THAT THE
DEFENDANTS HAVE TO DO IS TO REGISTER WITH THE COMMISSION AND ASSUME,
UNDER SEC. 5, THE OBLIGATION TO FILE THE DESCRIBED REGISTRATION
STATEMENT.  ALL THEIR RIGHTS AND REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE REMAIN WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  THEIR OBJECTIONS
TO THE AFFIRMATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE DECREE ARE UNTENABLE. 

FOURTH.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN DISMISSING THE CROSS
BILL.  DEFENDANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN ADVISORY DECREE UPON A HYPOTHETICAL
STATE OF FACTS.  SEE NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328; UNITED STATES
V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 324; ANNISTON MANUFACTURING CO. V. DAVIS, 301
U.S. 337, 355.  BY THE CROSS BILL, DEFENDANTS SEEK A JUDGMENT THAT EACH
AND EVERY PROVISION OF THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  IT PRESENTS A
VARIETY OF HYPOTHETICAL CONTROVERSIES WHICH MAY NEVER BECOME REAL.  WE
ARE INVITED TO ENTER INTO A SPECULATIVE INQUIRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONDEMNING STATUTORY PROVISIONS THE EFFECT OF WHICH IN CONCRETE
SITUATIONS, NOT YET DEVELOPED, CANNOT NOW BE DEFINITELY PERCEIVED.  WE
MUST DECLINE THAT INVITATION.  ANNISTON MANUFACTURING CO. V. DAVIS,
SUPRA. 

THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IDAHO POWER COMPANY AND THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY. 

FN2  UNITED GAS CORPORATION, UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,
HOUSTON GULF GAS COMPANY, NEBRASKA POWER COMPANY, AND POWER SECURITIES
COMPANY. 

FN3  "SEC.  4.  (A).  AFTER DECEMBER 1, 1935, UNLESS A HOLDING
COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 5, IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR SUCH
HOLDING COMPANY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY - 

"(1)  TO SELL, TRANSPORT, TRANSMIT, OR DISTRIBUTE, OR OWN OR OPERATE
ANY UTILITY ASSETS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION, OR
DISTRIBUTION OF, NATURAL OR MANUFACTURED GAS OR ELECTRIC ENERGY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; 

"(2)  BY USE OF THE MAILS OR ANY MEANS OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO NEGOTIATE, ENTER INTO, OR TAKE ANY STEP IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF, ANY SERVICE, SALES, OR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
UNDERTAKING TO PERFORM SERVICES OR CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR, OR SELL GOODS
TO, ANY PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANY OR HOLDING COMPANY; 

"(3)  TO DISTRIBUTE OR MAKE ANY PUBLIC OFFERING FOR SALE OR EXCHANGE
OF ANY SECURITY OF SUCH HOLDING COMPANY, ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OR
AFFILIATE OF SUCH HOLDING COMPANY, ANY PUBLIC-UTILITY COMPANY, OR ANY
HOLDING COMPANY, BY USE OF THE MAILS OR ANY MEANS OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR TO SELL ANY SUCH SECURITY HAVING REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT SUCH SECURITY, BY USE OF THE MAILS OR ANY MEANS OR
INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WILL BE DISTRIBUTED OR MADE THE
SUBJECT OF A PUBLIC OFFERING;    "(4)  BY USE OF THE MAILS OR ANY MEANS
OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO ACQUIRE OR NEGOTIATE FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF ANY SECURITY OR UTILITY ASSETS OF ANY SUBSIDIARY
COMPANY OR AFFILIATE OF SUCH HOLDING COMPANY, ANY PUBLIC-UTILITY
COMPANY, OR ANY HOLDING COMPANY; 

"(5)  TO ENGAGE IN ANY BUSINESS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; OR 

"(6)  TO OWN, CONTROL, OR HOLD WITH POWER TO VOTE, ANY SECURITY OF
ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY THEREOF THAT DOES ANY OF THE ACTS ENUMERATED IN
PARAGRAPHS (1) TO (5), INCLUSIVE, OF THIS SUBSECTION. 

     .         .  .         .         .    "SEC. 5.  (A)  ON OR AT
ANY TIME AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1935, ANY HOLDING COMPANY OR ANY PERSON
PURPOSING TO BECOME A HOLDING COMPANY MAY REGISTER BY FILING WITH THE
COMMISSION A NOTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION, IN SUCH FORM AS THE
COMMISSION MAY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBE AS NECESSARY OR
APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS
OR CONSUMERS.  A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REGISTERED UPON RECEIPT
BY THE COMMISSION OF SUCH NOTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION. 

"(B)  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF EVERY REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY TO
FILE WITH THE COMMISSION, WITHIN SUCH REASONABLE TIME AFTER
REGISTRATION AS THE COMMISSION SHALL FIX BY RULES AND REGULATIONS OR
ORDER, A REGISTRATION STATEMENT IN SUCH FORM AS THE COMMISSION SHALL BY
RULES AND REGULATIONS OR ORDER PRESCRIBE AS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS. 
SUCH REGISTRATION STATEMENT SHALL INCLUDE - 

"(1)  SUCH COPIES OF THE CHARTER OR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION,
PARTNERSHIP, OR AGREEMENT, WITH ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND THE BYLAWS,
TRUST INDENTURES, MORTGAGES, UNDERWRITING ARRANGEMENTS, VOTING-TRUST
AGREEMENTS, AND SIMILAR DOCUMENTS, BY WHATEVER NAME KNOWN, OF OR
RELATING TO THE REGISTRANT OR ANY OF ITS ASSOCIATE COMPANIES AS THE
COMMISSION MAY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS OR ORDER PRESCRIBE AS NECESSARY
OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR FOR THE PROTECTION OF
INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS; 

"(2)  SUCH INFORMATION IN SUCH FORM AND IN SUCH DETAIL RELATING TO,
AND COPIES OF SUCH DOCUMENTS OF OR RELATING TO, THE REGISTRANT AND ITS
ASSOCIATE COMPANIES AS THE COMMISSION MAY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS OR
ORDER PRESCRIBE AS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR
FOR THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS IN RESPECT OF - 

"(A)  THE ORGANIZATION AND FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF SUCH COMPANIES AND
THE NATURE OF THEIR BUSINESS; 

"(B)  THE TERMS, POSITION, RIGHTS, AND PRIVILEGES OF THE DIFFERENT
CLASSES OF THEIR SECURITIES OUTSTANDING; 

"(C)  THE TERMS AND UNDERWRITING ARRANGEMENTS UNDER WHICH THEIR
SECURITIES, DURING NOT MORE THAN THE FIVE PRECEDING YEARS, HAVE BEEN
OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF AND THE RELATIONS OF
UNDERWRITERS TO, AND THEIR INTEREST IN, SUCH COMPANIES; 

"(D)  THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF SUCH COMPANIES, THEIR
REMUNERATION, THEIR INTEREST IN THE SECURITIES OF, THEIR MATERIAL
CONTRACTS WITH, AND THEIR BORROWINGS FROM, ANY OF SUCH COMPANIES; 

"(E)  BONUS AND PROFIT-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS; 

"(F)  MATERIAL CONTRACTS, NOT MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF
BUSINESS, AND SERVICE, SALES, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS; 

"(G)  OPTIONS IN RESPECT OF SECURITIES; 

"(H)  BALANCE SHEETS FOR NOT MORE THAN THE FIVE PRECEDING FISCAL
YEARS, CERTIFIED, IF REQUIRED BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
COMMISSION, BY AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT; 

"(I)  PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENTS FOR NOT MORE THAN THE FIVE PRECEDING
FISCAL YEARS, CERTIFIED, IF REQUIRED BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
THE COMMISSION, BY AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT; 

"(3)  SUCH FURTHER INFORMATION OR DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE REGISTRANT
OR ITS ASSOCIATE COMPANIES OR THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THEM AS THE
COMMISSION MAY BY RULES AND REGULATIONS OR ORDER PRESCRIBE AS NECESSARY
OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR FOR THE PROTECTION OF
INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS. 

"(C)  THE COMMISSION BY SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS OR ORDER AS IT
DEEMS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR FOR THE
PROTECTION OF INVESTORS OR CONSUMERS, MAY PERMIT A REGISTRANT TO FILE A
PRELIMINARY REGISTRATION STATEMENT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B); BUT EVERY REGISTRANT SHALL FILE A
COMPLETE REGISTRATION STATEMENT WITH THE COMMISSION WITHIN SUCH
REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME AS THE COMMISSION SHALL FIX BY RULES AND
REGULATIONS OR ORDER, BUT NOT LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF
REGISTRATION. 

"(D)  WHENEVER THE COMMISSION, UPON APPLICATION, FINDS THAT A
REGISTERED HOLDING COMPANY HAS CEASED TO BE A HOLDING COMPANY, IT SHALL
SO DECLARE BY ORDER AND UPON THE TAKING EFFECT OF SUCH ORDER THE
REGISTRATION OF SUCH COMPANY SHALL, UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE COMMISSION FINDS AND IN SUCH ORDER PRESCRIBES AS NECESSARY FOR THE
PROTECTION OF INVESTORS, CEASE TO BE IN EFFECT.  THE DENIAL OF ANY SUCH
APPLICATION BY THE COMMISSION SHALL BE BY ORDER." 

FN4  THE "TITLE" IS "TITLE I - CONTROL OF PUBLIC-UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANIES." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DISSENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




LOVELL V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 444 


NO. 391.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 55 GA.
APP. 609 -  191 S.E. 152, REVERSED. 


1.  WHETHER A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO AND DECIDED
BY A STATE COURT IS ITSELF A FEDERAL QUESTION, TO BE DECIDED BY THIS
COURT UPON APPEAL.  P. 450. 

2.  FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, WHICH ARE PROTECTED
BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM INFRINGEMENT BY CONGRESS, ARE AMONG THE
FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM INVASION BY STATE ACTION.  P. 450. 

3.  MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES ADOPTED UNDER STATE AUTHORITY CONSTITUTE
STATE ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 450. 

4.  A CITY ORDINANCE FORBIDDING AS A NUISANCE THE DISTRIBUTION, BY
HAND OR OTHERWISE, OF LITERATURE OF ANY KIND WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING
WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CITY MANAGER, VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT; STRIKES AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
BY SUBJECTING IT TO LICENSE AND CENSORSHIP.  P. 450. 

SO HELD AS APPLIED TO DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS AND MAGAZINES IN THE
NATURE OF RELIGIOUS TRACTS. 

5.  THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IS NOT CONFINED TO NEWSPAPERS AND
PERIODICALS.  IT EMBRACES PAMPHLETS AND LEAFLETS.  P. 452. 

6.  ONE WHO IS PROSECUTED FOR DISOBEYING A LICENSE ORDINANCE WHICH IS
VOID ON ITS FACE MAY CONTEST ITS VALIDITY WITHOUT HAVING SOUGHT A
PERMIT UNDER IT.  P. 452. 

LOVELL V. CITY OF GRIFFIN. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR VIOLATION OF
A CITY ORDINANCE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE DENIED A REVIEW. 

THIS ORDINANCE IS A POLICE MEASURE WHICH DEALS WITH THE PRACTICE OF
DISTRIBUTING CIRCULARS, HANDBOOKS, ADVERTISING AND OTHER LITERATURE
WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.  IF IT BE KEPT IN MIND THAT EVERY MUNICIPALITY
IS FACED WITH A SANITARY PROBLEM IN REMOVING FROM ITS STREETS PAPERS,
CIRCULARS AND OTHER LIKE MATERIALS, THE REASONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF
SUCH AN ORDINANCE BECOME APPARENT.  CLEARLY THERE IS A PERMISSIBLE
FIELD FOR SUCH A REGULATION WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  NOTHING
IN THE ORDINANCE IS AIMED AT OR RELATES TO THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP AS ONE
MAY PREFER, OR THE RIGHT TO SPEAK OR WRITE WITH COMPLETE FREEDOM.  THE
FACT THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE IN HER OWN MIND ASSOCIATED HER FORBIDDEN
ACTIVITIES WITH HER RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS DOES NOT ESTABLISH ANY LEGAL
OR CONSTITUTIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THEM.  COMMONWEALTH V. PLAISTED,
148 MASS. 375; SMITH V. PEOPLE, 51 COLO. 271; STATE V. MARBLE, 72 OHIO
ST. 21; STREITCH V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 34 S.D. 169; STATE V. BIG
SHEEP, 75 MONT. 219; MCMASTERS V. STATE, 21 OKLA. CRIM. 318; REYNOLDS
V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145; STATE V. NEITZEL, 69 WASH. 567;
COMMONWEALTH V. HERR, 229 PA. ST. 132. 

APPELLANT IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE PRESS.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DOES
NOT PLACE HER IN THE CLASS OF PERSONS WHO ARE ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS TOUCHING THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  MOREOVER,
SHE WAS NOT CONVICTED FOR ANYTHING SHE WAS SPEAKING OR WRITING. 
NEITHER DOES THE ORDINANCE PROHIBIT HER FROM SPEAKING OR WRITING AS HER
JUDGMENT MAY DICTATE.  THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT SHE IS NOT
TO DISTRIBUTE PRINTED MATTER WHICH OTHERS HAVE PUBLISHED, WITHOUT A
PERMIT, INVOLVES IN NO WAY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. 
IROQUOIS TRANSPORTATION CO. V. DELANEY CO., 205 U.S. 354; LEE V. NEW
JERSEY, 207 U.S. 67; FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. V. FREEMAN, 109 F. 847;
MISSOURI, K. & T.R. CO. V. CADE, 233 U.S. 642. 

THE ORDINANCE DOES RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE CIRCULARS,
ADVERTISING MATTER AND OTHER LITERATURE IN THE CITY, IN THE ABSENCE OF
A PERMIT FROM THE CITY MANAGER.  IT IS URGED THAT THIS RESTRAINT
INVOLVES A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW,
IN THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS CLOTHED WITH UNQUALIFIED DISCRETION IN
GRANTING OR DENYING THE PERMIT.  THIS IS SCARCELY A DENIAL OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAW, SINCE IT APPLIES IN LIKE MANNER TO ALL PERSONS. 
A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION AS TO DUE PROCESS MIGHT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN
THE CASE EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING ESSENTIAL FACTS, TO-WIT: 

(A)  APPELLANT FAILED TO RAISE IN ANY PROPER MANNER THE ISSUE OF DUE
PROCESS IN THE TRIAL COURT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SO RULED, AND
RIGHTLY.  COLEMAN V. GRIFFIN, 55 GA. APP. 123; CURTIS V. HELEN, 171 GA.
256; JORDAN V. STATE, 172 GA. 857; PALMER V. PHINIZY, 151 GA. 589;
LOUISVILLE & N.RY. CO. V. WOODFORD, 234 U.S. 46. 

(B)  APPELLANT DID NOT APPLY TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR A PERMIT.  SHE
IS NOT IN A POSITION OF HAVING SUFFERED FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE
ARBITRARY AND UNLIMITED POWER OF WHICH SHE COMPLAINS.  HAD SHE MADE
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT AND HAD SHE BEEN DENIED ONE WITHOUT ADEQUATE
REASON, HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WOULD HAVE BEEN INFRINGED.  SHE SEEKS
TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN APPLICATION BY HER FOR
A PERMIT WOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.  NOTHING IN THE RECORD JUSTIFIES SUCH
AN ASSUMPTION.  THE FACT THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS CLOTHED WITH
ARBITRARY POWER, IF IT BE A FACT, AFFORDS THE APPELLANT NO GROUND OF
COMPLAINT UNLESS AND UNTIL SHE HAS SUFFERED FROM THE EXERCISE OF THIS
POWER.  IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS PROPER FOR THE CITY TO PROVIDE BY
ORDINANCE THAT ALL PERSONS DISTRIBUTING MATERIALS DESCRIBED BY THE
ORDINANCE BE REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT.  IF SO, NO PERSON DESIRING
TO ENGAGE IN THIS ACTIVITY CAN SUFFER ANY LEGAL WRONG BY REASON OF THE
ORDINANCE UNTIL THE APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT HAS BEEN DENIED.  UNTIL
THE CONTRARY APPEARS FROM EXPERIENCE, IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT ALL
PERSONS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO A PERMIT WILL BE GRANTED ONE.  HAD THE
APPELLANT APPLIED FOR ONE AND BEEN DENIED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE, A
QUESTION OF DUE PROCESS WOULD HAVE ARISEN.  EVEN THEN, IT WOULD BE
NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO GET A HEARING IN THIS COURT, FOR THE APPELLANT
TO RAISE THIS QUESTION IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE ACCEPTED RULES OF
PRACTICE, AND THIS SHE HAS NOT DONE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, ALMA LOVELL, WAS CONVICTED IN THE RECORDER'S COURT OF THE
CITY OF GRIFFIN, GEORGIA, OF THE VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINANCE AND WAS
SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR FIFTY DAYS IN DEFAULT OF THE PAYMENT OF A
FINE OF FIFTY DOLLARS.  THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY REFUSED
SANCTION OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW; THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT (55 GA. APP. 609; 191 S.E. 152); AND THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE DENIED AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI.  THE
CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL. 

THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 1.  THAT THE PRACTICE OF DISTRIBUTING, EITHER BY HAND OR
OTHERWISE, CIRCULARS, HANDBOOKS, ADVERTISING, OR LITERATURE OF ANY
KIND, WHETHER SAID ARTICLES ARE BEING DELIVERED FREE, OR WHETHER SAME
ARE BEING SOLD, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GRIFFIN, WITHOUT FIRST
OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF
GRIFFIN, SUCH PRACTICE SHALL BE DEEMED A NUISANCE, AND PUNISHABLE AS AN
OFFENSE AGAINST THE CITY OF GRIFFIN. 

"SECTION 2.  THE CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF GRIFFIN AND THE
POLICE FORCE OF THE CITY OF GRIFFIN ARE HEREBY REQUIRED AND DIRECTED TO
SUPPRESS THE SAME AND TO ABATE ANY NUISANCE AS IS DESCRIBED IN THE
FIRST SECTION OF THIS ORDINANCE." 

THE VIOLATION, WHICH IS NOT DENIED, CONSISTED OF THE DISTRIBUTION
WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PERMISSION OF A PAMPHLET AND MAGAZINE IN THE
NATURE OF RELIGIOUS TRACTS, SETTING FORTH THE GOSPEL OF THE "KINGDOM OF
JEHOVAH."  APPELLANT DID NOT APPLY FOR A PERMIT, AS SHE REGARDED
HERSELF AS SENT "BY JEHOVAH TO DO HIS WORK" AND THAT SUCH AN
APPLICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN "AN ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE TO HIS
COMMANDMENT." 

UPON THE TRIAL, WITH PERMISSION OF THE COURT, APPELLANT DEMURRED TO
THE CHARGE AND MOVED TO DISMISS IT UPON A NUMBER OF GROUNDS, AMONG
WHICH WAS THE CONTENTION THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN ABRIDGING "THE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS" AND PROHIBITING "THE FREE EXERCISE OF
PETITIONER'S RELIGION."  THIS CONTENTION WAS THUS EXPRESSED: 

"BECAUSE SAID ORDINANCE IS CONTRARY TO AND IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH READS: 

'CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION,
OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO
ASSEMBLE AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.' 

"SAID ORDINANCE IS ALSO CONTRARY TO AND IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH
HAD THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE SAID FIRST AMENDMENT APPLICABLE TO THE
STATES, AND WHICH READS: 

'ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, AND SUBJECT TO
THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND OF THE
STATE WHEREIN THEY RESIDE.  NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW
WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY,
OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN
ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.' 

"SAID ORDINANCE ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITS THE DISTRIBUTION OF ANY
LITERATURE OF ANY KIND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF GRIFFIN WITHOUT
THE PERMISSION OF THE CITY MANAGER AND THUS ABRIDGES THE FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID QUOTED AMENDMENTS. 

"SAID ORDINANCE ALSO PROHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF PETITIONER'S
RELIGION AND THE PRACTICE THEREOF BY PROHIBITING THE DISTRIBUTION OF
LITERATURE ABOUT PETITIONER'S RELIGION IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF
SAID QUOTED AMENDMENTS." 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVERRULING THESE OBJECTIONS, SUSTAINED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCE, SAYING - 

"THE ORDINANCE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT ABRIDGES THE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS OR PROHIBITS THE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE ABOUT
THE PETITIONER'S RELIGION, IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." 

WHILE IN A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH OF ITS OPINION THE COURT SAID THAT THE
CHARGE THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS VOID BECAUSE IT VIOLATED A DESIGNATED
PROVISION OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WITHOUT STATING WHEREIN
THERE WAS SUCH A VIOLATION, WAS TOO INDEFINITE TO PRESENT A
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, WE THINK THAT THIS STATEMENT MUST HAVE
REFERRED TO OTHER GROUNDS OF DEMURRER AND NOT TO THE OBJECTION ABOVE
QUOTED WHICH WAS SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC AND WAS DEFINITELY RULED UPON. 
THE CONTENTION AS TO RESTRAINT "UPON THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION,"
WITH RESPECT TO THE SAME ORDINANCE, WAS PRESENTED IN THE CASE OF
COLEMAN V. CITY OF GRIFFIN, 55 GA. APP. 123, AND THE APPEAL WAS
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION, 302 U.S. 636. 
REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 166, 167; DAVIS V. BEASON, 133
U.S. 333, 342, 343.  BUT, IN THE COLEMAN CASE, THE COURT DID NOT DEAL
WITH THE QUESTION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS, AS IT HAD NOT
BEEN PROPERLY PRESENTED.  WE THINK THAT THIS QUESTION WAS ADEQUATELY
PRESENTED AND WAS DECIDED IN THE INSTANT CASE.  WHETHER IT WAS SO
PRESENTED AND WAS DECIDED IS ITSELF A FEDERAL QUESTION.  CARTER V.
TEXAS, 177 U.S. 442, 447; WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17, 22; FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. ANDERSON, 269 U.S. 341, 346; SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 296 U.S. 113, 121.  THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION. 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT FROM INFRINGEMENT BY CONGRESS, ARE AMONG THE
FUNDAMENTAL PERSONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM INVASION BY STATE ACTION.  GITLOW V. NEW
YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666; STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368;
NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 707; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO.,
297 U.S. 233, 244; DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 364.  SEE, ALSO,
PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319.  IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES ADOPTED UNDER STATE AUTHORITY CONSTITUTE STATE
ACTION AND ARE WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE AMENDMENT.  RAYMOND V.
CHICAGO UNION TRACTION CO., 207 U.S. 20; HOME TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.
V. LOS ANGELES, 227 U.S. 278; CUYAHOGA RIVER POWER CO. V. AKRON, 240
U.S. 462. 

THE ORDINANCE IN ITS BROAD SWEEP PROHIBITS THE DISTRIBUTION OF
"CIRCULARS, HANDBOOKS, ADVERTISING, OR LITERATURE OF ANY KIND."  IT
MANIFESTLY APPLIES TO PAMPHLETS, MAGAZINES AND PERIODICALS.  THE
EVIDENCE AGAINST APPELLANT WAS THAT SHE DISTRIBUTED A CERTAIN PAMPHLET
AND A MAGAZINE CALLED THE "GOLDEN AGE."  WHETHER IN ACTUAL
ADMINISTRATION THE ORDINANCE IS APPLIED, AS APPARENTLY IT COULD BE, TO
NEWSPAPERS DOES NOT APPEAR.  THE CITY MANAGER TESTIFIED THAT "EVERY ONE
APPLIES TO ME FOR A LICENSE TO DISTRIBUTE LITERATURE IN THIS CITY. 
NONE OF THESE PEOPLE (INCLUDING DEFENDANT) SECURED A PERMIT FROM ME TO
DISTRIBUTE LITERATURE IN THE CITY OF GRIFFIN."  THE ORDINANCE IS NOT
LIMITED TO "LITERATURE" THAT IS OBSCENE OR OFFENSIVE TO PUBLIC MORALS
OR THAT ADVOCATES UNLAWFUL CONDUCT.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT THE
PAMPHLET AND MAGAZINE DISTRIBUTED IN THE INSTANT CASE WERE OF THAT
CHARACTER.  THE ORDINANCE EMBRACES "LITERATURE" IN THE WIDEST SENSE. 

THE ORDINANCE IS COMPREHENSIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE METHOD OF
DISTRIBUTION.  IT COVERS EVERY SORT OF CIRCULATION "EITHER BY HAND OR
OTHERWISE."  THERE IS THUS NO RESTRICTION IN ITS APPLICATION WITH
RESPECT TO TIME OR PLACE.  IT IS NOT LIMITED TO WAYS WHICH MIGHT BE
REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER OR AS
INVOLVING DISORDERLY CONDUCT, THE MOLESTATION OF THE INHABITANTS, OR
THE MISUSE OR LITTERING OF THE STREETS.  THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITS THE
DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE OF ANY KIND AT ANY TIME, AT ANY PLACE, AND
IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE CITY MANAGER. 

WE THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE IS INVALID ON ITS FACE.  WHATEVER THE
MOTIVE WHICH INDUCED ITS ADOPTION, ITS CHARACTER IS SUCH THAT IT
STRIKES AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BY
SUBJECTING IT TO LICENSE AND CENSORSHIP.  THE STRUGGLE FOR THE FREEDOM
OF THE PRESS WAS PRIMARILY DIRECTED AGAINST THE POWER OF THE LICENSOR. 
IT WAS AGAINST THAT POWER THAT JOHN MILTON DIRECTED HIS ASSAULT BY HIS
"APPEAL FOR THE LIBERTY OF UNLICENSED PRINTING."  AND THE LIBERTY OF
THE PRESS BECAME INITIALLY A RIGHT TO PUBLISH "WITHOUT A LICENSE WHAT
FORMERLY COULD BE PUBLISHED ONLY WITH ONE."  FN1  WHILE THIS FREEDOM
FROM PREVIOUS RESTRAINT UPON PUBLICATION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS
EXHAUSTING THE GUARANTY OF LIBERTY, THE PREVENTION OF THAT RESTRAINT
WAS A LEADING PURPOSE IN THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION. 
SEE PATTERSON V. COLORADO, 205 U.S. 454, 462; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283
U.S. 697, 713-716; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 245,
246.  LEGISLATION OF THE TYPE OF THE ORDINANCE IN QUESTION WOULD
RESTORE THE SYSTEM OF LICENSE AND CENSORSHIP IN ITS BALDEST FORM. 
THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IS NOT CONFINED TO NEWSPAPERS AND
PERIODICALS.  IT NECESSARILY EMBRACES PAMPHLETS AND LEAFLETS.  THESE
INDEED HAVE BEEN HISTORIC WEAPONS IN THE DEFENSE OF LIBERTY, AS THE
PAMPHLETS OF THOMAS PAINE AND OTHERS IN OUR OWN HISTORY ABUNDANTLY
ATTEST.  THE PRESS IN ITS HISTORIC CONNOTATION COMPREHENDS EVERY SORT
OF PUBLICATION WHICH AFFORDS A VEHICLE OF INFORMATION AND OPINION. 
WHAT WE HAVE HAD RECENT OCCASION TO SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE VITAL
IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING THIS ESSENTIAL LIBERTY FROM EVERY SORT OF
INFRINGEMENT NEED NOT BE REPEATED.  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA; GROSJEAN
V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., SUPRA; DE JONGE V. OREGON, SUPRA.  FN2 

THE ORDINANCE CANNOT BE SAVED BECAUSE IT RELATES TO DISTRIBUTION AND
NOT TO PUBLICATION.  "LIBERTY OF CIRCULATING IS AS ESSENTIAL TO THAT
FREEDOM AS LIBERTY OF PUBLISHING; INDEED, WITHOUT THE CIRCULATION, THE
PUBLICATION WOULD BE OF LITTLE VALUE."  EX PARTE JACKSON, 96 U.S. 727,
733.  THE LICENSE TAX IN GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., SUPRA, WAS
HELD INVALID BECAUSE OF ITS DIRECT TENDENCY TO RESTRICT CIRCULATION. 

AS THE ORDINANCE IS VOID ON ITS FACE, IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR
APPELLANT TO SEEK A PERMIT UNDER IT.  SHE WAS ENTITLED TO CONTEST ITS
VALIDITY IN ANSWER TO THE CHARGE AGAINST HER.  SMITH V. CAHOON, 283
U.S. 553, 562. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE WICKWAR, "THE STRUGGLE FOR THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS," P.
15. 

FN2  SEE ALSO, STARR COMPANY V. BRUSH, 185 APP. DIV. (N.Y.)  261; 172
N.Y.S. 851; DEARBORN PUBLISHING CO. V. FITZGERALD, 271 FED. 479; IN RE
CAMPBELL, 64 CAL. APP. 300; 221 PAC. 952; COUGHLIN V. SULLIVAN, 100
N.J.L. 42; 126 ATL. 177.  COMPARE PEOPLE V. ARMSTRONG, 73 MICH. 288; 41
N.W. 275; CHICAGO V. SCHULTZ, 341 ILL. 208; 173 N.E. 276; PEOPLE V.
ARMENTROUT, 118 CAL. APP. SUPP. 761; 1 P.2D 556. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :












SANTA CRUZ CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 303 U.S. 453 


NO. 536.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 91 F.2D
790, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CORPORATION WAS ENGAGED, IN CALIFORNIA, IN THE BUSINESS OF
CANNING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, RAISED IN THE STATE, AND IN DISPOSING OF
ITS LARGE OUTPUT LOCALLY AND IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, 37%
GOING TO DESTINATIONS BEYOND THE STATE, PARTLY ON F.O.B. SHIPMENT AND
MUCH OF IT BY WATER.  THE GOODS SHIPPED BY BOAT WERE CARRIED TO THE
WHARVES ON TRUCKS LOADED AT THE PLANT BY WAREHOUSEMEN EMPLOYED THERE. 
MANY OF THESE, UPON BEING LOCKED OUT BY THE COMPANY FOR HAVING JOINED A
LABOR UNION, FORMED A PICKET LINE, AND THIS WAS SO MAINTAINED THAT
EVENTUALLY THE MOVEMENT OF TRUCKS FROM WAREHOUSE TO WHARVES CEASED
ENTIRELY.  THE TEAMSTERS REFUSED TO HAUL, THE WAREHOUSEMEN AT THE DOCK
WAREHOUSES DECLINED TO HANDLE, AND THE STEVEDORES BETWEEN DOCK AND SHIP
REFUSED TO LOAD, THE COMPANY'S GOODS.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD FOUND THAT THE DISCHARGE OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THE REFUSAL TO
REINSTATE THEM CONSTITUTED AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THAT THE ACTS OF THE COMPANY TENDED TO
LEAD, AND HAD LED, TO LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT ORDERED THE COMPANY TO DESIST FROM SUCH
PRACTICES, TO REINSTATE, WITH BACK PAY, THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES, AND
TO POST NOTICES, ETC.  HELD THAT THE CASE WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE BOARD AND THAT THE ORDER WAS PROPERLY SUSTAINED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  PP. 463 ET SEQ. 

2.  SALES TO PURCHASERS IN ANOTHER STATE ARE NOT WITHDRAWN FROM
FEDERAL CONTROL BECAUSE THE GOODS ARE DELIVERED F.O.B. AT STATED POINTS
WITHIN THE STATE OF ORIGIN FOR TRANSPORTATION.  P. 463. 

3.  THE FEDERAL POWER TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN COMMODITIES
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THEIR KIND AND HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THE PRACTICES
OF MANUFACTURERS, PROCESSORS AND LABOR UNIONS.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL
CO., 298 U.S. 238, DID NOT ESTABLISH A DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE OR OVERRULE
THE EARLIER DECISIONS.  P. 466. 

4.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
MANUFACTURED ARTICLES FROM BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS SPRINGING FROM
LABOR DISPUTES IN THE FACTORY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON AN ORIGIN OUTSIDE
OF THE STATE OF THE RAW MATERIALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS;
NOR IS THE PLACE WHERE THE MANUFACTURER MAKES HIS SALES A CONTROLLING
ELEMENT, IF THE SALES IN FACT ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1.  P.
464. 

5.  CASES RESPECTING THE STATE POWER TO TAX GOODS WHICH HAVE NOT
BEGUN TO MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR HAVE COME TO REST WITHIN THE
STATE, OR TO ADOPT LOCAL POLICE MEASURES AFFECTING THEM, DO NOT DEAL
WITH THE EXTENT OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT
ARE CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER A PARTICULAR EXERCISE OF STATE
POWER, IN VIEW OF ITS NATURE AND OPERATION, MUST BE DEEMED TO BE IN
CONFLICT WITH THAT PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY.  P. 466. 

6.  WHERE FEDERAL CONTROL IS SOUGHT TO BE EXERCISED OVER ACTIVITIES
WHICH SEPARATELY CONSIDERED ARE INTRASTATE, IT MUST APPEAR THAT THERE
IS A CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER TO
JUSTIFY THE FEDERAL INTERVENTION FOR ITS PROTECTION.  P. 466. 

7.  THIS PRINCIPLE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  ID. 

8.  IN MAINTAINING THE BALANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTS AND
LIMITATIONS, IT IS INEVITABLE THAT WE SHOULD DEFINE THEIR APPLICATIONS
IN THE GRADUAL PROCESS OF INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION.  AND WHAT IS
REASONABLY CLEAR IN A PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS NOT TO BE OVERBORNE BY
THE SIMPLE AND FAMILIAR DIALECTIC OF SUGGESTING DOUBTFUL AND EXTREME
CASES.  P. 467. 

9.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE LABOR PRACTICES OF AN EMPLOYER ARE
PRACTICES "AFFECTING COMMERCE," AS DEFINED BY SEC. 2(6) OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, CAN NOT BE ANSWERED BY MERE REFERENCE TO THE
PERCENTAGE OF THE PRODUCT SOLD IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE
QUESTION THAT MUST BE FACED UNDER THE ACT UPON PARTICULAR FACTS IS
WHETHER THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INVOLVED HAVE SUCH A CLOSE AND
SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM
INJURIOUS RESTRAINT THAT THESE PRACTICES MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE MADE
THE SUBJECT OF FEDERAL COGNIZANCE THROUGH PROVISIONS LOOKING TO THE
PEACEABLE ADJUSTMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES.  P. 467. 

SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 680, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AFFIRMING IN PART AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO ANTECEDENT MOVEMENT OF THE RAW PRODUCTS IN
COMMERCE, THE BUSINESS OF CANNING, LABELING, PACKING, STORING AND
LOADING OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES PRODUCED WHOLLY IN CALIFORNIA IS NOT
"IN COMMERCE."  A LABOR DISPUTE THEREIN CANNOT BURDEN OR OBSTRUCT A
COMMERCE WHICH HAS NOT BEGUN.  THEREFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT DOES NOT APPLY AND THE BOARD HAD NO JURISDICTION.  CARTER V. CARTER
COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238; SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 495; VEAZIE V. MOOR, 14 HOW.  568; COE V. ERROL, 116 U.S. 517;
KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1; CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584;
HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 245; OLIVER MINING CO. V.
LORD, 262 U.S. 172; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165;
LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 145 U.S. 192. 

WHERE SMALL QUANTITIES OF A RAW PRODUCT ARE SHIPPED INTO THE STATE
FOR CANNING AND SALE TO LOCAL TRADE IN CALIFORNIA, THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT APPLY FOR THE REASON THAT COMMERCE IN SUCH
PRODUCT HAS ENDED, AND THE CANNING AND SUBSEQUENT HANDLING ARE LOCAL
AFFAIRS; AND LABOR DISPUTES IN SUCH AFFAIRS DO NOT DIRECTLY BURDEN OR
OBSTRUCT COMMERCE.  SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 465; PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMM'N V. LANDON, 249 U.S. 236; ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. STANDARD OIL
CO., 275 U.S. 257; INDUSTRIAL ASSN. OF SAN FRANCISCO V. UNITED STATES,
268 U.S. 64. 

UNLESS THIS COURT IS WILLING TO GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT THE POWER OF
CONGRESS EXTENDS OVER ALL LABOR DISPUTES INVOLVING PRODUCTION
INDUSTRIES, THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE, FOR THE
REASON THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS CANNOT BE MADE TO
DEPEND ON THE INTENTION OF THE PRODUCER TO SELL ITS PRODUCT IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, OR THE FORTUITOUS CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HE
MAY ULTIMATELY SELL A PART OF SUCH PRODUCT OUTSIDE THE STATE WHEREIN IT
IS PRODUCED.  KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V.
CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210; FEDERAL COMPRESS & W. CO. V.
MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17; OLIVER MINING CO. V. LORD, SUPRA; CHASSANIOL V.
GREENWOOD, SUPRA; HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., SUPRA; ARKADELPHIA
MILLING CO. V. ST. LOUIS S.W.R. CO., 249 U.S. 134; CARTER V. CARTER
COAL CO., SUPRA. 

THE DESIGNATION OF PETITIONER'S PRODUCE AS "HOT CARGO" BY THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND THE REFUSAL OF SUCH
ASSOCIATION TO HANDLE SUCH PRODUCT WAS AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY IN
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST ACT AND A VIOLATION OF THE SLOSS
ARBITRATION AWARD; AND ANY BURDEN OR OBSTRUCTION TO COMMERCE RESULTING
THEREFROM IS INDIRECT AND REMOTE AND DOES NOT EXTEND THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OR THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OVER PETITIONER'S PRODUCTION
BUSINESS.  BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN S.C. ASSN., 274 U.S. 37;
DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; CORONADO COAL CO.
V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295; LOWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274;
ANDERSON V. SHIP OWNERS ASSN., 272 U.S. 359; LOCAL 167 I.B.T. V. UNITED
STATES, 291 U.S. 293. 

THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT IN ANY RESPECT COMPARABLE TO THE CASES
WHEREIN THIS COURT HAD HELD THAT BY REASON OF THE EFFECTS OR BURDENS ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THE POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS TO THE REGULATION OF
INTRASTATE AFFAIRS. 

RATE CASES:  HOUSTON E. & W.T.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 342;
FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 194; RAILROAD COMMISSION V. CHICAGO,
B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563. 

BOARD OF TRADE AND STOCKYARDS CASES:  BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262
U.S. 1; HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44; SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196
U.S. 375; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495; TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V.
UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420. 

RAILWAY APPLIANCE, EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY, AND RAILWAY LABOR CASES:
SOUTHERN R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 222 U.S. 20; BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612; MONDOU V. NEW YORK, N.H. &
H.R. CO., (SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES), 223 U.S. 1; TEXAS &
N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF R. & S.S. CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; VIRGINIAN
R. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515. 

ANTI-TRUST CASES:  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1;
UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106; ADDYSTON PIPE &
STEEL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 175 U.S. 211. 

PETITIONER IS ENGAGED IN CANNING, PACKING, AND SHIPPING FRUIT AND
VEGETABLES IN OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA.  IT IS THE FOURTH OR FIFTH IN SIZE
OF SUCH CANNERIES IN THAT STATE, WHICH IS THE CENTER OF THE CANNING
INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES; AND ANNUALLY SHIPS LARGE QUANTITIES OF
ITS PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  STOPPAGE OF
OPERATIONS AS A RESULT OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN PETITIONER'S PLANT WOULD
DIRECTLY OBSTRUCT THE MOVEMENT OF THOSE COMMODITIES IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THERE THUS EXISTS A "CLOSE AND INTIMATE" RELATION
BETWEEN PETITIONER'S OPERATIONS AND THE FLOW OF COMMERCE; AND THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ACCORDINGLY MAY VALIDLY BE APPLIED TO
PETITIONER'S PLANT.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN
STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 41. 

1.  THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE PRODUCTS
PROCESSED BY PETITIONER ARE GROWN IN CALIFORNIA.  IN THE JONES &
LAUGHLIN CASE THE COURT EXPRESSLY STATED THAT ITS DECISION DID NOT TURN
ON THE CONCEPTION THAT THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS WAS CARRIED ON IN A
"STREAM" OR "FLOW" OF COMMERCE, WHEREIN THE RAW MATERIALS ARRIVING FROM
WITHOUT THE STATE CAME TO REST TEMPORARILY AT THE PLANT AND LATER WENT
FORWARD AGAIN IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE (301 U.S. AT 36).  THE CONTENTION
THAT THE STREAM OF COMMERCE HAD BEEN BROKEN, THE COURT HELD WAS NOT
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED (301 U.S. AT 41).  THE DETERMINATIVE
FACTOR WAS THE OBSTRUCTING EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE UPON THE
INTERSTATE MOVEMENT OF GOODS. 

CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, DOES NOT SUPPORT
PETITIONER'S CONTENTION.  THE CARTER DECISION DID NOT PURPORT TO REST
ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINING OPERATIONS AND MANUFACTURING
ENTERPRISES WHICH UTILIZE RAW MATERIALS OBTAINED THROUGH THE CHANNELS
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  NOR DID THIS COURT IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN
CASE, IN HOLDING THAT THE CARTER CASE WAS NOT CONTROLLING, SUGGEST THAT
IT WAS TO BE DISTINGUISHED UPON SUCH A GROUND.  THE DANGER OF AN
OBSTRUCTION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE
MEANS ADOPTED BY THE CONGRESS TO REMOVE IT, WERE THE DECISIVE FACTORS
IN EACH DECISION. 

THE JONES & LAUGHLIN DECISION ESTABLISHES THAT THE CONGRESS HAS POWER
TO PREVENT THE OBSTRUCTION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE CAUSED BY THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES CONDEMNED IN THE PRESENT ACT.  NEITHER THE FACT NOR THE
DEGREE OF OBSTRUCTION TO COMMERCE IN MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS CAN IN
REASON DEPEND UPON THE PLACE OF ORIGIN OF THE RAW MATERIALS.  AS THIS
COURT STATED IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN CASE, CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE EXTENDS TO THE PROTECTION OF SUCH COMMERCE "NO
MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE DANGERS WHICH THREATEN IT" (301 U.S. AT
36-37).  NO DISTINCTION CAN PROPERLY BE DRAWN BETWEEN ACTIVITIES WHICH
OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN RAW MATERIALS, IN MANUFACTURED
PRODUCTS, OR BOTH. 

THE GEOGRAPHIC FACT OF CONCENTRATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN
PARTICULAR REGIONS, FAR FROM LESSENING NATIONAL CONCERN IN THE
INDUSTRIES IMMEDIATELY DEPENDENT UPON THOSE RESOURCES, HEIGHTENS IT.
IT DOES SO NONE THE LESS BECAUSE OF THE NATURAL, IF NOT NECESSARY,
CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE LOCATION OF SUCH INDUSTRIES AT THE POINT OF
CONCENTRATION OF THE RESOURCES.  THE VIEW WHICH PETITIONER URGES WOULD
FRUSTRATE ONE OF THE GREAT PURPOSES OF THE COMMERCE POWER AS REALIZED
IN THIS STATUTE, BY REMOVING FROM THE REACH OF CONGRESSIONAL PROTECTION
INDUSTRIES WHOSE OPERATIONS IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE ARE OF
VITAL IMPORTANCE TO THE NATIONAL WELFARE AND WHOSE INTERRUPTION OR
CESSATION BY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS OF THE DEEPEST
NATIONAL CONCERN. 

2.  APPROXIMATELY 37 PER CENT. OF THE PRODUCT OF PETITIONER'S PLANT
IS SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE SAME EMPLOYEES
PREPARE AND SHIP BOTH THE GOODS WHICH GO TO POINTS OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA
AND THOSE WHICH DO NOT.  NO SEPARATION OF THE EMPLOYEES INTO THOSE
WORKING ON GOODS DESTINED FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT AND THOSE WORKING ON
GOODS TO BE CONSUMED IN CALIFORNIA IS POSSIBLE.  CONGRESS HAS POWER TO
REGULATE BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES WHEN THEY ARE
INSEPARABLY INTERMINGLED IN THIS WAY.  SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342. 
THE SUGGESTION THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER SUCH INTERMINGLED
TRANSACTIONS DISAPPEARS IF MORE THAN 50 PER CENT. OF THE TRANSACTIONS
ARE INTRASTATE WOULD ESTABLISH AN ARBITRARY AND IMPRACTICAL RULE OF
THUMB IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE SUPREMACY OF
FEDERAL POWER.  A REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS IN WHICH THIS COURT HAS
SUSTAINED FEDERAL REGULATION OF INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES BECAUSE OF THEIR
DELETERIOUS EFFECTS UPON COMMERCE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE VALIDITY OF
SUCH LEGISLATION HAS NEVER TURNED UPON WHETHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AFFECTED WAS GREATER IN QUANTITY THAN THE INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS WHICH
WERE NECESSARILY SUBJECTED ALSO TO THE REGULATION IMPOSED.  CLEARLY,
PROTECTION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE NEED NOT BE WITHHELD BECAUSE IN
AFFORDING THAT PROTECTION INTRASTATE COMMERCE IS ALSO SAFEGUARDED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ON APRIL 2, 1936, AFTER HEARING,
FOUND THAT PETITIONER, SANTA CRUZ FRUIT PACKING COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8, SUBDIVISIONS (1) AND (3) AND
SEC. 2, SUBDIVISIONS (6) AND (7) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT,
AND ORDERED PETITIONER TO DESIST FROM SUCH PRACTICES, TO REINSTATE WITH
BACK PAY CERTAIN EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN DISCHARGED, AND TO POST
APPROPRIATE NOTICES.  1 N.L.R.B. 454.  UPON PETITION OF THE BOARD, THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO
PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES AT ITS OAKLAND PLANT.  91 F.(2D) 790.  IN VIEW
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE PERTINENT FACTS.  THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHOW THE FOLLOWING: 

PETITIONER IS ENGAGED AT ITS PLANT AT OAKLAND IN CANNING, PACKING AND
SHIPPING FRUIT AND VEGETABLES, THE BULK OF WHICH ARE GROWN IN THAT
STATE.  DURING THE "PEAK" SEASON, PETITIONER EMPLOYS FROM 1200 TO 1500
PERSONS OF WHOM ABOUT 30 ARE WAREHOUSEMEN.  THE TOTAL "PACK" IN THE
YEAR 1935 AMOUNTED TO ABOUT 1,699,270 CASES.  OF THIS AMOUNT ABOUT 37
PER CENT. WERE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, 9.02 PER
CENT. BEING SENT TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND APPROXIMATELY 473,620 CASES,
OR ABOUT 27.89 PER CENT. TO VARIOUS POINTS IN THE UNITED STATES OUTSIDE
CALIFORNIA.  THE SALES TO PURCHASERS OUTSIDE THE STATE WERE UNDER
EITHER F.O.B. OR C.I.F. SAN FRANCISCO BAY POINT CONTRACTS. 

THE METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION ARE BY WATER, RAIL AND TRUCK.  EXPORT
SHIPMENTS GO BY WATER AND THIS IS ALSO THE CHIEF SORT OF CARRIAGE TO
POINTS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OUTSIDE CALIFORNIA, ABOUT 20 PER CENT.
BEING SHIPPED BY RAIL AND AN UNDETERMINED AMOUNT BY TRUCK DIRECTLY TO
THE POINT OF DESTINATION.  "THERE IS A CONSTANT STREAM OF LOADING AND
SHIPPING OF PRODUCTS" OUT OF PETITIONER'S PLANTS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
YEAR.  FROM 3,000 TO 4,000 CASES ARE LOADED DAILY IN THE VARIOUS
VEHICLES OF CONVEYANCE.  THAT LOADING IS A SUBSTANTIAL AND REGULAR PART
OF THE WORK OF THE WAREHOUSEMEN IN PETITIONER'S EMPLOY.  WHEN THE
SHIPMENTS ARE BY RAIL OR OVERLAND TRUCKS, THESE EMPLOYEES LOAD DIRECTLY
INTO THE EQUIPMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL CARRIERS.  WHEN SHIPMENTS ARE BY
BOAT, THE WAREHOUSEMEN LOAD THE CASES INTO THE TRUCKS WHICH CARRY THE
GOODS TO THE DOCKS. 

WEIGHERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND CEREAL WORKERS LOCAL 38-44, INTERNATIONAL
LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR.  ITS EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE THE OAKLAND
PLANT WERE BEGUN IN JULY, 1935, AND MANY OF THE PERMANENT WAREHOUSEMEN
MADE APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP.  WHEN THIS CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF
PETITIONER EARLY IN AUGUST, THE GENERAL MANAGER ANNOUNCED THAT HE WOULD
NOT PERMIT A UNION IN THE PLANT BECAUSE OF COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS.  ON
THEIR RETURN FROM A UNION MEETING AT WHICH THE MEN WERE TO BE
INITIATED, MEMBERS OF THE NIGHT SHIFT WERE PREVENTED FROM ENTERING THE
PLANT AND THE NEXT MORNING THE MEMBERS OF THE DAY CREW WERE SIMILARLY
EXCLUDED.  A PICKET LINE THEN FORMED, ON THE MORNING OF AUGUST 8TH, WAS
MAINTAINED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27TH WITH SUCH EFFECTIVENESS THAT EVENTUALLY
THE MOVEMENT OF TRUCKS FROM WAREHOUSES TO WHARVES CEASED ENTIRELY.  THE
BOARD FOUND:  "THE TEAMSTERS REFUSED TO HAUL SANTA CRUZ MERCHANDISE;
THE WAREHOUSEMEN AT THE DOCK WAREHOUSES WHO ORDINARILY UNLOAD THE
CANNED GOODS FROM THE CARS PRIOR TO THEIR RELOADING INTO THE SHIPS,
SINCE THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE SAME UNION AS THE SANTA CRUZ
WAREHOUSEMEN, ALSO DECLINED TO HANDLE SANTA CRUZ CARGO.  AS MEMBERS OF
THE SISTER UNION, I.L.A. 38-79, THE STEVEDORES WHO MOVE THE GOODS FROM
DOCK TO SHIP ALSO REFUSED TO MOVE SANTA CRUZ CARGO BOTH AT THE EAST BAY
AND SAN FRANCISCO DOCKS DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD THAT THE PICKET LINE
WAS MAINTAINED.  OTHER UNIONS WHOSE MEMBERS REFUSED TO MOVE 'HOT' SANTA
CRUZ CARGO WERE THOSE MEMBERS OF THE SAILORS WHO COMPRISED THE CREWS OF
STEAM SCHOONERS AND WHOSE DUTIES INCLUDE THE HANDLING OF CARGO." 
PETITIONER POINTS OUT THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE OTHER UNIONS TO HANDLE
PETITIONER'S GOODS WAS A VIOLATION OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD MADE IN
OCTOBER, 1934, FOLLOWING THE SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME STRIKE OF THAT
YEAR. 

THE BOARD FOUND THAT INTERFERENCE WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES IN
FORMING OR JOINING LABOR ORGANIZATIONS RESULTS IN STRIKES AND
INDUSTRIAL UNREST WHICH HABITUALLY HAVE HAD THE EFFECT IN THE CANNING
INDUSTRY OF IMPEDING THE MOVEMENT OF CANNED PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  REFERENCE WAS MADE TO OFFICIAL STATISTICS OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR IN RELATION TO THE CANNING AND
PRESERVING INDUSTRIES FROM WHICH IT APPEARED THAT OF THE FIFTEEN
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS IN 1934, AND THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1935, EIGHT
WERE THE OUTCOME OF DIFFICULTIES IN REGARD TO UNION RECOGNITION AND
DISCRIMINATION FOR UNION ACTIVITIES, 7,484 WORKERS BEING INVOLVED IN
THOSE STOPPAGES. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE DISCHARGE OF THE EMPLOYEES NAMED AND THE
REFUSAL TO REINSTATE THEM CONSTITUTED AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION UNDER
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND THAT THE ACTS OF PETITIONER HAD
LED AND TENDED TO LEAD TO LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING
COMMERCE. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING IN WHICH
PETITIONER IS ENGAGED ARE LOCAL ACTIVITIES AND THAT THE BOARD WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER THE LABOR DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. 

FIRST.  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT PETITIONER WAS DIRECTLY AND LARGELY
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  WE HAVE OFTEN DECIDED THAT
SALES TO PURCHASERS IN ANOTHER STATE ARE NOT WITHDRAWN FROM FEDERAL
CONTROL BECAUSE THE GOODS ARE DELIVERED F.O.B. AT STATED POINTS WITHIN
THE STATE OF ORIGIN FOR TRANSPORTATION.  SEE SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S.
501, 520; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. SABINE TRAM CO., 227 U.S. 111, 114,
122; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. CLARK BROS. COAL MINING CO., 238 U.S. 456,
465-468.  A LARGE PART OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE COUNTRY IS
CONDUCTED UPON THAT BASIS AND THE ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE MADE BETWEEN
SELLER AND PURCHASER WITH RESPECT TO THE PLACE OF TAKING TITLE TO THE
COMMODITY, OR AS TO THE PAYMENT OF FREIGHT, WHERE THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT
IS INTERSTATE, DO NOT AFFECT EITHER THE POWER OF CONGRESS OR THE
JURISDICTION OF THE AGENCIES WHICH CONGRESS HAS ESTABLISHED. 
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. CLARK BROS. COAL MINING CO., SUPRA. 

SECOND.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO THE MAKING OF
RULES GOVERNING SALES OF PETITIONER'S PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
AS, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH RESPECT TO MISBRANDING UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD AND
DRUGS ACT (21 U.S.C., SECS. 1 TO 26), OR WITH RESPECT TO FORBIDDEN
DISCRIMINATIONS IN PRICES UNDER THE CLAYTON ACT (15 U.S.C. 13), BUT
ALSO TO THE PROTECTION OF THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM BURDENS,
OBSTRUCTIONS AND INTERRUPTIONS, WHATEVER MAY BE THEIR SOURCE.  SECOND
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 51.  THE CLOSE AND INTIMATE
EFFECT WHICH BRINGS THE SUBJECT WITHIN THE REACH OF FEDERAL POWER MAY
BE DUE TO ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRY, ALTHOUGH THAT
INDUSTRY WHEN SEPARATELY VIEWED IS LOCAL.  IT IS UPON THIS WELL
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 38. 

PETITIONER URGES THAT THE PRINCIPLE IS INAPPLICABLE HERE AS THE
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WHICH PETITIONER PREPARES FOR SHIPMENT ARE GROWN
IN CALIFORNIA AND PETITIONER'S OPERATIONS ARE CONFINED TO THAT STATE. 
IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE RAW MATERIALS OF PRODUCTION ARE BROUGHT INTO
THE STATE OF MANUFACTURE AND THE MANUFACTURED PRODUCT IS HANDLED BY THE
MANUFACTURER IN OTHER STATES.  IN VIEW OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ACTUALLY CARRIED ON BY PETITIONER, THE CONCLUSION SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN
FROM THIS DISTINCTION IS WITHOUT MERIT.  THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTINUOUS
FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH THE STATE MAY INDEED READILY SHOW
THE INTIMATE RELATION OF PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS TO THAT COMMERCE. 
STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495, 516; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V.
OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, 33.  BUT, AS WE SAID IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN CASE,
THE INSTANCES IN WHICH THE METAPHOR OF A "STREAM OF COMMERCE" HAS BEEN
USED ARE BUT PARTICULAR, AND NOT EXCLUSIVE, ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE
PROTECTIVE POWER WHICH CONGRESS MAY EXERCISE.  "THE CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS
IS NOT LIMITED TO TRANSACTIONS WHICH CAN BE DEEMED TO BE AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF A 'FLOW' OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  BURDENS AND
OBSTRUCTIONS MAY BE DUE TO INJURIOUS ACTIONS SPRINGING FROM OTHER
SOURCES."  ID., P. 36. 

SUCH INJURIOUS ACTION BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING INTERSTATE TRADE IN
MANUFACTURED ARTICLES MAY SPRING FROM LABOR DISPUTES IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE ORIGIN OF THE MATERIALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS.  AND THE
PLACE WHERE THE MANUFACTURER MAKES HIS SALES IS NOT CONTROLLING IF THE
SALES IN FACT ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  A FEW ILLUSTRATIONS, FROM
OUR MANY DECISIONS, WILL SUFFICE.  IN LOEWE V. LAWLOR (1908), 208 U.S.
274, 302, THE CONSPIRACY OF THE "UNITED HATTERS," TO COMPEL THE
PLAINTIFFS TO UNIONIZE THEIR FACTORY, WAS HELD TO FALL WITHIN THE
FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST ACT BECAUSE IT WAS AIMED AT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
INTERSTATE TRADE IN THE MANUFACTURED HATS.  IN UNITED MINE WORKERS V.
CORONADO CO. (1922), 259 U.S. 344, 407, 408, THE COURT SAID THAT "COAL
MINING IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE POWER OF CONGRESS DOES NOT
EXTEND TO ITS REGULATION AS SUCH," BUT THAT "IF CONGRESS DEEMS CERTAIN
RECURRING PRACTICES, THOUGH NOT REALLY PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
LIKELY TO OBSTRUCT, RESTRAIN OR BURDEN IT, IT HAS THE POWER TO SUBJECT
THEM TO NATIONAL SUPERVISION AND RESTRAINT."  AND IN THE SECOND
CORONADO CASE (1925), 268 U.S. 295, 310, THE COURT HELD THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS ADEQUATE TO SHOW THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO STOP THE
PRODUCTION OF NON-UNION COAL AND PREVENT ITS SHIPMENT TO MARKETS OF
OTHER STATES, AND THAT A COMBINATION TO THAT END WOULD CONSTITUTE A
DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT.  ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION IS FOUND
IN BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. JOURNEYMEN STONE CUTTERS' ASSN. (1927), 274
U.S. 37, 48, WHERE A CONSPIRACY OF STONE CUTTERS WAS HELD TO HAVE "THE
IMMEDIATE PURPOSE AND NECESSARY EFFECT OF RESTRAINING FUTURE SALES AND
SHIPMENTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE" OF THE BUILDING STONE WHICH WAS
QUARRIED AT PETITIONER'S PLANTS. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL POWER TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
THE COMMODITIES PRODUCED, THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COAL
MINED, OR STONE QUARRIED, AND FRUIT AND VEGETABLES GROWN.  THE SAME
PRINCIPLE MUST APPLY, AND HAS BEEN APPLIED, TO INJURIOUS RESTRAINTS OF
INTERSTATE TRADE WHICH ARE CAUSED BY THE PRACTICES OF MANUFACTURERS AND
PROCESSORS.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1; UNITED
STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 221 U.S. 106.  THE CASE OF CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, DID NOT ESTABLISH A DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE
OR OVERRULE THE DECISIONS WHICH WE HAVE CITED.  SEE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., SUPRA, P. 41.  NOR ARE
THE CASES IN POINT WHICH ARE CITED BY PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF THE STATE TO TAX GOODS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEGUN
TO MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR HAVE COME TO REST WITHIN THE STATE,
OR TO ADOPT POLICE MEASURES AS TO LOCAL MATTERS.  IN THAT CLASS OF
CASES THE QUESTION IS NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTENT OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT WHETHER A PARTICULAR
EXERCISE OF STATE POWER IN VIEW OF ITS NATURE AND OPERATION MUST BE
DEEMED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY.  BACON V.
ILLINOIS, 227 U.S. 504, 516; STAFFORD V. WALLACE, SUPRA, P. 526;
MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1, 8. 

THIRD.  IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT WHERE FEDERAL CONTROL IS SOUGHT TO BE
EXERCISED OVER ACTIVITIES WHICH SEPARATELY CONSIDERED ARE INTRASTATE,
IT MUST APPEAR THAT THERE IS A CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE FEDERAL INTERVENTION FOR
ITS PROTECTION.  HOWEVER DIFFICULT IN APPLICATION, THIS PRINCIPLE IS
ESSENTIAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM.  THE SUBJECT
OF FEDERAL POWER IS STILL "COMMERCE," AND NOT ALL COMMERCE BUT COMMERCE
WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES.  THE EXPANSION OF
ENTERPRISE HAS VASTLY INCREASED THE INTERESTS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
BUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENTIATION STILL OBTAINS.  SCHECHTER
CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 546.  "ACTIVITIES LOCAL IN
THEIR IMMEDIACY DO NOT BECOME INTERSTATE AND NATIONAL BECAUSE OF
DISTANT REPERCUSSIONS."  ID., P. 554. 

TO EXPRESS THIS ESSENTIAL DISTINCTION, "DIRECT" HAS BEEN CONTRASTED
WITH "INDIRECT," AND WHAT IS "REMOTE" OR "DISTANT" WITH WHAT IS "CLOSE
AND SUBSTANTIAL."  WHATEVER TERMINOLOGY IS USED, THE CRITERION IS
NECESSARILY ONE OF DEGREE AND MUST BE SO DEFINED.  THIS DOES NOT
SATISFY THOSE WHO SEEK FOR MATHEMATICAL OR RIGID FORMULAS.  BUT SUCH
FORMULAS ARE NOT PROVIDED BY THE GREAT CONCEPTS OF THE CONSTITUTION
SUCH AS "INTERSTATE COMMERCE," "DUE PROCESS," "EQUAL PROTECTION."  IN
MAINTAINING THE BALANCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANTS AND LIMITATIONS,
IT IS INEVITABLE THAT WE SHOULD DEFINE THEIR APPLICATIONS IN THE
GRADUAL PROCESS OF INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION. 

THERE IS THUS NO POINT IN THE INSTANT CASE IN A DEMAND FOR THE
DRAWING OF A MATHEMATICAL LINE.  AND WHAT IS REASONABLY CLEAR IN A
PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS NOT TO BE OVERBORNE BY THE SIMPLE AND
FAMILIAR DIALECTIC OF SUGGESTING DOUBTFUL AND EXTREME CASES.  THE
CRITICAL WORDS OF THE PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IN
DEALING WITH THE DESCRIBED LABOR PRACTICES ARE "AFFECTING COMMERCE," AS
DEFINED.  SEC. 2(6).  IT IS PLAIN THAT THE PROVISION CANNOT BE APPLIED
BY A MERE REFERENCE TO PERCENTAGES AND THE FACT THAT PETITIONER'S SALES
IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE AMOUNTED TO 37 PER CENT., AND NOT TO
MORE THAN 50 PER CENT., OF ITS PRODUCTION CANNOT BE DEEMED
CONTROLLING.  THE QUESTION THAT MUST BE FACED UNDER THE ACT UPON
PARTICULAR FACTS IS WHETHER THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INVOLVED HAVE
SUCH A CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FROM INJURIOUS RESTRAINT THAT THESE PRACTICES MAY
CONSTITUTIONALLY BE MADE THE SUBJECT OF FEDERAL COGNIZANCE THROUGH
PROVISIONS LOOKING TO THE PEACEABLE ADJUSTMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES. 

THE QUESTION OF DEGREE IS CONSTANTLY MET IN OTHER RELATIONS.  IT IS
MET WHENEVER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO FIND
WHETHER AN INTRASTATE RATE OR PRACTICE OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER CAUSES
AN UNDUE AND UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE.  49 U.S.C. SEC. 13(4).  THE SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342,
351.  IT IS MET UNDER THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, WHERE THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE'S OCCUPATION AT THE TIME OF HIS INJURY
IS "IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OR WORK SO CLOSELY RELATED TO SUCH
TRANSPORTATION AS TO BE PRACTICALLY A PART OF IT."  CHICAGO & N.W. RY.
CO. V. BOLLE, 284 U.S. 74, 78, 79; NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. BEZUE,
284 U.S. 415, 420.  IT IS MET IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CLAYTON ACT IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE EFFECT OF THE DESCRIBED PROVISIONS IN CONTRACTS
FOR THE SALE OF COMMODITIES IS "TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN COMPETITION." 
15 U.S.C., 13, 14.  STANDARD FASHION CO. V. MAGRANE-HOUSTON CO., 258
U.S. 346, 356, 357; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643,
647, 648. 

SUCH QUESTIONS CANNOT BE ESCAPED BY THE ADOPTION OF ANY ARTIFICIAL
RULE. 

FOURTH.  THE DIRECT RELATION OF THE LABOR PRACTICES AND THE RESULTING
LABOR DISPUTE IN THE INSTANT CASE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE
INJURIOUS EFFECT UPON THAT COMMERCE ARE FULLY ESTABLISHED.  THE
WAREHOUSEMEN IN QUESTION WERE EMPLOYED BY PETITIONER IN LOADING ITS
GOODS EITHER INTO THE CARS OF CARRIERS OR INTO THE TRUCKS WHICH
TRANSPORTED THE GOODS TO THE DOCKS FOR SHIPMENT ABROAD OR TO OTHER
STATES.  THE IMMEDIACY OF THE EFFECT OF THE FORBIDDEN DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST THESE WAREHOUSEMEN IS STRIKINGLY SHOWN BY THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD.  WHEN THE MEN FOUND THEMSELVES LOCKED OUT BECAUSE OF THEIR
JOINING THE UNION, THEY AT ONCE FORMED A PICKET LINE AND THIS WAS
MAINTAINED WITH SUCH EFFECTIVENESS THAT EVENTUALLY "THE MOVEMENT OF
TRUCKS FROM WAREHOUSE TO WHARVES CEASED ENTIRELY."  THE TEAMSTERS
REFUSED TO HAUL, THE WAREHOUSEMEN AT THE DOCK WAREHOUSES DECLINED TO
HANDLE, AND THE STEVEDORES BETWEEN DOCK AND SHIP REFUSED TO LOAD,
PETITIONER'S GOODS.  THESE BECAME, IN THE PARLANCE OF THE MEN, "HOT"
CARGO.  PETITIONER SAYS THAT THIS WAS AN UNLAWFUL CONSPIRACY OF THOSE
SYMPATHIZING WITH ITS DISCHARGED WAREHOUSEMEN, BUT IT WAS THE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM WHICH LED DIRECTLY TO THE INTERFERENCE WITH
THE MOVEMENT FROM THE PLANT AND ELICITED THE SUPPORT SO EFFECTIVELY
GIVEN. 

IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND A CASE IN WHICH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
HAD A MORE DIRECT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

THE RELIEF AFFORDED BY THE BOARD, IN REQUIRING PETITIONER TO DESIST
FROM THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES CONDEMNED BY THE ACT AND TO REINSTATE
THE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES WITH BACK PAY, WAS PROPERLY SUSTAINED BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND ITS ORDER IS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE.    MR. JUSTICE BUTLER,
DISSENTING. 

CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, DECIDED THAT CONGRESS LACKS
POWER TO REGULATE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF THOSE ENGAGED
IN LOCAL PRODUCTION OF COMMODITIES SOLD AND ABOUT TO BE SHIPPED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOUND TWO QUESTIONS
FOR SOLUTION.  ONE WAS WHETHER UPON THAT POINT THE CARTER CASE, IN
1936, HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY OUR DECISION IN 1937 IN LABOR BOARD V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1.  THE SECOND WAS WHETHER THE POWER EXTENDS
TO CASES WHERE ONLY 39% OF GOODS LOCALLY PRODUCED ARE SHIPPED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COURT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING, UPHELD THE
ORDER.  EACH OF THE JUDGES WROTE AN OPINION; TWO HELD THIS COURT HAS
OVERRULED THE CARTER CASE. 

IF THE DECISION OF THE CARTER CASE UPON THE POINT STATED STANDS, THE
BOARD'S ORDER CANNOT BE UPHELD.  THE LOWER COURT MADE ITS DECISION
DEPEND UPON THAT QUESTION.  SAVE AUTHORITATIVELY TO DECIDE IT HERE,
THERE WAS NO REASON FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.  BUT THE OPINION JUST
ANNOUNCED DOES NOT REFER TO THE QUESTION. 

IN THE JONES & LAUGHLIN AND COMPANION CASES, FOUR DISSENTING JUSTICES
THOUGHT THE COURT THEN DEPARTED FROM WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES
FOLLOWED IN THE CARTER CASE AND QUOTED (P. 96) A PASSAGE FROM IT
EXPOUNDING WHAT IT MEANT BY "DIRECT" EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM WHAT IS "INDIRECT."  AND THE DISSENTING OPINION
INSISTED (P. 97) THAT, UNDER THE CARTER DECISION, THE FACTS IN THOSE
CASES DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY DIRECT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
SAID: "A MORE REMOTE AND INDIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OR A MORE DEFINITE INVASION OF THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES IS
DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO IMAGINE." 

BUT THE DISSENT FAILED TO ELICIT FROM THE COURT ANY STATEMENT AS TO
WHETHER IT MEANT TO OVERRULE THE CARTER CASE.  THE OPINION DOES NOT
DISCUSS THAT CASE.  IT DOES, HOWEVER, CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING (P. 41):
"IN THE CARTER CASE  ...  THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE RELATING TO PRODUCTION WERE INVALID UPON
SEVERAL GROUNDS,  - THAT THERE WAS IMPROPER DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER, AND THAT THE REQUIREMENTS NOT ONLY WENT BEYOND ANY SUSTAINABLE
MEASURE OF PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT WERE ALSO INCONSISTENT
WITH DUE PROCESS.  THESE (MEANING THE SCHECHTER AND CARTER) CASES ARE
NOT CONTROLLING HERE."  THE LATER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT INVOLVING THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH LABOR RELATIONS IN LOCAL PRODUCTION DO
NOT REFER TO THE CARTER CASE.  AT LEAST UNTIL THIS COURT DEFINITELY
OVERRULES THAT DECISION, IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. 

UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THAT CASE, I WOULD REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON THE GROUND THAT, AS APPLIED HERE, THE ACT
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




















DEITRICK V. STANDARD SURETY CO., 303 U.S. 471 


NO. 455.  ARGUED MARCH 7, 8, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 90 F.2D
862, 866, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A DEFENSE OF FRAUD, GOOD AGAINST A NATIONAL BANK IN AN ACTION TO
ENFORCE A CONTRACT, IS GOOD AGAINST THE BANK'S RECEIVER IN SUCH AN
ACTION.  P. 479. 

2.  THE RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK SOUGHT TO ENFORCE AGAINST A
SURETY COMPANY, AS CONTRACTS MADE TO THE BANK, BONDS PURPORTING TO HAVE
BEEN EXECUTED BY THE COMPANY THROUGH A GENERAL AGENT AND PURPORTING TO
GUARANTEE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN NOTES HELD BY THE BANK.  THE SURETY
ALLEGED AND THE PROOFS SHOWED THAT THE BONDS WERE OBTAINED BY THE BANK
THROUGH THE FRAUD OF THE BANK'S PRESIDENT IN COLLUSION WITH THE
SURETY'S AGENT.  THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE AGENT KNEW THE BONDS WOULD
BE SHOWN TO THE BANK DIRECTORS AND TO ANY OTHERS ENTITLED TO INQUIRE
CONCERNING THE NOTES, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECEPTION.  HELD THAT THE
PLEADINGS AFFORDED NO BASIS FOR A RECOVERY BY THE RECEIVER UPON THE
THEORY THAT BECAUSE THE COMPTROLLER AND NATIONAL BANK EXAMINERS WERE
DECEIVED BY THE BONDS TO THE INJURY OF CREDITORS, THEREFORE THE SURETY
WAS ESTOPPED TO DENY THEIR VALIDITY AS AGAINST THE RECEIVER,
REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH CREDITORS.  P. 479. 

DEITRICK, RECEIVER, ET AL. V. STANDARD SURETY & CASUALTY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 676, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF JUDGMENTS AND
DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN ACTIONS AT LAW BROUGHT BY THE
PREDECESSOR OF THE ABOVE-NAMED PETITIONER, RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK,
TO RECOVER FROM THE SURETY COMPANY ON BONDS HELD BY THE BANK, AND IN
SUITS IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY THE SURETY COMPANY IN A STATE COURT AND
SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED, IN WHICH THE SURETY SOUGHT TO HAVE THE BONDS
CANCELED FOR FRAUD.  THE CASES WERE HEARD IN CONJUNCTION BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, AND EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN AND FINDINGS WERE MADE BY AN
AUDITOR AND MASTER.  THAT COURT DISMISSED THE ACTIONS AND DECREED IN
THE SURETY'S FAVOR. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK, ESTABLISHED IN DECEMBER 1930
THROUGH CONSOLIDATION OF BOSTON NATIONAL BANK AND CONTINENTAL NATIONAL
BANK, BECAME INSOLVENT.  DECEMBER 17, 1931, A RECEIVER APPOINTED BY THE
COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY TOOK CHARGE OF ITS AFFAIRS.  PETITIONER IS
HIS SUCCESSOR.  AMONG THE BANK'S EFFECTS WERE FOUR "NOTE-GUARANTY"
BONDS - $40,000, $52,000, $20,000 AND $20,000 - ALIKE IN FORM, DATED IN
AUGUST AND DECEMBER 1930 AND JUNE AND JULY 1931, WITH CERTAIN
"ENDORSEMENTS" SHOWING EXTENSIONS.  EACH PURPORTED TO BE EXECUTED BY
THE MAKER OF A DESCRIBED NOTE AS PRINCIPAL WITH RESPONDENT AS SURETY,
AND WAS CONDITIONED TO PAY TO THE BANK THE AMOUNT OF THE NOTE UPON
DEFAULT, &C. 

IN JUNE AND SEPTEMBER 1932 THE RECEIVER BROUGHT SEPARATE ACTIONS AT
LAW UPON THREE OF THESE BONDS.  IN EACH HE ALLEGED THAT THE COMPANY WAS
INDEBTED TO HIM FOR THE SPECIFIED PENALTY WITH INTEREST; AND FOR THIS
HE ASKED JUDGMENT.  THE THREE DECLARATIONS ARE ALIKE IN FORM AND
ALLEGATIONS.  ONE, TYPICAL OF ALL, IS COPIED BELOW.  FN1  THERE ALSO IS
ONE OF THE NOTE-GUARANTY BONDS, TYPICAL OF ALL.  FN2  EACH DECLARATION
EXHIBITED A BOND, ALLEGED THAT THEREBY THE COMPANY BOUND ITSELF TO PAY
THE BANK A SPECIFIED SUM IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT, WHICH HAD OCCURRED,
&C., THAT DAMAGES HAD BEEN SUSTAINED WHEREBY THE SURETY HAD BECOME
INDEBTED "IN THE PENAL SUM OF SAID BOND, WITH INTEREST." 

ANSWERING, THE COMPANY DENIED LIABILITY AND ALLEGED THAT, AS THE BANK
WELL KNEW, THE BOND WAS EXECUTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY, HAD BEEN
FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED, WAS INVALID. 

BEFORE THE THREE LAW ACTIONS WERE FILED THE SURETY COMPANY INSTITUTED
FOUR SEPARATE EQUITABLE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT, SUFFOLK
COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS, AGAINST THE BANK AND MAKERS OF GUARANTEED
NOTES.  EACH COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE BANK HAD FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED
THE BOND AND ASKED THAT IT BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.  LATER THE
RECEIVER BECAME PARTY IN THESE CAUSES AND ALL WERE REMOVED TO THE
FEDERAL COURT.  THERE, HE FILED SEPARATE ANSWERS, SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE,
AVERRING THAT THE BOND HAD BEEN DULY EXECUTED, THAT DEFAULT HAD TAKEN
PLACE AND THAT DAMAGES AMOUNTING TO THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE SPECIFIED
PENALTY HAD BEEN SUSTAINED.  EACH ANSWER CONCLUDED - "WHEREFORE THESE
DEFENDANTS PRAY:  1.  THAT THE COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT DUE FROM THE
PLAINTIFF TO BOSTON-CONTINENTAL BANK AND JOHN B. CUNNINGHAM, ITS
RECEIVER, AND ORDER THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE SAME WITH INTEREST.  2. 
FOR SUCH FURTHER RELIEF AS THE COURT FINDS MEET AND JUST." 

COPIES OF ONE COMPLAINT  FN3  AND ANSWER  FN4  THERETO, TYPICAL OF
ALL, ARE IN THE MARGIN. 

A JURY WAS WAIVED IN THE LAW ACTIONS AND THE SEVEN CAUSES WENT TO AN
AUDITOR AND MASTER WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REPORT FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THE FORMER TO BE FINAL.  AFTER TAKING MUCH EVIDENCE
HE REPORTED WITH A FINDING OF FACTS SHOWING CLEARLY THAT THE BANK
OBTAINED THE BONDS THROUGH THE FRAUD OF ITS PRESIDENT, RAGAN, AND
CLIFF, GENERAL AGENT OF THE COMPANY.  AMONG OTHER THINGS HE SAID:  "I
RULE THAT THE BONDS AND 'ENDORSEMENTS' IN SUIT WERE NOT BINDING
OBLIGATIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE BANK AS A GOING CONCERN, FOR THE REASON
THAT RAGAN'S KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR INFIRMITIES IS IMPUTED TO THE BANK; AND
THAT THE BONDS AND 'ENDORSEMENTS' WOULD NOT BE BINDING OBLIGATIONS IN
THE HANDS OF THE RECEIVER, IF HIS RIGHTS WERE DERIVED SOLELY FROM THE
BANK AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS CREDITORS."  HE FURTHER RULED THAT AS
CLIFF, GENERAL AGENT OF THE SURETY COMPANY, KNEW THE BONDS WOULD BE
SHOWN TO THE BANK DIRECTORS AND TO ANY OTHERS ENTITLED TO INQUIRE
CONCERNING THE NOTES DESCRIBED THEREIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECEPTION,
THEREFORE "THE BONDS AND 'ENDORSEMENTS' IN SUIT ARE BINDING OBLIGATIONS
IN THE HANDS OF THE RECEIVER DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE REPRESENTS THE
BANK'S CREDITORS." 

THE DISTRICT COURT HEARD THE CAUSES ON REPORT AND EXCEPTIONS.  IT
HELD THE BONDS VOID AND FURTHER "ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT THE
COUNTERCLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT RECEIVER, SET FORTH IN HIS ANSWER, BE AND
THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED." 

BY STIPULATION THE CAUSES WERE JOINED FOR APPEAL UPON A SINGLE
RECORD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT AND
SAID:  "THE MASTER AND AUDITOR HELD THAT THE RECEIVER IN BRINGING THESE
ACTIONS DID NOT DERIVE HIS RIGHT OF RECOVERY THROUGH THE BANK, BUT
BECAUSE ONE OR MORE CREDITORS OF THE BANK WERE DECEIVED, AND AS HE
REPRESENTS CREDITORS HE DERIVED HIS RIGHT OF ACTION THROUGH THEM.  THE
RECEIVER, HOWEVER, MAKES NO SUCH ALLEGATIONS IN HIS DECLARATION."  "IT
IS CLEAR FROM THE PLEADINGS THAT THE RECEIVER SEEKS TO RECOVER ON THESE
BONDS AS ASSETS OF THE BANK.  IN SUCH AN ACTION HE STANDS NO BETTER
THAN THE BANK ITSELF.  ALL DEFENSES OPEN AGAINST THE BANK IN SUCH A
CASE ARE OPEN AGAINST THE RECEIVER, AND HE IS CHARGEABLE WITH KNOWLEDGE
OF ALL FACTS KNOWN TO THE BANK AFFECTING THE CHARACTER OF THE CLAIM." 
"IF THEREFORE, THE CONTRACT WITH THE SURETY COMPANY WAS ILLEGAL AS TO
THE BANK, BECAUSE, AS THE MASTER AND AUDITOR FOUND, THE BANK WAS
CHARGED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS PRESIDENT, A RECOVERY BASED ON THE
CONTRACT OF SURETY CANNOT BE HAD BY THE RECEIVER, SINCE A RECOVERY MUST
BE BASED ON THE PLEADINGS, AND THE ALLEGATIONS OF LIABILITY IN THE
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATIONS ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE CONTRACT OF SURETY." 
IN RESPECT OF THE RECEIVER'S COUNTERCLAIM SET UP IN THE EQUITY SUITS IT
SAID:  "THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNTERCLAIM DISTINCTLY RAISES THE QUESTION OF
THE VALIDITY OF THE BONDS.  THE ISSUE OF TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CREDITORS IS NOT RAISED OR SUGGESTED."  "THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE SURETY
COMPANY BASED ON THE DEPOSITORS OF THE BANK BEING INJURED BY THE GIVING
OF THE BONDS, AND THE RECEIVER'S CLAIM AGAINST THE SURETY COMPANY BASED
ON A TRUST RELATIONSHIP ARE NOT MENTIONED, AND, WE THINK, ARE NOT
RAISED BY THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNTERCLAIM IN THE EQUITY SUITS." 

WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  ITS JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER HERE SUBMIT - "THE RECEIVER'S POSITION
RESTS PRIMARILY UPON THE PROPOSITION THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING
THE GIVING OF THE NOTE-GUARANTY BONDS BY CLIFF TO THE BANK ACCOMPANIED
BY THE SUPPORTING POWERS OF ATTORNEY,  ...  AND THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH
FOLLOWED THE CREDENCE GIVEN TO SAID BONDS AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY BY THE
NATIONAL BANK EXAMINERS AND THE COMPTROLLER, ACTING AS THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPOSITORS AND OTHER CREDITORS, GIVE RISE, IN A
SUIT BY THE RECEIVER TO ENFORCE THE BONDS, TO AN ESTOPPEL WHICH
PRECLUDES THE SURETY COMPANY FROM DENYING THE VALIDITY OF THE BONDS AND
FROM ASSERTING AS A DEFENSE THAT ITS AGENT ACTED FRAUDULENTLY AND
WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN EXECUTING THE BONDS AND THAT A FRAUDULENT OFFICIAL
OF THE BANK KNEW OF THE AGENT'S MISCONDUCT." 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE PLEADINGS MAKES IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE
RECEIVER UNDERTOOK TO SET UP RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY THE INSOLVENT BANK
THROUGH DULY EXECUTED CONTRACTS BETWEEN IT AND THE SURETY COMPANY.  HE
MAKES NO SUGGESTION OF A PURPOSE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COMPANY TO MISLEAD
CREDITORS OR OTHERS; MAKES NO ALLEGATIONS OF DAMAGE EXCEPT THAT
SUSTAINED BY THE BANK.  HE SETS UP NO FACTS WHICH WOULD RENDER
UNCONSCIONABLE A DENIAL OF LIABILITY UPON THE BOND BECAUSE OF THE
AGENT'S FRAUD OBVIOUSLY INDUCED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK.  IN THIS
STATE OF THE PLEADINGS THE RECEIVER MAY NOT HAVE JUDGMENT; HE CANNOT
RELY ON SOMETHING NOT COMPLAINED OF, NOR CAN HE HAVE DAMAGES BECAUSE OF
SUPPOSED DECEPTIONS WHICH THE PLEADINGS FAIL TO SUGGEST. 

IN RANKIN V. CITY NATIONAL BANK, 208 U.S. 541, 545, 546, A SUIT BY
THE RECEIVER OF THE CAPITOL NATIONAL BANK OF GUTHRIE TO RECOVER THE
AMOUNT OF AN ALLEGED DEPOSIT WHERE IT APPEARED "THAT THE WHOLE
BUSINESS, FROM BEGINNING TO END, WAS AND WAS INTENDED TO BE A MERE
JUGGLE WITH BOOKS AND PAPERS TO DECEIVE THE BANK EXAMINER," THIS COURT
DENIED THE RECEIVER'S CLAIM AND SAID:  "IF THE GUTHRIE BANK HAD SUED
WHILE IT WAS A GOING CONCERN IT COULD NOT HAVE RECOVERED, AND THE
RECEIVER STANDS NO BETTER THAN THE BANK."  WE ADHERE TO THE DOCTRINE
THERE APPROVED AND REGARD IT AS DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT CAUSE. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  DECLARATION - 

NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED ACTION AND SAYS THAT ON
DECEMBER 22, 1931, HE WAS APPOINTED RECEIVER OF BOSTON-CONTINENTAL
NATIONAL BANK BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY OF THE UNITED STATES,
THAT HE DULY QUALIFIED AND IS NOW ACTING AS SUCH RECEIVER. 

AND THE PLAINTIFF SAYS THAT THE DEFENDANT DULY ENTERED INTO, EXECUTED
UNDER SEAL AND DELIVERED TO THE CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON,
NOW KNOWN AS BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK, A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT OR
BOND, COPY WHEREOF IS HERETO ANNEXED MARKED "A" AND HEREBY MADE A PART
HEREOF; THAT BY THE TERMS OF SAID BOND THE DEFENDANT BOUND ITSELF TO
PAY SAID CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON THE SUM OF FORTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($40,000) IN THE EVENT THAT FOUR NOTES OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS
($10,000) EACH SIGNED BY WESTCHESTER DISCOUNT CORPORATION WERE NOT PAID
UPON THE DUE DATES AS SET FORTH IN SAID BOND, THE LAST DUE DATE BEING
APRIL 20, 1931; THAT SOME TIME PRIOR TO APRIL 20, 1931, SAID BOND WAS
EXTENDED TO JUNE 20, 1931, BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT CALLED ENDORSEMENT,
COPY WHEREOF IS HERETO ANNEXED MARKED "B"; THAT SOME TIME PRIOR TO JUNE
20, 1931 SAID BOND WAS EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 20, 1931 BY A WRITTEN
INSTRUMENT CALLED ENDORSEMENT, COPY WHEREOF IS HERETO ANNEXED MARKED
"C"; THAT THE CONDITION OF SAID BOND AS EXTENDED AS AFORESAID HAS BEEN
BROKEN IN THAT WESTCHESTER DISCOUNT CORPORATION, THE PRINCIPAL NAMED
THEREIN, HAS NOT PAID THE NOTES DESCRIBED IN SAID BOND ACCORDING TO
THEIR TERMS, BUT ON THE CONTRARY HAS FAILED, REFUSED AND DECLINED TO
PAY SAID NOTES AND STILL CONTINUES SO TO REFUSE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FACT THAT ALL TIMES HAVE ELAPSED AND ALL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED
NECESSARY TO ENTITLE THE PLAINTIFF TO PAYMENT IN FULL OF SAID NOTES;
THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THE DEFAULT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOND; THAT THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFF
ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEFAULT OF SAID WESTCHESTER DISCOUNT CORPORATION ARE
IN EXCESS OF FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($40,000). 

WHEREFORE, THE DEFENDANT IS INDEBTED TO THE PLAINTIFF IN THE PENAL
SUM OF SAID BOND WITH INTEREST FROM DECEMBER 20, 1931. 

AND THE PLAINTIFF SAYS THAT THIS IS AN ACTION AT LAW ARISING UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND IS A CASE FOR
WINDING UP THE AFFAIRS OF SAID BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK; AND
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS HAS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

         (SIGNED)  BY HIS ATTORNEYS, ------ ------,

                                        ------ ------. 

FN2  COPY OF BOND - 

NO.                $40,000.00 

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT WE, WESTCHESTER DISCOUNT
CORPORATION OF MOUNT VERNON, NEW YORK, AS PRINCIPAL, AND THE STANDARD
SURETY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND
EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND HAVING AN USUAL
PLACE OF BUSINESS IN BOSTON, AS SURETY, ARE HELD AND FIRMLY BOUND AND
OBLIGED UNTO THE CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, A BANKING
CORPORATION DULY ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS AND HAVING AN USUAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN BOSTON IN THE
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, IN THE FULL AND JUST SUM OF FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($40,000.), TO BE PAID TO SAID CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON AS
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED TO WHICH PAYMENT WE BIND OURSELVES, OUR HEIRS,
EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS FIRMLY BY THESE PRESENTS. 

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT IF THE SAID WESTCHESTER
DISCOUNT CORPORATION SHALL UPON THE DUE DATES AS HEREINAFTER INDICATED
MAKE TO THE CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON FULL AND TRUE PAYMENT
OF A SCHEDULE OF FOUR NOTES AS LISTED BELOW THEN THIS OBLIGATION SHALL
BE VOID, OTHERWISE SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. 

                   SCHEDULE OF NOTES. 

           DATE                  AMOUNT        MATURITY 

DEC. 20, 1930.................. $10,000.00     JANUARY 20, 1931 

DEC. 20, 1930..................  10,000.00     FEBRUARY 20, 1931 
DEC. 20, 1930..................  10,000.00     MARCH 20, 1931 

DEC. 20, 1930..................  10,000.00     APRIL 20, 1931 

IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE PRINCIPAL ON ANY NOTE, THE
OBLIGEE SHALL NOTIFY THE HOME OFFICE OF THE SURETY COMPANY AT 80 JOHN
STREET, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS BY REGISTERED
MAIL, OF SUCH DEFAULT, AND THE SURETY COMPANY SHALL PAY ANY LIABILITY
HEREUNDER, NOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT STILL UNPAID ON ANY OR ALL OF THE
AFORESAID NOTES AND IN NO EVENT EXCEEDING FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($40,000.), SAID PAYMENT TO BE MADE BY THE SURETY WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
AFTER MATURITY OF THE FINAL NOTE.    WITNESS OUR HANDS AND SEALS, AND
DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, A.D. 1930. 

WESTCHESTER DISCOUNT CORPORATION (SEAL), 

BY JOSEPH STONE, TREAS. 

STANDARD SURETY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 

BY PERCY G. CLIFF, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT. 

FN3  BILL OF COMPLAINT - 

1.  THE PLAINTIFF IS A CORPORATION LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AND EXISTING
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, HAVING A USUAL PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN BOSTON IN THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK IN THIS COMMONWEALTH. 

2.  THE DEFENDANT BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK FORMERLY CALLED
CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, IS A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION,
LEGALLY ESTABLISHED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, HAVING ITS USUAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN SAID BOSTON.  THE
DEFENDANT WESTCHESTER DISCOUNT CORPORATION IS A CORPORATION ESTABLISHED
AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAVING ITS USUAL
PLACE OF BUSINESS IN MOUNT VERNON IN THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER AND
STATE OF NEW YORK. 

3.  THE PLAINTIFF IS INFORMED AND BELIEVES AND THEREFORE AVERS THAT
ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 20TH, A.D. 1930 THE DEFENDANT WESTCHESTER DISCOUNT
CORPORATION AND ONE PERCY G. CLIFF EXECUTED AN INSTRUMENT A COPY OF
WHICH IS HERETO ANNEXED MARKED A AND MADE A PART HEREOF, AND AT THE
SAME TIME THE DEFENDANT BANK EXECUTED AND DELIVERED TO SAID CLIFF AN
INSTRUMENT ENTITLED "RELEASE" A COPY OF WHICH IS HERETO ANNEXED MARKED
B AND MADE A PART HEREOF. 

THEREAFTER, SO THE PLAINTIFF IS INFORMED AND BELIEVES AND THEREFORE
AVERS, THE SAID CLIFF EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENTS ENTITLED "ENDORSEMENTS"
COPIES OF WHICH MARKED RESPECTIVELY C. AND D. ARE HERETO ANNEXED AND
MADE PARTS HEREOF. 

4.  THE PLAINTIFF IS INFORMED AND BELIEVES AND THEREFORE AVERS THAT
ALL OF THE INSTRUMENTS AFORESAID MARKED A.C. AND D. WERE EXECUTED BY
SAID CLIFF AT THE REQUEST AND SOLICITATION OF THE DEFENDANTS WITHOUT
ANY CONSIDERATION OR SECURITY, WITHOUT PREMIUM CHARGED OR PAID OR
INTENDED TO BE CHARGED OR PAID THEREFOR, UPON THE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE DEFENDANTS AND SAID CLIFF THAT SAID INSTRUMENTS WERE NOT BINDING
OBLIGATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF, AND UPON THE ASSURANCE AND PROMISE GIVEN
BY THE DEFENDANTS TO SAID CLIFF AND UPON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SAID
INSTRUMENTS WOULD NOT BE USED OR ENFORCED BY SAID BANK AGAINST THE
PLAINTIFF, THAT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NEVER BE INFORMED OF THE EXISTENCE
THEREOF, AND THAT AFTER REMAINING IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEFENDANT BANK
FOR A SHORT TIME THEY SHOULD BE RETURNED TO SAID CLIFF. 

5.  ALL OF THE INSTRUMENTS ABOVE DESCRIBED COPIES OF WHICH ARE HERETO
ANNEXED MARKED A.C. AND D. WERE EXECUTED BY THE SAID CLIFF WITHOUT
AUTHORITY FROM THE PLAINTIFF AND WITHOUT ITS KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT, AS
BOTH DEFENDANTS WELL KNEW.  THE PLAINTIFF HAS ONLY RECENTLY LEARNED OF
THE EXISTENCE OF SAID INSTRUMENTS WHICH ARE NOW IN THE POSSESSION OF
THE DEFENDANT BANK. 

WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS: 

1.  THAT THE DEFENDANTS BE ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING OR ATTEMPTING TO
ENFORCE THE SAID INSTRUMENTS MARKED A.C. AND D. OR ANY OF THEM BY SUIT
OR OTHERWISE. 

2.  THAT THE SAID INSTRUMENTS MARKED A.C. AND D. BE DECLARED NULL AND
VOID AND THAT THE DEFENDANT BANK BE ORDERED TO DELIVER THEM UP TO BE
CANCELLED. 

3.  FOR SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND
PROPER. 

                  (SIGNED)  BY ITS ATTORNEYS, ------ ------,

          ------ ------. 

FN4  ANSWER OF BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK AND JOHN B.
CUNNINGHAM, RECEIVER OF BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK. 

NOW COME BOSTON CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK AND JOHN B. CUNNINGHAM,
RECEIVER OF BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK, AND FOR ANSWER TO THE
PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COMPLAINT SAY AS FOLLOWS: 

1.  THEY ADMIT THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF
THE BILL OF COMPLAINT. 

2.  THEY ADMIT THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF
THE BILL OF COMPLAINT. 

3.  AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT, THEY SAY THAT THE INSTRUMENT, A COPY WHEREOF IS
ATTACHED TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT MARKED "A", WAS DULY EXECUTED BY
WESTCHESTER DISCOUNT CORPORATION BY JOSEPH STONE, ITS TREASURER, AND
WAS DULY EXECUTED BY THE PLAINTIFF, BY PERCY G. CLIFF, ITS ATTORNEY-IN
FACT, AND THAT AN ATTESTED COPY OF SAID CLIFF'S GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL INSTRUMENT; THAT THEREAFTER THE
PLAINTIFF DULY EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENTS ENTITLED "ENDORSEMENTS" BY SAID
CLIFF, ITS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, COPIES OF WHICH ENDORSEMENTS ARE ATTACHED
TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT MARKED "C" AND "D"; THAT IF A PURPORTED
RELEASE WAS DELIVERED TO SAID CLIFF BY CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK BY
TERRELL M. RAGAN IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT MARKED
"B", SUCH PURPORTED RELEASE WAS DELIVERED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAID CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK, WAS EXECUTED
WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AND IS VOIDABLE AND VOID.  EXCEPT AS AFORESAID,
THEY DENY THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN SAID PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT. 

4.  THEY DENY THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT. 

5.  THEY DENY THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH OF THE
BILL OF COMPLAINT. 

6.  FURTHER ANSWERING THEY SAY THAT THE CONDITION OF SAID INSTRUMENT,
COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE BILL OF COMPLAINT MARKED "A" AS
EXTENDED BY INSTRUMENTS, COPIES OF WHICH ARE ATTACHED TO THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT MARKED "C" AND "D", HAS BEEN BROKEN IN THAT WESTCHESTER
DISCOUNT CORPORATION, THE PRINCIPAL NAMED IN SAID INSTRUMENT, HAS NOT
PAID THE NOTES DESCRIBED THEREIN ACCORDING TO THEIR TERMS, BUT ON THE
CONTRARY HAS FAILED, REFUSED AND DECLINED TO PAY SAID NOTES AND STILL
CONTINUES SO TO REFUSE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT ALL TIMES HAVE
ELAPSED AND ALL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED NECESSARY TO ENTITLE
BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK AND JOHN B. CUNNINGHAM, RECEIVER OF
SAID BANK, THE SUCCESSORS TO THE OBLIGEE DESCRIBED THEREIN, TO PAYMENT
IN FULL OF SAID NOTES; THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THE
DEFAULT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID INSTRUMENT; THAT
THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THESE DEFENDANTS ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEFAULT OF
SAID WESTCHESTER DISCOUNT CORPORATION ARE IN EXCESS OF $40,000. 

WHEREFORE THESE DEFENDANTS PRAY: 

1.  THAT THE COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT DUE FROM THE PLAINTIFF TO
BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK AND JOHN B. CUNNINGHAM, ITS RECEIVER,
AND ORDER THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE SAME WITH INTEREST. 

2.  FOR SUCH FURTHER RELIEF AS THE COURT FINDS MEET AND JUST. 

                  (SIGNED)  BY THEIR ATTORNEYS, ------ ------,

                                              ------ ------. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

WHEN TWO OR MORE PERSONS HAVE JOINTLY PERPETRATED A FRAUD WITH INTENT
TO INJURE OTHERS, JUSTICE AND LAW COMBINE TO ENTITLE INJURED PARTIES TO
RECOVER FROM ANY OR ALL OF THE CONSPIRATORS.  CORPORATIONS CAN ACT ONLY
THROUGH AGENTS.  WHEN, AS HERE, TWO CORPORATIONS, ACTING THROUGH
AUTHORIZED AGENTS, HAVE JOINTLY PERPETRATED A FRAUD WHICH WAS INTENDED
TO - AND DID - INJURE OTHERS, A JUST RULE OF LAW SHOULD LIKEWISE HOLD
BOTH CORPORATIONS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGES
INFLICTED BY THEM UPON INNOCENT PARTIES. 

IN THIS CASE INNOCENT DEPOSITORS AND OTHER CREDITORS OF A NOW
INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK SUFFERED DAMAGES AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FRAUD
WILFULLY PERPETRATED ON THEM BY JOINT ACTION OF THE BANK AND THE
RESPONDENT SURETY CORPORATION, ACTING THROUGH THEIR AGENTS.  BECAUSE OF
THE GUILTY PARTICIPATION OF THE BANK PRESIDENT IN THIS FRAUD, THE
OPINION JUST READ DENIES THE RECEIVER OF THE INSOLVENT BANK A RECOVERY
WHICH WOULD INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE INNOCENT DEPOSITORS.  AT THE
SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT SURETY CORPORATION IS FREED FROM ANY
RESPONSIBILITY TO THESE INNOCENT PARTIES, IN SPITE OF THE ADMITTED
GUILTY PARTICIPATION OF ITS AGENT.  THAT THE AGENT OF THE RESPONDENT
SURETY CORPORATION WAS AUTHORIZED TO WRITE THE INDEMNITY BONDS USED IN
THE FRAUD IS DISCLOSED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE MASTER AND AUDITOR -
ACTING "UNDER A STIPULATION THAT FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL BE FINAL." 
THESE FINDINGS SHOW THAT: 

THE DULY LICENSED AGENT OF THE SURETY COMPANY (RESPONDENT) CONSPIRED
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK TO SUPPLY INDEMNITY BONDS GUARANTEEING
THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN NOTES HELD BY THE BANK, WHICH BONDS WERE TO BE
PLACED AMONG THE ASSETS OF THE BANK FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECEIVING
FEDERAL BANK EXAMINERS, THE BANK'S DIRECTORS AND ALL OTHERS ENTITLED TO
INQUIRE AS TO THE SOUNDNESS OF THE NOTES; THE SURETY COMPANY'S AGENT
ALSO PERSONALLY ASSURED THE EXAMINERS THAT THE BONDS WERE ALL RIGHT; NO
PREMIUM WAS PAID THE SURETY COMPANY AND THE BONDS WERE INTENDED BY THE
RESPONDENT'S DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK TO BE
VALUELESS AND USED AS "WINDOW DRESSINGS" TO ACCOMPLISH DECEPTIONS;
RESPONDENT'S DULY LICENSED AGENT HAD A POWER OF ATTORNEY "TO MAKE,
EXECUTE AND DELIVER  ...  FOR AND ON ITS BEHALF AS SURETY, ANY AND ALL
BONDS  ...  UNDERTAKINGS, OR ANYTHING IN THE NATURE OF ANY OF THEM,
...  TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES AS IF SAME HAD BEEN DULY EXECUTED AND
ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE REGULARLY ELECTED OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY  ..."; A
COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ATTACHED TO THE BONDS AND THE
EXAMINERS INSPECTED PUBLIC RECORDS AND VERIFIED THE AUTHENTICITY OF
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY; THESE BONDS WERE EXECUTED AFTER THE EXAMINERS
HAD NOTIFIED THE BANK TO MAKE GOOD AN IMPAIRMENT OF CAPITAL AND THE
EXECUTION OF THESE BONDS CAUSED THE COMPTROLLER TO WITHDRAW HIS ORDER
TO MAKE GOOD THE IMPAIRMENT AND AS A RESULT THE BANK CONTINUED TO
REMAIN OPEN, ASSUMED ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS, AND ACCEPTED FURTHER
DEPOSITS IN LARGE AMOUNTS. 

SINCE THE RECEIVER REPRESENTS THE CREDITORS AS WELL AS THE BANK  FN1
HE CAN SUE IN HIS OWN NAME TO RECOVER ASSETS ON BEHALF OF THE BANK OR
ITS CREDITORS.  FN2  "IT IS THE DUTY OF THE RECEIVER OF AN INSOLVENT
CORPORATION TO TAKE STEPS TO SET ASIDE TRANSACTIONS WHICH FRAUDULENTLY
OR ILLEGALLY REDUCE THE ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR THE GENERAL CREDITORS,
EVEN THOUGH THE CORPORATION ITSELF WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO DO SO." 
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245, 261.  THERE IS NO
OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE BANK COULD RECOVER AGAINST THE
INSURANCE COMPANY ON THE INDEMNITY BONDS.  "ENOUGH THAT THE RECEIVER
HAS THE REQUISITE CAPACITY."  MCCANDLESS V. FURLAUD, 296 U.S. 140,
160.  IN THE MCCANDLESS CASE (PAGE 171), THE MINORITY VIEW WAS THAT
"THE RECEIVER'S RIGHTS COULD RISE NO HIGHER" THAN THE CORPORATION'S
RIGHTS.  THE MAJORITY REJECTED THIS VIEWPOINT (PAGE 159), HOLDING THAT
WHERE CORPORATE OFFICERS AND SHAREHOLDERS COMBINED WITH OTHERS TO
DESPOIL A CORPORATION, RECOVERY COULD BE HAD "EITHER BY THE CREDITORS
DIRECTLY OR IN THEIR BEHALF BY A RECEIVER." 

THE RECEIVER DOES NOT MERELY REPRESENT THE CORPORATION - THE BANK. 
THE OBJECT OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER IS TO COLLECT AND PROTECT
ALL OF THE INSOLVENT'S ASSETS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CREDITORS FIRST,
THEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.  IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED
THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF A GOING BANK THE RIGHTS OF DEPOSITORS AND THE
PUBLIC WOULD BE JEOPARDIZED UNLESS GIVEN PROTECTION IN ADDITION TO THAT
AFFORDED BY THE BANK'S OFFICERS ELECTED BY THE STOCKHOLDERS.  FOR THAT
REASON, AMONG OTHERS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROVIDED A SYSTEM OF
EXAMINATION FOR ALL NATIONAL BANKS.  FN3  STATUTES REQUIRE BANKS TO
MAKE REPORTS TO THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY AND TO PERMIT
EXAMINATIONS BY FEDERAL BANK EXAMINERS.  THESE EXAMINATIONS ARE
DESIGNED TO PREVENT SUCH FRAUDS AS WERE PERPETRATED IN THIS CASE.  THIS
OBJECTIVE WILL BE FRUSTRATED IF SURETY COMPANIES - WITH COMPLETE
IMMUNITY - CAN, THROUGH THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENTS, CONSPIRE WITH BANK
OFFICIALS TO DECEIVE AND TRICK BANK EXAMINERS.  THE CONVENIENT FICTION
THAT KNOWLEDGE OF AN OFFICER OF THE BANK IS IMPUTED TO THE BANK ITSELF
IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE RESPONDENT SURETY COMPANY FROM THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE WRONG COMMITTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED AGENT.  THERE IS
NOT EVEN A FICTION UNDER WHICH KNOWLEDGE CAN BE IMPUTED TO INNOCENT
DEPOSITORS.  STRANGE, INDEED, IT IS IF THE ELABORATE SYSTEM OF
PRECAUTIONS PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF
CREDITORS OF NATIONAL BANKS BY EXAMINATION AND VISITATION OF FEDERAL
OFFICIALS MUST BE HELD FOR NAUGHT BY APPLICATION OF THE FICTION THAT
THE BANK - NOT THE INJURED DEPOSITORS - KNEW EVERYTHING ITS PRESIDENT
KNEW.  THE INTERESTS OF THE BANK AND THE INTERESTS OF THE DEPOSITORS
AND CREDITORS ARE NOT ALWAYS IDENTICAL.  THAT THEIR INTERESTS ARE
RECOGNIZED AS SEPARATE AND DISTINGUISHABLE IS AMPLY SHOWN BY LAWS
PASSED TO PROTECT DEPOSITORS AND CREDITORS OF NATIONAL BANKS.  PUBLIC
SOLICITUDE FOR PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS IS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE RECENT
PASSAGE OF THE LAW INSURING PUBLIC DEPOSITS.  FN4 

THE RECEIVER FILED SUITS AT LAW SIDE TO RECOVER ON THE SEVERAL
INDEMNITY BONDS.  THE SURETY COMPANY PROCEEDED IN EQUITY PRAYING
CANCELLATION OF THE BONDS.  ALL ACTIONS WERE TRIED ON EVIDENCE BEFORE A
MASTER AND AUDITOR "UNDER A STIPULATION THAT FINDINGS OF FACT SHALL BE
FINAL."  THESE FINDINGS SET FORTH ALL OF THE RIGHTS OF THE RECEIVER AS
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CREDITORS, THE STOCKHOLDERS AND THE BANK. 
IN THIS CASE, THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED ARE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE.  THE
DECREE BELOW ADJUDGED THE INDEMNITY BONDS TO BE VOID AND
UNENFORCEABLE.  SINCE I BELIEVE THE RECEIVER WAS ENTITLED UNDER THESE
ACTIONS TO ENFORCE THE BONDS AND TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF
FRAUD, I WOULD REVERSE THE DECREE BELOW. 

MR. JUSTICE REED CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 

FN1  CASE V. TERRELL, 11 WALL.  199, 202; HIGH, "ON RECEIVERS," 4TH
ED., SECS. 314, 320; IN RE PLEASANT HILL LUMBER CO., 126 LA. 743, 757;
52 SO. 1010; DUKE V. STAYTON CO., 132 WASH. 69, 77; 231 PAC. 171;
ATLANTIC TRUST CO. V. DANA, 128 FED. 209, 221; DE STAFANO V. ALMOND
CO., 107 N.J. EQ. 156, 159; 152 ATL. 2; INDUSTRIAL MUT. DEP. CO.'S
RECEIVER V. TAYLOR, 118 KY. 851, 854; 82 S.W. 574; IGLEHART V. TODD,
203 IND. 427, 440; 178 N.E. 685. 

FN2  SEE, KENNEDY V. GIBSON, 8 WALL.  498, 506. 

FN3  SEE, EASTON V. IOWA, 188 U.S. 220, 238. 

FN4  12 U.S.C. SEC. 264 ET SEQ.
..END :
























STATE FARM INS. CO. V. COUGHRAN, 303 U.S. 485 


NO. 519.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
239, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON APPEAL IN A LAW CASE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY, THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS DETERMINES WHETHER THE FINDINGS SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT, BUT
CAN NOT REVIEW THE EVIDENCE.  P. 487. 

2.  AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDED THAT THE INSURANCE
COMPANY SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE UNLESS THE CAR AT THE TIME OF ACCIDENT WAS
BEING "OPERATED" BY THE INSURED, HIS PAID DRIVER, MEMBERS OF HIS
IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR PERSONS ACTING UNDER HIS DIRECTION, NOR IF IT WAS
BEING "DRIVEN OR OPERATED" BY ANY PERSON VIOLATING ANY LAW AS TO AGE OR
DRIVING LICENSE.  THERE WAS A FINDING THAT THE ACCIDENT IN QUESTION
OCCURRED WHILE THE CAR WAS BEING OPERATED, WITH THE PERMISSION OF
ASSURED, BY HIS WIFE, AND WAS CAUSED BY HER NEGLIGENCE.  THERE WAS
ANOTHER FINDING THAT IT OCCURRED WHILE IT WAS BEING JOINTLY OPERATED BY
THE WIFE AND, WITH HER PERMISSION BUT CONTRARY TO THE ORDERS OF THE
HUSBAND, BY A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL, UNLICENSED AND UNLICENSABLE UNDER THE
LAW OF CALIFORNIA, WHO AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT WAS PHYSICALLY
ACTUATING INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE AUTOMOBILE OTHER THAN THE MEANS OF
DIRECTION; AND THAT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE COLLISION WAS THE ACT OF
THE WIFE IN SEIZING THE STEERING WHEEL AT AND IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
MOMENT OF IMPACT.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE FINDINGS ARE NOT IN CONFLICT; THE FIRST REFERS TO THE
CONDUCT OF THE WIFE AS THE ONE IN AUTHORITY; THE SECOND DETAILS WHAT
REALLY TOOK PLACE AT MOMENT OF COLLISION.  P. 491. 

ONE MAY "OPERATE" AN AUTOMOBILE SINGLY OR JOINTLY WITH ANOTHER. 

(2)  THE RISK WAS NOT WITHIN THE POLICY.  P. 487. 

3.  A PERSON INJURED BY AN AUTOMOBILE IN CHARGE OF THE ASSURED'S
WIFE, RECOVERED JUDGMENT AGAINST BOTH OF THEM IN AN ACTION DEFENDED BY
THE HUSBAND'S INSURER UNDER A NON-WAIVER AGREEMENT; AND, FAILING TO
COLLECT IT, SUED THE INSURER.  HELD THAT PROOF THAT THE MACHINE, AT THE
TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, WAS BEING OPERATED BY THE WIFE AND A CHILD,
JOINTLY, CONTRARY TO THE HUSBAND'S ORDERS AND CONTRARY TO LAW, WAS
AVAILABLE AS A DEFENSE UNDER THE POLICY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE INSURER'S
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE IT AT THE OTHER TRIAL.  P. 492. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. V. COUGHRAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 679, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED IN AN ACTION ON A POLICY OF INSURANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER'S POLICY INSURED ONE R. O. ANTHONY, THE OWNER, AGAINST
LIABILITY FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY A DESIGNATED AUTOMOBILE.  AS THE
RESULT OF ALLEGED NEGLIGENT AND UNLAWFUL ACTION BY THE ASSURED'S WIFE
THE CAR COLLIDED WITH A TRUCK JUNE 16, 1934.  RESPONDENT COUGHRAN
SUFFERED INJURIES FOR WHICH HE RECOVERED JUDGMENT AGAINST ANTHONY, ALSO
AGAINST HIS WIFE.  BOTH WERE INSOLVENT; A WRIT OF EXECUTION AGAINST
THEM WAS RETURNED UNSATISFIED. 

THEREUPON RESPONDENT COMMENCED THIS SUIT TO RECOVER OF PETITIONER THE
AMOUNT OF HIS UNPAID JUDGMENT.  HE CLAIMED THIS RIGHT UNDER THE POLICY
AND STATUTE.  ANSWERING, THE COMPANY EXHIBITED THE POLICY AND DENIED
LIABILITY.  AS A FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE IT ALLEGED THAT ANTHONY AND HIS
WIFE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH CERTAIN TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.  AS A SECOND
 

"THAT SAID ACCIDENT WAS AN ACCIDENT FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT UNDER THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID POLICY IS NOT LIABLE IN THAT:  AT THE TIME
AND PLACE OF THE ACCIDENT THE AUTOMOBILE OF THE INSURED WAS BEING
DRIVEN AND OPERATED BY A PERSON WHO WAS NOT THE PAID DRIVER OF THE
INSURED, NOR A MEMBER OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY, NOR A PERSON ACTING
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ASSURED.  THIS DEFENDANT ALLEGES THAT THE
SAID AUTOMOBILE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT WAS BEING DRIVEN AND
OPERATED BY A PERSON IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AS TO AGE AND AS TO DRIVER'S LICENSE AND FURTHER ALLEGES
THAT THE DRIVER OF SAID CAR WAS A MINOR, BEING A FEMALE OF THE AGE OF
APPROXIMATELY 13 YEARS." 

THERE WERE OTHER SEPARATE DEFENSES. 

A JURY HAVING BEEN WAIVED, THE CAUSE WENT TO THE COURT ON THE
PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE.  IT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT WITH CONCLUSION OF
LAW AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR COUGHRAN.  NEITHER SIDE REQUESTED OTHER OR
DIFFERENT FINDINGS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT FINDINGS III AND XII WERE
INCONSISTENT "AND TO ELUCIDATE THE TRUTH, A REVIEW OF THE TESTIMONY IS
REQUIRED."  AFTER SUCH REVIEW IT RULED THAT THE FINDINGS SO ELUCIDATED
WERE ADEQUATE AND REQUIRED AFFIRMATION OF THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT.  ONE
JUDGE THOUGHT OTHERWISE AND PRESENTED A SEPARATE OPINION. 

UNDER APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REPEATED RULINGS HERE, THE MATTER OPEN
FOR CONSIDERATION UPON THE APPEAL WAS WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL
COURT SUPPORTED ITS JUDGMENT.  TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE WAS BEYOND THE
COMPETENCY OF THE COURT.  U.S.C. TITLE 28, SECS. 773, 875; WALNUT V.
WADE, 103 U.S. 683, 688; STANLEY V. SUPERVISORS OF ALBANY, 121 U.S.
535, 547; LAW V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 494, 496. 

TWO PERSONS WERE IN THE INSURED AUTOMOBILE WHEN THE ACCIDENT
OCCURRED.  NANCY LEIDENDEKER, A GIRL OF 13 WITHOUT LICENSE TO DRIVE,
OCCUPIED THE DRIVER'S SEAT.  BY HER SIDE SAT HELEN B. ANTHONY, WIFE OF
THE ASSURED, AN ADULT HOLDING A DRIVER'S LICENSE. 

THE PRINCIPAL POINT UPON WHICH THE PETITIONER NOW RELIES IS THAT AS
THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED WHEN THE CAR WAS BEING DRIVEN AND OPERATED BY THE
YOUNG GIRL CONTRARY TO THE OWNER'S COMMANDS AND IN VIOLATION OF
CALIFORNIA STATUTES, THE POLICY DID NOT COVER HIS LIABILITY. 

THE POLICY (INCORPORATED IN THE FINDINGS) UNDER THE HEADING "TERMS
AND CONDITIONS FORMING A PART OF THIS POLICY," PROVIDES - 

"(1)  RISKS NOT ASSUMED BY THIS COMPANY.  THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE AND NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION OF ANY KIND SHALL ATTACH TO THE
COMPANY FOR LOSSES OR DAMAGE:...(A)  ...  (D) UNLESS THE SAID
AUTOMOBILE IS BEING OPERATED BY THE ASSURED, HIS PAID DRIVER, MEMBERS
OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR PERSONS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
ASSURED; (E) CAUSED WHILE THE SAID AUTOMOBILE IS BEING DRIVEN OR
OPERATED BY ANY PERSON WHATSOEVER EITHER UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
OR DRUGS OR VIOLATING ANY LAW OR ORDINANCE AS TO AGE OR DRIVING
LICENSE; (F)  ..." 

APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE ACT,  - STATS. 1923,
PP. 518, 519, 536; STATS. 1927, P. 1427; STATS. 1931, P. 2108 -
FOLLOW: 

"SECTION 1.  THE FOLLOWING WORDS AND PHRASES USED IN THIS ACT SHALL
HAVE THE MEANINGS HERE ASCRIBED TO THEM." 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 18.  'OPERATOR.'  EVERY PERSON WHO DRIVES, OPERATES OR IS IN
ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A MOTOR VEHICLE UPON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY." 

"SEC. 76.  UNLAWFUL TO EMPLOY UNLICENSED CHAUFFEUR.  NO PERSON SHALL
EMPLOY FOR HIRE AS A CHAUFFEUR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, ANY PERSON NOT
LICENSED AS IN THIS ACT PROVIDED.  NO PERSON SHALL AUTHORIZE OR
KNOWINGLY PERMIT A MOTOR VEHICLE OWNED BY HIM OR UNDER HIS CONTROL, TO
BE DRIVEN BY ANY PERSON WHO HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO OR IN VIOLATION
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT." 

"SEC. 58.  OPERATORS AND CHAUFFEURS MUST BE LICENSED. 

"(A)  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE
UPON ANY PUBLIC HIGHWAY IN THIS STATE, WHETHER AS AN OPERATOR OR A
CHAUFFEUR, UNLESS SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN LICENSED AS AN OPERATOR OR
CHAUFFEUR; EXCEPT SUCH PERSONS AS ARE EXPRESSLY EXEMPTED UNDER THIS
ACT." 

"SEC. 64.  WHAT PERSONS SHALL NOT BE LICENSED AS OPERATORS OR
CHAUFFEURS. 

"(A)  AN OPERATOR'S LICENSE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED TO ANY PERSON UNDER
THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS AND NO CHAUFFEUR'S LICENSE SHALL BE ISSUED TO
ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, PROVIDED THAT AN OPERATOR'S
LICENSE MAY BE ISSUED TO ANY MINOR OVER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN YEARS AND
LESS THAN SIXTEEN YEARS OF AGE UPON SPECIAL APPLICATION AND STATEMENT
OF REASONS BY THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN OF SUCH MINOR." 

ESPECIALLY PERTINENT FINDINGS BY THE TRIAL COURT FOLLOW: 

"III.  THE COURT FINDS THAT ON OR ABOUT THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 1934,
AND WHILE SAID POLICY WAS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, ONE HELEN B.
ANTHONY OPERATED THE CHEVROLET AUTOMOBILE REFERRED TO IN AND COVERED BY
THE SAID POLICY OF INSURANCE WITH THE PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF THE
ASSURED, R. O. ANTHONY, AND OPERATED THE SAME NEGLIGENTLY SO AS
PROXIMATELY TO CAUSE AN ACCIDENT AND INJURY TO THE PERSON AND PROPERTY
OF THE PLAINTIFF TO HIS DAMAGE IN THE REASONABLE SUM OF FIVE THOUSAND
NINETY-TWO AND 55/100 DOLLARS ($5092.55)." 

"IX.  THE COURT FINDS THAT IT IS TRUE THAT THE DEFENDANT, PRIOR TO
THE TRIAL OF THE ACTION IN THE STATE COURT ENTERED INTO THE NON-WAIVER
AGREEMENT RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS ACTION WITH THE ASSURED, R. O.
ANTHONY, AND WITH HELEN B. ANTHONY.  THAT THE SAID NON-WAIVER AGREEMENT
WAS EXECUTED JUST PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRIAL OF THE STATE
COURT ACTION.  THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT AND
HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY FACTS REFERRED TO THEREIN AND WAS NOT IN
PRIVITY WITH ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE STATE COURT ACTION AND THAT
SO FAR AS THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT AFFECTS THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS
ACTION, THE DEFENDANT MANAGED AND CONDUCTED THE DEFENSE IN THE STATE
COURT." 

"XII.  WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE OF DEFENDANT, THE
COURT FINDS THAT THE SAID AUTOMOBILE AT THE TIME OF THE IMPACT THAT
RESULTED IN THE INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFF WAS BEING JOINTLY OPERATED BY
HELEN B. ANTHONY AND NANCY LEIDENDEKER; THAT SAID HELEN B. ANTHONY WAS
A MEMBER OF THE ASSURED'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND WAS AN ADULT PERSON OVER
THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS WHO WAS LICENSED BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO DRIVE AN AUTOMOBILE; AND THAT SAID NANCY LEIDENDEKER WAS
A MINOR AND NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAWS TO OPERATE A MOTOR
VEHICLE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THAT THE ASSURED HAD FORBIDDEN SAID
MINOR NANCY LEIDENDEKER TO DRIVE ANY MOTOR VEHICLE OR AUTOMOBILE OF
WHICH HE WAS THE OWNER OR WHICH HE CONTROLLED; AND THAT THE ACTION OF
SAID NANCY LEIDENDEKER ON THE DAY OF THE ACCIDENT AND AT THE TIME OF
THE IMPACT INVOLVED IN THIS ACTION WERE IN DISOBEDIENCE OF AND CONTRARY
TO THE COMMANDS, ORDERS AND INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ASSURED, R. O. ANTHONY;
THAT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, INSOFAR AS THE PROPULSION OF THE
VEHICLE WAS CONCERNED, OTHER THAN THE MEANS OF DIRECTION, ALL
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF SAID AUTOMOBILE WERE BEING PHYSICALLY ACTUATED BY
SAID MINOR NANCY LEIDENDEKER, WITH THE ACQUIESCENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF
HELEN B. ANTHONY AND WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE, ACQUIESCENCE OR CONSENT ON
THE PART OF THE ASSURED, R. O. ANTHONY; THAT THE PROXIMATE AND DIRECT
CAUSE OF THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE INSURED AUTOMOBILE AND A TRUCK OWNED
BY SAN PEDRO COMMERCIAL COMPANY WAS THE ACT OF HELEN B. ANTHONY IN
SEIZING THE STEERING WHEEL OF THE AUTOMOBILE AT AND IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE MOMENT OF IMPACT AND COLLISION." 

"XVI.  THAT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRIAL OF THE SAID STATE
COURT ACTION THE DEFENDANT HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING THE PRESENCE OF THE SAID NANCY LEIDENDEKER IN
THE DRIVER'S SEAT OR IN A PART OF SAID SEAT, AND ALL OTHER FACTS RELIED
ON BY THE DEFENDANT AS CONSTITUTING A CONCEALMENT AND A DEFENSE OF THE
CASE AT BAR, BUT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT REVEAL SAID FACTS TO THE
PLAINTIFF OR HIS COUNSEL, AND THAT PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL HAD NO
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SAID NANCY LEIDENDEKER OCCUPIED ANY PART OF THE
DRIVER'S SEAT UNTIL SAID TRIAL WAS COMPLETED." 

"XVII.  THE COURT FINDS THAT PRIOR TO THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE
INSURED AUTOMOBILE AND A TRUCK OWNED BY THE SAN PEDRO COMMERCIAL
COMPANY, HELEN B. ANTHONY SEIZED THE STEERING WHEEL OF THE INSURED
AUTOMOBILE AND STEERED THE SAME TO THE RIGHT, PROXIMATELY CAUSING THE
SAME TO COME INTO COLLISION WITH THE SAID TRUCK AND PROXIMATELY CAUSING
THE SAME TO TURN TO ITS RIGHT, PROXIMATELY CAUSING THE COLLISION OF
PLAINTIFF'S CAR AND THE INJURIES AND DAMAGES SUFFERED BY HIM." 

WHEN READ TOGETHER NO MATERIAL CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN FINDINGS III
AND XII; THERE IS NO REAL DIFFICULTY IN UNDERSTANDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES
TO WHICH THEY ARE ADDRESSED.  THE FIRST CONTAINS STATEMENTS CONCERNING
THE CONDUCT OF ONE IN AUTHORITY; THE SECOND DESCRIBES IN DETAIL WHAT
REALLY TOOK PLACE AT THE MOMENT OF COLLISION.  THE WORD "OPERATE" HAS
VARYING MEANINGS ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXT.  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY.  ONE MAY OPERATE SINGLY WITH HIS OWN HANDS, OR JOINTLY WITH
ANOTHER, OR THROUGH ONE OR MORE AGENTS. 

FROM THE FINDINGS IT APPEARS THAT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED THE
AUTOMOBILE WAS NOT BEING OPERATED BY THE ASSURED, HIS PAID DRIVER, A
MEMBER OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR A PERSON ACTING UNDER HIS DIRECTION,
WITHIN FAIR INTENDMENT OF THE POLICY.  CONTRARY TO THE OWNER'S COMMANDS
"INSOFAR AS THE PROPULSION OF THE VEHICLE WAS CONCERNED, OTHER THAN THE
MEANS OF DIRECTION, ALL INSTRUMENTALITIES OF SAID AUTOMOBILE WERE BEING
PHYSICALLY ACTUATED BY SAID MINOR" WHO WAS INHIBITED BY THE STATUTES
FROM DRIVING OR OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHIN THE STATE. 

JUST BEFORE THE ACCIDENT, MRS. ANTHONY SEIZED THE STEERING WHEEL AND
BY NEGLIGENT MANIPULATION OF THIS CAUSED THE COLLISION. 

IF, AS FOUND, THE AUTOMOBILE WAS BEING JOINTLY OPERATED BY THE WIFE
AND THE GIRL THE RISK WAS NOT WITHIN THE POLICY.  THE LATTER WAS
FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO OPERATE OR DRIVE JOINTLY OR SINGLY.  IF THE WIFE
WAS IN CONTROL THE STATUTE FORBADE HER TO PERMIT DRIVING BY THE GIRL. 
IN ANY VIEW, WHEN THE COLLISION OCCURRED THE CAR WAS BEING DRIVEN OR
OPERATED IN VIOLATION OF THE STATUTES. 

IN SUPPORT OF HIS POSITION RESPONDENT RELIES HEAVILY UPON O'CONNELL
V. N.J. FIDELITY INS. CO., 201 APP. DIV. (N.Y.)  117; 193 N.Y.S. 911;
AND WILLIAMS V. NELSON, 228 MASS. 191; 117 N.E. 189.  THESE CAUSES, WE
THINK, ARE NOT IN POINT.  THEY WERE DECIDED UPON FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE HERE DISCLOSED. 

RESPONDENT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT PETITIONER IS PRECLUDED FROM ANY
INQUIRY CONCERNING WHO ACTUALLY WAS DRIVING THE CAR WHEN THE ACCIDENT
OCCURRED.  HE SAYS THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS SURROUNDING NANCY
LEIDENDEKER WAS HIGHLY MATERIAL AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN LITIGATED IN THE
ORIGINAL TORT ACTION BROUGHT BY COUGHRAN AGAINST THE ANTHONYS, AND
BASED SOLELY UPON PERMISSIVE USE.  ALSO, IF THE FACTS THEN KNOWN BY
PETITIONER HAD BEEN THERE REVEALED, IT WOULD HAVE BECOME APPARENT THAT
THE GIRL LACKED PERMISSION TO DRIVE AND THAT THE WIFE EXCEEDED THE
TERMS OF HER AUTHORIZATION; AND THAT BY SUPPRESSING THESE FACTS
PETITIONER EXPOSED THE ASSURED TO A LIABILITY WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT NOT
HAVE BEEN IMPOSED. 

THE JUDGMENT ROLL OF THE TORT ACTION IS NOT BEFORE US; WE ARE LIMITED
TO THE FINDINGS.  THAT ACTION WAS DEFENDED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER A
NON-WAIVER AGREEMENT; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED DAMAGES FROM NEGLIGENCE OF
THE WIFE AS DRIVER AND OPERATOR IMPUTED TO THE HUSBAND.  DEFENSES NOW
PRESENTED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY AGAINST LIABILITY UNDER THE POLICY
WERE NOT INVOLVED.  JOINT DRIVING BY MRS. ANTHONY AND THE GIRL WAS NOT
SUBJECT TO INQUIRY. 

MOREOVER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE MAY NOT CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT
SHOULD PREVAIL BECAUSE PETITIONER FAILED TO PRESENT FACTS IN THE TORT
ACTION WHICH HE SAYS IF THEN PRESENTED MIGHT HAVE DEFEATED THE VERY
JUDGMENT UPON WHICH HE NOW RELIES TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED.  THE
CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER
JUDGMENT FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER HERE.  REVERSED.    MR.
JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS
CASE. 
..END :




GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. COMM'R, 303 U.S. 493 


NO. 301.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 13, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 89
F.2D 692, AFFIRMED. 


A PARTNERSHIP WHOSE FISCAL YEAR EXPIRED JULY 31, 1933, WAS DISSOLVED
BY THE DEATH OF A MEMBER IN DECEMBER, 1933.  DECEDENT HAD KEPT HIS
BOOKS ON THE CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS BASIS AND FILED HIS
RETURNS FOR INCOME TAX FOR EACH CALENDAR YEAR ON THAT BASIS.  THE
PARTNERSHIP KEPT ITS BOOKS ON A LIKE BASIS, BUT MADE ITS RETURNS FOR A
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JULY 31.  UPON A PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNTING, HIS SHARE
OF THE PROFITS FROM AUGUST 1 TO DATE OF HIS DEATH WAS ASCERTAINED, AND
IN THE FOLLOWING JANUARY AND FEBRUARY WAS PAID TO THE EXECUTOR.  HELD,
THAT THE DECEDENT'S TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1933 INCLUDES
HIS SHARE OF PARTNERSHIP PROFITS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PARTNERSHIP
FISCAL YEAR ON AUG. 1, 1933, TO THE DATE OF HIS DEATH IN THE SAME YEAR,
IN ADDITION TO HIS SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP PROFITS FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JULY 31.  REV. ACT 1932, SEC. 182(A).  P. 495. 

GUARANTY TRUST CO., EXECUTOR, V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 670, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW
REVERSING AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  THE BOARD'S ORDER, 34
B.T.A. 384, SET ASIDE A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WHETHER A DECEASED PARTNER'S TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR
1933 INCLUDES HIS SHARE OF PARTNERSHIP PROFITS FROM THE BEGINNING OF
THE PARTNERSHIP FISCAL YEAR ON AUGUST 1, 1933, TO THE DATE OF HIS DEATH
IN THE SAME YEAR, IN ADDITION TO HIS SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP PROFITS
FOR ITS FISCAL YEAR ENDING JULY 31, IS THE QUESTION FOR DECISION. 

PETITIONER'S TESTATOR, WHO DIED DECEMBER 16, 1933, WAS A MEMBER OF A
NEW YORK PARTNERSHIP WHOSE FISCAL YEAR EXPIRED ON JULY 31, 1933.  THE
PARTNERSHIP, WITH THE ADDITION OF A NEW PARTNER, WAS RENEWED, BY
AGREEMENT, FOR ONE YEAR FROM AUGUST 1.  AFTER HIS DEATH THE SURVIVING
PARTNERS, BY A FURTHER AGREEMENT, CONTINUED THE PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS
FROM THAT DATE UNTIL JULY 31 OF THE NEXT YEAR, AS OF WHICH DATE PROFITS
WERE TO BE DETERMINED, AND THEREAFTER FROM YEAR TO YEAR.  DECEDENT KEPT
HIS BOOKS ON THE CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS BASIS AND FILED HIS
RETURNS FOR INCOME TAX FOR EACH CALENDAR YEAR ON THAT BASIS.  THE
PARTNERSHIP KEPT ITS BOOKS ON A LIKE BASIS, BUT MADE ITS RETURNS FOR A
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JULY 31. 

UPON A PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNTING AS OF THE DATE OF DECEDENT'S DEATH, HIS
SHARE OF THE PROFITS FROM AUGUST 1 TO THAT DATE WAS ASCERTAINED AND IN
THE FOLLOWING JANUARY AND FEBRUARY WAS PAID TO PETITIONER, AS
EXECUTOR.  IN MAKING RETURN FOR TAXATION OF DECEDENT'S INCOME FOR 1933,
PETITIONER INCLUDED DECEDENT'S SHARE OF THE FIRM PROFITS ACCRUING FOR
THE YEAR ENDING JULY 31, BUT OMITTED TO RETURN HIS SHARE OF THE FIRM
PROFITS EARNED BETWEEN THAT TIME AND HIS DEATH. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY BASED ON THE OMITTED
INCOME, WAS SET ASIDE BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  34 B.T.A. 384.  THE
BOARD'S ORDER WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT, WHICH HELD THAT DECEDENT'S SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP PROFITS
FOR THE YEAR ENDING JULY 31 AND FOR THE ENSUING PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER
16, 1933, WAS INCOME OF DECEDENT IN 1933 AND TAXABLE AS SUCH FOR THAT
YEAR.  89 F.(2D) 692.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, THE QUESTION BEING OF
IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS, AND THE DECISION
BEING CHALLENGED BY PETITIONER AS NOT IN HARMONY WITH BURNET V. SANFORD
& BROOKS CO., 282 U.S. 359. 

BOTH BY THE PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
BY PETITIONER AND THE SURVIVING PARTNERS, AND BY THE APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE NEW YORK PARTNERSHIP ACT,  FN1 DECEDENT'S DEATH
DISSOLVED THE PARTNERSHIP, TERMINATED HIS RIGHT TO SHARE IN THE
PROFITS, AND FIXED THE DATE AS OF WHICH THE SURVIVING PARTNERS WERE
BOUND TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PROFITS.  DARCY V. COMMISSIONER, 66 F.(2D)
581.  DECEDENT'S ESTATE IN FACT RECEIVED THE PROFITS ACCRUED ON THE
DATE OF HIS DEATH, AND PARTNERSHIP PROFITS THUS ACCRUED AND
DISTRIBUTABLE BY REASON OF THE DEATH OF A PARTNER ARE HIS INCOME,
TAXABLE AS SUCH.  BULL V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 247.  BUT PETITIONER
INSISTS THAT HERE THEY CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN DECEDENT'S 1933 INCOME FOR
PURPOSES OF TAXATION, SINCE IN THAT CASE HIS PARTNERSHIP PROFITS BOTH
FOR THE FULL YEAR ENDING JULY 31, 1933 AND FOR THE ENSUING FOUR AND ONE
HALF MONTHS' PERIOD ENDING WITH HIS DEATH IN DECEMBER, WOULD BE TAXED
AS HIS PROFITS FOR A SINGLE YEAR.  THIS IT IS SAID OFFENDS AGAINST THE
POLICY OF THE REVENUE ACTS TO ASSESS INCOME TAXES ANNUALLY ON THE BASIS
OF TWELVE MONTH PERIODS AND, SO OFFENDING, CONFLICTS WITH THE
APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 181, 182
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, RELATING TO THE TAXATION OF
PARTNERSHIP PROFITS. 

UNDER THE ACT OF 1932, AS WITH EARLIER REVENUE ACTS, PARTNERSHIPS ARE
NOT TAXED UPON THEIR INCOME.  BY SEC. 189 THEY ARE REQUIRED TO FILE
INFORMATION RETURNS SHOWING THE PARTNERSHIP PROFITS AND THE RESPECTIVE
SHARES OF THE PARTNERS IN THE PROFITS.  BUT SEC. 181 PROVIDES THAT THE
PARTNERS SHALL BE "LIABLE FOR INCOME TAX ONLY IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY," AND SEC. 182(A) READS: 

"GENERAL RULE.  - THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE NET INCOME
OF EACH PARTNER HIS DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE, WHETHER DISTRIBUTED OR NOT, OF
THE NET INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR.  IF THE TAXABLE
YEAR OF A PARTNER IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PARTNERSHIP, THE AMOUNT
SO INCLUDED SHALL BE BASED UPON THE INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR ANY
TAXABLE YEAR OF THE PARTNERSHIP ENDING WITHIN HIS TAXABLE YEAR." 

SINCE THE PARTNERSHIP IS NOT A TAXPAYER, IT HAS NO TAXABLE YEAR IN A
LITERAL SENSE.  BUT AS USED IN THIS SECTION "TAXABLE YEAR OF THE
PARTNERSHIP" MEANS ITS FISCAL YEAR, FOR "TAXABLE YEAR" IS DEFINED BY
SEC. 48 AS INCLUDING IN ITS MEANING "A FISCAL YEAR  ...  UPON THE BASIS
OF WHICH THE NET INCOME IS COMPUTED" AND "FISCAL YEAR" IS DEFINED AS
"AN ACCOUNTING PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF ANY
MONTH OTHER THAN DECEMBER."  A "TAXABLE YEAR," IT IS DECLARED, INCLUDES
THE PERIOD FOR WHICH A RETURN IS MADE WHEN, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT OR REGULATIONS, A RETURN FOR A FRACTIONAL PART OF A YEAR IS
REQUIRED.  AS A PARTNER'S PROFITS ARE ASCERTAINABLE ONLY ON AN
ACCOUNTING FOR SUCH PERIODS AS MAY BE FIXED BY LAW OR BY THE
PARTNERSHIP ITSELF, AND AS THE FISCAL YEAR OR ACCOUNTING PERIOD OF THE
PARTNERSHIP MAY DIFFER FROM THAT OF THE TAXABLE YEAR OF THE PARTNER,
SEC. 182(A), AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE TO TAXPAYERS, AUTHORIZES AND
PROVIDES FOR THIS DIFFERENCE BY REQUIRING IN THAT CASE THAT THE
PARTNER'S DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE PROFITS ASCERTAINED AT THE END OF
THE PARTNERSHIP FISCAL YEAR SHALL BE INCLUDED IN HIS TAXABLE INCOME FOR
THE YEAR IN WHICH THE FISCAL YEAR OF THE PARTNERSHIP ENDS. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT COMPLAIN OF THE TAXATION OF DECEDENT'S SHARE OF
THE PARTNERSHIP PROFITS FOR THE YEAR ENDING JULY 31 AS 1933 INCOME. 
BUT IT CONTENDS THAT THE REFERENCE IN SEC. 182(A) TO THE "TAXABLE YEAR
OF THE PARTNERSHIP," AND THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE
PARTNER'S TAXABLE INCOME "SHALL BE BASED UPON THE INCOME OF THE
PARTNERSHIP FOR ANY TAXABLE YEAR OF THE PARTNERSHIP ENDING WITHIN HIS
TAXABLE YEAR," READ IN THEIR CONTEXT AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRACTICE
LONG ESTABLISHED BY THE REVENUE ACTS, OF TAXING INCOME FOR TWELVE MONTH
PERIODS, CONTEMPLATE THAT A PARTNER RETURNING INCOME FOR A CALENDAR
YEAR SHALL BE TAXABLE IN THAT YEAR ONLY UPON HIS INCOME FROM HIS FIRM
FOR A SINGLE PARTNERSHIP YEAR.  THIS IS SAID TO BE THE CASE EVEN THOUGH
THE INCOME DERIVED BY A PARTNER FROM THE FIRM BUSINESS BETWEEN THE END
OF THE PARTNERSHIP FISCAL YEAR AND THE DATE OF HIS DEATH IN THE SAME
YEAR CANNOT BE TAXED IN ANY OTHER. 

THIS ARGUMENT IS, WE THINK, BASED UPON A MISCONCEPTION OF THE POLICY
OF THE ACT AND A MISTAKEN CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 182(A).  IT IS TRUE THAT
THE ACTS OF CONGRESS TAXING INCOME HAVE CONSISTENTLY LAID THE TAX UPON
THE NET INCOME RECEIVED BY OR ACCRUED TO THE TAXPAYER IN A "TAXABLE
YEAR," WHICH IS EITHER THE CALENDAR YEAR OR A DIFFERENT FISCAL YEAR, AS
THE TAXPAYER MAY ELECT.  BUT THEY HAVE NEVER UNDERTAKEN TO LIMIT THE
INCOME TAXABLE IN ANY ONE YEAR TO THAT DERIVED FROM THE TAXPAYER'S
ACTIVITIES OCCURRING IN THAT OR ANY OTHER SINGLE YEAR.  THE ITEMS OF
GROSS INCOME AND OF ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME
RETURN, ARE THOSE OF THE TAXPAYER FOR HIS TAXABLE YEAR, EVEN THOUGH
THEY MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM OR BE AFFECTED BY HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
OF OTHER YEARS.  BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS CO., SUPRA, 364, 365. 
CIRCUMSTANCES WHOLLY FORTUITOUS MAY DETERMINE THE YEAR IN WHICH INCOME,
WHENEVER EARNED, IS TAXABLE, AND MAY THUS AFFECT THE AMOUNT OF TAX. 
RECEIPT OF INCOME OR ACCRUAL OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT WITHIN THE TAX
YEAR IS THE TEST OF TAXABILITY, NOT THE TIME IT HAS TAKEN THE TAXPAYER
TO EARN IT NOR THE DURATION OF HIS INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE FINALLY
RESULTED IN PROFIT.  LUCAS V. ALEXANDER, 279 U.S. 573. 

THE REVENUE ACTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY ADHERED TO THAT POLICY IN TAXING
THE INCOME OF A PARTNER.  SINCE THE PARTNER IS ENTITLED TO PROFITS ONLY
UPON A PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNTING AT THE END OF AN ACCOUNTING PERIOD, HIS
PROFITS BECOME SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX WHEN AND AS THEY ARE THUS
ASCERTAINED.  AS IN THE CASE OF ALL OTHER TAXPAYERS, THE PARTNER'S NET
INCOME IS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 41 TO BE COMPUTED
"ON THE BASIS OF THE TAXPAYER'S ANNUAL ACCOUNTING PERIOD," HERE THE
CALENDAR YEAR, SO AS CLEARLY TO REFLECT THE INCOME.  AND SEC. 182(A)
COMMANDS THAT THE DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF EACH PARTNER IN THE PARTNERSHIP
PROFITS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING HIS TAX, WHETHER DISTRIBUTED OR
NOT. 

BY THESE PROVISIONS THE TAXABLE INCOME OF A PARTNER IS LIMITED TO
THAT SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP EARNINGS TO WHICH HE BECOMES ENTITLED
WITHIN HIS TAXABLE YEAR, BUT IT INCLUDES ALL THE DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF
THE PARTNERSHIP INCOME WHICH ACCRUES TO HIM IN THAT YEAR EVEN THOUGH
EARNED IN AN ACCOUNTING PERIOD NOT WHOLLY WITHIN THE YEAR, AND THOUGH
HIS RETURN, AS IN THE CASE OF DECEDENT, IS ON THE CASH RECEIPTS AND
DISBURSEMENTS BASIS.  IF THE PROVISIONS STOOD ALONE IT WOULD SEEM PLAIN
THAT THE PROFITS ACCRUING TO DECEDENT FROM THE TWO PARTNERSHIP
ACCOUNTINGS WITHIN HIS TAXABLE YEAR WOULD BE TAXABLE IN THAT YEAR, EVEN
THOUGH THE ACCOUNTING PERIODS AGGREGATED MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS.  WE
THINK THE CONCLUDING SENTENCE OF SEC. 182(A), WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE
CASE WHERE THE PARTNER'S TAXABLE YEAR DIFFERS FROM THAT OF THE
PARTNERSHIP, DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY DIFFERENT RESULT. 

WE NEED NOT INQUIRE TOO METICULOUSLY WHETHER THE PARTNERSHIP "TAXABLE
YEAR," WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 182(A), INCLUDES IN THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AN ACCOUNTING PERIOD OF LESS THAN TWELVE
MONTHS, HERE FROM JULY 31 TO THE DEATH OF DECEDENT.  PETITIONER MAKES
NO CONTENTION THAT IT DOES NOT, NOR COULD WELL DO SO, FOR IF NOT SO
INCLUDED IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PHRASE "ANY TAXABLE YEAR OF THE
PARTNERSHIP," OCCURRING IN THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SEC. 182(A), ON WHICH
PETITIONER RELIES TO EXCLUDE THE INCOME FOR THAT PERIOD FROM TAXATION
OTHERWISE IMPOSED BY THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SEC. 41 AND THE FIRST
SENTENCE OF SEC. 182(A).  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE YEAR ENDING JULY 31,
1933, WAS ONE PARTNERSHIP FISCAL YEAR OR ACCOUNTING PERIOD, AND THAT
THE ENSUING PERIOD UNTIL THE DEATH OF DECEDENT WAS ANOTHER, AND THAT
THE INCLUSION OF THE INCOME FOR BOTH PERIODS IN DECEDENT'S TAXABLE
INCOME IS PRECLUDED BY THE USE OF THE PHRASE "ANY TAXABLE YEAR" IN SEC.
182(A), WHICH IT IS SAID MUST BE TAKEN TO MEAN ANY ONE ACCOUNTING
PERIOD OF THE PARTNERSHIP. 

BUT WE THINK THE SENTENCE MUST BE READ AS SUPPLEMENTING THE PRECEDING
ONE AND SEC. 41, AND NOT AS LIMITING THEM.  WE CAN DISCERN ELSEWHERE IN
THE ACT NO INDICATION OF ANY CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE TO RELIEVE BUSINESS
INCOME FROM TAXATION IN THE YEAR WHEN, UNDER THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
OF THE STATUTE, IT IS DISTRIBUTABLE TO A PARTNER.  SECTIONS 11 AND 12
DECLARE IN ALL-INCLUSIVE TERMS THAT INCOME TAXES "SHALL BE LEVIED,
COLLECTED, AND PAID FOR EACH TAXABLE YEAR UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY
INDIVIDUAL."  IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE PRECISE WORDS THAN THOSE OF SEC.
182(A) DIRECTING THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF A PARTNER SHALL BE BASED ON
PARTNERSHIP INCOME FOR "ANY" ACCOUNTING PERIOD OF THE PARTNERSHIP
ENDING WITHIN ITS TAXABLE YEAR, TO RESTRICT THE BROAD SWEEP OF SECS.
11, 12 AND 41.  CF. HEINER V. COLONIAL TRUST CO., 275 U.S. 232, 234,
235; HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS ENSKILDA BANK, 293 U.S. 84, 89; UNITED
STATES V. SAFETY CAR HEATING & LIGHTING CO., 297 U.S. 88, 93; HELVERING
V. GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238, 243, 244. 

THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 182(A) WHEN READ, AS IT MUST BE, WITH THESE OTHER
PART OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE PARTNERSHIP INCOME DURING THE
YEAR IN WHICH IT IS DISTRIBUTABLE.  THE OBJECT IS RATHER TO MAKE
CERTAIN THAT "THE AMOUNT SO INCLUDED" IN A PARTNER'S TAXABLE INCOME
"SHALL BE BASED UPON THE INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP" DISTRIBUTABLE
DURING THE PARTNER'S TAXABLE YEAR, EVEN THOUGH AN ACCOUNTING PERIOD OF
THE PARTNERSHIP ENDING IN THAT YEAR MAY NOT BE WHOLLY WITHIN IT. 

THIS CONCLUSION IS SUPPORTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SECOND
SENTENCE OF SEC. 182(A).  THE PROVISION FIRST APPEARED IN SEC. 218(A)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918.  AS ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED, THAT SECTION OF
THE HOUSE BILL WHICH BECAME THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918 PROVIDED FOR THE
TAXATION OF THE PARTNER'S DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF THE NET INCOME OF THE
PARTNERSHIP FOR "THE LAST ANNUAL ACCOUNTING PERIOD OF THE PARTNERSHIP,"
ENDING WITHIN HIS TAXABLE YEAR.  BY AMENDMENT THE QUOTED PHRASE WAS
STRICKEN FROM THE BILL AND THE WORDS "ANY ACCOUNTING PERIOD OF THE
PARTNERSHIP" SUBSTITUTED.  SEE H.R. 12863, 65TH CONG., 3RD SESS.
(COMMITTEE PRINT - AS AGREED TO IN CONFERENCE).  THE AMENDMENT WAS
OBVIOUSLY INCONSISTENT WITH ANY PURPOSE TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF THE
TAXABLE INCOME TO THAT OF ANY SINGLE OR PARTICULAR ACCOUNTING PERIOD OF
THE PARTNERSHIP ENDING WITHIN THE PARTNER'S TAXABLE YEAR.  THE PHRASE
WAS CHANGED BY SEC. 182(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 TO ITS PRESENT
FORM, "ANY TAXABLE YEAR OF THE PARTNERSHIP."  THE CONTINUED USE OF THE
WORD "ANY" AS QUALIFYING THE PHRASE "TAXABLE YEAR" IN THE 1928 AND 1932
ACTS, DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE PRESENT TAX IF "TAXABLE YEAR" BE TAKEN TO
MEAN A PARTNERSHIP ACCOUNTING PERIOD OF LESS THAN TWELVE MONTHS. 
REASONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN WHY, IF IT MEANS AN ACCOUNTING PERIOD
OF A FULL YEAR, THE PRESENT TAX IS NEVERTHELESS DUE UNDER SEC. 41 AND
THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SEC. 182(A).  AFFIRMED.    FN1  NEW YORK
PARTNERSHIP ACT, LAWS OF 1919, C. 408: 

"SEC. 60.  DISSOLUTION DEFINED.  - THE DISSOLUTION OF A PARTNERSHIP
IS THE CHANGE IN THE RELATION OF THE PARTNERS CAUSED BY ANY PARTNER
CEASING TO BE ASSOCIATED IN THE CARRYING ON AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE
WINDING UP OF THE BUSINESS. 

"SEC. 61.  PARTNERSHIP NOT TERMINATED BY DISSOLUTION.  - ON
DISSOLUTION THE PARTNERSHIP IS NOT TERMINATED, BUT CONTINUES UNTIL THE
WINDING UP OF PARTNERSHIP AFFAIRS IS COMPLETED. 

"SEC. 62.  CAUSES OF DISSOLUTION.  - DISSOLUTION IS CAUSED: 

     .         .     .         .         . 

"4.  BY THE DEATH OF ANY PARTNER; 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 74.  ACCRUAL OF ACTIONS.  - THE RIGHT TO AN ACCOUNT OF HIS
INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE TO ANY PARTNER, OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, AS
AGAINST THE WINDING UP PARTNERS OR THE SURVIVING PARTNERS OR THE PERSON
OR PARTNERSHIP CONTINUING THE BUSINESS, AT THE DATE OF DISSOLUTION, IN
THE ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 501 


NO. 487.  ARGUED MARCH 1, 2, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 91 F.2D
14, REVERSED. 


IN A SUIT TO QUIET ITS TITLE TO A PART OF MARE ISLAND IN SAN FRANCISCO
BAY, WITHIN THE TERRITORY ACQUIRED FROM MEXICO BY THE TREATY OF
GUADALUPE HIDALGO, THE UNITED STATES CLAIMED UNDER A DEED TO IT IN 1853
BY BISSELL AND ASPINWALL, WHO DERIVED THEIR TITLE THROUGH A GRANT IN
1841 BY ALVARADO, MEXICAN GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, TO CASTRO. 
RESPONDENTS CLAIMED UNDER A PATENT ISSUED BY CALIFORNIA TO DARLINGTON
IN 1857, PURPORTING TO CONVEY THE LAND IN QUESTION AS A PART OF THE
SWAMP OR OVERFLOWED LANDS GRANTED TO THE STATE BY THE SWAMP LANDS ACT
OF 1850.  THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS, CREATED BY THE MEXICAN
CLAIMS ACT OF 1851, HAD CONFIRMED THE TITLE OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL IN
1855.  ON APPEAL, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD AFFIRMED IN 1857, ALTHOUGH ITS
DECREE WAS UNSIGNED UNTIL 1930 WHEN A NUNC PRO TUNC DECREE WAS
ENTERED.  WHILE THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD WERE PENDING BISSELL
AND ASPINWALL HAD CONVEYED BY DEED TO THE UNITED STATES.  HELD: 

1.  THIS COURT ACCEPTS A CONCURRENT FINDING BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE WITHIN THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE DEED TO CASTRO.  P. 508. 

2.  AN ADJUDICATION IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE
RESPONDENTS, THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT AND THE ACT OF JULY 23, 1866, TO ISSUE A
PATENT OF THE LANDS HERE INVOLVED TO CALIFORNIA, AND THE ISSUANCE OF
IT, ARE NOT DECISIVE OF ANY ISSUE IN THIS SUIT, AND IT IS OPEN TO THE
UNITED STATES TO SHOW THAT THE LANDS DID NOT PASS UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS
ACT.  P. 508. 

3.  THE EFFECT OF THE SWAMP LANDS ACT WAS TO INVEST THE STATE IN
PRAESENTI WITH AN INCHOATE TITLE TO THOSE LANDS FALLING WITHIN THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACT, TO BE PERFECTED AS OF THE DATE OF THE ACT WHEN
THE LAND SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED AND THE PATENT ISSUED.  IT DID NOT
INCLUDE LANDS WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ACQUIRED, NOR DID IT FREE
ANY OF THEM OF OBLIGATIONS TO WHICH THEY WERE SUBJECT WHEN IT WAS
PASSED.  P. 509. 

4.  SWAMP LANDS IN CALIFORNIA, BEING A PART OF THE TERRITORY ANNEXED
BY THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO, WERE SUBJECT TO ALL OBLIGATIONS
IMPOSED UPON THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO THEM UNDER THE
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY REASON OF THE ANNEXATION, AND BY
TREATY OBLIGATIONS.  P. 510. 

5.  THE OBLIGATIONS ASSUMED BY THE UNITED STATES IN RESPECT OF THE
TERRITORY ANNEXED BY THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO ANTEDATED AND WERE
SUPERIOR TO ANY RIGHTS DERIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE SWAMP
LANDS ACT.  P. 511. 

6.  CLAIMANTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF STATUTES DISPOSING
OF ITS PUBLIC LANDS IN CALIFORNIA, ARE NOT "THIRD PERSONS" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT; AND CONFIRMATION UNDER THAT ACT OF
CLAIMS UNDER MEXICAN GRANTS IS CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL CLAIMING UNDER THE
UNITED STATES.  P. 512. 

7.  CONFIRMATION OF TITLES UNDER THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT IS AS
EFFECTIVE AND CONCLUSIVE UPON PATENTS UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT AS IF
MADE AT THE DATE OF THE TREATY.  P. 513. 

8.  THE DECREE OF THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS CONFIRMING THE
TITLE OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL BECAME FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE WITHIN THE
PROVISIONS OF THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE OF AFFIRMANCE.  P. 513. 

9.  PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE
ADVERSARY, AND THAT THEY WERE NOT DOES NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF A
DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD.  P. 524. 

10.  THE ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE TITLE OF BISSELL AND
ASPINWALL, WHILE THEIR CLAIM WAS PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD OF LAND
COMMISSIONERS, DID NOT INVOLVE, BY REASON OF THE STATE'S INTEREST UNDER
THE SWAMP LANDS ACT, ANY BREACH OF EQUITABLE DUTY TO CALIFORNIA.  PP.
514 ET SEQ. 

11.  THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE RECORD FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT
CONFIRMATION OF THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL CLAIM BY THE BOARD OF LAND
COMMISSIONERS WAS PROCURED OR ALLOWED TO STAND THROUGH ANY FRAUD,
CONCEALMENT, BAD FAITH, OR BREACH OF DUTY TO CALIFORNIA BY THE
GOVERNMENT OR ITS OFFICERS.  P. 523. 

12.  THE DECREE OF THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS STANDS AS A VALID
ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE CASTRO GRANT,
UNDISTURBED BY ANY SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND IS CONCLUSIVE
UPON CALIFORNIA AND THOSE CLAIMING UNDER HER.  P. 524. 

UNITED STATES V. O'DONNELL ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 677, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING A DECREE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH HAD HELD IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES IN A
SUIT BROUGHT BY IT TO QUIET TITLE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE VALIDITY OF THE TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES TO
A PART OF MARE ISLAND IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY, WHICH WAS RESERVED FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSES BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION IN 1850, WAS SELECTED BY
THE SECRETARY AS A NAVY YARD PURSUANT TO ACT OF CONGRESS, WAS RESERVED
FOR THAT PURPOSE BY PRESIDENTIAL ORDER IN 1853, AND SINCE 1854 HAS BEEN
SO USED. 

THE LANDS IN QUESTION ARE IN THE AREA ACQUIRED AS A RESULT OF THE
MEXICAN WAR BY THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO, JULY 4, 1848, 9 STAT.
922, WHICH GUARANTEED THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF MEXICANS IN THE ANNEXED
TERRITORY.  THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS UNDER DEED TO IT IN 1853 BY
BISSELL AND ASPINWALL AND ANOTHER, WHO DERIVED THEIR TITLE UNDER GRANT
OF MAY 20, 1841, BY ALVARADO, MEXICAN GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, TO
CASTRO, A MEXICAN CITIZEN, OF THE ISLAND LA YEGUA (MARE ISLAND) "IN ALL
ITS EXTENT."  RESPONDENTS CLAIM UNDER A PATENT ISSUED BY CALIFORNIA TO
DARLINGTON IN 1857, PURPORTING TO CONVEY THE LAND IN QUESTION AS A PART
OF THE SWAMP OR OVERFLOWED LANDS GRANTED TO THE STATE BY THE SWAMP
LANDS ACT OF CONGRESS, SEPT. 28, 1850, C. 84, 9 STAT. 519. 

UPON THE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF CALIFORNIA DURING THE MEXICAN WAR THE
UNITED STATES MILITARY COMMANDER HAD PROCLAIMED OFFICIALLY THAT MEXICAN
LAND TITLES WOULD RECEIVE DUE RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES,  FN1
AND ART. 8 OF THE TREATY OF 1848 WITH MEXICO DECLARED THAT THE PROPERTY
RIGHTS OF MEXICANS IN THE ANNEXED TERRITORY SHOULD BE "INVIOLABLY
RESPECTED."  AFTER THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA TO STATEHOOD, SEPTEMBER
9, 1850, CONGRESS ADOPTED THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT OF MARCH 3, 1851, 9
STAT. 631, WHICH ESTABLISHED A BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS WITH
AUTHORITY, UPON PETITION OF THOSE CLAIMING UNDER MEXICAN OR SPANISH
GRANTS OF LAND IN THE ANNEXED TERRITORY, TO PASS UPON THE VALIDITY OF
THE GRANTS.  RIGHT TO A REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS ALLOWED
THE CLAIMANTS AND THE GOVERNMENT.  BY SEC. 12 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 31,
1852, 10 STAT. 76, 99, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS GIVEN AUTHORITY OVER
APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE BOARD ADVERSE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

BISSELL AND ASPINWALL, THE GRANTORS OF THE UNITED STATES, FILED THEIR
PETITION BEFORE THE BOARD, SEEKING CONFIRMATION OF THEIR TITLE UNDER
THE CASTRO GRANT OF MAY 20, 1841.  AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE THE BOARD
CONFIRMED THEIR TITLE BY DECREE OF MAY 8, 1855.  UPON APPEAL BY THE
UNITED STATES TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, THE DECREE
OF THE BOARD WAS AFFIRMED.  APPEAL BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT COURT APRIL 1,
1857, WAS DISMISSED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SAME YEAR.  THE DECREE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS NOT SIGNED OR ENTERED UNTIL A DECREE NUNC PRO
TUNC AS OF MARCH 2, 1857, WAS SIGNED, FILED AND ENTERED ON APRIL 15,
1930. 

WHILE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE STILL PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD, THE
CLAIMANTS, BISSELL AND ASPINWALL, ON DECEMBER 15, 1852, EXECUTED A
CONTRACT TO SELL MARE ISLAND TO THE UNITED STATES, AND ON JANUARY 4,
1853, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF $83,491, THEY JOINED IN A DEED TO THE
UNITED STATES, WITHOUT COVENANTS EXCEPT FOR FURTHER ASSURANCE.  THE
DEED PURPORTED TO CONVEY MARE ISLAND, "INCLUDING ALL THE TULE OR LOW
LAND AND MARSH BELONGING TO THE SAME OR WHICH HAS EVER BEEN REPUTED OR
CLAIMED TO BELONG TO THE SAME  ..."  ON FEBRUARY 28, 1853, THEY
EXECUTED A BOND IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUM OF $200,000,
CONDITIONED UPON THE VALIDITY OF THEIR CONTRACT AND THE CONVEYANCE OF
"THE ENTIRE AND ABSOLUTE FEE SIMPLE ESTATE IN THE SAID TRACT OF LAND
KNOWN AS MARE ISLAND."  THE BOND RECITED THAT THEY "SHALL AT ALL TIMES
HEREAFTER INDEMNIFY AND SAVE HARMLESS THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ANY
CLAIM OR TITLE TO THE SAID TRACT CALLED MARE ISLAND AND ITS
APPURTENANCES WHICH MAY BE SET UP BY OR THROUGH ANY PERSON OR PERSONS
CLAIMING UNDER VICTOR CASTRO AND HIS ASSIGNS" AND THAT THEY SHOULD
"ALSO INDEMNIFY AND SAVE HARMLESS THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ANY ADVERSE
CLAIM OR TITLE IN ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS OR BODY POLITIC WHICH MAY
WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE HEREOF, BE MADE AND THEREAFTER BE
SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHED." 

THE 1857 CALIFORNIA PATENT TO DARLINGTON WAS NOT RECORDED UNTIL JUNE
6, 1879, WHEN ONE SAWYER APPEARS TO HAVE ACQUIRED THE DARLINGTON
CLAIM.  SEE SAWYER V. OSTERHAUS, 212 FED. 765, 767.  THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR HAVING FOUND THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE SWAMP LANDS
WITHIN THE SWAMP LANDS ACT OF 1850, THE RESPONDENTS IN 1928 BY MANDAMUS
COMPELLED THE SECRETARY TO CERTIFY THE LANDS FOR PATENT TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.  THE COURT, IN AWARDING THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AT THE SAME TIME
DECLARED WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONTENTIONS MADE HERE, "THE MERE
ISSUANCE OF PATENT TO CALIFORNIA DETERMINES NO LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT
OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE PREMISES."  WORK V. UNITED STATES EX REL.
O'DONNELL, 23 F.(2D) 136, 138. 

THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TO QUIET ITS TITLE.  RESPONDENTS, BY
THEIR ANSWER, PUT IN ISSUE THE GOVERNMENT'S OWNERSHIP OF THE LANDS IN
QUESTION AND ASSERTED THEIR TITLE AS TENANTS IN COMMON UNDER THE
DARLINGTON GRANT.  THEY SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED THE EXISTENCE AND
VALIDITY OF THE CASTRO GRANT, THE VALIDITY OF THE DECREES OF
CONFIRMATION OF THE TITLE OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL, AND ANY
PRESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES.  THEY PRAYED, AS AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF, THAT THEIR TITLE BE QUIETED, AND IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PRAYER
ALLEGED THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE NOT EMBRACED IN THE CASTRO
GRANT AND ALSO WERE SWAMP LANDS WHICH HAD PASSED TO CALIFORNIA UNDER
THE SWAMP LANDS ACT. 

THE TRIAL COURT MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND REACHED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES ON ALL THESE ISSUES.  UPON APPEAL, THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSED AND DECREED "THAT THE
UNITED STATES HAS NO TITLE TO THE PATENTED LANDS IN SUIT, AND THAT THE
TITLE IS IN AND QUIETED IN" RESPONDENTS.  91 F.(2D) 14.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOUND THAT ALVARADO, THE MEXICAN GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, HAD
EXECUTED THE PURPORTED GRANT OF MARE ISLAND TO CASTRO, INCLUDING THE
LAND IN QUESTION, BUT MADE NO FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE ADVERSE
POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  IT HELD
THAT THE PAPER SIGNED BY ALVARADO WAS INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE OF THE GRANT
TO CASTRO BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF FILING OR RECORDATION OF THE GRANT IN
THE MEXICAN ARCHIVES, SEE BERREYESA V. UNITED STATES, 154 U.S. 623, AND
THAT THE DECREES OF THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS AND OF THE DISTRICT
COURT ON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD, CONFIRMING THE CASTRO TITLE, WERE NULL
AND VOID AND WORTHLESS AS EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES HAD
PURCHASED THE INTEREST OF THE CLAIMANTS BISSELL AND ASPINWALL WHILE THE
PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD.  IT CHARACTERIZED THE
PROCEEDING AS COLLUSIVE AND THE ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN
ACQUIRING TITLE DURING ITS PENDENCY AS BREACH OF A TRUST DUTY ASSUMED
UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT TO CONVEY SWAMP LANDS TO CALIFORNIA, AND AS
IN EFFECT A FRAUD UPON THE STATE.  IT REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE
UNITED STATES THAT THE PENDING BOARD PROCEEDING FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE
CASTRO GRANT WITHDREW THE LAND IN QUESTION FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
SWAMP LANDS ACT, WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF CALIFORNIA'S AND RESPONDENTS'
ALLEGED TITLE TO THE LAND, AND HELD THAT THE RESERVATIONS OF THE LAND
MADE BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS FOR MILITARY AND NAVAL PURPOSES WERE
INEFFECTIVE, BECAUSE CALIFORNIA HAD PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED AN INCHOATE
TITLE UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT. 

RESPONDENTS RENEW HERE THE CONTENTION MADE BELOW, BASED ON AN
ELABORATE REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT THE SWAMP OR OVERFLOWED LANDS IN
QUESTION WERE BELOW HIGH TIDE AND WERE NOT WITHIN THE EXTERIOR
BOUNDARIES OF MARE ISLAND AS IT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE CASTRO
GRANT, AND SO WERE NOT INTENDED BY THE GRANTOR TO BE, AND WERE NOT IN
FACT, INCLUDED IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE GRANT.  RESOLUTION OF THIS
ISSUE TURNS UPON APPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE INFERENCES TO BE
DRAWN FROM IT.  AS BOTH COURTS BELOW HAVE FOUND AGAINST RESPONDENTS ON
THIS ISSUE WE SHALL NOT REEXAMINE THE EVIDENCE HERE.  WE ACCEPT THE
CONCURRENT FINDINGS AS ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION
WERE WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DEED TO CASTRO.  UNITED STATES V.
STATE INVESTMENT CO., 264 U.S. 206, 211; SHAPPIRIO V. GOLDBERG, 192
U.S. 232; CF. PAGE V. ROGERS, 211 U.S. 575; WASHINGTON SECURITIES CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 234 U.S. 76; NATIONAL BANK V. SHACKLEFORD, 239 U.S.
81; RISTY V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 270 U.S. 378. 

NOR IS THE FACT THAT A PATENT HAS ISSUED TO CALIFORNIA, IN OBEDIENCE
TO THE JUDGMENT IN THE MANDAMUS PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY RESPONDENTS IN
WORK V. UNITED STATES EX REL. O'DONNELL, SUPRA, DECISIVE OF ANY ISSUE
PRESENTED HERE.  UPON THE SECRETARY'S APPROVAL OF THE SURVEY OF THE
LAND IN QUESTION BY THE UNITED STATES SURVEYOR GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, SHOWING THE LANDS TO BE SWAMP AND OVERFLOWED AT THE DATE OF
THE SWAMP LANDS ACT, AND THE DETERMINATION BY THE SECRETARY THAT THE
LANDS IN QUESTION WERE THEN SWAMP AND OVERFLOWED, IT BECAME HIS DUTY
UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT, AND UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF JULY 23,
1866, 14 STAT. 218, TO CERTIFY THE LANDS FOR PATENT TO THE STATE.  SEE
TUBBS V. WILHOIT, 138 U.S. 134.  BUT THE ADJUDICATION IN MANDAMUS THAT
IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY TO ISSUE THE PATENT UNDER THESE ACTS,
AND THE ISSUANCE OF IT, DETERMINED NO LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT OF THE
UNITED STATES IN THE PREMISES.  IT REMAINS OPEN TO THE UNITED STATES IN
THIS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING, TO SHOW THAT THE LANDS DID
NOT PASS UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT.  UNITED STATES V. SCHURZ, 102 U.S.
378, 404; SMELTING CO. V. KEMP, 104 U.S. 636, 641, 646; UNITED STATES
V. CONWAY, 175 U.S. 60, 68, AND CASES CITED; SEE WORK V. UNITED STATES
EX REL. O'DONNELL, SUPRA, 137, 138. 

WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT OUR ATTENTION TO THE QUESTION, DEEMED PIVOTAL
BELOW, WHETHER, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD, THE CONFIRMATION OF THE
TITLE OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL UNDER THE CASTRO GRANT BY THE BOARD OF
LAND COMMISSIONERS WAS INVALID, SO THAT THE UNITED STATES NEITHER
RESERVED NOR ACQUIRED A TITLE VALID AS AGAINST THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND RESPONDENTS WHO CLAIM UNDER HER.  IN ANSWERING, IT WILL BE AN AID
TO ADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE POINTS IN ISSUE TO CONSIDER FIRST THE
EFFECT OF THE CONFIRMATION BY THE BOARD, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE
ALLEGED COLLUSION AND FRAUDULENT ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OF
ITS OFFICERS. 

THE SWAMP LANDS ACT OF 1850 WAS EFFECTIVE TO TRANSFER AN INTEREST IN
THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT, ONLY SO FAR AS THEY WERE PART OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE UNITED STATES AND THUS SUBJECT TO THE DISPOSAL OF
CONGRESS.  THE ACT IN TERMS PURPORTED TO GRANT TO THE SEVERAL STATES
ALL SWAMP AND OVERFLOWED LANDS LOCATED WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
BOUNDARIES "WHICH SHALL REMAIN UNSOLD AT THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT." 
ACCURATE LIST AND PLATS" OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED BY THE ACT AND TO
"CAUSE A PATENT TO BE ISSUED TO THE STATE THEREFOR."  THE EFFECT OF
THESE PROVISIONS WAS TO INVEST THE STATE IN PRAESENTI WITH AN INCHOATE
TITLE TO THOSE LANDS FALLING WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ACT, TO BE
PERFECTED AS OF THE DATE OF THE ACT WHEN THE LAND SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED
AND THE PATENT ISSUED AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 2.  WRIGHT V. ROSEBERRY, 121
U.S. 488; UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA, 270 U.S. 181, 202-203.  BY ITS
TERMS THE SWAMP LANDS ACT DID NOT INCLUDE SWAMP LANDS WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAD SOLD, AND IT COULD NOT INCLUDE LANDS WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ACQUIRED OR FREE ANY OF THEM OF OBLIGATIONS TO WHICH
THEY WERE SUBJECT WHEN THE ACT WAS PASSED.  UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA,
SUPRA, 206. 

IT IS A FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC LAND LAW THAT STATUTES PROVIDING
GENERALLY FOR DISPOSAL OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ARE INAPPLICABLE TO LANDS
WHICH ARE NOT UNQUALIFIEDLY SUBJECT TO SALE AND DISPOSITION BECAUSE
THEY HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED TO SOME OTHER PURPOSE.  WILCOX V. JACKSON,
13 PET. 498, 513; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. ROBERTS, 152 U.S. 114,
119; SCOTT V. CAREW, 196 U.S. 100.  THIS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE THE CASE
EVEN THOUGH THE APPROPRIATION BE AFTERWARDS SET ASIDE.  LEAVENWORTH, L.
& G.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 92 U.S. 733, 741, 745; NEWHALL V. SANGER,
92 U.S. 761.  THE GENERAL WORDS OF THE GRANTING ACT ARE TO BE READ AS
SUBJECT TO SUCH EXCEPTION.  SCOTT V. CAREW, SUPRA, 111, 112; LOUISIANA
V. GARFIELD, 211 U.S. 70, 77; UNITED STATES V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA, 206. 

SWAMP LANDS IN CALIFORNIA, BEING A PART OF THE TERRITORY ANNEXED BY
THE TREATY OF GUADALUPE HIDALGO, WERE SUBJECT TO ALL OBLIGATIONS
IMPOSED UPON THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO THEM UNDER THE
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY REASON OF THE ANNEXATION, AND BY ITS
TREATY OBLIGATIONS.  FN2  ARTICLE 8 OF THE TREATY STIPULATED THAT
MEXICANS THEN ESTABLISHED IN THE ANNEXED TERRITORY SHOULD RETAIN THEIR
PROPERTY WITHIN THAT AREA, AND THAT PROPERTY BELONGING TO MEXICANS NOT
ESTABLISHED THERE SHOULD BE RESPECTED.  THE PROTOCOL OF MAY 26, 1848,
INTERPRETATIVE OF THE TREATY, WHICH PRECEDED THE EXCHANGE OF
RATIFICATIONS ON MAY 30, 1848, DECLARED THAT THE GRANTS OF LAND MADE BY
MEXICO IN THE CEDED TERRITORY "PRESERVE THE LEGAL VALUE WHICH THEY MAY
POSSESS, AND THE GRANTEES MAY CAUSE THEIR LEGITIMATE (TITLES) TO BE
ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE THE AMERICAN TRIBUNALS," AND THAT "CONFORMABLY TO
THE LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, LEGITIMATE TITLES TO EVERY DESCRIPTION OF
PROPERTY, PERSONAL AND REAL, EXISTING IN THE CEDED TERRITORIES ARE
THOSE WHICH WERE LEGITIMATE TITLES UNDER THE MEXICAN LAW IN CALIFORNIA
...  UP TO THE 13TH OF MAY, 1846  ..."  61ST CONG., 1ST SESS., SEN.
DOC. NO. 357, PP. 1119-1120. 

THE OBLIGATIONS THUS ASSUMED BY THE UNITED STATES ANTEDATED THE SWAMP
LANDS ACT AND WERE SUPERIOR TO ANY RIGHTS DERIVED FROM THE UNITED
STATES UNDER THAT ACT.  THE OBLIGATIONS WERE POLITICAL IN CHARACTER, TO
BE DISCHARGED IN SUCH MANNER AND UPON SUCH TERMS AS THE UNITED STATES
MIGHT DEEM EXPEDIENT IN CONFORMITY TO ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS.  BEARD V.
FEDERY, 3 WALL.  478; GRISAR V. MCDOWELL, 6 WALL.  363, 379; SAN
FRANCISCO V. LEROY, 138 U.S. 656; KNIGHT V. UNITED STATES LAND ASSN.,
142 U.S. 161, 183, 184.  WHILE THE TREATY PROVIDED THAT THE CLAIMANTS
UNDER MEXICAN GRANTS MIGHT CAUSE THEIR TITLES TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE
AMERICAN TRIBUNALS, IT WAS SILENT AS TO THE MODE OF SELECTION OR
CREATION OF SUCH TRIBUNALS.  THE UNITED STATES WAS LEFT FREE TO PROVIDE
FOR THEM IN ITS OWN WAY.  CF. UNITED STATES V. FERREIRA, 13 HOW.  40,
45.  IT COULD RELEGATE ALL THE MULTITUDE OF CLAIMS UNDER THE MEXICAN
GRANTS TO THE ORDINARY PROCEDURE OF COURTS WITH THE INEVITABLE DELAYS
AND CONFUSION AFFECTING LAND TITLES IN THE VAST ANNEXED AREA.  SEE
BEARD V. FEDERY, SUPRA, 493.  IT COULD SET UP AN ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL ACTING BY A MORE SUMMARY PROCEDURE  FN3  DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH
WITH FINALITY THE STATUS OF ALL THE MEXICAN GRANTS AS OF THE DATE OF
ANNEXATION.  IT CHOSE THE LATTER COURSE BY THE CREATION OF THE BOARD OF
LAND COMMISSIONERS, BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1851. 

UNDER THAT ACT THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE WAS REQUIRED TO ISSUE A PATENT
FOR ALL CLAIMS FINALLY CONFIRMED "BY THE SAID COMMISSIONERS, OR BY THE
SAID DISTRICT OR SUPREME COURT."  THE ACT DECLARED THAT FINAL DECISION
OF THE BOARD, OR THE DISTRICT OR THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD "BE
CONCLUSIVE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE SAID CLAIMANTS ONLY, AND
SHALL NOT AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF THIRD PERSONS."  LANDS, THE CLAIM FOR
WHICH SHOULD BE FINALLY REJECTED, AND LANDS, CLAIMS TO WHICH SHOULD NOT
BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE ACT WERE
TO BE "DEEMED, HELD, AND CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN." 

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT WAS THE PERFORMANCE BY
THE UNITED STATES OF ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS TO QUIET THE TITLES OF THE
CLAIMANTS UNDER SPANISH AND MEXICAN GRANTS.  BUT A NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE OF PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND ONE INCIDENTAL TO
THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE TITLES OF SUCH CLAIMANTS, WAS
A DETERMINATION WHETHER, BY THE CESSION, THE LANDS IN QUESTION HAD
BECOME A PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS EVIDENT
THAT THE TREATY OBLIGATIONS TO QUIET THE TITLE OF CLAIMANTS UNDER
MEXICAN GRANTS WOULD BE DEFEATED AND THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT WOULD FAIL
OF ITS PURPOSE IF THE FINALITY OF THE BOARD'S CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS
UNDER MEXICAN GRANTS COULD BE CHALLENGED BY PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER
GRANTS OF PUBLIC LANDS BY THE UNITED STATES.  FOR THAT REASON IT HAS
BEEN CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT CLAIMANTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES, BY
VIRTUE OF STATUTES DISPOSING OF ITS PUBLIC LANDS IN CALIFORNIA, ARE NOT
"THIRD PERSONS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT, AND THAT
CONFIRMATION UNDER THAT ACT OF CLAIMS UNDER MEXICAN GRANTS IS
CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL THOSE CLAIMING UNDER THE UNITED STATES.  BEARD V.
FEDERY, SUPRA, 493; MORE V. STEINBACH, 127 U.S. 70; SAN FRANCISCO V.
LEROY, SUPRA; KNIGHT V. UNITED STATES LAND ASSN., SUPRA, 184; WARD V.
MULFORD, 32 CAL. 365, 370; PEOPLE V. SAN FRANCISCO, 75 CAL. 388, 400;
17 PAC. 522; CF. UNITED STATES V. CORONADO BEACH CO., 255 U.S. 472,
488.  SUCH IS THE EFFECT OF CONFIRMATION BY THE BOARD OF TITLES SET UP
UNDER MEXICAN GRANTS, UPON CLAIMANTS UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT TO LANDS
IN THE ANNEXED TERRITORY.  THAT THE SWAMP LANDS ACT ANTEDATED THE
MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT AND THE CONFIRMATION OF TITLES UNDER IT, IS
IMMATERIAL; FOR THOSE CLAIMING UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT TOOK CUM ONERE
- SUBJECT TO THE TREATY OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND WHATEVER
PROCEDURE THE UNITED STATES MIGHT ADOPT IN PERFORMANCE OF THOSE
OBLIGATIONS FOR THE QUIETING OF TITLES UNDER MEXICAN GRANTS. 
CONFIRMATION WHEN MADE WAS AS EFFECTIVE AND CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL PATENTS
UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT AS IF MADE AT THE DATE OF THE TREATY.  SAN
FRANCISCO V. LEROY, SUPRA, 670; KNIGHT V. UNITED STATES LAND ASSN.,
SUPRA, 185; WARD V. MULFORD, SUPRA, 370. 

WE DO NOT STOP TO DISCUSS THE POINT, MUCH ARGUED AT THE BAR AND IN
THE BRIEFS, WHETHER THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMING THE
BOARD'S DECREE OF CONFIRMATION WAS VOID OR OTHERWISE DEFECTIVE BECAUSE
NOT SIGNED AT OR ABOUT THE TIME IT WAS RENDERED.  SEE MITCHELL V.
OVERMAN, 103 U.S. 62, 64-65; IN RE WIGHT, 134 U.S. 136; UNITED STATES
V. STOLLAR, 180 FED. 910, 912, 913; INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V.
CARLSON, 217 FED. 736, 738.  IF IT BE TAKEN THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS
FAILED TO PROSECUTE ITS APPEAL TO FINAL DECREE IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE DECREE OF THE BOARD HAS NEVER BEEN SET ASIDE OR
OTHERWISE DISTURBED.  IF THE APPEAL WAS NOT STILL PENDING WHEN THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT WAS ENTERED NUNC PRO TUNC IN 1930, THE
DECREE OF THE BOARD REMAINS AS EFFECTIVE AS IF NO APPEAL HAD BEEN
TAKEN, AND HAS BECOME FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT.  BEARD V. FEDERY, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. RITCHIE, 17 HOW.  525. 

APART FROM THE CONSIDERATIONS GROWING OUT OF THE PURCHASE BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL TITLE, NOW TO BE DISCUSSED, THE
DECREE OF THE BOARD, IF NOT THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, MUST BE TAKEN
AS CONCLUSIVE ON RESPONDENTS, AND AS TO THEM IT IS NOT OPEN TO THIS OR
ANY OTHER COURT TO REEXAMINE THE EXISTENCE OR VALIDITY OF THE CASTRO
GRANT. 

THE HOLDING OF THE COURT BELOW THAT THE ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED
STATES OF THE TITLE OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL, WHILE THEIR CLAIM WAS
PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS, INVOLVED A BREACH OF
EQUITABLE DUTY TO CALIFORNIA OF SUCH CHARACTER AS TO PRECLUDE THE
GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING ANY ADVANTAGE OF THE BOARD'S CONFIRMATION OF THE
CASTRO GRANT, IS PREDICATED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE
SWAMP LANDS ACT THE UNITED STATES BECAME IN EFFECT THE TRUSTEE OF THE
LANDS IN QUESTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE AND ITS SUCCESSORS IN
INTEREST.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN A LOOSE AND GENERAL SENSE THE UNITED
STATES, PENDING ISSUANCE OF A PATENT UNDER OTHER LAND GRANT ACTS, HAS
BEEN REFERRED TO AS A TRUSTEE OF LANDS TO BE PATENTED, CORNELIUS V.
KESSEL, 128 U.S. 456, 460-1; BENSON MINING & SMELTING CO. V. ALTA
MINING & SMELTING CO., 145 U.S. 428, 432; ORCHARD V. ALEXANDER, 157
U.S. 372, 383; UNITED STATES V. ANDERSON, 194 U.S. 394; KNAPP V.
ALEXANDER-EDGAR LUMBER CO., 237 U.S. 162; PAYNE V. NEW MEXICO, 255 U.S.
367, AND THE RIGHT OF THE STATE, BEFORE PATENT, TO LANDS WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE SWAMP LANDS ACT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS "EQUITABLE." 
MICHIGAN LAND & LUMBER CO. V. RUST, 168 U.S. 589, 591; BROWN V.
HITCHCOCK, 173 U.S. 473, 476. 

EVEN WHERE THE RIGHT OF THE STATE UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT IS
UNQUALIFIED, IT WOULD PERHAPS BE MORE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE UNITED
STATES IS NO MORE THAN A DONOR GRANTING WITHOUT WARRANTY THOSE LANDS
FALLING WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION AND THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE, SUBJECT
TO A DUTY IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE, TO PERFECT BY SURVEY AND PATENT SUCH
INCHOATE TITLE AS IT HAD CONVEYED TO THE STATE.  BEYOND THIS THE UNITED
STATES, BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE SWAMP LANDS ACT, ASSUMED NO DUTY.  IT
GAVE NO WARRANTY OF TITLE.  IT ASSUMED NO OBLIGATIONS TO THE GRANTEE
SUBJECTING ITSELF TO OTHER CLAIMS OF EQUITABLE DUTY.  SALE OF THE LANDS
TO OTHERS DOES NOT MAKE IT ACCOUNTABLE AS A TRUSTEE OF THE PROCEEDS. 
UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, 127 U.S. 182, 191.  IN ANY CASE, THE DUTY
ASSUMED BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE TREATY AND THE CONCOMITANT POWER
THUS RESERVED TO IT, WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF TRUST
DUTIES TOWARD THE STATE BY REASON OF THE SWAMP LANDS ACT.  IN THE
EXECUTION OF THAT DUTY IT WAS FREE TO ADOPT ANY MODE OF PROCEDURE IT
SAW FIT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE TITLES OF CLAIMANTS UNDER MEXICAN
GRANTS.  EVEN AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR CLAIMS TO THE BOARD OF LAND
COMMISSIONERS IT COULD WITHDRAW THEM FROM DECISION OF THE BOARD AND
COURTS AND ADJUDICATE THEM BY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  GRISAR V.
MCDOWELL, SUPRA, 379.  THE TENTATIVE RECOGNITION BY THE TREATY OF THE
RIGHTS OF THE MEXICAN GRANTEES AND THE FULL LATITUDE WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT HAD RESERVED TO ITSELF IN THE CHOICE OF MODES OF DISPOSITION
OF THOSE CLAIMS, WERE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF TRUST DUTIES
BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO THEM PENDING THEIR FINAL
DISPOSITION.  THERE IS THUS A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF SUPPORT FOR THE
SUPPOSED ANALOGY BETWEEN A SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES,
AND A PRIVATE GRANTOR WHO HAS CONVEYED WITH WARRANTY OF TITLE OR WHO
HAS UNDERTAKEN BY EXECUTORY CONTRACT TO CONVEY TITLE WHICH HE POSSESSES
OR SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRES AND WHO, BECAUSE HE HAS THUS ASSUMED EQUITABLE
DUTIES, IS SOMETIMES SPOKEN OF AS A TRUSTEE. 

THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT ITSELF NEITHER IMPOSED NOR RECOGNIZED SUCH
DUTIES.  IN AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO PASS ON CLAIMS PRESENTED TO IT
UPON THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE CLAIMANT AND THE UNITED STATES, IT
REQUIRED NO NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO ANY THIRD PARTY.  IT GAVE TO THE
GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION BY AN AGENT AND MADE IT HIS DUTY
TO COLLECT TESTIMONY "IN BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES," AND TO ATTEND
MEETINGS OF THE BOARD.  BUT THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT THAT OF
A LITIGANT.  IT WAS RATHER, AS THE ACT ITSELF DECLARED, SUPERVISORY:
"TO SUPERINTEND THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES" IN THE PERFORMANCE,
THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, OF ITS TREATY OBLIGATION TO ASCERTAIN
FOR THE MEXICAN CLAIMANTS, AND FOR ITSELF, WHAT LANDS HAD BEEN
WITHDRAWN FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BY THE MEXICAN GRANTS.  "THE UNITED
STATES DID NOT APPEAR IN THE COURTS AS A CONTENTIOUS LITIGANT; BUT AS A
GREAT NATION, ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR OBLIGATION TO RECOGNISE AS VALID
EVERY AUTHENTIC TITLE, AND SOLICITING EXACT INFORMATION TO DIRECT THEIR
EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT TO COMPLY WITH THAT OBLIGATION."  UNITED STATES V.
FOSSATT, 21 HOW.  445, 450, 451. 

AT NO STAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S DEALING WITH THE TITLES UNDER MEXICAN
GRANTS, EITHER UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT OR UNDER THE MEXICAN CLAIMS
ACT, CAN WE FIND THE ASSUMPTION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANY
DUTY TOWARD THE STATE WITH RESPECT TO THE SWAMP AND OVERFLOWED LANDS
OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN THE SWAMP LANDS ACT ITSELF, AND THAT DUTY
WAS FULLY PERFORMED WHEN IT ISSUED TO THE STATE ITS PATENT TO THE LANDS
IN QUESTION IN RESPONSE TO THE MANDATE IN WORK V. UNITED STATES EX REL.
O'DONNELL, SUPRA. 

WE TURN NOW TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELIED ON TO
ESTABLISH THE PROPOSITION THAT THE TITLE NOW ASSERTED BY THE UNITED
STATES WAS ACQUIRED AS THE RESULT OF A PURPOSEFUL OR CONSCIOUS SCHEME
TO DEPRIVE THE STATE OF POSSIBLE BENEFITS UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT BY
MEANS OF COLLUSIVE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS
AND THE DISTRICT COURT.  AT THE OUTSET IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THIS
CONTENTION FIRST EMERGES IN THIS CASE IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS BELOW.  THERE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN NO SUGGESTION OF SUCH A
CONTENTION IN ANY PLEADING OR ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR, NOR HAD THE
GOVERNMENT OR ITS OFFICERS BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY FRAUD, COLLUSION,
CONCEALMENT, OR BAD FAITH.  THE RESPONDENTS, IN SEEKING AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF, MADE NO ASSERTION OF THAT CHARACTER.  IN SUCH A STATE OF THE
RECORD, DERELICTION OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF OFFICIAL DUTY IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER
THE EVENT, AND A COURT SHOULD BE SLOW TO FIND WHAT WOULD BE IN EFFECT A
FRAUDULENT CONSPIRACY ON THEIR PART TO DEPRIVE THE STATE OF THE
BENEFITS OF THE SWAMP LANDS ACT. 

UPON THE SELECTION OF MARE ISLAND AS A NAVY YARD BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY, MR. CRITTENDEN, THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL, HAD GIVEN AN OPINION
TO THE EFFECT THAT MARE ISLAND WAS A PART OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SUBJECT
ONLY TO THE CASTRO GRANT, THE CLAIM UNDER WHICH WAS THEN PENDING BEFORE
THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS.  HE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE CLAIM TO JUSTIFY PURCHASE OF THE CLAIMANT'S
TITLE, WHICH HE RECOMMENDED AS A PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  SEE OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CUSHING GIVEN TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, APRIL 9, 1853.  8 OP. ATTY. GEN. 422.  THEN
FOLLOWED THE PURCHASE FROM BISSELL AND ASPINWALL, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ALREADY DETAILED.  THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY NO INFERENCE THAT THE
DEFENSE OF THEIR CLAIM WAS DISHONEST.  THE GOVERNMENT HAD FAR MORE TO
GAIN THAN TO LOSE BY DEFEATING THE CASTRO GRANT.  AS THE GRANT COVERED
THE ISLAND "IN ALL ITS EXTENT," BOTH UPLAND AND SWAMP, REJECTION OF THE
CLAIM WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE GIVEN TO THE GOVERNMENT A RETURN OF THE
PURCHASE PRICE AND EXPENSES AS GUARANTEED BY ITS BOND FOR TITLE, BUT
WOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED ITS RIGHT TO THE ENTIRE ISLAND AS A PART OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN, EXCEPT PERHAPS THE SWAMP LAND.  CF. NEWHALL V. SANGER,
SUPRA.  THE VALIDITY OF THE CASTRO GRANT WAS THE ONLY MATTER WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH THE BOARD COULD RENDER A DECREE WHICH, UNDER THE
PROCEDURE OF THE MEXICAN CLAIMS ACT, COULD BECOME FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE
AS TO THE CLAIMANT AND THE GOVERNMENT.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, EACH WAS AS
MUCH CONCERNED WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION AFTER AS BEFORE
THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL DEED AND BOND, FOR ACCORDINGLY AS IT WAS
DECIDED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THE ONE OR THE OTHER STOOD TO GAIN AN
AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY.  THE REASONABLENESS
OF THE PURCHASE PRICE IS NOT CHALLENGED.  THE ONLY EFFECT OF THE DEED
AND BOND WAS TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST LOSS OF THE OPPORTUNITY
TO ACQUIRE THE LAND FOR A NAVY YARD IN CASE THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE
DISPOSED OF TO SOME THIRD PERSON PENDING THE BOARD'S DECISION, AND THE
CASTRO GRANT SHOULD BE UPHELD. 

UPON THE OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CUSHING, ALREADY MENTIONED, THE
COURT OF APPEALS PLACED ITS CHIEF, INDEED ITS ONLY RELIANCE FOR THE
CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS CONSCIOUS DERELICTION ON THE PART OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  IN THIS OPINION THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SPOKE OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASE OF THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL TITLE AS AN
ACCOMPLISHED FACT, BUT NEVERTHELESS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CLAIM BE
VIGOROUSLY CONTESTED.  THIS IS SAID TO BE SO INCONSISTENT WITH THE
GOVERNMENT'S DISMISSAL OF ITS APPEAL FOUR YEARS LATER AS TO INDICATE A
"PURPOSEFUL SHIFT OF POSITION" TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE STATE, FROM
WHICH BAD FAITH IS TO BE INFERRED.  BUT AN ATTENTIVE READING OF THE
OPINION IN THE LIGHT OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS REVEALS NO SUCH
INCONSISTENCY.  IN REPUDIATING ANY THOUGHT THAT THE CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE
CONTESTED, HE DECLARED:  "BUT I, AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN VIEW OF THE
SPECIAL DUTIES IMPOSED ON ME BY THE ACTS FOR SETTLEMENT OF PRIVATE LAND
CLAIMS IN CALIFORNIA, AND OF MY GENERAL OBLIGATION TO LOOK AFTER THE
RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE PREMISES, CANNOT PURSUE THIS
COURSE.  I MUST NOT ADMIT THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE CASTRO CLAIM BY THE
UNITED STATES OPERATES IN ANY WAY, EITHER BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE,
AS A WAIVER OF THE GENERAL RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE PREMISES,
OR AS AN ASSENT, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE PRETENDED VALIDITY
OF THE GRANT TO CASTRO."  HE POINTED OUT THAT THE CLAIM "INVOLVES
DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF LAW, WHICH THE COMMISSIONERS, TO
BE SURE, HAVE DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANTS,  FN4  BUT WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT MAY DECIDE OTHERWISE," AND THAT HE FELT BOUND TO PROTECT
THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES BY AN APPEAL BECAUSE AS A PRECEDENT
THE CASE WOULD AFFECT "MANY MILLIONS WORTH OF LAND IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH
IS OTHERWISE PUBLIC DOMAIN." 

AFTER POINTING OUT THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RETAINED TITLE TO
TIDE LAND BELOW HIGH WATER MARK, AND THAT THE UNITED STATES COULD NOT
ENJOY THE USE OF MARE ISLAND AS A NAVAL DEPOT WHILE ITS SHORES BELONGED
TO THE STATE, HE CONCLUDED WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT "CALIFORNIA BE
INVITED TO RELINQUISH TO THE UNITED STATES WHATEVER CLAIM, IF ANY, SHE
MAY HAVE TO THE SHORES OR THE OVERFLOWED LAND OF MARE ISLAND."  THE
OPINION DISCLOSES THAT HE HAD NO THOUGHT OF DEPRIVING THE STATE OF ANY
RIGHTS WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT FOR IT
AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWS THAT HE WAS OF OPINION (ERRONEOUSLY AS WAS LATER
DECIDED IN BEARD V. FEDERY, SUPRA, AND CASES FOLLOWING IT), THAT NO
RIGHTS OF CALIFORNIA UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE
DECISIONS OF THE BOARD. 

WITH BUT LITTLE RESEARCH IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS OF LAW AFFECTING "MANY MILLIONS WORTH OF LAND IN CALIFORNIA,"
WHICH WERE INVOLVED IN THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL CLAIM AND WHICH THE
COMMISSIONER HAD ALREADY DECIDED IN OTHER CASES, WERE UNRELATED TO ANY
RIGHTS OF THE STATE UNDER THE SWAMP LANDS ACT, AND WERE IN FACT DECIDED
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BY THIS COURT AFTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD
RENDERED HIS OPINION AND BEFORE THE DISMISSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
APPEAL FROM THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE BISSELL AND
ASPINWALL CASE.  FN5  THE OPINION EVIDENCES THE STRONGEST MOTIVES ON
THE GOVERNMENT'S PART TO CONTEST THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL CLAIM, AND
THE FIRM DETERMINATION TO PROSECUTE THE CONTEST WITH VIGOR.  THE RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD PLAINLY SHOWS ADHERENCE TO THIS
PURPOSE.  WITNESSES WERE PRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DISCREDIT THE
CASTRO GRANT; THOSE PRODUCED BY THE CLAIMANTS, INCLUDING ALVARADO WHO
TESTIFIED TO HIS EXECUTION OF THE GRANT, WERE SO VIGOROUSLY CROSS
EXAMINED AS TO EXCITE THE BOARD'S "STRONG SUSPICION" AS TO THE
AUTHENTICITY OF THE CASTRO GRANT, WHICH IT NEVERTHELESS SUSTAINED IN
THE LIGHT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE.  ONLY AFTER THE "IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF
LAW" HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THIS COURT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT DID IT RELAX
ITS EFFORTS.  ITS CHANGE OF POSITION THEN, THOUGH PURPOSEFUL, CAN
HARDLY BE SAID TO BE EVIDENCE OF BAD PURPOSE. 

THE DEED OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL TO THE GOVERNMENT WAS RECORDED IN
SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 18, 1853.  THE OPINION OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL CUSHING WAS IN OCTOBER 3, 1853 TRANSMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY TO THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA WHO SUBMITTED IT TO THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE JANUARY 4, 1854.  CALIFORNIA SENATE JOURNAL,
1854, 37; APPENDIX, DOC. NO. 4.  BEING THEN FULLY ADVISED BY THAT
OPINION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASE OF THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL CLAIM
AND OF ITS PURPOSE TO PRESS FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
CASTRO GRANT BY THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS, THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE BY ACT OF MAY 11, 1854, CAL. STAT. 1854, C. 43, PP. 48-49,
CONSENTED TO THE PURCHASE OF MARE ISLAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ESTABLISHING THERE A NAVY YARD AND PROCLAIMED THAT ALL THE LANDS WITHIN
ITS LIMITS WERE TO BE PERPETUALLY FREE OF STATE TAXATION.  IT CEDED TO
THE GOVERNMENT LANDS ON THE ISLAND WHICH ARE NOT HERE INVOLVED, WITH
THE PROVISO THAT THE CONSENT TO THE PURCHASE AND THE CESSION TO THE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT "BE CONSTRUED IN AID OR SUPPORT, DIRECTLY OR
IMPLIEDLY, OF ANY CONVEYANCE OR BOND FOR TITLE TO THE UNITED STATES OF
THE SAME LANDS HERETOFORE MADE, OR WHICH MAY HEREAFTER BE MADE  ...  OR
AS A RECOGNITION ON THE PART OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF ANY CLAIM,
TITLE OR GRANT HERETOFORE ASSERTED OR SET UP, OR WHICH MAY HEREAFTER BE
ASSERTED OR SET UP BY ANY PERSON OR PERSONS  ..."  THE ONLY BOND FOR
TITLE THEN RELATING TO MARE ISLAND WHICH IS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD WAS
THAT OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL, AND THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF THE PROVISO
WAS THAT THE STATE'S CONSENT TO THE PURCHASE SHOULD NOT ENURE TO THE
BENEFIT OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL OR ANY OTHERS IN LIKE SITUATION, SO AS
TO RELIEVE THEM FROM THE OBLIGATION ON THEIR BOND IN THE EVENT THAT THE
CASTRO GRANT SHOULD BE HELD INVALID BY THE BOARD OF LAND
COMMISSIONERS.  OCCUPATION OF THE ISLAND BY THE UNITED STATES AS A
NAVAL STATION FOLLOWED IN SEPTEMBER, 1854.  THE BOARD RENDERED ITS
DECREE OF CONFIRMATION OF THE CASTRO GRANT MAY 8, 1855.  THE FOLLOWING
MEMORANDUM APPEARS AMONG THE PAPERS IN THE CASE IN THE DISTRICT COURT:
"THE UNITED STATES BEING NOW THE OWNER OF THE TITLES OF APPELLEES, A
CONFIRMATION OF THIS CLAIM ENURES TO THE BENEFIT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND
NO OBJECTION IS THEREFORE MADE TO A DECREE IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE CLAIM." 

THUS, INSTEAD OF ACTION COVERTLY TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE
PURPOSE OF DEPRIVING THE STATE OF ANY OF ITS RIGHTS IN THE PREMISES, WE
FIND HIGH OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT PROCLAIMING IN DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
TO THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE OF CALIFORNIA THE FACT OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S ACQUISITION OF A CONDITIONAL INTEREST IN THE BISSELL AND
ASPINWALL CLAIM, AND ITS PURPOSE TO SECURE A DETERMINATION OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE GRANT BY THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS.  WE SEE THAT,
AFTER THIS FULL DISCLOSURE, THE STATE EXPRESSED CONSENT TO THE PURCHASE
IN SUCH A WAY AS TO SAVE TO THE GOVERNMENT UNIMPAIRED ITS RIGHTS UNDER
THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL BOND.  ONLY AFTER THE CONFIRMATION OF THE
CASTRO GRANT BY THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS, AND ONLY AFTER THE
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF LAW ON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RELIED TO DEFEAT THE
GRANT HAD BEEN DECIDED AGAINST IT BY THIS COURT IN OTHER CASES, DID THE
GOVERNMENT RELINQUISH ITS PURPOSE TO CONTEST THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL
CLAIM.  WE CAN FIND IN THIS RECORD NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THE
CONFIRMATION BY THE BOARD WAS PROCURED OR ALLOWED TO STAND THROUGH ANY
FRAUD, CONCEALMENT, BAD FAITH, OR BREACH OF DUTY TO CALIFORNIA BY THE
GOVERNMENT OR ITS OFFICERS. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE DECREE OF THE BOARD IS OPEN TO COLLATERAL
ATTACK AS A NULLITY IS THUS REDUCED TO THE ASSERTION THAT, BY REASON OF
THE CONDITIONAL INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE BISSELL AND
ASPINWALL DEED AND BOND, THE CONTEST BEFORE THE BOARD MAY HAVE BEEN IN
SOME DEGREE LESS VIGOROUS THAN IT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN.  TO THIS
THE ANSWER IS THAT, AS ALREADY SHOWN, THE GOVERNMENT OWED NO DUTY TO
THE STATE TO CONTEST THE CLAIM AND THAT IN ANY CASE THE PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE BOARD WAS NOT ADVERSARY. 

THE BOARD WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, CREATED AS THE ACT DECLARES "TO
ASCERTAIN AND SETTLE THE PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA," BY PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE
CONTROVERSIAL.  IT WAS BEGUN WITHOUT NOTICE TO ANY OTHER PARTY.  WHILE
THE ATTENDANCE BY THE "AGENT" OF THE UNIED STATES WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER
THAT HE MIGHT "SUPERINTEND THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES," IT DID
NOT APPEAR IN THE ROLE OF LITIGANT.  UNITED STATES V. FOSSATT, SUPRA.
THE BOARD WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, NOT A COURT.  UNITED STATES V.
RITCHIE, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. FOSSATT, SUPRA.  REVIEW OF ITS
PROCEEDINGS BY DIRECT APPEAL WAS NOT WITHIN THE JUDICIAL POWER, AND
REEXAMINATION OF ITS DETERMINATIONS BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WAS SUSTAINED ONLY ON THE THEORY THAT THE
APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT WAS THE INITIATION OF A SUIT TO SET ASIDE
THE DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH SUIT FURTHER
EVIDENCE MIGHT BE TAKEN.  UNITED STATES V. RITCHIE, SUPRA, 533, 534;
GRISAR V. MCDOWELL, SUPRA, 375.  SINCE THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE
BOARD WAS CREATED DID NOT REQUIRE ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS, THE VALIDITY
OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION WAS UNAFFECTED BY THEIR ABSENCE. 
THE DECREE OF THE BOARD, WHICH STANDS UNDISTURBED BY ANY SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTS, CANNOT BE DISREGARDED AS A NULLITY. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ACQUISITION OF THE INTEREST IN THE BISSELL AND
ASPINWALL TITLE BY THE UNITED STATES DID NOT UNDERMINE THAT
DETERMINATION; THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR CLAIM
BEFORE THE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS WERE FREE FROM FRAUD, BAD FAITH,
CONCEALMENT OR OVERREACHING, AND OF ANY BREACH OF DUTY TO CALIFORNIA ON
THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OR ITS OFFICERS; AND THAT THE DECREE OF
THE BOARD STANDS UNDISTURBED AS A VALID ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF
THE VALIDITY OF THE CASTRO GRANT AND, AS SUCH, IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ON RESPONDENTS WHO CLAIM UNDER HER.  THE DECREE
BELOW MUST ACCORDINGLY BE REVERSED. 

FN1 PROCLAMATION TO THE INHABITANTS OF CALIFORNIA, JULY 7, 1846, AT
MONTEREY, BY COMMODORE JOHN D. SLOAT, 29TH CONG., 2D SESS., HOUSE DOC.
NO. 4, PP. 644-645; PROCLAMATION, AUGUST 17, 1846, AT CIUDAD DE LOS
ANGELES, BY COMMODORE AND GOVERNOR R. F. STOCKTON, ID., PP. 669-670. 

FN2  THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW TO
RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHIN ANNEXED TERRITORY IS SUBSTANTIALLY THAT
RECOGNIZED BY THE TREATY, SOULARD V. UNITED STATES, 4 PET. 511; UNITED
STATES V. PERCHEMAN, 7 PET. 51, 87; STROTHER V. LUCAS, 12 PET. 410,
436; UNITED STATES V. REPENTIGNY, 5 WALL.  211, 260; KNIGHT V. UNITED
STATES LAND ASSN., 142 U.S. 161, 184, AND COMPREHENDS NOT ONLY FORMAL
GRANTS "BUT ALSO ANY CONCESSION, WARRANT, ORDER OR PERMISSION TO
SURVEY, POSSESS OR SETTLE, WHETHER EVIDENCED BY WRITING OR PAROL, OR
PRESUMED FROM POSSESSION."  STROTHER V. LUCAS, SUPRA, 436; SEE SOULARD
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

FN3  AS TO THE NUMBER OF THE CLAIMS AND THE CELERITY WITH WHICH THEY
WERE DISPOSED OF, SEE 8 OP. ATTY. GEN. 515. 

FN4  THE REFERENCE IS OBVIOUSLY TO CLAIMANTS OTHER THAN BISSELL AND
ASPINWALL, FOR AT THAT TIME THERE HAD BEEN NO HEARINGS BY THE BOARD ON
THE CLAIM OF THE LATTER AND THE BOARD HAD RENDERED NO DECISION WITH
RESPECT TO IT. 

FN5  OF THE "DIFFICULT AND IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF LAW" WHICH WERE
SAID IN ATTORNEY GENERAL CUSHING'S OPINION TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL, ONE, MENTIONED IN
THE LETTER ITSELF, WAS WHETHER A GRANT BY A MEXICAN GOVERNOR WAS VALID
IN THE ABSENCE OF APPROVAL BY THE "DEPARTMENTAL DEPUTATION."  THIS
QUESTION WAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE BY THE BOARD, DECEMBER 27,
1852, IN PASSING ON THE FREMONT CLAIM; JANUARY 5, 1853, IN THE LARKIN
CASE; AND IN PRELIMINARY OPINIONS IN THE CERVANTES AND READING CASES,
RENDERED AUGUST 3, 1852, AND AUGUST 9, 1852, RESPECTIVELY.  THIS COURT
AGREED WITH THE BOARD ON THE GENERAL PROPOSITION, IN FREMONT V. UNITED
STATES, 17 HOW.  542, 563(MARCH 10, 1855); UNITED STATES V. READING, 18
HOW.  1, 7-8(JANUARY 11, 1856); UNITED STATES V. LARKIN 18 HOW.  557,
563(MAY 12, 1856).  A SPECIAL RULE TO THE CONTRARY WAS LATER PRONOUNCED
AS TO ISLAND GRANTS IN UNITED STATES V. OSIO, 23 HOW.  273, DECIDED
MARCH 12, 1860, BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID FROM THE PRESENT RECORD WHETHER
THAT RULE WAS APPLICABLE TO THE CASTRO GRANT. 

ALSO INVOLVED IN THE CLAIM OF BISSELL AND ASPINWALL WERE FIVE OTHER
QUESTIONS, EACH OF WHICH HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE BOARD BEFORE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION OF APRIL 9, 1853, AND BEFORE THE BOARD'S
LATER CONFIRMATION OF THE BISSELL AND ASPINWALL CLAIM.  EACH WAS
DECIDED BY THIS COURT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BEFORE ITS DISMISSAL OF
THE APPEAL WHICH IT HAD TAKEN APRIL 1, 1857, FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S
AFFIRMANCE OF THAT CONFIRMATION.  THE QUESTIONS WERE:    (A)  WHETHER
THE MEXICAN PROVINCIAL GOVERNORS HAD POWER TO GRANT LANDS.  IT WAS
DECIDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE IN THE PRELIMINARY OPINION ON THE CERVANTES
CLAIM, RENDERED BY THE BOARD AUGUST 3, 1852, AND IN A NUMBER OF
SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS, AND WAS SETTLED BY THIS COURT MARCH 5, 1857, IN
UNITED STATES V. PERALTA, 19 HOW.  343. 

(B)  WHETHER THE MEXICAN GOVERNORS HAD POWER TO GRANT ANY LANDS
WITHIN TEN LEAGUES OF THE SEACOAST - THE SO-CALLED LITTORAL LEAGUE
QUESTION.  IT WAS DECIDED ADVERSELY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN A PRELIMINARY
OPINION IN THE CERVANTES CASE, RENDERED BY THE BOARD AUGUST 3, 1852,
AND WAS SETTLED BY THIS COURT MAY 12, 1856, IN ARGUELLO V. UNITED
STATES, 18 HOW.  539, AND UNITED STATES V. CERVANTES, 18 HOW.  553. 

(C)  WHETHER THE GRANTEE'S FAILURE TO FURNISH A MAP (DISENO) WITH HIS
PETITION FOR A GRANT, CONSTITUTES A FATAL DEFECT IN TITLE.  IT WAS
DECIDED BY THE BOARD ADVERSELY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE FREMONT CASE,
DECEMBER 27, 1852, AND WAS SETTLED BY THIS COURT MARCH 10, 1855, IN
FREMONT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

(D)  WHETHER A GRANT IS VOID FOR WANT OF A CONDITION REQUIRING THE
GRANTEE TO TAKE POSSESSION OF AND CULTIVATE THE LAND WITHIN A CERTAIN
TIME.  IT WAS DECIDED BY THE BOARD IN THE NEGATIVE IN THE LARKIN CASE,
JANUARY 3, 1853, AND WAS SETTLED BY THIS COURT MAY 12, 1856, IN UNITED
STATES V. LARKIN, SUPRA. 

(E)  WHETHER A GRANT IS VOID FOR WANT OF A CLAUSE INFORMING THE
GRANTEE THAT IT WOULD BECOME INDEFEASIBLE ONLY AFTER APPROVAL BY THE
DEPARTMENTAL DEPUTATION.  IT WAS INVOLVED IN THE LARKIN CLAIM,
CONFIRMED BY THE BOARD JANUARY 3, 1853, AND WAS SETTLED BY THIS COURT
MAY 12, 1856, IN UNITED STATES V. LARKIN, SUPRA. 

CHRONOLOGICAL DATA HAVE BEEN SECURED FROM HOFFMAN'S LAND CASES,
APPENDIX, AND FROM THE RECORDS FILED IN THIS COURT IN THE CITED CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :























CALMAR S.S. CORP. V. TAYLOR, 303 U.S. 525 


NO. 594.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
84, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RIGHT OF A SEAMAN TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR AN ILLNESS WHICH
BEFALLS HIM DURING HIS SERVICE MAY CONTINUE FOR A PERIOD BEYOND THE
DURATION OF THE VOYAGE, WHETHER HE BE AT HOME OR ABROAD, AND EVEN
THOUGH THE ILLNESS BE NOT CAUSED BY THE EMPLOYMENT.  P. 529. 

2.  IN THE CASE OF A SEAMAN SUFFERING FROM AN INCURABLE DISEASE,
WHICH MANIFESTED ITSELF DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT BUT WAS NOT CAUSED BY IT,
THE DUTY OF THE SHIP OWNER TO FURNISH MAINTENANCE AND CURE DOES NOT
EXTEND BEYOND A FAIR TIME AFTER THE VOYAGE IN WHICH TO EFFECT SUCH
IMPROVEMENT IN THE SEAMAN'S CONDITION AS REASONABLY MAY BE EXPECTED TO
RESULT FROM NURSING, CARE, AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.  P. 530. 

3.  IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY A SEAMAN SUFFERING FROM AN INCURABLE
DISEASE, WHICH MANIFESTED ITSELF DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT THOUGH NOT
CAUSED THEREBY, AN AWARD OF A LUMP SUM IN ANTICIPATION OF A CONTINUING
NEED OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR LIFE (BASED ON HIS LIFE EXPECTANCY),
CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED.  P. 530. 

4.  THE SEAMAN'S RECOVERY IN EACH SUCH CASE MUST BE MEASURED BY THE
REASONABLE COST OF THAT MAINTENANCE AND CURE TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED AT
THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, INCLUDING, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, SUCH
AMOUNTS AS MAY BE NEEDFUL IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE FOR THE MAINTENANCE
AND CURE OF A KIND AND FOR A PERIOD WHICH CAN BE DEFINITELY
ASCERTAINED.  P. 531. 

CALMAR STEAMSHIP CORP. V. TAYLOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 681, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING AN AWARD
AGAINST THE STEAMSHIP COMPANY IN A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY FOR MAINTENANCE
AND CURE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE DUTY OF A SHIP OWNER TO
PROVIDE MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR A SEAMAN FALLING ILL OF AN INCURABLE
DISEASE WHILE IN ITS EMPLOY EXTENDS TO THE PAYMENT OF A LUMP SUM AWARD
SUFFICIENT TO DEFRAY THE COST OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR THE REMAINDER
OF HIS LIFE. 

RESPONDENT WAS A MEMBER OF THE CREW OF PETITIONER'S STEAMSHIP
"LOSMAR."  FOLLOWING AN INJURY TO HIS FOOT, ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY
STUBBING HIS TOE AGAINST AN OBJECT LYING ON THE FLOOR OF THE BOILER
ROOM WHERE HE WAS EMPLOYED, RESPONDENT WAS FOUND TO BE AFFLICTED WITH
THROMBO ANGIITIS OBLITERANS, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS BUERGER'S DISEASE, AN
INCURABLE MALADY OF THE VEINS AND ARTERIES.  IT IS ATTENDED BY
INTERRUPTIONS OF THE BLOOD STREAM, WITH CONSEQUENT MALNUTRITION OF THE
AFFECTED PARTS, PRODUCING LESIONS, DETERIORATING CHANGES OF THE
TISSUES, AND GANGRENE.  MEDICAL TREATMENT AND AMPUTATION OF THE
AFFECTED PARTS MAY HALT THE ADVANCE OF THE DISEASE, BUT ITS
MANIFESTATIONS ARE LIKELY TO RECUR IN OTHER PARTS OF THE BODY, AND
MEDICAL OPINION IS THAT THE DISEASE TENDS TO BE PROGRESSIVE AND MAY
ULTIMATELY CAUSE DEATH.  CARE AND TREATMENT AT FREQUENT INTERVALS, WITH
PERIODIC MEDICAL OBSERVATION OF THE PATIENT, ARE OF AID IN ARRESTING
ITS PROGRESS. 

AFTER FEBRUARY 12, 1935, WHEN RESPONDENT WAS FIRST HOSPITALIZED, HE
WAS GIVEN TREATMENT AT VARIOUS MARINE HOSPITALS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH
HE SUFFERED FOUR AMPUTATIONS UPON THE RIGHT FOOT AND LEG.  ON OCTOBER
3, 1935, AFTER HIS LEG HAD BEEN AMPUTATED BELOW THE KNEE, HE WAS
DISCHARGED TO THE "OUTPATIENT DEPARTMENT TO RETURN AT INTERVALS FOR
REEXAMINATION, AND LATER TO BE FITTED WITH AN ARTIFICIAL LIMB." 
PETITIONER, FROM TIME TO TIME, PAID RESPONDENT SMALL SUMS FOR
MAINTENANCE AND CURE, CONTINUING TO DO SO UNTIL MARCH 10, 1936, WHEN
THEY TOTALED $487.  AT ABOUT THIS TIME RESPONDENT BROUGHT THE PRESENT
SUIT IN ADMIRALTY TO RECOVER MAINTENANCE AND CURE, AND, IN ANOTHER
COUNT, FOR PETITIONER'S NEGLIGENCE IN CAUSING THE INJURY.  THE TRIAL
COURT FOUND THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT NEGLIGENT, BUT HELD THAT RESPONDENT
IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE COST OF MAINTENANCE AND MEDICAL TREATMENT SO
LONG AS SUCH TREATMENT IS NECESSARY, AND THAT AS HIS AFFLICTION IS
INCURABLE, THERE SHOULD BE A LUMP SUM AWARD BASED ON HIS LIFE
EXPECTANCY.  ITS DECREE AWARDING A RECOVERY OF $7000 WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE COURT OF APPEALS.  92 F.(2D) 84.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
QUESTION, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 681, BUT DENIED A CROSS
PETITION TO REVIEW THE COURT OF APPEALS' AFFIRMANCE OF THE DECREE FOR
THE SHIP OWNER ON THE NEGLIGENCE COUNT, POST, P. 643. 

THE ANCIENT DUTY OF A VESSEL AND HER OWNER TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE AND
CURE FOR SEAMEN INJURED OR FALLING ILL WHILE IN SERVICE WAS RECOGNIZED
AND, TO SOME EXTENT, DEFINED BY THIS COURT IN THE OSCEOLA, 189 U.S.
158, 175.  SEE ALSO CHELENTIS V. LUCKENBACH S.S. CO., 247 U.S. 372;
PACIFIC S.S. CO. V. PETERSON, 278 U.S. 130.  THE DUTY, WHICH ARISES
FROM THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287
U.S. 367, 371, DOES NOT REST UPON NEGLIGENCE OR CULPABILITY ON THE PART
OF THE OWNER OR MASTER, ID.; THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, 17 FED. 390(D.C.);
THE MARS, 149 FED. 729, 731(C.C.A.); SORENSEN V. ALASKA S.S. CO., 243
FED. 280(D.C.), AFF'D 247 FED. 294(C.C.A.); BROWN V. THE BRADISH
JOHNSON, FED. CAS. NO. 1992, 1 WOODS 301(C.C.), NOR IS IT RESTRICTED TO
THOSE CASES WHERE THE SEAMAN'S EMPLOYMENT IS THE CAUSE OF THE INJURY OR
ILLNESS.  THE WENSLEYDALE, 41 FED. 829(D.C.); THE BOUKER NO. 2, 241
FED. 831(C.C.A.).  IT IS NOT AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION FOR THE
DISABILITY SUFFERED, THE WANDERER, 20 FED. 140, 143(C.C.), ALTHOUGH
BREACH OF THE DUTY MAY RENDER THE OWNER LIABLE FOR THE CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE SEAMAN.  CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE,
SUPRA, 371.  THE MAINTENANCE EXACTED IS COMPARABLE TO THAT TO WHICH THE
SEAMAN IS ENTITLED WHILE AT SEA, THE HENRY B. FISKE, 141 FED. 188,
192(D.C.); THE MARS, 145 FED. 446, 447, (D.C.), AFF'D 149 FED.
729(C.C.A.); THE BOUKER NO. 2, SUPRA, 836, AND "CURE" IS CARE,
INCLUDING NURSING AND MEDICAL ATTENTION DURING SUCH PERIOD AS THE DUTY
CONTINUES.  WHITNEY V. OLSEN, 108 FED. 292, 297(C.C.A.)  AND CASES
CITED; DAUGHERTY V. THOMPSON-LOCKHART CO., 211 FED. 224, 227(D.C.). 

IN THE OSCEOLA, SUPRA, THIS COURT RESERVED THE POINT WHETHER THE DUTY
OF MAINTENANCE AND CURE EXTENDS BEYOND THE DURATION OF THE VOYAGE, AND
THAT QUESTION, SO FAR AS THIS COURT IS CONCERNED, REMAINS AN OPEN ONE. 
THE REASONS UNDERLYING THE RULE, TO WHICH REFERENCE MUST BE MADE IN
DEFINING IT, ARE THOSE ENUMERATED IN THE CLASSIC PASSAGE BY MR. JUSTICE
STORY IN HARDEN V. GORDON, FED. CAS. NO. 6047(C.C.):  THE PROTECTION OF
SEAMEN, WHO, AS A CLASS, ARE POOR, FRIENDLESS AND IMPROVIDENT, FROM THE
HAZARDS OF ILLNESS AND ABANDONMENT WHILE ILL IN FOREIGN PORTS; THE
INDUCEMENT TO MASTERS AND OWNERS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY AND HEALTH OF
SEAMEN WHILE IN SERVICE; THE MAINTENANCE OF A MERCHANT MARINE FOR THE
COMMERCIAL SERVICE AND MARITIME DEFENSE OF THE NATION BY INDUCING MEN
TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT IN AN ARDUOUS AND PERILOUS SERVICE. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT IN MANY CASES THESE PURPOSES WILL NOT BE
ACCOMPLISHED IF THE OWNER'S DUTY TO FURNISH MAINTENANCE AND CURE ENDS
WITH THE VOYAGE.  IF THE INJURY OR ILLNESS OUTLASTS IT, THE SEAMAN MAY
STILL BE LEFT HELPLESS AND UNCARED FOR IN A FOREIGN PORT.  EVEN IF HE
IS RETURNED TO THE HOME PORT THE INDUCEMENT TO THE OWNER TO CARE FOR
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF SEAMEN DURING THE VOYAGE AND THE INDUCEMENT TO
SEAMEN TO TAKE THE NECESSARY RISKS OF A HAZARDOUS CALLING WILL BE
MATERIALLY LESSENED.  THE CHANCES OF THEIR PROMPT RESTORATION TO A
SERVICE WHOSE PRESERVATION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WILL BE
DIMINISHED IF THE RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE AND CURE ENDS WITH THE VOYAGE. 

TACIT RECOGNITION IS ACCORDED THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN THE GREAT
NUMBER OF CASES IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS SUSTAINING THE RIGHT TO
MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE VOYAGE -
"REASONABLE TIME" BEING APPRAISED WITH REFERENCE TO THE SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.  THE BOUKER NO. 2, SUPRA, 835, AND CASES
CITED AT 834.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN MOST OF THESE CASES THE EFFICIENT
CAUSE OF THE INJURY OR ILLNESS WAS SOME PROVEN ACT OF THE SEAMAN IN THE
SERVICE OF THE SHIP, BUT THERE ARE OTHERS IN WHICH IT WAS DEEMED ENOUGH
THAT HE WAS INCAPACITATED WHEN SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF DUTY AS A SEAMAN,
AND THAT HIS INCAPACITY CONTINUED AFTER THE VOYAGE HAD ENDED.  THE
BOUKER NO. 2, SUPRA, 835; THE WENSLEYDALE, SUPRA. 

WE ACCEPT AS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT
THAT RESPONDENT'S DISEASE AND THE AMPUTATIONS WHICH HE SUFFERED WERE
NOT CAUSED BY THE INJURY TO HIS FOOT.  BUT WE THINK THAT EVEN IN SUCH A
CASE, WHETHER THE SEAMAN IS AT HOME OR ABROAD, HIS RIGHT TO MAINTENANCE
AND CURE MAY OUTLAST THE VOYAGE.  THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE OBLIGATION,
SO COGENTLY STATED BY JUSTICE STORY IN HARDEN V. GORDON, SUPRA, AND THE
LIBERALITY WITH WHICH ADMIRALTY COURTS HAVE TRADITIONALLY INTERPRETED
RULES DEVISED FOR THE BENEFIT AND PROTECTION OF SEAMEN WHO ARE ITS
WARDS, ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 287; CORTES V. BALTIMORE
INSULAR LINE, SUPRA, 377; THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110, 123,
CALL FOR SOME EXTENSION OF THE DUTY BEYOND THE TERM OF SERVICE.  THE
PRACTICAL INCONVENIENCE AND THE ATTENDANT DANGER TO SEAMEN IN THE
APPLICATION OF A RULE WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE THE ATTEMPT BY MASTER OR
OWNER TO DETERMINE IN ADVANCE OF ANY MAINTENANCE AND CURE, WHETHER THE
ILLNESS WAS CAUSED BY THE EMPLOYMENT, ARE MANIFEST. 

THERE REMAIN THE QUESTIONS WHETHER IN THE CASE OF A CHRONIC ILLNESS
THE DUTY CONTINUES SO LONG AS MEDICAL ATTENDANCE AND CARE ARE
BENEFICIAL, UNTIL DEATH IF THE NEED LASTS SO LONG, AND WHETHER A LUMP
SUM MAY BE AWARDED TO DEFRAY THE COST OF MEETING THE ANTICIPATED NEED. 

IN ANSWERING THE FIRST WE LAY TO ONE SIDE THOSE CASES WHERE THE
INCAPACITY IS CAUSED BY THE EMPLOYMENT.  AS TO THEM CONSIDERATIONS NOT
PRESENT HERE MAY APPLY, WHICH MIGHT BE THOUGHT TO REQUIRE A MORE
LIBERAL APPLICATION OF THE RULE THAN WE THINK IS CALLED FOR IN THIS
CASE.  CF. REED V. CANFIELD, FED. CAS. NO. 11641(C.C.), WITH THE
COMMENTS OF JUDGE, LATER JUSTICE BROWN IN THE J. F. CARD, 43 FED.
92(D.C.), AND SEE THOSE OF JUDGE HOUGH IN THE BOUKER NO. 2, SUPRA,
834.  BUT WE FIND NO SUPPORT IN THE POLICIES WHICH HAVE GENERATED THE
DOCTRINE FOR HOLDING THAT IT IMPOSES ON THE SHIP OWNER AN INDEFINITELY
CONTINUING OBLIGATION TO FURNISH MEDICAL CARE TO A SEAMAN AFFLICTED
WITH AN INCURABLE DISEASE, WHICH MANIFESTS ITSELF DURING HIS
EMPLOYMENT, BUT IS NOT CAUSED BY IT.  SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED IT IS
WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE AUTHORITIES.  WE CAN FIND NO BASIS FOR SAYING
THAT, IF THE DISEASE PROVES TO BE INCURABLE, THE DUTY EXTENDS BEYOND A
FAIR TIME AFTER THE VOYAGE IN WHICH TO EFFECT SUCH IMPROVEMENT IN THE
SEAMAN'S CONDITION AS REASONABLY MAY BE EXPECTED TO RESULT FROM
NURSING, CARE, AND MEDICAL TREATMENT.  THIS WOULD SATISFY SUCH DEMANDS
OF POLICY AS UNDERLIE THE IMPOSITION OF THE OBLIGATION.  BEYOND THIS WE
THINK THERE IS NO DUTY, AT LEAST WHERE THE ILLNESS IS NOT CAUSED BY THE
SEAMAN'S SERVICE. 

THE AWARD OF A LUMP SUM IN ANTICIPATION OF THE CONTINUING NEED OF
MAINTENANCE AND CURE FOR LIFE OR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD, IS WITHOUT
SUPPORT IN JUDICIAL DECISION.  AWARDS OF SMALL AMOUNTS TO COVER FUTURE
MAINTENANCE AND CURE OF A KIND AND FOR A PERIOD DEFINITELY ASCERTAINED
OR ASCERTAINABLE HAVE OCCASIONALLY BEEN MADE.  THE MARS, 149 FED. 729,
730(C.C.A.); WILSON V. MANHATTAN CANNING CO., 205 FED. 996, 997(D.C.). 
BUT THE AWARD HERE SEEMS TO US TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MEASURE OF
THE DUTY AND THE PURPOSES TO BE EFFECTED BY ITS PERFORMANCE.  THE DUTY
DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE SEAMAN'S NEED.  RAYMOND V. THE ELLA S.
THAYER, 40 FED. 902, 903(D.C.); THE J.F. CARD, SUPRA, 95; THE BOUKER
NO. 2, SUPRA, 835; THE SANTA BARBARA, 263 FED. 369, 371(C.C.A.);
STEWART V. UNITED STATES, 25 F.(2D) 869, 870(D.C.); MARSHALL V.
INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE CO., 39 F.(2D) 551, 553(C.C.A.); CF.
HOLT V. CUMMINGS, 102 PA. 212; CONTRA, REED V. CANFIELD, SUPRA.  THE
AMOUNT AND CHARACTER OF MEDICAL CARE WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE CASE
OF AN AFFLICTION, AS WELL DEFINED EVEN AS BUERGER'S DISEASE, CANNOT BE
MEASURED BY REFERENCE TO MORTALITY TABLES.  MOREOVER, COURTS TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF THE MARINE HOSPITAL SERVICE WHERE SEAMEN MAY BE TREATED
AT MINIMUM EXPENSE, IN SOME CASES WITHOUT EXPENSE, AND THEY LIMIT
RECOVERY TO THE EXPENSE OF SUCH MAINTENANCE AND CURE AS IS NOT AT THE
DISPOSAL OF THE SEAMAN THROUGH RECOURSE TO THAT SERVICE.  THE BOUKER
NO. 2, SUPRA, 835; MARSHALL V. INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE MARINE CO.,
SUPRA, 553, AND CASES CITED.  FURTHERMORE, A DUTY IMPOSED TO SAFEGUARD
THE SEAMAN FROM THE DANGER OF ILLNESS WITHOUT SUCCOR, AND TO SAFEGUARD
HIM, IN CASE OF ILLNESS, AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS IMPROVIDENCE,
WOULD HARDLY BE PERFORMED BY THE PAYMENT OF A LUMP SUM TO COVER THE
COST OF MEDICAL ATTENDANCE DURING LIFE. 

THE SEAMAN'S RECOVERY MUST THEREFORE BE MEASURED IN EACH CASE BY THE
REASONABLE COST OF THAT MAINTENANCE AND CURE TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED AT
THE TIME OF TRIAL, INCLUDING, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, SUCH
AMOUNTS AS MAY BE NEEDFUL IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE FOR THE MAINTENANCE
AND CURE OF A KIND AND FOR A PERIOD WHICH CAN BE DEFINITELY
ASCERTAINED. 

THE COURTS BELOW HAVE MADE NO FINDINGS SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE US TO FIX
THE AMOUNT WHICH RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER.  THE DECREE IS
ACCORDINGLY REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION, AND WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO ANY LATER SUIT BY RESPONDENT TO RECOVER MAINTENANCE AND
CURE TO WHICH HE MAY THEN BE ENTITLED.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
















ADAMS V. NAGLE, 303 U.S. 532 


NO. 123.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 17, 1937.  REARGUED MARCH 8, 9, 1938.  -
DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 88 F.2D 936, REVERSED. 


STOCKHOLDERS OF THE "P" AND "R" NATIONAL BANKS BROUGHT BILLS IN EQUITY
TO ENJOIN THE RECEIVER FROM ENFORCING ASSESSMENTS, ORDERED BY THE
COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE GOVERNING THE
ADDITIONAL LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ACTION OF
THE COMPTROLLER IN ORDERING THE ASSESSMENTS WAS IN EXCESS OF HIS
STATUTORY POWER, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  THE BILLS ALLEGED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE COMPTROLLER ERRONEOUSLY
DISREGARDED AGREEMENTS THERETOFORE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE "P" AND "R"
AND THE "F" BANKS, WHEREBY THE FIRST TWO CONVEYED ALL OF THEIR ASSETS
TO THE LAST, WHICH ASSUMED ALL OF THEIR LIABILITIES EXCEPT LIABILITIES
TO STOCKHOLDERS, AND OUT OF WHICH AGREEMENTS AROSE CLAIMS AGAINST THE
"F" BANK SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE DEBTS OF THE "P" AND "R" BANKS WITHOUT
THE NECESSITY OF ASSESSMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS.  UPON THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE BILLS, HELD: 

1.  THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO ATTACK OR FRUSTRATION IN
THESE PROCEEDINGS UPON THE GROUNDS SET FORTH IN THE BILLS.  P. 538. 

2.  THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE BANKS DID NOT EFFECT A CONSOLIDATION
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT, AND THE COMPTROLLER WAS
BOUND TO DEAL WITH THEM, SO FAR AS THEIR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES WERE
CONCERNED AND IN RESPECT OF STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY, AS THREE SEPARATE
ENTITIES.  P. 538. 

3.  IT WAS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE
ASSESSMENTS THAT THE COMPTROLLER SHOULD HAVE EXHAUSTED THE ASSETS OF
THE "P" AND "R" BANKS.  P. 539. 

4.  THE COMPTROLLER'S DETERMINATION AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR THE
ASSESSMENTS WAS MADE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETIONARY POWER VESTED
IN HIM AND WAS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.  P. 540. 

5.  COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSMENTS COULD NOT BE MADE TO AWAIT THE
OUTCOME OF LITIGATION CHALLENGING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMPTROLLER'S
DECISION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE BANKS.  P.
544. 

ADAMS, RECEIVER, V. NAGLE ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 124, ADAMS, RECEIVER, V. TOBIAS ET AL., ALSO ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 665, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING ORDERS OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE BILLS OF COMPLAINT IN TWO SUITS BROUGHT
BY STOCKHOLDERS OF TWO INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANKS TO ENJOIN THE RECEIVER
FROM ENFORCING ASSESSMENTS ORDERED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY. 
BY ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT THE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR THE PURPOSE
OF APPEAL. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE ARE STOCKHOLDERS' SUITS TO ENJOIN THE RECEIVER OF TWO NATIONAL
BANKS FROM ENFORCING ASSESSMENTS ORDERED BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE
CURRENCY PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE GOVERNING THE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY OF
SHAREHOLDERS.  FN1 

THE RESPONDENTS IN NO. 123 ARE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE PENN NATIONAL BANK
AND TRUST COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA; THOSE IN NO. 124 ARE
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE READING NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF THE SAME
CITY; AND THE PETITIONER IS RECEIVER OF BOTH BANKS.  THE CONTROVERSY
HAS ITS ORIGIN IN A TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE TWO BANKS AND THE FARMERS
NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF READING.  THE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE
IDENTICAL AND IT WILL SUFFICE TO OUTLINE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL IN
NO. 123.  THESE ARE: 

ON FEBRUARY 17, 1933, PENN AND READING WERE SUBJECTED TO UNUSUAL
WITHDRAWALS WHICH DEPLETED THEIR RESERVES AND PLACED BOTH ON THE VERGE
OF INSOLVENCY.  DUE TO THIS CONDITION THE TWO BANKS ON THAT DATE
ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FARMERS CONTEMPLATING A
CONSOLIDATION OF THE THREE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 12 U.S.C. SECS. 33
AND 34.  THE AGREEMENT CALLED FOR A VALUATION OF THE ASSETS OF THE
THREE BANKS WITH ENSUING RECAPITALIZATION AND FOR THE COMPTROLLER'S
APPROVAL OF THE TERMS OF CONSOLIDATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW.  IT FURTHER
PROVIDED FOR TRANSFER BY PENN AND READING OF ALL THEIR ASSETS TO
FARMERS, WITH THE RIGHT TO HYPOTHECATE AND REHYPOTHECATE THEM, AND FOR
ASSUMPTION BY FARMERS OF THE LIABILITIES OF THE TRANSFERRING BANKS
EXCEPT THAT TO STOCKHOLDERS, THEY RESERVING THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE
AGAINST THEIR STOCKHOLDERS ANY STATUTORY EXCESS LIABILITY.  FARMERS WAS
TO OPERATE THEIR BANKING HOUSES AS ITS BRANCHES.  ON THE SAME DAY PENN
AND READING TURNED OVER THEIR ASSETS TO FARMERS, WHICH MINGLED THEM
WITH ITS OWN AND THEREAFTER DEALT WITH THEM AS ITS OWN.  THERE IS NO
ASSERTION THAT ON FEBRUARY 17 THE COMPTROLLER KNEW, OR APPROVED, OF THE
AGREEMENT AND TRANSFER.  IT IS ALLEGED, HOWEVER, THAT, BY HIS
DIRECTION, A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WAS MADE FEBRUARY 20, 1933, BY
WHICH PENN AND READING GUARANTEED TO FARMERS THAT THE ASSETS OF EACH
WOULD EXCEED IN VALUE ITS LIABILITIES ASSUMED BY FARMERS UNDER THE
AGREEMENT OF FEBRUARY 17; AND THAT HE ACQUIESCED IN THE CONTINUED
ADMINISTRATION OF THE AFFAIRS OF PENN AND READING BY FARMERS.  ON
FEBRUARY 17 THE ASSETS OF PENN WHICH WERE TRANSFERRED TO FARMERS HAD A
REASONABLE MARKET NET VALUE OF $5,400,000 AS AGAINST TOTAL LIABILITIES
OF $5,100,000, AND THE ASSETS OF FARMERS WERE OF THE FAIR VALUE OF
$8,000,000(TO WHICH IS TO BE ADDED THE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY FOR
ASSESSMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000), AS AGAINST LIABILITY TO
CREDITORS OF $9,000,000.  FN2  THE CLAIMS OF THE TWO BANKS AGAINST
FARMERS WERE, AT THE DATE OF TRANSFER, AND STILL ARE, MORE THAN
SUFFICIENT, IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LIQUIDATION, TO PAY ALL OF THEIR
LIABILITIES WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN ASSESSMENT OF THE
STOCKHOLDERS. 

FARMERS CONTINUED TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE COMBINED AND COMMINGLED
ASSETS FROM FEBRUARY 17 TO MARCH 18, 1933.  THEN THE COMPTROLLER
APPOINTED A CONSERVATOR WHO TOOK POSSESSION OF ALL OF THE ASSETS. 
OCTOBER 10, 1933, THE COMPTROLLER, WITHOUT NOTICE TO PENN OR READING,
THEIR DEPOSITORS, CREDITORS, OR STOCKHOLDERS, AND WITHOUT A HEARING,
RULED THAT THE AGREEMENTS OF FEBRUARY 17 AND FEBRUARY 20 WERE WITHOUT
LEGAL EFFECT AND DIRECTED THAT THE TRANSFER AND DELIVERY OF THE ASSETS,
AND THE ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES THEREUNDER, SHOULD BE DISREGARDED;
AND HE ATTEMPTED TO ALLOCATE AMONG THE THREE BANKS THE ASSETS
THERETOFORE TRANSFERRED AND DELIVERED TO FARMERS.  HE APPOINTED THE
SAME PERSON HE HAD PREVIOUSLY NAMED CONSERVATOR FOR FARMERS TO BE
CONSERVATOR OF THE OTHER TWO BANKS.  OCTOBER 20, 1933, THE COMPTROLLER
PROPOSED A SO-CALLED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION OF THE THREE BANKS WHICH
PROVIDED FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF A NEW NATIONAL BANK, THE ISSUE BY IT
OF STOCK AND SECURITIES, THE PLEDGE OF SOME OF ITS ASSETS TO SECURE A
LOAN FROM RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION, A SALE OF THE ASSETS IN
THE POSSESSION OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FARMERS TO THE NEW NATIONAL BANK,
AND A DIVISION OF THE PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS OF THIRTY-FIVE PER CENT. TO
FARMERS, TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT. TO PENN, AND TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT. TO
READING.  IT IS CHARGED THAT THIS DIVISION WAS ARBITRARY AND WAS BASED
ON A CLASSIFICATION ADOPTED FROM THE REPORT OF NATIONAL BANK EXAMINERS
DATED APRIL 24, 1933, AND NOT ON THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE BANKS
AS OF FEBRUARY 17, 1933, THE DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT,
TRANSFER OF ASSETS, AND ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES.  THE CONSERVATOR OF
ALL THREE BANKS, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PLAN, RECONSTRUCTED THE ASSETS
AND LIABILITIES OF EACH AS OF APRIL 24, 1933, MADE A DIVISION THEREOF
AMONGST THE BANKS, CONSUMMATED THE SALE TO THE NEW BANK, AND
APPORTIONED THE PROCEEDS ACCORDING TO THE PLAN.  IN SO DOING, IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPTROLLER'S RULING, HE DISREGARDED ALL RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM THE AGREEMENT OF FEBRUARY 17, 1933, AND
DISREGARDED THE CLAIM OF PENN, IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,100,000, AND THE
CLAIM OF READING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,000,000, AGAINST FARMERS.  THE
BILLS CHARGE THAT THIS CONDUCT WAS ARBITRARY, AND THAT THE
COMPTROLLER'S RULING RESPECTING THE TWO AGREEMENTS WAS BEYOND THE
POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE NATIONAL BANK ACT OR OTHER STATUTORY
LAW, WAS AN UNLAWFUL ASSUMPTION OF JUDICIAL POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO HIM
BY STATUTE, OR CAPABLE OF BEING SO DELEGATED, WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE
RIGHTS OF PENN AND READING, THEIR DEPOSITORS, OTHER CREDITORS, AND
STOCKHOLDERS, AND DEPRIVED THEM OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW. 

AFTER CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION THE COMPTROLLER
CERTIFIED THAT EACH OF THE THREE BANKS WAS INSOLVENT AND, IN OCTOBER
AND NOVEMBER 1934, APPOINTED A RECEIVER FOR EACH OF THEM.  JANUARY 15,
1935, HE CERTIFIED THAT, UPON A PROPER ACCOUNTING BY THE RECEIVERS OF
PENN AND READING, AND A VALUATION OF THE UNCOLLECTED ASSETS REMAINING
IN THEIR HANDS, IT APPEARED THAT A 100% ASSESSMENT WAS NECESSARY TO PAY
THEIR DEBTS AND HE ACCORDINGLY ORDERED SUCH AN ASSESSMENT.  THE BILLS
CHARACTERIZE HIS CONDUCT AS A FAILURE, NEGLECT, AND REFUSAL TO COLLECT
THE CLAIMS OF PENN AND READING AGAINST FARMERS AND A CONSEQUENT FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING
ASSESSMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS, AND AS "IN FRAUD OF THE RIGHTS" OF PENN
AND READING, THEIR CREDITORS AND STOCKHOLDERS.  HIS IGNORING THE CLAIMS
IS CHARGED TO HAVE BEEN "A GRAVE ERROR OF LAW BASED UPON HIS
UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION OF JUDICIAL POWER IN ABROGATING, CANCELLING, AND
WAIVING" THE CLAIMS OF PENN AND READING AGAINST FARMERS, AND
"ADJUDICATING THE PRIVATE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES NOT SUBJECT
TO HIS POWER AND CONTROL," WHICH INVALIDATED THE ASSESSMENTS. 

THE RECEIVER INTERPOSED MOTIONS TO DISMISS WHICH WERE SUSTAINED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,  FN3
HOLDING THE BILLS SET FORTH A CAUSE OF ACTION SINCE, IF THEIR
ALLEGATIONS WERE TRUE, THE COMPTROLLER HAD EXCEEDED HIS STATUTORY POWER
AND ACTED ARBITRARILY IN ORDERING THE ASSESSMENTS.  THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTION INVOLVED AND ASSERTED CONFLICT OF DECISION MOVED US TO
GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE PETITIONER'S POSITION IS THAT THE AGREEMENT AND TRANSFER OF
ASSETS TO THE FARMERS DID NOT EFFECT A STATUTORY CONSOLIDATION; THAT
THE COMPTROLLER WAS, THEREFORE, AT LIBERTY TO TREAT ALL THREE BANKS AS
SEPARATE ENTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSING STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY
AND THAT STOCKHOLDERS MAY NOT, BY A PROCEEDING IN EQUITY, CHALLENGE HIS
OFFICIAL FINDINGS AS TO INSOLVENCY AND NECESSITY FOR AN ASSESSMENT. 
THE RESPONDENTS SAY THE COMPTROLLER'S POWER OF ASSESSMENT IS
CONDITIONED ON A BASIC OR QUASI-JURISDICTIONAL FACT, - THAT THE
ORDINARY RESOURCES OF A BANK HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED, - AND, IF THEY HAVE
NOT BEEN, OR ARE DEFICIENT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE COMPTROLLER'S UNLAWFUL
ABROGATION OF AND REFUSAL TO REQUIRE COLLECTION OF A VALID CLAIM
SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE BANK'S DEBTS, THE ASSESSMENT IS SUBJECT TO DIRECT
ATTACK AS IN EXCESS OF THAT OFFICER'S STATUTORY POWER, AS ARBITRARY,
CAPRICIOUS, AND A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO ATTACK OR FRUSTRATION IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS UPON THE GROUNDS SET FORTH IN THE BILLS. 

1.  THE AGREEMENTS OF FEBRUARY 17 AND FEBRUARY 20 DID NOT EFFECT A
CONSOLIDATION IN CONFORMITY WITH THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT SO AS TO
CONSTITUTE THE EXISTING STOCKHOLDERS OF PENN AND READING, TOGETHER WITH
THE STOCKHOLDERS OF FARMERS, STOCKHOLDERS OF A CONSOLIDATED BANK.  THE
STEPS REQUISITE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATION WERE NEVER TAKEN.  FN4 

2.  WHEN THE COMPTROLLER TOOK CHARGE OF THE BANKS IN QUESTION HE WAS
BOUND TO DEAL WITH THEM, SO FAR AS THEIR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES WERE
CONCERNED AND IN RESPECT OF STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY, UPON THE BASIS
THAT THEY WERE THREE SEPARATE ASSOCIATIONS.  THIS CONCLUSION IS
UNAFFECTED BY THE LEGALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE AGREEMENT OF
FEBRUARY 17, 1933, UPON WHICH RESPONDENTS INSIST.  FN5 AT MOST THE
AGREEMENT SUBSTITUTED A NEW ASSET - THE PROMISE OF FARMERS - FOR THE
OLD ASSETS.  RESPONDENTS DO NOT CLAIM THAT THE CONTRACT AND THE
TRANSFER PURSUANT TO IT WORKED A NOVATION WHEREBY THE CREDITORS OF THE
TRANSFERRING BANKS BECAME CREDITORS OF THE TRANSFEREE.  SO FAR AS THE
COMPTROLLER WAS CONCERNED THESE CREDITORS WERE STILL THOSE OF THE
FORMER AND ENTITLED TO LOOK TO THEIR ASSETS FOR PAYMENT. 

3.  WHETHER THE COMPTROLLER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE CONTRACTS AND WHAT
WAS DONE UNDER THEM WERE EFFECTIVE TO COMMUTE THE PHYSICAL ASSETS OF
PENN AND READING INTO A CHOSE IN ACTION AGAINST FARMERS, OR THAT THE
TRANSACTION DID NOT SO OPERATE BUT LEFT PENN AND READING OWNERS OF
THEIR ASSETS SO FAR AS THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED AND SEGREGATED, IT WAS
NOT, AS RESPONDENTS SUGGEST, A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE VALIDITY OF
HIS ASSESSMENT THAT HE SHOULD HAVE EXHAUSTED THE ASSETS OF PENN AND
READING. 

AT THE ARGUMENT THE POSITION WAS TAKEN THAT THE COMPTROLLER WAS
WITHOUT POWER TO LAY AN ASSESSMENT UNTIL HE HAD GOTTEN IN THE AVAILS OF
ALL THE ORDINARY ASSETS OF THE BANKS AND THAT THE CLAIMS OF PENN AND
READING AGAINST FARMERS UNDER THE CONTRACT OF FEBRUARY 17 WERE SUCH
ORDINARY ASSETS.  THE CONCLUSION IS THAT UNTIL THE RECEIVER OF PENN AND
READING HAD RECOVERED UPON THE CONTRACT AND DISTRIBUTED THE PROCEEDS
THE COMPTROLLER WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ORDER AN ASSESSMENT.  NO DECISION
OF ANY COURT WAS CITED TO SUPPORT THIS POSITION, BUT IT WAS SOUGHT TO
MAINTAIN IT BY REFERENCE TO AN AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL BANK ACT OF
JUNE 3, 1864,  FN6  OFFERED AND ADOPTED IN THE SENATE.  THE PURPOSE OF
THIS AMENDMENT WAS STATED TO BE TO "ENABLE THE RECEIVER AT ANY TIME
WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY, TO ENFORCE THE INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY; AND
IN CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY, IF THE OTHER ASSETS ARE SUFFICIENT, HE
WILL NOT ENFORCE THIS CONTINGENT LIABILITY, WHICH IS INTENDED AS AN
ULTIMATE SECURITY OF THE CREDITORS OF THE BANK."  WE THINK THE ADOPTION
OF THE AMENDMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLANATION IS FAR FROM SUSTAINING
THE RESPONDENTS' CONTENTION.  IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT IF THE
ASSETS OF A CLOSED NATIONAL BANK ARE SUFFICIENT TO ANSWER ITS
LIABILITIES THE COMPTROLLER IS NOT TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT, BUT TO HIM IS
CONFIDED THE DETERMINATION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE ASSETS AND, IF HE
CONCLUDES THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT, IT IS NOT ONLY HIS RIGHT BUT HIS DUTY
IMMEDIATELY TO INVOKE THE CONTINGENT LIABILITY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS. 
THIS HAS BEEN THE INVARIABLE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND ANY OTHER
WOULD TEND TO DEPRECIATE THE AVAILABILITY AND THE VALUE OF
STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY. 

4.  THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER, IF THE COMPTROLLER'S ACTION AROSE
FROM MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW, THE REMEDY HERE INVOKED IS APPROPRIATE. 
IN ESTABLISHING THE NATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM CONGRESS HAS INVESTED THE
COMPTROLLER, AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, WITH JURISDICTION TO APPOINT A
RECEIVER AFTER INVESTIGATION AND A FINDING THAT A BANK HAS BECOME
INSOLVENT, AND TO ORDER AN ASSESSMENT UP TO ONE HUNDRED PER CENT. OF
THE PAR VALUE OF THE STOCK AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS TO PAY CREDITORS'
CLAIMS IF, UPON AN INVESTIGATION, HE FINDS THAT THE ASSETS ARE
INSUFFICIENT TO PAY THE DEBTS.  PLAINLY THESE ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE
EXERCISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION.  THE NECESSITY FOR VESTING THIS
POWER IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SPRINGS FROM THE DESIRABILITY OF
PROMPT LIQUIDATION.  IT WOULD BE INTOLERABLE IF THE COMPTROLLER'S
DECISION COULD BE ATTACKED COLLATERALLY IN EVERY SUIT BY A RECEIVER
AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT.  IT
IS SETTLED THIS CANNOT BE DONE.  FN7  IT WOULD BE EQUALLY INTOLERABLE
IF STOCKHOLDERS AS A CLASS COULD CALL UPON A COURT TO REVIEW THE
COMPTROLLER'S EXERCISE OF HIS DISCRETION.  FOR A COURT TO ENTERTAIN A
SUIT FOR THIS PURPOSE WOULD BE TO RENDER NUGATORY THE FUNCTIONS
CONGRESS HAS CONFIDED IN THE COMPTROLLER.  IT HAS OFTEN BEEN DECIDED
THIS MAY NOT BE DONE.  FN8    THE RESPONDENTS, HOWEVER, URGE, AND THE
BILL CHARGES, THAT THE COMPTROLLER, IN RULING THAT THE CONTRACT OF
FEBRUARY 17 SHOULD BE DISREGARDED, AND THE RECEIVER, IN FOLLOWING THIS
RULING, EXCEEDED THEIR STATUTORY POWERS AND ACTED ARBITRARILY AND MAY
BE ENJOINED FROM ENFORCING AN ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE RULING.  THE
CONTENTION RESTS UPON A STATEMENT IN UNITED STATES V. KNOX, 102 U.S.
425:  "ALTHOUGH ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE COMPTROLLER, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIRST ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE, AND ALL OTHER
ASSESSMENTS, SUCCESSIVE OR OTHERWISE, NOT EXCEEDING THE PAR VALUE OF
ALL THE STOCK OF THE BANK, ARE CONCLUSIVE UPON THE STOCKHOLDERS, YET IF
HE WERE TO ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE ONE MADE, CLEARLY AND PALPABLY, CONTRARY
TO THE VIEWS WE HAVE EXPRESSED, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT A COURT OF
EQUITY, IF ITS AID WERE INVOKED, WOULD PROMPTLY RESTRAIN HIM BY
INJUNCTION."  THIS WAS SAID IN A CASE WHERE A CREDITOR SOUGHT A
MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE COMPTROLLER TO ORDER AN ASSESSMENT, HE HAVING
REFUSED SO TO DO ON THE GROUND THAT THE VERY TERMS OF THE STATUTE
FORBADE SUCH ACTION.  RELYING ON THIS EXPRESSION A NUMBER OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE SAID THAT, WHILE AN ASSESSMENT MAY NOT BE
COLLATERALLY ATTACKED, IT MAY BE AVOIDED BY DIRECT ATTACK FOR "CLEAR
ERROR OF LAW, FRAUD, OR MISTAKE."  FN9  RESPONDENTS ADMIT THIS
STATEMENT IS TOO BROAD.  OTHER COURTS HAVE SAID THAT THE ONLY GROUND OF
SUCCESSFUL ATTACK IS FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPTROLLER.  FN10  THIS
CASE PRESENTS NO SUCH BASIS FOR RELIEF.  THE BILLS DO NOT CHARGE BAD
FAITH OR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPTROLLER.  THE AVERMENT THAT HIS
RULING WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTRACT OF FEBRUARY 17 AND THE CONSEQUENT
ACTION OF THE RECEIVER WERE "IN FRAUD" OF THE RIGHTS OF PENN AND
READING AND THEIR STOCKHOLDERS FALLS FAR SHORT OF ANY CHARGE OF ACTUAL
FRAUD.  INDEED NO SUGGESTION OF SUCH FRAUD WAS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS
EITHER IN BRIEF OR IN ARGUMENT. 

THE RESPONDENTS RELY UPON DECISIONS HOLDING THAT A BILL IN EQUITY OR
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WILL LIE TO COMPEL AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO COMPLY
WITH THE PLAIN MANDATE OF A STATUTE.  THESE HAVE NO APPLICATION FOR
THEY DEAL WITH A SITUATION WHOLLY FOREIGN TO THAT HERE PRESENTED. 
WHERE A STATUTE VESTS NO DISCRETION IN AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER BUT TO ACT
UNDER A GIVEN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, OR FORBIDS HIS ACTING EXCEPT UPON
CERTAIN NAMED CONDITIONS, A COURT WILL COMPEL HIM TO ACT OR TO REFRAIN
FROM ACTING IF HE ESSAYS WHOLLY TO DISREGARD THE STATUTORY MANDATE; BUT
IF A DISCRETION IS VESTED IN HIM, AND HE IS TO ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FACTS HE ASCERTAINS AND THE JUDGMENT HE FORMS, A COURT CANNOT RESTRAIN
HIM FROM ACTING ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION BY
REASON OF AN ERROR EITHER OF FACT OR LAW WHICH INDUCED HIS CONCLUSION. 
PLAINLY, THEREFORE, THE RESPONDENTS ARE WRONG IN ASSERTING THAT AS THE
FACTS SET FORTH IN THEIR BILL CHARGE THE COMPTROLLER WITH AN ERROR OF
LAW, HE EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY. 

THE RESPONDENTS FURTHER INSIST THAT THEIR ALLEGATION THAT THE
COMPTROLLER'S ACTION WAS "ARBITRARY," WHICH IS AMPLIFIED AND GIVEN
CONTENT BY THE FACTS ALLEGED AND ADMITTED BY THE MOTION TO DISMISS,
REQUIRES A DECREE AVOIDING THE ASSESSMENT.  THE EPITHET "ARBITRARY,"
USED IN THIS CONNECTION, CAN MEAN NO MORE THAN DO THE OTHER AVERMENTS
THAT THE COMPTROLLER, IN REACHING HIS CONCLUSION, "COMMITTED GRAVE
ERROR OF LAW" IN FAILING TO REGARD THE CONTRACT OF FEBRUARY 17 AS
EFFECTIVE.  IT WOULD BE ARBITRARY, IN THE PROPER SENSE OF THE TERM, FOR
AN OFFICIAL TO ACT IN THE TEETH OF A STATUTE OR STUBBORNLY TO REFUSE TO
ACT AT ALL WHERE A STATUTE COMMANDS ACTION, BUT WHERE HE ESSAYS TO
EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON HIM, THOUGH HIS ERRORS MAY BE
SUBJECT TO SUBSEQUENT CORRECTION, THEY CANNOT BE ENJOINED AS AN
ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF HIS AUTHORITY.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD RENDER
ORDERLY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IMPOSSIBLE. 

A REFERENCE TO THE SITUATION WITH WHICH THE COMPTROLLER WAS
CONFRONTED WHEN HIS RECEIVER TOOK CHARGE OF THE BANKS WILL SERVE TO
DEMONSTRATE THAT A CASE WAS PRESENTED CALLING FOR THE EXERCISE OF HIS
DISCRETION.  THE BILL ASSERTS THAT OVER A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD SUBSEQUENT
TO THE TRANSFER OF PENN'S AND READING'S ASSETS TO FARMERS THESE WERE
INTERMINGLED WITH FARMERS' ASSETS.  IT AVERS THAT AN ATTEMPTED
SEGREGATION OF ASSETS WAS MADE UPON THE BASIS OF A REPORT OF BANK
EXAMINERS DATED APRIL 24, 1933, MORE THAN TWO MONTHS AFTER THE
TRANSFER; IT ALLEGES THAT, AT THE DATE OF TRANSFER, FARMERS OWED
$9,000,000 AGAINST WHICH IT HAD ASSETS OF $8,000,000 AND A POSSIBLE
RECOVERY BY WAY OF STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY OF AN ADDITIONAL MILLION
DOLLARS; IT FAILS TO STATE WHAT THE CONDITION OF FARMERS WAS WHEN A
CONSERVATOR WAS APPOINTED FOR IT; WHAT ITS CONDITION WAS WHEN A
RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED FOR IT; WHAT ITS FINANCIAL STATUS IS TODAY.  THE
PLEADER CONTENTS HIMSELF WITH THE STATEMENT OF A CONCLUSION THAT THE
"CLAIMS" OF PENN AND READING AGAINST FARMERS WERE, AT THE TIME OF
TRANSFER OF THEIR ASSETS, AND STILL ARE, SUFFICIENT IN AMOUNT TO PAY
ALL OF THOSE BANKS' CREDITORS.  BUT IF THE ALLEGATION IS TRUE, THE ONLY
CONCLUSION TO BE DRAWN FROM IT IS THAT IN ORDERING THE ASSESSMENT THE
COMPTROLLER ERRONEOUSLY ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE BANKS' ASSETS. 
WHATEVER MAY BE THOUGHT OF THE LEGALITY OF THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS
PURSUANT TO DIRECTORS' ACTION ON THE EVE OF INSOLVENCY, THE CREDITORS
OF PENN AND READING WERE NOT BOUND TO LOOK TO FARMERS AND MIGHT PREFER
TO LOOK TO THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED OR TO SO MUCH OF THEM AS COULD BE
TRACED.  AND THERE WELL MAY HAVE BEEN REASON FOR THE COMPTROLLER TO
DOUBT THE LEGAL EFFICACY OF THE TRANSFER IN THE FACE OF CREDITORS'
ATTACK.  THESE AND OTHER MATTERS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED BY HIM IN
ARRIVING AT AN INFORMED JUDGMENT AS TO THE AVAILABILITY AND VALUE OF
THE ASSETS OF PENN AND READING TO ANSWER THE CLAIMS OF THEIR
CREDITORS.  AS AN EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETIONARY POWER VESTED IN HIM,
THE COMPTROLLER'S ACTION MUST BE TREATED AS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AS TO
THE NECESSITY FOR AN ASSESSMENT. 

5.  IF THE COMPTROLLER'S DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTRACT OF
FEBRUARY 17 WAS ERRONEOUS AS MATTER OF LAW THE STOCKHOLDERS MAY OR MAY
NOT HAVE A REMEDY.  BUT THEIR REMEDY IS NOT TO ATTACK, OR SEEK TO EVADE
PAYMENT OF, THE ASSESSMENT.  THE COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE
MADE TO AWAIT THE OUTCOME OF LITIGATION OF THAT QUESTION.  MOREOVER,
IF, AS THEY ASSERT, THE COMPTROLLER'S JUDGMENT IS WRONG AND THE ASSETS
OF PENN AND READING, CONSISTING OF THEIR CLAIMS UNDER THE CONTRACT, ARE
SUFFICIENT TO PAY THEIR CREDITORS, THE AMOUNTS PAID PURSUANT TO THE
ASSESSMENTS WILL BE RETURNED TO STOCKHOLDERS IN FINAL LIQUIDATION. 
MEANTIME, HOWEVER, THE CREDITORS, THE PROTECTION OF WHOSE INTERESTS IS
THE PRIMARY OBJECT OF THE STATUTE, WILL HAVE BEEN PAID AND, AS IS
RIGHT, REIMBURSEMENT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS WILL AWAIT POSSIBLE
REALIZATION UPON ASSETS WHICH THE COMPTROLLER BELIEVES INSUFFICIENT TO
SATISFY THE CREDITORS. 

THE DECREES ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
DISMISS THE BILLS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  R.S. SEC. 5151; ACT OF DEC. 23, 1913, C. 6, SEC. 23, 38 STAT.
273, U.S.C. TIT. 12, SECS. 63 AND 64. 

FN2  THE BILL IN NO. 124 ALLEGES THAT ON THE SAME DAY READING'S
ASSETS EXCEEDED IN VALUE ITS LIABILITIES OF APPROXIMATELY $9,000,000. 

FN3  88 F.(2D) 936. 

FN4  SEE U.S.C. TIT. 12, SEC. 33. 

FN5  COMPARE CITY NATIONAL BANK V. FULLER, 52 F.(2D) 870; WANNAMAKER
V. EDISTO NATIONAL BANK, 62 F.(2D) 696, 699; B.V. EMERY & CO. V.
WILKINSON, 72 F.(2D) 10, 12. 

FN6  C. 106, 13 STAT. 99. 

FN7  KENNEDY V. GIBSON, 8 WALL.  498, 505; CASEY V. GALLI, 94 U.S.
673, 681; BUSHNELL V. LELAND, 164 U.S. 684. 

FN8  LIBERTY NATIONAL BANK V. MCINTOSH, 16 F.(2D) 906; WANNAMAKER V.
EDISTO NATIONAL BANK, SUPRA; MEEKER V. BAXTER, 83 F.(2D) 183; DAVIS
TRUST CO. V. HARDEE, 85 F.(2D) 571; ACKER V. HAMILTON, 85 F.(2D) 574;
BARBOUR V. THOMAS, 86 F.(2D) 510; CHURCH V. HUBBARD, 91 F.(2D) 406. 

FN9  SEE, E.G., DEWEESE V. SMITH, 106 FED. 438, 445; B.V. EMERY & CO.
V. WILKINSON, 72 F.(2D) 10, 12; TRUSTEES V. PICHER, 90 F.(2D) 741, 743;
UNITED STATES NAT. BANK V. POLE, 2 F.SUPP.  153, 157; ANGENY V. KEUPER,
16 F.SUPP.  542, 543. 

FN10  O'CONNER V. WATSON, 81 F.(2D) 833, 836; MEEKER V. BAXTER, 83
F.(2D) 183, 186; DAVIS TRUST CO. V. HARDEE, 85 F.(2D) 571, 573; DUNN V.
O'CONNOR, 89 F.(2D) 820, 827. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :














LINCOLN CO. V. STEWART-WARNER CORP., 303 U.S. 545 


NO. 608.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 91 F.2D
757, REVERSED. 


1.  PATENT NO. 1,593,791, JULY 27, 1926, TO BUTLER, FOR THE
COMBINATION OF A HEADED NIPPLE, FOR RECEIVING LUBRICANT, A GREASE PUMP
AND A COUPLER HAVING A MULTI-JAWED CHUCK WHICH IS CLOSED OVER THE HEAD
OF THE NIPPLE BY THE PRESSURE OF THE GREASE ACTING ON A PISTON WITHIN
THE TUBE OF THE COUPLER, - HELD VOID AS CLAIMING MORE THAN THE
APPLICANT INVENTED.  P. 548. 

ASSUMING THAT THE COUPLER EMBRACED A PATENTABLE IMPROVEMENT IN THE
RESPECT THAT THE JAWS OF THE CHUCK ARE ACTUATED BY THE GREASE PRESSURE,
THE CHUCK FORM OF COUPLING AS WELL AS THE HEADED NIPPLE AND GREASE PUMP
ARE OLD IN THE ART AND PERFORM NO NEW FUNCTIONS IN THIS COMBINATION. 

2.  THE IMPROVEMENT OF ONE PART OF AN OLD COMBINATION GIVES NO RIGHT
TO CLAIM THAT IMPROVEMENT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER OLD PARTS WHICH
PERFORM NO NEW FUNCTION IN THE COMBINATION.  ROGERS V. ALEMITE CORP.,
298 U.S. 415.  P. 549. 

LINCOLN ENGINEERING CO. V. STEWARTWARNER CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 682, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE, 15
F.SUPP.  571; 16 ID. 778, HOLDING THE PRESENT PETITIONER GUILTY OF
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT IN SELLING HEADED FITTINGS OR NIPPLES FOR
LUBRICATION SUCH AS ARE DESCRIBED IN THE RESPONDENT'S PATENT AND WHICH
ARE USABLE, AND INTENDED TO BE USED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE GREASE GUN
AND COUPLER OF THE PATENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT  FN1  AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  FN2  HAVE
HELD THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT OF THE BUTLER
PATENT NO. 1,593,791.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF ALLEGED
CONFLICT WITH OUR DECISION IN ROGERS V. ALEMITE CORPORATION, REPORTED
WITH BASSICK MANUFACTURING CO. V. HOLLINGSHEAD CO., 298 U.S. 415.  LIKE
THAT IN THE ROGERS CASE, THE PATENT IN SUIT HAS TO DO WITH APPARATUS
FOR LUBRICATING BEARINGS, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF AUTOMOBILES, BY THE USE
OF A NIPPLE OR FITTING CONNECTED WITH THE BEARING, A GUN CONSISTING OF
A COMPRESSOR OR PUMP FOR PROPELLING THE LUBRICANT UNDER HIGH PRESSURE,
A HOSE OR CONDUIT TO CONNECT THE PUMP WITH THE FITTING, AND A MEANS OF
COUPLING THE CONDUIT TO THE FITTING TO MAKE A TIGHT JOINT DURING THE
OPERATION OF GREASING.  BOTH RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER MARKET APPARATUS
FOR PRESSURE LUBRICATION, INCLUDING FITTINGS AND GUNS.  THE CHARGE IS
THAT THE PETITIONER SELLS FITTINGS SUCH AS ARE DESCRIBED IN THE
RESPONDENT'S PATENT WHICH ARE USABLE, AND INTENDED TO BE USED, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE GUN AND COUPLER OF THE PATENT. 

WHAT WAS SAID IN OUR EARLIER DECISION IN RESPECT OF THE PRIOR ART
NEED NOT BE REPEATED.  BUTLER'S ALLEGED INVENTION IS IN THE SAME FIELD
AND DEALS WITH SIMILAR APPARATUS AS DID GULLBORG'S PATENT, CONSIDERED
IN THE ROGERS CASE.  AS THERE SHOWN, IT WAS OLD PRACTICE IN THE
LUBRICATION OF BEARINGS TO USE IN COMBINATION A FITTING CONNECTED WITH
THE BEARING THROUGH WHICH OIL OR GREASE WAS TO BE PROPELLED INTO THE
BEARING, AND A GUN, WHICH WAS JOINED TO THE FITTING BY A COUPLER.  IN
THE GREASING OPERATION THE COUPLER IS FASTENED TO THE HEAD OF THE
FITTING AND THE PUMP IS OPERATED TO DRIVE THE LUBRICANT THROUGH THE
FITTING TO THE BEARING.  NOT ONLY WAS THIS COMBINATION OLD BUT THE
ELEMENTS LONG USED IN THE ART VARIED IN DESIGN AND DIMENSION.  FITTINGS
WERE OF DIFFERENT SIZES AND SHAPES AND HAD DIVERSE ARRANGEMENTS FOR
THEIR CLOSURE WHEN NOT IN ACTUAL USE FOR THE INJECTION OF LUBRICANT. 
GUNS WERE OF MANY SIZES AND TYPES.  VARIOUS FORMS OF COUPLER HAD BEEN
USED FOR SEALING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PUMP HOSE AND THE FITTING. 
IN THE ROGERS CASE IT APPEARED THAT FITTINGS WITH LUGS OR PINS TO BE
ENGAGED BY THE COUPLER WERE OLD BUT THAT GULLBORG HAD OBTAINED A PATENT
FOR A NEW FORM OF PIN FITTING THE NOVEL FEATURE OF WHICH WAS MEANS OF
AUTOMATIC CLOSURE AND OPENING FOR ADMITTANCE OF THE GREASE IN
CONNECTION WITH A PIN WHICH PASSED THROUGH THE BORE OF THE FITTING. 
THIS WAS NOT THE PATENT THERE IN SUIT.  GULLBORG ALSO OBTAINED A PATENT
IN WHICH THE NOVEL FEATURE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS WAS A BAYONET-SLOTTED
COUPLER SO DESIGNED AS TO COOPERATE WITH A PIN FITTING (INCLUDING ONE
OF THE TYPE COVERED BY HIS OTHER PATENT), TO PERMIT THE BUILDING UP OF
VERY HIGH PRESSURE AND, BY ITS OPERATION UPON DISENGAGEMENT, TO OBVIATE
EXUDATION OF GREASE ABOUT THE HEAD OF THE FITTING.  IN OTHER CLAIMS
GULLBORG CLAIMED A COMBINATION OF A PIN FITTING, OF THE TYPE COVERED BY
HIS FITTING PATENT, A PUMP, A DISCHARGE CONDUIT SECURED TO THE PUMP,
AND A HOLLOW COUPLING MEMBER OF ANY TYPE (WHETHER OLD AND UNPATENTED OR
OF THE IMPROVED CONSTRUCTION DISCLOSED IN THE PATENT) FOR RECEIVING THE
CLOSED END OF THE FITTING.  IN THE ROGERS CASE THE OWNER OF THE PATENT
ASSERTED THE SALE OF ANY GREASE GUN FOR USE WITH THE PATENTED PIN
FITTING OF GULLBORG, OR THE SALE OF ANY PIN FITTING, WHETHER OF THE
GULLBORG TYPE OR OF AN OLD TYPE, SUSCEPTIBLE OF USE WITH THE IMPROVED
GULLBORG COUPLER, CONSTITUTED CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENT. 
WE HELD THAT AS THE COMBINATION OF PUMP, CONNECTING CONDUIT, COUPLER,
AND FITTING WAS OLD, GULLBORG COULD NOT, BY INVENTING A NEW AND
IMPROVED TYPE OF COUPLER OR FITTING CLAIM EITHER OF THESE IN
COMBINATION WITH THE OLD FORMS OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS SO AS TO EXCLUDE
THE PUBLIC FROM THE USE AND SALE OF THE OLD FORMS OF FITTINGS OR GREASE
GUNS EVEN THOUGH THESE MIGHT BE USED RESPECTIVELY WITH GULLBORG'S
IMPROVED COUPLER OR HIS IMPROVED PIN FITTINGS, BECAUSE, IN THE
COMBINATIONS CLAIMED, AN OLD-TYPE PIN FITTING, OR AN OLD-TYPE COUPLER
HAD NO NOVEL FUNCTION OVER THOSE OF THE PRIOR ART. WE SAID THAT IF
GULLBORG HAD INVENTED ANYTHING HE HAD INVENTED AN IMPROVED PIN FITTING
AND AN IMPROVED COUPLER AND THAT TO ALLOW HIM TO CLAIM EITHER IN
COMBINATION WITH OLD ELEMENTS WHICH PERFORMED NO NEW FUNCTION, WOULD BE
TO PERMIT HIM TO EXTEND THE MONOPOLY OF HIS INVENTION TO THOSE OLD AND
WELL KNOWN DEVICES. 

WITH THIS BACKGROUND WE TURN TO THE PATENT IN SUIT.  LIKE THAT OF
GULLBORG, THE CLAIM IS FOR A COMBINATION.  IT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"2.  THE COMBINATION WITH A HEADED NIPPLE FOR RECEIVING LUBRICANT, OF
A LUBRICANT COMPRESSOR HAVING A COUPLING MEMBER FOR CONNECTING SAID
COMPRESSOR AND NIPPLE COMPRISING A CYLINDER, A PISTON MOVABLE WITHIN
THE CYLINDER, AND HAVING AN APERTURE FOR THE DISCHARGE OF LUBRICANT
THEREOF, AN APERTURED SEALING SEAT CARRIED BY SAID PISTON FOR
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE END OF THE NIPPLE, CONNECTING THE PISTON APERTURE
WITH A PASSAGE THROUGH THE NIPPLE, RADIALLY MOVABLE LOCKING ELEMENTS
CARRIED BY THE CYLINDER COACTING WITH THE NIPPLE AND ACTUATED BY SAID
PISTON FOR COMPRESSIVELY CLUTCHING THE ELEMENTS UPON THE NIPPLE WHEREBY
THE PRESSURE OF THE LUBRICANT ON SAID PISTON WILL MOVE THE PISTON TO
FORCIBLY COMPRESS SAID ELEMENTS WHILE THE LUBRICANT IS PASSING THROUGH
SAID CONNECTING PARTS." 

IN ITS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, AND IN ARGUMENT UPON THE MERITS, THE
PETITIONER INSISTED THAT THE RESPONDENT'S COMMERCIAL FORM OF COUPLER
WAS NOT THAT OF THE BUTLER PATENT; THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT HAD SO HELD,  FN3  AND THAT THE COURTS BELOW
ERRED IN NOT REACHING A SIMILAR CONCLUSION.  IN VIEW OF THE GROUNDS OF
OUR DECISION WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THIS QUESTION. 

THE PETITIONER'S PRINCIPAL CONTENTION IS THAT OUR DECISION IN THE
ROGERS CASE IS CONTROLLING.  FN4  WE SO HOLD.  AS HAS BEEN SAID, THE
COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS DISCLOSED IS OLD IN THE ART. AS THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HELD, A HEADED NIPPLE OR FITTING CONNECTED WITH THE
BEARING, AND TO BE COUPLED TO THE CONDUIT FROM THE GREASE GUN, IS OLD
AND UNPATENTABLE.  A COMPRESSOR OR PUMP FOR PROPELLING LUBRICANT IS OLD
AND UNPATENTABLE AS SUCH.  THE INVENTION, IF ANY, WHICH BUTLER MADE WAS
AN IMPROVEMENT IN WHAT HE STYLES IN HIS SPECIFICATIONS THE "CHUCK" AND
IN HIS CLAIM A "COUPLING MEMBER."  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT MULTI-JAWED
CHUCKS HAD BEEN USED IN INDUSTRY AND AS COUPLERS IN LUBRICATING
APPARATUS.  BUTLER MAY HAVE DEVISED A PATENTABLE IMPROVEMENT IN SUCH A
CHUCK IN THE RESPECT THAT THE MULTIPLE JAWS IN HIS DEVICE ARE CLOSED
OVER THE NIPPLE BY THE PRESSURE OF THE GREASE, BUT WE THINK HE DID NO
MORE THAN THIS.  AS WE SAID OF GULLBORG IN THE ROGERS CASE, HAVING HIT
UPON THIS IMPROVEMENT HE DID NOT PATENT IT AS SUCH BUT ATTEMPTED TO
CLAIM IT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER OLD ELEMENTS WHICH PERFORMED NO NEW
FUNCTION IN HIS CLAIMED COMBINATION.  THE PATENT IS THEREFORE VOID AS
CLAIMING MORE THAN THE APPLICANT INVENTED.  THE MERE AGGREGATION OF A
NUMBER OF OLD PARTS OR ELEMENTS WHICH, IN THE AGGREGATION, PERFORM OR
PRODUCE NO NEW OR DIFFERENT FUNCTION OR OPERATION THAN THAT THERETOFORE
PERFORMED OR PRODUCED BY THEM, IS NOT PATENTABLE INVENTION.  FN5  AND
THE IMPROVEMENT OF ONE PART OF AN OLD COMBINATION GIVES NO RIGHT TO
CLAIM THAT IMPROVEMENT IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER OLD PARTS WHICH
PERFORM NO NEW FUNCTION IN THE COMBINATION.  FN6  THOUGH THE RESPONDENT
SO CONCEDES, IT URGES THAT, IN THE COMBINATION OF THE BUTLER PATENT,
THE HEADED NIPPLE PERFORMS A NEW AND DIFFERENT FUNCTION FROM THAT WHICH
IT HAS HERETOFORE PERFORMED, IN OTHER COMBINATIONS, IN THAT, WHEN THE
COUPLER IS WITHDRAWN FROM THE NIPPLE, AT THE END OF THE GREASING
OPERATION, THE ROUNDED HEAD OF THE NIPPLE "COCKS" THE JAWS OF THE
COUPLER FOR THE NEXT OPERATION.  THE SUGGESTION SEEMS TO BE AN
AFTERTHOUGHT.  NO SUCH FUNCTION OF THE NIPPLE IS HINTED AT IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PATENT.  IF THIS WERE SO VITAL AN ELEMENT IN THE
FUNCTIONING OF THE APPARATUS IT IS STRANGE THAT ALL MENTION OF IT WAS
OMITTED.  FN7 MOREOVER, THE ARGUMENT IS UNSOUND SINCE THE OLD ART
INCLUDES INSTANCES WHERE THE HEAD OF A NIPPLE OR FITTING PERFORMS A
SIMILAR FUNCTION WHEN THE CHUCK IS DISENGAGED FROM IT.  THE SAME
ARGUMENT WAS UNAVAILING IN THE ROGERS CASE.  IT WAS THERE CONTENDED
THAT THE PIN FITTING OF THE GULLBORG PATENT PERFORMED A NEW FUNCTION IN
CAUSING THE BENEFICIAL OPERATION OF THE COUPLER AT THE MOMENT OF
DISENGAGEMENT.  WE COMMENTED UPON THE MATTER THUS:  "THE DESIGN OF THE
BAYONET SLOTS IS SUCH THAT, IN UNCOUPLING, THE COUPLING MEMBER OF THE
GUN WILL AT FIRST BE MOVED SLIGHTLY FORWARD ON THE PIN FITTING THUS
BACKING UP THE PERFORATED WASHER IN THE BORE OF THE COUPLER."  BUT
THERE, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT WAS THE PECULIAR AND IMPROVED
MECHANISM OF THE COUPLER WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT THE RESULT AND NOT THE
FORM OF THE FITTING.  WE SUPPOSE THAT A HEADED NIPPLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN
SO HEADED IN ORDER THAT THE JAWS OF THE CHUCK MAY SLIP OVER THE HEAD IN
THE COUPLING AND UNCOUPLING OPERATION.  THE WEAKNESS OF THE
RESPONDENT'S POSITION IS WELL ILLUSTRATED BY WHAT DEVELOPED AT
ARGUMENT.  WHEN INTERROGATED AS TO HOW IN THE CLAIMED COMBINATION THE
FUNCTION OF THE NIPPLE COULD BE THOUGHT NOVEL IN ANY DIFFERENT SENSE
THAN THE FUNCTION OF THE PUMP, COUNSEL REPLIED THAT THE PUMP PERFORMED
A NOVEL FUNCTION BECAUSE THE PRESSURE IT GENERATED FORCED FORWARD THE
PISTON IN THE COUPLER AND CAUSED THE MOVABLE JAWS TO ENGAGE THE
FITTING.  IF THIS ARGUMENT IS SOUND, THE RESPONDENT MAY CONVICT EVERY
ONE WHO SELLS A GREASE PUMP OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT.  THE ANSWER
IS THE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF THE HEADED NIPPLE.  THE FUNCTION OF A
PUMP HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO FORCE A FLUID OR A GREASE THROUGH A CONDUIT. 
THE FACT THAT THIS FUNCTION OF THE PUMP IS UTILIZED IN BUTLER'S
IMPROVED FORM OF COUPLER NOT ONLY TO CONVEY THE LUBRICANT TO THE
BEARING BUT TO OPERATE THE JAWS OF THE CHUCK DOES NOT ALTER THE
FUNCTION OF THE PUMP.  THE INVENTION, IF ANY, LIES IN THE IMPROVEMENT
IN THE COUPLING DEVICE ALONE. 

THE COURTS BELOW AND THE RESPONDENT RELY UPON LEEDS & CATLIN CO. V.
VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO., 213 U.S. 301, 325.  IN THE ROGERS CASE WE
HELD THAT AUTHORITY NOT CONTROLLING.  BERLINER DISCLOSED AN ENTIRELY
NOVEL PRINCIPLE; HE UTILIZED THE FLAT DISC HAVING A SMOOTH BOTTOMED
GROOVE WITH SPIRAL WAVES IN ITS SIDES NOT ONLY TO AGITATE THE NEEDLE
CONNECTED TO THE DIAPHRAGM, BUT, IN COMBINATION WITH A SWINGING ARM, TO
PROPEL THE NEEDLE LENGTHWISE THE GROOVE.  IN HIS COMBINATION, THE DISC
NOT ONLY PERFORMED A NEW FUNCTION BUT PERFORMED IT IN COMBINATION WITH
ANOTHER NEW ELEMENT,  - THE SWINGING ARM WHICH CARRIED THE NEEDLE. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT BUTLER'S EFFORT, BY THE USE OF A COMBINATION CLAIM,
TO EXTEND THE MONOPOLY OF HIS INVENTION OF AN IMPROVED FORM OF CHUCK OR
COUPLER TO OLD PARTS OR ELEMENTS HAVING NO NEW FUNCTION WHEN OPERATED
IN CONNECTION WITH THE COUPLER RENDERS THE CLAIM VOID.  DECREE
REVERSED. 

FN1  15 F.SUPP.  571; 16 F.SUPP.  778. 

FN2  91 F.(2D) 757. 

FN3  STEWART-WARNER CORP. V. JIFFY LUBRICATOR CO., 81 F.(2D) 786. 

FN4  THE DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HAS SO HELD:
STEWART-WARNER CORP. V. ROGERS, 15 F.SUPP.  410; AND SEE JACQUES V.
UNIVERSAL LUBRICATING SYSTEMS, 22 F.SUPP.  458. 

FN5  PICKERING V. MCCULLOUGH, 104 U.S. 310; BURT V. EVORY, 133 U.S.
349; BRINKERHOFF V. ALOE, 146 U.S. 515; OFFICE SPECIALTY MFG. CO. V.
FENTON METALLIC MFG. CO., 174 U.S. 492. 

FN6  HEALD V. RICE, 104 U.S. 737, 754; UNDERWOOD V. GERBER, 149 U.S.
224, 227, 229; DEERING V. WINONA HARVESTER WORKS, 155 U.S. 286, 302;
PERRY V. CO-OPERATIVE FOUNDRY CO., 12 FED. 436, 438; YALE LOCK MFG. CO.
V. BERKSHIRE NAT. BANK, 17 FED. 531, 532, 535; TROY LAUNDRY MACHINERY
CO. V. BUNNELL, 27 FED. 810, 813; GATES IRON-WORKS V. FRASER, 42 FED.
49, AFFIRMED 153 U.S. 332; ABBOTT MACHINE CO. V. BONN, 51 FED. 223,
226; IN RE MCNEILL, 20 APP. D.C. 294; IN RE RATICAN, 36 APP. D.C. 95;
KURSHEEDT MFG. CO. V. NADAY, 103 FED. 948; LANGAN V. WARREN AXE & TOOL
CO., 184 FED. 720, 721; IN RE BLISS, 39 APP. D.C. 453; ROBINSON V.
TUBULAR WOVEN FABRIC CO., 248 FED. 526, 542; TROY WAGON WORKS CO. V.
OHIO TRAILER CO., 274 FED. 612, 621; GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. OHIO BRASS
CO., 277 FED. 917, 924; RADIO CORPORATION V. LORD, 28 F.(2D) 257, 260;
SCHILLER V. ROBERTSON, 28 F.(2D) 301, 305; FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO. V.
HIGHWAY TRAILER CO., 54 F.(2D) 691, 709; IN RE GERMANTOWN TRUST CO., 57
F.(2D) 365, 366; MCGRATH HOLDING CORP. V. ANZELL, 58 F.(2D) 205; KODEL
ELECTRIC CO. V. WARREN CLOCK CO., 62 F.(2D) 692, 695; ALEMITE CORP. V.
LUBRAIR CORP., 62 F.(2D) 898, 900; IN RE REED, 76 F.(2D) 907, 909. 
FN7  UNION EDGE SETTER CO. V. KEITH, 139 U.S. 530, 539; BALL & SOCKET
FASTENER CO. V. KRAETZER, 150 U.S. 111, 116; MACCOLL V. KNOWLES LOOM
WORKS, 95 FED. 982; KURSHEEDT MFG. CO. V. NADAY, 103 FED. 948, 950. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :







NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. GROCERY CO., 303 U.S. 552 


NO. 511.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 3, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
510, REVERSED. 


AN ASSOCIATION OF NEGROES, ORGANIZED FOR THE MUTUAL IMPROVEMENT OF ITS
MEMBERS AND THE PROMOTION OF CIVIC, EDUCATIONAL, BENEVOLENT, AND
CHARITABLE ENTERPRISES, REQUESTED A GROCERY COMPANY TO ADOPT A POLICY
OF EMPLOYING NEGRO CLERKS, IN THE COURSE OF PERSONNEL CHANGES, IN
CERTAIN STORES OF THE COMPANY PATRONIZED LARGELY BY COLORED PEOPLE BUT
IN WHICH NO COLORED CLERKS WERE EMPLOYED.  THE REQUEST WAS IGNORED;
WHEREUPON THE ORGANIZATION CAUSED A PICKET, BEARING A PLACARD READING
"DO YOUR PART.  BUY WHERE YOU CAN WORK.  NO NEGROES EMPLOYED HERE."  TO
PATROL IN FRONT OF ONE OF THE STORES, ON ONE DAY, AND CAUSED, OR
THREATENED TO CAUSE, A SIMILAR PATROL OF TWO OTHER STORES.  HELD: 

1.  THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT OF MAR. 23, 1932, SEC. 13; 29
U.S.C., SEC. 113 - THE "NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT" - THERE WAS A "LABOR
DISPUTE" IN WHICH THE NEGRO ORGANIZATION AND ITS OFFICERS WERE "PERSONS
INTERESTED."  P. 559. 

THE FACT THAT THE DISPUTE WAS "RACIAL," IN THAT IT GREW FROM RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION, DOES NOT REMOVE THE CASE FROM THE SCOPE OF THE ACT. 

2.  UNDER SECS. 4 AND 7 OF THE ACT, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION IN THE PREMISES, AGAINST THE NEGRO
ORGANIZATION AND ITS OFFICERS AT THE SUIT OF THE GROCERY COMPANY.  P.
561. 

NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE V. SANITARY GROCERY CO.* 

*THE OPINION HEREIN IS REPORTED AS AMENDED BY ORDER OF APRIL 25,
1938, SEE 304 U.S. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 679, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
ENJOINING THE PRESENT PETITIONER FROM PICKETING, BOYCOTTING, ETC. THE
STORES OF THE RESPONDENT.  THE CASE WAS DECIDED BELOW ON BILL AND
ANSWER. 

THE COURT BELOW PROPERLY HELD THAT THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY HEREIN
WAS NOT COMPREHENDED BY THE LABOR DISPUTES ACT OF MARCH 23, 1932, GREEN
V. SAMUELSON, 168 MD. 421; BECK-HAZARD SHOE CORP. V. JOHNSON, 274 N.Y.
SUPP. 946. 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE MUST EXIST, OR A DISPUTE
MUST GROW OUT OF THAT RELATIONSHIP, BEFORE THE LABOR DISPUTES ACT HAS
APPLICATION.  UNITED ELECTRIC COAL COMPANIES V. RICE, 80 F.2D 1; KEITH
THEATRE V. VACHON, 187 A. 692. 

PETITIONERS, HAVING ADMITTED THE ACT OF PICKETING THE STORES OF THE
RESPONDENT, WERE PROPERLY ENJOINED BY THE TRIAL COURT.  JONAS GLASS CO.
V. GLASS BOTTLE BLOWER'S ASSN., 72 N.J. EQ. 653; PIERCE V. STABLEMEN'S
UNION, 165 CAL. 70; AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES
COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184; ELKIND & SONS V. RETAIL CLERKS I. PROTECTIVE
ASSN., 169 A. 494; TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312; BECK V. TEAMSTERS'
PROTECTIVE UNION, 118 MICH. 520. 

THE PROPOSITION IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT A COMBINATION LOOKING
TOWARDS THE DOMINATION OR RUINATION OF THE BUSINESS OF ANOTHER BY
FRAUD, VIOLENCE OR COERCION IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNLAWFUL.  WAITRESSES
UNION V. BENISH RESTAURANT CO., 6 F.2D 568; KINLOCH TELEPHONE CO. V.
LOCAL UNION NO. 2, 275 F. 241; QUINLIVAN V. DAIL-OVERLAND CO., 274 F.
56. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY IS WHETHER THE CASE MADE BY THE PLEADINGS
INVOLVES OR GROWS OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 13
OF THE NORRIS-LA GUARDIA ACT.  FN1 

THE RESPONDENT, BY BILL FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR
AGENTS FROM PICKETING ITS STORES AND ENGAGING IN OTHER ACTIVITIES
INJURIOUS TO ITS BUSINESS.  THE PETITIONERS ANSWERED, THE CAUSE WAS
HEARD UPON BILL AND ANSWER, AND AN INJUNCTION WAS AWARDED.  THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFFIRMED THE
DECREE.  FN2  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED AND ASSERTED
CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THIS AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS MOVED US
TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

AS THE CASE WAS HEARD UPON THE BILL AND A VERIFIED ANSWER THE FACTS
UPON WHICH DECISION MUST REST ARE THOSE SET FORTH IN THE BILL AND
ADMITTED OR NOT DENIED BY THE ANSWER AND THOSE AFFIRMATIVELY SET UP IN
THE ANSWER. 

THE FOLLOWING FACTS ALLEGED IN THE BILL ARE ADMITTED BY THE ANSWER. 
RESPONDENT, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, OPERATES 255 RETAIL GROCERY, MEAT,
AND VEGETABLE STORES, A WAREHOUSE AND A BAKERY IN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AND EMPLOYS BOTH WHITE AND COLORED PERSONS.  APRIL 3, 1936, IT
OPENED A NEW STORE AT 1936 ELEVENTH STREET, N.W., INSTALLING PERSONNEL
HAVING AN ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE TRADE IN THE VICINITY.  PETITIONER, THE
NEW NEGRO ALLIANCE, IS A CORPORATION COMPOSED OF COLORED PERSONS,
ORGANIZED FOR THE MUTUAL IMPROVEMENT OF ITS MEMBERS AND THE PROMOTION
OF CIVIC, EDUCATIONAL, BENEVOLENT, AND CHARITABLE ENTERPRISES.  THE
INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS ARE OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION.  THE RELATION
OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYES DOES NOT EXIST BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND THE
PETITIONERS OR ANY OF THEM.  THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENGAGED IN ANY
BUSINESS COMPETITIVE WITH THAT OF THE RESPONDENT, AND THE OFFICERS,
MEMBERS, OR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ALLIANCE ARE NOT ENGAGED IN THE SAME
BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION AS THE RESPONDENT OR ITS EMPLOYES. 

AS TO OTHER MATTERS OF FACT, THE STATE OF THE PLEADINGS MAY BE
BRIEFLY SUMMARIZED.  THE BILL ASSERTS:  THE PETITIONERS HAVE MADE
ARBITRARY AND SUMMARY DEMANDS UPON THE RESPONDENT THAT IT ENGAGE AND
EMPLOY COLORED PERSONS IN MANAGERIAL AND SALES POSITIONS IN THE NEW
STORE AND IN VARIOUS OTHER STORES; IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE CONDUCT OF
THE BUSINESS THAT RESPONDENT EMPLOY EXPERIENCED PERSONS IN ITS STORES
AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARBITRARY DEMANDS OF DEFENDANTS WOULD INVOLVE
THE DISCHARGE OF WHITE EMPLOYES AND THEIR REPLACEMENT WITH COLORED; IT
IS IMPERATIVE THAT RESPONDENT BE FREE IN THE SELECTION AND CONTROL OF
PERSONS EMPLOYED BY IT WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY THE PETITIONERS OR
OTHERS; PETITIONERS HAVE WRITTEN RESPONDENT LETTERS THREATENING BOYCOTT
AND RUINATION OF ITS BUSINESS AND NOTICES THAT BY MEANS OF
ANNOUNCEMENTS, MEETINGS AND ADVERTISING THE PETITIONERS WILL CIRCULATE
STATEMENTS THAT RESPONDENT IS UNFAIR TO COLORED PEOPLE AND TO THE
COLORED RACE AND, CONTRARY TO FACT, THAT RESPONDENT DOES NOT EMPLOY
COLORED PERSONS; RESPONDENT HAS NOT ACCEDED TO THESE DEMANDS.  THE
ANSWER ADMITS THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT ACCEDED TO THE PETITIONERS'
DEMANDS, BUT DENIES THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS AND STATES THAT THE ALLIANCE
AND ITS AGENTS HAVE REQUESTED ONLY THAT RESPONDENT, IN THE REGULAR
COURSE OF PERSONNEL CHANGES IN ITS RETAIL STORES, GIVE EMPLOYMENT TO
NEGROES AS CLERKS, PARTICULARLY IN STORES PATRONIZED LARGELY BY COLORED
PEOPLE; THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE NOT REQUESTED THE DISCHARGE OF WHITE
EMPLOYES NOR SOUGHT ACTION WHICH WOULD INVOLVE THEIR DISCHARGE.  IT
DENIES THE MAKING OF THE THREATS DESCRIBED AND ALLEGES THE ONLY
REPRESENTATIONS THREATENED BY THE ALLIANCE OR ITS AUTHORIZED AGENTS ARE
TRUE REPRESENTATIONS THAT NAMED STORES OF THE RESPONDENT DO NOT EMPLOY
NEGROES AS SALES PERSONS AND THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE THREATENED NO
MORE THAN THE USE OF LAWFUL AND PEACEABLE PERSUASION OF MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNITY TO WITHHOLD PATRONAGE FROM PARTICULAR STORES AFTER THE
RESPONDENT'S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE PETITIONER'S REQUESTS THAT IT ADOPT
A POLICY OF EMPLOYING NEGRO CLERKS IN SUCH STORES IN THE REGULAR COURSE
OF PERSONNEL CHANGES. 

THE BILL FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES "HAVE UNLAWFULLY CONSPIRED WITH EACH OTHER TO PICKET,
PATROL, BOYCOTT, AND RUIN THE PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS IN SAID STORES, AND
PARTICULARLY IN THE STORE LOCATED AT 1936 ELEVENTH STREET, NORTHWEST"
AND, "IN AN EFFORT TO FULFILL THEIR THREATS OF COERCION AND
INTIMIDATION, ACTUALLY HAVE CAUSED THE SAID STORE TO BE PICKETED OR
PATROLLED DURING HOURS OF BUSINESS OF THE PLAINTIFF, BY THEIR MEMBERS,
REPRESENTATIVES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS, AND EMPLOYEES"; THE
PICKETS CARRYING LARGE PLACARDS CHARGING RESPONDENT WITH BEING UNFAIR
TO NEGROES AND READING:  "DO YOUR PART.  BUY WHERE YOU CAN WORK.  NO
NEGROES EMPLOYED HERE."  FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING AND COERCING
PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS FROM ENTERING THE RESPONDENT'S STORE UNTIL THE
RESPONDENT ACCEDES TO THE PETITIONERS' DEMANDS.  "SAID DEFENDANTS,
THEIR PICKETS OR PATROLS OR SOME OF THEM HAVE JOSTLED AND COLLIDED WITH
PERSONS IN FRONT OF THE SAID STORE AND HAVE PHYSICALLY HINDERED,
OBSTRUCTED, INTERFERED WITH, DELAYED, MOLESTED, AND HARASSED PERSONS
DESIRING TO ENTER THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION;
SAID PICKETS, OR SOME OF THEM, HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DISSUADE AND PREVENT
PERSONS FROM ENTERING PLAINTIFF'S PLACE OF BUSINESS; SAID DEFENDANTS,
THEIR PICKETS OR PATROLS ARE DISORDERLY WHILE PICKETING OR PATROLLING,
AND ATTRACT CROWDS TO GATHER IN FRONT OF SAID STORE, AND ENCOURAGE THE
CROWDS OR MEMBERS THEREOF TO BECOME DISORDERLY, AND TO HARASS, AND
OTHERWISE ANNOY, INTERFERE WITH AND ATTEMPT TO DISSUADE, AND TO PREVENT
PERSONS FROM ENTERING THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE
DISORDER THEREBY PREVENTING THE PROPER CONDUCT OF AND OPERATION OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS.  DEFENDANTS HAVE THREATENED TO USE SIMILAR
TACTICS OF PICKETING AND PATROLLING AS AFORESAID IN FRONT OF THE
SEVERAL OTHER STORES OF THE PLAINTIFF."  FOUR PHOTOGRAPHS ALLEGED TO
PORTRAY THE PICKETING ARE ANNEXED AS EXHIBITS TO THE BILL.  ONE OF THEM
SHOWS A MAN CARRYING A SANDWICH PLACARD ON THE SIDEWALK AND NO ONE ELSE
WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE CAMERA.  IN ANOTHER, TWO CHILDREN ARE SEEN
BESIDE THE PICKET; IN ANOTHER, TWO ADULTS; IN THE FOURTH, ONE ADULT
ENTERING RESPONDENT'S STORE AT A DISTANCE FROM THE PICKET AND WITHOUT
APPARENT INTERFERENCE.  THE ANSWER DENIES ALL THESE ALLEGATIONS SAVE
THAT IT ADMITS THE PETITIONERS DID, DURING APRIL 4, 1936, AND AT NO
OTHER TIME, CAUSE THE STORE AT 1936 ELEVENTH STREET, N.W., TO BE
CONTINUOUSLY PICKETED BY A SINGLE PERSON CARRYING A PLACARD EXHIBITING
THE WORDS QUOTED BY THE BILL; AND THE PETITIONERS, PRIOR TO THE ACTS
COMPLAINED OF IN THE BILL, PICKETED, OR EXPRESSED THE INTENTION OF
PICKETING, TWO OTHER STORES.  IT ADMITS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS CORRECTLY
REPRESENT THE PICKETING OF APRIL 4, 1936.  THE ANSWER AVERS THE
INFORMATION CARRIED ON THE PLACARDS WAS TRUE, WAS NOT INTENDED TO, AND
DID NOT IN FACT, INTIMIDATE CUSTOMERS; THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL
OBSTRUCTION, INTERFERENCE OR HARASSMENT OF ANYONE DESIRING TO ENTER THE
STORE; THERE WAS NO DISORDERLY CONDUCT, AND THE PICKETING DID NOT CAUSE
OR ENCOURAGE CROWDS TO GATHER IN FRONT OF THE STORE. 

THE BILL STATES:  "AS EVIDENCE OF THE WIDESPREAD AND CONCERTED ACTION
PLANNED BY THE DEFENDANTS HEREIN, THEY HAVE CAUSED TO BE PLACED OR HAVE
PERMITTED TO APPEAR IN THE WASHINGTON TRIBUNE  ... THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENTS  ..."  THERE FOLLOW QUOTATIONS FROM ARTICLES APPEARING IN
THE NEWSPAPER PURPORTING TO REPORT MEETINGS OF THE ALLIANCE AND
SPEECHES MADE THEREAT.  THERE IS NO STATEMENT THAT THE FACTS REPORTED
IN THE ARTICLES ARE TRUE.  THE ANSWER DENIES THAT ANY OF THE
PETITIONERS IS CONNECTED WITH OR EXERCISES ANY CONTROL OVER THE
WASHINGTON TRIBUNE OR CAUSED OR PERMITTED THAT NEWSPAPER TO PUBLISH ANY
ARTICLE OR NEWS ITEM WHATSOEVER OR IN ANY WAY ACTED IN CONCERT WITH THE
NEWSPAPER IN THOSE PUBLICATIONS. 

THE BILL ASSERTS THAT PETITIONERS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES,
OFFICERS, AND AGENTS, UNLAWFULLY CONSPIRED TO PICKET, BOYCOTT, AND RUIN
THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS IN ITS STORES, PARTICULARLY THE STORE AT 1936
ELEVENTH STREET.  THIS IS DENIED BY THE ANSWER. 

THE BILL SAYS THAT THE DESCRIBED CONDUCT OF PETITIONERS WILL CONTINUE
UNTIL RESPONDENT COMPLIES WITH PETITIONERS' DEMANDS; IS AND WILL
CONTINUE TO BE DANGEROUS TO THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF PERSONS ON THE
HIGHWAY, TO PROPERTY THEREON, AND TO RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYES, ITS
PROPERTY, AND BUSINESS AND WILL CAUSE RESPONDENT IRREPARABLE INJURY;
THE PETITIONERS' ACTS ARE UNLAWFUL, CONSTITUTE A CONSPIRACY IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE, AND, IF CONTINUED, WILL RUIN THE RESPONDENT'S
BUSINESS.  THE ANSWER DENIES THESE ALLEGATIONS SO FAR AS THEY
CONSTITUTE ASSERTIONS OF FACT. 

THE CASE, THEN, AS IT STOOD FOR JUDGMENT, WAS THIS:  THE PETITIONERS
REQUESTED THE RESPONDENT TO ADOPT A POLICY OF EMPLOYING NEGRO CLERKS IN
CERTAIN OF ITS STORES IN THE COURSE OF PERSONNEL CHANGES; THE
RESPONDENT IGNORED THE REQUEST AND THE PETITIONERS CAUSED ONE PERSON TO
PATROL IN FRONT OF ONE OF THE RESPONDENT'S STORES ON ONE DAY CARRYING A
PLACARD WHICH SAID:  "DO YOUR PART.  BUY WHERE YOU CAN WORK.  NO
NEGROES EMPLOYED HERE."  AND CAUSED OR THREATENED A SIMILAR PATROL OF
TWO OTHER STORES OF RESPONDENT.  THE INFORMATION BORNE BY THE PLACARD
WAS TRUE.  THE PATROLLING DID NOT COERCE OR INTIMIDATE RESPONDENT'S
CUSTOMERS; DID NOT PHYSICALLY OBSTRUCT, INTERFERE WITH, OR HARASS
PERSONS DESIRING TO ENTER THE STORE, THE PICKET ACTED IN AN ORDERLY
MANNER, AND HIS CONDUCT DID NOT CAUSE CROWDS TO GATHER IN FRONT OF THE
STORE. 

THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE LAWS RELATING TO LABOR
DISPUTES HAD NO APPLICATION TO THE CASE.  HE ENTERED A DECREE ENJOINING
THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR AGENTS AND EMPLOYES FROM PICKETING OR
PATROLLING ANY OF THE RESPONDENT'S STORES, BOYCOTTING OR URGING OTHERS
TO BOYCOTT RESPONDENT; RESTRAINING THEM, WHETHER BY INDUCEMENTS,
THREATS, INTIMIDATION OR ACTUAL OR THREATENED PHYSICAL FORCE FROM
HINDERING ANY PERSON ENTERING RESPONDENT'S PLACES OF BUSINESS, FROM
DESTROYING OR DAMAGING OR THREATENING TO DESTROY OR DAMAGE RESPONDENT'S
PROPERTY AND FROM AIDING OR ABETTING OTHERS IN DOING ANY OF THE
PROHIBITED THINGS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS THOUGHT THAT THE DISPUTE WAS
NOT A LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT BECAUSE IT DID NOT
INVOLVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT SUCH AS WAGES, HOURS,
UNIONIZATION OR BETTERMENT OF WORKING CONDITIONS, AND THAT THE TRIAL
COURT, THEREFORE, HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE INJUNCTION.  WE THINK
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DISPUTE WAS NOT A LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT, BECAUSE IT DID NOT INVOLVE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT IN THE SENSE OF WAGES, HOURS, UNIONIZATION OR BETTERMENT OF
WORKING CONDITIONS IS ERRONEOUS. 

SUBSECTION (A) OF SEC. 13 PROVIDES:  "A CASE SHALL BE HELD TO INVOLVE
OR TO GROW OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE WHEN THE CASE INVOLVES PERSONS WHO
ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME INDUSTRY, TRADE, CRAFT, OR OCCUPATION; OR HAVE
DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTERESTS THEREIN;...  OR WHEN THE CASE INVOLVES ANY
CONFLICTING OR COMPETING INTERESTS IN A 'LABOR DISPUTE' (AS HEREINAFTER
DEFINED) OF 'PERSONS PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED' THEREIN (AS
HEREINAFTER DEFINED)."  SUBSECTION (B) CHARACTERIZES A PERSON OR
ASSOCIATION AS PARTICIPATING OR INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE "IF
RELIEF IS SOUGHT AGAINST HIM OR IT AND IF HE OR IT  ...  HAS A DIRECT
OR INDIRECT INTEREST THEREIN,  ..."  SUBSECTION (C) DEFINES THE TERM
"LABOR DISPUTE" AS INCLUDING "ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING TERMS OR
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT,  ...  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE
DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE." 
THESE DEFINITIONS PLAINLY EMBRACE THE CONTROVERSY WHICH GAVE RISE TO
THE INSTANT SUIT AND CLASSIFY IT AS ONE ARISING OUT OF A DISPUTE
DEFINED AS A LABOR DISPUTE.  THEY LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE NEW NEGRO
ALLIANCE AND THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONERS ARE, IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE
ACT, PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE DISPUTE.  FN3    IN QUOTING THE CLAUSES
OF SEC. 13 WE HAVE OMITTED THOSE THAT DEAL WITH DISPUTES BETWEEN
EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYES AND DISPUTES BETWEEN ASSOCIATIONS OF PERSONS
ENGAGED IN A PARTICULAR TRADE OR CRAFT, AND EMPLOYERS IN THE SAME
INDUSTRY.  IT IS TO BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE INCLUSION IN THE
DEFINITIONS OF SUCH DISPUTES, AND THE PERSONS INTERESTED IN THEM,
SERVES TO EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT THE QUOTED PORTIONS WERE INTENDED TO
EMBRACE CONTROVERSIES OTHER THAN THOSE BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYES;
BETWEEN LABOR UNIONS SEEKING TO REPRESENT EMPLOYES AND EMPLOYERS; AND
BETWEEN PERSONS SEEKING EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYERS. 

THE ACT DOES NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH THE BACKGROUND OR THE MOTIVES OF
THE DISPUTE.  THE DESIRE FOR FAIR AND EQUITABLE CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT ON THE PART OF PERSONS OF ANY RACE, COLOR, OR PERSUASION,
AND THE REMOVAL OF DISCRIMINATIONS AGAINST THEM BY REASON OF THEIR RACE
OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IS QUITE AS IMPORTANT TO THOSE CONCERNED AS
FAIRNESS AND EQUITY IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT CAN BE TO
TRADE OR CRAFT UNIONS OR ANY FORM OF LABOR ORGANIZATION OR
ASSOCIATION.  RACE DISCRIMINATION BY AN EMPLOYER MAY REASONABLY BE
DEEMED MORE UNFAIR AND LESS EXCUSABLE THAN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
WORKERS ON THE GROUND OF UNION AFFILIATION.  THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION
IN THE APPARENT PURPOSES OR THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE ACT FOR LIMITING
ITS DEFINITION OF LABOR DISPUTES AND CASES ARISING THEREFROM BY
EXCLUDING THOSE WHICH ARISE WITH RESPECT TO DISCRIMINATION IN TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BASED UPON DIFFERENCES OF RACE OR COLOR. 

THE PURPOSE AND POLICY OF THE ACT RESPECTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
FEDERAL COURTS IS SET FORTH IN SECS. 4 AND 7.  THE FORMER DEPRIVES
THOSE COURTS OF JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST, INTER
ALIA, GIVING PUBLICITY TO THE EXISTENCE OF, OR THE FACTS INVOLVED IN,
ANY LABOR DISPUTE, WHETHER BY ADVERTISING, SPEAKING, PATROLLING, OR BY
ANY OTHER METHOD NOT INVOLVING FRAUD OR VIOLENCE; AGAINST ASSEMBLING
PEACEABLY TO ACT OR TO ORGANIZE TO ACT IN PROMOTION OF INTERESTS IN A
LABOR DISPUTE; AGAINST ADVISING OR NOTIFYING ANY PERSON OF AN INTENTION
TO DO ANY OF THE ACTS SPECIFIED; AGAINST AGREEING WITH OTHER PERSONS TO
DO ANY OF THE ACTS SPECIFIED.  FN4  SECTION 7 DEPRIVES THE COURTS OF
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION IN ANY CASE INVOLVING OR GROWING
OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE, EXCEPT AFTER HEARING SWORN TESTIMONY IN OPEN
COURT IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, AND UPON FINDINGS
OF FACT TO THE EFFECT (A) THAT UNLAWFUL ACTS HAVE BEEN THREATENED AND
WILL BE COMMITTED UNLESS RESTRAINED, OR HAVE BEEN COMMITTED AND WILL BE
CONTINUED, UNLESS RESTRAINED, AND THEN ONLY AGAINST THE PERSON OR
PERSONS, ASSOCIATION OR ORGANIZATION MAKING THE THREAT OR PERMITTING
THE UNLAWFUL ACT OR AUTHORIZING OR RATIFYING IT; (B) THAT SUBSTANTIAL
AND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO COMPLAINANT'S PROPERTY WILL FOLLOW; (C) THAT,
AS TO EACH ITEM OF RELIEF GRANTED, GREATER INJURY WILL BE INFLICTED
UPON THE COMPLAINANT BY DENIAL OF THE RELIEF THAN WILL BE INFLICTED ON
THE DEFENDANT BY GRANTING IT; (D) THAT COMPLAINANT HAS NO ADEQUATE
REMEDY AT LAW, AND (E) THAT THE PUBLIC OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY
TO PROTECT COMPLAINANT'S PROPERTY ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO FURNISH
ADEQUATE PROTECTION.  FN5 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT DEMONSTRATES THAT IT WAS THE
PURPOSE OF THE CONGRESS FURTHER TO EXTEND THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE
CLAYTON ACT  FN6  RESPECTING THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY FEDERAL
COURTS AND TO OBVIATE THE RESULTS OF THE JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THAT
ACT.  FN7  IT WAS INTENDED THAT PEACEFUL AND ORDERLY DISSEMINATION OF
INFORMATION BY THOSE DEFINED AS PERSONS INTERESTED IN A LABOR DISPUTE
CONCERNING "TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT" IN AN INDUSTRY OR A
PLANT OR A PLACE OF BUSINESS SHOULD BE LAWFUL; THAT, SHORT OF FRAUD,
BREACH OF THE PEACE, VIOLENCE, OR CONDUCT OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL, THOSE
HAVING A DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST IN SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT SHOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO ADVERTISE AND DISSEMINATE FACTS AND
INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND
PEACEFULLY TO PERSUADE OTHERS TO CONCUR IN THEIR VIEWS RESPECTING AN
EMPLOYER'S PRACTICES.  FN8  THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT COMPLYING
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 

THE DECREE MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 23, 1932, C. 90, 47 STAT. 70, 73, U.S.C. TIT. 29. 
SEC.  113. 

FN2  67 APP. D.C. 359; 92 F.(2D) 510. 

FN3  COMPARE SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468; LAUF V. SHINNER
& CO., 302 U.S. 323. 

FN4  U.S.C. TIT. 29, SEC. 104. 

FN5  U.S.C. TIT. 29, SEC. 107. 

FN6  ACT OF OCT. 15, 1914, C. 323, SEC. 20, 38 STAT. 730, 738, U.S.C.
TIT.  29, SEC. 52. 

FN7  DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; AMERICAN
STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184. 
COMPARE HOUSE REPORT NO. 669, 72ND CONG., 1ST SESS., AND SENATE REPORT
1060, 71ST CONG., 2ND SESS., AND SENATE REPORT 163, 72ND CONG., 1ST
SESS. 

FN8  COMPARE SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468; LEVRING &
GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, 71 F.(2D) 284; CINDERELLA THEATRE CO. V. SIGN
WRITERS' LOCAL, 6 F.SUPP.  164; MILLER FURNITURE CO. V. FURNITURE
WORKERS UNION, 8 F.SUPP.  209. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND I CANNOT ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT A "LABOR
DISPUTE" EMERGES WHENEVER AN EMPLOYER FAILS TO RESPOND TO A
COMMUNICATION FROM A, B AND C - IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR RACE, CHARACTER,
REPUTATION, FITNESS, PREVIOUS OR PRESENT EMPLOYMENT - SUGGESTING
DISPLEASURE BECAUSE OF HIS CHOICE OF EMPLOYES AND THEIR EXPECTATION
THAT IN THE FUTURE HE WILL NOT FAIL TO SELECT MEN OF THEIR COMPLEXION. 

IT SEEMS UNBELIEVABLE THAT, IN ALL SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, CONGRESS
INTENDED TO INHIBIT COURTS FROM EXTENDING PROTECTION LONG GUARANTEED BY
LAW AND THUS, IN EFFECT, ENCOURAGE MOBBISH INTERFERENCE WITH THE
INDIVIDUAL'S LIBERTY OF ACTION.  UNDER THE TORTURED MEANING NOW
ATTRIBUTED TO THE WORDS "LABOR DISPUTE," NO EMPLOYER - MERCHANT,
MANUFACTURER, BUILDER, COBBLER, HOUSEKEEPER OR WHAT NOT - WHO PREFERS
HELPERS OF ONE COLOR OR CLASS CAN FIND ADEQUATE SAFEGUARD AGAINST
INTOLERABLE VIOLATIONS OF HIS FREEDOM IF MEMBERS OF SOME OTHER CLASS,
RELIGION, RACE OR COLOR DEMAND THAT HE GIVE THEM PRECEDENCE*. 

*SEE - DEFINITION OF DISPUTE, WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY;
29 U.S.C., SEC. 113(C); SENATE REPORT NO. 163, 72ND CONGRESS, 1ST
SESSION, PP. 7, 11, 25; HOUSE REPORT NO. 669, 72ND CONGRESS, 1ST
SESSION, PP. 3, 7, 8, 10, 11. 

DESIGN THUS TO PROMOTE STRIFE, ENCOURAGE TRESPASS AND STIMULATE
INTIMIDATION, OUGHT NOT TO BE ADMITTED WHERE, AS HERE, NOT PLAINLY
AVOWED.  THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF THE VIEW NOW APPROVED TO THE VERY
PEOPLE WHOM PRESENT PETITIONERS CLAIM TO REPRESENT, IT MAY BE, IS
PREFIGURED BY THE GRIEVOUS PLIGHT OF MINORITIES IN LANDS WHERE THE LAW
HAS BECOME A MERE POLITICAL INSTRUMENT. 
..END :











UNITED STATES V. HENDLER, 303 U.S. 564 


NO. 563.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 91 F.2D
680, REVERSED. 


A GAIN RESULTING TO A CORPORATION FROM THE ASSUMPTION AND PAYMENT OF
ITS BONDED INDEBTEDNESS BY ANOTHER CORPORATION, WITH WHICH IT MERGED,
HELD NOT EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX UNDER REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SEC. 112. 
P. 567. 

UNITED STATES V. HENDLER, TRANSFEREE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 680, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYER, 17 F.SUPP.  558, IN A SUIT TO RECOVER AN ALLEGED
OVERPAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928  FN1  IMPOSED A TAX UPON THE ANNUAL "NET
INCOME" OF CORPORATIONS.  IT DEFINED "NET INCOME" AS "GROSS INCOME  ...
LESS THE DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED  ...," AND "GROSS INCOME" AS INCLUDING
"GAINS, PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM  ...  TRADES  ...  OR SALES, OR
DEALINGS IN PROPERTY,  ...  OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME  ...  FROM
ANY SOURCE WHATEVER."  FN2 

FROM A "REORGANIZATION" SIMILAR TO, OR IN THE NATURE OF, A CORPORATE
MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION.  UNDER THIS SECTION, SUCH GAINS ARE NOT TAXED
IF ONE CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO A "PLAN OF REORGANIZATION" EXCHANGES
ITS PROPERTY "SOLELY FOR STOCK OR SECURITIES, IN ANOTHER CORPORATION A
PARTY TO THE REORGANIZATION."  BUT, WHEN A CORPORATION NOT ONLY
RECEIVES "STOCK OR SECURITIES" IN EXCHANGE FOR ITS PROPERTY, BUT ALSO
RECEIVES "OTHER PROPERTY OR MONEY" IN CARRYING OUT A "PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION," 

"(1)  IF THE CORPORATION RECEIVING SUCH OTHER PROPERTY OR MONEY
DISTRIBUTES IT IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, NO GAIN TO
THE CORPORATION SHALL BE RECOGNIZED FROM THE EXCHANGE, BUT 

"(2)  IF THE CORPORATION RECEIVING SUCH OTHER PROPERTY OR MONEY DOES
NOT DISTRIBUTE IT IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, THE GAIN,
IF ANY, TO THE CORPORATION SHALL BE RECOGNIZED (TAXED)  ..." 

IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS A MERGER OR "REORGANIZATION" OF THE BORDEN
COMPANY AND THE HENDLER CREAMERY COMPANY, INC., RESULTING IN GAINS OF
MORE THAN SIX MILLION DOLLARS TO THE HENDLER COMPANY, INC., A
CORPORATION OF WHICH RESPONDENT IS TRANSFEREE.  THE COURT OF APPEALS,
BELIEVING THERE WAS AN EXEMPTION UNDER SEC. 112, AFFIRMED  FN4  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT  FN5 HOLDING ALL HENDLER GAINS NON
TAXABLE. 

THIS CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND RESPONDENT INVOLVES THE
ASSUMPTION AND PAYMENT - PURSUANT TO THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION - BY
THE BORDEN COMPANY OF $534,297.40 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE HENDLER
CREAMERY CO., INC. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION REACHED
BY THE COURTS BELOW THAT THE GAIN TO THE HENDLER COMPANY, REALIZED BY
THE BORDEN COMPANY'S PAYMENT, WAS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER SEC. 112. 

IT WAS CONTENDED BELOW AND IT IS URGED HERE THAT SINCE THE HENDLER
COMPANY DID NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE MONEY WITH WHICH THE BORDEN
COMPANY DISCHARGED THE FORMER'S INDEBTEDNESS, THE HENDLER COMPANY'S
GAIN OF $534,297.40 IS NOT TAXABLE.  THE TRANSACTION, HOWEVER, UNDER
WHICH THE BORDEN COMPANY ASSUMED AND PAID THE DEBT AND OBLIGATION OF
THE HENDLER COMPANY IS TO BE REGARDED IN SUBSTANCE AS THOUGH THE
$534,297.40 HAD BEEN PAID DIRECTLY TO THE HENDLER COMPANY.  THE HENDLER
COMPANY WAS THE BENEFICIARY OF THE DISCHARGE OF ITS INDEBTEDNESS.  ITS
GAIN WAS AS REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL AS IF THE MONEY HAD BEEN PAID IT AND
THEN PAID OVER BY IT TO ITS CREDITORS.  THE DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY BY
THE PAYMENT OF THE HENDLER COMPANY'S INDEBTEDNESS CONSTITUTED INCOME TO
THE HENDLER COMPANY AND IS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH.  FN6 

CORPORATE "REORGANIZATION" - NEITHER RECEIVED AS "STOCKS OR
SECURITIES," NOR RECEIVED AS "MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY" AND DISTRIBUTED
TO STOCKHOLDERS UNDER THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  IN MINNESOTA TEA CO.
V. HELVERING, 302 U.S. 609, IT WAS SAID THAT THIS EXEMPTION
"CONTEMPLATES A DISTRIBUTION TO STOCKHOLDERS, AND NOT PAYMENT TO
CREDITORS."  THE VERY STATUTE UPON WHICH THE TAXPAYER RELIES PROVIDES
THAT "IF THE CORPORATION RECEIVING SUCH OTHER PROPERTY OR MONEY DOES
NOT DISTRIBUTE IT IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, THE GAIN,
IF ANY, TO THE CORPORATION SHALL BE RECOGNIZED (TAXED)  ..." 

SINCE THIS GAIN OR INCOME OF $534,297.40 OF THE HENDLER COMPANY WAS
NEITHER RECEIVED AS "STOCK OR SECURITIES" NOR DISTRIBUTED TO ITS
STOCKHOLDERS "IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION" IT WAS NOT
EXEMPT AND IS TAXABLE GAIN AS DEFINED IN THE 1928 ACT.  THIS
$534,297.40 GAIN TO THE TAXPAYER DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE EXEMPTIONS OF
SEC. 112, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, 45 STAT. 791, SEC. 13. 

FN2  ID., SECS. 21-22. 

FN3  ID., SEC. 112. 

FN4  91 F.(2D) 680. 

FN5  17 F.SUPP.  558. 

FN6  OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716, 729 DOUGLAS
V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1, 8, 9. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :











BATES MANUFACTURING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 567 


NO. 647.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 93 F.2D
721, REVERSED. 


WHERE, IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT COURT UNDER
THE TUCKER ACT, FOR RECOVERY OF TAXES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY
COLLECTED, THE VERIFIED PETITION OF PLAINTIFF WAS FILED WITHIN TWO
YEARS AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM FOR REFUND; AND WITHIN FOUR
DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION, THOUGH NOT WITHIN TWO YEARS
AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM FOR REFUND, COPIES OF THE PETITION
WERE SERVED ON THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND MAILED TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL,  - HELD THE SUIT WAS "BEGUN" IN TIME UNDER REVENUE ACT OF
1926, SEC. 1113.  P. 572. 

BATES MANUFACTURING CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 628, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE
DISMISSAL, 19 F.SUPP.  526, OF A SUIT TO RECOVER AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT
OF TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926  FN1  PROVIDES THAT "NO SUIT  ...  SHALL BE
MAINTAINED IN ANY COURT FOR THE RECOVERY OF ANY INTERNAL-REVENUE TAX
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY OR ILLEGALLY ASSESSED OR COLLECTED,
...  UNLESS SUCH SUIT  ...  IS BEGUN WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER TH
DISALLOWANCE OF  ... SUCH CLAIM  ..." 

THE TUCKER ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887  FN2  AS AMENDED, GIVES CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION TO THE DISTRICT COURTS AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN SUITS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES INCLUDING THOSE FOR RECOVERY OF ERRONEOUS OR
ILLEGALLY COLLECTED TAXES.  FN3  SECTION 5 OF THE TUCKER ACT REQUIRES A
PLAINTIFF BRINGING SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO
"FILE A PETITION, DULY VERIFIED WITH THE CLERK OF THE RESPECTIVE COURT
HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE CASE."  SECTION 6 REQUIRES "THAT THE
PLAINTIFF  ...  CAUSE A COPY OF HIS PETITION  ...  TO BE SERVED UPON
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY  ..., AND  ...  MAIL A COPY  ...  TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL  ..., AND CAUSE TO BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT  ...
AFFIDAVIT OF SUCH SERVICE AND  ...  MAILING  ..." 

MARCH 22, 1927, THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR TAX REFUND WAS DISALLOWED. 
MARCH 21, 1929, WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE, A DULY
VERIFIED PETITION WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT CLAIMING THE REFUND. 
MARCH 25, 1929, TWO YEARS AND FOUR DAYS AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE, THE
PETITION WAS SERVED ON THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND MAILED TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD SUIT WAS NOT "BEGUN" BY FILING THE VERIFIED
PETITION AND DISMISSED THE CAUSE OF ACTION.  FN4  THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED.  FN5 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS "BEGUN" WHEN THE
PETITION IS FILED.  YET, IT IS INSISTED THAT SUIT IS NOT "BEGUN" IN THE
DISTRICT COURT WHEN THE PETITION IS FILED ALTHOUGH THE COURT OF CLAIMS
AND THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE GIVEN CONCURRENT JURISDICTION BY THE TUCKER
ACT.  CONSIDERATION OF THE HISTORY AND LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE LEADS US
TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. 

CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, COGNIZABLE BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS,
SHALL BE FOREVER BARRED UNLESS THE PETITION SETTING FORTH A STATEMENT
OF THE CLAIM BE FILED  ...  WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM FIRST
ACCRUES  ..." 

WHEN THE TUCKER ACT IN 1887 GREATLY EXPANDED THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT OF CLAIMS AND GAVE DISTRICT COURTS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IN ALL
CASES INVOLVING CERTAIN AMOUNTS, ITS LIMITATION IN BOTH THE COURT OF
CLAIMS AND THE DISTRICT COURTS PROVIDED: 

"...  NO SUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE
ALLOWED UNDER THIS ACT UNLESS THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN
SIX YEARS AFTER THE RIGHT ACCRUED  ..." 

THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF CLAIMANTS ARE TO BE GOVERNED ALIKE WHETHER
SUIT IS BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE
AUTHOR OF THE TUCKER ACT IN DECLARING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
APPLICABLE ALIKE "TO ANY OR ALL" OF THE CASES ARISING UNDER THE ACT
DREW NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUITS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND IN
THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  FN7 

THE PURPOSE OF GIVING THE DISTRICT COURTS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION
WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS WAS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS THAT HAD "LONG PRESSED UPON
THE CONSIDERATION OF CONGRESS"  FN8  AND TO PERMIT SUIT TO "BE BROUGHT
IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTIES RESIDE."  FN9  AFTER DISCUSSING THE
BENEFITS OF PREVIOUS LEGISLATION CREATING AND EXTENDING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS, THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
REPORTED TO THE HOUSE: 

"THE HISTORY OF THIS LEGISLATION AND ITS RESULTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO
SHOW HOW MUCH OF BENEFIT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE SATISFACTORY DECISIONS OF
CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND IN RELIEF OF THE CONGRESS.  BUT IT
HAS LONG BEEN FELT THAT THE BENEFITS COULD BE MADE MUCH GREATER BY
EXTENDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT....  IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY MORE
THAN HAS ALREADY BEEN INTIMATED AS TO THE GENERAL POLICY OF THIS
LEGISLATION.  THE LARGE MASS OF BUSINESS NOW BEFORE CONGRESS GROWING
OUT OF PRIVATE CLAIMS CONSUMES ITS TIME YEAR AFTER YEAR IN COMMITTEE
WORK, RENDERED USELESS BY THE LACK OF TIME TO CONSIDER AND PASS UPON
THEM.  JUST CLAIMS ARE PAINFULLY DEFERRED WITHOUT INTEREST, AND THE
CREDIT OF THE GOVERNMENT, SO STRICTLY UPHELD UPON ITS BONDED DEBT, IS
JUSTLY CENSURED IN RESPECT TO ITS HONEST PRIVATE CLAIMS."  FN10 

IN RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS DISCLOSED BY THIS REPORT CONGRESS PASSED THE
TUCKER ACT, MANIFESTLY INTENDING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR
EXPEDITIOUS AND ORDERLY DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT.  THIS ACT NOT ONLY EXPANDED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
OF CLAIMS, BUT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, GAVE DISTRICT COURTS GENERAL
AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DETERMINE CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  RELIEF
OF EXISTING CLAIM CONGESTION AND PREVENTION OF FUTURE CONGESTION
OBVIOUSLY DEMANDED AN INTEGRATED JURISDICTIONAL PLAN BY WHICH THE COURT
OF CLAIMS AND DISTRICT COURTS COULD AFFORD EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR
EXPEDITIOUS AND FAIR TRIALS OF LIKE CLAIMS WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL
AMOUNT OF THE DISTRICT COURTS.  THE ERECTION OF BARRIERS TO RECOVERY IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS WHICH DID NOT EXIST IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS WOULD
HAVE TENDED TO DEFEAT THE PRIME OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT.  UNIFORMITY AND
EQUALITY IN SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES - FOR CLAIMANTS IN BOTH
FORUMS - WERE ESSENTIAL FEATURES IN THE SYSTEM.  DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN
THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECOVERY AFFORDED IN THE TWO FORUMS WOULD HAVE
TENDED TO MAR THE SYMMETRY OF THE PLAN AND TO IMPAIR ITS EFFECTIVE AND
SUCCESSFUL OPERATION.  AS TO SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, CONGRESS EVIDENTLY
MEANT TO GIVE CLAIMANTS AN IDENTICAL STATUS IN BOTH COURTS WHERE THE
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY WAS INCLUDED IN THE JURISDICTION OF BOTH.  WE
FIND NO SUPPORT IN THE BACKGROUND OR OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT FOR A
CONSTRUCTION UNDER WHICH A CLAIMANT'S RIGHTS WOULD BE PRESERVED BY
FILING A PETITION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, BUT WOULD BE LOST - WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL ACTION - IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 

AS SAID BY THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES V. GREATHOUSE, 166 U.S. 601,
606: 

"...  IT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED THAT THE LIMITATION UPON SUITS AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DISTRICT  ...  COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD
BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT APPLICABLE TO LIKE SUITS IN THE COURT OF
CLAIMS." 

AS USED IN THIS STATUTE THE WORD "BEGUN" SHOULD BE GIVEN ITS ORDINARY
AND ACCUSTOMED MEANING.  TO BEGIN IS TO START; TO INSTITUTE; TO
INITIATE; TO COMMENCE.  THIS SUIT WAS BEGUN - WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER
THE REFUND CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED - WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED IN COURT
IN GOOD FAITH.  NOTICE WAS MAILED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WAS PROMPTLY SERVED - BOTH WITHIN FOUR DAYS AFTER THE VERIFIED
PETITION WAS FILED.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT CONSIDER WHAT
WOULD BE THE EFFECT OF LACK OF DILIGENCE IN OBTAINING SERVICE.  FN11
THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT BELOW WAS NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE VIEWS HERE
EXPRESSED AND IS REVERSED. 

FN1  C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, SEC. 1113. 

FN2  C. 359, 24 STAT. 505, 506. 

FN3  U.S.C. TITLE 28, SEC. 41(20), (JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 24(20) AS
AMENDED). 

FN4  19 F.SUPP.  526. 

FN5  93 F.(2D) 721. 

FN6  12 STAT. 765, 767. 

FN7  CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AND APPENDIX, 49TH CONG., 2ND SESS., MARCH
3, P. 2679. 

FN8 HOUSE REPORT NO. 1077, 49TH CONG., 1ST SESS., BY MR. TUCKER ON
THE TUCKER BILL. 

FN9  CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AND APPENDIX, 49TH CONG., 2ND SESS., MARCH
3, P. 2679. 

FN10  HOUSE REP. NO. 1077, SUPRA, PP. 3-4. 

FN11  COMPARE, LINN & LANE TIMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 236 U.S. 574,
578. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :





RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. NEW YORK, 303 U.S. 573 


NO. 435.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 28, 1938.  - 275
N.Y. 258, 454 -  9 N.E.2D 858 - 11 ID. 293, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SINCE CARRIERS OR OTHER UTILITIES WITH THE RIGHT OF EMINENT
DOMAIN, THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY, SPECIAL FRANCHISES OR PUBLIC
CONTRACTS, HAVE MANY POINTS OF DISTINCTION FROM OTHER BUSINESSES,
INCLUDING RELATIVE FREEDOM FROM COMPETITION, THEY MAY FOR PURPOSES OF
TAXATION BE CLASSED SEPARATELY.  P. 578. 

2.  UTILITIES SUBJECT TO SUPERVISION BY THE NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SERVICE - INCLUDING THOSE ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS
OR PROPERTY, AND THOSE FURNISHING GAS, ELECTRICITY, STEAM, WATER,
COMMUNICATION BY TELEGRAPH OR TELEPHONE - WERE SUBJECTED BY LOCAL LAWS
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO PRIVILEGE TAXES OF 3% OF THEIR GROSS
INCOMES.  THE LAWS WERE ENACTED FOR SHORT PERIODS UNDER AUTHORITY FROM
THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND THE PROCEEDS WERE EARMARKED FOR USE
EXCLUSIVELY IN RELIEVING THE UNEMPLOYED IN THE CITY.  TRANSIT COMPANIES
OPERATING IN THE CITY ASSAILED THE LEVIES UNDER THE DUE PROCESS AND
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  HELD: 

(1)  IT IS NOT A VALID OBJECTION THAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE DEFINED BY
REFERENCE TO THE CLASSIFICATION PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY THE NEW YORK
PUBLIC SERVICE LAW RATHER THAN BY SPECIFIC REFERENCE IN THE TAXING LAW
ITSELF TO THE CHARACTER OF THEIR BUSINESSES.  P. 579. 

(2)  SEPARATE CLASSIFICATION OF THE UTILITIES TAXED IS JUSTIFIABLE,
UPON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ENJOY A SPECIAL MEASURE OF STATUTORY
PROTECTION FROM COMPETITION; THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE FINANCIAL
REPORTS TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY WHICH ARE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE IN
ASCERTAINING AND COLLECTING SUCH TAXES; AND THAT THE REVENUES OF SUCH
UTILITIES, FURNISHING INDISPENSABLE SERVICES, MAY BE SUBJECT TO
RELATIVELY LITTLE FLUCTUATION, EVEN IN TIMES OF DEPRESSION.  P. 580. 

(3)  THE FACTS THAT THE TRANSIT COMPANIES HAVE A LOW MARGIN OF NET
INCOME, AND THAT BECAUSE OF CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY THEY CAN NOT PASS
ON THE ADDED TAX BURDEN BY INCREASING THEIR CHARGES, ARE FORTUITOUS AND
DO NOT RENDER THE TAXES ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLY DISCRIMINATORY
AGAINST THEM AS COMPARED WITH THE OTHER UTILITIES OR WITH BUSINESS IN
GENERAL.  P. 581. 

THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE METICULOUS ADJUSTMENTS IN AN
EFFORT TO AVOID INCIDENTAL HARDSHIPS. 

(4)  TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS, RATHER THAN ON NET INCOME, ARE JUSTIFIED
UPON THE GROUND OF CONVENIENCE IN ADMINISTRATION AND BECAUSE OF THE
CLOSE RELATION OF THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS IN A BUSINESS TO COST OF
ITS SUPERVISION AND PROTECTION BY GOVERNMENT.  STEWART DRY GOODS CO. V.
LEWIS, 294 U.S. 550, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 582. 

(5)  THE FACT THAT THE TAX IS LEVIED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF
RELIEVING CONDITIONS (UNEMPLOYMENT) TO WHICH THE UTILITIES TAXED BEAR
NO SPECIAL RELATION, DOES NOT RENDER IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 584. 

(6)  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RULE THAT CLASSIFICATION MUST REST
UPON SOME GROUND OF DIFFERENCE HAVING A FAIR AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION
TO THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION, THE 'OBJECT' IN THIS CASE IS THE
RAISING OF THE REVENUE.  THAT AN APPROPRIATION OF THE FUNDS FOR RELIEF
IS PART OF THE SAME LEGISLATION IS NOT SIGNIFICANT; IT IS NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY NECESSARY THAT THE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE TAX BE
RELATED TO THE APPROPRIATION OF THE PROCEEDS.  P. 585. 

(7)  THE LAWS UNDER CONSIDERATION DO NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 587. 

3.  TO SUSTAIN A CLAIM OF CONTRACTUAL TAX EXEMPTION THE LANGUAGE MUST
BE CLEAR AND EXPRESS.  P. 593. 

4.  IN DECIDING A CASE UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE, THIS COURT
DETERMINES FOR ITSELF THE EXISTENCE AND MEANING OF THE CONTRACT; BUT,
IN SO DOING, IT LEANS TOWARD AGREEMENT WITH THE COURTS OF THE STATE AND
ACCEPTS THEIR JUDGMENT UNLESS MANIFESTLY WRONG.  P. 593. 

5.  IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND A TRANSIT
CORPORATION, THE CITY AGREED TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN RAILROADS AND THE
COMPANY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR COST AND EQUIPMENT AND TO RECONSTRUCT
AND BUILD ADDITIONS TO ITS OWN RAILROADS.  THE CITY LEASED THE
RAILROADS IT AGREED TO CONSTRUCT TO THE COMPANY AND THE COMPANY AGREED
TO OPERATE THEM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITS OWN AS ONE SYSTEM, FOR A
DESIGNATED FARE.  THE GROSS RECEIPTS WERE TO BE POOLED; DEDUCTIONS WERE
TO BE MADE, IN THEIR ORDER, FIRST TO REIMBURSE THE COMPANY FOR
SPECIFIED EXPENSES AND OUTLAYS, INCLUDING TAXES, AND THEN TO REIMBURSE
THE CITY FOR CERTAIN INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION CHARGES; AND THE
REMAINDER WAS TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COMPANY. 
THE TAX DEDUCTION INCLUDED "ALL TAXES  ...  OF EVERY DESCRIPTION
(WHETHER ON PHYSICAL PROPERTY, STOCK OR SECURITIES, CORPORATE OR OTHER
FRANCHISES, OR OTHERWISE) ASSESSED OR WHICH MAY HEREAFTER BE ASSESSED
AGAINST THE LESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH  ...  THE OPERATION OF THE  ...
RAILROADS."  AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE CONTRACT, THE TAXING POWER OF
THE CITY WAS CONFINED TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
AND AD VALOREM TAXES ON REAL ESTATE AND ON SPECIAL FRANCHISES GRANTED
BY THE CITY.  LATER, UNDER NEW POWER ACQUIRED FROM THE LEGISLATURE, THE
CITY LEVIED A PRIVILEGE TAX OF 3% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE COLLECTION OF SUCH TAX WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONTRACT BUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS EXPRESS TERMS.  PP. 588, 591. 

(2)  THE CONTRACT MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED AS LIMITING THE TAXES
DEDUCTIBLE FROM GROSS RECEIPTS TO THOSE WHICH THE CITY WAS AUTHORIZED
TO IMPOSE WHEN THE CONTRACT WAS MADE.  P. 591. 

NEW YORK RAPID TRANSIT CORP. V. CITY OF NEW YORK*. 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 436, BROOKLYN & QUEENS TRANSIT CORP. V. CITY OF
NEW YORK, ALSO ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, ENTERED ON
REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THESE WERE ACTIONS TO RECOVER
FROM THE CITY LARGE SUMS EXACTED AS TAXES.  THE SPECIAL TERM OF THE
SUPREME COURT HELD THE TAXES VOID; THE APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMED, 251
APP. DIV. 710; 296 N.Y.S. 1006, 1012; THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE
TAXES AND REVERSED THE JUDGMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF LOCAL
LAWS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK (LOCAL LAW NO. 21 OF 1934, AS AMENDED BY
LOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF 1935, AND EXTENDED BY LOCAL LAW NO. 30 OF 1935)
WHICH PROVIDE, SEC. 2, THAT "FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF EXERCISING ITS
FRANCHISE OR FRANCHISES, OR OF HOLDING PROPERTY, OR OF DOING BUSINESS
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK" AN EXCISE TAX SHALL BE PAID BY EVERY "UTILITY"
DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK DURING 1935 AND THE FIRST SIX
MONTHS OF 1936. 

"UTILITY" IS DEFINED, SEC. 1(E), TO INCLUDE "ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO
THE SUPERVISION OF EITHER DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SERVICE," AND EVERY PERSON, WHETHER OR NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH SUPERVISION,
ENGAGED "IN THE BUSINESS OF FURNISHING OR SELLING TO OTHER PERSONS,
GAS, ELECTRICITY, STEAM, WATER, REFRIGERATION, TELEPHONY AND/OR
TELEGRAPHY" OR SERVICE IN THESE COMMODITIES.  EACH UTILITY IS REQUIRED
TO PAY A TAX "EQUAL TO THREE PERCENTUM OF ITS GROSS INCOME" RECEIVED
DURING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE LOCAL LAWS, WITH A MINOR VARIATION
NOT HERE ASSAILED FOR UTILITIES NOT SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIED
SUPERVISION.  FN1  THE LOCAL LAWS SPECIFY THAT ALL REVENUES FROM THE
TAX "SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT OR ACCOUNTS, AND
SHALL BE AVAILABLE AND USED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RELIEVING THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK FROM THE HARDSHIPS AND
SUFFERING CAUSED BY UNEMPLOYMENT" (SEC. 14).  THE LOCAL LAWS,
ADMITTEDLY PASSED UNDER AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE,
FN2  ARE ASSAILED UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  FOR
CONVENIENCE WE SHALL DISCUSS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE NEW YORK RAPID
TRANSIT CORPORATION ALONE, AS DETERMINATION OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY
IT IS CONCLUSIVE OF THOSE ADVANCED BY THE BROOKLYN AND QUEENS TRANSIT
CORPORATION. 

THE NEW YORK RAPID TRANSIT CORPORATION OPERATES RAPID TRANSIT
RAILROADS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK UNDER A CONTRACT KNOWN AS CONTRACT
NO. 4, DATED MARCH 19, 1913, MADE PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK RAPID
TRANSIT ACT, LAWS 1891, C. 4, AS AMENDED, BETWEEN ITS PREDECESSOR (NEW
YORK MUNICIPAL RAILWAY CORPORATION) AND THE CITY.  AS A COMMON CARRIER
ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF RAPID TRANSIT RAILROADS, THE CORPORATION IS
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE TRANSIT COMMISSION, THE HEAD OF THE
METROPOLITAN DIVISION OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE. 
ACCORDINGLY, BUT UNDER PROTEST, IT PAID THE TAXES IMPOSED BY THE LOCAL
LAWS SET OUT ABOVE, FOR THE MONTHS JANUARY, 1935, TO JUNE, 1936,
INCLUSIVE.  IT BROUGHT THIS ACTION AGAINST THE CITY OF NEW YORK TO
RECOVER THE AMOUNTS PAID, $1,408,697, WITH INTEREST, ON THE GROUND THAT
THE LOCAL LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE CASE ARISES ON THE CITY'S
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, SPECIAL TERM, DENIED THE MOTION TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AND FOUND THAT THE LOCAL LAWS DENIED EQUAL
PROTECTION BECAUSE OF GROSS INEQUALITY OF BURDEN IN COMPARISON WITH
OTHER UTILITIES.  THIS ORDER WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT, WITHOUT OPINION, ON A 3-2 VOTE (251 APP. DIV. 710;
296 N.Y.S. 1006).  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED (275 N.Y. 258; 9
N.E.2D 858), UPHELD THE LOCAL LAWS AGAINST ALL ATTACKS, AND RULED THAT
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO
THIS COURT UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344(A). 

THE CORPORATION CHALLENGES THE LOCAL LAWS AS VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND THE
CONTRACTS CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, OF THE CONSTITUTION.  I.
CLASSIFICATION.  NO QUESTION IS OR COULD BE MADE BY THE CORPORATION AS
TO THE RIGHT OF A STATE, OR A MUNICIPALITY WITH PROPERLY DELEGATED
POWERS, TO ENACT LAWS OR ORDINANCES, BASED ON REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION
OF THE OBJECTS OF THE LEGISLATION OR OF THE PERSONS WHOM IT AFFECTS. 
"EQUAL PROTECTION" DOES NOT PROHIBIT THIS.  ALTHOUGH THE WIDE
DISCRETION AS TO CLASSIFICATION RETAINED BY A LEGISLATURE, OFTEN
RESULTS IN NARROW DISTINCTIONS, THESE DISTINCTIONS, IF REASONABLY
RELATED TO THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION, ARE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE
CLASSIFICATION.  GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. LEWIS, 233 U.S. 389, 418;
ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. V. MATTHEWS, 174 U.S. 96, 105; GIOZZA V.
TIERNAN, 148 U.S. 657.  INDEED, IT HAS LONG BEEN THE LAW UNDER THE 14TH
AMENDMENT THAT "A DISTINCTION IN LEGISLATION IS NOT ARBITRARY, IF ANY
STATE OF FACTS REASONABLY CAN BE CONCEIVED THAT WOULD SUSTAIN IT,
..."  RAST V. VAN DEMAN & LEWIS CO., 240 U.S. 342, 357; BORDEN'S CO. V.
BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, 209; METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INS. CO. V. BROWNELL,
294 U.S. 580, 584.  "THE RULE OF EQUALITY PERMITS MANY PRACTICAL
INEQUALITIES."  MAGOUN V. ILLINOIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, 170 U.S. 283,
296; BREEDLOVE V. SUTTLES, 302 U.S. 277, 281; CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN
COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495, 509.  "WHAT SATISFIES THIS EQUALITY HAS
NOT BEEN AND PROBABLY NEVER CAN BE PRECISELY DEFINED."  MAGOUN V.
ILLINOIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, SUPRA, 293. 

THE POWER TO MAKE DISTINCTIONS EXISTS WITH FULL VIGOR IN THE FIELD OF
TAXATION, WHERE NO "IRON RULE" OF EQUALITY HAS EVER BEEN ENFORCED UPON
THE STATES.  BELL'S GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 134 U.S. 232, 237;
GIOZZA V. TIERNAN, 148 U.S. 657, 662.  A STATE MAY EXERCISE A WIDE
DISCRETION IN SELECTING THE SUBJECTS OF TAXATION (MAGOUN V. ILLINOIS
TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, 170 U.S. 283, 294: QUONG WING V. KIRKENDALL, 223
U.S. 59, 62; HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 245, 255)
"PARTICULARLY AS RESPECTS OCCUPATION TAXES," OLIVER IRON MINING CO. V.
LORD, 262 U.S. 172, 179; BROWN-FORMAN CO. V. KENTUCKY, 217 U.S. 563,
573; SOUTHWESTERN OIL CO. V. TEXAS, 217 U.S. 114, 121, 126; SEE OHIO
OIL CO. V. CONWAY, 281 U.S. 146, 159. 

SINCE CARRIERS OR OTHER UTILITIES WITH THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN,
THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY, SPECIAL FRANCHISES OR PUBLIC CONTRACTS,
HAVE MANY POINTS OF DISTINCTION FROM OTHER BUSINESSES, INCLUDING
RELATIVE FREEDOM FROM COMPETITION, ESPECIALLY SIGNIFICANT WITH
INCREASING DENSITY OF POPULATION AND MUNICIPAL EXPANSION, THESE PUBLIC
SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE NO VALID GROUND BY VIRTUE OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE TO OBJECT TO SEPARATE TREATMENT RELATED TO SUCH
DISTINCTIONS.  CARRIERS MAY BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE CLASS (COMPARE
SEABOARD AIR LINE V. SEEGERS, 207 U.S. 73) AND, AS SUCH, TAXED
DIFFERENTLY OR ADDITIONALLY.  SOUTHERN R. CO. V. WATTS, 260 U.S. 519,
530.  THIS COURT HAS APPROVED THE ADOPTION OF MODES AND METHODS OF
ASSESSMENT AND ADMINISTRATION PECULIAR TO RAILROADS (KENTUCKY RAILROAD
TAX CASES, 115 U.S. 321, 337), AND UPHELD TAX RATES FOR RAILROADS
DIFFERING FROM THOSE ON OTHER PROPERTY, AND AS BETWEEN RAILROAD
TAXPAYERS, MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO. V. POWERS, 201 U.S. 245, 300; OHIO
TAX CASES, 232 U.S. 576, 590; COLUMBUS & G. RY. CO. V. MILLER, 283 U.S.
96.  SIMILARLY, WE HAVE EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THAT A STATE MAY SUBJECT
PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS TO A SPECIAL OR HIGHER INCOME TAX THAN
INDIVIDUALS OR OTHER CORPORATIONS.  ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V.
DAUGHTON, 262 U.S. 413, 424.  THE CORPORATION CONCEDES THIS GENERAL
RIGHT TO SET APART THE UTILITIES IN NEW YORK FOR TAXATION. 

THE CORPORATION IS BROUGHT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE LOCAL LAWS
BECAUSE "UTILITY" IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE THOSE "SUBJECT TO THE
SUPERVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE."  SEC. 1(E).  IT
CONTENDS THAT CLASSIFICATION IN AN EXCISE TAX, HOWEVER, SHOULD BE MADE
BY SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE BUSINESS TO BE TAXED, AND
THAT IT IS ARBITRARY TO MAKE TAXABILITY DEPEND ON WHETHER A PERSON IS
SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION OF A COMMISSION.  VALID REASON FOR THE
DEFINITION UTILIZED APPEARS FROM THE FACT THAT THE LOCAL LAWS MERELY
ADOPTED THE CLASSIFICATION PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED IN THE NEW YORK
PUBLIC SERVICE LAW (N.Y. LAWS 1910, C. 480, AS AMENDED) WHICH HAD
SELECTED THOSE OFFERING SEVERAL KINDS OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY (SEC. 25),  FN3  AND MADE THEM
SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE. 

SEVERAL REASONS MAY BE SUGGESTED FOR THE SELECTION FOR SPECIAL TAX
BURDENS OF THE UTILITIES EMBRACED BY THE LOCAL LAWS UNDER DISCUSSION. 
WE MENTION A FEW.  THOSE SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SERVICE ARE ASSURED BY STATUTE THAT NEW PRIVATE ENTERPRISES
MAY NOT ENTER INTO DIRECT COMPETITION WITHOUT A SHOWING OF CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE  FN4  (SEE NEW YORK STEAM CORP. V.
CITY OF NEW YORK, 268 N.Y. 137, 147; 197 N.E. 172).  THE CORPORATION
SUGGESTS THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT CURB COMPETITION FROM THE CITY'S OWN
RAPID TRANSIT LINES AND FROM TAXICABS.  FREEDOM FROM UNLIMITED, DIRECT,
PRIVATE COMPETITION IS OF ITSELF A SUFFICIENT ADVANTAGE OVER ORDINARY
BUSINESSES TO WARRANT THE IMPOSITION OF A HEAVIER TAX BURDEN.  REPORTS
WHICH MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE BASIS
OF APPROVED SYSTEMS OF ACCOUNTING SUGGEST AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE
IN THE COLLECTION AND VERIFICATION OF THE TAX  FN5  WHICH MIGHT
PROPERLY HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE CITY'S LEGISLATURE.  SEE
CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495, 511, AND CASES
CITED.  THE LEGISLATURE MAY REASONABLY HAVE CONCEIVED THAT THE REVENUES
OF UTILITIES FURNISHING INDISPENSABLE SERVICES ARE SUBJECT TO
RELATIVELY LITTLE FLUCTUATION, EVEN IN DEPRESSION TIMES, AND REASONABLY
HAVE SHAPED ITS TAX SYSTEM ACCORDINGLY. 

II.  DISCRIMINATION.  THE CORPORATION URGES HERE, AS THE LOWER STATE
COURTS HELD, THAT THESE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION ARE NOT
EFFECTIVE TO VALIDATE LEGISLATION WHERE, AS IN THESE LOCAL LAWS,
ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN
RAILROAD COMPANIES IS SHOWN.  THIS UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION APPEARS,
BECAUSE "THEY ARE," AS THE CORPORATION SEES IT, "IN A FAR POORER
POSITION TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF THAN IS BUSINESS IN
GENERAL."  BUSINESS MAY PASS ON TAXES.  OTHER UTILITIES MAY APPLY TO
THE COMMISSION AND PERHAPS TO THE COURTS FOR AN ADEQUATE RATE
INCREASE.  THIS CORPORATION CANNOT DO SO AS BY CONTRACT NO. 4 WITH THE
CITY IT IS BOUND TO FURNISH TRANSPORTATION FOR A FIVE-CENT FARE, WHICH
BY CITY CHARTER PROVISION CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSAL BY A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED VOTERS, ON REFERENDUM.  FN6  IT
IS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT THAT RAPID TRANSIT CORPORATIONS ARE LESS
ABLE TO PAY A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX THAN OTHER UTILITIES, WHOSE GROSS
INCOME YIELDS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT, THAT THE OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF THESE CORPORATIONS ARE HIGHER IN RELATION TO
GROSS RECEIPTS THAN THOSE OF OTHER UTILITIES, THE RATIO OF NET INCOME
TO GROSS RECEIPTS, LOWER.  IT IS SAID TO BE HIGHLY DISCRIMINATORY TO
CLASSIFY THESE RAILROADS APART FROM OTHER BUSINESSES, OR IN THE SAME
GROUP AS OTHER UTILITIES.  THE DIFFERENCES FROM BUSINESS ARE NOT ENOUGH
AND FROM OTHER UTILITIES TOO GREAT TO JUSTIFY THIS ATTEMPTED
CLASSIFICATION, WHICH SETS THEM APART FROM BUSINESS AS A WHOLE, AND
YOKES THEM WITH OTHER UTILITIES. 

THE DISADVANTAGES COMPLAINED OF, AS TO FARE LIMITATIONS, ARE
APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE CORPORATION, A SINGLE MEMBER OF A CLASS OF
UTILITIES.  IT IS QUITE FORTUITOUS THAT THIS PARTICULAR CORPORATION
MUST SEEK ADJUSTMENTS IN FARE IN A PECULIAR WAY.  "THE LEGISLATURE IS
NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE METICULOUS ADJUSTMENTS IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID
INCIDENTAL HARDSHIPS," SEE GREAT ATLANTIC & PAC. TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN,
301 U.S. 412, 424.  "IF THE ACCIDENTS OF TRADE LEAD TO INEQUALITY OR
HARDSHIP, THE CONSEQUENCES MUST BE ACCEPTED AS INHERENT IN GOVERNMENT
BY LAW INSTEAD OF GOVERNMENT BY EDICT."  FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294
U.S. 87, 102. 

IN COMPARING ITS BURDENS WITH THOSE OF OTHER UTILITIES, THE
CORPORATION, BY ITS ARGUMENT, SUGGESTS THAT A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX IS
INVALID WHILE A NET INCOME TAX IS VALID.  IN TAXING UTILITIES AS A
CLASS THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE "METICULOUS ADJUSTMENTS"
FOR A PARTICULAR SUB-CLASS OF UTILITY, SEE GREAT ATLANTIC & PAC. TEA
CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. AT 424, SUPRA.  MOREOVER, WHILE TAXATION OF
NET INCOME IS APPORTIONED TO ABILITY TO PAY, AND IS THEREFORE "AN
EQUITABLE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING THE BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT," SEE NEW
YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308, 313, IT IS NOT A COMPULSORY
METHOD.  THERE ARE OTHER JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX. 
UNCONCERNED WITH DISPUTES ABOUT PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS, IT HAS GREATER
CERTITUDE AND FACILITY OF ADMINISTRATION THAN THE NET INCOME TAX, AN
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION TO TAXPAYER AND TAX GATHERER ALIKE.  AND THE
VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS INDICATED ON THE TAXPAYER'S BOOKS MAY BEAR A
CLOSER RELATION TO THE COST OF GOVERNMENTAL SUPERVISION AND PROTECTION
THAN THE ANNUAL PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT.  IN CLARK V. TITUSVILLE, 184
U.S. 329, WE REJECTED AN EQUAL PROTECTION OBJECTION TO A LICENSE TAX ON
MERCHANTS, WHICH WE SAID (P. 334) WAS "A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING
BUSINESS REGULATED BY THE AMOUNT OF SALES, AND  ...  NOT REPUGNANT TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  AND WE HAVE HERETOFORE HAD
OCCASION TO REMARK THAT GROSS RECEIPTS FROM AN OCCUPATION CONSTITUTES
AN "APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF THE PRIVILEGE" OF ENGAGING IN THAT
OCCUPATION, WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU OF REVENUE, 303 U.S. 250;
AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, 463; MAINE V.
GRAND TRUNK RY. CO., 142 U.S. 217, 228. 

RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON CERTAIN LANGUAGE OF THE OPINION IN STEWART
DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294 U.S. 550.  BUT THE TAX ON RETAILERS HELD
INVALID IN THAT CASE INCREASED IN RATE WITH INCREASING VOLUME.  THE
COURT SAID THAT THE EXCISE WAS LAID UPON THE MAKING OF A SALE, AND THAT
THE STATUTE "EXACTS FROM TWO PERSONS DIFFERENT AMOUNTS FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING EXACTLY SIMILAR ACTS BECAUSE THE ONE HAS PERFORMED
THE ACT OFTENER THAN THE OTHER" (P. 566).  FOR THAT REASON IT WAS
THOUGHT NECESSARY TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE TAX COULD BE JUSTIFIED AS
RELATED TO ABILITY TO PAY, AN INQUIRY WE NEED NOT HERE PURSUE.  THE
COURT DID NOT CONDEMN A FIXED-RATE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX, SUCH AS IS
INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE.  INDEED IT SUGGESTED THAT THE "DESIRED
END" MIGHT HAVE BEEN SECURED BY THE WIDELY ADOPTED "FLAT TAX ON SALES"
(P. 563), AND INDICATED BY WAY OF CONTRAST THAT THOUGH SUCH A TAX
"WOULD IMPOSE A HEAVIER BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYER HAVING THE GREATER
VOLUME OF SALES" THE GRADUATED TAX UNDER CONSIDERATION EXACTED NOT ONLY
A LARGER GROSS AMOUNT BUT ONE "LARGER IN PROPORTION TO SALES" (P.
564). 

III.  RELATION TO OBJECT OF LEGISLATION.  AS A FURTHER GROUND FOR THE
INVALIDITY OF THE LOCAL LAWS THE CORPORATION URGES THAT "THE
CLASSIFICATION MUST REST UPON SOME GROUND OF DIFFERENCE, HAVING A FAIR
AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION."  IT IS
ASSERTED, AND CORRECTLY SO, THAT THE LOCAL LAWS IN QUESTION, AS WELL AS
THE STATE ENABLING STATUTES, SHOW BY THEIR TITLES AND CONTENT THAT THE
PROCEEDS OF THE CHALLENGED TAXES WERE FOR THE RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT. 
FN7  VIOLATION OF THE RULE INVOKED, IT IS ASSERTED, OCCURS FROM THE
DISCRIMINATION SHOWN BY THE LEGISLATION IN RAISING "A SPECIAL FUND FOR
THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE" FROM TAXPAYERS NO MORE RESPONSIBLE THAN OTHERS
FOR THE CONDITIONS.  THE CORPORATION SEEMS TO BE OF THE OPINION THAT NO
"STATE OR CITY CAN, WITHOUT CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION, ADOPT A TAX
STATUTE, WHICH STATES A SPECIFIC OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
THEREBY AND WHICH AT THE SAME TIME PUTS THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF THE TAX
UPON ONE PARTICULAR CLASS OF BUSINESS, EVEN THOUGH THAT CLASS IS IN NO
DIFFERENT POSITION IN RELATION TO THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED
THAN BUSINESS IN GENERAL."  THE BRIEF STATES THE POINT TO BE "THAT
THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ORDINARY EXCISE TAX WITH NO SPECIFIC
PURPOSE ATTACHED THERETO, AND A TAX WHICH IS A PART OF A PLAN FOR THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A SPECIFIED OBJECT."  THE "OBJECT OF THE
LEGISLATION," TO THE TAXPAYER, IS APPARENTLY THE RELIEF OF
UNEMPLOYMENT. 

WHILE, OF COURSE, THE OBJECT OF THIS LEGISLATION IS IN A SENSE TO
RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT, THIS IS THE OBJECT OF THE APPROPRIATION OF THE
PROCEEDS OF THE TAX.  THE "OBJECT," AS USED IN THE RULE AND CASES
REFERRED TO BY THE CORPORATION, IS THE OBJECT OF THE TAXING PROVISIONS,
I. E., THE RAISING OF THE MONEY.  IF THE DESIGNATION OF UTILITIES AS
THE ONLY TAXPAYERS UNDER THE LEGISLATION IN QUESTION DOES NOT DENY TO
THEM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, THE FACT THAT AN APPROPRIATION
OF THE FUNDS FOR RELIEF IS A PART OF THE LEGISLATION IS NOT
SIGNIFICANT.  "A TAX IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS."  CARMICHAEL V.
SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495, 522.  TAXES ARE REPEATEDLY
IMPOSED ON A GROUP OR CLASS WITHOUT REGARD TO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
CREATION OR RELIEF OF THE CONDITIONS TO BE REMEDIED.  IDEM, NOTE 14, P.
522.  THE CARMICHAEL CASE INVOLVED A STATE ACT WHICH LEVIED A TAX ON
EMPLOYERS OF EIGHT OR MORE TO PROVIDE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR WORKERS
EMPLOYED BY THIS CLASS OF EMPLOYERS.  IT WAS URGED THAT THE
CLASSIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE UNEMPLOYMENT RECORD OF THE
EMPLOYER, I. E., SHOULD HAVE BORNE A RELATION TO THE OBJECT OF
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF.  AGAINST THIS CONTENTION, THAT THERE WAS NO
RELATION BETWEEN THE CLASS OF TAXPAYERS AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE
FUND WAS RAISED, THIS COURT HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THERE BE
"SUCH A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX (THE EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY) AND THE EVIL TO BE MET BY THE APPROPRIATION OF THE
PROCEEDS (UNEMPLOYMENT)" P. 522.  SEE ALSO CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 308, 313.  THE CORPORATION SUGGESTS THAT IN THE
CARMICHAEL CASE THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CLASS
TAXED AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROCEEDS WERE SPENT, BUT THE COURT
EXPRESSLY SAID THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING "THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
REQUIRE" (P. 523).  THERE NEED BE NO RELATION BETWEEN THE CLASS OF
TAXPAYERS AND THE PURPOSE OF THE APPROPRIATION. 

THE CASES CITED BY THE CORPORATION TO SUSTAIN ITS CONTENTION THAT
CLASSIFICATION MUST REST UPON SOME GROUND OF DIFFERENCE HAVING A FAIR
AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION, DO NOT
SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE "OBJECT" REFERRED TO IS THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE PROCEEDS ARE TO BE SPENT.  THESE AUTHORITIES RATHER SUPPORT
THE VIEW THAT THE "OBJECT" IS THE REVENUE TO BE RAISED BY THE ACTS.  IN
COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE
CLASSIFICATION "MUST REST UPON SOME GROUND OF DIFFERENCE HAVING A FAIR
AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION" (P. 423) BUT
IT WAS SAID (P. 424) THAT "THE OBJECT OF THE ACT  ...  SIMPLY IS TO
SECURE REVENUE."  IN STEBBINS V. RILEY, 268 U.S. 137, ROYSTER GUANO CO.
V. VIRGINIA, 253 U.S. 412, AND AIR WAY APPLIANCE CORP. V. DAY, 266 U.S.
71, THE RULE CONTENDED FOR BY THE CORPORATION WAS RECOGNIZED BUT WITH
NO INTIMATION THAT THE "OBJECT" WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX WERE SPENT.  THE "OBJECT" OF THE LOCAL
LAWS UNDER CONSIDERATION, AS IN THE CASE WITH MOST TAX STATUTES, WAS
OBVIOUSLY TO SECURE REVENUE.  IN SOME CASES A CLASSIFICATION OF
TAXPAYERS MAY BE UPHELD AS HAVING A FAIR AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO A
CONSTITUTIONAL NON-FISCAL OBJECT (ALASKA FISH CO. V. SMITH, 255 U.S.
44, 48; QUONG WING V. KIRKENDALL, 223 U.S. 59, 62, 63; AERO MAYFLOWER
TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285, 291), BUT
IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY NECESSARY THAT THE CLASSIFICATION BE RELATED
TO THE APPROPRIATION.  IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, ALSO
RELIED UPON BY THE CORPORATION, THE ATTACK ON THE FEDERAL STATUTE WAS
SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE THE TAX WAS SAID TO BE A PART OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
SCHEME TO REGULATE PRODUCTION THROUGH EXPENDITURES.  IT WAS NOT HELD
INVALID BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RELATION BETWEEN THE TAXPAYER AND THE
APPROPRIATION.  SEE CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  WE
CONCLUDE, THEREFORE, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE LEGISLATION EARMARKING
THE FUNDS COLLECTED ARE NOT OF IMPORTANCE IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT
THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGED ACTS IS DISCRIMINATORY. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID IN SHOWING THAT THE LOCAL LAWS DO NOT DENY THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS ALSO DISPOSES OF THE CORPORATION'S
CONTENTION THAT THE LOCAL LAWS CONSTITUTE A DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS,
AS BEING MEASURED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE NET INCOME OF OR RUINOUS EFFECT
ON THE TAXPAYERS, AND AS LAYING ON A PARTICULAR CLASS A BURDEN WHICH
SHOULD BE BORNE BY ALL. 

IV.  CONTRACTS CLAUSE.  FN8  THE CORPORATION CONTENDS THAT, IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, SEC. 10, THE LOCAL LAWS
IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT KNOWN AS CONTRACT NO. 4, ENTERED
INTO MARCH 19, 1913, BETWEEN ITS PREDECESSOR AND THE CITY, UNDER WHICH
IT OPERATES ITS OWNED AND LEASED PROPERTIES IN NEW YORK. 

BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, AS SUMMARIZED IN THE CORPORATION'S
COMPLAINT, THE CITY AGREED TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN RAPID TRANSIT
RAILROADS, AND THE NEW YORK MUNICIPAL RAILWAY CORPORATION, APPELLANT'S
PREDECESSOR, AGREED TO CONTRIBUTE A PORTION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION
AND TO EQUIP THE RAILROADS FOR OPERATION.  THE LATTER FURTHER AGREED TO
RECONSTRUCT AND BUILD ADDITIONS TO CERTAIN EXISTING RAILROADS, WHICH IT
THEN HAD THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO OPERATE, SO AS TO ADAPT THEM FOR
OPERATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RAILROADS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE
CITY.  UNDER THE TERMS OF CONTRACT NO. 4, THE CITY LEASED THE RAILROADS
WHICH IT AGREED TO CONSTRUCT, AND THEIR EQUIPMENT, WHICH WAS TO BE
FURNISHED BY THE LESSEE, TO THE NEW YORK MUNICIPAL RAILWAY CORPORATION,
ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, FOR A TERM OF FORTY-NINE YEARS COMMENCING
ON OR ABOUT THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 1917, AND THE LESSEE AGREED TO
OPERATE SAID RAILROADS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE EXISTING RAILROADS AS ONE SYSTEM, AND FOR A SINGLE FARE NOT
EXCEEDING FIVE CENTS. 

THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF ALL THE RAILROADS COMBINED FROM WHATEVER SOURCE
DERIVED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, WERE TO BE POOLED.  THE CITY AND ITS
LESSEE WERE TO SHARE THE RECEIPTS EQUALLY AFTER THE DEDUCTION OF
CERTAIN ITEMS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE XLIX OF CONTRACT NO. 4.  IT WILL
SUFFICE HERE IF WE SUMMARIZE THE PROVISIONS FOR DEDUCTIONS IN THE
LANGUAGE OF APPELLANT.  THE DEDUCTIONS WERE FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES
AND IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 

"1.  RENTALS ACTUALLY PAID BY LESSEE UNDER LEASES APPROVED BY THE
COMMISSION; 

"2.  TAXES (THE FULL PROVISION AS TO 'TAXES' IS SET FORTH LATER); 

"3.  OPERATING EXPENSES EXCLUSIVE OF MAINTENANCE; 

"4.  CHARGES FOR MAINTENANCE OF BOTH THE RAILROAD AND THE EXISTING
RAILROADS (RAILROAD REFERS TO THE SYSTEM TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY;
EXISTING RAILROADS REFERS TO THE COMPANY-OWNED LINES AS THEY EXISTED AT
THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT); 

"5.  CHARGES FOR DEPRECIATION OF THE RAILROAD, THE EQUIPMENT, AND THE
EXISTING RAILROADS; 

"6.  TO BE RETAINED BY THE LESSEE:  1/4TH OF $3,500,000, REPRESENTING
THE AVERAGE INCOME FROM OPERATION OF THE EXISTING RAILROADS; 

"7.  TO BE RETAINED BY THE LESSEE:  1/4TH OF 6% PER ANNUM ON (A) THE
LESSEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE RAILROAD, (B) COST
OF EQUIPMENT FURNISHED BY THE LESSEE, (C) COST OF EXTENSIONS AND
ADDITIONAL TRACKS CONSTRUCTED BY THE LESSEE, AND (D) COST OF
RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING RAILROADS (OUT OF WHICH QUARTERLY PAYMENTS
THE LESSEE IS REQUIRED TO AMORTIZE SUCH COSTS); 

"8.  TO BE RETAINED BY THE LESSEE:  1/4TH OF THE ACTUAL ANNUAL
INTEREST PAYABLE BY LESSEE UPON THE COST OF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT, PLUS
AN AMORTIZATION CHARGE; 

"9.  TO BE PAID TO THE CITY:  1/4TH OF THE ANNUAL INTEREST PAYABLE BY
IT UPON ITS SHARE OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE RAILROAD PLUS AN
AMORTIZATION CHARGE; 

"10.  TO BE PAID TO THE CITY:  1/4TH OF THE ANNUAL INTEREST PAYABLE
BY THE CITY UPON COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO THE RAILROAD PLUS
AN AMORTIZATION CHARGE; 

"11.  1% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS, TO BE PAID INTO A CONTINGENT RESERVE
FUND. 

"IN CONNECTION WITH THE ABOVE ALLOCATION PROVISIONS, CONTRACT NO. 4
PROVIDED (ART. LI, P. 66) THAT IF IN ANY QUARTER THE GROSS RECEIPTS
SHOULD BE INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE VARIOUS OBLIGATIONS AND DEDUCTIONS
ABOVE RECITED, THE DEFICITS SHOULD BE CUMULATIVE, AND PAYMENT THEREOF
SHOULD BE MADE IN THE ORDER OF PRIORITY ABOVE SET FORTH." 

THE CORPORATION DOES NOT CLAIM THAT CONTRACT NO. 4 EXEMPTS IT OR ITS
PROPERTY FROM TAXATION GENERALLY.  IT DOES ASSERT THAT THE CITY "MAY
NOT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL POWER, SUBJECT APPELLANT TO
THE PAYMENT OF A TAX ON OR MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE
COMBINED SYSTEM OF RAILROADS," AND THAT "BY PROVIDING IN SPECIFIC TERMS
FOR THE DISPOSITION AND ALLOCATION OF THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS, THE
PARTIES NECESSARILY PRECLUDED ANY KIND OF TAX OR CHARGE BY THE CITY
WHICH WOULD DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY ALTER SUCH DISPOSITION AND
ALLOCATION, TO APPELLANT'S PREJUDICE, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS ANY SUCH TAX
OR CHARGE MAY CLEARLY BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONTRACT
PROVISIONS AS TO THE DISPOSITION OF GROSS RECEIPTS." 

THE CORPORATION FURTHER COMPLAINS THAT THE TAX PAYMENTS DEPRIVE IT OF
"A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE INTEREST AND SINKING FUND ALLOWANCE TO WHICH
IT WAS ENTITLED" UNDER DEDUCTIONS NOS. 7 AND 8 SET OUT ABOVE.  THE LOSS
THUS SUFFERED WAS ALLEGED TO TOTAL MORE THAN $600,000. 

WE SEARCH IN VAIN FOR ANY PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT WHICH EXPRESSLY
EXEMPTS THE CORPORATION FROM PAYMENT OF THIS TAX, OR INDEED OF ANY
TAX.  YET THIS IS WHAT IS REQUIRED BEFORE SUPPORT CAN BE OBTAINED FROM
THE CONTRACTS CLAUSE.  MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS AGO IT WAS STATED BY
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL, IN PROVIDENCE BANK V. BILLINGS, 4 PET. 514,
563, THAT THE TAXING POWER IS OF SUCH "VITAL IMPORTANCE" THAT "WE MUST
LOOK FOR THE EXEMPTION IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE INSTRUMENT; AND IF WE DO
NOT FIND IT THERE, IT WOULD BE GOING VERY FAR TO INSERT IT BY
CONSTRUCTION."  IN ERIE RY. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 21 WALL.  492, 499,
THIS COURT SAID THAT "THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE SURRENDER IS MADE MUST
BE CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE."  AT THE PRESENT TERM, THE COURT HAS
REITERATED THAT CONTRACTS OF TAX EXEMPTION ARE "TO BE READ NARROWLY AND
STRICTLY," HALE V. STATE BOARD, 302 U.S. 95, 109.  SEE ALSO PACIFIC CO.
V. JOHNSON, 285 U.S. 480, 491; PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
SEATTLE, 291 U.S. 619, 627. 

NOT ONLY IS THE CORPORATION UNABLE TO POINT TO AN UNMISTAKABLE
EXEMPTION, BUT THE CONTRACT ITSELF CONTAINS AN EXPRESS PROVISION
PERMITTING THE DEDUCTION OF TAXES FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS.  FN9  ITS
LANGUAGE IS BROAD.  IT REFERS TO "ALL TAXES  ...  OF EVERY DESCRIPTION
(WHETHER ON PHYSICAL PROPERTY, STOCK OR SECURITIES, CORPORATE OR OTHER
FRANCHISES, OR OTHERWISE) ASSESSED OR WHICH MAY HEREAFTER BE ASSESSED
AGAINST THE LESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH  ...  THE OPERATION OF THE ...
RAILROADS."  THE TAXES UNDER DISCUSSION CLEARLY COME WITHIN ITS TERMS. 
IT IS ALLEGED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACTS, AND
PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE STATE ENABLING ACTS,  FN10  THE TAX POWER
OF THE CITY WAS CONFINED TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS, AND AD VALOREM TAXES ON REAL ESTATE AND SPECIAL
FRANCHISES ISSUED BY THE CITY.  THE CORPORATION INSISTS THAT IT WAS
CONTEMPLATED THAT NO OTHER TYPE OF TAX WOULD BE ASSESSED, AND THAT IT
WAS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE PROVISION FOR EXEMPTION SINCE THE CORPORATION
WAS MERELY ACCEPTING THE TAX BURDEN COMMON TO ALL OWNERS OF PROPERTY. 
IT IS URGED THAT THE CONTRACT BE INTERPRETED FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW,
AND THE PROVISION LIMITED TO TAXES OF THE TYPE WHICH THE CITY COULD
HAVE IMPOSED IN 1913. 

THERE IS NO REASON TO LIMIT THE ORDINARY MEANING OF WORDS USED IN A
CONTRACT BY MEN PREPARED TO INVEST UNDER ITS TERMS.  "...  A BUSINESS
PROPOSITION INVOLVING THE OUTLAY OF VERY LARGE SUMS CANNOT BE AND IS
NOT TAKEN BY THE PARTIES CONCERNED ACCORDING TO OFFHAND IMPRESSIONS; IT
IS SCRUTINIZED PHRASE BY PHRASE AND WORD BY WORD."  NEW YORK V. SOHMER,
237 U.S. 276, 284; CF. OHIO INS. CO. V. DEBOLT, 16 HOW.  416, 435. 

WHERE THE INTENTION WAS TO PREVENT THE IMPOSITION OF NEW TAXES,
ADEQUATE LANGUAGE WAS AVAILABLE.  THE COURT BELOW ADVERTED TO ITS
OPINION IN BROOKLYN BUS CORP. V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 274 N.Y. 140; 8
N.E.2D 309, WHERE THE CONTRACT ENTITLED THE CORPORATION TO A BROADER
TAX EXEMPTION BECAUSE IT PROVIDED THAT "ANY NEW FORM OF TAX OR
ADDITIONAL CHARGE THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY ANY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OR
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD UPON OR IN RESPECT OF THE FRANCHISE  ...  SHALL
BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE CITY HEREUNDER  ..." 

A SIMILAR SUGGESTION THAT THE CONTRACT BE LIMITED TO THE TAXES KNOWN
AT THE TIME OF ITS MAKING WAS URGED UPON US, AND DISCARDED, IN J. W.
PERRY CO. V. NORFOLK, 220 U.S. 472.  UNDER A LEASE MADE BY NORFOLK IN
1792, WHEN NORFOLK WAS A BOROUGH WITHOUT POWER TO TAX, THE LESSEE
AGREED TO PAY, IN ADDITION TO RENT, "THE PUBLIC TAXES WHICH SHALL
BECOME DUE ON SAID LAND."  THE LESSEE SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE COLLECTION
OF TAXES IN 1906 BY THE CITY OF NORFOLK, ON THE GROUND THAT THE PARTIES
CONTEMPLATED ONLY TAXES IMPOSED BY VIRGINIA OR THE UNITED STATES.  THIS
COURT HELD THAT THE LANGUAGE WAS BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER THE CITY TAX,
SAYING (P. 480), THAT "THE PROVISION THAT THE LESSEE WAS TO 'PAY PUBLIC
TAXES' WAS SUFFICIENTLY COMPREHENSIVE TO EMBRACE MUNICIPAL TAXES
WHENEVER THEY COULD THEREAFTER BE LAWFULLY ASSESSED ON LAND OR THE
IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WERE A PART OF THE LAND.  WHERE ONE RELIES UPON AN
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION, BOTH THE POWER TO EXEMPT AND THE CONTRACT OF
EXEMPTION MUST BE CLEAR.  ANY DOUBT OR AMBIGUITY MUST BE RESOLVED IN
FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC." 

ADMITTING THAT WITH RESPECT TO A FRANCHISE CONTRACT SILENT AS TO
TAXES THE CITY MAY VALIDLY IMPOSE A LICENSE TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
DOING BUSINESS, SINCE "SURRENDER OF THE STATE'S POWER TO TAX THE
PRIVILEGE IS NOT TO BE IMPLIED FROM THE GRANT OF IT," PUGET SOUND POWER
& LIGHT CO. V. SEATTLE, 291 U.S. 619, 627, IT IS URGED BY THE
CORPORATION THAT HERE THE CITY IS VIOLATING THE AFFIRMATIVE COVENANTS
OF A CONTRACT, NAMELY, THE PROVISIONS FOR ALLOCATION OF REVENUE.  THE
CONTENTION IS MADE THAT THESE PROVISIONS PRECLUDE AN "ALTERATION" BY
VIRTUE OF A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX. 

THIS COURT, IN CONSTRUING A CONTRACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
LEGISLATION IS VIOLATIVE OF ITS PROVISIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WILL EXAMINE FOR ITSELF THE
EXISTENCE AND MEANING OF THE CONTRACT AS WELL AS THE RELATION OF THE
PARTIES AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS EXECUTION.  APPLEBY V. CITY OF NEW
YORK, 271 U.S. 364, 379-380; FUNKHOUSER V. PRESTON CO., 290 U.S. 163,
167; VIOLET TRAPPING CO. V. GRACE, 297 U.S. 119, 120.  BUT OF COURSE IN
SO DOING WE "LEAN TOWARD AGREEMENT WITH THE COURTS OF THE STATE, AND
ACCEPT THEIR JUDGMENTS AS TO SUCH MATTERS UNLESS MANIFESTLY WRONG,"
HALE V. STATE BOARD, 302 U.S. 95, 101; TAMPA WATER WORKS CO. V. TAMPA,
199 U.S. 241, 243-244; SOUTHERN WISCONSIN RY. CO. V. MADISON, 240 U.S.
457, 461.  IN THIS CASE THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, 275 N.Y. 258,
268; 9 N.E.2D 858, HAS DETERMINED THAT "THE RIGHT TO TAX CANNOT BE LOST
BY SUCH TENUOUS IMPLICATION," I.E., ON THE THEORY THAT THE TAX ENABLES
THE CITY TO SECURE A PORTION OF THE GROSS INCOME IN CONTRAVENTION OF
THE CONTRACT.  WE SEE NO REASON FOR DISAGREEING WITH THE CONCLUSION OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK UPON THIS POINT. 

IN EFFECT, THE CORPORATION IS URGING THAT A CONSTRUCTIVE CONDITION
RESTRICTING THE CITY'S POWER OF TAXATION SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE
CONTRACT, BY SPECULATION AS TO WHAT THE PARTIES MUST NECESSARILY HAVE
INTENDED, DESPITE THE LONG STANDING RULE THAT EXEMPTIONS MUST BE "CLEAR
AND UNMISTAKABLE."  ERIE RY. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 21 WALL.  492, AND
OTHER CASES, ALL CITED SUPRA. 

THE CORPORATION PROFESSES TO DREAD AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT
AND THE LEGISLATION, WHICH WILL PUT IT "WHOLLY AT THE MERCY" OF THE
CITY; UNDER WHICH THE CORPORATION'S GROSS RECEIPTS WOULD BE DISPOSED
OF, NOT AS CONTRACT NO. 4 PROVIDES, BUT AS THE CITY MAY FROM TIME TO
TIME IN ITS WISDOM DETERMINE."  THE CORPORATION IS NOT DEPRIVED OF ITS
RIGHT TO RESIST ON CONSTITUTIONAL OR LEGAL GROUNDS WHATEVER TAX OR
ASSESSMENT MAY BE IMPOSED UPON IT OR ITS PROPERTY.  THE CITY CAN NOT
LAY A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON THE CORPORATION UNLESS IT SELECTS A CLASS
OF TAXPAYERS WHICH MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT AS TO TAXES ARE CERTAINLY NOT
SUFFICIENTLY EXPLICIT TO JUSTIFY US IN DENYING TO THE CITY THE RIGHT TO
COLLECT SUCH TAXES AS THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS LITIGATION.  THE DANGER
WHICH THE CORPORATION SEES FROM WHAT IT CONSIDERS TO BE A VIOLATION BY
LEGISLATION OF ITS CONTRACT RIGHTS IS A DANGER WHICH EVERY UTILITY,
WITH A FRANCHISE WHICH DOES NOT PROTECT ITS PROPERTY FROM ADDITIONAL
TAXATION, MUST ENDURE. 

CONVINCING PRECEDENT FOR THE CONTENTION OF THE CITY IS FOUND IN NORTH
MISSOURI R. CO. V. MAGUIRE, 20 WALL.  46, WHERE THIS COURT CONSIDERED A
STATUTE OF MISSOURI WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE RAILROAD COULD ISSUE BONDS
HAVING PRIORITY OVER THE STATE'S MORTGAGE.  THE ACT MADE SPECIFIC
PROVISION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THE EARNINGS OF THE RAILROAD COMPANY IN
MUCH THE SAME MANNER AS CONTRACT NO. 4 DOES IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE
ACT ESTABLISHED A "FUND COMMISSIONER" AND PROVIDED THAT THE RAILROAD
COMPANY SHOULD PAY OVER TO THIS COMMISSIONER "ALL THE GROSS EARNINGS
AND DAILY RECEIPTS."  IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD
FIRST PAY AMOUNTS REQUIRED FOR "ACTUAL CURRENT EXPENDITURES"; SHOULD
THEN MAKE OTHER SPECIFIED DEDUCTIONS, AND LASTLY, SHOULD APPLY ANY
EXCESS TO CERTAIN FIRST MORTGAGE BONDS AND THEN AGAINST THE RAILROAD'S
DEBT TO THE STATE. 

SUBSEQUENTLY THE STATE CONSTITUTION WAS AMENDED TO PROVIDE THAT AN
ANNUAL TAX OF 10% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOULD BE LEVIED ON THE NORTH
MISSOURI RAILROAD COMPANY AND TWO OTHER NAMED CORPORATIONS.  THE STATE
COURT HELD THAT THE EARLIER STATUTE CONSTITUTED A CONTRACT BUT
CONSIDERED THE PAYMENT OF TAXES TO FALL WITHIN "CURRENT EXPENDITURES
FOR CARRYING ON THE ORDINARY BUSINESS."  IN THIS COURT, THE COMPANY
ARGUED THAT THE TAX CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF THIS CONTRACT, SINCE IT
OVERTURNED THE ALLOCATION OF RECEIPTS AND HAD THE EFFECT OF CONVERTING
THE STATE FROM A JUNIOR CREDITOR TO A FIRST MORTGAGEE. 

THIS COURT AGREED THAT "SERIOUS DIFFICULTY" WOULD ARISE IF "THE
ORDINANCE WAS A MERE CHANGE OF THE ORDER OF DISBURSING THE RECEIPTS AND
EARNINGS," INSTEAD OF "AN EXPRESSION OF THE SOVEREIGN WILL OF THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE LEVYING TAXES TO PAY AND DISCHARGE THE INDEBTEDNESS
OF THE STATE," BUT CONCLUDED THAT THE TAX ACTUALLY IMPOSED WAS PROPER. 
OF THE PROVISIONS FOR ALLOCATION OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS, THE COURT SAID
(P. 63): 

"FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THOSE PROVISIONS IS CERTAINLY UNNECESSARY, AS
IT IS TOO PLAIN FOR ARGUMENT THAT THEY DO NOT AFFORD THE SLIGHTEST
SUPPORT TO THE VIEWS OF THE PLAINTIFFS.  ON THE CONTRARY, THEY ARE
ENTIRELY SILENT UPON THE SUBJECT OF TAXATION, AND FULLY JUSTIFY THE
REMARKS OF THE STATE COURT WHEN THEY SAY THAT THE SUBJECT OF TAXATION
FORMS NO PART OF THE CONTRACT CONTAINED IN THE ACT UNDER
CONSIDERATION. 

"NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT TAXATION, AND IT DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE ENTERED
INTO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BUT WAS OBVIOUSLY LEFT WHERE THE
LAW HAD PLACED IT BEFORE THE ACT WAS PASSED, NOR WAS ANY PROVISION MADE
FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAXES UNLESS IT MAY BE HELD THAT THE DISBURSEMENTS
FOR THAT PURPOSE MAY FAIRLY BE INCLUDED IN SUCH AS ARE REQUIRED TO PAY
THE CURRENT EXPENDITURES IN CARRYING ON THE ORDINARY BUSINESS OF THE
CORPORATION." 

IN OUR OPINION, AS THE CONTRACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THIS TAX, THE
LEGISLATION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACTS CLAUSE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  UTILITIES SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SERVICE PAY THREE PER CENT. OF THEIR "GROSS INCOME," AS DEFINED BY SEC.
1(C); THE OTHER UTILITIES PAY THREE PER CENT. OF THEIR "GROSS OPERATING
INCOME," AS DEFINED BY SEC. 1(D). 

FN2  N.Y. LAWS 1934, C. 873, AUTHORIZED ANY CITY OF A MILLION
INHABITANTS TO IMPOSE FOR PURPOSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ANY TAX
WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE, INCLUDING A TAX ON GROSS
INCOME OR GROSS RECEIPTS OF THOSE DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY.  THE ACT
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED (SEC. 2) THAT THE REVENUES SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN
A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT AND USED SOLELY FOR THE RELIEF PURPOSES.  THE
AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THIS STATUTE EXPIRED DECEMBER 31, 1935, BUT WAS
EXTENDED, WITH CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE, UNTIL JULY 1,
1936, BY N.Y. LAWS 1935, C. 601. 

FN3  OTHERS ARE THE PRODUCTION AND/OR FURNISHING OF GAS, ELECTRICITY,
STEAM, AND WATER, COMMUNICATION BY TELEGRAPH OR TELEPHONE, OMNIBUS
TRANSPORTATION.  NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE LAW, SECS. 64, 78, 89-A, 90,
60. 

FN4  NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE LAW (LAWS 1910, C. 480), AS AMENDED:
SEC. 53(RAILROAD; STREET RAILROAD); SEC. 63-D (OMNIBUS); SEC. 68(GAS;
ELECTRICITY); SEC. 81(STEAM); SEC. 89-E (WATER); SEC. 99(1)(TELEPHONE
AND TELEGRAPH). 

FN5  OPERATING REVENUES ARE REPORTED BY RAILROADS.  SEE, E. G.,
TRANSIT COMMISSION, SUMMARY OF REPORTS OF RAPID TRANSIT, STREET SURFACE
RAILWAY AND BUS COMPANIES OPERATING IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK FOR THE
QUARTER APRIL-JUNE, 1935, AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1935;
ID., QUARTER, APRIL-JUNE, 1936, AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
1936. 

FN6  CITY OF NEW YORK, LOCAL LAW NO. 16 OF 1925. 

THE ARGUMENT IS APPLICABLE IN NO. 436.  THERE THE LIMITATION ON FARE
EXISTS IN A FRANCHISE, ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT TO BE BEYOND THE
REGULATORY POWER OF THE TRANSIT COMMISSION. 

FN7  N.Y. LAWS 1934, C. 873(THE ENABLING ACT): 

"AN ACT TO ENABLE, TEMPORARILY, ANY CITY OF THE STATE HAVING A
POPULATION OF ONE MILLION INHABITANTS OR MORE TO ADOPT AND AMEND LOCAL
LAWS, IMPOSING IN ANY SUCH CITY ANY TAX AND/OR TAXES WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE HAS OR WOULD HAVE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE TO RELIEVE
THE PEOPLE OF ANY SUCH CITY FROM THE HARDSHIPS AND SUFFERING CAUSED BY
UNEMPLOYMENT AND TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF SUCH LOCAL LAWS.... 

"SEC. 2.  REVENUES RESULTING FROM THE IMPOSITION OF TAXES AUTHORIZED
BY THIS ACT SHALL BE PAID INTO THE TREASURY OF ANY SUCH CITY AND SHALL
NOT BE CREDITED OR DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND OF ANY SUCH CITY, BUT
SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT OR ACCOUNTS AND SHALL BE
AVAILABLE AND USED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR PAYING THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF ANY INSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND OF INTEREST DUE DURING THE
AFORESAID PERIOD ON ACCOUNT OF THE TEN-YEAR SERIAL BONDS SOLD TO OBTAIN
MONEYS TO PAY FOR HOME RELIEF AND WORK RELIEF IN ANY SUCH CITY IN THE
MONTH OF NOVEMBER, NINETEEN HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE, AND FOR THE RELIEF
PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE SAID TAXES HAVE BEEN IMPOSED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT." 

LOCAL LAW NO. 21 OF 1934, AS AMENDED BY LOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF 1935: 

"A LOCAL LAW TO RELIEVE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK FROM THE
HARDSHIPS AND SUFFERING CAUSED BY UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE EFFECTS THEREOF
ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, BY IMPOSING AN EXCISE TAX ON THE
GROSS INCOME OF EVERY PERSON DOING BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH CITY AND
SUBJECT TO SUPERVISION OF EITHER DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SERVICE, AND OF ANY AND ALL OTHER UTILITIES DOING BUSINESS WITHIN SUCH
CITY TO ENABLE SUCH CITY TO DEFRAY THE COST OF GRANTING UNEMPLOYMENT,
WORK AND HOME RELIEF. 

"SEC. 14.  DISPOSITION OF REVENUES.  - ALL REVENUES AND MONEYS
RESULTING FROM THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAXES IMPOSED BY THIS LOCAL LAW
SHALL BE PAID INTO THE TREASURY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND SHALL NOT
BE CREDITED OR DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
BUT SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT OR ACCOUNTS, AND
SHALL BE AVAILABLE AND USED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
RELIEVING THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK FROM THE HARDSHIPS AND
SUFFERING CAUSED BY UNEMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING THE REPAYMENT OF MONEYS
BORROWED FOR SUCH PURPOSE." 

FN8  IN NO. 436, THE LEGISLATION IS NOT CHALLENGED AS AN IMPAIRMENT
OF AN OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT.  THE BROOKLYN AND QUEENS TRANSIT
CORPORATION "DOES NOT OPERATE UNDER CONTRACT 4, BUT UNDER STREET
RAILROAD FRANCHISE FROM THE CITY." 

FN9  THE CLAUSE READS AS FOLLOWS:  "TAXES, IF ANY, UPON PROPERTY
ACTUALLY AND NECESSARILY USED BY THE LESSEE IN THE OPERATION OF THE
RAILROAD AND THE EXISTING RAILROADS, TOGETHER WITH ALL TAXES OR OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL CHARGES OF EVERY DESCRIPTION (WHETHER ON PHYSICAL
PROPERTY, STOCK OR SECURITIES, CORPORATE OR OTHER FRANCHISES, OR
OTHERWISE) ASSESSED OR WHICH MAY HEREAFTER BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE
LESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH OR INCIDENT TO THE OPERATION OF THE RAILROAD
AND THE EXISTING RAILROADS.  ALSO SUCH ASSESSMENTS FOR BENEFITS AS ARE
NOT PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO COST OF CONSTRUCTION OR COST OF EQUIPMENT." 
FN10  SEE SUPRA NOTE 2. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :
















UNITED STATES V. WURTS, 303 U.S. 414 


NO. 499.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 14, 1938.  - 91
F.2D 547, REVERSED. 


UNDER SEC. 610 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, BARRING SUITS IN THE NAME
OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER AMOUNTS ERRONEOUSLY REFUNDED, UNLESS
BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS "AFTER THE MAKING OF SUCH REFUND," THE PERIOD
OF LIMITATION BEGINS TO RUN, NOT FROM THE TIME OF THE ALLOWANCE OF THE
REFUND (THE DATE WHEN THE COMMISSIONER APPROVES THE SCHEDULE OF
OVERASSESSMENTS), BUT FROM THE TIME OF ITS PAYMENT.  P. 416. 

UNITED STATES V. WURTS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 678, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE TAXPAYER IN A SUIT BY THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER AN ERRONEOUS
REFUND OF TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928,  FN1  FORBIDDING SUIT BY THE UNITED
STATES TO RECOVER AN ERRONEOUS TAX REFUND UNLESS BROUGHT "WITHIN TWO
YEARS AFTER THE MAKING OF SUCH REFUND," DOES THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION
BEGIN WHEN THE REFUND IS ALLOWED OR WHEN IT IS PAID? 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED  FN2  THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT
HOLDING THE GOVERNMENT BARRED BY THIS LIMITATION BECAUSE THE PRESENT
SUIT WAS NOT BROUGHT WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMMISSIONER ALLOWED
THE REFUND BY SIGNING THE SCHEDULE OF OVER-ASSESSMENTS. 

THE FACTS SHOW THAT: 

MARCH 15, 1932, THE COMMISSIONER ERRONEOUSLY APPROVED A REFUND OF
TAXES PAID BY RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 1929.  APRIL 30, 1932, A CHECK
WAS MAILED TO THE TAXPAYER FOR THIS ERRONEOUS REFUND.  APRIL 26, 1934,
MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE ALLOWANCE OF THE REFUND, BUT LESS THAN
TWO YEARS AFTER ACTUAL PAYMENT, THE GOVERNMENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO
RECOVER THE ERRONEOUS REFUND. 

THE GOVERNMENT BY APPROPRIATE ACTION CAN RECOVER FUNDS WHICH ITS
AGENTS HAVE WRONGFULLY, ERRONEOUSLY, OR ILLEGALLY PAID.  FN3  "NO
STATUTE IS NECESSARY TO AUTHORIZE THE UNITED STATES TO SUE IN SUCH A
CASE.  THE RIGHT TO SUE IS INDEPENDENT OF STATUTE,  ..."  UNITED STATES
V. BANK OF THE METROPOLIS, 15 PET. 377, 401.  SECTION 610 OF THE 1928
ACT, RELIED UPON AS BARRING RECOVERY OF THIS ERRONEOUS AND UNWARRANTED
TAX REFUND, DOES NOT GRANT THE GOVERNMENT A NEW RIGHT, BUT IS A
LIMITATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LONG-ESTABLISHED RIGHT TO SUE FOR MONEY
WRONGFULLY OR ERRONEOUSLY PAID FROM THE PUBLIC TREASURY.  ORDINARILY,
RECOVERY OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS, PAID BY MISTAKE TO ONE HAVING NO JUST
RIGHT TO KEEP THE FUNDS, IS NOT BARRED BY THE PASSAGE OF TIME.  FN4
THERE IS NO CONTENTION HERE THAT RESPONDENT HAS ANY RIGHT TO RETAIN
THIS REFUND ERRONEOUSLY PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT.  HIS DEFENSE IS THAT
THE STATUTORY BAR PREVENTS RECOVERY.  THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO RECOVER
FUNDS, FROM A PERSON WHO RECEIVED THEM BY MISTAKE AND WITHOUT RIGHT, IS
NOT BARRED UNLESS CONGRESS HAS "CLEARLY MANIFESTED ITS INTENTION"  FN5
TO RAISE A STATUTORY BARRIER. 

THAT THE GOVERNMENT BRING SUIT "BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF TWO YEARS
AFTER THE MAKING OF SUCH (ERRONEOUS) REFUND...."  RESPONDENT CONTENDS
THAT THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932  FN6  INDICATED CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO
DESIGNATE THE DATE OF ALLOWANCE OF A REFUND (THE DATE THE COMMISSIONER
SIGNS THE SCHEDULE OF OVER-ASSESSMENTS) AS THE DATE OF REFUND FOR
COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS UNDER SEC. 610.  THE 1932 ACT
PROVIDES: 

"WHERE THE COMMISSIONER HAS (BEFORE OR AFTER JUNE 6, 1932) SIGNED A
SCHEDULE OF OVERASSESSMENTS IN RESPECT OF ANY INTERNAL REVENUE TAX
IMPOSED BY (THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932) OR ANY PRIOR REVENUE ACT, THE DATE
ON WHICH HE FIRST SIGNS SUCH SCHEDULE (IF AFTER MAY 28, 1928) SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS THE DATE OF ALLOWANCE OF REFUND OR CREDIT IN RESPECT OF
SUCH TAX."  THIS ACT IN NO MANNER RELATES TO LIMITATIONS ON SUITS FOR
ERRONEOUS REFUNDS.  IT HAS NO PURPOSE IN COMMON WITH SEC. 610 OF THE
1928 ACT.  THE 1932 ACT THROWS NO LIGHT ON THE MEANING OF SEC. 610. 

IMPORT.  "CONGRESS MAY WELL BE SUPPOSED TO HAVE USED LANGUAGE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING."  FN7 WEBSTER'S NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (2D ED., UNABRIDGED) DEFINES "REFUND" AS "THAT
WHICH IS REFUNDED" AND DEFINES THE TRANSITIVE VERB AS:  "TO RETURN
(MONEY) IN RESTITUTION, REPAYMENT  ..."  ONLY BY IGNORING THE COMMON
UNDERSTANDING OF WORDS COULD "MAKING  ...  (A) REFUND" BE CONSIDERED
SYNONYMOUS WITH "ALLOWING A REFUND." 

THAT CONGRESS HAD IN MIND THE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT MEANINGS OF THESE
TWO EXPRESSIONS IS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN HOUSE REPORT NO. 2, 70TH
CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 34, 35, CONTAINING THE COMMITTEE REPORT ON
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928: 

"THE SECTION (610) PROVIDES THAT ANY ERRONEOUS REFUND,  ...  MAY BE
RECOVERED BY SUIT BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES IF SUCH SUIT
IS BEGUN WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE MAKING OF THE REFUND." 

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, IN REFERRING TO SEC. 614, THE REPORT STATED: 

"THE PRINCIPAL CHANGE MADE IN EXISTING LAW IS THAT IN THE CASE OF A
REFUND THE INTEREST PERIOD NOW TERMINATES WITH THE ALLOWANCE OF THE
REFUND, A DATE WHICH OFTEN PRECEDES THE ACTUAL MAKING OF THE REFUND
..." 

THE COMMISSIONER'S SIGNATURE ON A SCHEDULE OF OVERASSESSMENTS DOES
NOT FINALLY ESTABLISH A CLAIMANT'S RIGHT TO A REFUND AND DOES NOT
PRECLUDE FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM.  THE
COMMISSIONER COULD LATER TAKE HIS SIGNATURE FROM THE SCHEDULE AND AS
POINTED OUT BY THIS COURT MIGHT - EVEN AFTER A CHECK WAS SIGNED AND
MAILED - CANCEL THE PAYMENT AND REVOKE THE AUTHORITY OF PAYMENT
ERRONEOUSLY MADE.  FN8 

IT WOULD REQUIRE LANGUAGE SO CLEAR AS TO LEAVE ROOM FOR NO OTHER
REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO INDUCE THE BELIEF THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TO BEGIN TO RUN BEFORE THE RIGHT
BARRED BY IT HAS ACCRUED.  OBVIOUSLY, THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO RIGHT TO
SUE THIS TAXPAYER TO RECOVER MONEY BEFORE MONEY HAD BEEN PAID TO HIM. 
THE CONSTRUCTION URGED BY RESPONDENT WOULD ALLOW THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS TO BEGIN TO RUN AGAINST RECOVERY ON AN ERRONEOUS PAYMENT
BEFORE ANY SUCH PAYMENT IS MADE.  AS SAID BY A HOUSE COMMITTEE IN
REPORTING ON A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONTAINED IN A REVENUE ACT,  FN9
"LOGICALLY THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHOULD RUN FROM THE DATE OF
PAYMENT, SINCE IT IS AT THAT TIME THAT THE RIGHT ACCRUES." 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE LIMITATIONS OF
SEC. 610 TO RUN AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT
"HAS ACCRUED IN A SHAPE TO BE EFFECTUALLY ENFORCED."  FN10 

THIS STATUTE DOES NOT BEGIN TO RUN AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WHEN A
CLAIM IS ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED.  IT BEGINS TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF
PAYMENT.  THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STATUTE AND IS REVERSED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, 45 STAT. 791, SEC. 610. 

FN2  91 F.(2D) 547. 

FN3  WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILROAD V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 190, 212;
SEE UNITED STATES V. BURCHARD, 125 U.S. 176, 180, 181. 

FN4  GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S. 112, 121. 

FN5  COMPARE, UNITED STATES V. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 118
U.S. 120, 125. 

FN6  REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, SEC. 1104. 

FN7  UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. HALL, 91 U.S. 343, 347. 

FN8  DAUBE V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 367, 372. 

FN9  HOUSE REPORT NO. 179, 68TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 27. 

FN10  CF., BORER V. CHAPMAN, 119 U.S. 587, 602.  MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO
AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., 303 U.S. 362 


NO. 387.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1938.  - 90 F.2D
899, REVERSED IN PART - AFFIRMED IN PART. 


1.  THE DEDUCTION FOR DEPLETION IN THE TAXATION OF PROFITS FROM OIL
AND GAS WELLS IS ALLOWED AS AN ACT OF GRACE, IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT
THAT MINERAL DEPOSITS ARE WASTING ASSETS, AND IS INTENDED AS
COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER FOR THE PART USED UP IN PRODUCTION.  P. 366. 

2.  MAKING THE DEDUCTION ARBITRARY - A PER CENT. OF GROSS INCOME FROM
THE PROPERTY - WAS FOR CONVENIENCE AND DID NOT ALTER THE FUNDAMENTAL
THEORY OF THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE.  P. 367. 

3.  THE ALLOWANCE OF A PER CENT. "OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY," I.E. INCOME FROM OIL AND GAS, IS MADE TO THE RECIPIENTS OF
THE GROSS INCOME BY REASON OF THEIR CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE OIL AND
GAS IN PLACE.  ID. 

4.  A MERE PROCESSOR WHO DERIVES AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE THROUGH
CONTRACTS WITH PRODUCERS OF OIL OR GAS BUT WHO HAS NO CAPITAL
INVESTMENT IN THE MINERAL DEPOSIT, HAS NOT SUCH AN "ECONOMIC INTEREST"
IN THE OIL OR GAS IN PLACE THAT HE MAY HAVE AN ALLOWANCE FOR THEIR
DEPLETION.  ID. 

5.  THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1926 AND 1928 PROVIDE THAT IN COMPUTING NET
INCOME THERE SHALL, IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS, BE AN ALLOWANCE
FOR DEPLETION OF "27 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR."  THE TAXPAYER, A CORPORATION,
DERIVED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF GASOLINE WHICH IT EXTRACTED FROM "WET"
(NATURAL) GAS OBTAINED UNDER CONTRACTS WITH PRODUCERS.  THE CONTRACT IN
EACH CASE REQUIRED THE TAXPAYER TO LAY A PIPELINE FROM THE WELL TO ITS
PLANT, CONNECTING THE PIPE WITH THE CASING-HEAD OR GAS TRAP AT THE
MOUTH OF THE WELL; IT REQUIRED THE PRODUCER TO DELIVER INTO THE
PIPELINE, AT THE CASINGHEAD OR TRAP, THE GAS PRODUCED AT THE WELL; AND
REQUIRED THE TAXPAYER TO EXTRACT THE GASOLINE FROM THE GAS SO DELIVERED
AND TO PAY THE PRODUCER A SPECIFIED SHARE OF THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF ITS
SALE OR A SPECIFIED SHARE OF THE GASOLINE.  HELD, THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO AN ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION, SINCE IT HAD NO INTEREST IN
THE WELLS OR IN THE "WET" GAS IN PLACE, AND TOOK NO PART IN THE
PRODUCTION OF IT. PP. 364-367. 

THE TAXPAYER HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE GAS DELIVERED, BUT DID NOT
PRODUCE IT AND COULD NOT COMPEL ITS PRODUCTION.  THE PIPELINES AND
EQUIPMENT, WHICH IT PROVIDED, FACILITATED THE DELIVERY OF THE GAS
PRODUCED, BUT THE AGREEMENT FOR THEIR INSTALLATION GRANTED NO INTEREST
IN THE GAS IN PLACE.  NOR WAS SUCH AN INTEREST CREATED BY THE PROVISION
FOR PAYMENT FOR THE GAS DELIVERED, WHETHER THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN
MONEY OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE GASOLINE EXTRACTED OR BY DELIVERY OF
THE AGREED PORTION OF THE GASOLINE.  WHETHER OR NOT THE "WET" GAS HAD A
MARKET VALUE AND, IF IT HAD, WHETHER THAT VALUE WAS GREATER THAN THE
AMOUNT PAID FOR IT, IS IN NO SENSE DETERMINATIVE.  THE TAXPAYER WAS
STILL A PROCESSOR, PAYING FOR WHAT IT RECEIVED AT THE WELL'S MOUTH. 

6.  WHERE A STATE LEASES ITS LAND TO A PRIVATE PARTY FOR EXTRACTION
OF OIL AND GAS, RESERVING A ROYALTY, A FEDERAL TAX ON THE LESSEE'S
PROFITS FROM THE OPERATIONS IS NOT INVALID AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BURDEN ON A STATE INSTRUMENTALITY.  BURNET V. JERGINS TRUST, 288 U.S.
508.  P. 369. 

SEE HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., POST, P. 376. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. BANKLINE OIL CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 388, BANKLINE OIL CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 675, ON TWO PETITIONS, DIRECTED TO DIFFERENT
RULINGS MADE IN THE COURT BELOW UPON REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS, 33 B.T.A. 910. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

NO. 387.  - THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER RESPONDENT, THE
BANKLINE OIL COMPANY, IS ENTITLED TO AN ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION WITH
RESPECT TO GAS PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN OIL AND GAS WELLS.  THE RULING OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT THE TAXPAYER HAD NO DEPLETABLE INTEREST
(33 B.T.A. 910) WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  90
F.(2D) 899.  BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THE PRINCIPLES
APPLICABLE UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

RESPONDENT IN THE YEARS 1927 TO 1930 OPERATED A CASINGHEAD GASOLINE
PLANT IN THE SIGNAL HILL OIL FIELD, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 
RESPONDENT HAD ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH OIL PRODUCERS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF WET GAS BY THE EXTRACTION OF GASOLINE.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS MADE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 

NATURAL GAS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS "WET GAS" AS IT FLOWS FROM THE EARTH,
IS NOT A SALABLE COMMODITY.  IT IS ONLY THROUGH PROCESSING - BY
SEPARATION OF THE GASOLINE THEREFROM - RENDERING IT DRY, THAT IT MAY BE
SOLD FOR COMMERCIAL USES.  CONVERSELY, IT IS ONLY THROUGH THE
SEPARATION OF DRY GAS FROM WET GAS THAT THE GASOLINE IS SALABLE.  IT IS
THIS PROCESS THAT PRODUCES CASINGHEAD GASOLINE.  THE CONTENT OF
GASOLINE IN WET GAS VARIES FROM ONE-HALF GALLON TO SIX GALLONS A
THOUSAND CUBIC FEET OF GAS PRODUCED, DEPENDING UPON ITS RICHNESS. 
RESPONDENT'S CONTRACTS PROVIDED, GENERALLY, THAT IT SHOULD INSTALL AND
MAINTAIN THE NECESSARY PIPE LINES AND CONNECTIONS FROM CASINGHEADS OR
TRAPS AT THE MOUTH OF THE WELL TO ITS PLANT, THROUGH WHICH THE PRODUCER
AGREED TO DELIVER THE NATURAL GAS PRODUCED AT THE WELL, AND THAT
RESPONDENT SHOULD EXTRACT THE GASOLINE THEREFROM, RESPONDENT TO PAY THE
PRODUCER 33 1/3 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL GROSS PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM THE
SALE OF GASOLINE EXTRACTED FROM WET GAS, OR, AT PRODUCER'S OPTION, TO
DELIVER TO THE PRODUCER 33 1/3 PER CENT. OF THE SALABLE GASOLINE SO
EXTRACTED.  A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TYPE OF CONTRACT PROVIDED FOR THE
OUTRIGHT "PURCHASE" FROM THE PRODUCER OF ALL NATURAL GAS PRODUCED AT A
GIVEN WELL, THE RESPONDENT PAYING 33 1/3 PER CENT. OF THE GROSS
PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE SALE OF THE GASOLINE EXTRACTED FROM
SUCH GAS.  SOME OF THE DRY GAS REMAINING AFTER REMOVAL OF THE GASOLINE
WAS BLOWN TO THE AIR AND WASTED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MARKET FOR IT,
WHILE SOME WAS SOLD TO PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND IN THAT CASE RESPONDENT
ACCOUNTED TO THE PRODUCER FOR A PROPORTION OF THE PROCEEDS PROVIDED FOR
UNDER THE CONTRACT, AND SOME WAS RETURNED TO THE WELLS TO BE USED FOR
PRESSURE PURPOSES. 

THE GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS THAT UNDER THE CONTRACTS RESPONDENT TOOK NO
PART IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE WET GAS, CONDUCTED NO DRILLING OPERATIONS
UPON ANY OF THE PRODUCING PREMISES, DID NOT PUMP OIL OR GAS FROM THE
WELLS, AND HAD NO INTEREST AS LESSOR OR LESSEE, OR AS SUB-LESSOR OR
SUBLESSEE, IN ANY OF THE PRODUCING WELLS. 

RESPONDENT STATES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONTRACTS IT ATTACHED PIPE LINES TO THE VARIOUS WELLS, CARRIED THE GAS
FROM THOSE WELLS TO ITS PLANT, WHERE THE GAS FROM THE WELLS OF THE
DIFFERENT PRODUCERS WAS COMMINGLED, AND REMOVED THE GASOLINE
THEREFROM.  THE GASOLINE WAS SOLD AND RESPONDENT ACCOUNTED TO EACH
PRODUCER "FOR ONE-THIRD OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE PRODUCER'S PRO RATA OF
THE GASOLINE MADE."  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT
FOR DEPLETION 27 1/2 PER CENT. OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE
WHICH IT PAID FOR THE WET GAS AND ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE MOUTHS
OF THE WELLS.  RESPONDENT TOOK THE "PREVAILING ROYALTY," WHICH IT
DEEMED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE, AS THAT MARKET VALUE, AND
TREATED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RESPONDENT PAID AND THE
GREATER PREVAILING ROYALTY AS RESPONDENT'S GROSS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE
OF APPLYING THE STATUTE.  REVENUE ACTS OF 1926, SEC. 204(C)(2), SEC.
234(A)(8); 1928, SEC. 23(L)(M), SEC. 114(B)(3). 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT RESPONDENT HAD
ACQUIRED AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE WET GAS IN PLACE AND WAS ENTITLED
TO AN ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION.  BUT AS NO FINDING HAD BEEN MADE OF THE
MARKET VALUE OF THE WET GAS, OR OF RESPONDENT'S NET INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY, THE COURT REMANDED THE CASE TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS TO
THE END THAT RESPONDENT MIGHT SUPPLEMENT ITS PROOF AND THAT AN
ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION SHOULD BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE
PRODUCED. 

IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO DEPLETION
WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTION IN QUESTION, WE MUST RECUR TO THE
FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF THE STATUTORY ALLOWANCE.  THE DEDUCTION IS
PERMITTED AS AN ACT OF GRACE.  IT IS PERMITTED IN RECOGNITION OF THE
FACT THAT THE MINERAL DEPOSITS ARE WASTING ASSETS AND IS INTENDED AS
COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER FOR THE PART USED UP IN PRODUCTION.  UNITED
STATES V. LUDEY, 274 U.S. 295, 302.  THE GRANTING OF AN ARBITRARY
DEDUCTION, IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS, OF A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS
INCOME WAS IN THE INTEREST OF CONVENIENCE AND IN NO WAY ALTERED THE
FUNDAMENTAL THEORY OF THE ALLOWANCE.  UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA-MONTANA
OIL CO., 288 U.S. 459, 467.  THE PERCENTAGE IS "OF THE GROSS INCOME
FROM THE PROPERTY,"  - A PHRASE WHICH "POINTS ONLY TO THE GROSS INCOME
FROM OIL AND GAS."  HELVERING V. TWIN BELL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312,
321.  THE ALLOWANCE IS TO THE RECIPIENTS OF THIS GROSS INCOME BY REASON
OF THEIR CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE OIL OR GAS IN PLACE.  PALMER V.
BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 557. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE RIGHT TO THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE DOES NOT DEPEND
UPON ANY "PARTICULAR FORM OF LEGAL INTEREST IN THE MINERAL CONTENT OF
THE LAND."  WE HAVE SAID, WITH REFERENCE TO OIL WELLS, THAT IT IS
ENOUGH IF ONE "HAS AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL, IN PLACE, WHICH IS
DEPLETED BY PRODUCTION"; THAT "THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS BROAD
ENOUGH TO PROVIDE, AT LEAST, FOR EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS
ACQUIRED, BY INVESTMENT, ANY INTEREST IN THE OIL IN PLACE, AND SECURES,
BY ANY FORM OF LEGAL RELATIONSHIP, INCOME DERIVED FROM THE EXTRACTION
OF THE OIL, TO WHICH HE MUST LOOK FOR A RETURN OF HIS CAPITAL."  PALMER
V. BENDER, SUPRA.  BUT THE PHRASE "ECONOMIC INTEREST" IS NOT TO BE
TAKEN AS EMBRACING A MERE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE DERIVED FROM PRODUCTION,
THROUGH A CONTRACTUAL RELATION TO THE OWNER, BY ONE WHO HAS NO CAPITAL
INVESTMENT IN THE MINERAL DEPOSIT.  SEE THOMAS V. PERKINS, 301 U.S.
655, 661. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT, APART FROM ITS CONTRACTS WITH PRODUCERS, RESPONDENT
HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PRODUCING WELLS OR IN THE WET GAS IN PLACE. 
RESPONDENT IS A PROCESSOR.  IT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION.  UNDER
ITS CONTRACTS WITH PRODUCERS, RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO A DELIVERY OF
THE GAS PRODUCED AT THE WELLS, AND TO EXTRACT GASOLINE THEREFROM, AND
WAS BOUND TO PAY TO THE PRODUCERS THE STIPULATED AMOUNTS.  SOME OF THE
CONTRACTS, RECITING THAT THE PRODUCER WAS THE OWNER OF THE GAS
PRODUCED, PROVIDED FOR ITS TREATMENT BY RESPONDENT.  OTHER CONTRACTS
WERE COUCHED IN TERMS OF PURCHASE.  IN EITHER CASE THE GAS WAS TO BE
DELIVERED TO RESPONDENT AT THE CASINGHEADS OR GAS TRAPS INSTALLED BY
THE PRODUCER.  RESPONDENT HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE GAS DELIVERED, BUT
DID NOT PRODUCE IT AND COULD NOT COMPEL ITS PRODUCTION.  THE PIPE LINES
AND EQUIPMENT, WHICH RESPONDENT PROVIDED, FACILITATED THE DELIVERY OF
THE GAS PRODUCED BUT THE AGREEMENT FOR THEIR INSTALLATION GRANTED NO
INTEREST IN THE GAS IN PLACE.  NOR WAS SUCH AN INTEREST CREATED BY THE
PROVISION FOR PAYMENT FOR THE GAS DELIVERED, WHETHER THE PAYMENT WAS
MADE IN MONEY OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE GASOLINE EXTRACTED OR BY
DELIVERY OF THE AGREED PORTION OF THE GASOLINE.  WHETHER OR NOT THE WET
GAS HAD A MARKET VALUE AND, IF IT HAD, WHETHER THAT VALUE WAS GREATER
THAN THE AMOUNT RESPONDENT PAID, IS IN NO SENSE DETERMINATIVE. 
RESPONDENT WAS STILL A PROCESSOR, PAYING FOR WHAT IT RECEIVED AT THE
WELL'S MOUTH.  AS THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SAID:  "IT IS SAFE TO SAY,
WE BELIEVE, THAT THIS PETITIONER (RESPONDENT) HAD NO ENFORCEABLE RIGHTS
WHATSOEVER UNDER ITS CONTRACTS PRIOR TO THE TIME THE WET GAS WAS
ACTUALLY PLACED IN ITS PIPE LINE, I.E., AFTER IT HAD PASSED BEYOND THE
CASINGHEADS AND GAS TRAPS SUPPLIED BY THE PRODUCER INTO THE PIPE LINE,
EXCEPT THE RIGHT, PERHAPS, TO DEMAND THAT THE PRODUCER DELIVER WHATEVER
WAS PRODUCED THROUGH ITS PIPE LINES FOR TREATMENT DURING THE PERIOD OF
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP." 

UNDOUBTEDLY, RESPONDENT THROUGH ITS CONTRACTS OBTAINED AN ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE FROM THE PRODUCTION OF THE GAS, BUT THAT IS NOT SUFFICIENT. 
THE CONTROLLING FACT IS THAT RESPONDENT HAD NO INTEREST IN THE GAS IN
PLACE.  RESPONDENT HAD NO CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE MINERAL DEPOSIT
WHICH SUFFERED DEPLETION AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE STATUTORY
ALLOWANCE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THIS RELATION IS
REVERSED AND THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

NO. 388.  - IN 1929, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LEASED TO J. H. BARNESON
OIL AND GAS LANDS IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, RESERVING A ROYALTY.  WE
ASSUME, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, AS IT WAS ASSUMED BELOW, THAT
THE LEASE WAS OF TIDELANDS OWNED BY THE STATE.  BARNESON ACTED ON
BEHALF OF PETITIONER, THE BANKLINE OIL COMPANY, IN OBTAINING THE LEASE,
WHICH WAS DULY ASSIGNED TO PETITIONER AND APPROVED BY THE STATE. 
CLAIMING THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM OPERATIONS UNDER THE LEASE WAS
EXEMPT FROM THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, UPON THE GROUND THAT SUCH A TAX
WOULD CONSTITUTE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON A STATE
INSTRUMENTALITY, PETITIONER SOUGHT TO RECOVER THE TAX PAID FOR THE YEAR
1930.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (33 B.T.A. 910), OVERRULED PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION.  90 F.(2D) 899.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION,
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WAS RIGHT.  AS PETITIONER WAS ENGAGED IN ITS OWN BUSINESS IN PRODUCING
THE OIL, IT WAS BOUND TO PAY A FEDERAL INCOME TAX UPON ITS PROFITS EVEN
THOUGH ITS OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED ON STATE LANDS.  WE ARE UNABLE TO
FIND ANY SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INSTANT CASE AND THAT OF
BURNET V. JERGINS TRUST, 288 U.S. 508, WHERE THE CITY OF LONG BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, MADE AN OIL AND GAS LEASE TO A PRIVATE PARTY COVERING PART
OF A TRACT OWNED BY THE CITY, THE PROCEEDS OF THE OIL AND GAS SALES
BEING DIVIDED BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE LESSEE.  THE CLAIM OF IMMUNITY
BY THE LESSEE AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE, ACTING THROUGH THE
CITY, WAS HELD TO BE UNTENABLE. 

SO FAR AS THE CASE OF BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393,
WHICH WAS DISTINGUISHED IN BURNET V. JERGINS TRUST, SUPRA, MAY BE
REGARDED AS SUPPORTING A DIFFERENT VIEW, IT IS DISAPPROVED.  SEE
HELVERING V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORP., POST, P. 376. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO
PETITIONER'S INCOME FROM THE LEASE IS AFFIRMED.  JUDGMENT IN NO. 387
REVERSED; IN NO. 388 AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :











HELVERING V. O'DONNELL, 303 U.S. 370 


NO. 406.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 10, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1938.  - 90
F.2D 907, REVERSED. 


A SHAREHOLDER IN A CORPORATION OWNING OIL PROPERTIES HAS NO INTEREST
IN THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE - NO CAPITAL INVESTMENT - WHICH WILL
ENTITLE HIM TO AN ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION UNDER REVENUE ACT OF 1926,
SECS. 204(C)(2), 214(A)(9); NOR, UPON SALE OF HIS SHARES TO ONE WHO
ACQUIRES THE WELLS FROM THE CORPORATION, DOES HE ACQUIRE SUCH
DEPLETABLE INTEREST THROUGH THE VENDEE'S COVENANT TO PAY HIM A PORTION
OF THE NET PROFITS FROM DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PROPERTIES. 
P. - . 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. O'DONNELL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 676, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 32 B.T.A. 1277, WHICH OVERRULED A DEFICIENCY
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, THOMAS A. O'DONNELL, OWNED ONE-THIRD OF THE CAPITAL STOCK
OF THE SAN GABRIEL PETROLEUM COMPANY.  BY CONTRACT OF JANUARY 9, 1918,
HE SOLD THIS STOCK TO THE PETROLEUM MIDWAY COMPANY, LTD.  AS
CONSIDERATION, THE MIDWAY COMPANY AGREED TO PAY TO RESPONDENT ONE-THIRD
OF THE NET PROFITS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE OIL AND
GAS PROPERTIES THEN OWNED BY THE SAN GABRIEL COMPANY AND WHICH THE
MIDWAY COMPANY AGREED TO ACQUIRE.  THAT ACQUISITION WAS MADE, THE
PROPERTIES THUS ACQUIRED WERE DEVELOPED AND OPERATED, AND ONE-THIRD OF
THE NET PROFITS THUS DERIVED WERE PAID TO RESPONDENT TO AUGUST 4,
1926.  WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PAYMENTS IN THE YEARS 1925 AND 1926,
RESPONDENT CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR DEPLETION, WHICH THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS ALLOWED, OVERRULING THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.  32
B.T.A. 1277.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
BOARD.  90 F.(2D) 907.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  SEE HELVERING V.
BANKLINE OIL CO., ANTE, P. 362. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER RESPONDENT HAD AN INTEREST, THAT IS, A
CAPITAL INVESTMENT, IN THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE.  REVENUE ACT OF 1926,
SEC. 204(C)(2); SEC. 214(A)(9).  PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 557;
HELVERING V. TWIN BELL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, 321; THOMAS V. PERKINS,
301 U.S. 655, 661; HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., SUPRA.  AS A MERE
OWNER OF SHARES IN THE SAN GABRIEL COMPANY, RESPONDENT HAD NO SUCH
INTEREST.  TREASURY REGULATIONS NO. 69, ART. 201.  THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
OIL AND GAS PROPERTIES WAS IN THE CORPORATION.  WHEN THE MIDWAY COMPANY
ACQUIRED THESE PROPERTIES FROM THE SAN GABRIEL COMPANY AND OPERATED
THEM, THE MIDWAY COMPANY BECAME THE OWNER OF THE OIL AND GAS PRODUCED. 
IT WAS THE OWNER OF THE GROSS PROCEEDS OR INCOME UPON WHICH THE
STATUTORY ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION WAS TO BE COMPUTED.  HELVERING V.
TWIN BELL SYNDICATE, SUPRA. THE AGREEMENT TO PAY RESPONDENT ONE-THIRD
OF THE NET PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE
PROPERTIES WAS A PERSONAL COVENANT AND DID NOT PURPORT TO GRANT
RESPONDENT AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES THEMSELVES.  IF THERE WERE NO
NET PROFITS, NOTHING WOULD BE PAYABLE TO HIM.  NO TRUST WAS DECLARED BY
WHICH RESPONDENT COULD CLAIM AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE RES.  AS
CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF HIS STOCK IN THE SAN GABRIEL COMPANY
RESPONDENT BARGAINED FOR AND OBTAINED AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE FROM THE
MIDWAY COMPANY'S OPERATIONS BUT THAT ADVANTAGE OR PROFIT DID NOT
CONSTITUTE A DEPLETABLE INTEREST IN THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE.  PALMER
V. BENDER, SUPRA; HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :



HELVERING V. ELBE OIL LAND CO., 303 U.S. 372 


NO. 446.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1938.  - 91 F.2D
127, REVERSED. 


THE TAXPAYER SOLD ALL OF ITS INTEREST IN CERTAIN OIL AND GAS
PROPERTIES IN CONSIDERATION OF CASH DOWN AND DEFERRED PAYMENTS IN
SEVERAL STATED AMOUNTS, THE AGREEMENT FURTHER PROVIDING THAT, WHEN THE
VENDEE HAD BEEN REIMBURSED FOR EXPENDITURES IN ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT
AND OPERATION, THE TAXPAYER SHOULD RECEIVE ONE-THIRD OF THE NET PROFITS
OF PRODUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPERTIES.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THERE WAS AN ABSOLUTE SALE DIVESTING THE TAXPAYER OF ALL
INTEREST OR INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING OIL AND GAS IN
PLACE.  P. 375. 

2.  THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT FROM PROFITS WAS MERELY A PERSONAL
COVENANT OF THE VENDEE.  ID. 

3.  THE TAXPAYER IS NOT ENTITLED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SEC.
114(B)(3) TO A DEDUCTION FOR DEPLETION COMPUTED ON THE CASH PAYMENTS. 
ID. 

NEITHER THE CASH PAYMENTS NOR THE AGREEMENT FOR A SHARE OF SUBSEQUENT
PROFITS CONSTITUTED AN ADVANCE ROYALTY, OR A "BONUS" IN THE NATURE OF
AN ADVANCE ROYALTY, WITHIN THE DECISIONS RECOGNIZING A RIGHT TO THE
DEPLETION ALLOWANCE WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENTS OF THAT SORT. 

4.  THE WORDS "GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY," AS USED IN THE
STATUTE GOVERNING THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION, MEAN GROSS INCOME
RECEIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE OIL AND GAS WELLS BY ONE WHO HAS A
CAPITAL INVESTMENT THEREIN,  - NOT INCOME FROM THE SALE OF THE OIL AND
GAS PROPERTIES THEMSELVES.  P. 375. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. ELBE OIL LAND
DEVELOPMENT CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 677, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 34 B.T.A. 333, SUSTAINING THE COMMISSIONER'S
DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS FOR DEPLETION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER CERTAIN PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT IN
THE YEARS 1928 AND 1929 CONSTITUTED "GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY,"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT PHRASE AS USED IN RELATION TO OIL AND GAS
WELLS IN SEC. 114(B)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SO AS TO ENTITLE
RESPONDENT TO THE PRESCRIBED DEPLETION ALLOWANCE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (34 B.T.A.
333), SUSTAINED RESPONDENT'S CLAIM.  91 F.(2D) 127.  CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN COMMISSIONER V.
FLEMING, 82 F.(2D) 324. 

RESPONDENT IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION WHICH ACQUIRED CERTAIN
PROPERTIES CONSISTING OF OIL AND GAS PROSPECTING PERMITS, DRILLING
AGREEMENTS, LEASES AND EQUIPMENT.  DEVELOPMENT WORK RESULTED IN THE
DISCOVERY OF OIL.  ON OCTOBER 3, 1927, RESPONDENT CONVEYED ALL ITS
RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE DESCRIBED PROPERTIES TO THE HONOLULU
CONSOLIDATED OIL COMPANY.  THE LATTER AGREED TO PAY TO RESPONDENT
$350,000 UPON THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT AND, IF THE HONOLULU
COMPANY SHOULD NOT ELECT TO ABANDON THE PURCHASE (IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS), THE ADDITIONAL SUMS OF $400,000 IN EACH OF
THE YEARS 1928, 1929 AND 1930, AND THE FURTHER SUM OF $450,000 IN
1931.  AFTER THE TIME WHEN THE HONOLULU COMPANY HAD BEEN FULLY
REIMBURSED AS PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR ALL ITS EXPENDITURES IN THE
ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PROPERTIES, RESPONDENT
WAS TO RECEIVE MONTHLY ONE-THIRD OF THE NET PROFITS RESULTING FROM THE
PRODUCTION AND OPERATION.  AFTER CAREFUL STIPULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
SUCH REIMBURSEMENT AND THE COMPUTATION OF NET PROFITS, THE AGREEMENT
PROVIDED: 

"ANYTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINED TO THE CONTRARY
NOTWITHSTANDING, IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT
THAT THE FULL OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF ALL THE PROPERTIES,
THE SUBJECT OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND OF ALL OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY
ACQUIRED AND/OR USED ON AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES, THE SUBJECT OF THIS AGREEMENT, SHALL BE
VESTED IN HONOLULU, AND ELBE SHALL HAVE NO INTEREST IN OR TO SAID
PROPERTIES OR IN OR TO ANY PERSONAL PROPERTY USED ON OR IN CONNECTION
WITH THE OPERATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PROPERTIES OR IN OR TO
THE SALVAGE VALUE OF ANY THEREOF, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY PARAGRAPH 9"
(RELATING TO ABANDONMENT OF THE PURCHASE AND RECONVEYANCE). 

THE FIRST PAYMENT OF $350,000 WAS RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT IN 1927 AND
BEING GREATER THAN THE COST OF ALL THE PROPERTIES TRANSFERRED,
RESPONDENT REPORTED AS TAXABLE INCOME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT COST
BASIS AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED.  IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE YEARS
1928 AND 1929, RESPONDENT REPORTED THE PAYMENTS OF $400,000 RECEIVED IN
EACH OF THE YEARS AND CLAIMED 27 1/2 PER CENT. THEREOF AS AN ALLOWANCE
FOR DEPLETION.  THIS IS THE CLAIM WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BELOW. 

WE AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND THE HONOLULU COMPANY PROVIDED FOR
AN ABSOLUTE SALE OF ALL THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION, INCLUDING ALL THE
OIL AND GAS IN PLACE, AND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT RETAIN ANY INTEREST
OR INVESTMENT THEREIN.  THE AGGREGATE SUM OF $2,000,000 WAS PAID AS AN
AGREED PURCHASE PRICE TO WHICH WAS TO BE ADDED THE ONE-THIRD OF THE NET
PROFITS PAYABLE ON THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.  WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE
THAT THE PROVISION FOR THIS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY THE
EFFECT OF THE TRANSACTION AS AN ABSOLUTE SALE OR WAS OTHER THAN A
PERSONAL COVENANT OF THE HONOLULU COMPANY.  SEE HELVERING V. O'DONNELL,
ANTE, P. 370.  IN THIS VIEW, NEITHER THE CASH PAYMENTS NOR THE
AGREEMENT FOR A SHARE OF SUBSEQUENT PROFITS CONSTITUTED AN ADVANCE
ROYALTY, OR A "BONUS" IN THE NATURE OF AN ADVANCE ROYALTY, WITHIN THE
DECISIONS RECOGNIZING A RIGHT TO THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE WITH RESPECT
TO PAYMENTS OF THAT SORT.  SUCH PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO THE RECIPIENT AS A
RETURN UPON HIS CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE OIL OR GAS IN PLACE.  SEE
BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 111, 112; MURPHY OIL CO. V. BURNET, 287
U.S. 299, 302.  PAYMENTS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE WHICH ARE RECEIVED UPON
A SALE OF OIL AND GAS PROPERTIES ARE IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY.  THE
WORDS "GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY," AS USED IN THE STATUTE
GOVERNING THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION, MEAN GROSS INCOME RECEIVED FROM
THE OPERATION OF THE OIL AND GAS WELLS BY ONE WHO HAS A CAPITAL
INVESTMENT THEREIN,  - NOT INCOME FROM THE SALE OF THE OIL AND GAS
PROPERTIES THEMSELVES.  SEE DARBY-LYNDE CO. V. ALEXANDER, 51 F.(2D) 56,
59.  WE CONCLUDE THAT AS RESPONDENT DISPOSED OF THE PROPERTIES,
RETAINING NO INVESTMENT THEREIN, IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE THE
DEDUCTION CLAIMED FOR DEPLETION.  PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 557;
HELVERING V. TWIN BELL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, 321; THOMAS V. PERKINS,
301 U.S. 655, 661; HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., ANTE, P. 362;
HELVERING V. O'DONNELL, SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :








HELVERING V. PRODUCERS CORP., 303 U.S. 376 


NO. 600.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1938.  - 92 F.2D
78, REVERSED. 


1.  THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS IS
FIXED BY REV. ACT 1926, SEC. 204(2), ARBITRARILY AT A SPECIFIED PER
CENT. OF THE "GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY," FOR CONVENIENCE OF
ADMINISTRATION; THE ALLOWANCE IS AN ACT OF GRACE; THE RULE PRESCRIBED
CAN NOT BE VARIED TO SUIT PARTICULAR EQUITIES; THE TERM "GROSS INCOME
FROM THE PROPERTY," MEANS GROSS INCOME FROM THE OIL AND GAS, AND MUST
BE TAKEN IN ITS NATURAL SENSE,  - SUCH INCOME MAY BE MORE OR LESS THAN
MARKET VALUE ACCORDING TO THE BEARING OF PARTICULAR CONTRACTS.  P.
381. 

2.  THE REV. ACT OF 1926 PROVIDES THAT IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS
WELLS "THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION SHALL BE 27 1/2 PER CENTUM OF THE
GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR."  THE TAXPAYER,
A CORPORATION OWNING OIL AND GAS PROPERTIES, MADE A CONTRACT WITH A
REFINING COMPANY PURSUANT TO WHICH, UNTIL A DAY SPECIFIED, ALL THE OIL
PRODUCED BY THE TAXPAYER WAS SOLD TO THE REFINER AT PRICES BASED ON THE
AVERAGE PRICE RECEIVED BY THE REFINER FOR GASOLINE AND KEROSENE, THE
REFINER TAKING DELIVERY FROM MEASURING TANKS NEAR THE WELLS.  AS PART
OF THE PRICE OF THE OIL PURCHASED, THE REFINER AGREED TO CONDUCT THE
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS.  HELD THAT THE TAXPAYER'S "GROSS INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY" WAS THE SUM OF THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE REFINER WITHOUT
ADDING THE COST OF PRODUCTION DEFRAYED BY THE REFINER UNDER THE
CONTRACT.  P. 378. 

3.  A SCHOOL SECTION, PART OF THE LAND GRANTED BY THE UNITED STATES
TO THE STATE OF WYOMING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES BY THE ENABLING ACT OF
JULY 10, 1890, 26 STAT. 222, 223, WAS LEASED BY THE STATE TO A PRIVATE
CORPORATION FOR PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS, THE STATE RESERVING A
ROYALTY.  THE ENABLING ACT PROVIDES THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND SHALL
CONSTITUTE A PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND, AND AUTHORIZES THE STATE TO LEASE
FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.  THE LESSEE EXECUTED A DECLARATION OF
TRUST, THAT IT HELD AN UNDIVIDED 50% OF THE LEASE AND ITS NET PROCEEDS
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TAXPAYER IN THIS CASE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT, AS RESPECTS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAX
INCOME FROM THE LEASE, NO DISTINCTION CAN BE MADE BETWEEN THE INCOME
RECEIVED BY THE LESSEE AND THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE CESTUI QUE
TRUST.  PP. 382-383. 

(2)  A FEDERAL TAX ON SUCH INCOME IS NOT SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL
OBJECTION AS A TAX UPON AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE AND AS
CONSTITUTING A DIRECT AND SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXECUTION
OF THE TRUST ASSUMED BY THE STATE UNDER THE ENABLING ACT.  PP. 383
387. 

BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393 AND GILLESPIE V.
OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501, OVERRULED. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS
CORPORATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 681, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 34 B.T.A. 409, WHICH AFFIRMED, IN REDUCED AMOUNT,
A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, MOUNTAIN PRODUCERS CORPORATION, OWNED ALL THE CAPITAL
STOCK OF THE WYOMING ASSOCIATED OIL CORPORATION AND FILED A
CONSOLIDATED INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1925.  TWO DISTINCT
QUESTIONS ARE INVOLVED WITH RESPECT TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ABOVE
MENTIONED AFFILIATE.  THESE ARE (1) AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE GROSS
INCOME OF THE AFFILIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTORY ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPLETION IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS (REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SEC.
204(C)(2), SEC. 234(A)(8)); AND (2) AS TO A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FROM
TAXATION OF INCOME RECEIVED BY THE AFFILIATE UNDER A TRUST AGREEMENT
WITH THE OWNER OF AN OIL AND GAS LEASE FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING.  THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DECIDED AGAINST RESPONDENT UPON BOTH POINTS (34
B.T.A. 409) AND ITS DECISION WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  92 F.(2D) 78.  BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH A
DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN THE
CASE OF BANKLINE OIL CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 90 F.(2D) 899, (SEE HELVERING
V. BANKLINE OIL CO., ANTE, P. 362), WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

FIRST. - WYOMING ASSOCIATED, ORGANIZED IN 1919, HELD CERTAIN PLACER
MINING CLAIMS, LEASES AND OPERATING AGREEMENTS IN THE SALT CREEK OIL
FIELD IN NATRONA COUNTY, WYOMING.  PURSUANT TO THE OIL AND GAS LEASING
ACT OF CONGRESS OF FEBRUARY 25, 1920, THE COMPANY EXCHANGED ITS PLACER
CLAIMS FOR GOVERNMENT LEASES, AND LATER CERTAIN EXCHANGES WERE MADE
WITH THE MIDWEST OIL COMPANY AND THE WYOMING OIL FIELDS COMPANY.  IN
1923, WYOMING ASSOCIATED MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE MIDWEST REFINING
COMPANY BY WHICH THE FORMER AGREED TO SELL TO THE LATTER ALL THE OIL
PRODUCED BY IT IN THE SALT CREEK OIL FIELD AND THE REFINING COMPANY
AGREED TO PURCHASE SUCH OIL UNTIL JANUARY, 1934, UPON A SLIDING SCALE
OF PRICES BASED UPON THE AVERAGE PRICE RECEIVED BY THE REFINING COMPANY
FOR GASOLINE AND KEROSENE.  WYOMING ASSOCIATED AGREED TO GIVE THE
REFINING COMPANY FREE USE OF ALL STORAGE FACILITIES, PIPE LINES,
BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT, AND SO MUCH OF THE OIL AND GAS PRODUCED AS
MIGHT BE REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR PRODUCTION PURPOSES.  THE REFINING
COMPANY AGREED, AS PART OF THE PRICE OF THE OIL THUS PURCHASED, TO
DRILL, CASE AND MAINTAIN ALL WELLS, SUPPLY WATER, INSTALL AND OPERATE
PUMPS, AND CONDUCT ALL DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OPERATIONS.  THE
REFINING COMPANY AGREED TO TAKE DELIVERY OF THE PURCHASED OIL AT THE
OUTLET GATES OF THE MEASURING TANKS LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE WELLS. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDED THAT THE GROSS INCOME OF WYOMING ASSOCIATED FROM
ITS PROPERTIES DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE
STATUTORY ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION, CONSISTED OF THE TOTAL CASH PAYMENTS
RECEIVED BY WYOMING ASSOCIATED, PLUS THE COST OF PRODUCTION DEFRAYED BY
THE REFINING COMPANY UNDER ITS CONTRACT.  THE AMOUNT OF THAT COST WAS
SHOWN BY STIPULATION.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS LIMITED THE GROSS
INCOME OF WYOMING ASSOCIATED TO THE CASH PAYMENTS RECEIVED.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE COST OF PRODUCTION
INCURRED BY THE REFINING COMPANY SHOULD BE ADDED IN THE VIEW THAT, HAD
WYOMING ASSOCIATED PRODUCED THE OIL AT ITS OWN EXPENSE, ITS GROSS
INCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN THE AMOUNT WHICH IT RECEIVED FOR THE OIL SOLD
AND IT WOULD THUS HAVE OBTAINED IN CASH THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT WHICH
REPRESENTED THE COST OF THE PRODUCTION. 

LAYING EMPHASIS UPON THE PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT THAT THE REFINING
COMPANY SHOULD PERFORM ITS SERVICES AS A PART OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF
THE OIL, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT THAT THE REFINING
COMPANY ACTED FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT; THAT THE PRODUCTION AND LIFTING
SERVICES WERE PERFORMED PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF THE OIL, AND THAT THE
REFINING COMPANY WAS ACTING AS THE AGENT FOR WYOMING ASSOCIATED DOWN TO
THE POINT OF DELIVERY AND NOT UNTIL THEN BECAME A VENDEE; THAT THUS
WYOMING ASSOCIATED DID NOT SELL OIL UNDER THE GROUND BUT OIL SEVERED
FROM THE GROUND AND TREATED FOR DELIVERY; THAT IT WAS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR
RESPONDENT TO SHOW THAT THE TOTAL PRICE UNDER THE CONTRACT MUST BE
EITHER ABOVE OR BELOW THE MARKET PRICE AT ANY SPECIFIED TIME, AND THAT
THE PRICE AS FIXED BY THE CONTRACT CONTROLLED THE DEALINGS AND THE
TAXES OF THE PARTIES.  RESPONDENT AGREES THAT AN INTEREST IN OIL OR GAS
OR SOME TYPE OF OWNERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL TO THE RIGHT OF DEDUCTION FOR
DEPLETION AND ASSUMES THAT NO ONE BUT WYOMING ASSOCIATED OWNED ANY
INTEREST IN THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE. 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE CASH PRICE RECEIVED FOR THE OIL IS THE
SELLER'S ENTIRE "GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY" WHERE, AS IN THIS
INSTANCE, THE OIL IS PURCHASED UNDER A CONTRACT BY WHICH A REFINER
AGREES TO DEFRAY THE EXPENSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION
OPERATIONS AND TO PAY A CASH PRICE BASED ON THE PRICES IT OBTAINS FOR
THE PRODUCTS IT SELLS AT ITS REFINERY; THAT THE OIL PRODUCTION
OPERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED BY THE REFINING COMPANY FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE OIL AT A PRICE IT DEEMED TO BE FAVORABLE; THAT
THE METHOD OF DETERMINING THE PURCHASE PRICE UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS NOT
RELATED TO THE FIELD MARKET PRICE OF OIL BUT WAS EXPRESSLY RELATED TO A
DIFFERENT BASIS, WHICH MIGHT BE GREATER, THAT IS, TO A BASIS CONSISTING
OF THE CURRENT PRICES OBTAINED BY THE REFINING COMPANY FOR ITS GASOLINE
AND KEROSENE; THAT IF THE DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS HAD BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL
AND NO OIL HAD BEEN PRODUCED, THE SERVICES OF THE REFINING COMPANY
WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN PAID FOR BY THE OWNER'S PROMISE TO SELL AT A
FIXED PRICE WHATEVER OIL MIGHT BE PRODUCED, AND THAT THIS SHOULD BE
TAKEN TO BE THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION THAT THE REFINING COMPANY
SHOULD PERFORM ITS SERVICES AS PART OF THE PRICE FOR OIL PURCHASED;
THAT THE OWNER OF OIL IN PLACE, INSTEAD OF PREPARING IT FOR DELIVERY
AND SALE, MAY PREFER TO LESSEN HIS WORK, LOWER HIS PRICE AND THUS
DECREASE HIS GROSS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY, AND IN SUCH CASE THE
SERVICES WHICH THE BUYER MAY PERFORM ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS PART OF
THAT INCOME. 

WE THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT IS SOUND.  THE EVIDENT
PURPOSE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION CONTROLS.  IT IS A UNIQUE PROVISION
TO MEET A SPECIAL CASE.  ANALOGIES SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN FROM OTHER
APPLICATIONS OF THE REVENUE ACTS MAY BE DELUSIVE AND LEAD US FAR FROM
THE INTENT OF CONGRESS IN THIS INSTANCE.  CONGRESS HAS RECOGNIZED THAT
IN FAIRNESS THERE SHOULD BE COMPENSATION TO THE OWNER FOR THE
EXHAUSTION OF THE MINERAL DEPOSITS IN THE COURSE OF PRODUCTION.  UNITED
STATES V. LUDEY, 274 U.S. 295, 302.  BUT TO APPRAISE THE ACTUAL EXTENT
OF DEPLETION ON THE PARTICULAR FACTS IN RELATION TO EACH TAXPAYER WOULD
GIVE RISE TO PROBLEMS OF CONSIDERABLE PERPLEXITY AND WOULD CREATE
ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES WHICH IT WAS INTENDED TO OVERCOME BY LAYING
DOWN A SIMPLE RULE WHICH COULD BE EASILY APPLIED.  TO THIS END, THE
TAXPAYER WAS PERMITTED TO DEDUCT A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF HIS GROSS
INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY.  SEE UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA-MONTANA OIL CO.,
288 U.S. 459, 461.  CONGRESS WAS FREE TO GIVE SUCH AN ARBITRARY
ALLOWANCE AS THE DEDUCTION WAS AN ACT OF GRACE.  IN ANSWER TO THE
CONTENTION THAT THE PROVISION MAY PRODUCE "UNJUST AND UNEQUAL RESULTS,"
WE HAVE REMARKED THAT THIS IS LIKELY TO BE SO "WHEREVER A RULE OF THUMB
IS APPLIED WITHOUT A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AFFECTING EACH
TAXPAYER."  HELVERING V. TWIN BELL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, 321. 

THE RULE BEING OF THIS SORT FOR OBVIOUS PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATIVE
CONVENIENCE, WE MUST APPLY IT IN THE SIMPLE MANNER IT CONTEMPLATES. 
THE 27 1/2 PER CENT. ALLOWED IS A FIXED FACTOR, NOT TO BE INCREASED OR
LESSENED BY ASSERTED EQUITIES.  THE TERM "GROSS INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY" MEANS GROSS INCOME FROM THE OIL AND GAS (HELVERING V. TWIN
BELL SYNDICATE, SUPRA) AND THE TERM SHOULD BE TAKEN IN ITS NATURAL
SENSE.  WITH THE MOTIVES WHICH LEAD THE TAXPAYER TO BE SATISFIED WITH
THE PROCEEDS HE RECEIVES WE ARE NOT CONCERNED.  IF, IN THIS INSTANCE,
THE DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE OIL, IT WOULD HARDLY
BE SAID THAT THE EXPENSE OF DRILLING, BORNE UNDER CONTRACT BY ANOTHER,
CONSTITUTED "GROSS INCOME" OF THE TAXPAYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE.  NOR, WHEN OIL OR GAS IS PRODUCED, DOES THE STATUTE BASE THE
PERCENTAGE ON MARKET VALUE.  THE GROSS INCOME FROM TIME TO TIME MAY BE
MORE OR LESS THAN MARKET VALUE ACCORDING TO THE BEARING OF PARTICULAR
CONTRACTS.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT WE ARE AT LIBERTY TO CONSTRUCT A
THEORETICAL GROSS INCOME BY RECOURSE TO THE EXPENSES OF PRODUCTION
OPERATIONS.  THE REFINING COMPANY FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES UNDERTOOK THE
EXPENSE OF THOSE OPERATIONS, AND WYOMING ASSOCIATED WAS CONTENT TO
RECEIVE AS ITS OWN RETURN THE CASH PAYMENTS FOR THE OIL PRODUCED,
LEAVING TO THE REFINING COMPANY THE RISKS OF PRODUCTION. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE REFINING
COMPANY CONSTITUTED THE GROSS INCOME OF WYOMING ASSOCIATED AND WERE THE
BASIS FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE. 

SECOND. - THE STATE OF WYOMING, IN 1919, MADE A LEASE FOR THE TERM OF
FIVE YEARS TO THE MIDWEST OIL COMPANY COVERING A SECTION OF "SCHOOL
LAND" (SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 79 WEST) FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PRODUCING OIL AND GAS, RESERVING A ROYALTY TO THE STATE.  THE LEASE WAS
SUPERSEDED IN 1923 BY ANOTHER LEASE OF LIKE IMPORT, RUNNING FROM 1924,
THE ROYALTY TO THE STATE BEING FIXED AT 65 PER CENT. OF OIL AND GAS
PRODUCED.  IN 1923, THE MIDWEST OIL COMPANY EXECUTED A DECLARATION OF
TRUST, THAT IT HELD AN UNDIVIDED 50 PER CENT. INTEREST IN THE LEASE,
AND IN THE NET PROCEEDS TO BE REALIZED THEREFROM, AND ALL RENEWALS
THEREOF, FOR THE BENEFIT OF WYOMING ASSOCIATED.  IN 1925, THE STATE
RECEIVED THE AGREED ROYALTY OF THE OIL PRODUCED AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE
SALE OF THE REMAINING OIL WERE DIVIDED BETWEEN WYOMING ASSOCIATED AND
THE MIDWEST OIL COMPANY. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WYOMING ASSOCIATED IS SUBJECT TO A FEDERAL
INCOME TAX WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT IT THUS RECEIVED.  IMMUNITY IS
CLAIMED UPON THE GROUND THAT IN THIS RELATION WYOMING ASSOCIATED IS A
STATE INSTRUMENTALITY. 

BY THE ENABLING ACT, THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS GRANTED TO THE STATE OF
WYOMING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, THE PROCEEDS TO CONSTITUTE A
PERMANENT SCHOOL FUND.  AUTHORITY WAS GIVEN TO LEASE SUCH LAND FOR NOT
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.  ACT OF JULY 10, 1890, C. 664, SECS. 4, 5, 26
STAT. 222, 223.  APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM IS MADE BY WYOMING
ASSOCIATED BY VIRTUE OF THE DECLARATION OF TRUST, AND NOT BY THE
LESSEE, THE CASE WOULD FALL DIRECTLY WITHIN THE DECISION IN BURNET V.
CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, RELATING TO A FEDERAL TAX UPON
NET INCOME DERIVED BY A LESSEE UNDER A LEASE OF "SCHOOL LANDS" BY THE
STATE OF OKLAHOMA.  IN BURNET V. JERGINS TRUST, 288 U.S. 508, WE
LIMITED THE APPLICATION OF THE CORONADO CASE, SAYING THAT THE DOCTRINE
INVOKED WAS TO BE APPLIED STRICTLY.  BUT A DISTINCTION SOLELY UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE INCOME IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS RECEIVED UNDER A
DECLARATION OF TRUST BY THE LESSEE, AND NOT BY THE LESSEE ITSELF, DOES
NOT APPEAR TO BE SUBSTANTIAL AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE
CORONADO CASE AND THE DECISION UPON WHICH IT RESTED SHOULD BE
RECONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OTHER DECISIONS AS TO THE TAXING
POWER. 

THE CORONADO CASE WAS DECIDED AS A COROLLARY TO THE CASE OF GILLESPIE
V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501.  THE COURT THERE DENIED TO OKLAHOMA THE
RIGHT TO ENFORCE ITS TAX UPON NET INCOME DERIVED BY A LESSEE FROM SALES
OF HIS SHARE OF OIL AND GAS RECEIVED UNDER LEASES OF RESTRICTED INDIAN
LANDS.  SEE CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292; INDIAN
TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 240 U.S. 522.  AS OKLAHOMA
WAS THUS BARRED FROM ENFORCING ITS TAX UPON THE INCOME OF A FEDERAL
LESSEE OF INDIAN LANDS, THE COURT IN THE CORONADO CASE HELD THAT A
SIMILAR PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF A FEDERAL TAX
UPON THE INCOME OF THE STATE'S LESSEE OF SCHOOL LANDS.  IN SUCH A CASE,
AS THE STATE WAS EXECUTING A TRUST IMPOSED BY CONGRESS AS A CONDITION
OF THE STATE'S ENTERING THE UNION, THE CASES IN WHICH THE STATE HAD
ENGAGED IN BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, APART FROM WHAT SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE
ITS ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, WERE THOUGHT TO BE INAPPLICABLE. 
285 U.S. P. 400. 

THE GROUND OF THE DECISION IN THE GILLESPIE CASE, AS STATED BY MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES IN SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, WAS THAT "A TAX UPON THE
LEASES" WAS "A TAX UPON THE POWER TO MAKE THEM, AND COULD BE USED TO
DESTROY THE POWER TO MAKE THEM" (240 U.S. P. 530) AND THAT A TAX "UPON
THE PROFITS OF THE LEASES" WAS "A DIRECT HAMPER UPON THE EFFORT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO MAKE THE BEST TERMS THAT IT CAN FOR ITS WARDS."  IN
THE LIGHT OF THE EXPANDING NEEDS OF STATE AND NATION, THE INQUIRY HAS
BEEN PRESSED WHETHER THIS CONCLUSION HAS ADEQUATE BASIS; WHETHER IN A
CASE WHERE THE TAX IS NOT LAID UPON THE LEASES AS SUCH, OR UPON THE
GOVERNMENT'S PROPERTY OR INTEREST, BUT IS IMPOSED UPON THE GAINS OF THE
LESSEE, LIKE THAT LAID UPON OTHERS ENGAGED IN SIMILAR BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES, THERE IS IN TRUTH SUCH A DIRECT AND SUBSTANTIAL
INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION AS TO
REQUIRE IMMUNITY FOR THE LESSEE'S INCOME.  WE HAVE HELD THAT THE RULING
IN THE GILLESPIE CASE SHOULD BE LIMITED STRICTLY TO CASES CLOSELY
ANALOGOUS (BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., SUPRA), AND THE
DISTINCTIONS THUS MAINTAINED HAVE ATTENUATED ITS TEACHING AND RAISED
GRAVE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER IT SHOULD LONGER BE SUPPORTED.   IN NUMEROUS
DECISIONS WE HAVE HAD OCCASION TO DECLARE THE COMPETING PRINCIPLE,
BUTTRESSED BY THE MOST COGENT CONSIDERATIONS, THAT THE POWER TO TAX
SHOULD NOT BE CRIPPLED "BY EXTENDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION FROM
TAXATION TO THOSE SUBJECTS WHICH FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF
NON-DISCRIMINATORY LAWS, AND WHERE NO DIRECT BURDEN IS LAID UPON THE
GOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTALITY AND THERE IS ONLY REMOTE, IF ANY,
INFLUENCE UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT."  WILLCUTS
V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216, 225, AND ILLUSTRATIONS THERE CITED.  THUS WE
HAVE HELD THAT THE COMPENSATION PAID BY A STATE OR A MUNICIPALITY TO A
CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR WORK ON PUBLIC PROJECTS MAY BE SUBJECTED TO A
FEDERAL INCOME TAX (METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 524) AND
THAT THE INCOME OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON
GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISES MAY BE TAXED.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO.,
302 U.S. 134.  WE HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT NO CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPLICATIONS PROHIBIT A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON THE PROPERTY OF AN
AGENT OF GOVERNMENT MERELY BECAUSE IT IS THE PROPERTY OF SUCH AN AGENT
AND USED IN THE CONDUCT OF THE AGENT'S OPERATIONS AND NECESSARY FOR THE
AGENCY.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 436; RAILROAD COMPANY V.
PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5, 33; ALWARD V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 509, 514.  THE
CONGRESS MAY TAX STATE BANKS UPON THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF THEIR DEPOSITS,
ALTHOUGH DEPOSITS OF STATE FUNDS BY STATE OFFICERS ARE INCLUDED. 
MANHATTAN COMPANY V. BLAKE, 148 U.S. 412.  BOTH THE CONGRESS AND THE
STATES HAVE THE POWER TO TAX TRANSFERS OR SUCCESSIONS IN CASE OF DEATH,
AND THIS POWER EXTENDS TO THE TAXATION BY A STATE OF BEQUESTS TO THE
UNITED STATES AND TO THE TAXATION BY THE CONGRESS OF BEQUESTS TO STATES
OR THEIR MUNICIPALITIES.  UNITED STATES V. PERKINS, 163 U.S. 625;
SNYDER V. BETTMAN, 190 U.S. 249, 253, 254.  WHILE A TAX ON THE INTEREST
PAYABLE ON STATE AND MUNICIPAL BONDS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INVALID AS A
TAX BEARING DIRECTLY UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE BORROWING POWER OF THE
GOVERNMENT (WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET. 449, 468, 469; POLLOCK V.
FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, 586), THE SALE OF THE BONDS BY
THEIR OWNERS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE STATE OR MUNICIPALITY
IS REGARDED AS A TRANSACTION DISTINCT FROM THE CONTRACTS MADE BY THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE BONDS THEMSELVES, AND THE PROFITS OF SUCH SALES ARE
SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  WILLCUTS V. BUNN, SUPRA, P. 227. 
SEE, ALSO, BURNET V. JERGINS TRUST, SUPRA; HELVERING V. THERRELL, ANTE,
P. 218; AND HELVERING V. BANKLINE OIL CO., ANTE, P. 362. 

IN GROUP NO. 1 OIL CORPORATION V. BASS, 283 U.S. 279, PROFITS DERIVED
BY A LESSEE FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND GAS PRODUCED UNDER A LEASE FROM
THE STATE OF TEXAS WERE HELD NOT TO BE IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL TAXATION. 
THIS DECISION WAS DISTINGUISHED IN THE CORONADO CASE UPON THE NARROW
GROUND THAT UNDER THE LAW OF TEXAS THE LEASES EFFECTED A PRESENT SALE
TO THE LESSEE OF THE OIL AND GAS IN PLACE.  IN INDIAN TERRITORY OIL CO.
V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 288 U.S. 325, THE COURT SUSTAINED A NON
DISCRIMINATORY AD VALOREM TAX IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ON OIL
EXTRACTED FROM RESTRICTED INDIAN LANDS UNDER LEASES APPROVED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, WHERE THE OIL HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE
LANDS AND STORED IN THE OWNER'S TANKS AND THE INDIANS HAD NO FURTHER
INTEREST IN IT. 

THESE DECISIONS IN A VARIETY OF APPLICATIONS ENFORCE WHAT WE DEEM TO
BE THE CONTROLLING VIEW - THAT IMMUNITY FROM NON-DISCRIMINATORY
TAXATION SOUGHT BY A PRIVATE PERSON FOR HIS PROPERTY OR GAINS BECAUSE
HE IS ENGAGED IN OPERATIONS UNDER A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT OR LEASE CANNOT
BE SUPPORTED BY MERELY THEORETICAL CONCEPTIONS OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  REGARD MUST BE HAD TO SUBSTANCE AND DIRECT
EFFECTS.  AND WHERE IT MERELY APPEARS THAT ONE OPERATING UNDER A
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT OR LEASE IS SUBJECTED TO A TAX WITH RESPECT TO HIS
PROFITS ON THE SAME BASIS AS OTHERS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN SIMILAR
BUSINESSES, THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR HOLDING THAT THE EFFECT
UPON THE GOVERNMENT IS OTHER THAN INDIRECT AND REMOTE.  WE ARE
CONVINCED THAT THE RULINGS IN GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, AND BURNET
V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., SUPRA, ARE OUT OF HARMONY WITH CORRECT
PRINCIPLE AND ACCORDINGLY THEY SHOULD BE, AND THEY NOW ARE, OVERRULED. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND NO GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE TAX
UPON THE PROFITS OF WYOMING ASSOCIATED DERIVED UNDER ITS LEASE FROM THE
STATE CONSTITUTED ANY DIRECT AND SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
EXECUTION OF THE TRUST WHICH THE STATE HAS ASSUMED, AND THE DECISION OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO THE CONTRARY MUST BE REVERSED. 
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

AT LEAST SINCE M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819), 4 WHEAT.  316, THE DUAL
FORM OF GOVERNMENT RESULTING FROM THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS
BEEN DEEMED NECESSARILY TO IMPLY THAT NO STATE MAY TAX THE OPERATIONS
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE EXERTION OF POWERS THAT THE PEOPLE
DELEGATED TO IT AND THAT, FOR THE SAME REASON, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
MAY NOT TAX THE OPERATIONS OF ANY STATE IN THE EXERTION OF ANY OF ITS
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  AS TO THAT PRINCIPLE, THE URGENCY
OF GOVERNMENTAL DEMAND FOR MONEY DOES NOT JUSTIFY YIELDING HERE.  NO
ONE CAN FORESEE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED
SURRENDERS IT.  THE TRANSACTIONS OF A STATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING
MONEY TO PROVIDE FOR SCHOOLS ARE ADMITTEDLY WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE AS
HERETOFORE IT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED.  NOW THIS COURT MAKES IT
LAWFUL FOR THE UNITED STATES TO LAY TRIBUTE UPON THEM. 

A FEW CITATIONS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO SUGGEST THE CHARACTER OF THE
CHANGE SO WROUGHT. 

M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND HELD THAT IMPLIEDLY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
FORBADE IMPOSITION BY MARYLAND OF ANY TAX UPON THE OPERATIONS OF THE
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THAT STATE.  THERE CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL, SPEAKING FOR A UNANIMOUS COURT, DEMONSTRATES (P. 426):
"1ST.  THAT A POWER TO CREATE IMPLIES A POWER TO PRESERVE.  2ND.  THAT
A POWER TO DESTROY, IF WIELDED BY A DIFFERENT HAND, IS HOSTILE TO, AND
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THESE POWERS TO CREATE AND TO PRESERVE.  3D.  THAT
WHERE THIS REPUGNANCY EXISTS, THAT AUTHORITY WHICH IS SUPREME MUST
CONTROL, NOT YIELD TO THAT OVER WHICH IT IS SUPREME." 

FARMERS & MECHANICS BANK V. MINNESOTA (1914), 232 U.S. 516, HELD THAT
A STATE CANNOT TAX BONDS ISSUED BY A TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES;
THAT A TAX UPON THE BONDS IS A TAX ON THE GOVERNMENT ISSUING THEM; THAT
SUCH A TAX, IF ALLOWED AT ALL, MAY BE CARRIED TO AN EXTENT THAT WILL
ENTIRELY ARREST GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.  THE COURT RESTED THAT
DECISION UPON M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, SAYING (P. 521):  "THE PRINCIPLE
HAS NEVER SINCE BEEN DEPARTED FROM, AND HAS OFTEN BEEN REASSERTED AND
APPLIED."  FN1 

CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON (1914), 235 U.S. 292, HELD THAT,
WHERE BY AGREEMENT WITH AN INDIAN TRIBE THE UNITED STATES ASSUMED A
DUTY IN REGARD TO OPERATION OF COAL MINES, THE LESSEES OF THE MINES
WERE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO
A STATE OCCUPATION OR PRIVILEGE TAX.  FN2 

INDIAN TERRITORY OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA (1916), 240 U.S. 522, HELD THAT
OIL LEASES IN OKLAHOMA MADE BY THE OSAGE TRIBE WERE UNDER THE
PROTECTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; THAT THE CORPORATION OWNING THE
LEASES WAS A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY AND THAT THEREFORE THE STATE COULD
NOT TAX ITS INTEREST IN THE LEASES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY TAXING THE
CAPITAL STOCK OF THE CORPORATION OWNING THEM.  FN3 

GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA (1922), 257 U.S. 501, HELD THAT NET INCOME
DERIVED FROM LEASES LIKE THOSE CONSIDERED IN CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V.
HARRISON, SUPRA, AND INDIAN TERRITORY OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, COULD
NOT BE TAXED BY THE STATE; FOR THE LESSEE WAS AN INSTRUMENTALITY USED
BY THE UNITED STATES IN FULFILLING ITS DUTIES TO THE INDIANS N4.  THE
COURT SAID (P. 506):  "THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS THAT INVALIDATE A TAX
UPON THE LEASES INVALIDATE A TAX UPON THE PROFITS OF THE LEASES, AND,
STOPPING SHORT OF THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES, A TAX UPON SUCH PROFITS IS
A DIRECT HAMPER UPON THE EFFORT OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE THE BEST
TERMS THAT IT CAN FOR ITS WARDS." 

JAYBIRD MINING CO. V. WEIR (1926), 271 U.S. 609, HELD THAT WHERE
MINING LAND WAS LEASED BY INCOMPETENT INDIAN OWNERS WITH THE APPROVAL
OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IN CONSIDERATION OF ROYALTY IN KIND,
A STATE AD VALOREM TAX ASSESSED TO LESSEE ON ORES IN BINS ON THE LAND,
BEFORE SALE OR SEGREGATION, WAS VOID AS AN ATTEMPT TO TAX AN AGENCY OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN5 

IN BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO. (1932), 285 U.S. 393, IT APPEARED
THAT LANDS GRANTED BY THE UNITED STATES TO OKLAHOMA FOR THE SUPPORT OF
COMMON SCHOOLS WERE LEASED BY THE STATE TO A PRIVATE COMPANY FOR
EXTRACTION OF OIL AND GAS, THE STATE RESERVING A PART OF THE GROSS
PRODUCTION, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH WERE PAID INTO THE SCHOOL FUND.  WE
HELD THAT THE LEASE WAS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE
OF A STRICTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, AND THAT APPLICATION OF THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX TO THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE LEASE BY THE LESSEE
WAS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FN6 

TO REACH IN THIS CASE THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENT'S AFFILIATE IS
SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON THE PROCEEDS OF ITS SHARE OF THE OIL
RECEIVED UNDER THE LEASE OF STATE SCHOOL LANDS, THIS COURT EXPRESSLY
OVERRULES GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA, AND BURNET V. CORONADO OIL &
GAS CO., SUPRA; AND WITH THEM NECESSARILY GOES A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS
OF THIS AND OTHER COURTS.  THE OPINION BRINGS FORWARD NO REAL REASON
FOR SO SWEEPING A CHANGE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IT IS TO
THE PLAIN DISADVANTAGE OF INDIAN WARDS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND
SCHOOL CHILDREN OF THE SEVERAL STATES; IT THREATENS MANY BUSINESS
ARRANGEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THEIR BENEFIT. 

I DISSENT. 

FN1  CITING OSBORN V. U.S. BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738, 859; HOME SAVINGS
BANK V. DES MOINES, 205 U.S. 503, 513; GRETHER V. WRIGHT, 75 FED. 742,
753. 

FN2  CITING M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316; FARMERS & MECHANICS
BANK V. MINNESOTA, 232 U.S. 516. 

FN3  CITING CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292. 

FN4  CITING CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292; INDIAN
TERRITORY OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 240 U.S. 522; HOWARD V. GIPSY OIL CO.,
247 U.S. 503; LARGE OIL CO. V. HOWARD, 248 U.S. 549. 

AS TO TAXABILITY OF GAINS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SEE U.S. GLUE CO.
V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321; SHAFFER V. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, 57. 

IN BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393, 399, 400, IT IS
STATED THAT GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA HAS OFTEN BEEN REFERRED TO AS THE
EXPRESSION OF AN ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE, CITING METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL,
269 U.S. 514, 522; JAYBIRD MINING CO. V. WEIR, 271 U.S. 609, 613;
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INS. CO. V. WISCONSIN, 275 U.S. 136, 140; HEINER V.
COLONIAL TRUST CO., 275 U.S. 232, 234; SHAW V. GIBSON-ZAHNISER OIL
CORP., 276 U.S. 575, 579; PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL.
KNOX, 277 U.S. 218, 221, 222; CARPENTER V. SHAW, 280 U.S. 363, 366;
WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216, 229; GROUP NO. 1 OIL CORP. V. BASS, 283
U.S. 279, 282, 283; INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S.
570, 576; CHOTEAU V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 691, 696. 

FN5  CITING FARMERS & MECHANICS BANK V. MINNESOTA, 232 U.S. 516;
CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292; INDIAN TERRITORY OIL
CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 240 U.S. 522; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501;
HOWARD V. GIPSY OIL CO., 247 U.S. 503; LARGE OIL CO. V. HOWARD, 248
U.S. 549. 

FN6  FOLLOWING GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501.  CITING TEXAS V.
WHITE, 7 WALL.  700, 725; COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113; POLLOCK V.
FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, 584; FARMERS & MECHANICS BANK
V. MINNESOTA, 232 U.S. 516, 527. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :








HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U.S. 391 


NO. 324.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1938.  - 89 F.2D
873, REVERSED. 


ANY PART OF A DEFICIENCY IS DUE TO FRAUD WITH INTENT TO EVADE TAX, 50%
OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE DEFICIENCY (IN ADDITION TO SUCH DEFICIENCY)
SHALL BE ASSESSED, COLLECTED AND PAID.  SECTION 146(B) OF THE SAME
TITLE DECLARES THAT ANY PERSON WHO WILFULLY ATTEMPTS IN ANY MANNER TO
EVADE OR DEFEAT ANY TAX IMPOSED BY THE TITLE, SHALL, IN ADDITION TO
OTHER PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW, BE GUILTY OF A FELONY AND UPON
CONVICTION BE SUBJECT TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. 

HELD:  THAT AN ACQUITTAL OF A CHARGE OF WILFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE,
UNDER SEC. 146(B), DOES NOT BAR ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF THE 50%
ADDITION PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 293(B).  P. 397 ET SEQ. 

THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE OF THE
DIFFERENCE IN QUANTUM OF PROOF IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES; THE
ACQUITTAL WAS MERELY AN ADJUDICATION THAT THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT
TO OVERCOME ALL REASONABLE DOUBT OF GUILT.  P. 397. 

THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE 50%
ADDITION TO TAX PROVIDED BY SEC. 293(B) IS NOT PRIMARILY PUNITIVE BUT
IS A REMEDIAL SANCTION IMPOSED AS A SAFEGUARD FOR PROTECTION OF THE
REVENUE AND TO REIMBURSE THE GOVERNMENT FOR EXPENSE AND LOSS RESULTING
FROM THE TAXPAYER'S FRAUD.  AS SUCH IT MAY BE ENFORCED BY A CIVIL
PROCEDURE TO WHICH THE ACCEPTED RULES AND CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES
GOVERNING THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS DO NOT APPLY.  P. 398. 

COFFEE V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 436, AND UNITED STATES V. LA
FRANCA, 282 U.S. 568, DISTINGUISHED. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. MITCHELL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 670, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING IN PART A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 32 B.T.A. 1093, WHICH SUSTAINED A
DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT, WITH A 50% ADDITION FOR FRAUD. 

THE FIFTY PER CENTUM ADDITION TO THE TAX DEFICIENCY IS A PENALTY
INTENDED FOR PUNISHMENT. 

AS FRAUD PRESUPPOSES A PLAN CONCEIVED BEFORE ITS EXECUTION, IT MUST
OF NECESSITY BE WILFUL.  THERE CAN BE NO ACT OF FRAUDULENT EVASION
UNDER SEC. 293(B) THAT WOULD NOT ALSO BE A WILFUL EVASION UNDER SEC.
146(B).  THE PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 293(B) IS IMPOSED ONLY BECAUSE
OF ACTS WHICH, WHEN COMMITTED, CONSTITUTE A CRIME. 

THE FACT THAT THE WORDS "TAX" OR "ADDITION TO THE DEFICIENCY" ARE
USED TO DESCRIBE THE IMPOSITION, OR THAT COLLECTION IS MADE THROUGH THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, IS OF NO
SIGNIFICANCE IF THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE IMPOSITION IS TO DEFINE AND
SUPPRESS A CRIME.  CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20; HELWIG V. UNITED
STATES, 188 U.S. 605; DORSHEIMER V. UNITED STATES, 7 WALL.  166. 

EVEN THOUGH TERMED A TAX, THE ASSESSMENT IS UNDER SUSPICION OF NOT
BEING A TRUE TAX, WHEN LEVIED BECAUSE OF ILLEGAL ACTS.  UNITED STATES
V. LA FRANCA, 282 U.S. 568.  IF "EVIDENCE OF A CRIME IS ESSENTIAL TO
THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX, THE COURTS DO NOT HESITATE TO PRONOUNCE IT A
PENALTY, EVEN IF IT MAY INCIDENTALLY BRING IN REVENUE."  REGAL DRUG
CORP. V. WARDELL, 260 U.S. 386; LIPKE V. LEDERER, 269 U.S. 557.  NOR
DOES THE FACT THAT THE PENALTY MAY BE SUPERIMPOSED ON WHAT IS CLEARLY A
TAX LESSEN THE PENAL CHARACTER OF THE FORMER.  HELWIG V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 614-616; 17 OPS.  ATTY.  GEN. 433; 23 OPS.  ATTY.  GEN. 398. 

A REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT COMPELS US TO THE CONCLUSION
THAT (1) IF A SO-CALLED TAX IS MEANT PRIMARILY TO SUPPRESS A CERTAIN
KIND OF CONDUCT, RATHER THAN TO SUPPLY REGULAR REVENUE FOR THE SUPPORT
OF THE GOVERNMENT, OR (2) IF THE ADDITION IS GREATLY OUT OF PROPORTION
TO THE ORDINARY TAX, OR (3) IF IT IS LEVIED UPON A PARTICULAR ACT
BECAUSE OF ITS FRAUD, THEN IT IS REGARDED AS A PENALTY AND PUNISHMENT
RATHER THAN A MERE TAX.  CASES SUPRA, AND PASSAVANT V. UNITED STATES,
148 U.S. 214; WRIGHT V. BLAKESLEE, 101 U.S. 174; BARTLETT V. KANE, 16
HOW.  263; MOORE SHIPBUILDING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 50 F.2D 288. 
TAYLOE V. SANDFORD, 7 WHEAT.  13, 17; AND STEARNS V. UNITED STATES, 22
FED. CAS. 1188, 1192, DISTINGUISHED. 

ALL OF THE CASES ABOVE CITED WHICH HELD THE ADDITION TO BE A PENALTY
OR PUNISHMENT WERE CIVIL IN THEIR NATURE.  IN ALL OF THEM THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE AND OF PROCEDURE APPLICABLE TO CIVIL ACTIONS WERE APPLIED,
EXCEPT THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO BEAR WITNESS
AGAINST HIMSELF.  LEES V. UNITED STATES, 150 U.S. 476, 480; BOYD V.
UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616.  THIS APPLICATION OF RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE INCLUDED ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, UNITED STATES V. ZUCKER,
161 U.S. 475, ALSO QUANTUM OF PROOF, UNITED STATES V. REGAN, 232 U.S.
37, AND DIRECTION OF VERDICTS, HEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 213 U.S. 103. 
THE PENALTIES WERE EITHER ASSESSED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS OR SUED
FOR IN A CIVIL ACTION. 

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS SO ENFORCED WERE CIVIL
IN THEIR NATURE, OR AT MOST QUASI CRIMINAL - THIS TERM WAS APPLIED TO
THEM IN BOYD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, (P. 634) - THEY WERE UNIFORMLY
HELD TO BE PENALTIES, I.E., PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL CONDUCT.  IN NONE
OF THE CASES DID THE FACT OF ADHERENCE TO THE CIVIL FORMS OF ACTION
MILITATE AGAINST A DETERMINATION THAT THE IMPOSITION WAS PENAL IN
CHARACTER.  OCEANIC NAVIGATION CO. V. STRANAHAN, 214 U.S. 320,
DISTINGUISHED. 

NEITHER THE METHOD OF COLLECTION NOR THE TAXPAYER'S INABILITY TO
INVOKE THE AID OF EQUITY TO ENJOIN COLLECTION ARE DETERMINATIVE OF THE
PUNITIVE CHARACTER OF SUCH ADDITIONS.  HELWIG V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. CHOUTEAU, 102 U.S. 603, 611; DORSHEIMER V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA. 

IN STOCKWELL V. UNITED STATES, 13 WALL.  531, NO QUESTION OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY WAS PRESENTED NOR DID THE COURT BY USING THE WORD
"COMPENSATORY" MEAN TO DETRACT FROM THE ESSENTIALLY PUNITIVE CHARACTER
OF THE PENALTY. 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY BAR ANY PRESENT
IMPOSITION OF THE FIFTY PER CENTUM ADDITION TO THE TAX.  BOYD V. UNITED
STATES, 116 U.S. 616; MURPHY V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 630; UNITED
STATES V. WARNER BROTHERS PICTURES, INC., 13 F.SUPP.  614; UNITED
STATES V. DONALDSON-SHULTZ CO., 148 FED. 581; UNITED STATES V.
CHOUTEAU, 102 U.S. 603; COFFEY V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 436; VARIOUS
ITEMS V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 577; UNITED STATES V. GLIDDEN CO., 78
F.2D 639; 296 U.S. 652. 

ALL THE FACTS AND INTENTS REQUISITE TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE 50%
ADDITION TO THE DEFICIENCY WERE PUT IN ISSUE AND DETERMINED AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL, AND THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL BARS
PETITIONER FROM OBTAINING A SECOND JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE SAME FACTS
AND INTENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, SEC. 293, 45 STAT. 791, PROVIDES, IN
DEALING WITH ASSESSMENT OF DEFICIENCIES IN INCOME TAX RETURNS: 

"(B)  FRAUD.  - IF ANY PART OF ANY DEFICIENCY IS DUE TO FRAUD WITH
INTENT TO EVADE TAX, THEN 50 PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE
DEFICIENCY (IN ADDITION TO SUCH DEFICIENCY) SHALL BE SO ASSESSED,
COLLECTED AND PAID...." 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER ASSESSMENT OF THE ADDITION IS
BARRED BY THE ACQUITTAL OF THE DEFENDANT ON AN INDICTMENT UNDER SEC.
146(B) OF THE SAME ACT FOR A WILFULL ATTEMPT TO EVADE AND DEFEAT THE
TAX. 

THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOUND THAT CHARLES E. MITCHELL
OF NEW YORK HAD, IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR 1929,
FRAUDULENTLY DEDUCTED FROM ADMITTED GROSS INCOME AN ALLEGED LOSS OF
$2,872,305.50 FROM A PURPORTED SALE OF 18,300 SHARES OF NATIONAL CITY
BANK STOCK TO HIS WIFE; THAT HE HAD FRAUDULENTLY FAILED TO RETURN THE
SUM OF $666,666.67 RECEIVED BY HIM AS A DISTRIBUTION FROM THE
MANAGEMENT FUND OF THE NATIONAL CITY COMPANY, OF WHICH HE WAS CHAIRMAN;
AND THAT THESE FRAUDULENT ACTS WERE DONE WITH INTENT TO EVADE THE TAX. 
ON DECEMBER 8, 1933, THE COMMISSIONER NOTIFIED MITCHELL THAT THERE WAS
A DEFICIENCY IN HIS TAX RETURN OF $728,709.84 AND, ON ACCOUNT OF THE
FRAUD, A 50 PER CENT. ADDITION THERETO IN THE SUM OF $364,354.92. 

MITCHELL APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, WHICH SUSTAINED THE
COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION.  32 B.T.A. 1093.  UPON A PETITION FOR
REVIEW, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS AMPLE
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS THAT MITCHELL HAD FRAUDULENTLY
MADE DEDUCTION OF THE LOSS AND THAT HE HAD FRAUDULENTLY FAILED TO
RETURN THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE MANAGEMENT FUND; AND THAT, DESPITE
THE FACTS HEREAFTER STATED, THE BOARD WAS FREE TO FIND THE FACTS
ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE.  IT ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT OF
THE DEFICIENCY OF $728,709.84.  BUT IT REVERSED THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF
THE ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT OF $364,354.92, BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING
FACTS: 

BEFORE THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT WAS MADE MITCHELL HAD BEEN INDICTED
IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR SOUTHERN NEW YORK UNDER SEC. 146(B) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"ANY PERSON  ...  WHO WILLFULLY ATTEMPTS IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE OR
DEFEAT ANY TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE OR THE PAYMENT THEREOF, SHALL, IN
ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES PROVIDED BY LAW, BE GUILTY OF A FELONY AND,
UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED
FOR NOT MORE THAN 5 YEARS, OR BOTH, TOGETHER WITH THE COSTS OF
PROSECUTION." 

THE FIRST COUNT CHARGED THAT MITCHELL "UNLAWFULLY, WILFULLY,
KNOWINGLY, FELONIOUSLY, AND FRAUDULENTLY DID ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT AND
EVADE AN INCOME TAX OF, TO WIT, $728,709.84, UPON HIS NET INCOME FOR
1929."  HE WAS TRIED ON THE INDICTMENT AND ACQUITTED ON ALL THE
COUNTS.  THE ITEM OF $728,709.84 SET OUT IN THE FIRST COUNT IS THE SAME
ITEM AS THAT INVOLVED IN THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSED; AND BOTH AROSE FROM
THE SAME TRANSACTIONS OF MITCHELL.  BUT THE ADDITION OF $364,354.92 BY
REASON OF FRAUD WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE INDICTMENT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE PRIOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL WAS NOT A BAR UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA; AND HENCE
IT AFFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE $728,709.84.  BUT IT HELD THAT OUR
DECISIONS IN COFFEY V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 436, AND UNITED STATES
V. LA FRANCA, 282 U.S. 568, REQUIRED IT "TO TREAT THE IMPOSITION OF THE
PENALTY OF 50 PER CENT. AS BARRED BY THE PRIOR ACQUITTAL OF MITCHELL IN
THE CRIMINAL ACTION."  89 F.(2D) 873.  MITCHELL'S PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW SO MUCH OF THE JUDGMENT AS UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT
OF THE DEFICIENCY OF $728,709.84 WAS DENIED.  302 U.S. 723.  THE
COMMISSIONER'S PETITION TO REVIEW SO MUCH OF THE JUDGMENT AS DENIED THE
50 PER CENTUM IN ADDITION WAS GRANTED, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND
ALLEGED CONFLICT IN DECISIONS.  302 U.S. 670. 

FIRST.  MITCHELL CONTENDS THAT THE CLAIM FOR THE 50 PER CENT. IS
BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.  HE ASSERTS THAT ALL THE FACTS
AND INTENTS REQUISITE TO THE IMPOSITION OF THE 50 PER CENTUM ADDITION
TO THE DEFICIENCY WERE PUT IN ISSUE AND DETERMINED AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL, AND THAT HENCE, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
RES JUDICATA THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL BARS IT FROM OBTAINING A SECOND
JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE SAME FACTS AND INTENTS.  SINCE THIS PROCEEDING
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IS PAYABLE AS A TAX IS A
PROCEEDING DIFFERENT IN ITS NATURE FROM THE INDICTMENT FOR THE CRIME OF
WILFULLY ATTEMPTING TO EVADE THE TAX, THE CONTENTION THAT THE DOCTRINE
OF ESTOPPEL BY JUDGMENT APPLIES RESTS WHOLLY ON THE ASSERTION THAT THE
ISSUES HERE PRESENTED WERE LITIGATED AND DETERMINED IN THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.  COMPARE TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 289 U.S. 620,
623.  BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE. 

THE DIFFERENCE IN DEGREE OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
CASES PRECLUDES APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA.  THE
ACQUITTAL WAS "MERELY  ...  AN ADJUDICATION THAT THE PROOF WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME ALL REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED."  LEWIS V. FRICK, 233 U.S. 291, 302.  IT DID NOT DETERMINE
THAT MITCHELL HAD NOT WILFULLY ATTEMPTED TO EVADE THE TAX.  THAT
ACQUITTAL ON A CRIMINAL CHARGE IS NOT A BAR TO A CIVIL ACTION BY THE
GOVERNMENT, REMEDIAL IN ITS NATURE, ARISING OUT OF THE SAME FACTS ON
WHICH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING WAS BASED HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED.  STONE
V. UNITED STATES, 167 U.S. 178, 188; MURPHY V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S.
630, 631, 632.  COMPARE CHANTANGCO V. ABAROA, 218 U.S. 476, 481, 482. 
FN1  WHERE THE OBJECTIVE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACTION LIKEWISE IS
PUNISHMENT, THE ACQUITTAL IS A BAR, BECAUSE TO ENTERTAIN THE SECOND
PROCEEDING FOR PUNISHMENT WOULD SUBJECT THE DEFENDANT TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY; AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY IS PRECLUDED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
WHETHER THE VERDICT WAS AN ACQUITTAL OR A CONVICTION.  MURPHY V. UNITED
STATES, 272 U.S. 630, 632. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA
IS PRECLUDED ALSO BY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE TWO
CASES; THAT ALTHOUGH THE INDICTMENT AND THIS PROCEEDING ARISE OUT OF
THE SAME TRANSACTIONS AND FACTS, THE ISSUES IN THEM ARE NOT THE SAME;
THAT ON THE INDICTMENT THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER MITCHELL HAD "WILLFULLY"
ATTEMPTED TO "EVADE OR DEFEAT" THE TAX; THAT WHETHER HE HAD DONE SO
"FRAUDULENTLY" WAS NOT THERE AN ISSUE, UNITED STATES V. SCHARTON, 285
U.S. 518; COMPARE UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, 290 U.S. 389, 397; AND THAT
IN THIS PROCEEDING THE ISSUE IS SPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE DEFICIENCY WAS
"DUE TO FRAUD."  COMPARE BURTON V. UNITED STATES, 202 U.S. 344, 380. 
SINCE THERE WAS NOT EVEN AN ADJUDICATION THAT MITCHELL DID NOT WILFULLY
ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT THE TAX, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE
WHETHER SUCH AN ADJUDICATION WOULD BE DECISIVE ALSO OF THIS ISSUE OF
FRAUD.  COMPARE HANBY V. COMMISSIONER, 67 F.(2D) 125, 129. 

SECOND.  MITCHELL CONTENDS THAT THIS PROCEEDING IS BARRED UNDER THE
DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY BECAUSE THE 50 PER CENTUM ADDITION OF
$364,354.92 IS NOT A TAX, BUT A CRIMINAL PENALTY INTENDED AS PUNISHMENT
FOR ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT ACTS.  UNLESS THIS SANCTION WAS INTENDED AS
PUNISHMENT, SO THAT THE PROCEEDING IS ESSENTIALLY CRIMINAL, THE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY CLAUSE PROVIDED FOR THE DEFENDANT IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IS
NOT APPLICABLE. 

1.  IN ASSESSING INCOME TAXES THE GOVERNMENT RELIES PRIMARILY UPON
THE DISCLOSURE BY THE TAXPAYER OF THE RELEVANT FACTS.  THIS DISCLOSURE
IT REQUIRES HIM TO MAKE IN HIS ANNUAL RETURN.  TO ENSURE FULL AND
HONEST DISCLOSURE, TO DISCOURAGE FRAUDULENT ATTEMPTS TO EVADE THE TAX,
CONGRESS IMPOSES SANCTIONS.  SUCH SANCTIONS MAY CONFESSEDLY BE EITHER
CRIMINAL OR CIVIL.  AS STATED IN OCEANIC STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V.
STRANAHAN, 214 U.S. 320, 339: 

"IN ACCORD WITH THIS SETTLED JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION, THE LEGISLATION
OF CONGRESS FROM THE BEGINNING, NOT ONLY AS TO TARIFF BUT AS TO
INTERNAL REVENUE, TAXATION AND OTHER SUBJECTS, HAS PROCEEDED ON THE
CONCEPTION THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF CONGRESS, WHEN
LEGISLATING AS TO MATTERS EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN ITS CONTROL, TO IMPOSE
APPROPRIATE OBLIGATIONS AND SANCTION THEIR ENFORCEMENT BY REASONABLE
MONEY PENALTIES, GIVING TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS THE POWER TO ENFORCE SUCH
PENALTIES WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF INVOKING THE JUDICIAL POWER." 
CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE BOTH A CRIMINAL AND A CIVIL SANCTION IN RESPECT TO
THE SAME ACT OR OMISSION; FOR THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE PROHIBITS
MERELY PUNISHING TWICE, OR ATTEMPTING A SECOND TIME TO PUNISH
CRIMINALLY, FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS THUS
WHETHER SEC. 293(B) IMPOSES A CRIMINAL SANCTION.  THAT QUESTION IS ONE
OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  COMPARE MURPHY V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S.
630, 632. 

REMEDIAL SANCTIONS MAY BE OF VARYING TYPES.  ONE WHICH IS
CHARACTERISTICALLY FREE OF THE PUNITIVE CRIMINAL ELEMENT IS REVOCATION
OF A PRIVILEGE VOLUNTARILY GRANTED.  FN2 

FORFEITURE OF GOODS OR THEIR VALUE AND THE PAYMENT OF FIXED OR
VARIABLE SUMS OF MONEY ARE OTHER SANCTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED
AS ENFORCIBLE BY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE ORIGINAL REVENUE LAW OF
1789.  ACT OF JULY 31, 1789, C. 5, SEC. 36, 1 STAT. 29, 47.  IN SPITE
OF THEIR COMPARATIVE SEVERITY, SUCH SANCTIONS HAVE BEEN UPHELD AGAINST
THE CONTENTION THAT THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY CRIMINAL AND SUBJECT TO THE
PROCEDURAL RULES GOVERNING CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS.  PASSAVANT V. UNITED
STATES, 148 U.S. 214; UNITED STATES V. ZUCKER, 161 U.S. 475; HEPNER V.
UNITED STATES, 213 U.S. 103; OCEANIC STEAM NAVIGATION CO. V. STRANAHAN,
214 U.S. 320; CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 559,
578; UNITED STATES V. REGAN, 232 U.S. 37; GRANT BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 647, 660; MURPHY V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S.
630; VARIOUS ITEMS V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 577; LLOYD SABAUDO
SOCIETA V. ELTING, 287 U.S. 329, 334.  FN3 

2.  THE REMEDIAL CHARACTER OF SANCTIONS IMPOSING ADDITIONS TO A TAX
HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR BY THIS COURT IN PASSING UPON SIMILAR LEGISLATION. 
THEY ARE PROVIDED PRIMARILY AS A SAFEGUARD FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
REVENUE AND TO REIMBURSE THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE HEAVY EXPENSE OF
INVESTIGATION AND THE LOSS RESULTING FROM THE TAXPAYER'S FRAUD.  FN4
IN STOCKWELL V. UNITED STATES, 13 WALL.  531, 547, 551, THE COURT SAID
OF A PROVISION WHICH ADDED DOUBLE THE VALUE OF THE GOODS: 

"IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED AS REMEDIAL, AS PROVIDING INDEMNITY
FOR LOSS.  AND IT IS NOT THE LESS SO BECAUSE THE LIABILITY OF THE
WRONGDOER IS MEASURED BY DOUBLE THE VALUE OF THE GOODS RECEIVED,
CONCEALED, OR PURCHASED, INSTEAD OF THEIR SINGLE VALUE.  THE ACT OF
ABSTRACTING GOODS ILLEGALLY IMPORTED, RECEIVING, CONCEALING OR BUYING
THEM, INTERPOSES DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF A GOVERNMENT SEIZURE, AND
IMPAIRS, THEREFORE, THE VALUE OF THE GOVERNMENT RIGHT.  IT IS, THEN,
HARDLY ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE ONLY LOSS THE GOVERNMENT CAN SUSTAIN
FROM CONCEALING THE GOODS LIABLE TO SEIZURE IS THEIR SINGLE VALUE, OR
TO ASSERT THAT THE LIABILITY IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE OF DOUBLE THE VALUE
IS ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO INDEMNIFICATION.  DOUBLE THE
VALUE MAY NOT BE MORE THAN COMPLETE INDEMNITY.... 

"THE ACT OF 1823 WAS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, REMEDIAL IN ITS NATURE.  ITS
PURPOSE WAS TO SECURE FULL COMPENSATION FOR INTERFERENCE WITH THE
RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES...."  FN5 

3.  IN SECS. 276 AND 293 IT IS PROVIDED THAT COLLECTION OF THE 50 PER
CENTUM ADDITION, LIKE THAT OF THE PRIMARY TAX ITSELF, MAY BE MADE "BY
DISTRAINT" AS WELL AS "BY A PROCEEDING IN COURT."  IF THE SECTION
PROVIDED A CRIMINAL SANCTION, THE PROVISION FOR COLLECTION BY DISTRAINT
WOULD MAKE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  FN6  COMPARE LIPKE V. LEDERER, 259
U.S. 557; REGAL DRUG CORP. V. WARDELL, 260 U.S. 386.  SEE ALSO UNITED
STATES V. CHOUTEAU, 102 U.S. 603, 611; BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S.
616; LEES V. UNITED STATES, 150 U.S. 476; UNITED STATES V. LA FRANCA,
282 U.S. 568.  THAT CONGRESS PROVIDED A DISTINCTLY CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR
THE COLLECTION OF THE ADDITIONAL 50 PER CENTUM INDICATES CLEARLY THAT
IT INTENDED A CIVIL, NOT A CRIMINAL, SANCTION.  CIVIL PROCEDURE IS
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE ACCEPTED RULES AND CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTIES
GOVERNING THE TRIAL OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, AND WHERE CIVIL PROCEDURE
IS PRESCRIBED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF REMEDIAL SANCTIONS, THOSE RULES
AND GUARANTIES DO NOT APPLY.  THUS THE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS UPON
WHICH LIABILITY IS BASED MAY BE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY INSTEAD OF
A JURY,  FN7  OR IF THE PRESCRIBED PROCEEDING IS IN THE FORM OF A CIVIL
SUIT, A VERDICT MAY BE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT; FN8 THERE IS NO
BURDEN UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE ITS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT,
FN9  AND IT MAY APPEAL FROM AN ADVERSE DECISION; FN10  FURTHERMORE,
THE DEFENDANT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE
WITNESSES AGAINST HIM,  FN11  OR TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY; FN12  AND
FINALLY, IN THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF A REMEDIAL SANCTION THERE CAN BE
NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  FN13 

4.  THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 CONTAINS TWO SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT PROVISIONS IMPOSING SANCTIONS, AND THAT THESE APPEAR IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STATUTE, HELPS TO MAKE CLEAR THE CHARACTER OF
THAT HERE INVOKED.  FN14  THE SANCTION OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 146(B) FOR WILFULL ATTEMPTS "IN ANY MANNER TO EVADE
OR DEFEAT ANY (INCOME) TAX," INTRODUCED INTO THE ACT UNDER THE HEADING
"PENALTIES," IS OBVIOUSLY A CRIMINAL ONE.  THE SANCTION OF 50 PER
CENTUM ADDITION "IF ANY PART OF ANY DEFICIENCY IS DUE TO FRAUD WITH
INTENT TO EVADE TAX," PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 293(B), INTRODUCED INTO THE
ACT UNDER THE HEADING "ADDITIONS TO THE TAX," WAS CLEARLY INTENDED AS A
CIVIL ONE.  THIS SANCTION, AND OTHER ADDITIONS TO THE TAX, ARE SET
FORTH IN SUPPLEMENT M, ENTITLED "INTEREST AND ADDITIONS TO THE TAX." 
THE SUPPLEMENT INCLUDES, BESIDES SEC. 293(B), SECS. 291, 292, 293(A)
AND 294.  SECTION 291 PRESCRIBES A 25 PER CENTUM ADDITION FOR FAILURE
TO MAKE AND FILE A RETURN; SEC. 292 PRESCRIBES INTEREST AT THE RATE OF
6 PER CENT. PER ANNUM UPON THE DEFICIENCY FROM THE DATE PRESCRIBED FOR
PAYMENT OF THE TAX; SEC. 293(A), AN ADDITION OF 5 PER CENTUM IF THE
DEFICIENCY "IS DUE TO NEGLIGENCE, OR INTENTIONAL DISREGARD OF RULES AND
REGULATIONS BUT WITHOUT INTENT TO DEFRAUD"; AND SEC. 294 PRESCRIBES AN
ADDITION TO THE TAX OF 1 PER CENTUM PER MONTH IN CASE OF NON-PAYMENT. 
OBVIOUSLY ALL OF THESE "ADDITIONS TO THE TAX" WERE INTENDED BY CONGRESS
AS CIVIL INCIDENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF THE INCOME TAX. 
FN15 

THIRD.  MITCHELL INSISTS THAT COFFEY V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 436,
REQUIRES AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT; THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THIS
CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE, AND, IF NOT, THAT IT SHOULD BE DISAPPROVED. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, CITING STONE V. UNITED STATES, 167 U.S.
178, 186-189, AND LATER CASES, RECOGNIZED THAT THE RULE OF THE COFFEY
CASE "DID NOT APPLY TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE HAD BEEN AN ACQUITTAL ON
A CRIMINAL CHARGE FOLLOWED BY A CIVIL ACTION REQUIRING A DIFFERENT
DEGREE OF PROOF"; BUT CONSTRUING SEC. 293(B) AS IMPOSING A PENALTY
DESIGNED TO PUNISH FRAUDULENT TAX DODGERS "AND NOT AS A MERE PREVENTIVE
MEASURE," IT THOUGHT THAT THE COFFEY CASE AND UNITED STATES V. LA
FRANCA, 282 U.S. 568, REQUIRED IT "TO TREAT THE IMPOSITION OF THE
PENALTY OF 50 PER CENT. AS BARRED BY THE PRIOR ACQUITTAL OF MITCHELL IN
THE CRIMINAL ACTION."  SINCE WE CONSTRUE SEC. 293(B) AS IMPOSING A
CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION, NEITHER CASE PRESENTS AN OBSTACLE TO THE
RECOVERY OF THE $364,354.92, THE 50 PER CENTUM ADDITION HERE IN ISSUE. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. WARNER BROS. PICTURES, INC., 13 F.SUPP. 
614(E.D. MO.), AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 298 U.S. 643; UNITED STATES
V. DONALDSON-SCHULTZ CO., 148 FED. 581(C.C.A. 4); UNITED STATES V.
SCHNEIDER, 35 FED. 107(C.C.D. ORE.); SANDEN V. MORGAN, 225 FED. 266,
268-69(S.D.N.Y.) 

FN2  TYPICAL OF THIS CLASS OF SANCTIONS IS THE DEPORTATION OF
ALIENS.  FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U.S. 698; LOW WAH SUEY V.
BACKUS, 225 U.S. 460; ZAKONAITE V. WOLF, 226 U.S. 272; BUGAJEWITZ V.
ADAMS, 228 U.S. 585; NG FUNG HO V. WHITE, 259 U.S. 276; UNITED STATES
EX REL. BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S. 149.  DISBARMENT IS LIKEWISE A
SANCTION OF THIS TYPE.  EX PARTE WALL, 107 U.S. 265.  COMPARE ALSO
HAWKER V. NEW YORK, 170 U.S. 189, 196, 199-200; BOARD OF TRADE V.
WALLACE, 67 F.(2D) 402, 407(C.C.A. 7); FARMERS' LIVESTOCK COMMISSION
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 54 F.(2D) 375, 378(E.D. ILL.). 

FN3  SEE ALSO NOTES 7 TO 13, INFRA.  THE DISTINCTION HERE TAKEN
BETWEEN SANCTIONS THAT ARE REMEDIAL AND THOSE THAT ARE PUNITIVE HAS NOT
GENERALLY BEEN SPECIFICALLY ENUNCIATED.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER
PARTICULAR RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARE APPLICABLE TO CIVIL ACTIONS
TO ENFORCE SANCTIONS, THE CASES HAVE USUALLY ATTEMPTED TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THE TYPE OF PROCEDURAL RULE INVOLVED RATHER THAN THE KIND OF
SANCTION BEING ENFORCED.  THUS HEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 213 U.S. 103,
111-112, HOLDING THAT A VERDICT MAY BE DIRECTED FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND
UNITED STATES V. REGAN, 232 U.S. 37, 50, HOLDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT
NEED NOT PROVE ITS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, DISTINGUISHED BOYD
V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, AND LEES V. UNITED STATES, 150 U.S.
476, HOLDING THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE A WITNESS
AGAINST HIMSELF ON THE GROUND THAT "THE GUARANTY IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION  ...  IS OF
BROADER SCOPE THAN ARE THE GUARANTIES IN ARTICLE III AND THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT GOVERNING TRIALS IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS."  232 U.S. AT 50. 
COMPARE ALSO PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 398, 401. 

FN4  TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 3 HOW.  197, 210; BARTLETT V. KANE, 16
HOW.  263, 274; CLIQUOT'S CHAMPAGNE, 3 WALL.  114, 145; DORSHEIMER V.
UNITED STATES, 7 WALL.  166, 173; PASSAVANT V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S.
214, 221.  COMPARE MCDOWELL V. HEINER, 9 F.(2D) 120(W.D. PA.), AFFIRMED
ON OPINION BELOW, 15 F.(2D) 1015(C.C.A. 3); DOLL V. EVANS, 7 FED. CAS.
NO. 3,969(C.C.E.D. PA.); STEARNS V. UNITED STATES, 22 FED. CAS. NO.
13,341(C.C.). 

FN5  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CLAFLIN, 97 U.S. 546, 552-53. 

FN6  EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS MAY NOT PROVIDE CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF PUNITIVE SANCTIONS, NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION PREVENTS
THE ENFORCEMENT OF DISTINCTLY REMEDIAL SANCTIONS BY A CRIMINAL INSTEAD
OF A CIVIL FORM OF PROCEEDING.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. STEVENSON, 215
U.S. 190, WITH UNITED STATES V. REGAN, 232 U.S. 37, BOTH ENFORCING THE
SANCTION PRESCRIBED IN 34 STAT. 898.  THE FACT THAT A CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE IS PRESCRIBED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A SANCTION MAY BE AN
INDICATION THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE PUNITIVE, BUT CANNOT BE DEEMED
CONCLUSIVE IF ALTERNATIVE ENFORCEMENT BY A CIVIL PROCEEDING IS
SUSTAINED. 

FN7  PASSAVANT V. UNITED STATES, 148 U.S. 214; OCEANIC STEAM
NAVIGATION CO. V. STRANAHAN, 214 U.S. 320; ELTING V. NORTH GERMAN
LLOYD, 287 U.S. 324, 327-28; LLOYD SABAUDO SOCIETA V. ELTING, 287 U.S.
329, 334; CF. HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 420;
OSAKA SHOSEN KAISHA LINE V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 98.  COMPARE ALSO
SAN SOUCI V. COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE DE NAVIGATION A VAPEUR, 71 F.(2D) 651,
653(C.C.A. 1); LLOYD ROYAL BELGE, S.A. V. ELTING, 61 F.(2D) 745,
747(C.C.A. 2); NAVIGAZIONE LIBERA TRIESTINA V. UNITED STATES, 36 F.(2D)
631, 633(C.C.A. 9); CLAY V. SWOPE, 38 FED. 396(C.C.D. KY.).  AND SEE
CASES CITED IN NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE INCOME TAX
LAWS HAS LIKEWISE BEEN UPHELD.  BERLIN V. COMMISSIONER, 59 F.(2D) 996,
997(C.C.A. 2); MCDOWELL V. HEINER, 9 F.(2D) 120(W.D. PA.), AFF'D ON
OPINION BELOW, 15 F.(2D) 1015(C.C.A. 3); BOARD V. COMMISSIONER, 51
F.(2D) 73, 76(C.C.A. 6); WICKHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 65 F.(2D) 527, 531
32(C.C.A. 8); LITTLE V. HELVERING, 75 F.(2D) 436, 439(C.C.A. 8);
BOTHWELL V. COMMISSIONER, 77 F.(2D) 35, 38(C.C.A. 10); DOLL V. EVANS,
FED. CAS. NO. 3,969(C.C.E.D. PA.). 

FN8  HEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 213 U.S. 103; FOUR PACKAGES V. UNITED
STATES, 97 U.S. 404, 412; CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES,
220 U.S. 559, 578.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. THOMPSON, 41 FED.
28(C.C.S.D.N.Y.); UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 182 FED.
284(S.D. GA.). 

FN9  LILIENTHAL'S TOBACCO V. UNITED STATES, 97 U.S. 237, 265-67, 271;
UNITED STATES V. REGAN, 232 U.S. 37; GRANT BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 647, 660.  COMPARE NEW YORK CENTRAL & H.R.R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 165 FED. 833, 839(C.C.A. 1); GRAIN DISTILLERY NO.
8 V. UNITED STATES, 204 FED. 429(C.C.A. 4); POCAHONTAS DISTILLING CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 218 FED. 782, 786(C.C.A. 4); UNITED STATES V.
LOUISVILLE & N. RY. CO., 162 FED. 185(S.D. ALA.), AFF'D, 174 FED.
1021(C.C.A. 5); ST. LOUIS-S.W. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 183 FED. 770,
771(C.C.A. 5); UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 170 FED. 542,
545-546(C.C.A. 6); ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 178
FED. 12, 14(C.C.A. 8); MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 178
FED. 15, 17-18(C.C.A. 8).  COMPARE ALSO ACT OF MARCH 2, 1799, C. 22,
SEC. 71, 1 STAT. 627, 678; LOCKE V. UNITED STATES, 7 CRANCH 339, 348;
CLIQUOT'S CHAMPAGNE, 3 WALL.  114, 143-44. 

FN10  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CLAFLIN, 97 U.S. 546; UNITED STATES V.
ZUCKER, 161 U.S. 475; UNITED STATES V. REGAN, 232 U.S. 37.  SEE ALSO
UNITED STATES V. BALTIMORE & O.S.W.R. CO., 159 FED. 33, 38(C.C.A. 6),
MODIFIED, 220 U.S. 94; UNITED STATES V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 167 FED.
306, 307-308(C.C.A. 6); UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 170
FED. 542, 545(C.C.A. 6).  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. SANGES, 144 U.S.
310. 

SIMILARLY, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS SUCCESSFUL IT MAY RECOVER COSTS AS IN
OTHER CIVIL SUITS.  GRANT BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES, 232
U.S. 647, 665.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 172
FED. 909, 911(C.C.D. ORE.); UNITED STATES V. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. &
S.S.M. RY. CO., 235 FED. 951, 952-953(D. MINN.).    FN11  UNITED STATES
V. ZUCKER, 161 U.S. 475; GRANT BROS. CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNITED STATES,
232 U.S. 647, 660. 

FN12  COMPARE UNITED STATES EX REL. BILOKUMSKY V. TOD, 263 U.S. 149,
155.  WE DO NOT CONSTRUE BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, OR LEES
V. UNITED STATES, 150 U.S. 476, AS HOLDING TO THE CONTRARY WHERE THE
SANCTION INVOLVED IS REMEDIAL, NOT PUNITIVE.  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN13  MURPHY V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 630; VARIOUS ITEMS V. UNITED
STATES, 282 U.S. 577.  COMPARE EGNER V. UNITED STATES, 16 F.(2D)
597(C.C.A. 3); WOOD V. UNITED STATES, 204 FED. 55, 57(C.C.A. 4); UNITED
STATES V. ST. LOUIS-S.W. RY. CO., 184 FED. 28, 32(C.C.A. 5); SLICK V.
UNITED STATES, 1 F.(2D) 897, 898(C.C.A. 7).  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES V.
THREE COPPER STILLS, 47 FED. 495, 499(D. KY.); UNITED STATES V. OLSEN,
57 FED. 579, 582-586(N.D. CAL.); CASTLE V. UNITED STATES, 17 F.SUPP. 
515, 518-520(CT. CL.).  COMPARE HANBY V. COMMISSIONER, 67 F.(2D)
125(C.C.A. 4). 

FN14  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SAID IN MITCHELL V. COMMISSIONER, 32
B.T.A. 1093, 1136:  "A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE TWO SECTIONS CONVINCES US
THAT THEY ARE BASICALLY DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER AND WERE ENACTED FOR
WHOLLY DIFFERENT PURPOSES.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE TWO SECTIONS DIFFERS
WIDELY AND CONTEMPLATES SITUATIONS WHICH MAY REQUIRE ENTIRELY
DISSIMILAR PROOF." 

FN15  SECTION 104 IMPOSES A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR ADDITIONAL TAX OF 50 PER
CENT. OF THE NET INCOME IN THE CASE OF CORPORATIONS FORMED OR AVAILED
OF FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING SURTAX ON THEIR SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH
IMPROPER ACCUMULATION OF SURPLUS.  COMPARE UNITED BUSINESS CORP. V.
COMMISSIONER, 62 F.(2D) 754(C.C.A. 2). 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS IS OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






















TICONIC BANK V. SPRAGUE, 303 U.S. 406 


NO. 374.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 3, 1938.  - DECIDED MARCH 7, 1938.  - 90
F.2D 641, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AS AN INCIDENT TO THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF A BANK
DEPOSIT, THE DEPOSITOR IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST AS DAMAGES FOR THE
FAILURE TO PAY UPON DEMAND.  P. 410. 

2.  THE OBLIGATION OF A NATIONAL BANK TO PAY INTEREST AS DAMAGES FOR
DETENTION OF A DEBT IS NOT CUT OFF BY SUSPENSION OF ITS BUSINESS AND
APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER.  P. 410. 

3.  THE RULE THAT IN PRO RATA DISTRIBUTION, TO CREDITORS OF AN
INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK, INTEREST ON CLAIMS IS LIMITED TO INTEREST
ACCRUED PRIOR TO INSOLVENCY, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CLAIM OF A SECURED
CREDITOR AGAINST THE ASSETS COVERED BY HIS LIEN.  THE SECURED CREDITOR
MAY ENFORCE HIS LIEN AGAINST HIS SECURITY TO SATISFY BOTH PRINCIPAL AND
INTEREST.  P. 411. 

TICONIC NATIONAL BANK ET AL. V. SPRAGUE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 675, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, 14 F.SUPP.  900, ORDERING THE RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL
BANK TO MAKE PAYMENT TO THE PRESENT RESPONDENTS OF A SUM CONSTITUTING A
TRUST FUND, WITH INTEREST. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER OR NOT A SECURED CREDITOR OF A
NATIONAL BANK, HOLDING A NON-INTEREST BEARING CLAIM, IS ENTITLED TO
INTEREST FOR ANY PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE INSOLVENCY OF THE BANK, WHEN
THE ASSETS ON WHICH HE HAS A LIEN ARE SUFFICIENT TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL
AND INTEREST BUT THE TOTAL ASSETS OF THE BANK ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PAY
IN FULL ALL CREDITORS' CLAIMS AS OF THE DATE OF INSOLVENCY. 

ON MARCH 28, 1931, RESPONDENT LOTTIE F. SPRAGUE DELIVERED $5,022.18
TO THE TRUST DEPARTMENT OF THE TICONIC NATIONAL BANK OF WATERVILLE,
MAINE, IN TRUST, UNDER AN AGREEMENT WHICH AUTHORIZED THE TRUSTEE TO
INVEST IN BONDS OR SECURITIES AND TO DEPOSIT AT LEAST $1,000 IN ITS
SAVINGS DEPARTMENT AT USUAL RATES OF INTEREST; REQUIRED SPECIFIED
MONTHLY PAYMENTS, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, TO MARGARET SPRAGUE,
ALSO A RESPONDENT HERE; AND RESERVED TO THE GRANTOR THE RIGHT TO REVOKE
THE TRUST AND RESUME POSSESSION OF THE TRUST FUNDS. 

THE TICONIC BANK HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO
ACT IN A TRUST CAPACITY, AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 11(K) OF THE FEDERAL
RESERVE ACT, AS AMENDED (12 U.S.C., SEC. 248(K)).  THAT ACT PROVIDES
THAT FUNDS HELD IN TRUST AWAITING INVESTMENT "SHALL NOT BE USED BY THE
BANK IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS UNLESS IT SHALL FIRST SET ASIDE IN
THE TRUST DEPARTMENT UNITED STATES BONDS OR OTHER SECURITIES" APPROVED
BY THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, AND FURTHER
PROVIDES THAT "IN THE EVENT OF THE FAILURE OF SUCH BANK THE OWNERS OF
THE FUNDS HELD IN TRUST FOR INVESTMENT SHALL HAVE A LIEN ON THE BONDS
OR OTHER SECURITIES SO SET APART IN ADDITION TO THEIR CLAIM AGAINST THE
ESTATE OF THE BANK." 

PENDING INVESTMENT OF FUNDS UNDER THE SPRAGUE TRUST, AND PURSUANT TO
ITS RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING THE STATUTORY PROVISION JUST QUOTED, THE
TICONIC BANK PLACED THE FUNDS OF THIS TRUST, ALONG WITH OTHER TRUST
FUNDS AWAITING INVESTMENT OR DISTRIBUTION, AS A DEPOSIT IN ITS
COMMERCIAL CHECKING DEPARTMENT TO THE CREDIT OF ITS TRUST DEPARTMENT,
AND SECURED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH FUNDS BY SETTING ASIDE IN THE
TRUST DEPARTMENT BONDS, INCLUDING $20,000 KINGDOM OF DENMARK 6'S, 1942,
AT LEAST EQUAL IN VALUE TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH DEPOSITS. 

ON JULY 29, 1935, RESPONDENTS, THE SETTLOR AND BENEFICIARY, BROUGHT
THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR MAINE TO HAVE THE BONDS HELD AS
SECURITY WITH RESPECT TO THE TRUST.  IT APPEARS THAT ON AUGUST 3, 1931,
TICONIC BANK SOLD ITS ASSETS (INCLUDING THE DENMARK BONDS) TO THE
PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK (LATER CALLED PEOPLES-TICONIC NATIONAL BANK) IN
CONSIDERATION OF ITS AGREEMENT TO "ASSUME OR PAY ALL THE INDEBTEDNESS
OF SAID TICONIC BANK TO ITS DEPOSITORS"; THAT TICONIC BANK THEN WENT
INTO VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION; THAT ON MARCH 4, 1933, THE PEOPLES-TICONIC
BANK WAS CLOSED; THAT ARTHUR PICHER WAS APPOINTED RECEIVER FOR PEOPLES
TICONIC BANK ON NOVEMBER 6, 1933, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, ON JUNE 28, 1934,
FOR THE TICONIC BANK, WHICH HAD BEEN CONTINUING ITS VOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION. 

THE LOWER COURTS TREATED THE SUIT, BROUGHT AGAINST BOTH BANKS AND
AGAINST PICHER AS RECEIVER, AS ONE TO ASSERT AND ENFORCE THE LIEN
PROTECTING THE UNINVESTED FUNDS.  THEY HELD THAT, IN VIEW OF SEC. 11(K)
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, AS AMENDED, RESPONDENTS HAD ACQUIRED A LIEN
UPON THE BONDS SET APART BY THE TICONIC BANK TO SECURE THE DEPOSIT OF
THE TRUST DEPARTMENT; AND THAT THIS LIEN HAD NEVER BEEN DISCHARGED OR
DIVESTED AND SO EXTENDED TO THE PROCEEDS OF THE DENMARK BONDS, WHICH
HAD BEEN SOLD BY THE RECEIVER FOR $20,722.66.  WE DO NOT PAUSE TO STATE
THE CONCLUSIONS OF FACT AND OF LAW BY MEANS OF WHICH THE LOWER COURTS
ARRIVED AT THIS RESULT, FOR IN THE GRANT OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI THIS
COURT DECLINED TO REVIEW THE RULING THAT A STATUTORY LIEN FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE OWNERS OF THE FUNDS HELD FOR INVESTMENT EXTENDED TO
THE PROCEEDS OF THE DENMARK BONDS, THE LOWER COURTS HAVING PREDICATED
THEIR DECISION IN LARGE PART ON THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE. 

THE DECREES BELOW DID NOT END WITH THE MATTERS JUST STATED.  THE
DISTRICT COURT, FINDING THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE BONDS EXCEEDED THE
TRUST FUNDS ON DEPOSIT,  FN1  HELD THE RESPONDENTS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT
IN FULL OF $3,649.65, THE AMOUNT TO WHICH THE SPRAGUE TRUST ACCOUNT HAD
BEEN REDUCED, WITH INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT.  AT FIRST THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THAT PART OF
THE DECREE ALLOWING INTEREST, BUT ON REHEARING IT AFFIRMED THE DECREE
IN TOTO, APPROVING THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE
DENMARK BONDS, WHICH IT ASSUMED WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET WITH INTEREST
THE AMOUNT OF ALL TRUST DEPOSITS.  IT RULED THAT ALTHOUGH THE
REQUIREMENT OF RATABLE DISTRIBUTION PRECLUDES THE RECOVERY OF INTEREST
AGAINST THE GENERAL FUNDS OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK, THE GENERAL
CREDITORS HAVE NO RIGHTS IN THE TRUST FUNDS HERE INVOLVED UNTIL AFTER
THE SECURED CLAIMS ARE PAID. 

THE ATTENTION OF THIS COURT WAS CALLED TO THE FACT THAT THE RULING
CONFLICTED WITH DECISIONS IN OTHER CIRCUITS, WHERE SECURED CREDITORS
WERE HELD NOT ENTITLED TO ANY INTEREST AFTER THE SUSPENSION OF THE
NATIONAL BANK,  FN2  AND FOR THIS REASON CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED,
LIMITED TO THIS QUESTION OF INTEREST. 

AS AN INCIDENT TO THE RIGHT TO RECOVER AN UNEXPENDED BALANCE IN A
DEPOSIT, A DEPOSITOR IS ENTITLED TO INTEREST AS DAMAGES FOR THE FAILURE
TO PAY THAT BALANCE UPON DEMAND.  FN3  COMPARE STEWART V. BARNES, 153
U.S. 456, 462; UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211, 216. 

THE BANK'S OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST AS DAMAGES FOR THE DETENTION OF
THE DEBT IS NOT CUT OFF BY SUSPENSION OF ITS BUSINESS AND
RECEIVERSHIP.  THE PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND CLAIMANTS HELD
ENTITLED TO SUCH INTEREST, IN CASES WHERE THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF EACH
OF THE CLAIMS WAS PAID IN FULL FROM THE ASSETS OF THE BANK (NATIONAL
BANK V. MECHANICS' NATIONAL BANK, 94 U.S. 437), INCLUDING IF NECESSARY
THE DOUBLE LIABILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS (RICHMOND V. IRONS, 121 U.S.
27, 64). 

IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE LIQUIDATION OF NATIONAL BANKS, DIVIDENDS FROM
THE GENERAL FUNDS ON UNSECURED CLAIMS ARE MADE PRO RATA UPON THE AMOUNT
OF EACH CLAIM AS OF THE DATE OF THE INSOLVENCY, WHITE V. KNOX, 111 U.S.
784.  THIS METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION GIVES A PROPORTIONAL PART OF THE
AVAILABLE FUNDS TO EACH CREDITOR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE
REQUIRING A "RATABLE DIVIDEND."  R.S. SEC. 5236.  WHETHER THE REASON
FOR THIS METHOD OF DETERMINING DIVIDENDS IS TO AVOID PREJUDICE FROM THE
INEVITABLE DELAY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS FOR LIQUIDATION ( IN RE HUMBER
IRONWORKS & SHIPBUILDING CO., IV CH. APP. CAS. 643, 646; AMERICAN IRON
& STEEL MFG. CO. V. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY., 233 U.S. 261, 266; CF.
PEOPLE V. AMERICAN LOAN & TRUST CO., 172 N.Y. 371, 379; 65 N.E. 200);
TO FACILITATE ADMINISTRATION (SEXTON V. DREYFUS, 219 U.S. 339, 344;
CHEMICAL NATIONAL BANK V. ARMSTRONG, 59 FED. 372, 378); OR BECAUSE ON
THAT DATE THE CREDITORS ACQUIRE A RIGHT IN REM AGAINST THE ASSETS IN
THE HANDS OF THE RECEIVER (CHEMICAL NATIONAL BANK V. ARMSTRONG, SUPRA,
379; MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, 173 U.S. 131, 140;
SEXTON V. DREYFUS, SUPRA, 345) IS IMMATERIAL.  DIVIDENDS ARE PAID ON
THAT BASIS.  IT IS IN ORDER TO ASSURE EQUALITY AMONG CREDITORS AS OF
THE DATE OF INSOLVENCY THAT INTEREST ACCRUING THEREAFTER IS NOT
CONSIDERED.  BUT INTEREST IS PROPER WHERE THE IDEAL OF EQUALITY IS
SERVED, AND SO A CREDITOR WHOSE CLAIM HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY DISALLOWED
IS ENTITLED ON ITS ALLOWANCE TO INTEREST ON HIS DIVIDENDS FROM THE TIME
A RATABLE AMOUNT WAS PAID OTHER CREDITORS.  ARMSTRONG V. AMERICAN
EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK, 133 U.S. 433, 470. 

THE RULE OF WHITE V. KNOX, SUPRA, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT INTEREST BE
DENIED TO THE SECURED CREDITORS UNLESS THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF
DISTRIBUTION IS TO BE APPLIED AS BETWEEN ALL CREDITORS.  SECURED
CREDITORS HAVE TWO SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THEIR CLAIMS - THE LIABILITY
OF THE DEBTOR AND THE LIABILITY OF THE PLEDGED OR MORTGAGED ASSETS. 
ONE IS PERSONAL, THE OTHER IN REM.  THE LIABILITY IN PERSONAM OF THE
BANK GIVES RISE TO A CLAIM IN REM AGAINST THE FREE ASSETS IN THE HANDS
OF THE RECEIVER; THE CLAIM IN REM AGAINST THE SECURITY CONTINUES AS A
CLAIM IN REM AGAINST THAT SAME SECURITY.  WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMER
THE SECURED CREDITORS HAVE MERELY THE SAME RIGHTS AS ANY GENERAL
CREDITOR, AND IN SO FAR AS DIVIDENDS ARE PAID TO SECURED CREDITORS FROM
FREE ASSETS, THEY SHARE RATABLY WITH THE UNSECURED CREDITORS, AND THEIR
CLAIMS BEAR INTEREST TO THE SAME DATE, THAT OF INSOLVENCY.  COMPARE
MERRILL V. NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, 173 U.S. AT 146; ALDRICH V.
CHEMICAL NATIONAL BANK, 176 U.S. 618, 638.  BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT ONE
DEBT IS SECURED AND ANOTHER IS NOT THERE IS MANIFESTLY AN INEQUALITY OF
RIGHTS BETWEEN THE SECURED AND UNSECURED CREDITORS, WHICH CANNOT BE
AFFECTED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY OF DISTRIBUTION (AMERICAN IRON &
STEEL MFG. CO. V. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY., SUPRA, AT 266; CHEMICAL
NATIONAL BANK V. ARMSTRONG, SUPRA, AT 376-377), AND INTEREST ACCRUING
AFTER INSOLVENCY MAY NOT BE WITHHELD ON ACCOUNT OF THAT PRINCIPLE. 

THE RULE AS TO THE DATE TO WHICH INTEREST IS TO BE ALLOWED ON SECURED
CLAIMS SHARING PRO RATA WITH UNSECURED CLAIMS, CANNOT APPLY TO THE
DISPOSITION OF PLEDGED OR MORTGAGED ASSETS SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF
INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS, UNLESS WE ARE TO DISREGARD THE RIGHTS IN THESE
ASSETS PRIOR TO INSOLVENCY.  BUT "LIENS, EQUITIES OR RIGHTS ARISING
...  PRIOR TO INSOLVENCY AND NOT IN CONTEMPLATION THEREOF, ARE NOT
INVALIDATED."  SCOTT V. ARMSTRONG, 146 U.S. 499, 510; MERRILL V.
NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSONVILLE, 173 U.S. 131, 145.  BY CONTRACT OR, AS
IN THIS CASE, BY STATUTE, THE SECURED CREDITORS GAIN OR ARE GIVEN A
LIEN ON OR RIGHT IN PROPERTY "IN ADDITION TO THEIR CLAIM AGAINST THE
ESTATE OF THE BANK."  SECTION 11(K) OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT AS
AMENDED.  THE STATUTORY LIEN PRIOR TO RECEIVERSHIP WITHDREW THE PLEDGED
SECURITY FROM THE ASSETS OF THE BANK AVAILABLE TO GENERAL CREDITORS, IN
SO FAR AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THE LIEN.  THOUGH TITLE TO THE
COLLATERAL WAS IN THE NAME OF THE BANK, IT WAS SUBJECT TO THIS LIEN,
AND TO THAT EXTENT THE PROPERTY PLEDGED COULD NOT PROPERLY BE SAID TO
BELONG TO THE BANK FOR PURPOSES OF DISTRIBUTION TO CREDITORS.  SCOTT V.
ARMSTRONG, SUPRA AT 510. 

AS THE OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST IS NOT DESTROYED BY THE INSOLVENCY
AND AS THE RIGHTS OF THE SECURED CREDITOR IN HIS COLLATERAL,
CONTRACTUAL OR STATUTORY, ARE LIKEWISE UNAFFECTED, WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT A SECURED CREDITOR OF A NATIONAL BANK IN RECEIVERSHIP MAY
ENFORCE HIS LIEN AGAINST HIS SECURITY, WHERE IT IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER
BOTH PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, UNTIL HIS CLAIM FOR BOTH IS SATISFIED. 

WITH RESPECT TO ANALOGOUS LIQUIDATIONS THE RULE JUST ANNOUNCED HAS
LONG BEEN IN FORCE.  FN4 THIS COURT HAS ALREADY HELD THAT A LIENHOLDER
MAY LOOK TO HIS LIEN NOT ONLY FOR THE PRINCIPAL BUT ALSO FOR INTEREST
ACCRUING UP TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT, THOUGH HIS DEBTOR HAS GONE INTO
BANKRUPTCY (CODER V. ARTS, 213 U.S. 223, 245, AFFIRMING, 152 FED. 943,
950) OR INTO EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP (AMERICAN IRON & STEEL MFG. CO. V.
SEABOARD AIR LINE RY., 233 U.S. 261), AND THOUGH INTEREST WILL BE
DENIED THE UNSECURED CREDITORS IF THE ASSETS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO PAY
ALL CLAIMS IN FULL.  COMPARE IN RE HUMBER IRONWORKS & SHIPBUILDING CO.,
IV CH. APP. CAS. 643, WITH IN RE HUMBER IRONWORKS & SHIPBUILDING CO., V
CH. APP. CAS. 88.  THE SAME RULE WAS APPLIED TO STATE BANKS IN
WASHINGTON-ALASKA BANK V. DEXTER HORTON NATIONAL BANK, 263 FED. 304,
306. 

PETITIONERS SUGGEST THAT THE RULE JUST LAID DOWN MAY HAVE THE EFFECT
OF PENALIZING THE UNSECURED CREDITORS FOR THE PRECAUTION OF THE
RECEIVER IN LITIGATING DOUBTFUL CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST SEGREGATED
ASSETS.  THIS COULD BE TRUE ONLY WHERE THE INTEREST ACCRUING TO THE
SECURED CREDITORS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION EXCEEDS THE
APPRECIATION IN VALUE OF, AND THE INCOME FROM, THE SECURITY.  AND SINCE
IN MANY CASES IF THE RECEIVER IS SUCCESSFUL HIS CONDUCT OF THE
LITIGATION WILL INURE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE GENERAL CREDITORS, THEY
MAY FAIRLY BE CHARGED WITH THE EXPENSES OF CONTESTING THE CLAIM,
INCLUDING INTEREST BY WAY OF DAMAGES.  CF. CHEMICAL NATIONAL BANK V.
ARMSTRONG, SUPRA, 59 FED. AT 384.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE TOTAL UNINVESTED TRUST FUNDS ON DEPOSIT IN THE COMMERCIAL
DEPARTMENT OF THE TICONIC BANK AMOUNTED TO ABOUT $10,000 AT THE TIME OF
THE SALE OF ITS ASSETS, AND TO ABOUT $12,000 WHEN THE PEOPLES-TICONIC
BANK WAS CLOSED IN 1933. 

FN2  RICHMAN V. FIRST METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 76 F.(2D) 344,
346(C.C.A. 3D), CERTIORARI DENIED, LONG V. FIRST METHODIST EPISCOPAL
CHURCH, 296 U.S. 593; DOUGLASS V. THURSTON COUNTY, 86 F.(2D) 899,
909(C.C.A.9TH); FASH V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 89 F.(2D) 110, 112(C.C.A.
10TH).    FN3  WE NEED NOT EXPLORE PETITIONER'S SUGGESTION, THAT IF
INTEREST IS GRANTED AT ALL IT SHOULD BE MEASURED FROM AN EARLIER DATE
THAN THAT OF THE JUDICIAL DEMAND CONTAINED IN THE BILL OF COMPLAINT,
SINCE RESPONDENT HAS FILED NO CROSS-PETITION FOR CERTIORARI COMPLAINING
OF THAT RESTRICTION (LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, 536-538). 

FN4  COMPARE 7 VIN.  ABR.  110:  "A MORTGAGEE SHALL HAVE HIS INTEREST
RUN ON UPON A BANKRUPT'S ESTATE, BECAUSE HE HATH A RIGHT IN REM, BUT AS
TO OTHER INTEREST, IT CEASETH ON THE BANKRUPTCY.  PER LD. CHAN.  KING,
18 JULY 1729." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



















MOOKINI V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 201 


NO. 319.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 92
F.(2D) 126, REVERSED. 


1.  THE ACT OF MARCH 8, 1934, (28 U.S.C. 723A) EMPOWERING THIS COURT
TO PRESCRIBE RULES OF PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO PROCEEDINGS AFTER
DETERMINATION OF GUILT IN CRIMINAL CASES IN "DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE DISTRICT COURTS OF ALASKA, HAWAII, PUERTO
RICO, CANAL ZONE AND VIRGIN ISLANDS," AND IN THE OTHER COURTS NAMED,
DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT RULES WHEN PRESCRIBED SHALL BE IDENTICAL FOR ALL
THE COURTS MENTIONED OR THAT RULES FOR ALL SHALL BE PRESCRIBED AT THE
SAME TIME.  P. 203. 

2.  IN THE RULES HERETOFORE PROMULGATED BY THIS COURT (MAY 7, 1934,
292 U.S. 661) LIMITED TO PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES IN "DISTRICT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES" AND IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA AND SUBSEQUENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE TERM "DISTRICT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES" MEANS CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS CREATED UNDER
ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION; IT DOES NOT EMBRACE LEGISLATIVE COURTS
SUCH AS THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII.  P. 205. 

3.  AS THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES WERE NOT MADE APPLICABLE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, THEY DID NOT CHANGE THE TIME
FOR APPEALS FROM THAT COURT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS ALLOWED
BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925.  28 U.S.C. 225, 230.  P. 205. 

4.  THE PROVISION IN THE ORGANIC ACT OF HAWAII (48 U.S.C. 645) THAT
APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THAT TERRITORY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHALL BE HAD "IN THE SAME MANNER AS
APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FROM DISTRICT COURTS TO CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL AS
PROVIDED BY LAW," DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES
PRESCRIBED BY THIS COURT FOR DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL
BE HELD APPLICABLE TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAWAII.  P. 205. 

MOOKINI ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 674, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING AN APPEAL. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII OF VIOLATING SEC. 35 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE RELATING TO FRAUDULENT
CLAIMS.  18 U.S.C. 80.  THE VERDICT WAS RENDERED ON MAY 28, 1935;
MOTIONS FOR A NEW TRIAL WERE OVERRULED ON JUNE 19, 1935; AND
PETITIONERS WERE SENTENCED ON JUNE 29, 1935.  APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1935. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FINDING THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT TAKEN
IN THE MANNER OR WITHIN THE TIME PERMITTED BY THE CRIMINAL APPEALS
RULES PROMULGATED BY THIS COURT ON MAY 7, 1934(RULE III, 292 U.S. 662,
663), DISMISSED THE APPEAL.  92 F.(2D) 126.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE QUESTION AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES TO
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
WAS ALLOWED WITHIN THE THREE MONTHS' PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SEC. 8(C) OF
THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, C. 229, 43 STAT. 936, 940; 28 U.S.C. 225,
230; 48 U.S.C. 645. 

THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES WERE PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF
MARCH 8, 1934, AMENDING THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 24, 1933.  28 U.S.C. 723A. 
THE ACT AUTHORIZED THIS COURT - 

"TO PRESCRIBE, FROM TIME TO TIME, RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
WITH RESPECT TO ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS AFTER VERDICT, OR FINDING OF
GUILT BY THE COURT IF A JURY HAS BEEN WAIVED, OR PLEA OF GUILTY, IN
CRIMINAL CASES IN DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF ALASKA, HAWAII, PUERTO RICO, CANAL ZONE, AND VIRGIN
ISLANDS, IN THE SUPREME COURTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, HAWAII, AND
PUERTO RICO, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA, IN THE UNITED STATES
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, AND IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES." 

IN ORDER TO AID THE COURT IN EXERCISING ITS AUTHORITY UNDER THE
STATUTE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE REQUEST OF
THE COURT SUBMITTED ON MAY 26, 1933, A DRAFT OF PROPOSED RULES.  THESE
WERE EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO PROCEEDINGS IN CASES BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THE REASON FOR THIS LIMITATION WAS THUS STATED BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL: 

"THE RULES ARE LIMITED IN THEIR APPLICATION TO PROCEEDINGS IN CASES
INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT
DATA AT HAND UPON WHICH TO PREDICATE PROPOSALS AT THIS TIME RELATIVE TO
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN CASES INSTITUTED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF
ALASKA, HAWAII, PUERTO RICO, CANAL ZONE, AND VIRGIN ISLANDS, OR IN THE
SUPREME COURTS OF HAWAII AND PUERTO RICO, OR IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR CHINA.  IT IS THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE THE PART OF WISDOM TO
ESTABLISH THE RULES FOR PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR CONTINENTAL UNITED
STATES BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE FOR THE TERRITORIES, INSULAR
POSSESSIONS AND CONSULAR COURTS, AS THESE SITUATIONS WILL UNDOUBTEDLY
REQUIRE SPECIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF LOCAL CONDITIONS AND THE DISTANCE
SEPARATING THE TRIAL COURT FROM THE APPELLATE COURT." 

IN CONSIDERING AND REVISING THE DRAFT THUS SUBMITTED, WE APPROVED
THIS SUGGESTION.  THE RULES WERE ACCORDINGLY LIMITED TO PROCEEDINGS - 

"IN CRIMINAL CASES IN DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND IN ALL SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS IN SUCH CASES IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES."  ORDER OF MAY 7, 1934, 292
U.S. 661. 

NO PROVISION WAS MADE WITH RESPECT TO PROCEEDINGS IN CASES BROUGHT IN
THE DISTRICT COURTS OF ALASKA, HAWAII, PUERTO RICO, CANAL ZONE AND
VIRGIN ISLANDS, IN THE SUPREME COURTS OF HAWAII AND PUERTO RICO, OR IN
THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR CHINA.  WE ENTERTAIN NO DOUBT OF OUR
AUTHORITY TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE NEW RULES IN THIS WAY.  THE
STATUTE EMPOWERED THE COURT TO PRESCRIBE RULES "FROM TIME TO TIME" WITH
RESPECT "TO ANY OR ALL PROCEEDINGS," AFTER DETERMINATION OF GUILT, IN
CRIMINAL CASES IN THE COURTS WHICH WERE SEVERALLY DESCRIBED.  THE
STATUTE CONTAINS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE COURT MUST PRESCRIBE IDENTICAL
RULES WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE COURTS MENTIONED REGARDLESS OF VARYING
CONDITIONS, OR THAT RULES FOR ALL THESE COURTS MUST BE PRESCRIBED AT
ONE AND THE SAME TIME.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE MANIFEST INTENTION OF THE
CONGRESS WAS TO PERMIT THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION CONCERNING
THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES. 

THE TERM "DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES," AS USED IN THE
RULES, WITHOUT AN ADDITION EXPRESSING A WIDER CONNOTATION, HAS ITS
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.  IT DESCRIBES THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS CREATED
UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION.  COURTS OF THE TERRITORIES ARE
LEGISLATIVE COURTS, PROPERLY SPEAKING, AND ARE NOT DISTRICT COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES.  WE HAVE OFTEN HELD THAT VESTING A TERRITORIAL COURT
WITH JURISDICTION SIMILAR TO THAT VESTED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES DOES NOT MAKE IT A "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES."  REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 154, THE CITY OF
PANAMA, 101 U.S. 453, 460; IN RE MILLS, 135 U.S. 263, 268; MCALLISTER
V. UNITED STATES, 141 U.S. 174, 182, 183; STEPHENS V. CHEROKEE NATION,
174 U.S. 445, 476, 477; SUMMERS V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 92, 101,
102; UNITED STATES V. BURROUGHS, 289 U.S. 159, 163.  NOT ONLY DID THE
PROMULGATING ORDER USE THE TERM DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IN
ITS HISTORIC AND PROPER SENSE, BUT THE OMISSION OF PROVISION FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THE RULES TO THE TERRITORIAL COURTS AND OTHER COURTS
MENTIONED IN THE AUTHORIZING ACT CLEARLY SHOWS THE LIMITATION THAT WAS
INTENDED. 

AS THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES WERE NOT MADE APPLICABLE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII, THEY DID NOT SUPERSEDE OR
ALTER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, AS TO APPEALS
FROM THAT COURT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  28 U.S.C. 225, 230. 
THE PROVISION OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF HAWAII (48 U.S.C. 645) TO WHICH THE
COURT BELOW REFERS, THAT APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
TERRITORY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE SAME
MANNER AS APPEALS FROM DISTRICT COURTS, WAS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO
MODIFICATION IN THE DISCRETION OF THE CONGRESS WHICH IN ITS FUTURE
LEGISLATION COULD MAKE OR AUTHORIZE SUCH DISTINCTIONS IN APPELLATE
PROCEDURE AS APPEARED TO BE WISE.  THE ACT AUTHORIZING THIS COURT TO
PROMULGATE RULES FOR CRIMINAL APPEALS, WHICH SHOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF
LEGISLATION NECESSARILY MODIFIED THE FORMER STATUTORY PROVISIONS SO AS
TO GIVE THE COURT FULL AUTHORITY TO PRESCRIBE THE TIME AND MANNER OF
TAKING APPEALS AND TO LEAVE THE COURT FREE TO DETERMINE TO WHAT COURTS,
WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE AUTHORIZATION, ITS RULES SHOULD APPLY. 
PURSUANT TO THIS AUTHORITY, THE COURT HAS LIMITED ITS RULES SO THAT
THEY DO NOT GOVERN APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE EARLIER LEGISLATION WHICH COMPELS
THE EXTENSION OF THE RULES BEYOND THEIR INTENDED AND EXPRESSED
APPLICATION. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













S.W. V. OKLAHOMA, 303 U.S. 206 


NO. 560.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 7, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  -
APPEAL DISMISSED. 


UPON APPEAL FROM THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, THE SUPREME COURT
OF OKLAHOMA AFFIRMED AN ORDER FIXING THE RATES OF A TELEPHONE COMPANY,
SUCH AFFIRMANCE BEING, UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION, A LEGISLATIVE ACT,
AND THEREFORE NOT REVIEWABLE BY APPEAL TO THIS COURT.  THE COMPANY THEN
FILED A PETITION FOR REHEARING ASKING FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW, WHICH
PETITION WAS DENIED WITHOUT STATEMENT OF REASON.  UPON APPEAL TO THIS
COURT, THE COMPANY CONTENDED THAT THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION WAS A
JUDICIAL REVIEW, WHILE THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL INSISTED THAT THE
WHOLE PROCEEDING WAS LEGISLATIVE IN CHARACTER AND THAT ADEQUATE
JUDICIAL REVIEW COULD BE OBTAINED UNDER THE POWER OF THE STATE COURT TO
ISSUE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION TO THE COMMISSION.  HELD: 

1.  THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE DECISION TO THAT EFFECT BY THE
STATE COURT, THIS COURT CAN NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE STATE LAW PROVIDES NO
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER.  P. 212. 

2.  ASSUMING THAT THE STATE AFFORDS A JUDICIAL REMEDY, THERE IS NO
MEANS OF KNOWING WHETHER THE STATE COURT DENIED THE PETITION BECAUSE AN
APPLICATION FOR REHEARING, AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION, WAS NOT
THE PROPER WAY UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE TO INVOKE THE JUDICIAL POWER,
OR WHETHER IT ENTERTAINED THE APPLICATION AND BY ITS RULING PASSED UPON
THE CONTROVERSY IN A JUDICIAL CAPACITY.  ID. 

3.  THIS COURT IS THEREFORE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE DENIAL
OF THE PETITION.  ID. 

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. OKLAHOMA ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT DENYING A PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THE NATURE
OF A JUDICIAL REVIEW AFTER A DECISION, 181 OKLA. 246, AFFIRMING AN
ORDER OF THE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE FIXING RATES FOR
TELEPHONE SERVICE. 

PER CURIAM. 

MOTION TO DISMISS, FOR THE WANT OF JURISDICTION, AN APPEAL FROM A
DETERMINATION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA, MADE SEPTEMBER 14,
1937, DENYING A "PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW" AFTER A DECISION AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF THE CORPORATION
COMMISSION OF THE STATE FIXING RATES FOR TELEPHONE SERVICE.  THE MOTION
IS UPON THE GROUND THAT THE PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURT WAS
LEGISLATIVE AND WAS NOT A SUIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 237 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. 344) GOVERNING OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF OKLAHOMA AUTHORIZES THE CORPORATION COMMISSION TO
PRESCRIBE RATES "FOR TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSMISSION COMPANIES."  ART.
IX, SEC. 18.  APPELLANT, OPERATING TELEPHONE LINES, IS A "TRANSMISSION
COMPANY."  ART. IX, SEC. 34.  APPEALS FROM THE COMMISSION MAY BE TAKEN
ONLY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE.  ART. IX, SEC. 20.  NO COURT OF
THE STATE, OTHER THAN THE SUPREME COURT BY WAY OF APPEAL, HAS
JURISDICTION "TO REVIEW, REVERSE, CORRECT, OR ANNUL" ANY ACTION OF THE
COMMISSION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS AUTHORITY, SAVE THAT WRITS OF
MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION WILL LIE FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO THE
COMMISSION "IN ALL CASES WHERE SUCH WRITS, RESPECTIVELY, WOULD LIE TO
ANY INFERIOR COURT OR OFFICER."  ID.  IN CASE OF APPEAL, NO NEW OR
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE INTRODUCED IN THE SUPREME COURT, BUT THE
SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINE "THE
REASONABLENESS AND JUSTNESS OF THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION APPEALED
FROM, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER MATTER ARISING UNDER SUCH APPEAL."  THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IS TO BE REGARDED "AS PRIMA FACIE JUST,
REASONABLE, AND CORRECT," BUT THE COURT MAY, WHEN IT DEEMS NECESSARY IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, REMAND TO THE COMMISSION ANY CASE PENDING ON
APPEAL "AND REQUIRE THE SAME TO BE FURTHER INVESTIGATED BY THE
COMMISSION, AND REPORTED UPON TO THE COURT (TOGETHER WITH A CERTIFICATE
OF SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS MAY BE TENDERED BEFORE THE COMMISSION BY
ANY PARTY IN INTEREST), BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY DECIDED."  ART.
IX.  SEC. 22. 


"WHENEVER THE COURT, UPON APPEAL, SHALL REVERSE AN ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION AFFECTING THE RATES, CHARGES, OR THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF
TRAFFIC OF ANY TRANSPORTATION OR TRANSMISSION COMPANY, IT SHALL, AT THE
SAME TIME, SUBSTITUTE THEREFOR SUCH ORDERS AS, IN ITS OPINION, THE
COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE MADE AT THE TIME OF ENTERING THE ORDER APPEALED
FROM; OTHERWISE THE REVERSAL ORDER SHALL NOT BE VALID.  SUCH
SUBSTITUTED ORDER SHALL HAVE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT (AND NONE OTHER)
AS IF IT HAD BEEN ENTERED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL
ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS ENTERED." 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CORPORATION COMMISSION ON MARCH 18, 1935,
AFTER HEARING, MADE ITS ORDER FIXING APPELLANT'S RATES (OKLA. CORP.
COM. REP., 1935, P. 558), AND ON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE,
ON JULY 13, 1937, AFFIRMED THE ORDER.  181 OKLA. 246; 71 P.2D 747. 

APPELLANT CONCEDES THAT THIS DECISION WAS LEGISLATIVE IN CHARACTER,
IN VIEW OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISION OF
SEC. 23 OF ARTICLE IX AND ITS CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE COURT.  SEE
PIONEER TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. STATE, 40 OKLA. 417, 425, 426; 138
PAC. 1033; SWAIN V. OKLAHOMA RAILWAY CO., 168 OKLA. 133, 134-136; 32
P.2D.  51; OKLAHOMA COTTON GINNERS' ASSN. V. STATE, 174 OKLA. 243, 248,
251; 51 P.2D 327.  COMPARE PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE CO., 211 U.S.
210, 226, 227; OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S. 290, 291. 
BUT APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE "COMPLETED
ITS LEGISLATIVE REVIEW AND FUNCTION BY THE FILING OF ITS OPINION OF
JULY 13, 1937," AND THAT APPELLANT WAS THEN FREE TO INVOKE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS JUDICIAL POWER AND FUNCTION
BY AN APPLICATION FOR "A JUDICIAL REVIEW."  THIS, APPELLANT STATES, WAS
THE PURPOSE OF ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING. 

IN SUPPORT OF THAT PETITION, APPELLANT URGED UPON THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE VESTING OF JUDICIAL POWER AND THE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT (ART. VII, SECS. 1 AND 2); OF THE
BILL OF RIGHTS GUARANTEEING A JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR EVERY INJURY (ART.
II, SEC. 6); OF SEC. 22 OF ARTICLE IX PROVIDING THAT, ON APPEALS TO THE
SUPREME COURT FROM THE CORPORATION COMMISSION, THAT COURT SHOULD HAVE
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE "THE REASONABLENESS AND JUSTNESS" OF THE
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION "AS WELL AS ANY OTHER MATTER" ARISING ON THE
APPEAL; AND OF SEC. 34 OF ARTICLE IX THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THAT
ARTICLE SHOULD "ALWAYS BE SO RESTRICTED IN THEIR APPLICATION AS NOT TO
CONFLICT WITH ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND AS IF THE NECESSARY LIMITATIONS UPON THEIR INTERPRETATION
HAD BEEN HEREIN EXPRESSED IN EACH CASE."  IN CONCLUDING THE SUBMISSION
OF ITS PETITION FOR REHEARING APPELLANT INSISTED THAT THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE "NOT ONLY HAS THE POWER, RIGHT, JURISDICTION AND
AUTHORITY, NOW TO REVIEW THIS CASE JUDICIALLY, WHICH RIGHT, POWER,
JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY IT HAS NOT HERETOFORE POSSESSED, BUT THAT IT
IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO DO SO AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING, IN
ORDER THAT APPELLANT MAY HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE ORDER OR ENACTMENT FIXING
ITS RATES FOR FUTURE APPLICATION AT TULSA REVIEWED BY AN APPROPRIATE
FEDERAL COURT WITH THE LEAST POSSIBLE DELAY AND COST, IF SUCH SHOULD
LATER BE FOUND NECESSARY, RESULTING FROM AN ADVERSE DECISION BY THIS
(THE STATE) COURT." 

THE RULING OF THE STATE COURT WAS EXPRESSED IN THE FOLLOWING JOURNAL
ENTRY: 

"NOW ON THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1937, THE COURT HAVING CONSIDERED
APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THE NATURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW,
DOTH OVERRULE AND DENY SAME, TO WHICH APPELLANT IS ALLOWED EXCEPTION." 

AT APPELLANT'S REQUEST, THE STATE COURT GRANTED SUPERSEDEAS AND
STAYED ITS MANDATE PENDING APPELLANT'S APPLICATION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF
AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL IF TAKEN. 
AN APPEAL WAS THEN ALLOWED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE STATE COURT AND
THE CASE IS THUS BROUGHT HERE. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE, MOVING TO DISMISS THE APPEAL,
INSISTS THAT APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURT
IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR REHEARING "WAS A JUDICIAL REVIEW, IS WHOLLY
ERRONEOUS"; THAT THE APPEAL IS "FROM A PURELY LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION
OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED."  THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
ARGUMENT IS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: 

"THIS PETITION FOR REHEARING  ...  WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONFER, UPON
THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA, JURISDICTION AND POWER TO TREAT THE
RECORD THEN BEFORE IT AS A NEW CAUSE INVOLVING A JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND
NO RECORD WAS BEFORE SAID COURT WARRANTING SAID COURT TO TREAT SAME AS
A JUDICIAL APPEAL, NOR WAS THE SAID RECORD, NOR ITS CONTENTS, TREATED
AS SUCH BY APPELLANT, NOR THE COURT, AND NO JUDICIAL ISSUES WERE RAISED
IN SAID LEGISLATIVE REVIEW.  IT IS NOT THE RULE TO PERMIT THE CHARACTER
OF CONTROVERSIES TO BE COMPLETELY CHANGED, EITHER IN FORM OR SUBSTANCE,
AFTER THE OPINION OF A COURT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN, AND THIS IS
ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN THE SAME IS SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, FOR THE
FIRST TIME BY A SO-CALLED PETITION FOR REHEARING IN WHICH THE ONLY
SUBJECT MENTIONED WAS THE REQUEST FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR THE FIRST
TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE CASE." 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HOWEVER, DOES NOT CONCEDE THAT THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA "DOES NOT FURNISH AN ADEQUATE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF QUESTIONS
SUCH AS ARE INVOLVED IN THIS PROPOSED APPEAL."  ON THE CONTRARY, "THE
STATE ASSERTS THAT APPELLANT HAS, AND HAS HAD, AN ADEQUATE METHOD OF
RELIEF."  WHEN PRESSED UPON THE ARGUMENT AT BAR TO STATE WHAT JUDICIAL
REMEDY WAS OPEN TO APPELLANT UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL REFERRED TO THE POWER CONFERRED UPON THE SUPREME COURT BY THE
PROVISO IN SEC. 20 OF ARTICLE IX TO ISSUE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND
PROHIBITION TO THE COMMISSION.  NO DECISION OF THE STATE COURT AS TO
THE QUESTIONS WHICH WOULD BE OPEN UPON AN APPLICATION FOR SUCH A WRIT
HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. 

APPELLANT STATES THAT THE QUESTION NOW PRESENTED IS ONE OF FIRST
IMPRESSION; THAT THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURT IN THIS CASE
"CONSTITUTES THE FIRST CONSTRUING OF THIS (THE PRESENT) PROCEDURE WHICH
THAT COURT HAS EVER MADE.  THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC PRECEDENTS." 

THE NOVELTY OF THE PROCEDURE, AND THE LACK OF EXPOSITION IN THE BRIEF
RULING, LEAVE US IN DOUBT AS TO THE TRUE IMPORT OF THE DENIAL OF THE
PETITION FOR REHEARING.  IN VIEW OF THE SERIOUS QUESTIONS WHICH WOULD
BE RAISED IF IT WERE DETERMINED THAT THE STATE PROVIDES NO MEANS OF
OBTAINING A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION FIXING RATES,
ALLEGED TO BE CONFISCATORY, IN THE CASE OF A TRANSPORTATION OR
TRANSMISSION COMPANY, WE SHOULD NOT REACH SUCH A CONCLUSION IN THE
ABSENCE OF A DEFINITE DECISION BY THE STATE COURT TO THAT EFFECT. 
NEITHER PARTY BEFORE US ADVANCES A CONTENTION THAT THERE IS SUCH A LACK
OF JUDICIAL REMEDY.  APPELLANT SAYS THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AVAILABLE
THROUGH THE PROCEDURE APPELLANT HAS CHOSEN AND THAT THE DENIAL OF ITS
PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS JUDICIAL ACTION.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ASSERTS THE CONTRARY, CONTENDING THAT JUDICIAL REMEDY EXISTS BUT MUST
BE SOUGHT IN ANOTHER MANNER.  BUT - ASSUMING THAT THE STATE AFFORDS A
JUDICIAL REMEDY - WHETHER THE STATE COURT HAS DENIED APPELLANT'S
PETITION BECAUSE AN APPLICATION FOR REHEARING AFTER WHAT IS CONCEDED BY
BOTH PARTIES TO BE A LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION WAS NOT THE PROPER WAY
UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE TO INVOKE THE JUDICIAL POWER, OR HAS
ENTERTAINED THE APPLICATION AND BY ITS RULING HAS PASSED UPON THE
CONTROVERSY IN A JUDICIAL CAPACITY, WE HAVE NO MEANS OF KNOWING. 

WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COURT IN REVIEWING A DECISION OF A COURT OF A STATE THAT IT MUST
APPEAR AFFIRMATIVELY FROM THE RECORD, NOT ONLY THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION
WAS PRESENTED FOR DECISION TO THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE HAVING
JURISDICTION BUT THAT ITS DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS
NECESSARY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE CAUSE; THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION
WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED OR THAT THE JUDGMENT AS RENDERED COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT DECIDING IT.  DE SAUSSURE V. GAILLARD, 127 U.S. 216,
234; JOHNSON V. RISK, 137 U.S. 300, 306, 307; WOOD MOWING & REAPING
MACHINE CO. V. SKINNER, 139 U.S. 293, 295, 297; WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA,
274 U.S. 357, 360, 361; LYNCH V. NEW YORK, 293 U.S. 52, 54. 

APPLYING THIS RULE, THE MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE GRANTED. 
DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






CENTURY INDEMNITY CO. V. NELSON, 303 U.S. 213 


NO. 362.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 90
F.(2D) 644, REVERSED. 


AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF A LAW CASE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY, THE DISTRICT
COURT ORDERED "THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED FOR PLAINTIFF  ...  UPON
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TO BE PRESENTED."  THEREAFTER,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RULE OF THE COURT, SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE PROPOSED BY EACH SIDE; THOSE OFFERED BY THE
PLAINTIFF WERE ADOPTED BY THE JUDGE AND FORMAL JUDGMENT WAS ORDERED AND
ENTERED.  HELD THAT THE FIRST ORDER WAS PRELIMINARY; THAT REJECTIONS OF
DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS WERE RULINGS MADE "IN THE PROGRESS OF THE
TRIAL," WITHIN THE MEANING OF 28 U.S.C. SEC. 875, AND REVIEWABLE BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 215. 

CENTURY INDEMNITY CO. V. NELSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 674, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IN AN ACTION AT LAW TRIED WITHOUT A JURY. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CAUSE WENT UP BY APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN
DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA.  OF THE TWENTY-EIGHT ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR,
ELEVEN, BASED UPON THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL OF CERTAIN REQUESTED
SPECIAL FINDINGS, WERE REJECTED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT
HELD THE REQUESTS "WERE MADE TOO LATE," THAT "THE FINDINGS WERE
PROPOSED AFTER THE TRIAL HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND AFTER THE COURT HAD
ANNOUNCED ITS DECISION AND HENCE DID NOT OCCUR DURING THE TRIAL."  TO
SUPPORT THIS VIEW IT CITED CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK V. NATIONAL CITY
BANK, (9TH CIR.) 69 F.(2D) 312, 317, WHICH AFFIRMS - "IT IS SETTLED
THAT THEY (REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS) CAME TOO LATE IF MADE AFTER JUDGMENT
EVEN THOUGH THE TRIAL JUDGE, AFTER JUDGMENT, GRANTED LEAVE TO MAKE THE
REQUEST." 

A JURY HAVING BEEN DULY WAIVED, THE TRIAL JUDGE HEARD EVIDENCE.  AT
THE CONCLUSION OF THIS COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES MADE MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND FINDINGS.  THE MINUTES OF MAY 31, 1934, SHOW - "THIS CASE HAVING
BEEN HERETOFORE HEARD AND SUBMITTED AND DUE CONSIDERATION HAVING BEEN
HAD, IT IS ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED FOR PLAINTIFF, WITH
INTEREST AND COSTS, UPON FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TO BE
PRESENTED." 

THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS RECITES - "THEREAFTER, (AFTER REQUESTS FOR
JUDGMENT AND FINDINGS) THE CASE WAS ORALLY ARGUED BEFORE THE COURT AND
WAS SUBMITTED UPON WRITTEN BRIEFS.  THEREAFTER AND ON JUNE 1, 1934,
(MAY 31 ?)  AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT MADE AND
ENTERED ITS ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF WITH FINDINGS TO
BE SUBMITTED.  THEREAFTER PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW WERE SERVED AND LODGED WITH THE COURT BY PLAINTIFF, AND WITHIN THE
TIME ALLOWED BY LAW THE DEFENDANT SERVED AND LODGED ITS PROPOSED
SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN LIEU OF THOSE
PROPOSED BY THE PLAINTIFF. 

"THEREAFTER AND ON JUNE 16, 1934, THE COURT, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF
THE PARTIES, SIGNED THE PROPOSED SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF THE PLAINTIFF AND FILED SAME ON SAID DATE AS THE
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT, AND JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON SAID
JUNE 16, 1934." 

JUNE 16, 1934, "SPECIAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" PRESENTED
FOR PLAINTIFF NELSON WERE SIGNED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND WERE FILED. 
THE DOCUMENT CONCLUDED THUS - 

"FROM THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT IN THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND ($6000.00) DOLLARS TOGETHER WITH
INTEREST THEREON AT THE LEGAL RATE OF SEVEN PER CENT (7%) PER ANNUM
FROM THE DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACTION, TO-WIT:  SEPTEMBER
24, 1931, TOGETHER WITH PLAINTIFF'S COSTS OF SUIT INCURRED HEREIN, AND
THAT UPON SATISFACTION OF SAID JUDGMENT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT SHOULD
DELIVER TO THE DEFENDANT THE ASSIGNMENT BY PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE SAN
FRANCISCO IRON & METAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION IN BANKRUPTCY. 

"LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY." 

SEC. 875, TITLE 28, U.S.C.A., IS IN THE MARGIN; FN1  ALSO RULE 42,
DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.  FN2 

WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION BELOW THAT WITHIN THE INTENT
OF THE STATUTE THE "PROGRESS OF THE TRIAL" ENDED ON JUNE 1, WHEN THE
COURT ORDERED "THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED FOR PLAINTIFF, WITH INTEREST
AND COSTS, UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TO BE
PRESENTED," AND THEREAFTER IT WAS TOO LATE ADEQUATELY TO PRESENT
SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT.  THE QUALIFYING WORDS IN THE ORDER "UPON
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TO BE PRESENTED" ARE
APPROPRIATE TO SUGGEST "MERELY A PRELIMINARY ORDER" AND RESERVATION OF
OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER ACTION.  CONSIDERING THEM ALONG WITH RULE 42
AND THE SUBSEQUENT ACTION BY COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES AND THE COURT - ALL
WITHOUT SUGGESTION OF OBJECTION - IT APPEARS PLAIN ENOUGH THAT ALL
PARTIES UNDERSTOOD THE CAUSE WAS "IN PROGRESS OF TRIAL" UNTIL ENTRY OF
THE FINAL JUDGMENT ON JUNE 16.  RULE 42 IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF THE
INTERPRETATION INSISTED UPON BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER AND APPARENTLY
THEY PROCEEDED IN GOOD FAITH ACCORDING TO THAT VIEW.  IN SO DOING, WE
THINK THEY WERE RIGHT.  SEE CLEMENT V. PHOENIX INS. CO., FED. CASES
2,882. 

CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK V. NATIONAL CITY BANK DOES NOT DISCUSS RULE
42 AND WENT UPON FACTS WHICH SEEM MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
PRESENTED BY THIS RECORD. 

REFUSAL TO CONSIDER THE ELEVEN ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR AROSE FROM WHAT
WE REGARD AS WRONGFUL INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF SEC. 875 AND
RULE 42.  THEIR EVIDENT PURPOSE IS TO INSURE ORDERLY AND TIMELY
PRESENTATION TO THE JUDGE OF MATTERS DEEMED IMPORTANT IN ADVANCE OF ANY
DEFINITE ACTION BY HIM IN RESPECT OF THEM.  THEY SHOULD NOT BE SO
NARROWLY CONSTRUED AS TO DEFEAT THEIR REAL PURPOSE. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO TREAT THE FIRST ORDER FOR
JUDGMENT (JUNE 1) AS ENDING "THE PROGRESS OF THE TRIAL."  ALL COUNSEL
AND THE PRESIDING JUDGE SEEM, RIGHTLY WE THINK, TO HAVE ENTERTAINED A
WHOLLY DIFFERENT VIEW AND TO HAVE ACTED ACCORDINGLY. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED.  THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 875, TITLE 28, U.S.C.A. 

REVIEW IN CASES TRIED WITHOUT JURY.  WHEN AN ISSUE OF FACT IN ANY
CIVIL CAUSE IN A DISTRICT COURT IS TRIED AND DETERMINED BY THE COURT
WITHOUT THE INTERVENTION OF A JURY, ACCORDING TO SECTION 773 OF THIS
TITLE, THE RULINGS OF THE COURT IN THE PROGRESS OF THE TRIAL OF THE
CAUSE, IF EXCEPTED TO AT THE TIME, AND DULY PRESENTED BY A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS, MAY BE REVIEWED UPON A WRIT OF ERROR OR UPON APPEAL; AND
WHEN THE FINDING IS SPECIAL THE REVIEW MAY EXTEND TO THE DETERMINATION
OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE FACTS FOUND TO SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT. 

FN2  RULE 42, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA. 

FINDINGS  ...  IN ACTIONS AT LAW, WHERE A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL
FINDINGS OF FACT IS MADE AND GRANTED, AND IN SUITS IN EQUITY, NO
JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED UNTIL THE FINDINGS AND, IN AN EQUITY SUIT,
THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, SHALL HAVE BEEN SIGNED AND FILED OR WAIVED AS
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED; BUT THE RENDITION OF THE DECISION OR OPINION
SHALL BE DEEMED AND CONSIDERED, AND SHALL BE ENTERED BY THE CLERK, AS
MERELY A PRELIMINARY ORDER FOR JUDGMENT.  WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER
WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DECISION, THE PREVAILING PARTY SHALL PREPARE A
DRAFT OF THE FINDINGS AND, IN AN EQUITY SUIT, OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW, AND DELIVER THE SAME TO THE CLERK FOR THE JUDGE AND SERVE A COPY
THEREOF UPON THE ADVERSE PARTY, WHO MAY, WITHIN FIVE DAYS THEREAFTER,
DELIVER TO THE CLERK AND SERVE UPON THE ADVERSE PARTY SUCH PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS OR ADDITIONS AS HE MAY DESIRE. 

IF THE PREVAILING PARTY FAILS TO PRESENT SUCH DRAFT AS ABOVE
PROVIDED, THE ADVERSE PARTY MAY PREPARE A DRAFT THEREOF AND DELIVER THE
SAME TO THE CLERK FOR THE JUDGE AND SERVE A COPY THEREOF ON THE
PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN FIVE DAYS THEREAFTER. 

THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND, WHERE REQUIRED, THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
SHALL THEREAFTER BE SETTLED BY THE JUDGE, AND WHEN SO SETTLED SHALL BE
ENGROSSED WITHIN FIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, AND SHALL BE THEN SIGNED AND
FILED.  A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RULE MAY BE
DEEMED TO BE A WAIVER OF FINDINGS BY THE PARTY SO FAILING. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






















HELVERING V. THERRELL, 303 U.S. 218 


NO. 128.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 88
F.(2D) 869, AND ID. 873, REVERSED.  - 89 ID. 699, AFFIRMED.  - 92 ID.
150, REVERSED. 


THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED (1) BY A LIQUIDATOR APPOINTED BY THE STATE
COMPTROLLER TO WIND UP INSOLVENT BANKS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES;
(2) BY LEGAL COUNSEL EMPLOYED BY THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK
FOR SERVICES IN LIQUIDATING INSOLVENT INSURANCE COMPANIES TAKEN OVER BY
THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE, PURSUANT TO NEW YORK STATUTES;
(3) BY AN ATTORNEY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF PENNSYLVANIA
ASSIGNED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR LEGAL WORK RELATING TO WINDING UP
OF INSOLVENT BANKS TAKEN OVER BY THE STATE SECRETARY OF BANKING
PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES.  HELD (P. 222) SUBJECT TO INCOME
TAXATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IT APPEARING: 

1.  THAT THE COMPENSATION IN EACH INSTANCE WAS PAID FROM THE ASSETS
OF THE LIQUIDATING CORPORATION, NOT FROM FUNDS BELONGING TO THE STATE; 

2.  THAT NO ONE OF THE TAXPAYERS WAS AN OFFICER OF THE STATE IN THE
STRICT SENSE OF THAT TERM; 

3.  THAT THE BUSINESSES ABOUT WHICH THEY WERE EMPLOYED WERE NOT
UTILIZED BY THE STATES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL
DUTIES; 

4.  THAT THE CORPORATIONS WERE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES, AND THEIR FUNDS
PRIVATE PROPERTY. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. THERRELL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 129, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. TUNNICLIFFE, ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT; NO. 287, MCLOUGHLIN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT;
AND NO. 597, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. FREEDMAN,
ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS IN FOUR
CASES ON APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS.  IN NOS. 128, 129 AND 597(34 B.T.A. 956) THE
BOARD'S RULING WAS REVERSED BY THE LOWER COURT; IN NO. 287, THE BOARD'S
RULING, 34 B.T.A. 963, WAS AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWER TO TAX COMPENSATION PAID TO
ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS OUT OF CORPORATE ASSETS FOR NECESSARY SERVICES
RENDERED ABOUT THE LIQUIDATION OF AN INSOLVENT CORPORATION BY A STATE
OFFICER PROCEEDING AS REQUIRED BY HER STATUTES? 

THE OPINIONS BELOW STATE THE ESSENTIAL FACTS - NOT IN DISPUTE; MAKE
ADEQUATE REFERENCES TO THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS; AND CITE
NUMEROUS AUTHORITIES. 

NO. 128. 

UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES WHEN A BANK BECOMES INSOLVENT "THE STATE
COMPTROLLER MAY APPOINT A LIQUIDATOR (SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL) TO TAKE
CHARGE OF THE ASSETS AND AFFAIRS OF SUCH BANK  ... (WHO,) UNDER THE
DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE COMPTROLLER, SHALL TAKE POSSESSION OF
THE BOOKS AND RECORDS AND ASSETS OF EVERY DESCRIPTION  ...  AND IN HIS
NAME SHALL SUE FOR AND COLLECT ALL DEBTS AND CLAIMS BELONGING TO IT,
AND UPON THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION MAY SELL OR
COMPOUND ALL BAD OR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND ON LIKE ORDER MAY SELL ALL REAL
AND PERSONAL PROPERTY  ...  AND SUE FOR AND ENFORCE THE INDIVIDUAL
LIABILITY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS."  HE SHALL "PAY ALL MONEY RECEIVED BY
HIM TO THE STATE TREASURER TO BE HELD AS A SPECIAL DEPOSIT  ...  SHALL
MAKE QUARTERLY REPORTS, OR WHEN CALLED UPON, TO THE COMPTROLLER."  THE
APPOINTMENT MUST FOLLOW NOTICE AND BE CONFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT. 
LIQUIDATION EXPENSES ARE PAYABLE OUT OF THE CORPORATE FUNDS HELD BY THE
TREASURER.  "THE COMPENSATION OF THE LIQUIDATOR SHALL BE FIXED BY THE
COMPTROLLER AND SHALL BE BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF WORK ACTUALLY AND
NECESSARILY PERFORMED, AND SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED FIVE PER CENT OF THE
CASH COLLECTED." 

RESPONDENT THERRELL, LIQUIDATOR FOR SEVERAL BANKS, DEVOTED
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL HIS TIME TO THE WORK.  HE HELD NO COMMISSION FROM THE
GOVERNOR, TOOK NO OATH OF OFFICE BUT WAS FORMALLY APPOINTED BY THE
COMPTROLLER AND GAVE BOND.  HIS COMPENSATION, FOR 1931 AND 1932, PAID
FROM CORPORATE ASSETS, WAS ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR FEDERAL
INCOME TAXES.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS APPROVED; BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOUND IMMUNITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THERRELL V.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 88 F.(2D) 869. 

NO. 129. 

RESPONDENT TUNNICLIFFE, LIQUIDATOR OF INSOLVENT BANKS APPOINTED BY
THE COMPTROLLER OF FLORIDA, WAS ASSESSED FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES UPON
THE SUMS RECEIVED FOR SERVICES DURING 1931 AND 1932.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS APPROVED; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED OTHERWISE UPON ITS
OPINION IN NO. 128.  TUNNICLIFFE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
88 F.(2D) 873.  BOTH CAUSES PRESENT THE SAME POINTS. 

NO. 287. 

PETITIONER MCLOUGHLIN WAS EMPLOYED BY THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT OF NEW
YORK AS LEGAL COUNSEL IN THE LIQUIDATION BUREAU AND RECEIVED FOR
SERVICES DURING 1932, $5,125.00.  THIS BUREAU IS IN CHARGE OF A DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE A CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYE WHOSE SALARY IS
PAID BY THE STATE.  IT EMPLOYS MANY PERSONS - SUPERINTENDENTS,
ATTORNEYS, BOOKKEEPERS, STENOGRAPHERS, ADJUSTERS, ACCOUNTANTS, ETC. 

UNDER THE STATUTES THE SUPERINTENDENT MAY APPLY TO THE COURT FOR AN
ORDER TO TAKE OVER THE ASSETS OF AN INSOLVENT INSURANCE COMPANY AND
LIQUIDATE ITS AFFAIRS.  WHEN THIS ISSUES THE CORPORATE CHARTER IS
DISSOLVED AND THE SUPERINTENDENT MUST PROCEED TO COLLECT ASSETS, ADJUST
CLAIMS, ETC.  HE DETERMINED PETITIONER'S COMPENSATION AND CAUSED IT TO
BE PAID FROM ASSETS OF THE SEVERAL COMPANIES IN LIQUIDATION ACCORDING
TO THE TIME DEVOTED TO EACH. 

THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED THIS COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX;
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS APPROVED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, AND DEFINITELY HELD IT WAS NOT EXEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  MCLOUGHLIN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 89
F.(2D) 699. 

NO. 597. 

FREEDMAN, EMPLOYED AS AN ATTORNEY IN PENNSYLVANIA'S DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, RECEIVED ANNUAL SALARY OF $3,000.00.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS
POWER TO APPOINT ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT ANY DEPARTMENT, BOARD OR
COMMISSION OF THE STATE AND FIX THEIR COMPENSATION.  THE SECRETARY OF
BANKING HAS BROAD POWERS OVER BANKS.  WHEN ONE BECOMES UNSOUND HE MAY,
AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING AND WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONSENT, TAKE
POSSESSION AND WIND UP ITS AFFAIRS.  ALL NECESSARY EXPENSES, INCLUDING
COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS, SPECIAL DEPUTIES, ASSISTANTS AND OTHERS
EMPLOYED ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS, ARE PAID FROM FUNDS OF THE
CORPORATION. 

DURING 1932 THE RESPONDENT WAS ASSIGNED FOR LEGAL WORK RELATING TO
CLOSED BANKS AND WAS PAID BY THE SECRETARY OF BANKING OUT OF THEIR
FUNDS.  THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED THE SUM SO RECEIVED FOR FEDERAL
INCOME TAX.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS APPROVED; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DECLARED THE SALARY EXEMPT.  FREEDMAN V. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, 92 F.(2D) 150. 

WHAT LIMITATIONS DOES THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IMPOSE UPON THE UNITED
STATES IN RESPECT OF TAXING INSTRUMENTALITIES AND AGENCIES EMPLOYED BY
A STATE AND, CONVERSELY, HOW FAR DOES IT INHIBIT THE STATES FROM TAXING
INSTRUMENTALITIES AND AGENCIES UTILIZED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE
QUESTIONS OFTEN CONSIDERED HERE.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND (1819), 4
WHEAT.  316; WESTON V. CHARLESTON (1829), 2 PET. 449; DOBBINS V.
COMMISSIONERS OF ERIE COUNTY, 16 PET. 435; LANE COUNTY V. OREGON, 7
WALL.  71; VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8 WALL.  533, 556; SOUTH CAROLINA V.
UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437, 457; METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S.
514; INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570; BURNET V.
JERGINS TRUST, 288 U.S. 508, 516; OHIO V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360, 368;
HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S. 214; ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401;
BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 352. 

THE CONSTITUTION CONTEMPLATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT FREE TO USE ITS
DELEGATED POWERS; ALSO STATE GOVERNMENTS CAPABLE OF EXERCISING THEIR
ESSENTIAL RESERVED POWERS; BOTH OPERATE WITHIN THE SAME TERRITORIAL
LIMITS; CONSEQUENTLY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, EITHER BY WORD OR
NECESSARY INFERENCE, MAKES ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR PREVENTING CONFLICT
BETWEEN THEM. 

AMONG THE INFERENCES WHICH DERIVE NECESSARILY FROM THE CONSTITUTION
ARE THESE: NO STATE MAY TAX APPROPRIATE MEANS WHICH THE UNITED STATES
MAY EMPLOY FOR EXERCISING THEIR DELEGATED POWERS; THE UNITED STATES MAY
NOT TAX INSTRUMENTALITIES WHICH A STATE MAY EMPLOY IN THE DISCHARGE OF
HER ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL DUTIES - THAT IS THOSE DUTIES WHICH THE
FRAMERS INTENDED EACH MEMBER OF THE UNION WOULD ASSUME IN ORDER
ADEQUATELY TO FUNCTION UNDER THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION. 

BY DEFINITION PRECISELY TO DELIMIT "DELEGATED POWERS" OR "ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL DUTIES" IS NOT POSSIBLE.  CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING THESE
TERMS MUST BE DECIDED AS THEY ARISE, UPON CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE
RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES.  NOTWITHSTANDING DISCORDANT VIEWS WHICH HAVE
SOMETIMES ARISEN BECAUSE OF VARYING EMPHASIS GIVEN TO ONE OR ANOTHER OF
SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOW SETTLED DOCTRINE THAT THE INFERRED
EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL TAXATION DOES NOT EXTEND TO EVERY
INSTRUMENTALITY WHICH A STATE MAY SEE FIT TO EMPLOY.  EXEMPTION DEPENDS
UPON THE NATURE OF THE UNDERTAKING; IT IS CABINED BY THE REASON WHICH
UNDERLIES THE INFERENCE. 

VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, SUPRA, SUSTAINED A TAX LAID BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT UPON NOTES ISSUED BY STATE BANKS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE VIEW
ENTERTAINED BY TWO JUSTICES THAT IT AMOUNTED TO "TAXATION OF THE POWERS
AND FACULTIES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY, AND TO THE EFFICIENT AND INDEPENDENT MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR INTERNAL AFFAIRS." 

SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, GAVE OCCASION FOR MUCH
CONSIDERATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO TAX
INSTRUMENTALITIES UTILIZED BY A STATE.  IT RULED, AGAINST A STOUT
DISSENT, THAT ALTHOUGH SOUTH CAROLINA HAD THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE SALE
OF LIQUORS THROUGH THE DISPENSARY SYSTEM, NEVERTHELESS CONGRESS COULD
TAX THE DISPENSERS WHO ACTED AS AGENTS OF THE STATE IN MAKING SALES. 
"LOOKING, THEREFORE, AT THE CONSTITUTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONDITIONS
SURROUNDING AT THE TIME OF ITS ADOPTION, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FRAMERS
IN GRANTING FULL POWER OVER LICENSE TAXES TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
MEANT THAT THAT POWER SHOULD BE COMPLETE, AND NEVER THOUGHT THAT THE
STATES BY EXTENDING THEIR FUNCTIONS COULD PRACTICALLY DESTROY IT." 

BURNET V. JERGINS TRUST, SUPRA, UPHELD A FEDERAL TAX UPON THE
RECEIPTS BY THE LESSEE OF OIL LANDS WHICH BELONGED TO THE CITY OF LONG
BEACH, CALIFORNIA.  "THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX IS SO REMOTE FROM ANY
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AS TO RENDER THE EFFECT OF THE EXACTION
INCONSIDERABLE AS RESPECTS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CITY." 

IN OHIO V. HELVERING, SUPRA, WE HELD THAT THE AGENCIES AND OPERATIONS
OF THE STATE OF OHIO IN THE CONDUCT OF ITS DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR CONTROL
WERE SUBJECT TO EXCISE TAXES PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.  "WHENEVER A STATE
ENGAGES IN A BUSINESS OF A PRIVATE NATURE IT EXERCISES NONGOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS AND THE BUSINESS, THOUGH CONDUCTED BY THE STATE, IS NOT
IMMUNE FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF TAXATION WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION VESTS IN THE CONGRESS." 

HELVERING V. POWERS, SUPRA, RULED THAT THE COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BOSTON ELEVATED RAILWAY COMPANY WAS
SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX NOTWITHSTANDING THEY WERE APPOINTED
BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE, CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL, AND ENDOWED
WITH LARGE POWERS TO REGULATE AND FIX FARES, ETC.  "THE FACT THAT THE
STATE HAS POWER TO UNDERTAKE SUCH ENTERPRISES, AND THAT THEY ARE
UNDERTAKEN FOR WHAT THE STATE CONCEIVES TO BE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, DOES
NOT ESTABLISH IMMUNITY." 

THE CASES LAST REFERRED TO STRIKINGLY ILLUSTRATE THE OUTCOME OF
EFFORTS HERE TO APPLY THE RECOGNIZED DOCTRINE IN RESPECT OF TAXING
STATE AGENCIES.  ACCORDING TO THEM AND OTHERS OF LIKE NATURE DUE
WEIGHT, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN MAKING
ANY ONE OF THE ASSESSMENTS INVOLVED IN THE FOUR CASES PRESENTLY BEFORE
US.  HE GAVE PROPER APPLICATION TO THE RULE WHICH WE MUST RECOGNIZE AS
ESTABLISHED.  THE COMPENSATION OF THE TAXPAYERS WAS PAID FROM CORPORATE
ASSETS - NOT FROM FUNDS BELONGING TO THE STATE.  NO ONE OF THEM WAS AN
OFFICER OF THE STATE IN THE STRICT SENSE OF THAT TERM.  THE BUSINESS
ABOUT WHICH THEY WERE EMPLOYED WAS NOT ONE UTILIZED BY THE STATE IN THE
DISCHARGE OF HER ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL DUTIES.  THE CORPORATIONS IN
LIQUIDATION WERE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES; THEIR FUNDS WERE THE PROPERTY OF
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE JUDGMENTS IN NOS. 128, 129 AND 597 MUST BE
REVERSED; THE JUDGMENT IN NO. 287 MUST BE AFFIRMED.  NOS. 128, 129, AND
597, REVERSED.  NO. 287 AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. GRIFFIN, 303 U.S. 226 


NO. 63.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1937.  REARGUED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - DECIDED
FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - REVERSED. 


1.  LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OVER THE SUBJECT-MATTER
CAN NOT BE WAIVED BY THE PARTIES; WHEN DISCOVERED ON APPEAL, DISMISSAL
OF THE BILL MUST BE ORDERED.  P. 229. 

2.  THE JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, CONFERRED UPON THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES BY THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, DOES NOT APPLY TO NEGATIVE
ORDERS.  P. 232. 

3.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION DECLINING, UPON RE
EXAMINATION, TO INCREASE THE COMPENSATION FOR CARRYING MAIL FIXED BY AN
EARLIER ORDER PURSUANT TO THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT, IS A NEGATIVE
ORDER.  P. 234. 

4.  ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FIXING THE
COMPENSATION PAYABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO RAILROADS FOR CARRYING THE
MAILS, EVEN IF AFFIRMATIVE ORDERS, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDY OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, SINCE THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THE
REASONS FOR IT, NAMELY, TO GUARD AGAINST ILL-CONSIDERED ACTION BY A
SINGLE JUDGE AND TO AVERT DELAYS ORDINARILY INCIDENT TO LITIGATION, IN
CASES OF WIDE PUBLIC INTEREST.  P. 234. 

DENIAL OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, LEAVES OPEN
OTHER WAYS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS RESPECTING RAILWAY MAIL PAY. 
P. 238. 

5.  A SUIT UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER
CONCERNING MAIL PAY IS NOT PRIMARILY AGAINST THE COMMISSION, BUT IS A
SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE UNITED STATES CAN NOT BE SUED
WITHOUT AUTHORITY SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED.  THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT
DOES NOT CONFER THAT AUTHORITY.  P. 238. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. GRIFFIN ET AL., RECEIVERS. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH SET
ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REFUSING AN
INCREASE OF RAILWAY MAIL PAY OVER WHAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ALLOWED, AND
WHICH DIRECTED THE COMMISSION TO TAKE "SUCH FURTHER ACTION IN THE
PREMISES AS THE LAW REQUIRES IN VIEW OF THE ANNULMENT AND SETTING ASIDE
OF" ITS ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION REQUIRING DECISION IS ONE OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION:  THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT OF JULY 28, 1916, C. 261, SEC.
5, 39 STAT. 412, 425, 429, 430, PROVIDES THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION "SHALL ESTABLISH BY ORDER A FAIR, REASONABLE RATE OR
COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED" BY RAILROADS FOR CARRYING THE MAIL; FN1
AND AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO MODIFY THE ORDER UPON A "RE
EXAMINATION."  THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, C. 32,
38 STAT. 208, 219, 220(AMENDING ACT OF JUNE 18, 1910, C. 309, 36 STAT.
539) DECLARES THAT DISTRICT COURTS SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION "OF CASES
BROUGHT TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL OR SUSPEND IN WHOLE OR IN PART ANY
ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION."  MAY SUIT BE BROUGHT
UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER REFUSING, UPON
"RE-EXAMINATION," TO INCREASE THE ALLOWANCE FOR RAILWAY MAIL
COMPENSATION THERETOFORE MADE TO THIS CARRIER? 

THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT, UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT, IN THE
FEDERAL COURT FOR SOUTHERN GEORGIA, BY THE RECEIVERS OF THE GEORGIA &
FLORIDA RAILROAD AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION, TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER MADE MAY 10, 1933, UNDER THE RAILWAY
MAIL PAY ACT, RAILWAY MAIL PAY, GEORGIA & FLORIDA R. CO., 192 I.C.C.
779; AND TO GRANT A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  BY THAT ORDER THE COMMISSION
HAD DENIED UPON A "RE-EXAMINATION" AN APPLICATION FURTHER TO INCREASE
THE COMPENSATION ALLOWED BY THE ORDER OF JULY 10, 1928.  RAILWAY MAIL
PAY, 144 I.C.C. 675.  THE 1928 ORDER HAD, UPON A "RE-EXAMINATION,"
INCREASED THE COMPENSATION ORIGINALLY FIXED BY ORDER OF DECEMBER 23,
1919.  RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 56 I.C.C. 1.  AS GROUNDS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER OF MAY 10, 1933, THE RECEIVERS ALLEGED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT
THE ORDER WAS UNLAWFUL, BECAUSE THE FINDING THAT THE EXISTING RATES
WERE FAIR AND REASONABLE WAS WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AND
CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE AND THAT THE ORDER WILL VIOLATE THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT BY TAKING PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WAS NOT CHALLENGED; AND THE CASE WAS
HEARD BY THREE JUDGES ON THE MERITS.  A DECREE WAS RENDERED SETTING
ASIDE AS UNLAWFUL THE ORDER OF MAY 10, 1933, AND DIRECTING THE
COMMISSION TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION.  ADDITIONAL HEARINGS WERE THEN HAD
BY THE COMMISSION; AND ON FEBRUARY 4, 1936, IT AGAIN DECLINED TO ORDER
ANY INCREASE OVER THAT WHICH HAD BEEN ALLOWED JULY 10, 1928.  RAILWAY
MAIL PAY, GEORGIA & FLORIDA R. CO., 214 I.C.C. 66.  THE LAST ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION WAS ASSAILED BY A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL ON THE SAME GROUNDS
AS THAT ASSAILED IN THE ORIGINAL BILL.  THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
WAS NOT CHALLENGED; THE CASE WAS AGAIN HEARD ON THE MERITS BY THREE
JUDGES; AND A DECREE WAS ENTERED SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 4,
1936, AND DIRECTING THE COMMISSION TO TAKE "SUCH FURTHER ACTION IN THE
PREMISES AS THE LAW REQUIRES IN VIEW OF THE ANNULMENT AND SETTING ASIDE
OF" THE ORDER. 

FROM THAT DECREE THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION HAVE APPEALED TO THIS COURT.  HERE, ALTHOUGH ANSWERING TO
THE MERITS, THEY CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 
SINCE LACK OF JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT TOUCHING THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE LITIGATION CANNOT BE WAIVED BY THE PARTIES, WE MUST UPON
THIS APPEAL EXAMINE THE CONTENTION; AND, IF WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION OF THE CAUSE, DIRECT THAT THE BILL
BE DISMISSED.  UNITED STATES V. CORRICK, 298 U.S. 435, 440.  WE AT
FIRST THOUGHT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION, AND ORDERED A
REARGUMENT OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS.  BUT, UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION
OF THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE REMEDY
PROVIDED BY THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS
ORDER. 

FIRST.  THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT TERMINATED THE SYSTEM THERETOFORE
PREVAILING OF SERVICE UNDER VOLUNTARY CONTRACTS.  FN2  AS EMBODIED IN
U.S.C.  TITLE 39, SECS. 523 TO 568, IT PROVIDES IN FORTY-SIX SECTIONS
COMPREHENSIVELY FOR THE CHARACTER, MEANS AND METHODS OF MAIL
TRANSPORTATION; DEFINES THE AUTHORITY OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL; AND
DESCRIBES THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE RAILROADS AND THEIR RIGHT TO
COMPENSATION, WHICH IS TO BE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION. 

"THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS HEREBY EMPOWERED AND DIRECTED
TO FIX AND DETERMINE FROM TIME TO TIME THE FAIR AND REASONABLE RATES
AND COMPENSATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH MAIL MATTER BY RAILWAY
COMMON CARRIERS AND THE SERVICES CONNECTED THEREWITH, PRESCRIBING THE
METHOD OR METHODS BY WEIGHT, OR SPACE, OR BOTH, OR OTHERWISE, FOR
ASCERTAINING SUCH RATE OR COMPENSATION, AND TO PUBLISH THE SAME, AND
ORDERS SO MADE AND PUBLISHED SHALL CONTINUE IN FORCE UNTIL CHANGED BY
THE COMMISSION AFTER DUE NOTICE AND HEARING."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 542. 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING AND FIXING RATES OR COMPENSATION
HEREUNDER THE COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE SUCH CLASSIFICATION OF
CARRIERS AS MAY BE JUST AND REASONABLE AND, WHERE JUST AND EQUITABLE,
FIX GENERAL RATES APPLICABLE TO ALL CARRIERS IN THE SAME
CLASSIFICATION."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 549. 

"AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING THE COMMISSION SHALL ESTABLISH BY
ORDER A FAIR, REASONABLE RATE OR COMPENSATION TO BE RECEIVED, AT SUCH
STATED TIMES AS MAY BE NAMED IN THE ORDER, FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF
MAIL MATTER AND THE SERVICE CONNECTED THEREWITH, AND DURING THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE ORDER THE POSTMASTER GENERAL SHALL PAY THE CARRIER
FROM THE APPROPRIATION FOR INLAND TRANSPORTATION BY RAILROAD ROUTES
SUCH RATE OR COMPENSATION."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 551. 

ELEVEN SECTIONS OF THE ACT DEAL WITH THE PROCEDURE ON HEARINGS BEFORE
THE COMMISSION.  FN3  NO PROVISION IS MADE FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW.  BUT
PROVISION IS MADE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BY "REEXAMINATION" OF AN
ORDER. 

"EITHER THE POSTMASTER GENERAL OR ANY SUCH CARRIER MAY AT ANY TIME
AFTER THE LAPSE OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER ASSAILED
APPLY FOR A REEXAMINATION AND THEREUPON SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE HAD WITH RESPECT TO THE RATE OR RATES FOR SERVICE
COVERED BY SAID APPLICATION, PROVIDED SAID CARRIER OR CARRIERS HAVE AN
INTEREST THEREIN."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 553. 

THERE HAVE BEEN MANY ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS BY "REEXAMINATION."  N4
THE CASE AT BAR APPEARS TO BE THE ONLY INSTANCE IN WHICH AN ATTEMPT HAS
BEEN MADE TO SET ASIDE A MAIL ORDER BY SUIT UNDER THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT. 

SECOND.  THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT PROVIDES A METHOD OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION POSSESSING THE
FOLLOWING EXTRAORDINARY FEATURES:  (1) THE ORIGINAL HEARING IN THE
DISTRICT COURT IS NOT BEFORE A SINGLE JUDGE, BUT BEFORE THREE, OF WHOM
ONE MUST BE A CIRCUIT JUDGE; (2) FROM THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
AS SO CONSTITUTED A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT IS GRANTED AS OF
RIGHT, INSTEAD OF A REVIEW BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; (3) UPON BOTH
THE TRIAL COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT RESTS THE OBLIGATION TO GIVE THE
CASE PRECEDENCE OVER OTHERS.  THESE FEATURES WERE FIRST INTRODUCED BY
THE EXPEDITING ACT OF 1903, 32 STAT. 823, FOR SUITS BY THE UNITED
STATES TO ENFORCE THE ANTITRUST AND COMMERCE LAWS.  THEY WERE EXTENDED
BY THE HEPBURN ACT OF 1906, SEC. 5, 34 STAT. 584, 590, 592, TO SUITS TO
ENFORCE OR TO SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 
WHEN THAT JURISDICTION WAS VESTED IN THE COMMERCE COURT PROVISIONS WITH
LIKE EFFECT WERE PROVIDED FOR CASES COMING BEFORE IT.  36 STAT. 539. 
TO ITS JURISDICTION THE DISTRICT COURT SUCCEEDED, WITH THESE FEATURES,
UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT. 

IN THE OPINION OF CONGRESS JURISDICTION WITH THE EXTRAORDINARY
FEATURES OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE CHARACTER
OF THE CASES TO WHICH IT APPLIED - CASES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE BECAUSE
OF THE WIDESPREAD EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS THEREOF.  IN SUCH CASES
CONGRESS SOUGHT TO GUARD AGAINST ILL-CONSIDERED ACTION BY A SINGLE
JUDGE AND TO AVERT THE DELAYS ORDINARILY INCIDENT TO LITIGATION.  IN
CONSTRUING THE ACT, THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT DESPITE THE BROAD
LANGUAGE USED IN THE COMMERCE COURT ACT, CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE
INTENDED TO INCLUDE IN THIS SPECIAL JURISDICTION SUITS TO SET ASIDE
EVERY KIND OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION.  FOR SUBSTANTIALLY EVERY
DECISION, AND EVERY OTHER KIND OF ACTION BY THE COMMISSION IS EXPRESSED
IN, OR IS FOLLOWED BY, AN ORDER; AND MANY OF THE ORDERS ARE OBVIOUSLY
NOT OF SUCH PUBLIC IMPORTANCE AND WIDESPREAD EFFECT AS TO JUSTIFY, IN
CASES AFFECTING THEM, THE EXTRAORDINARY FEATURES OF THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT. 

THE COMMERCE COURT HAD (36 STAT. 539) JURISDICTION "OVER ALL CASES OF
THE FOLLOWING KINDS": 

"FIRST.  ALL CASES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT, OTHERWISE THAN BY
ADJUDICATION AND COLLECTION OF A FORFEITURE OR PENALTY OR BY INFLICTION
OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT, OF ANY ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION OTHER THAN FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY. 

"SECOND.  CASES BROUGHT TO ENJOIN, SET ASIDE, ANNUL, OR SUSPEND IN
WHOLE OR IN PART ANY ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION...." 

THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT, AS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS WAS "TO RELIEVE
PARTIES IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS WHICH
ARE FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL," THERE WAS JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE ONLY
THOSE KINDS OF ORDERS WHICH THERE WAS JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE; THAT A
DISTINCTION MUST BE DRAWN BETWEEN "AFFIRMATIVE" AND "NEGATIVE" ORDERS;
AND THAT JURISDICTION UNDER THE COMMERCE COURT ACT WAS APPLICABLE ONLY
TO "AFFIRMATIVE" ORDERS.  PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 225
U.S. 282; HOOKER V. KNAPP, 225 U.S. 302.  SINCE THE ABOLITION OF THE
COMMERCE COURT, THAT RULE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED IN CASES
BROUGHT UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 243 U.S. 412; PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 280 U.S. 469; STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 235;
UNITED STATES V. CORRICK, 298 U.S. 435.  COMPARE DELAWARE & HUDSON CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 438; UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & SALT
LAKE R. CO., 273 U.S. 299. 

THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 4, 1936, HERE ASSAILED, DOES NOT COMMAND EITHER
THE GOVERNMENT OR THE RAILROAD TO DO ANYTHING.  IT IS SIMPLY A REFUSAL,
UPON A SECOND "RE-EXAMINATION" OF THE ORDER OF JULY 11, 1928, FURTHER
TO INCREASE THE COMPENSATION THEREBY AWARDED UPON A "RE-EXAMINATION" OF
THE COMPENSATION ORIGINALLY AWARDED BY THE ORDER MADE DECEMBER 23,
1919.  THE ORDER ASSAILED, BEING A REFUSAL TO CHANGE THE EXISTING
STATUS, WAS A "NEGATIVE" ORDER.  THE DISTRICT COURT LACKED JURISDICTION
TO SET IT ASIDE, AND SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE BILL. 

THIRD.  CONGRESS CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO HAVE MADE THE EXTRAORDINARY
REMEDY OF THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT APPLICABLE FOR THE DETERMINATION
OF THE VALIDITY OF RAILWAY MAIL PAY ORDERS, EVEN IF "AFFIRMATIVE."  THE
ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER THE EXISTING MAIL REVENUE OF $35,728 SHOULD BE
INCREASED FOR THE YEAR BY $31,227.  THERE IS NO WIDE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
ITS SPEEDY DETERMINATION.  THERE IS NO DANGER OF TEMPORARILY
INTERRUPTING THE MAIL SERVICE THROUGH THE IMPROVIDENT ISSUE OF AN
INJUNCTION BY A SINGLE JUDGE.  ONLY THE METHOD OR AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS
CURRENTLY TO BE MADE WOULD BE AFFECTED.  SUCH ORDERS ARE IN CHARACTER
UNLIKE THOSE UNDER THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, 36 STAT. 913, AS AMENDED,
38 STAT. 1192, 43 STAT. 659, AND THE INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION ACT,
43 STAT. 360, 361, AS AMENDED, 45 STAT. 978, 48 STAT. 968, OF WHICH
JURISDICTION WAS TAKEN ALTHOUGH THE STATUTES CONTAINED NO PROVISION FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW.  FN5 

IN GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 172, WE HELD
THAT THERE WAS NOT JURISDICTION UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF A
SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION MADE
UNDER TITLE II OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920 DETERMINING THE AMOUNT
DUE A RAILROAD ON THE GOVERNMENT'S GUARANTY OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD
FOLLOWING RELINQUISHMENT OF FEDERAL CONTROL.  AND IN UNITED STATES V.
LOS ANGELES & SALT LAKE R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, WE HELD THAT THERE WAS
NOT JURISDICTION UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT OF A SUIT TO SET
ASIDE A FINAL ORDER UNDER THE VALUATION ACT, EVEN THOUGH THAT STATUTE
WAS ENACTED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT ITSELF.  37
STAT. 701, AS AMENDED, 41 STAT. 456, 474, 493, 42 STAT. 624.  FN6 

IN RECENT YEARS THE FIELD OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION HAS BEEN
WIDELY EXTENDED; AND THE DUTY OF MAKING MANY OF THESE DETERMINATIONS
HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  FN7  SOME OF
THE STATUTES CONTAIN SPECIFIC PROVISION MAKING APPLICABLE JURISDICTION
UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT.  THIS IS TRUE OF THE EMERGENCY
RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 211, 216, AS AMENDED, 49
STAT. 376, AND OF THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 543, 550. 
COMPARE TRANSPORTATION OF EXPLOSIVES ACT (CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 233), 35
STAT. 554, 555, AS AMENDED, 35 STAT. 1088, 1135, 41 STAT. 1445.  IT IS
TRUE LIKEWISE OF SEVERAL STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE DETERMINATIONS ARE TO
BE MADE BY OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS.  SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, 39
STAT. 728, 738, SUPERSEDED BY 49 STAT. 1985(UNITED STATES SHIPPING
BOARD); PACKERS & STOCKYARDS ACT OF 1921, 42 STAT. 159, 168(SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE); PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES ACT OF 1930, 46
STAT. 531, 535(SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE); EMERGENCY RAILROAD
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1933, SUPRA (FEDERAL COORDINATOR OF
TRANSPORTATION); COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 1064, 1093, AS
AMENDED, 50 STAT. 189(FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION).  FN8  THE
ORDERS FOR WHICH REVIEW IS PROVIDED BY EACH OF THESE STATUTES ARE LIKE
THE ORDERS UNDER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT FIXING RATES PAYABLE BY
SHIPPERS.  IMPROPER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OF SUCH ORDERS OR DELAY IN FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THEIR VALIDITY MAY SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BY PREVENTING OR OBSTRUCTING ACTION UNDER THOSE STATUTES. 

WHILE THE COMPENSATION FIXED IN A RAILWAY MAIL PAY ORDER IS
ORDINARILY MEASURED BY A RATE, THE ULTIMATE QUESTION DETERMINED BY THE
COMMISSION IS, AS IN THE GREAT NORTHERN CASE, THE PROPER COMPENSATION
TO BE PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE RAILROAD FOR SERVICES AND THE USE
OF ITS PROPERTY - THE QUANTUM MERUIT FOR CARRYING THE MAIL.  THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OF THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT WHICH REQUIRES THAT
THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE DETERMINATION OF
THE VALIDITY OF SUCH ORDERS.  FN9 

FOURTH.  THE ABSENCE IN THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT OF A PROVISION FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE DENIAL OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT DO NOT PRECLUDE EVERY CHARACTER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. 
IF THE COMMISSION MAKES THE APPROPRIATE FINDING OF REASONABLE
COMPENSATION BUT FAILS, BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED ERROR OF LAW, TO ORDER
PAYMENT OF THE FULL AMOUNT WHICH THE RAILROAD BELIEVES IS PAYABLE UNDER
THE FINDING, THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS JURISDICTION OF AN ACTION FOR THE
BALANCE, AS THE CLAIM ASSERTED IS ONE FOUNDED UPON A LAW OF CONGRESS. 
MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 271 U.S. 603.  COMPARE UNITED
STATES V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 279 U.S. 73, AFFIRMING 65 CT. CL.
115, 121.  FN10  AND SINCE RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE IS COMPULSORY, THE
COURT OF CLAIMS WOULD, UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE TUCKER ACT,
HAVE JURISDICTION ALSO OF AN ACTION FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IF AN
ORDER IS CONFISCATORY.  UNITED STATES V. GREAT FALLS MFG. CO., 112 U.S.
645; NORTH AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION & TRADING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 253
U.S. 330, 333; JACOBS V. UNITED STATES, 290 U.S. 13, 16.  MOREOVER, AS
DISTRICT COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OF EVERY SUIT AT LAW OR IN EQUITY
"ARISING UNDER THE POSTAL LAWS," 28 U.S.C., SEC. 41(6), SUIT WOULD LIE
UNDER THEIR GENERAL JURISDICTION IF THE COMMISSION IS ALLEGED TO HAVE
ACTED IN EXCESS OF ITS AUTHORITY, OR OTHERWISE ILLEGALLY.  COMPARE
POWELL V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 276, 288, 289.  BUT A SUIT UNDER THE
URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER CONCERNING MAIL PAY IS
NOT PRIMARILY ONE AGAINST THE COMMISSION.  PRIMARILY, IT IS A SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  FN11  AND THE UNITED STATES CAN BE SUED
ONLY WHEN AUTHORITY SO TO DO HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED. 

THE RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT DOES NOT CONFER THAT AUTHORITY. 

DECREE REVERSED - WITH DIRECTION TO THE DISTRICT COURT TO DISMISS THE
BILL WITHOUT COSTS TO EITHER PARTY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "THE POSTMASTER GENERAL IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO ADJUST THE
COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO RAILROAD COMPANIES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
AND HANDLING OF THE MAILS AND FURNISHING FACILITIES AND SERVICES IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH UPON THE CONDITIONS AND THE RATES HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 524. 

"ALL RAILWAY COMMON CARRIERS ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO TRANSPORT SUCH
MAIL MATTER AS MAY BE OFFERED FOR TRANSPORTATION BY THE UNITED STATES
IN THE MANNER, UNDER THE CONDITIONS, AND WITH THE SERVICE PRESCRIBED BY
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL AND SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE FAIR AND
REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION AND FOR THE SERVICE
CONNECTED THEREWITH."  39 U.S.C. SEC. 541. 

FN2  PRIOR TO THE ACT OF 1916, THE CARRIAGE OF MAIL BY RAILROADS -
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME AIDED BY LAND GRANT - WAS HELD TO BE NOT
COMPULSORY "AT ADEQUATE COMPENSATION TO BE JUDICIALLY DETERMINED,"
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. V. UNITED STATES, 225 U.S. 640, 650, BUT UNDER
CONTRACTS VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO WITH THE POSTMASTER GENERAL.  NEW
YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 123, 127.  FOR THE
LEGISLATION PRIOR TO 1916 CONCERNING COMPENSATION OF RAILROADS FOR
CARRYING THE MAIL, SEE RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 56 I.C.C. 1, 3-7.  FOR THE
SEVERAL PROPOSALS PRIOR TO 1916 TO MODIFY THE LAWS GOVERNING SUCH
TRANSPORTATION, SEE REPORT OF POSTMASTER GENERAL TO CONGRESS AUGUST 12,
1911, H.R. DOC. 105, 62D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION; SENATE BILL 7371, HOUSE
BILL 23721, 62D CONGRESS, 2D SESSION; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, REPORT OF JOINT
COMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE MAIL, AUGUST
31, 1914, H.R. DOC. 1155, 63D CONGRESS, 2D SESSION; SENATE BILL 6405,
HOUSE BILL 17042, 63D CONGRESS, 2D SESSION; SENATE BILL 4175, HOUSE
BILL 10242, 64TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION. 

FN3  SECTION 544 PROVIDES:  "THE PROCEDURE FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT OF
THE RATES AND COMPENSATION SHALL BE AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 545 TO 554
OF THIS TITLE"; AND SEC. 554 PROVIDES:  "FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS
524 TO 568 OF THIS TITLE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS HEREBY
VESTED WITH ALL THE POWERS WHICH IT IS AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO EXERCISE IN
THE INVESTIGATION AND ASCERTAINMENT OF THE JUSTNESS AND REASONABLENESS
OF FREIGHT, PASSENGER, AND EXPRESS RATES TO BE PAID BY PRIVATE
SHIPPERS." 

FN4  THE FIRST ORDER FIXING COMPENSATION FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MAIL
WAS MADE BY THE COMMISSION DECEMBER 23, 1919.  RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 56
I.C.C. 1.  BY IT RATES WERE FIXED ON THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF FLAT RATES
ON A SPACE BASIS, WITH HIGHER RATES FOR CERTAIN SHORT LINES LESS THAN
100 MILES IN LENGTH.  SINCE THEN THE COMMISSION HAS MADE ORDERS ON
APPLICATIONS FOR RE-EXAMINATION UNDER 39 U.S.C. SEC. 553, IN MANY
CASES.  RAILWAY MAIL PAY, NEW ENGLAND LINES, 85 I.C.C. 157, ON
REARGUMENT, 95 I.C.C. 204, 104 I.C.C. 521; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, CERTAIN
INTERMOUNTAIN AND PACIFIC COAST SHORT-LINE RAILROADS, 95 I.C.C. 493, ON
REARGUMENT, 104 I.C.C. 521; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, WOODSTOCK RY. CO. ET AL.,
96 I.C.C. 43, ON REARGUMENT, 104 I.C.C. 521; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, CANADIAN
NAT. RY. ET AL., 109 I.C.C. 13; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, ALABAMA, TENN. & NO.
RY., 112 I.C.C. 151; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, CERTAIN INTERMOUNTAIN AND
PACIFIC COAST SHORT LINE RAILROADS, 120 I.C.C. 439, ON RECONSIDERATION,
151 I.C.C. 734; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, WINSTON-SALEM SOUTHBOUND RY., 123
I.C.C. 33; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 144 I.C.C. 675; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 151
I.C.C. 734; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, GEORGIA & FLORIDA R., 192 I.C.C. 779, ON
REHEARING, 214 I.C.C. 66. 

A NUMBER OF OTHER DECISIONS RELATING TO RAILWAY MAIL PAY HAVE ALSO
BEEN MADE.  RAILWAY MAIL PAY, CERTAIN SHORT LINES, 165 I.C.C. 774;
RAILWAY MAIL PAY, JACKSONVILLE & H.R. ET AL., 174 I.C.C. 781; RAILWAY
MAIL PAY, ILLINOIS TERMINAL CO., 174 I.C.C. 796; RAILWAY MAIL PAY,
MACON, D. & S.R. ET AL., 185 I.C.C. 715; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, N.J. &
N.Y.R., 198 I.C.C. 504; RAILWAY MAIL PAY, PIEDMONT & NO. RY., 216
I.C.C. 467. 

SIMILAR ORDERS HAVE BEEN ENTERED UNDER THE ELECTRIC RAILWAY MAIL PAY
ACT, 40 STAT. 742, 748.  ELECTRIC RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 58 I.C.C. 455;
ELECTRIC RAILWAY MAIL PAY, 98 I.C.C. 737.  COMPARE TRANSMISSION OF MAIL
BY PNEUMATIC TUBES IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 85 I.C.C. 207. 

FN5  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 293 U.S. 454; UNITED
STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 291 U.S. 457; COMPARE MISSISSIPPI
VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 282. 

FN6  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 244 U.S. 82;
DELAWARE & HUDSON CO. V. UNITED STATES, 266 U.S. 438; UNITED STATES V.
ATLANTA, B. & C.R. CO., 282 U.S. 522. 

FN7  AMONG THE STATUTES DELEGATING TO THE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE
DUTIES IN ADDITION TO THOSE WHICH IT PERFORMS UNDER THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE ACT ARE:  POSTAL SERVICE:  RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT, 39 STAT. 412,
425, 430; ELECTRIC RAILWAY MAIL PAY ACT, 40 STAT. 742, 748; NEW YORK
CITY PNEUMATIC TUBE MAIL PAY ACT, 42 STAT. 652, 661; FOURTH CLASS MAIL
REGULATIONS ACT, 43 STAT. 1053, 1067, AS AMENDED, 45 STAT. 940, 942;
AIR MAIL ACT, 48 STAT. 933, 935, AS AMENDED, 48 STAT. 1243, 49 STAT.
614.  RAILROAD OPERATION:  SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, 27 STAT. 531, AS
AMENDED, 32 STAT. 943, 36 STAT. 298; BOILER INSPECTION ACT, 36 STAT.
913, 914, AS AMENDED, 38 STAT. 1192, 43 STAT. 659; LOCOMOTIVE ASH PAN
ACT, 35 STAT. 476; ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION ACT, 36 STAT. 350, 351; HOURS
OF SERVICE ACT, 34 STAT. 1415; RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 44 STAT. 577, AS
AMENDED, 48 STAT. 1185, 49 STAT. 1189; TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920,
TITLE II, 41 STAT. 456, 457, AS AMENDED, 44 STAT. 1450; EMERGENCY
RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1933, 48 STAT. 211, 216, AS AMENDED, 49
STAT. 376.  RAILROAD FINANCE:  CLAYTON ANTITRUST ACT, 38 STAT. 730,
734, AS AMENDED, 43 STAT. 939, 48 STAT. 1102; RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE
CORPORATION ACT, 47 STAT. 711, AS AMENDED, 48 STAT. 20, 99, 120, 1109,
49 STAT. 1, 796, 50 STAT. 5, 357; BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 77, 47 STAT.
1474, AS AMENDED, 49 STAT. 911, 1969.  MISCELLANEOUS:  TRANSPORTATION
OF EXPLOSIVES ACT (CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 233), 35 STAT. 554, 555, AS
AMENDED, 35 STAT. 1088, 1135, 41 STAT. 1445; STANDARD TIME ZONE ACT, 40
STAT. 450; ST. LOUIS BRIDGE ACT, 43 STAT. 7, 8; INLAND WATERWAYS
CORPORATION ACT, 43 STAT. 360, AS AMENDED, 45 STAT. 978, 48 STAT. 968,
49 STAT. 958; RADIO ACT OF 1927, 44 STAT. 1162, 1173, SUPERSEDED BY 48
STAT. 1064; MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, 49 STAT. 543, 550. 

ALTHOUGH ENACTED AS PART II OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, THE MOTOR
CARRIER ACT OF 1935 IS INCLUDED IN THIS LIST BECAUSE IT SEEMS MORE
PROPERLY CLASSIFIED AS A COMPLETE AND INDEPENDENT STATUTE THAN AS
MERELY AN AMENDMENT TO THE ACT OF 1887. 

FN8  COMPARE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, 49 STAT. 1985, 1987(UNITED
STATES MARITIME COMMISSION).  A SIMILAR PROCEDURE HAS ALSO BEEN
PROVIDED FOR CERTAIN SUITS TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OR OPERATION OF
STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 266, 36 STAT. 557, 1162, AS
AMENDED, 37 STAT. 1013, 43 STAT. 938; JUDICIARY ACT OF 1937, 50 STAT.
751, 752. 

FN9  THE PROVISION CALLING FOR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO
FIX THE RATES AT WHICH THE MAIL IS TO BE CARRIED WAS INTRODUCED IN THE
SENATE AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE BILL BY SENATOR CUMMINS OF IOWA.  IN
ANSWER TO QUESTIONS AS TO "WHETHER THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR AN APPEAL
IN THIS CASE AS IN OTHER RATE-MAKING CASES BEFORE THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION," HE STATED:  "I THINK IT WOULD PERMIT THE SAME
REVIEW....  THERE WOULD BE THE SAME REMEDY PRECISELY UNDER MY AMENDMENT
FOR THE RAILWAY COMPANIES THAT NOW EXISTS IN THE CASE OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A RATE FOR A PRIVATE SHIPPER....  IT IS PROVIDED FOR
IN JUST THE SAME WAY THE PRESENT LAW DOES."  53 CONG. REC., 9694-95. 
NO FURTHER REFERENCE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OCCURS IN THE DEBATES ON THIS
PROVISION IN EITHER HOUSE; AND NO REFERENCE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WAS MADE
IN THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF EITHER HOUSE, NOR IN THAT OF THE
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE WHOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ADOPTED.  SEE SEN. REP.
459, H.R. REP. 91, H.R. REP. 981, 64TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN10  OTHER DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER THE RAILWAY MAIL
PAY ACT OF 1916 ARE: CHICAGO & E.I. RY. V. UNITED STATES, 63 CT. CL.
585; NEVADA COUNTY N.G.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 65 CT. CL. 327; CHICAGO
& E.I. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 72 CT. CL. 407; MACON, D. & S.R. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 78 CT. CL. 251; 79 CT. CL. 298.  COMPARE PERE
MARQUETTE RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 59 CT. CL. 538; NEW JERSEY & N.Y.R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 80 CT. CL. 243 

FN11  COMPARE JUDICIAL CODE SEC. 211, 36 STAT. 542, 1150, AS AMENDED,
38 STAT. 219, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 48; LAMBERT RUN COAL CO. V. BALTIMORE &
OHIO R. CO., 258 U.S. 377, 382. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK AGREES WITH THE RESULT AND FULLY WITH ALL OF THE
OPINION EXCEPT PARAGRAPH FOURTH. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















U.S. V. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO., 303 U.S. 239 


NO. 352.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 17, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  -
90 F.(2D) 213, REVERSED. 


CATTLE IN A RAILWAY CAR WERE BROUGHT TO THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE TO
BE UNLOADED FOR WATER, FEED AND REST, AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF JUNE
29, 1906, ARRIVING THERE BEFORE THE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE ACT FOR THEIR
CONTINUOUS CONFINEMENT IN THE CAR HAD EXPIRED, BUT UNLOADING WAS
DELAYED BEYOND THAT PERIOD OWING TO THE FACT THAT THE CARRIER'S
YARDMASTER, AWARE OF THE SITUATION, NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO NOTIFY
ANOTHER EMPLOYEE OF THE CARRIER WHOSE DUTY IT WAS TO UNLOAD THEM.  HELD
THAT THE CARRIER "KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY" FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
STATUTE AND WAS SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY THEREBY PRESCRIBED.  P. 242. 

IN STATUTES DENOUNCING OFFENSES INVOLVING TURPITUDE, "WILLFULLY" IS
GENERALLY USED TO MEAN WITH EVIL PURPOSE, CRIMINAL INTENT OR THE LIKE;
BUT IN THOSE DENOUNCING ACTS NOT IN THEMSELVES WRONG IT OFTEN DENOTES
CONDUCT WHICH IS INTENTIONAL, OR KNOWING, OR VOLUNTARY, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM ACCIDENTAL, OR CONDUCT MARKED BY CARELESS DISREGARD
OF ITS RIGHTFULNESS. 

UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 671, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE RAILROAD COMPANY IN AN ACTION BY THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER A
PENALTY. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR EASTERN
LOUISIANA TO RECOVER FROM RESPONDENT A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF THE ACT
OF JUNE 29, 1906, 34 STAT. 607, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 71-74.  UPON AN AGREED
STATEMENT, THE COURT FOUND THE FACTS, STATED ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
GAVE JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. 
90 F.(2D) 213.  THIS COURT GRANTED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  302 U.S.
671. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE FACTS
FOUND SHOW CONCLUSIVELY THAT RESPONDENT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FAILED
TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FIRST SECTION OF THE ACT. 

IT DECLARES THAT NO CARRIER WHOSE ROAD FORMS A PART OF A LINE OVER
WHICH CATTLE SHALL BE CONVEYED FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER SHALL CONFINE
THE SAME IN CARS FOR LONGER THAN 28 CONSECUTIVE HOURS WITHOUT UNLOADING
THEM INTO PROPERLY EQUIPPED PENS FOR REST, WATER AND FEEDING UNLESS
PREVENTED BY STORM OR BY OTHER ACCIDENTAL AND UNAVOIDABLE CAUSES WHICH
CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED OR AVOIDED BY THE EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE AND
FORESIGHT; UPON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE OWNER THE TIME OF
CONFINEMENT MAY BE EXTENDED TO 36 HOURS.  SECTION 2 REQUIRES THAT
ANIMALS SO UNLOADED SHALL BE PROPERLY FED AND WATERED.  SECTION 3
PROVIDES:  "ANY RAILROAD  ...  WHO KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FAILS TO
COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TWO PRECEDING SECTIONS SHALL FOR
EVERY SUCH FAILURE BE LIABLE FOR AND FORFEIT AND PAY A PENALTY OF NOT
LESS THAN $100 NOR MORE THAN $500  ..."  RECOVERABLE BY CIVIL ACTION IN
THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEC. 4. 

THE PETITION ALLEGED THAT RESPONDENT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY CONFINED
CATTLE IN A CAR FOR 37 HOURS WITHOUT UNLOADING THEM.  THE ANSWER
ADMITTED THAT THE CATTLE WERE CONTINUOUSLY CONFINED IN THE CAR FROM
THREE O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON OF OCTOBER 8, 1932, WHEN LOADED AT POINT
OF SHIPMENT, HERMANVILLE, MISSISSIPPI, UNTIL FOUR O'CLOCK OF THE
MORNING OF OCTOBER 10 WHEN UNLOADED AT DESTINATION, NEW ORLEANS,
LOUISIANA, BUT DIRECTLY PUT IN ISSUE THE ALLEGATION THAT RESPONDENT
KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY SO CONFINED THE CATTLE.  IT ALLEGED THAT THE
CAR ARRIVED AT NEW ORLEANS AT 11:35 IN THE EVENING OF OCTOBER 9; THAT
HAVING RECEIVED ADVANCE INFORMATION OF THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF ARRIVAL
AND OF THE TIME WHEN THE 36-HOUR PERIOD WOULD EXPIRE, RESPONDENT'S
YARDMASTER, IN ORDER PROMPTLY TO HANDLE THE SHIPMENT, PROCURED AN EXTRA
ENGINE AND CREW IMMEDIATELY UPON ARRIVAL OF THE CAR TO TAKE IT TO THE
STOCKYARDS AND, BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERMISSIBLE TIME OF
CONFINEMENT, THERE PLACE IT FOR UNLOADING; THAT THE YARDMASTER
NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO NOTIFY THE EMPLOYEE, WHOSE DUTY IT WAS TO UNLOAD;
AND BECAUSE OF HIS OVERSIGHT AND NEGLIGENCE THE CATTLE WERE
CONTINUOUSLY CONFINED IN THE CAR FOR 37 HOURS. 

A MOTION BY PETITIONER FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS HAVING BEEN
OVERRULED, THE PARTIES WAIVED TRIAL BY JURY AND STIPULATED EVIDENTIARY
FACTS IN SUBSTANCE AS ALLEGED IN THE ANSWER.  THEY LEFT OPEN THE
QUESTION WHETHER RESPONDENT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY CONFINED THE CATTLE
FOR MORE THAN 36 HOURS.  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED FOR DECISION ON THE
AGREED STATEMENT WITHOUT MORE.  THE COURT FOUND EVIDENTIARY FACTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STIPULATION, HELD FAILURE TO UNLOAD WITHIN THE TIME
WAS DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE YARDMASTER, AND CONCLUDED THAT
RESPONDENT DID NOT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE
STATUTE. 

THE CASE DEPENDS UPON THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "KNOWINGLY AND
WILLFULLY," USED IN SEC. 3 TO CHARACTERIZE THE TRANSGRESSIONS FOR WHICH
PENALTIES ARE IMPOSED.  THE ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO GIVE EFFECT TO
ITS HUMANITARIAN PROVISIONS, AND AS WELL TO THE EXCEPTIONS IN FAVOR OF
THE CARRIERS.  CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 512,
517-518.  THE PENALTY IS NOT IMPOSED FOR UNWITTING FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V. SIOUX CITY STOCK YARDS CO., 162
FED. 556, 562.  UNITED STATES V. STOCKYARDS TERMINAL RY. CO., 178 FED.
19, 23.  ST. JOSEPH STOCKYARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 187 FED. 104;
OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 205 FED. 341, 343. 
BUT IN THIS CASE, THE RESPONDENT KNEW WHEN THE PERMISSIBLE PERIOD OF
CONFINEMENT WOULD EXPIRE, BROUGHT THE CAR TO DESTINATION, AND, WITHIN
THE TIME ALLOWED, PLACED IT FOR UNLOADING.  BY ALLOWING THE 36 HOURS TO
EXPIRE, IT "KNOWINGLY" FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE. 

MERE OMISSION WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS IS NOT ENOUGH.  THE PENALTY
MAY NOT BE RECOVERED UNLESS THE CARRIER IS ALSO SHOWN "WILLFULLY" TO
HAVE FAILED.  IN STATUTES DENOUNCING OFFENSES INVOLVING TURPITUDE,
"WILLFULLY" IS GENERALLY USED TO MEAN WITH EVIL PURPOSE, CRIMINAL
INTENT OR THE LIKE.  BUT IN THOSE DENOUNCING ACTS NOT IN THEMSELVES
WRONG, THE WORD IS OFTEN USED WITHOUT ANY SUCH IMPLICATION.  OUR
OPINION IN UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK, 290 U.S. 389, 394, SHOWS THAT IT
OFTEN DENOTES THAT WHICH IS "INTENTIONAL, OR KNOWING, OR VOLUNTARY, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM ACCIDENTAL," AND THAT IT IS EMPLOYED TO CHARACTERIZE
"CONDUCT MARKED BY CARELESS DISREGARD WHETHER OR NOT ONE HAS THE RIGHT
SO TO ACT."  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORD "WILLFULLY" AS USED IN SEC. 3
NOW BEFORE US, WAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT IN ST. LOUIS & S.F.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 169
FED. 69.  SPEAKING THROUGH CIRCUIT JUDGE VAN DEVANTER, NOW MR. JUSTICE
VAN DEVANTER, THE COURT SAID (P. 71):  "'WILLFULLY' MEANS SOMETHING NOT
EXPRESSED BY 'KNOWINGLY,' ELSE BOTH WOULD NOT BE USED CONJUNCTIVELY....
BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN WITH INTENT TO INJURE THE CATTLE OR TO INFLICT
LOSS UPON THEIR OWNER BECAUSE SUCH INTENT ON THE PART OF A CARRIER IS
HARDLY WITHIN THE PALE OF ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OR REASONABLE
SUPPOSITION....  SO, GIVING EFFECT TO THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WE ARE
PERSUADED THAT IT MEANS PURPOSELY OR OBSTINATELY AND IS DESIGNED TO
DESCRIBE THE ATTITUDE OF A CARRIER, WHO, HAVING A FREE WILL OR CHOICE,
EITHER INTENTIONALLY DISREGARDS THE STATUTE OR IS PLAINLY INDIFFERENT
TO ITS REQUIREMENTS."  THAT STATEMENT HAS BEEN FOUND A USEFUL GUIDE TO
THE MEANING OF THE WORD "WILLFULLY" AND TO ITS RIGHT APPLICATION IN
SUITS FOR PENALTIES UNDER SEC. 3.  UNITED STATES V. STOCKYARDS TERMINAL
RY. CO., SUPRA, 23.  ST. JOSEPH STOCKYARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
105.  OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 205 FED. 337,
339.  ST. LOUIS MERCHANTS' BRIDGE T. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209 FED.
600.  SEE ALSO CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 194 FED. 342,
346.  UNITED STATES V. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO., 202 FED. 828,
833. 

CONSIDERED AS UNAFFECTED BY THE YARDMASTER'S NEGLIGENCE, RESPONDENT'S
FAILURE TO TAKE THE CATTLE FROM THE CAR ALREADY PLACED AT THE YARD FOR
UNLOADING, UNQUESTIONABLY DISCLOSES DISREGARD OF THE STATUTE AND
INDIFFERENCE TO ITS REQUIREMENTS AND COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 3, RESPONDENT WILLFULLY VIOLATED ITS DUTY TO
UNLOAD AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 1.  IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE
YARDMASTER'S NEGLIGENCE OR OVERSIGHT WAS INTENTIONAL OR EXCUSABLE.  AS
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND RESPONDENT, THE LATTER'S BREACH IS PRECISELY
THE SAME IN KIND AND DEGREE AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF ITS YARDMASTER'S
FAILURE HAD BEEN INTENTIONAL INSTEAD OF MERELY NEGLIGENT.  THE DUTY
VIOLATED DID NOT ARISE OUT OF THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE BUT
WAS ONE THAT, IN VIRTUE OF THE STATUTE, WAS OWED BY RESPONDENT TO THE
SHIPPERS AND THE PUBLIC.  AS RESPONDENT COULD ACT ONLY THROUGH
EMPLOYEES, IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FAILURE.  TO HOLD CARRIERS NOT
LIABLE FOR PENALTIES WHERE THE VIOLATIONS OF SECS. 1 AND 2 ARE DUE TO
MERE INDIFFERENCE, INADVERTENCE OR NEGLIGENCE OF EMPLOYEES WOULD DEFEAT
THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 3.  WHETHER RESPONDENT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY
FAILED IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS WHICH CHARACTERIZE
ITS VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE AND NOT UPON ANY BREACH OF DUTY OWED TO IT
BY ITS EMPLOYEES.  RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT IT IS NOT LIABLE
BECAUSE ITS FAILURE WAS DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OR OVERSIGHT OF THE
YARDMASTER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  MONTANA CENT. RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 164 FED. 400, 403.  UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R.
CO., 173 FED. 764, 769.  CF. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 205 FED. 337, 340.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :


















MCCOLLUM V. HAMILTON NAT. BANK, 303 U.S. 245 


NO. 342.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  -
REVERSED. 


REV. STATS. SEC. 5197 GOVERNS THE RATES OF INTEREST CHARGEABLE BY
NATIONAL BANKS, AND SEC. 5198 PROVIDES THAT, IF A GREATER RATE HAS BEEN
PAID, THE PERSON PAYING IT, OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, MAY RECOVER
TWICE THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANK.  WHERE THE PERSON ENTITLED BECAME
BANKRUPT AND THE ACTION AGAINST THE BANK WAS BY HIS TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY, THE STATE COURT FIRST GRANTED JUDGMENT FOR DOUBLE THE
USURIOUS INTEREST, BUT SET OFF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE BANKRUPT'S
INDEBTEDNESS TO THE BANK.  HELD: 

1.  ALTHOUGH THE FORM OF ACTION PRESCRIBED IS DEBT, THE CAUSE OF
ACTION IS EX DELICTO AND THE RECOVERY PUNITIVE; NO SET-OFF IS
PERMISSIBLE IN THE PROCEEDING, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER JUDGMENT.  P.
247. 

2.  PUNISHMENT FOR USURY DOES NOT DEPEND UPON PAYMENT OF THE
BORROWER'S DEBT.  P. 249. 

MCCOLLUM, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. HAMILTON NATIONAL BANK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 670, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
GRANTING RECOVERY TO A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY IN A SUIT AGAINST THE BANK
UNDER REV. STATS. SEC. 5198, BUT SETTING OFF THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
BANKRUPT'S DEBTS TO THE BANK. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TO BE TAKEN BY NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS AND SEC. 5198  FN2
DECLARES THAT THE RECEIVING OF A RATE OF INTEREST GREATER THAN THAT
ALLOWED, WHEN KNOWINGLY DONE, SHALL BE DEEMED A FORFEITURE OF THE
ENTIRE INTEREST AND PROVIDES THAT, IN CASE A GREATER RATE HAS BEEN
PAID, THE PERSON PAYING IT MAY RECOVER BACK TWICE THE AMOUNT, IN A SUIT
IN THE NATURE OF AN ACTION OF DEBT.  PETITIONER IS TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY OF LOOKOUT PLANING MILLS, A CORPORATION.  HE BROUGHT THIS
SUIT UNDER SEC. 5198 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF HAMILTON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE, TO RECOVER FROM RESPONDENT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THAT
ALLEGED THE BANKRUPT OWED IT $25,493.70 ON NOTES, AND PRAYED THAT IT BE
ALLOWED TO SET OFF ITS CLAIM AGAINST ANY JUDGMENT THAT PETITIONER MIGHT
OBTAIN.  PETITIONER'S ANSWER TO THE CROSS-BILL ASSERTED THAT RECOVERY
OF THE PENALTY DID NOT DEPEND ON PAYMENT OF THE DEBT. 

THE CHANCELLOR FOUND THAT THE BANKRUPT PAID AND RESPONDENT KNOWINGLY
RECEIVED $5,235.55 AS INTEREST BASED ON A RATE IN EXCESS OF THAT
PERMITTED AND GAVE HIM JUDGMENT FOR DOUBLE THAT AMOUNT.  HE RULED THAT
AFTER JUDGMENT PETITIONER'S CLAIM WAS SUBJECT TO SET-OFF AND ORDERED
THAT THE AMOUNT AWARDED HIM BE APPLIED AS A CREDIT UPON THE DEBT.  THE
STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THE SET-OFF PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT, SEC. 68(A), AND EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 8769 OF THE TENNESSEE
CODE AND DECLARED THAT PETITIONER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO EQUITY BY
HAVING HIS CLAIM CREDITED ON THE LARGER ONE OWING TO THE RESPONDENT BY
THE BANKRUPT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE AMOUNT OF
THE JUDGMENT FOR PENALTY CREDITED ON ITS CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT
ESTATE. 

WHEN THE BANK KNOWINGLY RECEIVED ILLEGAL INTEREST, IT IMMEDIATELY
BECAME LIABLE FOR, AND THE BORROWER BECAME ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM IT,
A PENALTY OF TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST THUS PAID.  FARMERS' &
MECHANICS' NATIONAL BANK V. DEARING, 91 U.S. 29.  LAKE BENTON FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. WATT, 184 U.S. 151.  UPON PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT AS
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, THE BANKRUPT'S RIGHT TO RECOVER THE PENALTY
VESTED IN HIM.  BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 70(A), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 110(A). 
FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. LASATER, 196 U.S. 115, 118.  REED V. AMERICAN
GERMAN NAT. BANK, 155 FED. 233.  THE PENALTY IS TO BE ENFORCED
ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE.  GUILT BEING ESTABLISHED, THE
LAW ITSELF FIXES THE PUNISHMENT AT PRECISELY TWICE THE USURIOUS
EXACTION PAID; IT MAY NOT BE ENHANCED OR MITIGATED BECAUSE OF
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES OR EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS.  AS THE SUM
DEMANDED IS CERTAIN, RECOVERY IN AN ACTION OF DEBT IS AUTHORIZED,
THOUGH THE CLAIM ARISES NOT IN CONTRACT BUT IN TORT.  CHAFFEE & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 18 WALL.  516, 538.  THE LIABILITY CAN ONLY BE ENFORCED
IN AN ACTION "BROUGHT SPECIALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THAT PURPOSE,  -
WHERE THE SOLE ISSUE IS THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED, WITHOUT
THE PRESENCE OF ANY EXTRANEOUS FACTS WHICH MIGHT CONFUSE THE CASE." 
BARNET V. NATIONAL BANK, 98 U.S. 555, 559.  ONE PAYING A NATIONAL BANK
USURIOUS INTEREST AND ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE PENALTY MAY NOT RECOVER
IT BY WAY OF SET-OFF IN A SUIT BROUGHT UPON HIS NOTE TO THE BANK. 
HASELTINE V. CENTRAL BANK, 183 U.S. 132, 137.  BARNET V. NATIONAL BANK,
SUPRA.  DREISBACH V. NATIONAL BANK, 104 U.S. 52.  STEPHENS V.
MONONGAHELA BANK, 111 U.S. 197.  SEE SCHUYLER NATIONAL BANK V. GADSDEN,
191 U.S. 451, 456. 

REASONS, AT LEAST AS COGENT AS THOSE THAT UPHOLD THAT RULE, SUPPORT
THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING RESPONDENT TO
CREDIT THE AMOUNT OF PETITIONER'S JUDGMENT FOR PENALTY UPON THE NOTES
GIVEN IT BY THE BANKRUPT.  TO ALLOW RESPONDENT TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT
FOR PENALTY BY MERE DEDUCTION FROM ITS CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT'S
ESTATE IS TO DETRACT FROM THE PUNISHMENT DEFINITELY PRESCRIBED.  THE
SENTENCE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY THE LAW MAY NOT BE CUT DOWN BY
IMPLICATION, SET-OFF OR CONSTRUCTION; FOR THAT WOULD NARROW THE STATUTE
AND TEND TO DEFEAT ITS PURPOSE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. WILTBERGER, 5
WHEAT.  76, 95.  FASULO V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 620, 628. 

THE RIGHT OF SET-OFF HERE INVOLVED DOES NOT AT ALL DEPEND UPON THE
TENNESSEE STATUTE UPON WHICH, AT LEAST IN PART, THE STATE SUPREME COURT
RESTED ITS RULING.  SECTIONS 5197 AND 5198, REVISED STATUTES, DEFINE
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO RECOVER, AND RESPONDENT'S LIABILITY FOR, THE
PENALTY; THE BANKRUPTCY ACT GOVERNS LIQUIDATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE
BANKRUPT'S ESTATE.  IT RESULTS THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE CHALLENGED
PROVISION OF THE DECREE DEPENDS UPON THE RIGHT OF SET-OFF IN
BANKRUPTCY.  BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 68(A), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 108(A).  CF.
YATES V. JONES NATIONAL BANK, 206 U.S. 158, 179.  FARMERS' & MECHANICS'
NATIONAL BANK V. DEARING, SUPRA.  MCDANIEL NATIONAL BANK V. BRIDWELL,
74 F.(2D) 331. 

CREDITS BETWEEN THE ESTATE OF A BANKRUPT AND A CREDITOR THE ACCOUNT
SHALL BE STATED AND ONE DEBT SHALL BE SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER, AND
THE BALANCE ONLY SHALL BE ALLOWED AND PAID."  THE WORDS "DEBTS" AND
"CREDITS" AS THERE USED ARE CORRELATIVE.  WHAT IS A DEBT ON ONE SIDE IS
A CREDIT ON THE OTHER.  LIBBY V. HOPKINS, 104 U.S. 303, 309.  LIABILITY
FOR THE PENALTY DOES NOT ARISE IN CONTRACT BUT IS LAID IN INVITUM AS A
DISCIPLINARY MEASURE.  NOR DOES THE JUDGMENT DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF
GUILT AND DECLARING SENTENCE CHANGE THE LIABILITY FOR PENALTY TO ONE
FOR DEBT.  CHASE V. CURTIS, 113 U.S. 452, 463-464.  BOYNTON V. HALL,
121 U.S. 457, 465-466. 

AS THE PENALTY MAY BE ENFORCED ONLY IN A SUIT BROUGHT EXCLUSIVELY FOR
THAT PURPOSE SO THAT THE TRIAL OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE MAY NOT BE
EMBARRASSED BY ANY OTHER QUESTION, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE PAYMENT OF ANY
DEBT OWED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE BANK MAY NOT BE HELD A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO THE DETERMINATION OF THAT ISSUE.  PUNISHMENT FOR USURY
DOES NOT DEPEND UPON PAYMENT OF THE BORROWER'S DEBT.  IT FOLLOWS THAT
RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO SATISFY PETITIONER'S JUDGMENT BY
DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF IT FROM RESPONDENT'S CLAIM AGAINST THE
BANKRUPT'S ESTATE.  MEREDITH V. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, 127 TENN. 90,
94; 153 S.W. 479.  EXETER NATIONAL BANK V. ORCHARD, 43 NEB. 579, 582;
61 N.W. 833.  MOREHOUSE V. SECOND NATIONAL BANK, 30 HUN 628.  REASON,
WELL SUPPORTED BY AUTHORITY, REQUIRES THAT THE PENALTY FOR USURY SO
SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBED SHALL BE PAID ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE
STATUTE.  REVERSED. 

FN1  12 U.S.C., SEC. 85. 

FN2 12 U.S.C., SEC. 86:  "THE TAKING, RECEIVING, RESERVING, OR
CHARGING A RATE OF INTEREST GREATER THAN IS ALLOWED BY THE PRECEDING
ENTIRE INTEREST WHICH THE NOTE, BILL, OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF DEBT CARRIES
WITH IT, OR WHICH HAS BEEN AGREED TO BE PAID THEREON.  IN CASE THE
GREATER RATE OF INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID, THE PERSON BY WHOM IT HAS BEEN
PAID, OR HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, MAY RECOVER BACK, IN AN ACTION IN
THE NATURE OF AN ACTION OF DEBT, TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST THUS
PAID FROM THE ASSOCIATION TAKING OR RECEIVING THE SAME:  PROVIDED, THAT
SUCH ACTION IS COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE TIME THE USURIOUS
TRANSACTION OCCURRED." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




WESTERN LIVE STOCK V. BUREAU, 303 U.S. 250 


NO. 322.  ARGUED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 41
N.M. 288 -  67 P.2D 505, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE MERE FORMATION OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN PERSONS OF DIFFERENT
STATES IS NOT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, UNLESS THE
PERFORMANCE IS WITHIN ITS PROTECTION, AT LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.  P. 253. 

2.  TAXATION OF A LOCAL BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION WHICH IS SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT FROM THE TRANSPORTATION AND INTERCOURSE WHICH ARE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS NOT FORBIDDEN MERELY BECAUSE, IN THE ORDINARY COURSE, SUCH
TRANSPORTATION OR INTERCOURSE IS INDUCED OR OCCASIONED BY THE
BUSINESS.  P. 253. 

3.  A STATUTE OF NEW MEXICO LEVIED ON ALL ENGAGED WITHIN THE STATE IN
THE BUSINESS OF PUBLISHING NEWSPAPERS OR MAGAZINES A PRIVILEGE TAX OF
2% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE OF ADVERTISING.  APPELLANTS,
WHOSE ONLY OFFICE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS WITHIN THE STATE, PREPARED,
EDITED AND PUBLISHED THERE A JOURNAL, THE CIRCULATION OF WHICH WAS
PARTLY INTERSTATE.  PART OF THEIR RECEIPTS FROM ADVERTISING WAS DERIVED
FROM CONTRACTS WITH ADVERTISERS OUT OF THE STATE.  SUCH CONTRACTS
INVOLVED INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION, FROM ADVERTISERS TO APPELLANTS, OF
CUTS, MATS, INFORMATION, COPY, ETC.; ALSO PAYMENT THROUGH INTERSTATE
FACILITIES.  HELD, THE TAX AS APPLIED TO APPELLANTS IN RESPECT OF THE
SUMS RECEIVED UNDER SUCH ADVERTISING CONTRACTS DID NOT INFRINGE THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  PP. 259-260. 

SO FAR AS THE ADVERTISING RATES REFLECTED A VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF A CIRCULATION OF THE MAGAZINE INTERSTATE, THE BURDEN ON
THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS WAS TOO REMOTE AND TOO ATTENUATED TO CALL FOR A
RIGIDLY LOGICAL APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE THAT GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY NOT BE MADE THE MEASURE OF A TAX. 

4.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT RELIEVE THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FROM THEIR JUST SHARE OF THE STATE TAX BURDEN, EVEN THOUGH THE
COST OF DOING THE BUSINESS BE THEREBY INCREASED.  P. 254. 

5.  THE VICE CHARACTERISTIC OF SUCH LOCAL TAXES, MEASURED BY GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AS HAVE BEEN HELD INVALID, WAS THAT
THEY PLACED ON THE COMMERCE BURDENS OF SUCH A NATURE AS WERE CAPABLE,
IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE, OF BEING IMPOSED, OR ADDED TO, WITH EQUAL RIGHT
BY EVERY STATE WHICH THE COMMERCE TOUCHED, MERELY BECAUSE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WAS BEING DONE, SO THAT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE IT WOULD BEAR CUMULATIVE BURDENS NOT IMPOSED ON LOCAL COMMERCE. 
THE TAX HERE INVOLVED IS NOT SUBJECT TO THAT OBJECTION.  P. 255. 

6.  THE BUSINESS OF PREPARING, PRINTING AND PUBLISHING MAGAZINE
ADVERTISING IS PECULIARLY LOCAL AND DISTINCT FROM ITS CIRCULATION
WHETHER OR NOT THAT CIRCULATION BE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 258. 

7.  IN RECONCILING OPPOSING DEMANDS THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEAR ITS
SHARE OF LOCAL TAXATION, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, NOT BE SUBJECTED TO
MULTIPLE TAX BURDENS MERELY BECAUSE IT IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
PRACTICAL RATHER THAN LOGICAL DISTINCTIONS MUST BE SOUGHT.  P. 259. 

8.  FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650, AND
CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292, DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 260
261. 

WESTERN LIVE STOCK ET AL. V. BUREAU OF REVENUE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS IN
A SUIT BROUGHT BY THEM TO RECOVER TAXES PAID UNDER PROTEST AND ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY EXACTED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

LEVIES A PRIVILEGE TAX UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THOSE ENGAGED IN
CERTAIN SPECIFIED BUSINESSES.  FN1  SUBDIVISION I IMPOSES A TAX OF 2%
OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF ADVERTISING SPACE BY ONE ENGAGED
IN THE BUSINESS OF PUBLISHING NEWSPAPERS OR MAGAZINES.  THE QUESTION
FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE TAX LAID UNDER THIS STATUTE ON APPELLANTS,
WHO SELL WITHOUT THE STATE, TO ADVERTISERS THERE, SPACE IN A JOURNAL
WHICH THEY PUBLISH IN NEW MEXICO AND CIRCULATE TO SUBSCRIBERS WITHIN
AND WITHOUT THE STATE, IMPOSES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

APPELLANTS BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE STATE DISTRICT COURT TO
RECOVER THE TAX, WHICH THEY HAD PAID UNDER PROTEST, AS EXACTED IN
VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE
TRIAL COURT OVERRULED A DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
APPELLANTS, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT REVERSED.  41 N.M. 141; 65 P.2D
863.  APPELLANTS REFUSING TO PLEAD FURTHER, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE
JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLEES, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  41 N.M.
288; 67 P.2D 505.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL FROM THE SECOND
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

APPELLANTS PUBLISH A MONTHLY LIVESTOCK TRADE JOURNAL WHICH THEY
WHOLLY PREPARE, EDIT, AND PUBLISH WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, WHERE
THEIR ONLY OFFICE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS IS LOCATED.  THE JOURNAL HAS A
CIRCULATION IN NEW MEXICO AND OTHER STATES, BEING DISTRIBUTED TO PAID
SUBSCRIBERS THROUGH THE MAILS OR BY OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION.  IT
CARRIES ADVERTISEMENTS, SOME OF WHICH ARE OBTAINED FROM ADVERTISERS IN
OTHER STATES THROUGH APPELLANTS' SOLICITATION THERE.  WHERE SUCH
CONTRACTS ARE ENTERED INTO, PAYMENT IS MADE BY REMITTANCES TO
APPELLANTS SENT INTERSTATE; AND THE CONTRACTS CONTEMPLATE AND PROVIDE
FOR THE INTERSTATE SHIPMENT BY THE ADVERTISERS TO APPELLANTS OF
ADVERTISING CUTS, MATS, INFORMATION AND COPY.  PAYMENT IS DUE AFTER THE
PRINTING OF SUCH ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE JOURNAL AND ITS ULTIMATE
CIRCULATION AND DISTRIBUTION, WHICH IS ALLEGED TO BE IN NEW MEXICO AND
OTHER STATES. 

APPELLANTS INSIST HERE, AS THEY DID IN THE STATE COURTS, THAT THE
SUMS EARNED UNDER THE ADVERTISING CONTRACTS ARE IMMUNE FROM THE TAX
BECAUSE THE CONTRACTS ARE ENTERED INTO BY TRANSACTIONS ACROSS STATE
LINES AND RESULT IN THE LIKE TRANSMISSION OF ADVERTISING MATERIALS BY
ADVERTISERS TO APPELLANTS, AND ALSO BECAUSE PERFORMANCE INVOLVES THE
MAILING OR OTHER DISTRIBUTION OF APPELLANTS' MAGAZINES TO POINTS
WITHOUT THE STATE. 

THAT THE MERE FORMATION OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN PERSONS IN DIFFERENT
STATES IS NOT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AT LEAST IN
THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, UNLESS THE PERFORMANCE IS WITHIN
ITS PROTECTION, IS A PROPOSITION NO LONGER OPEN TO QUESTION.  PAUL V.
VIRGINIA, 8 WALL.  168; HOOPER V. CALIFORNIA, 155 U.S. 648; NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO. V. DEER LODGE COUNTY, 231 U.S. 495; CF. WARE & LELAND V.
MOBILE COUNTY, 209 U.S. 405; ENGEL V. O'MALLEY, 219 U.S. 128.  HENCE IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE TAX UPON THE ADVERTISING
CONTRACTS EXCEPT AS IT AFFECTS THEIR PERFORMANCE, PRESENTLY TO BE
DISCUSSED.  NOR IS TAXATION OF A LOCAL BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION WHICH IS
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE TRANSPORTATION AND INTERCOURSE WHICH IS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE FORBIDDEN MERELY BECAUSE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE
SUCH TRANSPORTATION OR INTERCOURSE IS INDUCED OR OCCASIONED BY THE
BUSINESS.  WILLIAMS V. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270; WARE & LELAND V. MOBILE
COUNTY, SUPRA; BROWNING V. WAYCROSS, 233 U.S. 16; GENERAL RAILWAY
SIGNAL CO. V. VIRGINIA, 246 U.S. 500, 510; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
PFOST, 286 U.S. 165.  HERE THE TAX WHICH IS LAID ON THE COMPENSATION
RECEIVED UNDER THE CONTRACT IS NOT FORBIDDEN EITHER BECAUSE THE
CONTRACT, APART FROM ITS PERFORMANCE, IS WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, OR BECAUSE AS AN INCIDENT PRELIMINARY TO PRINTING AND
PUBLISHING THE ADVERTISEMENTS THE ADVERTISERS SEND CUTS, COPY AND THE
LIKE TO APPELLANTS. 

WE TURN TO THE OTHER AND MORE VEXED QUESTION, WHETHER THE TAX IS
INVALID BECAUSE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, FOR WHICH THE
COMPENSATION IS PAID, INVOLVES TO SOME EXTENT THE DISTRIBUTION,
INTERSTATE, OF SOME COPIES OF THE MAGAZINE CONTAINING THE
ADVERTISEMENTS.  WE LAY TO ONE SIDE THE FACT THAT APPELLANTS DO NOT
ALLEGE SPECIFICALLY THAT THE CONTRACT STIPULATES THAT THE
ADVERTISEMENTS SHALL BE SENT TO SUBSCRIBERS OUT OF THE STATE, OR IS SO
FRAMED THAT THE COMPENSATION WOULD NOT BE EARNED IF SUBSCRIBERS OUTSIDE
THE STATE SHOULD CANCEL THEIR SUBSCRIPTIONS.  WE ASSUME THE POINT IN
APPELLANTS' FAVOR AND ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THEIR ARGUMENT THAT THE
PRESENT TAX INFRINGES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAUSE IT IS MEASURED BY
GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH ARE TO SOME EXTENT AUGMENTED BY APPELLANTS'
MAINTENANCE OF AN INTERSTATE CIRCULATION OF THEIR MAGAZINE. 

IT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO RELIEVE THOSE
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THEIR JUST SHARE OF STATE TAX
BURDEN EVEN THOUGH IT INCREASES THE COST OF DOING THE BUSINESS.  "EVEN
INTERSTATE BUSINESS MUST PAY ITS WAY," POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. V.
RICHMOND, 249 U.S. 252, 259; FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DIST., 145
U.S. 1, 24; POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. ADAMS, 155 U.S. 688, 696;
GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217, 225, 227, AND THE
BARE FACT THAT ONE IS CARRYING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE DOES NOT RELIEVE
HIM FROM MANY FORMS OF STATE TAXATION WHICH ADD TO THE COST OF HIS
BUSINESS.  HE IS SUBJECT TO A PROPERTY TAX ON THE INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED
IN THE COMMERCE.  WESTERN UNION TELEG.  CO. V. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 125
U.S. 530; CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. BACKUS, 154 U.S. 439;
ADAMS EXPRESS CO. V. OHIO STATE AUDITOR, 165 U.S. 194; ADAMS EXPRESS
CO. V. KENTUCKY, 166 U.S. 171; WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. MISSOURI EX
REL. GOTTLIEB, 190 U.S. 412; OLD DOMINION S.S. CO. V. VIRGINIA, 198
U.S. 299, AND IF THE PROPERTY DEVOTED TO INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION IS
USED BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE A TAX FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO ITS
USE WITHIN THE STATE WILL BE SUSTAINED.  PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S. 18; CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S.
450.  NET EARNINGS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX,
UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321, AND IF THE COMMERCE
IS CARRIED ON BY A CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TAX MAY BE IMPOSED, MEASURED
BY THE NET INCOME FROM BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE STATE, INCLUDING SUCH
PORTION OF THE INCOME DERIVED FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS MAY BE JUSTLY
ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE STATE BY A FAIR METHOD OF
APPORTIONMENT.  UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113;
CF. BASS, RATCLIFF & GRETTON V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 266 U.S. 271. 

ALL OF THESE TAXES IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ADD TO THE EXPENSE OF
CARRYING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND IN THAT SENSE BURDEN IT; BUT THEY
ARE NOT FOR THAT REASON PROHIBITED.  ON THE OTHER HAND, LOCAL TAXES,
MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HAVE OFTEN BEEN
PRONOUNCED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE VICE CHARACTERISTIC OF THOSE WHICH
HAVE BEEN HELD INVALID IS THAT THEY HAVE PLACED ON THE COMMERCE BURDENS
OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO BE CAPABLE, IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE, OF BEING
IMPOSED (FARGO V. MICHIGAN, 121 U.S. 230; PHILADELPHIA & SOU.  S.S. CO.
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326; GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS,
SUPRA; MEYER V. WELLS, FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298) OR ADDED TO (CREW
LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292; FISHER'S BLEND STATION V.
STATE TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650) WITH EQUAL RIGHT BY EVERY STATE WHICH
THE COMMERCE TOUCHES, MERELY BECAUSE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS BEING DONE,
SO THAT WITHOUT THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IT WOULD BEAR
CUMULATIVE BURDENS NOT IMPOSED ON LOCAL COMMERCE.  SEE PHILADELPHIA &
SOU.  S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 346; CASE OF STATE FREIGHT TAX,
15 WALL.  232, 280; BRADLEY, J., DISSENTING IN MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK RY.
CO., 142 U.S. 217, 235; CF. PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
SUPRA, 26.  THE MULTIPLICATION OF STATE TAXES MEASURED BY THE GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE TRANSACTIONS WOULD SPELL THE DESTRUCTION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND RENEW THE BARRIERS TO INTERSTATE TRADE WHICH IT
WAS THE OBJECT OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE TO REMOVE.  BALDWIN V. G.A.F.
SEELIG, INC., 294 U.S. 511, 523. 

IT IS FOR THESE REASONS THAT A STATE MAY NOT LAY A TAX MEASURED BY
THE AMOUNT OF MERCHANDISE CARRIED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, CASE OF STATE
FREIGHT TAX, SUPRA, OR UPON THE FREIGHT EARNED BY ITS CARRIAGE.  FARGO
V. MICHIGAN, SUPRA; PHILADELPHIA & SOU.  S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
SUPRA, RESTRICTING THE EFFECT OF STATE TAX ON RAILWAY GROSS RECEIPTS,
15 WALL.  284, WITH WHICH COMPARE MILLER, J., DISSENTING IN THAT CASE
AT P. 297.  TAXATION MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE
COMMERCE HAS BEEN SUSTAINED WHEN FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO THE COMMERCE
CARRIED ON WITHIN THE TAXING STATE, WISCONSIN & M. RY. CO. V. POWERS,
191 U.S. 379; MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK RY. CO., SUPRA; CUDAHY PACKING CO.
V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA; UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S.
335, AND IN OTHER CASES HAS BEEN REJECTED ONLY BECAUSE THE
APPORTIONMENT WAS FOUND TO BE INADEQUATE OR UNFAIR.  FARGO V. MICHIGAN,
SUPRA; GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS, SUPRA; MEYER V. WELLS,
FARGO & CO., SUPRA, WITH WHICH COMPARE WISCONSIN & M. RY. CO. V.
POWERS, SUPRA.  WHETHER THE TAX WAS SUSTAINED AS A FAIR MEANS OF
MEASURING A LOCAL PRIVILEGE OR FRANCHISE, AS IN MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK
RY. CO., SUPRA; FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DIST., SUPRA; AMERICAN
MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250 U.S. 459, OR AS A METHOD OF
ARRIVING AT THE FAIR MEASURE OF A TAX SUBSTITUTED FOR LOCAL PROPERTY
TAXES, CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA; UNITED STATES EXPRESS
CO. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA; CF. POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V. ADAMS,
SUPRA; SEE MCHENRY V. ALFORD, 168 U.S. 651, 670-671, IT IS A PRACTICAL
WAY OF LAYING UPON THE COMMERCE ITS SHARE OF THE LOCAL TAX BURDEN
WITHOUT SUBJECTING IT TO MULTIPLE TAXATION NOT BORNE BY LOCAL COMMERCE
AND TO WHICH IT WOULD BE SUBJECT IF GROSS RECEIPTS, UNAPPORTIONED,
COULD BE MADE THE MEASURE OF A TAX LAID IN EVERY STATE WHERE THE
COMMERCE IS CARRIED ON.  A TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM TOLLS FOR THE USE
BY INTERSTATE TRAINS OF TRACKS LYING WHOLLY WITHIN THE TAXING STATE IS
VALID, NEW YORK, L.E. & W.R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 158 U.S. 431; CF.
HENDERSON BRIDGE CO. V. KENTUCKY, 166 U.S. 150, ALTHOUGH A LIKE TAX ON
GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE RENTAL OF RAILROAD CARS USED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE TAXING STATE IS INVALID.  FARGO V.
MICHIGAN, SUPRA.  IN THE ONE CASE THE TAX REACHES ONLY THAT PART OF THE
COMMERCE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE TAXING STATE; IN THE OTHER IT EXTENDS TO
THE COMMERCE CARRIED ON WITHOUT THE STATE BOUNDARIES, AND, IF VALID,
COULD BE SIMILARLY LAID IN EVERY OTHER STATE IN WHICH THE BUSINESS IS
CONDUCTED. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TAX IS, IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE, AN EXCISE
CONDITIONED ON THE CARRYING ON OF A LOCAL BUSINESS, THAT OF PROVIDING
AND SELLING ADVERTISING SPACE IN A PUBLISHED JOURNAL, WHICH IS SOLD TO
AND PAID FOR BY SUBSCRIBERS, SOME OF WHOM RECEIVE IT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE PRICE AT WHICH THE ADVERTISING IS SOLD IS MADE THE
MEASURE OF THE TAX.  THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED A SIMILAR TAX SAID TO BE
ON THE PRIVILEGE OF MANUFACTURING, MEASURED BY THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS
FROM SALES OF THE MANUFACTURED GOODS BOTH INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE. 
AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA, 462.  THE ACTUAL SALES
PRICES WHICH MEASURED THE TAX WERE TAKEN TO BE NO MORE THAN THE MEASURE
OF THE VALUE OF THE GOODS MANUFACTURED, AND SO AN APPROPRIATE MEASURE
OF THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE, THE TAXATION OF WHICH WAS DEFERRED UNTIL
THE GOODS WERE SOLD.  FICKLEN V. SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DIST., SUPRA,
SUSTAINED A LICENSE TAX MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS ANNUAL
COMMISSIONS RECEIVED BY BROKERS ENGAGED IN NEGOTIATING SALES WITHIN FOR
SELLERS WITHOUT THE STATE. 

VIEWED ONLY AS AUTHORITY, AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS,
SUPRA, WOULD SEEM DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT CASE.  BUT WE THINK THE TAX
ASSAILED HERE FINDS SUPPORT IN REASON, AND IN THE PRACTICAL NEEDS OF A
TAXING SYSTEM WHICH, UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, MUST ACCOMMODATE
ITSELF TO THE DOUBLE DEMAND THAT INTERSTATE BUSINESS SHALL PAY ITS WAY,
AND THAT AT THE SAME TIME IT SHALL NOT BE BURDENED WITH CUMULATIVE
EXACTIONS WHICH ARE NOT SIMILARLY LAID ON LOCAL BUSINESS. 

AS WE HAVE SAID, THE CARRYING ON OF A LOCAL BUSINESS MAY BE MADE THE
CONDITION OF STATE TAXATION, IF IT IS DISTINCT FROM INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND THE BUSINESS OF PREPARING, PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
MAGAZINE ADVERTISING IS PECULIARLY LOCAL AND DISTINCT FROM ITS
CIRCULATION WHETHER OR NOT THAT CIRCULATION BE INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
CF. PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S. 90, 94. 
NO ONE WOULD DOUBT THAT THE TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE WOULD BE VALID IF IT
WERE MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF ADVERTISING SPACE SOLD.  UTAH POWER &
LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, SUPRA; FEDERAL COMPRESS & W. CO. V. MCLEAN, 291
U.S. 17, OR BY ITS VALUE.  OLIVER IRON MINING CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S.
172; HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. V. HALL, 274 U.S. 284.  SELLING PRICE, TAKEN
AS A MEASURE OF VALUE WHOSE ACCURACY APPELLANTS DO NOT CHALLENGE, IS
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES A CONVENIENT MEANS OF ARRIVING AT AN
EQUITABLE MEASURE OF THE BURDEN WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED ON AN ADMITTEDLY
TAXABLE SUBJECT MATTER.  UNLIKE THE MEASURE OF THE TAX SUSTAINED IN
AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA, IT DOES NOT EMBRACE THE
PURCHASE PRICE (HERE THE MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION PRICE) OF THE ARTICLES
SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SO FAR AS THE ADVERTISING RATES
REFLECT A VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A CIRCULATION OF THE
MAGAZINE INTERSTATE, WE THINK THE BURDEN ON THE INTERSTATE BUSINESS IS
TOO REMOTE AND TOO ATTENUATED TO CALL FOR A RIGIDLY LOGICAL APPLICATION
OF THE DOCTRINE THAT GROSS RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY NOT BE
MADE THE MEASURE OF A TAX.  EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT THAT THE OPPOSING
DEMANDS THAT THE COMMERCE SHALL BEAR ITS SHARE OF LOCAL TAXATION, AND
THAT IT SHALL NOT, ON THE OTHER HAND, BE SUBJECTED TO MULTIPLE TAX
BURDENS MERELY BECAUSE IT IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ARE NOT CAPABLE OF
RECONCILIATION BY RESORT TO THE SYLLOGISM.  PRACTICAL RATHER THAN
LOGICAL DISTINCTIONS MUST BE SOUGHT.  SEE GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V.
TEXAS, SUPRA, 227.  RECOGNIZING THAT NOT EVERY LOCAL LAW THAT AFFECTS
COMMERCE IS A REGULATION OF IT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE, THIS COURT
HAS HELD THAT LOCAL TAXES MAY BE LAID ON PROPERTY USED IN THE COMMERCE;
THAT ITS VALUE FOR TAXATION MAY INCLUDE THE AUGMENTATION ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE COMMERCE IN WHICH IT IS EMPLOYED; AND, FINALLY, THAT THE
EQUIVALENT OF THAT VALUE MAY BE COMPUTED BY A MEASURE RELATED TO GROSS
RECEIPTS WHEN A TAX OF THE LATTER IS SUBSTITUTED FOR A TAX OF THE
FORMER.  SEE GALVESTON, H. & S.A.R. CO. V. TEXAS, SUPRA, 225. 

HERE IT IS PERHAPS ENOUGH THAT THE PRIVILEGE TAXED IS OF A TYPE WHICH
HAS BEEN REGARDED AS SO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION AS TO ADMIT OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT FOR PURPOSES OF
TAXATION, UTAH LIGHT & POWER CO V. PFOST, SUPRA; FEDERAL COMPRESS & W.
CO. V. MCLEAN, SUPRA; CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584, AND THAT
THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE IS FAIRLY MEASURED BY THE RECEIPTS.  THE TAX
IS NOT INVALID BECAUSE THE VALUE IS ENHANCED BY APPELLANT'S CIRCULATION
OF THEIR JOURNAL INTERSTATE ANY MORE THAN PROPERTY TAXES ON RAILROADS
ARE INVALID BECAUSE PROPERTY VALUE IS INCREASED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE
THAT THE RAILROADS DO AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS. 

BUT THERE IS AN ADDED REASON WHY WE THINK THE TAX IS NOT SUBJECT TO
THE OBJECTION WHICH HAS BEEN LEVELED AT TAXES LAID UPON GROSS RECEIPTS
DERIVED FROM INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION OR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS.  SO
FAR AS THE VALUE CONTRIBUTED TO APPELLANTS' NEW MEXICO BUSINESS BY
CIRCULATION OF THE MAGAZINE INTERSTATE IS TAXED, IT CANNOT AGAIN BE
TAXED ELSEWHERE ANY MORE THAN THE VALUE OF RAILROAD PROPERTY TAXED
LOCALLY.  THE TAX IS NOT ONE WHICH IN FORM OR SUBSTANCE CAN BE REPEATED
BY OTHER STATES IN SUCH MANNER AS TO LAY AN ADDED BURDEN ON THE
INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAGAZINE.  AS ALREADY NOTED, RECEIPTS
FROM SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEASURE OF THE TAX.  IT IS
NOT MEASURED BY THE EXTENT OF THE CIRCULATION OF THE MAGAZINE
INTERSTATE.  ALL THE EVENTS UPON WHICH THE TAX IS CONDITIONED - THE
PREPARATION, PRINTING AND PUBLICATION OF THE ADVERTISING MATTER, AND
THE RECEIPT OF THE SUMS PAID FOR IT - OCCUR IN NEW MEXICO AND NOT
ELSEWHERE.  ALL ARE BEYOND ANY CONTROL AND TAXING POWER WHICH, WITHOUT
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THOSE STATES COULD EXERT THROUGH ITS DOMINION OVER
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MAGAZINE OR ITS SUBSCRIBERS.  THE DANGERS WHICH
MAY ENSUE FROM THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX MEASURED BY GROSS RECEIPTS
DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE ABSENT. 

IN THIS AND OTHER WAYS THE CASE DIFFERS FROM FISHER'S BLEND STATION
V. STATE TAX COMM'N, SUPRA, ON WHICH APPELLANTS RELY.  THERE THE
EXACTION WAS A PRIVILEGE TAX LAID UPON THE OCCUPATION OF BROADCASTING,
WHICH THE COURT HELD WAS ITSELF INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION, COMPARABLE TO
THAT CARRIED ON BY THE TELEGRAPH AND THE TELEPHONE, AND WAS MEASURED BY
THE GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM THAT COMMERCE.  IF BROADCASTING COULD
BE TAXED, SO ALSO COULD RECEPTION.  STATION WBT, INC. V. POULNOT, 46
F.(2D) 671.  FN2  IN THAT EVENT A CUMULATIVE TAX BURDEN WOULD BE
IMPOSED ON INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION SUCH AS MIGHT ENSUE IF GROSS
RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION COULD BE TAXED.  THIS WAS THE
VICE OF THE TAX OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM GOODS SOLD
BY A WHOLESALER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HELD INVALID IN CREW LEVICK CO.
V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA.  IN FORM AND IN SUBSTANCE THE TAX WAS THOUGHT
NOT TO BE ONE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING A LOCAL BUSINESS SEPARABLE
FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CF. AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS,
SUPRA. IN NONE OF THESE RESPECTS IS THE PRESENT TAX OBJECTIONABLE. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1 "SEC.  201.  THERE IS HEREBY LEVIED, AND SHALL BE COLLECTED BY
THE TAX COMMISSION, PRIVILEGE TAXES, MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OR VOLUME
OF BUSINESS DONE, AGAINST THE PERSONS, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES, ENGAGING, OR CONTINUING, WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, IN
ANY BUSINESS AS HEREIN DEFINED, AND IN THE AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE
APPLICATION OF RATES AGAINST GROSS RECEIPTS, AS FOLLOWS: 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"I - AT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TWO PERCENT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF ANY
PERSON ENGAGING OR CONTINUING IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING BUSINESSES:...
PUBLICATION OF NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES (BUT THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE
BUSINESS OF PUBLISHING NEWSPAPERS OR MAGAZINES SHALL INCLUDE ONLY THE
AMOUNTS RECEIVED FOR THE SALE OF ADVERTISING SPACE)  ..." 

FN2  GREAT BRITAIN LEVIES AN ANNUAL LICENSE TAX ON RADIO RECEIVING
APPARATUS.  SEE WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ACT OF 1904, C. 24, 4 EDW.  7, AS
EXPLAINED BY C. 67, 15 & 16 GEO. 5, AND IMPLEMENTED BY REGULATION
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN, POST OFFICE GUIDE, JULY, 1936. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
























LABOR BD. V. GREYHOUND LINES, 303 U.S. 261 


NO. 413.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 91
F.2D 178, REVERSED. 


1.  UPON A FINDING THAT AN EMPLOYER HAS CREATED AND FOSTERED A LABOR
ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES AND DOMINATED ITS ADMINISTRATION IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 8(1), (2) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF JULY 5, 1935,
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS AUTHORITY, UNDER SEC. 10(C) OF
THE ACT, IN ADDITION TO ORDERING THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE THESE PRACTICES,
TO REQUIRE HIM TO WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION OF THE ORGANIZATION AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYEES AND TO POST NOTICES INFORMING THEM OF
SUCH WITHDRAWAL.  PP. 263, 268. 

2.  WHETHER CONTINUED RECOGNITION BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE EMPLOYEES'
ASSOCIATION WOULD IN ITSELF BE A CONTINUING OBSTACLE TO THE EXERCISE OF
THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, IS AN INFERENCE OF FACT
TO BE DRAWN BY THE BOARD FROM THE EVIDENCE REVIEWED IN ITS SUBSIDIARY
FINDINGS, AND WHEN SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THE BOARD'S FINDING OF THE
FACT IS CONCLUSIVE.  P. 270. 

3.  THE BOARD'S FINDINGS IN THIS CASE THAT THE EMPLOYER HAD ENGAGED
IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, AND THAT WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION OF THE
EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION BY THE EMPLOYER, ACCOMPANIED BY SUITABLE
PUBLICITY, WOULD APPROPRIATELY GIVE EFFECT TO THE POLICY OF THE ACT,
WERE AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 271. 

4.  TO ENABLE THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EMPLOYER HAD
VIOLATED THE STATUTE OR TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE ORDER AGAINST HIM, THE
PRESENCE OF THE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION WAS NOT ESSENTIAL AND IT WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND HEARING.  P. 271. 

5.  AN ORDER OF THE BOARD SUCH AS THAT REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO
WITHDRAW RECOGNITION OF THE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, AND TO POST NOTICE
OF SUCH ACTION, LAWFUL WHEN MADE, DOES NOT BECOME MOOT BECAUSE IT IS
OBEYED OR BECAUSE CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES MAY LESSEN THE NEED FOR IT. P.
271. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, INC.,
ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 676, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DENYING IN PART A
PETITION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ORDER. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE MAIN QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER, UPON A FINDING THAT AN
EMPLOYER HAS CREATED AND FOSTERED A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES AND
DOMINATED ITS ADMINISTRATION IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1), (2) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF JULY 5, 1935(C. 372, 49 STAT. 449, 29
U.S.C., SEC. 151, ET SEQ.), THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, IN
ADDITION TO ORDERING THE EMPLOYER TO CEASE THESE PRACTICES, CAN REQUIRE
HIM TO WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION OF THE ORGANIZATION AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYEES AND TO POST NOTICES INFORMING THEM OF
SUCH WITHDRAWAL. 

RESPONDENT PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, INC., IS A CORPORATION
OPERATING A PASSENGER MOTOR BUS SYSTEM BETWEEN THE ATLANTIC COAST AND
CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS.  RESPONDENT GREYHOUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, AN
AFFILIATE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY, PERFORMS VARIOUS SERVICES
RELATING TO EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL OF THE LATTER AND ITS AFFILIATED
CORPORATIONS.  TOGETHER, RESPONDENTS ACT AS EMPLOYERS OF THOSE
EMPLOYEES WORKING AT THE PITTSBURGH GARAGE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY
AND TOGETHER ACTIVELY DEAL WITH LABOR RELATIONS OF THOSE EMPLOYEES. 

UPON CHARGES FILED BY LOCAL DIVISION NO. 1063, AMALGAMATED
ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF
AMERICA, A LABOR ORGANIZATION, THE BOARD ISSUED ITS COMPLAINT, AS
PERMITTED BY SEC. 10(B) OF THE ACT, CHARGING THAT RESPONDENTS HAD
ENGAGED IN SPECIFIED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8.  AFTER NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS, AND
HEARING, THE BOARD FOUND THAT THEY HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES BY INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, AND COERCING EMPLOYEES IN
THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHTS, GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7, IN THAT THEY HAD
DOMINATED AND INTERFERED WITH THE FORMATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF A
LABOR ORGANIZATION OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, INC., AND HAD CONTRIBUTED FINANCIAL AND
OTHER SUPPORT TO IT IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 8(1), (2). 

THE BOARD ORDERED THAT RESPONDENTS CEASE EACH OF THE SPECIFIED UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES.  IT FURTHER ORDERED THAT THEY WITHDRAW RECOGNITION
FROM THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AS EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORIZED TO
DEAL WITH RESPONDENTS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES, TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT, AND
LABOR DISPUTES, AND THAT THEY POST CONSPICUOUS NOTICES IN ALL THE
PLACES OF BUSINESS WHERE SUCH EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED, STATING THAT THE
"ASSOCIATION IS SO DISESTABLISHED AND THAT RESPONDENTS WILL REFRAIN
FROM ANY SUCH RECOGNITION THEREOF."  1 N.L.R.B. 1. 

UPON THE BOARD'S PETITION UNDER SEC. 10(E) TO ENFORCE THE ORDER,
HEARD APRIL 1, 1936, THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT GAVE
JUDGMENT AFTER A DELAY OF ONE YEAR AND TWO MONTHS, DURING WHICH THERE
WERE THREE POSTPONEMENTS AND TWO REARGUMENTS.  IT STRUCK FROM THE ORDER
ALL PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE WITHDRAWAL BY RESPONDENTS OF RECOGNITION
OF THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL,
AND DIRECTED THAT IN OTHER RESPECTS THE BOARD'S ORDER BE ENFORCED.  91
F.(2D) 178.  THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THE BOARD WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
ORDER THE EMPLOYERS TO WITHHOLD RECOGNITION FROM THE ASSOCIATION,
WITHOUT NOTICE TO IT AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING, AND WITHOUT AN
ELECTION BY THE EMPLOYEES TO CHOOSE A LABOR ORGANIZATION TO REPRESENT
THEM.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 676, THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED
BEING OF IMPORTANCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

RESPONDENTS DO NOT ASSAIL THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF FACT AS WITHOUT
SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE, AND THE PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE
OF LAW, WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED BY THE FINDINGS THE
BOARD ACTED WITHIN THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON IT BY SECS. 7, 8 AND 10
OF THE ACT.  SECTION 7 PROVIDES: 

"EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO FORM, JOIN,
OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL
AID OR PROTECTION." 


"IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER - 

"(1) TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7. 

"(2) TO DOMINATE OR INTERFERE WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF
ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION OR CONTRIBUTE FINANCIAL OR OTHER SUPPORT TO
IT:..." 

BY SEC. 10(B) THE BOARD IS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO HEAR COMPLAINTS OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON EVIDENCE; AND SEC. 10(C)  FN1  DIRECTS THAT
WHEN THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY PERSON HAS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES IT "SHALL ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED ON SUCH PERSON AN
ORDER REQUIRING SUCH PERSON TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, AND TO TAKE SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION  ...  AS WILL EFFECTUATE
THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT...." 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE MANDATORY FORM OF SEC. 10(C), ITS PROVISIONS IN
SUBSTANCE LEAVE TO THE BOARD SOME SCOPE FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT
AND DISCRETION IN DETERMINING, UPON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS, WHETHER
THE CASE IS ONE REQUIRING AN AFFIRMATIVE ORDER, AND IN CHOOSING THE
PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF TO BE ORDERED.  HENCE, UPON THE CHALLENGE
OF THE AFFIRMATIVE PART OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD, WE LOOK TO THE ACT
ITSELF, READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY, TO ASCERTAIN ITS POLICY, AND
TO THE FACTS WHICH THE BOARD HAS FOUND, TO SEE WHETHER THEY AFFORD A
BASIS FOR ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE ACTION ORDERED IS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS
OF CARRYING OUT THAT POLICY. 

THE HISTORY OF THE ACT AND ITS LANGUAGE SHOW THAT ITS RULING PURPOSE
WAS TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY SECURING TO EMPLOYEES THE RIGHTS
ESTABLISHED BY SEC. 7 TO ORGANIZE, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES FOR THAT AND OTHER PURPOSES.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 23, 33.  THIS APPEARS BOTH
FROM THE FORMAL DECLARATION OF POLICY IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., SUPRA, 22-24,
AND FROM SEC. 7, IN ITSELF A DECLARATION OF THE POLICY WHICH, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH SEC. 10(C), IT ADOPTS AS THE CONTROLLING GUIDE TO
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. 

BEFORE ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT THIS COURT HAD
RECOGNIZED THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF A "COMPANY UNION," DOMINATED BY THE
EMPLOYER, MAY BE A READY AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF OBSTRUCTING SELF
ORGANIZATION OF EMPLOYEES AND THEIR CHOICE OF THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  SECTION 2(3) OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT OF 1926, HAD PROVIDED THAT REPRESENTATIVES, FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE ACT, SHOULD BE DESIGNATED BY EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES "WITHOUT
INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE, OR COERCION EXERCISED BY EITHER PARTY OVER THE
SELF-ORGANIZATION OR DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES BY THE OTHER."  WE
HAD HELD THAT IN ENFORCING THIS PROVISION, EMPLOYER RECOGNITION OF A
COMPANY UNION MIGHT BE ENJOINED AND THE UNION "DISESTABLISHED," AS AN
APPROPRIATE MEANS OF PREVENTING INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS SECURED TO
EMPLOYEES BY THE STATUTE.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY
& S.S. CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 560; SEE ALSO VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 542 ET SEQ. 

CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, HAD IN MIND
THE EXPERIENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AND
DECLARED THAT THE FORMER WAS "AN AMPLIFICATION AND FURTHER
CLARIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES" OF THE LATTER.  REPORT OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR, H.R. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 3.  IT HAD
BEFORE IT THE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE WHICH HAD EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE
OF UNION RECOGNITION IN SECURING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, REPORT OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, S. REP. 573, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 17, AND THERE WERE THEN AVAILABLE DATA SHOWING THAT ONCE AN
EMPLOYER HAS CONFERRED RECOGNITION ON A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION IT HAS
A MARKED ADVANTAGE OVER ANY OTHER IN SECURING THE ADHERENCE OF
EMPLOYEES, AND HENCE IN PREVENTING THE RECOGNITION OF ANY OTHER.  FN2
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT CONTINUED AND AMPLIFIED THE POLICY OF
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT BY ITS DECLARATION IN SEC. 7, AND BY PROVIDING
GENERALLY IN SEC. 8 THAT ANY INTERFERENCES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 AND SPECIFICALLY THE DOMINATION OR
INTERFERENCE WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION WERE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  TO SECURE TO EMPLOYEES THE
BENEFITS OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES' OWN CHOOSING, THE BOARD WAS
AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 10(C) TO ORDER THE ABANDONMENT OF UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES AND TO TAKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH WOULD CARRY OUT THE
POLICY OF THE ACT. 

IN RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THIS LATTER PROVISION THE SENATE
COMMITTEE CALLED ATTENTION TO THE DECREE WHICH, IN THE RAILWAY CLERKS
CASE, HAD COMPELLED THE EMPLOYER TO "DISESTABLISH ITS COMPANY UNION AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES."  REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR, SUPRA.  THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR
ON THIS FEATURE OF THE ACT, AFTER POINTING OUT THAT COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IS "A SHAM WHEN THE EMPLOYER SITS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TABLE
BY SUPPORTING A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH HE DEALS," DECLARED:
"THE ORDERS WILL OF COURSE BE ADAPTED TO THE NEED OF THE INDIVIDUAL
CASE; THEY MAY INCLUDE SUCH MATTERS AS REFRAINING FROM COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING WITH A MINORITY GROUP, RECOGNITION OF THE AGENCY CHOSEN BY
THE MAJORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, POSTING OF
APPROPRIATE BULLETINS, REFRAINING FROM BARGAINING WITH AN ORGANIZATION
CORRUPTED BY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES."  REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
LABOR, SUPRA, PP. 18, 24. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF THE PRESENT ORDER ARE
OF A KIND CONTEMPLATED BY CONGRESS IN THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 10(C) AND
ARE WITHIN ITS TERMS.  THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FINDINGS
ADEQUATELY SUPPORT THEM. 

THE BOARD'S SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS OF FACT FULLY SUSTAIN ITS CONCLUSION
THAT RESPONDENTS HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, BY ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, WHICH THEY DOMINATED THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY, AND TO WHOSE
FINANCIAL SUPPORT THEY HAD CONTRIBUTED; AND THAT THEY HAD INTERFERED
WITH, RESTRAINED AND COERCED THEIR EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHTS CONFIRMED BY SEC. 7 TO FORM FOR THEMSELVES A LABOR ORGANIZATION
AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REPEAT IN FULL DETAIL THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE
FINDINGS.  THEY SHOW THAT BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, RESPONDENTS, WHOSE EMPLOYEES WERE UNORGANIZED, INITIATED
A PROJECT FOR THEIR ORGANIZATION UNDER COMPANY DOMINATION.  IN THE
COURSE OF ITS EXECUTION OFFICERS OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF RESPONDENT
WERE ACTIVE IN PROMOTING THE PLAN, IN URGING EMPLOYEES TO JOIN, IN THE
PREPARATION OF THE DETAILS OF ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING THE BY-LAWS, IN
PRESIDING OVER ORGANIZATION MEETINGS, AND IN SELECTING EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ORGANIZATION. 

THE BY-LAWS AND REGULATIONS PROVIDED THAT ALL MOTORBUS OPERATORS,
MAINTENANCE MEN AND CLERICAL EMPLOYEES, AFTER THREE MONTHS SERVICE,
AUTOMATICALLY BECAME MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND THAT ONLY
EMPLOYEES WERE ELIGIBLE TO ACT AS EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES.  NO
PROVISIONS WERE MADE FOR MEETINGS OF MEMBERS, NOR WAS A PROCEDURE
ESTABLISHED WHEREBY EMPLOYEES MIGHT INSTRUCT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, OR
WHEREBY THOSE REPRESENTATIVES MIGHT DISSEMINATE INFORMATION OR
REPORTS.  GRIEVANCES WERE TO BE TAKEN UP WITH REGIONAL COMMITTEES WITH
FINAL REVIEW BY A JOINT REVIEWING COMMITTEE MADE UP OF AN EQUAL NUMBER
OF REGIONAL CHAIRMEN AND OF MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES, BUT REVIEW IN
THOSE CASES COULD NOT BE SECURED UNLESS THERE WAS A JOINT SUBMISSION OF
THE CONTROVERSY BY EMPLOYEE AND MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES. 

CHANGE OF THE BY-LAWS WITHOUT EMPLOYER CONSENT WAS PRECLUDED BY A
PROVISION THAT AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ONLY ON A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE
JOINT REVIEWING COMMITTEE, COMPOSED OF EQUAL NUMBERS OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES.  EMPLOYEES PAID NO DUES, ALL THE ASSOCIATION
EXPENSES BEING BORNE BY THE MANAGEMENT. 

ALTHOUGH THE ASSOCIATION WAS IN TERMS CREATED AS A BARGAINING AGENCY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF "PROVIDING ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION" FOR RESPONDENTS'
EMPLOYEES BY "SECURING FOR THEM SATISFACTORY ADJUSTMENT OF ALL
CONTROVERSIAL MATTERS," IT HAS FUNCTIONED ONLY TO SETTLE INDIVIDUAL
GRIEVANCES.  ON THE ONE RECORDED OCCASION WHEN THE EMPLOYEES SOUGHT A
WAGE INCREASE, THE COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES PREVENTED ITS CONSIDERATION
BY REFUSING TO JOIN IN THE SUBMISSION TO THE JOINT REVIEWING
COMMITTEE.    IN MAY, 1935, SHORTLY BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT,
CERTAIN OF RESPONDENTS' PITTSBURGH EMPLOYEES ORGANIZED A LOCAL UNION,
LOCAL DIVISION NO. 1063 OF THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET,
ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND CONTINUED TO HOLD MEETINGS OF THE
ORGANIZATION AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ACT ON JULY 5, 1935.  BEFORE AND
AFTER THAT DATE, RESPONDENTS' OFFICERS WERE ACTIVE IN WARNING EMPLOYEES
AGAINST JOINING THE UNION AND IN THREATENING THEM WITH DISCHARGE IF
THEY SHOULD JOIN, AND IN KEEPING THE UNION MEETINGS UNDER
SURVEILLANCE. 

SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE."  WHETHER THE CONTINUED
RECOGNITION OF THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION BY RESPONDENTS WOULD IN ITSELF
BE A CONTINUING OBSTACLE TO THE EXERCISE OF THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF
SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES
OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, IS AN INFERENCE OF FACT TO BE DRAWN BY THE BOARD
FROM THE EVIDENCE REVIEWED IN ITS SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS.  SEE SWAYNE &
HOYT V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT THERE ARE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE BOARD WOULD NOT
BE WARRANTED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE WAS ANY OCCASION FOR WITHDRAWAL
OF EMPLOYER RECOGNITION OF AN EXISTING UNION BEFORE AN ELECTION BY
EMPLOYEES UNDER SEC. 9(C), EVEN THOUGH IT HAD ORDERED THE EMPLOYER TO
CEASE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.  BUT HERE RESPONDENTS, BY UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES, HAVE SUCCEEDED IN ESTABLISHING A COMPANY UNION SO ORGANIZED
THAT IT IS INCAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING AS A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE OF
EMPLOYEES.  WITH NO PROCEDURE FOR MEETINGS OF MEMBERS OR FOR
INSTRUCTING EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES, AND WITH NO POWER TO BRING
GRIEVANCES BEFORE THE JOINT REVIEWING COMMITTEE WITHOUT EMPLOYER
CONSENT, THE ASSOCIATION COULD NOT WITHOUT AMENDMENT OF ITS BY-LAWS BE
USED AS A MEANS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 7;
AND AMENDMENT COULD NOT BE HAD WITHOUT THE EMPLOYER'S APPROVAL. 

IN VIEW OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE BOARD COULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT
CONTINUED RECOGNITION OF THE ASSOCIATION WOULD SERVE AS A MEANS OF
THWARTING THE POLICY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY ENABLING THE EMPLOYER
TO INDUCE ADHERENCE OF EMPLOYEES TO THE ASSOCIATION IN THE MISTAKEN
BELIEF THAT IT WAS TRULY REPRESENTATIVE AND AFFORDED AN AGENCY FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND THUS TO PREVENT SELF-ORGANIZATION.  THE
INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN WERE FOR THE BOARD AND NOT THE COURTS.  SWAYNE &
HOYT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THERE WAS AMPLE BASIS FOR ITS CONCLUSION
THAT WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION OF THE ASSOCIATION BY RESPONDENTS,
ACCOMPANIED BY SUITABLE PUBLICITY, WAS AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO GIVE
EFFECT TO THE POLICY OF THE ACT. 

AS THE ORDER DID NOT RUN AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION IT IS NOT ENTITLED
TO NOTICE AND HEARING.  ITS PRESENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO
ENABLE THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER RESPONDENTS HAD VIOLATED THE
STATUTE OR TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE ORDER AGAINST THEM.  SEE GENERAL
INVESTMENT CO. V. LAKE SHORE & M.S. RY. CO., 260 U.S. 261, 285-286. 

RESPONDENTS SUGGEST THAT THE CASE HAS BECOME MOOT BY REASON OF THE
FACT THAT SINCE THE BOARD MADE ITS ORDER IT HAS CERTIFIED THE
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MOTORBUS
DRIVERS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AND THAT IN A PENDING PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 9(C) FOR THE
CERTIFICATION OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OTHER PITTSBURGH EMPLOYEES, TO
WHICH THE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION IS NOT A PARTY, THE PENNSYLVANIA
COMPANY AND LOCAL DIVISION NO. 1063, WHO ARE PARTIES, HAVE MADE NO
OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION.  BUT AN ORDER OF THE CHARACTER
MADE BY THE BOARD, LAWFUL WHEN MADE, DOES NOT BECOME MOOT BECAUSE IT IS
OBEYED OR BECAUSE CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE NEED FOR IT
MAY BE LESS THAN WHEN MADE. 

WE HAVE CONSIDERED BUT FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO COMMENT UPON OTHER
OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER, OF LESS MOMENT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  10(C).  THE TESTIMONY TAKEN BY SUCH MEMBER, AGENT OR
AGENCY OR THE BOARD SHALL BE REDUCED TO WRITING AND FILED WITH THE
BOARD.  THEREAFTER, IN ITS DISCRETION, THE BOARD UPON NOTICE MAY TAKE
FURTHER TESTIMONY OR HEAR ARGUMENT.  IF UPON ALL THE TESTIMONY TAKEN
THE BOARD SHALL BE OF THE OPINION THAT ANY PERSON NAMED IN THE
COMPLAINT HAS ENGAGED IN OR IS ENGAGING IN ANY SUCH UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE, THEN THE BOARD SHALL STATE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND SHALL
ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED ON SUCH PERSON AN ORDER REQUIRING SUCH
PERSON TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND TO TAKE
SUCH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY, AS WILL EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THIS ACT...." 

FN2  ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RECOGNITION IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SEE
COMMONS AND ANDREWS, PRINCIPLES OF LABOR LEGISLATION (HARPER & BROS.,
4TH ED., 1936), P. 372; CATLIN, THE LABOR PROBLEM (HARPER & BROS.,
1935), PP. 431, 522; RUFENER, PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMICS (HOUGHTON-MIFFLIN
CO., 1927), P. 399; TWENTIETH CENTURY FUND, INC., LABOR AND THE
GOVERNMENT (1935), P. 47; YODER, LABOR ECONOMICS AND LABOR PROBLEMS
(1933), P. 443; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS,
CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPANY UNIONS, BULLETIN NO. 634, CHS.  VII, XXII. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :






















LABOR BD. V. PACIFIC LINES, 303 U.S. 272 


NO. 504.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 91
F.2D 458, REVERSED. 


1.  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES,
ANTE, P. 261, FOLLOWED. 

2.  THE EVIDENCE AND SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS IN THIS CASE SUPPORT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THAT CONTINUED
RECOGNITION OF A COMPANY UNION BY AN EMPLOYER WOULD BE A CONTINUING
OBSTACLE TO THE EXERCISE OF THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION
AND OF COLLECTIVELY BARGAINING THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING, AND JUSTIFIED ITS ORDER REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO WITHDRAW
ALL RECOGNITION OF SUCH UNION AND GIVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF THE
WITHDRAWAL TO EMPLOYEES.  P. 275. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PACIFIC GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 679, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SETTING ASIDE, IN
PART, AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, UPON A PETITION
FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE, WHICH COMES HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, PRESENTS THE SAME ISSUES DISCUSSED IN NO. 413,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, ANTE,
P. 261, BUT ON A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT STATE OF FACTS.  THE ONLY QUESTION
REQUIRING SEPARATE CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER, IN THE CASE IN WHICH THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS ORDERED RESPONDENT TO CEASE CERTAIN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, INCLUDING THE DOMINATION AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT
OF A COMPANY UNION, THE FACTS JUSTIFY ITS FURTHER ORDER THAT RESPONDENT
WITHDRAW ALL RECOGNITION OF THE UNION AND GIVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF
THE WITHDRAWAL TO EMPLOYEES. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUSTAINED THE BOARD'S
FINDINGS AND ALL OF ITS ORDER EXCEPT THE AFFIRMATIVE PARTS RELATING TO
WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION OF THE COMPANY UNION, WHICH IT SET ASIDE.  91
F.(2D) 458.  THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON THE BOARD BY SEC. 10(C) OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TO DIRECT WITHDRAWAL OF EMPLOYER
RECOGNITION WHEN SUCH AN ORDER WILL CARRY OUT THE POLICIES OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT WAS CONSIDERED AND SUSTAINED IN THE
PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES CASE, SUPRA.  THE QUESTION CALLING FOR
ATTENTION HERE IS WHETHER THE FACTS FOUND BY THE BOARD AFFORD A BASIS
FOR ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE POLICIES OF THE ACT WILL BE EFFECTUATED BY
THE PRESENT ORDER. 

THE FINDINGS SHOW THAT RESPONDENT, AN INTERSTATE CARRIER BY MOTOR
BUS, TOOK AN ACTIVE AND LEADING PART IN THE ORGANIZATION IN 1933 OF THE
DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION, A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES; THAT
RESPONDENT HAD SINCE CONTINUOUSLY INTERFERED WITH AND DOMINATED THE
INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND CONTRIBUTED TO ITS
SUPPORT; THAT THROUGH SUCH DOMINATION IT HAD OBTAINED A "WORKING
AGREEMENT" WITH THE ASSOCIATION IN WHICH IT WAS STIPULATED THAT
GRIEVANCES OF ANY EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE PRESENTED FIRST TO HIS SUPERIOR
OFFICER AND THEN TO RESPONDENT'S PRESIDENT, WHOSE DECISION SHOULD BE
FINAL. 

BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, RESPONDENT
TWICE MADE SUCCESSFUL USE OF THE ASSOCIATION AS A MEANS TO FORESTALL
ATTEMPTS TO ORGANIZE ITS EMPLOYEES, ONE IN 1933 BY THE BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND FIREMEN, AND ANOTHER IN 1934 BY THE EMPLOYEES
THEMSELVES WHO SOUGHT TO ESTABLISH A BROTHERHOOD OF MOTOR COACH
OPERATORS.  RESPONDENT'S OFFICERS WERE ACTIVE IN PERSUADING,
THREATENING AND COERCING EMPLOYEES TO JOIN OR REMAIN MEMBERS OF THE
DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION, AND NOT TO JOIN THE RIVAL UNIONS.  IN 1935,
FOLLOWING THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THERE WAS A
RENEWED BUT UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT BY RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES TO ESTABLISH
AN ORGANIZATION AFFILIATED WITH THE BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
AND FIREMEN.  THE ATTEMPT WAS MET BY PERSUASIONS AND WARNINGS OF
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, BY ITS OFFICERS, NOT TO JOIN THE NEW UNION, AND
BY THREATS OF DISCHARGE IF THEY SHOULD JOIN.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT THE
RESPONDENT HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(1), (2), AND ORDERED THE CESSATION OF THESE PRACTICES AND WITHDRAWAL
OF RESPONDENT'S RECOGNITION OF THE DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION. 

WHILE THE FORMAL PROVISIONS, IN CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS, FOR
INSURING EMPLOYER CONTROL OF THE COMPANY UNION IN THE PENNSYLVANIA CASE
ARE WANTING HERE, THE RECORD SHOWS, AS THE BOARD FOUND, THAT EMPLOYER
CONTROL OF THE DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION WAS NONE THE LESS EFFECTIVE. 
DURING A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS IT HAD BEEN SUCCESSFULLY USED BY
RESPONDENT AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR PREVENTING THREE SUCCESSIVE ATTEMPTS
FOR THE ORGANIZATION BY RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES OF A UNION FREE FROM
COMPANY DOMINATION.  IN ORDERING WITHDRAWAL OF RECOGNITION OF THE
DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION BY RESPONDENT, THE BOARD POINTED OUT THAT A MERE
ORDER TO CEASE THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES "WOULD NOT SET FREE THE
EMPLOYEE'S IMPULSE TO SEEK THE ORGANIZATION WHICH WOULD MOST
EFFECTIVELY REPRESENT HIM"; THAT CONTINUED RECOGNITION OF THE DRIVERS'
ASSOCIATION WOULD PROVIDE RESPONDENT "WITH A DEVICE BY WHICH ITS POWER
MAY NOW BE MADE EFFECTIVE UNOBTRUSIVELY, ALMOST WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION
ON ITS PART.  EVEN THOUGH HE WOULD NOT HAVE FREELY CHOSEN" THE
ASSOCIATION "AS AN INITIAL PROPOSITION, THE EMPLOYEE, ONCE HAVING
CHOSEN, MAY BY FORCE OF A TIMOROUS HABIT, BE HELD FIRMLY TO HIS
CHOICE.  THE EMPLOYEE MUST BE RELEASED FROM THESE COMPULSIONS." 

WHETHER THE CONTINUED RECOGNITION OF THE DRIVERS' ASSOCIATION BY
RESPONDENT WOULD BE A CONTINUING OBSTACLE TO THE EXERCISE OF THE
EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, WAS AN INFERENCE OF FACT
WHICH THE BOARD COULD DRAW IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.
CANNOT SAY THAT THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION WAS WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE AND IN THE SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS WHICH RESPONDENT DOES NOT
CHALLENGE.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, 303 U.S. 276 


NO. 439.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 326
PA. 260 -  192 A. 256, AFFIRMED. 


1.  MONEYS DUE BY A DEFENDANT IN A SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT,
TO CERTAIN BONDHOLDERS WHOSE WHEREABOUTS WERE UNKNOWN, WERE BY
DIRECTION OF THE COURT PAID INTO ITS REGISTRY.  UNCLAIMED FOR MORE THAN
FIVE YEARS, THE FUND WAS DEPOSITED IN THE U.S. TREASURY, AS REQUIRED BY
R.S. SEC. 996.  UNDER THAT SECTION THE MONEY REMAINS SUBJECT TO THE
ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO BE PAID TO THE PERSONS ENTITLED TO IT
UPON FULL PROOF OF THEIR RIGHT.  IN THE EXERCISE OF A JURISDICTION
CONFERRED BY STATE STATUTE, A STATE COURT SUBSEQUENTLY DECREED ESCHEAT
OF THE FUND AND DIRECTED THE STATE ESCHEATOR TO APPLY TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR AN ORDER THAT THE MONEY BE PAID TO HIM.  THERE WAS NO
CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF ACTUAL OR POSSIBLE ESCHEAT
TO THE UNITED STATES, OR THAT IT HAD ANY INTEREST IN THE MONEY ADVERSE
TO THE UNKNOWN BONDHOLDERS.  HELD, THAT THE DECREE OF THE STATE COURT
WAS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE FEDERAL COURT NOR AN
INVASION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  PP. 280, 282. 

2.  WHILE A FEDERAL COURT WHICH HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF PROPERTY IN
THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IS SAID TO ACQUIRE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION,
THE JURISDICTION IS EXCLUSIVE ONLY IN SO FAR AS RESTRICTION OF THE
POWER OF OTHER COURTS IS NECESSARY FOR APPROPRIATE CONTROL AND
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE FEDERAL COURT.  P. 281. 

UNITED STATES V. KLEIN, ESCHEATOR OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE AFFIRMING A DECREE DECLARING AN ESCHEAT OF
CERTAIN MONEYS, THERETOFORE DEPOSITED IN THE FEDERAL TREASURY PURSUANT
TO R.S. SEC. 996, AND AUTHORIZING THE STATE ESCHEATOR TO PROSECUTE THE
STATE'S CLAIM TO THEM.  THE UNITED STATES APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE
PROCEEDINGS BELOW, ASSERTING JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTIONS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER STATUTES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, PURDON'S PENN.  STATUTES, TIT. 27, SECS. 41, 45, 282,
334, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY AUTHORIZE INTERFERENCE WITH A
FEDERAL COURT AND AN INVASION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES,
IN SO FAR AS THEY PURPORT TO CONFER JURISDICTION ON A STATE TRIBUNAL TO
DECLARE THE ESCHEAT OF MONEYS DEPOSITED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE FEDERAL
COURT AND LATER COVERED INTO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY SECURED BONDHOLDERS IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TO COMPEL PAYMENT OF THE BONDS BY A DEFENDANT ON
THE GROUND THAT IT HAD APPROPRIATED THE SECURITY TO ITSELF, A DECREE
WAS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER BONDHOLDERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, WITH PROVISION FOR NOTICE TO THE LATTER THAT THEY FILE THEIR
CLAIMS IN THE SUIT.  BROWN V. PENNSYLVANIA CANAL CO., 229 FED. 444;
PENNSYLVANIA CANAL CO. V. BROWN, 235 FED. 669; BROWN V. PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO., 250 FED. 513.  IT APPEARING THAT CERTAIN OF THE BONDHOLDERS HAD
NOT FILED THEIR CLAIMS AND COULD NOT BE FOUND, THE DEFENDANT WAS
DIRECTED BY THE COURT TO PAY INTO ITS REGISTRY THE MONEY DUE TO SUCH
BONDHOLDERS, WHICH WAS THEN PLACED IN A DESIGNATED DESPOSITARY OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN THE NAME AND TO THE CREDIT OF THE COURT, PURSUANT TO
R.S. SEC. 995, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 851.  ON JUNE 30, 1926, THE FUND WAS
DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES AS REQUIRED BY R.S. SEC.
996, 28 U.S.C., SEC. 852, IN THE CASE OF FUNDS PAID INTO COURT AND
UNCLAIMED FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. 

IN 1934 THE PRESENT APPELLEE, AS ESCHEATOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, PROCEEDING UNDER THE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES WHICH
AUTHORIZE THE ESCHEAT OF MONEYS PAID INTO COURT WHERE THE PERSONS
ENTITLED TO THEM HAVE REMAINED UNKNOWN FOR SEVEN YEARS, PETITIONED THE
DISTRICT COURT TO DECLARE AN ESCHEAT OF THE FUND.  THE COURT DISMISSED
THE PETITION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON THE GROUNDS THAT APPELLEE HAD NOT
YET PROCURED A DECLARATION OF ESCHEAT, WHICH WAS DEEMED NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO PERFECT THE COMMONWEALTH'S TITLE, AND THAT THE COURT WAS
WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO MAKE SUCH A DECLARATION.  THEREUPON THE
PENNSYLVANIA ESCHEAT STATUTES WERE AMENDED, ACT OF JUNE 28, 1935, P.L.
475, TO CONFER UPON THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JURISDICTION TO DECREE AN
ESCHEAT OF MONEYS DEPOSITED IN THE CUSTODY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF ANY
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH.  FN1 

THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY APPELLEE IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS, NO. 5, OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, UPON A PETITION SETTING OUT THE
FACTS ALREADY DETAILED AND PRAYING A DECLARATION THAT THE FUND HAD
ESCHEATED TO THE COMMONWEALTH.  THE UNITED STATES APPEARED IN THE SUIT
AND MOVED TO DISMISS THE PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE COURT
WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ESCHEAT MONEYS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED
STATES OR OF ITS COURTS.  THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
GRANTING THE MOTION WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
WHICH HELD THAT THE STATUTES RELATING TO ESCHEAT OF FUNDS IN THE
CUSTODY OF FEDERAL COURTS, CONFERRED JURISDICTION ON THE COURT TO
DECLARE THE ESCHEAT AND WAS SUBJECT TO NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY
SINCE EXERCISE OF THAT JURISDICTION INVOLVED NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE
FEDERAL COURT AND NO ATTEMPTED CONTROL OVER FUNDS IN ITS CUSTODY.  322
PA. 481; 192 ATL. 256. 

THE UNITED STATES THEN FILED AN ANSWER AND UPON A TRIAL OF THE ISSUES
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GAVE ITS DECREE DECLARING THAT THE FUND HAD
ESCHEATED TO THE COMMONWEALTH AND THAT APPELLEE HAD AUTHORITY TO CLAIM
IT, AND DIRECTING HIM TO APPLY TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR AN ORDER THAT
THE MONEYS BE PAID TO HIM AS ESCHEATOR.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED SO MUCH OF THE DECREE AS DECLARED THE ESCHEAT AND AUTHORIZED
APPELLEE TO PROSECUTE THE CLAIM OF THE COMMONWEALTH TO THE MONEYS.  326
PA. 260; 192 ATL. 256.  FROM ITS DECREE OF AFFIRMANCE THE CASE COMES
HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

MONEYS PAID INTO FEDERAL COURTS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED AND THEY ARE
UNCLAIMED FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, THEY SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE
TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT
FURTHER PROVIDES:  "ANY PERSON OR PERSONS OR ANY CORPORATION OR COMPANY
ENTITLED TO ANY SUCH MONEY MAY, ON PETITION TO THE COURT FROM WHICH THE
MONEY WAS RECEIVED  ...  AND UPON NOTICE TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
AND FULL PROOF OF RIGHT THERETO, OBTAIN AN ORDER OF COURT DIRECTING THE
PAYMENT OF SUCH MONEY TO THE CLAIMANT, AND THE MONEY DEPOSITED AS
AFORESAID SHALL CONSTITUTE AND BE A PERMANENT APPROPRIATION FOR
PAYMENTS IN OBEDIENCE TO SUCH ORDERS."  FN2 

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT, IN PLEADING OR ARGUMENT, SET UP ANY RIGHT,
TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE PRESENT FUND ADVERSE TO THE UNKNOWN
BONDHOLDERS.  IT DOES NOT CONTEND THAT THE FUND HAS BEEN OR CAN BE
ESCHEATED TO THE UNITED STATES.  IT AGREES WITH THE CONTENTION OF
APPELLEE, WHICH WE ACCEPT AS CORRECTLY INTERPRETING THE APPLICABLE
FEDERAL STATUTES, THAT THE FUND REMAINS SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT TO BE PAID TO THE PERSONS LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO IT UPON
PROOF OF THEIR OWNERSHIP.  BUT IT INSISTS HERE, AS IN THE STATE COURTS,
THAT THE DECREE DECLARING THE ESCHEAT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
INTERFERENCE WITH A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AN INVASION OF ITS
SOVEREIGNTY, AND IS AN ATTEMPT, VOID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, TO
EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ABSENT BONDHOLDERS AND THE MONEYS,
NEITHER OF WHICH ARE SHOWN TO BE WITHIN THE STATE. 

WHILE A FEDERAL COURT WHICH HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF PROPERTY IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE CONSTITUTION
AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES IS SAID TO ACQUIRE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION, THE JURISDICTION IS EXCLUSIVE ONLY IN SO FAR AS
RESTRICTION OF THE POWER OF OTHER COURTS IS NECESSARY FOR THE FEDERAL
COURT'S APPROPRIATE CONTROL AND DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY.  PENN
GENERAL CASUALTY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA EX REL. SCHNADER, 294 U.S. 189;
SEE LEADVILLE COAL CO. V. MCCREERY, 141 U.S. 475, 477.  OTHER COURTS
HAVING JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY DO NOT,
BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS POSSESSED BY A FEDERAL COURT, LOSE POWER TO
RENDER ANY JUDGMENT NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THAT COURT'S AUTHORITY TO
DECIDE QUESTIONS WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION AND TO MAKE EFFECTIVE SUCH
DECISIONS BY ITS CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY.  PENN GENERAL CASUALTY CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA EX REL. SCHNADER, SUPRA; SEE HEIDRITTER V. ELIZABETH OIL
CLOTH CO., 112 U.S. 294, 304; CF. BUCK V. COLBATH, 3 WALL.  334, 342;
RIEHLE V. MARGOLIES, 279 U.S. 218.  SIMILARLY A FEDERAL COURT MAY MAKE
A LIKE ADJUDICATION WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF A
STATE COURT.  YONLEY V. LAVENDER, 21 WALL.  276; BYERS V. MCAULEY, 149
U.S. 608, 620; SECURITY TRUST CO. V. BLACK RIVER NATIONAL BANK, 187
U.S. 211, 227; WATERMAN V. CANAL-LOUISIANA BANK & T. CO., 215 U.S. 33,
43-46; COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. BRADFORD, 297 U.S. 613, 619; GENERAL
BAKING CO. V. HARR, 300 U.S. 433. 

IN THIS CASE JURISDICTION WAS ACQUIRED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, BY
REASON OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, TO ADJUDICATE THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES.  THAT FUNCTION PERFORMED, IT NOW RETAINS JURISDICTION FOR THE
SOLE PURPOSE OF MAKING DISPOSITION OF THE FUND UNDER ITS CONTROL, BY
ORDERING PAYMENT OF IT TO THE PERSONS ENTITLED AS DIRECTED BY THE
FEDERAL STATUTE.  BEYOND WHATEVER IS NEEDFUL AND APPROPRIATE TO THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THAT END, THE JURISDICTION AND POSSESSION OF THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT OPERATE TO CURTAIL THE POWER WHICH THE
STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY EXERCISE OVER PERSONS AND PROPERTY WITHIN
ITS TERRITORY. 

THE PRESENT DECREE FOR ESCHEAT OF THE FUND IS NOT FOUNDED ON
POSSESSION AND DOES NOT DISTURB OR PURPORT TO AFFECT THE TREASURY'S
POSSESSION OF THE FUND OR THE DISTRICT COURT'S AUTHORITY OVER IT.  NOR
COULD IT DO SO.  PENN GENERAL CASUALTY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA;
UNITED STATES V. BANK OF NEW YORK & T. CO., 296 U.S. 463, 478.  AT MOST
THE DECREE OF THE STATE COURT PURPORTS TO BE AN ADJUDICATION UPON THE
TITLE OF THE UNKNOWN CLAIMANTS IN THE FUND BY A PROCEEDING IN THE
NATURE OF AN INQUEST OF OFFICE AS IN THE CASE OF ESCHEATED LANDS,
COMPARE SECURITY SAVINGS BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 263 U.S. 282, 287, WITH
HAMILTON V. BROWN, 161 U.S. 256, 263, AND TO CONFIRM THE AUTHORITY OF
APPELLEE TO MAKE CLAIM TO THE MONEYS.  IT IS SUBORDINATE TO EVERY RIGHT
ASSERTED AND DECREED IN THE FEDERAL SUIT AND EFFECTIVE ONLY SO FAR AS
IT ESTABLISHES RIGHTS DERIVED FROM THEM.  NEITHER THE NATURE OF THE
SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT NOR THE FEDERAL STATUTES PRECLUDE TRANSFER
OF OR CHANGE IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNKNOWN CLAIMANTS, EITHER BY
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT OR OTHERWISE, PENDING FINAL
DISPOSITION OF THE FUND BY THE FEDERAL COURT.  SECTION 996 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES CONTEMPLATES THAT CHANGES IN OWNERSHIP OF THE FUND MAY
OCCUR, SINCE IT PROVIDES THAT AFTER THE RIGHT TO THE FUND HAS BEEN
FINALLY ADJUDICATED AND IT HAS BEEN COVERED INTO THE TREASURY IT SHALL
BE PAID OVER TO ANY PERSON ENTITLED, UPON FULL PROOF OF HIS RIGHT TO
RECEIVE IT. 

SINCE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT SET UP AND DOES NOT ASSERT ANY CLAIM OR
INTEREST IN THE FUND APART FROM THE POSSESSION ACQUIRED UNDER THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES, IT
IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER NOW THE EFFECT ON THE DECREE OF THE STATE
COURT OF THE FUND'S ABSENCE FROM THE STATE, AND THE ABSENCE OR
NONRESIDENCE OF THE UNKNOWN CLAIMANTS, IF SUCH IS THE CASE.  ALL SUCH
QUESTIONS WILL BE OPEN AND MAY BE RAISED AND DECIDED WHENEVER
APPLICATION IS MADE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR PAYMENT OVER OF THE
FUND.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  AS AMENDED, THE STATUTES PROVIDE: 

"SEC. 41....  WHENEVER AN ESCHEAT HAS OCCURRED, OR SHALL OCCUR, OF
ANY MONEY OR PROPERTY DEPOSITED IN THE CUSTODY OF, OR UNDER THE CONTROL
OF, ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN AND FOR ANY DISTRICT WITHIN THIS
COMMONWEALTH, OR IN THE CUSTODY OF ANY DEPOSITORY, CLERK OR OTHER
OFFICER OF SUCH COURT, THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH
SUCH COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SITS, SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO
ASCERTAIN IF AN ESCHEAT HAS OCCURRED, AND TO ENTER A JUDGMENT OR DECREE
OF ESCHEAT IN FAVOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH. 

"SEC. 282....  AFTER THE OWNER, BENEFICIAL OWNER, OR PERSON ENTITLED
TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING NAMED MONEYS OR PROPERTY, SHALL BE AND REMAIN
UNKNOWN, OR THE WHEREABOUTS THEREOF SHALL HAVE BEEN UNKNOWN, FOR THE
PERIOD OF SEVEN SUCCESSIVE YEARS, SUCH MONEYS OR PROPERTY SHALL BE
ESCHEATABLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH, AND SHALL BE ESCHEATED IN THE MANNER
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, WITH INTEREST ACTUALLY ACCRUED THEREON TO THE
DATE OF THE DECREE FOR THE ESCHEAT OF THE SAME, NAMELY:... 

"(B)  ANY MONEYS, ESTATE, OR EFFECTS PAID INTO OR DEPOSITED IN ANY
COURT OF THIS COMMONWEALTH, OR IN ANY FEDERAL COURT IN AND FOR ANY
DISTRICT WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH, OR IN THE CUSTODY OF ANY OFFICER OF
ANY SUCH COURT. 

"SEC. 334.  THAT WHENSOEVER ANY MONEY, ESTATE OR EFFECTS, SHALL HAVE
BEEN, OR SHALL HEREAFTER BE PAID INTO, OR DEPOSITED IN THE CUSTODY OR
BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF ANY COURT OF THIS COMMONWEALTH, OR OF ANY COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES IN AND FOR ANY DISTRICT WITHIN THIS COMMONWEALTH,
OR SHALL BE IN THE CUSTODY OF ANY DEPOSITORY, REGISTRY, OR OF ANY
RECEIVER, CLERK, OR OTHER OFFICER OF ANY OF SAID COURTS, AND THE
RIGHTFUL OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF SHALL HAVE BEEN OR SHALL BE UNKNOWN
FOR THE SPACE OF SEVEN YEARS, THE SAME SHALL ESCHEAT TO THE
COMMONWEALTH, SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL DEMANDS ON THE SAME." 

FN2  THE PERMANENT APPROPRIATION REPEAL ACT, JUNE 26, 1934, C. 756,
48 STAT. 1224, 1230, SEC. 17, DECLARES THAT APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS
APPEARING ON THE BOOKS OF THE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING "UNCLAIMED MONEYS
OF INDIVIDUALS WHOSE WHEREABOUTS ARE UNKNOWN (JUSTICE)," "ARE
ABOLISHED, AND ANY UNOBLIGATED BALANCES UNDER SUCH ACCOUNTS AS OF JUNE
30, 1935, SHALL BE COVERED INTO A TRUST FUND RECEIPT ACCOUNT IN THE
TREASURY TO BE DESIGNATED 'UNCLAIMED MONEYS OF INDIVIDUALS WHOSE
WHEREABOUTS ARE UNKNOWN.'  ...  THERE ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE
APPROPRIATED, ANNUALLY, FROM SUCH ACCOUNT SUCH SUMS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
TO MEET ANY EXPENDITURES OF THE CHARACTER NOW CHARGEABLE TO THE
APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS ABOLISHED BY THIS SECTION...." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :




SAINT PAUL MERCURY INDEMNITY CO. V. RED CAB CO., 303 U.S. 283 


NO. 274.  SUBMITTED JANUARY 10, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  -
90 F.2D 229, REVERSED. 


1.  THERE IS A STRONG PRESUMPTION THAT THE PLAINTIFF IN A STATE COURT
HAS NOT CLAIMED A LARGE AMOUNT IN ORDER TO CONFER JURISDICTION BY
REMOVAL ON A FEDERAL COURT, AND THAT THE PARTIES HAVE NOT COLLUDED TO
THAT END.  P. 290. 

2.  THE STATUS OF THE CASE AS DISCLOSED BY THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
IS CONTROLLING IN THE CASE OF A REMOVAL, SINCE THE DEFENDANT MUST FILE
HIS PETITION BEFORE THE TIME FOR ANSWER OR FOREVER LOSE HIS RIGHT TO
REMOVE.  P. 291. 

3.  JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT ACQUIRED THROUGH REMOVAL IS
NOT LOST BY PLAINTIFF'S SUBSEQUENT REDUCTION OF HIS CLAIM TO LESS THAN
THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  P. 292. 

SAINT PAUL MERCURY INDEMNITY CO. V. RED CAB COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 669, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING AN APPEAL
FROM A JUDGMENT RECOVERED IN AN ACTION ON A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE.  THE
ACTION HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM A STATE COURT.  THE RESPONDENT HERE
CONCEDED THAT THE RULING BELOW WAS ERRONEOUS AND PRAYED THAT THE CAUSE
BE REMANDED FOR DECISION OF THE MERITS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW IS THAT, ALTHOUGH, AT THE TIME OF REMOVAL
OF A CAUSE FROM A STATE COURT, THE COMPLAINT DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT IN
CONTROVERSY REQUISITE TO THE FEDERAL COURT'S JURISDICTION, A SUBSEQUENT
AMENDMENT, REDUCING THE SUM CLAIMED TO SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THAT
AMOUNT, NECESSITATES REMAND TO THE STATE COURT.  WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH OUR DECISIONS AND WITH
THOSE OF OTHER FEDERAL COURTS. 

THE RESPONDENT, A CORPORATION OF INDIANA, ISSUED A SUMMONS OUT OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA, AGAINST THE PETITIONER, A
MINNESOTA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN INDIANA, AND ONE HARLAN AS ITS
AGENT.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE INDIANA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT AND HAD ENTERED
INTO A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE WITH THE PETITIONER, EVIDENCED BY A
BINDER, WHEREBY THE PETITIONER INSURED THE RESPONDENT AGAINST LOSS OR
EXPENSE BY REASON OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY
DAYS FROM DECEMBER 30, 1933, AND AGREED TO ACT FOR THE RESPONDENT IN
THE FILING OF REPORTS AND NOTICES UNDER THE ACT; THAT, DURING THE TERM
OF THE INSURANCE, EMPLOYES OF THE RESPONDENT HAD SUFFERED INJURY IN THE
COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT AND MADE CLAIMS THEREFOR; THAT THE PETITIONER HAD
BEEN NOTIFIED OF EACH INJURY AND INVESTIGATED IT IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION; THAT AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE CONTRACT THE
PETITIONER NOTIFIED THE RESPONDENT THAT IT WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE ANY OF
THE CLAIMS AND DENIED LIABILITY UNDER THE BINDER; THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE
RESPONDENT WAS COMPELLED TO EMPLOY ATTORNEYS, INVESTIGATORS, AND
MEDICAL ASSISTANTS TO INVESTIGATE AND SATISFY CLAIMS COVERED BY THE
CONTRACT AND TO PAY EMPLOYES WHO HAD SUFFERED INJURIES DURING THE
CONTRACT PERIOD, AND TO PAY, OR OBLIGATE ITSELF TO PAY, FOR MEDICAL,
HOSPITAL, OR DENTAL BILLS IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH INJURIES; TO THE
DAMAGE OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE SUM OF $4,000.  IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE
PETITIONER HAD ACTED, IN MAKING THE CONTRACT, THROUGH HARLAN, ITS
AUTHORIZED AGENT AND REPRESENTATIVE, AND AN ORDER WAS PRAYED THAT
HARLAN RETAIN ALL MONEYS DUE BY HIM TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ANSWERING ANY JUDGMENT WHICH MIGHT BE RECOVERED.  THE COMPLAINT
CONCLUDED BY DEMANDING $4,000 AND OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF.  UPON THE
PETITIONER'S TIMELY APPLICATION THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED TO THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN INDIANA.  THE RESPONDENT THEREAFTER
FILED AN AMENDED COMPLAINT, THE SUBSTANCE OF WHICH IS NOT NOW MATERIAL,
AND LATER A "SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FOR
DAMAGES," IN WHICH THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT WERE
REPEATED AND DAMAGES WERE CLAIMED IN THE SUM OF $4,000.  AN EXHIBIT WAS
ATTACHED WHICH GAVE THE NAMES OF THE EMPLOYES AND THE AMOUNTS EXPENDED
IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR ASSERTED INJURIES TOTALING $1,380.89.  THE
COURT DISMISSED HARLAN AS A DEFENDANT, TRANSFERRED THE CAUSE TO THE LAW
DOCKET, AND OVERRULED A DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT AS NOT STATING FACTS
SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE ANSWER DENIED THE
MAKING OF THE CONTRACT.  A JURY TRIAL WAS WAIVED AND THE COURT MADE
FINDINGS, STATED ITS CONCLUSIONS, AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE
RESPONDENT FOR $1,162.98.  THE PETITIONER APPEALED.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS REFUSED TO DECIDE THE MERITS ON THE GROUND THAT AS THE RECORD
SHOWED RESPONDENT'S CLAIM DID NOT EQUAL THE AMOUNT NECESSARY TO GIVE
THE DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION, THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMANDED TO
THE STATE COURT.  FN1 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS ONE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.  THE ACT
DEFINING THE JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES IS
SEC. 24 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  FN2  SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL, THE CODE
CONFERS JURISDICTION OF A SUIT OF A CIVIL NATURE, WHERE THE MATTER IN
CONTROVERSY EXCEEDS, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS, THE SUM OR VALUE
OF $3,000 AND IS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES. 

AUTHORITY FOR REMOVAL OF CERTAIN CAUSES FROM A STATE TO A FEDERAL
COURT WAS FIRST GIVEN BY SEC. 12 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789  FN3
WHICH PERMITTED REMOVAL OF A CIVIL SUIT, INSTITUTED BY A CITIZEN OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT, AGAINST A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER
STATE, WHERE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE EXCEEDED THE SUM OR VALUE OF $500,
EXCLUSIVE OF COSTS.  SUCH REMOVAL COULD BE HAD ONLY AT THE INSTANCE OF
THE NONRESIDENT DEFENDANT.  THE ACT OF JULY 27, 1866,  FN4 ENLARGED THE
PRIVILEGE OF REMOVAL BY PROVIDING THAT IF, IN SUCH A CIVIL SUIT, IT WAS
SHOWN THAT A NONRESIDENT DEFENDANT WAS PARTY TO A SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSY, WHICH COULD BE DETERMINED WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF OTHER
DEFENDANTS, THAT DEFENDANT MIGHT REMOVE THE CAUSE. 

THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1875  FN5  ALTERED PREEXISTING LAW TO PERMIT
SUITS INVOLVING A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES TO
BE REMOVED BY EITHER PARTY.  THE JUDICIARY ACTS OF 1887-1888  FN6
INCREASED THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT TO MORE THAN $2,000, EXCLUSIVE OF
INTEREST AND COSTS, AND CONFINED THE RIGHT OF REMOVAL TO A NONRESIDENT
DEFENDANT, AND THE JUDICIAL CODE INCREASED THE LIMIT TO OVER $3,000,
EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS, AND ALSO RESTRICTED THE PRIVILEGE TO
NONRESIDENT DEFENDANTS.  FN7  THE STATUTE GOVERNING DISMISSAL OR REMAND
FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION IS SEC. 37 OF THE CODE.  FN8 

"IF IN ANY SUIT COMMENCED IN A DISTRICT COURT, OR REMOVED FROM A
STATE COURT TO A DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT SHALL APPEAR
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SAID DISTRICT COURT, AT ANY TIME AFTER SUCH
SUIT HAS BEEN BROUGHT OR REMOVED THERETO, THAT SUCH SUIT DOES NOT
REALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY INVOLVE A DISPUTE OR CONTROVERSY PROPERLY
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SAID DISTRICT COURT, OR THAT THE PARTIES TO
SAID SUIT HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY OR COLLUSIVELY MADE OR JOINED, EITHER AS
PLAINTIFFS OR DEFENDANTS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A CASE COGNIZABLE
OR REMOVABLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER, THE SAID DISTRICT COURT SHALL PROCEED
NO FURTHER THEREIN, BUT SHALL DISMISS THE SUIT OR REMAND IT TO THE
COURT FROM WHICH IT WAS REMOVED, AS JUSTICE MAY REQUIRE, AND SHALL MAKE
SUCH ORDER AS TO COSTS AS SHALL BE JUST. 

THIS PROVISION FIRST APPEARED AS SEC. 5  FN9  OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3,
1875(SUPRA), AND SAVE FOR THE ELISION OF A CONCLUDING CLAUSE, AND THE
SUBSTITUTION OF "DISTRICT COURT" FOR "CIRCUIT COURT," IS IDENTICAL WITH
THAT SECTION.  IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE JUDICIARY ACTS OF 1887-1888,
SUPRA, AND HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY IN FORCE SINCE 1875.  IT ALTERED THE
PRACTICE BY REQUIRING THE COURT TO DISMISS OR REMAND OF ITS OWN MOTION
IN A PROPER CASE ALTHOUGH WANT OF JURISDICTION WAS NOT RAISED BY
APPROPRIATE MOTION OR BY PLEA OR ANSWER,  FN10  BUT DID NOT CHANGE THE
SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE COURT'S ACTION.  THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING
DISMISSAL OF A CAUSE INITIATED IN THE FEDERAL COURT OR THE REMAND OF
ONE BEGUN IN A STATE COURT HAVE REMAINED AS THEY WERE BEFORE THE

THE INTENT OF CONGRESS DRASTICALLY TO RESTRICT FEDERAL JURISDICTION
IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES HAS ALWAYS BEEN
RIGOROUSLY ENFORCED BY THE COURTS.  THE RULE GOVERNING DISMISSAL FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION IN CASES BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT IS THAT,
UNLESS THE LAW GIVES A DIFFERENT RULE, THE SUM CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF
CONTROLS  FN11  IF THE CLAIM IS APPARENTLY MADE IN GOOD FAITH.  FN12
IT MUST APPEAR TO A LEGAL CERTAINTY THAT THE CLAIM IS REALLY FOR LESS
THAN THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT TO JUSTIFY DISMISSAL.  FN13  THE
INABILITY OF PLAINTIFF TO RECOVER AN AMOUNT ADEQUATE TO GIVE THE COURT
JURISDICTION DOES NOT SHOW HIS BAD FAITH OR OUST THE JURISDICTION. 
FN14  NOR DOES THE FACT THAT THE COMPLAINT DISCLOSES THE EXISTENCE OF A
VALID DEFENSE TO THE CLAIM.  FN15  BUT IF, FROM THE FACE OF THE
PLEADINGS, IT IS APPARENT, TO A LEGAL CERTAINTY, THAT THE PLAINTIFF
CANNOT RECOVER THE AMOUNT CLAIMED, OR IF, FROM THE PROOFS, THE COURT IS
SATISFIED TO A LIKE CERTAINTY THAT THE PLAINTIFF NEVER WAS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER THAT AMOUNT, AND THAT HIS CLAIM WAS THEREFORE COLORABLE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONFERRING JURISDICTION, THE SUIT WILL BE DISMISSED.  FN16
EVENTS OCCURRING SUBSEQUENT TO THE INSTITUTION OF SUIT WHICH REDUCE THE
AMOUNT RECOVERABLE BELOW THE STATUTORY LIMIT DO NOT OUST JURISDICTION. 
FN17 

WHAT ALREADY HAS BEEN SAID, AND CIRCUMSTANCES LATER TO BE DISCUSSED,
LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A DISMISSAL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED
HAD THE SUIT BEEN BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT.  THE PRINCIPLES WHICH
GOVERN REMAND OF A REMOVED CAUSE, MORE URGENTLY REQUIRE THAT IT SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN REMANDED.  IN A CAUSE INSTITUTED IN THE FEDERAL COURT THE
PLAINTIFF CHOOSES HIS FORUM.  HE KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW WHETHER HIS CLAIM
IS WITHIN THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT AS TO AMOUNT.  HIS GOOD FAITH IN
CHOOSING THE FEDERAL FORUM IS OPEN TO CHALLENGE NOT ONLY BY RESORT TO
THE FACE OF HIS COMPLAINT, BUT BY THE FACTS DISCLOSED AT TRIAL, AND IF
FROM EITHER SOURCE IT IS CLEAR THAT HIS CLAIM NEVER COULD HAVE AMOUNTED
TO THE SUM NECESSARY TO GIVE JURISDICTION THERE IS NO INJUSTICE IN
DISMISSING THE SUIT.  INDEED, THIS IS THE COURT'S DUTY UNDER THE ACT OF
1875.  IN SUCH ORIGINAL ACTIONS IT MAY ALSO WELL BE THAT PLAINTIFF AND
DEFENDANT HAVE COLLUDED TO CONFER JURISDICTION BY THE METHOD OF THE ONE
CLAIMING A FICTITIOUS AMOUNT AND THE OTHER FAILING TO DENY THE VERACITY
OF THE AVERMENT OF AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.  UPON DISCLOSURE OF THAT
STATE OF FACTS THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS. 

A DIFFERENT SITUATION IS PRESENTED IN THE CASE OF A SUIT INSTITUTED
IN A STATE COURT AND THENCE REMOVED.  THERE IS A STRONG PRESUMPTION
THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT CLAIMED A LARGE AMOUNT IN ORDER TO CONFER
JURISDICTION ON A FEDERAL COURT OR THAT THE PARTIES HAVE COLLUDED TO
THAT END.  FN18 FOR IF SUCH WERE THE PURPOSE SUIT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
INSTITUTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN THE STATE BUT IN THE FEDERAL
COURT.  IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKLY THAT THE PARTIES WOULD PURSUE THIS
ROUNDABOUT AND TROUBLESOME METHOD TO GET INTO THE FEDERAL COURT BY
REMOVAL WHEN BY THE SAME DEVICE THE SUIT COULD BE INSTITUTED IN THAT
COURT.  FN19  MOREOVER, THE STATUS OF THE CASE AS DISCLOSED BY THE
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS CONTROLLING IN THE CASE OF A REMOVAL, SINCE
THE DEFENDANT MUST FILE HIS PETITION BEFORE THE TIME FOR ANSWER OR
FOREVER LOSE HIS RIGHT TO REMOVE.  FN20  OF COURSE, IF, UPON THE FACE
OF THE COMPLAINT, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE SUIT CANNOT INVOLVE THE
NECESSARY AMOUNT, REMOVAL WILL BE FUTILE AND REMAND WILL FOLLOW.  FN21
BUT THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE FACE OF THE COMPLAINT THAT THE
DEFENDANT HAS A VALID DEFENSE, IF ASSERTED, TO ALL OR A PORTION OF THE
CLAIM, OR THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE RULINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFTER
REMOVAL REDUCE THE AMOUNT RECOVERABLE BELOW THE JURISDICTIONAL
REQUIREMENT,  FN22  WILL NOT JUSTIFY REMAND.  AND THOUGH, AS HERE, THE
PLAINTIFF AFTER REMOVAL, BY STIPULATION, BY AFFIDAVIT, OR BY AMENDMENT
OF HIS PLEADINGS, REDUCES THE CLAIM BELOW THE REQUISITE AMOUNT, THIS
DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE DISTRICT COURT OF JURISDICTION.  FN23 

THUS EVENTS OCCURRING SUBSEQUENT TO REMOVAL WHICH REDUCE THE AMOUNT
RECOVERABLE, WHETHER BEYOND THE PLAINTIFF'S CONTROL OR THE RESULT OF
HIS VOLITION, DO NOT OUST THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION ONCE IT HAS
ATTACHED.  FN24  THIS IS WELL ILLUSTRATED BY KIRBY V. AMERICAN SODA
FOUNTAIN CO., 194 U.S. 141, 146, WHERE IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY KIRBY HE
ALLEGED THAT HE WAS INDUCED BY THE COMPANY'S FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO
AGREE TO THE EXCHANGE OF HIS APPARATUS FOR ONE MADE BY THE DEFENDANT
AND TO PAY $2025 IN ADDITION.  HE PRAYED THE CANCELLATION OF HIS
OBLIGATION TO PAY THE BALANCE OF $2025, DAMAGES OF $2500, AND GENERAL
RELIEF.  THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.  THE COMPANY
ANSWERED DENYING KIRBY'S CHARGES OF FRAUD, RELIED UPON A WRITTEN
AGREEMENT ALLEGED TO CONTAIN ALL THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, ASSERTED
FULL PERFORMANCE ON ITS PART, AND THAT HE HAD PAID BUT $325 ON HIS
OBLIGATION TO PAY $2025.  BY CROSS-COMPLAINT, THE COMPANY DEMANDED
$1700 AND INTEREST FROM KIRBY AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIEN ON THE
APPARATUS DELIVERED TO HIM.  KIRBY ANSWERED THAT HE HAD VOLUNTARILY
DISMISSED THE ORIGINAL SUIT BROUGHT BY HIM AND THAT THE CROSS-BILL WAS
NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT BECAUSE IT DID NOT CLAIM IN
EXCESS OF $2,000, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS.  THE PLEA WAS
OVERRULED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED ON THE CROSS-COMPLAINT.  IN AFFIRMING,
THE COURT REFERRED TO THE AMOUNT DEMANDED IN KIRBY'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
AND SAID:  "THE MATTER IN DISPUTE HAVING THUS BEEN MADE TO EXCEED THE
SUM OR VALUE OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS,
DEFENDANT PRESENTED HIS PETITION AND BOND FOR REMOVAL, AND THE CAUSE
WAS THEREUPON REMOVED.  THE JURISDICTION THUS ACQUIRED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT WAS NOT DIVESTED BY PLAINTIFF'S SUBSEQUENT ACTION."    FIFTY
YEARS EARLIER IN KANOUSE V. MARTIN, 15 HOW.  198, THE COURT HAD HELD
THAT VOLUNTARY REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT DEMANDED BELOW THE SUM NECESSARY
TO GIVE THE CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION COULD NOT DEFEAT THAT
JURISDICTION ONCE REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN PERFECTED.  IN RELIANCE
UPON THESE PRECEDENTS MANY CASES, CITED IN NOTE 23, HAVE BEEN DECIDED. 

WE THINK THIS WELL ESTABLISHED RULE IS SUPPORTED BY AMPLE REASON.  IF
THE PLAINTIFF COULD, NO MATTER HOW BONA FIDE HIS ORIGINAL CLAIM IN THE
STATE COURT, REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HIS DEMAND TO DEFEAT FEDERAL
JURISDICTION THE DEFENDANT'S SUPPOSED STATUTORY RIGHT OF REMOVAL WOULD
BE SUBJECT TO THE PLAINTIFF'S CAPRICE.  THE CLAIM, WHETHER WELL OR ILL
FOUNDED IN FACT, FIXES THE RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANT TO REMOVE, AND THE
PLAINTIFF OUGHT NOT TO BE ABLE TO DEFEAT THAT RIGHT AND BRING THE CAUSE
BACK TO THE STATE COURT AT HIS ELECTION.  IF HE DOES NOT DESIRE TO TRY
HIS CASE IN THE FEDERAL COURT HE MAY RESORT TO THE EXPEDIENT OF SUING
FOR LESS THAN THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, AND THOUGH HE WOULD BE JUSTLY
ENTITLED TO MORE, THE DEFENDANT CANNOT REMOVE.  FN25 

THIS VIEW IS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE AUTHORITIES AS TO CAUSES IN
WHICH JURISDICTION DEPENDS ON DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP.  IT UNIFORMLY
HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN A SUIT PROPERLY BEGUN IN THE FEDERAL COURT THE
CHANGE OF CITIZENSHIP OF A PARTY DOES NOT OUST THE JURISDICTION.  FN26
THE SAME RULE GOVERNS A SUIT ORIGINALLY BROUGHT IN A STATE COURT AND
REMOVED TO A FEDERAL COURT.  FN27 

THE DECISIONS AS TO REMAND OF A CAUSE REMOVED BECAUSE IT INVOLVES A
SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE CONCERNING REMAND
FOR LACK OF JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.  IN THE CASE OF A SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSY, IF, AFTER REMOVAL, THE PLAINTIFF DISCONTINUES OR DISMISSES
AS TO THE DEFENDANT WHO REMOVED, SO THAT THERE NO LONGER EXISTS ANY
SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY, THE CAUSE MUST BE REMANDED N28.  IF A CAUSE BE
REMOVED ON THIS GROUND THE WHOLE CASE, INCLUDING THE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN CITIZENS OF THE SAME STATE, IS TAKEN OVER BY THE FEDERAL COURT
ONLY BECAUSE ONE OR MORE OF THE DEFENDANTS IS ENTITLED TO INVOKE ITS
JURISDICTION.  THE BASIS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION FAILING, IT IS PROPER
THAT THE REMAINING PARTIES, WHO WERE INVOLUNTARILY TAKEN INTO THE
FEDERAL COURT, SHOULD, UPON THE CESSATION OF THE SEPARABLE CONTROVERSY
WHICH WAS THE CAUSE OF THEIR TRANSMISSION TO ANOTHER TRIBUNAL, HAVE
THEIR CASE RETURNED TO THE STATE COURT. 

THE PRESENT CASE WELL ILLUSTRATES THE PROPRIETY OF THE RULE THAT
SUBSEQUENT REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED CANNOT OUST THE DISTRICT
COURT'S JURISDICTION.  SUIT WAS INSTITUTED IN THE STATE COURT JUNE 5,
1934.  THE LUMP SUM CLAIMED WAS LARGELY IN EXCESS OF $3,000, EXCLUSIVE
OF INTEREST AND COSTS.  THE ITEMS WHICH WENT TO MAKE UP THE
RESPONDENT'S DEMAND FOR INDEMNITY WERE NUMEROUS AND EACH, IN TURN, WAS
ITSELF THE TOTAL OF SEVERAL ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE OR LIABILITY.  THERE
IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT ALL OF THE SUMS FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT WAS
CLAIMED HAD ACTUALLY BEEN EXPENDED PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF SUIT OR
THAT THE SUMS THEREAFTER TO BE EXPENDED HAD BEEN ASCERTAINED.  NOT
UNTIL THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN THE UNITED STATES
COURT, IN NOVEMBER 1934, DID THE RESPONDENT FURNISH A STATEMENT OF THE
PARTICULARS OF ITS CLAIM.  THAT STATEMENT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
MAKING OF A CLAIM IN GOOD FAITH FOR OVER $3,000 WHEN THE SUIT WAS
INSTITUTED.  NOR IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT THE PETITIONER WHEN IT REMOVED
THE CAUSE KNEW, OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE, THAT THE RESPONDENT'S CLAIM,
WHETHER WELL OR ILL FOUNDED IN LAW OR FACT, INVOLVED LESS THAN $3,000. 
ON THE FACE OF THE PLEADINGS PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT, AND A REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT
CLAIMED, AFTER REMOVAL, DID NOT TAKE AWAY THAT PRIVILEGE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  90 F.(2D) 229. 

FN2  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1911, C. 231, SEC. 24, AS AMENDED, 36 STAT.
1091, U.S.C. TIT. 28, SEC. 41. 

FN3  ACT OF SEPT. 24, 1789, SEC. 12, 1 STAT. 73, 79. 

FN4  C. 288, 14 STAT. 306. 

FN5  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1875, 18 STAT. 470. 

FN6  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, SEC. 1, 24 STAT. 552; ACT OF AUG. 13,
1888, SEC. 1, 25 STAT. 433. 

FN7  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1911, C. 231, SECS. 24 AND 28, 36 STAT. 1087,
1091, 1094. 

FN8  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1911, C. 231, SEC. 37, 36 STAT. 1098, U.S.C.
TIT. 28, SEC. 80. 

FN9  18 STAT. 472. 

FN10  PRIOR TO 1875 THE COURTS DID NOT ACT OF THEIR OWN MOTION BUT
UPON A MOTION TO DISMISS OR A PLEA IN ABATEMENT.  SMITH V. KERNOCHEN, 7
HOW.  198; MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., 298 U.S. 178,
183.  SINCE THEN IT HAS BEEN THEIR DUTY NOT ONLY TO ACT UPON A MOTION
TO DISMISS, (STEIGLEDER V. MCQUESTEN, 198 U.S. 141) OR, IF THE STATE
PRACTICE PERMITS, UPON A DENIAL OF JURISDICTION IN THE ANSWER, (GILBERT
V. DAVID, 235 U.S. 561; NORTH PACIFIC S.S. CO. V. SOLEY, 257 U.S. 216)
BUT TO ACT SUA SPONTE (MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP.,
SUPRA, 184) UPON ANY DISCLOSURE, WHETHER IN THE PLEADINGS OR THE
PROOFS, WHICH SATISFIES THE COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION, THAT THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IN FACT HAVE A CLAIM FOR THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT OR VALUE, AND KNEW, OR REASONABLY OUGHT TO HAVE
KNOWN, THAT FACT.  WILLIAMS V. NOTTAWA, 104 U.S. 209, 211; MCNUTT V.
GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., SUPRA, 184.  IT IS PLAINTIFF'S BURDEN
BOTH TO ALLEGE WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY THE FACTS CREATING
JURISDICTION, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT ASSERTED, AND, IF
APPROPRIATELY CHALLENGED, OR IF INQUIRY BE MADE BY THE COURT OF ITS OWN
MOTION, TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION.  MCNUTT V. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE
CORP., SUPRA, PP. 182-189; KVOS V. ASSOCIATED PRESS, 299 U.S. 269. 
EVEN AN APPELLATE COURT MUST NOTICE THE ABSENCE OF THE ELEMENTS
REQUISITE TO ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OR TO A REMOVAL.  WILLIAMS V.
NOTTAWA, SUPRA; ROBINSON V. ANDERSON, 121 U.S. 522; MCNUTT V. GENERAL
MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP., SUPRA; AMERICAN BRIDGE CO. V. HUNT, 130 FED.
302; INTERNATIONAL & G.N.R. CO. V. HOYLE, 149 FED. 180. 

FN11  WILSON V. DANIEL, 3 DALL.  401, 407, 408; BARRY V. EDMUNDS, 116
U.S. 550; SHERMAN V. CLARK, 3 MCLEAN 91, FED. CAS. 12763; STUCKERT V.
ALEXANDER, 4 F.SUPP.  172. 

FN12  PEELER V. LATHROP, 48 FED. 780; UNG LUNG CHUNG V. HOLMES, 98
FED. 323; WASHINGTON COUNTY V. WILLIAMS, 111 FED. 801; GREENE COUNTY
BANK V. TEASDALE COMM'N CO., 112 FED. 801; AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE
CO. V. WINZELER, 227 FED. 321; OWEN M. BRUNER CO. V. O.R. MANEFEE
LUMBER CO., 292 FED. 985; WALKER GRAIN CO. V. SOUTHWESTERN TEL. & TEL.
CO., 10 F.(2D) 272. 

FN13  BARRY V. EDMUNDS, SUPRA; WETMORE V. RYMER, 169 U.S. 115, 122;
PUT-IN-BAY WATERWORKS CO. V. RYAN, 181 U.S. 409, 432-433; HAMPTON STAVE
CO. V. GARDNER, 154 FED. 805. 

FN14  SMITHERS V. SMITH, 204 U.S. 632; HOLDEN V. UTAH & M.M. CO., 82
FED. 209; MAFFET V. QUINE, 95 FED. 199; KUNKEL V. BROWN, 99 FED. 593;
UNG LUNG CHUNG V. HOLMES, SUPRA; WASHINGTON COUNTY V. WILLIAMS, SUPRA;
DENVER CITY TRAMWAY CO. V. NORTON, 141 FED.  599; HAMPTON STAVE CO. V.
GARDNER, SUPRA; O.J. LEWIS MERCANTILE CO. V. KLEPNER, 176 FED. 343; ST.
TAMMANY BANK & T. CO. V. WINFIELD, 263 FED. 371; RAGSDALE V. RUDICH,
293 FED. 182; WALKER GRAIN CO. V. SOUTHWESTERN TEL. & TEL. CO., 10
F.(2D) 272; KIMEL V. MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO., 71 F.(2D) 921;
SIMECEK V. UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK, 91 F.(2D) 214. 

FN15  INTERSTATE BLDG. & L. ASSN. V. EDGEFIELD HOTEL CO., 109 FED.
692; ARMSTRONG V. WALTERS, 219 FED. 320; MULLINS LUMBER CO. V.
WILLIAMSON & BROWN LAND CO., 246 FED. 232. 

FN16  WILLIAMS V. NOTTAWA, SUPRA; BARRY V. EDMUNDS, SUPRA; VANCE V.
W.A. VANDERCOOK CO., 170 U.S. 468; LION BONDING & S. CO. V. KARATZ, 262
U.S. 77; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY COMM'N, 264 U.S. 308;
SIMON V. HOUSE, 46 FED. 317; HORST V. MERKLEY, 59 FED. 502; CABOT V.
MCMASTER, 61 FED. 129; BANK OF ARAPAHOE V. DAVID BRADLEY & CO., 72 FED.
867; ARMSTRONG V. WALTERS, SUPRA; MAUREL V. SMITH, 220 FED. 195; LE ROY
V. HARTWICK, 229 FED. 857; SCLARENCO V. CHICAGO BONDING CO., 236 FED.
592; OPERATORS PIANO CO. V. FIRST WISCONSIN TRUST CO., 283 FED. 904;
WILDERMAN V. ROTH, 17 F.(2D) 486; CHICK V. NEW ENGLAND TEL. & TEL. CO.,
36 F.(2D) 832; NIXON V. TOWN TAXI, INC., 39 F.(2D) 618; COHN V. CITIES
SERVICE CO., 45 F.(2D) 687; MILLER-CRENSHAW CO. V. COLORADO MILL CO.,
84 F.(2D) 930. 

FN17  MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. ROSE, 294 FED. 122; HOOD V. BELL, 84
F.(2D) 136. 

FN18  IN SMITH V. GREENHOW, 109 U.S. 669, 671, A CASE OF TRESPASS FOR
ENTERING PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES AND CARRYING AWAY GOODS OF THE VALUE OF
$100, INTERFERING WITH PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS, ANNOYING AND DISTURBING
HIM, &C., THE DAMAGES WERE LAID AT $6,000.  THOUGH THERE WAS NOT
DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, AS THE PLEADINGS RAISED A FEDERAL QUESTION,
THE CAUSE WAS REMOVED.  IT WAS REMANDED AS THE CIRCUIT COURT THOUGHT
THERE WAS NO FEDERAL QUESTION INVOLVED.  THE DECISION WAS REVERSED. 
SPEAKING OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED THE COURT SAID:  "THERE IS A GROUND FOR
REMANDING THE CAUSE SUGGESTED BY THE RECORD, BUT NOT SUFFICIENTLY
APPARENT TO JUSTIFY US IN RESORTING TO IT TO SUPPORT THE ACTION OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT.  THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TAKEN IS STATED IN THE
DECLARATION TO BE BUT $100, ALTHOUGH THE DAMAGES FOR THE ALLEGED
TRESPASS ARE LAID AT $6,000.... WE CANNOT, OF COURSE, ASSUME AS A
MATTER OF LAW, THAT THE AMOUNT LAID, OR A LESS AMOUNT, GREATER THAN
$500, IS NOT RECOVERABLE UPON THE CASE STATED IN THE DECLARATION, AND
CANNOT THEREFORE JUSTIFY THE ORDER REMANDING THE CAUSE, ON THE GROUND
THAT THE MATTER IN DISPUTE DOES NOT EXCEED THE SUM OR VALUE OF $500. 
BUT IF THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD FOUND, AS MATTER OF FACT, THAT THE AMOUNT
OF DAMAGES STATED IN THE DECLARATION WAS COLORABLE, AND HAD BEEN LAID
BEYOND THE AMOUNT OF A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF RECOVERY, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CREATING A CASE REMOVABLE UNDER THE ACT OF CONGRESS, SO
THAT, IN THE WORDS OF THE 5TH SECTION OF THE ACT OF 1875, IT APPEARED
THAT THE SUIT 'DID NOT REALLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY INVOLVE A DISPUTE OR
CONTROVERSY PROPERLY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SAID CIRCUIT COURT,'
THE ORDER REMANDING IT TO THE STATE COURT COULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED." 
THIS APPEARS TO BE THE ONLY REPORTED CASE OF A REMOVAL BY THE PLAINTIFF
AS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF 1875, AND IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THAT
GROUND, AS RESPECTS THE POSSIBILITY THAT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM MAY HAVE
BEEN COLORABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING THE CASE. 

FN19  HAYWARD V. NORDBERG MFG. CO., 85 FED. 4, 9.  (PER TAFT, LURTON
AND CLARK, JJ.) 

FN20  GORDON V. LONGEST, 16 PET. 97; KANOUSE V. MARTIN, 15 HOW.  198;
CHESBROUGH V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 252 U.S. 83, AFFIRMING CHESBROUGH V.
WOODWORTH, 251 FED. 881; MUNS V. DENEMOURS, 2 WASH. C.C. 463, FED. CAS.
9931; RIGGS V. CLARK, 71 FED. 560; HAYWARD V. NORDBERG MFG. CO., SUPRA;
JOHNSON V. COMPUTING SCALE CO., 139 FED. 339. 

FN21  NORTH AMERICAN T. & T. CO. V. MORRISON, 178 U.S. 262. 

FN22  LEVINSKI V. MIDDLESEX BANKING CO., 92 FED. 449; TENNENT
STRIBLING SHOE CO. V. ROPER, 94 FED. 739; MANNHEIMER V. NEDERLANDSCHE,
6 F.SUPP.  564.  CONTRA: JONES V. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO., 233 FED.
301. 

FN23  KANOUSE V. MARTIN, SUPRA; KIRBY V. AMERICAN SODA FOUNTAIN CO.,
194 U.S. 141; WRIGHT V. WELLS, PET. C.C. 220, FED. CAS. 18,101; ROBERTS
V. NELSON, 8 BLATCHF.  74, FED. CAS. 11,907; ZINKEISEN V. HUFSCHMIDT, 1
CENT. L.J. 144, FED. CAS. 18,214; WAITE V. PHOENIX INS. CO., 62 FED.
769; RIGGS V. CLARK, SUPRA; HAYWARD V. NORDBERG MFG. CO., SUPRA;
JOHNSON V. COMPUTING SCALE CO., SUPRA; COFFIN V. PHILADELPHIA, W. &
B.R. CO., 118 FED. 688; DONOVAN V. DIXIELAND AMUSEMENT CO., 152 FED.
661; BERNHEIM V. LOUISVILLE PROPERTY CO., 221 FED. 273; JELLISON V.
KRELL PIANO CO., 246 FED. 509; TWIN HILLS GASOLINE CO. V. BRADFORD OIL
CORP., 264 FED. 440; KANE V. RESERVE OIL CORP., 52 F.(2D) 972;
TRAVELERS' PROTECTIVE ASSN. V. SMITH, 71 F.(2D) 511; BEDDINGS V. GREAT
EASTERN STAGES, INC., 6 F.SUPP.  529.  CONTRA:  HUGHES & CO. V. PEPER
TOBACCO WAREHOUSE CO., 126 FED. 687.  IN TWO TORT CASES WHERE LARGE
DAMAGES WERE CLAIMED, BUT IT APPEARED AT TRIAL THAT PLAINTIFF'S
INJURIES AND LOSSES WERE SO SLIGHT THAT A VERDICT FOR MORE THAN A
FRACTION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED THE COURTS
REMANDED.  THOUGH NOT PLACED UPON THAT GROUND, THEIR ACTION MAY HAVE
BEEN JUSTIFIED BY THE CONVICTION THAT THE DEFENDANT WHEN IT REMOVED
KNEW THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS TOO LITTLE TO GIVE JURISDICTION:
TURMINE V. WEST JERSEY & S.R. CO., 44 F.(2D) 614; AMERICAN STORES CO.
V. GERLACH, 55 F.(2D) 658. 

FN24  THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES IN CASES WHERE A FIXED AMOUNT IS
REQUISITE TO JURISDICTION ON APPEAL.  LEE V. WATSON, 1 WALL.  337;
COOKE V. UNITED STATES, 2 WALL.  218. 

FN25  WOODS V. MASSACHUSETTS PROTECTIVE ASSN., 34 F.(2D) 501.  AND AN
AMENDMENT IN THE STATE COURT REDUCING THE CLAIM BELOW THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT BEFORE REMOVAL IS PERFECTED IS EFFECTIVE TO
INVALIDATE REMOVAL AND REQUIRES A REMAND OF THE CAUSE:  MAINE V.
GILMAN, 11 FED. 214; WAITE V. PHOENIX INS. CO., SUPRA; HARLEY V.
FIREMEN'S FUND INS. CO., 245 FED. 471. 

FN26  MORGAN'S HEIRS V. MORGAN, 2 WHEAT.  290, 297; MULLAN V.
TORRANCE, 9 WHEAT.  537; DUNN V. CLARKE, 8 PET. 1; CLARKE V. MATHEWSON,
12 PET. 164; TUG RIVER COAL & SALT CO. V. BRIGEL, 86 FED. 818,
AFFIRMING 73 FED. 13. 

FN27  HARACOVIC V. STANDARD OIL CO., 105 FED. 785; LEBENSBERGER V.
SCOFIELD, 139 FED. 380.  CHANGE OF PARTIES BY SUBSTITUTION OR BY
INTERVENTION DOES NOT OUST THE JURISDICTION:  PHELPS V. OAKS, 117 U.S.
236; HARDENBERGH V. RAY, 151 U.S. 112; WICHITA R. & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N, 260 U.S. 48.    FN28  TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CO. V.
SEELIGSON, 122 U.S. 519; TORRENCE V. SHEDD, 144 U.S. 527; IOWA
HOMESTEAD CO. V. DES MOINES N. & R. CO., 8 FED. 97; BANE V. KEEFER, 66
FED. 610; YOUTSEY V. HOFFMAN, 108 FED. 699; CASSIDY V. ATLANTA & C.A.L.
RY. CO., 109 FED. 673; SKLARSKY V. GREAT ATLANTIC & P. TEA.  CO., 47
F.(2D) 662. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :








HELVERING V. BULLARD, 303 U.S. 297 


NO. 349.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 90
F.2D 144, REVERSED. 


1.  A DECREE IN ILLINOIS, ENTERED BY CONSENT IN COMPROMISE OF
LITIGATION, OPERATED TO ABROGATE A TRUST AS VIOLATIVE OF THE RULE
AGAINST PERPETUITIES AND TO ESTABLISH THE TRUSTOR'S ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP
OF THE ASSETS.  HELD, THAT A NEW DEED OF TRUST MADE BY THE TRUSTOR
PURSUANT TO THE COMPROMISE AND CONVEYING TO SOME OF THE PARTIES THE
SAME BENEFICIAL INTERESTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED UNDER THE
ORIGINAL CONVEYANCE IF VALID, CAN NOT BE RELATED BACK TO THE CREATION
OF THE ORIGINAL TRUST, BUT MUST STAND INDEPENDENTLY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING THE APPLICATION OF A FEDERAL TAX PROVISION ENACTED BETWEEN
THE DATES OF THE TWO CONVEYANCES.  P. 300. 

2.  SEC. 302(C) OF THE REV. ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED BY JOINT
RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, REQUIRES THE INCLUSION IN A DECEDENT'S
GROSS TAXABLE ESTATE OF PROPERTY OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME
MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, UNDER WHICH THE TRANSFEROR
RETAINED FOR LIFE THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF THE INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY, EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY WHERE THE TRANSFEREE GAVE UP
NOTHING BUT AN INTEREST IN AN EARLIER TRANSFER, WHICH WAS ADJUDGED VOID
BY A CONSENT DECREE ENTERED IN PURSUANCE OF A COMPROMISE.  P. 300. 

(2)  THE JOINT RESOLUTION IS VALID AS TO FUTURE NON-TESTAMENTARY
TRANSFERS IN THE NATURE OF GIFTS, SINCE: 

(A)  CONGRESS MAY LAY AN EXCISE ON GIFTS AT DIFFERENT RATES FOR THOSE
WHICH ARE AND THOSE WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RESERVATION OF A LIFE
ESTATE; CALLING IT AN ESTATE TAX DOES NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY.  P.
301. 

(B)  CONGRESS MAY TREAT SUCH TRANSFERS AS TESTAMENTARY TO PREVENT
AVOIDANCE OF ESTATE TAXES.  P. 301. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. BULLARD, EXECUTOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 671, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL BY THE COURT BELOW
OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 34 B.T.A. 243, UPHOLDING AN
ESTATE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER CHALLENGES A DECISION HOLDING UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926,  FN1  AS AMENDED
BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 3, 1931,  FN2 WHICH REQUIRES
THE INCLUSION IN A DECEDENT'S GROSS TAXABLE ESTATE OF PROPERTY
TRANSFERRED BY IRREVOCABLE DEED WITH RESERVATION OF A LIFE ESTATE.  ON
ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH OUR DECISIONS AND OF THE IMPORTANT
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION PRESENTED WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

CLARA R. SMITH, A RESIDENT OF ILLINOIS, DIED IN 1933.  IN 1927 SHE
TRANSFERRED SECURITIES, BY IRREVOCABLE DEED, TO HER SON EDWARD, IN
TRUST TO PAY THE INCOME TO HER FOR LIFE AND, UPON HER DEATH, TO DIVIDE
THE CORPUS INTO THREE EQUAL PARTS, THE INCOME FROM A PART TO BE PAID TO
EACH OF HER THREE CHILDREN, LORA, BESSIE, AND EDWARD, DURING THEIR
LIVES, WITH REMAINDERS OF THE DAUGHTERS' SHARES TO THEIR RESPECTIVE
CHILDREN; UPON EDWARD'S DEATH LEAVING NO ISSUE THE INCOME FROM HIS
SHARE TO BE PAID TO HIS WIDOW FOR LIFE AND, UPON HER DEATH, THE
REMAINDER TO BE ADDED, IN EQUAL SHARES, TO THE DAUGHTERS' TRUST FUNDS. 
EDWARD DIED IN 1928 LEAVING A WIDOW BUT NO ISSUE. 

IN 1931 DISSATISFACTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRUST IMPELLED
THE DECEDENT TO SEEK ITS ABROGATION.  EXAMINATION OF THE INSTRUMENT
DISCLOSED VIOLATION OF THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES.  A BILL WAS
ACCORDINGLY FILED IN AN ILLINOIS STATE COURT TO HAVE THE TRUST DECLARED
VOID.  THE SON'S WIDOW ANSWERED DENYING INVALIDITY.  A GUARDIAN AD
LITEM REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF INFANT BENEFICIARIES IN REMAINDER
ALSO OPPOSED THE PRAYER OF THE BILL.  SUBSEQUENTLY, TO AVOID FAMILY
DISCORD AND AMICABLY TO SETTLE THE PENDING LITIGATION, A COMPROMISE
AGREEMENT WAS MADE BY THE DECEDENT AND ALL THE ADULT BENEFICIARIES,
CONSENTING TO THE ENTRY OF A DECREE ON CONDITION THAT THE DECEDENT
WOULD DECLARE A NEW TRUST OF APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD OF THE SECURITIES
IN THE EXISTING TRUST WHEREBY EDWARD'S WIDOW SHOULD ENJOY A LIFE
INTEREST IDENTICAL TO THAT GIVEN HER BY THE 1927 TRUST AND, UPON HER
DEATH, THE REMAINDER SHOULD BE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE DECEDENT'S
DAUGHTERS.  THE AGREEMENT FURTHER REQUIRED THE MAKING OF TESTAMENTARY
PROVISION FOR THE DECEDENT'S DAUGHTERS AND GRANDCHILDREN, AND CERTAIN
OUTRIGHT GIFTS TO THE LATTER.  IN PURSUANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, THE
DECEDENT, ON FEBRUARY 17, 1932, EXECUTED A NEW IRREVOCABLE DEED OF
TRUST CONVEYING APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD OF THE CORPUS OF THE FORMER
TRUST AND RESERVING TO HERSELF A LIFE INTEREST IN THE INCOME, AND
EXECUTED A NEW WILL.  A CONSENT DECREE WAS THEN ENTERED IN THE EQUITY
SUIT, THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM REPRESENTING TO THE COURT THAT THE
SETTLEMENT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE MINOR BENEFICIARIES. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S INCLUSION OF THE CORPUS OF THE TRUST OF FEBRUARY
17, 1932, IN THE GROSS ESTATE WAS SUSTAINED BY THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS.  FN3  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD'S
DECISION.  FN4  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER
AND THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED. 

FIRST.  BOTH THE BOARD AND THE COURT HELD THAT THE DECREE OF THE
STATE COURT, NOTWITHSTANDING ITS ENTRY PURSUANT TO STIPULATION,
ADJUDICATED THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, ABROGATED THE TRUST OF 1927, AND
ESTABLISHED THE DECEDENT'S ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS.  THIS
CONCLUSION IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
ILLINOIS AND WE ACCEPT IT.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION
THAT THE TRANSFER OF 1932 HAS NO INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE AND THAT, IN
LEGAL EFFECT, THE TRUST FOR THE SON'S WIDOW STEMS FROM THE DEED OF
1927, MUST BE OVERRULED. 

SECOND.  THE TRUST OF 1932 WAS CREATED AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE
JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3, 1931, WHICH REQUIRED INCLUSION IN THE
GROSS ESTATE OF THE VALUE AT THE DATE OF DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY TO THE
EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH A DECEDENT HAS AT ANY TIME MADE
A TRANSFER BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE UNDER WHICH THE TRANSFEROR RETAINED
FOR LIFE THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY,
EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL
CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH.  IT IS URGED THAT THE
SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE AS TO THE INVALIDITY OF THE TRUST DEED OF
1927, CONDITIONED, AS IT WAS, UPON THE MAKING OF THE NEW TRUST,
CONSTITUTES SUCH A BONA FIDE SALE, FOR ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION, AS TO
BRING THE TRUST OF 1932 WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE
DECREE SETTING ASIDE THE 1927 TRUST MERELY GAVE JUDICIAL SANCTION TO
THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT AND THAT THE CONTRACT WAS FOR AN ADEQUATE AND
VALUABLE CONSIDERATION AND WOULD, THEREFORE, HAVE BEEN ENFORCED BY A
COURT OF EQUITY AT THE INSTANCE OF ANY OF THE PARTIES TO IT. 

WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT A DECREE THUS BEGOTTEN HAS THE SAME FORCE AND
EFFECT AS A DECREE IN INVITUM, THE RESPONDENT SEEKS TO GO BEHIND THE
DECREE AND SPELL OUT A SALE BY EDWARD'S WIDOW OF HER INTEREST UNDER THE
1927 TRUST FOR THE INTEREST CONFERRED UPON HER BY THE 1932 TRUST.  THE
COURT BELOW HAS HELD THE POSITION UNTENABLE AND WE AGREE.  THE DECREE
DECLARED THE 1927 TRUST VOID AND REVESTED THE TRUST ASSETS IN THE
DECEDENT.  IF THAT TRUST WAS, AS THE ILLINOIS COURT DECREED, VOID AND
INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT VIOLATED THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES THE SON'S
WIDOW TOOK NO INTEREST UNDER IT AND GAVE NOTHING TO PROCURE THE 1932
TRANSFER. 

THIRD.  THE COMMISSIONER RELIES NOT ONLY UPON THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF
MARCH 3, 1931, BUT UPON SEC. 803(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932.  FN5
WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE LATTER SINCE THE JOINT RESOLUTION, IF LEGALLY
ENFORCIBLE, IN EXPRESS TERMS AUTHORIZED HIS INCLUSION OF THE TRUST FUND
IN THE DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE.  AS THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED NEARLY A
YEAR PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE 1932 TRUST NO CLAIM IS OR CAN BE MADE
THAT, AS TO THAT TRANSACTION, IT IS RETROACTIVE.  THE CONTENTION IS
THAT THE TRANSFER WAS INTER VIVOS, WAS PRESENTLY EFFECTIVE, WAS
IRREVOCABLE, WAS NOT MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF, OR EFFECTIVE AT, DEATH,
AND THAT CONGRESS WAS, THEREFORE, WITHOUT POWER TO MAKE IT THE SUBJECT
OF AN ESTATE OR INHERITANCE TAX; THAT, WHILE THE TRANSFER MIGHT, BY
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION, HAVE BEEN TAXED AS A GIFT, TO TAX IT AS IN THE
NATURE OF A TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION IS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  THE
CONTENTION IS UNSOUND FOR SEVERAL REASONS.  SINCE CONGRESS MAY LAY AN
EXCISE UPON GIFTS IT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE EXACTION IS
DENOMINATED AN ESTATE TAX OR IS FOUND IN A STATUTE PURPORTING TO LEVY
AN ESTATE TAX.  MOREOVER, CONGRESS HAVING THE RIGHT TO CLASSIFY GIFTS
OF DIFFERENT SORTS MIGHT IMPOSE AN EXCISE AT ONE RATE UPON A GIFT
WITHOUT RESERVATION OF A LIFE ESTATE AND AT ANOTHER RATE UPON A GIFT
WITH SUCH RESERVATION.  SUCH A CLASSIFICATION WOULD NOT BE ARBITRARY OR
UNREASONABLE.  A FURTHER VINDICATION OF THE EXACTION IS THE AUTHORITY
OF CONGRESS TO TREAT AS TESTAMENTARY, TRANSFERS WITH RESERVATION OF A
POWER OR AN INTEREST IN THE DONOR.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
JOINT RESOLUTION, TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE IN HASSETT V. WELCH, POST,
P. 303, DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION WAS TO PREVENT
AVOIDANCE OF ESTATE TAXES.  AS HAS BEEN SAID BY THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
NEW YORK:  FN6 "IT IS TRUE THAT AN INGENIOUS MIND MAY DEVISE OTHER
MEANS OF AVOIDING AN INHERITANCE TAX, BUT THE ONE COMMONLY USED IS A
TRANSFER WITH RESERVATION OF A LIFE ESTATE." 

WE HAVE RECENTLY SUSTAINED THE PROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF A PROVISION
INCLUDING IN THE GROSS ESTATE PROPERTY WHICH A DECEDENT HAS TRANSFERRED
RETAINING POWER ALONE, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OTHER PERSON, TO
ALTER, AMEND, OR REVOKE.  FN7  WE HELD THE PURPOSE OF THE CLAUSE WAS TO
PREVENT AVOIDANCE OF TAX AND THE MEASURE WAS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO
THAT END.  AS APPLIED TO A TRUST CREATED AFTER ITS ENACTMENT THE JOINT
RESOLUTION DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, 70; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 411(C). 

FN2  C. 454, 46 STAT. 1516; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 411(C). 

FN3  34 B.T.A. 243. 

FN4  90 F.(2D) 144. 

FN5  C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, 279; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 411(C). 

FN6  IN THE MATTER OF KEENEY, 194 N.Y. 281, 287; 87 N.E. 428;
AFFIRMED 222 U.S. 525. 

FN7  HELVERING V. CITY BANK FARMERS T. CO., 296 U.S. 85, 90.  COMPARE
MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15; TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281
U.S. 497. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :









HASSETT V. WELCH, 303 U.S. 303 


NO. 375.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 90
F.2D 833 -  91 F.2D 1010, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SEC. 302(C) OF THE REV. ACT OF 1926, WHICH REQUIRED THAT THERE BE
INCLUDED IN A DECEDENT'S ESTATE, FOR ESTATE TAX PURPOSES, ANY PROPERTY
INTEREST OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS "AT ANY TIME" MADE A TRANSFER IN
CONTEMPLATION OF OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
AT OR AFTER DEATH, WAS AMENDED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3,
1931, TO INCLUDE "A TRANSFER UNDER WHICH THE TRANSFEROR HAS RETAINED
FOR HIS LIFE  ...  THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT OF, OR THE INCOME FROM,
THE PROPERTY."  SECTION 803(A) OF THE REV. ACT OF JUNE 6, 1932,
SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTS THIS PROVISION.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE ADDED PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO TRANSFERS MADE
BEFORE, BY DECEDENTS WHO DIED AFTER, THE ENACTMENT OF THE JOINT
RESOLUTION.  P. 307. 

(2)  THIS CONSTRUCTION IS CONFIRMED (A) BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
AND ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION; (B) BY ITS
REENACTMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THAT INTERPRETATION.  P. 309. 

2.  SECTION 302(H) OF THE REV. ACT OF 1926, PROVIDED "EXCEPT AS
OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THEREIN SUBDIVISIONS (B), (C), (D),
(E), (F), AND (G) OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSFERS, TRUSTS,
ESTATES, INTERESTS, RIGHTS, POWERS, AND RELINQUISHMENT OF POWERS, AS
SEVERALLY ENUMERATED AND DESCRIBED THEREIN, WHETHER MADE, CREATED,
ARISING, EXISTING, EXERCISED, OR RELINQUISHED BEFORE OR AFTER THE
ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT."  SUBDIVISION (C) DEALT WITH TRANSFERS IN
CONTEMPLATION OF, OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
AT OR AFTER, DEATH.  THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1931, SUPRA, AMENDED SEC.
302(C) TO INCLUDE NON-TESTAMENTARY TRANSFERS WITH RESERVATION OF LIFE
ESTATE TO TRANSFEROR.  HELD THAT SEC. 302(H) DOES NOT MAKE THE
AMENDMENT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO THE KIND OF TRANSFERS THEREBY ADDED. 
P. 313. 

3.  AN ADOPTION BY ONE SECTION OF A STATUTE OF THE PARTICULAR
PROVISIONS OF ANOTHER SECTION BY SPECIFIC AND DESCRIPTIVE REFERENCE
DOES NOT EMBRACE OTHER PARTICULARS ADDED LATER BY AMENDMENT TO THE

4.  IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR EXPRESSION TO THE CONTRARY, A LAW IS
PRESUMED TO OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY.  ID. 

5.  IF DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TAXING STATUTE, THE
DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYER.  ID. 

HASSETT, FORMER ACTING COLLECTOR, V. WELCH ET AL., EXECUTORS.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 484, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. MARSHALL, ADMINISTRATOR.  ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 674, 677, TO REVIEW TWO DECISIONS OF CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS AGAINST ESTATE TAX ASSESSMENTS.  IN NO. 375, THE
TAXPAYERS APPEALED FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
COLLECTOR, 15 F.SUPP.  692.  IN NO. 484, THERE WAS AN APPEAL BY THE
COMMISSIONER FROM THE ADVERSE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONERS ASK US TO HOLD THAT SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926  FN1  AS AMENDED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF CONGRESS OF MARCH 3,
1931,  FN2  AND SEC. 803(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,  FN3  INCLUDES
IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF A DECEDENT, FOR ESTATE TAX, PROPERTY WHICH,
BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS, WAS IRREVOCABLY TRANSFERRED WITH
RESERVATION OF A LIFE ESTATE TO THE TRANSFEROR; AND THAT, SO APPLIED,
THE STATUTE DOES NOT OFFEND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE NUMEROUS CASES PENDING IN THE
COURTS AND THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS INVOLVING THESE QUESTIONS, AND THE
CLAIM THAT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE NOT SETTLED THE MATTER, MOVED
US TO GRANT CERTIORARI. 

THE RESPONDENTS IN NO. 375 ARE EXECUTORS UNDER THE WILL OF A DECEDENT
WHO DIED NOVEMBER 20, 1932.  ON FEBRUARY 13, 1924, VOLUNTARILY AND
WITHOUT VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, HE TRANSFERRED TO A TRUSTEE PROPERTY
WHICH HE EXPECTED TO RECEIVE UNDER THE WILL OF HIS BROTHER, RESERVING
TO HIMSELF THE INCOME FOR LIFE, DIRECTING DIVISION OF THE INCOME AFTER
HIS DEATH BETWEEN NEPHEWS AND NIECES AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPUS,
UPON THE DEATH OF THE SURVIVOR OF THEM, AMONGST THEIR THEN LIVING
ISSUE.  AFTER HIS BROTHER'S DEATH, AND ON OCTOBER 22, 1926, HE DULY
RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED THE ORIGINAL TRUST INSTRUMENT.  THE COMMISSIONER
RULED THAT THE VALUE OF THE TRUST ASSETS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE, IN THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSFER WAS
TESTAMENTARY, BECAUSE MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH, OR INTENDED TO
TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER DEATH, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926.  THE RESPONDENTS
PAID THE RESULTING TAX AND SUED FOR REFUND IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
MASSACHUSETTS.  JUDGMENT WENT FOR THE COLLECTOR.  FN4  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
THE TRANSFER WAS MADE IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH OR WAS INTENDED TO TAKE
EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AFTER DEATH.  THE PETITIONER
NEVERTHELESS INSISTED UPON THE LEGALITY OF THE EXACTION AS THE DECEDENT
DIED AFTER THE 1931 AND 1932 AMENDMENTS OF SEC. 302(C), WHICH DECLARED
THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED A PART OF THE GROSS ESTATE FOR COMPUTATION OF
ESTATE TAX, IN VIRTUE OF THE RESERVATION TO THE TRANSFEROR OF THE
INCOME FOR HIS LIFE.  THE COURT OVERRULED THE CONTENTION, HOLDING THAT,
IF SO RETROACTIVELY ENFORCED, THE LEGISLATION VIOLATED THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  FN5  IN HIS
APPLICATION FOR CERTIORARI THE PETITIONER DID NOT ASSIGN ERROR TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT'S RULING AS TO THE NONTESTAMENTARY CHARACTER OF THE
TRANSFER BUT CONFINED HIS ATTACK TO THE DECISION THAT THE AMENDMENTS OF
SEC. 302(C) COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE INVOKED TO SUSTAIN THE TAX. 

IN NO. 484 IT APPEARS THAT THE DECEDENT DIED INTESTATE JUNE 4, 1933. 
THE RESPONDENT, HER SON, IS HER ADMINISTRATOR.  NOVEMBER 15, 1920, SHE
TRANSFERRED TO HIM CERTAIN CASH AND SECURITIES.  ON THE SAME DAY THEY
ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT RECITING AN UNDERSTANDING THAT, IN CASE OF
HIS DEATH DURING HER LIFE, THE SECURITIES AND CASH SHOULD BE RECONVEYED
TO HER AND, IN THE MEANTIME, HE SHOULD PAY HER SUCH PORTIONS OF THE
INCOME THEREFROM AS SHE MIGHT FROM TIME TO TIME REQUEST IN WRITING;
THAT WHILE HE HELD THE SECURITIES HE MIGHT INVEST AND REINVEST; THAT HE
SHOULD BEQUEATH HER ALL THE ASSETS CONSTITUTING THE FUND, IN CASE SHE
SURVIVED HIM; THAT SHE WOULD REIMBURSE HIM FOR ANY INCREASED INCOME
TAXES PAYABLE BY HIM IN VIRTUE OF HIS OWNERSHIP OF THE FUND AND THAT,
IF SHE SHOULD SURVIVE HIM AND TAKE THE PROPERTY UNDER HIS WILL, SHE
WOULD REIMBURSE HIS ESTATE FOR STATE AND FEDERAL INHERITANCE TAXES DUE
BY REASON OF THE BEQUEST.  THE AGREEMENT CONTAINED OTHER PROVISIONS FOR
THE SAFEGUARDING AND SEPARATE CUSTODY OF THE FUND DURING THE MOTHER'S
LIFE.  THE RESPONDENT PAID THE DECEDENT PORTIONS OF THE INCOME UPON HER
REQUEST.  HE EXECUTED A WILL BEQUEATHING THE PROPERTY TO HER ON THE
TERMS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT, BUT UPON HER DEATH, HE REVOKED THE
BEQUEST.  THE COMMISSIONER INCLUDED THE VALUE OF THE FUND IN THE
DECEDENT'S GROSS ESTATE, HOLDING THAT SHE HAD MADE A TRANSFER WITHIN
THE TERMS OF SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS AMENDED IN 1931
AND 1932.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS REVERSED THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ITS ACTION  FN6  UPON
THE AUTHORITY OF THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
FIRST CIRCUIT IN NO. 375 AND THAT OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT IN HELVERING
V. BULLARD, ANTE, P. 297. 

COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT ARGUE THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1931
AND SEC. 803(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 WERE INTENDED TO IMPOSE AN
ESTATE TAX MEASURED BY TRANSFERS OF THE SORT THEREIN DESCRIBED WHICH
HAD BEEN IRREVOCABLY MADE PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE LEGISLATION AND
THAT, SO CONSTRUED, THEY ARE NOT ARBITRARILY OR UNREASONABLY
RETROACTIVE AND DO NOT OFFEND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS ANSWER THAT THE ENACTMENTS WERE
INTENDED TO OPERATE ONLY UPON TRANSFERS SUBSEQUENTLY CONSUMMATED AND,
IF CONSTRUED TO REACH THE PAST TRANSFERS HERE INVOLVED, VIOLATE THE
AMENDMENT.  WE HOLD THAT THE STATUTES ARE PROSPECTIVE IN THEIR
OPERATION AND DO NOT IMPOSE A TAX IN RESPECT OF PAST IRREVOCABLE
TRANSFERS WITH RESERVATION OF A LIFE INTEREST. 

ASCERTAINMENT OF THE INTENDED APPLICATION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF
MARCH 3, 1931, AND SEC. 803(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, INVOLVES A
READING OF THEM IN THE LIGHT OF CASES CONSTRUING SIMILAR PHRASEOLOGY OF
EARLIER ACTS, THEIR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION.  THERE IS AGREEMENT THAT SEC. 803(A) REENACTED THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION WITH BUT SLIGHT VERBAL DIFFERENCES. 
IT WILL, THEREFORE, BE NECESSARY TO QUOTE ONLY THE RESOLUTION.  BY IT
SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, SUPRA, WAS AMENDED TO PROVIDE: 

"THE VALUE OF THE GROSS ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
INCLUDING THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OF ALL PROPERTY, REAL OR
PERSONAL, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE, WHEREVER SITUATED - 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"(C)  TO THE EXTENT OF ANY INTEREST THEREIN OF WHICH THE DECEDENT HAS
AT ANY TIME MADE A TRANSFER, BY TRUST OR OTHERWISE, IN CONTEMPLATION OF
OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS
DEATH, INCLUDING A TRANSFER UNDER WHICH THE TRANSFEROR HAS RETAINED FOR
HIS LIFE OR ANY PERIOD NOT ENDING BEFORE HIS DEATH (1) THE POSSESSION
OR ENJOYMENT OF, OR THE INCOME FROM, THE PROPERTY OR (2) THE RIGHT TO
DESIGNATE THE PERSONS WHO SHALL POSSESS OR ENJOY THE PROPERTY OR THE
INCOME THEREFROM; EXCEPT IN CASE OF A BONA FIDE SALE FOR AN ADEQUATE
AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH." 

THE MATTER IN ORDINARY TYPE IS SEC. 302(C) AS IT WAS PRIOR TO
AMENDMENT; THE ADDITIONS ARE IN ITALICS. 

THE GOVERNMENT RELIES ON THE WORDS "AT ANY TIME" AS DEMONSTRATING
THAT THE LEGISLATION WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO TRANSFERS MADE BEFORE ITS
ADOPTION AND IS SO UNEQUIVOCAL AS TO LEAVE NO ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION. 
THIS PHRASE, APPEARING IN AN EARLIER REVENUE ACT, HAD, HOWEVER, BEEN
HELD NOT TO RENDER THE STATUTE EFFECTIVE UPON TRANSFERS ANTEDATING THE
PASSAGE OF THE ACT  FN7  AND CONGRESS APPARENTLY REALIZED THAT THE
EXPRESSION DID NOT CARRY THE STATUTE BACK SO AS TO EMBRACE TRANSACTIONS
CONSUMMATED BEFORE ITS PASSAGE; FOR, IN SUBSECTION (H) OF SEC. 302 OF
THE ACT OF 1926,  FN8  IN REFERRING TO TRANSACTIONS AND INTERESTS
GIVING RISE TO A TAX BY VIRTUE OF PRECEDING SUBSECTIONS, IT DIRECTED
THAT THEY SHOULD BE TAXABLE "WHETHER MADE, CREATED, ARISING, EXISTING,
EXERCISED, OR RELINQUISHED BEFORE OR AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT." 
FN9  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE MEANING OF THE SECTION IS NOT SO FREE FROM
DOUBT AS TO PRECLUDE INQUIRY CONCERNING THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. 

THE HISTORY OF THE RESOLUTION IS OF MATERIAL AID IN ITS
CONSTRUCTION.  SECTION 302(C) OF THE ACT OF 1926, LIKE EARLIER ACTS,
MEASURED THE TAX BY THE INCLUSION IN THE GROSS ESTATE OF PROPERTY OF
WHICH THE DECEDENT HAD MADE A VOLUNTARY TRANSFER IN CONTEMPLATION OF,
OR INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT IN POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT AT OR AFTER HIS
DEATH.  NOTWITHSTANDING THE TREASURY HAD RULED THAT A TRANSFER OF
ASSETS WITH A RESERVATION OF INCOME FOR THE DONOR'S LIFE CAME WITHIN
THE DEFINITION THIS COURT HELD OTHERWISE.  FN10  DISSATISFIED WITH THE
DECISION, THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT A REVERSAL OF IT BUT, IN THREE
JUDGMENTS, ANNOUNCED ON MARCH 2, 1931, THE RULING WAS REAFFIRMED.  FN11
IN THE OPINIONS IN THESE CASES, WHICH LED TO THE PREPARATION AND
ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION, THE COURT SAID THERE WAS "NO QUESTION OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS TO IMPOSE PROSPECTIVELY A
TAX WITH RESPECT TO TRANSFERS OR TRUSTS OF THE SORT HERE INVOLVED
..."  THERE THEN REMAINED ONE DAY OF THE CURRENT SESSION OF CONGRESS. 
THE TREASURY DRAFTED AN AMENDMENT OF SEC. 302(C) TO BRING TRUSTS OF
THIS TYPE WITHIN ITS SWEEP, IN THE FORM OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF
MARCH 3, 1931, WHICH WAS SENT TO CONGRESS ON THE DAY OF OUR DECISIONS
AND WAS PASSED, UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES, ON THE NEXT DAY, THE
LAST OF THE SESSION.  FN12 

BECAUSE ITS PASSAGE WAS CONSIDERED EXIGENT THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED
WITHOUT HAVING BEEN PRINTED AND IN RELIANCE ON STATEMENTS MADE FROM THE
FLOOR.  THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD DISCLOSES THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE
CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO ITS SCOPE.  MR. GARNER, OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND
MEANS COMMITTEE, STATED:  "THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS THIS
AFTERNOON HAD A MEETING AND UNANIMOUSLY REPORTED THE RESOLUTION JUST
PASSED.  WE DID NOT MAKE IT RETROACTIVE FOR THE REASON THAT WE WERE
AFRAID THAT THE SENATE WOULD NOT AGREE TO IT."  FN13 

MR. HAWLEY, OF THE SAME COMMITTEE, IN CHARGE OF THE RESOLUTION,
STATED, IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION: "IT PROVIDES THAT HEREAFTER NO SUCH
METHOD SHALL BE USED TO EVADE THE TAX" AND, REFERRING TO THE SITUATION
CREATED BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, HE SAID: 

"IT IS ENTIRELY APPARENT THAT IF THIS SITUATION IS PERMITTED TO
CONTINUE, THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX WILL BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED.  ENTIRELY
APART FROM THE REFUNDS THAT MAY BE EXPECTED TO RESULT, IT IS TO BE
ANTICIPATED THAT MANY PERSONS WILL PROCEED TO EXECUTE TRUSTS OR OTHER
VARIETIES OF TRANSFERS UNDER WHICH THEY WILL BE ENABLED TO ESCAPE THE
ESTATE TAX UPON THEIR PROPERTY.  IT IS OF THE GREATEST IMPORTANCE
THEREFORE THAT THIS SITUATION BE CORRECTED AND THAT THIS OBVIOUS
OPPORTUNITY FOR TAX AVOIDANCE BE REMOVED.  IT IS FOR THAT PURPOSE THAT
THE JOINT RESOLUTION IS PROPOSED." 

THIS LANGUAGE, WE THINK, SCARCELY BEARS THE INTERPRETATION PUT UPON
IT BY GOVERNMENT COUNSEL,  - THAT THE TAX WAS MEANT TO BE LAID ON
ESTATES OF ALL WHO DIED AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION. 

BEARING IN MIND THAT THE RESOLUTION WAS PREPARED AND ITS PASSAGE
RECOMMENDED BY THE TREASURY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION SUPPORTS
IN UNCOMMON MEASURE THE VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO OPERATE UPON
TRANSFERS COMPLETED PRIOR TO ITS PASSAGE.  PROMPTLY UPON ITS PASSAGE
THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED T.D. 4314,  FN14  APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY MAY 22, 1931, WHICH WAS IN THE FORM OF A LETTER TO
COLLECTORS OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND OTHERS CONCERNED.  IT QUOTED THE
LANGUAGE OF THE RESOLUTION AND STATED: 

"IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
IN NICHOLS V. COOLIDGE, (274 U.S., 531(T.D. 4072, C.B. VI-2, 351)), MAY
V. HEINER, (281 U.S., 238(CT. D. 186, C.B. IX-1, 382)), COOLIDGE V.
LONG, (282 U.S., 582), BURNET V. NORTHERN TRUST CO. (51 S. CT., 342),
EDGAR M. MORSMAN, JR., V. BURNET, (51 S. CT., 343) AND CYRUS H.
MCCORMICK V. BURNET (51 S. CT., 343), THE PORTION ADDED BY THE
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, AS SET FORTH
ABOVE IN ITALIC, WILL, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 302(H)
OF THAT ACT, BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY ONLY; I.E., TO SUCH TRANSFERS
COMING WITHIN THE AMENDMENT AS WERE MADE AFTER 10.30 P.M., WASHINGTON,
D.C., TIME, MARCH 3, 1931. 

"REGULATIONS 70, 1929 EDITION, WILL BE AMENDED TO MAKE THE CHANGES
NECESSITATED BY THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926 AND THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT." 

APRIL 11, 1932, REGULATIONS 70 WERE AMENDED BY T.D. 4336 AND, IN
PART, READ: 

"ART. 18.  RETENTION OF POSSESSION, ENJOYMENT, OR INCOME.  - ANY
TRANSFER WHICH WAS MADE BY THE DECEDENT AFTER 10.30 P.M., WASHINGTON,
D.C., TIME, MARCH 3, 1931, AND UNDER WHICH HE RETAINED FOR HIS LIFE OR
ANY PERIOD NOT ENDING BEFORE HIS DEATH (1) THE POSSESSION OR ENJOYMENT
OF, OR THE INCOME FROM, THE PROPERTY OR (2) THE RIGHT TO DESIGNATE THE
PERSONS WHO SHALL POSSESS OR ENJOY THE PROPERTY OR THE INCOME
THEREFROM, IS TAXABLE, PROVIDED SUCH TRANSFER WAS NOT A BONA FIDE SALE
FOR AN ADEQUATE AND FULL CONSIDERATION IN MONEY OR MONEY'S WORTH." 
NOT ONLY IS THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 803(A) OF THE ACT OF 1932
BARE OF INDICATION OF ANY PURPOSE THAT IT SHOULD AFFECT PAST TRANSFERS,
BUT WHAT APPEARS TENDS TO DISPROVE ANY SUCH THOUGHT.  FN15  MOREOVER,
THE REENACTMENT OF THE RESOLUTION OF 1931 IN THE LIGHT OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS REQUIRES THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS APPROVED
AND ADOPTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISION IT
REENACTED.  FN16 

REGULATIONS 80, APPROVED NOVEMBER 7, 1934, AFTER PARAPHRASING SEC.
803(A), CONCLUDED:  "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION DO NOT APPLY
(1) IF THE TRANSFER WAS MADE PRIOR TO 10.30 P.M., EASTERN STANDARD
TIME, MARCH 3, 1931, AND (2) IF THE DECEDENT DIED PRIOR TO 5 P.M.
EASTERN STANDARD TIME, JUNE 6, 1932(THE DATE OF PASSAGE OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1932).  SEE SECTION 506 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934."  THIS
REGULATION WAS RETAINED AS ARTICLE 18 IN THE 1937 EDITION OF
REGULATIONS 80 ISSUED OCTOBER 26, 1937.  THUS WHILE THE REGULATIONS
HAVE BEEN ALTERED TO TREAT SEC. 803(A) OF THE 1932 ACT AS RETROACTIVELY
AFFECTING TRANSFERS MADE AFTER MARCH 3, 1931, THE DEPARTMENT HAS
CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT THE RESOLUTION OF 1931 HAS NO APPLICATION TO
TRANSFERS MADE PRIOR TO ITS ADOPTION.  THE POSITION THUS RECENTLY TAKEN
IS INCONSISTENT IN ITS TREATMENT OF THE TWO LIKE ENACTMENTS AND IS
DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND IN VIEW OF THE CONSISTENT INTERPRETATION OF THE
JOINT RESOLUTION BUT IT FAILS TO WEAKEN THE FORCE OF THAT CONSISTENT
INTERPRETATION WITH KNOWLEDGE OF WHICH CONGRESS REENACTED THE SAME
PROVISION IN 1932. 

THE GOVERNMENT URGES THAT ALL OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE
PERSUASIVE THAT THE ENACTMENTS WERE INTENDED TO OPERATE FOR THE FUTURE
ARE OVERBORNE BY SEC. 302(H) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, WHICH IS: 

"EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THEREIN SUBDIVISIONS (B),
(C), (D), (E), (F), AND (G) OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO THE
TRANSFERS, TRUSTS, ESTATES, INTERESTS, RIGHTS, POWERS, AND
RELINQUISHMENT OF POWERS, AS SEVERALLY ENUMERATED AND DESCRIBED
THEREIN, WHETHER MADE, CREATED, ARISING, EXISTING, EXERCISED, OR
RELINQUISHED BEFORE OR AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT." 

IT WILL BE REMEMBERED THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1931 AMENDED SEC.
302(C) OF THE ACT OF 1926 TO COVER TRANSFERS SUCH AS ARE HERE
INVOLVED.  IT MADE NO REFERENCE TO ANY OTHER PORTION OF THAT ACT. 
SINCE SEC. 302(C) IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM WAS, BY SEC. 302(H), MADE
APPLICABLE TO TRANSFERS WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE ACT OF 1926,
THE CONTENTION IS THAT IT HAS LIKE OPERATION AND EFFECT AS RESPECTS THE
PROVISION ADDED TO IT BY THE AMENDMENT.  AND THE SAME ARGUMENT IS
ADVANCED WITH RESPECT TO THE AMENDMENT OF SUBSECTION (C) BY THE ACT OF
1932. 

RESORT IS HAD TO CANONS OF CONSTRUCTIONS AS AN AID IN ASCERTAINING
THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE.  IT MAY OCCUR THAT THE INTENT IS SO
CLEAR THAT NO SUCH RESORT SHOULD BE INDULGED, AND THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS
THIS IS SUCH A CASE.  THE MATTER IS, WE THINK, INVOLVED IN SUFFICIENT
AMBIGUITY TO WARRANT OUR SEEKING SUCH AID.  A WELL-SETTLED CANON TENDS
TO SUPPORT THE POSITION OF RESPONDENTS:  "WHERE ONE STATUTE ADOPTS THE
PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF ANOTHER BY A SPECIFIC AND DESCRIPTIVE
REFERENCE TO THE STATUTE OR PROVISIONS ADOPTED, THE EFFECT IS THE SAME
AS THOUGH THE STATUTE OR PROVISIONS ADOPTED HAD BEEN INCORPORATED
BODILY INTO THE ADOPTING STATUTE  ...  SUCH ADOPTION TAKES THE STATUTE
AS IT EXISTS AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION AND DOES NOT INCLUDE SUBSEQUENT
ADDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS OF THE STATUTE SO TAKEN UNLESS IT DOES SO BY
EXPRESS INTENT."  FN17 THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY HOLDS THIS RULE
RESPECTING TWO SEPARATE ACTS APPLICABLE WHERE, AS HERE, ONE SECTION OF
A STATUTE REFERS TO ANOTHER SECTION WHICH ALONE IS AMENDED.  FN18 

IN VIEW OF OTHER SETTLED RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, WHICH TEACH
THAT A LAW IS PRESUMED, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR EXPRESSION TO THE
CONTRARY, TO OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY N19; THAT, IF DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TAXING STATUTE, THE DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR
OF THE TAXPAYER,  FN20  WE FEEL BOUND TO HOLD THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION
OF 1931 AND SEC. 803(A) OF THE ACT OF 1932 APPLY ONLY TO TRANSFERS WITH
RESERVATION OF LIFE INCOME MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATES OF THEIR
ADOPTION RESPECTIVELY. 

HOLDING THIS VIEW, WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE CONTENTION THAT THE
STATUTES AS APPLIED TO THE TRANSFERS UNDER CONSIDERATION DEPRIVE THE
RESPONDENTS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

THE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, 70; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 411(C). 

FN2  C. 454, 46 STAT. 1516; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 411(C). 

FN3  C. 209, 47 STAT. 169, 279; U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 411(C). 

FN4  15 F.SUPP.  692. 

FN5  90 F.(2D) 833. 

FN6  91 F.(2D) 1010. 

FN7  SHWAB V. DOYLE, 258 U.S. 529; UNION TRUST CO. V. WARDELL, 258
U.S. 537; CONSTRUING SEC. 202 OF THE ACT OF SEPT. 8, 1916, 39 STAT.
777. 

FN8  44 STAT. 71, U.S.C. TIT. 26, SEC. 411(H). 

FN9  COMPARE SHWAB V. DOYLE, SUPRA, AT P. 536; LEWELLYN V. FRICK, 268
U.S. 238, 252. 

FN10  MAY V. HEINER, 281 U.S. 238, CONSTRUING SEC. 402(C) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1918, 40 STAT. 1057, 1097. 

FN11  BURNET V. NORTHERN TRUST CO., 283 U.S. 782; MORSMAN V. BURNET,
283 U.S. 783; MCCORMICK V. BURNET, 283 U.S. 784, CONSTRUING SEC. 402(C)
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921 AND SEC. 302(C) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924. 

FN12  CONG. REC., 71ST CONG., 3RD SESS., VOL. 74, PART 7, P. 7198. 

FN13  CONG. REC., 71ST CONG., 3RD SESS., VOL. 74, PART 7, PP. 7198
7199. 

FN14  C.B. X-1, 450. 

FN15  THE REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES OF BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE CONTAIN
THIS STATEMENT:  "THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT TO SECTION 302(C) OF
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 IS TO CLARIFY IN CERTAIN RESPECTS THE
AMENDMENTS MADE TO THAT SECTION BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 3,
1931, WHICH WERE ADOPTED TO RENDER TAXABLE A TRANSFER UNDER WHICH THE
DECEDENT RESERVED THE INCOME FOR HIS LIFE.  THE JOINT RESOLUTION WAS
DESIGNED TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT HOLDING
SUCH A TRANSFER NOT TAXABLE IF IRREVOCABLE AND NOT MADE IN
CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH.  CERTAIN NEW MATTER HAS ALSO BEEN ADDED, WHICH
IS WITHOUT RETROACTIVE EFFECT" (HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 708, 72ND
CONG., 1ST SESS.; SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 665, SAME SESSION). 

FN16  BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280 U.S. 327, 337; UNITED STATES V. DAKOTA
MONTANA OIL CO., 288 U.S. 459, 466; MCFEELY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S.
102, 108; UNITED STATES V. SAFETY CAR HEATING & L. CO., 297 U.S. 88,
95. 

FN17  LEWIS' SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, 2D ED., VOL. II,
PP. 787-8. 

FN18  CALUMET FOUNDRY & M. CO. V. MROZ, 79 IND. APP. 305; 137 N.E.
627; STATE V. BECKNER, 197 IOWA 1252; 198 N.W. 643; CROHN V. TELEPHONE
CO., 131 MO. APP. 313; 109 S.W. 1068; GUSTAFSON V. HAMMOND IRRIGATION
DIST., 87 MONT. 217; 287 PAC. 640; FLANDERS V. TOWN OF MERRIMACK, 48
WIS. 567; 4 N.W. 741; CONTRA, AMERICAN BANK V. GOSS, 236 N.Y. 488, 142
N.E. 156. 

FN19  UNITED STATES V. HETH, 3 CRANCH 399, 413; REYNOLDS V. M'ARTHUR,
2 PET. 417, 434; SHWAB V. DOYLE, 258 U.S. 529; UNITED STATES V.
MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO., 276 U.S. 160, 162. 

FN20  GOULD V. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151; SHWAB V. DOYLE, SUPRA; REINECKE V.
NORTHERN TRUST CO., 278 U.S. 339, 348; WHITE V. ARONSON, 302 U.S. 16. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THESE CASES. 
..END :






















ESCANABA & L.S.R. CO. V. U.S., 303 U.S. 315 


NO. 415.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 7, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  -
21 F.SUPP.  151, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHETHER THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION SHOULD APPROVE A
POOLING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPETING CARRIERS, UNDER SEC. 5(1) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, IS A QUESTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND WELFARE. 
OTHER CARRIERS, AS WELL AS SHIPPERS AND OTHER PERSONS, ARE ENTITLED TO
BE HEARD ON THIS QUESTION; BUT A CARRIER WHICH IS NOT A PARTY TO THE
AGREEMENT IS NOT A "CARRIER INVOLVED," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
AGREEMENT BY WITHHOLDING ITS ASSENT.  P. 319. 

2.  THE 'M' RAILROAD CARRIED IRON ORE FROM THE MINES TO A LAKE PORT,
PART OF THE WAY OVER ITS OWN LINE AND THENCE TO THE PORT OVER THE LINE
OF 'E' RAILROAD UNDER A TRACKAGE AGREEMENT.  THE 'N' RAILROAD CARRIED
SUCH ORE FROM THE MINES TO THE PORT OVER ITS OWN LINE.  BOTH 'N' AND
'M' INTERCHANGED OTHER FREIGHT WITH 'E' AT THEIR RESPECTIVE CONNECTIONS
WITH THAT LINE.  TO EFFECT ECONOMIES, 'M' AND 'N' APPLIED FOR AND
OBTAINED FROM THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, UNDER SEC. 5(1) OF
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AN ORDER SANCTIONING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THEM UNDER WHICH ORE CONSIGNED OVER EITHER WOULD BE ROUTED OVER 'N',
AND THE ORE BUSINESS BE POOLED BETWEEN THEM; AND UNDER WHICH 'M' AND
'N' WERE ALSO TO POOL THEIR RECEIPTS FROM OTHER TRAFFIC INTERCHANGED BY
EITHER OF THEM WITH 'E'.  HELD THAT 'E' WAS NOT A "CARRIER INVOLVED" IN
THE POOLING AGREEMENT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECTION ABOVE
MENTIONED, AND THAT ITS ASSENT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO THE COMMISSION'S
APPROVAL.  PP. 317-322. 

'E' WAS NOT A CARRIER OF THE ORE HAULED BY 'M' UNDER THE TRACKAGE
AGREEMENT; IT RECEIVED NO PART OF THE FREIGHT PAID; ISSUED NO BILLS-OF
LADING, AND MAINTAINED NO TARIFF FOR THAT TRANSPORTATION.  IT NEITHER
HELD ITSELF OUT TO SERVE IN THAT RESPECT NOR RENDERED ANY SERVICE TO
SHIPPERS OF ORE; AND, AS RESPECTS THE PROPOSED POOLING OF FREIGHTS ON
THE OTHER INTERCHANGED TRAFFIC, IT WAS NOT A CARRIER INVOLVED IN THE
SERVICE RENDERED UP TO THE EXCHANGE POINTS. 

ESCANABA & LAKE SUPERIOR RAILROAD CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE DISMISSING A BILL TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED
DISTRICT COURT  FN1  DISMISSING THE APPELLANT'S BILL WHICH PRAYED
RELIEF AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING A PROPOSED POOLING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO OTHER
RAILROADS.  FN2  THE SINGLE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT
IS A "CARRIER INVOLVED" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 5(1) OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN3 

THE APPELLANT, HEREINAFTER SOMETIMES CALLED "ESCANABA," IS A MICHIGAN
CORPORATION OPERATING A RAILROAD WHICH DOES BUSINESS IN INTRASTATE AND
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ITS LINE EXTENDS FROM ESCANABA, MICHIGAN, A PORT
ON LAKE MICHIGAN, NORTHWESTERLY SOME SIXTY-THREE MILES TO CHANNING,
WHICH IS ON THE NORTHERN BORDER OF THE MENOMINEE ORE DISTRICT.  THIS
DISTRICT WAS REACHED IN 1900, AND STILL IS SERVED, BY THE LINES OF THE
CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY (HEREIN DENOMINATED
"NORTHWESTERN") EXTENDING FROM THE MINES IN A GENERAL SOUTHEASTERLY
DIRECTION TO THE NORTHWESTERN'S ORE DOCKS AT ESCANABA.  THE CHICAGO,
MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY (HEREIN CALLED
"MILWAUKEE") HAD IN AND PRIOR TO 1900 A LINE REACHING THE MENOMINEE
DISTRICT BUT THE ORE SHIPPED OVER THIS LINE WENT SOUTH TO A CONNECTION
WITH THE SOO LINE AND THENCE EASTWARD TO A DESTINATION OTHER THAN
ESCANABA.  MILWAUKEE AND ESCANABA ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT IN 1900
WHEREBY THE FORMER WAS TO HAVE TRACKAGE RIGHTS FOR ITS TRAINS OF IRON
ORE FROM CHANNING TO ESCANABA, WHERE THE MILWAUKEE CONSTRUCTED ITS OWN
ORE DOCKS FOR THE LADING OF ORE INTO LAKE STEAMERS, AND TRACKAGE RIGHTS
FOR THE RETURN OF ITS EMPTY CARS FROM ESCANABA TO CHANNING.  ON THE
FOOTING OF THIS CONTRACT ESCANABA MADE A LARGE INVESTMENT IN ROADWAY
SUITABLE FOR THE ACCOMMODATION OF MILWAUKEE'S TRAINS. 

THE DETAILS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE UNIMPORTANT.  IT WILL SUFFICE TO SAY
THAT MILWAUKEE HAD NO RIGHT TO CARRY PASSENGERS OR FREIGHT, INCLUDING
ORE, TO INTERMEDIATE POINTS ON THE LINE OF ESCANABA; HAD NO SCHEDULES
FOR ITS ORE TRAINS; OPERATED THEM BY ITS OWN PERSONNEL AND POWER,
SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE CONTROL OF THE LINE BY ESCANABA'S DISPATCHERS
AND SIGNAL MEN.  MILWAUKEE WAS TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE A CERTAIN
WHEELAGE CHARGE WHICH, IN NO EVENT, WAS TO BE LESS THAN $27,000 A YEAR
WHETHER THE TOTAL WHEELAGE AMOUNTED TO THAT SUM OR NOT; AND WAS TO PAY
CERTAIN OTHER AMOUNTS TOWARDS THE MAINTENANCE OF ESCANABA'S LINE.  A
RENEWAL OF THIS AGREEMENT IS NOW IN FORCE AND WILL SO REMAIN UNTIL
JANUARY 1, 1951. 

MILWAUKEE'S DOCKS AT ESCANABA HAVE FALLEN INTO DISREPAIR.  TO AVOID
THE LARGE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED TO RESTORE THEM, AND TO RETAIN A SHARE
OF THE ORE TRANSPORTATION, MILWAUKEE NEGOTIATED A POOLING AGREEMENT
WITH NORTHWESTERN UNDER THE TERMS OF WHICH ORE CONSIGNED OVER EITHER
LINE FROM THE MINES TO ESCANABA WILL BE ROUTED OVER NORTHWESTERN'S LINE
AND USE NORTHWESTERN'S DOCKS AT ESCANABA AND THE ORE BUSINESS OF BOTH
LINES WILL BE POOLED ON AN AGREED BASIS.  INASMUCH AS CERTAIN FREIGHT
OTHER THAN IRON ORE HAS BEEN INTERCHANGED BY MILWAUKEE WITH ESCANABA AT
CHANNING AND BY NORTHWESTERN WITH ESCANABA AT ESCANABA, AND, AS IT IS
BELIEVED THE ORE POOLING ARRANGEMENT AND DISCONTINUANCE OF MILWAUKEE'S
ORE HAULAGE OVER ESCANABA'S TRACKS MAY CAUSE ESCANABA TO ABANDON THE
WESTERN END OF ITS LINE, THUS PREVENTING THE INTERCHANGE OF MILWAUKEE
AND ESCANABA AT CHANNING, IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT MILWAUKEE AND
NORTHWESTERN SHALL POOL THE RECEIPTS FROM INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC EXCHANGED
BY EITHER OF THEM WITH ESCANABA, TO RECOMPENSE MILWAUKEE FOR POSSIBLE
LOSS OF BUSINESS RESULTING FROM THE ORE TRAFFIC POOL.  THE TWO
RAILROADS, PARTIES TO THE POOLING AGREEMENT, SUBMITTED IT TO THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.  FN4  THAT BODY HELD THAT
THE PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF OPERATION BY MILWAUKEE OVER ESCANABA'S
LINE UNDER THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT AMOUNTED TO AN ABANDONMENT AS DEFINED
BY SEC. 1(18) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT  FN5  AND, WITHOUT THE
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE ABANDONMENT, THE POOLING AGREEMENT COULD
NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE.  THE COMMISSION, THEREFORE, REFUSED TO PASS UPON
IT. THEREUPON THE PARTIES RESUBMITTED THE POOLING AGREEMENT TOGETHER
WITH A CONDITIONAL APPLICATION BY MILWAUKEE FOR ABANDONMENT OF ITS ORE
HAULAGE OVER ESCANABA.  ESCANABA INTERVENED IN THE PROCEEDING, AND
RESISTED THE ISSUE OF AN ORDER OF APPROVAL.  A HEARING WAS HAD AT WHICH
NOT ONLY ESCANABA BUT MANY SHIPPERS AND COMMUNITIES ON ITS LINE
PRESENTED EVIDENCE.  THE COMMISSION MADE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY SECS.
1(18) AND 5(1) OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY THAT THE PROPOSED POOLING
ARRANGEMENT AND ABANDONMENT OF THE LINE BY MILWAUKEE WOULD PROMOTE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE AND ISSUED ORDERS AUTHORIZING THE
PROPOSED ARRANGEMENT.  ESCANABA HAS ABANDONED THE CONTENTION MADE IN
THE DISTRICT COURT, AND THERE OVERRULED, THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, AND HERE ATTACKS ONLY THE ALLEGED
ERROR OF LAW OF THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT BELOW IN HOLDING THAT IT
IS NOT A "PARTY INVOLVED" IN THE POOLING AGREEMENT WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 5(1), WHOSE ASSENT IS NECESSARY TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
COMMISSION. 

TERMS FORBADE ALL POOLING OF FREIGHTS OF DIFFERENT AND COMPETING
RAILROADS AND ALL AGREEMENTS FOR DIVISION OF AGGREGATE OR NET PROCEEDS
OF THEIR EARNINGS OR ANY PORTION THEREOF.  THE TRANSPORTATION ACT,
1920, QUALIFIED THIS PROHIBITION BY EXCEPTING SUCH ARRANGEMENTS AS
SHOULD HAVE THE SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION, AND THAT APPROVAL
WAS THUS CONDITIONED: 

"THAT WHENEVER THE COMMISSION IS OF OPINION, AFTER HEARING UPON
APPLICATION OF ANY CARRIER OR CARRIERS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF
PASSENGERS OR PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS ACT, OR UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE,
THAT THE DIVISION OF THEIR TRAFFIC OR EARNINGS, TO THE EXTENT INDICATED
BY THE COMMISSION, WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF BETTER SERVICE TO THE
PUBLIC, OR ECONOMY IN OPERATION, AND WILL NOT UNDULY RESTRAIN
COMPETITION, THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY BY ORDER TO APPROVE
AND AUTHORIZE, IF ASSENTED TO BY ALL THE CARRIERS INVOLVED, SUCH
DIVISION OF TRAFFIC OR EARNINGS, UNDER SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND
FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION AS BETWEEN SUCH CARRIERS AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, AS SHALL BE FOUND BY THE COMMISSION TO BE JUST AND
REASONABLE IN THE PREMISES." 

THE CONTROVERSY REVOLVES AROUND THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "IF
ASSENTED TO BY ALL THE CARRIERS INVOLVED."  ESCANABA INSISTS THAT IT IS
A CARRIER INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT, AND ITS ASSENT IS
NECESSARY TO AN AFFIRMATIVE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  THE APPELLEES
DENY THAT IT IS SUCH AND THE COMMISSION AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAVE
HELD WITH THEM.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT WAS RIGHT AND MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FIRST.  THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 5(1) OF THE ORIGINAL STATUTE BY THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, WAS ONE OF THE ALTERATIONS MADE IN THE ACT AS
A RESULT OF EXPERIENCE GAINED FROM UNIFIED OPERATION OF THE RAILROADS
UNDER FEDERAL CONTROL.  THE STRICT SANCTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL ACT,
INTENDED TO PRESERVE COMPETITION BETWEEN CARRIERS, WERE, IN A NUMBER OF
INSTANCES, RELAXED.  MERGERS AND CONSOLIDATIONS WERE AUTHORIZED,
POOLING ARRANGEMENTS WERE TO BE PERMITTED, EXTENSIONS AND ABANDONMENTS
WERE MADE LAWFUL AND DIVISIONS OF JOINT THROUGH RATES MIGHT BE
ADJUSTED, ALL FOR THE SAKE OF ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY AND THE PREVENTION
OF DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITIVE PRACTICES, AND ALL SUBJECT TO THE
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, AND ITS
FINDING THAT THE ACTION PROPOSED OR ORDERED WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.  THESE AMENDMENTS ARE TO BE GIVEN LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION IN AID
OF THE PURPOSES CONGRESS HAD IN MIND.  UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS,
MILWAUKEE AND NORTHWESTERN MIGHT HAVE MERGED OR CONSOLIDATED IF THE
COMMISSION FOUND SUCH A PROCEDURE WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
SIMILAR CONSIDERATIONS WOULD JUSTIFY THEIR PROPOSED POOLING OF FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION.  SHIPPERS OVER ESCANABA'S LINES, COMMUNITIES SERVED BY
IT, AND, INDEED, SHIPPERS IN COMMUNITIES ON DISTANT LINES AND PERSONS
HAVING NO OTHER INTEREST THAN THAT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC WELFARE, WERE
ENTITLED TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND TO PRESENT WHATEVER
PROOFS MIGHT TEND TO SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT WOULD OR WOULD
NOT BE FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  THEY, HOWEVER, ARE NOT "CARRIERS
INVOLVED," MENTIONED IN SEC. 5(1).  ESCANABA HAD THE UNDOUBTED RIGHT
ACCORDED IT TO APPEAR AND TO BE HEARD ON THE QUESTION OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST AND WELFARE AND INDEED SO HAD EVERY CARRIER HAVING CONNECTIONS
WITH MILWAUKEE AND NORTHWESTERN.  THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE
APPELLANT'S CONTENTION IS WHETHER IT OR ANY OTHER CARRIER, NOT ACTUALLY
A PARTY TO THE POOLING AGREEMENT, IS A "CARRIER INVOLVED" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT, SO THAT IT MAY FRUSTRATE THE AGREEMENT BY
WITHHOLDING ITS ASSENT. 

SECOND.  ESCANABA IS NOT A CARRIER OF THE ORE WHICH IS HAULED BETWEEN
CHANNING AND ESCANABA UNDER THE TRACKAGE AGREEMENT.  IT RECEIVES NO
PART OF THE FREIGHT PAID, IT ISSUES NO BILLS OF LADING, IT MAINTAINS NO
TARIFFS COVERING THAT TRANSPORTATION.  IT NEITHER HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO
SERVE IN THAT RESPECT NOR RENDERS ANY SERVICE TO SHIPPERS OF ORE; AND,
AS RESPECTS THE PROPOSED POOLING OF FREIGHTS ON MILWAUKEE'S TRAFFIC,
EXCHANGED WITH IT AT CHANNING, AND NORTHWESTERN'S TRAFFIC, EXCHANGED
WITH IT AT ESCANABA, IS NOT A CARRIER INVOLVED IN THE SERVICE RENDERED
UP TO THE EXCHANGE POINTS, WHICH IS TO BE POOLED.  BUT IT IS SAID THAT
THE WORD "INVOLVED" CONNOTES SOMETHING MORE THAN A PARTY TO AN
AGREEMENT; THAT IT EMBRACES ANY RAILROAD AFFECTED BY THE ARRANGEMENT. 
AND, IT IS URGED, ESCANABA WILL BE SERIOUSLY INJURED BY THE PROPOSED
ARRANGEMENT, IN SPITE OF THE CONTINUING OBLIGATION OF MILWAUKEE TO PAY
IT A MINIMUM OF $27,000 PER ANNUM UNTIL 1951. 

IF A CARRIER NOT A PARTY, BUT ADVERSELY AFFECTED, IS "INVOLVED" IN
THE SENSE OF SEC. 5(1) ESCANABA'S ASSENT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO
AUTHORIZATION BY THE COMMISSION.  WE MUST THEN DETERMINE THE MEANING OF
THE PHRASE AS USED IN THE STATUTE.  AID IS AFFORDED BY THE CONTEXT. 
THE SECTION GIVES THE COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE,
"IF ASSENTED TO BY ALL THE CARRIERS INVOLVED,  ...  UNDER SUCH RULES
AND REGULATIONS, AND FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION AS BETWEEN SUCH CARRIERS
AND UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS," AS THE COMMISSION SHALL FIND JUST
AND REASONABLE.  THIS REFERENCE TO THE MUTUAL CONSIDERATIONS TO BE
EXCHANGED BY "SUCH CARRIERS" SHOWS THAT CONGRESS MEANT BY THE PHRASE
"ALL THE CARRIERS INVOLVED," THOSE, AND THOSE ONLY, WHO ARE PARTIES TO
THE POOLING OF FREIGHTS AND THE DIVISION OF THE PROCEEDS.  ESCANABA,
HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT IF THE SECTION IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE THE
ASSENT OF NONE BUT THE PARTIES TO THE POOLING AGREEMENT IT IS MERE
SURPLUSAGE.  IT POINTS OUT THAT MILWAUKEE AND NORTHWESTERN HAVE
ASSENTED AND ARE NOW MERELY ASKING THE APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE COMMISSION.  THE ARGUMENT, HOWEVER, OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THE
COMMISSION MAY AUTHORIZE POOLING ON THE APPLICATION OF A SINGLE CARRIER
OR UPON ITS OWN INITIATIVE.  IN THE FIRST CASE THE ASSENT OF ONE OR
MORE OTHER CARRIERS, AND IN THE SECOND THE ASSENT OF ALL THE CARRIERS
IS A PREREQUISITE TO ITS ACTION.  IT APPEARS, THEREFORE, THAT THOUGH
CONFINED TO THE PARTIES TO THE POOL, THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL CARRIERS
INVOLVED SHALL ASSENT HAS A PROPER OFFICE IN THE STATUTORY SCHEME. 

THIRD.  IN VIEW OF ESCANABA'S RELATION TO THE TRAFFIC INVOLVED IN THE
PROPOSED POOL, THE DECISION THAT ITS ASSENT IS A PREREQUISITE TO THE
PLAN'S OPERATION WOULD INVOLVE THE GRAVEST INCONVENIENCE AND PERHAPS
RENDER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 5(1) NUGATORY.  IT IS DIFFICULT TO
CONCEIVE OF ANY POOLING ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN TWO CARRIERS WHICH WILL NOT
AFFECT, IN A GREATER OR LESS DEGREE, OTHER CARRIERS WHO INTERCHANGE
TRAFFIC WITH ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE POOLING ROADS, OR WITH THEIR
CONNECTIONS.  IF THE PRIVATE INTEREST OF ANY SUCH OUTSIDE CARRIER
SHOULD MOVE IT TO REFUSE ITS ASSENT TO THE ARRANGEMENT IT COULD, IN THE
VIEW URGED BY THE APPELLANT, VETO THE PROPOSAL ALTHOUGH, ON THE WHOLE
AND IN THE LONG VIEW, THE CONSUMMATION OF THE PLAN MIGHT GREATLY
ENHANCE THE ECONOMIES OF OPERATION OF LARGE AND IMPORTANT CARRIERS AND
SO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  WE CANNOT BELIEVE THAT EVERY CARRIER,
IN SUCH SENSE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED POOL TO WHICH IT IS NOT A PARTY,
WAS INTENDED TO HAVE A STATUS DIFFERENT FROM, AND PERHAPS AT WAR WITH,
THE INTEREST OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN THE EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL
OPERATION OF THE RAILROADS ENVISAGED BY THE TRANSPORTATION ACT. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT NOT ONLY THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE BUT THE OBVIOUS
POLICY AND INTENT UNDERLYING ITS PROVISIONS REQUIRE AN AFFIRMANCE OF
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.  AFFIRMED.    FN1  21 F.SUPP. 
151. 

FN2  210 I.C.C. 599; 219 I.C.C. 285. 

FN3  ACT OF FEB. 4, 1887, C. 104, 24 STAT. 380, AS AMENDED BY
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF FEB. 28, 1920, C. 91, SEC. 407, 41 STAT. 480,
U.S.C. TIT. 49, SEC. 5(1). 

FN4  THEY WERE REPRESENTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION BY THEIR RESPECTIVE
TRUSTEES APPOINTED UNDER SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

FN5  U.S.C. TIT. 49, SEC. 1(18). 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






LAUF V. E.G. SHINNER & CO., 303 U.S. 323 


NO. 293.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 90
F.2D 250, REVERSED. 


1.  AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR UNION DEMANDED OF AN EMPLOYER THAT HE
REQUIRE ALL HIS EMPLOYEES, NONE OF WHOM BELONGED TO THE UNION, ON PAIN
OF DISMISSAL, TO JOIN IT AND MAKE IT THEIR BARGAINING AGENT.  THE
EMPLOYEES, THOUGH LEFT FREE IN THE MATTER BY THE EMPLOYER, REFUSED TO
JOIN, HAVING AN ORGANIZATION OF THEIR OWN.  THE EMPLOYER HAVING
REJECTED THE DEMAND, THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COERCING HIM AND IN A CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY HIS BUSINESS IF HE REFUSED
TO YIELD, CAUSED FALSE AND MISLEADING SIGNS TO BE PLACED BEFORE HIS
MARKETS; CAUSED PERSONS WHO WERE NOT HIS EMPLOYEES TO PARADE AND PICKET
BEFORE THE MARKETS; FALSELY ACCUSED HIM OF BEING UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED
LABOR IN DEALINGS WITH EMPLOYEES, AND, BY MOLESTATION, ANNOYANCE,
THREATS, AND INTIMIDATION, PREVENTED PATRONS AND PROSPECTIVE PATRONS OF
THE EMPLOYER FROM PATRONIZING THE MARKETS.  IRREPARABLE INJURY
RESULTED.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THERE WAS A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF WISCONSIN
LABOR CODE, SECS. 103.62, 103.53, AND OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, 29
U.S.C. SEC. 113(C).  P. 327. 

(2)  IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE EMPLOYER AGAINST THE UNION FOR AN
INJUNCTION, THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES WERE GOVERNED BY THE
STATE LAW, AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  ID. 

(3)  AN INJUNCTION WAS TOO BROAD WHICH INCLUDED PEACEFUL PICKETING,
ADVERTISING THE EMPLOYER AS UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR, SOLICITATION OF
CUSTOMERS NOT TO TRADE, ETC., THESE BEING ACTS WHICH ARE MADE LAWFUL BY
THE WISCONSIN LABOR CODE, SEC. 103.53, IF FRAUD, VIOLENCE OR THREAT
THEREOF ARE NOT INVOLVED.  P. 328. 

(4)  THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO GRANT AN
INJUNCTION IN THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED BY THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, 29 U.S.C. SEC. 117.  P. 329. 

(5)  THE DECLARATIONS OF POLICY IN THE TWO ACTS MENTIONED, TO THE
EFFECT THAT EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION,
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, ETC., FREE FROM
COERCION OF THEIR EMPLOYERS, DID NOT PUT THE CASE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF
THOSE ACTS, SINCE THOSE DECLARATIONS DO NOT NARROW THE DEFINITION OF
"LABOR DISPUTE" IN THE ACTS; AND THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE TO BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO
THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO LABOR DISPUTES AS SO DEFINED.  P.
330. 

2.  SINCE THE COURTS BELOW DID NOT PASS ON THE QUESTIONS OF THE
LEGALITY UNDER THE WISCONSIN LAW, OF THE ACTS CHARGED TO HAVE BEEN DONE
BY THE UNION, OR THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT LAW IN LEGALIZING ANY OF
SUCH ACTS, NO OPINION IS EXPRESSED ON THESE QUESTIONS, AND THE CASE IS
REMANDED.  P. 330. 

LAUF ET AL. V. E.G. SHINNER & CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 669, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
PERMANENTLY ENJOINING ACTS ON THE PART OF A LABOR UNION,  - PICKETING,
PARADE OF MISLEADING SIGNS, SOLICITATION OF CUSTOMERS, ETC. - DIRECTED
AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, A RETAIL DEALER IN MEATS.  SEE ALSO 82 F.2D 68. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE PETITIONERS FROM PICKETING THE
RESPONDENT'S PLACE OF BUSINESS; FROM COERCING THE RESPONDENT TO
DISCHARGE ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT BELONG TO THE PETITIONING
UNION, OR TO COMPEL THEM TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND TO ACCEPT
IT AS THEIR BARGAINING AGENT AND REPRESENTATIVE; AND FROM ADVERTISING
THAT THE RESPONDENT IS UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR, OR MOLESTING
CUSTOMERS OR PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS OR PERSUADING THEM TO CEASE
PATRONIZING IT.  AFTER A HEARING, AND UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN1  UPON FINAL
HEARING THE PARTIES RELIED UPON THE RECORD AS MADE IN THE PRELIMINARY
HEARING AND SOME ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE FOLLOWING FACTS:  THE RESPONDENT IS A
DELAWARE CORPORATION MAINTAINING FIVE MEAT MARKETS IN MILWAUKEE,
WISCONSIN.  THE PETITIONERS ARE, RESPECTIVELY, AN UNINCORPORATED LABOR
UNION AND ITS BUSINESS MANAGER, CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF WISCONSIN. 
THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES NUMBER ABOUT THIRTY-FIVE, NONE OF THEM ARE
MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONING UNION.  THE PETITIONERS MADE DEMAND UPON THE
RESPONDENT TO REQUIRE ITS EMPLOYEES, AS A CONDITION OF THEIR CONTINUED
EMPLOYMENT, TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  THE RESPONDENT NOTIFIED
THE EMPLOYEES THAT THEY WERE FREE TO DO THIS AND THAT IT WAS WILLING TO
PERMIT THEM TO JOIN BUT THEY DECLINED AND REFUSED TO JOIN.  THE UNION
HAD NOT BEEN CHOSEN BY THE EMPLOYEES TO REPRESENT THEM IN ANY MATTER
CONNECTED WITH THE RESPONDENT.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF COERCING THE
RESPONDENT TO REQUIRE ITS EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE UNION AND TO ACCEPT IT
AS THEIR BARGAINING AGENT AND REPRESENTATIVE, AS A CONDITION OF
CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT, AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF INJURING AND DESTROYING
THE BUSINESS IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSED TO YIELD TO SUCH COERCION, THE
PETITIONERS CONSPIRED TO DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS AND DID THEM:  THEY
CAUSED FALSE AND MISLEADING SIGNS TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT'S
MARKETS; CAUSED PERSONS WHO WERE NOT RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES TO PARADE
AND PICKET BEFORE THE MARKETS; FALSELY ACCUSED RESPONDENT OF BEING
UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR IN ITS DEALINGS WITH EMPLOYEES, AND, BY
MOLESTATION, ANNOYANCE, THREATS, AND INTIMIDATION PREVENTED PATRONS AND
PROSPECTIVE PATRONS OF RESPONDENT FROM PATRONIZING ITS MARKETS;
RESPONDENT SUFFERED AND WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY FROM THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE PRACTICE AND CUSTOMERS WILL BE INTIMIDATED AND
RESTRAINED FROM PATRONIZING THE STORES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF PETITIONERS'
ACTS.  THERE IS MORE THAN $3,000 INVOLVED IN THE CONTROVERSY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT NO LABOR DISPUTE, AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL
OR STATE LAW, EXISTS BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONERS OR
EITHER OF THEM; THAT THE RESPONDENT IS BOUND TO PERMIT ITS EMPLOYEES
FREE AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF CHOICE OF UNION ORGANIZATION OR
REPRESENTATION; AND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. 
IT ENTERED A FINAL DECREE ENJOINING THE PETITIONERS FROM SEEKING TO
COERCE THE RESPONDENT TO DISCHARGE ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES FOR REFUSAL TO
JOIN THE UNION OR TO COERCE THE RESPONDENT TO COMPEL EMPLOYEES TO
BECOME MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION, FROM ADVERTISING THAT THE
RESPONDENT IS UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED LABOR, AND FROM ANNOYING OR MOLESTING
PATRONS OR PERSUADING OR SOLICITING CUSTOMERS, PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE,
NOT TO PATRONIZE THE RESPONDENT'S MARKETS. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DECREE.  FN2  BY REASON OF
ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN,
(222 WIS. 383; 268 N.W. 270, 873) AND WITH OUR DECISION IN SENN V. TILE
LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION, 301 U.S. 468, WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THE PETITIONERS ASSIGNED ERROR TO CERTAIN OF
THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT AS WELL AS TO ITS CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW.  IN THIS COURT THE ONLY ERRORS ASSIGNED ARE TO THE HOLDINGS THAT,
ON THE FACTS FOUND, THERE WAS NO LABOR DISPUTE AND THAT THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT AND THE WISCONSIN LABOR CODE HAD NO BEARING ON THE CASE
AS MADE.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONFINE OUR INQUIRY TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON THEM. 

THE INSTITUTION OF THE SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT IS JUSTIFIED BY THE
FINDINGS AS TO DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP AND THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. 
AS THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF OCCURRED IN WISCONSIN THE LAW OF THAT STATE
GOVERNS THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  BUT THE POWER OF THE
COURT TO GRANT THE RELIEF PRAYED DEPENDS UPON THE JURISDICTION
CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

FIRST.  THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO LABOR DISPUTE, AS
DEFINED BY THE LAW OF WISCONSIN, EXISTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  SECTION
103.62, PARAGRAPH (3) OF THE WISCONSIN LABOR CODE,  FN3  IS: 

"THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE
TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION OR
REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING,
CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR
CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS, OR ANY OTHER CONTROVERSY ARISING OUT
OF THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE." 

THE DISTRICT COURT WAS BOUND BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECTION BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE,  FN4  WHICH HAS HELD A CONTROVERSY
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT HERE DISCLOSED TO BE A LABOR DISPUTE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE.  FN5 

SECOND.  THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 103.53  FN6  OF THE WISCONSIN LABOR CODE, WHICH DECLARES CERTAIN
CONDUCT LAWFUL IN LABOR DISPUTES; INTER ALIA "GIVING PUBLICITY TO  ...
THE EXISTENCE OF, OR THE FACTS INVOLVED IN, ANY DISPUTE  ...  BY  ...
PATROLLING ANY PUBLIC STREET  ...  WITHOUT INTIMIDATION OR COERCION, OR
BY ANY OTHER METHOD NOT INVOLVING FRAUD, VIOLENCE, BREACH OF THE PEACE,
OR THREAT THEREOF"; ADVISING, URGING, OR INDUCING, WITHOUT FRAUD,
VIOLENCE OR THREAT THEREOF, OTHERS TO CEASE TO PATRONIZE ANY PERSON;
PEACEFUL PICKETING OR PATROLLING, WHETHER SINGLY OR IN NUMBERS.  A
WISCONSIN COURT COULD NOT ENJOIN ACTS DECLARED BY THE STATUTE TO BE
LAWFUL; FN7  AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAS NO GREATER POWER TO DO SO. THE
ERROR INTO WHICH THE COURT FELL AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF A LABOR DISPUTE
LED IT INTO THE FURTHER ERROR OF ISSUING AN ORDER SO SWEEPING AS TO
ENJOIN ACTS MADE LAWFUL BY THE STATE STATUTE.  THE DECREE FORBADE ALL
PICKETING, ALL ADVERTISING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS UNFAIR TO ORGANIZED
LABOR AND ALL PERSUASION AND SOLICITATION OF CUSTOMERS OR PROSPECTIVE
CUSTOMERS NOT TO TRADE WITH RESPONDENT. 

THIRD.  THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN GRANTING AN INJUNCTION IN THE
ABSENCE OF FINDINGS WHICH THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT  FN8  MAKES
PREREQUISITES TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION. 


"THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING TERMS
OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION OR
REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING,
CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE
RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE." 

THIS DEFINITION DOES NOT DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THAT ABOVE QUOTED
FROM THE WISCONSIN LABOR CODE, AND THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE BRING
IT WITHIN BOTH. 

HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN ANY
CASE INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE, AS HEREIN DEFINED"
EXCEPT AFTER A HEARING OF A DESCRIBED CHARACTER, "AND EXCEPT AFTER
FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE COURT, TO THE EFFECT (A) THAT UNLAWFUL ACTS
HAVE BEEN THREATENED AND WILL BE COMMITTED UNLESS RESTRAINED OR HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED AND WILL BE CONTINUED UNLESS RESTRAINED" AND THAT NO
INJUNCTION "SHALL BE ISSUED ON ACCOUNT OF ANY THREAT OR UNLAWFUL ACT
EXCEPTING AGAINST THE PERSON OR PERSONS, ASSOCIATION, OR ORGANIZATION
MAKING THE THREAT OR COMMITTING THE UNLAWFUL ACT OR ACTUALLY
AUTHORIZING OR RATIFYING THE SAME  ..."  BY SUBSECTIONS (B) TO (E) IT
IS PROVIDED THAT RELIEF SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS THE COURT FINDS
THAT SUBSTANTIAL AND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO COMPLAINANTS' PROPERTY WILL
FOLLOW; THAT AS TO EACH ITEM OF RELIEF GRANTED GREATER INJURY WILL BE
INFLICTED UPON THE COMPLAINANT BY DENYING THE RELIEF THAN WILL BE
INFLICTED UPON DEFENDANTS BY GRANTING IT; THAT COMPLAINANT HAS NO
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW; AND THAT THE PUBLIC OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE
DUTY TO PROTECT COMPLAINANTS' PROPERTY ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS THUS TO DEFINE AND LIMIT THE JURISDICTION OF THE INFERIOR
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN11  THE DISTRICT COURT MADE NONE OF THE
REQUIRED FINDINGS SAVE AS TO IRREPARABLE INJURY AND LACK OF REMEDY AT
LAW.  IT FOLLOWS THAT IN ISSUING THE INJUNCTION IT EXCEEDED ITS
JURISDICTION. 

FOURTH.  THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DECLARATIONS
OF POLICY IN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT AND THE WISCONSIN LABOR CODE TO
THE EFFECT THAT EMPLOYEES ARE TO HAVE FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF
ORGANIZATION, AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING,
FREE FROM INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT OR COERCION OF THEIR EMPLOYERS, PUTS
THIS CASE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF BOTH ACTS SINCE RESPONDENT CANNOT ACCEDE
TO THE PETITIONER'S DEMANDS UPON IT WITHOUT DISREGARDING THE POLICY
DECLARED BY THE STATUTES.  THIS VIEW WAS EXPRESSED IN THE COURT'S FIRST
OPINION ON THE APPEAL FROM THE ISSUE OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION,
FN12  AND THE OPINION ON THE APPEAL FROM THE FINAL ORDER ADOPTS WHAT
WAS SAID ON THE EARLIER APPEAL AS THE LAW OF THE CASE.  WE FIND NOTHING
IN THE DECLARATIONS OF POLICY WHICH NARROWS THE DEFINITION OF A LABOR
DISPUTE AS FOUND IN THE STATUTES.  THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE TO BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO
THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO LABOR DISPUTES AS SO DEFINED. 

FIFTH.  SINCE THE COURTS BELOW WERE OF OPINION THAT A LABOR DISPUTE,
AS DEFINED BY STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES, HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN, THEY DID
NOT PASS ON THE QUESTIONS OF THE LEGALITY, UNDER THE WISCONSIN LAW, OF
THE ACTS CHARGED TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE PETITIONERS OR THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THAT LAW IN LEGALIZING ANY OF SUCH ACTS.  AS THE
CASE MUST GO BACK FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, WE EXPRESS NO OPINION UPON
THESE QUESTIONS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.   REVERSED. 

FN1  LAUF V. SHINNER & CO., 82 F.(2D) 68. 

FN2  90 F.(2D) 250. 

FN3  WISCONSIN STATUTES, 1937, C. 103, SEC. 103.62. 

FN4  SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, SUPRA, P. 477. 

FN5  AMERICAN FURNITURE CO. V. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS & HELPERS UNION,
222 WIS. 338, 268 N.W. 250.  SEE, ALSO, SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION,
SUPRA. 

FN6  WISCONSIN STATUTES, 1937, C. 103, SEC. 103.53. 

FN7  SENN V. TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION, 222 WIS. 383, 400, 268
N.W. 270, 872; AMERICAN FURNITURE CO. V. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS &
HELPERS UNION, SUPRA. 

FN8  ACT OF MARCH 23, 1932, C. 90, 47 STAT. 70, U.S.C. TIT. 29, SEC.
101 ET SEQ. 

FN9  47 STAT. 73; U.S.C. TIT. 29, SEC. 113(C). 

FN10  47 STAT. 71; U.S.C. TIT. 29, SEC. 107. 

FN11  KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 233-234. 

FN12  82 F.(2D) 68, 72-73. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED REFLECTS FAITHFULLY THOUGH QUITE NAKEDLY
THE FINDINGS OF FACT.  THESE AND UNCONTRADICTED DETAILS DISCLOSE THE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL BASIS OF THE SUIT.  LOCAL NO. 73 IS AN UNINCORPORATED
LABOR UNION, NEVER IN ANY WAY RELATED TO RESPONDENT.  NONE OF ITS
EMPLOYEES IS A MEMBER OF THE UNION; ALL HAVE DEFINITELY REJECTED THE
SUGGESTION THAT THEY JOIN IT.  IN EVERY LEGAL SENSE, THE UNION IS A
STRANGER BOTH TO RESPONDENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES.  SHORTLY BEFORE
PETITIONERS CONSPIRED TO DESTROY RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS, ONE JOYCE, OF
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, CALLED BY TELEPHONE RESPONDENT'S VICE
PRESIDENT, RUSSELL, AT HIS CHICAGO OFFICE.  THE LATTER'S UNCONTRADICTED
NARRATION OF THE CONVERSATION FOLLOWS:  "MR. JOYCE  ...  SAID 'WE ARE
IN MILWAUKEE AND WANT YOU FELLOWS TO JOIN OUR UNION UP THERE.  THEY
TELL ME UP THERE YOU ARE THE MAN I MUST SEE, TO GET A CONTRACT SIGNED
FOR SHINNER & COMPANY WITH THE BUTCHERS UNION UP THERE.'  I TOLD HIM I
COULD NOT SIGN ANY CONTRACT WITH HIM, THAT OUR MEN HAD THEIR OWN
ASSOCIATION AND WERE PERFECTLY WELL SATISFIED, AND DIDN'T WANT TO
BELONG TO ANY OTHER UNION.  HE SAID 'WELL, I AM GOING THERE TONIGHT AND
IF YOU DON'T JOIN, I WILL DECLARE WAR ON YOU.'  I SAID 'THERE IS
NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT.'  HE SAID 'ALL RIGHT, THE WAR IS ON, AND MAY
THE BEST MAN WIN,' AND HE HUNG UP."    THEN FOLLOWED A DEMAND BY THE
UNION THAT RESPONDENT COMPEL ITS EMPLOYEES, ON PAIN OF DISMISSAL FROM
THEIR EMPLOYMENT, TO JOIN THE UNION AND CONSTITUTE IT THEIR BARGAINING
REPRESENTATIVE AND AGENT.  RESPONDENT RIGHTLY DECLINED TO UNDERTAKE ANY
SUCH INTERFERENCE WITH THE LIBERTY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, BUT INFORMED THEM
THAT THEY WERE FREE TO DO AS THEY SAW FIT.  IT LEFT THEM WHOLLY FREE TO
JOIN OR NOT TO JOIN THE UNION; THE UNION WAS LEFT FREE TO INVITE, URGE,
PERSUADE OR INDUCE THEM TO JOIN.  EVERY ONE WHO RESPECTS THE LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY OF ACTION MUST REGARD THE ATTITUDE OF
THE RESPONDENT AS BEING ABOVE CRITICISM AND BEYOND REPROACH.  THE
OPINION OF THE COURT JUST ANNOUNCED DOES NOT SUGGEST A CONTRARY VIEW. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE UNION, IN ORDER TO FORCE RESPONDENT TO
COERCE ITS EMPLOYEES, AND IN PURSUANCE OF A CONSPIRACY TO THAT END,
PUBLICLY AND FALSELY ACCUSED RESPONDENT OF BEING UNFAIR TO LABOR IN
DEALING WITH ITS EMPLOYEES; AND BY MEANS OF FALSE PLACARDS AND BANNERS
AND BY PICKETING, MOLESTATION, ANNOYANCE, THREATS AND INTIMIDATION IT
PREVENTED, AND WHEN THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT WAS CONTINUING TO PREVENT,
PATRONS AND PROSPECTIVE PATRONS FROM DEALING WITH RESPONDENT - ALL TO
THE LATTER'S SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE INJURY. 

1.  RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS CONSTITUTES A PROPERTY RIGHT; AND THE FREE
OPPORTUNITY OF RESPONDENT AND ITS CUSTOMERS TO DEAL WITH ONE ANOTHER IN
THAT BUSINESS IS AN INCIDENT INSEPARABLE THEREFROM.  IT IS HARD TO
IMAGINE A CASE WHICH MORE CLEARLY CALLS FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF; AND THE
COURT BELOW RIGHTLY GRANTED AN INJUNCTION.  TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S.
312, 327, AND CASES CITED. 

BUT HERE IT IS HELD THAT THE DECREE CONFLICTS WITH THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT.  THAT THE ACTION DEMANDED BY PETITIONERS OF RESPONDENT
WITH RESPECT TO ITS EMPLOYEES, IF TAKEN, WOULD HAVE BEEN MORALLY
INDEFENSIBLE IS PLAIN; THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AGAINST THE DECLARED
POLICY OF THE ACT IS EQUALLY PLAIN.  THAT ACT, 29 U.S.C., SEC. 102,
FN1  DECLARES THAT UNDER PREVAILING CONDITIONS, THE INDIVIDUAL
UNORGANIZED WORKER, "THOUGH HE SHOULD BE FREE TO DECLINE TO ASSOCIATE
WITH HIS FELLOW WORKERS" SHOULD "HAVE FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF
ORGANIZATION, AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS OWN CHOOSING,"
AND SHOULD "BE FREE FROM THE INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF
EMPLOYERS OF LABOR, OR THEIR AGENTS, IN THE DESIGNATION OF SUCH
REPRESENTATIVES," ETC.  THIS DECLARATION OF POLICY, AS THE INTRODUCTORY
CLAUSE PLAINLY RECITES, WAS INTENDED AS AN AID "IN THE INTERPRETATION"
OF THE ACT AND "IN DETERMINING THE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE
COURTS" UNDER THE ACT.  IF RESPONDENT HAD JOINED THE CONSPIRACY AND
YIELDED TO THE DEMAND OF THE UNION ITS ACTION AS AN EMPLOYER OF LABOR
UNQUESTIONABLY WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED AN "INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR
COERCION" OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE DESIGNATION OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES,
IN THE TEETH OF THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT. 

THE OPINION OF THE COURT ASSERTS, HOWEVER, THAT THIS DEFINITE
DECLARATION OF POLICY IN NO WAY NARROWS THE DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE
"LABOR DISPUTE" FOUND IN SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  BUT THAT
STATEMENT CANNOT BE INTENDED TO SUGGEST THAT THE DECLARATION OF POLICY
DOES NOT AFFECT THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE WORDS USED, FOR THE
OPENING CLAUSE OF THAT DECLARATION IS PRECISELY TO THE CONTRARY. 
WHETHER A LABOR DISPUTE EXISTS IN A GIVEN CASE DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS;
AND IN EACH CASE THE PHRASE "LABOR DISPUTE" IS TO BE INTERPRETED IN
HARMONY WITH THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE ACT.  THAT IS THE CONGRESSIONAL
MANDATE AND COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE IT.  IN OZAWA V. UNITED
STATES, 260 U.S. 178, 194, WE SAID "IT IS THE DUTY OF THIS COURT TO
GIVE EFFECT TO THE INTENT OF CONGRESS.  PRIMARILY THIS INTENT IS
ASCERTAINED BY GIVING THE WORDS THEIR NATURAL SIGNIFICANCE, BUT IF THIS
LEADS TO AN UNREASONABLE RESULT PLAINLY AT VARIANCE WITH THE POLICY OF
THE LEGISLATION AS A WHOLE, WE MUST EXAMINE THE MATTER FURTHER.  WE MAY
THEN LOOK TO THE REASON OF THE ENACTMENT AND INQUIRE INTO ITS
ANTECEDENT HISTORY AND GIVE IT EFFECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DESIGN AND
PURPOSE, SACRIFICING, IF NECESSARY, THE LITERAL MEANING IN ORDER THAT
THE PURPOSE MAY NOT FAIL."  SEE ALSO TO THE SAME EFFECT, HEYDENFELDT V.
DANEY GOLD & S.M. CO., 93 U.S. 634, 638; HOLY TRINITY CHURCH V. UNITED
STATES, 143 U.S. 457, 459 ET SEQ.; FLEISCHMANN CONSTRUCTION CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 349, 360; KARNUTH V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
231, 243.  THE PRINCIPLE APPLIES HERE WITH PECULIAR FORCE; FOR IT IS AN
UNNATURAL ASSUMPTION TO SUPPOSE THAT CONGRESS INTENDED BY GENERAL
DEFINITION OF THE FLEXIBLE TERM "LABOR DISPUTE" TO ANNUL ITS OWN VERY
EXPLICIT DECLARATION IN RESPECT TO THE POLICY TO BE OBSERVED BY THE
COURTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT. 

THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED IGNORES THE DECLARED POLICY OF CONGRESS
THAT THE WORKER SHOULD BE FREE TO DECLINE ASSOCIATION WITH HIS FELLOWS,
THAT HE SHOULD HAVE FULL FREEDOM IN THAT RESPECT AND IN THE DESIGNATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND ESPECIALLY THAT HE SHOULD BE FREE FROM
INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYERS.  TO SAY THAT A
"LABOR DISPUTE" IS CREATED BY THE MERE REFUSAL OF RESPONDENT TO COMPLY
WITH THE DEMAND THAT IT COMPEL ITS EMPLOYEES TO DESIGNATE THE UNION AS
THEIR REPRESENTATIVE UNMISTAKABLY SUBVERTS THIS POLICY AND CONSEQUENTLY
PUTS A CONSTRUCTION UPON THE WORDS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. 

MOREOVER, THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SECTION OF THE ACT, 29 U.S.C.,
SEC. 101,  FN2  PROVIDES THAT NO RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION IN A
CASE INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE SHALL ISSUE "CONTRARY
TO THE PUBLIC POLICY DECLARED IN THIS CHAPTER."  SECTIONS 101 AND 102
TAKEN TOGETHER CONSTITUTE NOTHING LESS THAN AN EXPRESSION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE WILL THAT THE COURT SHALL ENFORCE THE PUBLIC POLICY SET
FORTH IN SEC. 102 AND SHALL HAVE REGARD THERETO IN REACHING A
DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IT HAS JURISDICTION TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION
IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE.  SINCE THE WHOLE AIM OF THE INJURY HERE
INFLICTED AND THREATENED TO BE INFLICTED BY THE UNION WAS TO COMPEL
RESPONDENT TO INFLUENCE AND COERCE ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE DESIGNATION OF
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, THE ACTS OF THE UNION WERE IN PLAIN DEFIANCE OF
THE DECLARED POLICY OF CONGRESS, AND FIND NO SUPPORT IN ITS SUBSTANTIVE
PROVISIONS. 

2.  BUT PUTTING ASIDE THE CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF POLICY AS AN
INDICATION OF MEANING, AND CONSIDERING THE PHRASE ENTIRELY APART, THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE PLAINLY DO NOT CONSTITUTE A "LABOR DISPUTE" AS
DEFINED BY THE ACT.  UNDOUBTEDLY "DISPUTE" IS USED IN ITS PRIMARY SENSE
AS MEANING A VERBAL CONTROVERSY INVOLVING AN EXPRESSION OF OPPOSING
VIEWS OR CLAIMS.  THE ACT ITSELF, 29 U.S.C., SEC. 113(C), SO REGARDS
IT:  "THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING
TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT," ETC.  IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO
INTERCHANGE OR CONSIDERATION OF CONFLICTING VIEWS IN RESPECT OF THE
SETTLEMENT OF A CONTROVERSIAL PROBLEM.  THERE WAS SIMPLY AN OVERBEARING
DEMAND BY THE UNION THAT RESPONDENT SHOULD DO AN UNLAWFUL THING AND A
NATURAL REFUSAL ON ITS PART TO COMPLY.  IF A DEMAND BY A LABOR UNION
THAT AN EMPLOYER COMPEL ITS EMPLOYEES TO SUBMIT TO THE WILL OF THE
UNION, AND THE EMPLOYER'S REFUSAL, CONSTITUTE A LABOR CONTROVERSY, THE
HIGHWAYMAN'S DEMAND FOR THE MONEY OF HIS VICTIM AND THE LATTER'S
REFUSAL TO STAND AND DELIVER CONSTITUTE A FINANCIAL CONTROVERSY. 

THERE BEING AN UTTER LACK OF CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND
RESPONDENT OR ITS EMPLOYEES, THE UNION WAS AN INTRUDER INTO THE AFFAIRS
OF THE EMPLOYER AND ITS EMPLOYEES.  THE UNION HAD THE RIGHT TO TRY TO
PERSUADE THE EMPLOYEES TO JOIN ITS ORGANIZATION; BUT PERSUASIVE METHODS
FAILING, ITS RIGHT UNDER THE LAW IN ANY MANNER TO INTERMEDDLE CAME TO
AN END.  IT LAWFULLY COULD NOT COERCE THE EMPLOYEES TO ABANDON THEIR
OWN ORGANIZATION AND TO JOIN LOCAL NO. 73 ANY MORE THAN THE EMPLOYEES
COULD COERCE THE UNION TO DISBAND AND ITS MEMBERS TO JOIN THEIR
ORGANIZATION.  OTHERWISE, THE WORKER WOULD NOT "BE FREE," AS THE ACT
REQUIRES, "TO DECLINE TO ASSOCIATE WITH HIS FELLOWS"; NOR WOULD HE HAVE
"FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION AND DESIGNATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS OWN CHOOSING."  CLEARLY THE UNION COULD NOT BE
AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE TO RESORT TO COERCIVE MEASURES DIRECTLY AGAINST
THE EMPLOYEES TO COMPEL SUBMISSION TO ITS WISHES, FOR THAT WOULD BE TO
GIVE ONE GROUP OF WORKMEN AUTOCRATIC POWER OF CONTROL IN RESPECT OF THE
LIBERTIES OF ANOTHER GROUP, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AS
WELL AS OF THE POLICY OF CONGRESS EXPRESSLY DECLARED IN THIS ACT.  AND
THAT BEING TRUE, THE ATTEMPT TO COERCE SUBMISSION THROUGH CONSTRAINED
INTERFERENCE OF THE EMPLOYER WAS EQUALLY UNLAWFUL. 

SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED, THE PHRASE "LABOR
DISPUTE" IS THE BASIC ELEMENT OF THE ACT.  FOR UNLESS THERE WAS SUCH A
DISPUTE - THAT IS TO SAY, A "CONTROVERSY" - THE ACT DOES NOT EVEN
PURPORT TO LIMIT THE DISTRICT COURT'S JURISDICTION IN EQUITY.  THE
PHRASE MUST RECEIVE A SENSIBLE CONSTRUCTION IN HARMONY WITH THE
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT AND POLICY.  THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE WITHOUT
DISPUTANTS.  BETWEEN WHOM WAS THERE A DISPUTE HERE?  THERE WAS NONE
BETWEEN THE UNION AND RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES; FOR THE LATTER WERE
CONSIDERED BY THE UNION MERE PAWNS TO BE MOVED ACCORDING TO THE
ARBITRARY WILL OF THE UNION.  THERE WAS NONE BETWEEN RESPONDENT AND ITS
EMPLOYEES; FOR THEY WERE IN FULL ACCORD.  AND FINALLY THERE WAS NONE
BETWEEN THE UNION AND RESPONDENT; FOR IT WOULD BE UTTERLY UNREASONABLE
TO SUPPOSE CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE REFUSAL OF A CONSCIENTIOUS
EMPLOYER TO TRANSGRESS THE EXPRESS POLICY OF THE LAW SHOULD CONSTITUTE
A "LABOR DISPUTE" HAVING THE EFFECT OF BRINGING TO NAUGHT NOT ONLY THE
POLICY OF THE LAW, BUT THE OBLIGATION OF A COURT OF EQUITY TO RESPECT
IT AND TO RESTRAIN A CONTINUING AND DESTRUCTIVE ASSAULT UPON THE
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYER, AS TO WHICH NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW
EXISTED. 

3.  AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
THE WISCONSIN STATUTE, THE INTERPRETATION PUT UPON IT BY THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THAT STATE IS BINDING HERE.  KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS V. MEYER, 265
U.S. 30, 32.  MOREHEAD V. NEW YORK EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587, 609. 
BUT THIS COURT AUTHORITATIVELY DECLARES THE MEANING OF ACTS OF CONGRESS
AND IS REQUIRED TO DECIDE FOR ITSELF WHAT CONSTITUTES A "LABOR
DISPUTE," WHICH, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, WILL
HAVE THE EFFECT OF ABRIDGING THE JURISDICTION OF A FEDERAL COURT. 

THE THINGS HERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COERCING
RESPONDENT TO COMPEL ITS EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE UNION ARE NOT DECLARED
LAWFUL BY THE WISCONSIN STATUTE OR BY THE COURTS OF THAT STATE.  CF.
AMERICAN FURNITURE CO. V. CHAUFFEURS, T. & H. UNION, 222 WIS. 338; 268
N.W. 250; SENN V. TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION, 222 WIS. 383; 268 N.W.
270, 872.  WHILE THIS COURT REFRAINS FROM CONDEMNING THE MEANS EMPLOYED
BY PETITIONERS, THE OPINION CONTAINS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THEIR
CONDUCT WAS NOT WRONGFUL AND UNLAWFUL.  THE PUBLICITY AND PEACEFUL
PICKETING DECLARED LEGAL BY WISCONSIN LAWS ARE UTTERLY UNLIKE THE
DISPLAY OF LIBELOUS SIGNS, PARADE OF PICKETS, FALSE ACCUSATIONS,
MOLESTATION, THREATS AND INTIMIDATION EMPLOYED BY THE UNION, NOT ON
BEHALF OF FORMER OR PRESENT EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT, BUT TO DESTROY THE
BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT.  HERE, BY MEANS EVERYWHERE HELD TO BE UNLAWFUL,
THE UNION CARRIED ON AND WAS CONTINUING TO CARRY ON A CAMPAIGN OF
DESTRUCTION IN ORDER TO COERCE RESPONDENT TO DEPRIVE ITS EMPLOYEES OF
THEIR RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION AND
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.  THAT THE
WISCONSIN STATUTE DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE LAWFUL THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY
THE UNION TO IMPOSE ITS WILL UPON RESPONDENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES CLEARLY
APPEARS FROM THIS COURT'S PORTRAYAL OF THAT LAW IN SENN V. TILE LAYERS
UNION, 301 U.S. 468. 

THE OPINION IN THAT CASE STATES (P. 478):  "THE JUDGMENT OF THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE ESTABLISHES THAT BOTH THE MEANS EMPLOYED AND
THE END SOUGHT BY THE UNIONS ARE LEGAL UNDER ITS LAW ...  THE
LEGISLATURE OF WISCONSIN HAS DECLARED THAT 'PEACEFUL PICKETING AND
PATROLLING' ON THE PUBLIC STREETS AND PLACES SHALL BE PERMISSIBLE
'WHETHER ENGAGED IN SINGLY OR IN NUMBERS' PROVIDED THIS IS DONE
'WITHOUT INTIMIDATION OR COERCION' AND FREE FROM 'FRAUD, VIOLENCE,
BREACH OF THE PEACE OR THREAT THEREOF.'  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE
PICKETING MUST BE PEACEFUL; AND THAT TERM AS USED IMPLIES NOT ONLY
ABSENCE OF VIOLENCE BUT ABSENCE OF ANY UNLAWFUL ACT.  IT PRECLUDES THE
INTIMIDATION OF CUSTOMERS.  IT PRECLUDES ANY FORM OF PHYSICAL
OBSTRUCTION OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS.  IT
AUTHORIZES GIVING PUBLICITY TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE DISPUTE 'WHETHER BY
ADVERTISING, PATROLLING ANY PUBLIC STREETS OR PLACES WHERE ANY PERSON
OR PERSONS MAY LAWFULLY BE'; BUT PRECLUDES MISREPRESENTATION OF THE
FACTS OF THE CONTROVERSY.  AND IT DECLARES THAT 'NOTHING HEREIN SHALL
BE CONSTRUED TO LEGALIZE A SECONDARY BOYCOTT.'  ...  INHERENTLY, THE
MEANS AUTHORIZED ARE CLEARLY UNOBJECTIONABLE.  IN DECLARING SUCH
PICKETING PERMISSIBLE WISCONSIN HAS PUT THIS MEANS OF PUBLICITY ON A
PAR WITH ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE PRESS....  THE PICKETING WAS PEACEFUL. 
THE PUBLICITY DID NOT INVOLVE A MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT; NOR WAS ANY
CLAIM MADE BELOW THAT RELEVANT FACTS WERE SUPPRESSED." 

THE STATE STATUTE, DEFINING "LABOR DISPUTES" AND DECLARING THE MEANS
THAT LAWFULLY MAY BE USED AGAINST EMPLOYERS IN SUCH CONTROVERSIES, DOES
NOT PURPORT TO MAKE LAWFUL EITHER THE END HERE SOUGHT BY PETITIONERS OR
THE MEANS THEY EMPLOYED TO ATTAIN IT.  THEIR PURPOSE WAS NOT
UNIONIZATION OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, FOR THEY ALREADY BELONGED TO A
LABOR ORGANIZATION OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.  THE PURPOSE WAS TO COERCE
THE EMPLOYEES TO JOIN A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION WHICH THEY HAD ALREADY
REPUDIATED.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTES THAT
PURPORTS TO GIVE LABOR UNIONS OR INDIVIDUALS SO CONTRIVING THE STATUS
OF PARTY TO A "LABOR DISPUTE."  COERCION OF EMPLOYEES TO SURRENDER
THEIR FREEDOM OF SELF-ORGANIZATION IS REPUGNANT TO BOTH STATUTES.  WIS.
STATS., 1937, SEC. 103.51.  29 U.S.C. SECS. 101, 102.  CF. AMERICAN
FURNITURE CO. V. CHAUFFEURS, T. & H. UNION, 222 WIS. 338; 268 N.W. 250;
SENN V. TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION, 222 WIS. 383; 268 N.W. 270, 872;
SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468.  THERE IS NO GROUND UPON WHICH
PETITIONERS' PURPOSE IN THIS CASE OR THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO ACCOMPLISH
IT CAN BE SUPPORTED AS LAWFUL. 

4.  THE CASE IS A SIMPLE ONE.  RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES HAD NO
CONNECTION WITH THE UNION, AND WERE UNWILLING TO HAVE ANY.  THE UNION,
BEING UNABLE TO PERSUADE THE EMPLOYEES TO ASSENT TO ITS WISHES IN THAT
REGARD, UNDERTOOK TO SUBJUGATE THEM TO ITS WILL BY COERCING AN UNLAWFUL
INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR FREEDOM OF ACTION ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER. 
IF THAT IS A "LABOR DISPUTE," DESTRUCTIVE OF THE HISTORICAL POWER OF
EQUITY TO INTERVENE, THEN THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT ATTEMPTS TO LEGALIZE
AN ARBITRARY AND ALIEN STATE OF AFFAIRS WHOLLY AT VARIANCE WITH THOSE
PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY BY WHICH THE EXERCISE OF DESPOTIC
POWER HITHERTO HAS BEEN CURBED.  AND NOTHING IS PLAINER UNDER OUR
DECISIONS THAN THAT IF THE ACT DOES THAT, ITS EFFECT WILL BE TO DEPRIVE
THE RESPONDENT OF ITS PROPERTY AND BUSINESS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW,
IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, SUPRA, 327
328. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RIGHTLY HELD THAT
THIS CASE DISCLOSES NO "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT; THAT THE UNION'S COERCIVE ATTACK UPON RESPONDENT WAS
UNLAWFUL UNDER STATE LAW AND IN VIOLATION OF THE POLICY DECLARED BY THE
FEDERAL STATUTE, AND WAS PROPERLY ENJOINED; AND THAT, THERE BEING NO
"LABOR DISPUTE" AS DEFINED BY THAT ACT, ITS PROVISIONS AS TO
ALLEGATIONS, PROOF, AND FINDINGS DO NOT APPLY.  I WOULD AFFIRM THE
JUDGMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 

FN1  SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 23, 1932, 47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 102: 

"PUBLIC POLICY IN LABOR MATTERS DECLARED.  IN THE INTERPRETATION OF
THIS CHAPTER AND IN DETERMINING THE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OF THE
COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, AS SUCH JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY ARE
DEFINED AND LIMITED IN THIS CHAPTER, THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED
STATES IS HEREBY DECLARED AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHEREAS UNDER PREVAILING ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, DEVELOPED WITH THE AID
OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY FOR OWNERS OF PROPERTY TO ORGANIZE IN THE
CORPORATE AND OTHER FORMS OF OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATION, THE INDIVIDUAL
UNORGANIZED WORKER IS COMMONLY HELPLESS TO EXERCISE ACTUAL LIBERTY OF
CONTRACT AND TO PROTECT HIS FREEDOM OF LABOR, AND THEREBY TO OBTAIN
ACCEPTABLE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, WHEREFORE, THOUGH HE
SHOULD BE FREE TO DECLINE TO ASSOCIATE WITH HIS FELLOWS, IT IS
NECESSARY THAT HE HAVE FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF-ORGANIZATION,
AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF HIS OWN CHOOSING, TO NEGOTIATE
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, AND THAT HE SHALL BE FREE
FROM THE INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYERS OF LABOR, OR
THEIR AGENTS, IN THE DESIGNATION OF SUCH REPRESENTATIVES OR IN SELF
ORGANIZATION OR IN OTHER CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION; THEREFORE, THE
FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS OF AND LIMITATIONS UPON THE JURISDICTION AND
AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE HEREBY ENACTED." 

FN2  SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 23, 1932, 47 STAT. 70, 29 U.S.C.
SEC. 101: 

"ISSUANCE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS; LIMITATION; PUBLIC
POLICY.  NO COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AS DEFINED IN THIS CHAPTER,
SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY RESTRAINING ORDER OR TEMPORARY OR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN A CASE INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF A LABOR
DISPUTE, EXCEPT IN A STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
CHAPTER; NOR SHALL ANY SUCH RESTRAINING ORDER OR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION BE ISSUED CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC POLICY DECLARED IN THIS
CHAPTER." 
..END :








UNITED STATES V. PATRYAS, 303 U.S. 341 


NO. 445.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 90
F.2D 715, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER SEC. 307 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT, AS AMENDED JULY 3, 1930,
A CLAIM FOR TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY ON A REINSTATED AND CONVERTED
WAR RISK POLICY CAN NOT BE CONTESTED UPON THE BARE GROUND THAT THE
TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY EXISTED BEFORE THE INSURANCE WAS
REINSTATED.  P. 342. 

OR CONVERTED SHALL BE INCONTESTABLE FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE,
REINSTATEMENT, OR CONVERSION, EXCEPT FOR FRAUD, NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS,
OR ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY OR
NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES." 

THE CONVERTED POLICY SUED ON PROMISED TO PAY IN THE EVENT OF TOTAL,
PERMANENT DISABILITY, UPON DUE PROOF OF SUCH DISABILITY "WHILE THIS
POLICY IS IN FORCE."  UNLIKE ORIGINAL POLICIES ISSUED UNDER THE WAR
RISK ACT, IT CONTAINED NO CLAUSE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDING LIABILITY FOR
TOTAL, PERMANENT DISABILITY INCURRED BEFORE THE POLICY WAS APPLIED
FOR. 

UNITED STATES V. PATRYAS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 676, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT ON A VETERAN'S POLICY OF INSURANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

JANUARY 31, 1918, STANLEY J. PATRYAS (RESPONDENT), THEN A SOLDIER,
PURCHASED FROM THE GOVERNMENT A $10,000 YEARLY RENEWABLE WAR RISK
INSURANCE CONTRACT WHICH HE PERMITTED TO LAPSE AFTER HIS HONORABLE
DISCHARGE FROM THE ARMY, JULY 29, 1919.  JUNE 28, 1927, WHILE A PATIENT
AT A VETERANS' GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, HE OBTAINED REINSTATEMENT OF HIS
WAR RISK POLICY AND IMMEDIATELY CONVERTED IT INTO A FIVE YEAR RENEWABLE
TERM POLICY UPON WHICH HE PAID PREMIUMS TO JUNE 1932.  CLAIMING TOTAL
PERMANENT DISABILITY, THE VETERAN OBTAINED, IN THE DISTRICT COURT, A
VERDICT AND JUDGMENT ON HIS REINSTATED POLICY.  FINDING THE ISSUES FOR
THE VETERAN, THE JURY FIXED THE DATE OF PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY AT
1924 - A DATE THREE YEARS BEFORE HIS POLICY WAS REINSTATED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  FN1 

THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO CONTEST THIS POLICY IS LIMITED BY THE
FOLLOWING STATUTORY PROVISION: FN2 

"...  POLICIES OF INSURANCE  ...  ISSUED, REINSTATED, OR CONVERTED
SHALL BE INCONTESTABLE FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE, REINSTATEMENT, OR
CONVERSION, EXCEPT FOR FRAUD, NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, OR ON THE GROUND
THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES,  ..." 

THE QUESTION HERE IS: 

CAN THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE ABSENCE OF FRAUD OR BAD FAITH, "CONTEST"
AND DEFEAT PAYMENT OF TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY INSURANCE, SOLD TO A
WORLD WAR VETERAN, ON THE GROUND THAT THE VETERAN WAS TOTALLY AND
PERMANENTLY DISABLED BEFORE THE POLICY WAS REINSTATED AND CONVERTED? 

FIRST.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT "CONGRESS HAS NOT,  ...
AUTHORIZED  ...  INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR TOTAL, PERMANENT DISABILITY
EXISTING PRIOR TO ANY CONTRACT OF INSURANCE ON WHICH THE CLAIM IS
MADE." 

THE ORIGINAL WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917,  FN3
PROVIDED: 

"THAT IN ORDER TO GIVE EVERY COMMISSIONED OFFICER AND ENLISTED MAN
AND TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE ARMY NURSE CORPS (FEMALE) AND OF THE NAVY
NURSE CORPS (FEMALE) WHEN EMPLOYED IN ACTIVE SERVICE UNDER THE WAR
DEPARTMENT OR NAVY DEPARTMENT GREATER PROTECTION FOR THEMSELVES AND
THEIR DEPENDENTS ..., THE UNITED STATES, UPON APPLICATION TO THE BUREAU
AND WITHOUT MEDICAL EXAMINATION, SHALL GRANT INSURANCE AGAINST THE
DEATH OR TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY OF ANY SUCH PERSON  ..." 

THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS
PASSAGE DURING THE WAR, WHILE MEN AND WOMEN WERE BEING CALLED INTO WAR
SERVICE.  THIS REQUIRES RECOGNITION OF ITS GENEROUS AND LIBERAL PURPOSE
TO PROVIDE "GREATER PROTECTION FOR (SOLDIERS, SAILORS AND NURSES)  ...
AND THEIR DEPENDENTS."  FN4  ITS PASSAGE INDICATED CONGRESS
CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED THAT EVERY PERSON, WHO HAD SUCCESSFULLY UNDERGONE
MENTAL AND PHYSICAL EXAMINATION FOR WAR SERVICE, WAS - WHEN INDUCTED
INTO SUCH SERVICE - INSURABLE AGAINST DEATH AND TOTAL PERMANENT
DISABILITY.  FN5  THE ACT COMMANDED THAT INSURANCE AGAINST DEATH AND
TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY BE GRANTED, WITHOUT MEDICAL EXAMINATION, TO
EVERY APPLICANT WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN EXAMINED AND ACCEPTED FOR WAR
SERVICE.  CONGRESS MANIFESTLY INTENDED BY THESE SWEEPING PROVISIONS
THAT POLICIES SHOULD BE GRANTED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE HEALTH OF
APPLICANTS AND SHOULD BE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT.  ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BROAD, WAR TIME LEGISLATIVE
GRANT TO SOLDIERS, SAILORS AND NURSES WOULD TAKE AWAY THE BENEFITS
CONGRESS INTENDED THEM TO RECEIVE.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE WAR RISK
INSURANCE ACT ARE SUFFICIENTLY COMPREHENSIVE AND INCLUSIVE TO AUTHORIZE
ITS ADMINISTRATORS TO GRANT INSURANCE COVERING PAST OR FUTURE TOTAL
PERMANENT DISABILITY, IF SUCH ACTION IS FOUND NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT
ITS FAR REACHING NATIONAL PLAN AND PURPOSES. 

SECOND.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN CONTEST LIABILITY ON
THE GROUND THAT THE VETERAN WAS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED PRIOR
TO THE REINSTATEMENT, DESPITE THE PROVISION THAT SUCH POLICY "SHALL BE
INCONTESTABLE  ...  EXCEPT FOR FRAUD, NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, OR ON THE
GROUND THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY OR NAVAL
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES, ..."  IT IS URGED THAT THIS PROVISION "HAS
NO APPLICATION WHERE, AS HERE, THE VALIDITY OF THE POLICY IS NOT
QUESTIONED AND LIABILITY UNDER IT IS DENIED SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT A
LOSS HAS NOT OCCURRED DURING THE PERIOD OF INSURANCE PROTECTION." 
HOWEVER, IT IS ADMITTED THAT THIS POLICY DID NOT "EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE
TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY OCCURRING PRIOR TO INSURANCE PROTECTION, AS
DID THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL TERM CONTRACT." 

THIS CONVERTED POLICY OF INSURANCE PROVIDED PROTECTION AGAINST LOSS
FROM TWO CAUSES:  NAMELY, DEATH AND TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY.  A
PROVISION MAKING A POLICY "INCONTESTABLE" EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN CLEARLY
DESIGNATED REASONS, IS WHOLLY MEANINGLESS AND INEFFECTIVE IF, AFTER
PROOF OF THE LOSS INSURED AGAINST, THE POLICY CAN BE CONTESTED UPON
GROUNDS WHOLLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SET OUT IN THE EXCEPTION.  THE
OBJECT OF THE PROVISION IS TO ASSURE THE INSURED THAT PAYMENT ON HIS
POLICY WILL NOT BE DELAYED BY CONTESTS AND LAWSUITS ON GROUNDS NOT
SAVED BY THE EXCEPTIONS.  FN6  HERE, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE
VETERAN IS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.  YET HIS POLICY IS
CONTESTED ON THE GROUND THAT IT DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST THIS DISABILITY
BECAUSE IT EXISTED BEFORE THE POLICY WAS ISSUED.  IF THIS DEFENSE CAN
BE INTERPOSED, HIS POLICY HAS NEVER ACTUALLY PROTECTED HIM AGAINST
TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY.  SINCE PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY IS ONE OF
THE TWO RISKS INSURED AGAINST IN THE POLICY, ANY CONTEST (NOT BASED ON
THE EXCEPTIONS) WHICH MAY PREVENT THE POLICYHOLDER'S RECOVERY FOR SUCH
ADMITTED TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY - EXISTING WHILE THE POLICY IS IN
FORCE - IS A "CONTEST" FORBIDDEN BY THE "INCONTESTABLE" PROVISION. 

NO LEGAL OBSTACLE PREVENTS PARTIES, IF THEY SO DESIRE, FROM ENTERING
INTO CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE TO PROTECT AGAINST LOSS THAT MAY POSSIBLY
HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED.  MARINE INSURANCE AND ANTE-DATED FIRE INSURANCE
POLICIES FREQUENTLY AFFORD PROTECTION AGAINST RISKS WHICH, UNKNOWN TO
THE PARTIES, HAVE ALREADY ATTACHED.  FN7 

EVEN WITH THE BENEFIT OF SCRUPULOUS GOOD FAITH, IT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY
TO DETERMINE WITH COMPLETE CERTAINTY WHETHER OR NOT TOTAL PERMANENT
DISABILITY EXISTS.  THIS UNCERTAINTY MAY LEAD AN INSURER, AFTER HIS OWN
INVESTIGATION, AND FOR ADEQUATE COMPENSATION, TO TREAT UNKNOWN PAST AND
UNCERTAIN PROSPECTIVE DISABILITY, UPON THE SAME BASIS.  THIS CASE IS AN
ILLUSTRATION.  HERE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER ADMITTED THAT THE VETERAN
IS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.  IT NOT ONLY ISSUED HIM A POLICY
AGAINST SUCH DISABILITY - WITH COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS THEN CONDITION
- BUT IN THIS CONTINUED CONTEST HAS DENIED THAT THE POLICYHOLDER WAS
TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED AT ANY TIME - BEFORE, WHEN, OR AFTER
THE POLICY WAS ISSUED.  THERE WAS ALSO A SHARP CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE ON
THIS DISPUTED FACT. 

WHEN A POLICY OF DISABILITY INSURANCE IS ISSUED AFTER COMPLETE
EXAMINATION BY THE INSURER AND FULL AND FAIR DISCLOSURE BY BOTH
PARTIES, THERE IS NO LEGAL REASON WHY THE INSURER CANNOT CONTRACT TO
AFFORD FULL PROTECTION AGAINST LOSS RESULTING FROM PAST AS WELL AS
PROSPECTIVE DISABILITY.  THIS VETERAN'S POLICY DID NOT EXPRESSLY LIMIT
LIABILITY TO PROSPECTIVE TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY.  THE PROVISIONS OF
THE POLICY IN THIS REGARD CONTAIN A PROMISE TO PAY THE VETERAN "IN ...
EVENT OF THE TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY  ...  (AND) UPON DUE PROOF OF
THE TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY OF THE INSURED WHILE THIS POLICY IS IN
FORCE,  ..."  ORIGINAL POLICIES ISSUED UNDER THE WAR RISK ACT EXPRESSLY
EXCLUDED LIABILITY FOR TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY INCURRED BEFORE THE
POLICY "WAS APPLIED FOR."  THE DELIBERATE OMISSION, IN THE CONVERTED
POLICIES, OF THIS PREVIOUS EXCLUSION, THE LANGUAGE AND PURPORT OF THE
ORIGINAL ACT AND ITS AMENDMENTS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS AND
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, ALL THROW A FLOOD OF LIGHT ON THE INTENTION TO
INCLUDE LIABILITY FOR DISABILITIES EXISTING PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF
THE POLICIES. 

FOR MORE THAN A DECADE PRIOR TO 1934, (DURING WHICH PERIOD THIS
VETERAN'S POLICY WAS PURCHASED), THE BUREAU, UNVARYINGLY OBSERVING THE
STATUTORY MANDATE, ANNOUNCED AND APPLIED THE PRACTICE THAT "INSURANCE
WAS INCONTESTABLE EXCEPT FOR THE GROUNDS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED" IN
THE INCONTESTABLE PROVISION.  A "SUBSEQUENT RATING OF PERMANENT TOTAL
DISABILITY EFFECTIVE AS OF A DATE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT,"
UNDER THIS CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AND PRACTICE, DID
"NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF SUCH REINSTATEMENT."  BECAUSE OF COURT
DECISIONS AND RULINGS BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL TENDING TO NULLIFY AND
DEFEAT THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE  FN8  THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION
URGED THE AMENDMENT OF JULY 3, 1930, TO CONFIRM ITS PRACTICE AND TO
STRENGTHEN AND CLARIFY THE INCONTESTABLE PROVISION.  FOR THIS PURPOSE,
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE
COMMITTEE AS TO THE NECESSITY FOR THIS AMENDMENT:  FN9 

"THIS IS A VERY SWEEPING AMENDMENT AND WILL PLACE BEYOND CONTEST MANY
CONTRACTS AND POLICIES OF INSURANCE WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD BE
CONTESTABLE.  IT IS A WELL RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF COMMERCIAL INSURANCE
COMPANIES, HOWEVER, AND IN REALITY IS ONLY A CLARIFICATION OF THE
EXISTING LAW WHICH WAS PRACTICALLY NULLIFIED BY A RECENT DECISION OF
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL." 

THE SOLICITOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS ALSO TESTIFIED: 

"...  THE PRESENT WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT OF 1924, AS AMENDED,
CONTAINS A PROVISION TO THE EFFECT THAT WHERE A POLICY IS MAINTAINED IN
FORCE FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, IT SHOULD BE INCONTESTABLE, EXCEPT
FOR FRAUD OR NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS.  WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT, AND IN ALL
CASES WHERE THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN FORCE FOR SIX MONTHS WE HAVE
PAID THE CLAIM, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MERITS OF IT, UNLESS THERE WAS
FRAUD OR FAILURE TO PAY PREMIUMS....  HOWEVER, UNDER DATE OF JANUARY
16, 1930, NOTWITHSTANDING THE LONG PRACTICE OF THE BUREAU, THE
COMPTROLLER GENERAL, IN THE CASE OF MABRY W. WOODALL, HELD THAT IF A
MAN WAS PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED AT THE TIME HE APPLIED FOR A
REINSTATEMENT OF INSURANCE, OR CONVERSION OF INSURANCE,  ...  THE
POLICY WAS NOT INCONTESTABLE, THE STATUTE DID NOT PROTECT IT  ..." 

IN THE WOODALL CASE REFERRED TO, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL HAD HELD: 

"...  IF THE INSURED WAS IN FACT DEAD OR PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY
DISABLED, AT THE DATE OF APPLICATION, REINSTATEMENT OR CONVERSION,  ...
THE INSURANCE WAS SUBJECT TO SUBSEQUENT CONTEST. 

     .  .         .         .         . 

"ACCORDINGLY, THE RULE MAY BE STATED THAT WHERE THE VETERANS' BUREAU
HAS HERETOFORE ESTABLISHED OR MAY HEREAFTER ESTABLISH THE CONDITION OF
PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY AT OR PRIOR TO DATE OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION
FOR INSURANCE, OR APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT AND/OR CONVERSION OF
INSURANCE,  ...  THE INSURANCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INVALID  ..." 

THE SENATE REPORT ON THIS AMENDMENT  FN10  STATED: 

"THE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE ALL CONTRACTS OR POLICIES OF INSURANCE
INCONTESTABLE FROM DATE OF ISSUANCE, REINSTATEMENT, OR CONVERSION, FOR
ALL REASONS EXCEPT FRAUD, NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, OR THAT THE APPLICANT
WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THIS INCONTESTABILITY WOULD PROTECT CONTRACTS  ...  WHERE THE APPLICANT
WAS NOT IN THE REQUIRED STATE OF HEALTH, OR WAS PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY
DISABLED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION,  ...  IT IS APPRECIATED THAT
THIS IS A BROAD PROVISION, BUT IT WAS FELT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY IN
ORDER TO DO JUSTICE TO THE VETERANS,  ...  AND TO OVERCOME DECISIONS OF
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL WHICH PRACTICALLY NULLIFIED THE SECTION AS IT
NOW EXISTS." 

THE CONCLUSION IS INESCAPABLE THAT CONGRESS ENACTED THE 1930
AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO OVERCOME THE EFFECT OF THE ABOVE RULINGS OF THE
COURTS AND THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, AND WITH THE INTENTION TO SUSTAIN
THE BUREAU'S PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AND PRACTICE UNDER
THE INCONTESTABLE PROVISION. 

TO RESIST PAYMENT OF THIS VETERAN'S INSURANCE POLICY ON THE GROUND
THAT HE WAS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE
POLICY, IS TO "CONTEST" PAYMENT WITHIN THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED MEANING
OF THE WORD AND VIOLATES THE "INCONTESTABLE" PROVISION.  THE PURCHASER
OF A POLICY CONTRACT CONTAINING A PROVISION THAT THE INSURER WAIVES ITS
RIGHT TO CONTEST EXCEPT FOR FRAUD, NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, AND LACK OF
MILITARY OR NAVAL SERVICE, IS ENTITLED TO RELY ON THE PLAIN TERMS AND
INDUCEMENTS OF THE PROVISION WHICH LIMITS THE GROUNDS FOR CONTEST OF
LIABILITY TO THOSE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED.  FN11  THE INCONTESTABLE
PROVISION HERE MEANS THAT A CLAIM OF A VETERAN WHOSE DEATH OR TOTAL
PERMANENT DISABILITY IS ESTABLISHED SHALL NOT BE CONTESTED EXCEPT FOR
FRAUD, NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS OR ON THE GROUND THAT THE INSURED HAD NOT
REALLY BEEN A MEMBER OF THE WAR FORCES OF THE NATION OR BECAUSE HE WAS
INCLUDED IN TITLE 38, U.S.C., SEC. 447.  FN12 CONGRESS EVIDENTLY
BELIEVED THESE EXCEPTIONS AFFORDED THE GOVERNMENT AMPLE PROTECTION
AGAINST IMPOSITIONS OR UNJUST CLAIMS AND INTENDED TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO
CONTEST THESE POLICIES TO THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS RESERVED IN THE
EXCEPTIONS.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.    FN1
90 F.(2D) 715. 

FN2  SEC. 307, WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT, 1924, AS AMENDED JULY 3, 1930,
C. 849, SEC. 24, 46 STAT. 1001. 

FN3  SEC. 400, WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT OF OCT. 6, 1917, C. 105, 40
STAT. 409.    FN4  SEE, UNITED STATES V. ARZNER, 287 U.S. 470, 472. 

FN5  SEE, UNITED STATES V. DOMANGUE, 79 F.(2D) 647, 648. 

FN6  NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 254 U.S. 96, 101,
102. 

FN7  GENERAL INTEREST INS. CO. V. RUGGLES, 12 WHEAT.  408; SEE,
HOOPER V. ROBINSON, 98 U.S. 528, 537; PENDERGAST V. GLOBE & R. FIRE
INS. CO., 246 N.Y. 396; 159 N.E. 183; HALLOCK V. COMMERCIAL INS. CO.,
26 N.J.L. (2 DUTCH.)  268; SEE, SPRINGFIELD FIRE & M. INS. CO. V.
NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO., 51 F.(2D) 714, 718-719.  A VALID ALEATORY
CONTRACT MAY BE BASED ON AN UNKNOWN PAST EVENT.  3 WILLISTON, ON
CONTRACTS, (REV. ED.), SEC. 888. 

FN8  9 COMPT.  GEN.  291; JORDAN V. UNITED STATES, 36 F.(2D) 43;
GOLDEN V. UNITED STATES, 34 F.(2D) 367. 

FN9  H.R. 10381, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS., HEARINGS SENATE COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE, PAGES 90-91. 

FN10  SENATE REPORT NO. 1128, P. 10, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS., ON H.R.
13174. 

FN11  SEE, NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, AT
102. 

FN12  38 U.S.C., SEC. 518, AND SEC. 447.  THIS REFERENCE TO SEC. 447
EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFITS OF THIS INCONTESTABLE PROVISION ANY PERSON
WHO HAD BEEN DISCHARGED OR DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE ON THE GROUND
THAT HE WAS "GUILTY OF MUTINY, TREASON, SPYING, OR ANY OFFENSE
INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, OR WILLFUL AND PERSISTENT MISCONDUCT, OF
WHICH HE WAS FOUND GUILTY BY A COURT-MARTIAL, OR THAT HE WAS AN ALIEN,
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR WHO REFUSED TO PERFORM MILITARY DUTY OR REFUSED
TO WEAR THE UNIFORM, OR A DESERTER,  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :












ADAIR V. BANK OF AMERICA ASSN., 303 U.S. 350 


NO. 365.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1938.  - 90
F.2D 750, REVERSED. 


1.  SUBDIVISIONS (E) AND (N) OF SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, WHICH
PROVIDE FOR EXERCISE OF SUCH CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY OF THE FARMER
DEBTOR AS THE COURT DEEMS IN HIS BEST INTEREST AND IN THAT OF HIS
CREDITORS, LOOK TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE FARM AS A GOING CONCERN AND
AUTHORIZE, IN A PROPER CASE, THE CONTINUANCE OF THE FARM OPERATIONS
AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION.  P. 354. 

2.  A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SEC. 75 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT AND RULE L OF THE GENERAL ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY,
EXERCISES JUDICIAL POWERS LIKE THOSE OF A REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY; HIS
ACTS IN AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS IN HIS CHARGE, IF PERFORMED IN
GOOD FAITH AND NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANY RULE OR POSITIVE ENACTMENT, ARE
JUDICIAL ACTS FOR WHICH HE CAN NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE.  P. 357. 

3.  IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, PROCEEDS OF
THE SALE OF A CROP OF GRAPES WERE SPENT BY THE CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER IN HARVESTING THE CROP AND IN WORK FOR THE PRESERVATION OF
THE VINEYARD AND CULTIVATION OF THE CROP FOR THE NEXT YEAR.  PART OF
THE DISBURSEMENTS WERE MADE BEFORE THE FARMER-DEBTOR WAS ADJUDGED A
BANKRUPT, AND PART THEREAFTER BY DIRECTION OF THE REFEREE.  A CREDITOR
CLAIMED THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF THE SALE UNDER A MORTGAGE OF THE CROP
SOLD AND FUTURE CROPS.  THE SAME CREDITOR HAD A MORTGAGE ON THE FARM. 
HELD: 

(1)  THAT, AS THE COMMISSIONER ACTED EITHER JUDICIALLY, AS
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, OR MINISTERIALLY, AS AN ARM OF THE COURT BY
AUTHORITY OF THE REFEREE, HE WAS NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE TO THE
CREDITOR.  P. 358. 

(2)  EXPENDITURES, REASONABLE IN AMOUNT, FOR GATHERING THE CROP SOLD,
AND ALSO THOSE IN PREPARATION FOR THE NEXT YEAR'S CROP AND FOR
MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY, WERE PROPER CHARGES ON THE FUND, BEING FOR
ITS PROTECTION AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE MORTGAGEE.  P. 360. 

ADAIR V. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & SAVINGS ASSN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 674, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED AN
ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT SETTLING THE FINAL ACCOUNT OF THE PRESENT
PETITIONER AS A CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING. 

MR. JUSTICE REED DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT WAS ASKED TO REVIEW A DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, UPHOLDING THE OBJECTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
OF THE RESPONDENT, A CREDITOR, TO THE FINAL ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER, A
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER APPOINTED UNDER SEC. 75(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT, AND REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH HAD SETTLED
AND ALLOWED THE ACCOUNT.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE
PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PAY TO RESPONDENT THE GROSS
PROCEEDS OF THE GRAPE CROP HARVESTED ON THE DEBTOR'S LAND AFTER THE
DEBTOR HAD FILED HIS PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION FOR MONEYS SPENT IN HARVESTING THAT CROP AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE CROP WAS SUBJECT TO A
CHATTEL MORTGAGE HELD BY RESPONDENT.  90 F.(2D) 750.  IN VIEW OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED UNDER
SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

ON AUGUST 6, 1934, ANDREA CUCCIA, A FARMER, FILED AN ADEQUATE
PETITION UNDER SEC. 75(A) TO (R) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, SHOWING BY THE
SCHEDULES SECURED CLAIMS TO RESPONDENT OF OVER $12,000 AND UNSECURED
CLAIMS OF A SLIGHTLY LARGER AMOUNT, AND EXPRESSING HIS DESIRE TO EFFECT
A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY HIS DEBTS.  HIS PETITION WAS
REFERRED TO NOAH ADAIR, THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA.  ON JANUARY 7, 1935, AN AMENDED PETITION
WAS FILED BY THE DEBTOR, STATING THAT HE HAD FAILED TO OBTAIN THE
APPROVAL OF HIS CREDITORS TO A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION PROPOSAL AND
PRAYING THAT HE MIGHT BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 75, SUBSECTION (S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS ENACTED JUNE 28,
1934.  ADJUDICATION WAS ENTERED AND THE PROCEEDINGS REFERRED TO THE
REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY.  ON OCTOBER 14, 1935, THE DISTRICT COURT, ON A
MOTION BY THE RESPONDENT, DISMISSED THE PETITION.  ON MARCH 16, 1936,
THE DEBTOR ATTEMPTED TO INVOKE THE BENEFITS OF THE AMENDED SEC. 75(S),
BUT WE ARE NOT HERE CONCERNED WITH THAT PETITION AND THE SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS (SET OUT IN BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & S. ASSN. V.
CUCCIA, 93 F.(2D) 754, DECIDED DECEMBER 30, 1937, ON REHEARING, BY THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT). 

THE RESPONDENT, AT THE BEGINNING OF AND THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS,
HELD A MATURED NOTE OF THE DEBTOR AND HIS WIFE, SECURED BY A DEED OF
TRUST ON CERTAIN LANDS IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, AND
BY A MORTGAGE ON THE CROPS GROWING OR TO BE GROWN ON THE SAME LANDS,
DURING 1933 AND 1934, OR PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT IN FULL OF THE TOTAL
INDEBTEDNESS.  THE CROP MORTGAGE REQUIRED THE MORTGAGOR TO CULTIVATE,
HARVEST AND DELIVER THE CROP TO THE MORTGAGEE, WITHOUT COST TO THE
MORTGAGEE, FOR SALE AND APPLICATION OF THE PROCEEDS TO THE DEBT. 

THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE RESPONDENT'S PETITION
TO THE COURT, ON FEBRUARY 6, 1936, FOR AN ACCOUNTING BY THE
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER OF FUNDS REALIZED FROM CROPS SOLD OFF THE
DEBTOR'S PREMISES IN 1934.  IN RESPONSE TO THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER MADE AN ACCOUNTING AS APPEARS IN
THE FOOTNOTE.  FN1  THE BANK OBJECTED TO THE ACCOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT
THE MONEY WAS THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF A CROP COVERED BY THE CHATTEL
MORTGAGE ABOVE REFERRED TO AND THAT THE DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE FUND
WERE MADE WITHOUT VALID ORDER BY THE DISTRICT COURT AND WITHOUT THE
BANK'S NOTICE OR KNOWLEDGE OF ANY COURT ORDER.  IT WAS FURTHER OBJECTED
THAT AFTER ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY UNDER SEC. 75(S) THE CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER HAD NO JURISDICTION.  PETITIONER STATED IN HIS ANSWER AND
TESTIMONY THAT THE ITEMS APPEARING PRIOR TO THE ADJUDICATION IN
BANKRUPTCY OF JANUARY 7, 1935, WERE DISBURSED, ON HIS ORDERS AS
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, EITHER TO GATHER THE 1934 CROP OR TO PROVIDE
FOR CARE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT THE ITEMS APPEARING FROM JANUARY 22
THROUGH JUNE 1, 1935, WERE DISBURSED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE REFEREE
IN BANKRUPTCY.  THE DISTRICT COURT, FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURES OF
THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER WERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONSERVING THE ESTATE, SETTLED AND ALLOWED THE ACCOUNT.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ACCOUNT AND
THE PAYMENT BY THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER TO THE RESPONDENT OF THE
GROSS PROCEEDS OF THE MORTGAGED CROP. 

FIRST.  THE POWERS GRANTED BY THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, SEC. 8, CL. 4, ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE
BANKRUPTCY LAW AND PRACTICE IN FORCE IN ENGLAND OR THE STATES AT THE
TIME OF ITS ADOPTION.  CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NAT. BANK & T. CO. V.
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648, 668.  THEN THE INTERESTS OF
THE CREDITOR ALONE WERE PROTECTED.  PROGRESSIVE LIBERALIZATION OF
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY LAWS, IN AN EFFORT TO AVERT THE EVILS OF
LIQUIDATION, HAS FURNISHED OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPOSITION IN BANKRUPTCY
PROCEEDINGS AND LATER FOR COMPOSITION AND EXTENSION OF DEBTS IN RELIEF
PROCEEDINGS FOR INDIVIDUAL DEBTORS, FOR REORGANIZATION OF RAILROADS AND
OTHER CORPORATIONS, AND FOR PUBLIC DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS.  FN2 

FOR THE REHABILITATION OF FARMERS.  WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH BANK, 300
U.S. 440, 456.  IT IS SOUGHT TO ACCOMPLISH THIS REHABILITATION THROUGH
COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF DEBTS, SUBSECTIONS (E) TO (L).  ON FAILURE
OF COMPOSITION AND EXTENSION, FURTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR REHABILITATION IS
AFFORDED THE DEBTOR, THROUGH PROVISIONS ENABLING HIM TO RETAIN
POSSESSION OF HIS PROPERTY, UNDER CONDITIONS FAVORABLE TO ITS ULTIMATE
REDEMPTION BY HIM.  THESE STEPS ARE CARRIED OUT UNDER JUDICIAL
SUPERVISION, SUBSECTION (S).  FN4 

TO ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE, SEC. 75 PROVIDES THAT THE FILING OF A
PETITION SHALL EFFECT A STAY.  FN5  SUCH A STAY UNDER JUDICIAL
DISCRETION AS TO ENFORCEMENT OF CLAIMS DOES NOT TAKE PROPERTY WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS AND IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NAT. BANK & T.
CO. V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., SUPRA, AT PAGES 675 ET SEQ. AND 680
ET SEQ.; WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, SUPRA, 460; HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN.
V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398.  IN ORDER TO OPERATE AND PROTECT THE
PROPERTY DURING THE STAY, AND PENDING CONFIRMATION OR OTHER DISPOSITION
OF THE COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION PROPOSAL, THE STATUTE PROVIDES IN
SUBSECTIONS (E) AND (N)  FN6  FOR THE EXERCISE BY THE COURT OF "SUCH
CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY OF THE FARMER AS THE COURT DEEMS IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE FARMER AND HIS CREDITORS."  THESE PROVISIONS LOOK
TOWARD THE MAINTENANCE OF THE FARM AS A GOING CONCERN, AND AFFORD CLEAR
AUTHORITY, IN A PROPER CASE, FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE OPERATIONS OF
THE FARM AFTER THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT. 

SECOND.  IN HOLDING THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER PERSONALLY LIABLE,
WE THINK THE LOWER COURT MISCONCEIVED THE NATURE OF HIS OFFICE.  AT THE
TIME OF FILING THE ORIGINAL PETITION FOR COMPOSITION AND EXTENSION,
AUGUST 6, 1934, SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS COMPRISED OF
SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (S) INCLUSIVE.  SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (R) MADE
PROVISION FOR CONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS, SET UP THE SAME
QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY TO THIS OFFICE AS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE
OFFICE OF REFEREE, AUTHORIZED THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS TO RECEIVE
AND TRANSMIT THE PETITIONS AND SCHEDULES, TO CALL THE FIRST MEETING OF
CREDITORS, WITH NOTICE OF TERMS OF COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION, TO HEAR
THE PARTIES IN INTEREST, TO PREPARE FINAL INVENTORY, TO SUPERVISE THE
FARMER'S AFFAIRS DURING AN EXTENSION PERIOD AND TO DISTRIBUTE THE
CONSIDERATION AFTER A COMPOSITION.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 75,
SUBSECTION (B), THIS COURT, AS OF APRIL 24, 1933, ESTABLISHED RULE L,
GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75, (A) TO (R) INCLUSIVE, AS AN
ADDITION TO THE GENERAL ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY, 288 U.S. AT 641.  RULE L
PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE TO THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, AND HIS
CARRYING OUT OF THE DUTIES OUTLINED ABOVE.  THE COMMISSIONER WAS GIVEN,
IN SO FAR AS CONSISTENT WITH SEC. 75 AND RULE L, "ALL THE POWERS AND
DUTIES OF A REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY," TO BE CARRIED OUT UNDER THE GENERAL
ORDERS IN BANKRUPTCY.  RULE L (11).  SECTIONS 38 AND 39 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT AND SUBSECTIONS 3 AND 6 OF RULE L INDICATE THE WIDE
EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER.  UNDER SEC.
38, BANKRUPTCY ACT, CLAUSE FOUR, THE REFEREE IS EMPOWERED TO "PERFORM
SUCH PART OF THE DUTIES, EXCEPT AS TO QUESTIONS ARISING OUT OF THE
APPLICATIONS OF BANKRUPTS FOR COMPOSITIONS OR DISCHARGES, AS ARE BY
THIS ACT CONFERRED ON COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY  ..."  FN7 

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER HAD THE
AUTHORITY, PRIOR TO THE ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY UNDER SEC. 75(S), TO
ACT AS THE "COURT," IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AND SUBJECT TO REVIEW, IN
CONTROLLING THE PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR "IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
FARMER AND HIS CREDITORS."  SEC. 75(E).  IN RE WIEDMER, 82 F.(2D) 566. 
UNDER THIS AUTHORITY THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER ACTED IN AUTHORIZING
THE EXPENDITURES SHOWN ON THE ACCOUNT FOR GATHERING THE CROP OF 1934,
PREPARING FOR THE CROP OF 1935, AND PAYING FEES AND EXPENSES.  IT IS
PLAIN THAT THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, LIKE THE REFEREE (WHITE V.
SCHLOERB, 178 U.S. 542, 546; MUELLER V. NUGENT, 184 U.S. 1, 13)
EXERCISES SOME OF THE "JUDICIAL AUTHORITY" OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 
THE ACTS JUST DETAILED WERE JUDICIAL ACTS.  ERROR WITHIN HIS
JURISDICTION DOES NOT SUBJECT HIM TO PERSONAL LIABILITY.  RANDALL V.
BRIGHAM, 7 WALL.  523, 535.  SEE ALSO BRADLEY V. FISHER, 13 WALL.  335;
ALZUA V. JOHNSON, 231 U.S. 106; YASELLI V. GOFF, 275 U.S. 503.  CF.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. BONNER, 74 F.(2D) 139, 142; UNITED STATES V.
WARD, 257 FED. 372, 377.  THIS DOCTRINE IS QUITE CLEAR WHEN, AS HERE,
NO RULE OR POSITIVE ENACTMENT WAS VIOLATED AND THE ACTS WERE BONA
FIDE. 

THE FACT THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE CROP WERE BANKED TO THE JOINT
ACCOUNT OF THE DEBTOR AND THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER MAY HAVE
OBSCURED THE JUDICIAL CHARACTER OF THE LATTER.  BETTER PRACTICE WOULD
SUGGEST THAT THE ACCOUNT APPEAR IN THE NAME OF THE DEBTOR, WITH THE
COUNTER-SIGNATURE OF THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER REQUIRED FOR
WITHDRAWALS.  ALSO, AT AN EARLY, PREFERABLY THE FIRST, MEETING OF
CREDITORS, THE METHOD OF HANDLING THE BUSINESS OF THE DEBTOR PENDING
CONFIRMATION OR FURTHER ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND PROPER
ORDERS ENTERED.  CF. SEC. 12(A), BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THIS DOES NOT APPEAR
TO HAVE BEEN DONE.  THESE IRREGULARITIES DO NOT SUFFICE TO WITHDRAW
FROM THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER HIS JUDICIAL PROTECTION.  ALZUA V.
JOHNSON, 231 U.S. 106. 

SOME DISBURSEMENTS WERE MADE AFTER THE ADJUDICATION IN BANKRUPTCY
UNDER SUBSECTION (S) AND THE REFERENCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO A REFEREE
IN BANKRUPTCY.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER, UNDER SEC. 75(S)
AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED, THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER COULD HAVE
CONTINUED TO ACT AS REFEREE.  IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO FURTHER
REFERENCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO PETITIONER, AND HE CONTINUED TO ACT
SOLELY AT THE DIRECTION OF THE REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY.  HIS
UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHEN THIS MATTER WAS REFERRED TO D. W. RICHARDS AS REFEREE I WANTED
HIM TO TAKE THE MONEY I HAD ON HAND AND BECOME THE CUSTODIAN OF IT.  HE
ASKED ME TO KEEP THE MONEY AND SAID HE WOULD TRUST ME IN THE
EXPENDITURE OF THE MONEY WHILE IT WAS UNDER HIM AND THAT HE WOULD O.K.
THE CHECKS, SO ALL THE CHECKS THAT WERE WRITTEN AFTER IT WENT TO D. W.
RICHARDS WERE O. K.'D BY HIM AND I WROTE THE CHECKS AT HIS REQUEST." 

WITHOUT DETERMINING THE EFFECT OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF
SUBSECTION (S) UPON THE STEPS TAKEN UNDER ITS AUTHORITY, IT APPEARS
THAT THE PETITIONER ACTED EITHER JUDICIALLY, CONTINUING TO EXERCISE HIS
POWERS AS CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, OR MINISTERIALLY, AS AN ARM OF THE
COURT, UNDER THE DIRECTION AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE REFEREE.  UNDER
THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE DO NOT THINK PETITIONER IS PERSONALLY LIABLE
FOR THESE DISBURSEMENTS.  CF. FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. BONNER, 74 F.(2D)
139, 142. 

THIRD.  MOREOVER, THE EXPENDITURES ASSAILED BY RESPONDENT WERE
PROPER, AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE PRINCIPAL ITEMS (WHICH ARE THE
ONLY ONES WE SHALL CONSIDER) - THE AMOUNTS SPENT IN HARVESTING THE 1934
CROP, WHICH WAS SOLD IN ORDER TO CREATE THE FUND, AND THE AMOUNTS SPENT
FOR PRESERVATION OF THE VINEYARD AND FOR THE CULTIVATION OF THE 1935
CROP.  THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT PETITIONER WAS IMPROVIDENT.  REFERENCE
IS MADE IN HIS ACCOUNT TO MONEY PAID TO THE FARMER AS "LIVING
EXPENSES," BUT THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID THE DEBTOR
DID NOT EXCEED THE ORDINARY WAGES FOR THE WORK HE ACTUALLY AND
NECESSARILY PERFORMED IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE VINEYARD.  COMPARE
WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, SUPRA, 300 U.S. AT 466; IN RE BARROW, 98 FED.
582.    THE COURT BELOW RULED THAT UNDER THE CROP MORTGAGE THE FARMER
HAD THE OBLIGATION TO CULTIVATE AND HARVEST THE CROP AT HIS OWN
EXPENSE, AND THEREFORE THE GROSS PROCEEDS BELONGED TO RESPONDENT.  THIS
CONCLUSION DISREGARDS THE FACT THAT THE DEBTOR DID NOT HARVEST THE
GRAPES AS AN ORDINARY MORTGAGOR.  HE HAD COME INTO COURT SEEKING RELIEF
UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE FILING OF HIS PETITION PUT
THE PROPERTY IN THE CONTROL OF THE COURT AND THE HARVESTING OF THE CROP
AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY BECAME A MATTER FOR THE CONCERN
AND ACTION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT CERTAINLY CANNOT COMPLAIN OF THE DEVOTION OF THE PROCEEDS
OF THE 1934 CROP TO THE COST OF HARVESTING THAT CROP.  THE CARE AND
HARVESTING OF THAT CROP REPRESENTED THE ONLY WAY TO PRESERVE ITS WORTH
(CF. UNION TRUST CO. V. ILLINOIS MIDLAND RY. CO., 117 U.S. 434, 455),
AND THE COST OF PROTECTING A FUND IN COURT IS EVERYWHERE RECOGNIZED AS
A DOMINANT CHARGE ON THAT FUND.  SEE BRONSON V. LA CROSSE R. CO., 1
WALL.  405, 410; SHEPHERD V. PEPPER, 133 U.S. 626, 652; THOMPSON V.
PHENIX INS. CO., 136 U.S. 287, 293; ATLANTIC TRUST CO. V. CHAPMAN, 208
U.S. 360, 376; WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, SUPRA, 300 U.S. AT 468.  THE
RULE APPLIES EVEN IN ORDINARY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS  FN8  SINCE THE
SECURED CREDITOR BENEFITS FROM THE DISBURSEMENT.  FN9 

AND SINCE THE CREDITOR IN THIS CASE HAD A LIEN ON THE CROP FOR FUTURE
YEARS AND ON THE REAL ESTATE, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE MONEY EXPENDED FOR
MAINTENANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE AND TOWARD PRODUCTION OF THE 1935 CROP
WAS NOT LIKEWISE FOR ITS BENEFIT.  COMPARE WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH,
SUPRA, 300 U.S. AT 468.  FN10  RESPONDENT ITSELF HAS SUGGESTED, IN
ANOTHER CONNECTION (SEE BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST & S. ASSN. V.
CUCCIA, SUPRA), THAT THE GRAPE VINES REQUIRE "CULTIVATION, PRUNING AND
CARE," LEST THEY "DETERIORATE."  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE
EFFECT OF AN EXPENDITURE OF THE PROCEEDS OF A CROP WHERE THE MORTGAGEE
HAS NO LIEN ON THE PROPERTY PRESERVED AND PROTECTED BY THE
EXPENDITURES. 

THE DECREE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACCOUNT - FILED FEBRUARY 17, 1936: 

SEPTEMBER 26, 1934 - AN ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF ANDREA

CUCCIA AND NOAH ADAIR WAS OPENED WITH THE AMERICAN

NATIONAL BANK, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, AND A

DEPOSIT OF $1,437.37 WAS
MADE................................$1,437.37 

SEPTEMBER 26, 1934 - CASH, LABOR, FOR 20 MEN ON RANCH. 

COURT ORDER ISSUED*..........................................
340.00 

OCTOBER 1, 1934 - ANDREA CUCCIA................................
59.33 

OCTOBER 30, 1934 - ANDREA CUCCIA, 14 DAYS LABOR COURT

ORDER ISSUED.................................................
42.00 

NOVEMBER 27, 1934 - ANDREW CUCCIA, $15.  LIVING EXPENSE

$20, FILING FEE UNDER 75(S) AND $20, FEED FOR HORSE. 

COURT ORDER..................................................
55.00 

DECEMBER 20, 1934 - ANDREA CUCCIA, $10.  FEED FOR HORSE

AND $10.  LIVING EXPENSE......................................
20.00 

JANUARY 22, 1935 - ANDREA CUCCIA, $20.  AND LABOR ON

GROVE $144.00................................................
164.00 

(FOL. 18) JANUARY 22, 1935 - D. W. RICHARDS INDEMNITY

FEE UNDER SECTION 75(S)......................................
18.25 

FEBRUARY 1, 1935 - ANDREA CUCCIA, LABOR, 8 MEN, 11 DAYS

EACH.........................................................
264.00 

FEBRUARY 15, 1935 - ANDREA CUCCIA LABOR........................
90.00 

MARCH 15, 1935 - ANDREA CUCCIA, $45.  LABOR; $20.  HAY AND

$10.  LIVING EXPENSE..........................................
75.00 

APRIL 19, 1935 - JOS.  E. RICH, COURT REPORTER..................
22.50 

APRIL 19, 1935 - RALPH W. ECKHARDT, ATTORNEYS FEE..............
50.00 

APRIL 19, 1935 - ANDREA CUCCIA, 37 DAYS WORK OF HIRED MEN......
111.00 

MAY 11, 1935 - ANDREA CUCCIA, SULPHUR FOR GRAPES...............
60.00 

JUNE 1, 1935 - ANDREA CUCCIA, LABOR FOR TWO MEN WORKING

IN GRAPES....................................................
30.00 

TOTAL...................................................$1,401.08 

TAX, ETC.......................................................
.60

                                                 $1,401.68 

BALANCE IN BANK TO DATE, $35.69. 

*(THE "COURT ORDER" REFERS TO AN ORDER ENTERED BY PETITIONER
HIMSELF.  THE ONLY ORDER ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS TO THESE
EXPENDITURES WAS ITS ORDER OF APPROVAL OF THE ACCOUNT FILED BY
PETITIONER.) 

FN2  BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1867, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF 1874, C. 390,
SEC. 17, 18 STAT. 178, 182; ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, C. 204, 47 STAT.
1467; ACT OF JUNE 7, 1934, C. 424, 48 STAT. 911; ACT OF JUNE 28, 1934,
C. 869, 48 STAT. 1289; ACT OF APRIL 10, 1936, C. 186, 49 STAT. 1198;
ACT OF APRIL 11, 1936, C. 210, 49 STAT. 1203, ACT OF AUGUST 16, 1937,
C. 657, 50 STAT. 653. 

FN3  SUBSECTIONS (A) TO (R) WERE ADDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933,
C. 204, SEC. 1, 47 STAT. 1470-1473, AND SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) AMENDED
BY THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1934, C. 424, SECS. 8 AND 9, 48 STAT. 911, 925. 
SUBSECTION (S), THE FIRST FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT, WAS ADDED JUNE 28, 1934,
C. 869, 48 STAT. 1289.  SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION IN LOUISVILLE JOINT
STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS,
INCLUDING (S), WERE AMENDED BY THE NEW FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT, AUGUST 28,
1935, C. 792, 49 STAT. 942. 

FN4  SUBSECTION (S) IN EFFECT AT THE INSTITUTION OF THIS PROCEEDING
FOR THE RELIEF OF A DEBTOR WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN LOUISVILLE
JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555.  THE NEW SUBSECTION (S)
WAS APPROVED IN WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440. 

FN5  SUBSECTION (O) OF SEC. 75(WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN AMENDED)
PROVIDES: 

"(O) EXCEPT UPON PETITION MADE TO AND GRANTED BY THE JUDGE AFTER
HEARING AND REPORT BY THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER, THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS SHALL NOT BE INSTITUTED, OR IF INSTITUTED AT ANY TIME PRIOR
TO THE FILING OF A PETITION UNDER THIS SECTION, SHALL NOT BE
MAINTAINED, IN ANY COURT OR OTHERWISE, AGAINST THE FARMER OR HIS
PROPERTY, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION UNDER THIS
COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION PROPOSAL BY THE COURT: 

"(1) PROCEEDINGS FOR ANY DEMAND, DEBT, OR ACCOUNT, INCLUDING ANY
MONEY DEMAND; 

"(2) PROCEEDINGS FOR FORECLOSURE OF A MORTGAGE ON LAND, OR FOR
CANCELLATION, RESCISSION, OR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AN AGREEMENT FOR
SALE OF LAND OR FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF LAND; 

"(3) PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE TITLE TO LAND BY VIRTUE OF ANY TAX SALE; 

"(4) PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF EXECUTION, OF ATTACHMENT, OR GARNISHMENT; 

"(5) PROCEEDINGS TO SELL LAND UNDER OR IN SATISFACTION OF ANY
JUDGMENT OR MECHANIC'S LIEN; AND 

"(6) SEIZURE, DISTRESS, SALE, OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER AN EXECUTION
OR UNDER ANY LEASE, LIEN, CHATTEL MORTGAGE, CONDITIONAL SALE AGREEMENT,
CROP PAYMENT AGREEMENT, OR MORTGAGE." 

FN6  THESE SUBSECTIONS, AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED, READ: 

"(E)  ...  AFTER THE FILING OF THE PETITION AND PRIOR TO THE
CONFIRMATION OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION
PROPOSAL BY THE COURT, THE COURT SHALL EXERCISE SUCH CONTROL OVER THE
PROPERTY OF THE FARMER AS THE COURT DEEMS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
FARMER AND HIS CREDITORS." 

"(N) THE FILING OF A PETITION PLEADING FOR RELIEF UNDER THIS SECTION
SHALL SUBJECT THE FARMER AND HIS PROPERTY, WHEREVER LOCATED, TO THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.  IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS
POWERS OF THE COURT, THE TITLE, POWERS, AND DUTIES OF ITS OFFICERS, THE
DUTIES OF THE FARMER, AND THE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF CREDITORS, AND
OF ALL PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE FARMER AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE COURTS, SHALL BE THE SAME AS IF A
VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN FILED AND A DECREE OF
ADJUDICATION HAD BEEN ENTERED ON THE DAY WHEN THE FARMER'S PETITION OR
ANSWER WAS FILED." 

SUBSECTION (E) HAS NEVER BEEN AMENDED.  SUBSECTION (N) WAS AMENDED IN
RESPECTS NOT MATERIAL HERE, BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1935, C. 792, 49
STAT. 942. 

FN7  "APPLICATIONS OF BANKRUPTS FOR COMPOSITIONS," AS USED IN THIS
CLAUSE, DOES NOT REFER TO PROCEEDINGS OF DEBTOR FOR REHABILITATION
UNDER SEC. 75.  AND EVEN UNDER SEC. 12, THE REFEREE HAS AUTHORITY TO
PROCEED WITH STEPS PRELIMINARY TO THE APPLICATION FOR CONFIRMATION OF
THE COMPOSITION PROPOSAL.  CF. GENERAL ORDER XII, PARAGRAPH 3; IN RE
BLOODWORTH-STEMBRIDGE CO., 178 FED. 372. 

RULE 77 OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
READS AS FOLLOWS:  "RULE 77.  - JURISDICTION OF REFEREES.  IT IS
ORDERED THAT THE REFEREES IN BANKRUPTCY OF SAID COURT BE, AND THEY ARE
HEREBY VESTED WITH JURISDICTION IN ALL BANKRUPTCY CASES WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTIES, TO PERFORM ALL THE DUTIES
CONFERRED ON COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY, WHICH REFEREES MAY BE REQUIRED OR
AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM; EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY GENERAL ORDER IN
BANKRUPTCY NO. XII." 

FN8  THOUGH THE COURT ORDERS A SALE FREE OF LIENS WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF THE LIENHOLDER, THE COST OF PRESERVING THE PROPERTY IS DEDUCTED
BEFORE THE PROCEEDS ARE TURNED OVER TO HIM.  C.B. NORTON JEWELRY CO. V.
HINDS, 245 FED. 341, 343; IN RE N.Y. & PHILA.  PACKAGE CO., 225 FED.
219, 224; IN RE HANSEN & BIRCH, 292 FED. 898, 899; IN RE WESTMORELAND,
4 F.(2D) 602, 603; IN RE PRINCE & WALKER, 131 FED. 546, 551; IN RE
DAVIS, 155 FED. 671, 673. 

FN9  SEE VIRGINIA SECURITIES CORP. V. PATRICK ORCHARDS, 20 F.(2D) 78,
81; C.B. NORTON JEWELRY CO. V. HINDS, 245 FED. 341, 343; IN RE PRINCE &
WALKER, 131 FED. 541, 546. 

FN10  THE COURT SAID: 

"(C) THE DISPOSITION OF THE RENTAL REQUIRED TO BE MADE IS SAID TO
INVOLVE DENIAL OF THE MORTGAGEE'S RIGHTS.  PARAGRAPH 2 PROVIDES: 

"'SUCH RENTAL SHALL BE PAID INTO COURT, TO BE USED, FIRST, FOR
PAYMENT OF TAXES AND UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE REMAINDER TO BE
DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE SECURED AND UNSECURED CREDITORS, AND APPLIED ON
THEIR CLAIMS, AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR.' 

"IT IS SUGGESTED THAT PAYMENT OF TAXES AND KEEPING THE PROPERTY IN
REPAIR TAKES THE INCOME FROM THE MORTGAGEE, AND THAT THE MORTGAGOR
ALONE MAY BE BENEFITED THEREBY; THAT IF THE MORTGAGOR EXERCISES THE
OPTION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT ITS APPRAISED VALUE, HE WILL SECURE
THE PROPERTY FREE OF TAX LIENS WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE ACCRUED
AGAINST IT.  BUT IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE MORTGAGOR WILL NOT GET THE
PROPERTY FOR LESS THAN ITS ACTUAL VALUE.  THE ACT PROVIDES THAT UPON
THE CREDITOR'S REQUEST THE PROPERTY MUST BE REAPPRAISED, OR SOLD AT
PUBLIC AUCTION; AND THE MORTGAGEE MAY BY BIDDING AT SUCH SALE FULLY
PROTECT HIS INTEREST.  NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES MAY IMPERIL THE TITLE. 
PAYMENTS FOR UPKEEP ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY. 
THESE PAYMENTS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMON
PRACTICE IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS IN THE HANDS
OF RECEIVERS." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























UNITED GAS CO. V. TEXAS, 303 U.S. 123 


NO. 13.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 18, 1937.  REARGUED DECEMBER 14, 15, 1937. 
DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1938.  - 89 S.W.2D 1094, AFFIRMED. 


1.  PROCEDURE OF A STATE COMMISSION IN FIXING THE RATE OF A PUBLIC
UTILITY; OF A STATE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN A REVIEW BY A TRIAL DE
NOVO; AND OF A STATE APPELLATE COURT IN REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT
SUSTAINING THE RATE,  - HELD CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 128 ET SEQ., 138. 

2.  IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THIS COURT, IN REVIEWING A JUDGMENT OF
A STATE COURT, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROCEDURE IN THAT COURT WAS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE LAW; THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT
DETERMINES THAT IT WAS.  P. 139. 

3.  THE POWER OF A STATE OVER THE PROCEDURE OF ITS COURTS INCLUDES
THE POWER TO REQUIRE THAT ISSUES OF FACT BE DECIDED BY JURY, EVEN IN A
COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT CASE INVOLVING THE ADEQUACY OF A RATE FIXED
FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY.  P. 139. 

4.  ON A TRIAL OF A RATE CASE IN WHICH THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION WAS
PUT BEFORE A JURY ON A GENERAL CHARGE WITH RESPECT TO THE ELEMENTS TO
BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE RATE WOULD YIELD A FAIR RETURN
ON THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL IN THE PUBLIC
SERVICE, - HELD THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT ENTITLED UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO HAVE SPECIAL ISSUES FRAMED AND SUBMITTED COVERING SOME BUT
NOT ALL OF THE ITEMS INVOLVED IN THE DETERMINATION.  P. 141. 

5.  THIS COURT WILL REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY A STATE COURT (1)
WHERE A FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN DENIED AS A RESULT OF A FINDING SHOWN BY
THE RECORD TO BE WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, AND (2) WHERE A
CONCLUSION OF LAW AS TO A FEDERAL RIGHT AND FINDINGS OF FACT ARE SO
INTERMINGLED AS TO MAKE IT NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO PASS UPON THE FEDERAL
QUESTION, TO ANALYZE THE FACTS, SUCH ANALYSIS BEING MADE, NOT TO
DETERMINE ISSUES OF FACT ARISING ON CONFLICTING TESTIMONY OR INFERENCE,
BUT TO PERFORM THIS COURT'S PROPER FUNCTION IN DECIDING THE QUESTION OF
LAW ARISING UPON THE FINDINGS WHICH THE EVIDENCE PERMITS.  P. 142. 

6.  UPON A TRIAL OF THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION, A PUBLIC UTILITY IS
NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE PROPERTY NOT USED OR USEFUL IN ITS BUSINESS
INCLUDED IN THE RATE BASE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SO INCLUDED BY THE
COMMISSION THAT FIXED THE RATE.  P. 144. 

7.  IN FIXING A RATE FOR THE FUTURE, THE RATE-MAKING AUTHORITY, IN
ITS CONSIDERATION OF RETURNS FROM OPERATIONS, IS NOT LIMITED TO A
PARTICULAR YEAR - ESPECIALLY A YEAR OF ABNORMAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS;
AND SIMILARLY, A TRIAL COURT MAY CONSIDER THE RESULTS OF THE UTILITY'S
OPERATIONS FOR A SERIES OF YEARS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERVENING BETWEEN
THE TIME OF PROMULGATION OF THE RATE, AND THE TIME OF TRIAL, AND
DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE AVERAGE RETURN
THUS SHOWN.  P. 145. 

8.  IN ESTIMATING WHAT WILL BE THE RETURNS FROM A RATE WHICH HAS NOT
BEEN PUT INTO EFFECT, A COURT IS ENTITLED TO A REASONABLE BASIS FOR
PREDICTION, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF A CONTEMPLATED EMERGENCE FROM A
PERIOD OF EXTREME ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.  P. 145. 

UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. TEXAS ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS FIXING A RATE FOR THE APPELLANT GAS
COMPANY IN THE CITY OF LAREDO.  THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS DECLINED TO
GRANT A WRIT OF ERROR.  WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF A PROVISION OF
THE ORDER MAKING THE QUESTIONED RATE RETROACTIVE, THIS COURT IS EQUALLY
DIVIDED. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT, UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY
OF A RATE FIXED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS FOR NATURAL GAS
SUPPLIED BY APPELLANT FOR DOMESTIC USES IN THE CITY OF LAREDO. 

THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAREDO, ON DECEMBER 15, 1931, ENACTED AN
ORDINANCE FIXING GAS RATES WHICH INCLUDED A RATE OF 40 CENTS PER 1000
CUBIC FEET FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION, WITH A PROVISION FOR A DISCOUNT OF
10 PER CENT. ON PAYMENT OF BILLS WITHIN TEN DAYS, THE ORDINANCE TO
BECOME EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 1932.  THE RATE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN 75
CENTS PER M.C.F. WITH A 10 PER CENT. DISCOUNT FOR PAYMENT WITHIN TEN
DAYS.  THE TEXAS BORDER GAS COMPANY, WHICH WAS SUPPLYING NATURAL GAS TO
CONSUMERS IN LAREDO, FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE RAILROAD COMMISSION AND
POSTED THE REQUIRED SUPERSEDEAS BOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF ARTICLES 6058 AND 6059 OF THE REVISED CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS
(1925).  FN1  THE CONDITION OF THE BOND WAS THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD
REFUND TO THE CITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS ANY EXCESS OF RATES
COLLECTED "OVER AND ABOVE THE RATES AND CHARGES THAT SHALL BE FINALLY
DETERMINED TO BE A FAIR AND REASONABLE RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF ITS
PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL IN SUPPLYING NATURAL GAS AND NATURAL GAS
SERVICE TO THE CITY OF LAREDO." 

PRIOR TO THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE SOUTH TEXAS GAS
COMPANY, WHICH OWNED AND OPERATED THE TRANSMISSION PROPERTIES AND
TRANSPORTED THE GAS SOLD TO THE TEXAS BORDER GAS COMPANY AT THE LAREDO
CITY GATE, WAS MADE A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING.  THE TEXAS BORDER GAS
COMPANY APPLIED TO THE CITY FOR AN INCREASE OF RATES AND, BECAUSE OF
THE CITY'S FAILURE TO ACT, TOOK AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION AS THE
STATUTE PROVIDED.  THE TWO APPEALS WERE CONSOLIDATED.  THE UNITED GAS
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ENTERED ITS APPEARANCE
ON BOTH APPEALS ALLEGING THAT IT HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTIES OF BOTH
COMPANIES.  THE COMMISSION, BY ORDER OF JUNE 13, 1933, FIXED A RATE OF
55 CENTS PER M.C.F. WITH A PENALTY OF 10 PER CENT. FOR NON-PAYMENT
WITHIN TEN DAYS, AND THE ORDER WAS MADE RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1,
1932.  2 P.U.R. (N.S.)  503. 

THE UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY THEN BROUGHT SUIT IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  ON JULY 26,
1933, THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY
INSTITUTED THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY IN
THE NATURE OF AN APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 6059 FN2  FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROTECTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE COURT AND OF ENFORCING THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IF DETERMINED TO BE VALID.  THE STATE COURT
THEREUPON STAYED ALL PROCEEDINGS BY THE COMMISSION, OR BY THE OFFICIALS
OF THE STATE AND CITY, TO ENFORCE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER UNTIL THE
DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT.  ON AUGUST 1, 1933, THE DISTRICT COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES, 28 U.S.C. 380, STAYED ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN THAT COURT PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT
IN THE STATE COURT.  SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE STATE COURT, THE
COMPANY HAS CONTINUED TO CHARGE ITS 75 CENT RATE. 

THE TRIAL IN THE STATE COURT RESULTED IN A JUDGMENT ON APRIL 24,
1934, WHICH SUSTAINED THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF JUNE 13, 1933, EXCEPT
SO FAR AS ITS RATE WAS MADE RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1, 1932, THAT PART
OF THE ORDER BEING HELD INVALID.  THE COMPANY THEN APPEALED TO THE
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, WHICH RENDERED ITS JUDGMENT ON OCTOBER 30,
1935, REFORMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT SO AS TO DECLARE THE
RETROACTIVE PORTION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND
AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AS THUS MODIFIED.  89 S.W.(2D) 1094.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE REFUSED WRIT OF ERROR. 

A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL TAKEN TO THIS COURT FROM THE JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS WAS DENIED.  301 U.S. 667.  UPON HEARING,
THE COURT ORDERED REARGUMENT, NOTING THAT IT ESPECIALLY DESIRED TO HEAR
THE PARTIES ON THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE
APPLICATION OF THE COMMISSION'S RATE TO THE YEARS 1932 AND 1933, THAT
IS, AS TO THE REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THOSE YEARS ON THAT BASIS, AND
AS TO THE EFFECT UPON THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT, WITH RESPECT TO
THOSE YEARS, OF THE BOND GIVEN ON ITS APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION.  302
U.S. 647.  REARGUMENT HAS BEEN HAD ACCORDINGLY. 

APPELLANT, INVOKING THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, CONTENDS THAT IN
THE STATE PROCEEDINGS IT HAS BEEN DENIED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND
ALSO THAT THE PRESCRIBED RATE IS CONFISCATORY. 

THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND ITS RULINGS.  THE
COMMISSION GAVE A FULL HEARING.  IT RECEIVED VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE
OFFERED BY APPELLANT AND THE CITY AS TO EVERY PHASE OF THE CONTROVERSY
AND THEIR COUNSEL WERE FULLY HEARD IN ARGUMENT.  THE OPINION OF THE
COMMISSION REVIEWS THE HISTORY OF THE UTILITY FROM THE TIME THAT THE
TEXAS BORDER GAS COMPANY RECEIVED ITS FRANCHISE FROM THE CITY IN 1909. 
THE COMMISSION FOUND THE INTERRELATION OF THE COMPANIES CONCERNED AND
THAT THE PRESENT APPELLANT, WHICH HAD BECOME THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTIES OF THE FORMER OPERATING COMPANIES, WAS ITSELF A UNIT OF THE
UNITED GAS SYSTEM.  IT WAS IN VIEW OF THE "INTERRELATED COMPANY
OPERATION AND OWNERSHIP," THAT THE GATHERING, TRANSMISSION AND
DISTRIBUTION PROPERTIES USED AND USEFUL IN SERVING THE CITY OF LAREDO
WERE VALUED AS A COMBINED PROPERTY.  AS CONSUMERS IN A NUMBER OF OTHER
COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE LAREDO AREA WERE ALSO SERVED, IT BECAME
NECESSARY TO ALLOCATE TO LAREDO ITS APPROPRIATE PROPORTION.  METHODS OF
ALLOCATION WERE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND THE COMMISSION
ADOPTED A WEIGHTED AVERAGE PER CENT., WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE
CITY'S ENGINEER AS AN APPROXIMATE MEAN BETWEEN TWO PERCENTAGES USED BY
THE COMPANY'S ENGINEER, AS COMING THE CLOSEST TO A FAIR AND CORRECT
ALLOCATION.  EVIDENCE OF HISTORICAL COST AND OF REPRODUCTION COST NEW
LESS DEPRECIATION WAS SUBMITTED.  THE COMPANY'S APPRAISAL ON THE BASIS
OF REPRODUCTION COST NEW, LESS DEPRECIATION, WAS $1,231,601.  THE
APPRAISAL OF THE CITY'S ENGINEER ON THE SAME BASIS WAS $810,698.  THE
CITY ADDUCED EVIDENCE SHOWING THE DEPRECIATED HISTORICAL COST AS OF
JULY 31, 1932, TO BE $709,991.23. 

THE COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS VALUATION DIVIDED THE
PROPERTIES INTO THREE GROUPS, (A) GATHERING SYSTEM, (B) TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM, AND (C) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  THE COMMISSION STATED AND
CONSIDERED THE RESPECTIVE APPRAISALS OF EACH GROUP.  WHILE THE CITY
INCLUDED AN ALLOWANCE OF $124,668 AS THE DEPRECIATED COST OF THAT
PORTION OF THE TRANSMISSION LINES EXTENDING FROM PESCADITO JUNCTION TO
THE JENNINGS FIELD, A DISTANCE OF ABOUT 26 MILES, THE COMMISSION FOUND
"THAT THIS LINE WAS USED ONLY ONE DAY DURING THE TWELVE MONTHS' PERIOD
ENDING JULY 31, 1932, IN TRANSPORTING GAS TO LAREDO," AND FURTHER THAT
"THE CONDITION OF THIS LINE IS SUCH THAT IT COULD NEITHER SAFELY NOR
PROFITABLY TRANSPORT THE NECESSARY VOLUME OF GAS TO THE CITY."  THE
COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT, IF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTIES WERE REPRODUCED,
THAT SECTION OF THE LINE WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY. 

THE COMMISSION THEN CONSIDERED THE QUESTIONS OF WORKING CAPITAL, OF
GOING CONCERN VALUE AND OF ACCRUED DEPRECIATION.  AFTER REFERRING TO
THE RESPECTIVE ESTIMATES, THE COMMISSION DECIDED THAT "THE OVER-ALL PER
CENT. CONDITION" OF THE PROPERTIES WAS 78 PER CENT. 

THE COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE TOTAL "PRESENT FAIR VALUE"
OF THE PROPERTIES WAS $885,000.  THE COMMISSION SAID: 

"IN ARRIVING AT A DECISION AND MAKING AN ORDER HEREIN THAT IS DEEMED
BY THE COMMISSION TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE, WE HAVE CAREFULLY AND
FULLY CONSIDERED ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND ALL THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES REFLECTED BY THE RECORD HEREIN; AND UPON GIVING DUE
CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE ELEMENTS OF VALUE INHERING IN THE PROPERTY
INVOLVED IN THIS PROCEEDING, HAVE VALUED THE COMPANY'S PROPERTIES AS AN
OPERATING CONCERN, WITH BUSINESS ATTACHED; HAVE MADE AMPLE ALLOWANCE
FOR MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES, WORKING CASH, AND GENERAL OVERHEADS; AND
HAVE INCLUDED IN SUCH VALUE THE PESCADITO-JENNINGS TRANSMISSION LINE
AND THE WEST JENNINGS GATHERING SYSTEM (ALTHOUGH THE RECORD CLEARLY
DISCLOSES THAT THESE LAST TWO NAMED PROPERTY ITEMS ARE NEITHER BEING
USED, NOR ARE THEY NECESSARY AS STANDBY EQUIPMENT), AND WE FIND THE
PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE COMPANY USED, AND USEFUL IN
THE GATHERING, TRANSPORTING AND DISTRIBUTING OF NATURAL GAS WITHIN THE
CITY OF LAREDO, TEXAS, TO BE IN THE SUM OF $885,000." 

THE COMMISSION FIXED THE ANNUAL DEPRECIATION RATE WHICH SHOULD BE
ALLOWED AT 3 PER CENT.  THE COMMISSION ALSO FOUND THAT AN ANNUAL RATE
OF RETURN OF 7 PER CENT.  ON THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES WAS
ADEQUATE. 

WITH RESPECT TO "AVAILABLE REVENUE," THE COMMISSION SAID THAT THE
COMPANY HAD PRESENTED A "SETUP" OF OPERATING REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR
THE TWELVE MONTHS' PERIOD ENDING JULY 31, 1932, ONLY.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE CITY HAD PRESENTED A SIMILAR "SETUP" COVERING THE YEARS
ENDING JUNE 30, 1929, 1930 AND 1931, AND FOR THE YEAR ENDING JULY 31,
1932 - A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS.  THE COMMISSION WAS OF THE OPINION THAT
THE ONE YEAR ENDING JULY 31, 1932, SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A TEST
PERIOD.  IT WAS BELIEVED TO BE A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT "FROM
A GENERAL BUSINESS STANDPOINT THE YEAR 1932 WAS THE WORST YEAR SINCE
1929."  THE CITY'S EXHIBIT WAS DEEMED TO SHOW THAT THE FISCAL YEAR 1931
WAS ALSO SUBNORMAL, AND THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER THAT
YEAR, NOR AN AVERAGE OF THOSE TWO YEARS, SHOULD BE TAKEN AS AN ADEQUATE
TEST.  THE COMMISSION ALSO THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO THE
COMPANY TO TAKE THE YEAR 1930 OR AN AVERAGE OF THE THREE YEARS, 1930,
1931 AND 1932, AS IT APPEARED THAT THE YEAR 1930 WAS THE BEST YEAR IN
POINT OF GROSS REVENUES THAT THE COMPANY HAD EXPERIENCED SINCE 1928. 
ON THE WHOLE, THE COMMISSION THOUGHT THAT JUSTICE WOULD BE DONE IF AN
AVERAGE OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE FOUR FISCAL YEARS, 1929, 1930,
1931 AND 1932, SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE TEST PERIOD FOR THE COMPUTATION
UPON WHICH A FAIR RETURN SHOULD BE PREDICATED. 

IT HAD BEEN STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES AT THE OUTSET THAT A RATE OF
FIVE CENTS PER M.C.F. WAS A FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICE OF GAS AT THE
WELL.  WHILE THE COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE SPECIFIC FINDINGS WITH RESPECT
TO REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE YEARS WHICH IT TOOK AS A BASIS, IT DID
REJECT CERTAIN ALLOWANCES FOR WHICH THE COMPANY CONTENDED.  AS TO AN
ALLOWANCE OF A GATHERING CHARGE IN RELATION TO GAS PURCHASED FROM THE
CAROLINA-TEXAS FIELD, THE GATHERING LINES IN WHICH WERE THE PROPERTY OF
AN AFFILIATE, THE COMMISSION ALLOWED A CHARGE OF ONE-HALF OF ONE PER
CENT. INSTEAD OF THE ONE PER CENT. WHICH THE COMPANY SOUGHT.  WITH
RESPECT TO ITEMS NOT PARTICULARIZED BY THE COMMISSION, WE THINK THAT IT
SUBSTANTIALLY APPEARS FROM ITS OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION, SAVE AS TO
THE ITEMS DISALLOWED, ACCEPTED THE CITY'S EXHIBIT WHICH COVERED THE
REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD AND STATED SEPARATELY
THE ITEMS CONTAINED THEREIN WHICH WERE DEEMED TO BE QUESTIONABLE. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THE RATE, FOR ALL DOMESTIC USES, OF 55 CENTS PER
M.C.F., THE MINIMUM BILL PER USER PER MONTH TO BE ONE DOLLAR AND THE
PENALTY FOR NON-PAYMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS TO BE 10 PER CENT., TO BE "JUST
AND REASONABLE."  THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT ITS APPLICATION WOULD
PRODUCE "A NET RETURN IN EXCESS OF SEVEN PER CENT (7%) PER ANNUM ON THE
PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES, AFTER PROVISION FOR OPERATIONS
AND RESERVE FOR DEPRECIATION."  THE COMMISSION ORDERED THAT THE RATE
SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE FROM AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1932, AND THAT THERE
SHOULD BE REFUNDED TO THE CITY OF LAREDO FOR THE BENEFIT OF DOMESTIC
GAS CONSUMERS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT COLLECTED UNDER THE
EXISTING RATE AND THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE BY CONSUMERS
UNDER THE COMMISSION'S ORDER. 

THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY.  - THE TRIAL
WAS ESSENTIALLY DE NOVO.  IT WAS BEGUN IN MARCH, 1934, AND WAS HAD
BEFORE A JURY, A MOTION BY THE APPELLANTS TO HAVE THE JURY DISCHARGED
AND THE CAUSE DETERMINED BY THE COURT BEING OVERRULED.  THE ENTIRE
RECORD BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS PLACED IN EVIDENCE AND ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY WAS INTRODUCED AS TO PROPERTY VALUES, DEPRECIATION RESERVE
ACCRUAL, REVENUES, EXPENSES, RATES OF RETURN, ETC.  IT APPEARS THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO THE TIME OF TRIAL.  THE
EVIDENCE AS TO REVENUES AND EXPENSES WHICH APPELLANT ADDUCED AGAIN
RELATED TO THE YEAR ENDING JULY 31, 1932, AND THE YEARS 1932 AND 1933,
AND THE APPELLEES INTRODUCED EVIDENCE FOR THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD, TO
WHICH THEY HAD ADDRESSED THEIR COMPUTATIONS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND
ALSO FOR THE YEAR 1933.    AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE, APPELLANT
MOVED FOR A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION IN ITS FAVOR AND ALSO FOR THE
SUSPENSION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER FOR THE YEARS 1932 AND 1933. 
THESE MOTIONS WERE OVERRULED.  APPELLANT THEN MOVED TO HAVE THE CASE
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ON "SPECIAL ISSUES" AND NOT UPON A "SPECIAL
CHARGE."  THE COURT STATED THAT IN ITS VIEW ITS CHARGE WAS ON "SPECIAL
ISSUE" AND HENCE COMPLIED WITH THE REQUEST.  THE APPELLANT THEN MOVED
TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY CERTAIN SPECIAL ISSUES WHICH WERE SEPARATELY
STATED; THAT IS, THAT THE JURY SHOULD MAKE SEPARATE FINDINGS AS TO THE
VALUES OF COMPONENT PARTS OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY DURING THE YEARS 1932
AND 1933, RESPECTIVELY, ALSO AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE NECESSARY
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES AND CASH WORKING CAPITAL, AND THE AMOUNT WHICH
SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR "GOING VALUE," AND AS TO THE AVERAGE COST OF GAS
AT THE WELL MOUTH AND THE PROPER ANNUAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE DEPRECIATION
RESERVE.  THESE REQUESTS WERE REFUSED. 

THE TRIAL COURT SUBMITTED TO THE JURY A SINGLE SPECIAL ISSUE AS
FOLLOWS: 

"DO YOU FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
BEARING DATE JUNE 13, 1933, PROVIDING FOR A FIFTY-FIVE CENT GAS RATE TO
RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS WITHIN THE CITY OF LAREDO, TEXAS, UNDER THE FACTS
INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, IS UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST AS TO
DEFENDANT, UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY.  ANSWER THIS QUESTION
'YES' OR 'NO'." 

THE COURT PREFACED THAT SUBMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS AND
INSTRUCTIONS: 

THAT BY "FAIR RETURN" WAS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO
EARN A RATE "ON THE PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY WHICH IT EMPLOYS
FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC EQUAL TO THAT GENERALLY BEING MADE AT
THE SAME TIME WITHIN THE SAME GENERAL PART OF THE COUNTRY UPON
INVESTMENTS IN OTHER BUSINESS UNDERTAKINGS WHICH ARE ATTENDED BY LIKE
RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES."  THAT THE RATE OF RETURN SHOULD BE REASONABLY
SUFFICIENT "TO ASSURE CONFIDENCE IN THE FINANCIAL SOUNDNESS OF THE
UTILITY AND SHOULD BE ADEQUATE UNDER EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL
MANAGEMENT TO MAINTAIN AND SUPPORT ITS CREDIT AND ENABLE IT TO RAISE
MONEY NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF ITS DUTIES." 

THAT BY "FAIR VALUE" WAS MEANT "THE REASONABLE WORTH OF THE PROPERTY
AT THIS TIME THAT IS BEING USED AND USEFUL IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE." 
THAT BY "USED AND USEFUL" WAS MEANT THAT IT EMBRACES ALL THE PROPERTY
"ACTUALLY BEING USED" IN THAT SERVICE AND ALSO SUCH PROPERTY AS WAS
REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PERMIT "CONTINUOUS AND EFFICIENT SERVICE." 

THAT BY "OPERATION EXPENSES" WAS MEANT SUCH EXPENSES AS WERE INCURRED
IN THE OPERATION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN FURNISHING GAS TO THE
PEOPLE OF LAREDO. 

THAT BY "ANNUAL DEPRECIATION" WAS MEANT THE AMOUNT PER ANNUM THAT WAS
REASONABLY NECESSARY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE WEARING OUT AND ANY
NECESSARY REPLACEMENTS AND RETIREMENTS OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY. 

THAT BY "REPRODUCTION COST NEW" WAS MEANT "THE COST TO THE OWNER
UNDER THE CONDITIONS WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO EXIST IF THE
PROPERTY WERE TO BE REPRODUCED NEW." 

THAT BY "GOING VALUE" WAS MEANT THE ADDED VALUE OF APPELLANT'S
PROPERTY AS A WHOLE, USED AND USEFUL FOR SERVING THE CITY, OVER THE SUM
OF THE VALUES OF ITS COMPONENT PARTS, BY REASON OF THE FACT "THAT IT IS
AN OPERATING, ASSEMBLED AND ESTABLISHED PROPERTY, FUNCTIONING WITH A
TRAINED PERSONNEL, A CO-ORDINATED PLANT AND PROPERTY, WITH CUSTOMERS
ATTACHED, AND ITS BUSINESS ESTABLISHED." 

REFERRING TO THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, AND THE TRANSCRIPTS OF
EVIDENCE AND EXHIBITS, WHICH WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND HAD BEEN
INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE, THE COURT TOLD THE JURY THAT THE SAME MIGHT BE
CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE JURY IN DETERMINING WHETHER
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST AND FOR NO OTHER
PURPOSE.  THE COURT CONCLUDED ITS CHARGE WITH THE FOLLOWING
INSTRUCTIONS: 

"YOU ARE INSTRUCTED THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE DEFENDANT,
UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, TO SHOW BY CLEAR AND SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE THAT THE RATE PROMULGATED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION IN ITS
SAID ORDER OF JUNE 13, 1933, IS UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST AS TO IT. 

"YOU ARE FURTHER INSTRUCTED THAT IN DETERMINING YOUR ANSWER TO SAID
ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED IN THIS CASE THE
DEFENDANT, UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A
FAIR RETURN AT THIS TIME ON THE PRESENT FAIR VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY THAT
IS USED AND USEFUL IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AFTER FIRST DEDUCTING ALL
NECESSARY OPERATING EXPENSES AND A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR THE
ANNUAL DEPRECIATION OF SAID PROPERTY, AND THAT IN CONSIDERING WHAT IS A
FAIR VALUE OF SAID PROPERTY YOU WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL
ELEMENTS OF VALUE THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU,
INCLUDING REPRODUCTION COST NEW OF SAID PROPERTY AND THE AMOUNT OF
GOING VALUE (IF ANY) THAT INHERES IN SAID PROPERTY. 

"BY 'UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST' IS MEANT THAT THE RATE PRESCRIBED AND
ADOPTED IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION WAS SO LOW AS TO
HAVE NOT PROVIDED FOR A FAIR RETURN UPON THE FAIR VALUE OF DEFENDANT'S
PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL IN SUPPLYING THE SERVICE FURNISHED BY THE
UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY TO THE INHABITANTS WITHIN THE CITY OF
LAREDO, TEXAS." 

APPELLANT TOOK EXCEPTIONS TO THE COURT'S CHARGE AND TO THE REFUSAL OF
ITS REQUESTS. 

THE JURY ANSWERED THE SPECIAL ISSUE IN THE NEGATIVE.  APPELLANT'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO WAS DENIED AND JUDGMENT WAS
ENTERED. 

THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT RULED THAT THE PROVISION IN THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER REQUIRING THE REFUND OF THE EXCESS COLLECTIONS OVER
THE COMMISSION'S RATE WAS A SEPARABLE PART, AND AS THE COURT WAS OF THE
OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION'S RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF ITS RATE TO
JANUARY 1, 1932, AND THE PROVISION FOR A REFUND, WERE INVALID, THAT
PART OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS SET ASIDE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE
RIGHT OF THE CITY TO RECOVER THE EXCESS COLLECTIONS, SHOULD THAT
PROVISION BE SUSTAINED ON APPEAL.  THE JUDGMENT THEN ENJOINED APPELLANT
FROM MAKING ANY CHARGE IN EXCESS OF THE COMMISSION'S RATE, WITH
DIRECTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS PENDING APPEAL UPON THE FILING OF A DESCRIBED
BOND.  A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL, IN WHICH APPELLANT AGAIN STATED ITS
OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT'S RULINGS, WAS DENIED. 

THE RULING OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS.  - THE APPELLATE COURT
REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT HAD NOT ONLY FAILED TO ESTABLISH
ITS CLAIM FOR REVERSAL, AND FOR JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR, BUT THAT "WHEN
VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF THE
COMMISSION'S RATE ORDER, AND OF THE QUANTUM AND CHARACTER OF PROOF
REQUIRED TO OVERCOME SUCH PRESUMPTION, THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED WAS
INSUFFICIENT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO SHOW THAT THE 55[ RATE ORDER WAS
EITHER UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE OR CONFISCATORY."  IN THAT VIEW, THE
COURT ADDED, "ALL QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE," PRESENTED BY APPELLANT, "GO
OUT OF THE CASE." 

THE COURT NOTED THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD RELUCTANTLY INCLUDED
IN THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY THE ITEMS OF $124,688, REPRESENTING
THE PESCADITO-JENNINGS TRANSMISSION PIPE LINE, AND ALSO HAD "INCLUDED
THE WEST JENNINGS GATHERING SYSTEM AT A VALUE OF $10,342", ALTHOUGH THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT THESE "TWO PROPERTY ITEMS ARE NEITHER USED NOR
ARE THEY NECESSARY AS STANDBY EQUIPMENT."  THE COURT ALSO SAID THAT
THERE WAS EVIDENCE BEFORE BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COMMISSION WHICH
TENDED TO SHOW "THE FAIR VALUE OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY TO BE ABOUT
$700,000; AND THAT A 2% ANNUAL ACCRUAL FOR DEPRECIATION WOULD BE FAIR
AND REASONABLE."  REFERRING TO THE EVIDENCE AS TO OPERATING REVENUES
AND EXPENDITURES, THE COURT SET FORTH TABLES BASED ON THE COMPUTATIONS
OF AN EXPERT ACCOUNTANT OF THE APPELLEES SHOWING AVERAGE NET REVENUES
FOR THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD AND THE YEAR 1933.  THESE CALCULATIONS WERE ON
THE BASIS OF APPELLANT'S EXISTING 75 CENT RATE.  THE COURT THUS STATED
THE CRITERION WHICH IT APPLIED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS: 

"THE RULE IS SETTLED THAT RATES ARE NOT BASED UPON THE RESULTS OF
BUSINESS OF ANY ONE YEAR ALONE, BUT UPON WHAT IS ESTIMATED AS BEING THE
AVERAGE BUSINESS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS; THE FUTURE BEING GAUGED AS
NEARLY AS POSSIBLE BY THE PAST EXPERIENCE....  IT IS ALSO THE RULE THAT
ONLY ACTUAL EXPERIENCE UNDER THE RATE COMPLAINED OF CAN FURNISH ANY
REAL CRITERION OR GUIDE AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE RATE ON THE BUSINESS;
AND THAT THIS EXPERIENCE SHOULD BE OBTAINED BY A PRACTICAL TEST FOR
SUCH A PERIOD OF TIME AS WILL UNDER THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR
BUSINESS DETERMINE THE MATTERS WHICH ARE OF DOUBTFUL OR UNCERTAIN
INFLUENCE.  IN ABSENCE OF AN ACTUAL TEST OF THE RATE, THE COURT ON
APPEAL MUST RESOLVE ALL DOUBTS AGAINST THE COMPLAINING PARTY; PARE DOWN
VALUATIONS UNSPARINGLY; AND THE RATE MUST APPEAR TO BE CLEARLY
CONFISCATORY, OR UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE BEFORE THE COURT SHOULD BY
INJUNCTION RESTRAIN ITS ENFORCEMENT IN ADVANCE OF ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OF
THE PRACTICAL RESULTS OF THE RATE.  AND WHILE THE EQUAL PROTECTION, THE
DUE COURSE, AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF BOTH
STATE AND NATION GUARD AGAINST THE TAKING OF, OR COMPELLING OF THE USE
OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SERVICE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, STILL
THEY DO NOT ASSURE THE PUBLIC UTILITY THE RIGHT UNDER ALL CONDITIONS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO HAVE A RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SO
USED.  IF ACTUAL EXPERIENCE FOR A PROPER PERIOD OF TIME UNDER THE RATE
COMPLAINED OF SHOULD REVEAL SUFFICIENT REASONS, THE RATE ORDER MAY THEN
BE CHANGED THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS." 

PROCEEDING ON THIS PRINCIPLE, THE COURT SAID: 

"IN THE INSTANT CASE APPELLANT HAS CONTINUOUSLY CHARGED AND COLLECTED
THE 75[ RATE; HENCE NO ACTUAL TEST HAS BEEN MADE UNDER THE LOWER 55[
RATE.  AN ACTUAL TEST OF THE LOWER RATE MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN A LARGER
RETURN BY BRINGING ABOUT AN INCREASE IN APPELLANT'S BUSINESS, AND
MANIFESTLY THIS COURT WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOWER
RATE WAS EITHER CONFISCATORY, OR UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE, AS A MATTER
OF LAW, IN ADVANCE OF AN ACTUAL TEST OF THE RATE;...  SO WHEN THE
PROPERTY VALUATION IS PARED DOWN TO THIS LOWEST VALUATION (ABOUT
$700,000), AND DOUBTFUL ITEMS OF EXPENSES ARE DEDUCTED, THE NET
REVENUES RECEIVED BY APPELLANT UNDER THE 75[ RATE FOR THE YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 1933, WOULD AFFORD MORE THAN A 11% RETURN.  AND
CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE $700,000 VALUATION AND THE ESTIMATED
DIFFERENCE IN REVENUES BETWEEN THE 55[ RATE AND THE 75[ RATE, SHOW A
RETURN OF MORE THAN 7% FOR THE YEAR 1933.  BUT EVEN IF THE LOWER RATE
DID NOT OR WOULD NOT YIELD A RETURN OF 7% FOR THE YEAR 1933, THIS COURT
WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IN ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RATE,
BECAUSE THE TEST PERIOD WAS TOO SHORT, NO ACTUAL TEST WAS MADE UNDER
THE LOWER RATE AND THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE SHOWED THE YEAR TO BE
ABNORMAL." 

IN CONCLUDING ITS OPINION, THE COURT HELD THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED
IN ITS RULING THAT THE RETROACTIVE PROVISION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
WAS INVALID.  THE APPELLATE COURT SAID THAT ON THE APPEAL TO THE
COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE CITY'S ORDINANCE, THE COMMISSION WAS
AUTHORIZED TO SUSPEND THE RATE FIXED BY THE CITY AND TO REQUIRE THE
UTILITY TO GIVE A BOND "ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE COMMISSION
MAY DIRECT."  THE TRIAL COURT HAD REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE BOND IN
EVIDENCE BUT IT APPEARED IN THE RECORD.  THE APPELLATE COURT QUOTED ITS
CONDITION AND NOTED THAT THE SUPERSEDEAS BOND FILED ON APPEAL TO THAT
COURT WAS SIMILARLY CONDITIONED.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION
HAD THE POWER UPON DETERMINING THAT THE RATE FIXED BY THE CITY'S
ORDINANCE WAS UNREASONABLE TO "SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUST AND REASONABLE
RATE THEREFOR, AND TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AS OF DATE OF THE CITY
ORDINANCE RATE FOR WHICH IT WAS SUBSTITUTED." 

THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS THEN ENTERED JUDGMENT SUSTAINING THE
RETROSPECTIVE AND REFUND PROVISION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AND
AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AS THUS MODIFIED. 

FIRST. - THE QUESTION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.  - THERE IS NO
GROUND FOR HOLDING THAT APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE A FAIR HEARING BEFORE
THE COMMISSION.  APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED AND WEIGHED; ITS
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD AND CONSIDERED.  THE COMMISSION MADE FINDINGS AS
TO THE VALUE OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY, THE PERMISSIBLE ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPRECIATION AND THE RATE OF RETURN.  THE AMOUNTS OF REVENUES AND
EXPENSES FOR THE FOUR YEARS WHICH THE COMMISSION TOOK AS A BASIS
SUFFICIENTLY APPEAR, AS ALREADY STATED, FROM THE CITY'S EXHIBIT TO
WHICH THE COMMISSION REFERRED IN ITS OPINION.  THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
REVENUE AT THE COMMISSION'S RATE APPEARS FROM A SIMPLE CALCULATION,
APPLYING THE RATE OF RETURN TO THE RATE BASE AFTER THE ANNUAL ALLOWANCE
FOR DEPRECIATION.  IN THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURE THERE WAS NO LACK OF
THE DUE PROCESS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  RAILROAD
COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA V. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., 302 U.S. 388;
LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 287, 304, 305;
WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N (NO. 1), 294 U.S. 63, 70. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURTS, APPELLANT URGES
THAT THE CASE WAS NOT TRIED AND DETERMINED AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW,
AND WE ARE REFERRED TO THE STATE STATUTES AND THE DECISIONS OF THE
TEXAS COURTS AS TO THE PROPER PROCEDURE IN THE TRIAL COURT AND ON
APPEAL.  IT IS NOT OUR FUNCTION, IN REVIEWING A JUDGMENT OF THE STATE
COURT, TO DECIDE LOCAL QUESTIONS.  WE ARE CONCERNED SOLELY WITH
ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHTS.  THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT IN THE
INSTANT CASE MUST BE TAKEN AS DETERMINING THAT THE PROCEDURE ACTUALLY
ADOPTED SATISFIED ALL STATE REQUIREMENTS.  JOHN V. PAULLIN, 231 U.S.
583, 585; LEE V. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO., 252 U.S. 109, 110; CENTRAL
UNION CO. V. EDWARDSVILLE, 269 U.S. 190, 194, 195.    AS TO THE
REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, APPELLANT
CONTENDS THAT IT WAS DENIED THE INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL JUDGMENT UPON THE
FACTS AND LAW TO WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED.  SEE OHIO VALLEY WATER CO. V.
BEN AVON BOROUGH, 253 U.S. 287; BLUEFIELD WATER WORKS CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S. 679; STATE CORPORATION COMM'N V. WICHITA GAS
CO., 290 U.S. 561, 569; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES,
298 U.S. 38, 49.  THE PROCEEDING IN THE STATE COURT UNDOUBTEDLY
PURPORTED TO AFFORD AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL REVIEW.  AS THE COURT OF
CIVIL APPEALS OF TEXAS SAID IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIAL OF THE
ISSUES WHETHER THE RATE WAS UNREASONABLE OR CONFISCATORY WAS "DE
NOVO."  APPELLANT ITSELF RECOGNIZES THAT THE TRIAL "WAS ESSENTIALLY DE
NOVO, NEW AND FULL TESTIMONY BEING INTRODUCED AS TO PROPERTY VALUE,
DEPRECIATION RESERVE ACCRUAL, REVENUES, EXPENSES, RATES OF RETURN,
ETC."  APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND
APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS WERE HEARD.  THE QUESTION WHETHER DUE PROCESS
IN THE COURT'S PROCEDURE WAS ACCORDED THUS COMES TO THE MODE OF TRIAL;
THAT IS, (1) THE PROPRIETY OF A TRIAL BY JURY, AND (2) THE MANNER IN
WHICH THE ISSUES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY. 

WE DO NOT FAIL TO APPRECIATE THE DIFFICULTY IN PRESENTING TO A JURY
THE COMPLICATED ISSUES IN A RATE CASE, ESPECIALLY WHERE, AS HERE, THE
EVIDENCE IS VOLUMINOUS, EMBRACING THE CONFLICTING VALUATIONS OF EXPERTS
AND A HOST OF DETAILS IN APPRAISALS AND IN ACCOUNTS OF OPERATIONS, WITH
ELABORATE TABULATIONS.  EVEN IN TRIALS OF SUCH CASES WITHOUT A JURY THE
SERVICE OF A SPECIAL MASTER FOR THE ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILS IN EVIDENCE
WITH RESPECT TO VALUES AND RETURN HAS BEEN FOUND ADVISABLE.  WE HAVE
HAD ABUNDANT OCCASION TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE DIFFICULTY OF SUCH
DETERMINATIONS.  BUT WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH QUESTIONS OF POLICY AS TO
PROCEDURE.  THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO DETERMINE THE PROCEDURE OF ITS
COURTS, SO LONG AS IT PROVIDES THE REQUISITE DUE PROCESS.  AND ON THAT
QUESTION WE HAVE NEVER HELD THAT IT IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE STATE TO
PROVIDE FOR THE TRIAL BY A JURY OF QUESTIONS OF FACT BECAUSE THEY ARE
COMPLICATED.  CASES AT LAW TRIABLE BY A JURY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
OFTEN INVOLVE MOST DIFFICULT AND COMPLEX QUESTIONS, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN
PATENT CASES AT LAW PRESENTING ISSUES OF VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT. 
SEE TUCKER V. SPALDING, 13 WALL.  453, 455; KEYES V. GRANT, 118 U.S.
25, 36, 37; ROYER V. SCHULTZ BELTING CO., 135 U.S. 319, 325; COUPE V.
ROYER, 155 U.S. 565, 578, 579.  MOST DIFFICULT QUESTIONS OF FACT IN
PROTRACTED TRIALS, WITH MUCH CONFLICTING EXPERT TESTIMONY, ARE NOT
INFREQUENTLY PRESENTED IN CRIMINAL CASES TRIABLE BY JURY.  THE ISSUE OF
LIFE OR DEATH MAY BE DECIDED IN SUCH A CASE.  WE HAVE HELD THAT A STATE
MAY MODIFY A TRIAL BY JURY OR ABOLISH IT ALTOGETHER, WALKER V.
SAUVINET, 92 U.S. 90; MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581; FRANK V. MANGUM,
237 U.S. 309, BUT NEVER THAT THE TIME-HONORED METHOD OF RESOLVING
QUESTIONS OF FACT BY A JURY MUST BE ABANDONED BY A STATE UNDER
COMPULSION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AND WE FIND NO WARRANT FOR
SUCH A RULING NOW. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INSTANT CASE WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  THE SPECIAL ISSUE WAS SUBMITTED WHETHER THE
COMMISSION'S RATE WAS "UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST AS TO DEFENDANT."  THIS
SUBMISSION, UNDER THE COURT'S INSTRUCTION IN RELATION TO THE IMPORT OF
THE PHRASE "UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST," COVERED, AS APPELLANT CONCEDED AT
THIS BAR, THE ISSUE WHETHER THE RATE WAS CONFISCATORY.  APPELLANT DID
NOT ASK TO HAVE THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION SUBMITTED BY THE USE OF THAT
PRECISE TERM.  THE QUESTION THEN IS AS TO THE DENIAL OF THE SUBMISSION
OF THE PARTICULAR ISSUES WHICH APPELLANT REQUESTED AND AS TO THE
CHARACTER OF THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIAL COURT. 

THE SPECIAL ISSUES WHICH APPELLANT REQUESTED WERE FOR FINDINGS AS TO
THE VALUE OF COMPONENT PARTS OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY DURING THE YEARS
1932 AND 1933 AND AS TO THE AMOUNTS NECESSARY TO COVER MATERIAL AND
SUPPLIES, WORKING CAPITAL, GOING VALUE, AND CERTAIN OTHER ITEMS.  IT
WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THESE SPECIAL ISSUES DID NOT EMBRACE ALL THE
QUESTIONS WHICH THE JURY SHOULD CONSIDER, AS FOR EXAMPLE, THE QUESTIONS
OF OPERATING REVENUES, OPERATING EXPENSES AND RETURN FOR THE PERIOD TO
WHICH THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT APPROPRIATELY RELATED AND NOT
SIMPLY FOR THE YEARS 1932 AND 1933.  IF TRIAL BY JURY WAS PERMISSIBLE,
AS WE HOLD IT WAS, WE CANNOT SAY - PUTTING ASIDE QUESTIONS OF CORRECT
PRACTICE UNDER THE STATE LAW NOT REVIEWABLE HERE - THAT APPELLANT WAS
ENTITLED UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO HAVE SPECIAL ISSUES FRAMED
AND SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, MUCH LESS THAT APPELLANT COULD DEMAND THAT
THE PARTICULAR ITEMS IT MENTIONED SHOULD BE SINGLED OUT AND SPECIALLY
PASSED UPON.  WE CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN THE LIGHT OF THE TOTAL POWER
WHICH THE STATE POSSESSES TO PROVIDE FOR JURY TRIALS, AND FOR THE
MANNER OF CONDUCTING THEM, AND NOT WITH RESPECT TO ANY ALLEGED
LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY STATE STATUTES.  SEE CASTILLO V. MCCONNICO, 168
U.S. 674, 683. 

WE HAVE STATED AT SOME LENGTH, AND NEED NOT REPEAT, THE GENERAL
INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIAL COURT.  THE JURY WERE INSTRUCTED AS TO
THE RIGHT OF APPELLANT TO RECEIVE A FAIR RETURN ON THE FAIR VALUE OF
ITS PROPERTY THAT IS USED AND USEFUL IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND THAT THE
JURY SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL ELEMENTS OF VALUE THAT HAD BEEN
INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE REPRODUCTION COST NEW OF THE
PROPERTY AND THE AMOUNT OF GOING VALUE, IF ANY, THAT INHERED IN IT. THE
COURT DEFINED THE TERMS THAT IT USED, SUCH AS "FAIR RETURN," "FAIR
VALUE," "USED AND USEFUL," "OPERATION EXPENSES," "ANNUAL DEPRECIATION,"
"REPRODUCTION COST NEW" AND "GOING VALUE," AND THE COURT EXPLAINED WHAT
WOULD CONSTITUTE AN ADEQUATE RATE OF RETURN.  NO INSTRUCTIONS WERE
GIVEN WHICH COULD BE TAKEN IN ANY SENSE TO CONFLICT WITH APPELLANT'S
FEDERAL RIGHT; ON THE CONTRARY, THE JURY, IF IT DULY FOLLOWED THE
INSTRUCTIONS, COULD NOT BUT ENFORCE THAT RIGHT. 

APPELLANT, WHILE OBJECTING TO THE CHARGE UPON GROUNDS THAT ARE NOT
IMPRESSIVE, DID NOT SUBMIT AND REQUEST AMPLIFIED INSTRUCTIONS WHICH
MIGHT HAVE AIDED THE JURY'S CONSIDERATION.  APPELLANT WAS APPARENTLY
CONTENT TO OBJECT TO THE PERTINENT INSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE GIVEN, AND TO
A GENERAL CHARGE, AND TO STAND UPON ITS LIMITED REQUESTS AS TO SPECIAL
ISSUES. 

UPON SUCH A RECORD WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS A DENIAL OF
FEDERAL RIGHT SO FAR AS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IS CONCERNED. 

SECOND. - THE QUESTION OF CONFISCATION.  - WE HAVE SAID THAT OUR
INQUIRY IN RATE CASES COMING HERE FROM A STATE COURT "IS WHETHER THE
ACTION OF THE STATE OFFICIALS IN THE TOTALITY OF ITS CONSEQUENCES IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE ENJOYMENT BY THE REGULATED UTILITY OF A REVENUE
SOMETHING HIGHER THAN THE LINE OF CONFISCATION."  WEST OHIO GAS CO. V.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N (NO. 1), SUPRA.  THIS COURT WILL REVIEW THE
FINDINGS OF FACT BY A STATE COURT (1) WHERE A FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN
DENIED AS THE RESULT OF A FINDING SHOWN BY THE RECORD TO BE WITHOUT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, AND (2) WHERE A CONCLUSION OF LAW AS TO A
FEDERAL RIGHT AND FINDINGS OF FACT ARE SO INTERMINGLED AS TO MAKE IT
NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO PASS UPON THE FEDERAL QUESTION, TO ANALYZE THE
FACTS.  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. ALBERS COMMISSION CO., 223 U.S.
573, 591; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585, 593;
NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. CO. V. CONLEY, 236 U.S. 605, 609, 610; AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE CO. V. DUNKEN, 266 U.S. 389, 394.  WE MAKE THAT ANALYSIS, NOT
TO DETERMINE ISSUES OF FACT ARISING ON CONFLICTING TESTIMONY OR
INFERENCES, AND THUS TO USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE STATE COURT AS A
TRIER OF THE FACTS, BUT TO PERFORM OUR OWN PROPER FUNCTION IN DECIDING
THE QUESTION OF LAW ARISING UPON THE FINDINGS WHICH THE EVIDENCE
PERMITS.  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. ALBERS COMMISSION CO.,
SUPRA. 

HERE, THE ISSUES OF FACT WERE DETERMINED IN THE TRIAL COURT.  COUNSEL
AGREE THAT UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS HAD NO
AUTHORITY TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT.  "WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS WITHOUT
CONFLICT, IT MAY RENDER JUDGMENT.  BUT WHERE THERE IS ANY CONFLICT IN
THE EVIDENCE ON A MATERIAL ISSUE, IT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO SUBSTITUTE ITS
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT."  POST V. STATE, 106
TEX. 500, 501; 171 S.W. 707.  THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS HELD NOT ONLY
THAT APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO MAKE GOOD ITS CLAIM THAT IT WAS ENTITLED
TO JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR BUT THAT, HAVING REGARD TO THE PRESUMPTION IN
FAVOR OF THE COMMISSION'S RATE ORDER AND THE CLEAR AND SATISFACTORY
PROOF REQUIRED TO OVERCOME SUCH PRESUMPTION, APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE WAS
INSUFFICIENT AS MATTER OF LAW TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION'S RATE WAS
CONFISCATORY.  THE REASONING OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS WAS DIRECTED
TO THE DECISION OF THOSE LEGAL QUESTIONS.  UPON THE ISSUE OF
CONFISCATION, THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WAS AFFIRMED AND THUS ITS
FINDING OF FACT WAS NOT DISTURBED. 

SEPARATE QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED (1) AS TO THE VALUE OF APPELLANT'S
PROPERTY AND (2) AS TO ITS RETURN FROM OPERATIONS.  AS TO THE FIRST,
THE COMMISSION FOUND THE VALUE TO BE $885,000.  BUT THE COMMISSION
STATED THAT THIS VALUATION INCLUDED PROPERTY WHICH WAS NEITHER USED NOR
USEFUL.  IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE COMMISSION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION MIGHT INCLUDE THAT PROPERTY IN FIXING A
"REASONABLE RATE," STILL APPELLANT WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ITS
INCLUSION ON THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION.  WHILE THE EVIDENCE AS TO VALUE
WAS CONFLICTING, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS NOT ADEQUATE
EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT THE TOTAL PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL,
AFTER MAKING DEDUCTIONS FOR THE PORTIONS NOT OF THAT SORT, WAS WORTH
NOT MORE THAN $750,000. 

APPELLANT COMPLAINS THAT THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS BASED ITS
CONCLUSION UPON A VALUATION OF "$700,000" WHICH APPELLANT CONTENDS IS
INADMISSIBLE, AND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT MISAPPLIED THE RULE AS TO
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN HOLDING THAT THE VALUE MUST BE "PARED DOWN
UNSPARINGLY" TO THAT AMOUNT.  BUT WE MUST DISTINGUISH "BETWEEN WHAT WAS
SAID AND WHAT WAS DONE," BETWEEN "DICTUM AND DECISION," BETWEEN
REASONING AND CONCLUSION.  DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290, 298, 302.  WHAT THE APPELLATE COURT DID WAS TO
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND IF, AS WE THINK, A VALUATION
OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY AT $750,000 WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE SUPPORT IN THE
EVIDENCE, WE NEED GO NO FURTHER IN RELATION TO THAT PART OF THE CASE. 

WITH RESPECT TO RETURN FROM OPERATIONS, THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IS
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE RATE FOR THE FUTURE FIXED
WITH SOLE REGARD TO THE RESULT OF OPERATIONS IN THE YEARS 1932 AND
1933, AS APPELLANT CONTENDS, OR IT WAS PERMISSIBLE TO FIX THE RATE UPON
A CONSIDERATION OF THE RETURNS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THAT IS, FOR THE
FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO JULY 31, 1932, AS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION, OR FOR
THAT PERIOD AND THE YEARS 1932 AND 1933, AS SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.  THE COMMISSION HELD ITS HEARING IN THE LATTER
PART OF 1932 AND MADE ITS ORDER IN JUNE, 1933.  APART FROM THE QUESTION
RAISED BY THE RETROSPECTIVE FEATURE OF ITS ORDER, WE THINK IT MANIFEST
THAT IN FIXING ITS RATE FOR THE FUTURE THE COMMISSION WAS NOT LIMITED
TO THE RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDING JULY, 1932.  NOT ONLY
WAS THAT BUT A SINGLE YEAR, BUT THE COMMISSION REGARDED IT AS AN
ABNORMAL YEAR AND THE PROPRIETY OF ITS RULING IN THAT RESPECT IS
SUPPORTED BY COMMON KNOWLEDGE OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME. 
SIMILARLY, THE TRIAL COURT, SITTING IN THE SPRING OF 1934, WAS NOT
BOUND TO LIMIT ITS VISION TO THE RESULTS OF 1932 AND 1933.  WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE WAS NECESSARILY A MATTER OF PROPHECY.  THE
COMMISSION'S RATE HAD NOT BEEN PUT INTO EFFECT AND IN ESTIMATING WHAT
WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE REQUIREMENT THE COURT WAS ENTITLED TO A
REASONABLE BASIS FOR PREDICTION, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF A CONTEMPLATED
EMERGENCE FROM A PERIOD OF EXTREME DEPRESSION.  AS THE COURT OF CIVIL
APPEALS OBSERVED, THE WAY WAS OPEN TO THE APPELLANT TO SEEK A CHANGE IN
THE RATE ON PROOF OF ACTUAL EXPERIENCE.  OF COURSE, APPELLANT WAS
ENTITLED TO TAKE ITS CHANCES ON APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE TRIAL COURT'S
JUDGMENT, BUT IT CANNOT COMPLAIN OF THE DELAY INCIDENT TO THAT REVIEW
AND ITS CASE MUST BE JUDGED AS IT STOOD BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT.  WE
HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RESULTS
OF APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS FOR THE YEARS 1929 TO 1933, INCLUSIVE,
ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN THE TRIAL COURT, AND IN
DETERMINING THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE AVERAGE
RETURN THUS SHOWN. 

APPELLEES INTRODUCED EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THAT APPELLANT'S
OPERATING REVENUES, CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE 55 CENT RATE AND
AFTER DEDUCTING THE OPERATING EXPENSES DEEMED TO BE ALLOWABLE AND THE
ANNUAL ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION, FOR THE YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1929,
1930, AND 1931, AND JULY 31, 1932, YIELDED NET AMOUNTS OF $106,815.36,
$123,293.02, $91,554.04, AND $48,556.88, RESPECTIVELY, AND FOR THE YEAR
1933, $46,371.85.  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE 55 CENT
RATE ITS NET OPERATING REVENUE FOR 1932 WOULD HAVE BEEN BUT $10,086.25,
AND FOR 1933, $18,408.39.  WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY, SO FAR AS
CONCERNS THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S RATE IN ITS PROSPECTIVE
APPLICATION, TO EXTEND THIS OPINION BY STATING IN DETAIL THE
CONTENTIONS PRO AND CON AS TO THESE ESTIMATES, QUESTIONS WHICH LARGELY
RELATE TO THE PERMISSIBLE ALLOWANCES FOR OPERATING EXPENSES.  WE ARE
SATISFIED THAT IF WE CONSIDER THE RESULTS OF APPELLANT'S OPERATIONS FOR
THE ENTIRE PERIOD, 1929 TO 1933, THE EVIDENCE WAS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT
THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT.    THIRD. - WITH RESPECT TO THE
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THAT PART OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WHICH
MADE ITS RATE RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1, 1932, CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE INTERVENING PERIOD AND OF THE BOND
GIVEN ON THE APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION FROM THE CITY'S ORDINANCE, THIS
COURT IS EQUALLY DIVIDED AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
IN THAT RELATION IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "ART.  6058.  APPEAL FROM CITY CONTROL.  - WHEN A CITY
GOVERNMENT HAS ORDERED ANY EXISTING RATE REDUCED, THE GAS UTILITY
AFFECTED BY SUCH ORDER MAY APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION BY FILING WITH IT
ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE COMMISSION MAY DIRECT, A PETITION
AND BOND TO REVIEW THE DECISION, REGULATION, ORDINANCE, OR ORDER OF THE
CITY, TOWN OR MUNICIPALITY.  UPON SUCH APPEAL BEING TAKEN THE
COMMISSION SHALL SET A HEARING AND MAY MAKE SUCH ORDER OR DECISION IN
REGARD TO THE MATTER INVOLVED THEREIN AS IT MAY DEEM JUST AND
REASONABLE.  THE COMMISSION SHALL HEAR SUCH APPEAL DE NOVO.  WHENEVER
ANY LOCAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OR CONCERN, WHOSE RATES HAVE BEEN FIXED
BY ANY MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, DESIRES A CHANGE OF ANY OF ITS RATES,
RENTALS OR CHARGES, IT SHALL MAKE ITS APPLICATION TO THE MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT WHERE SUCH UTILITY IS LOCATED AND SUCH MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT
SHALL DETERMINE SAID APPLICATION WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER PRESENTATION
UNLESS THE DETERMINATION THEREOF MAY BE LONGER DEFERRED BY AGREEMENT. 
IF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD REJECT SUCH APPLICATION OR FAIL OR
REFUSE TO ACT ON IT WITHIN SAID SIXTY DAYS, THEN THE UTILITY MAY APPEAL
TO THE COMMISSION AS HEREIN PROVIDED.  BUT SAID COMMISSION SHALL
DETERMINE THE MATTERS INVOLVED IN ANY SUCH APPEAL WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
AFTER THE FILING BY SUCH UTILITY OF SUCH APPEAL WITH SAID COMMISSION OR
SUCH FURTHER TIME AS SUCH UTILITY SHALL IN WRITING AGREE TO, BUT THE
RATES FIXED BY SUCH MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND
EFFECT UNTIL ORDERED CHANGED BY THE COMMISSION. 

"ART. 6059.  APPEAL FROM ORDERS.  - IF ANY GAS UTILITY OR OTHER PARTY
AT INTEREST BE DISSATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF ANY RATE,
CLASSIFICATION, RULE, CHARGE, ORDER, ACT OR REGULATION ADOPTED BY THE
COMMISSION, SUCH DISSATISFIED UTILITY OR PARTY MAY FILE A PETITION
SETTING FORTH THE PARTICULAR CAUSE OF OBJECTION THERETO IN A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN TRAVIS COUNTY AGAINST THE COMMISSION AS
DEFENDANT.  SAID ACTION SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER ALL OTHER CAUSES ON
THE DOCKET OF A DIFFERENT NATURE AND SHALL BE TRIED AND DETERMINED AS
OTHER CIVIL CAUSES IN SAID COURT.  EITHER PARTY TO SAID ACTION MAY HAVE
THE RIGHT OF APPEAL; AND SAID APPEAL SHALL BE AT ONCE RETURNABLE TO THE
APPELLATE COURT, AND SAID ACTION SO APPEALED SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE IN
SAID APPELLATE COURT OF ALL CAUSES OF A DIFFERENT CHARACTER THEREIN
PENDING.  IF THE COURT BE IN SESSION AT THE TIME SUCH RIGHT OF ACTION
ACCRUES, THE SUIT MAY BE FILED DURING SUCH TERM AND STAND READY FOR
TRIAL AFTER TEN DAYS NOTICE.  IN ALL TRIALS UNDER THIS ARTICLE THE
BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL REST UPON THE PLAINTIFF, WHO MUST SHOW BY CLEAR
AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT THE RATES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS,
CLASSIFICATIONS, ACTS OR CHARGES COMPLAINED OF ARE UNREASONABLE AND
UNJUST TO IT OR THEM." 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1. 

MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

ALTHOUGH I CONCUR IN SUSTAINING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW, I DO
NOT AGREE THAT THE RIGHTS OF THIS DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS
IN TEXAS ARE DERIVED FROM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FN1  OR THAT THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DEPRIVES TEXAS OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO
DETERMINE THE REASONABLENESS OF INTRA-STATE UTILITY RATES IN THAT
STATE. 

EVEN APPLYING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UNDER THE PREVAILING DOCTRINE,
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT (APART FROM PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS) IS
CALLED UPON TO DO MORE THAN DETERMINE THE SOLE QUESTION OF
CONFISCATION.  ANY INDICATION BY THIS COURT OF THE VALUE OF THE
COMPANY'S PROPERTY WILL UNJUSTIFIABLY AFFECT AND CONTROL SUBSEQUENT
VALUATIONS FOR RATE MAKING PURPOSES.  FN2 

THE RECORD DISCLOSES A STRIKING ABSENCE OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF
THE ACTUAL COST OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTIES; ITS FUNDED INDEBTEDNESS;
THE ACTUAL INVESTMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS IN THE COMPANY; PROFITS IN PAST
YEARS; AND THE PERCENTAGE OF PAST PROFITS TO ACTUAL INVESTMENT.  THESE
MATTERS HAVE IMPORTANT BEARING UPON THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION.  THERE
IS EVIDENCE THAT ONLY A PART OF THE COMPANY'S DEPRECIATION RESERVE,
ACCUMULATED OVER AND ABOVE EXPENDITURES FOR REPAIRS AND PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE, REACHES APPROXIMATELY $500,000 - OR OVER 40% TO 70% OF THE
VARIOUS ESTIMATED VALUES OF ALL THE COMPANY'S ASSETS.  IN ADDITION
APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THERE IS AN
ACTUAL INVESTMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS - OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF
BORROWED CAPITAL - WHICH COULD BE CONFISCATED.  FN3  APPELLANT HAS
OBVIOUSLY FAILED TO ESTABLISH ALL THE ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO PROVE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT  FN4  THAT THE RATE FIXED BY THE STATE WILL
RESULT IN CONFISCATION OF ITS PROPERTY. 

OPERATING EXPENSES.  - THE RECORD SHOWS THAT APPELLANT IS ONE OF MANY
CORPORATE ASSOCIATES AND AFFILIATES CONNECTED WITH THE ELECTRIC BOND
AND SHARE COMPANY AND THE UNITED GAS SYSTEM.  PRACTICALLY ALL OPERATING
EXPENSES APPEARED AS INTER-COMPANY CHARGES AMONG THESE ASSOCIATES,
AFFILIATES, ETC.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES CONFISCATION CANNOT BE
ESTABLISHED MERELY BY PROOF THAT THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT SHOW ALLEGED
EXPENDITURES PURPORTING TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY OR THROUGH ITS AFFILIATES,
ASSOCIATES, ETC.  THE STRONG PRESUMPTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THESE RATES
- FIXED BY A STATE - CAN BE OVERCOME ONLY BY PROOF THAT EACH
EXPENDITURE, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE OR INCURRED BY OR THROUGH AN
ASSOCIATE OR AFFILIATE, WAS IN FACT SO MADE OR INCURRED AND WAS FAIR
AND REASONABLE.  SUCH PROOF WAS NOT MADE IN THIS CASE.  AS AN
ILLUSTRATION, A WITNESS TESTIFYING FOR THE CITY SAID THAT IT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO ASCERTAIN PROPER OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR
1933, BECAUSE HIS EXAMINATION WAS CONFINED TO THE SOUTH TEXAS BORDER
GAS COMPANY AND THE SOUTH TEXAS GAS COMPANY "AND ALL I SAW IN SUPPORT
OF THESE ITEMS WAS INTER-COMPANY INVOICES, AND I WAS NOT ABLE OR HAD NO
WAY OF DETERMINING WHETHER ITEMS WERE PROPER OR NOT." 

SINCE THE MAJOR PART OF APPELLANT'S INCOME IS ABSORBED BY ASSOCIATED
COMPANIES IN THE NAME OF "OPERATING EXPENSES" AND BY INTERCORPORATE
TRANSACTIONS, THE OPERATIONS AND EXPENSES OF THESE ASSOCIATES,
AFFILIATES, ETC., ARE BROUGHT WITHIN THE FIELD OF INQUIRY.  REFERRING
TO INTERCORPORATE TRANSACTIONS OF HOLDING COMPANIES, SUBSIDIARIES,
ASSOCIATES, AFFILIATES, ETC., THIS COURT HAS SAID: 

"IT IS URGED THAT AS THESE AVERMENTS WERE UNCONTRADICTED THEY
CONSTITUTE, WHEN TAKEN WITH THE FACTS PREVIOUSLY STATED, A PRIMA FACIE
CASE FOR THE REASONABLENESS OF THE RATE CHARGED.  THIS MIGHT WELL BE
TRUE WERE IT NOT FOR THE FACT OF UNITY OF OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF THE
PIPE LINE AND THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  AN AVERMENT OF NEGOTIATION AND
EFFORT TO PROCURE A REDUCTION IN THE WHOLESALE RATE MEANS LITTLE IN THE
LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE NEGOTIATORS ARE BOTH ACTING IN THE SAME
INTEREST, - THAT OF THE HOLDING COMPANY WHICH CONTROLS BOTH.  ALL OF
THESE FACTS SO AVERRED IN THE PLEADINGS WOULD BE FAR MORE PERSUASIVE
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPRIETY OF THE RATE IF THE PARTIES WERE
INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER AND DEALING AT ARM'S LENGTH.  WHERE, HOWEVER,
THEY CONSTITUTE BUT A SINGLE INTEREST AND INVOLVE THE EMBARKATION OF
THE TOTAL CAPITAL IN WHAT IS IN EFFECT ONE ENTERPRISE, THE ELEMENTS OF
DOUBLE PROFIT AND OF THE REASONABLENESS OF INTER-COMPANY CHARGES MUST
NECESSARILY BE THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY AND SCRUTINY BEFORE THE QUESTION
AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF THE RETAIL RATE BASED THEREON CAN BE
SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED. 

"...  THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT THE PROOFS DEMANDED BY THE COMMISSION
WILL INVOLVE AN EXTENSIVE AND UNNECESSARY VALUATION OF THE PIPE-LINE
COMPANY'S PROPERTY AND AN ANALYSIS OF ITS BUSINESS, AND THAT THIS
BURDEN SHOULD NOT BE THROWN UPON APPELLANT.  WHETHER THIS IS SO WE NEED
NOT NOW DECIDE.  IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT IN VIEW OF THE RELATIONS OF
THE PARTIES, AND THE POWER IMPLICIT THEREIN ARBITRARILY TO FIX AND
MAINTAIN COSTS AS RESPECTS THE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY WHICH DO NOT
REPRESENT THE TRUE VALUE OF THE SERVICE RENDERED, THE STATE AUTHORITY
IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR SHOWING OF THE REASONABLENESS OF SUCH COSTS,
ALTHOUGH THIS MAY INVOLVE A PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD NOT BE
REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF PARTIES DEALING AT ARM'S LENGTH AND IN THE
GENERAL AND OPEN MARKET, SUBJECT TO THE USUAL SAFEGUARDS OF BARGAINING
AND COMPETITION."  FN5 

NOT ONLY DID APPELLANT FAIL TO PROVE THE REASONABLENESS OF ITS
INTERCOMPANY DEALINGS, BUT IT DID NOT - AS REQUESTED IN OPEN COURT -
PRODUCE A FULL LIST OF SALARIES PAID BY ITS ASSOCIATES, AFFILIATES,
ETC.  IT IS TRUE THAT EVIDENCE DID SHOW THAT SOME OF THE OFFICERS OF
ASSOCIATES, AFFILIATES, ETC., RECEIVED FROM $65,000 TO $100,000 A YEAR
BUT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF THE REASONABLENESS OF SUCH SALARIES OR OF
THEIR EFFECT UPON APPELLANT'S LOCAL GAS DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES. 

THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY DECLARED THE IMPORTANCE OF SALARIES IN
DETERMINING THE QUESTION OF CONFISCATION IN CHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO. V.
WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339, 345.  THERE IT WAS SAID: 

"OF WHAT DO THESE OPERATING EXPENSES CONSIST?  ARE THEY MADE UP
PARTIALLY OF EXTRAVAGANT SALARIES; FIFTY TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS TO THE PRESIDENT, AND IN LIKE PROPORTION TO SUBORDINATE
OFFICERS?  SURELY, BEFORE THE COURTS ARE CALLED UPON TO ADJUDGE AN ACT
OF THE LEGISLATURE FIXING  ...  MAXIMUM  ...  RATES FOR RAILROAD
COMPANIES TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,  ... THEY SHOULD BE FULLY ADVISED AS
TO WHAT IS DONE WITH THE RECEIPTS AND EARNINGS OF THE COMPANY.... WHILE
THE PROTECTION OF VESTED RIGHTS OF PROPERTY IS A SUPREME DUTY OF THE
COURTS, IT HAS NOT COME TO THIS, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE POWER RESTS
SUBSERVIENT TO THE DISCRETION OF ANY RAILROAD CORPORATION WHICH MAY, BY
EXORBITANT AND UNREASONABLE SALARIES, OR IN SOME OTHER IMPROPER WAY,
TRANSFER ITS EARNINGS INTO WHAT IT IS PLEASED TO CALL 'OPERATING
EXPENSES.'" 

WHEN A PUBLIC UTILITY CHOOSES TO PAY OUT A LARGE PART OF ITS
"OPERATING EXPENSES" TO CORPORATE ASSOCIATES, AFFILIATES, ETC., THESE
PAYMENTS MIGHT CONCEIVABLY BE USED TO DRAIN THE OPERATING COMPANY'S
INCOME AND TO INFLATE THE "OPERATING EXPENSES."  INFLATED OPERATING
EXPENSES INEVITABLY LEAD TO INFLATED RATES.  SINCE AFFILIATES,
ASSOCIATES, ETC., DO NOT ORDINARILY DEAL AT "ARM'S LENGTH" APPELLANT
HAD THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE FAIRNESS AND REASONABLENESS OF ALL
EXPENDITURES MADE OR CHARGED AS INTER-COMPANY TRANSACTIONS. 

DUE PROCESS AND TRIAL BY JURY.  - APPELLANT CONTENDED IN THE COURT
BELOW THAT "THE SUBMISSION OF THIS CASE  ...  TO A JURY WILL DEPRIVE
THIS DEFENDANT OF THAT CHARACTER OF HEARING AND TRIAL CONTEMPLATED
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS."  APPELLANT HERE FURTHER
INSISTS THAT OVER APPELLANT'S PROTEST, THE COURT BELOW DID SUBMIT THE
CAUSE TO A JURY "DESPITE THE RECOGNIZED INABILITY OF SUCH A BODY TO
DEAL ADEQUATELY WITH PROOF OF THAT NATURE  ..., DESPITE APPELLANT'S
VIGOROUS PROTEST AND EFFORTS TO EXTRICATE ITSELF FROM THIS SITUATION
..." 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT PROHIBIT TRIAL BY
JURY, BUT THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, JUDICIALLY CONSTRUED AS A LIMITATION
ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FN6  PROVIDES: 

"IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED
TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED, AND NO
FACT TRIED BY A JURY SHALL BE OTHERWISE REEXAMINED IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW." 

THIS COURT SAID IN 1855  FN7  THAT "THE WORDS, 'DUE PROCESS OF LAW,'
WERE UNDOUBTEDLY INTENDED TO CONVEY THE SAME MEANING AS THE WORDS, 'BY
THE LAW OF THE LAND' IN MAGNA CHARTA."  AGAIN THIS COURT SAID:  FN8 

"WHEN MAGNA CHARTA DECLARED THAT NO FREEMAN SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF
LIFE, ETC., 'BUT BY THE JUDGMENT OF HIS PEERS OR BY THE LAW OF THE
LAND,' IT REFERRED TO A TRIAL BY TWELVE JURORS.  THOSE WHO EMIGRATED TO
THIS COUNTRY FROM ENGLAND BROUGHT WITH THEM THIS GREAT PRIVILEGE 'AS
THEIR BIRTHRIGHT AND INHERITANCE,  ...  '  ...  'THE TRIAL  ...  BY A
JURY OF ONE'S COUNTRY, IS JUSTLY ESTEEMED ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL
EXCELLENCIES OF OUR CONSTITUTION; FOR WHAT GREATER SECURITY CAN ANY
PERSON HAVE IN HIS LIFE, LIBERTY OR ESTATE, THAN TO BE SURE OF NOT
BEING DIVESTED OF, OR INJURED IN ANY OF THESE, WITHOUT THE SENSE AND
VERDICT OF TWELVE HONEST AND IMPARTIAL MEN OF HIS NEIGHBORHOOD?...  '" 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LETTER OR SPIRIT OF OUR CONSTITUTION OR ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, WHICH DEPRIVES A STATE OF THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT
ISSUES OF FACT TO A TRIAL BY JURY.  THAT CONSTITUTION INDICATES NO
PREFERENCE FOR DETERMINATION OF FACTS BY JUDGES OR MASTERS APPOINTED BY
JUDGES.  ON THE CONTRARY, OUR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE STATE
CONSTITUTIONS, AND OUR NATIONAL TRADITION DEMONSTRATE A WELLESTABLISHED
PREFERENCE FOR TRIAL BY JURY. 

"ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS MADE TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION AS
IT CAME FROM THE HANDS OF THE CONVENTION OF 1787 WAS THAT IT DID NOT,
IN EXPRESS WORDS, PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, AND THAT UNDER
IT, FACTS TRIED BY A JURY COULD BE REEXAMINED BY THE COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES OTHERWISE THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW. 
THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO MEET THESE OBJECTIONS, AND TO
DEPRIVE THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF ANY SUCH AUTHORITY."  FN9 

FURTHER, "UPON THE REASONING IN THE CASE JUST REFERRED TO (THE
JUSTICES V. MURRAY, 9 WALL.  274, 278) IT WOULD SEEM TO BE CLEAR THAT
THE LAST CLAUSE OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS THE RETRIAL BY THIS
COURT OF THE FACTS TRIED BY THE JURY IN THE PRESENT CASE....    "...
EVEN IF WE WERE OF OPINION IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE JURY ERRED
IN FINDING THAT NO PROPERTY RIGHT, OF SUBSTANTIAL VALUE IN MONEY, HAD
BEEN TAKEN FROM THE RAILROAD COMPANY, BY REASON OF THE OPENING OF A
STREET ACROSS ITS RIGHT OF WAY, WE CANNOT, ON THAT GROUND, REEXAMINE
THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT.  WE ARE PERMITTED ONLY TO
INQUIRE WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT PRESCRIBED ANY RULE OF LAW FOR THE
GUIDANCE OF THE JURY THAT WAS IN ABSOLUTE DISREGARD OF THE COMPANY'S
RIGHT TO JUST COMPENSATION."  FN10 

THIS CAUSE WAS TRIED IN THE COURTS OF TEXAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
REGULAR COURT PROCEDURE APPLICABLE TO SUCH CASES.  THE FACTS WERE
SUBMITTED TO A JURY AS PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THAT
STATE, AND IN HARMONY WITH THE TRADITIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS
NATION.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE
WORDS "DUE PROCESS OF LAW" CONTAINED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, CAN
JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF ITS PROPERTY
CONTRARY TO THAT "DUE PROCESS."  IN OCTOBER, 1877, THIS COURT IN
DAVIDSON V. NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97, 105 - IN DISCUSSING THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT - SAID: 

"BUT HOWEVER THIS MAY BE, OR UNDER WHATEVER OTHER CLAUSE OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WE MAY REVIEW THE CASE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD
THAT A PARTY HAS, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, BEEN DEPRIVED OF HIS
PROPERTY, WHEN, AS REGARDS THE ISSUES AFFECTING IT, HE HAS, BY THE LAWS
OF THE STATE, A FAIR TRIAL IN A COURT OF JUSTICE, ACCORDING TO THE
MODES OF PROCEEDING APPLICABLE TO SUCH A CASE." 

I CONCUR IN THE AFFIRMANCE. 

FN1  SEE DISSENT FILED IN CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
JOHNSON, ANTE, P. 83. 

FN2  SEE MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 272 U.S. 400; MCCART V.
INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 302 U.S. 419; 13 F.SUPP.  110; 89 F.(2D) 522,
525, 526. 

FN3  CF. CHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO. V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339; SEE DISSENT
IN MCCART CASE, SUPRA. 

FN4  CF. SAN DIEGO LAND CO. V. NATIONAL CITY, 174 U.S. 739, 754;
OGDEN V. SAUNDERS, 12 WHEAT.  213, 270. 

FN5  WESTERN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 285 U.S. 119,
126, 127. 

"PURCHASES ARE FREQUENTLY MADE BY A MEMBER OR MEMBERS OF A SYSTEM
FROM AFFILIATES OR SUBSIDIARIES, AND WITH COMPARATIVE INFREQUENCY FROM
STRANGERS.  AT TIMES OBSCURITY OR CONFUSION HAS BEEN BORN OF SUCH
RELATIONS.  THERE IS WIDESPREAD BELIEF THAT TRANSFERS BETWEEN
AFFILIATES OR SUBSIDIARIES COMPLICATE THE TASK OF RATE-MAKING FOR
REGULATORY COMMISSIONS AND IMPEDE THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH.  BUYER AND
SELLER IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MAY NOT BE DEALING AT ARM'S LENGTH, AND
THE PRICE AGREED UPON BETWEEN THEM MAY BE A POOR CRITERION OF VALUE. 
DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N OF OHIO, 292 U.S.
290, 295; WESTERN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N OF KANSAS,
285 U.S. 119; SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., 282 U.S. 133." 
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 232,
239. 

FN6  BARRON V. BALTIMORE, 7 PET. 243, 247; EDWARDS V. ELLIOTT, 21
WALL.  532, 557. 

FN7  MURRAY'S LESSEE V. HOBOKEN LAND & IMP.  CO., 18 HOW.  272, 276. 

FN8  THOMPSON V. UTAH, 170 U.S. 343, 349, 350. 

FN9  CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226, 243. 

FN10  ID., 244, 246. 

SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND I ARE OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT UNDER
REVIEW SHOULD BE REVERSED.  WE ADHERE TO THE DOCTRINE ANNOUNCED IN OHIO
VALLEY CO. V. BEN AVON BOROUGH, 253 U.S. 287, AND OFTEN REAFFIRMED. 
WHEN RATES FIXED FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE
BODY ARE ALLEGED TO BE CONFISCATORY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION REQUIRES
THAT FAIR OPPORTUNITY BE AFFORDED FOR SUBMITTING THE CONTROVERSY TO A
JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL FOR DETERMINATION UPON ITS OWN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
BOTH AS TO LAW AND FACTS.  HERE SUCH OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN DENIED. 

JUNE 13, 1933, THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION DIRECTED APPELLANT TO
OBSERVE A NEW SCHEDULE OF RATES.  BY BILL PRESENTED TO THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT JUNE 29, 1933, APPELLANT CHALLENGED THIS ACTION
AS CONFISCATORY.  JULY 26, 1933, THE COMMISSION BEGAN THIS PROCEEDING
IN THE STATE COURT BY FILING AN ORIGINAL PETITION WHICH, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, ALLEGED - 

"NOTWITHSTANDING DEFENDANT'S REMEDIES ARE ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IN
THE COURTS OF THIS STATE, AND NOTWITHSTANDING EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL AND
LEGAL RIGHT TO WHICH IT MAY BE ENTITLED IS AND WILL BE FULLY
SAFEGUARDED AND PROTECTED IN SAID COURT, THE DEFENDANT, NEVERTHELESS,
ELECTED TO AND DID, ON OR ABOUT THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 1933, FILE ITS
BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, LAREDO DIVISION, IN A CAUSE ENTITLED,
UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF V. LON A. SMITH, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS, NO. 32 IN EQUITY, AND BEING A CAUSE WHEREIN YOUR DEFENDANT
IS PLAINTIFF AND WHEREIN EACH AND ALL OF YOUR PLAINTIFFS ARE
DEFENDANTS, EXCEPT THE STATE OF TEXAS...." 

"IN SAID ACTION IN SAID UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, UNITED GAS
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ALLEGES IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT THAT THE ORDER
ENTERED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS FIXED AND PRESCRIBED A RATE
CONFISCATORY OF ITS PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE, AND
ALLEGED THAT SAID ORDER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UPON SAID ALLEGATION
(OBTAINED) A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OUT OF SAID COURT ENJOINING
AND RESTRAINING YOUR PLAINTIFFS AND EACH OF THEM (EXCEPT THE STATE OF
TEXAS) FROM COMPELLING OR ATTEMPTING TO COMPEL YOUR DEFENDANT TO
OBSERVE SAID ORDER OF SAID COMMISSION." 

"PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ATTEMPTING TO EVADE THE LAWS
OF THIS STATE AND THE LAWFUL ORDER OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS
FIXING AND PRESCRIBING RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION AND SALE
OF NATURAL GAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LAREDO, AND THAT IN
CHARGING A RATE IN EXCESS OF THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION, PLAINTIFFS HEREIN, AND EACH OF THEM, ARE SUFFERING
IRREPARABLE INJURY, AND THAT THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY PRESCRIBED BY
THE LAWS OF THIS STATE WHICH WILL PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED
AND THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFFS HEREIN." 

"PLAINTIFFS ARE DESIROUS OF HAVING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS
INVOLVED IN THE ATTACK BEING MADE BY UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
UPON THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HEARD AND DETERMINED IN THE COURTS OF THIS
STATE, AND TO THAT END DESIRE THIS COURT TO ENTER A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38(380*), TITLE 28, U.S.C.
TO THE END THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES WILL BE STAYED PENDING A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THIS CAUSE IN
THE COURTS OF THIS STATE." 

*SEC. 380, TITLE 28 U.S.C.  "...  IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IF
BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING OF SUCH APPLICATION (TO A FEDERAL COURT FOR
INJUNCTION) A SUIT SHALL HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN A COURT OF THE STATE
HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF UNDER THE LAWS OF SUCH STATE, TO ENFORCE
SUCH STATUTE OR ORDER, ACCOMPANIED BY A STAY IN SUCH STATE COURT OF
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SUCH STATUTE OR ORDER PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF
SUCH SUIT BY SUCH STATE COURT, ALL PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES TO RESTRAIN THE EXECUTION OF SUCH STATUTE OR ORDER SHALL
BE STAYED PENDING THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF SUCH SUIT IN THE COURTS OF
THE STATE.  SUCH STAY MAY BE VACATED UPON PROOF MADE AFTER HEARING, AND
NOTICE OF TEN DAYS SERVED UPON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE, THAT
THE SUIT IN THE STATE COURTS IS NOT BEING PROSECUTED WITH DILIGENCE AND
GOOD FAITH...." 

"THIS ACTION IS FILED IN THIS COURT IN THE NATURE OF AN APPEAL UNDER
THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 6059, REVISED CIVIL STATUTES, BUT SUCH APPEAL IS
NOT TAKEN BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS HEREIN ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE RATES
AND CHARGES PRESCRIBED IN THE COMMISSION'S SAID ORDER, BUT PRIMARILY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT AND ITS
VENUE TO HEAR AND FINALLY DETERMINE THE MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY AND TO
ENFORCE THE SAID ORDER, IF IT SHOULD BE DETERMINED TO BE VALID UPON
FINAL HEARING." 

THE PETITION ASKED:  THAT THE DEFENDANT APPEAR AND ANSWER; THAT UPON
FINAL TRIAL THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT; THAT DEFENDANT
BE ENJOINED FROM CHARGING ANY RATES OTHER THAN THOSE FIXED BY THE
COMMISSION; ALSO THAT AN ORDER ISSUE STAYING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BY THE
COMMISSION PENDING THE TERMINATION OF THIS SUIT, &C. 

JULY, 26, 1933, THE STATE COURT ENTERED A STAY ORDER AS PRAYED. 
AUGUST 17, 1933, UPON THE COMMISSION'S APPLICATION, THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THAT COURT BE STAYED,
PENDING FINAL ACTION BY THE STATE COURT. 

UNDER THE COMPULSION INDICATED, APPELLANT UNWILLINGLY APPEARED IN THE
STATE COURT AND FILED AN ANSWER SETTING UP ITS RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  THE MATTER WAS SUPPOSED TO STAND IN THAT COURT FOR
HEARING DE NOVO.  VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES. 

NOTWITHSTANDING APPELLANT'S DEFINITE OBJECTIONS AND ITS DULY
PRESENTED REQUESTS FOR ADEQUATE INSTRUCTIONS, A SINGLE ISSUE WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  "DO YOU FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION OF TEXAS BEARING DATE JUNE 13, 1933, PROVIDING FOR A FIFTY
FIVE CENT GAS RATE TO RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS WITHIN THE CITY OF LAREDO,
TEXAS, UNDER THE FACTS INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU, IS
UNREASONABLE AND UNJUST AS TO DEFENDANT, UNITED GAS PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANY?  ANSWER THIS QUESTION 'YES,' OR 'NO.'"  THE JURY ANSWERED
"NO," AND JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IN PART WAS
ENTERED. 

THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS TOOK THE CAUSE FOR REVIEW UPON THE RECORD
MADE IN THE DISTRICT COURT.  THE FOLLOWING EXCERPTS FROM ITS OPINION
SUFFICIENTLY INDICATE THE REASONS WHICH MOVED IT PARTLY TO SUSTAIN AND
PARTLY TO OVERRULE THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND FINALLY TO
APPROVE THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN TOTO. 

"WE HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT NOT ONLY FAILED TO
ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM FOR REVERSAL AND RENDITION OF JUDGMENT IN ITS
FAVOR, BUT THAT WHEN VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF
THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S RATE ORDER, AND OF THE QUANTUM AND
CHARACTER OF PROOF REQUIRED TO OVERCOME SUCH PRESUMPTION, THE EVIDENCE
ADDUCED WAS INSUFFICIENT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, TO SHOW THAT THE 55[ RATE
ORDER WAS EITHER UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE OR CONFISCATORY.  IN VIEW OF
THIS CONCLUSION, ALL QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE PRESENTED IN 'PART II.'  OF
THE BRIEF GO OUT OF THE CASE." 

"IN ABSENCE OF AN ACTUAL TEST OF THE RATE, THE COURT ON APPEAL MUST
RESOLVE ALL DOUBTS AGAINST THE COMPLAINING PARTY; PARE DOWN VALUATIONS
UNSPARINGLY; AND THE RATE MUST APPEAR TO BE CLEARLY CONFISCATORY, OR
UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE BEFORE THE COURT SHOULD BY INJUNCTION RESTRAIN
ITS ENFORCEMENT IN ADVANCE OF ACTUAL EXPERIENCE OF THE PRACTICAL
RESULTS OF THE RATE." 

"THAT IN ADVANCE OF ANY ACTUAL TEST OF THE PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE
NEW RATE, THE COURT ON APPEAL WILL NOT DISTURB THE RATE WHERE IT IS
BASED UPON CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AS TO VALUATIONS OF PROPERTY, OR AS TO
ANY OTHER ITEM USED AS A BASIS FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE RATE; BECAUSE
TO DO SO WOULD MERELY SUBSTITUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OR JURY UPON
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE FOR THAT OF THE COMMISSION, AND WOULD THEREFORE
PERMIT THE COURT TO EXERCISE THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION OF RATE-MAKING. 
R.R. COMMISSION V. SHUPEE, 57 S.W.(2D), 295; AFFIRMED 73 S.W.(2D),
505.  AND THAT BY 'RESOLVING ALL DOUBTS AGAINST' THE APPELLANT, 'AND
USING VALUATIONS PARED DOWN UNSPARINGLY,' THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO
REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE JUDICIAL MIND THAT THE 55[ RATE WAS NEITHER
CONFISCATORY NOR UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE.  NEWTON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS
CO., 258 U.S., 165." 

CONSIDERING THE RULES WHICH THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS DECLARED
APPLICABLE TO THE TRIAL, QUITE EVIDENTLY APPELLANT HAD NO ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THE LAW AND FACTS RELEVANT TO THE CONTROVERSY TO
A FAIR JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL FOR DETERMINATION ACCORDING TO ITS OWN
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. 

A TRIBUNAL REQUIRED TO ACCEPT WEIGHTY PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST A
DEFENDANT, RESOLVE ALL DOUBTS AGAINST IT, PARE DOWN VALUATIONS TO THE
UTMOST AND REFUSE A JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS
CONFLICTING AS TO VALUATIONS OR OTHER IMPORTANT ELEMENTS, COULD NOT
REACH AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN RESPECT OF THE LAW AND FACTS - COULD
NOT ARRIVE AT A FAIR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  TO US THE PROCEEDINGS IN
THE STATE COURTS SEEM AN EMPTY SHOW. 
..END :




















N.Y. EX REL. WATER CO. V. MALTBIE, 303 U.S. 158 


NO. 380.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 4, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1938.  -
APPEAL FROM 275 N.Y. 357 -  9 N.E.2D 961, DISMISSED. 


A PUBLIC UTILITY IN NEW YORK, COMPLAINING OF AN ORDER REDUCING ITS
RATES, SOUGHT A REVIEW BY CERTIORARI, WHICH UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE IS
LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF LAW.  HELD: 

1.  THAT IT HAD NO STANDING TO SAY THAT THE LIMITATION DEPRIVED IT OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 160. 

2.  THAT OF THE QUESTIONS OF LAW PRESENTED, INCLUDING THE QUESTION
WHETHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE
RATE-FIXING BODY, NONE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  ID. 

NEW YORK EX REL. CONSOLIDATED WATER CO. V. MALTBIE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK RELATING TO RATES FOR WATER SUPPLIED BY APPELLANT TO THE CITY
OF UTICA AND ADJACENT COMMUNITIES, THE COMMISSION, ON JUNE 28, 1933,
AFTER FULL HEARING AND UPON FINDINGS DETERMINING THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY OF APPELLANT USED AND USEFUL IN RENDERING SERVICE TO ITS
CUSTOMERS, THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL OPERATING INCOME REQUIRED TO YIELD A
SIX PER CENT. RETURN UPON SUCH FAIR VALUE, AND THE AVERAGE OPERATING
INCOME OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEARS 1930 AND 1931(AS ADJUSTED TO ALLOW
FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE), DIRECTED APPELLANT TO FILE A SCHEDULE OF RATES
WHICH SHOULD EFFECT A REDUCTION IN ITS ANNUAL OPERATING REVENUES OF AT
LEAST $120,000 PER ANNUM.  THE COMMISSION DENIED A REHEARING WITH
PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR AN INCREASE OF RATES IF, AFTER A REASONABLE
TIME, IT SHOULD APPEAR THAT A DEFINITE CHANGE IN PRICES HAD OCCURRED. 

IN CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS, APPELLANT CHALLENGED THESE DETERMINATIONS
AND ORDERS AS UNLAWFUL AND CONFISCATORY, IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD
DEPARTMENT, OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF
THE COMMISSION, 245 APP. DIV. 866; 282 N.Y. 412, AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION.  275 N.Y. 357; 9
N.E.2D 961.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL WHICH APPELLEES MOVE TO
DISMISS FOR THE WANT OF JURISDICTION UPON THE GROUND THAT NO
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION IS INVOLVED. 

1.  APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE EXERCISE OF THE
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF A COURT AS TO THE LAW AND THE FACTS WITH
RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION AND THAT SUCH A REVIEW HAS NOT
BEEN ACCORDED BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATE PRACTICE
IN CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS.  275 N.Y. AT P. 370; 9 N.E.2D 961. 
APPELLANT HAS NO STANDING TO RAISE THIS QUESTION AS APPELLANT ITSELF
SOUGHT REVIEW BY CERTIORARI AND HAS NOT INVOKED THE PLENARY
JURISDICTION OF A COURT OF EQUITY AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS
REMEDY IS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER THE STATE LAW.  MATTER OF PENNSYLVANIA
GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 211 APP. DIV. 253, 256; 207 N.Y.S.
599; MATTER OF NEW ROCHELLE WATER CO. V. MALTBIE, 248 APP. DIV. 66, 70;
289 N.Y.S. 388. 

2.  UPON THE REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS BY CERTIORARI, ONLY
QUESTIONS OF LAW WERE OPEN UNDER THE STATE PRACTICE, INCLUDING THE
QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION.  275 N.Y. AT P. 366; 9 N.E.2D 961.  IN THAT VIEW NO
SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION IS PRESENTED.  CEDAR RAPIDS GAS CO. V.
CEDAR RAPIDS, 223 U.S. 655, 668-670; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 91, 92; NEW YORK EX REL.
NEW YORK & QUEENS GAS CO. V. MCCALL, 219 N.Y. 84, 88-90; 245 U.S. 345,
348, 349.  THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED.  DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :























N.Y. LIFE INS. CO. V. GAMER, 303 U.S. 161 


NO. 323.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1938.  - 90
F.(2D) 817, REVERSED. 


A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY STIPULATED TO PAY DOUBLE INDEMNITY (TWICE THE
FACE OF THE POLICY) UPON RECEIPT OF DUE PROOF THAT DEATH OF THE INSURED
RESULTED, DIRECTLY AND INDEPENDENTLY OF ALL OTHER CAUSES, FROM BODILY
INJURY EFFECTED SOLELY THROUGH EXTERNAL, VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS,
BUT THAT DOUBLE INDEMNITY SHOULD NOT BE PAYABLE IF THE DEATH RESULTED
FROM SELF-DESTRUCTION.  THE INSURED DIED OF A RIFLE SHOT.  IN AN ACTION
ON THE POLICY IN WHICH ONLY THE RIGHT TO THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WAS IN
CONTROVERSY, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS WAS WHETHER THE DEATH
WAS ACCIDENTAL, THE COMPANY CLAIMING SUICIDE.  HELD: 

1.  THAT THE BURDEN WAS UPON THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THE DEATH WAS ACCIDENTAL.  P. 171. 

2.  THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEATH WAS DUE TO ACCIDENT RATHER THAN
SUICIDE LOST ITS APPLICATION TO THE CASE WHEN EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT DEATH WAS NOT DUE TO ACCIDENT. 
ID. 

3.  THIS PRESUMPTION REQUIRING THE INFERENCE OF ACCIDENT RATHER THAN
SUICIDE IN A CASE OF VIOLENT DEATH IS A RULE OF LAW; IT IS NOT EVIDENCE
AND MAY NOT BE GIVEN THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.  ID. 

TRAVELLERS' INSURANCE CO. V. MCCONKEY, 127 U.S. 661, DISTINGUISHED. 

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. GAMER, EXECUTRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 670, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED BY THE PRESENT RESPONDENT IN AN ACTION ON A LIFE INSURANCE
POLICY.  SEE ALSO 76 F.(2D) 543. 

THE PHYSICAL FACTS SHOW SUICIDE.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO SHOW MOTIVE. 
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. TRIMBLE, 69 F.(2D) 849, 851; AETNA LIFE INS.
CO. V. TOOLEY, 16 F.(2D) 243, 244; BURKETT V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.,
56 F.(2D) 105, 107, 108; BUT IN THE RECORD THERE IS EVIDENCE OF
MOTIVE. 

SURMISE OR CONJECTURE OF ACCIDENT WILL NOT SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT. 
PENNSYLVANIA RY. CO. V. CHAMBERLAIN, 288 U.S. 333; NEW YORK LIFE INS.
CO. V. ANDERSON, 66 F.(2D) 705, 709; FRANKEL V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.,
51 F.(2D) 933, 935; AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. TOOLEY, 16 F.(2D) 243, 245;
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. ALMAN, 22 F.(2D) 98, 101; BURKETT V. NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO., 56 F.(2D) 105, 108; STEVENS V. WHITE CITY, 285 U.S.
195. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE SUSTAINED THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE DEATH OF THE INSURED "RESULTED
DIRECTLY AND INDEPENDENTLY OF ALL OTHER CAUSES FROM BODILY INJURY
EFFECTED SOLELY THROUGH EXTERNAL, VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS AND ...
THAT THE DEATH OF SAID INSURED DID NOT RESULT FROM SELF-DESTRUCTION
(BUT) RESULTED DIRECTLY FROM THE ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM, TO
WIT:  A RIFLE...." 

THE ANSWER DENIES THAT THE DEATH OF INSURED RESULTED FROM THE
ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A RIFLE, AND ALLEGES THAT THE DEATH OF THE
INSURED RESULTED FROM SELF-DESTRUCTION. 

THIS IS NOT A SUIT FOR DEATH, BUT FOR DEATH BY ACCIDENT.  THE
DEFENDANT AT ALL TIMES OFFERED TO PAY THE DEATH CLAIM, AND TENDERED THE
MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR A FULL RELEASE, WHICH WAS REFUSED. 

THE BURDEN IS UPON THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE HER CAUSE OF ACTION, "DEATH
BY ACCIDENT," WHICH PROOF WOULD NEGATIVE DEATH BY INTENTION.  U.S.
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. BLUM, 270 FED. 946; TRAVELERS' INS. CO. V.
WILKES, 76 F.(2D) 701; (INTERNATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. CARROLL, 17
F.(2D) 42, 43, DISTINGUISHED); JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. V.
CLEMMER, 79 F.(2D) 724; FEDERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. ZEBEC, 82 F.(2D) 961,
963; NEW AMSTERDAM CASUALTY CO. V. BRESCHINI, 64 F.(2D) 887, 890;
FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. V. DRIVER, 79 F.(2D) 713, 714. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT IF THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW DEATH BY ACCIDENT, IT
MUST NEGATIVE DEATH BY INTENTIONAL MEANS, SUCH AS SUICIDE; AND IF THE
DEFENDANT MUST PROVE DEATH BY SUICIDE, IT MUST LIKEWISE NEGATIVE DEATH
BY ACCIDENT.  TRAVELERS' INSURANCE CO. V. MCCONKEY, 127 U.S. 661,
DISTINGUISHED. 

THE CAUSE OF DEATH BEING UNEXPLAINED, A PRESUMPTION ARISES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH HUMAN EXPERIENCE THAT IT WAS NOT CAUSED BY SUICIDE, AND
THIS PRESUMPTION TEMPORARILY AIDED THE PLAINTIFF ON WHOM WAS THE BURDEN
OF PERSUASION.  THIS REQUIRED THE DEFENDANT TO GO FORWARD WITH ITS
EVIDENCE, OR THE ISSUE OF SUICIDE WOULD GO AGAINST IT, BUT DID NOT
PLACE THE BURDEN ON DEFENDANT OF PROVING SUICIDE, OR CHANGE THE BURDEN
OF PROOF RESTING ON THE PLAINTIFF.  MOBILE V. TURNIPSEED, 219 U.S. 35. 

THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION TO BE PLACED UPON THE
MCCONKEY CASE HAS GIVEN RISE TO MUCH CONTRARIETY OF OPINION.  SEE
JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. V. CLEMMER, 79 F.(2D) 724, 731. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE INSTRUCTIONS TO
THE JURY THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF LAW IS THAT THE DEATH WAS NOT
VOLUNTARY; THAT THIS PRESUMPTION HAS THE WEIGHT AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE,
AND IS BINDING ON THE JURY AND THEY MUST FIND ACCORDING TO THE
PRESUMPTION UNTIL IT IS OVERCOME BY EVIDENCE, AND THAT THE BURDEN OF
OVERCOMING SUCH PRESUMPTION IS ON THE DEFENDANT.  MOBILE V. TURNIPSEED,
219 U.S. 35; WESTERN & A.R. CO. V. HENDERSON, 279 U.S. 639; HEINER V.
DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312; ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. FORD, 287 U.S. 502;
DEL VECCHIO V. BOWERS, 296 U.S. 280.  (CITING MANY CASES IN THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS, INCLUDING ARIASI V. ORIENT INSURANCE CO., 50 F.(2D)
548, FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT.)  ALSO:  THAYER, PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON
EVIDENCE, PAGES 314, 336, 337, 339; 5 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, 2D ED.,
SECS. 2487-2498, AND CHAP. 88; JONES' COMMENTARIES ON EVIDENCE, 2D ED.
1926, SECS. 30, 256. 

IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT UPON THE TRIAL PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO
PROVE THAT GAMER DIED ON THE MORNING OF APRIL 10TH AND THAT HE DIED AS
A RESULT OF EXTERNAL AND VIOLENT MEANS.  THIS PROOF WAS THEN AIDED BY
THE PRESUMPTION OF LAW THAT HIS DEATH WAS ACCIDENTAL, WHICH, IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONTRADICTORY PROOF, WAS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE THE CASE TO THE
JURY.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS SUFFICIENT TO TAKE THE CASE TO THE
JURY, IF INDEED IT DID NOT JUSTIFY A DIRECTED VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. 
GUNNING V. COOLEY, 281 U.S. 90; SMALL COMPANY V. LAMBORN, 267 U.S. 248;
MURRAY CO. V. HARRILL, 51 F.(2D) 883, 884; PYTHIAN KNIGHTS V. BECK, 181
U.S. 49.  SEE ALSO, MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO. V. WEST, 67 F.(2D)
468; FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. V. PITTINGER, 63 F.(2D) 880; HOME BENEFIT
ASSN. V. SARGENT, 142 U.S. 691; GAMER V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 76
F.(2D) 543. 

IT IS GENERALLY HELD THAT THE DEFENSE THAT DEATH RESULTED FROM CAUSES
WHICH BY THE TERMS OF THE POLICY RELIEVE THE INSURER FROM LIABILITY, IS
AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, TO BE ALLEGED BY INSURER IN ITS ANSWER. 
SULLIVAN V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 96 MONT. 254, 266; 29 P.(2D)
1064; KINGSLAND V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 97 MONT. 558, 569; 37
P.(2D) 335; VICARS V. AETNA LIFE INS. CO., 158 KY. 1; 164 S.W. 106;
DENT V. NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO., 6 S.W.(2D) 195; AMERICAN
CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO. V. ALEXANDER, 39 S.W.(2D) 86. 

IT IS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER DEATH WAS ACCIDENTAL, AS NEITHER
SUICIDE NOR MURDER WILL BE PRESUMED FROM THE KILLING OF AN INDIVIDUAL. 
MCCLUR V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 50 F.(2D) 972; METROPOLITAN LIFE INS.
CO. V. BROYER, 20 F.(2D) 818, 820; WELLS FARGO CO. V. MUTUAL LIFE INS.
CO., 66 F.(2D) 890, 893; CONNECTICUT LIFE INS. CO. V. MAHER, 70 F.(2D)
441. 

THE DECISION UPON THE FIRST APPEAL IS NOW THE LAW OF THE CASE. 

TRAVELERS' INSURANCE CO. V. MCCONKEY, 127 U.S. 661, HAS NOT BEEN
DISAPPROVED BY THIS COURT. 

(COUNSEL INVITED ATTENTION TO CERTAIN STATUTES OF MONTANA DEFINING
PRESUMPTION, AND TO MONTANA DECISIONS; STATE V. DISTRICT COURT, 72
MONT. 213; 232 PAC. 201, 203(3); ARNOLD V. GENZBERGER, 31 P.(2D) 296,
305; RENLAND V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 90 MONT. 424; 4 P.(2D) 488;
MCMAHON V. COONEY, 95 MONT. 138; 25 P.(2D) 131; NICHOLS V. NEW YORK
LIFE INS. CO., 88 MONT. 132, 292 PAC. 253; MAKI V. MURRAY HOSPITAL, 91
MONT. 251; 7 P.(2D) 228, 232; STATE V. NIELSON, 57 MONT. 137; 187 PAC.
639; UNION BANK & TRUST CO. V. STATE BANK, 103 MONT. 260; 62 P.(2D)
677, 684; ALSO TO MANY CALIFORNIA CASES.) 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APRIL 10, 1933, THE DECEASED DIED BY GUNSHOT.  PETITIONER HAD INSURED
HIS LIFE BY A POLICY IN WHICH IT AGREED TO PAY HIS EXECUTORS TEN
THOUSAND DOLLARS UPON PROOF OF DEATH WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS CAUSE, OR
TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IN CASE OF DEATH RESULTING FROM ACCIDENT AS
DEFINED BY A PROVISION THE PERTINENT PARTS OF WHICH FOLLOW.  "THE
DOUBLE INDEMNITY  ...  SHALL BE PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT OF DUE PROOF THAT
THE DEATH OF THE INSURED RESULTED DIRECTLY AND INDEPENDENTLY OF ALL
OTHER CAUSES FROM BODILY INJURY EFFECTED SOLELY THROUGH EXTERNAL,
VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS ...  DOUBLE INDEMNITY SHALL NOT BE PAYABLE
IF THE INSURED'S DEATH RESULTED FROM SELF-DESTRUCTION, WHETHER SANE OR
INSANE." 

RESPONDENT SUED PETITIONER IN A STATE COURT FOR TWENTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS.  THERE BEING DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, DEFENDANT REMOVED THE
CASE TO THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA.  THE COMPLAINT
ALLEGES THAT THE DEATH OF THE INSURED RESULTED DIRECTLY AND
INDEPENDENTLY OF ALL OTHER CAUSES FROM BODILY INJURY EFFECTED SOLELY
THROUGH EXTERNAL, VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS AND DID NOT RESULT FROM
SELF-DESTRUCTION BUT DIRECTLY FROM THE ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A
RIFLE. 

DEFENDANT'S ANSWER CONCEDES THAT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE FACE OF
THE POLICY, AND ALLEGES A DEPOSIT OF THAT AMOUNT WITH INTEREST IN
COURT.  IT DENIES THAT DEATH RESULTED FROM BODILY INJURY EFFECTED
THROUGH ACCIDENTAL MEANS; AND SPECIFICALLY DENIES THAT IT RESULTED FROM
THE ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF A RIFLE OR OTHER FIRE-ARM.  AND "AS AN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE," IT ALLEGES THAT THE DEATH OF THE INSURED RESULTED
FROM SELF-DESTRUCTION BY INTENTIONALLY DISCHARGING A LOADED RIFLE INTO
HIS BODY WITH INTENT TO TAKE HIS LIFE. 

THE CASE CAME ON FOR TRIAL AND, AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE, THE
JUDGE ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT DIRECTED THE JURY TO RETURN A VERDICT IN
ITS FAVOR.  PLAINTIFF APPEALED; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DEATH WAS ACCIDENTAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY, AND REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  76 F.(2D) 543.  AT
THE SECOND TRIAL PLAINTIFF WENT FORWARD; AT THE CLOSE OF ALL THE
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT REQUESTED THE COURT TO DIRECT A VERDICT IN ITS
FAVOR, INSISTING THAT PLAINTIFF HAD FAILED TO PROVE ACCIDENTAL DEATH
AND THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWED DEATH WAS CAUSED BY SELF-DESTRUCTION, AND
WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.  THE COURT
DENIED THE MOTION AND SUBMITTED THE CASE TO THE JURY. 

ITS CHARGE CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING: 

"IN THIS CASE THE DEFENDANT ALLEGES THAT THE DEATH OF E. WALTER GAMER
WAS CAUSED BY SUICIDE.  THE BURDEN OF PROVING THIS ALLEGATION BY A
PREPONDERANCE, OR GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS UPON THE
DEFENDANT.  THE PRESUMPTION OF LAW IS THAT THE DEATH WAS NOT VOLUNTARY
AND THE DEFENDANT ...  MUST OVERCOME THIS PRESUMPTION AND SATISFY THE
JURY BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HIS DEATH WAS VOLUNTARY. 

"ORDINARILY ...  IN THE ABSENCE OF A PLEA BY THE DEFENDANT OF SUICIDE
OR SELF-DESTRUCTION THE BURDEN WOULD BE UPON, AND IT STILL IS UPON THE
PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE TO PROVE THAT WALTER GAMER DIED FROM EXTERNAL,
VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS, BUT BY ITS ANSWER  ...  THE  ...  COMPANY
HAS ADMITTED THAT  ...  (HE) DIED THROUGH EXTERNAL AND VIOLENT
MEANS....  THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO WHETHER THE DEATH WAS
ACCIDENTALLY CAUSED, OR THE MEANS OF THE DEATH WAS ACCIDENTAL OR
WHETHER IT WAS SUICIDE.  BUT WHEN THE DEFENDANT TOOK THE POSITION THAT
IT TAKES HERE IT ASSUMED THE BURDEN OF PROVING TO YOU BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WALTER GAMER KILLED HIMSELF
VOLUNTARILY.... 

"THE PRESUMPTION OF LAW IS THAT THE DEATH WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AND THE
DEFENDANT IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE ISSUE OF SUICIDE  ...  MUST OVERCOME
THIS PRESUMPTION AND SATISFY THE JURY, BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE, THAT HIS DEATH WAS VOLUNTARY  ..." 

THE JURY GAVE PLAINTIFF A VERDICT FOR TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS WITH
INTEREST, AND THE COURT ENTERED JUDGMENT IN HER FAVOR FOR THAT AMOUNT. 
DEFENDANT APPEALED, ALLEGING THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING ITS
MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT AND IN GIVING EACH OF THE QUOTED
INSTRUCTIONS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  90 F.(2D) 817. 
THIS COURT GRANTED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

THERE ARE PRESENTED FOR DECISION, QUESTIONS WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN REFUSING TO DIRECT A VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT OR IN GIVING ANY OF
THE INSTRUCTIONS QUOTED ABOVE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS TWICE HELD THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT
TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.  IT FOUND THAT THE FACTS BROUGHT
FORWARD AT THE SECOND TRIAL ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE
PRESENTED ON THE FIRST APPEAL.  THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY AS
TO THE PRINCIPAL EVIDENTIARY CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH DEPENDS DECISION
OF THE CONTROLLING ISSUE, WHETHER THE DEATH OF THE INSURED WAS
ACCIDENTAL.  AS WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING
THE CHALLENGED INSTRUCTIONS, AND THE JUDGMENT IS TO BE REVERSED AND THE
CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE ANOTHER TRIAL MAY BE HAD, WE
REFRAIN FROM DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE.  WE FIND IT SUFFICIENT TO
SUSTAIN A VERDICT FOR OR AGAINST EITHER PARTY.  DEFENDANT WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY INSTRUCTION. 

THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE CHALLENGED INSTRUCTIONS SUGGEST THAT
THE TRIAL JUDGE FOLLOWED THOSE BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IN TRAVELLERS'
INS. CO. V. MCCONKEY, 127 U.S. 661.  THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS READS THAT CASE TO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS HERE
IN QUESTION.  AS IT HAS NOT BEEN UNIFORMLY INTERPRETED, WE SHALL
EXAMINE ITS PRINCIPAL FEATURES.  THERE THE ACCIDENT POLICY SUED ON
COVERED BODILY INJURIES EFFECTED THROUGH EXTERNAL, VIOLENT AND
ACCIDENTAL MEANS WHEN SUCH INJURIES ALONE OCCASIONED DEATH OR
DISABILITY.  A PROVISO DECLARED THAT NO CLAIM SHOULD BE MADE UNDER THE
POLICY WHEN THE DEATH OR INJURY HAD BEEN CAUSED BY SUICIDE, OR BY
INTENTIONAL INJURIES INFLICTED BY THE INSURED OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON. 
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE INSURED HAD BEEN ACCIDENTLY SHOT BY A
PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, BY REASON OF WHICH HE INSTANTLY
DIED.  THE ANSWER DENIED THAT DEATH WAS OCCASIONED BY BODILY INJURIES
EFFECTED THROUGH EXTERNAL, VIOLENT AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS, AND ALLEGED
THAT IT WAS CAUSED BY SUICIDE, OR BY INTENTIONAL INJURIES INFLICTED
EITHER BY THE INSURED OR BY SOME OTHER PERSON.    THE STATEMENT OF THE
CASE QUOTES THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS (PP. 663-664): 

"THE PLAINTIFF  ...  GIVES EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT THE INSURED WAS
FOUND DEAD  ...  FROM A PISTOL SHOT THROUGH THE HEART.  THIS EVIDENCE
SATISFIES THE TERMS OF THE POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT THE
ASSURED CAME TO HIS DEATH BY 'EXTERNAL AND VIOLENT MEANS,' AND THE ONLY
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE MEANS BY WHICH HE CAME TO HIS DEATH WERE ALSO
'ACCIDENTAL.' 

"IT IS MANIFEST THAT SELF-DESTRUCTION CANNOT BE PRESUMED....  THE
PLAINTIFF IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO RECOVER UNLESS THE DEFENDANT HAS BY
COMPETENT EVIDENCE OVERCOME THIS PRESUMPTION AND SATISFIED THE JURY BY
A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE INJURIES WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH OF
THE INSURED WERE INTENTIONAL ON HIS PART. 

"NEITHER IS MURDER TO BE PRESUMED  ...; BUT IF THE JURY FIND  ...
THAT THE INSURED WAS IN FACT MURDERED, THE DEATH WAS AN ACCIDENT AS TO
HIM  ...  IF  ...  THE INJURIES OF THE INSURED  ... WERE NOT
INTENTIONAL ON HIS PART THE PLAINTIFF HAS A RIGHT TO RECOVER....  THE
INQUIRY  ...  IS RESOLVED INTO A QUESTION OF SUICIDE, BECAUSE IF THE
INSURED WAS MURDERED THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS LIFE WAS NOT INTENTIONAL ON
HIS PART. 

"THE DEFENDANT, IN ITS ANSWER, ALLEGES THAT THE DEATH OF THE INSURED
WAS CAUSED BY SUICIDE.  THE BURDEN OF PROVING THIS ALLEGATION BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE RESTS ON THE DEFENDANT." 

THIS COURT HELD THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN CHARGING THAT IF THE
INSURED WAS MURDERED PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER AND ON THAT
GROUND REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDED THE CASE WITH DIRECTIONS TO
GRANT A NEW TRIAL. 

IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ANY OTHER QUESTION.  BUT, FOR
GUIDANCE OF THE TRIAL ORDERED, THE COURT DISCUSSED OTHER PARTS OF THE
CHARGE. 

AT THE OUTSET THE OPINION DECLARES THAT UNDER THE ISSUE PRESENTED BY
THE GENERAL DENIAL IT WAS INCUMBENT ON PLAINTIFF TO SHOW THAT THE DEATH
WAS THE RESULT NOT ONLY OF EXTERNAL AND VIOLENT, BUT ALSO OF ACCIDENTAL
MEANS.  IT STATES THAT THE TWO "PRINCIPAL FACTS TO BE ESTABLISHED WERE
EXTERNAL VIOLENCE AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS, PRODUCING DEATH.  THE FIRST WAS
ESTABLISHED WHEN IT APPEARED THAT DEATH ENSUED FROM A PISTOL SHOT
THROUGH THE HEART OF THE INSURED.  THE EVIDENCE ON THAT POINT WAS
DIRECT AND POSITIVE;...  WERE THE MEANS BY WHICH THE INSURED CAME TO
HIS DEATH ALSO ACCIDENTAL?  IF HE COMMITTED SUICIDE, THEN THE LAW WAS
FOR THE COMPANY, BECAUSE THE POLICY  ...  DID NOT EXTEND TO  ...  SELF
DESTRUCTION  ..." 

THE OPINION PROCEEDS (P. 667):  "DID THE COURT ERR IN SAYING TO THE
JURY THAT, UPON THE ISSUE AS TO SUICIDE, THE LAW WAS FOR THE PLAINTIFF,
UNLESS THAT PRESUMPTION WAS OVERCOME BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE?  THIS
QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.  THE CONDITION THAT DIRECT
AND POSITIVE PROOF MUST BE MADE OF DEATH HAVING BEEN CAUSED BY
EXTERNAL, VIOLENT, AND ACCIDENTAL MEANS, DID NOT DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF,
WHEN MAKING SUCH PROOF, OF THE BENEFIT OF THE RULES OF LAW ESTABLISHED
FOR THE GUIDANCE OF COURTS AND JURIES IN THE INVESTIGATION AND
DETERMINATION OF FACTS." 

THE STATEMENT JUST QUOTED, LACKING SOMEWHAT OF THE PRECISION
GENERALLY FOUND IN OPINIONS OF THE COURT PREPARED BY ITS EMINENT
AUTHOR, HAS BEEN VARIOUSLY CONSTRUED.  THE QUESTION IT PROPOUNDS DOES
NOT FULLY REFLECT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CHARGE WHICH PUT ON THE
DEFENDANT THE BURDEN OF PROVING SUICIDE BY PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE.  HOWEVER, THE OPINION SHOWS THAT THE BURDEN WAS ON PLAINTIFF
TO PROVE DEATH BY ACCIDENT AS DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT.  IT CONTAINS
NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE COURT DEEMED THE ISSUE AS TO BURDEN OF
PROOF ARISING ON GENERAL DENIAL TO BE AFFECTED BY DEFENDANT'S
ALLEGATION OF SUICIDE.  IT HELD THAT IF THE INSURED COMMITTED SUICIDE,
PLAINTIFF HAD NO CLAIM; THAT, FROM THE FACT OF DEATH BY VIOLENCE,
ACCIDENT WOULD BE PRESUMED, AND THAT UNLESS THE PRESUMPTION WAS
OVERCOME BY EVIDENCE THE LAW WAS FOR PLAINTIFF.  THE OPINION DOES NOT
INDICATE THE QUANTUM OF PROOF REQUIRED TO PUT AN END TO THE
PRESUMPTION.  IT IS CONSISTENT WITH, IF INDEED IT DOES NOT SUPPORT, THE
RULE THAT THE PRESUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE AND CEASES UPON THE
INTRODUCTION OF SUBSTANTIAL PROOF TO THE CONTRARY.  THAYER, PRELIMINARY
TREATISE ON EVIDENCE, P. 346.  MOBILE, J. & K.C.R. CO. V. TURNIPSEED,
219 U.S. 35, 43.  WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. CO. V. HENDERSON, 279 U.S. 639,
642, 644.  HEINER V. DONNAN, 285 U.S. 312, 329.  ATLANTIC COAST LINE V.
FORD, 287 U.S. 502, 506.  DEL VECCHIO V. BOWERS, 296 U.S. 280, 286. 
NICHOLS V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 88 MONT. 132, 139 ET SEQ.; 292 P.
253.  THE OPINION DID NOT DEFINITELY SUSTAIN ANY OF THE CHARGES TO
WHICH IT REFERRED.  IT FALLS FAR SHORT OF SUSTAINING THE INSTRUCTIONS
CHALLENGED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

UNDER THE CONTRACT IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE US, DOUBLE INDEMNITY IS
PAYABLE ONLY ON PROOF OF DEATH BY ACCIDENT AS THERE DEFINED.  THE
BURDEN WAS ON PLAINTIFF TO ALLEGE AND BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT FACT.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED ACCIDENT AND
NEGATIVED SELF-DESTRUCTION.  THE ANSWER DENIED ACCIDENT AND ALLEGED
SUICIDE.  PLAINTIFF'S NEGATION OF SELF-DESTRUCTION TAKEN WITH
DEFENDANT'S ALLEGATION OF SUICIDE SERVED TO NARROW THE POSSIBLE FIELD
OF CONTROVERSY.  ONLY THE ISSUE OF ACCIDENTAL DEATH VEL NON REMAINED. 
THE QUESTION OF FACT TO BE TRIED WAS PRECISELY THE SAME AS IF PLAINTIFF
MERELY ALLEGED ACCIDENTAL DEATH AND DEFENDANT INTERPOSED DENIAL WITHOUT
MORE.  TRAVELERS' INS. CO. V. WILKES, 76 F.(2D) 701, 705.  FIDELITY &
CASUALTY CO. V. DRIVER, 79 F.(2D) 713, 714.  CF. HOME BENEFIT ASSN. V.
SARGENT, 142 U.S. 691. 

UPON THE FACT OF VIOLENT DEATH WITHOUT MORE, THE PRESUMPTION, I.E.,
THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW, REQUIRED THE INFERENCE OF DEATH BY ACCIDENT
RATHER THAN BY SUICIDE.  AS THE CASE STOOD ON THE PLEADINGS, THE LAW
REQUIRED JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF.  TRAVELLERS' INS. CO. V. MCCONKEY,
SUPRA, 665.  IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED ON PLEADINGS BUT ON PLEADINGS AND
PROOF.  IN HIS CHARGE THE JUDGE HAD TO APPLY THE LAW TO THE CASE AS IT
THEN WAS.  THE EVIDENCE BEING SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT THE
DEATH WAS NOT DUE TO ACCIDENT, THERE WAS NO FOUNDATION OF FACT FOR THE
APPLICATION OF THE PRESUMPTION; AND THE CASE STOOD FOR DECISION BY THE
JURY UPON THE EVIDENCE UNAFFECTED BY THE RULE THAT FROM THE FACT OF
VIOLENT DEATH, THERE BEING NOTHING TO SHOW THE CONTRARY, ACCIDENTAL
DEATH WILL BE PRESUMED.  THE PRESUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE AND MAY NOT BE
GIVEN WEIGHT AS EVIDENCE.  DESPIAU V. UNITED STATES CASUALTY CO., 89
F.(2D) 43, 44.  JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. V. CLEMMER, 79 F.(2D)
724, 730.  TRAVELERS' INS. CO. V. WILKES, SUPRA, 705.  FIDELITY &
CASUALTY CO. V. DRIVER, SUPRA, 714.  FRANKEL V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.,
51 F.(2D) 933, 935.  OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTEE CORP. V. SCHACHNER, 70
F.(2D) 28, 31.  BUT SEE:  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. ROSS, 30 F.(2D)
80.  TSCHUDI V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 72 F.(2D) 306, 308, 310. 
NICHOLS V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER BY THE GREATER WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IT HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEATH OF THE INSURED WAS ACCIDENTAL, THE JURY IS
REQUIRED TO CONSIDER ALL ADMITTED AND PROVED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
UPON WHICH THE DETERMINATION OF THAT ISSUE DEPENDS AND, IN REACHING ITS
DECISION, SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PROBABILITIES FOUND FROM THE
EVIDENCE TO ATTEND THE CLAIMS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. 

THE CHALLENGED INSTRUCTIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW RESTS UPON AN INSURANCE POLICY CONTRACT MADE IN
BUTTE, MONTANA.  PLAINTIFF FILED SUIT FOR MORE THAN $3,000 IN A MONTANA
STATE COURT, AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY - BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A MONTANA
CORPORATION - WAS ABLE TO REMOVE THE SUIT TO THE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT.  PLAINTIFF'S JUDGMENT IN THE DISTRICT COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
COURT OF APPEALS.  THIS COURT NOW REVERSES PLAINTIFF'S JUDGMENT BECAUSE
THE DISTRICT COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT - EVIDENCE HAVING
ESTABLISHED THE DEATH OF THE INSURED BY VIOLENT AND EXTERNAL MEANS -
THE LAW PRESUMED FROM THESE FACTS THAT THE DEATH "WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AND
...  THE DEFENDANT MUST OVERCOME THIS PRESUMPTION AND SATISFY THE JURY
BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT HIS DEATH WAS VOLUNTARY...." 
THE POLICY OF INSURANCE WAS A MONTANA CONTRACT AND EVEN THOUGH THE
COMPANY WAS ABLE TO REMOVE PLAINTIFF'S CASE TO A FEDERAL COURT, I
BELIEVE THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY MONTANA LAW. 
UNDER MONTANA LAW I BELIEVE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS WERE PROPER. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA HAS SAID:  FN1 

"WHERE, AS HERE, DEATH IS SHOWN AS THE RESULT OF EXTERNAL AND VIOLENT
MEANS AND THE ISSUE IS WHETHER IT WAS DUE TO ACCIDENT OR SUICIDE, THE
PRESUMPTION IS IN FAVOR OF ACCIDENT." 

THE MAJORITY AGREE WITH THE MONTANA LAW UP TO THIS POINT, SAYING: 

"UPON THE FACT OF VIOLENT DEATH WITHOUT MORE, THE PRESUMPTION, I.E.,
THE APPLICABLE RULE OF LAW, REQUIRED THE INFERENCE OF DEATH BY ACCIDENT
RATHER THAN BY SUICIDE."  AT THIS POINT, AGREEMENT ENDS BETWEEN THE
RULE HERE DECLARED BY THE MAJORITY AND THE LAW OF MONTANA. 

UNDER MONTANA LAW THE PRESUMPTION THAT VIOLENT DEATH WAS ACCIDENTAL
AND NOT SUICIDAL CONTINUES AND DOES NOT DISAPPEAR UNLESS THE EVIDENCE
"ALL POINTS TO SUICIDE  ...  WITH SUCH CERTAINTY AS TO PRECLUDE ANY
OTHER REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS"; AND THE PRESUMPTION CONTINUES FOR THE
JURY'S CONSIDERATION EXCEPT "...  WHEN THE EVIDENCE POINTS
OVERWHELMINGLY TO SUICIDE AS THE CAUSE OF DEATH."  FN2 

CONTRARY TO THIS CLEAR STATEMENT BY THE MONTANA SUPREME COURT IS THE
DIFFERENT RULE CLEARLY ANNOUNCED BY THE MAJORITY HERE IN HOLDING THAT
THE PRESUMPTION DISAPPEARS AFTER THE INSURANCE COMPANY INTRODUCED
EVIDENCE MERELY "SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT THE DEATH WAS NOT
DUE TO ACCIDENT." 

THIS COURT DOES NOT FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE EXCLUDES
EVERY OTHER REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS BUT SUICIDE OR THAT ALL OF THE
EVIDENCE POINTS "UNERRINGLY TO SUICIDE AS THE CAUSE OF DEATH."  FN3  ON
THE CONTRARY THE MAJORITY OPINION STATES: 

"WE FIND IT (THE EVIDENCE) SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT FOR OR
AGAINST EITHER PARTY.  DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY
INSTRUCTION." 

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE MAJORITY HERE DECLARE A RULE BASED NEITHER ON
MONTANA LAW NOR FEDERAL STATUTE.  THIS FEDERAL JUDICIAL RULE MUST NONE
THE LESS BE FOLLOWED IN SUITS ON INSURANCE POLICIES TRIED IN FEDERAL
COURTS.  THE RESULT IS THAT SUITS ON POLICIES FOR LESS THAN $3,000
TRIED IN STATE COURTS WILL FREQUENTLY BE DECIDED BY RULES DIFFERENT
FROM THE RULE WHICH GOVERNS SIMILAR SUITS TRIED IN FEDERAL COURTS
BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE MORE THAN $3,000.  IN AN ORDERLY AND CONSISTENT
SYSTEM OF JURISPRUDENCE, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE SAME LAW SHOULD FIX
AND CONTROL THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY ON SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL CONTRACTS
MADE IN THE SAME JURISDICTION AND UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. 
NEITHER THE COMPANY NOR THE POLICYHOLDER SHOULD OBTAIN AN ADVANTAGE BY
THE APPLICATION OF A DIFFERENT LAW GOVERNING THE CONTRACT MERELY
BECAUSE THE CASE CAN BE REMOVED TO A FEDERAL COURT. 

IT WAS TO AVOID SUCH RESULTS - AMONG OTHER REASONS - THAT SEC. 725,
U.S.C., TITLE 28, WAS PASSED.  IT PROVIDES: 

"THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE CONSTITUTION,
TREATIES, OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES OTHERWISE REQUIRE OR
PROVIDE, SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF DECISION IN TRIALS AT COMMON
LAW, IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CASES WHERE THEY APPLY." 

IN THIS CASE, THE LAW DETERMINING THE BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO SUICIDE
AFFECTS THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.  FN4  SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS
ARISING FROM AN INSURANCE CONTRACT ARE GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE
WHERE THE CONTRACT IS MADE.  FN5  SINCE THE COURT BELOW INSTRUCTED THE
JURY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF MONTANA, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CHARGE
CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

NOR CAN I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD APPROVE A GENERAL RULE GOVERNING
TRIALS IN FEDERAL COURTS WHICH IN MY JUDGMENT TRANSFERS JURY FUNCTIONS
TO JUDGES.  THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION HERE IS TO GIVE THE TRIAL JUDGE
THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED TO
TAKE FROM THE JURY THE RIGHT TO FIND ACCIDENTAL DEATH FROM PROOF OF
DEATH BY VIOLENT AND EXTERNAL MEANS.  THIS INEVITABLY FOLLOWS IF THE
PRESUMPTION, OR RIGHT OF THE JURY TO INFER DEATH BY ACCIDENT,
"DISAPPEARS" WHENEVER THE JUDGE BELIEVES SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF SUICIDE
HAS BEEN INTRODUCED. 

STRIPPED OF DISCUSSIONS OF LEGAL FORMULAS DESIGNATED AS
"PRESUMPTIONS" AND "BURDEN OF PROOF," THE NET RESULT OF THE RULE OF
"DISAPPEARING PRESUMPTIONS" IS THAT TRIAL JUDGES IN FEDERAL COURTS
(IRRESPECTIVE OF STATE RULES) HAVE THE POWER TO DETERMINE WHEN
SUFFICIENT "SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO JUSTIFY TAKING
FROM THE JURY THE RIGHT TO RENDER A VERDICT ON EVIDENCE WHICH - HAD THE
JUDGE NOT FOUND IT OVERCOME BY CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE - WOULD HAVE
JUSTIFIED A VERDICT.  THE JUDGE EXERCISES THIS POWER AS A "TRIER OF
FACT" ALTHOUGH EVIDENCE, PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED AND SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A VERDICT, HAS NEITHER BEEN EXCLUDED NOR WITHDRAWN. 

PROOF OF DEATH BY EXTERNAL AND VIOLENT MEANS HAS UNIFORMLY BEEN HELD
TO ESTABLISH DEATH BY ACCIDENT.  THE EXTREME IMPROBABILITY OF SUICIDE
IS COMPLETE JUSTIFICATION FOR A FINDING OF DEATH FROM ACCIDENT UNDER
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.  WHILE IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THIS PROOF OF
ACCIDENTAL DEATH WAS BASED ON "PRESUMPTION," IN REALITY - WHATEVER
WORDS OR FORMULAS ARE USED - WHAT IS MEANT IS THAT A LITIGANT HAS
OFFERED ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH ACCIDENTAL DEATH.  TO ATTRIBUTE
THIS ADEQUACY OF PROOF TO A "PRESUMPTION" DOES NOT AUTHORIZE OR EMPOWER
THE JUDGE TO SAY THAT THIS "ADEQUATE PROOF" (IDENTICAL WITH LEGAL
"PRESUMPTION") HAS "DISAPPEARED."  IF THE EVIDENCE OFFERED BY PLAINTIFF
PROVIDES ADEQUATE PROOF OF ACCIDENTAL DEATH UPON WHICH A JURY'S VERDICT
CAN BE SUSTAINED, MERE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE CANNOT OVERCOME THE
ORIGINAL "ADEQUATE PROOF" UNLESS THE AUTHORITY HAVING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE FACTS
BELIEVES THE CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE HAS OVERCOME THE ORIGINAL PROOF. 
THE JURY - NOT THE JUDGE - SHOULD DECIDE WHEN THERE HAS BEEN
"SUBSTANTIAL" EVIDENCE WHICH OVERCOMES THE PREVIOUS ADEQUATE PROOF. 
HERE, THIS COURT HOLDS THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
THE JURY HAD ADEQUATE PROOF UPON WHICH TO FIND ACCIDENTAL DEATH, AND
WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE A VERDICT THAT INSURED DIED AS A RESULT OF
ACCIDENT, BUT ALSO HOLDS THAT, AFTER SUBSEQUENT CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE
OF DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE (NOT THE JURY) COULD DECIDE THAT PLAINTIFF'S
ADEQUATE PROOF (PRESUMPTION) HAD "DISAPPEARED" OR HAD BEEN OVERCOME BY
THIS SUBSEQUENT CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY.  THIS TOOK FROM THE JURY THE
RIGHT TO DECIDE THE WEIGHT AND EFFECT OF THIS SUBSEQUENT CONTRADICTORY
EVIDENCE.  SUCH A RULE GIVES PARTIES A TRIAL BY JUDGE, BUT DOES NOT
PRESERVE, IN ITS ENTIRETY, THAT TRIAL BY JURY GUARANTEED BY THE SEVENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.  I CANNOT AGREE TO A CONCLUSION WHICH, I
BELIEVE, TAKES AWAY ANY PART OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HAVE A JURY
PASS UPON THE WEIGHT OF ALL OF THE FACTS INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE. 

I BELIEVE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  NICHOLS V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 88 MONT. 132, 140; 292 P.
253, 255. 

FN2  NICHOLS V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA, AT 141.  IN A CASE
INVOLVING AN ACTION ON AN INSURANCE POLICY, IN WHICH THE MCCONKEY CASE,
SUPRA, WAS FOLLOWED, THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA SAID: 

"THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE INCIDENTS CONNECTED WITH THE DEATH OF THE
INSURED IS SLIGHT, BUT IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE DEATH OF INSURED
BY EXTERNAL AND VIOLENT MEANS.... 

"...  IF PLAINTIFF HAD 'SHOWN BY THE FAIR WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE THAT
THE ASSURED CAME TO HIS DEATH AS THE RESULT OF A PISTOL SHOT  ..., THEN
THE LAW WILL PRESUME THAT THE SHOT WAS ACCIDENTAL, AND THAT IT WAS NOT
INFLICTED WITH MURDEROUS OR SUICIDAL INTENT.  AND UNDER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES THE BURDEN WILL BE UPON THE DEFENDANT TO OVERCOME THIS
PRESUMPTION, AND TO SHOW THAT THE DEATH WAS NOT CAUSED BY ACCIDENTAL
MEANS.' 

"IT IS APPARENT, THEREFORE, THAT UNDER THE GREAT WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE MADE A PRIMA FACIE CASE.  AS SAID BY THIS COURT IN
NUMEROUS DECISIONS, WHEN A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS MADE BY PLAINTIFF, THE
DEFENDANT MUST REBUT THE CASE SO MADE, OR FAIL IN THE ACTION."  WITHERS
V. PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 58 MONT. 485, 491, 492, 493, 494; 193
P. 566, 568. 

"TESTIMONY CONSTITUTING A MERE CONTRADICTION OF THE FACTS ESTABLISHED
PRESUMPTIVELY BY THE PRIMA FACIE CASE DOES NOT NECESSARILY SUFFICE TO
OVERTHROW THE SAME....  THE PRIMA FACIE CASE MUST NOT ONLY BE
CONTRADICTED BUT OVERCOME AS WELL.  WHEN SUCH CASE IS MADE,
CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY MERELY AMOUNTS TO A CONFLICT IN THE EVIDENCE,
WITH THE ULTIMATE FACTS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT OR JURY, AS THE
CASE MAY BE."  STATE V. NIELSEN, 57 MONT. 137, 143; 187 P. 639, 640. 
CF. JOHNSON V. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO., 52 MONT. 73; 155 P. 971. 
SEE, RENLAND V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 90 MONT. 424, 437; 4 P.2D 488. 

FN3  CF. NICHOLS V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA, AT 144. 

FN4  CF. CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. V. WHITE, 238 U.S. 507, 511, 512;
NEW ORLEANS & N.E.R. CO. V. HARRIS, 247 U.S. 367, 371, 372. 

FN5  PRITCHARD V. NORTON, 106 U.S. 124, 130; NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE
INS. CO. V. MCCUE, 223 U.S. 234, 246, 247. 
..END :
























S.C. HWY. DEPT. V. BARNWELL BROS., 303 U.S. 177 


NO. 161.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1938.  - 17
F.(2D) 803, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THE ABSENCE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION COVERING THE SUBJECT IN ITS
RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, A STATE, IN ORDER TO CONSERVE ITS
HIGHWAYS AND PROMOTE SAFETY THEREON, MAY ADOPT REGULATIONS LIMITING THE
WEIGHT AND WIDTH OF THE VEHICLES THAT USE THEM, APPLICABLE WITHOUT
DISCRIMINATION TO THOSE MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO THOSE
MOVING ONLY WITHIN THE STAE.  P. 184. 

2.  SUCH REGULATIONS BEING, IN GENERAL, WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF THE
STATE, JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO THEIR VALIDITY, UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
AS WELL AS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IS LIMITED TO THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ARE REASONABLY ADAPTED TO THE END
SOUGHT.  P. 190. 

IN RESOLVING THIS QUESTION, THE COURT CAN NOT ACT AS CONGRESS DOES
WHEN, AFTER WEIGHING ALL THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS, STATE AND NATIONAL,
IT DETERMINES WHEN AND HOW MUCH THE STATE REGULATORY POWER SHALL YIELD
TO THE LARGER INTERESTS OF A NATIONAL COMMERCE; NOR IS IT CALLED UPON,
AS ARE STATE LEGISLATURES, TO DETERMINE WHAT, IN ITS JUDGMENT, IS THE
MOST SUITABLE RESTRICTION TO BE APPLIED OF THOSE THAT ARE POSSIBLE, OR
TO CHOOSE THAT ONE WHICH IN ITS OPINION IS BEST ADAPTED TO ALL THE
DIVERSE INTERESTS AFFECTED. 

3.  A SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE PROHIBITS USE ON THE STATE HIGHWAYS OF
MOTOR TRUCKS AND "SEMI-TRAILER" MOTOR TRUCKS WIDER THAN 90 INCHES OR
HEAVIER, INCLUDING LOAD, THAN 20,000 LBS.  A FEDERAL COURT ENJOINED ITS
ENFORCEMENT ON SPECIFIED HIGHWAYS AS TO VEHICLES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  IT FOUND THAT MUCH OF THE INTERSTATE MOTOR-TRUCK TRAFFIC
NORMALLY PASSING OVER THESE HIGHWAYS WOULD BE BARRED FROM THE STATE IF
THE RESTRICTIONS WERE ENFORCED, AND CONCLUDED, THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF
THEIR EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE RESTRICTIONS WERE
UNREASONABLE.  TO REACH THIS CONCLUSION, THE COURT WEIGHED CONFLICTING
EVIDENCE AND MADE ITS OWN DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE WEIGHT AND WIDTH OF
MOTOR TRUCKS COMMONLY USED IN INTERSTATE TRAFFIC AND THE CAPACITY OF
THE SPECIFIED HIGHWAYS TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH TRAFFIC WITHOUT INJURY TO
THEM OR DANGER TO THEIR USERS.  IT FOUND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT
INTERSTATE CARRIAGE BY MOTOR TRUCK HAS BECOME A NATIONAL INDUSTRY; THAT
A VERY LARGE PROPORTION OF THE TRUCKS USED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
ARE 96 INCHES WIDE AND OF GROSS WEIGHT, WHEN LOADED, OF MORE THAN 10
TONS; THAT THE SPECIFIED HIGHWAYS CONSTITUTE A CONNECTED SYSTEM,
IMPROVED WITH THE AID OF FEDERAL MONEY GRANTS, AS A PART OF A NATIONAL
SYSTEM; THAT NOT GROSS WEIGHT BUT WHEEL OR AXLE WEIGHT, IS THE FACTOR
TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE PRESERVATION OF CONCRETE HIGHWAYS; THAT THE
VEHICLES USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE SO DESIGNED AND THE PRESSURE
OF THEIR WEIGHT IS SO DISTRIBUTED BY THEIR WHEELS AND AXLES THAT GROSS
LOADS OF MORE THAN 20,000 LBS. CAN BE CARRIED OVER CONCRETE ROADS
WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE SURFACE; THAT THE HIGHWAYS IN QUESTION COULD
SUSTAIN WITHOUT INJURY A WHEEL LOAD OF FROM 8000 TO 9000 LBS, OR AN
AXLE LOAD OF DOUBLE THOSE WEIGHTS; THAT THE WEIGHT LIMITATION OF THE
STATUTE, ESPECIALLY AS APPLIED TO SEMI-TRAILER MOTOR TRUCKS, IS
UNREASONABLE AS A MEANS OF PRESERVING THE HIGHWAYS AND HAS NO
REASONABLE RELATION TO SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC USING THEM; AND THAT THE
WIDTH LIMITATION OF 90 INCHES IS UNREASONABLE WHEN APPLIED TO STANDARD
CONCRETE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ALL OTHER
STATES PERMIT A WIDTH OF 96 INCHES, WHICH IS THE STANDARD WIDTH OF
TRUCKS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT SINCE THE ADOPTION OF ONE WEIGHT OR WIDTH REGULATION RATHER
THAN ANOTHER IS A LEGISLATIVE NOT A JUDICIAL CHOICE, CONSTITUTIONALITY
IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY WEIGHING IN THE JUDICIAL SCALES THE MERITS
OF THE LEGISLATIVE CHOICE AND REJECTING IT IF THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
PRESENTED IN COURT APPEARS TO FAVOR A DIFFERENT STANDARD.  P. 191. 

(2)  THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT IS PRESUMED TO BE SUPPORTED BY FACTS
KNOWN TO THE LEGISLATURE UNLESS FACTS JUDICIALLY KNOWN OR PROVED
PRECLUDE THAT POSSIBILITY.  ID. 

(3)  IN REVIEWING THE PRESENT DETERMINATION, THIS COURT MUST EXAMINE
THE RECORD, NOT TO SEE WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT BELOW ARE
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, BUT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY
THAT THE LEGISLATIVE CHOICE IS WITHOUT RATIONAL BASIS.  ID. 

(4)  NOT ONLY DOES THE RECORD FAIL TO EXCLUDE THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT
IT SHOWS AFFIRMATIVELY THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE
LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  PP. 192 ET SEQ. 

SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ET AL. V. BARNWELL BROTHERS,
INC., ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

APPEAL FROM A FINAL DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES WHICH
ENJOINED THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE STATE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION AND NUMEROUS STATE OFFICERS, FROM ENFORCING, AS
AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS WHILE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ON CERTAIN
SPECIFIED HIGHWAYS, A STATUTE LIMITING THE WEIGHT AND WIDTH OF MOTOR
TRUCKS AND "SEMI-TRAILER" TRUCKS.  THERE WAS A PROVISION IN THE DECREE
THAT THE INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT EXTEND TO BRIDGES NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO
SUPPORT HEAVY TRUCKS OR TOO NARROW TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH TRAFFIC SAFELY,
WITH A PROVISO THAT THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SHOULD POST CERTAIN
WARNING NOTICES AT SUCH BRIDGES, AND SHOULD ENFORCE THE LAW AGAINST
THEIR USE BY SUCH TRUCKS.  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AND TWO
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFFS, AND TWO
RAILROAD COMPANIES AND THE RECEIVER OF ANOTHER WERE PERMITTED TO
INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ACT NO. 259 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, OF APRIL 28,
1933, 38 STAT. 340, PROHIBITS USE ON THE STATE HIGHWAYS OF MOTOR TRUCKS
AND "SEMI-TRAILER MOTOR TRUCKS" WHOSE WIDTH EXCEEDS 90 INCHES, AND
WHOSE WEIGHT INCLUDING LOAD EXCEEDS 20,000 POUNDS.  FOR PURPOSES OF THE
WEIGHT LIMITATION SEC. 2 OF THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT A SEMITRAILER
MOTOR TRUCK, WHICH IS A MOTOR PROPELLED TRUCK WITH A TRAILER WHOSE
FRONT END IS DESIGNED TO BE ATTACHED TO AND SUPPORTED BY THE TRUCK,
SHALL BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE UNIT.  THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION FOR DECISION
IS WHETHER THESE PROHIBITIONS IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

APPELLEES INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS BELOW, WHO ARE TRUCKERS AND
INTERSTATE SHIPPERS; THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; AND CERTAIN
OTHERS WHO WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS PARTIES PLAINTIFF.  THE SUIT
WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN SOUTH CAROLINA AGAINST
VARIOUS STATE OFFICIALS, TO ENJOIN THEM FROM ENFORCING SECS. 4 AND 6 OF
THE ACT AMONG OTHERS,  FN1 ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDED
BY THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT OF 1935, C. 498, 49 STAT. 546; THAT
THEY INFRINGE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; AND
THAT THEY IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
CERTAIN RAILROADS INTERESTED IN RESTRICTING THE COMPETITION OF
INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS PARTIES
DEFENDANT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE, RULED
THAT THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE HAVE NOT BEEN SUPERSEDED
BY THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER ACT, AND ADOPTED AS ITS OWN THE RULING OF
THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN STATE EX REL. DANIEL V. JOHN P. NUTT CO.,
180 S.C. 19; 185 S.E. 25, THAT THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS, BEING AN
EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S POWER TO REGULATE THE USE OF ITS HIGHWAYS SO AS
TO PROTECT THEM FROM INJURY AND TO INSURE THEIR SAFE AND ECONOMICAL
USE, DO NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  BUT IT HELD THAT THE
WEIGHT AND WIDTH PROHIBITIONS PLACE AN UNLAWFUL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
MOTOR TRAFFIC PASSING OVER SPECIFIED HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE, WHICH FOR
THE MOST PART ARE OF CONCRETE OR A CONCRETE BASE SURFACED WITH
ASPHALT.  IT ACCORDINGLY ENJOINED THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE WEIGHT
PROVISION AGAINST INTERSTATE MOTOR CARRIERS ON THE SPECIFIED HIGHWAYS,
AND ALSO THE WIDTH LIMITATION OF 90 INCHES, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF
VEHICLES EXCEEDING 96 INCHES IN WIDTH.  IT EXEMPTED FROM THE OPERATION
OF THE DECREE, BRIDGES ON THOSE HIGHWAYS "NOT CONSTRUCTED WITH
SUFFICIENT STRENGTH TO SUPPORT THE HEAVY TRUCKS OF MODERN TRAFFIC OR
TOO NARROW TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH TRAFFIC SAFELY," PROVIDED THE STATE
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SHOULD PLACE AT EACH END OF THE BRIDGE PROPER
NOTICES WARNING THAT THE USE OF THE BRIDGE IS FORBIDDEN BY TRUCKS
EXCEEDING THE WEIGHT OR WIDTH LIMITS AND PROVIDED THE PROPER
AUTHORITIES TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO ENFORCE THE LAW AGAINST SUCH
USE OF THE BRIDGES.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 266 OF
THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

THE TRIAL COURT RESTED ITS DECISION THAT THE STATUTE UNREASONABLY
BURDENS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, UPON FINDINGS, NOT ASSAILED HERE, THAT
THERE IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF MOTOR TRUCK TRAFFIC PASSING INTERSTATE IN
THE SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY PASS
OVER THE HIGHWAYS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, BUT WHICH WILL BE BARRED FROM THE
STATE BY THE CHALLENGED RESTRICTIONS IF ENFORCED, AND UPON ITS
CONCLUSION THAT, WHEN VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR EFFECT UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE UNREASONABLE. 

TO REACH THIS CONCLUSION THE COURT WEIGHED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AND
MADE ITS OWN DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE WEIGHT AND WIDTH OF MOTOR TRUCKS
COMMONLY USED IN INTERSTATE TRAFFIC AND THE CAPACITY OF THE SPECIFIED
HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH TRAFFIC WITHOUT INJURY TO
THEM OR DANGER TO THEIR USERS.  IT FOUND THAT INTERSTATE CARRIAGE BY
MOTOR TRUCKS HAS BECOME A NATIONAL INDUSTRY; THAT FROM 85 TO 90% OF THE
MOTOR TRUCKS USED IN INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION ARE 96 INCHES WIDE AND
OF A GROSS WEIGHT, WHEN LOADED, OF MORE THAN TEN TONS; THAT ONLY FOUR
OTHER STATES PRESCRIBE A GROSS LOAD WEIGHT AS LOW AS 20,000 POUNDS; AND
THAT THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS AND THE
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STREET AND HIGHWAY SAFETY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE HAVE RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION WEIGHT AND WIDTH LIMITATIONS IN
WHICH WEIGHT IS LIMITED TO AXLE LOADS OF 16,000 TO 18,000 POUNDS AND
WIDTH IS LIMITED TO 96 INCHES. 

IT FOUND IN DETAIL THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE WEIGHT AND WIDTH
LIMITATIONS DEMANDED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA ACT WOULD SERIOUSLY IMPEDE
MOTOR TRUCK TRAFFIC PASSING TO AND THROUGH THE STATE AND INCREASE ITS
COST; THAT 2,417 MILES OF STATE HIGHWAYS, INCLUDING MOST OF THOSE
AFFECTED BY THE INJUNCTION, ARE OF THE STANDARD CONSTRUCTION OF
CONCRETE OR CONCRETE BASE WITH ASPHALT SURFACE, 7 1/2 OR 8 INCHES THICK
AT THE EDGES AND 6 OR 6 1/2 INCHES THICK AT THE CENTER; THAT THEY ARE
CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING WITHOUT INJURY A WHEEL LOAD OF 8,000 TO 9,000
POUNDS OR AN AXLE LOAD OF DOUBLE THOSE AMOUNTS, DEPENDING ON WHETHER
THE WHEELS ARE EQUIPPED WITH HIGH PRESSURE OR LOW PRESSURE PNEUMATIC
TIRES; THAT ALL BUT 100 MILES OF THE SPECIFIED HIGHWAYS ARE FROM 18 TO
20 FEET IN WIDTH; THAT THEY CONSTITUTE A CONNECTED SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS
WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPROVED WITH THE AID OF FEDERAL MONEY GRANTS, AS A
PART OF A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS; AND THAT THEY CONSTITUTE ONE OF
THE BEST HIGHWAY SYSTEMS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN PART OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

IT ALSO FOUND THAT THE GROSS WEIGHT OF VEHICLES IS NOT A FACTOR TO BE
CONSIDERED IN THE PRESERVATION OF CONCRETE HIGHWAYS, BUT THAT THE
APPROPRIATE FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHEEL OR AXLE WEIGHT; THE
VEHICLES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE ARE SO DESIGNED AND THE
PRESSURE OF THEIR WEIGHT IS SO DISTRIBUTED BY THEIR WHEELS AND AXLES
THAT GROSS LOADS OF MORE THAN 20,000 POUNDS CAN BE CARRIED OVER
CONCRETE ROADS WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE SURFACE; THAT A GROSS WEIGHT
LIMITATION OF THAT AMOUNT, ESPECIALLY AS APPLIED TO SEMI-TRAILER MOTOR
TRUCKS, IS UNREASONABLE AS A MEANS OF PRESERVING THE HIGHWAYS; THAT IT
HAS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC USING THE HIGHWAYS;
AND THAT THE WIDTH LIMITATION OF 90 INCHES IS UNREASONABLE WHEN APPLIED
TO STANDARD CONCRETE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT
ALL OTHER STATES PERMIT A WIDTH OF 96 INCHES, WHICH IS THE STANDARD
WIDTH OF TRUCKS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IN REACHING THESE CONCLUSIONS, AND AT THE SAME TIME HOLDING THAT THE
WEIGHT AND WIDTH LIMITATIONS DO NOT INFRINGE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
THE COURT PROCEEDED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
IMPOSES UPON STATE REGULATIONS TO SECURE THE SAFE AND ECONOMICAL USE OF
HIGHWAYS A STANDARD OF REASONABLENESS WHICH IS MORE EXACTING WHEN
APPLIED TO THE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AS TO ALL TRAFFIC; THAT A STANDARD OF WEIGHT AND WIDTH OF
MOTOR VEHICLES WHICH IS AN APPROPRIATE STATE REGULATION WHEN APPLIED TO
INTRASTATE TRAFFIC MAY BE PROHIBITED BECAUSE OF ITS EFFECT ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH THE CONDITIONS ATTENDING THE TWO CLASSES
OF TRAFFIC WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY AND PROTECTION OF THE HIGHWAYS ARE
THE SAME. 

SOUTH CAROLINA HAS BUILT ITS HIGHWAYS AND OWNS AND MAINTAINS THEM. 
IT HAS RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IN AID OF ITS HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENTS, MONEY GRANTS WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPENDED UPON THE HIGHWAYS
TO WHICH THE INJUNCTION APPLIES.  BUT APPELLEES DO NOT CHALLENGE HERE
THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT CONGRESS HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN TO
REGULATE THE WEIGHT AND SIZE OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN INTERSTATE MOTOR
TRAFFIC, AND HAS LEFT UNDISTURBED WHATEVER AUTHORITY IN THAT REGARD THE
STATES HAVE RETAINED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. 

WHILE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT TO CONGRESS OF POWER TO REGULATE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS BEEN HELD TO OPERATE OF ITS OWN FORCE TO
CURTAIL STATE POWER IN SOME MEASURE,  FN2  IT DID NOT FORESTALL ALL
STATE ACTION AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  EVER SINCE WILLSON V.
BLACK BIRD CREEK MARSH CO., 2 PET. 245, AND COOLEY V. BOARD OF PORT
WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT THERE ARE MATTERS OF
LOCAL CONCERN, THE REGULATION OF WHICH UNAVOIDABLY INVOLVES SOME
REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT WHICH, BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCAL
CHARACTER AND THEIR NUMBER AND DIVERSITY, MAY NEVER BE FULLY DEALT WITH
BY CONGRESS.  NOTHWITHSTANDING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, SUCH REGULATION IN
THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION HAS FOR THE MOST PART BEEN LEFT TO
THE STATES BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, SUBJECT TO THE OTHER
APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS. 

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, BY ITS OWN FORCE, PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHATEVER ITS FORM OR METHOD, AND THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS SCOPE FOR ITS
LIKE OPERATION WHEN STATE LEGISLATION NOMINALLY OF LOCAL CONCERN IS IN
POINT OF FACT AIMED AT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR BY ITS NECESSARY
OPERATION IS A MEANS OF GAINING A LOCAL BENEFIT BY THROWING THE
ATTENDANT BURDENS ON THOSE WITHOUT THE STATE.  ROBBINS V. SHELBY COUNTY
TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489, 498; CALDWELL V. NORTH CAROLINA, 187
U.S. 622, 626.  FN3  IT WAS TO END THESE PRACTICES THAT THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE WAS ADOPTED.  SEE GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 187; BROWN V.
MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419, 438-439; COOLEY V. BOARD OF PORT WARDENS,
SUPRA; STATE FREIGHT TAX, 15 WALL.  232, 280; STATE TAX ON RAILWAY
GROSS RECEIPTS, 15 WALL.  284, 289, 297-298; COOK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 97
U.S. 566, 574; MAINE V. GRAND TRUNK R. CO., 142 U.S. 217; BALDWIN V.
SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 522; II FARRAND, RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL
CONVENTION, 308; III ID. 478, 574, 548; THE FEDERALIST, NO. XLII; 1
CURTIS, HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, 502; STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION,
SEC. 259.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS ALSO BEEN THOUGHT TO SET ITS OWN
LIMITATION UPON STATE CONTROL OF INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIERS SO AS TO
PRECLUDE THE SUBORDINATION OF THE EFFICIENCY AND CONVENIENCE OF
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC TO LOCAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.  FN4 

BUT THE PRESENT CASE AFFORDS NO OCCASION FOR SAYING THAT THE BARE
POSSESSION OF POWER BY CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC
FORCES THE STATES TO CONFORM TO STANDARDS WHICH CONGRESS MIGHT, BUT HAS
NOT ADOPTED, OR CURTAILS THEIR POWER TO TAKE MEASURES TO INSURE THE
SAFETY AND CONSERVATION OF THEIR HIGHWAYS WHICH MAY BE APPLIED TO LIKE
TRAFFIC MOVING INTRASTATE.  FEW SUBJECTS OF STATE REGULATION ARE SO
PECULIARLY OF LOCAL CONCERN AS IS THE USE OF STATE HIGHWAYS.  THERE ARE
FEW, LOCAL REGULATION OF WHICH IS SO INSEPARABLE FROM A SUBSTANTIAL
EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  UNLIKE THE RAILROADS, LOCAL HIGHWAYS
ARE BUILT, OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE STATE OR ITS MUNICIPAL
SUBDIVISIONS.  THE STATE HAS A PRIMARY AND IMMEDIATE CONCERN IN THEIR
SAFE AND ECONOMICAL ADMINISTRATION.  THE PRESENT REGULATIONS, OR ANY
OTHERS OF LIKE PURPOSE, IF THEY ARE TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR END, MUST BE
APPLIED ALIKE TO INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE TRAFFIC BOTH MOVING IN LARGE
VOLUME OVER THE HIGHWAYS.  THE FACT THAT THEY AFFECT ALIKE SHIPPERS IN
INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE IN LARGE NUMBER WITHIN AS WELL AS
WITHOUT THE STATE IS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST THEIR ABUSE. 

FROM THE BEGINNING IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED THAT A STATE CAN, IF IT
SEES FIT, BUILD AND MAINTAIN ITS OWN HIGHWAYS, CANALS AND RAILROADS AND
THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THEIR REGULATION IS
PECULIARLY WITHIN ITS COMPETENCE, EVEN THOUGH INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
MATERIALLY AFFECTED.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 416. 
CONGRESS NOT ACTING, STATE REGULATION OF INTRASTATE CARRIERS HAS BEEN
UPHELD REGARDLESS OF ITS EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ID.  WITH
RESPECT TO THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE LOCAL INTERESTS TO BE PROTECTED
AND THE UNAVOIDABLE EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE
ALIKE, REGULATIONS OF THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS ARE AKIN TO LOCAL
REGULATION OF RIVERS, HARBORS, PIERS AND DOCKS, QUARANTINE REGULATIONS,
AND GAME LAWS, WHICH, CONGRESS NOT ACTING, HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED EVEN
THOUGH THEY MATERIALLY INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN5    THE
NATURE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OVER ITS OWN HIGHWAYS HAS OFTEN
BEEN POINTED OUT BY THIS COURT.  IT MAY NOT, UNDER THE GUISE OF
REGULATION, DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT "IN THE
ABSENCE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ESPECIALLY COVERING THE SUBJECT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE STATE MAY RIGHTLY PRESCRIBE UNIFORM
REGULATIONS ADAPTED TO PROMOTE SAFETY UPON ITS HIGHWAYS AND THE
CONSERVATION OF THEIR USE, APPLICABLE ALIKE TO VEHICLES MOVING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THOSE OF ITS OWN CITIZENS."  MORRIS V. DUBY,
274 U.S. 135, 143.  THIS FORMULATION HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED,
CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554, 557; SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163,
169; SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 389, 390; CF. MORF V. BINGAMAN,
298 U.S. 407, AND NEVER DISAPPROVED.  THIS COURT HAS OFTEN SUSTAINED
THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER ALTHOUGH IT HAS BURDENED OR IMPEDED
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT HAS UPHELD WEIGHT LIMITATIONS LOWER THAN THOSE
PRESENTLY IMPOSED, APPLIED ALIKE TO MOTOR TRAFFIC MOVING INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE.  MORRIS V. DUBY, SUPRA; SPROLES V. BINFORD, SUPRA.
RESTRICTIONS FAVORING PASSENGER TRAFFIC OVER THE CARRIAGE OF INTERSTATE
MERCHANDISE BY TRUCK HAVE BEEN SIMILARLY SUSTAINED, SPROLES V. BINFORD,
SUPRA; BRADLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 289 U.S. 92, AS HAS THE
EXACTION OF A REASONABLE FEE FOR THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS.  HENDRICK V.
MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610; KANE V. NEW JERSEY, 242 U.S. 160; INTERSTATE
BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, 276 U.S. 245; MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA; CF.
INGELS V. MORF, 300 U.S. 290. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES REGULATION INVOLVES A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  BUT SO LONG AS THE STATE ACTION DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE, THE
BURDEN IS ONE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS BECAUSE IT IS AN
INSEPARABLE INCIDENT OF THE EXERCISE OF A LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, WHICH,
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, HAS BEEN LEFT TO THE STATES. 

CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, MAY DETERMINE WHETHER THE BURDENS IMPOSED ON IT BY STATE
REGULATION, OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE, ARE TOO GREAT, AND MAY, BY
LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO SECURE UNIFORMITY OR IN OTHER RESPECTS TO
PROTECT THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN THE COMMERCE, CURTAIL TO SOME EXTENT
THE STATE'S REGULATORY POWER.  BUT THAT IS A LEGISLATIVE, NOT A
JUDICIAL FUNCTION, TO BE PERFORMED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
JUDGMENT OF WHAT IS APPROPRIATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
THE EXTENT TO WHICH, IN THAT FIELD, STATE POWER AND LOCAL INTERESTS
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO YIELD TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY AND INTEREST.  IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUCH LEGISLATION THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION, UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AS WELL AS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, STOPS WITH THE
INQUIRY WHETHER THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN ADOPTING REGULATIONS SUCH AS
THE PRESENT HAS ACTED WITHIN ITS PROVINCE, AND WHETHER THE MEANS OF
REGULATION CHOSEN ARE REASONABLY ADAPTED TO THE END SOUGHT.  SPROLES V.
BINFORD, SUPRA; STEPHENSON V. BINFORD, 287 U.S. 251, 272. 

HERE THE FIRST INQUIRY HAS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED BY OUR DECISIONS
THAT A STATE MAY IMPOSE NON-DISCRIMINATORY RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
THE CHARACTER OF MOTOR VEHICLES MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS A
SAFETY MEASURE AND AS A MEANS OF SECURING THE ECONOMICAL USE OF ITS
HIGHWAYS.  IN RESOLVING THE SECOND, COURTS DO NOT SIT AS LEGISLATURES,
EITHER STATE OR NATIONAL.  THEY CANNOT ACT AS CONGRESS DOES WHEN, AFTER
WEIGHING ALL THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS, STATE AND NATIONAL, IT
DETERMINES WHEN AND HOW MUCH THE STATE REGULATORY POWER SHALL YIELD TO
THE LARGER INTERESTS OF A NATIONAL COMMERCE.  AND IN REVIEWING A STATE
HIGHWAY REGULATION WHERE CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED, A COURT IS NOT CALLED
UPON, AS ARE STATE LEGISLATURES, TO DETERMINE WHAT, IN ITS JUDGMENT, IS
THE MOST SUITABLE RESTRICTION TO BE APPLIED OF THOSE THAT ARE POSSIBLE,
OR TO CHOOSE THAT ONE WHICH IN ITS OPINION IS BEST ADAPTED TO ALL THE
DIVERSE INTERESTS AFFECTED.  TRANSPORTATION CO. V. PARKERSBURG, 107
U.S. 691, 695.  WHEN THE ACTION OF A LEGISLATURE IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
ITS POWER, FAIRLY DEBATABLE QUESTIONS AS TO ITS REASONABLENESS, WISDOM
AND PROPRIETY ARE NOT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF COURTS, BUT FOR THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY, ON WHICH RESTS THE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF
DECISION.  JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11, 30; LAUREL HILL
CEMETERY V. SAN FRANCISCO, 216 U.S. 358, 365; PRICE V. ILLINOIS, 238
U.S. 446, 451; HADACHECK V. SEBASTIAN, 239 U.S. 394, 408-414; THOMAS
CUSACK CO. V. CHICAGO, 242 U.S. 526, 530; EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO.,
272 U.S. 365, 388; ZAHN V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS, 274 U.S. 325, 328;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. MARYSVILLE, 279 U.S. 582, 584.  THIS IS EQUALLY THE
CASE WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE POWER IS ONE WHICH MAY LEGITIMATELY PLACE AN
INCIDENTAL BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS NOT ANY THE LESS A
LEGISLATIVE POWER COMMITTED TO THE STATES BECAUSE IT AFFECTS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND COURTS ARE NOT ANY THE MORE ENTITLED, BECAUSE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS AFFECTED, TO SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT.  MORRIS V. DUBY, SUPRA, 143; SPROLES V. BINFORD, SUPRA, 389,
390; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, SUPRA, 399, 400; SMITH V. ST. LOUIS & S.W.R.
CO., 181 U.S. 248, 257; REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 152; NEW YORK
EX REL. SILZ V. HESTERBERG, 211 U.S. 31, 42, 43. 

SINCE THE ADOPTION OF ONE WEIGHT OR WIDTH REGULATION, RATHER THAN
ANOTHER, IS A LEGISLATIVE NOT A JUDICIAL CHOICE, ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY
IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY WEIGHING IN THE JUDICIAL SCALES THE MERITS
OF THE LEGISLATIVE CHOICE AND REJECTING IT IF THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
PRESENTED IN COURT APPEARS TO FAVOR A DIFFERENT STANDARD.  CF.
WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292, 299.  BEING A
LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT IT IS PRESUMED TO BE SUPPORTED BY FACTS KNOWN TO
THE LEGISLATURE UNLESS FACTS JUDICIALLY KNOWN OR PROVED PRECLUDE THAT
POSSIBILITY.  HENCE, IN REVIEWING THE PRESENT DETERMINATION WE EXAMINE
THE RECORD, NOT TO SEE WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT BELOW ARE
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, BUT TO ASCERTAIN UPON THE WHOLE RECORD WHETHER
IT IS POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE LEGISLATIVE CHOICE IS WITHOUT RATIONAL
BASIS.  STANDARD OIL CO. V. MARYSVILLE, SUPRA; BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS
CO. V. TEN EYCK, 297 U.S. 251, 263; S.C. 11 F.SUPP.  599, 600.  NOT
ONLY DOES THE RECORD FAIL TO EXCLUDE THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT IT SHOWS
AFFIRMATIVELY THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT. 

AT THE OUTSET IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT UNDERLYING MUCH OF THE
CONTROVERSY IS THE RELATIVE MERIT OF A GROSS WEIGHT LIMITATION AS
AGAINST AN AXLE OR WHEEL WEIGHT LIMITATION.  WHILE THERE IS EVIDENCE
THAT WEIGHT STRESSES ON CONCRETE ROADS ARE DETERMINED BY WHEEL RATHER
THAN GROSS LOAD WEIGHTS, OTHER ELEMENTS ENTER INTO CHOICE OF THE TYPE
OF WEIGHT LIMITATION.  THERE IS TESTIMONY TO SHOW THAT THE AXLE OR
WHEEL WEIGHT LIMITATION IS THE MORE EASILY ENFORCED THROUGH RESORT TO
WEIGHING DEVICES ADAPTED TO ASCERTAINING READILY THE AXLE OR WHEEL
WEIGHT.  BUT IT APPEARS THAT IN PRACTICE THE WEIGHT OF TRUCK LOADS IS
NOT EVENLY DISTRIBUTED OVER AXLES AND WHEELS; THAT COMMONLY THE LARGER
PART OF THE LOAD - SOMETIMES AS MUCH AS 70 TO 80% - RESTS ON THE REAR
AXLE AND THAT IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR THOSE WHO LOAD TRUCKS TO MAKE
CERTAIN THAT THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH A GROSS LOAD WEIGHT LIMITATION
THAN WITH AN AXLE OR WHEEL WEIGHT LIMITATION.  WHILE THE REPORT OF THE
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON STATE AND HIGHWAY SAFETY, ON WHICH THE COURT
BELOW RELIED, SUGGESTED A WHEEL WEIGHT LIMITATION OF 8,000 OR 9,000
POUNDS, IT ALSO SUGGESTED THAT A GROSS WEIGHT LIMITATION MIGHT BE
ADOPTED AND SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED WHEEL LIMITATION.  BUT
THE CONFERENCE DECLINED TO FIX THE AMOUNT OF GROSS WEIGHT LIMITATION,
SAYING:  "IN VIEW OF THE VARYING CONDITIONS OF TRAFFIC, AND LACK OF
UNIFORMITY IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION IN THE SEVERAL STATES, NO UNIFORM
GROSS-WEIGHT LIMITATIONS ARE HERE RECOMMENDED FOR GENERAL ADOPTION
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY."  THE CHOICE OF A WEIGHT LIMITATION BASED ON
CONVENIENCE OF APPLICATION AND CONSEQUENT LACK OF NEED FOR RIGID
SUPERVISORY ENFORCEMENT IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE, AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT
ITS PREFERENCE FOR THE ONE OVER THE OTHER IS IN ANY SENSE ARBITRARY OR
UNREASONABLE.  THE CHOICE IS NOT TO BE CONDEMNED BECAUSE THE
LEGISLATURE PREFERS A WORKABLE STANDARD, LESS LIKELY TO BE VIOLATED
THAN ANOTHER UNDER WHICH THE VIOLATIONS WILL PROBABLY BE INCREASED BUT
MORE EASILY DETECTED.  IT IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO SAY WHETHER THE ONE
TEST OR THE OTHER WILL IN PRACTICAL OPERATION BETTER PROTECT THE
HIGHWAYS FROM THE RISK OF EXCESSIVE LOADS. 

IF GROSS LOAD WEIGHT IS ADOPTED AS THE TEST IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE
PERMISSIBLE LOAD MUST BE SOMEWHAT LIGHTER THAN IF THE AXLE OR WHEEL
WEIGHT TEST WERE APPLIED.  WITH THE LATTER THE GROSS WEIGHT OF A LOADED
MOTOR TRUCK CAN NEVER EXCEED TWICE THE AXLE AND FOUR TIMES THE WHEEL
LIMIT.  BUT THE FACT THAT THE REAR AXLE MAY AND OFTEN DOES SUPPORT AS
MUCH AS 70 OR 80% OF THE GROSS LOAD, WITH WHEEL WEIGHT IN LIKE
PROPORTION, REQUIRES THAT A GROSS LOAD LIMIT BE FIXED AT CONSIDERABLY
LESS THAN FOUR TIMES THE PERMISSIBLE WHEEL LIMIT. 

THERE WAS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COURT TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION THAT
THE HIGHWAYS IN QUESTION ARE CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING WITHOUT INJURY A
WHEEL LOAD OF 8,000 OR 9,000 POUNDS, THE DIFFERENCE DEPENDING UPON THE
CHARACTER OF THE TIRE IN USE, AS AGAINST A WHEEL LOAD OF AS MUCH AS
8,000 POUNDS, WHICH WOULD BE POSSIBLE UNDER THE STATUTORY LOAD LIMIT OF
20,000 POUNDS AS APPLIED TO MOTOR TRUCKS, AND APPROXIMATES THE AXLE
LIMIT IN ADDITION TO THE GROSS LOAD LIMIT RECOMMENDED BY THE NATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON STREET AND HIGHWAY SAFETY.  MUCH OF THIS TESTIMONY
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON THEORETICAL STRENGTH OF CONCRETE HIGHWAYS
LAID UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS, AND NONE OF IT WAS BASED ON AN ACTUAL
STUDY OF THE HIGHWAYS OF SOUTH CAROLINA OR OF THE SUBGRADE AND OTHER
ROAD BUILDING CONDITIONS WHICH PREVAIL THERE AND WHICH HAVE A MATERIAL
BEARING ON THE STRENGTH AND DURABILITY OF SUCH HIGHWAYS.  THERE IS
UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY THAT APPROXIMATELY 60% OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA
STANDARD PAVED HIGHWAYS IN QUESTION WERE BUILT WITHOUT A LONGITUDINAL
CENTER JOINT WHICH HAS SINCE BECOME STANDARD PRACTICE, THE PORTION OF
THE CONCRETE SURFACE ADJACENT TO THE JOINT BEING STRENGTHENED BY
REINFORCEMENT OR BY INCREASING ITS THICKNESS; AND THAT OWING TO THE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE STRESSES ON CONCRETE ROADS WHEN IN USE, THOSE
WITHOUT A CENTER JOINT HAVE A TENDENCY TO DEVELOP IRREGULAR
LONGITUDINAL CRACKS.  AS THE CONCRETE IN THE CENTER OF SUCH ROADS IS
THINNER THAN THAT AT THE EDGES, THE RESULT IS THAT THE HIGHWAY IS SPLIT
INTO TWO IRREGULAR SEGMENTS, EACH WITH A WEAK INNER EDGE WHICH,
ACCORDING TO THE EXPERT TESTIMONY, IS NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING
INDEFINITELY WHEEL LOADS IN EXCESS OF 4,200 POUNDS. 

THERE IS LITTLE IN THE RECORD TO MARK ANY CONTROLLING DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE APPLICATION OF THE GROSS LOAD WEIGHT LIMITATION TO THE
MOTOR TRUCK AND TO THE SEMITRAILER MOTOR TRUCK.  THERE IS TESTIMONY
WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO BOTH TYPES OF VEHICLE, THAT IN CASE OF ACCIDENT
THE DANGER FROM THE MOMENTUM OF A COLLIDING VEHICLE INCREASES WITH
GROSS LOAD WEIGHT.  THE RECORD IS WITHOUT CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF THE
ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION, IN PRACTICE, OF THE GROSS LOAD WEIGHT OVER THE
WHEELS AND AXLES OF THE PERMISSIBLE TYPES OF SEMI-TRAILER MOTOR TRUCKS,
BUT THIS DOES NOT ENABLE US TO SAY THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS WITHOUT
SUBSTANTIAL GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF A
GROSS LOAD OVER A WHEEL WEIGHT LIMITATION ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
FOR THE TWO TYPES, OR THAT IT COULD NOT HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THEY WERE
SO NEARLY ALIKE FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AS TO JUSTIFY THE ADOPTION OF A
SINGLE STANDARD FOR BOTH, AS A MATTER OF PRACTICAL CONVENIENCE.  EVEN
IF THE LEGISLATURE WERE TO ACCEPT APPELLEES' ASSUMPTION THAT NET LOAD
WEIGHTS ARE, IN PRACTICE, EVENLY DISTRIBUTED OVER THE WHEELS SUPPORTING
THE LOAD OF A PERMISSIBLE SEMI-TRAILER SO THAT WITH THE STATUTORY GROSS
LOAD LIMIT THE LOAD ON THE REAR AXLE WOULD BE ABOUT 8,000 POUNDS IT
MIGHT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, ALSO CONCLUDE THAT THE DANGER POINT WOULD THEN
HAVE BEEN REACHED IN THE CASE OF SOME 1,200 MILES OF CONCRETE STATE
ROADS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A CENTER JOINT. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY,
AFFORD ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE WEIGHT LIMITATION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
OTHER ITEMS OF THE TESTIMONY TENDING TO SUPPORT IT. FURTHERMORE, SOUTH
CAROLINA'S OWN EXPERIENCE IS NOT TO BE IGNORED.  BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE
LIMITATION SOUTH CAROLINA HAD HAD EXPERIENCE WITH HIGHER WEIGHT
LIMITS.  IN 1924 IT HAD ADOPTED A COMBINED GROSS WEIGHT LIMIT OF 20,000
POUNDS FOR VEHICLES OF FOUR WHEELS OR LESS, AND AN AXLE WEIGHT LIMIT OF
15,000 POUNDS.  IN 1930 IT HAD ADOPTED A COMBINED GROSS WEIGHT LIMIT OF
12 1/2 TONS WITH A FIVE TON AXLE WEIGHT LIMIT FOR VEHICLES HAVING MORE
THAN TWO AXLES.  ACT NO. 721, 33 STAT. 1182; ACT NO. 685, 36 STAT.
1192, 1193.  IN 1931 IT APPOINTED A COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE MOTOR
TRANSPORTATION IN THE STATE, TO RECOMMEND LEGISLATION, AND TO REPORT IN
1932.  THE PRESENT WEIGHT LIMITATION WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION
AFTER A FULL CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT DATA, INCLUDING A REPORT BY THE
STATE ENGINEER WHO HAD CONSTRUCTED THE CONCRETE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE
AND WHO ADVISED A SOMEWHAT LOWER LIMITATION AS NECESSARY FOR THEIR
PRESERVATION.  THE FACT THAT MANY STATES HAVE ADOPTED A DIFFERENT
STANDARD IS NOT PERSUASIVE.  THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH HIGHWAYS MUST
BE BUILT IN THE SEVERAL STATES, THEIR CONSTRUCTION AND THE DEMANDS MADE
UPON THEM, ARE NOT UNIFORM.  THE ROAD BUILDING ART, AS THE RECORD
SHOWS, IS FAR FROM HAVING ATTAINED A SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY AND
PRECISION, AND SCIENTIFIC PRECISION IS NOT THE CRITERION FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REGULATORY POWER OF THE STATES.  SPROLES
V. BINFORD, SUPRA, 388.  THE LEGISLATURE, BEING FREE TO EXERCISE ITS
OWN JUDGMENT, IS NOT BOUND BY THAT OF OTHER LEGISLATURES.  IT WOULD
HARDLY BE CONTENDED THAT IF ALL THE STATES HAD ADOPTED A SINGLE
STANDARD NONE, IN THE LIGHT OF ITS OWN EXPERIENCE AND IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS JUDGMENT UPON ALL THE COMPLEX ELEMENTS WHICH ENTER INTO THE
PROBLEM, COULD CHANGE IT.    ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID AS TO THE WIDTH
LIMITATION.  WHILE A LARGE PART OF THE HIGHWAYS IN QUESTION ARE FROM 18
TO 20 FEET IN WIDTH, APPROXIMATELY 100 MILES ARE ONLY 16 FEET WIDE.  ON
ALL THE USE OF A 96 INCH TRUCK LEAVES BUT A NARROW MARGIN FOR PASSING. 
ON THE ROAD 16 FEET WIDE IT LEAVES NONE.  THE 90 INCH LIMITATION HAS
BEEN IN FORCE IN SOUTH CAROLINA SINCE 1920 AND THE CONCRETE HIGHWAYS
WHICH IT HAS BUILT APPEAR TO BE ADAPTED TO VEHICLES OF THAT WIDTH.  THE
RECORD SHOWS WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT THE USE OF HEAVY LOADED TRUCKS
ON THE HIGHWAYS TENDS TO FORCE OTHER TRAFFIC OFF THE CONCRETE SURFACE
ONTO THE SHOULDERS OF THE ROAD ADJOINING ITS EDGES AND TO INCREASE
REPAIR COSTS MATERIALLY.  IT APPEARS ALSO THAT AS THE WIDTH OF TRUCKS
IS INCREASED IT OBSTRUCTS THE VIEW OF THE HIGHWAY, CAUSING MUCH
INCONVENIENCE AND INCREASED HAZARD IN ITS USE.  IT PLAINLY CANNOT BE
SAID THAT THE WIDTH OF TRUCKS USED ON THE HIGHWAYS IN SOUTH CAROLINA IS
UNRELATED TO THEIR SAFETY AND COST OF MAINTENANCE, OR THAT A 90 INCH
WIDTH LIMITATION ADOPTED TO SAFEGUARD THE HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE, IS NOT
WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE PERMISSIBLE LEGISLATIVE CHOICE. 

THE REGULATORY MEASURES TAKEN BY SOUTH CAROLINA ARE WITHIN ITS
LEGISLATIVE POWER.  THEY DO NOT INFRINGE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND
THE RESULTING BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT FORBIDDEN. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  4.  WEIGHT.  - NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE ON ANY HIGHWAY ANY
MOTOR TRUCK OR SEMI-TRAILER TRUCK WHOSE GROSS WEIGHT, INCLUDING LOAD,
SHALL EXCEED 20,000 POUNDS. 

"SEC. 6.  WIDTH.  - NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE ON ANY HIGHWAY ANY MOTOR
TRUCK OR SEMI-TRAILER MOTOR TRUCK WHOSE TOTAL OUTSIDE WIDTH, INCLUDING
ANY PART OF BODY OR LOAD, SHALL EXCEED 90 INCHES." 

FN2  STATE REGULATIONS AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHOSE PURPOSE
OR EFFECT IS TO GAIN FOR THOSE WITHIN THE STATE AN ADVANTAGE AT THE
EXPENSE OF THOSE WITHOUT, OR TO BURDEN THOSE OUT OF THE STATE WITHOUT
ANY CORRESPONDING ADVANTAGE TO THOSE WITHIN, HAVE BEEN THOUGHT TO
IMPINGE UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS HAS
NOT ACTED.  HALL V. DECUIR, 95 U.S. 485, 497-498; WABASH, ST. L. & P.R.
CO. V. ILLINOIS, 118 U.S. 557, 575-578; BOWMAN V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO.,
125 U.S. 465, 498; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. JAMES, 162 U.S. 650,
659, WITH WHICH COMPARE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. PENDLETON, 122
U.S. 347, 358; FOSTER-FOUNTAIN PACKING CO. V. HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 1, WITH
WHICH COMPARE GEER V. CONNECTICUT, 161 U.S. 519, AND NEW YORK EX REL.
SILZ V. HESTERBERG, 211 U.S. 31; BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 524;
SEE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1, 27 ET SEQ. 

UNDERLYING THE STATED RULE HAS BEEN THE THOUGHT, OFTEN EXPRESSED IN
JUDICIAL OPINION, THAT WHEN THE REGULATION IS OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT
ITS BURDEN FALLS PRINCIPALLY UPON THOSE WITHOUT THE STATE, LEGISLATIVE
ACTION IS NOT LIKELY TO BE SUBJECTED TO THOSE POLITICAL RESTRAINTS
WHICH ARE NORMALLY EXERTED ON LEGISLATION WHERE IT AFFECTS ADVERSELY
SOME INTERESTS WITHIN THE STATE.  SEE COOLEY V. BOARD OF PORT WARDENS,
12 HOW.  299, 315; GILMAN V. PHILADELPHIA, 3 WALL.  713, 731; ESCANABA
CO. V. CHICAGO, 107 U.S. 678, 683; LAKE SHORE & M.S.R. CO. V. OHIO EX
REL. LAWRENCE, 173 U.S. 285, 194; CF. POUND V. TURCK, 95 U.S. 459, 464;
GLOUCESTER FERRY CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 114 U.S. 196, 205; ROBBINS V.
SHELBY COUNTY TAXING DISTRICT, 120 U.S. 489, 499. 

FN3  FOOTNOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN4  SEE ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 163 U.S. 142;
CLEVELAND, C.C. & ST. L.R. CO. V. ILLINOIS, 177 U.S. 514; MISSISSIPPI
RAILROAD COMM'N V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 203 U.S. 335; ATLANTIC
COAST LINE R. CO. V. WHARTON, 207 U.S. 328; HERNDON V. CHICAGO, R.I. &
P.R. CO., 218 U.S. 135; CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION,
237 U.S. 220; ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO R. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 254 U.S. 535.  CF. GLADSON V. MINNESOTA, 166 U.S. 427; LAKE
SHORE & M.S.R. CO. V. OHIO EX REL. LAWRENCE, 173 U.S. 285; GULF, C. &
S.F.R. CO. V. TEXAS, 246 U.S. 58, WHERE STATUTES REQUIRING LOCAL
SERVICE NO GREATER THAN NECESSARY FOR FAIR ACCOMMODATION OF LOCAL NEEDS
WERE HELD CONSTITUTIONAL.  ALTHOUGH THE STATES HAVE USUALLY BEEN
ALLOWED TO IMPOSE BURDENS ON INTERSTATE RAILROADS IN THE INTEREST OF
LOCAL SAFETY, SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.R.
CO. V. ALABAMA, 128 U.S. 96; NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 165
U.S. 628; CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 219 U.S. 453; ST.
LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO. V. ARKANSAS, 240 U.S. 518; CF. HENNINGTON V.
GEORGIA, 163 U.S. 299, AN UNNECESSARILY HARSH RESTRICTION, EVEN THOUGH
IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, HAS BEEN HELD TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. BLACKWELL, 244 U.S. 310. 

FN5  AMONG THE STATE REGULATIONS MATERIALLY AFFECTING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHICH THIS COURT HAS UPHELD, CONGRESS NOT ACTING, ARE THOSE
WHICH SANCTION OBSTRUCTIONS IN NAVIGABLE RIVERS, WILLSON V. BLACK-BIRD
CREEK MARSH CO., 2 PET. 245; EX PARTE MCNIEL, 13 WALL.  236; POUND V.
TURCK, 95 U.S. 459; WILSON V. MCNAMEE, 102 U.S. 572; HUSE V. GLOVER,
119 U.S. 543; CF. SANDS V. MANISTEE RIVER IMPROVEMENT CO., 123 U.S.
288; APPROVE THE ERECTION OF BRIDGES OVER NAVIGABLE STREAMS, GILMAN V.
PHILADELPHIA, 3 WALL.  713; ESCANABA CO. V. CHICAGO, 107 U.S. 678;
CARDWELL V. AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE CO., 113 U.S. 205; WILLAMETTE IRON
BRIDGE CO. V. HATCH, 125 U.S. 1; LAKE SHORE & M.S.R. CO. V. OHIO, 165
U.S. 365; REQUIRE PAYMENT OF FEES AS AN INCIDENT TO USE OF HARBORS,
COOLEY V. BOARD OF PORT WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299; STEAMSHIP CO. V.
JOLIFFE, 2 WALL.  450; ANDERSON V. PACIFIC COAST S.S. CO., 225 U.S.
187; CLYDE MALLORY LINES V. ALABAMA EX REL. STATE DOCKS COMM'N, 296
U.S. 261; CF. MOBILE COUNTY V. KIMBALL, 102 U.S. 691; CONTROL THE
LOCATION OF DOCKS, CUMMINGS V. CHICAGO, 188 U.S. 410; IMPOSE WHARFAGE
CHARGES, PACKET CO. V. KEOKUK, 95 U.S. 80; PACKET CO. V. CATLETTSBURG,
105 U.S. 559; TRANSPORTATION CO. V. PARKERSBURG, 107 U.S. 691; OUACHITA
PACKET CO. V. AIKEN, 121 U.S. 444; ESTABLISH INSPECTION AND QUARANTINE
LAWS, TURNER V. MARYLAND, 107 U.S. 38; MORGAN'S S.S. CO. V. LOUISIANA
BOARD OF HEALTH, 118 U.S. 455; PATAPSCO GUANO CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, 171 U.S. 345; RASMUSSEN V. IDAHO, 181 U.S. 198;
SMITH V. ST. LOUIS & S.W.R. CO., 181 U.S. 248; REID V. COLORADO, 187
U.S. 137; NEW MEXICO EX REL. MCLEAN & CO. V. DENVER & R.G.R. CO., 203
U.S. 38; ASBELL V. KANSAS, 209 U.S. 251; RED "C" OIL MFG. CO. V. BOARD
OF AGRICULTURE, 222 U.S. 380; SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501; PURE OIL
CO. V. MINNESOTA, 248 U.S. 158; MINTZ V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346; CF.
RAILROAD CO. V. HUSEN, 95 U.S. 465; MINNESOTA V. BARBER, 136 U.S. 313;
BRIMMER V. REBMAN, 138 U.S. 78; AND REGULATE THE TAKING OR EXPORTATION
OF DOMESTIC GAME, GEER V. CONNECTICUT, 161 U.S. 519; NEW YORK EX REL.
SILZ V. HESTERBERG, 211 U.S. 31; CF. FOSTER-FOUNTAIN PACKING CO. V.
HAYDEL, 278 U.S. 1, 13, HOLDING INVALID A LOCAL REGULATION OSTENSIBLY
DESIGNED TO CONSERVE A NATURAL RESOURCE BUT WHOSE PURPOSE AND EFFECT
WERE TO BENEFIT LOUISIANA ENTERPRISE AT THE EXPENSE OF BUSINESSES
OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO AND MR. JUSTICE REED TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :














MATY V. GRASSELLI CO., 303 U.S. 197 


NO. 378.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1938.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 14, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 456, REVERSED. 


IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS
EMPLOYMENT AS A WORKER IN A SPECIFIED DEPARTMENT OF DEFENDANT'S PLANT
AND THAT WHILE SO EMPLOYED HE SUFFERED THE INJURIES THROUGH INHALING
GASES ETC. ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENCE.  AN AMENDMENT OF THE
COMPLAINT BROADENED THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT WHERE
THE INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED SO AS TO INCLUDE ANOTHER DEPARTMENT LOCATED
IN ANOTHER BUILDING OF THE SAME PLANT.  HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT DID NOT
INTRODUCE A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NEW JERSEY
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  P. 199. 

MATY, ADMINISTRATRIX, V. GRASSELLI CHEMICAL CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 663, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE DEFENDANT, THE PRESENT RESPONDENT, IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES BEGUN IN A NEW JERSEY STATE COURT AND REMOVED TO THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT.  UPON THE DEATH OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE PRESENT
PETITIONER WAS SUBSTITUTED, AS ADMINISTRATRIX, BY THE COURT BELOW. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER (PLAINTIFF) FILED A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT HE WAS INJURED
WHILE EMPLOYED IN THE SILICATE DEPARTMENT OF RESPONDENT'S (DEFENDANT'S)
CHEMICAL PLANT.  LATER, AND MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF HIS
INJURIES, HE AMENDED HIS COMPLAINT.  THE ONLY EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT
WAS TO BROADEN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT WHERE THE
INJURIES WERE SUSTAINED SO AS TO INCLUDE THE PHOSPHATE DEPARTMENT
LOCATED IN THE SAME PLANT BUT IN A DIFFERENT BUILDING 500 FEET REMOVED
FROM THE SILICATE DEPARTMENT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION IS:  DID THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF
TWO YEARS BAR THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT SET OUT A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION? 

THE CAUSE, ORIGINALLY BROUGHT IN THE NEW JERSEY STATE COURT, WAS
REMOVED, BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP, TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
NEW JERSEY, WHERE A VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF WAS SET ASIDE AND JUDGMENT
ENTERED FOR DEFENDANT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, HOLDING THAT THE
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT SET OUT A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION AND WAS BARRED
BY THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  FN1 

THE PERTINENT PART OF THE NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS READS:
FN2 

"...  ALL ACTIONS HEREAFTER ACCRUING FOR INJURIES TO PERSONS CAUSED
BY THE WRONGFUL ACT, NEGLECT OR DEFAULT OF ANY  ...  CORPORATION OR
CORPORATIONS WITHIN THIS STATE, SHALL BE COMMENCED AND INSTITUTED
WITHIN TWO YEARS NEXT AFTER THE CAUSE OF SUCH ACTION SHALL HAVE ACCRUED
AND NOT AFTER." 

THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ALLEGED: 

"1.  THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE EMPLOY OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE MONTH OF
NOVEMBER, 1933, AND FOR SOME TIME PRIOR THERETO AT DEFENDANT'S PLANT IN
GRASSELLI, COUNTY OF UNION AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 

"2.  THE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENDANT AS FURNACE MAN,
OPERATOR AND GENERAL WORKER IN THE SILICATE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENDANT'S
PLANT." 

THE COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE SO
EMPLOYED BY INHALING GASES OR INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES PROXIMATELY CAUSED
BY RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF FROM UNNECESSARY DANGERS
AND TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF A REASONABLY SAFE PLACE IN WHICH TO WORK. 

THE AMENDMENT - ADDED MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE INJURIES WERE
SUSTAINED - CAUSED PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE COMPLAINT TO READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"2.  THE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENDANT AS FURNACE MAN,
OPERATOR AND GENERAL WORKER IN THE SILICATE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENDANT'S
PLANT AND WAS ALSO EMPLOYED IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT'S
PLANT WHERE HE PERFORMED HIS DUTIES AS HE WAS DIRECTED TO DO DURING HIS
EMPLOYMENT IN THE PHOSPHATE DEPARTMENT AND DORR DEPARTMENT." 

THIS AMENDMENT DID NOT CHANGE PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE
ORIGINAL ACTION WAS BROUGHT FOR INJURIES SUSTAINED BY INHALING HARMFUL
SUBSTANCES WHILE THE PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE DEFENDANT'S EMPLOY PREVIOUS
TO AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 1933.  THE ESSENTIALS OF THIS CAUSE OF ACTION
WERE EMPLOYMENT; INJURY BY OR FROM HARMFUL GASES OR SUBSTANCES WHILE
ENGAGED IN THE EMPLOYMENT; AND PROOF THAT THE INJURIES RESULTED FROM
THE NEGLIGENT FAILURE OF DEFENDANT TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF FROM
UNNECESSARY DANGERS AND TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A REASONABLY SAFE
PLACE IN WHICH TO WORK.  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF RESPONDENT WAS THE SAME
WHETHER THE HARMFUL GASES OR SUBSTANCES WERE INHALED IN THE SILICATE
DEPARTMENT, THE PHOSPHATE DEPARTMENT, THE DORR DEPARTMENT OR ANY OTHER
DEPARTMENT WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS PERFORMING HIS DUTIES UNDER HIS
EMPLOYMENT.  IT IS NOT REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT PETITIONER'S
RIGHT OF RECOVERY UNDER THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND UNDER THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT WERE TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSES OF ACTION.  PETITIONER
CAN HAVE ONLY ONE RECOVERY FOR THE ONE SINGLE INJURY ALLEGED AS A
RESULT OF A BREACH OF ONE CONTINUING DUTY UNDER ONE CONTINUOUS
EMPLOYMENT. 

THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS VERY CLEARLY DECLARED THAT
STATE'S RULE APPLYING TO THE OPERATION OF ITS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS,
IN 1935, AS FOLLOWS: 

"...  AMENDMENTS IN CAUSES WHERE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN,
...  'WILL NOT, AS A RULE, BE HELD TO STATE A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION IF
THE FACTS ALLEGED SHOW, SUBSTANTIALLY, THE SAME WRONG WITH RESPECT TO
THE SAME TRANSACTION, OR IF IT IS THE SAME MATTER MORE FULLY AND
DIFFERENTLY LAID, OR IF THE GIST OF THE ACTION, OR THE SUBJECT OF THE
CONTROVERSY REMAINS THE SAME; AND THIS IS TRUE ALTHOUGH  ...  THE
ALLEGED INCIDENTS OF THE TRANSACTION, MAY BE DIFFERENT.  TECHNICAL
RULES WILL NOT BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION
STATED IN THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDED PLEADINGS ARE IDENTICAL, SINCE, IN
THE STRICT SENSE, ALMOST ANY AMENDMENT MAY BE SAID TO CHANGE THE
ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION.'"  FN3 

UNDER THIS RULE LAID DOWN BY THE NEW JERSEY COURT, AS TO NEW JERSEY'S
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT HERE SUBSTANTIALLY
ALLEGED THE SAME WRONG AS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT; RELIED UPON THE
IDENTICAL MATTER MORE FULLY AND DIFFERENTLY LAID; AND THE ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS OF THE ACTION AND THE CONTROVERSY REMAINED THE SAME BETWEEN
THE PARTIES AFTER AS BEFORE THE AMENDMENT. 

PLEADINGS ARE INTENDED TO SERVE AS A MEANS OF ARRIVING AT FAIR AND
JUST SETTLEMENTS OF CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN LITIGANTS.  THEY SHOULD NOT
RAISE BARRIERS WHICH PREVENT THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THAT END.  THE ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT IN THIS CAUSE AND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WERE NOT BASED UPON
DIFFERENT CAUSES OF ACTION.  THEY REFERRED TO THE SAME KIND OF
EMPLOYMENT, THE SAME GENERAL PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, THE SAME INJURY AND
THE SAME NEGLIGENCE.  PROPER PLEADING IS IMPORTANT, BUT ITS IMPORTANCE
CONSISTS IN ITS EFFECTIVENESS AS A MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THE END OF A
JUST JUDGMENT.  THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT HERE WAS TO FACILITATE A
FAIR TRIAL OF THE EXISTING ISSUES BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT.  THE
NEW JERSEY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT BAR THE AMENDED CAUSE OF
ACTION.  THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR.  SINCE THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS WAS BASED ONLY ON A CONSIDERATION AND IMPROPER APPLICATION
OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE CAUSE IS REVERSED AND REMANDED TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN HARMONY WITH THESE
VIEWS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  89 F.(2D) 456.  WHILE THE CAUSE WAS PENDING IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THE PLAINTIFF DIED AND HIS WIFE, THE PRESENT PLAINTIFF, WAS
SUBSTITUTED AS ADMINISTRATRIX.  BOTH ARE REFERRED TO AS PETITIONER
(PLAINTIFF). 

FN2  3 N.J. COMP. ST. 1910, P. 3164, SEC. 3; P.L. 1896, P. 119. 

FN3  MAGLIARO V. MODERN HOMES, INC., 115 N.J.L. 151, 156-157; 178 A.
733, 736; O'SHAUGHNESSY V. BAYONNE NEWS CO., 154 A. 13; 9 N.J. MISC.
345, 347; AND SEE, NEW YORK CENTRAL & H.R.R. CO. V. KINNEY, 260 U.S.
340; AND UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288 U.S. 62. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :









KAY V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 1 


NO. 61.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 13, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  -
89 F.(2D) 19, JUDGMENT VACATED. 


1.  THE COURT DECLINES TO CONSIDER A POINT MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT, NOT
RAISED BELOW AND NOT ADEQUATELY BASED IN THE RECORD, TO THE EFFECT THAT
A DEFENDANT WHOSE PLEA OF GUILTY WAS WITHDRAWN ON MOTION MADE AFTER THE
TEN DAYS SET BY RULE II (4) OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES AND WHO WAS
TRIED AND CONVICTED, IS PRECLUDED FROM ATTACKING THE INDICTMENT AND THE
STATUTE ON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED.  P. 4. 

2.  THE SECOND MORTGAGEE OF PROPERTY ON WHICH A LOAN IS BEING SOUGHT
OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION, WHO, IN A CONSENT TO ACCEPT BONDS
OF THE CORPORATION IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF HIS DEBT, KNOWINGLY AND
FALSELY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE ACTION OF THE CORPORATION,
OVERSTATES THE AMOUNT OF HIS CLAIM, IS GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF SEC.
8(A) OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT.  P. 5. 

3.  EVEN IF THE OTHER PARTS OF THE ACT WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, SEC.
8(A), AIDED BY THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE, IS VALID AS A PROTECTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT AGAINST FALSE AND MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS WHILE THE ACT
IS BEING ADMINISTERED.  P. 6. 

WHEN ONE UNDERTAKES TO CHEAT THE GOVERNMENT OR TO MISLEAD THOSE
ACTING UNDER ITS AUTHORITY, BY FALSE STATEMENTS, HE HAS NO STANDING TO
ASSERT THAT THE OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN WHICH THE EFFORT TO
CHEAT OR MISLEAD IS MADE ARE WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL SANCTION. 

4.  SEC. 8(A) OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT DEFINES THE CRIME
SUFFICIENTLY TO COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS.  P. 7. 

5.  SEC. 8(E) OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT, ORIGINALLY AND AS AMENDED
IN 1934, FORBIDS AND PENALIZES THE CHARGING OF APPLICANTS FOR LOANS
FROM THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED "FOR
EXAMINATION AND PERFECTION OF TITLE, APPRAISAL, AND LIKE NECESSARY
SERVICES," EXCEPT THE "ORDINARY CHARGES" OR FEES AUTHORIZED AND
REQUIRED BY THE CORPORATION.  HELD VALID. 

(1)  SEC. 8(E) IS SEPARABLE FROM THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE.  P. 8. 

(2)  WITHOUT REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SCHEME OF THE ACT,
CONGRESS WAS AUTHORIZED TO PROTECT FROM EXPLOITATION THROUGH IMPROPER
OR EXCESSIVE CHARGES THOSE WHO SOUGHT LOANS UNDER IT.  ID. 

(3)  TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH A RESOLUTION OF THE CORPORATION
DEFINING THE ORDINARY CHARGES THAT ARE "AUTHORIZED OR REQUIRED," AND
PROVIDING FOR "ANY OTHER NECESSARY CHARGE FOR LIKE NECESSARY SERVICES,
AS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS," THE SECTION IS
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE TO SATISFY DUE PROCESS.  P. 8. 

(4)  THE PHRASE "LIKE NECESSARY SERVICES" MEANS SERVICES COGNATE TO
THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING CLAUSE, "FOR EXAMINATION AND
PERFECTION OF TITLE" AND "APPRAISAL."  P. 9. 

(5)  CONGRESS DID NOT EXCEED ITS POWER IN DELEGATING TO THE
CORPORATION THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH REGULATIONS.  ID. 

6.  UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
HAS POWER, IN THE EXERCISE OF SOUND DISCRETION, TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT
AND FILING OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS WHICH WERE TOO LATE IN THE DISTRICT
COURT, AND TO PASS UPON THE RULINGS THERE DISCLOSED.  P. 9. 

KAY V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 679, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING CONVICTIONS
AND CONCURRENT SENTENCES ON VARIOUS COUNTS CHARGING VIOLATION OF THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATIONS OF SEC. 8(A)  FN1  AND (E)
FN2  OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT OF 1933.  ACT OF JUNE 13, 1933, C.
64, 48 STAT. 128, 134, AMENDED BY ACT OF APRIL 27, 1934, C. 168, 48
STAT. 643, 647.  12 U.S.C., SEC. 1467(A) AND (E).  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS SUSTAINED THE CONVICTION, 89 F.(2D) 19, AND BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED.  301 U.S.
679. 

THE CONVICTION WAS UPON EIGHT COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT, VIZ., COUNTS
5 AND 15 UNDER SEC. 8(A) AND COUNTS 8, 12, 14, 20, 24 AND 25 UNDER SEC.
8(E).  TO COUNT 12 PETITIONER HAD PLEADED GUILTY BUT LATER WAS
PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW THAT PLEA, PLEADED NOT GUILTY, AND WENT TO
TRIAL.  ON COUNT 8, IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE WAS SUSPENDED AND PETITIONER
WAS PLACED UPON PROBATION.  ON THE REMAINING SEVEN COUNTS, PETITIONER
WAS SENTENCED TO A YEAR AND A DAY IN PRISON, THE SENTENCES TO RUN
CONCURRENTLY. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO CONSIDER ERRORS ARISING ON
THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, AS IT HAD NOT BEEN SETTLED AND FILED WITHIN THE
TIME PERMITTED BY RULE IX OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES.  THE COURT
ACCORDINGLY LIMITED ITS CONSIDERATION TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
INDICTMENT, ENTERTAINING AND DECIDING THE QUESTIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT AND OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 8(A) AND (E) IN PARTICULAR. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED,
IRRESPECTIVE OF QUESTIONS OF THE VALIDITY OF ANY PART OF THE STATUTE,
UPON THE GROUND THAT, THE SENTENCES BEING CONCURRENT, THE JUDGMENT
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED IF GOOD UNDER ANY ONE OF THE COUNTS.  IN THAT VIEW,
THE GOVERNMENT SUBMITS THAT PETITIONER CONSENTED TO THE JUDGMENT ON
COUNT 12.  THE POINT IS THAT PETITIONER WAS PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW HER
PLEA OF GUILTY TO THAT COUNT ALTHOUGH ELEVEN DAYS HAD INTERVENED, WHILE
RULE II (4) OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES REQUIRES SUCH A MOTION TO BE
MADE WITHIN TEN DAYS.  THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THE PROVISION OF THE
RULE IS MANDATORY AND HENCE THE JUDGMENT, AS ONE UPON CONSENT, SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS.  PETITIONER ANSWERS
THAT THE GOVERNMENT BY GOING TO TRIAL IS NOW ESTOPPED TO RAISE THE
QUESTION AND FURTHER THAT A PLEA OF GUILTY DOES NOT PREVENT THE
DEFENDANT FROM CHALLENGING THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT.  (2
BISHOP ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 2D ED., SEC. 795.)  THE POINT DOES NOT
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN RAISED EITHER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OR IN THE COURT
OF APPEALS AND IT IS BASED SOLELY UPON THE DATES OF CERTAIN ENTRIES IN
THE CRIMINAL DOCKET WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING PROOF.  WE ARE NOT DISPOSED
TO DEAL WITH A QUESTION OF THAT IMPORTANCE PRESENTED IN THIS MANNER. 

FIRST. - AS TO THE COUNTS UNDER SEC. 8(A).  FN3  - COUNTS 5 AND 15,
UNDER THAT PROVISION, CHARGE THAT PETITIONER, BEING THE HOLDER OF A
SECOND MORTGAGE UPON CERTAIN PREMISES, IN EXECUTING THE CONSENT TO
ACCEPT BONDS OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION IN FULL SETTLEMENT,
AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE ACTION OF THE CORPORATION,
KNOWINGLY AND FALSELY STATED THAT HER CLAIMS WERE RESPECTIVELY IN THE
SUMS OF $590 AND $650, WHEREAS IN FACT THEY WERE RESPECTIVELY ONLY IN
THE SUMS OF $285 AND $150. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT A LOAN TO THE
OWNER WAS MADE OR APPROVED, OR THAT ANY PAYMENT WAS MADE TO PETITIONER;
THAT THE SECOND MORTGAGEE'S CONSENT IS TEMPORARY AND MAY BE WITHDRAWN;
THAT IT IS NOT UNDER OATH AND THAT THERE IS NO WARRANTY OF THE TRUTH OF
THE INFORMATION GIVEN.  PETITIONER ARGUES FURTHER THAT ANY STATEMENT IN
THE CONSENT OF A SECOND MORTGAGEE AS TO THE BALANCE DUE CANNOT ENDANGER
OR DIRECTLY INFLUENCE ANY LOAN MADE BY THE CORPORATION; THAT THE SECOND
MORTGAGEE IS NOT AN APPLICANT AND THAT THE PRACTICE IN SUCH CASES
NEGATIVES RELIANCE ON THE CONSENT, AS THE ESSENTIAL FACTORS ARE THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AS TO WHICH THE CORPORATION MAKES ITS APPRAISAL,
AND THE EARNING CAPACITY OF THE OWNER.  NONE OF THESE ARGUMENTS IS
IMPRESSIVE.  IT DOES NOT LIE WITH ONE KNOWINGLY MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
WITH INTENT TO MISLEAD THE OFFICIALS OF THE CORPORATION TO SAY THAT THE
STATEMENTS WERE NOT INFLUENTIAL OR THE INFORMATION NOT IMPORTANT. 
THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO REQUIRE THAT THE
INFORMATION BE GIVEN IN GOOD FAITH AND NOT FALSELY WITH INTENT TO
MISLEAD.  WHETHER OR NOT THE CORPORATION WOULD ACT FAVORABLY ON THE
LOAN IS NOT A MATTER WHICH CONCERNS ONE SEEKING TO DECEIVE BY FALSE
INFORMATION.  THE CASE IS NOT ONE OF AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES BUT OF
CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND ACTUAL DAMAGE IS NOT AN INGREDIENT OF THE
OFFENSE. 

PETITIONER'S MAIN ARGUMENT IS THAT THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THE STATUTE IS
INVALID; THAT CONGRESS HAD NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION,  - TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONDUCT OF A
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE OF THAT CHARACTER.  THERE IS NO OCCASION TO
CONSIDER THIS BROAD QUESTION AS PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE IT.
WHEN ONE UNDERTAKES TO CHEAT THE GOVERNMENT OR TO MISLEAD ITS
OFFICERS, OR THOSE ACTING UNDER ITS AUTHORITY, BY FALSE STATEMENTS, HE
HAS NO STANDING TO ASSERT THAT THE OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN
WHICH THE EFFORT TO CHEAT OR MISLEAD IS MADE ARE WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL
SANCTION. 

WE RECENTLY DEALT WITH A SIMILAR CONTENTION THAT THE FALSE CLAIMS
STATUTE, CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 35, DID NOT APPLY TO A CONSPIRACY TO CHEAT
THE UNITED STATES BY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH
OPERATIONS UNDER A STATUTE WHICH THIS COURT FOUND TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  WE SAID THAT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WAS INADMISSIBLE. 
"IT MIGHT AS WELL BE SAID THAT ONE COULD EMBEZZLE MONEYS IN THE UNITED
STATES TREASURY WITH IMPUNITY IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY WERE COLLECTED
IN THE COURSE OF INVALID TRANSACTIONS....  CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO
PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD SWINDLE IT REGARDLESS OF
QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS TO THE OPERATIONS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT IS CONDUCTING.  SUCH QUESTIONS CANNOT BE RAISED BY THOSE WHO
MAKE FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT."  UNITED STATES V. KAPP, 302
U.S. 214, 217-218; MADDEN V. UNITED STATES, 80 F.(2D) 672.  WHILE THE
INSTANT CASE IS NOT ONE OF CONSPIRACY TO OBTAIN MONEY FROM THE UNITED
STATES, BUT ONE OF FALSE STATEMENTS DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THOSE ACTING
UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED IS THE SAME. 
APART FROM ANY QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT, CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO SECURE PROTECTION
AGAINST FALSE AND MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS WHILE THE ACT WAS BEING
ADMINISTERED, AND THE SEPARABILITY PROVISION OF THE ACT (SEC. 9) IS
CLEARLY APPLICABLE.  UTAH POWER CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165, 184. 

THERE IS THE FURTHER ARGUMENT THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 8(A),
SEPARATELY CONSIDERED, OFFENDS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE AS BEING VAGUE
AND UNCERTAIN.  WE FIND NO MERIT IN THAT CONTENTION.  THE STATUTE
DEFINING THE CRIME IS SUFFICIENTLY EXPLICIT. 

SECOND. - AS TO THE COUNTS UNDER SEC. 8(E).  FN4  - THE GOVERNMENT
POINTS OUT THAT COUNT 14 IS BASED ON THE STATUTE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY
ENACTED IN 1933.  THAT COUNT CHARGES THAT PETITIONER ON OR ABOUT APRIL
1, 1934, MADE A CONTRACT WITH AN APPLICANT FOR A LOAN FOR THE PAYMENT
TO PETITIONER OF A CERTAIN SUM FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE LOAN
AND THAT THE CONTRACT WAS NOT FOR "AN ORDINARY CHARGE OR FEE AUTHORIZED
AND REQUIRED BY THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION FOR SERVICES ACTUALLY
RENDERED FOR EXAMINATION AND PERFECTION OF TITLE, APPRAISAL, AND LIKE
NECESSARY SERVICES." 

COUNTS 12, 20, 24 AND 25, UNDER THE STATUTE AS AMENDED, CHARGE THAT
PETITIONER IN OR ABOUT JUNE, JULY AND SEPTEMBER, 1934, MADE SIMILAR
CONTRACTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES. 

IT APPEARS THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN JANUARY, 1934, SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED THAT "THE ORDINARY CHARGES AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED" FOR
SERVICES SHOULD CONSIST OF (1) AN APPRAISAL FEE AS APPROVED BY THE
BOARD, (2) A FEE FOR A CHARACTER REPORT, (3) NECESSARY RECORDING AND
SIMILAR FEES, (4) NECESSARY CHARGES FOR PERFECTING TITLE IN A SUM NOT
EXCEEDING $75 IN ANY CASE AND LARGER NECESSARY CHARGES IF APPROVED BY
THE BOARD, (5) NECESSARY AND USUAL FEES FOR ABSTRACTS, EXAMINATION OF
TITLE, OPINIONS, CERTIFICATES OF TITLE OR TITLE INSURANCE, (6) CHARGES
OF ATTORNEYS OR TITLE COMPANIES FOR ESCROW SERVICES OR CLOSING LOANS,
AND (7) ANY OTHER NECESSARY CHARGE FOR LIKE NECESSARY SERVICES AS
SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD. 

STATUTE.  IT IS PLAINLY DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE EXPLOITATION OF
APPLICANTS.  IT RESTS UPON THE SAME PRINCIPLE AS THAT WHICH UNDERLIES
SEC. 8(A) AS TO FALSE AND MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE OFFICIALS
OF THE CORPORATION.  CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED NOT ONLY TO PREVENT
MISAPPLICATION OF THE PUBLIC FUNDS AND TO PROTECT THE OFFICIALS
CONCERNED FROM BEING MISLED, BUT ALSO TO PROTECT THOSE WHO SOUGHT LOANS
FROM BEING IMPOSED UPON BY EXTRAVAGANT OR IMPROPER CHARGES FOR SERVICES
IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR APPLICATIONS.  THIS WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST
"NOT ONLY OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES BUT OF THE PUBLIC."  SEE
YEISER V. DYSART, 267 U.S. 540, 541; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502,
535, 536.  AUTHORITY TO PENALIZE SUCH EXPLOITATION WHILE THE ENTERPRISE
IS BEING CONDUCTED CANNOT BE REGARDED AS DEPENDENT UPON THE VALIDITY OF
THE GENERAL PLAN.  THAT PLAN MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE ASSAILED.  IF
ASSAILED, A LONG PERIOD MIGHT ELAPSE BEFORE FINAL DECISION.  MEANWHILE,
THE GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS GO ON, AND PUBLIC FUNDS AND PUBLIC
TRANSACTIONS REQUIRE THE PROTECTION WHICH IT WAS THE AIM OF THESE PENAL
PROVISIONS TO SECURE, WHATEVER MIGHT BE THE ULTIMATE DETERMINATION AS
TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTERPRISE.  UNITED STATES V. KAPP, SUPRA. 

AS A SEPARABLE PROVISION, THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 8(E) IS CHALLENGED AS
LACKING THE REQUISITE DEFINITENESS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 
LOAN BY THE CORPORATION OR AN EXCHANGE OF BONDS OR CASH ADVANCE UNDER
THIS ACT" WHICH WERE IN THE ORIGINAL PROVISION.  BUT THE CONTEXT, IN
THE AMENDED SECTION, SUFFICIENTLY SHOWS THAT THE FORBIDDEN CHARGES ARE
THOSE IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATIONS "FOR A LOAN, WHETHER BOND OR
CASH."  THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SETS FORTH THE
NATURE OF THE ORDINARY CHARGES THAT "ARE AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED," AND
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH ACTION BY THE BOARD IS NOT
OPEN TO QUESTION.  SEE UNITED STATES V. GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506, 521;
UNITED STATES V. SHREVEPORT GRAIN CO., 287 U.S. 77, 85.  THE PHRASE
"LIKE NECESSARY SERVICES" IN THE SECTION DESCRIBES SERVICES WHICH ARE
COGNATE TO THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING CLAUSE "FOR EXAMINATION AND
PERFECTION OF TITLE" AND "APPRAISAL."  AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD,
AFTER STATING THE CATEGORIES OF AUTHORIZED CHARGES, PROVIDES FOR "ANY
OTHER NECESSARY CHARGE FOR LIKE NECESSARY SERVICES, AS SPECIFICALLY
APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS."  WE THINK THAT THE STATUTE SETS UP
AN ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD AND IS "SUFFICIENTLY EXPLICIT TO INFORM THOSE
WHO ARE SUBJECT TO IT WHAT CONDUCT ON THEIR PART WILL RENDER THEM
LIABLE TO ITS PENALTIES."  UNITED STATES EX REL. HANDLER V. HILL, 90
F.(2D) 573, 574.  COMPARE CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269
U.S. 385, 391; OLD DEARBORN CO. V. SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS CORP., 299 U.S.
183, 196. 

THIRD. - WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS TO THE INDICTMENT WHICH
WERE OPEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS WAS NOT SETTLED AND
FILED IN TIME UNDER THE RULE.  BUT ITS DECISION WAS RENDERED BEFORE OUR
DECISION IN RAY V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 158, CONSTRUING RULE IV OF
THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES.  SEE, ALSO, FORTE V. UNITED STATES, 302
U.S. 220.  THAT RULE GIVES TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FULL
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, "INCLUDING THE
PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL."  THE
APPELLATE COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SOUND DISCRETION, HAS AUTHORITY
TO PROVIDE FOR THE CORRECTION OF ANY MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE RELATING TO THE
SETTLEMENT AND FILING OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. 

AS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY HAVE PROCEEDED IN THIS CASE UPON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT HAD NO POWER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AND
FILING OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AND TO PASS UPON THE RULINGS IT
DISCLOSED, ITS JUDGMENT WILL BE VACATED AND THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED
SO THAT THE APPELLATE COURT MAY BE FREE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN
THAT RELATION.  JUDGMENT VACATED. 

FN1  SECTION 8(A) OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN ACT, 12 U.S.C. 1467(A), IS
AS FOLLOWS: 

"SEC. 8.  (A) WHOEVER MAKES ANY STATEMENT, KNOWING IT TO BE FALSE, OR
WHOEVER WILLFULLY OVERVALUES ANY SECURITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INFLUENCING IN ANY WAY THE ACTION OF THE HOME OWNERS' LOAN CORPORATION
OR THE BOARD OR AN ASSOCIATION UPON ANY APPLICATION, ADVANCE, DISCOUNT,
PURCHASE, OR REPURCHASE AGREEMENT, OR LOAN, UNDER THIS ACT, OR ANY
EXTENSION THEREOF BY RENEWAL DEFERMENT, OR ACTION OR OTHERWISE, OR THE
ACCEPTANCE, RELEASE, OR SUBSTITUTION OF SECURITY THEREFOR, SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000 OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT
MORE THAN TWO YEARS, OR BOTH."    FN2  SECTION 8(E) OF THE ACT, 12
U.S.C. 1467(E), AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 13, 1933, C.
64, 48 STAT. 134, WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"(E) NO PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, OR CORPORATION SHALL MAKE
ANY CHARGE IN CONNECTION WITH A LOAN BY THE CORPORATION OR AN EXCHANGE
OF BONDS OR CASH ADVANCE UNDER THIS ACT EXCEPT ORDINARY CHARGES
AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED BY THE CORPORATION FOR SERVICES ACTUALLY
RENDERED FOR EXAMINATION AND PERFECTING OF TITLE, APPRAISAL, AND LIKE
NECESSARY SERVICES.  ANY PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, OR
CORPORATION VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL, UPON
CONVICTION THEREOF, BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT
MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH." 

BY THE ACT OF APRIL 27, 1934, C. 168, SEC. 12, 48 STAT. 643, 647,
SEC. 8(E) WAS AMENDED SO AS TO READ: 

"(E) NO PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, OR CORPORATION SHALL,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, SOLICIT, CONTRACT FOR, CHARGE OR RECEIVE, OR
ATTEMPT TO SOLICIT, CONTRACT FOR, CHARGE OR RECEIVE ANY FEE, CHARGE, OR
OTHER CONSIDERATION FROM ANY PERSON APPLYING TO THE CORPORATION FOR A
LOAN, WHETHER BOND OR CASH EXCEPT ORDINARY FEES AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED
BY THE CORPORATION FOR SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED FOR EXAMINATION AND
PERFECTION OF TITLE, APPRAISAL, AND LIKE NECESSARY SERVICES.  ANY
PERSON, PARTNERSHIP, ASSOCIATION, OR CORPORATION VIOLATING THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, BE FINED
NOT MORE THAN $10,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS OR
BOTH." 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN4  SEE NOTE 2. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











BRADY V. TERMINAL R.R. ASSN., 303 U.S. 10 


NO. 163.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 5, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 340
MO. 841 -  102 S.W.(2D) 903, REVERSED. 


THE DEFENDANT CARRIER HAULED A STRING OF FREIGHT CARS OVER ITS OWN
LINE AND LEFT THEM ON THE RECEIVING TRACK OF A CONNECTING CARRIER,
WHERE THEY THEN STOOD TEMPORARILY WHILST BEING INSPECTED BY AN EMPLOYEE
OF THE CONNECTING CARRIER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE ACCEPTED
BY THE LATTER FOR FURTHER TRANSPORTATION.  DUE TO A DEFECTIVELY
ATTACHED GRAB-IRON, THE EMPLOYEE FELL FROM ONE OF THE CARS AND WAS
INJURED.  BOTH CARRIERS WERE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  HELD THAT
THE DEFENDANT CARRIER WAS LIABLE UNDER THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE
ACT. 

1.  THE DEFECTIVE CAR WAS "IN USE," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE.  P. 13. 

2.  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEFENDANT CARRIER, WHICH HAD BROUGHT
THE CAR, WAS NOT ENDED, SINCE THE OTHER CARRIER HAD NOT ACCEPTED IT NOR
ASSUMED CONTROL.  P. 13. 

3.  THE DUTY OF THE DEFENDANT CARRIER UNDER THE ACT EXTENDED TO THE
PERSON INJURED, ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT ITS EMPLOYEE.  P. 14. 

4.  A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE IS NOT DENIED THE PROTECTION OF THE ACT
BECAUSE HIS WORK IS THAT OF INSPECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCOVERING
DEFECTS, INCLUDING DEFECTS IN THE APPLIANCES PRESCRIBED.  P. 14. 

THE DUTY IMPOSED IS ABSOLUTE AND THE ACT EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES THE
DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK. 

BRADY V. TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 678, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED BY THE PRESENT PETITIONER IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL
INJURIES. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI REVERSED A JUDGMENT WHICH PETITIONER
HAD RECOVERED UNDER THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, 340 MO. 841; 102
S.W.(2D) 903, AND RENDERED A FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT. 
SEE STATE V. RAGLAND, 339 MO. 452, 456, 458; 97 S.W.(2D) 113.  IN VIEW
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FEDERAL
STATUTE, THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

PETITIONER WAS EMPLOYED BY THE WABASH RAILWAY COMPANY AS A CAR
INSPECTOR IN ITS YARD AT GRANITE CITY, ILLINOIS.  HE WAS INJURED IN
NOVEMBER, 1927, WHILE INSPECTING A CAR WHICH WAS ONE OF A STRING OF
CARS BROUGHT BY THE RESPONDENT, TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST.
LOUIS, FROM ST. LOUIS TO GRANITE CITY AND PLACED UPON A TRACK OF THE
WABASH KNOWN AS A "RECEIVING" OR "INBOUND" TRACK.  THE PURPOSE OF THE
INSPECTION WAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CARS WERE TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE
WABASH.  BOTH THE WABASH AND THE TERMINAL COMPANIES WERE CARRIERS
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

WHILE MAKING HIS INSPECTION PETITIONER STOOD UPON ONE OF THE SIDE
LADDERS OF THE CAR, AND, IN ATTEMPTING TO PULL HIMSELF TO THE TOP OF
THE CAR, PETITIONER TOOK HOLD OF A GRABIRON WHICH, WITH THE BOARD TO
WHICH IT WAS ATTACHED, BECAME LOOSE, CAUSING HIM TO FALL.  THE BOARD
WAS FOUND TO HAVE "BECOME ROTTEN FROM END TO END ON THE UNDER SIDE, AND
TO SOME EXTENT ON THE UPPER SIDE AROUND THE BOLTS BY WHICH THE GRABIRON
WAS ATTACHED TO IT." 

PETITIONER FIRST SUED HIS EMPLOYER, THE WABASH, UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, BUT A JUDGMENT IN HIS FAVOR WAS
REVERSED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE CAR HAD NOT YET BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE
WABASH COMPANY WHICH THEREFORE HAD NOT HAULED OR USED IT, OR PERMITTED
IT TO BE HAULED OR USED, WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF THE STATUTE.  BRADY
V. WABASH RY. CO., 329 MO. 1123; 49 S.W.(2D) 24.  WHILE THAT SUIT WAS
PENDING, PETITIONER BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT AGAINST RESPONDENT. 

THE FEDERAL STATUTE, ACT OF APRIL 14, 1910, C. 160, SEC. 2, 36 STAT.
298, 45 U.S.C. 11, PROVIDES THAT 

"IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY COMMON CARRIER SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT TO HAUL, OR PERMIT TO BE HAULED OR USED ON ITS
LINE ANY CAR SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT NOT EQUIPPED WITH
APPLIANCES PROVIDED FOR IN THIS ACT, TO WIT:  ALL CARS MUST BE EQUIPPED
WITH SECURE SILL STEPS AND EFFICIENT HAND BRAKES; ALL CARS REQUIRING
SECURE LADDERS AND SECURE RUNNING BOARDS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH SUCH
LADDERS AND RUNNING BOARDS, AND ALL CARS HAVING LADDERS SHALL ALSO BE
EQUIPPED WITH SECURE HAND HOLDS OR GRAB IRONS ON THEIR ROOFS AT THE
TOPS OF SUCH LADDERS:" 

THE ACT OF 1910 SUPPLEMENTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF MARCH 2,
1893, C. 196, 27 STAT. 532, 45 U.S.C. 7, WHICH PROVIDED IN SEC. 8: 

"ANY EMPLOYEE OF ANY COMMON CARRIER ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY
RAILROAD WHO MAY BE INJURED BY ANY LOCOMOTIVE, CAR, OR TRAIN IN USE
CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL NOT BE DEEMED THEREBY
TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISK THEREBY OCCASIONED, ALTHOUGH CONTINUING IN THE
EMPLOYMENT OF SUCH CARRIER AFTER THE UNLAWFUL USE OF SUCH LOCOMOTIVE,
CAR, OR TRAIN HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE." 

SEE, ALSO, FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 35 STAT. 65, C. 149,
SEC. 4, 45 U.S.C. 54. 

THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CAR CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN IN USE
BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE TIME IN QUESTION.  THE STATUTE GIVES NO GROUND
FOR HOLDING THAT IT WAS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS THAT IN A SITUATION SUCH
AS IS HERE PRESENTED NEITHER THE WABASH NOR THE TERMINAL ASSOCIATION
SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY DUTY.  THE "USE, MOVEMENT OR HAULING
OF THE DEFECTIVE CAR," WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, HAD NOT ENDED
WHEN PETITIONER SUSTAINED HIS INJURIES.  CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN R. CO.
V. SCHENDEL, 267 U.S. 287, 291, 292.  THE CAR HAD BEEN BROUGHT INTO THE
YARD AT GRANITE CITY AND PLACED ON A RECEIVING TRACK TEMPORARILY
PENDING THE CONTINUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION.  IF NOT FOUND TO BE
DEFECTIVE, IT WOULD PROCEED TO DESTINATION; IF FOUND DEFECTIVE, IT
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL FOR REPAIRS.  IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE A
DEFECTIVE CAR HAS REACHED A PLACE OF REPAIR.  SEE BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO. V. HOOVEN, 297 FED. 919, 921, 923; NEW YORK, C. & ST. L.R. CO. V.
KELLY, 70 F.(2D) 548, 551.  THE CAR IN THIS INSTANCE HAD NOT BEEN
WITHDRAWN FROM USE.  JOHNSON V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 196 U.S. 1, 21,
22; DELK V. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO R. CO., 220 U.S. 580, 584-586;
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. OTOS, 239 U.S. 349, 351; CHICAGO GREAT
WESTERN R. CO. V. SCHENDEL, SUPRA.  THE CAR WAS STILL IN USE, THOUGH
MOTIONLESS.  MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S.S.M. RY. CO. V. GONEAU, 269 U.S.
406.  IN VIEW OF THAT USE, EITHER THE TERMINAL ASSOCIATION OR THE
WABASH WAS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE. 

THE QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE TERMINAL
ASSOCIATION, WHICH BROUGHT IN THE CAR, HAD ENDED.  WE THINK THAT
QUESTION IS ANSWERED BY THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IT WAS PLACED BY THE
TERMINAL ASSOCIATION ON THE RECEIVING TRACK TO AWAIT INSPECTION AND
ACCEPTANCE BY THE WABASH. 

THE WABASH HAD NOT ACCEPTED IT.  THE JURY, WHICH FOUND FOR
PETITIONER, WERE INSTRUCTED THAT AS A CONDITION OF THAT VERDICT IT WAS
NECESSARY FOR THEM TO FIND THAT PETITIONER "WAS REQUIRED TO GO UPON
SAID CAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTING THE EQUIPMENT THEREON AND OF
ACCEPTING OR REJECTING SAID CAR ON BEHALF OF HIS EMPLOYER, THE WABASH
RAILWAY COMPANY."  WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW, EXPRESSED IN THE
OPINION OF THE STATE COURT IN REVERSING THE JUDGMENT, THAT "GRANTED
THAT THE CARS WERE STILL (IN THE LEGAL SENSE) IN THE POSSESSION OF THE
TERMINAL," IT MIGHT STILL BE HELD THAT "THE RIGHT OF CONTROL" HAD
PASSED TO THE WABASH.  AS THE WABASH HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE CAR, THE
WABASH HAD NOT ASSUMED CONTROL AND PETITIONER WAS EXAMINING THE CAR IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE WABASH SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL. 

AS THE CAR HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM USE AND WAS STILL IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE TERMINAL ASSOCIATION, ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION
CONTINUED AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT DUTY WAS OWING TO
PETITIONER.  THE FACT THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
TERMINAL ASSOCIATION DID NOT NECESSARILY ABSOLVE IT FROM DUTY TO HIM. 
WE HAVE SAID THAT "THE NATURE OF THE DUTY IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE AND
THE BENEFITS RESULTING FROM ITS PERFORMANCE" USUALLY DETERMINE WHAT
PERSONS ARE ENTITLED TO INVOKE ITS PROTECTION.  IT WAS IN THIS VIEW
THAT WE HELD THAT THE POWER BRAKES REQUIRED BY THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT
WERE NOT ONLY FOR THE SAFETY OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES AND PASSENGERS ON
TRAINS BUT ALSO OF TRAVELERS ON THE HIGHWAYS AT RAILWAY CROSSINGS. 
FAIRPORT R. CO. V. MEREDITH, 292 U.S. 589, 596, 597.  IN THE INSTANT
CASE, PETITIONER IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTY WOULD HAVE OCCASION TO GO
UPON THE CAR AND USE THE GRABIRON, AND ACCORDINGLY THE BENEFIT OF THE
STATUTE WOULD EXTEND TO HIM, ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT EMPLOYED BY THE
CARRIER HOLDING THE CAR IN USE, UNLESS HE WAS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE
STATUTE BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL CHARACTER OF HIS WORK.  HIS WORK WAS
THAT OF INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS OF THE SORT HERE FOUND TO EXIST
AS WELL AS OTHERS. 

THIS FINAL QUESTION MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE NATURE OF
THE OBLIGATION RESTING UPON THE CARRIER IN RELATION TO THE USE OF A
DEFECTIVE CAR.  THE STATUTORY LIABILITY IS NOT BASED UPON THE CARRIER'S
NEGLIGENCE.  THE DUTY IMPOSED IS AN ABSOLUTE ONE AND THE CARRIER IS NOT
EXCUSED BY ANY SHOWING OF CARE HOWEVER ASSIDUOUS.  ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S.
RY. CO. V. TAYLOR, 210 U.S. 281, 295; CHICAGO, B. & Q. RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 559, 570; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V.
LAYTON, 243 U.S. 617, 620, 621; GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. OTOS, SUPRA.
THE BREADTH OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT IT
EMBRACES ALL LOCOMOTIVES, CARS AND SIMILAR VEHICLES USED ON ANY RAILWAY
THAT IS A HIGHWAY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IS NOT CONFINED
EXCLUSIVELY TO VEHICLES ENGAGED IN SUCH COMMERCE.  SOUTHERN RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 222 U.S. 20.  LAYING DOWN THIS COMPREHENSIVE RULE AS A
MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, CONGRESS HAS MADE NO EXCEPTION OF THOSE
EMPLOYED IN INSPECTING CARS.  THE STATUTE HAS BEEN LIBERALLY CONSTRUED
"SO AS TO GIVE A RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR EVERY INJURY THE PROXIMATE CAUSE
OF WHICH WAS A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT." 
SWINSON V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 529, 531.  IN
DAVIS V. WOLFE, 263 U.S. 239, 243, REVIEWING THE EARLIER CASES, THE
COURT HELD THAT ONE CAN RECOVER "IF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT IS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, RESULTING
IN INJURY TO HIM WHILE IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTY, ALTHOUGH NOT
ENGAGED IN AN OPERATION IN WHICH THE SAFETY APPLIANCES ARE SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNED TO FURNISH HIM PROTECTION."  EVEN WHERE THE REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
IS KNOWN TO HAVE BECOME DEFECTIVE AND THE CAR IS BEING HAULED TO THE
NEAREST AVAILABLE POINT FOR REPAIRS, WHILE THE ACT RELIEVES THE CARRIER
IN SUCH A CASE FROM THE PRESCRIBED PENALTIES, THE CARRIER STILL REMAINS
SUBJECT BY THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE STATUTE TO CIVIL LIABILITY FOR
INJURIES SUSTAINED BY "ANY RAILROAD EMPLOYEE" IN THE COURSE OF SUCH A
MOVEMENT BY REASON OF THE DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT.  ACT OF APRIL 14, 1910,
C. 160, SEC. 4, 36 STAT. 299; 45 U.S.C. 13.  SEE NEW YORK, C. & ST.
L.R. CO. V. KELLY, SUPRA. 

WE THINK THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT ONE IS
NOT TO BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF THE ACT BECAUSE HIS WORK WAS THAT OF
INSPECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCOVERING DEFECTS.  AS WE SAID IN
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. LAYTON, SUPRA$N, THE LIABILITY
"SPRINGS FROM ITS BEING MADE UNLAWFUL TO USE CARS NOT EQUIPPED AS
REQUIRED,  - NOT FROM THE POSITION THE EMPLOYEE MAY BE IN OR THE WORK
WHICH HE MAY BE DOING AT THE MOMENT WHEN HE IS INJURED," PROVIDED THE
DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY. 

THE FACT THAT PETITIONER WAS LOOKING FOR DEFECTS OF THE SORT WHICH
CAUSED HIS INJURY DOES NOT PREVENT RECOVERY AS THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY
EXCLUDES THE DEFENSE OF ASSUMPTION OF RISK.  45 U.S.C. 7, 54. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :













HENNEFORD V. NOR. PACIFIC RY., 303 U.S. 17 


NO. 243.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 15
F.SUPP.  302, REVERSED. 


UPON APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENJOINING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE TAX, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH, AS ALLEGED IN THE
BILL, WAS LESS THAN $3,000, HELD: 

1.  THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION NOTWITHSTANDING OTHER
ALLEGATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT FAILURE TO PAY WOULD ENTAIL MUCH GREATER
DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFF BY WAY OF PENALTIES, SEIZURE AND SALE OF
PROPERTY AND DAMAGE TO BUSINESS.  HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S. 263, 268. 
P. 19. 

2.  A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX FOR SUCCEEDING MONTHS
MUST BE DENIED.  ID. 

3.  THE CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED UPON THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT; THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE TESTED BY THE CASE MADE BY
THE BILL; AND THAT COURT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.  ID. 

HENNEFORD ET AL. V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST THE
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY OF THE "COMPENSATING TAX" IMPOSED BY
TITLE IV OF CHAPTER 180 OF THE LAWS OF WASHINGTON OF 1935.  THE ACT
LEVIES A TAX OF 2% FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF USING WITHIN THE STATE ANY
ARTICLE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY PURCHASED SUBSEQUENT TO APRIL 30,
1935.  CF. HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577.  THE BILL
ALLEGED THAT IN THE NECESSARY MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND REPAIR OF ITS
RAILROAD, THE COMPANY PURCHASES MATERIALS, SUPPLIES, SHOP MACHINERY AND
TOOLS, A PART OF WHICH ARE BOUGHT IN OTHER STATES AND TRANSPORTED INTO
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND THAT SUCH PURCHASES IN OTHER STATES IN MAY
AND JUNE, 1935, AS SHOWN BY THE LIST ANNEXED TO THE COMPLAINT AND MADE
A PART OF IT, AMOUNTED TO $102,204.18, INCLUDING THE COST OF
TRANSPORTATION.  THE BILL ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE DEFENDANTS (APPELLANTS
HERE) COMPOSING THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAD
DEMANDED THE TAX OF 2% OF THIS SUM AND UNLESS ENJOINED WOULD ASSESS
PENALTIES ON THE TAX AMOUNTING TO $2,044.08, AND WOULD CAUSE SUMMARY
PROCESS TO BE ISSUED FOR THE SEIZURE AND SALE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY
AND THAT ITS BUSINESS WOULD THEREBY BE INTERFERED WITH TO ITS
IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IN THE SUM OF MORE THAN $100,000, AND THAT THE
COMPANY WAS WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW.  THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX
WAS ASSAILED UNDER THE COMMERCE AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT AND THE CASE WAS
HEARD IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY THREE JUDGES.  28 U.S.C. 380.  IT WAS
STIPULATED THAT THE CASE BE SUBMITTED FOR FINAL DETERMINATION ON ITS
MERITS AND DECREE WAS ENTERED PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THE TAX.  15 F.SUPP.  302.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL. 

BY ITS ORDER OF OCTOBER 11, 1937, THIS COURT NOTED PROBABLE
JURISDICTION AND DIRECTED THE ATTENTION OF COUNSEL TO THE QUESTIONS AS
TO (1) THE EXISTENCE OF THE REQUIRED JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT AND (2) THE
ADEQUACY OF THE REMEDY AT LAW.  APPELLANTS CONCEDE THAT IN VIEW OF THE
TERMS OF THE STATUTE PROHIBITING ANY ACTION TO RECOVER THE TAX, IF
PAID, EXCEPT AS THEREIN PROVIDED (LAWS OF WASHINGTON, 1935, C. 180,
TITLE XVIII, SEC. 199) THERE WOULD BE NO REMEDY AVAILABLE AT LAW IN THE
FEDERAL COURT AND HENCE THAT FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION WOULD NOT BE
OUSTED.  CITY BANK CO. V. SCHNADER, 291 U.S. 24, 29.  WITH RESPECT TO
THE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT, IT APPEARS ON THE FACE OF THE COMPLAINT THAT
THE TAX, THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED, AMOUNTED
ONLY TO $2,044.08 AND THAT THE DAMAGES ALLEGED WOULD BE INCURRED ONLY
BY FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED PAYMENT.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE REQUISITE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT IS NOT INVOLVED.  SEE HEALY V. RATTA, 292 U.S.
263, 268, AND CASES THERE CITED. 

APPELLEE MOVES FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPLEMENT THE
RECORD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX FOR SUCCEEDING
MONTHS.  THE MOTION IS DENIED.  THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE
CASE SHOULD BE DECIDED UPON THE RECORD BEFORE IT AND THAT THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE TESTED BY THE CASE MADE BY
THE BILL OF COMPLAINT.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










ATKINSON V. TAX COMM'N, 303 U.S. 20 


NO. 303.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 156
ORE.  461 -  67 P.(2D) 161, AFFIRMED. 


OREGON APPLIED ITS PERSONAL INCOME TAX LAW TO THE NET INCOME DERIVED
BY INDIVIDUALS FROM THEIR WORK, WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE, IN
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BONNEVILLE DAM ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER, A
NAVIGABLE STREAM, UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES.  THE WORK
WAS PERFORMED PARTLY IN THE BED OF THE RIVER AND PARTLY ON OTHER LAND
PURCHASED BY THE UNITED STATES.  HELD VALID. 

1.  THE TAX DID NOT BURDEN THE OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
P. 21. 

2.  SUBJECT TO THE PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
HAVE THE WORK PERFORMED FOR PURPOSES WITHIN THE FEDERAL PROVINCE, THE
STATE RETAINED ITS TITLE AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE RIVER
BED.  P. 22. 

3.  WITH LIKE RESTRICTION, THE STATE RETAINED ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE LAND PURCHASED, NOTWITHSTANDING A GENERAL LAW OF
OREGON CONSENTING TO PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
ERECTION OF "ANY NEEDFUL BUILDINGS" AND PURPORTING TO CEDE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME; SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEED NOT
ACCEPT SUCH JURISDICTION WHEN TENDERED AND IN THIS INSTANCE THE FACTS
SHOW THAT IT INTENDED OTHERWISE.  P. 23. 

4.  THE TAX INVOLVED NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE CARRYING OUT OF THE
FEDERAL PROJECT.  P. 25. 

ATKINSON ET AL. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION OF OREGON ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON SUSTAINING A
TAX. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE PERSONAL
INCOME TAX LAW OF OREGON (OREGON CODE 1930, C. XV, TITLE LXIX, SECS. 69
1501 TO 69-1538, AS AMENDED BY LAWS OF 1933, C. 322 AND 387 AND BY LAWS
OF 1933, SECOND SPECIAL SESSION, C. 31) AS APPLIED TO THE NET INCOME OF
THE APPELLANTS DERIVED FROM THEIR WORK WITHIN THE EXTERIOR LIMITS OF
THE STATE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BONNEVILLE DAM ON THE COLUMBIA
RIVER UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES.  THE CONTRACT WAS MADE
IN FEBRUARY, 1934, AND THE WORK WAS COMPLETED IN THAT YEAR.  THE TAX
WAS ASSAILED UPON THE GROUNDS (1) THAT IT BURDENED THE OPERATIONS OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND (2) THAT THE AREA WITHIN WHICH THE WORK WAS
DONE WAS WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE SUSTAINED THE TAX, 156 ORE.  461; 62 P.(2D)
13, 67 P.(2D) 161, AND THE CONTRACTORS APPEAL. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE LAW LAYS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE CASE IS
CONTROLLED BY OUR PREVIOUS DECISIONS.  METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269
U.S. 514; GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. V. FISHER, 295 U.S. 715; JAMES V.
DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134; SILAS MASON CO. V. TAX COMMISSION,
302 U.S. 186.  IN THE TWO CASES LAST MENTIONED THE TAX WHICH WAS UPHELD
WAS UPON THE GROSS INCOME OF THE CONTRACTORS.  IN METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, SUPRA, AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. V. FISHER, SUPRA, THE TAX
WAS UPON THE NET INCOME. 

AS TO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, IT APPEARS THAT THE AREA WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF OREGON IN WHICH THE WORK WAS PERFORMED EMBRACED (A) THE
BED OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER, WHERE THE MAIN STRUCTURAL WORKS ARE PLACED,
AND (B) BRADFORD ISLAND AND A PORTION OF THE MAINLAND. 

THE UNITED STATES DID NOT ACQUIRE TITLE TO THE BED OF THE RIVER. 
UPON THIS POINT THE STATE COURT SAID (PP. 481-482): 

"SECTION 60-1302, OREGON CODE 1930(LAWS 1874, P. 10), GRANTS TO THE
GOVERNOR OF OREGON AUTHORITY AND POWER TO CONVEY TO THE UNITED STATES
TITLE TO LAND BELONGING TO THE STATE AND COVERED BY THE WATERS OF THE
UNITED STATES, NOT EXCEEDING TEN ACRES IN ANY ONE TRACT, AS THE SITE OF
A LIGHTHOUSE, BEACON OR OTHER AID TO NAVIGATION, UPON APPLICATION MADE
TO HIM BY A DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FURTHER
GRANTS HIM AUTHORITY 'TO CEDE TO THE SAID UNITED STATES JURISDICTION
OVER THE SAME,' RESERVING, HOWEVER, TO THE STATE THE RIGHT TO SERVE
THEREON CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCESS ISSUING UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE.  NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE GOVERNOR OF THIS STATE OR
TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR CONVEYANCE OF ANY PART OF THE BED OF EITHER THE
NORTH OR SOUTH CHANNEL OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER WITHIN THE PROJECT, OR FOR
CESSION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME.... 

"NO AUTHORITY HAS BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
STATE OF OREGON HAS IN ANY WAY RELINQUISHED ITS SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE
AREA OCCUPIED BY THE WATERS OF BRADFORD SLOUGH AND THAT PART OF THE
NORTH CHANNEL OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER WHICH IS WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
LIMITS OF THE STATE." 

THE CASE IN THIS RELATION FALLS WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE OF OUR DECISION
IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA.  THE QUESTION, WE THERE SAID,
WAS NOT ONE OF THE PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
HAVE THE WORK PERFORMED FOR PURPOSES WITHIN THE FEDERAL PROVINCE.  THE
TITLE TO THE BED OF THE RIVER WAS IN THE STATE.  AND, ALTHOUGH SUBJECT
TO THE DOMINANT RIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE SERVIENT TITLE
CONTINUED IN THE STATE WHICH THUS RETAINED ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
FOR PURPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXERCISE BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL FUNCTIONS.  SEE, ALSO, SILAS MASON CO.
V. TAX COMMISSION, SUPRA. 

THE REMAINING QUESTION CONCERNS THE LANDS ON BRADFORD ISLAND AND THE
MAINLAND WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE UNITED STATES.  APPELLANTS RELY
UPON THE OREGON STATUTE GIVING CONSENT TO THE UNITED STATES TO PURCHASE
OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRE ANY LAND WITHIN THE STATE "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ERECTING THEREON ANY NEEDFUL PUBLIC BUILDINGS" UNDER AUTHORITY OF ANY
ACT OF CONGRESS, AND PROVIDING THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE "THE
RIGHT OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE SAME," SAVING THE AUTHORITY OF
THE STATE FOR THE SERVICE OF PROCESS.  OREGON CODE, 1930, SEC. 60
1303. 

IN SILAS MASON CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, SUPRA, WE SAID THAT AS A
TRANSFER OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION RESTS UPON A GRANT BY THE STATE, IT
FOLLOWS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAMILIAR PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO GRANTS,
THAT THE GRANT MAY BE ACCEPTED OR DECLINED.  ACCEPTANCE MAY BE PRESUMED
IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF A CONTRARY INTENT.  BUT WE FOUND NO
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE "WHICH COMPELS ACCEPTANCE BY THE UNITED STATES
OF AN EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CONTRARY TO ITS OWN CONCEPTION OF ITS
INTERESTS."  THE MERE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TITLE TO PROPERTY
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A STATE "DOES NOT NECESSITATE THE ASSUMPTION
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE BURDENS INCIDENT TO AN EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION." 

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE STATE COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ACCEPTED AND DID NOT INTEND TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE LANDS WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED FOR THIS
PROJECT.  THE COURT SAID: 

"THE MERE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE ON THE STATUTE BOOKS OF THE STATE A
GENERAL LAW, SUCH AS SEC. 60-1303, OREGON CODE 1930, CONSENTING TO THE
PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE UNITED STATES AND GRANTING TO THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION THEREOVER, DOES
NOT IMPLY THAT OVER ALL LANDS PURCHASED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN
THE STATE AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF SUCH LAW THE STATE IS DIVESTED IPSO
FACTO OF SOVEREIGNTY, AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE ACQUIRED AREA IS
ASSUMED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS
NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DESIRES TO EXERCISE
EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE LAND PURCHASED BY IT WITHIN
THE BONNEVILLE PROJECT.  IT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT INCONSISTENT TO ASSUME
THAT SINCE IT DOES NOT HAVE SUCH JURISDICTION OVER THE MAJOR PART OF
THE STRUCTURES WHICH ARE NOW BEING BUILT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
SEEKING TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT PART OF THE WORKS
LOCATED ON LANDS TITLE TO WHICH IT HAS ACQUIRED. 

"THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF THE
CONSTRUCTION WORK REQUIRED THE CONTRACTORS TO COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE WORK WAS TO
BE PERFORMED.  AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT WITH THE PLAINTIFFS WAS ENTERED
INTO AT LEAST TWO STATES HAD HELD THAT THEIR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
LAWS WERE NOT EFFECTIVE ON TERRITORY OVER WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION:  WILLIS V. OSCAR DANIELS CO., 200 MICH.
30(166 N.W. 496); MURRAY V. JOE GERRICK & CO., 172 WASH. 365(20 P.(2D)
591).  ON FEBRUARY 5, 1934, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
AFFIRMED THE LATTER CASE.  SEE 291 U.S. 315. 

"THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS
DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1934.  IN VIEW OF THOSE DECISIONS IT IS REASONABLE TO
ASSUME THAT THE OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BONNEVILLE
DAM ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDERSTOOD THAT THE LAND
INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT WAS NOT UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE
REQUIRED CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION." 

THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND APPELLANTS IS NOT IN EVIDENCE
BUT THE RECORD DISCLOSES, AS STATED BY THE STATE COURT, THAT THE
GOVERNMENT DID NOT SEEK TO EXCLUDE THE STATE FROM ALL LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY, AN EXCLUSION WHICH WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED FROM AN ACCEPTANCE OF
A GRANT OF "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION" WITH THE SOLE RESERVATION OF THE
RIGHT TO SERVE PROCESS.  THE ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE
OREGON COMPENSATION LAW (SEE OREGON CODE 1930, SECS. 49-1801 TO 49
1845), WITH WHICH THE CONTRACTORS WERE REQUIRED TO COMPLY, WERE
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IN
THE UNITED STATES.  FN1  IF, HOWEVER, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, ALTHOUGH
OFFERED, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE UNITED STATES, THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE STATE DID NOT RETAIN ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA IN QUESTION SO FAR AS ITS EXERCISE INVOLVED
NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE CARRYING OUT OF THE FEDERAL PROJECT.  AND AS
WE HAVE DECIDED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH INTERFERENCE THROUGH THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A TAX SUCH AS IS HERE ASSAILED, WE FIND NO GROUND FOR
OVERRULING THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE PURCHASES OF THE LANDS, HERE INVOLVED, WERE MADE BY THE
GOVERNMENT, AND THE CONTRACT WITH THE APPELLANTS WAS MADE AND
PERFORMED, PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 25,
1936, 49 STAT. 1938, AND WE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THAT
ACT IN RELATION TO LANDS AS TO WHICH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION HAD
PREVIOUSLY BEEN GRANTED TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











U.S. V. ESNAULT-PELTERIE, 303 U.S. 26 


NO. 231.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 84 CT.
CLS. 625, AFFIRMED. 


1.  REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT, BROUGHT UNDER
THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, AS AMENDED, IS LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF LAW. 
P. 28. 

2.  IN A PATENT CASE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER THE ACT OF 1910 THE
QUESTIONS OF VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT.  P. 29. 

3.  THE DUTY OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO FIND THE ULTIMATE FACTS,
REQUIRES THAT IT RESOLVE CONFLICTING INFERENCES AND DRAW THE NECESSARY
FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EVIDENCE.  ID. 

4.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS MADE ELABORATE CIRCUMSTANTIAL FINDINGS
PRECEDING ITS TWO ULTIMATE FINDINGS THAT THE PATENT SUED ON WAS VALID
AND INFRINGED BY THE UNITED STATES.  ITS OPINION DISCLOSED THAT THERE
WAS CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS FOR THE CLAIMANT AND FOR THE
UNITED STATES, BUT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT, AND COULD NOT PROPERLY BE,
INCORPORATED IN THE RECORD BEFORE THIS COURT.  HELD THAT WHILE THIS
COURT COULD INQUIRE WHETHER THE ULTIMATE FINDINGS WERE NECESSARILY
OVERBORNE BY THE SUBORDINATE ONES, THUS SHOWING THAT THE JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN POINT OF LAW, IT COULD
NOT TAKE UP THE PATENTS SET FORTH IN THE FINDINGS AND, IN THE ABSENCE
OF THE EXPLANATORY AND CONSTRUING TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERT WITNESSES,
ATTEMPT TO PASS UPON THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS INVOLVED, AND UPON SUCH A
NECESSARILY LIMITED CONSIDERATION OVERRULE THE CONCLUSIONS OF FACT
REACHED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD.  P. 30. 

UNITED STATES V. ESNAULT-PELTERIE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 668, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES ON A CLAIM OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT.  SEE S.C. 299 U.S. 201. 

PER CURIAM. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RECOVER COMPENSATION FOR THE USE AND
MANUFACTURE BY AND FOR THE UNITED STATES OF A DEVICE ALLEGED TO BE
COVERED BY RESPONDENT'S PATENT NO. 1,115,795 FOR AN INVENTION FOR THE
CONTROL OF THE EQUILIBRIUM OF AIRPLANES.  ON THE FIRST HEARING, THE
COURT OF CLAIMS MADE SPECIAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECIDED AS A
CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT RESPONDENT'S PATENT WAS VALID AND HAD BEEN
INFRINGED BY THE UNITED STATES AND THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION.  JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.  81 CT. CLS. 785.  ON
REVIEW BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI, THIS COURT HELD THAT VALIDITY AND
INFRINGEMENT WERE ULTIMATE FACTS TO BE FOUND BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS
AND, AS THESE FACTS HAD NOT BEEN FOUND, THE JUDGMENT WAS VACATED AND
THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO FIND
SPECIFICALLY WHETHER RESPONDENT'S PATENT WAS VALID AND, IF SO, WHETHER
IT HAD BEEN INFRINGED.  UNITED STATES V. ESNAULT-PELTERIE, 299 U.S.
201. 

THE PARTIES THEN MOVED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
AND THAT COURT AMENDED ITS SPECIAL FINDINGS BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT: 

"XLVIII.  CLAIMS 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9 OF THE ESNAULT-PELTERIE PATENT
IN SUIT ARE VALID. 

"XLIX.  THE THREE ALLEGED INFRINGING AIRPLANES OF THE DEFENDANT ALL
POSSESS THE SINGLE VERTICAL LEVER MOVABLE IN EVERY DIRECTION FOR
CONTROLLING THE LATERAL OR LONGITUDINAL EQUILIBRIUM OF THE AIRPLANE,
CONNECTED TO EQUIVALENT CONTROLLING SURFACES HAVING THE SAME FUNCTIONAL
EFFECTS AS THOSE DISCLOSED IN THE PATENT. 

"CLAIMS 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 9 OF THE ESNAULT-PELTERIE PATENT IN SUIT
ARE INFRINGED BY DEFENDANT." 

THE COURT THEN ENTERED AN INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT HOLDING RESPONDENT
ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AND DIRECTING THAT THE COURT'S PREVIOUS
FINDINGS, AS AMENDED, TOGETHER WITH ITS OPINION AS THERETOFORE
ANNOUNCED, SHOULD STAND.  84 CT. CLS. 625.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT BE SUED FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT.  CROZIER V. KRUPP, 224 U.S. 290.  THE
CONGRESS HAS DETERMINED THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES
CONSENTS TO BE SUED.  BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE CONGRESS HAS PERMITTED
SUIT TO BE BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR REASONABLE COMPENSATION
FOR THE INFRINGING USE OR MANUFACTURE.  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, 36 STAT.
251, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF JULY 1, 1918, 40 STAT. 705.  35 U.S.C. 68. 
REVIEW BY THIS COURT OF THE JUDGMENT IN SUCH A SUIT IS THUS SUBJECT TO
THE RULES WHICH HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENTS
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  THAT REVIEW IS LIMITED TO QUESTIONS OF LAW. 

THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, C. 92, 12 STAT. 765, PROVIDING FOR SUITS
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, AUTHORIZED APPEALS TO
THIS COURT UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THIS COURT SHOULD DIRECT.  SEE,
ALSO, ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, C. 359, SEC. 4, 24 STAT. 505, 506.  28
U.S.C. 761.  THE RULES FIRST ADOPTED PROVIDED FOR THE FINDING OF THE
FACTS BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS AND DIRECTED THAT "THE FACTS SO FOUND ARE
TO BE THE ULTIMATE FACTS OR PROPOSITIONS WHICH THE EVIDENCE SHALL
ESTABLISH, IN THE NATURE OF A SPECIAL VERDICT, AND NOT THE EVIDENCE ON
WHICH THE ULTIMATE FACTS ARE FOUNDED."  RULE 1, 3 WALL.  VII.  THE
PRESENT RULE, UNDER SEC. 3(B) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, C. 229,
43 STAT. 936, GOVERNING REVIEW UPON CERTIORARI, IS TO THE SAME EFFECT. 
RULE 41, PAR. 3.  THIS ESTABLISHED PRACTICE WAS THUS DESCRIBED IN
LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 533, 538, 539: 

"THIS COURT UNIFORMLY HAS REGARDED THE LEGISLATION AND RULES AS
CONFINING THE REVIEW TO QUESTIONS OF LAW SHOWN BY THE RECORD WHEN MADE
UP AS THE RULES DIRECT.  BILLS OF EXCEPTION ARE NOT RECOGNIZED IN
EITHER THE LEGISLATION OR THE RULES; NOR IS THERE OTHER PROVISION FOR
BRINGING THE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD OR INCLUDING THEREIN THE VARIOUS
RULINGS INVOLVED IN APPLYING TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THE RULES WHICH
MARK THE LINE BETWEEN WHAT PROPERLY MAY BE CONSIDERED AND WHAT MUST BE
REJECTED.  AS LONG AGO AS MAHAN V. UNITED STATES, 14 WALL.  109, 111,
THIS COURT SAID OF THE RULES THAT THEY COULD NOT BE EXAMINED 'WITHOUT
SEEING THAT THE PURPOSE WAS TO BRING NOTHING HERE FOR REVIEW BUT
QUESTIONS OF LAW, LEAVING THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO EXERCISE THE FUNCTIONS
OF A JURY IN FINDING FACTS, EQUIVALENT TO A SPECIAL VERDICT AND WITH
LIKE EFFECT.'"  FN1 

IN A PATENT CASE IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER THE ACT OF 1910 THE
QUESTIONS OF VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT.  WE HAVE
SAID THAT, FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR REVIEW IN SUCH A CASE, THE FINDINGS
OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS "ARE TO BE TREATED LIKE THE VERDICT OF A JURY,
AND WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO REFER TO THE EVIDENCE, ANY MORE THAN TO
THE OPINION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EKING OUT, CONTROLLING, OR MODIFYING
THEIR SCOPE."  BROTHERS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 88, 93; STILZ V.
UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 144, 147, 148; UNITED STATES V. ESNAULT
PELTERIE, SUPRA.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE COURT OF CLAIMS SHOULD FIND
THE ULTIMATE FACTS WHICH ARE CONTROLLING PLACES UPON THAT COURT THE
DUTY OF RESOLVING CONFLICTING INFERENCES AND TO DRAW FROM THE EVIDENCE
THE NECESSARY CONCLUSIONS OF FACT.  UNITED STATES V. ADAMS, 6 WALL. 
101, 112.  EVEN THOUGH THE FINDING DETERMINES A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW
AND FACT, THE FINDING IS CONCLUSIVE UNLESS THE COURT IS ABLE "TO SO
SEPARATE THE QUESTION AS TO SEE CLEARLY WHAT AND WHERE THE MISTAKE OF
LAW IS."  ROSS V. DAY, 232 U.S. 110, 117; UNITED STATES V. OMAHA
INDIANS, 253 U.S. 275, 281; STILZ V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED
STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 270 U.S. 124, 138. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS POINTED OUT IN OUR PREVIOUS OPINION, THERE
ARE 47 FINDINGS OF FACT PRECEDING THE FINDINGS OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS,
AS NOW MADE, AND BY REFERENCE THERE ARE INCLUDED 28 EXHIBITS ON 266
PAGES.  THESE REFERENCES COVER A NUMBER OF PATENTS CLAIMED TO BE IN
ANALOGOUS ARTS.  FROM THESE, THE GOVERNMENT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
DEVICE IN QUESTION WAS NOT PATENTABLE OVER PRIOR DISCLOSURES.  BUT THIS
IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS PRESENTED IN ITS FINDINGS
ALL THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE ULTIMATE FACTS ARE BASED SO THAT IT
APPEARS ON THE FACE OF THE FINDINGS THAT THE JUDGMENT IS NECESSARILY
WRONG AS MATTER OF LAW.  UNITED STATES V. CLARK, 96 U.S. 37, 40.  CF.
UNITED STATES V. BERDAN FIRE-ARMS CO., 156 U.S. 552, 573; STONE V.
UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 380, 383.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS
CONTAINS AN ELABORATE REVIEW OF THE PATENTS TO WHICH REFERENCE IS MADE,
AND IT DISCLOSES THAT THERE WAS "CONSIDERABLE CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY"
BY THE VARIOUS EXPERTS FOR THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT.  THAT
TESTIMONY IS NOT HERE, AND WOULD NOT APPROPRIATELY FORM PART OF THE
RECORD BROUGHT TO THIS COURT, AS IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE COURT BELOW,
AND IS NOT OURS, TO DEAL WITH THE CONFLICTS OF STATEMENT OR INFERENCES
TO WHICH IT MIGHT GIVE RISE.  WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE RULE THAT
WHERE, WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT, IT APPEARS THAT NO
SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE OF FACT IS PRESENTED, AND THAT THE CASE MAY BE
DETERMINED BY A MERE COMPARISON OF STRUCTURES AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE IS
NOT NEEDED FOR PURPOSES OF EXPLANATION, OR EVALUATION OF PRIOR ART, OR
TO RESOLVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICATION OF DESCRIPTIONS TO SUBJECT
MATTER, THE QUESTIONS OF INVENTION AND INFRINGEMENT MAY BE DETERMINED
AS QUESTIONS OF LAW.  HEALD V. RICE, 104 U.S. 737, 749; SINGER MFG. CO.
V. CRAMER, 192 U.S. 265, 275; SANITARY REFRIGERATOR CO. V. WINTERS, 280
U.S. 30, 36.  BUT WE DO NOT THINK THAT RULE IS APPLICABLE WHERE WE ARE
UNABLE TO EXAMINE THE TESTIMONY WHICH WAS HEARD BY THE COURT BELOW AND
WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT WAS OF NO IMPORTANCE OR DETERMINE ITS VALUE IN
THE LIGHT OF THE DISPUTES REVEALED.  WE SHOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN
TAKING UP THE PATENTS SET FORTH IN THE FINDINGS AND, IN THE ABSENCE OF
THE EXPLANATORY AND CONSTRUING TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERT WITNESSES WITH
RESPECT TO THE PERTINENT FACT SITUATIONS, IN ATTEMPTING TO PASS UPON
THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS, WHETHER OF A SCIENTIFIC NATURE OR OTHERWISE,
THAT ARE INVOLVED AND UPON SUCH A NECESSARILY LIMITED CONSIDERATION IN
OVERRULING THE CONCLUSIONS OF FACT REACHED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS UPON
THE ENTIRE RECORD.  CF. BISCHOFF V. WETHERED, 9 WALL.  812, 815, 816;
ROYER V. SCHULTZ BELTING CO., 135 U.S. 319, 325; ST. PAUL PLOW WORKS V.
STARLING, 140 U.S. 184, 196, 197; COUPE V. ROYER, 155 U.S. 565, 577
580. 

WE MAY, OF COURSE, INQUIRE WHETHER THE SUBORDINATE OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL
FINDINGS MADE BY THE COURT BELOW NECESSARILY OVERRIDE ITS ULTIMATE
FINDINGS OF FACT AND SHOW THAT THE JUDGMENT IN POINT OF LAW IS NOT
SUSTAINABLE.  BUT WE HAVE NO SUCH CASE HERE.  NOR IS THE CASE LIKE THAT
OF A REVIEW BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF DECISIONS OF BOARDS, SUCH
AS THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS BEFORE THE APPELLATE
COURT AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BEFORE
THE BOARD TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS MADE.  CF. PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER,
283 U.S. 589, 600; HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131; HELVERING V.
TEX-PENN CO., 300 U.S. 481, 491.  WE MUST TAKE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS
MADE BELOW.  IF, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SUBORDINATE FINDINGS HAD
REQUIRED A DECREE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT THE CASE WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN REMANDED.  UNITED STATES V. ESNAULT-PELTERIE, SUPRA, P. 206;
BOTANY MILLS V. UNITED STATES, 278 U.S. 282, 290; UNITED STATES V.
WELLS, 283 U.S. 102, 120.  AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ULTIMATE
FINDINGS, NOW MADE, AS TO VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT ARE NECESSARILY
OVERBORNE BY THE SUBORDINATE FINDINGS. 

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS PRECLUDED FROM OBTAINING THE SORT
OF REVIEW WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE IN THIS COURT, WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT
BETWEEN CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AS TO VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT OF
PATENTS, AND THE QUESTIONS ARE SUBMITTED UPON THE EVIDENCE TAKEN IN THE
DISTRICT COURT, IS UNAVAILING, FOR THE RESULT IS DUE TO THE PROCEDURE
WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE CONGRESS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1 SEE, ALSO, UNITED STATES V. SMITH, 94 U.S. 214; STONE V. UNITED
STATES, 164 U.S. 380, 383; COLLIER V. UNITED STATES, 173 U.S. 79;
CROCKER V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 74; NILES BEMENT POND CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 281 U.S. 357, 360. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS DO NOT SHOW
INFRINGEMENT OF ANY VALID PATENT; OR THAT APPELLEE INVENTED EITHER A
VERTICAL LEVER OR A UNIVERSAL JOINT OR THE COMBINED USE OF A VERTICAL
LEVER AND A UNIVERSAL JOINT TO CONTROL AIR PLANES OR MACHINERY; HE
BELIEVES THE FINDINGS SHOW THAT SUCH MEANS OF CONTROL WERE IN GENERAL
USE LONG BEFORE APPELLEE - FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION
FOR A PATENT - FILED AN AMENDMENT ASSERTING THIS CLAIM.  FOR THESE
REASONS HE BELIEVES THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





LONERGAN V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 33 


NO. 121.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 88
F.(2D) 591, REVERSED. 


AN APPELLANT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS A RIGHT TO RELY UPON
THE RULES OF THAT COURT, PROPERLY CONSTRUED, WHICH GOVERN HIS
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR, AND CAN NOT BE PREJUDICED BY ADDITIONS TO THE
REQUIREMENTS MADE BY AMENDMENT OF THE RULES BETWEEN THE APPEAL AND THE
DECISION OF THE CASE.  P. 35. 

RULE 11 OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, BEFORE
ITS RECENT AMENDMENT, PROVIDED:  "WHEN THE ERROR ALLEGED IS TO THE
ADMISSION OR THE REJECTION OF EVIDENCE THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS SHALL
QUOTE THE FULL SUBSTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED OR REJECTED."  HELD
THAT IT WAS SATISFIED BY SOME, IF NOT ALL, OF 28 ASSIGNMENTS WHICH THAT
COURT REJECTED IN THIS CASE. 

LONERGAN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 663, TO REVIEW AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION IN A
CRIMINAL CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, THE PETITIONER
WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SEC. 215 CRIMINAL CODE; 18 U.S.C. 338, BY
USING THE MAILS FOR FRAUDULENT PURPOSES.  HE APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT, AND FILED - AUGUST 14, 1936 - FORTY
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.  THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED MARCH 6,
1937, UPON AN OPINION, 88 F.(2D) 591, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, STATES
- 

"TWENTY-EIGHT ASSIGNMENTS (NUMBERED 5, 9 TO 25, INCLUSIVE, AND 31 TO
40, INCLUSIVE) ARE TO THE ADMISSION OF AND REFUSAL TO STRIKE OUT
EVIDENCE.  THE ASSIGNMENTS DO NOT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THIS EVIDENCE
WAS OBJECTED TO IN THE TRIAL COURT.  THEY DO NOT STATE WHAT OBJECTIONS,
IF ANY, WERE MADE, NOR THE GROUNDS THEREOF, NOR THE GROUNDS, IF ANY, ON
WHICH APPELLANT MOVED TO STRIKE OUT THE EVIDENCE.  SUCH ASSIGNMENTS DO
NOT CONFORM TO OUR RULE 11 AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.  CODY V. UNITED
STATES (C.C.A. 9), 73 F.(2D) 180, 184; GOLDSTEIN V. UNITED STATES
(C.C.A. 9), 73 F.(2D) 804, 806." 

THIS RULING WE THINK WAS ERROR.  THROUGH WRONGFUL INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION OF THE RULE PETITIONER WAS DENIED A PROPER HEARING. 

AT THE DATE OF THE APPEAL THE PERTINENT PORTION OF RULE 11 READ AS
FOLLOWS - "WHEN THE ERROR ALLEGED IS TO THE ADMISSION OR THE REJECTION
OF EVIDENCE THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS SHALL QUOTE THE FULL SUBSTANCE OF
THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED OR REJECTED." 

CONCERNING THIS PROVISION, THE OPINION IN GOLDSTEIN V. UNITED STATES,
(1934) 73 F.(2D) 804, 806, DECLARED - "THE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR MUST NOT
ONLY QUOTE 'THE FULL SUBSTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED OR REJECTED,'
BUT IT MUST ALSO STATE THE ERROR ASSERTED AND INTENDED TO BE URGED. 
THIS REQUIRES THAT THE OBJECTION AND RULING OF THE COURT UPON THE
OBJECTION AND THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULING BE INCORPORATED IN THE
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR."  ADHERING TO THIS INTERPRETATION, THE COURT
PERSISTENTLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER ASSIGNMENTS DEEMED NOT IN CONFORMITY
THEREWITH. 

BETWEEN THE APPEAL AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE OPINION UNDER
CONSIDERATION, RULE 11 WAS AMENDED SO AS TO PROVIDE - "WHEN THE ERROR
ALLEGED IS TO THE ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE THE ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR SHALL QUOTE THE GROUND URGED AT THE TRIAL FOR THE OBJECTION AND
THE EXCEPTION TAKEN AND THE FULL SUBSTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED OR
REJECTED." 

MANIFESTLY PETITIONER HAD THE RIGHT TO RELY UPON THE RULE, PROPERLY
CONSTRUED, AS IT STOOD AT THE TIME OF HIS APPEAL - BEFORE THE
AMENDMENT.  AND IF ANALYSIS OF ONE OF THE REJECTED ASSIGNMENTS
DISCLOSES SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, THE CAUSE MUST GO BACK FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD. 

LITIGANTS MAY NOT BE DEPRIVED OF A HEARING UPON THEIR POINTS BY
WRONGFUL CONSTRUCTION OF RULES NOR BY THEIR ARBITRARY APPLICATION.  AN
UNWARRANTED CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 11;
PROPERLY INTERPRETED, IT DID NOT REQUIRE PETITIONER TO DO ALL THE
THINGS SPECIFIED BY THE AMENDMENT. 

THE SUBSTANCE OF ASSIGNMENT NO. XVI FOLLOWS - 

"THE COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE, AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO STRIKE, TO WHICH EXCEPTIONS WERE TAKEN AND ALLOWED,
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 75, BEING A LETTER ON THE LETTERHEAD OF BATTLE,
HULBERT, HELSELL & BETTENS, AS FOLLOWS:"  (THIS LETTER - A LONG ONE -
DATED AUGUST 17, 1934, ADDRESSED TO PETITIONER AND SIGNED BATTLE,
HULBERT, HELSELL & BETTENS, BY JOSEPH E. GANDY, IS SET OUT IN FULL.  IT
STATES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT CERTAIN "ALLEGATIONS AND PERSUASIONS"
MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO ONE ATWOOD "WERE OBVIOUSLY FRAUDULENTLY MADE"
AND THAT ONE "ATWOOD WAS DEFRAUDED BY THE MISREPRESENTATIONS," ETC.) 

"THE TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF ITS ADMISSION GIVEN BY WITNESSES A.M.
ATWOOD AND JOSEPH GANDY, IS SUBSTANTIALLY AS FOLLOWS."  (HERE FOLLOWS A
RESUME OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THESE WITNESSES.) 

"THE REASONS SUCH EXHIBIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, AND THAT IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN STRICKEN, ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

"1.  IT WAS HEARSAY EVIDENCE, CONTAINED CONCLUSIONS OF THIRD PARTIES,
AND HAPPENED SUBSEQUENT TO THE TERMINATION OF THE ALLEGED PLAN. 

"2.  IT WAS A SELF SERVING STATEMENT OF A THIRD PARTY MAKING THE
STATEMENTS THEREIN CONTAINED. 

"3.  IT WAS HIGHLY INCOMPETENT, IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, AND IN ITS
NATURE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT.  ITS ADMISSION WAS NOT
NECESSARY TO CLARIFY 76-A AND IT WAS NOT RELATED TO 76-B." 

WE THINK THIS ASSIGNMENT ADEQUATELY MET THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS
OF RULE 11.  CLEARLY, IT QUOTED THE FULL SUBSTANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
ADMITTED AND WAS DEFINITE ENOUGH TO ENABLE BOTH COURT AND OPPOSING
COUNSEL READILY TO PERCEIVE THE POINT INTENDED TO BE RELIED ON.
SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. V. WATSON, 287 U.S. 86, 91. 

OTHER ASSIGNMENTS ALSO SEEM SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND FORMAL TO
DEMAND CONSIDERATION.  WE DO NOT PASS UPON THE MERITS OF ANY ASSIGNMENT
AND DECIDE ONLY THAT SOME, IF NOT ALL, OF THEM WERE IMPROPERLY
REJECTED. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED.  THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN HARMONY WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











MUNRO V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 36 


NO. 218.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 7, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 614, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER ON A WAR RISK INSURANCE
POLICY, THE PROCEDURE IN WHICH IS THE SAME AS THAT PROVIDED IN SECS. 5
AND 6 OF THE TUCKER ACT, WAS NOT BROUGHT IN TIME TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS WHERE THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE
COURT BEFORE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED.  P. 39. 

TO COMMENCE THE SUIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECS. 5 AND 6 OF THE TUCKER
ACT, IT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO SERVE A COPY OF THE SUMMONS UPON THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND MAIL ANOTHER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

2.  SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CAN BE MAINTAINED ONLY BY
PERMISSION, IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED AND SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS
IMPOSED.  THE CONFORMITY ACT CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO CHANGE ANY OF
THESE.  P. 41. 

3.  A DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS NO POWER TO WAIVE CONDITIONS OR
LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY STATUTE IN RESPECT OF SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES.  ID. 

MUNRO V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 668, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN A SUIT ON A WAR RISK INSURANCE CLAIM. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BECAUSE OF CONFLICTING VIEWS IN THE LOWER
COURTS. 

CLAIMING TO BE PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED, PETITIONER
INSTITUTED AN ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, TO RECOVER UNDER A WAR RISK INSURANCE POLICY.  HE
WAS HONORABLY DISCHARGED IN 1919. 

BEFORE THE CAUSE CAME ON FOR TRIAL RESPONDENT MOVED FOR DISMISSAL
BECAUSE THE ACTION WAS NOT BROUGHT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY SEC.
19, WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT 1924, AS AMENDED BY ACT JULY 3, 1930, 46
STAT. 992, COPIED IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  THIS MOTION WAS OVERRULED. 
WHETHER PROPERLY SO, IS THE MATTER FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. 

BY CONCESSION IT WAS NECESSARY TO BRING SUIT NOT LATER THAN JULY 1,
1933. 

MARCH 16, 1933, A PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS WAS FILED WITH THE
CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT; ON THE SAME DAY COPY OF THE SUMMONS WAS
SERVED UPON THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN BUFFALO AND ANOTHER MAILED TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT WASHINGTON; NO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WAS SERVED
UPON THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNTIL JULY 26, 1933; THE ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT WAS NOT FILED WITH THE CLERK UNTIL APRIL 23, 1936. 

FEBRUARY 15, 1934, THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FILED AN ANSWER WITHOUT
QUESTIONING THE TIMELINESS OF THE SUIT; A YEAR LATER HE MOVED TO
DISMISS.  THE CAUSE WAS HEARD IN APRIL, 1936; JUDGMENT WENT FOR THE
ASSURED JULY 29, 1936. 

IN FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROCEDURE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL ACTED
UPON INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, WHO
DECLARED THAT SERVICE OF SUMMONS WOULD SUFFICE TO GIVE JURISDICTION AND
TOLL THE STATUTE; THAT COMPLAINT MIGHT BE SERVED THEREAFTER. 

TWO POINTS ARE PRESENTED.  DID PROCURING THE SUMMONS, SERVING ONE
COPY ON THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND SENDING ANOTHER TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL BEGIN THE SUIT WITHIN THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE?  IF NOT,
DO THE CIRCUMSTANCES ESTABLISH WAIVER OF THE DEFENSE THAT SUIT WAS OUT
OF TIME. 

BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH
THE CLAIMANT RESIDES.  ALSO DIRECTS, "THE PROCEDURE IN SUCH SUITS SHALL
BE THE SAME AS THAT PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6" (SECS. 762 AND 763,
TITLE 28, U.S.C.)  OF THE TUCKER ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887, "AND SECTION 10
THEREOF (SEC. 765, TITLE 28, U.S.C.)  INSOFAR AS APPLICABLE."  SEC. 5
OF THE TUCKER ACT PROVIDES THAT THE PLAINTIFF "SHALL FILE A PETITION"
WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT, CONTAINING A SUCCINCT STATEMENT OF THE
FACTS UPON WHICH THE CLAIM IS BASED; SEC. 6 THAT HE SHALL CAUSE ONE
COPY OF THIS TO BE SERVED UPON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND MAIL ANOTHER
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH
PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1933. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE SUIT WAS NOT BROUGHT IN TIME TO
TOLL THE STATUTE, AND WITH THIS CONCLUSION WE AGREE.  THE OPINION THERE
ADEQUATELY REFERS TO THE SUNDRY OPINIONS WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THE
SUBJECT, DISCLOSES THE CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES AND REASONS FOR THE
JUDGMENT. 

AFFIRMATION HERE, UPON AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES V. LARKIN, 208 U.S.
333, OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT IN UNITED STATES V. MILL CREEK,
ETC., AND TWO SIMILAR CAUSES (NOS. 103, 104, 105, OCT. TERM 1919), 251
U.S. 539, CANNOT PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS AUTHORITY FOR A VIEW CONTRARY
TO THE ONE WE NOW APPROVE.  THOSE CAUSES CAME UP UNDER A STATUTE WHICH
PERMITTED DIRECT APPEALS FROM DISTRICT COURTS SOLELY UPON QUESTIONS OF
JURISDICTION.  WE DETERMINED ONLY THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER TO
HEAR AND RULE UPON THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO IT - AMONG THEM WHETHER
THE SUITS WERE BROUGHT IN TIME.  THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY -
WHETHER IN REALITY THE SUITS WERE IN TIME - WE DID NOT CONSIDER. 
EXAMINATION OF THE OPINION IN LARKIN'S CASE AND THE STATUTE THEN IN
FORCE WILL MAKE THIS CLEAR ENOUGH. 

SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES CAN BE MAINTAINED ONLY BY PERMISSION,
IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED AND SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED.  REID
V. UNITED STATES, 211 U.S. 529, 538.  THE CONFORMITY ACT CANNOT BE
RELIED UPON TO CHANGE ANY OF THESE. 

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAD NO POWER TO WAIVE CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS
IMPOSED BY STATUTE IN RESPECT OF SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  FINN
V. UNITED STATES, 123 U.S. 227, 233.  JUDGMENT AGAINST THEM IS NOT
PERMISSIBLE IF FIRST SOUGHT AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TIME ALLOWED. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1 ACT OF JULY 3, 1930, C. 849, 46 STAT. 992. 

"SEC. 19.  IN THE EVENT OF DISAGREEMENT AS TO CLAIM, INCLUDING CLAIM
FOR REFUND OF PREMIUMS, UNDER A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE BETWEEN THE
BUREAU AND ANY PERSON OR PERSONS CLAIMING THEREUNDER AN ACTION ON THE
CLAIM MAY BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES EITHER IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH SUCH PERSONS OR ANY ONE
OF THEM RESIDES, AND JURISDICTION IS HEREBY CONFERRED UPON SUCH COURTS
TO HEAR AND DETERMINE ALL SUCH CONTROVERSIES.  THE PROCEDURE IN SUCH
SUITS SHALL BE THE SAME AS THAT PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE ACT
ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE BRINGING OF SUITS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,' APPROVED MARCH 3, 1887, AND SECTION
10 THEREOF SO FAR AS APPLICABLE.... 

"NO SUIT ON YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER
THIS SECTION UNLESS THE SAME SHALL HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN SIX YEARS
AFTER THE RIGHT ACCRUED FOR WHICH THE CLAIM IS MADE OR WITHIN ONE YEAR
AFTER THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDATORY ACT, WHICHEVER IS THE
LATER DATE, AND NO SUIT ON UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LIFE (CONVERTED)
INSURANCE SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS SECTION UNLESS THE SAME SHALL
HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN SIX YEARS AFTER THE RIGHT ACCRUED FOR WHICH
THE CLAIM IS MADE; PROVIDED, THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION IT
SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE RIGHT ACCRUED ON THE HAPPENING OF THE
CONTINGENCY ON WHICH THE CLAIM IS FOUNDED:  PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THIS
LIMITATION IS SUSPENDED FOR THE PERIOD ELAPSING BETWEEN THE FILING IN
THE BUREAU OF THE CLAIM SUED UPON AND THE DENIAL OF SAID CLAIM BY THE
DIRECTOR...." 

TUCKER ACT, MARCH 3, 1887, C. 359, 24 STAT. 506. 

SEC. 5; U.S.C., TITLE 28, SEC. 762. 

"PETITION IN SUIT AGAINST UNITED STATES.  THE PLAINTIFF IN ANY SUIT
BROUGHT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41, PARAGRAPH 20, OF THIS TITLE
SHALL FILE A PETITION, DULY VERIFIED WITH THE CLERK OF THE RESPECTIVE
COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF THE CASE, AND IN THE DISTRICT WHERE THE
PLAINTIFF RESIDES.  SUCH PETITION SHALL SET FORTH THE FULL NAME AND
RESIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE NATURE OF HIS CLAIM, AND A SUCCINCT
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE CLAIM IS BASED, THE MONEY OR ANY
OTHER THING CLAIMED, OR THE DAMAGES SOUGHT TO BE RECOVERED AND PRAYING
THE COURT FOR A JUDGMENT OR DECREE UPON THE FACTS AND LAW." 

SEC. 6; U.S.C., TITLE 28, SEC. 763. 

"SERVICE; APPEARANCE BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.  THE PLAINTIFF SHALL CAUSE
A COPY OF HIS PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 762 OF THIS TITLE, TO BE
SERVED UPON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT
WHEREIN SUIT IS BROUGHT, AND SHALL MAIL A COPY OF THE SAME, BY
REGISTERED LETTER, TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
SHALL THEREUPON CAUSE TO BE FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT WHEREIN
SUIT IS INSTITUTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SUCH SERVICE AND THE MAILING OF SUCH
LETTER.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY UPON WHOM
SERVICE OF PETITION IS MADE AS AFORESAID TO APPEAR AND DEFEND THE
INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUIT, AND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER
THE SERVICE OF PETITION UPON HIM, UNLESS THE TIME SHOULD BE EXTENDED BY
ORDER OF THE COURT MADE IN THE CASE TO FILE A PLEA, ANSWER, OR DEMURRER
ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT,  ..." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :






MYERS V. BETHLEHEM CORP., 303 U.S. 41 


NO. 181.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 88
F.(2D) 154 -  89 ID. 1000, REVERSED. 


1.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, UPON A CHARGE MADE TO IT,
ISSUED A COMPLAINT AGAINST A CORPORATION ENGAGED, AT THE PLANT
INVOLVED, IN THE BUILDING AND SALE OF SHIPS, BOATS AND MARINE
EQUIPMENT.  THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT THE CORPORATION DOMINATED AND
INTERFERED, IN A MANNER DESCRIBED, WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, AND WAS THUS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF JULY
5, 1935.  THE CORPORATION WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF A HEARING TO BE HAD UPON
THE COMPLAINT.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OF A SUIT BY THE
CORPORATION TO ENJOIN THE BOARD FROM HOLDING THE HEARING.  P. 47. 

THE BILL ALLEGED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AT THE PLANT
AFFECTED, AND THE SALE OF ITS PRODUCTS, WERE NOT IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE; THAT THE HOLDING OF THE HEARINGS WOULD BE FUTILE AND
WOULD IRREPARABLY DAMAGE THE COMPANY, BY EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE,
IMPAIRMENT OF THE GOOD WILL AND HARMONIOUS RELATIONS EXISTING BETWEEN
IT AND ITS EMPLOYEES, AND LOWERED EFFICIENCY OF ITS OPERATIONS. 

(2)  THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OF A SUIT BY
EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION WHO WERE OFFICERS OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION
AT THE PLANT, TO ENJOIN THE BOARD FROM HOLDING THE HEARING, - THE BILL
IN THIS CASE ALLEGING FURTHER THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE SATISFIED WITH
THEIR EXISTING CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT AND DESIRE TO RETAIN THE
EXISTING PLAN OF REPRESENTATION WITHOUT CHANGE; THAT THE HOLDING OF THE
PROPOSED HEARING WILL DISCREDIT THE PLAN AND DESTROY ITS USEFULNESS TO
THE EMPLOYEES; THAT THEY WILL BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE
BY THE METHOD OF THEIR CHOICE, THE VALUE OF WHICH HAS BEEN PROVED BY
YEARS OF OPERATION; THAT ALTERATION OF THE PLAN WILL CAUSE
DISSATISFACTION AMONG THE EMPLOYEES; THAT OPERATION OF PLANT WILL BE
DISRUPTED BY LABOR DISTURBANCES; THAT EMPLOYMENT WILL BE INTERRUPTED;
AND THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE EMPLOYEES WILL BE IRREPARABLE.  P. 53. 

2.  IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE LABOR BOARD AND AN ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY, THROUGH REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, TO SECURE
JUDICIAL PROTECTION AGAINST POSSIBLE ILLEGAL ACTION BY THE BOARD; AND
THE GRANT TO THE BOARD AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION "TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE AFFECTING COMMERCE" IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  P. 48. 

3.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO
ENJOIN THE HOLDING OF A HEARING BY THE LABOR BOARD, EVEN THOUGH IT BE
CLAIMED THAT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS NOT INVOLVED AND THAT
THE HOLDING OF A HEARING WOULD CAUSE IRREPARABLE INJURY, DOES NOT DENY
ANY RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 50. 

4.  THE RULE REQUIRING EXHAUSTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY CAN
NOT BE CIRCUMVENTED BY A CLAIM THAT THE CHARGE ON WHICH THE COMPLAINT
RESTS IS GROUNDLESS AND THAT THE MERE HOLDING OF THE PRESCRIBED
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING WOULD RESULT IN IRREPARABLE DAMAGE.  P. 51. 

5.  THE GENERAL RULE THAT THE DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT GRANTING OR
DENYING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WILL NOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL, HAS
NO APPLICATION WHERE THERE IS AN INSUPERABLE OBJECTION IN POINT OF
JURISDICTION TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT AND WHERE IT CLEARLY
APPEARS THAT THE DECREE WAS THE RESULT OF AN IMPROVIDENT EXERCISE OF
JUDICIAL POWER.  IN SUCH CASE, DISMISSAL OF THE BILL SHOULD BE
DIRECTED.  P. 52. 

MYERS ET AL. V. BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 182, MYERS ET AL. V. MACKENZIE ET AL., ALSO ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 667, TO REVIEW DECREES AFFIRMING DECREES OF THE
DISTRICT COURT IN TWO CASES, 15 F.SUPP.  915, HEARD TOGETHER BELOW. 
THE DECREES GRANTED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS RESTRAINING THE HOLDING OF
A HEARING BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS
EQUITY JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FROM
HOLDING A HEARING UPON A COMPLAINT FILED BY IT AGAINST AN EMPLOYER
ALLEGED TO BE ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES PROHIBITED BY NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, JULY 5, 1935, C. 372, 49 STAT. 449.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT HELD IN THESE CASES THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT POSSESSES SUCH JURISDICTION; AND GRANTED PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIONS.  EVERY OTHER CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN WHICH THE
QUESTION HAS ARISEN HAS HELD THE CONTRARY.  FN1  BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED, THE CONFLICT IN THE LOWER COURTS
AND ALLEGED CONFLICT WITH OUR OWN DECISIONS, WE GRANTED THESE WRITS OF
CERTIORARI. 

THE DECLARED PURPOSE OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS TO
DIMINISH THE CAUSES OF LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE; AND ITS PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY
TO SUCH COMMERCE.  IN ORDER TO PROTECT IT THE ACT SEEKS TO PROMOTE
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; CONFERS UPON EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN SUCH COMMERCE
THE RIGHT TO FORM, AND JOIN IN, LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; DEFINES ACTS OF AN
EMPLOYER WHICH SHALL BE DEEMED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; AND CONFERS UPON
THE BOARD CERTAIN LIMITED POWERS WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING SUCH
PRACTICES.  IF A CHARGE IS MADE TO THE BOARD THAT A PERSON "HAS ENGAGED
IN OR IS ENGAGING IN ANY  ...  UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE," AND IT APPEARS
THAT A PROCEEDING IN RESPECT THERETO SHOULD BE INSTITUTED, A COMPLAINT
STATING THE CHARGE IS TO BE FILED, AND A HEARING IS TO BE HELD THEREON
UPON NOTICE TO THE PERSON COMPLAINED OF. 

THE INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL NO. 5, MADE TO THE BOARD A CHARGE THAT THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING
CORPORATION, LTD.,  FN2 WAS ENGAGING IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AT ITS
PLANT IN QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR THE PRODUCTION, SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF BOATS, SHIPS, AND MARINE EQUIPMENT.  UPON ON THAT
CHARGE THE BOARD FILED, ON APRIL 13, 1936, A COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE COMPANY DOMINATES AND INTERFERES IN THE
MANNER DESCRIBED "WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS PLAN OF
REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES IN PLANTS OF THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING
CORPORATION, LTD."; THAT SUCH ACTION LEADS TO STRIKES INTERFERING WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; AND THAT "THE AFORESAID ACTS OF RESPONDENT
CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING COMMERCE, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SECTION 8, SUBDIVISIONS (1) AND (2) AND SECTION 2,
SUBDIVISIONS (6) AND (7) OF SAID (NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS) ACT." 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED, SPECIFICALLY: 

"THE RESPONDENT IN THE COURSE AND CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS CAUSES AND
HAS CONTINUOUSLY CAUSED LARGE QUANTITIES OF THE RAW MATERIALS USED IN
THE PRODUCTION OF ITS BOATS, SHIPS AND MARINE EQUIPMENT TO BE PURCHASED
AND TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM AND THROUGH STATES OF THE
UNITED STATES OTHER THAN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE FORE RIVER
PLANT IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND CAUSES AND HAS CONTINUOUSLY
CAUSED THE BOATS, SHIPS AND MARINE EQUIPMENT PRODUCED BY IT TO BE SOLD
AND TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE FORE RIVER PLANT IN THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS TO, INTO AND THROUGH STATES OF THE UNITED STATES
OTHER THAN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, ALL OF THE AFORESAID
CONSTITUTING A CONTINUOUS FLOW OF TRADE, TRAFFIC AND COMMERCE AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES." 

THE BOARD DULY NOTIFIED THE CORPORATION THAT A HEARING ON THE
COMPLAINT WOULD BE HELD ON APRIL 27, 1936, AT BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD, A COPY OF WHICH WAS
ANNEXED TO THE NOTICE; AND THAT THE CORPORATION "WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
APPEAR, IN PERSON OR OTHERWISE, AND GIVE TESTIMONY." 

ON THAT DAY THE CORPORATION FILED, IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR
MASSACHUSETTS, THE BILL IN EQUITY, HEREIN NUMBERED 181, AGAINST A.
HOWARD MYERS, ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST REGION, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, EDMUND J. BLAKE, ITS REGIONAL ATTORNEY FOR THE
FIRST REGION, AND DANIEL M. LYONS, TRIAL EXAMINER, TO ENJOIN THEM FROM
HOLDING "A HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE
PLAINTIFF HAS ENGAGED AT ITS FORE RIVER PLANT IN ANY SO-CALLED UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND FROM HAVING
ANY PROCEEDINGS OR TAKING ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER, AT ANY TIME OR TIMES,
WITH RESPECT THERETO."  THERE WERE PRAYERS FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER, AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND A PERMANENT INJUNCTION; AND, ALSO, A
PRAYER THAT THE COURT DECLARE THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND
"DEFENDANTS' ACTIONS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS THEREUNDER" VIOLATE THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

ON MAY 4, 1936, ANOTHER BILL IN EQUITY, HEREIN NUMBERED 182, AGAINST
THE SAME DEFENDANTS, SEEKING, ON LARGELY THE SAME ALLEGATIONS OF FACT,
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RELIEF, WAS BROUGHT IN THE SAME COURT BY CHARLES
MACKENZIE, JAMES E. MANNING AND THOMAS E. BARKER, EMPLOYEES OF THE
BETHLEHEM CORPORATION AND OFFICERS OF THE SO-CALLED PLAN OF
REPRESENTATION AT THE FORE RIVER PLANT.  FN3 

UPON THE FILING OF EACH BILL, THE DISTRICT COURT ISSUED A RESTRAINING
ORDER AND AN ORDER OF NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SHOULD NOT ISSUE.  IN EACH CASE THE DEFENDANTS FILED A MOTION TO
DISMISS THE BILL OF COMPLAINT AND ALSO A RETURN TO THE ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE.  THE CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER.  IN EACH, THE DISTRICT COURT
ISSUED THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND THE DECREES THEREFOR ARE STILL
IN EFFECT.  THEY WERE AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIRST CIRCUIT ON FEBRUARY 12, 1937.  88 F.(2D) 154.  PETITIONS FOR A
REHEARING, BASED UPON THE CONFLICT WITH THE DECISIONS OF OTHER CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS WERE DENIED.  AND THE COURT DENIED ALSO MOTIONS FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND PETITION FOR REHEARING, BASED UPON THE DECISIONS
OF THIS COURT IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN
STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, AND OTHER CASES RENDERED APRIL 12, 1937.  89
F.(2D) 1000.  THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE
BILLS.  15 F.SUPP.  915.  BUT THE REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DEALT ONLY WITH THE DECREES FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 

THE TWO CASES PRESENT, IN THE MAIN, THE SAME QUESTIONS.  IN
DISCUSSING THEM REFERENCE WILL BE MADE, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, ONLY TO
THE SUIT BROUGHT BY THE CORPORATION. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ENJOIN
THE BOARD FROM HOLDING THE HEARINGS. 

FIRST.  THERE IS NO CLAIM BY THE CORPORATION THAT THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR SUCH HEARINGS ARE
ILLEGAL; OR THAT THE CORPORATION WAS NOT ACCORDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO
ANSWER THE COMPLAINT OF THE BOARD; OR THAT OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE
EVIDENCE ON THE ALLEGATIONS MADE WILL BE DENIED.  THE CLAIM IS THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CORPORATION'S BUSINESS
AT THE FORE RIVER PLANT, BECAUSE THE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED THERE ARE NOT
CARRIED ON, AND THE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED ARE NOT SOLD, IN INTERSTATE
OR FOREIGN COMMERCE; THAT, THEREFORE, THE CORPORATION'S RELATIONS WITH
ITS EMPLOYEES AT THE PLANT CANNOT BURDEN OR INTERFERE WITH SUCH
COMMERCE; THAT HEARINGS WOULD, AT BEST, BE FUTILE; AND THAT THE HOLDING
OF THEM WOULD RESULT IN IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE CORPORATION, NOT ONLY
BY REASON OF THEIR DIRECT COST AND THE LOSS OF TIME OF ITS OFFICIALS
AND EMPLOYEES, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE HEARINGS WOULD CAUSE SERIOUS
IMPAIRMENT OF THE GOOD WILL AND HARMONIOUS RELATIONS EXISTING BETWEEN
THE CORPORATION AND ITS EMPLOYEES, AND THUS SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE
EFFICIENCY OF ITS OPERATIONS.  FN4 

SECOND.  THE DISTRICT COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN
HEARINGS BECAUSE THE POWER "TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY
UNFAIR PRACTICE AFFECTING COMMERCE," HAS BEEN VESTED BY CONGRESS IN THE
BOARD AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AND CONGRESS HAS DECLARED:
"THIS POWER SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE, AND SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY ANY OTHER
MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT OR PREVENTION THAT HAS BEEN OR MAY BE ESTABLISHED
BY AGREEMENT, CODE, LAW, OR OTHERWISE."  FN5  THE GRANT OF THAT
EXCLUSIVE POWER IS CONSTITUTIONAL, BECAUSE THE ACT PROVIDED FOR
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD AND IN THE REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE JUDICIAL PROTECTION
AGAINST POSSIBLE ILLEGAL ACTION ON THE PART OF THE BOARD.  NO POWER TO
ENFORCE AN ORDER IS CONFERRED UPON THE BOARD.  TO SECURE ENFORCEMENT,
THE BOARD MUST APPLY TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR ITS AFFIRMANCE. 
AND UNTIL THE BOARD'S ORDER HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE APPROPRIATE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, NO PENALTY ACCRUES FOR DISOBEYING IT.  THE
INDEPENDENT RIGHT TO APPLY TO A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO HAVE AN
ORDER SET ASIDE IS CONFERRED UPON ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THE PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE BOARD.  THE BOARD IS EVEN WITHOUT POWER TO ENFORCE OBEDIENCE
TO ITS SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY OR TO PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE.  TO ENFORCE
OBEDIENCE IT MUST APPLY TO A DISTRICT COURT; AND TO SUCH AN APPLICATION
APPROPRIATE DEFENCE MAY BE MADE.  FN6 

AS WAS SAID IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN
STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, 46, 47, THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS, "DO NOT
OFFEND AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING THE CREATION
AND ACTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 91.  THE ACT
ESTABLISHES STANDARDS TO WHICH THE BOARD MUST CONFORM.  THERE MUST BE
COMPLAINT, NOTICE AND HEARING.  THE BOARD MUST RECEIVE EVIDENCE AND
MAKE FINDINGS.  THE FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS ARE TO BE CONCLUSIVE, BUT
ONLY IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IS SUBJECT TO
REVIEW BY THE DESIGNATED COURT, AND ONLY WHEN SUSTAINED BY THE COURT
MAY THE ORDER BE ENFORCED.  UPON THAT REVIEW ALL QUESTIONS OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD AND THE REGULARITY OF ITS PROCEEDINGS, ALL
QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR STATUTORY AUTHORITY, ARE OPEN TO
EXAMINATION BY THE COURT.  WE CONSTRUE THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS AS
AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE JUDICIAL PROTECTION AGAINST
ARBITRARY ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELLSETTLED RULES APPLICABLE TO
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES SET UP BY CONGRESS TO AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
VALID LEGISLATION." 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION ONLY IF THE COMPLAINT
CONCERNS INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  UNLESS THE BOARD FINDS THAT
IT DOES, THE COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED.  AND IF IT FINDS THAT
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS INVOLVED, BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS CONCLUDES THAT SUCH FINDING WAS WITHOUT ADEQUATE EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT IT, OR OTHERWISE CONTRARY TO LAW, THE BOARD'S PETITION TO
ENFORCE IT WILL BE DISMISSED, OR THE EMPLOYER'S PETITION TO HAVE IT SET
ASIDE WILL BE GRANTED.  FN7  SINCE THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE BOARD IS
APPROPRIATE AND THE JUDICIAL REVIEW SO PROVIDED IS ADEQUATE, CONGRESS
HAD POWER TO VEST EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN THE BOARD AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  ANNISTON MANUFACTURING CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337,
343-346. 

THIRD.  THE CORPORATION CONTENDS THAT, SINCE IT DENIES THAT
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS INVOLVED AND CLAIMS THAT A HEARING
WOULD SUBJECT IT TO IRREPARABLE DAMAGE, RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WILL BE DENIED UNLESS IT BE HELD THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENJOIN THE HOLDING OF A HEARING BY THE
BOARD.  FN8  SO TO HOLD WOULD, AS THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS, IN EFFECT
SUBSTITUTE THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE BOARD AS THE TRIBUNAL TO HEAR AND
DETERMINE WHAT CONGRESS DECLARED THE BOARD EXCLUSIVELY SHOULD HEAR AND
DETERMINE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  THE CONTENTION IS AT WAR WITH THE
LONG SETTLED RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION THAT NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO
JUDICIAL RELIEF FOR A SUPPOSED OR THREATENED INJURY UNTIL THE
PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED.  FN9  THAT RULE
HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY ACTED ON IN CASES WHERE, AS HERE, THE CONTENTION IS
MADE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY LACKED POWER OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER.  FN10 

OBVIOUSLY, THE RULE REQUIRING EXHAUSTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
CANNOT BE CIRCUMVENTED BY ASSERTING THAT THE CHARGE ON WHICH THE
COMPLAINT RESTS IS GROUNDLESS AND THAT THE MERE HOLDING OF THE
PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING WOULD RESULT IN IRREPARABLE DAMAGE. 
FN11  LAWSUITS ALSO OFTEN PROVE TO HAVE BEEN GROUNDLESS; BUT NO WAY HAS
BEEN DISCOVERED OF RELIEVING A DEFENDANT FROM THE NECESSITY OF A TRIAL
TO ESTABLISH THE FACT. 

FOURTH.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE REVERSED THE
DECREES FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.  IT IS TRUE THAT ORDINARILY THE
DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT GRANTING OR DENYING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
WILL NOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL.  BUT THAT RULE OF PRACTICE HAS NO
APPLICATION WHERE, AS HERE, THERE WAS AN INSUPERABLE OBJECTION TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT IN POINT OF JURISDICTION AND WHERE IT CLEARLY
APPEARS THAT THE DECREE WAS THE RESULT OF AN IMPROVIDENT EXERCISE OF
JUDICIAL DISCRETION.  FN12  SINCE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT HAS
BEEN DETERMINED BY OUR DECISION IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1, AND THE DEFECT IN THE BILL IS
INCAPABLE OF REMEDY BY AMENDMENT, ITS DISMISSAL SHOULD BE DIRECTED. 
FN13    FIFTH.  IN NO. 182, ALSO, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD
HAVE REVERSED THE DECREE FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DIRECTED
DISMISSAL OF THE BILL.  THE PLAINTIFFS, OFFICERS OF THE SO-CALLED PLAN
OF REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES, ALLEGED, IN ADDITION TO THE FACTS
ALREADY STATED, THAT THE EMPLOYEES ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR EXISTING
CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT AND DESIRE TO RETAIN THE EXISTING PLAN WITHOUT
CHANGE; THAT THE HOLDING OF THE PROPOSED HEARING WILL DISCREDIT THE
PLAN AND DESTROY ITS USEFULNESS TO THE EMPLOYEES; THAT THEY WILL BE
DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE BY THE METHOD OF THEIR CHOICE, THE
VALUE OF WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY YEARS OF OPERATION; THAT ALTERATION
OF THE PLAN WILL CAUSE DISSATISFACTION AMONG THE EMPLOYEES; THAT
OPERATION OF PLANT WILL BE DISRUPTED BY LABOR DISTURBANCES; THAT
EMPLOYMENT WILL BE INTERRUPTED; AND THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE EMPLOYEES
WILL BE IRREPARABLE.  THESE ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS FURNISH NO REASON
WHY THE BOARD SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM EXERCISING THE EXCLUSIVE INITIAL
JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON IT BY CONGRESS.  DECREES FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION REVERSED WITH DIRECTION TO DISMISS THE BILLS. 

FN1  E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. V. BOLAND, 85 F.(2D) 12(C.C.A. 2);
NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. V. SCHAUFFLER, 91 F.(2D)
730(C.C.A. 4); BRADLEY LUMBER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 84
F.(2D) 97(C.C.A. 5); CLARK V. LINDEMANN & HOVERSON CO., 88 F.(2D)
59(C.C.A. 7); PRATT V. OBERMAN & CO., 89 F.(2D) 786(C.C.A. 8); HELLER
BROS. CO. V. LIND, 66 APP. D.C. 306; 86 F.(2D) 862; CF. BOWEN V. JAMES
VERNOR CO., 89 F.(2D) 968(C.C.A. 6); CARLISLE LUMBER CO. V. HOPE, 83
F.(2D) 92(C.C.A. 9); LYONS V. EAGLE-PICHER LEAD CO., 90 F.(2D)
321(C.C.A. 10). 

FN2  A DELAWARE CORPORATION, WITH ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT
BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA. 

FN3 A SUBSTITUTED BILL OF COMPLAINT WAS FILED MAY 7, 1936. 

FN4  IT IS ALLEGED THAT IN 1934 AND 1935 THE PREDECESSOR OF THE
PRESENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD INSTITUTED SOMEWHAT SIMILAR
ACTION AGAINST THE CORPORATION.  ALTHOUGH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE
EVENTUALLY DISMISSED, THE HEARINGS CONSUMED A TOTAL OF SOME 2500 HOURS
OF WORKING TIME OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES AND COST THE CORPORATION
MORE THAN $15,000, NONE OF WHICH COULD BE RECOVERED. 

FN5  COMPARE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT, H.R. REP. 1147, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 24:  "ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD
GRANTING OR DENYING IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE RELIEF SOUGHT MAY CLAIM A
REVIEW OF SUCH ORDER IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, OR IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IT IS INTENDED HERE
TO GIVE THE PARTY AGGRIEVED A FULL, EXPEDITIOUS, AND EXCLUSIVE METHOD
OF REVIEW IN ONE PROCEEDING AFTER A FINAL ORDER IS MADE.  UNTIL SUCH
FINAL ORDER IS MADE THE PARTY IS NOT INJURED, AND CANNOT BE HEARD TO
COMPLAIN, AS HAS BEEN HELD IN CASES UNDER THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT." 

FN6  SEE SEC. 11 OF THE ACT AND ARTICLE II, SECS. 20 AND 21, OF THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS ISSUED APRIL 27, 1936.  CF. FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION V. CLAIRE FURNACE CO., 274 U.S. 160; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS
& CO. V. BOLAND, 85 F.(2D) 12(C.C.A. 2). 

FN7  SECTION 10(F) OF THE ACT PROVIDES:  "UPON SUCH FILING, THE COURT
SHALL PROCEED IN THE SAME MANNER AS IN THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION BY
THE BOARD UNDER SUBSECTION (E), AND SHALL HAVE THE SAME EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO GRANT TO THE BOARD SUCH TEMPORARY RELIEF OR RESTRAINING
ORDER AS IT DEEMS JUST AND PROPER, AND IN LIKE MANNER TO MAKE AND ENTER
A DECREE ENFORCING, MODIFYING, AND ENFORCING AS SO MODIFIED, OR SETTING
ASIDE IN WHOLE OR IN PART THE ORDER OF THE BOARD; AND THE FINDINGS OF
THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL IN LIKE
MANNER BE CONCLUSIVE." 

FN8  IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONTENTION THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE CITED:
OHIO VALLEY WATER CO. V. BEN AVON BOROUGH, 253 U.S. 287, 289; BLUEFIELD
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S. 679, 683; PHILLIPS V.
COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 600; CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 60,
64; STATE CORPORATION COMM'N V. WICHITA GAS CO., 290 U.S. 561, 569; ST.
JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 51-52. 

FN9  THE RULE HAS BEEN MOST FREQUENTLY APPLIED IN EQUITY WHERE RELIEF
BY INJUNCTION WAS SOUGHT.  PITTSBURGH &C. RY. V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS,
172 U.S. 32, 44-45; PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE CO., 211 U.S. 210,
230; DALTON ADDING MACHINE CO. V. STATE CORPORATION COMM'N, 236 U.S.
699, 701; GORHAM MFG. CO. V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 266 U.S. 265, 269-70;
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CLAIRE FURNACE CO., 274 U.S. 160, 174; LAWRENCE
V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO., 274 U.S. 588, 592-93; CHICAGO, M.,
ST. P. & P.R. CO. V. RISTY, 276 U.S. 567, 575; ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO
RY. CO. V. ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 279 U.S. 560, 563; PORTER V.
INVESTORS SYNDICATE, 286 U.S. 461, 468, 471; UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS
CENTRAL RY. CO., 291 U.S. 457, 463-64; HEGEMAN FARMS CORP. V. BALDWIN,
293 U.S. 163, 172; CF. RED "C" OIL MFG. CO. V. BOARD OF AGRICULTURE,
222 U.S. 380, 394; FARNCOMB V. DENVER, 252 U.S. 7, 12; MILHEIM V.
MOFFAT TUNNEL DISTRICT, 262 U.S. 710, 723; MCGREGOR V. HOGAN, 263 U.S.
234, 238; WHITE V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 367, 374; PETERSEN BAKING CO. V.
BRYAN, 290 U.S. 570, 575; PACIFIC TEL. & TEL. CO. V. SEATTLE, 291 U.S.
300, 304.  BUT BECAUSE THE RULE IS ONE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION - NOT
MERELY A RULE GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION - IT IS APPLICABLE
TO PROCEEDINGS AT LAW AS WELL AS SUITS IN EQUITY.  CF. FIRST NATIONAL
BANK V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS, 264 U.S. 450, 455; ANNISTON MFG. CO.
V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337, 343. 

FN10  DALTON ADDING MACHINE CO. V. STATE CORPORATION COMM'N, 236 U.S.
699; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. CLAIRE FURNACE CO., 274 U.S. 160; LAWRENCE
V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO., 274 U.S. 588; ST. LOUIS-SAN
FRANCISCO RY. CO. V. ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 279 U.S. 560; CF.
WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 267 U.S.
493, 496, AND CASES CITED IN NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN11  SUCH CONTENTIONS WERE SPECIFICALLY REJECTED IN BRADLEY LUMBER
CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 84 F.(2D) 97(C.C.A. 5); CLARK V.
LINDEMANN & HOVERSON CO., 88 F.(2D) 59(C.C.A. 7); CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
V. FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N, 52 APP. D.C. 40; 280 FED. 45(C.C.A. 8); HELLER
BROS. CO. V. LIND, 66 APP. D.C. 306; 86 F.(2D) 862; AND PITTSBURGH & W.
VA. RY. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 280 FED. 1014(APP.  D.C.). 
CF. UNITED STATES V. LOS ANGELES & S.L.R. CO., 273 U.S. 299, 314;
LAWRENCE V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO., 274 U.S. 588; DALTON
ADDING MACHINE CO. V. STATE CORPORATION COMM'N, 236 U.S. 699; MCCHORD
V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RY. CO., 183 U.S. 483; RICHMOND HOSIERY MILLS
V. CAMP, 74 F.(2D) 200, 201(C.C.A. 5). 

THE CASES CITED BY THE CORPORATION ARE NOT OPPOSED.  WATSON V.
SUTHERLAND, 5 WALL.  74; PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510;
WALLA WALLA V. WALLA WALLA WATER CO., 172 U.S. 1; VICKSBURG WATERWORKS
CO. V. VICKSBURG, 185 U.S. 65, 82; HITCHMAN COAL & COKE CO. V.
MITCHELL, 245 U.S. 229, 248; PENNSYLVANIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 262 U.S.
553, 592, 593; CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. V. SCHNADER, 291 U.S. 24;
TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; TERRACE V. THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197, 215
16. 

FN12  MECCANO LTD. V. JOHN WANAMAKER, 253 U.S. 136, 141; LAWRENCE V.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO., 274 U.S. 588(SEMBLE); CF. PRENDERGAST
V. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., 262 U.S. 43, 50-51; NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE
CO. V. THOMPSON, 281 U.S. 331, 338; ALABAMA V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S.
229, 231; ROGERS V. HILL, 289 U.S. 582, 587. 

FN13  SMITH V. VULCAN IRON WORKS, 165 U.S. 518, 525; MAST, FOOS & CO.
V. STOVER MFG. CO., 177 U.S. 485, 494; METROPOLITAN WATER CO. V. KAW
VALLEY DRAINAGE DIST., 223 U.S. 519, 523; UNITED STATES FIDELITY &
GUARANTY CO. V. BRAY, 225 U.S. 205, 214; DENVER V. NEW YORK TRUST CO.,
229 U.S. 123, 136; CF. IN RE TAMPA SUBURBAN R. CO., 168 U.S. 583, 588;
EX PARTE NATIONAL ENAMELING & STAMPING CO., 201 U.S. 156, 162; MECCANO
LTD. V. JOHN WANAMAKER, 253 U.S. 136, 141. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :











NEWPORT NEWS CO. V. SCHAUFFLER, 303 U.S. 54 


NO. 305.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 91
F.(2D) 730, AFFIRMED. 


1.  BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP. V. MYERS, ANTE, P. 41, FOLLOWED.  P.
57. 

2.  IN A SUIT IN EQUITY TO ENJOIN THE HOLDING OF A HEARING UPON A
COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ALLEGATIONS OF
THE BILL THAT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS NOT INVOLVED ARE
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ARE NOT ADMITTED BY A MOTION TO DISMISS.  P.
57. 

3.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DOES NOT VEST IN THE LABOR BOARD
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO DETERMINE ITS OWN JURISDICTION.  IT CONFERS UPON THE
BOARD EXCLUSIVE INITIAL POWER TO MAKE THE INVESTIGATION, BUT PROVIDES
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  P. 57. 

4.  THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE ACT FOR THE CONTENTION THAT THE DISTRICT
COURT MAY ENTERTAIN A SUIT TO PREVENT THE BOARD FROM CONDUCTING A
PUBLIC INVESTIGATION UNDER SEC. 10 IF THE EMPLOYER CLAIMS THAT IT IS
NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  P. 58. 

5.  A CAUSE IN WHICH EQUITABLE RELIEF WAS SOUGHT TO PREVENT INJURY
WHICH ALLEGEDLY WOULD RESULT FROM THE HOLDING OF A HEARING BY THE LABOR
BOARD CAN NOT BE DISPOSED OF AS MOOT WHERE, THOUGH THE HEARING HAS IN
THE MEANTIME BEEN HELD, THE TRIAL EXAMINER HAS NOT YET MADE HIS REPORT
TO THE BOARD, THE BOARD HAS MADE NO DECISION, AND THERE IS THUS A
POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  P. 58. 

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO. V. SCHAUFFLER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 673, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL
OF A BILL WHICH SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN OFFICIALS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD FROM HOLDING A HEARING UPON A COMPLAINT ISSUED AGAINST
THE SHIPBUILDING COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY IS A VIRGINIA
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION, OVERHAUL AND REPAIR OF SHIPS
AT ITS PLANT IN THAT STATE.  IN JUNE, 1937, THE INDUSTRIAL UNION OF
MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA FILED WITH THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE CHARGE THAT THE COMPANY WAS "DOMINATING AND
INTERFERING WITH THE EMPLOYEES' RIGHT OF SELF ORGANIZATION BY
DOMINATING, INTERFERING WITH AND LENDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A SO
CALLED LABOR ORGANIZATION" AT SAID PLANT KNOWN AS "REPRESENTATION OF
EMPLOYEES"; THAT THE COMPANY HAD DISCHARGED AND REFUSED TO REINSTATE
SEVERAL EMPLOYEES AT THE PLANT "BECAUSE THEY JOINED AND ASSISTED A
LABOR ORGANIZATION OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING AND ENGAGED IN CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES WITH FELLOW EMPLOYEES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND OTHER
MUTUAL AID AND PROTECTION"; AND THAT BY SO DOING THE COMPANY WAS
ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8,
SUBSECTIONS (1), (2) AND (3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 
THEREUPON, THE BOARD, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR THE 5TH REGION,
BENNETT F. SCHAUFFLER, FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE COMPANY AND GAVE
NOTICE OF A HEARING PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(B) OF THE ACT. 

THE COMPANY DID NOT ANSWER THE COMPLAINT.  BEFORE THE DATE ASSIGNED
FOR THE HEARING, IT BROUGHT, IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR EASTERN VIRGINIA,
THIS SUIT, IN WHICH IT SOUGHT TO ENJOIN SCHAUFFLER, JACOB BLUM, THE
REGIONAL ATTORNEY FOR THE 5TH REGION, BOTH CITIZENS OF MARYLAND, AND
THE TRIAL EXAMINER DESIGNATED OR TO BE DESIGNATED, FROM HOLDING THE
HEARING AND TAKING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT.  THERE WERE
PRAYERS FOR BOTH AN INTERLOCUTORY AND A FINAL INJUNCTION AND FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ACT AS APPLIED TO THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS
AND ITS RELATIONS TO ITS EMPLOYEES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  AS THE BASIS
FOR THIS RELIEF IT ALLEGED FACTS SIMILAR TO THOSE SET FORTH IN THE BILL
OF THE BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, LTD., IN NO. 181, ANTE, P.
41.  IT ALLEGED, SPECIFICALLY, THAT NEITHER THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS NOR
ITS RELATIONS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES AFFECTED INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE; THAT IT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; AND
THAT IT WOULD BE IRREPARABLY DAMAGED BY THE HOLDING OF THE HEARING OF
THE BOARD AND THE TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.  AMONG
THE ELEMENTS OF IRREPARABLE INJURY ALLEGED WERE THAT THE COMPANY WOULD
BE HELD UP TO SCORN AS A VIOLATOR OF A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AND SO
WOULD INCUR FOR AS LONG AS THE PROCEEDINGS LASTED THE ODIUM AND ILL
WILL OF THE PUBLIC AND OF ITS OWN EMPLOYEES; THAT ITS OFFICIALS WOULD
BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF A CONFIDENTIAL NATURE; AND THAT THE
PENDENCY AND HOLDING OF THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR
OUTCOME, WOULD IMPEDE THE COMPANY IN EXERCISING ITS RIGHT TO BARGAIN
FREELY WITH ITS EMPLOYEES. 

THE CASE WAS HEARD BY THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE PLAINTIFF'S
APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION THAT
THE BILL BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE COMPANY HAD
FAILED TO EXHAUST ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND THAT GRANTING THE
RELIEF PRAYED WOULD BE AN USURPATION OF THE AUTHORITY EXCLUSIVELY
VESTED BY THE ACT IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE COURT DENIED THE
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE BILL ON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMPANY HAD "A PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY UNDER THE TERMS OF
THE ACT ITSELF, THAT NO IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IS THREATENED, AND THAT THIS
(THE DISTRICT) COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF THE CONTROVERSY PRESENTED
BY THE BILL."  THAT DECREE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT, WHICH HELD THAT THE COMPANY "HAS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY
UNDER THE STATUTE AND MAY NOT APPLY FOR RELIEF IN EQUITY UNTIL IT HAS
EXHAUSTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY THERE PROVIDED."  91 F.(2D) 730. 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF CONFLICT WITH BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING
CORP. V. MYERS, 89 F.(2D) 1000, IN WHICH THE FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
SIMILAR AND THE ISSUES THE SAME.  THAT CASE IS REVERSED BY OUR OPINION
DELIVERED THIS DAY IN NO. 181.  FOR THE REASONS THERE STATED, WE AFFIRM
THE DECREE HEREIN, ADDING ONLY THE FOLLOWING. 

FIRST.  THE COMPANY INSISTS THAT SINCE THE CASE WAS HEARD ON MOTION
TO DISMISS THE BILL WHICH ALLEGES THAT THE COMPANY IS NOT ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE AND ITS RELATIONS TO ITS EMPLOYEES DO
NOT AFFECT SUCH COMMERCE, THESE ALLEGATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE. 
THE MOTION ADMITS AS FACTS ALLEGATIONS DESCRIBING THE MANNER IN WHICH
THE BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON, BUT NOT LEGAL CONCLUSIONS FROM THOSE
FACTS.  THE ALLEGATIONS THAT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IS NOT
INVOLVED ARE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  FN1 

SECOND.  THE COMPANY URGES THAT, SINCE THE BOARD CAN HAVE
JURISDICTION ONLY OVER BUSINESSES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, SINCE THE COMPANY DENIES THAT IT IS SO ENGAGED, AND THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT VESTING IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY
EXCLUSIVE POWER TO DETERMINE ITS OWN JURISDICTION, THE DISTRICT COURT
MUST HAVE POWER TO PASS UPON THAT ISSUE.  THE ACT DOES NOT PURPORT TO
LEAVE THE DETERMINATION WHOLLY TO THE BOARD.  IT CONFERS UPON THE BOARD
EXCLUSIVE INITIAL POWER TO MAKE THE INVESTIGATION, BUT PROVIDES FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN2  AS THE ONLY
QUESTION HERE INVOLVED IS THE POWER OF THE BOARD TO MAKE THE
INVESTIGATION, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE EXTENT OF THE REVIEW
PROVIDED. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT WHILE THE BOARD HAS THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE,
UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE ACT, A PRELIMINARY INFORMAL INQUIRY BEFORE PUBLIC
ACTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING ITSELF WHETHER A PARTICULAR
CONCERN IS SUBJECT TO ITS AUTHORITY, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY ENTERTAIN A
SUIT TO PREVENT THE BOARD FROM CONDUCTING A PUBLIC INVESTIGATION UNDER
SEC. 10 IF THE CONCERN CLAIMS THAT IT IS NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE LIMITATION SUGGESTED WOULD, IN LARGE MEASURE,
DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION.  THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE ACT
FOR SUCH A CONTENTION. 

THIRD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAVING REFUSED TO GRANT AN
INJUNCTION STAYING THE ACTION BY THE BOARD PENDING THE CONTEMPLATED
APPEAL, APPLICATION FOR A STAY WAS MADE TO MR. JUSTICE BUTLER OF THIS
COURT, AFTER FILING OF THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  IT HAS
BEEN CALLED TO OUR ATTENTION THAT, UPON HIS DENIAL OF THAT APPLICATION,
THE HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE TRIAL EXAMINER OF THE BOARD FROM AUGUST
30 TO SEPTEMBER 8, 1937, AND HAS APPARENTLY BEEN CLOSED.  TO THE EXTENT
THAT RELIEF WAS SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE INJURY RESULTING FROM A HEARING,
THE CAUSE APPEARS TO BE MOOT.  BUT THE CAUSE CANNOT BE DISPOSED OF AS
MOOT, AS THE TRIAL EXAMINER HAS NOT YET MADE HIS REPORT TO THE BOARD;
THE BOARD HAS MADE NO DECISION; AND THUS THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  DECREE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION CORP. V. HOPE,
248 U.S. 498, 500; NORTZ V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 317, 324-325;
PACIFIC STATES BOX & BASKET CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 184-185. 

FN2  SEC. 10(A), (E), (F).  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V.
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CO., 301 U.S. 1, 47; MYERS V. BETHLEHEM
SHIPBUILDING CORP., ANTE, P. 41. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















ADAM V. SAENGER, 303 U.S. 59 


NO. 197.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 101
S.W.(2D) 1046, REVERSED. 


1.  MATTER OF FACT OR OF LAW UPON WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE
COURT TO RENDER A JUDGMENT DEPENDED, BUT WHICH WAS NOT LITIGATED IN
THAT COURT, IS MATTER FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE COURT OF ANOTHER STATE IN
AN ACTION ON THE JUDGMENT.  P. 62. 

2.  UPON AN APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT IN A SUIT UPON
A JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER STATE, THIS COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE
LAW OF THE LATTER STATE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS SUCH NOTICE IS TAKEN BY
THE COURT APPEALED FROM.  P. 63. 

3.  ACCORDING TO TEXAS LAW THE LEGAL EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER
STATE, ON WHICH SUIT IS BROUGHT, IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT, NOT
THE JURY.  BUT A SUITOR WHO ASSERTS THAT THE EFFECT IS DIFFERENT FROM
THAT OF A SIMILAR JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS OF TEXAS IS REQUIRED TO ALLEGE
SPECIFICALLY AND PROVE AS A MATTER OF FACT THE PARTICULAR LAW OR USAGE
ON WHICH HE RELIES TO ESTABLISH THE DIFFERENCE; AND, ON DEMURRER, ONLY
THE LAW OR USAGE SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED WILL BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE LAW OF THE OTHER STATE DIFFERS FROM THAT OF TEXAS.  P. 63. 

4.  A, BEING SUED BY B, A RESIDENT OF TEXAS, IN A COURT OF GENERAL
JURISDICTION IN CALIFORNIA, BROUGHT A CROSS-ACTION IN THE SAME COURT
AGAINST B WITH LEAVE OF COURT AND BY SERVICE IN CALIFORNIA OF A CROSS
COMPLAINT UPON B'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION.  A
OBTAINED JUDGMENT AGAINST B BY DEFAULT AND SUED UPON IT IN TEXAS,
PLEADING RELEVANT CALIFORNIA STATUTES AND CITATIONS OF DECISIONS OF
CALIFORNIA COURTS.  THE QUESTION, RAISED BY GENERAL DEMURRER TO A'S
COMPLAINT, WAS THE LEGAL EFFECT IN CALIFORNIA OF THE SERVICE IN THE
CROSS-ACTION, AND HENCE OF THE JUDGMENT FOUNDED UPON IT.  HELD: 

THAT THIS QUESTION, WHETHER REGARDED AS OF FACT OR OF LAW, IS A
FEDERAL QUESTION ARISING UNDER THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE AND
R.S. SEC. 905, 28 U.S.C. 687, AND ITS DECISION BY THE TEXAS COURT IS
REVIEWABLE HERE.  P. 64. 

5.  UNDER SECS. 442, 1015 AND 1011 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, AND DECISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA COURTS, AS PLEADED IN THIS
CASE, VALID SERVICE OF A CROSS-COMPLAINT MAY BE MADE UPON THE ATTORNEY
OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE ORIGINAL ACTION.  P. 65. 

THE CROSS-COMPLAINT WAS FOR CONVERSION OF CHATTELS, FILED, WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THE COURT, IN AN ACTION FOR GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED. 

6.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO PREVENT A STATE
FROM ADOPTING A PROCEDURE BY WHICH A JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM MAY BE
RENDERED IN A CROSS-ACTION AGAINST A PLAINTIFF IN ITS COURTS, UPON
SERVICE OF PROCESS OR OF APPROPRIATE PLEADING UPON HIS ATTORNEY OF
RECORD.  P. 67. 

ADAM V. SAENGER ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE NINTH SUPREME
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 668, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A SUIT BROUGHT IN TEXAS BY THE ASSIGNEE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED, ON CROSS-COMPLAINT, IN CALIFORNIA AGAINST A TEXAS
CORPORATION.  THE TEXAS SUIT WAS AGAINST THE DIRECTORS OF THE
CORPORATION, AS TRUSTEES IN DISSOLUTION, AND AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDERS,
AS TRANSFEREES OF CORPORATE ASSETS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS HAVING
REFUSED A WRIT OF ERROR FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, THE WRIT OF THIS
COURT RAN TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE ACTION, IN THIS CASE, OF THE
TEXAS STATE COURTS, IN DISMISSING A SUIT FOUNDED UPON A JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, DENIED TO THE JUDGMENT THE FAITH AND
CREDIT WHICH THE CONSTITUTION COMMANDS. 

PETITIONER, AS ASSIGNEE OF A CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT AGAINST THE BEAUMONT
EXPORT & IMPORT COMPANY, A TEXAS CORPORATION, BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT
IN THE TEXAS STATE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST RESPONDENTS, DIRECTORS OF THE
CORPORATION ACTING AS ITS TRUSTEES IN DISSOLUTION, AND AGAINST ITS
STOCKHOLDERS AS TRANSFEREES OF CORPORATE ASSETS, TO COLLECT THE
JUDGMENT.  HIS PETITION SETS OUT IN DETAIL THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING
THE RENDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE
A DULY ATTESTED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT ROLL. 

IT APPEARS THAT THE CORPORATION BROUGHT SUIT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION, AGAINST MONTES,
PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST, TO RECOVER A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR
GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED.  THEREUPON MONTES, FOLLOWING WHAT IS ALLEGED
TO BE THE CALIFORNIA PRACTICE, WITH LEAVE OF THE COURT BROUGHT A CROSS
ACTION AGAINST THE CORPORATION, BY SERVICE OF A CROSS-COMPLAINT UPON
THE CORPORATION'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THE PENDING SUIT, TO RECOVER
FOR THE CONVERSION OF CHATTELS.  JUDGMENT IN THE CROSS-ACTION, TAKEN BY
DEFAULT, WAS FOLLOWED BY DISMISSAL OF THE CORPORATION'S SUIT AND IS THE
JUDGMENT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT SUIT.  A MOTION TO OPEN
THE DEFAULT AND TO BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND, MADE LATER ON BEHALF OF THE
CORPORATION, WAS CONTESTED AND WAS DENIED BY THE COURT, THE ISSUE BEING
WHETHER THE CROSS-COMPLAINT WAS IN FACT SERVED ON THE PLAINTIFF'S
ATTORNEY. 

THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED A GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT AND
GAVE JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE CAUSE, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS
AFFIRMED, 101 S.W.(2D) 1046.  PETITION TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT FOR A
WRIT OF ERROR WAS DENIED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, CF. BAIN PEANUT CO. V. PINSON, 282 U.S. 499, THE QUESTION
BEING AN IMPORTANT ONE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.  OUR WRIT IS PROPERLY
DIRECTED TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, IT BEING THE HIGHEST COURT OF
THE STATE IN WHICH A JUDGMENT COULD BE HAD.  BACON V. TEXAS, 163 U.S.
207, 215; SULLIVAN V. TEXAS, 207 U.S. 416; SAN ANTONIO & A.P. RY. CO.
V. WAGNER, 241 U.S. 476; AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. V. LEVEE, 263
U.S. 19. 

THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS RESTED ITS DECISION ON A SINGLE GROUND,
WANT OF JURISDICTION OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT OVER THE CORPORATION IN
THE CROSS-ACTION IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED.  CONSTRUING THE
CALIFORNIA STATUTES AND DECISIONS WHICH THE COMPLAINT SET OUT, IT
CONCLUDED THAT THEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT IN THE
CROSS-ACTION UPON THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD.  IT HELD FURTHER
THAT IN ANY CASE AS THE CORPORATION WAS NOT PRESENT WITHIN THE STATE NO
JURISDICTION COULD BE ACQUIRED OVER IT BY THE SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, AND
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGMENT WAS CONSEQUENTLY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AND A
NULLITY BEYOND THE PROTECTION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE.  TO
REVIEW THESE RULINGS WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  CF. WARD V. LOVE
COUNTY, 253 U.S. 17, 25; INDIANA EX REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, POST, P.
95. 

BY R.S. SEC. 905, 28 U.S.C. 687, ENACTED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT CLAUSE, ART. IV, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE DULY
ATTESTED RECORD OF THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE IS ENTITLED TO SUCH FAITH
AND CREDIT IN EVERY COURT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AS IT HAS BY LAW OR
USAGE IN THE STATE FROM WHICH IT IS TAKEN.  IF IT APPEARS ON ITS FACE
TO BE A RECORD OF A COURT OF GENERAL JURISDICTION, SUCH JURISDICTION
OVER THE CAUSE AND THE PARTIES IS TO BE PRESUMED UNLESS DISPROVED BY
EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE, OR BY THE RECORD ITSELF.  HANLEY V. DONOGHUE, 116
U.S. 1; KNOWLES V. GASLIGHT & COKE CO., 19 WALL.  58; SETTLEMIER V.
SULLIVAN, 97 U.S. 444.  BUT IN A SUIT UPON THE JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER
STATE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WHICH RENDERED IT IS OPEN TO
JUDICIAL INQUIRY, CHICAGO LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. CHERRY, 244 U.S. 25,
AND WHEN THE MATTER OF FACT OR LAW ON WHICH JURISDICTION DEPENDS WAS
NOT LITIGATED IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT IT IS A MATTER TO BE ADJUDICATED IN
THE SUIT FOUNDED UPON THE JUDGMENT.  THOMPSON V. WHITMAN, 18 WALL. 
457.  HERE THE FACT OF THE SERVICE OF THE COMPLAINT UPON THE ATTORNEY
IS ALLEGED BY THE PETITIONER AND ADMITTED BY THE DEMURRER, BUT THE
COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT THE CALIFORNIA COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION,
RESTING IN PART UPON ITS CONSTRUCTION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE,
PRESENTS AN ISSUE NOT LITIGATED IN THE CALIFORNIA SUIT WHICH MUST BE
DETERMINED IN THE PRESENT ONE. 

CONGRESS HAS NOT PRESCRIBED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE LEGAL EFFECT OF
THE JUDGMENT AND THE PROCEEDINGS ON WHICH IT IS FOUNDED IN THE STATE
WHERE RENDERED ARE TO BE ASCERTAINED BY THE COURTS OF ANOTHER STATE. 
IT HAS LEFT THAT TO THE APPLICABLE PROCEDURE OF THE COURTS IN WHICH
THEY ARE DRAWN IN QUESTION.  WHERE THEY ARE IN ISSUE THIS COURT, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW CASES COMING TO IT
FROM STATE COURTS, TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE LAW OF THE SEVERAL
STATES TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT SUCH NOTICE IS TAKEN BY THE COURT FROM
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TAKEN.  "WHATEVER IS MATTER OF LAW IN THE COURT
APPEALED FROM IS MATTER OF LAW HERE, AND WHATEVER WAS MATTER OF FACT IN
THE COURT APPEALED FROM IS MATTER OF FACT HERE."  HANLEY V. DONOGHUE,
SUPRA, 6. 

ACCORDING TO TEXAS LAW THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT OF ANOTHER
STATE, ON WHICH SUIT IS BROUGHT, IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE COURT, NOT
THE JURY.  BUT A SUITOR WHO ASSERTS THAT THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE
JUDGMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A SIMILAR JUDGMENT OF THE COURTS OF
THE STATE IS REQUIRED TO ALLEGE SPECIFICALLY AND PROVE AS MATTER OF
FACT THE PARTICULAR LAWS OR USAGE ON WHICH HE RELIES TO ESTABLISH THE
DIFFERENCE, AND ON DEMURRER ONLY THE LAW OR USAGE SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED
WILL BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE LAW OF ANOTHER STATE
DIFFERS FROM THAT OF TEXAS.  PORCHELER V. BRONSON, 50 TEX. 555; GILL V.
EVERMAN, 94 TEX. 209; 59 S.W. 531; NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE V. KENNEY,
98 TEX. 293; 83 S.W. 368. 

IN THE PRESENT SUIT PETITIONER, IN CONFORMITY TO THE STATE PROCEDURE,
HAS SET OUT IN HIS COMPLAINT THE CALIFORNIA STATUTES AND THE CITATIONS
OF THE DECISIONS OF CALIFORNIA COURTS WHICH HE CONTENDS ESTABLISH THE
LAW OF THAT STATE THAT A CROSS-ACTION IN A PENDING SUIT MAY BE BEGUN BY
SERVICE OF A CROSS-COMPLAINT UPON THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY.  THE
QUESTION THUS RAISED UPON DEMURRER FOR DECISION BY THE COURT IS THE
LEGAL EFFECT IN CALIFORNIA OF THE SERVICE, AND HENCE OF THE JUDGMENT
FOUNDED UPON IT.  WHETHER THE QUESTION BE REGARDED AS ONE OF FACT OR
MORE PRECISELY AND ACCURATELY AS A QUESTION OF LAW TO BE DETERMINED AS
ARE OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW, ALTHOUGH PROCEDURAL EXIGENCIES REQUIRE IT
TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PLEADING AND PROOF, AS ARE ISSUES OF FACT, IT IS
ONE ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES
WHICH COMMANDS THAT SUCH FAITH AND CREDIT SHALL BE GIVEN BY EVERY COURT
TO THE CALIFORNIA PROCEEDINGS "AS THEY HAVE BY LAW OR USAGE" OF THAT
STATE.  AND SINCE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FEDERAL RIGHT TURNS ON THE
MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE CALIFORNIA STATUTE, THE DECISION OF THE TEXAS
COURT ON THAT POINT, WHETHER OF LAW OR OF FACT, IS REVIEWABLE HERE. 
STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 162 U.S. 255, 274, 277-279; SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
V. SCHUYLER, 227 U.S. 601, 611; CRESWILL V. KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, 225
U.S. 246, 261; ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ORDER V. MICHAUX, 279 U.S. 737, 744
746; NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587, 590; SEE NORTHERN PACIFIC R. CO.
V. NORTH DALOTA, 236 U.S. 585, 593; CF. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, 248 U.S. 67, 69; WARD V. LOVE COUNTY, SUPRA, 22; TRUAX
V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 324; DAVIS V. WECHSLER, 263 U.S. 22, 24;
PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600, 602. 

WHILE THIS COURT REEXAMINES SUCH AN ISSUE WITH DEFERENCE AFTER ITS
DETERMINATION BY A STATE COURT, IT CANNOT, IF THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES ARE TO BE OBSERVED, ACCEPT AS FINAL THE DECISION
OF THE STATE TRIBUNAL AS TO MATTERS ALLEGED TO GIVE RISE TO THE
ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY THE CASE WHERE THE DECISION
IS RESTED, NOT ON LOCAL LAW OR MATTERS OF FACT OF THE USUAL TYPE, WHICH
ARE PECULIARLY WITHIN THE COGNIZANCE OF THE LOCAL COURTS, BUT UPON THE
LAW OF ANOTHER STATE, AS READILY DETERMINED HERE AS IN A STATE COURT. 
HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146 U.S. 657, 684; YARBOROUGH V. YARBOROUGH, 168
S.C. 46; 166 S.E. 877; 290 U.S. 202. 

IN RULING THAT THE SERVICE IN THE CALIFORNIA SUIT WAS UNAUTHORIZED,
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SAID: 

"THE CROSS ACTION WAS NOT AN ANCILLARY PROCEEDING, BUT AN INDEPENDENT
SUIT IN WHICH A FINAL JUDGMENT COULD BE RENDERED WITHOUT AWAITING A
DECISION IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT.  FARRAR V. STEENSBURG, 173 CAL. 94, 159
PAC. 707.  IT IS WELL SETTLED IN THIS STATE THAT A CROSS ACTION
OCCUPIES THE ATTITUDE OF AN INDEPENDENT SUIT AND REQUIRES SERVICE OF
THE CROSS ACTION UPON THE CROSS DEFENDANT.  HARRIS V. SCHLINKE, 95 TEX.
88.  THIS BEING SO, IN THE ABSENCE OF A WAIVER OF SERVICE, OR AN
APPEARANCE BY THE CROSS DEFENDANT, PERSONAL SERVICE ON THE CROSS
DEFENDANT MUST BE HAD TO CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THE COURT TO
DETERMINE THE MATTER AND RENDER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE."  BUT THE
QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PLEADINGS IS THE STATUS OF A CROSS-ACTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA STATUTES, NOT UNDER THOSE OF TEXAS.  WE THINK ITS
STATUS IS ADEQUATELY DISCLOSED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATUTES AND DECISIONS
PLEADED BY PETITIONER, AND IS THAT FOR WHICH HE CONTENDS. 

PROVIDES THAT A DEFENDANT MAY SECURE AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF UPON "CROSS
COMPLAINT" WHICH "MUST BE SERVED UPON THE PARTIES AFFECTED THEREBY,"
AND REQUIRES SERVICE OF "SUMMONS UPON THE CROSS-COMPLAINT" ONLY UPON
SUCH PARTIES AS "HAVE NOT APPEARED IN THE ACTION."  FN1  ARGUING THAT
"ACTION" MEANS ONLY "CROSS-ACTION" AND NOT THE ORIGINAL ACTION BROUGHT
BY THE PLAINTIFF, THE TEXAS COURT CONCLUDED THAT A PLAINTIFF WHO HAS
NOT APPEARED IN THE CROSS-ACTION MUST BE SERVED WITH SUMMONS "AS UPON
THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ORIGINAL ACTION."  BUT THE WORD "ACTION," EVEN
IF SUSCEPTIBLE OF SUCH MEANING, CANNOT BE SO INTERPRETED IN THE FACE OF
THE PLEADED CALIFORNIA DECISIONS WHICH HOLD THAT A CROSS-COMPLAINT MAY
BE SERVED ON THE ATTORNEY OF ONE WHO IS ALREADY A PARTY TO THE ORIGINAL
ACTION.  FARRAR V. STEENBERGH, 173 CAL. 94; 159 P. 707; WOOD V.
JOHNSTON, 8 CAL. APP. 258; 96 P. 508; RITTER V. BRAASH, 11 CAL. APP.
258; 104 P. 592. 

RESIDENT OR NON-RESIDENT, HAS AN ATTORNEY IN AN ACTION, "THE SERVICE OF
PAPERS, WHEN REQUIRED, MUST BE UPON THE ATTORNEY INSTEAD OF THE PARTY,
EXCEPT SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS, OF WRITS AND OTHER PROCESS ISSUED IN THE
SUIT, AND OF PAPERS TO BRING HIM INTO CONTEMPT."  FN2  THE COURT OF
CIVIL APPEALS CONSTRUED THIS SECTION AS REQUIRING "SERVICE OF
SUBPOENAS, OF WRITS, AND OTHER PROCESS ISSUED IN THE SUIT" UPON THE
PARTY RATHER THAN THE ATTORNEY, AND AS INCLUDING THE CROSS-COMPLAINT IN
THE TERMS "WRIT" AND "PROCESS."  BUT ASSUMING THAT A CROSS-COMPLAINT
SERVED WITHOUT SUMMONS MAY BE SO CHARACTERIZED, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
COMPLAINT UPON THE ATTORNEY FOR A PARTY WHICH, AS WE HAVE SEEN, SEC.
442 PERMITS.  SECTION 1015 DIRECTS SERVICE UPON THE ATTORNEY OF ALL BUT
THE THREE TYPES OF PAPERS EXCEPTED, BUT SAYS NOTHING AS TO THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF SERVICE OF THOSE PAPERS UPON HIM.  SECTION 1011, SET
OUT IN THE PLEADING THOUGH NOT REFERRED TO IN THE COURT'S OPINION,
READS, "NOTICES AND PAPERS, WHEN AND HOW SERVED.  THE SERVICE MAY BE
PERSONAL, BY DELIVERY TO THE PARTY OR ATTORNEY ON WHOM THE SERVICE IS
REQUIRED TO BE MADE...." 

THE QUESTION WHETHER SEC. 1015 DOES FORBID SERVICE OF A CROSS
COMPLAINT ON THE ATTORNEY HAS BEEN DEFINITELY ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE
BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH, IN FARRAR V. STEENBERGH,
SUPRA, 97, HELD, "SERVICE OF A CROSS-COMPLAINT UPON A PLAINTIFF WHO
APPEARS BY AN ATTORNEY IS NOT MADE BY A SUMMONS TO THE PLAINTIFF, BUT
BY DELIVERY OF A COPY OF THE CROSS-COMPLAINT TO THE ATTORNEY."  UPON
THIS GROUND THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, IN CASES ON WHICH
PETITIONER RELIES, HAS SUSTAINED JUDGMENTS TAKEN UPON DEFAULT IN A
CROSS-ACTION BEGUN BY SERVICE OF THE CROSS-COMPLAINT ON THE PLAINTIFF'S
ATTORNEY.  RITTER V. BRAASH, SUPRA; WOOD V. JOHNSTON, SUPRA.  UPON ALL
THE PLEADED EVIDENCE OF THE CALIFORNIA LAW, TO THE CONSIDERATION OF
WHICH WE ARE RESTRICTED BY THE PRESENT STATE OF THE RECORD, WE THINK
THE ONLY INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN IS THAT THE SERVICE IN THE CALIFORNIA
SUIT WAS AUTHORIZED BY CALIFORNIA LAW.    THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO PREVENT A STATE FROM ADOPTING A PROCEDURE BY
WHICH A JUDGMENT IN PERSONAM MAY BE RENDERED IN A CROSS-ACTION AGAINST
A PLAINTIFF IN ITS COURTS, UPON SERVICE OF PROCESS OR OF APPROPRIATE
PLEADING UPON HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD.  THE PLAINTIFF HAVING, BY HIS
VOLUNTARY ACT IN DEMANDING JUSTICE FROM THE DEFENDANT, SUBMITTED
HIMSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, THERE IS NOTHING ARBITRARY OR
UNREASONABLE IN TREATING HIM AS BEING THERE FOR ALL PURPOSES FOR WHICH
JUSTICE TO THE DEFENDANT REQUIRES HIS PRESENCE.  IT IS THE PRICE WHICH
THE STATE MAY EXACT AS THE CONDITION OF OPENING ITS COURTS TO THE
PLAINTIFF.  FRANK L. YOUNG CO. V. MCNEAL-EDWARDS CO., 283 U.S. 398,
400; CF. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO. V. LINDELL, 281 U.S. 14, 17. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "WHENEVER THE DEFENDANT SEEKS AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF AGAINST ANY
PARTY, RELATING TO OR DEPENDING UPON THE CONTRACT, TRANSACTION, MATTER,
HAPPENING OR ACCIDENT UPON WHICH THE ACTION IS BROUGHT, OR AFFECTING
THE PROPERTY TO WHICH THE ACTION RELATES, HE MAY, IN ADDITION TO HIS
ANSWER, FILE AT THE SAME TIME, OR BY PERMISSION OF THE COURT
SUBSEQUENTLY, A CROSS-COMPLAINT.  THE CROSS-COMPLAINT MUST BE SERVED
UPON THE PARTIES AFFECTED THEREBY, AND SUCH PARTIES MAY DEMUR OR ANSWER
THERETO AS TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT.  IF ANY OF THE PARTIES AFFECTED
BY THE CROSS-COMPLAINT HAVE NOT APPEARED IN THE ACTION, A SUMMONS UPON
THE CROSS-COMPLAINT MUST BE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THEM IN THE SAME
MANNER AS UPON THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ORIGINAL ACTION." 

FN2  "WHEN A PLAINTIFF OR A DEFENDANT, WHO HAS APPEARED, RESIDES OUT
OF THE STATE, AND HAS NO ATTORNEY IN THE ACTION OR PROCEEDING, THE
SERVICE MAY BE MADE ON THE CLERK OR ON THE JUSTICE WHERE THERE IS NO
CLERK, FOR HIM.  BUT IN ALL CASES WHERE A PARTY HAS AN ATTORNEY IN THE
ACTION OR PROCEEDING, THE SERVICE OF PAPERS, WHEN REQUIRED, MUST BE
UPON THE ATTORNEY INSTEAD OF THE PARTY, EXCEPT SERVICE OF SUBPENAS, OF
WRITS, AND OTHER PROCESS ISSUED IN THE SUIT, AND OF PAPERS TO BRING HIM
INTO CONTEMPT.  IF THE SOLE ATTORNEY FOR A PARTY IS REMOVED OR
SUSPENDED FROM PRACTICE, THEN THE PARTY HAS NO ATTORNEY WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THIS SECTION.  IF HIS SOLE ATTORNEY HAS NO KNOWN OFFICE IN
THIS STATE, NOTICES AND PAPERS MAY BE SERVED BY LEAVING A COPY THEREOF
WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT OR WITH THE JUSTICE WHERE THERE IS NO
CLERK, UNLESS SUCH ATTORNEY SHALL HAVE FILED IN THE CAUSE AN ADDRESS OF
A PLACE AT WHICH NOTICES AND PAPERS MAY BE SERVED ON HIM, IN WHICH
EVENT THEY MAY BE SERVED AT SUCH PLACE." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :














COMPANIA ESPANOLA V. NAVEMAR, 303 U.S. 68 


NO. 242.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 10, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 90
F.(2D) 673, REVERSED. 


1.  A VESSEL OF A FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT IN ITS POSSESSION AND SERVICE IS
A PUBLIC VESSEL, EVEN THOUGH ENGAGED IN THE CARRIAGE OF MERCHANDISE FOR
HIRE, AND AS SUCH IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THE COURTS OF ADMIRALTY OF THE
UNITED STATES.  P. 74. 

2.  THIS IMMUNITY THE FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT MAY ASSERT EITHER THROUGH
DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS OR AS A CLAIMANT IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED
STATES.  ID. 

IF THE CLAIM IS ALLOWED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT, IT
IS THEN THE DUTY OF THE COURTS TO RELEASE THE VESSEL UPON APPROPRIATE
SUGGESTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, OR OTHER
OFFICER ACTING UNDER HIS DIRECTION. 

THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IS ALSO ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT UPON A PROPER
SHOWING, TO APPEAR IN A PENDING SUIT, THERE TO ASSERT ITS CLAIM TO THE
VESSEL, AND TO RAISE THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION IN ITS OWN NAME OR
THAT OF ITS ACCREDITED AND RECOGNIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 

3.  THE DISTRICT COURT TOOK POSSESSION OF A SPANISH VESSEL ON A LIBEL
BY ONE CLAIMING TO BE THE OWNER, WHO ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISPOSSESSION BY
MEMBERS OF THE CREW.  THE SPANISH AMBASSADOR, BY A VERIFIED SUGGESTION,
CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE VESSEL, BEFORE THE
ARREST, WAS A PUBLIC VESSEL IN POSSESSION OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT AND
SO IMMUNE FROM PROCESS.  HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT
WAS OWNER AND ENTITLED TO POSSESSION BY VIRTUE OF A SPANISH DECREE OF
ATTACHMENT.  THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAD REFUSED TO ACT IN THE MATTER
AND HAD REFERRED THE AMBASSADOR TO THE COURTS.  AT A HEARING UPON THE
SUGGESTION AND REPLY AFFIDAVITS, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT NO ONE
HAD TAKEN POSSESSION IN BEHALF OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT, ALTHOUGH
ENDORSEMENTS HAD BEEN MADE BY SPANISH CONSULS IN FOREIGN PORTS, ON THE
SHIP'S ROLL AND REGISTER STATING THAT THE SHIP HAD BECOME THE PROPERTY
OF THE SPANISH STATE THROUGH AN ATTACHMENT.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE AMBASSADOR'S APPLICATION WAS PROPERLY ENTERTAINED.  P.
75. 

(2) THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAVING DECLINED TO ACT, THE WANT OF
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGED PUBLIC STATUS OF THE
VESSEL AND THE RIGHT OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT TO DEMAND POSSESSION OF
THE VESSEL AS OWNER IF IT SO ELECTED, WERE APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS FOR
JUDICIAL INQUIRY UPON PROOF OF THE MATTERS ALLEGED.  ID. 

(3)  THE SUGGESTION, THOUGH SUFFICIENT AS A STATEMENT OF THE
CONTENTIONS MADE, WAS NOT PROOF OF ITS ALLEGATIONS.  ID. 

(4)  THE DECREE OF ATTACHMENT, BEING IN INVITUM, DID NOT DISPOSSESS
THE SHIPOWNER, A TAKING OF ACTUAL POSSESSION BY SOME ACT OF PHYSICAL
DOMINION OR CONTROL IN BEHALF OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT OR SOME ACT OF
RECOGNITION BY THE SHIP'S OFFICERS WAS NEEDFUL.  ID. 

(5)  THE AMBASSADOR SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AS CLAIMANT.  P.
76. 

COMPANIA ESPANOLA DE NAVEGACION MARITIMA, S.A., V. THE NAVEMAR ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 669, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF AN ORDER OF THE
DISTRICT COURT REFUSING LEAVE TO THE AMBASSADOR OF THE REPUBLIC OF
SPAIN TO APPEAR AS CLAIMANT OF A SHIP IN AN ADMIRALTY CASE.  THE COURT
BELOW DEEMED THE AMBASSADOR'S VERIFIED SUGGESTION CONCLUSIVE AND
ORDERED THE LIBEL DISMISSED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN A SUIT IN ADMIRALTY, BROUGHT IN A DISTRICT COURT BY THE ALLEGED
OWNER TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF A SPANISH MERCHANT VESSEL, THE SPANISH
AMBASSADOR ASKED LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS CLAIMANT ON THE BASIS OF AN
AFFIDAVIT OF THE SPANISH ACTING CONSUL GENERAL SUGGESTING THAT WHEN THE
SUIT WAS BROUGHT THE VESSEL WAS THE PROPERTY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SPAIN,
BY VIRTUE OF A DECREE OF ATTACHMENT PROMULGATED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
REPUBLIC, APPROPRIATING THE VESSEL TO THE PUBLIC USE, AND THAT IT WAS
THEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT.  THE PRINCIPAL
QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE COURT, UPON
PRESENTATION OF THE SUGGESTION, TO DISMISS THE LIBEL FOR WANT OF
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. 

PETITIONER, A SPANISH CORPORATION, BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN
ADMIRALTY IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN NEW YORK AGAINST THE
SPANISH STEAMSHIP "NAVEMAR," FIVE MEMBERS OF HER CREW, AND ALL PERSONS
CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN HER, TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL.  THE
LIBEL ALLEGED THAT PETITIONER WAS OWNER OF THE VESSEL, WHICH WAS WITHIN
THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT; AND THAT WHILE SHE WAS IN
PETITIONER'S POSSESSION THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS, ACTING AS A
COMMITTEE OF THE CREW, HAD WRONGFULLY AND FORCIBLY SEIZED, AND HAD
SINCE RETAINED POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL.  AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF THE PETITION, THE DISTRICT COURT RENDERED ITS DECREE UPON
DEFAULT, DIRECTING THE MARSHAL TO PLACE LIBELANT IN POSSESSION. 

THEREUPON THE SPANISH AMBASSADOR FILED A SUGGESTION IN THE CAUSE,
CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE
"NAVEMAR" WAS A PUBLIC VESSEL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SPAIN, NOT SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL PROCESS OF THE COURT, AND ASKING THAT IT DIRECT DELIVERY OF
THE VESSEL TO THE SPANISH ACTING CONSUL GENERAL IN NEW YORK.  THE
SUGGESTION ALLEGED THAT WHEN THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT THE "NAVEMAR" WAS THE
PROPERTY OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT BY VIRTUE OF ITS DECREE OF OCTOBER
10, 1936, AND WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SPAIN.  THE
DISTRICT COURT ISSUED ITS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE DEFAULT SHOULD
NOT BE OPENED AND THE AMBASSADOR PERMITTED TO APPEAR SPECIALLY AS
CLAIMANT OF THE VESSEL.  AFTER A HEARING THE COURT DENIED THE
APPLICATION BUT WITH LEAVE TO THE AMBASSADOR TO MAKE FURTHER
APPLICATION UPON FULLER PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS SHOWING THE OWNERSHIP
AND POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL BY THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT. 

MEANWHILE THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAD REFUSED TO ACT UPON THE SPANISH
GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM OF POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE "NAVEMAR," HAD
DECLINED TO HONOR THE REQUEST OF THE AMBASSADOR THAT REPRESENTATIONS BE
MADE IN THE PENDING SUIT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
IN BEHALF OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT, AND HAD ADVISED THE AMBASSADOR
THAT HIS GOVERNMENT WAS ENTITLED "TO APPEAR DIRECTLY BEFORE THE COURT
IN A CASE OF THIS CHARACTER." 

A SECOND APPLICATION BY THE AMBASSADOR FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS A
CLAIMANT UPON A VERIFIED SUGGESTION, STATING ADDITIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
RELIED UPON TO ESTABLISH POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL BY THE REPUBLIC OF
SPAIN, WAS DENIED.  18 F.SUPP.  153.  ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, AFTER RESTRICTING THE APPEAL TO THE ORDER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE SECOND APPLICATION, REVERSED THAT ORDER AND
DIRECTED THAT THE LIBEL BE DISMISSED.  90 F.(2D) 673.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, BECAUSE THE CASE IS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE AND BECAUSE OF
ALLEGED CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH OUR DECISION IN THE PESARO,
255 U.S. 216, AND WITH THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT IN THE ATTUALITA, 238 FED. 909. 

RESPONDENT'S SUGGESTION ON THE SECOND APPLICATION PRESENTED TWO
CONTENTIONS:  ONE, A CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT
THE "NAVEMAR" WAS A PUBLIC VESSEL, IMMUNE FROM ARREST AND PROCESS OF
THE COURT; THE OTHER, THAT THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT WAS OWNER OF THE
VESSEL AND ENTITLED TO HER POSSESSION BY VIRTUE OF THE DECREE OF
ATTACHMENT. 

IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF
THE VESSEL BY THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT IN THE FIRST APPLICATION, THE
SUGGESTION IN THE SECOND SET UP THE ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION IN BEHALF
OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT BY SPECIFIC ACTS OF ITS CONSULAR OFFICERS IN
ARGENTINA AND IN NEW YORK.  IT ALLEGED THAT ON OCTOBER 26, 1936, THE
SPANISH CONSUL AT ROSARIO, ARGENTINA, HAD ENDORSED ON THE SHIP'S ROLL A
STATEMENT THAT "THROUGH A CABLE DATED 26 OF THE INST MONTH FROM THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE MERCHANT MARINE THIS SHIP HAS BECOME THE
PROPERTY OF THE STATE THROUGH ATTACHMENT ACCORDING TO THE DECREE OF
OCT. 10, 1936," AND THAT ON OCTOBER 28 THE SPANISH ACTING CONSUL
GENERAL AT BUENOS AIRES HAD MADE A SIMILAR ENDORSEMENT ON THE SHIP'S
REGISTER.  IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT ON ARRIVAL IN NEW YORK IN NOVEMBER
THE SPANISH ACTING CONSUL GENERAL AT THAT PORT, BY DIRECTION OF THE
AMBASSADOR, HAD INSTRUCTED THE MASTER OF THE "NAVEMAR" "TO AWAIT AND
ABIDE FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS  ...  AS REGARDS ANY FURTHER USE OF THE"
VESSEL, AND THAT ON NOVEMBER 28 HE HAD INSTRUCTED THE MASTER TO RENDER
A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENSES OF THE "NAVEMAR" AND OF MINOR
REPAIRS THAT SHE MIGHT REQUIRE.  THERE WAS NO AVERMENT THAT THE ALLEGED
SEIZURE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CREW WAS AN ACT OF OR IN BEHALF OF THE
SPANISH GOVERNMENT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED A FULL HEARING UPON THE SUGGESTION AND
UPON REPLY AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY LIBELANT, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH
THERE WAS OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PARTIES TO PRESENT PROOF OF ALL THE
RELEVANT FACTS.  CF. EX PARTE NEW YORK, 256 U.S. 503.  THE COURT FOUND
THAT NO ONE HAD TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE "NAVEMAR" IN BEHALF OF THE
SPANISH GOVERNMENT.  IT POINTED OUT THAT NEITHER THE SHIP'S ROLL NOR
ITS REGISTER IS A DOCUMENT OF TITLE OR POSSESSION, THE SHIP'S ROLL
BEING MERELY A RECORD, IN THE CASE OF SPANISH VESSELS USUALLY DEPOSITED
WITH THE SPANISH CONSUL WHILE IN PORT, SHOWING ARRIVALS AND SAILINGS OF
THE VESSEL, THE KIND OF CARGO CARRIED, THE LIST OF PASSENGERS, AND THE
ENROLLMENT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CREW, AND THE SHIP'S REGISTER BEING
ONLY A RECORD OF THE NATIONALITY OF THE VESSEL AS DETERMINED BY THE
PLACE OF HER HOME PORT.  IT FOUND THAT NONE OF THE CONSULAR OFFICERS
MENTIONED HAD DONE ANY ACT PURPORTING TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL;
THAT NONE OF THEM HAD INFORMED THE MASTER THAT HE WISHED TO TAKE
POSSESSION OR HAD ANY INTENTION OF DOING SO; THAT THE VESSEL HAD
PROCEEDED UNDER COMMAND OF HER MASTER UPON HER VOYAGE FROM BUENOS AIRES
TO NEW YORK, MANNED BY OFFICERS AND CREW IN THE EMPLOY OF PETITIONER;
THAT UPON ARRIVAL, THE MASTER, UNDER DIRECTION OF THE SHIP'S AGENT, HAD
DISCHARGED CARGO; AND THAT BEFORE DISCHARGE THE FREIGHT MONEY WAS PAID
BY THE CONSIGNEES TO THE AGENTS OF THE TIME CHARTERER IN NEW YORK. 

THE DISTRICT COURT, UPON THIS AND OTHER EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY TO
DETAIL, CONCLUDED THAT THE "NAVEMAR" WAS NEVER IN POSSESSION OF THE
SPANISH GOVERNMENT BEFORE HER SEIZURE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CREW IN THE
TERRITORIAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT SHE WAS NOT A VESSEL
IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS, WITHOUT REVIEWING THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT, OR THE EVIDENCE, ADVERTED TO THE ALLEGATION OF THE FIRST
SUGGESTION, SUBSTANTIALLY REPEATED ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN THE
SECOND, THAT THE SPANISH CONSUL AT ROSARIO "PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTIONS
FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE SPANISH MERCHANT MARINE, TOOK
POSSESSION OF THE  ...  NAVEMAR IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC OF SPAIN
...  WHEREBY THE  ...  NAVEMAR THEN AND THERE BECAME AND AT ALL TIMES
SINCE HAS REMAINED THE PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
SPAIN."  DECLARING THAT THE COURT WAS BOUND TO ACCEPT THIS ALLEGATION
AS CONCLUSIVE, IT HELD THAT THE VESSEL MUST BE TAKEN TO BE A PUBLIC
VESSEL OWNED BY AND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT, AND AS
SUCH IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THIS WE THINK WAS A MISTAKEN VIEW OF THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE
SUGGESTION.  ADMITTEDLY A VESSEL OF A FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT IN ITS
POSSESSION AND SERVICE IS A PUBLIC VESSEL, EVEN THOUGH ENGAGED IN THE
CARRIAGE OF MERCHANDISE FOR HIRE, AND AS SUCH IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN
THE COURTS OF ADMIRALTY OF THE UNITED STATES.  BERIZZI BROS. CO. V. THE
PESARO, 271 U.S. 562; CF. THE EXCHANGE, 7 CRANCH 116.  AND IN A CASE
SUCH AS THE PRESENT IT IS OPEN TO A FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT TO ASSERT THAT
SUCH IS THE PUBLIC STATUS OF THE VESSEL AND TO CLAIM HER IMMUNITY FROM
SUIT, EITHER THROUGH DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS OR, IF IT CHOOSES, AS A
CLAIMANT IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

IF THE CLAIM IS RECOGNIZED AND ALLOWED BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE
GOVERNMENT, IT IS THEN THE DUTY OF THE COURTS TO RELEASE THE VESSEL
UPON APPROPRIATE SUGGESTION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR OTHER OFFICER ACTING UNDER HIS DIRECTION.  THE CASSIUS, 2
DALL.  365; THE EXCHANGE, SUPRA; THE PIZARRO, 19 FED. CAS. NO. 11,199;
SEE THE CONSTITUTION, L.R. 4 P.D. 39; CF. EX PARTE MUIR, 254 U.S. 522;
THE PARLEMENT BELGE, L.R. 4 P.D. 129.  THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IS ALSO
ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT UPON A PROPER SHOWING, TO APPEAR IN A PENDING
SUIT, THERE TO ASSERT ITS CLAIM TO THE VESSEL, AND TO RAISE THE
JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION IN ITS OWN NAME OR THAT OF ITS ACCREDITED AND
RECOGNIZED REPRESENTATIVE.  THE SAPPHIRE, 11 WALL.  164, 167; THE ANNE,
3 WHEAT.  435, 445-446; THE SANTISSIMA TRINIDAD, 7 WHEAT.  283, 353;
COLOMBIA V. CAUCA CO., 190 U.S. 524; EX PARTE TRANSPORTES MARITIMOS,
264 U.S. 105; BERIZZI BROS. CO. V. THE PESARO, SUPRA. 

AFTER REFUSAL OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO ACT UPON THE PRESENT
CLAIM, THE AMBASSADOR ADOPTED THE LATTER COURSE.  HIS APPLICATION TO BE
PERMITTED TO APPEAR AND PRESENT THE CLAIM WAS PROPERLY ENTERTAINED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT.  BUT IT WAS NOT BOUND, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS
THOUGHT, TO ACCEPT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE SUGGESTION AS CONCLUSIVE. 
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAVING DECLINED TO ACT, THE WANT OF ADMIRALTY
JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGED PUBLIC STATUS OF THE VESSEL AND THE
RIGHT OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT TO DEMAND POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL AS
OWNER IF IT SO ELECTED, WERE APPROPRIATE SUBJECTS FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
UPON PROOF OF THE MATTERS ALLEGED. 

BUT THE FILED SUGGESTION, THOUGH SUFFICIENT AS A STATEMENT OF THE
CONTENTIONS MADE, WAS NOT PROOF OF ITS ALLEGATIONS.  THIS COURT HAS
EXPLICITLY DECLINED TO GIVE SUCH A SUGGESTION THE FORCE OF PROOF OR THE
STATUS OF A LIKE SUGGESTION COMING FROM THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF OUR
GOVERNMENT.  EX PARTE MUIR, SUPRA; THE PESARO, SUPRA.  BERIZZI BROS.
CO. V. THE PESARO, SUPRA, DID NOT HOLD OTHERWISE FOR THERE IT WAS
STIPULATED THAT THE VESSEL, WHEN ARRESTED, WAS OWNED, POSSESSED AND
CONTROLLED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AND USED BY IT IN CARRYING
MERCHANDISE FOR HIRE.  THE SOLE QUESTION WAS ONE OF LAW, WHETHER, UPON
THE FACTS STIPULATED, THE VESSEL WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT. 

THE DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED, RIGHTLY WE THINK, THAT THE EVIDENCE AT
HAND DID NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE SUGGESTION THAT THE "NAVEMAR" HAD
BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT.  THE DECREE OF
ATTACHMENT, WITHOUT MORE, DID NOT OPERATE TO CHANGE THE POSSESSION
WHICH, BEFORE THE DECREE, WAS ADMITTEDLY IN PETITIONER.  TO ACCOMPLISH
THAT RESULT, SINCE THE DECREE WAS IN INVITUM, ACTUAL POSSESSION BY SOME
ACT OF PHYSICAL DOMINION OR CONTROL IN BEHALF OF THE SPANISH
GOVERNMENT, WAS NEEDFUL, THE DAVIS, 10 WALL.  15, 21; LONG V. THE
TAMPICO, 16 FED. 491, 493, 494; THE ATTUALITA, SUPRA; THE CARLO POMA,
259 FED. 369, 370, REVERSED ON OTHER GROUNDS, 255 U.S. 219, OR AT LEAST
SOME RECOGNITION ON THE PART OF THE SHIP'S OFFICERS THAT THEY WERE
CONTROLLING THE VESSEL AND CREW IN BEHALF OF THEIR GOVERNMENT.  FN1
BOTH WERE LACKING, AS WAS SUPPORT FOR ANY CONTENTION THAT THE VESSEL
WAS IN FACT EMPLOYED IN PUBLIC SERVICE.  SEE LONG V. THE TAMPICO,
SUPRA, 493, 494; CF. BERIZZI BROS. CO. V. THE PESARO, SUPRA. 

THE DISTRICT COURT RIGHTLY DECLINED TO TREAT THE SUGGESTION AS
CONCLUSIVE OR SUFFICIENT AS PROOF TO REQUIRE THE COURT TO RELINQUISH
ITS JURISDICTION.  BUT AS THE SUGGESTION WAS TENDERED IN SUPPORT OF AN
APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS A CLAIMANT IN THE SUIT, AND AS IT PUT FORTH A
CLAIM TO TITLE AND RIGHT TO POSSESSION OF THE VESSEL, THE AMBASSADOR
SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO INTERVENE AND, IF SO ADVISED, TO LITIGATE
ITS CLAIMS IN THE SUIT.  IN EX PARTE MUIR, SUPRA, AND IN THE PESARO,
SUPRA, 219, THE AMBASSADOR OF THE INTERVENING GOVERNMENT CHALLENGED THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, BUT DID NOT PLACE HIMSELF OR HIS GOVERNMENT
IN THE ATTITUDE OF A SUITOR.  HERE THE APPLICATION AS CONSTRUED BY THE
TRIAL COURT WAS FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE AS A CLAIMANT.  WE THINK
THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO OCCUPY THAT POSITION IF SO
ADVISED.    THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE REVERSED.  THE
RESPONDENT WILL BE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSERTING
THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT'S OWNERSHIP AND RIGHT TO POSSESSION OF THE
VESSEL, AND THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT WILL BE MODIFIED
ACCORDINGLY.  REVERSED. 

FN1  IN THE JUPITER, 1924 P. 236, 241, 244(CF. THE JUPITER NO. 2,
1925 P. 69; THE JUPITER NO. 3, 1927 P. 122, 125), AND IN THE RECENTLY
REPORTED THE CRISTINA, 59 LLOYD'S LIST LAW REPORTS 43, 50, ON WHICH
RESPONDENT RELIES, THE POSSESSION TAKEN IN BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
GOVERNMENT WAS ACTUAL.  THE JUDGMENT IN THE CRISTINA APPEARS TO HAVE
PROCEEDED ON THAT GROUND.  IN THE JUPITER, IT APPEARED THAT BEFORE THE
SUIT WAS BROUGHT THE MASTER HAD REPUDIATED THE POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP
OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND HELD THE VESSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT GOVERNMENT.  THE
REPORT OF THE CRISTINA IN THE ADMIRALTY DIVISION, 59 LLOYD'S LIST LAW
REPORTS 1, 3, INDICATES THAT THE MASTER AND CREW WERE IN THE PAY OF THE
SPANISH GOVERNMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















CONN. GENERAL CO. V. JOHNSON, 303 U.S. 77 


NO. 316.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 93
CAL. DEC. 4650 -  67 P.2D 675, REVERSED. 


1.  A CORPORATION WHICH IS ALLOWED TO COME INTO A STATE AND THERE
CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS MAY CLAIM, AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAY CLAIM, THE
PROTECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION
TO IT OF STATE LAW.  P. 79. 

2.  A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION CONDUCTED PART OF ITS LIFE INSURANCE
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA UNDER LICENSE FROM THAT STATE AND ALSO ENTERED
INTO CONTRACTS WITH OTHER INSURANCE CORPORATIONS LIKEWISE LICENSED TO
DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, REINSURING THEM AGAINST LOSS ON POLICIES OF
LIFE INSURANCE EFFECTED BY THEM IN CALIFORNIA AND ISSUED TO RESIDENTS
THERE.  THESE REINSURANCE CONTRACTS WERE ENTERED INTO IN CONNECTICUT,
WHERE THE PREMIUMS WERE PAID AND WHERE THE LOSSES, IF ANY, WERE
PAYABLE. 

HELD THAT, AS APPLIED TO SUCH REINSURANCE BUSINESS, A CALIFORNIA TAX
ON THE PRIVILEGE OF THE CORPORATION TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE,
MEASURED BY THE GROSS PREMIUMS RECEIVED, WAS VOID UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 78, 82. 

3.  A STATE MAY NOT TAX THE PROPERTY AND ACTIVITIES OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES.  P. 80. 

THE LIMITS PLACED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ON THE STATE'S
JURISDICTION TO TAX ARE TO BE ASCERTAINED BY REFERENCE TO THE INCIDENCE
OF THE TAX UPON ITS OBJECTS RATHER THAN THE ULTIMATE THRUST OF THE
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND BURDENS OF TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE STATE WHICH IT
MIGHT BUT DOES NOT TAX. 

CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. JOHNSON, TREASURER OF
CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENTS AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL ON DEMURRER OF TWO
ACTIONS BY THE ABOVE-NAMED INSURANCE COMPANY AGAINST JOHNSON, STATE
TREASURER OF CALIFORNIA, TO RECOVER TAXES PAID UNDER PROTEST.  THE
CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER IN THE COURT BELOW. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANT IS A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, ADMITTED TO DO AN INSURANCE
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.  IN ADDITION TO ITS BUSINESS CONDUCTED WITHIN
THAT STATE IT HAS ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS WITH OTHER INSURANCE
CORPORATIONS LIKEWISE LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, REINSURING
THEM AGAINST LOSS ON POLICIES OF LIFE INSURANCE EFFECTED BY THEM IN
CALIFORNIA AND ISSUED TO RESIDENTS THERE.  THESE REINSURANCE CONTRACTS
WERE ENTERED INTO IN CONNECTICUT WHERE THE PREMIUMS WERE PAID AND WHERE
THE LOSSES, IF ANY, WERE PAYABLE.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER
A TAX LAID BY CALIFORNIA ON THE RECEIPT BY APPELLANT IN CONNECTICUT OF
THE REINSURANCE PREMIUMS DURING THE YEARS 1930 AND 1931, INFRINGES THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

IN SUITS BROUGHT IN THE STATE COURT BY APPELLANT AGAINST RESPONDENT,
STATE TREASURER, TO RECOVER THE TAXES PAID, THE SUPREME COURT OF
CALIFORNIA SUSTAINED DEMURRERS TO THE COMPLAINTS AND GAVE JUDGMENTS FOR
THE RESPONDENT.  THE CASES, HAVING BEEN CONSOLIDATED, COME HERE ON A
SINGLE APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.  28 U.S.C. SEC.
344(A). 

SUPPLEMENTED BY ACT OF MARCH 5, 1921(STATES.  1921, C. 22, PP. 20, 21,
POLITICAL CODE, SEC. 3664B), FIXING THE RATE OF TAX, LAYS UPON EVERY
INSURANCE COMPANY DOING BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE AN ANNUAL TAX OF 2.6%
"UPON THE AMOUNT OF THE GROSS PREMIUMS RECEIVED UPON ITS BUSINESS DONE
IN THIS STATE, LESS RETURN PREMIUMS AND REINSURANCE IN COMPANIES OR
ASSOCIATIONS AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS STATE...."  THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAS DECLARED THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
IMPOSES "A FRANCHISE TAX EXACTED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS"
IN THE STATE.  CONSOLIDATED TITLE SECURITIES CO. V. HOPKINS, 1 CAL.(2D)
414, 419; 35 P.(2D) 320; CF. CARPENTER V. PEOPLE'S MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE CO., 94 CAL. DEC. 674; 74 P.(2D) 708. 

ALTHOUGH IN TERMS THE "GROSS PREMIUMS RECEIVED UPON  ...  BUSINESS
DONE IN THIS STATE," LESS THE SPECIFIED DEDUCTIONS, ARE MADE THE
MEASURE OF THE TAX, THE STATE COURT IN THIS, AS IN AN EARLIER CASE,
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. JOHNSON, 3 CAL.(2D) 83; 43
P.(2D) 278(APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF A PROPERLY PRESENTED FEDERAL
QUESTION, 296 U.S. 535), HAS HELD THAT THE MEASURE INCLUDES THE
PREMIUMS ON APPELLANT'S REINSURANCE POLICIES EFFECTED AND PAYABLE IN
CONNECTICUT.  IN THIS CASE IT HAS DECLARED ALSO THAT THE POLICY OF THE
STATE, EXPRESSED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, IS "TO AVOID DOUBLE
TAXATION WITHOUT ANY LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE STATE."  TO ACCOMPLISH THAT
END THE DEDUCTION OF REINSURANCE PREMIUMS PAID TO COMPANIES AUTHORIZED
TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE IS ALLOWED, IT IS SAID, ON THE THEORY
THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE DEDUCTION WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE REINSURER
WHO, BEING AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, MAY BE TAXED ON
THE REINSURANCE PREMIUMS AS A MEANS OF EQUALIZING THE TAX AND AS AN
OFFSET AGAINST THE BENEFIT OF THE DEDUCTION WHICH HE ULTIMATELY
ENJOYS. 

NO CONTENTION IS MADE THAT APPELLANT HAS CONSENTED TO THE TAX IMPOSED
AS A CONDITION OF THE GRANTED PRIVILEGE TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE
STATE.  NOR COULD IT BE, FOR IT APPEARS THAT APPELLANT HAD CONDUCTED
ITS BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA UNDER STATE LICENSE FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE
THE TAXABLE YEARS IN QUESTION AND BEFORE THE TAXING ACT WAS CONSTRUED
BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, IN CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE
INSURANCE CO. V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, TO APPLY TO PREMIUMS RECEIVED IN
CONNECTICUT FROM REINSURANCE CONTRACTS EFFECTED THERE.  A CORPORATION
WHICH IS ALLOWED TO COME INTO A STATE AND THERE CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS
MAY CLAIM, AS AN INDIVIDUAL MAY CLAIM, THE PROTECTION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AGAINST A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION TO IT OF STATE LAW.  HANOVER
FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494; CF. KENTUCKY FINANCE CORP.
V. PARAMOUNT AUTO EXCHANGE CORP., 262 U.S. 544. 

IT IS SAID THAT THE STATE COULD HAVE LAWFULLY ACCOMPLISHED ITS
PURPOSE IF THE STATUTE HAD FURTHER STIPULATED THAT THE DEDUCTION SHOULD
BE ALLOWED ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE REINSURANCE IS EFFECTED IN THE
STATE OR THE REINSURANCE PREMIUMS PAID THERE.  BUT AS THE STATE HAS
PLACED NO SUCH LIMITATION ON THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTIONS, THE END
SOUGHT CAN BE ATTAINED ONLY IF THE RECEIPT BY APPELLANT OF THE
REINSURANCE PREMIUMS PAID IN CONNECTICUT UPON THE CONNECTICUT POLICIES
IS WITHIN THE REACH OF CALIFORNIA'S TAXING POWER.  APPELLEE ARGUES THAT
IT IS, BECAUSE THE REINSURANCE TRANSACTIONS ARE SO RELATED TO BUSINESS
CARRIED ON BY APPELLANT IN CALIFORNIA AS TO BE A PART OF IT AND
PROPERLY INCLUDED IN THE MEASURE OF THE TAX; AND BECAUSE, IN ANY CASE,
NO INJUSTICE IS DONE TO APPELLANT SINCE THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE AS
CONSTRUED IS TO REDISTRIBUTE THE TAX, WHICH THE STATE MIGHT HAVE
EXACTED FROM THE ORIGINAL INSURERS BUT DID NOT, BY ASSESSING IT UPON
APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT HAS RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF THE
ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS. 

BUT THE LIMITS OF THE STATE'S LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION TO TAX,
PRESCRIBED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ARE TO BE ASCERTAINED BY
REFERENCE TO THE INCIDENCE OF THE TAX UPON ITS OBJECTS RATHER THAN THE
ULTIMATE THRUST OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND BURDENS OF TRANSACTIONS
WITHIN THE STATE.  AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE AND CERTAINTY, AND TO
SECURE A PRACTICALLY JUST OPERATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION,
WE LOOK TO THE STATE POWER TO CONTROL THE OBJECTS OF THE TAX AS MARKING
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE POWER TO LAY IT.  HENCE IT IS THAT A STATE WHICH
CONTROLS THE PROPERTY AND ACTIVITIES WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES OF A FOREIGN
CORPORATION ADMITTED TO DO BUSINESS THERE MAY TAX THEM.  BUT THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE DENIES TO THE STATE POWER TO TAX OR REGULATE THE
CORPORATION'S PROPERTY AND ACTIVITIES ELSEWHERE.  UNION REFRIGERATOR
TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. V.
HEAD, 234 U.S. 149; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. DODGE, 246 U.S. 357;
ST. LOUIS COMPRESS CO. V. ARKANSAS, 260 U.S. 346; COMPANIA GENERAL DE
TABACOS V. COLLECTOR, 275 U.S. 87; HOME INSURANCE CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S.
397; HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. V. DELTA & PINE LAND CO., 292
U.S. 143; BOSEMAN V. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO., 301 U.S. 196;
PEOPLE EX REL. SEA INSURANCE CO. V. GRAVES, 274 N.Y. 312; 8 N.E.(2D)
872; CF. PROVIDENT SAVINGS LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. KENTUCKY, 239 U.S.
103.  IT FOLLOWS THAT SUCH A TAX, OTHERWISE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IS NOT
CONVERTED INTO A VALID EXACTION MERELY BECAUSE THE CORPORATION ENJOYS
OUTSIDE THE STATE ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM TRANSACTIONS WITHIN IT, WHICH
THE STATE MIGHT BUT DOES NOT TAX, OR BECAUSE THE STATE MIGHT TAX THE
TRANSACTIONS WHICH THE CORPORATION CARRIES ON OUTSIDE THE STATE IF IT
WERE INDUCED TO CARRY THEM ON WITHIN. 

APPELLANT, BY ITS REINSURANCE CONTRACTS, UNDERTOOK ONLY TO INDEMNIFY
THE INSURED COMPANIES AGAINST LOSS UPON THEIR POLICIES WRITTEN IN
CALIFORNIA.  THE REINSURANCE INVOLVED NO TRANSACTIONS OR RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN APPELLANT AND THOSE ORIGINALLY INSURED, AND CALLED FOR NO ACT
IN CALIFORNIA.  CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. JOHNSON,
SUPRA, 87; CF. MORRIS & CO. V. SKANDINAVIA INSURANCE CO., 279 U.S. 405,
408.  APART FROM THE FACTS THAT APPELLANT WAS PRIVILEGED TO DO BUSINESS
IN CALIFORNIA, AND THAT THE RISKS REINSURED WERE ORIGINALLY INSURED
AGAINST IN THAT STATE BY COMPANIES ALSO AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS
THERE, CALIFORNIA HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO APPELLANT OR TO THE
REINSURANCE CONTRACTS.  NO ACT IN THE COURSE OF THEIR FORMATION,
PERFORMANCE OR DISCHARGE, TOOK PLACE THERE.  THE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE
ACTS WAS NOT DEPENDENT UPON ANY PRIVILEGE OR AUTHORITY GRANTED BY IT,
AND CALIFORNIA LAWS AFFORDED TO THEM NO PROTECTION. 

THE GRANT BY THE STATE OF THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS THERE AND
ITS CONSEQUENT AUTHORITY TO TAX THE PRIVILEGE DO NOT WITHDRAW FROM THE
PROTECTION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE THE PRIVILEGE, WHICH CALIFORNIA
DOES NOT GRANT, OF DOING BUSINESS ELSEWHERE.  WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH
CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1; INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS,
246 U.S. 135; LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSONVILLE FERRY CO. V. KENTUCKY, 188
U.S. 385, 398.  EVEN THOUGH A TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS
WITHIN THE STATE IN INSURING RESIDENTS AND RISKS WITHIN IT MAY BE
MEASURED BY THE PREMIUMS COLLECTED, INCLUDING THOSE MAILED TO THE HOME
OFFICE WITHOUT THE STATE, EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 238 U.S. 143, AND THOUGH THE WRITING OF POLICIES WITHOUT
THE STATE INSURING RESIDENTS AND RISKS WITHIN IT IS TAXABLE BECAUSE
WITHIN THE GRANTED PRIVILEGE, COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS V. COLLECTOR,
SUPRA, 98, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SAYING THAT REINSURANCE WHICH DOES NOT
RUN TO THE ORIGINAL INSURED, AND WHICH FROM ITS INCEPTION TO ITS
TERMINATION INVOLVES NO ACTION TAKEN WITHIN CALIFORNIA, EVEN THE
SETTLEMENT AND ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIMS, IS EMBRACED IN ANY PRIVILEGE
GRANTED BY THAT STATE.  PROVIDENT SAVINGS LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V.
KENTUCKY, SUPRA, 112; COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS V. COLLECTOR, SUPRA,
96; CF. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 147;
COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS V. COLLECTOR, SUPRA, 98.  ALL THAT
APPELLANT DID IN EFFECTING THE REINSURANCE WAS DONE WITHOUT THE STATE
AND FOR ITS TRANSACTION NO PRIVILEGE OR LICENSE BY CALIFORNIA WAS
NEEDFUL.  THE TAX CANNOT BE SUSTAINED EITHER AS LAID ON PROPERTY,
BUSINESS DONE, OR TRANSACTIONS CARRIED ON WITHIN THE STATE, OR AS A TAX
ON A PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE STATE.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS CALIFORNIA CORPORATE FRANCHISE TAX HAS
BEEN PROVED BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FN1  AND I BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  TRADITIONALLY, STATES
HAVE BEEN EMPOWERED TO GRANT OR DENY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS THE RIGHT TO
DO BUSINESS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS, FN2  AND "...  MAY EXCLUDE THEM
ARBITRARILY OR IMPOSE SUCH CONDITIONS AS  ...  (THEY) WILL UPON THEIR
ENGAGING IN BUSINESS WITHIN (THEIR)  ...  JURISDICTION."  FN3 

CALIFORNIA LAID AN ANNUAL TAX UPON GROSS INSURANCE PREMIUMS WHICH THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAS CONSTRUED TO BE "A FRANCHISE TAX
EXACTED FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS."  IN MEASURING THIS
FRANCHISE TAX IMPOSED UPON CORPORATIONS THE STATE INCLUDES REINSURANCE
PREMIUMS PAID TO THE CORPORATION ON CONTRACTS MADE WITHOUT THE STATE,
WHERE SUCH REINSURANCE PROTECTS CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 
THERE IS NO ATTEMPT BY THIS TAX TO REGULATE THE BUSINESS OF THE
INSURANCE COMPANY IN ANY STATE EXCEPT CALIFORNIA. 

THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT CALIFORNIA MADE ANY CONTRACT WITH
THIS CONNECTICUT CORPORATION GUARANTEEING IT A PERMANENT FRANCHISE TO
DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS UPON WHICH
IT ENTERED THE STATE. 

"A STATE WHICH FREELY GRANTED THE CORPORATE PRIVILEGE FOR INTRASTATE
COMMERCE MAY CHANGE ITS POLICY....  IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT, THERE
IS NO VESTED INTEREST WHICH REQUIRES THE CONTINUANCE OF A LEGISLATIVE
POLICY HOWEVER EXPRESSED - WHETHER EMBODIED IN A CHARTER OR IN A SYSTEM
OF TAXATION."  FN4 

IT MAY BE THAT CALIFORNIA BELIEVES THAT BY THIS TAX IT CAN STIMULATE
THE REINSURANCE BUSINESS OF COMPANIES MAKING THEIR REINSURANCE
CONTRACTS IN CALIFORNIA.  THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO FOSTER ITS OWN
DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES BY ITS TAXING SYSTEM HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS
COURT.  FN5 

THIS COURT HAS ALSO FREQUENTLY SUSTAINED THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO
IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN ORDER TO FAVOR ITS OWN
CORPORATIONS.  FN6  IF A STATE DID NOT HAVE THIS PRIVILEGE IT COULD NOT
PROTECT THE DOMESTIC BUSINESS OF ITS OWN CORPORATIONS FROM UNDESIRABLE
COMPETITION BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.  THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO LIMIT THE PRIVILEGES OF ITS OWN CORPORATIONS
AND TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR PRIVILEGES AND TO DEFINE AND
LIMIT THEIR ACTIVITIES.  FN7  IF CALIFORNIA HAS THE LAWFUL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (AS THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES SAID IT HAS) TO
IMPOSE CONDITIONS UPON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS SO AS TO PROTECT DOMESTIC
CORPORATIONS, ITS OWN ELECTED LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE THE
JUDGES OF WHAT IS REASONABLE AND PROPER IN A DEMOCRACY. 

WITH REFERENCE TO A CORPORATE TAX IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,
THIS COURT HAS SAID:  "THE APPELLANTS, BY INCORPORATING IN SOME OTHER
STATE, OR BY SPREADING THEIR BUSINESS AND ACTIVITIES OVER OTHER STATES,
CANNOT SET AT NAUGHT THE PUBLIC POLICY OF LOUISIANA (CALIFORNIA?)....
THE POLICY LOUISIANA (CALIFORNIA?)  IS FREE TO ADOPT WITH RESPECT TO
THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF HER OWN CITIZENS SHE MAY APPLY TO THE
CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES WHO CONDUCT THE SAME BUSINESS WITHIN HER
BORDERS, AND THIS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE EVILS REQUIRING
REGULATION ARISE SOLELY FROM OPERATIONS IN LOUISIANA (CALIFORNIA?)  OR
ARE IN PART THE RESULT OF EXTRA-STATE TRANSACTIONS."  FN8    BUT IT IS
CONTENDED THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
PROHIBITS CALIFORNIA FROM DETERMINING WHAT TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHOULD
BE IMPOSED UPON THIS CONNECTICUT CORPORATION TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF
THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE THE WORD "PERSON" IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
INCLUDES CORPORATIONS.  "THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS, HOWEVER
APPROPRIATE AND EVEN NECESSARY AT TIMES, HAS ONLY A LIMITED APPLICATION
IN THE FIELD OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW."  FN9  THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES
CHANGED ITS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THE CONCLUSION WAS
REACHED THAT AN IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN ADOPTED.  FN10  ONLY
RECENTLY THE CASE OF WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379,
EXPRESSLY OVERRULED A PREVIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT WHICH HAD LONG BLOCKED STATE MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION.  WHEN
A STATUTE IS DECLARED BY THIS COURT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE
DECISION UNTIL REVERSED STANDS AS A BARRIER AGAINST THE ADOPTION OF
SIMILAR LEGISLATION.  A CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION THAT IS WRONG
SHOULD NOT STAND.  I BELIEVE THIS COURT SHOULD NOW OVERRULE PREVIOUS
DECISIONS WHICH INTERPRETED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE
CORPORATIONS. 

NEITHER THE HISTORY NOR THE LANGUAGE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
JUSTIFIES THE BELIEF THAT CORPORATIONS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN ITS
PROTECTION.  THE HISTORICAL PURPOSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS
CLEARLY SET FORTH WHEN FIRST CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN THE SLAUGHTER
HOUSE CASES, 16 WALL.  36, DECIDED APRIL, 1873 - LESS THAN FIVE YEARS
AFTER THE PROCLAMATION OF ITS ADOPTION.  MR. JUSTICE MILLER SPEAKING
FOR THE COURT SAID (P. 70): 

"AMONG THE FIRST ACTS OF LEGISLATION ADOPTED BY SEVERAL OF THE STATES
IN THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES WHICH CLAIMED TO BE IN THEIR NORMAL RELATIONS
WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WERE LAWS WHICH IMPOSED UPON THE COLORED
RACE ONEROUS DISABILITIES AND BURDENS, AND CURTAILED THEIR RIGHTS IN
THE PURSUIT OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THEIR
FREEDOM WAS OF LITTLE VALUE, WHILE THEY HAD LOST THE PROTECTION WHICH
THEY HAD RECEIVED FROM THEIR FORMER OWNERS FROM MOTIVES BOTH OF
INTEREST AND HUMANITY.... 

"THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHATEVER OF FALSEHOOD OR MISCONCEPTION MAY HAVE
BEEN MINGLED WITH THEIR PRESENTATION, FORCED  ...  THE CONVICTION THAT
SOMETHING MORE WAS NECESSARY IN THE WAY OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO
THE UNFORTUNATE RACE WHO HAD SUFFERED SO MUCH....  (CONGRESSIONAL
LEADERS) ACCORDINGLY PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS THE PROPOSITION FOR THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND ...  DECLINED TO TREAT AS RESTORED TO THEIR
FULL PARTICIPATION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION THE STATES WHICH HAD
BEEN IN INSURRECTION, UNTIL THEY RATIFIED THAT ARTICLE BY A FORMAL VOTE
OF THEIR LEGISLATIVE BODIES." 

CERTAINLY, WHEN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL,
THE PEOPLE WERE NOT TOLD THAT THE STATES OF THE SOUTH WERE TO BE DENIED
THEIR NORMAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNLESS THEY
RATIFIED AN AMENDMENT GRANTING NEW AND REVOLUTIONARY RIGHTS TO
CORPORATIONS.  THIS COURT, WHEN THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE CASES WERE DECIDED
IN 1873, HAD APPARENTLY DISCOVERED NO SUCH PURPOSE.  THE RECORDS OF THE
TIME CAN BE SEARCHED IN VAIN FOR EVIDENCE THAT THIS AMENDMENT WAS
ADOPTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF CORPORATIONS.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN 1882,
TWELVE YEARS AFTER ITS ADOPTION, AND TEN YEARS AFTER THE SLAUGHTER
HOUSE CASES, SUPRA, AN ARGUMENT WAS MADE IN THIS COURT THAT A JOURNAL
OF THE JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE WHICH FRAMED THE AMENDMENT, SECRET
AND UNDISCLOSED UP TO THAT DATE, INDICATED THE COMMITTEE'S DESIRE TO
PROTECT CORPORATIONS BY THE USE OF THE WORD "PERSON."  FN11  FOUR YEARS
LATER, IN 1886, THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, 118 U.S. 394, DECIDED FOR THE FIRST TIME
THAT THE WORD "PERSON" IN THE AMENDMENT DID IN SOME INSTANCES INCLUDE
CORPORATIONS.  A SECRET PURPOSE ON THE PART OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, EVEN IF SUCH BE THE FACT, HOWEVER, WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT
TO JUSTIFY ANY SUCH CONSTRUCTION.  THE HISTORY OF THE AMENDMENT PROVES
THAT THE PEOPLE WERE TOLD THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT WEAK AND
HELPLESS HUMAN BEINGS AND WERE NOT TOLD THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO REMOVE
CORPORATIONS IN ANY FASHION FROM THE CONTROL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS.  THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FOLLOWED THE FREEDOM OF A RACE FROM SLAVERY. 
JUSTICE SWAYNE SAID IN THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE CASES, SUPRA, THAT "BY 'ANY
PERSON' WAS MEANT ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE.  NO
DISTINCTION IS INTIMATED ON ACCOUNT OF RACE OR COLOR."  CORPORATIONS
HAVE NEITHER RACE NOR COLOR.  HE KNEW THE AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO
PROTECT THE LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY OF HUMAN BEINGS. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT ITSELF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE THEORY THAT
IT WAS PASSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF CORPORATIONS. 

THE FIRST CLAUSE OF SEC. 1 OF THE AMENDMENT READS:  "ALL PERSONS BORN
OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION
THEREOF, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE STATE WHEREIN
THEY RESIDE."  CERTAINLY A CORPORATION CANNOT BE NATURALIZED AND
"PERSONS" HERE IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE "CORPORATIONS." 

THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SEC. 1 READS:  "NO STATE
SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR
IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES;..."  WHILE EFFORTS HAVE
BEEN MADE TO PERSUADE THIS COURT TO ALLOW CORPORATIONS TO CLAIM THE
PROTECTION OF THIS CLAUSE, THESE EFFORTS HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL. 
FN12 

THE NEXT CLAUSE OF THE SECOND SENTENCE READS:  "NOR SHALL ANY STATE
DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW;..."  IT HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED THAT THIS CLAUSE PROHIBITS A STATE
FROM DEPRIVING A CORPORATION OF "LIFE."  THIS COURT HAS EXPRESSLY HELD
THAT "THE LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
DEPRIVATION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS THE LIBERTY OF NATURAL, NOT
ARTIFICIAL PERSONS."  FN13  THUS, THE WORDS "LIFE" AND "LIBERTY" DO NOT
APPLY TO CORPORATIONS, AND OF COURSE THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO
INTENDED TO APPLY.  HOWEVER, THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WHICH THE
MAJORITY FOLLOW HOLD THAT CORPORATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS CLAUSE
INSOFAR AS THE WORD "PROPERTY" IS CONCERNED.  IN OTHER WORDS, THIS
CLAUSE IS CONSTRUED TO MEAN AS FOLLOWS: 

"NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY HUMAN BEING OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY
CORPORATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 

THE LAST CLAUSE OF THIS SECOND SENTENCE OF SEC. 1 READS:  "NOR DENY
TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS."  AS USED HERE, "PERSON" HAS BEEN CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE
CORPORATIONS.  FN14 

BOTH CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE MEANING OF THE
WORD "CORPORATION" AT THE TIME THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS SUBMITTED
AND ADOPTED.  THE JUDICIAL INCLUSION OF THE WORD "CORPORATION" IN THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAS HAD A REVOLUTIONARY EFFECT ON OUR FORM OF
GOVERNMENT.  THE STATES DID NOT ADOPT THE AMENDMENT WITH KNOWLEDGE OF
ITS SWEEPING MEANING UNDER ITS PRESENT CONSTRUCTION.  NO SECTION OF THE
AMENDMENT GAVE NOTICE TO THE PEOPLE THAT, IF ADOPTED, IT WOULD SUBJECT
EVERY STATE LAW AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE, AFFECTING CORPORATIONS, (AND
ALL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS UNDER THEM) TO CENSORSHIP OF THE UNITED
STATES COURTS.  NO WORD IN ALL THIS AMENDMENT GAVE ANY HINT THAT ITS
ADOPTION WOULD DEPRIVE THE STATES OF THEIR LONG RECOGNIZED POWER TO
REGULATE CORPORATIONS. 

THE SECOND SECTION OF THE AMENDMENT INFORMED THE PEOPLE THAT
REPRESENTATIVES WOULD BE APPORTIONED AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES
"ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NUMBERS, COUNTING THE WHOLE NUMBER OF
PERSONS IN EACH STATE, EXCLUDING INDIANS NOT TAXED."  NO CITIZEN COULD
GATHER THE IMPRESSION HERE THAT WHILE THE WORD "PERSONS" IN THE SECOND
AMENDMENT SAID THAT "NO PERSON  ...  SHALL BE A SENATOR OR
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS," (WHO "ENGAGED IN INSURRECTION").  THERE
WAS NO INTIMATION HERE THAT THE WORD "PERSON" IN THE FIRST SECTION IN
SOME INSTANCES INCLUDED CORPORATIONS. 

THIS AMENDMENT SOUGHT TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATES AGAINST
CLASSES OR RACES.  WE ARE AWARE OF THIS FROM WORDS SPOKEN IN THIS COURT
WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER ITS ADOPTION, WHEN THE PEOPLE AND THE COURTS
WERE PERSONALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE
AMENDMENT.  "WE DOUBT VERY MUCH WHETHER ANY ACTION OF A STATE NOT
DIRECTED BY WAY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE NEGROES AS A CLASS, OR ON
ACCOUNT OF THEIR RACE, WILL EVER BE HELD TO COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF
THIS PROVISION."  N15  YET, OF THE CASES IN THIS COURT IN WHICH THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS APPLIED DURING THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS AFTER ITS
ADOPTION, LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF ONE PER CENT. INVOKED IT IN PROTECTION
OF THE NEGRO RACE, AND MORE THAN FIFTY PER CENT. ASKED THAT ITS
BENEFITS BE EXTENDED TO CORPORATIONS.  FN16 

IF THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION WISH TO DEPRIVE THE STATES OF THEIR
SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO DETERMINE WHAT IS A FAIR AND JUST TAX UPON
CORPORATIONS DOING A PURELY LOCAL BUSINESS WITHIN THEIR OWN STATE
BOUNDARIES, THERE IS A WAY PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO ACCOMPLISH
THIS PURPOSE.  THAT WAY DOES NOT LIE ALONG THE COURSE OF JUDICIAL
AMENDMENT TO THAT FUNDAMENTAL CHARTER.  AN AMENDMENT HAVING THAT
PURPOSE COULD BE SUBMITTED BY CONGRESS AS PROVIDED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAD THAT
PURPOSE, NOR THAT THE PEOPLE BELIEVED IT HAD THAT PURPOSE, NOR THAT IT
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING THAT PURPOSE. 

I BELIEVE THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED. 

FN1  CF. OGDEN V. SAUNDERS, 12 WHEAT.  213, 270. 

FN2  BANK OF AUGUSTA V. EARLE, 13 PET. 519; PAUL V. VIRGINIA, 8
WALL.  168; DUCAT V. CHICAGO, 10 WALL.  410; HORN SILVER MINING CO. V.
NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 305. 

FN3  HANOVER FIRE INS. CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494, 507. 

FN4  BRANDEIS, J., DISSENTING, LIGGETT CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. 517,
546. 

FN5  NEW YORK V. ROBERTS, 171 U.S. 658; MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292
U.S. 40; FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87; AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT
CO. V. GEORGIA COMMISSION, 295 U.S. 285; ALASKA FISH CO. V. SMITH, 255
U.S. 44, 48. 

FN6  PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. V. CHEEK, 259 U.S. 530, 536; PEMBINA
MINING CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 125 U.S. 181, 189. 

FN7  FIFTH AVENUE COACH CO. V. NEW YORK, 221 U.S. 467; STONE V.
MISSISSIPPI, 101 U.S. 814, 820. 

FN8  ATLANTIC & PAC. TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412, 427. 

FN9  STONE AND CARDOZO, JJ., CONCURRING, ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 94. 

FN10  SEE COLLECTION OF CASES, NOTES 1, 2, 3 AND 4, DISSENTING
OPINION OF JUSTICE BRANDEIS, BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S.
393, 406-409. 

FN11  SAN MATEO COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD, 116 U.S. 138. 
SEE BENJ.  B. KENDRICK, JOURNAL OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON
RECONSTRUCTION (1914, NEW YORK); HOWARD J. GRAHAM, THE "CONSPIRACY
THEORY" OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, 47 YALE L.J. 371; DONALD BARR
CHIDSEY, THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK - A LIFE OF ROSCOE CONKLIN, YALE
UNIVERSITY PRESS (1935). 

FN12  SELOVER, BATES & CO. V. WALSH, 226 U.S. 112, 126. 

FN13  WESTERN TURF ASSN. V. GREENBERG, 204 U.S. 359, 363. 

FN14  GULF, C. & S.F. RY. CO. V. ELLIS, 165 U.S. 150, 154. 

FN15  SLAUGHTER HOUSE CASES, SUPRA. 

FN16  CHARLES WALLACE COLLINS, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE
STATES, BOSTON (1912), P. 138. 
..END :


















BLACKTON V. GORDON, 303 U.S. 91 


NO. 167.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 118
N.J.L. 159 -  191 ATL. 761, AFFIRMED. 


WAGES OF SEAMEN FROM ATTACHMENT, HELD INAPPLICABLE TO THE WAGES OF A
MASTER OF A VESSEL.  P. 92. 

BLACKTON V. GORDON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 667, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE PETITIONER, 117 N.J.L. 40; 186 ATL. 689, IN A SUIT TO
ENFORCE AGAINST HIM A STATUTORY LIABILITY BASED ON HIS REFUSAL TO HONOR
A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE MASTER OF A VESSEL IS ENTITLED TO THE
BENEFIT OF SEC. 12 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1915,  FN1  EXEMPTING WAGES
OF SEAMEN FROM ATTACHMENT. 

THE RESPONDENT RECOVERED JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE FINDLAY, THE CAPTAIN OF
THE TUG WAVERLY, A REGISTERED VESSEL OF THE UNITED STATES OPERATING IN
NEW YORK HARBOR.  UNDER A STATE STATUTE FINDLAY'S WAGES DUE FROM HIS
EMPLOYER, THE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, WERE ATTACHED BY THE SERVICE OF AN
ORDER ON THE PETITIONER, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE MARINE DEPARTMENT OF THE
RAILROAD COMPANY.  IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT IF FINDLAY'S WAGES WERE
SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT THE ORDER, AND ITS SERVICE UPON THE PETITIONER,
WERE REGULAR AND LAWFUL.  THE PETITIONER ASSERTED THAT THE FEDERAL
STATUTE EXEMPTED FINDLAY'S WAGES FROM EXECUTION AND REFUSED TO HONOR
THE ORDER.  THEREUPON ACTION WAS INSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT AGAINST
PETITIONER, PURSUANT TO LOCAL STATUTE WHICH IN SUCH A CASE RENDERS THE
RECUSANT OFFICER LIABLE FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT.  ON THE TRIAL
PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR A NONSUIT AND FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WERE
DENIED AND JUDGMENT WENT FOR THE RESPONDENT.  THE PETITIONER
SUCCESSIVELY APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF ERRORS AND
APPEALS.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED.  FN2  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTION WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE ARE:  "NO WAGES DUE OR ACCRUING TO ANY
SEAMAN OR APPRENTICE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT OR ARRESTMENT FROM
ANY COURT  ..."  WHILE, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SOME OF THE ACTS
CONCERNING SHIPPING, A MASTER IS INCLUDED IN THE CLASS DESIGNATED
SEAMEN, IN OTHERS THE EXPRESSION EXCLUDES THE MASTER.  FN3  IN THIS
CASE WE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED, BY SEC. 12 OF THE ACT
OF 1915, TO EXTEND TO A MASTER THE EXEMPTION OF SEAMEN'S WAGES FROM
GARNISHMENT.  DECISION IS AIDED BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISION IN
ITS ORIGINAL SETTING.  IT WAS FIRST ENACTED AS SEC. 61 OF THE ACT OF
JUNE 7, 1872,  FN4  WHICH AUTHORIZED THE APPOINTMENT OF SHIPPING
COMMISSIONERS TO PROTECT MERCHANT SEAMEN AND TO SUPERINTEND THEIR
SHIPMENT AND DISCHARGE.  SCRUTINY OF THE ACT AS A WHOLE LEADS TO THE
VIEW THAT IN ALL MATTERS AFFECTING WAGES SEAMEN WERE TREATED AS A CLASS
WHICH EXCLUDED MASTERS; AND THIS CONCLUSION IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 65, FN5
WHICH IS IN PART:  "THAT TO AVOID DOUBT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS
ACT, EVERY PERSON HAVING THE COMMAND OF ANY SHIP BELONGING TO ANY
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL, WITHIN THE MEANING AND FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, BE DEEMED AND TAKEN TO BE THE 'MASTER' OF SUCH
SHIP; AND THAT EVERY PERSON (APPRENTICES EXCEPTED) WHO SHALL BE
EMPLOYED OR ENGAGED TO SERVE IN ANY CAPACITY ON BOARD THE SAME SHALL BE
DEEMED AND TAKEN TO BE A 'SEAMAN' WITHIN THE MEANING AND FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ACT;..." 

IN ITS PRESENT FORM THE PERTINENT LANGUAGE OF SEC. 12 OF THE ACT OF
MARCH 4, 1915, IS IDENTICAL WITH THAT ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED IN SEC. 61 OF
THE ACT OF 1872, WHICH BECAME SEC. 4536 OF THE REVISED STATUTES. 
PROVISION TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO FISHERMEN EMPLOYED ON FISHING
VESSELS AS WELL AS TO SEAMEN.  THE STATUTE IS NOW SEC. 601 OF TITLE 46
OF THE UNITED STATES CODE. 

STATUTES AND, WITH IMMATERIAL AMENDMENTS, NOW IS SEC. 713 OF TITLE 46
OF THE UNITED STATES CODE.  VARIOUS OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1872
EMBODIED IN THE REVISED STATUTES, EITHER IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM OR AS
AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1915, AND BY THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF
1920,  FN6  NOW APPEAR, WITH PROVISIONS OF OTHER STATUTES, AS SECTIONS
OF TITLE 46 OF THE CODE.  IN COMPILING IT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF SEC.
65 OF THE ACT OF 1872 "TO AVOID DOUBT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ACT,"
WAS, IN SEC. 713 OF TITLE 46, CHANGED TO READ:  "IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THIS CHAPTER."  THE CHANGE IN PHRASEOLOGY HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE
IMPRESSION THAT THE DEFINITIONS FOUND IN SEC. 713 APPLY INDIFFERENTLY
TO THE VARIOUS STATUTES AFFECTING MERCHANT SHIPPING.  FN7  TO AVOID
CONFUSION IN DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DEFINITIONS CONTAINED
IN THAT SECTION, IT IS NECESSARY TO TRACE TO THEIR ORIGIN THE
SUBSTANTIVE SECTIONS TO WHICH IT MAY BE DEEMED TO REFER, AND TO
CONSTRUE THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENT INTENT OF CONGRESS IN THE USE
OF THE WORD "SEAMAN" IN THE ORIGINAL ACT.  SINCE THE PERTINENT
PROVISION OF SEC. 12 OF THE ACT OF 1915 HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND
THE DEFINITIONS OF SEC. 713 OF TITLE 46 OF THE CODE WERE COMMONLY
DERIVED FROM THE ACT OF 1872 AND HAVE NOT BEEN MATERIALLY CHANGED, THEY
MUST BE READ IN COLLOCATION, AND WHEN THIS IS DONE, THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS TO EXCLUDE MASTERS FROM THE EXEMPTION ACCORDED SEAMEN IS
PLAIN.  FN8 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT SEC. 61 OF THE ACT OF 1872 WAS MODIFIED
BY THE ACT OF JUNE 9, 1874, FN9  WHEREBY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF
1872 WERE MADE INAPPLICABLE TO VESSELS IN THE COASTWISE TRADE.  THE
LATTER ACT HAS BEEN CARRIED INTO THE CODE AS SEC. 544 OF TITLE 46, AND
IT IS SAID THAT THE REPEAL OF SEC. 61 BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1915, AND
THE REENACTMENT OF THE SECTION, SLIGHTLY ALTERED, DID NOT OPERATE TO
REPEAL THE ACT OF 1874.  IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION THAT A MASTER IS NOT
WITHIN THE EXEMPTION GRANTED BY SEC. 12 OF THE ACT OF 1915 WE NEED NOT
PASS UPON THIS QUESTION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 153, 38 STAT. 1164, 1169; U.S.C. TIT. 46, SEC. 601. 

FN2  117 N.J.L. 40, 186 ATL. 689; 118 N.J.L. 159, 191 ATL. 761. 

FN3  WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155, 157, 158. 

FN4  17 STAT. 262, 276. 

FN5  17 STAT. 277. 

FN6  C. 250, 41 STAT. 988. 

FN7  WARNER V. GOLTRA, SUPRA, P. 162. 

FN8  CF. WARNER V. GOLTRA, SUPRA, P. 162. 

FN9  C. 260, 18 STAT. 64. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










INDIANA EX REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, 303 U.S. 95 


NO. 256.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  - 5
N.E.(2D) 531, 913 -  7 N.E.(2D) 777, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A STATE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE A CAUSE UPON AN INDEPENDENT
STATE GROUND, BUT, DEEMING A FEDERAL QUESTION TO BE BEFORE IT, ACTUALLY
ENTERTAINS AND DECIDES THAT QUESTION ADVERSELY TO THE FEDERAL RIGHT
ASSERTED, THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT IF FINAL. 
P. 98. 

2.  THIS COURT MAY NOT REFUSE JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE STATE COURT
MIGHT HAVE BASED ITS DECISION, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE RECORD, UPON AN
INDEPENDENT AND ADEQUATE STATE GROUND.  P. 98. 

3.  THE OPINION OF THE STATE COURT MAY BE EXAMINED TO ASCERTAIN
WHETHER A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS RAISED AND DECIDED OR WHETHER THE COURT
RESTED ITS JUDGMENT ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  P. 98. 

4.  ANY DOUBT HERE AS TO WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF THE STATE STATUTE
UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WAS DRAWN INTO QUESTION, ARISING FROM
THE GENERALITY OF A REFERENCE IN THE OPINION OF THE STATE COURT, HELD
REMOVED BY A CERTIFICATE SIGNED BY ALL THE JUSTICES OF THE STATE COURT,
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE REFERENCE WAS TO
ART. I, SEC. 10, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 99. 

5.  A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT MAY CONTAIN PROVISIONS WHICH, WHEN
ACCEPTED AS THE BASIS OF ACTION BY INDIVIDUALS, BECOME CONTRACTS
BETWEEN THEM AND THE STATE, WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF ART. I, SEC. 10,
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 100. 

6.  WHERE IT IS CLAIMED THAT A STATE STATUTE IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION
OF A CONTRACT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED BY AN EARLIER STATUTE, THIS
COURT, WHILE ACCORDING GREAT WEIGHT TO THE VIEWS OF THE HIGHEST COURT
OF THE STATE, MUST DETERMINE FOR ITSELF QUESTIONS AS TO THE EXISTENCE
AND EFFECT OF THE CONTRACT AND AS TO WHETHER ITS OBLIGATION WAS
IMPAIRED.  P. 100. 

7.  THE INDIANA TEACHERS' TENURE ACT OF 1927 PROVIDED THAT A PUBLIC
SCHOOL TEACHER WHO HAD SERVED UNDER CONTRACT FOR FIVE OR MORE
SUCCESSIVE YEARS, AND THEREAFTER ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR FURTHER
SERVICE WITH THE SCHOOL CORPORATION, THEREBY BECAME A "PERMANENT
TEACHER," AND THAT THE CONTRACT, UPON THE EXPIRATION OF ITS STATED
TERM, SHOULD BE DEEMED AN "INDEFINITE CONTRACT" AND REMAIN IN FORCE
UNTIL SUCCEEDED BY A NEW CONTRACT SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES OR CANCELLED
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THE ACT.  A PERMANENT TEACHER'S CONTRACT MUST
BE IN WRITING AND COULD BE CANCELLED ONLY AFTER NOTICE AND HEARING, AND
FOR CAUSES SPECIFIED IN THE ACT, BUT NOT FOR POLITICAL OR PERSONAL
REASONS.  THE TEACHER COULD CANCEL ONLY UPON FIVE DAYS' NOTICE, BUT NOT
DURING THE SCHOOL TERM NOR WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BEGINNING THEREOF.  AN
AMENDATORY ACT OF 1933, AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURT, REPEALED THE
EARLIER ACT IN SO FAR AS TOWNSHIP TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS WERE CONCERNED,
AND PERMITTED THE TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF SUCH TEACHERS
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE EARLIER ACT. 
HELD THAT, UNDER THE ACT OF 1927, THE RIGHT OF A PERMANENT TEACHER TO
CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT UPON AN INDEFINITE CONTRACT WAS CONTRACTUAL, AND
THE OBLIGATION OF SUCH A CONTRACT IN THE CASE OF A TOWNSHIP TEACHER WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPAIRED BY THE ACT OF 1933.  P. 104. 

8.  ALTHOUGH EVERY CONTRACT IS MADE SUBJECT TO THE IMPLIED CONDITION
THAT ITS FULFILLMENT MAY BE FRUSTRATED BY PROPER EXERCISE OF THE POLICE
POWER, YET IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS EFFECT THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER MUST
BE FOR AN END WHICH IS IN FACT PUBLIC AND THE MEANS ADOPTED MUST BE
REASONABLY ADAPTED TO THAT END.  P. 108. 

9.  THE STATE COURT'S DECISION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION IN FAVOR OF THE
DEFENDANT BEING ERRONEOUS, AND IT NOT HAVING PASSED UPON A SECOND
GROUND OF DEMURRER WHICH APPEARS TO INVOLVE NO FEDERAL QUESTION, AND
WHICH MAY PRESENT A DEFENSE STILL OPEN TO THE DEFENDANT, THE CAUSE IS
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  P. 109. 

INDIANA EX REL. ANDERSON V. BRAND, TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 678, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE
DISMISSAL, ON DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT, OF AN ACTION FOR A WRIT OF
MANDATE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER SOUGHT A WRIT OF MANDATE TO COMPEL THE RESPONDENT  FN1
TO CONTINUE HER IN EMPLOYMENT AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER.  HER
COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT AS A DULY LICENSED TEACHER SHE ENTERED INTO A
CONTRACT IN SEPTEMBER, 1924, TO TEACH IN THE TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS AND,
PURSUANT TO SUCCESSIVE CONTRACTS, TAUGHT CONTINUOUSLY TO AND INCLUDING
THE SCHOOL YEAR 1932-1933; THAT HER CONTRACTS FOR THE SCHOOL YEARS 1931
1932 AND 1932-1933 CONTAINED THIS CLAUSE: "IT IS FURTHER AGREED BY THE
CONTRACTING PARTIES THAT ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEACHERS' TENURE
LAW, APPROVED MARCH 8, 1927, SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT IN THIS
CONTRACT"; AND THAT BY FORCE OF THAT ACT SHE HAD A CONTRACT, INDEFINITE
IN DURATION, WHICH COULD BE CANCELLED BY THE RESPONDENT ONLY IN THE
MANNER AND FOR THE CAUSES SPECIFIED IN THE ACT.  SHE CHARGED THAT IN
JULY, 1933, THE RESPONDENT NOTIFIED HER HE PROPOSED TO CANCEL HER
CONTRACT FOR CAUSE; THAT, AFTER A HEARING, HE ADHERED TO HIS DECISION
AND THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT AFFIRMED HIS ACTION; THAT, DESPITE WHAT
OCCURRED IN JULY, 1933, THE PETITIONER WAS PERMITTED TO TEACH DURING
THE SCHOOL YEAR 1933-1934 AND THE RESPONDENT WAS PRESENTLY THREATENING
TO TERMINATE HER EMPLOYMENT AT THE END OF THAT YEAR.  THE COMPLAINT
ALLEGED THE TERMINATION OF HER EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE A BREACH OF HER
CONTRACT WITH THE SCHOOL CORPORATION.  THE RESPONDENT DEMURRED ON THE
GROUNDS THAT (1) THE COMPLAINT DISCLOSED THE MATTERS PLEADED HAD BEEN
SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT AND THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT WHO WERE
AUTHORIZED TO TRY THE ISSUES AND HAD LAWFULLY DETERMINED THEM IN FAVOR
OF THE RESPONDENT; AND (2) THE TEACHERS' TENURE LAW HAD BEEN REPEALED
IN RESPECT OF TEACHERS IN TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS.  THE DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED
AND THE PETITIONER APPEALED TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT WHICH AFFIRMED
THE JUDGMENT.  FN2  THE COURT DID NOT DISCUSS THE FIRST GROUND OF
DEMURRER RELATING TO THE ACTION TAKEN IN THE SCHOOL YEAR 1932-1933, BUT
RESTED ITS DECISION UPON THE SECOND, THAT, BY AN ACT OF 1933, THE
TEACHERS' TENURE LAW HAD BEEN REPEALED AS RESPECTS TEACHERS IN TOWNSHIP
SCHOOLS; AND HELD THAT THE REPEAL DID NOT DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF A
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT AND DID NOT IMPAIR HER CONTRACT WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN ITS ORIGINAL OPINION THE COURT SAID:
"THE RELATRIX CONTENDS  ...  THAT, HAVING BECOME A PERMANENT TEACHER
UNDER THE TEACHERS' TENURE LAW BEFORE THE AMENDMENT, SHE HAD A VESTED
PROPERTY RIGHT IN HER INDEFINITE CONTRACT, WHICH MAY NOT BE IMPAIRED
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE IS A VESTED
RIGHT IN A PERMANENT TEACHER'S CONTRACT; WHETHER, UNDER THE TENURE LAW,
THERE IS A GRANT WHICH CANNOT LAWFULLY BE IMPAIRED BY A REPEAL OF THE
STATUTE."  WHERE THE STATE COURT DOES NOT DECIDE AGAINST A PETITIONER
OR APPELLANT UPON AN INDEPENDENT STATE GROUND, BUT DEEMING THE FEDERAL
QUESTION TO BE BEFORE IT, ACTUALLY ENTERTAINS AND DECIDES THAT QUESTION
ADVERSELY TO THE FEDERAL RIGHT ASSERTED, THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW THE JUDGMENT IF, AS HERE, IT IS A FINAL JUDGMENT.  FN3  WE
CANNOT REFUSE JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE STATE COURT MIGHT HAVE BASED ITS
DECISION, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE RECORD, UPON AN INDEPENDENT AND
ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND.  AND SINCE THE AMENDMENT OF THE JUDICIARY
ACT OF 1789  FN4  BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1867  FN5  IT HAS ALWAYS
BEEN HELD THIS COURT MAY EXAMINE THE OPINION OF THE STATE COURT TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS RAISED AND DECIDED, AND
WHETHER THE COURT RESTED ITS JUDGMENT ON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL
GROUND.  FN6 ANY AMBIGUITY ARISING FROM THE GENERALITY OF THE COURT'S
REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION IS RESOLVED BY A CERTIFICATE SIGNED BY
ALL THE JUSTICES OF THE COURT, MADE A PART OF THE RECORD, TO THE EFFECT
THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION IN THE OPINION WAS TO ART. I,
SEC. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN7  IT THUS
APPEARING THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE REPEALING ACT WAS
DRAWN IN QUESTION, AND THE STATUTE SUSTAINED, WE ISSUED THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI. 

THE COURT BELOW HOLDS THAT IN INDIANA TEACHERS' CONTRACTS ARE MADE
FOR BUT ONE YEAR; THAT THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO BE CONTINUED AS
A TEACHER FROM YEAR TO YEAR; THAT THE LAW GRANTS A PRIVILEGE TO ONE WHO
HAS TAUGHT FIVE YEARS AND SIGNED A NEW CONTRACT TO CONTINUE IN
EMPLOYMENT UNDER GIVEN CONDITIONS; THAT THE STATUTE IS DIRECTED MERELY
TO THE EXERCISE OF THEIR POWERS BY THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AND THE
POLICY THEREIN EXPRESSED MAY BE ALTERED AT THE WILL OF THE LEGISLATURE;
THAT IN ENACTING LAWS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS THE
LEGISLATURE EXERCISES A FUNCTION OF SOVEREIGNTY AND THE POWER TO
CONTROL PUBLIC POLICY IN RESPECT OF THEIR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION
CANNOT BE CONTRACTED AWAY BY ONE LEGISLATURE SO AS TO CREATE A
PERMANENT PUBLIC POLICY UNCHANGEABLE BY SUCCEEDING LEGISLATURES.  IN
THE ALTERNATIVE THE COURT DECLARES THAT IF THE RELATIONSHIP BE
CONSIDERED AS CONTROLLED BY THE RULES OF PRIVATE CONTRACT THE PROVISION
FOR REEMPLOYMENT FROM YEAR TO YEAR IS UNENFORCEABLE FOR WANT OF
MUTUALITY. 

AS IN MOST CASES BROUGHT TO THIS COURT UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION, THE QUESTION IS AS TO THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF THE
CONTRACT AND NOT AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO
IMPAIR IT.  THE PRINCIPAL FUNCTION OF A LEGISLATIVE BODY IS NOT TO MAKE
CONTRACTS BUT TO MAKE LAWS WHICH DECLARE THE POLICY OF THE STATE AND
ARE SUBJECT TO REPEAL WHEN A SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATURE SHALL DETERMINE TO
ALTER THAT POLICY.  NEVERTHELESS, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT A LEGISLATIVE
ENACTMENT MAY CONTAIN PROVISIONS WHICH, WHEN ACCEPTED AS THE BASIS OF
ACTION BY INDIVIDUALS, BECOME CONTRACTS BETWEEN THEM AND THE STATE OR
ITS SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF ART. I, SEC. 10.  FN8  IF THE
PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES DEEM IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THEY MAY ADOPT
A POLICY OF CONTRACTING IN RESPECT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR A TERM LONGER
THAN THE LIFE OF THE CURRENT SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE.  THIS THE
PETITIONER CLAIMS HAS BEEN DONE WITH RESPECT TO PERMANENT TEACHERS. 
THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IT IS THE STATE'S POLICY
NOT TO BIND SCHOOL CORPORATIONS BY CONTRACT FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. 

ON SUCH A QUESTION, ONE PRIMARILY OF STATE LAW, WE ACCORD RESPECTFUL
CONSIDERATION AND GREAT WEIGHT TO THE VIEWS OF THE STATE'S HIGHEST
COURT BUT, IN ORDER THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE MAY NOT BECOME A
DEAD LETTER, WE ARE BOUND TO DECIDE FOR OURSELVES WHETHER A CONTRACT
WAS MADE, WHAT ARE ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND WHETHER THE STATE HAS,
BY LATER LEGISLATION, IMPAIRED ITS OBLIGATION.  FN9  THIS INVOLVES AN
APPRAISAL OF THE STATUTES OF THE STATE AND THE DECISIONS OF ITS
COURTS. 

THE COURTS OF INDIANA HAVE LONG RECOGNIZED THAT THE EMPLOYMENT OF
SCHOOL TEACHERS WAS CONTRACTUAL AND HAVE AFFORDED RELIEF IN ACTIONS
UPON TEACHERS' CONTRACTS.  FN10  AN ACT ADOPTED IN 1899  FN11  REQUIRED
ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN TEACHERS AND SCHOOL CORPORATIONS TO BE IN
WRITING, SIGNED BY THE PARTIES TO BE CHARGED, AND TO BE MADE A MATTER
OF PUBLIC RECORD.  A STATUTE OF 1921 FN12  ENACTED THAT EVERY SUCH
CONTRACT SHOULD BE IN WRITING AND SHOULD STATE THE DATE OF THE
BEGINNING OF THE SCHOOL TERM, THE NUMBER OF MONTHS THEREIN, THE AMOUNT
OF THE SALARY FOR THE TERM, AND THE NUMBER OF PAYMENTS TO BE MADE
DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR. 

IN 1927 THE STATE ADOPTED THE TEACHERS' TENURE ACT  FN13  UNDER WHICH
THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY ARISES.  THE PERTINENT PORTIONS ARE COPIED IN
THE MARGIN.  FN14  BY THIS ACT IT WAS PROVIDED THAT A TEACHER WHO HAS
SERVED UNDER CONTRACT FOR FIVE OR MORE SUCCESSIVE YEARS, AND THEREAFTER
ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT FOR FURTHER SERVICE WITH THE SCHOOL CORPORATION,
SHALL BECOME A PERMANENT TEACHER AND THE CONTRACT, UPON THE EXPIRATION
OF ITS STATED TERM, SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT FOR AN
INDEFINITE PERIOD, SHALL BE KNOWN AS AN INDEFINITE CONTRACT, AND SHALL
REMAIN IN FORCE UNLESS SUCCEEDED BY A NEW CONTRACT OR CANCELLED AS
PROVIDED IN THE ACT.  THE CORPORATION MAY CANCEL THE CONTRACT, AFTER
NOTICE AND HEARING, FOR INCOMPETENCY, INSUBORDINATION, NEGLECT OF DUTY,
IMMORALITY, JUSTIFIABLE DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TEACHING POSITIONS,
OR OTHER GOOD OR JUST CAUSE, BUT NOT FOR POLITICAL OR PERSONAL
REASONS.  THE TEACHER MAY NOT CANCEL THE CONTRACT DURING THE SCHOOL
TERM NOR FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS PREVIOUS TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY
TERM (UNLESS BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT) AND MAY CANCEL ONLY UPON FIVE DAYS'
NOTICE. 

BY AN AMENDATORY ACT OF 1933 FN15  TOWNSHIP SCHOOL CORPORATIONS WERE
OMITTED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1927.  THE COURT BELOW
CONSTRUED THIS ACT AS REPEALING THE ACT OF 1927 SO FAR AS TOWNSHIP
SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS ARE CONCERNED AND AS LEAVING THE RESPONDENT FREE
TO TERMINATE THE PETITIONER'S EMPLOYMENT.  BUT WE ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE PETITIONER HAD A VALID CONTRACT WITH THE RESPONDENT, THE OBLIGATION
OF WHICH WOULD BE IMPAIRED BY THE TERMINATION OF HER EMPLOYMENT. 

WHERE THE CLAIM IS THAT THE STATE'S POLICY EMBODIED IN A STATUTE IS
TO BIND ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES BY CONTRACT, THE CARDINAL INQUIRY IS AS
TO THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE SUPPOSED TO CREATE SUCH A CONTRACT.  THE
STATE LONG PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT OF 1927 REQUIRED THE
EXECUTION OF WRITTEN CONTRACTS BETWEEN TEACHERS AND SCHOOL
CORPORATIONS, SPECIFIED CERTAIN SUBJECTS WITH WHICH SUCH CONTRACTS MUST
DEAL, AND REQUIRED THAT THEY BE MADE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.  THESE
WERE ANNUAL CONTRACTS, COVERING A SINGLE SCHOOL TERM.  THE ACT OF 1927
ANNOUNCED A NEW POLICY THAT A TEACHER WHO HAD SERVED FOR FIVE YEARS
UNDER SUCCESSIVE CONTRACTS, UPON THE EXECUTION OF ANOTHER WAS TO BECOME
A PERMANENT TEACHER AND THE LAST CONTRACT WAS TO BE INDEFINITE AS TO
DURATION AND TERMINABLE BY EITHER PARTY ONLY UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE STATUTE.  THE POLICY WHICH INDUCED THE
LEGISLATION EVIDENTLY WAS THAT THE TEACHER SHOULD HAVE PROTECTION
AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE INHERE IN THE
EMPLOYER, OF TERMINATING THE EMPLOYMENT AT THE END OF ANY SCHOOL TERM
WITHOUT ASSIGNED REASONS AND SOLELY AT THE EMPLOYER'S PLEASURE.  THE
STATE COURTS IN EARLIER CASES SO DECLARED.  FN16 

THE TITLE OF THE ACT IS COUCHED IN TERMS OF CONTRACT.  IT SPEAKS OF
THE MAKING AND CANCELLING OF INDEFINITE CONTRACTS.  IN THE BODY THE
WORD "CONTRACT" APPEARS TEN TIMES IN SEC. 1, DEFINING THE RELATIONSHIP;
ELEVEN TIMES IN SEC. 2, RELATING TO THE TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT
BY THE EMPLOYER, AND FOUR TIMES IN SEC. 4, STATING THE CONDITIONS OF
TERMINATION BY THE TEACHER. 

THE TENOR OF THE ACT INDICATES THAT THE WORD "CONTRACT" WAS NOT USED
INADVERTENTLY OR IN OTHER THAN ITS USUAL LEGAL MEANING.  BY SEC. 6 IT
IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THE ACT IS A SUPPLEMENT TO THAT OF MARCH 7,
1921, SUPRA, REQUIRING TEACHERS' EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS TO BE IN
WRITING.  BY SEC. 1 IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE WRITTEN CONTRACT OF A
PERMANENT TEACHER "SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT FOR AN
INDEFINITE PERIOD AND SHALL BE KNOWN AS AN INDEFINITE CONTRACT."  SUCH
AN INDEFINITE CONTRACT IS TO REMAIN IN FORCE UNLESS SUCCEEDED BY A NEW
CONTRACT SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES OR CANCELLED AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 2.  NO
MORE APT LANGUAGE COULD BE EMPLOYED TO DEFINE A CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP.  BY SEC. 2 IT IS ENACTED THAT SUCH INDEFINITE CONTRACTS
MAY BE CANCELLED BY THE SCHOOL CORPORATION ONLY IN THE MANNER
SPECIFIED.  THE ADMISSIBLE GROUNDS OF CANCELLATION, AND THE METHOD BY
WHICH THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH GROUNDS SHALL BE ASCERTAINED AND MADE A
MATTER OF RECORD, ARE CAREFULLY SET OUT.  SECTION 4 PERMITS
CANCELLATION BY THE TEACHER ONLY AT CERTAIN TIMES CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONVENIENT ADMINISTRATION OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND IMPOSES A SANCTION
FOR VIOLATION OF ITS REQUIREMENTS.  EXAMINATION OF THE ENTIRE ACT
CONVINCES US THAT THE TEACHER WAS BY IT ASSURED OF THE POSSESSION OF A
BINDING AND ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT AGAINST SCHOOL DISTRICTS. 

UNTIL ITS DECISION IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
HAD UNIFORMLY HELD THAT THE TEACHER'S RIGHT TO CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT BY
VIRTUE OF THE INDEFINITE CONTRACT CREATED PURSUANT TO THE ACT WAS
CONTRACTUAL. 

IN SCHOOL CITY OF ELWOOD V. STATE EX REL. GRIFFIN, 203 IND. 626; 180
N.E. 471, IT WAS SAID (P. 634): 

"THE POSITION OF A TEACHER IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS NOT A PUBLIC
OFFICE, BUT AN EMPLOYMENT BY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TEACHER AND THE
SCHOOL CORPORATION.  THE RELATION REMAINS CONTRACTUAL AFTER THE TEACHER
HAS, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A TEACHERS' TENURE LAW, BECOME A PERMANENT
TEACHER - BUT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT ARE THEREAFTER
GOVERNED PRIMARILY BY THE STATUTE." 

IN KOSTANZER V. STATE, 205 IND. 536; 187 N.E. 337, AN ACTION IN
MANDATE TO COMPEL REINSTATEMENT OF A DISCHARGED TEACHER, IT WAS SAID
(P. 547): 

"IF APPELLEE'S POSITION IS NOT AN OFFICE APPELLANTS INSIST THAT
MANDAMUS IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THE GRANTING OF MANDATORY
RELIEF RESULTS IN ENFORCING A PURELY CONTRACTUAL RIGHT.  IT IS TRUE
THAT MANDATORY RELIEF AGAINST APPELLANTS WILL RESULT IN ENFORCING
APPELLEE'S RIGHTS UNDER HER CONTRACT; BUT THE DUTY WHICH THE JUDGMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT COMPELLED APPELLANTS TO PERFORM WAS A DUTY ENJOINED
BY STATUTE AND NOT BY CONTRACT.  THE CONTRACT BETWEEN APPELLANTS AND
APPELLEE CREATED A RELATION WHICH ENTITLED APPELLEE TO HAVE APPELLANTS
PERFORM THE DUTY IN QUESTION; BUT THE DUTY WAS NOT IMPOSED BY ANY
PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT."    AND IN THE SAME CASE IT WAS ALSO SAID
(PP. 548-549): 

"THE TENURE ACT PERMITS A TEACHER TO CANCEL HIS CONTRACT AT ANY TIME
AFTER THE CLOSE OF A SCHOOL TERM UP TO THIRTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE
BEGINNING OF THE NEXT SCHOOL TERM, PROVIDED FIVE DAYS' NOTICE IS GIVEN,
AND APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN APPELLEE AND
APPELLANTS FOR THE REASON 'THAT A CONTRACT WHICH DOES NOT BIND BOTH
PARTIES BINDS NEITHER OF THEM.'  THIS PROPOSITION IS UNDOUBTEDLY
SUPPORTED BY THE LAW OF CONTRACTS.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAW OF
CONTRACTS TO PREVENT ONE PARTY TO A CONTRACT GRANTING TO THE OTHER THE
PRIVILEGE OF RESCISSION OR CANCELLATION ON TERMS NOT RESERVED TO THE
FORMER PARTY.  THE LOCAL SCHOOL CORPORATIONS ARE AGENTS OF THE STATE IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS
THE POWER TO PRESCRIBE THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT TO BE EXECUTED BY
THESE AGENTS." 

IN STATE V. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF INDIANAPOLIS, 205 IND.
582; 187 N.E. 392, AN ACTION IN MANDATE TO COMPEL REINSTATEMENT OF A
DISCHARGED TEACHER, THE COURT REFERRED TO THE INDEFINITE CONTRACT OF A
PERMANENT TEACHER AND HELD THAT IT REMAINED IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT
UNTIL SUCCEEDED BY A NEW CONTRACT OR CANCELLED AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 2 OF
THE ACT. 

IN ARBURN V. HUNT, 207 IND. 61; 191 N.E. 148, IT IS SAID:  "THE
SOURCE OF AUTHORITY FOR THE SO-CALLED PERMANENT TEACHER'S CONTRACT IS
THE STATUTE.  THE LEGISLATURE NEED NOT HAVE PROVIDED FOR SUCH
CONTRACTS, BUT, SINCE IT DID SO PROVIDE, THE ENTIRE STATUTE, WITH ALL
OF ITS PROVISIONS, MUST BE READ INTO AND CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE
CONTRACT." 

WE THINK THE DECISION IN THIS CASE RUNS COUNTER TO THE POLICY EVINCED
BY THE ACT OF 1927, TO ITS EXPLICIT MANDATE AND TO EARLIER DECISIONS
CONSTRUING ITS PROVISIONS.  ALSO THAT THE DECISION IN PHELPS V. BOARD
OF EDUCATION, 300 U.S. 319, THAT THE ACT THERE CONSIDERED DID NOT
CREATE A CONTRACT, IS NOT, AS THE COURT BELOW SUGGESTS, AUTHORITY FOR A
LIKE RESULT HERE.  DODGE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 302 U.S. 74, ON WHICH
THE RESPONDENT RELIES IS DISTINGUISHABLE, BECAUSE THE STATUTE THERE
INVOLVED DID NOT PURPORT TO BIND THE RESPONDENT BY CONTRACT TO THE
PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT ANNUITIES, AND SIMILAR LEGISLATION IN RESPECT OF
OTHER MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY CONSTRUED BY THE COURTS
AS NOT CREATING CONTRACTS. 

THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT EVERY CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO THE POLICE
POWER AND THAT IN REPEALING THE TEACHERS' TENURE ACT THE LEGISLATURE
VALIDLY EXERCISED THAT RESERVED POWER OF THE STATE.  THE SUFFICIENT
ANSWER IS FOUND IN THE STATUTE.  BY SEC. 2 OF THE ACT OF 1927 POWER IS
GIVEN TO THE SCHOOL CORPORATION TO CANCEL A TEACHER'S INDEFINITE
CONTRACT FOR INCOMPETENCY, INSUBORDINATION (WHICH IS TO BE DEEMED TO
MEAN WILFUL REFUSAL TO OBEY THE SCHOOL LAWS OF THE STATE OR REASONABLE
RULES PRESCRIBED BY THE EMPLOYER), NEGLECT OF DUTY, IMMORALITY,
JUSTIFIABLE DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF TEACHING POSITIONS OR OTHER GOOD
AND JUST CAUSE.  THE PERMISSIBLE REASONS FOR CANCELLATION COVER EVERY
CONCEIVABLE BASIS FOR SUCH ACTION GROWING OUT OF A DEFICIENT
PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE TEACHER, AND
DIMINUTION OF THE SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS.  ALTHOUGH THE CAUSES SPECIFIED
CONSTITUTE IN THEMSELVES JUST AND REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE
TERMINATION OF ANY ORDINARY CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, TO PRECLUDE THE
ASSUMPTION THAT ANY OTHER VALID GROUND WAS EXCLUDED BY THE ENUMERATION,
THE LEGISLATURE ADDED THAT THE RELATION MIGHT BE TERMINATED FOR ANY
OTHER GOOD AND JUST CAUSE.  THUS IN THE DECLARATION OF THE STATE'S
POLICY, AMPLE RESERVATIONS IN AID OF THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WERE MADE.  THE EXPRESS PROHIBITIONS ARE THAT THE
CONTRACT SHALL NOT BE CANCELLED FOR POLITICAL OR PERSONAL REASONS.  WE
DO NOT THINK THE ASSERTED CHANGE OF POLICY EVIDENCED BY THE REPEAL OF
THE STATUTE IS THAT SCHOOL BOARDS MAY BE AT LIBERTY TO CANCEL A
TEACHER'S CONTRACT FOR POLITICAL OR PERSONAL REASONS.  WE DO NOT
UNDERSTAND THE RESPONDENT SO TO CONTEND.  THE MOST THAT CAN BE SAID FOR
HIS POSITION IS THAT, BY THE REPEAL, TOWNSHIP SCHOOL CORPORATIONS WERE
AGAIN PUT UPON THE BASIS OF ANNUAL CONTRACTS, RENEWABLE AT THE PLEASURE
OF THE BOARD.  IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE ACT OF 1933 LEFT THE SYSTEM
OF PERMANENT TEACHERS AND INDEFINITE CONTRACTS UNTOUCHED AS RESPECTS
SCHOOL CORPORATIONS IN CITIES AND TOWNS OF THE STATE.  IT IS NOT
CONTENDED, NOR CAN IT BE THOUGHT, THAT THE LEGISLATURE OF 1933
DETERMINED THAT IT WAS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN
CITIES AND TOWNS TO TERMINATE THE EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS OF FIVE OR
MORE YEARS' EXPERIENCE FOR POLITICAL OR PERSONAL REASONS AND TO PERMIT
CANCELLATION, FOR THE SAME REASONS, IN TOWNSHIPS. 

OUR DECISIONS RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY CONTRACT IS MADE SUBJECT TO THE
IMPLIED CONDITION THAT ITS FULFILLMENT MAY BE FRUSTRATED BY A PROPER
EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER BUT WE HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT, IN ORDER
TO HAVE THIS EFFECT, THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER MUST BE FOR AN END WHICH
IS IN FACT PUBLIC AND THE MEANS ADOPTED MUST BE REASONABLY ADAPTED TO
THAT END,  FN17  AND THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA HAS TAKEN THE SAME
VIEW IN RESPECT OF LEGISLATION IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT
OF A STATE INSTRUMENTALITY.  FN18  THE CAUSES OF CANCELLATION PROVIDED
IN THE ACT OF 1927 AND THE RETENTION OF THE SYSTEM OF INDEFINITE
CONTRACTS IN ALL MUNICIPALITIES EXCEPT TOWNSHIPS BY THE ACT OF 1933 ARE
PERSUASIVE THAT THE REPEAL OF THE EARLIER ACT BY THE LATTER WAS NOT AN
EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF ENDS TO WHICH ITS
EXERCISE MAY PROPERLY BE DIRECTED. 

AS THE COURT BELOW HAS NOT PASSED UPON ONE OF THE GROUNDS OF DEMURRER
WHICH APPEARS TO INVOLVE NO FEDERAL QUESTION, AND MAY PRESENT A DEFENSE
STILL OPEN TO THE RESPONDENT, WE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND THE
CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT'S
PREDECESSOR WHO THEN HELD THE OFFICE OF SCHOOL TRUSTEE; THE RESPONDENT
WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SUBSTITUTED AS DEFENDANT.  NOTHING TURNS ON THIS
SUBSTITUTION AND BOTH TRUSTEES WILL BE REFERRED TO AS THE RESPONDENT. 

FN2  5 N.E.(2D) 531; ON REHEARING, 7 N.E.(2D) 777; DISSENTING OPINION
OF TREANOR, J., 5 N.E.(2D) 913. 

FN3  MURDOCK V. MEMPHIS, 20 WALL.  590, 635-6; HENDERSON BRIDGE CO.
V. HENDERSON, 173 U.S. 592, 608; ROGERS V. HENNEPIN COUNTY, 240 U.S.
184, 188-189; GRAYSON V. HARRIS, 267 U.S. 352, 358; VIRGINIA V.
IMPERIAL COAL SALES CO., 293 U.S. 15, 16; INTERNATIONAL STEEL CO. V.
NATIONAL SURETY CO., 297 U.S. 657, 666. 

FN4  SEC. 25, 1 STAT. 85. 

FN5  SEC. 2, 14 STAT. 386. 

FN6  MURDOCK V. MEMPHIS, 20 WALL.  590, 633-634; KREIGER V. SHELBY R.
CO., 125 U.S. 39, 44; BANK OF COMMERCE V. TENNESSEE, 163 U.S. 416, 421;
THOMPSON V. MAXWELL LAND GRANT CO., 168 U.S. 451, 456; COLUMBIA WATER
POWER CO. V. COLUMBIA ELECTRIC ST. RY. CO., 172 U.S. 475, 488-489; ABIE
STATE BANK V. BRYAN, 282 U.S. 765, 771; UTLEY V. ST. PETERSBURG, 292
U.S. 106, 111; FOX FILM CORP. V. MULLER, 296 U.S. 207, 209. 

FN7  INTERNATIONAL STEEL CO. V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 297 U.S. 657,
662. 

FN8  NEW JERSEY V. YARD, 95 U.S. 104, 113, 114. 

FN9  PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 300 U.S. 319, 322, AND CASES
CITED. 

FN10  CITY OF CRAWFORDSVILLE V. HAYS, 42 IND. 200; CHARLESTOWN SCHOOL
TWP.  V. HAY, 74 IND. 127; HARRISON SCHOOL TWP.  V. MCGREGOR, 96 IND.
185; KIEFER V. TROY SCHOOL TWP., 102 IND. 279; 1 N.E. 560; SPARTA
SCHOOL TWP.  V. MENDELL, 138 IND. 188; 37 N.E. 604; SCHOOL CITY OF
LAFAYETTE V. BLOOM, 17 IND. APP. 461; 46 N.E. 1016; HENRY SCHOOL TWP. 
V. MEREDITH, 32 IND. APP. 607; 70 N.E. 393; GREGG SCHOOL TWP.  V.
HINSHAW, 76 IND. APP. 503; 132 N.E. 586. 

FN11  ACT OF FEB. 28, 1899, G.L. IND. 1899, P. 173, BURNS' IND. STAT.
ANN. 1933, SECS. 28-4302 AND 28-4303. 

FN12  ACT OF MARCH 7, 1921; ACTS OF 1921, P. 195; BURNS' IND. STAT.
ANN. 1933, SEC. 28-4304. 

FN13  ACT OF MARCH 8, 1927; ACTS OF 1927, P. 259, BURNS' IND. STAT.
ANN. SUPP. 1929, SEC. 6967.1. 

FN14  "SECTION 1.  BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE
OF INDIANA, THAT ANY PERSON WHO HAS SERVED OR WHO SHALL SERVE UNDER
CONTRACT AS A TEACHER IN ANY SCHOOL CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF INDIANA
FOR FIVE OR MORE SUCCESSIVE YEARS, AND WHO SHALL HEREAFTER ENTER INTO A
TEACHER'S CONTRACT FOR FURTHER SERVICE WITH SUCH CORPORATION, SHALL
THEREUPON BECOME A PERMANENT TEACHER OF SUCH SCHOOL CORPORATION....
UPON THE EXPIRATION OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN SUCH SCHOOL CORPORATION AND
A PERMANENT TEACHER, SUCH CONTRACT SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONTINUE IN
EFFECT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD AND SHALL BE KNOWN AS AN INDEFINITE
CONTRACT.  SUCH AN INDEFINITE CONTRACT SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE UNLESS
SUCCEEDED BY A NEW CONTRACT SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES OR UNLESS IT SHALL
BE CANCELLED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 2 OF THIS ACT:  PROVIDED, THAT
TEACHERS' CONTRACTS SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE ANNUAL DETERMINATION OF THE
DATE OF BEGINNING AND LENGTH OF SCHOOL TERMS BY THE SCHOOL CORPORATION:
AND, PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT TEACHERS' CONTRACTS MAY CONTAIN
PROVISIONS FOR THE FIXING OF THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL COMPENSATION FROM
YEAR TO YEAR BY A SALARY SCHEDULE ADOPTED BY THE SCHOOL CORPORATION AND
SUCH SCHEDULE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A PART OF SUCH CONTRACT:  AND,
PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT SUCH SCHEDULE MAY BE CHANGED BY SUCH SCHOOL
CORPORATION ON OR BEFORE MAY 1ST OF ANY YEAR, SUCH CHANGES TO BECOME
EFFECTIVE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR: PROVIDED, THAT
ALL TEACHERS AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGES SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH PRINTED
COPIES OF SUCH CHANGED SCHEDULE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER ITS ADOPTION. 

"SEC. 2.  ANY INDEFINITE CONTRACT WITH A PERMANENT TEACHER AS DEFINED
IN SECTION 1 OF THIS ACT MAY BE CANCELLED ONLY IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS NOR MORE THAN FORTY DAYS BEFORE THE
CONSIDERATION BY ANY SCHOOL CORPORATION OF THE CANCELLATION OF ANY SUCH
CONTRACT, SUCH TEACHER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE EXACT DATE,
TIME WHEN AND PLACE WHERE SUCH CONSIDERATION IS TO TAKE PLACE; AND SUCH
TEACHER SHALL BE FURNISHED A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR SUCH
CONSIDERATION, WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER ANY WRITTEN REQUEST FOR SUCH
STATEMENT; AND SUCH TEACHER SHALL, UPON WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A HEARING,
FILED WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER THE RECEIPT BY SAID TEACHER OF NOTICE
OF DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF SUCH CONSIDERATION, BE GIVEN SUCH A HEARING
BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD, IN THE CASE OF CITIES AND TOWNS, AND BEFORE
THE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE, IN THE CASE OF TOWNSHIPS; SUCH HEARING SHALL BE
HELD NOT LESS THAN FIVE DAYS AFTER SUCH REQUEST IS FILED AND SUCH
TEACHER SHALL BE GIVEN NOT LESS THAN FIVE DAYS' NOTICE OF THE TIME AND
PLACE OF SUCH HEARING.  SUCH TEACHER, AT THE HEARING, SHALL HAVE A
RIGHT TO A FULL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED CANCELLATION
OF SUCH CONTRACT, AND SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD, TO PRESENT THE
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND OTHER EVIDENCE BEARING UPON THE REASONS FOR
THE PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF SUCH CONTRACT.  NO SUCH CONTRACT SHALL BE
CANCELLED UNTIL THE DATE SET FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CANCELLATION OF
SUCH CONTRACT; NOR UNTIL AFTER A HEARING IS HELD, IF SUCH HEARING IS
REQUESTED BY SAID TEACHER; NOR UNTIL, IN THE CASE OF TEACHERS,
SUPERVISORS, AND PRINCIPALS, THE CITY OR TOWN SUPERINTENDENTS, IN
CITIES AND TOWNS, AND THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENTS, IN TOWNSHIPS AND IN
CITIES AND TOWNS NOT HAVING SUPERINTENDENTS, SHALL HAVE GIVEN THE
SCHOOL CORPORATION HIS RECOMMENDATIONS THEREON, AND IT SHALL BE THE
DUTY OF SUCH SUPERINTENDENT TO PRESENT SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS UPON FIVE
DAYS' WRITTEN NOTICE TO HIM BY SUCH SCHOOL CORPORATION....
CANCELLATION OF AN INDEFINITE CONTRACT OF A PERMANENT TEACHER MAY BE
MADE FOR INCOMPETENCY, INSUBORDINATION (WHICH SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEAN A
WILFUL REFUSAL TO OBEY THE SCHOOL LAWS OF THIS STATE OR REASONABLE
RULES PRESCRIBED FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF SUCH
CORPORATION), NEGLECT OF DUTY, IMMORALITY, JUSTIFIABLE DECREASE IN THE
NUMBER OF TEACHING POSITIONS OR OTHER GOOD AND JUST CAUSE, BUT MAY NOT
BE MADE FOR POLITICAL OR PERSONAL REASONS:... 

"SEC. 4.  NO PERMANENT TEACHER SHALL BE PERMITTED TO CANCEL HIS
INDEFINITE CONTRACT DURING THE SCHOOL TERM FOR WHICH HIS SAID CONTRACT
IS IN EFFECT NOR FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY (30) DAYS PREVIOUS TO THE
BEGINNING OF SUCH SCHOOL TERM UNLESS SUCH CANCELLATION IS MUTUALLY
AGREED UPON; SUCH PERMANENT TEACHER SHALL BE PERMITTED TO CANCEL HIS
INDEFINITE CONTRACT AT ANY OTHER TIME BY GIVING A FIVE DAYS' NOTICE TO
THE SCHOOL CORPORATION.  ANY PERMANENT TEACHER CANCELLING HIS
INDEFINITE CONTRACT IN ANY OTHER MANNER THAN IN THIS SECTION PROVIDED
SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE STATE
SUPERINTENDENT IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO SUSPEND THE LICENSE OF SUCH
TEACHER FOR A PERIOD OF NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR.... 

"SEC. 6.  THIS ACT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS SUPPLEMENTARY TO AN ACT OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PAGE 195, ACTS 1921, ENTITLED, 'AN ACT CONCERNING
TEACHERS' CONTRACTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
LAWS.'" 

FN15  ACT OF MARCH 1, 1933, ACTS OF 1933, P. 716, BURNS' IND. STAT.
ANN. 1933, SEC. 28-4307. 

FN16  RATCLIFF V. DICK JOHNSON SCHOOL TWP., 204 IND. 525; 185 N.E.
143; KOSTANZER V. STATE, 205 IND. 536; 187 N.E. 337; STATE V. STOUT,
206 IND. 58; 187 N.E. 267; ARBURN V. HUNT, 207 IND. 61; 191 N.E. 148. 
FN17  HOME BDG.  & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 438; WORTHEN
CO. V. THOMAS, 292 U.S. 426, 431, 432; WORTHEN CO. V. KAVANAUGH, 295
U.S. 56, 60; TREIGLE V. ACME HOMESTEAD ASSN., 297 U.S. 189, 197. 

FN18  CENTRAL UNION TEL. CO. V. INDIANAPOLIS TEL. CO., 189 IND. 210;
126 N.E. 628; DOWNING V. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, 129 IND.
443; 28 N.E. 123. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING.    IN MY OPINION THIS REVERSAL
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITS THE RIGHT OF INDIANA TO CONTROL INDIANA'S
PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.  I BELIEVE THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED
BECAUSE: 

(1)  IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS
NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT; FN1 

(2)  THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT  FN2
THAT INDIANA, BY THE TEACHERS ACT OF 1927, SURRENDERED ITS SOVEREIGN,
GOVERNMENTAL RIGHT TO CHANGE AND ALTER AT WILL LEGISLATIVE POLICY
RELATED TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE, OR THAT ITS LEGISLATURE HAD THE POWER TO
DO SO. 

FIRST.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION
"WAS NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN THE DECISION; AND THAT THE STATE COURT
COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE WHICH THEY PASSED, WITHOUT
DECIDING IT."  FN3  THEREFORE, "IT IS A MATTER OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO US
THAT THE COURT MAY HAVE GONE FURTHER AND DECIDED A FEDERAL QUESTION." 
FN4  "WHERE A CASE IN THIS COURT CAN BE DECIDED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
QUESTIONS ARISING UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THAT COURSE IS
USUALLY PURSUED AND IS NOT DEPARTED FROM WITHOUT IMPORTANT REASONS." 
FN5 

PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DISCLOSED:  THAT, AFTER A HEARING, SHE WAS
REMOVED FROM HER POSITION AS A TEACHER FOR CAUSES INCLUDING THOSE SET
OUT IN THE STATUTE, I.E., (1) "NEGLECT OF DUTY" AND (2) "FOR OTHER GOOD
AND JUST CAUSE"; AND THAT THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT, ON APPEAL,
APPROVED HER REMOVAL.  A DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED TO THE COMPLAINT.  THE
DEMURRER ASSIGNED THE GENERAL GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO
"STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A GOOD CAUSE OF ACTION."  ONE OF
THE SPECIFIC REASONS SET OUT FOR DEMURRER WAS THAT THE COMPLAINT SHOWED
ON ITS FACE THAT PETITIONER HAD BEEN REMOVED ONLY AFTER A PROPER NOTICE
AND HEARINGS BEFORE THE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEE AND THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT. 

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CAN CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE
INDIANA COURTS AS BASED ON A FINDING OF INADEQUACY IN PETITIONER'S
COMPLAINT UNDER INDIANA LAW.  THIS COURT DOES NOT DECIDE "QUESTIONS OF
A CONSTITUTIONAL NATURE UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO A DECISION OF
THE CASE."  FN6 WE SHOULD NOT DEPART FROM THIS POLICY IN ORDER TO
STRIKE DOWN A LAW PASSED BY A STATE IN ITS SOVEREIGN CAPACITY TO
ESTABLISH LEGISLATIVE POLICIES FOR THE EDUCATION OF ITS PEOPLE. 

SECOND.  THIS COURT HAS DECLARED THAT "...  NEITHER THE (FOURTEENTH)
AMENDMENT  ...  NOR ANY OTHER AMENDMENT, WAS DESIGNED TO INTERFERE WITH
THE POWER OF THE STATE, SOMETIMES TERMED ITS POLICE POWER, TO PRESCRIBE
REGULATIONS TO PROMOTE  ...  EDUCATION  ...  OF THE PEOPLE  ..."  FN7
ARTICLE 8, SEC. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA PROVIDES:  "KNOWLEDGE
AND LEARNING, GENERALLY DIFFUSED THROUGHOUT A COMMUNITY, BEING
ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF A FREE GOVERNMENT; IT SHALL BE THE
DUTY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY  ...  TO PROVIDE, BY LAW, FOR A GENERAL
AND UNIFORM SYSTEM OF COMMON SCHOOLS, WHEREIN TUITION SHALL BE WITHOUT
CHARGE, AND EQUALLY OPEN TO ALL."  IN CARRYING OUT THIS CONSTITUTIONAL
MANDATE TO PROVIDE EDUCATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, THE
LEGISLATURE OF INDIANA HAS FOUND IT NECESSARY - AS HAVE OTHER STATES -
TO ALTER LEGISLATIVE POLICY FROM TIME TO TIME.  THE STATUTES AND THE
DECISIONS OF INDIANA INDICATE A LAUDABLE DESIRE AND A COMMENDABLE
EFFORT NOT ONLY TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO CARRY OUT THESE
EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS OF THE STATE, BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE REASONABLE
SECURITY OF EMPLOYMENT FOR TEACHERS.  SUCH EFFORT BROUGHT ABOUT THE
"INDIANA TEACHERS TENURE ACT OF 1927."  THIS LAW PROVIDED THE
CONDITIONS UPON WHICH "PERMANENT" TEACHERS WITH "INDEFINITE CONTRACTS"
COULD BE REMOVED FROM THEIR POSITIONS, AND WAS EVIDENTLY INTENDED TO
PROVIDE STATUTORY SECURITY AGAINST THEIR DISCHARGE BY LOCAL SCHOOL
AUTHORITIES FOR ANY CAUSES EXCEPT THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE LAW.  THESE
"PERMANENT" TEACHERS COULD CANCEL THEIR "INDEFINITE CONTRACTS" UPON
FIVE DAYS' NOTICE AT ANY TIME EXCEPT DURING THE SCHOOL TERM OR FOR A
PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS PREVIOUS TO IT. 

IN 1933, THE LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE OF INDIANA
DECIDED TO CHANGE THIS POLICY BY EXCLUDING TOWNSHIP SCHOOL CORPORATIONS
FROM ITS OPERATION.  THE CONTENTION HERE IS THAT THE STATUTORY TENURE
GIVEN TEACHERS UNDER THE 1927 ACT AMOUNTED TO CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE
WHICH COULD NOT BE IMPAIRED BY REPEAL OR MODIFICATION OF THE LAW. 

THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD, EVEN BEFORE ITS
DECISION IN THIS CASE, THAT THE RIGHT OF TEACHERS, UNDER THE 1927 ACT,
TO SERVE UNTIL REMOVED FOR CAUSE, WAS NOT GIVEN BY CONTRACT, BUT BY
STATUTE.  SUCH WAS THE EXPRESS HOLDING IN THE TWO CASES CITED IN THE
MAJORITY OPINION:  KOSTANZER V. STATE, 205 IND. 536; 187 N.E. 337; AND
ELWOOD V. STATE, 203 IND. 626; 180 N.E. 471. 

IN KOSTANZER V. STATE, SUPRA, A TEACHER FILED PETITION FOR MANDAMUS
ALLEGING REMOVAL CONTRARY TO THE "INDEFINITE CONTRACT" OBLIGATION UNDER
THE ACT OF 1927.  MANDAMUS WAS OPPOSED AS AN IMPROPER REMEDY BECAUSE
THE TEACHERS SOUGHT TO COMPEL ACTION UNDER A TEACHERS TENURE
"CONTRACT."  DENYING THE CONTENTION THAT THE TEACHER'S RIGHTS WERE
FIXED BY CONTRACT, THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA SAID: 

"BUT THE DUTY WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT COMPELLED
APPELLANTS TO PERFORM WAS A DUTY ENJOINED BY STATUTE AND NOT BY
CONTRACT....  THE DUTY WAS NOT IMPOSED BY ANY PROVISION OF THE
CONTRACT.  IN SCHOOL CITY OF ELWOOD V. STATE EX REL. GRIFFIN, SUPRA,
THIS SAME CONTENTION WAS DISPOSED OF IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:  'IT IS
BECAUSE OF APPELLEES' RIGHT UNDER THIS STATUTE ...  THAT MANDAMUS IS
THE PROPER REMEDY IN THIS CASE....  A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER WHO, UNDER
A POSITIVE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE, HAS A FIXED TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT
OR CAN BE REMOVED ONLY IN A CERTAIN MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE,
IS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT IF HE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION
IN VIOLATION OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHTS.'" 

THESE CASES DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA HAS
UNIFORMLY HELD THAT TEACHERS DID NOT HOLD THEIR "INDEFINITE" TENURE
UNDER CONTRACT, BUT BY GRANT OF A REPEALABLE STATUTE.  IN ORDER TO HOLD
IN THIS CASE THAT A CONTRACT WAS IMPAIRED, IT IS NECESSARY TO CREATE A
CONTRACT UNAUTHORIZED BY THE INDIANA LEGISLATURE AND DECLARED TO BE NON
EXISTENT BY THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT. 

IN THE SIMILAR CASE OF PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 300 U.S. 319,
COMING TO THIS COURT FROM NEW JERSEY, THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE
DECLARED THAT: 

"THE STATUS OF TENURE TEACHERS, WHILE IN ONE SENSE PERHAPS
CONTRACTUAL, IS IN ESSENCE DEPENDENT ON A STATUTE,  ...  WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE AT WILL MAY ABOLISH, OR WHOSE EMOLUMENTS IT MAY CHANGE." 

UNDER THE NEW JERSEY ACT, WHICH APPEARS IN THE MARGIN,  FN8  TEACHERS
COULD SERVE DURING "GOOD BEHAVIOR AND EFFICIENCY" AND SUBJECT TO
REMOVAL ONLY AFTER A HEARING AND FOR CAUSE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
JERSEY DECLARED THAT THE TENURE OF NEW JERSEY TEACHERS WAS "IN ONE
SENSE PERHAPS CONTRACTUAL."  THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA DECLARED THAT
THE TENURE OF INDIANA TEACHERS WAS NOT CONTRACTUAL.  YET THIS COURT IN
THE CASE OF PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA, DECIDED THAT NEW
JERSEY'S DISCHARGE OF ITS TEACHERS EMPLOYED BY THE STATE "IN A SENSE
PERHAPS CONTRACTUAL" DID NOT IMPAIR THEIR CONTRACTS.  THE COURT NOW
STRIKES DOWN INDIANA'S TEACHERS TENURE LAW AFTER REPEATED DECISIONS BY
THE STATE'S SUPREME COURT THAT THE TEACHERS TENURE IS NOT CONTRACTUAL. 
THE INTENT OF THE NEW JERSEY ACT AND THE INTENT OF THE INDIANA ACT WERE
EVIDENTLY IDENTICAL AND IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I BELIEVE THAT THE
DECISION ON THE NEW JERSEY APPEAL AND THE MAJORITY DECISION ON THE
INDIANA APPEAL ARE IRRECONCILABLE. 

THE ACT OF 1927 CERTAINLY DOES NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE PEOPLE
OF INDIANA INTENDED TO SURRENDER THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO CHANGE THEIR
EDUCATIONAL POLICIES FROM TIME TO TIME TO MEET NEW NEEDS OR CHANGED
CONDITIONS.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES "THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT SUCH A
LAW (TEACHERS TENURE LAW) IS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL
OR VESTED RIGHTS BUT MERELY DECLARES A POLICY TO BE PURSUED UNTIL THE
LEGISLATURE SHALL ORDAIN OTHERWISE."  FN9 

IT IS THE END OF EVERY GOVERNMENT TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE OF
ITS PEOPLE AND WE DO NOT ASSUME "THAT THE GOVERNMENT INTENDED TO
DIMINISH ITS POWER OF ACCOMPLISHING THE END FOR WHICH IT WAS CREATED." 
FN10 

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA HERE HELD THAT "THE TENURE LAW DOES NOT
PURPORT TO GIVE A TEACHER A DEFINITE AND PERMANENT CONTRACT.  THE WORD
'INDEFINITE' IS USED IN THE STATUTE ITSELF....  THE TENURE STATUTE WAS
ONLY INTENDED AS A LIMITATION UPON THE PLENARY POWER OF LOCAL SCHOOL
OFFICIALS TO CANCEL CONTRACTS....  IT WAS NOT INTENDED AS, AND CANNOT
BE, A LIMITATION UPON THE POWER OF FUTURE LEGISLATURES TO CHANGE THE
LAW RESPECTING TEACHERS AND THEIR TENURES.  THESE ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC
POLICY, OF PURELY GOVERNMENTAL CONCERN, IN WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE POWER
CANNOT BE EXHAUSTED OR CONSUMED, OR CONTRACTED AWAY, SO AS TO LIMIT THE
DISCRETION OF FUTURE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES."  FN11 

PRIOR TO THIS DECISION AND EVEN BEFORE THE 1927 ACT, THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIANA HAD SAID: 

"WITH THAT (LEGISLATIVE) DETERMINATION (RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL
MATTERS) THE JUDICIARY CAN NO MORE RIGHTFULLY INTERFERE, THAN CAN THE
LEGISLATURE WITH A DECREE OR JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED BY A JUDICIAL
TRIBUNAL.... 

"AS THE POWER OVER SCHOOLS IS A LEGISLATIVE ONE, IT IS NOT EXHAUSTED
BY EXERCISE.  THE LEGISLATURE HAVING TRIED ONE PLAN IS NOT PRECLUDED
FROM TRYING ANOTHER.  IT HAS A CHOICE OF METHODS, AND MAY CHANGE ITS
PLANS AS OFTEN AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT; AND FOR MISTAKES OR
ABUSES IT IS ANSWERABLE TO THE PEOPLE, BUT NOT TO THE COURT."  FN12 

THE CLEAR PURPORT OF INDIANA LAW IS THAT ITS LEGISLATURE CANNOT
SURRENDER ANY PART OF ITS PLENARY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPEAL, ALTER
OR AMEND EXISTING LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WHENEVER
THE CONDITIONS DEMAND CHANGE FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.  UNDER INDIANA LAW
THE LEGISLATURE CAN NEITHER BARTER NOR GIVE AWAY ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
INVESTITURE OF POWER.  IT CAN MAKE NO CONTRACT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS
SOVEREIGN POWER.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA MUST BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT.  THAT COURT
HOLDS THAT INDIANA'S CONSTITUTION INVESTS INDIANA'S LEGISLATURE WITH
CONTINUING POWER TO CHANGE INDIANA'S EDUCATIONAL POLICIES.  IT HAS HERE
HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT ATTEMPT OR INTEND TO SURRENDER ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER BY AUTHORIZING DEFINITE CONTRACTS WHICH WOULD
PREVENT THE FUTURE EXERCISE OF THIS CONTINUING, CONSTITUTIONAL POWER. 
IF THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES OF INDIANA, AS CONSTRUED BY ITS
SUPREME COURT, PROHIBIT THE LEGISLATURE FROM MAKING A CONTRACT WHICH IS
INCONSISTENT WITH A CONTINUING POWER TO LEGISLATE, THERE COULD HAVE
BEEN NO DEFINITE CONTRACTS TO BE IMPAIRED.  "THE CONTRACTS DESIGNED TO
BE PROTECTED BY THE (FEDERAL CONSTITUTION)  ...  ARE CONTRACTS BY WHICH
PERFECT RIGHTS, CERTAIN DEFINITE, FIXED PRIVATE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, ARE
VESTED....  IT FOLLOWS, THEN, UPON PRINCIPLE, THAT, IN EVERY PERFECT OR
COMPETENT GOVERNMENT, THERE MUST EXIST A GENERAL POWER TO ENACT AND TO
REPEAL LAWS; AND TO CREATE, AND CHANGE OR DISCONTINUE, THE AGENTS
DESIGNATED FOR THE EXECUTION OF THOSE LAWS."  FN13 

MERITS OF A POLICY ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT TEACHER TENURE LAW ARE
NOT FOR CONSIDERATION HERE.  WE ARE DEALING WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF A SOVEREIGN STATE TO CONTROL THEIR OWN PUBLIC
SCHOOL SYSTEM AS THEY DEEM BEST FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  THIS COURT
SHOULD NEITHER MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR STATES TO EXPERIMENT IN THE
MATTER OF SECURITY OF TENURE FOR THEIR TEACHERS, NOR DEPRIVE THEM OF
THE RIGHT TO CHANGE A POLICY IF IT IS FOUND THAT IT HAS NOT OPERATED
SUCCESSFULLY. 

THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION GIVES THE STATE LEGISLATURE COMPLETE
AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT
DECLARES THAT UNDER THIS AUTHORITY THE LEGISLATURE CAN CHANGE SCHOOL
PLANS AS OFTEN AS IT BELIEVES A CHANGE WILL PROMOTE THE INTEREST OF
EDUCATION "AND FOR MISTAKES OR ABUSES IT IS ANSWERABLE TO THE PEOPLE,
BUT NOT TO THE COURT."  FN14  I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE OF INDIANA, IF THEY
PREFER, HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO ENTRUST THIS
IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY TO THEIR ELECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES RATHER THAN
TO THE COURTS.  DEMOCRACY PERMITS THE PEOPLE TO RULE.  I CANNOT AGREE
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS WAS
INTENDED TO - OR DOES - TRANSFER IN PART THE DETERMINATION OF THE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY OF INDIANA FROM THE LEGISLATURE OF THAT STATE TO
THIS COURT. 

INDIANA, IN HARMONY WITH OUR NATIONAL TRADITION, SEEKS TO WORK OUT A
SCHOOL SYSTEM, OFFERING EDUCATION TO ALL, AS "ESSENTIAL TO THE
PRESERVATION OF FREE GOVERNMENT."  THAT GREAT FUNCTION OF AN ADVANCING
SOCIETY HAS HERETOFORE BEEN EXERCISED BY THE STATES.  I FIND NO
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS COURT TO APPROPRIATE THAT POWER. 
INDIANA'S HIGHEST COURT HAS SAID THAT THE STATE DID NOT, AND HAS
STRONGLY INDICATED THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD NOT, MAKE CONTRACTS WITH
A FEW CITIZENS, THAT WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM ALL THE CITIZENS, THE
CONTINUING POWER TO ALTER THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY FOR THE BEST INTERESTS
OF INDIANA SCHOOL CHILDREN.  THE MAJORITY DECISION NOW PLACES IN THIS
COURT A POWER WHICH HAS BEEN EXERCISED BY THE STATES SINCE THE ADOPTION
OF OUR CONSTITUTION.  THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT SURRENDERED THAT POWER TO
THIS COURT BY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.    FOR THESE REASONS I CANNOT
AGREE TO THE MAJORITY DECISION AND I BELIEVE THE JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  MOORE V. MISSISSIPPI, 21 WALL.  636, 639. 

FN2  CF. OGDEN V. SAUNDERS, 12 WHEAT.  213, 270.    FN3  ARMSTRONG V.
TREASURER OF ATHENS COUNTY, 16 PET. 281, 285. 

FN4  MOORE V. MISSISSIPPI, SUPRA. 

FN5  SILER V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 213 U.S. 175, 193. 

FN6  BURTON V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 283, 295.  "IF THE EXPERIENCE
OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION HAS
TAUGHT ANY LESSON, IT IS THE UNWISDOM OF MAKING SOLEMN DECLARATIONS AS
TO THE MEANING OF THAT INSTRUMENT WHICH ARE UNNECESSARY TO DECISION. 
THEY CAN SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE AND THEIR ONLY EFFECT MAY BE TO
EMBARRASS THE COURT WHEN DECISION BECOMES NECESSARY.  O'DONOGHUE V.
UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 516, 550; HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 602, 626-627."  STONE, J., DISSENTING, WRIGHT V. UNITED
STATES, 302 U.S. 583, 604. 

FN7  BARBIER V. CONNOLLY, 113 U.S. 27, 31. 

FN8  THE NEW JERSEY ACT (AS QUOTED IN PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION,
300 U.S. 319, 320-321): 

TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, SUPERVISING PRINCIPALS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN
ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THIS STATE SHALL BE DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR AND
EFFICIENCY, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF A PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT OF THREE
CONSECUTIVE YEARS IN THAT DISTRICT, UNLESS A SHORTER PERIOD IS FIXED BY
THE EMPLOYING BOARD;...  NO PRINCIPAL OR TEACHER SHALL BE DISMISSED OR
SUBJECTED TO REDUCTION OF SALARY IN SAID SCHOOL DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR
INEFFICIENCY, INCAPACITY, CONDUCT UNBECOMING A TEACHER OR OTHER JUST
CAUSE, AND AFTER A WRITTEN CHARGE OF THE CAUSE OR CAUSES SHALL HAVE
BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST HIM OR HER,  ...  AND AFTER THE CHARGE SHALL
HAVE BEEN EXAMINED INTO AND FOUND TRUE IN FACT BY SAID BOARD OF
EDUCATION, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE PERSON CHARGED, WHO MAY BE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT THE HEARING...." 

FN9  DODGE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 302 U.S. 74, 79. 

FN10  CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE, 11 PET. 420, 547. 

FN11  5.  N.E.(2D) 531, 532. 

FN12  STATE EX REL. CLARK V. HAWORTH, 122 IND. 462; 23 N.E. 946. 

FN13  BUTLER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 10 HOW.  402, 416. 

FN14  STATE EX REL. CLARK V. HAWORTH, SUPRA.
..END :




















FOSTER V. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 118 


NO. 189.  ARGUED JANUARY 10, 11, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 31, 1938.  -
84 CT. CLS. 193 -  17 F.SUPP.  191, AFFIRMED. 


1.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX, EARNINGS ACCUMULATED BY
A CORPORATION PRIOR TO MARCH 1, 1913 ARE DEEMED CAPITAL.  P. 121. 

2.  AMOUNTS DISTRIBUTED BY A CORPORATION IN PARTIAL LIQUIDATION,
I.E., IN CANCELLATION OR REDEMPTION OF PART OF ITS STOCK, ARE, UNDER
SUBSECTION (C) OF SEC. 115 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, CHARGEABLE TO
CAPITAL, WHICH, FOR THIS PURPOSE, INCLUDES MARCH 1, 1913 SURPLUS, AND
ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED A DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS OR PROFITS WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SUBSECTION (B) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE
TAXABILITY OF SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTIONS.  PP. 121-122. 

FOSTER ET AL., EXECUTORS, V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 302 U.S. 667, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS IN A SUIT TO RECOVER AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF INCOME
TAXES.  IN THE TRIAL COURT, UPON THE DEATH OF THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF,
PETITIONERS, HER EXECUTORS, WERE SUBSTITUTED AS PARTIES PLAINTIFF. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONERS' RIGHT (AS EXECUTORS) TO AN INCOME TAX REFUND DEPENDS
UPON WHETHER A DIVIDEND PAID BY THE FOSTER LUMBER COMPANY IN 1930 IS
TAX EXEMPT AS REPRESENTING CORPORATE EARNINGS ACCUMULATED BEFORE MARCH
1, 1913.  THIS DIVIDEND IS TAXABLE UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928  FN1
IF PAID FROM EARNINGS ACCUMULATED AFTER 1913.  THE COURT OF CLAIMS
FOUND THE DIVIDEND TAXABLE.  FN2 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT THE 1930 DIVIDEND WAS TRACEABLE TO THE
COMPANY'S PRE-1913 ACCUMULATIONS BECAUSE ITS POST-1913 EARNINGS HAD
BEEN EXHAUSTED BY A DISTRIBUTION IN 1929.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
1929 DISTRIBUTION AND THE 1930 DIVIDEND WERE: 

THE FOSTER LUMBER COMPANY WAS A FAMILY CORPORATION, ORGANIZED IN 1896
WITH A CAPITAL STOCK OF $200,000.  MARCH 1, 1913, WHEN THE FEDERAL
INCOME TAX BECAME EFFECTIVE, THE INCREASED VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S
PROPERTY AND ITS UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS WERE MORE THAN $3,725,000. 
PETITIONERS INSIST THAT A DISTRIBUTION OF $1,025,000 ON OCTOBER 10,
1929, COMPLETELY EXHAUSTED THE $330,578.98 TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS
WHICH HAD ACCUMULATED SINCE MARCH 1, 1913.  THIS 1929 DISTRIBUTION,
HOWEVER, WAS NOT A DIVIDEND.  IT WAS PAID BY THE COMPANY TO CANCEL AND
LIQUIDATE FIVE HUNDRED SHARES OF ITS OWN $100 PAR VALUE STOCK AND
REPRESENTED PAYMENT OF $2,050 PER SHARE, THE AGREED VALUE AS OF MARCH,
1913.  FEBRUARY 11, 1930, THE COMPANY DECLARED A $225,000 DIVIDEND AND
THIS REFUND IS SOUGHT FOR THE TAX PAID UPON A SHAREHOLDER'S PART OF
THIS DIVIDEND.  BETWEEN OCTOBER 10, 1929(THE DATE OF THE $1,025,000
STOCK PURCHASE) AND FEBRUARY 11, 1930(THE DATE OF THE $225,000
DIVIDEND) THE COMPANY'S EARNINGS AMOUNTED TO ONLY $82,758.17. 
PETITIONERS TAKE THE POSITION THAT ONLY $82,758.17 OF THIS $225,000
DIVIDEND OF 1930 CAN BE TAXED, URGING THAT THE BALANCE IS TAX EXEMPT
BECAUSE IT MUST BE TREATED AS REPRESENTING PRE-1913 ACCUMULATIONS. 

SUBSECTION (A) OF SEC. 115 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928  FN3  DEFINES
"DIVIDEND," FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, AS "ANY DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A
CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS,  ...  OUT OF ITS EARNINGS OR PROFITS
ACCUMULATED AFTER FEBRUARY 28, 1913." 

SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS INCOME TAX LAW EXEMPTS CORPORATE EARNINGS AND
PROFITS ACCUMULATED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1913.  THIS SUBSECTION ALSO
PROVIDES THAT FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES ALL DISTRIBUTIONS ARE PAID FROM
"THE MOST RECENTLY ACCUMULATED EARNINGS OR PROFITS."  THE OBVIOUS
PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION WAS TO PREVENT CORPORATIONS FROM ATTRIBUTING
DIVIDEND PAYMENTS TO PRE-1913 ACCUMULATIONS TO AVOID TAXES IMPOSED UPON
PROFITS EARNED AFTER MARCH, 1913.  PETITIONERS' CONTENTION IS THAT THE
$330,578.98 EARNED AFTER 1913, AS "THE MOST RECENTLY ACCUMULATED
EARNINGS OR PROFITS" WAS AUTOMATICALLY EXHAUSTED IN PART PAYMENT OF THE
$1,025,000 STOCK PURCHASE AND THUS ESCAPED TAXATION.  IN THIS MANNER,
PRE-1913 CORPORATE NON-TAXABLE EARNINGS COULD BE USED TO AVOID TAXES ON
CORPORATE PROFITS EARNED AFTER 1913. 

WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY SAID THAT SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B), SUPRA,
CONSTRUED TOGETHER, DISCLOSE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE THAT PRE-1913
ACCUMULATIONS SHALL NOT BE DISTRIBUTED "IN SUCH A FASHION AS TO PERMIT
PROFITS ACCUMULATED AFTER THAT DATE TO ESCAPE TAXATION."  FN4
PETITIONERS ASK THAT WE NOW CONSTRUE THESE PROVISIONS IN A WAY WHICH
WOULD FACILITATE THE ESCAPE OF SUCH PROFITS FROM TAXATION AND THEREBY
DEFEAT THE UNDOUBTED PURPOSE OF CONGRESS.  WE ARE URGED SO TO EXPAND
AND BROADEN AN EXEMPTION GRANTED BY CONGRESS AS A "CONCESSION TO THE
EQUITY OF STOCKHOLDERS"  FN5  THAT SUCH CONCESSION WOULD IN REALITY
SERVE TO NULLIFY AND DEFEAT THE TAX ON CORPORATE PROFITS EARNED AFTER
1913.  COURTS SHOULD CONSTRUE LAWS IN HARMONY WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENT AND SEEK TO CARRY OUT LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.  WITH RESPECT TO THE
TAX PROVISIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO TAX POST-1913 CORPORATE EARNINGS.  WE MUST NOT
GIVE EFFECT TO ANY CONTRIVANCE WHICH WOULD DEFEAT A TAX CONGRESS
PLAINLY INTENDED TO IMPOSE.  THE USE OF BOOKKEEPING TERMS AND
ACCOUNTING FORMS AND DEVICES CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO DEVITALIZE VALID
TAX LAWS. 

THE TRANSACTION UNDER WHICH THIS COMPANY PAID $1,025,000 CASH FOR ITS
OWN STOCK OF $50,000 PAR VALUE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND
(B) OF SEC. 115.  ITS CHARACTER AND EFFECT ARE DETERMINED BY
SUBSECTIONS (C) AND (H) WHICH RELATE TO DISTRIBUTIONS IN COMPLETE OR
PARTIAL CORPORATE LIQUIDATION.  FN6 

SUBSECTION (C), GOVERNING THIS STOCK PURCHASE TRANSACTION, DIRECTS
THAT "...  IN THE CASE OF AMOUNTS DISTRIBUTED IN PARTIAL LIQUIDATION
...  THE PART OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION WHICH IS PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO
CAPITAL ACCOUNT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS OR
PROFITS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBSECTION (B)  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING THE TAXABILITY OF SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTIONS  ..."  FN7 

THIS PROVISION OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY OBTAINED
IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924.  FN8  PRIOR EVEN TO THE 1924 ACT, THIS
COURT HAD DETERMINED THAT, FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, EARNINGS OF A
CORPORATION ACCUMULATED PRIOR TO 1913 ARE TO BE CONSIDERED CAPITAL. 
FN9  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DECISIONS, CONGRESS OBVIOUSLY INTENDED THAT
CORPORATE FUNDS DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE SHOWN SHOULD
BE "CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT" AND THAT STOCK PURCHASES OF THE TYPE
HERE INVOLVED SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED "FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING
THE TAXABILITY OF SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTIONS BY THE CORPORATION." 

ACCEPTANCE OF PETITIONERS' CONTENTION WOULD PERMIT CORPORATE PROFITS
ACCUMULATED SINCE MARCH, 1913 TO ESCAPE TAXATION, CONTRARY TO THE
PROVISIONS AND PURPOSE OF THE 1928 REVENUE ACT.  THE BOOKKEEPING
MINGLING OF CORPORATE EARNINGS AND PROFITS MADE BEFORE AND AFTER MARCH
1, 1913, DOES NOT ALTER THE ACT NOR CAN SUCH ACTION RENDER TAXABLE
PROFITS NON-TAXABLE.  IN THIS CASE, THE DISTRIBUTION OF $1,025,000 WAS
"PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT" AND WAS NOT PAID OUT OF
PROFITS EARNED SINCE MARCH 1, 1913. 

THE $1,025,000, PAID FOR THE COMPANY'S STOCK, CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE
CONSIDERED "FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE TAXABILITY OF SUBSEQUENT
DISTRIBUTIONS BY THE CORPORATION" AND THIS PURCHASE OF STOCK DID NOT
EXHAUST ANY PART OF THE $330,578.98 PROFITS ACCUMULATED SINCE 1913.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT THE TOTAL DIVIDEND OF 1930 RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS'
DECEDENT IS TAXABLE AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 852, 45 STAT. 791. 

FN2 17 F.SUPP.  191; (SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION) 18 F.SUPP.  790. 

FN3  REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, 45 STAT. 791, 822. 

FN4  HELVERING V. CANFIELD, 291 U.S. 163, 168. 

FN5  LYNCH V. HORNBY, 247 U.S. 339, 346. 

FN6  CF. HELLMICH V. HELLMAN, 276 U.S. 233, 237. 

FN7  SUBSECTION (H)(REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SUPRA, AT 823):  "DEFINITION
OF PARTIAL LIQUIDATION.  - AS USED IN THIS SECTION THE TERM 'AMOUNTS
DISTRIBUTED IN PARTIAL LIQUIDATION' MEANS A DISTRIBUTION BY A
CORPORATION IN COMPLETE CANCELLATION OR REDEMPTION OF A PART OF ITS
STOCK, OR ONE OF A SERIES OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN COMPLETE CANCELLATION OR
REDEMPTION OF ALL OR A PORTION OF ITS STOCK." 

FN8  $S 201(C), C. 234, 43 STAT. 253, 255. 

FN9  "...  WE ARE BOUND TO CONSIDER ACCUMULATIONS THAT ACCRUED TO A
CORPORATION PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1913, AS  ... CAPITAL,  ..."  SOUTHERN
PACIFIC CO. V. LOWE, 247 U.S. 335(1917).  ALSO, SEE LYNCH V. TURRISH,
247 U.S. 221; DOYLE V. MITCHELL BROS. CO., 247 U.S. 179(1917); "...
WHAT IS CALLED THE STOCKHOLDER'S SHARE IN THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF THE
COMPANY IS CAPITAL,  ..."  EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189,
219(1919).  CF.: "...  INCOME  ...  (RECEIVED)  ...  PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT  ...  HAD BECOME CAPITAL PRIOR TO
THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT  ..."  OLD COLONY R. CO. V. COMMISSIONER,
284 U.S. 557; AND "...  THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS, AS THEY STOOD ON MARCH
1, 1913, CONSTITUTED CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY  ..."  HELVERING V.
CANFIELD, 291 U.S. 163, 167. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :












WRIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 583 


NO. 37.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1938.  - 84
CT. CLS. 630, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN THE LAST CLAUSE OF CONST., ART. I, SEC. 7, PAR. 2, WHICH
PROVIDES:  "IF ANY BILL SHALL NOT BE RETURNED BY THE PRESIDENT WITHIN
TEN DAYS (SUNDAYS EXCEPTED) AFTER IT SHALL HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO HIM,
THE SAME SHALL BE A LAW, IN LIKE MANNER AS IF HE HAD SIGNED IT, UNLESS
THE CONGRESS BY THEIR ADJOURNMENT PREVENT ITS RETURN, IN WHICH CASE IT
SHALL NOT BE A LAW," THE WORDS "THE CONGRESS" REFER TO THE ENTIRE
LEGISLATIVE BODY CONSISTING OF BOTH HOUSES.  P. 587. 

2.  THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER DEFINES WHAT SHALL CONSTITUTE A RETURN
OF A BILL BY THE PRESIDENT, NOR DENIES THE USE OF APPROPRIATE AGENCIES
IN EFFECTING A RETURN.  P. 589. 

3.  A BILL, PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, WAS PRESENTED TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON FRIDAY, APRIL 24.  ON MONDAY, MAY 4,
THE SENATE TOOK A RECESS UNTIL THURSDAY NOON, MAY 7.  THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES REMAINED IN SESSION.  ON MAY 5, THE PRESIDENT RETURNED
THE BILL WITH A MESSAGE SETTING FORTH HIS OBJECTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE
SENATE, IN WHICH THE BILL HAD ORIGINATED; AND BILL AND MESSAGE WERE
DELIVERED ON THAT DAY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE.  WHEN THE SENATE
RECONVENED ON MAY 7, THE SECRETARY ADVISED THE SENATE OF THE RETURN OF
THE BILL AND THE DELIVERY OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.  ON THE SAME DAY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE LAID BEFORE IT THE SECRETARY'S LETTER AND
THE MESSAGE.  THE MESSAGE WAS READ AND WITH THE BILL WAS REFERRED TO
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS.  NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN.  HELD
THAT THE BILL DID NOT BECOME A LAW.  PP. 589, 598. 

4.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED SHOULD NOT BE SO CONSTRUED
AS TO FRUSTRATE EITHER OF TWO FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES:  (1) THAT THE
PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE SUITABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE BILLS
PRESENTED TO HIM, AND (2) THAT THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE SUITABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER HIS OBJECTIONS TO BILLS AND ON SUCH
CONSIDERATION TO PASS THEM OVER HIS VETO PROVIDED THERE ARE THE
REQUISITE VOTES.  P. 596. 

5.  POCKET VETO CASE, 279 U.S. 655, DISTINGUISHED.  GENERAL
EXPRESSIONS IN AN OPINION ARE TO BE TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE
IN WHICH THEY WERE USED.  P. 593. 

WRIGHT V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 681, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS
(WITHOUT OPINION) OVERRULING AN APPLICATION FOR THE REOPENING AND
RETRIAL OF A CASE WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISMISSED IN 60 CT. CLS.
519.  THE CLAIMANT RELIED UPON A NEW ENABLING PROVISION, PASSED BY
CONGRESS, DISAPPROVED OF BY THE PRESIDENT, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMED
HAD NOT BECOME A LAW. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SENATE BILL 713, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION,
WHICH WAS PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, BECAME A LAW. 

THE BILL WAS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON
FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1936.  IT HAD ORIGINATED IN THE SENATE.  ON MONDAY,
MAY 4, 1936, THE SENATE TOOK A RECESS UNTIL NOON, THURSDAY, MAY 7,
1936.  THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REMAINED IN SESSION.  ON MAY 5,
1936, THE PRESIDENT RETURNED THE BILL WITH A MESSAGE ADDRESSED TO THE
SENATE SETTING FORTH HIS OBJECTIONS.  THE BILL AND MESSAGE WERE
DELIVERED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE.  WHEN THE SENATE RECONVENED
ON MAY 7, 1936, THE SECRETARY ADVISED THE SENATE OF THE RETURN OF THE
BILL AND THE DELIVERY OF THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.  FN1  ON THE SAME DAY
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE LAID BEFORE IT THE SECRETARY'S LETTER AND
THE MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE MESSAGE WAS
READ AND WITH THE BILL WAS REFERRED TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS. 
NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN. 

THE BILL GRANTED JURISDICTION TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO REHEAR AND
ADJUDICATE PETITIONER'S CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  ACCORDINGLY
ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1936, PETITIONER PRESENTED HIS PETITION TO THE COURT
OF CLAIMS.  THE GOVERNMENT OPPOSED THE PETITION UPON THE GROUND THAT
THE BILL HAD NEVER BECOME A LAW AND THE COURT OF CLAIMS DENIED THE
PETITION.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION CERTIORARI WAS
GRANTED.  301 U.S. 681. 

THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE FOUND IN ARTICLE I,
SEC. 7, PARAGRAPH 2, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"EVERY BILL WHICH SHALL HAVE PASSED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
THE SENATE, SHALL, BEFORE IT BECOME A LAW, BE PRESENTED TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; IF HE APPROVE HE SHALL SIGN IT, BUT IF
NOT HE SHALL RETURN IT, WITH HIS OBJECTIONS TO THAT HOUSE IN WHICH IT
SHALL HAVE ORIGINATED, WHO SHALL ENTER THE OBJECTIONS AT LARGE ON THEIR
JOURNAL, AND PROCEED TO RECONSIDER IT.  IF AFTER SUCH RECONSIDERATION
TWO THIRDS OF THAT HOUSE SHALL AGREE TO PASS THE BILL, IT SHALL BE
SENT, TOGETHER WITH THE OBJECTIONS, TO THE OTHER HOUSE, BY WHICH IT
SHALL LIKEWISE BE RECONSIDERED, AND IF APPROVED BY TWO THIRDS OF THAT
HOUSE, IT SHALL BECOME A LAW.  BUT IN ALL SUCH CASES THE VOTES OF BOTH
HOUSES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY YEAS AND NAYS, AND THE NAMES OF THE
PERSONS VOTING FOR AND AGAINST THE BILL SHALL BE ENTERED ON THE JOURNAL
OF EACH HOUSE RESPECTIVELY.  IF ANY BILL SHALL NOT BE RETURNED BY THE
PRESIDENT WITHIN TEN DAYS (SUNDAYS EXCEPTED) AFTER IT SHALL HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED TO HIM, THE SAME SHALL BE A LAW, IN LIKE MANNER AS IF HE HAD
SIGNED IT, UNLESS THE CONGRESS BY THEIR ADJOURNMENT PREVENT ITS RETURN,
IN WHICH CASE IT SHALL NOT BE A LAW." 

1.  THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER "THE CONGRESS BY THEIR ADJOURNMENT"
PREVENTED THE RETURN OF THE BILL BY THE PRESIDENT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF
TEN DAYS ALLOWED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

"THE CONGRESS" DID NOT ADJOURN.  THE SENATE ALONE WAS IN RECESS.  THE
CONSTITUTION CREATES AND DEFINES "THE CONGRESS."  IT CONSISTS "OF A
SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES."  ART. I, SEC. 1.  THE SENATE IS
NOT "THE CONGRESS." 

THE CONTEXT OF THE CLAUSE ITSELF POINTS THE DISTINCTION.  IT SPEAKS
OF THE "HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES" AND OF THE "SENATE," RESPECTIVELY. 
IT SPEAKS OF THE RETURN OF THE BILL, IF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT APPROVE
IT, "TO THAT HOUSE IN WHICH IT SHALL HAVE ORIGINATED"; OF
RECONSIDERATION BY "THAT HOUSE," AND, IN CASE TWO THIRDS OF "THAT
HOUSE" AGREE TO PASS THE BILL, OF SENDING IT TOGETHER WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE "OTHER HOUSE" AND, IF APPROVED BY TWO
THIRDS OF "THAT HOUSE," THE BILL IS TO BECOME A LAW.  PROVISION IS MADE
FOR THE TAKING OF THE VOTES OF "BOTH HOUSES" AND FOR THE RECORDING OF
THE NAMES OF THOSE VOTING FOR AND AGAINST THE BILL ON THE JOURNAL "OF
EACH HOUSE RESPECTIVELY." 

THEN, AFTER THIS PRECISE USE OF TERMS AND CAREFUL DIFFERENTIATION,
THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE DESCRIBES NOT AN ADJOURNMENT OF EITHER HOUSE AS A
SEPARATE BODY, OR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE IN WHICH THE BILL SHALL
HAVE ORIGINATED, BUT THE ADJOURNMENT OF "THE CONGRESS."  IT CANNOT BE
SUPPOSED THAT THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION DID NOT USE THIS
EXPRESSION WITH DELIBERATION OR FAILED TO APPRECIATE ITS PLAIN
SIGNIFICANCE.  THE REFERENCE TO THE CONGRESS IS MANIFESTLY TO THE
ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE BODY CONSISTING OF BOTH HOUSES.  NOWHERE IN THE
CONSTITUTION ARE THE WORDS "THE CONGRESS" USED TO DESCRIBE A SINGLE
HOUSE. 

TO DISREGARD SUCH A DELIBERATE CHOICE OF WORDS AND THEIR NATURAL
MEANING WOULD BE A DEPARTURE FROM THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION.  "IN EXPOUNDING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,"
SAID CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY IN HOLMES V. JENNISON, 14 PET. 540, 570, 571,
"EVERY WORD MUST HAVE ITS DUE FORCE, AND APPROPRIATE MEANING; FOR IT IS
EVIDENT FROM THE WHOLE INSTRUMENT, THAT NO WORD WAS UNNECESSARILY USED,
OR NEEDLESSLY ADDED.  THE MANY DISCUSSIONS WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE UPON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, HAVE PROVED THE CORRECTNESS OF
THIS PROPOSITION; AND SHOWN THE HIGH TALENT, THE CAUTION, AND THE
FORESIGHT OF THE ILLUSTRIOUS MEN WHO FRAMED IT. EVERY WORD APPEARS TO
HAVE BEEN WEIGHED WITH THE UTMOST DELIBERATION, AND ITS FORCE AND
EFFECT TO HAVE BEEN FULLY UNDERSTOOD."  SEE, ALSO, MARTIN V. HUNTER'S
LESSEE, 1 WHEAT.  304, 333, 334; OGDEN V. SAUNDERS, 12 WHEAT.  213,
316; MYERS V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52, 151; WILLIAMS V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 553, 572, 573. 

THE ARGUMENT ADDRESSED TO THE WORD "THEIR" IN THE PHRASE "THE
CONGRESS BY THEIR ADJOURNMENT," IS FUTILE.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE
USE OF THE PLURAL WOULD NOT BE UNUSUAL OR INAPPROPRIATE IF THE
REFERENCE WERE TO A SINGLE HOUSE.  THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT BOTH
SINGULAR AND PLURAL FORMS ARE USED IN THE CONSTITUTION WITH REFERENCE
TO EACH HOUSE SEPARATELY.  SEE ARTICLE I, SEC. 3, PARAGRAPHS 2, 4, 5,
6; ARTICLE I, SEC. 5, PARAGRAPHS 1, 2, 3.  THE PLURAL IS USED IN THE
PHRASE "THEIR JOURNAL" IN THE PARAGRAPH UNDER CONSIDERATION.  BUT THE
QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE USE OF THE PLURAL IS INAPPROPRIATE IN
REFERRING TO A SINGLE HOUSE OR ITS MEMBERS.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY
THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY NO INAPPROPRIATENESS IN THE USE OF THE PLURAL
IN RELATION TO "THE CONGRESS" AS COMPOSED OF BOTH HOUSES, AND THAT USE
IN NO WAY CHANGES THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT TERM. 

THE PHRASING OF THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE IS ENTIRELY FREE FROM AMBIGUITY
AND THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR CONSTRUCTION. 

2.  THE ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY RESTS UPON THE PREMISE THAT A BILL
CANNOT BE RETURNED BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE HOUSE IN WHICH IT ORIGINATED
WHEN THAT HOUSE DURING THE SESSION OF CONGRESS IS IN RECESS, AND HENCE
THAT THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF SEC. 7 OF ARTICLE I,
REFERRING TO AN ADJOURNMENT BY THE CONGRESS, SHOULD BE REPHRASED BY
JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THAT SITUATION.  WE THINK
THAT THE PREMISE IS FAULTY AND THE REPHRASING INADMISSIBLE. 

PARAGRAPH 4 OF SEC. 5 OF ARTICLE I PROVIDES: 

"NEITHER HOUSE, DURING THE SESSION OF CONGRESS, SHALL, WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE OTHER, ADJOURN FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, NOR TO ANY
OTHER PLACE THAN THAT IN WHICH THE TWO HOUSES SHALL BE SITTING." 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THIS PROVISION IS FOR A SHORT RECESS BY ONE
HOUSE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER "DURING THE SESSION OF
CONGRESS."  PLAINLY THE TAKING OF SUCH A RECESS IS NOT AN ADJOURNMENT
BY THE CONGRESS.  THE "SESSION OF CONGRESS" CONTINUES. 

HERE, THE RECESS OF THE SENATE FROM MAY 4TH TO MAY 7TH WAS DURING THE
SESSION OF CONGRESS AND UNDER THAT PROVISION.  IN RETURNING THE BILL TO
THE SENATE BY DELIVERY TO ITS SECRETARY DURING THE RECESS THERE WAS NO
VIOLATION OF ANY EXPRESS REQUIREMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT SHALL CONSTITUTE A RETURN OF A BILL
OR DENY THE USE OF APPROPRIATE AGENCIES IN EFFECTING THE RETURN. 

NOR WAS THERE ANY PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY IN MAKING THE RETURN OF THE
BILL DURING THE RECESS.  THE ORGANIZATION OF THE SENATE CONTINUED AND
WAS INTACT.  THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE WAS FUNCTIONING AND WAS ABLE
TO RECEIVE, AND DID RECEIVE, THE BILL.  UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION THE SENATE WAS REQUIRED TO RECONVENE IN NOT MORE THAN THREE
DAYS AND THUS WOULD BE ABLE TO ACT WITH REASONABLE PROMPTITUDE UPON THE
PRESIDENT'S OBJECTIONS.  THERE IS NO GREATER DIFFICULTY IN RETURNING A
BILL TO ONE OF THE TWO HOUSES WHEN IT IS IN RECESS DURING THE SESSION
OF CONGRESS THAN IN PRESENTING A BILL TO THE PRESIDENT BY SENDING IT TO
THE WHITE HOUSE IN HIS TEMPORARY ABSENCE.  SUCH A PRESENTATION IS
FAMILIAR PRACTICE.  THE BILL IS SENT BY A MESSENGER AND IS RECEIVED BY
THE PRESIDENT.  IT IS RETURNED BY A MESSENGER, AND WHY MAY IT NOT BE
RECEIVED BY THE ACCREDITED AGENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY?  TO SAY THAT
THE PRESIDENT CANNOT RETURN A BILL WHEN THE HOUSE IN WHICH IT
ORIGINATED IS IN RECESS DURING THE SESSION OF CONGRESS, AND THUS AFFORD
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PASSING OF THE BILL OVER THE PRESIDENT'S
OBJECTIONS, IS TO IGNORE THE PLAINEST PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND BY
IMPLYING A REQUIREMENT OF AN ARTIFICIAL FORMALITY TO ERECT A BARRIER TO
THE EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. 

THESE PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS WERE WELL PUT BY MR. HATTON W. SUMNERS
IN HIS ARGUMENT AS AMICUS CURIAE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE POCKET VETO CASE, 279
U.S. 655.  HE SAID: 

"THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE PROVISION GOVERNING THIS PASSING OF
BILLS BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS, OR ANY RECOGNIZED RULE OF
CONSTRUCTION WHICH, WHILE PERMITTING THE CONGRESS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE
TO SEND BILLS TO THE PRESIDENT BY A MESSENGER, AS IS DONE WITHOUT
QUESTION, AND THE PRESIDENT TO RECEIVE SUCH BILLS THROUGH AN
APPROPRIATE AGENT EVEN WHEN HIMSELF ABSENT FROM HIS OFFICE; AND THE
PRESIDENT, THOUGH HE MAY BE AWAY FROM THE CAPITAL, AT THE TIME
RETURNING THE BILL BY MESSENGER TO THE CONGRESS, THOUGH THE
CONSTITUTION DECLARES 'HE,' THE PRESIDENT, SHALL RETURN IT, WHICH WOULD
PREVENT THE HOUSE OF ORIGIN FROM RECEIVING THESE SAME BILLS THROUGH A
PROPER AGENT IF THAT HOUSE WERE ENGAGED IN OTHER BUSINESS OR
TEMPORARILY ABSENT FROM THEIR CHAMBERS.  IT IS AGAINST ALL REASON AND
EVERY RECOGNIZED RULE OF CONSTRUCTION, WHEN THE AVOIDANCE OF
UNNECESSARY DELAY IS SO CLEARLY MANIFEST IN THE PROVISION SOUGHT TO BE
CONSTRUED, THAT A CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE SUPERIMPOSED WHICH WOULD MAKE
FOR DELAY REGARDLESS OF EVERY DESIRE AND OF EVERY EFFORT OF THE
PRESIDENT AND OF THE CONGRESS IN THE SITUATION INDICATED." 

AND REFERRING TO THE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION ABOVE QUOTED AS TO
ADJOURNMENTS BY EITHER HOUSE FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE DAYS DURING THE
SESSION OF CONGRESS, HE SAID: 

"IN SUCH A SITUATION WHAT IS TO OCCUR?  IS THE BILL TO BECOME A LAW
DESPITE THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT?  THE CONGRESS HAS NOT
ADJOURNED, AND YET THE PRESIDENT CANNOT MAKE RETURN OF THE BILL TO THE
HOUSE OF ITS ORIGIN IN SESSION BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN SESSION.  IS THE
BILL TO DIE WITH THE CONGRESS IN EXISTENCE, POSSIBLY THE HOUSE OF
ORIGIN ONLY HAVING ADJOURNED EARLIER THAN USUAL ON THE LAST DAY
PERMITTED FOR THE RETURN OF THE BILL?  IS THERE NO RATIONAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION POSSIBLE WHICH WILL MAKE EFFECTIVE ALL
THE SAFEGUARDS WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION ESTABLISHED IN THE
CONSTITUTION, AND YET MAKE OPERATIVE UNDER EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE, THE
GENERAL PLAN SET UP BY THE CONSTITUTION?" 

AND, AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO THE AGENCIES OF THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS,
MR. SUMNERS OBSERVED THAT "THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS HAVE OFFICERS AND
AGENTS OF GREAT POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY WHO ACT IN THEIR STEAD, AND
WHO ARE CONSTANTLY IN THEIR PLACES WHEN THE HOUSES ARE IN SESSION, AND
WHEN THEY ARE NOT IN SESSION."  HE FOUND "NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION
WHICH DENIES THE RIGHT TO THE USE OF THESE AGENTS IN EFFECTING THE
RETURN OF OBJECTED-TO BILLS."  HE ADDED THAT "A RULE OF CONSTRUCTION OR
OF OFFICIAL ACTION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE IN EVERY INSTANCE THE PERSONS
WHO CONSTITUTE THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS TO BE IN FORMAL SESSION IN ORDER
TO RECEIVE BILLS FROM THE PRESIDENT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE PERSON WHO
IS PRESIDENT PERSONALLY TO RETURN SUCH BILLS.... 

"THE RIGHT OF CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY IS NECESSARY NOT ONLY TO
FACILITATE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE, PREVENT DELAY, AND TO HOLD THE
PRESIDENT'S POWERS WITHIN THE LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT
IT IS ALSO NECESSARY IN ORDER TO HOLD THE CONGRESS WITHIN PROPER BOUNDS
BY PREVENTING BILLS TO WHICH THE PRESIDENT MAY OBJECT FROM BECOMING LAW
WITHOUT RECONSIDERATION BY THE CONGRESS. 

"THE ADJOURNMENT OF A HOUSE FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE DAYS, WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE OTHER HOUSE, IS NOT AN ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS.    "IF
THE SENATE SHOULD BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, ON A MATTER OF THE HIGHEST
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE, REFUSING TO BE INTERRUPTED, ON THE LAST DAY OF THE
PERIOD IN WHICH RETURN MAY BE MADE, THAT WOULD NOT EVEN BE AN
ADJOURNMENT OF ONE HOUSE OF THE CONGRESS; AND YET RETURN COULD NOT BE
MADE IF CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY IS NOT PERMITTED. 

"IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT CONGRESS WAS ADJOURNED WHEN THE SENATE WAS
IN EXECUTIVE SESSION PERFORMING ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, AND THE OTHER
HOUSE IN ACTUAL SESSION.  THE SENSIBLE THING TO DO IN SUCH A CASE,
WOULD BE FOR THE MESSENGER OF THE PRESIDENT, FINDING HIMSELF UNABLE TO
MAKE DELIVERY TO THE SENATE, TO MAKE THE DELIVERY TO THE SECRETARY OF
THE SENATE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT THAT
BEING DONE." 

THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRACTICAL OBSTACLE TO THE RETURN OF A BILL WHEN A
HOUSE IS IN TEMPORARY RECESS DURING THE SESSION OF THE CONGRESS IS
ILLUSTRATED BY WHAT WAS DONE IN THIS INSTANCE.  THE SENATE WAS IN
RECESS FROM MAY 4TH TO NOON OF MAY 7TH.  THE PRESIDENT'S TIME FOR
CONSIDERATION EXPIRED ON MAY 6TH.  HE DELIVERED THE BILL WITH HIS
OBJECTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE ON MAY 5TH.  THE SECRETARY
PRESENTED THE BILL WITH THE PRESIDENT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT OF
THE SENATE ON MAY 7TH AND ON THAT DAY THE BILL AND THE OBJECTIONS WERE
LAID BEFORE THE SENATE AND WERE REFERRED TO THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE. 
THE FACT THAT MR. SUMNERS' CONTENTION IN THE POCKET VETO CASE WAS
UNAVAILING WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT OF AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE CONGRESS
AT THE CLOSE OF ITS FIRST REGULAR SESSION, IN NO WAY DETRACTS FROM THE
PERTINENCE AND COGENCY OF THESE OBSERVATIONS AS ADDRESSED TO THE
SITUATION WHICH IS NOW PRESENTED. 

3.  THE CHIEF, IF NOT THE SOLE, RELIANCE FOR THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
BILL COULD NOT BE RETURNED BY THE PRESIDENT DURING THE SENATE'S RECESS
IS OUR DECISION IN THE POCKET VETO CASE, SUPRA.  WE DO NOT REGARD THAT
DECISION AS APPLICABLE FOR TWO REASONS:  (1) THE PRESENT QUESTION WAS
NOT INVOLVED, AND (2) THE REASONING OF THE DECISION IS INAPPOSITE TO
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. 

IN THE POCKET VETO CASE, THE CONGRESS HAD ADJOURNED.  THE QUESTION
WAS WHETHER THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF SEC. 7 OF ARTICLE I
WAS LIMITED TO A FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE CONGRESS OR EMBRACED AN
ADJOURNMENT OF THE CONGRESS AT THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST REGULAR SESSION. 
THE COURT HELD THAT THE CLAUSE WAS NOT SO LIMITED AND APPLIED TO THE
LATTER.  IN INTERPRETING THE WORD "ADJOURNMENT," AND IN REFERRING TO
OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION USING THE WORD "ADJOURN," THE
COURT WAS STILL ADDRESSING ITSELF TO A CASE WHERE THERE HAD BEEN AN
ADJOURNMENT BY THE CONGRESS.  THE COURT DID NOT DECIDE, AND THERE WAS
NO OCCASION FOR RULING, THAT THE CLAUSE APPLIES WHERE THE CONGRESS HAS
NOT ADJOURNED AND A TEMPORARY RECESS HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ONE HOUSE DURING
THE SESSION OF CONGRESS.  ANY OBSERVATIONS WHICH COULD BE REGARDED AS
HAVING A BEARING UPON THE QUESTION NOW BEFORE US WOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF
THEIR PROPER RELATION.  THE OFT-REPEATED ADMONITION OF CHIEF JUSTICE
MARSHALL "THAT GENERAL EXPRESSIONS, IN EVERY OPINION, ARE TO BE TAKEN
IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE IN WHICH THOSE EXPRESSIONS ARE USED," AND
THAT IF THEY GO "BEYOND THE CASE, THEY MAY BE RESPECTED, BUT OUGHT NOT
TO CONTROL THE JUDGMENT IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT WHEN THE VERY POINT IS
PRESENTED FOR DECISION," HAS SPECIAL FORCE IN THIS INSTANCE.  COHENS V.
VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264, 399. 

IN THE POCKET VETO CASE THE COURT EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE HOUSE
TO WHICH THE BILL IS TO BE RETURNED "IS THE HOUSE IN SESSION," AND THAT
NO RETURN CAN BE MADE TO THE HOUSE WHEN IT IS NOT IN SESSION AS A
COLLECTIVE BODY AND ITS MEMBERS ARE DISPERSED.  BUT THAT EXPRESSION
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED SO NARROWLY AS TO DEMAND THAT THE PRESIDENT
MUST SELECT A PRECISE MOMENT WHEN THE HOUSE IS WITHIN THE WALLS OF ITS
CHAMBERS AND THAT A RETURN IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE DURING A RECESS
HOWEVER TEMPORARY.  SUCH A CONCLUSION, AS WE SHALL PRESENTLY ENDEAVOR
TO SHOW, WOULD FRUSTRATE THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION AS TO ACTION UPON BILLS.  THE COURT IN THE POCKET VETO CASE
WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE IMPROPRIETY OF A DELIVERY OF THE BILL BY THE
PRESIDENT DURING A PERIOD OF ADJOURNMENT "TO SOME INDIVIDUAL OFFICER OR
AGENT NOT AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ANY LEGISLATIVE RECORD OF ITS DELIVERY,
WHO SHOULD HOLD IT IN HIS OWN HANDS FOR DAYS, WEEKS OR PERHAPS MONTHS,
- NOT ONLY LEAVING OPEN POSSIBLE QUESTIONS AS TO THE DATE ON WHICH IT
HAD BEEN DELIVERED TO HIM, OR WHETHER IT HAD IN FACT BEEN DELIVERED TO
HIM AT ALL, BUT KEEPING THE BILL IN THE MEANTIME IN A STATE OF
SUSPENDED ANIMATION UNTIL THE HOUSE RESUMES ITS SITTINGS, WITH NO
CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC AS TO WHETHER IT HAD OR HAD
NOT BEEN SEASONABLY DELIVERED, AND NECESSARILY CAUSING DELAY IN ITS
RECONSIDERATION WHICH THE CONSTITUTION EVIDENTLY INTENDED TO AVOID." 
"IN SHORT," SAID THE COURT, "IT WAS PLAINLY THE OBJECT OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT THERE SHOULD BE A TIMELY RETURN OF THE
BILL, WHICH SHOULD NOT ONLY BE A MATTER OF OFFICIAL RECORD DEFINITELY
SHOWN BY THE JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE ITSELF, GIVING PUBLIC, CERTAIN AND
PROMPT KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE STATUS OF THE BILL, BUT SHOULD ENABLE
CONGRESS TO PROCEED IMMEDIATELY WITH ITS RECONSIDERATION; AND THAT THE
RETURN OF THE BILL SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL AND PUBLIC RETURN TO THE HOUSE
ITSELF, NOT A FICTITIOUS RETURN BY A DELIVERY OF THE BILL TO SOME
INDIVIDUAL WHICH COULD BE GIVEN A RETROACTIVE EFFECT AT A LATER DATE
WHEN THE TIME FOR THE RETURN TO THE HOUSE HAD EXPIRED."  ID., PP. 684,
685. 

THESE STATEMENTS SHOW CLEARLY THE SORT OF DANGERS WHICH THE COURT
ENVISAGED.  HOWEVER REAL THESE DANGERS MAY BE WHEN CONGRESS HAS
ADJOURNED AND THE MEMBERS OF ITS HOUSES HAVE DISPERSED AT THE END OF A
SESSION - THE SITUATION WITH WHICH THE COURT WAS DEALING - THEY APPEAR
TO BE ILLUSORY WHEN THERE IS A MERE TEMPORARY RECESS.  EACH HOUSE FOR
ITS CONVENIENCE, AND DURING ITS SESSION AND THE SESSION OF CONGRESS,
MAY TAKE, AND FREQUENTLY DOES TAKE, A BRIEF RECESS LIMITED, AS WE HAVE
SEEN, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER HOUSE, TO A PERIOD OF
THREE DAYS.  IN SUCH CASE THERE IS NO WITHHOLDING OF THE BILL FROM
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATIVE RECORD FOR WEEKS OR PERHAPS MONTHS, NO KEEPING
OF THE BILL IN A STATE OF SUSPENDED ANIMATION WITH NO CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE
ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC WHETHER IT WAS SEASONABLY DELIVERED, NO
CAUSING OF ANY UNDUE DELAY IN ITS RECONSIDERATION.  WHEN THERE IS
NOTHING BUT SUCH A TEMPORARY RECESS THE ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE AND
ITS APPROPRIATE OFFICERS CONTINUE TO FUNCTION WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, THE
BILL IS PROPERLY SAFEGUARDED FOR A VERY LIMITED TIME AND IS PROMPTLY
REPORTED AND MAY BE RECONSIDERED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHORT RECESS IS
OVER.  THE PROSPECT THAT IN SUCH A CASE THE PUBLIC MAY NOT BE PROMPTLY
AND PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE RETURN OF THE BILL WITH THE PRESIDENT'S
OBJECTIONS, OR THAT THE BILL WILL NOT BE PROPERLY SAFEGUARDED OR DULY
RECORDED UPON THE JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE, OR THAT IT WILL NOT BE SUBJECT
TO REASONABLY PROMPT ACTION BY THE HOUSE, IS WE THINK WHOLLY
CHIMERICAL.  IF WE REGARD THE MANIFEST REALITIES OF THE SITUATION, WE
CANNOT FAIL TO SEE THAT A BRIEF RECESS BY ONE HOUSE, SUCH AS IS
PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER HOUSE,
DURING THE SESSION OF CONGRESS, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUCH AN
INTERRUPTION OF THE SESSION OF THE HOUSE AS TO GIVE RISE TO THE DANGERS
WHICH, AS THE COURT APPREHENDED, MIGHT DEVELOP AFTER THE CONGRESS HAS
ADJOURNED. 

4.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS HAVE TWO FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSES; (1)
THAT THE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE SUITABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE
BILLS PRESENTED TO HIM, AND (2) THAT THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE SUITABLE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER HIS OBJECTIONS TO BILLS AND ON SUCH
CONSIDERATION TO PASS THEM OVER HIS VETO PROVIDED THERE ARE THE
REQUISITE VOTES.  EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 482, 486.  WE
SHOULD NOT ADOPT A CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD FRUSTRATE EITHER OF THESE
PURPOSES. 

AS TO THE PRESIDENT'S OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE HELD
THAT HE MAY STILL APPROVE BILLS AND THAT THEY WILL BECOME LAWS, IF HE
ACTS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOTTED FOR THAT PURPOSE, ALTHOUGH CONGRESS
MEANWHILE HAS ADJOURNED.  LA ABRA SILVER MINING CO. V. UNITED STATES,
175 U.S. 423; EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  IT IS TO SAFEGUARD THE
PRESIDENT'S OPPORTUNITY THAT PARAGRAPH 2 OF SEC. 7 OF ARTICLE I
PROVIDES THAT BILLS WHICH HE DOES NOT APPROVE SHALL NOT BECOME LAWS IF
THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE CONGRESS PREVENTS THEIR RETURN.  EDWARDS V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

WHERE THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT APPROVE A BILL, THE PLAN OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS TO GIVE TO THE CONGRESS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER HIS
OBJECTIONS AND TO PASS THE BILL DESPITE HIS DISAPPROVAL.  IT IS FOR
THIS PURPOSE THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR RETURN IS FIXED.  THIS OPPORTUNITY
IS AS IMPORTANT AS THAT OF THE PRESIDENT.  BUT IF THE RETURN OF A BILL
IS IMPOSSIBLE DURING A TEMPORARY RECESS OF A HOUSE WHILE CONGRESS IS IN
SESSION, EITHER THE PRESIDENT MAY BE OBLIGED TO CUT SHORT THE TIME FOR
HIS CONSIDERATION SO AS TO BE SURE TO GET HIS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE
HOUSE WHILE IT IS WITHIN THE WALLS OF ITS CHAMBERS, OR, IF THE
PRESIDENT TAKES THE ALLOTTED TIME AND ATTEMPTS TO RETURN THE BILL
DURING THE RECESS, HIS OBJECTIONS WILL EITHER BE UNAVAILING OR THE
CONGRESS WILL BE DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO PASS UPON THEM.  IF, AS WE
THINK, THE CONCLUDING WORDS OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF SEC. 7 ARE INAPPLICABLE
THEN, AS CONGRESS HAS NOT ADJOURNED, THE BILL, IF NOT DEEMED TO HAVE
BEEN RETURNED, WILL BECOME A LAW DESPITE THE PRESIDENT'S DISAPPROVAL. 
OR, IF THAT CLAUSE WERE DEEMED APPLICABLE AND THE RETURN OF THE BILL BE
CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY THE RECESS, THE BILL WOULD NOT
BECOME A LAW AND CONGRESS, ALTHOUGH IN SESSION, WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
PASS THE BILL OVER THE PRESIDENT'S OBJECTIONS. 

THE EXTREMELY TECHNICAL CHARACTER OF THE ARGUMENT WHICH WOULD MAKE
IMPOSSIBLE THE RETURN OF A BILL BECAUSE A HOUSE HAS TAKEN A TEMPORARY
RECESS IS MANIFEST.  SUPPOSE THE PRESIDENT, WHO IS CLEARLY ENTITLED TO
HIS TEN DAYS FOR CONSIDERATION, SENDS THE BILL TO THE HOUSE IN WHICH IT
ORIGINATED WITH HIS OBJECTIONS ON THE AFTERNOON OF THE TENTH DAY, BUT
THAT HOUSE HAS ADJOURNED AT NOON ON THAT DAY UNTIL THE FOLLOWING
MORNING.  THEN, ON THE ARGUMENT NOW ADVANCED AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE CONCLUDING CLAUSE OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF SEC. 7, THE BILL WOULD NOT
BECOME A LAW AND THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT WOULD OPERATE
PRACTICALLY AS AN ABSOLUTE VETO ALTHOUGH THE CONGRESS WAS IN SESSION
AND READY TO CONSIDER HIS OBJECTIONS.  OR IF THAT RESULT DOES NOT
FOLLOW, IN THE VIEW THAT THE CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE CONGRESS HAS
NOT ADJOURNED, THEN, IF THE BILL IS NOT REGARDED AS RETURNED, IT
BECOMES A LAW ALTHOUGH THE PRESIDENT HAS SHOWN HIS DISAPPROVAL WITHIN
THE TEN DAYS.  THESE DIFFICULTIES DISAPPEAR IF WE DISPENSE WITH WHOLLY
UNNECESSARY TECHNICALITIES AS TO THE METHOD OF RETURN AND GIVE EFFECT
TO REALITIES. 

WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT THAT THE PRECEDENTS OF EXECUTIVE ACTION
WHICH HAVE BEEN CITED ARE NOT PERSUASIVE.  THE QUESTION NOW RAISED HAS
NOT BEEN THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL DECISION AND MUST BE RESOLVED NOT BY
PAST UNCERTAINTIES, ASSUMPTIONS OR ARGUMENTS, BUT BY THE APPLICATION OF
THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION. 

WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT WHILE A RECESS OF ONE HOUSE
IS LIMITED TO THREE DAYS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER HOUSE, CASES
MAY ARISE IN WHICH THE OTHER HOUSE CONSENTS TO AN ADJOURNMENT AND A
LONG PERIOD OF ADJOURNMENT MAY RESULT.  WE HAVE NO SUCH CASE BEFORE US
AND WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO CONJECTURE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ACTION
WHICH MIGHT BE TAKEN BY THE CONGRESS IN SUCH A CASE OR WHAT WOULD BE
ITS EFFECT. 

WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE CONGRESS HAS NOT ADJOURNED AND THE HOUSE IN
WHICH THE BILL ORIGINATED IS IN RECESS FOR NOT MORE THAN THREE DAYS
UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERMISSION WHILE CONGRESS IS IN SESSION, THE
BILL DOES NOT BECOME A LAW IF THE PRESIDENT HAS DELIVERED THE BILL WITH
HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE APPROPRIATE OFFICER OF THAT HOUSE WITHIN THE
PRESCRIBED TEN DAYS AND THE CONGRESS DOES NOT PASS THE BILL OVER HIS
OBJECTIONS BY THE REQUISITE VOTES.  IN THIS INSTANCE THE BILL WAS
PROPERLY RETURNED BY THE PRESIDENT, IT WAS OPEN TO RECONSIDERATION IN
CONGRESS, AND IT DID NOT BECOME A LAW. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THIS COMMUNICATION WAS AS FOLLOWS:

                        "UNITED STATES SENATE,

                       WASHINGTON, MAY 7, 1936. 

HON. JOHN N. GARNER,

                       PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. 

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: 

ON FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1936, THE COMMITTEE ON ENROLLED BILLS OF THE
SENATE PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THE ENROLLED
BILLS (S. 713) GRANTING JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO HEAR THE
CASE OF DAVID A. WRIGHT, AND (S. 929) FOR THE RELIEF OF THE SOUTHERN
PRODUCTS CO., WHICH HAD PASSED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND BEEN SIGNED
BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE
SENATE. 

THE SENATE, AT 3:25 P.M. MONDAY, MAY 4, 1936, TOOK A RECESS UNTIL 12
NOON ON THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1936. 

DURING THE INTERIM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SENT BY
MESSENGER TWO MESSAGES ADDRESSED TO THE SENATE, EACH DATED MAY 5, 1936,
GIVING HIS REASONS FOR NOT APPROVING, RESPECTIVELY, SENATE BILL 713 AND
SENATE BILL 929.  THE SENATE NOT BEING IN SESSION ON THE LAST DAY WHICH
THE PRESIDENT HAD FOR THE RETURN OF THESE BILLS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
INTERESTS OF THE SENATE, SO THAT IT MIGHT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
RECONSIDER THE BILLS, I ACCEPTED THE MESSAGES, AND I NOW PRESENT TO YOU
THE PRESIDENT'S VETO MESSAGES, WITH THE ACCOMPANYING PAPERS, FOR
DISPOSITION BY THE SENATE.    SINCERELY YOURS,

                           EDWIN A. HALSEY,

                      SECRETARY OF THE SENATE." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE. 

I AGREE THAT THE LEGISLATION NOW IN QUESTION DID NOT BECOME A LAW,
NOT, AS THE COURT HOLDS, BECAUSE THE BILL VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT WAS
RETURNED TO THE SENATE WITHIN THE TEN-DAY PERIOD OR TO ANY PERSON
AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THE BILL IN ITS BEHALF, BUT BECAUSE THE SENATE BY
ITS ADJOURNMENT PREVENTED THE RETURN AND THUS CALLED INTO OPERATION THE
PROVISION THAT THE BILL "SHALL NOT BE A LAW" WHERE ADJOURNMENT PREVENTS
ITS RETURN TO THE HOUSE IN WHICH IT ORIGINATED, WITHIN THE TEN DAYS
ALLOWED TO THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN OR DISAPPROVE IT.  FN1 

THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE COURT FOR ITS CONCLUSION SEEM TO ME TO
HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE CASE NOW BEFORE US, AND LEAVE IN CONFUSION
AND DOUBT THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE VETO PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE CERTAINTY OF WHOSE APPLICATION IS OF SUPREME
IMPORTANCE. 

NOTHWITHSTANDING THE COGENTLY REASONED RULING OF A UNANIMOUS COURT IN
THE POCKET VETO CASE, 279 U.S. 655, 682, THAT THE "HOUSE" TO WHICH A
BILL IS TO BE RETURNED BY THE PRESIDENT MEANS A HOUSE IN SESSION, WE
MAY ASSUME FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT EACH HOUSE OF CONGRESS, BY
APPROPRIATE ACTION, MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY CONFER UPON ITS SECRETARY,
CLERK, OR SOME OTHER OFFICER, AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE A BILL RETURNED TO
IT BY THE PRESIDENT.  BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY SUCH AUTHORITY
HAS EVER BEEN CONFERRED ON THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, OR THAT HE HAS
HITHERTO ASSUMED TO ACT IN THAT CAPACITY.  IN THE POCKET VETO CASE THIS
COURT HELD THAT IN 1926 IT HAD NOT; AND THE SENATE HAS SINCE TAKEN NO
STEP IN THAT DIRECTION, PERHAPS BECAUSE OF OUR DICTUM IN THAT CASE THAT
SUCH ACTION WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

THE HOUSES OF CONGRESS, BEING COLLECTIVE BODIES, TRANSACTING THEIR
ROUTINE BUSINESS BY MAJORITY ACTION, ARE CAPABLE OF ACTING ONLY WHEN IN
SESSION AND BY FORMAL ACTION RECORDED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE JOURNALS, OR
BY RECOGNITION, THROUGH SUCH ACTION, OF AN ESTABLISHED PRACTICE.  SINCE
THE FOUNDATION OF THE GOVERNMENT IT HAS BEEN THE SETTLED USAGE OF BOTH
HOUSES OF CONGRESS TO RECEIVE MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT AND BILLS
DISAPPROVED AND RETURNED BY HIM, WHEN IN SESSION.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR
THAT IN THE PAST THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE OR ANY OTHER PERSON HAS
ASSUMED TO ACT FOR EITHER HOUSE IN RECEIVING A BILL RETURNED BY THE
PRESIDENT, AND IN ONE RECORDED INSTANCE THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE AND
ITS PRESIDENT DECLINED SO TO ACT.  FN2  THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTION AND NO
USAGE OF EITHER HOUSE RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH AUTHORITY IN
ANY ONE.  POCKET VETO CASE, SUPRA, 682 ET SEQ. 

THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE IS APPOINTED BY THAT BODY TO SERVE AT ITS
PLEASURE, AND HIS DUTIES ARE PRESCRIBED BY THE SENATE RULES.  THEY GIVE
NO HINT THAT AMONG THESE DUTIES IS THE IMPORTANT FUNCTION OF ACTING AS
THE SENATE IN THE RECEIPT OF BILLS RETURNED TO IT BY THE PRESIDENT
DURING THE TEN-DAY PERIOD, OR RETAINING THEM IN CUSTODY PENDING ITS
REASSEMBLY WHEN THE RETURN IS DURING AN ADJOURNMENT.  NOT ONLY HAVE
BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS FAILED TO DESIGNATE ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE BILLS
RETURNED TO THEM BY THE PRESIDENT, BUT IN ONE INSTANCE THEY EXPLICITLY
REFUSED TO TAKE SUCH ACTION WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED.  FN3 

THE CONCLUSION SEEMS INESCAPABLE THAT WHATEVER CONSTITUTIONAL POWER
THE SENATE AND HOUSE MAY POSSESS TO DESIGNATE AN OFFICER TO RECEIVE IN
THEIR BEHALF BILLS RETURNED BY THE PRESIDENT, THEY HAVE NOT EXERCISED
IT; THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH DIRECTS THAT BILLS SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE
HOUSE IN WHICH THEY ORIGINATE, HAS MADE NO SUCH DESIGNATION, AND
NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION NOR ANY STATUTE, RULE OR USAGE HAS INDICATED
ANY PERSON WHO COULD SO ACT, OR PRESCRIBED FOR ANYONE DUTIES EMBRACING
SUCH A FUNCTION. 

IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES DELIVERY OF A BILL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
SENATE DURING ITS ADJOURNMENT WOULD SEEM TO BE NO MORE A COMPLIANCE
WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAN WOULD ITS DEPOSIT BY THE
PRESIDENT'S MESSENGER WITH THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS, A DOORKEEPER, OR ANY
OTHER PERSON NOT CLOTHED WITH AUTHORITY OR CHARGED WITH OFFICIAL DUTY
IN THE PREMISES, WHO MIGHT BE INDUCED TO RECEIVE THE BILL AND UNDERTAKE
TO BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SENATE UPON REASSEMBLY.  FN4 

DOUBTS AS TO THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE RULE NOW ANNOUNCED BY THE
COURT ARE MULTIPLIED BY THE INTIMATION THAT A DIFFERENT RULE MAY BE
APPLIED IN THE CASE OF ADJOURNMENT OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS, WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER, FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, AND THAT THE
PRESENT DECISION CAN, IN SOME WAY NOT DISCLOSED, BE DISTINGUISHED FROM
OUR RULING IN THE POCKET VETO CASE, WHERE THE RETURN OF A BILL TO THE
SENATE WAS HELD TO HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE
SENATE, PURSUANT TO CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, FROM JULY 3RD TO NOVEMBER
10TH, THE HOUSE HAVING AT THE SAME TIME ADJOURNED SINE DIE.  BUT SUCH
AN INTIMATION CAN REST ON NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL THAN OUR
UNWILLINGNESS TO FACE THE OBVIOUS CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT IS NOW DECIDED. 
IF IT BE SAID THAT AN ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRESENT CASE AND
THE POCKET VETO CASE LIES IN THE FACT THAT HERE THE PRESIDENT DELIVERED
THE BILL WITH HIS VETO MESSAGE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, AND THAT
THERE HE RETAINED IT WITHOUT SIGNING, THEN THE RULE WHICH IS NOW
ANNOUNCED WILL, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, EXPIRE WITH ITS BIRTH.  WE
CAN HARDLY ASSUME THAT A PRESIDENT WOULD INVITE FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL
ACTION BY A RETURN OF A BILL WITH HIS VETO TO A SECRETARY OR OTHER
OFFICER OF THE HOUSE CONCERNED, DURING ITS ADJOURNMENT, IF BY RETENTION
OF THE BILL WITHOUT SIGNING, HE COULD MAKE THE VETO ABSOLUTE. 

AGAIN, IF IT BE SAID THAT A DISTINCTION IS TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN
ADJOURNMENT OF ONE HOUSE FOR THREE DAYS AND LONGER ADJOURNMENTS TAKEN
WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE OTHER HOUSE, NO PLAUSIBLE REASON CAN BE
ADVANCED FOR SAYING THAT THE SECRETARY OR ANY OTHER OFFICER OF THE
SENATE POSSESSES AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE RETURNED BILLS DURING A THREE-DAY
ADJOURNMENT WHICH HE DOES NOT POSSESS DURING A FOUR-DAY OR LONGER
ADJOURNMENT DURING A SESSION OF CONGRESS.  IN THE POCKET VETO CASE THE
SENATE ADJOURNED DURING A SESSION OF CONGRESS FOR FOUR MONTHS, THE
HOUSE CONSENTING, BUT THE TEN DAYS ALLOWED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE
BILL BY THE PRESIDENT EXPIRED THE DAY AFTER ADJOURNMENT.  IF THE
DECISION IN THAT CASE IS TO STAND WITH THIS IT CAN ONLY BE BECAUSE THE
SECRETARY IN THE FORMER LOST ON THE DAY AFTER ADJOURNMENT AN AUTHORITY
WHICH HE RETAINED FOR A DAY AFTER ADJOURNMENT IN THE LATTER.  IF LOST,
IT WAS EITHER BECAUSE THE ADJOURNMENT WAS FOR LONGER THAN THREE DAYS
AND WAS THUS ONE WHICH COULD NOT BE EFFECTED WITHOUT A CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION, OR BECAUSE THE OTHER HOUSE HAD NOT REMAINED IN SESSION. 
SUCH DISTINCTIONS FIND AS LITTLE SUPPORT IN CONSTITUTION, LAWS AND
CONGRESSIONAL PRACTICE, AND IN REASON, AS DOES THE PROPOSITION THAT THE
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE IS, BY VIRTUE OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUCH,
CLOTHED WITH AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE IN ITS BEHALF BILLS RETURNED BY THE
PRESIDENT. 

IF IN THE POCKET VETO CASE THE SECRETARY OF THE SENATE, WHERE THE
BILL ORIGINATED, HAD AUTHORITY AFTER ADJOURNMENT DURING THE SESSION, TO
RECEIVE IT IN BEHALF OF THE SENATE, THE ADJOURNMENT DID NOT PREVENT THE
RETURN BY THE PRESIDENT, AND THE BILL, UPON HIS FAILURE TO SIGN OR
RETURN IT, BECAME LAW BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION JUST AS
DID SOME 173 OTHER BILLS WHICH, UNTIL THIS MOMENT, HAVE BEEN REGARDED
AS DEAD LETTERS, AS THEY WERE DECLARED TO BE IN THE POCKET VETO CASE,
SUPRA, 691.  FN5  IF THE COURT WAS WRONG ON THAT POINT, ITS DECISION
WAS WRONG, AND IN THE INTERESTS OF A DEFINITE AND PRECISE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE IN A FIELD WHERE DEFINITENESS AND PRECISION
ARE OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, IT SHOULD NOW BE FRANKLY OVERRULED. 

IF I AM WRONG IN MY CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT IN THIS
CASE RETURN THE BILL TO THE SENATE BY RETURNING IT TO ITS SECRETARY
DURING ADJOURNMENT, THEN ADJOURNMENT DID NOT PREVENT ITS RETURN, THE
PRESIDENT'S VETO BECAME EFFECTIVE, AND THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE
COURT TO INDULGE IN AN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION OF WHAT MAY IN OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES BE THE EFFECT OF AN ADJOURNMENT ALONE OF THE HOUSE IN
WHICH A BILL ORIGINATES, WHICH ACTUALLY PREVENTS SUCH A RETURN.  THE
PRONOUNCEMENT NOW MADE THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY BE SO DEPRIVED OF THE
VETO POWER OUGHT TO BE AVOIDED NOT ONLY BECAUSE, IN MY OPINION, IT IS
AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH MAY HAVE GRAVE
CONSEQUENCES, BUT BECAUSE IT IS UNNECESSARY TO THE DECISION.  IF THE
EXPERIENCE OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS OF CONSTITUTIONAL
INTERPRETATION HAS TAUGHT ANY LESSON, IT IS THE UNWISDOM OF MAKING
SOLEMN DECLARATIONS AS TO THE MEANING OF THAT INSTRUMENT WHICH ARE
UNNECESSARY TO DECISION.  THEY CAN SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE AND THEIR
ONLY EFFECT MAY BE TO EMBARRASS THE COURT WHEN DECISION BECOMES
NECESSARY.  O'DONOGHUE V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 516, 550; HUMPHREY'S
EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 602, 626-627.  THE DECLARATION NOW
MADE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THAT THE CONSTITUTION HAS LEFT AN UNDEFINED
AREA IN WHICH THE VETO POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED, IS THE MORE
UNFORTUNATE SINCE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SEEMS ALMOST CERTAIN THAT
THE COURT WILL BE CALLED UPON TO REEXAMINE IT. 

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, I AM RIGHT IN MY VIEW THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
HERE PREVENTED FROM RETURNING THE BILL, WE ARE BROUGHT UNAVOIDABLY TO
THE DECISION OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
AND ARGUED AT THE BAR AS THE CONTROLLING QUESTION, WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT IS DEPRIVED OF THE VETO POWER WHENEVER RETURN OF A BILL
WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TEN DAYS IS PREVENTED BY THE ADJOURNMENT ALONE OF
THE HOUSE IN WHICH THE BILL ORIGINATED. 

THE FRAMERS, IN SEEKING TO ESTABLISH AND PRESERVE THE PRESIDENTIAL
VETO, WERE AWARE THAT THE ORIGINATING HOUSE, UNLIKE THE PRESIDENT WHO
IS WITHOUT INCENTIVE TO AVOID RECEIPT OF A BILL WHICH HE IS FREE TO
VETO, MIGHT HAVE THE STRONGEST MOTIVES TO AVOID THE VETO OF A BILL, IF
THAT WERE POSSIBLE, BY PREVENTING ITS RETURN OR BY CHALLENGING THE FACT
OF ITS RETURN.  THEY ACCORDINGLY TOOK CARE TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETURN OF
A BILL TO THE ORIGINATING HOUSE BY AN ACT OF PUBLIC NOTORIETY - ITS
DELIVERY TO THE HOUSE IN SESSION; AND RECOGNIZING THAT RETURN MIGHT BE
PREVENTED BY ADJOURNMENT, THEY DECLARED THAT IN THAT CASE IT SHOULD NOT
BECOME A LAW. 

THE POSSIBILITY THAT A RETURN MAY BE PREVENTED BY THE ADJOURNMENT OF
A SINGLE HOUSE DURING A SESSION OF CONGRESS IS NOT REMOVED BY DECIDING
THAT A SECRETARY OR SOME OTHER OFFICER OF THE ORIGINATING HOUSE MAY
RECEIVE A RETURNED BILL DURING THE PERIOD OF A THREE-DAY ADJOURNMENT. 
EITHER HOUSE MAY AND DOES ON OCCASION ADJOURN FOR LONGER PERIODS, WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER.  FN6  AN ADJOURNMENT COINCIDENT WITH DEATH OR
ABSENCE OF THE OFFICER MAY PREVENT THE RETURN.  WHATEVER AUTHORITY IN
THE PREMISES THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE MAY GIVE TO ITS OFFICER, IT MAY
WITHHOLD OR WITHDRAW.  IF THE DICTUM NOW PRONOUNCED CORRECTLY STATES
THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW, THE ORIGINATING HOUSE MAY SHORTEN THE PERIOD FOR
THE EXERCISE OF THE VETO POWER OR THWART IT ALTOGETHER BY THE SIMPLE
EXPEDIENT OF ADJOURNMENT AFTER WITHDRAWING THE SUPPOSED AUTHORITY OF
ANY OFFICER TO RECEIVE THE VETOED BILL. 

THIS COURT HAS EMPHASIZED, AS DOES THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
THE GREAT IMPORTANCE OF THE VETO POWER AND THE DOMINATING PURPOSE
EXPRESSED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT THE POWER SHALL NOT BE
CURTAILED OR THE TEN DAYS, ALLOWED FOR ITS EXERCISE, SHORTENED. 
EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 482, 486, 493-494; POCKET VETO CASE,
SUPRA, P. 678.  THE WORDS MAKE IT CERTAIN THAT THE ONLY ADJOURNMENT
WHICH CAN PREVENT RETURN OF A BILL BY THE PRESIDENT IS THAT OF THE
HOUSE IN WHICH THE BILL ORIGINATES AND TO WHICH, IF VETOED, IT IS TO BE
RETURNED.  CONTINUANCE IN SESSION OF THE OTHER HOUSE DOES NOT
FACILITATE RETURN.  NO MORE CAN ITS ADJOURNMENT OBSTRUCT RETURN. 
ADJOURNMENT BY THE ORIGINATING HOUSE CAN ALONE HAVE THE CONSEQUENCE TO
BE GUARDED AGAINST, PREVENTION OF RETURN.  HENCE, IT WAS ADJOURNMENT OF
THE ORIGINATING HOUSE WITH WHICH THE FRAMERS WERE CONCERNED.  THERE IS
NO REASON OF WHICH WE ARE AWARE, AND NONE HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, FOR
SUPPOSING THAT IN CREATING AND PROTECTING THE VETO POWER THEY REGARDED
THE ADJOURNMENT VEL NON OF THE NON-ORIGINATING HOUSE AS OF ANY
CONSEQUENCE, OR THAT THEY HAD ANY THOUGHT OF LEAVING THE PRESIDENT
STRIPPED OF THE VETO POWER, EITHER BY CHANCE OR BY DESIGN, WHENEVER THE
ORIGINATING HOUSE ADJOURNED WITHOUT THE OTHER.  THE MEN WHO CREATED THE
FRAMEWORK OF OUR GOVERNMENT ARE NOT LIGHTLY TO BE CHARGED WITH SUCH AN
OMISSION.  THE CHARGE NOW MADE FINDS ITS ONLY SUPPORT IN A PUNCTILIO OF
GRAMMAR. 

"...  WE MUST NEVER FORGET, THAT IT IS A CONSTITUTION WE ARE
EXPOUNDING."  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 407.  ITS
PROVISIONS ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED LIKE THOSE OF A MUNICIPAL CODE OR
OF A PENAL STATUTE, THOUGH EVEN THE LATTER IS TO BE READ SO AS NOT TO
DEFEAT ITS OBVIOUS PURPOSE, UNITED STATES V. RAYNOR, ANTE, P. 540, OR
LEAD TO ABSURD CONSEQUENCES.  UNITED STATES V. KATZ, 271 U.S. 354,
362.  IN DEFINING THEIR SCOPE SOMETHING MORE IS INVOLVED THAN
CONSULTATION OF THE DICTIONARY AND THE RULES OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR.  THEY
ARE TO BE READ AS A VITAL PART OF AN ORGANIC WHOLE SO THAT THE HIGH
PURPOSE WHICH ILLUMINES EVERY SENTENCE AND PHRASE OF THE INSTRUMENT MAY
BE GIVEN EFFECT IN A CONSISTENT AND HARMONIOUS FRAMEWORK OF
GOVERNMENT. 

THE COURT HAS HITHERTO CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT A LITERAL READING OF A
PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH DEFEATS A PURPOSE EVIDENT WHEN THE
INSTRUMENT IS READ AS A WHOLE, IS NOT TO BE FAVORED.  THE PHRASE "DUE
PROCESS" IN THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS HAS LONG SINCE BEEN
EXPANDED BEYOND ITS LITERAL MEANING OF DUE PROCEDURE.  SEE DAVIDSON V.
NEW ORLEANS, 96 U.S. 97; CF. BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING IN WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 373.  THE TERM "CONTRACT" IN THE CONTRACT
CLAUSE IS NOT CONFINED LITERALLY TO THE CONTRACTS OF THE LAW
DICTIONARY.  DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT.  518.  THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST THEIR IMPAIRMENT HAS NEVER BEEN TAKEN TO BE
INEXORABLE.  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, AND
CASES CITED AT 430 ET SEQ.  THE INJUNCTION THAT NO PERSON "SHALL BE
COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF" IS NOT
LITERALLY APPLIED.  BROWN V. WALKER, 161 U.S. 591, 595.  "FROM WHATEVER
SOURCE DERIVED," AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, DOES NOT
MEAN FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED.  EVANS V. GORE, 253 U.S. 245.  SEE,
ALSO, ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 281, 282; GOMPERS V. UNITED
STATES, 233 U.S. 604, 610; BAIN PEANUT CO. V. PINSON, 282 U.S. 499,
501; UNITED STATES V. LEFKOWITZ, 285 U.S. 452, 467. 

BUT HERE, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE AND THE LARGER
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE USUALLY GUIDED OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT, IT IS INSISTED THAT THE
PHRASE "UNLESS THE CONGRESS BY THEIR ADJOURNMENT PREVENT ITS RETURN"
CANNOT BE TAKEN TO INCLUDE THE ADJOURNMENT ALONE OF THE SINGLE HOUSE
WHOSE ADJOURNMENT IS IN EVERY CASE THE ONLY EFFECTIVE MEANS OF
PREVENTING A RETURN.  IT IS SAID THAT THE WORD "CONGRESS" USED TO
DESCRIBE THE BODY WHOSE ADJOURNMENT OCCASIONS THE POCKET VETO, FOLLOWED
AS IT IS BY THE PLURAL POSSESSIVE PRONOUN "THEIR," CAN REFER ONLY TO
THE TWO HOUSES COMPRISED IN "THE CONGRESS" AND HENCE CANNOT REFER TO
ADJOURNMENT OF A SINGLE HOUSE.  THIS SUBORDINATION OF THE FRAMERS' MAIN
OBJECTIVE TO A METICULOUSLY GRAMMATICAL INTERPRETATION OF THEIR WORDS
IS UNWARRANTED.  IT WOULD HARDLY BE SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMAND, "EACH
HOUSE SHALL KEEP A JOURNAL OF ITS PROCEEDINGS, AND FROM TIME TO TIME
PUBLISH THE SAME, EXCEPTING SUCH PARTS AS MAY IN THEIR JUDGMENT REQUIRE
SECRECY," (ART. I, SEC. 5, CL. 3) CALLS FOR THE CONCURRENCE OF THE
JUDGMENT OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF A HOUSE, IN ORDER TO BAN PUBLICATION OF
A JOURNAL:  "THEIR JUDGMENT" IS OBVIOUSLY THAT OF THE CONTROLLING PART
OF THE MEMBERSHIP - THAT PART WHOSE OPINION, UNDER APPLICABLE RULES OF
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURE, IS DECISIVE OF THE QUESTION.  A SIMILAR
ANALYSIS BASED ON THE PURPOSE AND CONTEXT OF THE CLAUSE NOW BEFORE US
DEMANDS RECOGNITION THAT THE DRAFTSMEN WERE CONCERNED WITH THE
ADJOURNMENT ONLY OF THAT PART OF THE CONGRESS TO WHICH RETURN WAS TO BE
MADE AND WHOSE ABSENCE WOULD THUS PREVENT RETURN OF A BILL BY THE
PRESIDENT.  IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DOMINANT FACTS IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT IN
USING THE WORDS "THEIR ADJOURNMENT" THE FRAMERS REFERRED TO ANY ACTION
TAKEN BY THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF EITHER HOUSE OR BOTH HOUSES, WHICH
WAS EFFECTIVE TO PREVENT RETURN OF A BILL BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE
ORIGINATING HOUSE.  THE VERY FORCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO WHICH THE
WORDS ARE APPLIED GIVES EMPHASIS TO "ADJOURNMENT" AS THAT WHICH
PREVENTS RETURN, AND TO "THEIR" AS REFERRING TO THE ACTION OF THOSE
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHICH EFFECTS THE ADJOURNMENT.  THIS USAGE
PARALLELS THAT IN THE CLAUSE REQUIRING THE PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNALS
OF BOTH HOUSES "EXCEPTING SUCH PARTS AS MAY IN THEIR JUDGMENT REQUIRE
SECRECY."  IN BOTH INSTANCES THE SIGNIFICANT ACTION, ADJOURNMENT OR THE
EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS THAT OF THOSE MEMBERS WHOSE
ACTION IS EFFECTIVE TO ACCOMPLISH THE CONTEMPLATED RESULT - THERE,
PROHIBITION OF PUBLICATION; HERE, PREVENTION OF RETURN TO THE
ORIGINATING HOUSE.  THUS READ, NO WORD IS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE MEANING
AND THE CLAUSE IS CONSISTENT BOTH WITH THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE AND WITH THE
GRAMMATICAL USAGE APPEARING ELSEWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. 

I CANNOT IGNORE THAT PURPOSE AND SAY THAT FOR NO DISCERNIBLE REASON
OTHER THAN OUR PRESENT-DAY NOTIONS OF GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION WE ARE
COMPELLED TO READ THE WORDS AS EXCLUDING FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
CLAUSES DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE VETO POWER, EVERY CASE WHERE THE RETURN
OF A BILL IS PREVENTED BY ADJOURNMENT OF A SINGLE HOUSE. 

FN1  ARTICLE I, SEC. 7, CL. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION READS AS FOLLOWS: 

"EVERY BILL WHICH SHALL HAVE PASSED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
THE SENATE, SHALL, BEFORE IT BECOME A LAW, BE PRESENTED TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; IF HE APPROVE HE SHALL SIGN IT, BUT IF
NOT HE SHALL RETURN IT, WITH HIS OBJECTIONS TO THAT HOUSE IN WHICH IT
SHALL HAVE ORIGINATED, WHO SHALL ENTER THE OBJECTIONS AT LARGE ON THEIR
JOURNAL, AND PROCEED TO RECONSIDER IT.  IF AFTER SUCH RECONSIDERATION
TWO THIRDS OF THAT HOUSE SHALL AGREE TO PASS THE BILL, IT SHALL BE
SENT, TOGETHER WITH THE OBJECTIONS, TO THE OTHER HOUSE, BY WHICH IT
SHALL LIKEWISE BE RECONSIDERED, AND IF APPROVED BY TWO THIRDS OF THAT
HOUSE, IT SHALL BECOME A LAW.  BUT IN ALL SUCH CASES THE VOTES OF BOTH
HOUSES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY YEAS AND NAYS, AND THE NAMES OF THE
PERSONS VOTING FOR AND AGAINST THE BILL SHALL BE ENTERED ON THE JOURNAL
OF EACH HOUSE RESPECTIVELY.  IF ANY BILL SHALL NOT BE RETURNED BY THE
PRESIDENT WITHIN TEN DAYS (SUNDAYS EXCEPTED) AFTER IT SHALL HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED TO HIM, THE SAME SHALL BE A LAW, IN LIKE MANNER AS IF HE HAD
SIGNED IT, UNLESS THE CONGRESS BY THEIR ADJOURNMENT PREVENT ITS RETURN,
IN WHICH CASE IT SHALL NOT BE A LAW." 

FN2  ON MAY 19, 1888, PRESIDENT CLEVELAND ATTEMPTED TO RETURN A BILL
TO THE SENATE DURING AN ADJOURNMENT, BY TENDERING IT TO THE SECRETARY
AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE.  BOTH OFFICERS REJECTED THE TENDER,
"CLAIMING THAT THE RETURN OF SAID BILL AND THE DELIVERY OF SAID MESSAGE
COULD ONLY PROPERLY BE MADE TO THE SENATE WHEN IN ACTUAL SESSION." 
PRESIDENT CLEVELAND'S MESSAGE, SENATE JOURNAL, 50TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN3  IN 1868 A BILL REPORTED BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND
PASSED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE SENATE, PROVIDED FOR A RETURN OF A BILL
TO A HOUSE NOT SITTING BY DELIVERY OF IT AT THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
OF THE SENATE OR OF THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE, AS THE CASE MIGHT BE.
STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE BILL DEVELOPED IN SENATE DEBATE, THE BILL WAS
NOT REPORTED OUT OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE, AND FAILED OF
PASSAGE.  POCKET VETO CASE, SUPRA, 686 ET SEQ. 

FN4  THE FACT THAT THE SENATE HAS TAKEN PAINS TO CONFER EXPRESS
AUTHORITY IN SOME INSTANCES, BY FORMAL RESOLUTION, GILFRY, PRECEDENTS,
226, 462, BY RULE, SENATE MANUAL, 1936, 5, 8, 12, 36, OR BY STANDING
ORDER, ID. AT 128 ET SEQ., PERSUADES THAT THE IMPORTANT POWER TO
RECEIVE A BILL WOULD NOT BE CONFERRED SUB SILENTIO. 

FN5  A MEMORANDUM PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
TRANSMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT TO CONGRESS IN 1927, H. DOC. NO. 493, 70TH
CONG., 2D SESS., CITES MORE THAN 400 BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS WHICH WERE
PASSED BY CONGRESS AND SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT LESS THAN TEN DAYS
BEFORE FINAL OR INTERIM ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS, WHICH WERE NOT SIGNED
BY THE PRESIDENT OR RETURNED WITH HIS DISAPPROVAL.  OF THESE, 119 WERE
INSTANCES IN WHICH THE ADJOURNMENT WAS FOR A SESSION OF CONGRESS AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS FINAL ADJOURNMENT.  NONE OF THESE BILLS OR
RESOLUTIONS WERE PLACED UPON THE STATUTE BOOKS OR TREATED AS HAVING
BECOME A LAW.  NO ATTEMPT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO ENFORCE THEM IN
THE COURTS, EXCEPT THE LAW INVOLVED IN THE POCKET VETO CASE.  IT DOES
NOT APPEAR THAT IN ANY OF THESE INSTANCES EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS HAS
TAKEN ANY OFFICIAL ACTION INDICATING THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT ANY OF THESE
BILLS BECAME LAWS.  SEE THE POCKET VETO CASE, SUPRA, 690, 691. 
EXAMINATION OF THE HOUSE CALENDARS SHOWS THAT IN THE PERIOD SINCE THAT
COVERED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MEMORANDUM, 54 BILLS HAVE BEEN
POCKETED BEFORE THE END OF A CONGRESS WITH NO ATTEMPT TO RETURN THEM. 
THIS WAS DONE TWICE IN THE SEVENTY-FIRST CONGRESS, ONCE IN THE SEVENTY
SECOND CONGRESS, TWENTY-EIGHT TIMES IN THE SEVENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, AND
TWENTY-THREE TIMES IN THE FIRST SESSION OF THE SEVENTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. 
SEE ALSO VETO MESSAGES:  RECORD OF BILLS VETOED AND ACTION TAKEN
THEREON BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FIFTY-FIRST
CONGRESS TO SEVENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS, INCLUSIVE, 1889-1936, COMPILED
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF EDWIN A. HALSEY, SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
(1936). 

FN6  CANNON, PRECEDENTS, VOL. 8, P. 816. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :















MINNESOTA TEA CO. V. HELVERING, 302 U.S. 609 


NO. 106.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 711, AFFIRMED. 


MONEY RECEIVED BY A CORPORATION BY EXCHANGE IN A REORGANIZATION AND
TURNED OVER TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS PROPORTIONALLY IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION AND SUBJECT TO THEIR AGREEMENT TO ASSUME AND PAY OFF
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CORPORATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT, WHICH THEY
THEREUPON FULFILLED, WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
112(D)(1) AND (2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, AND THE GAIN INCLUDED WAS
THEREFORE TAXABLE TO THE CORPORATION.  P. 612. 

IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT, THE TRANSACTION WAS TO PAY THE CORPORATION'S
DEBTS, USING THE STOCKHOLDERS AS A CONDUIT. 

MINNESOTA TEA CO. V. HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 665, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING A DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 34 B.T.A. 145, OVERRULING AN INCOME TAX
ASSESSMENT.  SEE S.C. 296 U.S. 378. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, IN 1928, BROUGHT ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PETERSON
INVESTMENT COMPANY, AND TRANSFERRED TO IT CERTAIN ASSETS IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE ENTIRE CAPITAL STOCK OF THAT COMPANY.  THE STOCK WAS
IMMEDIATELY DISTRIBUTED TO PETITIONER'S STOCKHOLDERS.  SOON THEREAFTER,
PETITIONER TRANSFERRED ITS REMAINING ASSETS TO GRAND UNION COMPANY IN
EXCHANGE FOR 18,000 SHARES OF THAT COMPANY'S STOCK AND $426,842.52 IN
CASH.  THE CASH WAS IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED TO AND DIVIDED AMONG
PETITIONER'S STOCKHOLDERS, IN PROPORTION TO THEIR STOCK HOLDINGS, IN
PURSUANCE OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, UPON
ITS FIRST CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE, HELD THAT NO REORGANIZATION HAD
BEEN EFFECTED UNDER SEC. 112(I)(1)(B) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  28
B.T.A. 591.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED OTHERWISE, REVERSED
THE BOARD, AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION.  76 F.(2D) 797.  UPON REVIEW, PURSUANT TO A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, WE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
HELVERING V. MINNESOTA TEA CO., 296 U.S. 378. 

UPON THE REMAND, THE BOARD, AFTER CONSIDERATION, REFUSED TO FOLLOW
THE RULING OF THE COMMISSIONER THAT $106,471.73 OF THE $426,842.52
CONSTITUTED TAXABLE ASSETS IN THE HANDS OF PETITIONER.  34 B.T.A. 145. 
THE COURT BELOW, REVERSING THE ACTION OF THE BOARD, SUSTAINED THE VIEW
OF THE COMMISSIONER, 89 F.(2D) 711; AND THE CASE AGAIN COMES HERE UPON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  IN ADDITION TO THOSE ALREADY STATED,
IT APPEARS THAT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE RECEIPT BY PETITIONER OF THE
$426,842.52, ITS STOCKHOLDERS, AT A SPECIAL MEETING, ADOPTED THE
FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: 

"RESOLVED FURTHER THAT ALL MONEYS RECEIVED BY MINNESOTA TEA COMPANY
ON SUCH SALE OF ITS ASSETS AND IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF, WHENEVER
RECEIVED, SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY DISTRIBUTED TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF
MINNESOTA TEA COMPANY RATABLY AND IN THE PROPORTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
STOCKHOLDINGS IN MINNESOTA TEA COMPANY UPON THE ASSUMPTION BY THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF ALL THE CORPORATE DEBTS OF MINNESOTA TEA COMPANY IN
ORDER TO ENABLE THE COMPANY TO HOLD ALL THE CORPORATE STOCK OR
SECURITIES RECEIVED BY IT FOR ITS ASSETS ON SUCH SALE THEREOF WITHOUT
BEING COMPELLED TO SELL ANY PART OF THE SAME, AND THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO SO DISTRIBUTE THE SAID
MONEYS AS AFORESAID AND IN BEHALF OF THE COMPANY ENTER INTO A WRITTEN
AGREEMENT WITH THE STOCKHOLDERS, SIGNED AND EXECUTED BY THE COMPANY AND
ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS WHEREBY SAID STOCKHOLDERS, IN CONSIDERATION OF
SUCH DISTRIBUTION AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING THE COMPANY TO
CONTINUE TO HOLD THE SAID CORPORATE STOCK AND SECURITIES WITHOUT BEING
COMPELLED TO SELL ANY PART THEREOF FOR THE PAYMENT OF EXISTING DEBTS,
AGREE TO PAY ALL THE CORPORATE DEBTS OF THE MINNESOTA TEA COMPANY
WHETHER DUE AND PAYABLE OR NOT AND WHETHER CERTAIN OR CONTINGENT." 

WHEN THE CASH WAS "DISTRIBUTED," PETITIONER'S DEBTS AMOUNTED TO
$106,471.73, ABOUT $6,500 OF WHICH WAS OWING TO THE STOCKHOLDERS
THEMSELVES.  IN PURSUANCE OF THE RESOLUTION, THE STOCKHOLDERS PAID ALL
THE DEBTS, RETAINING SUMS, AGGREGATING ABOUT $6,500, NECESSARY TO
DISCHARGE THE AMOUNT OF PETITIONER'S INDEBTEDNESS TO THEM. 

THE QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE DELIVERY OF THE
$106,471.73 BY PETITIONER TO THE STOCKHOLDERS, AN EQUAL SUM THEREAFTER
BEING APPLIED BY THEM TO THE PAYMENT OF PETITIONER'S DEBTS IN PURSUANCE
OF THE RESOLUTION, CONSTITUTED A DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 112(D)(1) AND (2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, COPIED
IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 

THESE PROVISIONS PLAINLY ESTABLISH THAT, IN RESPECT OF ANY CASH
RECEIVED AND NOT "DISTRIBUTED," THERE WAS A TAXABLE GAIN TO
PETITIONER.  AND, QUITE AS PLAINLY, PAYMENT OF THE DEBTS BY PETITIONER,
IF MADE DIRECTLY BY PETITIONER TO THE CREDITORS, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A
DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE STATUTE; FOR THAT CONTEMPLATES A DISTRIBUTION TO
STOCKHOLDERS, AND NOT PAYMENT TO CREDITORS.  IF, THEN, PETITIONER HAD
FOLLOWED THE SIMPLE COURSE OF RETAINING IN ITS OWN HANDS THE SUM HERE
IN QUESTION, AND SUBSEQUENTLY PAYING IT DIRECTLY TO THE CREDITORS, IT
NECESSARILY WOULD RESULT THAT LIABILITY OF PETITIONER FOR A TAX ON THE
AMOUNT OF GAIN COULD NOT BE AVOIDED.  AND, OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE
EFFECT OF WHAT WAS DONE, ALTHOUGH CIRCUITOUSLY. 

THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY PETITIONER AND WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE
PAYMENT OF ITS DEBTS.  IT WAS PUT INTO THE HANDS OF THE STOCKHOLDERS
UPON THE EXPRESS UNDERSTANDING, AS SHOWN BY THE RESOLUTION HERETOFORE
QUOTED, THAT THEY WOULD ASSUME ALL THE CORPORATE DEBTS OF PETITIONER,
AND WOULD ENTER INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH PETITIONER "WHEREBY SAID
STOCKHOLDERS, IN CONSIDERATION OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION AND FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ENABLING THE COMPANY TO CONTINUE TO HOLD" THE CORPORATE STOCK AND
SECURITIES WHICH IT HAD RECEIVED IN THE REORGANIZATION "WITHOUT BEING
COMPELLED TO SELL ANY PART THEREOF FOR THE PAYMENT OF EXISTING DEBTS,
AGREE TO PAY ALL THE CORPORATE DEBTS OF THE MINNESOTA TEA COMPANY
..." 

IN PURSUANCE OF THE RESOLUTION, THE STOCKHOLDERS RECEIVED THE MONEY
FROM PETITIONER TO THE EXTENT OF $106,471.73, NOT AS A DISTRIBUTION FOR
THEIR BENEFIT BUT AS A FUND THE EQUIVALENT OF WHICH THEY WERE BOUND TO
PASS ON, AND DID PASS ON, TO THE CREDITORS.  THE CONCLUSION IS
INESCAPABLE, AS THE COURT BELOW VERY CLEARLY POINTED OUT, THAT BY THIS
ROUNDABOUT PROCESS PETITIONER RECEIVED THE SAME BENEFIT "AS THOUGH IT
HAD RETAINED THAT AMOUNT FROM DISTRIBUTION AND APPLIED IT TO THE
PAYMENT OF SUCH INDEBTEDNESS."  PAYMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS, AND NOT
DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDENDS, WAS, FROM THE BEGINNING, THE AIM OF THE
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE STOCKHOLDERS AND WAS THE END ACCOMPLISHED BY
CARRYING THAT UNDERSTANDING INTO EFFECT.  A GIVEN RESULT AT THE END OF
A STRAIGHT PATH IS NOT MADE A DIFFERENT RESULT BECAUSE REACHED BY
FOLLOWING A DEVIOUS PATH.  THE PRELIMINARY DISTRIBUTION TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS WAS A MEANINGLESS AND UNNECESSARY INCIDENT IN THE
TRANSMISSION OF THE FUND TO THE CREDITORS, ALL ALONG INTENDED TO COME
TO THEIR HANDS, SO TRANSPARENTLY ARTIFICIAL THAT FURTHER DISCUSSION
WOULD BE A NEEDLESS WASTE OF TIME.  THE RELATION OF THE STOCKHOLDERS TO
THE MATTER WAS THAT OF A MERE CONDUIT.  THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE WILL
BE FOUND IN GREGORY V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465, 469-470; AND APPLYING
THAT PRINCIPLE HERE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "(D)  SAME - GAIN OF CORPORATION.  - IF AN EXCHANGE WOULD BE
WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B)(4) OF THIS SECTION IF IT WERE
NOT FOR THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE CONSISTS NOT
ONLY OF STOCK OR SECURITIES PERMITTED BY SUCH PARAGRAPH TO BE RECEIVED
WITHOUT THE RECOGNITION OF GAIN, BUT ALSO OF OTHER PROPERTY OR MONEY,
THEN - 

"(1)  IF THE CORPORATION RECEIVING SUCH OTHER PROPERTY OR MONEY
DISTRIBUTES IT IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, NO GAIN TO
THE CORPORATION SHALL BE RECOGNIZED FROM THE EXCHANGE, BUT 

"(2)  IF THE CORPORATION RECEIVING SUCH OTHER PROPERTY OR MONEY DOES
NOT DISTRIBUTE IT IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, THE GAIN,
IF ANY, TO THE CORPORATION SHALL BE RECOGNIZED, BUT IN AN AMOUNT NOT IN
EXCESS OF THE SUM OF SUCH MONEY AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH OTHER
PROPERTY SO RECEIVED, WHICH IS NOT SO DISTRIBUTED." 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










OCEAN BEACH HEIGHTS V. INVEST. CO., 302 U.S. 614 


NO. 10.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1938.  - 87
F.(2D) 978, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A LAW AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF A MUNICIPALITY
DE JURE THERE CAN BE NONE DE FACTO.  P. 619. 

2. ACTING UNDER A FLORIDA STATUTE GRANTING NO AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE
NON-CONTIGUOUS AREAS, ELECTORS RESIDING ON THE WEST SIDE OF A BAY
INCORPORATED A TOWN WITH BOUNDARIES DESCRIBED AS EMBRACING ALSO LAND ON
THE EAST SIDE.  HOLDERS OF BONDS THEREAFTER ISSUED BY THE TOWN AND
DEFAULTED, SOUGHT, BY LITIGATION IN THE FEDERAL COURT AGAINST THE TOWN
AND EAST SIDE LAND OWNERS, TO REQUIRE A TAX LEVY ON ALL OF THE LANDS,
TO PROVIDE PAYMENT.  HELD: 

(1)  UNDER THE STATUTE THE TOWN HAD ACQUIRED NO JURISDICTION, DE JURE
OR DE FACTO, OVER THE EAST SIDE LANDS.  P. 619. 

(2)  ACQUIESCENCE BY OWNERS OF EAST SIDE LAND IN EARLIER ATTEMPTED
EXERCISES OF JURISDICTION OVER THEM UPON THE PART OF THE TOWN
AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING TAXATION, COULD NOT INVEST THE TOWN WITH DE
FACTO JURISDICTION.  ID. 

(3)  THE BILL SHOULD BE DISMISSED.  P. 620. 

OCEAN BEACH HEIGHTS, INC., ET AL. V. BROWNCRUMMER INVESTMENT CO. ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 673, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
GRANTING AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN INTERFERENCE WITH THE LEVY OF A TOWN
TAX ON LAND FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PLAINTIFFS' BONDS.  SEE ALSO 69
F.(2D) 105; 11 F.SUPP.  73. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER FOR THE PAYMENT OF ITS OUTSTANDING BONDS THE
RESPONDENT TOWN MAY TAX PETITIONERS' LANDS WHICH, WITHOUT STATUTORY
AUTHORITY, WERE INCLUDED BY BOUNDARIES DEFINED IN PROCEEDINGS FOR ITS
INCORPORATION.  PETITIONERS' CONTENTION IS THAT THE LANDS NEVER WERE
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWNS DE JURE OR DE FACTO AND THAT
THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ITS TAXING POWER. 

THE FLORIDA STATUTES EMPOWER THE MALE INHABITANTS OF ANY HAMLET,
VILLAGE OR TOWN "TO ESTABLISH FOR THEMSELVES A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT"
(COMPILED GENERAL LAWS, 1927, SEC. 2935) TO BE DESIGNATED AN
INCORPORATED TOWN IF IT CONTAINS LESS THAN 300 REGISTERED VOTERS, SEC.
2936.  THEY REQUIRE NOTICE SPECIFYING TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING AND THE
PROPOSED CORPORATE LIMITS, SEC. 2937, AND DIRECT THAT "THE QUALIFIED
ELECTORS PRESENT, BEING NOT LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE WHOM IT IS
PROPOSED TO INCORPORATE AND NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FIVE IN NUMBER, SHALL
SELECT A CORPORATE NAME ...  FOR THE MUNICIPALITY  ...  AND DESIGNATE
BY DEFINITE METES AND BOUNDS THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS," SEC. 2938. 

IN 1892, IN TOWN OF ENTERPRISE V. STATE, 29 FLA. 128; 10 SO. 740,
744; THE STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTE DID NOT PERMIT
INCORPORATION OF DISCONNECTED TRACTS OF LAND, FOUND A PART OF THE
TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE INCORPORATED TO BE DISCONNECTED FROM THE OTHER
PART, AND DECLARED (P. 145):  "AN ATTEMPT TO INCORPORATE TWO DISTINCT
DETACHED TRACTS OF LAND, AS CORPORATE TERRITORY UNDER ONE GOVERNMENT,
IS UNAUTHORIZED AND VOID...." 

IN 1926, ELECTORS RESIDING IN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON THE WEST SIDE
OF BISCAYNE BAY, INCORPORATED A TOWN, MIAMI SHORES, NOW CALLED NORTH
MIAMI.  THE BOUNDARIES SPECIFIED BY THE INCORPORATORS INCLUDED
APPROXIMATELY 16 SQUARE MILES, 14 OF WHICH WERE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE
BAY AND HAD A POPULATION OF 2,500.  TWO SQUARE MILES WERE ON THE EAST
SIDE AND HAD BUT 12 INHABITANTS.  THOUGH NEARLY VACANT, THESE LANDS
WERE MUCH MORE VALUABLE THAN ALL THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE.  THE
WATER SEPARATING THE TWO AREAS IS ABOUT A HALF MILE WIDE.  AT THE TIME
OF INCORPORATION, CONSTRUCTION OF A CAUSEWAY HAD BEEN COMMENCED, BUT
ITS BEGINNINGS HAVING BEEN DESTROYED BY HURRICANE LATER IN THAT YEAR,
IT HAS NOT BEEN BUILT.  BY LAND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SETTLEMENT ON
THE WEST SIDE AND THE EAST SIDE AREA IS ABOUT TEN MILES, AND TO GO BY
LAND FROM ONE TO THE OTHER IT IS NECESSARY TO PASS THROUGH ANOTHER
MUNICIPALITY.  PETITIONERS OWN LANDS ON THE EAST SIDE. 

BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1927 AND APRIL 1, 1928, THE TOWN ISSUED BONDS,
$238,000 OF WHICH ARE OUTSTANDING.  IN EACH BOND THE TOWN PLEDGED ITS
FAITH AND CREDIT FOR PAYMENT AND DECLARED THAT PROVISION HAD BEEN MADE
FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION, EACH YEAR THAT THE BOND REMAINED
OUTSTANDING AND UNPAID, OF SUFFICIENT TAXES ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY
WITHIN ITS LIMITS TO PAY PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST AS THEY CAME DUE.  BUT
NONE OF THE BONDS CONTAINED ANY STATEMENT INDICATING THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE TOWN OR IN ANY MANNER REPRESENTING THAT ANY PART OF THE AREA ON THE
EAST SIDE OF THE BAY WAS WITHIN ITS LIMITS.  THE BONDS WERE VALIDATED
BY DECREES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR DADE COUNTY, SECS. 5106-5109,
COMPILED GENERAL LAWS, 1927.  NO OWNER OF EAST SIDE LAND WAS PARTY TO
THE VALIDATION SUITS AND NO QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE TOWN INCLUDED
ANY PART OF THE LANDS EAST OF THE BAY WAS THERE INVOLVED.  PROCEEDS OF
THE BONDS WERE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS; THE
ONLY PART SPENT ON THE EAST SIDE WAS $6,000 FOR MOSQUITO ERADICATION,
MOST OF WHICH WENT FOR EQUIPMENT WHICH THE TOWN STILL OWNS. 

IN A QUO WARRANTO SUIT BROUGHT BY THE STATE ON THE RELATION OF ITS
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AUGUST, 1929, AND IN A LATER SUIT BROUGHT BY OWNERS
OF EAST SIDE LANDS TO CANCEL TAX CERTIFICATES ON THEIR LANDS, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE STATUTE RELIED ON FOR CREATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY DID NOT AUTHORIZE INCLUSION OF NON-CONTIGUOUS AREAS. 
MAHOOD V. STATE, 101 FLA. 1254; 133 SO. 90.  LEATHERMAN V. ALTA CLIFF
CO., 114 FLA. 305; 153 SO. 845.  AND IN THOSE SUITS IT WAS FINALLY
ADJUDGED THAT THE EAST SIDE WAS NOT AND NEVER HAD BEEN A PART OF THE
INCORPORATED TOWN, AND THAT THE TOWN NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION DE
JURE OR DE FACTO OVER THE LAND EAST OF THE BAY.  A DECREE OF OUSTER AS
TO THE EAST SIDE LAND WAS ENTERED IN DECEMBER, 1931, AND TAX
CERTIFICATES ON LANDS ON THAT SIDE WERE CANCELED.  NO BONDHOLDER WAS A
PARTY TO EITHER OF THESE SUITS. 

PRIOR TO THE QUO WARRANTO SUIT, THE JURISDICTION OF THE TOWN OVER THE
EAST SIDE WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE STATE, PROPERTY OWNERS OR OTHERS. 
AND UNTIL PREVENTED BY THE DECREE OF OUSTER, THE TOWN EXERTED MUNICIPAL
AUTHORITY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BAY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES DEFINED BY
WEST SIDE ELECTORS ACTING TO INCORPORATE THE TOWN.  IT LAID TAXES ON
EAST SIDE LANDS, SOME OF WHICH WERE PAID BY PETITIONERS. 

IN 1930 RESPONDENT SUED THE TOWN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR SOUTHERN FLORIDA AND GOT JUDGMENT ON NINE OF THE BONDS.  THERE WAS
INVOLVED NO QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE EAST SIDE LANDS EVER WERE WITHIN
THE TOWN OR LIABLE TO BE TAXED TO PAY THE BONDS.  IN 1931 RESPONDENT
BROUGHT IN THE SAME COURT A MANDAMUS SUIT TO COMPEL THE TOWN AND ITS
OFFICERS TO LEVY TAXES ON ALL THE LANDS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES DEFINED
BY THE INCORPORATORS.  OWNERS OF LAND ON THE EAST SIDE INCLUDING
PETITIONERS WERE PERMITTED TO INTERVENE.  THEY MAINTAINED THAT THE TOWN
HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THEIR LANDS OR AUTHORITY TO TAX THEM.  THE
COURT ENTERED A DECREE COMMANDING THE TOWN AND ITS OFFICERS TO TAX ALL
THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS AS ORIGINALLY DEFINED.  THE TOWN
AND ITS OFFICERS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE DECREE NOR APPEAL FROM IT.  THE
INTERVENING EAST SIDE OWNERS ATTEMPTED TO HAVE IT REVIEWED IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE COURT HELD THAT, AS THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT
AGAINST THEM, THEY HAD NO STANDING TO QUESTION IT AND DISMISSED THEIR
APPEAL.  69 F.(2D) 105. 

THEN RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR ITSELF AND OTHER BONDHOLDERS
AGAINST THE TOWN, ITS OFFICERS, THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DADE
COUNTY, AND EAST SIDE LAND OWNERS, INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS.  IT
ALLEGED THAT THE TOWN WAS UNABLE TO PAY THE BONDS UNLESS PERMITTED TO
LEVY AND COLLECT TAXES ON EAST SIDE PROPERTY; THAT THE TOWN AND ITS
OFFICERS WERE READY AND WILLING SO TO DO, BUT WERE PREVENTED BY THE
DECREES IN THE MAHOOD AND LEATHERMAN CASES, AND THAT THE CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT WAS BOUND BY THE DECREE IN THE LATTER CASE.  IT PRAYED AN
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN PETITIONERS FROM INTERFERING, BY USE OF THE
OUSTER DECREE OR OTHERWISE, WITH THE LEVY OR COLLECTION OF TAXES ON
EAST SIDE LANDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF RESPONDENT'S JUDGMENT AND THE
OUTSTANDING BONDS AND TO RESTRAIN THE TOWN AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT
FROM REFUSING TO LEVY OR TO TAKE STEPS REQUIRED FOR COLLECTION OF SUCH
TAXES.  THE TOWN AND ITS OFFICERS ANSWERED AND IN EFFECT JOINED IN THE
PRAYER OF THE BILL.  PETITIONERS MOVED TO DISMISS, THE COURT DENIED
THEIR MOTION; TWO OF THEM ANSWERED.  THE PARTIES INTRODUCED THEIR
EVIDENCE, THE COURT FOUND THE FACTS AND ENTERED ITS DECREE
SUBSTANTIALLY AS PRAYED.  PETITIONERS ALONE APPEALED.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOWN DE FACTO INCLUDED
THE EAST SIDE LANDS.  87 F.(2D) 978. 

THAT VIEW CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  THIS CASE DIFFERS ESSENTIALLY FROM
THOSE DEALING WITH GOOD FAITH ATTEMPTS TO ORGANIZE MUNICIPALITIES UNDER
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENTS PRESUMED VALID UNTIL ADJUDGED REPUGNANT TO
FUNDAMENTAL LAW.  SEE, E.G., CLAPP V. OTOE COUNTY, 104 FED. 473, 482. 
SPEER V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS, 88 FED. 749, 765.  ASHLEY V. BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, 60 FED. 55, 64.  CITY OF WINTER HAVEN V. GILLESPIE, 84
F.(2D) 285, 287.  STATE V. CITY OF CEDAR KEYS, 122 FLA. 454, 462, 463;
165 SO. 672.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A LAW AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF A
MUNICIPALITY DE JURE THERE CAN BE NONE DE FACTO.  MCQUILLAN, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS (2ND ED.), SEC. 175.  CITY OF GUTHRIE V. WYLIE, 6 OKLA.
61, 66; 55 PAC. 103.  NORTON V. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425, 444. 
SHAPLEIGH V. SAN ANGELO, 167 U.S. 646, 655-656.  TULARE IRRIGATION
DISTRICT V. SHEPARD, 185 U.S. 1, 13.  UNITED STATES V. ROYER, 268 U.S.
394, 397.  EVENSON V. ELLINGSON, 67 WIS. 634, 646; 31 N.W. 342.  DUKE
V. TAYLOR, 37 FLA. 64, 77; 19 SO. 172.  THE TOWN DE JURE COULD NOT BE
MADE TO INCLUDE THE EAST SIDE.  MAHOOD V. STATE, SUPRA.  LEATHERMAN V.
ALTA CLIFF CO., SUPRA.  MERE INSPECTION OF THE STATUTE AND THE DEFINED
BOUNDARIES UNMISTAKABLY SHOWS THAT THE WEST SIDE ELECTORS WERE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO INCORPORATE THE EAST SIDE TRACT WITH THAT IN WHICH THEY
RESIDED.  UNQUESTIONABLY, THESE WERE DETACHED TRACTS WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE STATUTE.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT HAVING HELD THAT ATTEMPTED
INCORPORATION OF DETACHED AREAS WAS UNAUTHORIZED AND VOID (TOWN OF
ENTERPRISE V. STATE, SUPRA) THERE EXISTED NO COLOR OF AUTHORITY FOR THE
INCLUSION OF THE EAST SIDE.  THE EAST SIDE LANDS COULD NOT BE BROUGHT
WITHIN THE TAXING POWER OF THE TOWN BY THE OWNERS' ACQUIESCENCE IN ITS
ATTEMPTED EXERTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THEM AND PAYMENT OF TAXES
THEREON THAT IT IN FORM LAID PRIOR TO THE OUSTER DECREE.  THE TOWN DE
FACTO COULD NOT DERIVE FROM THE CONSENT OF THE EAST SIDE OWNERS
JURISDICTION THAT IT DE JURE WAS WITHOUT CAPACITY TO RECEIVE.  THE
CONSENT OF OWNERS OF LAND LOCATED BEYOND PERMISSIBLE LIMITS OF THE
MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE MADE TO SERVE AS WOULD A STATUTORY GRANT OF
POWER.  HAYES V. HOLLY SPRINGS, 114 U.S. 120, 126-127.  MERRILL V.
MONTICELLO, 138 U.S. 673, 693-694.  AS THE EAST SIDE LANDS NEVER BECAME
LIABLE TO BE TAXED BY THE TOWN TO PAY ITS BONDS, RESPONDENTS WERE NOT
ENTITLED TO RESTRAIN PETITIONERS FROM DEFENDING AGAINST LEVY AND
COLLECTION OF THE TAXES OR TO ANY RELIEF IN THIS SUIT.  THE DECREE OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE REVERSED AND THE CASE WILL BE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS THE BILL. 
REVERSED. 
..END :











CREEK NATION V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 620 


NO. 140.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1938.  - 84 CT.
CLS. 12, REVERSED. 


1.  CREEK LANDS, ERRONEOUSLY SURVEYED AS LANDS OF OTHER TRIBES, WERE,
BECAUSE OF THE ERROR AND THROUGH MISAPPLICATION OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS,
DISPOSED OF BY ALLOTMENT AND PATENT IN SEVERALTY TO MEMBERS OF THE
OTHER TRIBES AND BY SALE AND PATENT TO SETTLERS.  HELD THAT THE TAKING
TOOK PLACE NOT AT THE DATE OF THE ACT BUT AT THE TIMES OF THE SEVERAL
DISPOSITIONS; AND VALUATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING COMPENSATION
MUST BE AS OF THOSE TIMES.  CF. S.C. 295 U.S. 103.  P. 620. 

2.  RULES LAID DOWN TO GOVERN THE VALUATIONS.  P. 622. 

THE CREEK NATION V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 666, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FIXING COMPENSATION TO
THE CREEK NATION FOR LANDS TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WHEN THIS CASE WAS HERE BEFORE  FN1  PETITIONER WAS HELD ENTITLED TO
RECOVER COMPENSATION FROM THE RESPONDENT FOR THE TAKING OF LANDS
BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER CONSTITUTING A PORTION OF A LARGER TRACT
GRANTED TO THE CREEK NATION IN 1833.  THE BOUNDARY LINES OF
PETITIONER'S LANDS HAD BEEN ERRONEOUSLY RUN IN 1872 AND, AS A RESULT,
AN AREA SET APART FOR OTHER INDIAN TRIBES INCLUDED OVER FIVE THOUSAND
ACRES BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER.  THOSE TRIBES CEDED THEIR LANDS TO
THE RESPONDENT UPON AN AGREEMENT THAT ALLOTMENTS SHOULD BE MADE TO
THEIR MEMBERS IN SEVERALTY.  THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1891,  FN2  WHICH
RATIFIED THIS AGREEMENT, PROVIDED THAT ANY LANDS NOT SO ALLOTTED SHOULD
BE OPENED TO SETTLEMENT AND SOLD TO SETTLERS, THE PROCEEDS TO BE
COVERED INTO THE TREASURY AS PUBLIC MONEYS.  PURSUANT TO THIS STATUTE
LANDS WHICH IN TRUTH BELONGED TO PETITIONER WERE, DUE TO THE ERROR IN
THE SURVEY OF 1872, ALLOTTED AND PATENTED TO SAC AND FOX INDIANS AND
SOLD AND PATENTED TO SETTLERS IN THE PERIOD FROM 1893 TO 1909.  THE
PATENTEES HAVE SINCE HELD ADVERSELY TO PETITIONER.  AS WAS SAID IN THE
FORMER OPINION, "THE TRIBE CONTENDED FOR THE VALUE IN 1926, WHEN THE
SUIT WAS BROUGHT; WHILE THE GOVERNMENT STOOD FOR THE VALUE AT THE TIME
OF THE APPROPRIATION, WHICH IT INSISTED WAS IN 1873, WHEN DARLING'S
ERRONEOUS SURVEY WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND
OFFICE, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AT THE TIME THE LANDS WERE DISPOSED OF
UNDER THE ACT OF 1891."  IT WAS HELD THAT THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION
WAS CORRECT AND, AS THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAD AWARDED THE PETITIONER
JUDGMENT FOR THE 1926 VALUE, THE CAUSE WAS REVERSED AND REMANDED.  UPON
A FURTHER HEARING THAT COURT OVERRULED THE CLAIM OF PETITIONER THAT THE
DATES OF ACTUAL DISPOSAL WERE THOSE AS OF WHICH VALUE SHOULD BE
ASCERTAINED AND VALUED THE LANDS TAKEN AS OF FEBRUARY 13, 1891, THE
DATE OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO WHICH THE EXECUTIVE HAD CAUSED THEM TO BE
PATENTED. 

IN THE FORMER OPINION, AFTER HOLDING THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE
ERRONEOUS SURVEY IN 1873 DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROPRIATION OF
PETITIONER'S LANDS, THE COURT SAID:  "BUT NOT SO OF THE DISPOSALS UNDER
THE ACT OF 1891.  THEY WERE INTENDED FROM THEIR INCEPTION TO EFFECT A
CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AND WERE CONSUMMATED BY THE ISSUE OF PATENTS, THE
MOST ACCREDITED TYPE OF CONVEYANCE KNOWN TO OUR LAW.  TRUE, THEY RESTED
ON AN ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ACT OF 1891 TO THE CREEK LANDS IN
THE STRIP; BUT, AS THAT APPLICATION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE UNITED STATES,
THE MATTER STANDS AS IF THE ACT HAD DISTINCTLY DIRECTED THE DISPOSALS. 
IT WAS THROUGH THEM THAT THE LANDS WERE TAKEN; SO THE COMPENSATION
SHOULD BE BASED ON THE VALUE AT THAT TIME,  ..." 

THE COURT BELOW HAS MISINTERPRETED THAT DECISION.  THE ACT OF 1891
DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE LANDS.  ITS ERRONEOUS APPLICATION AND THE
CONSEQUENT DISPOSALS OF THE LANDS TO ADVERSE HOLDERS CONSTITUTED THE
TAKING BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE PRESENT
FULL EQUIVALENT OF THE VALUE OF THE LANDS, WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS, AS OF
THE DATE OF THE PATENTS OF THE VARIOUS PARCELS, IF, AS WE ASSUME, THE
PATENT IN EACH INSTANCE ISSUED PROMPTLY AFTER THE DELIVERY OF THE FINAL
CERTIFICATE; BUT IF A SUBSTANTIAL INTERVAL ELAPSED BETWEEN THE DATE OF
CERTIFICATE AND OF PATENT, THEN AS OF THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATE.  A
FAIR APPROXIMATION OR AVERAGE OF VALUES MAY BE ADOPTED TO AVOID
BURDENSOME DETAILED COMPUTATION OF VALUE AS OF THE DATE OF DISPOSAL OF
EACH SEPARATE TRACT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  UNITED STATES V. CREEK NATION, 295 U.S. 103. 

FN2  C. 165, 26 STAT. 749. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :







UNITED STATES V. STEVENS, 302 U.S. 623 


NO. 143.  ARGUED JANUARY 3, 4, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 151, REVERSED. 


AN EX-SOLDIER, UPON ENTERING THE NATIONAL HOME FOR DISABLED SOLDIERS,
SITUATE IN MASSACHUSETTS, CONTRACTED WITH ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS,
PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, THAT UPON HIS DEATH WHILE A
MEMBER OF THE HOME, ALL OF HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY SHOULD BECOME VESTED
IN THE BOARD OF MANAGERS FOR THE SOLE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE POST FUND
OF THE HOME, SUBJECT TO BE RECLAIMED BY ANY LEGATEE OR PERSON ENTITLED
TO TAKE THE SAME BY INHERITANCE, AT ANY TIME WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER
HIS DEATH.  HE LEFT NO WILL.  HELD: 

1.  THE CONTRACT WAS VALID AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW OF
MASSACHUSETTS.  NOTICE TO THE HEIRS UNNECESSARY.  P. 626. 

2.  THAT HIS BANK DEPOSITS, NOT HAVING BEEN CLAIMED BY HIS NEXT OF
KIN WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF HIS DEATH, BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE HOME. 
P. 628. 

UNITED STATES V. STEVENS, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 666, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT, 15
F.SUPP.  139, RECOVERED BY THE UNITED STATES IN A SUIT AGAINST A TRUST
COMPANY OWING MONEY ON DEPOSIT TO THE CREDIT OF A DECEASED VETERAN, AND
AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATOR OF HIS ESTATE, AND PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE HIS
HEIRS AT LAW AND NEXT OF KIN.  THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
REQUIRED THAT THE TRUST COMPANY PAY THE UNITED STATES THE AMOUNT OF THE
FUND AND ENJOINED THE INDIVIDUALS FROM ASSERTING ANY CLAIM TO IT. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CAN THE UNITED STATES ENFORCE A CONTRACT EXECUTED BY AN EX-SOLDIER IN
ORDER TO OBTAIN ADMISSION INTO THE NATIONAL HOME FOR DISABLED VOLUNTEER
SOLDIERS, WHICH CONTRACT PROVIDES THAT UPON THE DEATH OF THE VETERAN
WHILE A MEMBER OF THE HOME, ALL HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY SHALL PASS TO THE
HOME SUBJECT TO BE RECLAIMED WITHIN FIVE YEARS BY ANY LEGATEE OR PERSON
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE PROPERTY BY INHERITANCE? 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE CONTRACT VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.  FN1  THE
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  FN2 

THE FACTS DISCLOSE THAT: 

THOMAS MCGOVERN, A NATIVE OF IRELAND, SERVED IN THE UNITED STATES
ARMY FROM 1877 TO 1882; IN 1904 HIS WIFE AND THREE DAUGHTERS LEFT HIM,
BUT A SON, ROBERT, CONTINUED TO LIVE WITH MCGOVERN UNTIL 1918 WHEN THE
SON (REPRESENTED IN THIS CAUSE BY A GUARDIAN) WAS COMMITTED TO A STATE
HOME FOR THE INSANE; THE COMPLETE SEVERANCE OF ALL FAMILY TIES AND
ASSOCIATIONS CONTINUED UNTIL MCGOVERN'S DEATH, AND THE WIFE AND
DAUGHTERS, LIVING MOST OF THE TIME IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, WERE
WHOLLY UNAWARE OF HIS WHEREABOUTS FOR THE LAST TWENTY YEARS OF HIS
LIFE, MOST OF WHICH WERE SPENT IN NEARBY CHELSEA; UNDER THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, MCGOVERN, AGE 72, IN HIS APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO
THE HOME, STATED THAT THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF HIS WIFE AND NEAREST
RELATIVES WERE UNKNOWN, AND THAT HE DESIRED ADMISSION BECAUSE HE WAS
"UNABLE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DISABILITY TO EARN HIS LIVING"; A DOCTOR'S
CERTIFICATE SHOWED THAT HIS MENTAL CONDITION WAS GOOD, AT THE DATE OF
ADMISSION, BUT THAT HE NEEDED MEDICAL TREATMENT AND ATTENTION DUE TO
SERIOUS PHYSICAL WEAKNESS AND AILMENTS.  HIS WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THE
HOME STATED: 

"THE SAID THOMAS MCGOVERN HEREBY AGREES THAT, IN EVENT OF HIS DEATH
WHILE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL MILITARY HOME FOR DISABLED VOLUNTEER
SOLDIERS, LEAVING NO HEIRS AT LAW OR NEXT OF KIN, ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY
OWNED BY HIM AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, INCLUDING MONEY OR CHOSES IN
ACTION HELD BY HIM AND NOT DISPOSED OF BY WILL, WHETHER SUCH PROPERTY
BE THE PROCEEDS OF PENSIONS OR OTHERWISE DERIVED, SHALL VEST IN AND
BECOME THE PROPERTY OF SAID BOARD OF MANAGERS FOR THE SOLE USE AND
BENEFIT OF THE POST FUND OF SAID HOME, AND THAT ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY
OF THE SAID THOMAS MCGOVERN SHALL UPON HIS DEATH, WHILE A MEMBER, AT
ONCE PASS TO AND VEST IN SAID BOARD OF MANAGERS, SUBJECT TO BE
RECLAIMED BY ANY LEGATEE OR PERSON ENTITLED TO TAKE THE SAME BY
INHERITANCE AT ANY TIME WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF SUCH
MEMBER;..." 

AT THE TIME OF HIS ADMISSION INTO THE HOME, MCGOVERN HAD SAVINGS
DEPOSITS WHICH WERE HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY.  SEPTEMBER 17, 1928, WHILE
AN INMATE OF THE HOME, HE DIED INTESTATE.  HIS WIFE DIED IN 1933
WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF HIS DEATH, AND NONE OF THE DAUGHTERS LEARNED OF
HIS DEATH UNTIL OCTOBER 19, 1935.  NO CLAIM TO MCGOVERN'S PROPERTY WAS
FILED WITH THE HOME WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH. 

IN THIS ACTION BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES TO REQUIRE PAYMENT TO THE
HOME OF FUNDS OF MCGOVERN ON DEPOSIT IN A MASSACHUSETTS BANK AT HIS
DEATH, IT IS CONTENDED: 

(1)  THAT, BECAUSE MCGOVERN LEFT SURVIVING HEIRS, THE TITLE TO HIS
PERSONAL PROPERTY DID NOT PASS TO THE HOME; 

(2)  THAT THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910  FN3  AUTHORIZING THE HOME TO MAKE
THE CONTRACT WITH MCGOVERN IS INVALID. 

1.  THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE CONTRACT OR IN THE ACT WHICH
AUTHORIZED IT.  NO WORDS IN THE CONTRACT INDICATE THAT THE PERSONAL
PROPERTY SHOULD PASS TO THE HOME ONLY IN THE ABSENCE OF PERSONS
ENTITLED TO TAKE BY LAW.  ON THE CONTRARY, BOTH THE CONTRACT AND THE
ACT EVINCE A CLEAR INTENT THAT THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE VETERAN,
WHEN NOT CLAIMED BY HEIRS OR LEGATEES WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE
VETERAN'S DEATH, SHOULD PASS TO THE HOME TO BE USED TO PROVIDE COMFORTS
AND ENTERTAINMENT FOR ITS INMATES.  "THE MEASURE (THE ACT OF 1910)
LEAVES THE MEMBER FREE TO DISPOSE BY WILL AND SAFEGUARDS TO THE
LEGATEES AND HEIRS THE RIGHT WITHIN FIVE YEARS TO RECLAIM 'ALL THE
PROPERTY' THAT BELONGED TO HIM AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.  AS TO THAT,
THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY AND THEREFORE NOTHING TO CONSTRUE."  NATIONAL
HOME V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 211, 216. 

2.  THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS
AUTHORIZING THE CONTRACT WAS VOID AS AN INTERFERENCE WITH THE RESERVED
RIGHTS OF THE STATE OF THE VETERAN'S LEGAL DOMICILE WHEN HE DIED
(MASSACHUSETTS) IN THAT "IT WAS AT MOST BUT AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE A FUTURE
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF MCGOVERN'S PROPERTY, WHEN SUCH A
DISPOSITION COULD ONLY BE EFFECTED BY WILL." 

THIS CONTRACT, HOWEVER, IS VALID UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATE LAW.  FN4
THE SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN 1931 IN THE CASE OF HALE V.
WILMARTH, 274 MASS. 186, 189; 174 N.E. 232, SAID, "THE STATUTE OF
WILLS,  ...  DOES NOT PREVENT AN OWNER OF PROPERTY FROM STIPULATING BY
CONTRACT FOR THE DISPOSITION OF HIS PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF HIS
DEATH."  FN5 

DURING THE LIFE OF THE VETERAN, HIS PROPERTY WAS HIS OWN TO DISPOSE
OF AS HE DESIRED; HIS WAS AN "INTENT TO MAKE A MORE BINDING AND
IRREVOCABLE PROVISION THAN A LEGACY COULD BE"  FN6  AND A STIPULATION
FOR NOTICE TO HIS HEIRS OF THE FACT OF HIS DEATH WAS NOT REQUIRED TO
MAKE THE PROVISION VALID.  "NOT UNTIL THE ANCESTOR DIES IS THERE ANY
VESTED RIGHT IN THE HEIR."  JEFFERSON V. FINK, 247 U.S. 288, 294. 

IN PASSING THE ACT OF JUNE, 1910, CONGRESS MERELY DIRECTED THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH VETERANS, CONSISTENTLY WITH STATE LAW, CAN
OBTAIN ADMITTANCE TO HOMES BUILT, MAINTAINED AND OPERATED BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF VETERANS.  HOMES FOR THE AGED, NEEDY, OR
INFIRM, IN RETURN FOR THE BENEFITS BESTOWED BY THEM, GENERALLY RECEIVE
SOME BENEFIT FROM ANY PROPERTY OR ESTATES OF THEIR MEMBERS.  FN7 

WHEN MCGOVERN ENTERED THIS HOME HE WAS AGED, WITHOUT FAMILY TIES,
LONELY AND PHYSICALLY INCAPACITATED.  THERE HE RECEIVED CARE, FOOD,
SHELTER AND COMPANIONSHIP.  HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO REMAIN IN
THE HOME EVEN THOUGH, AFTER ADMITTANCE, HE HAD CHOSEN TO MAKE THE
MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY THE RECIPIENTS OF THE MONEY, BY GIFT, BY WILL, OR
BY NOTIFYING THEM TO CLAIM HIS PROPERTY AFTER HIS DEATH. 

THE CLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT IS BASED ON A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
VETERAN AND THE HOME.  NOTHING IN THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE
AGREEMENT WAS NOT FAIRLY AND VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
PARTIES, OR THAT IT WAS INEQUITABLE, UNJUST OR NOT UPON VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION.  BOTH PARTIES WERE COMPETENT TO MAKE THE CONTRACT.  THIS
CONTRACT IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE, AND SINCE NO CLAIM WAS MADE BY HEIRS
OR LEGATEES WITHIN FIVE YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH, THE VETERAN'S PERSONAL
PROPERTY PASSED TO THE HOME FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS INMATES.  THE DECREE
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH THESE VIEWS AND IS
REVERSED. 

FN1  15 F.SUPP.  139. 

FN2  89 F.(2D) 151. 

FN3  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1910, C. 384, 36 STAT. 703, 736, U.S.C., TITLE
24, SEC. 136: 

"HEREAFTER THE APPLICATION OF ANY PERSON FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE
NATIONAL HOME FOR DISABLED VOLUNTEER SOLDIERS AND THE ADMISSION OF THE
APPLICANT THEREUNDER SHALL BE AND CONSTITUTE A VALID AND BINDING
CONTRACT BETWEEN SUCH APPLICANT AND THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF SAID HOME
THAT ON THE DEATH OF SAID APPLICANT WHILE A MEMBER OF SUCH HOME,
LEAVING NO HEIRS AT LAW NOR NEXT OF KIN, ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY
SAID APPLICANT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, INCLUDING MONEY OR CHOSES IN
ACTION HELD BY HIM AND NOT DISPOSED OF BY WILL, WHETHER SUCH PROPERTY
BE THE PROCEEDS OF PENSIONS OR OTHERWISE DERIVED, SHALL VEST IN AND
BECOME THE PROPERTY OF SAID BOARD OF MANAGERS FOR THE SOLE USE AND
BENEFIT OF THE POST FUND OF SAID HOME, THE PROCEEDS TO BE DISPOSED OF
AND DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE SEVERAL BRANCHES AS MAY BE ORDERED BY SAID
BOARD OF MANAGERS, AND THAT ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SAID APPLICANT
SHALL, UPON HIS DEATH, WHILE A MEMBER, AT ONCE PASS TO AND VEST IN SAID
BOARD OF MANAGERS, SUBJECT TO BE RECLAIMED BY ANY LEGATEE OR PERSON
ENTITLED TO TAKE THE SAME BY INHERITANCE AT ANY TIME WITHIN FIVE YEARS
AFTER THE DEATH OF SUCH MEMBER.  THE BOARD OF MANAGERS IS DIRECTED TO
SO CHANGE THE FORM OF APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP AS TO GIVE REASONABLE
NOTICE OF THIS PROVISION TO EACH APPLICANT AND AS TO CONTAIN THE
CONSENT OF THE APPLICANT TO ACCEPT MEMBERSHIP UPON THE CONDITIONS
HEREIN PROVIDED." 

FN4  "CONTRACTS RESPECTING THE DISPOSITION OF ONE'S PROPERTY AFTER
DEATH, ARE NOT UNCOMMON."  MURPHY V. MURPHY, 217 MASS. 233, 236; 104
N.E. 466. 

FN5  SEE, ALSO, HOLYOKE NATIONAL BANK V. BAILEY, 273 MASS. 551; 174
N.E. 230; EX PARTE SIMONS, 247 U.S. 239. 

FN6  KRELL V. CODMAN, 154 MASS. 454; 28 N.E. 578. 

FN7  SEE UNITED STATES V. BOWEN, 100 U.S. 508(CF. ORDER OF ST.
BENEDICT V. STEINHAUSER, 234 U.S. 640).  SEE DIGEST OF POOR RELIEF LAWS
OF THE SEVERAL STATES AND TERRITORIES AS OF MAY 1, 1936, PREPARED BY
ROBERT C. LOWE AND STAFF, LEGAL RESEARCH SECTION, UNDER THE SUPERVISION
OF A. ROSS ECKLER, COORDINATOR OF SPECIAL INQUIRIES, DIVISION OF SOCIAL
RESEARCH, WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :
























UNITED STATES V. JACKSON, 302 U.S. 628 


NO. 199.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 6, 1938.  - DECIDED JANUARY 17, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 572, AFFIRMED. 


SEC. 17 OF THE ECONOMY ACT OF MARCH 20, 1933, DECLARED THAT "ALL
PUBLIC LAWS GRANTING MEDICAL OR HOSPITAL TREATMENT, DOMICILIARY CARE,
COMPENSATION AND OTHER ALLOWANCES, PENSION, DISABILITY ALLOWANCE, OR
RETIREMENT PAY TO VETERANS AND THE DEPENDENTS OF VETERANS OF  ...  THE
WORLD WAR, ...  ARE HEREBY REPEALED, AND ALL LAWS GRANTING OR
PERTAINING TO YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE ARE HEREBY REPEALED
..."  HELD THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED THEREBY TO REPEAL "AUTOMATIC
INSURANCE" GRANTED BY SEC. 401 OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT, AS
AMENDED, IN THE CASE OF SOLDIERS OF THE WORLD WAR WHO DIED OR BECAME
PERMANENTLY DISABLED WITHOUT HAVING APPLIED FOR INSURANCE WITHIN 120
DAYS AFTER ENTRANCE INTO OR EMPLOYMENT IN ACTIVE SERVICE.  P. 631. 

UNITED STATES V. JACKSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 673, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A RECOVERY OF
"AUTOMATIC INSURANCE" IN A SUIT IN BEHALF OF AN INFANT WHOSE FATHER HAD
BEEN DRAFTED INTO THE MILITARY SERVICE IN APRIL, 1918 AND HAD DIED TWO
WEEKS LATER WITHOUT HAVING APPLIED FOR WAR RISK INSURANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ECONOMY ACT  FN1  REPEALED SEC. 401 OF
THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT FN2  AND THEREBY DEPRIVED VETERANS AND THEIR
BENEFICIARIES OF "AUTOMATIC INSURANCE." 

IN THIS SUIT, BROUGHT BY THE SON OF A SOLDIER WHO DIED IN SERVICE,
BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT  FN3 AND THE COURT OF APPEALS  FN4  WERE OF THE
OPINION THAT THE ECONOMY ACT DID NOT TERMINATE THE RIGHTS OF A
BENEFICIARY OF AUTOMATIC INSURANCE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI LIMITING
CONSIDERATION TO THE QUESTION OF THE REPEAL OF THE LAW PROVIDING
AUTOMATIC INSURANCE.  FN5 

DURING THE WORLD WAR, IT WAS THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW
SOLDIERS ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS AFTER ENLISTMENT OR DRAFTING
WITHIN WHICH TO APPLY FOR AND PURCHASE INSURANCE.  FOR THIS PERIOD, IT
WAS INTENDED THAT THEY BE PROTECTED AS THOUGH THEY HAD BOUGHT
GOVERNMENT INSURANCE.  IN FURTHERANCE OF THIS POLICY, CONGRESS PROVIDED
THAT ALL VETERANS, WHO DIED OR BECAME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED
WITHIN ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS AFTER THEIR ENTRANCE INTO ACTIVE
SERVICE, SHOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY "DEEMED TO HAVE APPLIED FOR AND TO
HAVE BEEN GRANTED INSURANCE." 

IT IS HERE CONTENDED THAT THE WORDS OF THE ECONOMY ACT REPEALING
"OTHER ALLOWANCES" AND "LAWS ...  PERTAINING TO YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM
INSURANCE" ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE A REPEAL OF AUTOMATIC
INSURANCE.  WITH THIS CONTENTION WE CANNOT AGREE. 

REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED.  A LAW IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED
AS IMPLIEDLY REPEALING A PRIOR LAW UNLESS NO OTHER REASONABLE
CONSTRUCTION CAN BE APPLIED.  FN6 

WHILE THE ECONOMY ACT EXPLICITLY REPEALED ALL LAWS WHICH GRANTED "...
MEDICAL OR HOSPITAL TREATMENT, DOMICILIARY CARE, COMPENSATION AND
OTHER ALLOWANCES, PENSION, DISABILITY ALLOWANCE, ...  RETIREMENT PAY
...  AND ALL LAWS GRANTING OR PERTAINING TO YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM
INSURANCE ...," CONGRESS DID NOT INCLUDE "AUTOMATIC INSURANCE" IN THIS
DETAILED LIST OF BENEFITS REPEALED. 

THE WORDS "OTHER ALLOWANCES" HAVE A WELL SETTLED MEANING. 
"ALLOWANCES" IN VETERANS' LEGISLATION, IN THE VETERANS' BUREAU AND IN
ARMY TERMINOLOGY  FN7  HAS NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED SYNONYMOUS WITH, OR
INCLUSIVE OF, AUTOMATIC INSURANCE; THIS WORD ORDINARILY REFERS TO EXTRA
AND SPECIAL ITEMS (IN ADDITION TO REGULAR COMPENSATION) SUCH AS NURSE
HIRE, TRAINING PAY, AND "TRAVEL PAY AND ALLOWANCES."  FN8 

THE WORDS "ALL LAWS GRANTING OR PERTAINING TO YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM
INSURANCE" REFER ONLY TO LAWS WHICH ARE ENACTMENTS UPON THE SUBJECT OF
YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE.  SECTION 401 DID NOT GRANT YEARLY
RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE NOR IS IT AN ENACTMENT UPON THAT SUBJECT.  IT
PROVIDED FOR THOSE SOLDIERS WHO DIED IN SERVICE BEFORE THEY HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE OR ANY OTHER
TYPE OF INSURANCE.  THIS LAW, THEREFORE, DID NOT PERTAIN TO YEARLY
RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE BUT TO PROTECTION FOR SOLDIERS WHO NEVER HAD
AND NEVER COULD OBTAIN YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE. 

IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT AUTOMATIC INSURANCE APPLIED TO THAT
PARTICULAR GROUP OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO EITHER WERE KILLED, DIED, OR
BECAME WHOLLY AND PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED BEFORE THEY HAD A
REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN INSURANCE OF ANY KIND.  IT MAY BE THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT BELIEVE IT PROPER TO ECONOMIZE AT THE EXPENSE OF THOSE
VETERANS WHO CAME OUT OF THE ARMY WITH HEALTH COMPLETELY DESTROYED OR
TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF SOLDIERS WHO LOST THEIR LIVES
IN SERVICE WITHOUT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR INSURANCE. 

CERTAINLY THE REASON WHICH PROMPTED THE PASSAGE OF THE EXPRESS
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 401 IS SUCH THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUBSEQUENT
LEGISLATION EQUALLY EXPRESS, THEY ARE NOT OVERTHROWN BY MERE INFERENCE
OR IMPLICATION.  FN9  ONLY CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE WOULD JUSTIFY
A CONCLUSION THAT BENEFITS, PROVIDED BY A GRATEFUL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE
OF DEATH AND PERMANENT INCAPACITY OF ITS SOLDIERS, ARE TO BE WHOLLY
WITHDRAWN FOR REASONS OF ECONOMY.  SPECIAL PROVISIONS BENEFITING EITHER
SOLDIERS WHO BECAME INCURABLY HELPLESS IN THE ARMY OR THE DEPENDENTS OF
SOLDIERS WHO DIED OR WERE KILLED IN THE SERVICE OF THEIR COUNTRY CANNOT
JUSTIFIABLY BE REPEALED BY IMPLICATION.  FN10  THERE IS NO
IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT BETWEEN SEC. 401 AND THE ECONOMY ACT AND EFFECT
CAN REASONABLY BE GIVEN TO BOTH.  FN11  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 17, ACT OF MARCH 20, 1933, C. 3, 48 STAT. 11:  "ALL PUBLIC
LAWS GRANTING MEDICAL OR HOSPITAL TREATMENT, DOMICILIARY CARE,
COMPENSATION, AND OTHER ALLOWANCES, PENSION, DISABILITY ALLOWANCE, OR
RETIREMENT PAY TO VETERANS AND THE DEPENDENTS OF VETERANS OF  ...  THE
WORLD WAR, ...  ARE HEREBY REPEALED, AND ALL LAWS GRANTING OR
PERTAINING TO YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE ARE HEREBY REPEALED, BUT
PAYMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH LAWS SHALL CONTINUE TO THE LAST DAY OF
THE THIRD CALENDAR MONTH FOLLOWING THE MONTH DURING WHICH THIS ACT IS
ENACTED...." 

FN2  SEC. 401 OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT AS AMENDED DEC. 24, 1919,
C. 16, 41 STAT. 371, 375: "...  ANY PERSON IN THE ACTIVE SERVICE ON OR
AFTER THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 1917, AND BEFORE THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
1918, WHO, WHILE IN SUCH SERVICE, AND BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF ONE
HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAYS AFTER OCTOBER 15, 1917, OR ONE HUNDRED AND
TWENTY DAYS AFTER ENTRANCE INTO OR EMPLOYMENT IN THE ACTIVE SERVICE,
BECOMES OR HAS BECOME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED, OR DIES OR HAS
DIED, WITHOUT HAVING APPLIED FOR INSURANCE, SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE
APPLIED FOR AND TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED INSURANCE, PAYABLE TO SUCH PERSON
DURING HIS LIFE IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF $25 EACH;...  IF HE SHALL
DIE EITHER BEFORE HE SHALL HAVE RECEIVED ANY OF SUCH MONTHLY
INSTALLMENTS OR BEFORE HE SHALL HAVE RECEIVED TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY OF
SUCH MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS, THEN $25 PER MONTH SHALL BE PAID TO  ...
HIS CHILD  ...:  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED AND
FORTY OF SUCH MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS,  ...  SHALL BE SO PAID." 

FN3  14 F.SUPP.  132. 

FN4  89 F.(2D) 572. 

FN5  302 U.S. 673. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. YUGINOVICH, 256 U.S. 450; UNITED STATES V.
NOCE, 268 U.S. 613; SEE, COPE V. COPE, 137 U.S. 682. 

FN7  SEE, AS TO MEANING OF "ALLOWANCES," JONES V. UNITED STATES, 60
CT. CLS. 552, 567; UNITED STATES V. LANDERS, 92 U.S. 77. 

FN8  AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE MEANING OF "ALLOWANCES" APPEARS IN THAT
WIT:  "THAT, SUBJECT TO SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE PRESIDENT MAY
PRESCRIBE, ALLOWANCES MAY BE GRANTED FOR BURIAL AND FUNERAL EXPENSES
AND TRANSPORTATION OF THE BODIES (INCLUDING PREPARATION OF THE BODIES)
OF DECEASED VETERANS OF ANY WAR TO THE PLACES OF BURIAL THEREOF IN A
SUM NOT TO EXCEED $107 IN ANY ONE CASE." 

FN9  ROSENCRANS V. UNITED STATES, 165 U.S. 257. 

FN10  CF. UNITED STATES V. GREATHOUSE, 166 U.S. 601. 

FN11  CF. WASHINGTON V. MILLER, 235 U.S. 422, 428; SEE, ALSO, POSADAS
V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 296 U.S. 503 ET SEQ. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE.  OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :























LANASA FRUIT CO. V. INSURANCE CO., 302 U.S. 556 


NO. 57.  ARGUED DECEMBER 10, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 10, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 545, REVERSED. 


1.  IN DECIDING THIS CASE CONCERNING THE LIABILITY OF AN INSURER FOR
LOSS OF A CARGO OF FRUIT, BOTH COURTS BELOW ASSUMED THAT THE FRUIT WAS
IN SOUND CONDITION WHEN SHIPPED AND WOULD HAVE BEEN MERCHANTABLE AT THE
END OF THE VOYAGE HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE STRANDING OF THE SHIP AND
CONSEQUENT DELAY.  HELD THAT THIS COURT, IN REVIEWING THE QUESTION
DECIDED, WILL MAKE THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS.  P. 559. 

2.  APPLICATION OF A GENERAL COVERAGE CLAUSE OF A MARINE INSURANCE
POLICY HELD UNAFFECTED BY A RIDER ATTACHED FOR AN ADDITIONAL PREMIUM,
AFTER THE POLICY HAD BEEN LONG IN EFFECT, BUT CANCELED BEFORE THE
OCCURRENCE OF THE LOSS.  P. 560. 

THE RIDER COVERED LOSSES NOT EMBRACED IN THE MARINE PERILS AGAINST
WHICH THE POLICY INSURED AND IT ALSO COVERED LOSSES WHICH WERE ALREADY
COVERED BY THE POLICY, AND THERE WAS ROOM FOR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS
TO EXACTLY HOW FAR THE RIDER OVERLAPPED. 

3.  STRANDING OF THE SHIP IS A PERIL OF THE SEA.  P. 561. 

4.  THE DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IS APPLIED STRICTLY IN MARINE
INSURANCE CASES.  P. 562. 

5.  A VESSEL CARRYING A CARGO OF BANANAS STRANDED EN VOYAGE.  THE
STRANDING CAUSED DELAY, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE FRUIT, WHICH WAS SOUND
WHEN SHIPPED AND, BUT FOR THE DELAY, WOULD HAVE BEEN MARKETABLE UPON
ARRIVAL AT DESTINATION, WAS SPOILED BY DECAY - A TOTAL LOSS.  HELD THAT
THE STRANDING WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS, AND THAT THE LOSS
WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE AGAINST PERILS OF THE SEA.  P. 562. 

6.  IN MARINE INSURANCE CASES, THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF LOSS IS THE
EFFICIENT CAUSE, NOT NECESSARILY THAT CAUSE, IN A CHAIN OR SERIES,
WHICH WAS NEAREST IN TIME TO THE EVENT.  P. 562. 

LANASA FRUIT STEAMSHIP & IMPORTING CO. V. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 664, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF THE RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, IN AN ACTION ON A POLICY OF
MARINE INSURANCE.  THE CASE HAD BEEN REMOVED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FROM
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BALTIMORE CITY. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS ACTION WAS BROUGHT UPON A POLICY OF MARINE INSURANCE.  JUDGMENT
FOR RESPONDENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 89 F.(2D)
545, AND CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

PETITIONER WAS THE OWNER OF A CARGO OF BANANAS ABOARD THE NORWEGIAN
STEAMSHIP "SMARAGD."  WHILE PROCEEDING UP CHESAPEAKE BAY TO BALTIMORE
ON JULY 21, 1935, THE VESSEL STRANDED AND BEFORE SHE COULD BE FLOATED
THE ENTIRE CARGO OF BANANAS BECAME OVERRIPE AND ROTTED CAUSING A TOTAL
LOSS.  PETITIONER HELD A FLOATING POLICY OF INSURANCE WHICH HAD BEEN
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT ON JUNE 23, 1933.  THE GENERAL COVERAGE CLAUSE OF
THE POLICY EMBRACED PERILS OF THE SEA. 

TO THE DECLARATION SETTING FORTH THESE FACTS AND CLAIMING THAT THE
LOSS WAS WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE POLICY, RESPONDENT FILED FOUR
PLEAS, THE FIRST TWO PLEADING THE GENERAL ISSUE AND THE TWO OTHERS
BEING SPECIAL PLEAS.  PETITIONER JOINED ISSUE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND
PLEAS AND DEMURRED TO THE THIRD AND FOURTH.  THE DISTRICT COURT
OVERRULED THE DEMURRER TO THE THIRD PLEA AND, AS THAT DECISION WAS
CONSIDERED BY THE PARTIES AND THE COURT TO BE CONCLUSIVE OF THE ISSUE,
FINAL JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR RESPONDENT. 

THE THIRD PLEA, THUS SUSTAINED, SET FORTH A RIDER WHICH, FOR AN
ADDITIONAL PREMIUM, HAD BEEN ADDED TO THE POLICY ON APRIL 4, 1934, AND
HAD BEEN CANCELED ON JANUARY 25, 1935, BEFORE THE LOSS OCCURRED.  THE
RIDER AMENDED THE POLICY SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COVERAGE SHOULD BE
"FREE OF PARTICULAR AVERAGE UNLESS THE VESSEL BE STRANDED, SUNK,
BURNED, ON FIRE OR IN COLLISION, IN ANY, ALL OR SEVERAL OF WHICH EVENTS
THE INSURERS ARE LIABLE FOR SUCH LOSS BY DECAY, INJURY OR DAMAGE TO THE
FRUIT AS IS OCCASIONED THEREBY OR OCCURS DURING OR IN CONSEQUENCE OF
DELAY RESULTING THEREFROM."  THE INSURERS ALSO ASSUMED LIABILITY FOR
SUCH LOSS IN CONSEQUENCE OF DELAY RESULTING FROM BREAKAGE OF SHAFT,
LOSS OF BLADES FROM PROPELLER, AND DERANGEMENT OR BREAKAGE OF MACHINERY
OR RUDDER AND/OR STERN POST, "WHETHER OR NOT THE VESSEL BE STRANDED,
SUNK, BURNED OR IN COLLISION" PROVIDED THAT THE LOSS AMOUNTED TO TEN
PER CENT. AFTER DEDUCTING FIVE PER CENT. FOR ORDINARY LOSS. 

ON THE CANCELLATION OF THE RIDER IT WAS AGREED THAT THE POLICY SHOULD
HAVE THE SAME COVERAGE AS PRIOR THERETO, AND THE PREMIUM RATE WAS
REDUCED FROM 60 CENTS TO THE ORIGINAL RATE OF 25 CENTS ON THE $100 OF
RISK.  89 F.(2D) P. 546. 

IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OBSERVED THAT
THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ENTERED UPON THE PLEADINGS AND THAT PETITIONER
HAD CONCEDED THAT ITS RIGHT TO RECOVER DEPENDED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE POLICY.  89 F.(2D) PP. 545, 546.  THE APPELLATE COURT THEN
EXAMINED THE POLICY AND AFTER A REVIEW OF AUTHORITIES IN THIS COUNTRY
AND IN ENGLAND HELD THAT THE LOSS WAS NOT WITHIN THE GENERAL COVERAGE
CLAUSE RELATING TO PERILS OF THE SEA.  THE COURT IN CONCLUDING ITS
OPINION REFERRED TO THE RIDER AS SHOWING THAT THE PARTIES HAD
INTERPRETED THAT CLAUSE IN THE SAME WAY.  ID., P. 549.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION THUS
DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, A QUESTION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN
DECIDED BY THIS COURT AND AS TO WHICH THE DECISIONS OF OTHER COURTS
WERE SAID TO BE IN CONFLICT. 

WE ARE MET BY TWO PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS.  THE FIRST OF THESE IS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DECLARATION.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT
THE DECLARATION DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT THE BANANAS WERE SHIPPED IN SOUND
CONDITION AND THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN MERCHANTABLE AT THE END OF A
NORMAL VOYAGE, AND THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION AS TO THE DURATION OF
THE DELAY.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THESE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED IN THE
DISTRICT COURT AND THEY WERE NOT DEALT WITH BY THE COURT OF APPEALS,
WHICH EVIDENTLY ASSUMED THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE DECLARATION TO PRESENT
THE MAIN QUESTION AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE GENERAL COVERAGE
CLAUSE.  BOTH COURTS BELOW HAVE DECIDED THE CASE UPON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THE FRUIT WAS IN SOUND CONDITION WHEN SHIPPED AND WOULD HAVE BEEN
MERCHANTABLE AT THE END OF THE VOYAGE HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE STRANDING
AND THE CONSEQUENT DELAY.  IN VIEW OF THIS COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WE
MAKE THE SAME ASSUMPTION.  IF ANY QUESTION AS TO THE CONDITION OF THE
CARGO OR LENGTH OF THE DELAY AND ITS EFFECT HAD BEEN PRESENTED IN THE
TRIAL COURT, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MET BY AMENDMENT OF THE DECLARATION AND
THE ISSUE COULD HAVE BEEN TRIED; AND IF THE MAIN QUESTION, UPON THE
ASSUMPTION STATED, HAS BEEN WRONGLY DECIDED AND THE CASE IS REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT, THERE WILL STILL BE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY ANY OTHER
ISSUES OF FACT OR LAW WHICH MAY PROPERLY BE PRESENTED. 

THE OTHER PRELIMINARY QUESTION IS WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECT OF THE
RIDER ABOVE MENTIONED.  WE DO NOT REGARD THAT ENDORSEMENT AS EITHER
CONTROLLING OR PERSUASIVE.  MANIFESTLY IT DID NOT AFFECT THE
APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL COVERAGE CLAUSE.  THAT CLAUSE HAD BEEN IN
EFFECT FOR A LONG PERIOD BEFORE THE RIDER AND BY EXPRESS AGREEMENT THAT
CLAUSE REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE RIDER WAS CANCELED.  THE RIDER
COVERED LOSSES NOT EMBRACED IN THE MARINE PERILS AGAINST WHICH THE
POLICY INSURED AND IT ALSO COVERED LOSSES WHICH WERE ALREADY COVERED BY
THE POLICY, AND THERE WAS ROOM FOR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO EXACTLY
HOW FAR THE RIDER OVERLAPPED.  THE ACTUAL VIEWS OF THE PARTIES WHEN THE
RIDER WAS OBTAINED AND THE REASONS FOR ITS CANCELLATION ARE NOT SHOWN
WITH ANY DEFINITENESS.  FOR ALL THAT APPEARS THE INSURED MAY HAVE BEEN
ADVISED AND MAY HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE COVERAGE CLAUSE OF THE POLICY
GAVE PROTECTION IN SUCH A CASE AS IS HERE INVOLVED AND MAY NOT HAVE
DESIRED TO CONTINUE TO PAY THE ADDITIONAL PREMIUM FOR THE OTHER LOSSES
DESCRIBED.  WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO SPECULATE AS TO THE STATE OF MIND
OF THE INSURED'S OFFICERS AND ONE ASSERTED AMBIGUITY IS NOT TO BE CURED
BY ANOTHER.  IF THE GENERAL COVERAGE CLAUSE PERMITS RECOVERY, WE SEE
NOTHING TO DEFEAT IT IN WHAT WAS DONE IN CONNECTION WITH THE RIDER. 

PETITIONER THUS STATES THE MAIN QUESTION BROADLY: DOES THE GENERAL
CLAUSE OF THE MARINE CARGO INSURANCE POLICY, INSURING FOR LOSS CAUSED
BY PERILS OF THE SEA, COVER A LOSS WHERE A MARINE PERIL, VIZ.
STRANDING, HAS SO DELAYED THE VOYAGE THAT THE CARGO HAS BECOME A TOTAL
LOSS? 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS (1) THAT DETERIORATION OF PERISHABLE CARGO CAUSED
THROUGH INHERENT VICE WHILE THE VESSEL IS DELAYED BY A SEA PERIL, IS
NOT, WITHOUT MORE, COVERED UNDER A MARINE POLICY WHICH DOES NOT
EXPRESSLY INSURE AGAINST SUCH DETERIORATION; AND (2) THAT IN ORDER TO
RECOVER FOR SUCH DETERIORATION IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE ADVENTURE WAS
NOT MERELY DELAYED BUT FRUSTRATED BY REASON OF THE VESSEL'S FORCED
DEPARTURE FROM THE COURSE OF HER VOYAGE, AS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE THE
VESSEL HAS PUT INTO A PORT OF DISTRESS AND REMAINED THERE FOR A PERIOD
WHICH CONSTITUTED A VIRTUAL ABANDONMENT OR FRUSTRATION OF THE VOYAGE. 

IN CONSIDERING THESE CONTENTIONS, WE START WITH THE FACT THAT THE
VESSEL, WHILE PROCEEDING UP CHESAPEAKE BAY, STRANDED.  THAT IS ALLEGED
AND CONCEDED.  STRANDING IS A PERIL OF THE SEA.  LIVERPOOL & GREAT
WESTERN STEAM CO. V. PHENIX INSURANCE CO., 129 U.S. 397, 438; RICHELIEU
& ONTARIO NAVIGATION CO. V. BOSTON MARINE INSURANCE CO., 136 U.S. 408,
421; ARNOULD ON MARINE INSURANCE, 11TH ED., SEC. 816; WINTER ON MARINE
INSURANCE, 2D ED., P. 156.  LOSS THROUGH STRANDING WAS WITHIN THE
COVERAGE OF THE POLICY.  THIS, AS THE COURT BELOW OBSERVED, WAS
EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED IN THE WARRANTIES AGAINST PARTICULAR AVERAGE IN
WHICH LOSS BY STRANDING WAS EXCEPTED.  89 F.(2D) PP. 546, 547.  AND IT
WAS THE STRANDING WHICH CAUSED THE DELAY.  THE CASE IS NOT ONE OF THE
MERE LENGTHENING OF A VOYAGE DUE TO THE ORDINARY VICISSITUDES OF WIND
AND WAVE AGAINST WHICH THE UNDERWRITER DOES NOT INSURE, JORDAN V.
WARREN INSURANCE CO., 1 STORY, 342, 352; FED. CAS. NO. 7524, AND WE ARE
NOT CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES OTHER THAN THOSE NOW
PRESENTED DELAY MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE DUE TO A PERIL OF THE SEA
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE POLICY. 

THE CARGO WAS PERISHABLE FRUIT.  RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT ITS DECAY
WAS CAUSED BY INHERENT VICE WHICH BEGAN TO OPERATE AS SOON AS THE FRUIT
WAS PICKED.  BUT, ALTHOUGH PERISHABLE, THE CARGO WAS INSURED FOR THE
VOYAGE AGAINST SEA PERILS AND THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER A SEA PERIL
CAUSED THE LOSS.  AS WE HAVE SAID, WE MUST ASSUME FOR THE PRESENT
PURPOSE, IN VIEW OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE CASE WAS PRESENTED AND
DETERMINED BELOW, THAT THE FRUIT WAS SOUND WHEN SHIPPED AND WOULD HAVE
BEEN MERCHANTABLE ON ARRIVAL AFTER A NORMAL VOYAGE, AND THAT HAD IT NOT
BEEN FOR THE DELAY DUE TO THE STRANDING OF THE VESSEL, THE LOSS WOULD
NOT HAVE OCCURRED DESPITE THE PERISHABLE NATURE OF THE CARGO. 

WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT TO PERMIT RECOVERY IT MUST
APPEAR THAT THE ADVENTURE WAS NOT MERELY DELAYED BUT THAT IT WAS
FRUSTRATED THROUGH A FORCED DEPARTURE OF THE VESSEL FROM THE COURSE OF
HER VOYAGE AND THE PUTTING INTO A PORT OF DISTRESS.  SO FAR AS THE
CARGO IN QUESTION WAS CONCERNED, THE ADVENTURE WAS FRUSTRATED BY THE
STRANDING AND THE CARGO BECAME A TOTAL LOSS BEFORE THE VESSEL COULD BE
FLOATED.  THAT LOSS WAS JUST AS COMPLETE AS IF THE VESSEL HAD BEEN
COMPELLED TO PUT INTO A PORT AND THE VOYAGE HAD THEN BEEN ABANDONED. 

THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE STRANDING
SHOULD BE REGARDED AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS.  RESPONDENT
CONTENDS THAT DECAY OR INHERENT VICE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE.  IT IS
TRUE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE IS APPLIED STRICTLY IN CASES
OF MARINE INSURANCE.  BUT IN THAT CLASS OF CASES, AS WELL AS IN OTHERS,
THE PROXIMATE CAUSE IS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE AND NOT A MERELY INCIDENTAL
CAUSE WHICH MAY BE NEARER IN TIME TO THE RESULT.  INSURANCE COMPANY V.
BOON, 95 U.S. 117, 130; ARNOULD ON INSURANCE, 11TH ED., SEC. 783. 

THE SUBJECT WAS DISCUSSED IN AN ILLUMINATING WAY BY LORD SHAW IN HIS
JUDGMENT IN LEYLAND SHIPPING CO. V. NORWICH UNION FIRE INSURANCE
SOCIETY, (1918) A.C. 350, 368-371.  HE SAID (P. 369): 

"TO TREAT PROXIMA CAUSA AS THE CAUSE WHICH IS NEAREST IN TIME IS OUT
OF THE QUESTION.  CAUSES ARE SPOKEN OF AS IF THEY WERE AS DISTINCT FROM
ONE ANOTHER AS BEADS IN A ROW OR LINKS IN A CHAIN, BUT - IF THIS
METAPHYSICAL TOPIC HAS TO BE REFERRED TO - IT IS NOT WHOLLY SO.  THE
CHAIN OF CAUSATION IS A HANDY EXPRESSION, BUT THE FIGURE IS
INADEQUATE.  CAUSATION IS NOT A CHAIN, BUT A NET.  AT EACH POINT
INFLUENCES, FORCES, EVENTS, PRECEDENT AND SIMULTANEOUS, MEET; AND THE
RADIATION FROM EACH POINT EXTENDS INFINITELY.  AT THE POINT WHERE THESE
VARIOUS INFLUENCES MEET IT IS FOR THE JUDGMENT AS UPON A MATTER OF FACT
TO DECLARE WHICH OF THE CAUSES THUS JOINED AT THE POINT OF EFFECT WAS
THE PROXIMATE AND WHICH WAS THE REMOTE CAUSE. 

"WHAT DOES 'PROXIMATE' HERE MEAN?  TO TREAT PROXIMATE CAUSE AS IF IT
WAS THE CAUSE WHICH IS PROXIMATE IN TIME IS, AS I HAVE SAID, OUT OF THE
QUESTION.  THE CAUSE WHICH IS TRULY PROXIMATE IS THAT WHICH IS
PROXIMATE IN EFFICIENCY.  THAT EFFICIENCY MAY HAVE BEEN PRESERVED
ALTHOUGH OTHER CAUSES MAY MEANTIME HAVE SPRUNG UP WHICH HAVE YET NOT
DESTROYED IT, OR TRULY IMPAIRED IT, AND IT MAY CULMINATE IN A RESULT OF
WHICH IT STILL REMAINS THE REAL EFFICIENT CAUSE TO WHICH THE EVENT CAN
BE ASCRIBED." 

THERE, IN A POLICY INSURING A SHIP, THERE WAS A WARRANTY OF EXCEPTION
IN CASE OF HOSTILITIES OR WARLIKE OPERATIONS, AND THE QUESTION WAS
WHETHER THE LOSS OF THE VESSEL FELL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION.  THE VESSEL
WAS TORPEDOED AND SUSTAINED SEVERE INJURIES BUT SUCCEEDED IN MAKING THE
OUTER HARBOR OF THE PORT OF HAVRE.  NOTWITHSTANDING ALL EFFORTS BY
PUMPING AND OTHERWISE, SHE BUMPED, BROKE HER BACK, AND SANK.  IT WAS
CONTENDED THAT SHE PERISHED BY A PERIL OF THE SEA BECAUSE SEA WATER
ENTERED THE GASH IN HER SIDE WHICH THE TORPEDO MADE.  THE ENTRY OF THE
SEA WATER WAS INDEED A PERIL OF THE SEA AND WAS PROXIMATE IN TIME TO
THE SINKING.  BUT AS "PROXIMATE CAUSE IS AN EXPRESSION REFERRING TO THE
EFFICIENCY AS AN OPERATING FACTOR UPON THE RESULT" IT WAS HELD THAT
"THE REAL EFFICENT CAUSE" OF THE SINKING OF THE VESSEL WAS THAT SHE WAS
TORPEDOED AND HENCE THAT THE LOSS WAS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION. 

IN THE LEYLAND CASE THE HOUSE OF LORDS APPROVED THE DECISION OF THE
COURT OF APPEAL IN REISCHER V. BORWICK (1894) 2 Q.B. 548, WHERE THE
POLICY COVERED COLLISION WITH ANY OBJECT BUT EXCLUDED PERILS OF THE
SEA.  THE SHIP STRUCK A SNAG WHICH MADE A HOLE IN HER.  SHE WAS
ANCHORED AND THE LEAK WAS TEMPORARILY PLUGGED.  THEN, WHILE SHE WAS
BEING TOWED TOWARDS THE NEAREST DOCK FOR REPAIR, THE WATER BURST
THROUGH THE HOLE AND SHE HAD TO BE RUN AGROUND AND ABANDONED.  THE
CONTENTION WAS THAT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE WAS THE EXCEPTED
MARINE PERIL OF THE INRUSH OF THE SEA WATER.  BUT THE COURT OF APPEAL
HELD THAT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE WAS THE COLLISION WITH THE SNAG.    THE
SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES ALTHOUGH WITHIN THE NETWORK OF CAUSATION THERE
MAY BE FOUND THE OPERATION OF NATURAL FORCES TO WHICH A DISASTER,
WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE POLICY, HAS GIVEN PLAY.  THE DECISION OF
JUSTICE STORY IN MAGOUN V. NEW ENGLAND MARINE INSURANCE CO., 1 STORY
157; FED. CAS. NO. 8961, IS AN ILLUSTRATION.  IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION
WAS WHETHER THE LOSS WAS DUE TO A RESTRAINT AND DETAINMENT OF
GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE WORDS OF A POLICY INSURING THE VESSEL AND
FREIGHT.  IT APPEARED THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN ARREST AND DETAINMENT BY
THE AUTHORITIES OF NEW GRANADA; THAT THE VESSEL HAD BEEN RESTORED, BUT
THAT, WHEN RESTORED, IT WAS FOUND, FROM HER LONG EXPOSURE TO THE
WEATHER IN A HOT CLIMATE, IN AN OPEN ROADSTEAD, THAT SHE HAD BEEN SO
DAMAGED THAT SHE COULD NOT PERFORM THE VOYAGE WITHOUT GREAT REPAIRS
WHICH WOULD COST MORE THAN THE VESSEL WAS WORTH; THAT HIDES BELONGING
TO THE CARGO HAD BECOME ROTTEN AND WERE THROWN OVERBOARD AND THAT NO
OTHER VESSEL COULD BE FOUND TO CARRY THE RESIDUE OF THE CARGO TO
DESTINATION.  THE VESSEL WAS ACCORDINGLY ABANDONED TO THE UNDERWRITERS,
AND JUSTICE STORY HELD THAT THE ABANDONMENT WAS GOOD AND THE
UNDERWRITERS WERE LIABLE FOR A TOTAL LOSS.  HE SAID (P. 164): 

"THE ARGUMENT IS, THAT THE INJURY TO THE VESSEL, BY THE LONG DELAY
AND EXPOSURE TO THE CLIMATE, WAS THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS, AND
THE SEIZURE AND DETAINMENT THE REMOTE CAUSE ONLY; AND THAT, THEREFORE,
THE RULE APPLIES, CAUSA PROXIMA, NON REMOTA, SPECTATUR, AND THE
UNDERWRITERS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY BY MERE WEAR AND TEAR, OR BY
DELAYS IN THE VOYAGE, OR BY WORMS, OR BY EXPOSURE TO THE CLIMATE.  BUT
IT APPEARS TO ME, THAT THIS IS NOT A CORRECT EXPOSITION OF THE RULE. 
ALL THE CONSEQUENCES NATURALLY FLOWING FROM THE PERIL INSURED AGAINST,
OR INCIDENT THERETO, ARE PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PERIL ITSELF." 

IN SUPPORT, JUSTICE STORY REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN
PETERS V. WARREN INSURANCE CO., 14 PET. 99, IN WHICH HE DELIVERED THE
OPINION.  IN THAT CASE HE PUT THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATION (P. 110): 

"SUPPOSE A PERISHABLE CARGO IS GREATLY DAMAGED BY THE PERILS OF THE
SEA, AND IT SHOULD, IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, LONG AFTERWARDS, AND BEFORE
ARRIVAL AT THE PORT OF DESTINATION, BECOME GRADUALLY SO PUTRESCENT AS
TO BE REQUIRED TO BE THROWN OVERBOARD FOR THE SAFETY OF THE CREW:  THE
IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS WOULD BE THE ACT OF THE MASTER AND CREW;
BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE UNDERWRITERS WOULD BE LIABLE FOR A TOTAL
LOSS, UPON THE GROUND THAT THE OPERATIVE CAUSE WAS THE PERILS OF THE
SEA." 

AND IN THE SAME CASE, JUSTICE STORY TOOK OCCASION TO OBSERVE THAT IF
THERE BE ANY COMMERCIAL CONTRACT, WHICH, MORE THAN ANY OTHER, "REQUIRES
THE APPLICATION OF SOUND COMMON SENSE AND PRACTICAL REASONING IN THE
EXPOSITION OF IT," IT IS "CERTAINLY A POLICY OF INSURANCE."  ID., P.
109. 

IF WE APPLY THIS PRINCIPLE OF THE "REAL EFFICIENT CAUSE" TO THE
INSTANT CASE, IT CAN HARDLY BE DOUBTED THAT UPON THE FACTS ASSUMED THE
LOSS WOULD BE WITHIN THE COVERAGE OF THE POLICY.  INDEED THIS IS NOT
STRONGLY CONTESTED, BUT IT IS INSISTED THAT THE CASE IS CONTROLLED BY
CERTAIN PRECEDENTS TO WHICH WE SHOULD GIVE HEED IN DEALING WITH AN
ANCIENT FORM OF WORDS.  THESE PRECEDENTS ARE FOUND IN CERTAIN ENGLISH
CASES TO WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFERRED.  THE COURT
RECOGNIZED THAT A NUMBER OF AMERICAN CASES HAD TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW
BUT THOUGHT THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY DECISION BY THIS COURT
OR ANY FEDERAL COURT, THE CITED ENGLISH CASES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE
VIEW THAT IN THE FIELD OF MARINE INSURANCE "IT IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE THAT
OUR DECISIONS BE KEPT IN HARMONY WITH THOSE OF ENGLAND."  89 F.(2D) P.
549. 

REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE CASE OF TAYLOR V. DUNBAR, L.R. 4 C.P. 206. 
THERE MEAT SHIPPED AT HAMBURG FOR LONDON WAS DELAYED ON THE VOYAGE BY
TEMPESTUOUS WEATHER AND SOLELY BY REASON OF SUCH DELAY BECAME PUTRID
AND WAS NECESSARILY THROWN OVERBOARD.  THE COURT HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A
LOSS BY PERILS OF THE SEA.  JUDGE KEATING SAID THAT THE FACTS SHOWED
"BEYOND A DOUBT THAT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS OF THE MEAT WAS
THE DELAY IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE VOYAGE," AND "THAT DELAY WAS
OCCASIONED BY TEMPESTUOUS WEATHER."  BUT HE HELD "THAT A LOSS BY THE
UNEXPECTED DURATION OF THE VOYAGE, THOUGH THAT BE CAUSED BY PERILS OF
THE SEA," DID NOT ENTITLE THE ASSURED TO RECOVER.  JUDGE MONTAGUE
SMITH, CONCURRING, SAID THAT IF IT WERE HELD "THAT A LOSS BY DELAY,
CAUSED BY BAD WEATHER OR THE PRUDENCE OF THE CAPTAIN IN ANCHORING TO
AVOID IT, WAS A LOSS BY PERILS OF THE SEA," THE COURT WOULD "BE OPENING
A DOOR TO CLAIMS FOR LOSSES WHICH NEVER WERE INTENDED TO BE COVERED BY
INSURANCE, NOT ONLY IN THE CASE OF PERISHABLE GOODS, BUT IN THE CASE OF
GOODS OF ALL OTHER DESCRIPTIONS." 

THE CASE OF PINK V. FLEMING, L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 396, UPON WHICH CHIEF
RELIANCE IS PLACED, WAS A CASE OF COLLISION.  IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE
DAMAGED SHIP TO PUT INTO A PORT FOR REPAIRS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE TO
DISCHARGE A PORTION OF THE GOODS INSURED, CONSISTING OF FRUIT.  THE
GOODS WERE RESHIPPED BUT ON ARRIVAL IT WAS FOUND THAT BEING OF A
PERISHABLE NATURE THEY HAD BEEN DAMAGED BY THE HANDLING NECESSARY FOR
THEIR DISCHARGE AND RESHIPMENT AND BY THE DELAY.  THE COURT OF APPEAL
HELD THAT THE COLLISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS AND
THAT THERE COULD BE NO RECOVERY ON THE POLICY.  LORD ESHER SAID: 

"THE COLLISION MAY BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN A CAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE
CAUSE, OF THE SHIP'S PUTTING INTO A PORT AND OF REPAIRS BEING
NECESSARY.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH REPAIRS IT WAS NECESSARY TO REMOVE
THE FRUIT, AND SUCH REMOVAL NECESSARILY CAUSED DAMAGE TO IT.  THE
AGENT, HOWEVER, WHICH PROXIMATELY CAUSED THE DAMAGE TO THE FRUIT WAS
THE HANDLING, THOUGH NO DOUBT THE CAUSE OF THE HANDLING WAS THE
REPAIRS, AND THE CAUSE OF THE REPAIRS WAS THE COLLISION.  ACCORDING TO
THE ENGLISH LAW OF MARINE INSURANCE ONLY THE LAST CAUSE CAN BE
REGARDED.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE POLICY TO SAY THAT THE UNDERWRITERS
WILL BE LIABLE FOR LOSS OCCASIONED BY THAT.  TO CONNECT THE LOSS WITH
ANY PERIL MENTIONED IN THE POLICY THE PLAINTIFFS MUST GO BACK TWO
STEPS, AND THAT, ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW, THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
DO." 

THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THE CASE WAS GOVERNED BY TAYLOR V. DUNBAR,
SUPRA.  LORD ESHER ADDED - "WITH REGARD TO THE AMERICAN AUTHORITIES,
THE AMERICAN LAW ON THE SUBJECT SEEMS TO DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM OUR
LAW, AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THEM."  FN1 

IT SEEMS THAT NEITHER OF THESE CASES WENT TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS, AND
WE FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCILE LORD ESHER'S RULING - "THAT
ACCORDING TO THE ENGLISH LAW OF MARINE INSURANCE ONLY THE LAST CAUSE
CAN BE REGARDED" - WITH THE ELABORATE EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
PROXIMATE CAUSE WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN LEYLAND
SHIPPING CO. V. NORWICH UNION FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY, SUPRA, FROM WHICH
WE HAVE QUOTED.  AND IT IS RECOGNIZED IN ENGLAND THAT "PASSAGES IN LORD
ESHER'S JUDGMENT IN PINK V. FLEMING  ...  TO THE EFFECT THAT ONLY THE
CAUSE LAST IN TIME CAN BE LOOKED TO, CANNOT NOW BE SUPPORTED."  ARNOULD
ON MARINE INSURANCE, 11TH ED., SEC. 783, NOTE (R).  SO FAR AS THE
ENGLISH RULE, HOWEVER, RELATES TO LOSSES, ON SHIP OR GOODS,
"PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY DELAY, ALTHOUGH THE DELAY BE CAUSED BY A PERIL
INSURED AGAINST," IT HAS BEEN EMBODIED IN STATUTE WHICH APPARENTLY
APPLIES TO ALL GOODS, PERISHABLE OR OTHERWISE, UNLESS THE POLICY
OTHERWISE PROVIDES.  THAT STATUTE OF COURSE IS CONTROLLING IN RELATION
TO ENGLISH PRACTICE IN THAT CLASS OF CASES.  MARINE INSURANCE ACT,
1906, SEC. 55(2)(B).  L.R. STATUTES, 6 EDWARD VII, P. 227.  THERE IS NO
STATUTE APPLICABLE HERE WHICH SO RESTRICTS THE DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE
CAUSE, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT AND AS IT IS SET FORTH IN THE LEYLAND CASE,
AND THE WEIGHT OF AMERICAN AUTHORITY IS CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE OF
PINK V. FLEMING. 

IN WILLIAMS V. SMITH, 2 CAINES 1(1804), THE ACTION WAS ON A POLICY OF
INSURANCE COVERING A CARGO CONSISTING CHIEFLY OF NAVAL STORES,
INCLUDING TAR IN BARRELS, ON A VOYAGE FROM NEW YORK TO ALGIERS.  THE
VESSEL EXPERIENCED SEVERE WEATHER WHICH RESULTED IN SUCH SERIOUS DAMAGE
THAT IT WAS COMPELLED TO PUT INTO CADIZ AS A PORT OF DISTRESS.  THERE
MORE THAN HALF OF HER LADING WAS TAKEN OUT AND THE VESSEL MOVED TO THE
USUAL PLACE FOR REPAIRING.  WHILE THERE AN EPIDEMIC FEVER BROKE OUT
WHICH PREVENTED ALL BUSINESS AND MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN PERMITS
FOR TAKING THE CARGO FROM THE PLACE WHERE IT HAD BEEN LANDED. 
MEANWHILE THE VESSEL WAS DRIVEN TO SEA BY A STORM AND SUSTAINED FURTHER
INJURIES AND ON RETURNING TO CADIZ IT WAS FOUND THAT THE CARGO, BOTH ON
SHORE AND ON BOARD, FROM THE HEAT OF THE CLIMATE AND VIOLENCE OF THE
GALE, WAS DETERIORATED MORE THAN ONE HALF OF ITS ORIGINAL VALUE.  AS
THE WHOLE WOULD NOT HAVE PRODUCED ENOUGH TO FIT THE SHIP FOR THE
COMPLETION OF HER VOYAGE, THE VESSEL AND THE CARGO WERE ABANDONED TO
THE UNDERWRITERS.  THE COURT CHARGED THE JURY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT
"ANY DAMAGES WHICH AROSE IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE FEVER AT CADIZ, WERE
WITHIN THE PERILS OF THE POLICY."  THE JURY BROUGHT IN A VERDICT FOR A
TOTAL LOSS.  THE COURT DENIED A NEW TRIAL, JUDGE KENT STATING IN HIS
OPINION "THAT THE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE PESTILENCE AT CADIZ" WAS
COVERED BY THE POLICY.  THE COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE
"WHETHER A PESTILENCE IS A PERIL DIRECT WITHIN THE POLICY," BUT HELD
THAT IT FORMED "A SOUND EXCUSE FOR DELAY AT CADIZ" AND "IF THE
CONSEQUENCE OF THAT DELAY WAS A DETERIORATION OF THE SUBJECT INSURED,
THE INSURER MUST BE ANSWERABLE FOR THE LOSS." 

IN TUDOR V. NEW ENGLAND MARINE INSURANCE CO., 12 CUSH.  554, THE SUIT
WAS UPON A POLICY OF INSURANCE ON A CARGO OF ICE SHIPPED FROM BOSTON TO
CALCUTTA.  IT WAS AGREED THAT THE ICE WAS PROPERLY PACKED AND
SURROUNDED WITH NON-CONDUCTORS OF HEAT.  UNDER THE STIPULATIONS OF THE
POLICY, THE INSURER COULD BE LIABLE, IF AT ALL, ONLY FOR A TOTAL LOSS. 
THERE WAS ALSO A CLAUSE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO LIABILITY "FOR ICE
MELTING IN CONSEQUENCE OF PUTTING INTO PORT."  BY PERILS OF THE SEA,
THE VESSEL SPRUNG A LEAK WHICH INCREASED AND IT BECAME NECESSARY TO PUT
AWAY FOR A PORT.  ON TAKING OUT HER CARGO, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN HER
CONDITION AND THE PRACTICABILITY OF REPAIRS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ICE
HAD SETTLED, A PORTION OF IT HAVING BEEN MELTED BY THE SEA WATER WHICH
HAD COME IN CONTACT WITH IT BY REASON OF THE LEAK.  THE ICE WAS TAKEN
OUT AND SOLD FOR A VERY SMALL SUM IN COMPARISON WITH ITS ESTIMATED
VALUE AT THE PORT OF DELIVERY.  THE VOYAGE WAS ABANDONED.  IT WAS
DENIED THAT THE LOSS WAS OCCASIONED BY A PERIL OF THE SEA.  THE INSURED
HAD JUDGMENT FOR A TOTAL LOSS.  THE COURT CONSIDERED IT TO BE WELL
SETTLED THAT IF AN ARTICLE INSURED AS FREE FROM AVERAGE BE "PLACED IN
SUCH A CONDITION, THAT IN CONSEQUENCE OF INEVITABLE DETERIORATION OR
DECAY, IT CANNOT BE CARRIED TO THE PORT OF DESTINATION, BUT WILL
NECESSARILY, BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE VOYAGE, BE WHOLLY DESTROYED,
AND IT IS ACCORDINGLY SOLD, AT AN INTERMEDIATE PORT," THIS WOULD
CONSTITUTE A TOTAL LOSS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE POLICY.  THE COURT
ALSO HELD THAT THE EXCEPTION OF THE RISK OF ICE "MELTING IN CONSEQUENCE
OF PUTTING INTO PORT" DID NOT INCLUDE "A LOSS OCCASIONED BY THE MELTING
OF THE ICE FROM OTHER CAUSES, OR A COMBINATION OF OTHER CAUSES."  THE
REAL CAUSE WAS THE INJURY TO THE VESSEL WHICH MADE IT NECESSARY TO TAKE
OUT THE ICE IN A PORT IN THE TROPICS.  SEE, ALSO, MUSGRAVE V. MANNHEIM
INSURANCE CO., 32 NOV. SC. REP. 405. 

CORY V. BOYLSTON INSURANCE CO., 107 MASS. 140, IS CITED BY RESPONDENT
AS AN ANSWER TO THE TUDOR CASE, BUT THE LATTER WAS NOT OVERRULED OR
EVEN MENTIONED.  IN THE CORY CASE A VESSEL WITH WINE ON BOARD MET WITH
SEVERE GALES WHICH PROLONGED HER VOYAGE AND CAUSED HER TO SHIP MUCH SEA
WATER, AND UPON HER ARRIVAL AT THE PORT OF DESTINATION THE CASES OF
WINE WERE FOUND TO BE MORE OR LESS WET EITHER BY THE SEA WATER OR BY
THE STEAM AND DAMPNESS GENERATED IN THE HOLD BY THE PRESENCE OF THE SEA
WATER AND THE CHANGES OF CLIMATE THROUGH WHICH THE VESSEL HAD PASSED. 
THE CASE WAS CONTROLLED BY SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY.  THE
POLICY PROVIDED THAT THE INSURERS SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR LOSS BY
LEAKAGE UNLESS OCCASIONED BY STRANDING OR COLLISION, OR "FOR DAMAGE OR
INJURY TO GOODS BY DAMPNESS, RUST, CHANGE OF FLAVOR, OR BY BEING
SPOTTED, DISCOLORED, MUSTY OR MOULDY, UNLESS THE SAME BE CAUSED BY
ACTUAL CONTACT OF SEA WATER WITH THE ARTICLES DAMAGED, OCCASIONED BY
SEA PERIL."  THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THE LATTER CLAUSE WAS INSERTED WITH
A KNOWLEDGE OF THE DECISIONS IN BAKER V. MANUFACTURERS' INSURANCE CO.,
12 GRAY 603, AND MONTOYA V. LONDON ASSURANCE CO., 6 EXCH.  451.  TO
BRING A CASE WITHIN THAT CLAUSE THE COURT HELD THAT IT WAS NOT ENOUGH
"THAT PERILS OF THE SEA SHOULD BE THE EFFICIENT, AND, WITHIN THE RULE
LAID DOWN IN THE PREVIOUS DECISIONS, THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, BY WHICH THE
SEA WATER WAS SHIPPED," BUT THAT THE SEA WATER "MUST COME INTO ACTUAL
CONTACT WITH THE ARTICLES, FOR THE DAMAGE TO WHICH THE UNDERWRITERS ARE
SOUGHT TO BE CHARGED." 

RESPONDENT ALSO CITES PERRY V. COBB, 88 ME. 435, WHERE THE INSURANCE
WAS ON A CARGO OF LIME SHIPPED BY A BRIG FROM ROCKLAND TO NEW YORK. 
THE VOYAGE WAS PROLONGED ON ACCOUNT OF ROUGH WEATHER BUT THE VESSEL
ARRIVED TIGHT AND ONLY SLIGHTLY DAMAGED.  NO SEA WATER HAD REACHED THE
CARGO UNLESS IN A FEW INSTANCES WHERE A HATCH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF OR
ONCE WHEN THE CABIN WAS FLOODED.  THAT DAMAGE WAS FAR BELOW THE PARTIAL
LOSS WHICH HAD BEEN EXCEPTED FROM THE COVERAGE.  THE REMAINING DAMAGE
WAS "FROM THE SHRINKING OF THE STAVES OF THE BARRELS AND SLACKING UP OF
THE COOPERAGE," CAUSING A LOSS OF CONTENTS AND MAKING THE BARRELS
INSECURE FOR HOISTING,  - A CONDITION WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE
RESULTED FROM THE ROLLING AND PITCHING OF THE VESSEL CAUSED BY THE
STORMS OF AN UNUSUALLY PROTRACTED VOYAGE.  THE COURT SAID THAT "ALL
AUTHORITIES AGREE THAT A PROTRACTED VOYAGE IS NOT A SEA PERIL WITHIN A
MARINE POLICY, BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN UNUSUAL EVENT, BUT ONE OF THE
NATURAL INCIDENTS TO SEA TRANSIT"; THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS CONFLICTING
"AS TO THE PROXIMATE CAUSE FOR THE CONDITION OF THE CARGO UPON ITS
ARRIVAL"; THAT THE ASSOCIATES, WHO IN THIS CASE HAD INSURED EACH OTHER
AND TO WHOM IT WAS AGREED THAT THE QUESTION OF LIABILITY SHOULD BE
SUBMITTED, WERE MEN OF LARGE EXPERIENCE IN BURNING AND SHIPPING LIME;
AND THAT THEIR DECISION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF "MUST HAVE GREAT WEIGHT
UPON THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE CONDITION OF THE CARGO, UPON ITS
ARRIVAL IN NEW YORK, WAS OTHER THAN WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN EXPECTED FROM
ORDINARY SEA WEATHER AT THAT TIME OF YEAR," WITHOUT ANY "UNUSUAL SEA
PERIL."  THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE PRINCIPAL DAMAGE TO THE CARGO CAME
"FROM ITS OWN INHERENT QUALITIES, EXCITED BY THE LONG CONTINUED
TRANSIT."  ID., PP. 449, 450. 

IN THE CASE OF BOND V. THE SUPERB, 1 WALL.  JR. 355; 3 FED. CAS. 845,
ALSO CITED BY RESPONDENT AND THE COURT BELOW, THE DECISION OF MR.
JUSTICE GRIER AT CIRCUIT TURNED UPON THE QUESTION OF LIABILITY FOR
GENERAL AVERAGE AND IN THIS VIEW HAD DISTINGUISHING FEATURES. 

FOURTEEN YEARS AGO A CASE CLOSELY RESEMBLING THE ONE AT BAR CAME
BEFORE THE NEW YORK COURTS.  BRANDYCE V UNITED STATES LLOYDS (THE
CORSICANA), 207 APP. DIV. 665; 203 N.Y.S. 10; 239 N.Y. 573; 147 N.E.
201.  THE ACTION WAS UPON POLICIES COVERING A CARGO OF POTATOES INSURED
AGAINST PERILS OF THE SEA.  THE VESSEL, IN CONSEQUENCE OF A COLLISION
AT SEA WITH SOME UNKNOWN OBJECT, WAS COMPELLED TO PUT INTO CHARLESTON
FOR REPAIRS WHERE IT WAS FOUND NECESSARY TO DISCHARGE THE CARGO.  AFTER
REPAIRS THE VESSEL RESUMED HER VOYAGE BUT, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DELAY, THE
POTATOES BECAUSE OF SPROUTING AND ROT HAD TO BE SOLD.  THEY WERE NOT
INJURED DIRECTLY IN THE COLLISION OR TOUCHED BY SEA WATER.  THE PRECISE
QUESTION PRESENTED WAS "WHETHER LOSS BY NATURAL DETERIORATION, DURING A
DELAY IN THE VOYAGE CAUSED BY A SEA PERIL, IS A LOSS BY SEA PERILS
WITHIN THE MEANING AND INTENT OF THE POLICY OF INSURANCE."  THE
APPELLATE DIVISION REVIEWED THE AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND AND IN THIS
COUNTRY.  THE COURT HELD THAT MERE DELAY ON THE VOYAGE, AS A RESULT OF
WHICH CARGO IS SPOILED OR DAMAGED, WAS NOT A GROUND FOR RECOVERY.  BUT
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE COLLISION, THE SEA PERIL INSURED AGAINST, WAS
THE REAL CAUSE OF THE LOSS.  THE COURT SAID:  "THE EVIDENCE INDICATES
THAT IF THE CORSICANA HAD NOT BEEN DAMAGED BY REASON OF SEA PERILS, THE
POTATOES WOULD HAVE ARRIVED SOUND.  THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE LOSS,
THEREFORE, WAS THE SEA PERIL, BECAUSE IT WAS THE EFFICIENT DOMINANT
CAUSE WHICH, ALTHOUGH INCIDENTALLY INVOLVING DELAY, PLACED THE CARGO IN
SUCH A CONDITION THAT, BECAUSE OF INEVITABLE DETERIORATION OR DECAY, IT
COULD NOT BE RESHIPPED AND CARRIED TO ITS DESTINATION."  THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF NEW YORK STATED THE QUESTION IN THE SAME WAY AND AFFIRMED
THE JUDGMENT. 

WE LAY ON ONE SIDE CASES OF PROTRACTED VOYAGES CAUSED BY STORMS AND
THE SPECIAL QUESTIONS TO WHICH THEIR VARIED CIRCUMSTANCES GIVE RISE. 
SUCH A CASE IS NOT BEFORE US.  THE INSTANT CASE IS ONE OF STRANDING, A
SEA PERIL INSURED AGAINST, AND WE THINK THAT THE WELL-SETTLED DOCTRINE
OF PROXIMATE CAUSE, MEANING THE REAL EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE LOSS,
REQUIRES THE CONCLUSION THAT, UPON THE ASSUMPTIONS OF FACT WE STATED AT
THE OUTSET, THE LOSS OF THE CARGO WAS WITHIN THE GENERAL COVERAGE
CLAUSE OF THE POLICY. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  AS TO OTHER ENGLISH DECISIONS CITED BELOW, TATHAM V. HODGSON, 6
T.R. 656, AND INMAN STEAMSHIP CO. V. BISCHOFF, L.R. 7 APP. CAS. 670,
SEE ARNOULD ON MARINE INSURANCE, 11TH ED., SECS. 781, 785. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE CASE WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED BY THE COURT BELOW ON GROUNDS ADEQUATELY
STATED. 
..END :













BIDDLE V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 573 


NO. 55.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 10, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 10, 1938.  - 86
F.(2D) 718, AFFIRMED.  - 91 F.(2D) 973, REVERSED. 


1.  THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 PROVIDES THAT, IN THE CASE OF A CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES, THE INCOME TAX IMPOSED BY THE ACT SHALL BE CREDITED
(UP TO A SPECIFIED LIMIT) WITH THE AMOUNT OF ANY "INCOME TAXES PAID"
DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY.  HELD THAT THE MEANING
OF THE PHRASE "INCOME TAXES PAID" IS TO BE FOUND IN OUR OWN REVENUE
LAWS RATHER THAN IN THE STATUTES AND DECISIONS OF THE FOREIGN COUNTRY
TO WHICH DEDUCTIBLE TAX PAYMENTS ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE.  P. 578. 

2.  UNDER THE BRITISH LAW, AS FOUND IN THIS CASE, A CORPORATION PAYS
THE "STANDARD" (NORMAL) INCOME TAX ON ITS PROFITS, COMPUTED AT THE RATE
IN FORCE WHEN IT RECEIVED THEM.  WHEN THE PROFITS ARE DIVIDED, THE
SHAREHOLDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ANY TAX IN RESPECT OF HIS DIVIDEND UNLESS
HIS INCOME IS SUCH AS TO SUBJECT HIM TO A SURTAX.  IN PAYING A
DIVIDEND, THE CORPORATION HAS EXPRESS PERMISSION TO DEDUCT "THE TAX
APPROPRIATE THERETO" AND IS DIRECTED TO CERTIFY TO THE SHAREHOLDER THE
GROSS AMOUNT OF THE DIVIDEND, THE RATE AND AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX
"APPROPRIATE" TO THE GROSS AMOUNT, AND THE NET AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID THE
SHAREHOLDER.  THE TAX "APPROPRIATE" TO THE DIVIDEND IS COMPUTED BY
APPLYING THE STANDARD RATE FOR THE YEAR OF DISTRIBUTION TO THE VALUE OF
THE MONEY OR PROPERTY DISTRIBUTED AND WILL EQUAL THE TAX AT THE
STANDARD RATE PAID BY THE CORPORATION IF, AND ONLY IF, THAT RATE WAS
THE SAME FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PROFITS WERE EARNED AS IN THE YEAR
WHEN THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED.  THE SHAREHOLDER'S SURTAX IS COMPUTED UPON
THE GROSS DIVIDEND,  - THE DIVIDEND THAT HE ACTUALLY RECEIVES PLUS THE
TAX DEDUCTED BY THE CORPORATION.  IF HIS INCOME IS EXEMPT, OR LESS THAN
THE MINIMUM SUBJECT TO SURTAX, REFUND IS MADE ACCORDINGLY.  THE PURPOSE
OF THE CERTIFICATE IS TO AID HIM IN COMPUTING HIS SURTAX AND IN
SECURING THE BENEFIT OF ANY REFUND.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT (ASIDE FROM ANY QUESTION OF SURTAX) THE AMOUNT SO CERTIFIED
AS THE TAX "APPROPRIATE" TO A DIVIDEND IS NOT A TAX PAID BY THE
SHAREHOLDER AND CAN NOT BE CREDITED AGAINST HIS UNITED STATES INCOME
TAX UNDER REV. ACT 1928, SEC. 131(A), AS A TAX PAID TO A FOREIGN
COUNTRY.  P. 579. 

(2)  IT IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM HIS GROSS INCOME UNDER SEC. 23(C)(2)
OF THAT ACT, WHICH ALLOWS DEDUCTION OF INCOME TAXES IMPOSED BY THE
AUTHORITY OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY.  P. 583. 

3. DEPARTMENTAL TAX RULINGS NOT PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY, ARE OF LITTLE AID IN INTERPRETING A TAX STATUTE.  P. 582. 

4.  WHERE THE MEANING OF A STATUTE IS PLAIN, SUBSEQUENT REENACTMENT
DOES NOT ADOPT CONTRARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION.  ID. 

5.  THE PRESUMPTION THAT CONGRESS, IN REENACTING A STATUTE, CAN
ASCERTAIN THE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AND, KNOWING ITS
OWN INTENT, WILL CORRECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULING IF MISTAKEN, CAN NOT
APPLY TO RULINGS UPON THE INTENT OF OTHER LEGISLATIVE BODIES.  RULINGS
OF OUR TAXING AUTHORITIES UPON THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A TAX LAW OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY CAN NOT HAVE ANY MORE BINDING EFFECT ON COURTS THAN IN
THE CASE OF ANY DETERMINATION OF FACT WHICH CALLS INTO OPERATION THE
TAXING STATUTES.  P. 582. 

BIDDLE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 505, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
V. ELKINS, ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, PP. 664, 677, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF TWO CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS ONE OF WHICH REVERSED, WHILE THE OTHER AFFIRMED, A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 33 B.T.A. 127, UPHOLDING
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS ON INCOME TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THEIR BRITISH INCOME TAX RETURNS, STOCKHOLDERS IN BRITISH
CORPORATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT AS INCOME, IN ADDITION TO THE
AMOUNT OF DIVIDENDS ACTUALLY RECEIVED, AMOUNTS WHICH REFLECT THEIR
RESPECTIVE PROPORTIONS OF THE TAX PAID BY THE CORPORATION ON ITS OWN
PROFITS.  THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION RAISED BY THESE PETITIONS IS WHETHER
THESE AMOUNTS CONSTITUTE "INCOME  ...  TAXES PAID OR ACCRUED DURING THE
TAXABLE YEAR TO (A) FOREIGN COUNTRY" SO AS TO ENTITLE THE STOCKHOLDERS,
IF THEY ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, TO CREDITS OF THOSE AMOUNTS
UPON THEIR UNITED STATES INCOME TAX, BY VIRTUE OF SEC. 131(A)(1) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  A FURTHER QUESTION IS WHETHER ANY OF THE AMOUNTS
NOT SO AVAILABLE AS A CREDIT MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM GROSS INCOME UNDER
SEC. 23(C)(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE NET INCOME
SUBJECT TO TAX. 

PETITIONER IN NO. 55 AND RESPONDENT IN NO. 505, HEREAFTER CALLED THE
TAXPAYERS, RECEIVED CASH DIVIDENDS DURING THE TAXABLE YEARS 1929 AND
1931, RESPECTIVELY, ON THEIR STOCK IN THREE BRITISH CORPORATIONS.  EACH
OF THE CORPORATIONS HAVING ITSELF PAID OR BECOME LIABLE TO PAY THE
BRITISH TAX ON THE PROFITS THUS DISTRIBUTED, NO FURTHER EXACTION AT THE
"STANDARD" (NORMAL) RATE WAS DUE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT ON ACCOUNT OF
THE DISTRIBUTION FROM EITHER THE STOCKHOLDERS OR THE CORPORATION.  FN1
ONLY IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUALS WHOSE INCOME EXCEEDS A STATED AMOUNT IS
A SURTAX LEVIED.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CORPORATIONS ARE DIRECTED
TO CERTIFY TO SHAREHOLDERS, AT THE TIME OF SENDING OUT WARRANTS FOR THE
DIVIDENDS, THE GROSS AMOUNT FROM WHICH THE INCOME TAX "APPROPRIATE
THERETO" IS DEDUCTED, THE RATE AND AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX APPROPRIATE
TO THE GROSS AMOUNT, AND THE NET AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID.  FN2 

THE TAX "APPROPRIATE" TO THE DIVIDEND IS COMPUTED BY APPLYING THE
STANDARD RATE FOR THE YEAR OF DISTRIBUTION, TO THE VALUE OF THE MONEY
OR OTHER PROPERTY DISTRIBUTED.  FN3  THE AMOUNT SO COMPUTED WILL EQUAL
THE TAX PAID AT THE STANDARD RATE BY THE CORPORATION ON ITS PROFITS IF,
BUT ONLY IF, THE TAX RATE IS THE SAME IN THE YEAR WHEN THE PROFITS ARE
EARNED AS IN THE YEAR WHEN THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED. 

ONE OF THE COMPANIES AVAILED ITSELF OF THE STATUTORY PERMISSION  FN4
TO DECLARE A GROSS DIVIDEND, FROM WHICH IT DEDUCTED THE TAX BEFORE
ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION, CERTIFYING TO THE TAXPAYERS THAT THE DIVIDEND
WOULD BE PAID "LESS" INCOME TAX.  THE OTHER TWO COMPANIES DECLARED THE
DIVIDEND IN THE AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED TO STOCKHOLDERS AND CERTIFIED THAT
IT WAS "FREE OF TAX."  THE CERTIFICATES OF THE LATTER DID NOT PURPORT
TO SHOW ANY DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM A GROSS DIVIDEND, BUT DID INDICATE
THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX APPROPRIATE TO THE DIVIDEND AND SHOWED THE SAME
NET RETURN TO STOCKHOLDERS AS IF THE TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED FROM A
COMPUTED GROSS DIVIDEND. 

IN THEIR RETURNS TRANSMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INLAND REVENUE OF
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, THE TAXPAYERS REPORTED AS INCOME SUBJECT TO
SURTAX THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAXES APPROPRIATE TO THEIR DIVIDENDS, IN
ADDITION TO THE MONEY ACTUALLY RECEIVED, AND PAID SURTAXES ON THAT
TOTAL SUM.  IN THEIR UNITED STATES INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THOSE YEARS,
THE TAXPAYERS INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME THE ENTIRE SUMS SO REPORTED IN
THE BRITISH RETURNS.  UP TO THE LIMIT SET BY SEC. 131(B), THEY CLAIMED
AS CREDITS AGAINST THE TAX PAYABLE TO THE UNITED STATES THE AMOUNT OF
BRITISH TAX APPROPRIATE TO THE DIVIDENDS AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF
SURTAX PAID.  A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME WAS CLAIMED UNDER SEC.
23(C)(2) FOR THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE LIMIT WAS EXCEEDED. 

DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS OF THE TAXPAYERS WERE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD OF
TAX APPEALS FOR REVIEW.  THERE THE ISSUES WERE NARROWED TO THE
QUESTIONS NOW BEFORE US, WHETHER THE TAXPAYERS, AFTER ADDING TO GROSS
INCOME THE AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN THE BRITISH RETURNS AS TAXES APPROPRIATE
TO THE DIVIDENDS RECEIVED, WERE THEN ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THOSE AMOUNTS
FROM THE TAX AS COMPUTED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY SEC. 131(B), AND
WHETHER THE EXCESS WAS A PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME. 

THE BOARD HELD THAT THE SUMS IN DISPUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED
IN GROSS INCOME, BECAUSE THEY REPRESENTED NEITHER PROPERTY RECEIVED BY
THE TAXPAYERS NOR THE DISCHARGE OF ANY TAXES OWED BY THEM TO THE
BRITISH GOVERNMENT.  IT HELD FURTHER THAT SEC. 131(A)(1) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1928, WHICH DIRECTS THAT THE INCOME TAX BE CREDITED WITH "THE
AMOUNT OF ANY INCOME  ...  TAXES PAID OR ACCRUED DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR TO ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY  ..."  IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THE UNITED
KINGDOM FAILS TO TAX DIVIDENDS AT THE NORMAL RATE, AND HENCE THE TAXES
APPROPRIATE TO DIVIDENDS WERE PAID BY THE CORPORATIONS RATHER THAN THE
TAXPAYER STOCKHOLDERS. 

IN NO. 55 THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE
DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD, 86 F.(2D) 718, SINCE FOLLOWED BY THAT
CIRCUIT IN F.W. WOOLWORTH CO. V. UNITED STATES, 91 F.(2D) 973, AND THE
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, IN NO. 505, REVERSED, 91 F.(2D)
534, FOLLOWING A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
IN UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. WHITE, 89 F.(2D) 363.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT OF DECISION, AND BECAUSE OF THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 

AT THE OUTSET IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT DECISION MUST TURN ON THE
PRECISE MEANING OF THE WORDS IN THE STATUTE WHICH GRANTS TO THE CITIZEN
TAXPAYER A CREDIT FOR FOREIGN "INCOME TAXES PAID."  THE POWER TO TAX
AND TO GRANT THE CREDIT RESIDES IN CONGRESS, AND IT IS THE WILL OF
CONGRESS WHICH CONTROLS THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS FOR CREDIT. 
THE EXPRESSION OF ITS WILL IN LEGISLATION MUST BE TAKEN TO CONFORM TO
ITS OWN CRITERIA UNLESS THE STATUTE, BY EXPRESS LANGUAGE OR NECESSARY
IMPLICATION, MAKES THE MEANING OF THE PHRASE "PAID OR ACCRUED," AND
HENCE THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE IN WHICH IT OCCURS, DEPEND UPON ITS
CHARACTERIZATION BY THE FOREIGN STATUTES AND BY DECISIONS UNDER THEM. 
CF. CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292, 294; WEISS V.
WEINER, 279 U.S. 333, 337; BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110. 

DETERMINED BY FOREIGN TAXING STATUTES AND DECISIONS, AND THERE IS
NOTHING IN ITS LANGUAGE TO SUGGEST THAT IN ALLOWING THE CREDIT FOR
FOREIGN TAX PAYMENTS, A SHIFTING STANDARD WAS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE TO
FOREIGN CHARACTERIZATIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF TAX LEGISLATION.  THE
PHRASE "INCOME TAXES PAID," AS USED IN OUR OWN REVENUE LAWS, HAS FOR
MOST PRACTICAL PURPOSES A WELL UNDERSTOOD MEANING TO BE DERIVED FROM AN
EXAMINATION OF THE STATUTES WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE LAYING AND COLLECTION
OF INCOME TAXES.  IT IS THAT MEANING WHICH MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO IT AS
USED IN SEC. 131. 

HENCE THE BOARD'S FINDING, SUPPORTED AS IT IS BY MUCH EXPERT
TESTIMONY, THAT "THE STOCKHOLDER RECEIVING THE DIVIDEND IS REGARDED IN
THE ENGLISH INCOME TAX ACTS AS HAVING PAID 'BY DEDUCTION OR OTHERWISE'
THE TAX 'APPROPRIATE' TO THE DIVIDEND" IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.  AT MOST IT
IS BUT A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED IN DECIDING WHETHER THE STOCKHOLDER
PAYS THE TAX WITHIN THE MEANING OF OUR OWN STATUTE.  THAT MUST
ULTIMATELY BE DETERMINED BY ASCERTAINING FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE
MANNER IN WHICH THE BRITISH TAX IS LAID AND COLLECTED WHAT THE
STOCKHOLDER HAS DONE IN CONFORMITY TO BRITISH LAW AND WHETHER IT IS THE
SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT OF PAYMENT OF THE TAX AS THOSE TERMS ARE USED IN
OUR OWN STATUTE. 

WE ARE HERE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE "STANDARD" OR NORMAL TAX.  THE
SCHEME OF THE BRITISH LEGISLATION IS TO IMPOSE ON CORPORATE EARNINGS
ONLY ONE STANDARD TAX, AT THE SOURCE, AND TO AVOID THE "DOUBLE"
TAXATION OF THE CORPORATE INCOME AS IT PASSES TO THE HANDS OF ITS
STOCKHOLDERS, EXCEPT AS THEY ARE SUBJECT TO SURTAX WHICH THE
CORPORATION DOES NOT PAY.  THE CORPORATION PAYS THE STANDARD TAX AND
AGAINST IT THE REMEDIES FOR NON-PAYMENT RUN.  IT HAS BEEN INTIMATED
THAT THE SHAREHOLDER MAY BE HELD TO PAYMENT OF THE TAX IN THE EVENT OF
THE CORPORATION'S DEFAULT, HAMILTON V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE,
16 BRITISH TAX CASES, 213, 236, BUT THE CONTRARY VIEW FINDS MORE
SUPPORT IN JUDICIAL OPINION, ID. AT 230; DALGETY & CO., LTD. V.
COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, 15 BRITISH TAX CASES, 216.  238;
NEUMANN V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, 18 BRITISH TAX CASES, 341,
345, 358, 362-363, 368, AND WAS ADOPTED BY THE TAXPAYERS' EXPERT. 

ALTHOUGH THE CORPORATION, IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AS HERE, PAYS THE TAX
AND IS BOUND TO PAY IT, THE TAX BURDEN IN POINT OF SUBSTANCE IS PASSED
ON TO THE STOCKHOLDERS IN THE SAME WAY THAT IT IS PASSED ON UNDER OUR
OWN TAXING ACTS WHERE THE TAX ON THE CORPORATE INCOME IS CHARGED AS AN
EXPENSE BEFORE ANY PART OF THE RESULTING NET PROFIT IS DISTRIBUTED TO
STOCKHOLDERS.  SEE MAGILL, TAXABLE INCOME, 24 ET SEQ. WHETHER THE TAX
IS DEDUCTED FROM GROSS PROFITS BEFORE A DIVIDEND IS DECLARED, OR AFTER,
WHEN THE DEDUCTION IS TAKEN FROM THE GROSS DIVIDEND, THE NET AMOUNT
RECEIVED BY THE STOCKHOLDER IS THE SAME.  UNDER EITHER SYSTEM, IF NO
DIVIDEND IS DECLARED NO TAX IS PAID BY THE STOCKHOLDER.  FN5  IF A
DIVIDEND IS DECLARED IT MUST BE PAID, HOWEVER THE DEDUCTION IS MADE,
FROM WHAT IS LEFT AFTER THE CORPORATION HAS PAID TAXES UPON ITS
EARNINGS.  THE DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO METHODS OF DEDUCTION ARE TO BE
FOUND ONLY IN THE FORMAL BOOKKEEPING DATA WHICH, IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM,
ARE COMMUNICATED TO THE STOCKHOLDERS, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAYING OR
COLLECTING THE TAX WHICH THE CORPORATION HAS ALREADY PAID OR MUST PAY,
BUT TO AID THE STOCKHOLDERS IN COMPUTING THEIR SURTAX AND IN SECURING
THE BENEFIT OF ANY REFUND OF THE TAX. 

THE STOCKHOLDERS' SURTAX IS COMPUTED UPON THE GROSS DIVIDEND, THE
DIVIDEND WHICH HE ACTUALLY RECEIVES PLUS THE TAX DEDUCTED.  FN6  IF THE
STOCKHOLDER'S INCOME IS EXEMPT OR LESS THAN THE MINIMUM AMOUNT SUBJECT
TO THE TAX, REFUND IS MADE TO HIM OF THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE TAX
PAID BY THE CORPORATION.  FN7  IT IS UPON THESE FEATURES OF THE BRITISH
SYSTEM THAT THE TAXPAYERS CHIEFLY RELY TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT THAT
THE STOCKHOLDER PAYS THE TAX.  FOR THESE LIMITED PURPOSES, WHICH DO NOT
AFFECT THE ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT OF THE TAX, IT IS TRUE THAT THE
BRITISH ACTS TREAT THE STOCKHOLDER AS THOUGH HE WERE THE TAXPAYER.  BUT
WITH RESPECT TO THE SURTAX THE STOCKHOLDER PAYS IT AND THE TAXPAYERS
HERE HAVE RECEIVED FOR ITS PAYMENT THE CREDIT WHICH OUR STATUTE
ALLOWS.  INCLUSION OF THE DEDUCTED AMOUNT IN THE BASE ON WHICH SURTAX
IS CALCULATED, TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISIONS FOR REFUND OF THE TAX TO
THE STOCKHOLDER WHO, IN ANY EVENT, BEARS ITS ECONOMIC BURDEN, ARE
LOGICAL RECOGNITIONS OF THE BRITISH CONCEPTION THAT THE STANDARD TAX
PAID BY THE CORPORATION IS PASSED ON TO THE STOCKHOLDERS. 

OUR REVENUE LAWS GIVE NO RECOGNITION TO THAT CONCEPTION.  ALTHOUGH THE
TAX BURDEN OF THE CORPORATION IS PASSED ON TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS WITH
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME RESULTS TO THEM AS UNDER THE BRITISH SYSTEM, OUR
STATUTES TAKE NO ACCOUNT OF THAT FACT IN ESTABLISHING THE RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS OF TAXPAYERS.  UNTIL RECENTLY THEY HAVE NOT LAID A TAX,
EXCEPT SURTAX, ON DIVIDENDS, BUT THEY HAVE NEVER TREATED THE
STOCKHOLDER FOR ANY PURPOSE AS PAYING THE TAX COLLECTED FROM THE
CORPORATION.  NOR HAVE THEY TREATED AS TAXPAYERS THOSE UPON WHOM NO
LEGAL DUTY TO PAY THE TAX IS LAID.  MEASURED BY THESE STANDARDS OUR
STATUTES AFFORD NO SCOPE FOR SAYING THAT THE STOCKHOLDER OF A BRITISH
CORPORATION PAYS THE TAX WHICH IS LAID UPON AND COLLECTED FROM THE
CORPORATION, AND NO BASIS FOR A DECISION THAT SEC. 131 EXTENDS TO SUCH
A STOCKHOLDER A CREDIT FOR A TAX PAID BY THE CORPORATION - A PRIVILEGE
NOT GRANTED TO STOCKHOLDERS IN OUR OWN CORPORATIONS.  IT CAN HARDLY BE
SAID THAT A TAX PAID TO THE CROWN BY A BRITISH CORPORATION SUBJECT TO
UNITED STATES INCOME TAX IS NOT A TAX PAID WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
23(C)(2), OF THE 1928 ACT, WHICH ALLOWS A DEDUCTION FROM GROSS INCOME
FOR TAXES PAID TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY, CF. WELCH V. ST. HELENS PETROLEUM
CO., 78 F.(2D) 631, OR THAT ITS STOCKHOLDERS COULD TAKE CREDIT UNDER
SEC. 131 FOR THEIR SHARE OF THE TAX ON THE THEORY THAT THEY ALSO HAD
PAID IT. 

THE TAXPAYERS URGE THAT DEPARTMENTAL RULINGS SUSTAINING CREDITS OR
DEDUCTIONS BY STOCKHOLDERS OF BRITISH CORPORATIONS, S.M. 3040, IV-1
C.B. 198; S.M. 5363, V-1 C.B. 89; I.T. 2401, VII-1 C.B. 126; G.C.M.
3179, VII-1 C.B. 240, HAVE TAKEN ON THE FORCE OF LAW BY VIRTUE OF THE
REENACTMENT OF THE DEDUCTION AND CREDIT PROVISIONS CARRIED INTO SECS.
23 AND 131 OF THE 1928 ACT.  LAYING ASIDE THE FACT THAT DEPARTMENTAL
RULINGS NOT PROMULGATED BY THE SECRETARY ARE OF LITTLE AID IN
INTERPRETING A TAX STATUTE, HELVERING V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 292 U.S.
455, 467-468, THESE RULINGS REST FOR THEIR CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE
APPLICATION OF SEC. 131 UPON THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE NATURE AND
EFFECT OF THE BRITISH LEGISLATION.  THE PRESUMPTION THAT CONGRESS, IN
REENACTING A STATUTE, CAN ASCERTAIN THE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
INTERPRETATION AND, KNOWING ITS OWN INTENT, WILL CORRECT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING IF MISTAKEN, CANNOT APPLY TO RULINGS UPON THE
INTENT OF OTHER LEGISLATIVE BODIES.  SO FAR AS THE RULINGS WITH WHICH
WE ARE NOW CONCERNED SOUGHT TO STATE THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF BRITISH
LAW THEY CAN HAVE NO MORE BINDING EFFECT ON COURTS THAN IN THE CASE OF
ANY DETERMINATION OF FACT WHICH CALLS INTO OPERATION THE TAXING
STATUTES.  SO FAR AS THEY HAVE CONSTRUED OUR OWN STATUTE AS ADOPTING
THE BRITISH CHARACTERIZATION, THEY PLAINLY MISINTERPRET AN UNAMBIGUOUS
PROVISION.  WHERE THE LAW IS PLAIN THE SUBSEQUENT REENACTMENT OF A
STATUTE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ADOPTION OF ITS ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION.  ISELIN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 245; LOUISVILLE & N.R.
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 740; HELVERING V. NEW YORK TRUST CO.,
SUPRA. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS DECISIVE OF THE SECOND QUESTION, WHETHER ANY OF
THE AMOUNTS NOT AVAILABLE FOR CREDIT UNDER SEC. 131 MAY BE DEDUCTED
FROM GROSS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT TAXABLE NET INCOME. 
BY SEC. 23(C)(2) OF THE 1928 ACT THE DEDUCTIONS OF "INCOME  ...  TAXES
IMPOSED BY THE AUTHORITY OF ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY" ARE LIMITED TO TAXES
PAID OR ACCRUED.  SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE TAXPAYER HAS NOT PAID OR
BECOME SUBJECT TO THE FOREIGN TAX HERE IN QUESTION, THE SECTION BY ITS
TERMS IS INAPPLICABLE.  NO. 55, AFFIRMED.  NO. 505, REVERSED. 

FN1  BRITISH INCOME TAX ACT 1918, 8 AND 9 GEO. V, C. 40, AS AMENDED
BY SEC. 38, FINANCE ACT OF 1927, 17 AND 18 GEO. V, C. 10.  GENERAL RULE
1 OF THE 1918 ACT PROVIDES, "EVERY BODY OF PERSONS SHALL BE CHARGEABLE
TO TAX IN LIKE MANNER AS ANY PERSON IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ACT."  BY SEC. 237 OF THE 1918 ACT "BODY OF PERSONS" INCLUDES
"ANY COMPANY  ...  WHETHER CORPORATE OR NOT CORPORATE." 

FN2  SECTION 33, FINANCE ACT OF 1924, 14 AND 15 GEO. V, C. 21. 

FN3  THE ACT OF 1918 PRESCRIBES GENERAL RULES FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND
COLLECTION OF TAXES "ON PROFITS FROM PROPERTY, TRADE OR BUSINESS."  BY
GENERAL RULE 20 IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE TAX IS TO BE PAID ON THE "FULL
AMOUNT" OF THE PROFIT "BEFORE ANY DIVIDEND THEREOF IS MADE IN RESPECT
OF ANY SHARE  ...  AND THE BODY OF PERSONS PAYING SUCH DIVIDEND SHALL
BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCT THE TAX APPROPRIATE THERETO."  THE TAX
"APPROPRIATE" TO A DIVIDEND PAYMENT IS THE STANDARD RATE OF TAX FOR THE
YEAR IN WHICH THE DIVIDEND IS DECLARED, REGARDLESS OF THE RATE AT WHICH
THE AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED WAS IN FACT TAXED WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE
COMPANY.  HAMILTON V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, 16 BRITISH TAX
CASES, 213, 229, 234; NEUMANN V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, 18
BRITISH TAX CASES, 332, 359, 361. 

FN4  GENERAL RULE 20, INCOME TAX OF 1918. 

FN5  CF. DALGETY & CO., LTD. V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, 15
BRITISH TAX CASES 216, 238; NEUMANN V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE,
18 BRITISH TAX CASES 341, 345, 358, 362-363, 368. 

FN6  HAMILTON V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, 16 BRITISH TAX
CASES 213, 229, 234; NEUMANN V. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE, 18
BRITISH TAX CASES 332, 345, 358-360, 361. 

FN7  INCOME TAX ACT OF 1918, SECS. 29(1), 55(1), 211(1) AS AMENDED BY
FINANCE ACT, 1920, SEC. 27(1). 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, AND MR. JUSTICE
BUTLER ARE OF OPINION THAT THE APPLICABLE RULE WAS CORRECTLY STATED BY
THE LOWER COURT IN NO. 505, ELKINS V. COMMISSIONER, 91 F.(2D) 534, AND
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT IN UNITED SHOE
MACHINERY CORP. V. WHITE, 89 F.(2D) 363, AND THAT THE CHALLENGED
JUDGMENT IN NO. 55 SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT IN NO. 505 AFFIRMED. 
..END :














R.R. COMM'N V. PACIFIC GAS CO., 302 U.S. 388 


NO. 804(OCTOBER TERM, 1936).  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1937.  REARGUED NOVEMBER
11, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 13 F.SUPP.  931 - 16 ID. 884,
REVERSED. 


1.  HAVING ACQUIRED JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF FEDERAL QUESTIONS, THE
DISTRICT COURT MAY DETERMINE ALL QUESTIONS IN THE CASE, LOCAL AS WELL
AS FEDERAL.  P. 391. 

2.  THE RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE COMMISSION, IN
FIXING ITS RATES FOR GAS, DENIED IT THE HEARING REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT.  P. 391. 

3.  WHETHER THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS FOUND SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE IT, CANNOT BE DETERMINED UPON A RECORD NOT CONTAINING THAT
EVIDENCE.  P. 392. 

4.  WHEN THE RATE-MAKING AGENCY OF THE STATE GIVES A FAIR HEARING,
RECEIVES AND CONSIDERS THE COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT IS OFFERED, AFFORDS
OPPORTUNITY THROUGH EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT TO CHALLENGE THE RESULT, AND
MAKES ITS DETERMINATION UPON EVIDENCE AND NOT ARBITRARILY, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ARE MET, AND THE QUESTION THAT
REMAINS FOR THIS COURT, OR A LOWER FEDERAL COURT, IS NOT AS TO THE MERE
CORRECTNESS OF THE METHOD AND REASONING ADOPTED BY THE REGULATING
AGENCY BUT WHETHER THE RATES IT FIXES WILL RESULT IN CONFISCATION.  P.
393. 

5.  AFFIDAVITS USED BEFORE THE COURT BELOW AND THE COMMISSION'S
OFFICIAL OPINION DISPROVE THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT, IN FIXING
ITS RATES, THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF
REPRODUCTION OR TO CONSIDER THAT OR OTHER EVIDENCE OFFERED BY
RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY.  P. 395. 

6.  IN FIXING RATES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY, A STATE COMMISSION MAY WEIGH
THE EVIDENCE OF REPRODUCTION COST, ETC. AND MAY DETERMINE THE PROBATIVE
FORCE OF ESTIMATES OF VALUE.  P. 397. 

7.  HISTORICAL COST, AS WELL AS COST OF REPRODUCTION, IS ADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF A PUBLIC UTILITY'S PROPERTY.  P. 398. 

8.  THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION CONTAINED IN ITS OFFICIAL OPINION
IN THIS CASE SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND WHAT IT REGARDED AS A
REASONABLE VALUE FOR RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING
RATES AND FIXED THE RATES ON THAT BASIS.  P. 400. 

9.  ONE WHO COMPLAINS IN A FEDERAL COURT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
INVALIDITY OF STATE-MADE RATES, HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT
INVALIDITY BY CONVINCING PROOF.  P. 401. 

10.  THE COURT SEES NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR DIRECTING THAT THE
EVIDENCE BE SENT UP FOR THE PURPOSE OF AIDING IN DETERMINING THE
PROCEDURAL POINTS PRESENTED ON THIS APPEAL.  THE MAIN ISSUE IN THE CASE
IS WHETHER THE RATES AS FIXED ARE CONFISCATORY - AN ISSUE WHICH WAS
NOT, BUT SHOULD BE, DECIDED, BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  P. 401. 

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. V. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES,
PERMANENTLY ENJOINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER FIXING THE RATES FOR
GAS SUPPLIED BY THE ABOVENAMED RESPONDENT.  THE CASE WAS HEARD AT THE
LAST TERM AND THE DECREE AFFIRMED BY A DIVIDED COURT, 301 U.S. 669. 
REHEARING WAS GRANTED AND REARGUMENT WAS ORDERED, POST, P. 771. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, COMPOSED
OF THREE JUDGES (28 U.S.C. 380), PERMANENTLY ENJOINING AN ORDER OF THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 

THE COMMISSION BY ITS ORDER ON NOVEMBER 13, 1933, IN A PROCEEDING
INSTITUTED ON ITS OWN MOTION, FIXED RATES FOR GAS SUPPLIED BY
RESPONDENT.  IN THIS SUIT, THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER WAS CHALLENGED AS
DEPRIVING RESPONDENT OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES.  AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED AND THE CAUSE WAS
REFERRED TO A SPECIAL MASTER.  THE PARTIES STIPULATED FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF THE CAUSE UPON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION WITH
CERTAIN SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE.  FOLLOWING A HEARING, THE MASTER ON THE
BASIS OF FINDINGS AS TO VALUE, EXPENSES AND REVENUES, CONCLUDED THAT
THE RATES PRESCRIBED WERE CONFISCATORY AND VOID.  13 F.SUPP.  PP. 931,
932.  THE DISTRICT COURT EXPRESSLY STATED THAT IT DID "NOT PASS UPON
THE FACTUAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE MASTER'S REPORT" AND DID "NOT APPROVE OR
REJECT HIS FINDINGS AS TO THE FAIR VALUE" OF THE PROPERTY "OR DETERMINE
THE NET INCOME" WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM THE ASSAILED RATES, "OR
DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE A FAIR RATE OF RETURN," BUT RESTED ITS DECISION
"SOLELY UPON THE DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY THE COMMISSION IN
FIXING THE RATES IN QUESTION."  ID., P. 936.  REHEARING WAS DENIED.  16
F.SUPP.  884.  ON APPEAL HERE THE DECREE WAS AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY
DIVIDED COURT.  301 U.S. 669.  REARGUMENT WAS ORDERED (OCTOBER 11,
1937) AND HAS BEEN HAD. 

THE PARTIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT BEFORE US THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS TAKEN
BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR THAT WAS BEFORE THE COURT BELOW, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE RESPONDENT AND
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION, RESPECTIVELY, IN RELATION TO THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  RESPONDENT HAS IN EFFECT CHALLENGED
THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION AS INVALID UPON THE FACE OF ITS OPINION
AND ORDER.  39 CAL. R. COM. 49.  APPELLANTS HAVE ACCEPTED THAT
CHALLENGE. 

1.  RESPONDENT SEEKS TO SUSTAIN THE DECREE UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE LAW.  BECAUSE OF THE
FEDERAL QUESTION RAISED BY THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, THE DISTRICT COURT
HAD JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ALL THE QUESTIONS IN THE CASE, LOCAL AS
WELL AS FEDERAL.  SILER V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 213 U.S. 175,
191; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. GARRETT, 231 U.S. 298, 303;
UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 300, 307. 

THE STATE STATUTE TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED (SEC. 32 OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT, CAL. STAT., 1923, P. 837, SET FORTH IN
THE MARGIN)  FN1  PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER THE COMMISSION AFTER A HEARING
SHALL FIND THE EXISTING RATES CHARGED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY TO BE UNJUST,
UNREASONABLE, DISCRIMINATORY OR PREFERENTIAL, THE COMMISSION SHALL
DETERMINE THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES TO BE THEREAFTER IN FORCE.  IN
THIS INSTANCE, THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SHOWS ON ITS FACE THAT THE
COMMISSION FOUND THE EXISTING RATES TO BE UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE.  39
CAL. R. COM., P. 77.  SO FAR AS RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THIS FINDING
WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY EVIDENCE, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THE
EVIDENCE IS NOT HERE AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE RULING LACKED SUPPORT. 

RESPONDENT STATES THAT IT WAS DENIED A PROPER HEARING, BUT THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSION HELD EXTENDED HEARINGS, AT WHICH THE EVIDENCE
OFFERED BY RESPONDENT WAS RECEIVED AND ITS ARGUMENTS WERE PRESENTED. 
FN2  39 CAL. R. COM., P. 51.  WHILE THESE HEARINGS WERE IN PROGRESS,
AND ON JUNE 16, 1933, RESPONDENT WAS CITED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY INTERIM
RATES SHOULD NOT BE PUT INTO EFFECT PENDING THE PROCEEDING.  RESPONDENT
STIPULATED THAT IT WOULD COMPLETE THE PRESENTATION OF ITS EVIDENCE
BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 1933, AND THAT THE RATES WHICH THE COMMISSION
ESTABLISHED IN THE PROCEEDING MIGHT, IF LOWER THAN THE EXISTING RATES,
BE MADE RETROACTIVE SO AS TO APPLY TO METER READINGS MADE AFTER JULY
16, 1933, AND BEFORE NOVEMBER 15, 1933.  THAT DATE WAS LATER CHANGED BY
STIPULATION TO JANUARY 1, 1934.  ID., PP. 52, 53. 

WE HAVE NOT BEEN REFERRED TO ANY STATE DECISIONS WARRANTING THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT AFFORD A HEARING IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE STATE LAW.  WE TURN TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION. 

2.  AS THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION
AND THE EVIDENCE IS NOT BEFORE US, WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE
QUESTION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, THAT IS, WHETHER THE COMMISSION IN
ITS PROCEDURE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EFFECT OF ITS ORDER UPON
RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY RIGHTS, FAILED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  WE EXAMINE THIS QUESTION IN THE LIGHT OF WELL
SETTLED PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE PROCEEDINGS OF RATE-MAKING
COMMISSIONS. 

THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND OPEN HEARING IS ONE OF THE RUDIMENTS OF FAIR
PLAY ASSURED TO EVERY LITIGANT BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS A MINIMAL
REQUIREMENT.  OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 301
U.S. 292, 304, 305.  THERE MUST BE DUE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD, THE PROCEDURE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ESSENTIALS OF A FAIR
TRIAL, AND THE COMMISSION MUST ACT UPON EVIDENCE AND NOT ARBITRARILY. 
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S.
88, 91; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 51,
73; MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 480-481; OHIO BELL TELEPHONE
CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, SUPRA.  AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE RESPONDENT
WAS HEARD, THE COMMISSION RECEIVED THE TESTIMONY OF RESPONDENT'S
WITNESSES, ITS EXHIBITS AND ARGUMENTS.  THERE IS NOTHING WHATEVER TO
SHOW THAT THE HEARING WAS NOT CONDUCTED FAIRLY. 

THE COMPLAINT IS NOT OF THE ABSENCE OF THESE RUDIMENTS OF FAIR PLAY
BUT OF THE METHOD BY WHICH THE COMMISSION ARRIVED AT ITS RESULT.  AS TO
THIS A FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION MUST BE OBSERVED.  WHILE A FAIR AND OPEN
HEARING MUST BE ACCORDED AS AN INEXORABLE SAFEGUARD, WE DO NOT SIT AS
AN APPELLATE BOARD OF REVISION BUT TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
SAN DIEGO LAND & TOWN CO. V. JASPER, 189 U.S. 439, 446.  WHEN THE RATE
MAKING AGENCY OF THE STATE GIVES A FAIR HEARING, RECEIVES AND CONSIDERS
THE COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT IS OFFERED, AFFORDS OPPORTUNITY THROUGH
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT TO CHALLENGE THE RESULT, AND MAKES ITS
DETERMINATION UPON EVIDENCE AND NOT ARBITRARILY, THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS ARE MET, AND THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS FOR THIS
COURT, OR A LOWER FEDERAL COURT, IS NOT AS TO THE MERE CORRECTNESS OF
THE METHOD AND REASONING ADOPTED BY THE REGULATING AGENCY BUT WHETHER
THE RATES IT FIXES WILL RESULT IN CONFISCATION. 

WE HAVE RECENTLY HAD OCCASION TO EMPHASIZE THIS DISTINCTION IN
PASSING UPON AN ORDER OF THE APPELLANT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF LOS
ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 287, 304, 305.  WE
SAID: 

"THE LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION IMPLIED IN THE RATE MAKING POWER
NECESSARILY EXTENDS TO THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, EMBRACING THE
METHOD USED IN REACHING THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION AS WELL AS THAT
DETERMINATION ITSELF.  WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH EITHER, SO LONG AS
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ARE NOT TRANSGRESSED.  WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE
METHOD IS DISCLOSED, IT MAY HAVE A DEFINITE BEARING UPON THE VALIDITY
OF THE RESULT REACHED, BUT THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE
DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  THAT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE
RATES AS FIXED ARE CONFISCATORY.  AND UPON THAT QUESTION THE
COMPLAINANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE COURT MAY NOT INTERFERE
WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S AUTHORITY UNLESS CONFISCATION IS
CLEARLY ESTABLISHED." 

THIS CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE WAS REITERATED, WITH DUE EMPHASIS UPON THE
NECESSITY OF A FAIR HEARING, IN THE CASE OF WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N, (NO. 1), 294 U.S. 63, 70, IN THESE WORDS: 

"OUR INQUIRY IN RATE CASES COMING HERE FROM THE STATE COURTS IS
WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE STATE OFFICIALS IN THE TOTALITY OF ITS
CONSEQUENCES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ENJOYMENT BY THE REGULATED UTILITY
OF A REVENUE SOMETHING HIGHER THAN THE LINE OF CONFISCATION.  IF THIS
LEVEL IS ATTAINED, AND ATTAINED WITH SUITABLE OPPORTUNITY THROUGH
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT (SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. VIRGINIA, 290 U.S. 190) TO
CHALLENGE THE RESULT, THERE IS NO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, THOUGH THE
PROCEEDING IS SHOT THROUGH WITH IRREGULARITY OR ERROR."  THE STATEMENT
IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE, AS THE LOS ANGELES CASE SHOWS, WHEN THE ORDER OF
A STATE COMMISSION IS ASSAILED IN A FEDERAL COURT. 

3.  THE GRAVAMEN OF RESPONDENT'S COMPLAINT IS THAT THE COMMISSION
REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE FAIR VALUE OF RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY AND IN
FIXING THE RATE BASE "GAVE WEIGHT AND EFFECT SOLELY TO THE HISTORICAL
COST." 

RESPONDENT SUPPORTS ITS CONTENTION BY REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF
THE COMMISSION THAT DURING ITS ENTIRE HISTORY, "TO DETERMINE A PROPER
RATE BASE THIS COMMISSION HAS USED THE ACTUAL OR ESTIMATED HISTORICAL
COSTS OF THE PROPERTIES UNDEPRECIATED, WITH LAND AT THE PRESENT MARKET
VALUE," AND, CONSISTENTLY WITH THAT, THE COMMISSION HAS "USED THE
SINKING FUND METHOD TO DETERMINE THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION TO BE
INCLUDED IN OPERATING EXPENSES."  THE COMMISSION GAVE ITS REASONS WHY
THIS "HISTORICAL METHOD HAS DOMINATED THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS."  39
CAL. R. COM., PP. 57, 58.  THE TEXT OF THIS PORTION OF THE COMMISSION'S
STATEMENT IS GIVEN IN THE MARGIN.  FN3 REFERENCE IS ALSO MADE TO
STATEMENTS OF THE COMMISSION IN ITS SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION IN THE
LIGHT OF THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE MOTION FOR AN
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  ID., PP. 198, 202; 5 F.SUPP.  878. 

BUT IT DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THESE STATEMENTS THAT THE COMMISSION
REFUSED TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPRODUCTION OR TO CONSIDER
THAT OR OTHER EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY.  THE CONTRARY CLEARLY APPEARS. 

RESPONDENT SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIDAVITS OF ITS
PRESIDENT SETTING FORTH ITS CONTENTION THAT NO CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN
TO REPRODUCTION COST.  THIS CONTENTION WAS COMBATTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THE
COMMISSION GAVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE TESTIMONY OF RECORD
RELATIVE TO VALUE AND TO THE TESTIMONY OFFERED BY RESPONDENT RESPECTING
REPRODUCTION COST.  THESE AFFIDAVITS ARE OF SLIGHT VALUE AS WE HAVE THE
OFFICIAL OPINION OF THE COMMISSION STATING THE COURSE WHICH IT
PURSUED.  THAT OPINION SHOWS PRECISELY WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS DONE IN
THIS INSTANCE.  THE COMMISSION STATES, 39 CAL. R. COM. P. 64: 

"TESTIMONY REGARDING THE COST TO REPRODUCE THE PROPERTIES HERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION WAS PRESENTED BY THE COMPANY'S VALUATION ENGINEER ON
SEVERAL PRICE BASES, ALL BEING DEVELOPED THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
PRICE TRANSLATION FACTORS, AND NOT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
APPROPRIATE PRICES TO AN INVENTORY OF THE PROPERTY.  IN EACH PRICING
PERIOD OFFERED THE ESTIMATE TO REPRODUCE WAS HIGHER THAN THE HISTORICAL
COST.  FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS' PERIOD OF 1933 THE REPRODUCTION COST
WAS SHOWN AS 8 PER CENT HIGHER THAN HISTORICAL.  A PERUSAL OF PRICE
TREND CHARTS INTRODUCED BY THE COMPANY ELSEWHERE IN THE PROCEEDINGS
INDICATES THAT THE ESTIMATE MUST BE IN ERROR.  IT IS NOT CONCEIVABLE
THAT A PROPERTY, 80 PER CENT. OF WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE HIGH
PRICE PERIOD FOLLOWING 1919, COULD NOT BE REPRODUCED FOR A LESSER COST
UNDER PRICES PREVAILING IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1933.  WITNESS FOR
THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO CLEARLY INDICATED WHY THE ESTIMATE WAS
ERRONEOUS WHEN HE SHOWED THAT THE METHOD USED IGNORED CERTAIN FACTORS
TENDING IN LATER YEARS TO DECREASE COST, SUCH AS IMPROVEMENT IN
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS, INCREASED USE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT AND A LESSENING IN THE WIDTH OF THE EXCAVATIONS AND PAVEMENT
CUT.  THE ESTIMATES OF COST TO REPRODUCE ARE NOT AT ALL CONVINCING AND
CANNOT BE OF POSITIVE VALUE IN THIS PROCEEDING." 

THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED, WHETHER
RELATING TO REPRODUCTION COST OR TO OTHER MATTERS.  THE COMMISSION WAS
ENTITLED TO DETERMINE THE PROBATIVE FORCE OF RESPONDENT'S ESTIMATES. 
THAT THE COMMISSION DID SO IS APPARENT FROM BOTH ITS STATEMENT TO THAT
EFFECT AND THE REASONS IT GIVES FOR CONSIDERING THESE ESTIMATES TO BE
WITHOUT POSITIVE VALUE.  THE COMMISSION COMPARED THEM WITH OTHER
EVIDENCE AND FOUND THE ESTIMATES TO BE ERRONEOUS.  IT FOUND THAT 80 PER
CENT. OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN THE PRIOR "HIGH PRICE
PERIOD" AND THE COMMISSION THOUGHT IT INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE PROPERTY
COULD NOT BE REPRODUCED "FOR A LESSER COST UNDER PRICES PREVAILING IN
THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 1933."  THESE STATEMENTS NOT ONLY DO NOT
SUGGEST BUT DEFINITELY REBUT AN INFERENCE OF ARBITRARY ACTION.    THERE
IS NO PRINCIPLE OF DUE PROCESS WHICH REQUIRES THE RATE MAKING BODY TO
BASE ITS DECISION AS TO VALUE, OR ANYTHING ELSE, UPON CONJECTURAL AND
UNSATISFACTORY ESTIMATES.  WE HAVE HAD FREQUENT OCCASION TO REJECT SUCH
ESTIMATES.  MINNESOTA RATE CASE, 230 U.S. 352, 452; LOS ANGELES GAS CO.
V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, SUPRA, PP. 307, 310, 311; LINDHEIMER V.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., 292 U.S. 151, 163, 164.  WHETHER IN THIS
INSTANCE THE COMMISSION WAS IN ERROR IN TREATING RESPONDENT'S ESTIMATES
AS WITHOUT PROBATIVE FORCE, WE HAVE NO MEANS OF KNOWING AS THE EVIDENCE
IS NOT BEFORE US, BUT ITS ERROR IN THAT CONCLUSION, IF ERROR THERE BE,
WAS NOT A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, SUPRA; OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION,
SUPRA. 

NOR DID THE RULING WITH RESPECT TO THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AS TO
REPRODUCTION COST LEAVE THE COMMISSION WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF
RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY.  WE HAVE FREQUENTLY HELD THAT HISTORICAL COST IS
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF VALUE.  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE LOS ANGELES CASE WE
SAID THAT "NO ONE WOULD QUESTION THAT THE REASONABLE COST OF AN
EFFICIENT PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM 'IS GOOD EVIDENCE OF ITS VALUE AT THE
TIME OF CONSTRUCTION,'" AND THAT "SUCH ACTUAL COST WILL CONTINUE FAIRLY
WELL TO MEASURE THE AMOUNT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PHYSICAL ELEMENTS OF
THE PROPERTY SO LONG AS THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE LEVEL OF APPLICABLE
PRICES," CITING MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 272 U.S. 400, 411. 
AND WE ADDED THAT "WHEN SUCH A CHANGE IN THE PRICE LEVEL HAS OCCURRED,
ACTUAL EXPERIENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY,
ESPECIALLY EXPERIENCED IN A RECENT PERIOD, MAY BE AN IMPORTANT CHECK
UPON EXTRAVAGANT ESTIMATES."  LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, SUPRA, P. 306.  WHILE THE COURT HAS FREQUENTLY DECLARED
THAT "IN ORDER TO DETERMINE PRESENT VALUE, THE COST OF REPRODUCING THE
PROPERTY IS A RELEVANT FACT WHICH SHOULD HAVE APPROPRIATE
CONSIDERATION," WE HAVE BEEN CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THAT "THE COURT HAS
NOT DECIDED THAT THE COST OF REPRODUCTION FURNISHES AN EXCLUSIVE TEST"
AND IN THAT RELATION WE HAVE "EMPHASIZED THE DANGER IN RESTING
CONCLUSIONS UPON ESTIMATES OF A CONJECTURAL CHARACTER."  LOS ANGELES
GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, SUPRA, P. 307.  AND IN THE LOS ANGELES
CASE, WITH THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE
COMMISSION AND BY THE DISTRICT COURT, WE HELD THAT ON THAT EVIDENCE IT
DID NOT APPEAR TO BE "UNFAIR TO THE COMPANY, IN FIXING RATES FOR THE
FUTURE, TO TAKE THE HISTORICAL COST AS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION AS
EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S STRUCTURAL PROPERTY AT THE TIME
OF THE RATE ORDER."  ID., P. 309.  IN THE INSTANT CASE WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE COMMISSION IN TAKING HISTORICAL COST AS THE RATE BASE WAS
MAKING A FINDING WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE ARBITRARY. 

THE DECISIONS CITED BY RESPONDENT DO NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT
CONCLUSION.  IN NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
268 U.S. 39, 43-45, WE SAID THAT THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN REDUCING
RATES BY AN ORDER DEPENDENT WHOLLY "UPON A FINDING MADE WITHOUT
EVIDENCE" OR "UPON A FINDING MADE UPON EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY DOES NOT
SUPPORT IT" IN THE FACE OF UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE OF PROBATIVE VALUE
SHOWING THAT THE RATES WERE ALREADY CONFISCATORY, WAS AN ARBITRARY ACT
AND A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  IN SO RULING, WE FULLY RECOGNIZED THE
PRINCIPLE THAT "MERE ERROR IN REASONING UPON EVIDENCE INTRODUCED" DOES
NOT INVALIDATE AN ORDER.  IN CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N, 274 U.S. 344, THE IDAHO COMMISSION AND THE STATE
COURT HAD REFUSED "TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY THE CARRIERS
TO SHOW THAT THE RATES IN QUESTION ARE TOO LOW AND CONFISCATORY."  IN
WEST V. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO., 295 U.S. 662, UPON WHICH
THE DISTRICT COURT RELIED, THE COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE COMMISSION
HAD BASED ITS ACTION UPON THE APPLICATION OF "GENERAL COMMODITY INDICES
TO A CONGLOMERATE OF ASSETS CONSTITUTING A UTILITY PLANT," AND HAD
RESORTED, ON ACCOUNT OF THE WIDE VARIATION OF RESULTS CAUSED BY THE USE
OF DIFFERENT INDICES, TO WHAT THE COURT DESCRIBED AS A "RULE OF THUMB
CORRECTIVE" BY "WEIGHTING THE SEVERAL INDICES UPON A PRINCIPLE KNOWN
ONLY TO ITSELF," AND HAD SUBSTITUTED THAT SORT OF CALCULATION "FOR SUCH
FACTORS AS HISTORICAL COST AND COST OF REPRODUCTION."  IN THAT VIEW,
THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ACTED ARBITRARILY, AND HENCE
THAT ITS ORDER FELL WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC CASE. 
NO SUCH PROCEDURE APPEARS HERE.  IN ST. LOUIS & O'FALLON RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 461, THE COURT WAS NOT DEALING WITH THE ORDER
OF A STATE COMMISSION, OR WITH A QUESTION OF DUE PROCESS, BUT WITH THE
COMMAND OF CONGRESS ADDRESSED TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN
RELATION TO ITS VALUATIONS OF RAILWAY PROPERTY.  THE COURT CONSTRUED
THAT COMMAND AND FOUND THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN OBEYED. 

4.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED TO FIND THE FAIR VALUE
OF RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY PRESENTS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME QUESTION IN
ANOTHER FORM.  WHAT THE COMMISSION FOUND APPEARS BY ITS OWN OPINION. 
THE COURT BELOW WAS BOUND TO GO TO THAT OPINION TO ASCERTAIN THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS.  THE COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY FOUND WHAT IT
CONSIDERED TO BE THE RATE BASE.  39 CAL. R. COM., P. 76.  THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT RATE BASE TO BE REASONABLE.  ID., P. 77, NOTE. 
THE IMPORT OF ITS OPINION IS THAT THE RATE BASE REPRESENTED THE
COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION AS TO THE VALUE WHICH SHOULD BE PLACED UPON
RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING RATES.  IT WAS UPON
THAT VALUATION THAT THE COMMISSION DISTINCTLY RULED THAT THE RATES IT
ESTABLISHED WOULD "ASSURE THE COMPANY A FAIR RETURN ON ITS
PROPERTIES."  RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO CONTEST THE VALUE THUS PLACED
UPON ITS PROPERTIES, OR ANY PART OF THEM, TO INSIST THAT THE VALUE
TAKEN AS THE RATE BASE WAS TOO LOW, AND THAT IN CONSEQUENCE THE
PRESCRIBED RATES WERE CONFISCATORY.  THAT WAS THE ISSUE UPON WHICH THE
COURT BELOW SHOULD HAVE PASSED.  BUT RESPONDENT CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY
CONTEND THAT IT WAS NOT HEARD BY THE COMMISSION, THAT THE EVIDENCE
RESPONDENT OFFERED WAS NOT RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED, AND ITS COMPETENCY
AND WEIGHT DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION, OR THAT THE COMMISSION DID NOT
PLACE ITS VALUATION UPON THE PROPERTY AND FIX THE RATES UPON THE BASIS
OF THAT VALUATION.  RESPONDENT UTTERLY FAILS TO SHOW THAT IN THE
PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION IT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

5.  THERE IS A FURTHER CONTENTION AS TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  BUT THE
APPLICABLE RULE IS CLEAR.  RESPONDENT IS IN A FEDERAL COURT COMPLAINING
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL INVALIDITY OF STATE-MADE RATES AND RESPONDENT IS
HELD TO THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT INVALIDITY BY CONVINCING PROOF.  LOS
ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, SUPRA, P. 305; LINDHEIMER V.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., SUPRA, P. 169; DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290, 298. 

RESPONDENT SUGGESTED IN THE ARGUMENT AT BAR THAT THE COURT SHOULD
DIRECT THE EVIDENCE TO BE SENT UP FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE
POINTS PRESENTED ON THIS APPEAL.  WE SEE NO SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THAT
COURSE.  THE PARTIES AGREED UPON THE RECORD TO BE SUBMITTED. 

THE MAIN ISSUE IN THIS LITIGATION IS WHETHER THE RATES AS FIXED BY
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER ARE CONFISCATORY.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT
DETERMINE THAT ISSUE.  THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD DETERMINE IT.  THE
DECREE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  32.  POWER TO CHANGE UNJUST RATES.  POWER TO FIX NEW
RATES.  PRESERVATION OF ADEQUATE SERVICE.  (A) WHENEVER THE COMMISSION,
AFTER A HEARING HAD UPON ITS OWN MOTION OR UPON COMPLAINT, SHALL FIND
THAT THE RATES, FARES, TOLLS, RENTALS, CHARGES OR CLASSIFICATIONS, OR
ANY OF THEM, DEMANDED, OBSERVED, CHARGED OR COLLECTED BY ANY PUBLIC
UTILITY FOR ANY SERVICE OR PRODUCT OR COMMODITY, OR IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH, INCLUDING THE RATES OR FARES FOR EXCURSION OR COMMUTATION
TICKETS, OR THAT THE RULES, REGULATIONS, PRACTICES OR CONTRACTS, OR ANY
OF THEM, AFFECTING SUCH RATES, FARES, TOLLS, RENTALS, CHARGES OR
CLASSIFICATIONS, OR ANY OF THEM, ARE UNJUST, UNREASONABLE,
DISCRIMINATORY OR PREFERENTIAL, OR IN ANY WISE IN VIOLATION OF ANY
PROVISION OF LAW, OR THAT SUCH RATES, FARES, TOLLS, RENTALS, CHARGES OR
CLASSIFICATIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT, THE COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE THE
JUST, REASONABLE OR SUFFICIENT RATES, FARES, TOLLS, RENTALS, CHARGES,
CLASSIFICATIONS, RULES, REGULATIONS, PRACTICES OR CONTRACTS TO BE
THEREAFTER OBSERVED AND IN FORCE, AND SHALL FIX THE SAME BY ORDER AS
HEREINAFTER PROVIDED." 

FN2  THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSION STATES THAT "IN ALL, 81 EXHIBITS
WERE INTRODUCED PRESENTING IN GREAT DETAIL THE UNDERLYING DATA OF THIS
PROCEEDING, AND 3729 PAGES OF TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT WERE TRANSCRIBED. 
MANY WITNESSES TESTIFIED UPON VARIOUS ISSUES PERTAINING TO A GENERAL
RATE CASE."  THE OPINION LISTS THE WITNESSES ON BOTH SIDES.  39 CAL. R.
COM., PP. 51, 52. 

FN3  "DURING ITS ENTIRE HISTORY IN ESTABLISHING REASONABLE RATES FOR
UTILITIES SIMILAR TO THIS COMPANY, TO DETERMINE A PROPER RATE BASE THIS
COMMISSION HAS USED THE ACTUAL OR ESTIMATED HISTORICAL COSTS OF THE
PROPERTIES UNDEPRECIATED, WITH LAND AT THE PRESENT MARKET VALUE. 
CONSISTENT WITH THIS, IT HAS USED THE SINKING FUND METHOD TO DETERMINE
THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION TO BE INCLUDED IN OPERATING EXPENSES. 

"THIS HISTORICAL METHOD HAS DOMINATED THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS FOR
SEVERAL PRINCIPAL REASONS.  IT IS WELL GROUNDED UPON ESTABLISHED FACTS,
IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE VAGARIES OF PET THEORIES, UNLIMITED IMAGINATION
AND ABRUPT FLUCTUATION OF CURRENT PRICES AND PASSING CONDITIONS, AND
THEREFORE INDICATES A TRUER MEASURE OF VALUE UPON WHICH, THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF RATES, A RETURN MAY BE ALLOWED TO REIMBURSE THE OWNER
FOR HIS ENTERPRISE AND INSURE THE INTEGRITY OF HIS CAPITAL HONESTLY AND
PRUDENTLY INVESTED.  AT THE SAME TIME IT PREVENTS UNWARRANTED DEMANDS
UPON THE CONSUMER THROUGH THE PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE RATES ON EPHEMERAL
VALUES AND STABILIZES RATES SO THAT ECONOMIC SHOCKS FROM SUCH CHANGES
ARE REDUCED TO A MINIMUM. 

"IT IS AN ECONOMICAL PROCEDURE, WHERE THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANIES ARE
REASONABLY WELL KEPT, AS OBTAINS IN PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE MAJOR
UTILITIES OF THIS STATE, FULL COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH WILL PREVENT
UNWARRANTED EXPENDITURES OF MONEY BY THE COMMISSION, THE PUBLIC AND THE
COMPANY, WHICH INURES TO THE BENEFIT OF BOTH THE CONSUMERS AND THE
UTILITY.  IT IS A MORE RAPID PROCEDURE INSURING QUICKER COMPLIANCE WITH
NECESSITIES AS THEY ARISE." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE REVERSAL OF THE DECREE. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION
OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE
COMPANY'S EVIDENCE OF THE COST OF REPRODUCTION AND FAILED TO FIND THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY USED TO FURNISH THE GAS COVERED BY THE CHALLENGED
RATES.  ON THAT BASIS OF FACT, IT WAS BOUND BY OUR DECISIONS TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER AS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN1 

THIS COURT HOLDS THAT THE COMMISSION DID CONSIDER THE COST OF
REPRODUCTION AND THAT ERROR, IF ANY, IN APPRECIATION OF THAT ITEM OF
EVIDENCE WOULD NOT BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.  BUT AS TO WHETHER THE
COMMISSION FOUND OR DID NOT FIND VALUE, THE OPINION IS NOT CLEAR.  IT
STATES THAT THE COMMISSION "SPECIFICALLY FOUND WHAT IT CONSIDERED TO BE
THE RATE BASE," FOUND "THAT RATE BASE TO BE REASONABLE," AND THAT "THE
IMPORT OF ITS OPINION IS THAT THE RATE BASE REPRESENTED THE
COMMISSION'S CONCLUSION AS TO THE VALUE WHICH SHOULD BE PLACED UPON
RESPONDENT'S (APPELLEE'S) PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING RATES." 
FN2  IF THE DECISION GOES ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND AND
BASED ITS ORDER ON THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY, IT RESTS ON A
FUNDAMENTAL FACT WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE RECORD AND CONTRARY TO THE
SPECIAL MASTER'S OPINION AND THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING, WHICH
APPELLANTS DO NOT HERE CHALLENGE.  IF THE DECISION GOES ON THE GROUND
THAT THE COMMISSION BASED ITS DETERMINATION UPON HISTORICAL COST, THEN
IT IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO OUR EARLIER DECISIONS, AND REVERSES THE
LOWER COURT FOR DOING WHAT THEY REQUIRED IT TO DO - ENTER A DECREE
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AS HAVING BEEN MADE WITHOUT PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. 

AS TO VALUE.  - SINCE BY LEGISLATION FIXING THEIR CHARGES, PUBLIC
UTILITIES ARE COMPELLED TO USE THEIR PROPERTIES IN THE SERVICE OF THE
PUBLIC, DUE PROCESS OF LAW REQUIRES THAT THE RATES PRESCRIBED SHALL BE
SUFFICIENT TO YIELD THEM JUST COMPENSATION; I.E., REASONABLE RATES OF
RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTIES.  FN3  THE VALUE TO BE
ASCERTAINED IS THE MONEY EQUIVALENT OF THE PROPERTY, THE AMOUNT TO
WHICH THE OWNER WOULD BE ENTITLED UPON EXPROPRIATION.  FN4  IT IS
ELEMENTARY THAT COST IS NOT THE MEASURE OF VALUE.  FN5 

IN SMYTH V. AMES, (1898) 169 U.S. 466, THE COURT SAID (P. 546):  "WE
HOLD, HOWEVER, THAT THE BASIS OF ALL CALCULATIONS AS TO THE
REASONABLENESS OF RATES TO BE CHARGED BY A CORPORATION MAINTAINING A
HIGHWAY UNDER LEGISLATIVE SANCTION MUST BE THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY BEING USED BY IT FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC.  AND IN
ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THAT VALUE, THE ORIGINAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE
AMOUNT EXPENDED IN PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS, THE AMOUNT AND MARKET VALUE
OF ITS BONDS AND STOCK, THE PRESENT AS COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL COST
OF CONSTRUCTION, THE PROBABLE EARNING CAPACITY OF THE PROPERTY UNDER
PARTICULAR RATES PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, AND THE SUM REQUIRED TO MEET
OPERATING EXPENSES, ARE ALL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION, AND ARE TO BE
GIVEN SUCH WEIGHT AS MAY BE JUST AND RIGHT IN EACH CASE.  WE DO NOT SAY
THAT THERE MAY NOT BE OTHER MATTERS TO BE REGARDED IN ESTIMATING THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  WHAT THE COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO ASK IS A FAIR
RETURN UPON THE VALUE OF THAT WHICH IT EMPLOYS FOR THE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO DEMAND
IS THAT NO MORE BE EXACTED FROM IT FOR THE USE OF A PUBLIC HIGHWAY THAN
THE SERVICES RENDERED BY IT ARE REASONABLY WORTH."    IN MINNESOTA RATE
CASES, (1913) 230 U.S. 352, THE COURT SAID (P. 434):  "THE BASIS OF
CALCULATION IS THE 'FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY' USED FOR THE
CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC....  THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THAT VALUE IS NOT
CONTROLLED BY ARTIFICIAL RULES.  IT IS NOT A MATTER OF FORMULAS, BUT
THERE MUST BE A REASONABLE JUDGMENT HAVING ITS BASIS IN A PROPER
CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS....  (P. 454.)  IT IS CLEAR THAT IN
ASCERTAINING THE PRESENT VALUE WE ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE AMOUNT OF THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT....  AS THE COMPANY MAY NOT BE
PROTECTED IN ITS ACTUAL INVESTMENT, IF THE VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY BE
PLAINLY LESS, SO THE MAKING OF A JUST RETURN FOR THE USE OF THE
PROPERTY INVOLVES THE RECOGNITION OF ITS FAIR VALUE IF IT BE MORE THAN
ITS COST.  THE PROPERTY IS HELD IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AND IT IS THE
PROPERTY, AND NOT THE ORIGINAL COST OF IT, OF WHICH THE OWNER MAY NOT
BE DEPRIVED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW...." 

THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED IN SMYTH V. AMES HAS LONG GOVERNED WHEREVER
JUDICIAL ACTION HAS BEEN INVOKED TO ENFORCE THE RULE OF JUST
COMPENSATION.  FN6  IT IS BINDING UPON STATE COURTS AND COMMISSIONS. 
BUT THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION REFUSES TO FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED RULE. 
IT DOES NOT ASCERTAIN OR USE PRESENT VALUE BUT IN ITS PLACE TAKES
HISTORICAL COST, ACTUAL OR ESTIMATED, AS THE BASIS OF ITS DETERMINATION
IN RATE JUDGING AND RATE MAKING. 

IN RULES, ETC., OF LOS ANGELES GAS & ELECTRIC CORP., (1930) 35 C.R.C.
443, 445, THE COMMISSION SAID:  "THIS COMMISSION FOR MANY YEARS  ...
HAS FIXED RATES TO YIELD UPON THE HISTORICAL OR ACTUAL COST OF THE
PROPERTY, TAKING LAND, HOWEVER, AT CURRENT VALUES AND DEPRECIATION
CALCULATED ON A SINKING FUND BASIS, A RETURN SOMEWHAT IN EXCESS OF THE
COST OF THE MONEY INVESTED IN THE PROPERTY...."  FN7 

SO, IN THE PRACTICE OF THE COMMISSION, ACTUAL COST OF ALL ITEMS OTHER
THAN LAND, WHICH IS INCLUDED AT ITS MARKET VALUE, COMES TO BE CALLED
"HISTORICAL COST," WHICH WHEN FOUND TO BE, OR MODIFIED TO MAKE IT
"REASONABLE," IS CALLED "PRUDENT INVESTMENT" OR "RATE BASE."  FN8  THE
COMMISSION TAKES COST WITHOUT REGARD TO AGE OF THE ITEMS, CHANGES IN
PRICE LEVELS, PRESENT COST TO CONSTRUCT, DEPRECIATION, OBSOLESCENCE OR
USEFULNESS. 

IN THAT CASE, COMMISSIONER DECOTO, DISSENTING, SAID (P. 474):  "THE
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION  ... HAS CLUNG OSTENSIBLY AND THEORETICALLY TO
THE HISTORICAL RATE BASE.  IN REALITY IT HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE
DIFFERENT ELEMENTS MENTIONED BY THE FEDERAL COURTS INCLUDING FAIR VALUE
INCLUDING GOING VALUE BY ALLOWING A RATE RETURN BETWEEN 8 PER CENT AND
8 1/2 PER CENT ON HISTORICAL COST IF THERE BE ADDED TO THE HISTORICAL
RATE BASE AN AMOUNT BETWEEN 10 PER CENT AND 12 1/2 PER CENT, THE RATE
BASE SO OBTAINED WILL APPROXIMATE FAIR VALUE INCLUDING GOING VALUE. 
SO, ALSO IF THERE IS DEDUCTED FROM 10 PER CENT TO 12 1/2 PER CENT FROM
A RATE OF RETURN OF 8 PER CENT OR 8 1/2 PER CENT ON AN HISTORICAL COST
RATE BASE, IT IS READILY SEEN THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL RETURN VARYING
FROM 7 PER CENT TO 7.75 PER CENT UPON FAIR VALUE INCLUDING THEREIN A
REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR GOING VALUE....  DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS THIS
COMMISSION HAS SHOWN A TENDENCY TO CUT THE RATE RETURN UPON AN
HISTORICAL RATE BASE FROM BETWEEN 8 PER CENT AND 8 1/2 PER CENT TO 7
PER CENT, WHICH REDUCED THE RATE OF RETURN UPON A FAIR VALUE BASE TO
6.12 1/2 PER CENT AND 6.3 PER CENT." 

WHILE THE DISSENTING OPINION IS NOT AUTHORITATIVE AND MAY NOT BE
TAKEN TO EXPRESS THE VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION, IT USEFULLY INTERPRETS
AND DISCLOSES THE OPINIONS, ATTITUDE AND PRACTICE OF THE COMMISSION AS
TO ASCERTAINMENT OF THE FIGURE OR BASE ON WHICH IT TESTS EXISTING AND
PRESCRIBES FUTURE RATES. 

IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE US, THE COMMISSION USED THE FORMULA GENERALLY
APPLIED BY IT.  ITS REPORT STATES (39 C.R.C. 49, 57):  "DURING ITS
ENTIRE HISTORY IN ESTABLISHING REASONABLE RATES FOR UTILITIES SIMILAR
TO THIS COMPANY, TO DETERMINE A PROPER RATE BASE THIS COMMISSION HAS
USED THE ACTUAL OR ESTIMATED HISTORICAL COSTS OF THE PROPERTIES
UNDEPRECIATED, WITH LAND AT THE PRESENT MARKET VALUE....  THIS
HISTORICAL METHOD HAS DOMINATED THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS FOR SEVERAL
PRINCIPAL REASONS.  IT IS WELL GROUNDED UPON ESTABLISHED FACTS, IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE VAGARIES OF PET THEORIES, UNLIMITED IMAGINATION AND
ABRUPT FLUCTUATION OF CURRENT PRICES AND PASSING CONDITIONS, AND
THEREFORE INDICATES A TRUER MEASURE OF VALUE....  AT THE SAME TIME IT
PREVENTS UNWARRANTED DEMANDS UPON THE CONSUMER THROUGH THE PROJECTIONS
OF FUTURE RATES ON EPHEMERAL VALUES AND STABILIZES RATES SO THAT
ECONOMIC SHOCKS FROM SUCH CHANGES ARE REDUCED TO A MINIMUM." 

THE COMMISSION'S FIGURES SHOW THAT IT DID NOT ATTEMPT OR INTEND TO
FIND VALUE.  HISTORICAL COST WAS NOT FULLY DISCLOSED BY THE COMPANY'S
RECORDS.  A PART WAS ESTIMATED.  THE COMPANY'S TOTAL WAS $104,043,472;
THE COMMISSION FOUND $103,252,004.  FROM HISTORICAL COST ASCERTAINED BY
IT, THE COMMISSION DEDUCTED "DONATIONS IN AID OF CONSTRUCTION,
$34,325," ADDED TO THE REMAINDER "MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES, $638,828,"
AND "WORKING CASH CAPITAL, $773,300," MAKING A TOTAL OF $104,629,807;
AND TOOK THE ROUND FIGURE, $105,000,000 AS RATE BASE.  THE COMMISSION
MADE NO APPRAISAL TO ASCERTAIN VALUE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM COST
INCURRED FOR THE ORIGINAL PLANT PLUS ADDITIONS AND BETTERMENTS THROUGH
ALL THE YEARS OF OPERATION.  THE EXCLUSION OF "DONATIONS IN AID OF
CONSTRUCTION" IS INCONSISTENT WITH ASCERTAINMENT OF THE VALUE, FOR
OBVIOUSLY THE WORTH OF PROPERTY IS THE SAME WHATEVER THE SOURCE OF THE
TITLE OR THE MONEY WITH WHICH IT WAS PURCHASED.  FN9 

THE REPORT STATES THAT "IN THIS CASE A RETURN WILL BE ALLOWED
SUBSTANTIALLY IN EXCESS OF THE REASONABLY DETERMINED COST OF MONEY IN
ORDER THAT THERE BE PROVIDED A SAFETY FACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PRINCIPLES ADOPTED BY THIS COMMISSION TO PROTECT THE FINANCIAL
STRUCTURE AS WELL AS TO ALLOW FOR INTANGIBLE VALUES NOT COVERED BY
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COSTS ALLOWED IN THE OPERATING EXPENSES."  FN10 

THE COMMISSION INCLUDED NOTHING IN ITS RATE BASE TO COVER INTANGIBLE
ELEMENTS OF VALUE.  IT SAID (P. 65):  "EVEN IF GOING VALUE COULD BE
FOUND HERE IN A DEFINITE AMOUNT THERE ARE NO PROPER ELEMENTS OF
PHYSICAL VALUE FOUND TO WHICH IT MIGHT BE RELATED TO OBTAIN FAIR
VALUE.  UNDER THE RECORD THERE IS NO TENABLE DEPRECIATED REPRODUCTION
COST FIGURE AND IT IS WHOLLY INCONSISTENT TO ATTEMPT TO RELATE GOING
VALUE TO UNDEPRECIATED HISTORICAL COST."  THIS STATEMENT CLEARLY AND
RIGHTLY IMPLIES THAT PROPERLY ASCERTAINED REPRODUCTION COST - CONDITION
AND USEFULNESS CONSIDERED - INDICATES ONLY THE VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO
THE TANGIBLE ELEMENTS AND THAT TO IT THERE MUST BE ADDED THE AMOUNT
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INTANGIBLE ELEMENTS IN ORDER TO FIND THE VALUE OF
BOTH; I.E., THE WORTH OF THE PLANT AS A GOING CONCERN. 

HAVING TAKEN COST OF PHYSICAL ELEMENTS, THE COMMISSION DEEMED IT
INAPPROPRIATE TO ADD ANYTHING TO COVER EXISTING GOING VALUE.  IT MUST
HAVE FOUND THAT IN FACT A LARGE AMOUNT WAS JUSTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO GOING
VALUE, FOR IT DECLARED (P. 65) THAT IT WOULD ACCREDIT THE COMPANY WITH
"A REASONABLE RECOGNITION OF GOING VALUE THROUGH ALLOWANCE AS AN
OPERATING EXPENSE OF OVER $800,000 A YEAR FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSE,
WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 7 PER CENT ON THE COMPANY'S CLAIMED GOING VALUE
FIGURE, AND BY THE ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE OF RETURN OVER REASONABLE COST
OF MONEY." 

BUT AN ALLOWANCE IN OPERATING EXPENSES ADDS NOTHING TO VALUE OR TO
RETURN ON VALUE.  IT IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF AND MAY NOT BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR INCLUSION OF AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT TO COVER INTANGIBLE
ELEMENTS.  INCLUSION OF AN AMOUNT FOR DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCREASES
DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS REVENUE AND SO REDUCES ANNUAL NET EARNINGS, IF
ANY, BY THAT AMOUNT, WHEREAS THE ADDITION OF $800,000 CAPITALIZED AT 7
PER CENT WOULD INCREASE BY OVER $11,000,000 THE BASE ON WHICH TO
CALCULATE RETURN.  THE COMMISSION'S TREATMENT OF DONATED PROPERTY,
GOING VALUE AND RATE OF RETURN SHOWS THAT IT DID NOT FIND VALUE, AND
THAT IT INTENDED TO AND DID ADOPT COST FIGURES AS THE BASIS ON WHICH IT
CONDEMNED EXISTING RATES AND ORDERED THE NEW SCHEDULE. 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE REPORT THE COMPANY FILED A
PETITION FOR REHEARING, IN WHICH IT DIRECTLY CHARGED THAT THE
COMMISSION FAILED TO FIND VALUE, "CONSIDERED SOLELY THE HISTORICAL COST
...  AND FAILED TO CONSIDER OR GIVE ANY EFFECT TO THE COST" OF
REPRODUCTION.  THE COMMISSION DENIED REHEARING, BUT WITHOUT IN ANY
MANNER SUGGESTING THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT TRUE. 

IN THIS SUIT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE COMMISSION FAILED TO
GIVE ANY WEIGHT OR EFFECT TO REPRODUCTION COST; "THAT, IN FIXING THE
RATE BASE, THE COMMISSION GAVE WEIGHT AND EFFECT SOLELY TO THE
HISTORICAL COST"; AND THAT IT PRESCRIBED THE RATES "WITHOUT ANY FINDING
OF FAIR VALUE." 

THE ANSWER IS A STUDIED DENIAL.  THE DEFENDANTS DO DENY THAT THE
COMMISSION FAILED TO GIVE DUE WEIGHT TO COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF
REPRODUCTION COST AND ALLEGE THAT IT GAVE PROPER WEIGHT TO ALL THE
EVIDENCE, INCLUDING EVIDENCE OF REPRODUCTION COST; DENY THAT THE
COMMISSION GAVE WEIGHT SOLELY TO THE HISTORICAL COST; "ADMIT THAT IN
FIXING AND PRESCRIBING RATES  ...  THE COMMISSION DID SO WITHOUT ANY
SPECIFIC FINDING AS TO 'FAIR VALUE'  ...  BUT  ...  ALLEGE THAT IN
SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT THE COMMISSION CONCLUDED AND FOUND IN ITS SAID
DECISION THAT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE USED AND USEFUL PROPERTIES BEFORE
ALLOWING FOR ACCRUED DEPRECIATION DID NOT EXCEED THE SUM FIXED THEREIN
AS A REASONABLE RATE BASE, TO WIT:  $105,000,000." 

THE DISTRICT COURT REFERRED THE CASE TO A SPECIAL MASTER.  THERE WAS
INTRODUCED BEFORE HIM EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THAT SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMISSION.  THE RECORD HERE DOES NOT CONTAIN THE EVIDENCE, HIS
FINDINGS OR REPORT.  FN11  BUT THE TRIAL COURT'S OPINION (13 F.SUPP. 
931, 932) STATES THAT, "WHILE THE MASTER EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT IT
APPEARED PLAIN TO HIM THAT THE COMMISSION USED COST AS THE ONLY MEASURE
OF THE RATE BASE, ITSELF OFFERING NO EVIDENCE ON REPRODUCTION COST AND
REJECTING THAT OFFERED UPON THE SUBJECT BY THE COMPANY, HE PREFERRED
NOT TO PASS UPON THE QUESTION OF LAW THUS PRESENTED, BUT TO EXAMINE THE
WHOLE MATTER ON THE MERITS." 

IN ITS OPINION ON TEMPORARY INJUNCTION (5 F.SUPP.  878, 881), THE
COURT FOUND THAT THE COMMISSION REJECTED THE COMPANY'S ESTIMATES OF
REPRODUCTION COST, DID NOT HAVE ANY DETAILED ESTIMATES OF REPRODUCTION
COST BEFORE IT, AND DID NOT DETERMINE THE REPRODUCTION COST OF THE
PROPERTY.  UPON FINAL SUBMISSION OF THE CASE, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE
COMMISSION ON ITS OWN MOTION INSTITUTED THE INVESTIGATION AND "CAUSED
TO BE INTRODUCED EVIDENCE AS TO THE PAST OR SO-CALLED HISTORICAL COST
...  SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING SUCH PAST OR HISTORICAL COST
AS IN AND OF ITSELF CONSTITUTING THE RATE BASE BY WHICH TO JUDGE THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE PLAINTIFF'S EXISTING RATES AND TO PRESCRIBE NEW
RATES, AND  ...  NEITHER INTRODUCED NOR CAUSED TO BE INTRODUCED ANY
EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY OR ANY EVIDENCE AS TO ITS REPRODUCTION COST....
PLAINTIFF INTRODUCED EVIDENCE AS TO THE REPRODUCTION COST OF ITS SAID
PROPERTY AND AS TO ITS FAIR VALUE."  NO EVIDENCE WAS INTRODUCED TO
REBUT THAT OFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF. 

"...  ON THE CONCLUSION OF SAID HEARINGS  ...  THE COMMISSION MADE
ITS ORDER  ...  FINDING THAT THE EXISTING RATES OF THE PLAINTIFF WERE
UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE AND PRESCRIBING LOWER RATES WHEREBY THE
PLAINTIFF'S INCOME WOULD BE REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY $2,100,000
ANNUALLY.  IN SO FINDING ...  THE COMMISSION DECLINED TO GIVE AND DID
NOT GIVE CONSIDERATION OR EFFECT TO THE REPRODUCTION COST  ...  OR TO
THE FAIR VALUE OF SAID PROPERTY, BUT, EXCEPT FOR LANDS CONSTITUTING
LESS THAN 5% IN VALUE OF THE PROPERTY,  ...  TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE RATE BASE  ...  ONLY THE PAST OR
HISTORICAL COST."  THE COMMISSION APPLIED FOR REHEARING.  ITS PETITION
INDICATES NO CLAIM THAT IT DID FIND VALUE OR THAT THE COURT ERRED IN
HOLDING THAT IT DID NOT; NOR DOES THE PETITION SUGGEST THAT HISTORICAL
COST IS VALUE OR WAS FOUND OR INTENDED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  INDEED IT SOUGHT A REHEARING ON THE GROUND THAT
THE COURT FAILED TO FIND THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE COMMISSION'S STATEMENT AS TO THE JURISDICTION
OF THIS COURT, RULE 12, OR IN ITS BRIEFS HERE TO INDICATE THAT IT EVER
CLAIMED OR NOW CLAIMS THAT IT FOUND PRESENT VALUE OR THAT HISTORICAL
COST WAS NOT THE SOLE BASIS OF ITS CALCULATIONS.  REVERSAL IS SOUGHT,
NOT ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION
FAILED TO FIND THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT UPON THE CLAIM THAT THE
COURT IS WITHOUT POWER TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PRESCRIBED
RATES "UNLESS IT BE FOUND THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER WILL RESULT
IN THE ACTUAL CONFISCATION OF THE UTILITY'S PROPERTY." 

BUT THAT CONTENTION IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO OUR DECISIONS.  IT MAY BE
TAKEN AS CERTAIN THAT IF IN TRUTH IT COULD CLAIM THAT IT DID BASE ITS
DETERMINATION ON PRESENT VALUE, THE COMMISSION WOULD RELY ON THAT FACT,
FOR THEN IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO HAVE OVERRULED, DISTINGUISHED,
EXPLAINED AWAY, GLOSSED OVER OR DISREGARDED THE LINE OF DECISIONS
RIGHTLY FOLLOWED BY THE LOWER COURT. 

AS TO REPRODUCTION COST.  - IT IS TRUE THAT SOMETIMES ESTIMATES OF
PRESENT COST OF CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT REASONABLY MADE AND ARE THEREFORE
WORTHLESS AS EVIDENCE OF VALUE.  FN12  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT, WHEN
REASONABLY MADE, ESTIMATES OF REPRODUCTION COST AS OF THE VALUATION
DATE CONSTITUTE GOOD EVIDENCE OF PRESENT VALUE.  FN13    IN MISSOURI EX
REL. S.W. BELL TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S. 276, WE SAID
(P. 287): "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT WILL AMOUNT TO A FAIR
RETURN UPON PROPERTIES DEVOTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE WITHOUT GIVING
CONSIDERATION TO THE COST OF LABOR, SUPPLIES, ETC., AT THE TIME THE
INVESTIGATION IS MADE.  AN HONEST AND INTELLIGENT FORECAST OF PROBABLE
FUTURE VALUES MADE UPON A VIEW OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, IS
ESSENTIAL.  IF THE HIGHLY IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF PRESENT COSTS IS WHOLLY
DISREGARDED SUCH A FORECAST BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE.  ESTIMATES FOR TO
MORROW CANNOT IGNORE PRICES OF TO-DAY." 

IN MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., (1926) 272 U.S. 400, THE COURT
SAID (PAGE 410):  "IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT VALUES OF UTILITY
PROPERTIES FLUCTUATE, AND THAT OWNERS MUST BEAR THE DECLINE AND ARE
ENTITLED TO THE INCREASE.  THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN SMYTH V. AMES,
169 U.S. 466, 547, DECLARES THAT TO ASCERTAIN VALUE 'THE PRESENT AS
COMPARED WITH THE ORIGINAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION' ARE, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION.  BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
ORIGINAL COST OR THE PRESENT COST OR SOME FIGURE ARBITRARILY CHOSEN
BETWEEN THESE TWO IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE MEASURE.  THE WEIGHT TO BE
GIVEN TO SUCH COST FIGURES AND OTHER ITEMS OR CLASSES OF EVIDENCE IS TO
BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND.  BY FAR
THE GREATER PART OF THE COMPANY'S LAND AND PLANT WAS ACQUIRED AND
CONSTRUCTED LONG BEFORE THE WAR.  THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE LAND IS MUCH
GREATER THAN ITS COST; AND THE PRESENT COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE
PARTS OF THE PLANT IS MUCH MORE THAN THEIR REASONABLE ORIGINAL COST. 
IN FACT, PRICES AND VALUES HAVE SO CHANGED THAT THE AMOUNT PAID FOR
LAND IN THE EARLY YEARS OF THE ENTERPRISE AND THE COST OF PLANT
ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE GREAT RISE OF PRICES DUE TO THE WAR
DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY REAL INDICATION OF THEIR VALUE AT THE PRESENT
TIME...."  FN14  THE PASSAGE WHICH INCLUDES THE STATEMENT QUOTED ON
PAGE 398, ANTE, OF THIS COURT'S DECISION JUST GIVEN, FOLLOWS:
"UNDOUBTEDLY, THE REASONABLE COST OF A SYSTEM OF WATERWORKS, WELL
PLANNED AND EFFICIENT FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE, IS GOOD EVIDENCE OF ITS
VALUE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.  AND SUCH ACTUAL COST WILL CONTINUE
FAIRLY WELL TO MEASURE THE AMOUNT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PHYSICAL
ELEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY SO LONG AS THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE LEVEL OF
APPLICABLE PRICES.  AND, AS INDICATED BY THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION,
IT IS TRUE THAT, IF THE TENDENCY OR TREND OF PRICES IS NOT DEFINITELY
UPWARD OR DOWNWARD AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR PROBABLE THAT THERE WILL BE A
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF PRICES, THEN THE PRESENT VALUE OF LANDS PLUS THE
PRESENT COST OF CONSTRUCTING THE PLANT, LESS DEPRECIATION, IF ANY, IS A
FAIR MEASURE OF THE VALUE OF THE PHYSICAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY. 
THE VALIDITY OF THE RATES IN QUESTION DEPENDS ON PROPERTY VALUE JANUARY
1, 1924, AND FOR A REASONABLE TIME FOLLOWING.  WHILE THE VALUES OF SUCH
PROPERTIES DO NOT VARY WITH FREQUENT MINOR FLUCTUATIONS IN THE PRICES
OF MATERIAL AND LABOR REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THEM, THEY ARE AFFECTED BY
AND GENERALLY FOLLOW THE RELATIVELY PERMANENT LEVELS AND TRENDS OF SUCH
PRICES." 

THE ESTIMATE OF REPRODUCTION COST THAT THE COMPANY SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMISSION IN THIS CASE IS NOT BEFORE US.  IT IS REFERRED TO IN THE
COMMISSION'S REPORT, BUT IT IS NOT DISCLOSED SUFFICIENTLY TO ENABLE
THIS COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER IT WAS MADE REASONABLY, WAS ADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE OR WAS ENTITLED TO ANY WEIGHT.  THIS COURT MAY NOT SPECULATE
CONCERNING IT.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE AND EARLIER REPORTS OF THE
COMMISSION ABOVE REFERRED TO COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT NO ESTIMATE OF
REPRODUCTION COST AS OF VALUATION DATE WOULD HAVE INFLUENCED THE
COMMISSION TO MODIFY OR ABANDON THE BASIS OF HISTORICAL COST. 

THE COMMISSION WAS BOUND BY OUR DECISIONS TO ASCERTAIN AND CONSIDER
PRESENT COST AS COMPARED WITH ORIGINAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION.  IT
REFUSED TO DO SO.  THE METHOD IT FOLLOWED CONFLICTS WITH FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED HERE IN THAT IT CONDEMNED THE COMPANY'S EXISTING
RATES AS EXCESSIVE AND PRESCRIBED LOWER ONES WITHOUT ANY BASIS OF FACT
TO WARRANT THAT ACTION.  WHEN THE STATE, ACTING THROUGH THE COMMISSION,
SET ASIDE EXISTING RATES AND ORDERED LOWER ONES FOR THE FUTURE, IT
EXERTED POWER TO TAKE, OR TO COMPEL USE OF, PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR
SERVICE OF THE PUBLIC.  DUE PROCESS REQUIRED JUST COMPENSATION - RATES
SUFFICIENT TO YIELD A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN ON THE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY USED TO FURNISH THE GAS.  WITHOUT A FINDING OF VALUE IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT.  TO TAKE MERE COST OF
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS, INSTEAD OF TOTAL VALUE, AND TO DEDUCT DEVELOPMENT
EXPENSES FROM REVENUE INSTEAD OF INCLUDING IN VALUE THE AMOUNT FOUND
PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTANGIBLE ELEMENTS AND GOING VALUE, AND THEN,
BECAUSE OF THAT ERROR, TO FIX A RATE OF RETURN ON HISTORICAL COST
GREATER THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED ON VALUE, IS TO LEAVE THE ORDER WITHOUT
KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE FOUNDATION.  IT IS TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL VIEWS AS TO
WHAT IS JUST SERVE IN PLACE OF THE DEFINITE PRINCIPLES.  THE FORMULA
FOLLOWED BY THE COMMISSION PREVENTS CONSIDERATION OF PRESENT VALUE OR
OF THE ESTIMATED PRESENT COST, IN COMPARISON WITH THE ORIGINAL; I.E.,
THE HISTORICAL COST OF THE PROPERTY.  THE COMMISSION GAVE NO WEIGHT TO
THE COMPANY'S EVIDENCE OF PRESENT COST OF CONSTRUCTION.  IT MADE NO
INVESTIGATION TO ASCERTAIN, DID NOT ATTEMPT TO FIND AND WOULD NOT USE,
PRESENT COST OR PRESENT VALUE.  IT SEEMS TO ME VERY CLEAR THAT, SAVE
MERELY TO REJECT IT AS INADMISSIBLE, THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO PAY ANY
ATTENTION TO THE COMPANY'S EVIDENCE OF REPRODUCTION COST. 

THE COMMISSION HAVING FAILED TO FIND VALUE, OUR DECISIONS REQUIRED
THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER THE DECREE APPEALED FROM. 

IN NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS (1925), 268 U.S.
39, THE SUPERIOR COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON UPHELD AN
ORDER OF THE STATE COMMISSION REDUCING RAILROAD RATES FOR INTRASTATE
TRANSPORTATION OF LOGS AS AGAINST ATTACK BY THE CARRIERS ON THE GROUNDS
THAT THE ORDER WAS MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE AND THAT THE RATES WERE
CONFISCATORY.  THIS COURT HELD THE ORDER WOULD DEPRIVE CARRIERS OF
THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, UPON THE SOLE GROUND THAT
THE COMMISSION FOUND COST OF SERVICE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, OR UPON
EVIDENCE THAT DID NOT CLEARLY SUPPORT THE FINDING.  WE SAID (P. 44):
"THE MERE ADMISSION BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF MATTER WHICH UNDER
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE
INCOMPETENT, UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN RY., 265 U.S. 274,
288, OR MERE ERROR IN REASONING UPON EVIDENCE INTRODUCED, DOES NOT
INVALIDATE AN ORDER.  BUT WHERE RATES FOUND BY A REGULATORY BODY TO BE
COMPENSATORY ARE ATTACKED AS BEING CONFISCATORY, COURTS MAY ENQUIRE
INTO THE METHOD BY WHICH ITS CONCLUSION WAS REACHED.  AN ORDER BASED
UPON A FINDING MADE WITHOUT EVIDENCE, CHICGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S.
258, 263, OR UPON A FINDING MADE UPON EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY DOES NOT
SUPPORT IT, INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 222
U.S. 541, 547, IS AN ARBITRARY ACT AGAINST WHICH COURTS AFFORD RELIEF. 
THE ERROR UNDER DISCUSSION WAS OF THIS CHARACTER.  IT WAS A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS."  THAT DECISION WAS REACHED WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY QUESTION
OF CONFISCATION. 

CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, (1927) 274
U.S. 344, PRESENTED THE QUESTION WHETHER AN ORDER OF THE IDAHO
COMMISSION REDUCING RAILROAD RATES FOR INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION OF
LOGS WOULD DEPRIVE CARRIERS OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  ON THE CARRIERS' APPEAL TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THE ACTION OF
THE COMMISSION WAS UPHELD.  FOLLOWING THE STATE PRACTICE, THE CASE WAS
THERE HEARD ON THE RECORD MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THE EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED BY THE CARRIERS WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A FINDING THAT AS
TO THE LINES OF ALL THE CARRIERS, THE INTRASTATE LOG RATES WERE LOW IN
COMPARISON WITH RATES ON OTHER COMMODITIES, AND THAT AS TO TWO OF THE
CARRIERS THEY WERE CONFISCATORY.  BUT THE STATE COURT HELD THE
COMMISSION AUTHORIZED TO REDUCE THE RATES WITHOUT FINDING THEM UNJUST
OR UNREASONABLE.  AND, AS TO THE CARRIERS' INSISTENCE THAT THE
PRESCRIBED RATES WERE CONFISCATORY, IT RULED THAT, EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE
SHOWED EXISTING RATES INSUFFICIENT, THE PRESCRIBED LOWER RATES WOULD
NOT NECESSARILY BE CONFISCATORY, AND SUPPORTED THAT VIEW BY THE
SUGGESTION THAT THE INTRASTATE HAUL FROM FOREST TO SAW MILLS WAS ONLY
ONE STEP IN PRODUCTION AND TRANSPORTATION TO MARKETS IN OTHER STATES. 

WRIT OF CERTIORARI BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  WE REVERSED THE JUDGMENT
OF THE STATE COURT, AND IN THE OPINION SAID (P. 350):  "BUT, AS APPEARS
FROM THEIR OPINIONS, THE RESPONDENT (COMMISSION) AND THE COURT REFUSED
TO CONSIDER AND GIVE WEIGHT TO THAT EVIDENCE BECAUSE, AS THEY HELD, THE
INTRASTATE LOG RATES WERE NOT TO BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY BUT WERE TO
BE CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERSTATE LUMBER RATES, AND
BECAUSE THE CARRIERS MADE NO SHOWING AS TO THE GAINS OR LOSSES
RESULTING FROM THE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THAT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED
...  THIS CASE IS IN PRINCIPLE THE SAME AS NORTHERN PACIFIC V. DEPT.
OF PUBLIC WORKS....  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN THE REFUSAL TO
CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BY THE CARRIERS TO SHOW THAT THE RATES
IN QUESTION ARE TOO LOW AND CONFISCATORY.  THE COMMISSION AND THE COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REASONABLENESS OR VALIDITY OF THE INTRASTATE
LOG RATES DEPENDS ON THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS FOR THE
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF LUMBER.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE METHODS BY
WHICH RESPONDENT REACHED ITS CONCLUSION WERE ARBITRARY AND CONSTITUTE A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 

IN WEST V. C. & P. TEL. CO., (1935) 295 U.S. 662, THE COMPANY BROUGHT
SUIT IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR MARYLAND TO SET ASIDE AS
CONFISCATORY AN ORDER OF THE MARYLAND COMMISSION REDUCING TELEPHONE
RATES.  THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED VALUE, DEPRECIATION EXPENSE, AND
RETURN.  THE COMMISSION MADE NO APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY, BUT
ATTEMPTED TO DETERMINE PRESENT VALUE BY TRANSLATING THE DOLLAR VALUE OF
THE PLANT AS IT WAS FOUND IN AN EARLIER CASE, AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1923,
PLUS NET ADDITIONS IN DOLLAR VALUE IN EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR, INTO AN
EQUIVALENT DOLLAR VALUE AT DECEMBER 31, 1932, ITS THEORY BEING (P.
667):  "VALUE SIGNIFIES IN RATE REGULATION THE INVESTMENT IN DOLLARS ON
WHICH A UTILITY IS ENTITLED TO EARN."  AFTER POINTING OUT FUNDAMENTAL
DEFECTS IN THE COMMISSION'S METHOD OF FINDING VALUE, WE HELD THAT THE
CASE WAS CONTROLLED BY THE PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED AND APPLIED IN NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY. CO. V. DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS AND CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N.  NO DECISION HERE HAS CHALLENGED THE
PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY THESE CASES.  WEST V. C. & P. TEL. CO., SUPRA,
675. 

I CANNOT REFRAIN FROM PROTESTING AGAINST THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO DEAL
WITH THE CASE DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD AND REASONABLY TO ADHERE TO
PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE BEEN SETTLED.  OUR DECISIONS OUGHT TO BE
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE AND PERMANENT TO ENABLE COUNSEL USEFULLY TO
ADVISE CLIENTS.  GENERALLY SPEAKING, AT LEAST, OUR DECISIONS OF
YESTERDAY OUGHT TO BE THE LAW OF TODAY. 

I WOULD AFFIRM THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 

FN1  NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. DEPT. PUBLIC WORKS, (1925) 268 U.S.
39; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, (1927) 274
U.S. 344; WEST V. C. & P. TEL. CO., (1935) 295 U.S. 662.  SEE ALSO THE
OPINIONS OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE, 5 F.SUPP.  878, 13
F.SUPP.  931 AND 16 F.SUPP.  884. 

FN2  SEE THE COURT'S OPINION, ANTE, P. 400.  IT THERE QUOTES PART OF
A SENTENCE NEAR THE END OF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT:  "ASSURE THE
COMPANY A FAIR RETURN ON ITS PROPERTIES."  (39 C.R.C. 49, 76.)  TAKEN
WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE REPORT, THESE WORDS EMPHASIZE THE COMMISSION'S
PURPOSE NOT TO FIND VALUE. 

FN3  RAILROAD COMMISSION CASES, (1886) 116 U.S. 307, 331; DOW V.
BEIDELMAN, (1888) 125 U.S. 680, 691; GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. V.
SMITH, (1888) 128 U.S. 174, 179; CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V.
MINNESOTA, (1890) 134 U.S. 418, 458; REAGAN V. FARMERS' LOAN & T. CO.,
(1894) 154 U.S. 362, 399; AMES V. UNION PACIFIC RY. CO., (1894) 64 F.
165, 176; SMYTH V. AMES, (1898) 169 U.S. 466, 526, 541, 542, 544, 546. 

FN4  MONONGAHELA NAVIGATION CO. V. UNITED STATES, (1893) 148 U.S.
312, 327; SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. UNITED STATES, (1923) 261 U.S. 299,
304; BROOKS-SCANLON CORP. V. UNITED STATES, (1924) 265 U.S. 106, 123;
JACOBS V. UNITED STATES, (1933) 290 U.S. 13, 16-17; OLSON V. UNITED
STATES, (1934) 292 U.S. 246, 255. 

FN5  SMYTH V. AMES, (1898) 169 U.S. 466, 546, 547; WILLCOX V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., (1909) 212 U.S. 19, 52; MISSOURI EX REL. S.W.
BELL TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, (1923) 262 U.S. 276, 287. 

FN6  FOR EXAMPLE, SEE: 

SAN DIEGO LAND CO. V. NATIONAL CITY, (1899) 174 U.S. 739, 757; SAN
DIEGO LAND CO. V. JASPER, (1903) 189 U.S. 439, 442; STANISLAUS COUNTY
V. SAN JOAQUIN C. & I. CO., (1904) 192 U.S. 201, 215; KNOXVILLE V.
KNOXVILLE WATER CO., (1909) 212 U.S. 1, 13, 18; WILLCOX V. CONSOLIDATED
GAS CO., (1909) 212 U.S. 19, 41; LINCOLN GAS CO. V. LINCOLN, (1912) 223
U.S. 349, 358; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, (1913) 230 U.S. 352, 434, 454;
MISSOURI RATE CASES, (1913) 230 U.S. 474, 498; DENVER V. DENVER UNION
WATER CO., (1918) 246 U.S. 178, 190; MISSOURI EX REL. S.W. BELL TEL.
CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, (1923) 262 U.S. 276, 287; BLUEFIELD CO.
V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, (1923) 262 U.S. 679, 690; DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK
RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, (1924) 263 U.S. 456, 481; OHIO UTILITIES CO.
V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N (1925) 267 U.S. 359, 362; BOARD OF COMM'RS
V. N.Y. TEL. CO., (1926) 271 U.S. 23, 31; MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS
WATER CO., (1926) 272 U.S. 400, 408, 409; UNITED RAILWAYS V. WEST,
(1930) 280 U.S. 234, 253-254; LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N,
(1933) 289 U.S. 287, 305, ET SEQ.; WEST V. C. & P. TEL. CO., (1935) 295
U.S. 662, 671.    ALTON WATER CO. V. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMM'N, (1922)
279 F. 869, 872; MINNEAPOLIS V. RAND, (1923) 285 F. 818, 827; MOBILE
GAS CO. V. PATTERSON, (1923) 293 F. 208, 214; NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO. V.
PRENDERGAST, (1924) 300 F. 822, 825; SOUTHERN BELL TEL. & TEL. CO. V.
RAILROAD COMM'N, (1925) 5 F.(2D) 77, 91, 92; MIDDLESEX WATER CO. V.
BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMM'RS, (1926) 10 F.(2D) 519, 533; IDAHO POWER
CO. V. THOMPSON, (1927) 19 F.(2D) 547, 552.    FN7  SEE, E.G.:  RE
COAST VALLEYS GAS & ELECTRIC CO., (1917) 14 C.R.C. 460; SOUTHERN
SIERRAS POWER CO., (1920) 18 C.R.C. 818; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
CO., (1921) 19 C.R.C. 595 AND (1923) 23 C.R.C. 981; SAN JOAQUIN LIGHT &
POWER CORP., (1922) 21 C.R.C. 545; PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., (1922)
22 C.R.C. 744; GREAT WESTERN POWER CO., (1923) 22 C.R.C. 814; PACIFIC
TEL. & TEL. CO., (1929) 33 C.R.C. 737. 

FN8  FOR CONVENIENCE THESE PHRASES, "HISTORICAL COST," "ACTUAL COST,"
"PRUDENT INVESTMENT," AND "RATE BASE," WILL BE USED TO MEAN THE FIGURE
PRODUCED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION
IN RULES, ETC. OF LOS ANGELES GAS & ELECTRIC CORP., (1930) 35 C.R.C.
443, 445, WITHOUT PAUSING TO POINT OUT THAT LAND IS INCLUDED AT PRESENT
VALUE. 

FN9  SAN JOAQUIN CO. V. STANISLAUS COUNTY, 233 U.S. 454, 459; BOARD
OF COMM'RS V. N.Y. TEL. CO., (1926) 271 U.S. 23, 31; SMITH V. ILLINOIS
BELL TEL. CO., (1930) 282 U.S. 133, 158; PUBLIC SERVICE CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITY COMM'RS, 84 N.J.L. 463, 481; 87 ATL. 651.  SEE ALSO MINNESOTA
RATE CASES, (1913) 230 U.S. 352, 434, 456.  CF. DISSENTING OPINION,
UNITED RAILWAYS V. WEST, (1930) 280 U.S. 234, 257. 

FN10  OUR DECISIONS UNQUESTIONABLY SHOW THAT COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF
THE BUSINESS IS NOT THE MEASURE OF THE AMOUNT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO
INTANGIBLE ELEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY, OR THE MEASURE OF GOING VALUE. 
DES MOINES GAS CO. V. DES MOINES, (1915) 238 U.S. 153, 168-171; DENVER
V. DENVER UNION WATER CO., (1918) 246 U.S. 178, 191, 192; GALVESTON
ELECTRIC CO. V. GALVESTON, 258 U.S. 388, 395, ET SEQ.; LOS ANGELES GAS
CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, (1933) 289 U.S. 287, 314, 315. 

FN11  IT DOES CONTAIN THE COMPLAINT, TO WHICH ARE ATTACHED THE
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION; THE COMPANY'S PETITION FOR
REHEARING AND ORDER DENYING IT; APPELLANTS' ANSWER; THE COURT'S
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECREE; THE COMMISSION'S
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF IT; THE COMPANY'S
ANSWER TO THAT PETITION, A SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT AND ONE REPLYING TO IT;
THE OPINIONS OF THE COURT ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, ON
PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND ON PETITION FOR REHEARING. 

FN12  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, (1913) 230 U.S. 352, 452; LINDHEIMER V.
ILLINOIS TEL. CO., (1934) 292 U.S. 151, 163, 164. 

FN13  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, (1913) 230 U.S. 352, 452, 455; MISSOURI
EX REL. S.W. BELL TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, (1923) 262 U.S.
276, 287, 288; BLUEFIELD CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, (1923) 262 U.S.
679, 691, 692; STANDARD OIL CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., (1925) 268
U.S. 146, 156; MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., (1926) 272 U.S. 400,
410; LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, (1933) 289 U.S. 287, 307. 

FN14  THE OPINION HERE CITES:  STANDARD OIL CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC
CO., (1925) 268 U.S. 146, 157; GEORGIA RY. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, (1923)
262 U.S. 625, 630, 631; BLUEFIELD CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, (1923)
262 U.S. 679, 691-692; MISSOURI EX REL. S.W. BELL TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMM'N, (1923) 262 U.S. 276, 287. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :

















MCCART V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 302 U.S. 419 


NO. 90.  ARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 522, AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. 


1.  A SUIT FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION OF STATE-MADE RATES ALLEGED TO
BE CONFISCATORY, NO INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION BEING PRAYED, IS PROPERLY
HEARD IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY ONE JUDGE.  P. 420. 

2.  IN A SUIT PRAYING A PERMANENT, BUT NOT A TEMPORARY, INJUNCTION
AGAINST STATE-MADE RATES ALREADY IN EFFECT, UPON THE GROUND OF
CONFISCATION, IT WAS ERRONEOUS TO VALUE THE PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY AS OF
THE DATE OF DECREE UPON PROOFS TAKEN AND CONCLUDED THIRTY-TWO MONTHS
PREVIOUSLY AND TO DISMISS THE BILL ON THAT VALUATION, WITHOUT REGARD TO
KNOWN ECONOMIC CHANGES, AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF THE PLAINTIFF'S
BUSINESS, IN THE INTERVAL.  P. 422. 

MCCART ET AL. V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 665, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE, 13
F.SUPP.  110, WHICH DISMISSED A BILL TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF WATER
RATES FIXED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA. 

PER CURIAM. 

THIS SUIT WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT BY THE INDIANAPOLIS WATER COMPANY TO
RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OF INDIANA FIXING A TEMPORARY SCHEDULE OF RATES PENDING THE
COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION.  THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES (28
U.S.C. 380) DENIED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND THE TEMPORARY RATES
BECAME EFFECTIVE.  THE COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 30, 1932, ADOPTED A
DIFFERENT AND PERMANENT SCHEDULE OF RATES TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,
1933.  THE COMPANY THEN FILED AN AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL BILL
ASSAILING THOSE RATES AS CONFISCATORY AND INVOKING THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION WAS NOT SOUGHT AND THE CASE WAS PROPERLY HEARD IN THE
DISTRICT COURT BY A SINGLE JUDGE.  INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO. V. MCCART, 13
F.SUPP.  107; SMITH V. WILSON, 273 U.S. 388; STRATTON V. ST. LOUIS
SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 282 U.S. 10; HEALY V. RATTA, 289 U.S. 701. 
PURSUANT TO THE COMMISSION'S FINAL ORDER, THE COMPANY FILED THE
SCHEDULE OF RATES AS PRESCRIBED, AND THESE RATES WENT INTO EFFECT ON
JANUARY 1, 1933, AND UNDER THAT ORDER HAVE SINCE BEEN IN EFFECT WITHOUT
LIMITATION OF TIME. 

THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY AS
OF NOVEMBER 1, 1932, WAS NOT LESS THAN $22,500,000 AND THAT THE INCOME
UNDER THE NEW RATES WOULD BE "APPROXIMATELY $1,400,000, OR A RETURN
SLIGHTLY IN EXCESS OF SIX PER CENT" ON THAT AMOUNT.  THE DISTRICT COURT
APPOINTED A SPECIAL MASTER, WHO RECEIVED EVIDENCE BETWEEN MAY 1, 1933,
AND AUGUST 10, 1933, AND HELD A FURTHER AND REOPENED SESSION ON OCTOBER
18, 1933, WHEN THE HEARING OF EVIDENCE WAS CLOSED.  ON APRIL 18, 1934,
THE MASTER OFFERED TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE AS TO THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS OF
THE COMPANY FOR 1933 BUT THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES INFORMED THE MASTER
THAT THEY DID NOT DESIRE TO OFFER ANY SUCH TESTIMONY.  THE MASTER FILED
HIS REPORT ON MAY 18, 1934.  THE APPRAISALS BEFORE THE MASTER WERE MADE
AS OF APRIL 1, 1933.  HE FOUND THE FAIR VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY
TO BE $20,282,143 AS OF THAT DATE AND ALSO AS OF THE TIME OF FILING HIS
REPORT.  HE ESTIMATED AND FOUND THAT THE INCOME APPLICABLE TO RETURN
FOR THE YEAR 1933 AND FOR A REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER WOULD BE
$1,294,566.51.  HE CONCLUDED THAT THE RATES WERE NOT CONFISCATORY. 

AFTER A HEARING UPON EXCEPTIONS TO THE MASTER'S REPORT, THE DISTRICT
COURT ENTERED A FINAL DECREE ON NOVEMBER 29, 1935, DISMISSING THE
AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF COMPLAINT.  13 F.SUPP.  110.  THE
COURT FOUND THAT THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY WAS $21,392,821 AS
OF APRIL 1, 1933, AND ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF VALUE HAD BEEN ADDRESSED
TO THAT DATE, THE COURT WENT FURTHER AND FOUND IN ITS DECREE THAT THIS
AMOUNT "WAS THE FAIR AND REASONABLE VALUE THEREOF AS OF THE TIME OF
FILING THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER HEREIN AND AS OF THE DATE OF
THESE FINDINGS AND THAT SUCH VALUE WILL CONTINUE TO BE A FAIR AND
REASONABLE VALUE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S USED AND USEFUL PROPERTY FOR A
REASONABLE TIME IN THE FUTURE."  THE COURT ADOPTED THE FINDING OF THE
MASTER THAT THE INCOME WOULD BE NOT LESS THAN $1,294,566.51 FOR THE
YEAR 1933 AND FOR A REASONABLE TIME THEREAFTER. 

UPON APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE
UPON DISPUTED POINTS, FOUND THAT THERE SHOULD BE CERTAIN INCREASES,
AMOUNTING TO $975,437, IN THE RATE BASE, MAKING IT $22,368,258.  THE
COURT OBSERVED THAT FROM APRIL 1, 1933, THE VALUATION DATE, TO THE DATE
OF THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, NOVEMBER 29, 1935, THIRTY-TWO
MONTHS HAD INTERVENED; THAT THIS PERIOD WAS NO LONGER ONE FOR PROPHECY
BUT HAD PASSED "FROM THE FIELD OF SPECULATION TO ONE OF EXPERIENCE";
AND THAT EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN THAT IN THAT PERIOD THERE HAD BEEN "A
CONSTANT AND DEFINITE TREND UPWARD IN COMMODITY VALUES."  89 F.(2D)
522, 525, 526.  WITH RESPECT TO INCOME, THE COURT SAID THAT THE AMOUNT
FOUND BY THE MASTER FOR 1933($1,294,566.51) WAS ABOUT $57,000 HIGHER
THAN THAT INDICATED BY THE TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESS, BUT THE FINDING
WAS NOT OVERRULED IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE OF THE COMPANY TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF ITS OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE ACTUAL RECEIPTS AND
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THAT CALENDAR YEAR.  ID., PP. 527, 528.  HOLDING THAT
THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ERRED IN DETERMINING IN ITS DECREE THAT THE
VALUATIONS AS OF APRIL 1, 1933, WERE APPLICABLE TO THE DATE OF THE
DECREE IN NOVEMBER, 1935, WITHOUT TAKING APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT OF CHANGED
CONDITIONS IN THE INTERVAL, THE COURT REVERSED THE DECREE AND REMANDED
THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED IN ITS OPINION.  ID., P. 528. 

PETITIONERS URGE THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS VIRTUALLY REQUIRED THE
DISTRICT COURT TO FIND CONFISCATION.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT THIS IS THE
NECESSARY IMPORT OF THE OPINION.  THE APPELLATE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL
NOTICE OF AN UPWARD TREND IN PRICES BUT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE A
SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THAT TREND.  THE REVERSAL OF THE DECREE
REQUIRES A HEARING ANEW IN THE DISTRICT COURT, AND UPON THAT HEARING
ALL QUESTIONS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUE OF CONFISCATION SHOULD BE OPEN. 
THE ECONOMIC CHANGES TO WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS REFERRED MAY
AFFECT INCOME AS WELL AS VALUES. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE DO NOT HAVE A SITUATION IN WHICH RATES AS
FIXED BY A COMMISSION HAVE BEEN ENJOINED.  HERE THE RATES PRESCRIBED BY
THE COMMISSION'S ORDER HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT ALL THROUGH THIS LITIGATION,
AND ARE NOW IN EFFECT.  A DECREE FOR INJUNCTION COULD OPERATE ONLY AS
TO THE FUTURE.  ANOTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS THAT THE DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THE VALUE IT FOUND WAS THE VALUE
AS OF THE DATE OF THE DECREE, NOVEMBER 29, 1935, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE COURT RELATED TO APRIL 1, 1933.  A DECREE SPEAKING AS OF THE
LATER DATE AND OPERATING THEREAFTER SHOULD HAVE A BASIS IN EVIDENCE. 
ON THE HEARING REQUIRED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, THE DISTRICT
COURT WILL BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT HAVE BEEN THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF
THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS DURING THE INTERVENING YEARS AND THUS TO BASE
ITS DECREE UPON KNOWN CONDITIONS AS TO THOSE YEARS WHICH MAY SHOW
CLEARLY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ECONOMIC CHANGES WHICH HAVE OCCURRED,
WHETHER THE PRESCRIBED RATES ARE OR ARE NOT OF A CONFISCATORY CHARACTER
AND WHETHER AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RATES
SHOULD BE GRANTED OR DENIED. 

TO LEAVE NO QUESTION AS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT COURT THUS
FULLY TO REHEAR AND DETERMINE THE CAUSE THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS IS MODIFIED SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED IN THIS OPINION.  AS THUS MODIFIED, THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.  MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION AND DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

I CANNOT AGREE THAT THIS CAUSE BROUGHT HERE BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA SHOULD BE
SENT BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL.  AFTER AN EXAMINATION
OF THE RECORD, I AM PERSUADED THAT THE ACTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
WAS WRONG AND THAT ITS JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE AFFIRMED EITHER AS
RENDERED OR IN ANY MODIFIED FORM.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS HERE
INVOLVED LEADS ME TO SET OUT SOME OF MY REASONS FOR THIS BELIEF. 

SIX YEARS AGO (1931) THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS FILED A PETITION WITH
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA AGAINST THE INDIANAPOLIS WATER
COMPANY, SEEKING A REDUCTION OF WATER RATES FOR SMALL CONSUMERS.  THE
COMMISSION FIXED THE RATES IN DECEMBER, 1932.  A MASTER APPOINTED BY
THE DISTRICT COURT REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO CONFISCATION MAY 18,
1934.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THERE WAS NO CONFISCATION NOVEMBER,
1935.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THERE WAS CONFISCATION MARCH, 1937. 
NOW, JANUARY, 1938, THIS COURT SENDS THE CASE BACK TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR TRIAL "ANEW."  THE CAUSE GOES BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH
THE ADMONITION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT A "GENERAL AND PERSISTENT
RISE IN PRICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EFFECT IN FIXING A FAIR
VALUATION."  AFFIRMANCE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS' DECREE NECESSARILY
APPROVES THIS STATEMENT AND THIS STATEMENT REQUIRES AN INCREASED
VALUATION OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY.  EXPERIENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT RATE
CASES CONTINUE TO COME TO THIS COURT UNTIL FINAL DECISIONS ARE
REACHED.  IF THE SECOND TRIAL FOLLOWS THE COURSE OF THE FIRST, THE CASE
SHOULD RETURN TO THIS COURT BY 1943.  HOWEVER, IT WILL NOW BE THE DUTY
OF THE DISTRICT COURT, IN TRYING THE CASE ANEW, TO MAKE A FORECAST AS
TO PROBABLE COMMODITY VALUES COVERING THIS FUTURE PERIOD UP TO 1943. 
FN1  IF ITS FORECAST SHOULD BE WRONG, THE PRESENT CASE WILL BE A
PRECEDENT FOR REVERSING THE CAUSE IN 1943 FOR STILL ANOTHER TRIAL. 
SENDING THE CASE BACK INDICATES THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS RIGHT IN
REVERSING THE DISTRICT COURT. 

I BELIEVE THE COURT OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR, THAT THE EVIDENCE DID
NOT SHOW CONFISCATION, AND I CANNOT AGREE TO THE ACTION OF THE
MAJORITY.  THIS COURT HAS ANNOUNCED THE DOCTRINE THAT THE STATES HAVE
FULL AND COMPLETE RIGHTS TO REGULATE THE RATES OF LOCAL INTRASTATE
UTILITIES AND THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS CANNOT AND WILL NOT INTERFERE
WITH THIS REGULATION UNLESS THE RATES ARE CONFISCATORY.  FURTHERMORE,
"UPON THAT QUESTION (OF CONFISCATION) THE COMPLAINANT HAS THE BURDEN OF
PROOF AND THE COURT MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S
AUTHORITY UNLESS CONFISCATION IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED."  FN2  THE
JUDICIAL FUNCTION DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE DECISION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.  UNLESS, THEREFORE, THE WATER COMPANY
SATISFACTORILY OVERCAME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE RATE SET BY THE
COMMISSION IS NOT CONFISCATORY, THIS COURT SHOULD NOT INVADE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SPHERE OF STATE RATE REGULATION.  FN3 

I CANNOT SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT COURT "COMPELLED A
CONVICTION THAT THE RATE WOULD PROVE INADEQUATE"; FN4  OR THAT THE
RATES WERE "PALPABLY AND GROSSLY UNREASONABLE"; FN5  NOR WAS THE
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE RATES, AS
FIXED BY THE COMMISSION AND REINFORCED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE MASTER
AND THE DISTRICT COURT, WERE NOT CONFISCATORY.  FN6 

THE MASTER REPORTED THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY TO BE
$20,282,143.00 AS OF APRIL 1, 1933.  DECEMBER, 1935, THE DISTRICT COURT
AFTER A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE REPORT OF THE MASTER, REFUSED TO
ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RATES FIXED BY THE COMMISSION.  THAT
COURT EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION FOR RATE MAKING PURPOSES A GROUP OF
FARMS OWNED BY THE COMPANY AND ESTIMATED BY THE MASTER TO HAVE A VALUE
OF $264,050.00, BUT INCREASED THE MASTER'S ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF
"WATER RIGHTS" TO $500,000.00.  EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN GIVEN OF THE
"REPRODUCTION VALUE" OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY, THE DISTRICT COURT
INCREASED BY $1,333,333.00 THE MASTER'S "ESTIMATE" OF THE "ESTIMATED
COST" OF LABOR NECESSARY TO "REPRODUCE" THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY; IT
RAISED THE MASTER'S TOTAL "ESTIMATE" OF THIS WHOLLY IMAGINARY
REPRODUCTION FROM $20,282,143.00 TO $21,392,821.00. 

MARCH 23, 1937, SIX YEARS AFTER THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS HAD
ORIGINALLY INITIATED ITS EFFORTS TO OBTAIN A REDUCTION IN WATER RATES,
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED THIS CAUSE.  IN DOING SO, IT
ORDERED THAT THE COMPANY'S INDIANA FARMS BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL
VALUATION UPON WHICH THE PEOPLE OF INDIANAPOLIS MUST PAY THE COMPANY AN
INCOME; ADDED $361,308.00 TO THE "ESTIMATE" OF THE MASTER AND DISTRICT
COURT FOR "UNDISTRIBUTED CONSTRUCTION COSTS"; AND RAISED "GOING VALUE"
$250,079.00. 

THE PRINCIPAL REASON GIVEN FOR THE REVERSAL, HOWEVER, WAS THAT
GENERAL PRICE LEVELS HAD RISEN, DURING THE THIRTY-TWO MONTHS
INTERVENING BETWEEN THE DATE AT WHICH VALUATIONS WERE FIXED (APRIL 1,
1933) TO THE DATE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECREE (NOVEMBER 29, 1935). 
LOOKING AT PRICE INDEX FIGURES, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT
PRICES HAD ASCENDED ABOUT TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT. DURING THAT PERIOD, AND
THAT IF THE DISTRICT COURT HAD GIVEN PROPER CONSIDERATION TO THIS
INCREASE IN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY, THAT COURT
WOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE RATE FIXED BY THE COMMISSION WAS "CLEARLY
CONFISCATORY." 

ONE MONTH AND THREE DAYS, HOWEVER, AFTER THE PRICE INDEX METHOD HAD
BEEN USED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN FINDING THE INDIANAPOLIS WATER
RATES CONFISCATORY, THIS COURT, IN THE CASE OF OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO.
V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 301 U.S. 292, STRUCK DOWN A REDUCED
TELEPHONE RATE FIXED BY THE OHIO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.  THE PEOPLE
OF OHIO WERE DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFIT OF A REDUCED TELEPHONE RATE
BECAUSE THE DECISION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION RESTED UPON PRICE
INDICES.  YET, IF THE DISTRICT COURT FOLLOWS THE OPINION OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS WHICH IS HERE AFFIRMED, THE PEOPLE OF INDIANAPOLIS WILL BE
DEPRIVED OF A REDUCED WATER RATE BECAUSE A PRICE INDEX, NOT INTRODUCED
IN EVIDENCE, INDICATED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE VALUATION FIXED
BY THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WRONG.  THIS OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
AS TO VALUE IS NOT REPUDIATED BY THE AFFIRMANCE.  THE MAJORITY DOES NOT
REVERSE THE COURT OF APPEALS' FINDING OF CONFISCATION.    I CANNOT
AGREE THAT THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROPHESY THE EXACT FUTURE COURSE OF COMMODITY PRICES.  THE LEGAL
KNOWLEDGE OF FEW JUDGES IS SUCH THAT THEY CAN ACCURATELY FORESEE AND
FORECAST ALL PRICE FLUCTUATIONS.  IN THE DELAYS INCIDENT TO RATE
LITIGATION IT IS PROBABLY TRUE THAT PRICES WILL FLUCTUATE MANY TIMES
BETWEEN THE BEGINNING OF A LITIGATION AND THE TIME WHEN THE CAUSE IS
WON, LOST OR ABANDONED.    IT HAS NOW BEEN MORE THAN FIVE YEARS SINCE
THE COMMISSION FIXED A VALUATION FOR THIS WATER WORKS PROPERTY AND IT
HAS BEEN MORE THAN FOUR YEARS SINCE THE MASTER REACHED HIS CONCLUSION. 
IF IT REQUIRES FOUR MORE YEARS FOR THIS CASE TO RETURN TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT BUT THAT SOME PRICE INDEX CAN BE FOUND
TO SHOW OTHER CHANGES IN PRICES.  SUCH A RESULT WILL ADD STILL FURTHER
TO THE CONFUSION AND CHAOS OF JUDICIAL RATE MAKING.  I BELIEVE IT
FORECASTS A DAY WHEN THE PRESENT LONG DELAYS IN RATE REGULATION WILL BE
ENDLESS. 

THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANOTHER TRIAL
UNLESS THIS COURT BELIEVES THE RATES TO BE CONFISCATORY.  WHEN THE
DISTRICT COURT TRIES THE CASE ANEW IT WILL BE CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW THE
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT A "GENERAL AND PERSISTENT RISE IN
PRICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EFFECT IN FIXING A FAIR VALUATION."  IN
THE MEANTIME, CAN A JUDGE BE FOUND WHO CAN ACCURATELY DIVINE ALL FUTURE
PRICES OF COMMODITIES TO BE USED FOR IMAGINARY REPRODUCTIONS OF THIS
COMPANY'S PROPERTY? 

I BELIEVE THIS CAUSE SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO A CONCLUSION AT THIS TIME. 
FN7  MY BELIEF THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED IS
STRENGTHENED BY A STUDY OF THE RECORD IN THE CASE OF MCCARDLE V.
INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 272 U.S. 400, OF WHICH RECORD WE TAKE JUDICIAL
NOTICE.  FN8 

FOR THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS OF THIS NATION'S HISTORY, FEDERAL COURTS
DID NOT INTERFERE WITH STATE LEGISLATION FIXING MAXIMUM RATES FOR
PUBLIC SERVICES PERFORMED WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE STATES.  THE STATE
LEGISLATURES, ACCORDING TO A CUSTOM WHICH THIS COURT DECLARED HAD
EXISTED "FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL"  FN9  DECIDED WHAT THOSE MAXIMUM RATES
SHOULD BE.  THIS COURT ALSO SAID THAT "FOR PROTECTION AGAINST ABUSES BY
LEGISLATURES THE PEOPLE MUST RESORT TO THE POLLS, NOT TO THE COURTS." 
FN10  IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1890 THAT A DIVIDED COURT FINALLY REPUDIATED ITS
EARLIER CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND DECLARED THAT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW REQUIRES JUDICIAL INVALIDATION OF LEGISLATIVE RATES WHICH THE
COURTS BELIEVE CONFISCATORY.  FN11  THE DISSENTING JUSTICES ADHERED TO
THE LONG EXISTING PRINCIPLE THAT REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WAS A
"LEGISLATIVE PREROGATIVE AND NOT A JUDICIAL ONE."  FN12 

FROM THIS DECISION IN 1890, SUPRA, HAS COME THE DOCTRINE THAT THE
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A RATE FIXED BY A
STATE FOR A PURELY LOCAL UTILITY IS CONFISCATORY.  THIS DOCTRINE DOES
NOT PURPORT TO GIVE TO FEDERAL COURTS MORE THAN THE LIMITED
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A GIVEN STATE RATE IS SO LOW AS TO BE
CONFISCATORY. 

THE DETERMINATION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE RATES IN THE
PRESENT CASE ARE CONFISCATORY CAN ONLY BE SUPPORTED, IF AT ALL, BY
GIVING UNDESERVED WEIGHT TO EVIDENCE GIVEN TO SUPPORT THE "REPRODUCTION
COST" THEORY.  THE EXPERIENCE OF THE PEOPLE OF INDIANAPOLIS IN THEIR
EFFORTS TO OBTAIN FAIR AND REASONABLE WATER RATES FROM THIS COMPANY
WHICH HAS LONG HAD A MONOPOLY IN THEIR COMMUNITY, DISCLOSES WHAT
APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE COMPLETE UNRELIABILITY OF THE "REPRODUCTION
COST" THEORY.  WHEREEVER THE QUESTION OF UTILITY VALUATION ARISES
TODAY, IT IS EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT TO DISCERN THE TRUTH THROUGH THE
MAZE OF FORMULAS AND THE JUNGLE OF METAPHYSICAL CONCEPTS SOMETIMES
CONCEIVED, AND OFTEN FOSTERED, BY THE INGENUITY OF THOSE WHO SEEK
INFLATED VALUATIONS TO SUPPORT EXCESSIVE RATES.  EVEN THE TESTIMONY OF
ENGINEERS, WITH WIDE EXPERIENCE IN DEVELOPING THIS THEORY AND
EXPOUNDING IT TO COURTS, IS NOT IN AGREEMENT AS TO THE MEANING OF THE
VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN TERMS CREATED TO ADD INVISIBLE AND INTANGIBLE
VALUES TO ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROPERTY.  COMPLETELY LOST IN THE CONFUSION
OF LANGUAGE - TOO FREQUENTLY INVENTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONFUSING -
COMMISSIONS AND COURTS PASSING UPON RATES FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE
DRIVEN TO LISTEN TO CONJECTURES, SPECULATIONS, ESTIMATES AND GUESSES,
ALL UNDER THE NAME OF "REPRODUCTION COSTS."  IN THE TESTIMONY OF
PROFESSIONAL WITNESSES EMPLOYED BY THE LITIGANTS, COURTS LISTEN TO
GUESSES ABOUT "GOING VALUE"; "UNDISTRIBUTED CONSTRUCTION COSTS"; "WATER
RIGHTS."  FN13  THIS COURT HAS EVEN SAID, "REPRODUCTION VALUE, HOWEVER,
IS NOT A MATTER OF OUTLAY, BUT OF ESTIMATE, AND  ... PROOF OF ACTUAL
EXPENDITURES ORIGINALLY MADE, WHILE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, IS NOT
INDISPENSABLE."  FN14  COURTS HAVE GONE FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY FROM
CONSIDERING COST IN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF UTILITY PROPERTY.  THE
COST OF THIS COMPANY'S PROPERTY APPARENTLY WAS GIVEN LITTLE WEIGHT IN
PREVIOUS LITIGATION WHICH CAME TO THIS COURT.  FN15  THIS COMPANY'S
PROPERTY WAS VALUED BY THIS COURT AT $19,000,000.00 IN THE PRIOR
LITIGATION ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION'S VALUATION WAS $16,495,000.00.  IT
IS INTERESTING TO NOTE WHAT THIS PROPERTY VALUED AT $19,000,000.00
ACTUALLY COST. 

THE RECORD IN THE MCCARDLE CASE, SUPRA, SHOWED:  THAT THE PROPERTY
WAS BOUGHT AT A JUDICIAL SALE IN 1881 BY THE PRESENT COMPANY AT A COST
OF NOT MORE THAN $535,000.00, THE PURCHASE BEING FINANCED BY A SALE OF
BONDS; THAT APPARENTLY NO CASH WAS PAID FOR THE $500,000.00 FACE VALUE
OF STOCK ISSUED AT THAT TIME; THAT THE MAXIMUM BOOK VALUE OF THE
COMPANY'S ASSETS ON DECEMBER 31, 1923, WAS $9,195,908.00 BUT A WITNESS
CALLED BY THE COMMISSION TESTIFIED THAT THE COMPANY'S RECORDS DISCLOSED
THE ACTUAL BOOK VALUE OF THE PROPERTY USED FOR THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
TO BE ONLY $7,967,649.00; THAT FROM 1881 TO DECEMBER 31, 1923,
STOCKHOLDERS' AVERAGE ANNUAL NET PROFITS WERE $189,255.00; THAT
PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE ADDED BOOK VALUE WAS THE RESULT OF ADDITIONAL
INVESTMENTS FINANCED BY BORROWING AND NOT BY INVESTMENT BY
STOCKHOLDERS; THAT NO OTHER INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE STOCKHOLDERS IN
THE COMPANY SINCE 1881, BUT IN 1909 A WRITE-UP OF $5,556,071.85 WAS
MADE ON THE BOOKS BY VIRTUE OF WHICH A COMMON STOCK DIVIDEND OF
$4,500,000.00 WAS DECLARED IN 1910, MAKING THE TOTAL COMMON STOCK
$5,000,000.00; THAT THE $5,000,000.00 STOCK WAS THEREAFTER CARRIED ON
THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY; THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS NOT ONLY PAID NO
ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR STOCK, BUT THAT THE PROFITS MADE BY THE COMPANY
BETWEEN 1881 AND 1932 WERE NOT REINVESTED IN THE COMPANY BUT WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL DRAWN OUT IN DIVIDENDS.  FN16 

THIS COURT FOUND IN THE MCCARDLE CASE THAT THE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED
TO A RATE BASED ON A $19,000,000.00 VALUATION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1923,
ALTHOUGH THE RECORD INDICATES:  THAT THE TOTAL ACTUAL INVESTMENT MADE
BY THE COMPANY UP TO THAT TIME WAS LESS THAN $9,000,000.00 AND WAS NOT
STOCKHOLDERS' INVESTMENT BUT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY ALL BORROWED MONEY; THAT
THE STOCKHOLDERS APPARENTLY HAD MADE NO INVESTMENT UNLESS (WHICH IS
VERY DOUBTFUL FROM THE RECORD) THEY PAID FOR THE $500,000.00 STOCK IN
1881; AND THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS HAD RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE
OF RETURN ON COMMON STOCK ON A $500,000.00 VALUATION FOR THE FIVE YEARS
PRECEDING THIS $19,000,000.00 APPRAISAL: 

1919 ........................................... 69% 

1920 ........................................... 75% 

1921 ........................................... 88% 

1922 ........................................... 96% 

1923 ........................................... 96% 

WHILE IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND IN THE PRESENT RECORD WHAT ADDITIONAL
INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE $19,000,000.00 APPRAISAL, IT DOES
APPEAR THAT THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY SHOWED
AN ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT OF $6,661,292.00.  IF THIS IS ADDED TO THE
1923 BOOK VALUE, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WHEN
THE APPRAISAL IN THIS CAUSE WAS MADE, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN BETWEEN
$13,000,000.00 AND $16,000,000.00 INVESTED THROUGH THE COMPANY'S
BORROWING ACTIVITIES.  BUT THE INDEBTEDNESS KEPT PACE WITH THE
INVESTMENTS AND WAS $13,746,900.00 AT THIS TIME.  THE DISTRICT COURT IS
NOW REVERSED, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND THAT RATES
BASED ON AN OBVIOUSLY INFLATED VALUE OF $21,392,821.00 FIXED BY THE
DISTRICT COURT WOULD CONFISCATE THE PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY'S
STOCKHOLDERS. 

THERE IS A MARKED DISPARITY BETWEEN THE ACTUAL COST OF THIS COMPANY'S
PROPERTY AND ITS IMAGINARY "REPRODUCTION VALUE."  I SHALL COMMENT UPON
A FEW OF MANY REASONS FOR THIS DISPARITY. 

FIRST, THE SO-CALLED "WATER RIGHTS" - THE COMPANY TAKES THE POSITION
THAT WATER RIGHTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN VALUED AT ABOUT $2,000,000.00. 
EXPERT WITNESSES FOR THE CITY VALUED THESE RIGHTS FROM NOTHING TO
$75,000.00, AND EXPERT WITNESSES FOR THE COMPANY AT $1,000,000.00 OR
MORE.  THIS ILLUSTRATION IS TYPICAL OF THE WIDE VARIATIONS IN EXPERT
EVIDENCE ON "REPRODUCTION COST"; IT IS A TYPICAL "ESTIMATE."  THE
COMPANY CLAIMS THAT THE ELEMENT OF GREATEST VALUE IN THE WATER RIGHTS
IS THE "DIVERSION RIGHT."  THIS "DIVERSION RIGHT" IS BASED, IN PART, ON
THE THEORY THAT FOR A LONG NUMBER OF YEARS THE COMPANY HAS DIVERTED
WATER FROM THE WHITE RIVER.  ACCORDING TO ONE THEORY, IT IS CLAIMED
WATER WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE FLOW DOWN STREAM IS DIVERTED BY THE
COMPANY; THAT THE TOM TAGGART PARK IN INDIANAPOLIS MIGHT POSSIBLY BE
INJURED BY THIS DIVERSION (BUT THE CITY HAS NOT COMPLAINED); THAT THE
STREAM OFFERS POSSIBILITIES OF SCENIC BEAUTY IF THERE WERE ADEQUATE
WATER AND IF IT SHOULD BE MADE SUITABLE FOR NAVIGATION BY SMALL
PLEASURE CRAFT.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS FORMULA EVOLVED AS A
RESULT OF ANYONE'S EXPRESSED OR FRUSTRATED DESIRE TO SAIL THIS STREAM. 
FROM THE POSSIBILITY, HOWEVER, THAT THE STREAM COULD BE USED FOR THIS
PURPOSE IF IMAGINARY PEOPLE SHOULD SO DESIRE, AN IMAGINARY DAMAGE TO
THESE IMAGINARY SAILORS IS DISCOVERED.  BASED UPON THIS POTENTIAL
MENACE TO THESE IMAGINARY PEOPLE AND THEIR IMAGINARY DESIRE TO USE THIS
STREAM, AN IMAGINARY VALUE OF $200,000.00 IS SUGGESTED AS THE COST
WHICH THE COMPANY MIGHT INCUR IN DISCHARGING ITS IMAGINARY DUTY TO
IMPROVE THE STREAM FOR THESE IMAGINARY SAILORS. 

IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH CONCEPTS OF PROPERTY CAN
ESTABLISH CLEAR PROOF THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES HAS
BEEN VIOLATED.  NOR DO I BELIEVE THAT, EVEN IF THE PEOPLE OF
INDIANAPOLIS AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY HAVE PERMITTED THE WATER
COMPANY TO USE THIS STREAM FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE, THERE HAS BEEN A GRANT
OF A PRESCRIPTIVE PROPERTY RIGHT WHICH CAN BE CAPITALIZED BY THE
COMPANY, IN ORDER TO EXACT HIGHER WATER RATES FROM THE VERY PEOPLE WHO
GRANTED THE PRIVILEGE. 

IF THE COMPANY HAD MADE ACTUAL INVESTMENTS IN ITS PROPERTY BETWEEN
1933 AND 1935, RESORT TO ILLUSORY PROPERTY CONCEPTS WOULD NOT BE
NECESSARY.  CLEARLY, IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A REASONABLE RETURN UPON
SUCH ACTUAL INVESTMENT.  SUCH IS NOT THE CASE.  THE ORDER FOR A NEW
TRIAL IS NOT BASED ON A CLAIM THAT THE COMPANY HAS INVESTED EVEN ONE
ADDITIONAL DOLLAR.  IT IS NOT CLAIMED THAT THE COMPANY BOUGHT
ADDITIONAL LAND; ADDED AN INCH TO ANY OF ITS DAMS; EXTENDED ITS
DISTRIBUTION PIPES; IMPROVED ITS FILTRATION SYSTEM; OR PURCHASED ONE
ADDITIONAL PIECE OF PROPERTY. 

THIS COURT HAS FREQUENTLY DECLARED THAT IN REACHING A CONCLUSION AS
TO A REASONABLE RATE, THE PUBLIC MUST BE CONSIDERED AS WELL AS THE
STOCKHOLDERS AND BONDHOLDERS.  FN17 THE DOCTRINE AGAINST CONFISCATORY
RATES IS BASED UPON THE THEORY OF PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF BONDHOLDERS
TO THEIR INTEREST AND THAT OF STOCKHOLDERS TO A FAIR RETURN UPON THE
VALUE OF THEIR ACTUAL INVESTMENTS.  WHILE THIS MATTER HAS BEEN CONFUSED
BY THE "REPRODUCTION COST" THEORY, THE FACT REMAINS THAT, AS APPLIED TO
CORPORATIONS, IT IS THE INTEREST OF THE STOCKHOLDERS AND BONDHOLDERS
WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PROTECTS. 

THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE BONDHOLDERS
HAVE NEVER BEEN, AND ARE NOT NOW, IN ANY JEOPARDY AS TO THEIR INTEREST
PAYMENTS.  IN THE MARGIN APPEARS THE RECORD OF STOCKHOLDERS' DIVIDENDS
SINCE THE $19,000,000.00 VALUATION.  FN18  IN VIEW OF THESE DIVIDENDS
ON THIS STOCK OF UNCERTAIN COST, THESE STOCKHOLDERS WERE IN NO IMMINENT
PERIL BECAUSE OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S VALUATION OF MORE THAN
$21,000,000.00. 

THIS CASE IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE ALMOST INSUPERABLE OBSTACLES TO
RATE REGULATION TODAY.  IT INVOLVES A SINGLE COMPANY SUPPLYING WATER TO
A SINGLE COMMUNITY.  IT DOES NOT PRESENT THE DIFFICULTIES OF A FAR
FLUNG UTILITY SYSTEM COVERING MUCH TERRITORY WITH MANY SEPARATE
CORPORATE CREATURES.  NEVERTHELESS, THIS PARTICULAR CASE HAS ALREADY
CONSUMED MORE THAN SIX YEARS AND IS APPARENTLY DESTINED TO REMAIN
SUSPENDED FOR SIX MORE YEARS.  FN19  MORE THAN 2000 PAGES OF RECORDS
AND EXHIBITS APPEAR IN THIS COURT IN THE APPEAL. 

THIS CASE WAS FIRST HEARD BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.  EVIDENCE
AND ARGUMENTS WERE THERE INTRODUCED AND THE QUESTIONS OF VALUE, RATES,
ETC., WERE FULLY EXPLORED.  THEREAFTER THE COMMISSION WHICH HAD BEEN
SPECIALLY CREATED BY THE STATE OF INDIANA TO INVESTIGATE SUCH CASES
RENDERED ITS DECREE. 

NEXT, THE CASE WAS INVESTIGATED BY A MASTER IN THE DISTRICT COURT. 
THIS COURT HAS ADMONISHED THE LOWER COURT THAT A MASTER SHOULD BE
APPOINTED FOR SUCH PURPOSES.  FN20  EXTENSIVE HEARINGS BEFORE THE
MASTER PRODUCED VOLUMINOUS TESTIMONY AT TREMENDOUS EXPENSE TO THE
LITIGANTS.  WHILE THIS EXPENSE MAY APPEAR ON THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY
IT WILL ULTIMATELY BE BORNE BY THE CONSUMERS.    AFTER THE MASTER HEARD
THE EVIDENCE, IT WENT TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR A THIRD REVIEW. 
THEREAFTER IT APPEARED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS WHERE IT WAS AGAIN
REVIEWED.  SINCE IT HAS COME TO THIS COURT, I BELIEVE THAT THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT IT BE CONCLUDED.  HISTORY INDICATES THAT IF IT IS
NOT CONCLUDED, THIS IS NOT LIKELY TO BE THE LAST JOURNEY MADE BY THE
CAUSE FROM INDIANAPOLIS TO WASHINGTON.  LITIGATION COSTS IN RATE
REGULATION TODAY CONSTITUTE A HEAVY BURDEN. 

IN THE MAIN, THE DISPUTE IN THIS CASE, AS IN MOST RATE CASES,
REVOLVES AROUND "INTANGIBLES" AND "REPRODUCTION COSTS." 

"INTANGIBLES," AS EXPOUNDED BY HIRED EXPERTS IN RATE LITIGATIONS,
MIGHT WELL BE DEFINED AS "PROPERTIES" THAT CAN NEITHER BE SEEN NOR
TOUCHED AND WHICH CAN RARELY BE UNDERSTOOD.  THEY CAN HAVE LITTLE
MEANING WHEN APPLIED TO PROPERTY WHICH IS NOT FOR SALE BUT FOR USE. 
THESE PROPERTY CONCEPTS ARE SO UNCERTAIN, TENUOUS AND ELUSIVE THAT NO
TWO WITNESSES GIVE THEM THE SAME VALUE EXCEPT ON OCCASIONS WHEN SEVERAL
WITNESSES HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE SAME LITIGANT.  FN21 

WITNESSES IN THE PRESENT CASE VARIED AS TO "ORGANIZATION" COSTS FROM
$81,000.00 TO $325,000.00.  EXPERTS DIFFERED AS TO "GOING VALUE"
BETWEEN $1,000,000.00 AND $2,700,000.00, AND ON WATER RIGHTS FROM
NOTHING TO $2,000,000.00. 

SUCH DIFFERENCES ARE NOT EXCEPTIONAL.  THEY OCCUR IN MOST CASES THAT
HAVE REACHED THIS COURT WHICH INVOLVE EXPERT APPRAISAL OF SUCH PHANTOM
CONCEPTS OF PROPERTY. 

THE ESTIMATES MADE BY WITNESSES OF "REPRODUCTION COSTS" OF PIPES FOR
THIS WATER-WORKS SYSTEM STRIKINGLY ILLUSTRATE THIS METHOD OF
VALUATION.  A COMPANY EXPERT ESTIMATED THAT THE REPRODUCTION COST OF
THE COMPANY'S "MAIN" PIPES, AS OF 1923, WAS $7,024,289.00.  IN THIS
GUESS IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THE PIPE HAD A LIFE OF 125 YEARS AND THAT "AS
A MATTER OF FACT, IT DOES NOT WEAR OUT IN USE."  IF THESE PIPES LAST
125 YEARS, THE REPRODUCTION COST THEORY WILL SUBJECT THE WATER
CONSUMERS OF INDIANAPOLIS TO INNUMERABLE INCREASES IN THE PRICE OF
WATER DURING THE NEXT CENTURY.  EXPERTS CAN UNDOUBTEDLY BE FOUND WHO
WILL TESTIFY FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THE COMING CENTURY, THAT THE
HYPOTHETICAL DIGGING UP OF OLD PIPES AND THE HYPOTHETICAL LAYING OF
HYPOTHETICAL NEW PIPES, WILL CONSTANTLY INCREASE THE HYPOTHETICAL
REPRODUCTION VALUE OF PIPES.  IN FACT THE ACTUAL PIPES WILL NOT BE DUG
UP.  THEY WILL CONTINUE TO LIE UNTOUCHED AND AT REST - UNDER THE SOIL. 

UNDER THIS REPRODUCTION COST THEORY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL WATER RATE IN
INDIANAPOLIS MUST FLUCTUATE DURING THE NEXT CENTURY WITH THE PRICE OF
CAST IRON PIPES.  ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL ELEMENTS OF THE SO-CALLED
"REPRODUCTION VALUE" IN THIS CASE IS THIS VERY PIPE.  I DO NOT BELIEVE
THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ACTION BY A SOVEREIGN STATE OF THIS UNION
IS DEPENDENT UPON THE MARKET FLUCTUATIONS OF CAST IRON PIPE. 

TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN IN THIS CASE AS TO THE "REPRODUCTION COST" OF A
CANAL USED BY THE WATER COMPANY.  THE STATE OF INDIANA CONSTRUCTED THIS
CANAL FOR NAVIGATION PURPOSES A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.  SOME YEARS AFTER
ITS COMPLETION, IT WAS OBTAINED BY THE WATER WORKS COMPANY OF
INDIANAPOLIS AND, WHILE THE RECORD IS NOT CLEAR, THE PRICE MIGHT HAVE
BEEN AS GREAT AS $35,000.00.  WHEN THE REORGANIZATION OF THE COMPANY
OCCURRED IN 1881, THIS CANAL WAS PLACED UPON THE BOOKS OF THE PRESENT
COMPANY AT $50,000.00.  IT REMAINED ON THE BOOKS AT THIS FIGURE UNTIL
THE WRITE-UP IN 1909 WHICH PRECEDED THE $4,500,000.00 STOCK DIVIDEND. 
AT THAT TIME, IT WAS HOISTED TO $1,773,874.00.  BY 1911, THIS SAME
CANAL APPARENTLY WAS CARRIED AT $2,746,538.00.  IN THE RATE VALUATION
CASE IN 1923, EXPERTS OF THE COMPANY VALUED IT AT MORE THAN
$3,000,000.00.  EXTENSIVE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THIS AND THE
MCCARDLE CASE, SUPRA, CONCERNING THE "REPRODUCTION VALUE" OF THIS
CANAL.  THE EXPERT WHO WAS "REPRODUCING" THE CANAL IN 1923 "ASSUMED A
SIMILAR SET OF CONDITIONS TO THOSE EXISTING AT THE TIME THE CANAL WAS
ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED."  IN OTHER WORDS, THE WITNESS TOOK HIMSELF AND
HIS STAFF BACK A HUNDRED YEARS TO THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED IN
INDIANA AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS STATE
NAVIGATION CANAL.  THUS PROJECTING HIMSELF BACK INTO HISTORY, HE FOUND
THAT THE WATER CONSUMERS OF INDIANAPOLIS SHOULD PAY TO THE PRESENT
OWNERS OF THE CANAL 6% INCOME ON MORE THAN $3,000,000.00.  I CANNOT
SUBSCRIBE TO THE BELIEF THAT IT WOULD VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE STATE OF INDIANA TO DENY THE COMPANY 6% INCOME ON
A STILL HIGHER VALUATION OF A CANAL THAT NEVER, AT THE OUTSIDE, COST
THE COMPANY MORE THAN $50,000.00.  THE QUESTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
IN CONNECTION WITH RATES IS NOT WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE RATE TO BE
CHARGED BY SUCH A COMPANY, BUT IT IS LIMITED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY TO
A DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A RATE WILL CONFISCATE THE PROPERTY OF
THE COMPANY.  THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS NOT SO "COMPELLING" AS TO
JUSTIFY A REVERSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S VALUATION, WHICH VALUATION,
ITSELF, NECESSARILY CONTAINS A FINDING OF VALUE FAR IN EXCESS OF WHAT
THIS CANAL COST OR WHAT IT IS REASONABLY WORTH.  IN A DISSENTING
OPINION BY CERTAIN COMMISSIONERS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF
INDIANA IN THE MCCARDLE CASE, THEY SAID: 

"WOULD ANY REASONABLE MAN ENTERTAIN THE PROPOSITION OF DUPLICATING
THE CANAL, IF A NEW WATER WORKS SYSTEM WERE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN
INDIANAPOLIS?  CERTAINLY NOT. 

"IN THE ESTIMATED RECONSTRUCTION NEW COST THERE IS THE HIGHLY FANCIED
ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF DUPLICATING THE CANAL AS IT WAS CONSTRUCTED
NINETY YEARS AGO.  IT WOULD BE JUST AS GERMANE TO THE ASCERTAINMENT OF
THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY USED AND USEFUL IN THE
PRESENT WATER SERVICE OF INDIANAPOLIS TO INDULGE IN A MAGNIFIED
IMAGINATION OF THE EXPENSE OF REPOPULATING THE CANAL BANKS WITH THE
INDIANS." 

THE STATE OF INDIANA DID NOT APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT
COURT.  WE, THEREFORE, ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO DECIDE WHETHER THE RATES
NOW IN FORCE ARE SO EXTORTIONATE AS TO CONFISCATE THE PROPERTY OF THE
CONSUMERS.  THE COMPANY APPEALED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT SEEKING A
HIGHER VALUATION.  THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT THE COMPANY WAS
ENTITLED TO A HIGHER VALUATION. 

AS A REASON FOR REVERSING AND REMANDING THIS CAUSE, THE MAJORITY
OPINION POINTS TO THE FACT THAT NO INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION HAS BEEN
ISSUED.  I BELIEVE THAT THE FACT THAT NO INJUNCTION WAS ISSUED AFTER
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA, THE MASTER IN THE FEDERAL
COURT, AND THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ALL FOUND THAT THE RATES WERE NOT
CONFISCATORY, IS BUT AN ADDED REASON WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT AGREE TO
OVERTURN THAT FINDING AND SHOULD REVERSE THE CAUSE.  IT WILL BE WHOLLY
IMPOSSIBLE IN MY JUDGMENT FOR ANY TRIAL COURT TO TRY THIS CAUSE AGAIN
FREE FROM THE PLAIN IMPLICATION, IN THE ACTION OF THIS COURT, THAT THE
VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY SHOULD BE FOUND TO BE APPROXIMATELY
TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT. GREATER THAN $22,000,000.00.  HOW CAN ANY TRIAL
COURT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS INDICATED A STRONG
BELIEF THAT THE VALUE SHOULD BE RAISED TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT?  HOW CAN
ANY TRIAL COURT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT AN INJUNCTION SHOULD NOW BE
ISSUED TO PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RATES THAT HAVE BEEN IN
EFFECT? 

THERE IS NOTHING STRANGE OR UNUSUAL ABOUT THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT
COURT FIXING A VALUE AS OF NOVEMBER 23, 1935, AS WELL AS OF APRIL 1,
1933.  ANY OTHER ACTION BY THE COURT WOULD HAVE GONE DIRECTLY IN THE
TEETH OF THE PLAIN MANDATES OF THIS COURT IN OTHER CASES.  NOT ONLY WAS
THE DISTRICT COURT COMPELLED TO ATTEMPT TO FIND THE VALUE AS OF 1933
AND AS OF 1935, BUT UNDER THE OPINIONS OF THIS COURT IT WAS NECESSARY
THAT IT ATTEMPT TO LIFT THE VEIL OF THE FUTURE, PEER INTO ITS
MYSTERIES, AND DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY FOR A
REASONABLE TIME AFTER 1935.  ITS ACTION WAS DICTATED BY THE COMMAND OF
THIS COURT THAT "AN HONEST AND INTELLIGENT FORECAST OF PROBABLE FUTURE
VALUES MADE UPON A VIEW OF ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, IS ESSENTIAL." 
MISSOURI EX REL. S.W. BELL TEL. CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262 U.S.
276, 288.  IF THIS LANGUAGE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT AS AN IMPERATIVE
ADMONITION FOR THE JUDGE TO BECOME A PROPHET, THERE WAS THE STATEMENT
MADE BY THIS COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPRAISAL OF THIS PARTICULAR
COMPANY'S PROPERTY IN MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 272 U.S. 400,
408, 409, THAT:  "IT MUST BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE RATES COMPLAINED OF
ARE YIELDING AND WILL YIELD  ...  A REASONABLE RATE OF RETURN ON THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF THE INVESTIGATION AND FOR A
REASONABLE TIME IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE."  (ITALICS ADDED.)  SURELY IT
IS NOT A GROUND FOR REVERSING THE CAUSE NOW THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAS
FOLLOWED THESE INSTRUCTIONS.  IS THE MAJORITY OVERRULING THESE CASES? 
MUST THE DISTRICT COURT, WHEN THE CASE IS TRIED "ANEW," OBEY THE FORMER
MANDATES "TO PROPHESY" OR DOES THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY MEAN IT
SHOULD NOT PROPHESY?  IF THE TRIAL COURT DOES PROPHESY, AND HUMAN
FALLIBILITY BRINGS ERROR INTO THE PROPHECY, WILL THIS COURT AGAIN SIX
YEARS HENCE, REVERSE AND REMAND FOR ANOTHER TRIAL "ANEW"?  I BELIEVE
THIS AFFIRMANCE ADDS ADDITIONAL UNCERTAINTY TO THE EXISTING CHAOS OF
RULES AND FORMULAS CREATED BY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE FIELD OF
RATE LITIGATION.  I FURTHER BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG TO SEND THIS CASE
BACK FOR ANOTHER TRIAL, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE RECORD AFFIRMATIVELY
SHOWS THAT THE CONSUMERS OF WATER IN INDIANAPOLIS ARE ALREADY COMPELLED
TO PAY AN UNJUSTIFIABLE PRICE FOR THEIR WATER ON ACCOUNT OF PREVIOUS
JUDICIAL OVERVALUATION OF THIS PROPERTY. 

I BELIEVE THE STATE OF INDIANA HAS THE RIGHT TO REGULATE THE PRICE OF
WATER IN INDIANAPOLIS FREE FROM INTERFERENCE BY FEDERAL COURTS.  THE
COURTS DID NOT DENY THIS RIGHT TO THE STATES FOR THE FIRST HUNDRED
YEARS AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN22  BUT EVEN UNDER THE
COMPARATIVELY RECENT DOCTRINE PURPORTING TO GIVE FEDERAL COURTS
JURISDICTION TO INVALIDATE RATES FIXED BY A STATE, I AM OF THE OPINION
THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEED IN THIS CAUSE. 
I BASE THIS BELIEF ON THE RECORD WHICH DOES NOT SHOW CLEARLY THAT THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE INDIANAPOLIS WATER COMPANY HAVE EVER MADE ANY
SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT WHICH COULD BE CONFISCATED.  I FURTHER BELIEVE
THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE RATES FIXED BY
THE COMMISSION WILL FAIL TO PROVIDE AN INCOME AMPLY ADEQUATE TO PAY ALL
INTEREST ON THE COMPANY'S FUNDED DEBT AND PROVIDE FAR MORE THAN A 6%
PROFIT ON ANY ACTUAL VALUE IN EXCESS OF THE BORROWED CAPITAL REMAINING
UNPAID.  I, THEREFORE, BELIEVE THAT THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER THIS CAUSE
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION OR THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT DISMISSING THE COMPANY'S BILL SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 272 U.S. 400, 408, 409. 

FN2  LOS ANGELES GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 287, 305. 

FN3  CHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO. V. WELLMAN, 143 U.S. 339. 

FN4  GALVESTON ELECTRIC CO. V. GALVESTON, 258 U.S. 388, 401. 

FN5  SAN DIEGO LAND CO. V. NATIONAL CITY, 174 U.S. 739, 750. 

FN6  DARNELL V. EDWARDS, 244 U.S. 564, 569. 

FN7  SEE KNOXVILLE V. KNOXVILLE WATER CO., 212 U.S. 1, 16; ALSO
MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 272 U.S. 400, 420. 

FN8  NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO. V. THOMPSON, 281 U.S. 331, 336. 

FN9  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113, 133. 

FN10  ID., P. 134; SEE PEIK V. CHICAGO & N.W. RY. CO., 94 U.S. 164,
178. 

FN11  CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 134 U.S. 418. 

FN12  ID., BRADLEY, J., DISSENTING, 461. 

FN13  COMPARE: 

"...  AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT BELOW RESTED UPON THAT MOST
UNSATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, THE TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES EMPLOYED BY
THE PARTIES."  KNOXVILLE V. KNOXVILLE WATER CO., 212 U.S. 1, AT 18; 

"WHILE THE EXPERTS REPRESENTING THE OPPOSING INTERESTS WERE
THOROUGHLY COMPETENT AND OF HIGH STANDING, THE WIDE DIFFERENCE IN THE
RESULTS REACHED LED THE COMMISSION TO THE 'IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION THAT
EACH WAS NOT UNMINDFUL OF HIS CLIENT'S INTEREST.'"  PLYMOUTH ELECTRIC
LIGHT CO. V. STATE, 81 N.H. 1, 4; 120 ATL. 689. 

"TO THESE PERTURBING TENDENCIES, ALL OPERATING TO WEAKEN THE
PERSUASIVE FORCE OF THEIR (EXPERT) OPINIONS, THERE MUST BE ADDED STILL
ANOTHER, THAT OF INTEREST OR BIAS, CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS."  DAYTON
POWER & L. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290 AT 299; 

"'SKILLED WITNESSES COME WITH SUCH PREJUDICE ON THEIR MINDS THAT
HARDLY ANY WEIGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THEIR EVIDENCE.'"  APPLETON WATER
WORKS CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 154 WIS. 121, AT 154; 142 N.W. 476. 

FN14  OHIO UTILITIES CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 267 U.S. 359,
362. 

FN15  SEE MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., SUPRA. 

FN16  THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY INDICATE THAT THE COMPANY SPENT FOR
ADDITIONS BETWEEN 1881 AND DECEMBER 31, 1923, $8,112,399.00 BUT THE
BOOKS ALSO SHOW THAT ON DECEMBER 31, 1923, THE OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNESS
OF THE COMPANY ON WHICH IT PAID INTEREST WAS $8,231,000.00.  DURING THE
SAME PERIOD, FROM 1881 TO DECEMBER 31, 1923, THE BOOKS SHOWED AVAILABLE
FOR DIVIDENDS $8,337,232.74.  DIVIDENDS PAID OUT WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

CASH DIVIDENDS.........................  $4,585,533.50 

BOND DIVIDENDS......................... 3,000,000.00 

STOCK DIVIDENDS........................   4,500,000.00

                                      ---------------

    TOTAL DIVIDENDS PAID BETWEEN

      1881 AND DECEMBER 31, 1923..... $12,085,533.50 

DURING THE SAME PERIOD THE RECORD SHOWS THAT INTEREST WAS PAID BY THE
COMPANY ON THE BONDS ISSUED TO THE STOCKHOLDERS AS DIVIDENDS AND THAT
INTEREST AMOUNTED TO $3,076,250.00. 

IT THUS APPEARS FROM THE BOOKS THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS RECEIVED AN
AVERAGE OF PRACTICALLY 38% PROFIT ON $500,000.00 FROM 1881 TO DECEMBER
31, 1923.    FN17  SEE COVINGTON & LEXINGTON TURNPIKE CO. V. SANDFORD,
164 U.S. 578, 587; CHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO. V. WELLMAN, SUPRA, 346. 

FN18  SINCE THE APPROVAL OF A $19,000,000.00 VALUATION ON THIS
COMPANY'S PROPERTY WAS MADE, DIVIDENDS WERE PAID AS FOLLOWS:

                                          RATE PAID

                                       ON INFLATED    RATE PAID

         YEAR                AMOUNT       $5,000,000  ON POSSIBLE

                                          STOCK        $500,000

  VALUATION     VALUATION 

1924........................   500,000.00   10%
100% 

1925........................ 

1926........................    600,000.00   12%
120% 

1927........................    950,000.00   19%
190% 

1928........................  1,000,000.00   20%
200% 

1929........................    650,000.00   13%
130% 

1930........................  1,225,000.00   24 1/2%    245% 

1931........................    600,000.00   12%                120% 

1932........................    375,000.00    7 1/2%
75% 

"SURELY, BEFORE THE COURTS ARE CALLED UPON TO ADJUDGE AN ACT OF THE
LEGISLATURE FIXING THE MAXIMUM PASSENGER RATES FOR RAILROAD COMPANIES
TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ON THE GROUND THAT ITS ENFORCEMENT WOULD
PREVENT THE STOCKHOLDERS FROM RECEIVING ANY DIVIDENDS ON THEIR
INVESTMENTS, OR THE BONDHOLDERS ANY INTEREST ON THEIR LOANS, THEY
SHOULD BE FULLY ADVISED AS TO WHAT IS DONE WITH THE RECEIPTS AND
EARNINGS OF THE COMPANY; FOR IF SO ADVISED, IT MIGHT CLEARLY APPEAR
THAT A PRUDENT AND HONEST MANAGEMENT WOULD, WITHIN THE RATES
PRESCRIBED, SECURE TO THE BONDHOLDERS THEIR INTEREST, AND TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS REASONABLE DIVIDENDS."  CHICAGO & G.T. RY. CO. V. WELLMAN,
SUPRA, 345. 

FN19  THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATE THE DELAYS IN RATE LITIGATION:

         BILL FILED   DECIDED         TIME 

UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 278       DEC. 1923   JAN.
1929   5 YEARS 

U.S. 300. 

UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,     APRIL 1925  JAN.
1929   3 YRS.  8 MOS. 

278 U.S. 322. 

OTTINGER V. BROOKLYN UNION GAS CO., 272 U.S.     JUNE 1923   NOV.
1926   3 YRS.  5 MOS. 

579. 

OTTINGER V. KINGS COUNTY LIGHTING CO., 272 U.S.  JUNE 1923   NOV.
1926   3 YRS.  5 MOS. 

579. 

OTTINGER V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 272 U.S. 576    JUNE 1923   NOV.
1926   3 YRS.  5 MOS. 

PATTERSON V. MOBILE GAS CO., 271 U.S. 131         AUG. 1922   APRIL
1926 3 YRS.  8 MOS. 

MCCARDLE V. INDIANAPOLIS WATER CO., 272 U.S.     DEC. 1923   NOV.
1926   2 YRS.  11 MOS. 

400.

  AVERAGE      3 YRS.  7 MOS. 

SEE, ALSO, BRANDEIS, J., CONCURRING, ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 88 ET SEQ. 

LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., 292 U.S. 151. 
COMMISSION'S ORDER MADE 1923; CAUSE LAST APPEARED IN THIS COURT IN
1933. 

OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 301 U.S. 292. 
THIS CASE STARTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN 1921.  BY 1931 THE
COMMISSION ANNOUNCED ITS TENTATIVE ORDER.  1934 THE COMMISSION MADE
WHAT PURPORTS TO BE A FINAL VALUATION.  APRIL, 1937, THIS COURT
RETURNED THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER ACTION. 

FN20  CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. V. TOMPKINS, 176 U.S. 167. 

FN21  FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE MCCARDLE CASE, SUPRA, THE HIGHEST ESTIMATE
WAS THREE TIMES AS GREAT AS THE LOWEST.  SEE BRANDEIS, J., DISSENTING,
MISSOURI EX REL. S.W. BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 262
U.S. AT 299. 

FN22  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA.
..END :









STANDARD INS. CO. V. U.S., 302 U.S. 442 


NO. 41.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 658, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CLAIM OF A COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD FOR UNPAID FREIGHT
CHARGES, DUE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A FEDERAL BUILDING, IS ONE FOR "LABOR AND MATERIALS" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 13, 1894, AS AMENDED, AND IS COVERED BY A
CONTRACTOR'S BOND GIVEN PURSUANT TO THAT ACT.  PP. 443-444. 

2.  THE ACT IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THOSE
WHO FURNISH LABOR OR MATERIALS FOR PUBLIC WORKS.  P. 444. 

3.  THAT THE CARRIER MIGHT HAVE ENFORCED PAYMENT OF ITS CHARGES BY
WITHHOLDING DELIVERY IS NOT REASON FOR EXCLUDING IT FROM THE BENEFIT OF
THE ACT.  P. 444. 

STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO. V. U.S. FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF
POWELL ET AL., RECEIVERS, ETC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 664, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY AS SURETY ON A PUBLIC CONTRACTOR'S BOND. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER IS SURETY ON A POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION BOND GIVEN
PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED AUGUST 13, 1894, C. 280, 28
STAT. 278, AS AMENDED, 40 U.S.C. SEC. 270, WHICH PROVIDES - 

"ANY PERSON OR PERSONS ENTERING INTO A FORMAL CONTRACT WITH THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING, OR THE
PROSECUTION AND COMPLETION OF ANY PUBLIC WORK, OR FOR REPAIRS UPON ANY
PUBLIC BUILDING OR PUBLIC WORK, SHALL BE REQUIRED, BEFORE COMMENCING
SUCH WORK, TO EXECUTE THE USUAL PENAL BOND, WITH GOOD AND SUFFICIENT
SURETIES, WITH THE ADDITIONAL OBLIGATION THAT SUCH CONTRACTOR OR
CONTRACTORS SHALL PROMPTLY MAKE PAYMENTS TO ALL PERSONS SUPPLYING HIM
OR THEM WITH LABOR AND MATERIALS IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK
PROVIDED FOR IN SUCH CONTRACT; AND ANY PERSON, COMPANY, OR CORPORATION
WHO HAS FURNISHED LABOR OR MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIR
OF ANY PUBLIC BUILDING OR PUBLIC WORK, AND PAYMENT FOR WHICH HAS NOT
BEEN MADE, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE AND BE MADE A PARTY TO ANY
ACTION INSTITUTED BY THE UNITED STATES ON THE BOND OF THE CONTRACTOR,
AND TO HAVE THEIR RIGHTS AND CLAIMS ADJUDICATED IN SUCH ACTION AND
JUDGMENT RENDERED THEREON, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO THE PRIORITY OF THE
CLAIM AND JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES...." 

RESPONDENT, COMMON CARRIER BY RAILROAD, HAVING TRANSPORTED MATERIAL
FOR THE STRUCTURE, SUED ON THE BOND TO RECOVER FREIGHT CHARGES AND
PREVAILED IN BOTH COURTS BELOW.  THEY HELD IT WAS "A CORPORATION WHO
HAS FURNISHED LABOR OR MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION" OF A PUBLIC
BUILDING.  THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS CONCLUSION IS THE ONLY QUESTION
BEFORE US. 

THE CAUSE IS HERE BECAUSE OF CONFLICTING OPINIONS IN CIRCUIT COURTS
OF APPEALS.  U.S. TO USE OF SABINE & E.T. RY. CO. V. HYATT, 92 FED.
442; TITLE GUARANTY & TRUST CO. V. PUGET SOUND ENGINE WORKS, 163 FED.
168; MANDEL V. U.S. TO USE OF WARTON & N.R. CO., 4 F.(2D) 629; MARYLAND
CASUALTY CO. V. OHIO RIVER GRAVEL CO., 20 F.(2D) 514; STUART FOR USE OF
FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 38 F.(2D) 193;
STANDARD ACCIDENT INS. CO. V. U.S. FOR USE OF POWELL, 89 F.(2D) 658. 

PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT FREIGHT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS "LABOR OR
MATERIAL" WITHOUT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE; ALSO THAT
CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO EXTEND FURTHER PROTECTION TO CARRIERS WHO
COULD ENFORCE THEIR LIEN FOR CHARGES BY RETAINING AND SELLING THE
MATERIALS. 

STUART FOR USE OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. V. AMERICAN SURETY CO.,
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT (1930), SUPRA, CAREFULLY
CONSIDERED AND DENIED THESE DEFENSES AND STATED REASONS THEREFOR WHICH
WE DEEM ADEQUATE.  THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY THE COURT BELOW IN THE PRESENT
CAUSE. 

THE STATUTE OFTEN HAS BEEN BEFORE US.  GUARANTY CO. V. PRESSED BRICK
CO., 191 U.S. 416; U.S. FOR USE OF HILL V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 200
U.S. 197, 201; TITLE GUARANTY & T. CO. V. CRANE CO., 219 U.S. 24; U.S.
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. U.S. FOR BENEFIT OF BARTLETT, 231 U.S. 237;
EQUITABLE SURETY CO. V. U.S. FOR USE OF MCMILLAN, 234 U.S. 448, 456;
ILLINOIS SURETY CO. V. JOHN DAVIS CO., 244 U.S. 376, 383; BROGAN V.
NATIONAL SURETY CO., 246 U.S. 257, 262.  AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE
DOCTRINE THAT IT SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN AID OF THE EVIDENT
PUBLIC OBJECT - SECURITY TO THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE LABOR OR MATERIAL FOR
PUBLIC WORKS. 

CERTAINLY LABOR IS REQUIRED FOR LOADING FREIGHT ON RAILROAD CARS,
MOVING THESE OVER THE ROAD, AND UNLOADING AT DESTINATION.  A CARRIER
WHO HAS PROCURED THE DOING OF ALL THIS IN RESPECT OF MATERIAL HAS
"FURNISHED LABOR."  IF A CONTRACTOR HAD EMPLOYED MEN TO MOVE THE SAME
KIND OF MATERIAL IN WHEELBARROWS, THERE COULD BE NO DOUBT THAT HE
FURNISHED LABOR.  IN PRINCIPLE THE MERE USE OF CARS AND TRACK AND A
LONGER HAUL CREATES NO MATERIALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION. 

NOR DO WE FIND REASON FOR EXCLUDING THE CARRIER FROM THE BENEFIT OF
THE BOND BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAVE ENFORCED PAYMENT BY WITHHOLDING
DELIVERY.  THE WORDS OF THE ENACTMENT ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE A
CARRIER WITH A LIEN.  NOTHING IN ITS PURPOSE REQUIRES EXCLUSION OF A
RAILROAD.  REFUSAL BY THE CARRIER TO DELIVER MATERIAL UNTIL ALL CHARGES
WERE PAID MIGHT SERIOUSLY IMPEDE THE PROGRESS OF PUBLIC WORKS, POSSIBLY
FRUSTRATE AN IMPORTANT UNDERTAKING. 

STATE FOR USE OF PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.,
(1929) 34 DEL. 158; 145 ATL. 172, GAVE MUCH CONSIDERATION TO A SIMILAR
STATUTE.  THE CONCLUSION THERE REACHED ACCORDS WITH OUR VIEW. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW MUST BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :









U.S. EX REL. WILLOUGHBY V. HOWARD, 302 U.S. 445 


NO. 30.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 87
F.(2D) 243, REVERSED. 


1.  BY THE COMMON LAW IT IS THE DUTY OF A TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER, UNLESS
RELIEVED BY AGREEMENT, STATUTE, OR ORDER OF COURT, TO EXERCISE
REASONABLE CARE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE FIDUCIARY ESTATE.  P. 450. 

2.  IN RESPECT OF THE CARE OF THE FUNDS OF THE BANKRUPT ESTATES HERE
INVOLVED, THE DUTY OF THE TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER WAS NOT LIMITED, BY ANY
AGREEMENT, STATUTE, OR ORDER OF COURT, TO DEPOSITING THEM IN ONE OF THE
DEPOSITORIES DESIGNATED BY THE COURT UNDER U.S.C., TITLE 11, SEC. 101. 
PP. 450-452. 

3.  ALTHOUGH DESIGNATION BY THE COURT OF DEPOSITORIES FOR FUNDS OF
BANKRUPT ESTATES LIMITS THE DISCRETION OF THE DEPOSITING OFFICER AND
MAY RENDER HIM ABSOLUTELY LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF FUNDS PLACED
ELSEWHERE, IT DOES NOT RELIEVE HIM OF THE DUTY OF EXERCISING CARE AND
PRUDENCE WITHIN THE FIELD LEFT TO HIS DISCRETION.  PP. 451-452. 

4.  THE MERE IMPOSITION OF STATUTORY DUTIES DOES NOT REMOVE LIABILITY
FOR BREACH OF EXISTING COMMON LAW DUTIES.  P. 452. 

5.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE BANKRUPTCY ACT ESTABLISHED A DEPOSITORY
SYSTEM - ANALOGOUS TO THE DEPOSITORY SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS FOR
THE DEPOSIT OF TREASURY FUNDS - WHICH RELIEVED TRUSTEES AND RECEIVERS
WHOLLY OF THE DUTY OF EXERCISING CARE AS TO THE CONDITION OR STABILITY
OF A DEPOSITORY, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  P. 453. 

6.  AS TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER OF 123 SEPARATE BANKRUPT ESTATES, H GAVE
BOND IN EACH CASE CONDITIONED, INTER ALIA, ON THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES.  IN A BANK WHICH MADE PERSONAL UNSECURED LOANS
TO HIM, AND WHICH WAS ONE OF TWENTY AVAILABLE DESIGNATED DEPOSITORIES,
HE DEPOSITED FUNDS OF THE ESTATES TOTALING MORE THAN EIGHT TIMES THE
PENALTY OF THE BANK'S DEPOSITORY BOND.  HE CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN THE
FUNDS THERE, ALTHOUGH HE KNEW OF SEVERAL HEAVY RUNS ON THE BANK AND
THAT ITS DEPOSITS AND RESOURCES WERE DWINDLING.  THE BANK CLOSED ITS
DOORS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY ACTIONS WERE BROUGHT ON THE BONDS GIVEN BY H.
HELD: 

(1)  THE EXERCISE OF ORDINARY CARE IN MAKING AND MAINTAINING
DEPOSITS, EVEN THOUGH MADE IN A DESIGNATED DEPOSITORY, WAS PART OF H'S
OFFICIAL DUTIES, AND HE AND HIS SURETY ARE LIABLE ON THE BONDS IF HE
FAILED IN THIS RESPECT.  P. 454. 

(2)  THE EVIDENCE ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER H HAD FAILED IN THE
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES WAS AMPLE - PARTICULARLY IN
VIEW OF THE PERSONAL LOANS TO HIM - TO JUSTIFY SUBMITTING THE QUESTION
TO THE JURY.  P. 454. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. WILLOUGHBY, TRUSTEE, ET AL. V. HOWARD ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 677, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A JUDGMENT
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN THREE SUITS, CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL, AGAINST THE
PRINCIPAL AND SURETY ON A NUMBER OF FIDELITY BONDS GIVEN BY THE
PRINCIPAL AS TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER OF BANKRUPT ESTATES. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER A TRUSTEE (OR RECEIVER) IN
BANKRUPTCY AND THE SURETY ON HIS OFFICIAL BOND CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR
THE LOSS RESULTING FROM THE INSOLVENCY OF THE BANK IN WHICH THE
ESTATE'S FUNDS WERE DEPOSITED, IF IT WAS ONE OF THE DEPOSITORIES
DESIGNATED BY THE COURT UNDER U.S.C. TITLE 11, SEC. 101. 

SAM HOWARD WAS TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF 114 SEPARATE BANKRUPT
ESTATES, AND WAS RECEIVER OF 9, IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR NORTHERN
ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION.  BETWEEN AUGUST 20, 1930, AND JUNE 21,
1932, HE HAD DEPOSITED THE FUNDS OF EACH OF THE 123 ESTATES IN THE
PHILLIP STATE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, AS ORDINARY COMMERCIAL
ACCOUNTS.  ON THE LATTER DATE THE BANK, BEING INSOLVENT, CLOSED ITS
DOORS.  THE AGGREGATE OF HIS BANKRUPTCY DEPOSITS IN THE 123 ACCOUNTS
WAS, AT THE TIME OF ITS CLOSING, OVER EIGHT TIMES THE PENALTY OF THE
BANK'S DEPOSITORY BOND OF $50,000.  THE ONLY DIVIDEND RECEIVED BY THE
BANKRUPTCY ESTATES WAS ABOUT 11 PERCENT - WHICH WAS PAID FROM THE
AMOUNT COLLECTED ON THE DEPOSITORY BOND. 

AS REQUIRED BY U.S.C. TITLE 11, SEC. 78, HOWARD HAD GIVEN AN OFFICIAL
BOND TO THE UNITED STATES FOR EACH ESTATE, AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY WAS THE SURETY.  THE FORM OF THE TRUSTEE'S BOND WAS THAT
PRESCRIBED BY FORM 25 OF THE GENERAL ORDERS AND FORMS IN BANKRUPTCY,
PURSUANT TO U.S.C. TITLE 11, SEC. 53. 

THE OBLIGORS BOUND THEMSELVES TO PAY ANY LOSS RESULTING TO THE ESTATE
FROM FAILURE BY HOWARD, (A) TO OBEY ANY ORDER OF THE COURT, (B) TRULY
AND FAITHFULLY TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL MONEYS, (C) FAITHFULLY TO PERFORM HIS
OFFICIAL DUTIES AS TRUSTEE.  FN1  IT IS AGREED THAT THE CONDITION OF
THE BONDS GIVEN AS RECEIVER WAS IN EFFECT THE SAME. 

HOWARD RESIGNED AS TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER OF EACH ESTATE.  CHESTER A.
WILLOUGHBY, WHO SUCCEEDED HIM, BROUGHT IN THAT COURT, PURSUANT TO
LEAVE, THREE ACTIONS IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST HOWARD
AND THE CASUALTY COMPANY.  IN THESE ACTIONS, WHICH WERE CONSOLIDATED,
RECOVERY WAS SOUGHT ON EACH BOND ON THE GROUND THAT ITS CONDITION HAD
BEEN BROKEN BY HOWARD'S FAILING TO PERFORM HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AS
TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER.  THE FAILURE ASSIGNED WAS THAT HE NEGLIGENTLY
DEPOSITED THE FUNDS, OR PERMITTED THEM TO REMAIN, IN THE PHILLIP BANK,
WHEREAS ORDINARY CARE AND PRUDENCE WOULD HAVE REQUIRED HIM TO DESIST
FROM SUCH PRACTICE AND TAKE CARE THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE DEPOSITS OF
ESTATE FUNDS IN THAT BANK SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE PENALTY OF THE
DEPOSITORY BOND.  THE DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS ON THE
GROUND THAT THEY FAILED TO DISCLOSE ANY BREACH OF THE CONDITION OF THE
BONDS.  UPON THE DENIAL OF THE MOTIONS, THE CONSOLIDATED CASES WERE
HEARD BEFORE A JURY ON THE ISSUE WHETHER HOWARD HAD BEEN NEGLIGENT IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES IN SO DEPOSITING THE FUNDS, OR
IN LEAVING THEM, IN THE PHILLIP BANK. 

THE FOLLOWING, AMONG OTHER FACTS, APPEARED:  ABOUT TWENTY CHICAGO
BANKS HAD BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE COURT AS DEPOSITORIES OF BANKRUPTCY
FUNDS IN THAT DISTRICT.  HOWARD, WHO HAD FOR YEARS SERVED AS TRUSTEE
AND RECEIVER OF BANKRUPT ESTATES, HAD, PRIOR TO AUGUST, 1930, DEPOSITED
THE FUNDS OF THE ESTATES EITHER IN THE CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY OF
ILLINOIS OR THE FOREMAN STATE NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO.  IN JULY HE WAS
SOLICITED TO TRANSFER HIS BANKRUPTCY DEPOSITS TO THE PHILLIP BANK, A
SMALL INSTITUTION.  HE AGREED TO DO SO IF THE PHILLIP BANK SHOULD
BECOME A DEPOSITORY, WOULD MAKE HIM UNSECURED PERSONAL LOANS SUFFICIENT
TO DISCHARGE HIS EXISTING PERSONAL INDEBTEDNESS TO THE CENTRAL TRUST
COMPANY AND THE FOREMAN STATE NATIONAL BANK - AND WOULD GIVE HIM
THEREAFTER LIKE ACCOMMODATION.  THE PHILLIP BANK LOANED HIM $11,000;
HOWARD PAID HIS INDEBTEDNESS TO THE OTHER BANKS; AND ON AUGUST 20, THE
PHILLIP BANK QUALIFIED AS A DEPOSITORY, GIVING A BOND IN THE SUM OF
$50,000.  WITHIN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, HOWARD OPENED IN THE PHILLIP BANK
ACCOUNTS FOR BANKRUPTCY ESTATES WITH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING $249,968.15. 
THE NUMBER OF HIS ACCOUNTS, THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT ON DEPOSIT, AND THE
AMOUNT OF HIS PERSONAL LOANS FROM THAT BANK INCREASED FROM TIME TO
TIME.  WHEN THE BANK CLOSED, THE ACCOUNTS NUMBERED 123, THE DEPOSITS
AGGREGATED $416,833.90, AND THE LOANS TO HOWARD $17,500.  THE PHILLIP
BANK'S DEPOSITORY BOND REMAINED AT $50,000.  HE KNEW THAT DURING THIS
PERIOD OF DEPOSIT THERE WERE SEVERAL HEAVY RUNS ON THE PHILLIP BANK,
ITS DEPOSITS WERE STEADILY DECLINING AND ITS RESOURCES WERE BEING
DRAINED. 

DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WERE DENIED; THE JURY
FOUND FOR THE PLAINTIFF VERDICTS AGGREGATING $225,740.45; A NEW TRIAL
WAS REFUSED; AND AN APPEAL WAS TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
WHERE THE CASE WAS HEARD FIRST BY TWO JUDGES, THEN REARGUED BEFORE THE
FULL COURT.  A CONDENSED REPORT OF THE EVIDENCE AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS
AT THE TRIAL OCCUPIES 250 PAGES OF THE PRINTED RECORD.  MUCH EVIDENCE
OFFERED BY DEFENDANTS HAD BEEN EXCLUDED; MANY RULINGS SOUGHT HAD BEEN
REFUSED; AND TIMELY EXCEPTION HAD BEEN TAKEN TO INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO
THE JURY AND TO THOSE REFUSED.  EIGHTY-FOUR ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR HAD
BEEN FILED WITH THE PETITION FOR APPEAL.  BUT THE APPELLATE COURT
EXAMINED ONLY A FEW OF THE ASSIGNED ERRORS.  FOR IT HELD THAT THE TRIAL
COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED A VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANTS, ON THE GROUND
THAT, SINCE HOWARD HAD DEPOSITED AND MAINTAINED THE FUNDS IN ONE OF THE
BANKS DESIGNATED BY THE COURT AS DEPOSITORIES, HE FULLY PERFORMED HIS
OFFICIAL DUTY IN RESPECT TO THE CARE OF THE FUNDS.  IT REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT WITH DIRECTION TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL AND TO PROCEED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION.  87 F.(2D) 243.  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION
PRESENTED. 

FIRST.  THAT THE OBLIGORS IN THE BONDS ARE LIABLE ONLY FOR BREACH BY
HOWARD OF AN OFFICIAL DUTY MAY BE ASSUMED.  BY THE COMMON LAW  FN2
EVERY TRUSTEE OR RECEIVER OF AN ESTATE HAS THE DUTY OF EXERCISING
REASONABLE CARE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE FIDUCIARY ESTATE UNLESS RELIEVED
OF SUCH DUTY BY AGREEMENT, STATUTE, OR ORDER OF COURT.  OBVIOUSLY,
HOWARD WAS NOT RELIEVED OF THE DUTY BY ANY AGREEMENT.  THE QUESTION FOR
DECISION IS WHETHER UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, FN3  OR ANY ORDER OF THE
COURT, THIS DUTY IN RESPECT TO THE CARE OF FUNDS WAS LIMITED TO
DEPOSITING THEM IN ONE OF THE DEPOSITORIES DESIGNATED BY THE COURT
UNDER U.S.C. TITLE 11, SEC. 101, SO THAT HOWARD WAS RELIEVED OF ALL
DUTY TO EXERCISE CARE IN SELECTING THE DEPOSITORY AND MAINTAINING FUNDS
THEREIN. 

SECOND.  NO STATUTE RELIEVED HOWARD OF THE COMMON LAW DUTY TO
EXERCISE CARE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE FUNDS.  THE ONLY RELEVANT
PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT PRESCRIBING DUTIES OF THE TRUSTEE
ARE: 

"SEC. 61(U.S.C. TITLE 11, SEC. 101).  DEPOSITORIES FOR MONEY.  COURTS
OF BANKRUPTCY SHALL DESIGNATE, BY ORDER, BANKING INSTITUTIONS AS
DEPOSITORIES FOR THE MONEY OF BANKRUPT ESTATES, AS CONVENIENT AS MAY BE
TO THE RESIDENCES OF TRUSTEES, AND SHALL REQUIRE BONDS TO THE UNITED
STATES, SUBJECT TO THEIR APPROVAL, TO BE GIVEN BY SUCH BANKING
INSTITUTIONS, AND MAY FROM TIME TO TIME AS OCCASION MAY REQUIRE, BY
LIKE ORDER INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DEPOSITORIES OR THE AMOUNT OF ANY
BOND OR CHANGE SUCH DEPOSITORIES." 

"SEC. 47(U.S.C. TITLE 11, SEC. 75).  DUTIES OF TRUSTEES.  (A)
TRUSTEES SHALL RESPECTIVELY  ... 

"(3)  DEPOSIT ALL MONEY RECEIVED  ...  IN ONE OF THE DESIGNATED
DEPOSITORIES; 

"(4)  DISBURSE MONEY ONLY BY CHECK OR DRAFT ON THE DEPOSITORIES IN
WHICH IT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED; 

"(5)  FURNISH SUCH INFORMATION CONCERNING THE ESTATES  ...  AND THEIR
ADMINISTRATION AS MAY BE REQUESTED BY PARTIES IN INTEREST;... 

"(7)  LAY BEFORE THE FINAL MEETING OF THE CREDITORS DETAILED
STATEMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATES; 

"(8)  MAKE FINAL REPORTS AND FILE FINAL ACCOUNTS WITH THE COURTS
FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE DAYS FIXED FOR THE FINAL MEETINGS OF THE
CREDITORS;... 

"(10)  REPORT TO THE COURTS, IN WRITING, THE CONDITION OF THE ESTATES
AND THE AMOUNTS OF MONEY ON HAND, AND SUCH OTHER DETAILS AS MAY BE
REQUIRED BY THE COURTS, WITHIN THE FIRST MONTH AFTER THEIR APPOINTMENT
AND EVERY TWO MONTHS THEREAFTER, UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE
COURTS;..." 

OBVIOUSLY THE ACT DOES NOT IN TERMS RELIEVE THE TRUSTEE OF THE COMMON
LAW DUTY TO EXERCISE CARE IN THE CUSTODY OF FUNDS.  THE DESIGNATION OF
BANKS OF DEPOSIT PROPER FOR BANKRUPTCY FUNDS, LIKE THE LISTING OF LEGAL
INVESTMENTS FOR TRUSTEES AND GUARDIANS, LIMITS THE DISCRETION WHICH CAN
BE EXERCISED BY THE DEPOSITING OFFICER AND MAY RENDER HIM ABSOLUTELY
LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF FUNDS PLACED IN A NON-DESIGNATED DEPOSITORY. 
BUT THE FACT THAT THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF THE FIDUCIARY IS LIMITED BY
STATUTE DOES NOT RELIEVE HIM OF THE DUTY OF EXERCISING CARE AND
PRUDENCE WITHIN THE FIELD LEFT TO HIS DISCRETION.  AS HE MAY NOT SHUT
HIS EYES TO THE FACT THAT A SO-CALLED LEGAL INVESTMENT IS NO LONGER
SOUND, HE MAY NOT DISREGARD THE FACT THAT A DEPOSITORY PROPER WHEN
DESIGNATED IS NO LONGER SAFE.  FN4  THE MERE IMPOSITION OF STATUTORY
DUTIES DOES NOT REMOVE LIABILITY FOR BREACH OF EXISTING COMMON LAW
DUTIES.  COMPARE BOWERMAN V. HAMNER, 250 U.S. 504, 510-11; YATES V.
JONES NATIONAL BANK, 206 U.S. 158, 178; MECHANICS UNIVERSAL JOINT CO.
V. CULHANE, 299 U.S. 51, 57. 

THIRD.  NO ORDER OF THE COURT LIMITED THE COMMON LAW DUTY OF HOWARD
TO EXERCISE CARE IN THE CUSTODY OF ESTATE FUNDS.  THE PHILLIP BANK WAS
DESIGNATED AS A DEPOSITORY ON ITS OWN APPLICATION.  NO ORDER DIRECTED
HOWARD TO DEPOSIT FUNDS IN THE PHILLIP BANK; AND NO ORDER SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED HIM TO DO SO.  BEING FREE TO SELECT ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE
DESIGNATED DEPOSITORIES, HOWARD WAS IN RESPECT THERETO UNDER THE COMMON
LAW OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE CARE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS FUNCTIONS AS
A FIDUCIARY.  WHILE HE WAS MAKING DEPOSITS IN THE PHILLIP BANK THERE
WERE ABOUT TWENTY OTHERS IN THE CHICAGO AREA WHICH WERE DESIGNATED
DEPOSITORIES, SO HE HAD A WIDE RANGE FROM WHICH TO CHOOSE.  BY
DESIGNATING THE PHILLIP BANK AS A DEPOSITORY THE COURT MAY HAVE
JUSTIFIED HOWARD IN ASSUMING THAT ON AUGUST 20, 1930, IT WAS A
TRUSTWORTHY PLACE OF DEPOSIT FOR BANKRUPTCY FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF
$50,000.  BUT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF DEPOSIT THE LEGAL DUTY TO
EXERCISE CARE REMAINED.  IF AT ANY TIME HE DISCOVERED FACTS TENDING TO
SHOW THAT THE PLACE OF DEPOSIT WAS NO LONGER SAFE, IT WAS HIS DUTY TO
BRING THE FACTS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT.  FN5 AND AT NO TIME WAS
HOWARD JUSTIFIED IN MAINTAINING A DEPOSIT NOT ENTIRELY SECURED BY THE
DEPOSITORY BOND IF HE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE TO DOUBT THE STABILITY OF
THE BANK. 

FOURTH.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE BANKRUPTCY ACT ESTABLISHED A
DEPOSITORY SYSTEM WHICH RELIEVED TRUSTEES AND RECEIVERS WHOLLY OF THE
DUTY OF EXERCISING CARE AS TO THE CONDITION OR STABILITY OF A
DEPOSITORY RESTS UPON FALSE ANALOGY.  FOR FEDERAL PUBLIC FUNDS CONGRESS
HAS PROVIDED A DEPOSITORY SYSTEM BY WHICH THE MONEYS, AS SOON AS
DEPOSITED ARE IN EFFECT IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES.  31
U.S.C. SECS. 476-478, 495; 12 U.S.C. SECS. 391, 392.  UNDER THAT SYSTEM
AN OFFICER WHO HAS DULY MADE THE DEPOSITS IS RELIEVED OF ALL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STABILITY OF THE DEPOSITORY.  SIMILAR PROVISION
HAS BEEN MADE IN MANY STATES FOR THE DEPOSIT OF PUBLIC FUNDS OF THE
STATE OR MUNICIPALITY.  FN6  BUT THE FUNDS OF BANKRUPTCY ESTATES ARE
PRIVATE FUNDS, SEE TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245,
257, NOTE 11; AND THE PROVISIONS IN THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CONCERNING THE
APPOINTMENT OF DEPOSITORIES AND THE DEPOSITS TO BE MADE BY TRUSTEES ARE
OF A VERY DIFFERENT CHARACTER. 

AS THE EXERCISE OF ORDINARY CARE IN MAKING AND MAINTAINING DEPOSITS,
EVEN IF MADE IN A DESIGNATED DEPOSITORY, WAS PART OF HOWARD'S OFFICIAL
DUTIES, HE AND HIS SURETY ARE LIABLE ON THE BONDS IF HE FAILED IN THIS
RESPECT.  ON THAT ISSUE THE EVIDENCE - PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE
PERSONAL LOANS TO HIM - WAS AMPLE TO JUSTIFY SUBMITTING THE QUESTION TO
THE JURY.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS, THEREFORE,
REVERSED; AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO IT FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE
OTHER ERRORS WHICH THE DEFENDANTS ASSIGNED CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF
THE TRIAL.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE CONDITION OF EACH BOND GIVEN AS TRUSTEE WAS:  "NOW,
THEREFORE, IF THE SAID SAM HOWARD, TRUSTEE AS AFORESAID, SHALL OBEY
SUCH ORDERS AS SAID COURT MAY MAKE IN RELATION TO SAID TRUST, AND SHALL
FAITHFULLY AND TRULY ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE MONEYS, ASSETS AND EFFECTS OF
THE ESTATE OF SAID BANKRUPT, WHICH SHALL COME INTO HIS HANDS AND
POSSESSION, AND SHALL IN ALL RESPECTS FAITHFULLY PERFORM ALL HIS
OFFICIAL DUTIES AS SAID TRUSTEE, THEN THIS OBLIGATION TO BE VOID;
OTHERWISE, TO REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND VIRTUE."    FN2  RECEIVER IN
BANKRUPTCY:  IN RE CURTIS, 76 F.(2D) 751, 753(C.C.A. 2); IN RE C.M.
PIECE DYEING CO., 89 F.(2D) 37, 40(C.C.A. 2); HARTFORD ACCIDENT & I.
CO. V. CROW, 83 F.(2D) 386, 388(C.C.A. 6).  TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY:  IN
RE REINBOTH, 157 FED. 672, 674(C.C.A. 2); CARSON, PIRIE, SCOTT & CO. V.
TURNER, 61 F.(2D) 693, 694(C.C.A. 6); IN RE KUHN BROS., 234 FED. 277,
281(C.C.A. 7); IN RE NEWCOMB, 32 FED. 826(N.D.N.Y.); IN RE B.A.
MONTGOMERY & SON, 17 F.(2D) 404, 406(N.D. OHIO); COMPARE DELAWARE V.
IRVING TRUST CO., 92 F.(2D) 17, 19(C.C.A. 2); IN RE KANE, 161 FED. 633,
639(N.D.N.Y.).  EQUITY RECEIVER:  GUTTERSON & GOULD V. LEBANON IRON &
STEEL CO., 151 FED. 72(C.C.M.D. PA.); HITNER V. DIAMOND STATE STEEL
CO., 207 FED. 616, 622(D. DEL.).  TRUSTEE: BARNEY V. SAUNDERS, 16 HOW. 
535, 545-46; U.S. NATIONAL BANK & T. CO. V. SULLIVAN, 69 F.(2D) 412,
415-16(C.C.A. 7); FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. REDFIELD, 7 F.(2D) 800,
802(C.C.A. 9); JOHNS V. HERBERT, 2 APP. D.C. 485, 497; CALDWELL V.
HICKS, 15 F.SUPP.  46, 52(S.D. GA.); COMPARE STRAUSS V. U.S. FIDELITY &
G. CO., 63 F.(2D) 174, 176-77(C.C.A. 4); AMERICAN BONDING CO. V.
RICHARDSON, 214 FED. 897, 901(C.C.A. 6); THOMPSON V. HAYS, 11 F.(2D)
244, 247(C.C.A. 8).  EXECUTOR:  SEE TAYLOR V. BENHAM, 5 HOW.  233, 275;
GLASGOW V. LIPSE, 117 U.S. 327, 333-334; MOORE V. MOORE, 47 APP. D.C.
18, 27.  GUARDIAN:  LAMAR V. MICOU, 112 U.S. 452, 465; CORCORAN V.
KOSTROMETINOFF, 164 FED. 685, 687-688(C.C.A. 9). 

FN3  JULY 1, 1898, C. 541, 30 STAT. 544, AS AMENDED; U.S.C. TITLE
11. 

FN4  SEE DELAFIELD V. BARRET, 270 N.Y. 43, 48-49; 200 N.E. 67; MATTER
OF FLINT, 240 APP. DIV. 217, 225; 269 N.Y.S. 470; MATTER OF BLAKE, 146
MISC. 780; 263 N.Y.S. 310; MATTER OF FRAZER, 150 MISC. 43; 268 N.Y.S.
477; MATTER OF JACOBS, 152 MISC. 139, 141-42; 273 N.Y.S. 279; ESTATE OF
ALLIS, 191 WIS. 23, 31-32; 209 N.W. 945; 210 N.W. 418. 

FN5  COMPARE JORDON V. BAKER, 252 KY. 40, 49; 66 S.W.(2D) 84;
ZIMMERMAN V. COBLENTZ, 170 MD. 468, 476; 185 ATL. 342. 

FN6  IN A NUMBER OF STATES STATUTES SPECIFICALLY RELIEVE PUBLIC
OFFICERS OF LIABILITY IF THE FUNDS ENTRUSTED TO THEM ARE DEPOSITED IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.  SOME COURTS HOLD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH A PROVISION THE MERE FACT THAT THE FUNDS ARE PLACED IN A DULY
DESIGNATED DEPOSITORY IS NOT A COMPLETE DEFENSE; AND THAT IF THE
OFFICER ACQUIRES KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS WHICH SHOW THE BANK TO BE UNSAFE,
HE MAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IF HE FAILS TO HAVE THE FUNDS REMOVED. 
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. FLITTIE, 54 S.D. 526; 223 N.W. 728; LANE
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. ENDAHL, 55 S.D. 73; 224 N.W. 951; COZAD V.
THOMPSON, 126 NEB. 79; 252 N.W. 606; SEE JORDON V. BAKER, 252 KY. 40,
49; 66 S.W.(2D) 84. 
..END :













HELVERING V. BASHFORD, 302 U.S. 454 


NO. 33.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1937.  REARGUED DECEMBER 15, 1937.  -
DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 87 F.(2D) 827, REVERSED. 


THE A CORPORATION BROUGHT ABOUT A CONSOLIDATION OF THREE OF ITS
COMPETITORS INTO A NEW CORPORATION, OF WHICH IT BECAME THE OWNER OF ALL
THE PREFERRED SHARES AND 57% OF THE COMMON SHARES.  STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
CONSOLIDATED COMPANIES RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR SHARES:  SHARES
OF THE NEW CORPORATION, SHARES OF THE A CORPORATION, AND CASH WHICH THE
A CORPORATION SUPPLIED.  HELD, THE A CORPORATION WAS NOT A "PARTY TO A
REORGANIZATION" UNDER SEC. 112(B)(3) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928; ITS
SHARES RECEIVED BY STOCKHOLDERS OF THE CONSOLIDATED COMPANIES WERE
"OTHER PROPERTY" UNDER SEC. 112(C)(1), AND GAIN THEREON WAS TAXABLE. 
FOLLOWING GROMAN V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 82.  P. 458. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. BASHFORD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 678, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 33 B.T.A. 10, WHICH REVERSED AN ORDER OF
THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSING A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

WHETHER BASHFORD IS LIABLE FOR A DEFICIENCY IN THE INCOME TAXES
ASSESSED FOR THE YEAR 1930 DEPENDS UPON WHETHER ATLAS POWDER COMPANY
WAS, AS DEFINED BY SEC. 112(I)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT.
818, "A PARTY TO THE REORGANIZATION" OF THE PEERLESS EXPLOSIVES
COMPANY. 

ATLAS POWDER COMPANY DESIRED TO ELIMINATE THE COMPETITION OF THREE
CONCERNS - PEERLESS EXPLOSIVES COMPANY, UNION EXPLOSIVES COMPANY AND
BLACK DIAMOND POWDER COMPANY.  DEEMING IT UNWISE TO DO SO BY BUYING
EITHER THEIR STOCK OR THEIR ASSETS, ATLAS CONCEIVED AND CONSUMMATED A
PLAN FOR CONSOLIDATING THE THREE COMPETITORS INTO A NEW CORPORATION,
WITH ATLAS TO GET A MAJORITY OF ITS STOCK.  TO THIS END HOLDERS OF THE
STOCK OF THE THREE COMPANIES WERE DULY APPROACHED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO
REPRESENTED ATLAS; THEIR AGREEMENTS TO CARRY OUT THE PLAN WERE
OBTAINED; THE NEW CORPORATION WAS FORMED AND BECAME THE OWNER
PRACTICALLY OF ALL THE STOCK, AND ALL THE ASSETS, OF THE THREE
COMPETITORS; ATLAS BECAME THE OWNER OF ALL THE PREFERRED STOCK AND 57%
OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE NEW CORPORATION; AND IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
STOCK IN THE THREE COMPANIES EACH OF THE FORMER STOCKHOLDERS RECEIVED
SOME COMMON STOCK IN THE NEW COMPANY, SOME ATLAS STOCK, AND SOME CASH
WHICH ATLAS SUPPLIED. 

BASHFORD, ONE OF THE STOCKHOLDERS IN PEERLESS, RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE
FOR HIS STOCK 2,720.08 SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE NEW
CORPORATION, $25,306.67 IN CASH, 625 SHARES OF ATLAS PREFERRED, AND
1344 SHARES OF ATLAS COMMON.  IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR
1930 HE INCLUDED ALL THE CASH, BUT DID NOT INCLUDE THE GAIN ON STOCK OF
EITHER THE NEW CORPORATION OR ATLAS.  THE COMMISSIONER CONCEDES THAT
GAIN ON THE STOCK IN THE NEW CORPORATION WAS PROPERLY OMITTED, SINCE
THE NEW COMPANY WAS A "REORGANIZATION" OF PEERLESS.  HE INSISTS THAT
THE ATLAS STOCK SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED, AS IT WAS "OTHER PROPERTY"
ON WHICH GAIN WAS TAXABLE UNDER SEC. 112(C)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928, SINCE ATLAS WAS NOT "A PARTY TO THE REORGANIZATION."  THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS, 33 B.T.A. 10, HELD THAT ATLAS WAS "A PARTY TO THE
REORGANIZATION," AND HENCE THAT GAIN ON ITS STOCK WAS PROPERLY OMITTED
BY BASHFORD.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED THAT JUDGMENT.  87 F.(2D) 827.  BECAUSE OF ALLEGED CONFLICT OF
THE DECISION WITH COMMISSIONER V. GROMAN, 86 F.(2D) 670, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI IN BOTH CASES. 

IN GROMAN V. COMMISSIONER, ANTE, P. 82, WE GAVE THE FOLLOWING
CONSTRUCTION TO THE REORGANIZATION SECTIONS HERE INVOLVED: 

"...  WHERE, PURSUANT TO A PLAN, THE INTEREST OF THE STOCKHOLDERS OF
A CORPORATION CONTINUES TO BE DEFINITELY REPRESENTED IN SUBSTANTIAL
MEASURE IN A NEW OR DIFFERENT ONE, THEN TO THE EXTENT, BUT ONLY TO THE
EXTENT, OF THAT CONTINUITY OF INTEREST, THE EXCHANGE IS TO BE TREATED
AS ONE NOT GIVING RISE TO PRESENT GAIN OR LOSS."  P. 89. 

APPLYING THE RULE, WE HELD THERE THAT THE GLIDDEN STOCK RECEIVED BY
GROMAN WAS "OTHER PROPERTY" AND HE, THEREFORE, LIABLE ON THE DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT; BECAUSE THE GLIDDEN COMPANY WAS NOT "A PARTY TO THE
REORGANIZATION ALTHOUGH IT HAD, PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE INDIANA CORPORATION, CAUSED IT TO BE REORGANIZED AS
AN OHIO CORPORATION; HAD TAKEN FOR ITSELF ALL THE COMMON STOCK OF OHIO;
AND HAD DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE FORMER STOCKHOLDERS OF INDIANA THE OHIO
PREFERRED STOCK AND SOME GLIDDEN STOCK, AS WELL AS CASH, WHICH IT
SUPPLIED.  APPLYING THE RULE HERE, WE HOLD LIKEWISE THAT THE ATLAS
STOCK WAS "OTHER PROPERTY" AND BASHFORD, THEREFORE, LIABLE ON THE
DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT; BECAUSE THE ATLAS POWDER COMPANY WAS NOT "A
PARTY TO THE REORGANIZATION." 

BASHFORD CONTENDS THAT THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION IN THE FACTS
BETWEEN THE CASE AT BAR AND THE GROMAN CASE WHICH SHOULD LEAD TO A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION HERE.  THE DIFFERENCES MAINLY RELIED UPON ARE
THESE: 

1.  IN THE GROMAN CASE, THE COURT FOUND THAT GLIDDEN DID NOT ACQUIRE
A MAJORITY OF THE SHARES OF THE VOTING STOCK AND A MAJORITY OF THE
SHARES OF ALL OTHER CLASSES OF STOCK INVOLVED, WHEREAS HERE THE FACTS
WERE AS FOLLOWS:  ATLAS ACQUIRED "NOT ONLY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTING
STOCK AND A MAJORITY OF THE STOCK OF ALL OTHER CLASSES OF ANOTHER
CORPORATION (THE NEW COMPANY) IN THE REORGANIZATION, BUT OF ALL THE
OTHER CORPORATIONS (PEERLESS AND UNION) IN THE REORGANIZATION." 

2.  "ATLAS ACTUALLY ACQUIRED, AS PART OF THE PLAN  ...  SUBSTANTIALLY
ALL OF THE SHARES OF PEERLESS AND UNION IN DIRECT EXCHANGES WITH THE
TAXPAYER AND THE OTHER STOCKHOLDERS OF THOSE COMPANIES IN PART
CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH IT DELIVERED TO THE SHAREHOLDERS 6,318 SHARES
OF ATLAS PREFERRED STOCK AND 8712 1/2 SHARES OF COMMON." 

3.  "ATLAS, UNLIKE GLIDDEN WAS A PARTY TO ALL THE EXCHANGES, WHILE
THE NEW COMPANY WAS A PARTY ONLY TO EXCHANGES WITH ATLAS." 

4.  "THE STOCKHOLDERS OF PEERLESS AND UNION DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN
THE CONTRACT OR EXCHANGE BETWEEN ATLAS AND THE NEW COMPANY." 

ANY DIRECT OWNERSHIP BY ATLAS OF PEERLESS, BLACK DIAMOND, AND UNION
WAS TRANSITORY AND WITHOUT REAL SUBSTANCE; IT WAS PART OF A PLAN WHICH
CONTEMPLATED THE IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF THE STOCK OR THE ASSETS OR BOTH
OF THE THREE REORGANIZED COMPANIES TO THE NEW ATLAS SUBSIDIARY.  HENCE,
UNDER THE RULE STATED, THE ABOVE DISTINCTIONS ARE NOT OF LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE.  THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DEGREE OF STOCK CONTROL BY THE
PARENT COMPANY OF ITS SUBSIDIARY AND THE DIFFERENCE IN THE METHOD OR
MEANS BY WHICH THAT CONTROL WAS SECURED ARE NOT MATERIAL.  THE
PARTICIPATION OF ATLAS IN THE REORGANIZATION OF ITS COMPETITORS INTO A
NEW COMPANY WHICH BECAME A SUBSIDIARY DID NOT MAKE ATLAS "A PARTY TO
THE REORGANIZATION."  THE CONTINUITY OF INTEREST REQUIRED BY THE RULE
IS LACKING.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER
ARE OF OPINION THAT THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REACHED THE RIGHT CONCLUSION, AND THAT THE JUDGMENT BELOW
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :






LEITCH MFG. CO. V. BARBER CO., 302 U.S. 458 


NO. 208.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 960, REVERSED. 


1.  THE OWNER OF A PATENT FOR A PROCESS FOR CURING CONCRETE BY THE USE
OF A SPRAY OF BITUMINOUS EMULSION, AN UNPATENTED ARTICLE OF COMMERCE,
CAN NOT ENJOIN AS A CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGER A COMPETING MANUFACTURER WHO
SOLD BITUMINOUS EMULSION TO A ROAD CONTRACTOR WHO USED IT IN PRACTICING
THE PATENTED METHOD.  PP. 460, 463. 

2.  A PATENT MAY NOT BE USED AS A MEANS OF OBTAINING A LIMITED
MONOPOLY OF UNPATENTED MATERIAL.  CARBICE CORP. V. AMERICAN PATENTS
CORP., 283 U.S. 27.  P. 463. 

3.  THE RULE OF THE CARBICE CASE, SUPRA, IS APPLICABLE WHETHER THE
PATENT BE FOR A MACHINE, A PRODUCT, OR A PROCESS; AND WHATEVER THE
NATURE OF THE DEVICE BY WHICH THE OWNER OF THE PATENT SEEKS TO EFFECT
SUCH UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF THE MONOPOLY.  P. 463. 

LEITCH MANUFACTURING CO. V. BARBER COMPANY. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 673, TO REVIEW A DECREE WHICH, UPON APPEAL FROM
A DECREE DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT FOR CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT OF
A PATENT, 14 F.SUPP.  212, DIRECTED THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENTER A
DECREE ADJUDGING THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE VALID AND INFRINGED AND AWARDING
AN ACCOUNTING. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE OWNER OF A PROCESS PATENT
MAY BY SUIT FOR CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT SUPPRESS COMPETITION IN THE
SALE OF UNPATENTED MATERIAL TO BE USED IN PRACTICING THE PROCESS. 

THE BARBER COMPANY BROUGHT, IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR NEW JERSEY,
AGAINST THE LEITCH MANUFACTURING COMPANY,  FN1  THIS SUIT TO ENJOIN THE
ALLEGED CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT NO. 1,684,671, DATED
SEPTEMBER 18, 1928, BY SELLING AND DELIVERING BITUMINOUS EMULSION TO A
ROAD BUILDER, KNOWING THAT IT WAS TO BE USED IN NEWARK IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE METHOD DEFINED IN THE CLAIMS OF THE PATENT.  BESIDES DENYING
THE VALIDITY OF THE PATENT, THIS FURTHER DEFENSE WAS INTERPOSED.  IT
WAS INSISTED THAT THE SUIT COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED, EVEN IF THE PATENT
WERE VALID, BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD GIVE A LIMITED MONOPOLY OF AN
UNPATENTED STAPLE ARTICLE OF COMMERCE.  THE FOLLOWING FACTS WERE PROVED
OR ADMITTED. 

THE BARBER COMPANY AND LEITCH MANUFACTURING COMPANY ARE COMPETING
MANUFACTURERS OF BITUMINOUS EMULSION - AN UNPATENTED STAPLE ARTICLE OF
COMMERCE PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES BY MANY CONCERNS AND IN COMMON
USE BY THEIR CUSTOMERS FOR MANY PURPOSES.  BY BUILDERS OF MACADAM ROADS
THE EMULSION HAS LONG BEEN USED AS A COATING FOR CRUSHED STONE AND
OTHERWISE.  WITH BUILDERS OF CEMENT CONCRETE ROADS IT HAS RECENTLY COME
INTO USE FOR A FILM ON THE SURFACE OF THE ROADWAY TO RETARD EVAPORATION
DURING CURING.  FOR THE METHOD OF SO RETARDING EVAPORATION THE BARBER
COMPANY ACQUIRED THE PROCESS PATENT SUED ON, AND SEEKS TO USE IT TO
SECURE A LIMITED MONOPOLY IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCING AND SELLING THE
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR PRACTICING AND CARRYING OUT THE PATENTED
METHOD.  THE COMPANY DOES NOT ITSELF ENGAGE IN ROAD BUILDING, OR
COMPETE WITH ROAD CONTRACTORS.  IT DOES NOT SEEK TO MAKE ROAD BUILDERS
PAY A ROYALTY FOR EMPLOYING THE PATENTED METHOD.  IT DOES NOT GRANT TO
ROAD BUILDERS A WRITTEN LICENSE TO USE THE PROCESS.  FN2  BUT IT ADOPTS
A METHOD OF DOING THE BUSINESS WHICH IS THE PRACTICAL EQUIVALENT OF
GRANTING A WRITTEN LICENSE WITH A CONDITION THAT THE PATENTED METHOD
MAY BE PRACTICED ONLY WITH EMULSION PURCHASED FROM IT.  FOR ANY ROAD
BUILDER CAN BUY EMULSION FROM IT FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND WHENEVER SUCH A
SALE IS MADE, THE LAW IMPLIES AUTHORITY TO PRACTICE THE INVENTION.  ON
THE OTHER HAND THE BARBER COMPANY SUES AS CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGER A
COMPETING MANUFACTURER OF THIS UNPATENTED MATERIAL WHO SELLS IT TO A
ROAD BUILDER FOR SUCH USE.  THUS, THE SOLE PURPOSE TO WHICH THE PATENT
IS PUT IS THEREBY TO SUPPRESS COMPETITION IN THE PRODUCTION AND SALE OF
STAPLE UNPATENTED MATERIAL FOR THIS USE IN ROAD BUILDING. 

THE DISTRICT COURT DISCUSSED, BUT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON,
THIS DEFENSE, AS IT DISMISSED THE BILL ON THE GROUND THAT THE PATENT
WAS VOID.  14 F.SUPP.  212.  THE COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
VALIDITY OF THE PATENT; CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS CONTRIBUTORY
INFRINGEMENT; HELD THAT MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT WAS NOT FORBIDDEN BY
THE RULE DECLARED IN CARBICE CORPORATION V. AMERICAN PATENTS
DEVELOPMENT CORP., 283 U.S. 27; AND DIRECTED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT
ENTER A DECREE ADJUDGING THE CLAIMS IN ISSUE VALID AND INFRINGED, AND
AWARDING AN ACCOUNTING.  89 F.(2D) 960.  ONE JUDGE DISSENTED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE DECREE DISMISSING THE BILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFIRMED
UNDER THE RULE DECLARED IN THE CARBICE CASE.  A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
LIMITED TO THAT QUESTION WAS APPLIED FOR AND GRANTED. 

THAT THE PATENT DID NOT CONFER UPON THE BARBER COMPANY THE RIGHT TO
BE FREE FROM COMPETITION IN SUPPLYING UNPATENTED MATERIAL TO BE USED IN
PRACTICING THE INVENTION WAS SETTLED BY THE RULE DECLARED IN THE
CARBICE CASE.  THAT SUIT WAS LIKEWISE ONE TO ENJOIN AN ALLEGED
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGER.  THE SUBJECT OF THE PATENT WAS A REFRIGERATING
TRANSPORTATION PACKAGE IN WHICH THE REFRIGERANT TO BE USED WAS SOLID
CARBON DIOXIDE, OR "DRY ICE."  THE SOLE BUSINESS OF THE DRY ICE
CORPORATION WAS TO MAKE AND SELL DRY ICE - WHICH IS UNPATENTED
MATERIAL.  IT DID NOT MAKE OR SELL TRANSPORTATION PACKAGES IN WHICH DRY
ICE WAS USED AS A REFRIGERANT.  IT DID NOT ISSUE TO OTHER CONCERNS
LICENSES TO MAKE SUCH PACKAGES UPON PAYMENT OF A STIPULATED ROYALTY. 
IT DID NOT FORMALLY LICENSE BUYERS OF ITS DRY ICE TO USE THE INVENTION
IN SUIT.  BUT EACH INVOICE FOR DRY ICE BORE A NOTICE IN EFFECT THAT THE
PATENTED CONTAINER COULD BE USED ONLY WITH DRY ICE PURCHASED FROM THE
CORPORATION.  IN DECLARING THAT RELIEF MUST BE DENIED THE COURT SAID: 

"THE DRY ICE CORPORATION HAS NO RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM COMPETITION IN
THE SALE OF SOLID CARBON DIOXIDE.  CONTROL OVER THE SUPPLY OF SUCH
UNPATENTED MATERIAL IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PATENTEE'S MONOPOLY; AND
THIS LIMITATION, INHERENT IN THE PATENT GRANT, IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON
THE PECULIAR FUNCTION OR CHARACTER OF THE UNPATENTED MATERIAL OR ON THE
WAY IN WHICH IT IS USED.  RELIEF IS DENIED BECAUSE THE DRY ICE
CORPORATION IS ATTEMPTING, WITHOUT SANCTION OF LAW, TO EMPLOY THE
PATENT TO SECURE A LIMITED MONOPOLY OF UNPATENTED MATERIAL USED IN
APPLYING THE INVENTION."  (PP. 33-34.) 

"IN THE CASE AT BAR THE PLAINTIFFS NEITHER SELL NOR LICENSE OTHERS TO
SELL COMPLETE TRANSPORTATION PACKAGES.  THEY SUPPLY MERELY ONE OF
SEVERAL MATERIALS ENTERING INTO THE COMBINATION; AND ON THAT COMMODITY
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GRANTED A MONOPOLY.  THEIR ATTEMPT TO SECURE ONE
CANNOT BE SANCTIONED."  (PP. 34-35.) 

THE BARBER COMPANY CONTENDS THAT THE RULE OF THE CARBICE CASE IS NOT
APPLICABLE BECAUSE IT HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT
AIMED AT EXPANSION OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY.  IT ARGUES THAT IN THE
CARBICE CASE, AS IN MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. V. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG.
CO., 243 U.S. 502, THE ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE "PARTIAL MONOPOLY OF AN
UNPATENTED MATERIAL, OUTSIDE OF AND APART FROM THE PATENT MONOPOLY" WAS
MADE BY CONTRACT OR NOTICE, WHEREAS THE BARBER COMPANY HAS MADE NO
ATTEMPT "BY CONTRACT, NOTICE, OR OTHERWISE, TO EXPAND ITS PATENT
MONOPOLY BY LIMITATIONS, OR TO RESERVE OR CREATE ANY MONOPOLY IN
EMULSION OUTSIDE OF, OR APART FROM, ITS PATENT MONOPOLY"; THAT ITS
"CUSTOMERS FOR EMULSION HAVE NO MORE THAN THE UNCONDITIONED LICENSE TO
USE IMPLIED BY LAW, AND ARE UNDER NO RESTRICTION"; AND THAT NEITHER THE
DEFENDANT NOR ITS CUSTOMERS HAS ANY "RELATION WITH THE PATENT OWNER." 

THE DISTINCTION UPON WHICH THE BARBER COMPANY THUS RESTS IS WITHOUT
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.  THE COURT HELD IN THE CARBICE CASE THAT THE
LIMITATION UPON THE SCOPE OR USE OF THE PATENT WHICH IT APPLIED WAS
"INHERENT IN THE PATENT GRANT."  IT DENIED RELIEF, NOT BECAUSE THERE
WAS A CONTRACT OR NOTICE HELD TO BE INOPERATIVE, BUT ON THE BROAD
GROUND THAT THE OWNER OF THE PATENT MONOPOLY, IGNORING THE LIMITATION
"INHERENT IN THE PATENT GRANT," SOUGHT BY ITS METHOD OF DOING BUSINESS
TO EXTEND THE MONOPOLY TO UNPATENTED MATERIAL USED IN PRACTICING THE
INVENTION.  BY THE RULE THERE DECLARED EVERY USE OF A PATENT AS A MEANS
OF OBTAINING A LIMITED MONOPOLY OF UNPATENTED MATERIAL IS PROHIBITED. 
IT APPLIES WHETHER THE PATENT BE FOR A MACHINE, A PRODUCT, OR A
PROCESS.  IT APPLIES WHATEVER THE NATURE OF THE DEVICE BY WHICH THE
OWNER OF THE PATENT SEEKS TO EFFECT SUCH UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF THE
MONOPOLY.  NOTHING IN LEEDS & CATLIN CO. V. VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO.,
213 U.S. 325, LIMITS IT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE SUIT WAS BEGUN BY THE BARBER ASPHALT COMPANY, THE THEN OWNER
OF THE PATENT.  DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT THAT CORPORATION
TRANSFERRED THE PATENT, TOGETHER WITH ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES AND
PROFITS FOR PAST INFRINGEMENT AND THE RIGHT TO SUE THEREFOR, TO THE
BARBER COMPANY, INC. UPON SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF COMPLAINT, IT WAS
SUBSTITUTED AS PLAINTIFF.  THE STULZ-SICKLES COMPANY, THE JOBBER
THROUGH WHOM THE SALE WAS MADE, WAS A CO-DEFENDANT THROUGHOUT THE
PROCEEDINGS BELOW; BUT DECLINED TO JOIN IN THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI. 

FN2  NO WRITTEN LICENSE HAD, SO FAR AS APPEARS, BEEN GRANTED BY THE
BARBER COMPANY TO ANY ONE.  ITS PREDECESSOR, THE BARBER ASPHALT COMPANY
(SEE NOTE 1), HAD GRANTED A WRITTEN LICENSE TO JOHNSON-MARCH
CORPORATION, WHICH PAID NO ROYALTY BUT BOUGHT FROM THE BARBER ASPHALT
COMPANY "CUTBACK MATERIAL" FOR USE IN THE EAST, AND "TRINIDAD OR
BERMUDEZ ASPHALT" FOR USE IN THE WEST. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THE CASE. 
..END :















ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, 302 U.S. 464 


NOS. 84 AND 85.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 7, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3,
1938.  - 67 APP. D.C. 230 -  91 F.(2D) 303, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, OPERATING IN ALABAMA UNDER A
NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE, SUED TO ENJOIN THE PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENTS
WHEREBY A FEDERAL OFFICIAL PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER TITLE II OF THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, AS AMENDED, UNDERTOOK ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE LOANS AND GRANTS OF MONEY TO SEVERAL ALABAMA
MUNICIPALITIES TO ASSIST EACH OF THEM, RESPECTIVELY, IN CONSTRUCTING AN
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WITHIN ITS MUNICIPAL LIMITS.  HELD THAT
THE COMPANY HAD NO STANDING TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE LOANS AND
GRANTS UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE, OR THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE IN
THAT REGARD UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, SINCE THE ONLY DAMAGE
THREATENING THE COMPANY WAS THE DAMAGE OF LAWFUL COMPETITION - DAMNUM
ABSQUE INJURIA.  PP. 478, 479. 

ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS IN THE CASES EACH OF THE MUNICIPALITIES HAD
AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE ITS PROPOSED PLANT AND DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM IN COMPETITION WITH THE COMPANY, AND TO BORROW MONEY FOR THAT
PURPOSE, AND HAD DETERMINED TO DO SO OF ITS OWN FREE WILL; NO
CONSPIRACY WAS INVOLVED, NOR ANY DESIRE TO CAUSE INJURY OR FINANCIAL
LOSS TO THE COMPANY, NOR PURPOSE TO REGULATE RATES OR FOSTER MUNICIPAL
OWNERSHIP OF UTILITIES.  NEITHER THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY OF THE
RESPONDENT-OFFICERS HAD RESERVED ANY RIGHT TO REQUIRE AN ELIMINATION OF
COMPETITION OR DESIGNATE ANY AGENCY FROM WHICH THE MUNICIPALITY MUST
PURCHASE ITS POWER.  EACH MUNICIPALITY WAS LEFT ENTIRELY FREE FROM
FEDERAL CONTROL OR DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
OF ITS PLANT AND BUSINESS. 

2.  FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT, MADE AFTER HEARING, SUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND NOT QUESTIONED BY THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, HELD UNASSAILABLE IN THIS COURT.  P. 477. 

3.  THE INTEREST OF A TAXPAYER IN THE MONEYS OF THE FEDERAL TREASURY
AFFORDS HIM NO STATUS TO ENJOIN EXPENDITURES UPON THE GROUND THAT THEY
ARE FOR AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE.  P. 478. 

4.  COURTS HAVE NO POWER TO ENJOIN THE EXECUTION OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS UPON THE GROUND OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, WHERE NO WRONG
DIRECTLY RESULTING IN THE VIOLATION OF A LEGAL RIGHT IS PRESENTED IN A
JUSTICIABLE ISSUE.  P. 479. 

ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 681, TO REVIEW DECREES AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL
OF BILLS BROUGHT AGAINST THE EMERGENCY PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR AND
OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO RESTRAIN THE MAKING OF LOANS AND GRANTS
OF MONEY TO CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES IN ALABAMA, IN AID OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF MUNICIPAL LIGHT AND POWER PLANTS.  THESE CASES WERE
CONSOLIDATED AND TRIED WITH OTHERS WHICH LATER BECAME MOOT.  NO. 84
ALSO BECAME MOOT IN SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO THREE OF THE MUNICIPALITIES
ORIGINALLY NAMED IN THE BILL.  THE OPINION OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS IN
LXIV WASH. L. REP. 563. 

I. THE PETITIONER HAS SHOWN FACTS WHICH ENTITLE IT TO QUESTION THE
LEGALITY OF THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS. 

THE RESPONDENTS HAVE ARGUED IN THE LOWER COURTS THAT THE TEST OF
WHETHER THEY OWE A DUTY TO THE PETITIONER TO REFRAIN FROM THE ACTS
THREATENED - ADMITTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE
UNAUTHORIZED - IS WHETHER PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WOULD INCUR LIABILITY
FROM COMMITTING THEM.  THEY ARGUE THAT THE RESPONDENTS, STRIPPED OF
LEGAL AUTHORITY, ARE MERELY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND THAT THE RIGHTS AND
DUTIES OF THE PARTIES MUST BE DETERMINED BY PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN
SUITS BETWEEN ONE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND ANOTHER. 

THE ARGUMENT IS AS UNSOUND IN PRINCIPLE AS IT IS OPPOSED TO
AUTHORITY.  IN MANY CASES THE ACT OF THE OFFICER, IF UNAUTHORIZED,
WOULD FIT INTO SUCH COMMON FORMS OF ACTION AS TRESPASS, BUT IN A GREAT
AND GROWING FIELD OF ACTIVITY AN OFFICER ACTING UNDER COLOR OF
AUTHORITY IS NOT ACTING AS A PRIVATE PERSON, THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS
ACTS ARE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE OF A PRIVATE PERSON, AND NO PRIVATE
PERSON COULD CONCEIVABLY PROPOSE TO ACT IN THE SAME WAY.  IN SHORT, THE
ARGUMENT IS WHOLLY VERBAL AND UNREALISTIC. 

BUT THE ERROR IN PRINCIPLE GOES DEEPER.  THE ARGUMENT ASSUMES THAT
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES DETERMINATIVE OF THE STANDING OF THE PLAINTIFF TO
QUESTION THE LEGALITY OF ACTS OF A PUBLIC OFFICER SHOULD BE THOSE WHICH
HAVE BEEN EVOLVED TO DETERMINE RIGHTS TO RECOVER AGAINST A PRIVATE
PERSON.  NOTHING COULD BE MORE FALLACIOUS.  THE PRINCIPLES DETERMINING
THE RIGHT TO RECOVER AGAINST PRIVATE PERSONS ARE THE RESULT OF LONG AND
CAREFUL EVALUATION OF THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF PRIVATE PERSONS.  A
RULE OF LAW WHICH MAKES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VICTORY FOR THE
PLAINTIFF AND VICTORY FOR THE DEFENDANT REPRESENTS THE ACCUMULATED
WISDOM OF COURTS AND LEGISLATURES AS TO HOW PRIVATE PERSONS SHOULD LIVE
TOGETHER AND HOW LOSS, AS BETWEEN THEM, SHOULD BE BORNE.  THESE ISSUES
INVOLVE BASIC CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY; BUT TO MAKE THAT SAME POLICY
DETERMINATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF A
PUBLIC OFFICER DISREGARDS VITAL DIFFERENCES. 

THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH SHOULD BE, AND HAVE BEEN, DETERMINATIVE WITH
COURTS IN FORMULATING THE PRINCIPLES AFFECTING THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE
PERSONS TO QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS ARE THE NECESSITY
OF AFFORDING PROTECTION AGAINST INJURY RESULTING FROM ABUSE OF
AUTHORITY, WHILE AVOIDING OFFICIOUS AND BURDENSOME LITIGATION, AND THE
ASSERTION OF FANCIFUL WRONGS AND INSUBSTANTIAL INJURIES.  RECOGNIZING,
AS THEY SHOULD AND MUST, THIS VITAL DIFFERENCE IN THE FUNCTION AND
PURPOSE OF THE RULES INVOLVED IN DETERMINING WHEN A PLAINTIFF MAY
QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF A PUBLIC OFFICER AND WHEN HE MAY RECOVER FROM
ANOTHER PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, COURTS HAVE NOT, AS RESPONDENTS ARGUE,
BLINDLY CONFUSED THE TWO, BUT IN DETERMINING THE FORMER HAVE REFERRED
TO THE LATTER MERELY AS A GUIDE, BY ANALOGY, TO TYPES OF INJURIES TO
PLAINTIFFS OF WHICH THE LAW WILL TAKE NOTE.  SEE EX PARTE YOUNG, 209
U.S. 123. 

IN PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605, 621, THE SECRETARY OF
WAR, IF HE HAD BEEN A PRIVATE CITIZEN, WOULD HAVE INCURRED NO LIABILITY
BY THREATENING SUITS TO ENFORCE A HARBOR LINE WHICH HE HAD DRAWN. 
SIMILARLY PRIVATE PERSONS WOULD HAVE OWED NO DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE ACTS THREATENED BY THE PUBLIC
OFFICERS IN PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510 OR TERRACE V.
THOMPSON, 263 U.S. 197, OR HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251, OR TRUAX
V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33. 

IN SANTA FE PACIFIC R. CO. V. LANE, 244 U.S. 492, IF THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR HAD BEEN A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, AND ASSERTED A CLAIM
UNAUTHORIZED IN AMOUNT FOR SURVEYING PUBLIC LAND BEFORE ISSUING A
PATENT - IF THE SITUATION CAN BE IMAGINED - NO LEGAL DUTY TO PLAINTIFF
WOULD HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.  SIMILARLY IN LUDWIG V. WESTERN UNION
TELEGRAPH CO., 216 U.S. 146, THE PLAINTIFF SUED TO ENJOIN A STATE
OFFICIAL FROM DECLARING THAT IT WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS IN
THE STATE - AN ACT WHICH NO PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL COULD PERFORM, AND WHICH
IF THREATENED WOULD NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY. 

IN ALL THESE CASES THE PRINCIPLE ENTITLING THE PLAINTIFFS TO QUESTION
THE OFFICIALS' AUTHORITY IS THE SAME - THE PLAINTIFFS HAD A RIGHT TO
HOLD THEIR PROPERTY, OR CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS, FREE FROM INJURY BY
PUBLIC OFFICIALS THROUGH ACTS DONE WITHOUT LAWFUL POWER AND IN ABUSE OF
AUTHORITY.  PUBLIC OFFICIALS OWE A DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM INTERFERING
WITH THE PROPERTY OR BUSINESS OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND FROM INJURING THEM
THEREIN WITHOUT AUTHORITY OR IN ABUSE OF IT.  WHEN AN ACT, IN VIOLATION
OF THIS DUTY, WILL BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF CONSEQUENCES TO THE
PLAINTIFF SO SUBSTANTIAL AND ONEROUS AS TO BE COMPARABLE TO INJURIES
WHICH THE LAW IS ACCUSTOMED TO NOTE AS LEGAL DAMAGE, A CAUSE OF ACTION
ARISES, WITH THE RIGHT TO AN INJUNCTION. 

THE RULE IS NO DIFFERENT WHEN THE INJURY FLOWS FROM AN UNAUTHORIZED
USE OF THE SPENDING POWER.  THERE THE PLAINTIFF ALSO ESTABLISHES HIS
RIGHT TO QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICER IF HE IS - "ABLE TO SHOW
NOT ONLY THAT THE STATUTE IS INVALID BUT THAT HE HAS SUSTAINED OR IS
IMMEDIATELY IN DANGER OF SUSTAINING SOME DIRECT INJURY AS THE RESULT OF
ITS ENFORCEMENT, AND NOT MERELY THAT HE SUFFERS IN SOME INDEFINITE WAY
IN COMMON WITH PEOPLE GENERALLY."  FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447,
488. 

THIS PETITIONER HAS SHOWN JUST SUCH IMMEDIATE THREAT OF DIRECT AND
SPECIAL INJURY.  IN THE PRESENT CASES THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS AUTHORIZED,
FOR PURPOSES WHICH HE CLAIMS ARE AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THE CONSTRUCTION,
AS FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, UNDER HIS SUPERVISION AND WITH FUNDS
PROVIDED BY HIM, OF FACILITIES WHICH ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLANT THE
PETITIONER'S, AND WHICH MUST DO SO IF THE LOANS CONTEMPLATED ARE TO BE
REPAID.  IT IS THIS ACTION OF HIS, IN CAUSING THE CONSTRUCTION FOR
ALLEGED FEDERAL PURPOSES AND WITH FEDERAL FUNDS, WHICH THREATENS THE
PETITIONER'S BUSINESS WITH DESTRUCTION.  THE ELIMINATION OF THE
PETITIONER FROM THE TOWNS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FINANCING OF THE
PROJECTS.  THE TOWNS HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR THIS ELIMINATION.  IN
THE WORDS OF THEIR OWN OFFICIALS, THEY INTEND TO SUPPLANT THE
PETITIONER'S DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS. 

IT IS EQUALLY PLAIN THAT CONSTRUCTION OF EACH SUPPLANTING SYSTEM IS
TO BE UNDERTAKEN AS A FEDERAL PUBLIC-WORKS PROJECT, SUBSIDIZED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR.  THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC-WORKS PROGRAM WAS TO CAUSE
CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE TAKE PLACE.  WE REFER TO THE
OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF PWA THAT THE PUBLIC GRANTS "ARE GIVEN TO INDUCE
PUBLIC BODIES TO UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION OF USEFUL WORKS." 

THE FACT THAT THE IMPACT OF THE INJURY UPON THE PETITIONER WILL BE
PRODUCED BY ACTION OF THE TOWNS DOES NOT RENDER THE ADMINISTRATOR
IMMUNE FROM PETITIONER'S SUIT.  THE FACT REMAINS THAT HE IS THE
PROXIMATE AND MOVING CAUSE OF THE INJURY WHICH IT WILL SUFFER SOLELY
BECAUSE OF HIS UNLAWFUL ACTS IN AUTHORIZING AND FINANCING THESE
PARTICULAR FEDERAL PUBLIC-WORKS PROJECTS WITH GIFTS AND REVENUE LOANS,
THE REPAYMENT OF WHICH CONTEMPLATES AND REQUIRES THE DESTRUCTION OF
PETITIONER'S BUSINESS IN THE TOWNS.  IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT WHERE ONE
WITHOUT WARRANT OR JUSTIFICATION IN LAW, INDUCES AND ENABLES ANOTHER TO
INFLICT INJURY ON A THIRD PARTY THE WRONGDOER IS LIABLE EVEN THOUGH THE
INTERVENING PARTY MAY ACT WITHIN HIS LEGAL RIGHTS.  HITCHMAN COAL &
COKE CO. V. MITCHELL, 245 U.S. 229, 251-252; WALKER V. CRONIN, 107
MASS. 555; THACKER COAL CO. V. BURKE, 59 W. VA. 253; DEON V. KIRBY
LUMBER CO., 162 LA. 671; U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. MILLONAS, 206
ALA. 147; GIBSON V. FIDELITY AND CASUALTY CO., 232 ILL. 49; RICE V.
MANLEY, 66 N.Y. 82; BENTON V. PRATT, 2 WEND.  386; COMPARE ANGLE V.
CHICAGO, ST. PAUL, M. & O. RY. CO., 151 U.S. 1, 12-13, 22, 23.  AS THE
TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED, "...  THE FURNISHING OF THE FUNDS BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND THE RESULTING COMPETITION ARE SO CLOSELY CONNECTED THAT,
IF THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE FUNDS ARE SUPPLIED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
OR IF THE OFFICER FURNISHING THE FUNDS IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO SO, THEN
THE PLAINTIFFS MAY TEST THOSE QUESTIONS ON THE MERITS."  CF. GREENWOOD
COUNTY V. DUKE POWER CO., 81 F.(2D) 986, 1001, 1002; HO AH KOW V.
NUNAN, 12 FED. CAS. NO. 6,546, AT P. 255. 

THE RESPONDENTS' ACTS ARE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PETITIONER'S
INJURY SINCE THAT INJURY IS THE INEVITABLE AND CONTEMPLATED RESULT OF
THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE PROJECTS; INDEED, IS ESSENTIAL TO THEIR
ACCOMPLISHMENT AS PLANNED.  THE PETITIONER'S BUSINESS MUST BE TAKEN
FROM IT IN ORDER TO REPAY THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT AND CANNOT ARGUE THAT BECAUSE THE INTERVENING
ACTS OF THIRD PERSONS ARE LAWFUL, RESULTING CONSEQUENCES TO A PLAINTIFF
CANNOT BE LEGAL INJURY.  THE CASES CITED SUPRA NEGATIVE ANY SUCH
ARGUMENT.  NOR CAN THEY ARGUE THAT THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PETITIONER
DO NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL INJURY BECAUSE THEY REACH THE PETITIONER
THROUGH THE COMPETITION OF A RIVAL.  THAT THE INJURY FROM COMPETITION
IS INJURY RECOGNIZED BY THE LAW WAS EXPRESSLY HELD BY THIS COURT IN
WALLA WALLA CITY V. WALLA WALLA WATER CO., 172 U.S. 1, 11.  SIMILARLY
IN FROST V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 515. 

THE RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENT SEEMS TO BE THAT BECAUSE THE INTERVENING
ACT, WHICH FINALLY PRODUCES THE INJURY, IS LEGAL COMPETITION, THE
CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT LEGAL INJURY.  HERE, AGAIN, AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED,
BOTH AUTHORITY AND REASON ARE AGAINST SUCH AN ARGUMENT.  SEE COLORADO
CENTRAL POWER CO. V. MUNICIPAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CO., 1 F.SUPP.  961;
CAMPBELL V. ARKANSAS-MISSOURI POWER CO., 55 F.(2D) 560; CF. OKLAHOMA
UTILITIES CO. V. HOMINY, 2 F.SUPP.  849; SEE ALSO IOWA SOUTHERN
UTILITIES CO. V. CASSILL, 69 F.(2D) 703; GALLARDO V. PORTO RICO RY. L.
& P. CO., 18 F.(2D) 918, AND CITIZENS ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. V.
LACKAWANNA & W.V. POWER CO., 255 PA. 145. 

THUS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NO STANDING TO COMPLAIN IF
SUBSEQUENT OPERATION OF THE PLANTS BY THE TOWNS IS LAWFUL FALLS TO THE
GROUND.  THE PETITIONER CAN COMPLAIN, REGARDLESS OF THE LAWFULNESS OF
THE OPERATION, IF THE ACTS WHICH CAUSE IT ARE IN VIOLATION OF LAW.  THE
ADMINISTRATOR OWES THE PETITIONER A DUTY NOT TO CAUSE PETITIONER INJURY
BY ACTS DONE BEYOND AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN LAW.  IF HE BREACHES THAT
DUTY, IT AVAILS HIM NOTHING THAT THE IMPACT OF THE INJURY COMES FROM
OPERATION OF THE PLANTS BY THIRD PARTIES WHICH MAY BE LAWFUL.  IT IS
THE UNLAWFULNESS OF HIS ACTS AND NOT OF THE TOWNS' ACTS OF WHICH
PETITIONER COMPLAINS.  THIS IS NOT A SUIT TO ENJOIN COMPETITION BY THE
TOWNS.  THEY WILL BE AS FREE AFTER AS BEFORE ANY DECREE ENTERED HEREIN
TO ENGAGE IN IT.  THIS IS A SUIT TO ENJOIN THE UNLAWFUL ACTS OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR WHICH CAUSE THE INJURY TO PETITIONER AND WHICH BREACH THE
DUTY WHICH HE OWES THEM. 

II.  TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, AND THE
EMERGENCY RELIEF APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1935, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DELEGATIONS OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. 

III.  THE LOANS AND GRANTS ARE UNAUTHORIZED BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATOR
IN APPROVING THEM HAS APPLIED A STANDARD OR CRITERION WHICH CONGRESS
HAS NOT PROVIDED AND COULD NOT. 

IV.  IF THE STATUTES BE CONSTRUED TO AUTHORIZE WHAT HAS BEEN DONE
HERE, THEY EXCEED ANY POWER DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND
VIOLATE THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 

PETITIONER HAS NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY VALIDITY OF THE PROPOSED LOANS AND GRANTS.  THAT CONCLUSION,
REACHED BY THE COURT BELOW, ACCORDS WITH THE DECISIONS OF EVERY OTHER
APPELLATE COURT WHICH HAS PASSED UPON THE QUESTION.  DUKE POWER CO. V.
GREENWOOD COUNTY, 91 F.(2D) 665; ARKANSAS-MISSOURI POWER COMPANY V.
KENNETT, 78 F.(2D) 911(C.C.A.8TH); ALLEGAN V. CONSUMERS POWER CO., 71
F.(2D) 477(C.C.A.6TH), CERTIORARI DENIED, 293 U.S. 586; KANSAS
UTILITIES CO. V. BURLINGTON, 141 KANS. 926, PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
DISMISSED ON MOTION OF PETITIONER, 296 U.S. 658.  A CONTRARY RESULT
WOULD ESTABLISH EITHER A NEW DOCTRINE OF PRIVATE LAW, ENLARGING THE
RIGHTS OF FRANCHISE HOLDERS AGAINST LAWFUL COMPETITION, OR A NEW
DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTION OF GOVERNMENT
OFFICERS. 

THE LOSS WITH WHICH PETITIONERS ARE THREATENED IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
COMPETITION OF THE CITIES, AND THAT COMPETITION IS VOLUNTARY AND IS
ADMITTEDLY LAWFUL UNDER THE LAW OF ALABAMA AND UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE STANDING OF PETITIONER, AS THE HOLDER OF NONEXCLUSIVE
FRANCHISES, IS LIMITED TO COMPLAINTS AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED OR ILLEGAL
COMPETITION, AS IN FROST V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 515. 
CASES IN WHICH A CITY IS ACTING IN VIOLATION OF ITS OWN CHARTER POWERS,
SUCH AS CAMPBELL V. ARKANSAS-MISSOURI POWER CO., 55 F.(2D)
560(C.C.A.8TH), HAVE NO APPLICATION, AS WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE SAME
COURT IN THE LATER ARKANSAS-MISSOURI POWER CO. CASE, SUPRA.    THE FACT
THAT THE COMPETITION WILL BE MADE POSSIBLE BY ADVANCES OF FUNDS ALLEGED
TO BE BEYOND THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE LENDER CANNOT SERVE TO CONFER
ADDITIONAL PROTECTION UPON THE PETITIONER.  CF. RAILROAD CO. V.
ELLERMAN, 105 U.S. 166; SPRUNT & SON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 249;
CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258.  AND THE FACT THAT THE LENDER IS
THE UNITED STATES IS LIKEWISE NOT MATERIAL.  SINCE NO LEGALLY PROTECTED
INTEREST OF PETITIONER WILL BE INFRINGED, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE
DEFENDANT TO JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED LOANS AND GRANTS BY SHOWING THE
AUTHORITY OF A VALID STATUTE.  THAT THE SUIT IS BROUGHT AGAINST
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS, SO FAR FROM ENLARGING THE STANDING OF THE
PETITIONER, DISCLOSES THE DEFICIENCY IN ITS CLAIM; FOR IN SUCH SUITS
THE OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO SHOW VALID AUTHORITY ONLY IF HIS ACTS,
VIEWED AS THOSE OF A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, WOULD CONSTITUTE AN INVASION
OF AN INTEREST WHICH THE LAW WOULD OTHERWISE PROTECT OR WHICH HAS BEEN
ESPECIALLY CONFERRED BY STATUTE.  IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443; EX PARTE
YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123; EX PARTE LA PRADE, 289 U.S. 444.  CASES HOLDING
THAT A DEFENDANT IS ANSWERABLE WHERE HE HAS INDUCED ANOTHER, BY FRAUD
OR INTIMIDATION OR WITH A SOLELY MALICIOUS MOTIVE, TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO A
PLAINTIFF, HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE CASES AT BAR. 

THE PROPOSED LOANS AND GRANTS ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTES. 

THE STATUTES DO NOT UNLAWFULLY DELEGATE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR. 

THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO
APPROPRIATE MONEY TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE. 

THERE IS NO INVASION OF THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES. 

THE ALLEGED IMPROPER PURPOSE, MOTIVE OR STANDARD OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
IS IRRELEVANT. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES INVOLVE CERTAIN "LOAN-AND-GRANT AGREEMENTS" MADE BY THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC WORKS WITH FOUR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS LOCATED IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA.  THE BILLS OF COMPLAINT
SOUGHT TO ENJOIN THE EXECUTION OF THESE AGREEMENTS.  EACH AGREEMENT
CONTEMPLATES THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ELECTRICITY-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM BY
THE DESIGNATED MUNICIPALITY, AND, TO THAT END, THE PURCHASE, BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR, OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY AND SECURED BY
A FIRST PLEDGE OF THE REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE OPERATION OF THE
SYSTEM.  IN NO. 84 THIRTY AND IN NO. 85 FORTY-FIVE PER CENT. OF THE
COST OF THE LABOR AND MATERIALS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION ARE TO BE
DONATED OUTRIGHT.  THE AUTHORITY RELIED UPON FOR THE LOANS AND GRANTS
IS THAT CONTAINED IN TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT
FN1  AS MODIFIED AND CONTINUED BY THE EMERGENCY RELIEF APPROPRIATION
ACT OF 1935.  FN2  TITLE I OF THE FORMER ACT HAS BEEN DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THIS COURT.  SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 495; PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388.  BUT WE ARE HERE
CONCERNED NOT WITH TITLE I BUT WITH TITLE II OF THE ACT.  SO FAR AS
MATERIAL, THAT TITLE PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 202.  THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT,
SHALL PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF PUBLIC WORKS, WHICH SHALL
INCLUDE AMONG OTHER THINGS THE FOLLOWING:  (A) CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR,
AND IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AND PARK WAYS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND
ANY PUBLICLY OWNED INSTRUMENTALITIES AND FACILITIES; (B) CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING CONTROL, UTILIZATION,
AND PURIFICATION OF WATERS, PREVENTION OF SOIL OR COASTAL EROSION,
DEVELOPMENT OF WATER POWER, TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY,  ...;
(C) ANY PROJECTS OF THE CHARACTER HERETOFORE CONSTRUCTED OR CARRIED ON
EITHER DIRECTLY BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR WITH PUBLIC AID TO SERVE THE
INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC; (D) CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION,
ALTERATION, OR REPAIR UNDER PUBLIC REGULATION OR CONTROL OF LOW-COST
HOUSING AND SLUM-CLEARANCE PROJECTS; (E) ANY PROJECT (OTHER THAN THOSE
INCLUDED IN THE FOREGOING CLASSES) OF ANY CHARACTER HERETOFORE ELIGIBLE
FOR LOANS UNDER SUBSECTION (A) OF SECTION 201 OF THE EMERGENCY RELIEF
AND CONSTRUCTION ACT OF 1932, AS AMENDED,  ... 

"SEC. 203.  (A) WITH A VIEW TO INCREASING EMPLOYMENT QUICKLY (WHILE
REASONABLY SECURING ANY LOANS MADE BY THE UNITED STATES) THE PRESIDENT
IS AUTHORIZED AND EMPOWERED, THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR OR THROUGH SUCH
OTHER AGENCIES AS HE MAY DESIGNATE OR CREATE, (1) TO CONSTRUCT,
FINANCE, OR AID IN THE CONSTRUCTION OR FINANCING OF ANY PUBLIC-WORKS
PROJECT INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAM PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTION 202; (2)
UPON SUCH TERMS AS THE PRESIDENT SHALL PRESCRIBE, TO MAKE GRANTS TO
STATES, MUNICIPALITIES, OR OTHER PUBLIC BODIES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION,
REPAIR, OR IMPROVEMENT OF ANY SUCH PROJECT, BUT NO SUCH GRANT SHALL BE
IN EXCESS OF 30(BY LATER ACT 45) PER CENTUM OF THE COST OF THE LABOR
AND MATERIALS EMPLOYED UPON SUCH PROJECT;..." 

THE BILLS OF COMPLAINT CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE LOANS AND GRANTS
ON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THESE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
PURPORTING TO AUTHORIZE SUCH LOANS AND GRANTS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND
THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE LOANS AND GRANTS DO NOT COME WITHIN THE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS. 

THE INJURY WHICH PETITIONER WILL SUFFER, IT IS CONTENDED, IS THE LOSS
OF ITS BUSINESS AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF THE LOANS AND GRANTS BY THE
MUNICIPALITIES IN SETTING UP AND MAINTAINING RIVAL AND COMPETING
PLANTS; A RESULT, IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED, WHICH WILL BE DIRECTLY
CAUSED BY THE UNLAWFUL ACT OF THE ADMINISTRATOR IN MAKING AND
CONSUMMATING THE LOAN-AND-GRANT AGREEMENTS. 

THE SUITS WERE BROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THERE, THE RESPONDENTS, IN ADDITION TO DEFENDING
THE VALIDITY OF THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, CONTENDED THAT
PETITIONER WAS WITHOUT LEGAL STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE SUITS.  AFTER A
FULL HEARING, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT PETITIONER HAD STANDING TO
CHALLENGE THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION, BUT DENIED THE INJUNCTIONS AND
DISMISSED THE BILLS OF COMPLAINT UPON THE VIEW THAT THE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS WERE CONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT THEY CONFERRED UPON THE
ADMINISTRATOR THE POWER WHICH HE HAD EXERCISED. 

ON APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, THAT COURT FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF
THE LOANS AND GRANTS, AND AFFIRMED THE DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSING THE BILLS ON THE GROUND THAT NO LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT OF
THE POWER COMPANY HAD BEEN INVADED, AND THE COMPANY, THEREFORE, WAS
WITHOUT STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
ACTS.  91 F.(2D) 303.  WITH THAT VIEW WE AGREE, AND CONFINE OUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE CASES ACCORDINGLY. 

THE TRIAL COURT MADE ELABORATE FINDINGS, BUT FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THE
FOLLOWING IS ALL THAT NEED BE STATED.  PETITIONER IS A CORPORATION
ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF ALABAMA, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND
CORPORATE DOMICILE IN THAT STATE.  RESPONDENT ICKES IS THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS,
DULY APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN PURSUANCE OF
LAW.  THE OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE SUBORDINATE OFFICERS AND AGENTS OF THE
SAME EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION, OR OFFICERS CONNECTED WITH ITS
OPERATIONS. 

PETITIONER, UNDER ITS CHARTER, HAS THE RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE, SUPPLY
AND SELL ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF ALABAMA.  AMONG
OTHER COMMUNITIES SERVED BY ITS SYSTEM ARE THE FOUR MUNICIPALITIES HERE
INVOLVED, FROM EACH OF WHICH IT HAS A NON-EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE GIVING IT
THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY AN
ELECTRICITY-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.  PETITIONER IS A TAXPAYER OF EACH OF
THE MUNICIPALITIES, OF THE COUNTIES IN WHICH THEY ARE LOCATED, AND OF
THE STATE, WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER'S PROPERTIES AND OPERATIONS; AND
IT ALSO IS A TAXPAYER OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT THERETO. 

EACH OF THE MUNICIPALITIES IS AUTHORIZED UNDER STATE LAW TO CONSTRUCT
AND OPERATE MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC PLANTS AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, AND TO
ENGAGE IN COMPETITION WITH PETITIONER.  EACH IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE
BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH PLANTS AND
TO RECEIVE GRANTS FOR THAT PURPOSE; TO MORTGAGE ITS PLANT OR ANY PART
OF IT AND TO PLEDGE ALL OR ANY PART OF THE REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE PLANT AS SECURITY FOR THE LOAN.  FN3  IN EACH
MUNICIPALITY AN ELECTION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MAKING OF THE LOAN
AGREEMENTS, AT WHICH IT WAS DETERMINED BY A MAJORITY OF THE QUALIFIED
VOTERS THAT THE MUNICIPALITY SHOULD ENGAGE IN THE ELECTRIC BUSINESS. 
THE DISTRICT COURT FURTHER FOUND - 

"EACH OF THE MUNICIPALITIES INVOLVED IN THIS SUIT DETERMINED TO ENTER
INTO THE ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION BUSINESS OF ITS OWN FREE WILL.  THERE
WAS NO SOLICITATION OR COERCION ON THE PART OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS
(RESPONDENTS), THEIR AGENTS OR SUBORDINATES.  THERE WAS AND IS NO
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS AND ANY OTHER PERSON, NOR IS
THERE ANY OTHER EFFORT ON THE PART OF ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS TO, NOR ARE
THEIR ACTIONS MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO, CAUSE INJURY OR FINANCIAL LOSS
TO THE PLAINTIFFS, OR TO REGULATE THEIR RATES OR ELECTRIC RATES
GENERALLY, OR TO FOSTER MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP OF UTILITIES. 

"THE EXPENDITURES UNDER THESE STATUTES INVOLVE NO PURCHASE OF, NOR
CONTRACT PROVIDING FOR, REGULATION BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE FAILURE
OF ANY CITY TO APPLY FOR OR RECEIVE LOANS OR GRANTS UNDER THOSE
STATUTES WILL IMPOSE UPON IT NO DISADVANTAGE OR FINANCIAL LOSS. 

"THE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT RESERVED ANY RIGHT OR POWER TO INFLUENCE OR
CONTROL RATES TO BE CHARGED BY THE PROPOSED MUNICIPAL POWER PLANTS.... 

"NEITHER THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS HAS RESERVED ANY
RIGHT OR POWER UNDER THE EXISTING CONTRACTS, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY, TO
REQUIRE ANY OF THE MUNICIPALITIES TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION OR TO
DESIGNATE THE PERSON OR AGENCY FROM WHOM THE MUNICIPALITY MUST PURCHASE
ITS POWER.... 

"NEITHER THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS HAS ANY POWER TO
CONTROL THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS
COMPLETED.... 

"EACH OF THE PROJECTS HEREIN INVOLVED IS A PART OF A PROGRAM OF
NATIONAL SCOPE, IS DESIGNED TO RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT, AND PROMOTES THE
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES." 

THESE FINDINGS WERE MADE, AFTER HEARING, BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE UPON
UNDISPUTED OR CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.  THE FINDINGS WERE NOT QUESTIONED
BY THE COURT BELOW; AND SINCE THEY ARE NOT WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT
IN THE EVIDENCE, WE ACCEPT THEM HERE AS UNASSAILABLE.  DAVIS V.
SCHWARTZ, 155 U.S. 631, 636-637; ADAMSON V. GILLILAND, 242 U.S. 350,
353. 

IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT EACH OF THE MUNICIPALITIES IN QUESTION
HAS AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE ITS PROPOSED PLANT AND
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN COMPETITION WITH PETITIONER, AND TO BORROW
MONEY, ISSUE BONDS AND RECEIVE GRANTS FOR THAT PURPOSE; THAT IT
DETERMINED TO DO SO OF ITS OWN FREE WILL, WITHOUT SOLICITATION OR
COERCION; THAT THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN ANY OF THE RESPONDENTS
AND ANY OTHER PERSON, OR ANY EFFORT OR ACTION MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO
CAUSE INJURY OR FINANCIAL LOSS TO PETITIONER, OR ANY PURPOSE TO
REGULATE RATES OR FOSTER MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP OF UTILITIES.  IT FURTHER
APPEARS THAT NEITHER THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY OF THE RESPONDENTS HAS
RESERVED ANY RIGHT OR POWER TO REQUIRE AN ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION OR
DESIGNATE ANY AGENCY FROM WHICH THE MUNICIPALITY MUST PURCHASE ITS
POWER.  EACH MUNICIPALITY IS LEFT ENTIRELY FREE FROM FEDERAL CONTROL OR
DIRECTION IN RESPECT OF THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF ITS PLANT AND
BUSINESS.  IN SHORT, THE CASE FOR PETITIONER COMES DOWN TO THE
CONTENTION THAT CONSUMMATION OF THE LOAN-AND-GRANT AGREEMENTS SHOULD BE
ENJOINED ON THE SOLE AND DETACHED GROUND THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR LACKS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE THEM, AND THAT THE
RESULTING MONEYS, WHICH THE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE CLEAR AUTHORITY TO
TAKE, WILL BE USED BY THE MUNICIPALITIES IN LAWFUL, ALBEIT DESTRUCTIVE,
COMPETITION WITH PETITIONER. 

FIRST.  UNLESS A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION IS REQUIRED FROM THE MERE FACT
THAT PETITIONER WILL SUSTAIN FINANCIAL LOSS BY REASON OF THE LAWFUL
COMPETITION WHICH WILL RESULT FROM THE USE BY THE MUNICIPALITIES OF THE
PROPOSED LOANS AND GRANTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT PETITIONER HAS NO SUCH
INTEREST AND WILL SUSTAIN NO SUCH LEGAL INJURY AS ENABLES IT TO
MAINTAIN THE PRESENT SUITS.  PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT IT IS A TAXPAYER;
BUT THE INTEREST OF A TAXPAYER IN THE MONEYS OF THE FEDERAL TREASURY
FURNISHES NO BASIS FOR AN APPEAL TO THE PREVENTIVE POWERS OF A COURT OF
EQUITY.  MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 486 ET SEQ. THE
PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY THE CASE JUST CITED IS THAT THE COURTS HAVE NO
POWER TO CONSIDER IN ISOLATION AND ANNUL AN ACT OF CONGRESS ON THE
GROUND THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; BUT MAY CONSIDER THAT QUESTION
"ONLY WHEN THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SOME DIRECT INJURY SUFFERED OR
THREATENED, PRESENTING A JUSTICIABLE ISSUE, IS MADE TO REST UPON SUCH
AN ACT."  THE TERM "DIRECT INJURY" IS THERE USED IN ITS LEGAL SENSE, AS
MEANING A WRONG WHICH DIRECTLY RESULTS IN THE VIOLATION OF A LEGAL
RIGHT.  "AN INJURY, LEGALLY SPEAKING, CONSISTS OF A WRONG DONE TO A
PERSON, OR, IN OTHER WORDS, A VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT.  IT IS AN ANCIENT
MAXIM, THAT A DAMAGE TO ONE, WITHOUT AN INJURY IN THIS SENSE, (DAMNUM
ABSQUE INJURIA), DOES NOT LAY THE FOUNDATION OF AN ACTION; BECAUSE, IF
THE ACT COMPLAINED OF DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY OF HIS LEGAL RIGHTS, IT IS
OBVIOUS, THAT HE HAS NO CAUSE TO COMPLAIN....  WANT OF RIGHT AND WANT
OF REMEDY ARE JUSTLY SAID TO BE RECIPROCAL.  WHERE THEREFORE THERE HAS
BEEN A VIOLATION OF A RIGHT, THE PERSON INJURED IS ENTITLED TO AN
ACTION."  PARKER V. GRISWOLD, 17 CONN. 288, 302-303.  THE CONVERSE IS
EQUALLY TRUE, THAT WHERE, ALTHOUGH THERE IS DAMAGE, THERE IS NO
VIOLATION OF A RIGHT NO ACTION CAN BE MAINTAINED.    SECOND.  THE ONLY
PERTINENT INQUIRY, THEN, IS WHAT ENFORCEABLE LEGAL RIGHT OF PETITIONER
DO THE ALLEGED WRONGFUL AGREEMENTS INVADE OR THREATEN?  IF CONSPIRACY
OR FRAUD OR MALICE OR COERCION WERE INVOLVED A DIFFERENT CASE WOULD BE
PRESENTED, BUT IN THEIR ABSENCE, PLAINLY ENOUGH, THE MERE CONSUMMATION
OF THE LOANS AND GRANTS WILL NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACTIONABLE WRONG.  NOR
WILL THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION BY THE MUNICIPALITIES OF THE MONEYS
DERIVED THEREFROM GIVE RISE TO AN ACTIONABLE WRONG, SINCE SUCH
APPLICATION, BEING LAWFUL, WILL INVADE NO LEGAL RIGHT OF PETITIONER. 
THE CLAIM THAT PETITIONER WILL BE INJURED, PERHAPS RUINED, BY THE
COMPETITION OF THE MUNICIPALITIES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE USE OF THE
MONEYS, THEREFORE, PRESENTS A CLEAR CASE OF DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA. 
STATED IN OTHER WORDS, THESE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER STATE
LAW TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS IN COMPETITION WITH PETITIONER, SINCE IT
HAS BEEN GIVEN NO EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE.  IF ITS BUSINESS BE CURTAILED OR
DESTROYED BY THE OPERATIONS OF THE MUNICIPALITIES, IT WILL BE BY LAWFUL
COMPETITION FROM WHICH NO LEGAL WRONG RESULTS. 

WHAT PETITIONER ANTICIPATES, WE EMPHASIZE, IS DAMAGE TO SOMETHING IT
DOES NOT POSSESS - NAMELY, A RIGHT TO BE IMMUNE FROM LAWFUL MUNICIPAL
COMPETITION.  NO OTHER CLAIM OF RIGHT IS INVOLVED.  IT IS, IN
PRINCIPLE, AS THOUGH AN UNAUTHORIZED LOAN WERE ABOUT TO BE MADE TO
ENABLE THE BORROWER TO PURCHASE A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH
HE HAD A RIGHT, EQUALLY WITH A PROSPECTIVE COMPLAINANT, TO BECOME THE
BUYER.  WHILE THE LOAN MIGHT FRUSTRATE COMPLAINANT'S HOPES OF A
PROFITABLE INVESTMENT, IT WOULD NOT VIOLATE ANY LEGAL RIGHT; AND HE
WOULD HAVE NO STANDING TO ASK THE AID OF A COURT TO STOP THE LOAN. 
WHAT DIFFERENCE, IN REAL SUBSTANCE, IS THERE BETWEEN THE CASE SUPPOSED
AND THE ONE IN HAND? 

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION WHICH, THEREFORE, EMERGES IS ONE OF GREAT
BREADTH.  CAN ANYONE WHO WILL SUFFER INJURIOUS CONSEQUENCES FROM THE
LAWFUL USE OF MONEY ABOUT TO BE UNLAWFULLY LOANED MAINTAIN A SUIT TO
ENJOIN THE LOAN?  AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER WOULD PRODUCE NOVEL AND
STARTLING RESULTS.  AND THAT QUESTION SUGGESTS ANOTHER:  SHOULD THE
LOAN BE CONSUMMATED, MAY SUCH A ONE SUE FOR DAMAGES?  IF SO, UPON WHAT
GROUND MAY HE SUE EITHER THE PERSON MAKING THE LOAN OR THE PERSON
RECEIVING IT? CONSIDERED APART, THE LENDER OWES THE SUFFERER NO
ENFORCIBLE DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM MAKING THE UNAUTHORIZED LOAN; AND THE
BORROWER OWES HIM NO OBLIGATION TO REFRAIN FROM USING THE PROCEEDS IN
ANY LAWFUL WAY THE BORROWER MAY CHOOSE.  IF SUCH A SUIT CAN BE
MAINTAINED, SIMILAR SUITS BY INNUMERABLE PERSONS ARE LIKEWISE
ADMISSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER MONEY IS BEING LOANED WITHOUT LAWFUL
AUTHORITY FOR USES WHICH, ALTHOUGH HURTFUL TO THE COMPLAINANTS, ARE
PERFECTLY LAWFUL.  THE SUPPOSITION OPENS A VISTA OF LITIGATION HITHERTO
UNREVEALED. 

JOHN DOE, LET US SUPPOSE, IS ENGAGED IN OPERATING A GROCERY STORE. 
RICHARD ROE, DESIRING TO OPEN A RIVAL AND COMPETING ESTABLISHMENT,
SEEKS A LOAN FROM A MANUFACTURING CONCERN WHICH, UNDER ITS CHARTER, IS
WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE LOAN.  THE LOAN, IF MADE, WILL BE ULTRA
VIRES.  THE STATE OR A STOCKHOLDER OF THE CORPORATION, PERHAPS A
CREDITOR IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY, UPON THAT GROUND, ENJOIN THE
LOAN.  BUT MAY IT BE ENJOINED AT THE SUIT OF JOHN DOE, A STRANGER TO
THE CORPORATION, BECAUSE THE LAWFUL USE OF THE MONEY WILL PROVE
INJURIOUS TO HIM AND THIS RESULT IS FORESEEN AND EXPECTED BOTH BY THE
LENDER AND THE BORROWER, RICHARD ROE?  CERTAINLY NOT, UNLESS WE ARE
PREPARED TO LAY DOWN THE GENERAL RULE THAT A, WHO WILL SUFFER DAMAGE
FROM THE LAWFUL ACT OF B, AND WHO PLAINLY WILL HAVE NO CASE AGAINST B,
MAY NEVERTHELESS INVOKE JUDICIAL AID TO RESTRAIN A THIRD PARTY, ACTING
WITHOUT AUTHORITY, FROM FURNISHING MEANS WHICH WILL ENABLE B TO DO WHAT
THE LAW PERMITS HIM TO DO.  SUCH A RULE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO SOUND
REASON, AS WE HAVE ALREADY TRIED TO SHOW, AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 

IF THERE ARE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TWO DISTINCT TRANSACTIONS,
NEITHER OF WHICH, APART, CONSTITUTES A JUDICIALLY REMEDIABLE WRONG, MAY
BE SO RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER AS TO AFFORD A BASIS FOR JUDICIAL RELIEF,
SUCH CONDITIONS ARE NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT
CASE. 

WHAT WE HAVE NOW SAID FINDS AMPLE SUPPORT IN THE DECIDED CASES. 
AMONG THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, AND DIRECTLY IN POINT, IS RAILROAD
CO. V. ELLERMAN, 105 U.S. 166.  IN THAT CASE, THE RAILROAD COMPANY WAS
AUTHORIZED BY ITS CHARTER, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO OBTAIN AND AFTERWARDS
MANAGE, USE AND ENJOY, WHARVES AND THE APPURTENANCES THERETO "IN
CONNECTION WITH ITS RAILROADS."  A LOUISIANA STATUTE CONFERRED UPON THE
RAILROAD THE POWER TO OBTAIN AND THEREAFTER TO OWN, MAINTAIN AND USE,
SUITABLE WHARVES, ETC., "CONNECTED WITH AND INCIDENTAL TO SAID
RAILROAD."  PURSUANT TO THIS AUTHORITY, THE RAILROAD COMPANY ACQUIRED
PROPERTY WHICH IT USED AS A WHARF AND WHICH, ALTHOUGH LIMITED BY THE
STATUTE AND ITS CHARTER TO USE FOR RAILROAD PURPOSES, IT LEASED TO
CERTAIN PERSONS FOR THE MOORING OF VESSELS AND THE LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF CARGOES UPON AND FROM ALL VESSELS OF A KIND DESIGNATED. 
ELLERMAN OPERATED CERTAIN PUBLIC WHARVES UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY
OF NEW ORLEANS GIVING HIM THE RIGHT TO COLLECT REVENUES DERIVED
THEREFROM.  HE BROUGHT SUIT TO ENJOIN THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE OF THE
RAILROAD WHARF.  THIS COURT HELD THAT HE WAS WITHOUT LEGAL STANDING TO
MAINTAIN THE SUIT - HIS ONLY INTEREST BEING TO PREVENT COMPETITION WITH
HIMSELF AS A WHARFINGER, WHICH THE MORE EXTENSIVE AND CHALLENGED USE BY
THE LESSEES OF THE RAILROAD WHARF WOULD CREATE, AND HIS CLAIM FOR
RELIEF RESTING ONLY UPON THE ALLEGATION THAT THE USE PROPOSED BY THE
LEASE WAS BEYOND THE CORPORATE POWER OF THE RAILROAD COMPANY TO GRANT. 
"BUT IF THE COMPETITION IN ITSELF, HOWEVER INJURIOUS," WE SAID, PP. 173
174, "IS NOT A WRONG OF WHICH HE COULD COMPLAIN AGAINST A NATURAL
PERSON, BEING THE RIPARIAN PROPRIETOR, HOW DOES IT BECOME SO MERELY
BECAUSE THE AUTHOR OF IT IS A CORPORATION ACTING ULTRA VIRES?  THE
DAMAGE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE COMPETITION, AND TO THAT ALONE.  BUT THE
COMPETITION IS NOT ILLEGAL.  IT IS NOT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY ONE TO COMPETE
WITH THE COMPANY, ALTHOUGH THE LATTER MAY NOT BE AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE
IN THE SAME BUSINESS.  THE LEGAL INTEREST WHICH QUALIFIES A COMPLAINANT
OTHER THAN THE STATE ITSELF TO SUE IN SUCH A CASE IS A PECUNIARY
INTEREST IN PREVENTING THE DEFENDANT FROM DOING AN ACT WHERE THE INJURY
ALLEGED FLOWS FROM ITS QUALITY AND CHARACTER AS A BREACH OF SOME LEGAL
OR EQUITABLE DUTY.  A STOCKHOLDER OF THE COMPANY HAS SUCH AN INTEREST
IN RESTRAINING IT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE ENTERPRISE FOR WHICH IT WAS
FORMED, BECAUSE THAT IS TO ENFORCE HIS CONTRACT OF MEMBERSHIP.  THE
STATE HAS A LEGAL INTEREST IN PREVENTING THE USURPATION AND PERVERSION
OF ITS FRANCHISES, BECAUSE IT IS A TRUSTEE OF ITS POWERS FOR USES
STRICTLY PUBLIC.  IN THESE QUESTIONS THE APPELLEE HAS NO INTEREST, AND
HE CANNOT RAISE THEM IN ORDER, UNDER THAT COVER, TO CREATE AND PROTECT
A MONOPOLY WHICH THE LAW DOES NOT GIVE HIM.  THE ONLY INJURY OF WHICH
HE CAN BE HEARD IN A JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL TO COMPLAIN IS THE INVASION OF
SOME LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT.  IF HE ASSERTS THAT THE COMPETITION OF
THE RAILROAD COMPANY DAMAGES HIM, THE ANSWER IS, THAT IT DOES NOT
ABRIDGE OR IMPAIR ANY SUCH RIGHT.  IF HE ALLEGES THAT THE RAILROAD
COMPANY IS ACTING BEYOND THE WARRANT OF THE LAW, THE ANSWER IS, THAT A
VIOLATION OF ITS CHARTER DOES NOT OF ITSELF INJURIOUSLY AFFECT ANY OF
HIS RIGHTS.  THE COMPANY IS NOT SHOWN TO OWE HIM ANY DUTY WHICH IT HAS
NOT PERFORMED."  SUPPORTING CASES ARE CITED.  SEE, ALSO, U.S. EX REL.
NEW YORK WAREHOUSE, W. & T. ASSN. V. DERN, 68 F.(2D) 773.  COMPARE
EDWARD HINES TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 143, 148; ALEXANDER
SPRUNT & SON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 249, 256-257; MILWAUKEE HORSE &
COW COMM'N CO. V. HILL, 207 WIS. 420, 423, 430-432; 241 N.W. 364. 

THE CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, IS NOT TO THE CONTRARY. 
THERE, SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY CERTAIN RAILROAD COMPANIES TO SET ASIDE AN
ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AUTHORIZING A COMPETING
COMPANY TO ACQUIRE A TERMINAL ROAD.  ANSWERING THE CONTENTION THAT
COMPLAINANTS WERE WITHOUT THE LEGAL INTEREST NECESSARY TO ENTITLE THEM
TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER, THIS COURT HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO SUE AROSE IN
VIRTUE OF A SPECIAL INTEREST RECOGNIZED BY CERTAIN PROVISIONS CONTAINED
IN TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, AND UNDER SEC. 212 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE
WHICH GAVE ANY PARTY TO A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION THE RIGHT TO
BECOME A PARTY TO ANY SUIT WHEREIN THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER MADE IN THE
PROCEEDING IS INVOLVED.  IN THIS VIEW, THE ELLERMAN CASE WAS THOUGHT TO
BE INAPPLICABLE.  A READING OF THE CASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DISSENTING OPINION SHOWS VERY CLEARLY THAT, BUT FOR EXPRESS STATUTORY
PROVISION CREATING A DIFFERENT RULE, THE DECISION IN THE ELLERMAN CASE
WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED WAS DECIDED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE VIEW WE HAVE EXPRESSED, IN DUKE POWER CO. V. GREENWOOD COUNTY, 91
F.(2D) 665, 676; SAME CASE, 81 F.(2D) 986, 997.  COMPARE ARKANSAS
MISSOURI POWER CO. V. KENNETT, 78 F.(2D) 911.  SEE, ALSO, ALLEGAN V.
CONSUMERS' POWER CO., 71 F.(2D) 477.  THE GREENWOOD COUNTY CASE, SUPRA,
IS NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT UPON CERTIORARI, AND WILL BE DETERMINED
UPON THE AUTHORITY OF OUR PRESENT DECISION. 

FROST V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 515, RELIED UPON BY
PETITIONER, PRESENTS AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT SITUATION.  APPELLANT
THERE OWNED A COTTON-GINNING BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF DURANT, OKLAHOMA,
FOR THE OPERATION OF WHICH HE HAD A LICENSE FROM THE CORPORATION
COMMISSION.  THE LAW OF OKLAHOMA PROVIDED THAT NO GIN SHOULD BE
OPERATED WITHOUT A LICENSE FROM THE COMMISSION, WHICH COULD BE OBTAINED
ONLY UPON SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.  WE HELD THAT SUCH A LICENSE WAS A
FRANCHISE CONSTITUTING A PROPERTY RIGHT WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT; AND THAT WHILE THE ACQUISITION OF THE FRANCHISE
DID NOT PRECLUDE THE STATE FROM MAKING SIMILAR VALID GRANTS TO OTHERS,
IT WAS EXCLUSIVE AGAINST AN ATTEMPT TO OPERATE A COMPETING GIN WITHOUT
A PERMIT OR UNDER A VOID PERMIT.  THE DURANT CO-OPERATIVE GIN COMPANY
SOUGHT TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FROM THE COMMISSION WHICH, FOR REASONS STATED
IN OUR OPINION, WE HELD WOULD BE VOID AND A CLEAR INVASION OF FROST'S
PROPERTY RIGHTS.  WE CONCLUDED THAT A LEGAL RIGHT OF FROST TO BE FREE
FROM SUCH COMPETITION WOULD BE INVADED BY ONE NOT HAVING A VALID
FRANCHISE TO COMPETE, AND SUSTAINED FROST'S RIGHT TO AN INJUNCTION
AGAINST THE COMMISSION AND THE DURANT COMPANY.  SEE CORPORATION
COMMISSION V. LOWE, 281 U.S. 431, 435.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
FROST CASE AND THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL; FOR THE COMPETITION CONTEMPLATED
THERE WAS UNLAWFUL WHILE THAT OF THE MUNICIPALITIES CONTEMPLATED HERE
IS ENTIRELY LAWFUL. 

WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY TO REVIEW THE MANY OTHER CASES CITED BY
PETITIONER WHERE SUITS AGAINST OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED.  AN
EXAMINATION OF THEM WILL DISCLOSE THE PRESENCE OF FRAUD, COERCION,
MALICE, CONSPIRACY, OR SOME OTHER ELEMENT OR CONDITION OF CONTROLLING
FORCE - NONE OF WHICH, AS SHOWN BY THE FINDINGS WHICH WE HAVE ACCEPTED
AS UNASSAILABLE, EXISTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.  DECREES AFFIRMED. 

FN1  C. 90, 48 STAT. 195, 200. 

FN2  C. 48, 49 STAT. 115, 119. 

FN3  SEE OPPENHEIM V. CITY OF FLORENCE, 229 ALA. 50; 155 SO. 859. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :

















DUKE POWER CO. V. GREENWOOD CO., 302 U.S. 485 


NO. 397.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 8, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 91
F.(2D) 665, AFFIRMED. 


DECIDED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF ALABAMA POWER CO. V. ICKES, ANTE, P.
464. 

DUKE POWER CO. ET AL. V. GREENWOOD COUNTY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 675, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL,
19 F.SUPP.  932, OF A BILL TO ENJOIN PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT LIKE
THOSE INVOLVED IN THE TWO CASES LAST PRECEDING.  FOR AN EARLIER PHASE
OF THIS LITIGATION, SEE 299 U.S. 259. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE PROJECT WAS INCLUDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE
PROGRAM OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THAT FEDERAL FUNDS WERE ALLOTTED FOR ITS
CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THE PWA POWER PLAN TO REDUCE POWER RATES. 

TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, RIGHTLY CONSTRUED,
DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR IN THIS
CASE.  IF CONSTRUED OTHERWISE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT (A) IT
INVADES THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES; (B) IT IS NOT WITHIN ANY
POWER DELEGATED TO CONGRESS BY THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE OR BY ANY
OTHER PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION; (C) IT IS AN UNAUTHORIZED
DELEGATION OF THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO SPEND FOR THE GENERAL
WELFARE, AND (D) AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, IT DEPRIVES THE PETITIONER OF
ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE
INJURY WHICH PETITIONER WILL SUSTAIN. 

THIS WAS FOUND AS A FACT BY THE DISTRICT COURT BOTH ON THE ORIGINAL
HEARING AND ON THE RETRIAL. 

THE INJURY TO PETITIONER WILL BE THE INEVITABLE RESULT OF THE ACT OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR IN AUTHORIZING THE PROJECT,  - A RESULT NECESSARILY
CONTEMPLATED AT THE TIME OF THE AUTHORIZATION.  RATES WERE FIXED BELOW
THOSE OF PETITIONER IN ORDER TO ATTRACT PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS, AND
CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL WERE MADE WITH
PETITIONER'S CUSTOMERS.  THE VERY CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE LOAN IS
BEING MADE CONTEMPLATE THE TAKING OF PETITIONERS BUSINESS, AND THE
REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN EVEN IN PART NECESSITATES THE CONTINUATION OF
RATES WHICH WILL ATTRACT PETITIONER'S BUSINESS. 

A DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS WRONGFUL ACT
WHICH MIGHT REASONABLY HAVE BEEN FORESEEN.  MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL R. CO.
V. KELLOGG, 94 U.S. 469. 

THE EFFECT UPON PETITIONER'S RATES AND BUSINESS WAS NOT ONLY
REASONABLY FORESEEABLE BUT WAS IN FACT FORESEEN.  THE ADMINISTRATOR
KNEW THAT HIS ACT IN AUTHORIZING THE PROJECT AND IN ALLOTTING THE FUNDS
FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION, WAS CALCULATED TO DAMAGE PETITIONER AND WOULD DO
SO. 

PETITIONER IS NOT COMPLAINING OF COMPETITION BY THE COUNTY AND A
DECREE IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER WOULD LEAVE THE COUNTY FREE TO COMPETE
WITH PETITIONER IN ANY LAWFUL WAY.  BUT, SHOULD THE PLANT BE
CONSTRUCTED, ITS OPERATION BY THE COUNTY IN COMPETITION WITH PETITIONER
WOULD ARISE OUT OF AND BE AN IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS ACTION OF
THE ADMINISTRATOR. 

THE RULE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPETING MUNICIPAL PLANT MAY BE
ENJOINED, IF THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE ILLEGALLY FINANCED, AS, FOR
INSTANCE, BY THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS IN VIOLATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL OR
STATUTORY DEBT LIMITATION, IS WELL ESTABLISHED.  AND IT IS NO DEFENSE
TO A SUIT BY A UTILITY WHICH WOULD BE INJURED BY SUCH COMPETITION THAT
THE UTILITY HAS NO EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE, AND THAT THE MUNICIPALITY HAS
THE LAWFUL RIGHT TO COMPETE WITH IT.  IF THE RESPONDENTS' POSITION WERE
SOUND, SUCH A SUIT WOULD FAIL ON THE GROUND THAT, THE MUNICIPALITY
HAVING THE LAWFUL RIGHT TO COMPETE, NO RIGHT OF THE PLAINTIFF WOULD BE
INFRINGED AND THE RESULTING DAMAGE WOULD BE ABSQUE INJURIA.  CONTRARY
TO THE CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENTS, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT OF THE UTILITY
TO MAINTAIN SUCH A SUIT IS UNIFORMLY RECOGNIZED.  (CITING:  CAMPBELL V.
ARKANSAS-MISSOURI POWER CO., 55 F.(2D) 560; OKLAHOMA UTILITIES CO. V.
HOMINY, 2 F.SUPP.  849; IOWA SOUTHERN UTILITIES CO. V. CASSILL, 69
F.(2D) 703; GALLARDO V. PORTO RICO RY. L. & P. CO., 18 F.(2D) 918;
COLORADO CENTRAL POWER CO. V. MUNICIPAL POWER DEVELOPMENT CO., 1
F.SUPP.  961; MISSISSIPPI POWER CO. V. STARKVILLE, 4 F.SUPP.  833;
FROST V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 515; CITIZENS ELECTRIC
ILLUMINATING CO. V. LACKAWANNA & W.V. POWER CO., 255 PA. 145; 18 HARV.
L. REV. 412; 8 HARV. LAW REV. 11; HITCHMAN COAL & COKE CO. V. MITCHELL,
245 U.S. 229; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; HAMMER V. DAGENHART, 247
U.S. 251; PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510.  OTHER CITATIONS
TO SUPPORT THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO RAISE THE MAIN QUESTIONS ARE HERE
OMITTED BECAUSE INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY OF THE LIKE ARGUMENT IN THE
CASE LAST PRECEDING.) 

THE PETITIONER'S BUSINESS IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY INTEREST WHICH THE
LAW WILL PROTECT AGAINST INVASION THROUGH THE UNLAWFUL ACTS OF A PUBLIC
OFFICIAL.  PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, SUPRA; PHILADELPHIA CO. V.
STIMSON, 223 U.S. 605. 

A PUBLIC OFFICIAL MAY BE ENJOINED FROM ILLEGAL ACTS INVOLVING THE
UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS AT THE SUIT OF AN INDIVIDUAL
WHO WILL BE SPECIALLY GRIEVED THEREBY.  FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, 262 U.S.
447, 486; WARNER-QUINLAN ASPHALT CO. V. CARLISLE, 158 APP. DIV. (N.Y.) 
638. 

IN RESTRAINING ILLEGAL ACTION BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL AT THE SUIT OF A
PARTY SPECIALLY GRIEVED BY SUCH ACTION, A COURT OF EQUITY IS EXERCISING
A WELL ESTABLISHED EQUITABLE JURISDICTION. 

ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE EQUITY WILL ENJOIN A COMMON OR PUBLIC NUISANCE
AT THE SUIT OF A PRIVATE PERSON WHO WILL SUFFER A SPECIAL GRIEVANCE
THEREFROM.  MAYOR V. ALEXANDRIA CANAL CO., 12 PET. 91, 98-100; CORNING
V. LOWERRE, 6 JOHNS.  CHAN.  439; TRUAX V. RAICH, SUPRA.  P. 37. 

THE OBJECTION TO SUITS BY TAXPAYERS GENERALLY TO RESTRAIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF APPROPRIATION STATUTES ON THE SCORE THAT TO PERMIT SUCH
SUITS WOULD LEAD TO A MULTIPLICITY OF ACTIONS, WITH THE ATTENDANT
INCONVENIENCES RESULTING THEREFROM, HAS NO APPLICATION TO A SUIT BY A
PARTY SPECIALLY AGGRIEVED.  THE INTEREST THAT WILL JUSTIFY SUCH A SUIT
IS OF A SORT THAT WILL GIVE RISE TO NO SUCH DANGER OR INCONVENIENCE. 
THIS IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT THE VALIDITY OF EVEN A CRIMINAL
STATUTE MAY BE CHALLENGED BY A PARTY WHO WILL SUSTAIN A DIRECT INJURY
TO HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS BY THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE. 

THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD HAVE LIMITED THE RETRIAL OF THE CAUSE TO
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN
THE SITUATION SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE ORIGINAL DECREE OF INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE SAME QUESTION AS THAT JUST DECIDED IN NOS. 84
AND 85, ANTE, P. 464.  THE RESPONDENTS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME, WITH
THE ADDITION OF GREENWOOD COUNTY, IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE BOARD OF THE COUNTY.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT
TO ENJOIN THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A LOCAL ELECTRIC POWER
PLANT IN THE COUNTY, AND THE MAKING OF A LOAN AND GRANT BY THE FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATOR TO THE COUNTY, FOR THAT PURPOSE, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
TITLE II OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, SET FORTH, SO FAR AS
MATERIAL, IN NOS. 84-85, SUPRA. 

THE CASE WAS HERE ON A PREVIOUS WRIT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF WHICH
THIS COURT, BECAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL IRREGULARITIES IN PRACTICE, REVERSED
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW WITH DIRECTIONS TO VACATE THE DECREES
ENTERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, AND REMAND THE CAUSE TO THAT COURT WITH
DIRECTIONS TO PERMIT THE PARTIES TO AMEND THEIR PLEADINGS IN THE LIGHT
OF EXISTING FACTS, AND RETRY THE CAUSE UPON THE ISSUES THEN PRESENTED. 
WE EXPRESSED NO OPINION UPON THE MERITS OR THE RELEVANCY OR EFFECT OF
THE EVIDENCE.  299 U.S. 259.  ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE
DISTRICT COURT, AND REHEARD.  THE DISTRICT COURT, AFTER MAKING FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DISMISSED THE BILL.  THE COURT BELOW,
UPON APPEAL, CONSIDERED THE CASE FULLY, AND DELIVERED AN EXHAUSTIVE
OPINION.  IT HELD (1) THAT THE STATUTE, UNDER WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR
PROPOSED TO ACT, WAS CONSTITUTIONAL; (2) THAT HE ACTED WITHIN THE POWER
GRANTED HIM BY THE STATUTE; AND (3) THAT IN ANY EVENT NO LEGAL RIGHT OF
PLAINTIFFS WAS VIOLATED BY WHAT HAD BEEN DONE.  91 F.(2D) 665; SEE ALSO
PRECEDING DECISION, 81 F.(2D) 986. 

UPON THE QUESTION OF PETITIONERS' STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT, THE
LOWER COURT HELD, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE COMPETITION PROPOSED BY THE
COUNTY WAS LAWFUL AND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATOR WERE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE PROPOSED LOAN AND GRANT, NO LEGAL RIGHT OF
PETITIONERS WAS THEREBY INVADED.  THE OPINION UPON THIS BRANCH OF THE
CASE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE VIEWS WE HAVE JUST EXPRESSED IN NOS. 84 AND
85; AND IT FOLLOWS THAT THE DECREE MUST BE, AND IT IS, AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK CONCURS IN THE RESULT. 
..END :





















TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS V. HIRSCH CO., 302 U.S. 490 


NO. 62.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 87
F.(2D) 702, AFFIRMED. 


1.  CLAIMS 1, 3, 14 AND 15 OF PATENT NO. 1,713,628, TO SCHLETTER, MAY
21, 1929, FOR AN ATTACHMENT FOR "FLAT" OR "STRAIGHT" KNITTING MACHINES,
INCLUDING MACHINES OF THE "FULL-FASHIONED" TYPE, HELD INVALID FOR WANT
OF NOVELTY.  PP. 494, 497. 

CLAIM 14, TAKEN AS TYPICAL, DEFINES THE INVENTION AS THE COMBINATION
IN A STRAIGHT KNITTING MACHINE OF (A) A SET OF YARN GUIDE CARRIER BARS
FOR OPERATING YARN GUIDES TRAVELING LESS THAN THE FULL WIDTH OF THE
FABRIC BEING KNITTED, (B) A SPINDLE HAVING REVERSED SCREW THREADS, (C)
STOPS OPERATED BY SAID SPINDLE, (D) MEANS FOR TURNING THE SPINDLE IN
EITHER DIRECTION, (E) PATTERN-CONTROLLED MEANS FOR DETERMINING THE TIME
OF OPERATION OF THE SPINDLE, AND (F) PATTERN-CONTROLLED MEANS FOR
DETERMINING THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION OF THE SPINDLE. 

2.  THE ADDITION OF A NEW AND USEFUL ELEMENT TO AN OLD COMBINATION
MAY BE PATENTABLE; BUT THE ADDITION MUST BE THE RESULT OF INVENTION
RATHER THAN THE MERE EXERCISE OF THE SKILL OF THE CALLING, AND NOT ONE
PLAINLY INDICATED BY THE PRIOR ART. P. 497. 

3.  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MAY BE DECISIVE WHERE INVENTION IS IN DOUBT. 
P. 498. 

BUT IN THIS CASE IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO NOVELTY OF THE BARE CONCEPTION OF THE USE OF THE
ATTACHMENT WITH FULL-FASHIONED KNITTING MACHINES RATHER THAN TO THE
SKILL WITH WHICH THE PATENTEE DEVISED MECHANISMS FOR MAKING THE
ATTACHMENT EFFECTIVE, BUT FOR WHICH HE MADE NO CLAIM, OR TO THE
STRENGTH OF THE HANDS INTO WHICH THE PATENT CAME.  P. 499. 

TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS V. LOUIS HIRSCH TEXTILE MACHINES, INC. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 680, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE, 13
F.SUPP.  476, SUSTAINING FOUR CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONER'S PATENT,
ENJOINING FURTHER INFRINGEMENT, AND ORDERING AN ACCOUNTING. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE COMES HERE ON CERTIORARI TO REVIEW A DECREE, IN A PATENT
INFRINGEMENT SUIT, OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT,
WHICH REVERSED THE DISTRICT COURT AND HELD INVALID CLAIMS 1, 3, 14 AND
15 OF THE SCHLETTER PATENT NO. 1,713,628 OF 1929, FOR AN ATTACHMENT FOR
FLAT KNITTING MACHINES.  87 F.(2D) 702.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
THIRD CIRCUIT HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD THESE CLAIMS VALID AND INFRINGED IN
ALFRED HOFMANN, INC. V. TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS, 71 F.(2D) 973.  THE
PATENT IS FOR AN ATTACHMENT FOR "FLAT" OR "STRAIGHT" KNITTING MACHINES,
INCLUDING MACHINES OF THE "FULL-FASHIONED" TYPE.  BY USE OF THE
ATTACHMENT, AS THE SPECIFICATIONS STATE, "YARN-GUIDES CAN BE ACCURATELY
CONTROLLED TO LAY A YARN OVER A DISTANCE LESS THAN THE FULL LENGTH OF A
COURSE BEING KNITTED, AS FOR REINFORCING OR FOR SO-CALLED SPLIT-SEAM
WORK WHEREIN SECTIONS OF FABRIC ARE CONNECTED BY SUTURE SEAMS."  THE
ATTACHMENT, IT IS STATED, MAY BE USED FOR "FASHIONING DESIGNS, AS
CLOCKS, UPON HOSIERY." 

FLAT KNITTING MACHINES ARE ADAPTABLE TO USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
FULL FASHIONED GARMENTS SUCH AS STOCKINGS, UNDERWEAR OR SWEATERS.  A
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE OF THE MANUFACTURE IS THAT THE GARMENT OR A
PORTION OF IT, IS KNITTED IN A FLAT WEB WHICH, IN THE COURSE OF
KNITTING, IS SHAPED BY VARIATION OF ITS WIDTH, IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT
CONFORMS TO THE CONTOUR OF THE BODY TO BE FITTED, WHEN ITS SHAPED EDGES
ARE UNITED IN A SEAM.  THE DESIRED VARIATIONS IN WIDTH ARE SECURED
THROUGH CONTROL OF THE TRAVERSE OR "THROW" OF THE YARN GUIDE WHICH
BRINGS THE YARN TO THE NEEDLES OF THE MACHINE AS THEY KNIT THE WEB. 
THEY MAY BE AND USUALLY ARE SET UP AS MULTIPLE UNITS IN A SINGLE
MACHINE CAPABLE OF KNITTING SIMULTANEOUSLY A NUMBER OF GARMENTS OF THE
SAME TYPE. 

THE OBJECT OF THE PATENTED ATTACHMENT IN PROVIDING ACCURATE CONTROLS
FOR YARN GUIDES LAYING A YARN OVER A DISTANCE LESS THAN THE FULL WIDTH
OF A FABRIC BEING KNITTED, IS EITHER TO KNIT AN ADDITIONAL YARN OVER A
PARTICULAR AREA OF THE MAIN BODY OF THE FABRIC SO AS TO STRENGTHEN IT
OR FORM UPON IT AN ORNAMENTAL DESIGN, OR TO INSERT IN IT "SPLIT-SEAM
WORK," WHICH IS A PORTION OF THE MAIN FABRIC KNITTED WITH A SEPARATE
YARN AND FORMING A DISTINCTIVE DESIGN.  THE ATTACHMENT MAKES IT
POSSIBLE TO LENGTHEN AND SHORTEN THE THROW OF THE YARN GUIDE, AND THUS
TO FORM DESIGNS WITH REENTRANT ANGLES IN BOTH REINFORCEMENT AND SPLIT
SEAM WORK. 

THE PATENTED DEVICE EMBRACES A ROTATABLE SPINDLE HAVING THREADS CUT
UPON IT, IN REVERSE, ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF ITS CENTRAL PORTION, WITH A
NUT MOUNTED UPON EACH OF ITS TWO THREADED PARTS AND MOVED BY ITS
REVOLUTIONS SO THAT WHEN THE SPINDLE IS TURNED IN THE ONE DIRECTION OR
THE OTHER THE NUTS ARE MOVED BY THE REVERSELY THREADED SCREWS TOWARD OR
AWAY FROM EACH OTHER.  CARRIED ON THE NUTS SO AS TO MOVE WITH THEM ARE
YARN CARRIER STOPS WHICH ARE SO ADAPTED AND LOCATED AS TO SERVE AS
CONTROLS TO LIMIT THE TRAVEL OF CARRIER RODS WHICH HAVE MOUNTED ON THEM
THE YARN GUIDES.  THE FUNCTION OF THE MECHANISM IS TO CONTROL THE
MOVEMENT OF THE STOPS WHICH IN TURN CONTROL THE DISTANCE OF TRAVEL OF
THE YARN GUIDES.  THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE MOVEMENT OF THE STOP NUTS
TOWARD OR AWAY FROM EACH OTHER BY THE ROTATION OF THE THREADED SPINDLE
IN THE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION. 

MOVEMENT IN CONFORMITY TO A DESIRED PATTERN IS EFFECTED BY THE
TRANSMISSION OF POWER FROM THE MAIN CAMSHAFT OF THE KNITTING MACHINE TO
TWO RATCHET WHEELS MOUNTED ON THE END OF THE THREADED SPINDLE, EACH
WITH AN ACTUATING PAWL.  THE TWO PAWLS ARE IN SUCH RELATIONSHIP THAT
WHEN ONE OPERATES ITS COMPLEMENTARY RATCHET WHEEL THE SPINDLE WILL
ROTATE IN ONE DIRECTION, AND WHEN THE OTHER OPERATES ITS COMPLEMENTARY
RATCHET WHEEL THE SPINDLE WILL TURN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.  THE
OPERATION OF THE RATCHET WHEELS IS CONTROLLED BY MEANS OF BUTTONS,
ARRANGED ON TWO ENDLESS BELTS PROPELLED BY THE MAIN CAMSHAFT.  THE
BUTTONS ATTACHED TO ONE OF THE BELTS SERVE TO ACTUATE A MECHANISM WHICH
PUSHES BOTH PAWLS.  THE BUTTONS AFFIXED TO THE OTHER BELT GOVERN A
MECHANISM THAT SELECTIVELY ENGAGES ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE TWO PAWLS,
AND THUS DETERMINES THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THE SPINDLE AND HENCE THE
STOPS ARE TO MOVE.  BY SUITABLE SPACING OF THE BUTTONS ON THE BELTS,
THE MOTION, WHICH IS TO BE IMPARTED TO THE STOPS THROUGH THE
INTERMEDIATE APPARATUS, IS CONTROLLED IN SUCH FASHION AS TO FIX IN
ADVANCE THE LENGTH OF THROW AND HENCE THE OUTLINE OF THE DESIGN WHICH
IS TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE MAIN FABRIC BY REINFORCEMENT OR SPLIT-SEAM
WORK. 

CLAIM 14, WHICH MAY BE TAKEN AS TYPICAL, DEFINES THE INVENTION AS THE
COMBINATION "IN A STRAIGHT KNITTING MACHINE (A) A SET OF YARN GUIDE
CARRIER BARS FOR OPERATING YARN GUIDES TRAVELING LESS THAN THE FULL
WIDTH OF THE FABRIC BEING KNITTED, (B) A SPINDLE HAVING REVERSED SCREW
THREADS, (C) STOPS OPERATED BY SAID SPINDLE, (D) MEANS FOR TURNING THE
SPINDLE IN EITHER DIRECTION, (E) PATTERN-CONTROLLED MEANS FOR
DETERMINING THE TIME OF OPERATION OF THE SPINDLE, AND (F) PATTERN
CONTROLLED MEANS FOR DETERMINING THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION OF THE
SPINDLE." 

AS EARLY AS 1912, TEN YEARS BEFORE SCHLETTER'S ORIGINAL APPLICATION
OF JUNE, 1922, FROM WHICH HIS PATENT DATES, THE ART HAD DEVISED AN
ATTACHMENT FOR FULL-FASHIONED KNITTING MACHINES, COMMERCIALLY USED FOR
REINFORCING THE HEEL PORTION OF THE STOCKING.  ONE FORM, KNOWN AS THE
GOTHAM, COMPRISED A REVERSELY THREADED SPINDLE, ON THE THREADS OF WHICH
WERE MOUNTED STOPS MOVING TOWARD EACH OTHER WHEN THE SPINDLE ROTATED IN
ONE DIRECTION, AND AWAY FROM EACH OTHER WHEN THE SPINDLE TURNED IN THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION.  THE TRAVELING STOPS CONTROLLED THE THROW OF
CARRIER BARS WITH YARN GUIDES WHICH LAID A REINFORCING YARN AT THE HEEL
OF THE STOCKING.  AS THE REINFORCEMENT WAS TRIANGULAR WITH THE POINT
ABOVE THE HEEL GRADUALLY WIDENING BELOW WITHOUT REENTRANT ANGLES, IT
WAS NEEDFUL TO ROTATE THE SPINDLE AUTOMATICALLY IN BUT ONE DIRECTION IN
ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PATTERN.  WHEN THE REINFORCEMENT HAD BEEN KNITTED
THE SPINDLE WAS ROTATED BY HAND IN THE REVERSE DIRECTION, OR "RACKED
OUT," UNTIL THE STOPS WERE RESTORED TO THEIR INITIAL POSITION, READY TO
KNIT THE NEXT STOCKING.  A MEANS FOR AUTOMATICALLY ROTATING THE SPINDLE
IN THE DESIRED SINGLE DIRECTION WAS PROVIDED BY A RATCHET WHEEL MOUNTED
ON THE SPINDLE, WHICH WAS WORKED BY A PAWL PUSHED BY A CAM ON THE MAIN
SHAFT; THE OPERATION OF THE PAWL WAS CONTROLLED BY A MECHANISM ACTUATED
BY A "BUTTON" TYPE OF PATTERN BELT OR CHAIN.  THE REINFORCEMENT COULD
NOT BE KNITTED FROM A SINGLE YARN CARRIER OPERATING OVER A SINGLE AREA
OF THE FABRIC, BECAUSE THE REINFORCED AREA WAS DIVIDED, IN THE
COMPLETED STOCKING, BY THE SEAM WHICH UNITED THE SELVAGES OF THE
STOCKING WEB.  IT WAS THUS NECESSARY TO KNIT THE REINFORCEMENT IN TWO
AREAS, USING TWO YARN CARRIERS, EACH WITH A THROW OF THE DESIRED
VARIATION IN LENGTH, REACHING FROM THE SELVAGE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE
STOCKING WEB INWARD UPON THE MAIN FABRIC.  FOR THIS PURPOSE THE LUGS ON
THE CARRIER RODS WHICH, IN COOPERATION WITH THE STOPS, CONTROLLED THE
THROW, WERE LOCATED BETWEEN THE END STOPS OF THE FULL-FASHIONED MACHINE
AND THE STOPS MOVED BY THE THREADED NUTS ON THE ATTACHMENT. 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THIS DEVICE, WHILE NOT COMPLETELY
ANTICIPATING THAT OF THE PATENT, NEVERTHELESS EXHIBITED EVERY ELEMENT
OF THE CLAIM EXCEPT THE "PATTERN-CONTROLLED MEANS FOR DETERMINING THE
DIRECTION OF ROTATION OF THE SPINDLE."  THIS LACK WAS SUPPLIED BY
NUSBAUM, WHOSE MACHINE WAS IN COMMON USE AS EARLY AS 1917.  AS ALREADY
INDICATED, THE USE OF SUCH A DEVICE IN FULLFASHIONED KNITTING MACHINES
TO SECURE SELVAGE VARIATIONS WAS KNOWN LONG BEFORE THE SCHLETTER
APPLICATION.  IN ORDER TO EFFECT THIS TYPE OF FASHIONING, THE YARN
CARRIER STOPS WERE MOVED AND THEIR MOVEMENTS CONTROLLED BY STOP NUTS
MOUNTED ON SPINDLES WITH THREADS IN REVERSE LOCATED AT EITHER END OF
THE KNITTING MACHINE.  TWO-WAY MOVEMENT OF THE NUTS WAS EFFECTED BY
MECHANISMS, UNDER PATTERN BELT CONTROL, SUITABLE TO ROTATE THE SPINDLE
IN EITHER DIRECTION. 

THE NUSBAUM MACHINE WAS A MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING FLAT KNITTING
MACHINE AND WAS DESIGNED FOR KNITTING REINFORCEMENTS OF VARIABLE WIDTH
ON SWEATERS WHICH WERE THEMSELVES NOT FULL FASHIONED, THAT IS, NOT
NARROWED IN THE KNITTING.  THE MODIFICATION WAS DEVISED FOR VARYING THE
THROW OF A SECONDARY YARN CARRIER SUPPLYING YARN TO NEEDLES KNITTING
UPON THE MAIN FABRIC A REINFORCEMENT OR PLAITING.  TO ACCOMPLISH THIS,
NUSBAUM REBUILT AN OLD FULL-FASHIONED MACHINE BY USING THE EXISTING END
NUTS AS A MEANS OF CONTROLLING THE MOVEMENTS OF THE STOPS WHICH
DETERMINE THE LENGTH OF THROW OF A SECONDARY YARN CARRIER, AND
SUPPLYING A NEW CARRIER BAR FOR THE PRIMARY YARN.  SINCE THE GARMENT
WAS NOT FULL-FASHIONED HE PLACED FIXED STOPS AT THE ENDS OF THE MACHINE
SO THAT THE THROW OF THE PRIMARY THREAD CARRIER WAS CONSTANT.  HE USED
THE OLD AUTOMATICALLY REVERSIBLE SPINDLE OF THE FULL-FASHIONED MACHINE
AS A MEANS, WANTING IN THE GOTHAM MECHANISM, FOR INCREASING OR
DIMINISHING AT WILL THE THROW OF THE SECONDARY YARN CARRIER.  INSTEAD
OF THE SINGLE REVERSIBLY THREADED SPINDLE OF THE GOTHAM MACHINE,
NUSBAUM RETAINED THE TWO THREADED SHAFTS LOCATED AT THE ENDS OF THE
PRINCIPAL MACHINE, EACH BEARING TWIN RATCHET WHEELS, EACH OF WHICH WAS
OPERATED BY A PAWL CONTROLLED THROUGH AN INTERMEDIATE APPARATUS BY
BUTTONS APPROPRIATELY SPACED ON A PATTERN BELT.  ONLY A SINGLE BELT WAS
USED BEARING FOUR ROWS OF BUTTONS, WHICH BY REVERSING THE MOTION OF THE
SPINDLE AS DESIRED OPERATED TO VARY THE THROW OF THE YARN CARRIER IN
CONFORMITY TO THE DESIRED PATTERN. 

IT IS TRUE, AS PETITIONER URGES, THAT THE THREADED SPINDLES WERE
LOCATED AT THE ENDS OF THE NUSBAUM MACHINE, AND THAT THEY WERE SEPARATE
SHAFTS ALTHOUGH CAPABLE OF BEING OPERATED IN UNISON AS IF UNITED IN A
SINGLE SPINDLE SUCH AS THAT SHOWN BY THE GOTHAM ATTACHMENT.  EVEN WITH
THE DOUBLE SPINDLE SYNCHRONOUSLY OPERATED INSTEAD OF THE SINGLE SPINDLE
OF THE GOTHAM IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE DEVICE CLAIMED BY SCHLETTER.  IN
CONVERTING A FULL-FASHIONED KNITTING MACHINE INTO A DIFFERENT TYPE OF
STRAIGHT KNITTING MACHINE WHICH DID NOT FASHION THE MAIN FABRIC,
NUSBAUM EMBODIED IN IT A DEVICE FOR ACCURATELY CONTROLLING YARN GUIDES
FOR LAYING A SECONDARY YARN LESS THAN THE LENGTH OF THE COURSE BEING
KNITTED, WHICH WAS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING DESIGNS HAVING REENTRANT
ANGLES.  THIS, ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, IS ONE OF THE OBJECTS
TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE PATENTED DEVICE.  THE OTHER IS THE MAKING OF
MULTIPLE DESIGNS AND SPLIT-SEAM WORK. 

AS THE PATTERN OF THE REINFORCEMENT OR PLAIT WAS TO BE WHOLLY WITHIN
A SINGLE AREA ON THE MAIN FABRIC AND DID NOT EXTEND TO THE SELVAGE,
NUSBAUM USED A SINGLE YARN GUIDE INSTEAD OF THE TWO WHICH WERE REQUIRED
IN THE GOTHAM ATTACHMENT BECAUSE THE REINFORCEMENTS WERE UPON DETACHED
AREAS OF THE FABRIC.  HENCE HIS MACHINE AS SET UP COULD NOT DO SPLIT
SEAM WORK OR MAKE DOUBLE DESIGNS, WHICH COULD ONLY BE KNITTED BY
EMPLOYING A PLURALITY OF YARN GUIDES WITH CORRESPONDING CONTROLS.  BUT
THE USE OF THE DEVICE FOR THESE DIFFERENT METHODS OF KNITTING THE
SECONDARY YARN INVOLVES BUT AN OBVIOUS ADAPTATION OF THE CLAIMED
COMBINATION TO THE PARTICULAR WORK TO BE DONE.  THAT MAY BE
ACCOMPLISHED BY USING THE DEVICE EXHIBITED BY NUSBAUM AS WELL AS THAT
CLAIMED BY THE PATENT, WITH THE REQUISITE NUMBER OF CONTROLLED YARN
GUIDES IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLE DESIGNS AND WITH STOPS, BOTH SIDES OF
WHICH ARE USED AS CARRIER ROD CONTROLS IN THE CASE OF SPLIT-SEAM WORK. 
THIS ADDITION OF YARN GUIDES AND THE VARIED USE OF THE STOPS, EVEN IF
INVENTION, ARE NOT EMBRACED IN THE CLAIMS BEFORE US. 

THE ADDITION OF THE REVERSING MECHANISM, USED BY NUSBAUM AND
PREVIOUSLY USED IN THE FULL-FASHIONED MACHINE, TO THE ELEMENTS
EXHIBITED BY THE GOTHAM, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EFFECTING VARIATIONS IN THE
THROW OF THE SECONDARY YARN CARRIER IN PRECISELY THE MANNER IN WHICH
THE THROW OF THE PRIMARY YARN CARRIER HAD BEEN CONTROLLED IN FULL
FASHIONED MACHINES, WAS PLAINLY NOT INVENTION.  THE ADDITION OF A NEW
AND USEFUL ELEMENT TO AN OLD COMBINATION MAY BE PATENTABLE; BUT THE
ADDITION MUST BE THE RESULT OF INVENTION RATHER THAN THE MERE EXERCISE
OF THE SKILL OF THE CALLING, AND NOT ONE PLAINLY INDICATED BY THE PRIOR
ART. ELECTRIC CABLE JOINT CO. V. BROOKLYN EDISON CO., 292 U.S. 69, 79,
80; ALTOONA PUBLIX THEATRES V. AMERICAN TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 477,
486.  THE ART OF MACHINE DESIGN IN THE KNITTING MACHINE FIELD IS A
HIGHLY DEVELOPED ONE.  THE ADDITION TO THE COMBINATION OF THE GOTHAM
ATTACHMENT OF A MEANS FOR AUTOMATICALLY REVERSING THE ROTARY THREADED
SPINDLE TO PERFORM THE VERY FUNCTION IT HAD PERFORMED IN THE FULL
FASHIONED KNITTING MACHINE WAS NOT BEYOND THE SKILL OF THE ART AND WAS
PLAINLY FORESHADOWED, IF NOT COMPLETELY ANTICIPATED, BY NUSBAUM.    THE
CLAIMS IN SUIT DO NOT EMBRACE A TRAIN OF MECHANISM OF ANY PARTICULAR
TYPE FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF CONTROL FROM THE POWER SHAFT TO THE PAWLS
AND SO CANNOT REST ON ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TRAIN EMPLOYED BY
SCHLETTER AND THAT OF EARLIER DEVICES.  AS THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT,
IF THE PATENT IS VALID IT IS EITHER BECAUSE OF THE NOVELTY OF THE
CONCEPTION OF EMPLOYING THE NUSBAUM DEVICE IN AN ATTACHMENT FOR A FULL
FASHIONED MACHINE, WHICH NUSBAUM HAD NOT DONE, OR BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL
DIFFICULTIES IN EXECUTING THAT CONCEPTION.  IF THERE WERE SUCH
DIFFICULTIES, WHICH COULD BE OVERCOME ONLY BY INVENTION, SCHLETTER DID
NOT SHOW WHAT THEY WERE OR DEFINE SUCH AN INVENTION BY THE CLAIMS
BEFORE US.  HE DID SHOW IN HIS SPECIFICATIONS HOW TO PROVIDE, BY
FAMILIAR MECHANICAL MEANS, FOR ONE NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP OF THE
ATTACHMENT TO THE PRINCIPAL MACHINE - THE NECESSITY THAT THE THREADED
SPINDLE REMAIN STATIONARY WHILE THE FASHIONING STOPS ARE MOVING.  FOR
THIS NO INVENTION IS CLAIMED, NOR WELL COULD BE IN VIEW OF THE STATE OF
THE ART. 

PETITIONER RELIES ON THE NOVELTY OF CONCEPTION REINFORCED BY AN
ALLEGED COMMERCIAL SUCCESS.  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS MAY BE DECISIVE WHERE
INVENTION IS IN DOUBT, BUT AN INSUPERABLE OBSTACLE TO THE INVOCATION OF
THAT DOCTRINE HERE IS OUR INABILITY, LIKE THAT OF THE COURT BELOW, TO
SAY "THAT AN ART WHICH KNEW HOW TO REINFORCE 'FULL-FASHIONED' WEBS
WITHOUT RE-ENTRANT ANGLES, AND STRAIGHT EDGED WEBS WITH SUCH ANGLES,
REQUIRED SOME UNCOMMON TALENT MERELY TO CONCEIVE OF COMBINING THE TWO,
FOR, AS WE HAVE SAID, THE PATENT CAN ONLY STAND ON THE BARE
CONCEPTION."  87 F.(2D) 705. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COURTS WHICH, IN TEXTILE MACHINE WORKS V.
ALFRED HOFMANN, INC., SUPRA, FOUND INVENTION, SUPPORTED BY COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS, POINTED TO THE NOVELTY NOT OF THIS CONCEPTION BUT OF ADDING TO
THE ELEMENTS OF THE GOTHAM MACHINE THE AUTOMATIC PATTERN CONTROLLED
MEANS FOR REVERSING THE SCREW SPINDLE.  BUT NEITHER COURT MADE MENTION
OF THE NUSBAUM MACHINE WHICH SUPPLIED THAT ELEMENT.  UPON THE RECORD
BEFORE US WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
NOVELTY OF THE BARE CONCEPTION OF THE USE OF THE ATTACHMENT WITH FULL
FASHIONED KNITTING MACHINES RATHER THAN TO THE SKILL WITH WHICH THE
PATENTEE DEVISED MECHANISMS FOR MAKING THE ATTACHMENT EFFECTIVE, BUT
FOR WHICH HE MADE NO CLAIM, OR TO THE STRENGTH OF THE HANDS INTO WHICH
THE PATENT CAME.  COMPARE PARAMOUNT PUBLIX CORP. V. AMERICAN TRI-ERGON
CORP., 294 U.S. 464, 474, WITH ALTOONA PUBLIX THEATRES V. AMERICAN TRI
ERGON CORP., SUPRA, 487.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :






CHRISTOPHER V. BRUSSELBACK, 302 U.S. 500 


NO. 108.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 87
F.(2D) 761, REVERSED. 


1.  SEC. 16 OF THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT OF JULY 17, 1916, DECLARES
THAT SHAREHOLDERS OF EVERY JOINT STOCK LAND BANK ORGANIZED UNDER THE
ACT SHALL BE HELD INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE, EQUALLY AND RATABLY, AND
NOT ONE FOR ANOTHER, FOR THE DEBTS OF THE BANK TO THE EXTENT OF THE
AMOUNT OF STCOK OWNED BY THEM AT THE PAR VALUE THEREOF, IN ADDITION TO
THE AMOUNT PAID IN AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR SHARES.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE ONLY MEANS OF ENFORCING THE LIABILITY FOR CREDITORS IS
AN ADVERSARY SUIT IN EQUITY AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDERS WHEREVER THEY MAY
BE FOUND.  P. 502. 

(2)  THE LIABILITY OF EACH STOCKHOLDER IS PERSONAL, ENFORCEABLE ONLY
IN A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO RENDER A JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM IN
PERSONAM, AND A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE INABILITY OF THE BANK TO
PAY ITS DEBTS AND OF THE AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDERS
TO MEET THE DEFICIENCY ARE PREREQUISITES TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF
LIABILITY, AND ARE ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THE ONLY CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH
THE STATUTE GIVES TO THE CREDITORS.  ID. 

(3)  A BILL AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS WHICH SOUGHT TO COLLECT AN
ASSESSMENT DECREED IN ANOTHER SUIT BUT WHICH SHOWED ON ITS FACE THAT,
THOUGH NAMED AS DEFENDANTS, THEY WERE NOT SERVED WITH PROCESS IN THAT
SUIT, AND WHICH OMITTED TO ALLEGE THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF
INSOLVENCY OF THE BANK, FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION.  P. 502. 

2.  THE PURPOSE OF EQUITY RULE 38, PROVIDING THAT IN A CLASS SUIT
"ONE OR MORE MAY SUE OR DEFEND FOR THE WHOLE," WAS PROCEDURAL, NOT TO
ENLARGE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS.  P. 505. 

3.  THIS RULE PRESERVES THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS OF EQUITY
IN A CLASS SUIT TO RENDER A DECREE BINDING UPON ABSENT DEFENDANTS
AFFECTING THEIR INTEREST IN PROPERTY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT.  P. 505. 

CHRISTOPHER ET AL. V. BRUSSELBACK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 672, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
STOCKHOLDERS OF A FEDERAL JOINT STOCK LAND BANK, THE PRESENT
PETITIONERS, IN A SUIT AGAINST THEM BY THE CREDITORS OF THE BANK, THE
RESPONDENTS HERE, TO COLLECT A STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, CREDITORS OF A FEDERAL JOINT STOCK LAND BANK LOCATED IN
ILLINOIS, BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN
OHIO TO COLLECT A 100% ASSESSMENT OF THE STATUTORY DOUBLE LIABILITY OF
ITS SHAREHOLDERS, WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN DECREED IN A SUIT BROUGHT
BY RESPONDENTS IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN ILLINOIS.  IN THE
ILLINOIS SUIT THE BANK AND ALL ITS STOCKHOLDERS WERE NAMED AS PARTIES
DEFENDANT, BUT THE PRESENT DEFENDANTS, PETITIONERS HERE, WHO ARE
STOCKHOLDERS RESIDING IN OHIO, WERE NOT SERVED WITH PROCESS.  A MOTION
IN THE DISTRICT COURT TO DISMISS THE PRESENT SUIT RAISED THE QUESTION
WHETHER THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, WHICH SETS UP THE DECREE OF THE COURT IN
THE ILLINOIS SUIT IN WHICH IT STATES PETITIONERS WERE NOT SERVED WITH
PROCESS, BUT DOES NOT ALLEGE THAT THE BANK IS INSOLVENT OR SHOW ANY
NECESSITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT, STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE DISTRICT
COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SIXTH CIRCUIT REVERSED.  BRUSSELBACK V. ARNOVITZ, 87 F.(2D) 761.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION OF THE
COURT BELOW AND THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN
HOLMBERG V. CARR, 86 F.(2D) 727.  COMPARE BRUSSELBACK V. CAGO
CORPORATION, 85 F.(2D) 20. 

THE QUESTION DECISIVE OF THE CASE IS WHETHER PETITIONERS ARE BOUND BY
THE ILLINOIS ADJUDICATION, IN THEIR ABSENCE, OF THE BANK'S INSOLVENCY,
AND THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT.  SECTION 16, FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT,
JULY 17, 1916, C. 245, 39 STAT. 360, 374, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 812, PROVIDES,
"SHAREHOLDERS OF EVERY JOINT STOCK LAND BANK ORGANIZED UNDER THIS ACT
SHALL BE HELD INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE, EQUALLY AND RATABLY, AND NOT
ONE FOR ANOTHER, FOR ALL CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS OF SUCH BANK
TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF STOCK OWNED BY THEM AT THE PAR VALUE
THEREOF, IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT PAID IN AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR
SHARES." 

BEFORE RESPONDENTS HAD BROUGHT THE ILLINOIS SUIT THIS COURT IN
WHEELER V. GREENE, 280 U.S. 49, HAD BEFORE IT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT WHICH AUTHORIZE THE FARM LOAN BOARD TO DECLARE A
JOINT STOCK LAND BANK INSOLVENT, AND TO PLACE IT IN THE HANDS OF A
RECEIVER.  SEC. 29, FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, JULY 17, 1916; C. 245, 39
STAT. 381; 12 U.S.C. SECS. 961, 963.  WE HELD THAT THOSE PROVISIONS DO
NOT CONFER UPON THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN BOARD ANY POWER TO LEVY AN
ASSESSMENT ON THE STOCKHOLDERS, OR GIVE TO THE RECEIVER AUTHORITY TO
MAINTAIN SUIT FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR STATUTORY LIABILITY, OR
OTHERWISE SET UP ANY MACHINERY COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE NATIONAL
BANKING ACT FOR ENFORCING THE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY.  COMPARE RANKIN
V. BARTON, 199 U.S. 228, 232; CASEY V. GALLI, 94 U.S. 673, 681.  THE
ONLY MEANS OF ENFORCING THE LIABILITY LEFT TO CREDITORS OF A JOINT
STOCK LAND BANK, AS THE COURT POINTED OUT IN THE WHEELER CASE, IS AN
ADVERSARY SUIT IN EQUITY AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDERS WHEREVER THEY MAY BE
FOUND. 

THE OBLIGATION WHICH THE STATUTE IMPOSES UPON THE STOCKHOLDERS IS
PERSONAL, AND PETITIONERS CAN BE HELD TO RESPOND TO IT ONLY BY A SUIT
MAINTAINED IN A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO RENDER A JUDGMENT AGAINST
THEM IN PERSONAM.  AS THE LIABILITY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS IS TO PAY THE
DEBTS OF THE BANK TO CREDITORS "EQUALLY AND RATABLY," JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF THE INABILITY OF THE BANK TO PAY ITS DEBTS AND THE
AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDERS TO MEET THE DEFICIENCY
ARE PREREQUISITES TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF LIABILITY, AND ARE ESSENTIAL
PARTS OF THE ONLY CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH THE STATUTE GIVES TO THE
CREDITORS.  IT IS PLAIN THAT IN SUCH A SUIT THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF
INSOLVENCY ARE FACTS, THE ALLEGATION AND PROOF OF WHICH CANNOT BE
DISPENSED WITH AS TO ANY STOCKHOLDER UNLESS, AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO
THE SUIT, THEY ARE MATTERS ALREADY ADJUDICATED. 

A STOCKHOLDER IS SO FAR AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CORPORATION OF WHICH
HE IS A MEMBER, THAT HE MAY BE BOUND AND HIS RIGHTS FORECLOSED BY
AUTHORIZED CORPORATE ACTION TAKEN WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR
PARTICIPATION.  SANGER V. UPTON, 91 U.S. 56, 58.  THE SUBSCRIBER TO
CORPORATE STOCK, WHOSE SUBSCRIPTION IS PAYABLE ON CALL OF THE
DIRECTORS, AS REQUIRED FOR CORPORATE PURPOSES, IS BOUND BY THE ACTION
OF THE BOARD IN MAKING THE CALL AS HE IS BOUND BY A VALID DECREE OF A
COURT AGAINST THE CORPORATION, ALTHOUGH MADE IN HIS ABSENCE, WHICH
DIRECTS PERFORMANCE OF THE CORPORATE DUTY TO MAKE THE CALL.  HAWKINS V.
GLENN, 131 U.S. 319, 329; GREAT WESTERN TELEGRAPH CO. V. PURDY, 162
U.S. 329, 336; CF. KERRISON V. STEWART, 93 U.S. 155.  SIMILARLY, WHERE
A PROCEDURE IS AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE, UNDER WHICH A CORPORATION MAY BE
BROUGHT INTO COURT FOR DETERMINATION OF ITS INSOLVENCY AND THE AMOUNT
TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS FOR THE PAYMENT OF ITS DEBTS, AND
THE JUDGMENT IS DECLARED BY STATUTE TO BE BINDING UPON THEM, THEY ARE
DEEMED BY VIRTUE OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE CORPORATION TO HAVE SO FAR
SUBJECTED THEMSELVES TO THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
AS TO BE BOUND BY THE DETERMINATION ALTHOUGH NOT NOMINAL PARTIES TO THE
PROCEEDING.  BERNHEIMER V. CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516; CONVERSE V.
HAMILTON, 224 U.S. 243; SELIG V. HAMILTON, 234 U.S. 652; MARIN V.
AUGEDAHL, 247 U.S. 142; CHANDLER V. PEKETZ, 297 U.S. 609. 

WHETHER IT BE SAID THAT BY PURCHASING OR RETAINING HIS STOCK IN THE
FACE OF SUCH A PROCEDURE THE STOCKHOLDER HAS CONSENTED THAT THE
CORPORATION REPRESENT HIM FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ADJUDICATION,
BERNHEIMER V. CONVERSE, SUPRA, 529, 532, 533; MARIN V. AUGEDAHL, SUPRA,
150, OR MORE REALISTICALLY THAT AS STOCKHOLDER HE HAS VOLUNTARILY
ASSUMED A CORPORATE RELATIONSHIP WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL
REGULATORY POWER, IN THE EXERCISE OF WHICH THE PROCEDURE HAS BEEN
ATTACHED, AS AN INCIDENT, TO HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE CORPORATION,
CONVERSE V. HAMILTON, SUPRA, 260, IN EITHER CASE THE PROCEDURE CONFORMS
TO ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES, INVOLVES NO WANT OF DUE PROCESS, CONVERSE V.
HAMILTON, SUPRA; SELIG V. HAMILTON, SUPRA; CHANDLER V. PEKETZ, SUPRA,
AND AT LEAST WHEN IT RIPENS INTO A JUDGMENT IS ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT.  MARIN V. AUGEDAHL, SUPRA.  IT IS ENOUGH THAT IN EVERY CASE
THE STOCKHOLDER HAS ASSUMED OR RETAINED HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE
CORPORATION AFTER THE WARNING OF THE STATUTE, OR OF RULES GOVERNING THE
CORPORATION, OF WHICH HE KNEW OR HAD OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW, THAT THE
BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP CARRY WITH THEM THE RISK THAT THE CORPORATION
MAY STAND IN JUDGMENT FOR HIM. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH WARNING HAS BEEN GIVEN, FOR NO SUCH
PROCEDURE HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED.  THE STATUTES HAVE FIXED ONLY THE
CONDITIONS ON WHICH LIABILITY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS IS TO ATTACH, LEAVING
TO CREDITORS AS THEIR ONLY RECOURSE THE USUAL PROCEDURE OF COURTS AS
THE MEANS OF ASSERTING THE LIABILITY.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE
RELATING TO THE ORGANIZATION OF FEDERAL LAND BANKS AND THE IMPOSITION
OF THE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY TO SUGGEST THAT BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
MEMBERSHIP IN THE CORPORATION THE STOCKHOLDERS CAN BE SAID TO HAVE
SUBJECTED THEMSELVES TO A PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING IN THEIR ABSENCE
THE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY, OR TO HAVE RELINQUISHED THEIR
RIGHT TO CONTEST, AS IN ANY OTHER LITIGATION, EVERY STEP ESSENTIAL TO
ITS ESTABLISHMENT.  AS WE CANNOT SAY THAT PETITIONERS' MEMBERSHIP IN
THE BANK WAS CONDITIONED UPON THEIR SURRENDER OF THE BENEFITS OF A
PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A
COURT TO DISPENSE WITH IT MORE THAN IN OTHER CASES IN WHICH A PERSONAL
JUDGMENT IS SOUGHT. 

EQUITY RULE 38, PROVIDING THAT IN A CLASS SUIT "ONE OR MORE MAY SUE
OR DEFEND FOR THE WHOLE," WAS ADOPTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY
CONFERRED ON THIS COURT BY R.S. SEC. 913, AND OF ITS OWN INHERENT POWER
TO REGULATE BY RULES "THE MODES OF PROCEEDING IN SUITS OF EQUITY." 
THEIR PURPOSE WAS TO PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE IN EQUITY TO BE FOLLOWED
IN CASES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS AND NOT TO
ENLARGE THEIR JURISDICTION.  THE OMISSION FROM OLD RULE 48, AMENDED AND
PROMULGATED AS RULE 38 IN 1912, 226 U.S. 659, OF THE PHRASE "...  THE
DECREE SHALL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS AND CLAIMS OF ALL THE
ABSENT PARTIES" PRESERVED UNIMPAIRED THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS
OF EQUITY IN A CLASS SUIT TO RENDER A DECREE BINDING UPON ABSENT
DEFENDANTS AFFECTING THEIR INTEREST IN PROPERTY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE COURT.  SMITH V. SWORMSTEDT, 16 HOW.  288; CF. HARTFORD LIFE
INS. CO. V. IBS, 237 U.S. 662, 672. 

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DECREE IN THE ILLINOIS SUIT WAS NOT RES
ADJUDICATA AS TO PETITIONERS IN ANY RESPECT.  FOR THAT REASON THE BILL
OF COMPLAINT FAILED TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, AND THE DECREE IS
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :













SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V. PENNA., 302 U.S. 506 


NO. 447.  ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 327
PA. 127 - 193 ATL. 638, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE LAW AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT TO SUSTAIN A
TAX WAS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THIS COURT, AND MANDATE ISSUED
REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND REMANDING THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION.  HELD THAT THE STATE COURT WAS NOT
THEREBY PRECLUDED FROM REASSESSING THE TAX UPON A REVISED CONSTRUCTION
OF THE STATUTE ELIMINATING THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEATURES.  P. 512. 

2.  WHETHER STATE COURTS IN CONSTRUING A TAXING ACT SO AS TO AVOID
CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN EFFECT EXERCISED LEGISLATIVE
POWER IN VIOLATION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION,  - HELD NOT A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  P. 512. 

3.  THE TAX IN RESPECT OF TRUST COMPANIES LAID BY THE PENNSYLVANIA
ACT OF JUNE 13, 1907, AS AMENDED, IS A TAX UPON THE SHARES RATHER THAN
UPON THE CORPORATE ASSETS.  P. 512. 

4.  IN TAXING SHARES OF A TRUST COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR VALUE
AS REFLECTED FROM ITS PAID-IN CAPITAL STOCK, SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED
PROFITS, A STATE IS NOT OBLIGED TO EXCLUDE FROM THE VALUATION
OBLIGATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES
BELONGING TO THE COMPANY.  P. 513. 

BUT SHARES OF NATIONAL BANKS ALREADY TAXED TO THE COMPANY, AS OWNER
PURSUANT TO R.S. SEC. 5219, CAN NOT BE INCLUDED IN SUCH VALUATION. 

5.  UNDER PENNSYLVANIA ACT OF JUNE 13, 1907, AS AMENDED, THE SHARES
OF A LOCAL TRUST COMPANY ARE VALUED FOR TAXATION ON THE BASIS OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE COMPANY'S PAID-IN CAPITAL STOCK, SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED
PROFITS MINUS ITS INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATIONS
WHICH ARE LIABLE TO PAY, OR ARE EXEMPTED FROM, A CAPITAL STOCK TAX, OR
WHICH ARE RELIEVED FROM A TAX ON SHARES.  IF THE TRUST COMPANY FAILS TO
SHOW THAT SUCH INVESTMENTS REPRESENT CAPITAL, SURPLUS AND UNDIVIDED
PROFITS RATHER THAN PURCHASE WITH DEPOSITS, THEY ARE ALLOWED A PARTIAL
OR "PROPORTIONATE" EXEMPTION, COMPUTED BY USE OF A FORMULA.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT WHERE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OR ITS
INSTRUMENTALITIES, (OTHER THAN NATIONAL BANK SHARES) WERE
PROPORTIONATELY EXEMPTED, IN THE SAME WAY AS OTHER INVESTMENTS OF A
TRUST COMPANY, THERE WAS NO GROUND TO CLAIM DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SUCH
OBLIGATIONS IN ASSESSING THE SHARE TAX.  P. 514. 

(2)  THE FACT THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A TRUST COMPANY WHOSE
INVESTMENTS CONSIST OF NATIONAL BANK STOCK WOULD PAY NO TAX, BECAUSE
R.S. SEC. 5219 PERMITS BUT A SINGLE TAX THEREON WHICH HAS BEEN PAID BY
THE COMPANY AS OWNER, WHEREAS THOSE HOLDING SHARES IN A TRUST COMPANY
WHICH OWNS ONLY OTHER FEDERAL SECURITIES WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO A
SIMILAR TOTAL EXEMPTION BUT ONLY TO A PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION UNLESS IT
COULD BE SHOWN THAT THOSE SECURITIES WERE PURCHASED FROM CAPITAL,
SURPLUS, AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS, DOES NOT EVIDENCE ANY ILLEGAL
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SUCH SECURITIES.  P. 514. 

(3)  THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PROTECTION DOES NOT DEMAND THAT BECAUSE
ONE COMPANY OWNS WHOLLY EXEMPT SECURITIES, WITH CONSEQUENT EXEMPTION OF
ITS SHAREHOLDERS FROM THE TAX ON SHARES, THE STATE SHALL ABSTAIN FROM
TAXING THE SHAREHOLDERS OF ANOTHER COMPANY WHOSE INVESTMENTS CARRY NO
SUCH EXEMPTION.  P. 514. 

6.  A STATE TAX ON THE SHARES OF A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, ASSESSED ON
THE BASIS OF THE CORPORATE ASSETS AND PAYABLE BY OR COLLECTED THROUGH
THE CORPORATION, MAY CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EXTEND
TO SHARES OWNED BY NON-RESIDENTS.  CORRY V. BALTIMORE, 196 U.S. 466. 
P. 514. 

SO HELD WHERE THE CORPORATE CHARTER ANTEDATED THE CREATION OF THE TAX
LIABILITY BUT WAS SUBJECT TO A POWER TO ALTER, AMEND OR REPEAL RESERVED
BY THE STATE CONSTITUTION. 

7.  WHERE A STATE HAS RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND AND REPEAL
THE CHARTER OF A CORPORATION, EVERY STOCKHOLDER ACQUIRES HIS SHARES
WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT HIS INTEREST IN THE CORPORATION IS SUBJECT TO
REGULATION AND TAXATION BY THE STATE.  P. 516. 

SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT REDETERMINING A TAX
ASSESSMENT.  CF. S.C., 296 U.S. 113. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 296 U.S. 113, WE HELD AN ACT
OF PENNSYLVANIA  FN1 INVALID AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THE
CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX THEREBY IMPOSED.  THE STATUTE
REQUIRES EVERY TRUST COMPANY CHARTERED UNDER THE GENERAL CORPORATION
LAW TO REPORT ANNUALLY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE THE NUMBER OF
OUTSTANDING SHARES AND THEIR ACTUAL VALUE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PRECEDING
CALENDAR YEAR.  THE DEPARTMENT IS TO ASSESS THE SHARES FOR TAXATION AT
FIVE MILLS UPON THE DOLLAR.  THE TAXABLE VALUE OF EACH SHARE IS TO BE
ASCERTAINED BY ADDING TOGETHER SO MUCH OF THE AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL
STOCK, SURPLUS, AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS AS IS NOT INVESTED IN SHARES OF
CORPORATIONS LIABLE TO PAY OR EXEMPTED FROM PAYMENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
CAPITAL STOCK TAX, OR RELIEVED FROM THE PAYMENT OF A TAX ON SHARES, AND
DIVIDING THIS AMOUNT BY THE NUMBER OF SHARES.  THE COMPANY MUST PAY THE
TAX FROM ITS GENERAL FUND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER ASSESSMENT, OR
COLLECT IT FROM THE SHAREHOLDERS AND PAY IT OVER.  PROVISION IS MADE
FOR POSTING NOTICE OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE COMPANY'S OFFICE SO THAT
SHAREHOLDERS SHALL BE ADVISED OF THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT AND FOR A
HEARING OF ANY SHAREHOLDER WHO OBJECTS TO THE VALUATION OF THE SHARES. 
FN2 

SECURITIES OWNED BY A TRUST COMPANY MAY HAVE BEEN PURCHASED OUT OF
DEPOSITS OR FROM THE CAPITAL, SURPLUS, AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS.  SINCE
SECURITIES THE VALUE OF WHICH IS BY THE ACT DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE TAX
BASE MAY HAVE BEEN PURCHASED OUT OF EITHER OF THE TWO FUNDS, IT IS OPEN
TO THE COMPANY TO PROVE THAT THEY OR ANY OF THEM WERE PURCHASED OUT OF
CAPITAL, SURPLUS, OR UNDIVIDED PROFITS.  UPON SUCH A SHOWING THESE
SECURITIES ARE FULLY EXEMPT FROM TAX.  WHERE THE COMPANY HAS NOT MADE
THIS SHOWING THE PRACTICE IN ASSESSING THE TAX HAS BEEN TO GRANT A SO
CALLED PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXEMPT SECURITIES. 
FN3  THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING FORMULA: A
FRACTION, THE NUMERATOR OF WHICH IS THE CAPITAL, SURPLUS, AND UNDIVIDED
PROFITS AT BOOK VALUE LESS THE BOOK VALUE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS, IF ANY,
FOR WHICH A FULL DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE, AND THE DENOMINATOR, THE BOOK
VALUE OF THE PERMANENT INVESTMENTS, LESS THE BOOK VALUE OF THOSE
INVESTMENTS, IF ANY, FOR WHICH A FULL DEDUCTION HAS BEEN MADE, IS
APPLIED TO THE BOOK VALUE OF THE SECURITIES WHICH ARE TO BE
APPORTIONED, AFTER ADJUSTMENT FOR APPRECIATION OR DEPRECIATION OF THOSE
SECURITIES, AND THE RESULTING SUM IS DEDUCTED FROM THE CAPITAL,
SURPLUS, AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS.  IN THIS MANNER A PORTION OF THE VALUE
OF EACH EXEMPTED SECURITY REFLECTED IN THE CAPITAL, SURPLUS, AND
PROFITS IS DEDUCTED BEFORE THE VALUE PER SHARE IS DETERMINED BY
DIVIDING THE CAPITAL SURPLUS AND PROFITS SO DIMINISHED BY THE NUMBER OF
SHARES OUTSTANDING. 

UPON THE FORMER APPEAL IT WAS SHOWN THAT WHEREAS A PROPORTIONATE
DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED FOR SHARES OF PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATIONS
PREVIOUSLY TAXED, OR SHARES OF SUCH CORPORATIONS EXEMPT FROM TAX, NO
DEDUCTION WAS ACCORDED IN RESPECT OF SHARES OF A NATIONAL BANK AND
BONDS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES OWNED BY THE
COMPANY.  THE APPELLANT'S POSITION WAS THAT THE ACT, THOUGH IT
PURPORTED TO TAX THE SHARES, IN FACT TAXED THE NET ASSETS OF THE
COMPANY WHICH INCLUDED SHARES OF STOCK OF A NATIONAL BANK AND
SECURITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES OWNED BY
THE APPELLANT.  AN ALTERNATIVE CLAIM WAS THAT, IF THE LEVY WAS UPON THE
SHARES AS SUCH, THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT WORKED A DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST NATIONAL BANK SHARES AND OTHER FEDERAL SECURITIES BY EXCLUDING
FROM THE BASE A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE VALUE OF SHARES OF CERTAIN
PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATIONS WHILE LEAVING IN THE BASE NATIONAL BANK
SHARES AND FEDERAL SECURITIES; AND THAT, IF THE TAX WAS UPON THE SHARES
IT WAS BAD, AS THE COMMONWEALTH WAS WITHOUT POWER TO TAX THE SHARES OF
NONRESIDENT STOCKHOLDERS.  THE COMMONWEALTH INSISTED THE TAX WAS UPON
THE SHARES AND NOT UPON ASSETS, THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
INVOLVED NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FEDERAL SECURITIES AND THAT THE
STATE HAD JURISDICTION TO TAX THE SHARES OF NONRESIDENT SHAREHOLDERS. 

WE FOUND IT UNNECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TAX WAS UPON SHARES
OR ASSETS.  AMONGST THE ASSETS WERE SHARES OF NATIONAL BANK STOCK WHICH
HAD BEEN TAXED TO THE COMPANY AS OWNER, PURSUANT TO R.S. 5219 AS
AMENDED.  FN4  THESE WE HELD MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BASE UPON WHICH
THE TAX WAS CALCULATED.  WE HELD FURTHER THAT THE EXCLUSION FROM THE
BASE OF A PROPORTION OF THE VALUE OF TAX EXEMPT SHARES OF PENNSYLVANIA
CORPORATIONS, AND THE REFUSAL OF LIKE TREATMENT OF FEDERAL SECURITIES,
OPERATED AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE LATTER.  WE
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA AND REMANDED
THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OUR OPINION. 

AFTER OUR MANDATE WENT DOWN THE COMMONWEALTH MOVED THE TRIAL COURT TO
REDETERMINE THE TAX BY DISREGARDING THE AMENDATORY STATUTE INVOLVED IN
OUR DECISION AND REVERTING TO THE BASIC ACT OF JUNE 13, 1907,  FN5
WHICH WAS CLAIMED NOT TO BE AFFECTED BY THE INFIRMITY OF THE AMENDATORY
ACT.  THE APPELLANT INSISTED THAT AS WE HAD SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
HELD THE AMENDATORY ACT OF APRIL 25, 1929,  FN6  INVALID AS CONSTRUED
AND APPLIED, THE ONLY ACTION OPEN TO THE TRIAL COURT WAS THE ENTRY OF A
JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLANT.  THE COURT REFUSED TO FOLLOW EITHER OF THE
SUGGESTED COURSES, HOLDING THAT THE LEGISLATURE, BY THE ACT OF 1929,
INTENDED TO EXERCISE ONLY SUCH POWER AS IT LAWFULLY POSSESSED AND DID
NOT ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE A TAX UPON SECURITIES EXEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW. 
IT FOUND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY
ELIMINATING THE NATIONAL BANK SHARES FROM THE TAX BASE AND BY TREATING
THE OTHER FEDERAL SECURITIES IN THE SAME MANNER AS TAX EXEMPT STOCK OF
STATE CORPORATIONS.  IT ACCORDINGLY RECALCULATED THE TAX.  THE
APPELLANT TOOK THE CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH WHICH
AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT.  FN7 

BY APPROPRIATE EXCEPTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR THE APPELLANT
CHALLENGES THE NEW JUDGMENT UPON THESE GROUNDS:  THAT THE COURTS BELOW
HAVE DISREGARDED THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT AND HAVE EXCEEDED THEIR
POWERS IN REASSESSING THE TAX; THAT THE TAX IS ONE UPON ASSETS AND NOT
UPON SHARES, AND FEDERAL SECURITIES ARE LEFT IN THE TAX BASE AS TO AT
LEAST A PORTION OF THEIR VALUE; THAT, IF THE TAX IS UPON THE SHARES
RATHER THAN UPON THE ASSETS, THERE IS STILL A DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
FEDERAL SECURITIES BECAUSE THE STOCKHOLDERS OF APPELLANT AND OTHER
SIMILAR CORPORATIONS ARE WHOLLY EXEMPTED FROM ANY TAX CALCULATED UPON
THE VALUE OF THE SHARES OF NATIONAL BANKS WHEREAS AT LEAST A PORTION OF
THE VALUE OF OTHER FEDERAL SECURITIES STILL REMAINS IN THE TAX BASE;
AND THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE IMPOST IS BAD SO FAR AS IT IS LAID UPON THE
SHARES OF NONRESIDENT SHAREHOLDERS.  THE COMMONWEALTH ARGUES THAT THE
TAX IS UPON THE SHARES AS SUCH AND NOT UPON ASSETS; THAT IN ASSESSING
IT NO DISCRIMINATION IS PRACTICED AGAINST FEDERAL SECURITIES AND IN
FAVOR OF THE EXEMPTED STOCK OF PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATIONS AND THAT, IF
THE TAX IS OTHERWISE VALID, THE FACT THAT IT IS LAID UPON ALL
SHAREHOLDERS, INCLUDING NONRESIDENTS, DOES NOT VOID IT AS RESPECTS THE
LATTER. 

FIRST.  WHEN THE CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD WE HELD THE STATUTE
INVALID AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED AND REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OUR OPINION.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
STATE COURTS WERE NOT PRECLUDED FROM CONSTRUING THE STATUTE SO AS TO
ELIMINATE THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEATURES.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE APPELLANT
WAS NOT ENTITLED, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, TO A GENERAL JUDGMENT IN ITS
FAVOR EXEMPTING IT FROM ALL TAX. 

SECOND.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE STATE COURTS REALLY HAVE NOT
CONSTRUED THE ACT BUT HAVE THEMSELVES AMENDED IT, AND THAT THIS IS
JUDICIAL LEGISLATION FORBIDDEN BY THE CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA, IS
NOT OPEN HERE.  AS THE TRIAL COURT POINTED OUT, COURTS, IN APPLYING A
STATUTE, GENERAL AND SWEEPING IN ITS TERMS, MAY CONSTRUE IT AS NOT
INTENDED TO REACH SUBJECTS WHICH, BY REASON OF CONSTITUTIONAL
PROHIBITION, THE LEGISLATURE IS WITHOUT POWER TO TOUCH.  WHETHER THE
COURTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH EXCEEDED THEIR POWERS UNDER THE STATE
CONSTITUTION IS NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION.  WE ACCEPT THEIR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE ACT. 

THIRD.  AS THE CASE IS NOW PRESENTED, WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE TAX IS UPON THE SHARES AS SUCH OR UPON THE
CAPITAL, SURPLUS, AND PROFITS OF THE COMPANY.  THE STATUTE ON ITS FACE
LAYS THE TAX UPON THE PROPERTY OF THE STOCKHOLDER, REPRESENTED BY THE
SHARES HE OWNS.  THE STATE COURTS, AND THE LOCAL FEDERAL COURT, HAVE
HELD THE IMPOSITION A TAX UPON THE SHARES.  FN8 THE HISTORY OF
LEGISLATION RESPECTING TAXATION OF BANKS AND TRUST COMPANIES IN
PENNSYLVANIA LEADS TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.  FN9  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE TAX IS ONE UPON THE SHARES AS SUCH AND NOT UPON THE ASSETS OF THE
COMPANY. 

FOURTH.  THE STATE NEED NOT HAVE MADE ANY EXEMPTION OR CONCESSION IN
TAXING THE PROPERTY IN THE SHARES ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE THEREIN REFLECTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S OWNERSHIP OF OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS
INSTRUMENTALITIES OTHER THAN NATIONAL BANK STOCK.  FN10  AND THE
DISCRIMINATION FOUND UPON THE EARLIER APPEAL IN FAILING TO ACCORD
PROPORTIONATE EXEMPTION TO FEDERAL SECURITIES SIMILAR TO THAT EXTENDED
TO EXEMPT SHARES OF DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS HAS BEEN REMOVED, FOR ALL ARE
NOW ACCORDED LIKE TREATMENT BY WAY OF DEDUCTION. 

FIFTH.  THE FACT THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A TRUST COMPANY WHOSE
INVESTMENTS CONSIST OF NATIONAL BANK STOCK WOULD PAY NO TAX, BECAUSE
R.S. 5219 PERMITS BUT A SINGLE TAX THEREON WHICH HAS BEEN PAID BY THE
COMPANY AS OWNER, WHEREAS THOSE HOLDING SHARES IN A TRUST COMPANY WHICH
OWNS ONLY OTHER FEDERAL SECURITIES WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO A SIMILAR
TOTAL EXEMPTION BUT ONLY TO A PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION UNLESS IT COULD
BE SHOWN THAT THOSE SECURITIES WERE PURCHASED FROM CAPITAL, SURPLUS,
AND UNDIVIDED PROFITS, DOES NOT EVIDENCE AN ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST SUCH SECURITIES.  THE INABILITY OF A STATE TO MEASURE A TAX BY
CERTAIN ASSETS EXEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT PRECLUDE IT FROM
RECKONING IN THE TAX BASE ALL THOSE IT CAN REACH.  AND THE PRINCIPLE OF
EQUAL PROTECTION DOES NOT DEMAND THAT BECAUSE ONE COMPANY OWNS WHOLLY
EXEMPT SECURITIES, WITH CONSEQUENT EXEMPTION OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS FROM
THE EXACTION, THE STATE SHALL ABSTAIN FROM TAXING THE SHAREHOLDERS OF
ANOTHER COMPANY WHOSE INVESTMENTS CARRY NO SUCH EXEMPTION. 

SIXTH.  THE STATE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT NONRESIDENT AS WELL AS
RESIDENT SHAREHOLDERS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE, AND WE ARE
BOUND BY THIS CONSTRUCTION.  THE APPELLANT ARGUES THAT AS THUS APPLIED
THE STATUTE WOULD TAKE THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AND DENY THEM
EQUAL PROTECTION IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE TAXING POWER OF
PENNSYLVANIA IS LIMITED TO PERSONS AND PROPERTY WITHIN HER
JURISDICTION.  THE CONTENTION WAS OVERRULED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT,
AND WE THINK RIGHTLY SO, UPON THE AUTHORITY OF CORRY V. BALTIMORE, 196
U.S. 466.  THERE THIS COURT HELD THAT UNDER A SIMILAR STATUTE MARYLAND
AND ITS MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISIONS COULD IMPOSE A LEVY FOR REVENUE UPON
NONRESIDENT SHAREHOLDERS MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THEIR SHARES IN A
DOMESTIC CORPORATION.  THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THAT CASE AND THIS, TO
WHICH THE APPELLANT POINTS, ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT.  IN RELIANCE UPON
TAPPAN V. MERCHANTS' NATIONAL BANK, 19 WALL.  490, WHEREIN WE HELD IT
COMPETENT FOR THE UNITED STATES TO PROVIDE BY A STATUTE WHICH BECAME
PART OF THE CHARTER OF EVERY NATIONAL BANK THAT THE SHARES SHALL BE
TAXABLE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS BY THE STATE WHEREIN THE BANK IS LOCATED,
THE COURT PROCEEDED, IN THE CORRY CASE, TO THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE A
STATE STATUTE MADE SIMILAR PROVISION FOR THE TAXATION OF THE SHARES OF
NONRESIDENT STOCKHOLDERS AT THE HOME OF A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, THE
LEGISLATION DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN11  THERE THE
CORPORATION WAS MADE LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX AND GIVEN A
RIGHT OF REIMBURSEMENT OVER AGAINST THE SHAREHOLDERS.  HERE THE
APPELLANT HAS THE OPTION EITHER TO PAY THE TAX FROM ITS GENERAL FUND OR
TO COLLECT IT FROM THE SHAREHOLDER AND PAY IT OVER TO THE STATE.  THE
DISTINCTIONS THOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT TO REQUIRE A DIFFERENT RULING IN
THIS CASE ARE THAT, IN THE CORRY CASE, THE ACT DECLARING THE LIABILITY
OF THE SHARES OF NONRESIDENTS ANTEDATED THE CHARTER OF THE CORPORATION
AND PROVIDED THAT THE SITUS OF SHARES OWNED BY NONRESIDENTS SHOULD, FOR
THE PURPOSES OF TAXATION, BE AT THE DOMICILE OF THE CORPORATION IN THE
STATE OF MARYLAND WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE STATUTE IMPOSING
THE TAX ON SHARES, WHICH HAS BEEN HELD TO INCLUDE THE SHARES OF
NONRESIDENTS, WAS ADOPTED TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE APPELLANT'S
INCORPORATION AND SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE SITUS OF THE SHARES.  WE THINK
THESE DIFFERENCES ARE UNIMPORTANT IN RESPECT OF THE PRINCIPLE
INVOLVED.  THE STATE CONSTITUTION FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR TO THE GRANTING
OF THE CHARTER CONTAINED THE RESERVED RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, AND REPEAL
CORPORATE CHARTERS, AND EVERY STOCKHOLDER ACQUIRED HIS SHARES WITH FULL
KNOWLEDGE THAT HIS INTEREST IN THE CORPORATION WAS SUBJECT TO
REGULATION AND TAXATION.  MOREOVER, THE SHARES REPRESENT A PROPERTY
INTEREST, AN ALIQUOT PROPORTION OF THE WHOLE CORPORATE ASSETS.  THE
SHAREHOLDERS, WHETHER DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN, DEPEND FOR THE PRESERVATION
AND PROTECTION OF THIS PROPERTY UPON THE LAW OF THE STATE OF THE
CORPORATION'S DOMICILE.  THE PROPERTY RIGHT SO REPRESENTED IS OF VALUE,
ARISES WHERE THE CORPORATION HAS ITS HOME, AND IS THEREFORE WITHIN THE
TAXING JURISDICTION OF THAT STATE; FN12  AND THIS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE STOCK MAY ALSO BE A TAXABLE SUBJECT IN ANOTHER STATE. 
FN13 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF JUNE 13, 1907, P.L. 640, AS AMENDED BY THE ACTS OF JULY
11, 1923, P.L. 1071, MAY 7, 1927, P.L. 853, AND APRIL 25, 1929, P.L.
673. 

FN2  ACT OF APRIL 9, 1929, SEC. 807, P.L. 393. 

FN3  SEE COMMONWEALTH V. HAZELWOOD SAVINGS & TRUST CO., 271 PA. 375;
114 ATL. 368. 

FN4  U.S.C. TITLE 12, SEC. 548. 

FN5  SUPRA, NOTE 1. 

FN6  SUPRA, NOTE 1. 

FN7  327 PA. 127; 193 ATL. 638. 

FN8  COMMONWEALTH V. SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO., 315 PA. 429; 173 ATL. 309;
COMMONWEALTH V. MORTGAGE TRUST CO., 227 PA. 163, 174; 76 ATL. 5;
COMMONWEALTH V. UNION TRUST CO., 237 PA. 353, 355; 85 ATL. 461;
NORTHERN TRUST CO. V. MCCOACH, 215 FED. 991. 

FN9  AS EARLY AS 1867(ACT OF APRIL 12, 1867, P.L. 74) PENNSYLVANIA
IMPOSED A TAX ON THE SHARES OF NATIONAL BANK STOCK IN THE HANDS OF THE
HOLDERS.  SEE ALSO ACT OF APRIL 2, 1868, P.L. 55; ACT OF MAY 1, 1868,
P.L. 108, SEC. 10.  IT ALSO TAXED THE SHARES OF STATE BANKS.  ACT OF
DECEMBER 22, 1869, P.L. (1870) 1373; ACT OF JUNE 10, 1881, P.L. 99; ACT
OF JUNE 30, 1885, P.L. 193; ACT OF JUNE 8, 1891, P.L. 229, (THE LAST
NAMED ACT WAS SUSTAINED IN COMMONWEALTH V. MERCHANTS & MANUFACTURERS
NATIONAL BANK, 168 PA. 309; 31 ATL. 58; AFFIRMED 167 U.S. 461); ACT OF
JULY 15, 1897, P.L. 292, AMENDED BY ACT OF MAY 2, 1925, P.L. 497, AND
ACT OF APRIL 25, 1929, P.L. 677.  SOME OF THE EARLIER OF THESE ACTS
PROVIDED FOR THE TAXATION OF THE SHARES OF TRUST COMPANIES UPON THE
SAME BASIS AS SHARES OF BANKS WERE TAXED, BUT BY THE ACT OF JUNE 1,
1889, P.L. 420, TRUST COMPANIES WERE MADE LIABLE FOR A SO-CALLED
CAPITAL STOCK TAX WHICH IS IN FACT A TAX UPON ASSETS AND NO TAX WAS
LEVIED UPON THE SHARES IN SUCH COMPANIES.  THE ACT OF 1907(SUPRA, NOTE
1) WAS PASSED IN ORDER TO CONFORM TAXATION APPLICABLE TO TRUST
COMPANIES WITH THAT THEN CURRENT WITH RESPECT TO BANKS.  AS STATED IN
COMMONWEALTH V. MORTGAGE TRUST CO., 227 PA. 163, 175; 76 ATL. 58:  "THE
POLICY OF THE COMMONWEALTH FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS WAS TO TAX THE
CAPITAL STOCK OF THESE COMPANIES IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER
CORPORATIONS CREATED UNDER THE GENERAL CORPORATION ACT OF 1874 WERE
TAXED....  THIS METHOD OF TAXING THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THESE
INSTITUTIONS CONTINUED IN FORCE UNTIL THE ACT OF 1907 WAS PASSED.  AS
THE TRUST COMPANY BUSINESS GREW IN MAGNITUDE  ...  THE QUESTION OF THE
PROPER METHOD OF TAXING THE CAPITAL STOCK OF THESE CORPORATIONS
FREQUENTLY AROSE.  IT WAS CONTENDED IN THEIR BEHALF THAT BANKS WERE
THEIR NATURAL COMPETITORS; THAT THEIR BUSINESS PARTOOK OF THE NATURE OF
BANKING; AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE TAXED IN LIKE MANNER.  AS A RESULT OF
THIS FEELING AND THE AGITATION WHICH FOLLOWED IT THE ACT OF 1907 WAS
PASSED.  IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO TAX TRUST
COMPANIES ON THE SAME BASIS AS BANKS." 

FN10  VAN ALLEN V. ASSESSORS, 3 WALL.  573; NATIONAL BANK V.
COMMONWEALTH, 9 WALL.  353, 359; CLEVELAND TRUST CO. V. LANDER, 184
U.S. 111; DES MOINES NATIONAL BANK V. FAIRWEATHER, 263 U.S. 103. 

FN11  THE CASE HAS BEEN CITED REPEATEDLY WITH APPROVAL.  COVINGTON V.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 198 U.S. 100, 112; HAWLEY V. MALDEN, 232 U.S. 1,
12; ROGERS V. HENNEPIN COUNTY, 240 U.S. 184, 191; RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL
TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, 270 U.S. 69, 81. 

FN12  STOCKHOLDERS BANK V. SUPERVISORS, 88 VA. 293; 13 S.E. 407;
SCANDINAVIAN-AMERICAN BANK V. PIERCE COUNTY, 20 WASH. 155; 55 PAC. 40;
STATE V. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO., 70 CONN. 590; 40 ATL. 465; ST. ALBANS
V. NATIONAL CAR CO., 57 VT. 68; KOOCHICHING CO. V. MITCHELL, 186 IOWA
1216; 173 N.W. 151. 

FN13  FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V. MINNESOTA, 301 U.S. 234. 
..END :




UNITED STATES V. ANDREWS, 302 U.S. 517 


NO. 48.  ARGUED DECEMBER 8, 9, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 84
CT. CLS. 460 - 17 F.SUPP.  980, REVERSED. 


1.  THE TAXPAYER MADE TIMELY CLAIM FOR OVERPAYMENT OF INCOME TAX DUE
TO FAILURE IN THE RETURN TO DEDUCT FOR LOSS ON WORTHLESS SHARES OF
CERTAIN CORPORATIONS.  AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION
(REVENUE ACT OF 1928), HE SOUGHT TO AMEND BY INCLUDING ANOTHER
OVERPAYMENT FOR THE SAME YEAR WHICH RESULTED FROM RETURNING AS
DIVIDENDS PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER CORPORATION, WHICH WERE NOT
DIVIDENDS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED AS GIVING RISE TO A CAPITAL
GAIN, OF LESS AMOUNT.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE SECOND CLAIM WAS NOT PROPERLY AN AMENDMENT OF THE
FIRST, BUT A SEPARATE CLAIM ON A NEW AND UNRELATED GROUND, AND WAS
BARRED BY THE STATUTE.  P. 520. 

(2)  THE FACT THAT THE FIRST CLAIM, THOUGH FOR A SPECIFIC
TRANSACTION, CONTAINED ALSO A "GENERAL RELIEF" DEMAND FOR ANY OTHER OR
GREATER SUM WHICH MIGHT BE FOUND DUE TO THE TAXPAYER, COULD NOT JUSTIFY
THE AMENDMENT.  P. 524. 

(3)  NEITHER COULD IT BE UPHELD BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER, BEFORE THE
STATUTE RAN, HAD LEARNED FROM THE CORPORATION WHICH HAD MADE THE
PAYMENTS THAT THEY WERE NOT DIVIDENDS BUT THE PROCEEDS OF A SALE OF
SHARES OWNED BY THE TAXPAYER, AND HAD SO INFORMED THE REVENUE AGENT, IT
NOT APPEARING THAT, PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPTED AMENDMENT, THE COMMISSIONER
KNEW THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS A SHAREHOLDER IN THAT COMPANY OR KNEW THAT
THE REPORTED RECEIPT OF DIVIDENDS HAD REFERENCE TO SUCH PAYMENTS.  P.
526. 

2.  IN DECIDING WHETHER A TAX-REFUND CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO AN
AMENDMENT, THE ANALOGIES OF PLEADING ARE HELPFUL, BUT THEY WILL NOT BE
SO FOLLOWED AS TO IGNORE THE NECESSITIES AND REALITIES OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  P. 523. 

A CLAIM WHICH DEMANDS RELIEF UPON ONE ASSERTED FACT SITUATION, AND
ASKS AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ELEMENTS APPROPRIATE TO SUCH RELIEF, CAN
NOT BE AMENDED TO DISCARD THAT BASIS AND INVOKE ACTION REQUIRING
EXAMINATION OF MATTERS PREVIOUSLY NOT GERMANE. 

UNITED STATES V. ANDREWS, EXECUTRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 664, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A CLAIM
BASED UPON AN OVERPAYMENT OF INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CLAIM FOR
REFUND OF INCOME TAX, ASKING REPAYMENT OF A DEFINITE SUM UPON A
SPECIFIC GROUND, IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF UNTIMELY AMENDMENT TO RECOVER A
GREATER SUM ON A NEW AND UNRELATED GROUND. 

THE RESPONDENT, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE SHE REPRESENTED, PAID THE
INCOME TAX SHOWN TO BE DUE BY HER RETURN, WHICH EXHIBITED AN ITEM OF
GROSS INCOME OF $110,891 AS "DIVIDENDS FROM DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS."  OF
THIS TOTAL $36,750 WAS ERRONEOUSLY REPORTED AS DIVIDENDS FROM THE M.A.
HANNA COMPANY.  THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID HER PURSUANT TO A RECAPITALIZATION
OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH THE ESTATE OWNED PREFERRED STOCK AND, INSTEAD
OF BEING RETURNED AS A DIVIDEND, SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS GIVING
RISE TO A CAPITAL GAIN OF $7,411.50. 

IN DECEMBER 1931 THE RESPONDENT WAS ADVISED BY AN INTERNAL REVENUE
AGENT THAT HER RETURN, REPORTING THE RECEIPT AS A DIVIDEND, WAS
CONSIDERED CORRECT, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE BUREAU IN
WASHINGTON, AND THAT IF LATER INFORMATION SHOULD INDICATE A MATERIAL
CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF TAX THE STATUTES WOULD REQUIRE A
REDETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY.  OCTOBER 6, 1932, AS A RESULT OF
CONFERENCES WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE HANNA COMPANY, THE COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE ADVISED THE AGENT IN CHARGE AT CLEVELAND, OHIO,
THAT THE CASH RECEIVED BY PREFERRED STOCKHOLDERS IN THE
RECAPITALIZATION OF THE COMPANY REPRESENTED PROCEEDS FROM A SALE AND
THAT GAIN OR LOSS THEREFROM SHOULD BE DETERMINED UPON THE BASIS OF THE
COST OF THE ORIGINAL STOCK.  THE RESPONDENT WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE
RULING UNTIL AUGUST 22, 1934. 

FEBRUARY 1, 1933, RESPONDENT FILED A CLAIM FOR THE REFUND OF $995.52,
BASED UPON AN ALLEGED LOSS IN THE TAXABLE YEAR DUE TO THE WORTHLESSNESS
OF STOCKS OF TWO CORPORATIONS.  CONSIDERATION AND ACTION THEREON WERE
DELAYED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF LITIGATION WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE
SOUNDNESS OF THE CLAIM.  IN 1936 THIS CLAIM WAS REJECTED IN PART BUT
ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF $160, WHICH WAS REFUNDED. 

JUNE 29, 1934, AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR FILING
REFUND CLAIMS,  FN1  THE RESPONDENT PRESENTED A CLAIM FOR $6,454.09 IN
WHICH SHE STATED THAT IT WAS "FILED AS AN AMENDMENT AND AMPLIFICATION
OF CLAIM FOR REFUND FILED FEBRUARY 1, 1933" AND ASSERTED THAT THE SUM
OF $36,750 REPORTED AS A DIVIDEND WAS NOT SUCH BUT REPRESENTED THE
PROCEEDS OF SALE OF STOCK OF THE HANNA COMPANY AT A PROFIT OF $7,411.50
AND THAT THE ERROR IN THE RETURN RESULTED IN AN OVERPAYMENT OF
$6,454.09. 

NOVEMBER 2, 1935, THE COMMISSIONER ADVISED THE RESPONDENT THAT, WHILE
AN OVERPAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE, A REFUND WOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE
CLAIM OF JUNE 1934 WAS WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THAT OF FEBRUARY 1, 1933,
BEING AN INDEPENDENT DEMAND BASED UPON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GROUND. 
PURSUANT TO THE COMMISSIONER'S HOLDING THAT THE LATTER CLAIM WAS NOT
FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE
ALLOWED, OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REJECTION WAS MAILED DECEMBER 16, 1935. 
THE RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS WHICH GAVE JUDGMENT
FOR HER IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,536.97.  FN2 

UPON PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION THAT THE DECISION IS IN CONFLICT
WITH DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND OF TWO CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS WE
GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI.  WE HOLD THAT THE SO-CALLED AMENDMENT
WAS IN FACT A NEW CLAIM AND ITS ALLOWANCE WAS BARRED BY THE STATUTORY
PROVISION LIMITING THE TIME FOR PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS FOR REFUND. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE RELIANCE OF EACH OF THE PARTIES ON RECENT
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT NONE OF THEM RULES THE PRECISE QUESTION NOW
PRESENTED.  THEY POINT THE WAY, HOWEVER, TO A CORRECT DECISION. 

IN UNITED STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288 U.S. 62, THE CLAIM
MERELY STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN ERRONEOUS OVERPAYMENT THE AMOUNT
OF WHICH WAS SHOWN BY STATING THE TAXPAYER'S TRUE NET INCOME, THE TAX
DUE THEREON, AND THE AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY PAID.  THE CLAIM ASKED REPAYMENT
OF THE DIFFERENCE OR ANY GREATER SUM WHICH MIGHT BE FOUND TO BE DUE. 
UPON THE FOOTING OF THIS GENERAL CLAIM A COMPLETE AUDIT OF THE
TAXPAYER'S BOOKS WAS MADE AND AN OVERPAYMENT IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT
CLAIMED WAS DETERMINED.  AFTER NOTIFICATION OF THIS FACT, BUT BEFORE
REJECTION, THE TAXPAYER AMENDED THE CLAIM BY MAKING IT SPECIFIC AND
SETTING FORTH THE SUPPORTING FACTS IN DETAIL.  THE AMENDMENT WAS HELD
EFFECTIVE.  FN3 

IN UNITED STATES V. FACTORS & FINANCE CO., 288 U.S. 89, ADDITIONAL
ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE SUBSEQUENT TO PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN TO BE
DUE BY THE RESPONDENT'S RETURN.  AFTER PAYING PART OF THE SUM SO
ASSESSED THE TAXPAYER FILED A CLAIM FOR ABATEMENT OF THE UNPAID
BALANCE.  IN CONNECTION WITH THAT CLAIM THE COMMISSIONER ORDERED A FULL
EXAMINATION OF THE TAXPAYER'S AFFAIRS, WHICH WAS MADE.  WHILE THIS
AUDIT WAS IN PROGRESS THE TAXPAYER FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND, COUCHED IN
GENERAL TERMS, STATING THAT, AS THERE HAD BEEN NO FINAL AUDIT OF ITS
RETURN, THE PURPOSE OF THE CLAIM WAS TO SAVE THE TAXPAYER'S RIGHTS
UNDER THE STATUTES AND PERMIT THE COMMISSIONER TO REFUND ANY EXCESS
PAID BEYOND THE AMOUNT FOUND TO BE DUE.  NO STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR
THE CLAIM WAS INCLUDED.  AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED AN
AMENDED CLAIM WAS FILED SETTING FORTH THE GROUNDS IN DETAIL AND ASKING
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 210 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1917.  IN THE
INTERVAL BETWEEN THE FILING OF THE FIRST AND THE AMENDED CLAIM THE
COMMISSIONER HAD DISPOSED OF THE CLAIM FOR ABATEMENT BUT NOT OF THE
CLAIM FOR REFUND.  AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE AMENDMENT THE COMMISSIONER
CONSIDERED THE CASE ON THE MERITS AND FOUND THAT THE TAXPAYER'S
INVESTED CAPITAL COULD NOT BE SATISFACTORILY ASCERTAINED AND THAT A
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER SEC. 210 BUT HE REJECTED
THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TIMELY.  WE HELD THE
AMENDMENT PERMISSIBLE.  THE OPINION POINTS OUT THAT THE VERY GENERALITY
OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM REQUIRED THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S AUDIT GO INTO
THE QUESTION OF INVESTED CAPITAL AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE MORE SPECIFIC
AMENDMENT CALLED ATTENTION TO NO NEW MATTER NOT COVERED BY THE
INVESTIGATION THE COMMISSIONER HAD TO MAKE IN EXAMINING THE CLAIM AS
ORIGINALLY FILED. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THE CLAIM FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A TREASURY
REGULATION REQUIRING THAT THE GROUNDS FOR THE RELIEF DEMANDED SHOULD BE
SET FORTH UNDER OATH AND IN DETAIL.  WE HELD THAT WHILE THE
COMMISSIONER MIGHT PROMPTLY HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION SUCH COMPLIANCE WAS A MATTER HE COULD WAIVE
AND, IF HE CONSIDERED THE MERITS, THE CLAIM WAS SUSCEPTIBLE OF ANY
AMENDMENT WHICH WOULD NOT AMOUNT, UNDER THE RULES OF PLEADING IN
ACTIONS AT LAW, TO AN ALTERATION OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION AND WOULD NOT
REQUIRE THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE A NEW AND DIFFERENT INQUIRY THAN THAT
WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO MAKE IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE GENERAL
GROUNDS ASSERTED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AS PRESENTED. 

IN BEMIS BRO. BAG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 28, THE TAXPAYER, IN
ITS ORIGINAL CLAIM FOR REFUND, REQUESTED A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UNDER
SECS. 327 AND 328 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918 AND SUBMITTED A SUPPORTING
STATEMENT AS TO ITS AFFAIRS WHEREIN IT SOUGHT RELIEF ON THREE DISTINCT
GROUNDS SPECIFIED IN THE SECTIONS IN QUESTION AND SUBMITTED FACTS AND
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF EACH OF THE GROUNDS.  TWO OF THESE GROUNDS
CALLED THE COMMISSIONER'S ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER'S
INVESTED CAPITAL HAD BEEN ERRONEOUSLY COMPUTED.  AFTER CONSIDERATION OF
THE CLAIM THE COMMISSIONER NOTIFIED THE TAXPAYER THAT THERE WAS NO
BASIS FOR RELIEF UNDER SEC. 327(B), WHICH FURNISHED ONE OF THE GROUNDS
PUT FORWARD BY THE TAXPAYER, BUT HE APPARENTLY OVERLOOKED THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT RELIEF WAS ALSO CLAIMED UNDER SUBDIVISIONS (A) AND
(C) OF THAT SECTION.  THE TAXPAYER FILED A PROTEST AND AN AMENDMENT,
WHICH MADE NO CHANGE OF ANY IMPORTANCE IN THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS
ALREADY SUBMITTED, BUT ASKED THAT COMPUTATION OF THE TAX UNDER SEC. 328
BE GRANTED OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CERTAIN ITEMS THE COMMISSIONER HAD
STRICKEN FROM INVESTED CAPITAL BE RESTORED.  SINCE THE ORIGINAL NOTICE
TO THE COMMISSIONER WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT VALUABLE ASSETS HAD BEEN
OMITTED FROM INVESTED CAPITAL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OPEN TO THE TAXPAYER
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO ASK FOR RELIEF UNDER SECS. 327 AND 328 OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A RECOMPUTATION OF ITS INVESTED CAPITAL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.  THE MERE
ADDITION OF THE PRAYER FOR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF WAS NOT A DEPARTURE FROM
THE CLAIM AND DID NOT AMOUNT TO A NEW AND UNTIMELY CLAIM BUT
CONSTITUTED A PROPER AMENDMENT. 

IN UNITED STATES V. HENRY PRENTISS & CO., 288 U.S. 73, A SITUATION
MATERIALLY DIFFERING FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN THE FOREGOING CASES WAS
PRESENTED.  THERE THE TAXPAYER'S CLAIM FOR REFUND ASSERTED THAT, OWING
TO ABNORMAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING INVESTED CAPITAL AND INCOME, THERE
COULD BE NO FAIR COMPUTATION OF THE TAX BY THE APPRAISAL OF THE CASH
VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY UNDER SEC. 326 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918 AND IT
SHOULD, THEREFORE, HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECS.
327 AND 328, WHICH PROVIDE FOR COMPUTATION OF THE TAX IN SUCH CASES
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE VALUE OF THE INVESTED CAPITAL AND FOR
DETERMINATION OF THE TAX ACCORDING TO THE RATIO WHICH THE AVERAGE TAX
OF REPRESENTATIVE CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN A SIMILAR BUSINESS BEARS TO
THEIR AVERAGE NET INCOME.  IN RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM THE COMMISSIONER
ADVISED THE TAXPAYER THAT HE COULD NOT CONSIDER THE PROPRIETY OF A
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UNTIL THE STATUTORY NET INCOME AND INVESTED CAPITAL
WERE DETERMINED AND ASKED THE TAXPAYER, THEREFORE, TO ACQUIESCE IN THE
NET INCOME AND INVESTED CAPITAL SHOWN IN THE REVENUE AGENT'S REPORT OR
SUBMIT ANY EXCEPTIONS IT MIGHT HAVE THERETO.  THE TAXPAYER FILED NO
SUCH EXCEPTIONS BUT APPARENTLY ACQUIESCED IN THE DETERMINATION.  THE
COMMISSIONER THEN PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS HE HAD
ASCERTAINED AND ADVISED THE TAXPAYER THE CASE WAS NOT ONE FOR SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT AND THE CLAIM WOULD BE REJECTED.  THEREAFTER, AT AN ORAL
HEARING ACCORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE FINAL REJECTION OF THE
CLAIM, THE TAXPAYER PRESENTED AN AMENDMENT IN WHICH IT SET FORTH THAT,
IN ASCERTAINING ITS INVESTED CAPITAL, REAL ESTATE HAD BEEN UNDERVALUED
AND CERTAIN INTANGIBLES HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE
COMPUTATION.  THIS COURT HELD THAT SUCH AN AMENDMENT, FILED AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS, COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED,
FIRST, BECAUSE IT TOTALLY CHANGED THE TAXPAYER'S CAUSE OF ACTION, IF
THE ANALOGIES OF PLEADING WERE TO BE REGARDED, AND, SECOND, BECAUSE THE
ORIGINAL CLAIM DID NOT CHALLENGE THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF
INVESTED CAPITAL, AND AN AMENDMENT WHICH ATTACKED THIS DETERMINATION,
FUNDAMENTAL TO THE TAXPAYER'S CONTENTION, WAS IN EFFECT A NEW CLAIM
BASED UPON A COMPLETE REVERSAL OF THE TAXPAYER'S FORMER POSITION. 

IN ALL THESE CASES THE COURT FOUND THE ANALOGIES OF PLEADING HELPFUL
IN DECIDING WHETHER THE CLAIM WAS IN SUCH FORM AS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE
PROFFERED AMENDMENT AT A TIME WHEN A CLAIM WHOLLY NEW WOULD HAVE BEEN
BARRED; BUT THE OPINIONS POINT OUT THAT THE ANALOGY TO PLEADING AT LAW
IS NOT TO BE SO SLAVISHLY FOLLOWED AS TO IGNORE THE NECESSITIES AND
REALITIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  WHERE A CLAIM WHICH THE
COMMISSIONER COULD HAVE REJECTED AS TOO GENERAL, AND AS OMITTING TO
SPECIFY THE MATTERS NEEDING INVESTIGATION, HAS NOT MISLED HIM BUT HAS
BEEN THE BASIS OF AN INVESTIGATION WHICH DISCLOSED FACTS NECESSARY TO
HIS ACTION IN MAKING A REFUND, AN AMENDMENT WHICH MERELY MAKES MORE
DEFINITE THE MATTERS ALREADY WITHIN HIS KNOWLEDGE, OR WHICH, IN THE
COURSE OF HIS INVESTIGATION, HE WOULD NATURALLY HAVE ASCERTAINED, IS
PERMISSIBLE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, A CLAIM WHICH DEMANDS RELIEF UPON ONE
ASSERTED FACT SITUATION, AND ASKS AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ELEMENTS
APPROPRIATE TO THE REQUESTED RELIEF, CANNOT BE AMENDED TO DISCARD THAT
BASIS AND INVOKE ACTION REQUIRING EXAMINATION OF OTHER MATTERS NOT
GERMANE TO THE FIRST CLAIM. 

WITH THESE SETTLED PRINCIPLES IN MIND WE TURN TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED IN THE PRESENT CASE.  THE CLAIM HERE WAS NOT GENERAL BUT
SPECIFIC.  IT DID NOT ASSERT GENERALLY THAT INCOME, GROSS OR NET, HAD
BEEN OVERAPPRAISED OR, GENERALLY, THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS ENTITLED TO
DEDUCTIONS NOT TAKEN OR GRANTED.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT POINTED TO TWO
SPECIFIC ITEMS OF DEDUCTION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN AND TO WHICH THE
TAXPAYER CLAIMED TO BE ENTITLED.  IT STATED THAT DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR THE TAXPAYER'S HOLDINGS OF STOCK IN TWO NAMED CORPORATIONS HAD
BECOME WORTHLESS, ENTAILING A DEDUCTIBLE LOSS OF $995.  WHILE THE CLAIM
ADDED THE PHRASE THAT THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED THE SUM NAMED, OR ANY
GREATER SUM WHICH MIGHT BE ASCERTAINED TO BE DUE, THIS DID NOT CALL
UPON THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE A COMPLETE REAUDIT OF THE TAXPAYER'S
RETURN.  THE FACT THAT HE MIGHT HAVE DONE SO IS IMMATERIAL.  HE COULD
HAVE ACTED ON THE CLAIM, AS APPARENTLY HE DID, BY INVESTIGATING THE
AFFAIRS OF THE TWO CORPORATIONS.  IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT LITIGATION
WAS IN PROCESS UPON THE OUTCOME OF WHICH WOULD DEPEND A DECISION AS TO
THE ALLEGED WORTHLESSNESS OF SOME OF THE SHARES IN QUESTION.  HE,
THEREFORE, NATURALLY POSTPONED ACTION ON THE CLAIM UNTIL THE
TERMINATION OF THAT LITIGATION.  WHILE MATTERS WERE IN THIS POSTURE,
AND AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAD EXPIRED, THE RESPONDENT
PRESENTED A SO-CALLED AMENDMENT OF HER CLAIM HAVING NO RELATION
WHATEVER TO THE ITEMS SET FORTH IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM, BUT DEALING WITH
A WHOLLY DISTINCT ITEM OF $36,750 REPORTED AS DIVIDENDS RECEIVED AND
ASKING THAT IT BE ELIMINATED FROM THAT CATEGORY AND THAT THE
TRANSACTION BE RECLASSIFIED AS CAPITAL GAIN UPON A BASIS WHICH WOULD
RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF TAX BY SOME $6,000.  THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE
THE COMMISSIONER WAIVED THE REGULATION WITH RESPECT TO THE
PARTICULARITY WITH WHICH THE GROUNDS OF THE CLAIM MUST BE SET FORTH. 
THERE WAS NO NEED FOR HIM TO DO SO.  THE CLAIM WAS NOT GENERAL LIKE
THAT IN THE MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CASE AND THE OTHERS FOLLOWING IN ITS
TRAIN.  IT WAS AS SPECIFIC AS IT COULD BE MADE AND POINTED UNERRINGLY
TO THE ITEMS THE COMMISSIONER MUST CONSIDER.  IT CALLED FOR NO GENERAL
AUDIT OF THE TAXPAYER'S AFFAIRS AND APPARENTLY NONE WAS MADE.  AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE ITEMS DESIGNATED COULD NOT HAVE THE LEAST RELATION
TO THAT ATTEMPTED TO BE OPENED IN THE UNTIMELY AMENDMENT.  THE
RESPONDENT URGES THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE OF NO LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE, SINCE THE CLAIM NOT ONLY CALLED FOR REDRESS OF A
SPECIFIED GRIEVANCE BUT DEMANDED GENERAL RELIEF AS WELL.  SHE INSISTS
WE HAVE LIKENED A CLAIM FOR REFUND TO AN ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND
RECEIVED AND HAVE REQUIRED THE COMMISSIONER TO ACCEPT AND ACT UPON A
BILL OF PARTICULARS FURNISHED HIM BEFORE ACTUAL REJECTION OF THE CLAIM
ALTHOUGH THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAS EXPIRED.  BUT, AS WE SAID IN
UNITED STATES V. HENRY PRENTISS & CO., SUPRA, P. 84, "THIS DOES NOT
MEAN THAT A PLEADER WHO ABANDONS THE COMMON COUNT AND STATES THE
PARTICULAR FACTS OUT OF WHICH HIS GRIEVANCE HAS ARISEN RETAINS
UNFETTERED FREEDOM TO CHANGE THE STATEMENT AT HIS PLEASURE." 

WERE IT NOT FOR THE PRESENCE IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF THE DEMAND FOR
REFUND OF ANY OTHER OR GREATER SUM WHICH MIGHT BE FOUND DUE THE
TAXPAYER, WE THINK IT COULD NOT EVEN BE SUGGESTED THAT THE CLAIM WAS A
GENERAL ONE FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED.  SAVE FOR THAT CLAUSE THE
DEMAND WAS OF A SPECIFIC AMOUNT BASED UPON A SPECIFIC TRANSACTION. 
WHETHER ADJUDICATION IN STRICT ANALOGY TO THE RULES OF PLEADING WOULD
PERMIT THE AMENDMENT WE NEED NOT DETERMINE FOR THE NECESSITIES AND
REALITIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE PRECLUDE ANY SUCH RESULT.  UNITED
STATES V. HENRY PRENTISS & CO., SUPRA, P. 85.  THE VERY SPECIFICATION
OF THE ITEMS OF COMPLAINT WOULD TEND TO CONFINE THE INVESTIGATION TO
THOSE ITEMS AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE EXAMINATION WAS MORE
EXTENDED. 

NOR CAN THE RESPONDENT GAIN ADVANTAGE FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S RULING
COMMUNICATED TO HIS AGENT AT CLEVELAND.  THERE IS NO FINDING THAT,
PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPTED AMENDMENT, THE COMMISSIONER KNEW THE RESPONDENT
WAS A STOCKHOLDER OF THE HANNA COMPANY OR, IF HE DID, THAT HIS
ATTENTION WAS CALLED TO THE FACT THAT THE REPORTED RECEIPT OF DIVIDENDS
HAD REFERENCE TO WHAT THE TAXPAYER RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF PREFERRED
STOCK OF THAT COMPANY. 

THESE VIEWS ACCORD WITH THE DECISIONS OF TWO CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEAL.  FN4  THE RESPONDENT RELIES UPON TWO DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF
CLAIMS:  YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 7 F.SUPP.  290,
AND CON.  P. CURRAN PRINTING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 15 F.SUPP.  153.  IN
THE FIRST A CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION DEPLETION AND
AMORTIZATION OF AN INVESTMENT IN MINING PROPERTIES WAS TIMELY MADE.  AS
A RESULT OF THIS CLAIM A GENERAL AUDIT OF THE TAXPAYER'S AFFAIRS WAS
HAD AND RESULTED IN THE DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY MUCH GREATER THAN
THE AMOUNT OF REFUND CLAIMED.  UPON APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
THE DEFICIENCY WAS SET ASIDE AND THE BOARD FOUND AN OVERASSESSMENT DUE
TO FAILURE TO ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION AND ALSO DEDUCTIONS FOR
DEPRECIATION OF OTHER ASSETS.  THE COMMISSIONER AGREED THAT THE
OVERPAYMENT FOUND BY THE BOARD WAS CORRECT.  THEREUPON THE TAXPAYER
FILED, OUT OF TIME, AN AMENDMENT TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC
DEDUCTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD.  THE
COMMISSIONER ALLOWED A REFUND OF THE ITEM ORIGINALLY CLAIMED BUT
REFUSED A REFUND OF THE OTHERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMENDMENT SOUGHT
TO INTRODUCE NEW AND DISTINCT MATTERS.  IN AN ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF
THE OVERPAYMENT FOUND BY THE BOARD, AND CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL AND
AMENDED CLAIMS, THE COURT OF CLAIMS GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE TAXPAYER.  WE
EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE RESULT MAY BE SUSTAINED BY THE
FACT THAT WHILE THE ORIGINAL CLAIM WAS PENDING THE COMMISSIONER WAS
FULLY APPRISED OF THE ITEMS OF DEDUCTION ULTIMATELY CLAIMED IN THE
AMENDMENT BY TWO COMPLETE AUDITS OF THE TAXPAYER'S AFFAIRS AND
ACCOUNTS.  A SIMILAR SITUATION IS DISCLOSED IN THE SECOND CASE.  THE
DECISIONS WERE, HOWEVER, PUT BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS UPON THE SAME
GROUND AS IN THE INSTANT CASE,  - THAT A CLAIM LIMITED TO A SPECIFIED
ITEM MIGHT BE AMENDED OUT OF TIME TO SEEK A REFUND ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER
AND UNRELATED ITEMS,  - A VIEW WE HOLD UNTENABLE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, SEC. 322(B)(1), 45 STAT. 791, 861. 

FN2  84 CT. CLS. 460; 17 F.SUPP.  980. 

FN3  SEE ALSO GEORGE MOORE ICE CREAM CO. V. ROSE, 289 U.S. 373, 384. 

FN4  BRYANT PAPER CO. V. HOLDEN, 63 F.(2D) 370; 65 F.(2D) 1012;
SWEDISH IRON & STEEL CORP. V. EDWARDS, 1 F.SUPP.  335; AFFIRMED 69
F.(2D) 1018; UNITED STATES V. RICHARDS, 79 F.(2D) 797; NEW YORK TRUST
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 87 F.(2D) 889. 
..END :




U.S. V. GARBUTT OIL CO., 302 U.S. 528 


NO. 262.  ARGUED DECEMBER 9, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 749, REVERSED. 


1.  AN OIL OPERATING COMPANY MADE TIMELY CLAIM FOR REFUND OF AN
ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX, BASING IT UPON THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS THAT PROPER
DEDUCTION FOR AMORTIZATION HAD NOT BEEN MADE, AND THAT, IN RESPECT OF
EXCESS PROFITS TAX, ITS INVESTED CAPITAL HAD BEEN UNDERSTATED.  WHILE
THIS CLAIM WAS PENDING, IT SOUGHT TO AMEND BY SETTING UP, AS A FURTHER
GROUND, THAT DURING THE TAX YEAR IT HAD RECEIVED NO INCOME TAXABLE,
BECAUSE ITS ENTIRE PRODUCTION OF OIL HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED IN KIND TO
ITS LESSORS AND TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS.  HELD, NOT A PERMISSIBLE AMENDMENT
BUT A NEW CLAIM UNTIMELY FILED.  UNITED STATES V. ANDREWS, ANTE, P.
517.  P. 531. 

2.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE IS WITHOUT POWER TO WAIVE
THE BAR OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AGAINST A CLAIM FOR A TAX
REFUND.  P. 533. 

UNITED STATES V. GARBUTT OIL CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 671, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE UNITED STATES IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER AN ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT OF
INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS SIMILAR TO THAT PRESENTED IN UNITED STATES
V. ANDREWS, ANTE, P. 517.  THE ACTION WAS BROUGHT BY THE RESPONDENT IN
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO RECOVER AN ALLEGED
OVERPAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES FOR 1919.  THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY AS TO
THE FACTS FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT.  THE RESPONDENT, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, ACQUIRED A LEASE OF OIL PROPERTY OCTOBER 3, 1907.  APRIL
10, 1911, THE DIRECTORS RESOLVED THAT ALL OIL PRODUCED AFTER JANUARY 1
OF THAT YEAR SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED IN KIND TO THE LESSORS TO THE EXTENT
OF THEIR ROYALTY INTEREST AND TO THE COMPANY'S STOCKHOLDERS PRO RATA TO
THEIR RESPECTIVE HOLDINGS, SO LONG AS THE LATTER SHOULD PAY CALLS FOR
MONEY NECESSARY TO DEFRAY THE COMPANY'S EXPENSES.  THE RESOLUTION
REMAINED IN EFFECT TO AND INCLUDING THE YEAR 1919 AND DISTRIBUTION OF
ALL OIL PRODUCED WAS MADE ACCORDINGLY.  IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ITS
RETURN FOR INCOME TAX THE RESPONDENT RECORDED AT MARKET VALUE THE OIL
PRODUCED AND TREATED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT VALUE AND THE COST OF
PRODUCTION AS INCOME.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOLLOWED
THE SAME METHOD IN COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME.  IN ITS 1919 RETURN THE
RESPONDENT DISCLOSED A NET INCOME OF $16,928.61 AND A TAX LIABILITY OF
$2,072.68 WHICH WAS PAID DURING THE YEAR 1920.  THE COMMISSIONER, AS
THE RESULT OF AN AUDIT, ASSESSED AN ADDITIONAL TAX OF $3,105.65 WHICH
WAS PAID APRIL 3, 1925. 

MARCH 30, 1929, WITHIN THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED
BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE, FN1  THE RESPONDENT FILED A CLAIM FOR THE
RETURN OF THE ADDITIONAL TAX SO PAID, BASED UPON TWO GROUNDS:  FIRST,
THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION OF $12,500
FOR THE AMORTIZATION OF THE COST OF A DRILLING CONTRACT WITH UNION OIL
COMPANY BY WHICH THE LATTER, IN CONSIDERATION OF $250,000 PAR VALUE OF
RESPONDENT'S STOCK, AGREED TO PROVIDE EXPENSES OF DEVELOPING THE LEASED
OIL PROPERTY, REIMBURSEMENT TO BE MADE ONLY OUT OF OIL PRODUCED; AND,
SECOND, THAT, IN RESPECT OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX, ITS INVESTED CAPITAL
HAD BEEN UNDERSTATED BY FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE UNRECOVERED COST OF THE
SAME CONTRACT IN THE SUM OF $109,375.  WHILE THIS CLAIM WAS PENDING,
BUT SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, THE
RESPONDENT FILED A "STATEMENT OF GARBUTT OIL COMPANY  ...  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PERFECTING AND COMPLETING CLAIM FOR REFUND COVERING ALLEGED
OVERPAYMENT OF INCOME TAX FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1919."  THEREIN THE
RESPONDENT ASSERTED THAT IT "NOW DEVELOPS THAT A FURTHER REASON EXISTS
IN SUPPORT OF" THE PENDING CLAIM SINCE, BY DISTRIBUTION OF OIL IN KIND,
THE RESPONDENT REALIZED NO TAXABLE INCOME DURING 1919, AND THAT "IT
THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SPECIFIC GROUNDS SET FORTH IN
THE CLAIM FOR REFUND ARE DENIED SAID CLAIM SHOULD, NEVERTHELESS, BE
ALLOWED IN FULL," FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE STATEMENT.  REFUND
WAS DEMANDED OF THE ENTIRE TAX PAID FOR 1919($5,178.33) "OR SO MUCH
THEREOF AS IS PROPERLY REFUNDABLE WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS." 
AUGUST 12, 1929, THE COMMISSIONER WROTE THE RESPONDENT, CONCERNING THE
MERITS OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM AND THE AMENDMENT, STATING THAT A REFUND
OF $3,105.65 WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BUT THAT A HEARING COULD BE HAD UPON
THE PROPOSED REJECTION IF REQUESTED IN WRITING.  ON OCTOBER 4, 1929, A
CONFERENCE WAS HELD BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER THE MERITS OF THE
AMENDMENT WERE DISCUSSED.  NOVEMBER 13, 1929, THE COMMISSIONER ADVISED
THE RESPONDENT THAT THE CLAIM WOULD BE REJECTED ON THE MERITS AND THAT
THE NEW CONTENTION EMBODIED IN THE STATEMENT FILED WOULD BE REJECTED AS
IT WAS NOT REFERRED TO IN THE TIMELY CLAIM AND WAS PRESENTED ONLY AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS AND AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF
THE TIME ALLOWED TO PERFECT INFORMAL CLAIMS, PURSUANT TO A TREASURY
DECISION.  FORMAL REJECTION OF THE CLAIM WAS MADE NOVEMBER 21, 1929. 

THE RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE $3,105.65, IT
BEING ADMITTED THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE TAX PAID FOR THE YEAR 1919
COULD NOT BE RECOVERED BECAUSE NOT CLAIMED WITHIN THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD
SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE.  AT THE TRIAL THE GROUNDS OF THE REFUND CLAIM
ORIGINALLY FILED WERE ABANDONED AND RECOVERY WAS SOUGHT UPON THE BASIS
OF THE STATEMENT FILED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTORY PERIOD OF
LIMITATION.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE LATTER DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN
AMENDMENT OF THE CLAIM ORIGINALLY FILED AND CAME TOO LATE ALTHOUGH IT
ALSO FOUND THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAD CONSIDERED THE LATE CONTENTION ON
ITS MERITS.  JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, HOLDING THE STATEMENT FILED AS AN
AMENDMENT WAS GERMANE TO THE ORIGINAL REFUND CLAIM AND THAT BOTH WERE
GROUNDED IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FACTS.  FN2  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI
TO RESOLVE ALLEGED CONFLICT OF DECISION. 

IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN UNITED STATES V. ANDREWS, SUPRA, IT
IS NECESSARY ONLY TO INQUIRE IN THE INSTANT CASE WHETHER THE ORIGINAL
CLAIM WAS SPECIFIC AND THE SO-CALLED AMENDMENT COMPLETELY SHIFTED TO A
TOTALLY DIFFERENT GROUND FOR REFUND. 

THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE TAXPAYER WHICH GAVE RISE TO ITS TAX LIABILITY
WERE EXCEEDINGLY SIMPLE DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT HAD RESORTED TO
DISTRIBUTION OF ALL THE OIL PRODUCED, PARTLY TO ITS LESSORS AS ROYALTY
AND PARTLY TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS IN RETURN FOR THEIR ADVANCING THE
CORPORATE EXPENSES.  IF IT WAS LIABLE FOR INCOME TAX THE METHOD OF
CALCULATION IT ADOPTED WAS APPARENTLY THE CORRECT ONE. 

CLAIM FOR REFUND WAS NOT FILED UNTIL 1929 WHEN THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS HAD BARRED REFUND OF ALL PAYMENTS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT
EXCEPT THE AMOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT PAID IN 1925.  IN AN
EFFORT TO RECOVER THAT MUCH OF THE TAX PAID FOR THE YEAR 1919 THE CLAIM
SET OUT TWO GROUNDS: FIRST, THAT A DEDUCTION OF $12,500 SHOULD BE
ALLOWED FOR AMORTIZATION OF A DRILLING CONTRACT WHICH THE COMPANY HAD
AND, SECOND, THAT ITS INVESTED CAPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCREASED BY
MORE THAN $100,000 TO EMBRACE THE UNRECOVERED COST OF THIS DRILLING
CONTRACT.  THE CLAIM DIRECTED THE COMMISSIONER'S ATTENTION TO THESE TWO
ITEMS ONLY.  IT GAVE HIM NO NOTICE THAT THE TAXPAYER CLAIMED NOT TO
HAVE BEEN IN RECEIPT OF ANY INCOME WHATEVER FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR.  THE
DOCUMENTS WOULD NOT NATURALLY SUGGEST ANY SUCH CLAIM FOR, AS IN UNITED
STATES V. HENRY PRENTISS & CO., 288 U.S. 73, THE GROUND ASSERTED IN THE
LATER DEMAND WAS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH AND INVOLVED A NEGATION OF
THAT SPECIFIED IN THE CLAIM FOR REFUND.  BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER HAD
ACTED ON THE CLAIM FOR REFUND THE RESPONDENT, IN AN EFFORT TO EVIDENCE
CONTINUITY AND IDENTITY OF CLAIM, FILED ITS SO-CALLED STATEMENT
PERFECTING AND COMPLETING THE CLAIM FOR REFUND.  THIS ABANDONED THE
GROUNDS ORIGINALLY ALLEGED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM.  THE POSITION TAKEN
IN THE AMENDMENT WAS THAT THE TAXPAYER HAD NO INCOME WHATEVER AND THAT
IF THE COMMISSIONER REFUSED REFUND ON THE BASIS OF A REJECTION OF THE
DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED FROM GROSS INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL DEMAND, HE SHOULD
FIND THAT THE TAXPAYER'S OPERATIONS WERE NOT PRODUCTIVE OF ANY INCOME
TO IT. 

IN DEFENSE OF THE AMENDMENT THE RESPONDENT SAYS THAT IT WAS CLAIMING
ONLY THE $3,105.65 PAID IN 1929 PURSUANT TO THE ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT;
THAT IN NO EVENT COULD IT RECOVER THE ENTIRE TAX PAID; THAT IF THE
ORIGINAL GROUNDS FOR CLAIMING REFUND OF PAYMENT OF THE SUM IN QUESTION
HAD BEEN HELD VALID THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE THE
REFUND OF THE WHOLE OF THE SUM, AND THE AMENDED CLAIM WOULD HAVE NO
DIFFERENT RESULT.  THIS CONTENTION IS ADVANCED TO PERSUADE US THAT,
AFTER ALL, THE CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS CASE WAS FOR THE RECOVERY OF
$3,105.65 AS MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED TO THE RESPONDENT'S USE, AND THAT,
THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DEPARTURE AND NO NEW CAUSE OF ACTION ASSERTED BY
THE AMENDMENT.  TO ADOPT THIS VIEW WOULD BE TO DISREGARD WHAT WAS SAID
IN EARLIER CASES TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ANALOGIES OF PLEADING MUST NOT
BE PRESSED TO SUCH AN EXTENT AS TO DISREGARD THE REALITIES OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  THE CLAIM AS FILED CALLED FOR NO
INVESTIGATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TAXPAYER'S TRANSACTIONS GAVE
RISE TO INCOME.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE GROUNDS ADVANCED ASSUMED THE
RECEIPT OF INCOME.  THE CLAIM BEING THUS SPECIFIC THE COMMISSIONER WAS
ENTITLED TO TAKE IT AT FACE VALUE AND TO EXAMINE ONLY THE POINTS TO
WHICH IT DIRECTED HIS ATTENTION.  IT WOULD BE TO DISREGARD THE NATURAL
COURSE OF PROCEDURE IN THE BUREAU TO SUPPOSE THAT GROUNDS THUS
SPECIFICALLY ASSERTED WOULD DIRECT ATTENTION TO ANOTHER AT WAR WITH
THEM. 

THE RESPONDENT URGES THAT ALTHOUGH THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TIMELY, THE
COMMISSIONER, IN CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE POSITION TAKEN THEREIN,
WAIVED ANY OBJECTION WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO HIM THAT THIS
POSITION WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.  THE CONTENTION IS
BOTTOMED UPON THE FACT THAT, IN HIS LETTER OF AUGUST 12, 1929, THE
COMMISSIONER REFERS TO THE REASONS ADVANCED IN THE UNTIMELY STATEMENT. 
THE ARGUMENT CONFUSES THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER TO DISREGARD A
STATUTORY MANDATE WITH HIS UNDOUBTED POWER TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE TREASURY REGULATIONS.  THE DISTINCTION WAS POINTED OUT IN UNITED
STATES V. MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO., 288 U.S. 62, 71, WHEREIN IT WAS SAID:
"THE LINE OF DIVISION MUST BE KEPT A SHARP ONE BETWEEN THE FUNCTION OF
A STATUTE REQUIRING THE PRESENTATION OF A CLAIM WITHIN A GIVEN PERIOD
OF TIME, AND THE FUNCTION OF A REGULATION MAKING PROVISION AS TO FORM. 
THE FUNCTION OF THE STATUTE, LIKE THAT OF LIMITATIONS GENERALLY, IS TO
GIVE PROTECTION AGAINST STALE DEMANDS.  THE FUNCTION OF THE REGULATION
IS TO FACILITATE RESEARCH."  IN THE CITED CASE, AND OTHERS DECIDED AT
ABOUT THE SAME TIME, WE HELD THAT, WHILE THE COMMISSIONER MIGHT HAVE
ENFORCED THE REGULATION AND REJECTED A CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
IT IN OMITTING TO STATE WITH PARTICULARITY THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE
CLAIM WAS BASED, HE WAS NOT BOUND TO DO SO, BUT MIGHT WAIVE THE
REQUIREMENT OF THE REGULATION AND CONSIDER A GENERAL CLAIM ON ITS
MERITS.  THIS WAS FAR FROM HOLDING THAT AFTER THE PERIOD SET BY THE
STATUTE FOR THE FILING OF CLAIMS HE HAD POWER TO ACCEPT AND ACT UPON
CLAIMS THAT COMPLIED WITH OR VIOLATED HIS REGULATIONS.  TUCKER V.
ALEXANDER, 275 U.S. 228, CITED BY THE RESPONDENT, IS CLEARLY
DISTINGUISHABLE.  THERE A TIMELY CLAIM WAS FILED AND DISALLOWED.  IT
ALLEGED TWO SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR REFUND.  SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RECOVER
THE ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT AND AGAIN RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE SAME TWO
SPECIFIC GROUNDS.  AT THE TRIAL OF THE ACTION, AND WITHIN THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATIONS, THE TAXPAYER ABANDONED THE GROUNDS ALLEGED IN ITS CLAIM
AND COMPLAINT AND ASSERTED A NEW GROUND.  COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT
STATED THAT THE NEW QUESTION BROUGHT FORWARD WAS THE ONLY ONE INVOLVED
IN THE CASE AND STIPULATED AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE RECOVERED IF THE
TRIAL COURT SHOULD HOLD IN FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYER ON THIS NEW GROUND. 
THE COURT DID SO.  ON APPEAL THE GOVERNMENT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, RAISED
THE POINT OF THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE CLAIM FOR REFUND, AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE NEW BASIS FOR THE CLAIM DID NOT SUSTAIN
RECOVERY BECAUSE REFERENCE HAD NOT BEEN MADE TO IT IN THE REFUND
CLAIM.  THIS COURT DECIDED THAT THERE WAS AN EXPRESS WAIVER AS TO THE
FORM AND CONTENTS OF THE CLAIM AND THAT COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE
GOVERNMENT HAD POWER, PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION, TO WAIVE THE OBJECTION THAT THE SUPPOSED BASIS FOR REFUND
WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE CLAIM.  IN SO HOLDING THE COURT ADVERTED TO
THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS NOT DECEIVED OR MISLED BY THE
DEFICIENCY OF THE CLAIM AND THAT IT WAS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CLAIMANT BE NOT REMITTED TO THE RESORT OF
FILING A NEW CLAIM AND PURSUING IT THROUGH THE BUREAU AND THE COURTS. 
THE OPINION EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED THAT NO OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT HAS
POWER TO WAIVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND CITED, IN SUPPORT OF THE
PROPOSITION, FINN V. UNITED STATES, 123 U.S. 227, SAYING:  "SUCH
WAIVERS, IF ALLOWED, WOULD DEFEAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE AND
IMPOSE A LIABILITY UPON THE UNITED STATES WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT
EXIST - CONSEQUENCES WHICH DO NOT ATTACH TO THE WAIVER HERE."  275 U.S.
232. 

THE STATEMENT FILED AFTER THE PERIOD FOR FILING CLAIMS HAD EXPIRED
WAS NOT A PERMISSIBLE AMENDMENT OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM PRESENTED.  IT
WAS A NEW CLAIM UNTIMELY FILED AND THE COMMISSIONER WAS WITHOUT POWER,
UNDER THE STATUTE, TO CONSIDER IT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT OF 1926, C. 27, SEC. 284(A)(B)(1)(2), 44 STAT. 9,
66. 

FN2  89 F.(2D) 749. 
..END :




















UNITED STATES V. MCGOWAN, 302 U.S. 535 


NO. 138.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  - 89
F.(2D) 201, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RENO INDIAN COLONY IS SITUATED ON LANDS OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES WITHIN THE STATE OF NEVADA, WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT SETTLEMENT FOR NEEDY NON
RESERVATION INDIANS OF THE STATE AND FOR THE WASHOE TRIBE OF INDIANS. 
IT IS UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  HELD
"INDIAN COUNTRY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF 25 U.S.C. SEC. 247, SUBJECTING
TO FORFEITURE AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER VEHICLES USED IN TAKING INTOXICANTS
INTO THE "INDIAN COUNTRY."  P. 539. 

2.  THAT AN INDIAN SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY CONGRESS AS A
"COLONY" RATHER THAN A "RESERVATION" DOES NOT PREVENT THE APPLICATION
TO IT OF A LAW RELATING TO THE "INDIAN COUNTRY."  P. 539. 

3.  CONGRESS ALONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE
NATION'S GUARDIANSHIP OVER THE INDIANS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT.  P. 538. 

4.  THAT THE STATE HAS NOT RELINQUISHED JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA
OCCUPIED BY THE RENO INDIAN COLONY DOES NOT PREVENT THE APPLICATION TO
IT OF THE FEDERAL LAW FORBIDDING TAKING INTOXICANTS INTO THE "INDIAN
COUNTRY."  P. 539. 

UNITED STATES V. MCGOWAN ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 666, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING A DECREE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 16 F.SUPP.  453, DISMISSING, IN TWO CASES
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL, LIBELS SEEKING FORFEITURE OF AUTOMOBILES UNDER
U.S.C., TIT. 25, SEC. 247. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
DISMISSING LIBEL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES PRAYING
FORFEITURE OF TWO AUTOMOBILES USED TO CARRY INTOXICANTS INTO THE RENO
(NEVADA) INDIAN COLONY.  FN1  THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED UNDER
TITLE 25, U.S.C. SEC. 247 WHICH PROVIDES IN PART:  FN2 

"AUTOMOBILES OR ANY OTHER VEHICLES OR CONVEYANCES USED IN
INTRODUCING, OR ATTEMPTING TO INTRODUCE, INTOXICANTS INTO THE INDIAN
COUNTRY, OR WHERE THE INTRODUCTION IS PROHIBITED BY TREATY OR FEDERAL
STATUTE, WHETHER USED BY THE OWNER THEREOF OR OTHER PERSON, SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO  ... SEIZURE, LIBEL, AND FORFEITURE  ..." 

BOTH COURTS BELOW CONCLUDED THAT THE RENO INDIAN COLONY IS NOT
"INDIAN COUNTRY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS STATUTE. 

THE ONLY QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THIS COLONY IS SUCH
INDIAN COUNTRY.  IN THIS INQUIRY, BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE
TERM "INDIAN COUNTRY" AND THE TRADITIONAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES
IN REGULATING THE SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO INDIANS ARE IMPORTANT. 

THE RENO INDIAN COLONY IS COMPOSED OF SEVERAL HUNDRED INDIANS
RESIDING ON A TRACT OF 28.38 ACRES OF LAND OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES
AND PURCHASED OUT OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY CONGRESS IN 1917 FN3  AND IN
1926.  FN4  THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN CREATING THIS COLONY WAS TO
PROVIDE LANDS FOR NEEDY INDIANS SCATTERED OVER THE STATE OF NEVADA, AND
TO EQUIP AND SUPERVISE THESE INDIANS IN ESTABLISHING A PERMANENT
SETTLEMENT.  FN5 

THE WORDS "INDIAN COUNTRY" HAVE APPEARED IN THE STATUTES RELATING TO
INDIANS FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY.  FN6  WE MUST CONSIDER "THE CHANGES
WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN OUR SITUATION, WITH A VIEW OF DETERMINING
FROM TIME TO TIME WHAT MUST BE REGARDED AS INDIAN COUNTRY WHERE IT IS
SPOKEN OF IN THE STATUTES."  FN7  ALSO, DUE REGARD MUST BE GIVEN TO THE
FACT THAT FROM AN EARLY PERIOD OF OUR HISTORY, THE GOVERNMENT HAS
PRESCRIBED SEVERE PENALTIES TO ENFORCE LAWS REGULATING THE SALE OF
LIQUOR ON LANDS OCCUPIED BY INDIANS UNDER GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION. 
INDIANS OF THE RENO COLONY HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN HOMES UNDER THE
SUPERVISION AND GUARDIANSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE POLICY OF
CONGRESS, UNIFORMLY ENFORCED THROUGH THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, HAS
BEEN TO REGULATE THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC WITH INDIANS OCCUPYING SUCH A
SETTLEMENT.  FN8  THIS PROTECTION IS EXTENDED BY THE UNITED STATES
"OVER ALL DEPENDENT INDIAN COMMUNITIES WITHIN ITS BORDERS, WHETHER
WITHIN ITS ORIGINAL TERRITORY OR TERRITORY SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED, AND
WHETHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE LIMITS OF A STATE."  FN9 

THE FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATION OF BOTH CONGRESS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR IN ESTABLISHING THIS COLONY HAS BEEN THE PROTECTION OF A
DEPENDENT PEOPLE.  FN10  INDIANS IN THIS COLONY HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE
SAME PROTECTION BY THE GOVERNMENT AS THAT GIVEN INDIANS IN OTHER
SETTLEMENTS KNOWN AS "RESERVATIONS."  CONGRESS ALONE HAS THE RIGHT TO
DETERMINE THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS COUNTRY'S GUARDIANSHIP OVER THE
INDIANS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT,  FN11  AND IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER
CONGRESS DESIGNATES A SETTLEMENT AS A "RESERVATION" OR "COLONY."  IN
THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. PELICAN, 232 U.S. 442, 449, THIS COURT
SAID: 

"IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ORIGINAL RESERVATION WAS INDIAN COUNTRY
SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN VALIDLY SET APART FOR THE USE OF THE INDIANS
AS SUCH, UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT." 

THE RENO COLONY HAS BEEN VALIDLY SET APART FOR THE USE OF THE
INDIANS.  IT IS UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT.  THE
GOVERNMENT RETAINS TITLE TO THE LANDS WHICH IT PERMITS THE INDIANS TO
OCCUPY.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS AUTHORITY TO ENACT REGULATIONS AND
PROTECTIVE LAWS RESPECTING THIS TERRITORY."  FN12  ...  CONGRESS
POSSESSES THE BROAD POWER OF LEGISLATING FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
INDIANS WHEREVER THEY MAY BE WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES
..."  UNITED STATES V. RAMSEY, 271 U.S. 467, 471. 

WHEN WE VIEW THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELATIONSHIP
WHICH HAS LONG EXISTED BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE INDIANS - AND
WHICH CONTINUES TO DATE  FN13  - IT IS NOT REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO DRAW
ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS INDIAN "COLONY" AND "INDIAN COUNTRY."  WE
CONCLUDE THAT SEC. 247 OF TITLE 25, SUPRA, DOES APPLY TO THE RENO
COLONY. 

2.  THE FEDERAL PROHIBITION AGAINST TAKING INTOXICANTS INTO THIS
INDIAN COLONY DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE STATE OF NEVADA OF ITS SOVEREIGNTY
OVER THE AREA IN QUESTION.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ASSERT
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION WITHIN THE COLONY.  ENACTMENTS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PASSED TO PROTECT AND GUARD ITS INDIAN WARDS ONLY AFFECT THE
OPERATION, WITHIN THE COLONY, OF SUCH STATE LAWS AS CONFLICT WITH THE
FEDERAL ENACTMENTS.  FN14 

UNDER THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CAUSE, A DECREE
OF FORFEITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RENDERED AGAINST THE AUTOMOBILES
INVOLVED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  CERTIORARI GRANTED, POST, P. 666. 

FN2  39 STAT. 970. 

FN3  39 STAT. 123, 143. 

FN4  44 STAT. 496.  THE ACT OF 1917, UNDER AUTHORITY OF WHICH 20
ACRES OF LAND WERE BOUGHT, CONTAINED ITEMS READING AS FOLLOWS: 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING HOME AND FARM SITES, WITH ADEQUATE
WATER RIGHTS, AND PROVIDING AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUCTION AND
OTHER NECESSARY SUPPLIES FOR THE NONRESERVATION INDIANS IN THE STATE OF
NEVADA, $15,000  ..." 

"FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND WATER RIGHTS FOR THE WASHOE TRIBE OF
INDIANS, THE TITLE TO WHICH IS TO BE HELD IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
BENEFIT OF SAID INDIANS, $10,000, TO BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE; FOR THE
SUPPORT AND CIVILIZATION OF SAID INDIANS, $5,000; IN ALL, $15,000." 

ON RECOMMENDATION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR THE 1926
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION WAS MADE AND 8.38 ACRES WERE ADDED TO THE
COLONY TO TAKE CARE OF ADDITIONAL WORTHY INDIAN FAMILIES WHO WERE
ANXIOUS TO ESTABLISH HOMES IN THE COLONY.  SEE, HOUSE REPORT NO. 795,
69TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION. 

FN5  HEARINGS ON THE 1917 ACT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY
THE SENATOR SPONSORING THE APPROPRIATION: 

"THESE INDIANS LIVE JUST FROM HAND TO MOUTH....  THEY HAVE NO
RESERVATION TO LIVE ON, AND NO PROTECTION WHATEVER, AND IT IS AN
OUTRAGE....  IT IS USELESS TO GO AND APPROPRIATE FOR SOME PUBLIC LANDS
UNLESS YOU CAN ACQUIRE WATER RIGHTS FOR THEM....  THOSE WHO TAKE THE
MOST INTEREST IN INDIAN AFFAIRS IN OUR STATE (NEVADA) THINK THE BEST
THING TO DO IS TO PURCHASE A TRACT OF REAL AGRICULTURAL LAND, SAY, 100
ACRES, CLOSE TO CARSON CITY, WITH A WATER RIGHT, WHERE THESE INDIANS
CAN RAISE GARDEN STUFF AND CHICKENS, AND HAVE A HOME AND A MARKET FOR
THEIR PRODUCE."  HEARINGS, COMM. ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE, ON
H.R. 20150, VOL. 1, PP. 226, 227(1915). 

FN6  SEE, ACT OF JUNE 30, 1834, 4 STAT. 729, C. 161. 

FN7  EX PARTE CROW DOG, 109 U.S. 556, 561; CLAIRMONT V. UNITED
STATES, 225 U.S. 551, 557. 

FN8  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE 1917 APPROPRIATION READS IN
PART: "THE ACTIVE AND WHOLESOME POLICY OF THE PRESENT COMMISSIONER IN
PREVENTING THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO THE INDIANS AND IN USING
THEIR SURPLUS OR TRIBAL FUNDS IN THE PURCHASING OF LIVE STOCK TO PUT ON
THEIR RESERVATIONS HAS BEEN A VERY LONG STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION." 
HOUSE REPORT, VOLUME 1, 64TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, REPORT NO. 87, PAGE
2. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. SANDOVAL, 231 U.S. 28, 46. 

FN10  CF. UNITED STATES V. PELICAN, 232 U.S. 442, 450. 

FN11  UNITED STATES V. SANDOVAL, SUPRA. 

FN12  HALLOWELL V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 317; CONSTITUTION, ART.
IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2. 

FN13  CF. ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934, C. 576, 48 STAT. 984. 

FN14  SEE, HALLOWELL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; SURPLUS TRADING CO. V.
COOK, 281 U.S. 647. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :










UNITED STATES V. RAYNOR, 302 U.S. 540 


NO. 146.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 15, 1937.  - DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1938.  -
89 F.(2D) 469, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTION 150 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE PROVIDES THAT "WHOEVER SHALL HAVE
OR RETAIN IN HIS CONTROL OR POSSESSION AFTER A DISTINCTIVE PAPER HAS
BEEN ADOPTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR THE OBLIGATIONS AND
OTHER SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY SIMILAR PAPER ADAPTED TO THE
MAKING OF ANY SUCH OBLIGATION OR OTHER SECURITY, EXCEPT UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OR SOME OTHER PROPER OFFICER
OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE FINED  ..."  ETC.  HELD, THE WORDS
"SIMILAR PAPER ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH OBLIGATION" EMBRACE
PAPER SIMILAR TO THOUGH NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE ADOPTED DISTINCTIVE
PAPER AND WHICH IS ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF COUNTERFEITS OF GOVERNMENT
OBLIGATIONS.  PP. 545, 551. 

2.  POSSESSION BY AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON, OF PAPER OF PRACTICALLY THE
SAME COLOR, WEIGHT, THICKNESS AND APPEARANCE OF THE DISTINCTIVE PAPER
THERETOFORE ADOPTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR OBLIGATIONS
AND SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES; AND WHICH WAS CUT TO THE
DIMENSIONS OF GENUINE TWENTY DOLLAR NOTES AND RATTLED LIKE GENUINE
MONEY; AND UPON THE SURFACE OF WHICH WERE DESIGNED RED AND BLUE MARKS
CLOSELY RESEMBLING THE RED AND BLUE FIBERS EMBEDDED IN THE DISTINCTIVE
PAPER,  - HELD, A VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  PP. 542, 552. 

3.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 150 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE WORDS "SIMILAR PAPER ADAPTED TO
THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH OBLIGATION" BE CONSTRUED AS APPLYING ONLY TO THE
DISTINCTIVE PAPER ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, OR TO PAPER IDENTICAL
THEREWITH.  P. 546. 

4.  A CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE WHICH RESULTS IN AN INCONSISTENCY IS
NOT FAVORED.  P. 547. 

5.  THE CONSTRUCTION HERE GIVEN SEC. 150 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH A GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO CERTAIN OFFICIALS TO PERMIT
POSSESSION OF OTHERWISE ILLICIT PAPER.  P. 551. 

6.  THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN KRAKOWSKI V.
UNITED STATES, 161 FED. 88, HOLDING THAT THE ACT PROHIBITED POSSESSION
OF THE DISTINCTIVE PAPER ONLY, IS UNSOUND; AND THE FACT THAT CONGRESS
SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED AND CODIFIED THE CRIMINAL LAWS WITHOUT CHANGE IN
THIS PARTICULAR DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THAT DECISION BE FOLLOWED.  P.
552. 

7.  ONE DECISION CONSTRUING A STATUTE CAN NOT BE REGARDED AS A WELL
SETTLED INTERPRETATION.  P. 552. 

8.  PENAL STATUTES NEED NOT BE GIVEN THEIR NARROWEST MEANING, BUT MAY
BE GIVEN THEIR FAIR MEANING IN ACCORD WITH THE EVIDENT LEGISLATIVE
INTENT.  P. 552. 

UNITED STATES V. RAYNOR.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 147, UNITED STATES V. FOWLER, ALSO ON WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 667, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS REVERSING JUDGMENTS
SENTENCING TWO DEFENDANTS AFTER CONVICTION UPON AN INDICTMENT FOR AN
OFFENSE AGAINST THE CURRENCY. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS WERE CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR VIOLATING
A PROVISION OF SEC. 150 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE,  FN1  WHICH READS: 

"WHOEVER SHALL HAVE OR RETAIN IN HIS CONTROL OR POSSESSION AFTER A
DISTINCTIVE PAPER HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR
THE OBLIGATIONS AND OTHER SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES, ANY SIMILAR
PAPER ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH OBLIGATION OR OTHER SECURITY,
EXCEPT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OR SOME
OTHER PROPER OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN
$5,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS, OR BOTH." 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED,  FN2  HOLDING THAT THE ACT DID
NOT PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF ANY EXCEPT THE DISTINCTIVE PAPER ADOPTED
BY THE TREASURY, AND THAT OTHER PAPER WAS NOT PROHIBITED EVEN THOUGH IT
CLOSELY RESEMBLED THE DISTINCTIVE PAPER AND WAS WELL SUITED FOR
SUCCESSFUL COUNTERFEITING.  THE COURT ACCORDINGLY BELIEVED THAT THE
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A CONVICTION. 

THE EVIDENCE DISCLOSED THAT: 

IN 1928, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ADOPTED A DISTINCTIVE PAPER
FOR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES; THIS PAPER WAS A
HIGH GRADE RAG BOND HAVING A SHARP RATTLE, VERY LITTLE GLOSS, AND SHORT
FINE SILK FIBERS DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT; IN 1936, RESPONDENTS HAD
POSSESSION OF PAPER OF PRACTICALLY THE SAME COLOR, WEIGHT, THICKNESS
AND APPEARANCE AS THIS DISTINCTIVE GOVERNMENT PAPER AND CUT TO THE
DIMENSIONS OF TWENTY DOLLAR GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS; RESPONDENTS' PAPER
RATTLED LIKE GENUINE MONEY; IT DID NOT HAVE RED AND BLUE SILK FIBERS
THROUGHOUT, BUT RED AND BLUE MARKS WERE SO EXPERTLY DESIGNED UPON ITS
SURFACE THAT ONE JUDGE, DISSENTING BELOW, AFTER A CAREFUL EXAMINATION
OF THESE MARKS WITH A MAGNIFYING GLASS, WAS STILL WHOLLY UNCERTAIN
WHETHER THEY WERE ACTUALLY WOVEN IN THE FABRIC OR WERE TRACED ON THE
SURFACE. 

DID RESPONDENTS' POSSESSION OF THIS PAPER VIOLATE THE ACT? 

THE PAPER WAS NOT ONLY PERFECTLY ADAPTED FOR COUNTERFEITING, BUT IT
IS DIFFICULT TO CONCEIVE OF ITS USE FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.  THE HISTORY
AND LANGUAGE OF THE ACT ARE BOTH OF IMPORTANCE IN DETERMINING WHETHER
CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE IT A CRIME TO POSSESS, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, SO
CLOSE AN IMITATION OF THE GENUINE PAPER ADOPTED BY THE TREASURY. 

1.  THE HISTORY OF THE LAW UNDER WHICH RESPONDENTS WERE CONVICTED
DATES FROM A SPECIAL SESSION OF CONGRESS IN 1837.  THAT CONGRESS WAS
CALLED UPON TO PASS LEGISLATION TO MEET EMERGENCY CONDITIONS FOLLOWING
CROP FAILURES, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRESS, UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISCONTENT. 
URGED TO ACTION BY THESE CONDITIONS, CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE ISSUE OF A
THEN UNPRECEDENTED AMOUNT OF TREASURY NOTES.  IT HAD LONG BEEN A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO MAKE, UTTER, OR PASS COUNTERFEIT MONEY.  REALIZING
THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE CURRENCY REQUIRED MORE STRINGENT LAWS
AGAINST COUNTERFEITERS, 

FN3  CONGRESS MADE IT A CRIME TO POSSESS ANY PLATE, BLANK NOTE, OR
PAPER TO BE USED FOR COUNTERFEITING PURPOSES.  FN4  THIS EARLY
FORERUNNER OF THE PRESENT ACT PROVIDED IN PART: 

"IF ANY PERSON  ...  SHALL HAVE IN HIS CUSTODY OR POSSESSION ANY
PAPER ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF BANK NOTES, AND SIMILAR TO THE PAPER
UPON WHICH ANY SUCH NOTES SHALL HAVE BEEN ISSUED, WITH INTENT TO USE
SUCH PAPER  ...  IN FORGING OR COUNTERFEITING ANY OF THE NOTES ISSUED
AS AFORESAID  ... SUCH PERSON  ...  SHALL BE SENTENCED" ETC. 

THIS ORIGINAL PROVISION PROHIBITED THE POSSESSION OF "SIMILAR" PAPER
ADAPTED TO MAKING "BANK NOTES" BUT SUCH "BANK NOTES" OBVIOUSLY WERE TO
BE FORGED OR COUNTERFEIT - NOT GENUINE.  THIS FIRST ACT THUS PROHIBITED
- NOT THE GENUINE - BUT COUNTERFEIT PAPER, INTENDED TO BE MADE INTO
COUNTERFEIT OBLIGATIONS, AND ITS LANGUAGE AND MEANING WERE
SUBSTANTIALLY REENACTED IN 1847, 1857, 1860, 1861 AND 1862.  FN5 

BEGINNING DECEMBER, 1860, CONGRESS, TO MEET IMPERATIVE NEEDS, AGAIN
AUTHORIZED GREAT INCREASES IN GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS.  BY JULY, 1862,
NEW ISSUES OF CURRENCY AND UNSETTLED CONDITIONS HAD SO STIMULATED
COUNTERFEITING THAT CONGRESS MADE SPECIAL FUNDS AVAILABLE TO DETECT AND
PUNISH THOSE GUILTY OF THE CRIME.  FN6  SUCH ACTION PROVED INADEQUATE
TO CURB COUNTERFEITERS, AND IN 1863, CONGRESS REENACTED, STRENGTHENED
AND STRONGLY REINFORCED THE 1837 PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSION OF
PAPER FOR COUNTERFEITING.  FN7  THE 1863 LAW MADE IT A CRIME TO
"IMITATE, COUNTERFEIT, MAKE, OR SELL ANY PAPER SUCH AS THAT USED, OR
PROVIDED TO BE USED, FOR THE FRACTIONAL NOTES."  ALTHOUGH THE LAW HAD
PROHIBITED THE POSSESSION OF PAPER IMITATING THE GENUINE SINCE 1837,
THIS 1863 AMENDMENT STRUCK VIGOROUSLY AT ALL WHO IN ANY MANNER
TRAFFICKED IN SUCH IMITATION PAPER. 

BY JULY, 1864, THE GOVERNMENT HAD OUTSTANDING APPROXIMATELY TWO
BILLION DOLLARS IN WAR OBLIGATIONS, AND THE COUNTERFEITER HAD BECOME A
STILL GREATER PUBLIC ENEMY.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITH MORE
CURRENCY TO BE ISSUED, AND THE NECESSITY FOR PROTECTION FROM
COUNTERFEITERS GREATLY ACCENTUATED, CONGRESS ONCE MORE REENACTED THE
1837 ACT  FN8  AND MADE IT A MORE EFFECTIVE WEAPON AGAINST
COUNTERFEITERS.  FN9  THE ELEMENT OF INTENT WAS STRICKEN FROM THE
OFFENSE AND THE MERE UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION OF IMITATION PAPER WAS
MADE A CRIME.  CONGRESS ALSO COMBINED THE PHRASE "PAPER ADAPTED TO THE
MAKING OF BANK NOTES" WITH THE PHRASE "SIMILAR TO THE PAPER UPON WHICH
ANY SUCH NOTES SHALL HAVE BEEN ISSUED."  IT IS THE PHRASE RESULTING
FROM THIS COMBINATION - "SIMILAR PAPER ADAPTED TO MAKING SUCH
OBLIGATIONS" - WHICH WAS CONSTRUED BY THE COURT BELOW TO LIMIT THE
PROHIBITED PAPER TO THE GENUINE TREASURY-ADOPTED PAPER.  THESE PHRASES,
CARRIED IN THE LAW FROM 1837 TO 1864, HAD OBVIOUSLY REFERRED TO ANY
PAPER SUITABLE FOR COUNTERFEITING.  IF THE CONGRESS OF 1864 DID INTEND
BY COMBINING THESE PHRASES TO EXEMPT FROM THE ACT ALL WHO HAD
POSSESSION OF IMITATION PAPER, IT THEREBY DELIBERATELY WEAKENED THE
CHANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO CONVICT AND PUNISH COUNTERFEITERS.  WE DO
NOT IMPUTE SUCH A PURPOSE TO CONGRESS.  BY THE CHANGE MADE IN 1864
CONGRESS UNDOUBTEDLY INTENDED TO MAKE THE LAW A MORE EFFECTIVE WEAPON
AGAINST COUNTERFEITERS.  INDEED, TWO DAYS AFTER THIS AMENDMENT WAS
PASSED CONGRESS AUTHORIZED A SPECIAL APPROPRIATION TO DETECT AND PUNISH
COUNTERFEITERS.  FN10  IT IS BEYOND BELIEF THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO
RELAX THE LAW AGAINST COUNTERFEITERS AT A TIME WHEN THE NATION WAS
ENGAGED IN FINANCING A WAR.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE NEITHER
LOGICAL NOR REASONABLE.  THE SECTION NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION IS PLAINLY
THE CULMINATION OF A LONG SERIES OF LEGISLATIVE ACTS, EACH OF WHICH HAS
DECLARED IT TO BE A CRIME TO HAVE POSSESSION OF PAPER, COUNTERFEITING
THE DISTINCTIVE PAPER, AND SUITABLE TO BE MADE INTO COUNTERFEIT
OBLIGATIONS.  EACH CHANGE SINCE 1837 WAS INTENDED TO MAKE THE
POSSESSION OF COUNTERFEIT PAPER MORE DANGEROUS FOR COUNTERFEITERS. 

FINDING NOTHING IN THE HISTORY OF THIS LAW WHICH SUPPORTS THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN IT BY THE COURT BELOW, WE PROCEED TO AN EXAMINATION
AND ANALYSIS OF THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE BELIEVED TO JUSTIFY THAT
CONSTRUCTION. 

2.  THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE IS THE PHRASE "SIMILAR PAPER ADAPTED TO
MAKING SUCH OBLIGATIONS."  THE WORD "SIMILAR," AND THE PHRASE "ADAPTED
TO MAKING SUCH OBLIGATIONS OR SECURITIES," BOTH DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF
PAPER THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS PROHIBITED.  THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY
THE COURT BELOW TO THIS WORD AND THIS PHRASE ARE IRRECONCILABLE. 

THAT COURT DEFINED "SIMILAR" TO MEAN "SOMEWHAT ALIKE"; "NOT EXACTLY
ALIKE"; "LIKE, BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME."  "SIMILAR PAPER," THUS
DEFINED, CANNOT BE IDENTICAL WITH THE DISTINCTIVE PAPER ADOPTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE WHILE THE TWO PAPERS WOULD BE "SOMEWHAT ALIKE,"
THEY WOULD NOT BE "EXACTLY ALIKE" OR "EXACTLY THE SAME."  SIMILARITY IS
NOT IDENTITY, BUT RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT THINGS.  FN11  UNDER
THIS DEFINITION, "SIMILAR PAPER," THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS
PROHIBITED, IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH, BUT DIFFERS FROM THE DISTINCTIVE
PAPER. 

HOWEVER, AFTER GIVING THIS DEFINITION TO SIMILAR PAPER (WHICH IS
PROHIBITED BY THE ACT), THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED THAT THE PHRASE
"ADAPTED TO MAKING SUCH OBLIGATIONS" LIMITS THE PROHIBITION OF THE ACT
TO THE DISTINCTIVE PAPER.  THIS CONCLUSION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE
DETERMINATION THAT "SIMILAR" - ALSO DESCRIBING THE PAPER PROHIBITED -
DESIGNATES PAPER WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE DISTINCTIVE PAPER.  A
CONSTRUCTION THAT CREATES AN INCONSISTENCY SHOULD BE AVOIDED WHEN A
REASONABLE INTERPRETATION CAN BE ADOPTED WHICH WILL NOT DO VIOLENCE TO
THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE ACT, AND WILL CARRY OUT THE INTENTION OF
CONGRESS.  FN12 

THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY IN THE ACT UNLESS IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE
WORD "OBLIGATIONS" REFERS TO GENUINE OBLIGATIONS ONLY.  SINCE WORDS
THAT HAVE ONE MEANING IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT FREQUENTLY HAVE A
DIFFERENT SIGNIFICANCE IN ANOTHER,  FN13  IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER
THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS "SUCH OBLIGATIONS," IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
THEIR SIGNIFICANCE.  THE PROVISION OF LAW HERE CONSTRUED IS THE LAST OF
SEVEN SEPARATE OFFENSES SET OUT IN ONE PARAGRAPH OF A CHAPTER OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE ENTITLED "OFFENSES AGAINST THE CURRENCY."  THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CHAPTER WERE ENACTED TO PREVENT AND PUNISH COUNTERFEITING.  SIX
CLOSELY CONNECTED COMPANION OFFENSES ARE SET OUT IN THE SAME SECTION
WITH THE OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST RESPONDENTS AND ALL EITHER PENALIZE
THE POSSESSION OF, OR TRAFFICKING IN, COUNTERFEIT OBLIGATIONS OR THE
MATERIALS AND DEVICES USED TO MAKE SUCH OBLIGATIONS. 

EXAMINING THE CONTEXT OF THE WORDS UNDER CONSIDERATION WE FIND THAT
THE WORD "OBLIGATIONS" APPEARS THROUGHOUT THE CHAPTER RELATING TO
OFFENSES AGAINST THE CURRENCY, AND DOES NOT ALWAYS APPLY TO "GENUINE"
OBLIGATIONS, BUT MAY, AND OFTEN DOES REFER TO "COUNTERFEIT" OR
"SPURIOUS" OBLIGATIONS.  IN ORDER TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN COUNTERFEIT
AND GENUINE INSTRUMENTS, THE PROVISIONS IN SOME INSTANCES SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNATE NOTES AS "FALSE, FORGED OR COUNTERFEITED" AS IN SEC. 149.  ON
THE OTHER HAND, SEC. 152 MAKES IT A CRIME FOR ANY PERSON, WITHOUT
AUTHORITY, TO MAKE TOOLS TO BE USED IN PRINTING "ANY KIND OR
DESCRIPTION OF OBLIGATION OR OTHER SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES NOW OR
HEREAFTER TO BE AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED STATES  ..."...  ALTHOUGH
THESE QUOTED WORDS ARE "ANY KIND OF ...  OBLIGATION  ...  AUTHORIZED BY
THE UNITED STATES," THE REFERENCE IS NOT TO GENUINE OBLIGATIONS, BUT TO
COUNTERFEIT OBLIGATIONS, NOT ONLY PRINTED "WITHOUT AUTHORITY" BUT
PRINTED WITH COUNTERFEIT TOOLS MADE BY THE COUNTERFEITER.  IT IS
APPARENT FROM THE CONTEXT THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THE PHRASE "OBLIGATION
...  AUTHORIZED BY THE UNITED STATES" REFERS TO A COUNTERFEIT
OBLIGATION.  BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE THE 1837 ACT WORDS SUCH AS "BILLS,"
"NOTES" AND "OBLIGATIONS" HAVE BEEN USED AS MEANING COUNTERFEIT
INSTRUMENTS.  FN14 

THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE WORDS WE ARE EXAMINING ARE IMPORTANT. 
THE FIRST WORD DESCRIBING THE PROHIBITED PAPER IS "SIMILAR."  UNLESS
THE PAPER POSSESSED IS "SIMILAR" TO THE DISTINCTIVE PAPER OF THE
GOVERNMENT, ITS POSSESSION IS NOT PROHIBITED.  GENUINE OBLIGATIONS CAN
ONLY BE MADE FROM THE GENUINE DISTINCTIVE PAPER, WITH A GENUINE DESIGN;
WITH GENUINE LITHOGRAPHING; AND WITH GENUINE SIGNATURES.  CONVERSELY,
COUNTERFEIT OBLIGATIONS WOULD BE THE RESULT OF DESIGNS, LITHOGRAPHING,
SIGNATURES OR PAPER - NOT GENUINE, BUT MERELY "SIMILAR" TO THE
GENUINE.  WHEN, THEREFORE, CONGRESS USED THE WORDS "SIMILAR PAPER" IT
INCLUDED WITHIN ITS PROHIBITION AN IMITATION OR COUNTERFEIT OF THE
GENUINE PAPER.  THE EFFECT WAS THE SAME AS THOUGH IT HAD PROHIBITED
POSSESSION OF A GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION BEARING A SIGNATURE "SIMILAR" TO
THE SIGNATURE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  AFTER THE APPEARANCE
OF THE WORD "SIMILAR," SUBSEQUENT WORDS DESCRIPTIVE OF THE PROHIBITED
PAPER REQUIRE A CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL GIVE EFFECT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL
INTENT TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF PAPER WHICH IS AN IMITATION OR
COUNTERFEIT OF THAT ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 

IN UNITED STATES V. HOWELL, 11 WALL.  432, 436, THIS COURT CONSTRUED
A SIMILAR STATUTE WHICH SO FAR AS PERTINENT PROVIDED:  "THAT IF ANY
PERSON  ...  SHALL FALSELY MAKE, FORGE, COUNTERFEIT, OR ALTER  ...  ANY
NOTE  ...  ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT, OR HERETOFORE ISSUED
UNDER ACTS TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUE OF TREASURY NOTES OR BONDS;...  OR
SHALL HAVE OR KEEP IN POSSESSION,  ... ANY SUCH FALSE, FORGED,
COUNTERFEITED, OR ALTERED NOTE  ...  (SUCH PERSON) SHALL BE  ...
GUILTY OF FELONY  ..."  ETC. 

THE DEFENDANT INDICTED UNDER THAT STATUTE URGED THAT THE WORDS "SUCH
...  NOTE" REFERRED BACK TO THOSE NOTES THAT HAD BEEN "ISSUED UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT"; THAT NOTES ISSUED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE ACT
WERE GENUINE; THAT THE ACT, THEREFORE, DID NOT PROHIBIT PASSING OR
POSSESSING A COUNTERFEIT NOTE.    THIS COURT GAVE CREDIT FOR THE
PLAUSIBILITY OF SUCH AN ARGUMENT, BUT SAID IT WAS: 

"AT WAR WITH COMMON SENSE, WHICH ASSURES US THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
ACT WAS TO PUNISH THE MAKING OF COUNTERFEITS OF THE NOTES AND BONDS
DESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE....  WE ARE TO GIVE DUE WEIGHT TO ALL OF THE
WORDS EMPLOYED IN DESCRIBING THE INSTRUMENT,  ...  SO WE SPEAK OF A
BANK NOTE.  NOW IF THE PAPER SPOKEN OF IS A FORGERY IT IS NOT A BANK
NOTE, WHICH MEANS AN OBLIGATION OF SOME BANK TO PAY MONEY.  BUT HERE
ALSO THE MIND SUPPLIES THE ELLIPSIS WHICH GOOD USAGE ALLOWS, AND
UNDERSTANDS THAT WHAT IS MEANT IS A FORGED PAPER IN THE SIMILITUDE OF A
BANK NOTE, OR WHICH ON ITS FACE APPEARS TO BE SUCH A NOTE."  P. 436. 

SO, IN THIS CASE, PAPER WHICH WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF AN
UNAUTHORIZED PERSON AND WHICH WAS MERELY SIMILAR TO GENUINE GOVERNMENT
PAPER, COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE ADAPTED TO MAKING GENUINE GOVERNMENT
OBLIGATIONS.  IN THIS STATUTE, THE WORDS "SIMILAR PAPER ADAPTED TO
MAKING GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS" IMPLY THAT THE SIMILAR PAPER SHOULD BE
ADAPTED TO MAKING OBLIGATIONS THAT PURPORT TO BE GENUINE AND VALID, BUT
ARE NOT. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH A GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO
CERTAIN OFFICIALS TO PERMIT POSSESSION OF THE PROHIBITED PAPER.  IN
THIS SAME CHAPTER CONTAINING LAWS TO PROTECT THE CURRENCY OF THE UNITED
STATES THERE ARE OTHER SIMILAR GRANTS OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO
COUNTERFEITING DEVICES AND PERMISSION CAN ALSO BE GRANTED TO POSSESS
THE ACTUAL COUNTERFEITING INSTRUMENTS OR OBLIGATIONS. 

THE FACT THAT CONGRESS REVISED AND CODIFIED THE CRIMINAL LAWS AFTER
THE COURT OF APPEALS IN THE CASE OF KRAKOWSKI V. UNITED STATES, 161
FED. 88, HELD THAT THE ACT ONLY PROHIBITED POSSESSION OF THE
DISTINCTIVE PAPER DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE SOUNDNESS OF THIS
CONCLUSION.  ONE DECISION CONSTRUING AN ACT DOES NOT APPROACH THE
DIGNITY OF A WELL SETTLED INTERPRETATION.  FN15  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF INCLUDING THIS ACT IN THE REVISED STATUTES AND
THE CRIMINAL CODE. 

WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE SALUTARY RULE WHICH REQUIRES STRICT
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL STATUTES.  NO RULE OF CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER,
REQUIRES THAT A PENAL STATUTE BE STRAINED AND DISTORTED IN ORDER TO
EXCLUDE CONDUCT CLEARLY INTENDED TO BE WITHIN ITS SCOPE - NOR DOES ANY
RULE REQUIRE THAT THE ACT BE GIVEN THE "NARROWEST MEANING."  IT IS
SUFFICIENT IF THE WORDS ARE GIVEN THEIR FAIR MEANING IN ACCORD WITH THE
EVIDENT INTENT OF CONGRESS.  FN16  CERTAINLY, IF CONGRESS HAD INTENDED
TO PROHIBIT ONLY THE POSSESSION OF DISTINCTIVE PAPER IT WOULD HAVE
SIMPLY USED THE WORDS "DISTINCTIVE PAPER" INSTEAD OF THE DISTINGUISHING
WORDS "SIMILAR PAPER ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH OBLIGATION." 

THE EVIDENCE DOES SUPPORT THE CONVICTION OF RESPONDENTS.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  18 U.S.C., SEC. 264; 35 STAT. 1116. 

FN2  89 F.(2D) 469. 

FN3  COUNTERFEITING INCREASES IN PERIODS OF COMMERCIAL DISTRESS,
UNEMPLOYMENT, AND POVERTY.  EVEN PRIOR TO 1837, POVERTY CONTRIBUTED TO
OFFENSES AGAINST THE CURRENCY, SEE RE HALMAGH ACKERMAN, 5 N.Y. CITY
HALL REC. (1820) 140, AND COUNTERFEITERS KEPT PAPER IN THEIR POSSESSION
WHICH WAS USED FOR MAKING COUNTERFEIT OBLIGATIONS, RE GUY JOHNSON AND
WILLIAM JOHNSON AL. WILLIAM PRICE, JOHN STRICKLAND, AND EDWARD O'MELLY,
5 N.Y. CITY HALL REC. (1820) 138.  IN 1837 THE PROSPECT OF INCREASED
COUNTERFEITING - DUE TO DISTRESSED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND THE FACT
THAT NON-FEDERAL AGENCIES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, HAD ALREADY PUT A
LARGE AMOUNT OF PAPER IN CIRCULATION - INDICATED THE NEED RECOGNIZED BY
CONGRESS IN STRENGTHENING THE LAW.  SEE, DEWEY "FINANCIAL HISTORY OF
THE UNITED STATES," LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. (N.Y.)  1915, P. 233.  SEE
KNOX, "UNITED STATES NOTES," SCRIBNER'S (N.Y.)  1899, P. 40 ET SEQ. 

FN4  ACT OF OCTOBER 12, 1837, C. 2, SECS. 10, 11, 5 STAT. 201, 203. 

FN5  ACT OF JANUARY 28, 1847, C. 5, SECS. 9, 10, 9 STAT. 118, 120;
ACT OF DECEMBER 23, 1857, C. 1, SECS. 12, 13, 11 STAT. 257, 259; ACT OF
DECEMBER 17, 1860, C. 1, SECS. 12, 13, 12 STAT. 121, 123; ACT OF JULY
17, 1861, C. 5, SEC. 10, 12 STAT. 259, 261; ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1862,
C. 33, SECS. 6, 7, 12 STAT. 345, 347, 348. 

FN6  ACT OF JULY 11, 1862, C. 142, SEC. 5, 12 STAT. 532, 533. 

FN7  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863, C. 73, SEC. 8, 12 STAT. 709, 713. 

FN8  ACT OF JUNE 30, 1864, C. 172, SECS. 10, 11, 12, 13 STAT. 218,
221, 222. 

FN9  IN THE PERIOD PRECEDING THIS ENACTMENT THERE WAS AGAIN A MARKED
INCREASE IN COUNTERFEITING.  "THERE IS REPORTED TO BE IN CIRCULATION
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, AT THE PRESENT TIME, OVER THREE THOUSAND
ISSUES OF COUNTERFEIT, SPURIOUS, RAISED AND ALTERED BANK BILLS - AN
AVERAGE OF TWO ISSUES TO EVERY BANK IN OPERATION.  SUPPOSING EACH ISSUE
WOULD AVERAGE ONE THOUSAND BILLS, WHICH IS A MODERATE CALCULATION,
THERE WOULD BE THREE MILLION COUNTERFEIT BILLS IN CIRCULATION; AND THE
CRY IS, STILL THEY COME."  REEDY, "THE UNIVERSAL BANK NOTE, DRAFT AND
CHECK DETECTOR," NEW ORLEANS, 1858, P. 15.  THIS GROWTH RESULTED IN
ALARMING INJURY TO THE CURRENCY.  "ANNUAL REPORT, ASSN. OF BANKS FOR
THE SUPPRESSION OF COUNTERFEITING," BOSTON, 1859.  AFTER 1860,
COUNTERFEITING INCREASED STEADILY.  ID. 1860; ID. 1862.  "SPECIE
PAYMENTS WERE SUSPENDED ON DECEMBER 28, 1861.  THE WAR WAS CARRIED ON
CHIEFLY BY THE USE OF TREASURY NOTES AS A CIRCULATING MEDIUM."  KNOX,
SUPRA, P. 84.  SEE HEPBURN, "A HISTORY OF CURRENCY IN THE UNITED
STATES."  MACMILLAN (N.Y.)  1915, PP. 179-204.  HOWEVER, BY OCTOBER
1862, IT WAS REPORTED THAT COUNTERFEITING WAS WIDESPREAD IN AMERICA AND
UNEASINESS WAS BEING FELT AMONG AMERICANS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE
TREASURY AND OTHER NOTES ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES.  "THE BANKERS
MAGAZINE," LONDON, VOL. XXII, P. 615(1862).  IMPROVED MEANS OF
PREVENTING COUNTERFEITING IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC FAITH IN THE
CURRENCY BECAME OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. 

FN10  ACT OF JULY 2, 1864, C. 210, SEC. 3, 13 STAT. 344, 351. 

FN11  GREENLEAF V. GOODRICH, 101 U.S. 278, 282, 283.  SEE, RHODE
ISLAND HOSPITAL V. OLNEY, 16 R.I. 184; 13 ATL. 118. 

FN12  NEW LAMP CHIMNEY CO. V. ANSONIA BRASS & COPPER CO., 91 U.S.
656. 

FN13  PORTO RICO SUGAR CO. V. LORENZO, 222 U.S. 481; LAMAR V. UNITED
STATES, 240 U.S. 60; ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED STATES, 286
U.S. 427. 

FN14  AS ILLUSTRATIVE, THE FOLLOWING EXTRACTS FROM CASES INVOLVING
OFFENSES AGAINST THE CURRENCY REFER TO FALSE OR COUNTERFEIT
INSTRUMENTS:  "WHEN A MAN HAS THE POSSESSION OF THE NUMBER OF NOTES
ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT, WITH AN INTENTION OF UTTERING AND PASSING
THEM FOR THE FRAUDULENT PURPOSE EXPRESSED, HE HAS DONE ALL THAT, IN
WORDS, IS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE."  COMMONWEALTH V. CONE,
2 MASS. 132, AT P. 134(1806); "WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY OTHER
DIFFERENCES, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO OBSERVE, THAT TO CONSTITUTE THE CRIME
DESCRIBED IN THE FORMER, THE POSSESSION OF AT LEAST TEN BILLS IS
NECESSARY  ..."  BROWN V. COMMONWEALTH, 8 MASS. 59, AT P. 71(1811);
"BOWDAIN BRASTOW, WAS INDICTED AND TRIED FOR PASSING A $10 BILL OF THE
MERCHANTS' BANK  ..."  RE HALMAGH ACKERMAN, SUPRA, P. 140(1820); "IN
THE SAME PLACE, THEY FOUND A COPPER-PLATE PRESS, A PLATE FOR ENGRAVING
$2 BILLS ON THE MERCHANTS' BANK, AND UNDER THE ROLLER OF THE PRESS, A
BILL OF THAT DESCRIPTION RECENTLY STRUCK OFF."  RE GUY JOHNSON &
WILLIAM JOHNSON AL. WILLIAM PRICE, JOHN STRICKLAND AND EDWARD O'MELLY,
SUPRA, P. 138(1820); CF. STATE V. RANDALL, 2 VT. (AIKEN) 89, (1827);
(CF. BALDWIN V. VAN DEUSEN WHERE IT IS STATED:  "IN REFERENCE TO BANK
BILLS, BILLS OF EXCHANGE, PROMISSORY NOTES AND SECURITIES FOR MONEY,
THE NATURAL AND GENERAL, IF NOT THE UNIVERSAL, ANTITHESIS OR OPPOSITE
OF GENUINE, IS 'COUNTERFEIT.'  HENCE WE SAY OF A BANK-BILL IT IS A
GENUINE BILL - I.E., NOT A COUNTERFEIT BILL  ..."  37 N.Y. 487, AT P.
493, (1868)); SEE, WIGGAINS V. UNITED STATES, 214 FED. 970, AT P. 971;
"THE BONDS ADMITTEDLY BELONGED TO THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR."  FORLINI V.
UNITED STATES, 12 F.(2D) 631, AT P. 634; "...  APPELLANT VISITED THE
BASEMENT WHILE COUNTERFEITING OPERATIONS WERE IN PROGRESS AND
PARTICIPATED IN CONVERSATIONS AS TO THE APPEARANCE OF THE BILLS THAT
WERE BEING MADE AND THE NECESSITY OF PUTTING MORE YELLOW IN THE
COLORING"; NEBBELINK V. UNITED STATES, 66 F.(2D) 178; "ONE BILL WAS
FOUND IN HIS CLOTHES, AND HE VOLUNTEERED TO SHOW THE OFFICERS WHERE THE
REST WERE....  THE SOLE ISSUE WAS AS TO WHETHER AFTER HATLEN SHOWED HIM
THE BILLS, HE CO-OPERATED WITH HIM IN DISPOSING OF THEM  ..."  UNITED
STATES V. GATES, 67 F.(2D) 885; "THE OBLIGATIONS WERE DESCRIBED AS
UNITED STATES NOTES AND IDENTIFIED BY DENOMINATION, SERIES NUMBER, AND
PLATE NUMBERS."  SIMON V. UNITED STATES, 78 F.(2D) 454, AT P. 455.  THE
WORD "BANKNOTE" MAY MEAN - NOT A GENUINE - BUT A COUNTERFEIT
OBLIGATION.  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (MERRIAM, 1914) IN
DEFINING THE WORD "COUNTERFEIT" USES AS AN ILLUSTRATION, "THE BANKNOTE
WAS A COUNTERFEIT." 

FN15  FOR PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE ACT SUBSEQUENT TO THE KRAKOWSKI
CASE, SUPRA, SEE THE FOLLOWING CASES:  UNITED STATES V. ROSEN (W.D.
TEX.), FEBRUARY 14, 1931; UNITED STATES V. REGSICH AND GRUBICH (W.D.
PA.), DECEMBER 16, 1920; UNITED STATES V. MARCHETTI (N.D. OHIO), JUNE
18, 1924; UNITED STATES V. MARATEA AND PLOCKET (E.D. PA.), JANUARY 21,
1932. 

FN16  UNITED STATES V. GILES, 300 U.S. 41. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND I HAVE REACHED A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. 

THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION, AS MANY TIMES WE HAVE BEEN TOLD, DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE POWER TO AMEND A STATUTE.  AND WHILE PENAL STATUTES ARE NOT
TO BE CONSTRUED SO STRICTLY AS TO DEFEAT THE OBVIOUS INTENTION OF THE
LAWMAKER, NEVERTHELESS - "BEFORE ONE MAY BE PUNISHED, IT MUST APPEAR
THAT HIS CASE IS PLAINLY WITHIN THE STATUTE; THERE ARE NO CONSTRUCTIVE
OFFENSES."  UNITED STATES V. RESNICK, 299 U.S. 207, 210. 

WE THINK THE OPINION JUST HANDED DOWN UNDERTAKES TO IMPORT A MEANING
INTO THE PERTINENT STATUTE AT WAR WITH ITS WORDS.  THAT STATUTE
REQUIRES THE EXISTENCE OF FOUR DISTINCT ELEMENTS BEFORE THE ACCUSED CAN
BE HELD GUILTY OF VIOLATING IT:  (1) THE ADOPTION BY THE SECRETARY OF A
DISTINCTIVE PAPER FOR THE OBLIGATIONS AND OTHER SECURITIES OF THE
UNITED STATES; (2) POSSESSION OR RETENTION BY THE ACCUSED OF "SIMILAR
PAPER"; (3) THE PAPER TO BE "ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH
OBLIGATION OR OTHER SECURITY"; AND (4) THE POSSESSION OR RETENTION NOT
TO BE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OR SOME
OTHER PROPER OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE WORD "SIMILAR," IT IS TRUE, GENERALLY INDICATES RESEMBLANCE AND
NOT EXACT IDENTITY, ALTHOUGH IN SOME CASES IT MAY MEAN "IDENTICAL" OR
"EXACTLY LIKE."  FLETCHER V. INTERSTATE CHEMICAL CO., 94 N.J.L. 332,
334; 110 ATL. 709.  THE DISTINCTION IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE DECISION OF
THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN COMMONWEALTH V. FONTAIN,
127 MASS. 452, 454, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE WORDS "SIMILAR OFFENSE"
MEANT AN OFFENSE IDENTICAL IN KIND.  THE COURT SAID, "THE WORD
'SIMILAR' IS OFTEN USED TO DENOTE A PARTIAL RESEMBLANCE ONLY.  BUT IT
IS ALSO OFTEN USED TO DENOTE SAMENESS IN ALL ESSENTIAL PARTICULARS.  WE
THINK THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO USE IT IN THE LATTER SENSE IN THE
STATUTE WE ARE CONSIDERING."  TO DETERMINE THE PRECISE MEANING OF THE
WORD HERE, WE MUST TURN TO THE STATUTE.  THE CRUCIAL ELEMENTS THERE
DISCLOSED ARE THOSE EMBRACED BY CLAUSE (2), REQUIRING THAT THE PAPER
POSSESSED OR RETAINED BE "SIMILAR PAPER" TO THAT ADOPTED BY THE
SECRETARY, AND BY CLAUSE (3) WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE PAPER BE ADAPTED
TO THE MAKING OF "SUCH" OBLIGATION OR SECURITY.  IT IS AS NECESSARY TO
GIVE APPROPRIATE EFFECT TO THE LATTER CLAUSE AS IT IS TO THE FORMER. 
IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE PAPER WOULD BE "SIMILAR" PAPER WITHIN THE
MEANING OF CLAUSE (2) STANDING ALONE; FOR IT DOES NOT STAND ALONE, BUT
IS ASSOCIATED WITH AND QUALIFIED BY CLAUSE (3).  NOTHING IS BETTER
SETTLED IN THE LAW OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION THAN THE RULE THAT WORDS
BY THEMSELVES MAY HAVE A PARTICULAR MEANING, BUT THAT THIS MEANING MAY
BE ENLARGED OR RESTRICTED WHEN CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER
ASSOCIATED WORDS.  AND THIS IS MORE ESPECIALLY TRUE WHERE THE
ASSOCIATED WORDS SUPPLEMENT AND QUALIFY THE PRECEDING ONES AS THEY DO
HERE. 

IN ORDER TO APPLY THE RULE, WE MUST ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE
(3), SINCE THAT ADDS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE SIMILAR PAPER SHALL BE
ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF "SUCH" OBLIGATION OR SECURITY.  THAT IS TO
SAY, WE FIRST MUST DETERMINE THE IMPORT OF THE WORD "SUCH"; AND THAT IS
DISCLOSED BY CLAUSE (1), PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF DISTINCTIVE
PAPER FOR THE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  THIS
MEANS, AND CAN ONLY MEAN, GENUINE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES, SINCE IT
CANNOT BE SUPPOSED EITHER THAT THE SECRETARY, BY CLAUSE (1), IS
AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT PAPER FOR ANY THAT ARE NOT GENUINE, OR THAT HIS
AUTHORITY UNDER CLAUSE (4) IS NOT ALONE TO PERMIT POSSESSION OF PAPER
ADAPTED TO MAKING GENUINE OBLIGATIONS BUT EXTENDS TO PAPER WHICH
RESEMBLES THE ADOPTED PAPER ONLY ENOUGH TO MAKE IT ADAPTABLE FOR
COUNTERFEITING THOSE OBLIGATIONS.  IT FOLLOWS, NECESSARILY, THAT IT IS
GENUINE OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES AND NOT COUNTERFEITS OF THEM THAT
ARE EMBRACED BY THE WORD "SUCH" IN CLAUSE (3). 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE WERE NOT MEANT TO COVER COUNTERFEITING,
OR PREPARATIONS ANTECEDENT TO COUNTERFEITING.  THEIR WHOLE PURPOSE WAS
TO PENALIZE POSSESSION OR RETENTION BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS OF THE
DISTINCTIVE KIND OF PAPER WHICH THE SECRETARY HAS ADOPTED FOR THE
MAKING OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES; LANGUAGE WHICH, AS WE
HAVE SAID, NECESSARILY IMPORTS GENUINE OBLIGATIONS, BECAUSE IF NOT
GENUINE THEY WOULD NOT BE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AT ALL. 
THE GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER, TAKES THE VIEW THAT THE STATUTE EXTENDS TO THE
POSSESSION OF PAPER SUITABLE, NOT FOR MAKING GENUINE OBLIGATIONS, BUT
FOR COUNTERFEITING THEM.  AND THIS VIEW, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, IS ALSO
TAKEN BY THE COURT IN ITS PRESENT OPINION.  THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT
VIEW, HOWEVER, IS THAT IT REQUIRES THE INTRODUCTION OF AN AMENDMENT SO
THAT CLAUSE (3), INSTEAD OF READING "ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH
OBLIGATION," ETC., WILL READ "ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF COUNTERFEITS OF
ANY SUCH OBLIGATION," ETC.  SUCH AN ASSUMPTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IS
INADMISSIBLE.    THAT THE PAPER HERE IN QUESTION, EVEN IF IN THE HANDS
OF THE TREASURY, WAS NOT ADAPTED TO THE MAKING OF GENUINE OBLIGATIONS,
IS BEYOND DISPUTE.  THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF THE PAPER ADOPTED BY THE
SECRETARY IS THE PRESENCE OF SHORT, FINE RED-AND-BLUE SILK FIBERS
IMPREGNATED IN AND DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT A HIGH-GRADE RAG BOND PAPER. 
THESE SILK FIBERS ARE ENTIRELY ABSENT FROM THE PAPER HERE IN QUESTION;
AND WHILE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED FOR COUNTERFEITING GOVERNMENT
OBLIGATIONS, IT WAS NOT ADAPTED TO MAKING THE GENUINE ARTICLES.  THE
PRESENT DECISION BRINGS WITHIN THE REACH OF THE STATUTE EVERY STATIONER
WHO HAS IN HIS POSSESSION FOR SALE ANY HIGH-GRADE RAG BOND PAPER, IF IT
IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED FOR COUNTERFEITING GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS. 
FOR THE STATUTE, IT WILL BE OBSERVED, REQUIRES NO CRIMINAL INTENT, AND
NOTHING BEYOND MERE POSSESSION OR RETENTION. 

THE VIEW OF THE STATUTE WHICH WE HAVE EXPRESSED WAS ADOPTED THIRTY
YEARS AGO BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT IN
KRAKOWSKI V. UNITED STATES, 161 FED. 88.  IN THE MEANTIME, CONGRESS HAS
LEFT THE STATUTE IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM.  THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT SEE FIT
TO ASK REVIEW OF THE KRAKOWSKI CASE, BUT HAS APPARENTLY ACQUIESCED IN
IT FOR ALL THOSE YEARS.  THIS COURT SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO DISREGARD
THE ESTABLISHED RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO REMEDY A
SITUATION WHICH CONGRESS COULD HAVE CURED, AND MAY STILL CURE, BY A
SIMPLE ACT OF LEGISLATION.  WE THINK THE WELL-REASONED OPINION OF THE
COURT BELOW SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND ITS JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 
..END :



HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 302 U.S. 375 


NO. 583.  MOTION TO DISMISS.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1937.  - 275 N.Y.
382 - 9 N.E.(2D) 970, APPEAL DISMISSED. 


THAT AN ACTION TO RECOVER A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR ANY INDEBTEDNESS SECURED
BY MORTGAGE MAY NOT BE MAINTAINED AFTER THE MORTGAGED PREMISES HAVE
BEEN SOLD UNDER A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE, UNLESS THE RIGHT TO
A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT HAS BEEN DETERMINED IN THE FORECLOSURE SUIT, DID
NOT IMPAIR THE CONTRACT RIGHTS (CONST.  ART.  I, SEC. 10) OF ONE WHO,
HAVING FORECLOSED A MORTGAGE AND BEEN DENIED A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, WAS
PREVENTED BY THE STATUTE FROM ENFORCING, BY SEPARATE ACTION, A BOND
SECURING THE MORTGAGE DEBT COLLATERALLY, AGAINST ONE WHO WAS PARTY TO
THE FORECLOSURE SUIT, AND AGAINST WHOM A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN AWARDED IN THE FORECLOSURE SUIT, BUT AS TO WHOM IT WAS
DISCONTINUED AFTER A MOTION FOR DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT WAS DENIED.  THE
QUESTION RELATES TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION IN THE STATE
COURTS.  P. 378. 

HONEYMAN V. HANAN, EXECUTOR. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT DISMISSING AN ACTION ON A BOND. 
AN EARLIER PHASE OF THE CASE IS REPORTED IN 300 U.S. 14. 

PER CURIAM. 

UPON THE PRIOR APPEAL, THE CAUSE WAS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
TO THE END THAT UNCERTAINTY MIGHT BE REMOVED AND THAT THE PRECISE
NATURE OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION, HOW IT WAS RAISED AND THE GROUNDS OF
ITS DISPOSITION, MIGHT BE DEFINITELY SET FORTH.  300 U.S. 14, 26.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE HAS HEARD REARGUMENT AND HAS DEFINED THE
FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH IT HAS DECIDED.  275 N.Y. 382; 9 N.E.(2D) 970. 
THE COURT AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT WHICH DISMISSED THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
UPON THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A
CAUSE OF ACTION.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL WHICH APPELLEE MOVES TO
DISMISS FOR THE WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

THE BOND IN SUIT IS A COLLATERAL BOND "WHICH BINDS THE OBLIGOR
INDIRECTLY TO PAY THE EXISTING MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS."  THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT SET FORTH THE OBLIGATION OF THE BOND AND THE BREACH OF
CONDITION.  IT ALLEGED THAT AN ACTION, TO WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PARTY,
HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO FORECLOSE THE MORTGAGE; THAT PURSUANT TO JUDGMENT
THEREIN THE MORTGAGED PREMISES WERE SOLD AND THE PROCEEDS WERE APPLIED
ON ACCOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS; AND THAT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION A
MOTION WAS DULY MADE FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT WHICH WAS DENIED. 
FOR ANY RESIDUE OF THE DEBT REMAINING UNSATISFIED AFTER SALE OF THE
MORTGAGED PROPERTY EXCEPT AS THEREIN PROVIDED.  SECTION 1083-B GOVERNS
ACTIONS, OTHER THAN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, TO RECOVER JUDGMENT FOR ANY
INDEBTEDNESS SECURED SOLELY BY A MORTGAGE UPON REAL PROPERTY, "AGAINST
ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OR CONTINGENTLY LIABLE
THEREFOR."  THE STATE COURT HAS HELD THAT SEC. 1083-A IS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE "AN EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT FOR ANY
RESIDUE OF A DEBT SECURED BY A MORTGAGE AFTER SALE OF THE MORTGAGED
PREMISES."  THE STATE COURT HAS ALSO RULED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A
PARTY TO THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND UPON PROPER PROOF THE FINAL
JUDGMENT THEREIN "MIGHT HAVE AWARDED PAYMENT BY HIM OF THE RESIDUE OF
THE DEBT REMAINING UNSATISFIED AFTER A SALE OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY,
AND 'APPLICATION OF THE PROCEEDS, PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED
THEREIN.'"  THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED AS TO HIM ONLY
AFTER A MOTION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT WAS DENIED. 

APPELLANT CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF SECS. 1083-A AND 1083-B.  AS TO
THE FEDERAL QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT SUIT THE STATE COURT HAS
SAID: 

"WE ARE NOT ADVISED WHETHER IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION THE PLAINTIFF
CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF SECTION 1083-A.  EVEN IF THE PLAINTIFF DID
PROPERLY CHALLENGE IN THAT ACTION THE VALIDITY OF SECTION 1083-A, WE
COULD NOT UPON THIS APPEAL CONSIDER THAT CHALLENGE, FOR NO ORDER OR
JUDGMENT IN THAT ACTION IS BEFORE US FOR REVIEW.  ON THIS APPEAL WE
REVIEW ONLY THE DECISION THAT AFTER DENIAL OF A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT IN
THE FORECLOSURE ACTION UPON A MOTION MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 1083-A,
THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION TO RECOVER UPON THE
BOND WHICH THE DEFENDANT'S TESTATOR, HERBERT W. HANAN, SIGNED AS
OBLIGOR.  THE CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE
RAISES THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION WHETHER THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
CONTRACT ARE IMPAIRED AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES VIOLATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 1083-A AND
1083-B, WHICH PROVIDE THAT DURING THE EMERGENCY PERIOD AN ACTION TO
RECOVER A MONEY JUDGMENT FOR ANY INDEBTEDNESS SECURED BY MORTGAGE MAY
NOT BE MAINTAINED AFTER THE MORTGAGED PREMISES HAVE BEEN SOLD UNDER A
JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE, UNLESS THE RIGHT TO A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT HAS BEEN DETERMINED IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION.  WE DECIDED
THAT QUESTION AGAINST THE APPELLANT AFTER THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT.  WE
ADHERE TO THAT DECISION NOW." 

IN VIEW OF THIS RULING AS TO THE EXCLUSIVE PROCEDURE FOR WHICH SEC.
1083-A PROVIDES, IT APPEARS THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION NOW RAISED IS
SIMPLY WHETHER THE STATE LEGISLATION WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE RIGHT TO A
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION
VIOLATES THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  ARTICLE I,
SEC. 10.  THAT QUESTION RELATES TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION IN
THE STATE COURTS.  THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO
CONTROL THE POWER OF A STATE TO DETERMINE BY WHAT PROCESS LEGAL RIGHTS
MAY BE ASSERTED OR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS BE ENFORCED, PROVIDED THE METHOD
OF PROCEDURE GIVES REASONABLE NOTICE AND AFFORDS FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE
HEARD BEFORE THE ISSUES ARE DECIDED.  THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF
THE STATE LEGISLATION COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION
AND BROUGHT TO THIS COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE RULES. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RIGHT TO A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
DETERMINED IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS AGAINST ONE WHO WAS A PARTY TO
THAT ACTION RAISES NO SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION.  TERRY V. ANDERSON,
95 U.S. 628, 633; IOWA CENTRAL RY. CO. V. IOWA, 160 U.S. 389, 393;
BACKUS V. FORT STREET UNION DEPOT CO., 169 U.S. 557, 569; CINCINNATI
STREET RY. CO. V. SNELL, 193 U.S. 30, 37; GASQUET V. LAPEYRE, 242 U.S.
367, 369; GIBBES V. ZIMMERMAN, 290 U.S. 326, 332; LANSING DROP FORGE
CO. V. AMERICAN STATE BANK, 297 U.S. 697; CHISHOLM V. GILMER, 299 U.S.
99, 102.  THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 
..END :




NARDONE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 379 


NO. 190.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 1937.  - 90
F.(2D) 630, REVERSED. 


1.  IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 605 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF
1934, 47 U.S.C. SEC. 605, EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY FEDERAL AGENTS BY
TAPPING TELEPHONE WIRES AND INTERCEPTING MESSAGES IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN
A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  P. 382. 

2.  IN THE PROVISION OF SEC. 605 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934,
THAT "NO PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER SHALL INTERCEPT ANY
COMMUNICATION AND DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE EXISTENCE, CONTENTS,
SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT OR MEANING OF SUCH INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION
TO ANY PERSON;..."  THE PHRASE "NO PERSON" EMBRACES FEDERAL AGENTS
ENGAGED IN THE DETECTION OF CRIME; AND TO "DIVULGE" AN INTERCEPTED
COMMUNICATION TO "ANY PERSON" EMBRACES TESTIMONY IN A COURT AS TO THE
CONTENTS OF SUCH A COMMUNICATION.  P. 383. 

3.  EVIDENCE IN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE REPORTS INDICATING THAT THE
MAJOR PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT WAS THE TRANSFER OF
JURISDICTION OVER WIRE AND RADIO COMMUNICATION TO THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT, HELD INSUFFICIENT TO NEGATIVE THE PLAIN
MANDATE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 605 FORBIDDING WIRE-TAPPING.  P.
382. 

4.  WHETHER WIRE-TAPPING AS AN AID IN THE DETECTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
CRIME SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO FEDERAL AGENTS IS A QUESTION OF POLICY FOR
THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONGRESS.  P. 383. 

5.  THE CANON THAT THE GENERAL WORDS OF A STATUTE DO NOT INCLUDE THE
GOVERNMENT OR AFFECT ITS RIGHTS, UNLESS THAT CONSTRUCTION BE CLEAR AND
INDISPUTABLE FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, IS INAPPLICABLE TO THIS
CASE; BUT APPLICABLE IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE SOVEREIGN IS EMBRACED BY
GENERAL WORDS OF A STATUTE INTENDED TO PREVENT INJURY AND WRONG.  PP.
383-384. 

NARDONE ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 668, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION ON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-SMUGGLING
ACT AND CONSPIRACY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION INVOLVED,  - WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 605 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934,  FN1
EVIDENCE PROCURED BY A FEDERAL OFFICER'S TAPPING TELEPHONE WIRES AND
INTERCEPTING MESSAGES IS ADMISSIBLE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN A UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT,  - MOVED US TO GRANT THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

THE INDICTMENT UNDER WHICH THE PETITIONERS WERE TRIED, CONVICTED, AND
SENTENCED, CHARGED, IN SEPARATE COUNTS, THE SMUGGLING OF ALCOHOL,
POSSESSION AND CONCEALMENT OF THE SMUGGLED ALCOHOL, AND CONSPIRACY TO
SMUGGLE AND CONCEAL IT.  OVER THE PETITIONERS' OBJECTION AND EXCEPTION
FEDERAL AGENTS TESTIFIED TO THE SUBSTANCE OF PETITIONERS' INTERSTATE
COMMUNICATIONS OVERHEARD BY THE WITNESSES WHO HAD INTERCEPTED THE
MESSAGES BY TAPPING TELEPHONE WIRES.  THE COURT BELOW, THOUGH IT FOUND
THIS EVIDENCE CONSTITUTED SUCH A VITAL PART OF THE PROSECUTION'S PROOF
THAT ITS ADMISSION, IF ERRONEOUS, AMOUNTED TO REVERSIBLE ERROR, HELD IT
WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.  FN2 

WHO, AS AN EMPLOYE, HAS TO DO WITH THE SENDING OR RECEIVING OF ANY
INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION BY WIRE SHALL DIVULGE OR PUBLISH IT OR ITS
SUBSTANCE TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ADDRESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OR TO AUTHORIZED FELLOW EMPLOYES, SAVE IN RESPONSE TO A
SUBPOENA ISSUED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION OR ON DEMAND OF
OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY; AND "NO PERSON NOT BEING AUTHORIZED BY THE
SENDER SHALL INTERCEPT ANY COMMUNICATION AND DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE
EXISTENCE, CONTENTS, SUBSTANCE, PURPORT, EFFECT OR MEANING OF SUCH
INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATION TO ANY PERSON;..."  SECTION 501  FN3
PENALIZES WILFUL AND KNOWING VIOLATION BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. 

TAKEN AT FACE VALUE THE PHRASE "NO PERSON" COMPREHENDS FEDERAL
AGENTS, AND THE BAN ON COMMUNICATION TO "ANY PERSON" BARS TESTIMONY TO
THE CONTENT OF AN INTERCEPTED MESSAGE.  SUCH AN APPLICATION OF THE
MESSAGES WITH THAT RELATING TO THOSE KNOWN TO EMPLOYES OF THE CARRIER. 
THE FORMER MAY NOT BE DIVULGED TO ANY PERSON, THE LATTER MAY BE
DIVULGED IN ANSWER TO A LAWFUL SUBPOENA. 

THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO PROHIBIT
TAPPING WIRES TO PROCURE EVIDENCE.  IT IS SAID THAT THIS COURT, IN
OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, HELD SUCH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE
AT COMMON LAW DESPITE THE FACT THAT A STATE STATUTE MADE WIRE-TAPPING A
CRIME; AND THE ARGUMENT PROCEEDS THAT SINCE THE OLMSTEAD DECISION
DEPARTMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF CONGRESS,
HAVE, TO A LIMITED EXTENT, PERMITTED THEIR AGENTS TO TAP WIRES IN AID
OF DETECTION AND CONVICTION OF CRIMINALS.  IT IS SHOWN THAT, IN SPITE
OF ITS KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRACTICE, CONGRESS REFRAINED FROM ADOPTING
LEGISLATION OUTLAWING IT, ALTHOUGH BILLS, SO PROVIDING, HAVE BEEN
INTRODUCED.  THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT, SO IT IS CLAIMED, WAS PASSED ONLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF REENACTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE RADIO ACT OF 1927
FN4 SO AS TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO WIRE MESSAGES AND TO TRANSFER
JURISDICTION OVER RADIO AND WIRE COMMUNICATIONS TO THE NEWLY
CONSTITUTED FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AND THEREFORE THE
PHRASEOLOGY OF THE STATUTE OUGHT NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS CHANGING THE
PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL PROVISION ON THE SUBJECT WHICH WAS A PART OF THE
RADIO ACT WHEN THE OLMSTEAD CASE WAS DECIDED. 

WE NEVERTHELESS FACE THE FACT THAT THE PLAIN WORDS OF SEC. 605 FORBID
ANYONE, UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE SENDER, TO INTERCEPT A TELEPHONE
MESSAGE, AND DIRECT IN EQUALLY CLEAR LANGUAGE THAT "NO PERSON" SHALL
DIVULGE OR PUBLISH THE MESSAGE OR ITS SUBSTANCE TO "ANY PERSON."  TO
RECITE THE CONTENTS OF THE MESSAGE IN TESTIMONY BEFORE A COURT IS TO
DIVULGE THE MESSAGE.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACT FORBIDS SUCH
TESTIMONY SEEMS TO US UNSHAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENTS. 

TRUE IT IS THAT AFTER THIS COURT'S DECISION IN THE OLMSTEAD CASE
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES INVESTIGATED THE WIRE-TAPPING ACTIVITIES OF
FEDERAL AGENTS.  OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL YEARS BILLS WERE INTRODUCED
TO PROHIBIT THE PRACTICE, ALL OF WHICH FAILED TO PASS.  AN ACT OF 1933
INCLUDED A CLAUSE FORBIDDING THIS METHOD OF PROCURING EVIDENCE OF
VIOLATIONS OF THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ACT.  FN5  DURING 1932, 1933 AND
1934, HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THE MATTER IN CONGRESS, AND
WE ARE WITHOUT CONTEMPORARY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RELEVANT TO THE PASSAGE
OF THE STATUTE IN QUESTION.  IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE COMMITTEE REPORTS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ACT DWELL UPON THE FACT
THAT THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION WAS THE TRANSFER OF
JURISDICTION OVER WIRE AND RADIO COMMUNICATION TO THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.  BUT THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, IN OUR
OPINION, INSUFFICIENT TO OVERBEAR THE PLAIN MANDATE OF THE STATUTE. 

IT IS URGED THAT A CONSTRUCTION BE GIVEN THE SECTION WHICH WOULD
EXCLUDE FEDERAL AGENTS SINCE IT IS IMPROBABLE CONGRESS INTENDED TO
HAMPER AND IMPEDE THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DETECTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF CRIME.  THE ANSWER IS THAT THE QUESTION IS ONE OF
POLICY.  CONGRESS MAY HAVE THOUGHT IT LESS IMPORTANT THAT SOME
OFFENDERS SHOULD GO UNWHIPPED OF JUSTICE THAN THAT OFFICERS SHOULD
RESORT TO METHODS DEEMED INCONSISTENT WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS AND
DESTRUCTIVE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY.  THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS MAY WELL HAVE
MOVED THE CONGRESS TO ADOPT SEC. 605 AS EVOKED THE GUARANTY AGAINST
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES VIOLATIVE OF PRIVACY, EMBODIED IN THE FOURTH
AND FIFTH AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE CANON THAT THE GENERAL WORDS OF A STATUTE DO NOT INCLUDE THE
GOVERNMENT OR AFFECT ITS RIGHTS UNLESS THE CONSTRUCTION BE CLEAR AND
INDISPUTABLE UPON THE TEXT OF THE ACT DOES NOT AID THE RESPONDENT.  THE
CASES IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN APPLIED FALL INTO TWO CLASSES.  THE FIRST IS
WHERE AN ACT, IF NOT SO LIMITED, WOULD DEPRIVE THE SOVEREIGN OF A
RECOGNIZED OR ESTABLISHED PREROGATIVE TITLE OR INTEREST.  FN6  A
CLASSICAL INSTANCE IS THE EXEMPTION OF THE STATE FROM THE OPERATION OF
GENERAL STATUTES OF LIMITATION.  FN7  THE RULE OF EXCLUSION OF THE
SOVEREIGN IS LESS STRINGENTLY APPLIED WHERE THE OPERATION OF THE LAW IS
UPON THE AGENTS OR SERVANTS OF THE GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN ON THE
SOVEREIGN ITSELF.  FN8 

THE SECOND CLASS,  - THAT WHERE PUBLIC OFFICERS ARE IMPLIEDLY
EXCLUDED FROM LANGUAGE EMBRACING ALL PERSONS,  - IS WHERE A READING
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE SUCH OFFICERS WOULD WORK OBVIOUS ABSURDITY AS, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE APPLICATION OF A SPEED LAW TO A POLICEMAN PURSUING A
CRIMINAL OR THE DRIVER OF A FIRE ENGINE RESPONDING TO AN ALARM.  FN9 

FOR YEARS CONTROVERSY HAS RAGED WITH RESPECT TO THE MORALITY OF THE
PRACTICE OF WIRE-TAPPING BY OFFICERS TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE.  IT HAS BEEN
THE VIEW OF MANY THAT THE PRACTICE INVOLVES A GRAVE WRONG.  IN THE
LIGHT OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE THINK ANOTHER WELL RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE
LEADS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE AS IT IS WRITTEN SO AS TO
INCLUDE WITHIN ITS SWEEP FEDERAL OFFICERS AS WELL AS OTHERS.  THAT
PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE SOVEREIGN IS EMBRACED BY GENERAL WORDS OF A
STATUTE INTENDED TO PREVENT INJURY AND WRONG.  FN10 

THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  CH. 652, 48 STAT. 1064, 1103; U.S.C. TIT. 47, SEC. 605. 

FN2  90 F.(2D) 630.  SEE ALSO SMITH V. UNITED STATES, 91 F.(2D) 556. 

FN3  CH. 652, 48 STAT. 1064, 1100, U.S.C. TIT. 47, SEC. 501. 

FN4  ACT OF FEB. 23, 1927, C. 169, 44 STAT. 1162. 

FN5  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATION ACT OF MARCH 1, 1933, 47
STAT. 1381. 

FN6  DOLLAR SAVINGS BANK V. UNITED STATES, 19 WALL.  227, 239; UNITED
STATES V. HERRON, 20 WALL.  251, 263; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN BELL
TELEPHONE CO., 159 U.S. 548, 554; UNITED STATES V. STEVENSON, 215 U.S.
190, 197; TITLE GUARANTY & SURETY CO. V. GUARANTEE TITLE & TRUST CO.,
174 FED. 385, 388; MAXWELL, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES (7TH ED.)  117,
121; BLACK ON INTERPRETATION OF LAWS (2D ED.)  94. 

FN7  UNITED STATES V. HOAR, 2 MASON 311, 314-315. 

FN8  "THE PROHIBITIONS (AGAINST ANY FORM OF ACTION EXCEPT THAT
SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE) IF ANY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED  ...  ARE
FOR OTHERS, NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  THEY MAY BE OBLIGATORY ON TAX
COLLECTORS.  THEY MAY PREVENT ANY SUIT AT LAW BY SUCH OFFICERS OR
AGENTS."  DOLLAR SAVINGS BANK V. UNITED STATES, 19 WALL.  227, 239. 
"THESE PROVISIONS UNMISTAKABLY DISCLOSE DEFINITE INTENTION ON THE PART
OF CONGRESS EFFECTIVELY TO SAFEGUARD RIVERS AND OTHER NAVIGABLE WATERS
AGAINST THE UNAUTHORIZED ERECTION THEREIN OF DAMS OR OTHER STRUCTURES
FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER.  THE PLAINTIFF MAINTAINS THAT THE
RESTRICTIONS SO IMPOSED APPLY ONLY TO WORK UNDERTAKEN BY PRIVATE
PARTIES.  BUT NO SUCH INTENTION IS EXPRESSED, AND WE ARE OF OPINION
THAT NONE IS IMPLIED.  THE MEASURES ADOPTED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
PRESCRIBED RULE ARE IN GENERAL TERMS AND PURPORT TO BE APPLICABLE TO
ALL.  NO VALID REASON HAS BEEN OR CAN BE SUGGESTED WHY THEY SHOULD
APPLY TO PRIVATE PERSONS AND NOT TO FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICERS.  THERE
IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT REGULATORY AND DISCIPLINARY MEASURES DO NOT
EXTEND TO SUCH OFFICERS.  TAKEN AT FACE VALUE THE LANGUAGE INDICATES
THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO GOVERN CONDUCT OF ITS OWN OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS THAT OF OTHERS."  UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA, 295
U.S. 174, 184.  COMPARE STANLEY V. SCHWALBY, 147 U.S. 508, 515;
DONNELLEY V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 505, 511. 

FN9  BALTHASAR V. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RY. CO., 187 CAL. 302; 202 PAC.
37; STATE V. GORHAM, 110 WASH. 330; 188 PAC. 457. 

FN10  UNITED STATES V. KNIGHT, 14 PET. 301, 315; UNITED STATES V.
HERRON, 20 WALL.  251, 263; BLACK ON INTERPRETATION OF LAWS (2D ED.) 
97. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE WORD "PERSON" USED IN THIS STATUTE DOES NOT INCLUDE AN
OFFICER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN THE DETECTION OF
CRIME AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTES OF THE UNITED
STATES, WHO HAS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A TELEPHONE IS BEING, OR IS
ABOUT TO BE, USED AS AN AID TO THE COMMISSION OR CONCEALMENT OF A
CRIME.  THE DECISION JUST MADE WILL NECESSARILY HAVE THE EFFECT OF
ENABLING THE MOST DEPRAVED CRIMINALS TO FURTHER THEIR CRIMINAL PLANS
OVER THE TELEPHONE, IN THE SECURE KNOWLEDGE THAT EVEN IF THESE PLANS
INVOLVE KIDNAPPING AND MURDER, THEIR TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS CAN NEVER
BE INTERCEPTED BY OFFICERS OF THE LAW AND REVEALED IN COURT.  IF
CONGRESS THUS INTENDED TO TIE THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS EFFORT
TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE AGAINST LAWLESSNESS OF THE MOST SERIOUS
CHARACTER, IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO IN A MORE DEFINITE WAY THAN BY THE USE
OF THE AMBIGUOUS WORD "PERSON."  COMMONWEALTH V. WELOSKY, 276 MASS.
398, 403-404, 406; 177 N.E. 656.  FOR THAT WORD HAS SOMETIMES BEEN
CONSTRUED TO INCLUDE THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS OFFICIALS, AND SOMETIMES
NOT.  I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY CASE WHERE IT HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT INCLUSIVE
EFFECT IN A SITUATION SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE.  OBVIOUSLY, THE SITUATION
DEALT WITH IN UNITED STATES V. ARIZONA, 295 U.S. 174, WAS QUITE
DIFFERENT.  THERE, A FEDERAL STATUTE FORBADE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY
BRIDGE, ETC., IN ANY PORT, ETC., "UNTIL THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS ...
SHALL HAVE BEEN OBTAINED."  THE MERE BUILDING OF THE DESIGNATED
STRUCTURE, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT, VIOLATED THE
STATUTE.  THERE WAS NO AMBIGUOUS TERM, SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE, OR
ANYTHING ELSE IN THE LANGUAGE, REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION. 

THERE IS A MANIFEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CASE OF A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL WHO INTERCEPTS A MESSAGE FROM MOTIVES OF CURIOSITY OR TO
FURTHER PERSONAL ENDS, AND THAT OF A RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL ENGAGED IN
THE GOVERNMENTAL DUTY OF UNCOVERING CRIME AND BRINGING CRIMINALS TO
JUSTICE.  IT IS FAIR TO CONCLUDE THAT THE WORD "PERSON" AS HERE USED
WAS INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE FORMER BUT NOT THE LATTER.  THIS ACCORDS
WITH THE WELL-SETTLED GENERAL RULE STATED BY JUSTICE STORY IN UNITED
STATES V. HOAR, 2 MASON 311, 314-315; 26 FED. CAS. 329, 330:  "IN
GENERAL, ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE ARE MEANT TO REGULATE AND DIRECT THE
ACTS AND RIGHTS OF CITIZENS; AND IN MOST CASES THE REASONING APPLICABLE
TO THEM APPLIES WITH VERY DIFFERENT, AND OFTEN CONTRARY FORCE TO THE
GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  IT APPEARS TO ME, THEREFORE, TO BE A SAFE RULE
FOUNDED IN THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON LAW, THAT THE GENERAL WORDS OF
A STATUTE OUGHT NOT TO INCLUDE THE GOVERNMENT, OR AFFECT ITS RIGHTS,
UNLESS THAT CONSTRUCTION BE CLEAR AND INDISPUTABLE UPON THE TEXT OF THE
ACT."  AND SEE IN THE MATTER OF WILL OF FOX, 52 N.Y. 530, 535.  COMPARE
STATE V. GORHAM, 110 WASH. 330; 188 PAC. 457; BALTHASAR V. PACIFIC
ELECTRIC RY. CO., 187 CAL. 302, 305-308; 202 PAC. 37.  A CASE IN POINT
IS THAT OF PEOPLE V. HEBBERD (SUP. CT. N.Y.), 96 MISC. 617, 620-621;
162 N.Y.S. 80.    IN THE INVESTIGATIONS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES, REFERRED TO IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, IT APPEARED THAT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD ORDERED THAT NO TAPPING OF WIRES SHOULD BE
PERMITTED WITHOUT THE PERSONAL DIRECTION OF THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU,
AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CHARGE OF THE
CASE; AND THAT SUCH MEANS WERE TO BE ADOPTED ONLY AS AN EMERGENCY
METHOD.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIMSELF APPEARED BEFORE ONE OF THE
COMMITTEES AND POINTED OUT THAT CRIME HAD BECOME HIGHLY ORGANIZED, WITH
STRONG POLITICAL CONNECTIONS AND ILLEGAL METHODS OF PROCEDURE; THAT
GANGSTERS AND DESPERATE CRIMINALS HAD EQUIPPED THEMSELVES WITH EVERY
MODERN CONVENIENCE AND INVENTION; THAT MODERN GANGSTERS HAVE NO REGARD
FOR LIFE, PROPERTY, DECENCY OR ANYTHING ELSE; AND HE HAD NO DOUBT THAT
THEY TAPPED WIRES LEADING TO OFFICES OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS TO
FIND OUT WHAT WAS BEING DONE.  HE CITED THE CASE OF A BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION AGENT WHO HAD BEEN FOUND SHOT TO DEATH UNDER
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH INDICATED THAT A GANG OF NARCOTIC TRAFFICKERS HAD
MURDERED HIM; AND HE POSED THE QUESTION WHETHER, IF IT HAD APPEARED
THAT THE PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME COULD BE DETECTED AND BROUGHT TO
JUSTICE BY TAPPING THEIR TELEPHONE WIRES, NEVERTHELESS, THAT OUGHT NOT
TO BE DONE. 

THE ANSWER OF CONGRESS TO THE QUESTION HAS BEEN A REFUSAL TO PASS ANY
OF THE BILLS WHICH COMPREHENSIVELY PROPOSED TO FORBID THE PRACTICE. 

MY ABHORRENCE OF THE ODIOUS PRACTICES OF THE TOWN GOSSIP, THE PEEPING
TOM, AND THE PRIVATE EAVESDROPPER IS QUITE AS STRONG AS THAT OF ANY OF
MY BRETHREN.  BUT TO PUT THE SWORN OFFICERS OF THE LAW, ENGAGED IN THE
DETECTION AND APPREHENSION OF ORGANIZED GANGS OF CRIMINALS, IN THE SAME
CATEGORY, IS TO LOSE ALL SENSE OF PROPORTION.  IN VIEW OF THE
SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE OF POWER FURNISHED BY THE ORDER OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEADLY CONFLICT CONSTANTLY
BEING WAGED BETWEEN THE FORCES OF LAW AND ORDER AND THE DESPERATE
CRIMINALS WHO INFEST THE LAND, WE WELL MAY PAUSE TO CONSIDER WHETHER
THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE WHICH FORBIDS AN INVASION OF THE PRIVACY OF
TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS IS NOT BEING CARRIED IN THE PRESENT CASE TO A
POINT WHERE THE NECESSITY OF PUBLIC PROTECTION AGAINST CRIME IS BEING
SUBMERGED BY AN OVERFLOW OF SENTIMENTALITY. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :








SMYTH V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 329 


NO. 42.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 19, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 13, 1937.  -
85 CT. CLS. 318 -  83 CT. CLS. 656, AFFIRMED.  - 87 F.(2D) 594,
REVERSED. 


1.  BONDS OF THE UNITED STATES PROMISING PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND
INTEREST IN UNITED STATES GOLD COIN OF THE STANDARD OF VALUE IN FORCE
AT THE TIME OF THEIR ISSUANCE (25.8 GRAINS OF GOLD 9/10THS FINE PER
DOLLAR) WERE CALLED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR REDEMPTION AND
PAYMENT PRIOR TO THEIR STATED DAY OF MATURITY, PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS
THEREIN WHICH RESERVED THIS RIGHT TO THE UNITED STATES TO BE EXERCISED
THROUGH A PUBLISHED NOTICE, AND WHICH DECLARED THAT FROM THE DATE OF
REDEMPTION DESIGNATED IN SUCH NOTICE INTEREST ON THE CALLED BONDS
SHOULD CEASE AND ALL COUPONS THEREON MATURING AFTER THAT DATE SHOULD BE
VOID.  PRIOR TO THE NOTICES, THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933,
PROVIDING FOR THE DISCHARGE OF "GOLD CLAUSE" OBLIGATIONS UPON PAYMENT,
DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, IN ANY COIN OR CURRENCY WHICH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT
IS LEGAL TENDER FOR PRIVATE DEBTS, HAD BEEN ADOPTED; AND IN TWO OF THE
CASES THE NOTICES WERE LATER THAN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN THE
GOLD CLAUSE CASES, INCLUDING PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330. 
HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE EFFECT OF THE PUBLISHED NOTICE WAS TO ACCELERATE THE
MATURITY OF THE BONDS, THE NEW DATE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE SUPPLANTING
THE OLD ONE STATED IN THE BONDS AS IF THERE FROM THE BEGINNING.  P.
353. 

(2)  HOLDERS OF THE BONDS HAD NO CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON
INTEREST COUPONS COVERING A PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE NEW DATE, SINCE BY
THE TERMS OF THE BONDS INTEREST CEASED TO RUN ON THAT DATE.  P. 353. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT OR STATUTE EVINCING A CONTRARY INTENTION,
INTEREST DOES NOT RUN UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT EVEN THOUGH
THERE HAS BEEN DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL.  THE ALLOWANCE OF
INTEREST IN EMINENT DOMAIN CASES IS ONLY AN APPARENT EXCEPTION, WHICH
HAS ITS ORIGIN IN THE CONSTITUTION. 

(3)  THE PROPOSITION THAT THE NOTICES OF CALL WERE VOID, UPON THE
GROUND THAT THEY MUST BE READ WITH THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5,
1933, AND, THUS SUPPLEMENTED, PROMISED PAYMENT DIFFERENT FROM THAT
PROMISED BY THE BONDS, CAN NOT BE MAINTAINED.  P. 354. 

THE NOTICES OF CALL WERE NOT PROMISES, AND DID NOT COMMIT THE
GOVERNMENT, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY INDIRECTION, TO A FORBIDDEN MEDIUM
OF PAYMENT.  NOTICE THAT THE BONDS WERE CALLED FOR REDEMPTION ON THE
SPECIFIED DATE IMPLIED THAT AT THAT ACCELERATED MATURITY THE
BONDHOLDERS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND ACCRUED
INTEREST IN SUCH FORM AND MEASURE AS WOULD DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION, STATUTES AND ANY CONTROLLING
DECISIONS. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE EXISTENCE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION, SUPRA,
AMOUNTED TO AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH, IS EXAMINED AND REJECTED.  THE
DOCTRINE OF ANTICIPATORY BREACH HAS IN GENERAL NO APPLICATION TO
UNILATERAL CONTRACTS, AND PARTICULARLY TO CONTRACTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF
MONEY ONLY.  MOREOVER, AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH, IF IT WERE MADE OUT,
COULD HAVE NO EFFECT UPON THE RIGHT OF THE COMPLAINING BONDHOLDERS TO
POSTPONE THE TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE DATE OF NATURAL MATURITY.  THE
GOVERNMENT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A DUTY TO KEEP THE CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR
CONSTANT DURING THE PERIOD INTERVENING BETWEEN PROMISE AND
PERFORMANCE.  THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT WAS TO PAY THE BONDS WHEN
DUE.  P. 356. 

THE FACT THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENT IN ANY LEGAL
TENDER REMAINED UNREPEALED DID NOT AFFECT THE DATE OF MATURITY AS
ACCELERATED BY THE NOTICES. 

(4)  NO QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, NOR OF FRAUD, IS INVOLVED IN
THE DECISION OF THESE CASES.  P. 359. 

(5)  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY DID NOT EXCEED HIS LAWFUL POWERS
BY ISSUING THE CALLS WITHOUT FURTHER AUTHORITY FROM THE CONGRESS THAN
WAS CONFERRED BY THE STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE BONDS WERE ISSUED.  P.
359. 

2.  THE ACT OF MARCH 18, 1869(R.S. SEC. 3693; 16 STAT. 1), WHICH IN
ITS DAY PLACED RESTRICTIONS UPON THE REDEMPTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
INTEREST-BEARING BONDS, WAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOLDERS OF UNITED
STATES OBLIGATIONS NOT BEARING INTEREST, THE "GREENBACKS" OF THAT ERA. 
UPON THE RESUMPTION OF SPECIE PAYMENTS IN 1879 THE AIM OF THE STATUTE
WAS ACHIEVED, AND ITS RESTRICTIONS ARE NO LONGER BINDING.  P. 360. 

SMYTH, EXECUTOR, V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 43, DIXIE TERMINAL CO. V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS; AND NO. 198, UNITED STATES
V. MACHEN, ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 679, 680; POST, P. 672, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS IN
THREE SUITS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES TO RECOVER ON INTEREST COUPONS
ATTACHED TO GOVERNMENT BONDS CONTAINING THE GOLD CLAUSE, WHICH HAD BEEN
CALLED FOR REDEMPTION.  IN NOS. 42 AND 43, THE COURT OF CLAIMS
DISMISSED THE CLAIMS.  IN NO. 198, THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WAS REVERSED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
IN THE FIRST TWO CASES THE PLAINTIFFS HAD PRESENTED THEIR BONDS TO THE
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND DEMANDED PAYMENT IN GOLD DOLLARS
EACH OF 25.8 GRAINS OF GOLD 9/10THS FINE, AND DECLINED A TENDER IN COIN
OR CURRENCY OTHER THAN GOLD OR GOLD CERTIFICATES.  THEY HAD THEN
DEMANDED, UNSUCCESSFULLY, THAT COUPONS FOR INTEREST PERIODS SUBSEQUENT
TO THE DATE FIXED IN THE CALLS FOR REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS, BE PAID
EITHER IN GOLD OR IN LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY.  THEIR SUITS WERE FOR THE
AMOUNTS OF THE COUPONS IN CURRENT DOLLARS.  IN NO. 198 THE SITUATION
WAS SIMILAR.  THERE HAD BEEN NO PRESENTATION OF THE BOND OR COUPON FOR
PAYMENT, BUT IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES
AND OTHER FISCAL AGENTS HAD NOT AT ANY TIME BEEN DIRECTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO REDEEM THE BONDS IN GOLD COIN, BUT HAD
BEEN AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO REDEEM IN LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY; ALSO
THAT THERE WAS A REFUSAL TO PAY SIMILAR COUPONS FOR INTEREST ACCRUING
AFTER THE DATE OF REDEMPTION. 

1.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOND AND CIRCULAR WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT
IN GOLD COIN ARE VALID UNDER THE PERRY DECISION, IN SPITE OF THE
LEGISLATION ADOPTED BY CONGRESS. 

IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE GOVERNMENT
WAS OBLIGATED TO PAY THE PETITIONER'S BOND IN GOLD COIN OF THE FORMER
STANDARD OF VALUE, AND THAT THIS OBLIGATION REMAINS BINDING UPON THE
CONSCIENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN. 

THE LACK OF REMEDY IS NOT MATERIAL, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT
SUING FOR GOLD.  THE PLAINTIFF IN THE PERRY CASE FAILED TO RECOVER
BECAUSE HE ATTEMPTED TO OBTAIN ARBITRARILY AN AMOUNT OF CURRENCY IN
EXCESS OF THE FACE AMOUNT OF HIS BOND, WITHOUT ALLEGING OR PROVING ANY
DIRECT DAMAGES TO HIMSELF RESULTING FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S REPUDIATION
OF ITS OBLIGATION.  BUT IN THIS CASE THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT SEEKING A
REMEDY; IT IS THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS ATTEMPTING TO EXERCISE A
PRIVILEGE GIVEN TO IT BY THE TERMS OF THE BOND, AT THE SAME TIME THAT
IT IS REPUDIATING ITS OBLIGATION CONTAINED IN THAT BOND.  THE
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT HE MAY HOLD HIS BOND UNTIL MATURITY, AT WHICH
TIME THE GOLD STANDARD MAY BE RESTORED, OR THE VALUE OF THE GOLD DOLLAR
INCREASED.  IF NOT, THE PETITIONER WILL NO DOUBT BE OBLIGED TO ACCEPT
CURRENCY IN PAYMENT OF THE BOND.  ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT IS LEGALLY
AND MORALLY OBLIGATED TO PAY THIS BOND IN GOLD, IT IS NOW TRYING TO
EXERCISE THE POWER GIVEN TO IT IN THE BOND TO REDEEM THE BOND, AND TO
PAY THAT BOND IMMEDIATELY IN A DEPRECIATED CURRENCY.  IF THE GOVERNMENT
HAD TO PAY THE BOND IN GOLD, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE CALLED THE BOND.  THE
PLAINTIFF IS SEEKING TO RECOVER ONLY THE CURRENCY VALUE OF HIS COUPON;
HE IS NOT SEEKING DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PAY GOLD; HE IS MERELY
INSISTING THAT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT REPUDIATE ITS OBLIGATIONS IN ONE
BREATH, AND AVAIL ITSELF OF PRIVILEGES CONFERRED ON IT AT THE SAME
TIME. 

2.  THE ATTEMPT TO REDEEM WAS VOID AB INITIO, BECAUSE THE NOTICE
PUBLISHED WAS NOT A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REDEEM IN GOLD IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TERMS OF THE BOND. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT "NOTICE PUBLISHED AT LEAST THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE
REDEMPTION DATE" IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE RIGHT TO REDEEM.  WHAT
KIND OF A NOTICE DOES THIS REFER TO?  IT MUST OBVIOUSLY BE A NOTICE TO
PAY THE BOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS.  A NOTICE TO PAY THE BOND IN
REAL ESTATE, OR BY TRANSFERRING MUNICIPAL BONDS OR OTHER SECURITIES,
WOULD BE EXACTLY AS GOOD AS NO NOTICE AT ALL.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
EXISTING ON MARCH 14, 1932, AND THE LEGISLATION THEN IN EFFECT, THIS
NOTICE WAS NOT A NOTICE TO REDEEM IN GOLD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS
OF THE BOND, BUT A NOTICE TO REDEEM IN CURRENCY. 

ON MARCH 14, 1935, WHEN THE NOTICE TO REDEEM FIRST LIBERTY LOAN BONDS
WAS ISSUED IN TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 535, THERE WAS IN FULL
EFFECT THE GOLD RESERVE ACT OF 1934, WHICH PROVIDED:  "NO GOLD SHALL
HEREAFTER BE COINED AND NO GOLD COIN SHALL HEREAFTER BE PAID OUT OR
DELIVERED BY THE UNITED STATES."  WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT, IN THE FIRST
PLACE, THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, WHILE THAT STATUTE WAS IN
EFFECT, COULD NOT ISSUE A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PAY THE BOND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS.  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SUBJECT IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE LEGISLATION OF
CONGRESS.  EXCEPT FOR ENACTMENT BY CONGRESS, THE RIGHT TO REDEEM "AT
THE PLEASURE OF THE UNITED STATES" DOES NOT MEAN THE RIGHT TO REDEEM AT
THE PLEASURE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  AS FAR AS HE HAS ANY
POWER TO ISSUE A NOTICE, IT EXISTS BY CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT.  SINCE
CONGRESS PROHIBITED HIM FROM PAYING OUT GOLD, THERE CAN CERTAINLY BE NO
AUTHORITY IMPLIED IN ANY WAY FOR HIM TO GIVE A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO
REDEEM IN GOLD. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, NO MATTER WHAT THE POWER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY, THE NOTICE ISSUED WAS NOT A NOTICE TO REDEEM IN GOLD.  IT WAS
SILENT AS TO THE MEDIUM OF PAYMENT, BUT IN VIEW OF THE LEGISLATION THEN
IN EFFECT, IT WAS CLEARLY A STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO REDEEM IN
CURRENCY AND NOT IN GOLD.  WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933, AND THE GOLD RESERVE ACT OF 1934.  WE HAVE
REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS OTHER ACTS OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT
NATIONALIZING GOLD AND PROHIBITING THE HOLDING OF GOLD BY PRIVATE
PERSONS.  THE NOTICE ISSUED MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THESE
ENACTMENTS AS A NOTICE TO REDEEM IN CURRENCY.  IT MUST BE PRESUMED THAT
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, WAS MERELY
CARRYING OUT THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS. 

THIS IS NO IMAGINARY ARGUMENT.  WHEN THE CALL WAS ISSUED, EVERYBODY
IN THE UNITED STATES KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS INTENDED.  CONGRESS HAD
REPEATEDLY DECLARED ITS INTENTION OF ABANDONING GOLD AND PAYING IN
CURRENCY.  NO OFFICIAL OF THE GOVERNMENT, NO HOLDER OF ANY BOND, HAD
THE SLIGHTEST IDEA THAT THE NOTICE OF CALL MEANT ANYTHING EXCEPT A CALL
TO PAY IN CURRENCY.  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY WOULD NEVER HAVE
CALLED THE BONDS IF HE HAD HAD THE SLIGHTEST EXPECTATION OF HAVING TO
PAY IN GOLD. 

THE PRESIDENT HAD ALSO DEVALUED THE DOLLAR, AND ESTABLISHED, WITH THE
APPROVAL OF CONGRESS, A DOLLAR HAVING A DIFFERENT STANDARD OF VALUE
FROM THAT PRESCRIBED IN THE BOND, SO THAT EVEN IF GOLD COULD HAVE BEEN
PAID OUT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF GOLD THAN THAT
CALLED FOR BY THE TERMS OF THE BOND. 

A CALL FOR PAYMENT IN CURRENCY IS CLEARLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BOND AND THE CIRCULAR UNDER WHICH THE BOND WAS
ISSUED, WHICH PROVISIONS THIS COURT HAS HELD TO BE VALID.  IT SEEMS
MANIFEST, THEREFORE, THAT THE SO-CALLED "CALL" OF MARCH 14, 1935, MAY
BE TREATED BY THE BONDHOLDER AS COMPLETELY VOID, AND HIS BOND WILL
CONTINUE TO DRAW INTEREST UNTIL MATURITY, OR UNTIL AFTER A BONA FIDE
CALL FOR REDEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE BOND. 

THE WHOLE ARGUMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DISTINGUISH ITSELF AS
CONTRACTOR AND SOVEREIGN IN THE MATTER OF GOVERNMENT BONDS WAS
DESTROYED ONCE AND FOR ALL IN THE PERRY CASE.  THE GOVERNMENT'S
CONTENTION IN THAT CASE WAS THAT IN ITS CAPACITY AS SOVEREIGN IT COULD
EFFECTUALLY DESTROY ITS OBLIGATION AS CONTRACTOR ON ITS OWN BONDS.  IT
WAS A STRONG ARGUMENT, WHICH PREVAILED WITH ONE OF THE JUSTICES OF THIS
COURT, AND IT DREW SUPPORT FROM THE VERY CASES WHICH THE GOVERNMENT
ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON HERE.  BUT THE COURT FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S
OWN OBLIGATIONS ON ITS PUBLIC DEBT WERE ASSUMED IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
SOVEREIGN POWERS, AND THAT THEY COULD NOT BE CHANGED OR ABROGATED
THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF ANY OTHER SOVEREIGN POWER. 

IT IS SUGGESTED BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES, IN PERRY V. UNITED STATES, TREATED THE CALL AS
VALID, AND CONSIDERED PERRY'S CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL,
THEREFORE THAT CASE IS AN AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT'S CALL.  IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIS QUESTION WAS NOT
CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT AT ANY POINT.  BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE
PLAINTIFF WERE WILLING TO PROCEED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE BOND HAD
BEEN CALLED, SO THAT THE POINT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
COURT.  IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THE
BONDHOLDER MAY HAVE AN OPTION TO TREAT THE CALL AS VALID IF HE SO
DESIRES.  IF A PRIVATE CORPORATION ISSUED A CALL, AND THEN FAILED TO
HAVE FUNDS TO PAY THE BONDS, THE BONDHOLDER CERTAINLY COULD HOLD HIS
BONDS UNTIL MATURITY, BUT HE SHOULD ALSO IN REASON HAVE AN OPTION TO
TREAT THE BONDS AS CALLED AND INSIST UPON THEIR PAYMENT.  SUCH A
CORPORATION WOULD BE ESTOPPED TO ASSERT THE INVALIDITY OF ITS OWN
CALL. 

THE GOVERNMENT IN THE LOWER COURT CONTENDED THAT THE TENDER TO
PETITIONER OF CURRENCY IN PAYMENT OF HIS BOND WAS A COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TERMS OF THE BOND, ON THE GROUND THAT CURRENCY IS THE "EQUIVALENT" OF
GOLD.  TO SUPPORT THIS POSITION, THEY QUOTE FROM THE OPINION OF THE
CHIEF JUSTICE IN PERRY V. UNITED STATES, AT PAGE 357, IN WHICH HE
STATES THAT THE WORD "EQUIVALENT" CANNOT MEAN MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY WHICH THE PROMISED GOLD COIN WOULD BE WORTH TO THE BONDHOLDER FOR
THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT COULD LEGALLY BE USED.  BUT IN THAT CASE THE
PLAINTIFF SUED FOR $10,000 IN GOLD COIN, OR ITS EQUIVALENT IN CURRENCY,
WHICH THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMED TO BE $16,931.25.  THE CHIEF JUSTICE HELD
THAT THIS WAS NOT NECESSARILY THE EQUIVALENT IN CURRENCY, AND THAT MANY
OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS THE PRICE LEVEL AND THE INTRINSIC WORTH OF
THE CURRENCY, HAD A BEARING ON THE QUESTION.  THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION
RELATED SOLELY TO THE QUESTION OF DAMAGES.  IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE
QUESTION OF DAMAGES DOES NOT ARISE, NOR IS THE PETITIONER ASKING FOR
ANY "EQUIVALENT."  IT IS THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS TENDERING THE
PETITIONER SOMETHING, IN REDEMPTION OF HIS BOND PRIOR TO MATURITY,
WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS CLAIMING TO BE THE "EQUIVALENT" OF GOLD. 

CERTAINLY CURRENCY IS NOT THE SAME AS GOLD COIN.  THIS COURT
NECESSARILY HOLDS THAT IT IS DIFFERENT IN HOLDING THE JOINT RESOLUTION
OF JUNE 5, 1933, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE VERY THING WHICH CONGRESS WAS
ATTEMPTING TO DO WAS TO MAKE LEGAL-TENDER CURRENCY THE EQUIVALENT OF
GOLD COIN.  WHEN THIS COURT STATED THAT "THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE
5, 1933, IN SO FAR AS IT ATTEMPTED TO OVERRIDE THE OBLIGATION CREATED
BY THE BOND IN SUIT, WENT BEYOND THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER," IT
NECESSARILY HELD THAT LEGAL-TENDER CURRENCY WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF
GOLD COIN. 

THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION IS BASED ON EXACT COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS
OF THE BOND.  PETITIONER IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ALLOW HIS BOND TO BE
REDEEMED, EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT DOES OFFER AN EQUIVALENT OR FAR
MORE THAN AN EQUIVALENT.  THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION RESTS ON THE WORDS OF
THE BOND AND THE CIRCULAR, WHICH SAY NOTHING WHATEVER ABOUT AN
"EQUIVALENT." 

WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT, THEREFORE, THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE BY WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO CALL LIBERTY BONDS IN ADVANCE OF MATURITY,
WHEN IT HAD NO INTENTION TO PAY THE BONDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
TERMS AND STATUTES EXPRESSLY FORBADE SUCH PAYMENT, WAS VOID AB INITIO,
BECAUSE THE NOTICE PUBLISHED WAS NOT THE NOTICE PROVIDED FOR BY THE
BOND.  IT FOLLOWS, THEREFORE, THAT INTEREST DID NOT CEASE TO RUN ON THE
DATE FIXED FOR REDEMPTION, BUT CONTINUED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL
CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE GOVERNMENT IN ITS BOND. 

3.  EVEN IF THE PURPORTED CALL WERE CONSIDERED VALID, THE RUNNING OF
INTEREST ON PETITIONER'S BOND DID NOT CEASE ON JUNE 15, 1935, BECAUSE
THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT READY AND WILLING AT THAT TIME OR AT ANY TIME
TO REDEEM THE PETITIONER'S BOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS. 

THE NECESSARY AND LOGICAL CONCLUSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
IS THAT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE BOND THE GOVERNMENT COULD CALL A BOND
WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST INTENTION OF PAYING IT AND THEREBY CAUSE INTEREST
TO STOP RUNNING.  IN THE PERRY CASE, THIS COURT INSISTED ON THE
SACREDNESS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATIONS.  THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
OBLIGATION INSISTED ON BY THE GOVERNMENT WOULD ENABLE IT TO CANCEL ITS
SACRED OBLIGATIONS. 

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT HOLDERS OF BONDS WITHOUT A CALL PROVISION
CANNOT BE MADE TO ACCEPT PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF MATURITY:  CHICAGO, ETC.
RAILROAD CO. V. PYNE, 30 FED. 86; MISSOURI RAILROAD CO. V. UNION TRUST
CO., 156 N.Y. 592, 51 N.E. 309.  A STATUTE PROVIDING THAT PAYMENT MUST
BE ACCEPTED BEFORE MATURITY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; RANDOLPH V. MIDDLETON,
26 N.J. EQ. 543.  SURELY AN EFFECTIVE CALL CANNOT BE ISSUED UNLESS IT
IS FOLLOWED BY A TENDER OF THE MONEY EITHER TO A TRUSTEE OR PAYING
AGENT IN THE CASE OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION, OR DIRECT TO THE BONDHOLDER
IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES.    WHILE THE PETITIONER'S BOND
PROVIDED THAT FROM THE DATE OF REDEMPTION DESIGNATED IN ANY NOTICE OF
CALL, INTEREST ON THE CALLED BONDS SHOULD CEASE, YET THE BOND ALSO
CONTAINED THE EXPRESS PROVISION THAT "ALL OR ANY OF THE BONDS OF THE
SERIES OF WHICH THIS IS ONE, MAY BE REDEEMED AND PAID  ....  "
CERTAINLY THIS PROVISION FOR REDEMPTION AND PAYMENT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
INSERTED IN THE BOND, IF IT WERE THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES THAT
INTEREST SHOULD CEASE UPON A DATE SET FOR REDEMPTION, REGARDLESS OF THE
WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES TO REDEEM.    THE
GOVERNMENT RELIES ON THE PHRASE USED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE BOND,
IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES PROMISES TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL SUM "WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF THREE AND ONE-HALF PERCENTUM PER ANNUM PAYABLE
SEMI-ANNUALLY ON DECEMBER FIFTEENTH AND JUNE FIFTEENTH IN EACH YEAR
UNTIL THE PRINCIPAL HEREOF SHALL BE PAYABLE."  THE GOVERNMENT POINTS
OUT THAT THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO PAY INTEREST UNTIL THE
PRINCIPAL SHALL BE "PAID."  OF COURSE IT IS CLEAR WHY THE WORD
"PAYABLE" IS USED.  MANY HOLDERS OF SUCH BONDS DO NOT TURN IN THEIR
BONDS ON THE CALL DATE, THROUGH OVERSIGHT OR OTHERWISE, AND IT IS
PROPER THAT INTEREST SHOULD CEASE TO RUN AT THAT TIME IN THE ORDINARY
CASE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS MEETING ITS OBLIGATIONS.  IN ORDER TO
PROVIDE FOR THIS CONTINGENCY, THE WORD "PAYABLE" IS USED. 

IF IT HAD BEEN THOUGHT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINGENCY THAT
THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REPUDIATE ITS BONDS, ONLY A VERY COMPLICATED
PHRASE COULD HAVE EXPRESSED THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION.  IT WOULD HAVE
HAD TO REFER TO A REPUDIATION, WHICH NOBODY THOUGHT LIKELY OR DESIRED
TO REFER TO.  CONTRACTS SELDOM PROVIDE FOR WHAT SHALL OCCUR IN CASE OF
DEFAULT BECAUSE THEY ARE MADE TO BE CARRIED OUT AND NOT TO BE BROKEN. 
IT IS USUAL TO LEAVE TO THE COURTS THE QUESTION OF THE PARTIES' RIGHTS
WHEN SUCH A DEFAULT DOES OCCUR.  THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE CASE
OF THE GOVERNMENT, FOR, AS STATED BY MR. JUSTICE STRONG IN UNITED
STATES V. SHERMAN, 98 U.S. 565:  "BUT DELAY OR DEFAULT CANNOT BE
ATTRIBUTED TO THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS PRESUMED TO BE ALWAYS READY TO PAY
WHAT IT OWES." 

FURTHERMORE, THE WORD "PAYABLE" REFERS TO THE MATURITY OF THE BOND,
AND NOT TO ANY DATE ON WHICH IT MAY BE REDEEMABLE.  CITING:  MORGAN V.
UNITED STATES, 113 U.S. 476; STERLING V. H.F. WATSON CO., 241 PA. 105,
AND CORBETT V. MCCLINTIC-MARSHALL CORP., 17 DEL. CH. 165. 
DISTINGUISHING SPAULDING V. LORD, 19 WIS. 533.  SEE 50 HARV. L. REV.
986.  IF THERE IS ANY AMBIGUITY, THE BOND SHOULD BE CONSTRUED MOST
STRONGLY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE DRAFTED BY ITS OWN OFFICIALS,
AND SOLD TO PERSONS WHO DID NOT EVEN CONTEMPLATE THE REPUDIATION OF ITS
OBLIGATIONS BY THE UNITED STATES.  CERTAINLY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT
COUNTENANCE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE BOND WHICH NECESSARILY MEANS THAT
THE GOVERNMENT MAY AT ANY TIME CALL A BOND WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST
INTENTION OF PAYING IT, AND THEREBY STOP THE RUNNING OF INTEREST AFTER
THE CALL DATE, WHETHER OR NOT THE GOVERNMENT IS PREPARED TO REDEEM THE
BOND ON THAT DATE.  THIS IS NOT THE CONTRACT WHICH THE BONDHOLDERS
THOUGHT THEY WERE GETTING. 

4.  THE PURPORTED CALL ISSUED ON MARCH 14, 1935, WAS VOID, BECAUSE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A CALL WITHOUT
FURTHER ACTION BY CONGRESS. 

THE REDEMPTION OF BONDS IS A MAJOR FINANCIAL TRANSACTION, REQUIRING
THE CONSIDERATION OF CONGRESS.  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, BETWEEN
OCTOBER 12, 1933, AND AUGUST 1, 1935, DETERMINED TO CALL NEARLY NINE
BILLION DOLLARS IN BONDS PAYABLE IN GOLD, AT A TIME WHEN THE TERMS OF
THE BONDS COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH.  THE POLICY FOLLOWED INVOLVED A
REPUDIATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ITS SOLEMN OBLIGATIONS DECLARED TO BE
SUCH BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S.
330.  CERTAINLY NO ONE WOULD MAINTAIN THAT AN INDIVIDUAL, HOLDING AN
APPOINTED OFFICE IN A GOVERNMENT FOUNDED ON THE THEORY OF POPULAR
REPRESENTATION AND CONTROL, WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBLIGATE THE
COUNTRY FOR NINE BILLION DOLLARS.  WE SUBMIT THAT HE HAS NO GREATER
RIGHT TO EXERCISE THE PLEASURE OF THE UNITED STATES IN REPUDIATING
OBLIGATIONS INCURRED ON THE AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS. 

5.  THE PURPORTED CALL ISSUED ON MARCH 14, 1935, WAS VOID BECAUSE
FORBIDDEN BY THE ACT OF MARCH 18, 1869, 16 STAT. 1; 31 U.S.C. SEC.
731. 

THE REASON FOR THE ORIGINAL PASSAGE OF THIS LAW WAS OBVIOUSLY TO
PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM DOING JUST WHAT IT IS ATTEMPTING TO DO NOW
PAYING OFF ITS OBLIGATIONS TO ITS BONDHOLDERS IN A DEPRECIATED
CURRENCY.  UNITED STATES NOTES, OR "GREENBACKS," WERE, OF COURSE, AT A
CONSIDERABLE DISCOUNT FROM GOLD IN 1869, AND WERE NOT REDEEMABLE IN
GOLD OR SILVER COIN AT THAT TIME.  IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE BONDHOLDERS,
CONGRESS PROVIDED THAT NONE OF THE INTEREST-BEARING OBLIGATIONS SHOULD
BE REDEEMED OR PAID BEFORE MATURITY AS LONG AS UNITED STATES NOTES WERE
NOT CONVERTIBLE INTO COIN AT THE OPTION OF THE HOLDER.  NEITHER ON
MARCH 4, 1933, NOR AT ANY SUBSEQUENT DATE HAVE UNITED STATES NOTES BEEN
CONVERTIBLE INTO COIN AT THE OPTION OF THE HOLDER.  THE GOVERNMENT, AND
NOT THE HOLDER, HAS THE OPTION, AND IT MAY PAY OUT CURRENCY OF ANY KIND
FOR ANY UNITED STATES NOTES PRESENTED. 

THE PROVISO AT THE END OF SEC. 731 WAS INTENDED TO PERMIT THE
REDEMPTION OF BONDS SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BE IN A POSITION TO SELL ITS
BONDS AND RECEIVE GOLD FOR THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY BEAR A LOWER RATE OF
INTEREST.  IF THE BONDS BEARING A LOWER RATE OF INTEREST CAN ONLY BE
SOLD FOR CURRENCY, THEN NO CALL CAN BE MADE.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT
GOVERNMENT BONDS, WHEN THIS CALL WAS ISSUED IN 1935, COULD NOT BE SOLD
FOR GOLD COIN.  THERE WAS NO GOLD COIN EXCEPT IN MINOR HOARDS, AND IF
ANYONE COULD LAWFULLY HAVE OBTAINED GOLD, HE WOULD NOT HAVE PAID GOLD
FOR UNITED STATES BONDS, WHETHER ON THEIR FACE THEY WERE PAYABLE IN
GOLD OR IN CURRENCY. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT UNITED STATES BONDS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOLD FOR
SILVER COIN.  OBVIOUSLY THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER SOLD BONDS AND
REQUIRED PAYMENT IN SILVER COIN, AND IT IS NOT A PRACTICAL OPERATION. 
AN EXAMINATION OF THE TESTIMONY AND SCHEDULE PRESENTED BY THE TREASURY
SHOWS THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SILVER COIN IN EXISTENCE IN 1935 WAS
APPROXIMATELY EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE MILLION DOLLARS, CONSIDERABLY
LESS THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE FIRST LIBERTY LOAN BONDS CALLED. 
FURTHERMORE, ALL OF THE BULLION AND NEARLY ALL OF THE STANDARD SILVER
DOLLARS WERE IN THE TREASURY ALREADY, AND OF COURSE THE SUBSIDIARY
SILVER COIN NOT IN THE TREASURY, AMOUNTING TO ABOUT $300,000,000, IS
REQUIRED FOR ORDINARY CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  FURTHERMORE, THE
SILVER COIN HAS A PURELY FICTITIOUS VALUE IN EXCESS OF THE VALUE OF THE
SILVER CONTAINED IN SUCH COINS, AND IN EFFECT IS NOTHING BUT SUBSIDIARY
CURRENCY.  IN 1869 IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO
SELL GOLD BONDS AND REQUIRE PAYMENT IN GOLD COIN, THUS OBTAINING THE
GOLD COIN NECESSARY TO REDEEM THE PRIOR ISSUE, BUT SINCE THE VALIDITY
OF THE GOLD CLAUSE IS IN DOUBT, SUCH BONDS CANNOT BE SOLD EITHER FOR
GOLD OR SILVER COIN TODAY.  IN SHORT SEC. 731 WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT
EXACTLY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOW TRYING TO DO. 

THE BONDHOLDERS REST THEIR CASE UPON A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION.  BY
THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THE OBLIGATION TO PAY
INTEREST UPON THE BONDS WAS SPECIFICALLY TO CEASE UPON THE ISSUANCE OF
A PUBLIC NOTICE CALLING THE BONDS FOR REDEMPTION AND THE PASSAGE OF
TIME TO THE DATE DESIGNATED IN SUCH NOTICE.  SINCE THIS CONDITION HAS
OCCURRED THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY INTEREST
HAS TERMINATED. 

THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION IN THE USUAL FORM,
OPERATED TO CREATE, AND WAS INTENDED TO CREATE, THE SAME RIGHT TO
PAYMENT ASSURED BY THE BONDS THEMSELVES.  THAT THE CALL WAS EFFECTIVE
TO ENTITLE THE BONDHOLDERS TO DEMAND PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS
OF THEIR BONDS IS ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISION IN PERRY V. UNITED
STATES, 294 U.S. 330.  BY THE SAME TOKEN THE CALL WAS EFFECTIVE TO
TERMINATE THE OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST.  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE
BONDHOLDERS MAY HAVE AN OPTION TO DEMAND PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OR TO
SUE FOR INTEREST HAS NO BASIS IN THE CONTRACT AND, IF ACCEPTED, WOULD
INTRODUCE CONFUSION IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FINANCE.  TERMINATION OF THE
OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST WAS NOT CONDITIONED UPON ACTUAL PERFORMANCE
OF THE PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION.  DISTINGUISHING STERLING V. H.F. WATSON
CO., 241 PA. 105.  IMPOSITION OF THIS ADDITIONAL CONDITION BY
IMPLICATION WOULD BE UNWARRANTED BY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY AND WOULD DEFEAT
BY INDIRECTION THE RULE THAT INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWED ON CLAIMS AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. 

THE TERMS OF THE ACTS OF CONGRESS PURSUANT TO WHICH THE BONDS WERE
ISSUED, AS WELL AS THE BONDS THEMSELVES, ESTABLISH THE AUTHORITY OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO ISSUE THE NOTICE OF CALL WHICH TERMINATED
THE OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST.  THIS AUTHORITY HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AND
CONFIRMED BY OTHER LEGISLATION OF THE CONGRESS. 

THE ACT OF MARCH 18, 1869, R.S. 3693; 16 STAT. 1, DOES NOT AFFECT THE
VALIDITY OF THE CALLS FOR REDEMPTION.  EXAMINATION OF THE PURPOSES AND
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ENACTMENT OF THAT STATUTE ESTABLISHES
THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO GOVERNMENT BONDS THEN OUTSTANDING
AND THAT IT CEASED TO HAVE SIGNIFICANCE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT, IN 1879,
RESUMED SPECIE PAYMENTS ON ITS UNITED STATES NOTES AND MAINTAINED ALL
COINS AND CURRENCIES AT A PARITY OF VALUE.  EVEN IF THE VALIDITY OF THE
CALLS FOR REDEMPTION HERE INVOLVED WERE TO BE TRIED BY THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THAT ACT, HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION WOULD BE COMPELLED THAT THESE
REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN FULLY MET. 

THE CONTENTION THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO TENDER THE
PERFORMANCE DUE UNDER THE BONDS APPEARS TO REST EXCLUSIVELY UPON ITS
REFUSAL TO MAKE PAYMENT IN GOLD DOLLARS, "EACH CONTAINING TWENTY-FIVE
AND EIGHT-TENTHS GRAINS OF GOLD, NINE-TENTHS FINE."  FOR A DOUBLE
REASON THIS CONTENTION CANNOT BE SUPPORTED.  THE GOLD CLAUSE IN THE
PLAINTIFFS' BONDS IS NOT A PROMISE FOR PAYMENT SOLELY IN GOLD COIN, BUT
A PROMISE TO PAY THE VALUE OF GOLD COIN.  PERRY V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; FEIST V. SOCIETE INTERCOMMUNALE BELGE D'ELECTRICITE, L.R. (1934)
A.C. 161, 172, 173; R. V. INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
BONDHOLDERS AKT., (1937) 2 ALL ENG. L.R. 164; CASE OF SERBIAN LOANS,
P.C.I.J., SERIES A. NOS. 20-21, PP. 32-41.  COMPARE NORMAN V. BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, 296, 302; HOLYOKE WATER POWER CO. V.
AMERICAN WRITING PAPER CO., 300 U.S. 324, 336.  UNDER THE PERRY
DECISION, NO CLAIM OF BREACH OF THE BOND IS MAINTAINABLE WHICH DOES NOT
ALLEGE AND PROVE ALSO A FAILURE TO PAY THE EQUIVALENT IN VALUE OF THE
GOLD COIN.  EVEN IF THE GOLD CLAUSE COULD PROPERLY BE CONSTRUED AS
PROMISING PAYMENT IN GOLD COIN ITSELF, HOWEVER, THE PERRY DECISION DOES
NOT WARRANT AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENT, UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE AND HERE PRESENTED, WOULD CONSTITUTE A BREACH
OF OBLIGATION.  THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO PROHIBIT PAYMENT OF GOLD
COIN FROM THE TREASURY IS AN ESSENTIAL ASPECT OF ITS POWER "TO DEAL
WITH GOLD COIN AS A MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE," AND HAS RECEIVED AMPLE
RECOGNITION IN THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  COMPARE LING SU FAN V.
UNITED STATES, 218 U.S. 302; NORTZ V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 317;
HOLYOKE WATER POWER CO. V. AMERICAN WRITING PAPER CO., SUPRA, AT 336,
337. 

EVEN IF THE BONDHOLDERS WERE IN A POSITION HERE TO URGE THAT THE
FAILURE OF THE UNITED STATES TO PAY THEM A NUMBER OF DOLLARS IN LEGAL
TENDER CURRENCY IN EXCESS OF THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE BONDS CONSTITUTED A
BREACH OF CONTRACT, NO SUCH CONTENTION WOULD BE TENABLE.  THE ASSERTION
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN NO. 198 THAT THE DOLLARS STATED IN
THE BONDS WERE EACH "WORTH" 1.69 DOLLARS IN LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY IS IN
DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN PERRY V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, WHICH FLATLY REJECTED ANY METHOD OF COMPUTING
EQUIVALENCE OR WORTH MATHEMATICALLY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIOS OF
THE STATUTORY GOLD CONTENT OF THE PAST AND PRESENT DOLLARS, REGARDLESS
OF ACTUAL LOSS.  THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL FORMS OF MONEY AT A PARITY IN
THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY, THIS COURT THERE HELD, PRECLUDED SUCH A
METHOD OF COMPUTATION. 

NOTHING SHORT OF A POSITION OF MATERIAL AND PRESENT DEFAULT ON THE
PART OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD IN ANY EVENT WARRANT THE EFFORT HERE
MADE TO WORK A FORFEITURE OF THE OPTION OF REDEMPTION.  SO LONG AS THE
BONDHOLDERS HAVE BEEN TENDERED THE SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT OF THE
PERFORMANCE DUE, NO EQUITABLE GROUND CAN BE URGED FOR DISREGARDING THE
EXPRESS TERMS OF THE BONDS AND OF THE CALLS FOR REDEMPTION.  NOR DO
INTIMATIONS THAT THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES NOW EXISTING HAS BEEN HELD TO BE CORRECT, MIGHT UNDER
DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES BE INCORRECT, AFFORD A GROUND IN THESE CASES
FOR FORFEITURE OF ITS OPTION OF REDEMPTION.  IN CLAIMING SUCH A
FORFEITURE, THE BONDHOLDERS ARE, IN EFFECT, INSISTING UPON PAYMENT OF
AN UNCONTEMPLATED PREMIUM, CONSISTING OF THE ADDED CAPITAL VALUE OF
THEIR BONDS UNDER PRESENT RATES OF INTEREST.  ACCEPTANCE OF THEIR
CONTENTION WOULD JEOPARDIZE HUGE SAVINGS OF INTEREST EFFECTED BY
REFUNDING OPERATIONS IN RECENT YEARS.  IN THUS INTERFERING WITH THE
SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC DEBT, IT WOULD TEND TO RESTRICT THE
VERY POWER WHICH - IN THE OPINION IN THE PERRY CASE UPON WHICH THE
BONDHOLDERS RELY - IT WAS DEEMED NECESSARY TO PROTECT. 

THE BONDHOLDERS MISINTERPRET THE STATEMENTS IN THE OPINION DELIVERED
BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE PERRY CASE REFLECTING UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933.  IF THOSE
STATEMENTS MEAN THAT BORROWING CONTRACTS OF THE UNITED STATES MAY NOT
IN ANY FASHION BE AFFECTED BY A SUBSEQUENT EXERCISE BY CONGRESS OF THE
MONETARY POWER, THEY SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED, SINCE BY THE SETTLED
DOCTRINES OF THIS COURT THEY WERE NOT MADE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS
TO CONSTITUTE A PRECEDENT.  ALASKA V. TROY, 258 U.S. 101, 111.  COMPARE
CITY OF NEW YORK V. MILN, 8 PET. 120; UNITED STATES V. CELESTE MACARTY
ET AL., ARCHIVES, DECEMBER TERM, 1851, P. 199.  SEE ALSO MYERS V.
UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 52, 142; LIVERPOOL, N.Y. & P.S.S. CO. V.
COMMISSIONERS OF EMIGRATION, 113 U.S. 33, 39; UNITED STATES V.
HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188, 192, 193.  THE PRINCIPLE THAT GOVERNMENTAL
ACTION TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENTAL POWERS MAY AFFECT
RIGHTS ARISING OUT OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT
AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS MAY JUSTLY BE CONSIDERED A POSTULATE OF
AMERICAN PUBLIC LAW.  IT SEEMS CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT THE STATEMENTS IN
QUESTION WERE MADE IN ANSWER TO A CONTENTION, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS
UNDERSTOOD AS MAKING, IMPORTING THAT CONGRESS IS FREE TO DISREGARD THE
OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AT ITS DISCRETION.  THE GOVERNMENT IS
BOUND, UNDER THE LAW, UPON ITS CONTRACTS AS INDIVIDUALS ARE BOUND.  FAR
FROM ASSERTING THAT GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS MAY NOT BE AFFECTED AS
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS ARE AFFECTED BY A SUBSEQUENT EXERCISE OF GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE POWER, THE OPINION DELIVERED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE
RECOGNIZES AND REAFFIRMS THE PRINCIPLE THAT THEY MAY BE SO AFFECTED. 

I. THE RESPONDENT IN THE CASE AT BAR IS SUING ON A COUPON AND HE HAS
NOT ASKED FOR "AN AMOUNT IN LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY IN EXCESS OF THE FACE
AMOUNT OF THE" COUPON.  HE IS NOT SUING FOR ANY DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE
REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PAY THE BOND IN GOLD ON THE REDEMPTION
DATE; NOR IS HE ASKING FOR ANY DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE REFUSAL TO PAY THE
COUPON IN GOLD RATHER THAN IN OTHER CURRENCY.  IF THE RESPONDENT WERE
DEMANDING $29.57 IN LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY, THE PERRY CASE MIGHT BE IN
POINT, BUT SINCE HE IS DEMANDING ONLY $17.50, IT IS CLEARLY NOT IN
POINT.  THIS COURT DECIDED THAT INASMUCH AS PERRY HAD ELECTED TO
SURRENDER HIS BOND AND SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, BUT HAD
FAILED TO PROVE DAMAGE, HE COULD NOT RECOVER.  THIS COURT DID NOT
DECIDE THAT PERRY'S ONLY REMEDY WAS TO SURRENDER HIS BOND AND SUE FOR
DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.  THE QUESTION WHETHER THE OBLIGATION OF
THE UNITED STATES TO PAY INTEREST CEASED UPON THE GIVING OF A NOTICE OF
REDEMPTION WITHOUT ANY INTENTION TO PAY IN GOLD WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY
THE COURT.  THE ONLY PROVISION OF THE BOND CONSTRUED BY THE COURT WAS
THE CLAUSE REQUIRING PAYMENT IN GOLD.  THE CLAUSES AS TO THE PAYMENT OF
INTEREST, THE MEANING OF WHICH IS HERE PRESENTED TO THE COURT FOR
DETERMINATION, WERE NOT EVEN QUOTED OR REFERRED TO IN THE OPINION OF
THE COURT IN THE PERRY CASE, MUCH LESS CONSTRUED BY IT. 

IF PAYMENT IN GOLD OR AN HONEST INTENTION TO PAY IN GOLD, WAS A
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO REDEMPTION, AND WE STRONGLY CONTEND THAT IT WAS,
THEN THE RESPONDENT HAD A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO SURRENDER HIS BOND EXCEPT
UPON A STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THAT CONDITION AND THE QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THE FAILURE TO COMPLY THEREWITH CAUSED HIM DAMAGE WAS
ENTIRELY IMMATERIAL. 

THE GOVERNMENT RESERVED TO ITSELF AN OPTION TO REDEEM ITS LIBERTY
BONDS PRIOR TO MATURITY.  IT GAVE NOTICE THAT IT WOULD REDEEM, NOT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS CONTRACT, BUT ON ITS OWN TERMS.  THE PLAINTIFF IN
THE PERRY CASE ELECTED TO TREAT THE GOVERNMENT AS HAVING EXERCISED ITS
OPTION AND SUED FOR DAMAGES FOR ITS FAILURE TO DO SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE TERMS OF ITS CONTRACT.  THE RESPONDENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, AS WE
CONTEND HE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO DO, ELECTED TO TREAT THE GOVERNMENT AS
HAVING FAILED TO EXERCISE ITS OPTION.  THE TWO CASES ARE MANIFESTLY
QUITE DIFFERENT. 

THE CONTRACT IS GOVERNED BY THE ORDINARY LEGAL PRINCIPLES.  THE ONLY
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE ARISES OUT OF THE INTERPRETATION OF
THE CONTRACT IN SUIT AND FOR THAT REASON IT IS NECESSARY TO KEEP ALWAYS
IN MIND THREE IMPORTANT AND FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. 

FIRST, THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO EFFECTUATE ITS
GENERAL PURPOSE, TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES, AND TO
GIVE THEIR ORDINARY MEANING TO THE WORDS USED. 

SECOND, IN CASES OF AMBIGUITY, A CONTRACT SHOULD BE MOST STRONGLY
CONSTRUED AGAINST ITS AUTHOR. 

THIRD, WHEN CONTRACTS ARE OPTIONAL IN RESPECT TO ONE PARTY, THEY ARE
STRICTLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF THE PARTY BOUND AND AGAINST THE PARTY
WHO IS NOT BOUND. 

THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO ISSUE CALLABLE BONDS OR OTHERWISE
MANAGE THE PUBLIC DEBT IS NOT AT ISSUE. 

II.  THE RIGHT TO REDEEM DEPENDED UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF TWO
CONDITIONS, NEITHER OF WHICH WAS IN FACT PERFORMED, ALTHOUGH STRICT
PERFORMANCE OF EACH WAS REQUIRED. 

AN EXACT COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO A RIGHT OF
REDEMPTION IS NECESSARY. 

AS SAID BY THIS COURT IN THE PERRY CASE "THE TERMS OF THE BOND ARE
EXPLICIT" (294 U.S. 348).  IT PROVIDES:  "THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF
THIS BOND SHALL BE PAYABLE IN UNITED STATES GOLD COIN OF THE PRESENT
STANDARD OF VALUE."  THE STATUTE PURSUANT TO WHICH THE BONDS WERE
ISSUED (40 STAT. 35) AND THE GENERAL LAW (U.S.C., TIT. 31, SEC. 768)
LIKEWISE REQUIRED PAYMENT OF BOTH PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST IN GOLD COIN. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOND REMAIN UNALTERED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION
OF JUNE 5, 1933, AND THE UNITED STATES ARE CLEARLY OBLIGATED TO PAY THE
RESPONDENT $1,000.00 IN GOLD COIN IN ORDER TO REDEEM HIS BOND. 

THE PROVISION REQUIRING THE GIVING OF A NOTICE OF REDEMPTION WAS THE
CONDITION PRECEDENT.  THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRINCIPAL BE PAID IN
GOLD COIN WAS THE CONCURRENT CONDITION.  UNDER THE RULE LAID DOWN BY
THE CASES STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH CONDITIONS WAS REQUIRED.  BUT THE
FACT IS THAT THERE WAS COMPLIANCE WITH NEITHER CONDITION. 
CONSEQUENTLY, THE RESPONDENT'S BOND WAS NOT REDEEMED ON JUNE 15, 1935. 

THE NOTICE ISSUED ON MARCH 14, 1935, WAS NOT A VALID AND BONA FIDE
NOTICE SUCH AS WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THE BOND. 

THE INTEREST COUPONS DID NOT BECOME VOID EXCEPT UPON ACTUAL
REDEMPTION OF THE BOND BY PAYMENT IN GOLD COIN. 

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT WOULD SUSTAIN ANY
DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE REFUSAL OF THE UNITED STATES TO PAY THE BOND IN
GOLD COIN IS ENTIRELY IMMATERIAL. 

III.  REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE RESPONDENT'S BOND BE CONSTRUED AS A
"GOLD COIN" CONTRACT OR AS A "GOLD VALUE" CONTRACT, PAYMENT OF THE
PRINCIPAL, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, IN LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY, WOULD NOT BE A
FULFILLMENT OF THE OBLIGATION. 

PAYMENT IN GOLD COIN IS REQUIRED. 

EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE GOLD CLAUSE IS A "GOLD VALUE"
CONTRACT, THE BURDEN IS UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE THAT IT HAS
TENDERED THE EQUIVALENT OF THE GOLD COIN, AND THIS IT HAS NOT DONE. 

IV.  THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933, WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN SO
FAR AS IT ATTEMPTED TO OVERRIDE THE OBLIGATION CREATED BY LIBERTY LOAN
BONDS. 

OPINION OF THE COURT BY MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, ANNOUNCED BY THE CHIEF
JUSTICE. 

THREE CASES PRESENT A SINGLE QUESTION:  WAS A NOTICE OF CALL ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR THE REDEMPTION OF LIBERTY LOAN
BONDS EFFECTIVE TO TERMINATE THE RUNNING OF INTEREST ON THE BONDS FROM
THE DESIGNATED REDEMPTION DATE? 

PETITIONER IN NO. 42 IS THE OWNER OF A $10,000 FIRST LIBERTY LOAN 3
1/2% BOND OF 1932-1947, SERIAL NUMBER 6670.  THE BOND WAS ISSUED
PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF APRIL 24, 1917(40 STAT. 35), AND TREASURY
DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 78, DATED MAY 14, 1917, AND WAS PURCHASED BY
PETITIONER IN DECEMBER, 1934, FOR $10,362.50 AND ACCRUED INTEREST.  ITS
PROVISIONS, SO FAR AS MATERIAL, READ AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR VALUE RECEIVED PROMISES TO PAY TO
THE BEARER THE SUM OF TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ON THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE,
1947, WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF THREE AND ONE-HALF PER CENTUM PER
ANNUM PAYABLE SEMI-ANNUALLY ON DECEMBER 15 AND JUNE 15 IN EACH YEAR
UNTIL THE PRINCIPAL HEREOF SHALL BE PAYABLE, UPON PRESENTATION AND
SURRENDER OF THE INTEREST COUPONS HERETO ATTACHED AS THEY SEVERALLY
MATURE.  THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF THIS BOND SHALL BE PAYABLE IN
UNITED STATES GOLD COIN OF THE PRESENT STANDARD OF VALUE,  ...  ALL OR
ANY OF THE BONDS OF THE SERIES OF WHICH THIS IS ONE MAY BE REDEEMED AND
PAID AT THE PLEASURE OF THE UNITED STATES ON OR AFTER JUNE 15, 1932, OR
ON ANY SEMI-ANNUAL INTEREST PAYMENT DATE OR DATES, AT THE FACE VALUE
THEREOF AND INTEREST ACCRUED AT THE DATE OF REDEMPTION, ON NOTICE
PUBLISHED AT LEAST THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE, AND
PUBLISHED THEREAFTER FROM TIME TO TIME DURING SAID THREE MONTHS PERIOD
AS THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL DIRECT....  FROM THE DATE OF
REDEMPTION DESIGNATED IN ANY SUCH NOTICE INTEREST ON THE BONDS CALLED
FOR REDEMPTION SHALL CEASE, AND ALL COUPONS THEREON MATURING AFTER SAID
DATE SHALL BE VOID...." 

ON MARCH 14, 1935, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY PUBLISHED A NOTICE
OF CALL FOR THE REDEMPTION ON JUNE 15, 1935, OF ALL THE BONDS SO
ISSUED.  "PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: 

1.  ALL OUTSTANDING FIRST LIBERTY LOAN BONDS OF 1932-47 ARE HEREBY
CALLED FOR REDEMPTION ON JUNE 15, 1935.  THE VARIOUS ISSUES OF FIRST
LIBERTY LOAN BONDS (ALL OF WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THIS CALL) ARE AS
FOLLOWS: 

FIRST LIBERTY LOAN 3 1/2 PERCENT BONDS OF 1932-47(FIRST 3 1/2'S),
DATED JUNE 15, 1917;... 

2.  INTEREST ON ALL SUCH OUTSTANDING FIRST LIBERTY LOAN BONDS WILL
CEASE ON SAID REDEMPTION DATE, JUNE 15, 1935." 

THEREAFTER, ON APRIL 22, 1935, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ISSUED A
CIRCULAR (DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR, NO. 535) PRESCRIBING RULES FOR THE
REDEMPTION OF FIRST LIBERTY LOAN BONDS, AND PROVIDING, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, AS FOLLOWS:  "HOLDERS OF ANY OUTSTANDING FIRST LIBERTY LOAN
BONDS WILL BE ENTITLED TO HAVE SUCH BONDS REDEEMED AND PAID AT PAR ON
JUNE 15, 1935, WITH INTEREST IN FULL TO THAT DATE.  AFTER JUNE 15,
1935, INTEREST WILL NOT ACCRUE ON ANY FIRST LIBERTY LOAN BONDS." 

NEARLY TWO YEARS BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF CALL
CONGRESS HAD ADOPTED THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933(48 STAT. 112)
BY WHICH EVERY OBLIGATION PURPORTING TO BE PAYABLE IN GOLD OR A
PARTICULAR KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY, OR IN AN AMOUNT IN MONEY OF THE
UNITED STATES MEASURED THEREBY, WAS TO BE DISCHARGED UPON PAYMENT,
DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, IN ANY COIN OR CURRENCY WHICH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT
WAS LEGAL TENDER FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEBTS.  NEARLY FOUR WEEKS
BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF CALL, THE VALIDITY OF THAT
JOINT RESOLUTION HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ADJUDICATION BY THIS COURT IN
THE GOLD CLAUSE CASES, NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 294 U.S. 240,
NORTZ V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 317, AND PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294
U.S. 330, ALL DECIDED FEBRUARY 18, 1935.  WE MAY PRESUME THAT THE CALL
WAS ISSUED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RULINGS. 

ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE DESIGNATED FOR REDEMPTION,
PETITIONER, ON DECEMBER 28, 1935, PRESENTED HIS BOND (WITH COUPONS DUE
ON AND BEFORE JUNE 15, 1935, DETACHED) TO THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND DEMANDED THE REDEMPTION BY THE PAYMENT OF 10,000 GOLD
DOLLARS EACH CONTAINING 25.8 GRAINS OF GOLD NINE-TENTHS FINE, WHICH WAS
THE GOLD CONTENT OF A DOLLAR IN 1917.  THE TREASURER REFUSED TO COMPLY
WITH THAT DEMAND, BUT OFFERED PAYMENT OF THE FACE AMOUNT OF THE
PRINCIPAL IN LEGAL TENDER COIN OR CURRENCY OTHER THAN GOLD OR GOLD
CERTIFICATES.  PETITIONER DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE TENDER AND RETAINED
THE BOND.  THEREAFTER, ON THE SAME DAY, PETITIONER PRESENTED TO THE
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES, THE INTEREST COUPON FOR THE SIX MONTHS
PERIOD JUNE 15 TO DECEMBER 15, 1935, AND DEMANDED PAYMENT EITHER IN
GOLD COIN OR LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY.  THE TREASURER REFUSED PAYMENT ON
THE GROUND THAT THE BOND TO WHICH THE COUPON WAS ATTACHED HAD BEEN
CALLED FOR REDEMPTION ON JUNE 15, 1935. 

AN ACTION FOLLOWED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, PETITIONER RESTING HIS
CLAIM UPON THE INTEREST COUPON ONLY, AND LIMITING HIS DEMAND TO A
RECOVERY IN CURRENT DOLLARS.  FN1  THE COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
UNITED STATES ON THE GROUND THAT ON THE DESIGNATED REDEMPTION DATE, ALL
COUPONS FOR LATER INTEREST BECAME VOID.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANT
INTERESTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, AFFECTED BY THE JUDGMENT, A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BY THIS COURT. 

PETITIONER IN NO. 43 IS THE OWNER OF A $50 FOURTH LIBERTY LOAN 4 1/2%
BOND OF 1933-1938, WHICH IT BOUGHT ON MARCH 9, 1935.  THE BOND WAS
ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1917(40 STAT. 288) AS
AMENDED, AND TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR, NO. 121.  IT WAS TO MATURE
ON OCTOBER 15, 1938, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO REDEMPTION ON OCTOBER 15,
1933 OR LATER.  THE TERMS OF REDEMPTION ARE STATED IN CIRCULAR NO. 121,
WHICH IS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE BOND ITSELF.  SIX MONTHS
NOTICE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY WAS REQUIRED, "FROM THE DATE OF
REDEMPTION DESIGNATED IN ANY SUCH NOTICE, INTEREST ON BONDS CALLED FOR
REDEMPTION SHALL CEASE."  ON OCTOBER 12, 1933, THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY PUBLISHED A NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION ON APRIL 15, 1934,
OF CERTAIN BONDS OF THIS ISSUE.  THE BOND NOW OWNED BY PETITIONER IS
ONE OF THEM.  THERE WERE TENDERS AND REFUSALS SIMILAR TO THOSE
DESCRIBED ALREADY IN THE STATEMENT OF THE OTHER CASE.  AN ACTION
FOLLOWED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS.  PETITIONER PRAYED FOR JUDGMENT IN THE
SUM OF $1.07, THE AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST COUPON FOR THE SIX MONTHS
PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 15, 1934.  FN2  THE COURT DISMISSED THE CLAIM AND
THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

RESPONDENT IN NO. 198 IS THE OWNER OF A $1,000 FIRST LIBERTY LOAN 3
1/2% BOND OF 1932-1947, NO. 47084, PURCHASED ON MARCH 22, 1933, FOR
$1,011.25.  THIS IS THE SAME BOND ISSUE INVOLVED AND DESCRIBED IN NO.
42.  RESPONDENT DID NOT PRESENT HIS BOND FOR PAYMENT EITHER ON THE
REDEMPTION DATE OR LATER.  HE DID NOT PRESENT THE COUPON WHICH IS THE
FOUNDATION OF THE SUIT.  HOWEVER, THE FACT IS STIPULATED THAT THE
TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER FISCAL AGENTS HAVE NOT AT ANY
TIME BEEN DIRECTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO REDEEM THE BONDS
IN GOLD COIN, BUT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO REDEEM IN LEGAL
TENDER CURRENCY.  THE FACT IS ALSO STIPULATED THAT THERE WAS A REFUSAL
TO PAY SIMILAR COUPONS FOR INTEREST ACCRUING AFTER THE DATE OF
REDEMPTION.  RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT UPON HIS COUPON IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND.  THE DISTRICT COURT
GAVE JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT REVERSED AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (87 F.(2D) 594),
DECLINING TO FOLLOW THE RULING WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BY THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI ON THE PETITION OF THE
GOVERNMENT. 

HEREAFTER, FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE, THE BONDHOLDER IN EACH OF THE
THREE CASES WILL BE SPOKEN OF AS A "PETITIONER," WITHOUT ADVERTING TO
THE FACT THAT IN ONE OF THEM (NO. 198) HE IS ACTUALLY A RESPONDENT. 

FIRST.  THE SO-CALLED REDEMPTION PROVISIONS OF THE BONDS ARE
PROVISIONS FOR THE ACCELERATION OF MATURITY AT THE PLEASURE OF THE
GOVERNMENT, AND UPON PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF CALL FOR THE PERIOD
STATED IN THE BONDS THE NEW DATE BECAME SUBSTITUTED FOR THE OLD ONE AS
IF THERE FROM THE BEGINNING. 

THE CONTRACT IS EXPLICIT.  "FROM THE DATE OF REDEMPTION DESIGNATED IN
ANY SUCH NOTICE INTEREST ON THE BONDS CALLED FOR REDEMPTION SHALL
CEASE, AND ALL COUPONS THEREON MATURING AFTER SAID DATE SHALL BE
VOID."  THE CONTRACT IS NOT TO THE EFFECT THAT INTEREST SHALL CEASE
UPON OR AFTER PAYMENT.  CF. STERLING V. H.F. WATSON CO., 241 PA. 105,
110; 88 ATL. 297.  THE CONTRACT IS THAT INTEREST SHALL CEASE UPON THE
DATE "DESIGNATED" FOR PAYMENT.  THE RULE IS ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONTRACT OR STATUTE EVINCING A CONTRARY INTENTION, INTEREST
DOES NOT RUN UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS
BEEN DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL.  U.S. EX REL. ANGARICA V.
BAYARD, 127 U.S. 251; UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211;
UNITED STATES V. NORTH AMERICAN T. & T. CO., 253 U.S. 330, 336;
SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299, 304.  THE
ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN EMINENT DOMAIN CASES IS ONLY AN APPARENT
EXCEPTION, WHICH HAS ITS ORIGIN IN THE CONSTITUTION.  SHOSHONE TRIBE V.
UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476, 497; UNITED STATES V. ROGERS, 255 U.S.
163, 169.  IF THE BONDS IN SUIT HAD MATURED AT THE DATE OF NATURAL
EXPIRATION, INTEREST WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE ENDED, WHETHER THE BONDS
WERE PAID OR NOT.  MATURITY AT A DIFFERENT AND ACCELERATED DATE DOES
NOT MAKE THE OBLIGATION GREATER.  IN THE ONE CASE AS IN THE OTHER THE
INTEREST OBLIGATION ENDS, AND THIS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE
CONTRACT SAYS THAT IT SHALL END.  UPON NON-PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AT THE
ORIGINAL MATURITY, THE BONDHOLDER, IF UNPAID, HAS A REMEDY BY SUIT TO
RECOVER PRINCIPAL, WITH INTEREST THEN OVERDUE, BUT NOT INTEREST
THEREAFTER.  UPON NON-PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AT THE ACCELERATED DATE, HE
HAS A LIKE REMEDY, BUT NO OTHER.  DEFAULT, IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY, IS AS
INEFFECTIVE IN ONE SITUATION AS IN THE OTHER TO KEEP INTEREST ALIVE. 

PETITIONERS INSIST, HOWEVER, THAT THE NOTICES OF CALL WERE NOT
ADEQUATE TO ACCELERATE MATURITY, WITH THE RESULT THAT INTEREST
CONTINUED AS IF NOTICE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN.  THIS SURELY IS NOT SO IF WE
LOOK TO FORM ALONE AND PUT EXTRINSIC FACTS ASIDE.  "ALL OUTSTANDING
FIRST LIBERTY LOAN BONDS OF 1932-47 ARE HEREBY CALLED FOR REDEMPTION ON
JUNE 15, 1935."  "ALL OUTSTANDING FOURTH LIBERTY LOAN 4 1/4 PER CENT
BONDS OF 1933-38, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS FOURTH 4 1/4'S, BEARING
THE SERIAL NUMBERS WHICH HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY LOT IN THE MANNER
PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ARE CALLED FOR REDEMPTION
ON APRIL 15, 1934, AS FOLLOWS," (THE SERIAL NUMBERS BEING THEREUPON
STATED).  NOTHING COULD BE SIMPLER, NOTHING MORE CLEARLY ADEQUATE,
UNLESS THE NOTICES ARE TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY RESORT TO EXTRINSIC FACTS,
THE SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHICH NEUTRALIZE THEIR TERMS. 
PETITIONERS MAINTAIN THAT SUCH EXTRINSIC FACTS EXIST.  IN THEIR VIEW,
EACH OF THE TWO FORMS OF NOTICE MUST BE READ AS IF IT INCORPORATED
WITHIN ITSELF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933, AND PROMISED
PAYMENT IN THE MANNER CALLED FOR BY THAT RESOLUTION, AND NOT IN ANY
OTHER WAY.  THUS SUPPLEMENTED, WE ARE TOLD, THE NOTICE IS A NULLITY,
FOR THE PAYMENT THAT IT PROMISES IS NOT THE PAYMENT OWING UNDER THE
LETTER OF THE BOND. 

THE NOTICE OF CALL FOR THE REDEMPTION OF THE BONDS WAS A NOTICE, NOT
A PROMISE.  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY WAS NOT UNDER A DUTY TO MAKE
ANY PROMISE AS TO THE MEDIUM OF PAYMENT.  HE DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO MAKE
ANY.  THE OBLIGATION DEVOLVING UPON THE UNITED STATES AT THE DESIGNATED
DATE WAS MEASURED BY THE LAW, AND THE LAW INCLUDES THE CONSTITUTION AS
WELL AS STATUTES AND RESOLUTIONS.  THE MEDIUM OF PAYMENT LAWFUL AT THE
TIME OF ISSUING THE CALL MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT PREVAILING AT THE
ACCELERATED MATURITY.  THIS MIGHT HAPPEN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN
AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE.  IT MIGHT HAPPEN THROUGH JUDICIAL DECISIONS
ADJUDGING A STATUTE VALID AND EQUALLY THROUGH JUDICIAL DECISIONS
ADJUDGING A STATUTE VOID.  THE INTERVAL BETWEEN NOTICE AND REDEMPTION
WAS THREE MONTHS IN THE CASE OF THE FIRST LIBERTY BONDS; IT WAS SIX
MONTHS FOR THE FOURTH.  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY UNDERSTOOD THESE
POSSIBILITIES WHEN HE SENT OUT HIS NOTICES FOR THE REDEMPTION OF THE
BONDS IN SUIT.  INDEED, PERRY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, HAD ALREADY BEEN
DECIDED WHEN BONDS OF THE FIRST LIBERTY ISSUE WERE MADE THE SUBJECT OF
HIS CALL.  IN EACH FORM OF NOTICE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CALL ARE
CLEAR.  WHAT THE BONDHOLDERS WERE TOLD WAS NEITHER MORE NOR LESS THAN
THIS, THAT AT THE ACCELERATED MATURITY THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO
PAYMENT IN SUCH FORM AND IN SUCH MEASURE AS WOULD DISCHARGE THE
OBLIGATION.  THE SECRETARY'S BELIEFS OR EXPECTATIONS AS TO WHAT THE
PROPER FORM OR MEASURE WOULD BE AT THE APPOINTED TIME ARE OF NO
CONTROLLING IMPORTANCE, EVEN IF THEY WERE SHOWN.  THE OBLIGATION WAS
NOT HIS; IT WAS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES.  HIS OWN BELIEFS AND
EXPECTATIONS AND EVEN THOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE CHANGED OR
FRUSTRATED BY SUBSEQUENT EVENTS.  THE BONDHOLDERS HAD THE ASSURANCE
THAT THE BONDS WOULD BE REDEEMED, AND THEY WERE ENTITLED TO NO OTHER. 
WHATEVER MEDIUM OF PAYMENT WOULD DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION IF MATURITY
HAD BEEN ATTAINED THROUGH THE NATURAL LAPSE OF TIME WOULD DISCHARGE IT
AS COMPLETELY AT AN ACCELERATED MATURITY.  THE SAME MONEY THAT WOULD
"PAY" WOULD SERVE ALSO TO "REDEEM."  THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
THE ONE SITUATION WAS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OTHER IN THE MINDS OF THE
CONTRACTING PARTIES.  THE SUM TOTAL OF EXISTING LAW - CONSTITUTION AND
STATUTES AND EVEN CONTROLLING DECISIONS, IF THERE WERE ANY - WOULD SAY
HOW MUCH WAS DUE. 

IF THIS ANALYSIS IS SOUND, IT CARRIES WITH IT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
CALL DID NOT COMMIT THE GOVERNMENT EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY INDIRECTION
TO A FORBIDDEN MEDIUM OF PAYMENT.  THE CASE FOR THE PETITIONERS, IF
VALID, MUST REST UPON SOME OTHER BASIS.  A SUGGESTED BASIS IS THAT THE
EXISTENCE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION AMOUNTED WITHOUT MORE TO AN
ANTICIPATORY BREACH, WHICH MADE THE NOTICE OF REDEMPTION VOID FROM ITS
INCEPTION, IF THERE WAS AN ELECTION SO TO TREAT IT, AND THIS THOUGH THE
NOTICE LEFT THE MEDIUM OF PAYMENT OPEN.  BUT THE RULE OF LAW IS SETTLED
THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICIPATORY BREACH HAS IN GENERAL NO APPLICATION
TO UNILATERAL CONTRACTS, AND PARTICULARLY TO SUCH CONTRACTS FOR THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY.  ROEHM V. HORST, 178 U.S. 1, 17; NICHOLS V.
SCRANTON STEEL CO., 137 N.Y. 471, 487; 33 N.E. 561; KELLY V. SECURITY
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 186 N.Y. 16; 78 N.E. 584; WILLISTON, CONTRACTS,
REV. ED., VOL. 5, SEC. 1328; RESTATEMENT, CONTRACTS, SECS. 316, 318. 
WHATEVER EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED DO NOT TOUCH THE CASE AT
HAND.  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. VIGLAS, 297 U.S. 672, 679, 680. 
MOREOVER, AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH, IF IT WERE MADE OUT, COULD HAVE NO
EFFECT UPON THE RIGHT OF THE COMPLAINING BONDHOLDERS TO POSTPONE THE
TIME OF PAYMENT TO THE DATE OF NATURAL MATURITY.  THE SOLE EFFECT, IF
ANY, WOULD BE TO CLOTHE THEM WITH A PRIVILEGE TO DECLARE PAYMENT
OVERDUE, WHICH IS PRECISELY THE RESULT THAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO AVOID. 
THE CONCLUSION THEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT
CONTROVERSY THE BREACH WOULD BE IMMATERIAL EVEN IF IT WERE NOT UNREAL. 
BUT ITS UNREALITY IS THE FEATURE WE PREFER TO DWELL UPON.  THE
GOVERNMENT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A DUTY TO KEEP THE CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR
CONSTANT DURING THE PERIOD INTERVENING BETWEEN PROMISE AND
PERFORMANCE.  THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A DUTY
VITIATES ANY ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS AS TO AN ANTICIPATORY
BREACH JUST AS IT VITIATES THEIR ARGUMENT AS TO THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE
CALL.  THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS ONLY ONE WAS TO PAY THE BONDS
WHEN DUE.  IF THE STATUTES HAD BEEN AMENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF
REDEMPTION OR IF THE COURTS HAD DECIDED THAT PAYMENT MUST BE MADE IN
GOLD OR IN CURRENCY PROPORTIONED TO THE EARLIER CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR,
THERE IS LITTLE LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY ONE WOULD JUDGE THE EFFICACY OF THE
NOTICE BY THE TEST OF THE LAW IN FORCE AT THE DATE OF ITS
ANNOUNCEMENT. 

THE PETITIONERS BEING DISLODGED FROM THE POSITION THAT THE NOTICES OF
CALL WERE VOID IN THEIR INCEPTION ARE PERFORCE DRIVEN TO THE STAND THAT
THEY BECAME NULLITIES THEREAFTER, WHEN THE STATUTES WERE UNREPEALED AT
THE DESIGNATED DATE.  BUT AT THE DESIGNATED DATE THE ACCELERATED
MATURITY WAS ALREADY AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT.  THE DUTY OF PAYMENT DID NOT
ARISE IN ADVANCE OF MATURITY.  IN THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS IT
PRESUPPOSES MATURITY AS A PRELIMINARY CONDITION.  IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY
DIFFERENT INTENTION, THE BONDS WOULD HAVE PROVIDED THAT INTEREST SHOULD
CEASE UPON PAYMENT OR LAWFUL TENDER, AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF
REDEMPTION STATED IN THE CALL.  THIS IS NOT A CASE OF MUTUAL PROMISES
OR COVENANTS WITH PERFORMANCE TO BE RENDERED ON EACH SIDE AT A GIVEN
TIME AND PLACE.  THE OBLIGEES WERE NOT UNDER A DUTY TO DO ANYTHING AT
ALL AT THE ACCELERATED MATURITY, THOUGH THEY WERE PRIVILEGED, IF THEY
PLEASED, TO PRESENT THE BONDS FOR PAYMENT.  MOST OF THE LEARNING AS TO
DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT PROMISES IN THE LAW OF BILATERAL CONTRACTS
(LOUD V. POMONA LAND & W. CO., 153 U.S. 564, 576) IS THUS BESIDE THE
MARK.  THIS IS A CASE OF A UNILATERAL CONTRACT WHERE THE ONLY ACT OF
PERFORMANCE, THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS, WAS ONE OWING FROM THE OBLIGOR,
AND AROSE BY HYPOTHESIS UPON MATURITY AND NOT BEFORE.  LET MATURITY,
WHETHER NORMAL OR ACCELERATED, BE ACCEPTED AS A POSTULATE, AND IT MUST
FOLLOW THAT DEFAULT IN PAYMENT WILL NOT CHANGE THE DATE AGAIN.  IF THE
GOVERNMENT WERE TO COME FORWARD WITH A TENDER A DAY OR A WEEK AFTER THE
DESIGNATED DATE, THE OBLIGEES WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN A REJECTION OF
THE PAYMENT ON THE THEORY THAT THE ORIGINAL DATE OF MATURITY HAD BEEN
RESTORED BY THE DELAY.  IF THE OBLIGEES WERE TO SUE AFTER THE
DESIGNATED DATE, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT BE HEARD TO SAY THAT BECAUSE
OF THE DEFAULT IN PAYMENT, THE PROPOSED ACCELERATION WAS IMPERFECT AND
INCHOATE.  AS POINTED OUT ALREADY, THE BONDHOLDERS BECAME ENTITLED,
WHEN ONCE THE NOTICE HAD BEEN PUBLISHED, TO A MEASURE AND MEDIUM OF
PAYMENT SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE DEBTS.  IF THE THEN EXISTING ACTS
OF CONGRESS WERE VALID ALTOGETHER, PAYMENT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT IF MADE
IN THE THEN PREVAILING CURRENCY.  IF THE ACTS WERE INVALID, EITHER
WHOLLY OR IN SOME DEGREE, THERE MIGHT BE NEED OF SOMETHING MORE, HOW
MUCH BEING DEPENDENT UPON THE OPERATION OF AN IMPLIED OBLIGATION, READ
INTO THE BONDS BY A PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION, TO RENDER AN EQUIVALENT. 
WHATEVER THE FORM AND MEASURE, THE BONDHOLDERS HAD A REMEDY IF THEY HAD
CHOSEN TO INVOKE IT. 

WE DO NOT NOW DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF A NOTICE GIVEN IN BAD FAITH
WITH A PRECONCEIVED INTENTION TO WITHHOLD PERFORMANCE LATER.  FRAUD
VITIATES NEARLY EVERY FORM OF CONDUCT AFFECTED BY ITS TAINT, BUT FRAUD
HAS NOT BEEN PROVED AND INDEED HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED.  THERE IS NO
REASON TO DOUBT THAT A SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY WHO WAS WILLING TO
GIVE NOTICE OF REDEMPTION AFTER KNOWLEDGE OF THE DECISION IN PERRY V.
UNITED STATES UNDERSTOOD THAT THE OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE
MEASURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND NOT BY ANY STATUTE, IN SO FAR AS THE
TWO MIGHT BE FOUND TO BE IN CONFLICT.  NEVER FOR A MOMENT WAS THERE
LESS THAN COMPLETE SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREMACY OF LAW.  AT THE UTMOST,
THERE WAS HONEST MISTAKE AS TO RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES IN A SITUATION
WITHOUT PRECEDENT.  FRAUD BEING ELIMINATED, THE CASE ACQUIRES A NEW
CLARITY.  WHEN WE REACH THE HEART OF THE MATTER, PUTTING CONFUSING
VERBIAGE ASIDE AND FIXING OUR GAZE UPON ESSENTIALS, THE OBLIGATION OF
THE BONDS CAN BE EXPRESSED IN A SIMPLIFYING PARAPHRASE.  "THIS BOND
SHALL BE PAYABLE ON JUNE 15, 1947, OR (UPON THREE MONTHS NOTICE BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY) ON JUNE 15, 1932, OR ANY INTEREST DATE
THEREAFTER."  THAT IS WHAT WAS MEANT.  THAT IN SUBSTANCE IS WHAT WAS
SAID.  FN3 

NO QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS INVOLVED IN THE DECISION OF
THESE CASES.  NO QUESTION IS HERE AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION
IN PERRY V. UNITED STATES, OR AS TO THE MEANING OR EFFECT OF THE
OPINION THERE ANNOUNCED.  ALL SUCH INQUIRIES ARE PUT ASIDE AS
UNNECESSARY TO THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM NOW BEFORE US.  IRRESPECTIVE
OF THE VALIDITY OR INVALIDITY OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE
LEGISLATION OF RECENT YEARS DEVALUING THE DOLLAR, THE MATURITY OF THE
BONDS IN SUIT WAS ACCELERATED BY VALID NOTICE.  AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
SUCH ACCELERATION THE RIGHT TO INTEREST HAS GONE. 

SECOND.  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY DID NOT ACT IN EXCESS OF HIS
LAWFUL POWERS BY ISSUING THE CALLS WITHOUT FURTHER AUTHORITY FROM THE
CONGRESS THAN WAS CONFERRED BY THE STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE BONDS WERE
ISSUED.    THE ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES AND ALSO OF THE BONDS THEMSELVES. 

THERE WAS ALSO CONFIRMATION OF HIS POWER IN SUBSEQUENT ENACTMENTS. 
VICTORY LIBERTY LOAN ACT, SEC. 6, 40 STAT. 1311, AS AMENDED, MARCH 2,
1923, C. 179, 42 STAT. 1427, AND JANUARY 30, 1934, SEC. 14(B), 48 STAT.
344; GOLD RESERVE ACT OF 1934, SEC. 14, 48 STAT. 343; ACT OF FEBRUARY
4, 1935, SECS. 2, 4, 49 STAT. 20. 

THIRD.  IN ISSUING THE CALLS, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY WAS NOT
LIMITED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 18, 1869(R.S. 3693; 16 STAT. 1) WHICH IN
ITS DAY PLACED RESTRICTIONS UPON THE REDEMPTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
INTEREST-BEARING BONDS. 

THE AIM OF THAT STATUTE WAS THE PROTECTION OF HOLDERS OF UNITED
STATES OBLIGATIONS NOT BEARING INTEREST, THE "GREENBACKS" OF THAT ERA. 
"THE BONDS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT TO BE PAID BEFORE MATURITY,
WHILE THE NOTE-HOLDERS ARE TO BE KEPT WITHOUT THEIR REDEMPTION, UNLESS
THE NOTE-HOLDERS ARE ABLE AT THE SAME TIME TO CONVERT THEIR NOTES INTO
COIN."  STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. SCHENCK, ONE OF THE HOUSE MANAGERS,
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE, MARCH 3, 1869, P. 1879.  UPON THE RESUMPTION OF
SPECIE PAYMENTS IN 1879 THE AIM OF THE STATUTE WAS ACHIEVED, AND ITS
RESTRICTIONS ARE NO LONGER BINDING. 

THE JUDGMENTS IN NOS. 42 AND 43 SHOULD BE AFFIRMED, AND THAT IN NO.
198 REVERSED.  NOS. 42 AND 43, AFFIRMED.  NO. 198, REVERSED. 

FN1  THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF AUG. 27, 1935(49 STAT. 938, 939),
WITHDRAWING THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO SUIT WHERE THE CLAIMANT
ASSERTED AGAINST IT A RIGHT, PRIVILEGE OR POWER "UPON ANY GOLD-CLAUSE
SECURITIES OF THE UNITED STATES OR FOR INTEREST THEREON" MAKES AN
EXCEPTION OF ANY SUIT BEGUN BY JANUARY 1, 1936, AS WELL AS ANY
PROCEEDING "IN WHICH NO CLAIM IS MADE FOR PAYMENT OR CREDIT IN AN
AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE FACE OR NOMINAL VALUE IN DOLLARS OF THE
SECURITIES, COINS OR CURRENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES INVOLVED IN SUCH
PROCEEDING."  PETITIONER HAS BROUGHT HIMSELF WITHIN EACH BRANCH OF THE
EXCEPTION. 

FN2  THE COUPON READS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL
PAY TO BEARER ON OCTOBER 15, 1934, AT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
WASHINGTON, OR AT A DESIGNATED AGENCY, $1.07, BEING SIX MONTHS'
INTEREST THEN DUE ON $50 FOURTH LIBERTY LOAN 4 1/4% GOLD BONDS OF 1933
1938 UNLESS CALLED FOR PREVIOUS REDEMPTION." 

FN3  IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES EXIST, AND ARE NOT TO BE IGNORED, BETWEEN
THE RETIREMENT OF SHARES OF STOCK (STERLING V. H.F. WATSON CO., SUPRA;
CORBETT V. MCCLINTIC-MARSHALL CORP., 17 DEL. CH. 165; 151 ATL. 218),
AND THE ACCELERATED PAYMENT OF MONEY OBLIGATIONS, AND ALSO BETWEEN THE
ACCELERATION OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THOSE OF OTHER
OBLIGORS.  IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE OBLIGATIONS, A LIABILITY FOR INTEREST
SURVIVES THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT AND CONTINUES UNTIL PAYMENT.  IN
THE CASE OF GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS, INTEREST DOES NOT CONTINUE AFTER
MATURITY (IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE OR AGREEMENT) THOUGH PAYMENT IS NOT
MADE. 

DISSENTING:  MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND AND MR.
JUSTICE BUTLER.  SEE POST, P. 364. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE. 

I CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 

I THINK THE COURT BELOW, IN THE MACHEN CASE, 87 F.(2D) 594, CORRECTLY
INTERPRETED THE BONDS INVOLVED IN THESE CASES AS RESERVING TO THE
GOVERNMENT THE PRIVILEGE OF ACCELERATING THEIR MATURITY BY PAYING THEM
OR STANDING READY TO PAY THEM ON ANY INTEREST DATE ACCORDING TO THEIR
TENOR, AND UPON GIVING THE SPECIFIED NOTICE FIXING THE "DATE OF
REDEMPTION."  THE WORDS "REDEEMED" AND "REDEMPTION" AS USED IN THE
BONDS  FN1  POINT THE WAY IN WHICH THE PRIVILEGE WAS TO BE EXERCISED AS
PLAINLY AS WHEN THEY ARE WRITTEN IN THE BONDS OF A PRIVATE LENDER. 
LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571, 579; CF. PERRY V. UNITED STATES,
294 U.S. 330, 352.  IF PAYMENT, OR READINESS TO PAY THE BONDS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TERMS WAS ESSENTIAL TO "REDEMPTION," THE ONE OR
THE OTHER, EQUALLY WITH THE REQUIRED NOTICE, WAS A CONDITION OF
ACCELERATION. 

THE OBLIGATION OF THE BONDS, READ IN THE LIGHT OF LONG ESTABLISHED
CUSTOM AND OF OUR OWN DECISION IN HOLYOKE WATER POWER CO. V. AMERICAN
WRITING PAPER CO., 300 U.S. 324, 336, DECIDED SINCE THE PERRY CASE,
MUST, I THINK, BE TAKEN TO BE A "GOLD VALUE" UNDERTAKING TO PAY IN GOLD
DOLLARS OF THE SPECIFIED WEIGHT AND FINENESS OR THEIR EQUIVALENT IN
LAWFUL CURRENCY.  COMPARE NORMAN V. B. & O.R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, 302. 
FEIST V. SOCIETE INTERCOMMUNALE BELGE, &C., L.R. (1934) A.C. 172, 173. 
THE SUPPRESSION OF THE USE OF GOLD AS MONEY, AND THE RESTRICTION ON ITS
EXPORT AND OF ITS USE IN INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE, BY ACTS OF CONGRESS,
48 STAT. 1, 337, DID NOT RELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT OF ITS OBLIGATION TO
PAY THE STIPULATED GOLD VALUE OF THE BONDS IN LAWFUL CURRENCY.  HENCE
IT HAS NOT COMPLIED, OR EVER STOOD READY TO COMPLY, WITH ONE OF THE TWO
CONDITIONS UPON PERFORMANCE OF WHICH THE BONDS "MAY BE REDEEMED AND
PAID" IN ADVANCE OF THEIR DUE DATE - THE PAYMENT TO THE BONDHOLDER OF
THE CURRENCY EQUIVALENT OF THE STIPULATED GOLD VALUE. 

IT WILL NOT DO TO SAY THAT PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONDITION CAN BE
AVOIDED OR DISPENSED WITH BY THE ADOPTION OF ANY FORM OF WORDS IN THE
NOTICE.  NOR CAN IT BE SAID THAT A DECLARATION, IN THE NOTICE, OF
INTENTION TO PAY WHATEVER CAN BE COLLECTED IN COURT, SEE THE PERRY
CASE, SUPRA, 354, IS EQUIVALENT TO A NOTICE OF READINESS TO PAY THE
CURRENCY EQUIVALENT OF THE GOLD VALUE STIPULATED TO BE PAID, OR THAT A
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE TO PAY WHAT WILL CONSTITUTIONALLY SATISFY THE DEBT
SUFFICES TO ACCELERATE ALTHOUGH NO PAYMENT OF THE CURRENCY EQUIVALENT
IS MADE OR CONTEMPLATED OR IS PERMITTED BY THE STATUTES.  IT FOLLOWS
THAT JUDGMENT MUST GO FOR THE BONDHOLDERS UNLESS THE JOINT RESOLUTION
OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 5, 1933, 48 STAT. 112, REQUIRING THE DISCHARGE OF
ALL GOLD OBLIGATIONS "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR" IN LAWFUL CURRENCY, AND
DECLARING VOID AS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY ALL PROVISIONS OF SUCH
OBLIGATIONS CALLING FOR GOLD PAYMENTS, IS TO BE PRONOUNCED
CONSTITUTIONAL. 

DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BEING IN MY OPINION NOW
UNAVOIDABLE, I AM MOVED TO STATE SHORTLY MY REASONS FOR THE VIEW THAT
GOVERNMENT BONDS DO NOT STAND ON ANY DIFFERENT FOOTING FROM THOSE OF
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION IN THE ONE CASE, AS
IN THE OTHER, WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO REGULATE
THE VALUE OF MONEY.  COMPARE NORMAN V. B. & O.R. CO., SUPRA, 304, 309. 
WITHOUT ELABORATING THE POINT, IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES TO SAY
THAT THE UNDERTAKING OF THE UNITED STATES TO PAY ITS OBLIGATIONS IN
GOLD, IF BINDING, OPERATES TO THWART THE EXERCISE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME DEGREE PRO TANTO AS DO BONDS
ISSUED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, NORMAN V. B. & O.R. CO., SUPRA, 311 ET
SEQ., EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE GOVERNMENT RESORTS TO ITS SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.  HAD THE UNDERTAKING BEEN GIVEN ANY FORCE IN THE
GOLD CLAUSE CASES, OR THE MEANING WHICH WE HAVE SINCE ATTRIBUTED TO IT
WHEN USED IN PRIVATE CONTRACTS, IT WOULD, IF VALID AND BUT FOR THE
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, HAVE DEFEATED THE GOVERNMENT POLICY OF SUSPENSION
OF GOLD PAYMENTS AND DEVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR.  COMPARE THE NORMAN
CASE, SUPRA, WITH THE CONCURRING MEMORANDUM IN PERRY V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA, 360-361. 

THE VERY FACT OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH IMMUNITY, WHICH ADMITS OF THE
CREATION OF ONLY SUCH GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS AS ARE ENFORCEABLE AT THE
WILL OF THE SOVEREIGN, IS PERSUASIVE THAT THE POWER TO BORROW MONEY "ON
THE CREDIT" OF THE UNITED STATES CANNOT BE TAKEN TO BE A LIMITATION OF
THE POWER TO REGULATE THE VALUE OF MONEY.  LOOKING TO THE PURPOSES FOR
WHICH THAT POWER IS CONFERRED UPON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, ITS
EXERCISE, IF JUSTIFIED AT ALL, IS AS ESSENTIAL IN THE CASE OF BONDS OF
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AS IT IS IN THE CASE OF BONDS OF STATES,
MUNICIPALITIES AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.  SEE NORMAN V. B. & O.R. CO.,
SUPRA, 313 ET SEQ. ITS EFFECT ON THE BONDHOLDERS IS THE SAME IN EVERY
CASE.  COMPARE NORMAN V. B. & O.R. CO., SUPRA, WITH NORTZ V. UNITED
STATES, 294 U.S. 317.  NO REASON OF PUBLIC POLICY OR PRINCIPLE OF
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INSTRUMENT ITSELF HAS EVER BEEN SUGGESTED, SO FAR
AS I AM AWARE, WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN WHY THE POWER TO REGULATE THE
CURRENCY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN THE CASE OF
ANY OBLIGATION, IS CONTROLLED, IN THE CASE OF GOVERNMENT BONDS, BY THE
BORROWING CLAUSE WHICH IMPOSES NO OBLIGATION WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS
NOT FREE TO DISCARD AT ANY TIME THROUGH ITS IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.  I
CANNOT SAY THAT THE BORROWING CLAUSE WHICH IS WITHOUT FORCE TO COMPEL
THE SOVEREIGN TO PAY NEVERTHELESS RENDERS THE GOVERNMENT POWERLESS TO
EXERCISE THE SPECIFICALLY GRANTED AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE VALUE OF
MONEY WITH WHICH PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE. 

FN1  THE REDEMPTION CLAUSE IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF THIS BOND SHALL BE PAYABLE IN UNITED
STATES GOLD COIN OF THE PRESENT STANDARD OF VALUE,  ...  ALL OR ANY OF
THE BONDS OF THE SERIES OF WHICH THIS IS ONE MAY BE REDEEMED AND PAID
AT THE PLEASURE OF THE UNITED STATES ON OR AFTER JUNE 15, 1932, OR ON
ANY SEMI-ANNUAL INTEREST PAYMENT DATE OR DATES, AT THE FACE VALUE
THEREOF AND INTEREST ACCRUED AT THE DATE OF REDEMPTION, ON NOTICE
PUBLISHED AT LEAST THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE, AND
PUBLISHED THEREAFTER FROM TIME TO TIME DURING SAID THREE MONTHS PERIOD
AS THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL DIRECT....  FROM THE DATE OF
REDEMPTION DESIGNATED IN ANY SUCH NOTICE INTEREST ON THE BONDS CALLED
FOR REDEMPTION SHALL CEASE, AND ALL COUPONS THEREON MATURING AFTER SAID
DATE SHALL BE VOID...." 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, CONCURRING. 

AGREEING ALTOGETHER WITH THE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, WHICH
DEALS ONLY WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT AND THE RIGHTS FLOWING
FROM THE NOTICE, I FIND IT UNNECESSARY AND THEREFORE INAPPROPRIATE TO
EXPRESS ANY OPINION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1933
OR OTHER ACTS OF LEGISLATION DEVALUING THE DOLLAR. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, DISSENTING.* 

*THIS OPINION WAS ENTITLED IN ONLY ONE OF THE THREE CASES, NO. 198. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND I CANNOT ACQUIESCE IN
THE CONCLUSION APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT.  IN OUR VIEW IT
GIVES EFFECT TO AN ACT OF BAD FAITH AND UPHOLDS PATENT REPUDIATION. 
ITS WRONGFULNESS IS BETOKENED BY THE CIRCUMLOCUTION PRESENTED IN
DEFENSE. 

THE SUIT IS TO RECOVER IN CURRENCY OF TODAY THE FACE VALUE OF A PAST
DUE COUPON ORIGINALLY ATTACHED TO A THREE AND ONE-HALF PER CENT BOND OF
THE UNITED STATES ISSUED IN 1917 AND PAYABLE 1947 - NOTHING ELSE. 

THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, TO WHICH LITTLE CAN BE
ADDED, SETS OUT THE IMPORTANT FACTS AND ADEQUATELY SUPPORTS ITS
JUDGMENT. 

IN 1917, WHEN GOLD COINS CONTAINED 25.8 GRAINS TO THE DOLLAR, THE
UNITED STATES OBTAINED NEEDED FUNDS BY SELLING COUPON BONDS - AMONG
THEM THE ONE HERE INVOLVED.  THEY SOLEMNLY AGREED TO PAY THE HOLDER ONE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ON JUNE 15, 1947, WITH SEMI-ANNUAL INTEREST, IN "GOLD
COIN OF THE PRESENT STANDARD OF VALUE" SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING OPTION:
- "ALL OR ANY OF THE BONDS OF THE SERIES OF WHICH THIS IS ONE MAY BE
REDEEMED  FN1  AND PAID AT THE PLEASURE OF THE UNITED STATES ON OR
AFTER JUNE 15, 1932, ON ANY SEMI-ANNUAL INTEREST PAYMENT DATE OR DATES,
AT THE FACE VALUE THEREOF AND INTEREST ACCRUED AT THE DATE OF
REDEMPTION, ON NOTICE PUBLISHED AT LEAST THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE
REDEMPTION DATE....  FROM THE DATE OF REDEMPTION DESIGNATED IN ANY SUCH
NOTICE, INTEREST ON THE BONDS CALLED FOR REDEMPTION SHALL CEASE, AND
ALL COUPONS THEREON MATURING AFTER SUCH DATE SHALL BE VOID." 

THE PROMISE IS TO PAY ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN GOLD COIN, 1917
STANDARD.  THE FACE VALUE OF THE BOND IS ONE THOUSAND GOLD DOLLARS. 
THE OPTION RESERVED IS TO REDEEM AND PAY AFTER NOTICE BY GIVING THE
HOLDER THAT NUMBER OF SUCH DOLLARS.  THE NOTICE REQUIRED IS NOTHING
LESS THAN A DECLARATION OF BONA FIDE PURPOSE TO REDEEM OR PAY OFF THE
OBLIGATION AS WRITTEN - NO OTHER RIGHT WAS RESERVED.  A NOTICE DIVORCED
FROM THAT PURPOSE COULD AMOUNT TO NOTHING MORE THAN A DISHONEST EFFORT
TO DEFEAT THE CONTRACT AND DEFRAUD THE CREDITOR.  IT WOULD NOT COME
WITHIN THE FAIR INTENDMENT OF THE CONTRACT; WOULD NOT, IN TRUTH,
DESIGNATE A "DATE OF REDEMPTION"; AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT HASTEN THE
MATURITY OF THE PRINCIPAL OR CAUSE INTEREST TO CEASE.  ALL THIS SEEMS
OBVIOUS, IF RESPECT IS TO BE ACCORDED TO THE ORDINARY RULES OF
CONSTRUCTION AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW GOVERNING CONTRACTS. 

THE OBLIGATION OF THE BOND WAS DECLARED BY THIS COURT IN PERRY V.
UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330, 351, 353, 354, TO BE A PLEDGE OF THE
CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES AND AN ASSURANCE OF PAYMENT AS STIPULATED
WHICH CONGRESS HAD NO POWER TO WITHDRAW OR IGNORE.  "THE UNITED STATES
ARE AS MUCH BOUND BY THEIR CONTRACTS AS ARE INDIVIDUALS.  IF THEY
REPUDIATE THEIR OBLIGATIONS, IT IS AS MUCH REPUDIATION, WITH ALL THE
WRONG AND REPROACH THAT TERM IMPLIES, AS IT WOULD BE IF THE REPUDIATOR
HAD BEEN A STATE OR A MUNICIPALITY OR A CITIZEN."  "THE POWER OF THE
CONGRESS TO ALTER OR REPUDIATE THE SUBSTANCE OF ITS OWN ENGAGEMENTS
WHEN IT HAS BORROWED MONEY UNDER THE AUTHORITY WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
CONFERS" WAS THERE DENIED.  "THE BINDING QUALITY OF THE PROMISE OF THE
UNITED STATES IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THE CREDIT WHICH IS SO PLEDGED. 
HAVING THIS POWER TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUE OF DEFINITE OBLIGATIONS FOR
THE PAYMENT OF MONEY BORROWED, THE CONGRESS HAS NOT BEEN VESTED WITH
AUTHORITY TO ALTER OR DESTROY THOSE OBLIGATIONS.  THE FACT THAT THE
UNITED STATES MAY NOT BE SUED WITHOUT ITS CONSENT IS A MATTER OF
PROCEDURE WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT THE LEGAL AND BINDING CHARACTER OF ITS
CONTRACTS.  WHILE THE CONGRESS IS UNDER NO DUTY TO PROVIDE REMEDIES
THROUGH THE COURTS, THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION STILL EXISTS AND,
DESPITE INFIRMITIES OF PROCEDURE, REMAINS BINDING UPON THE CONSCIENCE
OF THE SOVEREIGN."    THE RIGHT TO REDEEM AND PAY THE BOND AT FACE
VALUE AFTER NOTICE WAS RESERVED - NOTHING ELSE.  DID THE UNITED STATES
GIVE NOTICE OF A BONA FIDE PURPOSE SO TO REDEEM AND PAY?  IF NOT THEY
CANNOT PROPERLY CLAIM TO HAVE EXERCISED THEIR OPTION TO MATURE THE
OBLIGATION.  THAT THEY DID NOT HONESTLY COMPLY WITH THIS NECESSARY
PRELIMINARY BECOMES OBVIOUS UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND
PERTINENT LEGISLATION. 

THERE IS NO QUESTION HERE CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT COMMITTING ITSELF
THROUGH NOTICE SENT OUT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY EXPRESSLY OR
INDIRECTLY TO A FORBIDDEN MEDIUM OF PAYMENT.  NO QUESTION OF AN
ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT.  THE GOVERNMENT SIMPLY HAS NOT IN GOOD
FAITH COMPLIED WITH A CONDITION PRECEDENT.  IT HAS NEVER GIVEN NOTICE
OF PURPOSE TO PAY THE OBLIGATION ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS.  ITS
SUGGESTION WAS TO MAKE PAYMENT OF ANOTHER KIND. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WELL SAID - 

"THE NOTICE CALLING THE BOND FOR PAYMENT WAS IN THE USUAL FORM; AND
THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAD THE EFFECT OF STOPPING
THE RUNNING OF INTEREST AND AVOIDING THE COUPONS MATURING AFTER JUNE
15, 1935, EXCEPT FOR THE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS AFFECTING THE
CURRENCY, WHICH LIMITED THE POWER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND
MUST BE READ INTO THE NOTICE.  AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE BOND
THE GOLD DOLLAR WAS THE STANDARD OF VALUE IN OUR MONETARY SYSTEM AND
WAS DEFINED BY LAW AS CONSISTING OF TWENTY-FIVE AND EIGHT TENTHS GRAINS
OF GOLD NINE-TENTHS FINE.  ACT OF MAR. 14, 1900, C. 41, SEC. 1, 31
STAT. 45, 31 U.S.C.A. 314.  AND THE STATUTES PROVIDED FOR THE USE OF
GOLD COIN AS A MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE.  R.S. 3511.  BY PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATION OF JANUARY 31, 1934, ISSUED UNDER THE ACT OF MAY 12,
1933(38 STAT. 52, 53), AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JANUARY 30, 1934(48
STAT. 342), THE CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR WAS REDUCED TO 15-5/21 GRAINS OF
GOLD NINE-TENTHS FINE; AND, AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE
NOTICE CALLING THE BOND FOR PAYMENT, GOLD COIN HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM
CIRCULATION, ITS POSSESSION HAD BEEN PROHIBITED UNDER PENALTY, AND
PAYMENT IN GOLD COIN BY THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN PROHIBITED.  48
STAT. 337, 340.  BY JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933(48 STAT. 112,
113), THE PAYMENT OF GOLD CLAUSE BONDS IN ANY LEGAL TENDER CURRENCY
'DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR' HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED; AND IT WAS PAPER CURRENCY
BASED ON THE 15-5/21 GRAIN DOLLAR, AND NOTHING ELSE, THAT WAS OFFERED
IN PAYMENT OF GOLD CLAUSE BONDS WHICH WERE CALLED FOR PAYMENT BY THE
TREASURY.  THE NOTICE OF REDEMPTION CALLING THE BOND IN QUESTION FOR
PAYMENT WAS EQUIVALENT, THEREFORE, TO A NOTICE THAT THE UNITED STATES
ELECTED TO REDEEM THE BOND IN PAPER CURRENCY BASED ON A 15-5/21 GRAIN
DOLLAR, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT WAS PAYABLE IN GOLD COIN BASED ON A 25
8/10 GRAIN DOLLAR AND MIGHT BE REDEEMED ONLY AT ITS FACE VALUE.... 

"IT IS MANIFEST THAT WHEN THE BONDS WERE PAYABLE IN GOLD COIN OF THE
STANDARD OF VALUE AT THE TIME OF ISSUE, I.E., 25-8/10 GRAINS OF GOLD TO
THE DOLLAR, A PROPOSAL TO REDEEM THEM IN PAPER MONEY BASED UPON 15-5/21
GRAINS OF GOLD TO THE DOLLAR WAS NOT A PROPOSAL TO REDEEM THEM AT FACE
VALUE; AND A NOTICE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REDEEM THEM ON SUCH
BASIS, WHICH IS WHAT THE NOTICE IN QUESTION MEANS WHEN CONSIDERED AS IT
MUST BE IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEGISLATION BINDING UPON THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY, WAS NOT SUCH A NOTICE AS THE BONDS PRESCRIBED FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THE OPTION RETAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT." 

WE ARE NOT NOW CONCERNED WITH THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES TO
DISCHARGE OBLIGATIONS AT MATURITY IN DEPRECIATED CURRENCY OR CLIPPED
COIN.  DID THEY CAUSE RESPONDENT'S BOND TO MATURE BEFORE THE ULTIMATE
DUE DATE BY PROPER EXERCISE OF THE OPTION RESERVED WHEN THEY SENT OUT A
NOTICE WHICH IN EFFECT STATED THAT PAYMENT WOULD NOT BE MADE AS
PROVIDED BY THE BOND, BUT OTHERWISE?  THE ANSWER OUGHT NOT TO BE
DIFFICULT WHERE MEN ANXIOUSLY UPHOLD THE DOCTRINE THAT A CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION "REMAINS BINDING UPON THE CONSCIENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN" AND
REVERENTLY FIX THEIR GAZE ON THE EIGHTH COMMANDMENT. 

WE CONCUR IN THE VIEWS TERSELY EXPRESSED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH
EXCERPTED FROM THE OPINION BELOW - 

"NO AMOUNT OF ARGUMENT CAN OBSCURE THE REAL SITUATION.  IT IS THIS:
THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROMISED TO PAY THE BONDS IN QUESTION IN GOLD COIN
OF THE STANDARD OF VALUE PREVAILING IN 1917.  BY THEIR TERMS, IT IS
PERMITTED TO REDEEM THEM ONLY BY PAYING THEM AT THEIR FACE VALUE.  IT
IS PROPOSING TO REDEEM THEM, NOT BY PAYING THEM AT THAT FACE VALUE BUT
IN PAPER MONEY WORTH ONLY ABOUT 59% THEREOF.  THE NOTICE WHICH IT HAS
ISSUED MEANS THIS AND NOTHING ELSE.  SUCH A NOTICE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CONDITION OF REDEMPTION SPECIFIED IN THE BOND AND CONSEQUENTLY
DOES NOT STOP THE RUNNING OF INTEREST OR AVOID THE COUPONS." 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT WAS CORRECT AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  REDEEM - 5.  TO BUY OFF, TAKE UP OR REMOVE THE OBLIGATION OF, BY
PAYMENT OR RENDERING OF SOME CONSIDERATION; AS TO REDEEM BANK NOTES
WITH COIN. 

WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY. 
..END :



MCNAIR V. KNOTT, 302 U.S. 369 


NO. 32.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 11, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 13, 1937.  -
87 F.(2D) 817, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE ENABLING AMENDMENT OF JUNE 25, 1930, PROVIDES THAT ANY
NATIONAL BANK ASSOCIATION "MAY, UPON THE DEPOSIT WITH IT OF PUBLIC
MONEY OF A STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, GIVE SECURITY
FOR THE SAFE-KEEPING AND PROMPT PAYMENT OF THE MONEY SO DEPOSITED, OF
THE SAME KIND AS IS AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH SUCH
ASSOCIATION IS LOCATED IN THE CASE OF OTHER BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE
STATE."  HELD APPLICABLE BY INTENTION, TO SECURITY GIVEN AND DEPOSITS
MADE BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AMENDMENT.  P. 371. 

2.  THUS CONSTRUED RETROACTIVELY, THE AMENDMENT WAS WITHIN THE POWER
OF CONGRESS.  P. 372. 

MCNAIR, RECEIVER, V. KNOTT, TREASURER OF FLORIDA, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 677, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING A BILL BY THE RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK PRAYING FOR THE
CANCELLATION OF A PLEDGE AGREEMENT MADE BY THE BANK. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE NATIONAL BANK ENABLING
AMENDMENT OF JUNE 25, 1930, WHICH GRANTED POWER TO NATIONAL BANKS TO
SECURE DEPOSITS OF PUBLIC FUNDS, VALIDATES OR MAKES ENFORCEABLE
PREVIOUS PLEDGE AGREEMENTS MADE TO PROTECT SUCH FUNDS DEPOSITED BEFORE
THE ENABLING AMENDMENT BECAME EFFECTIVE. 

THAT ENABLING ACT  FN1  PROVIDES: 

"ANY ASSOCIATION MAY, UPON THE DEPOSIT WITH IT OF PUBLIC MONEY OF A
STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, GIVE SECURITY FOR THE SAFE
KEEPING AND PROMPT PAYMENT OF THE MONEY SO DEPOSITED, OF THE SAME KIND
AS IS AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH SUCH ASSOCIATION IS
LOCATED IN THE CASE OF OTHER BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE." 

BEFORE, AND AT THE TIME THIS ENABLING AMENDMENT WAS PASSED, THE LAWS
OF FLORIDA AUTHORIZED STATE BANKS TO GIVE SECURITY FOR PUBLIC DEPOSITS
AND ALSO IMPOSED UPON PUBLIC OFFICIALS A DUTY TO OBTAIN SUCH SECURITY. 
FN2  IN 1929 AND 1930, BEFORE THE PASSAGE OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK OF PERRY, FLORIDA, BY AGREEMENT WITH THE OFFICIALS OF
TAYLOR COUNTY, FLORIDA, PLEDGED COLLATERAL SECURITY FOR THE PROTECTION
OF COUNTY FUNDS THEREAFTER TO BE DEPOSITED FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE
BANK. 

THIS CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, ESTABLISHED BY THE PLEDGE AGREEMENT
AND DEPOSITS MADE THEREUNDER, CONTINUED TO EXIST UNTIL THE BANK WAS
CLOSED OCTOBER 18, 1930.  THE RECEIVER FOR THE CLOSED BANK AT FIRST
RECOGNIZED THE PLEDGE AGREEMENT AS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE AND
ACCORDINGLY PAID THE COUNTY THE INCOME HE RECEIVED FROM THE PLEDGED
SECURITIES.  IN 1935, HOWEVER, THE RECEIVER FILED THIS SUIT IN EQUITY
IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
ALLEGING THAT THE PLEDGE AGREEMENT WAS ULTRA VIRES AND ILLEGAL AND
PRAYING THAT IT BE CANCELLED AND ANNULLED.  UPON MOTION OF THE COUNTY,
THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE BILL.  13 F.SUPP.  963.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  87 F.(2D) 817.  THIS
COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI.  301 U.S. 677. 

THE ISSUES RAISED REQUIRE THAT WE DETERMINE: 

(1)  DID CONGRESS INTEND TO VALIDATE EXISTING ULTRA VIRES PLEDGES? 

(2)  COULD THIS PLEDGE AGREEMENT BE VALIDATED BY CHANGING THE LAW
WHICH WAS IN FORCE WHEN THE TRANSACTION WAS INITIATED? 

FIRST.  THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT, READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
CONDITIONS THAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE NECESSITY FOR ITS PASSAGE, LEADS
IRRESISTIBLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CONGRESS DID INTEND TO MAKE
EXISTING PLEDGES ENFORCEABLE. 

THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY EXCLUDE EXISTING CONTRACTS FROM ITS
FIELD OF OPERATION.  ON THE CONTRARY IT EXTENDED A GENERAL GRANT OF THE
BROAD POWER TO GIVE SECURITY FOR PUBLIC DEPOSITS, WITH A SINGLE
LIMITATION RELATING TO THE KIND OF SECURITY GIVEN BY STATE BANKS.  IF
CONGRESS HAD DESIRED TO LIMIT THE REMEDIAL GRANT TO SUBSEQUENT SECURITY
CONTRACTS, IT WOULD DOUBTLESS HAVE PROVIDED AN ADDITIONAL LIMITATION
RELATING TO PRIOR AGREEMENTS.  THIS IT DID NOT DO.  CONGRESS ALONE HAD
THE POWER TO WRITE SUCH A LIMITATION IN THE BILL.  FN3 

AGREEMENTS TO SECURE PUBLIC DEPOSITS DID NOT VIOLATE ANY EXPRESS
STATUTORY PROHIBITION; NO STATUTE IMPOSED A PENALTY FOR MAKING SUCH
AGREEMENTS.  SINCE THE BANKING ACT OF 1863 CONGRESS HAS PASSED MANY
LAWS REQUIRING THAT SECURITY BE GIVEN TO PROTECT DEPOSITS OF CERTAIN
PUBLIC FUNDS.  FN4 

FOR MANY YEARS COMPTROLLERS OF THE CURRENCY ASSUMED THAT NATIONAL
BANKS HAD POWER TO GIVE SECURITY FOR PUBLIC DEPOSITS AND APPROVED THE
PRACTICE OF THE BANKS IN PLEDGING SUCH SECURITY.  IT HAS BEEN, AND IS
NOW, THE POLICY OF MOST STATES TO REQUIRE SECURITY FOR PUBLIC FUNDS
WHETHER DEPOSITED IN STATE OR NATIONAL BANKS.  THE WEIGHT OF JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY IN THE STATE COURTS HAS SUPPORTED THE DOCTRINE THAT BANKS
COULD PLEDGE SECURITY FOR PUBLIC DEPOSITS, BUT NOT FOR PRIVATE
DEPOSITS.  FN5 

THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY WHICH MADE A FAVORABLE
REPORT ON THE ENABLING AMENDMENT GAVE INFORMATION TO THE SENATE IN ITS
REPORT THAT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF COLLATERAL HAD BEEN PLEDGED BY
NATIONAL BANKS AS SECURITY FOR PUBLIC DEPOSITS.  FN6  THE SENATE AND
HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORTS SHOW THAT THE SPONSORS OF THE AMENDMENT DESIRED
IT NOT MERELY TO PERMIT FUTURE PLEDGES BUT ALSO TO ASSURE THAT
AGREEMENTS UNDER WHICH "MILLIONS OF DOLLARS" OF PLEDGES HAD BEEN MADE
BY NATIONAL BANKS WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE.  ONE OF THE CHIEF REASONS FOR
THE ENACTMENT OF THE AMENDMENT WAS THE NEED FOR VALIDATION OF PLEDGES
ALREADY MADE.  THE AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED TO MEET THIS NEED.  TO
DETERMINE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO VALIDATE PLEDGE AGREEMENTS
EXISTING WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS PASSED WOULD GREATLY LIMIT ITS CURATIVE
EFFECT.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE AN UNWARRANTED DEPARTURE FROM THE
PLAIN INTENT OF THIS CURATIVE AND ENABLING STATUTE. 

SECOND.  APPELLANT INSISTS THAT THE CONTRACT COULD NOT BE VALIDATED
BY CHANGING THE LAW WHICH WAS IN FORCE WHEN THE PLEDGE AGREEMENT WAS
MADE. 

THERE IS NOTHING NOVEL OR EXTRAORDINARY IN THE PASSAGE OF LAWS BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES RATIFYING, CONFIRMING, VALIDATING, OR
CURING DEFECTIVE CONTRACTS.  SUCH STATUTES, USUALLY DESIGNATED AS
"REMEDIAL," "CURATIVE," OR "ENABLING," MERELY REMOVE LEGAL OBSTACLES
AND PERMIT PARTIES TO CARRY OUT THEIR CONTRACTS ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN
DESIRES AND INTENTIONS.  SUCH STATUTES HAVE VALIDATED TRANSACTIONS THAT
WERE PREVIOUSLY ILLEGAL RELATING TO MORTGAGES, DEEDS, BONDS, AND OTHER
CONTRACTS.  FN7  PLACING THE STAMP OF LEGALITY ON A CONTRACT
VOLUNTARILY AND FAIRLY ENTERED INTO BY PARTIES FOR THEIR MUTUAL
ADVANTAGE TAKES NOTHING AWAY FROM EITHER OF THEM.  NO PARTY WHO HAS
MADE AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT HAS A RIGHT TO INSIST THAT IT REMAIN
PERMANENTLY ILLEGAL.  PUBLIC POLICY CANNOT BE MADE STATIC BY THOSE WHO,
FOR REASONS OF THEIR OWN, MAKE CONTRACTS BEYOND THEIR LEGAL POWERS.  NO
PERSON HAS A VESTED RIGHT TO BE PERMITTED TO EVADE CONTRACTS WHICH HE
HAS ILLEGALLY MADE.  FN8 

THIS COURT HELD THAT THE ENABLING AMENDMENT REMOVED THE OBSTACLE THAT
PREVENTED THE ENFORCEMENT OF A CONTRACT OF A NATIONAL BANK TO GIVE
SECURITY TO THE STATE OF GEORGIA FOR ITS DEPOSITS.  FN9 IN THAT CASE AS
IN THIS CASE, THE BANK MADE AN ULTRA VIRES AGREEMENT TO SECURE PUBLIC
DEPOSITS.  IN THAT CASE THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE AFTER THE LAW WAS PASSED
AND WERE LEGAL.  IN THIS CASE THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LAW WAS
PASSED AND WERE LEGAL.  IN THAT CASE AS IN THIS CASE, THE ONLY ILLEGAL
ELEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT WAS THE ATTEMPT TO GIVE SECURITY FOR PUBLIC
DEPOSITS.  IN THAT CASE AS IN THIS CASE, THE PARTIES PERMITTED THE
ORIGINAL ILLEGAL SECURITY AGREEMENT TO REMAIN UNALTERED IN ITS TERMS
AFTER THE AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED.  IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT THE
SECURITY AGREEMENT - ORIGINALLY ULTRA VIRES - BECAME ENFORCEABLE FROM
THE DATE THE AMENDMENT BECAME EFFECTIVE.  IN THIS CASE, WE HOLD THAT
THE SECURITY AGREEMENT - ORIGINALLY ULTRA VIRES - BECAME ENFORCEABLE
FROM THE DATE THE AMENDMENT BECAME EFFECTIVE.  LET THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CH. 604, 46 STAT. 809, 12 U.S.C. 90. 

FN2  FIRST AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO. V. PALM BEACH, 96 FLA. 247; 117
SO. 900, 65 A.L.R. 1398; DAVIS V. KNOTT, 109 FLA. 60; 147 SO. 276. 

FN3  LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 219 U.S. 467, 479;
JAMES V. MILWAUKEE, 16 WALL.  159, 161. 

FN4  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245, 257, NOTE
11. 

FN5  SEE CASES COLLECTED IN 42 HARVARD LAW REV. 272; 79 UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA LAW REV. 608. 

FN6  SENATE REPORT NO. 67, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS. 

FN7  WATSON V. MERCER, 8 PET. 88(DEFECTIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN DEED
VALIDATED BY GENERAL LAW); GALVESTON RAILROAD V. COWDREY, 11 WALL. 
459(MORTGAGE VALIDATED BY GENERAL STATUTE); RANDALL V. KREIGER, 23
WALL.  137(DEFECTIVE POWER OF ATTORNEY VALIDATED BY GENERAL STATUTE);
EWELL V. DAGGS, 108 U.S. 143(NOTE VALIDATED BY GENERAL STATUTE); GROSS
V. U.S. MORTGAGE CO., 108 U.S. 477(MORTGAGE VALIDATED BY GENERAL
STATUTE); UTTER V. FRANKLIN, 172 U.S. 416(BONDS VALIDATED BY GENERAL
LAW); WEST SIDE BELT R. CO. V. PITTSBURGH CONSTRUCTION CO., 219 U.S.
92(CONTRACT VALIDATED BY GENERAL STATUTE); BROWN V. BOSTON & MAINE
RAILROAD, 233 MASS. 502; 124 N.E. 322; (AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE STOCK
VALIDATED). 

FN8  EWELL V. DAGGS, SUPRA. 

FN9  LEWIS V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 292 U.S. 559. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, CONCURRING. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT, I THINK, SHOULD BE AFFIRMED UPON THE THEORY
THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ENABLING AMENDMENT OF JUNE 25, 1930, BOTH
PARTIES RECOGNIZED AN EXISTING OBLIGATION TO OBSERVE THE TERMS OF THE
PLEDGE AGREEMENT, AND ON THIS UNDERSTANDING MAINTAINED THE RELATIONSHIP
OF DEBTOR AND CREDITOR.  DISCUSSION OF OTHER QUESTIONS SEEMS
UNNECESSARY. 

PRIOR TO JUNE 25, 1930, THE PERRY NATIONAL BANK OBTAINED DEPOSITS OF
PUBLIC FUNDS BY UNDERTAKING TO HYPOTHECATE CERTAIN OF ITS ASSETS TO
SECURE THEIR PAYMENT.  THIS WENT BEYOND THE CORPORATE POWER THERETOFORE
CONFERRED.  TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245; MARION
V. SNEEDEN, 291 U.S. 262; LEWIS V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 292 U.S.
559. 

THE AMENDMENT EMPOWERED THE BANK TO SECURE SUCH DEPOSITS BY A PLEDGE
OF ASSETS.  FOR MORE THAN THREE MONTHS THEREAFTER THE SECURITIES
ORIGINALLY HYPOTHECATED WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE KEEPING OF THE
TRUSTEE WITHOUT SUGGESTION OF CHANGE IN THE OUTSTANDING AGREEMENT.  AND
DURING THAT PERIOD PRIOR DEPOSITS WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN WITH THE
BANK.  IT CLOSED OCTOBER 18, 1930.  EARLIER INSOLVENCY IS NOT RELIED
UPON. 

THE RECEIVER CLAIMS THAT AS THE HYPOTHECATION WAS UNLAWFUL WHEN MADE
HE BECAME ENTITLED TO THE ASSETS FREE OF LIEN. 

AFTER THE AMENDMENT THE BANK HAD FULL POWER TO DO WHAT IT HAD
UNDERTAKEN TO DO.  FOR THREE MONTHS IT ACCEPTED THE BENEFITS OF THE
AGREEMENT AND ALLOWED THE ASSETS TO REMAIN WITH THE TRUSTEE.  ALL
PARTIES ASSUMED THE VALIDITY OF THE ARRANGEMENT AND ACTED IN RELIANCE
UPON IT.  THE RESULT WAS THE SAME AS IF THE ASSETS HAD BEEN REPOSSESSED
BY THE BANK AFTER JUNE 25, 1930, AND AGAIN HYPOTHECATED UNDER AN
AGREEMENT IDENTICAL WITH THE ORIGINAL ONE. 
..END :










JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., 302 U.S. 134 


NO. 3.  ARGUED APRIL 26, 27, 1937.  REARGUED OCTOBER 12, 1937.  -
DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 16 F.SUPP.  527, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE CAN NOT LAY A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON BUSINESS CARRIED ON IN
ANOTHER STATE.  P. 138. 

2.  A STATE HAS NO POWER TO TAX IN A PLACE WITHIN THE STATE OVER
WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS ACQUIRED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  P. 140. 

3.  THE TITLE TO BEDS OF NAVIGABLE STREAMS WITHIN A STATE IS VESTED
IN THE STATE, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO USE THE LAND
FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION.  P. 140. 

OCCUPATION OF THE RIVER BED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPROVING NAVIGATION DOES NOT DIVEST THE STATE OF ITS TITLE. 

4.  LOCKS AND DAMS ERECTED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE IMPROVEMENT
OF NAVIGATION ARE "NEEDFUL BUILDINGS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONST.,
ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17.  P. 141. 

CLAUSE 17 PROVIDES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER "TO EXERCISE
EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" OVER "ALL PLACES PURCHASED BY THE CONSENT OF THE
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE ERECTION
OF FORTS, MAGAZINES, ARSENALS, DOCK-YARDS, AND OTHER NEEDFUL
BUILDINGS."  "EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" IS CONSISTENT ONLY WITH EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION. 

5.  WEST VA. CODE OF 1931, ART. 1, CH. 1, SEC. 3, GIVES THE CONSENT
OF THE STATE TO ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF LAND WITHIN THE
STATE FOR LOCKS, DAMS, NEEDFUL BUILDINGS, WORKS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE
NAVIGATION OF ANY WATER COURSE, OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE
SAME MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AUTHORIZES
GIFTS OF LAND TO THE UNITED STATES BY MUNICIPALITIES FOR SUCH DESCRIBED
PURPOSES; CEDES TO THE UNITED STATES "CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THIS
STATE IN AND OVER ANY LAND SO ACQUIRED  ...  FOR ALL PURPOSES";
PROVIDES THAT THE JURISDICTION SO CEDED IS TO CONTINUE ONLY DURING THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES AND IS TO CEASE IF THE UNITED STATES
FAILS FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS TO USE ANY SUCH LAND FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE GRANT; AND RESERVES TO THE STATE THE RIGHT TO EXECUTE PROCESS
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAND ACQUIRED "AND SUCH OTHER JURISDICTION AND
AUTHORITY OVER THE SAME AS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE JURISDICTION
CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF SUCH ACQUISITION."  HELD: 

(1)  THE PROVISION AS TO CONCURRENT JURISDICTION QUALIFIES THE
PROVISION GIVING CONSENT, AND APPLIES TO LANDS ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE OR
CONDEMNATION AS WELL AS TO LANDS GIVEN BY MUNICIPALITIES.  P. 143. 

(2)  THE PROVISION RESERVING MERELY THE RIGHT TO EXECUTE PROCESS,
REPEATED FROM AN EARLIER STATUTE, DOES NOT DEROGATE FROM THE BROADER
RESERVATION OF JURISDICTION IN THE STATUTE AS AMENDED.  P. 145. 

6.  WHEN A STATE GIVES THE LEGISLATIVE CONSENT AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE
CONST., ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 17, TO PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE UNITED
STATES FOR "NEEDFUL BUILDINGS," AS WHEN AFTER PRIOR PURCHASE OR
CONDEMNATION BY THE UNITED STATES IT CEDES JURISDICTION, IT MAY RESERVE
SUCH A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION AS WILL NOT OPERATE TO DEPRIVE THE
UNITED STATES OF THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR
WHICH IT IS ACQUIRED.  P. 146. 

WEST VIRGINIA, BY A RESERVATION QUALIFYING HER CONSENT TO THEIR
ACQUISITION, RETAINED HER JURISDICTION TO TAX, OVER LANDS PURCHASED OR
CONDEMNED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS ON A RIVER. 

7.  AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, ENGAGED UNDER HIS CONTRACT WITH THE
GOVERNMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOCKS AND DAMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
NAVIGATION, IS NOT AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT.  P. 149. 

8.  AS APPLIED TO SUCH A CONTRACTOR, A NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAX
ON HIS GROSS RECEIPTS UNDER THE CONTRACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A
TAX LAID ON THE CONTRACT ITSELF OR AS OTHERWISE DIRECTLY BURDENING THE
GOVERNMENT.  P. 149. 

9.  APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT GOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTALITIES
OF THE UNITED STATES ARE IMMUNE FROM TAXATION BY THE STATES, AND VICE
VERSA, REQUIRES CLOSE DISTINCTIONS, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE ESSENTIAL
FREEDOM OF GOVERNMENT IN PERFORMING ITS FUNCTIONS, WITHOUT UNDULY
LIMITING THE TAXING POWER WHICH IS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL TO BOTH NATION AND
STATE UNDER OUR DUAL SYSTEM.  P. 150. 

DECISIONS ON IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT BONDS AND OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASES
OF COMMODITIES, HELD INAPPLICABLE IN CASE OF TAX ON EARNINGS OF
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RENDERING SERVICES TO THE GOVERNMENT.  PP. 150
153. 

10.  THE QUESTION OF THE TAXABILITY OF A CONTRACTOR UPON THE FRUITS
OF HIS SERVICES TO THE GOVERNMENT IS CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF THE
TAXABILITY OF HIS PROPERTY USED IN PERFORMING THE SERVICES.  HIS
EARNINGS FLOW FROM HIS WORK; HIS PROPERTY IS EMPLOYED IN SECURING
THEM.  IN BOTH CASES, THE TAXES INCREASE THE COST OF THE WORK AND
DIMINISH HIS PROFITS.  P. 153. 

11.  THE FACT THAT THE TAX IN THIS CASE WAS ON GROSS RATHER THAN NET
RECEIPTS DOES NOT PROVE IT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE
GOVERNMENT.  P. 157. 

DISTINGUISHED FROM CASES WHERE TAXES ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF INDIVIDUALS
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAVE BEEN HELD INVALID UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

12.  ASSUMING, (WHAT IS NOT NECESSARILY SO) THAT A STATE TAX ON
CONTRACTOR'S GROSS RECEIPTS MAY INCREASE COST OF SERVICE TO THE
GOVERNMENT, THAT FACT WOULD NOT INVALIDATE THE TAX, ANY MORE THAN IT
WOULD A TAX ON THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPERTY EQUIPMENT USED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT.  P. 159. 

13.  SEMBLE THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH THE
OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH STATE TAXATION LAID ON RECEIPTS OF
THOSE WHO RENDER IT SERVICES UNDER CONTRACTS.  P. 160. 

JAMES, STATE TAX COMMISSIONER, V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A FINAL DECREE OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT
ENJOINING THE COLLECTION OF A STATE TAX. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A
TAX IMPOSED BY THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF
RESPONDENT UNDER CONTRACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES. 

RESPONDENT, THE DRAVO CONTRACTING COMPANY, IS A PENNSYLVANIA
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE GENERAL CONTRACTING BUSINESS, WITH ITS
PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND PLANT AT PITTSBURGH IN THAT STATE, AND IS ADMITTED
TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA.  IN THE YEARS 1932 AND
1933, RESPONDENT ENTERED INTO FOUR CONTRACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOCKS AND DAMS IN THE KANAWHA RIVER AND LOCKS IN
THE OHIO RIVER, BOTH NAVIGABLE STREAMS.  FN1  THE STATE TAX
COMMISSIONER ASSESSED RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 1933 AND 1934 IN THE SUM
OF $135,761.51(TAXES AND PENALTIES) UPON THE GROSS AMOUNTS RECEIVED
FROM THE UNITED STATES UNDER THESE CONTRACTS. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA TO RESTRAIN THE COLLECTION
OF THE TAX.  THE CASE WAS HEARD BY THREE JUDGES (28 U.S.C. 380) AND
UPON FINDINGS THE COURT ENTERED A FINAL DECREE GRANTING A PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.  16 F.SUPP.  527.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL. 

THE STATUTE IS KNOWN AS THE GROSS SALES AND INCOME TAX LAW.  CODE OF
WEST VIRGINIA 1931, C. 11, ART. 13, AMENDED EFFECTIVE MAY 27, 1933. 
ACTS OF 1933, C. 33.  IT PROVIDES FOR "ANNUAL PRIVILEGE TAXES" ON
ACCOUNT OF "BUSINESS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES."  THE CLAUSE IN QUESTION
HERE IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"UPON EVERY PERSON ENGAGING OR CONTINUING WITHIN THIS STATE IN THE
BUSINESS OF CONTRACTING, THE TAX SHALL BE EQUAL TO TWO PER CENT. OF THE
GROSS INCOME OF THE BUSINESS."  FN2 

THE TAX WAS IN ADDITION TO OTHER STATE TAXES UPON RESPONDENT, TO WIT,
THE LICENSE TAX ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (CODE OF WEST VIRGINIA, C. 11,
ART. 12, SECS. 69, 71) AND AD VALOREM TAXES UPON REAL AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE STATE. 

THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE (1) WHETHER THE STATE HAD TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE THE TAX, AND (2) WHETHER THE TAX WAS INVALID AS
LAYING A BURDEN UPON THE OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

AFTER HEARING WE DIRECTED REARGUMENT AND REQUESTED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES TO PRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE GOVERNMENT
UPON THE TWO QUESTIONS ABOVE STATED.  REARGUMENT HAS BEEN HAD AND THE
GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN HEARD. 

FIRST.  AS TO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.   - UNLESS THE ACTIVITIES
WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX WERE CARRIED ON WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL
LIMITS OF WEST VIRGINIA, THE STATE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE THE
TAX.  HANS REES' SONS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 283 U.S. 123, 133, 134;
SHAFFER V. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, 57; SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, 281
U.S. 647.  THE QUESTION HAS TWO ASPECTS (1) AS TO WORK ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN DONE OUTSIDE THE EXTERIOR LIMITS OF WEST VIRGINIA AND (2) AS TO
WORK DONE WITHIN THOSE LIMITS BUT (A) IN THE BED OF THE RIVERS, (B) ON
PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THE BANKS OF THE RIVERS,
AND (C) ON PROPERTY LEASED BY RESPONDENT AND USED FOR THE ACCOMMODATION
OF HIS EQUIPMENT. 

1.  A LARGE PART OF RESPONDENT'S WORK WAS PERFORMED AT ITS PLANT AT
PITTSBURGH.  THE STIPULATION OF FACTS SHOWS THAT RESPONDENT PURCHASED
OUTSIDE THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA MATERIALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
THE ROLLER GATES, LOCK GATES, CRANES, SUBSTRUCTURE RACKS AND SPUR RIMS,
STRUCTURAL STEEL, PATTERNS, HOISTING MECHANISM AND EQUIPMENT, UNDER
EACH OF ITS CONTRACTS, AND FABRICATED THE SAME AT ITS PITTSBURGH
PLANT.  THE ROLLER GATES AND THE APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT WERE
PREASSEMBLED AT RESPONDENTS' SHOPS AT PITTSBURGH AND WERE THERE
INSPECTED AND TESTED BY OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.  THE
MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT FABRICATED AT PITTSBURGH WERE THERE STORED
UNTIL TIME FOR DELIVERY, AND THE APPROPRIATE UNITS AS PREPARED FOR
SHIPMENT WERE THEN TRANSPORTED BY RESPONDENT TO THE DESIGNATED SITES IN
WEST VIRGINIA AND THERE INSTALLED.  THE UNITED STATES KNEW AT THE TIME
THE CONTRACTS WERE MADE THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK WAS TO BE
PERFORMED AT THE PLAINTIFF'S MAIN PLANT.  THE CONTRACTS PROVIDED FOR
PARTIAL PAYMENTS AS THE WORK PROGRESSED AND THAT ALL THE MATERIAL AND
WORK COVERED BY THE PARTIAL PAYMENTS SHOULD THEREUPON BECOME "THE SOLE
PROPERTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."  PAYMENTS BY THE GOVERNMENT WERE MADE FROM
TIME TO TIME ACCORDINGLY. 

IT IS CLEAR THAT WEST VIRGINIA HAD NO JURISDICTION TO LAY A TAX UPON
RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO THIS WORK DONE IN PENNSYLVANIA.  AS TO THE
MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT THERE FABRICATED, THE BUSINESS AND ACTIVITIES OF
RESPONDENT IN WEST VIRGINIA CONSISTED OF THE INSTALLATION AT THE
RESPECTIVE SITES WITHIN THAT STATE AND AN APPORTIONMENT WOULD IN ANY
EVENT BE NECESSARY TO LIMIT THE TAX ACCORDINGLY.  HANS REES' SONS V.
NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA. 

2.  AS TO WORK DONE WITHIN THE EXTERIOR LIMITS OF WEST VIRGINIA, THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE UNITED STATES HAS ACQUIRED EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE RESPECTIVE SITES.  WHEREVER THE UNITED STATES HAS
SUCH JURISDICTION THE STATE WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO LAY THE TAX. 
SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, SUPRA. 

(A)  AS TO THE BEDS OF THE KANAWHA AND OHIO RIVERS.  THE PRESENT
QUESTION IS NOT ONE OF THE PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THE WORK PERFORMED FOR PURPOSES WITHIN THE FEDERAL
PROVINCE (SCRANTON V. WHEELER, 179 U.S. 141, 163; UNITED STATES V.
CHANDLER-DUNBAR CO., 229 U.S. 53, 61, 62; LEWIS BLUE POINT OYSTER CO.
V. BRIGGS, 229 U.S. 82, 88), OR WHETHER THE TAX LAYS A BURDEN UPON
GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS; IT IS SIMPLY ONE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. 

THE TITLE TO THE BEDS OF THE RIVERS WAS IN THE STATE.  POLLARD V.
HAGAN, 3 HOW.  212, 230; SHIVELY V. BOWLBY, 152 U.S. 1, 26; PORT OF
SEATTLE V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. CO., 255 U.S. 56, 63; BORAX
CONSOLIDATED V. LOS ANGELES, 296 U.S. 10, 15, 16.  IT WAS SUBJECT TO
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO USE THE LANDS UNDER THE STREAMS "FOR ANY
STRUCTURE WHICH THE INTEREST OF NAVIGATION IN ITS JUDGMENT MAY
REQUIRE."  LEWIS BLUE POINT OYSTER CO. V. BRIGGS, SUPRA.  BUT, ALTHOUGH
BURDENED BY THAT SERVITUDE, THE STATE HELD THE TITLE.  GIBSON V. UNITED
STATES, 166 U.S. 269, 271, 272; PORT OF SEATTLE V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R.
CO., SUPRA; BORAX CONSOLIDATED V. LOS ANGELES, SUPRA.  THERE DOES NOT
APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ANY ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF TITLE TO
THOSE LANDS, UNLESS, AS RESPONDENT URGES, THE OCCUPATION OF THE BEDS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS CONSTITUTED AN ACQUISITION OF
TITLE.  BUT AS THE OCCUPATION WAS SIMPLY THE EXERCISE OF THE DOMINANT
RIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (GIBSON V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P.
276) THE SERVIENT TITLE CONTINUED AS BEFORE.  NO TRANSFER OF THAT TITLE
APPEARS.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL CONCEDED IN HIS ARGUMENT AT BAR THAT
THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA RETAINED ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER
THE RIVER BEDS AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS THE CORRECT
VIEW. 

(B)  AS TO LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES BY PURCHASE OR
CONDEMNATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.  LANDS WERE THUS
ACQUIRED ON THE BANKS OF THE RIVERS FROM INDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND THE
UNITED STATES OBTAINED TITLE IN FEE SIMPLE.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT
BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 17, OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRED EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  FN3 

CLAUSE 17 PROVIDES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER "TO EXERCISE
EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" OVER "ALL PLACES PURCHASED BY THE CONSENT OF THE
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE ERECTION
OF FORTS, MAGAZINES, ARSENALS, DOCK-YARDS, AND OTHER NEEDFUL
BUILDINGS."  "EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" IS CONSISTENT ONLY WITH EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION.  SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, SUPRA, P. 652.  AS WE SAID
IN THAT CASE, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR THE UNITED STATES TO OWN WITHIN A
STATE LANDS WHICH ARE SET APART AND USED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES.  SUCH
OWNERSHIP AND USE WITHOUT MORE DO NOT WITHDRAW THE LANDS FROM THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE.  THE LANDS "REMAIN PART OF HER TERRITORY AND
WITHIN THE OPERATION OF HER LAWS, SAVE THAT THE LATTER CANNOT AFFECT
THE TITLE OF THE UNITED STATES OR EMBARRASS IT IN USING THE LANDS OR
INTERFERE WITH ITS RIGHT OF DISPOSAL."  ID., P. 650.  CLAUSE 17 GOVERNS
THOSE CASES WHERE THE UNITED STATES ACQUIRES LANDS WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE FOR THE PURPOSES THERE DESCRIBED.  IF
LANDS ARE OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, AND JURISDICTION IS CEDED BY THE STATE TO
THE UNITED STATES, THE TERMS OF THE CESSION, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY
MAY LAWFULLY BE PRESCRIBED, THAT IS, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CARRYING OUT
OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ACQUISITION, DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION.  FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, 114 U.S. 527, 538, 539;
PALMER V. BARRETT, 162 U.S. 399, 402, 403; ARLINGTON HOTEL CO. V. FANT,
278 U.S. 439, 451; UNITED STATES V. UNZEUTA, 281 U.S. 138, 142; SURPLUS
TRADING CO. V. COOK, SUPRA. 

ARE THE LOCKS AND DAMS IN THE INSTANT CASE "NEEDFUL BUILDINGS" WITHIN
THE PURVIEW OF CLAUSE 17?  THE STATE CONTENDS THAT THEY ARE NOT.  IF
THE CLAUSE WERE CONSTRUED ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS, IT
COULD BE PLAUSIBLY CONTENDED THAT "NEEDFUL BUILDINGS" ARE THOSE OF THE
SAME SORT AS FORTS, MAGAZINES, ARSENALS AND DOCKYARDS, THAT IS,
STRUCTURES FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.  AND IT MAY BE THAT THE THOUGHT OF
SUCH "STRONGHOLDS" WAS UPPERMOST IN THE MINDS OF THE FRAMERS.  ELLIOT'S
DEBATES, VOL. 5, PP. 130, 440, 511; CF. STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION, VOL.
2, SEC. 1224.  BUT SUCH A NARROW CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN FOUND NOT TO BE
ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED AND TO BE UNSUPPORTED BY SOUND REASON IN VIEW OF
THE NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHED. 

IN SHARON V. HILL, 24 FED. 726, 730, 731, JUSTICE FIELD (SITTING WITH
JUDGE SAWYER) CONSIDERED THE PROVISION TO BE APPLICABLE TO A COURT
BUILDING AND CUSTOM HOUSE ON LAND WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE STATE.  IN BATTLE V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 36, 37, WE
HELD THAT "POST OFFICES ARE AMONG THE 'OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS'" WITHIN
CLAUSE 17.  SEE, ALSO, UNITED STATES V. WURTZBARGER, 276 FED. 753, 755;
ARLINGTON HOTEL V. FANT, SUPRA.  LOCKS AND DAMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
NAVIGATION, WHICH ARE AS CLEARLY WITHIN THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY AS POST
OFFICES, HAVE BEEN REGARDED AS "NEEDFUL BUILDINGS."  UNITED STATES V.
TUCKER, 122 FED. 518, 522.  WE TAKE THAT VIEW.  WE CONSTRUE THE PHRASE
"OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS" AS EMBRACING WHATEVER STRUCTURES ARE FOUND TO
BE NECESSARY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. 

THE LEGISLATURE OF WEST VIRGINIA BY GENERAL STATUTE HAD GIVEN ITS
CONSENT TO THE ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES, BUT QUESTIONS ARE
PRESENTED AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT OF THE CONSENT.  THE
PROVISION IS FOUND IN SEC. 3 OF CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 1, OF THE CODE OF
WEST VIRGINIA OF 1931.  THE FULL TEXT IS SET OUT IN THE MARGIN.  FN4
BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THE CONSENT OF THE STATE IS GIVEN "TO THE
ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES, OR UNDER ITS AUTHORITY, BY PURCHASE,
LEASE, CONDEMNATION, OR OTHERWISE, OF ANY LAND ACQUIRED, OR TO BE
ACQUIRED IN THIS STATE BY THE UNITED STATES, FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL, BODY
POLITIC OR CORPORATE, FOR SITES FOR  ...  LOCKS, DAMS,  ...  OR ANY
NEEDFUL BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES OR PROVING GROUNDS, OR WORKS FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE NAVIGATION OF ANY WATER-COURSE  ...  OR FOR ANY
OTHER PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAME MAY BE NEEDED OR REQUIRED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  BY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH PROVISION IS
MADE FOR GIFTS BY MUNICIPALITIES TO THE UNITED STATES OF LAND FOR ANY
OF THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.  THE THIRD PARAGRAPH
CEDES TO THE UNITED STATES "CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THIS STATE IN
AND OVER ANY LAND SO ACQUIRED  ...  FOR ALL PURPOSES."  THE
JURISDICTION SO CEDED IS TO CONTINUE ONLY DURING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
UNITED STATES AND IS TO CEASE IF THE UNITED STATES FAILS FOR FIVE
CONSECUTIVE YEARS TO USE ANY SUCH LAND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE GRANT. 

BY A FURTHER PROVISION IN SEC. 4 FN5  THE STATE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO
EXECUTE PROCESS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAND ACQUIRED "AND SUCH OTHER
JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER THE SAME AS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THE JURISDICTION CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF SUCH
ACQUISITION." 

THE CONTENTION IS MADE THAT THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 3 AS TO
"CONCURRENT JURISDICTION" WAS NOT IN THE CODE OF 1923, BUT WAS A LATER
ADDITION (1931), AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS QUALIFYING THE FIRST
PARAGRAPH.  BUT THE THIRD PARAGRAPH WAS ADDED BEFORE THE ACQUISITION
HERE IN QUESTION AND "ANY LAND SO ACQUIRED" MANIFESTLY REFERS TO THE
ACQUISITIONS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED WHICH EXPRESSLY EMBRACED ALL SUCH
ACQUISITIONS IN THE FUTURE.  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE THIRD PARAGRAPH
APPLIES ONLY TO THE LANDS GIVEN BY MUNICIPALITIES TO THE UNITED STATES
UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS WITHOUT FORCE.  THE THIRD PARAGRAPH
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE PROVISION, IN THE SAME LANGUAGE, OF
SEC. 19 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA OF 1919 WHICH WAS NOT QUALIFIED BY ANY
INTERVENING PROVISION AS TO MUNICIPALITIES.  SEE CODE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
1931, C. 1, ART. 1, SEC. 3, REVISERS' NOTE.  THE REVISERS SAY IT WAS
ADDED TO "MAKE MORE DEFINITE THE PROVISIONS AS TO JURISDICTION."  ID.
WE ARE NOT REFERRED TO ANY DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WEST
VIRGINIA CONSTRUING THIS PARAGRAPH.    REFERENCE IS ALSO MADE TO THE
PROVISION OF SEC. 4 AS TO SERVICE OF PROCESS.  THIS IS SAID TO BE
UNNECESSARY IF ONLY CONCURRENT JURISDICTION IS GRANTED.  BUT THIS
PROVISION WAS A PART OF THE FORMER STATUTE (1923) AND CANNOT BE TAKEN
AS DEROGATING FROM THE FORCE OF THE EXPLICIT AMENDMENT BY THE LATER
ADDITION IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE PRESENT SEC. 3.  AND APPARENTLY
TO PREVENT MISUNDERSTANDING, THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT AT THE SAME TIME OF
THE PROVISION NOW IN SEC. 4 BY THE ADDITION OF THE LAST CLAUSE  FN6  IN
ORDER TO MAKE THE RESERVATION OF THE STATE'S JURISDICTION "MORE
COMPREHENSIVE."  CODE OF WEST VIRGINIA, 1931, C. 1, ART. 1, SEC. 4,
REVISERS' NOTE. 

THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF SEC. 3 CAREFULLY DEFINES THE JURISDICTION
CEDED BY THE STATE AND THERE IS NO PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD
IGNORE THIS DEFINITE EXPRESSION OF INTENTION IN CONSIDERING THE EFFECT
UPON JURISDICTION OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. 

BUT IT IS URGED THAT IF THE PARAGRAPH BE CONSTRUED AS SEEKING TO
QUALIFY THE CONSENT OF THE STATE, IT MUST BE TREATED AS INOPERATIVE. 
THAT IS, THAT THE STATE CANNOT QUALIFY ITS CONSENT, WHICH MUST BE TAKEN
AS CARRYING WITH IT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE 17.  THE
POINT WAS SUGGESTED BY JUSTICE STORY IN UNITED STATES V. CORNELL, FED.
CAS. NO. 14,867; 2 MASON 60, 65, 66, BUT THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON
THE CONSENT IN THAT CASE MADE DECISION OF THE POINT UNNECESSARY.  THERE
THE PLACE (FORT ADAMS IN NEWPORT HARBOR) HAD BEEN PURCHASED WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE STATE, TO WHICH WAS ADDED A RESERVATION FOR THE SERVICE
OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCESS.  JUSTICE STORY HELD THAT SUCH A
RESERVATION WAS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH A CESSION OF EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION TO THE UNITED STATES, AS THE RESERVATION OPERATED "ONLY AS
A CONDITION" AND "AS AN AGREEMENT OF THE NEW SOVEREIGN TO PERMIT ITS
FREE EXERCISE AS QUOAD HOC HIS OWN PROCESS."  RESERVATIONS OF THAT SORT
WERE FOUND TO BE FREQUENT IN GRANTS MADE BY THE STATES TO THE UNITED
STATES IN ORDER TO AVOID THE GRANTED PLACES BEING MADE A SANCTUARY FOR
FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE.  STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION, VOL. 2, SEC. 1225. 
REFERENCE IS MADE TO STATEMENTS IN THE GENERAL DISCUSSION IN THE
OPINION IN FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, SUPRA, BUT THESE ARE NOT
DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT QUESTION.  THE DECISION IN THAT CASE WAS THAT
THE STATE RETAINED ITS JURISDICTION TO TAX THE PROPERTY OF A RAILROAD
COMPANY WITHIN THE FORT LEAVENWORTH MILITARY RESERVATION, AS FEDERAL
JURISDICTION HAD NOT BEEN RESERVED WHEN KANSAS WAS ADMITTED AS A STATE
AND, WHEN THE STATE SUBSEQUENTLY CEDED JURISDICTION TO THE UNITED
STATES, THERE WAS SAVED TO THE STATE THE RIGHT "TO TAX RAILROAD,
BRIDGE, AND OTHER CORPORATIONS, THEIR FRANCHISES AND PROPERTY, ON SAID
RESERVATION."  THE TERMS OF THE CESSION IN THIS RESPECT GOVERNED THE
EXTENT OF THE FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  SEE SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK,
SUPRA.  THERE ARE OBITER DICTA IN OTHER CASES BUT THE POINT NOW RAISED
DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DEFINITELY DETERMINED. 

IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE STATE MAY REFUSE ITS CONSENT AND RETAIN
JURISDICTION CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE
PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN INHERES IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY VIRTUE OF ITS SOVEREIGNTY AND THUS IT MAY,
REGARDLESS OF THE WISHES EITHER OF THE OWNERS OR OF THE STATES, ACQUIRE
THE LANDS WHICH IT NEEDS WITHIN THEIR BORDERS.  KOHL V. UNITED STATES,
91 U.S. 367, 371, 372.  IN THAT EVENT, AS IN CASES OF ACQUISITION BY
PURCHASE WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE STATE, JURISDICTION IS DEPENDENT UPON
CESSION BY THE STATE AND THE STATE MAY QUALIFY ITS CESSION BY
RESERVATIONS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL USES.  STORY ON THE
CONSTITUTION, VOL. 2, SEC. 1227; KOHL V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 374;
FORT LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, SUPRA; SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK,
SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. UNZEUTA, SUPRA.  THE RESULT TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS THE SAME WHETHER CONSENT IS REFUSED AND CESSION IS
QUALIFIED BY A RESERVATION OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION, OR CONSENT TO
THE ACQUISITION IS GRANTED WITH A LIKE QUALIFICATION.  AS THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL HAS POINTED OUT, A TRANSFER OF LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION CARRIES
WITH IT NOT ONLY BENEFITS BUT OBLIGATIONS, AND IT MAY BE HIGHLY
DESIRABLE, IN THE INTEREST BOTH OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND OF THE
STATE, THAT THE LATTER SHOULD NOT BE ENTIRELY OUSTED OF ITS
JURISDICTION.  THE POSSIBLE IMPORTANCE OF RESERVING TO THE STATE
JURISDICTION FOR LOCAL PURPOSES WHICH INVOLVE NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE
PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE CLEAR
AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT EXPAND AND LARGE AREAS WITHIN THE
STATES ARE ACQUIRED.  THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON WHY THE UNITED
STATES SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO ACCEPT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OR THE
STATE BE COMPELLED TO GRANT IT IN GIVING ITS CONSENT TO PURCHASES. 

NORMALLY, WHERE GOVERNMENTAL CONSENT IS ESSENTIAL, THE CONSENT MAY BE
GRANTED UPON TERMS APPROPRIATE TO THE SUBJECT AND TRANSGRESSING NO
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION.  THUS, AS A STATE MAY NOT BE SUED WITHOUT
ITS CONSENT AND "PERMISSION IS ALTOGETHER VOLUNTARY," IT FOLLOWS "THAT
IT MAY PRESCRIBE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON WHICH IT CONSENTS TO BE
SUED."  BEERS V. ARKANSAS, 20 HOW.  527, 529; SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S.
436, 441, 442.  TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES ARE TO BE MADE WITH THE
ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, BUT IT IS FAMILIAR PRACTICE FOR THE
SENATE TO ACCOMPANY THE EXERCISE OF THIS AUTHORITY WITH RESERVATIONS. 
HYDE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. 2, SEC. 519.  THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES
THAT NO STATE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS SHALL ENTER INTO A
COMPACT WITH ANOTHER STATE.  IT CAN HARDLY BE DOUBTED THAT IN GIVING
CONSENT CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE CONDITIONS.  SEE ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 292
U.S. 341, 345. 

CLAUSE 17 CONTAINS NO EXPRESS STIPULATION THAT THE CONSENT OF THE
STATE MUST BE WITHOUT RESERVATIONS.  WE THINK THAT SUCH A STIPULATION
SHOULD NOT BE IMPLIED.  WE ARE UNABLE TO RECONCILE SUCH AN IMPLICATION
WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE STATE AND ITS ADMITTED AUTHORITY TO REFUSE OR
QUALIFY CESSIONS OF JURISDICTION WHEN PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT
CONSENT OR PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY CONDEMNATION.  IN THE PRESENT
CASE THE RESERVATION BY WEST VIRGINIA OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION DID
NOT OPERATE TO DEPRIVE THE UNITED STATES OF THE ENJOYMENT OF THE
PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS ACQUIRED, AND WE ARE OF THE
OPINION THAT THE RESERVATION WAS APPLICABLE AND EFFECTIVE. 

(C)  AS TO PROPERTY LEASED BY RESPONDENT AND USED FOR THE
ACCOMMODATION OF ITS EQUIPMENT.  THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION AS TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OVER THIS AREA. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT, SO FAR AS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IS CONCERNED,
THE STATE HAD AUTHORITY TO LAY THE TAX WITH RESPECT TO THE RESPONDENT'S
ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON AT THE RESPECTIVE DAM SITES. 

SECOND.  IS THE TAX INVALID UPON THE GROUND THAT IT LAYS A DIRECT
BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SPEAKING FOR
THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE STATE THAT THE TAX IS
VALID.  RESPONDENT URGES THE CONTRARY. 

THE TAX IS NOT LAID UPON THE GOVERNMENT, ITS PROPERTY OR OFFICERS. 
DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS, 16 PET. 435, 449, 450. 

THE TAX IS NOT LAID UPON AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316; OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED
STATES, 9 WHEAT.  738; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501; FEDERAL
LAND BANK V. CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374; CLALLAM COUNTY V. UNITED STATES,
263 U.S. 341; NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401. 
RESPONDENT IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.  THE TAX IS NON
DISCRIMINATORY. 

THE TAX IS NOT LAID UPON THE CONTRACT OF THE GOVERNMENT.  OSBORN V.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 867; WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET.
449, 468, 475; POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, 581,
582, 586; TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. 460, 464, 466; LELOUP V.
PORT OF MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640, 646; WILLIAMS V. TALLADEGA, 226 U.S. 404,
418, 419; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. CROSLAND, SUPRA; WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282
U.S. 216; PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218,
222; INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570, 574; GRAVES
V. TEXAS COMPANY, 298 U.S. 393, 401.  THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE
WHICH DENIES VALIDITY TO SUCH A TAX HAS REQUIRED THE OBSERVING OF CLOSE
DISTINCTIONS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE ESSENTIAL FREEDOM OF GOVERNMENT
IN PERFORMING ITS FUNCTIONS, WITHOUT UNDULY LIMITING THE TAXING POWER
WHICH IS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL TO BOTH NATION AND STATE UNDER OUR DUAL
SYSTEM.  IN WESTON V. CHARLESTON, SUPRA, AND POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN &
TRUST CO., SUPRA, TAXES ON INTEREST FROM GOVERNMENT SECURITIES WERE
HELD TO BE LAID ON THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTRACT - UPON THE POWER TO BORROW
MONEY - AND HENCE WERE INVALID.  BUT WE HELD IN WILLCUTS V. BUNN,
SUPRA, THAT THE IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE PROFITS
DERIVED BY THEIR OWNERS UPON THE SALE OF GOVERNMENT BONDS.  WE SAID
(ID., P. 225): "THE POWER TO TAX IS NO LESS ESSENTIAL THAN THE POWER TO
BORROW MONEY, AND, IN PRESERVING THE LATTER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
CRIPPLE THE FORMER BY EXTENDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL EXEMPTION FROM
TAXATION TO THOSE SUBJECTS WHICH FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF
NON-DISCRIMINATORY LAWS, AND WHERE NO DIRECT BURDEN IS LAID UPON THE
GOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTALITY, AND THERE IS ONLY A REMOTE, IF ANY,
INFLUENCE UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT."  MANY
ILLUSTRATIONS WERE GIVEN. 

IN TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. TEXAS, SUPRA, A SPECIFIC STATE TAX WAS
IMPOSED ON EACH MESSAGE SENT BY AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES ON
PUBLIC BUSINESS OVER THE LINES OF THE TELEGRAPH COMPANY.  IN HOLDING
THE TAX TO BE INVALID THE COURT LEANED HEAVILY UPON THE FACT THAT THE
COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED THE TERMS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF 1866(14 STAT.
221) AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE MILITARY AND POST ROADS AND REQUIRING
IN RETURN THAT GOVERNMENT MESSAGES HAVE PRIORITY OVER ALL OTHER
BUSINESS AND BE TRANSMITTED AT RATES FIXED ANNUALLY BY THE POSTMASTER
GENERAL.  THE COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE COMPANY HAD THUS BECOME AN
AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF MESSAGES ON PUBLIC
BUSINESS.  SEE TO THE SAME EFFECT LELOUP V. PORT OF MOBILE, SUPRA.  THE
SAME POINT WAS TAKEN IN WILLIAMS V. TALLADEGA, SUPRA, INVOLVING A LOCAL
LICENSE FEE APPLICABLE TO THE SAME TELEGRAPH COMPANY.  THE COURT SAID
THAT THE TAX WAS LAID UPON "THE PRIVILEGE OF CARRYING ON A BUSINESS A
PART OF WHICH IS THAT OF A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY CONSTITUTED UNDER A LAW
OF THE UNITED STATES AND ENGAGED IN AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE PUBLIC
BUSINESS - COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."  THE EMPHASIS PUT IN THESE CASES UPON THE EFFECT
OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS SHOWS THAT
THEY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS SUSTAINING THE BROAD CLAIM OF IMMUNITY HERE
ADVANCED. 

IN PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX, SUPRA, AND INDIAN
MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, THE TAXES WERE HELD TO BE
INVALID AS LAID ON THE SALES TO THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS, THE ONE
BEING A STATE TAX ON A SALE TO THE UNITED STATES, AND THE OTHER A
FEDERAL TAX ON THE SALE TO A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF MASSACHUSETTS.  A
SIMILAR RESULT WAS REACHED IN GRAVES V. TEXAS COMPANY, SUPRA.  THESE
CASES HAVE BEEN DISTINGUISHED AND MUST BE DEEMED TO BE LIMITED TO THEIR
PARTICULAR FACTS.  THUS, IN WHEELER LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281
U.S. 572, 579, THE FEDERAL TAX ON TRANSPORTATION AS APPLIED TO LUMBER
WHICH THE VENDOR HAD ENGAGED TO SELL TO A COUNTY FOR PUBLIC BRIDGES AND
TO DELIVER F.O.B. AT THE PLACE OF DESTINATION AT A STATED PRICE, WAS
HELD TO BE LAID NOT ON THE SALE BUT ON THE TRANSPORTATION.  ALTHOUGH
THE TRANSPORTATION WAS WITH A VIEW TO A DEFINITE SALE, IT WAS HELD TO
BE NOT PART OF THE SALE BUT PRELIMINARY TO IT AND "WHOLLY THE VENDOR'S
AFFAIR."  IN LIGGETT & MYERS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 383, 386,
THE FEDERAL TAX AS APPLIED TO TOBACCO PURCHASED BY A STATE FOR USE IN A
STATE HOSPITAL WAS SUSTAINED AS A TAX UPON THE MANUFACTURE OF THE
TOBACCO AND NOT UPON THE SALE.  HENCE, THE COURT SAID, "THE EFFECT UPON
THE PURCHASER WAS INDIRECT AND IMPOSED NO PROHIBITED BURDEN." 

IN ALWARD V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 509, 514, THE COURT SUSTAINED A STATE
TAX UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CARRYING THE
MAILS.  THE TAXPAYER OPERATED AN AUTOMOTIVE STAGE LINE.  TWO-THIRDS OF
HIS GROSS RECEIPTS, UPON THE WHOLE OF WHICH HE WAS TAXED, WERE DERIVED
FROM CARRIAGE OF UNITED STATES MAILS AND THE REMAINDER FROM CARRIAGE OF
PASSENGERS AND FREIGHT.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY USED IN
EARNING THESE RECEIPTS WAS DEVOTED CHIEFLY TO CARRYING THE MAILS AND
THAT WITHOUT HIS CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT THE STAGE LINE COULD NOT
BE OPERATED PROFITABLY.  IN UPHOLDING THE TAX UPON HIS GROSS RECEIPTS
WE DISTINGUISHED PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX, SUPRA,
SAYING:  "THERE WAS NO TAX UPON THE CONTRACT FOR SUCH CARRIAGE; THE
BURDEN LAID UPON THE PROPERTY EMPLOYED AFFECTED OPERATIONS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONLY REMOTELY  ...  THE FACTS IN PANHANDLE OIL CO.
V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218, AND NEW JERSEY BELL TEL. CO.
V. STATE BOARD, 280 U.S. 338, WERE HELD TO ESTABLISH DIRECT
INTERFERENCE WITH OR BURDEN UPON THE EXERCISE OF A FEDERAL RIGHT.  THE
PRINCIPLES THERE APPLIED ARE NOT CONTROLLING HERE."    THESE DECISIONS
SHOW CLEARLY THE EFFORT OF THE COURT IN THIS DIFFICULT FIELD TO APPLY
THE PRACTICAL CRITERION TO WHICH WE REFERRED IN WILLCUTS V. BUNN,
SUPRA, AND AGAIN IN GRAVES V. TEXAS COMPANY, SUPRA.  THERE IS NO
INELUCTABLE LOGIC WHICH MAKES THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO
GOVERNMENT BONDS APPLICABLE TO THE EARNINGS OF AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR RENDERING SERVICES TO THE GOVERNMENT.  THAT DOCTRINE
RECOGNIZES THE DIRECT EFFECT OF A TAX WHICH "WOULD OPERATE ON THE POWER
TO BORROW BEFORE IT IS EXERCISED" (POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST
CO., SUPRA) AND WHICH WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION
AS A CONTINUING SECURITY.  VITAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE THERE INVOLVED
RESPECTING THE PERMANENT RELATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO INVESTORS IN
ITS SECURITIES AND ITS ABILITY TO MAINTAIN ITS CREDIT,  -
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE NOT FOUND IN CONNECTION WITH CONTRACTS MADE
FROM TIME TO TIME FOR THE SERVICES OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.  AND IN
DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF THE TAXABILITY OF SUCH CONTRACTORS UPON
THE FRUITS OF THEIR WORK, WE ARE NOT BOUND TO CONSIDER OR DECIDE HOW
FAR IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION IS TO BE DEEMED ESSENTIAL TO THE PROTECTION
OF GOVERNMENT IN RELATION TO ITS PURCHASES OF COMMODITIES OR WHETHER
THE DOCTRINE ANNOUNCED IN THE CASES OF THAT CHARACTER WHICH WE HAVE
CITED DESERVES REVISION OR RESTRICTION. 

THE QUESTION OF THE TAXABILITY OF A CONTRACTOR UPON THE FRUITS OF HIS
SERVICES IS CLOSELY ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF THE TAXABILITY OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE CONTRACTOR WHICH IS USED IN PERFORMING THE SERVICES.  HIS
EARNINGS FLOW FROM HIS WORK; HIS PROPERTY IS EMPLOYED IN SECURING
THEM.  IN BOTH CASES, THE TAXES INCREASE THE COST OF THE WORK AND
DIMINISH HIS PROFITS.  MANY YEARS AGO THE COURT RECOGNIZED AND ENFORCED
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A TAX LAID DIRECTLY UPON A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT
OR AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND A TAX UPON THE PROPERTY
EMPLOYED BY AN AGENT OR CONTRACTOR IN PERFORMING SERVICES FOR THE
UNITED STATES.  "TAXATION OF THE AGENCY IS TAXATION OF THE MEANS;
TAXATION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE AGENT IS NOT ALWAYS, OR GENERALLY,
TAXATION OF THE MEANS."  THOMSON V. PACIFIC RAILROAD, 9 WALL.  579,
591.  IN EXPOUNDING THE GROUNDS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROPERTY OF
THE CONTRACTOR WAS TAXABLE, THE COURT ENVISAGED THE SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES WHICH WOULD FOLLOW IF IMMUNITY WERE MAINTAINED.  IN
RAILROAD COMPANY V. PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5, 33, 36, THE COURT SAID: 

"IT MAY, THEREFORE, BE CONSIDERED AS SETTLED THAT NO CONSTITUTIONAL
IMPLICATIONS PROHIBIT A STATE TAX UPON THE PROPERTY OF AN AGENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT MERELY BECAUSE IT IS THE PROPERTY OF SUCH AN AGENT.  A
CONTRARY DOCTRINE WOULD GREATLY EMBARRASS THE STATES IN THE COLLECTION
OF THEIR NECESSARY REVENUE WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING ADVANTAGE TO THE
UNITED STATES.  A VERY LARGE PROPORTION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE
STATES IS EMPLOYED IN EXECUTION OF THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  IT
BELONGS TO GOVERNMENTAL AGENTS, AND IT IS NOT ONLY USED, BUT IT IS
NECESSARY FOR THEIR AGENCIES.  UNITED STATES MAILS, TROOPS, AND
MUNITIONS OF WAR ARE CARRIED UPON ALMOST EVERY RAILROAD.  TELEGRAPH
LINES ARE EMPLOYED IN THE NATIONAL SERVICE.  SO ARE STEAMBOATS, HORSES,
STAGE-COACHES, FOUNDRIES, SHIPYARDS, AND MULTITUDES OF MANUFACTURING
ESTABLISHMENTS.  THEY ARE THE PROPERTY OF NATURAL PERSONS, OR OF
CORPORATIONS, WHO ARE INSTRUMENTS OR AGENTS OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT,
AND THEY ARE THE HANDS BY WHICH THE OBJECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE
ATTAINED.  WERE THEY EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE REVENUE
OF THE STATES IT IS MANIFEST THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WOULD BE PARALYZED. 
WHILE IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT ALL THE POWERS VESTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
PRESERVED IN FULL EFFICIENCY, AND WHILE RECENT EVENTS HAVE CALLED FOR
THE MOST UNEMBARRASSED EXERCISE OF MANY OF THOSE POWERS, IT HAS NEVER
BEEN DECIDED THAT STATE TAXATION OF SUCH PROPERTY IS IMPLIEDLY
PROHIBITED.... 

"IT IS, THEREFORE, MANIFEST THAT EXEMPTION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES FROM
STATE TAXATION IS DEPENDENT, NOT UPON THE NATURE OF THE AGENTS, OR UPON
THE MODE OF THEIR CONSTITUTION, OR UPON THE FACT THAT THEY ARE AGENTS,
BUT UPON THE EFFECT OF THE TAX; THAT IS, UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
TAX DOES IN TRUTH DEPRIVE THEM OF POWER TO SERVE THE GOVERNMENT AS THEY
WERE INTENDED TO SERVE IT, OR DOES HINDER THE EFFICIENT EXERCISE OF
THEIR POWER.  A TAX UPON THEIR PROPERTY HAS NO SUCH NECESSARY EFFECT. 
IT LEAVES THEM FREE TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO
PERFORM.  A TAX UPON THEIR OPERATIONS IS A DIRECT OBSTRUCTION TO THE
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER." 

THE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE BRADLEY (WITH WHOM JUSTICE FIELD
CONCURRED) WHILE CONSIDERING THAT THE STATE TAX WAS INVALID AS APPLIED
TO PROPERTY OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD BECAUSE OF ITS SPECIAL
RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENT WHICH HAD CHARTERED IT, EMPHASIZED THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUCH A SITUATION AS HE CONCEIVED IT AND ONE WHERE
THE GOVERNMENT HAS ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES TO AID IN THE
DISCHARGE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  HIS OBSERVATIONS ARE STRIKINGLY
PERTINENT HERE (ID. PP. 41, 42): 

"THE CASE DIFFERS TOTO COELO FROM THAT WHEREIN THE GOVERNMENT ENTERS
INTO A CONTRACT WITH AN INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATION TO PERFORM SERVICES
NECESSARY FOR CARRYING ON THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT - AS FOR CARRYING
THE MAILS, OR TROOPS, OR SUPPLIES, OR FOR BUILDING SHIPS OR WORKS FOR
GOVERNMENT USE.  IN THOSE CASES THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO FURTHER CONCERN
WITH THE CONTRACTOR THAN IN HIS CONTRACT AND ITS EXECUTION.  IT HAS NO
CONCERN WITH HIS PROPERTY OR HIS FACULTIES INDEPENDENT OF THAT.  HOW
MUCH HE MAY BE TAXED BY, OR WHAT DUTIES HE MAY BE OBLIGED TO PERFORM
TOWARDS, HIS STATE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE TO THE GOVERNMENT, SO LONG AS
HIS CONTRACT AND ITS EXECUTION ARE NOT INTERFERED WITH.  IN THAT CASE
THE CONTRACT IS THE MEANS EMPLOYED FOR CARRYING INTO EXECUTION THE
POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE CONTRACT ALONE, AND NOT THE
CONTRACTOR, IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION OR OTHER INTERFERENCE BY THE STATE
GOVERNMENT." 

THE QUESTION OF IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION OF THE EARNINGS OF AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR UNDER A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT AROSE IN METCALF &
EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514.  THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED TO A
POLITICAL SUBDIVISON OF A STATE AND THE CONTRACTORS' EARNINGS WERE HELD
TO BE SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX.  THAT WAS A PIVOTAL DECISION,
FOR WE HAD TO MEET THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EARNINGS OF THE CONTRACTOR
STOOD UPON THE SAME FOOTING AS INTEREST UPON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES OR
THE INCOME OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF GOVERNMENT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE
TAX WAS LAID UPON NET INCOME.  BUT IF THE TAX UPON THE EARNINGS OF THE
CONTRACTOR HAD BEEN REGARDED AS IMPOSING A DIRECT BURDEN UPON A
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, THE FACT THAT THE TAX WAS LAID UPON NET INCOME
WOULD NOT SAVE IT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, SUPRA.
AND IF THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMUNITY OF INTEREST UPON GOVERNMENT BONDS
HAD BEEN DEEMED TO APPLY, THE TAX WOULD HAVE BEEN EQUALLY BAD WHETHER
THE TAX WAS UPON NET OR GROSS INCOME.  THE RULING IN POLLOCK V.
FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., SUPRA, RELATED TO NET INCOME.  THE UNIFORM
RULING IN SUCH A CASE HAS BEEN THAT THE INTEREST UPON GOVERNMENT
SECURITIES CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN
INCOME TAX COMPUTED UPON NET INCOME.  THE PITH OF THE DECISION IN THE
CASE OF METCALF & EDDY IS THAT GOVERNMENT BONDS AND CONTRACTS FOR THE
SERVICES OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ARE NOT UPON THE SAME FOOTING. 
THE DECISION WAS A DEFINITE REFUSAL TO EXTEND THE DOCTRINE OF CASES
RELATING TO GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, AND TO THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
GOVERNMENT, TO EARNINGS UNDER CONTRACTS FOR LABOR. 

THE REASONING UPON WHICH THAT DECISION WAS BASED IS CONTROLLING
HERE.  WE RECOGNIZED THAT IN A BROAD SENSE "THE BURDEN OF FEDERAL
TAXATION NECESSARILY SETS AN ECONOMIC LIMIT TO THE PRACTICAL OPERATION
OF THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATES, AND VICE VERSA."  "TAXATION BY
EITHER THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AFFECTS IN SOME MEASURE THE
COST OF OPERATION OF THE OTHER."  AS "NEITHER GOVERNMENT MAY DESTROY
THE OTHER NOR CURTAIL IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL MANNER THE EXERCISE OF ITS
POWERS," WE SAID THAT THE LIMITATION UPON THE TAXING POWER OF EACH, SO
FAR AS IT AFFECTS THE OTHER, "MUST RECEIVE A PRACTICAL CONSTRUCTION
WHICH PERMITS BOTH TO FUNCTION WITH THE MINIMUM OF INTERFERENCE EACH
WITH THE OTHER; AND THAT LIMITATION CANNOT BE SO VARIED OR EXTENDED AS
SERIOUSLY TO IMPAIR EITHER THE TAXING POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT IMPOSING
THE TAX  ...  OR THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE
GOVERNMENT AFFECTED BY IT."  METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, SUPRA, PP.
523, 524. 

WE SAID FURTHER THAT THE NATURE OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES OR THE
MODE OF THEIR CONSTITUTION COULD NOT BE DISREGARDED IN PASSING ON THE
QUESTION OF TAX EXEMPTION, AS IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT AN AGENCY MIGHT BE OF
SUCH A CHARACTER OR SO INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH THE EXERCISE OF A
POWER OR THE PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY BY THE ONE GOVERNMENT "THAT ANY
TAXATION OF IT BY THE OTHER WOULD BE SUCH A DIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH
THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF AS TO BE PLAINLY BEYOND THE TAXING
POWER."  AND IT WAS ON THAT PRINCIPLE THAT "ANY TAXATION BY ONE
GOVERNMENT OF THE SALARY OF AN OFFICER OF THE OTHER, OR THE PUBLIC
SECURITIES OF THE OTHER, OR AN AGENCY CREATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE
OTHER, EXCLUSIVELY TO ENABLE IT TO PERFORM A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION,"
WAS PROHIBITED.  WE CONCLUDED THAT A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON THE
EARNINGS OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR DERIVED FROM SERVICES RENDERED TO
THE GOVERNMENT COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE IMPOSED "UPON AN AGENCY OF
GOVERNMENT IN ANY TECHNICAL SENSE" AND COULD NOT "BE DEEMED TO BE AN
INTERFERENCE WITH GOVERNMENT, OR AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE EFFICIENCY OF ITS
AGENCIES IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL WAY."  ID., PP. 524, 525. 

WHILE THE METCALF CASE WAS ONE OF A FEDERAL TAX, THE REASONING AND
THE PRACTICAL CRITERION IT ADOPTS ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF
A STATE TAX UPON EARNINGS UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. 

AS WE HAVE OBSERVED, THE FACT THAT THE TAX IN THE PRESENT CASE IS
LAID UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS, INSTEAD OF NET EARNINGS, IS NOT A
CONTROLLING DISTINCTION.  RESPONDENT INVOKES OUR DECISIONS IN THE FIELD
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHERE A TAX UPON THE GROSS INCOME OF THE
TAXPAYER DERIVED FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS LONG BEEN HELD TO BE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN.  PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326; CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S.
292, 297; UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321, 328, 329;
FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650, 655, 656. 

BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS PLAIN.  PERSONS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FREE FROM BURDENS IMPOSED BY A STATE TAX
UPON THE BUSINESS WHICH CONSTITUTES SUCH COMMERCE OR THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN IT OR THE RECEIPTS AS SUCH DERIVED FROM IT.  MINNESOTA RATE
CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 400.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT AN ABSTRACTION;
IT CONNOTES THE TRANSACTIONS OF THOSE ENGAGED IN IT AND THEY ENJOY THE
DESCRIBED IMMUNITY IN THEIR OWN RIGHT.  HERE, RESPONDENT'S ACTIVITIES
AT THE DAM SITES ARE LOCAL AND NOT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  RESPONDENT
HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO IMMUNITY FROM NONDISCRIMINATORY LOCAL
TAXATION AND THE MERE FACT THAT THE TAX IN QUESTION BURDENS RESPONDENT
IS NO DEFENSE.  THE DEFENSE IS THAT THE TAX BURDENS THE GOVERNMENT AND
RESPONDENT'S RIGHT IS AT BEST A DERIVATIVE ONE.  HE ASSERTS AN IMMUNITY
WHICH, IF IT EXISTS, PERTAINS TO THE GOVERNMENT AND WHICH THE
GOVERNMENT DISCLAIMS. 

IN ALWARD V. JOHNSON, SUPRA, AS ALREADY NOTED, THE TAX WAS UPON GROSS
RECEIPTS AND THESE WERE DERIVED FROM A CONTRACT FOR CARRYING THE MAILS,
BUT THE TAX WAS UPHELD.  IT THERE APPEARED THAT THE TAX WAS IN LIEU OF
TAXES UPON THE PROPERTY AND HAD BEEN TREATED BY THE STATE COURT AS A
PROPERTY TAX.  BUT IF THE TAX AS ACTUALLY LAID UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS
PLACED A DIRECT BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SO AS TO INTERFERE
WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS, IT COULD NOT BE SAVED BECAUSE IT
WAS IN LIEU OF A TAX UPON PROPERTY OR WAS SO CHARACTERIZED.  SEE
HANOVER INSURANCE CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494, 509, 510. 

IN FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 240 U.S. 319, WE SUSTAINED
THE TAX UPON THE GROSS PREMIUMS RECEIVED BY A COMPANY AS SURETY UPON
BONDS RUNNING TO THE UNITED STATES FOR "INTERNAL REVENUE, CUSTOMS,
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
AND BANKS FOR UNITED STATES DEPOSITS," AND "BONDS GIVEN IN COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES IN LITIGATION THERE PENDING."  WHILE THE CHALLENGED
TAX WAS "AN EXACTION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS," WE HELD IT
TO BE VALID AS "MERE CONTRACTS BETWEEN PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND THE
UNITED STATES DO NOT NECESSARILY RENDER THE FORMER ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND CONFER FREEDOM FROM STATE CONTROL."  ID., PP.
320, 323.  THE PREMIUMS, OF COURSE, WERE PAID BY THOSE WHO WERE
REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE BONDS, BUT THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE WITH
THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THE TAX WAS LAID UPON GROSS RECEIPTS FROM
THE WRITING OF SUCH CONTRACTS, DID NOT MAKE THE TAX AN INVALID
EXACTION. 

IN BOTH THE ALWARD CASE AND THAT OF THE FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY,
THE ARGUMENT, PRESSED HERE, THAT THE STATE WITHHELD FOR ITS USE "A PART
OF EVERY DOLLAR" RECEIVED BY THE TAXPAYER, WAS EQUALLY PERTINENT AND
EQUALLY UNAVAILING. 

THE CONTENTION ULTIMATELY RESTS UPON THE POINT THAT THE TAX INCREASES
THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE TAXPAYER. 
BUT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY SO.  THE CONTRACTOR, TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION THE STATE OF THE COMPETITIVE MARKET FOR THE SERVICE, MAY
BE WILLING TO BEAR THE TAX AND ABSORB IT IN HIS ESTIMATED PROFIT RATHER
THAN LOSE THE CONTRACT.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS STIPULATED THAT
RESPONDENT'S ESTIMATED COST OF THE RESPECTIVE WORKS, AND THE BIDS BASED
THEREON, DID NOT INCLUDE, AND THERE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT
PRICE PAID TO RESPONDENT, ANY SPECIFIED ITEM TO COVER THE GROSS
RECEIPTS TAX, ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT KNEW OF THE WEST VIRGINIA ACT
IMPOSING IT, AND RESPONDENT'S ESTIMATES OF COST DID INCLUDE
"COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY INSURANCE, CONSTRUCTION BOND AND PROPERTY
TAXES."    BUT IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX MAY
INCREASE THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT, THAT FACT WOULD NOT INVALIDATE THE
TAX.  WITH RESPECT TO THAT EFFECT, A TAX ON THE CONTRACTOR'S GROSS
RECEIPTS WOULD NOT DIFFER FROM A TAX ON THE CONTRACTOR'S PROPERTY AND
EQUIPMENT NECESSARILY USED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. 
CONCEDEDLY, SUCH A TAX MAY VALIDLY BE LAID.  PROPERTY TAXES ARE
NATURALLY, AS IN THIS CASE, RECKONED AS A PART OF THE EXPENSE OF DOING
THE WORK.  TAXES MAY VALIDLY BE LAID NOT ONLY ON THE CONTRACTOR'S
MACHINERY BUT ON THE FUEL USED TO OPERATE IT.  IN TRINITYFARM
CONSTRUCTION CO. V. GROSJEAN, 291 U.S. 466, THE TAXPAYER ENTERED INTO A
CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEVEES IN
AID OF NAVIGATION AND GASOLINE WAS USED TO SUPPLY POWER FOR TAXPAYER'S
MACHINERY.  A STATE EXCISE TAX ON THE GASOLINE SO USED WAS SUSTAINED. 
THE COURT SAID THAT IF THE PAYMENT OF THE STATE TAXES IMPOSED ON THE
PROPERTY AND OPERATIONS OF THE TAXPAYER "AFFECTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AT ALL, IT AT MOST GIVES RISE TO A BURDEN WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND
REMOTE AND NOT TO ONE THAT IS NECESSARY, IMMEDIATE OR DIRECT."  BUT A
TAX OF THAT SORT UNQUESTIONABLY INCREASES THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR
IN PERFORMING HIS SERVICE AND MAY, IF IT ENTERS INTO THE CONTRACTOR'S
ESTIMATE, INCREASE THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT.  THE FACT THAT THE TAX
ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE CONTRACTOR IN THE ALWARD CASE, SUPRA,
MIGHT HAVE INCREASED THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CARRIAGE OF THE
MAILS DID NOT IMPRESS THE COURT AS MILITATING AGAINST ITS VALIDITY. 

THERE IS THE FURTHER SUGGESTION THAT IF THE PRESENT TAX OF TWO PER
CENT. IS UPHELD, THE STATE MAY LAY A TAX OF TWENTY PER CENT. OR FIFTY
PER CENT. OR EVEN MORE, AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE
GOVERNMENT TO OBTAIN THE SERVICE IT NEEDS.  THE ARGUMENT IGNORES THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO PROTECT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE THEREWITH THROUGH ANY
ATTEMPTED STATE ACTION.  IN THOMSON V. PACIFIC RAILROAD, SUPRA, THE
COURT POINTEDLY REFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO PREVENT SUCH
AN INTERFERENCE THROUGH THE USE OF THE TAXING POWER OF THE STATE.  "IT
CANNOT," SAID THE COURT, "BE SO USED, INDEED, AS TO DEFEAT OR HINDER
THE OPERATIONS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; BUT IT WILL BE SAFE TO
CONCLUDE, IN GENERAL, IN REFERENCE TO PERSONS AND STATE CORPORATIONS
EMPLOYED IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE, THAT WHEN CONGRESS HAS NOT INTERPOSED
TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY FROM STATE TAXATION, SUCH TAXATION IS NOT
OBNOXIOUS TO THAT OBJECTION."  SEE VAN ALLEN V. ASSESSORS, 3 WALL. 
573, 585; FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA. 

WE HOLD THAT THE WEST VIRGINIA TAX SO FAR AS IT IS LAID UPON THE
GROSS RECEIPTS OF RESPONDENT DERIVED FROM ITS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE
BORDERS OF THE STATE DOES NOT INTERFERE IN ANY SUBSTANTIAL WAY WITH THE
PERFORMANCE OF FEDERAL FUNCTIONS AND IS A VALID EXACTION.  THE DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE ACT OF JULY 3, 1930, C. 847, 46 STAT. 928; H. DOC. NO. 190,
70TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; ACT OF AUGUST 30, 1935, C. 831, 49 STAT. 1035;
H. DOC. NO. 31, 73D CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN2  PRIOR TO MAY 27, 1933, THE TAX WAS THREE-TENTHS OF ONE PER CENT,
AND THE ASSESSMENT ON RECEIPTS PRIOR TO THAT DATE WAS AT THAT RATE. 
TWO OF THE CONTRACTS OF RESPONDENT WERE MADE BEFORE THE RATES WERE
CHANGED. 

FN3  THAT PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER  ... 

"TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER, OVER SUCH
DISTRICT (NOT EXCEEDING TEN MILES SQUARE) AS MAY, BY CESSION OF
PARTICULAR STATES, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF CONGRESS, BECOME THE SEAT OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TO EXERCISE LIKE AUTHORITY
OVER ALL PLACES PURCHASED BY THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE, FOR THE ERECTION OF FORTS, MAGAZINES,
ARSENALS, DOCK-YARDS, AND OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS." 

FN4  "SEC.  3.  ACQUISITION OF LANDS BY UNITED STATES; JURISDICTION. 
- THE CONSENT OF THIS STATE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE ACQUISITION BY THE
UNITED STATES, OR UNDER ITS AUTHORITY, BY PURCHASE, LEASE,
CONDEMNATION, OR OTHERWISE, OF ANY LAND ACQUIRED, OR TO BE ACQUIRED IN
THIS STATE BY THE UNITED STATES, FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL, BODY POLITIC OR
CORPORATE, FOR SITES FOR LIGHTHOUSES, BEACONS, SIGNAL STATIONS, POST
OFFICES, CUSTOMHOUSES, COURTHOUSES, ARSENALS, SOLDIERS' HOMES,
CEMETERIES, LOCKS, DAMS, ARMOR PLATE MANUFACTURING PLANTS, PROJECTILE
FACTORIES OR FACTORIES OF ANY KIND OR CHARACTER, OR ANY NEEDFUL
BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES OR PROVING GROUNDS, OR WORKS FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE NAVIGATION OF ANY WATERCOURSE, OR WORK OF PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT WHATEVER, OR FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE FORESTS, OR FOR
ANY OTHER PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAME MAY BE NEEDED OR REQUIRED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE EVIDENCE OF TITLE TO SUCH LAND
SHALL BE RECORDED AS IN OTHER CASES. 

"ANY COUNTY, MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OR MUNICIPALITY, WHETHER
INCORPORATED UNDER GENERAL LAW OR SPECIAL ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE, SHALL
HAVE POWER TO PAY FOR ANY SUCH TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND AND PRESENT THE
SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FREE OF COST, FOR ANY OF
THE PURPOSES AFORESAID, AND TO ISSUE BONDS AND LEVY TAXES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PAYING FOR THE SAME; AND, IN THE CASE OF A MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, THE LAND SO PURCHASED AND PRESENTED MAY BE WITHIN THE
CORPORATE LIMITS OF SUCH MUNICIPALITY OR WITHIN FIVE MILES THEREOF:
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO SUCH COUNTY, MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OR
MUNICIPALITY SHALL, BY THE ISSUE AND SALE OF SUCH BONDS, CAUSE THE
AGGREGATE OF ITS DEBT TO EXCEED THE LIMIT FIXED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF
THIS STATE:  PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND STATUTES OF THIS STATE, OR OF THE SPECIAL ACT CREATING ANY
MUNICIPALITY, RELATING TO SUBMITTING THE QUESTION OF THE ISSUING OF
BONDS AND ALL QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE SAME TO A VOTE OF THE
PEOPLE, SHALL, IN ALL RESPECTS, BE OBSERVED AND COMPLIED WITH. 

"CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH THIS STATE IN AND OVER ANY LAND SO
ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE, AND THE SAME IS HEREBY, CEDED
TO THE UNITED STATES FOR ALL PURPOSES; BUT THE JURISDICTION SO CEDED
SHALL CONTINUE NO LONGER THAN THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE THE OWNER OF
SUCH LANDS, AND IF THE PURPOSES OF ANY GRANT TO THE UNITED STATES SHALL
CEASE, OR THE UNITED STATES SHALL FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS FAIL TO
USE ANY SUCH LAND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE GRANT, THE JURISDICTION
HEREBY CEDED OVER THE SAME SHALL CEASE AND DETERMINE, AND THE RIGHT AND
TITLE THERETO SHALL REINVEST IN THIS STATE.  THE JURISDICTION CEDED
SHALL NOT VEST UNTIL THE UNITED STATES SHALL ACQUIRE TITLE OF RECORD TO
SUCH LAND.  JURISDICTION HERETOFORE CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES OVER ANY
LAND WITHIN THIS STATE BY ANY PREVIOUS ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE SHALL
CONTINUE ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE RESPECTIVE CESSIONS." 

FN5  "SEC.  4.  EXECUTION OF PROCESS AND OTHER JURISDICTION AS TO
LAND ACQUIRED BY UNITED STATES.   - THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA RESERVES
THE RIGHT TO EXECUTE PROCESS, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
ANY LOT OR PARCEL OF LAND HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY THE
UNITED STATES AS AFORESAID, AND SUCH OTHER JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY
OVER THE SAME AS IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE JURISDICTION CEDED TO THE
UNITED STATES BY VIRTUE OF SUCH ACQUISITION." 

FN6  SEE NOTE 5. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

I REGRET THAT I AM UNABLE TO CONCUR IN THE COURT'S OPINION.  I SHOULD
NOT SET FORTH MY VIEWS IN DETAIL WERE I NOT CONVINCED THE DECISION RUNS
COUNTER TO THE SETTLED RULE THAT A STATE MAY NOT, BY TAXATION, BURDEN
OR IMPEDE THE UNITED STATES IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DELEGATED POWERS. 
THE JUDGMENT SEEMS TO ME TO OVERRULE, SUB SILENTIO, A CENTURY OF
PRECEDENTS, AND TO LEAVE THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE UNCERTAIN AND
UNPREDICTABLE. 

THE DOCTRINE WHICH FORBIDS A STATE TO INTERFERE WITH THE EXERCISE OF
FEDERAL POWERS DOES NOT HAVE ITS ORIGIN IN THE COMMON LAW EXEMPTION OF
THE SOVEREIGN FROM REGULATION OR TAXATION.  IT SPRINGS FROM THE
NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT."  FN1  THE
ATTEMPT TO USE IT (THE POWER OF TAXATION) ON THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION, IN PURSUANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS ITSELF AN
ABUSE, BECAUSE IT IS THE USURPATION OF A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE OF A
SINGLE STATE CANNOT GIVE.  WE FIND, THEN, ON JUST THEORY, A TOTAL
FAILURE OF THIS ORIGINAL RIGHT (OF THE STATES) TO TAX THE MEANS
EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION, FOR THE EXECUTION OF ITS
POWERS.""  FN2  THE IMMUNITY IS DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION IN THE
SAME SENSE AND UPON THE SAME PRINCIPLE THAT IT WOULD BE IF EXPRESSED IN
SO MANY WORDS."  FN3 

THIS IMMUNITY WAS DEFINED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN M'CULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 436: 

"...  THE STATES HAVE NO POWER, BY TAXATION OR OTHERWISE, TO RETARD,
IMPEDE, BURDEN, OR IN ANY MANNER CONTROL, THE OPERATIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ENACTED BY CONGRESS TO CARRY INTO EXECUTION THE
POWERS VESTED IN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT." 

IN ITS APPLICATION THE PRINCIPLE FORBIDS TAXATION BY A STATE OF
PROPERTY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,  FN4  OR OF THE OFFICE OR SALARY OF
ANY OF ITS OFFICERS.  FN5 

I AGREE THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX LAID BY WEST VIRGINIA UPON THE
APPELLEE'S TRANSACTIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES IS NOT UPON THE
GOVERNMENT AS SUCH, UPON ITS PROPERTY OR UPON ITS OFFICERS. 

THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT PERFORM ALL ITS FUNCTIONS BY THE USE OF ITS
PROPERTY AND THE ACTIVITY OF ITS OFFICERS, BUT MAY ESTABLISH AGENCIES
TO THESE ENDS.  SUCH AN AGENCY, CREATED NOT FOR PRIVATE GAIN BUT WHOLLY
DEVOTED TO GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES AND WHOLLY OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES,
IS AS FREE FROM STATE TAXATION ON ITS PROPERTY AND ITS ACTIVITIES AS
THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF; AND THE EXEMPTION EXTENDS TO THE SALARIES OF ITS
OFFICERS.  FN6  IN THE EXERTION OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE
CONSTITUTION, THE UNITED STATES MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, ERECT
CORPORATIONS FOR PRIVATE GAIN AND EMPLOY THEM AS ITS
INSTRUMENTALITIES.  FN7  NO TAX CAN BE LAID UPON THEIR FRANCHISES OR
OPERATIONS,  FN8  BUT THEIR LOCAL PROPERTY  FN9  IS SUBJECT TO NON
DISCRIMINATING STATE TAXATION.  IN CONTRAST, THE BESTOWAL OF BENEFITS,
RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES OR THE IMPOSITION OF DUTIES BY
FEDERAL LAW UPON A NATURAL PERSON OR A CORPORATION DOES NOT CONVERT HIM
OR IT INTO A FEDERAL AGENCY EXEMPT FROM UNIFORM STATE EXCISE OR
PROPERTY TAXES.  FN10  WHERE THE UNITED STATES, BY CONTRACT,
CONSTITUTES A PERSON OR CORPORATION ITS AGENT TO FULFIL A GOVERNMENTAL
OBLIGATION, A STATE TAX UPON SUCH AN AGENT IS FORBIDDEN IF IT FALLS
UPON THE AVAILS OF THE OPERATION IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAS AN
INTEREST, OR IS AN EXCISE OR PRIVILEGE TAX UPON THE AGENT'S OPERATIONS;
FN11  BUT A GENERAL AND UNIFORM STATE PROPERTY TAX WHICH FALLS ONLY
UPON THE AGENT'S PROPERTY USED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT IS
VALID.  FN12  THE OPINION OF THE COURT ADVERTS TO THESE DISTINCTIONS,
BUT, SINCE ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLEE IS NOT AN AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY
OF THE UNITED STATES, A DISCUSSION OF TAXES LAID UPON THE OPERATIONS AS
CONTRASTED WITH THOSE IMPOSED UPON THE PROPERTY OF SUCH AN AGENCY OR
INSTRUMENTALITY IS BESIDE THE POINT UPON WHICH THE CASE TURNS.  FN13 

I AGREE THAT THE CHALLENGED TAX IS NOT, IN TERMS, LAID UPON THE
CONTRACT OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT I AM OF OPINION THAT IT DIRECTLY
BURDENS AND IMPEDES THE OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE
REASON AND SCOPE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF IMMUNITY AND ACCORDING TO THE
APPLICATION OF THAT PRINCIPLE IN NUMEROUS DECISIONS OF THE COURT.  IF
THIS BE SO, THE FACTS THAT THE EXACTION IS NOT IN TERMS UPON THE
CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THAT THE APPELLEE IS AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR, THAT THE TAX IS NON-DISCRIMINATORY, OR THAT IT IS NOT
EXCESSIVE IN AMOUNT CANNOT SERVE TO EXCULPATE THE STATUTE FROM THE
CHARGE THAT IT TRANSGRESSES THE RULE.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS, AS
REPEATEDLY HELD, ARE IRRELEVANT WHERE THE TAX FALLS DIRECTLY,
IMMEDIATELY, AND PALPABLY UPON AN OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
OR A MEANS CHOSEN FOR THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS.  MANY ILLUSTRATIONS
ARE AVAILABLE OF EXACTIONS WHICH PLAINLY BURDEN AND IMPEDE IN SOME
DEGREE THE LAWFUL OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.  AS THE OPINION OF
THE COURT INDICATES, A TAX IN TERMS LAID UPON THE CONTRACT WOULD DO SO,
- SUCH AS AN EXCISE FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF MAKING THE CONTRACT OR
PERFORMING IT,  FN14  A STAMP TAX UPON THE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE
CONTRACT, OR A REQUIREMENT THAT THE CONTRACT BE RECORDED AND A TAX BE
PAID UPON ITS RECORDATION.  FN15 

THE COURT HAS, MOREOVER, REPEATEDLY HELD A TAX NOMINALLY UPON ONE WHO
CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN EFFECT AND IN FACT IMPOSED UPON
THE OPERATIONS OF THE LATTER.  THUS AN EXCISE UPON A TELEGRAPH COMPANY
WHICH, UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, TRANSMITS GOVERNMENT
MESSAGES, WHETHER THE TAX BE AT A GIVEN SUM PER MESSAGE  FN16  OR IN
THE FORM OF A LICENSE TAX UPON ALL BUSINESS, PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENTAL,
FN17  IS PROHIBITED BECAUSE IT IMPOSES A BURDEN UPON THE OPERATIONS OF
THE UNITED STATES.  THE CASES SO HOLDING ARE SOUGHT TO BE DISTINGUISHED
BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE TELEGRAPH COMPANIES CARRYING THE MESSAGES
OF THE UNITED STATES WERE BY FEDERAL STATUTE GIVEN THE PRIVILEGE OF
USING THE POST ROADS; AND IT IS SAID THAT THIS IN SOME WAY GAVE THEM A
PECULIAR STATUS WHICH RENDERED THEIR GROSS RECEIPTS UNTAXABLE. BUT THAT
WAS NOT THE BASIS OF DECISION.  THE GROUND OF IMMUNITY WAS THAT THE TAX
WAS IN EFFECT ON THE GOVERNMENT'S TRANSACTIONS IN THE EXERTION OF ITS
LAWFUL POWERS.  THUS IN TELEGRAPH CO. V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. AT P. 465, IT
WAS SAID "THE TAX IS THE SAME ON EVERY MESSAGE SENT, AND BECAUSE IT IS
SENT,  ... CLEARLY IF A FIXED TAX FOR EVERY TWO THOUSAND POUNDS OF
FREIGHT CARRIED IS A TAX ON THE FREIGHT, OR FOR EVERY MEASURED TON OF A
VESSEL A TAX ON TONNAGE, OR FOR EVERY PASSENGER CARRIED A TAX ON THE
PASSENGER, OR FOR THE SALE OF GOODS A TAX ON THE GOODS, THIS MUST BE A
TAX ON THE MESSAGES....  AS TO THE GOVERNMENT MESSAGES, IT IS A TAX BY
THE STATE ON THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
TO EXECUTE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS, AND, THEREFORE, VOID.  IT WAS SO
DECIDED IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, (4 WHEAT.  316) AND HAS NEVER BEEN
DOUBTED SINCE." 

THAT THE PRIVILEGES GRANTED TELEGRAPH COMPANIES BY FEDERAL LAW, HAD
NO BEARING UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX IS SHOWN BY WESTERN UNION
TELEGRAPH CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 125 U.S. 530 AND MASSACHUSETTS V.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO., 141 U.S. 40, IN WHICH STATE TAXES ON THE
PROPERTY AND FRANCHISES OF COMPANIES, OPERATING UNDER THE SAME STATUTE
AS THE TELEGRAPH COMPANY IN THE TEXAS CASE WERE SUSTAINED BECAUSE NOT
ON THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE UNITED STATES. 

STOCK ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES EVIDENCING INDEBTEDNESS TO THE
HOLDER CANNOT BE TAXED AD VALOREM BY A STATE.  FN18  A TAX UPON THE
ASSETS OF A CORPORATION IS BAD IF OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE
INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT.  FN19  A GROSS INCOME TAX IS INVALID TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT IS LAID ON INCOME FROM FEDERAL SECURITIES.  FN20  THE
REASON IS THAT "THE TAX  ...  IS A TAX UPON THE CONTRACT SUBSISTING
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE INDIVIDUAL.  IT BEARS DIRECTLY UPON THAT
CONTRACT, WHILE SUBSISTING AND IN FULL FORCE.  THE POWER OPERATES UPON
THE CONTRACT THE INSTANT IT IS FRAMED, AND MUST IMPLY A RIGHT TO AFFECT
THAT CONTRACT."  THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION IS FOR THE PAYMENT BOTH OF
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, AND AN EXACTION WHICH BEARS UPON EITHER OF
THESE FEATURES OF THE OBLIGATION IS PROHIBITED. 

CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES, PAYABLE AT
A FUTURE DATE, WITH INTEREST, ISSUED TO CREDITORS FOR SUPPLIES
FURNISHED BY THEM TO THE NATION, CANNOT BE TAXED BY A STATE.  THEY
DIFFER FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS HERE TAXED ONLY IN THE RESPECT THAT THEY
WERE ISSUED TO SECURE PAYMENT OF PAST-DUE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS,
WHEREAS THE CASH PAID THE APPELLEE WAS IN SOLUTION OF A PRESENT
OBLIGATION OF LIKE NATURE.  OF THE TAXABILITY OF THESE CERTIFICATES IT
WAS SAID:  FN21 

"...  BUT WE FAIL TO PERCEIVE  ...  THAT SUCH CERTIFICATES, ISSUED AS
A MEANS OF EXECUTING CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN
OF BORROWING MONEY, ARE NOT AS MUCH BEYOND CONTROL AND LIMITATION BY
THE STATES THROUGH TAXATION, AS BONDS OR OTHER OBLIGATIONS ISSUED FOR
LOANS OF MONEY." 

MANY SORTS OF IMPOSTS, HOWEVER, WHICH BEAR MERELY UPON THE OBLIGEE OF
A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT FOR THE EXERCISE OF A PRIVILEGE HAVING NO
RELATION TO THE CONTRACTUAL NEXUS BETWEEN HIM AND THE GOVERNMENT HAVE
BEEN SUSTAINED.  SO, A FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE TAX MEASURED BY ASSETS OR
BY INCOME IS NOT RENDERED VOID BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE TAXPAYER'S
ASSETS OR INCOME INCLUDE FEDERAL SECURITIES OR INTEREST THEREON.  FN22
AND A LAW WHICH IMPOSES AN EXCISE UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF TRANSMISSION OF
PROPERTY AT DEATH MAY INCLUDE FEDERAL SECURITIES IN THE ESTATE BY WHICH
THE TAX IS MEASURED.  FN23  UPON THE LIKE REASONING A TAX UPON MONEYS
AND CREDITS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF WHICH UNCOLLECTED GOVERNMENT CHECKS
ARE INCLUDED IS VALID.  FN24 

THERE CAN BE NO DIFFERENCE IN REASON, OR IN PRACTICAL EFFECT, BETWEEN
TAXATION OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS TO REPAY BORROWED FUNDS OR WRITTEN
PROMISES TO PAY FOR GOODS PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED AND A CONTRACT TO PAY
FOR GOODS AND SERVICES AS FURNISHED, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF CONTRACT
WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES ITS GRANTED POWERS.  THE FEDERAL POWER
TO CONTRACT FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IS AS NECESSARY AND AS FUNDAMENTAL
AS THE POWER TO BORROW MONEY.  THUS IT HAS BEEN SAID, SPEAKING OF A TAX
UPON GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS: FN25 

"IF THE STATES AND CORPORATIONS THROUGHOUT THE UNION, POSSESS THE
POWER TO TAX A CONTRACT FOR THE LOAN OF MONEY, WHAT SHALL ARREST THIS
PRINCIPLE IN ITS APPLICATION TO EVERY OTHER CONTRACT?  WHAT MEASURE CAN
GOVERNMENT ADOPT WHICH WILL NOT BE EXPOSED TO ITS INFLUENCE?" 

IF THE GOVERNMENT, AS GUARDIAN OF AN INCOMPETENT INDIAN, LEASES LAND
TO A MINING COMPANY ON A ROYALTY CONSISTING OF A PERCENTAGE OF THE
GROSS PROCEEDS DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF ORES MINED, A STATE AD VALOREM
TAX ASSESSED TO THE LESSEE ON THE ORES MINED AND IN STORAGE UPON THE
LEASED LAND BEFORE ANY SALE OR SEGREGATION OF THE EQUITABLE INTERESTS
OF THE GOVERNMENT AS GUARDIAN, IS VOID AS BURDENING AND IMPEDING AN
OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT.  FN26  A SALES TAX ON COMMODITIES SOLD TO
THE GOVERNMENT, THOUGH LAID UPON THE SELLER AT A GIVEN RATE PER UNIT
SOLD, IS ALSO BAD AS DIRECTLY BURDENING THE GOVERNMENT'S TRANSACTIONS. 
FN27  A TAX ON STORAGE OR WITHDRAWAL FROM STORAGE ESSENTIAL TO THE SALE
OF A COMMODITY CONTRACTED TO BE DELIVERED TO THE UNITED STATES IS IN
THE SAME CLASS AS A TAX ON SALES TO THE GOVERNMENT.  FN28  ON THE OTHER
HAND, A SALES TAX UPON ARTICLES PURCHASED BY A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR,
FN29  OR A NET INCOME TAX LAID UPON HIS INCOME, IS VALID.  FN30  THE
REASON IS THAT EXACTIONS OF THE LATTER SORT DO NOT IMPINGE UPON OR
DIRECTLY AFFECT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN HIM AND THE GOVERNMENT; DO NOT
AFFECT THE GOVERNMENT'S CHOICE OF MEANS FOR EXECUTING ITS POWERS. 

WHILE A GROSS INCOME TAX UPON RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM A GOVERNMENT
CONTRACT WOULD IN ITSELF BE BAD, IF THE EXACTION IS IN LIEU OF ALL
PROPERTY TAXES AND INTENDED AS A PROPERTY TAX, MEASURED BY RECEIPTS OF
THE PROPERTY, IT IS VALID.  FN31 

OVER A CENTURY AGO THE COURT SAID:  FN32 

"CAN A CONTRACTOR FOR SUPPLYING A MILITARY POST WITH PROVISIONS, BE
RESTRAINED FROM MAKING PURCHASES WITHIN ANY STATE, OR FROM TRANSPORTING
THE PROVISIONS TO THE PLACE AT WHICH THE TROOPS WERE STATIONED?  OR
COULD HE BE FINED OR TAXED FOR DOING SO?  WE HAVE NOT YET HEARD THESE
QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  IT IS TRUE, THAT THE PROPERTY
OF THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE TAXED, AS THE PROPERTY OF OTHER CITIZENS;...
BUT WE DO NOT ADMIT THAT THE ACT OF PURCHASING, OR OF CONVEYING THE
ARTICLES PURCHASED, CAN BE UNDER STATE CONTROL." 

THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN A SALES TAX ON GOODS SOLD TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX UPON THE FURNISHING OF
GOODS AND SERVICES UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  AS WAS SAID
IN PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218, 221: 

"THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO MAKE SUCH PURCHASES IS DERIVED
FROM THE CONSTITUTION.  THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO MAKE SALES TO THE
UNITED STATES WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE STATE AND DOES NOT DEPEND ON STATE
LAWS; IT RESULTS FROM THE AUTHORITY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION TO CHOOSE ITS OWN MEANS AND SOURCES OF SUPPLY.  WHILE
MISSISSIPPI MAY IMPOSE CHARGES UPON PETITIONER FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF
CARRYING ON TRADE THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE STATE, IT MAY NOT
LAY ANY TAX UPON TRANSACTIONS BY WHICH THE UNITED STATES SECURES THE
THINGS DESIRED FOR ITS GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES." 

AS IN THE PANHANDLE CASE, SO IN THE PRESENT, THE RECEIPT OF THE THING
CONTRACTED FOR CONSTITUTES THE TRANSACTION BY WHICH THE TAX IS MEASURED
AND ON WHICH THE BURDEN RESTS.  WE MAY THUS PARAPHRASE WHAT WAS THERE
SAID:  TO USE THE VALUE AND AMOUNT OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES FURNISHED
TO THE UNITED STATES AS A MEASURE OF THE TAX IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT
TO TAX THE TRANSACTION ITSELF.  THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX RISES AND FALLS
IN DIRECT RATIO TO THE CONTRACT VALUE OF THE GOODS AND SERVICES
RENDERED TO THE GOVERNMENT.  THIS IS TO TAX THE SALE; AND THAT IS TO
TAX THE UNITED STATES. 

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AS AMICUS CURIAE PROPOSES A SINGLE TEST OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATE TAX UPON THE OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR THE MEANS CHOSEN FOR THE EXECUTION OF ITS POWERS.  THAT TEST
IS WHETHER THE TAXING STATUTE DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND
IN FAVOR OF OTHER TAXPAYERS.  HE FRANKLY ADMITS THAT IF THE PROPOSED
CRITERION BE ADOPTED WE MUST OVERRULE INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 283 U.S. 570; PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX,
SUPRA; AND GRAVES V. TEXAS COMPANY, 298 U.S. 393.  HE PROFESSES
HIMSELF, AS I AM, UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH A SALES TAX OR A TAX UPON
STORAGE PRELIMINARY TO SALE TO THE UNITED STATES FROM A GROSS RECEIPTS
TAX UPON GOODS AND SERVICES FURNISHED THE GOVERNMENT.  IN A BRIEF FILED
AS AMICUS CURIAE IN GRAVES V. TEXAS COMPANY, SUPRA, HE URGED THE COURT
TO HOLD SUCH A TAX IMPOSED ON GASOLINE UNDER CONTRACT TO THE UNITED
STATES INVALID AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPEDIMENT AND BURDEN UPON THE
OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  FN33  IT IS SAID THAT THESE CASES HAVE
BEEN DISTINGUISHED.  BUT IN THE CASES DISTINGUISHED FROM THEM THE TAX
WAS FOUND TO BE ONE ON THE PROPERTY OF A CONTRACTOR WITH THE UNITED
STATES, OR ON HIS NET INCOME, NOT ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF HIS CONTRACT
WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT
TO RELY UPON ANY PRINCIPLE BUT UPON THE MERE NAME OR LABEL GIVEN TO A
TAX.  SUCH DISTINCTIONS ONLY SERVE TO CONFUSE. 

I DO NOT THINK THE SOLICITOR GENERAL IN BRIEF OR ARGUMENT ANSWERED
THE QUESTION PROPOUNDED BY THE COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE:  WHETHER THE
TAX IS INVALID AS LAYING A BURDEN UPON THE OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  HE RESPONDS THAT THE TAX IS VALID IN SPITE OF THE FACT
THAT IT LAYS SUCH A BURDEN.  THUS HE STATES:  "WE HAVE INDICATED THAT A
TAX UPON THE CONTRACTOR, THE SOLE RESULT OF WHICH IS TO INCREASE THE
COST TO THE SOVEREIGN BY THE AMOUNT OF THE NORMAL TAX BURDEN, PRESENTS
NO INTERFERENCE WITH ITS OPERATIONS."  AGAIN HE SAYS THAT THE
IMPOSITION OF THE TAX IN QUESTION "IS IN NO SENSE A THREAT TO THE
CAPACITY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PERFORM ITS FUNCTIONS." 

THUS IT APPEARS THAT, IN HIS VIEW, A NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAX IS
TO BE JUDGED NOT BY THE "BURDEN" IT IMPOSES, BUT BY THE EXTENT OF ITS
"INTERFERENCE" WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT.  IF THIS BE THE
TEST, NO TAX, HOWEVER GREAT, CAN PREVENT SUCH FUNCTIONING, SO LONG AS
THE UNITED STATES' TAXING AND BORROWING POWERS REMAIN ADEQUATE TO MEET
THE ORDINARY EXPENSES OF ITS OPERATIONS AND THE ADDED COST OF STATE
TAXES THEREON.  THE ADOPTION OF ANY SUCH THEORY WOULD REQUIRE THE
OVERRULING NOT ONLY OF THE THREE DECISIONS THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
SINGLES OUT FOR DELETION, BUT LITERALLY SCORES OF OTHERS, BEGINNING
WITH M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND AND ENDING WITH GRAVES V. TEXAS COMPANY, 298
U.S. 393, DECIDED AT THE 1935 TERM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS THEN
EARNESTLY PRESSED UPON US BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. 

IT IS NOT CLEAR TO WHAT EXTENT THE COURT'S OPINION ADOPTS THE
DOCTRINE ADVOCATED BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT IS SAID MERELY THAT THE
APPELLEE IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, THAT THE TAX IS NON
DISCRIMINATORY AND IS NOT LAID UPON THE CONTRACT OF THE GOVERNMENT; AND
IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IF IN THE VIEW OF CONGRESS THE BURDEN OF SUCH A
TAX BECOMES TOO HEAVY, CONGRESS HAS THE MEANS OF REDRESS.  WHETHER ONE
OR ALL OF THESE FACTORS IS REQUISITE TO JUSTIFY THE EXACTION WE ARE NOT
TOLD. 

THE CASES ON WHICH THE OPINION ESPECIALLY RELIES DO NOT JUSTIFY
SUSTAINING THIS TAX.  METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, THROWS
NO LIGHT UPON THE PROBLEM PRESENTED.  A CONTRACTOR EMPLOYED TO ADVISE A
STATE AND ITS MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISIONS SOUGHT EXEMPTION FROM A FEDERAL
TAX UPON NET INCOME.  THE LAW IMPOSING THE TAX DID NOT DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST THE RECEIPTS FROM THE CONTRACT BUT TREATED THEM AS PART OF THE
GROSS INCOME UPON WHICH THE TAXABLE NET INCOME WAS TO BE CALCULATED. 
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OF THIS COURT'S APPLICABLE DECISIONS THE TAX WAS
HELD NOT TO BE UPON THE STATE OR ITS CONTRACT WITH THE TAXPAYER, NOT
UPON AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR MEANS CHOSEN BY THE STATE FOR EXECUTING ITS
POWERS, NOT DIRECTLY UPON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXPAYER'S COMPENSATION
RECEIVED FROM THE STATE.  THE EXACTION WAS NOT, AS HERE, OF A
PROPORTION OF EACH DOLLAR PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT.  IT WAS UPON NET
INCOME REMAINING AFTER ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS. 

THE DECISION IN FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 240 U.S. 319,
RELIED ON AS SUSTAINING THE INSTANT EXACTION, NEITHER RULES NOR AIDS IN
THE DECISION OF THE PRESENT CAUSE.  THERE A FOREIGN SURETY COMPANY WAS
REQUIRED BY LAW TO PAY AN ANNUAL FEE EQUAL TO TWO PER CENT. OF ITS
GROSS PREMIUMS, IN ORDER TO BE ADMITTED TO DO BUSINESS IN
PENNSYLVANIA.  UNDER A FEDERAL STATUTE SURETY COMPANIES DESIRING TO
EXECUTE BONDS RUNNING TO THE UNITED STATES WERE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN
WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SO TO DO.  THE FIDELITY
COMPANY OBTAINED SUCH AUTHORITY AND BECAME SURETY IN PENNSYLVANIA ON A
NUMBER OF BONDS INSURING THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES BY
FEDERAL EMPLOYES.  IT CHALLENGED SO MUCH OF THE STATE TAX AS WAS LAID
UPON THE PREMIUMS RECEIVED FOR WRITING THESE BONDS.  THE CHALLENGE WAS
NOT SUSTAINED.  THE CLAIM THAT THE COMPANY, BY OBTAINING LEAVE TO
EXECUTE BONDS RUNNING TO THE UNITED STATES, HAD BECOME A FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITY, WAS PROPERLY OVERRULED.  FN34  BUT IT IS SAID THAT, IN
SUSTAINING THE TAX, THE COURT HELD THAT AN EXACTION ON THE GROSS
RECEIPTS OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IS VALID.  A MOMENT'S REFLECTION WILL
SHOW THAT THIS IS INCORRECT.  THE PREMIUMS RECEIVED BY THE SURETY
COMPANY WERE RECEIVED FROM ITS CLIENTS - THOSE FOR WHOM IT WROTE THE
BONDS.  IT RECEIVED NO COMPENSATION FROM THE UNITED STATES AND ITS
TRANSACTIONS IN ESSENCE WERE WITH CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
AS SUCH.  THEY DID NOT DIFFER FROM TRANSACTIONS WITH FEDERAL OFFICERS
AND EMPLOYES WHEREBY THE LATTER PROCURED ANY OTHER SORT OF GOODS OR
SERVICE.  FN35  OF COURSE, THE MERE FACT THAT A CONTRACTUAL RELATION -
THAT OF SURETYSHIP - WAS CREATED BETWEEN THE FIDELITY COMPANY AND THE
UNITED STATES, WAS NOT IN AND OF ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE
COMPANY OF THE BURDEN OF PAYING A LOCAL TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING
BUSINESS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS.    ALWARD V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 509, IS
CITED AS AN INSTANCE WHERE A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX INCIDENT UPON THE
CONSIDERATION PAID THE CONTRACTOR BY THE UNITED STATES WAS SUSTAINED. 
EXAMINATION OF THE CASE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CONTRARY IS TRUE.  ALWARD
WAS ENGAGED IN OPERATING AN AUTOMOTIVE STAGE LINE BETWEEN POINTS IN
CALIFORNIA.  IN HIS BUSINESS HE EMPLOYED AUTOMOTIVE PROPERTY AND USED
THE STATE HIGHWAYS.  IN CLASSIFYING PROPERTY FOR TAXATION THE STATE
SEPARATELY CLASSIFIED PROPERTY OF PERSONS CARRYING ON SUCH A BUSINESS
AS HIS AND LAID A TAX ON THIS CLASS OF PROPERTY, IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER
TAXES, AT THE RATE OF FOUR AND ONE-HALF PER CENT. OF GROSS RECEIPTS. 
OTHER CLASSES OF PROPERTY WERE TAXED AT A PERCENTAGE OF VALUE.  AS THE
MAJOR PORTION OF ALWARD'S GROSS RECEIPTS AROSE FROM A CONTRACT FOR
CARRYING UNITED STATES MAILS HE INSISTED THAT THE TAX WAS INVALID
BECAUSE, BY VIRTUE OF HIS CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT, HE BECAME A
FEDERAL AGENCY IMMUNE FROM TAXATION UPON HIS GROSS RECEIPTS. 

THIS COURT FOUND THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA HAD DECLARED
THE TAX ONE UPON PROPERTY IN CASES HAVING NO RELATION TO ITS INCIDENCE
UPON FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES OR MEANS.  IT FURTHER FOUND THAT THE
CHALLENGED CLASSIFICATION FOR TAXATION OF AUTOMOTIVE PROPERTY USED IN A
BUSINESS TRANSACTED ON THE PUBLIC ROADS WAS NOT ARBITRARY OR
UNREASONABLE.  THE CASE WAS LIKENED TO THOSE ARISING UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE IN WHICH THE INTRASTATE PROPERTY OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER WAS
EITHER DIRECTLY TAXED OR WAS TAXED BY USE OF A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS
RECEIPTS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER TAXES, INCLUDING PROPERTY TAXES, IN ORDER
TO REACH A FAIR MEASURE OF THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE CARRIER'S
INTRASTATE PROPERTY.  PULLMAN CO. V. RICHARDSON, 261 U.S. 330; HOPKINS
V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TEL. CO., 275 U.S. 393.  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT
THE TAX WAS NOT ON GROSS RECEIPTS AS SUCH AND DID NOT BEAR UPON THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TAXPAYER AND THE GOVERNMENT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE
THE TAX IS ADMITTEDLY AN EXCISE FOR REVENUE IMPOSED IN ADDITION TO
PROPERTY TAXES AND FOREIGN CORPORATION FEES PAID BY THE APPELLEE. 

IT MAY BE CONSIDERED,  - THOUGH I DO NOT THINK WITH REASON,  - THAT
THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT THAT THE TAX WAS A PROPERTY TAX AND NOT A
TAX UPON GROSS RECEIPTS AS SUCH WAS ERRONEOUS BUT, EVEN IF THIS BE
CONCEDED, IT CANNOT BE CONTENDED THAT THE CASE STANDS AS AUTHORITY FOR
THE PROPOSITION THAT A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX AS SUCH UPON THE EARNINGS OF
A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, FROM HIS GOVERNMENT CONTRACT, IS NOT A BURDEN
OR IMPEDIMENT UPON THE OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE RULE
OF FEDERAL IMMUNITY. 

MUCH STRESS IS LAID BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL UPON THE DECISION IN
LIGGETT & MYERS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 383, AND HE SUGGESTS
THAT THE VIEWS THEREIN STATED BE ADOPTED IN THE PRESENT CASE IN
PREFERENCE TO THOSE EMBODIED IN THE PANHANDLE OIL CASE, SUPRA.  THE
SUGGESTION IMPLIES, CONTRARY TO THE FACT, THAT THE TWO DECISIONS ARE
CONTRADICTORY.  THE LIGGETT & MYERS COMPANY, A MANUFACTURER OF TOBACCO,
SOLD A PORTION OF ITS PRODUCT TO A STATE.  THE COMPANY RESISTED THE
COLLECTION OF A FEDERAL INTERNAL REVENUE TAX LAID "UPON ALL TOBACCO AND
SNUFF MANUFACTURED IN OR IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES, AND HEREAFTER
SOLD BY THE MANUFACTURER OR IMPORTER, OR REMOVED FOR CONSUMPTION OR
SALE" AT A FLAT RATE IN CENTS PER POUND "TO BE PAID BY THE MANUFACTURER
OR IMPORTER THEREOF."  UPON ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTE IT WAS CONCLUDED
THAT THE TAX WAS UPON THE MANUFACTURE AND THAT PAYMENT WAS MERELY
POSTPONED UNTIL REMOVAL OR SALE.  THE TAX DID NOT VARY IN AMOUNT WITH
THE PRICE RECEIVED FOR THE TOBACCO AND WAS NOT IN TERMS UPON ITS SALE. 
UPON THIS GROUND THE INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. CASE AND THE PANHANDLE CASE
WERE DISTINGUISHED. 

IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT OFTEN IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
TAX IS LAID UPON THE LOCAL OPERATIONS OF A MANUFACTURER OR CONTRACTOR
OR UPON THE ACTUAL SALE OF HIS PRODUCT.  BUT SUCH DISTINCTIONS MUST BE
MADE.  INDEED THE COURT ITSELF IS REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH AN ONE IN THE
INSTANT CASE IN DETERMINING THAT PAYMENT FOR WHAT THE APPELLEE
MANUFACTURED FOR THE GOVERNMENT IN PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, DID NOT
CONSTITUTE A GROSS RECEIPT IN WEST VIRGINIA UNDER THE CONTRACT.  THE
COURT HAS REPEATEDLY BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM WHETHER A TAX WAS
IN FACT ON THE SALE OF A COMMODITY OR UPON SOME PRIOR DEALING WITH IT
BY THE PRODUCER OR SUPPLIER.  WHILE THE DISTINCTIONS DRAWN MAY SEEM
SOMEWHAT NICE, EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS CARRIES CONVICTION THAT THE
DISTINCTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIAL.  FN36 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE APPELLEE'S STATUS AS AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR LIFTS THE BAN FROM THE TAX.  THIS IS TO IGNORE THE DIRECT
BEARING OF THE EXACTION ON THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND
THE GOVERNMENT.  THE FACT THAT THE TAX IS LAID UPON HIM WHO CONTRACTS
WITH THE GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN UPON THE CONTRACT AS SUCH, OR THE
GOVERNMENT ITSELF, IS IMMATERIAL.  EVERY PURCHASER OF GOVERNMENT
OBLIGATIONS IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  IF THE
FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR WERE SIGNIFICANT,
IT WOULD HAVE VALIDATED EVERY TAX LAID UPON THE OWNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENT
OBLIGATIONS OR UPON THE INTEREST RECEIVED THEREFROM.  FN37 IT HAS BEEN
HELD THAT ORES PRODUCED BY AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR FOR THE
GOVERNMENT, THOUGH STILL IN HIS POSSESSION, CANNOT BE TAXED BY A STATE;
FN38  AND THAT A LICENSE TAX UPON AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CANNOT BE
MEASURED BY THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM HIS TRANSACTIONS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT.  FN39 

WHAT WAS SAID BY MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, DISSENTING IN RAILROAD COMPANY
V. PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5, 38, WHEN READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS CONTEXT,
HAS NO BEARING UPON THE ISSUE HERE PRESENTED.  IN M'CULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, IN HOLDING THAT A TAX UPON THE OPERATIONS OF THE UNITED
STATES BANK INVADED THE FEDERAL IMMUNITY, CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL SAID: 

"IT (THE IMMUNITY) DOES NOT EXTEND TO A TAX PAID BY THE REAL PROPERTY
OF THE BANK, IN COMMON WITH THE OTHER REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE,
..." 

IN THE PENISTON CASE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER A UNIFORM AD VALOREM
STATE TAX COULD LAWFULLY BE ASSESSED UPON THE INTRASTATE PROPERTY OF
THE RAILROAD, A FEDERAL CORPORATION.  THE COURT HELD THAT IT COULD. 
THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION HAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED.  JUSTICES
BRADLEY AND FIELD, HOWEVER, THOUGHT THAT THE SCOPE OF THE IMMUNITY WAS
SO BROAD AS TO EXEMPT EVEN THE LOCAL PROPERTY OF A FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITY FROM SUCH A UNIFORM LOCAL TAX.  IT IS TO BE OBSERVED
THAT NO OTHER KIND OF EXACTION WAS INVOLVED.  MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY
INSISTED THAT WHILE SUCH A TAX MIGHT LAWFULLY BE LAID UPON THE PROPERTY
OF ONE WHO WAS A MERE CONTRACTOR WITH THE UNITED STATES IT COULD NOT BE
LAID UPON THE LOCAL ASSETS OF A FEDERAL CORPORATE INSTRUMENTALITY.  THE
CHALLENGED TAX WAS NOT UPON THE FRANCHISE OF THE CORPORATION GRANTED BY
THE GOVERNMENT, NOT ON ITS RIGHT TO EXIST WITHIN THE STATE, NOR UPON
THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM ITS OPERATIONS.  CONFESSEDLY THE PROPERTY OF A
CONTRACTOR WITH THE GOVERNMENT IS MORE REMOTE FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S
OPERATIONS THAN IS THE PROPERTY OF A GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY.  IF
THE LATTER MAY BE LOCALLY TAXED A FORTIORI THE FORMER MAY, AND THE
LANGUAGE OF MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY APPLIED ONLY TO THAT SITUATION, AND NOT
TO A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE. 

DOES THE FACT THAT THE TAX IS NON-DISCRIMINATORY SAVE IT?  THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL, AS WE HAVE SEEN, SO ARGUES.  HE SAYS THAT BOTH THE
APPELLEE AND THE UNITED STATES DERIVE SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE FEDERAL PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE STATE AND ADDS THAT
IT SEEMS THESE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT BE FREE.  THOUGH HE DOES NOT
OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT WHEN THE WORK IS COMPLETED THE UNITED STATES
WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM THE STATE, HE CONTENDS THAT A
NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE CONTRACTOR IS BUT
A METHOD OF REIMBURSING THE STATE FOR BENEFITS CONFERRED.  THE ARGUMENT
PROVES TOO MUCH.  IT REQUIRES THAT EQUAL AND UNIFORM STATE TAXATION
UPON FEDERAL PROPERTY ON WHICH STAND CUSTOMS HOUSES, POST OFFICES,
FORTS, ARSENALS, ET ID OMNE GENUS, BE UPHELD.  IN EVERY INSTANCE OF THE
OWNERSHIP AND USE OF PROPERTY WITHIN A STATE, ACCORDING TO THE
ARGUMENT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECEIVES SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS FOR
WHICH IT SHOULD PAY.  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL BALKS AT THE RESULT OF HIS
POSITION.  HE SAYS: "WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE LOGIC OF OUR ANALYSIS OF
BENEFITS RECEIVED WOULD LEAD TO TAXATION OF THE SOVEREIGN ITSELF.  BUT
THE ATTRIBUTES OF SOVEREIGNTY MAY BE SUCH AS TO PREVENT A TAX FROM
BEING IMPOSED UPON THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  CERTAINLY, THE PRINCIPLE OF
THE TAX IMMUNITY OF THE SOVEREIGN ITSELF IS TOO FIRMLY ESTABLISHED NOW
TO BE REEXAMINED." 

THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT THE IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION UPON THE
MEANS, THE OPERATIONS, AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IS JUST AS
FIRMLY ESTABLISHED AS IS THE IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
PROPERTY OR OFFICES OR POSTS CREATED BY IT, AND THAT NEITHER CLASS OF
TAXATION CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE BURDEN ON THE GOVERNMENT
IS UNIFORM WITH THAT LAID ON OTHERS. 

TAXES CONDEMNED BY THE COURT'S DECISIONS WHICH WERE IMPOSED UPON THE
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF FEDERAL SECURITIES, UPON THE PRODUCT OF
MINING LESSEES, IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT HAD AN INTEREST, UPON STORAGE
AND SALE OF PROPERTY SOLD TO THE GOVERNMENT, UPON THE OPERATION AND
FRANCHISES OF FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITIES, SUCH AS NATIONAL BANKS, WERE
NON-DISCRIMINATORY.  THEY BORE EQUALLY AND ALIKE UPON PROPERTY AND
OPERATIONS IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WAS INTERESTED AND THOSE WHICH WERE
ALIEN TO IT, BUT THEY WERE VOIDED AS ILLEGALLY BURDENING THE OPERATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE FACT THAT TAXES UPON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND
UPON PROPERTY OF WHOLLY OWNED GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS WERE NON
DISCRIMINATORY DID NOT SUFFICE TO SAVE THEM.  TAXES ON FRANCHISES
GRANTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, TAXES UPON THE OFFICE OR SALARY OF A
FEDERAL OFFICIAL, THOUGH NON-DISCRIMINATORY, NEVERTHELESS FELL UNDER
THE BAN.  IT WAS SAID IN JOHNSON V. MARYLAND, 254 U.S. 51, 55: 

"HERE THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE CAN INTERRUPT THE ACTS OF THE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF.  WITH REGARD TO TAXATION, NO MATTER HOW
REASONABLE, OR HOW UNIVERSAL AND UNDISCRIMINATING, THE STATE'S
INABILITY TO INTERFERE HAS BEEN REGARDED AS ESTABLISHED SINCE MCCULLOCH
V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316." 

THE ELEMENT OF DISCRIMINATION BECOMES IMPORTANT ONLY IN A CASE WHERE
A TAX WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMISSIBLE IS AIMED AT THE TAXPAYER
BECAUSE OF HIS RELATION TO THE GOVERNMENT.  OF COURSE A STATE CANNOT
LAY A HEAVIER BURDEN UPON THOSE CONTRACTING WITH THE GOVERNMENT SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH CONTRACTORS.  A DISCRIMINATION OF THAT NATURE ON
ITS FACE SPELLS A HOSTILE PURPOSE, AN INTENT TO HINDER AND BURDEN THE
GOVERNMENT, TO IMPEDE ITS OPERATIONS, AND TO DISCOURAGE DEALING WITH
IT.  BUT THE QUESTION OF DISCRIMINATION HAS NO PLACE IN THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGALITY OF AN EXACTION LAID DIRECTLY UPON THE
GOVERNMENT, UPON ITS OPERATIONS, OR UPON THE MEANS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES
IT HAS CHOSEN FOR EXECUTING ITS POWERS. 

AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL SUGGESTS THAT THE TAX SHOULD
BE SUSTAINED, ALTHOUGH IT LAYS A BURDEN ON THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE
THE BURDEN IS A "NORMAL TAX BURDEN" AND THE UNITED STATES CAN BEAR IT.
THE OPINION OF THE COURT SUGGESTS THE SAME THOUGHT AND ADDS THAT IF
WEST VIRGINIA EVER IMPOSES A GROSS RECEIPTS TAX UNIFORM IN ITS
INCIDENCE, BUT INORDINATELY HEAVY, CONGRESS HAS POWER TO RELIEVE THE
GOVERNMENT FROM SUCH INTERFERENCE.  BOTH SUGGESTIONS ARE IN THE TEETH
OF ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID BY THE COURT ON THE SUBJECT OF FEDERAL
IMMUNITY.  THE NECESSITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE WAS EMBODIED
IN THE PHRASE OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND,
SUPRA, THAT "THE POWER TO TAX INVOLVES THE POWER TO DESTROY."  AS WAS
SAID IN KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 60: 

"THIS PRINCIPLE IS PERTINENT ONLY WHEN THERE IS NO POWER TO TAX A
PARTICULAR SUBJECT, AND HAS NO RELATION TO A CASE WHERE SUCH RIGHT
EXISTS.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE POWER TO DESTROY WHICH MAY BE THE
CONSEQUENCE OF TAXATION IS A REASON WHY THE RIGHT TO TAX SHOULD BE
CONFINED TO SUBJECTS WHICH MAY BE LAWFULLY EMBRACED THEREIN, EVEN
ALTHOUGH IT HAPPENS THAT IN SOME PARTICULAR INSTANCE NO GREAT HARM MAY
BE CAUSED BY THE EXERCISE OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY AS TO A SUBJECT WHICH
IS BEYOND ITS SCOPE." 

CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF THE POWER.  FROM THAT
DAY TO THIS THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE QUESTION IS NOT
ONE OF QUANTUM, NOT ONE OF THE WEIGHT OF THE BURDEN, BUT ONE OF POWER. 
THE COURT HAS SAID THAT THE ATTEMPT TO TAX THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY THE
GOVERNMENT IS "THE USURPATION OF A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE OF A SINGLE
STATE CANNOT GIVE."  REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN M'CULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, IT WAS SAID: 

"THE DECISION IN THAT CASE WAS NOT PUT UPON ANY CONSIDERATION OF
DEGREE BUT UPON THE ENTIRE ABSENCE OF POWER ON THE PART OF THE STATES
TO TOUCH, IN THAT WAY AT LEAST, THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE UNITED
STATES; 4 WHEAT.  429, 430; AND THAT IS THE LAW TODAY."  FN40 

AGAIN THE COURT HAS SAID: 

"IT IS OBVIOUS, THAT THE SAME POWER WHICH IMPOSES A LIGHT DUTY, CAN
IMPOSE A VERY HEAVY ONE, ONE WHICH AMOUNTS TO A PROHIBITION.  QUESTIONS
OF POWER DO NOT DEPEND ON THE DEGREE TO WHICH IT MAY BE EXERCISED.  IF
IT MAY BE EXERCISED AT ALL, IT MUST BE EXERCISED AT THE WILL OF THOSE
IN WHOSE HANDS IT IS PLACED.  IF THE TAX MAY BE LEVIED IN THIS FORM BY
A STATE, IT MAY BE LEVIED TO AN EXTENT WHICH WILL DEFEAT THE REVENUE BY
IMPOST, SO FAR AS IT IS DRAWN FROM IMPORTATIONS INTO THE PARTICULAR
STATE."  FN41    AGAIN IT WAS RECENTLY SAID: 

"WHERE THE PRINCIPLE APPLIES IT IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE
PARTICULAR TAX OR THE EXTENT OF THE RESULTING INTERFERENCE, BUT IS
ABSOLUTE.  MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 430; UNITED STATES V.
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 17 WALL.  322, 327; JOHNSON V. MARYLAND, 254
U.S. 51, 55-56; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501, 505; CRANDALL V.
NEVADA, 6 WALL.  35, 44-46."  FN42 

NO ONE DENIES THE COMPETENCE OF THE CONGRESS TO WAIVE THE IMMUNITY IN
WHOLE OR IN PART.  FN43 BUT THIS IS THE REVERSE OF SAYING THE POWER TO
TAX FEDERAL MEANS AND OPERATIONS EXISTS IN THE STATES SUBJECT TO VETO
BY CONGRESS OF ANY EXORBITANT EXERCISE OF THE POWER.  AND IT MAY BE
PERTINENT TO SUGGEST THAT, IF, AS THE COURT HAS ALWAYS HELD, THE
IMMUNITY IS RECIPROCAL, THE STATE LEGISLATURES, BY A PARITY OF
REASONING, OUGHT TO HAVE THE POWER TO PROHIBIT FEDERAL TAXES UPON STATE
OPERATIONS, IF THEY BE DEEMED IMMODERATE. 

IT MUST BE EVIDENT THAT IF THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERAL IMMUNITY IS TO BE
PRESERVED, IF ALL THAT THE COURT HAS SAID RESPECTING IT IS NOT TO BE
SET ASIDE, THE GROSS RECEIPTS TAX UNDER REVIEW CANNOT BE RESCUED FROM
CONDEMNATION BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT BEARS UPON AN INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR, DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE, AND IS NOT SO BURDENSOME AS
SERIOUSLY TO INTERFERE WITH GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS. 

SUCH A TAX UPON GROSS RECEIPTS HAS BEEN CONTRASTED IN ALL THE
DECISIONS, INCLUDING THOSE DEALING WITH BURDENS UPON COMMERCE, WITH A
TAX UPON NET INCOME; THE ONE BEING HELD A FORBIDDEN BURDEN AND THE
OTHER A PERMISSIBLE EXACTION.  DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE COURT HAS
REPEATEDLY APPLIED THE SAME TESTS OF VALIDITY TO TAXES ALLEGED TO
BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS IT HAS TO EXACTIONS SAID TO BURDEN THE
OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,  FN44  IT IS SAID IN THE
OPINION: 

"RESPONDENT INVOKES OUR DECISIONS IN THE FIELD OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, WHERE A TAX UPON THE GROSS INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER DERIVED
FROM INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS LONG BEEN HELD TO BE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BURDEN.... 

"BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS PLAIN.  PERSONS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE FREE FROM BURDENS IMPOSED BY A STATE TAX
UPON THE BUSINESS WHICH CONSTITUTES SUCH COMMERCE OR THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN IT OR THE RECEIPTS AS SUCH DERIVED FROM IT." 

AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THE DOCTRINE OF FEDERAL IMMUNITY FROM STATE
TAXATION IS BASED UPON THE RIGHT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CARRY ON
ITS LAWFUL OPERATIONS FREE FROM BURDEN OR IMPEDIMENT IMPOSED BY A STATE
UPON THE BUSINESS WHICH CONSTITUTE SUCH OPERATIONS OR THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN THEM.  THE CONSTITUTION CONTAINS NO CLAUSE FORBIDDING THE
STATES TO BURDEN, IMPEDE, OR INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATIONS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IN EXPRESS TERMS IT CONFERS UPON THAT GOVERNMENT
POWER TO CONDUCT THOSE OPERATIONS.  NOR DOES THE CONSTITUTION CONTAIN
ANY CLAUSE PROHIBITING THE STATES FROM BURDENING OR INTERFERING WITH
THE CONDUCT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN EXPRESS TERMS IT CONFERS UPON
CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE THAT COMMERCE.  IN EACH CASE THERE IS
IMPLIED FROM THE FEDERAL POWER DELEGATED BY THE PEOPLE AN IMMUNITY FROM
INTERFERENCE OR BURDEN BY THE STATES.  THE CASES ARE ENTIRELY
ANALOGOUS.  COMPARING THE IMMUNITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM STATE
TAXATION WITH THE LIKE IMMUNITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE COURT
HAS SAID: 

"THE RULE AS TO INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE OTHER
HAND IS ABSOLUTE IN FORM AND AT LEAST STRICTER IN SUBSTANCE."  FN45 

THE CASES IN OUR REPORTS RESPECTING THE IMMUNITY OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FROM BURDEN BY STATE TAXATION ARE THE COMPLETE ANALOGUE OF
THOSE DEALING WITH THE FEDERAL IMMUNITY FROM THE LIKE BURDEN.  AS IN
THE CASE OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION EMPLOYED AS AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED
STATES, SO IN THE CASE OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE STATES ARE FREE TO LAY A UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY
TAX UPON THE PROPERTY EMPLOYED IN THE BUSINESS WITHIN THEIR
JURISDICTION.  FN46 

A TAX UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF CORPORATIONS DERIVED BOTH FROM
INTRASTATE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS BAD BECAUSE IT BURDENS THE
LATTER.  FN47  A FRANCHISE TAX UPON A CORPORATION TRANSACTING AN
INTERSTATE BUSINESS, MEASURED BY ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS OR ITS
PROPERTY WITHOUT THE STATE, IS VOID, ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE THAT A TAX
LAID UPON THE FRANCHISE OF A CORPORATION WHICH IS A FEDERAL AGENCY OR
INSTRUMENTALITY IS VOID.  FN48 

A SALES TAX ON GASOLINE SOLD WITHIN A STATE IS INVALID AS IT AFFECTS
GASOLINE PURCHASED OUTSIDE THE STATE FOR USE THEREIN, FOR THE SAME
REASON A SALES TAX UPON SALES TO THE UNITED STATES IS INVALID.  FN49  A
TAX UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF ONE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
BAD BECAUSE A DIRECT BURDEN ON THAT COMMERCE IN THE SAME SENSE THAT A
TAX ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF BUSINESS DONE WITH THE UNITED STATES IS A
DIRECT BURDEN ON THE TRANSACTION WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN50  IN
CONTRAST, A TAX ON THE NET INCOME OF ONE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IS NOT UPON HIS TRANSACTIONS IN THAT COMMERCE, BUT SO REMOTE THEREFROM
AS NOT TO BURDEN IT, JUST AS A NET INCOME TAX UPON ONE WHO CONTRACTS
WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS INOFFENSIVE TO THE RULE OF FEDERAL
IMMUNITY.  FN51 

A STATE MAY NOT LAY AN OCCUPATION TAX UPON THE ACT OF ENGAGING IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, FOR THE SAME REASON THAT IT MAY NOT LAY A SIMILAR
TAX UPON THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES.  FN52  THE
SAME CONSIDERATIONS OF REMOTENESS SUSTAIN TAXES UPON THE MERE PURCHASE
OF ARTICLES INTENDED FOR USE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR FOR THE
FULFILMENT OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.  FN53 

I CONCLUDE, THEN, THAT THE TAX IN QUESTION IS PLAINLY IMPOSED UPON
THE OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; THAT IT FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN
THE DEFINITION OF SUCH A BURDEN AND IS PROHIBITED UPON THE PRINCIPLE
ANNOUNCED IN M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND AND EVER SINCE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED
IN THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT.  I THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED. 

THESE VIEWS WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE OF THE TAX RENDER IT
UNNECESSARY TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION AS TO THE ASSERTED EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE AREA WITHIN WHICH THE APPELLEE PURSUED THE
ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE EXACTION. 

FN1  INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570, 575; BOARD
OF TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 48, 59; HELVERING V. POWERS, 293
U.S. 214, 225. 

FN2  M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 430; WESTON V. CHARLESTON,
2 PET. 449, 467. 

FN3  CLALLAM COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 341, 344. 

FN4  MCGOON V. SCALES, 9 WALL.  23, 27; TUCKER V. FERGUSON, 22 WALL. 
527, 572; VAN BROCKLIN V. TENNESSEE, 117 U.S. 151; WISCONSIN CENTRAL R.
CO. V. PRICE COUNTY, 133 U.S. 496, 504; IRWIN V. WRIGHT, 258 U.S. 219,
228.  BUT PROPERTY ACQUIRED FROM THE GOVERNMENT, UPON ITS SEVERANCE,
LOSES THE IMMUNITY IN THE HANDS OF THE TRANSFEREE.  FORBES V. GRACEY,
94 U.S. 762; GROUP NO. 1 OIL CORP. V. BASS, 283 U.S. 279; INDIAN
TERRITORY OIL CO. V. BOARD, 288 U.S. 325. 

FN5  DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS, 16 PET. 435; COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11
WALL.  113.  BUT THE EXEMPTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO TAXES LAID UPON HIS
PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY OR A SALES TAX ON HIS PERSONAL PURCHASES, EVEN
THOUGH THEY BE OF ARTICLES HE USES IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PERFORMANCE
OF HIS GOVERNMENT WORK.  DYER V. CITY OF MELROSE, 215 U.S. 594; TIRRELL
V. JOHNSTON, 293 U.S. 533; 86 N.H. 530. 

FN6  CLALLAM COUNTY V. UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 341; NEW BRUNSWICK V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 547; NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299
U.S. 401.  FOR THE SAME REASON A STATE TAX WHICH BURDENS THE FISCAL
OPERATIONS OF A TERRITORY MUST FALL:  FARMERS & MECHANICS SAVINGS BANK
V. MINNESOTA, 232 U.S. 516. 

FN7  INTERSTATE RAILROAD:  RAILROAD COMPANY V. PENISTON, 18 WALL. 
5.  NATIONAL BANKS:  M'CULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316; SMITH V.
KANSAS CITY TITLE & T. CO., 255 U.S. 180. 

FN8  OSBORN V. BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738; RAILROAD COMPANY V. PENISTON, 18
WALL.  5; OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173 U.S. 664. 

FN9  RAILROAD COMPANY V. PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5; INDIAN TERRITORY OIL
CO. V. BOARD, 288 U.S. 325, 327, 328. 

FN10  THOMSON V. PACIFIC RAILROAD, 9 WALL.  579; WESTERN UNION TEL.
CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 125 U.S. 530; MASSACHUSETTS V. WESTERN UNION TEL.
CO., 141 U.S. 40; BALTIMORE SHIPBUILDING CO. V. BALTIMORE, 195 U.S.
375; FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 240 U.S. 319; CHOCTAW, O.
& G.R. CO. V. MACKEY, 256 U.S. 531; SUSQUEHANNA POWER CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 291; BROAD RIVER POWER CO. V. QUERY, 288 U.S. 178;
FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17. 

FN11  CHOCTAW & GULF R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292; GILLESPIE V.
OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501; JAYBIRD MINING CO. V. WEIR, 271 U.S. 609. 

FN12  INDIAN TERRITORY OIL CO. V. BOARD, 288 U.S. 325; TABER V.
INDIAN TERRITORY OIL CO., 300 U.S. 1. 

FN13  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL'S ARGUMENT, NOTICED LATER, WOULD,
HOWEVER, VALIDATE A TAX OF ANY DESCRIPTION IMPOSED UPON FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES, PROVIDED THE EXACTION WERE NON-DISCRIMINATORY. 

FN14  OSBORN V. BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738, 867. 

FN15  FEDERAL LAND BANK V. CROSLAND, 261 U.S. 374. 

FN16  TELEGRAPH CO. V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. 460. 

FN17  LELOUP V. PORT OF MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640; WILLIAMS V. TALLADEGA,
226 U.S. 404. 

FN18 WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET. 449, 465. 

FN19  BANK OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK CITY, 2 BLACK 620; BANK TAX CASE,
2 WALL.  200; BANK V. SUPERVISORS, 7 WALL.  26; HOME SAVINGS BANK V.
DES MOINES, 205 U.S. 503; MISSOURI V. GEHNER, 281 U.S. 313. 

FN20  NORTHWESTERN INS. CO. V. WISCONSIN, 275 U.S. 136; NATIONAL LIFE
INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 508.  AND NO FORM OF WORDS OR
SUBTERFUGE CAN SAVE AN ACT THE INTENT OF WHICH IS TO REACH THE INCOME
FROM FEDERAL BONDS.  MILLER V. MILWAUKEE, 272 U.S. 713; MACALLEN CO. V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 279 U.S. 620, 629. 

FN21 THE BANKS V. THE MAYOR, 7 WALL.  16, 25. 

FN22  HOME INS. CO. V. NEW YORK, 119 U.S. 129; HOME INS. CO. V. NEW
YORK, 134 U.S. 594. 

FN23  PLUMMER V. COLER, 178 U.S. 115; GREINER V. LEWELLYN, 258 U.S.
384. 

FN24  HIBERNIA SAVINGS SOCIETY V. SAN FRANCISCO, 200 U.S. 310. 

FN25  WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET. 449, 465. 

FN26  JAYBIRD MINING CO. V. WEIR, 271 U.S. 609. 

FN27  INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570; PANHANDLE
OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218; GRAYSBURG OIL CO. V.
TEXAS, 278 U.S. 582; 3 S.W.(2D) 427.  COMPARE BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12
WHEAT.  419, 440. 

FN28  GRAVES V. TEXAS COMPANY, 298 U.S. 393. 

FN29  TRINITYFARM CONSTRUCTION CO. V. GROSJEAN, 291 U.S. 466. 

FN30  GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. V. FISHER, 295 U.S. 715; 149 ORE.  84;
39 P.(2D) 358; BURNET V. A.T. JERGINS TRUST, 288 U.S. 508. 

FN31  ALWARD V. JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 509. 

FN32  OSBORN V. BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738, 867. 

FN33  IN THIS BRIEF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL STATED THAT FIGURED UPON
THE ESTIMATED PURCHASES OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE THEN CURRENT FISCAL
YEAR, STATE SALES TAXES ON GASOLINE OF FOUR CENTS PER GALLON, IMPOSED
BY ALL THE STATES, WOULD IMPOSE AN ADDED BURDEN UPON THE UNITED STATES
OF $4,479,661. 

FN34  SEE THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 10, SUPRA. 

FN35  SEE NOTE 5, SUPRA. 

FN36  CORNELL V. COYNE, 192 U.S. 418; HOPE NATURAL GAS CO. V. HALL,
274 U.S. 284; WHEELER LUMBER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 572.  THE
SAME PROBLEM ARISES IN CONNECTION WITH TAXATION ALLEGED TO BURDEN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SEE AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 250
U.S. 459. 

FN37  SEE THE CASES CITED IN NOTES 17, 18 AND 19. 

FN38  JAYBIRD MINING CO. V. WEIR, 271 U.S. 609. 

FN39  WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. 460; WILLIAMS V.
TALLADEGA, 226 U.S. 404; INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283
U.S. 570; PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218;
GRAVES V. TEXAS COMPANY, 298 U.S. 393. 

FN40  JOHNSON V. MARYLAND, 254 U.S. 51, 55. 

FN41  BROWN V. MARYLAND, 12 WHEAT.  419, 439. 

FN42  INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570, 575. 

FN43  VAN ALLEN V. ASSESSORS, 3 WALL.  573. 

FN44  TELEGRAPH CO. V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. 460, 465; WESTERN UNION
TELEGRAPH CO. V. TAGGART, 163 U.S. 1, 14; WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1, 32; U.S. EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335,
344; CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292, 299; KANSAS
CITY, F.S. & M. RY. CO. V. BOTKIN, 240 U.S. 227, 232; GILLESPIE V.
OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501, 504-5; NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
WISCONSIN, 275 U.S. 136, 140; MACALLEN CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 279 U.S.
620, 627; INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570, 575;
EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 285 U.S. 147, 152;
FOX FILM CORP. V. DOYAL, 286 U.S. 123, 126; LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 383, 387. 

FN45  GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501, 505. 

FN46  PULLMAN'S PALACE CAR CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 141 U.S. 18; WESTERN
UNION TEL. CO. V. TAGGART, 163 U.S. 1; OLD DOMINION S.S. CO. V.
VIRGINIA, 198 U.S. 299; UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V. MINNESOTA, 223
U.S. 335; PULLMAN CO. V. RICHARDSON, 261 U.S. 330.  AND AS IN THE CASE
OF AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR CONTRACTORS WITH IT, A STATE MAY
MEASURE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BORDERS BY A RECEIPTS TAX
IN LIEU OF ALL PROPERTY TAXES.  COMPARE UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 223 U.S. 335; CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450;
PULLMAN CO. V. RICHARDSON, 261 U.S. 330, WITH ALWARD V. JOHNSON, 282
U.S. 509. 

FN47  PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122 U.S. 326;
GALVESTON, H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217; MEYER V. WELLS,
FARGO & CO., 223 U.S. 298. 

FN48  COMPARE WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1, AND OZARK
PIPE LINE CORP. V. MONIER, 266 U.S. 555, WITH CALIFORNIA V. CENTRAL
PACIFIC R. CO., 127 U.S. 1; OWENSBORO NATIONAL BANK V. OWENSBORO, 173
U.S. 664; THIRD NATIONAL BANK V. STONE, 174 U.S. 432; AND LOUISVILLE V.
THIRD NATIONAL BANK, 174 U.S. 435.    FN49  COMPARE COOK V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 97 U.S. 566, AND BOWMAN V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 256 U.S.
642, WITH PANHANDLE OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI EX REL. KNOX, 277 U.S. 218. 

FN50  COMPARE COOK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 97 U.S. 566, FARGO V. MICHIGAN,
121 U.S. 230, CREW LEVICK CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292, NEW JERSEY
BELL TEL. CO. V. STATE BOARD, 280 U.S. 338, FISHER'S BLEND STATION V.
STATE TAX COMM'N, 297 U.S. 650, PUGET SOUND CO. V. TAX COMM'N, ANTE, P.
90, WITH WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. TEXAS, 105 U.S. 460.    FN51
COMPARE SHAFFER V. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK
CREEK, 247 U.S. 321, AND ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. DAUGHTON, 262 U.S. 413,
WITH GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO. V. FISHER, 295 U.S. 715(149 ORE.  84; 39
P.(2D) 358), AND BURNET V. A.T. JERGINS TRUST, 288 U.S. 508.  BUT SEE
GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501, AND BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS
CO., 285 U.S. 393. 

FN52  COMPARE EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 465, WITH
DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONERS, 16 PET. 435, AND NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V.
GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401. 

FN53  COMPARE EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 285
U.S. 147, WITH TRINITYFARM CONSTRUCTION CO. V. GROSJEAN, 291 U.S. 466,
AND TIRRELL V. JOHNSTON, 293 U.S. 533. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER
JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :







MASON CO. V. TAX COMM'N, 302 U.S. 186 


NO. 7.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 1937.  REARGUED OCTOBER 12, 13, 1937.  -
DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 188 WASH. 98, 115 - 61 P.(2D) 1269, 1276,
AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE OCCUPATION TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY
INCLUDE THE RECEIPTS FROM CONSTRUCTION WORK DONE UNDER A CONTRACT WITH
THE UNITED STATES.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., ANTE P. 134.  P.
190. 

2.  ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF EXCLUSIVE TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OVER LAND TO WHICH IT HAS ACQUIRED TITLE WITHIN A STATE,
IS DEPENDENT UPON CONSENT OF OR CESSION FROM THE STATE.  P. 197. 

3.  WHETHER A STATE HAS YIELDED TO THE UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OVER LAND WITHIN THE STATE IS A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  P. 197. 

4.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL RECLAMATION ACT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF LAND, AND THE PROVISIONS OF REMINGTON'S REV. STATS. OF
WASHINGTON SECS. 7410-7412 GRANTING LAND TO THE UNITED STATES FOR
IRRIGATION PROJECTS, DO NOT INTEND THAT, WITH THE TITLE, THE UNITED
STATES SHALL ACQUIRE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE LAND CONVEYED. 
PP. 197 ET SEQ. 

THIS APPLIES TO LAND IN THE BED OF A NAVIGABLE RIVER, SHORE LANDS AND
UPLANDS, INCLUDING SCHOOL LANDS. 

5.  THE TERM "OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS" IN CONST. ART. I, SEC. 8, CL.
17, EMBRACES WHATEVER STRUCTURES ARE FOUND TO BE NECESSARY IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., ANTE P. 134.  P. 203. 

6.  THIS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE CONSENT
OF THE STATE TO PURCHASES MUST BE WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION OF
JURISDICTION.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., ANTE P. 134.  ID. 

SUCH AN IMPLICATION WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE
STATE AND WITH ITS ADMITTED AUTHORITY TO REFUSE OR QUALIFY CESSIONS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT CONSENT OR PROPERTY
HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY CONDEMNATION. 

7.  SEC. 8108 OF REMINGTON'S REV. STATS. OF WASHINGTON, GIVING THE
STATE'S CONSENT TO ACQUISITION OF LANDS BY THE UNITED STATES FOR
PURPOSES NAMED, APPLIES TO ACQUISITION FROM INDIVIDUALS AND
CORPORATIONS, BUT SEMBLE NOT TO ACQUISITIONS FROM THE STATE ITSELF.  P.
205. 

8.  SEC. 8108 OF REMINGTON'S REV. STATS. OF WASHINGTON, WHICH
CONSENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONST. ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 17, TO
ACQUISITION OF LANDS BY THE UNITED STATES FOR LOCKS, DAMS, PIERS, ETC.,
AND OTHER NECESSARY STRUCTURES AND PURPOSES REQUIRED IN IMPROVEMENT OF
RIVERS AND HARBORS OF THE STATE, OR FOR SITES OF FORTS AND MAGAZINES,
ARSENALS, DOCKS ETC., "OR OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS" AND CEDES
JURISDICTION IS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT AS INAPPLICABLE,
AND AS NOT YIELDING ALL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, WHERE THE
LAND IS ACQUIRED FOR A PROJECT SUCH AS THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT,
WHICH LOOKS NOT ONLY TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION BUT ALSO TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION AND OF POWER FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT MENTIONED, THIS
CONSTRUCTION CAN NOT BE DEEMED INADMISSIBLE, AND EVEN IF NOT BINDING IT
SHOULD BE ACCORDED MUCH WEIGHT.  P. 206. 

(2)  ASSUMING THAT THE POWER DEVELOPMENT CONTEMPLATED IS INCIDENTAL
TO IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION, RECLAMATION OF ARID AND SEMI-ARID LAND,
ONE OF THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT, IS AN ACTIVITY ALWAYS
REGARDED AS CARRYING WITH IT AN APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION OF CONTINUED
STATE JURISDICTION.  ID. 

(3)  THEREFORE THIS STATUTE (ENACTED IN 1891) CAN NOT BE TAKEN AS
CONCLUSIVELY SHOWING AN INTENT TO YIELD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN SUCH
A CASE; AND IN AS MUCH AS IT APPEARS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID
NOT INTEND TO ACQUIRE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION BUT CONTEMPLATED THE
CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF STATE JURISDICTION CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL
FUNCTIONS AND INVITED THE COOPERATION OF THE STATE IN PROVIDING AN
APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY EMBRACED IN
THE PROJECT, THE STATE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION IS ACCEPTED.  ID. 

9.  IN ACQUIRING LAND FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT
COMPELLED TO ACCEPT A TRANSFER OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FROM THE
STATE.  P. 207. 

10.  UNAUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BECOMES LEGAL WHEN RATIFIED
BY CONGRESS.  P. 208. 

11.  RATIFICATION OF "ALL CONTRACTS" EXECUTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
GRAND COULEE DAM PROJECT, PERMITS REFERENCE TO THE CONTRACTS AS PROVING
THE INTENTION, NOT ONLY OF THE FEDERAL OFFICIALS WHO EXECUTED THEM BUT
OF CONGRESS, THAT, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE PLAN, THE
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE, OVER THE LARGE AREA ACQUIRED, INCLUDING
JURISDICTION OVER CONTRACTORS ENGAGED ON THE PROJECT, SHOULD BE
RETAINED.  P. 209. 

12.  TO INVEST THE UNITED STATES WITH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER
TRIBAL INDIAN LANDS IN A STATE A CESSION FROM THE STATE IS ESSENTIAL. 
P. - . 

13.  THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAD TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO TAX THE
RECEIPTS OF FEDERAL CONTRACTORS ON THE LAND ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE GRAND COULEE DAM PROJECT AND THE TAX DOES NOT LAY AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  P. 210. 

SILAS MASON CO. ET AL. V. TAX COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 8, RYAN V. WASHINGTON ET AL., ALSO ON APPEAL FROM
THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEALS FROM DECREES AFFIRMING DECREES OF A SUPERIOR COURT WHICH
SUSTAINED OCCUPATION TAXES LAID ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS ENURING TO THE
APPELLANTS UNDER CONTRACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK
IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.  IN THE FIRST CASE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WAS
DENIED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT.  THE SECOND CASE INCLUDED AN ACTION OR
APPEAL TO RECOVER A TAX PAYMENT, AND A SUIT FOR AN INJUNCTION, BOTH OF
WHICH WERE DISMISSED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE SUITS WERE BROUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
OCCUPATION TAX ACT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON (LAWS OF 1933, C. 191, P.
869; SPEC. SESS., 1933, C. 57, P. 157)  FN1  AS APPLIED TO THE GROSS
INCOME RECEIVED BY APPELLANTS UNDER CONTRACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES
FOR WORK PERFORMED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUILDING OF THE GRAND COULEE
DAM ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER.  FN2  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
SUSTAINED THE TAX AND AFFIRMED JUDGMENTS DISMISSING THE SUITS.  SILAS
MASON CO. V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 188 WASH. 98; 61 P.(2D) 1269; RYAN V.
STATE, 188 WASH. 115; 61 P.(2D) 1276.  THE CASES COME HERE ON APPEAL. 

THE QUESTIONS ARE (1) WHETHER THE TAX IMPOSES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND (2) WHETHER THE AREAS IN WHICH
APPELLANTS' WORK IS PERFORMED ARE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF
THE UNITED STATES.  ON REARGUMENT, AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE COURT, THE
VIEWS OF THE GOVERNMENT UPON THESE QUESTIONS WERE PRESENTED.  WITH
RESPECT TO THE FIRST QUESTION, OUR RULING UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF A
SIMILAR TAX OF WEST VIRGINIA AS LAID UPON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF A
CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN BUILDING LOCKS AND DAMS FOR THE UNITED STATES IS
CONTROLLING.  JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., ANTE, P. 134.  WE PASS TO
THE QUESTION OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. 

1.  THE FOLLOWING FACTS AS TO THE NATURE AND HISTORY OF THE
ENTERPRISE, AS SET FORTH IN APPELLANTS' COMPLAINTS AND SHOWN BY
EVIDENCE AND STIPULATIONS, ARE UNCONTROVERTED:  THE COLUMBIA RIVER,
ABOVE ITS LOWER REACHES, PARTAKES OF THE CHARACTER OF A MOUNTAIN
STREAM, ITS FALL BEING GREAT, ITS CURRENT SWIFT AND ITS COURSE MARKED
AT INTERVALS OF A FEW MILES BY RAPIDS FLOWING OVER AND THROUGH ROCKY
MASSES OF SUCH MAGNITUDE AS TO RENDER NAVIGATION DIFFICULT AND IN MANY
INSTANCES IMPOSSIBLE SAVE BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF CANALS AND LOCKS. 
THERE ARE GREAT ALTERNATIONS IN ITS FLOW, ITS PERIOD OF HIGH WATER
DEPENDING UPON THE MELTING OF SNOW IN THE MOUNTAINS WHERE ITS SOURCES
ARE FOUND.  ITS PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARY IS THE SNAKE RIVER WHICH HAS THE
SAME CHARACTERISTICS.  THROUGH IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND ARE
CONTEMPLATED, THE COLUMBIA RIVER IS COMMERCIALLY NAVIGABLE FROM ITS
MOUTH TO THE MOUTH OF THE SNAKE, AND ABOVE THAT POINT THE COLUMBIA IS
NAVIGABLE LOCALLY, FROM POOL TO POOL, TO THE MOUTH OF THE OKANOGAN
RIVER, BUT ALL SUCH NAVIGATION IS DIFFICULT AND NOT COMMERCIALLY
FEASIBLE BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ABOVE DESCRIBED.  THESE
CHARACTERISTICS, HOWEVER, "RENDER IT AN IDEAL STREAM FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER."  FOR THE MOST PART THE COLUMBIA
RIVER WITHIN THE UNITED STATES FLOWS THROUGH AN ARID COUNTRY, "THE LAND
BEING IMMENSELY PRODUCTIVE AND RICH WHEN PLACED UNDER IRRIGATION, BUT
OF NO VALUE WITHOUT IRRIGATION."  THE COURSE OF THE RIVER FOR THE
GREATER PART OF ITS LENGTH IN THE UNITED STATES LIES WHOLLY WITHIN THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON.  FROM A SHORT DISTANCE BELOW THE MOUTH OF THE
SNAKE, THE COLUMBIA IS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE STATES OF WASHINGTON
AND OREGON. 

FOLLOWING SPORADIC IMPROVEMENTS EXTENDING OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT FINALLY MADE AN EXHAUSTIVE
SURVEY, AND IN 1932 THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY
RECOMMENDED A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLUMBIA
RIVER, WHICH TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE USE OF ITS WATERS FOR THE
PURPOSES OF NAVIGATION, FLOOD CONTROL, POWER DEVELOPMENT, AND
IRRIGATION.  THE PLAN CONTEMPLATED THE CONSTRUCTION OF TEN DAMS ACROSS
THE RIVER AT VARIOUS POINTS IN WASHINGTON AND WHERE THE RIVER IS THE
BOUNDARY BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND OREGON.  THE UPPERMOST OF THESE DAMS IS
AT THE HEAD OF GRAND COULEE IN WASHINGTON ABOUT 150 MILES BELOW THE
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND 274 MILES ABOVE THE MOUTH OF THE SNAKE
RIVER.  THE PLAN WAS COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT. 

IN JUNE, 1933, HAROLD L. ICKES WAS APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS, AND LATER THE PRESIDENT, UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT (SECS. 201-203, 48 STAT. 200-205) DIRECTED THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO INCLUDE IN THE PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM THE GRAND COULEE
DAM AND POWER PLANT.  APPELLANTS STATE THAT THE PROJECT AS FINALLY
RECOMMENDED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CONTEMPLATED, AMONG OTHER FEATURES, A DAM AT THE GRAND COULEE TO BE 370
FEET HIGH ABOVE LOW WATER (550 FEET HIGH, AS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED) AND
4290 FEET LONG ON THE CREST, AND A POWER PLANT TO DEVELOP 2,100,000
HORSE POWER, AT A TOTAL COST OF $392,000,000.  APPELLANTS ADD THAT THIS
IS THE KEY DAM ON THE RIVER AND WILL CREATE A LAKE 150 MILES LONG,
REACHING THE CANADIAN BOUNDARY; THAT OVER FIVE MILLION ACRE FEET OF
STORAGE WILL BECOME AVAILABLE, THE RELEASE OF WHICH WHEN THE FLOW OF
THE RIVER IS AT ITS LOWEST WILL DOUBLE THE PRIME POWER OF THE RIVER
DOWNSTREAM TO THE SNAKE RIVER AND ADD MORE THAN 50 PER CENT. TO THE
POWER OF THE COLUMBIA BELOW THE SNAKE; THAT THE STORAGE WILL HAVE AN
APPRECIABLE EFFECT IN REDUCING FLOODS ON THE WHOLE RIVER AND THAT
"THERE WILL BE 905,500 ACRES OF FIRST CLASS LAND AVAILABLE FOR
IRRIGATION." 

IN 1933, THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON CREATED THE
COLUMBIA BASIN COMMISSION TO PROMOTE THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT.  LAWS
OF 1933, C. 81, P. 376; RYAN V. STATE, SUPRA, P. 1277.  FOR THAT
PURPOSE THE COMMISSION OBTAINED AN ALLOCATION OF $377,000 OF THE
EMERGENCY RELIEF FUNDS OF THE STATE.  ON JUNE 30, 1933, THE UNITED
STATES, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RECLAMATION ACT OF JUNE 17, 1902(32 STAT.
388) AND AMENDATORY AND SUPPLEMENTARY ACTS, MADE A CONTRACT WITH THE
COLUMBIA BASIN COMMISSION BY WHICH THE UNITED STATES AGREED TO
UNDERTAKE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS AND EXPLORATORY WORK AND PREPARE CERTAIN
DESIGNS AND ESTIMATES FOR WHICH THE COLUMBIA BASIN COMMISSION UNDERTOOK
TO PAY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS APPROPRIATION.  RYAN V. STATE, SUPRA,
P. 1278. 

ON NOVEMBER 1, 1933, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR SIGNED A
MEMORANDUM, ADDRESSED TO HIMSELF AS ADMINISTRATOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, IN
WHICH THE SECRETARY RECOMMENDED THAT THE PROJECT "BE CONSIDERED A
FEDERAL PROJECT TO BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND TO BE PAID FOR FROM NET REVENUES DERIVED FROM
THE SALE OF ITS ELECTRIC POWER."  UNDER THE SAME DATE, THE UNITED
STATES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, IN PURSUANCE OF
THE RECLAMATION ACT OF 1902 AND THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT,
MADE A FURTHER AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON PROVIDING FOR THE
EXPENDITURE BY THE UNITED STATES, THROUGH THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, OF
THE SUM OF $63,000,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM AND POWER PLANT AT
THE GRAND COULEE SITE, TOGETHER WITH NECESSARY TRANSMISSION LINES. 
THERE WAS FURTHER PROVISION THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD RETAIN TITLE
TO THE DAM AND POWER PLANT UNTIL THE COST OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THE
COST OF THE FIRST UNIT DAM AND POWER PLANT, HAD BEEN FULLY REPAID INTO
THE UNITED STATES TREASURY; THAT THE STATE COMMISSION SHOULD ACT AS AN
ADVISORY BOARD IN CONFERENCE WITH OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
CONCERNING THE VARIOUS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WHICH MIGHT ARISE IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF THE DAM, POWER PLANT AND
TRANSMISSION LINES; AND THAT THE STATE SHOULD HAVE AN OPTION TO
PURCHASE THE PERPETUAL RIGHT TO THE ENTIRE POWER OUTPUT OF THE FIRST
UNIT DAM AND POWER PLANT UPON PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS.  RYAN V. STATE,
SUPRA, P. 1278. 

ON DECEMBER 12, 1933, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND ADMINISTRATOR
OF PUBLIC WORKS SIGNED AN AMENDED DECLARATION OF TAKING IN THE CASE OF
UNITED STATES V. CONTINENTAL LAND CO. ET AL., IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, IN WHICH IT WAS
STATED THAT CERTAIN LANDS AT THE GRAND COULEE DAM SITE TO THE EXTENT OF
840.28 ACRES "ARE HEREBY TAKEN FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES" IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM "FOR THE REGULATION AND CONTROL OF THE FLOW OF
THE COLUMBIA RIVER, FOR A STORAGE RESERVOIR FROM THE DAMSITE TO THE
CANADIAN BOUNDARY, FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION, FOR FLOOD
CONTROL, FOR HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT AT THE GRAND COULEE
DAMSITE, FOR THE INCREASE OF POWER DEVELOPMENT DOWN-STREAM, FOR THE
RECLAMATION OF ARID AND SEMI-ARID LANDS, FOR THE DOMESTIC USE OF WATER,
AND FOR THE RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT."  THEREUPON THE UNITED STATES
IMMEDIATELY ACQUIRED TITLE AND POSSESSION OF THE LANDS INVOLVED.  40
U.S.C. 258A.  SHORTLY AFTER, ON JANUARY 4, 1934, THE FIRST ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR GAVE FORMAL NOTICE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC LANDS OF WASHINGTON OF THE INTENTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO
MAKE EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS AND ATTACHED TO THE NOTICE A LIST OF
LANDS OWNED BY THE STATE "OVER AND UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES
REQUIRES RIGHTS OF WAY FOR CANALS, DITCHES, LATERALS AND SITES FOR
RESERVOIRS AND STRUCTURES APPURTENANT THERETO; AND SUCH ADDITIONAL
RIGHTS OF WAY AND QUANTITIES OF LAND AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COMPLETED WORKS FOR THE SAID PROPOSED
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT."  THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE STATE
STATUTES TO WHICH WE SHALL PRESENTLY REFER.  THE LANDS IN THIS LIST ARE
DESCRIBED AS "BED AND SHORE LANDS OF WASHINGTON STATE" AND "UPLANDS OF
WASHINGTON STATE," AFFECTED BY COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT. 

IN DECEMBER 1933, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ENTERED INTO A
CONTRACT WITH DAVID H. RYAN (NO. 8) FOR THE EXCAVATION OF THE "OVER
BURDEN" AT THE DAMSITE.  THAT WORK WAS UPON LAND, ABOVE HIGH WATER
MARK, ALREADY OR ABOUT TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE
CONTRACTOR COMPLETED IT IN THE SUMMER OF 1934, MAINTAINING HIS OFFICE
AND LIVING QUARTERS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE GRAND COULEE PROJECT. 
THE CONTRACT PROVIDED THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD "OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED
LICENSES AND PERMITS," SHOULD FURNISH "COMPENSATION INSURANCE" IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE, AND SHOULD "COMPLY WITH ALL
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE AND MUNICIPAL SAFETY LAWS AND
BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION CODES."  RYAN V. STATE, SUPRA, P. 1279. 

IN JULY, 1934, A CONTRACT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
SILAS MASON COMPANY AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS IN NO. 7, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PART OF THE GRAND COULEE DAM AND POWER PLANT COVERED BY
DESCRIBED ITEMS IN THE SCHEDULE OF SPECIFICATIONS, FOR THE SUM OF
$29,339,301.50.  FN3  THIS CONTRACT, LIKE THAT OF RYAN, REQUIRED THE
CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN LICENSES AND PERMITS AND TO FURNISH COMPENSATION
INSURANCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW OF THE
STATE. 

SUCH A VAST UNDERTAKING NECESSARILY HAD IN VIEW A LARGE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES WHO WITH THEIR FAMILIES WOULD REQUIRE THE APPROPRIATE
FACILITIES OF COMMUNITY LIFE.  ACCORDINGLY, THE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED
FOR THE ERECTION ON THE TRACT ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A
"CONTRACTOR'S CAMP," EMBRACING THE VARIOUS BUILDINGS INCIDENT TO THE
WORK AND HOMES FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES.  THE CONTRACTOR WAS
REQUIRED, REGARDLESS OF THE APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICER, TO
"COMPLY WITH ALL THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON OR
ANY AGENCY OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF, WHICH AFFECT THE BUILDING,
MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION" OF THE CAMP.  THE DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE INTO
THE COLUMBIA RIVER WAS TO CONFORM TO THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THE STATE.  THE CONTRACTOR WAS TO MAKE ALL
NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE PROPER STATE AND COUNTY AUTHORITIES FOR
SCHOOL FACILITIES AND FOR POLICE PROTECTION, WHICH WITHIN "THE AREA
INVOLVED IN AND SURROUNDING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK" WAS TO BE FURNISHED
BY THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL IN COOPERATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT.  THE
CONTRACTOR WAS ALSO TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN JAIL FACILITIES
SATISFACTORY TO THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL AND TO COOPERATE WITH IT
AND THE GOVERNMENT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER. 

THE CONTRACTOR'S CAMP HAS DEVELOPED INTO A COMMUNITY CALLED "MASON
CITY."  ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE RIVER LIES ANOTHER CAMP MAINTAINED
BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE OFFICES AND RESIDENCES OF ITS ENGINEERS. 
IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE "TWO REGULARLY FORMED SCHOOL DISTRICTS" IN
THE AREA IN QUESTION, ONE IN THE "ENGINEERS' TOWN" AND ONE IN "MASON
CITY," UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; THAT IN "MASON CITY"
THE POLICEMEN EMPLOYED BY THE CONTRACTOR HAVE BEEN MADE DEPUTY SHERIFFS
OF OKANOGAN COUNTY; THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN
APPOINTED A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, AND ONE OF THE DOCTORS IN THE
HOSPITAL AT THE CAMP HAS BEEN MADE A DEPUTY CORONER, IN THAT COUNTY;
THAT, IN THE FALL OF 1933, ONE WHO WAS OPERATING A BEER PARLOR WITHIN
THE PART OF THE AREA WHICH LIES IN GRANT COUNTY, WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WAS FINED IN A JUSTICE'S COURT AS PROVIDED IN
THE LOCAL ORDINANCE; THAT THE SHERIFF OF GRANT COUNTY HAS BEEN CALLED
TO THE DAMSITE TO INVESTIGATE INFRACTIONS OF LOCAL LAW.    IN SEPTEMBER
1934, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MADE A FURTHER CONTRACT WITH
APPELLANT RYAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RAILROAD CONNECTING WITH THE
TRACKS OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY AT ODAIR, WASHINGTON,
AND RUNNING TO THE SITE OF THE GRAND COULEE DAM.  THE SOLE PURPOSE OF
THIS RAILROAD WAS TO ASSIST IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DAM AND THE
APPURTENANT WORKS. 

BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 30, 1935, 49 STAT. 1028, 1039, 1040, THE
CONGRESS "VALIDATED AND RATIFIED" ALL THE "CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS"
WHICH HAD BEEN EXECUTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GRAND COULEE DAM. 

2.  NO QUESTION IS PRESENTED AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF
CONGRESS TO PROVIDE FOR THIS ENTERPRISE OR TO ACQUIRE THE LANDS
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT
THE STATE MAY INTERFERE WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE ENTERPRISE.  THE
QUESTION OF EXCLUSIVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IS DISTINCT.  THAT
QUESTION ASSUMES THE ABSENCE OF ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THE EXERCISE OF
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND IS WHETHER THE UNITED
STATES HAS ACQUIRED EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY SO AS TO DEBAR THE
STATE FROM EXERCISING ANY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, INCLUDING ITS TAXING
AND POLICE POWER, IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY AND ACTIVITIES OF
INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS WITHIN THE TERRITORY.  THE ACQUISITION OF
TITLE BY THE UNITED STATES IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT THAT EXCLUSION. 
IT MUST APPEAR THAT THE STATE, BY CONSENT OR CESSION, HAS TRANSFERRED
TO THE UNITED STATES THAT RESIDUUM OF JURISDICTION WHICH OTHERWISE IT
WOULD BE FREE TO EXERCISE.  SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, 281 U.S. 647,
650-652; JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA.  SEE, ALSO, FORT
LEAVENWORTH R. CO. V. LOWE, 114 U.S. 527, 539; ARLINGTON HOTEL CO. V.
FANT, 278 U.S. 439, 451; UNITED STATES V. UNZEUTA, 281 U.S. 138, 142. 

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON HAS HELD THAT THE
STATE HAS NOT YIELDED EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  RYAN V. STATE, SUPRA.  THAT QUESTION, HOWEVER, INVOLVING
THE EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, IS NECESSARILY A
FEDERAL QUESTION.  BREWER-ELLIOTT OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 260 U.S.
77, 87; UNITED STATES V. UTAH, 283 U.S. 64, 75; BORAX CONSOLIDATED V.
LOS ANGELES, 296 U.S. 10, 22. 

3.  THE QUESTION ARISES WITH RESPECT (A) TO LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE
UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE ITSELF, (B) TO LANDS ACQUIRED BY THE
UNITED STATES FROM INDIVIDUAL OWNERS BY PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION, (C)
TO INDIAN TRIBAL LANDS. 

LANDS ACQUIRED FROM THE STATE.  THESE CONSIST OF THE RIVER BED AND
SHORE LANDS AND OF CERTAIN UPLANDS INCLUDING "SCHOOL LANDS." 

WHILE THE UNITED STATES HAS PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY OVER THE RIVER FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION, THE TITLE TO
THE RIVER BED, AS WELL AS TO THE SHORE LANDS AND SCHOOL LANDS, WAS IN
THE STATE (PORT OF SEATTLE V. OREGON-WASHINGTON R. CO., 255 U.S. 56,
63) AND THE STATE HAD LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OVER ALL THIS AREA
CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL FUNCTIONS.  UNITED STATES V. BEVANS, 3 WHEAT. 
336, 386, 387; STOCKTON V. BALTIMORE & N.Y.R. CO., 32 FED. 9, 18;
HAMBURG AMERICAN S.S. CO. V. GRUBE, 196 U.S. 407, 415; GROMER V.
STANDARD DREDGING CO., 224 U.S. 362, 371, 372.  THE NOTICE TO THE STATE
AUTHORITIES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WITH RESPECT TO THE RIVER
BED, SHORE LANDS AND UPLANDS OWNED BY THE STATE WAS SAID TO BE GIVEN
"PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 17, 1902(32 STAT. 388) AND
ACTS AMENDATORY THEREOF AND SUPPLEMENTARY THERETO."  43 U.S.C. 371 ET
SEQ. THE NOTICE IS SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN4  THE REFERENCE IS TO
THE UNITED STATES RECLAMATION ACT.  THAT ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO
PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION.  THE ACT
ITSELF STATED THE CONTRARY (SEC. 8, 43 U.S.C. 383).  IT DIRECTED THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATE LAWS
IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND PROVIDED THAT NOTHING
THEREIN CONTAINED SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS INTERFERING WITH THE LAWS OF
THE STATE RELATING TO THE CONTROL, APPROPRIATION, USE OR DISTRIBUTION
OF WATER USED IN IRRIGATION.  THE ACT HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED IN HARMONY
WITH THIS CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE OUSTED OF
JURISDICTION.  SEE KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46, 92, 93; NEBRASKA V.
WYOMING, 295 U.S. 40, 42; CALIFORNIA OREGON POWER CO. V. BEAVER CEMENT
CO., 295 U.S. 142, 164. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR EXPRESSLY STATED THAT THE NOTICE WAS
GIVEN "PURSUANT TO SEC. 3378 OF PIERCE'S CODE (1929)" WITH RESPECT TO
EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS, AND THE LIST OF STATE LANDS "IN PURSUANCE OF
SEC. 3380 OF PIERCE'S CODE (1929)."  THESE ARE SECS. 7410 AND 7412 OF
REMINGTON'S REVISED STATUTES, WHICH WITH RELATED PROVISIONS WERE
ENACTED IN 1905.  LAWS OF WASHINGTON, 1905, P. 180.  THESE PROVISIONS
ARE SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN5  THEY WERE MANIFESTLY ENACTED TO GIVE
AUTHORITY TO THE UNITED STATES TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF
IRRIGATION UNDER THE UNITED STATES RECLAMATION ACT AND WITH THE
CORRESPONDING LIMITATIONS.  THUS SEC. 7410(SEC.  3378 OF PIERCE'S CODE)
PROVIDES FOR NOTICE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS OF THE STATE THAT THE UNITED STATES
PURSUANT TO THE RECLAMATION ACT INTENDS TO MAKE EXAMINATIONS OR SURVEYS
FOR THE UTILIZATION OF SPECIFIED WATERS.  AND SEC. 7412(SEC.  3380 OF
PIERCE'S CODE) CONTEMPLATES THE PROCEEDING UNDER THE RECLAMATION ACT AS
DESCRIBED IN SEC. 7410. 

PROCEEDING.  AS TO APPROPRIATION OF WATER, IT PROVIDES THAT
APPROPRIATION "BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL INURE TO THE
UNITED STATES, AND ITS SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, IN THE SAME MANNER AND
TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH SAID APPROPRIATION HAD BEEN MADE BY A
PRIVATE PERSON, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION."  AS TO ACQUISITION OF
TITLE BY THE UNITED STATES, IT PROVIDES: 

"THE TITLE TO THE BEDS AND SHORES OF ANY NAVIGABLE LAKE OR STREAM
UTILIZED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY RESERVOIR OR OTHER IRRIGATION WORKS
CREATED OR CONSTRUCTED AS A PART OF SUCH APPROPRIATION HEREINBEFORE IN
THIS SECTION PROVIDED FOR, SHALL VEST IN THE UNITED STATES TO THE
EXTENT NECESSARY FOR THE MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND CONTROL OF SUCH
RESERVOIR OR OTHER IRRIGATION WORKS." 

NEITHER IN THE STATUTES GOVERNING THE PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR NOR IN THE STATE STATUTE WAS THERE PROVISION
FOR ACQUISITION BY THE UNITED STATES OF EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
OVER THE LANDS OF THE STATE TO WHICH TITLE WAS THUS OBTAINED.  THIS IS
TRUE WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE LANDS MENTIONED IN THE SECRETARY'S NOTICE
EMBRACING THE BED OF THE RIVER, THE SHORE LANDS AND THE DESIGNATED
UPLANDS INCLUDING SCHOOL LANDS. 

LANDS ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION.  APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AS TO THESE LANDS VESTED IPSO FACTO IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE OPERATION OF CLAUSE 17, SEC. 8, ARTICLE I, OF
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE
POWER "TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION" OVER "ALL PLACES PURCHASED BY
THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE,
FOR THE ERECTION OF FORTS, MAGAZINES, ARSENALS, DOCK-YARDS, AND OTHER
NEEDFUL BUILDINGS."  CONSIDERING THIS PROVISION IN JAMES V. DRAVO
CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA, WE CONSTRUED THE PHRASE "OTHER NEEDFUL
BUILDINGS" TO EMBRACE LOCKS AND DAMS AND WHATEVER STRUCTURES ARE FOUND
TO BE NECESSARY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  WE ALSO CONCLUDED THAT CLAUSE 17 SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED
AS IMPLYING A STIPULATION THAT THE CONSENT OF THE STATE TO PURCHASES
MUST BE WITHOUT RESERVATIONS.  WE WERE UNABLE TO RECONCILE SUCH AN
IMPLICATION WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE STATE AND ITS ADMITTED AUTHORITY TO
REFUSE OR QUALIFY CESSIONS OF JURISDICTION WHEN PURCHASES HAVE BEEN
MADE WITHOUT CONSENT OR PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY CONDEMNATION. 

THE STATUTE OF WASHINGTON WHICH IS RELIED UPON AS GRANTING CONSENT
AND CEDING EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SEC.
8108 OF REMINGTON'S REVISED STATUTES, THE FULL TEXT OF WHICH IS QUOTED
IN THE MARGIN.  FN6  THIS STATUTE GIVES CONSENT TO THE ACQUISITION OF
LANDS BY THE UNITED STATES "FOR THE SITES OF LOCKS, DAMS, PIERS,
BREAKWATERS, KEEPERS' DWELLINGS, AND OTHER NECESSARY STRUCTURES AND
PURPOSES REQUIRED IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS OF THIS
STATE, OR BORDERING THEREON, OR FOR THE SITES OF FORTS, MAGAZINES,
ARSENALS, DOCKS, NAVY-YARDS, NAVAL STATIONS, OR OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS
AUTHORIZED BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS."  THE CONSENT IS SAID TO BE GIVEN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOUND IN CLAUSE 17 OF SEC.
8 OF ARTICLE I AND WITH THE ACTS OF CONGRESS IN SUCH CASES MADE AND
PROVIDED. 

THE STATUTE IN TERMS REFERS TO SUCH ACQUISITION "FROM ANY INDIVIDUAL
OR INDIVIDUALS, BODIES POLITIC OR CORPORATE, WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OR
LIMITS OF THIS STATE."  THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT APT TO DESCRIBE
ACQUISITIONS FROM THE STATE ITSELF.  AND MANY YEARS AGO (1903) THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE SO HELD WITH RESPECT TO THE CORRESPONDING
PROVISIONS OF THE ACTS OF 1890, P. 459, AND 1891, P. 31, EMBODIED IN
SEC. 8108.  STATE EX REL. BUSSELL V. CALLVERT, 33 WASH. 380, 388-390;
74 PAC. 573.  UNDER THAT CONSTRUCTION, THE ABOVE QUOTED PROVISIONS OF
SEC. 8108 WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE TO THE ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO THE
RIVER BED, SHORE LANDS AND UPLANDS OWNED BY THE STATE, APART FROM OUR
CONCLUSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN UNDER THE UNITED
STATES RECLAMATION ACT AND THE PERTINENT STATE STATUTE. 

WITH RESPECT TO LANDS ACQUIRED FROM PRIVATE OWNERS, THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE HAS HELD IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT THE ENTERPRISE OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A REACH WHICH TAKES IT OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF
SEC. 8108.  THE PITH OF THE DECISION IS THAT WHILE THE STATUTE
CONTEMPLATED THE BUILDING OF LOCKS AND DAMS AND OTHER STRUCTURES
REQUIRED IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS OF THE STATE, IT
DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THE YIELDING BY THE STATE OF ALL LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH A PROJECT AS THE COLUMBIA BASIN
PROJECT EMBRACING "THE DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION AND OF POWER FOR
INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES."  THE STATE COURT CONCLUDED "THAT THE PURPOSES OF
THE PROJECT, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, DO NOT FALL EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN ANY OF
THE ENUMERATED CLASSES MENTIONED ABOVE (IN THE STATUTE), SO AS TO GIVE
THE UNITED STATES EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE LANDS, BUT RATHER IN
A CLASS WHERE SEVERAL PURPOSES ARE SO INTERMINGLED AS TO CALL FOR THE
EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY BOTH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE,
ACCORDING AS THEIR RESPECTIVE INTERESTS AND DUTIES REQUIRE."  RYAN V.
STATE, SUPRA, P. 1284. 

CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF THE FEDERAL UNDERTAKING, WE CANNOT SAY THAT
THIS CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 8108 IS INADMISSIBLE.  THUS IRRIGATION - "THE
RECLAMATION OF ARID AND SEMI-ARID LANDS" - IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
FEDERAL PLAN AND THE RESERVOIRS FOR THE STORAGE OF WATER WERE TO BE
PROVIDED WITH THAT END IN VIEW.  THAT WAS SET FORTH AS ONE OF THE MAIN
OBJECTIVES, AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF POWER, IN THE DECLARATION OF
TAKING FILED IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, AND
WHATEVER MAY BE SAID OF POWER DEVELOPMENT SO FAR AS IT IS INCIDENTAL TO
THE IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION, THE RECLAMATION OF ARID OR SEMI-ARID
LANDS HAS ALWAYS BEEN REGARDED AS A PROJECT WHICH CARRIED WITH IT AN
APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION OF A CONTINUED STATE JURISDICTION.  KANSAS V.
COLORADO, SUPRA; NEBRASKA V. WYOMING, SUPRA.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
STATE STATUTE, ENACTED IN 1891, MUST BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVELY SHOWING
AN INTENT TO YIELD EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN SUCH A CASE.  ASSUMING
THAT BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WE ARE AT LIBERTY
TO CONSTRUE THE STATUTE FOR OURSELVES, WE SHOULD, IN HARMONY WITH OUR
PRINCIPLES OF DECISION IN SUCH CASES, GIVE GREAT WEIGHT TO THE VIEWS OF
THE STATE COURT AS TO THE INTENT AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STATE STATUTE
IN GRANTING CONSENT AND CESSION.  SEE FREEPORT WATER CO. V. FREEPORT,
180 U.S. 587, 595, 596; MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RY. & L. CO. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 238 U.S. 174, 184; PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 300 U.S.
319, 322; DODGE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, ANTE, P. 74.  WE SHOULD ACCEPT
THAT CONSTRUCTION UNLESS WE ARE SATISFIED THAT IT DOES VIOLENCE TO
FEDERAL RIGHT BASED UPON THE STATUTE, DEFEATING THE REASONABLE
ANTICIPATION AND PURPOSE OF SECURING THROUGH THE OPERATION OF THE
STATUTE AN ESSENTIAL AND EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

NOT ONLY DO WE FIND NO VIOLENCE DONE TO FEDERAL RIGHT OR FRUSTRATION
OF FEDERAL INTENT BY THE STATE'S CONSTRUCTION OF ITS STATUTE, BUT THE
EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTEMPLATED THE
CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF STATE JURISDICTION CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL
FUNCTIONS AND INVITED THE COOPERATION OF THE STATE IN PROVIDING AN
APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY. 

EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED THAT THE STATE STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO
APPLY TO THE FEDERAL ACQUISITIONS HERE INVOLVED, WE SHOULD STILL BE MET
BY THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT IT WAS NOT COMPELLED TO
ACCEPT, AND HAS NOT ACCEPTED, A TRANSFER OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.  AS
SUCH A TRANSFER RESTS UPON A GRANT BY THE STATE, THROUGH CONSENT OR
CESSION, IT FOLLOWS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAMILIAR PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE
TO GRANTS, THAT THE GRANT MAY BE ACCEPTED OR DECLINED.  ACCEPTANCE MAY
BE PRESUMED IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF A CONTRARY INTENT, BUT WE
KNOW OF NO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE WHICH COMPELS ACCEPTANCE BY THE
UNITED STATES OF AN EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CONTRARY TO ITS OWN
CONCEPTION OF ITS INTERESTS.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS
TITLE TO PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A STATE, WHICH MAY BE
ACQUIRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CONSENT OF THE STATE (KOHL V. UNITED
STATES, 91 U.S. 367, 371, 372), DOES NOT NECESSITATE THE ASSUMPTION BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE BURDENS INCIDENT TO AN EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. 
WE HAVE FREQUENTLY SAID THAT OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS A PRACTICAL
ADJUSTMENT BY WHICH THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY MAY BE MAINTAINED IN ITS
FULL SCOPE WITHOUT UNNECESSARY LOSS OF LOCAL EFFICIENCY.  IN ACQUIRING
PROPERTY, THE FEDERAL FUNCTION IN VIEW MAY BE PERFORMED WITHOUT
DISTURBING THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN MATTERS WHICH MAY STILL
APPROPRIATELY PERTAIN TO STATE AUTHORITY.  IN OUR OPINION IN JAMES V.
DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., SUPRA, WE OBSERVED THAT THE POSSIBLE IMPORTANCE
OF RESERVING TO THE STATE JURISDICTION FOR LOCAL PURPOSES WHICH INVOLVE
NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IS
BECOMING MORE AND MORE CLEAR AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT EXPAND
AND LARGE AREAS WITHIN THE STATES ARE ACQUIRED.  AND WE ADDED THAT
THERE APPEARED TO BE NO REASON WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE
COMPELLED TO ACCEPT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OR THE STATE BE COMPELLED TO
GRANT IT IN GIVING ITS CONSENT TO PURCHASES. 

THE FEDERAL INTENT IN THIS INSTANCE IS CLEARLY SHOWN.  IT IS SHOWN
NOT MERELY BY THE ACTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS, BUT BY THE
DELIBERATE AND RATIFYING ACTION OF CONGRESS, WHICH GIVES THE FORCE OF
LAW TO THE PRIOR OFFICIAL ACTION EVEN IF UNAUTHORIZED WHEN TAKEN. 
SWAYNE & HOYT V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 297, 301, 302.  AS CONGRESS
VALIDATED AND RATIFIED "ALL CONTRACTS" WHICH HAVE BEEN EXECUTED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE GRAND COULEE DAM PROJECT, WE ARE AT LIBERTY TO
REFER TO THE TERMS OF THESE CONTRACTS AS MANIFESTING THE INTENTION OF
CONGRESS NO LESS THAN THAT OF THE OFFICERS WHO EXECUTED THEM.  THESE
CONTRACTS WITH APPELLANTS WERE MADE IN FULL APPRECIATION OF THE
INEVITABLE CREATION, THROUGH THE CARRYING OUT OF THIS PROJECT, OF A
LARGE LOCAL COMMUNITY WITHIN THE AREA ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES,
WITH RESIDENTS WHOSE NEEDS COULD BE SUITABLY SERVED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE WITHOUT INTERFERING IN ANY WAY
WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE FEDERAL PLAN.  SCHOOL FACILITIES WERE TO BE,
AND HAVE BEEN, PROVIDED BY ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES. 
POLICE PROTECTION WAS TO BE, AND HAS BEEN, ASSURED BY COOPERATION
WITHIN THE STATE PATROL.  COGNIZANCE OF CRIMES COMMITTED WITHIN THE
AREA HAS BEEN TAKEN BY LOCAL PROSECUTORS AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS.  IT IS
FUTILE TO SAY THAT THESE LOCAL AUTHORITIES BECAME FEDERAL AUTHORITIES
PRO HAC VICE, FOR THE CONTRACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN RATIFIED BY CONGRESS
MANIFESTLY CONTEMPLATED ACTION BY THE LOCAL OFFICERS AS REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE STATE AND AS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF STATE JURISDICTION. 

IN PARTICULAR, APPELLANTS' CONTRACTS ASSUMED THAT STATE JURISDICTION
WOULD EXTEND TO ACTIVITIES OF THE CONTRACTORS.  THEY WERE TO OBTAIN ALL
REQUIRED LICENSES AND PERMITS.  COMPENSATION INSURANCE UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE STATE WAS TO BE PROVIDED FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES.  STATE BUILDING
REGULATIONS WERE TO BE OBEYED.  THE RULES OF THE LOCAL DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH WERE TO BE OBSERVED IN THE DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE INTO THE RIVER. 
WE ARE AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE CONTINUED JURISDICTION OF THE
STATE WITHOUT CONFLICTING WITH FEDERAL OPERATIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MORE
FULLY RECOGNIZED, OR THE ASSUMPTION OF EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
BY THE UNITED STATES MORE EFFECTIVELY DISCLAIMED, THAN BY THE ACTION OF
CONGRESS IN RATIFYING THE PROVISIONS OF THESE CONTRACTS. 

APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT COMES TO THIS - THAT WE MUST NOT ONLY OVERRIDE
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATE STATUTE BY THE STATE COURT BUT THAT WE
MUST CONSTRUE THE STATUTE AS COMPELLING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
ASSUME AN EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY WHICH IT DID NOT NEED, WHICH
IT HAS NOT ACCEPTED OR EXERCISED, AND AGAINST THE BURDEN OF WHICH IT
HAS SOUGHT TO PROTECT ITSELF BY SECURING STATE COOPERATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS.  WE FIND NO
WARRANT FOR SUCH ACTION. 

INDIAN TRIBAL LANDS.  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ALSO DISPOSES OF THE
CONTENTION IN RELATION TO THIS PART OF THE AREA.  APPELLANTS SAY THAT
TITLE WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF INDIANS ON
THE COLVILLE RESERVATION.  EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JULY 2, 1872.  WHILE AT A
LATER DATE THE LANDS WERE OPENED FOR ENTRY (ACT OF MARCH 22, 1906, 34
STAT. 80; PROCLAMATION OF THE PRESIDENT, MAY 3, 1916, 39 STAT. 1778) IT
APPEARS THAT THEY WERE WITHDRAWN BEFORE ANY ENTRY WAS MADE.  APPELLANTS
CONCEDE THAT TITLE TO THESE LANDS HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE UNITED STATES
AND HENCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION. 
BUT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH LANDS EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY WOULD BE
OBTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES ONLY THROUGH CESSION BY THE STATE. 
SURPLUS TRADING CO. V. COOK, SUPRA, P. 651.  IF THEY MAY BE DEEMED TO
BE WITHIN THE REFERENCE IN SEC. 8108 TO "PUBLIC LAND" WHICH "MAY BE SET
APART BY THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT" FOR THE PURPOSES "BEFORE MENTIONED,"
WE ARE BROUGHT BACK TO THE QUESTIONS ALREADY DISCUSSED AND WE NEED NOT
CONSIDER THE QUESTION WHETHER THESE LANDS HAD IN FACT BEEN SET APART IN
THE PRESCRIBED MANNER. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE STATE HAD TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION TO
IMPOSE THE TAX UPON APPELLANTS' RECEIPTS AND THAT THE TAX DOES NOT LAY
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN UPON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

THE RESPECTIVE JUDGMENTS ARE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ACT DESCRIBES THE TAX AS LAID "UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES."  SECTION 2-A (1) PROVIDES:  "...
THERE IS HEREBY LEVIED AND THERE SHALL BE COLLECTED FROM EVERY PERSON
ENGAGING OR CONTINUING WITHIN THIS STATE IN THE BUSINESS OF RENDERING
OR PERFORMING SERVICES  ...  AN ANNUAL TAX OR EXCISE FOR THE PRIVILEGE
OF ENGAGING IN SUCH BUSINESS  ...  EQUAL TO THE GROSS INCOME OF THE
BUSINESS MULTIPLIED BY FIVE-TENTHS OF ONE PER CENT;...." 

FN2  APPELLANT DAVID H. RYAN, IN NO. 8, ALSO BROUGHT AN ACTION TO
OBTAIN A REFUND OF OCCUPATION TAXES WHICH HE HAD PAID.  THAT ACTION WAS
CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING IN THE STATE COURTS WITH THE SUIT FOR
INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN FURTHER COLLECTION. 

FN3  FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES AND TO AVOID CONFUSION WITH BUSINESS
OPERATIONS OF THE CONTRACTORS ELSEWHERE, THE CONTRACTORS ORGANIZED THE
APPELLANT MASON-WALSH-ATKINSON-KIER COMPANY, AND TO AVOID OBJECTIONS TO
AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE CONTRACT THEY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
UNITED STATES IN SEPTEMBER, 1934, BY WHICH THE NEW COMPANY WAS
CONSTITUTED THE AGENT OF THE CONTRACTORS FOR THE PROSECUTION OF THE
WORK WITHOUT RELINQUISHMENT OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS. 

FN4              "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, WASHINGTON

                             JAN - 4 1934 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

MAILS AND FILES, JAN 5 1934

                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 

STATE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS,

                         OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON. 

DEAR SIR: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF JUNE 17,
1902(32 STAT. 388) AND ACTS AMENDATORY THEREOF OR SUPPLEMENTARY
THERETO, THE UNITED STATES INTENDS TO MAKE EXAMINATIONS AND SURVEYS FOR
THE UTILIZATION OF THE WATERS OF COLUMBIA RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES IN
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT. 

THE FOREGOING NOTICE IS GIVEN PURSUANT TO SECTION 3378 OF PIERCE'S
CODE (1929). 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT ATTACHED HERETO, IDENTIFIED AS
"EXHIBIT A" AND MADE A PART HEREOF IS A LIST OF LANDS OWNED BY THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, OVER AND UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES REQUIRES
RIGHTS OF WAY FOR CANALS, DITCHES, LATERALS AND SITES FOR RESERVOIRS
AND STRUCTURES APPURTENANT THERETO; AND SUCH ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF WAY
AND QUANTITIES OF LAND AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE COMPLETED WORKS FOR THE SAID PROPOSED COLUMBIA BASIN
PROJECT.  PLEASE FILE THIS NOTICE, TOGETHER WITH THE ATTACHED LIST, IN
YOUR OFFICE, AS A RESERVATION FROM SALE OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF SUCH
LANDS, SO DESCRIBED, BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 

THE NOTICE LAST HEREIN GIVEN IS IN PURSUANCE OF SECTION 3380 OF
PIERCE'S CODE (1929). 

VERY TRULY YOURS,

(SGD.)  T. A. WALTERS,

                     FIRST ASSISTANT SECRETARY." 

FN5  "SEC.  7410.  EXEMPTIONS PENDING FEDERAL INVESTIGATION. 
WHENEVER THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY
OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES DULY AUTHORIZED, SHALL NOTIFY THE
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS OF THIS STATE THAT PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED JUNE 17, 1902, ENTITLED, 'AN
ACT APPROPRIATING THE RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC
LANDS IN CERTAIN STATES AND TERRITORIES TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
IRRIGATION WORKS FOR THE RECLAMATION OF ARID LANDS,' OR ANY AMENDMENT
OF SAID ACT OR SUBSTITUTE THEREFOR, THE UNITED STATES INTENDS TO MAKE
EXAMINATIONS OR SURVEYS FOR THE UTILIZATION OF CERTAIN SPECIFIED
WATERS, THE WATERS SO DESCRIBED SHALL NOT THEREAFTER BE SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION UNDER ANY LAW OF THIS STATE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM
AND AFTER THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF SUCH NOTICE BY SUCH COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC LANDS; BUT SUCH NOTICE SHALL NOT IN ANY WISE AFFECT THE
APPROPRIATION OF ANY WATER THERETOFORE IN GOOD FAITH INITIATED UNDER
ANY LAW OF THIS STATE, BUT SUCH APPROPRIATION MAY BE COMPLETED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS
THOUGH SUCH NOTICE HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN.  NO ADVERSE CLAIM TO ANY SUCH
WATERS INITIATED SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECEIPT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC LANDS OF SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE RECOGNIZED, UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS
STATE, EXCEPT AS TO SUCH AMOUNT OF THE WATERS DESCRIBED IN SUCH NOTICE
OR CERTIFICATE HEREINAFTER PROVIDED AS MAY BE FORMALLY RELEASED IN
WRITING BY A DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES.  IF THE SAID
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL, BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF SAID PERIOD OF ONE YEAR,
CERTIFY IN WRITING TO THE SAID COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS THAT THE
PROJECT CONTEMPLATED IN SUCH NOTICE APPEARS TO BE FEASIBLE AND THAT THE
INVESTIGATION WILL BE MADE IN DETAIL, THE WATERS SPECIFIED IN SUCH
NOTICE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION UNDER ANY LAW OF THIS
STATE FOR THE FURTHER PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOLLOWING THE DATE OR
RECEIPT OF SUCH CERTIFICATE, AND SUCH FURTHER TIME AS THE COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC LANDS MAY GRANT, UPON APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES OR
SOME ONE OF ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND NOTICE THEREOF FIRST PUBLISHED
ONCE IN EACH WEEK FOR FOUR CONSECUTIVE WEEKS IN A NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED
IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE WORKS FOR THE UTILIZATION OF SUCH WATERS ARE TO
BE CONSTRUCTED, AND IF SUCH WORKS ARE TO BE IN OR EXTEND INTO TWO OR
MORE COUNTIES, THEN FOR THE SAME PERIOD IN A NEWSPAPER IN EACH OF SUCH
COUNTIES:  PROVIDED, THAT IN CASE SUCH CERTIFICATE SHALL NOT BE FILED
WITH SAID COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR
HEREIN LIMITED THEREFOR THE WATERS SPECIFIED IN SUCH NOTICE SHALL,
AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF SAID PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, BECOME UNAFFECTED BY
SUCH NOTICE AND SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION AS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD
SUCH NOTICE NEVER BEEN GIVEN:  AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT IN CASE SUCH
CERTIFICATE BE FILED WITHIN SAID ONE YEAR AND THE UNITED STATES DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS FOR THE UTILIZATION OF SUCH
WATERS WITHIN SAID THREE YEARS AFTER THE FILING OF SAID CERTIFICATE,
THEN THE WATERS SPECIFIED IN SUCH NOTICE AND CERTIFICATE SHALL, AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF SAID LAST NAMED PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, BECOME
UNAFFECTED BY SUCH NOTICE OR CERTIFICATE AND SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
AS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD SUCH NOTICE NEVER BEEN GIVEN AND SUCH
CERTIFICATE NEVER FILED." 

"SEC. 7411.  APPROPRIATION - TITLE TO BEDS AND SHORES.  WHENEVER SAID
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OR OTHER DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL CAUSE TO BE LET A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ANY IRRIGATION WORKS OR ANY WORKS FOR THE STORAGE OF WATER FOR USE IN
IRRIGATION, OR ANY PORTION OR SECTION THEREOF, FOR WHICH THE WITHDRAWAL
HAS BEEN EFFECTED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7410, ANY AUTHORIZED OFFICER
OF THE UNITED STATES, EITHER IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES OR IN
SUCH NAME AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, MAY
APPROPRIATE, IN BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, SO MUCH OF THE
UNAPPROPRIATED WATERS OF THE STATE AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT,
OR PROJECTS, FOR WHICH WATER HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN OR RESERVED UNDER THE
PRECEDING SECTION OF THIS ACT, INCLUDING ANY AND ALL DIVISIONS THEREOF,
THERETOFORE CONSTRUCTED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BY THE UNITED STATES OR
PROPOSED TO BE THEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED BY THE UNITED STATES, SUCH
APPROPRIATION TO BE MADE, MAINTAINED AND PERFECTED IN THE SAME MANNER
AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH SUCH APPROPRIATION HAD BEEN MADE BY A
PRIVATE PERSON, CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION, EXCEPT THAT THE DATE OF
PRIORITY AS TO ALL RIGHTS UNDER SUCH APPROPRIATION IN BEHALF OF THE
UNITED STATES SHALL RELATE BACK TO THE DATE OF THE FIRST WITHDRAWAL OR
RESERVATION OF THE WATERS SO APPROPRIATED, AND IN CASE OF FILINGS ON
WATER PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN UNDER SAID SECTION 7410, NO PAYMENT OF FEES
WILL BE REQUIRED.  SUCH APPROPRIATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED
STATES SHALL INURE TO THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS SUCCESSORS IN
INTEREST, IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS THOUGH SAID
APPROPRIATION HAD BEEN MADE BY A PRIVATE PERSON, CORPORATION OR
ASSOCIATION.  THE TITLE TO THE BEDS AND SHORES OF ANY NAVIGABLE LAKE OR
STREAM UTILIZED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY RESERVOIR OR OTHER
IRRIGATION WORKS CREATED OR CONSTRUCTED AS A PART OF SUCH APPROPRIATION
HEREINBEFORE IN THIS SECTION PROVIDED FOR, SHALL VEST IN THE UNITED
STATES TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR THE MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND
CONTROL OF SUCH RESERVOIR OR OTHER IRRIGATION WORKS."    "SEC. 7412. 
RESERVATION OF NECESSARY LANDS BY UNITED STATES - PROCEDURE.  WHEN THE
NOTICE PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 7410 SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC LANDS THE PROPER OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES MAY FILE WITH
THE SAID COMMISSIONER A LIST OF LANDS (INCLUDING IN THE TERM 'LANDS' AS
HERE USED, THE BEDS AND SHORES OF ANY LAKE, RIVER, STREAM, OR OTHER
WATERS) OWNED BY THE STATE, OVER OR UPON WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY
REQUIRE RIGHTS OF WAY FOR CANALS, DITCHES, OR LATERALS OR SITES FOR
RESERVOIRS AND STRUCTURES THEREFOR OR APPURTENANT THERETO, OR SUCH
ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF WAY AND QUANTITY OF LAND AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR
THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COMPLETED WORKS FOR THE IRRIGATION
PROJECT CONTEMPLATED IN SUCH NOTICE, AND THE FILING OF SUCH LIST SHALL
CONSTITUTE A RESERVATION FROM THE SALE OR OTHER DISPOSAL BY THE STATE
OF SUCH LANDS SO DESCRIBED, WHICH RESERVATION SHALL, UPON THE
COMPLETION OF SUCH WORKS AND UPON THE UNITED STATES BY ITS PROPER
OFFICERS FILING WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS OF THE STATE A
DESCRIPTION OF SUCH LANDS BY METES AND BOUNDS OR OTHER DEFINITE
DESCRIPTION, RIPEN INTO A GRANT FROM THE STATE TO THE UNITED STATES. 
THE STATE, IN THE DISPOSAL OF LANDS GRANTED FROM THE UNITED STATES TO
THE STATE, SHALL RESERVE FOR THE UNITED STATES RIGHTS OF WAY FOR
DITCHES, CANALS, LATERALS, TELEPHONE AND TRANSMISSION LINES WHICH MAY
BE REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF IRRIGATION WORKS." 

FN6  "SEC.  8108.  CONSENT TO ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS BY UNITED
STATES, ETC.  THE CONSENT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BE AND THE SAME IS
HEREBY GIVEN TO THE ACQUISITION BY PURCHASE OR BY CONDEMNATION, UNDER
THE LAWS OF THIS STATE RELATING TO THE APPROPRIATION OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY TO PUBLIC USES, BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE SAME, OF ANY TRACT, PIECE, OR PARCEL OF LAND, FROM ANY
INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS, BODIES POLITIC OR CORPORATE, WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OR LIMITS OF THIS STATE, FOR THE SITES OF LOCKS, DAMS,
PIERS, BREAKWATERS, KEEPERS' DWELLINGS, AND OTHER NECESSARY STRUCTURES
AND PURPOSES REQUIRED IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS OF
THIS STATE, OR BORDERING THEREON, OR FOR THE SITES OF FORTS, MAGAZINES,
ARSENALS, DOCKS, NAVY-YARDS, NAVAL STATIONS, OR OTHER NEEDFUL BUILDINGS
AUTHORIZED BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS, AND ALL DEEDS, CONVEYANCES OF TITLE
PAPERS FOR THE SAME SHALL BE RECORDED AS IN OTHER CASES, UPON THE LAND
RECORDS OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE LAND SO ACQUIRED MAY LIE; AND IN
LIKE MANNER MAY BE RECORDED A SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION BY METES AND
BOUNDS, COURSES AND DISTANCES, OF ANY TRACT OR TRACTS, LEGAL DIVISIONS
OR SUBDIVISIONS OF ANY PUBLIC LAND BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES,
WHICH MAY BE SET APART BY THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ANY OR EITHER OF
THE PURPOSES BEFORE MENTIONED BY AN ORDER, PATENT, OR OTHER OFFICIAL
DOCUMENT OR PAPERS DESCRIBING SUCH LANDS; THE CONSENT HEREIN AND HEREBY
GIVEN BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEVENTEENTH CLAUSE OF THE EIGHTH
AND WITH THE ACTS OF CONGRESS IN SUCH CASES MADE AND PROVIDED; AND THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE IS HEREBY CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA OVER ALL SUCH LAND OR LANDS AS MAY HAVE BEEN OR MAY BE
HEREAFTER ACQUIRED BY PURCHASE OR BY CONDEMNATION, OR SET APART BY THE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ANY OR EITHER OF THE PURPOSES BEFORE MENTIONED:
PROVIDED, THAT THIS STATE SHALL RETAIN A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH
THE UNITED STATES IN AND OVER ALL TRACTS SO ACQUIRED OR SET APART AS
AFORESAID, SO FAR AS THAT ALL CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCESS THAT MAY ISSUE
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS STATE AGAINST ANY PERSON OR PERSONS CHARGED
WITH CRIMES COMMITTED, OR FOR ANY CAUSE OF ACTION OR SUIT ACCRUING
WITHOUT THE BOUNDS OF ANY SUCH TRACT, MAY BE EXECUTED THEREIN, IN THE
SAME MANNER AND WITH LIKE EFFECT AS THOUGH THIS ASSENT AND CESSION HAD
NOT BEEN GRANTED." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER
AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DISSENT FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE
DISSENTING OPINION IN JAMES V. DRAVO CONTRACTING CO., ANTE, P. 161. 
..END :

















BERMAN V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 211 


NO. 26.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 88
F.(2D) 645, REVERSED. 


1.  THE SENTENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS THE FINAL JUDGMENT.  P. 212. 

2.  A SENTENCE REMAINS THE FINAL JUDGMENT, AND IS APPEALABLE,
NOTWITHSTANDING A SUSPENSION OF EXECUTION.  P. 212. 

IN CRIMINAL CASES, AS WELL AS CIVIL, THE JUDGMENT IS FINAL FOR THE
PURPOSE OF APPEAL WHEN IT TERMINATES THE LITIGATION ON THE MERITS AND
LEAVES NOTHING TO BE DONE BUT TO ENFORCE BY EXECUTION WHAT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED. 

3.  THE FINALITY OF A SENTENCE AND THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM IT ARE
NOT AFFECTED BY PLACING THE CONVICT ON PROBATION.  P. 213. 

4.  DURING THE PENDENCY OF AN APPEAL FROM A SENTENCE, THE DISTRICT
COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO MODIFY ITS JUDGMENT BY RESENTENCING
THE PRISONER.  P. 214. 

BERMAN V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 675, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING AN APPEAL
FROM A CRIMINAL SENTENCE AND AFFIRMING A LATER ONE IMPOSED AFTER THE
APPEAL WAS TAKEN. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON CONVICTION UPON AN INDICTMENT CONTAINING SEVERAL COUNTS FOR USING
THE MAILS TO DEFRAUD (18 U.S.C. 338) AND FOR CONSPIRACY TO THAT END (18
U.S.C. 88), PETITIONER WAS SENTENCED ON EACH COUNT TO SERVE A YEAR AND
A DAY, THE TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT TO RUN CONCURRENTLY.  EXECUTION OF THE
SENTENCE WAS SUSPENDED AND PETITIONER WAS PLACED ON PROBATION FOR TWO
YEARS.  PETITIONER APPEALED FROM THE SENTENCE. 

WHILE THE APPEAL WAS PENDING AND WITHOUT ITS WITHDRAWAL, PETITIONER
FEARING ITS DISMISSAL APPLIED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR RESENTENCE. 
THAT COURT REIMPOSED THE PRIOR SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT, AGAIN
SUSPENDING ITS EXECUTION, AND ADDED A FINE OF ONE DOLLAR UPON EACH
COUNT.  THE COURT DID NOT VACATE THE PRIOR SENTENCE.  PETITIONER THEN
APPEALED FROM THE SECOND SENTENCE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT, BY REASON OF SUSPENSION OF
ITS EXECUTION, THE FIRST SENTENCE WAS INTERLOCUTORY AND DISMISSED THE
FIRST APPEAL.  ASSUMING THAT APPEAL TO BE A NULLITY, THE COURT OF
APPEALS THOUGHT THAT THE DISTRICT COURT HAD POWER TO RESENTENCE; THAT
PETITIONER COULD NOT COMPLAIN OF THE FINE AS IT WAS IMPOSED AT HIS
REQUEST; AND THAT THE SECOND SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT, IF TAKEN ALONE,
WAS INTERLOCUTORY.  THE JUDGMENT IMPOSING THE FINE WAS AFFIRMED AND THE
APPEAL FROM THE SECOND SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT WAS DISMISSED.  88
F.(2D) 645. 

WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING
THE FIRST APPEAL AS INTERLOCUTORY.  PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED AND
SENTENCED.  FINAL JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE MEANS SENTENCE.  THE
SENTENCE IS THE JUDGMENT.  MILLER V. ADERHOLD, 288 U.S. 206, 210; HILL
V. WAMPLER, 298 U.S. 460, 464.  HERE, THE IMPOSITION OF THE SENTENCE
WAS NOT SUSPENDED, BUT ONLY ITS EXECUTION.  THE SENTENCE WAS NOT
VACATED.  IT STOOD AS A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE MERITS OF THE
CRIMINAL CHARGE.  TO CREATE FINALITY IT WAS NECESSARY THAT PETITIONER'S
CONVICTION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY SENTENCE (HILL V. WAMPLER, SUPRA) BUT
WHEN SO FOLLOWED THE FINALITY OF THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT LOST BECAUSE
EXECUTION WAS SUSPENDED.  IN CRIMINAL CASES, AS WELL AS CIVIL, THE
JUDGMENT IS FINAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPEAL "WHEN IT TERMINATES THE
LITIGATION  ...  ON THE MERITS" AND "LEAVES NOTHING TO BE DONE BUT TO
ENFORCE BY EXECUTION WHAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED."  ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S.R.
CO. V. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO., 108 U.S. 24, 28; UNITED STATES V. PILE,
130 U.S. 280, 283; HEIKE V. UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 423, 429. 

PETITIONER STANDS A CONVICTED FELON AND UNLESS THE JUDGMENT AGAINST
HIM IS VACATED OR REVERSED HE IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE DISABILITIES
FLOWING FROM SUCH A JUDGMENT.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT PETITIONER IS
A LAWYER AND BY REASON OF HIS CONVICTION HIS LICENSE WAS SUBJECT TO
REVOCATION (AND PETITIONER SAYS THAT HE HAS BEEN DISBARRED) WITHOUT
INQUIRY INTO HIS GUILT OR INNOCENCE.  MATTER OF ACKERSON, 218 APP. DIV.
(N.Y.)  388, 392; 218 N.Y.S. 654.  HIS CIVIL RIGHTS MAY BE DETERMINED
SOLELY BY REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT. 

PLACING PETITIONER UPON PROBATION DID NOT AFFECT THE FINALITY OF THE
JUDGMENT.  PROBATION IS CONCERNED WITH REHABILITATION, NOT WITH THE
DETERMINATION OF GUILT.  IT DOES NOT SECURE RECONSIDERATION OF ISSUES
THAT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED OR CHANGE THE JUDGMENT THAT HAS BEEN
RENDERED.  PROBATION OR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE "COMES AS AN ACT OF
GRACE TO ONE CONVICTED OF A CRIME."  ESCOE V. ZERBST, 295 U.S. 490,
492, 493.  THE CONSIDERATIONS IT INVOLVES ARE ENTIRELY APART FROM ANY
REEXAMINATION OF THE MERITS OF THE LITIGATION.  PROBATION WAS DESIGNED
"TO AID THE REHABILITATION OF A PENITENT OFFENDER; TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REFORMATION WHICH ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE SUSPENDED
SENTENCE MIGHT MAKE LESS PROBABLE."  THUS PROBATION CANNOT BE DEMANDED
AS A RIGHT.  "THE DEFENDANT STANDS CONVICTED; HE FACES PUNISHMENT AND
CANNOT INSIST ON TERMS OR STRIKE A BARGAIN."  BURNS V. UNITED STATES,
287 U.S. 216, 220.  BUT IF FINAL JUDGMENT DETERMINING HIS GUILT HAS
BEEN RENDERED, HE STILL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK BY APPEAL A
REVERSAL OF THAT JUDGMENT AND THUS TO SECURE NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO
REFORM BUT VINDICATION. 

AS THE FIRST SENTENCE WAS A FINAL JUDGMENT AND APPEAL THEREFROM WAS
PROPERLY TAKEN, THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION DURING THE
PENDENCY OF THAT APPEAL TO MODIFY ITS JUDGMENT BY RESENTENCING THE
PRISONER.  DRAPER V. DAVIS, 102 U.S. 370, 371; KEYSER V. FARR, 105 U.S.
265, 266; SPIROU V. UNITED STATES, 24 F.(2D) 796, 797; UNITED STATES V.
RADICE, 40 F.(2D) 445, 446; UNITED STATES V. HABIB, 72 F.(2D) 271. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED SO FAR AS IT
DISMISSED THE FIRST APPEAL AND AFFIRMED THE LATER JUDGMENT IMPOSING THE
FINE, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :






UNITED STATES V. KAPP, 302 U.S. 214 


NO. 97.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  -
REVERSED. 


1.  WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT, AN INDICTMENT FOR
CONSPIRACY (CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 37) TO COMMIT A SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE MAY
BE TREATED AS FOUNDED ON THE STATUTE DEFINING THE SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE. 
P. 216. 

2.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT FOR
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT (SEC. 35 CRIMINAL CODE),
UPON THE GROUND THAT THAT ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD
THE UNITED STATES BY OBTAINING APPROVAL OF CLAIMS TO PAYMENTS OF MONEY
THROUGH FALSE REPRESENTATIONS, IF THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING SUCH PAYMENTS
IS INVALID.  HELD: 

(1)  A CONSTRUCTION NOT OF THE INDICTMENT BUT OF THE FALSE CLAIMS
ACT.  P. 217. 

(2)  AN INADMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION.  ID. 

3.  THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN PAYMENTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT BY FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS ARE ESTOPPED TO DEFEND UPON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE
PROVIDING FOR SUCH PAYMENTS HAS BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  P.
218. 

UNITED STATES V. KAPP ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A DEMURRER TO AN INDICTMENT AND
DISMISSING THE CAUSE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE COMES HERE UNDER THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  18 U.S.C. 682. 

THE SECOND COUNT OF AN INDICTMENT CHARGED APPELLEES WITH CONSPIRACY
TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES BY FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION AND MAKING
FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IN ORDER TO SECURE
BENEFIT PAYMENTS UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF MAY 12, 1933,
C. 25, 48 STAT. 31; CRIMINAL CODE, SECS. 35, 37; 18 U.S.C., SECS. 80,
88.  THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED A DEMURRER TO THIS COUNT AND THE
GOVERNMENT APPEALS. 

THE CONTENTION OF THE GOVERNMENT IS THAT THE APPELLEES CONSPIRED TO
CHEAT THE UNITED STATES BY SELLING HOGS TO THE GOVERNMENT AT PREMIUM
PRICES THROUGH MISREPRESENTATION AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE PRODUCERS OF
THE HOGS SOLD AND THE CONTINUED OWNERSHIP BY SUCH PRODUCERS. 
APPELLEES' DEMURRER WENT UPON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AND THE REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE TO WHICH THE COUNT REFERRED ARE VOID (UNITED STATES V.
BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1) AND THAT THE ACTS SET FORTH IN THE INDICTMENT DO
NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE FALSE CLAIMS STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE PROSECUTION WAS BROUGHT
PENALIZES ONE WHO "FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE INTENT OF CHEATING AND
SWINDLING OR DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES  ...  SHALL
KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FALSIFY OR CONCEAL OR COVER UP BY ANY TRICK,
SCHEME, OR DEVICE A MATERIAL FACT, OR MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE ANY
FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS OR REPRESENTATIONS" (CRIMINAL CODE, SEC.
35; 35 STAT. 1095, AS AMENDED, 40 STAT. 1015).  AFTER REFERRING TO THE
STATUTE, THE DISTRICT JUDGE SAID IN HIS OPINION: 

"THE OVERT ACTS CHARGED, WHICH WOULD BE MATERIAL IN THIS COUNT, ARE
THAT HOGS WERE SHIPPED UNDER THE REPRESENTATION BY THE DEFENDANTS THAT
THEY WERE THE HOGS OF VARIOUS PRODUCERS WHEN IN FACT THE HOGS BELONGED
TO ONE OR MORE OF THE DEFENDANTS. 

"THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE HOGS WERE NOT SHIPPED AND THAT THE
BILLS, WHICH WERE MADE TO ARMOUR AND COMPANY AND OTHER PROCESSORS, WERE
NOT CORRECT BILLS, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE HOGS DID NOT ORIGINATE
FROM THE SOURCES REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANTS. 

"THIS CEASES TO BE A MATERIAL FACT, IF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT ARE VOID.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE
REPRESENTATIONS, WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE, CEASE TO BE
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF MATERIAL FACTS WHEN THE ACT ITSELF FALLS." 

1.  APPELLEES CONTEND THAT IF ANY STATUTE WAS CONSTRUED, IT WAS NOT
THE STATUTE ON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED AND HENCE THAT THIS
COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION.  THE POINT IS THAT THE INDICTMENT CHARGED A
CONSPIRACY UNDER CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 37.  BUT THE CONSPIRACY CHARGED IS
ONE TO VIOLATE THE FALSE CLAIMS STATUTE, CRIMINAL CODE, SEC. 35.  IN
SIMILAR CASES THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED.  THE
STATUTE, AT THE VIOLATION OF WHICH THE CONSPIRACY IS AIMED, HAS BEEN
TREATED AS THE STATUTE UPON WHICH THE INDICTMENT IS FOUNDED WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ACT.  UNITED STATES V. BOWMAN, 260 U.S.
94, 95; UNITED STATES V. WALTER, 263 U.S. 15, 16, 17.  SEE, ALSO,
UNITED STATES V. KEITEL, 211 U.S. 370, 387. 

2.  APPELLEES CONTEND THAT THE COURT BELOW CONSTRUED THE INDICTMENT
AND NOT THE STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250 U.S. 300,
306; UNITED STATES V. HASTINGS, 296 U.S. 188, 192.  THE ARGUMENT IS
THAT A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE SEC. 35 MUST INVOLVE A PECUNIARY FRAUD. 
UNITED STATES V. COHN, 270 U.S. 339, 345, 346.  IN THAT VIEW APPELLEES
URGE THAT THE COURT BELOW HAS SIMPLY RULED THAT THERE WAS NO PECUNIARY
LOSS UNDER THE FACTS ALLEGED.  BUT THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND NO FLAW IN
THE INDICTMENT AS A PLEADING.  NOR DOES THE COURT APPEAR TO HAVE
CONSIDERED THE QUESTION OF PECUNIARY LOSS.  THE COURT RESTED ITS
DECISION UPON THE POINT THAT THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT WITH
RESPECT TO THE IDENTITY OF THE PRODUCERS OF THE HOGS, OR THE SOURCES
FROM WHICH THE HOGS ORIGINATED, HAD CEASED TO BE MATERIAL BECAUSE OF
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT.  THIS DID NOT PURPORT TO BE A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
INDICTMENT BUT A RULING THAT THE INDICTMENT IN VIEW OF THE INVALIDITY
OF THAT ACT FAILED TO STATE AN OFFENSE.  THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DECISION
THUS APPEARS TO BE THAT THE FALSE CLAIMS STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN
ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES BY OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF
CLAIMS AND BENEFIT PAYMENTS THROUGH FALSE REPRESENTATIONS, IF THE
STATUTE PROVIDING FOR SUCH CLAIMS AND PAYMENTS IS FOUND TO BE INVALID. 
THAT IS CLEARLY A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  UNITED STATES V.
PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525, 535; UNITED STATES V. BIRDSALL, 233 U.S. 223,
230. 

3.  SUCH A CONSTRUCTION IS INADMISSIBLE.  IT MIGHT AS WELL BE SAID
THAT ONE COULD EMBEZZLE MONEYS IN THE UNITED STATES TREASURY WITH
IMPUNITY IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY WERE COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF
INVALID TRANSACTIONS.  SEE MADDEN V. UNITED STATES, 80 F.(2D) 672,
674.  APPELLEES WERE NOT INDICTED FOR A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE
AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT BUT FOR A CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE STATUTE
PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES AGAINST FRAUDS.  IT IS CHEATING THE
GOVERNMENT AT WHICH THE STATUTE AIMS AND CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO
PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD SWINDLE IT REGARDLESS OF
QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS TO THE OPERATIONS THAT THE
GOVERNMENT IS CONDUCTING.  SUCH QUESTIONS CANNOT BE RAISED BY THOSE WHO
MAKE FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.  SEE LANGER V. UNITED STATES,
76 F.(2D) 817, 824, 825; MADDEN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; UNITED STATES
V. HARDING, 65 APP. D.C. 161; 81 F.(2D) 563, 568; UNITED STATES V.
MACDONALD, 10 F.SUPP.  948. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :




FLEISHER V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 218 


NO. 202.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 91
F.(2D) 404, REVERSED. 


1.  REGISTRATION OF STILLS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DISTILLED SPIRITS
SHOULD BE WITH THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT IN THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE.  P. 219. 

A COUNT CHARGING CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSING SUCH
STILLS "WITHOUT HAVING THE SAME REGISTERED WITH THE COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, AS REQUIRED BY LAW," IS THEREFORE BAD.  (CF. REV.
STATS. SEC. 3258; 26 U.S.C. SEC. 1162.) 

2.  WHEN THE FIRST OF SEVERAL COUNTS UPON WHICH CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES
ARE BASED IS DEFECTIVE THE SENTENCES SHOULD BE CORRECTED SO AS TO FIX A
DEFINITE DATE FOR THEIR COMMENCEMENT.  P. 220. 

HARRY FLEISHER ET AL. V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 203, SAM FLEISHER V. UNITED STATES; AND NO. 204,
STEIN V. UNITED STATES, ALSO ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 673, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS AFFIRMING JUDGMENTS
SENTENCING PETITIONERS AFTER CONVICTION UPON FOUR COUNTS OF A JOINT
INDICTMENT FOR CONSPIRACY. 

PER CURIAM. 

JUDGMENTS OF CONVICTION ON FOUR COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT CHARGING
CONSPIRACIES TO VIOLATE PROVISIONS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS WERE
AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  91 F.(2D) 404.  CERTIORARI
WAS GRANTED, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FIRST COUNT OF THE
INDICTMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER FEDERAL LAW. 

THE FIRST COUNT ALLEGED THAT DEFENDANTS FROM OCTOBER 1, 1934, TO THE
DATE OF THE INDICTMENT, OCTOBER 30, 1935, UNLAWFULLY CONSPIRED TO
POSSESS, AND CAUSE TO BE POSSESSED, STILLS AND APPARATUS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF DISTILLED SPIRITS WITHOUT HAVING THE SAME REGISTERED WITH
THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE AS REQUIRED BY LAW.  THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDES THAT UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW THE CHARGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT
THERE WAS FAILURE TO REGISTER THE STILLS WITH THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR
OF THE ALCOHOL TAX UNIT IN THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE.  THE FIRST
COUNT FAILED TO STATE AN OFFENSE.  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1927, C. 348, 44
STAT. 1381; 5 U.S.C. 281 C; PROHIBITION REORGANIZATION ACT OF MAY 27,
1930, C. 342, 46 STAT. 427; REGULATIONS NO. 3, BUREAU OF INDUSTRIAL
ALCOHOL, TREASURY DEPARTMENT (MARCH 24, 1931), ARTICLE 14; ACT OF MARCH
3, 1933, C. 212, SEC. 16, 47 STAT. 1518; EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6639,
MARCH 10, 1934, 5 U.S.C. 132 NOTE; TREASURY DECISION NO. 4432, MAY 10,
1934.  SCOTT V. UNITED STATES, 78 F.(2D) 791; BENTON V. UNITED STATES,
80 F.(2D) 162. 

THE SENTENCE UPON COUNT TWO PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL RUN "FROM AND
AFTER EXPIRATION OF TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED ON COUNT ONE."  EACH
OF THE SENTENCES ON THE REMAINING COUNTS RUNS FROM THE EXPIRATION OF
THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED ON THE PRECEDING COUNT.  IN VIEW OF
THE INVALIDITY OF THE SENTENCE ON COUNT ONE, THE SENTENCES ON THE
REMAINING COUNTS SHOULD BE AMENDED SO AS TO FIX A DEFINITE DATE FOR
THEIR COMMENCEMENT. 

THE JUDGMENTS ON COUNT ONE ARE SEVERALLY REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 
..END :







FORTE V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 220 


NO. 459.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937. 


1.  A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AGREED TO BY COUNSEL AND FILED WITH THE CLERK
OF THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED FOR SETTLEMENT BY NO. IX
OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES, BUT NOT SETTLED AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE
UNTIL AFTERWARDS, IS NOT SETTLED IN TIME.  P. 223. 

IF THE TRIAL JUDGE IS ABSENT FROM THE DISTRICT, THE RULE PERMITS
SETTLEMENT BY ANY OTHER JUDGE ASSIGNED TO HOLD, OR HOLDING, THE COURT
IN WHICH THE CASE WAS TRIED. 

2.  WHERE THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES A CRIMINAL APPEAL FOR THE
APPELLANT UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IS PROPERLY
BEFORE IT, AND THE OBJECTION THAT THE BILL WAS NOT SETTLED IN TIME IS
FIRST MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING, THAT COURT,
EXERCISING ITS BROAD AUTHORITY UNDER RULE NO. IV, MAY, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE, REFUSE TO STRIKE THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AND MAY APPROVE THE
SETTLEMENT AND FILING THERETOFORE HAD.  P. 223. 

FORTE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

PER CURIAM. 

THE CASE COMES HERE ON CERTIFIED QUESTIONS.  28 U.S.C. 346. 

APPELLANT WAS INDICTED FOR VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE
THEFT ACT, 41 STAT. 324, 18 U.S.C. 408.  HE WAS CONVICTED, SENTENCED,
AND ON JULY 1, 1936, IN DUE TIME, TOOK AN APPEAL.  ON JULY 20, 1936, HE
FILED AN ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS AND A DESIGNATION OF RECORD.  ON THAT
DATE, HE ALSO SUBMITTED A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS BY FILING IT, NOT SIGNED
BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT.  AT THE SAME TIME, HE
GAVE NOTICE OF THAT FILING TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY STATING THAT
HE WOULD SUBMIT THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS FOR SETTLEMENT.  PRIOR TO JULY
31, 1936, THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS WAS "AGREED UPON" BY THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY AND APPELLANT'S COUNSEL.  ON JULY 31, 1936, THE TRIAL JUDGE
WAS ON VACATION OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT AND WAS NOT TO RETURN UNTIL
SEPTEMBER.  HE SIGNED THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1936. 
BELOW HIS SIGNATURE APPEARED THE STATEMENT "THE FOREGOING BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS IS SATISFACTORY TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE DEFENDANT," SIGNED
BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH PARTIES.  THERE WAS NO EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
THE SETTLEMENT OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, WHICH, TOGETHER WITH THE
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS, WAS TRANSMITTED TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1936.  ARGUMENT WAS HAD IN DUE COURSE AND ON
APRIL 5, 1937, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE REVERSED.  THE ERRORS ASSIGNED AND ARGUED ON
THE APPEAL INVOLVED SOLELY THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AS SHOWN BY
THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED A MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT TO STAY THE
MANDATE AND ALSO A MOTION FOR REHEARING "LIMITED TO THE LEGAL EFFECT OF
THE SETTLEMENT OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS ON SEPTEMBER 2, 1936, THE
APPEAL HAVING BEEN PERFECTED ON JULY 1, 1936."  THE GOVERNMENT MOVED
THAT THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS BE STRICKEN AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT BE AFFIRMED.  THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS CERTIFIED THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 

"1.  WHEN, IN A CRIMINAL CASE, A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS HAS, WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE TAKING OF AN APPEAL, BEEN PREPARED, AGREED TO BY
COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES AND THE APPELLANT, AND 'SUBMITTED' BY
FILING THE SAME WITH THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT, BUT WHEN THE
TRIAL JUDGE DOES NOT SETTLE AND SIGN THE BILL WITHIN SAID THIRTY DAYS,
BUT DOES SETTLE AND SIGN THE SAME THEREAFTER, IS THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
PROPERLY SETTLED AND SIGNED? 

"IF QUESTION NO. 1 IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, THEN: 

"2.  WHEN, IN A CRIMINAL CASE, A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS NOT SETTLED AND
SIGNED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE WITHIN PROPER TIME, BUT NEVERTHELESS ACTUALLY
SETTLED AND SIGNED BY SAID JUDGE, IS TRANSMITTED BY THE CLERK OF THE
DISTRICT COURT TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, TOGETHER WITH THE
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS AND OTHER PERTINENT PAPERS, AND WHEN THE COURT OF
APPEALS HEARS THE APPEAL UPON ERRORS ASSIGNED AND ARGUED INVOLVING
SOLELY THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT OF GUILTY,
AND ADJUDGES THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT BE REVERSED, AND
WHEN THROUGHOUT THE APPEAL THE UNITED STATES RAISES NO QUESTION AS TO
THE VALIDITY OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, AND WHEN QUESTION AS TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IS FOR THE FIRST TIME RAISED UPON
PETITION FOR REHEARING BY THE UNITED STATES, AND WHEN ON REHEARING
GRANTED MOTION IS MADE BY THE UNITED STATES TO STRIKE THE BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS, MUST THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS BE STRICKEN? 

"IF QUESTION NO. 2 IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THEN 

"3.  WHEN, IN A CRIMINAL CASE, THE VALIDITY OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
IS FOR THE FIRST TIME RAISED ON PETITION FOR REHEARING BY THE UNITED
STATES AFTER THE CASE HAS BEEN HEARD AND REVERSED ON APPEAL UPON ERRORS
INVOLVING SOLELY THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT
OF GUILTY, AND WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS ON REHEARING GRANTED AND
MOTION TO STRIKE HAS STRICKEN THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AS NOT SETTLED AND
SIGNED WITHIN PROPER TIME, IS IT WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS THEN TO MAKE AN ORDER EXTENDING THE TIME FOR SETTLEMENT AND
SIGNING OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS BY THE TRIAL JUDGE IN ORDER THAT THE
CASE MAY BE HEARD ANEW UPON THE MERITS?" 

THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS WAS NOT SETTLED AND FILED IN TIME.  RULE IX,
CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES.  THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS ABSENT FROM
THE DISTRICT WAS NOT AN EXCUSE.  THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES PROVIDE IN
THAT CASE FOR SETTLEMENT BY ANY OTHER JUDGE ASSIGNED TO HOLD, OR
HOLDING, THE COURT IN WHICH THE CASE WAS TRIED.  RULE XIII.  BUT
ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS WAS NOT SETTLED AND FILED IN TIME, THE
COURT OF APPEALS, FROM THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE DUPLICATE NOTICE
OF APPEAL, HAD COMPLETE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON
THE APPEAL, INCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF
THE RECORD ON APPEAL.  RULE IV. 

UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PROVISIONS OF RULE IV, THE COURT OF APPEALS
MAY VACATE OR MODIFY ANY ORDER MADE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE IN RELATION TO
THE PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL AND THIS AUTHORITY EXTENDS TO ANY ORDER
FIXING THE TIME FOR THE SETTLEMENT AND FILING OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. 
RAY V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 158, 163, 164.  THE COURT OF APPEALS MAY
EXTEND THE TIME OR SHORTEN THE TIME.  THROUGH ITS SUPERVISION AND
CONTROL IT MAY CORRECT ANY MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN RESPECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.  NEITHER PARTY IS REMEDILESS WHEN
SUCH CORRECTIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED.  TO THAT END, AND IN ORDER TO GIVE
A DESIRABLE FLEXIBILITY, THE RULES DO NOT ATTEMPT TO LAY DOWN SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS TO MEET VARIOUS SITUATIONS BUT PLACE UPON THE COURT OF
APPEALS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXERCISE OF A REASONABLE CONTROL
OVER ALL THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE APPEAL.  RAY V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA. 

IN THIS INSTANCE, HAD THE QUESTION BEEN RAISED IN LIMINE, THE COURT
OF APPEALS WOULD HAVE HAD POWER TO DETERMINE WHAT THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE REQUIRED AND IT LOST NONE OF THAT POWER BY REASON OF THE FACT
THAT THE QUESTION WAS NOT BROUGHT TO ITS ATTENTION UNTIL THE COURT HAD
HEARD ARGUMENT AND REACHED A DECISION UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE BILL
OF EXCEPTIONS WAS PROPERLY BEFORE IT.  AS NO QUESTION APPEARS TO HAVE
BEEN RAISED AS TO THE PROPRIETY OR SUFFICIENCY OF THE BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS, APART FROM THE TIME OF SETTLEMENT AND FILING, IT WOULD BE A
MERE IDLE FORM TO EXTEND THE TIME AND RETURN THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS FOR
RESETTLEMENT ACCORDINGLY, WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS POWER TO DO,
AND THUS TO HAVE THE SAME BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AGAIN PRESENTED AND THE
CASE HEARD ANEW UPON THE MERITS, AND THE COURT MAY, IN ITS SOUND
DISCRETION REFUSE TO STRIKE THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AND APPROVE THE
SETTLEMENT AND FILING HERETOFORE HAD. 

QUESTION NO. 1 IS ANSWERED "NO".  QUESTION NO. 2 IS ANSWERED "NO". 
QUESTION NO. 3 IS NOT ANSWERED.  IT IS SO ORDERED. 
..END :



















FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. PINK, 302 U.S. 224 


NO. 38.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 18, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  -
88 F.(2D) 630, REVERSED. 


1.  STANDARD FORM OF REINSURANCE CONTRACT, PROVIDING FOR INSURANCE
"AGAINST LOSS," AND REQUIRING REINSURER TO PAY ITS SHARE OF ANY LOSS
UNDER THE ORIGINAL INSURANCE, AND OF COSTS &C. "UPON PROOF OF THE
PAYMENT OF SUCH ITEMS BY THE REINSURED, AND UPON DELIVERY TO THE
REINSURER OF COPIES OF ALL ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS CONCERNED WITH SUCH LOSS
AND COSTS AND THE PAYMENT THEREOF," - HELD TO MAKE PAYMENT OF LOSS BY
REINSURED A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO REINSURER'S LIABILITY.  ALLEMANNIA
INSURANCE CO. V. FIREMAN'S INSURANCE CO., 209 U.S. 326, DISTINGUISHED. 
P. 227. 

2.  LIABILITY UNDER A CONTRACT OF REINSURANCE MUST BE DETERMINED UPON
CONSIDERATION OF THE WORDS EMPLOYED, READ IN THE LIGHT OF ATTENDING
CIRCUMSTANCES.  P. 229. 

3.  ASSUMPTION THAT CHANGE OF LANGUAGE IN A FORM OF REINSURANCE
CONTRACT WAS INTENDED TO IMPOSE DIFFERENT LIABILITY FROM THAT IMPOSED
BY AN EARLIER FORM AS CONSTRUED BY A DECISION OF THIS COURT.  P. 230. 

FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. PINK, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF NEW
YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 678, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 15 F.SUPP.  715, IN FAVOR OF THE PRESENT RESPONDENT
IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER UPON A CONTRACT OF REINSURANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN 1930 SOUTHERN SURETY COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, ISSUED TO
JOHN DEMARTINI CO., INC., A FIDELITY INSURANCE BOND AND ON THE SAME DAY
REINSURED HALF OF THE RISK WITH PETITIONER, FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY
OF MARYLAND.  THE DEMARTINI CO. CLAIMED A LOSS.  WHILE THIS WAS IN
COURSE OF ADJUSTMENT (MARCH, 1932), A NEW YORK COURT ADJUDGED THE
SOUTHERN COMPANY INSOLVENT AND DISSOLVED IT.  RESPONDENT PINK,
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE FOR NEW YORK, TOOK POSSESSION OF ITS
PROPERTY AND ENTERED UPON LIQUIDATION OF THE BUSINESS. 

HE ALLOWED BUT DID NOT DISCHARGE THE DEMARTINI COMPANY'S CLAIM. 
THEREUPON HE DEMANDED THAT PETITIONER PAY HALF OF IT.  THIS HAVING BEEN
REFUSED HE INSTITUTED THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT TO RECOVER UPON THE REINSURANCE CONTRACT.  JUDGMENT WENT IN HIS
FAVOR; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED; THE MATTER IS HERE UPON
CERTIORARI.  THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. 

THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES INCORPORATED THE
"STANDARD FORM OF REINSURANCE AGREEMENT" ADOPTED BY THE SURETY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA IN 1930.  THIS FORM PROVIDES - 

"IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMIUM PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 1 HEREOF
............ HEREINAFTER CALLED THE REINSURER, DOES HEREBY REINSURE
FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
REINSURED, UNDER BOND NUMBERED ............, TOGETHER WITH ALL RIDERS
ATTACHED THERETO, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE BOND, ISSUED BY THE REINSURED
IN THE PENALTY OF ............ DOLLARS, IN FAVOR OF ............
(OBLIGEE), AND IN BEHALF OF ............ HEREINAFTER CALLED THE
PRINCIPAL, AGAINST LOSS THEREUNDER AND AGAINST COSTS AND EXPENSES, AS
HEREINAFTER DEFINED, AND INTEREST.  A COPY OF THE BOND IS OR MAY BE
ATTACHED HERETO, AND IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. 

"THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND
PROVISIONS:..."  (THESE APPEAR IN FIFTEEN SUCCEEDING SECTIONS.) 

OTHER THINGS - 

"THE REINSURER'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF A LOSS UNDER THE BOND, OF
COSTS AND EXPENSES AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED, AND OF INTEREST, SHALL BE
PAID TO THE REINSURED UPON PROOF OF THE PAYMENT OF SUCH ITEMS BY THE
REINSURED, AND UPON DELIVERY TO THE REINSURER OF COPIES OF ALL
ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS CONCERNED WITH SUCH LOSS AND COSTS AND THE PAYMENT
THEREOF.  THE REINSURED MAY, HOWEVER, GIVE THE REINSURER WRITTEN NOTICE
OF ITS INTENTION TO PAY THE LOSS ON A CERTAIN DATE, AND MAY REQUIRE THE
REINSURER TO HAVE ITS SHARE OF SUCH LOSS IN THE HANDS OF THE REINSURED
BY SUCH DATE: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE REINSURER IN ANY EVENT SHALL
HAVE A PERIOD OF FORTY-EIGHT HOURS, AFTER THE RECEIPT OF SUCH WRITTEN
NOTICE FROM THE REINSURED, TO MAIL OR OTHERWISE DESPATCH ITS PAYMENT;
AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN ANY SUCH CASE THE REINSURER, IF IT DESIRES
TO DO SO, MAY PAY ITS SHARE OF THE LOSS BY MEANS OF A CHECK DRAWN IN
FAVOR OF THE OBLIGEE OF THE BOND." 

PETITIONER'S COUNSEL MAINTAIN THAT THE STANDARD FORM PROVIDES FOR
INSURANCE ONLY "AGAINST LOSS"; THAT THE REINSURER THEREUNDER BECOMES
LIABLE ONLY UPON "PROOF OF THE PAYMENT OF SUCH ITEMS BY THE REINSURED,
AND UPON DELIVERY TO THE REINSURER OF COPIES OF ALL ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS
CONCERNED WITH SUCH LOSS AND COSTS AND THE PAYMENT THEREOF"; THAT
PAYMENT BY THE REINSURED IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE REINSURER'S
LIABILITY.  SUNDRY PROVISIONS IN THE FORM, INDICATED BELOW, THEY SAY
LEND SUPPORT TO THIS VIEW.  FN1 

RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THAT PROOF OF PAYMENT IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO
RECOVERY. 

BOTH COURTS BELOW THOUGHT THAT ALLEMANNIA INSURANCE CO. V. FIREMAN'S
INSURANCE CO., 209 U.S. 326(1908), REQUIRED APPROVAL OF RESPONDENT'S
CONTENTION.  THIS WAS ERROR.  THE DEFENSE WAS WELL TAKEN AND SHOULD
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. 

WE DO NOT QUESTION THE GENERAL RULES CONCERNING LIABILITY OF
REINSURERS ANNOUNCED IN THE ALLEMANNIA CASE; BUT THE LIABILITY UNDER
ANY WRITTEN CONTRACT MUST BE DETERMINED UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE WORDS
EMPLOYED, READ IN THE LIGHT OF ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 

HERE THE TWO INSURANCE COMPANIES STOOD UPON AN EQUAL FOOTING; BOTH
WERE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD.  THE LANGUAGE USED DIFFERS MATERIALLY FROM
THAT FOUND IN THE POLICY OF THE ALLEMANNIA COMPANY.  THERE IS NO
AMBIGUITY AND NO CIRCUMSTANCE REQUIRES DISREGARD OF THE ORDINARY
MEANING OF THE LANGUAGE. 

THE 1930 FORM PROVIDES, "THE REINSURER DOES HEREBY REINSURE AGAINST
LOSS."  THE ALLEMANNIA POLICY DECLARED THE COMPANY "HEREBY AGREES TO
REINSURE." 

PETITIONER'S POLICY SAYS - "THE REINSURER'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE
LOSS  ...  SHALL BE PAID TO THE REINSURED UPON PROOF OF THE PAYMENT OF
SUCH ITEMS BY THE REINSURED AND UPON THE DELIVERY TO THE REINSURER OF
COPIES OF ALL ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS CONCERNED WITH SUCH LOSS AND THE
PAYMENT THEREOF."  THE ALLEMANNIA POLICY CONTAINED NO EQUIVALENT
TERMS.  IT PROVIDED - "UPON RECEIVING NOTICE OF ANY LOSS OR CLAIM UNDER
ANY CONTRACT HEREUNDER REINSURED, THE SAID REINSURED COMPANY SHALL
PROMPTLY ADVISE THE SAID ALLEMANNIA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AT
PITTSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA, OF THE SAME, AND OF THE DATE AND PROBABLE
AMOUNT OF LOSS OR DAMAGE, AND AFTER SAID REINSURED COMPANY SHALL HAVE
ADJUSTED, ACCEPTED PROOFS OF, OR PAID SUCH LOSS OR DAMAGE, IT SHALL
FORWARD TO THE SAID ALLEMANNIA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, AT PITTSBURG,
PENNSYLVANIA, A PROOF OF ITS LOSS AND CLAIM AGAINST THIS COMPANY UPON
BLANKS FURNISHED FOR THAT PURPOSE BY SAID FIREMEN'S INSURANCE COMPANY,
TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PROOFS AND CLAIM UNDER ITS
CONTRACT REINSURED, AND A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT TAKEN UPON THE
PAYMENT OF SUCH LOSS;..." 

AS THE STANDARD FORM OF 1930 WAS ADOPTED TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE
ALLEMANNIA CASE IT FAIRLY MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE DISSIMILAR LANGUAGE
EMPLOYED WAS INTENDED TO IMPOSE LIABILITY DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE THERE
FOUND TO EXIST. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED.  THE CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  INTRODUCTION - "DOES HEREBY REINSURE  ...  AGAINST LOSS." 


"3.  UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY AGREED, THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY
RETAINED BY THE REINSURED AT ITS OWN RISK BOTH WHEN THIS AGREEMENT IS
MADE AND AT THE TIME OF ANY BREACH OF THE BOND RESULTING IN A CLAIM
THEREUNDER SHALL BE: 

"(A)  IF THE BOND BE OTHER THAN A DEPOSITORY BOND OR BLANKET BOND, IN
NO EVENT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT CEDED HEREUNDER, SUCH RETENTION TO BE
CARRIED UNDER THE BOND; OR 

"(B)  IF THE BOND BE A DEPOSITORY BOND, IN NO EVENT LESS THAN THE
AMOUNT CEDED HEREUNDER PLUS THE AMOUNT OF ALL REINSURANCE CEDED BY THE
REINSURED TO THE REINSURER UNDER ANY OTHER DEPOSITORY BOND OR BONDS
ISSUED BY THE REINSURER IN BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPAL AND EFFECTIVE AT THE
TIME OF ANY BREACH OF THE BOND RESULTING IN A CLAIM THEREUNDER, SUCH
RETENTION TO BE CARRIED UNDER ANY DEPOSITORY BOND OR BONDS ISSUED
AND/OR ANY DEPOSITORY REINSURANCE OR REINSURANCES CARRIED BY THE
REINSURED IN BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPAL; OR 

"(C)  IF THE BOND BE A BLANKET BOND, IN NO EVENT LESS THAN THE AMOUNT
CEDED HEREUNDER PLUS THE AMOUNT OF ALL REINSURANCE CEDED BY THE
REINSURED TO THE REINSURER UNDER ANY OTHER BLANKET BOND OR BONDS ISSUED
BY THE REINSURED IN FAVOR OF THE SAME INSURED AND EFFECTIVE AT THE TIME
OF ANY BREACH OF THE BOND RESULTING IN A CLAIM THEREUNDER; SUCH
RETENTION TO BE CARRIED UNDER ANY BLANKET BOND OR BONDS ISSUED AND/OR
ANY BLANKET BOND REINSURANCE OR REINSURANCES CARRIED BY THE REINSURED
IN FAVOR OF THE SAME INSURED.  THE ACTUAL RETAINED LIABILITY OF THE
REINSURED AS AFORESAID SHALL NOT BE MORE REMOTE THAN THAT CEDED TO THE
REINSURER, WHETHER IT BE PRIMARY OR EXCESS OR PARTLY PRIMARY AND PARTLY
EXCESS...." 


     .         .         .      .         . 

"THE REINSURER'S PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF A LOSS UNDER THE BOND, OF
COSTS AND EXPENSES AS HEREINAFTER DEFINED, AND OF INTEREST, SHALL BE
PAID TO THE REINSURED UPON PROOF OF THE PAYMENT OF SUCH ITEMS BY THE
REINSURED, AND UPON DELIVERY TO THE REINSURER OF COPIES OF ALL
ESSENTIAL DOCUMENTS CONCERNED WITH SUCH LOSS AND COSTS AND THE PAYMENT
THEREOF.  THE REINSURED MAY, HOWEVER, GIVE THE REINSURER WRITTEN NOTICE
OF ITS INTENTION TO PAY THE LOSS ON A CERTAIN DATE, AND MAY REQUIRE THE
REINSURER TO HAVE ITS SHARE OF SUCH LOSS IN THE HANDS OF THE REINSURED
BY SUCH DATE: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE REINSURER IN ANY EVENT SHALL
HAVE A PERIOD OF FORTY-EIGHT HOURS, AFTER THE RECEIPT OF SUCH WRITTEN
NOTICE FROM THE REINSURED, TO MAIL OR OTHERWISE DESPATCH ITS PAYMENT;
AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IN ANY SUCH CASE THE REINSURER, IF IT DESIRES
TO DO SO, MAY PAY ITS SHARE OF THE LOSS BY MEANS OF A CHECK DRAWN IN
FAVOR OF THE OBLIGEE OF THE BOND. 

"THE REINSURER MAY INSPECT THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CLAIMS
AND LOSSES UNDER THE BOND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE REINSURED. 

"THE TERM COSTS AND EXPENSES SHALL MEAN ALL EXPENDITURES MADE IN
INVESTIGATING AND SETTLING ANY CLAIM UNDER THE BOND; ALL EXPENDITURES
MADE IN INVESTIGATING, SETTLING, OR DEFENDING, OR ATTEMPTING TO DEFEND,
ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDING BASED UPON THE BOND; ALL EXPENDITURES MADE IN
PROCURING OR ATTEMPTING TO PROCURE RESTITUTION OR RECOVERY ON ACCOUNT
OF ANY LOSS, COSTS, OR EXPENSES; AND ALL EXPENDITURES MADE IN
PROSECUTING OR ATTEMPTING TO PROSECUTE ANY PERSON CAUSING A LOSS UNDER
THE BOND." 


"THE REINSURER SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SHARE WITH THE REINSURED, IN THE
PROPORTION DEFINED IN SECTION 2 HEREOF, ANY COLLATERAL SECURITY OR
INDEMNITY HELD BY THE REINSURED  ..." 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CAUSE. 
..END :










ALUMINUM CO. V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 230 


NO. 281.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 9, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  -
AFFIRMED. 


AN EARLIER CONSENT DECREE AGAINST A CORPORATION IN A SUIT BY THE
GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS HELD NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
PROSECUTION OF A LATER SUIT UNDER THOSE LAWS IN ANOTHER DISTRICT
DIFFERING SUBSTANTIALLY IN SUBJECT MATTER, PARTIES, ISSUES AND RELIEF
SOUGHT.  P. 232. 

ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, 20 F.SUPP. 
608, DENYING A PETITION FOR AN INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL BRINGS UP A FINAL DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, THREE JUDGES SITTING, WHICH VACATED A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND REFUSED TO RESTRAIN LAW OFFICERS OF THE
UNITED STATES FROM CONDUCTING A PROCEEDING AGAINST APPELLANT IN ANOTHER
DISTRICT. 

JUNE 9, 1912, IN THE PRESENT CAUSE - "PENNSYLVANIA SUIT" - WHEN
APPELLANT WAS THE ONLY DEFENDANT, A CONSENT DECREE CANCELLED CERTAIN
RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS OF DESIGNATED CONTRACTS AND FORBADE FUTURE
VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS BY IT, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND
REPRESENTATIVES.  WITH CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS (1922) PRESENTLY
UNIMPORTANT THIS DECREE REMAINS IN FORCE. 

APRIL 23, 1937, THE UNITED STATES THROUGH THEIR LAW OFFICERS,
DEFENDANTS HERE, INSTITUTED A PROCEEDING IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK - "NEW YORK SUIT" - WHEREIN THE APPELLANT, ITS OFFICERS,
AGENTS, STOCKHOLDERS AND OTHERS (SIXTY-THREE IN ALL), WERE NAMED AS
DEFENDANTS.  ALL OF THESE WERE CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE ANTITRUST
LAWS AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF THROUGH INJUNCTIONS, DISSOLUTION OF
APPELLANT, REARRANGEMENT OF ITS PROPERTIES, ETC., WAS ASKED. 

APRIL 29, 1937, IN THE "PENNSYLVANIA SUIT" APPELLANT ASKED AND THE
DISTRICT COURT ENTERED AN EX PARTE ORDER DIRECTING THE LAW OFFICERS
CONCERNED WITH THE NEW YORK SUIT TO APPEAR AS DEFENDANTS.  IT THEN
FILED THE PETITION NOW BEFORE US WHEREIN IT PRAYED FOR AN INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING THESE OFFICERS FROM PROCEEDING FURTHER IN NEW YORK AGAINST
IT, ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS. 

THE PETITION CHARGED THAT PROSECUTION OF THE LATER SUIT WOULD SUBJECT
APPELLANT TO THE PERIL OF CONCURRENT DECREES ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER
BY TWO COURTS; ALSO THAT THERE WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICTING
DECREES AND UNSEEMLY CONFLICT.  THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF RESTED
ESSENTIALLY UPON THE ASSERTION THAT THE SUIT EMBRACED SUBJECT MATTERS
AND ISSUES SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THOSE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED AND
ADJUDICATED BY THE CONSENT DECREE OF 1912. 

THE LAW OFFICERS APPEARED SPECIALLY AND ANSWERED; THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL FILED AN EXPEDITING CERTIFICATE UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11,
1903, AS AMENDED, 15 U.S.C. 28, 29; A COURT OF THREE JUDGES ASSEMBLED,
HEARD EVIDENCE, MADE FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENIED RELIEF.  ERRORS WERE
ASSIGNED; THIS APPEAL FOLLOWED. 

PLAINLY, AND THERE IS NO SUGGESTION TO THE CONTRARY, APPELLANT CANNOT
SUCCEED UNLESS THE PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW YORK SUITS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL IN SUBJECT MATTER AND ISSUES.  IT SAYS THAT COMPARISON OF THE
PETITIONS IN THE TWO CAUSES REVEALS THIS FACT.  ALSO THAT COMPARISON OF
THE PETITION IN THE LATER SUIT WITH THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE 1912
CONSENT DECREE SHOWS THE ALLEGED IDENTITY, SINCE EACH CHARGING
PARAGRAPH OF THE PETITION SETS UP VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS
INHIBITED BY THE DECREE. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES SUBMIT THAT THE TWO
SUITS DIFFER IN SUBSTANTIAL RESPECTS - DEFENDANTS, CHARGES AND RELIEF
PRAYED. 

THE COURT BELOW FOUND:  "THE SUBJECT MATTER, PARTIES, ISSUES AND
RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE NEW YORK SUIT DIFFER SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THOSE IN
THE 1912 SUIT.  THE NEW YORK SUIT DOES NOT ATTACK THE AFFIRMATIVE
PROVISIONS OF THE 1912 DECREE OR SEEK TO REVERSE ANY ACTION TAKEN BY
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUIT
IN 1912.  THE NEW YORK SUIT DOES NOT SUBJECT ALUMINUM COMPANY TO THE
PERIL OF TWO CONFLICTING DECREES.  ALUMINUM COMPANY WILL NOT SUFFER
IRREPARABLE INJURY BY BEING COMPELLED TO DEFEND THE SUIT IN THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK...."  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE TWO SUITS
WERE DISSIMILAR IN RESPECT OF PARTIES DEFENDANT, SUBJECT MATTER, ISSUES
AND RELIEF SOUGHT, AND THAT NO BASIS FOR AN INJUNCTION HAD BEEN SHOWN. 

WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL, EXAMINED THE RECORD AND BRIEFS, AND ARE UNABLE
TO SAY THAT THE COURT BELOW ERRED EITHER IN RESPECT OF ITS FINDINGS OR
CONCLUSION.  THE FINDINGS ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED AND THE CONCLUSION
REACHED, WE THINK, IS PROPER.  FOR US AGAIN TO ANALYZE THE PLEADINGS,
EVIDENCE AND DECREES AND POINT OUT THE DIFFERENCES AND NECESSARY
INFERENCES WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE.  THIS WAS ADEQUATELY DONE
BELOW. 

THE CHALLENGED DECREE MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE STONE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CAUSE. 
..END :

















PHILLIPS-JONES CORP. V. PARMLEY, 302 U.S. 233 


NO. 45.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 19, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 88
F.(2D) 958, REVERSED. 


1.  A STOCKHOLDER WHO HAS RECEIVED HIS PRO RATA SHARE OF THE CORPORATE
ASSETS UPON DISSOLUTION OF THE CORPORATION AND HAS BEEN COMPELLED BY
ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 280(A)(1) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 TO PAY THE
WHOLE OF INCOME AND PROFITS TAXES OWED BY THE CORPORATION, IS ENTITLED
TO CONTRIBUTION FROM HIS CO-STOCKHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED FOR
THE TAXES, AND MAY MAINTAIN A BILL THEREFOR.  P. 235. 

2.  THE LIABILITY OF THE CO-STOCKHOLDERS TO CONTRIBUTE ARISES UNDER
THE GENERAL LAW; IT IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT
AGAINST THEM UNDER SEC. 280.  P. 236. 

PHILLIPS-JONES CORPORATION ET AL. V. PARMLEY, EXECUTRIX, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 680, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A DECREE
DISMISSING A BILL FOR CONTRIBUTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS THE STOCKHOLDER'S RIGHT TO
CONTRIBUTION. 

IN 1919, THE COOMBS GARMENT COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION,
WOUND UP ITS AFFAIRS AND DISTRIBUTED ITS ASSETS RATABLY AMONG ITS
ELEVEN STOCKHOLDERS.  IN 1924 AND 1925, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE ASSESSED AGAINST THE COMPANY ADDITIONAL INCOME AND PROFITS
TAXES FOR THE YEARS 1918 AND 1919.  TO THE EXTENT OF $9,306.36 THESE
TAXES REMAINED UNPAID.  I. L. PHILLIPS, A STOCKHOLDER RESIDENT IN NEW
YORK CITY, HAD RECEIVED IN 1919 LIQUIDATING DIVIDENDS IN EXCESS OF THAT
AMOUNT.  IN 1926, THE COMMISSIONER NOTIFIED PHILLIPS THAT IT WAS
PROPOSED TO ASSESS AGAINST HIM AS TRANSFEREE OF THE CORPORATION'S
ASSETS THIS SUM OF $9,306.36, PURSUANT TO SEC. 280(A)(1) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1926(C. 27, 44 STAT. 9, 61).  NO NOTICE OF THE DEFICIENCY WAS
SENT BY THE COMMISSIONER TO ANY OF THE OTHER STOCKHOLDERS; NO
ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AGAINST ANY OF THEM; AND NO PROCEEDING WAS
INSTITUTED BY HIM AGAINST ANY OF THEM. 

PHILLIPS HAVING DIED, HIS EXECUTORS CONTESTED THE DEFICIENCY ASSESSED
AGAINST THE COMPANY AND BOTH THE VALIDITY AND THE AMOUNT OF THE
ASSESSMENT MADE AGAINST HIM, INSISTING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT IN NO
EVENT COULD PHILLIPS' ESTATE BE HELD LIABLE FOR MORE THAN HIS PRO RATA
PORTION OF THE UNPAID TAX OF THE COMPANY.  THE COMMISSIONER ADHERING TO
HIS DETERMINATION, THE EXECUTORS SOUGHT A REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS.  IT HELD PHILLIPS' ESTATE LIABLE FOR THE FULL AMOUNT.  15
B.T.A. 1218.  THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THAT JUDGMENT, 42 F.(2D) 177.  AND, IN PHILLIPS V.
COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, WE AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THAT COURT. 

THE PHILLIPS-JONES CORPORATION, WHICH WAS THE REAL OWNER OF THE STOCK
STANDING IN PHILLIPS' NAME, PAID THE JUDGMENT AND THE EXPENSES OF THE
LITIGATION.  THEN IT AND PHILLIPS' EXECUTORS BROUGHT, IN THE FEDERAL
COURT FOR EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, THIS SUIT IN EQUITY FOR CONTRIBUTION
AGAINST THE EIGHT STOCKHOLDERS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, RESIDENT IN
THAT STATE.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE BILL FOR WANT OF EQUITY,
ON THE GROUND THAT LIABILITY FOR THE TAXES AROSE SOLELY FROM ASSESSMENT
UNDER SEC. 280; AND THAT SINCE THE DEFENDANT STOCKHOLDERS HAD NEVER
BEEN ASSESSED THEY WERE NOT LIABLE FOR CONTRIBUTION.  IN AFFIRMING THAT
JUDGMENT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAID, 88 F.(2D) 958, 959: 

"ANY STOCKHOLDER, INCLUDING THE APPELLEES, SHOULD BE AND IN OUR
OPINION IS, ENTITLED TO AN ASSESSMENT BY THE COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO
IMPOSITION OF TAX LIABILITY UPON HIM.  THE APPELLANTS WOULD BY
IMPLICATION ADD ANOTHER METHOD OF IMPOSING AN ASSESSMENT UPON THE
STOCKHOLDER, NAMELY, BY AN ACTION FOR CONTRIBUTION.  IT IS NOT FOR THE
COURTS TO EXTEND THE METHODS PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS FOR IMPOSING TAX
LIABILITY.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE SEVERAL APPELLEES
BY THE COMMISSIONER, OR, A DECREE OR JUDGMENT OF A COURT OF RECORD
IMPOSING TAX LIABILITY UPON THEM AT THE INSTANCE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
THE LIABILITY TO CONTRIBUTION IN RELIEF OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT
ESTABLISHED." 

WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  THE INJUSTICE OF ALLOWING THE OTHER
STOCKHOLDERS TO ESCAPE CONTRIBUTION IS OBVIOUS.  AND THERE IS NOTHING
IN THE APPLICABLE STATUTES, OR THE UNWRITTEN LAW, WHICH COMPELS OUR
DOING SO. 

FIRST.  THE LIABILITY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS FOR THE TAXES WAS NOT
CREATED BY SEC. 280.  IT DOES NOT ORIGINATE IN AN ASSESSMENT MADE
THEREUNDER.  LONG BEFORE THE ENACTMENT IT HAD BEEN SETTLED UNDER THE
TRUST FUND DOCTRINE (SEE PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 255 U.S. 398, 402
403) THAT IF THE ASSETS OF A CORPORATION ARE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE
STOCKHOLDERS BEFORE ALL ITS DEBTS ARE PAID, EACH STOCKHOLDER IS LIABLE
SEVERALLY TO CREDITORS, TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HIM;
AND THAT AS BETWEEN ALL STOCKHOLDERS SIMILARLY SITUATED THE BURDEN OF
PAYING THE DEBTS SHALL BE BORNE RATABLY.  BUT BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER
WAS FREE TO PURSUE PHILLIPS ALONE FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE UNPAID
TAXES, PHILLIPS COULD NOT COMPEL HIM TO JOIN OTHER STOCKHOLDERS IN THE
PROCEEDING, AS WAS SAID IN PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, P. 604: 

"WHATEVER THE PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION MAY BE AGAINST OTHER
STOCKHOLDERS WHO HAVE ALSO RECEIVED SHARES OF THE DISTRIBUTED ASSETS,
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT REQUIRED, IN COLLECTING ITS REVENUE, TO MARSHAL
THE ASSETS OF A DISSOLVED CORPORATION SO AS TO ADJUST THE RIGHTS OF THE
VARIOUS STOCKHOLDERS." 

SECOND.  THE RIGHT OF A STOCKHOLDER TRANSFEREE TO CONTRIBUTION ARISES
UNDER THE GENERAL LAW AND DOES NOT DIFFER FROM THAT OF ANY OTHER PERSON
WHO HAS PAID MORE THAN HIS FAIR SHARE OF A COMMON BURDEN.  THE RIGHT TO
SUE FOR CONTRIBUTION DOES NOT DEPEND UPON A PRIOR DETERMINATION THAT
THE DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE.  WHETHER THEY ARE LIABLE IS THE MATTER TO BE
DECIDED IN THE SUIT.  TO RECOVER, A PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE BOTH THAT
THERE WAS A COMMON BURDEN OF DEBT AND THAT HE HAS, AS BETWEEN HIMSELF
AND THE DEFENDANTS, PAID MORE THAN HIS FAIR SHARE OF THE COMMON
OBLIGATIONS.  FN1 EVERY DEFENDANT MAY, OF COURSE, SET UP ANY DEFENSE
PERSONAL TO HIM. 

SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF SEC. 280, AS BEFORE, A BILL IN EQUITY AGAINST
A STOCKHOLDER TRANSFEREE IS A REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSIONER TO
ENFORCE THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE CORPORATION.  LEIGHTON V. UNITED
STATES, 289 U.S. 506; HULBURD V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 300, 303.  IF
HE HAD RESORTED TO THAT REMEDY HE COULD HAVE SUED PHILLIPS ALONE (SEE
PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, PP. 603-604); AND IF THEREUPON
PHILLIPS HAD PAID THE ENTIRE TAX, OBVIOUSLY HE COULD HAVE BROUGHT A
BILL IN EQUITY AGAINST THE OTHER STOCKHOLDERS FOR CONTRIBUTION.  FN2
THE RIGHT IS NO LESS WHERE THE COMMISSIONER PROCEEDS UNDER SEC. 280. 
THIS STATUTE DOES NOT AFFECT THE DUTY OF OTHER STOCKHOLDER TRANSFEREES
TO CONTRIBUTE; IT MERELY PROVIDES THE COMMISSIONER WITH A SUMMARY
REMEDY FOR ENFORCING EXISTING TAX LIABILITY.  PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER,
SUPRA, PP. 592, 594.  AS AN INCIDENT OF THIS SUMMARY REMEDY, THE
COMMISSIONER MUST MAKE AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE STOCKHOLDER OR
STOCKHOLDERS WHOM HE ELECTS TO PURSUE.  BUT, AS EACH STOCKHOLDER
TRANSFEREE IS SEVERALLY LIABLE TO THE EXTENT OF THE ASSETS RECEIVED BY
HIM, THE COMMISSIONER MAY PURSUE ONLY ONE AND NEED NOT MAKE AN
ASSESSMENT AGAINST OTHER TRANSFEREES.  HE ELECTED TO PROCEED ONLY
AGAINST PHILLIPS; AND AS HE SUCCEEDED IN OBTAINING PAYMENT OF THE WHOLE
TAX FROM PHILLIPS' ESTATE, HE HAD NO OCCASION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT
AGAINST OTHER STOCKHOLDERS.  INDEED, AFTER THE CORPORATION'S TAX HAD
BEEN PAID HE HAD NO POWER TO DO SO.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE LIDDERDALE V. ROBINSON, 12 WHEAT.  594; WRIGHT V. RUMPH,
238 FED. 138(C.C.A. 5); U.S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. NAYLOR, 237
FED. 314(C.C.A. 8); CARTER V. LECHTY, 72 F.(2D) 320(C.C.A. 8); ALLEN V.
FAIRBANKS, 45 FED. 445(C.C.D. VT.); SEE M'DONALD V. MAGRUDER, 3 PET.
470, 477; SOUTHERN SURETY CO. V. COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INS. CO., 31
F.(2D) 817, 819(C.C.A. 3). 

FN2  COMPARE RICHTER V. HENNINGSAN, 110 CAL. 530; 42 PAC. 1077. 
..END :


















HELVERING V. GOWRAN, 302 U.S. 238 


NO. 27.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 87
F.(2D) 125, REVERSED. 


1.  DIVIDENDS OF PREFERRED STOCK TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS WHEREBY THEY
ACQUIRE AN INTEREST IN THE CORPORATION ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT
REPRESENTED BY THEIR COMMON STOCK ARE INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 241. 

2.  ALTHOUGH CONGRESS HAS POWER TO TAX SUCH DIVIDENDS, THEY ARE
EXEMPTED BY SEC. 115(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, WHICH DECLARES THAT
"A STOCK DIVIDEND SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX."  P. 241. 

3.  A COMMON STOCKHOLDER RECEIVED A DIVIDEND OF PREFERRED STOCK WORTH
$100 PER SHARE AND SEVERAL MONTHS LATER DISPOSED OF IT TO THE
CORPORATION FOR CASH AT THAT VALUATION.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE WHOLE OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE WERE TAXABLE AS
INCOME.  P. 243. 

THE COMPUTATION IS UNDER SECS. 111 AND 113, REVENUE ACT OF 1928,
WHICH PROVIDE THAT THE GAIN FROM CONVERSION OF PROPERTY INTO MONEY
SHALL BE COMPUTED AT THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT REALIZED OVER THE "COST"
OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS ZERO. 

(2)  THE STOCK DIVIDEND WAS NOT TO BE LIKENED TO GIFTS AND LEGACIES,
AS TO WHICH THERE ARE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT EXCLUDING THEM FROM
GROSS INCOME AND PRESCRIBING THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING GAIN FROM LATER
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY - SECS. 113(A)(2); 22(B)(3).  P. 243. 

(3)  SECTION 115(F) CANNOT, IN VIEW OF ITS HISTORY, BE TAKEN AS A
DECLARATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT THE VALUE OF ALL STOCK
DIVIDENDS SHALL BE IMMUNE FROM TAX NOT ONLY WHEN RECEIVED BUT ALSO WHEN
CONVERTED INTO MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY.  P. 244. 

(4)  THE RATES APPLICABLE WERE THOSE PRESCRIBED FOR ORDINARY INCOME,
NOT THE RATE FOR "CAPITAL GAINS" FROM "PROPERTY HELD BY THE TAXPAYER
FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS."  SEC. 101(C)(8).  ID. 

IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE COMMON STOCK WAS HELD BY THE TAXPAYER FOR
MORE THAN TWO YEARS, THE FACT IS IMMATERIAL, SINCE THE DIVIDEND STOCK
HAD BEEN HELD FOR ONLY THREE MONTHS, AND WAS INCOME SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES TO CASH OR PROPERTY, AND UNDER SEC.
115(B) WAS PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE "OUT OF EARNINGS OR PROFITS TO
THE EXTENT THEREOF, AND FROM THE MOST RECENTLY ACCUMULATED EARNINGS OR
PROFITS." 

4.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY AFFIRM A DECISION OF THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS UPON A THEORY NOT PRESENTED TO OR CONSIDERED BY THE
BOARD; BUT ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEW THEORY MAY INVOLVE GRANTING THE
TAXPAYER AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL FACTS.  P. 245. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. GOWRAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 676, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 32 B.T.A. 820, SUSTAINING AN
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION CONCERN THE TAXATION AS INCOME OF A
DIVIDEND IN PREFERRED STOCK AND THE PROCEEDS RECEIVED ON ITS SALE. 

ON JUNE 29, 1929, THE HAMILTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A WISCONSIN
CORPORATION, HAD OUTSTANDING PREFERRED STOCK OF THE PAR VALUE OF $100 A
SHARE AND COMMON STOCK WITHOUT PAR VALUE.  ON THAT DAY THE DIRECTORS
DECLARED FROM THE SURPLUS EARNINGS A DIVIDEND OF $14 A SHARE ON THE
COMMON STOCK, PAYABLE ON JULY 1, 1929, IN PREFERRED STOCK AT ITS PAR
VALUE.  GOWRAN, AS OWNER OF COMMON STOCK, RECEIVED AS HIS DIVIDEND 533
AND A FRACTION SHARES OF THE PREFERRED.  ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 1, 1929,
THE COMPANY ACQUIRED HIS PREFERRED STOCK AND PAID HIM THEREFOR, AT $100
A SHARE, $53,371.50.  IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR GOWRAN DID
NOT TREAT THIS SUM AS TAXABLE INCOME, BUT INCLUDED $27,262.72 AS
CAPITAL NET GAIN ON THE SHARES RECEIVED AND SOLD, COMPUTING THE GAIN
UNDER ARTICLES 58 AND 600 OF REGULATIONS 74, THEN IN FORCE.  THE
COMMISSIONER REJECTED THAT TREATMENT OF THE MATTER; DETERMINED THAT THE
$53,371.50 RECEIVED WAS INCOME TAXABLE UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928,
SEC. 115(G), 45 STAT. 791, 822, AS A STOCK DIVIDEND REDEEMED; AND
ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY OF $5,831.67. 

THE TAXPAYER SOUGHT A REDETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  A
DIVISION OF THE BOARD CONCLUDED, UPON TESTIMONY AND STIPULATED FACTS,
THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO CANCELLATION OR REDEMPTION OF THE PREFERRED
STOCK SO AS TO MAKE IT A TAXABLE DIVIDEND UNDER SEC. 115(G); THAT THE
TRANSACTION BY WHICH THE COMPANY ACQUIRED IT CONSTITUTED A SALE.  THE
COMMISSIONER SECURED A RECONSIDERATION OF THE CASE.  HE THEN CONTENDED
THAT, UNDER THE RULE DECLARED IN COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V.
TILLOTSON MFG. CO., 76 F.(2D) 189, THE STOCK DIVIDEND WAS TAXABLE,
BECAUSE IT HAD RESULTED IN A CHANGE OF GOWRAN'S PROPORTIONATE INTEREST
IN THE COMPANY.  THAT CONTENTION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE BOARD; AND, ON
THAT GROUND, IT AFFIRMED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF A
DEFICIENCY.  32 B.T.A. 820. 

THE TAXPAYER SOUGHT A REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THE
COMMISSIONER AGAIN URGED THAT THE STOCK DIVIDEND WAS TAXABLE; AND THEN,
FOR THE FIRST TIME, CONTENDED THAT, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT TAXABLE, THE
DETERMINATION OF THE DEFICIENCY SHOULD BE AFFIRMED, BECAUSE WITHIN THE
TAX YEAR THE STOCK HAD BEEN SOLD AT ITS PAR VALUE AND, AS ITS COST HAD
BEEN ZERO, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS CONSTITUTED INCOME.  THE COURT OF
APPEALS RECOGNIZED THAT, SINCE THE DIVIDENDS IN PREFERRED STOCK GAVE TO
GOWRAN AN INTEREST DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER FROM THAT WHICH HIS COMMON
STOCK REPRESENTED, IT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY TAXABLE UNDER KOSHLAND V.
HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441; BUT IT HELD THAT THE DIVIDEND COULD NOT BE
TAXED AS INCOME, SINCE BY SEC. 115(F) CONGRESS HAD PROVIDED:  "A STOCK
DIVIDEND SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX."  AND IT HELD FURTHER THAT NO
PART OF THE PROCEEDS COULD BE TAXED AS INCOME, SINCE THERE WAS NO
PROFIT ON THE SALE, IT BEING AGREED THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
STOCK, BOTH AT THE DATE OF RECEIPT AND AT THE DATE OF THE SALE, WAS
$100 A SHARE.  87 F.(2D) 125. 

BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED. 

FIRST.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT SEC. 115(F) SHOULD BE READ AS
PROHIBITING TAXATION ONLY OF THOSE STOCK DIVIDENDS WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT TO BE TAXED; AND THAT, SINCE BY THE
DIVIDEND GOWRAN ACQUIRED AN INTEREST IN THE CORPORATION ESSENTIALLY
DIFFERENT FROM THAT THERETOFORE REPRESENTED BY HIS COMMON STOCK, THE
DIVIDEND WAS TAXABLE.  IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 115(F),
IT IS URGED THAT CONGRESS HAS IN INCOME TAX LEGISLATION MANIFESTED
GENERALLY ITS INTENTION TO USE, TO THE FULL EXTENT, ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
POWER, HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS BANK, 293 U.S. 84, 89; DOUGLAS V.
WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1, 9; THAT THIS COURT HOLDS GRANTS OF IMMUNITY FROM
TAXATION SHOULD ALWAYS BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, PACIFIC CO. V. JOHNSON,
285 U.S. 480, 491; AND THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR EXEMPTING STOCK
DIVIDENDS WAS TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION. 

THIS PREFERRED STOCK HAD SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME ATTRIBUTES AS THAT
INVOLVED IN THE KOSHLAND CASE.  THERE THE DIVIDEND WAS OF COMMON STOCK
TO A PREFERRED STOCKHOLDER, IT IS TRUE; BUT WE ARE OF OPINION THAT
UNDER THE RULE THERE DECLARED CONGRESS COULD HAVE TAXED THIS STOCK
DIVIDEND.  NEVERTHELESS, BY SEC. 115(F) IT ENACTED IN 1928, AS IT DID
IN EARLIER AND LATER REVENUE ACTS, THAT "A STOCK DIVIDEND SHALL NOT BE
SUBJECT TO TAX."  THE PROHIBITION IS COMPREHENSIVE.  IT IS SO CLEARLY
EXPRESSED AS TO LEAVE NO ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION.  IT EXTENDS TO ALL
STOCK DIVIDENDS.  SUCH WAS THE CONSTRUCTION CONSISTENTLY GIVEN TO IT BY
THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT.  FN1  THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS WHEN ENACTING
SEC. 115(F) MAY HAVE BEEN MERELY TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE
CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED IN EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189; AND
THE COMPREHENSIVE LANGUAGE IN SEC. 115(F) MAY HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IN THE
ERRONEOUS BELIEF THAT UNDER THE RULE DECLARED IN THAT CASE NO STOCK
DIVIDEND COULD BE TAXED.  BUT SUCH FACTS WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE COURT IN
DEPARTING FROM THE UNMISTAKABLE COMMAND EMBODIED IN THE STATUTE. 
CONGRESS DECLARED THAT THE PREFERRED STOCK SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS A
DIVIDEND. 

SECOND.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT, EVEN IF SEC. 115(F) BE
CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING TAXATION OF THE PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND, THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION OF A DEFICIENCY SHOULD BE SUSTAINED, BECAUSE THE GAIN
FROM SALE OF THE STOCK WITHIN THE YEAR WAS TAXABLE INCOME AND THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDS MUST BE DEEMED INCOME, SINCE THE STOCK HAD COST GOWRAN
NOTHING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED THAT CONTENTION.  IT
HELD THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME, BECAUSE, AS STIPULATED, THERE WAS NO
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF THE STOCK WHEN RECEIVED AND ITS VALUE
WHEN SOLD.  THE COURT LIKENED A NON-TAXABLE STOCK DIVIDEND TO A TAX
FREE GIFT OR LEGACY AND SAID:  "ONE WHO RECEIVES A TAX-FREE GIFT AND
LATER SELLS IT, IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUTE PROVIDING OTHERWISE, IS TAXED
UPON THE PROFIT ARISING FROM THE DIFFERENCE IN ITS VALUE AT THE TIME HE
RECEIVES IT AND THE SALE PRICE.  SIMILARLY ONE WHO RECEIVES A TAX-FREE
BEQUEST, WHEN SELLING IT, IS TAXED UPON THE PROFIT ARISING FROM ANY
EXCESS OF THE SALE PRICE OVER ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF
RECEIPT."  (P. 128) COMPARE TAFT V. BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470. 

THE CASES ARE NOT ANALOGOUS.  UNLIKE EARLIER LEGISLATION, SEC.
113(A)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 PRESCRIBES SPECIFICALLY THE BASIS
FOR DETERMINING THE GAIN ON TAX-FREE GIFTS AND LEGACIES.  IT PROVIDES
THAT:  "IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY GIFT AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1920,
THE BASIS SHALL BE THE SAME AS IT WOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF THE DONOR OR
THE LAST PRECEDING OWNER BY WHOM IT WAS NOT ACQUIRED BY GIFT."  AND THE
BASIS FOR THE COMPUTATION ON PROPERTY TRANSMITTED AT DEATH IS PROVIDED
FOR IN PARAGRAPH (5).  BUT THE METHOD OF COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM THE
SALE OF STOCK DIVIDENDS CONSTITUTIONALLY TAXABLE IS NOT SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDED FOR.  FURTHERMORE, UNLIKE SEC. 22(B)(3), EXCLUDING FROM GROSS
INCOME THE VALUE OF GIFTS AND LEGACIES, SEC. 115(F) CANNOT, IN VIEW OF
ITS HISTORY, BE TAKEN AS A DECLARATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT THE
VALUE OF ALL STOCK DIVIDENDS SHALL BE IMMUNE FROM TAX NOT ONLY WHEN
RECEIVED BUT ALSO WHEN CONVERTED INTO MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY.  GAIN ON
THEM IS, THEREFORE, TO BE COMPUTED AS PROVIDED IN SECS. 111 AND 113, BY
THE "EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT REALIZED" OVER "THE COST OF SUCH PROPERTY" TO
THE TAXPAYER.  AS THE COST OF THE PREFERRED STOCK TO GOWRAN WAS ZERO,
THE WHOLE OF THE PROCEEDS IS TAXABLE. 

GOWRAN ASSERTS THAT IF THIS "BASIS OF ZERO" THEORY IS ACCEPTED, THE
PROCEEDS ARE TAXABLE NOT AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER BUT AS A
CAPITAL GAIN AT A DIFFERENT RATE AND UNDER DIFFERENT REGULATIONS.  THIS
DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THE PREFERRED STOCK RECEIVED AS A DIVIDEND WAS A
"CAPITAL ASSET," DEFINED BY SEC. 101(C)(8) AS "PROPERTY HELD BY THE
TAXPAYER FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS."  THE RECORD IS SILENT AS TO WHEN
GOWRAN ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK UPON WHICH THE PREFERRED WAS ISSUED AS
A DIVIDEND, BUT IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT HE HAD HELD IT FOR MORE THAN TWO
YEARS.  FOR THAT FACT IS IMMATERIAL SINCE THE DIVIDEND STOCK HAD BEEN
HELD FOR ONLY THREE MONTHS.  WHETHER TAXED BY CONGRESS OR NOT, IT WAS
INCOME, SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES TO CASH OR
PROPERTY, AND UNDER SEC. 115(B) WAS PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE "OUT OF
EARNINGS OR PROFITS TO THE EXTENT THEREOF, AND FROM THE MOST RECENTLY
ACCUMULATED EARNINGS OR PROFITS."  IN NO SENSE, THEREFORE, CAN IT BE
SAID TO HAVE BEEN "HELD" BY GOWRAN PRIOR TO ITS DECLARATION.  FN2
SINCE THE PROCEEDS WERE THEREFORE NOT "CAPITAL GAINS," THEY WERE
TAXABLE AT THE NORMAL AND SURTAX RATES APPLICABLE TO ORDINARY INCOME. 
FN3 

THIRD.  GOWRAN CONTENDS HERE THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
PERMITTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS TO ARGUE ITS "BASIS OF ZERO" THEORY,
BECAUSE THAT THEORY RAISED AN ISSUE NOT PLEADED, TRIED, ARGUED OR
OTHERWISE REFERRED TO IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD.  IT IS TRUE
THAT THE THEORY WAS FIRST PRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS.  BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR BY THE RECORD THAT OBJECTION TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF THIS THEORY WAS MADE BELOW.  THE ONLY OBJECTION MADE
THERE, AS DISCLOSED BY THE OPINION, WAS "THAT THE BOARD WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE CASE UPON A POINT NOT URGED BY THE
COMMISSIONER."  AS TO THAT OBJECTION, THE COURT, AFTER STATING THAT THE
ONLY QUESTIONS SUBMITTED ARE THOSE OF LAW, SAID:  "THE BOARD APPROVED
THE COMMISSIONER'S ASSESSMENT, BUT DID SO UPON A LEGAL THEORY DIFFERENT
FROM HIS.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE BOARD ACTED WITHIN ITS POWERS....
IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE COMMISSIONER PROCEEDED UPON THE WRONG
THEORY.  THE BURDEN IS UPON THE PETITIONER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSMENT
IS WRONG, UPON ANY PROPER THEORY; OTHERWISE HE MUST FAIL."  (P. 127). 

IN THE REVIEW OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS THE RULE IS SETTLED THAT IF THE
DECISION BELOW IS CORRECT, IT MUST BE AFFIRMED, ALTHOUGH THE LOWER
COURT RELIED UPON A WRONG GROUND OR GAVE A WRONG REASON.  FREY & SON V.
CUDAHY PACKING CO., 256 U.S. 208; UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS
CO., 265 U.S. 425; UNITED STATES V. HOLT STATE BANK, 270 U.S. 49, 56;
LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531; STELOS CO. V. HOSIERY MOTOR-MEND CORP.,
295 U.S. 237, 239; CF. UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 278 U.S. 255.  THIS
APPLIES ALSO TO THE REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 
HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 132-133; CF. GENERAL UTILITIES &
OPERATING CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 200, 206.  FN4  THE TAXPAYER
SOUGHT REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.  THE
ULTIMATE QUESTION BEFORE THAT COURT WAS WHETHER, UPON THE FACTS
STIPULATED, THE BOARD HAD ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER'S
DETERMINATION THAT THE ADDITIONAL TAXES WERE DUE.  IF THE COMMISSIONER
WAS RIGHT IN HIS DETERMINATION, THE BOARD PROPERLY AFFIRMED IT, EVEN IF
THE REASONS WHICH HE HAD ASSIGNED WERE WRONG.  FN5  AND, LIKEWISE, IF
THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION WAS RIGHT, THE BOARD'S AFFIRMANCE OF
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, EVEN IF THE
BOARD GAVE A WRONG REASON FOR ITS ACTION.  BY THIS RULE THE GOVERNMENT
WAS ENTITLED TO URGE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT ON THE UNDISPUTED
FACTS THE BOARD'S DECISION WAS CORRECT BECAUSE OF THE "BASIS OF ZERO"
THEORY.  AND SINCE THAT COURT REJECTED THE THEORY, THE GOVERNMENT WAS
ENTITLED TO ASSERT ITS CONTENTION HERE.  NOTHING IN GENERAL UTILITIES &
OPERATING CO. V. HELVERING, SUPRA, OR IN HELVERING V. SALVAGE, 297 U.S.
106, IS OPPOSED TO SUCH PROCEDURE. 

IF THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD ACCEPTED THE THEORY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
OPEN TO THE TAXPAYER TO URGE, IN VIEW OF THE NEW ISSUE PRESENTED, THAT
HE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH BEFORE THE BOARD ADDITIONAL
FACTS WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE RESULT.  FN6  AS WE ACCEPT THE NEW THEORY,
LEAVE IS GRANTED GOWRAN TO APPLY TO THE LOWER COURT FOR THAT PURPOSE. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  EISNER V. MACOMBER WAS DECIDED MARCH 8, 1920.  SOON THEREAFTER,
THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT DECLARED, IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS AND
REGULATIONS, THAT NO STOCK DIVIDEND WAS TAXABLE.  TREAS. DEC. 3052, 3
C.B. 38(AUGUST 4, 1920); TREAS. DEC. 3059, 3 C.B. 38(AUGUST 16, 1920);
OFFICE DEC. 732, 3 C.B. 39(OCTOBER 28, 1920).  OFFICE DEC. 801, 4 C.B.
24(JANUARY 5, 1921) PROVIDED:  "A STOCK DIVIDEND PAID IN TRUE PREFERRED
STOCK IS EXEMPT FROM TAX THE SAME AS THOUGH THE DIVIDEND WERE PAID IN
COMMON STOCK."  THEN FOLLOWED LEGISLATION IN THE PRECISE FORM EMBODIED
IN SEC. 115(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  SEE SEC. 201(D) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1921, 42 STAT. 227, 228; SEC. 201(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1924, 43 STAT. 253, 255; SEC. 201(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, 44
STAT. 9, 11; SEC. 115(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, 47 STAT. 169, 204;
SEC. 115(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934, 48 STAT. 680, 712.  ARTICLE 628
OF THE REGULATIONS IN FORCE IN 1928 PROVIDED: "STOCK DIVIDENDS.  - THE
ISSUANCE OF ITS OWN STOCK BY A CORPORATION AS A DIVIDEND TO ITS
SHAREHOLDERS DOES NOT RESULT IN TAXABLE INCOME TO SUCH SHAREHOLDERS,
BUT GAIN MAY BE DERIVED OR LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE SHAREHOLDERS FROM THE
SALE OF SUCH STOCK.  THE AMOUNT OF GAIN DERIVED OR LOSS SUSTAINED FROM
THE SALE OF SUCH STOCK, OR FROM THE SALE OF THE STOCK IN RESPECT OF
WHICH IT IS ISSUED, SHALL BE DETERMINED AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLES 561 AND
600."    KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441, WAS DECIDED MAY 18,
1936.  ON JUNE 22, 1936, CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936,
PROVIDED IN SEC. 115(F):  "1.  GENERAL RULE - A DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A
CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN ITS STOCK OR IN RIGHTS TO ACQUIRE
ITS STOCK SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A DIVIDEND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME TO THE SHAREHOLDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION."  49 STAT. 1648, 1688.  SEE
ALSO SEC. 115(H). 

FN2  ARTICLE 501 OF REGULATIONS 74 STATES THAT "IF THE TAXPAYER HAS
HELD FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS STOCK UPON WHICH A STOCK DIVIDEND HAS BEEN
DECLARED, BOTH THE ORIGINAL AND DIVIDEND SHARES ARE CONSIDERED TO BE
CAPITAL ASSETS."  BUT THIS WAS BASED UPON THE ERRONEOUS PREMISE THAT
STOCK DIVIDENDS COULD NOT BE INCOME, AND WAS PART OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
SCHEME TO APPORTION SOME OF THE COST OF THE ORIGINAL SHARES TO THE
STOCK RECEIVED BY WAY OF DIVIDEND.  THIS ARRANGEMENT WE DECLARED IN
KOSHLAND V. HELVERING, 298 U.S. 441, TO BE WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY,
AND THE SAME MUST BE SAID OF THE REGULATION INVOLVED HERE. 

FN3  SEE BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 105-106; HELVERING V. NEW
YORK TRUST CO., 292 U.S. 455, 463; MCFEELY V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S.
102, 106-107. 

FN4  SEE ALSO HURWITZ V. COMMISSIONER, 45 F.(2D) 780(C.C.A. 2);
SUPERHEATER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 38 F.(2D) 69(C.C.A. 2); COMMISSIONER
V. LINDERMAN, 84 F.(2D) 727(C.C.A. 3); DICKEY V. BURNET, 56 F.(2D)
917(C.C.A. 8); LEWIS-HALL IRON WORKS V. BLAIR, 57 APP. D.C. 364; 23
F.(2D) 972; CF. DOBBINS V. COMMISSIONER, 31 F.(2D) 935(C.C.A. 3);
SEUFERT BROS. CO. V. LUCAS, 44 F.(2D) 528(C.C.A. 9); HUGHES V.
COMMISSIONER, 38 F.(2D) 755(C.C.A. 10). 

FN5  COMPARE DARCY V. COMMISSIONER, 66 F.(2D) 581(C.C.A. 2);
HELVERING V. GREGORY, 69 F.(2D) 809(C.C.A. 2), AFF'D, 293 U.S. 465;
ALEXANDER SPRUNT & SON V. COMMISSIONER, 64 F.(2D) 424(C.C.A. 4);
HELVERING V. BOWEN, 85 F.(2D) 926(C.C.A. 4); ATLANTA CASKET CO. V.
ROSE, 22 F.(2D) 800(C.C.A. 5); J. & O. ALTSCHUL TOBACCO CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 42 F.(2D) 609(C.C.A. 5); CROWELL V. COMMISSIONER, 62
F.(2D) 51(C.C.A. 6); SCHWEITZER V. COMMISSIONER 75 F.(2D) 702(C.C.A.
7), REV'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 296 U.S. 551; CHRISTOPHER V. BURNET, 55
F.(2D) 527(APP.  D.C.); BEAUMONT V. HELVERING, 63 APP. D.C. 387; 73
F.(2D) 110. 

FN6  COMPARE WOODWARD V. BOSTON LASTING MACHINE CO., 60 FED. 283, 63
FED. 609(C.C.A. 1). 
..END :


















HELVERING V. PFEIFFER, 302 U.S. 247 


NO. 29.  ARGUED OCTOBER 22, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 88
F.(2D) 3, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 115(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT 1928 EXEMPTED DIVIDENDS OF
PREFERRED STOCK FROM TAXATION.  HELVERING V. GOWRAN, ANTE, P. 238.  P.
250. 

2.  AN APPELLEE CAN NOT, WITHOUT A CROSS APPEAL, ATTACK THE JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM.  THIS RULE APPLIES TO A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS.  P. 250. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. PFEIFFER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 677, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING IN PART AND
REVERSING IN PART A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS QUESTIONS OF INCOME TAXATION APPLICABLE TO STOCK
DIVIDENDS. 

IN 1931, ANNIE M. PFEIFFER, A HOLDER OF COMMON STOCK IN WILLIAM R.
WARNER CORPORATION, RECEIVED AS A DIVIDEND THEREON 6,291 1/4 SHARES OF
ITS PREFERRED STOCK.  SHE ALSO RECEIVED FROM THE CORPORATION IN THAT
YEAR $200,000 CASH IN EXCHANGE FOR 2,000 SHARES OF ITS PREFERRED STOCK
WHICH SHE HAD RECEIVED AS A DIVIDEND IN 1928.  IN HER INCOME TAX RETURN
FOR 1931, SHE DID NOT INCLUDE AS TAXABLE INCOME EITHER THE PREFERRED
STOCK OR THE $200,000 CASH.  SHE DID NOT INCLUDE THE PREFERRED STOCK
RECEIVED IN THAT YEAR, BECAUSE SHE DEEMED IT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER
SEC. 115(F) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, 45 STAT. 791, 822.  SHE DID NOT
INCLUDE THE $200,000 CASH AS TAXABLE INCOME, BECAUSE SHE CONSIDERED IT
THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET.  BUT SHE DID INCLUDE
$180,100 THEREOF AS TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE, COMPUTING THE
GAIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THEN EFFECTIVE TREASURY REGULATIONS.  AND
SHE PAID A TAX OF $22,512.50 ON SUCH CAPITAL GAIN. 

THE COMMISSIONER ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY ON EACH ITEM.  HE DETERMINED
THAT THE 6,291 1/4 SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK VALUED AT $629,125, WERE
TAXABLE INCOME OF 1931, BECAUSE NOT EXEMPT UNDER SEC. 115(F); AND THAT
THE $200,000 CASH WERE THE PROCEEDS OF A REDEMPTION UNDER SEC. 115(G),
AND HENCE TAXABLE INCOME.  HE ELIMINATED THE TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN
REPORTED AND ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY ON EACH OF THE ITEMS. 

THE TAXPAYER SOUGHT A REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  IT
AFFIRMED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION THAT THE PREFERRED STOCK
RECEIVED IN 1931 WAS TAXABLE INCOME; BUT REVERSED HIS DETERMINATION AS
TO THE PROCEEDS OF THE 2,000 SHARES, AND SAID: 

"THE COMMISSIONER HELD THAT THE REDEMPTION OF THE 2,000 SHARES IN
1931 WAS AT SUCH TIME AND IN SUCH MANNER AS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY
EQUIVALENT TO A TAXABLE DIVIDEND IN 1931, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
115(G) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  HE ERRED IN THIS SINCE THE
DISTRIBUTION WAS SUBJECT TO TAX AS A DIVIDEND IN 1928(SEE CASES ABOVE
CITED).  THEREAFTER THE SHARES HAD A BASIS FOR GAIN OR LOSS TO THE
PETITIONER OF $100 EACH, AND THEY WERE REDEEMED WITHOUT GAIN OR LOSS TO
THE PETITIONER AT $100 EACH IN 1931." 

THE COMMISSIONER ACQUIESCED IN THE BOARD'S DECISION.  THE TAXPAYER
SOUGHT A REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  IT REVERSED THE
BOARD'S DECISION AS TO THE 1931 STOCK DIVIDEND, ON THE GROUND THAT SEC.
115(F) EXEMPTED THAT DIVIDEND FROM TAXATION; AND IT AFFIRMED THE
BOARD'S DECISION THAT THE $200,000 CASH WAS NOT TAXABLE INCOME OF 1931,
SAYING, 88 F.(2D) 3, 5: 

"THE APPELLEE ARGUES THAT THE PROCEEDS FROM THE REDEMPTION IN 1931 OF
2,000 SHARES OF PREFERRED STOCK DISTRIBUTED AS A STOCK DIVIDEND IN 1928
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED EITHER (A) SUBJECT TO A TAX AS A CAPITAL GAIN OR
(B) SUBJECT TO TAXATION AS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF A
TAXABLE DIVIDEND PURSUANT TO SECTION 115(G) OF THE REVENUE ACT.  THE
QUESTION OF TAXABILITY AS CAPITAL GAIN OF THE $200,000 OR ANY PART
THEREOF WAS NOT IN ISSUE BEFORE OR DECIDED BY THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS.  THE CONTENTION THAT WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO SUSTAIN THE
DEFICIENCY PRO TANTO EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE
BOARD NOR DECIDED BY IT NOR ASSIGNED AS ERROR IN THE PETITION TO THIS
COURT FOR A REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DECISION IS UNTENABLE.  GENERAL
UTILITIES & OPERATING CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 200,  ...; HELVERING
V. SALVAGE, 297 U.S. 106,  ....  THE BOARD HELD THAT THIS STOCK
DIVIDEND REDEEMED IN 1931 AT $100 PER SHARE WAS TAXABLE IN THE YEAR
1928 WHEN RECEIVED AND WAS THEREFORE NOT TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 115(G);
THAT IT HAD A BASIS FOR GAIN OR LOSS OF $100 PER SHARE; AND THAT
THEREFORE THERE WAS NO TAXABLE INCOME FROM THE REDEMPTION.  THE
COMMISSIONER DID NOT FILE A CROSS-APPEAL.  BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
115(G) THE PROCEEDS OF THE REDEMPTION OF THE STOCK CAN BE TAXED ONLY IF
IT OCCURS AT SUCH TIME AND IN SUCH MANNER AS TO MAKE THE REDEMPTION
ESSENTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF A TAXABLE DIVIDEND. 
SINCE THE BOARD DID NOT SO FIND, WE CANNOT SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION." 

THE COMMISSIONER'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED IN CONNECTION
WITH THAT IN HELVERING V. GOWRAN, ANTE, P. 238, DECIDED THIS DAY. 

FIRST.  AS TO THE 1931 DIVIDEND IN PREFERRED STOCK, THE COMMISSIONER
CONTENDS THAT THE IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION CONFERRED BY SEC. 115(F) DID
NOT EXTEND TO IT.  WE HOLD, FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PARAGRAPH FIRST
OF HELVERING V. GOWRAN, SUPRA, THAT IT WAS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. 

SECOND.  AS TO THE $200,000 RECEIVED IN 1931, THE COMMISSIONER
CONTENDS THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD IT
TAXABLE INCOME, SINCE UNDER THE RULE DECLARED IN HELVERING V. GOWRAN,
SUPRA, THE COST WAS ZERO. 

WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO ENTERTAIN THAT CONTENTION.  THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS DECIDED THAT THE $200,000 WAS NOT TAXABLE INCOME OF 1931.  AS
THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT SEEK A REVIEW OF THAT DECISION, WHICH WAS
ADVERSE TO HIM, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY REFUSED TO
CONSIDER THE CONTENTION.  GENERAL UTILITIES & OPERATING CO. V.
HELVERING, 296 U.S. 200, 206.  WHILE A DECISION BELOW MAY BE SUSTAINED,
WITHOUT A CROSS-APPEAL, ALTHOUGH IT WAS RESTED UPON A WRONG GROUND, SEE
HELVERING V. GOWRAN, SUPRA, AN APPELLEE CANNOT WITHOUT A CROSS-APPEAL
ATTACK A JUDGMENT ENTERED BELOW.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN
RAILWAY EXPRESS CO., 265 U.S. 425, 435; MORLEY CONSTRUCTION CO. V.
MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 300 U.S. 185.  FN1 THE SAME RULE APPLIES TO A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS. 

THIRD.  THE COMMISSIONER REQUESTS THAT, IF WE HOLD THAT THE BOARD
ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE 2,000 SHARES RECEIVED IN 1928 WERE THEN
TAXABLE AND REFUSE TO REVIEW ITS DECISION THAT THE PROCEEDS RECEIVED IN
1931 WERE NOT TAXABLE, WE SHOULD REMAND THE CASE TO THE BOARD TO
DETERMINE WHETHER REDEMPTION OF THE 2,000 SHARES WAS MADE AT SUCH TIME
AND IN SUCH MANNER AS TO BE ESSENTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO THE DISTRIBUTION
OF A TAXABLE DIVIDEND UNDER SEC. 115(G).  THE COMMISSIONER ACQUIESCED
IN THE DECISION OF THE BOARD.  NO GOOD REASON IS SHOWN FOR DISTURBING
IT. AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE ALSO THE STEPHAN MORGAN, 94 U.S. 599; MOUNT PLEASANT V.
BECKWITH, 100 U.S. 514, 527; UNITED STATES V. BLACKFEATHER, 155 U.S.
180; LANDRAM V. JORDAN, 203 U.S. 56; SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER CO. V. WARD,
208 U.S. 126, 137; FITCHIE V. BROWN, 211 U.S. 321, 329; BOTHWELL V.
UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 231. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE REVERSED. 

THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WAS THE EXISTENCE OF A
DEFICIENCY IN RESPONDENT'S INCOME TAX FOR A SINGLE YEAR, 1931.  THE
DEFICIENCY FIXED BY THE COMMISSIONER REPRESENTED HER NET TAX LIABILITY
FOR THAT YEAR AND DREW IN QUESTION EVERY ITEM WHICH ENTERED INTO
COMPUTATION OF THE TAX.  LEWIS V. REYNOLDS, 284 U.S. 281, 283.  HER
APPEAL TO THE BOARD DREW IN QUESTION HER NET TAX LIABILITY ON A
REEXAMINATION OF EVERY ITEM OF INCOME IN THAT YEAR WHICH SHE HAD
CHALLENGED IN HER PETITION.  THE COMMISSIONER HAD TREATED AS TAXABLE
INCOME OF RESPONDENT TWO ITEMS, BOTH RECEIVED IN THAT YEAR, AND
ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY ACCORDINGLY.  THEY WERE A DIVIDEND PAID TO THE
TAXPAYER IN PREFERRED STOCK, AND CASH RECEIVED BY HER IN THAT YEAR UPON
THE REDEMPTION OF PREFERRED STOCK RECEIVED AS A DIVIDEND IN AN EARLIER
YEAR.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THOUGHT RESPONDENT WAS TAXABLE IN 1931
ON THE FIRST BUT NOT ON THE SECOND ITEM, AND REDUCED THE DEFICIENCY
ACCORDINGLY.  IT "ORDERED AND DECIDED, THAT THERE IS A DEFICIENCY FOR
THE YEAR 1931 IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,841.75." 

THIS COURT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES
AND FOUND BY THE BOARD, HOLDS THAT RESPONDENT WAS TAXABLE UPON THE FULL
AMOUNT OF THE ITEM OF CASH RECEIVED BUT NOT UPON THE STOCK DIVIDEND. 
BUT, BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER TOOK NO APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE
BOARD, THE COURT DECLINES TO GIVE ANY EFFECT TO ITS RULING THAT THE
CASH IS TAXABLE INCOME IN 1931.  IF THE COMMISSIONER HAD SOUGHT ONLY TO
INCREASE THE DEFICIENCY FOUND BY THE BOARD, IT MAY BE CONCEDED THAT THE
POINT WOULD BE WELL TAKEN, BUT SUCH IS NOT HIS PURPOSE.  ON THE
CONTRARY, HE ACCEPTS THE ORDER AND RELIES UPON IT AS ESTABLISHING A
DEFICIENCY OF WHICH HE ASKS THE BENEFIT ONLY SO FAR AS IT IS SUSTAINED
BY THE APPLICATION, TO THE FACTS FOUND, OF THE RULE OF LAW ANNOUNCED BY
THIS COURT. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE BOARD, BY THE ERRONEOUS APPLICATION OF A
RULE OF LAW TO THE FACTS BEFORE IT ARRIVED AT A DEFICIENCY WHICH IS
SUSTAINED BY A CORRECT APPLICATION OF A DIFFERENT RULE, IS NOT GROUND
FOR SETTING ASIDE ITS ORDER.  LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, 538-539;
ANDERSON V. ATHERTON, POST, P. 643; COMPARE MORLEY CONSTRUCTION CO. V.
MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 300 U.S. 185.  IN DENYING TO THE COMMISSIONER
ANY BENEFIT OF THE ORDER BECAUSE HE DID NOT APPEAL, THE OPINION OF THE
COURT GIVES NO HINT OF ANY GROUND UPON WHICH THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD OR
COULD HAVE APPEALED SO FAR AS THE ORDER FIXES A DEFICIENCY WHICH THE
RECORD SHOWS IS LAWFULLY DUE OR WHY THE RESPONDENT IS NOT FREE TO
MAINTAIN THAT THE BOARD REACHED THE RIGHT RESULT EVEN THOUGH THE REASON
IT GAVE WAS WRONG. 

THE CAUSE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS TO RECOMPUTE
THE DEFICIENCY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULE OF TAX LIABILITY LAID DOWN
IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, BUT IN AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING THAT WHICH
THE BOARD HAS FOUND. 

GENERAL UTILITIES & OPERATING CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 200, DOES
NOT REQUIRE ANY DIFFERENT RESULT.  THERE IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS ERROR
FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ON AN APPEAL BY THE COMMISSIONER, TO
REVERSE AN ORDER OF THE BOARD AND REMAND THE CAUSE FOR NEW FINDINGS TO
SUPPORT A THEORY OF TAX LIABILITY WHICH FIRST EMERGED FROM THE CASE ON
APPEAL.  HERE THERE IS NO NEW ISSUE TO BE TRIED BY THE BOARD.  THE ONLY
ISSUE IS ONE OF LAW WHICH THIS COURT HAS RESOLVED AND WHICH HAS BEEN
IMPLICIT IN THE CASE FROM THE BEGINNING. 
..END :













PUERTO RICO V. SHELL CO., 302 U.S. 253 


NO. 18.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 86
F.(2D) 577, REVERSED. 


1.  THE MEANING OF A PARTICULAR WORD AS USED IN A PARTICULAR INSTANCE
IN A STATUTE IS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY CONSIDERATION NOT ONLY OF THE WORD
ITSELF, BUT ALSO OF THE CONTEXT, THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW, AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE WORD WAS USED.  P. 258. 

2.  THE WORD "TERRITORY" IN SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT -
FORBIDDING CONTRACTS, COMBINATIONS, OR CONSPIRACIES "IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR COMMERCE IN ANY TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES" ETC. - WAS
USED IN ITS MOST COMPREHENSIVE SENSE, AS EMBRACING ALL ORGANIZED
TERRITORIES, WHETHER INCORPORATED INTO THE UNITED STATES OR NOT, AND
INCLUDES PUERTO RICO.  P. 259. 

3.  THE EXISTENCE OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT DID NOT
PRECLUDE ADOPTION BY THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO OF A LOCAL
ANTITRUST ACT.  P. 259. 

4.  THE INSULAR LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO HAD AUTHORITY, UNDER THE
GRANT OF LEGISLATIVE POWER CONTAINED IN SEC. 32 OF THE FORAKER ACT AND
CONTINUED IN FORCE BY SEC. 37 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF 1917, TO ENACT A
LOCAL ANTITRUST ACT.  THE SUBJECT-MATTER IS "OF A LEGISLATIVE CHARACTER
NOT LOCALLY INAPPLICABLE."  P. 260. 

5.  PUERTO RICO'S POWER OF LOCAL LEGISLATION IS NOT LIMITED BY ANY
EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE FORAKER ACT OR OF THE ORGANIC ACT, TO SUBJECTS
IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF EXPLICIT LEGISLATION BY
CONGRESS; AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE NATURE OF THE POWER OR IN THE
CONSEQUENCES LIKELY TO ENSUE FROM THE DUPLICATE EXERCISE OF IT WHICH
REQUIRES THAT SUCH A LIMITATION BE IMPLIED.  P. 263. 

6.  THE FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS HAVE POWER TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT OF
DECISIONS BETWEEN THE INSULAR COURTS OF PUERTO RICO AND THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT.  P. 263. 

7.  A PROSECUTION UNDER EITHER THE SHERMAN ACT OR THE ANTITRUST ACT
OF PUERTO RICO IS A BAR TO A PROSECUTION UNDER THE OTHER FOR THE SAME
OFFENSE; WHEREFORE THERE IS NO RISK OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  GRAFTON V.
UNITED STATES, 206 U.S. 333.  P. 264. 

8.  IN DETERMINING QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE HISTORY, PURPOSE AND
APPLICATION OF TERRITORIAL POWERS, PERTINENT DECISIONS OF STATE SUPREME
COURTS, RENDERED WHEN THE STATES WERE NEWLY CREATED FROM FORMER
TERRITORIES, ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.  P. 266. 

9.  EL PASO & N.E. RY. CO. V. GUTIERREZ, 215 U.S. 87; DAVIS V.
BEASON, 133 U.S. 333; AND DOMENECH V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 294 U.S. 199,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 268, 270. 

10.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE LOCAL ANTITRUST ACT
OF PUERTO RICO CAN NOT BOTH STAND, BECAUSE A CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE INSULAR COURTS MAY RESULT, CAN NOT
BE SUSTAINED.  P. 271. 

PUERTO RICO V. THE SHELL CO. (P.R.), LIMITED, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 675, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, WHICH DISMISSED AN APPEAL FROM AN
ORDER OF THE INSULAR DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINING DEMURRERS TO AN
INFORMATION CHARGING VIOLATION OF THE LOCAL ANTITRUST ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY PETITIONER AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS IN THE INSULAR DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.  AN
INFORMATION FILED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CHARGED RESPONDENTS WITH
ENTERING INTO A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE IN VIOLATION OF THE
LOCAL ANTI-TRUST ACT, PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF PUERTO RICO MARCH
14, 1907.  DEMURRERS TO THE INFORMATION WERE SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT
COURT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT OF 1890,
SUPPLEMENTED BY THE CLAYTON ACT OF 1914, COVERED THE ENTIRE FIELD
EMBRACED BY THE LOCAL ANTI-TRUST ACT, AND THE LATTER, THEREFORE, WAS
VOID.  THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO ACCEPTED THAT VIEW AND
DISMISSED THE APPEAL; AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED ON APPEAL BY THE
COURT BELOW.  86 F.(2D) 577.  THE SINGLE QUESTION WHICH WE HAVE TO
DECIDE IS WHETHER THE EXISTENCE OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT PRECLUDED
THE ADOPTION OF THE LOCAL ACT BY THE INSULAR LEGISLATURE. 

THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND THE LOCAL ACT ARE SET
FORTH IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 SECTION 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT AND SEC. 1 OF
THE LOCAL ACT, SO FAR AS THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED IS CONCERNED, ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL.  SECTION 4 OF THE SHERMAN ACT CONFERS
JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT UPON THE SEVERAL
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  SECTION 3 OF THE LOCAL ACT
CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE DISTRICT COURTS OF PUERTO RICO IN RESPECT
OF VIOLATIONS OF THAT ACT. 

FIRST.  SECTION 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT EXTENDS TO "ANY TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES."  BUT IT IS URGED THAT PUERTO RICO CANNOT BE BROUGHT
WITHIN THE INTENT OF THIS PHRASE, AND, THEREFORE, THE SECTION DOES NOT
APPLY TO THAT DEPENDENCY.  THE POINT IS NOT WELL MADE.  WHEN THE
SHERMAN ACT WAS PASSED (1890), WE HAD NO INSULAR DEPENDENCIES; AND,
NECESSARILY, THE APPLICATION OF SEC. 3 DID NOT EXTEND BEYOND OUR
CONTINENTAL DOMAIN; AND, UNDOUBTEDLY, IT WAS THIS DOMAIN WHICH WAS IN
THE IMMEDIATE CONTEMPLATION OF CONGRESS.  CERTAINLY, CONGRESS AT THAT
TIME DID NOT HAVE PUERTO RICO IN MIND.  BUT THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.  IT IS
NECESSARY TO GO FURTHER AND TO SAY THAT IF THE ACQUISITION OF THAT
INSULAR DEPENDENCY HAD BEEN FORESEEN, CONGRESS WOULD HAVE SO VARIED ITS
COMPREHENSIVE LANGUAGE AS TO EXCLUDE IT FROM THE OPERATION OF THE ACT. 
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE V. WOODWARD, 4 WHEAT.  518, 644; TAKAO OZAWA V.
UNITED STATES, 260 U.S. 178, 195-196; UNITED STATES V. THIND, 261 U.S.
204, 207-208.  THE ONLY QUESTION, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE WORD
"TERRITORY," AS USED IN SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, PROPERLY CAN BE
APPLIED TO A DEPENDENCY NOW BEARING THE RELATION TO THE UNITED STATES
WHICH IS BORNE BY PUERTO RICO. 

IN BALZAC V. PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298, 304-305, IT WAS HELD THAT,
ALTHOUGH THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY APPLIED TO THE TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
IT DID NOT APPLY TO TERRITORY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES WHICH HAD
NOT BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE UNION; AND THAT NEITHER THE PHILIPPINES
NOR PORTO RICO WAS TERRITORY WHICH HAD BEEN SO INCORPORATED OR HAD
BECOME A PART OF THE UNITED STATES, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM MERELY
BELONGING TO IT.  BUT IT IS EVIDENT, FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THE
PERTINENT ACTS OF CONGRESS AND THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WITH RESPECT
TO THESE ACTS, THAT WHETHER PUERTO RICO COMES WITHIN A GIVEN
CONGRESSIONAL ACT APPLICABLE IN TERMS TO A "TERRITORY," DEPENDS UPON
THE CHARACTER AND AIM OF THE ACT.  WORDS GENERALLY HAVE DIFFERENT
SHADES OF MEANING, AND ARE TO BE CONSTRUED IF REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO
EFFECTUATE THE INTENT OF THE LAWMAKERS; AND THIS MEANING IN PARTICULAR
INSTANCES IS TO BE ARRIVED AT NOT ONLY BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE WORDS
THEMSELVES, BUT BY CONSIDERING, AS WELL, THE CONTEXT, THE PURPOSES OF
THE LAW, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE WORDS WERE EMPLOYED. 
ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 427, 433;
HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS ENSKILDA BANK, 293 U.S. 84, 86, 87-88.  THUS,
ALTHOUGH PUERTO RICO IS NOT A TERRITORY WITHIN THE REACH OF THE SIXTH
AND SEVENTH AMENDMENTS AND MAY NOT BE A "TERRITORY" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE WORD AS USED IN SOME STATUTES, WE HELD IN KOPEL V. BINGHAM, 211
U.S. 468, 474, 475, 476, THAT PUERTO RICO WAS A "TERRITORY" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 5278 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE
DEMAND AND SURRENDER OF FUGITIVE CRIMINALS BY GOVERNORS OF TERRITORIES
AS WELL AS OF STATES.  THE COURT SAID THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO HOLD
THAT PUERTO RICO WAS NOT INTENDED TO HAVE POWER TO RECLAIM FUGITIVES
FROM ITS JUSTICE, OR THAT IT WAS INTENDED THAT IT SHOULD BE AN ASYLUM
FOR FUGITIVES FROM THE UNITED STATES.  THE WORD "TERRITORY" AS USED IN
THAT STATUTE WAS DEFINED AS MEANING "A PORTION OF THE COUNTRY NOT
INCLUDED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ANY STATE, AND NOT YET ADMITTED AS A
STATE INTO THE UNION, BUT ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF CONGRESS WITH A
SEPARATE LEGISLATURE UNDER A TERRITORIAL GOVERNOR AND OTHER OFFICERS
APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES."  AND THE
COURT CONCLUDED, "IT MAY BE JUSTLY ASSERTED THAT PORTO RICO IS A
COMPLETELY ORGANIZED TERRITORY, ALTHOUGH NOT A TERRITORY INCORPORATED
INTO THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT THERE IS NO REASON WHY PORTO RICO
SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO BE SUCH A TERRITORY AS IS COMPRISED IN SEC.
5278."  SEE PORTO RICO V. ROSALY Y CASTILLO, 227 U.S. 270, 274. 
COMPARE TALBOTT V. SILVER BOW COUNTY, 139 U.S. 438, 444-445. 

WITH EQUAL FORCE, IT MAY BE SAID HERE THAT THERE IS NO REASON WHY
PUERTO RICO SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO BE A "TERRITORY" WITHIN THE MEANING
OF SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  WE POINTED OUT IN THE ATLANTIC CLEANERS
& DYERS CASE, SUPRA, P. 435, THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE
HISTORY AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS APPARENT THAT CONGRESS MEANT TO DEAL
COMPREHENSIVELY WITH THE SUBJECT OF CONTRACTS, COMBINATIONS, AND
CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, "AND TO THAT END TO EXERCISE ALL
THE POWER IT POSSESSED"; THAT WHILE CONGRESS IN PASSING SEC. 1
EXERCISED ONLY THE POWER CONFERRED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, IN PASSING
SEC. 3 IT EXERCISED A GENERAL POWER, UNLIMITED BY THAT CLAUSE.  WE
THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE WORD "TRADE" AS USED IN SEC. 3 SHOULD BE
GIVEN A MORE EXTENDED MEANING THAN THE SAME WORD AS USED IN SEC. 1. 

IF, AS WE THERE DETERMINED, CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE SHERMAN ACT TO
EXERT ALL THE POWER IT POSSESSED IN RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER -
TRADE AND COMMERCE - , IT IS EQUALLY REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO INCLUDE ALL TERRITORIES TO WHICH ITS POWERS MIGHT
EXTEND.  THE SAME REASON WHICH REQUIRES THE UTMOST LIBERALITY OF
CONSTRUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE WORD "TRADE," ALSO REQUIRES THE SAME
DEGREE OF LIBERALITY OF CONSTRUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE WORD
"TERRITORY"; AND WE HOLD, ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE WORD "TERRITORY" WAS
USED IN ITS MOST COMPREHENSIVE SENSE, AS EMBRACING ALL ORGANIZED
TERRITORIES, WHETHER INCORPORATED INTO THE UNITED STATES OR NOT,
INCLUDING PUERTO RICO. 

SECOND.  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT ALTHOUGH SEC. 1 OF THE LOCAL ACT
CONTAINED SOME WORDS NOT TO BE FOUND IN SEC. 3 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, THE
PERTINENT PROVISIONS WERE IN SUBSTANCE THE SAME; THAT THE ACT CHARGED
IN THE INFORMATION AS A CRIME UNDER THE LOCAL STATUTE WAS THE SAME AS
THAT DENOUNCED AS A CRIME IN THE SHERMAN ACT; AND THAT IN EACH INSTANCE
THE OFFENSE WAS A CRIME AGAINST THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
WITH THAT VIEW WE AGREE.  BUT THAT COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE ACT OF
CONGRESS PREEMPTED THE GROUND OCCUPIED BY THE LOCAL ACT AND SUPERSEDED
IT; AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LOCAL DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
OF THE OFFENSE.  WITH THAT CONCLUSION WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE. 

1.  SECTION 14 OF THE FORAKER ACT, PASSED APRIL 12, 1900, C. 191, 31
STAT. 77, 80, PROVIDED THAT THE STATUTORY LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
NOT LOCALLY INAPPLICABLE, SHOULD HAVE THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT IN
PUERTO RICO AS IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT
MATERIAL HERE.  SECTION 27(P. 82) PROVIDED "THAT ALL LOCAL LEGISLATIVE
POWERS HEREBY GRANTED SHALL BE VESTED IN A LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY  ..." 
AND BY SEC. 32(P. 83-84), IT WAS PROVIDED THAT THE LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY "SHALL EXTEND TO ALL MATTERS OF A LEGISLATIVE CHARACTER NOT
LOCALLY INAPPLICABLE  ..."  THESE VARIOUS PROVISIONS ARE CONTINUED IN
FORCE BY SECS. 9, 25 AND 37 OF THE ORGANIC ACT OF MARCH 2, 1917, C.
145, 39 STAT. 951.  THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT DIFFER IN SUBSTANCE FROM
THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE POWERS OF THE ORGANIZED AND
INCORPORATED CONTINENTAL TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES, IN RESPECT
OF WHICH THIS COURT SAID IN CLINTON V. ENGLEBRECHT, 13 WALL.  434, 441,
THAT THE THEORY UPON WHICH THESE TERRITORIES HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED "HAS
EVER BEEN THAT OF LEAVING TO THE INHABITANTS ALL THE POWERS OF SELF
GOVERNMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE SUPREMACY AND SUPERVISION OF NATIONAL
AUTHORITY, AND WITH CERTAIN FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY
CONGRESS"; AND IN HORNBUCKLE V. TOOMBS, 18 WALL.  648, 655-656, WE
SAID:  "THE POWERS THUS EXERCISED BY THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURES ARE
NEARLY AS EXTENSIVE AS THOSE EXERCISED BY ANY STATE LEGISLATURE."  SEE
ALSO COPE V. COPE, 137 U.S. 682, 684, WHERE THIS COURT, SPEAKING OF
THIS TYPICAL GENERAL PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE UTAH ORGANIC ACT, SAID
THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS NOTED IN THE PROVISION ITSELF, "THE POWER OF
THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE WAS APPARENTLY AS PLENARY AS THAT OF THE
LEGISLATURE OF A STATE."  IN MAYNARD V. HILL, 125 U.S. 190, 204, THE
ESSENTIAL SIMILARITY OF THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF THE POWERS
OF TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURES WAS POINTED OUT, AND IT WAS SAID THAT WHAT
WERE "RIGHTFUL SUBJECTS OF LEGISLATION" WAS TO BE DETERMINED "BY AN
EXAMINATION OF THE SUBJECTS UPON WHICH LEGISLATURES HAD BEEN IN THE
PRACTICE OF ACTING WITH THE CONSENT AND APPROVAL OF THE PEOPLE THEY
REPRESENTED." 

THE GRANT OF LEGISLATIVE POWER IN RESPECT OF LOCAL MATTERS, CONTAINED
IN SEC. 32 OF THE FORAKER ACT AND CONTINUED IN FORCE BY SEC. 37 OF THE
ORGANIC ACT OF 1917, IS AS BROAD AND COMPREHENSIVE AS LANGUAGE COULD
MAKE IT.  THE PRIMARY QUESTION POSED BY THE CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY
OF THE ACT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE MATTER COVERED BY THE ACT
IS ONE "OF A LEGISLATIVE CHARACTER NOT LOCALLY INAPPLICABLE."  IT
REQUIRES NO ARGUMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF PUERTO RICO IS CLEARLY A LOCAL MATTER, AND
THAT IT FALLS WITHIN THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE POWER GRANTED BY SECS. 32
AND 37 OF THE RESPECTIVE ACTS IN WHICH THE GRANT IS FOUND.  THE POWER
BEING GIVEN WITHOUT EXPRESS LIMITATION, A CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESENT
EXERCISE OF THE POWER IS PRECLUDED BY THE EXISTENCE OF SEC. 3 OF THE
SHERMAN ACT MUST REST UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT A CONGRESSIONAL STATUTE
PENALIZING SPECIFIC LOCAL BEHAVIOR AND A STATUTE OF PUERTO RICO TO THE
SAME EFFECT CANNOT COEXIST.  WITH DUE REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE
TERRITORY, THE CHARACTER OF ITS ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT, THE POSITIVE
TERMS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF POWER, AND THE LACK OF CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE TWO ACTS, THAT ASSUMPTION MUST BE REJECTED. 

2.  THE AIM OF THE FORAKER ACT AND THE ORGANIC ACT WAS TO GIVE PUERTO
RICO FULL POWER OF LOCAL SELF-DETERMINATION, WITH AN AUTONOMY SIMILAR
TO THAT OF THE STATES AND INCORPORATED TERRITORIES.  GROMER V. STANDARD
DREDGING CO., 224 U.S. 362, 370; PORTO RICO V. ROSALY Y CASTILLO,
SUPRA, P. 274.  THE EFFECT WAS TO CONFER UPON THE TERRITORY MANY OF THE
ATTRIBUTES OF QUASI-SOVEREIGNTY POSSESSED BY THE STATES - AS, FOR
EXAMPLE, IMMUNITY FROM SUIT WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.  PORTO RICO V.
ROSALY Y CASTILLO, SUPRA.  BY THOSE ACTS, THE TYPICAL AMERICAN
GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE, CONSISTING OF THE THREE INDEPENDENT DEPARTMENTS
- LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL - WAS ERECTED.  "A BODY POLITIC"
A COMMONWEALTH - WAS CREATED.  31 STAT. 79, SEC. 7, C. 191.  THE POWER
OF TAXATION, THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE LAWS, AND OTHER
CHARACTERISTICALLY GOVERNMENTAL POWERS WERE VESTED.  AND SO FAR AS
LOCAL MATTERS ARE CONCERNED, AS WE HAVE ALREADY SHOWN IN RESPECT OF THE
CONTINENTAL TERRITORIES, LEGISLATIVE POWERS WERE CONFERRED NEARLY, IF
NOT QUITE, AS EXTENSIVE AS THOSE EXERCISED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURES. 

THIS COMPREHENSIVE GRANT OF LEGISLATIVE POWER MADE BY CONGRESS
PLAINLY RECOGNIZES THE GREAT DESIRABILITY OF DEVOLVING UPON THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SEARCHING OUT LOCAL OFFENSES AND
PROSECUTING THEM IN THE LOCAL TRIBUNALS.  THE INSULAR SUPREME COURT IN
THIS CASE DECLARED IN EMPHATIC TERMS THE WISDOM OF SUCH LOCAL CONTROL
IN RESPECT OF THE MATTER DEALT WITH BY THE ACT IN QUESTION.  ALTHOUGH
STRIKING DOWN, WITH EVIDENT RELUCTANCE, THE ACT AS INVALID, THAT COURT
SAID:  "THE RIGHT OF THE INSULAR LEGISLATURE AND OFFICERS TO PROSECUTE
AND PUNISH SUCH MONOPOLIES AS MAY BE SET UP WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION IS
REALLY INESTIMABLE.  IT WAS SO UNDERSTOOD BY OUR LEGISLATURE WHEN IT
TOOK UPON ITSELF TO LEGISLATE ON THE SUBJECT.  THIS IS A WHOLESOME AND
NECESSARY LEGISLATION THAT SHOULD BE ENFORCED THROUGH THE INSULAR
COURTS.  IT MUST BE ADMITTED THAT THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO HAS A
SPECIAL INTEREST IN PROSECUTING BEFORE THE COURTS THOSE CITIZENS WHO
VIOLATE ITS OWN LAWS.  NO MATTER HOW INTERESTED THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
MAY BE IN PROSECUTING SUCH OFFENSES, INSTANCES MIGHT OCCUR WHERE THE
LATTER WOULD PASS UNNOTICED BY THE FEDERAL OFFICERS, OR WHERE, FOR SOME
REASON OR OTHER, SUCH OFFICERS MIGHT NOT DISPLAY THE SAME ACTIVITY AND
INTEREST THAT IS TO BE EXPECTED FROM THE LOCAL OFFICIALS."    3.  IN
THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING THE SWEEPING
CHARACTER OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GRANT OF POWER CONTAINED IN THE FORAKER
ACT AND THE ORGANIC ACT OF 1917, THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO
CONFER POWER UPON THE GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO TO LEGISLATE IN RESPECT
OF ALL LOCAL MATTERS IS MADE MANIFEST.  IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS
SIGNIFICANT THAT THE ONLY EXPRESS LIMITATION UPON THE POWER IS THAT, IN
CERTAIN OF ITS ASPECTS, IT SHALL BE EXERCISED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE ACTS.  SEE SECS. 37, 57 OF THE ORGANIC
ACT, AND SEC. 32 OF THE FORAKER ACT.  NOTHING IS EXPRESSED IN THESE
ACTS OR, SO FAR AS WE ARE ADVISED, IN ANY OTHER FEDERAL ACT, WHICH
SUGGESTS A CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO LIMIT THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
LOCAL LEGISLATION TO THOSE SUBJECTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE IS AN
ABSENCE OF EXPLICIT LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS; AND WE FIND NOTHING IN THE
NATURE OF THE POWER OR IN THE CONSEQUENCES LIKELY TO ENSUE FROM THE
DUPLICATE EXERCISE OF IT WHICH REQUIRES AN IMPLICATION TO THAT EFFECT. 

OUR ATTENTION IS CALLED TO CERTAIN DIFFERENCES OF LANGUAGE IN THE TWO
ACTS; AND IT IS URGED THAT THESE DIFFERENCES CREATE A "RISK" OF
CONFLICT OF INTERPRETATION BETWEEN THE LOCAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURTS.  THE FEAR OF CONFLICTING DECISIONS IS MORE FANCIFUL
THAN REAL, SINCE WE AGREE WITH THE COURT BELOW THAT THERE IS IN FACT NO
SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE TWO
STATUTES.  BUT IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT, IN SPITE OF THIS CONCLUSION,
A CONFLICT OF DECISIONS SHALL ARISE, THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL APPELLATE
COURTS TO RESOLVE THAT CONFLICT IS CLEAR.  SECS. 128(A) AND 240,
JUDICIAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, C. 229, 43
STAT. 936; 28 U.S.C. SECS. 225, 347. 

IT LIKEWISE IS CLEAR THAT THE LEGISLATIVE DUPLICATION GIVES RISE TO
NO DANGER OF A SECOND PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION, OR OF DOUBLE
PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.  THE RISK OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY  FN2
DOES NOT EXIST.  BOTH THE TERRITORIAL AND FEDERAL LAWS AND THE COURTS,
WHETHER EXERCISING FEDERAL OR LOCAL JURISDICTION, ARE CREATIONS
EMANATING FROM THE SAME SOVEREIGNTY.  SEE BALZAC V. PORTO RICO, SUPRA,
P. 312.  PROSECUTION UNDER ONE OF THE LAWS IN THE APPROPRIATE COURT,
NECESSARILY, WILL BAR A PROSECUTION UNDER THE OTHER LAW IN ANOTHER
COURT.  GRAFTON V. UNITED STATES, 206 U.S. 333.  IN THAT CASE, GRAFTON,
A SOLDIER IN THE ARMY, HAD BEEN ACQUITTED BY A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL
CONVENED IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OF A CRIME NOT CAPITAL, ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN VIOLATION OF THE 62D ARTICLE OF WAR. 
SUBSEQUENTLY, A CRIMINAL INFORMATION IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES
WAS FILED IN A PHILIPPINE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, CHARGING HIM WITH
THE SAME OFFENSE COMMITTED IN VIOLATION OF A LOCAL LAW.  THIS COURT
HELD THAT THE ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED BY THE COURT MARTIAL PRECLUDED
HIS BEING AGAIN TRIED FOR THE SAME OFFENSE IN THE CIVIL COURTS, FOR THE
REASON THAT HE WOULD THUS BE PUT TWICE IN JEOPARDY OF PUNISHMENT.  THE
62D ARTICLE OF WAR  FN3  WAS A FEDERAL STATUTE.  REVISED STATUTES, SEC.
1342.  THE GENERAL COURT MARTIAL WAS A FEDERAL TRIBUNAL.  THE
PHILIPPINE ACT WAS A LOCAL LAW; AND THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE WAS A
LOCAL COURT.  BUT BOTH OF THE LAWS AND BOTH OF THE COURTS OWED THEIR
EXISTENCE TO THE SAME SUPREME AUTHORITY.  THE SITUATION PRESENTED THERE
WAS, IN ALL ESSENTIALS, THE SAME AS THAT PRESENTED HERE.  THE DECISION
OF THE COURT IN THAT CASE RESTED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE ACCUSED,
HAVING BEEN ACQUITTED BY THE FEDERAL TRIBUNAL, COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED
TO PROSECUTION IN ANOTHER COURT, CIVIL OR MILITARY, OF THE SAME
SOVEREIGNTY.  WE HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THE SAME ACT MIGHT CONSTITUTE
DISTINCT OFFENSES AGAINST A STATE AND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, FOR
BOTH OF WHICH THE ACCUSED MIGHT BE PROSECUTED, THAT RULE HAD NO
APPLICATION TO ACTS COMMITTED IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  WE SAID (PP.
354-355), "THE GOVERNMENT OF A STATE DOES NOT DERIVE ITS POWERS FROM
THE UNITED STATES, WHILE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES OWES ITS
EXISTENCE WHOLLY TO THE UNITED STATES, AND ITS JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS EXERT
ALL THEIR POWERS BY AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THE JURISDICTION
AND AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES OVER THAT TERRITORY AND ITS
INHABITANTS, FOR ALL LEGITIMATE PURPOSES OF GOVERNMENT, IS PARAMOUNT. 
SO THAT THE CASES HOLDING THAT THE SAME ACTS COMMITTED IN A STATE OF
THE UNION MAY CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND ALSO
A DISTINCT OFFENSE AGAINST THE STATE, DO NOT APPLY HERE, WHERE THE TWO
TRIBUNALS THAT TRIED THE ACCUSED EXERT ALL THEIR POWERS UNDER AND BY
AUTHORITY OF THE SAME GOVERNMENT - THAT OF THE UNITED STATES." 

AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO DISTINGUISH THE GRAFTON CASE ON THE GROUND THAT
BUT ONE STATUTE WAS THERE INVOLVED - NAMELY, THE STATUTE OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS - AND THAT BOTH THE GENERAL COURT MARTIAL AND THE
PHILIPPINE COURT UNDERTOOK TO ENFORCE THAT STATUTE.  OBVIOUSLY, THAT
VIEW IS INCORRECT.  THE COURT-MARTIAL PROCEEDING WAS NOT TO ENFORCE THE
PHILIPPINE LEGISLATION, BUT TO ENFORCE THE 62D ARTICLE OF WAR; AND THAT
ARTICLE WAS NONE THE LESS A FEDERAL LAW, DISTINCT FROM THE LOCAL LAW,
BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE LOCAL LAW TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE ACT CHARGED AGAINST THE SOLDIER WAS EMBRACED BY THE TERM
"CRIMES" IN THE 62D ARTICLE.  THIS IS WELL ILLUSTRATED BY SEC. 289 OF
THE CRIMINAL CODE (18 U.S.C. SEC. 468), WHICH, IN RESPECT OF OFFENSES
COMMITTED UPON PLACES SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE
UNITED STATES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A STATE OR ORGANIZED TERRITORY OR
DISTRICT, MAKES APPLICABLE THE LAWS OF SUCH STATE, TERRITORY OR
DISTRICT IN RESPECT OF SUCH OFFENSES.  PROSECUTIONS UNDER THAT SECTION,
HOWEVER, ARE NOT TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THE STATE, TERRITORY OR
DISTRICT, BUT TO ENFORCE THE FEDERAL LAW, THE DETAILS OF WHICH, INSTEAD
OF BEING RECITED, ARE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. PRESS
PUBLISHING CO., 219 U.S. 1. 

4.  THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURTS OF FOUR STATES, RENDERED WHEN
THE STATES WERE NEWLY-CREATED FROM FORMER TERRITORIES, ARE, EXCEPT IN
ONE PARTICULAR, OF WHICH WE SHALL SPEAK LATER, IN HARMONY WITH THE
VIEWS WE HAVE EXPRESSED.  THOSE DECISIONS, THOUGH NOT CONCLUSIVE, ARE
ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT, BECAUSE THEY DEALT WITH TERRITORIAL POWERS IN
OPERATION AT A TIME SO SHORTLY BEFORE THE RENDITION OF THE DECISIONS
THAT THE JUDGES WHO RENDERED THEM WELL MAY BE CREDITED WITH SUCH
KNOWLEDGE OF THE PURPOSE OF THESE POWERS AND THEIR HISTORY AND
APPLICATION, AS TO MAKE THESE JUDGES PECULIARLY COMPETENT TO DECIDE
QUESTIONS RELATING THERETO. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF WYOMING, IN A VERY FULL AND CAREFULLY DRAWN
OPINION, REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT A STATUTE OF THAT TERRITORY
DEFINING AND PUNISHING THE CRIME OF BIGAMY WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT AN ACT OF CONGRESS DEFINED AND PRESCRIBED
PUNISHMENT FOR THE SAME CRIME WHEN COMMITTED IN ANY OF THE
TERRITORIES.  IN RE MURPHY, 5 WYO. 297; 40 PAC. 398.  FOLLOWING ITS
DISCUSSION IN RESPECT OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE NATIONAL AND
TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, AND THE EXTENSIVE POWERS WHICH HAD BEEN
CONFERRED UPON THE LATTER, THAT COURT (5 WYO. 315; 40 PAC. 404)
CONCLUDED:  "...  THE CRIME OF BIGAMY AS DEFINED AND PUNISHABLE BY ACT
OF CONGRESS, IS A CRIME AGAINST THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES. 
THE ACT OF CONGRESS EMBRACES NO EXPRESS LIMITATION UPON THE RIGHT OF
THE TERRITORY TO ALSO PUNISH THE SAME ACT AS AN OFFENSE AGAINST IT AND
ITS LOCAL LAWS, NOR UPON THE LOCAL LEGISLATURE TO ENACT A LAW DEFINING
AND PROVIDING A PUNISHMENT THEREFOR AS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE
TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY.  AS THERE ARE IN PRACTICAL AND LEGAL EFFECT
TWO GOVERNMENTS, ALTHOUGH THE ONE EMANATES FROM THE OTHER, WE ARE
UNABLE TO PERCEIVE WHY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE TERRITORY UNDER THE
GENERAL GRANT OF POWER WITH WHICH IT WAS INVESTED, MAY NOT HAVE ENACTED
A VALID LAW ASSUMING TO PUNISH AS A TERRITORIAL OFFENSE THE CRIME OF
BIGAMY.  IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE UNITED STATES STATUTE.  IT COULD
NOT AND DID NOT ASSUME TO DESTROY THE FORCE OR EFFECT OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL PROVISION.  IT COULD NOT HAVE ASSUMED TO OFFER IMMUNITY
TO THOSE DESIRING TO CONTRACT POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES.  BY SILENCE, IT
COULD ONLY HAVE REFUSED TO PUNISH IT AS A TERRITORIAL CRIME.  TO AVOID
THIS POSSIBILITY CONGRESS UNDERTOOK TO PUNISH IT AS A CRIME AGAINST THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."  THAT DECISION WAS FOLLOWED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF UTAH IN STATE V. NORMAN, 16 UTAH 457; 52 PAC. 986. 

THE WYOMING AND THE UTAH COURTS THOUGHT THAT PROSECUTION AND
PUNISHMENT COULD BE HAD UNDER BOTH STATUTES, AND ATTEMPTED TO JUSTIFY
THAT VIEW BY INVOKING THE RULE APPLICABLE TO STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES
DENOUNCING THE SAME CRIMINAL ACTS.  THIS, OF COURSE, IN THE LIGHT OF
OUR LATER DECISION IN THE GRAFTON CASE, IS NOW SEEN TO BE ERRONEOUS;
BUT THE ERROR DOES NOT AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE REASONING AND
CONCLUSION OF THESE COURTS UPON THE MAIN POINT - THAT THE LOCAL STATUTE
WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF TERRITORIAL POWER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
IDENTICAL LEGISLATION BY CONGRESS. 

IN TERRITORY V. GUYOTT, 9 MONT. 46; 22 PAC. 134, A TERRITORIAL
STATUTE MAKING IT A FELONY TO SELL, BARTER OR GIVE INTOXICATING LIQUOR
TO AN INDIAN, WAS SUSTAINED AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT THE AUTHORITY
OF THE TERRITORY TO PASS THE STATUTE HAD BEEN FORECLOSED BY SEC. 2139
U.S. REV. STATS., WHICH DEFINES AND PUNISHES THE SAME OFFENSE. 

TERRITORY V. LONG BELL LUMBER CO., 22 OKLA. 890; 99 PAC. 911,
INVOLVED THE VALIDITY OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT PASSED BY THE FORMER
TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURE.  SUITS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS,
CHARGING VIOLATIONS OF THE TERRITORIAL ACT, WHICH WERE ALSO VIOLATIONS
OF THE SHERMAN ACT.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF THE
TERRITORIAL ACT, HOLDING THAT IT WAS NOT REPUGNANT TO OR IN CONFLICT
WITH THE FEDERAL ACT.  IN DOING SO, IT FOLLOWED THE REASONING OF, AND
RELIED UPON, THE WYOMING, MONTANA AND UTAH DECISIONS, ABOVE CITED. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, IN TERRITORY V.
ALEXANDER, 11 ARIZ. 172; 89 PAC. 514, HAD BEFORE IT FOR CONSIDERATION A
BIGAMY STATUTE LIKE THAT INVOLVED IN THE WYOMING CASE, AND ERRONEOUSLY
HELD IT TO BE INVALID.  IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION, IT EXPRESSLY
REJECTED THE WYOMING, UTAH AND MONTANA DECISIONS UPON THE AUTHORITY OF
DAVIS V. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333, A CASE WHICH WE SHALL PRESENTLY
CONSIDER. 

5.  THERE IS SOME GENERAL LANGUAGE IN EL PASO & N.E. RY. CO. V.
GUTIERREZ, 215 U.S. 87, AND DAVIS V. BEASON, SUPRA, WHICH, CONSIDERED
APART FROM THE QUESTION WHICH WAS INVOLVED AND APART FROM THE OPINIONS
IN THEIR ENTIRETY, SEEMS TO SUPPORT THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW IN
THE PRESENT CASE.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW AND THE ARGUMENT OF
RESPONDENTS HERE REST IN THE MAIN UPON THESE CASES.  AN EXAMINATION OF
THEM, HOWEVER, WILL SHOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD.  THE
GUTIERREZ CASE INVOLVED THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF THE TERRITORY OF
NEW MEXICO, WHICH PROVIDED THAT NO ACTION FOR INJURIES INFLICTING DEATH
CAUSED BY ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION IN THE TERRITORY SHOULD BE
MAINTAINED UNLESS THE PERSON CLAIMING DAMAGES SHOULD, WITHIN 90 DAYS
AFTER THE INFLICTION OF THE INJURIES COMPLAINED OF AND 30 DAYS BEFORE
COMMENCING SUIT, SERVE UPON THE DEFENDANT AN AFFIDAVIT COVERING CERTAIN
SPECIFIED PARTICULARS.  THE STATUTE ALSO REQUIRED THAT SUIT MUST BE
BROUGHT WITHIN A YEAR AND IN A SPECIFIED DISTRICT COURT OF THE
TERRITORY.  THE STATUTE IS SET FORTH IN FULL IN THE MARGIN OF THE
OPINION OF THIS COURT IN ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. SOWERS, 213
U.S. 55, 59-63.  AN ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN TEXAS BY ENEDINA GUTIERREZ
AGAINST THE RAILWAY COMPANY TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR THE DEATH OF HER
INTESTATE.  THE ACCIDENT CAUSING THE DEATH HAPPENED IN NEW MEXICO, AND
THE RAILWAY COMPANY SET UP THE NEW MEXICO STATUTE BY WAY OF SPECIAL
PLEA AND ANSWER.  A WRIT OF ERROR BROUGHT HERE FOR REVIEW THE JUDGMENT
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS HOLDING THAT THE CASE WAS CONTROLLED BY
THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 34 STAT. 232, AND REFUSING TO
GIVE EFFECT TO THE NEW MEXICO STATUTE - A STATUTE WHICH WAS PLAINLY AN
ATTEMPTED RESTRICTION UPON THE RIGHT OF ACTION CONFERRED IN UNLIMITED
TERMS BY THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, AND, THEREFORE, IN
DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THAT ACT.  IN DECIDING THE QUESTION, THIS COURT
SAID THAT THERE COULD BE NO DOUBT THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS "WOULD
NECESSARILY SUPERSEDE THE TERRITORIAL LAW REGULATING THE SAME
SUBJECT."  THIS IS BROAD LANGUAGE; BUT IT MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE
LIGHT OF THE QUESTION PRESENTED, WHICH WAS WHETHER A TERRITORIAL ACT,
IN PLAIN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL ACT, WAS VALID.  IN THAT SITUATION,
THE APPLICABLE RULE IS THAT FORMULATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN
COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6 WHEAT.  264, 399, WHERE, SPEAKING FOR THIS COURT,
HE SAID:  "IT IS A MAXIM NOT TO BE DISREGARDED, THAT GENERAL
EXPRESSIONS, IN EVERY OPINION, ARE TO BE TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CASE IN WHICH THOSE EXPRESSIONS ARE USED.  IF THEY GO BEYOND THE CASE,
THEY MAY BE RESPECTED, BUT OUGHT NOT TO CONTROL THE JUDGMENT IN A
SUBSEQUENT SUIT WHEN THE VERY POINT IS PRESENTED FOR DECISION."  SEE,
ALSO, HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 602, 627, AND
CASES CITED.    IN THE COURSE OF THE OPINION RENDERED BY THIS COURT IN
DAVIS V. BEASON, SUPRA (P. 348), IT WAS SAID:  "THE CASES IN WHICH THE
LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS WILL SUPERSEDE THE LEGISLATION OF A STATE OR
TERRITORY, WITHOUT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS TO THAT EFFECT, ARE THOSE IN
WHICH THE SAME MATTER IS THE SUBJECT OF LEGISLATION BY BOTH.  THERE THE
ACTION OF CONGRESS MAY WELL BE CONSIDERED AS COVERING THE ENTIRE
GROUND."  THIS GENERALIZATION WAS NOT NECESSARY TO THE DECISION OF THE
CASE, AND, TAKEN LITERALLY, CANNOT STAND, BECAUSE, AS IN THE GUTIERREZ
CASE, IT OMITS THE ELEMENT OF ACTUAL CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO ACTS OF
LEGISLATION.  THE DECISION ITSELF SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE
PENALIZING ANY PERSON WHO TEACHES, ADVISES, COUNSELS OR ENCOURAGES THE
PRACTICE OF BIGAMY OR POLYGAMY, NOTWITHSTANDING THERE WAS A GENERAL ACT
OF CONGRESS WHICH HAD FOR ITS OBJECT THE SUPPRESSION OF BIGAMY AND
POLYGAMY IN THE TERRITORIES.  AND THE COURT SAID IN ITS OPINION (PAGE
341), THAT BIGAMY AND POLYGAMY ARE "CRIMES BY THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND THEY ARE CRIMES BY THE LAWS OF IDAHO"; AND FURTHER (PAGE
348), THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS WAS A GENERAL LAW APPLICABLE TO ALL
TERRITORIES AND "DOES NOT PURPORT TO RESTRICT THE LEGISLATION OF THE
TERRITORIES OVER KINDRED OFFENSES OR OVER THE MEANS FOR THEIR
ASCERTAINMENT AND PREVENTION."  EACH OF THE TWO OBSERVATIONS WHICH WE
HAVE LAST QUOTED, MAY HAVE GONE BEYOND THE NECESSITIES OF THE CASE AND
MAY FALL WITHIN THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL IN THE
COHENS CASE.  IN ANY EVENT, HOWEVER, THEY INDICATE THAT THE GENERAL
STATEMENT FIRST QUOTED IS NOT TO BE GIVEN THE SWEEPING EFFECT WHICH A
CATEGORICAL READING OF THE WORDS MIGHT AT FIRST SUGGEST. 

ONLY A WORD NEED BE SAID ABOUT DOMENECH V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 294
U.S. 199, WHICH THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT LENT SUPPORT TO ITS JUDGMENT. 
THAT CASE INVOLVED THE VALIDITY OF A TAX SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED BY PUERTO
RICO UPON A BRANCH OF A NATIONAL BANK ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES.  WE HELD THAT SEC. 5219 OF THE REVISED STATUTES WAS IN
FORCE IN PUERTO RICO AND THAT THAT SECTION FORBADE THE TAX.  THE GRANT
TO THE TERRITORY OF THE GENERAL POWER TO TAX DID NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT
ON THE PART OF CONGRESS THAT A TAX NOT AUTHORIZED BY SEC. 5219 COULD BE
LAID; AND IT IS UPON THAT GROUND THAT OUR DECISION RESTS.  THE CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE TAX AND THE FEDERAL LAW WE REGARDED AS PLAIN. 

6.  FINALLY, IT IS CONTENDED THAT, IF THE LOCAL ANTI-TRUST ACT AND
THE SHERMAN ACT BOTH STAND, A CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE
FEDERAL COURTS AND THE LOCAL COURTS MAY RESULT.  BUT CLEARLY THERE IS
SLIGHT, IF ANY, GROUND FOR THE APPREHENSION.  THE LOCAL ACT SIMPLY
CONFERS JURISDICTION UPON THE LOCAL COURTS TO ENFORCE THAT ACT.  NO
ATTEMPT, OF COURSE, IS MADE TO CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THOSE COURTS TO
ENFORCE THE SHERMAN ACT, OR UPON THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ENFORCE THE
LOCAL ACT.  IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY A CONFLICT AS TO WHICH LAW SHALL BE
ENFORCED AND WHICH JURISDICTION SHALL BE INVOKED SHOULD EVER ARISE,
SINCE THE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
BOTH ACTS ARE, IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE SAME
SOVEREIGNTY AND, IT WELL MAY BE ASSUMED, WILL WORK IN HARMONY. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ANTI-TRUST ACT OF PUERTO RICO IS VALID AND
ENFORCEABLE; AND, ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SHERMAN ACT (JULY 2, 1890, C. 647, 26 STAT. 209): 

"SEC. 3.  EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN FORM OF TRUST OR OTHERWISE,
OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE OR COMMERCE IN ANY TERRITORY OF
THE UNITED STATES OR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR IN RESTRAINT OF
TRADE OR COMMERCE BETWEEN ANY SUCH TERRITORY AND ANOTHER, OR BETWEEN
ANY SUCH TERRITORY OR TERRITORIES AND ANY STATE OR STATES OR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR WITH FOREIGN NATIONS, OR BETWEEN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA AND ANY STATE OR STATES OR FOREIGN NATIONS, IS HEREBY
DECLARED ILLEGAL.  EVERY PERSON WHO SHALL MAKE ANY SUCH CONTRACT OR
ENGAGE IN ANY SUCH COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF
A MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE
NOT EXCEEDING $5,000 OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY
BOTH SAID PUNISHMENTS, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT. 

"SEC. 4.  THE SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE HEREBY
INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO PREVENT AND RESTRAIN VIOLATIONS OF THIS
ACT; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OF THE
UNITED STATES, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY TO PREVENT AND
RESTRAIN SUCH VIOLATIONS...." 

BY SEC. 24(2) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 41(2), THE
DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE GIVEN JURISDICTION - "OF ALL
CRIMES AND OFFENSES COGNIZABLE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES." 

THE PUERTO RICO ACT OF MARCH 14, 1907(LAWS 1907, P. 328): 

"SECTION 1.  EVERY CONTRACT, COMBINATION IN THE FORM OF TRUST OR
OTHERWISE, OR CONSPIRACY, IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, COMMERCE, BUSINESS
TRANSACTIONS, AND LAWFUL AND FREE COMPETITION IN A TOWN, OR AMONG THE
SEVERAL TOWNS OF PUERTO RICO IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE ILLEGAL.  EVERY
PERSON WHO SHALL MAKE ANY SUCH CONTRACT OR ENGAGE IN ANY SUCH
CONSPIRACY, SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND, ON CONVICTION
THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY FINE NOT EXCEEDING FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS,
OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH SUCH PUNISHMENTS
IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"SECTION 3.  THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE ISLAND ARE HEREBY VESTED WITH
JURISDICTION TO PREVENT, PROHIBIT, ENJOIN AND PUNISH VIOLATIONS OF THIS
LAW; AND IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEYS OF THE DISTRICT COURTS
OF THE ISLAND TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS OF INJUNCTION OR ANY OTHER CIVIL
PROCEEDING TO PREVENT, PROHIBIT, ENJOIN, AND RESTRAIN SUCH
VIOLATIONS...." 

FN2  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES, "NOR SHALL ANY
PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF
LIFE OR LIMB."  SECTION 2(THE BILL OF RIGHTS) OF THE PUERTO RICO
ORGANIC ACT OF 1917, 39 STAT. 951, PROVIDES THAT "NO PERSON FOR THE
SAME OFFENSE SHALL BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF PUNISHMENT." 

FN3  "ALL CRIMES NOT CAPITAL  ...  WHICH OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS MAY BE
GUILTY OF  ...  ARE TO BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF BY A GENERAL  ...  COURT
(MARTIAL),  ...  AND PUNISHED AT THE DISCRETION OF SUCH COURT." 
..END :










WILLING V. BINENSTOCK, 302 U.S. 272 


NO. 36.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 17, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 88
F.(2D) 474, AFFIRMED IN PART - REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  IN PENNSYLVANIA, DEPOSITS TO THE CREDIT OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF A
PARTNERSHIP IN AN INSOLVENT BANK MAY BE SET OFF AGAINST AN OBLIGATION
OF THE PARTNERSHIP TO THE BANK.  P. 274. 

2.  NOTHING IN THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT OR IN ANY OTHER FEDERAL
STATUTE CONFLICTS WITH THE APPLICATION OF THIS RULE IN THE LIQUIDATION
OF AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK IN PENNSYLVANIA.  P. 276. 

3.  A FEDERAL COURT WILL LEAN TOWARDS AGREEMENT WITH THE COURTS OF
THE STATE WHEN THE QUESTION SEEMS BALANCED WITH DOUBT.  P. 275. 

4.  A DEPOSITOR IN AN INSOLVENT NATIONAL BANK IS NOT ENTITLED TO SET
OFF HIS DEPOSIT AGAINST A SECONDARY LIABILITY AS INDORSER OF A NOTE THE
MAKER OF WHICH IS SOLVENT.  P. 276. 

5.  WHERE THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD ARE INSUFFICIENT TO
ENABLE THIS COURT TO DISPOSE OF A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION, THE CASE MAY BE
REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE
QUESTION, WITH AUTHORITY, IN ITS DISCRETION, TO TAKE FURTHER EVIDENCE
TO THAT END.  P. 277. 

WILLING, RECEIVER, V. BINENSTOCK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 678, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING A DECREE, 18
F.SUPP.  262, IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANTS IN A SUIT AGAINST THE RECEIVER
OF A NATIONAL BANK. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT BY RESPONDENTS IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN
PENNSYLVANIA SEEKING TO HAVE ALLOWED AS A SET-OFF AGAINST THE
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF SWINGER AND BINENSTOCK TO THE
COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK THE AMOUNT OF A DEPOSIT IN THE BANK BY
SWINGER, NOW DECEASED, AND SO MUCH OF A DEPOSIT BY BINENSTOCK AS MIGHT
BE NECESSARY TO CANCEL THE INDEBTEDNESS.  THE BANK WAS ORGANIZED UNDER
THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND AS SUCH WAS ENGAGED
IN BUSINESS IN PENNSYLVANIA.  ON JANUARY 9, 1933, THE PARTNERSHIP
EXECUTED AND DELIVERED ITS PROMISSORY NOTE TO THE BANK IN THE SUM OF
$10,000; AND ON FEBRUARY 28, 1933, EXECUTED AND DELIVERED TO THE BANK
ITS FURTHER PROMISSORY NOTE IN THE SAME AMOUNT.  UNDER DATE OF JANUARY
25, 1933, ONE LUCIANO CAMMAROTA EXECUTED AND DELIVERED TO THE
PARTNERSHIP HIS PROMISSORY NOTE FOR $300, WHICH NOTE WAS ENDORSED AND
DISCOUNTED AT THE BANK. 

AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON FEBRUARY 28, SWINGER HAD ON DEPOSIT IN
THE BANK THE SUM OF $1,546.58, AND BINENSTOCK THE SUM OF $32,323.76. 
AT THE SAME TIME, THE PARTNERSHIP HAD ON DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $5,822.52. 
ON THAT DATE THE BANK BECAME INSOLVENT AND WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE
COMPTROLLER OF CURRENCY, WHO APPOINTED PETITIONER, WILLING, RECEIVER. 
PETITIONER, WHEN THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT, HAD REDUCED THE INDEBTEDNESS OF
THE PARTNERSHIP BY ALLOWING A SET-OFF OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PARTNERSHIP
DEPOSIT, BUT HAD FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW AS A SET-OFF THE AMOUNTS
HERE IN CONTROVERSY. 

UPON THESE FACTS THE DISTRICT COURT SUSTAINED THE CLAIM OF
RESPONDENTS, 18 F.SUPP.  262, AND ENTERED A DECREE ALLOWING THE SET-OFF
OF THE INDIVIDUAL DEPOSITS AGAINST THE JOINT INDEBTEDNESS OF THE
PARTNERSHIP, ORDERING A CANCELLATION AND RETURN OF THE PARTNERSHIP
PROMISSORY NOTES, AND ALLOWING A CLAIM OF BINENSTOCK AGAINST THE ASSETS
OF THE BANK FOR THE AMOUNT OF HIS DEPOSIT, AFTER MAKING PROVISION FOR
THE SET-OFF.  THE DECREE ALSO DIRECTED PETITIONER TO ENDORSE, WITHOUT
RECOURSE, AND DELIVER TO BINENSTOCK, THE NOTE OF CAMMAROTA FOR $300. 
UPON APPEAL, THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED.  88 F.(2D) 474.  THE DECREES IN
BOTH COURTS WERE BASED UPON WHAT WAS UNDERSTOOD AND DECLARED BY THEM TO
BE THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE UPON THE SUBJECT. 

THE CASE HAS BEEN ELABORATELY ARGUED UPON BOTH SIDES; BUT, IN RESPECT
OF THE PARTNERSHIP NOTES, WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DO MORE THAN
CONSIDER AND DETERMINE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURTS BELOW CORRECTLY
STATED THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW ON THE SUBJECT AND WERE RIGHT IN FOLLOWING
IT AS THE CONTROLLING RULE OF DECISION. 

FIRST.  IN MILLER V. REED, 27 PA. 244, THE SUPREME COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA HELD THAT, WHATEVER DISTINCTIONS OTHERWISE WOULD EXIST
BETWEEN JOINT CONTRACTS AND CONTRACTS JOINT AND SEVERAL, THESE
DISTINCTIONS, UNDER THE STATUTES OF THE STATE, HAD BEEN OBLITERATED. 
THESE STATUTES, IT WAS SAID (P. 249), "HAVE TAKEN AWAY DISTINCTIONS
THAT WERE ALWAYS EMBARRASSING, AND SOMETIMES INSUPERABLE OBSTACLES TO
THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.  THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE DUTY BEFORE, AND
NONE IN THE REMEDY NOW.  THE MORAL OBLIGATION IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE
WORDS JOINT AND SEVERAL, AND IN PENNSYLVANIA AT LEAST, THE LEGAL
LIABILITY IS NOT."  IT, THEREFORE, MAKES NO DIFFERENCE HERE WHETHER THE
SWINGER AND BINENSTOCK NOTES WERE JOINT, OR JOINT AND SEVERAL. 

IN THE OPINION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE, JUDGE
KIRKPATRICK SAID:  "THE LAW OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, IF
APPLICABLE, WOULD CLEARLY SUSTAIN THE BILL.  THE DECISIONS OF THAT
STATE ALLOW INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS TO BE SET OFF IN EQUITY AGAINST A JOINT
LIABILITY EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY ASSERTING THE JOINT LIABILITY IS
SOLVENT.  STEWART V. COULTER, 12 SERG.  & R. (PA.)  252; COCHRAN V.
CUTTER, 18 PA. SUPER.  282.  SEE ALSO MINTZ V. TRI-COUNTY NATURAL GAS
COMPANY, 259 PA. 477."  HE HELD THE LAW APPLICABLE AND ENTERED THE
DECREE ACCORDINGLY.  THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE
OPINION OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE. 

PETITIONER CHALLENGES THIS VIEW OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ALBEIT
FAINTLY.  THE JUDGES OF BOTH COURTS BELOW HAVE HAD WIDE EXPERIENCE IN
THE FIELD OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW; AND, EVEN IF THE QUESTION WERE DOUBTFUL,
AS WE THINK IT IS NOT, WE SHOULD HAVE LITTLE HESITATION IN ACCEPTING
THEIR DETERMINATION AS TO THE STATE LAW ON THE POINT HERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  WE HAVE, HOWEVER, EXAMINED THE DECISIONS OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA COURTS, AND FULLY AGREE WITH THE COURTS BELOW AS TO THEIR
INTERPRETATION. 

SECOND.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER WHETHER SEC. 721 OF THE
REVISED STATUTES (28 U.S.C. SEC. 725) IS APPLICABLE.*UNDER SWIFT V.
TYSON, 16 PET. 1, IT WOULD NOT BE.  THAT CASE HAS BEEN MUCH CRITICIZED,
AND THE TENDENCY OF OUR DECISIONS WHICH HAVE FOLLOWED HAS BEEN TO LIMIT
IT SOMEWHAT STRICTLY.  AND ONE OF THE PRACTICAL RESTRICTIONS UPON THE
PRINCIPLE OF THAT CASE, WHICH WE HAVE MANY TIMES ANNOUNCED, IS THAT,
EVEN WHERE IT APPLIES, "FOR THE SAKE OF HARMONY AND TO AVOID CONFUSION,
THE FEDERAL COURTS WILL LEAN TOWARDS AN AGREEMENT OF VIEWS WITH THE
STATE COURTS IF THE QUESTION SEEMS TO THEM BALANCED WITH DOUBT." 
BURGESS V. SELIGMAN, 107 U.S. 20, 33-34; SIM V. EDENBORN, 242 U.S. 131,
135, AND AUTHORITIES CITED; TRAINOR CO. V. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO.,
290 U.S. 47, 54-55; MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 293 U.S. 335, 340;
COMMUNITY BLDG. CO. V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO., 8 F.(2D) 678, 680.  EVEN
IF THERE WERE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISIONS OF THE STATE AND THOSE
OF THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, WE SHOULD BE FREE TO APPLY THE "HARMONY"
RULE AND FOLLOW THE STATE DECISIONS.  WE ARE, HOWEVER, UNABLE TO FIND
ANY SUCH CONFLICT. 

*SEC. 721.  "THE LAWS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, EXCEPT WHERE THE
CONSTITUTION, TREATIES, OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES OTHERWISE
REQUIRE OR PROVIDE, SHALL BE REGARDED AS RULES OF DECISION IN TRIALS AT
COMMON LAW, IN THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES, IN CASES WHERE THEY
APPLY." 

THE CASE WHICH SEEMS MOST NEARLY IN POINT IS ROELKER V. BROMLEY
SHEPARD CO., 73 F.(2D) 618; AND THAT CASE, SO FAR AS IT GOES, IS IN
HARMONY WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE.  THERE, THE COMPANY WAS INDEBTED TO
THE MIDDLESEX NATIONAL BANK IN THE SUM OF $5,000 ON A JOINT NOTE SIGNED
BY THE COMPANY AND SARAH BROMLEY SHEPARD.  ON THE DAY THE BANK CLOSED,
THE COMPANY HAD ON DEPOSIT IN THE BANK $5,611.10 AND SARAH BROMLEY
SHEPARD HAD ON DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $6,275.13.  THE COURT ORDERED THAT
$5,000 OF THE $5,611.10 DUE FROM THE BANK TO THE COMPANY BE SET OFF
AGAINST THE $5,000 DUE FROM THE COMPANY TO THE BANK ON THE JOINT NOTE,
HOLDING THAT WHERE JUSTICE REQUIRES AND THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT
LAW, AS WAS THE CASE THERE, A COURT OF EQUITY WILL ORDER A SET-OFF. 

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT OR IN ANY OTHER FEDERAL
STATUTE WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA RULE.  IN THE CASE OF AN
INSOLVENT BANK, THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT, 12 U.S.C. SEC. 194, SIMPLY
PROVIDES FOR A "RATABLE DIVIDEND" ON ALL PROVED OR ADJUDICATED CLAIMS. 
THIS COURT HELD IN SCOTT V. ARMSTRONG, 146 U.S. 499, 510, THAT THE
ALLOWANCE OF A VALID SET-OFF CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A PREFERENCE, AND
THAT ONLY THE BALANCE, AFTER DEDUCTION OF THE SET-OFF, CONSTITUTES PART
OF THE ASSETS OF THE INSOLVENT.  "THE REQUIREMENT," THE COURT SAID, "AS
TO RATABLE DIVIDENDS, IS TO MAKE THEM FROM WHAT BELONGS TO THE BANK,
AND THAT WHICH AT THE TIME OF THE INSOLVENCY BELONGS OF RIGHT TO THE
DEBTOR DOES NOT BELONG TO THE BANK." 

THIRD.  THE REASON FOR THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT REQUIRING THE
SURRENDER OF THE CAMMAROTA NOTE FOR $300 IS NOT CLEAR, BUT THE
REQUIREMENT SEEMS TO BE ERRONEOUS.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD
WHETHER CAMMAROTA WAS SOLVENT OR INSOLVENT.  IF HE WAS SOLVENT, THE
PARTNERSHIP WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SET OFF ITS DEPOSITS AGAINST ITS
SECONDARY LIABILITY AS ENDORSER OF THE CAMMAROTA NOTE.  SEE WILLIAMS V.
ROSE, 218 FED. 898, 900; BANK OF UNITED STATES V. BRAVERMAN, 259 N.Y.
65, 68, ET SEQ.; 181 N.E. 50, AND AUTHORITIES CITED.  "TO ALLOW AN
INDORSER," THE NEW YORK COURT SAID, 259 N.Y., PP. 70-71, "TO SET OFF
HIS DEPOSIT WHEN THE MAKER IS SOLVENT AND ABLE TO INDEMNIFY THE
INDORSER AS IN THIS CASE WOULD ENABLE THE INDORSER TO COLLECT THE FULL
AMOUNT UNPAID ON THE NOTE FROM THE MAKER AND AT THE SAME TIME RECEIVE A
LARGER AMOUNT OF HIS DEPOSIT THAN OTHER DEPOSITORS.  SUCH A RESULT
WOULD BE INEQUITABLE."  AN EXCELLENT STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE
FOREGOING VIEW, AND THE REASONS FOR IT, WILL BE FOUND IN THE OPINION
DELIVERED BY JUDGE PARKER IN SHANNON V. SUTHERLAND, 74 F.(2D) 530, 531
532. 

THE FACTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD TO ENABLE US
TO DISPOSE OF THIS ITEM.  THE OPINION OF NEITHER COURT DEALS WITH THE
SUBJECT, AND RESPONDENTS, NEITHER IN THEIR BRIEF NOR ORAL ARGUMENT,
HAVE HAD ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CASE
MUST BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE
QUESTION, WITH AUTHORITY, IN ITS DISCRETION, TO TAKE FURTHER EVIDENCE
TO THAT END.  WITH THAT EXCEPTION, THE DECREE BELOW IS APPROVED. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :


















BREEDLOVE V. SUTTLES, 302 U.S. 277 


NO. 9  ARGUED NOVEMBER 16, 17, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 183
GA. 189 -  188 S.E. 140, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A GEORGIA STATUTE EXEMPTS ALL PERSONS UNDER 21 OR OVER 60 YEARS OF
AGE, AND ALL FEMALES WHO DO NOT REGISTER FOR VOTING, FROM A POLL TAX OF
$1.00 PER YEAR, WHICH IS LEVIED GENERALLY UPON ALL INHABITANTS, AND
WHICH, UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION, MUST BE PAID BY THE PERSON LIABLE,
TOGETHER WITH ARREARS, BEFORE HE CAN BE REGISTERED FOR VOTING.  HELD
THAT MALES WHO ARE NOT WITHIN THE EXEMPTION ARE NOT DENIED THE EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 281
282. 

2.  ON THE BASIS OF SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO WHICH THEY ARE NATURALLY
ENTITLED, WOMEN AS A CLASS MAY BE EXEMPTED FROM POLL TAXES WITHOUT
EXEMPTING MEN.  P. 282. 

3.  SINCE THIS DISCRIMINATION IS PERMISSIBLE IN FAVOR OF ALL WOMEN, A
MAN SUBJECT TO THE TAX HAS NO STATUS TO COMPLAIN THAT, AMONG WOMEN, THE
TAX IS LEVIED ONLY ON THOSE WHO REGISTER TO VOTE, OR THAT REGISTRATION
IS ALLOWED TO THEM WITHOUT PAYING TAXES FOR PREVIOUS YEARS.  P. 282. 

4.  PAYMENT OF THE GEORGIA POLL TAX AS A PREREQUISITE TO VOTING IS
NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DENYING OR ABRIDGING THE PRIVILEGE OF
VOTING.  P. 282. 

5.  EXACTION OF PAYMENT OF POLL TAXES BEFORE REGISTRATION AS AN AID
TO COLLECTION IS A USE OF THE STATE'S POWER CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  P. 283. 

6.  VOTING IS A PRIVILEGE DERIVED NOT FROM THE UNITED STATES BUT FROM
THE STATE, WHICH MAY IMPOSE SUCH CONDITIONS AS IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE,
SUBJECT ONLY TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE FIFTEENTH AND NINETEENTH
AMENDMENTS AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 283. 

7.  A STATE LAW REQUIRING PAYMENT OF POLL TAXES AS A CONDITION TO
VOTING DOES NOT ABRIDGE ANY PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY PROTECTED BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 283. 

8.  THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT, FORBIDDING DENIAL OR ABRIDGEMENT OF THE
RIGHT TO VOTE, ON ACCOUNT OF SEX, APPLIES EQUALLY IN FAVOR OF MEN AND
WOMEN, AND BY ITS OWN FORCE SUPERSEDES INCONSISTENT MEASURES, WHETHER
FEDERAL OR STATE.  P. 283. 

9.  IT WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT TO LIMIT THE
TAXING POWER OF THE STATE.  P. 283. 

10. THE GEORGIA STATUTE LEVYING ON INHABITANTS OF THE STATE A POLL
TAX, PAYMENT WHEREOF IS MADE A PREREQUISITE TO VOTING, BUT EXEMPTING
FEMALES WHO DO NOT REGISTER FOR VOTING, DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF
MALE CITIZENS TO VOTE, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR SEX, AND IS NOT REPUGNANT TO
THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 284. 

BREEDLOVE V. SUTTLES, TAX COLLECTOR. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL OF APPELLANT'S
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS REQUIRING THE APPELLEE TO ALLOW THE
APPELLANT TO REGISTER FOR VOTING FOR FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICERS AT
PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS, WITHOUT PAYMENT OF POLL TAXES. 

THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF VOTING FOR FEDERAL
OFFICIALS IS ONE TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED, UNRESTRICTED BY A TAX
UNREASONABLY IMPOSED THROUGH STATE INVASION OF HIS RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN
OF THE UNITED STATES.  AS SUCH CITIZEN HE IS ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE CHOICE OF ELECTORS OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND NO
STATE MAY EXERCISE ITS TAXING POWER SO AS TO DESTROY THIS PRIVILEGE. 
IF THE TAX IMPOSED BY GEORGIA WERE INCREASED TO A HIGH DEGREE, AS IT
CAN BE IF VALID, IT COULD BE USED TO REDUCE THE PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS IN
THE POPULATION TO EVEN LESS THAN EIGHT PER CENT. AS AT PRESENT, OR TO
DESTROY THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE ALTOGETHER.  WHATEVER PROPERTY AND OTHER
ECONOMIC RESTRICTIONS ON THE FRANCHISE MAY HAVE BEEN UPHELD IN EARLIER
PERIODS OF OUR HISTORY, THE ADMISSION TODAY THAT A STATE HAS THE POWER
TO PREVENT ITS POORER INHABITANTS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE CHOICE OF
FEDERAL OFFICIALS WOULD BE TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE CONTEMPORARY SPIRIT
OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS, AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSES ANNOUNCED
IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A GEORGIA STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THERE SHALL BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED
EACH YEAR FROM EVERY INHABITANT OF THE STATE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 21 AND
60 A POLL TAX OF ONE DOLLAR, BUT THAT THE TAX SHALL NOT BE DEMANDED
FROM THE BLIND OR FROM FEMALES WHO DO NOT REGISTER FOR VOTING.  GEORGIA
CODE, 1933, SEC. 92-108.  THE STATE CONSTITUTION DECLARES THAT TO
ENTITLE A PERSON TO REGISTER AND VOTE AT ANY ELECTION HE SHALL HAVE
PAID ALL POLL TAXES THAT HE MAY HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO PAY AGREEABLY
TO LAW.  ART. II, SEC. I, PAR. III; CODE, SEC. 2-603.  THE FORM OF OATH
PRESCRIBED TO QUALIFY AN ELECTOR CONTAINS A CLAUSE DECLARING COMPLIANCE
WITH THAT REQUIREMENT.  SEC. 34-103.  TAX COLLECTORS MAY NOT ALLOW ANY
PERSON TO REGISTER FOR VOTING UNLESS SATISFIED THAT HIS POLL TAXES HAVE
BEEN PAID.  SEC. 34-114.  APPELLANT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE SUPERIOR
COURT OF FULTON COUNTY TO HAVE THE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS ABOVE MENTIONED DECLARED REPUGNANT TO VARIOUS
PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND TO COMPEL APPELLEE TO ALLOW
HIM TO REGISTER FOR VOTING WITHOUT PAYMENT OF POLL TAXES.  THE COURT
DISMISSED HIS PETITION.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED.  183 GA.
189; 188 S.E. 140. 

THE PERTINENT FACTS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION ARE THESE.  MARCH 16,
1936, APPELLANT, A WHITE MALE CITIZEN 28 YEARS OLD, APPLIED TO APPELLEE
TO REGISTER HIM FOR VOTING FOR FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICERS AT PRIMARY
AND GENERAL ELECTIONS.  HE INFORMED APPELLEE HE HAD NEITHER MADE POLL
TAX RETURNS NOR PAID ANY POLL TAXES AND HAD NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE
BECAUSE A RECEIPT FOR POLL TAXES AND AN OATH THAT HE HAD PAID THEM ARE
PREREQUISITES TO REGISTRATION.  HE DEMANDED THAT APPELLEE ADMINISTER
THE OATH, OMITTING THE PART DECLARING PAYMENT OF POLL TAXES, AND ALLOW
HIM TO REGISTER.  APPELLEE REFUSED. 

APPELLANT MAINTAINS THAT THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION ARE REPUGNANT TO
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND TO THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT. 

1.  HE ASSERTS THAT THE LAW OFFENDS THE RULE OF EQUALITY IN THAT IT
EXTENDS ONLY TO PERSONS BETWEEN THE AGES OF 21 AND 60 AND TO WOMEN ONLY
IF THEY REGISTER FOR VOTING AND IN THAT IT MAKES PAYMENT A PREREQUISITE
TO REGISTRATION.  HE DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT EXEMPTION OF THE BLIND IS
UNREASONABLE. 

LEVY BY THE POLL HAS LONG BEEN A FAMILIAR FORM OF TAXATION, MUCH USED
IN SOME COUNTRIES AND TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT HERE, AT FIRST IN THE
COLONIES AND LATER IN THE STATES.  TO PREVENT BURDENS DEEMED GRIEVOUS
AND OPPRESSIVE, THE CONSTITUTIONS OF SOME STATES PROHIBIT OR LIMIT POLL
TAXES.  THAT OF GEORGIA PREVENTS MORE THAN A DOLLAR A YEAR.  ART VII,
SEC. II, PAR. III; CODE SEC. 2-5004.  POLL TAXES ARE LAID UPON PERSONS
WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR OCCUPATIONS OR PROPERTY TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE
SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT OR SOME MORE SPECIFIC END.  FN1  THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE ABSOLUTE EQUALITY.  WHILE POSSIBLE
BY STATUTORY DECLARATION TO LEVY A POLL TAX UPON EVERY INHABITANT OF
WHATSOEVER SEX, AGE OR CONDITION, COLLECTION FROM ALL WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE FOR ALWAYS THERE ARE MANY TOO POOR TO PAY.  ATTEMPT EQUALLY
TO ENFORCE SUCH A MEASURE WOULD JUSTIFY CONDEMNATION OF THE TAX AS
HARSH AND UNJUST.  SEE FARIBAULT V. MISENER, 20 MINN. 396, 398;
THURSTON COUNTY V. TENINO STONE QUARRIES, 44 WASH. 351, 355; 87 PAC.
634; SALT LAKE CITY V. WILSON, 46 UTAH 60, 66, ET SEQ.; 148 PAC. 1104. 
COLLECTION FROM MINORS WOULD BE TO PUT THE BURDEN UPON THEIR FATHERS OR
OTHERS UPON WHOM THEY DEPEND FOR SUPPORT.  FN2  IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE
TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM THE CLASS TAXED. 

MEN WHO HAVE ATTAINED THE AGE OF 60 ARE OFTEN, IF NOT ALWAYS, EXCUSED
FROM ROAD WORK, JURY DUTY AND SERVICE IN THE MILITIA.  FN3  THEY HAVE
SERVED OR HAVE BEEN LIABLE TO BE CALLED ON TO SERVE THE PUBLIC TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE STATE CHOOSES TO REQUIRE.  SO FAR AS CONCERNS EQUALITY
UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THESE EXEMPTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM POLL TAXES.  THE BURDEN
LAID UPON APPELLANT IS PRECISELY THAT PUT UPON OTHER MEN.  THE RATE IS
A DOLLAR A YEAR, COMMENCING AT 21 AND ENDING AT 60 YEARS OF AGE. 

THE TAX BEING UPON PERSONS, WOMEN MAY BE EXEMPTED ON THE BASIS OF
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS TO WHICH THEY ARE NATURALLY ENTITLED.  IN VIEW
OF BURDENS NECESSARILY BORNE BY THEM FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE RACE,
THE STATE REASONABLY MAY EXEMPT THEM FROM POLL TAXES.  CF. MULLER V.
OREGON, 208 U.S. 412, 421, ET SEQ. QUONG WING V. KIRKENDALL, 223 U.S.
59, 63.  RILEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 232 U.S. 671.  MILLER V. WILSON, 236
U.S. 373, BOSLEY V. MCLAUGHLIN, 236 U.S. 385.  THE LAWS OF GEORGIA
DECLARE THE HUSBAND TO BE THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY AND THE WIFE TO BE
SUBJECT TO HIM.  SEC. 53-501.  TO SUBJECT HER TO THE LEVY WOULD BE TO
ADD TO HIS BURDEN.  MOREOVER, GEORGIA POLL TAXES ARE LAID TO RAISE
MONEY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, AND IT IS THE FATHER'S DUTY TO PROVIDE
FOR EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN.  SEC. 74-105.  DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR
OF ALL WOMEN BEING PERMISSIBLE, APPELLANT MAY NOT COMPLAIN BECAUSE THE
TAX IS LAID ONLY UPON SOME OR OBJECT TO REGISTRATION OF WOMEN WITHOUT
PAYMENT OF TAXES FOR PREVIOUS YEARS.  AETNA INSURANCE CO. V. HYDE, 275
U.S. 440, 447.  ROSENTHAL V. NEW YORK, 226 U.S. 260, 270. 

PAYMENT AS A PREREQUISITE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DENYING
OR ABRIDGING THE PRIVILEGE OF VOTING.  IT DOES NOT LIMIT THE TAX TO
ELECTORS; ALIENS ARE NOT THERE PERMITTED TO VOTE, BUT THE TAX IS LAID
UPON THEM, IF WITHIN THE DEFINED CLASS.  IT IS NOT LAID UPON PERSONS 60
OR MORE YEARS OLD, WHETHER ELECTORS OR NOT.  EXACTION OF PAYMENT BEFORE
REGISTRATION UNDOUBTEDLY SERVES TO AID COLLECTION FROM ELECTORS
DESIRING TO VOTE, BUT THAT USE OF THE STATE'S POWER IS NOT PREVENTED BY
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  CF. MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40,
44. 

2.  TO MAKE PAYMENT OF POLL TAXES A PREREQUISITE OF VOTING IS NOT TO
DENY ANY PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
PRIVILEGE OF VOTING IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES, BUT IS
CONFERRED BY THE STATE AND, SAVE AS RESTRAINED BY THE FIFTEENTH AND
NINETEENTH AMENDMENTS AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
THE STATE MAY CONDITION SUFFRAGE AS IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE.  MINOR V.
HAPPERSETT, 21 WALL.  162, 170 ET SEQ. EX PARTE YARBROUGH, 110 U.S.
651, 664-665.  MCPHERSON V. BLACKER, 146 U.S. 1, 37-38.  GUINN V.
UNITED STATES, 238 U.S. 347, 362.  THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
PROTECTED ARE ONLY THOSE THAT ARISE FROM THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES AND NOT THOSE THAT SPRING FROM OTHER SOURCES. 
HAMILTON V. REGENTS, 293 U.S. 245, 261. 

3.  THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT, ADOPTED IN 1920, DECLARES:  "THE RIGHT
OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR
ABRIDGED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF SEX."  IT
APPLIES TO MEN AND WOMEN ALIKE AND BY ITS OWN FORCE SUPERSEDES
INCONSISTENT MEASURES, WHETHER FEDERAL OR STATE.  LESER V. GARNETT, 258
U.S. 130, 135.  ITS PURPOSE IS NOT TO REGULATE THE LEVY OR COLLECTION
OF TAXES.  THE CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH APPELLANT CONTENDS WOULD MAKE THE
AMENDMENT A LIMITATION UPON THE POWER TO TAX.  CF. MINOR V. HAPPERSETT,
SUPRA, 173; BOWERS V. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174.  THE
PAYMENT OF POLL TAXES AS A PREREQUISITE TO VOTING IS A FAMILIAR AND
REASONABLE REGULATION LONG ENFORCED IN MANY STATES AND FOR MORE THAN A
CENTURY IN GEORGIA.  FN4  THAT MEASURE REASONABLY MAY BE DEEMED
ESSENTIAL TO THAT FORM OF LEVY.  IMPOSITION WITHOUT ENFORCEMENT WOULD
BE FUTILE.  POWER TO LEVY AND POWER TO COLLECT ARE EQUALLY NECESSARY. 
AND, BY THE EXACTION OF PAYMENT BEFORE REGISTRATION, THE RIGHT TO VOTE
IS NEITHER DENIED NOR ABRIDGED ON ACCOUNT OF SEX.  IT IS FANCIFUL TO
SUGGEST THAT THE GEORGIA LAW IS A MERE DISGUISE UNDER WHICH TO DENY OR
ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF MEN TO VOTE ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR SEX.  THE
CHALLENGED ENACTMENT IS NOT REPUGNANT TO THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT. 
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  DOWELL, HISTORY OF TAXATION AND TAXES IN ENGLAND, VOL. III, C.
1.  BRYCE, THE AMERICAN COMMONWEALTH, C. XLIII.  COOLEY, THE LAW OF
TAXATION (4TH ED.)  SECS.  40, 1773.  HYLTON V. UNITED STATES, 3 DALL. 
171, 175, 182.  SHORT V. MARYLAND, 80 MD. 392, 397, ET SEQ.; 31 ATL.
322.  FARIBAULT V. MISENER, 20 MINN. 396. 

FN2  SECTION 74-105, GEORGIA CODE, DECLARES:  "UNTIL MAJORITY, (21
YEARS) IT IS THE DUTY OF THE FATHER TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAINTENANCE,
PROTECTION, AND EDUCATION OF HIS CHILD." 

FN3  IN GEORGIA, MEN ARE EXCUSED FROM ROAD WORK AT 50(SEC.  95-401)
FROM JURY DUTY AT 60(SEC.  59-112) AND FROM LIABILITY FOR SERVICE IN
THE MILITIA AT 45(SEC.  86-201; SEE ALSO SEC. 86-209). 

FN4  CONSTITUTION OF 1798, ART. IV, SEC. 1(2 THORPE, FEDERAL AND
STATE CONSTITUTIONS, P. 800).  ACT OF DEC. 12, 1804(COBB, NEW DIGEST
LAWS OF GEORGIA, P. 1044). 
..END :




















TEXAS V. DONOGHUE, 302 U.S. 284 


NO. 28.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 10, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 88
F.(2D) 48, REVERSED. 


HELD, THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING A STATE PERMISSION TO
INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT TO HAVE ADJUDGED CONFISCATE A
QUANTITY OF OIL, THEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE TRUSTEE OF THE DEBTOR,
BUT CLAIMED BY THE STATE TO HAVE BECOME ITS PROPERTY THROUGH STATUTORY
FORFEITURE WHEN, PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEBTOR'S PETITION, IT WAS
PRODUCED OR TRANSPORTED IN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONSERVATION LAWS
OF THE STATE.  P. 289. 

POSSESSION HAD BEEN VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
BY RECEIVERS APPOINTED BY A STATE COURT IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BY
THE STATE. 

TEXAS ET AL. V. DONOGHUE, TRUSTEE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 674, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING ORDERS OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WRIT IS LIMITED TO THE QUESTIONS RAISED ON THE APPLICATION OF
TEXAS TO THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF THAT
STATE IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FN1  FOR
PERMISSION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT FOR THE
CONFISCATION OF OIL HELD BY THE TRUSTEE BUT CLAIMED BY THE STATE AS
"UNLAWFUL OIL" BECAUSE PRODUCED OR TRANSPORTED IN VIOLATION OF STATE
CONSERVATION MEASURES. 

TEXAS STATUTES  FN2  AND ORDERS OF ITS RAILROAD COMMISSION PURPORT TO
PRORATE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL, TO PROHIBIT PURCHASE, TRANSPORTATION
OR HANDLING OF THAT PRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART IN EXCESS OF THE
AMOUNT ALLOWED,  FN3  TO IMPOSE FINES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS,
FN4  AND TO MAKE OIL PRODUCED OR TRANSPORTED IN VIOLATION OF STATUTE OR
ORDER SUBJECT TO CONFISCATION IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE STATE FOR
THAT PURPOSE.  FN5  THE STATUTE DECLARES THAT IF AT THE TRIAL IT SHALL
BE FOUND THAT THE OIL IS UNLAWFUL, THE COURT SHALL RENDER JUDGMENT
FORFEITING THE SAME TO THE STATE AND AUTHORIZING AN ORDER DIRECTED TO
SHERIFF OR CONSTABLE COMMANDING HIM "TO SEIZE AND SELL" THE CONDEMNED
OIL.  COSTS OF SUIT AND EXPENSES OF THE SALE ARE TO BE PAID OUT OF
MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE OIL, AND THE BALANCE BECOMES PART OF THE
GENERAL REVENUE FUND OF THE STATE. 

THERE IS BEFORE US NO QUESTION AS TO VALIDITY OF THE STATE'S MEASURES
TO REGULATE PRODUCTION, OR AS TO WHEN, IF EVER, THE OIL IN CONTROVERSY
BECAME FORFEIT.  FN6  THE SOLE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
SHOULD HAVE PERMITTED THE STATE TO BRING SUIT IN A STATE COURT TO HAVE
THE OIL ADJUDGED CONFISCATE. 

THESE ARE THE FACTS. 

TEXAS SUED THE TRINITY REFINING COMPANY IN THE DISTRICT COURT, 126TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT, TRAVIS COUNTY, TO RECOVER FINES AND PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATION OF THE CONSERVATION LAWS.  THE COURT APPOINTED CLOPTON AND
HYDER RECEIVERS OF DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY PENDING THE TRIAL OF THE CASE. 
THEY TOOK POSSESSION OF PROPERTY CLAIMED BY THE DEFENDANT, INCLUDING A
LARGE QUANTITY OF OIL WHICH THE STATE INSISTS HAD ALREADY BECOME ITS
PROPERTY BECAUSE UNLAWFULLY PRODUCED OR TRANSPORTED.  LATER, THE STATE
SUED THE COMPANY IN THE DISTRICT COURT, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE
SAME COUNTY, TO RECOVER DELINQUENT TAXES.  THAT SUIT HAVING BEEN
TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE FIRST WAS PENDING, THE COURT
THERE APPOINTED AS RECEIVERS IN THE SECOND CASE THE SAME PERSONS IT HAD
APPOINTED IN THE FIRST ONE. 

WITHIN FOUR MONTHS AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF THE FIRST SUIT, THE COMPANY
FILED ITS PETITION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SUBMITTING A
PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  THE COURT FOUND THE PETITION TO HAVE BEEN
PRESENTED IN GOOD FAITH, APPROVED IT AS PROPERLY FILED, APPOINTED
DONOGHUE TRUSTEE OF THE DEBTOR, DIRECTED HIM TO TAKE POSSESSION OF ITS
PROPERTY, ORDERED THAT ALL PERSONS HAVING PROPERTY OF THE DEBTOR
DELIVER IT TO HIM AND ISSUED IN USUAL FORM A RESTRAINING ORDER
PREVENTING INTERFERENCE WITH HIS POSSESSION OR CONTROL.  THE TRUSTEE
TOOK FROM THE RECEIVERS PROPERTY CLAIMED BY THE DEBTOR INCLUDING THE
OIL IN QUESTION, APPROXIMATELY 77,000 BARRELS.  TEXAS APPLIED TO THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR PERMISSION TO BRING SUIT IN A STATE COURT TO
OBTAIN JUDGMENT OF CONFISCATION AGAINST THAT OIL.  THE COURT WITHHELD
CONSENT AND DIRECTED THE TRUSTEE TO RETAIN THE OIL.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THAT RULING, 88 F.(2D) 48, 51, AND TO REVIEW ITS
JUDGMENT UPON THAT ISSUE, WE BROUGHT THE CASE HERE.  301 U.S. 674. 
FN7 

THE STATE'S RIGHT TO BRING THE SUIT IN THE STATE COURT IS THE SAME AS
IF ON ITS VOLUNTARY PETITION THE COMPANY HAD BEEN ADJUDGED BANKRUPT ON
THE DAY ITS PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION WAS APPROVED.  SEC. 77BO). 
FORFEITURE OF UNLAWFUL OIL UNDER TEXAS LAW IS A PENALTY IMPOSED TO
VINDICATE THE STATE'S POLICY OF CONSERVATION.  CHAMPLIN RFG.  CO. V.
CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, 240-241.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
EXERCISES JURISDICTION UNDER SOVEREIGNTY THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF AND
FOREIGN TO THAT OF TEXAS.  MOORE V. MITCHELL, 281 U.S. 18, 23.  IT IS
WITHOUT POWER TO ENFORCE PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE STATE FOR VIOLATION
OF ITS LAWS.  THE ANTELOPE, 10 WHEAT.  66, 123.  WISCONSIN V. PELICAN
INS. CO., 127 U.S. 265, 289, ET SEQ. CF. SEC. 57(J), BANKRUPTCY ACT;
FN8  NEW YORK V. JERSAWIT, 263 U.S. 493, 496; UNITED STATES V. CHILDS,
266 U.S. 304, 309-310.  THE STATE'S INSISTENCE IS NOT THAT IT IS
PRESENTLY ENTITLED TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT TO FORFEIT THE OIL, BUT THAT
THE OIL BECAME ITS PROPERTY WHEN PRODUCED OR TRANSPORTED CONTRARY TO
LAW.  IT SEEKS NOT TO FORFEIT BUT TO ENFORCE THE FORFEITURE THAT
RESULTED, AS IT MAINTAINS, IMMEDIATELY FROM UNLAWFUL PRODUCTION OR
TRANSPORTATION. 

POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THE OIL BY THE STATE COURT IS NOT ESSENTIAL
TO ITS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT PROPOSED TO BE BROUGHT.  FN9
TEXAS DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE ENTITLED TO POSSESSION OF THE OIL UNTIL
FINAL ADJUDICATION IN THE STATE COURT.  RETENTION BY THE TRUSTEE IS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT SUIT.  HE IS ENTITLED THERE
TO BE HEARD IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM TO THE OIL.  IF WHEN THE DEBTOR'S
PETITION WAS APPROVED THE OIL DID NOT BELONG TO TEXAS, THE STATE WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE IT WITHHELD FROM THE TRUSTEE.  BUT, IF BY REASON
OF UNLAWFUL PRODUCTION OR TRANSPORTATION, THE OIL HAD ALREADY BY
FORFEITURE BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE, THE TRUSTEE WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO TAKE OR RETAIN IT.  IF IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY TEXAS IN A
STATE COURT IT SHOULD BE DETERMINED THAT TITLE TO THE OIL HAD VESTED IN
THE STATE BEFORE APPROVAL OF THE DEBTOR'S PETITION, THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT DOUBTLESSLY WILL RECOGNIZE THAT TITLE AND DIRECT THE TRUSTEE TO
HAND OVER THE OIL OR ACCOUNT FOR IT TO THE STATE.  ROSE V. HIMELY, 4
CRANCH 241, 268.  HUDSON V. GUESTIER, 4 CRANCH 293, 297.  SEE WISCONSIN
V. PELICAN INS. CO., SUPRA, 291. 

THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT
MAY NOT BE HELD TO DEPRIVE THE STATE OF OPPORTUNITY IN ITS OWN COURT TO
ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM THAT THROUGH FORFEITURE IT HAD ALREADY BECOME THE
OWNER OF THE OIL FOR THAT WOULD BE TO TAKE THE STATE'S PROPERTY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE OFFENDING COMPANY OR ITS CREDITORS.  NOR MAY THE
RECEIVERS' VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF POSSESSION TO THE DEBTOR'S TRUSTEE
PREVENT ADJUDICATION OF THE STATE'S CLAIM.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE STATE'S APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO
INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT AND, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SUSTAINED THAT RULING, ITS JUDGMENT MUST BE
REVERSED. 

FN1  11 U.S.C., SEC. 207. 

FN2  TEXAS REVISED CIVIL STATUTES, 1925, TITLE 102. 

FN3  ART. 6049E, SEC. 10. 

FN4  ART. 6036. 

FN5  ART. 6066(A), SEC. 10: 

(A)  "ALL UNLAWFUL OIL  ...  (IS) HEREBY DECLARED TO BE A NUISANCE
AND SHALL BE FORFEITED TO THE STATE AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED.... 

(B)  "WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ADVISED FROM ANY SOURCE OF THE
PRESENCE AND EXISTENCE OF UNLAWFUL OIL  ...  IT SHALL BE HIS DUTY TO
INSTITUTE A SUIT IN REM AGAINST SUCH UNLAWFUL OIL  ... AND AGAINST ALL
PERSONS OWNING, CLAIMING OR IN POSSESSION THEREOF, SUCH SUIT TO BE
BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF THE STATE  ...  IN ANY COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION IN TRAVIS COUNTY OR IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH SUCH OIL  ...
IS LOCATED.  IF IT SHALL APPEAR TO THE COURT  ...  THAT UNLAWFUL OIL
... MENTIONED IN THE PETITION  ...  (IS) IN DANGER OF BEING REMOVED,
WASTED, LOST OR DESTROYED, THE COURT IS AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED  ...
TO ISSUE RESTRAINING ORDERS OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF  ...  OR TO APPOINT A
RECEIVER TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE OIL  ...  IN QUESTION, OR TO DIRECT THE
SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY  ...  TO SEIZE AND IMPOUND THE SAME UNTIL FURTHER
ORDERS OF THE COURT." 

(C)  "...  IF, UPON THE TRIAL OF SUCH SUIT THE OIL  ...  IN
CONTROVERSY IS FOUND TO BE UNLAWFUL ...  THEN THE COURT  ...  SHALL
RENDER JUDGMENT FORFEITING THE SAME TO THE STATE  ...  AND AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF SALE DIRECTED TO THE SHERIFF OR ANY
CONSTABLE OF THE COUNTY WHERE THE OIL OR PRODUCTS ARE LOCATED
COMMANDING SUCH OFFICER TO SEIZE AND SELL SAID PROPERTY IN THE SAME
MANNER AS PERSONAL PROPERTY IS SOLD UNDER EXECUTION  ...  THE MONEY
REALIZED FROM THE SALE  ...  SHALL BE APPLIED, FIRST, TO THE PAYMENT OF
THE COSTS OF SUIT AND EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE SALE  ...  AND ALL FUNDS
THEN REMAINING, SHALL BE  ...  PLACED TO THE CREDIT OF THE GENERAL
REVENUE FUND OF THE STATE...." 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. 1960 BAGS OF COFFEE, 8 CRANCH 398.  SEE ALSO
CLARK V. PROTECTION INSURANCE CO., 1 STORY (C.C.)  109, 134; FED. CAS.
NO. 2832. 

FN7  LATER, NO PLAN OF REORGANIZATION HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT ORDERED LIQUIDATION OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY UNDER
SUBDS. (C)(8) AND (K) OF SEC. 77 B. DONOGHUE WAS APPOINTED TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY.  SEC. 44; 11 U.S.C., SEC. 72.  THIS COURT SUBSTITUTED HIM
IN THAT CAPACITY AS RESPONDENT IN PLACE OF HIMSELF AS TRUSTEE OF THE
DEBTOR. 

FN8  11 U.S.C., SEC. 93(J). 

FN9  ART. 6066A, SECS. 10(B) AND (C). 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

TEXAS WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE OIL IN CONTROVERSY WHEN IT CAME INTO
THE POSSESSION OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.  IF SHE HAD BEEN SUCH AN
OWNER, SHE COULD BE HEARD IN THAT COURT PRO INTERESSE SUO, VINDICATING
HER TITLE IN RECLAMATION PROCEEDINGS LIKE ANY OTHER ADVERSE CLAIMANT. 
BY COMMON CONSENT OWNERSHIP SUFFICIENT FOR SUCH RELIEF WAS NOT HERS
WHEN THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY TOOK THE OIL INTO ITS CUSTODY, AND IS NOT
HERS TODAY.  "IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY, THAT PROPERTY FORFEITED IS
VESTED IN THE GOVERNMENT AT THE VERY MOMENT OF FORFEITURE, AND THE
TITLE OF THE OWNER IMMEDIATELY DEVESTED.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE
ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE IS, THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FORFEITURE, THE
PROPERTY REMAINS IN THE OWNER, UNTIL IT IS ACTUALLY SEIZED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, AND THEN BY THE SEIZURE THE TITLE OF THE GOVERNMENT RELATES
BACK TO THE TIME OF THE FORFEITURE."  CLARK V. PROTECTION INSURANCE
CO., 1 STORY 109, 134; CF. UNITED STATES V. STOWELL, 133 U.S. 1.  SO
FAR AS I AM AWARE THERE IS NO CONTENTION TO THE CONTRARY.  THE OIL
"SHALL BE FORFEITED TO THE STATE AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED" (TEXAS
REVISED CIVIL STATUTES, ART. 6066A, SEC. 10), AND NOT OTHERWISE.  THE
STATUTE DOES NOT MEAN THAT WITHOUT THE AID OF ANY JUDGMENT TITLE IS
TRANSFERRED AT ONCE ON THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.  THE JUDGMENT IS
TO BE IN REM AND IMPORTS CONTROL OVER THE RES.  PENNOYER V. NEFF, 95
U.S. 714, 734; ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & T. CO., 282 U.S. 734. 

WITH THE OIL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF BANKRUPTCY - A
POSSESSION LAWFULLY ACQUIRED - LEAVE TO SUE IN THE STATE COURT FOR A
DECREE OF FORFEITURE AND SALE WILL BE AN IDLE AND EMPTY FORM,
PRODUCTIVE OF NOTHING EXCEPT DELAY AND VAIN EXPENSE, UNLESS UPON THE
PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE DECREE IT WILL BE THE DUTY OF THE COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY TO SURRENDER THE OIL TO THE COURT OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION,
AND THIS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MAKING A FORFEITURE EFFECTIVE.  I DENY
THAT ANY SUCH DUTY WILL EXIST.  CF. ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & T. CO.,
SUPRA.  I FIND NO INTIMATION OF ITS EXISTENCE IN ANY CASE TILL THIS
ONE.  CERTAINLY THERE IS NONE IN THE CASES NOW CITED IN THE OPINION OF
THE COURT.  TRUE INDEED IT IS THAT IF POSSESSION OF THE RES WERE TO BE
ACQUIRED BY THE TEXAS COURT AT THE TIME OF THE DECREE OF FORFEITURE OR
EVEN AT THE TIME OF A SALE PURSUANT THERETO, A TITLE OBTAINED
THEREUNDER WOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS VALID EVERYWHERE.  WISCONSIN V.
PELICAN INS. CO., 127 U.S. 265, 291; ROSE V. HIMELY, 4 CRANCH 241;
HUDSON V. GUESTIER, 4 CRANCH 293; DICEY, CONFLICT OF LAWS, 5TH ED., PP.
484, 485.  THIS IS FAR FROM SAYING THAT A COURT OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION
WHICH ALREADY HOLDS THE RES UPON A TRUST FOR GENERAL CREDITORS WILL
GIVE ITS POSSESSION UP IN AID OF A FORFEITURE OTHERWISE IMPOSSIBLE. 
"THE COURTS OF NO COUNTRY EXECUTE THE PENAL LAWS OF ANOTHER."  THE
ANTELOPE, 10 WHEAT.  66, 123; GWIN V. BREEDLOVE, 2 HOW.  29, 37;
WISCONSIN V. PELICAN INS. CO., SUPRA; HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL, 146 U.S.
657, 666; LOUCKS V. STANDARD OIL CO., 224 N.Y. 99, 102; DICEY, SUPRA,
P. 212.  CF. BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 57(J).  WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THAT
DOCTRINE, THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE RANKED AS COURTS OF
SEPARATE SOVEREIGNTIES, QUITE AS MUCH AS THE COURTS OF DIFFERENT
STATES.  GWIN V. BREEDLOVE, SUPRA; MOORE V. MITCHELL, 281 U.S. 18, 23. 
IF THE OIL IN CONTROVERSY HAD BEEN REMOVED TO CALIFORNIA AND WERE IN
POSSESSION OF THE RECEIVERS OF A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AFTER A DECREE
OF DISSOLUTION, WOULD ANY ONE CONTEND THAT THE CALIFORNIA COURT WOULD
ORDER ITS RECEIVERS TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO TEXAS FOR THE PURPOSE BY
SUCH RETURN OF MAKING A FORFEITURE EFFECTIVE?  A FEDERAL COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY IS SUBJECT TO NO GREATER DUTY.  THE PREVAILING OPINION
COMMITS US TO A HOLDING THAT PROPERTY IN ONE JURISDICTION MAY BE
DIVERTED FROM THE USE OF CREDITORS AND MADE TO FEED A FORFEITURE IN
ANOTHER JURISDICTION, A FORFEITURE BRUTUM FULMEN UNLESS THUS AIDED FROM
AFAR.  IF THAT IS DONE, THE EFFICACY OF PENAL LAWS WILL HAVE TAKEN ON A
NEW EXTENSION.  WITHOUT A TRANSFER OF POSSESSION THE FORFEITURE IS DEAD
AT BIRTH.  A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY WILL NOT STIR A HAND TO MAKE IT
VIABLE.    I AM AUTHORIZED TO STATE THAT MR. JUSTICE STONE JOINS IN
THIS OPINION. 
..END :













WORCESTER COUNTY CO. V. RILEY, 302 U.S. 292 


NO. 34.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 15, 16, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  -
89 F.(2D) 59, AFFIRMED. 


1.  STATE TAXING OFFICIALS SEEKING THROUGH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO
ASSESS A SUCCESSION TAX ON INTANGIBLE PROPERTY IN PURSUANCE OF LAWS OF
THEIR STATE, WHICH IMPOSE THE TAX ONLY IF THE DECEASED WAS DOMICILED
THEREIN AT DEATH, CAN NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE INTERPLEADED IN A FEDERAL
COURT WITH TAX OFFICIALS OF ANOTHER STATE LIKEWISE CLAIMING THE
DOMICILE AND THE RIGHT TO TAX, IN ORDER THAT THE FEDERAL COURT MAY
DETERMINE WHICH STATE IS IN FACT DOMICILIARY AND ENJOIN TAXATION IN THE
OTHER STATE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING DOUBLE TAXATION.  P. 296. 

SUCH A SUIT IS IN EFFECT AGAINST THE STATE, FORBIDDEN BY THE ELEVENTH
AMENDMENT. 

A BILL OF INTERPLEADER, BROUGHT BY AN EXECUTOR AGAINST TAX OFFICIALS
OF CALIFORNIA AND OF MASSACHUSETTS, ALLEGED THAT THE CALIFORNIA
OFFICIALS HAD DETERMINED AND WERE ASSERTING THAT THE DECEDENT, AT
DEATH, WAS DOMICILED IN THAT STATE, AND WERE THREATENING TO ASSESS AND
COLLECT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAWS, APPLICABLE IN CASE OF LOCAL DOMICILE, A
DEATH TAX UPON ALL HIS INTANGIBLES, WHICH WOULD BE IN EXCESS OF ANY TAX
THAT WOULD BE DUE IF THE DOMICILE WAS MASSACHUSETTS; AND THAT THE
MASSACHUSETTS OFFICIAL, IN BEHALF OF HIS STATE, WAS ASSERTING THAT THE
DOMICILE WAS IN MASSACHUSETTS AND THE ESTATE TAXABLE THERE UPON ALL THE
INTANGIBLES; THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE IN LAW AND IN FACT FOR DECEDENT TO
HAVE BEEN DOMICILED IN BOTH STATES AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, OR FOR HIS
ESTATE TO BE SUBJECT TO DEATH TAXES IN BOTH STATES AS ASSERTED, AND
THAT ATTEMPTED COLLECTION WAS A THREATENED DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 
THE BILL PRAYED THAT THE COURT ORDER THE RESPONDENT OFFICIALS OF THE
TWO STATES TO INTERPLEAD THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS FOR THE TAX; THAT THE
COURT DETERMINE THE DOMICILE OF DECEDENT, THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX, AND
THE PERSON OR PERSONS TO WHOM IT WAS PAYABLE; AND THAT RESPONDENTS BE
ENJOINED FROM ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS TO COLLECT IT.  HELD, THAT, ON
OBJECTION OF THE CALIFORNIA RESPONDENTS, THE SUIT WAS PROPERLY
DISMISSED AS, IN SUBSTANCE, A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE. 

2.  UNDER CALIFORNIA STATUTES, INHERITANCE TAXES ARE ASSESSED BY
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS RESULTING, AFTER FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR PRESENTATION
OF EVIDENCE AND A HEARING, IN A JUDGMENT WHICH IS REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL
BY THE STATE COURTS, AND BY THIS COURT IF IT INVOLVES ANY DENIAL OF
FEDERAL RIGHT.  P. 298. 

3.  CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF THE SAME ISSUE OF FACT DO NOT
NECESSARILY IMPLY JUDICIAL ERROR.  P. 299. 

4.  NEITHER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NOR THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE REQUIRES UNIFORMITY IN THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF DIFFERENT
STATES AS TO THE PLACE OF DOMICILE, WHERE THE EXERTION OF STATE POWER
IS DEPENDENT UPON DOMICILE.  P. 299. 

5.  CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. V. SCHNADER, 291 U.S. 24,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 300. 

WORCESTER COUNTY TRUST CO. V. RILEY, CONTROLLER OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 678, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE GRANTING
A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN AN INTERPLEADER SUIT, 14 F.SUPP.  754. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE FEDERAL INTERPLEADER ACT,
SEC. 24(26) OF THE JUDICIAL CODE AS AMENDED JANUARY 20, 1936, C. 13,
SEC. 1, 49 STAT. 1096, MAY BE AVAILED OF FOR THE LITIGATION AND FINAL
DISPOSITION OF THE RIVAL CLAIMS OF TWO STATES, EACH ASSERTING THROUGH
ITS OFFICERS THE RIGHT TO RECOVER DEATH TAXES ON THE GROUND THAT
DECEDENT WAS LAST DOMICILED WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES. 

PETITIONER IS THE DULY QUALIFIED EXECUTOR NAMED IN THE LAST WILL OF
DECEDENT, WHICH HAS BEEN PROBATED IN MASSACHUSETTS.  ANCILLARY
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE HAS BEEN GRANTED IN CALIFORNIA. 
PETITIONER BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
MASSACHUSETTS, JOINING AS DEFENDANTS COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS AND
TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUETTS, AND RESPONDENTS, OFFICERS
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ALL CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF ADMINISTERING
DEATH TAX STATUTES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.  THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
IS FOUNDED UPON THE INTERPLEADER ACT AND SEEKS THE REMEDY WHICH IT
AFFORDS. 

OF INTERPLEADER OR IN THE NATURE OF INTERPLEADER, BY PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE
UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO THE AMOUNT OF $500 OR MORE, THE BENEFITS OF
WHICH ARE DEMANDED BY TWO OR MORE ADVERSE CLAIMANTS WHO ARE CITIZENS OF
DIFFERENT STATES.  BY SUBSECTION 26(A) "SUCH A SUIT IN EQUITY MAY BE
ENTERTAINED ALTHOUGH THE TITLES OR CLAIMS OF THE CONFLICTING CLAIMANTS
DO NOT HAVE A COMMON ORIGIN, OR ARE NOT IDENTICAL, BUT ARE ADVERSE TO
AND INDEPENDENT OF ONE ANOTHER."  AND BY SUBSECTION 26(A)(II) AND (D)
COMPLAINANT, UPON SATISFYING JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT,
AND DEPOSITING THE MONEY OR PROPERTY IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT, OR
UPON GIVING A PRESCRIBED BOND, IS ENTITLED TO A DECREE DISCHARGING HIM
FROM FURTHER LIABILITY AND ENJOINING THE CLAIMANTS FROM FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER COURTS TO RECOVER THE SUM CLAIMED. 

THE BILL OF COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT DECEDENT LEFT BANK DEPOSITS AND
OTHER INTANGIBLES IN CALIFORNIA AND MASSACHUSETTS, A SUBSTANTIAL PART
OF WHICH HAS COME INTO THE POSSESSION OR CUSTODY OF PETITIONER; THAT
RESPONDENTS, THE CALIFORNIA TAXING OFFICIALS, HAVE DETERMINED AND
ASSERT THAT DECEDENT AT DEATH WAS DOMICILED IN CALIFORNIA, AND THAT
UNDER THE LAW OF THAT STATE HIS ESTATE IS SUBJECT TO DEATH TAXES UPON
ALL HIS INTANGIBLES; THAT RESPONDENTS THREATEN TO ASSESS AND COLLECT
THERE A TAX IN EXCESS OF ANY WHICH WOULD BE DUE IF DECEDENT WERE
DOMICILED IN MASSACHUSETTS; THAT THE MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSIONER, IN
BEHALF OF THE STATE, ASSERTS A SIMILAR CLAIM THAT DECEDENT AT DEATH WAS
DOMICILED IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND THAT HIS ESTATE IS SUBJECT TO TAXES
THERE UPON ALL HIS INTANGIBLES; THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IN LAW AND IN
FACT FOR DECEDENT TO HAVE BEEN DOMICILED IN BOTH STATES AT THE TIME OF
HIS DEATH, OR FOR HIS ESTATE TO BE SUBJECT TO DEATH TAXES IN BOTH
STATES AS ASSERTED; AND THAT THE ATTEMPTED COLLECTION OF THE TAX IS A
THREATENED DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A
DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.  PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THE
COURT ORDER RESPONDENT OFFICIALS OF THE TWO STATES TO INTERPLEAD THEIR
RESPECTIVE CLAIMS FOR THE TAX; THAT THE COURT DETERMINE THE DOMICILE OF
DECEDENT, THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX, AND THE PERSON OR PERSONS TO WHOM IT
IS PAYABLE; AND THAT RESPONDENTS BE ENJOINED FROM ANY OTHER PROCEEDINGS
TO COLLECT IT. 

RESPONDENTS, THE CALIFORNIA OFFICERS, APPEARED SPECIALLY AND MOVED TO
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT UPON THE GROUND, AMONG OTHERS, THAT THE SUIT WAS
BROUGHT AGAINST RESPONDENTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND WAS IN
SUBSTANCE A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE FORBIDDEN BY THE ELEVENTH
AMENDMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THIS CONTENTION AND GRANTED A
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE
COURT, FROM TAKING ANY ACTION TO ASSESS THE TAX.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT REVERSED, 89 F.(2D) 59, HOLDING THAT THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE SUIT IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT,
WHICH PROVIDES THAT "THE JUDICIAL POWER  ...  SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO
EXTEND TO ANY SUIT IN LAW OR EQUITY, COMMENCED OR PROSECUTED AGAINST
ONE OF THE UNITED STATES BY CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE...."  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 567, THE DECISION BELOW BEING OF AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN BUT SHOULD BE SETTLED BY
THIS COURT.  SUPREME COURT RULES, 38(5)(B). 

PETITIONER DOES NOT DENY THAT A SUIT NOMINALLY AGAINST INDIVIDUALS,
BUT RESTRAINING OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING THEIR ACTION AS STATE OFFICERS,
MAY BE IN SUBSTANCE A SUIT AGAINST THE STATE, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
FORBIDS, LOUISIANA V. JUMEL, 107 U.S. 711; HAGOOD V. SOUTHERN, 117 U.S.
52; IN RE AYERS, 123 U.S. 443; NORTH CAROLINA V. TEMPLE, 134 U.S. 22,
30; SMITH V. REEVES, 178 U.S. 436; LANKFORD V. PLATTE IRON WORKS, 235
U.S. 461; EX PARTE NEW YORK, NO. 1, 256 U.S. 490, 500; MISSOURI V.
FISKE, 290 U.S. 18, 28; SEE CUNNINGHAM V. MACON & BRUNSWICK R. CO., 109
U.S. 446; CF. WELLS V. ROPER, 246 U.S. 335, OR THAT GENERALLY SUITS TO
RESTRAIN ACTION OF STATE OFFICIALS CAN, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION, BE PROSECUTED ONLY WHEN THE ACTION SOUGHT
TO BE RESTRAINED IS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF STATE LAW OR CONTRAVENES
THE STATUTES OR CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  CF. EX PARTE YOUNG,
209 U.S. 123; SCULLY V. BIRD, 209 U.S. 481; OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V.
SEATTLE, 271 U.S. 426, WITH LOUISIANA V. JUMEL, SUPRA; HAGOOD V.
SOUTHERN, SUPRA; IN RE AYERS, SUPRA; LANKFORD V. PLATTE IRON WORKS,
SUPRA.  THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT, WHICH DENIES TO THE CITIZEN THE RIGHT
TO RESORT TO A FEDERAL COURT TO COMPEL OR RESTRAIN STATE ACTION, DOES
NOT PRECLUDE SUIT AGAINST A WRONGDOER MERELY BECAUSE HE ASSERTS THAT
HIS ACTS ARE WITHIN AN OFFICIAL AUTHORITY WHICH THE STATE DOES NOT
CONFER. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IS THAT HERE THE PROSPECTIVE OFFICIAL ACTION
OF RESPONDENTS INVOLVES A THREATENED VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR
WHICH STATE LAW CAN AFFORD NO SANCTION.  IT IS SAID THAT AS THE
OFFICERS OF EACH STATE ASSERT THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE TAX OUT OF
DECEDENT'S PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE, THEY MAY SUCCEED IN ESTABLISHING
THAT RIGHT BY A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION IN EACH THAT DECEDENT WAS LAST
DOMICILED THERE, CF. DORRANCE'S ESTATE, 309 PA. 151; 163 ATL. 303; IN
RE ESTATE OF DORRANCE, 115 N.J. EQ. 268; 170 ATL. 601; 116 N.J. EQ.
204; 172 ATL. 503, WITH NEW JERSEY V. PENNSYLVANIA, 287 U.S. 580;
DORRANCE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 287 U.S. 660; HILL V. MARTIN, 296 U.S. 393,
ALTHOUGH HE COULD NOT BE DOMICILED IN BOTH; THAT NEITHER STATE COULD
CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZE ITS OFFICIALS TO IMPOSE THE TAX IF DECEDENT
WAS LAST DOMICILED ELSEWHERE, AND PETITIONER IS THUS EXPOSED TO THE
DANGER OF DOUBLE TAXATION, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS.  SEE FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312; FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204.  AS THOSE OFFICIALS THREATEN ACTS WHOSE
CONSEQUENCE MAY BE TAXATION WHICH IS UNAUTHORIZED BY ANY VALID STATE
ENACTMENT, PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE SUIT BROUGHT TO RESTRAIN SUCH
ACTION DOES NOT RUN AGAINST THE STATE. 

BUT THIS ARGUMENT CONFUSES THE POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT OF DECISIONS
OF THE COURTS OF THE TWO STATES, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
FORESTALL, WITH OTHER TYPES OF ACTION BY STATE OFFICERS WHICH, BECAUSE
IT PASSES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF A LAWFUL AUTHORITY, IS WITHIN THE REACH
OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER NOTWITHSTANDING THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT. 
THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT STATE STATUTES, CONSTRUED TO IMPOSE DEATH
TAXES UPON THE INTANGIBLES OF DECEDENTS DOMICILED ELSEWHERE, INFRINGE
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND IT HAS ACCORDINGLY REVERSED JUDGMENTS OF
STATE COURTS ENFORCING SUCH LIABILITY.  FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE,
SUPRA; FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA.  BUT PETITIONER
DOES NOT ASSERT THAT THERE ARE SUCH STATUTES IN CALIFORNIA OR
MASSACHUSETTS, OR THAT THE COURTS IN THOSE STATES HAVE EVER HELD OR
THREATEN TO HOLD THAT THEIR LAWS TAXING INHERITANCES APPLY TO
INTANGIBLES OF THOSE DOMICILED IN OTHER STATES. 

ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF COMPLAINT STATES THAT RESPONDENTS CALIFORNIA
OFFICIALS "HAVE DETERMINED" THAT DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED IN CALIFORNIA,
IT IS NOT CONTENDED THAT THEY HAVE OR ARE ASSUMING AUTHORITY TO ASSESS
THE TAX, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT.  UNDER CALIFORNIA
STATUTES, INHERITANCE TAXES ARE ASSESSED BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
RESULTING, AFTER FULL OPPORTUNITY FOR PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND A
HEARING, IN A JUDGMENT WHICH IS REVIEWABLE ON APPEAL BY THE STATE
COURTS, AND BY THIS COURT IF IT INVOLVES ANY DENIAL OF FEDERAL RIGHT. 
SECS. 14, 15, 16, 17 AND 18, CAL. INHERITANCE TAX ACT OF JUNE 3, 1921,
STATS. 1921, P. 1500, AS AMENDED; SEE STEBBINS V. RILEY, 268 U.S. 137;
ESTATE OF HASKINS, 170 CAL. 267; 149 PAC. 576; ESTATE OF BROWN, 196
CAL. 114; 236 PAC. 144. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT CONTEND THAT RESPONDENTS, THE CALIFORNIA
OFFICERS, PROPOSE TO DO MORE THAN INVOKE THE ACTION OF ITS COURTS TO
ASSESS A LAWFUL TAX AND TO SEEK THERE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT
DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED IN CALIFORNIA AS THE BASIS OF ITS POWER TO
IMPOSE THE TAX.  NOR IS IT DENIED THAT IN SO DOING THEY ARE ACTING IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY IMPOSED UPON THEM BY STATE STATUTES,
WHICH CONFORM TO ALL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  PETITIONER'S REAL
CONCERN IS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT, IF IT SHOULD
DECIDE THAT DECEDENT WAS DOMICILED THERE, MAY BE ERRONEOUS OR MAY
CONFLICT WITH THAT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTS.  BUT CONFLICTING
DECISIONS UPON THE SAME ISSUE OF FACT DO NOT NECESSARILY CONNOTE
ERRONEOUS JUDICIAL ACTION.  DIFFERENCES IN PROOF AND THE LATITUDE
NECESSARILY ALLOWED TO THE TRIER OF FACT IN EACH CASE TO WEIGH AND DRAW
INFERENCES FROM EVIDENCE AND TO PASS UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES,
MIGHT LEAD AN APPELLATE COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT IN NONE IS THE JUDGMENT
ERRONEOUS.  IN ANY CASE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THAT THE DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS SHALL BE FREE FROM ERROR,
CENTRAL LAND CO. V. LAIDLEY, 159 U.S. 103; TRACY V. GINZBERG, 205 U.S.
170, OR REQUIRE THAT PRONOUNCEMENTS SHALL BE CONSISTENT.  MILWAUKEE
ELECTRIC RY. & L. CO. V. WISCONSIN EX REL. MILWAUKEE, 252 U.S. 100,
106.  NEITHER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NOR THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT
CLAUSE REQUIRES UNIFORMITY IN THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF DIFFERENT
STATES AS TO THE PLACE OF DOMICIL, WHERE THE EXERTION OF STATE POWER IS
DEPENDENT UPON DOMICIL WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES.  THORMANN V. FRAME, 176
U.S. 350; OVERBY V. GORDON, 177 U.S. 214; BURBANK V. ERNST, 232 U.S.
162; BAKER V. BAKER, ECCLES & CO., 242 U.S. 394; IOWA V. SLIMMER, 248
U.S. 115, 120, 121; CF. TILT V. KELSEY, 207 U.S. 43.  HENCE IT CANNOT
BE SAID THAT THE THREATENED ACTION OF RESPONDENTS INVOLVES ANY BREACH
OF STATE LAW OR OF THE LAWS OR CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
SINCE THE PROPOSED ACTION IS THE PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY IMPOSED BY THE
STATUTE OF THE STATE UPON STATE OFFICIALS THROUGH WHOM ALONE THE STATE
CAN ACT, RESTRAINT OF THEIR ACTION, WHICH THE BILL OF COMPLAINT PRAYS,
IS RESTRAINT OF STATE ACTION, AND THE SUIT IS IN SUBSTANCE ONE AGAINST
THE STATE WHICH THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS.  WE DO NOT PASS ON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERPLEADER ACT OR ITS APPLICABILITY IN OTHER
RESPECTS. 

UNLIKE THAT IN EX PARTE YOUNG, SUPRA, AND IN THE MANY CASES WHICH
HAVE FOLLOWED IT, THE PRESENT SUIT IS NOT FOUNDED ON THE ASSERTED
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY STATE STATUTE AND THE CONSEQUENT WANT OF
LAWFUL AUTHORITY FOR OFFICIAL ACTION TAKEN UNDER IT.  IN CITY BANK
FARMERS TRUST CO. V. SCHNADER, 291 U.S. 24, ON WHICH PETITIONER RELIES,
IT WAS HELD THAT THE BILL OF COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN
EQUITY TO ENJOIN A STATE OFFICIAL FROM PROCEEDING TO ASSESS AND COLLECT
AN INHERITANCE TAX UPON CHATTELS ALLEGED TO HAVE NO TAX SITUS WITHIN
THE STATE.  THE OBJECTION THAT THE SUIT WAS ONE AGAINST THE STATE
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT WAS NOT URGED OR
CONSIDERED ON THE APPEAL TO THIS COURT.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :

















NATURAL GAS CO. V. SLATTERY, 302 U.S. 300 


NO. 230.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  -
AFFIRMED. 


1.  A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ENGAGED IN PIPING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SOLD AND DELIVERED GAS IN ILLINOIS, UNDER A
LONG TERM CONTRACT, TO AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION WHICH, IN TURN, SOLD IT
IN THAT STATE TO DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES.  ALL THE STOCK OF THIS LOCAL
GAS COMPANY AND MANY OF THE OUTSTANDING SHARES OF THE PIPELINE COMPANY
WERE OWNED BY A LOCAL INVESTMENT COMPANY.  TWO OF THE EIGHT OR NINE
DIRECTORS OF THE PIPELINE COMPANY AT ALL TIMES SINCE ITS INCORPORATION
HAD BEEN DIRECTORS OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY OR OF CORPORATIONS WHOLLY
CONTROLLING IT OR THE LOCAL GAS COMPANY, THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP.  THE
PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GAS COMPANY WAS PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF THE
INVESTMENT COMPANY AND A DIRECTOR OF THE PIPELINE COMPANY; AND A
DIRECTOR OF THE LOCAL GAS COMPANY AND OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY WAS
VICE-PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF THE PIPELINE COMPANY.  AN ILLINOIS
COMMISSION, IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THE ILLINOIS PUBLIC UTILITY ACT TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE RATES OF THE LOCAL GAS COMPANY SHOULD BE REDUCED,
FOUND, ON EVIDENCE, THAT THE PIPELINE COMPANY - NOT A PARTY TO THE
PROCEEDING - WAS AN "AFFILIATE" OF THE LOCAL GAS COMPANY, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THAT ACT, AND THAT, IN ORDER TO FIX REASONABLE RATES FOR THE
SALE OF GAS BY THE LOCAL GAS COMPANY, INQUIRY WAS NECESSARY INTO
OPERATING CHARGES, INCLUDING THE COST OF GAS PURCHASED FROM THE
PIPELINE COMPANY.  ACCORDINGLY IT MADE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE PIPELINE
COMPANY TO MAKE AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSION ALL OF ITS
ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN IT AND THE LOCAL
GAS COMPANY, AND TO FILE WITH THE COMMISSION A REPORT OF THE COST OF
PROPERTY USED IN, AND A STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSES IN CONNECTION
WITH, SUPPLYING GAS TO THAT COMPANY; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT IT
REPORT TO THE COMMISSION A STATEMENT OF THE COST OF ALL PROPERTIES USED
BY IT IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS, TOGETHER
WITH A STATEMENT OF THE INCOME AND EXPENSES OF SUCH OPERATIONS. 

HELD, THAT THE ILLINOIS STATUTE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN SO FAR AS
IT DEMANDS ACCESS TO BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE PIPELINE COMPANY AND
REQUIRES PRODUCTION OF THE INFORMATION WHICH THE ORDER SEEKS.  P. 306. 

2.  THE REASONABLENESS OF THE PRICE AT WHICH A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY
BUYS THE PRODUCT WHICH IT SELLS IS AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF
INVESTIGATION WHEN THE RESALE RATES ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND ANY
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER WHICH TENDS TO PREVENT ARM'S
LENGTH DEALING MAY HAVE AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE REASONABLENESS OF
THE SELLING PRICE.  P. 307. 

3.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT SUCH AN INQUIRY BE LIMITED
TO CASES WHERE COMMON CONTROL IS SECURED THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF A
MAJORITY OF VOTING STOCK.  P. 307. 

4.  COMMON MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATIONS THROUGH OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS,
OR COMMON OWNERSHIP OF A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT, THOUGH LESS THAN A
MAJORITY, OF THEIR STOCK, GIVES SUCH INDICATION OF UNIFIED CONTROL AS
TO CALL FOR CLOSE SCRUTINY OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM WHENEVER THE
REASONABLENESS OF ITS TERMS IS THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY.  P. 308. 

5.  AN INTERSTATE PIPELINE COMPANY CAN NOT BE BOUND BY AN ORDER OF A
STATE COMMISSION, WITH RESPECT TO ITS OWN RATES, OR ITS CONTRACT WITH A
LOCAL DISTRIBUTOR, IN A PROCEEDING CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTOR'S RATES
TO WHICH THE PIPELINE COMPANY IS NOT A PARTY.  P. 308. 

6.  IT IS NOT TO BE PRESUMED THAT INFORMATION SOUGHT BY A STATE
COMMISSION FOR WHICH THERE IS A PROBABLE LEGITIMATE USE, WILL BE PUT TO
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USE.  P. 309. 

7.  APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CHALLENGING THE POWERS OF
A STATE COMMISSION UNDER THE STATE LAW, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, TO REQUIRE REPORTS FROM A CORPORATION
NECESSITATING GREAT EXPENSE, HELD PREMATURE, SINCE RECOURSE COULD HAVE
BEEN HAD TO THE COMMISSION ITSELF FOR A STAY AND A MODIFICATION WITHOUT
SUBJECTING THE APPLICANT TO STATUTORY PENALTIES.  P. 309. 

8.  THE RULE THAT A SUITOR MUST EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
BEFORE SEEKING THE EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF A COURT OF EQUITY, IS OF
ESPECIAL FORCE WHEN RESORT IS HAD TO THE FEDERAL COURTS TO RESTRAIN THE
ACTION OF STATE OFFICERS, AND THE OBJECTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIAL
COURT.  P. 310. 

9.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH A FEDERAL COURT MAY RELAX THIS RULE WHERE THE
ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IS ASSAILED IN ITS ENTIRETY, RESTS IN
SOUND DISCRETION; BUT THERE ARE COGENT REASONS FOR REQUIRING RESORT IN
THE FIRST INSTANCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WHEN THE PARTICULAR
METHOD BY WHICH IT HAS CHOSEN TO EXERCISE AUTHORITY IS ALSO ATTACKED,
FOR THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF REMOVAL OF SUCH ISSUES FROM THE CASE BY
MODIFICATION OF ITS ORDER.  P. 311. 

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. V. SLATTERY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENYING A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COURT BELOW RIGHTLY
DENIED AN APPLICATION FOR AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
APPELLEES, MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION, FROM ENFORCING
AN ORDER BY WHICH APPELLANT WAS DIRECTED TO OPEN ITS RECORDS AND
ACCOUNTS TO INSPECTION BY THE COMMISSION AND TO FURNISH CERTAIN
STATISTICAL DATA FOR USE IN A PROCEEDING PENDING BEFORE IT. THE
PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT TO FIX RATES CHARGED FOR GAS SOLD IN ILLINOIS BY
THE CHICAGO DISTRICT PIPE LINE COMPANY, AN AFFILIATED CORPORATION. 

APPELLANT, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, SELLS IN ILLINOIS NATURAL GAS,
WHICH IT TRANSPORTS THROUGH ITS PIPE LINES FROM OKLAHOMA TO POINTS IN
ILLINOIS WHERE, PURSUANT TO A LONG TERM CONTRACT, IT DELIVERS THE GAS
TO THE DISTRICT COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION.  THE LATTER IS
ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE IN ILLINOIS WHERE IT SELLS THE GAS,
WHICH IT PURCHASES FROM APPELLANT, TO OTHER COMPANIES WHICH IN TURN
DISTRIBUTE THE GAS TO CONSUMERS WITHIN THE STATE.  THE RATES OF THE
DISTRICT COMPANY ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE COMMISSION, AS
PROVIDED BY THE ILLINOIS PUBLIC UTILITIES ACT.  ALL ITS SHARES OF STOCK
ARE OWNED BY THE NATURAL GAS INVESTMENT COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS
CORPORATION, WHICH OWNS 26.63% OF THE OUTSTANDING SHARES OF APPELLANT. 
OF THE EIGHT OR NINE DIRECTORS OF APPELLANT, AT ALL TIMES SINCE ITS
INCORPORATION, TWO HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
EITHER THE INVESTMENT COMPANY OR OF CORPORATIONS WHOLLY CONTROLLING IT
OR THE DISTRICT COMPANY, THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP.  THE COMMISSION HAS
FOUND THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT COMPANY IS PRESIDENT AND
DIRECTOR OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY AND A DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT, AND
THAT A DIRECTOR OF THE DISTRICT COMPANY AND OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY
IS A VICE-PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT. 

1937, C. 111 2/3, SEC. 8A, GIVES THE COMMISSION JURISDICTION OVER
"AFFILIATED INTERESTS HAVING TRANSACTIONS, OTHER THAN OWNERSHIP OF
STOCK AND RECEIPT OF DIVIDENDS THEREON, WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, TO THE EXTENT OF ACCESS TO ALL ACCOUNTS
AND RECORDS OF SUCH AFFILIATED INTERESTS RELATING TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS
...  AND TO THE EXTENT OF AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE SUCH REPORTS WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED BY SUCH AFFILIATED
INTERESTS, AS THE COMMISSION MAY PRESCRIBE."  THE SUBSECTION DEFINES
"AFFILIATED INTERESTS" AS MEANING: 

"(C)  EVERY CORPORATION, TEN PER CENTUM OR MORE OF WHOSE VOTING
CAPITAL STOCK IS OWNED BY ANY PERSON OR CORPORATION OWNING TEN PER
CENTUM OR MORE OF THE VOTING CAPITAL STOCK OF SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY,
... 

"(F)  EVERY CORPORATION WHICH HAS ONE OR MORE ELECTIVE OFFICERS OR
ONE OR MORE DIRECTORS IN COMMON WITH SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY."  FN1 

IN NOVEMBER, 1936, THE COMMISSION, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS AUTHORITY
UNDER THE ACT, BEGAN A PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE DISTRICT COMPANY WAS,
AND APPELLANT WAS NOT, A PARTY, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE RATES CHARGED
BY THE DISTRICT COMPANY SHOULD BE REDUCED.  AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE, THE
COMMISSION FOUND THAT APPELLANT WAS AN AFFILIATE OF THE DISTRICT
COMPANY AND THAT IN ORDER TO FIX REASONABLE RATES FOR THE SALE OF GAS
BY THE LATTER, INQUIRY WAS NECESSARY INTO ITS OPERATING CHARGES
INCLUDING THE COST OF GAS PURCHASED FROM APPELLANT.  THE COMMISSION
ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ORDER, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH IS ASSAILED HERE,
DIRECTING THAT APPELLANT MAKE AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION BY THE
COMMISSION ALL OF ITS ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS
BETWEEN IT AND THE DISTRICT COMPANY.  IT FURTHER ORDERED THAT APPELLANT
FILE WITH THE COMMISSION A REPORT OF THE COST OF PROPERTY USED IN, AND
A STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH, SUPPLYING GAS TO
THE DISTRICT COMPANY; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT IT REPORT TO THE
COMMISSION A STATEMENT OF THE COST OF ALL PROPERTIES USED BY IT IN THE
BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING AND SELLING NATURAL GAS, TOGETHER WITH A
STATEMENT OF THE INCOME AND EXPENSES OF SUCH OPERATIONS. 

IN THE PRESENT SUIT IN EQUITY, BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
NORTHERN ILLINOIS, PETITIONER PRAYED THAT APPELLEES BE ENJOINED FROM
ENFORCING THE ORDER AND THAT IT BE SET ASIDE AS MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
OF STATE LAW, AND ON THE FURTHER GROUNDS THAT THE STATUTE AND ORDER ARE
INVALID BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE THE COMMERCE, EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE
PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON
APPEAL, JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 266, FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT
OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH DENIED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  IT HELD
THAT APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER INFRINGED ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OR THAT APPELLANT WOULD SUFFER IRREPARABLE
INJURY BY REASON OF THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSION. 

THE COURT THOUGHT THAT THE COMMISSION, IN CONDUCTING THE PENDING RATE
PROCEEDING, AND IN INVESTIGATING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE OPERATING
COSTS OF THE DISTRICT COMPANY, WAS ENTITLED TO THE INFORMATION IT
SOUGHT, WHICH MIGHT BE DISCLOSED BY AN EXAMINATION OF APPELLANT'S
ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS; THAT FOR THAT PURPOSE THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE
BEEN ENTITLED TO COMPEL THEIR PRODUCTION BY SUBPOENA; AND THAT AS
APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION ANY OBJECTION TO THE
BREADTH OF THE ORDER, OR TO THE USE OF AN ORDER RATHER THAN A SUBPOENA
TO SECURE THE INFORMATION, NO CASE WAS MADE FOR THE INTERPOSITION OF A
COURT OF EQUITY. 

FIRST.  THE APPELLANT ASSAILS THE STATUTE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SO FAR
AS IT AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO OBTAIN FROM APPELLANT'S BOOKS AND
RECORDS ANY INFORMATION BEARING UPON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE PRICE OF
GAS SOLD TO THE DISTRICT COMPANY.  APPELLANT RECOGNIZES THAT THE
ABSENCE OF "ARM'S LENGTH BARGAINING" BETWEEN CONTRACTING AFFILIATES IS
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUCH AN INQUIRY, AND MAY BE AN ADEQUATE GROUND,
IN FIXING THE REASONABLE RATES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY, FOR
DISREGARDING THE PRICE AT WHICH IT PURCHASES THE COMMODITY
DISTRIBUTED.  SEE WESTERN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N,
285 U.S. 119.  BUT IT IS SAID THAT HERE THE STATUTE INFRINGES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT AUTHORIZES THE
INQUIRY WITHOUT PROOF OF COMMON CONTROL OR WANT OF ARM'S LENGTH
BARGAINING; THAT THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS ALL INQUIRY AS TO THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES AND THE PRICES AT WHICH THE GAS IS
SOLD BY ONE TO THE OTHER, IN ADVANCE OF PROOF OF THEIR COMMON CONTROL
OR OTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE BARGAINING WAS NOT AT ARM'S LENGTH. 
ASSUMING, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE BREADTH OF THIS ATTACK RELIEVES
APPELLANT OF THE NECESSITY OF APPLYING TO THE COMMISSION TO VACATE ITS
ORDER BEFORE SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE FEDERAL COURTS, SEE HOLLIS
V. KUTZ, 255 U.S. 452; CF. UNITED STATES V. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161,
167, WE THINK THAT THE OBJECTION IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. 

WE CAN FIND IN THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NO
BASIS FOR SAYING THAT ANY PERSON IS IMMUNE FROM GIVING INFORMATION
APPROPRIATE TO A LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL INQUIRY.  A FOREIGN
CORPORATION ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE STATE
IS AMENABLE TO PROCESS THERE AS ARE CITIZENS AND CORPORATIONS ENGAGED
IN LOCAL BUSINESS.  INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. V. KENTUCKY, 234 U.S.
579.  IT IS SIMILARLY SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT AND WRIT OF ATTACHMENT. 
DAVIS V. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO., 217 U.S. 157.  IT CAN BE
DEEMED TO BE NO LESS SUBJECT, ON COMMAND OF A STATE TRIBUNAL, TO THE
DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION APPROPRIATE TO AN INQUIRY PENDING THERE.  THE
PRESENT INVESTIGATION IS NOT A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND IT
BURDENS THE COMMERCE NO MORE THAN THE OBLIGATION OWED BY ALL, EVEN
THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, WHICH DO NOT IMPEDE THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, WHERE
CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED.  SMITH V. ALABAMA, 124 U.S. 465; RED "C" OIL
CO. V. BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, 222 U.S. 380; MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230
U.S. 352, 402-412; CLYDE MALLORY LINES V. ALABAMA EX REL. STATE DOCKS
COMM'N, 296 U.S. 261, AND CASES CITED. 

THIS COURT HAS OFTEN RECOGNIZED THAT THE REASONABLENESS OF THE PRICE
AT WHICH A PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANY BUYS THE PRODUCT WHICH IT SELLS IS AN
APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION WHEN THE RESALE RATES ARE UNDER
CONSIDERATION, AND THAT ANY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER
WHICH TENDS TO PREVENT ARM'S LENGTH DEALING MAY HAVE AN IMPORTANT
BEARING ON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE SELLING PRICE.  UNITED FUEL & GAS
CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 300, 320; SMITH V. ILLINOIS BELL
TEL. CO., 282 U.S. 133, 144; WESTERN DISTRIBUTING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, SUPRA, 124; DAYTON POWER & L. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N,
292 U.S. 290.  WE HAVE NOT SAID, NOR DO WE PERCEIVE ANY GROUND FOR
SAYING, THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES SUCH AN INQUIRY TO BE LIMITED TO
THOSE CASES WHERE COMMON CONTROL OF THE TWO CORPORATIONS IS SECURED
THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF A MAJORITY OF THEIR VOTING STOCK.  WE ARE NOT
UNAWARE THAT, AS THE STATUTE RECOGNIZES,  FN2  THERE ARE OTHER METHODS
OF CONTROL OF A CORPORATION THAN THROUGH SUCH OWNERSHIP.  COMMON
MANAGEMENT OF CORPORATIONS THROUGH OFFICERS OR DIRECTORS, OR COMMON
OWNERSHIP OF A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT, THOUGH LESS THAN A MAJORITY OF THEIR
STOCK, GIVES SUCH INDICATION OF UNIFIED CONTROL AS TO CALL FOR CLOSE
SCRUTINY OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THEM WHENEVER THE REASONABLENESS OF ITS
TERMS IS THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES APPELLANT CAN
HARDLY OBJECT TO THE ATTEMPTED INQUIRY INTO THE FAIRNESS OF THE PRICE. 
CF. CORSICANA NATIONAL BANK V. JOHNSON, 251 U.S. 68, 90, AND CASES
CITED; GEDDES V. ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO., 254 U.S. 590, 599; WESTERN
DISTRIBUTING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, SUPRA, 124; GLOBE WOOLEN CO.
V. UTICA GAS & ELEC.  CO., 224 N.Y. 483; 121 N.E. 78.  THE PRICE ITSELF
MAY BE FOUND TO BE SO EXORBITANT AS TO PERSUADE THAT THE BARGAINING WAS
NOT AT ARM'S LENGTH.  CORSICANA NATIONAL BANK V. JOHNSON, SUPRA.  WE
CANNOT SAY THAT THE ILLINOIS STATUTE IS SUBJECT TO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
INFIRMITY IN SO FAR AS IT DEMANDS ACCESS TO THE BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS OF
APPELLANT OR REQUIRES PRODUCTION OF THE INFORMATION WHICH THE ORDER
SEEKS. 

SECOND.  APPELLANT ALSO CHALLENGES THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION AS A
FIRST STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTION.  BUT APPELLANT
IS NOT A PARTY TO THE PENDING PROCEEDING, WHOSE ULTIMATE CONCERN IS THE
RATES OF THE DISTRICT COMPANY.  IN THAT PROCEEDING THE COMMISSION CAN
MAKE NO ORDER BINDING ON APPELLANT WITH RESPECT TO ITS OWN RATES OR ITS
CONTRACT.  CF. STATE CORPORATION COMM'N V. WICHITA GAS CO., 290 U.S.
561.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THE COMMISSION THREATENS TO MAKE ANY
ORDER MODIFYING OR CANCELLING EITHER.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PRESCRIBE
THE EFFECT WHICH THE COMMISSION IS TO GIVE TO THE INFORMATION SOUGHT. 
ASSUMING WITHOUT DECIDING THAT IT CANNOT RIGHTLY BE MADE THE BASIS FOR
DISREGARDING THE PRICE AT WHICH APPELLANT SELLS GAS TO THE DISTRICT
COMPANY, UNLESS AS THE RESULT OF THE INQUIRY THERE APPEARS TO BE IN
SOME FORM AN EFFECTIVE SINGLE CONTROL OF THE TWO COMPANIES, WE CANNOT
ALSO ASSUME THAT THE COMMISSION WILL ARBITRARILY MAKE SUCH USE OF IT IN
FIXING THE DISTRICT COMPANY'S RATES.  IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO
CHALLENGE SUCH ACTION OF THE COMMISSION WHEN IT IS TAKEN OR AT LEAST
THREATENED, FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. ALBRIGHT, 208 U.S. 548; DALTON
ADDING MACHINE CO. V. STATE CORPORATION COMM'N, 236 U.S. 699, AND TO
CONSIDER WHETHER APPELLANT HAS STANDING TO MAKE THE CHALLENGE.  THE
COMMISSION IS NOT TO BE ENJOINED FROM SEEKING INFORMATION WHOSE
PROBABLE USEFULNESS IS ESTABLISHED, AS IT IS IN THIS CASE, BY THE
STATUTORY PREREQUISITE OF PARTIAL COMMUNITY OF MANAGEMENT OR STOCK
OWNERSHIP. 

THIRD.  APPELLANT URGES THAT, IN REQUIRING STATISTICAL REPORTS, THE
EXPENSE OF WHOSE PREPARATION IS SAID TO BE GREAT, THE ORDER TRANSCENDS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY, OR EXERCISES IT SO ARBITRARILY AS TO PLACE AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON COMMERCE AND INFRINGE THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  IT IS SAID THAT EQUITY ALONE CAN AFFORD ADEQUATE RELIEF
BECAUSE OF THE CUMULATIVE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
ORDER.  SEE SECS. 76 AND 77 OF THE ACT. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THESE OBJECTIONS.  IT
SUFFICES TO SAY THAT THE STATUTE ITSELF PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY WHICH APPELLANT HAS NOT SOUGHT.  BY SECS. 64 AND
65 OF THE ACT THE COMMISSION WAS AUTHORIZED ON ITS OWN MOTION OR ON
APPLICATION OF APPELLANT TO ORDER A HEARING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE
PRESENT ORDER WAS "IMPROPER, UNREASONABLE OR CONTRARY TO LAW."  SECTION
67 AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION AT ANY TIME, UPON PROPER NOTICE AND
HEARING, TO "RESCIND, ALTER OR AMEND ANY  ...  ORDER OR DECISION MADE
BY IT."  WE SEE NO REASON, AND APPELLANT SUGGESTS NONE, FOR REJECTING
THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT THE COMMISSION, IF ASKED, COULD HAVE
MODIFIED ITS ORDER, OR FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT
AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND OR POSTPONE THE DATE OF THE EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF
THE ORDER SO AS TO AVOID THE RUNNING OF PENALTIES, PENDING APPLICATION
FOR ITS MODIFICATION.  PORTER V. INVESTORS SYNDICATE, 286 U.S. 461,
470; 287 U.S. 346.    AS THE ACT IMPOSES PENALTIES OF FROM $500 TO
$2,000 A DAY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, ANY APPLICATION OF
THE STATUTE SUBJECTING APPELLANT TO THE RISK OF THE CUMULATIVE
PENALTIES PENDING AN ATTEMPT TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER IN THE
COURTS AND FOR A REASONABLE TIME AFTER DECISION, WOULD BE A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS, EX PARTE YOUNG, 209 U.S. 123, 147; MISSOURI PACIFIC RY.
CO. V. TUCKER, 230 U.S. 340, 349; SEE WADLEY SOUTHERN RY. CO. V.
GEORGIA, 235 U.S. 651, 659, BUT NO REASON APPEARS WHY APPELLANT COULD
NOT HAVE ASKED THE COMMISSION TO POSTPONE THE DATE OF OPERATION OF THE
ORDER PENDING APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR MODIFICATION.  REFUSAL
OF POSTPONEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE OCCASION FOR RECOURSE TO THE
COURTS.  COMPARE OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. RUSSELL, 261 U.S. 290,
293, WITH PRENTIS V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE, 211 U.S. 210; EX PARTE YOUNG,
SUPRA, 156.  BUT APPELLANT DID NOT ASK POSTPONEMENT. 

A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT APPELLANT FROM
PENALTIES PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE SUIT.  THE COMMISSION
AGREED NOT TO ENFORCE THE ORDER BEFORE THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT
ON THE APPLICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION.  IN ORDER TO GIVE
APPELLANT OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL HERE THE DISTRICT COURT STAYED, FOR
THIRTY DAYS, ITS ORDER DENYING AN INJUNCTION, AND BY AN ORDER OF A
JUSTICE OF THIS COURT THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AND THE
RUNNING OF PENALTIES WERE ENJOINED PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF THE CAUSE
HERE. 

THE RULE THAT A SUITOR MUST EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
BEFORE SEEKING THE EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF A COURT OF EQUITY, GOLDSMITH
V. U.S. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 270 U.S. 117, 123; PORTER V. INVESTORS
SYNDICATE, SUPRA; PETERSEN BAKING CO. V. BRYAN, 290 U.S. 570, 575; SEE
UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 291 U.S. 457, 463, 464-466,
IS OF ESPECIAL FORCE WHEN RESORT IS HAD TO THE FEDERAL COURTS TO
RESTRAIN THE ACTION OF STATE OFFICERS, MATTHEWS V. RODGERS, 284 U.S.
521, 525-526; PORTER V. INVESTORS SYNDICATE, 286 U.S. 461; 287 U.S.
346; CF. CENTRAL KENTUCKY NATURAL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 290
U.S. 264, 271; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN FIRE INS. ASSN., 296 U.S. 64, AND
THE OBJECTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIAL COURT.  MATTHEWS V. RODGERS,
SUPRA. 

THE EXTENT TO WHICH A FEDERAL COURT MAY RIGHTLY RELAX THE RULE WHERE
THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY IS ASSAILED IN ITS ENTIRETY, RESTS
IN THE SOUND DISCRETION WHICH GUIDES EXERCISE OF EQUITY JURISDICTION. 
HOLLIS V. KUTZ, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN RY. CO., 265
U.S. 274, 282; CF. UNITED STATES V. SING TUCK, SUPRA.  BUT THERE ARE
COGENT REASONS FOR REQUIRING RESORT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WHEN THE PARTICULAR METHOD BY WHICH IT HAS
CHOSEN TO EXERCISE AUTHORITY, A MATTER PECULIARLY WITHIN ITS
COMPETENCE, IS ALSO UNDER ATTACK, FOR THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF
REMOVAL OF THESE ISSUES FROM THE CASE BY MODIFICATION OF ITS ORDER. 
HERE THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON EVERY QUESTION RAISED BY
THE APPELLANT AND WAS ABLE TO MODIFY THE ORDER.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
THE TRIAL COURT IS FREE TO WITHHOLD ITS AID ENTIRELY UNTIL
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SECTION 8(A)(2) ALSO PROVIDES THAT "AFFILIATED INTERESTS" MEAN: 

"(G)  EVERY CORPORATION OR PERSON WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY DETERMINE
AS A MATTER OF FACT AFTER INVESTIGATION AND HEARING IS ACTUALLY
EXERCISING ANY SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE OVER THE POLICIES AND ACTIONS OF
SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY EVEN THOUGH SUCH INFLUENCE IS NOT BASED UPON STOCK
HOLDING, STOCKHOLDERS, DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED IN
THIS SECTION. 

"(H)  EVERY PERSON OR CORPORATION WHO OR WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY
DETERMINE AS A MATTER OF FACT AFTER INVESTIGATION AND HEARING IS
ACTUALLY EXERCISING SUCH SUBSTANTIAL INFLUENCE OVER THE POLICIES AND
ACTIONS OF SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER
CORPORATIONS OR PERSONS WITH WHICH OR WHOM THEY ARE RELATED BY
OWNERSHIP OR BLOOD RELATIONSHIP OR BY ACTION IN CONCERT THAT TOGETHER
THEY ARE AFFILIATED WITH SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS

FN2  SEE FOOTNOTE 1, SUPRA.
..END :




FRAD V. KELLY, 302 U.S. 312 


NO. 87.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 9, 10, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 89
F.(2D) 866, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN THE FEDERAL
DISTRICT COURT PLEADS GUILTY UPON THREE SEPARATE INDICTMENTS, THE COURT
MAY IMPOSE A SENTENCE OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT UPON ONE INDICTMENT, AND
ON EACH OF THE OTHERS MAY SUSPEND THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE AND PLACE
THE DEFENDANT ON PROBATION FOR A DEFINITE PERIOD TO BEGIN UPON
COMPLETION OF SERVICE OF THE SENTENCE ON THE FIRST.  PROBATION ACT OF
1925, SECS. 1-2; 18 U.S.C., SECS. 724-725.  P. 315. 

2.  A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE WHO, WHILE SITTING IN A CRIMINAL CASE IN
A DISTRICT TO WHICH HE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED PURSUANT TO R.S. SEC. 591, AS
AMENDED, HAD, UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY, SUSPENDED SENTENCE AND PLACED THE
DEFENDANT UPON PROBATION, IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY, AFTER THE TERMINATION
OF HIS SERVICE IN THAT DISTRICT, TO MAKE AN ORDER REVOKING THE
PROBATION AND TERMINATING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PROBATIONER.  P.
317. 

3.  A COURT OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE ARE
RECORDED IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY, EITHER UNDER THE PROBATION ACT OR THE
STATUTE PROVIDING FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES, TO MAKE AN ORDER,
PURSUANT TO SEC. 2 OF THE PROBATION ACT, REVOKING PROBATION AND
TERMINATING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PROBATIONER.  P. 318. 

4.  LIMITATIONS UPON THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSIGNED JUDGE CAN NOT
BE WAIVED BY THE ACTIONS OF THE PROBATION OFFICER OR OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY.  P. 319. 

FRAD V. KELLY, U.S. MARSHAL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 681, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING ORDERS OF
THE DISTRICT COURT WHICH DISCHARGED THE PETITIONER UPON A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND DENIED A MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT TO SENTENCE HIM
UPON INDICTMENTS UNDER WHICH PROBATION HAD BEEN GRANTED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY TO THREE INDICTMENTS IN THE DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  JUDGE INCH, A DISTRICT
JUDGE OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, WHO HAD BEEN DESIGNATED AND
ASSIGNED TO SIT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO R.S. 591, AS
AMENDED, FN1  RECEIVED THE PLEAS AND IMPOSED A SENTENCE UNDER THE FIRST
INDICTMENT (NO. C 96-116) OF TWO YEARS' IMPRISONMENT AND $1,000 FINE. 
UNDER THE OTHER INDICTMENTS HE MADE IDENTICAL ORDERS: "IMPOSITION OF
SENTENCE SUSPENDED.  PROBATION FOR FOUR YEARS TO BEGIN AFTER SERVING
SENTENCE ON C 96-116.  SUBJECT TO THE STANDING PROBATION ORDERS OF THIS
COURT."  THE PETITIONER PAID HIS FINE AND SERVED HIS SENTENCE AND
THEREUPON ENTERED UPON HIS PERIOD OF PROBATION. 

TWENTY MONTHS AFTER JUDGE INCH HAD RETURNED TO HIS OWN DISTRICT,
APPLICATION WAS MADE TO HIM AT CHAMBERS, TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER
FROM PROBATION AND TO TERMINATE THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, PURSUANT
TO SEC. 2 OF THE PROBATION ACT OF MARCH 4, 1925.  FN2  THE JUDGE
DIRECTED THAT NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION BE GIVEN TO THE PROBATION
OFFICER OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  THIS WAS DONE AND, AFTER
A HEARING ON THE MERITS IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT, AT WHICH THE PROBATION
OFFICER WAS PRESENT AND TOOK PART, JUDGE INCH ENTERED AN ORDER REVOKING
THE PROBATION, DISCHARGING THE PETITIONER FROM FURTHER SUPERVISION AND
TERMINATING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM.  THE ORDER WAS CAPTIONED IN
THE "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW
YORK" AND WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THAT COURT. 

ABOUT A YEAR LATER, ON A PETITION BY THE PROBATION OFFICER OF THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT, A JUDGE SITTING IN THAT DISTRICT AUTHORIZED A
WARRANT FOR THE PETITIONER'S APPREHENSION UPON A CHARGE OF VIOLATION OF
THE TERMS OF HIS PROBATION.  THE PETITIONER WAS ARRESTED AND ADMITTED
TO BAIL PENDING A HEARING. 

THEREAFTER THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT MOVED
TO VACATE THE ORDER OF JUDGE INCH TERMINATING THE PROBATION AND THE
PROCEEDINGS.  BY STIPULATION OF COUNSEL, JUDGE INCH RETURNED TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT TO HEAR THE PARTIES UPON THIS MOTION BUT HE ENTERED
NO ORDER SINCE, MEANTIME, THE PETITIONER HAD SURRENDERED HIMSELF TO THE
MARSHAL AND SOUGHT A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY HAD MOVED BEFORE A JUDGE SITTING IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT THAT
THE PETITIONER BE SENTENCED ON THE TWO INDICTMENTS UNDER WHICH SENTENCE
HAD BEEN SUSPENDED.  FN3  THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT AND THE MOTION FOR
SENTENCE WERE HEARD TOGETHER; THE PETITION WAS GRANTED, AND THE MOTION
WAS DENIED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND REMANDED THE
CAUSE "FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE REVOCATION OF (THE PETITIONER'S)
PROBATION AND FOR SENTENCE IF WARRANTED."  FN4 

WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROBATION ACT.  WE
HOLD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW WAS RIGHT. 

FIRST.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO
SUSPEND THE IMPOSITION OF SENTENCES ON THE PLEAS OF GUILTY TO TWO OF
THE INDICTMENTS AND PLACE THE DEFENDANT ON PROBATION EFFECTIVE AFTER
COMPLETION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE THIRD INDICTMENT IS WITHOUT
MERIT.  BASED UPON THIS CONTENTION THE PETITIONER SAYS THAT WHEN HE HAD
COMPLETED SERVICE OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON INDICTMENT C 96-116 THERE
REMAINED NO SENTENCE AGAINST HIM AND THE TERM HAVING LONG SINCE EXPIRED
THE COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER THEN TO IMPOSE ONE. 

THE PROBATION ACT (SUPRA) PROVIDES, IN SEC. 1, THAT UNITED STATES
COURTS HAVING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS, BEING
SATISFIED THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC
AND OF THE DEFENDANT WILL BE SERVED THEREBY, SHALL HAVE POWER, AFTER
CONVICTION FOR ANY CRIME OR OFFENSE NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, "TO SUSPEND THE IMPOSITION OR EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND
TO PLACE THE DEFENDANT UPON PROBATION FOR SUCH PERIOD AND UPON SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THEY MAY DEEM BEST," OR TO IMPOSE A FINE AND
PLACE THE DEFENDANT UPON PROBATION; TO REVOKE OR MODIFY ANY CONDITION
OF PROBATION OR CHANGE THE PERIOD THEREOF, PROVIDED THAT THE PERIOD
WITH ANY EXTENSIONS SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE YEARS.  THE ACT WAS INTENDED
TO CURE THE LACK OF POWER INDEFINITELY TO SUSPEND A SENTENCE, UNDER
WHICH DISTRICT COURTS LABORED PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT.  FN5 

THE SECOND SECTION PROVIDES THAT AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE PROBATION
PERIOD, OR AT ANY TIME AFTER THE PROBATION PERIOD BUT WITHIN THE
MAXIMUM PERIOD FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT MIGHT ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN
SENTENCED, THE PROBATIONER MAY BE SUMMONED BEFORE THE COURT AND "THE
COURT MAY REVOKE THE PROBATION OR THE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE, AND MAY
IMPOSE ANY SENTENCE WHICH MIGHT ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN IMPOSED."  THE
ACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT IN SUSPENDING SENTENCE AND IMPOSING PROBATION
ON TWO OF THE INDICTMENTS WAS IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY
THUS EXPLICITLY CONFERRED.  THE VALIDITY OF THE CITED PROVISIONS IS NOT
OPEN TO QUESTION.  FN6  THE MERE FACT THAT A SENTENCE OF A FINE AND
IMPRISONMENT HAD BEEN IMPOSED UPON ONE OF THE INDICTMENTS IN NO WAY
MILITATED AGAINST THE PRESCRIPTION OF PROBATION IN RESPECT OF THE PLEA
OF GUILTY UNDER THE OTHER TWO.  FN7 

SECOND.  THE ORDER OF JUDGE INCH, SITTING IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT,
AFTER THE TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT, WAS
NULL.  THE STATUTE PROVIDING FOR DESIGNATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF A
DISTRICT JUDGE TO SIT TEMPORARILY IN ANOTHER DISTRICT THAN HIS OWN DOES
NOT AUTHORIZE THE ORDER, AND THE EXPRESS PROVISIONS AND OBVIOUS INTENT
OF THE PROBATION ACT NEGATE THE POWER OF ANY JUDGE, OTHER THAN A JUDGE
OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, TO MAKE IT. 

THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1911, SEC. 18, AS AMENDED,  FN8  PROVIDES:  "ANY
DESIGNATED AND ASSIGNED JUDGE WHO HAS HELD COURT IN ANOTHER DISTRICT
THAN HIS OWN SHALL HAVE POWER, NOTWITHSTANDING HIS ABSENCE FROM SUCH
DISTRICT AND THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME LIMIT IN HIS DESIGNATION, TO
DECIDE ALL MATTERS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO HIM WITHIN SUCH
DISTRICT, TO DECIDE MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIALS, SETTLE BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS,
CERTIFY OR AUTHENTICATE NARRATIVES OF TESTIMONY, OR PERFORM ANY OTHER
ACT REQUIRED BY LAW OR THE RULES TO BE PERFORMED IN ORDER TO PREPARE
ANY CASE SO TRIED BY HIM FOR REVIEW IN AN APPELLATE COURT;...." 

WHEN AN ASSIGNED JUDGE HAS PRESIDED AT THE TRIAL OF A CAUSE, HE IS TO
HAVE POWER, THOUGH THE PERIOD OF HIS SERVICE HAS EXPIRED, AND THOUGH HE
MAY HAVE RETURNED TO HIS OWN DISTRICT, TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS WHICH
ARE INCIDENTAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE DUTIES PERFORMED BY HIM WHILE
PRESENT AND ACTING IN THE DESIGNATED DISTRICT.  AND WHERE A CAUSE HAS
BEEN SUBMITTED TO HIM IN THE DESIGNATED DISTRICT, AFTER HIS RETURN TO
HIS OWN DISTRICT HE MAY ENTER DECREES OR ORDERS AND FILE OPINIONS
NECESSARY TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE TERMINATION OF
HIS PERIOD OF SERVICE IN THE FOREIGN DISTRICT.  BUT THE ACT GOES NO
FARTHER.  IT CLEARLY DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT HE SHALL DECIDE ANY
MATTER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO HIM WITHIN THE DESIGNATED
DISTRICT.  A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS CONCLUDED BY THE JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE
ENTERED UPON A PLEA OR A VERDICT OF GUILT.  BY EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE
STATUTE AN ASSIGNED JUDGE MAY THEREAFTER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
EXPIRATION OF HIS TERM OF SERVICE, HEAR A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND DO
ALL THINGS NECESSARY TO PREPARE A RECORD FOR AN APPELLATE COURT, BUT NO
AUTHORITY IS GIVEN TO HEAR A NEW MATTER EVEN THOUGH THAT NEW MATTER MAY
ARISE IN THE SAME CASE.  AN APPLICATION FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE
PROBATION AND THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A DEFENDANT CONSTITUTES A NEW
MATTER, SUBMISSION OF WHICH MAY NOT BE MADE TO THE ASSIGNED JUDGE AFTER
HIS RETURN TO HIS OWN DISTRICT.  THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR ITS
PRESENTATION IS THE COURT IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE
SENTENCE ARE RECORDED.  IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION NO
POWER TO DEAL WITH SUCH AN APPLICATION IS VESTED IN ANY OTHER COURT. 

ALL THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PROBATION ACT REFER TO THE COURT
IN WHICH THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT WAS DETERMINED AND SENTENCE
IMPOSED.  THE FIRST SECTION EMPOWERS THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF
THE ACTION TO PLACE THE DEFENDANT UPON PROBATION, AND TO REVOKE OR
MODIFY THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROBATION.  THE SECOND REQUIRES THE
PROBATION OFFICER, WHEN DIRECTED BY THE COURT, TO REPORT TO THE COURT
AS TO THE CONDUCT OF THE PROBATIONER; AUTHORIZES THE COURT EITHER TO
DISCHARGE THE PROBATIONER FROM FURTHER SUPERVISION OR TO TERMINATE THE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM OR TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF PROBATION, TO ISSUE
A WARRANT, UPON A PROPER SHOWING, FOR THE PROBATIONER'S ARREST AND,
UPON A HEARING, TO REVOKE THE PROBATION OR THE SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
AND TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE WHICH MIGHT HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN IMPOSED. 
APPOINT ONE OR MORE SUITABLE PERSONS AS PROBATION OFFICERS "WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION AND UNDER THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE MAKING SUCH
APPOINTMENT OR OF HIS SUCCESSOR."  SECTION FOUR PLACES UPON A PROBATION
OFFICER THE DUTY TO INVESTIGATE ANY CASE REFERRED TO HIM FOR
INVESTIGATION BY THE COURT IN WHICH HE IS SERVING AND TO REPORT THEREON
TO THE COURT, AND SUCH OTHER DUTIES AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT. 

THUS THE TRIAL COURT HAS COMPLETE SUPERVISION OVER THE PROBATIONER FOR
THE PERIOD OF HIS PROBATION AND FOR THE TERM OF THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE
WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED.  THIS JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THE
TRIAL COURT AND IN NO OTHER.  TO HOLD THAT A JUDGE OF ANOTHER DISTRICT,
MERELY BECAUSE HE HAD TEMPORARILY SAT AT THE TRIAL AND CONVICTION OF A
DEFENDANT AND IMPOSED SENTENCE, COULD, FROM THAT OTHER DISTRICT,
SUPERVISE, EXTEND, MODIFY OR TERMINATE THE PROBATION, WOULD BE TO
IGNORE THE INTENT OF THE LAW.  IT WOULD MOREOVER RESULT IN CONFUSION
AND INCONVENIENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROBATION ACT.  IT WOULD
MEAN THAT THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND HIS ASSISTANTS, AND A
PROBATION OFFICER OF THE COURT IN WHICH THE JUDGMENT IS RECORDED, WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO GO TO DISTANT PARTS TO BE HEARD UPON THE MERITS OF ANY
APPLICATION BY THE PROBATIONER AND THAT THE PROBATIONER, AT HIS WILL,
COULD INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS EITHER BEFORE A JUDGE OF THE COURT IN WHICH
HIS CONVICTION IS RECORDED OR THE JUDGE IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT WHO HAD
BEEN A TEMPORARY MEMBER OF THAT COURT.  SUCH A POSSIBILITY WAS
CERTAINLY NEVER INTENDED.  PROBATION IS A SYSTEM OF TUTELAGE UNDER THE
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT WHICH HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
CONVICTED DEFENDANT, HAS THE RECORD OF HIS CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, THE
RECORDS AND REPORTS AS TO HIS COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF HIS
PROBATION, AND THE AID OF THE LOCAL PROBATION OFFICER, UNDER WHOSE
SUPERVISION THE DEFENDANT IS PLACED.  THIS JURISDICTION IS NOT DIVIDED
BETWEEN THAT COURT AND A DISTANT JUDGE WHO SAT BY DESIGNATION AT THE
DEFENDANT'S TRIAL. 

THIRD.  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID INDICATES THE ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S
ARGUMENT THAT THE PROBATION OFFICER OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT, BY
APPEARING BEFORE JUDGE INCH IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT UPON THE
APPLICATION FOR TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, BY STIPULATING THAT JUDGE INCH MIGHT RETURN TO THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT TO HEAR A MOTION FOR RESETTLEMENT OF HIS ORDER, HAVE WAIVED
VENUE OR ARE ESTOPPED TO QUESTION IT.  NEITHER OF THESE OFFICERS COULD
CONFER JURISDICTION UPON A DESIGNATED JUDGE TO PERFORM ACTS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSIGNMENT ACT OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT OF DESIGNATION
AFTER HIS TERM OF SERVICE HAD ENDED.  THEY COULD NOT WAIVE THE
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROBATION ACT OR BY THEIR CONDUCT
CONFER JURISDICTION ON A JUDGE OF ANOTHER DISTRICT TO ACT FOR THE TRIAL
COURT IN WHICH ALONE THE STATUTE VESTS THE POWER TO DEAL WITH THE
SUBJECT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  U.S. CODE, TITLE 28, SEC. 17. 

FN2  U.S. CODE, TITLE 18, SEC. 725. 

FN3  IN FACT THERE WERE TWO MOTIONS.  THE ONE WAS FOR SENTENCE ON THE
TWO INDICTMENTS.  THIS APPARENTLY WAS NOT PRESSED.  THE OTHER WAS FOR
AN ORDER COMMITTING THE PETITIONER "FOR THE PERIOD OF THE UNSERVED
PORTION OF HIS SENTENCE  ...  TO WIT, FOUR YEARS IN A PLACE TO BE
DESIGNATED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR SUCH
OTHER, FURTHER, AND DIFFERENT RELIEF AS TO THE COURT MAY SEEM JUST AND
PROPER." 

FN4  89 F.(2D) 866. 

FN5  EX PARTE UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 27. 

FN6  ESCOE V. ZERBST, 295 U.S. 490, 492. 

FN7  COMPARE BURNS V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 216. 

FN8  U.S. CODE, TIT. 28, SEC. 22. 
..END :

















PALKO V. CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319 


NO. 135.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 12, 1937.  - DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 1937.  - 122
CONN. 529 -  191 ATL. 320, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER A STATE STATUTE ALLOWING APPEAL BY THE STATE IN CRIMINAL
CASES, WHEN PERMITTED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, FOR CORRECTION OF ERRORS OF
LAW, A SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT, ON A CONVICTION OF MURDER IN THE
SECOND DEGREE, WAS REVERSED.  UPON RETRIAL, THE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED
OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND SENTENCED TO DEATH.  HELD CONSISTENT
WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 322. 

2.  ASSUMING THAT THE PROHIBITION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT APPLIES TO JEOPARDY IN THE SAME CASE IF THE NEW TRIAL BE AT
THE INSTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT UPON DEFENDANT'S MOTION, IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT A LIKE PROHIBITION IS APPLICABLE AGAINST STATE ACTION
BY FORCE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  PP. 322 ET SEQ. 

3.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT GUARANTEE AGAINST STATE ACTION
ALL THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS
(AMENDMENTS I TO VIII) IF DONE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  P. 323. 

4.  THE PROCESS OF ABSORPTION WHEREBY SOME OF THE PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT
WITHIN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, HAS HAD ITS SOURCE IN THE BELIEF THAT
NEITHER LIBERTY NOR JUSTICE WOULD EXIST IF THEY WERE SACRIFICED.  P.
326. 

5.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO THE DECISION IN THIS CASE TO CONSIDER WHAT
THE ANSWER WOULD HAVE TO BE IF THE STATE WERE PERMITTED AFTER A TRIAL
FREE FROM ERROR TO TRY THE ACCUSED OVER AGAIN OR TO BRING ANOTHER CASE
AGAINST HIM.  P. 328. 

6.  THE CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT UPON THE RETRIAL ORDERED UPON THE
APPEAL BY THE STATE IN THIS CASE WAS NOT IN DEROGATION OF ANY
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES THAT BELONGED TO HIM AS A CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES.  MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581.  P. 329. 

PALKO V. CONNECTICUT. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A SENTENCE OF DEATH UPON A VERDICT
OF GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  THE DEFENDANT HAD PREVIOUSLY
BEEN CONVICTED UPON THE SAME INDICTMENT OF MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE,
WHEREUPON THE STATE APPEALED AND A NEW TRIAL WAS ORDERED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A STATUTE OF CONNECTICUT PERMITTING APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES TO BE
TAKEN BY THE STATE IS CHALLENGED BY APPELLANT AS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  WHETHER
THE CHALLENGE SHOULD BE UPHELD IS NOW TO BE DETERMINED. 

APPELLANT WAS INDICTED IN FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT, FOR THE
CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.  A JURY FOUND HIM GUILTY OF MURDER
IN THE SECOND DEGREE, AND HE WAS SENTENCED TO CONFINEMENT IN THE STATE
PRISON FOR LIFE.  THEREAFTER THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, WITH THE
PERMISSION OF THE JUDGE PRESIDING AT THE TRIAL, GAVE NOTICE OF APPEAL
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS.  THIS IT DID PURSUANT TO AN ACT ADOPTED
IN 1886 WHICH IS PRINTED IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 PUBLIC ACTS, 1886, P. 560;
NOW SEC. 6494 OF THE GENERAL STATUTES.  UPON SUCH APPEAL, THE SUPREME
COURT OF ERRORS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL.  STATE
V. PALKO, 121 CONN. 669; 186 ATL. 657.  IT FOUND THAT THERE HAD BEEN
ERROR OF LAW TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE STATE (1) IN EXCLUDING TESTIMONY
AS TO A CONFESSION BY DEFENDANT; (2) IN EXCLUDING TESTIMONY UPON CROSS
EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT TO IMPEACH HIS CREDIBILITY, AND (3) IN THE
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY AS TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND
DEGREE MURDER. 

PURSUANT TO THE MANDATE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS, DEFENDANT WAS
BROUGHT TO TRIAL AGAIN.  BEFORE A JURY WAS IMPANELED AND ALSO AT LATER
STAGES OF THE CASE HE MADE THE OBJECTION THAT THE EFFECT OF THE NEW
TRIAL WAS TO PLACE HIM TWICE IN JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE, AND IN
SO DOING TO VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.  UPON THE OVERRULING OF THE OBJECTION THE TRIAL
PROCEEDED.  THE JURY RETURNED A VERDICT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE,
AND THE COURT SENTENCED THE DEFENDANT TO THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.  THE
SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, 122 CONN.
529; 191 ATL. 320, ADHERING TO A DECISION ANNOUNCED IN 1894, STATE V.
LEE, 65 CONN. 265; 30 ATL. 1110, WHICH UPHELD THE CHALLENGED STATUTE. 
CF. STATE V. MUOLO, 118 CONN. 373; 172 ATL. 875.  THE CASE IS HERE UPON
APPEAL.  28 U.S.C., SEC. 344. 

1.  THE EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCE WILL NOT DEPRIVE APPELLANT OF HIS
LIFE WITHOUT THE PROCESS OF LAW ASSURED TO HIM BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR APPELLANT IS THAT WHATEVER IS FORBIDDEN BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT IS FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTEENTH ALSO.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT,
WHICH IS NOT DIRECTED TO THE STATES, BUT SOLELY TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, CREATES IMMUNITY FROM DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  NO PERSON SHALL BE
"SUBJECT FOR THE SAME OFFENSE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR
LIMB."  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ORDAINS, "NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE
ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 
TO RETRY A DEFENDANT, THOUGH UNDER ONE INDICTMENT AND ONLY ONE,
SUBJECTS HIM, IT IS SAID, TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, IF THE PROSECUTION IS ONE ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES. 
FROM THIS THE CONSEQUENCE IS SAID TO FOLLOW THAT THERE IS A DENIAL OF
LIFE OR LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IF THE PROSECUTION IS ONE
ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF A STATE.  THIRTY-FIVE YEARS AGO A LIKE
ARGUMENT WAS MADE TO THIS COURT IN DREYER V. ILLINOIS, 187 U.S. 71, 85,
AND WAS PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ITS MERITS AS UNNECESSARY TO A
DECISION.  THE QUESTION IS NOW HERE. 

WE DO NOT FIND IT PROFITABLE TO MARK THE PRECISE LIMITS OF THE
PROHIBITION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS.  THE SUBJECT
WAS MUCH CONSIDERED IN KEPNER V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 100, DECIDED
IN 1904 BY A CLOSELY DIVIDED COURT.  THE VIEW WAS THERE EXPRESSED FOR A
MAJORITY OF THE COURT THAT THE PROHIBITION WAS NOT CONFINED TO JEOPARDY
IN A NEW AND INDEPENDENT CASE.  IT FORBADE JEOPARDY IN THE SAME CASE IF
THE NEW TRIAL WAS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT UPON
DEFENDANT'S MOTION.  CF. TRONO V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 521.  ALL
THIS MAY BE ASSUMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CASE AT HAND, THOUGH THE
DISSENTING OPINIONS (195 U.S. 100, 134, 137) SHOW HOW MUCH WAS TO BE
SAID IN FAVOR OF A DIFFERENT RULING.  RIGHT-MINDED MEN, AS WE LEARN
FROM THOSE OPINIONS, COULD REASONABLY, EVEN IF MISTAKENLY, BELIEVE THAT
A SECOND TRIAL WAS LAWFUL IN PROSECUTIONS SUBJECT TO THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, IF IT WAS ALL IN THE SAME CASE.  EVEN MORE PLAINLY, RIGHT
MINDED MEN COULD REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT IN ESPOUSING THAT CONCLUSION
THEY WERE NOT FAVORING A PRACTICE REPUGNANT TO THE CONSCIENCE OF
MANKIND.  IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
IT MUST BE CALLED, A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FORBIDDEN TO THE STATES? 
THE TYRANNY OF LABELS, SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 114, MUST
NOT LEAD US TO LEAP TO A CONCLUSION THAT A WORD WHICH IN ONE SET OF
FACTS MAY STAND FOR OPPRESSION OR ENORMITY IS OF LIKE EFFECT IN EVERY
OTHER. 

WE HAVE SAID THAT IN APPELLANT'S VIEW THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IS TO
BE TAKEN AS EMBODYING THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE FIFTH.  HIS THESIS IS
EVEN BROADER.  WHATEVER WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE ORIGINAL BILL OF
RIGHTS (AMENDMENTS I TO VIII) IF DONE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOW
EQUALLY UNLAWFUL BY FORCE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IF DONE BY A
STATE.  THERE IS NO SUCH GENERAL RULE. 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT NO PERSON
SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS CRIME
UNLESS ON PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY.  THIS COURT HAS
HELD THAT, IN PROSECUTIONS BY A STATE, PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT BY A
GRAND JURY MAY GIVE WAY TO INFORMATIONS AT THE INSTANCE OF A PUBLIC
OFFICER.  HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA, 110 U.S. 516; GAINES V. WASHINGTON,
277 U.S. 81, 86.  THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES ALSO THAT NO PERSON
SHALL BE COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST
HIMSELF.  THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT, IN PROSECUTIONS BY A STATE, THE
EXEMPTION WILL FAIL IF THE STATE ELECTS TO END IT.  TWINING V. NEW
JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 106, 111, 112.  CF. SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS,
SUPRA, P. 105; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, 297 U.S. 278, 285.  THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT CALLS FOR A JURY TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES AND THE SEVENTH FOR
A JURY TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES AT COMMON LAW WHERE THE VALUE IN
CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS.  THIS COURT HAS RULED THAT
CONSISTENTLY WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS TRIAL BY JURY MAY BE MODIFIED BY A
STATE OR ABOLISHED ALTOGETHER.  WALKER V. SAUVINET, 92 U.S. 90; MAXWELL
V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581; NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO. V. WHITE, 243 U.S. 188,
208; WAGNER ELECTRIC MFG. CO. V. LYNDON, 262 U.S. 226, 232.  AS TO THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT, ONE SHOULD REFER TO WEEKS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S.
383, 398, AND AS TO OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE SIXTH, TO WEST V.
LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
MAY MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR A STATE TO ABRIDGE BY ITS STATUTES THE FREEDOM
OF SPEECH WHICH THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ENCROACHMENT BY
THE CONGRESS, DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353, 364; HERNDON V. LOWRY,
301 U.S. 242, 259; OR THE LIKE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, GROSJEAN V.
AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233; NEAR V. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, 283
U.S. 697, 707; OR THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, HAMILTON V. REGENTS,
293 U.S. 245, 262; CF. GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., SUPRA; PIERCE V.
SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510; OR THE RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY,
WITHOUT WHICH SPEECH WOULD BE UNDULY TRAMMELED, DE JONGE V. OREGON,
SUPRA; HERNDON V. LOWRY, SUPRA; OR THE RIGHT OF ONE ACCUSED OF CRIME TO
THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL, POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45.  IN THESE AND
OTHER SITUATIONS IMMUNITIES THAT ARE VALID AS AGAINST THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE OF THE SPECIFIC PLEDGES OF PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS
FN2  HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY,
AND THUS, THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, BECOME VALID AS AGAINST THE
STATES. 

THE LINE OF DIVISION MAY SEEM TO BE WAVERING AND BROKEN IF THERE IS A
HASTY CATALOGUE OF THE CASES ON THE ONE SIDE AND THE OTHER.  REFLECTION
AND ANALYSIS WILL INDUCE A DIFFERENT VIEW.  THERE EMERGES THE
PERCEPTION OF A RATIONALIZING PRINCIPLE WHICH GIVES TO DISCRETE
INSTANCES A PROPER ORDER AND COHERENCE.  THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY AND
THE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION EXCEPT AS THE RESULT OF AN INDICTMENT MAY
HAVE VALUE AND IMPORTANCE.  EVEN SO, THEY ARE NOT OF THE VERY ESSENCE
OF A SCHEME OF ORDERED LIBERTY.  TO ABOLISH THEM IS NOT TO VIOLATE A
"PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE SO ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR
PEOPLE AS TO BE RANKED AS FUNDAMENTAL."  SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS,
SUPRA, P. 105; BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI, SUPRA, P. 285; HEBERT V.
LOUISIANA, 272 U.S. 312, 316.  FEW WOULD BE SO NARROW OR PROVINCIAL AS
TO MAINTAIN THAT A FAIR AND ENLIGHTENED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THEM.  WHAT IS TRUE OF JURY TRIALS AND INDICTMENTS
IS TRUE ALSO, AS THE CASES SHOW, OF THE IMMUNITY FROM COMPULSORY SELF
INCRIMINATION.  TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA.  THIS TOO MIGHT BE LOST,
AND JUSTICE STILL BE DONE.  INDEED, TODAY AS IN THE PAST THERE ARE
STUDENTS OF OUR PENAL SYSTEM WHO LOOK UPON THE IMMUNITY AS A MISCHIEF
RATHER THAN A BENEFIT, AND WHO WOULD LIMIT ITS SCOPE, OR DESTROY IT
ALTOGETHER.  FN3  NO DOUBT THERE WOULD REMAIN THE NEED TO GIVE
PROTECTION AGAINST TORTURE, PHYSICAL OR MENTAL.  BROWN V. MISSISSIPPI,
SUPRA.  JUSTICE, HOWEVER, WOULD NOT PERISH IF THE ACCUSED WERE SUBJECT
TO A DUTY TO RESPOND TO ORDERLY INQUIRY.  THE EXCLUSION OF THESE
IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES FROM THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES PROTECTED
AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE STATES HAS NOT BEEN ARBITRARY OR CASUAL.  IT
HAS BEEN DICTATED BY A STUDY AND APPRECIATION OF THE MEANING, THE
ESSENTIAL IMPLICATIONS, OF LIBERTY ITSELF. 

WE REACH A DIFFERENT PLANE OF SOCIAL AND MORAL VALUES WHEN WE PASS TO
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER FROM THE
EARLIER ARTICLES OF THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS AND BROUGHT WITHIN THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BY A PROCESS OF ABSORPTION.  THESE IN THEIR ORIGIN
WERE EFFECTIVE AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALONE.  IF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT HAS ABSORBED THEM, THE PROCESS OF ABSORPTION HAS HAD ITS
SOURCE IN THE BELIEF THAT NEITHER LIBERTY NOR JUSTICE WOULD EXIST IF
THEY WERE SACRIFICED.  TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, P. 99.  FN4  THIS
IS TRUE, FOR ILLUSTRATION, OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, AND SPEECH.  OF THAT
FREEDOM ONE MAY SAY THAT IT IS THE MATRIX, THE INDISPENSABLE CONDITION,
OF NEARLY EVERY OTHER FORM OF FREEDOM.  WITH RARE ABERRATIONS A
PERVASIVE RECOGNITION OF THAT TRUTH CAN BE TRACED IN OUR HISTORY,
POLITICAL AND LEGAL.  SO IT HAS COME ABOUT THAT THE DOMAIN OF LIBERTY,
WITHDRAWN BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FROM ENCROACHMENT BY THE STATES,
HAS BEEN ENLARGED BY LATTER-DAY JUDGMENTS TO INCLUDE LIBERTY OF THE
MIND AS WELL AS LIBERTY OF ACTION.  FN5  THE EXTENSION BECAME, INDEED,
A LOGICAL IMPERATIVE WHEN ONCE IT WAS RECOGNIZED, AS LONG AGO IT WAS,
THAT LIBERTY IS SOMETHING MORE THAN EXEMPTION FROM PHYSICAL RESTRAINT,
AND THAT EVEN IN THE FIELD OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS AND DUTIES THE
LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT, IF OPPRESSIVE AND ARBITRARY, MAY BE OVERRIDDEN BY
THE COURTS.  CF. NEAR V. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, SUPRA; DE JONGE V.
OREGON, SUPRA.  FUNDAMENTAL TOO IN THE CONCEPT OF DUE PROCESS, AND SO
IN THAT OF LIBERTY, IS THE THOUGHT THAT CONDEMNATION SHALL BE RENDERED
ONLY AFTER TRIAL.  SCOTT V. MCNEAL, 154 U.S. 34; BLACKMER V. UNITED
STATES, 284 U.S. 421.  THE HEARING, MOREOVER, MUST BE A REAL ONE, NOT A
SHAM OR A PRETENSE.  MOORE V. DEMPSEY, 261 U.S. 86; MOONEY V. HOLOHAN,
294 U.S. 103.  FOR THAT REASON, IGNORANT DEFENDANTS IN A CAPITAL CASE
WERE HELD TO HAVE BEEN CONDEMNED UNLAWFULLY WHEN IN TRUTH, THOUGH NOT
IN FORM, THEY WERE REFUSED THE AID OF COUNSEL.  POWELL V. ALABAMA,
SUPRA, PP. 67, 68.  THE DECISION DID NOT TURN UPON THE FACT THAT THE
BENEFIT OF COUNSEL WOULD HAVE BEEN GUARANTEED TO THE DEFENDANTS BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT IF THEY HAD BEEN PROSECUTED IN A
FEDERAL COURT.  THE DECISION TURNED UPON THE FACT THAT IN THE
PARTICULAR SITUATION LAID BEFORE US IN THE EVIDENCE THE BENEFIT OF
COUNSEL WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE SUBSTANCE OF A HEARING. 

OUR SURVEY OF THE CASES SERVES, WE THINK, TO JUSTIFY THE STATEMENT
THAT THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN THEM, IF NOT UNFALTERING THROUGHOUT ITS
COURSE, HAS BEEN TRUE FOR THE MOST PART TO A UNIFYING PRINCIPLE.  ON
WHICH SIDE OF THE LINE THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE APPELLANT HAS
APPROPRIATE LOCATION MUST BE THE NEXT INQUIRY AND THE FINAL ONE.  IS
THAT KIND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY TO WHICH THE STATUTE HAS SUBJECTED HIM A
HARDSHIP SO ACUTE AND SHOCKING THAT OUR POLITY WILL NOT ENDURE IT? DOES
IT VIOLATE THOSE "FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY AND JUSTICE WHICH
LIE AT THE BASE OF ALL OUR CIVIL AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS"?  HEBERT
V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA.  THE ANSWER SURELY MUST BE "NO."  WHAT THE ANSWER
WOULD HAVE TO BE IF THE STATE WERE PERMITTED AFTER A TRIAL FREE FROM
ERROR TO TRY THE ACCUSED OVER AGAIN OR TO BRING ANOTHER CASE AGAINST
HIM, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER.  WE DEAL WITH THE STATUTE BEFORE
US AND NO OTHER.  THE STATE IS NOT ATTEMPTING TO WEAR THE ACCUSED OUT
BY A MULTITUDE OF CASES WITH ACCUMULATED TRIALS.  IT ASKS NO MORE THAN
THIS, THAT THE CASE AGAINST HIM SHALL GO ON UNTIL THERE SHALL BE A
TRIAL FREE FROM THE CORROSION OF SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL ERROR.  STATE V.
FELCH, 92 VT. 477; 105 ATL. 23; STATE V. LEE, SUPRA.  THIS IS NOT
CRUELTY AT ALL, NOR EVEN VEXATION IN ANY IMMODERATE DEGREE.  IF THE
TRIAL HAD BEEN INFECTED WITH ERROR ADVERSE TO THE ACCUSED, THERE MIGHT
HAVE BEEN REVIEW AT HIS INSTANCE, AND AS OFTEN AS NECESSARY TO PURGE
THE VICIOUS TAINT.  A RECIPROCAL PRIVILEGE, SUBJECT AT ALL TIMES TO THE
DISCRETION OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE, STATE V. CARABETTA, 106 CONN. 114;
127 ATL. 394, HAS NOW BEEN GRANTED TO THE STATE.  THERE IS HERE NO
SEISMIC INNOVATION.  THE EDIFICE OF JUSTICE STANDS, ITS SYMMETRY, TO
MANY, GREATER THAN BEFORE. 

2.  THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANT IS NOT IN DEROGATION OF ANY
PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES THAT BELONG TO HIM AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

THERE IS ARGUMENT IN HIS BEHALF THAT THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS WELL AS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
HAS BEEN FLOUTED BY THE JUDGMENT. 

MAXWELL V. DOW, SUPRA, P. 584, GIVES ALL THE ANSWER THAT IS
NECESSARY. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  6494.  APPEALS BY THE STATE IN CRIMINAL CASES.  APPEALS
FROM THE RULINGS AND DECISIONS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OR OF ANY CRIMINAL
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, UPON ALL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING ON THE TRIAL
OF CRIMINAL CASES, MAY BE TAKEN BY THE STATE, WITH THE PERMISSION OF
THE PRESIDING JUDGE, TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS, IN THE SAME MANNER
AND TO THE SAME EFFECT AS IF MADE BY THE ACCUSED." 

A STATUTE OF VERMONT (G.L. 2598) WAS GIVEN THE SAME EFFECT AND UPHELD
AS CONSTITUTIONAL IN STATE V. FELCH, 92 VT. 477; 105 ATL. 23. 

OTHER STATUTES, CONFERRING A RIGHT OF APPEAL MORE OR LESS LIMITED IN
SCOPE, ARE COLLECTED IN THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, JUNE 15, 1930, P. 1203. 

FN2  FIRST AMENDMENT:  "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN
ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." 

SIXTH AMENDMENT:  "IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL
ENJOY THE RIGHT  ...  TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS
DEFENCE." 

FN3  SEE, E.G. BENTHAM, RATIONALE OF JUDICIAL EVIDENCE, BOOK IX, PT.
4, C. III; GLUECK, CRIME AND JUSTICE, P. 94; CF. WIGMORE, EVIDENCE,
VOL. 4, SEC. 2251. 

COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION IS PART OF THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE IN
THE LAW OF CONTINENTAL EUROPE.  WIGMORE, SUPRA, P. 824; GARNER,
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN FRANCE, 25 YALE L.J. 255, 260; SHERMAN, ROMAN LAW
IN THE MODERN WORLD, VOL. 2, PP. 493, 494; STUMBERG, GUIDE TO THE LAW
AND LEGAL LITERATURE OF FRANCE, P. 184.  DOUBLE JEOPARDY TOO IS NOT
EVERYWHERE FORBIDDEN.  RADIN, ANGLO AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY, P. 228. 

FN4  "...  IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THE PERSONAL RIGHTS
SAFEGUARDED BY THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS AGAINST NATIONAL ACTION MAY
ALSO BE SAFEGUARDED AGAINST STATE ACTION, BECAUSE A DENIAL OF THEM
WOULD BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY
RAILROAD V. CHICAGO, 166 U.S. 226.  IF THIS IS SO, IT IS NOT BECAUSE
THOSE RIGHTS ARE ENUMERATED IN THE FIRST EIGHT AMENDMENTS, BUT BECAUSE
THEY ARE OF SUCH A NATURE THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE CONCEPTION OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 

FN5  THE CASES ARE BROUGHT TOGETHER IN WARREN, THE NEW LIBERTY UNDER
THE 14TH AMENDMENT, 39 HARV. L. REV. 431. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DISSENTS. 
..END :









TITLE CO. V. WILCOX BLDG. CORP., 302 U.S. 120 


NOS. 23 AND 24.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 15, 1937. 
- 86 F.(2D) 667, REVERSED. 


1.  A CORPORATION, DISSOLVED AND PUT OUT OF EXISTENCE BY THE STATE
WHICH CREATED IT, MAY NOT INVOKE THE POWERS OF A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY
UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 124. 

THE RECORD DOES NOT PRESENT A CASE WHERE CREDITORS ARE THE MOVING
PARTIES, OR WHERE THERE HAS BEEN ANY ACT OF BANKRUPTCY COMMITTED BY THE
CORPORATION, OR WHERE ANY PERTINENT LAW OF THE STATE IS IN CONFLICT
WITH THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAWS. 

2.  A PRIVATE CORPORATION CAN EXIST ONLY UNDER THE EXPRESS LAW OF THE
STATE OR SOVEREIGNTY BY WHICH IT WAS CREATED.  ITS DISSOLUTION PUTS AN
END TO ITS EXISTENCE; AND THERE MUST BE SOME STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR
THE PROLONGATION OF ITS LIFE, EVEN FOR LITIGATION PURPOSES.  P. 125. 

3.  UNDER THE ILLINOIS LAW A CORPORATION IS WITHOUT CORPORATE
CAPACITY TO INITIATE ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AFTER TWO YEARS FROM THE
DATE OF ITS DISSOLUTION, AND THIS INCLUDES A PROCEEDING FOR
REORGANIZATION UNDER BANKRUPTCY ACT SEC. 77B.  P. 126. 

4.  STATE LAWS IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAWS OF CONGRESS ON THE SUBJECT
OF BANKRUPTCIES ARE SUSPENDED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL CONFLICT. 
P. 126. 

5.  HOW LONG AND UPON WHAT TERMS A STATE-CREATED CORPORATION MAY
CONTINUE TO EXIST IS A MATTER EXCLUSIVELY OF STATE POWER.  P. 127. 

6.  SECTION 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT DOES NOT ENABLE STOCKHOLDERS TO
RESUSCITATE, IN ANY OTHER GUISE, A CORPORATION THE POWERS AND EXISTENCE
OF WHICH, SAVE FOR THE WINDING UP OF PENDING LITIGATION, HAVE BEEN
EXTINGUISHED BY THE STATE THAT CREATED IT.  P. 129. 

CHICAGO TITLE AND TRUST CO. V. FORTY-ONE THIRTY-SIX WILCOX BLDG.
CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 676, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE COURT BELOW
OF AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED IN A REORGANIZATION
PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE ORDER CONFIRMED
THE REPORT OF A SPECIAL MASTER AND COMMANDED A RECEIVER IN POSSESSION
OF PROPERTY IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS IN A STATE COURT TO TURN OVER TO
A TEMPORARY TRUSTEE, AND RESTRAINED FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE
FORECLOSURES. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT WAS ORGANIZED AS A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF ILLINOIS;
AND PURSUANT TO THOSE LAWS IT WAS DISSOLVED.  THE ONLY PROPERTY IT EVER
OWNED OR POSSESSED WAS A BUILDING, AND THE LAND UPON WHICH IT STOOD,
SITUATED AT NO. 4136 WILCOX AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHICAGO.  THIS
PROPERTY, WHEN ACQUIRED, WAS SUBJECT TO THE LIEN OF A FIRST MORTGAGE,
SECURING BONDS AGGREGATING $95,000, AND, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUISITION
OF THE PROPERTY, TO A JUNIOR MORTGAGE TO SECURE THE PAYMENT OF
$15,000.  THE CORPORATION WAS ORGANIZED ON APRIL 10, 1929.  ON MAY 22,
1931, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, IN A PROCEEDING
REGULARLY BEFORE IT, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH A STATUTE OF ILLINOIS,
ENTERED A DECREE DISSOLVING THE CORPORATION AND DECLARING ITS CHARTER
AND AUTHORITY AS SUCH TO BE NULL AND VOID.  THE DECREE HAS NEVER BEEN
APPEALED FROM OR OTHERWISE CHALLENGED OR ASSAILED.  THAT IT BECAME AND
IS NOW EFFECTIVE CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 

ON JULY 10TH, CERTAIN MECHANICS' LIENS WERE FORECLOSED, AND A SALE OF
THE PROPERTY WAS THEREAFTER MADE PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE DECREE. 
CERTIFICATE OF SALE WAS ISSUED, ENTITLING THE HOLDER THEREOF TO A
CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION.  THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION EXPIRED AS TO RESPONDENT ON AUGUST
5, 1932, AND AS TO CREDITORS ON NOVEMBER 5, 1932.  NO REDEMPTION HAS
EVER BEEN MADE OR ATTEMPTED.  ON OCTOBER 24, 1931, SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN
A STATE COURT TO FORECLOSE THE LIEN OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE; AND ON
NOVEMBER 10, 1931, SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE SAME COURT TO FORECLOSE THE
LIEN OF THE JUNIOR MORTGAGE.  A RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED, WHO TOOK
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, AND WAS IN POSSESSION THEREOF AT THE TIME
THIS CASE WAS HEARD IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.  RESPONDENT APPEARED
IN BOTH FORECLOSURE SUITS, BUT APPARENTLY OFFERED NO DEFENSE. 

BY THE STATUTES OF ILLINOIS (SMITH-HURD REV. STAT., 1929, C. 32) IT
IS PROVIDED: 

"SEC. 14.  ALL CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE,
WHOSE POWERS MAY HAVE EXPIRED BY LIMITATION OR OTHERWISE, SHALL
CONTINUE THEIR CORPORATE CAPACITY FOR TWO YEARS FOR THE PURPOSE ONLY OF
COLLECTING DEBTS DUE SUCH CORPORATION AND SELLING AND CONVEYING THE
PROPERTY AND EFFECTS THEREOF.  SUCH CORPORATIONS SHALL USE THEIR
RESPECTIVE NAMES FOR SUCH PURPOSES AND SHALL BE CAPABLE OF PROSECUTING
AND DEFENDING ALL SUITS AT LAW OR IN EQUITY. 

     . .         .         .         . 

"SEC. 79.  THE DISSOLUTION, FOR ANY CAUSE WHATEVER, OF ANY
CORPORATION, SHALL NOT TAKE AWAY OR IMPAIR ANY REMEDY GIVEN AGAINST
SUCH CORPORATION, ITS OFFICERS, OR STOCKHOLDERS, FOR ANY LIABILITIES
INCURRED PREVIOUS TO ITS DISSOLUTION, IF SUIT THEREFOR IS BROUGHT AND
SERVICE OF PROCESS HAD WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER SUCH DISSOLUTION." 

THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD, WITHIN WHICH THE CORPORATION COULD SUE, ACQUIRE
PROPERTY, OR PERFORM ANY CORPORATE FUNCTION APART FROM SUITS THEN
PENDING, EXPIRED MAY 22, 1933. 

THUS MATTERS REMAINED UNTIL MAY, 1935, WHEN THREE PERSONS, NAMELY,
MRS. FAY FISCHEL, HER FATHER HYMAN SCHULMAN, AND HER BROTHER SAM
SCHULMAN, ACQUIRED ALL THE SHARES OF THE RESPONDENT FROM THE THEN
STOCKHOLDERS.  MEETINGS PURPORTING TO BE STOCKHOLDERS' AND DIRECTORS'
MEETINGS WERE THEN HELD, OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS ELECTED, AND A
RESOLUTION WAS PASSED AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR THE
REORGANIZATION OF RESPONDENT UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 48
STAT. 912; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 207. 

ON JUNE 13, 1935, RESPONDENT FILED A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION
UNDER SEC. 77B; AND ON JUNE 21ST, FILED A PETITION PRAYING FOR AN ORDER
DIRECTING THE RECEIVER IN THE STATE FORECLOSURE SUITS TO TURN OVER
PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION AND RESTRAINING THE FURTHER PROSECUTION OF
SUCH SUITS.  PETITIONER ANSWERED, DENYING THAT RESPONDENT WAS A
CORPORATION, SETTING UP THE CORPORATE DISSOLUTION, THE FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS AND THE SALE OF THE CORPORATE PROPERTY.  IT ALSO AVERRED
THAT THE BANKRUPTCY PETITION WAS NOT FILED IN GOOD FAITH. 

THE SPECIAL MASTER, TO WHOM THE CASE WAS REFERRED, FOUND AND REPORTED
THAT THE BANKRUPTCY PETITION HAD BEEN FILED IN GOOD FAITH; THAT
RESPONDENT HAD LEGAL CAPACITY TO FILE THE PETITION, AND THAT THE
PETITION WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THE COURT OVER
RESPONDENT AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.  THE MASTER FURTHER FOUND THAT
NO DEED EVER ISSUED UNDER THE MECHANICS' LIEN FORECLOSURE CERTIFICATE;
AND THAT SUCH CERTIFICATE WAS PURCHASED AND NOW IS THE PROPERTY OF THE
DEBTOR.  HOWEVER, IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS
PURCHASED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF THE STOCK BY THE THREE
PERSONS ALREADY MENTIONED, MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER THE PERIOD OF
REDEMPTION HAD EXPIRED. 

THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CONFIRMED THE REPORT OF THE MASTER,
APPOINTED A TEMPORARY TRUSTEE, REQUIRED THE STATE COURT RECEIVER TO
TURN OVER THE PROPERTY TO THE TRUSTEE, AND RESTRAIN FURTHER PROSECUTION
OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS.  ON APPEAL, THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED
THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, JUDGE BRIGGLE DISSENTING.  86 F.(2D)
667. 

IN THE DECISIONS OF OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL, CITED BY
RESPONDENT, SUPPORT MAY BE FOUND FOR INVOLUNTARY PROCEEDINGS IN
BANKRUPTCY AGAINST A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, BROUGHT BY CREDITORS AND
BASED UPON AN ACT OF BANKRUPTCY COMMITTED WITHIN FOUR MONTHS.  THE
QUESTION PRESENTED HERE DIFFERS SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED IN THOSE CASES; AND WE PUT THEM ASIDE AS INAPPLICABLE,
WITHOUT EITHER APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.  THE SOLE QUESTION NOW FOR
DETERMINATION IS WHETHER UNDER THE FACTS JUST DETAILED, A CORPORATION,
DISSOLVED AND PUT OUT OF EXISTENCE BY THE STATE WHICH CREATED IT, MAY,
NEVERTHELESS, ITSELF INVOKE THE POWERS OF A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY UNDER
SEC. 77B.  THE RECORD DOES NOT PRESENT A CASE WHERE CREDITORS ARE THE
MOVING PARTIES, OR WHERE THERE HAS BEEN ANY ACT OF BANKRUPTCY COMMITTED
BY THE CORPORATION, OR WHERE ANY PERTINENT LAW OF THE STATE IS IN
CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY LAWS. 

THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ARE ALL TO THE EFFECT THAT A PRIVATE
CORPORATION IN THIS COUNTRY CAN EXIST ONLY UNDER THE EXPRESS LAW OF THE
STATE OR SOVEREIGNTY BY WHICH IT WAS CREATED.  ITS DISSOLUTION PUTS AN
END TO ITS EXISTENCE, THE RESULT OF WHICH MAY BE LIKENED TO THE DEATH
OF A NATURAL PERSON.  THERE MUST BE SOME STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE
PROLONGATION OF ITS LIFE, EVEN FOR LITIGATION PURPOSES.  OKLAHOMA GAS
CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 273 U.S. 257; NATIONAL BANK V. COLBY, 21 WALL.  609,
615; OREGON RY. & NAV. CO. V. OREGONIAN RY. CO., 130 U.S. 1, 20.  SEE,
ALSO, GREELEY V. SMITH, 3 STORY 657, 10 FED. CAS. P. 1075; BOARD OF
COUNCILMEN V. DEPOSIT BANK, 120 FED. 165, 166 ET SEQ.; DUNDEE MTG.  &
TR. INV. CO. V. HUGHES, 77 FED. 855. 

FACE; BUT IF ANY DOUBT AS TO THEIR MEANING AND EFFECT WOULD OTHERWISE
EXIST, THAT DOUBT HAS BEEN SET AT REST BY THE DECISIONS OF THE ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURTS.  IN LIFE ASS'N OF AMERICA V. FASSETT, 102 ILL. 315,
DECIDED BEFORE THE SECTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE ENACTED, THE STATE
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IT WAS THE SETTLED POLICY OF THE STATE THAT
UPON THE DISSOLUTION OF DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS, HOWEVER EFFECTED, THEY
WERE TO BE REGARDED AS STILL EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING UP
THEIR AFFAIRS AND HAVING THEIR PROPERTY APPLIED FOR THE PAYMENT OF
THEIR JUST DEBTS.  SEE SINGER & TALCOTT CO. V. HUTCHINSON, 176 ILL. 48,
51; 51 N.E. 622.  IN AMERICAN EXCHANGE BANK V. MITCHELL, 179 ILL. APP.
612, 615-616, THE GENERAL RULE WAS ANNOUNCED THAT AFTER A CORPORATION
IS DISSOLVED, IT IS INCAPABLE OF MAINTAINING AN ACTION; AND THAT ALL
SUCH ACTIONS PENDING AT THE TIME OF DISSOLUTION ABATE, IN THE ABSENCE
OF A STATUTE TO THE CONTRARY.  THE STATE DECISIONS FOLLOWING THE
ENACTMENT OF THESE SECTIONS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS GENERAL RULE STILL
REMAINS IN FORCE IN ILLINOIS EXCEPT FOR THE SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS IN
RESPECT OF TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCE SET FORTH IN SECS. 14 AND 79.  SEE
DUKES V. HARRISON & REIDY, 270 ILL. APP. 372; CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. V.
FLYNN COAL CO., 274 ILL. APP. 405.  SEE, ALSO, A.J. BATES CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 3 F.SUPP.  245, 248; CHARLES A. ZAHN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 6
F.SUPP.  317, WHERE THE COURT OF CLAIMS HELD THAT UNDER THESE SECTIONS
OF THE ILLINOIS STATUTE AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION CEASED TO EXIST AND
BECAME INCAPABLE OF TRANSACTING ANY BUSINESS WHATEVER IN ITS CORPORATE
CAPACITY; AND THAT A SUIT PURPORTING TO BE BROUGHT BY A DISSOLVED
CORPORATION AFTER TWO YEARS TO RECOVER INTERNAL-REVENUE TAXES PAID BY
THE CORPORATION COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED. 

IT IS PLAIN ENOUGH, UNDER THE ILLINOIS STATUTE, THAT AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS DISSOLUTION, RESPONDENT
WAS WITHOUT CORPORATE CAPACITY TO INITIATE ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING -
INCLUDING A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B, UNLESS WE ARE ABLE TO SAY THAT
THE STATUTE, IN ITS TERMS OR IN ITS APPLICATION, IS IN CONFLICT WITH
SEC. 77B.  WHILE STATE LAWS IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAWS OF CONGRESS ON
THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES ARE SUSPENDED, THEY ARE SUSPENDED "ONLY TO
THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL CONFLICT WITH THE SYSTEM PROVIDED BY THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT OF CONGRESS."  STELLWAGEN V. CLUM, 245 U.S. 605, 613. 
THE DISSOLUTION EFFECTED UNDER ILLINOIS LAW IS IN NO WAY RELATED TO A
STATE OF INSOLVENCY OR BANKRUPTCY.  INSOLVENCY OR BANKRUPTCY AS A
GROUND FOR DISSOLUTION IS NOT WITHIN THE TERMS OR CONTEMPLATION OF THE
LAW.  LIQUIDATION OF A CORPORATION IS NO PART OF THE PURPOSE OF THE
DISSOLUTION; NOR IS INSOLVENCY OR LIQUIDATION INVOLVED IN THE
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE MECHANICS' LIENS OR FORECLOSE THE
MORTGAGES.  QUITE EVIDENTLY, THE LATTER WERE SIMPLY ORDINARY
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY SUBJECT THERETO. 
STRATON V. NEW, 283 U.S. 318, 327-330.  THE STATE RECEIVERSHIP WAS
PURELY INCIDENTAL TO THE FORECLOSURE SUITS, AND THEREFORE LIMITED AND
SPECIAL.  IT WAS NOT AN EQUITY RECEIVERSHIP WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  DUPARQUET CO. V. EVANS, 297 U.S. 216, 219
221. 

THE PRINCIPLE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED IN HOPKINS SAVINGS ASSN. V. CLEARY,
296 U.S. 315, 337, IS APPLICABLE HERE.  THAT CASE DEALT WITH AN
INTRUSION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THE POWERS OF THE STATE OVER
STATE BUILDING-AND-LOAN ASSOCIATIONS.  SPEAKING OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS,
THIS COURT SAID: "HOW THEY SHALL BE FORMED, HOW MAINTAINED AND
SUPERVISED, AND HOW AND WHEN DISSOLVED, ARE MATTERS OF GOVERNMENTAL
POLICY, WHICH IT WOULD BE AN INTRUSION FOR ANOTHER GOVERNMENT TO
REGULATE BY STATUTE OR DECISION, EXCEPT WHEN REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR
THE FAIR AND EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF SOME OTHER AND COGNATE POWER
EXPLICITLY CONFERRED."  IT IS NOT REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO FIND ANY
CONFLICT BETWEEN SEC. 77B AND THE ILLINOIS STATUTE OR THE DISSOLUTION
PROCEEDINGS OR THE LIEN-FORECLOSURE SUITS. 

THE COURT BELOW RELIED UPON ITS FORMER DECISION IN THE CASE OF IN RE
211 EAST DELAWARE PLACE BLDG. CORP., 76 F.(2D) 834.  THAT WAS A CASE,
HOWEVER, WHERE THE BANKRUPTCY PETITION HAD BEEN FILED BY CREDITORS, NOT
BY THE DISSOLVED CORPORATION; AND, THEREFORE, THE CAPACITY OF THE
DEFUNCT CORPORATION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT INVOLVED.  WE
EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THIS DECISION; BUT JUDGE
EVANS, WHO WROTE THE OPINION, APPARENTLY REGARDED THE DISTINCTION AS
IMPORTANT.  FOR IN A LATER PROCEEDING IN THE CASE, 14 F.SUPP.  96, 100,
HE SAID THAT THE FORFEITURE OF THE CHARTER OF THE CORPORATION DID NOT
PREVENT SUCH A PROCEEDING BY CREDITORS, AND THEN ADDED, "THE ONLY
EFFECT WHICH THIS LOSS OF CORPORATE EXISTENCE MAY HAVE UPON A
BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING IS IN RESPECT TO THE INABILITY OF THE CORPORATION
TO ADMIT ACTS OF BANKRUPTCY OR STATE OF INSOLVENCY OR TO FILE A
VOLUNTARY PETITION." 

HOW LONG AND UPON WHAT TERMS A STATE-CREATED CORPORATION MAY CONTINUE
TO EXIST IS A MATTER EXCLUSIVELY OF STATE POWER.  HORN SILVER MINING
CO. V. NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 305, 312-313; ASHLEY V. RYAN, 153 U.S. 436,
441, 443; NEW JERSEY V. ANDERSON, 203 U.S. 483, 493.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH THE POWER SHALL BE EXERCISED AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT
SHALL BE CARRIED ARE MATTERS OF STATE POLICY, TO BE DECIDED BY THE
STATE LEGISLATURE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHICH
OPERATES TO RESTRAIN A STATE FROM TERMINATING ABSOLUTELY AND
UNCONDITIONALLY THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE-CREATED CORPORATION, IF THAT
BE AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE CORPORATION HAS BEEN
ORGANIZED.  AND IT HARDLY WILL BE CLAIMED THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
MAY BREATHE LIFE INTO A CORPORATE ENTITY THUS PUT TO DEATH BY THE STATE
IN THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF ITS SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY.    THE POWER TO TAKE
THE LONG STEP OF PUTTING AN END TO THE CORPORATE EXISTENCE OF A STATE
CREATED CORPORATION WITHOUT LIMITATION, CONNOTES THE POWER TO TAKE THE
SHORTER ONE OF PUTTING AN END TO IT WITH SUCH LIMITATIONS AS THE
LEGISLATURE SEES FIT TO ANNEX.  COMPARE PACKARD V. BANTON, 264 U.S.
140, 145; DAVIS V. MASSACHUSETTS, 167 U.S. 43, 47; RIPPEY V. TEXAS, 193
U.S. 504, 509-510.  AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS POWERLESS TO
RESURRECT A CORPORATION WHICH THE STATE HAS PUT OUT OF EXISTENCE FOR
ALL PURPOSES, THE CONCLUSION SEEMS INEVITABLE THAT IF THE STATE ATTACH
QUALIFICATIONS TO ITS SENTENCE OF EXTINCTION, NOTHING CAN BE ADDED TO
OR TAKEN FROM THESE QUALIFICATIONS BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY. 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE STATE CANNOT KEEP THE CORPORATION ALIVE FOR
ITS OWN PURPOSES AND DENY IT LIFE FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES.  THE
PROPOSITION NEED NOT BE CHALLENGED, SINCE IT IS PERFECTLY EVIDENT THAT
HERE THE STATE HAS RESERVED NOTHING FOR ITSELF WHICH IT HAS DENIED TO
THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  THE ONLY RELEVANT PROVISIONS ARE THOSE RELATING
TO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.  THE STATE LAW PERMITS SUCH PROCEEDINGS TO BE
INSTITUTED ON BEHALF OF A DISSOLVED CORPORATION WITHIN TWO YEARS; BUT
THESE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE BROUGHT EITHER IN THE STATE COURTS, OR, WHEN
APPROPRIATE, IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.  AFTER TWO YEARS, NO PROCEEDINGS
MAY BE INITIATED ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION IN EITHER STATE OR
FEDERAL COURTS, BUT SUCH PROCEEDINGS AS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED DURING
THAT PERIOD IN ANY OF THESE COURTS MAY BE PROSECUTED TO COMPLETION. 
SINGER & TALCOTT CO. V. HUTCHINSON, SUPRA, PP. 52-53.  THE RIGHT OF
RESORT TO THE COURTS OF THE STATE, AND TO THOSE OF THE NATION HAVING
JURISDICTION, BOTH IN RESPECT OF THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE
COMPLETION OF PROCEEDINGS ALREADY INITIATED, SO FAR AS ILLINOIS LAW IS
CONCERNED, STANDS UPON AN EXACT PARITY. 

THE AIM OF THIS PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B IS TO BRING ABOUT A
REORGANIZATION OF A CORPORATION WHICH HAS BEEN DISSOLVED AND SHORN OF
ITS CAPACITY TO INITIATE ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING BY THE STATE WHICH
POSSESSES, IN RESPECT OF THE CORPORATION, THE POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH. 
IT IS NOT A PROCEEDING ON BEHALF OF CREDITORS.  IT IS NOT A LIQUIDATION
PROCEEDING HAVING FOR ITS OBJECT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPORATE
ASSETS.  THE DISSOLUTION WAS ADJUDGED BECAUSE THE CORPORATION HAD
DISOBEYED THE LAWS OF THE STATE.  FOR THAT REASON THE STATE PROHIBITED
THE CONTINUANCE OF THE CORPORATE ENTERPRISE.  THE STOCKHOLDERS,
HOWEVER, NOW SEEK TO ESCAPE THE PENALTY FOR THIS DERELICTION BY
RESUSCITATING AND CONTINUING THE CORPORATION, AND, TO THAT END, INVOKE
THE AID OF A FEDERAL STATUTE.  THIS IS SIMPLY AN ATTEMPT TO THWART A
VALID STATE LAW.  WHETHER THE ENTERPRISE BE CONTINUED UNDER THE
ORIGINAL NAME AND CHARTER OF THE CORPORATION, OR IN SOME NEW CORPORATE
NAME OR GUISE, CAN MAKE NO DIFFERENCE.  EITHER COURSE WOULD CONTRAVENE
THE LEGISLATIVELY-DECLARED POLICY OF THE STATE.  SECTION 77B CANNOT BE
REGARDED AS COUNTENANCING SUCH A RESULT. 

THE ONLY POWER LEFT TO THE CORPORATION WHEN THIS PROCEEDING WAS
BROUGHT WAS TO FINISH PENDING CASES BEGUN WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER ITS
DISSOLUTION.  WITH THAT EXCEPTION, ITS CORPORATE POWERS WERE ENDED FOR
ALL TIME AND FOR ALL PURPOSES.  IT WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE
THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED AT THE MECHANIC'S-LIEN FORECLOSURE SALE, OR TO
ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B, OR TO BRING A
PROCEEDING TO EFFECTUATE A REORGANIZATION UNDER THAT SECTION.  IN
RESPECT OF THESE MATTERS THE CORPORATION WAS NONEXISTENT.  DECREE
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, DISSENTING. 

I AM UNABLE TO CONCUR IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

1.  RESPONDENT, THOUGH DISSOLVED, WAS STILL A CORPORATION IN SUCH A
SENSE AND TO SUCH A DEGREE AS TO HAVE CAPACITY TO MAINTAIN A PROCEEDING
IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF ITS ASSETS. 

BY BANKRUPTCY ACT SEC. 4, 11 U.S.C. SEC. 22(A), ANY CORPORATION, WITH
EXCEPTIONS NOT NOW MATERIAL, MAY BECOME A VOLUNTARY BANKRUPT. 

BY BANKRUPTCY ACT SEC. 1(6), 11 U.S.C. SEC. 1(6), "'CORPORATIONS'
SHALL MEAN ALL BODIES HAVING ANY OF THE POWERS AND PRIVILEGES OF
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS NOT POSSESSED BY INDIVIDUALS OR PARTNERSHIPS...." 

RESPONDENT, WHEN IT FILED ITS PETITION IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, WAS
STILL IN POSSESSION OF SOME OF THE PRIVILEGES AND POWERS OF PRIVATE
CORPORATIONS NOT POSSESSED BY INDIVIDUALS OR PARTNERSHIPS.  TRUE, A
DECREE OF DISSOLUTION HAD BEEN ENTERED BY A COURT OF ILLINOIS, THE
PLACE OF ITS DOMICILE.  TRUE, TWO YEARS HAD GONE BY SINCE THE MAKING OF
THAT DECREE.  NONE THE LESS, THE CORPORATION STILL HAD THE POWER, IF
SUITS WERE THEN PENDING EITHER IN ITS FAVOR OR AGAINST IT, TO LITIGATE
IN ITS CORPORATE NAME AND THROUGH ITS CORPORATE OFFICIALS.  LIFE ASSN.
OF AMERICA V. FASSETT, 102 ILL. 315; SINGER & TALCOTT STONE CO. V.
HUTCHINSON, 176 ILL. 48; 51 N.E. 622.  COMMERCIAL LOAN & TRUST CO. V.
MALLERS, 242 ILL. 50; 89 N.E. 661; GRAHAM & MORTON TRANSP.  CO. V.
OWENS, 165 ILL. APP. 100; GRIGGSVILLE STATE BANK V. NEWMAN, 275 ILL.
APP. 11.  WITH THE LICENSE OF ILLINOIS, RESPONDENT WAS ACTIVELY
DEFENDING SUITS FOR THE FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGES ON ITS PROPERTY WHEN
IT WENT INTO THE FEDERAL COURT.  A FRAGMENT OF CORPORATE POWER WAS THUS
UNTOUCHED BY DISSOLUTION.  WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
THE BODY THAT RETAINED THIS POWER, AND INDEED EXERCISED IT TOO, WAS
STILL A CORPORATION.  THERE ARE SUGGESTIONS IN THE BOOKS THAT EVEN IN
THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTE PRESERVING CORPORATE CAPACITIES AFTER A DECREE
OF DISSOLUTION, THE BANKRUPTCY POWER TO DISTRIBUTE THE ASSETS OF AN
INSOLVENT DEBTOR IS NOT SUBJECT TO DESTRUCTION BY A WITHDRAWAL,
POSSIBLY A PRECIPITATE ONE, OF CORPORATE EXISTENCE.  SEE, E.G., HAMMOND
V. LYON REALTY CO., 59 F.(2D) 592, 594, 595.  CF. IN RE THOMAS, 78
F.(2D) 602; IN RE AMERICAN & BRITISH MFG. CORP., 300 FED. 839, 847;
CRESSON & CLEARFIELD COAL CO. V. STAUFFER, 148 FED. 981.  THE CASE AT
HAND DOES NOT CHARGE US WITH A DUTY TO DECIDE WHETHER THAT IS SO.  HERE
THE STATE HAS ELECTED TO KEEP THE CORPORATION IN EXISTENCE, MAIMED BUT
STILL ALIVE.  IN CHOOSING TO CREATE OR CONTINUE AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY,
THOUGH WITH LIMITED AND NARROW POWERS, THE STATE SUBJECTS ITS CREATURE
TO THE BANKRUPTCY POWER OF THE CONGRESS IN SO FAR AS THAT POWER IS
DIRECTED AT JURISTIC BEINGS OF THAT ORDER.  CONGRESS HAS SAID TO
ILLINOIS:  "IF AN ASSOCIATION WITH ANY CORPORATE CAPACITIES EXISTS
UNDER YOUR LAWS, BANKRUPTCY - EITHER VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY - IS A
PROPER FORM OF LIQUIDATION."  TO THIS THE STATE RESPONDS, OR IS FIGURED
AS RESPONDING:  "AN ASSOCIATION WITH CORPORATE CAPACITIES DOES EXIST
UNDER OUR LAWS, BUT IT MAY NOT GO INTO A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE WE
WILL NOT GIVE IT THE CAPACITY TO GO THERE.  WINDING UP PROCEEDINGS FOR
ONE IN ITS POSITION ARE IN THE STATE TRIBUNALS ONLY."  THE RESPONSE,
EVEN IF TAKEN TO BE AUTHENTIC, MUST BE HELD OF NO AVAIL.  IT IS NOT
WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF ILLINOIS BY ANY FORM OF WORDS TO PRESERVE THE
ARTIFICIAL ENTITY FOR A PURPOSE OF HER OWN AND DESTROY IT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SUPREMACY OF FEDERAL LAW. 

2.  IF RESPONDENT HAS CAPACITY TO MAINTAIN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING TO
LIQUIDATE ITS BUSINESS THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF A SALE FOR CASH, IT HAS
CAPACITY ALSO TO MAINTAIN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B. 

A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B IS STYLED ONE TO GIVE EFFECT TO A
CORPORATE REORGANIZATION.  WHATEVER ITS FORM OR LABEL, IT DERIVES ITS
ORIGIN AND VITALITY FROM THE BANKRUPTCY POWER.  CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS
NATIONAL BANK CO. V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648; CAMPBELL
V. ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, 75 F.(2D) 947; IN RE NEW ROCHELLE COAL &
LUMBER CO., 77 F.(2D) 881.  ONLY BECAUSE THE REMEDY IS TRACEABLE TO
THAT POWER IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL AND VALID.  THE NOTION IS BASELESS THAT
REORGANIZATION, EVEN WHEN INITIATED ON THE PETITION OF THE DEBTOR, IS
SOLELY OR CHIEFLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF SHAREHOLDERS.  IT IS EVEN MORE
DISTINCTIVELY AND COMMONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.  CF. IN RE
CENTRAL FUNDING CORPORATION, 75 F.(2D) 256, 261.  THE OLD FORM OF
BANKRUPTCY HAD IN VIEW A LIQUIDATION OF THE ASSETS FOR CASH AND NOTHING
ELSE, A METHOD OF DISPOSING OF THEM THAT MIGHT RESULT IN NEEDLESS
SACRIFICE.  THE NEW FORM OF BANKRUPTCY IS MORE FLEXIBLE AND OFTEN MORE
EFFICIENT, PERMITTING AS IT DOES, A DISPOSITION OF THE ASSETS UPON
CREDIT AS WELL AS FOR CASH, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF SHARES OF STOCK OR
BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE BUYER.  WHOEVER, BEING A CORPORATION, MAY
RESORT TO THE OLD FORM, IS AT LIBERTY, ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, TO RESORT
TO THE NEW.  THIS IS SO BY THE EXPRESS MANDATE OF THE STATUTE, WHICH
TELLS US, SEC. 77B; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 207(A), THAT "ANY CORPORATION WHICH
COULD BECOME A BANKRUPT UNDER SEC. 4(11 U.S.C. SEC. 22) OF THIS ACT"
MAY PETITION IN THE NEW PROCEEDING.  BY THAT TEST A DISSOLVED
CORPORATION WITH CAPACITY REQUISITE TO APPLY TO A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY
FOR A LIQUIDATION OF ITS ASSETS HAS THE CAPACITY REQUISITE TO APPLY FOR
A REORGANIZATION OF ITS BUSINESS.  AS TO THIS, THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS
ARE IN GENERAL ACCORD.  OLD FORT IMPROVEMENT CO. V. LEA, 89 F.(2D) 286;
IN RE 4136 WILCOX BLDG. CORP., 86 F.(2D) 667; CAPITAL ENDOWMENT CO. V.
KROEGER, 86 F.(2D) 976; IN RE 211 EAST DELAWARE PLACE BLDG. CORP., 76
F.(2D) 834, 836.  THEIR OPINIONS VINDICATING THAT CONCLUSION ARE
INSTRUCTIVE AND CONVINCING. 

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT EVERY METHOD OF REORGANIZATION APPROPRIATE OR
PERMISSIBLE FOR A CORPORATION WHOSE LIFE IS UNIMPAIRED IS APPROPRIATE
OR PERMISSIBLE FOR ONE ALREADY DOOMED.  THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION WILL
BE UNLAWFUL IF IT ATTEMPTS TO AUTHORIZE THE DEBTOR, FOLLOWING A DECREE
OF DISSOLUTION, TO DO BUSINESS THEREAFTER IN DEFIANCE OF STATE LAW.  IN
GENERAL THERE WILL BE LITTLE DIFFICULTY IN SO ADAPTING A DECREE TO THE
NECESSITIES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE AS TO ATTAIN THE NEEDED HARMONY. 
THE OPINIONS ALREADY CITED SUGGEST APPROPRIATE EXPEDIENTS.  OLD FORT
IMPROVEMENT CO. V. LEA, SUPRA, P. 290; CAPITAL ENDOWMENT CO. V.
KROEGER, SUPRA, P. 979.  INSTEAD OF CONTINUING THE BUSINESS THROUGH THE
PETITIONING DEBTOR OR ITS AGENTS, THE DECREE MAY PERMIT THE FORMATION
OF ANOTHER CORPORATION WHICH WILL TAKE OVER THE ASSETS, ISSUING SHARES
OF STOCK OR BONDS TO CREDITORS OR OTHERS.  THERE MAY BE NEW CAPITAL,
NEW SHAREHOLDERS, NEW DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS.  NEITHER IN THE RECORD
NOR IN THE PRECEDENTS DOES ONE FIND A BASIS FOR A HOLDING THAT THE
FORMATION OF SUCH A CORPORATION WILL BE IN CONFLICT WITH ANY PUBLIC
POLICY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.  THE OLD CORPORATION WAS DISSOLVED FOR
FAILURE TO PAY FRANCHISE TAXES AND FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT.  THE NEW ONE,
IF CREATED, MAY PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF THE STATE BOTH FINANCIALLY AND
OTHERWISE.  BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE STATE WILL BE AMPLY COMPETENT TO
VINDICATE HER OWN DIGNITY IF THERE IS A FRAUD UPON HER LAWS.  NO PLAN
OF REORGANIZATION IS BEFORE US AT THIS TIME.  SO FAR AS APPEARS, NONE
HAS BEEN PREPARED.  WHETHER THE PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED LATER WILL BE
WORTHY OF CONFIRMATION IS A QUESTION FOR THE FUTURE. 

CASES MAY INDEED ARISE WHERE A COURT WILL BE SATISFIED UPON THE
FILING OF THE PETITION THAT REORGANIZATION IS NOT FEASIBLE.  IN THAT
EVENT THE PROCEEDING MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT BROUGHT IN GOOD FAITH. 
TENNESSEE PUB. CO. V. AMERICAN BANK, 299 U.S. 18, 22.  AT TIMES A
DECREE OF DISSOLUTION MAY BE A CIRCUMSTANCE ALONG WITH OTHERS POINTING
TO THAT CONCLUSION.  HERE THE GOOD FAITH OF THE DEBTOR HAS BEEN FOUND
BY THE COURTS BELOW AFTER INQUIRY BY A MASTER TO WHOM THE CAUSE HAD
BEEN REFERRED.  THE SINGLE QUESTION PRESENTED TO US BY THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI IS ONE OF JURISDICTION.  DID A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAVE
POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE PROCEEDING AT THE INSTANCE OF SUCH A SUITOR?  I
HOLD THAT POWER DID NOT FAIL. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE BLACK JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :






















KELLY V. WASHINGTON, 302 U.S. 1 


NO. 2.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1937.  REARGUED OCTOBER 11, 12, 1937.  - DECIDED
NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 186 WASH. 589, 596 -  59 P.(2D) 373, REVERSED. 


1.  TUG-BOATS PLYING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
EMPLOYED PARTLY IN TOWING OTHER VESSELS ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
VOYAGES, OR IN MOVING VESSELS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE, IN AND ABOUT THE HARBORS WHERE THE TUGS ARE STATIONED, ARE
SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 4. 

2.  THERE IS NO EXPRESS PROVISION IN FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR
INSPECTION OF HULL AND MACHINERY, IN ORDER TO INSURE SAFETY OR
DETERMINE SEAWORTHINESS, OF MOTOR-DRIVEN TUGS WHICH DO NOT CARRY
PASSENGERS OR FREIGHT FOR HIRE, OR DO NOT HAVE ON BOARD ANY INFLAMMABLE
OR COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID CARGO IN BULK, OR DO NOT TRANSPORT EXPLOSIVES OR
LIKE DANGEROUS CARGO, OR ARE NOT SEAGOING VESSELS OF THREE HUNDRED
GROSS TONS OR OVER, OR (WITH RESPECT TO REQUIREMENTS AS TO LOAD LINES)
ARE UNDER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY GROSS TONS.  PP. 4, 8. 

3.  THE FEDERAL STATUTES ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS IMPLYING A
PROHIBITION OF INSPECTION BY STATE AUTHORITIES OF HULL AND MACHINERY,
TO INSURE SAFETY AND DETERMINE SEAWORTHINESS, IN THE CASE OF VESSELS
WHICH IN THIS RESPECT LIE OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.  P. 9. 

4.  STATE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS INVALID:  (A) IF IN
CONFLICT WITH AN EXPRESS REGULATION BY CONGRESS; (B) IF THE SUBJECT IS
ONE DEMANDING UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION SO THAT STATE ACTION IS
ALTOGETHER INADMISSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL ACTION; (C) WHERE
FEDERAL REGULATION HAS OCCUPIED THE FIELD.  P. 9. 

5.  WHEN CONGRESS CIRCUMSCRIBES ITS REGULATION OF A SUBJECT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND OCCUPIES ONLY A LIMITED FIELD, STATE REGULATION
OUTSIDE OF THAT LIMITED FIELD AND OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE IS NOT FORBIDDEN
OR DISPLACED.  P. 10. 

6.  AN EXERCISE OF STATE POLICE POWER, WHICH WOULD BE VALID IF NOT
SUPERSEDED BY FEDERAL ACTION, IS SUPERSEDED ONLY WHERE THE REPUGNANCE
OR CONFLICT IS SO DIRECT AND POSITIVE THAT THE TWO ACTS CANNOT BE
RECONCILED OR CONSISTENTLY STAND TOGETHER.  P. 10. 

7.  INSPECTION OF THE HULL AND MACHINERY OF MOTOR-DRIVEN TUGS, IN
ORDER TO INSURE SAFETY AND SEAWORTHINESS, IS NOT SUCH A SUBJECT AS BY
ITS NATURE REQUIRES UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION, AND THEREFORE THIS FIELD
IS OPEN TO THE STATES IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICTING FEDERAL REGULATION
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  P. 14. 

IF, HOWEVER, THE STATE GOES FARTHER AND ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE PARTICULAR
STANDARDS AS TO STRUCTURE, DESIGN, EQUIPMENT AND OPERATION, WHICH IN
THE JUDGMENT OF ITS AUTHORITIES MAY BE DESIRABLE BUT WHICH PASS BEYOND
WHAT IS PLAINLY ESSENTIAL TO SAFETY AND SEAWORTHINESS, THE STATE MAY
ENCOUNTER THE PRINCIPLE THAT SUCH REQUIREMENTS, IF IMPOSED AT ALL, MUST
BE THROUGH THE ACTION OF CONGRESS, WHICH CAN ESTABLISH A UNIFORM RULE. 

KELLY, DIRECTOR, ET AL. V. WASHINGTON EX REL. FOSS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 539, TO REVIEW A REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT DENYING
A WRIT OF PROHIBITION. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, OWNERS OF MOTOR-DRIVEN TUGS, SOUGHT A WRIT OF
PROHIBITION TO PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF C. 200 OF THE
WASHINGTON LAWS OF 1907(REM.  REV.  STAT., SECS. 9843 ET SEQ.) RELATING
TO THE INSPECTION AND REGULATION OF VESSELS.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE DIRECTED JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS, HOLDING THE STATUTE INVALID
"IF APPLIED TO THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OVER WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS CONTROL."  186 WASH. 589, 596.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  299 U.S.
539.  AFTER HEARING, WE ORDERED REARGUMENT AND REQUESTED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES TO PRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE GOVERNMENT
UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE STATE ACT OR THE ACTION OF THE OFFICERS
OF THE STATE THEREUNDER CONFLICTS WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES OR WITH THE ACTION OF ITS OFFICERS UNDER THE ACTS OF CONGRESS. 
THE CASE HAS BEEN REARGUED ACCORDINGLY AND THE VIEWS OF THE GOVERNMENT
HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BOTH ORALLY AND UPON BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT. 

THE MATERIAL FACTS, AS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION OF THE STATE COURT,
ARE THAT RESPONDENTS OWN AND OPERATE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINE MOTOR
DRIVEN TUGS OF WHICH ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN ARE LESS THAN SIXTY-FIVE
FEET IN LENGTH.  SOME OF THESE TUGS ARE REGISTERED AND THE REMAINDER
ARE ENROLLED AND LICENSED UNDER FEDERAL LAWS.  FOR THE MOST PART THESE
TUGS ARE EMPLOYED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, BUT SOME TOW TO AND FROM
BRITISH COLUMBIA PORTS OR ACROSS THE COLUMBIA RIVER OR FROM OTHER PORTS
IN WASHINGTON TO PORTS IN OREGON.  PRACTICALLY ALL THESE TUGS ARE
CAPABLE OF ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE AND WILL DO SO IF
AND WHEN OPPORTUNITY OFFERS.  SOME OF THE LARGER TUGS HAVE TOWED AND
WILL TOW TO CALIFORNIA PORTS.  THE MAIN BUSINESS, HOWEVER, OF MOST OF
THE TUGS IS CONFINED TO MOVING VESSELS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE AND OTHER WORK IN AND ABOUT THE HARBORS WHERE THEY ARE
STATIONED.  186 WASH. P. 590. 

RESPONDENTS' COMPLAINT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF A LARGE NUMBER OF
REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE ACT WHICH IT WAS ALLEGED THE STATE
AUTHORITIES SOUGHT TO ENFORCE (186 WASH. P. 591), BUT THESE AUTHORITIES
BY THEIR ANSWER AND IN THE ARGUMENT AT BAR DISCLAIM AN INTENTION TO
ENFORCE ANY OF THE STATE REGULATIONS WHICH CONFLICT WITH THOSE
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

FIRST.  THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE LEGISLATION AS
APPLIED TO RESPONDENTS' MOTOR-DRIVEN TUGS IS IN ALL RESPECTS IN
CONFLICT WITH EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 
WHEREVER SUCH CONFLICT EXISTS, THE STATE LEGISLATION MUST FALL. 
GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 210. 

CHAPTER 200 OF THE WASHINGTON LAWS OF 1907 IS DESCRIBED BY THE STATE
COURT AS "A COMPREHENSIVE AND COMPLETE CODE FOR THE INSPECTION AND
REGULATION OF EVERY VESSEL OPERATED BY MACHINERY WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT
TO INSPECTION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES."  REM.  REV. STAT.,
SEC. 9844; 186 WASH. P. 590.  IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE EMBRACES THE AUTHORITY TO
MAKE REGULATIONS FOR RESPONDENTS' TUGS.  FOSTER V. DAVENPORT, 22 HOW. 
244; MORAN V. NEW ORLEANS, 112 U.S. 69; HARMAN V. CHICAGO, 147 U.S.
396.  HAS CONGRESS EXERCISED THAT AUTHORITY AND, IF SO, TO WHAT
EXTENT? 

THE FEDERAL ACTS AND REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO VESSELS ON THE
NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE ELABORATE.  THEY WERE WELL
DESCRIBED IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL AS A MAZE
OF REGULATION.  PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO STEAM VESSELS ARE EXTREMELY
DETAILED.  46 U.S.C., C. 14, SECS. 361 ET SEQ. PROVISIONS AS TO MOTOR
DRIVEN VESSELS ARE FAR LESS COMPREHENSIVE AND ESTABLISH ONLY A LIMITED
REGULATION.  BY SEC. 4426 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY THE
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1905, C. 1457, 33 STAT. 1029, 1030, AND BY THE ACT OF
MAY 16, 1906, C. 2460, 34 STAT. 193, 194, IT WAS PROVIDED THAT ALL
VESSELS "ABOVE FIFTEEN GROSS TONS CARRYING FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS FOR
HIRE, BUT NOT ENGAGED IN FISHING AS A REGULAR BUSINESS, PROPELLED BY
GAS, FLUID, NAPHTHA, OR ELECTRIC MOTORS," SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE RELATING TO THE INSPECTION OF HULLS AND
BOILERS AND REQUIRING ENGINEERS AND PILOTS.  THESE VESSELS WERE ALSO
REQUIRED TO CARRY LIFE PRESERVERS FOR PASSENGERS AND, WHILE CARRYING
PASSENGERS, TO BE IN CHARGE OF A PERSON DULY LICENSED BY THE FEDERAL
LOCAL BOARD.  46 U.S.C. 404.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT RESPONDENTS'
MOTOR-DRIVEN TUGS ARE WITHIN THE CLASS OF VESSELS WHICH CARRY FREIGHT
OR PASSENGERS FOR HIRE. 

IN 1910, CONGRESS ENACTED THE MOTOR BOAT ACT.  36 STAT. 462.  WHILE
THIS STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO RESPONDENTS' TUGS, SO FAR AS IT GOES, ITS
SCOPE IS RESTRICTED.  SECTION 1 DEFINES THE WORD "MOTOR BOAT" AS
INCLUDING "EVERY VESSEL PROPELLED BY MACHINERY AND NOT MORE THAN SIXTY
FIVE FEET IN LENGTH EXCEPT TUGBOATS AND TOWBOATS PROPELLED BY STEAM." 
THERE FOLLOWS IN THAT SECTION A PROVISO THAT THE ENGINE, BOILER OR
OTHER OPERATING MACHINERY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE LOCAL
INSPECTORS OF STEAM VESSELS, AND TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN THEREOF,
WHERE THE VESSELS "ARE MORE THAN FORTY FEET IN LENGTH AND ARE PROPELLED
BY MACHINERY DRIVEN BY STEAM."  SECTION 2 DIVIDES THE MOTOR BOATS WHICH
ARE SUBJECT TO THE ACT INTO THREE CLASSES; (1) THOSE LESS THAN TWENTY
SIX FEET IN LENGTH; (2) THOSE TWENTY-SIX FEET OR OVER AND LESS THAN
FORTY FEET IN LENGTH; (3) THOSE FORTY FEET OR OVER AND NOT MORE THAN
SIXTY-FIVE FEET IN LENGTH.  SECTION 3 THEN PROVIDES FOR THE CARRYING OF
LIGHTS BY MOTOR BOATS OF THE RESPECTIVE CLASSES.  SECTION 4 RELATES TO
WHISTLES, FOG HORNS AND BELLS.  SECTIONS 5 AND 6 PROVIDE THAT MOTOR
BOATS SUBJECT TO THE ACT, AND ALSO MOTOR BOATS MORE THAN SIXTY-FIVE
FEET IN LENGTH, SHALL CARRY LIFE PRESERVERS OR LIFE BELTS OR SIMILAR
DEVICES AND FIRE EXTINGUISHING EQUIPMENT.  SECTION 5 REQUIRES THAT ALL
MOTOR BOATS CARRYING PASSENGERS FOR HIRE SHALL BE IN CHARGE OF A PERSON
DULY LICENSED BY THE FEDERAL LOCAL BOARD OF INSPECTORS, AND HAS THE
PROVISO THAT MOTOR BOATS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO CARRY LICENSED
OFFICERS EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY THE MOTOR BOAT ACT.  46 U.S.C. 511-518. 
UNDER THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS, MOTOR BOATS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE ON
BOARD TWO COPIES OF THE PILOT RULES TO BE OBSERVED BY THEM, WITH COPIES
OF THE DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR. 

AS DOCUMENTED VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES, MOTOR BOATS MUST BE
MARKED IN A SPECIFIED MANNER WITH THEIR NAMES AND HOME PORTS.  46
U.S.C. 46.  ALL VESSELS, REGARDLESS OF TONNAGE, SIZE, OR MANNER OF
PROPULSION, AND WHETHER OR NOT CARRYING FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS FOR HIRE
(OTHER THAN PUBLIC VESSELS OF THE UNITED STATES NOT ENGAGED IN
COMMERCIAL SERVICE), WHICH HAVE ON BOARD "ANY INFLAMMABLE OR
COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID CARGO IN BULK," ARE TO BE "CONSIDERED STEAM VESSELS"
AND ARE MADE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES RELATING TO SUCH
VESSELS.  THIS PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO INFLAMMABLE OR COMBUSTIBLE
LIQUID FOR USE AS FUEL OR STORES.  ACT OF JUNE 23, 1936, C. 729, 49
STAT. 1889; 46 U.S.C. 391A.  VESSELS TRANSPORTING EXPLOSIVES OR LIKE
DANGEROUS CARGO ARE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION TO DETERMINE THAT SUCH CARGO
MAY BE CARRIED WITH SAFETY, AND APPROPRIATE PERMIT FOR THAT PURPOSE IS
REQUIRED.  ACT OF AUGUST 26, 1935, C. 697, 49 STAT. 868, 46 U.S.C.
178.  "LOAD LINES" ARE ESTABLISHED FOR MERCHANT VESSELS OF ONE HUNDRED
AND FIFTY GROSS TONS OR OVER PROCEEDING ON A "COASTWISE VOYAGE BY SEA,"
AS DEFINED, THAT IS, OUTSIDE THE LINE DIVIDING INLAND WATERS FROM THE
HIGH SEAS.  ACT OF AUGUST 27, 1935, C. 747, 49 STAT. 888, 46 U.S.C.
88.  COMPARE INTERNATIONAL LOAD LINE CONVENTION OF JULY 5, 1930, 47
STAT. 2229.  IT APPEARS FROM STATEMENTS IN THE RECORD AND IN ARGUMENT,
WHICH WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND TO BE CHALLENGED, THAT THERE ARE NOT MORE
THAN THREE OF RESPONDENTS' MOTOR TUGS, HERE INVOLVED, WHICH EXCEED ONE
HUNDRED AND FIFTY TONS GROSS. 

THE LIMITED APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL LAWS AND
REGULATIONS TO VESSELS PROPELLED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES WAS
RECENTLY AND DEFINITELY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS.  THE
REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION AND STEAMBOAT INSPECTION SHOWED THAT
THERE WERE MANY LARGE VESSELS OF THIS CLASS.  FN1  THE COMMITTEE ON
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOUND
THAT THIS SITUATION WAS DUE TO THE FACT "THAT WHEN THE STEAMBOAT
INSPECTION LAWS WERE PASSED, INTERNAL-COMBUSTION-ENGINE LAWS WERE
UNKNOWN, WITH THE RESULT THAT MANY OF THE EXISTING LAWS APPLY TO STEAM
VESSELS AND UNDER THE OPINION OF THE LAW OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT, DO
NOT APPLY TO VESSELS OPERATED BY MACHINERY OTHER THAN BY STEAM."  THE
COMMITTEE ADDED THAT "IT WAS VERY DOUBTFUL WHETHER UNDER EXISTING LAW
LIFEBOATS COULD BE REQUIRED ON THESE MOTOR VESSELS."  FN2  TO MEET THAT
SITUATION CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THAT EXISTING LAWS COVERING THE
INSPECTIONS OF STEAM VESSELS SHALL BE APPLICABLE "TO SEAGOING VESSELS
OF THREE HUNDRED GROSS TONS AND OVER PROPELLED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY
INTERNAL-COMBUSTION ENGINES" TO SUCH EXTENT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE
REGULATIONS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISING INSPECTORS OF STEAM VESSELS
WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.  ACT OF JUNE 20, 1936,
C. 628, 49 STAT. 1544, 46 U.S.C. 367.  EVEN AS THUS LIMITED, THE ACT
EXPRESSLY EXCEPTS VESSELS ENGAGED "IN FISHING, OYSTERING, CLAMMING,
CRABBING, OR ANY OTHER BRANCH OF THE FISHERY OR KELP OR SPONGE
INDUSTRY."  IT IS MANIFEST THAT CONGRESS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE
APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAWS AND DECIDED TO WHAT EXTENT ITS FIELD OF
REGULATION SHOULD BE WIDENED.  FN3  CONGRESS DECIDED TO EXTEND ITS
REGULATION AS TO MOTOR-DRIVEN VESSELS ONLY TO THOSE OF THE SPECIFIED
CLASS. 

WE FIND THE CONCLUSION INESCAPABLE THAT, APART FROM THE PARTICULAR
REQUIREMENTS IN OTHER RESPECTS, THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL
LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE HULL AND MACHINERY OF
RESPONDENTS' MOTOR-DRIVEN TUGS IN ORDER TO INSURE SAFETY OR DETERMINE
SEAWORTHINESS, WHERE THESE TUGS RESPECTIVELY DO NOT CARRY FREIGHT OR
PASSENGERS FOR HIRE, OR DO NOT HAVE ON BOARD ANY INFLAMMABLE OR
COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID CARGO IN BULK, OR DO NOT TRANSPORT EXPLOSIVES OR
LIKE DANGEROUS CARGO, OR ARE NOT SEAGOING VESSELS OF THREE HUNDRED
GROSS TONS OR OVER, OR, WITH RESPECT TO REQUIREMENTS AS TO LOAD LINES,
ARE UNDER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY GROSS TONS.  IT FOLLOWS THAT INSPECTION
OF THE HULL AND MACHINERY OF THESE TUGS BY STATE AUTHORITIES IN ORDER
TO INSURE SAFETY AND DETERMINE SEAWORTHINESS IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
ANY EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS.  THE
TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THOSE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ARE
ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS VIEW. 

SECOND.  THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER THE FEDERAL STATUTES ARE TO BE
CONSTRUED AS IMPLYING A PROHIBITION OF INSPECTION BY STATE AUTHORITIES
OF HULL AND MACHINERY TO INSURE SAFETY AND DETERMINE SEAWORTHINESS IN
THE CASE OF VESSELS WHICH IN THIS RESPECT LIE OUTSIDE THE FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS. 

THE STATE COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT CONGRESS HAD OCCUPIED THE FIELD
AND THAT NO ROOM WAS LEFT FOR STATE ACTION IN RELATION TO VESSELS
PLYING ON NAVIGABLE WATERS WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  186 WASH. PP. 593, 596.  AND THIS IS THE ARGUMENT PRESSED
BY RESPONDENTS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. 

THIS ARGUMENT, INVOKING A FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE, WOULD BE UNNECESSARY
AND INAPPOSITE IF THERE WERE A DIRECT CONFLICT WITH AN EXPRESS
REGULATION OF CONGRESS ACTING WITHIN ITS PROVINCE.  THE ARGUMENT
PRESUPPOSES THE ABSENCE OF A CONFLICT OF THAT CHARACTER.  THE ARGUMENT
IS ALSO UNNECESSARY AND INAPPOSITE IF THE SUBJECT IS ONE DEMANDING
UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION SO THAT STATE ACTION IS ALTOGETHER
INADMISSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL ACTION.  IN THAT CLASS OF CASES
THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF OCCUPIES THE FIELD EVEN IF THERE IS NO FEDERAL
LEGISLATION.  THE ARGUMENT IS APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED TO THOSE CASES
WHERE STATES MAY ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF FEDERAL ACTION BUT WHERE THERE
HAS BEEN FEDERAL ACTION GOVERNING THE SAME SUBJECT.  PRIGG V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 16 PET. 539, 617, 618; NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 222 U.S. 370, 379; ERIE R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 233 U.S. 671,
681, 682; SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 236 U.S. 439, 446,
447; OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & N. CO. V. WASHINGTON, 270 U.S. 87, 101,
102; NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 272 U.S. 605, 612, 613;
GILVARY V. CUYAHOGA VALLEY RY. CO., 292 U.S. 57, 60, 61. 

UNDER OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, THERE NECESSARILY REMAINS TO THE
STATES, UNTIL CONGRESS ACTS, A WIDE RANGE FOR THE PERMISSIBLE EXERCISE
OF POWER APPROPRIATE TO THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ALTHOUGH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE AFFECTED.  MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S.
352, 402.  STATES ARE THUS ENABLED TO DEAL WITH LOCAL EXIGENCIES AND TO
EXERT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LEGISLATION AN ESSENTIAL
PROTECTIVE POWER.  AND WHEN CONGRESS DOES EXERCISE ITS PARAMOUNT
AUTHORITY, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT CONGRESS MAY DETERMINE HOW FAR ITS
REGULATION SHALL GO.  THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RULE WHICH COMPELS
CONGRESS TO OCCUPY THE WHOLE FIELD.  CONGRESS MAY CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS
REGULATION AND OCCUPY ONLY A LIMITED FIELD.  WHEN IT DOES SO, STATE
REGULATION OUTSIDE THAT LIMITED FIELD AND OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE IS NOT
FORBIDDEN OR DISPLACED.  THE PRINCIPLE IS THOROUGHLY ESTABLISHED THAT
THE EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF ITS POLICE POWER, WHICH WOULD BE VALID IF
NOT SUPERSEDED BY FEDERAL ACTION, IS SUPERSEDED ONLY WHERE THE
REPUGNANCE OR CONFLICT IS SO "DIRECT AND POSITIVE" THAT THE TWO ACTS
CANNOT "BE RECONCILED OR CONSISTENTLY STAND TOGETHER."  SINNOT V.
DAVENPORT, 22 HOW.  227, 243; MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. V. HABER, 169
U.S. 613, 623, 624; REID V. COLORADO, 187 U.S. 137, 148; CROSSMAN V.
LURMAN, 192 U.S. 189, 199, 200; ASBELL V. KANSAS, 209 U.S. 251, 257,
258; MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. LARABEE MILLS, 211 U.S. 612, 623;
SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533; ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. GEORGIA, 234
U.S. 280, 293, 294; CAREY V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 118, 122; ATCHISON,
T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 380, 392, 393; MINTZ
V. BALDWIN, 289 U.S. 346, 350.  GILVARY V. CUYAHOGA VALLEY RY. CO.,
SUPRA. 

A FEW ILLUSTRATIONS WILL SUFFICE.  IN REID V. COLORADO, SUPRA, THE
QUESTION AROSE WITH RESPECT TO A STATUTE OF COLORADO AIMED AT THE
PREVENTION OF THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE STATE OF DISEASED ANIMALS.  ONE
WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF ITS VIOLATION CONTENDED THAT THE SUBJECT OF
THE TRANSPORTATION OF CATTLE BY ONE STATE TO ANOTHER HAD BEEN SO FAR
COVERED BY THE FEDERAL STATUTE, KNOWN AS THE ANIMAL INDUSTRY ACT (23
STAT. 31), THAT NO ENACTMENT BY THE STATE UPON THAT SUBJECT WAS
PERMISSIBLE.  WHILE THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT DID DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT OF
THE DRIVING OR TRANSPORTING OF DISEASED LIVESTOCK FROM ONE STATE INTO
ANOTHER, CONGRESS HAD GONE NO FURTHER THAN TO MAKE IT AN OFFENSE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR ONE KNOWINGLY TO TAKE OR SEND FROM ONE
STATE TO ANOTHER LIVESTOCK AFFECTED WITH INFECTIOUS OR COMMUNICABLE
DISEASE.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE STATE STATUTE, REQUIRING A
CERTIFICATE THAT THE CATTLE WERE FREE FROM DISEASE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
SHIPPER'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTUAL CONDITION OF THE CATTLE, DID NOT
COVER THE SAME GROUND AS THE ACT OF CONGRESS AND WAS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH IT.  ID., PP. 149, 150.  THE PRINCIPLE WAS THUS EMPHATICALLY
STATED:  "IT SHOULD NEVER BE HELD THAT CONGRESS INTENDS TO SUPERSEDE OR
BY ITS LEGISLATION SUSPEND THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWERS OF THE
STATES, EVEN WHEN IT MAY DO SO, UNLESS IT PURPOSE TO EFFECT THAT RESULT
IS CLEARLY MANIFESTED.  THIS COURT HAS SAID - AND THE PRINCIPLE HAS
OFTEN BEEN REAFFIRMED - THAT, 'IN THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE OF
SUPREMACY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS IN A CASE WHERE THE STATE LAW IS BUT
THE EXERCISE OF A RESERVED POWER, THE REPUGNANCE OR CONFLICT SHOULD BE
DIRECT AND POSITIVE, SO THAT THE TWO ACTS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED OR
CONSISTENTLY STAND TOGETHER'."  (P. 148.) 

IN SAVAGE V. JONES, SUPRA, THE COURT HELD THAT A STATUTE OF INDIANA
REGULATING THE SALE, AND REQUIRING A STATEMENT OF THE FORMULA OF
INGREDIENTS, OF CONCENTRATED COMMERCIAL FOOD FOR STOCK WAS NOT
REPUGNANT TO THE FEDERAL FOOD AND DRUGS ACT OF 1906(34 STAT. 768).  A
CITIZEN OF MINNESOTA SOUGHT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE INDIANA
STATUTE WITH RESPECT TO STOCK FOOD SOLD AND TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THE FEDERAL ACT DEALT WITH THE SUBJECT OF ADULTERATED AND
MISBRANDED FOODS AND DEFINED MISBRANDING.  IT COVERED ANY FALSE OR
MISLEADING STATEMENTS AS TO INGREDIENTS BUT DID NOT REQUIRE A
DISCLOSURE OF THE INGREDIENTS.  THE STATE STATUTE DEALT WITH THAT
OMITTED MATTER.  WE FOUND THAT THE STATE REQUIREMENTS COULD BE
SUSTAINED WITHOUT IMPAIRING THE OPERATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT AS TO THE
MATTERS WITH WHICH THAT ACT DEALT.  WE SAID:  "BUT THE INTENT TO
SUPERSEDE THE EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF ITS POLICE POWER AS TO MATTERS
NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS NOT TO BE INFERRED FROM THE
MERE FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS SEEN FIT TO CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS REGULATION AND
TO OCCUPY A LIMITED FIELD.  IN OTHER WORDS, SUCH INTENT IS NOT TO BE
IMPLIED UNLESS THE ACT OF CONGRESS FAIRLY INTERPRETED IS IN ACTUAL
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE."  (P. 533.) 

IN MINTZ V. BALDWIN, SUPRA, THE QUESTION RELATED TO THE VALIDITY OF
THE REQUIREMENT OF A NEW YORK STATUTE THAT CATTLE BROUGHT INTO THAT
STATE FOR DAIRY OR BREEDING PURPOSES, AND ALSO THE HERDS FROM WHICH
THEY CAME, SHOULD BE CERTIFIED TO BE FREE FROM BANG'S DISEASE BY THE
CHIEF SANITARY OFFICIAL OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN.  ONE OF THE CONTENTIONS
WAS THAT THE STATUTE CONFLICTED WITH THE FEDERAL STATUTE KNOWN AS THE
CATTLE CONTAGIOUS DISEASE ACT OF 1903.  32 STAT. 791.  TO ENABLE THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF DISEASE AMONG CATTLE
AND OTHER LIVESTOCK, HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS
CONCERNING INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION FROM ANY PLACE WHERE HE HAD REASON
TO BELIEVE THAT DISEASES EXISTED.  WHEN AN INSPECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF
ANIMAL INDUSTRY CERTIFIED THAT HE HAD INSPECTED CATTLE AND HAD FOUND
THEM FREE FROM COMMUNICABLE DISEASE, THEY WERE PERMITTED TO BE
TRANSPORTED "WITHOUT FURTHER INSPECTION OR THE EXACTION OF FEES OF ANY
KIND EXCEPT SUCH AS MAY AT ANY TIME BE ORDERED OR EXACTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE."  (P. 351.)  BUT THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF
STATE INSPECTION EXTENDED ONLY TO CASES WHERE THERE HAD BEEN FEDERAL
INSPECTION AND A CERTIFICATE ISSUED.  ACCORDINGLY WE HELD THAT IT COULD
NOT BE EXTENDED TO THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT WHERE THE CATTLE HAD NOT
BEEN INSPECTED AND CERTIFIED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  WE SAID:  "THE
PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO SUPERSEDE OR EXCLUDE STATE ACTION AGAINST THE
RAVAGES OF THE DISEASE IS NOT LIGHTLY TO BE INFERRED.  THE INTENTION SO
TO DO MUST DEFINITELY AND CLEARLY APPEAR."  (P. 350.) 

THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE IS STRONGLY FORTIFIED WHERE THE
STATE EXERCISES ITS POWER TO PROTECT THE LIVES AND THE HEALTH OF ITS
PEOPLE.  BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS NOT LIMITED TO CASES OF THAT
DESCRIPTION.  IT EXTENDS TO EXERTIONS OF STATE POWER DIRECTED TO MORE
GENERAL PURPOSES.  THUS IT WAS APPLIED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF A
STATE COMMISSION REQUIRING INTERSTATE CARRIERS TO CONSTRUCT A UNION
PASSENGER STATION AS AGAINST THE CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS HAD OCCUPIED
THE FIELD - IN VIEW OF THE BROAD SWEEP OF THE ACT CONFERRING AUTHORITY
UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH THE OPERATION OF INTERSTATE
RAILROADS - AS IT WAS FOUND THAT CONGRESS HAD NOT AUTHORIZED THE
COMMISSION TO MEET THE PUBLIC NEED IN THE PARTICULAR MATTER IN
QUESTION.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, SUPRA,
P. 391. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, IN RELATION TO THE INSPECTION OF THE HULL AND
MACHINERY OF RESPONDENTS' TUGS, THE STATE LAW TOUCHES THAT WHICH THE
FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS HAVE LEFT UNTOUCHED.  THERE IS PLAINLY NO
INCONSISTENCY WITH THE FEDERAL PROVISIONS.  IT WOULD HARDLY BE ASSERTED
THAT WHEN CONGRESS SET UP ITS ELABORATE REGULATIONS AS TO STEAM
VESSELS, IT DEPRIVED THE STATE OF THE EXERCISE OF ITS PROTECTIVE POWER
AS TO VESSELS NOT PROPELLED BY STEAM.  THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL
REGULATIONS WERE NUMEROUS AND ELABORATE DOES NOT EXTEND THEM BEYOND THE
BOUNDARY THEY ESTABLISHED.  WHEN CONGRESS TOOK UP THE REGULATION OF
VESSELS OTHERWISE PROPELLED IT APPLIED ITS REQUIREMENTS TO VESSELS OF A
DESCRIBED TONNAGE WHICH CARRIED FREIGHT OR PASSENGERS FOR HIRE.  WHEN
CONGRESS A FEW YEARS LATER PASSED THE MOTOR BOAT ACT, IT DID NOT
ATTEMPT TO DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT COMPREHENSIVELY BUT LAID DOWN RULES IN
A FEW PARTICULARS OF A DEFINITELY RESTRICTED RANGE.  AND WHEN, IN 1936,
CONGRESS AGAIN ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE SUBJECT, IT DID NOT PURPORT TO
OCCUPY THE ENTIRE FIELD BUT CONFINED ITS REGULATION TO SEAGOING VESSELS
OF THREE HUNDRED GROSS TONS AND OVER.  IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND A
SERIES OF STATUTES IN WHICH THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO CIRCUMSCRIBE
ITS REGULATION AND TO OCCUPY A FIELD LIMITED BY DEFINITE DESCRIPTION IS
MORE CLEARLY MANIFESTED. 

WHEN THE STATE IS SEEKING TO PREVENT THE OPERATION OF UNSAFE AND
UNSEAWORTHY VESSELS IN GOING TO AND FROM ITS PORTS, IT IS EXERCISING A
PROTECTIVE POWER AKIN TO THAT WHICH ENABLES THE STATE TO EXCLUDE
DISEASED PERSONS, ANIMALS AND PLANTS.  THESE ARE NOT PROPER SUBJECTS OF
COMMERCE, AND AN UNSAFE AND UNSEAWORTHY VESSEL IS NOT A PROPER
INSTRUMENTALITY OF COMMERCE.  WHEN THE STATE IS SEEKING TO PROTECT A
VITAL INTEREST, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SLOW TO FIND THAT THE INACTION OF
CONGRESS HAS SHORN THE STATE OF THE POWER WHICH IT WOULD OTHERWISE
POSSESS.  AND WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE
INSPECTION OF THE HULL AND MACHINERY OF THESE VESSELS OF RESPONDENTS IN
ORDER TO INSURE SAFETY AND SEAWORTHINESS, THE FEDERAL LAWS AND
REGULATIONS, WHICH AS WE HAVE FOUND ARE NOT EXPRESSLY APPLICABLE, CARRY
ANY IMPLIED PROHIBITION OF STATE ACTION. 

MUCH IS MADE OF THE FACT THAT THE STATE LAW REMAINED UNENFORCED FOR A
LONG PERIOD.  BUT IT DID NOT BECOME INOPERATIVE FOR THAT REASON.  WHERE
THE STATE POLICE POWER EXISTS, IT IS NOT LOST BY NON-EXERCISE BUT
REMAINS TO BE EXERTED AS LOCAL EXIGENCIES MAY DEMAND. 

THIRD.  THE REMAINING QUESTION IS WHETHER THE STATE LAW MUST FALL IN
ITS ENTIRETY, NOT BECAUSE OF INCONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL ACTION, BUT
BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS ONE AS TO WHICH UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION IS
REQUIRED AND HENCE, WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS HAS ACTED, THE STATE IS
WITHOUT AUTHORITY.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, 319;
MINNESOTA RATE CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 399, 400. 

THE STATE LAW IS A COMPREHENSIVE CODE.  WHILE IT EXCEPTS VESSELS
WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, IT
HAS PROVISIONS WHICH MAY BE DEEMED TO FALL WITHIN THE CLASS OF
REGULATIONS WHICH CONGRESS ALONE CAN PROVIDE.  FOR EXAMPLE, CONGRESS
MAY ESTABLISH STANDARDS AND DESIGNS FOR THE STRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT OF
VESSELS, AND MAY PRESCRIBE RULES FOR THEIR OPERATION, WHICH COULD NOT
PROPERLY BE LEFT TO THE DIVERSE ACTION OF THE STATES.  THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON MIGHT PRESCRIBE STANDARDS, DESIGNS, EQUIPMENT AND RULES OF
ONE SORT, OREGON ANOTHER, CALIFORNIA ANOTHER, AND SO ON.  BUT IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT IN ALL RESPECTS THE STATE ACT MUST FAIL. 

WE HAVE FOUND THAT IN RELATION TO THE INSPECTION OF THE HULL AND
MACHINERY OF THESE TUGS, IN ORDER TO INSURE SAFETY AND SEAWORTHINESS,
THERE IS A FIELD IN WHICH THE STATE LAW COULD OPERATE WITHOUT COMING
INTO CONFLICT WITH PRESENT FEDERAL LAWS.  IS THAT A SUBJECT WHICH
NECESSARILY AND IN ALL ASPECTS REQUIRES UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION AND AS
TO WHICH THE STATE CANNOT ACT AT ALL, ALTHOUGH CONGRESS HAS NOT ACTED? 
WE HOLD THAT IT IS NOT.  A VESSEL WHICH IS ACTUALLY UNSAFE AND
UNSEAWORTHY IN THE PRIMARY AND COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD SENSE IS NOT WITHIN
THE PROTECTION OF THAT PRINCIPLE.  THE STATE MAY TREAT IT AS IT MAY
TREAT A DISEASED ANIMAL OR UNWHOLESOME FOOD.  IN SUCH A MATTER, THE
STATE MAY PROTECT ITS PEOPLE WITHOUT WAITING FOR FEDERAL ACTION
PROVIDING THE STATE ACTION DOES NOT COME INTO CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL
RULES.  IF, HOWEVER, THE STATE GOES FARTHER AND ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE
PARTICULAR STANDARDS AS TO STRUCTURE, DESIGN, EQUIPMENT AND OPERATION
WHICH IN THE JUDGMENT OF ITS AUTHORITIES MAY BE DESIRABLE BUT PASS
BEYOND WHAT IS PLAINLY ESSENTIAL TO SAFETY AND SEAWORTHINESS, THE STATE
WILL ENCOUNTER THE PRINCIPLE THAT SUCH REQUIREMENTS, IF IMPOSED AT ALL,
MUST BE THROUGH THE ACTION OF CONGRESS WHICH CAN ESTABLISH A UNIFORM
RULE.  WHETHER THE STATE IN A PARTICULAR MATTER GOES TOO FAR MUST BE
LEFT TO BE DETERMINED WHEN THE PRECISE QUESTION ARISES. 

WE HAVE MENTIONED THE INSPECTION OF HULL AND MACHINERY OF
RESPONDENTS' VESSELS IN ORDER TO INSURE SAFETY AND SEAWORTHINESS. 
THERE MAY BE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE ACT WHICH ALSO LIE OUTSIDE
THE BOUNDS OF THE FEDERAL ACTION THUS FAR TAKEN AND AS TO WHICH
UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION IS NOT NEEDED.  THAT QUESTION CANNOT BE
SATISFACTORILY DETERMINED ON THIS RECORD AND MUST ALSO REMAIN FOR
DECISION AS IT MAY BE PRESENTED IN THE FUTURE IN CONNECTION WITH SOME
PARTICULAR ACTION TAKEN BY THE STATE AUTHORITIES.  OUR CONCLUSION IS
THAT THE STATE ACT HAS A PERMISSIBLE FIELD OF OPERATION IN RELATION TO
RESPONDENTS' TUGS AND THAT THE STATE COURT WAS IN ERROR IN HOLDING THE
ACT COMPLETELY UNENFORCEABLE IN DEFERENCE TO FEDERAL LAW.  THE JUDGMENT
OF THE STATE COURT TO THAT EFFECT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  REPORT (JUNE 25, 1935) OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND
FISHERIES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON "INSPECTION OF MOTOR
VESSELS."  H.R. REP. NO. 1321, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. REFERENCE WAS MADE
TO THE SITUATION AS DESCRIBED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU
OF NAVIGATION AND STEAMBOAT INSPECTION AS FOLLOWS: 

"WE HAVE AT THE PRESENT TIME VESSELS THAT ARE OPERATED BY INTERNAL
COMBUSTION ENGINES, OF TONNAGES EXCEEDING 100, THERE ARE 772 VESSELS OF
819,935 GROSS TONS THAT WOULD COME UNDER THE PROVISION OF THIS LAW (THE
PROPOSED BILL). 

"FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE IN THE CLASS FROM 5,000 TO 7,500 TONS 29
VESSELS, WITH A TOTAL TONNAGE OF 179,556; AND OVER 7,500 TONS WE HAVE
33 VESSELS, WITH A TOTAL TONNAGE OF 300,292. 

"THOSE LARGE VESSELS AT THE PRESENT TIME ARE SUBJECT TO ONLY A VERY
LIMITED INSPECTION - THAT IS, THE INSPECTION OF THE HULLS AND BOILERS,
AND ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW TO CARRY A LICENSED ENGINEER AND A
LICENSED PILOT.  THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4472 THAT PROVIDES FOR
PROTECTION AGAINST FIRE DO NOT APPLY TO OUR 7,500-TON VESSELS THAT ARE
IN THE TRANS-ATLANTIC TRADE.  THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW TO
CARRY A SINGLE LIFEBOAT.  THERE ARE MANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
STEAMBOAT INSPECTION LAWS THAT ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO SAFETY
OF LIFE THAT DO NOT APPLY TO THESE LARGE TRANSOCEANIC VESSELS.  AS A
MATTER OF FACT, WE ARE INSPECTING THOSE VESSELS AT THE PRESENT TIME,
BUT IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS ACCEPT SUCH INSPECTION. 
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF LAW."    FN2  H.R. REP. NO. 2505, 74TH CONG., 2D
SESS. 

FN3  ID.
..END :















WHITE V. ARONSON, 302 U.S. 16 


NO. 20.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 87
F.(2D) 272, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TERM "GAMES," AS USED IN SEC. 609, OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932,
DOES NOT INCLUDE JIGSAW PICTURE PUZZLES.  P. 17. 

THIS SECTION, HEADED "TAX ON SPORTING GOODS," IMPOSES A MANUFACTURER'S
SALES TAX ON A WIDE VARIETY OF ARTICLES USED IN SPORTS AND GAMES, NAMED
SPECIFICALLY, AND GENERALLY ON "GAMES AND PARTS OF GAMES," "AND ALL
SIMILAR ARTICLES COMMONLY OR COMMERCIALLY KNOWN AS SPORTING GOODS." 

2.  IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT CONGRESS, IN ENACTING SEC. 609 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, WAS AWARE THAT, UNDER EARLIER LIKE PROVISIONS, NO
TAX ASSESSMENTS WERE LAID ON SALES OF PUZZLES, AND THAT CONGRESS KNEW
THAT IN LITIGATION OVER THE QUESTION, THERE WAS PROOF THAT IN
COMMERCIAL USAGE JIGSAW PUZZLES WERE NEVER REGARDED AS GAMES BUT A
RECOGNIZED DISTINCTION WAS MADE BETWEEN GAMES AND PUZZLES.  P. 20. 

3.  WHERE THERE IS A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OF A TAXING
ACT IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED MOST FAVORABLY TO THE TAXPAYER.  ID. 

WHITE, FORMER COLLECTOR, V. ARONSON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 675, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A JUDGMENT
OF THE DISTRICT COURT, 13 F.SUPP.  913, IN AN ACTION, TRIED WITHOUT A
JURY, TO RECOVER MONEY PAID AS TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT, ARONSON, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE VIKING
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., BROUGHT SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS TO RECOVER $37,021.63 EXACTED OF THE BANKRUPT
BY THE COLLECTOR, UNDER COLOR OF SEC. 609 REVENUE ACT 1932,  FN1  C.
209, 47 STAT. 264, ON ACCOUNT OF JIGSAW PICTURE PUZZLES MANUFACTURED
AND SOLD FROM JUNE 21, 1932, TO MAY 1, 1933. 

THE PUZZLES WERE MADE BY CUTTING SELECTED PICTURES BACKED UP BY RIGID
CARDBOARD INTO FROM 162 TO 500 SEPARATE PIECES.  THESE WERE SOLD TO
THOSE WHO FOUND DIVERSION OR AMUSEMENT IN PUTTING THEM TOGETHER SO AS
TO REPRODUCE THE ORIGINAL PICTURE. 

OBVIOUSLY THE WORD "GAMES" IN THE STATUTE WAS INTENDED TO DESIGNATE
INSTRUMENTALITIES USED IN PLAYING THEM. 

THE COLLECTOR MAINTAINED THAT THE EFFORT PROPERLY TO ARRANGE THE
PIECES WAS FOR AMUSEMENT OR DIVERSION AND AMOUNTED TO A GAME, WITHIN
THE APPROPRIATE DEFINITION OF THE WORD.  FN2 ACCORDINGLY, HE SAID,
THESE INSTRUMENTALITIES WERE TAXABLE. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, RESPONDENT INSISTED THAT THE WORD "GAMES" REFERS
TO CONTESTS, PHYSICAL OR MENTAL, CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO SET RULES,
UNDERTAKEN FOR AMUSEMENT OR RECREATION OR FOR WINNING A STAKE,
REQUIRING THE PARTICIPATION OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS; FN2  ALSO THAT THE
SUNDRY PIECES WERE PARTS OF A PUZZLE, A CONTRIVANCE DESIGNED FOR
TESTING INGENUITY - SOMETHING NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE. 
FN3 

THE TRIAL JUDGE, HAVING HEARD THE CAUSE UPON PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE
WITHOUT A JURY, SUSTAINED THE COLLECTOR'S DEFENSE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS CONCLUDED OTHERWISE AND DIRECTED JUDGMENT FOR THE TRUSTEE. 
IT SAID - 

"THE SECTION (609) IS HEADED 'TAX ON SPORTING GOODS.'  THE ARTICLES
OR INSTRUMENTALITIES THERE SPECIFICALLY NAMED ARE SPORTING GOODS
WHETHER THEY ARE USED IN CONNECTION WITH GAMES OR IN SOME RECREATION OR
DIVERSION OTHER THAN A GAME.  BUT THE LARGER PORTION OF THE ARTICLES
SPECIFICALLY NAMED ARE ALL USED IN GAMES OF CONTEST BETWEEN TWO OR MORE
PERSONS, AND THE QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION IS WHETHER THE ARTICLES OR
INSTRUMENTALITIES INTENDED TO BE COVERED BY THE PHRASE 'GAMES AND PARTS
OF GAMES' MEAN ARTICLES OR INSTRUMENTALITIES USED IN GAMES OF CONTEST
LIKE THE SPECIFIC ARTICLES PREVIOUSLY NAMED IN THE SECTION, WHICH ARE
USED IN GAMES OF TENNIS, POLO, BASEBALL, ETC., ALL OF WHICH INVOLVE A
CONTEST.... 

"FURTHERMORE THE PARTICULAR ARTICLE HERE SOUGHT TO BE TAXED IS A
PUZZLE.  A PUZZLE IS DEFINED AS 'SOMETHING WHICH PERPLEXES OR
EMBARRASSES; A DIFFICULT PROBLEM OR QUESTION; HENCE A TOY, CONTRIVANCE,
QUESTION OR PROBLEM DESIGNED FOR TESTING INGENUITY; AS A CROSS WORD
PUZZLE.'  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY.  A JIGSAW PICTURE
PUZZLE COMES SQUARELY WITHIN THIS DEFINITION - 'A CONTRIVANCE  ...
DESIGNED FOR TESTING INGENUITY.'  NONE OF THE ARTICLES SPECIFICALLY
NAMED IN THE STATUTE AND USED IN GAMES IS A CONTRIVANCE DESIGNED FOR
TESTING INGENUITY.  THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR USE IN GAMES OF CONTEST,
WHILE A JIGSAW PUZZLE IS NOT." 

900(5), C. 18, 40 STAT. 1122, REVENUE ACT 1918, (REPEALED IN 1921) LAID
A TAX UPON TENNIS RACKETS, GOLF CLUBS, BASEBALL BATS, ETC.,  ...
"CHESS AND CHECKER BOARDS AND PIECES, DICE, GAMES AND PARTS OF GAMES." 
JIGSAW PICTURE PUZZLES WERE THEN WELL KNOWN ARTICLES OF COMMERCE.  THEY
GO BACK AT LEAST TO THE FIRST PART OF THE LAST CENTURY - PERHAPS MUCH
FARTHER.  THE SAME WORDS "GAMES OR PARTS OF GAMES" APPEAR AGAIN IN THE
LIKE SECTION - 609 - REVENUE ACT 1932. 

THE COURT BELOW POINTED OUT THAT - 

"A JIG SAW PUZZLE WAS NEVER TAXED UNDER SECTION 900(5) OF THE ACT OF
1918.  IT WAS NOT TAXED UNTIL AFTER THE PASSAGE OF SECTION 609 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO TAX IT AS A
GAME.  THE ACT OF 1932 BECAME EFFECTIVE JUNE 6, 1932.  ON AUGUST 26,
1932, THE COMMISSIONER ISSUED A RULING STATING THAT JIG SAW OR DIE CUT
PICTURE PUZZLES WERE NOT TAXABLE.  ON NOVEMBER 14, 1932, HE ISSUED A
RULING THAT THEY WERE TAXABLE.  ON FEBRUARY 7, 1933, HE RULED THAT
AFTER FEBRUARY 7, 1933, THEY WERE TAXABLE IF THEY CONTAINED MORE THAN
FIFTY PIECES.  AND ON APRIL 20, 1933, HE RULED THAT THEY WERE TAXABLE
AFTER JUNE 21, 1932, IF THEY CONTAINED MORE THAN FIFTY PIECES." 

AMPLE EVIDENCE DISCLOSED THAT IN COMMERCIAL USAGE JIGSAW PICTURE
PUZZLES WERE NEVER REGARDED AS GAMES; ALSO THAT THE TRADE RECOGNIZED A
DEFINITE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUZZLES AND GAMES.  WE MUST ASSUME THAT
CONGRESS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THESE THINGS; ALSO KNEW THAT JIGSAW PICTURE
PUZZLES WERE NOT ASSESSED FOR TAXES UNDER THE ACTS OF 1917 AND 1918;
AND, FURTHER, WAS NOT UNMINDFUL OF THE UNCERTAINTIES CONCERNING THE
MEANING OF "GAME" DISCLOSED BY BALTIMORE TALKING BOARD CO. V. MILES,
280 FED. 658, AND MILLS NOVELTY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 50 F.(2D) 476. 

THE CLAIM FOR THE TAXPAYER HERE DOES NOT REST UPON AN EXCEPTION TO A
GENERAL RULE BUT UPON CONSTRUCTION OF GENERAL LANGUAGE FOUND IN THE
ACT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT - "THE WORDS
'GAMES AND PARTS OF GAMES' BRING INTO THE LIST OF TAXABLES ONLY SUCH
OTHER ARTICLES AS ARE USED IN GAMES OF CONTEST, THE SAME AS THOSE
PARTICULARLY NAMED ARE AND WITH WHICH THEY ARE CLOSELY ASSOCIATED." 

CERTAINLY WE CANNOT SAY THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS.  OTHER JUDGES HAD ACCEPTED IT.  NOR CAN WE AFFIRM THAT THE
STATUTE AS FRAMED GAVE ADEQUATE NOTICE TO THE BANKRUPT THAT ITS PUZZLES
WERE TO BE TAXED. 

WHERE THERE IS A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OF A TAXING ACT
IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED MOST FAVORABLY TO THE TAXPAYER.  GOULD V. GOULD,
245 U.S. 151.  "TAX LAWS, LIKE ALL OTHER LAWS, ARE MADE TO BE OBEYED. 
THEY SHOULD THEREFORE BE INTELLIGIBLE TO THOSE WHO ARE EXPECTED TO OBEY
THEM."  PHILADELPHIA STORAGE BATTERY CO. V. LEDERER, 21 F.(2D) 320,
321, 322. 

COUNSEL FOR THE COLLECTOR MAINTAIN THAT BALTIMORE TALKING BOARD CO.
V. MILES (1922), SUPRA, THE "OUIJA BOARD" CASE, AND MILLS NOVELTY CO.
V. UNITED STATES, (1931), SUPRA, "COIN OPERATED GAMBLING MACHINE" CASE,
ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE RULING UNDER REVIEW. 

THESE CAUSES INVOLVED THE ACT OF 1918 AND IN BOTH THE JUDGES
EXPRESSED SHARPLY OPPOSING VIEWS.  OF COURSE, THE GENERAL LANGUAGE OF
THE OPINIONS MUST BE READ IN CONNECTION WITH THE FACTS. 

THE OUIJA BOARD IS WHOLLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PUZZLE HERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION; NOTHING INDICATES THAT IT WAS COMMONLY REGARDED BY THE
TRADE AS A PUZZLE; AND IN AN APPLICATION FOR A PATENT IT HAD ONCE BEEN
DESCRIBED AS A GAME.  IF THE OPINION CONSTRUES THE STATUTE AS EMBRACING
ALL INSTRUMENTALITIES, NOT NECESSARY FOR COMFORT, WHOSE CHIEF USE IS TO
AFFORD AMUSEMENT AND DIVERSION, IT IS OBVIOUSLY TOO BROAD.  KNITTING
FOR DIVERSION IS NOT A "GAME"; NOR IS HORSEBACK RIDING. 

THE COIN-OPERATED GAMBLING MACHINE HAS NO RESEMBLANCE TO A JIGSAW
PICTURE PUZZLE AND WHAT WAS SAID CONCERNING IT IS NOT HELPFUL IN THE
PROBLEM NOW BEFORE US. 

BOTH OF THESE CAUSES WERE DECIDED PRIOR TO THE ACT OF 1932 IN WHICH
THE WORDS OF THE 1918 ACT WERE REPEATED NOTWITHSTANDING THE DISCLOSED
UNCERTAINTIES CONCERNING THEIR MEANING AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT
THAT THERETOFORE PUZZLES HAD NOT BEEN ASSESSED FOR TAXATION UNDER
THEM. 

THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT 1932.  SEC. 609.  TAX ON SPORTING GOODS. 

"THERE IS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES, SOLD BY THE
MANUFACTURER, PRODUCER, OR IMPORTER, A TAX EQUIVALENT TO 10 PER CENTUM
OF THE PRICE FOR WHICH SO SOLD:  TENNIS RACKETS, TENNIS RACKET FRAMES
AND STRINGS, NETS, RACKET COVERS AND PRESSES, SKATES, SNOWSHOES, SKIS,
TOBOGGANS, CANOE PADDLES, POLO MALLETS, BASEBALL BATS, GLOVES, MASKS,
PROTECTORS, SHOES AND UNIFORMS, FOOTBALL HELMETS, HARNESS AND UNIFORMS,
BASKET BALL GOALS AND UNIFORMS, GOLF BAGS AND CLUBS, LACROSSE STICKS,
BALLS OF ALL KINDS, INCLUDING BASEBALLS, FOOTBALLS, TENNIS, GOLF,
LACROSSE, BILLIARD AND POOL BALLS, FISHING RODS AND REELS, BILLIARD AND
POOL TABLES, CHESS AND CHECKER BOARDS AND PIECES, DICE, GAMES AND PARTS
OF GAMES (EXCEPT PLAYING CARDS AND CHILDREN'S TOYS AND GAMES); AND ALL
SIMILAR ARTICLES COMMONLY OR COMMERCIALLY KNOWN AS SPORTING GOODS." 

FN2  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2D ED., GIVES THE WORD
"GAME" 17 DEFINITIONS.  "2 A AN AMUSEMENT OR DIVERSION; AS, MAKEBELIEVE
IS A CHILDREN'S GAME; FORMERLY, SPECIF., AMOROUS PLAY, 'DAUGHTERS OF
THE GAME.'  SHAK."  "4.  A CONTEST, PHYSICAL OR MENTAL, CONDUCTED
ACCORDING TO SET RULES, AND UNDERTAKEN FOR AMUSEMENT OR RECREATION, OR
FOR WINNING A STAKE***." 

FN3  "PUZZLE.  2.  SOMETHING WHICH PERPLEXES OR EMBARRASSES; A
DIFFICULT PROBLEM OR QUESTION; AN ENIGMA; HENCE, A TOY, CONTRIVANCE,
QUESTION, OR PROBLEM DESIGNED FOR TESTING INGENUITY; AS, A CROSSWORD
PUZZLE."  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2D ED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO CONCUR IN THE RESULT. 
..END :







ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. VIRGINIA, 302 U.S. 22 


NO. 1.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 22, 1936.  REARGUED OCTOBER 11, 1937.  -
DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 165 VA. 492 -  183 S.E. 243, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ENTRANCE FEE EXACTED BY A STATE FROM A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR
A LICENSE TO CARRY ON LOCAL BUSINESS IS NOT A TAX BUT COMPENSATION FOR
A PRIVILEGE, AND THE VALIDITY OF THE CHARGE IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE
METHOD BY WHICH THE AMOUNT IS DETERMINED.  P. 26. 

2.  THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE ENTRANCE FEE OF $5000 CHARGED
THE CORPORATION IN THIS CASE WAS MORE THAN REASONABLE COMPENSATION FOR
THE PRIVILEGE GRANTED.  P. 27. 

3.  THE AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK DOES NOT REPRESENT EITHER
PROPERTY OWNED OR BUSINESS DONE BY A CORPORATION; AND AN ENTRANCE FEE
FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING LOCAL BUSINESS, MEASURED BY THE AUTHORIZED
CAPITAL STOCK OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION HAVING PROPERTY SITUATE IN MANY
OF THE STATES AND ABROAD, USED IN INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, DOES
NOT NECESSARILY BURDEN SUCH COMMERCE.  P. 28. 

4.  SUCH AN ENTRANCE FEE, SO MEASURED, HELD NOT AN ARBITRARY TAKING
OF PROPERTY BEYOND THE JURISDICTION, NOR ARBITRARY IN AMOUNT.  P. 29. 

THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE IS DEPENDENT UPON THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES
OF THE CORPORATION; NOT ONLY PRESENT CAPITAL, BUT ALSO CAPITAL TO BE
PROCURED BY ISSUING ADDITIONAL STOCK.  THE POWER INHERENT IN THE
POSSESSION OF LARGE FINANCIAL RESOURCES IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON, OR
CONFINED TO, THE PLACE WHERE THE ASSETS ARE LOCATED; AND THE VALUE OF
THE PRIVILEGE TO EXERT THAT POWER IS NOT NECESSARILY MEASURED BY THE
AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED, OR BY THE AMOUNT OF THE LOCAL BUSINESS
DONE, IN THE STATE GRANTING THE PRIVILEGE. 

5.  VIRGINIA STATUTE IMPOSING GRADED FEES ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
MEASURED ON AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK, FOR AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS IN
THE STATE, DOES NOT OPERATE ARBITRARILY AND UNEQUALLY BETWEEN THE
APPELLANT AND OTHER FOREIGN CORPORATIONS SEEKING THE SAME PRIVILEGE
WITHIN THE STATE.  P. 31. 

6.  CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HINKLE, 278 U.S. 460, AND OTHER CASES
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 32. 

ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING, ON REVIEW, THE REFUSAL OF THE
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA TO REFUND A SUM OF MONEY PAID,
UNDER PROTEST, BY THE APPELLANT CORPORATION, FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
AUTHORITY TO DO LOCAL BUSINESS IN THE STATE. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY IS A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION ENGAGED
IN REFINING AND SELLING GASOLINE AND PETROLEUM WHICH IT MARKETS
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  IN 1929 THE
YEAR'S SALES AGGREGATED MORE THAN $153,000,000.  PRIOR TO 1930 THE
COMPANY HAD NEVER APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO DO BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA. 
IT HAD NOT DONE ANY INTRASTATE BUSINESS THERE; AND HAD NO PROPERTY OR
PLACE OF BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE.  IT HAD DONE SOME INTERSTATE
BUSINESS, BUT HAD NOT PAID, OR BEEN REQUESTED BY THE STATE TO PAY,
EITHER AN ENTRANCE FEE OR TAXES.  IN JANUARY 1930 THE COMPANY APPLIED
TO THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO
DO INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  ITS NET ASSETS WERE THEN $132,196,275; ITS
AUTHORIZED CAPITAL $100,000,000; ITS ISSUED CAPITAL $67,049,500.  THE
COMMISSION GRANTED THE CERTIFICATE; BUT, AS PRESCRIBED BY CHAPTER 53,
SEC. 38A OF THE ACTS OF ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA, 1910; TAX CODE OF
VIRGINIA (MICHIE, 1930) SEC. 207, SET FORTH IN THE MARGIN,  FN1
EXACTED FOR THE PRIVILEGE $5,000 AS AN ENTRANCE FEE.  PAYMENT WAS MADE
UNDER PROTEST.  HAVING DULY CLAIMED THAT BY REQUIRING IT THE STATUTE
VIOLATED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE COMPANY REQUESTED REFUND OF THE
AMOUNT PAID.  THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO MAKE THE REFUND; THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE AFFIRMED ITS ORDER, 165 VA. 492; 183 S.E. 243, AND
THE CASE IS HERE ON THE COMPANY'S APPEAL. 

ANSWERING THE COMPANY'S STATEMENT UNDER RULE 12, THE COMMONWEALTH
OPPOSED OUR TAKING JURISDICTION.  ITS OBJECTION WAS THAT THE APPEAL
PRESENTED NO SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL QUESTION, SINCE, IN 1918, THE VALIDITY
OF THE STATUTE WAS CHALLENGED UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND SUSTAINED
BY A UNANIMOUS COURT IN GENERAL RAILWAY SIGNAL CO. V. VIRGINIA, 246
U.S. 500; AND, IN 1928, WAS AGAIN SUSTAINED, BY A PER CURIAM OPINION,
IN WESTERN GAS CONSTRUCTION CO. V. VIRGINIA, 276 U.S. 597.  THE COMPANY
ASKS US TO OVERRULE THESE DECISIONS, CONTENDING THAT THEY ARE
INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER AND LATER CASES.  IT ASSERTS THAT IN SUSTAINING
THE VIRGINIA STATUTE THIS COURT FOLLOWED VIEWS EXPRESSED IN BALTIC
MINING CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 231 U.S. 68, 87; AND THAT THE DOCTRINE OF
THE BALTIC CASE HAS SINCE BEEN REPUDIATED, IN ALPHA PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
V. MASSACHUSETTS, 268 U.S. 203, 218 AND CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HINKLE,
278 U.S. 460, 466.  CONSIDERATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT WAS
POSTPONED TO THE HEARING ON THE MERITS. 

BY THE STATUTE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS ARE DIVIDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FIXING THE AMOUNT OF THE ENTRANCE FEE, INTO TWELVE CLASSES.  THE FEE
FOR THE LOWEST CLASS - THOSE WHOSE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK IS $50,000
OR LESS - IS $30.  THE FEE FOR THE HIGHEST CLASS - THOSE WHOSE
AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK EXCEEDS $90,000,000 - IS $5,000.  THE COMPANY
DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE SUBJECT OR THE OCCASION OF THE EXACTION.  ITS
OBJECTION IS SOLELY TO THE MEASURE.  ITS CLAIM IS THAT THE STATUTE
IMPOSES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION BECAUSE IT DETERMINES THE AMOUNT
OF THE FEE BY THE AMOUNT OF THE COMPANY'S AUTHORIZED CAPITAL.  THE
CONTENTION IS THAT A FEE SO DETERMINED NECESSARILY BURDENS INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, DENIES DUE PROCESS, AND DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

UNLIKE THE CASES IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS
HAS BEEN APPLIED, THE CONDITION HERE QUESTIONED DOES NOT GOVERN THE
CORPORATION'S CONDUCT AFTER ADMISSION.  BUT IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE
RULE DECLARED IN TERRAL V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 257 U.S. 529, IS
APPLICABLE ALSO TO CONDITIONS TO BE PERFORMED WHOLLY BEFORE ADMISSION;
AND THAT THE $5,000 MUST BE REFUNDED IF ITS EXACTION INVOLVED DENIAL OF
ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  FOR WE ARE OF OPINION THAT IN REFUSING TO
GRANT THE AUTHORITY TO CARRY ON LOCAL BUSINESS EXCEPT UPON PAYMENT OF
THE $5,000 NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE COMPANY WAS VIOLATED. 

FIRST.  VIRGINIA RECOGNIZED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE COMPANY
TO CARRY ON INTERSTATE BUSINESS WITHOUT PAYING AN ENTRANCE FEE.  ON THE
OTHER HAND, THE COMPANY CONCEDED THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
CONFER UPON IT THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE IN VIRGINIA
UNLESS IT HAS SECURED THE CONSENT OF THE STATE.  COMPARE HEMPHILL V.
ORLOFF, 277 U.S. 537, 548.  WHETHER THE PRIVILEGE SHALL BE GRANTED TO A
FOREIGN CORPORATION IS A MATTER OF STATE POLICY.  VIRGINIA MIGHT REFUSE
TO GRANT THE PRIVILEGE FOR ANY BUSINESS, OR MIGHT GRANT THE PRIVILEGE
FOR SOME KINDS OF BUSINESS AND DENY IT TO OTHERS.  FN2 IT MIGHT GRANT
THE PRIVILEGE TO ALL CORPORATIONS WITH SMALL CAPITAL WHILE DENYING THE
PRIVILEGE TO THOSE WHOSE CAPITAL OR RESOURCES ARE LARGE.  IT MIGHT
GRANT THE PRIVILEGE WITHOUT EXACTING COMPENSATION; OR IT COULD INSIST
UPON A SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENT AS A MEANS OF RAISING REVENUE. 

AS THE ENTRANCE FEE IS NOT A TAX, BUT COMPENSATION FOR A PRIVILEGE
APPLIED FOR AND GRANTED, NO REASON APPEARS WHY THE STATE IS NOT AS FREE
TO CHARGE $5,000 FOR THE PRIVILEGE AS IT WOULD BE TO CHARGE THAT AMOUNT
FOR A FRANCHISE GRANTED TO A LOCAL UTILITY, OR FOR A PARCEL OF LAND
WHICH IT OWNED.  IF VIRGINIA HAD THE POWER TO CHARGE $5,000 FOR THE
PRIVILEGE, THE PARTICULAR MEASURE APPLIED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN
ARRIVING AT THAT SUM WOULD SEEM TO BE LEGALLY IMMATERIAL; AND THE
COMPANY IS IN A POSITION LIKE THAT OF THE TAXPAYER IN CASTILLO V.
MCCONNICO, 168 U.S. 674, 680, OF WHOM IT WAS SAID:  "HIS RIGHT IS
LIMITED SOLELY TO THE INQUIRY WHETHER IN THE CASE WHICH HE PRESENTS THE
EFFECT OF APPLYING THE STATUTE IS TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW."  THE VALIDITY EVEN OF A TAX "CAN IN NO WAY
BE DEPENDENT UPON THE MODE WHICH THE STATE MAY DEEM FIT TO ADOPT." 
HOME INSURANCE CO. V. NEW YORK, 134 U.S. 594, 600.  "THE SELECTED
MEASURE MAY APPEAR TO BE SIMPLY A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE IN COMPUTATION
...  AND IF THE TAX PURPORTS TO BE LAID UPON A SUBJECT WITHIN THE
TAXING POWER OF THE STATE, IT IS NOT TO BE CONDEMNED BY THE APPLICATION
OF ANY ARTIFICIAL RULE  ..."  KANSAS CITY, F.S. & M. RY. CO. V. BOTKIN,
240 U.S. 227, 233.  COMPARE RAE CONSOLIDATED COPPER CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 268 U.S. 373, 376; NEW YORK V. LATROBE, 279 U.S. 421, 427. 

SECOND.  EVEN IF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION CONFERRED UPON EVERY
FOREIGN CORPORATION THE RIGHT TO ENTER ANY STATE AND CARRY ON THERE A
LOCAL BUSINESS UPON PAYING A REASONABLE FEE, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE
RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE $5,000 CHARGED IS MORE THAN REASONABLE
COMPENSATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE GRANTED.  THE PAYMENT REQUIRED IS A
SINGLE, NON-RECURRENT CHARGE - A PAYMENT IN ADVANCE FOR A PRIVILEGE
EXTENDING INTO THE LONG FUTURE.  NO MATTER HOW LARGE THE COMPANY'S
LOCAL BUSINESS MAY BE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH, OR HOW OFTEN, ITS ISSUED
CAPITAL MAY BE INCREASED, NO ADDITIONAL ENTRANCE FEE IS PAYABLE.  THE
VALUE OF SUCH A PRIVILEGE CANNOT BE GAUGED BY THE SALES EXPECTED IN THE
YEAR 1930.  FN3  THEY MAY INCREASE RAPIDLY FROM YEAR TO YEAR.  THE
CORPORATION WITH $132,196,275 ASSETS IN 1930 MAY HAVE MORE THAN DOUBLE
THE AMOUNT A DECADE LATER.  NOR IS IT UNREASONABLE TO BASE THE FEE UPON
THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL AUTHORIZED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION,
INSTEAD OF CHARGING A FEE BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL THEN
ISSUED, OR UPON THE AMOUNT OF ASSETS THEN OWNED, AND EXACTING LATER
ADDITIONAL FEES IF, AND WHEN, MORE CAPITAL STOCK IS ISSUED OR MORE
ASSETS ARE ACQUIRED.  BY FIXING THE FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAPITAL
AUTHORIZED AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION, THE STATE
RELIEVES ITSELF OF THE NECESSITY OF KEEPING WATCH OF CHANGES IN THE
FUTURE IN THESE RESPECTS. 

THIRD.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT A FEE MEASURED SOLELY BY THE AMOUNT OF
THE CORPORATION'S AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK NECESSARILY BURDENS
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONTENTION IT IS SAID THAT THE
AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK REPRESENTS PROPERTY LOCATED IN FORTY-SEVEN
STATES AND SEVERAL FOREIGN COUNTRIES USED IN BOTH INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE.  BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE.  AUTHORIZED CAPITAL HAS NO
NECESSARY RELATION TO THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY OWNED OR USED BY THE
CORPORATION; FURTHERMORE, THE FEE FOR WHICH IT IS THE MEASURE
REPRESENTS SIMPLY THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING A LOCAL BUSINESS.  BECAUSE THE
ENTRANCE FEE DOES NOT REPRESENT EITHER PROPERTY OR BUSINESS BEING DONE,
IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT IN FIXING ITS AMOUNT NO APPORTIONMENT IS MADE
BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNED OR THE BUSINESS DONE WITHIN THE STATE AND
THAT OWNED OR DONE ELSEWHERE. 

THE ENTRANCE FEE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A CHARGE LAID UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE; NOR A CHARGE FURTIVELY DIRECTED AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
NOR A CHARGE MEASURED BY SUCH COMMERCE.  ITS AMOUNT DOES NOT GROW OR
SHRINK ACCORDING TO THE VOLUME OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR THE AMOUNT OF
THE CAPITAL USED IN IT.  THE SIZE OF THE FEE WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME
IF THE COMPANY DID NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIRGINIA OR ELSEWHERE. 
THE ENTRANCE FEE IS COMPARABLE TO THE CHARTER, OR INCORPORATION, FEE OF
A DOMESTIC CORPORATION - A FEE COMMONLY MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE
CAPITAL AUTHORIZED.  FN4  IT HAS NEVER BEEN DOUBTED THAT SUCH A CHARGE
TO A DOMESTIC CORPORATION WHATEVER THE AMOUNT IS VALID, ALTHOUGH THE
COMPANY PROPOSES TO ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND TO ACQUIRE
PROPERTY ALSO IN OTHER STATES.  NO REASON IS SUGGESTED WHY A DIFFERENT
RULE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE ENTRANCE FEE CHARGED THIS FOREIGN
CORPORATION. 

FOURTH.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT A STATUTE WHICH MEASURES THE ENTRANCE
FEE SOLELY BY THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL DEPRIVES THE CORPORATION OF ITS
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE THE AMOUNT IS DETERMINED BY
REFERENCE TO PROPERTY BEYOND THE TAXING JURISDICTION; AND ALSO THAT
THIS CHARGE IS AN ARBITRARY TAKING OF PROPERTY.  AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, THE
AMOUNT OF THE ENTRANCE FEE IS NOT MEASURED BY PROPERTY, EITHER WITHIN
OR WITHOUT THE JURISDICTION; AND IT IS NOT A TAX UPON PROPERTY.  IT IS
PAYMENT FOR AN OPPORTUNITY GRANTED.  NOR IS IT A CHARGE ARBITRARY IN
AMOUNT.  THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE ACQUIRED IS OBVIOUSLY DEPENDENT
UPON THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF THE CORPORATION - NOT ONLY UPON THE
CAPITAL POSSESSED AT THE TIME OF ITS ADMISSION TO DO BUSINESS, BUT ALSO
UPON THE CAPITAL WHICH IT WILL BE IN A POSITION TO SECURE LATER THROUGH
ITS EXISTING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ADDITIONAL STOCK.  OBVIOUSLY, THE POWER
INHERENT IN THE POSSESSION OF LARGE FINANCIAL RESOURCES IS NOT
DEPENDENT UPON, OR CONFINED TO, THE PLACE WHERE THE ASSETS ARE
LOCATED.  COMPARE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301
U.S. 412.  GREAT POWER MAY BE EXERTED BY THE COMPANY IN VIRGINIA
ALTHOUGH IT HAS LITTLE PROPERTY LOCATED THERE.  AND THE VALUE TO IT OF
THE PRIVILEGE TO EXERT THAT POWER IS NOT NECESSARILY MEASURED BY THE
AMOUNT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED, OR BY THE AMOUNT OF THE LOCAL BUSINESS
DONE, IN VIRGINIA.  MOREOVER, IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE OPPORTUNITY
IS AVAILED OF OR NOT.  THE STATE GRANTS A LARGE PRIVILEGE.  IT MAY
DEMAND A CORRESPONDING PRICE. 

FIFTH.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE STATUTE BY MEASURING THE ENTRANCE
FEE SOLELY BY THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL IS VOID BECAUSE IT OPERATES
ARBITRARILY AND UNEQUALLY BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND OTHER FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS SEEKING THE SAME PRIVILEGE WITHIN THE STATE.  THE
CONTENTION IS UNFOUNDED.  EVEN IF A CORPORATION WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN
ADMITTED TO DO BUSINESS WERE IN A POSITION TO COMPLAIN THAT THE STATE
DENIES IT EQUAL PROTECTION, THERE IS HERE NO BASIS FOR A CLAIM OF
DISCRIMINATION.  EVERY FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH AN AUTHORIZED CAPITAL
EXCEEDING NINETY MILLION DOLLARS WHICH SEEKS ADMISSION TO DO AN
INTRASTATE BUSINESS IS, AND HAS BEEN SINCE 1910, REQUIRED TO PAY THE
SAME ENTRANCE FEE.  NOR IS THERE ANY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS AND DOMESTIC OF WHICH THE COMPANY MAY COMPLAIN.  WHILE THE
CHARTER FEES OF DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS ARE SMALLER THAN THE ENTRANCE
FEES OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS, VIRGINIA LEVIES UPON FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS, AFTER ADMISSION, LESS IN TAXES THAN IT DOES UPON DOMESTIC
CORPORATIONS.  A DOMESTIC CORPORATION WITH AN AUTHORIZED CAPITAL OF
$100,000,000 IS REQUIRED TO PAY A CHARTER FEE OF ONLY $600; BUT IT MUST
PAY EACH YEAR A FRANCHISE TAX OF $8,850.  A FOREIGN CORPORATION OF THAT
AUTHORIZED CAPITAL IS REQUIRED TO PAY AN ENTRANCE FEE OF $5,000, BUT
PAYS NO FRANCHISE TAX WHATEVER. 

THE DIFFERENCE IN THE POWERS OF A STATE OVER ENTRANCE FEES AND TAXES
WAS POINTED OUT IN HANOVER FIRE INS. CO. V. HARDING, 272 U.S. 494, 510
511:  "IN SUBJECTING A LAW OF THE STATE WHICH IMPOSES A CHARGE UPON
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS TO THE TEST WHETHER SUCH A CHARGE VIOLATES THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, A LINE HAS TO BE
DRAWN BETWEEN THE BURDEN IMPOSED BY THE STATE FOR THE LICENSE OR
PRIVILEGE TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE, AND THE TAX BURDEN WHICH, HAVING
SECURED THE RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS, THE FOREIGN CORPORATION MUST SHARE
WITH ALL THE CORPORATIONS AND OTHER TAXPAYERS OF THE STATE.  WITH
RESPECT TO THE ADMISSION FEE, SO TO SPEAK, WHICH THE FOREIGN
CORPORATION MUST PAY, TO BECOME A QUASI CITIZEN OF THE STATE AND
ENTITLED TO EQUAL PRIVILEGES WITH CITIZENS OF THE STATE, THE MEASURE OF
THE BURDEN IS IN THE DISCRETION OF THE STATE, AND ANY INEQUALITY AS
BETWEEN THE FOREIGN CORPORATION AND THE DOMESTIC CORPORATION IN THAT
REGARD DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE INHIBITION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT;
BUT, AFTER ITS ADMISSION, THE FOREIGN CORPORATION STANDS EQUAL, AND IS
TO BE CLASSIFIED WITH DOMESTIC CORPORATIONS OF THE SAME KIND." 
SIXTH.  THE POSITION OF THE COMPANY IN THE CASE AT BAR DIFFERS
RADICALLY FROM THAT OF THE FOREIGN CORPORATION INVOLVED IN CUDAHY
PACKING CO. V. HINKLE, SUPRA, AND FROM THOSE IN THE OTHER DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT ON WHICH APPELLANT RELIES.  IN EACH OF THOSE CASES THE
CORPORATION HAD, BEFORE THE EXACTION HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ENTERED THE
STATE WITH ITS PERMISSION TO DO LOCAL BUSINESS AND PURSUANT TO THAT
PERMISSION HAD ACQUIRED PROPERTY AND MADE OTHER EXPENDITURES.  THEIR
PROPERTY AND THE LOCAL BUSINESS WERE FOUND TO BE SO CLOSELY ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS INTERSTATE BUSINESS DONE THERE THAT THE EXACTION BURDENED IT.
THE EXACTION, ALTHOUGH CALLED IN SOME OF THOSE CASES A FILING FEE, WAS
IN EACH CASE STRICTLY A TAX; FOR IT WAS IMPOSED AFTER THE ADMITTANCE OF
THE CORPORATION INTO THE STATE.  FN5  IN THE CASE AT BAR THE SITUATION
IS DIFFERENT.  IN 1930, WHEN THE COMPANY APPLIED FOR THE PERMISSION TO
DO LOCAL BUSINESS, IT HAD NO PROPERTY WHATSOEVER WITHIN THE STATE.  IT
HAD NEVER DONE ANY LOCAL BUSINESS THERE.  ITS PRODUCT HAD BEEN MARKETED
LOCALLY IN VIRGINIA BY TWO OTHER FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WHICH HAD BEEN
DULY ADMITTED TO DO LOCAL BUSINESS, AND WHOSE FACILITIES THE COMPANY
HAD USED IN CONNECTION WITH ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  THE COMPANY
WISHED TO MAKE A CHANGE.  IT WANTED TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AND
BUSINESS OF THE TWO CORPORATIONS WHICH WERE MARKETING ITS PRODUCT AND
THEREAFTER TO CARRY ON THE LOCAL BUSINESS ITSELF.  IN ORDER TO DO SO IT
SOUGHT PERMISSION OF THE STATE TO ENGAGE IN LOCAL BUSINESS.  THE STATE
IN NO WAY ATTEMPTED TO IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN UPON THE COMPANY OR
OTHERWISE TO CHANGE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IT WAS OPERATING. 
VIRGINIA INSISTED MERELY THAT IF THE COMPANY WISHED TO CHANGE THE
EXISTING CONDITIONS, IT SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE ENACTED FOURTEEN
YEARS BEFORE THE COMPANY BEGAN TO DO BUSINESS THERE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SECTION 207.  EVERY FOREIGN CORPORATION, WHEN IT OBTAINS FROM
THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO DO
BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, SHALL PAY AN ENTRANCE FEE INTO THE TREASURY OF
VIRGINIA TO BE ASCERTAINED AND FIXED AS FOLLOWS: 

FOR A COMPANY WHOSE MAXIMUM CAPITAL STOCK IS FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS,
OR LESS, THIRTY DOLLARS; 

FOR A COMPANY WHOSE CAPITAL STOCK IS OVER FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND
NOT TO EXCEED ONE MILLION DOLLARS, SIXTY CENTS FOR EACH THOUSAND
DOLLARS OR FRACTION THEREOF; 

OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOT TO EXCEED TEN MILLION DOLLARS, ONE
THOUSAND DOLLARS; 

OVER TEN MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS,
ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS; 

OVER TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY MILLION
DOLLARS, ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS; 

OVER THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOT TO EXCEED FORTY MILLION DOLLARS,
ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS; 

OVER FORTY MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOT TO EXCEED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS,
TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS; 

OVER FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOT TO EXCEED SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS,
TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS; 

OVER SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOT TO EXCEED SEVENTY MILLION
DOLLARS, TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS; 

OVER SEVENTY MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOT TO EXCEED EIGHTY MILLION
DOLLARS, TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS; 

OVER EIGHTY MILLION DOLLARS, AND NOT TO EXCEED NINETY MILLION
DOLLARS, THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS; 

OVER NINETY MILLION DOLLARS, FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS. 

BUT FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL STOCK SHALL PAY FIFTY
DOLLARS FOR SUCH CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO DO BUSINESS WITHIN THE
STATE. 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION THE AMOUNT TO WHICH THE COMPANY IS
AUTHORIZED BY THE TERMS OF ITS CHARTER TO INCREASE ITS CAPITAL STOCK
SHALL BE CONSIDERED ITS MAXIMUM CAPITAL STOCK." 

FN2  VIRGINIA DOES, IN FACT, REFUSE TO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING ANY INTRASTATE PUBLIC SERVICE BUSINESS.  VIRGINIA
CONST.  (1902) SEC. 163.  THIS PROHIBITION WAS SUSTAINED IN RAILWAY
EXPRESS AGENCY, INC. V. VIRGINIA, 282 U.S. 440, AS APPLIED TO A FOREIGN
CORPORATION WISHING TO CARRY ON WITHIN THE STATE AN EXTENSIVE
INTERSTATE AND LOCAL EXPRESS BUSINESS. 

FN3  PRIOR TO 1930 TWO SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY DID A LOCAL
BUSINESS IN VIRGINIA; AND THE COMPANY PLANNED TO TAKE OVER ALL THEIR
PROPERTY AND BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE.  THE AGGREGATE OF THE SALES OF
THE COMPANY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIRGINIA IN 1929 AND OF SALES BY
THE SUBSIDIARIES IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE AMOUNTED TO $1,396,600.  ABOUT
TWO-THIRDS OF THIS BUSINESS WAS INTRASTATE. 

FN4  FORTY-THREE STATES AS WELL AS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ALASKA,
HAWAII, THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND PUERTO RICO IMPOSE A DOMESTIC
INCORPORATION FEE MEASURED BY THE AUTHORIZED AMOUNT OF CAPITAL OR
NUMBER OF SHARES.  ALABAMA CODE (1928) SEC. 6969; ARKANSAS STAT. (POPE,
1937) SEC. 2213; CALIFORNIA POL.  CODE (1933) SEC. 409, AS AMENDED L.
1935, C. 295; COLORADO STAT. ANN. (1935) C. 41, SEC. 70; CONNECTICUT
GEN. STAT. (1930) SEC. 3478; DELAWARE REV. CODE (1935) SECS. 95, 2104;
FLORIDA COMP. GEN. LAWS (1927) SEC. 6582; IDAHO CODE (1932) SEC. 65
809; INDIANA STAT. ANN. (BURNS, 1933) SEC. 25-602; IOWA CODE (1935)
SEC. 8349; KANSAS GEN. STAT. (1935) SEC. 17-221; KENTUCKY STAT. (1936)
SEC. 4225; LOUISIANA GEN. STAT. (1932) SEC. 1147; MAINE REV. STAT.
(1930) C. 56, SEC. 10, AS AMENDED L. 1931, C. 240; MARYLAND CODE (SUPP.
1935) ART. 81, SEC. 133; MASSACHUSETTS GEN. LAWS (1932) C. 156, SEC.
53; MICHIGAN COMP. LAWS (1929) SEC. 10138; MINNESOTA STAT. (MASON,
SUPP. 1936) SEC. 7475; MISSISSIPPI CODE (1930) SEC. 4137; MISSOURI
CONST. ART. X, SEC. 21, REV. STAT. (1929) SEC. 4539; MONTANA REV. CODE
(1935) SEC. 145, AS AMENDED L. 1935, C. 50; NEBRASKA COMP. STAT. (1929)
SEC. 33-103; NEVADA COMP. LAWS (1929) SEC. 1676, AS AMENDED L. 1931, C.
224, SEC. 10; NEW HAMPSHIRE PUB. LAWS (1926) C. 225, SEC. 91; NEW
JERSEY COMP. STAT. (SUPP. 1925-1930) SEC. 47-114; NEW MEXICO STAT.
(1929) SEC. 32-223; NEW YORK TAX LAW (MCKINNEY, 1936) SEC. 180, AS
AMENDED L. 1937, C. 359, SEC. 7; NORTH CAROLINA CODE (1935) SEC. 1218,
AS AMENDED L. 1937, C. 171; NORTH DAKOTA COMP. LAWS (1913) SEC. 4509;
OHIO CODE (1936) SEC. 176; OKLAHOMA STAT. (1931) SEC. 3749; OREGON CODE
(1930) SEC. 25-206; PENNSYLVANIA STAT. ANN. (PURDON, 1929) TIT. 72,
SEC. 1822; RHODE ISLAND GEN. LAWS (1923) C. 248, SEC. 85, AS AMENDED L.
1925, C. 651, SEC. 3; SOUTH CAROLINA CODE (1932) SEC. 7738; SOUTH
DAKOTA COMP. LAWS (1929) SEC. 5334, AS AMENDED L. 1931, C. 225;
TENNESSEE CODE (WILLIAMS, 1934) SEC. 1248.106; TEXAS REV. CIV. STAT.
(1925) ART. 3914, AS AMENDED L. 1931, C. 120, SEC. 1; VERMONT PUB. LAWS
(1933) SEC. 920; VIRGINIA TAX CODE (MICHIE, 1936) SEC. 206; WASHINGTON
REV. STAT. (REMINGTON, 1932) SEC. 3836-1, AS AMENDED L. 1937, C. 70,
SEC. 1; WISCONSIN STAT. (1935) SEC. 180.02; WYOMING REV. STAT. (1931)
SEC. 28-102; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE (1929) TIT. 10, SEC. 14; ALASKA
COMP. LAWS (1933) SEC. 1012; HAWAII REV. LAWS (1935) SEC. 6753;
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS L. 1906, ACT 1459, SEC. 8, AS AMENDED L. 1912, ACT
2135, SEC. 1, L. 1915, ACT 2452, L. 1918, ACT 2728, SEC. 3, L. 1928,
ACT 3518, SEC. 5; PUERTO RICO L. 1911, ACT 30, SEC. 63A, AS AMENDED L.
1912, ACT 25. 

IN UTAH THE INCORPORATION FEE IS MEASURED BY THAT PROPORTION OF THE
CORPORATION'S STOCK "REPRESENTED OR TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPERTY
OWNED AND BUSINESS DONE" IN THE STATE.  UTAH REV. STAT. (1933) SEC. 28
1-2.  IN ILLINOIS AN "INITIAL LICENSE FEE" IS PAYABLE AT THE TIME THE
CORPORATION FILES ITS FIRST REPORT OF ISSUANCE OF SHARES, AND IS
MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR ITS
SHARES SO ISSUED.  ILLINOIS REV. STAT. (B.A. ED. 1937) C. 32, SECS.
157.128-157.130.  IN ARIZONA, GEORGIA AND WEST VIRGINIA THERE IS NO
CHARTER OR INCORPORATION FEE OTHER THAN SMALL FIXED CHARGES FOR SUCH
SERVICES AS ISSUING AND FILING THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION. 
ARIZONA REV. CODE (1928) SEC. 1459; GEORGIA CODE (1933) SEC. 22-307;
WEST VIRGINIA CODE (1937) SEC. 5819. 

FN5  THIS IS TRUE OF CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HINKLE, 278 U.S. 460;
WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1; PULLMAN CO. V. KANSAS,
216 U.S. 56; LUDWIG V. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO., 216 U.S. 146; AND ALSO
OF LOONEY V. CRANE CO., 245 U.S. 178, ALTHOUGH THERE THE ADMISSION HAD
BEEN UNDER A TEXAS LICENSE, AND THE ACT CHALLENGED IMPOSED A GREATLY
INCREASED FILING FEE APPLICABLE TO THE EXTENSION OF THE LICENSE.  THE
EXACTIONS INVOLVED IN INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246
U.S. 135; LOCOMOBILE CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S. 146; AND AIR-WAY
ELEC.  APPLIANCE CORP. V. DAY, 266 U.S. 71, WERE ANNUAL FRANCHISE TAXES
APPLICABLE ONLY AFTER THE CORPORATION HAD BEEN DULY ADMITTED.  IN
CHENEY BROS. CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S. 147, AND ALPHA PORTLAND
CEMENT CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 268 U.S. 203, THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS
ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE BUSINESS, SO THAT THE SUBJECT OF THE
EXACTION WAS NOT TAXABLE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :



BOGARDUS V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 34 


NO. 15.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 88
F.(2D) 646, REVERSED. 


1.  A CONCLUSION BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS WHICH IS BUT A CONCLUSION
OF LAW OR A DETERMINATION OF A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT BASED
UPON OTHER FACTS FOUND, IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW.  P. 38. 

2.  A PAYMENT CAN NOT BE BOTH "COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 AND A
"GIFT" UNDER (B)(3) OF THE SAME SECTION.  OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 39. 

3.  PAYMENTS MADE TO PRESENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF A CORPORATION,
BY ITS FORMER STOCKHOLDERS, ACTING THROUGH A NEW CORPORATION WHICH HAD
TAKEN OVER PART OF THE PROPERTY OF THE OTHER,  - HELD NOT "COMPENSATION
FOR PERSONAL SERVICES," TAXABLE TO THE RECIPIENTS AS INCOME UNDER SEC.
22(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, BUT "GIFTS," EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION
BY SUBDIVISION (B)(3) OF THAT SECTION.  P. 40. 

NO CONNECTION SUBSISTED BETWEEN THE OLD CORPORATION OR THE RECIPIENTS
OF THE GIFTS, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE MAKERS OF THE GIFTS AND THEIR
NEW CORPORATION, ON THE OTHER.  THE GIFTS WERE MADE, WITHOUT ANY LEGAL
OR MORAL OBLIGATION, NOT FOR ANY SERVICES RENDERED OR TO BE RENDERED OR
FOR ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN OR TO BE GIVEN BY ANY OF THE RECIPIENTS TO
THE DONORS OR THE NEW CORPORATION, BUT WERE ACTS OF SPONTANEOUS
GENEROSITY IN APPRECIATION OF THE PAST LOYALTY OF THE RECIPIENTS WHICH
HAD REDOUNDED TO THE PROFIT OF THE DONORS WHEN STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
OLDER COMPANY. 

4.  WHEN ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY PROVE AN INTENT TO
MAKE A GIFT, THE ERRONEOUS USE OF THE TERMS "HONORARIUM" AND "BONUS"
CAN NOT CONVERT THE GIFT INTO A PAYMENT FOR SERVICES.  P. 42. 

5.  A GIFT IS NONE THE LESS A GIFT BECAUSE INSPIRED BY GRATITUDE FOR
THE PAST FAITHFUL SERVICE OF THE RECIPIENT.  P. 44. 

BOGARDUS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

REVIEW BY CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 674, OF A JUDGMENT WHICH AFFIRMED AN
ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT OF
INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER A SUM OF MONEY RECEIVED BY
PETITIONER IN JANUARY, 1931, WAS "COMPENSATION" SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL
INCOME TAX, OR A "GIFT" EXEMPT THEREFROM.  THE COMMISSIONER HELD IT TO
BE COMPENSATION, CONSTITUTING PART OF PETITIONER'S GROSS INCOME, AND
DECLARED A DEFICIENCY.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED THE
DETERMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER; AND THE COURT BELOW, UPON REVIEW,
AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE BOARD.  88 F.(2D) 646. 

THE DECISIONS OF OTHER COURTS OF APPEAL UPON THE QUESTION UNDER
REVIEW ARE CONFLICTING.  UPON THE ONE SIDE, THE FIRST CIRCUIT, WALKER
V. COMMISSIONER, 88 F.(2D) 61, JUDGE MORTON DISSENTING, THE FOURTH,
HALL V. COMMISSIONER, 89 F.(2D) 441, AND THE FIFTH, SIMPKINSON V.
COMMISSIONER, 89 F.(2D) 397, LEND DEFINITE SUPPORT TO THE DECISION OF
THE COURT BELOW.  UPON THE OTHER SIDE, MORE OR LESS DEFINITELY TO THE
CONTRARY, ARE TO BE FOUND THE DECISIONS OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, JONES V.
COMMISSIONER, 31 F.(2D) 755; CUNNINGHAM V. COMMISSIONER, 67 F.(2D) 205,
THE SIXTH, LUNSFORD V. COMMISSIONER, 62 F.(2D) 740, AND THE NINTH,
BLAIR V. ROSSETER, 33 F.(2D) 286.  NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY
REVIEWING THESE DECISIONS; AND WE PASS TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE
BEFORE US.  THE FACTS FOLLOW: 

THE AMOUNT ($10,000) RECEIVED BY PETITIONER WAS PART OF A
DISTRIBUTION, AGGREGATING OVER $600,000, MADE BY THE UNOPCO CORPORATION
AT THE INSTANCE OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS TO PETITIONER AND OTHERS WHO HAD
THERETOFORE RENDERED SERVICE AS EMPLOYEES OR IN SOME OTHER CAPACITY TO
THE UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY.  THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY WAS A
CORPORATION ORGANIZED IN 1914.  IN THE BEGINNING, ITS ONLY ASSET WAS AN
APPLICATION FOR A PATENT FOR A PROCESS FOR REFINING PETROLEUM AND
MANUFACTURING GASOLINE.  IT THEREAFTER ACQUIRED OTHER PATENTS, WHICH IT
LICENSED TO VARIOUS PRODUCERS ON A ROYALTY BASIS.  BEGINNING IN 1922,
ITS BUSINESS DEVELOPED INCREASINGLY UNTIL BY 1930 ITS ROYALTIES
AMOUNTED TO ABOUT $9,000,000.  IN JANUARY, 1931, ITS ENTIRE STOCK WAS
SOLD TO THE UNITED GASOLINE CORPORATION FOR $25,000,000.  PRIOR TO THE
SALE, AND IN CONTEMPLATION OF IT, THE UNOPCO CORPORATION HAD BEEN
ORGANIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING, AND IT DID ACQUIRE, CERTAIN
ASSETS OF THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY OF THE VALUE OF OVER $4,000,000.  UP TO
THE TIME OF THIS ACQUISITION, THE UNOPCO COMPANY HAD NEVER ENGAGED IN
ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, AND THEREAFTER ITS ONLY BUSINESS WAS THE
INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSETS THUS ACQUIRED. 

ALL OF THE FORMER STOCKHOLDERS OF THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY BECAME
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE UNOPCO, WITH THE SAME PROPORTIONATE HOLDINGS.  NONE
OF THEM, AFTER THE SALE OF THE UNIVERSAL STOCK, HELD ANY STOCK IN THE
UNIVERSAL, OR IN THE UNITED GASOLINE CORPORATION.  UNDER ITS NEW
OWNERSHIP, THE UNIVERSAL CONTINUED TO CARRY ON THE SAME BUSINESS,
RETAINING A LARGE PART OF ITS ASSETS.  A FEW DAYS AFTER THE SALE OF THE
UNIVERSAL COMPANY'S STOCK, THE FORMER STOCKHOLDERS, THEN STOCKHOLDERS
OF THE UNOPCO, HELD A MEETING AT WHICH IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THEY SHOW
THEIR APPRECIATION OF THE LOYALTY AND SUPPORT OF SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES
OF THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY BY MAKING THEM A "GIFT OR HONORARIUM."  A
RESOLUTION TO THAT EFFECT WAS ADOPTED AT A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF UNOPCO ON JANUARY 9, 1931, AND BY THE STOCKHOLDERS THE
FOLLOWING DAY.  BY THESE RESOLUTIONS, IT WAS RESOLVED THAT THE SUM OF
$607,500 BE APPROPRIATED, PAID AND DISTRIBUTED, AS A BONUS, TO 64
FORMER AND PRESENT EMPLOYEES, ATTORNEYS AND EXPERTS OF UNIVERSAL OIL
PRODUCTS COMPANY, IN RECOGNITION OF THE VALUABLE AND LOYAL SERVICES OF
SAID EMPLOYEES, ATTORNEYS AND EXPERTS TO SAID UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS
COMPANY.  PAYMENTS RANGED IN AMOUNT FROM $100,000 TO $500.  SOME OF THE
RECIPIENTS HAD BEEN OUT OF THE EMPLOY OF THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY FOR MANY
YEARS; AND ONE OF THEM WAS THE SISTER OF AN EMPLOYEE KILLED IN AN
EXPLOSION ABOUT THE YEAR 1919. 

AT THE MEETING OF THE FORMER STOCKHOLDERS OF UNIVERSAL, THE FORMER
PRESIDENT OF THAT COMPANY, THEN PRESIDENT OF THE UNOPCO CORPORATION,
SAID THAT THEY HAD REASON TO CONGRATULATE THEMSELVES ON THEIR GREAT
GOOD FORTUNE IN THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY, WHICH STARTED WITH NOTHING AND
HAD BEEN BUILT UP IN A PHENOMENAL WAY; THAT THEY HAD PROFITED LARGELY;
THAT DURING THE YEARS WHEN THEY WERE STRUGGLING AND MOVING FORWARD THEY
HAD HAD THE LOYAL SUPPORT OF A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, AND HE THOUGHT IT
WOULD BE A NICE AND GENEROUS THING TO SHOW THEIR APPRECIATION BY
REMEMBERING THEM IN THE FORM OF A GIFT OR HONORARIUM.  ALL OF THE
STOCKHOLDERS ACQUIESCED, WITH THE RESULT "THAT IT WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT
WE WOULD COME FORWARD AND MAKE THESE PRESENTS OR GIFTS TO THE EMPLOYEES
THAT WERE TO BE SLATED FOR IT."  THE MATTER HAD THERETOFORE NEVER BEEN
DISCUSSED AMONG THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS; AND THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME IT
HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP FOR CONSIDERATION.  NONE OF THE RECIPIENTS HAD EVER
BEEN EMPLOYED BY UNOPCO OR BY ANY OF THE FORMER STOCKHOLDERS OF THE
UNIVERSAL.  THE PARTIES STIPULATED THAT NEITHER THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY
NOR THE UNITED "WAS UNDER ANY LEGAL OR OTHER OBLIGATION TO PAY SAID
EMPLOYEES  ...  ANY ADDITIONAL  ...  COMPENSATION" OTHER THAN THAT
WHICH THEY WERE PAID BY THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY*; AND THAT NEITHER UNOPCO
NOR ANY OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS, NOR ANY OF THE STOCKHOLDERS OF UNIVERSAL,
WAS AT ANY TIME UNDER ANY LEGAL OR OTHER OBLIGATION TO PAY ANY OF SAID
EMPLOYEES, ATTORNEYS OR EXPERTS, INCLUDING PETITIONER, ANY SALARY,
COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION OF ANY KIND. 

*THE REFERENCE TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION PAID BY THE UNIVERSAL
COMPANY PROBABLY REFERS TO A "BONUS," WHICH WAS CLEARLY COMPENSATION,
PAID BY THAT COMPANY TO ITS VARIOUS EMPLOYEES, SOME 400 IN NUMBER, IN
1930. 

IT WAS FURTHER STIPULATED - "SAID PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE OR INTENDED
TO BE MADE BY SAID UNOPCO CORPORATION OR ANY OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS AS
PAYMENT OR COMPENSATION FOR ANY SERVICES RENDERED OR TO BE RENDERED OR
FOR ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN OR TO BE GIVEN BY ANY OF SAID EMPLOYEES,
ATTORNEYS OR EXPERTS TO SAID UNOPCO CORPORATION OR TO ANY OF ITS
STOCKHOLDERS."  NONE OF THE THREE CORPORATIONS OR THEIR STOCKHOLDERS
EVER MADE OR CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION FOR FEDERAL INCOME-TAX PURPOSES IN
RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PETITIONER AND THE OTHERS. 
PAYMENTS WERE CHARGED, IN JANUARY, 1931, NOT TO EXPENSE BUT TO SURPLUS
ACCOUNT ON THE BOOKS OF THE UNOPCO COMPANY. 

THE DISTRIBUTION WAS MADE TO PETITIONER AND THE OTHER EMPLOYEES,
ATTORNEYS AND EXPERTS BY CHECKS, DELIVERED EITHER PERSONALLY OR BY
MAIL; AND IN EACH INSTANCE WITH THE ACCOMPANYING STATEMENT THAT THE
MONEYS REPRESENTED BY SUCH CHECKS WERE GIVEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE UNOPCO CORPORATION AS A GIFT AND GRATUITY, AND
WERE, THEREFORE, NOT SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX ON THE PART OF THE
RECIPIENTS. 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS CONCLUDED THAT, FROM A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION
OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, "THE PAYMENTS MADE BY UNOPCO TO THE PETITIONERS
AND OTHERS WERE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICES
RENDERED TO UNIVERSAL AND WERE NOT TAX-FREE GIFTS."  THIS, AS WE
RECENTLY HAVE POINTED OUT, IS "A CONCLUSION OF LAW OR AT LEAST A
DETERMINATION OF A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT.  IT IS TO BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM FINDINGS OF PRIMARY, EVIDENTIARY OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL
FACTS.  IT IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AND, ON SUCH REVIEW, THE COURT
MAY SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE BOARD."  HELVERING V. TEX
PENN OIL CO., 300 U.S. 481, 491; HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123,
131.  IF THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOARD BE REGARDED AS A DETERMINATION OF
A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, IT HAS, AS WE SHALL PRESENTLY SHOW,
NO SUPPORT IN THE PRIMARY AND EVIDENTIARY FACTS.  THE ULTIMATE
DETERMINATION, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE OVERTURNED, UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF
HELVERING V. RANKIN, SUPRA, AS A MATTER OF LAW. 

THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ARE VERY PLAIN AND DIRECT.  SECTION
22(A) OF THE APPLICABLE REVENUE ACT (45 STAT. 791) PROVIDES THAT "GROSS
INCOME," AMONG OTHER THINGS, INCLUDES "COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL
SERVICE, OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID."  SUBDIVISION
(B)(3), IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, PROVIDES THAT "THE VALUE OF PROPERTY
ACQUIRED BY GIFT, BEQUEST, DEVISE OR INHERITANCE" SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED
IN GROSS INCOME AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER THE INCOME-TAX
TITLE. 

THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT PAYMENTS SUCH AS ARE HERE INVOLVED "MAY
BE AT ONCE 'GIFTS' UNDER SEC. 22, SUBDIVISION (B)(3) AND 'COMPENSATION
FOR PERSONAL SERVICE' UNDER SUBDIVISION (A)."  SUCH A VIEW OF THE
STATUTE IS INADMISSIBLE AND CONFUSING.  THE STATUTE DEFINITELY
DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN COMPENSATION ON THE ONE HAND AND GIFTS ON THE
OTHER HAND, THE FORMER BEING TAXABLE AND THE LATTER FREE FROM
TAXATION.  THE TWO TERMS ARE, AND WERE MEANT TO BE, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE;
AND A BESTOWAL OF MONEY CANNOT, UNDER THE STATUTE, BE BOTH A GIFT AND A
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION.  THE COURT BELOW WENT ON TO SAY THAT DECISIONS
LIKE OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716, PROVED THAT
PAYMENTS COULD BE BOTH GIFTS AND COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES. 
THE MOST CASUAL READING OF THAT CASE SHOWS THAT IT IS AUTHORITY FOR NO
SUCH DOCTRINE.  THERE, AN EMPLOYER HAD PAID THE INCOME TAX ASSESSED
UPON THE SALARY OF AN EMPLOYEE.  THE EMPLOYEE HAD ENTERED UPON THE
DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION UNDER AN EXPRESS
AGREEMENT TO THAT EFFECT.  QUITE EVIDENTLY THE PAYMENT, SO AGREED UPON
IN ADVANCE, WAS IN CONSIDERATION OF SERVICES TO BE RENDERED AND IN NO
SENSE A GIFT.  IT WAS A PART OF THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION; AND THE
COURT SO HELD.  THE IDEA THAT IT COULD BE A GIFT IN ANY SENSE WAS
DEFINITELY REJECTED.  WE SAID (P. 730), "NOR CAN IT BE ARGUED THAT THE
PAYMENT OF THE TAX IN NO. 130 WAS A GIFT.  THE PAYMENT FOR SERVICES,
EVEN THOUGH ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY, WAS NEVERTHELESS COMPENSATION WITHIN
THE STATUTE." 

IF THE SUM OF MONEY UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS A GIFT AND NOT
COMPENSATION, IT IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION AND CANNOT BE MADE TAXABLE BY
RESORT TO ANY FORM OF SUBCLASSIFICATION.  IF IT BE IN FACT A GIFT, THAT
IS AN END OF THE MATTER; AND INQUIRY WHETHER IT IS A GIFT OF ONE SORT
OR ANOTHER IS IRRELEVANT.  THIS IS NECESSARILY TRUE, FOR SINCE ALL
GIFTS ARE MADE NON-TAXABLE, THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING UNDER THE
STATUTE AS A TAXABLE GIFT.  A CLAIM THAT IT IS A GIFT PRESENTS THE SOLE
AND SIMPLE QUESTION WHETHER ITS DESIGNATION AS SUCH IS GENUINE OR
FICTITIOUS - THAT IS TO SAY, WHETHER, THOUGH CALLED A GIFT, IT IS IN
REALITY COMPENSATION.  TO DETERMINE THAT QUESTION WE TURN TO THE FACTS,
WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DETAILED. 

FROM THESE WE LEARN THAT THE RECIPIENTS OF THE BOUNTY HERE IN
QUESTION NEVER WERE EMPLOYEES OF THE UNOPCO COMPANY, OR OF ANY OF ITS
STOCKHOLDERS.  THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY, IN WHOSE EMPLOY SOME OF THE
RECIPIENTS THEN WERE, WAS AT THE TIME IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH THE
UNOPCO COMPANY OR ANY OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  SOME OF THE RECIPIENTS HAD
NOT BEEN IN THE EMPLOY EVEN OF THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY FOR MANY YEARS,
AND ONE OF THEM NEVER HAD BEEN AN EMPLOYEE.  NEITHER THE UNOPCO COMPANY
NOR ANY ONE ELSE WAS UNDER ANY OBLIGATION, LEGAL OR OTHERWISE, TO PAY
ANY OF THE RECIPIENTS, INCLUDING PETITIONER, ANY SALARY, COMPENSATION
OR CONSIDERATION OF ANY KIND.  SUCH IS THE EXPRESS STIPULATION OF THE
PARTIES.  AND MOST SIGNIFICANT IS THE FURTHER STIPULATED FACT THAT THE
DISBURSEMENTS WERE NOT MADE OR INTENDED TO BE MADE FOR ANY SERVICES
RENDERED OR TO BE RENDERED OR FOR ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN OR TO BE
GIVEN BY ANY OF SAID EMPLOYEES, ATTORNEYS OR EXPERTS TO SAID UNOPCO
CORPORATION OR TO ANY OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  IF THE DISBURSEMENTS HAD
BEEN MADE BY THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY, OR BY STOCKHOLDERS OF THAT COMPANY
STILL INTERESTED IN ITS SUCCESS AND IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE GOOD WILL
AND LOYALTY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, THERE MIGHT BE GROUND FOR THE INFERENCE
THAT THEY WERE PAYMENTS OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.  COMPARE NOEL V.
PARROTT, 15 F.(2D) 669.  BUT SUCH AN INFERENCE, EVEN UPON ONE OF THESE
SUPPOSITIONS, WELL MIGHT STRAIN THE REALITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FOREGOING FACTS.  HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, THE DISBURSEMENTS HERE WERE
AUTHORIZED AND THE BURDEN BORNE BY PERSONS WHO WERE THEN STRANGERS TO
THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES, UNDER NO OBLIGATION, LEGAL OR
OTHERWISE, TO THAT COMPANY OR TO ANY OF ITS PRESENT OR FORMER
EMPLOYEES.  THERE IS ENTIRELY LACKING THE CONSTRAINING FORCE OF ANY
MORAL OR LEGAL DUTY AS WELL AS THE INCENTIVE OF ANTICIPATED BENEFIT OF
ANY KIND BEYOND THE SATISFACTION WHICH FLOWS FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF A
GENEROUS ACT.  THE INTENT IS SHOWN BY THE APPEAL MADE AT THE
STOCKHOLDERS' MEETING TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WOULD BE A NICE AND
GENEROUS THING FOR THESE FORMER STOCKHOLDERS OF THE UNIVERSAL TO SHOW
THEIR APPRECIATION OF THE PAST LOYALTY OF THAT COMPANY'S EMPLOYEES BY
REMEMBERING THEM IN THE FORM OF A "GIFT OR HONORARIUM," AND BY THE
COMMON UNDERSTANDING THEN REACHED THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS WOULD MAKE THE
SUGGESTED "PRESENTS OR GIFTS" TO THESE EMPLOYEES.  QUITE EVIDENTLY,
NONE OF THESE STOCKHOLDERS HAD THE SLIGHTEST NOTION THAT A PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION WAS TO BE MADE.    IN SUM, THEN, THE CASE COMES TO THIS:
THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE UNOPCO, HAVING AT THE TIME NO CONNECTION WITH
THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY, BUT REJOICING IN THE FACT OF THEIR OWN GREAT
GOOD FORTUNE, AND MINDFUL OF THE FORMER LOYAL SUPPORT OF A NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES OF THE UNIVERSAL COMPANY, AND DESIRING TO REMEMBER THEM "IN
THE FORM OF A GIFT OR HONORARIUM," RESOLVED TO MAKE THROUGH THE UNOPCO
COMPANY THE DISTRIBUTION IN QUESTION.  IN DOING SO, THEY WERE MOVED, AS
JUDGE SWAN SAID IN HIS DISSENTING OPINION BELOW, TO AN ACT OF
"SPONTANEOUS GENEROSITY."  WE AGREE WITH THIS DISSENTING OPINION OF
JUDGE SWAN, AND THE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MORTON IN WALKER V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, AS STATING THE CORRECT VIEW OF THE MATTER. 

THE ONLY FACTS WHICH EVEN SEEM TO MILITATE AGAINST THIS VIEW ARE (1)
THAT THE UNOPCO STOCKHOLDERS HAD BENEFITED BY THE FORMER SERVICES OF
THE RECIPIENTS; (2) THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS AT THEIR MEETING DESCRIBED
THE PAYMENT AS A GIFT OR "HONORARIUM"; AND (3) THAT THE RESOLUTIONS
AUTHORIZED THE PAYMENT AS A "BONUS  ...  IN RECOGNITION OF THE VALUABLE
AND LOYAL SERVICES" OF THE EMPLOYEES, ETC. 

1.  BECAUSE THE UNOPCO STOCKHOLDERS HAD BENEFITED BY THE PAST
SERVICES OF THE RECIPIENTS, IT BY NO MEANS FOLLOWS THAT THE
DISTRIBUTION IN QUESTION WAS NOT A GRATUITY.  IT NOWHERE APPEARS IN THE
RECORD THAT FULL COMPENSATION HAD NOT BEEN MADE FOR THESE SERVICES. 
THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE A NATURAL INFERENCE TO THE CONTRARY; AND THE
INFERENCE IS MADE DETERMINATE BY THE STIPULATED FACT THAT NO ONE WAS
UNDER ANY OBLIGATION, LEGAL OR OTHERWISE (AND THIS WOULD INCLUDE A
MORAL OBLIGATION, HOWEVER SLIGHT) "TO PAY ANY ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION."  THERE IS NO GROUND FOR SAYING THAT THE BENEFIT RECEIVED
AND THE COMPENSATION THEN PAID FOR IT WERE NOT EQUIVALENTS. 

2.  IT IS SAID THAT THE WORD "HONORARIUM" ALWAYS DENOTES A
COMPENSATORY PAYMENT.  WITHOUT AGREEING TO THIS BROAD GENERALIZATION,
IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE WORD IS NOT HERE USED BY ITSELF, BUT
COUPLED WITH THE WORD "GIFT" IN THE PHRASE "GIFT OR HONORARIUM." 
PRESUMPTIVELY, THE USER OF THE PHRASE MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT THE WORD
"GIFT" DID NOT INCLUDE A COMPENSATORY PAYMENT, AND IT IS HARDLY TO BE
SUPPOSED THAT HE WOULD CONSCIOUSLY NULLIFY THAT WORD BY THE IMMEDIATE
USE OF ANOTHER MEANING THE OPPOSITE.  THE PHRASE WAS USED IN AN
INFORMAL SPEECH AT THE STOCKHOLDERS' MEETING MADE BY THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNOPCO COMPANY.  THE WHOLE TONE OF THE MEETING INDICATES THAT THE
INTENTION WAS TO MAKE GIFTS IN RECOGNITION OF, NOT PAYMENTS FOR, FORMER
SERVICES.  THE CONCLUSION IN WHICH THE STOCKHOLDERS ACQUIESCED WAS THAT
THEY WOULD COME FORWARD AND MAKE THESE "PRESENTS OR GIFTS" TO THE
EMPLOYEES.  IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ABSENCE OF MORAL
OR OTHER OBLIGATION AND OF ANY EXPECTATION OF FUTURE BENEFIT, IT IS
REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE WORD "HONORARIUM," IF THE COURT BELOW
CORRECTLY DEFINED IT, WAS LOOSELY AND INACCURATELY USED. 

3.  THE RESOLUTIONS, WHICH EMPLOY THE WORD "BONUS," WERE ADOPTED TO
CARRY INTO EFFECT THE WILL OF THE STOCKHOLDERS EXPRESSED AT THEIR
MEETING.  WHAT OCCURRED AT THAT MEETING, AS WE HAVE ALREADY SAID,
INDICATED THEIR CLEAR INTENTION TO MAKE GIFTS.  AND SINCE INTENTION
MUST GOVERN, WE MUST CONSIDER THE WORD USED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
INTENTION.  A SIMILAR QUESTION WAS BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN LEVEY V. HELVERING, 62 APP. D.C. 354; 68 F.(2D)
401.  THERE, THE CORPORATE RESOLUTION CHARACTERIZED THE PAYMENTS TO BE
MADE TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN OFFICERS FOR INCOME TAXES PAID ON SALARIES AS
"GIFTS."  BUT THE COURT HELD THIS CHARACTERIZATION DID NOT SETTLE THE
MATTER.  IT REVIEWED THE FACTS AND REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT IN THE
LIGHT OF THEM WHAT WAS INTENDED WAS NOT A GIFT BUT A BONUS, AND DECIDED
THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT VIEW.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE THING THAT
WAS DECIDED UPON AND INTENDED, IN THAT CASE AS IN THIS CASE, WAS
MISDESCRIBED IN THE RESOLUTIONS TO CARRY THE DECISION AND INTENTION
INTO EFFECT.  IN ROGERS V. HILL, 289 U.S. 582, 591-592, WE HELD,
FOLLOWING THE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE COURT BELOW, THAT A BONUS
PAYMENT HAVING NO RELATION TO THE VALUE OF SERVICES FOR WHICH IT IS
GIVEN IS IN REALITY A GIFT IN PART.  CERTAINLY, WHERE ALL THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE, INCLUDING THE EXPRESS STIPULATION OF THE
PARTIES, CLEARLY SHOW THE MAKING AND THE INTENT TO MAKE A GIFT, IT
CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A PAYMENT FOR SERVICES BY INACCURATELY
DESCRIBING IT, IN THE CONSUMMATING RESOLUTIONS, AS A BONUS. 

SOME STRESS IS LAID ON THE RECITAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BOUNTY IS
BESTOWED IN RECOGNITION OF PAST LOYAL SERVICES.  BUT THIS RECITAL
AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AN HISTORIC FACT AS
A REASON FOR MAKING THE GIFTS.  A GIFT IS NONE THE LESS A GIFT BECAUSE
INSPIRED BY GRATITUDE FOR THE PAST FAITHFUL SERVICE OF THE RECIPIENT. 
COMPARE HOBART'S ADMR.  V. VAIL, 80 VT. 152; 66 ATL. 820.  JUDGMENT
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, MR. JUSTICE STONE, MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, AND MR.
JUSTICE BLACK, DISSENTING. 

A PAYMENT RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES IS TAXABLE AS INCOME,
THOUGH MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, AND HENCE FOR MANY PURPOSES A GIFT. 
OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716, 730.  TO HOLD, AS
THE PREVAILING OPINION SEEMS TO DO, THAT EVERY PAYMENT WHICH IN ANY
ASPECT IS A GIFT IS PERFORCE NOT COMPENSATION, AND HENCE RELIEVED OF
ANY TAX, IS TO WORK HAVOC WITH THE LAW.  A LARGE BODY OF DECISIONS,
WHOSE PROVENANCE IS OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, WOULD BE
ANNULLED BY SUCH A TEST.  SEE E.G. WEAGANT V. BOWERS, 57 F.(2D) 679;
FISHER V. COMMISSIONER, 59 F.(2D) 192; BASS V. HAWLEY, 62 F.(2D) 721;
UNITED STATES V. MCCORMICK, 67 F.(2D) 867; BOTCHFORD V. COMMISSIONER,
81 F.(2D) 914; SCHUMACHER V. UNITED STATES, 55 F.(2D) 1007.  CF. LUCAS
V. OX FIBRE BRUSH CO., 281 U.S. 115.  THEIR TEACHING MAKES IT PLAIN
THAT THE CATEGORIES OF "GIFT" AND "COMPENSATION" ARE NOT ALWAYS
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, BUT AT TIMES CAN OVERLAP.  WHAT CONTROLS IS NOT THE
PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CONSIDERATION.  WHAT CONTROLS IS THE INTENTION
WITH WHICH PAYMENT, HOWEVER VOLUNTARY, HAS BEEN MADE.  HAS IT BEEN MADE
WITH THE INTENTION THAT SERVICES RENDERED IN THE PAST SHALL BE REQUITED
MORE COMPLETELY, THOUGH FULL ACQUITTANCE HAS BEEN GIVEN?  IF SO, IT
BEARS A TAX.  HAS IT BEEN MADE TO SHOW GOOD WILL, ESTEEM, OR KINDLINESS
TOWARD PERSONS WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE SERVED, BUT WHO ARE PAID WITHOUT
THOUGH TO MAKE REQUITAL FOR THE SERVICE?  IF SO, IT IS EXEMPT. 

WE THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT TO THIS
PETITIONER WAS MADE WITH ONE INTENTION OR THE OTHER.  A FINDING EITHER
IN HIS FAVOR OR AGAINST HIM WOULD HAVE HAD A FAIR BASIS IN THE
EVIDENCE.  IT WAS FOR THE TRIERS OF THE FACTS TO SEEK AMONG COMPETING
AIMS OR MOTIVES THE ONES THAT DOMINATED CONDUCT.  PERHAPS, IF SUCH A
FUNCTION HAD BEEN OURS, WE WOULD HAVE DRAWN THE INFERENCE FAVORING A
GIFT.  THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.  IF THERE WAS OPPORTUNITY FOR OPPOSING
INFERENCES, THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD CONTROLS.  ELMHURST CEMETERY CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 37; HELVERING V. TEX-PENN OIL CO., 300 U.S.
481. 
..END :











UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS, 302 U.S. 46 


NO. 11.  ARGUED OCTOBER 15, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 86
F.(2D) 746, REVERSED. 


1.  CONGRESS MAY ACCEPT, OR REQUIRE, THE MILITARY SERVICES OF MINORS,
WITH OR WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THEIR PARENTS.  P. 48. 

2.  UNDER 34 U.S.C. SEC. 161 MINORS BETWEEN THE AGES OF 14 AND 18
YEARS ARE NOT ACCEPTED FOR ENLISTMENT IN THE NAVY WITHOUT THEIR
PARENTS' CONSENT; BUT THE STATUTE DOES NOT CONFER UPON OR LEAVE WITH
THE PARENTS ANY RIGHT TO CONDITION CONSENT TO THEIR SONS' ENLISTMENT. 
P. 49. 

3.  NO ACT OF CONGRESS PERMITS ENLISTMENT OF MINORS UPON CONDITION OR
UPON THE QUALIFIED CONSENT OF PARENTS, NOR DOES ANY ACT AUTHORIZE
RECRUITING OFFICERS TO BIND THE UNITED STATES TO CARRY, OR TO REQUIRE
AN ENLISTED MAN TO CARRY, WAR RISK INSURANCE FOR HIS OWN PROTECTION OR
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSON.  P. 50. 

4.  PARENTS CONSENTED TO THE ENLISTMENT OF THEIR SON ON CONDITION
THAT HE CARRY WAR RISK INSURANCE OF SPECIFIED AMOUNT IN BEHALF OF HIS
MOTHER.  BEFORE HIS DEATH, IN THE SERVICE, THE SON HAD TAKEN OUT AND
LATER HAD CANCELED, SUCH INSURANCE.  HELD THAT THE CONDITION DID NOT
BIND THE UNITED STATES; THAT THE SON HAD A RIGHT UNDER THE WAR RISK
INSURANCE ACT TO CANCEL THE INSURANCE; AND THAT THE MOTHER HAD NO CAUSE
OF ACTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  P. 50. 

UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 673, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON A WAR-RISK INSURANCE POLICY. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TO RECOVER WAR RISK INSURANCE ON THE LIFE OF HER
MINOR SON, BENSON CHARLES WILLIAMS, WHO DIED WHILE SERVING IN THE
NAVY.  TRIAL BY JURY HAVING BEEN WAIVED, THE COURT MADE FINDINGS OF
FACT, STATED ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
PLAINTIFF.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED.  86 F.(2D) 746. 

THE FINDINGS SHOW:  PLAINTIFF'S SON WAS BORN AUGUST 27, 1901, AND
JANUARY 13, 1919, ENLISTED IN THE NAVY FOR THE PERIOD OF HIS MINORITY. 
AT THAT TIME DEFENDANT ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF TERM INSURANCE BINDING
ITSELF, IN CASE OF HIS DEATH WHILE INSURED, TO PAY PLAINTIFF $10,000 IN
240 EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS; HE DIRECTED DEFENDANT TO DEDUCT
PREMIUMS FROM HIS PAY; HIS PARENTS EXECUTED A WRITING BY WHICH THEY
CONSENTED TO THE ENLISTMENT, RELEASED THEIR CLAIM TO HIS PAY, APPROVED
THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HIM AND DEFENDANT AND DECLARED THAT THEIR
CONSENT WAS GIVEN ON THE CONDITION THAT, DURING ENLISTMENT, HE WOULD
CARRY WAR RISK INSURANCE IN THE SUM OF $10,000 IN BEHALF OF HIS
MOTHER.  JULY 20, 1920, HE MADE WRITTEN REQUEST THAT HIS INSURANCE BE
TERMINATED.  THEREAFTER, DEFENDANT MADE NO DEDUCTIONS FROM HIS PAY ON
ACCOUNT OF PREMIUMS.  THE INSURED DIED JUNE 30, 1921.  AT ALL TIMES
UNTIL HIS DEATH HIS UNCOLLECTED PAY WAS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO KEEP THE
INSURANCE IN FORCE.  UPON LEARNING OF HER SON'S DEATH PLAINTIFF
DEMANDED PAYMENT OF THE INSURANCE.  WHEN NOTIFIED BY DEFENDANT OF HER
SON'S CANCELATION SHE REPUDIATED IT, OFFERED TO PAY ALL PREMIUMS,
REITERATED HER CLAIM AS BENEFICIARY AND, DEFENDANT HAVING REJECTED IT,
BROUGHT THIS SUIT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REASONED AS FOLLOWS:  PLAINTIFF'S
CONSENT WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE ENLISTMENT AND WAS GIVEN ON CONDITION THAT
THE INSURANCE BE MAINTAINED.  THE MINOR AND DEFENDANT COULD NOT SET THE
CONDITION AT NAUGHT.  DEFENDANT COULD NOT AVAIL ITSELF OF HIS SERVICES,
TO WHICH IT WAS ENTITLED ONLY IF HIS MOTHER SO AGREED, AND IGNORE THE
CONDITION UPON WHICH THE AGREEMENT WAS OBTAINED.  DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED
WITH NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S INTEREST AS BENEFICIARY AND, THE CANCELATION
NOT HAVING BEEN RATIFIED BY HER, DEFENDANT WAS BOUND TO COLLECT THE
PREMIUMS AND MAINTAIN THE INSURANCE BY DEDUCTIONS FROM THE PAY OF THE
INSURED.  ON THAT BASIS THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE INSURANCE REMAINED
IN FORCE AND THAT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER. 

THE OPINION STRONGLY PUTS THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAKE IN FAVOR OF
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, BUT NEGLECTS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIVATE
EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS AND THEIR SERVICE IN ARMY OR NAVY, AND FAILS TO
GIVE EFFECT TO THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS OF ENLISTMENT AND TO THE
TERMS UPON WHICH THE GOVERNMENT GRANTED THE WAR RISK INSURANCE HERE IN
QUESTION.  IN VIRTUE OF ITS POWER TO RAISE AND SUPPORT ARMIES, TO
PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A NAVY AND TO MAKE RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
LAND AND NAVAL FORCES, THE CONGRESS MAY REQUIRE MILITARY SERVICE OF
ADULTS AND MINORS ALIKE.  FN1 THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES MAY BE
EXERTED TO SUPERSEDE PARENTS' CONTROL AND THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE THE
SERVICES OF MINOR SONS WHO ARE WANTED AND FIT FOR MILITARY SERVICE. 
FN2  AND THE CONGRESS MAY CONFER UPON MINORS THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING
IN LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, AUTHORIZE THEM TO ENLIST, OR DRAFT THEM UPON
SUCH TERMS AS IT MAY DEEM EXPEDIENT AND JUST.  FN3 

THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH PLAINTIFF'S SON WAS ACCEPTED DECLARES THAT
MINORS BETWEEN AGES OF 14 AND 18 YEARS SHALL NOT BE ENLISTED IN THE
NAVY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THEIR PARENTS.  FN4  IT MEANS THAT, WHILE
MINORS OVER 18 MAY ENLIST WITHOUT PARENTAL PERMISSION, THE GOVERNMENT
ELECTS NOT TO TAKE THOSE BETWEEN 14 AND 18 UNLESS THEIR PARENTS ARE
WILLING TO HAVE THEM GO.  IT IS A DETERMINATION BY CONGRESS THAT MINORS
OVER 14 HAVE CAPACITY TO MAKE CONTRACTS FOR SERVICE IN THE NAVY.  FN5
AND IT IS IN HARMONY WITH RULINGS UNDER THE COMMON LAW TO THE EFFECT
THAT ENLISTMENT OF A MINOR FOR MILITARY SERVICE IS NOT VOIDABLE BY HIM
OR HIS PARENTS.  FN6  ENLISTMENT IS MORE THAN A CONTRACT; IT EFFECTS A
CHANGE OF STATUS.  FN7  IT OPERATES TO EMANCIPATE MINORS AT LEAST TO
THE EXTENT THAT BY ENLISTMENT THEY BECOME BOUND TO SERVE SUBJECT TO
RULES GOVERNING ENLISTED MEN AND ENTITLED TO HAVE AND FREELY TO DISPOSE
OF THEIR PAY.  FN8  UPON ENLISTMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S SON, AND UNTIL HIS
DEATH, HE BECAME ENTIRELY SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES
IN RESPECT OF ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO OR AFFECTING HIS SERVICE. 

THE STATUTE DOES NOT CONFER UPON OR LEAVE WITH THE PARENTS ANY RIGHT
TO CONDITION CONSENT TO THEIR SONS' ENLISTMENT.  NO ACT OF CONGRESS
PERMITS ENLISTMENT OF MINORS UPON CONDITION OR UPON THE QUALIFIED
CONSENT OF PARENTS, NOR DOES ANY ACT AUTHORIZE RECRUITING OFFICERS TO
BIND THE UNITED STATES TO CARRY, OR TO REQUIRE AN ENLISTED MAN TO
CARRY, WAR RISK INSURANCE FOR HIS OWN PROTECTION OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ANY PERSON.  IT FOLLOWS THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT BOUND BY THE CONDITION
ON WHICH THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE PARENTS CONSENTED TO THE
ENLISTMENT OF THEIR MINOR SON.  FN9 

WAR RISK INSURANCE WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THOSE IN ACTIVE MILITARY
SERVICE FOR THE GREATER PROTECTION OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. 
FN10  BY THE INSURANCE CONTRACT, OF WHICH APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS CONSTITUTE A PART,  FN11 THE INSURED MINOR WAS
AUTHORIZED TO ALLOT A PART OF HIS PAY FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS,
FN12  TO CHANGE BENEFICIARIES WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT  FN13  AND TO
CANCEL THE INSURANCE IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  FN14  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE
CANCELATION WAS VALID AND PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER.  FN15
REVERSED. 

FN1 TARBLE'S CASE (1871) 13 WALL.  397, 408.  IN RE GRIMLEY (1890)
137 U.S. 147, 153.  SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES (1918) 245 U.S. 366, 377
378, 386.  HAMILTON V. REGENTS (1934) 293 U.S. 245, 262-264.  UNITED
STATES V. BLAKENEY (1847) 3 GRATT.  405, 408.  LANAHAN V. BIRGE (1862)
30 CONN. 438. 

FN2  UNITED STATES V. BAINBRIDGE (1816) FED. CAS. NO. 14,497, P. 950,
PER STORY, J. COMMONWEALTH V. GAMBLE (1824) 11 SERG.  & R. 93, 94, PER
GIBSON, J. COM. EX REL. ENGLE V. MORRIS (1852) 1 PHILA.  381.  IN THE
MATTER OF BESWICK (1863) 25 HOW.  PR. 149, 151.  HALLIDAY V. MILLER
(1887) 29 W. VA. 424, 439; 1 S.E. 821. 

FN3  UNITED STATES V. BAINBRIDGE (1816) FED. CAS. NO. 14,497, P.
950.  IN RE RILEY (1867) FED. CAS. NO. 11,834, P. 797, PER BLATCHFORD,
D.J. IN RE DAVISON (1884) 21 FED. 618, 622.  IN RE COSENOW (1889) 37
FED. 668, 670, PER HENRY BILLINGS BROWN, D.J.  UNITED STATES V.
BLAKENEY (1847) 3 GRATT.  405, 416.  IN RE GREGG (1862) 15 WIS. 531,
532. 

FN4  "NO MINOR UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN YEARS SHALL BE ENLISTED IN
THE NAVAL SERVICE; AND MINORS BETWEEN THE AGE OF FOURTEEN AND EIGHTEEN
YEARS SHALL NOT BE ENLISTED FOR THE NAVAL SERVICE WITHOUT THE CONSENT
OF THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS."  34 U.S.C., SEC. 161.  (SEE R.S., SECS.
1419, 1420, AS AMENDED BY ACTS:  MAY 12, 1879, C. 5, 21 STAT. 3;
FEBRUARY 23, 1881, C. 73, SEC. 2, 21 STAT. 338; AUGUST 22, 1912, C.
336, SEC. 2, 37 STAT. 356.) 

FN5  IN RE MORRISSEY (1890) 137 U.S. 157, 159.  IN RE DAVISON (1884)
21 FED. 618, 623.  IN RE GREGG (1862) 15 WIS. 531, 533.  UNITED STATES
V. BLAKENEY (1847) 3 GRATT.  405, 414-415.  UNITED STATES V. BAINBRIDGE
(1816) FED. CAS. NO. 14,497, P. 951. 

FN6  IN RE MORRISSEY (1890) 137 U.S. 157, 159.  UNITED STATES V.
BLAKENEY (1847) 3 GRATT.  405, 413. 

FN7  IN RE GRIMLEY (1890) 137 U.S. 147, 151.  IN RE MORRISSEY (1890)
137 U.S. 157, 159. 

FN8  IN RE MORRISSEY (1890) 137 U.S. 157, 159-160.  IN RE MILLER
(1902) 114 FED. 838, 842-843.  UNITED STATES V. REAVES (1903) 126 FED.
127, 130.  UNITED STATES V. BAINBRIDGE (1816) FED. CAS. NO. 14,497, P.
951.  BAKER V. BAKER (1868) 41 VT. 55, 57.  HALLIDAY V. MILLER (1887)
29 W. VA. 424, 439; 1 S.E. 821.  GAPEN V. GAPEN (1895) 41 W. VA. 422,
425; 23 S.E. 579.  IROQUOIS IRON CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COM. (1920) 294 ILL.
106, 109; 128 N.E. 289.  1 SCHOULER, DOMESTIC RELATIONS (6TH ED.) 
SEC.  754, P. 820. 

FN9  UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. UNITED STATES (1917) 243 U.S. 389, 408
409.  WILBER NAT. BANK V. UNITED STATES (1935) 294 U.S. 120, 123-124. 

FN10  WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, SEC. 400, 40 STAT.
409. 

FN11  WHITE V. UNITED STATES (1926) 270 U.S. 175.  LYNCH V. UNITED
STATES (1934) 292 U.S. 571, 577. 

FN12  WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, SEC. 202, 40 STAT.
403. 

FN13  ID., SEC. 402, 40 STAT. 409:  "...  SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS, THE
INSURED SHALL AT ALL TIMES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE BENEFICIARY OR
BENEFICIARIES OF SUCH INSURANCE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF SUCH BENEFICIARY
OR BENEFICIARIES, BUT ONLY WITHIN THE CLASSES HEREIN PROVIDED  ..." 
BULLETIN NO. 1, PROMULGATED OCTOBER 15, 1917:  "THE INSURED MAY AT ANY
TIME, SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF THE BUREAU, CHANGE THE BENEFICIARY
OR BENEFICIARIES TO ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WITHIN THE CLASSES PERMITTED
BY THE ACT, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE BENEFICIARY OR BENEFICIARIES." 
REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURE, U.S. VETERANS' BUREAU, 1928(WASHINGTON,
1930) PART 2, PP. 1235, 1237. 

FN14  T.D. 48 W.R. PROVIDES:  "THE YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE
SHALL  ...  LAPSE AND TERMINATE  ...  (C) UPON WRITTEN REQUEST  ...  TO
THE BUREAU  ...  FOR CANCELATION OF THE INSURANCE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
AND CORRESPONDING CESSATION OR REDUCTION OF THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS
..."  REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURE, U.S. VETERANS' BUREAU,
1928(WASHINGTON, 1930) PART 1, PP. 19-20. 

FN15  WHITE V. UNITED STATES (1926) 270 U.S. 175, 180.  VON DER LIPPI
LIPSKI V. UNITED STATES (1925) 4 F.(2D) 168, 169.  UNITED STATES V.
STERLING (1926) 12 F.(2D) 921, 922.  LEWIS V. UNITED STATES (1932) 56
F.(2D) 563, 564.  IRONS V. SMITH (1933) 62 F.(2D) 644, 646. 
..END :


















PENNSYLVANIA V. ASHE, 302 U.S. 51 


NO. 25.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 22, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  -
325 PA. 305 - 188 ATL. 841, ILL. 547 - 5 N.E. (2D) 84, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE LAW HAS LONG RECOGNIZED A RELATION BETWEEN PUNISHMENT FOR
BREACH OF PRISON AND THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE PRISONER IS HELD, AND IT
HAS MORE SEVERELY PUNISHED PRISON-BREAKING BY ONE UNDERGOING
IMPRISONMENT FOR GRIEVOUS CRIME THAN IF DONE BY ONE HELD FOR A LESSER
OFFENSE.  P. 53. 

2.  A LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA CLASSIFYING PUNISHMENTS TO BE IMPOSED ON
CONVICTS BREAKING OUT OF THE PENITENTIARY BY AUTHORIZING THE COURT TO
IMPRISON EACH FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING HIS ORIGINAL SENTENCE, HELD
CONSISTENT WITH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 52. 

PENNSYLVANIA EX REL. SULLIVAN V. ASHE, WARDEN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

REVIEW BY CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 675, OF A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW
DENYING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, A STATE MAY CLASSIFY PUNISHMENTS TO BE IMPOSED
ON CONVICTS BREAKING OUT OF THE PENITENTIARY BY AUTHORIZING THE COURT
TO IMPRISON EACH FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING HIS ORIGINAL SENTENCE. 

SEPTEMBER 21, 1936, PETITIONER, ASSERTING THAT HE WAS ILLEGALLY
COMMITTED TO THE WESTERN PENITENTIARY OF PENNSYLVANIA TO SERVE A
SENTENCE FOR THE CRIME OF BREAKING OUT OF THAT PRISON, APPLIED TO THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.  THE COURT
GRANTED A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND, AFTER HEARING COUNSEL FOR THE
PARTIES, HELD PETITIONER LAWFULLY SENTENCED AND DISCHARGED THE RULE. 
325 PA. ST. 305; 188 ATL. 841.  THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
ASSERTS THAT THIS DECISION CONFLICTS WITH STATE V. LEWIN, 53 KAN. 679;
37 P. 168; IN RE MALLON, 16 IDAHO 737; 102 P. 374; AND STATE V.
JOHNSEY, 46 OKLA. CR. APP. 233; 287 P. 729.  THE STATUTES CONDEMNED IN
THE KANSAS AND IDAHO CASES DIFFER ESSENTIALLY FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA
STATUTE UPHELD IN THIS CASE.  FINDING CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DECISION
BELOW AND THAT IN THE OKLAHOMA CASE, WE GRANTED THE WRIT.  JUDICIAL
CODE, SEC. 237(B); 28 U.S.C., SEC. 344(B). 

THE CHALLENGED PROVISION, FOUND IN THE ACT OF MARCH 31, 1860, P.L.
382, DECLARES (SEC. 3) THAT "IF ANY PRISONER IMPRISONED IN ANY
PENITENTIARY ...  UPON A CONVICTION FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENSE ...  SHALL
BREAK SUCH PENITENTIARY  ...  SUCH PERSON SHALL BE GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION OF SAID OFFENSE, SHALL BE SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO AN IMPRISONMENT, TO COMMENCE FROM THE EXPIRATION OF HIS
ORIGINAL SENTENCE, OF THE LIKE NATURE, AND FOR A PERIOD OF TIME NOT
EXCEEDING THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE, BY VIRTUE OF WHICH HE WAS IMPRISONED,
WHEN HE SO BROKE PRISON AND ESCAPED...." 

IN 1929, PETITIONER PLEADED GUILTY OF THE CRIMES OF BURGLARY AND
LARCENY AND WAS SENTENCED TO THE WESTERN PENITENTIARY FOR A TERM OF
FROM THREE TO SIX YEARS.  IN DECEMBER, 1931, HE BROKE OUT, AND, AFTER
CAPTURE AND CONVICTION, WAS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF THE
SAME LENGTH AS, AND TO COMMENCE AT THE EXPIRATION OF, THE ORIGINAL
SENTENCE. 

TO ILLUSTRATE THE INEQUALITIES BETWEEN SENTENCES PERMISSIBLE UNDER
THE CHALLENGED PROVISION, PETITIONER EMPHASIZES THE FACT THAT, IF TWO
OR MORE CONVICTS ESCAPE TOGETHER UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY MAY
BE SENTENCED FOR DIFFERENT TERMS.  IN FACT, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT
PETITIONER ESCAPED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ONE MCCANN AND THAT UPON
CONVICTION FOR THE SAME CRIME THE LATTER WAS SENTENCED TO SERVE A TERM
EQUAL TO HIS ORIGINAL SENTENCE, FROM ONE TO TWO YEARS. 

BUT THE FACT THAT TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT MAY DIFFER AS DO ORIGINAL
SENTENCES DOES NOT WARRANT CONDEMNATION OF THE STATUTE.  THE LAW HAS
LONG RECOGNIZED A RELATION BETWEEN PUNISHMENT FOR BREACH OF PRISON AND
THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE PRISONER IS HELD, AND IT HAS MORE SEVERELY
PUNISHED PRISON BREAKING BY ONE UNDERGOING IMPRISONMENT FOR GRIEVOUS
CRIME THAN IF DONE BY ONE HELD FOR A LESSER OFFENSE.  PRIOR TO THE
STATUTE DE FRANGENTIBUS PRISONAM OF 1 EDW.  II (1307) EVERY PRISON
BREAKING BY THE OFFENDER HIMSELF, WHATEVER THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE WAS
COMMITTED, WAS A FELONY, PUNISHABLE BY "JUDGMENT OF LIFE OR MEMBER." 
THIS SEVERITY WAS MITIGATED BY THE STATUTE.  IT FORBADE THAT JUDGMENT
UNLESS THE BREAKING WAS BY ONE COMMITTED FOR A CAPITAL OFFENSE.  FN1
BREACH AND ESCAPE BY ONE HELD FOR FELONY CONTINUED TO BE DEALT WITH AS
FELONY; BUT, IF COMMITTED BY ONE CONFINED FOR AN INFERIOR OFFENSE, WAS
PUNISHABLE AS A HIGH MISDEMEANOR BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.  FN2  IN
HARMONY WITH THAT IDEA A NUMBER OF STATES DEAL WITH THAT OFFENSE MORE
SEVERELY WHEN COMMITTED BY ONE IMPRISONED FOR A HEINOUS OFFENSE OR A
LONG TERM.  FN3  INDEED, THIS COURT HAS SUSTAINED CLASSIFICATION FOR
PUNISHMENT OF CRIMES BY CONVICTS UPON THE BASIS OF THE SENTENCES BEING
SERVED AT THE TIME.  IN FINLEY V. CALIFORNIA, 222 U.S. 28, IT HELD THAT
A STATUTE PRESCRIBING THE DEATH PENALTY FOR THE COMMISSION BY LIFE
PRISONERS OF ASSAULTS WITH INTENT TO KILL, LESSER PUNISHMENTS BEING
LAID UPON OTHER CONVICTS, WAS NOT REPUGNANT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE. 

THE PRINCIPLE IS SIMILAR TO THAT UNDER WHICH PUNISHMENT OF LIKE
CRIMES MAY BE MADE MORE SEVERE IF COMMITTED BY EX-CONVICTS. 
PERSISTENCE IN CRIME AND FAILURE OF EARLIER DISCIPLINE EFFECTIVELY TO
DETER OR REFORM JUSTIFY MORE DRASTIC TREATMENT.  GRAHAM V. WEST
VIRGINIA, 224 U.S. 616, 623.  MCDONALD V. MASSACHUSETTS, 180 U.S. 311. 
MOORE V. MISSOURI, 159 U.S. 673, 677.  PLUMBLY V. COMMONWEALTH, 2
METC.  413, 415.  PEOPLE V. SICKLES, 156 N.Y. 541, 547; 51 N.E. 288. 
SAVE AS LIMITED BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS SAFEGUARDING INDIVIDUAL
RIGHTS, A STATE MAY CHOOSE MEANS TO PROTECT ITSELF AND ITS PEOPLE
AGAINST CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF ITS LAWS.  THE COMPARATIVE GRAVITY OF
CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND WHETHER THEIR CONSEQUENCES ARE MORE OR LESS
INJURIOUS ARE MATTERS FOR ITS DETERMINATION.  COLLINS V. JOHNSTON, 237
U.S. 502, 510.  HOWARD V. FLEMING, 191 U.S. 126, 135-136.  IT MAY
INFLICT A DESERVED PENALTY MERELY TO VINDICATE THE LAW OR TO DETER OR
TO REFORM THE OFFENDER OR FOR ALL OF THESE PURPOSES.  FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF SENTENCES, JUSTICE GENERALLY REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF
MORE THAN THE PARTICULAR ACTS BY WHICH THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED AND THAT
THERE BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE TOGETHER
WITH THE CHARACTER AND PROPENSITIES OF THE OFFENDER.  HIS PAST MAY BE
TAKEN TO INDICATE HIS PRESENT PURPOSES AND TENDENCIES AND SIGNIFICANTLY
TO SUGGEST THE PERIOD OF RESTRAINT AND THE KIND OF DISCIPLINE THAT
OUGHT TO BE IMPOSED UPON HIM. 

PRESUMABLY, THE SENTENCE BEING SERVED AT THE TIME OF PRISON BREAKING
WAS DETERMINED UPON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE PERTINENT FACTS.  THE
JUDGMENT THEN PRONOUNCED IS GOOD EVIDENCE OF THE CONVICT'S NATURAL OR
ACQUIRED BENT OF MIND AND HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE LAW AND RIGHTS OF
OTHERS.  THE FACT THAT HE WOULD AND DID BREAK PRISON SHOWS HIM STILL
DISPOSED TO EVIL AND DETERMINED TO REMAIN HOSTILE TO SOCIETY.  AND THAT
IS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE PENNSYLVANIA
STATUTE FOR PUNISHMENT OF PRISON BREAKERS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR
ORIGINAL SENTENCES.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THAT NONE FROM HENCEFORTH THAT BREAKETH PRISON SHALL HAVE
JUDGMENT OF LIFE OR MEMBER FOR BREAKING OF PRISON ONLY, EXCEPT THE
CAUSE FOR WHICH HE WAS TAKEN AND IMPRISONED DID REQUIRE SUCH JUDGMENT,
IF HE HAD BEEN CONVICT THEREUPON ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND CUSTOM OF THE
REALM, ALBEIT IN TIMES PAST IT HATH BEEN USED OTHERWISE." 

FN2  SEE IV BLACKSTONE, P. 130; I HALE'S PLEAS OF THE CROWN, C. 54;
II HAWKINS' PLEAS OF THE CROWN, C. 18; II WHARTON CRIMINAL LAW (12TH
ED.)  SEC.  2019.  REX V. HASWELL, R. & R. 458.  COMMONWEALTH V.
MILLER, 2 ASHM.  (PA.)  61.  CF. REX V. FELL, 1 LD. RAYM.  424; KYLE V.
STATE, 10 ALA. 236; COMMONWEALTH V. HOMER, 5 METC.  555, 558. 

FN3  ARIZONA, REVISED CODE 1928, SEC. 4539.  CONNECTICUT, GEN. STATS.
(1930 REVISION) SECS. 6173, 6175.  IDAHO, CODE 1932, TITLE 17, SECS.
803, 804.  INDIANA, ANNOTATED STATUTES, 1933, SEC. 10-1807.  MAINE,
REVISED STATUTES, 1930, C. 133, SEC. 16; C. 152, SEC. 45.  MINNESOTA,
MASON'S STATUTES, 1927, SEC. 10007.  NEW YORK, PENAL LAW, SEC. 1694. 
NORTH DAKOTA, COMPILED LAWS 1913, SEC. 9351.  WASHINGTON, REMINGTON'S
REVISED STATUTES, SEC. 2342.  WISCONSIN, STATUTES 1935, SECS. 346.40,
346.45. 
..END :













MCEACHERN V. ROSE, 302 U.S. 56 


NO. 6.  ARGUED OCTOBER 14, 15, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 86
F.(2D) 231, REVERSED. 


1.  SECTIONS 607 AND 609(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 REQUIRE THE
GOVERNMENT TO RETURN THE AMOUNT OF A TAX PAID AFTER IT HAS BEEN BARRED
BY LIMITATION AND PRECLUDE IT FROM TAKING ANY BENEFIT FROM A TAXPAYER'S
OVERPAYMENT BY CREDITING IT AGAINST AN UNPAID TAX, THE COLLECTION OF
WHICH HAS BEEN BARRED BY LIMITATION.  P. 59. 

2.  THERE CAN BE NO CREDIT OF AN OVERPAYMENT AGAINST AN EARLIER
UNPAID TAX UNTIL THE FORMER HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED AND ALLOWED.  P. 61. 

3.  SECTIONS 322 AND 609 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 BOTH CONTEMPLATE
THAT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF AN OVERPAYMENT IN ONE YEAR AGAINST A TAX FOR
ANOTHER IS TO BE MARKED BY SOME DEFINITE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION; AND
UNDER SEC. 1104 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, THAT ACTION OCCURS WHEN THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FIRST SIGNS THE SCHEDULE OF
OVERASSESSMENTS.  P. 61. 

WHERE THIS OCCURS AFTER THE EARLIER TAX HAS BEEN BARRED, CREDIT
AGAINST IT OF THE OVERASSESSMENT IS PROHIBITED BY SEC. 609 OF THE ACT
OF 1928. 

4.  THE SIMILAR TREATMENT ACCORDED BY THE STATUTES TO CREDIT AGAINST
AN OVERDUE TAX AND TO PAYMENT OF IT; THE PROHIBITION OF CREDIT OF AN
OVERPAYMENT OF ONE YEAR AGAINST A BARRED DEFICIENCY FOR ANOTHER, AND
THE REQUIREMENT THAT PAYMENT OF A BARRED DEFICIENCY BE REFUNDED, ARE
CONTROLLING EVIDENCES OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE, BY THE ENACTMENT OF
SECS. 607 AND 609, TO REQUIRE REFUND TO THE TAXPAYER OF AN OVERPAYMENT,
EVEN THOUGH HE HAS FAILED TO PAY TAXES FOR OTHER PERIODS, WHENEVER
THEIR COLLECTION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION.  P. 62. 

5.  STONE V. WHITE, 301 U.S. 532, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 62. 

MCEACHERN, ADMINISTRATOR, V. ROSE, FORMER COLLECTOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 652, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A TAX
RECOVERY SECURED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE DISTRICT COURT, IN AN ACTION
AGAINST THE COLLECTOR. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER OVERPAYMENTS
OF INCOME TAXES FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 1929, 1930 AND 1931 ARE SO
RELATED TO A TAX ON INCOME WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUT WAS NOT ASSESSED
AGAINST THE TAXPAYER FOR THE YEAR 1928, AS TO PRECLUDE RECOVERY OF THE
OVERPAYMENTS ALTHOUGH COLLECTION OF THE 1928 TAX IS BARRED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

IN 1924 PETITIONER'S DECEDENT SOLD FIVE HUNDRED SHARES OF THE
CORPORATE STOCK OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY FOR THE SUM OF $300,000, AT A
NET PROFIT OF $295,000 OVER 1918 COST.  TEN PER CENT. OF THE PURCHASE
PRICE WAS PAID AT THE TIME OF SALE AND THE BALANCE WAS TO BE PAID IN
INSTALLMENTS, AGGREGATING ANNUALLY 10% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE, IN EACH
OF THE NINE SUCCEEDING YEARS.  AS PERMITTED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTES
(SEC. 202, REVENUE ACT OF 1924, C. 234, 43 STAT. 255; SECS. 202, 212,
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, C. 27, 44 STAT. 11, 23; SEC. 44, REVENUE ACT OF
1928, C. 852, 45 STAT. 805), DECEDENT ELECTED TO RETURN THE PROFIT FOR
INCOME TAXATION ON THE INSTALLMENT BASIS.  AFTER HIS DEATH IN 1928
PETITIONER, AS HIS ADMINISTRATOR, FILED INCOME TAX RETURNS IN BEHALF OF
HIS ESTATE FOR THE CALENDAR YEARS 1928 TO 1931 INCLUSIVE, SHOWING IN
EACH YEAR A SALE OF FIFTY SHARES OF THE STOCK OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY
AT A NET PROFIT OF $29,500.  THESE RETURNS WERE ERRONEOUS IN POINT OF
FACT AND OF LAW, AS THE PETITIONER SOLD NO SHARES OF THE STOCK IN ANY
OF THOSE YEARS, AND SINCE, BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44(D) OF
THE 1928 ACT,  FN1  THE CAPITAL GAIN INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF THE
UNPAID INSTALLMENTS AT THE TIME OF DECEDENT'S DEATH, WAS INCOME TAXABLE
TO DECEDENT FOR THE YEAR 1928 AND NOT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 

BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44(D), AS CONSTRUED BY TREASURY REGULATIONS
74, ART. 355, THE TRANSMISSION OF AN INSTALLMENT OBLIGATION AT THE
DEATH OF THE PAYEE CAPITALIZES THE UNPAID INSTALLMENTS OF THE CONTRACT
AND RESULTS IN TAXABLE GAIN TO THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, MEASURED BY
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE OBLIGATION AT THE
TIME OF HIS DEATH AND ITS UNRECOVERED COST.  BY SEC. 113 OF THE 1928
ACT THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING THE ANNUAL PROFIT UPON THE INSTALLMENTS
PAID AFTER THE DECEDENT'S DEATH IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
CONTRACT AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH.  THE UNPAID TAX FOR 1928, COMPUTED
AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 44(D), EXCEEDS THE SUM OF THE OVERPAYMENTS MADE IN
1929, 1930 AND 1931. 

ON THE TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT THE COLLECTOR CONTENDED THAT
PETITIONER WAS ESTOPPED TO DENY THAT THE SALES OF STOCK OCCURRED AND
PROFIT ACCRUED AS REPORTED IN HIS RETURNS FOR THE YEARS IN WHICH
REFUNDS WERE CLAIMED; AND THAT, IN ANY CASE, UPON EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES,
THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE OVERPAYMENTS FOR THOSE
YEARS, SINCE THEY WERE LESS IN AMOUNT THAN THE TAX WHICH SHOULD HAVE
BEEN ASSESSED AGAINST HIM FOR 1928.  SEE STONE V. WHITE, 301 U.S. 532. 
THE TRIAL COURT OVERRULED THESE CONTENTIONS AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
PETITIONER.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT REVERSED,
HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT IN EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE ENTITLED
TO RECOVER THE OVERPAYMENTS WHICH, BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE TO PAY THE
1928 TAX, HAD RESULTED IN NO UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT.  86
F.(2D) 231.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE REVENUE LAWS. 

THE COLLECTOR DOES NOT PRESS HERE THE CONTENTION THAT PETITIONER IS
ESTOPPED TO CHALLENGE THE CORRECTNESS OF HIS RETURNS FOR THE YEARS OF
OVERPAYMENT.  THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSESS THE APPROPRIATE
TAX IN 1928 IS NOT SHOWN TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS
MADE IN THE RETURNS FOR THE LATER YEARS, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR
PETITIONER TO SHOW UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE INCOME TAXABLE IN 1928 IN
ORDER TO SHOW THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF THE DIFFERENT INCOME DERIVED FROM
THE INSTALLMENT CONTRACT IN THE YEARS OF OVERPAYMENT.  FOR, UNDER SEC.
113, THE OVERPAYMENTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY SHOWING THAT IN EACH YEAR THE
AMOUNT OF INCOME FROM THE SALE OF THE STOCK AS REPORTED EXCEEDED THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INSTALLMENTS COLLECTED AND SO MUCH OF THE VALUE
OF THE INSTALLMENT CONTRACT AT THE DEATH AS IS ALLOCABLE TO THE TAXABLE
YEAR.  BUT RESPONDENT INSISTS, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD, THAT PETITIONER
IS NOT EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER OVERPAYMENTS OF TAXES UPON THE
PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE CONTRACT IN CERTAIN YEARS BECAUSE THE
OVERPAYMENTS ARE EXCEEDED BY A TAX WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE PAID ON THE
PROFITS REALIZED IN AN EARLIER YEAR. 

WE MAY ASSUME THAT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES WOULD
PRECLUDE RECOVERY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION REQUIRING A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  BUT CONGRESS HAS SET LIMITS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH
COURTS MIGHT OTHERWISE GO IN CURTAILING A RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS OF
TAXES BECAUSE OF THE TAXPAYER'S FAILURE TO PAY OTHER TAXES WHICH MIGHT
HAVE BEEN BUT WERE NOT ASSESSED AGAINST HIM.  SECTION 607 OF THE 1928
ACT DECLARES THAT ANY PAYMENT OF A TAX AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD
OF LIMITATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED AN OVERPAYMENT AND DIRECTS THAT IT BE
"CREDITED OR REFUNDED TO THE TAXPAYER IF CLAIM THEREFOR IS FILED WITHIN
THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR FILING SUCH CLAIM"; AND SEC. 609(A) OF THE
1928 ACT PROVIDES THAT "ANY CREDIT AGAINST A LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF
ANY TAXABLE YEAR SHALL BE VOID IF ANY PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF SUCH
LIABILITY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN OVERPAYMENT UNDER SECTION 607."  THESE
PROVISIONS PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING ANY BENEFIT FROM THE
TAXPAYER'S OVERPAYMENT BY CREDITING IT AGAINST AN UNPAID TAX WHOSE
COLLECTION HAS BEEN BARRED BY LIMITATION. 

IT IS PLAIN THAT THESE PROVISIONS FORBID CREDIT OF THE OVERPAYMENTS
OF TAXES FOR 1930 AND 1931, WHICH WERE MADE AFTER COLLECTION OF THE
1928 TAX WAS BARRED.  IF PETITIONER HAD THEN PAID THE 1928 TAX THERE
WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OVERPAYMENT OF THE TAX, REFUND OF WHICH IS MADE
MANDATORY BY SEC. 607.  CREDITS AGAINST THE TAX OF OVERPAYMENTS OF
TAXES ASSESSED FOR OTHER YEARS, IF MADE AT THAT TIME, COULD NOT STAND
ON ANY DIFFERENT FOOTING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 609.  THE RIGHT
OF THE GOVERNMENT TO CREDIT THE OVERPAYMENTS UPON THE EARLIER UNPAID
TAX COULD ARISE ONLY WHEN THE OVERPAYMENTS OCCURRED; BUT SINCE AT THAT
TIME COLLECTION OF THE 1928 TAX WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION, AND PAYMENT
OF IT WOULD BE AN OVERPAYMENT, CREDIT AGAINST IT OF THE 1930 AND 1931
OVERPAYMENTS WAS FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 609. 

DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS APPLY TO THE 1929 OVERPAYMENT.  WHEN IT WAS
MADE, COLLECTION OF THE 1928 TAX WAS NOT BARRED AND THE COMMISSIONER
WAS NOT THEN PREVENTED BY SEC. 609 FROM CREDITING THE OVERPAYMENT UPON
THE 1928 TAX, ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT DO SO.  SECTION 322 OF THE 1928 ACT,
FN2 CONTINUED WITHOUT MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE 1932 ACT, AUTHORIZES THE
CREDIT OF AN OVERPAYMENT OF ANY TAX AGAINST ANY INCOME TAX "THEN DUE"
FROM THE TAXPAYER, AND DIRECTS THAT ANY "BALANCE SHALL BE REFUNDED
IMMEDIATELY TO THE TAXPAYER."  WE NEED NOT INQUIRE WHETHER THE 1928
DEFICIENCY WAS "DUE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS SECTION BEFORE THE TAX
WAS ASSESSED, FOR IN ANY CASE THERE COULD BE NO CREDIT AGAINST THE TAX
OF THE 1929 OVERPAYMENT, BEFORE THE AMOUNT OF THE LATTER WAS
ASCERTAINED AND ALLOWED AND AT THAT TIME COLLECTION OF THE 1928 TAX WAS
BARRED AND ANY CREDIT OF THE OVERPAYMENT AGAINST IT WAS DECLARED TO BE
VOID BY SEC. 609. 

BOTH SEC. 322 AND SEC. 609 CONTEMPLATE THAT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF AN
OVERPAYMENT IN ONE YEAR AGAINST A TAX FOR ANOTHER IS TO BE MARKED BY
SOME DEFINITE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.  THIS COURT, UPON AN EXAMINATION
OF THE ESTABLISHED PRACTICE IN THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
CONCLUDED THAT THE TIME OF ALLOWANCE OF A REFUND AND THE TIME OF CREDIT
OF AN OVERPAYMENT AGAINST A TAX DUE, IS THE DATE OF APPROVAL BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE SCHEDULE OF REFUNDS AND CREDITS PREPARED BY THE
COLLECTOR, SHOWING THE AMOUNT DUE THE TAXPAYER, RATHER THAN THE EARLIER
DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE COLLECTOR, OF THE
SCHEDULE OF OVERASSESSMENTS.  SEE UNITED STATES V. SWIFT & CO., 282
U.S. 468; GIRARD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 163.  WE
ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT APPROVAL OF THE SCHEDULE OF REFUNDS AND CREDITS
FIXES THE DATE FROM WHICH INTEREST IS ALLOWED UPON ANY BALANCE REFUNDED
TO THE TAXPAYER, GIRARD TRUST CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND THE DATE
FROM WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS AGAINST THE TAXPAYER'S RIGHT
TO DEMAND REFUND OF A TAX PAID BY THE ALLOWANCE OF A CREDIT.  UNITED
STATES V. SWIFT & CO., SUPRA. 

AFTER THESE DECISIONS SEC. 1104 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932, C. 209,
47 STAT. 287, CHANGED THE DATE WHICH SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE TIME OF
ALLOWANCE OF THE CREDIT OR REFUND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT AND
EARLIER REVENUE LAWS.  IT PROVIDED THAT "WHERE THE COMMISSIONER HAS
(BEFORE OR AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT) SIGNED A SCHEDULE OF
OVERASSESSMENTS IN RESPECT OF ANY INTERNAL REVENUE TAX IMPOSED BY THIS
ACT OR ANY PRIOR REVENUE ACT, THE DATE ON WHICH HE FIRST SIGNED SUCH
SCHEDULE (IF AFTER MAY 28, 1928) SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS THE DATE OF
ALLOWANCE OF REFUND OR CREDIT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TAX." 

THE DATE OF THE CLAIM FOR REFUND AND THE DATE OF THE ALLOWANCE OF THE
CREDIT WHICH, ACCORDING TO SEC. 1104, WAS THAT OF THE APPROVAL BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF THE SCHEDULE OF OVERASSESSMENTS, CAME AFTER RECOVERY OF
THE 1928 TAX WAS BARRED.  IF PETITIONER HAD THEN PAID THE TAX HE COULD
HAVE RECOVERED IT BACK AS AN OVERPAYMENT UNDER SEC. 607; ACCORDINGLY,
CREDIT AGAINST THE TAX OF THE 1929 OVERPAYMENT IS PROHIBITED BY SEC.
609, AS ARE LIKE CREDITS FOR THE OVERPAYMENTS OF 1930 AND 1931. 

THE SIMILAR TREATMENT ACCORDED BY THE STATUTES TO CREDIT AGAINST AN
OVERDUE TAX, AND TO PAYMENT OF IT; THE PROHIBITION OF CREDIT OF AN
OVERPAYMENT OF ONE YEAR AGAINST A BARRED DEFICIENCY FOR ANOTHER; AND
THE REQUIREMENT THAT PAYMENT OF A BARRED DEFICIENCY SHALL BE REFUNDED,
ARE CONTROLLING EVIDENCES OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURPOSE BY THE ENACTMENT
OF SECS. 607 AND 609 TO REQUIRE REFUND TO THE TAXPAYER OF AN
OVERPAYMENT, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS FAILED TO PAY TAXES FOR OTHER PERIODS,
WHENEVER THEIR COLLECTION IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 

STONE V. WHITE, SUPRA. THERE TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEES HAD PAID FROM INCOME
A TAX UPON IT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE BENEFICIARY, AND IT
WAS HELD THAT THEY WERE NOT EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE TAX AFTER
THE STATUTE HAD BARRED COLLECTION FROM THE BENEFICIARY.  THE ASSESSMENT
OF A DEFICIENCY AGAINST THE TRUSTEES AND THE PAYMENT OF IT BY THEM WERE
NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION.  HENCE SEC. 607 DID NOT COMPEL A RECOVERY. 
DID SEC. 322, REGARDLESS OF ANY PERIOD OF LIMITATION, PERMIT HIM TO
CREDIT THE AMOUNT WHICH THE ONE TAXPAYER HAD PAID AGAINST THE TAX WHICH
ANOTHER SHOULD HAVE PAID.  EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS NOT WITHIN THE
REACH OF THE STATUTES DENIED A RECOVERY.  IT WAS ENOUGH, IN THE
PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, THAT THE TRUSTEES HAD SUFFERED NO BURDEN
AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT UNJUSTLY ENRICHED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  44.... 

"(D)  GAIN OR LOSS UPON DISPOSITION OF INSTALLMENT OBLIGATIONS.  - IF
AN INSTALLMENT OBLIGATION IS  ...  DISTRIBUTED, TRANSMITTED, SOLD, OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF, GAIN OR LOSS SHALL RESULT TO THE EXTENT OF THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASIS OF THE OBLIGATION AND  ...  THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE OF THE OBLIGATION AT THE TIME OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION,
TRANSMISSION, OR DISPOSITION.  THE BASIS OF THE OBLIGATION SHALL BE THE
EXCESS OF THE FACE VALUE OF THE OBLIGATION OVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE
INCOME WHICH WOULD BE RETURNABLE WERE THE OBLIGATION SATISFIED IN
FULL." 

FN2  SEC. 322. 

"(A)  AUTHORIZATION.  - WHERE THERE HAS BEEN AN OVERPAYMENT OF ANY
TAX IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE, THE AMOUNT OF SUCH OVERPAYMENT SHALL BE
CREDITED AGAINST ANY INCOME, WAR-PROFITS, OR EXCESS-PROFITS TAX OR
INSTALLMENT THEREOF THEN DUE FROM THE TAXPAYER, AND ANY BALANCE SHALL
BE REFUNDED IMMEDIATELY TO THE TAXPAYER...." 
..END :







PALMER V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 63 


NO. 19.  ARGUED OCTOBER 19, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 88
F.(2D) 559, REVERSED. 


1.  BY SECS. 111, 112, 113 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, PROFITS DERIVED
FROM THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM EXCHANGES OF
PROPERTY, ARE ASCERTAINED AND TAXED AS OF THE DATE OF ITS SALE OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE PURCHASER.  PROFIT, IF ANY, ACCRUES TO HIM ONLY UPON
SALE OR DISPOSITION, AND THE TAXABLE INCOME IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE AMOUNT THUS REALIZED AND ITS COST, LESS ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS.  P.
68. 

2.  A SALE BY A CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS OF PART OF ITS
PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT RESULT IN ANY DIMINUTION OF ITS NET WORTH, CAN
NOT RESULT IN A DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS AND IS NOT A "DIVIDEND" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 115 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  P. 69. 

THE BARE FACT THAT A TRANSACTION, ON ITS FACE A SALE, HAS RESULTED IN
A DISTRIBUTION OF SOME OF THE CORPORATE ASSETS TO STOCKHOLDERS, GIVES
RISE TO NO INFERENCE THAT THE DISTRIBUTION WAS OF PROPERTY WORTH MORE
THAN THE PRICE RECEIVED AND WAS THEREFORE, TO THAT EXTENT, A DIVIDEND
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 115. 

3.  MERE ISSUE BY A CORPORATION TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS OF "RIGHTS" TO
SUBSCRIBE FOR STOCK WHICH IT OWNS IN ANOTHER CORPORATION, AND THEIR
RECEIPT BY SHAREHOLDERS, IS NOT A DIVIDEND AS DEFINED IN SEC. 115.  P.
71. 

4.  WHERE A CORPORATION, THROUGH RESOLUTION OF ITS BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, OFFERS TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS RIGHTS TO SUBSCRIBE, WITHIN A
TIME LIMITED, FOR SHARES WHICH IT OWNS IN ANOTHER COMPANY, INTENDING A
BONA FIDE SALE AND FIXING THE PRICE AT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE SHARES AT
THE TIME OF THE OFFER, THE FACT THAT, BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE OFFER AND
THE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION BY A SHAREHOLDER, THE RIGHTS WERE BOUGHT AND
SOLD AT SUBSTANTIAL PRICES ON THE EXCHANGE, OR THAT THE STOCK ITSELF
SOLD AT PRICES SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE STIPULATED PURCHASE PRICE, DID
NOT CONVERT THE SALE, PRO TANTO, INTO A DIVIDEND.  P. 71. 

5.  FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS BASED ON PERMISSIBLE
INFERENCES FROM THE RECORD ARE NOT TO BE SET ASIDE BY A COURT EVEN IF
UPON EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE IT MIGHT DRAW A DIFFERENT INFERENCE. 
P. 70. 

PALMER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 59, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V.
PALMER, ALSO ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT. 

REVIEW BY CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 676, 680, OF A JUDGMENT REVERSING THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND SUSTAINING A DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX
ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER A PURPORTED SALE BY A
CORPORATION TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS, OF SHARES OF STOCK ISSUED BY AND
ACQUIRED FROM ANOTHER CORPORATION, THE SALE BEING EFFECTED BY MEANS OF
AN ISSUE TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF RIGHTS TO PURCHASE THE STOCK AT A NAMED
PRICE, IS TO BE TREATED AS A DISTRIBUTION OF CORPORATE EARNINGS TAXABLE
AS A DIVIDEND TO THE STOCKHOLDERS WHEN RECEIVED, WITHIN THE REACH OF
SECS. 22 AND 115 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, 45 STAT. 791. 

IN JANUARY, 1929, THE AMERICAN SUPERPOWER COMPANY, OF WHICH
PETITIONER WAS A STOCKHOLDER, ACQUIRED THROUGH CONSOLIDATION OF PUBLIC
UTILITY CORPORATIONS, IN ONE OF WHICH IT IN TURN WAS A STOCKHOLDER, A
LARGE AMOUNT OF THE SECURITIES OF THE UNITED CORPORATION, THE LATTER
BEING RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE FOR STOCK OF THE CONSOLIDATED CORPORATIONS
OWNED BY SUPERPOWER.  THE SECURITIES RECEIVED INCLUDED SHARES OF THE
PREFERENCE STOCK OF UNITED, 2,210,583 SHARES OF ITS COMMON STOCK, AND
1,000,000 RIGHTS TO SUBSCRIBE FOR UNITED COMMON STOCK AT ANY TIME FOR
$27.50 A SHARE.  UNITED WAS INCORPORATED JANUARY 7, 1929.  THE
CONSOLIDATION WAS EFFECTED JANUARY 12TH, WHEN SUPERPOWER BECAME
ENTITLED TO ITS ALLOTMENT OF THE SECURITIES.  ON JANUARY 23, 1929, THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SUPERPOWER, PURSUANT TO A PLAN TO STRENGTHEN ITS
CASH POSITION AND TO CREATE A WIDE MARKET FOR THE STOCK OF UNITED,
ADOPTED A RESOLUTION OFFERING TO ITS COMMON STOCKHOLDERS OF RECORD
JANUARY 26, 1929, THE PRIVILEGE OF PURCHASING, AT $25 A SHARE, ONE-HALF
SHARE OF UNITED FOR EACH SHARE OF THEIR COMMON STOCK IN SUPERPOWER. 
THE PRIVILEGE WAS EVIDENCED BY NEGOTIABLE CERTIFICATES DISTRIBUTED TO
STOCKHOLDERS ABOUT JANUARY 31.  BY THEIR TERMS THEY WERE TO BECOME VOID
UNLESS THE PRIVILEGE WAS EXERCISED BY FEBRUARY 15, 1929.  ON THAT DATE
PETITIONER EXERCISED THE PRIVILEGE BY PURCHASING HIS ALLOTMENT OF 3,198
SHARES OF UNITED AT $25 A SHARE.  IN ITS BOOKS, RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS,
SUPERPOWER TREATED THE TRANSACTION AS A SALE OF THE UNITED STOCK,
RESULTING IN NO CHANGE IN ITS NET ASSETS OR EARNINGS. 

THE PRICES RECEIVED BY SUPERPOWER FOR SHARES DISTRIBUTED TO ITS
STOCKHOLDERS REPRESENTED A SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT TO IT OVER COST OF THE
SECURITIES WHICH IT HAD EXCHANGED FOR THEM.  IT REPORTED THE PROFIT IN
ITS 1929 INCOME TAX RETURN AND PAID THE TAX ON IT FOR THAT YEAR.  IN
COMPUTING THE TAX THE COMMISSIONER, IN ALLOCATING THE COST OF THE THREE
CLASSES OF SECURITIES RECEIVED FROM UNITED BY SUPERPOWER, FOUND IT
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF EACH CLASS OF SECURITY WHEN
RECEIVED.  HE DID THIS BY FINDING THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE SECURITIES AND
ALLOCATING TO THE COMMON STOCK A VALUE OF $25 A SHARE.  ON OR ABOUT
JANUARY 9TH, BANKERS WHO WERE ACTIVE IN PROMOTING THE CONSOLIDATION
PURCHASED FROM UNITED 400,000 SHARES OF ITS STOCK AT $22.50 PER SHARE. 
SHORTLY AFTER THE ADOPTION BY SUPERPOWER, ON JANUARY 23RD, OF THE PLAN
FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE UNITED STOCK, AN ACTIVE MARKET DEVELOPED ON THE
NEW YORK CURB EXCHANGE FOR THE SALE OF SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS.  ON JANUARY
25TH, 11,000 RIGHTS WERE SOLD AT PRICES RANGING FROM 11 5/8 TO 12 3/8,
MAKING THE COST PER SHARE TO PURCHASERS OF THE RIGHTS, UPON THEIR
EXERCISE, ABOUT $50.  ON JANUARY 28TH, 44,000 OF THEM WERE DEALT IN ON
THE EXCHANGE AT PRICES RANGING FROM 12 5/8 TO 17 1/2, WITH A
CORRESPONDING COST OF THE SHARES OF FROM $50 TO $60.  ON JANUARY 29TH,
30TH AND 31ST, SUPERPOWER SOLD ABOUT 9,200 SHARES OF ITS UNITED STOCK
ON THE OPEN MARKET AT FROM $50 TO $63 PER SHARE. 

ON MAY 1, 1929, A LIKE PRIVILEGE TO PURCHASE ONE-FOURTH OF A SHARE OF
STOCK OF UNITED AT $30 A SHARE FOR EACH SHARE OF SUPERPOWER WAS
EXTENDED TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE LATTER, AS OF MAY 8, 1929, WHICH
PETITIONER SIMILARLY EXERCISED ON MAY 24, 1929.  ON JUNE 5, 1929, A
LIKE PRIVILEGE WAS GIVEN TO THE COMMON STOCKHOLDERS OF SUPERPOWER AS OF
JUNE 18, 1929, TO PURCHASE STOCK OF COMMONWEALTH AND SOUTHERN
CORPORATION AT $15 A SHARE, WHICH PETITIONER EXERCISED ON JULY 2,
1929. 

PETITIONER DID NOT, IN 1929, SELL OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF ANY OF THE
SHARES FOR WHICH HE SUBSCRIBED, OR REPORT THEIR RECEIPT IN HIS INCOME
TAX RETURNS FOR THAT YEAR.  THE COMMISSIONER RULED THAT THE RIGHTS TO
SUBSCRIBE WERE DIVIDENDS, AND ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY AGAINST PETITIONER
BASED ON THEIR MARKET VALUE ON THE RESPECTIVE DATES WHEN THE
STOCKHOLDERS WERE FIRST ENTITLED TO EXERCISE THEM.  THE CAUSE WAS HEARD
BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UPON A STIPULATION OF FACTS WHICH IT
ADOPTED AS A FINDING AND WHICH SPECIFIED THE FACTS ALREADY DETAILED. 
THE BOARD HELD THAT THE DISTRIBUTIONS WERE SALES OF THE SHARES BY
SUPERPOWER TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS, NOT DIVIDENDS, AND REDUCED THE
DEFICIENCY ACCORDINGLY.  IN REACHING THIS DECISION THE BOARD, UPON
CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE ISSUE OF
THE RIGHTS BY SUPERPOWER TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS, FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO
INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE ANY OF ITS EARNINGS TO STOCKHOLDERS AND THAT
THE TRANSACTION WAS WHAT IT PURPORTED TO BE ON ITS FACE - A SALE TO
STOCKHOLDERS OF PART OF THE CORPORATE ASSETS.  AS A SUPPORTING FACT IT
FOUND THAT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK OF UNITED DURING JANUARY,
1929, WAS $25 A SHARE.  IT CONCLUDED THAT THE FACTS AS STIPULATED AND
AS FOUND BY IT DID NOT SHOW FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE UNITED STOCK IN
MAY, 1929, OR OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND SOUTHERN STOCK IN JUNE OR JULY OF
THAT YEAR.  UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS
NO REASON TO TREAT THE TRANSACTION ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN AS THE PARTIES
HAD TREATED IT, AS A SALE OF A PART OF THE ASSETS OF SUPERPOWER FROM
WHICH NO TAXABLE GAIN WOULD RESULT BEFORE THE TAXPAYER SOLD OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF THE SHARES. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT REVERSED, HOLDING THAT THE
DISTRIBUTIONS WERE TAXABLE DIVIDENDS MEASURED BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE VALUE OF THE SEVERAL ALLOTMENTS OF SHARES ON THE RESPECTIVE DATES
WHEN THE RIGHTS WERE EXERCISED AND THE PRICES PAID FOR THEM.  88 F.(2D)
559.  IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION THE COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THE BOARD
HAD FOUND THE JANUARY, 1929, VALUE OF THE STOCK OF UNITED TO BE $25 A
SHARE.  BUT IT THOUGHT THAT THE BOARD IN MAKING THE FINDING HAD
DISREGARDED THE SUBSTANTIAL PRICES AT WHICH THE RIGHTS WERE SOLD
PENDING THEIR EXERCISE, DENYING TO THEM PERSUASIVE WEIGHT BECAUSE IT
HAD MISTAKENLY ASSUMED THAT THE PURPORTED SALE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS
A DIVIDEND UNLESS THERE WAS INTENTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE CORPORATE
EARNINGS.  THE COURT HELD THAT WHAT WAS DONE, AND NOT WHAT WAS
INTENDED, WAS THE DECISIVE FACTOR, AND AS THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE THAT THE STOCK, WHEN DISTRIBUTED, WAS WORTH MORE THAN THE
PRICE RECEIVED, THERE WAS A DISTRIBUTION OF CORPORATE ASSETS FROM
EARNINGS, TAXABLE TO STOCKHOLDERS AS A DIVIDEND.  IT ACCORDINGLY
REMANDED THE CAUSE TO ENABLE THE BOARD TO ASCERTAIN THE VALUE OF THE
DISTRIBUTED SHARES ON THE DATES WHEN THE RIGHTS WERE EXERCISED
(FEBRUARY 15, 1929, MAY 24, 1929, JULY 2, 1929). 

BOTH THE TAXPAYER AND THE COMMISSIONER PETITIONED FOR CERTIORARI, THE
ONE CHALLENGING THE RULING THAT THE DISTRIBUTIONS WERE DIVIDENDS, AND
THE OTHER ASSIGNING AS ERROR THE FAILURE TO HOLD THAT THE CRITICAL
DATES FOR FIXING THE VALUE OF THE DIVIDENDS FOR TAXATION WERE EITHER
THOSE WHEN THE RIGHTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE STOCKHOLDERS OR WHEN THE
STOCKHOLDERS FIRST BECAME ENTITLED TO EXERCISE THEM, RATHER THAN THE
TIMES WHEN THEY WERE ACTUALLY EXERCISED.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI,
BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
REVENUE LAWS, AND THE DOUBTS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED AS TO THEIR
APPROPRIATE ANSWERS BY THE VARYING OPINIONS OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS.  COMPARE THE OPINIONS BELOW, RAMAPO, INC. V. COMMISSIONER, 84
F.(2D) 986(C.C.A.2D) AND COMMISSIONER V. MAYER, 86 F.(2D)
593(C.C.A.7TH) WITH HELVERING V. BARTLETT, 71 F.(2D) 598(C.C.A.4TH) AND
COMMISSIONER V. CUMMINGS, 77 F.(2D) 670(C.C.A.5TH). 

BY SECS. 111, 112 AND 113 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, PROFITS DERIVED
FROM THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM EXCHANGES OF
PROPERTY, ARE ASCERTAINED AND TAXED AS OF THE DATE OF ITS SALE OR OTHER
DISPOSITION BY THE PURCHASER.  PROFIT, IF ANY, ACCRUES TO HIM ONLY UPON
SALE OR DISPOSITION, AND THE TAXABLE INCOME IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE AMOUNT THUS REALIZED AND ITS COST, LESS ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS.  IT
FOLLOWS THAT ONE DOES NOT SUBJECT HIMSELF TO INCOME TAX BY THE MERE
PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, EVEN IF AT LESS THAN ITS TRUE VALUE, AND THAT
TAXABLE GAIN DOES NOT ACCRUE TO HIM BEFORE HE SELLS OR OTHERWISE
DISPOSES OF IT.  SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING THIS BASIS FOR THE
TAXATION OF GAINS DERIVED FROM PURCHASED PROPERTY WERE INCLUDED IN THE
1916 AND EACH SUBSEQUENT REVENUE ACT AND ACCOMPANYING REGULATIONS. 

INCOME," WHICH IS THE BASIS OF DETERMINING TAXABLE NET INCOME, AND SEC.
115 DEFINES "DIVIDEND" AS "ANY DISTRIBUTION MADE BY A CORPORATION TO
ITS SHAREHOLDERS, WHETHER IN MONEY OR IN OTHER PROPERTY, OUT OF ITS
EARNINGS OR PROFITS."  WHILE A SALE OF CORPORATE ASSETS TO STOCKHOLDERS
IS, IN A LITERAL SENSE, A DISTRIBUTION OF ITS PROPERTY, SUCH A
TRANSACTION DOES NOT NECESSARILY FALL WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION
OF A DIVIDEND.  FOR A SALE TO STOCKHOLDERS MAY NOT RESULT IN ANY
DIMINUTION OF ITS NET WORTH AND IN THAT CASE CANNOT RESULT IN ANY
DISTRIBUTION OF ITS PROFITS. 

ON THE OTHER HAND SUCH A SALE, IF FOR SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD, MAY BE AS EFFECTIVE A MEANS OF DISTRIBUTING
PROFITS AMONG STOCKHOLDERS AS THE FORMAL DECLARATION OF A DIVIDEND. 
THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE CORPORATE ACTION MAY BE IN SUBSTANCE
THE KIND OF A DISTRIBUTION TO STOCKHOLDERS WHICH IT IS THE PURPOSE OF
SEC. 115 TO TAX AS PRESENT INCOME TO STOCKHOLDERS, AND SUCH A
TRANSACTION MAY APPROPRIATELY BE DEEMED IN EFFECT THE DECLARATION OF A
DIVIDEND, TAXABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE VALUE OF THE DISTRIBUTED
PROPERTY EXCEEDS THE STIPULATED PRICE.  BUT THE BARE FACT THAT A
TRANSACTION, ON ITS FACE A SALE, HAS RESULTED IN A DISTRIBUTION OF SOME
OF THE CORPORATE ASSETS TO STOCKHOLDERS, GIVES RISE TO NO INFERENCE
THAT THE DISTRIBUTION IS A DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 115.  TO
TRANSFER IT FROM THE ONE CATEGORY TO THE OTHER, IT IS AT LEAST
NECESSARY TO MAKE SOME SHOWING THAT THE TRANSACTION IS IN PURPOSE OR
EFFECT USED AS AN IMPLEMENT FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF CORPORATE EARNINGS
TO STOCKHOLDERS. 

THE FACTS STIPULATED AND THE FINDING OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
UNITED STOCK AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE FIRST PLAN FOR ITS
DISTRIBUTION ABUNDANTLY SUSTAIN THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT THE
TRANSACTION - IN FORM A SALE - WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE THE MEANS OF A
DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS TO STOCKHOLDERS.  THERE MAY BE CASES IN WHICH
MARKET QUOTATIONS, AFTER THE SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED, ARE
PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE OF VALUE AS OF THE TIME WHEN THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED,
AND HENCE OF ITS PURPOSE AND PROBABLE EFFECT.  BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT
THE BOARD HERE, IN FINDING THE VALUE OF THE SHARES OF THE NEWLY
ORGANIZED UNITED AS OF THE TIME OF ADOPTION OF THE FIRST PLAN, DID NOT
CONSIDER THE MARKET PRICES OF THE RIGHTS.  THE FINDINGS ARE INFERENCES
WHICH THE BOARD WAS FREE TO DRAW FROM ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  SUCH A DETERMINATION OF FACT IS NOT TO BE SET
ASIDE BY A COURT EVEN IF UPON EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE IT MIGHT DRAW
A DIFFERENT INFERENCE.  HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131, 132;
ELMHURST CEMETERY CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 37.  WE ACCEPT THE
FINDINGS AS AT LEAST ESTABLISHING THAT THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED BY
SUPERPOWER IN GOOD FAITH AS A MEANS OF EFFECTING A SALE OF ITS ASSETS
TO STOCKHOLDERS AT FAIR MARKET VALUE.  HENCE THE ISSUE FOR DECISION, IN
SO FAR AS THE FIRST ALLOTMENT OF STOCK IS CONCERNED, IS NARROWED TO THE
QUESTION OF LAW WHETHER THE COMMITMENT OF SUPERPOWER, BY FORMAL ACTION
OF ITS BOARD, TO THE SALE OF UNITED STOCK AT ITS THEN FAIR MARKET VALUE
AND THE ENSUING DISTRIBUTION TO STOCKHOLDERS IS TAKEN OUT OF THE
CATEGORY OF SALES AND PLACED IN THAT OF DIVIDENDS BY THE FACT THAT,
PENDING EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT, RIGHTS TO SUBSCRIBE SOLD ON THE
EXCHANGE AT SUBSTANTIAL PRICES, OR THAT THE STOCK ITSELF SOLD AT PRICES
SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE STIPULATED PURCHASE PRICE. 

FIRST.  THE MERE ISSUE OF RIGHTS TO SUBSCRIBE AND THEIR RECEIPT BY
STOCKHOLDERS, IS NOT A DIVIDEND.  NO DISTRIBUTION OF CORPORATE ASSETS
OR DIMINUTION OF THE NET WORTH OF THE CORPORATION RESULTS IN ANY
PRACTICAL SENSE.  EVEN THOUGH THE RIGHTS HAVE A MARKET OR EXCHANGE
VALUE, THEY ARE NOT DIVIDENDS WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION.  CF.
MILES V. SAFE DEPOSIT & T. CO., 259 U.S. 247; HELVERING V. SAN JOAQUIN
CO., 297 U.S. 496; HELVERING V. BARTLETT, SUPRA.  THEY ARE AT MOST
OPTIONS OR CONTINUING OFFERS, POTENTIAL SOURCES OF INCOME TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS THROUGH SALE OR THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS.  TAXABLE
INCOME MIGHT RESULT FROM THEIR SALE, BUT DISTRIBUTION OF THE CORPORATE
PROPERTY COULD TAKE PLACE ONLY ON THEIR EXERCISE.  THE QUESTION, THEN,
IS WHETHER THE DISTRIBUTION WHICH RESULTS FROM THE EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHTS MUST BE REGARDED AS A DIVIDEND IF THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF EXERCISE IS MORE THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE. 
SECOND.  WE THINK THAT A DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS BY A CORPORATION TO ITS
STOCKHOLDERS BY MEANS OF A SALE, TO WHICH IT IS COMMITTED BY
APPROPRIATE CORPORATE ACTION AT A TIME WHEN THEIR SALE PRICE REPRESENTS
THEIR REASONABLE VALUE, IS NOT CONVERTED INTO A DIVIDEND BY THE MERE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT LATER, AT THE TIME OF THEIR DELIVERY TO STOCKHOLDERS,
THEY HAVE A HIGHER VALUE.  THE MEANING OF SEC. 115 MUST BE SOUGHT IN
THE LIGHT OF THE SITUATIONS TO WHICH IT MUST BE APPLIED.  IT DOES NOT
PURPORT TO WITHDRAW CORPORATIONS AND THEIR STOCKHOLDERS WHOLLY FROM THE
OPERATION OF SECS. 111, 112 AND 113, TAXING THE PROFITS OF PURCHASERS. 
IT CANNOT BE TAKEN TO WITHHOLD FROM CORPORATIONS THE POWER AT THEIR OWN
ELECTION TO EFFECT, BY WORKABLE MEANS, SALES OF THEIR ASSETS TO
STOCKHOLDERS AT FAIR VALUE, SUBJECT TO THAT INCIDENCE OF TAXING
STATUTES WHICH USUALLY ATTENDS SALES.  THE DISTRIBUTION CONTEMPLATED
AND DEFINED BY IT AS A DIVIDEND IS ONE TO BE EFFECTED BY CORPORATE
ACTION.  HENCE, IN DETERMINING WHETHER A GIVEN TRANSACTION IS "SALE" OR
"DIVIDEND," THE CORPORATE ACTION WHICH RESULTS IN ONE OR THE OTHER MUST
BE SCRUTINIZED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE TIME WHEN THE
ACTION IS TAKEN, AND OF THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IN PRACTICE IT MUST
BE TAKEN. 

THE ONLY FEASIBLE METHOD BY WHICH A CORPORATION OF LARGE MEMBERSHIP
CAN EFFECT A SALE OF ITS ASSETS TO STOCKHOLDERS IS BY TENDERING TO THEM
RIGHTS TO SUBSCRIBE, A METHOD WHOSE INDISPENSABLE FIRST STEP IS THE
ADOPTION, BY APPROPRIATE CORPORATE ACTION, OF THE TERMS OF THE OFFER. 
BETWEEN THE DATES OF THE FIRST STEP AND OF SUBSCRIPTION A SUBSTANTIAL
PERIOD OF TIME MUST ELAPSE, DURING WHICH THE RIGHTS MAY, AND OFTEN DO,
BECOME THE SUBJECT OF VIOLENT MARKET FLUCTUATIONS.  ANY VENDOR WHO
OFFERS PROPERTY FOR SALE AT A NAMED PRICE SIMILARLY CARRIES THE BURDEN
OF RISK THAT THE PROPERTY MAY INCREASE IN VALUE BETWEEN OFFER AND
ACCEPTANCE.  IF THE SALE IS BY EXECUTORY CONTRACT HE ALSO CARRIES THE
RISK BETWEEN PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE.  IT IS AN INSEPARABLE INCIDENT OF
EVERY SALE EXCEPT THOSE IN WHICH CONDITIONS ADMIT OF PAYMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ITS TENDER FOR SALE, A PROCEDURE WHICH MAY
NOT BE AVAILABLE TO A CORPORATION SEEKING TO SELL ITS PROPERTY TO
STOCKHOLDERS. 

IT IS A SOLECISM TO SPEAK OF A CORPORATION AS DISTRIBUTING ITS
PROFITS FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT, AFTER IT HAS UNAVOIDABLY ASSUMED THAT
RISK IN ORDER TO EFFECT A SALE OF ITS PROPERTY TO STOCKHOLDERS AT A
FAIR PRICE, THE PROPERTY INCREASES IN VALUE.  PRICE, WHICH IN THE
PRESENT CASE IS DECISIVE OF THE ISSUE, MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT
OF THE SITUATION EXISTING WHEN PRICE IS FIXED.  IF THE OPTION PRICE IS
FAIR WHEN FIXED THE TRANSACTION IS A TENDER FOR A SALE AND NOT FOR A
DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS - A DIVIDEND AS DEFINED BY SEC. 115.  IF,
PENDING EXECUTION OF THE PLAN, THERE WERE NO CHANGE IN VALUE OF THE
STOCK THE TRANSACTION WOULD THROUGHOUT CONCEDEDLY RETAIN ITS CHARACTER
AS A SALE.  ITS CHARACTER IS NOT ALTERED BY THE FLUCTUATIONS OF A
SPECULATIVE MARKET, AFTER THE CORPORATE ACTION WHICH DEFINES THE
CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN. 

WHEN THE CORPORATION HAS COMMITTED ITSELF TO A SALE OF ITS ASSETS TO
STOCKHOLDERS AT PRESENT MARKET VALUE THE EFFECT ON ITS BALANCE SHEET IS
THE SAME AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER VENDORS WHO IN VARIOUS WAYS ASSUME THE
RISK OF RISING PRICES PENDING THE CONSUMMATION OF THE SALE.  IN EVERY
CASE PURCHASERS MAY, AS A RESULT OF MARKET CHANGE, ACQUIRE PROPERTY AT
LESS THAN ITS VALUE AT THE DATE OF ACQUISITION.  BUT IN THE CASE OF THE
CORPORATION IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DISTRIBUTION OF
ITS PROFITS.  IT CAN HARDLY BE SAID THAT PROFITS ACCRUE TO A
CORPORATION FROM A FORTUITOUS GAIN IN MARKET VALUE, THE BENEFITS OF
WHICH IT HAS RELINQUISHED BEFORE THE GAIN OCCURS.  DISTRIBUTION OF
PROFITS IS NEITHER THE PURPOSE NOR EFFECT OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE
CORPORATION AND THERE IS NO ADEQUATE BASIS FOR SAYING THAT THE
TRANSACTION TO WHICH THE DIRECTORS COMMITTED THEIR CORPORATION WAS THE
DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS, AND HENCE A DIVIDEND RATHER THAN A FAIRLY
CONDUCTED SALE OF CORPORATE PROPERTY WITH ALL THE INCIDENTS WHICH
USUALLY ATTEND A SALE WHEN THE PRICE IS FIXED IN ADVANCE OF
PERFORMANCE.  IT IS DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT CASE, SO FAR AS THE FIRST
ALLOTMENT OF UNITED SHARES IS CONCERNED, THAT DISTRIBUTION OF CORPORATE
ASSETS, EFFECTED BY THE SALE, WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A MEANS OF
DISTRIBUTING EARNINGS, AND THAT THE PRICE WHEN FIXED REPRESENTED THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY TO BE DISTRIBUTED. 

THERE HAS BEEN NO FINDING, EITHER BY THE COMMISSIONER OR THE BOARD,
OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE UNITED STOCK IN MAY OR OF THE
COMMONWEALTH & SOUTHERN IN JUNE, THE MONTHS WHEN THE PLANS FOR THE
SECOND AND THIRD ALLOTMENTS OF THE SHARES WERE ADOPTED.  THE FINDING OF
THE BOARD THAT THE FACTS AS STIPULATED WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARES ON THOSE DATES FURNISH SUFFICIENT
SUPPORT FOR ITS CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR TREATING THE
TRANSACTIONS, WHICH WERE ON THEIR FACE SALES, AS DISTRIBUTIONS OF
EARNINGS AND HENCE DIVIDENDS AS DEFINED BY SEC. 115. 

THE WRIT IN NO. 59 IS DISMISSED AND IN NO. 19 THE JUDGMENT IS
REVERSED. 
..END :









DODGE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 302 U.S. 74 


NO. 5.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 1937.  REARGUED OCTOBER 14, 1937.  - DECIDED
NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 364 ILL. 547 - 5 N.E.(2D) 84, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ACT MERELY FIXING THE TERMS OR THE TENURES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
IS PRESUMPTIVELY NOT INTENDED TO CREATE A VESTED RIGHT IN THE
INCUMBENT, BUT MERELY TO DECLARE A POLICY TO BE PURSUED UNTIL THE
LEGISLATURE SHALL ORDAIN OTHERWISE.  P. 78. 

2. HE WHO ASSERTS THE CREATION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE IN SUCH A
CASE HAS THE BURDEN OF OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION.  P. 79. 

3.  WHILE THIS COURT, IN APPLYING THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, IS REQUIRED TO REACH AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO THE
EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF THE ALLEGED CONTRACT, GREAT WEIGHT IS GIVEN TO
THE VIEWS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  P. 79. 

4.  DECISION OF SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS CONSTRUING "AN ACT TO
PROVIDE FOR COMPULSORY AND VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS,  ...  AND
THE PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT ANNUITIES," IN PARI MATERIA WITH EARLIER LAWS
AND DECISIONS, AS NOT INTENDING TO CREATE CONTRACTS OR VESTED RIGHTS,
HELD A REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION TO BE ACCEPTED BY THIS COURT WHEN
QUESTIONED UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 79. 

5.  INTERCHANGEABILITY OF THE TERMS "PENSIONS," "BENEFITS," AND
"ANNUITIES," IN ACTS OF ILLINOIS DEALING WITH RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS. 
P. 81. 

DODGE ET AL. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CHICAGO ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF THE BILL IN A SUIT TO
PREVENT THE ENFORCEMENT OF A LAW ALLEGED TO IMPAIR THE CONTRACT RIGHTS
OF SCHOOL TEACHERS IN RESPECT OF RETIREMENT PRIVILEGES AND PAY. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANTS CHALLENGE AN ACT OF ILLINOIS WHICH THEY ASSERT IMPAIRS
THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 10,
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND DEPRIVES THEM OF A VESTED
RIGHT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE
STATUTE DECREASED THE AMOUNTS OF ANNUITY PAYMENTS TO RETIRED TEACHERS
IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF CHICAGO.  FN1 

SINCE 1895 THE STATE HAS HAD LEGISLATION CREATING A TEACHERS' PENSION
AND RETIREMENT FUND, ORIGINALLY THE FRUIT OF TEACHERS' CONTRIBUTIONS
AND GIFTS OR LEGACIES, BUT LATER AUGMENTED BY ALLOTMENTS FROM INTEREST
RECEIVED AND FROM TAXES.  WITH THIS FUND AND THE BENEFIT PAYMENTS
THEREUNDER WE ARE NOT CONCERNED. 

PRIOR TO 1917 TEACHERS IN THE CHICAGO SCHOOLS WERE EMPLOYED FOR SUCH
TERMS AS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MIGHT FIX.  FN2  IN THAT YEAR AN ACT
WAS PASSED PROVIDING FOR A PROBATIONARY PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND
PROHIBITING REMOVAL THEREAFTER EXCEPT FOR CAUSE.  FN3 

IN 1926 AN ACT KNOWN AS THE "MILLER LAW,"  FN4  BECAME EFFECTIVE. 
THIS PROVIDED FOR COMPULSORY RETIREMENT AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF
ANNUITIES TO RETIRED TEACHERS.  BY SEC. 1 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WAS
DIRECTED TO RETIRE TEACHERS FROM ACTIVE SERVICE ON FEBRUARY 1 AND
AUGUST 1 OF EACH YEAR ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM:  IN 1926
THOSE SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR OVER, IN 1927 THOSE SEVENTY-FOUR
YEARS OF AGE OR OVER, IN 1928 THOSE SEVENTY-THREE YEARS OF AGE OR OVER,
IN 1929 THOSE SEVENTY-TWO YEARS OF AGE OR OVER, AND IN 1930, AND IN
EACH YEAR THEREAFTER, THOSE SEVENTY YEARS OF AGE OR OVER.  SECTION 2
PROVIDED: 

"EACH PERSON SO RETIRED FROM ACTIVE SERVICE WHO SERVED IN THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS OF SUCH CITY FOR TWENTY OR MORE YEARS PRIOR TO SUCH RETIREMENT,
SHALL BE PAID THE SUM OF FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,500.00) ANNUALLY
AND FOR LIFE FROM THE DATE OF SUCH RETIREMENT FROM THE MONEY DERIVED
FROM THE GENERAL TAX LEVY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES  ..." 

THERE WERE TWO PROVISOS, THE ONE REQUIRING THAT THE ANNUITANT SHOULD
BE SUBJECT TO CALL BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR CONSULTATION
AND ADVISORY SERVICE, AND THE OTHER DECLARING THAT THE ANNUITY GRANTED
BY THE ACT WAS NOT TO BE IN LIEU OF, BUT IN ADDITION TO, THE RETIREMENT
ALLOWANCE PAYABLE UNDER EXISTING LEGISLATION. 

IN 1927 A THIRD SECTION WAS ADDED  FN5  PERMITTING TEACHERS WHO HAD
SERVED FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OR MORE, AND WERE SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE
OR OVER, WHO HAD NOT REACHED THE AGE OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT, TO BE
RETIRED UPON REQUEST AND TO BE PAID FROM ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS TO
FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS PER ANNUM DEPENDING UPON AGE AT RETIREMENT. 

THE APPELLANTS FALL INTO THREE CLASSES:  THOSE WHO WERE COMPULSORILY
RETIRED UNDER THE MILLER LAW; THOSE WHO VOLUNTARILY RETIRED UNDER THE
LAW AS AMENDED; AND THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT WHO HAD
SIGNIFIED THEIR ELECTION TO RETIRE PRIOR TO JULY 1935. 

JULY 12, 1935, A FURTHER AMENDMENT OF THE MILLER LAW WAS ADOPTED  FN6
REQUIRING THE BOARD PRESENTLY TO RETIRE TEACHERS THEN IN SERVICE WHO
WERE SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR OVER AND IN THE FUTURE TO RETIRE
TEACHERS AS THEY ATTAINED THAT AGE.  EACH PERSON SO RETIRED WAS TO BE
PAID FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ANNUALLY FOR LIFE FROM THE DATE OF
RETIREMENT.  THE PROVISIONS THAT SUCH TEACHERS SHOULD HOLD THEMSELVES
AVAILABLE FOR ADVISORY SERVICE AND CONSULTATION AND THAT THE ANNUITY
PAYMENTS SHOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THOSE MADE TO RETIRED TEACHERS
PURSUANT TO OTHER LEGISLATION WERE RETAINED.  SECTION 3 OF THE MILLER
LAW, PERMITTING VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT BETWEEN THE AGES OF SIXTY-FIVE AND
SEVENTY, WAS REPEALED.  AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THE
NEW LAW REDUCED TO $500 THE ANNUITIES OF TEACHERS THERETOFORE RETIRED,
OR ELIGIBLE FOR RETIREMENT UNDER THE MILLER LAW, AS WELL AS THOSE TO BE
RETIRED SUBSEQUENT TO ITS ENACTMENT. 

SOME OF THE APPELLANTS FILED A CLASS BILL, IN WHICH THE OTHERS
INTERVENED AS CO-PLAINTIFFS, ALLEGING THAT THEIR RIGHTS TO ANNUITIES
WERE VESTED RIGHTS OF WHICH THEY COULD NOT BE DEPRIVED; THAT THE MILLER
LAW CONSTITUTED AN OFFER WHICH EACH OF THEM HAD ACCEPTED BY REMAINING
IN SERVICE UNTIL COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OR BY RETIRING; THAT THE
OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT HAD THUS BEEN PERFECTED AND ITS ATTEMPTED
IMPAIRMENT BY THE LATER ENACTMENT WAS INEFFECTIVE; AND PRAYING THAT THE
BOARD BE COMMANDED TO RESCIND ACTION TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF 1935
AND ENJOINED FROM COMPLYING WITH ITS PROVISIONS.  THE APPELLEE BOARD OF
EDUCATION FILED AN ANSWER IN WHICH IT DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF A
CONTRACT AND ASSERTED THAT THE PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO APPELLANTS WERE
PENSIONS, SUBJECT TO REVOCATION OR ALTERATION AT THE WILL OF THE
LEGISLATURE.  THE APPELLEE CITY OF CHICAGO FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR WANT OF EQUITY.  AFTER A HEARING, AT WHICH TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN ON
BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS, THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE BILL. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE AFFIRMED, HOLDING THAT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PAYMENTS UNDER THE MILLER LAW ARE DENOMINATED
ANNUITIES, THEY CANNOT BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM SIMILAR PAYMENTS DIRECTED
BY LAW TO BE MADE TO OTHER RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE STATE AND HER
MUNICIPALITIES, AND ARE IN FACT PENSIONS OR GRATUITIES INVOLVING NO
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR ABOLITION AT
THE PLEASURE OF THE LEGISLATURE.  FN7 

THE PARTIES AGREE THAT A STATE MAY ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH
CITIZENS, THE OBLIGATION OF WHICH THE LEGISLATURE CAN NOT IMPAIR BY
SUBSEQUENT ENACTMENT.  THEY AGREE THAT LEGISLATION WHICH MERELY
DECLARES A STATE POLICY, AND DIRECTS A SUBORDINATE BODY TO CARRY IT
INTO EFFECT, IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR REPEAL IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
LEGISLATURE.  THE POINT OF CONTROVERSY IS AS TO THE CATEGORY INTO WHICH
THE MILLER LAW FALLS. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER A LAW TENDERS A CONTRACT TO A CITIZEN IT IS OF
FIRST IMPORTANCE TO EXAMINE THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE.  IF IT
PROVIDES FOR THE EXECUTION OF A WRITTEN CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
THE CASE FOR AN OBLIGATION BINDING UPON THE STATE IS CLEAR.  FN8
EQUALLY CLEAR IS THE CASE WHERE A STATUTE CONFIRMS A SETTLEMENT OF
DISPUTED RIGHTS AND DEFINES ITS TERMS.  FN9  ON THE OTHER HAND, AN ACT
MERELY FIXING SALARIES OF OFFICERS CREATES NO CONTRACT IN THEIR FAVOR
AND THE COMPENSATION NAMED MAY BE ALTERED AT THE WILL OF THE
LEGISLATURE.  FN10  THIS IS TRUE ALSO OF AN ACT FIXING THE TERM OR
TENURE OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR AN EMPLOYEE OF A STATE AGENCY.  FN11  THE
PRESUMPTION IS THAT SUCH A LAW IS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE PRIVATE
CONTRACTUAL OR VESTED RIGHTS BUT MERELY DECLARES A POLICY TO BE PURSUED
UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE SHALL ORDAIN OTHERWISE.  HE WHO ASSERTS THE
CREATION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE STATE IN SUCH A CASE HAS THE BURDEN OF
OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION.  FN12  IF, UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE GRATUITIES, INVOLVING NO
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, THE GRANT OF THEM CREATES NO VESTED RIGHT. 
FN13 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER THE LANGUAGE OF
THE MILLER LAW, NOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS ADOPTION, EVINCED AN
INTENT ON THE PART OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE A BINDING CONTRACT WITH
THE TEACHERS OF THE STATE.  WHILE WE ARE REQUIRED TO REACH AN
INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF THE ALLEGED
CONTRACT, WE GIVE GREAT WEIGHT TO THE VIEWS OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE TOUCHING THESE MATTERS.  FN14 

THE MILLER LAW IS ENTITLED "AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR COMPULSORY AND
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS,  ...  AND THE PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT
ANNUITIES."  THE RELEVANT WORDS OF SEC. 1 ARE:  "IN EVERY CITY IN THIS
STATE  ...  THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SUCH CITY SHALL RETIRE FROM
ACTIVE SERVICE  ...  ALL TEACHERS, (OF A GIVEN AGE)  ....  "  SECTION 2
PROVIDES:  "EACH PERSON SO RETIRED  ...  SHALL BE PAID THE SUM OF
FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,500) ANNUALLY AND FOR LIFE FROM THE DATE OF
SUCH RETIREMENT  ....  "  SECTION 3 PROVIDES THAT PERSONS SIXTY-FIVE
YEARS OF AGE OR OVER "SHALL UPON THEIR OWN REQUEST, BE RETIRED  ...
AND THEREAFTER BE PAID ANNUITIES FOR LIFE ..."  APPELLANTS ADMIT THAT
THIS IS NOT THE NORMAL LANGUAGE OF A CONTRACT BUT RELY ON THE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THEY, AS TEACHERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO VOLUNTARILY
RETIRED WHEN OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED SO TO DO,
RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD THE STATE WAS PLEDGING ITS FAITH THAT IT WOULD NOT
RECEDE FROM THE OFFER HELD OUT TO THEM BY THE STATUTE AS AN INDUCEMENT
TO BECOME TEACHERS AND TO RETIRE AND THAT THE USE OF THE TERM
"ANNUITIES" RATHER THAN "PENSIONS" WAS INTENDED AS A FURTHER ASSURANCE
OF A VESTED CONTRACTUAL RIGHT.  THE SUPREME COURT ANSWERED THIS
CONTENTION BY REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT FOR YEARS PRIOR TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE MILLER LAW, AND BY A UNIFORM COURSE OF DECISION, IT HAD
HELD THAT ACTS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE MILLER LAW, ESTABLISHING
SIMILAR BENEFIT SYSTEMS, DID NOT CREATE CONTRACTS OR VESTED RIGHTS AND
THAT THE STATE WAS FREE TO ALTER, AMEND, AND REPEAL SUCH LAWS EVEN
THOUGH THE EFFECT OF ITS ACTION WAS TO DEPRIVE THE PENSIONER OR
ANNUITANT, FOR THE FUTURE, OF BENEFITS THEN ENJOYED.  THE CASES TO
WHICH THE COURT REFERS SO DECIDE.  FN15  THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT
THE LEGISLATURE PRESUMABLY HAD THE DOCTRINE OF THESE CASES IN MIND WHEN
IT ADOPTED THE ACT NOW UNDER REVIEW AND THAT THE APPELLANTS SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN THAT NO DISTINCTION WAS INTENDED BETWEEN THE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON
THEM AND THOSE ADJUDICATED UNDER LIKE LAWS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER
RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THIS WAS ERROR. 

THE APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE MILLER LAW, CONTRARY TO MOST OF THE ACTS
THAT PRECEDED IT, OMITTED TO USE THE WORD "PENSION" AND INSTEAD USED
THE WORD "ANNUITY," A CHOICE OF TERMINOLOGY BASED ON CONTRACT RATHER
THAN ON GIFT, AND IMPLYING A CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS WELL AS
OFFERED.  THE STATE SUPREME COURT ANSWERED THE CONTENTION BY SAYING: 

"WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE THE DISTINCTION.  THE PLAN OF PAYMENT IS THE
SAME, THE PURPOSES ARE EVIDENTLY THE SAME, AND THE USE OF THE TERM
'ANNUITY' INSTEAD OF 'PENSION' - WHICH IS BUT AN ANNUITY - DOES NOT
SEEM TO US TO RESULT IN THE DISTINCTION FOR WHICH COUNSEL FOR
APPELLANTS CONTEND." 

WE ARE OF THE SAME OPINION, PARTICULARLY AS AN EXAMINATION OF THE
ILLINOIS STATUTES INDICATES THAT, IN ACTS DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS APPARENTLY USED THE TERMS "PENSIONS," "BENEFITS," AND
"ANNUITIES" INTERCHANGEABLY AS HAVING THE SAME CONNOTATION.  FN16 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE ACT EMBRACES TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS,
AND ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS, AND RETIRED MEMBERS OF THOSE CLASSES ARE
AMONG THE APPELLANTS.  FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY ALL WILL BE DENOMINATED
TEACHERS. 

FN2  ACT OF JUNE 12, 1909, SEC. 133, LAWS OF 1909, P. 380. 

FN3  ACT OF APR. 20, 1917, SECS. 138 AND 161, LAWS OF 1917, PP. 730,
731; SMITH-HURD ILL. REV. STATS., 1925, C. 122, PAR. 186, SEC. 161. 

FN4  CAHILL'S ILL. REV. STATS, 1927, C. 122, PAR. 269. 

FN5  ACT OF JUNE 24, 1927, LAWS OF 1927, P. 792; CAHILL'S ILL. REV
STATS. 1927, C. 122, PAR. 269(3). 

FN6  ACT OF JULY 12, 1935, LAWS OF 1935, P. 1378; SMITH-HURD ILL.
REV. STATS. 1935, C. 122, SECS. 614A-614C. 

FN7  364 ILL. 547; 5 N.E. (2D) 84. 

FN8  HALL V. WISCONSIN, 103 U.S. 5. 

FN9  NEW JERSEY V. WILSON, 7 CRANCH 164; NEW JERSEY V. YARD, 95 U.S.
104. 

FN10  BUTLER V. PENNSYLVANIA, 10 HOW.  402; UNITED STATES V. FISHER,
109 U.S. 143; FISK V. JEFFERSON POLICE JURY, 116 U.S. 131, 133;
MISSISSIPPI EX REL. ROBERTSON V. MILLER, 276 U.S. 174, 178. 

FN11  CRENSHAW V. UNITED STATES, 134 U.S. 99; PHELPS V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 300 U.S. 319. 

FN12  RECTOR OF CHRIST CHURCH V. COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, 24 HOW. 
300, 302; TUCKER V. FERGUSON, 22 WALL.  527, 575; NEW JERSEY V. YARD,
SUPRA; NEWTON V. COMMISSIONERS, 100 U.S. 548, 561; WISCONSIN & MICHIGAN
RY. CO. V. POWERS, 191 U.S. 379, 387. 

FN13  PENNIE V. REIS, 132 U.S. 464; LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S.
571, 577, AND CASES CITED. 

FN14  LARSON V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 278 U.S. 429, 433; PHELPS V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION, SUPRA, AND CASES CITED. 

FN15  EDDY V. MORGAN, 216 ILL. 437, 449; 75 N.E. 174; PECOY V.
CHICAGO, 265 ILL. 78-80; 106 N.E. 435; BEUTEL V. FOREMAN, 288 ILL. 106;
123 N.E. 270.  THE SAME PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY ANNOUNCED
SINCE 1926.  PEOPLE V. RETIREMENT BOARD, 326 ILL. 579; 158 N.E. 220;
PEOPLE V. HANSON, 330 ILL. 79; 161 N.E. 145; MCCANN V. RETIREMENT
BOARD, 331 ILL. 193; 162 N.E. 859.  APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE AUTHORITY
OF THE FOREGOING CASES HAS BEEN SHAKEN BY PORTER V. LOEHR, 332 ILL.
353; 163 N.E. 689; AND DEWOLF V. BOWLEY, 355 ILL. 530, BUT THESE CASES
DID NOT DEAL WITH THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THE INSTANT CASE, AND WHAT
WAS SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE OF PENSIONS WAS IN CONNECTION WITH
PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.    FN16  IN ACTS CREATING FUNDS
THROUGH ENFORCED CONTRIBUTIONS OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYES, OR OUT
OF TAXES, OR BOTH, THE TITLES AND THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS FOR
BENEFITS TO RETIRED EMPLOYES DISCLOSE THE USE OF THE TERMS "PENSIONS"
AND "ANNUITIES" INTERCHANGEABLY TO DESCRIBE THE PAYMENTS TO BE MADE
FROM THE FUND.  ACT OF MAY 24, 1877, LAWS, P. 62; ACT OF MAY 10, 1879,
LAWS, P. 72; ACT OF MAY 12, 1905, LAWS, P. 309; ACT OF MAY 24, 1907,
LAWS, P. 529; ACT OF JUNE 14, 1909, LAWS, P. 133; ACT OF JUNE 27, 1913,
LAWS, P. 598; ACT OF JUNE 29, 1915, LAWS, P. 465; ACT OF MAY 27, 1915,
LAWS, P. 649; ACT OF JUNE 14, 1917, LAWS, P. 748; ACT OF JULY 11, 1919,
LAWS, P. 700; ACT OF JULY 11, 1919, LAWS, P. 743; ACT OF JUNE 29, 1921,
LAWS, P. 203. 
..END :












GROMAN V. COMMISSIONER, 302 U.S. 82 


NO. 21.  ARGUED OCTOBER 21, 22, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 86
F.(2D) 670, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 112(I)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 DECLARING THAT THE
TERM PARTY TO A REORGANIZATION "INCLUDES" A CORPORATION RESULTING FROM
A REORGANIZATION, AND BOTH CORPORATIONS WHEN ONE ACQUIRES SPECIFIED
PROPORTIONS OF STOCK OF ANOTHER, IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE DEFINITION, BUT
RATHER IS INTENDED TO ENLARGE THE MEANING OF THE TERM BEYOND ITS
ORDINARY CONNOTATION.  P. 85. 

2.  PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A CORPORATION (G) AND
SHAREHOLDERS OF ANOTHER CORPORATION (I):   - G FORMED A NEW CORPORATION
(O), SUBSCRIBING FOR ITS COMMON STOCK AND PAYING FOR IT WITH CASH AND
G'S OWN PREFERENCE SHARES; I'S SHAREHOLDERS SOLD THEIR SHARES TO O AND
RECEIVED FROM O A CONSIDERATION MADE UP OF PREFERENCE SHARES OF G, AND
OF O AND CASH; I THEN TRANSFERRED ITS ASSETS TO O AND WAS DISSOLVED. 
HELD THAT G WAS NOT "A PARTY" TO THE REORGANIZATION AND THAT THE SHARES
OF G'S PREFERENCE STOCK RECEIVED BY I SHAREHOLDERS FROM O WERE A BASIS
FOR COMPUTING TAXABLE GAIN.  REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SEC. 112.  P. 88. 

GROMAN V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 677, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OVERRULING AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND SUSTAINING AN INCOME TAX DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE INVOLVES THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF THE PHRASE "A PARTY TO A
REORGANIZATION" AS USED IN SEC. 112 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928.  FN1 

JANUARY 29, 1929, THE PETITIONER, AND ALL OTHER SHAREHOLDERS OF
METALS REFINING COMPANY, AN INDIANA CORPORATION, HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED
INDIANA, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE GLIDDEN COMPANY, AN OHIO
CORPORATION, RECITING THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS OF INDIANA WERE DESIROUS OF
MERGING AND CONSOLIDATING THE PROPERTIES OF THEIR COMPANY WITH GLIDDEN
AND WITH A CORPORATION GLIDDEN WAS TO ORGANIZE UNDER THE LAWS OF OHIO,
WHICH CORPORATION WE SHALL CALL OHIO.  THE SHAREHOLDERS COVENANTED THAT
THEY WOULD ASSIGN THEIR SHARES TO OHIO, WHICH WAS TO HAVE A SPECIFIED
CAPITAL STRUCTURE DIVIDED INTO PREFERRED AND COMMON SHARES, AND GLIDDEN
COVENANTED THAT IT WOULD ISSUE AND DELIVER, OR CAUSE TO BE ISSUED AND
DELIVERED, TO THE SHAREHOLDERS A STATED NUMBER OF SHARES OF ITS OWN
PRIOR PREFERENCE STOCK AT AN AGREED VALUATION, A STATED NUMBER OF
SHARES OF THE PREFERRED STOCK OF OHIO, ALSO AT AN AGREED VALUATION, AND
SUFFICIENT CASH TO EQUAL THE APPRAISED VALUE OF INDIANA'S ASSETS AS OF
MARCH 1, 1929, AND THAT, AFTER THE EXCHANGE OF STOCK, GLIDDEN WOULD
CAUSE INDIANA TO TRANSFER ITS ASSETS TO OHIO. 

GLIDDEN ORGANIZED OHIO AND BECAME THE OWNER OF ALL ITS COMMON STOCK
BUT NONE OF ITS PREFERRED STOCK.  PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT THE
SHAREHOLDERS OF INDIANA TRANSFERRED THEIR STOCK TO OHIO AND RECEIVED
THEREFOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF $1,207,016 CONSISTING OF GLIDDEN
PRIOR PREFERENCE STOCK VALUED AT $533,980, SHARES OF THE PREFERRED
STOCK OF OHIO VALUED AT $500,000, AND $153,036 IN CASH.  INDIANA THEN
TRANSFERRED ITS ASSETS TO OHIO AND WAS DISSOLVED. 

AS A RESULT OF THE REORGANIZATION PETITIONER RECEIVED SHARES OF
GLIDDEN STOCK, SHARES OF OHIO STOCK, AND $17,293 IN CASH.  IN HIS
RETURN FOR 1929 HE INCLUDED THE $17,293 AS INCOME RECEIVED BUT IGNORED
THE SHARES OF GLIDDEN AND OF OHIO AS STOCK RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE IN A
REORGANIZATION.  THE RESPONDENT RULED THAT GLIDDEN WAS NOT A PARTY TO A
REORGANIZATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REVENUE ACT, TREATED THE
TRANSACTION AS A TAXABLE EXCHANGE TO THE EXTENT OF THE CASH AND SHARES
OF GLIDDEN, AND DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY OF $7,420.  UPON RECEIPT OF
NOTICE TO THIS EFFECT THE PETITIONER APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS WHICH REVERSED THE COMMISSIONER, HOLDING THAT GLIDDEN WAS A
PARTY TO A REORGANIZATION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE
BOARD.  FN2 WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED
CONFLICT OF DECISION.  FN3 

OR LOSS SHALL BE RECOGNIZED IF STOCK OR SECURITIES IN A CORPORATION A
PARTY TO A REORGANIZATION ARE, IN PURSUANCE OF THE PLAN OF
REORGANIZATION, EXCHANGED SOLELY FOR STOCK OR SECURITIES IN SUCH
CORPORATION OR IN ANOTHER CORPORATION A PARTY TO THE REORGANIZATION." 
IF THE TRANSACTION INVOLVES THE RECEIPT OF SUCH STOCK OR SECURITIES AND
"ALSO OF OTHER PROPERTY OR MONEY" THEN THE GAIN, IF ANY, IS TO BE
RECOGNIZED IN AN AMOUNT NOT IN EXCESS OF THE SUM OF SUCH MONEY AND THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH OTHER PROPERTY.  SECTION 112(C)(1). 

MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION (INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION
OF AT LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE VOTING STOCK AND AT LEAST A MAJORITY OF
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OF ALL OTHER CLASSES OF STOCK OF ANOTHER
CORPORATION, OR SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE PROPERTIES OF ANOTHER
CORPORATION), OR (B) A TRANSFER BY A CORPORATION OF ALL OR A PART OF
ITS ASSETS TO ANOTHER CORPORATION IF IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRANSFER THE
TRANSFEROR OR ITS STOCKHOLDERS OR BOTH ARE IN CONTROL OF THE
CORPORATION TO WHICH THE ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED, OR (C) A
RECAPITALIZATION, OR (D) A MERE CHANGE IN IDENTITY, FORM, OR PLACE OF
ORGANIZATION, HOWEVER EFFECTED."  SUBSECTION (2) IS:  "THE TERM 'A
PARTY TO A REORGANIZATION' INCLUDES A CORPORATION RESULTING FROM A
REORGANIZATION AND INCLUDES BOTH CORPORATIONS IN THE CASE OF AN
ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION OF AT LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE VOTING
STOCK AND AT LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OF ALL
OTHER CLASSES OF STOCK OF ANOTHER CORPORATION." 

IT IS AGREED THAT UNDER THE PLAIN TERMS OF THE STATUTE THE CASH
RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER WAS INCOME, AND THAT AS THE STOCK OF OHIO
WAS OBTAINED IN PART PAYMENT FOR THAT OF INDIANA, THE EXCHANGE, TO THAT
EXTENT, DID NOT GIVE RISE TO INCOME TO BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION
OF PETITIONER'S TAX. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THAT PORTION OF THE CONSIDERATION CONSISTING
OF PRIOR PREFERENCE SHARES OF GLIDDEN SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED IN
DETERMINING PETITIONER'S TAXABLE GAIN.  THE DECISION OF THIS QUESTION
DEPENDS UPON WHETHER GLIDDEN'S STOCK WAS THAT OF A PARTY TO THE
REORGANIZATION FOR, IF SO, THE STATUTE DECLARES GAIN OR LOSS DUE TO ITS
RECEIPT SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TAXPAYER'S COMPUTATION OF INCOME
FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE EXCHANGE WAS MADE. 

IF SEC. 112(I)(2) IS A DEFINITION OF A PARTY TO A REORGANIZATION AND
EXCLUDES CORPORATIONS NOT THEREIN DESCRIBED, GLIDDEN WAS NOT A PARTY
SINCE ITS RELATION TO THE TRANSACTION IS NOT WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE
DEFINITION.  IT WAS NOT A CORPORATION RESULTING FROM THE
REORGANIZATION; AND IT DID NOT ACQUIRE A MAJORITY OF THE SHARES OF
VOTING STOCK AND A MAJORITY OF THE SHARES OF ALL OTHER CLASSES OF STOCK
OF ANY OTHER CORPORATION IN THE REORGANIZATION.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THOUGHT THE SECTION WAS INTENDED AS A DEFINITION OF THE TERM
PARTY AS USED IN THE ACT AND EXCLUDED ALL CORPORATIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY
DESCRIBED.  IT THEREFORE HELD GLIDDEN COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A PARTY
TO THE REORGANIZATION. 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS, WE THINK CORRECTLY, THAT THE SECTION IS NOT
A DEFINITION BUT RATHER IS INTENDED TO ENLARGE THE CONNOTATION OF THE
TERM "A PARTY TO A REORGANIZATION" TO EMBRACE CORPORATIONS WHOSE
RELATION TO THE TRANSACTION WOULD NOT IN COMMON USAGE BE SO DENOMINATED
OR AS TO WHOSE STATUS DOUBT MIGHT OTHERWISE ARISE.  THIS CONCLUSION IS
FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT WHEN AN EXCLUSIVE DEFINITION IS INTENDED THE
WORD "MEANS" IS EMPLOYED, AS IN THE SECTION WE HAVE QUOTED DEFINING
REORGANIZATION AND IN SEC. 112(J), DEFINING THE TERM "CONTROL," WHEREAS
HERE THE WORD USED IS "INCLUDES."  IF MORE WERE NEEDED SEC. 701(B)
DECLARES:  "THE TERMS 'INCLUDES' AND 'INCLUDING' WHEN USED IN A
DEFINITION CONTAINED IN THIS ACT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO EXCLUDE OTHER
THINGS OTHERWISE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM DEFINED." 

THE TREASURY, IN ITS REGULATIONS, HAS CONSTRUED THE SECTION AS NOT
EMBODYING AN EXCLUSIVE DEFINITION.  FN4  THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN IDENTICAL SECTION IN THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1924 AND
1926 HAS BEEN THE SAME.  FN5 

IF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF A, AND THOSE OF B, SHOULD AGREE TO CONVEY THEIR
STOCK TO A NEW CORPORATION C, IN EXCHANGE FOR C'S STOCK, A
REORGANIZATION, AS DEFINED IN SEC. 112(I)(1) WOULD BE EFFECTED.  BUT IT
MIGHT WELL BE CONTENDED, WERE IT NOT FOR SEC. 112(I)(2), THAT THE
SHAREHOLDERS OF THE OLD CORPORATIONS HAD NOT RECEIVED STOCK IN A NON
TAXABLE EXCHANGE, AS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 112(B)(3), SINCE THE NEW
CORPORATION C WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE EXCHANGE.  IN THE PRESENT
INSTANCE, INDIANA HAD NO PART IN THE TRANSACTION.  THE SHAREHOLDERS
AGREED TO TRANSFER THEIR STOCK TO OHIO IN EXCHANGE FOR SECURITIES. 
INDIANA, AS SUCH, WAS NOT A PARTY TO ANY AGREEMENT AND TOOK NO
CORPORATE ACTION.  IF THE PLAN HAD CONTEMPLATED THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE
OF INDIANA, AND PART PAYMENT OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN BONDS OR PREFERRED
STOCK OF THAT COMPANY, AND PART IN SHARES OF OHIO, WHILE THIS WOULD
CLEARLY HAVE CONSTITUTED A REORGANIZATION AS DEFINED BY THE ACT, IT
MIGHT, WITH REASON, BE URGED THAT, AS RESPECTS THE BONDS OR PREFERRED
STOCK OF INDIANA, THE EXCHANGE WAS TAXABLE SINCE INDIANA WAS NOT A
PARTY TO THE REORGANIZATION.  SECTION 112(I)(2) PRECLUDES THE
CONTENTION.  FN6 

PLAINLY, HOWEVER, THERE MAY BE CORPORATE PARTIES TO REORGANIZATIONS,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, OTHER THAN THOSE ENUMERATED IN SEC.
112(I)(2).  THUS IF CORPORATIONS A AND B TRANSFER ALL THEIR ASSETS TO
C, A NEW CORPORATION, IN EXCHANGE FOR ALL C'S STOCK, THE STOCK RECEIVED
IS NOT A BASIS FOR CALCULATION OF GAIN ON THE EXCHANGE.  FN7  A AND B
ARE SO EVIDENTLY PARTIES TO THE REORGANIZATION THAT WE DO NOT NEED SEC.
112(I)(2) TO INFORM US OF THE FACT. 

AGAIN, IF COMPANY A TRANSFERS ALL ITS ASSETS TO COMPANY B, A GOING
CONCERN, UPON THE AGREEMENT OF B TO ISSUE TO A'S SHAREHOLDERS ITS STOCK
IN SUCH AMOUNT THAT THEY WILL OWN EIGHTY PER CENT. OF EVERY CLASS OF
B'S OUTSTANDING STOCK, THE CONSUMMATION OF THE AGREEMENT WILL BE A
REORGANIZATION UNDER THE ACT.  FN8  UNQUESTIONABLY THE GAIN ENSUING
UPON THE EXCHANGE OF STOCK BY A'S SHAREHOLDERS WILL NOT BE TAXABLE
SINCE THE STOCK RECEIVED BY THEM IS THAT OF B, A PARTY TO THE
REORGANIZATION, THOUGH B IS NOT DESCRIBED AS SUCH IN SEC. 112(I)(2). 
WE MUST, THEREFORE, IRRESPECTIVE OF GLIDDEN'S FAILURE TO QUALIFY AS A
PARTY UNDER THAT SECTION, DETERMINE WHETHER ITS RELATION TO THE
REORGANIZATION IS THAT OF A PARTY WITHIN THE ORDINARY CONNOTATION OF
THE TERM. 

GLIDDEN WAS A PARTY TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SHAREHOLDERS OF INDIANA
AND THE AGREEMENT ENVISAGED A REORGANIZATION AS DEFINED BY SEC.
112(I)(1)(A) FOR IT CONTEMPLATED THAT OHIO SHOULD ACQUIRE ALL OF THE
STOCK OF INDIANA.  THE AGREEMENT WAS FULFILLED.  BUT THE CRUCIAL
QUESTION IS WHETHER GLIDDEN WAS A PARTY TO THE REORGANIZATION THUS
EFFECTED.  GLIDDEN RECEIVED NOTHING FROM THE SHAREHOLDERS OF INDIANA. 
THE EXCHANGE WAS BETWEEN INDIANA'S SHAREHOLDERS AND OHIO.  DO THE FACTS
THAT GLIDDEN CONTRACTED FOR THE EXCHANGE AND MADE IT POSSIBLE BY
SUBSCRIBING AND PAYING FOR OHIO'S COMMON STOCK IN CASH, SO THAT OHIO
COULD CONSUMMATE THE EXCHANGE, RENDER GLIDDEN A PARTY TO THE
REORGANIZATION?  NO MORE SO THAN IF A BANKING CORPORATION HAD MADE THE
AGREEMENT WITH INDIANA'S SHAREHOLDERS AND HAD ORGANIZED THE NEW
CORPORATION, AND, BY SUBSCRIPTION TO ITS STOCK AND PAYMENT THEREFOR IN
MONEY AND THE BANKING COMPANY'S STOCK PUT THE NEW COMPANY IN POSITION
TO COMPLETE THE EXCHANGE.  NOT EVERY CORPORATE BROKER, PROMOTER, OR
AGENT WHICH ENTERS INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT EFFECTUATING A
REORGANIZATION, AS DEFINED IN THE REVENUE ACT, THEREBY BECOMES A PARTY
TO THE REORGANIZATION.  AND, IF IT IS NOT A PARTY, ITS STOCK RECEIVED
IN EXCHANGE, PURSUANT TO THE PLAN, IS "OTHER PROPERTY" MENTIONED IN
SEC. 112(C)(1) AND MUST BE RECKONED IN COMPUTING GAIN OR LOSS TO THE
RECIPIENT.  GLIDDEN WAS, IN THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION, NO MORE THAN
THE EFFICIENT AGENT IN BRINGING ABOUT A REORGANIZATION.  IT WAS NOT, IN
THE NATURAL MEANING OF THE TERM, A PARTY TO THE REORGANIZATION. 

IT IS ARGUED, HOWEVER, THAT OHIO WAS THE ALTER EGO OF GLIDDEN; THAT
IN TRUTH GLIDDEN WAS THE PRINCIPAL AND OHIO ITS AGENT; THAT WE SHOULD
LOOK AT THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION, DISREGARD THE CORPORATE ENTITY
OF OHIO, AND TREAT IT AS GLIDDEN.  BUT TO DO SO WOULD BE TO IGNORE THE
PURPOSE OF THE REORGANIZATION SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE, WHICH, AS WE
HAVE SAID, IS THAT WHERE, PURSUANT TO A PLAN, THE INTEREST OF THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF A CORPORATION CONTINUES TO BE DEFINITELY REPRESENTED IN
SUBSTANTIAL MEASURE IN A NEW OR DIFFERENT ONE, THEN TO THE EXTENT, BUT
ONLY TO THE EXTENT, OF THAT CONTINUITY OF INTEREST, THE EXCHANGE IS TO
BE TREATED AS ONE NOT GIVING RISE TO PRESENT GAIN OR LOSS.  FN9  IF
CASH OR "OTHER PROPERTY,"  - THAT IS, PROPERTY OTHER THAN STOCK OR
SECURITIES OF THE REORGANIZED CORPORATIONS,  - IS RECEIVED, PRESENT
GAIN OR LOSS MUST BE RECOGNIZED.  WAS NOT GLIDDEN'S PRIOR PREFERENCE
STOCK "OTHER PROPERTY" IN THE SENSE THAT ITS OWNERSHIP REPRESENTED A
PARTICIPATION IN ASSETS IN WHICH OHIO, AND ITS SHAREHOLDERS THROUGH IT,
HAD NO PROPRIETORSHIP?  WAS IT NOT "OTHER PROPERTY" IN THE SENSE THAT
QUA THAT STOCK THE SHAREHOLDERS OF INDIANA ASSUMED A RELATION TOWARD
THE CONVEYED ASSETS NOT MEASURED BY A CONTINUED SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN
THOSE ASSETS IN THE OWNERSHIP OF OHIO, BUT AN INTEREST IN THE ASSETS OF
GLIDDEN A PART OF WHICH WAS THE COMMON STOCK OF OHIO?  THESE QUESTIONS
WE THINK MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  TO REJECT THE PLAIN
MEANING OF THE TERM "PARTY," AND TO ATTRIBUTE THAT RELATION TO GLIDDEN,
WOULD BE NOT ONLY TO DISREGARD THE LETTER BUT ALSO TO VIOLATE THE
SPIRIT OF THE REVENUE ACT. 

WE HOLD THAT GLIDDEN WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE REORGANIZATION AND THE
RECEIPT OF ITS STOCK BY INDIANA'S SHAREHOLDERS IN EXCHANGE, IN PART,
FOR THEIR STOCK WAS THE BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE GAIN TO THEM
IN THE YEAR 1929. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CH. 852, 45 STAT. 791, 816. 

FN2  86 F.(2D) 670. 

FN3  SEE SAGE V. COMMISSIONER, 83 F.(2D) 221; COMMISSIONER V. FIFTH
AVENUE BANK, 84 F.(2D) 787; COMMISSIONER V. BASHFORD, 87 F.(2D) 827. 
FN4  TREASURY REGULATIONS 74, PROMULGATED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928, ART. 577:  "THE TERM 'A PARTY TO A REORGANIZATION'  ...  INCLUDES
A CORPORATION RESULTING FROM A REORGANIZATION AND INCLUDES BOTH
CORPORATIONS IN THE CASE OF AN ACQUISITION BY ONE CORPORATION OF AT
LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE VOTING STOCK AND AT LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES OF ALL OTHER CLASSES OF STOCK OF ANOTHER
CORPORATION.  THIS DEFINITION IS NOT AN ALL-INCLUSIVE ONE, BUT SIMPLY
ENUMERATES CERTAIN CASES WITH RESPECT TO WHICH DOUBT MIGHT ARISE." 

FN5  REGULATIONS 65, ART. 1577, APPLICABLE TO SEC. 203(H)(2) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1924; REGULATIONS 69, ART. 1577, APPLICABLE TO SEC.
203(H)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926.    FN6  COMPARE HELVERING V.
WATTS, 296 U.S. 387. 

FN7  COMPARE HELVERING V. MINNESOTA TEA CO., 296 U.S. 378; G. & K.
MANUFACTURING CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 389. 

FN8  SECTION 112, SUBSECTIONS (I)(1)(B) AND (J). 

FN9  PINELLAS ICE CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 287 U.S. 462, 470; NELSON CO.
V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 374, 377; HELVERING V. MINNESOTA TEA CO., 296
U.S. 378, 385; G. & K. MANUFACTURING CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 389,
391. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :




















PUGET SOUND CO. V. TAX COMMISSION, 302 U.S. 90 


NO. 68.  ARGUED OCTOBER 13, 14, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  -
189 WASH. 131 - 63 P.(2D) 532, MODIFIED. 


1.  THE BUSINESS OF A STEVEDORING CORPORATION, ACTING AS AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, IN SO FAR AS IT CONSISTS OF THE UNLOADING OR
DISCHARGE OF CARGOES OF VESSELS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE BY LONGSHOREMEN SUBJECT TO ITS OWN DIRECTION AND CONTROL, IS
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, AND THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING IT CAN NOT
BE TAXED BY THE STATE.  P. 92. 

2.  IN SO FAR AS THE BUSINESS OF A STEVEDORING CORPORATION CONSISTS
OF SUPPLYING LONGSHOREMEN TO SHIPOWNERS OR MASTERS WITHOUT DIRECTING OR
CONTROLLING THE WORK OF LOADING OR UNLOADING, IT IS NOT INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE, BUT RATHER A LOCAL BUSINESS, AND SUBJECT, LIKE SUCH
BUSINESS GENERALLY, TO TAXATION BY THE STATE.  P. 94. 

PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING CO. V. STATE TAX COMMISSION. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF A SUIT TO ENJOIN
COLLECTION OF A TAX ON THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT MEASURED BY GROSS
RECEIPTS. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A TAX LAID UPON THE BUSINESS OF A STEVEDORING COMPANY, THE AMOUNT TO
BE MEASURED BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS, HAS BEEN SUSTAINED
AGAINST THE PROTEST OF THE TAXPAYER THAT AN UNLAWFUL BURDEN IS IMPOSED
THEREBY UPON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  WE ARE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE TAX IS VALID EITHER ALTOGETHER OR IN PART. 

A STATUTE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PRIVILEGE
OF ENGAGING IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE STATE A TAX SHALL BE
PAYABLE BY PERSONS SO ENGAGED, PAYMENT TO BE MADE ACCORDING TO A
DESIGNATED MEASURE.  AS TO CERTAIN FORMS OF BUSINESS, AS, FOR EXAMPLE,
MANUFACTURING AND SALES AT RETAIL OR WHOLESALE, THE MEASURE IS A
SPECIALLY PRESCRIBED PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCTS OR THE
GROSS RECEIPTS OF SALES.  AS TO ALL OTHER FORMS OF BUSINESS THERE IS A
GENERAL PROVISION THAT THE TAX SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE GROSS INCOME OF
THE BUSINESS MULTIPLIED BY THE RATE OF ONE HALF OF ONE PER CENT.
WASHINGTON LAWS 1935, C. 180.  THIS GENERAL PROVISION IS BROAD ENOUGH
TO COVER THE BUSINESS OF A STEVEDORE. 

APPELLANT, THE PUGET SOUND STEVEDORING COMPANY, IS A WASHINGTON
CORPORATION.  IT IS ENGAGED IN THE GENERAL STEVEDORING BUSINESS AT
SEATTLE AND AT OTHER PORTS ON PUGET SOUND.  AT TIMES IT CONTRACTS WITH
A SHIPOWNER OR SHIPMASTER TO LOAD OR DISCHARGE A VESSEL THROUGH ITS OWN
EMPLOYEES, CONTROLLING AND DIRECTING THE WORK ITSELF.  THE GREAT MASS
OF ITS BUSINESS, AS WE WERE INFORMED UPON THE ARGUMENT, IS DONE IN THAT
WAY.  AT TIMES, HOWEVER, EVEN THOUGH COMPARATIVELY INFREQUENTLY, IT
MAKES A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONTRACT WHICH CHANGES ESSENTIALLY ITS
RELATION TO THE SHIP.  IN THIS SECOND FORM OF CONTRACT IT DOES NOT
UNDERTAKE TO CONTROL, DIRECT, OR SUPERVISE THE WORK.  IT "MERELY
COLLECTS THE LONGSHOREMEN AND SUPPLIES THEM TO THE VESSEL," ADVANCING
THEIR PAY AT THE COMPLETION OF THE JOB AND "BILLING THE SHIP AND HER
OWNER THE AMOUNT OF THE PAY-ROLL PLUS A COMMISSION FOR SERVICES."  ALL
VESSELS SERVED BY THE APPELLANTS ARE ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN INTERSTATE
OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

A SUIT BY THE TAXPAYER TO ENJOIN THE TAX OFFICIALS OF THE STATE FROM
PROCEEDING TO COLLECT THE TAX WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIAL COURT AFTER A
HEARING UPON BILL AND ANSWER, THE ANSWER NOT DISPUTING THE ALLEGATIONS
OF THE BILL.  THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL,
ITS JUDGMENT BEING PLACED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE TAXPAYER WAS AN
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN A LOCAL BUSINESS.  189 WASH. 131; 63
P.(2D) 532.  THE CASE IS HERE UPON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 344. 

1.  THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT, IN SO FAR AS IT CONSISTS OF THE
LOADING AND DISCHARGE OF CARGOES BY LONGSHOREMEN SUBJECT TO ITS OWN
DIRECTION AND CONTROL, IS INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

TRANSPORTATION OF A CARGO BY WATER IS IMPOSSIBLE OR FUTILE UNLESS THE
THING TO BE TRANSPORTED IS PUT ABOARD THE SHIP AND TAKEN OFF AT
DESTINATION.  A STEVEDORE WHO IN PERSON OR BY SERVANTS DOES WORK SO
INDISPENSABLE IS AS MUCH AN AGENCY OF COMMERCE AS SHIPOWNER OR MASTER. 
"FORMERLY THE WORK WAS DONE BY THE SHIP'S CREW; BUT, OWING TO THE
EXIGENCIES OF INCREASING COMMERCE AND THE DEMAND FOR RAPIDITY AND
SPECIAL SKILL, IT HAS BECOME A SPECIALIZED SERVICE DEVOLVING UPON A
CLASS 'AS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WITH MARITIME AFFAIRS AS ARE THE
MARINERS'."  ATLANTIC TRANSPORT CO. V. IMBROVEK, 234 U.S. 52, 62.  NO
ONE WOULD DENY THAT THE CREW WOULD BE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE IF BUSIED IN LOADING OR UNLOADING AN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
VESSEL.  CF. BALTIMORE & O.S.W.R. CO. V. BURTCH, 263 U.S. 540.  THE
LONGSHOREMAN BUSIED IN THE SAME TASK BEARS THE SAME RELATION AS THE
CREW TO THE COMMERCE THAT HE SERVES.  INDEED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
MERCHANT MARINE ACT (41 STAT. 988, 1007), A STEVEDORE IS A "SEAMAN." 
INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. V. HAVERTY, 272 U.S. 50.  A STIPULATION
IN THE RECORD TELLS US THAT ANY SERIOUS INTERRUPTION IN THE SERVICE OF
SUCH CARGO HANDLERS CRIPPLES AT ONCE THE ACTIVITIES OF A PORT AND SLOWS
DOWN AND OBSTRUCTS THE FREE AND STEADY FLOW OF COMMERCE.  WE MIGHT TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACT IF THE STIPULATION WERE NOT HERE. 

WHAT WAS DONE BY THIS APPELLANT IN THE BUSINESS OF LOADING AND
UNLOADING WAS NOT PROLONGED BEYOND THE STAGE OF TRANSPORTATION AND ITS
REASONABLE INCIDENTS.  CF. BALTIMORE & O.S.W.R. CO. V. BURTCH, SUPRA.
TRUE, THE SERVICE DID NOT BEGIN OR END AT THE SHIP'S SIDE, WHERE THE
CARGO IS PLACED UPON A SLING ATTACHED TO THE SHIP'S TACKLE.  IT TOOK IN
THE WORK OF CARRIAGE TO AND FROM THE "FIRST PLACE OF REST," WHICH MEANS
THAT IT COVERED THE SPACE BETWEEN THE HOLD OF THE VESSEL AND A
CONVENIENT POINT OF DISCHARGE UPON THE DOCK.  SOMETIMES, THOUGH NOT, IT
SEEMS, UNDER APPELLANT'S CONTRACTS, THE WORK IN THE HOLD IS DONE BY
MEMBERS OF THE CREW, AND THE WORK UPON THE DOCK BY EMPLOYEES OF THE
DOCK COMPANY.  SOMETIMES THE COST IS ABSORBED BY THE VESSEL AND
SOMETIMES BILLED AS AN EXTRA CHARGE TO SHIPPER OR CONSIGNEE.  THE FACT
IS STIPULATED, HOWEVER, THAT NO MATTER BY WHOM THE WORK IS DONE OR PAID
FOR, "STEVEDORING SERVICES ARE ESSENTIAL TO WATERBORNE COMMERCE AND
ALWAYS COMMENCE IN THE HOLD OF THE VESSEL AND END AT THE 'FIRST PLACE
OF REST,' AND VICE VERSA."  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES SERVICES BEGINNING OR
ENDING IN THE HOLD OR ON THE DOCK STAND ON THE SAME PLANE FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THIS CASE AS THOSE AT THE SHIP'S SLING.  THE MOVEMENT IS
CONTINUOUS, IS COVERED BY A SINGLE CONTRACT, AND IS NECESSARY IN ALL
ITS STAGES IF TRANSPORTATION IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT UNREASONABLE
IMPEDIMENTS.  THE SITUATION THUS PRESENTED HAS NO RESEMBLANCE TO THAT
CONSIDERED IN NEW YORK EX REL. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. KNIGHT, 192 U.S.
21, 26, WHERE AN INTERSTATE RAILROAD FURNISHED ITS PASSENGERS WITH
TAXICAB SERVICE TO AND FROM ITS TERMINUS, THE SERVICE BEING "CONTRACTED
AND PAID FOR INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY CONTRACT OR PAYMENT FOR STRICTLY
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION." 

THE BUSINESS OF LOADING AND UNLOADING BEING INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO TAX THE
PRIVILEGE OF DOING IT BY EXACTING IN RETURN THEREFOR A PERCENTAGE OF
THE GROSS RECEIPTS.  DECISIONS TO THAT EFFECT ARE MANY AND
CONTROLLING.  PHILADELPHIA & SOUTHERN S.S. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 122
U.S. 326, 341-342; LELOUP V. PORT OF MOBILE, 127 U.S. 640; GALVESTON,
H. & S.A. RY. CO. V. TEXAS, 210 U.S. 217; CREW LEVICK CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 245 U.S. 292; MATSON NAVIGATION CO. V. STATE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION, 297 U.S. 441, 444; FISHER'S BLEND STATION V. TAX
COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 650, 655.  THE FACT IS NOT IMPORTANT THAT
APPELLANT DOES BUSINESS AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AS LONG AS THE
BUSINESS THAT IT DOES IS COMMERCE IMMUNE FROM REGULATION BY THE
STATES.  WHAT IS DECISIVE IS THE NATURE OF THE ACT, NOT THE PERSON OF
THE ACTOR.  AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR UNDERTAKING TO NAVIGATE A VESSEL
WOULD HAVE THE SAME PROTECTION AS A PILOT AGREEING TO NAVIGATE IT
HIMSELF. 

2.  THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT, IN SO FAR AS IT CONSISTS OF SUPPLYING
LONGSHOREMEN TO SHIPOWNERS OR MASTERS WITHOUT DIRECTING OR CONTROLLING
THE WORK OF LOADING OR UNLOADING, IS NOT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, BUT RATHER A LOCAL BUSINESS, AND SUBJECT, LIKE SUCH BUSINESS
GENERALLY, TO TAXATION BY THE STATE. 

WHAT IS DONE BY APPELLANT IN CONNECTION WITH ACTIVITIES OF THIS ORDER
IS SIMILAR IN MANY ASPECTS TO THE WORK OF A SHIP'S CHANDLER, AND EVEN
MORE CLOSELY SIMILAR TO THAT OF A LABOR OR EMPLOYMENT BUREAU.  SUCH A
BUREAU WAS CONSIDERED IN WILLIAMS V. FEARS, 179 U.S. 270, 278, AND ITS
BUSINESS FOUND TO BE NO PART OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE, THOUGH
THE TRANSACTIONS OF SUCH COMMERCE WERE INCREASED THEREBY.  CF. FEDERAL
COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17, 21, 22; CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD,
291 U.S. 584.  LITTLE ANALOGY EXISTS BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES NOW IN
QUESTION AND THOSE REVIEWED IN MCCALL V. CALIFORNIA, 136 U.S. 104;
TEXAS TRANSPORT & TERMINAL CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 264 U.S. 150; AND DI
SANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 34.  THE CONTRACTORS THERE CONSIDERED
WERE FOUND TO BE ACTING AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN STEAMSHIP COMPANIES WITH
AUTHORITY TO MAKE CONTRACTS BINDING ON THE PRINCIPALS AND EVEN RUNNING
IN THEIR NAMES.  IF APPELLANT STANDS IN THAT RELATION TO THE VESSELS
THAT IT SERVES IN THIS BRANCH OF ITS ACTIVITIES, IT HAS FAILED TO MAKE
THE FACT APPARENT BY THE ALLEGATIONS OF ITS BILL.  THE EFFECT OF SUCH A
SHOWING IS NOT BEFORE US NOW. 

THE DECREE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON BEING ERRONEOUS TO THE
EXTENT HERE INDICATED AND NO FARTHER IS MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY, THE CAUSE
BEING REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
OPINION OF THIS COURT.  DECREE MODIFIED. 
..END :
















HALE V. STATE BOARD, 302 U.S. 95 


NO. 16.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 19, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  -
271 N.W. 168, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN IMPAIRED BY A STATE LAW, THIS COURT WILL ACCEPT THE JUDGMENT
OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE UNLESS MANIFESTLY WRONG.  P. 100. 

2.  IOWA LEGISLATION, IN EFFECT WHEN STATE AND MUNICIPAL BONDS WERE
ISSUED AND ACQUIRED, DECLARED THAT SUCH BONDS SHOULD NOT BE TAXED. 
LATER, A TAX ON THE NET INCOME OF RESIDENTS IN THE STATE WAS IMPOSED
FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND INCOME TAXES WERE ASSESSED TO THE BONDHOLDERS,
THE INTEREST DERIVED FROM THEIR BONDS BEING INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION
OF NET INCOME.  THE STATE COURT ASSUMED WITHOUT DECIDING THAT THE
STATUTES OF EXEMPTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS GIVING RISE TO CONTRACTS,
BUT INTERPRETED THOSE STATUTES AS LIMITED TO TAXES LAID DIRECTLY UPON
PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO ITS VALUE, AND NOT AS TOUCHING TAXES IN THE
NATURE OF AN EXCISE UPON THE NET INCOME OF THE OWNER.  THIS COURT
FOLLOWS THE STATE COURT'S CONCLUSION, FINDING THAT AT THE LEAST IT IS
NOT PLAINLY WRONG AND THAT IT HAS SUPPORT (A) IN THE STATE'S STATUTORY
SYSTEM OF TAXATION VIEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY (P. 101), (B) IN DECISIONS OF
IOWA AND OTHER STATES BEFORE THE BONDS WERE BOUGHT AND AFTERWARDS (P.
103), AND (C) IN DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  P. 104. 

3.  CONTRACTS OF TAX EXEMPTION ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.  P. 103. 

4.  THE CLASSIFICATION OF A TAX UPON NET INCOME AS SOMETHING
DIFFERENT FROM A PROPERTY TAX, IF NOT SUBSTANTIALLY AN EXCISE, IS NOT
UNREASONABLE.  P. 106. 

5.  THE TAX COMPLAINED OF IN THIS CASE IS NOT LAID UPON THE
OBLIGATION TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OR THE INTEREST, AT ALL EVENTS NOT
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT OF EXEMPTION; BUT IS LAID UPON THE
YIELD, IF ANY, OF AN AGGREGATE OF OCCUPATIONS AND INVESTMENTS.  P.
107. 

HALE ET AL. V. STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE SUSTAINING THE DISMISSAL BY THE STATE DISTRICT
COURT OF A PETITION IN EQUITY PRAYING ANNULMENT OF AN INCOME TAX
ASSESSMENT. 

THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION IS CONTRACTUAL WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THE SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION, AND WHETHER THIS TAX VIOLATES IT, ARE
QUESTIONS FOR THIS COURT TO DETERMINE INDEPENDENTLY. 

AN INCOME TAX ON INTEREST DERIVED FROM SECURITIES IS IN PRACTICAL
INCIDENCE AND EFFECT A TAX UPON THE SECURITIES; AND SO A PROPERTY TAX
WITHIN THE EXEMPTION CONTRACT. 

THE CONTRACTUAL EXEMPTION IS NOT CONFINED TO PROPERTY TAXES; IT
FORBIDS ANY TAX ON THE BONDS, INCLUDING THIS TAX ON THEIR INTEREST,
WHICH ALWAYS HAS BEEN HELD A TAX ON THE BONDS.  THE EXEMPTION IS BROAD
AND GENERAL, AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO EXCLUDE ONLY ONE SORT OF TAX ON
THE BONDS. 

THE EXEMPTION CANNOT BE CONSTRUED THUS NARROWLY IN ORDER TO SAVE THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LATER INCOME TAX STATUTE. 

PREVIOUS IOWA CASES DO NOT JUSTIFY CONSTRUING THE EXEMPTION TO PERMIT
THE PRESENT TAX. 

WHETHER OR NOT INCOME IS ITSELF "PROPERTY," THE EXEMPTION IS VIOLATED
FOR THIS TAX STILL TAXES THE BONDS.  CITY OF DUBUQUE V. NORTHWESTERN
LIFE INS. CO., 29 IOWA 9, DOES NOT INVOLVE NOR APPLY TO OUR QUESTION. 

DECISIONS AS TO WHETHER A GRADUATED INCOME TAX IS FORBIDDEN BY STATE
CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRING PROPERTY TAXES TO BE UNIFORM DO NOT APPLY
HERE. 

THE EXEMPTION CANNOT BE AVOIDED BY TREATING THE TAX AS "IN THE NATURE
OF AN EXCISE."  EVEN AN EXCISE ON RECEIVING INCOME UNDER A PREEXISTING
CONTRACT IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF THAT CONTRACT.  THERE IS NO EXCISE
HERE, FOR APPELLEES EXERCISE NO TAXABLE PRIVILEGE WHICH CAN BE THE
SUBJECT OF AN EXCISE, OR OF ANY TAX OTHER THAN ONE IN THE NATURE OF A
PROPERTY TAX.  THE THINGS MENTIONED BELOW TO SHOW THAT APPELLANTS
"ENGAGED IN BUSINESS" ARE SIMPLE ACTS OF OWNERSHIP, NOT TAXABLE AS
PRIVILEGES, AND A TAX BECAUSE OF THEM IS A TAX ON PROPERTY-OWNERSHIP
AND NOT AN EXCISE.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PRETEND TO IMPOSE AN EXCISE OR
PRIVILEGE TAX. 

DECLARING THE TAX TO BE ONE ON THE RECIPIENT OF INCOME RATHER THAN ON
THE INCOME IS OF NO AVAIL.  TAXING ONE BECAUSE OF OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
OR RECEIPT OF SUCH INCOME AS THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO TAXING THE PROPERTY
OR ITS INCOME.  THIS TAX IS EXPLICITLY IMPOSED ON THE INCOME AS WELL AS
ON THE RECIPIENT. 

MACALLEN V. MASSACHUSETTS, 279 U.S. 620, AND GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA,
257 U.S. 501, HAVE NOT BEEN OVERRULED OR MADE INAPPLICABLE BY ANY
SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, AND CASES BELIEVED TO OVERRULE THEM
ACTUALLY UPHOLD THEM; AND SHOW THAT WHENEVER THE TAX IS AN INCOME TAX
(AS HERE) RATHER THAN A TAX UPON CORPORATE FRANCHISES, IT MAY NOT
INCLUDE INCOME FROM EXEMPT SECURITIES. 

THE CASE OF PEOPLE V. GILCHRIST, 262 U.S. 94, DOES NOT PERMIT THIS TAX
OR CONTROL THIS CASE. 

THE POWER OF THE STATE TO LEVY INCOME TAXES CAN NOT OVERRIDE THE
EXEMPTION. 

THE STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION IS NOT CONTRACTUAL, AND
THEREFORE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

TO BIND A STATE BY A STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION THERE MUST BE
A BINDING CONTRACT SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION.  A MERE GRATUITY OR
BOUNTY IS NOT A CONTRACT, AND A GENERAL STATUTORY EXEMPTION FROM
TAXATION IS A GRATUITY NOT A CONTRACT.  HERE THERE WAS NO CONSIDERATION
FOR THE EXEMPTIONS, HENCE NO CONTRACT. 

THE STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE EXEMPTIONS ARE CLAIMED APPLY TO GENERAL
PROPERTY TAXES ONLY, AND NOT TO AN EXCISE. 

THE EXEMPTION STATUTE HAD BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
TO APPLY ONLY TO GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES, PRIOR TO THE TIME WHEN IT WAS
AMENDED TO INCLUDE MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, STATE AND SCHOOL BONDS. 
THEREFORE, THE LEGISLATURE KNEW THAT IT WAS AMENDING A STATUTE WHICH
EXEMPTED ONLY FROM GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES. 

A GENERAL INCOME TAX IS NOT A PROPERTY TAX BUT AN EXCISE TAX.  INCOME
IS NOT PROPERTY, AS THE IOWA SUPREME COURT HAS HELD. 

PEOPLE V. GILCHRIST, 262 U.S. 84, IS AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION
THAT THE IOWA INCOME TAX STATUTE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

CASES ON WHICH APPELLANTS RELY, AS HOLDING THAT TO TAX THE INTEREST
IS TO TAX THE BONDS, ARE NOT AUTHORITY FOR THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED IN
THIS CASE.  MOST OF THOSE CASES DEAL WITH THE POWER OF A STATE TO TAX
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS INSTRUMENTALITIES.  NONE OF THEM DEALS
WITH THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO TAX ITS OWN CITIZENS, UNDER A GENERAL
INCOME TAX STATUTE. 

MACALLEN V. MASSACHUSETTS, 279 U.S. 620, IS NOT APPLICABLE.  THE
EXEMPTION STATUTE INVOLVED THERE EXEMPTED PERSONS AS WELL AS PROPERTY,
AND THE TAXING STATUTE, BY AMENDMENT, WAS AIMED DIRECTLY AT INTEREST
FROM THE TAX-EXEMPT BONDS.  MOREOVER, THE MASSACHUSETTS TAXING STATUTE
CONSTRUED IN THAT CASE DID NOT IMPOSE A GENERAL INCOME TAX, BUT APPLIED
ONLY TO DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATIONS. 

THE IOWA INCOME TAX IS NOT AIMED AT INTEREST FROM TAXFREE BONDS.  IT
IS A TAX ON THE RECIPIENT OF THE INCOME MEASURED BY HIS INCOME FROM ALL
SOURCES. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER INTEREST UPON BONDS OF THE STATE OF IOWA OR
ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF A TAX
ON THE NET INCOME OF THE OWNERS WITHOUT DETRACTING FROM EARLIER
EXEMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF TAXES UPON PROPERTY AND WITHOUT AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPAIRMENT OF THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT. 

APPELLANTS, RESIDENTS OF IOWA, WERE THE OWNERS IN 1934 AND AFTERWARDS
OF IOWA SCHOOL DISTRICT BONDS, IOWA ROAD BONDS, IOWA COUNTY BONDS, AND
AN IOWA SOLDIERS' BONUS BOND, OF THE FACE VALUE, ASIDE FROM INTEREST,
OF $752,900.  THE STATUTES OF THE STATE IN FORCE WHEN THE BONDS WERE
ISSUED AND WHEN THE APPELLANTS ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP PROVIDE IN VARYING
BUT EQUIVALENT TERMS THAT SUCH BONDS "ARE NOT TO BE TAXED,"  FN1
"SHALL NOT BE TAXED,"  FN2  OR "SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  FN3
IOWA WAS WITHOUT AN INCOME TAX WHEN THESE EXEMPTIONS WERE DECLARED.  A
"PERSONAL NET INCOME TAX" UPON PERSONS RESIDENT WITHIN THE STATE WAS
IMPOSED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY A STATUTE ENACTED IN 1934.  CODE 1935,
SECS. 6943-F4 ET SEQ. IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THAT TAX FOR 1935 INTEREST
ON APPELLANTS' BONDS IN THE SUM OF $36,893.75 WAS INCLUDED BY THE STATE
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW AGAINST APPELLANTS' PROTEST THAT THE
LAW, IF SO APPLIED, IMPAIRED THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS OF EXEMPTION. 
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARTICLE I, SEC. 10.  BY APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDINGS THE CONTROVERSY WAS BROUGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA,
WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS UPHELD.  271 N.W. 168.  THE COURT ASSUMED,
WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE STATUTES OF EXEMPTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS
GIVING RISE TO CONTRACTS, AND NOT MERELY AS DECLARATIONS OF A
LEGISLATIVE POLICY SUBJECT TO REVOCATION AT THE LEGISLATIVE PLEASURE. 
PROCEEDING ON THAT ASSUMPTION, THE COURT INTERPRETED THE CONTRACTS AS
LIMITED TO TAXES LAID DIRECTLY UPON PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO ITS
VALUE, AND NOT AS TOUCHING TAXES IN THE NATURE OF AN EXCISE UPON THE
NET INCOME OF AN OWNER.  THIS CONCLUSION WAS SUPPORTED BY AN ANALYSIS
OF THE IOWA STATUTES AND A REVIEW OF IOWA DECISIONS AS WELL AS THE
DECISIONS OF THIS AND OTHER COURTS.  THE CASE IS HERE UPON APPEAL.  28
U.S.C. SEC. 344. 

WE MAKE THE SAME ASSUMPTION THAT WAS MADE IN THE STATE COURT AS TO
THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT, WITHOUT INDICATING THEREBY HOW WE WOULD
RULE UPON THE POINT IF A RULING WERE ESSENTIAL.  CF. NEW YORK EX REL.
CLYDE V. GILCHRIST, 262 U.S. 94, 98; PACIFIC CO. V. JOHNSON, 285 U.S.
480, 489; WISCONSIN & MICHIGAN RY. CO. V. POWERS, 191 U.S. 379, 386;
DODGE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, ANTE, P. 74.  ESSENTIAL IT IS NOT FOR THE
DECISION OF THIS CASE IF THE CONTRACT TO BE ASSUMED IS LIMITED IN SCOPE
AND OPERATION AS IT WAS LIMITED BELOW.  WHETHER THE LIMITATION SHOULD
BE ACCEPTED IS THUS THE PIVOTAL INQUIRY.  THE POWER IS OURS, WHEN THE
IMPAIRMENT OF AN OBLIGATION IS URGED AGAINST A LAW, TO DETERMINE FOR
OURSELVES THE EFFECT AND MEANING OF THE CONTRACT AS WELL AS ITS
EXISTENCE.  U.S. MORTGAGE CO. V. MATTHEWS, 293 U.S. 232, 236;
FUNKHOUSER V. PRESTON CO., 290 U.S. 163, 167.  EVEN SO, WE LEAN TOWARD
AGREEMENT WITH THE COURTS OF THE STATE, AND ACCEPT THEIR JUDGMENT AS TO
SUCH MATTERS UNLESS MANIFESTLY WRONG.  PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION,
300 U.S. 319, 322, 323; VIOLET TRAPPING CO. V. GRACE, 297 U.S. 119,
120; TAMPA WATER WORKS CO. V. TAMPA, 199 U.S. 241, 243, 244; DODGE V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, SUPRA.  FOR REASONS TO BE DEVELOPED, OBVIOUS ERROR
IS NOT DISCERNIBLE IN THE RULING OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF IOWA THAT THE
STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS INVOKED BY THE APPELLANTS WERE NOT INTENDED TO
INCLUDE TAXES UPON THE NET INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS OR
INVESTMENTS.  TO THE CONTRARY THE DECISION HAS SUPPORT IN THE STATUTORY
SYSTEM OF TAXATION VIEWED IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN STATE DECISIONS BOTH IN
THE COURTS OF IOWA AND ELSEWHERE BEFORE THE BONDS WERE BOUGHT AND
AFTERWARDS, AND EVEN INDEED IN DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  OUR SEARCH IS
FOR SOMETHING MORE THAN THE MEANING OF A PROPERTY TAX OR AN EXCISE IN
THE THOUGHT OF SKILLED ECONOMISTS OR MASTERS OF FINANCE.  IT IS FOR THE
MEANING THAT AT A PARTICULAR TIME AND PLACE AND IN THE SETTING OF A
PARTICULAR STATUTE MIGHT REASONABLY HAVE ACCEPTANCE BY MEN OF COMMON
UNDERSTANDING. 

1.  THE LIMITATION AFFIXED TO THE CONTRACTS OF EXEMPTION HAS SUPPORT,
FIRST OF ALL, IN THE STATUTORY SYSTEM OF TAXATION CONSIDERED AS A
WHOLE. 

OF THE TOTAL INTEREST ($36,893.75) COLLECTED ON APPELLANTS' BONDS,
THE GREATER PORTION ($32,776.25) IS PROTECTED, IF AT ALL, BY REASON OF
THE EXEMPTION GIVEN TO BONDS ISSUED BY ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT OR COUNTY
WITHIN THE STATE.  THAT EXEMPTION MAY BEST BE STUDIED AS IT STOOD IN
THE SUPPLEMENTAL CODE OF 1915.  FN4  IT WAS THEN SUBDIVISION 1 OF SEC.
1304.  THERE WERE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS EXEMPTING OTHER ITEMS:   - THE
GROUNDS AND BUILDINGS FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES; HOUSEHOLD FURNITURE UP TO A
PRESCRIBED VALUE; THE FARMING UTENSILS OF ANY PERSON WHO MAKES HIS
LIVELIHOOD BY FARMING; AND MANY OTHER KINDS OF PROPERTY.  THE SECTION
OPENS WITH THE STATEMENT THAT "THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF PROPERTY ARE
NOT TO BE TAXED," AND THEN ENUMERATES THE CLASSES.  BUT THE SCOPE OF
THE EXEMPTION IS LIKELY TO BE EXAGGERATED UNLESS THE NEXT PRECEDING
EACH COUNTY SHALL, ANNUALLY, AT ITS SEPTEMBER SESSION, LEVY THE
FOLLOWING TAXES UPON THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE TAXABLE PROPERTY IN THE
COUNTY," A MANDATE CLEARLY ADDRESSED TO THE LEVY OF AD VALOREM TAXES
ONLY.  THE INFERENCE IS A FAIR ONE THAT SEC. 1304 DID NOT EXEMPT THE
ITEMS THERE ENUMERATED FROM TAXATION OF EVERY FORM AND FOR EVERY
PURPOSE.  IT WITHDREW THEM FROM THE OPERATION OF THE LEVY COMMANDED BY
THE SECTION NEXT PRECEDING.  FN5  TRUE, IN LATER COMPILATIONS OF THE
STATUTES, THE SECTIONS HAVE BEEN REARRANGED, THOUGH WITH SUBSTANCE
UNAFFECTED.  CF. CODE, 1935, SEC. 6953.  IN THE CODE OF 1935,
SUBDIVISION 1 OF SEC. 1304 IS SUBDIVISION 5 OF SEC. 6944; SEC. 1303 IS
SEC. 7171.  THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE MEANING REMAINS WHAT IT
WAS BEFORE.  UNITED STATES V. RYDER, 110 U.S. 729, 740; UNITED STATES
V. SISCHO, 262 U.S. 165, 168, 169; WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155, 161;
DAVIS V. DAVIS, 75 N.Y. 221, 225, 226; FIFTH AVENUE BLDG. CO. V.
KERNOCHAN, 221 N.Y. 370, 375; 117 N.E. 579; MITCHELL V. SIMPSON, L.R.
25 Q.B.D. 183, 189. 

BESIDES THE SCHOOL AND COUNTY BONDS, APPELLANTS WERE THE OWNERS OF A
SOLDIERS' BONUS BOND IN THE SUM OF $1,000, AND ROAD BONDS OR
CERTIFICATES TO THE AMOUNT OF $82,000.  THE EXEMPTION OF THE BONUS BOND
WAS DECLARED BY THE STATUTE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE.  39TH G.A., C. 332,
SEC. 10, ADOPTED MARCH 23, 1921.  THE EXEMPTION IS NOW SUBDIVISION 22
OF SEC. 6944 OF THE CODE OF 1935, AND SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME MEANING
AS THE EXEMPTION CONFERRED BY THE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS.  THE ROAD BONDS
OR CERTIFICATES HAVE THEIR EXEMPTION UNDER A DIFFERENT STATUTE (SEC.
4753A13, CODES OF 1931 AND 1935), BUT THE BONDS ARE EXPRESSLY DECLARED
TO BE OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNTY (SEC. 4753A14), AND, AS THE COURT BELOW
OBSERVED, THERE IS NO REASON TO SUPPOSE THAT THE EXEMPTION GIVEN THEM
WAS BROADER THAN THAT OF COUNTY OBLIGATIONS GENERALLY. 

2.  THE MEANING OF THE IOWA STATUTES IS CLARIFIED, IF OTHERWISE
UNCERTAIN, BY THE OPINIONS OF THE IOWA COURT IN THIS AND OTHER CASES. 

THE COURT IN ITS OPINION IN THIS CASE APPLIED THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE
THAT CONTRACTS OF TAX EXEMPTION MUST RECEIVE A STRICT CONSTRUCTION. 
THE TEACHING OF THIS COURT HAS BEEN ALWAYS TO THE SAME EFFECT.  "GRANTS
OF IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION IN DEROGATION OF A SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE
STATE, ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED."  PACIFIC CO. V. JOHNSON, 285 U.S. 480,
491, CITING MANY CASES.  ADHERING TO THAT PRINCIPLE, THE IOWA COURT
HELD THAT THE TAX EXEMPTION WAS LIMITED TO TAXES UPON PROPERTY, AND
COULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO TAXES IN THE NATURE OF AN EXCISE.  FOR THIS
RESTRICTION IT FOUND SUPPORT IN ITS OWN EARLIER DECISIONS, RENDERED
MANY YEARS BEFORE APPELLANTS' BONDS WERE PURCHASED.  THUS, SIOUX CITY
V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 55 IOWA 150; 7 N.W. 488, DECIDED IN
1880, AND E. & W. CONSTRUCTION CO. V. JASPER COUNTY, 117 IOWA 365; 90
N.W. 1006, DECIDED IN 1902, HELD THE EXEMPTION INAPPLICABLE TO SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS, LIMITING IT AT THE SAME TIME "TO THE TAXES CONTEMPLATED IN
TITLE 6 OF THE CODE."  FN6  SO ALSO IOWA MUTUAL TORNADO INS. ASSN. V.
GILBERTSON, 129 IOWA 658; 106 N.W. 153, DECIDED IN 1906, INTERPRETING A
DIFFERENT SUBDIVISION OF THE EXEMPTION STATUTE, BUT A COGNATE ONE,
AGAIN LIMITED THE EXEMPTION TO TAXES UPON PROPERTY, AND REFUSED TO
APPLY IT TO AN EXCISE OR LICENSE TAX MEASURED BY RECEIPTS.  THE RULING
WAS REITERATED IN STATE V. CITY OF DES MOINES, 221 IOWA 642; 266 N.W.
153, DECIDED IN 1936, UPON FACTS NOT GREATLY DIFFERENT.  CF. PLUMMER V.
COLER, 178 U.S. 115.  FROM THESE PRECEDENTS THE IOWA COURT ADVANCED TO
THE HOLDING, ANNOUNCED IN THE CASE AT BAR, THAT A TAX UPON NET INCOME
WAS SUBSTANTIALLY AN EXCISE, AND HENCE DID NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
AN EXEMPTION CONFINED TO TAXES UPON PROPERTY.  THE RESULT WAS CONCEIVED
TO BE LATENT IN THE PRECEDENTS IF EFFECT WAS TO BE GIVEN TO THEIR FAIR
IMPLICATIONS.  "SO THE STATE COURT HAS TOLD US," CONSTRUING ITS OWN
DECISIONS, "AND THE GOOD FAITH OF ITS DECLARATION IS NOT SUCCESSFULLY
IMPEACHED."  STOCKHOLDERS V. STERLING, 300 U.S. 175, 183. 

3.  THE RULING THAT A TAX UPON NET INCOME IS WITHOUT THE SCOPE OF THE
EXEMPTION CANNOT BE ADJUDGED UNREASONABLE, FOR IT WILL BE FOUND TO BE
SUPPORTED BY DECISIONS IN MANY OTHER STATES, AND EVEN, INDEED, BY
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT. 

(A)  THE QUESTION AS TO THE NATURE OF SUCH A TAX HAS COME UP
REPEATEDLY UNDER STATE CONSTITUTIONS REQUIRING TAXES UPON PROPERTY TO
BE EQUAL AND UNIFORM, OR IMPOSING SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS.  MANY, PERHAPS
MOST, COURTS HOLD THAT A NET INCOME TAX IS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS AN
EXCISE.  FN7  "THE TAX LEVIED ON INCOME IS NOT A PROPERTY TAX, BUT IS A
PERCENTAGE LAID ON THE AMOUNT WHICH A MAN RECEIVES, IRRESPECTIVE OF
WHETHER HE SPENDS IT, WASTES IT, OR INVESTS IT."  FEATHERSTONE V.
NORMAN, 170 GA. 370, 382; 153 S.E. 58; PURNELL V. PAGE, 133 N.C. 125,
129; 45 S.E. 534.  AS EARLY AS 1870, THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA HAD
WRITTEN AN OPINION WHICH FORESHADOWS THE SAME THOUGHT.  DUBUQUE V.
NORTHWESTERN LIFE INS. CO., 29 IOWA 9.  CF. VILAS V. IOWA STATE BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW, 273 N.W. 338.  TRUE, THERE ARE COURTS IN
OTHER STATES THAT TEACH A DIFFERENT DOCTRINE.  FN8  OUR DUTY DOES NOT
CALL UPON US TO DETERMINE WHICH VIEW WE WOULD ACCEPT AS SUPPORTED BY
THE BETTER REASON IF THE CHOICE WERE AN ORIGINAL ONE FOR US, UNAFFECTED
BY THE VIEW ACCEPTED IN THE COURT BELOW.  ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES
THAT WITH AUTHORITY SO NEARLY BALANCED THE IOWA CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CONTRACT IS AT LEAST NOT PLAINLY WRONG.  THE PROPRIETY OF OUR KEEPING
TO IT IS THE CLEARER WHEN WE BEAR IN MIND THAT THERE WERE IOWA
DECISIONS POINTING THE SAME WAY BEFORE APPELLANTS BECAME OWNERS. 

(B)  FINALLY, AND EVEN MORE CONCLUSIVELY, DECISIONS OF OUR OWN COURT
FORBID US TO STIGMATIZE AS UNREASONABLE THE CLASSIFICATION OF A TAX
UPON NET INCOME AS SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM A PROPERTY TAX, IF NOT
SUBSTANTIALLY AN EXCISE.  NEW YORK EX REL. CLYDE V. GILCHRIST, 262 U.S.
94; NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308; BRUSHABER V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1, ALL POINT IN THAT DIRECTION.  WE WILL
CONSIDER THEM IN THE ORDER STATED. 

THE TAXPAYER IN NEW YORK EX REL. CLYDE V. GILCHRIST CLAIMED THE
BENEFIT OF AN EXEMPTION UNDER A STATUTE OF NEW YORK TO THE EFFECT THAT,
UPON PAYMENT OF A RECORDING TAX, DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS SECURED BY
MORTGAGES OF REAL PROPERTY SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM OTHER TAXATION BY THE
STATE AND LOCAL SUBDIVISIONS.  THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE EXEMPTION
THUS ACCORDED WAS APPLICABLE TO AN INCOME TAX ENACTED LONG AFTERWARDS. 
THE STATE COURT RULED AGAINST THE TAXPAYER (PEOPLE EX REL. CENTRAL
UNION TRUST CO. V. WENDELL, 197 APP. DIV. 131; 188 N.Y.S. 344; PEOPLE
EX REL. CLYDE V. WENDELL, 197 APP. DIV. 913; 187 N.Y.S. 949; 232 N.Y.
550; 134 N.E. 567), ASSUMING THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT OF EXEMPTION,
BUT HOLDING THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO TAXES UPON INCOME. 
THIS COURT, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AT THE DATE OF THE EXEMPTION
STATUTE "NO ONE THOUGHT OF AN INCOME TAX," AND RECALLING THAT "ANY
CONTRACT OF EXEMPTION MUST BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INDISPUTABLY WITHIN
THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE," SUSTAINED THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE
COURT.  "THE CONCLUSION DOES NOT SEEM TO US VERY DIFFICULT TO REACH." 
262 U.S. AT P. 98. 

THE CONTROVERSY IN NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, DECIDED AT THE
LAST TERM, EVOKED A RULING BY THIS COURT THAT A STATE TAX UPON NET
INCOME WHICH INCLUDED RENTS DERIVED FROM LAND IN ANOTHER STATE, WAS NOT
EQUIVALENT TO A PROPERTY TAX IMPOSED UPON THE LAND ITSELF.  "THE
INCIDENCE OF A TAX ON INCOME DIFFERS FROM THAT OF A TAX ON PROPERTY. 
NEITHER TAX IS DEPENDENT UPON THE POSSESSION BY THE TAXPAYER OF THE
SUBJECT OF THE OTHER.  HIS INCOME MAY BE TAXED, ALTHOUGH HE OWNS NO
PROPERTY, AND HIS PROPERTY MAY BE TAXED ALTHOUGH IT PRODUCES NO
INCOME."  300 U.S. AT P. 314.  POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO.,
157 U.S. 429; 158 U.S. 601, WAS CONSIDERED AND DISTINGUISHED.  TWO
RULINGS EMERGE AS A RESULT OF THE ANALYSIS.  BY THE TEACHING OF THE
POLLOCK CASE AN INCOME TAX ON THE RENTS OF LAND (157 U.S. 429) OR EVEN
ON THE FRUITS OF OTHER INVESTMENTS (158 U.S. 601) IS AN IMPOST UPON
PROPERTY WITHIN THE SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION (ART. I, SEC. 2, CL. 3)
GOVERNING THE APPORTIONMENT OF DIRECT TAXES AMONG THE STATES.  300 U.S.
AT P. 315.  BY THE TEACHING OF THE SAME CASE AN INCOME TAX, IF MADE TO
COVER THE INTEREST ON GOVERNMENT BONDS, IS A CLOG UPON THE BORROWING
POWER SUCH AS WAS CONDEMNED IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316,
AND COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, 124.  300 U.S. AT PP. 315, 316. 
THERE WAS NO HOLDING THAT THE TAX IS A PROPERTY ONE FOR EVERY PURPOSE
OR IN EVERY CONTEXT.  WE LOOK TO ALL THE FACTS. 

IN LINE WITH THAT CONCEPTION OF THE POLLOCK CASE IS BRUSHABER V.
UNION PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA, WHERE THE COURT POINTED OUT (240 U.S. AT
PP. 16, 17) THAT "THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THE POLLOCK CASE DID NOT IN
ANY DEGREE INVOLVE HOLDING THAT INCOME TAXES GENERICALLY AND
NECESSARILY CAME WITHIN THE CLASS OF DIRECT TAXES ON PROPERTY," BUT
THAT TO THE CONTRARY SUCH TAXES WERE ENFORCIBLE AS EXCISES EXCEPT TO
THE EXTENT THAT VIOLENCE MIGHT THUS BE DONE TO THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF
THE RULE GOVERNING APPORTIONMENT. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THESE DECISIONS, WE THINK, IS APPLICABLE HERE.  WE DO
NOT OVERLOOK THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROMISE TO PAY INTEREST MAY BE PART
OF THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT AS MUCH AS THE PROMISE TO PAY
PRINCIPAL.  TO CONCEDE THIS COUNTS FOR LITTLE IF THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN AN EXCISE AND A PROPERTY TAX, OR BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT MEANINGS
OF A PROPERTY TAX, IS NOT PERMITTED TO ESCAPE US.  UNLESS THE FOREGOING
ANALYSIS IS FAULTY, THE TAX COMPLAINED OF BY APPELLANTS IS NOT LAID
UPON THE OBLIGATION TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST CREATED BY THE
BONDS, AT ALL EVENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONTRACT OF EXEMPTION. 
THE TAX IS LAID UPON THE NET RESULTS OF A BUNDLE OR AGGREGATE OF
OCCUPATIONS AND INVESTMENTS.  UNDER A STATUTE SO CONCEIVED AND FRAMED A
MAN MAY OWN A QUANTITY OF STATE AND COUNTY BONDS AND PAY NO TAX
WHATEVER.  THE RETURNS FROM HIS OCCUPATION AND INVESTMENTS ARE THROWN
INTO A POT, AND AFTER DEDUCTING PAYMENTS FOR DEBTS AND EXPENSES AS WELL
AS OTHER ITEMS, THE AMOUNT OF THE NET YIELD IS THE BASE ON WHICH HIS
TAX WILL BE ASSESSED.  CF. UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247
U.S. 321, 329.  IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE PRECEDENTS BROUGHT TOGETHER IN
THIS OPINION, WE CANNOT SAY THAT A TAX ASSESSED ON SUCH A BASE IS A
PLAIN VIOLATION OF ANY CONTRACT OF EXEMPTION TO BE DISCOVERED IN THE
LAWS OF IOWA. 

DOUBTLESS A CONTRACT OF EXEMPTION CAN BE PHRASED IN SUCH TERMS AS TO
FORBID THE IMPOSITION OF A NET INCOME TAX OR INDEED A TAX OF ANY SORT. 
BONDS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ARE SOMETIMES
EXEMPT BY THEIR EXPRESS TERMS FROM INCOME TAXES TO ANY DEGREE (40 STAT.
35, SEC. 1), SOMETIMES FROM INCOME TAXES OTHER THAN SURTAXES OR EXCESS
PROFITS TAXES.  40 STAT. 288, 291, SEC. 7.  SUCH WERE THE LIBERTY BONDS
CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN MACALLEN CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 279 U.S.
620.  BROAD ALSO WAS THE EXEMPTION GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN BONDS
CONSIDERED IN THE SAME CASE, AT LEAST IN RESPECT OF TAXES LEVIED BY THE
STATES, FOR THE BONDS WERE DECLARED EXPRESSLY TO BE FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES.  39 STAT. 360, 380, SEC. 26.  LESS CLEAR AND
COMPREHENSIVE WAS THE EXEMPTION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BONDS DECLARED BY
A MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE (MASS. G.L. C. 59, SEC. 5) AND DEALT WITH MORE
OR LESS SUMMARILY AT THE END OF THE OPINION.  279 U.S. AT P. 634. 
HOWEVER, THE COURTS OF MASSACHUSETTS HAD ALREADY REJECTED THE
CONTENTION THAT AN INCOME TAX WAS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS AN EXCISE RATHER
THAN A TAX ON PROPERTY.  OPINION OF THE JUSTICES, 220 MASS. 613, 624;
108 N.E. 570; 266 MASS. 583, 585; 165 N.E. 900; HARRISON V.
COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS, 272 MASS. 422, 427; 172 N.E. 605.  THE
MEANING OF THE EXEMPTION WAS PROPERLY ASCERTAINED IN SUBJECTION TO THAT
RULING.  CF. EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, AND PACIFIC
CO. V. JOHNSON, SUPRA. 

NOTHING IN THIS OPINION IS AT WAR WITH WESTON V. CHARLESTON, 2 PET.
449, OR OTHER CASES DECLARING THE IMMUNITIES OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. 
IN THE CASE CITED AND ITS CONGENERS THE PROBLEM FOR DECISION WAS
WHETHER A TAX UPON INCOME, EVEN THOUGH NOT A PROPERTY TAX IN STRICTNESS
OR FOR EVERY PURPOSE, WAS ONE IN SUCH A SENSE OR IN SUCH A MEASURE AS
TO HAMPER THE FREEDOM OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE
INTERFERENCE OF THE STATES OR THE FREEDOM OF THE STATES THROUGH THE
INTERFERENCE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.  THE LIMITATIONS DECLARED IN
THOSE DECISIONS WERE GATHERED BY IMPLICATION FROM THE STRUCTURE OF OUR
FEDERAL SYSTEM, AND WERE ACCOMMODATED, AS THE COURT BELIEVED, TO THE
PUBLIC POLICY AT STAKE.  WHAT THE COURT IS NOW CONCERNED WITH, HOWEVER,
IS NOT THE PRESERVATION OR PROTECTION OF ANY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. 
IOWA CANNOT BE HELD TO CRIPPLE IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL WAY HER OWN
PRIVILEGES AND POWERS WHEN SHE LEVIES AN INCOME OR EVEN A PROPERTY TAX
UPON BONDS ISSUED BY HERSELF.  THE COURT IS NOW CONCERNED WITH THE
MEANING AND EFFECT OF PARTICULAR CONTRACTS OF EXEMPTION TO BE READ
NARROWLY AND STRICTLY.  THERE IS NO ROOM AT SUCH A TIME FOR THE FREER
AND BROADER METHODS THAT HAVE BEEN THOUGHT TO BE APPROPRIATE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED RESTRAINTS. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF PROPERTY ARE NOT TO BE TAXED:  1.  THE
PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THIS STATE....  MUNICIPAL, SCHOOL,
AND DRAINAGE BONDS OR CERTIFICATES HEREAFTER ISSUED BY ANY
MUNICIPALITY, SCHOOL DISTRICT, DRAINAGE DISTRICT OR COUNTY WITHIN THE
STATE."  IOWA CODE SUPPLEMENT OF 1915, SEC. 1304, SUBD. 1; CODE 1935,
SEC. 6944, SUBD. 5. 

FN2  "BONDS AND ROAD CERTIFICATES  ...  SHALL NOT BE TAXED."  ACTS
38TH G.A. C. 237, SEC. 28; CODE 1935, SEC. 4753-A13. 

FN3  "ALL BONDS ISSUED HEREUNDER (THE SOLDIERS' BONUS ACT) SHALL BE
EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  ACTS 39TH G.A. C. 332, SEC. 10; CODE 1935, SEC.
6944, SUBD. 22. 

FN4  COMPARE CODE OF 1851, SEC. 455; CODE OF 1873, SEC. 797; CODE OF
1897, SEC. 1304. 

FN5  AN EARLIER FORM OF THE SAME STATUTE, AFTER PROVIDING, LIKE THE
LATER ONE, THAT "THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF PROPERTY ARE NOT TO BE
TAXED," ADDS THE SIGNIFICANT WORDS, "AND THEY MAY BE OMITTED FROM THE
ASSESSMENTS HEREIN REQUIRED."  CODE OF 1873, SEC. 797.  THE OPINION IN
SIOUX CITY V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 55 IOWA 150, 151, 152; 7
N.W. 488, REFERS TO THESE WORDS AS EMPHASIZING THE CONCLUSION THAT
EXEMPTION RELATES TO TAXES ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  THE 1851 CODE
PROVISION IS ALMOST IDENTICAL. 

FN6  THE CODE IN FORCE AT THAT TIME WAS THE ONE OF 1873. 

FN7  SIMS V. AHRENS, 167 ARK. 557; 271 S.W. 720; STANLEY V. GATES,
179 ARK. 886; 19 S.W.(2D) 1000; WARING V. SAVANNAH, 60 GA. 93, 100;
FEATHERSTONE V. NORMAN, 170 GA. 370, 379; 153 S.E. 58; DIEFENDORF V.
GALLET, 51 IDAHO 619, 627; 10 P.(2D) 307; MILES V. DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY, 199 N.E. 372(IND.); OPINION OF THE JUSTICES, 133 ME. 525,
528; 178 ATL. 820; HATTIESBURG GROCERY CO. V. ROBERTSON, 126 MISS.  34,
52; 88 SO. 4; LUDLOW-SAYLOR WIRE CO. V. WOLLBRINCK, 275 MO. 339, 351;
205 S.W. 196; BACON V. RANSON, 331 MO. 985, 990; 56 S.W.(2D) 786;
O'CONNELL V. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 95 MONT. 91, 112; 25 P.(2D)
114; MILLS V. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 97 MONT. 13, 17; 33 P.(2D)
563; MAXWELL V. KENTCOFFEY MFG. CO., 204 N.C. 365, 371; 168 S.E. 397;
HUNTON V. COMMONWEALTH, 166 VA. 229, 243; 183 S.E. 873; VAN DYKE V.
STATE TAX COMM'N, 217 WIS. 528, 535; 259 N.W. 700; 4 COOLEY ON
TAXATION, 4TH ED., SEC. 1743.  MANY CASES ARE COLLECTED IN BROWN, THE
NATURE OF THE INCOME TAX, 17 MINN. L. REV. 127, 130, 139. 

FN8  ELIASBERG BROS. MERCANTILE CO. V. GRIMES, 204 ALA. 492; 86 SO.
56; BACHRACH V. NELSON, 349 ILL. 579, 595; 182 N.E. 909; OPINION OF THE
JUSTICES, 220 MASS. 613, 624; 108 N.E. 570; 266 MASS. 583, 585; 165
N.E. 900; HARRISON V. COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS, 272 MASS. 422, 427;
172 N.E. 605; REDFIELD V. FISHER, 135 ORE.  180, 192; 292 PAC. 813;
KELLEY V. KALODNER, 320 PA. ST. 180, 185; 181 ATL. 598; CULLITON V.
CHASE, 174 WASH. 363; 25 P.(2D) 81; JENSEN V. HENNEFORD, 185 WASH. 209,
216; 53 P.(2D) 607. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

AT THE TIME THE BONDS HERE INVOLVED WERE PURCHASED, THE STATUTES OF
IOWA EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THEY "ARE NOT TO BE TAXED" OR "SHALL NOT
BE TAXED" OR "SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION."  THESE ARE PLAIN WORDS,
AND THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION.  WHEN THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR, IT
IS CONCLUSIVE.  "THERE CAN BE NO CONSTRUCTION WHERE THERE IS NOTHING TO
CONSTRUE."  THIS HAS BEEN HELD SO OFTEN BY THIS COURT THAT IT HAS
BECOME AXIOMATIC.  THAT THE PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE NON
TAXABILITY OF THE BONDS CONSTITUTE A STATUTORY CONTRACT WITH THE
PURCHASER OF THE BONDS, AND THAT ANY SUBSEQUENT STATUTE WHICH VIOLATES
THESE PROVISIONS IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT, IS NOT A
MATTER OF DISPUTE.  THE SOLE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF AN
INCOME TAX IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST DERIVED FROM THE BONDS IS A TAX
UPON THE BONDS.    WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE NAME GIVEN TO THE
TAX.  THE EXEMPTION IS IN UNQUALIFIED TERMS, AND INCLUDES ALL TAXES. 
AND I SEE NO WARRANT FOR SAYING THAT THE EXEMPTION MUST BE LIMITED TO
SO-CALLED AD VALOREM TAXES.  THE EXEMPTION IS NOT IN THE FORM OR NATURE
OF A PROVISO TO THE SECTION FIXING THE TIME AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY
OF SUCH TAXES, BUT IS A SUBSTANTIVE ENACTMENT STANDING INDEPENDENTLY
AND COMPLETE IN ITSELF.  NOR DO I SEE ANY GROUND FOR CONFINING IT TO
TAXES THEN KNOWN TO THE IOWA LAW.  SUCH AN ALL-EMBRACING EXEMPTION
CANNOT BE AVOIDED BY THE INVENTION OF A NEW TAX.  TO ME, IT SEEMS
EVIDENT THAT IF ANY TAX BE IMPOSED UPON THE BONDS, THE CONTRACT IS
IMPAIRED.  IT LIKEWISE SEEMS EVIDENT THAT THE TAX HERE IS IMPOSED ON
THE BONDS THEMSELVES. 

OF WHAT DOES A BOND FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY CONSIST?  CERTAINLY NOT
THE PRINCIPAL ALONE; FOR THE PROMISE TO PAY INTEREST IS AS MUCH A PART
OF THE OBLIGATION OF THE BOND AS THE PROMISE TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL.  A
BOND, FOR EXAMPLE, PROMISES TO PAY THE BEARER AT THE END OF TEN YEARS
THE SUM OF $1,000, AND ALSO INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 5% PER ANNUM, TO BE
PAID SEMI-ANNUALLY; THAT IS TO SAY, PROMISES TO PAY $25 AT THE END OF
EVERY SIX-MONTHS' PERIOD, AND $1,000 AT THE END OF TEN YEARS.  THERE IS
NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PROMISES IN RESPECT OF THEIR BINDING OR
LEGAL QUALITY.  BOTH ARE OBLIGATIONS OF THE BOND.  IF ONE CANNOT BE
VIOLATED, NEITHER CAN THE OTHER. 

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN PRINCIPLE BETWEEN SUCH A BOND AND ONE WHERE
THE BOND IS ISSUED UPON A DISCOUNT BASIS, AS IN THE CASE OF UNITED
STATES SAVINGS BONDS (TREASURY DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 529, FEBRUARY
25, 1935).  A UNITED STATES SAVINGS BOND FOR $1,000, PAYABLE IN TEN
YEARS "WITHOUT INTEREST," MAY BE PURCHASED FOR THE SUM OF $750 - THE
REMAINING $250 BEING DEFERRED INTEREST.  PLAINLY, THE $250 DEFERRED
INTEREST IS AS MUCH A PART OF THE BOND AS THE $750 ORIGINALLY INVESTED;
AND A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION EXEMPTING THE BOND FROM TAXATION IS
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO EACH.  IS THE CASE DIFFERENT IF THE BOND SHALL
PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF $750, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST IN THE SUM OF
$250 TO BE PAID IN INSTALLMENTS OR AT THE END OF TEN YEARS?  CERTAINLY
NOT, UNLESS FORM IS TO BE EXALTED AND SUBSTANCE IGNORED. 

THE FORCE OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID CANNOT BE AVOIDED BY MERELY CALLING
THE TAX AN EXCISE.  IF A TAX FALLS UPON THE BOND AND LESSENS ITS
PROCEEDS, EITHER IN RESPECT OF PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST, IT IS A TAX ON
THE BOND, AND CANNOT BE MADE SOMETHING ELSE BY RESORT TO THE VOCABULARY
OR BY EMPLOYING SOME CIRCUITOUS METHOD OF IMPOSING IT.  IT IS WELL
SETTLED, AT LEAST GENERALLY, THAT "WHAT CANNOT BE DONE DIRECTLY  ...
CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED INDIRECTLY BY LEGISLATION WHICH ACCOMPLISHES THE
SAME RESULT."  FAIRBANK V. UNITED STATES, 181 U.S. 283, 294, 300, AND
CASES CITED.  I AM UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THAT PHILOSOPHY WHICH SEEMS
TO TEACH THAT A FORBIDDEN RESULT MAY NEVERTHELESS BE ACHIEVED IF ONLY
SOME DELUSIVE AND DEVIOUS WAY OF ACHIEVING IT CAN BE FOUND. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER JOIN IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
















TRADE COMM'N V. EDUCATION SOCIETY, 302 U.S. 112 


NO. 14.  ARGUED OCTOBER 18, 1937.  - DECIDED NOVEMBER 8, 1937.  - 86
F.(2D) 692, REVERSED IN PART. 


1.  THE FACT THAT A FALSE STATEMENT MAY BE OBVIOUSLY FALSE TO THOSE
WHO ARE TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED DOES NOT CHANGE ITS CHARACTER, NOR TAKE
AWAY ITS POWER TO DECEIVE OTHERS LESS EXPERIENCED.  P. 116. 

2.  THERE IS NO DUTY RESTING UPON A CITIZEN TO SUSPECT THE HONESTY OF
THOSE WITH WHOM HE TRANSACTS BUSINESS.  LAWS ARE MADE TO PROTECT THE
TRUSTING AS WELL AS THE SUSPICIOUS.  ID. 

3.  FINDINGS OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ARE CONCLUSIVE IF
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  P. 117. 

4.  AS PART OF A SCHEME FOR SELLING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND A LOOSE LEAF
EXTENSION SERVICE, RESPONDENTS FALSELY REPRESENTED TO PROSPECTIVE
PURCHASERS THAT THE BOOKS WOULD BE GIVEN TO THEM FREE AND THAT THEY
WOULD PAY ONLY FOR THE EXTENSION SERVICE AT A REDUCED PRICE; WHEREAS,
IN TRUTH, THE PRICE CHARGED THEM WAS THE SAME AS THE REGULAR, STANDARD
PRICE FOR BOTH THE BOOKS AND THE EXTENSION SERVICE.  HELD - VIOLATIVE
OF SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.  PP. 115, 117. 

5.  AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FORBADE, IN THE
ADVERTISING OF A REVISED ENCYCLOPEDIA, THE USE OF THE NAMES OF PERSONS,
AS CONTRIBUTORS OR EDITORS, WHO HAD NOT CONSENTED TO SUCH USE AND WHO
HAD NEITHER ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLICATIONS NOR HELPED TO EDIT
THEM.  HELD PROPERLY INCLUSIVE OF CONTRIBUTORS TO AN EARLIER WORK NO
PART OF WHOSE CONTRIBUTIONS HAD BEEN CARRIED INTO THE REVISION.  P.
117. 

6.  THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS, SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SUSTAIN ITS
ORDER FORBIDDING, IN ADVERTISEMENTS OF A PUBLICATION, THE USE OF
TESTIMONIALS ATTRIBUTED TO PERSONS WHO DID NOT GIVE THEM.  P. 118. 

7.  A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DIRECTED
TO A CORPORATION BINDS THOSE WHO ARE IN CONTROL OF ITS AFFAIRS AND MAY
PROPERLY INCLUDE THEM AS INDIVIDUALS WHEN THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT, IF DIRECTED TO THE CORPORATION ALONE, THEY WILL ENDEAVOR TO EVADE
IT. P. 119. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. STANDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 301 U.S. 674, TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW
WHICH MODIFIED IN PART, AND REVERSED IN PART, AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION. 

MR. JUSTICE BLACK DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UPON APPLICATION BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION THIS COURT GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THAT PART OF A DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT WHICH MODIFIED IN PART AND REVERSED IN
PART A "CEASE AND DESIST" ORDER OF THE COMMISSION.  86 F.(2D) 692.  THE
COMMISSION, AFTER SERVICE OF A COMPLAINT, AND EXTENSIVE HEARINGS, MADE
A FINDING OF FACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY AND ORDERED TWO CORPORATION
RESPONDENTS, AND THREE INDIVIDUALS CONTROLLING THESE CORPORATIONS, TO
DESIST FROM CERTAIN PRACTICES USED BY RESPONDENTS IN FURTHERING THE
SALE OF ENCYCLOPEDIAS AND OTHER BOOKS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
COMMISSION NOT ONLY FOUND THE PRACTICES TO BE "UNFAIR" BUT ALSO "FALSE,
DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING."  THE COURT BELOW MODIFIED AND WEAKENED THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER IN MATERIAL ASPECTS, AND THE QUESTIONS HERE ARE
WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SUPPORTED ALL THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, AND
WHETHER THESE FINDINGS JUSTIFIED THE ENTIRE ORDER AS AGAINST ALL THE
RESPONDENTS. 

ALL "UNFAIR" PRACTICES FOUND BY THE COMMISSION RELATED WHOLLY TO
METHODS OF SALE.  THE COMMISSION'S ORDER AGAINST RESPONDENTS WAS BASED,
IN PART, UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 

THAT FICTITIOUS TESTIMONIALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HAD BEEN USED BY
RESPONDENTS; THAT AUTHORIZED TESTIMONIALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HAD BEEN
EXAGGERATED AND GARBLED; THAT AUTHORIZED TESTIMONIALS FOR A "PREVIOUS
WORK" WERE LATER USED TO FURTHER THE SALE OF ANOTHER "WORK, QUITE
DIFFERENT IN FORM, IN MATERIAL AND IN PURPOSE."  "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SELLING THEIR PUBLICATIONS, STANDARD REFERENCE WORK AND NEW STANDARD
ENCYCLOPEDIA," RESPONDENTS ADVERTISED "A LIST HEADED 'CONTRIBUTORS AND
REVIEWERS' AND  ...  IN SUCH LIST THEY INCLUDE MANY WHO HAVE NOT BEEN
EITHER CONTRIBUTORS OR REVIEWERS TO EITHER THE STANDARD REFERENCE WORK
OR THE NEW STANDARD ENCYCLOPEDIA."  RESPONDENTS SOLD "THEIR
PUBLICATIONS AT RETAIL TO THE PUBLIC BY SALESMEN ON THE SUBSCRIPTION
PLAN" AND IN CARRYING OUT SAID PLAN THEY REPRESENTED TO PROSPECTS THAT
THEY WERE SELECTING A SMALL LIST OF "WELL CONNECTED REPRESENTATIVE
PEOPLE" IN VARIOUS LOCALITIES, IN ORDER TO PRESENT THEM WITH AN
"ARTCRAFT DE LUXE EDITION" OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA.  FURTHER CARRYING OUT
RESPONDENTS' SCHEME, THEIR AGENTS REPRESENTED THAT "THEY ARE GIVING
AWAY A SET OF BOOKS; THAT THEY ARE NOT SELLING ANYTHING; THAT THE BOOKS
ARE FREE; THAT THE BOOKS ARE BEING GIVEN FREE AS AN ADVERTISING PLAN
...  THAT THE PROSPECT HAS BEEN SPECIALLY SELECTED, AND THAT THE ONLY
RETURN DESIRED FOR THE GIFT IS PERMISSION TO USE THE NAME OF THE
PROSPECT FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES AND AS A REFERENCE"; THAT THE "SAID
PROSPECTS ARE PAYING ONLY FOR THE LOOSE LEAF EXTENSION SERVICE;...
THAT THE PRICE OF $69.50 IS A REDUCED PRICE AND THAT THE REGULAR PRICE
OF THE BOOKS AND THE EXTENSION SERVICE IS $150.00, SOMETIMES EVEN AS
HIGH AS $200.00."  THE STATEMENTS THAT THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS BEING GIVEN
AWAY; THAT PAYMENT IS ONLY BEING MADE "FOR THE LOOSE LEAF EXTENSION
SERVICE"; AND THAT "$69.50 IS A REDUCED PRICE  ...  ARE FALSE,
DECEPTIVE AND MISLEADING, AS $69.50 IS THE REGULAR, STANDARD PRICE" FOR
BOTH THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AND THE LOOSE LEAF EXTENSION AND RESEARCH
PRIVILEGES. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED CLAUSES ONE AND THREE OF THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THESE CLAUSES ORDERED RESPONDENTS NOT TO REPRESENT
FALSELY TO PURCHASERS OF THEIR PUBLICATIONS THAT THE PUBLISHING COMPANY
WAS GIVING ENCYCLOPEDIAS TO THEM AS A GIFT, AND THAT PURCHASERS WERE
PAYING ONLY FOR LOOSE LEAF SUPPLEMENTS. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED CLAUSES TWO AND SIX OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER.  THESE CLAUSES ORDERED RESPONDENTS NOT TO REPRESENT FALSELY TO
PURCHASERS THAT SETS OF BOOKS HAD "BEEN RESERVED TO BE GIVEN AWAY FREE
OF COST TO SELECTED PERSONS" AND THAT THE USUAL PRICE AT WHICH
RESPONDENTS' PUBLICATIONS ARE SOLD IS HIGHER THAN THE PRICE "AT WHICH
THEY ARE OFFERED TO SUCH PURCHASERS." 

IT IS CLEAR, BOTH FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION, AND THE
TESTIMONY UPON WHICH THEY REST, THAT THE PRACTICES FORBIDDEN IN CLAUSES
ONE, TWO, THREE AND SIX ARE ALL TIED TOGETHER AS PARTS OF THE SAME
SALES PLAN.  AS A FIRST STEP UNDER THIS PLAN, SALESMEN OBTAINED AN
AUDIENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS BY REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THEM
THAT BY REASON OF THEIR PRESTIGE AND INFLUENCE THEY HAD BEEN SELECTED
BY THE COMPANY TO RECEIVE A SET OF BOOKS FREE OF COSTS FOR ADVERTISING
PURPOSES.  AFTER RESPONDENTS' AGENTS THUS GAINED AN AUDIENCE BY THE
PROMISE OF A FREE SET OF BOOKS, THEY THEN MOVED FORWARD UNDER THE SAME
GENERAL SALES PLAN, BY FALSELY REPRESENTING THAT THE REGULAR PRICE OF
THE LOOSE LEAF SUPPLEMENT ALONE WAS $69.50, AND THAT THE USUAL PRICE OF
BOTH BOOKS AND LOOSE LEAF SUPPLEMENTS WAS MUCH IN EXCESS OF $69.50. 
THE COMMISSION ORDERED RESPONDENTS NOT TO ENGAGE IN CARRYING OUT ANY
PART OF THIS ENTIRE SALES PLAN.  HOWEVER, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS
REVERSED CLAUSES ONE AND THREE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, A PART OF THE
SALES SCHEME WHICH THE COMMISSION CONDEMNED AS UNFAIR, CAN YET BE
CARRIED OUT BY RESPONDENTS.  THAT IS TO SAY - RESPONDENTS BY THAT
REVERSAL, ARE LEFT FREE TO CONTINUE TO OBTAIN AUDIENCES WITH PROSPECTS
AND TO SELL ENCYCLOPEDIAS AND LOOSE LEAF SUPPLEMENTS TO THEM, BY FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS THAT THE COMPANY GIVES THEM A SET OF ENCYCLOPEDIAS
FREE, AND THAT $69.50 PAID BY THEM TO THE COMPANY, IS FOR THE LOOSE
LEAF SUPPLEMENT ALONE. 

IN REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE LEFT FREE TO
ENGAGE IN THAT PART OF THE SALES SCHEME PROHIBITED BY CLAUSES ONE AND
THREE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, THE COURT BELOW REASONED AS FOLLOWS: 

"WE CANNOT TAKE SERIOUSLY THE SUGGESTION THAT A MAN WHO IS BUYING A
SET OF BOOKS AND A TEN YEARS' 'EXTENSION SERVICE,' WILL BE FATUOUS
ENOUGH TO BE MISLED BY THE MERE STATEMENT THAT THE FIRST ARE GIVEN
AWAY, AND THAT HE IS PAYING ONLY FOR THE SECOND....  SUCH TRIVIAL
NICETIES ARE TOO IMPALPABLE FOR PRACTICAL AFFAIRS, THEY ARE WILL-O'-THE
WISPS, WHICH DIVERT ATTENTION FROM SUBSTANTIAL EVILS." 

THE FACT THAT A FALSE STATEMENT MAY BE OBVIOUSLY FALSE TO THOSE WHO
ARE TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED DOES NOT CHANGE ITS CHARACTER, NOR TAKE
AWAY ITS POWER TO DECEIVE OTHERS LESS EXPERIENCED.  THERE IS NO DUTY
RESTING UPON A CITIZEN TO SUSPECT THE HONESTY OF THOSE WITH WHOM HE
TRANSACTS BUSINESS.  LAWS ARE MADE TO PROTECT THE TRUSTING AS WELL AS
THE SUSPICIOUS.  THE BEST ELEMENT OF BUSINESS HAS LONG SINCE DECIDED
THAT HONESTY SHOULD GOVERN COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISES, AND THAT THE RULE
OF CAVEAT EMPTOR SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO REWARD FRAUD AND
DECEPTION. 

THE PRACTICE OF PROMISING FREE BOOKS WHERE NO FREE BOOKS WERE INTENDED
TO BE GIVEN, AND THE PRACTICE OF DECEIVING UNWARY PURCHASERS INTO THE
FALSE BELIEF THAT LOOSE LEAF SUPPLEMENTS ALONE SELL FOR $69.50, WHEN IN
REALITY BOTH BOOKS AND SUPPLEMENT REGULARLY SELL FOR $69.50, ARE
PRACTICES CONTRARY TO DECENT BUSINESS STANDARDS.  TO FAIL TO PROHIBIT
SUCH EVIL PRACTICES WOULD BE TO ELEVATE DECEPTION IN BUSINESS AND TO
GIVE TO IT THE STANDING AND DIGNITY OF TRUTH.  IT WAS CLEARLY THE
PRACTICE OF RESPONDENTS THROUGH THEIR AGENTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A WELL
MATURED PLAN, TO MISLEAD CUSTOMERS INTO THE BELIEF THAT THEY WERE GIVEN
AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, AND THAT THEY PAID ONLY FOR THE LOOSE LEAF
SUPPLEMENT.  THAT REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE JUSTIFYING THIS BELIEF;
THAT THE PLAN WAS OUTLINED IN LETTERS GOING DIRECTLY FROM THE
COMPANIES; THAT MEN AND WOMEN WERE DECEIVED BY THEM - THERE CAN BE
LITTLE DOUBT.  CERTAINLY THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED FROM THE EVIDENCE
IN FINDING THAT CUSTOMERS WERE MISLED.  TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD FROM
CITIZENS OF TEN STATES - TEACHERS, DOCTORS, COLLEGE PROFESSORS, CLUB
WOMEN, BUSINESS MEN - PROVES BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE PRACTICE WAS NOT
ONLY THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED SALES METHOD FOR RESPONDENTS' ENCYCLOPEDIAS,
BUT THAT IT SUCCESSFULLY DECEIVED AND DELUDED ITS VICTIMS. 

THE COURTS DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IGNORE THE PLAIN MANDATE OF THE
STATUTE WHICH MAKES THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE
FACTS IF SUPPORTED BY TESTIMONY.  FN1  THE COURTS CANNOT PICK AND
CHOOSE BITS OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT CONTRARY TO THE
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.  THE RECORD IN THIS CASE IS FILLED WITH
EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES UNDER OATH WHICH SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS.  CLAUSES ONE AND THREE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SHOULD BE
SUSTAINED AND ENFORCED. 

THE SEVENTH CLAUSE OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER FORBADE THE USE OF NAMES
OF PERSONS AS CONTRIBUTORS OR EDITORS WHO HAD NOT CONSENTED TO SUCH USE
AND WHO HAD NEITHER ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLICATIONS NOR HELPED
TO EDIT THEM. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THIS CLAUSE EXCEPT AS IT MIGHT APPLY TO
THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTORS TO AITON'S ENCYCLOPEDIA SAYING THAT "IT SEEMS
TO US NOT 'UNFAIR' TO ANNOUNCE AS CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DERIVED WORKS
THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ORIGINAL."  AITON'S
ENCYCLOPEDIA WAS PUBLISHED ABOUT 1909, AND RESPONDENTS' WORKS REPRESENT
THE RESULT OF PERIODIC REVISIONS AND EXPANSIONS OF THE PRIOR WORK.  THE
GOVERNMENT CONCEDES IN ITS BRIEF THAT THIS CLAUSE OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER DOES NOT PREVENT RESPONDENTS FROM REPRESENTING A PERSON WHO
CONTRIBUTED TO THE ORIGINAL, AS A CONTRIBUTOR TO THEIR REVISED
PUBLICATION, IF "SOME OF THE MATERIAL ORIGINALLY IN AITON'S
ENCYCLOPEDIA REMAINED IN THE NEW EDITION OF THE REVISED WORK." 
RESPONDENTS AGREE WITH THIS INTERPRETATION.  AS BETWEEN THESE PARTIES,
THEREFORE, THIS CLAUSE PERMITS RESPONDENTS TO REPRESENT ANY PERSON AS A
CONTRIBUTOR TO THEIR PRESENT REVISED ENCYCLOPEDIA, IF A PART OF HIS
ORIGINAL MATERIAL HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD TO IT. IF NO PART OF HIS
CONTRIBUTION TO AITON'S ENCYCLOPEDIA HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD, HE IS
NOT A CONTRIBUTOR AND SHOULD NOT BE REPRESENTED AS SUCH.  THIS CLAUSE
AS ORIGINALLY DECLARED BY THE COMMISSION WOULD, UNDER THIS
INTERPRETATION, PROPERLY FORBID RESPONDENTS FROM FALSELY REPRESENTING
AS CONTRIBUTORS OR EDITORS THOSE WHO HAD ACTUALLY NEITHER CONTRIBUTED
TO, NOR EDITED, THE PUBLICATIONS.  THE DECREE OF THE COURT BELOW
MODIFYING THIS CLAUSE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CONCLUSION, AND
CLAUSE SEVEN OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER SHOULD BE ENFORCED. 

THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE EIGHTH CLAUSE OF THE ORDER OF THE
COMMISSION.  THE REASON GIVEN BY THE COURT BELOW FOR THIS ACTION WAS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"FOR THE EIGHTH, WHICH FORBAD THE USE OF SUCH TESTIMONIALS WHICH HAD
NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE PERSON WHOSE NAME WAS USED, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
FIND NO SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE;..." 

WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF FACT JUSTIFIED
THIS CLAUSE OF THE ORDER AND THAT THE TESTIMONY SUPPORTS THESE
FINDINGS.  FN2 

THE COURT OF APPEALS ENTIRELY EXCLUDED RESPONDENT GREENER FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, AND PARTIALLY EXCLUDED RESPONDENTS
STANFORD AND WARD.  THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT 

"RESPONDENTS H. M. STANFORD, W. H. WARD, AND A. J. GREENER ARE THE
MANAGERS AND SOLE STOCKHOLDERS OF RESPONDENT STANDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY
AND THE MANAGERS AND SOLE INCORPORATORS OF RESPONDENT STANDARD
ENCYCLOPEDIA CORPORATION  ...  THE COMMISSION CONCLUDES AND INFERS FROM
THE RECORD IN THIS CASE AND SO FINDS THAT THIS CORPORATION WAS
ORGANIZED BY THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING ANY
ORDER THAT MIGHT BE ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT THE STANDARD EDUCATION SOCIETY." 

THERE WAS AMPLE SUPPORT IN THE TESTIMONY FOR THIS FINDING OF THE
COMMISSION. 

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT (SUPRA) GIVES THE COMMISSION POWER
TO "PREVENT PERSONS, PARTNERSHIPS OR CORPORATIONS,  ...  FROM USING
UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION IN COMMERCE." 

THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT "A COMMAND TO THE CORPORATION IS IN EFFECT A
COMMAND TO THOSE WHO ARE OFFICIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS
AFFAIRS.  IF THEY, APPRISED OF THE WRIT DIRECTED TO THE CORPORATION,
PREVENT COMPLIANCE  ...  THEY, NO LESS THAN THE CORPORATION ITSELF, ARE
GUILTY OF DISOBEDIENCE AND MAY BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT."  WILSON V.
UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 361, 376. 

RESPONDENTS STANFORD, WARD AND GREENER, WHO ARE IN CHARGE AND CONTROL
OF THE AFFAIRS OF RESPONDENT CORPORATIONS, WOULD BE BOUND BY A CEASE
AND DESIST ORDER RENDERED AGAINST THE CORPORATIONS.  SINCE
CIRCUMSTANCES, DISCLOSED BY THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS AND THE
TESTIMONY, ARE SUCH THAT FURTHER EFFORTS OF THESE INDIVIDUAL
RESPONDENTS TO EVADE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION MIGHT BE ANTICIPATED, IT
WAS PROPER FOR THE COMMISSION TO INCLUDE THEM IN ITS CEASE AND DESIST
ORDER. 

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DISCLOSES CLOSELY HELD CORPORATIONS OWNED,
DOMINATED AND MANAGED BY THESE THREE INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS.  IN THIS
MANAGEMENT THESE THREE RESPONDENTS ACTED WITH PRACTICALLY THE SAME
FREEDOM AS THOUGH NO CORPORATION HAD EXISTED.  SO FAR AS CORPORATE
ACTION WAS CONCERNED, THESE THREE WERE THE ACTORS.  UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PROCEEDING, THE COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED IN
REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE RESPONDENTS
STANFORD, WARD AND GREENER IN EACH PART OF ITS ORDER IF IT WAS TO BE
FULLY EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING THE UNFAIR COMPETITIVE PRACTICES WHICH
THE COMMISSION HAD FOUND TO EXIST.  THE COURT BELOW WAS IN ERROR IN
EXCLUDING THESE RESPONDENTS FROM THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER.    THE DECREE BELOW WILL BE REVERSED EXCEPT AS TO MODIFICATION
OF CLAUSE TEN OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER, AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO PROCEED IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT, SEPT. 26, 1914, 38 STAT. 717,
U.S.C. TITLE 15, SEC. 45.    FN2  FROM PARAGRAPHS FOURTEEN AND FIFTEEN
OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS IT APPEARS THAT RESPONDENTS USED THE NAMES
OF VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IN TESTIMONIALS AND THAT 

"NONE OF THESE MEN OR THIS WOMAN EVER WROTE ANY TESTIMONIAL OR
RECOMMENDATION OF OR CONCERNING THE NEW STANDARD ENCYCLOPEDIA.  THE
REPRESENTATIONS THAT THESE MEN AND THIS WOMAN WROTE THE RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR THE SO-CALLED 'NEW STANDARD ENCYCLOPEDIA' ARE FALSE, DECEPTIVE AND
MISLEADING." 
..END :
























GREAT LAKES CORP. V. S.S. CO., 301 U.S. 646 


NO. 716.  ARGUED APRIL 28, 29, 1937.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1937.  - 86
F.(2D) 740, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, BY ITS BILLS OF LADING AND
TARIFFS, WAIVES THE EXEMPTIONS OF THE HARTER ACT AND ACCEPTS LIABILITY
AS INSURER OF CARGO AGAINST MARINE PERILS, IT IS ENTITLED TO INSURE
ITSELF AGAINST THAT LIABILITY.  P. 651. 

2.  WHERE A CARRIER, BY AGREEMENT WITH SHIPPERS, ASSUMES LIABILITY AS
INSURER OF CARGO AGAINST MARINE PERILS, THE LIABILITY IS NOT DIMINISHED
BY A FURTHER STIPULATION THAT THE CARRIER WILL OBTAIN MARINE INSURANCE
FROM OTHERS.  P. 652. 

3.  POLICIES OF INSURANCE ISSUED TO A STEAMSHIP COMPANY, NAMING IT AS
THE ASSURED, CONTEMPLATED THAT THE ASSURED, AS COMMON CARRIER, WOULD
TAKE UPON ITSELF FULL LIABILITY TO CARGO OWNERS FOR DAMAGE AND LOSS DUE
TO PERILS OF THE SEA, AND EXPRESSLY AGREED TO INDEMNIFY THE ASSURED
AGAINST THAT LIABILITY.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT AMBIGUITIES, IF ANY, RAISED BY OTHER CLAUSES, MUST BE
RESOLVED SO AS STILL TO GIVE EFFECT TO THIS DOMINANT PURPOSE TO INSURE
THE CARRIER.  P. 652. 

(2)  THE FACTS THAT THE POLICIES INSURED THE CARRIER "FOR ACCOUNT OF
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN," AND THAT LOSS WAS PAYABLE TO THE CARRIER "OR
ORDER," AND THAT THE COST OF THE INSURANCE WAS INCLUDED IN THE
CARRIER'S RATES TO CARGO OWNERS, DID NOT JUSTIFY TREATING THE POLICIES
AS TAKEN OUT BY THE CARRIER NOT FOR ITS OWN PROTECTION BUT FOR
INSURANCE OF CARGO OWNERS.  P. 653. 

4.  A CARRIER'S RATE TO CARGO MAY PROPERLY COVER ALL REASONABLE
EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING THE COST OF INSURING
THE CARRIER AGAINST LIABILITY WHICH IT HAS ASSUMED TO CARGO FOR DAMAGES
AND LOSSES CAUSED BY MARINE PERILS.  P. 653. 

5.  A POLICY INSURING A CARRIER AGAINST LOSS AND DAMAGE TO CARGO FROM
MARINE PERILS MAY INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF SHIPPERS.  P. 653. 

6.  WHERE A CARRIER, HAVING ASSUMED LIABILITY TO CARGO FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE FROM MARINE PERILS AND HAVING INSURED ITSELF AGAINST THAT
LIABILITY, PAYS ITS SHIPPERS FOR LOSSES SUFFERED IN A COLLISION IN
WHICH BOTH VESSELS WERE AT FAULT AND COLLECTS THE AMOUNT FROM ITS
UNDERWRITERS, THE UNDERWRITERS MAY HAVE AN EQUITY OF SUBROGATION
AGAINST THE OTHER VESSEL FOR A MOIETY OF WHAT THEY PAID; BUT THEY
CANNOT USE THAT RIGHT TO RECOVER OVER AGAINST THE CARRIER THEY
INSURED.  P. 653. 

GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORP. V. INTERSTATE STEAMSHIP CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 650, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE IN
ADMIRALTY ADJUDGING TWO VESSELS AT FAULT AND ADJUDGING THAT INTERVENING
UNDERWRITERS RECOVER, FROM EACH OF THE VESSELS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE
OWNERS, A MOIETY OF PAYMENTS MADE UNDER POLICIES INSURING ONE OF THE
CARRIERS AGAINST LIABILITY TO CARGO. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A COLLISION OCCURRED IN THE ST. CLAIR RIVER BETWEEN THE VESSEL
"GEORGE D. DIXON" OWNED BY THE PETITIONER, GREAT LAKES TRANSIT
CORPORATION, AND THE VESSEL "WILLIS L. KING" OWNED BY THE INTERSTATE
STEAMSHIP COMPANY.  EACH OWNER BROUGHT A LIBEL IN ADMIRALTY AGAINST THE
OTHER.  THE SUITS WERE CONSOLIDATED.  THE ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY AND OTHER UNDERWRITERS HAVING PAID TO THE PETITIONER, UNDER
INSURANCE POLICIES PROCURED BY IT, THE AMOUNT OF CARGO DAMAGE AND LOSS
WHICH PETITIONER HAD PAID TO OWNERS OF THE CARGO CARRIED BY THE
"DIXON," INTERVENED AND CLAIMED THE RIGHT THROUGH SUBROGATION TO
RECOVER THE AMOUNT THUS PAID FROM THE INTERSTATE STEAMSHIP COMPANY AND
ITS VESSEL, THE "KING."  FN1 

THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED A DECREE ADJUDGING BOTH VESSELS AT FAULT
AND THAT THE INTERVENING UNDERWRITERS SHOULD RECOVER FROM EACH OF THE
VESSELS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS A MOIETY OF THE AMOUNTS PAID AND
PAYABLE UNDER THE POLICIES.  THE DECREE WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.  86 F.(2D) 740.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ISSUE, CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE
CORRECTNESS OF THE DECREE IN DIRECTING RECOVERY FROM THE PETITIONER. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IS THAT THE INSURANCE POLICIES WERE CONTRACTS
BETWEEN THE UNDERWRITERS AND THE PETITIONER UNDER WHICH THE LATTER WAS
ENTITLED TO BE INDEMNIFIED FOR THE LIABILITY IT HAD ASSUMED UNDER ITS
BILL OF LADING AND ITS TARIFF PROVISIONS; THAT THE UNDERWRITERS WERE
NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER BACK FROM PETITIONER WHAT THEY HAD PAID IT IN
DISCHARGE OF THEIR OBLIGATION.  THE UNDERWRITERS INSIST THAT THEIR
POLICIES INSURED CARGO AND THAT THEIR PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR CARGO'S
BENEFIT; THAT, THE CARGO DAMAGE AND LOSS HAVING BEEN PAID, THEY WERE
ENTITLED BY SUBROGATION TO A DECREE FOR THE FULL DAMAGE AGAINST THE
"KING"; THAT AS BOTH VESSELS WERE AT FAULT THE "KING" WAS ENTITLED TO
CONTRIBUTION FROM THE "DIXON," AND THAT THE DECREE IN AVOIDANCE OF
CIRCUITY HAD FIXED THE ULTIMATE LIABILITIES BY REQUIRING EACH VESSEL TO
PAY A MOIETY. 

THE CARGO ON THE "DIXON" WAS CARRIED UNDER UNIFORM BILLS OF LADING,
APPROVED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, WHICH AFTER REFERRING
IN SEC. 9(A) TO THE EXEMPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE HARTER ACT (46 U.S.C.
190 ET SEQ.), PROVIDED IN SEC. 9(E) AS FOLLOWS: 

"IF THE PROPERTY IS BEING CARRIED UNDER A TARIFF WHICH PROVIDES THAT
ANY CARRIER OR CARRIERS PARTY THERETO SHALL BE LIABLE FOR LOSS FROM
PERILS OF THE SEA, THEN AS TO SUCH CARRIER OR CARRIERS THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE MODIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TARIFF
PROVISIONS, WHICH SHALL BE REGARDED AS INCORPORATED INTO THE CONDITIONS
OF THIS BILL OF LADING." 

THE COURT BELOW CONCLUDED, AND WE THINK RIGHTLY, THAT BY THE
APPLICABLE TARIFFS THE PETITIONER WAIVED THE SAVING CLAUSES OF THE
HARTER ACT AND ASSUMED FULL LIABILITY TO THE CARGO OWNERS FOR LOSS OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY MARINE PERILS.  FN2  WHILE THESE TARIFFS WERE NOT
UNIFORM THEY ALSO EITHER STATED OR FAIRLY IMPORTED THAT THE SPECIFIED
RATES SHOULD INCLUDE MARINE INSURANCE. 

THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE HAD THE FOLLOWING RIDER, BY WHICH THE
UNDERWRITERS AGREED TO INSURE THE GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORPORATION, FOR
ACCOUNT OF WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, LOSS, IF ANY, TO BE PAYABLE TO THE
GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORPORATION OR ORDER,  - 

"ON CARGO OF ANY KIND OWNED BY THE ASSURED AND ON THE ASSURED'S
LIABILITY TO OTHERS IN RESPECT TO CARGO OF ANY KIND COVERING SAME FROM
TIME SAID GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORPORATION BECOMES RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR
AND UNTIL ITS RESPONSIBILITY CEASES, WHERESOEVER THE SAME MAY BE,
INCLUDING RISKS WHILE ON DOCKS, IN AND/OR ON CARS ON DOCKS, PIERS,
WHARVES, LIGHTERS AND/OR CRAFT, TRANSFERS, AND ALL LAND CONVEYANCES,
AND ALSO TO COVER UPON ANY ADVANCES MADE BY AND PAYMENT OF BACK CHARGES
MADE BY OR DUE FROM SAID ASSURED, AND UPON ANY CHARGES OF SAID ASSURED
UPON ANY AND ALL CARGO OR ANY PORTION THEREOF; FROM THE TIME THE
ASSURED BECOMES RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH CARGO INCLUDING RISKS OF TRANS
SHIPMENT, AND UNDER AND/OR ON DECK ON BOARD OF THE ASSURED'S STEAMERS: 

     .         .  .         .         . 

"ALSO TO COVER THROUGH TO DESTINATION GOODS DELIVERED BY THE ASSURED
TO OTHER WATER TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES FOR SHIPMENT TO DESTINATION." 

THE POLICIES FURTHER PROVIDED THAT, THE ASSURED TAKING "ALL THE
RISKS, PERILS AND LIABILITIES WHICH BY LAW A COMMON CARRIER BY LAND OR
WATER ASSUMES, AND ALSO THE INSURANCE OF SAID CARGO AGAINST PERILS OF
THE SEAS AND LAKES" ETC., THE ASSURERS AGREED "TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD
HARMLESS" THE ASSURED AGAINST ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE TO CARGO FROM ALL SUCH
RISKS, PERILS, ETC., "TO THE EXTENT WHICH THE ASSURED MAY BE HELD BY
THE OWNERS THEREOF, UNDER ANY LIABILITY THE ASSURED SHALL HAVE ASSUMED
AS COMMON CARRIERS, INSURERS OR OTHERWISE."  FN3 

WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS WE HAVE QUOTED
CANNOT AVAIL PETITIONER "BECAUSE IT DID NOT TAKE UPON ITSELF THE
INSURANCE OF CARGO OR ASSUME ANY LIABILITY WITH REFERENCE THERETO AS AN
INSURER"; THAT "ITS OBLIGATION AS TO INSURANCE WENT NO FURTHER THAN TO
REQUIRE IT TO PROCURE POLICIES OF INSURANCE FROM OTHERS."  PETITIONER
DID MORE THAN AGREE TO OBTAIN MARINE INSURANCE.  PETITIONER BY ITS
TARIFFS WAIVED THE PROVISIONS OF THE HARTER ACT AND BECAME ITSELF AN
INSURER OF THE CARGO AGAINST MARINE PERILS.  THE AGREEMENT TO OBTAIN
MARINE INSURANCE DID NOT DETRACT FROM THAT UNDERTAKING.  HAD THE
UNDERWRITERS BEEN UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THEIR CONTRACTS, PETITIONER
WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN LIABLE TO THE CARGO OWNERS UPON ITS OWN
ENGAGEMENT.  HAVING ASSUMED THAT LIABILITY, PETITIONER WAS UNDOUBTEDLY
ENTITLED TO TAKE OUT POLICIES FOR ITS OWN PROTECTION.  SEE WYMAN,
PARTRIDGE & CO. V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., 13 I.C.C. 258, 262; 15 I.C.C.
577, 581; 19 I.C.C. 551, 553.  IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE THAT A COMMON
CARRIER "WHETHER LIABLE BY LAW OR CUSTOM TO THE SAME EXTENT AS AN
INSURER, OR ONLY FOR HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE, MAY, IN ORDER TO PROTECT
HIMSELF AGAINST HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY, AS WELL AS TO SECURE HIS LIEN,
CAUSE THE GOODS IN HIS CUSTODY TO BE INSURED TO THEIR FULL VALUE." 
PHOENIX INSURANCE CO. V. ERIE TRANSPORTATION CO., 117 U.S. 312, 323,
324, AND CASES THERE CITED.  "I SEE NOTHING REMARKABLE," SAID LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE RUSSELL IN HILL V. SCOTT, L.R. (1895) 2 Q.B.D. 371, 375,
"IN THE SHIPOWNER INSURING HIMSELF.  IN A CASE WHERE THERE WAS A BILL
OF LADING WITH WIDELY SWEEPING EXCEPTIONS, NO DOUBT IT WOULD BE
UNNECESSARY; BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THERE IS NO BILL OF LADING, THE
SHIPOWNER FREQUENTLY EFFECTS AN INSURANCE IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIMSELF
AGAINST LIABILITY."  SEE, ALSO, THE SAME CASE, ON APPEAL, ID., PP. 713,
714. 

THE POLICIES ISSUED TO PETITIONER EXPLICITLY AFFORDED THE PROTECTION
WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO SEEK BY VIRTUE OF THE RISKS IT HAD
ASSUMED.  THE PETITIONER WAS THE "ASSURED" NAMED IN THE POLICIES. 
THEIR TERMS CONTEMPLATED THAT THE ASSURED AS A COMMON CARRIER WOULD
TAKE UPON ITSELF FULL LIABILITY TO THE CARGO OWNERS FOR ALL DAMAGE AND
LOSS DUE TO PERILS OF THE SEA, AND THE UNDERWRITERS EXPRESSLY AGREED TO
INDEMNIFY THE ASSURED AGAINST THAT LIABILITY.  THERE IS NO ADMISSIBLE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE POLICIES WHICH CAN ELIMINATE OR FRUSTRATE THAT
UNDERTAKING.  IN ITS PRESENCE, IF AMBIGUITIES ARE RAISED BY OTHER
CLAUSES, THEY MUST BE RESOLVED SO AS STILL TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE
DOMINANT PURPOSE WHICH THE POLICIES CLEARLY REVEAL. 

THE FACT THAT THE POLICIES INSURED THE PETITIONER, GREAT LAKES
TRANSIT CORPORATION "FOR ACCOUNT OF WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" AND THAT THE
LOSS WAS PAYABLE TO THE GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORPORATION "OR ORDER" DID
NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT THE GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORPORATION WAS ITSELF
DIRECTLY CONCERNED OR DETRACT FROM THE STIPULATION RUNNING TO THAT
CORPORATION AS A CARRIER AND AFFORDING IT THE SPECIFIED INDEMNITY.  NOR
DOES THE FACT THAT THE COST OF THE INSURANCE WAS INCLUDED IN THE
CARRIER'S RATE AFFECT THE QUESTION.  THE RATE WOULD PROPERLY COVER ALL
THE REASONABLE EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION, AND WHEN THE
CARRIER ASSUMED LIABILITY TO THE CARGO OWNERS FOR DAMAGES AND LOSSES
CAUSED BY MARINE PERILS, THERE WAS NOTHING UNREASONABLE IN THE
CARRIER'S PROTECTING ITSELF AGAINST THAT RISK BY PROCURING INSURANCE
AND COVERING THE COST IN ITS RATE.  COMPARE WYMAN, PARTRIDGE & CO. V.
BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., SUPRA.  AND IF IT BE ASSUMED, AS WE DO ASSUME,
THAT THE INSURANCE WOULD INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE CARGO OWNERS, THAT
WOULD BE A PROTECTION TO THOSE OWNERS ADDITIONAL TO THAT AFFORDED BY
THE CARRIER'S OWN ENGAGEMENT WHICH STILL REMAINED EFFECTIVE AND COVERED
BY THE STIPULATION IN THE POLICIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CARRIER.  BY
REASON OF THAT COVERAGE THE UNDERWRITERS WERE BOUND TO PAY, AND DID
PAY, TO THE PETITIONER, THE AMOUNTS WHICH THE LATTER BECAME LIABLE TO
PAY AND HAD PAID TO THE CARGO OWNERS UNDER THE CONTRACTS OF CARRIAGE. 

THESE PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE, THE UNDERWRITERS NOW SEEK TO RECOVER
BACK FROM THE PETITIONER A MOIETY OF WHAT THEY HAVE PAID TO IT.  IT IS
SAID THAT THIS RESULTS FROM THE ADMIRALTY RULE FOR A DIVISION OF
DAMAGES IN CASE OF FAULT ON THE PART OF BOTH VESSELS INVOLVED IN THE
COLLISION, AND THAT THE DECREE FOR A RECOVERY BY THE UNDERWRITERS FROM
THE PETITIONER IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING CIRCUITY OF ACTION.  THE
EFFECT NONE THE LESS IS TO ENABLE THE UNDERWRITERS TO GET BACK ONE-HALF
OF THE AMOUNTS THEY HAD EXPRESSLY AGREED TO PAY TO PETITIONER FOR ITS
INDEMNITY. 

THE UNDERWRITERS SEEK TO SUSTAIN THE DECREE BY INVOKING THE DOCTRINE
OF SUBROGATION, BUT THE EQUITY OF SUBROGATION INVESTS THE UNDERWRITERS
WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSURED AGAINST THIRD PERSONS (PHOENIX INSURANCE
CO. V. ERIE TRANSPORTATION CO., SUPRA; WAGER V. PROVIDENCE INSURANCE
CO., 150 U.S. 99, 108; STANDARD MARINE INSURANCE CO. V. SCOTTISH
ASSURANCE CO., 283 U.S. 284, 286) NOT WITH A RIGHT TO OVERRIDE ITS OWN
OBLIGATION TO THE ASSURED.  THUS, WHEN A BILL OF LADING PROVIDES THAT
IN CASE OF LOSS THE CARRIER, IF LIABLE THEREFOR, SHALL HAVE THE FULL
BENEFIT OF ANY INSURANCE EFFECTED UPON THE GOODS, THE PROVISION LIMITS
THE RIGHT OF SUBROGATION OF THE INSURER, UPON PAYMENT TO THE SHIPPER,
TO RECOVER OVER AGAINST THE CARRIER.  PHOENIX INSURANCE CO. V. ERIE
TRANSPORTATION CO., SUPRA; WAGER V. PROVIDENCE INSURANCE CO., SUPRA.
SUCH A CLAUSE GIVING THE CARRIER THE BENEFIT OF INSURANCE EFFECTED BY
THE SHIPPER IS VALID "BECAUSE THE CARRIER MIGHT HIMSELF HAVE INSURED
AGAINST THE LOSS, EVEN THOUGH OCCASIONED BY HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE, AND IF
A SHIPPER UNDER A BILL OF LADING CONTAINING THIS PROVISION EFFECTS
INSURANCE AND IS PAID THE FULL AMOUNT OF HIS LOSS, NEITHER HE NOR THE
INSURER CAN RECOVER AGAINST THE CARRIER."  LUCKENBACH V. MCCAHAN SUGAR
CO., 248 U.S. 139, 146.  FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE HAVE SAID
THAT "IF A VALID CLAIM BY THE UNDERWRITER TO BE SUBROGATED TO THE
RIGHTS OF THE OWNER WILL NOT ARISE WHERE THE CARRIER HAS CONTRACTED
WITH THE OWNER THAT HE, THE CARRIER, SHALL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF ANY
INSURANCE, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE CLEAR THAT WHERE THE CARRIER IS ACTUALLY
AND IN TERMS THE PARTY INSURED, THE UNDERWRITER CAN HAVE NO RIGHT TO
RECOVER OVER AGAINST THE CARRIER, EVEN IF THE AMOUNT OF THE POLICY HAS
BEEN PAID BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO THE OWNER ON THE ORDER OF THE
CARRIER."  WAGER V. PROVIDENCE INSURANCE CO., SUPRA, PP. 108, 109. 
SEE, ALSO, THE JOHN RUSSELL, 68 F.(2D) 901, 902. 

CONSTRUING THE POLICIES IN THIS INSTANCE AS INDEMNIFYING THE CARRIER
AGAINST THE LIABILITY WHICH IT HAD ASSUMED BY ITS BILLS OF LADING AND
TARIFFS TO THE CARGO OWNERS, THE PAYMENTS BY THE UNDERWRITERS OPERATED
AS A DISCHARGE OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO THE CARRIER, AND WHILE, AS THE
CARGO OWNERS HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE INSURANCE, THE UNDERWRITERS COULD
BE SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHT OF THE CARGO OWNERS AGAINST THE "KING," THEY
COULD NOT USE THAT RIGHT TO RECOVER OVER AGAINST THE CARRIER IN
DEFIANCE OF THEIR OWN STIPULATION.  THEY COULD RECOVER AGAINST THE
"KING" THE MOIETY FOR WHICH THE "KING" WAS LIABLE BUT COULD NOT RECOVER
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.  THE PROCEDURE IN ADMIRALTY DID NOT AFFECT THE
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS ESTABLISHED BY THE POLICIES. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  THE UNDERWRITERS' CLAIM ALSO COVERED SUCH ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS AS
THEY WOULD BE CALLED UPON TO PAY AS FURTHER DAMAGES AND LOSSES TO CARGO
WERE ASCERTAINED AND WERE PAID BY PETITIONER. 

FN2  IT IS SUFFICIENT, FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE, TO QUOTE THE
FOLLOWING FROM ONE OF THESE TARIFFS FILED BY THE PETITIONER:    "RULE
NO. 15.  - MARINE INSURANCE.  - RATES NAMED HEREIN INCLUDE MARINE
INSURANCE.  - WHILE SHIPMENTS SUBJECT TO RATES NAMED HEREIN AS
INCLUDING MARINE INSURANCE ARE WATER-BORNE AT AND BETWEEN LAKE PORTS,
ON THE VESSELS OF THE GREAT LAKES TRANSIT CORPORATION, SAID CORPORATION
ASSUMES LIABILITY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO SAID SHIPMENTS CAUSED BY MARINE
PERILS, TO WIT:  OF THE SEAS AND LAKES, FIRE, COLLISION, STRANDING,
JETTISONS, PIRATES, ASSAILING THIEVES, BARRATRY OF THE MASTER OR
MARINERS AND ALL OTHER PERILS OR MISFORTUNES THAT HAVE OR SHALL COME TO
THE HURT OR DAMAGE OF SAID PROPERTY, OR ANY PART THEREOF, INCLUDING
GENERAL AVERAGE CHARGES AND EXPENSES FOR WHICH THE OWNER MAY, UNDER THE
MARITIME LAW, BE CHARGEABLE, BUT EXCLUDING THE RISKS OF RIOTS, WAR OR
INSURRECTIONS; ANY LOSS FROM SAID MARINE PERILS FOR WHICH SAID
CORPORATION IS LIABLE HEREUNDER, TO BE PAID SIXTY DAYS AFTER PROOF OF
LOSS AND PROOF OF INTEREST IN SAID PROPERTY HAVE BEEN FURNISHED." 

FN3  THE TEXT OF THE PROVISION REFERRED TO IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO THAT SAID STEAMERS ARE TO BE
EMPLOYED IN CARRYING CARGO, OR CARGO AND PASSENGERS, IN AND ON SAID
STEAMERS AS AFORESAID, THE ASSURED TAKING UPON THEMSELVES AS TO SAID
CARGO, OR PARTS THEREOF, ALL THE RISKS, PERILS AND LIABILITIES WHICH BY
LAW A COMMON CARRIER BY LAND OR WATER ASSUMES, AND ALSO THE INSURANCE
OF SAID CARGO AGAINST PERILS OF THE SEAS AND LAKES, FIRE, JETTISONS,
BARRATRY, NEGLIGENCE OF MASTER OR MARINERS, LOSS OR DAMAGE ARISING
THROUGH EXPLOSIONS HOWSOEVER OR WHERESOEVER OCCURRING, BURSTING OF
BOILERS, BREAKAGE OF SHAFTS OR THROUGH ANY LATENT DEFECT IN THE
MACHINERY OR HULL, AND ALL OTHER ACTS, PERILS OR MISFORTUNES THAT HAVE
OR SHALL COME TO THE HURT, DETRIMENT, DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF THE SAID
CARGO OR ANY PART THEREOF, AND THE SAID ASSURERS AGREE AND UNDERTAKE TO
INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE SAID ASSURED AGAINST HURT, DETRIMENT,
DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OF SUCH CARGO FROM ANY AND ALL SUCH RISKS, PERILS,
ACTS OR MISFORTUNES, TO THE EXTENT WHICH THE ASSURED MAY BE HELD BY THE
OWNERS THEREOF, UNDER ANY LIABILITY THE ASSURED SHALL HAVE ASSUMED AS
COMMON CARRIERS, INSURERS, OR OTHERWISE, AND FOR ANY AND ALL CLAIMS
WHICH SAID CARGO MAY BE CALLED UPON TO CONTRIBUTE IN GENERAL AVERAGE,
AND/OR FOR SALVAGE, LANDING, WAREHOUSING AND/OR SPECIAL CHARGES, AND TO
COVER IN LIKE MANNER DUTIES AND ANY CARGO OWNED BY THE ASSURED, AND
ALSO ALL ADVANCES MADE BY AND PAYMENT OF BACK CHARGES MADE BY OR DUE
FROM SAID ASSURED AND/OR CHARGES OF SAID ASSURED UPON ANY AND ALL CARGO
OR ANY PORTION THEREOF. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"IN CASE OF LOSS, SUCH LOSS TO BE PAID THIRTY DAYS AFTER PROOF OF
LOSS AND PROOF OF INTEREST ARE FURNISHED TO THIS COMPANY.  THERE SHALL,
HOWEVER, BE DEDUCTED FROM THE AGGREGATE OF ALL CLAIMS ON EACH EAST
BOUND OR WEST BOUND PASSAGE, THE SUM OF $1,000." 
..END :





















THOMAS V. PERKINS, 301 U.S. 655 


NO. 824.  ARGUED MAY 4, 5, 1937.  - DECIDED JUNE 1, 1937.  - 86 F.(2D)
954, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX ACT IS TO BE GIVEN A UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION
OF NATION-WIDE APPLICATION EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS CONGRESS HAS MADE IT
DEPENDENT ON STATE LAW.  P. 659. 

2.  AN INSTRUMENT ASSIGNING OIL LEASES FOR A SPECIFIED SUM "TO BE
PAID OUT OF THE OIL PRODUCED AND SAVED FROM THE LANDS, AND TO BE ONE
FOURTH OF ALL THE OIL PRODUCED AND SAVED" UNTIL THAT SUM WAS PAID,
PROVIDED THAT THE "OIL PAYMENT" SHOULD BE MADE TO THE TWO ASSIGNORS,
EACH TO RECEIVE ONE-HALF THEREOF "OUT OF THE OIL PRODUCED AND SAVED"
FROM THE LEASED PREMISES, "WHICH PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE BY THE PIPE
LINE COMPANY OR OTHER PURCHASER OF SAID OIL" AND BE "ONE-FOURTH OF ALL
THE OIL PRODUCED AND SAVED" FROM THE LAND, "UNTIL THE FULL SUM IS FULLY
PAID."  IT FURTHER STIPULATED THAT THE SPECIFIED SUM SHOULD BE "PAYABLE
OUT OF OIL ONLY, IF, AS AND WHEN PRODUCED FROM SAID LANDS"; THAT "SAID
OIL PAYMENT" SHOULD NOT BE A PERSONAL OBLIGATION OF THE ASSIGNEE, AND
THAT IT WOULD "BEAR NONE OF THE EXPENSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAID OIL
LEASES OR ANY OTHER BURDEN."  NO LIEN WAS RESERVED BY THE ASSIGNORS. 
HELD, WITHOUT DECIDING WHETHER TECHNICAL TITLE TO THE OIL WHILE IN THE
GROUND WAS IN ASSIGNORS OR IN ASSIGNEE, 

(1)  THAT THE INTENTION WAS TO WITHOLD FROM THE OPERATION OF THE GRANT
ONE-FOURTH OF THE OIL TO BE PRODUCED AND SAVED UP TO AN AMOUNT
SUFFICIENT WHEN SOLD TO YIELD THE SUM STIPULATED.  P. 659. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ACTS OF THE PARTIES UNDER THE
ASSIGNMENT. 

(2)  THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSIGNORS FROM THE PROCEEDS OF
OPERATION WERE NOT CHARGEABLE FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES TO THE ASSIGNEE
AS PART OF HIS GROSS INCOME.  ID. 

THOMAS, COLLECTOR, V. PERKINS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 653, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
RENDERED IN FAVOR OF THE COLLECTOR, IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER A TAX
PAYMENT, TRIED WITHOUT A JURY. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENTS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, SUED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
NORTHERN TEXAS TO RECOVER A PORTION OF THE TAX THEY PAID FOR 1933 ON
THEIR COMMUNITY INCOME.  IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT NOW IN CONTROVERSY,
THAT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT (15 F.SUPP.  356); THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED (86 F.(2D) 954) AND, ITS DECISION BEING IN
APPARENT CONFLICT WITH THAT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT IN COMAR OIL CO. V. BURNET, 64 F.(2D) 965, THIS COURT
GRANTED THE COLLECTOR'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

HAMMONDS AND BRANSON OWNED OIL AND GAS LEASES ON UNDEVELOPED LANDS IN
TEXAS WHICH PROVIDED FOR A ROYALTY OF ONE-EIGHTH.  THEY ASSIGNED TO THE
FAITH OIL COMPANY WHICH WAS PRINCIPALLY OWNED BY GREEN AND PERKINS.  IN
TAKING THE ASSIGNMENT THE COMPANY ACTED FOR ITSELF TO THE EXTENT OF ONE
FOURTH AND FOR GREEN AND PERKINS TO THE EXTENT OF THREE-EIGHTS EACH. 
LATER IT TRANSFERRED ITS INTEREST TO PERKINS.  SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE
QUESTION HERE PRESENTED, PERKINS MAY BE TREATED AS SOLE ASSIGNEE OF
HAMMONDS AND BRANSON.  THE ASSIGNMENT RECITES THAT THEY ARE OWNERS OF
ALL RIGHTS UNDER OR INCIDENT TO THE LEASES AND DECLARES THAT "IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) CASH.  FN1  ..  AND OF
THE FURTHER SUM OF THREE HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($395,000.00) TO BE PAID OUT OF THE OIL PRODUCED AND SAVED FROM THE
...  LANDS, AND TO BE ONE-FOURTH OF ALL THE OIL PRODUCED AND SAVED  ...
UNTIL THE FULL SUM  ...  IS PAID, WE  ...  DO HEREBY BARGAIN, SELL,
TRANSFER, ASSIGN, AND CONVEY ALL OUR RIGHTS, TITLE, AND INTEREST IN AND
TO SAID LEASES AND RIGHTS THEREUNDER." 

AFTER DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS AND LEASEHOLDS, THE ASSIGNMENT
PROVIDES THAT THE OIL PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE TO THE ASSIGNORS, HAMMONDS
AND BRANSON, EACH TO RECEIVE ONE-HALF THEREOF, "OUT OF THE OIL PRODUCED
AND SAVED FROM" THE LEASED PREMISES, "WHICH PAYMENTS SHALL BE MADE BY
THE PIPE LINE COMPANY OR OTHER PURCHASER OF SAID OIL, AND SHALL BE ONE
FOURTH (1/4) OF ALL THE OIL PRODUCED AND SAVED FROM THE ABOVE DESCRIBED
LAND, UNTIL THE FULL SUM  ...  IS FULLY PAID."  IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND
AGREED THAT THE $395,000 "IS PAYABLE OUT OF OIL ONLY, IF, AS AND WHEN
PRODUCED FROM SAID LANDS ABOVE DESCRIBED, AND SAID OIL PAYMENT DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE AND SHALL NOT BE A PERSONAL OBLIGATION OF THE ASSIGNEE, ITS
SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS....  THE OIL PAYMENT  ...  SHALL BEAR NONE OF THE
EXPENSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAID LEASES OR ANY OTHER BURDEN."  THE
INSTRUMENT DOES NOT PURPORT TO RESERVE A LIEN. 

PERKINS DRILLED WELLS ON THE LEASED LANDS AND IN 1933 PRODUCED OIL;
THE ASSIGNORS RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS TO APPLY ON THE PAYMENT TO
BE MADE THEM; THE OIL WAS RUN FROM THE WELLS INTO TANKS ON THE LEASED
PREMISES FROM WHICH IT WAS TAKEN BY PIPELINE COMPANIES PURCHASING THE
OIL.  EACH PURCHASER REQUIRED AND WAS FURNISHED A DIVISION ORDER
EXECUTED BY ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES.  BY SUCH ORDERS ASSIGNORS
AUTHORIZED PURCHASERS TO RECEIVE FROM THE WELLS ONE-FOURTH OF THE OIL
AND DECLARED THAT THE OIL RUN SHOULD BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE
PURCHASERS AS SOON AS RECEIVED BY THEM.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDERS,
PURCHASERS MADE PAYMENTS DIRECTLY AND PROPORTIONATELY TO THE OWNER OF
THE ROYALTY RESERVED IN THE LEASE, TO ASSIGNORS, AND TO ASSIGNEE.  THE
LAST COULD NOT COLLECT FOR ANY PORTION OF THE OIL APPLICABLE TO THE OIL
PAYMENT TO BE MADE ASSIGNORS. 

IN THEIR TAX RETURN FOR 1933 RESPONDENTS, PERKINS AND WIFE, DID NOT
INCLUDE IN INCOME ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDS THAT WENT TO ASSIGNORS.  BUT
THE COMMISSIONER CHARGED THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSIGNORS TO THE
RESPONDENTS AND ALLOWED THE LATTER DEPLETION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. 
AT THE TRIAL IT WAS PROVED THAT THE LONG-ESTABLISHED PRACTICE OF THE
BUREAU WAS NOT TO REQUIRE THE OPERATOR OF AN OIL AND GAS LEASE TO
INCLUDE AS A PART OF HIS INCOME THE ROYALTIES PAYABLE IN KIND TO THE
LESSORS.  BUT WHERE THEY WERE PAYABLE IN CASH THE OPERATOR INCLUDED THE
PROCEEDS OF ALL THE OIL AND TOOK AS AN OFFSETTING DEDUCTION THE AMOUNT
OF ROYALTIES PAID.  IT WAS ADMITTED THAT, IF THE ASSIGNORS' PAYMENTS
ARE EXCLUDED, THE DEPLETION ALLOWED RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE
CORRESPONDINGLY REDUCED. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER RESPONDENTS' GROSS INCOME SHOULD INCLUDE
MONEYS PAID TO ASSIGNORS BY PURCHASERS OF THE OIL. 

WE NEED NOT DECIDE WHETHER TECHNICAL TITLE TO THE OIL WHILE IN THE
GROUND WAS IN ASSIGNORS, OR IN ASSIGNEE.  THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX ACT IS
TO BE GIVEN A UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION OF NATION-WIDE APPLICATION EXCEPT
INSOFAR AS CONGRESS HAS MADE IT DEPENDENT ON STATE LAW.  FN2  THE
GRANTING CLAUSE IN THE ASSIGNMENT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT, IF STANDING
ALONE, TO TRANSFER ALL THE OIL TO THE ASSIGNEE.  IT DOES NOT
SPECIFICALLY EXCEPT OR EXCLUDE ANY PART OF THE OIL.  BUT IT IS
QUALIFIED BY OTHER PARTS OF THE INSTRUMENT.  THE PROVISIONS FOR PAYMENT
TO ASSIGNORS IN OIL ONLY, THE ABSENCE OF ANY OBLIGATION OF THE ASSIGNEE
TO PAY IN OIL OR IN MONEY, AND THE FAILURE OF ASSIGNORS TO TAKE ANY
SECURITY BY WAY OF LIEN OR OTHERWISE UNMISTAKABLY SHOW THAT THEY
INTENDED TO WITHHOLD FROM THE OPERATION OF THE GRANT ONE-FOURTH OF THE
OIL TO BE PRODUCED AND SAVED UP TO AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT WHEN SOLD TO
YIELD $395,000.  FN3 

THE CONSTRUCTION THAT THE PARTIES PUT UPON THE ASSIGNMENT MAKES FOR
THE SAME CONCLUSION.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT, HAVING TAKEN TITLE,
THE ASSIGNEE TRANSFERRED ANY OF THE OIL BACK TO ASSIGNORS.  THE
DIVISION ORDERS DESIGNATED, AND SO SERVED TO INDICATE OWNERSHIP OF, THE
QUANTITIES BELONGING TO EACH OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES.  AND, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDERS GIVEN AND PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY ASSIGNORS
NECESSARILY COVERED AND WERE DERIVED FROM OIL NOT TRANSFERRED BY THE
ASSIGNMENT. 

OUR DECISION IN PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, SUPPORTS THE VIEW
THAT THE ASSIGNMENT DID NOT TRANSFER THE OIL IN QUESTION.  WE THERE
CONSTRUED SEC. 214(A)(10), REVENUE ACT OF 1921, 42 STAT. 241, WHICH
DIRECTED A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION IN THE CASE OF OIL AND
GAS WELLS "ACCORDING TO THE PECULIAR CONDITIONS IN EACH CASE" AND "THAT
SUCH DEPLETION ALLOWANCE BASED ON DISCOVERY VALUE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE
NET INCOME, COMPUTED WITHOUT ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION, FROM THE PROPERTY
UPON WHICH THE DISCOVERY IS MADE  ...  IN THE CASE OF LEASES THE
DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED ...  SHALL BE EQUITABLY APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE
LESSOR AND THE LESSEE." 

THE TAXPAYER, PALMER, WAS A MEMBER OF A PARTNERSHIP THAT ACQUIRED OIL
AND GAS LEASES, DISCOVERED OIL, EXECUTED A WRITING CONFERRING ON A
COMPANY THE RIGHT TO TAKE OVER A PART OF THE LEASED PROPERTY IN
CONSIDERATION OF A PRESENT PAYMENT OF A CASH BONUS, AND FUTURE PAYMENTS
TO BE MADE "OUT OF ONE-HALF OF THE FIRST OIL PRODUCED AND SAVED" TO THE
EXTENT OF $1,000,000, AND AN ADDITIONAL "EXCESS ROYALTY" OF ONE-EIGHTH
OF ALL THE OIL PRODUCED AND SAVED.  THE WRITING DECLARED THAT THE
PARTNERSHIP "DOES SELL, ASSIGN, SET OVER, TRANSFER AND DELIVER  ...
UNTO THE" OIL COMPANY THE DESCRIBED LEASED PREMISES. 

IN HIS TAX RETURN, PALMER REPORTED HIS SHARE OF THE INCOME DERIVED BY
THE PARTNERSHIP FROM THE BONUS PAYMENT AND OIL RECEIVED UNDER ITS
CONTRACT WITH THE OIL COMPANY AND, RELYING ON SEC. 214(A)(10), MADE A
DEDUCTION FOR DEPLETION BASED ON VALUE OF OIL IN PLACE ON THE DATE OF
DISCOVERY.  THE COMMISSIONER REFUSED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION ON THE
THEORY THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS A SALE OF THE LEASES BY THE
PARTNERSHIP, AND THAT THE ONLY ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION WAS ONE BASED UPON
THE COST OF THE PROPERTY.  AS COST WAS LESS THAN THE DISCOVERY VALUE,
THE COMMISSIONER'S ALLOWANCE OF DEPLETION WAS LESS THAN THAT CLAIMED BY
PALMER AND THE TAX WAS CORRESPONDINGLY GREATER.  HE PAID IT, AND SUED
THE COLLECTOR TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE COMMISSIONER'S RULING
OPERATED TO INCREASE HIS BURDEN. 

THE DISTRICT COURT UPHELD THE COMMISSIONER'S RULING, THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, THIS COURT REVERSED.  WE SAID (PP. 557-558):
"THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE IS BROAD ENOUGH TO PROVIDE, AT LEAST, FOR
EVERY CASE IN WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS ACQUIRED, BY INVESTMENT, ANY
INTEREST IN THE OIL IN PLACE, AND SECURES, BY ANY FORM OF LEGAL
RELATIONSHIP, INCOME DERIVED FROM THE EXTRACTION OF THE OIL, TO WHICH
HE MUST LOOK FOR A RETURN OF HIS CAPITAL....  SIMILARLY, THE LESSOR'S
RIGHT TO A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON HIS RETENTION OF
OWNERSHIP OR ANY OTHER PARTICULAR FORM OF LEGAL INTEREST IN THE MINERAL
CONTENT OF THE LAND.  IT IS ENOUGH IF, BY VIRTUE OF THE LEASING
TRANSACTION, HE HAS RETAINED A RIGHT TO SHARE IN THE OIL PRODUCED.  IF
SO HE HAS AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL, IN PLACE, WHICH IS DEPLETED
BY PRODUCTION.  THUS, WE HAVE RECENTLY HELD THAT THE LESSOR IS ENTITLED
TO A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE ON BONUS AND ROYALTIES, ALTHOUGH BY THE LOCAL
LAW OWNERSHIP OF THE MINERALS, IN PLACE, PASSED FROM THE LESSOR UPON
THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE....  THUS, THROUGHOUT THEIR CHANGING
RELATIONSHIPS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES, THE OIL IN THE GROUND WAS
A RESERVOIR OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF THE SEVERAL PARTIES, ALL OF WHOM
...  WERE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE OIL PRODUCED." 

THUS IN THAT CASE WE HELD ASSIGNORS' MERE STIPULATION FOR ROYALTY OUT
OF OIL OPERATED TO SAVE TO THEM AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE OIL
SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE THEM TO DEDUCT FROM THEIR INCOME DERIVED FROM THE
OIL AN ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION.  IF PALMER HAD RETAINED NO INTEREST IN
THE OIL HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO NO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF
DEPLETION.  OWNERSHIP WAS ESSENTIAL.  THE ASSIGNEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO
INCOME FROM PALMER'S SHARE OF THE OIL NOR TO DEDUCT FROM THE INCOME IT
RECEIVED FROM ITS OWN INTEREST ANY PART OF THE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE THAT
WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO PALMER'S INTEREST. 

HELVERING V. TWIN BELL OIL SYNDICATE, 293 U.S. 312, CONSTRUED
DEPLETION PROVISIONS IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 WHICH SO FAR AS
CONCERNS OWNERSHIP ARE NOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM CORRESPONDING
PROVISIONS CONSIDERED IN PALMER V. BENDER, SUPRA.  SECTION 204(C)(2)
DECLARED THAT IN THE CASE OF OIL AND GAS WELLS "THE ALLOWANCE FOR
DEPLETION SHALL BE 27 1/2 PER CENT. OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR."  SECTION 234(A)(8) REQUIRED THE
DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED TO BE EQUITABLY APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE LESSOR AND
LESSEE.  THE TAXPAYER, ASSIGNEE OF THE LEASE, EXTRACTED SUBSTANTIAL
QUANTITIES OF OIL.  BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AND ASSIGNMENT HE WAS
OBLIGATED TO PAY ROYALTIES IN CASH OR KIND TOTALLING ONE-FOURTH OF THE
OIL.  HE CLAIMED THAT GROSS PROCEEDS OF ALL THE OIL SHOULD FORM THE
BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF THE ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION.  THE COMMISSIONER
RULED THAT THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO 27 1/2 PER CENT. OF THE
GROSS PRODUCTION LESS ROYALTIES.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UPHELD THAT
RULING; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD; WE SUSTAINED
THE COMMISSIONER.  OUR OPINION SHOWS THAT THE PHRASE, "INCOME FROM THE
PROPERTY," MEANS INCOME FROM OIL AND GAS ONLY; THAT, WHERE THE LESSEE
TURNS OVER ROYALTY OIL IN KIND TO THE LESSOR, THE AMOUNT RETAINED BY
LESSEE IS THE BASIS FOR HIS COMPUTATION OF DEPLETION AND THE ROYALTY
OIL IS THE BASIS FOR THAT ALLOWABLE TO LESSOR.  IN THAT CONNECTION WE
SUGGESTED THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND A DIFFERENT RESULT WHERE THE
LESSEE SELLS ALL THE OIL AND PAYS OVER THE ROYALTY IN THE FORM OF
CASH.  AND IN APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER'S RULING WE SAID (P. 321):
"THE APPORTIONMENT GIVES RESPONDENT 27 1/2 PER CENT. OF THE GROSS
INCOME FROM PRODUCTION WHICH IT HAD THE RIGHT TO RETAIN AND THE
ASSIGNOR AND LESSOR RESPECTIVELY 27 1/2 PER CENT. OF THE ROYALTIES THEY
RECEIVE.  SUCH AN APPORTIONMENT HAS REGARD TO THE ECONOMIC INTEREST OF
EACH OF THE PARTIES ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEPLETION
ALLOWANCE.  COMPARE PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, 558." 

AS IN THE EARLIER OF THESE CASES THE ASSIGNOR WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT
DEPLETION FROM INCOME HE RECEIVED FROM HIS INTEREST IN THE OIL, SO IN
THE LATER ONE THE ASSIGNEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCT FROM INCOME
RECEIVED FROM ITS SHARE AN ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST.  THE OWNER OF AN INTEREST IN THE DEPOSIT IS
ENTITLED TO DEDUCT FOR DEPLETION OF THE PART PRODUCING HIS INCOME BUT
MAY NOT DEDUCT FOR DEPLETION OF A SHARE BELONGING TO ANOTHER. 

AS HAMMONDS AND BRANSON, THE ASSIGNORS IN THIS CASE, WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO AN ALLOWANCE FOR DEPLETION IN RESPECT OF THE OIL SOLD OUT
OF THEIR SHARE,  FN4  THE INCOME FROM THAT INTEREST IS NOT CHARGEABLE
TO RESPONDENTS, PERKINS AND WIFE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COMMISSIONER
ERRED IN INCLUDING IN THEIR INCOME THE PAYMENTS MADE BY PURCHASERS TO
ASSIGNORS FOR THEIR SHARE OF THE OIL.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE ASSIGNMENT THERE WAS PAID $105,000 IN
CASH AND $50,000 IN NOTES. 

FN2  LYNCH V. ALWORTH-STEPHENS CO., 267 U.S. 364, 370.  CORLISS V.
BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376, 378.  TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497, 503. 
BURNET V. HARMEL, 287 U.S. 103, 110.  PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551,
556.  BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280, 284.  HELVERING V. FALK, 291
U.S. 183, 188.    FN3  SHEFFIELD V. HOGG, 124 TEX. 290; 77 S.W.(2D)
1021.  SEE WAGGONER ESTATE V. SIGLER OIL CO., 118 TEX. 509; 19 S.W.(2D)
27.  HAGER V. STAKES, 116 TEX. 453; 294 S.W. 835.  STEPHENS COUNTY V.
MID-KANSAS OIL & GAS CO., 113 TEX. 160; 254 S.W. 290.  TEXAS CO. V.
DAUGHERTY, 107 TEX. 226; 176 S.W. 717. 

FN4  REVENUE ACT OF 1932, SECS. 23(1), 114(B)(3), 47 STAT. 181, 202. 
PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551.  HELVERING V. TWIN BELL OIL SYNDICATE,
293 U.S. 312.    MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO THINK THE
OIL AND GAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSIGNEE OF THE LEASE, AND THEIR PROCEEDS,
WERE HIS INCOME AND NOT ANY THE LESS SO BECAUSE HE AGREED TO APPLY A
PART TO PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LEASE, AND GAVE AN
EQUITABLE LIEN TO SECURE THE PAYMENT.  WHETHER THE PURCHASE PRICE, WHEN
PAID, REPRESENTED A CAPITAL GAIN TAXABLE TO THE ASSIGNORS, AND WHETHER
IN THAT CASE THEIR INTEREST WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A DEPLETION ALLOWANCE
UNDER OUR DECISION IN PALMER V. BENDER, 287 U.S. 551, ARE QUESTIONS
IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESENT ISSUE.  THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :



















TOWNSEND V. YEOMANS, 301 U.S. 441 


NO. 781.  ARGUED MAY 3, 4, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1937.  - AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE BUSINESS OF TOBACCO WAREHOUSES IN GEORGIA IS AFFECTED WITH A
PUBLIC INTEREST AND THEIR CHARGES TO GROWERS FOR HANDLING AND SELLING
LEAF TOBACCO ARE SUBJECT TO REASONABLE REGULATION BY THE STATE.  P.
449. 

2.  STATUTORY RATES OR CHARGES ARE PRESUMED TO BE REASONABLE; HE WHO
ATTACKS THEM AS CONFISCATORY HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THEM SO.  P.
450. 

3.  A LEGISLATURE, ACTING WITHIN ITS SPHERE, IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE
NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE OF ITS STATE.  P. 451. 

THE EXISTENCE OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY IN GEORGIA, THE TRANSACTIONS OF
THE TOBACCO MARKETS, AND THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING THE GROWERS FROM
EXORBITANT WAREHOUSE CHARGES, MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN FULLY KNOWN
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND THIS PRESUMPTION CANNOT BE
OVERTHROWN BY TESTIMONY OF INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS. 

4.  PRACTICALLY ALL THE TOBACCO GROWN IN GEORGIA IS SHIPPED OUT OF
THE STATE IN FOREIGN OR INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THE PURCHASERS AT THE
"MARKETS" IN GEORGIA FOR THE MOST PART ARE MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARETTES
WHO IMMEDIATELY HAVE THE TOBACCO TRANSPORTED TO THEIR PLANTS OUTSIDE
THE STATE; OTHER PURCHASES MADE BY SPECULATORS AND WAREHOUSEMEN ARE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RESALE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO THE CIGARETTE
MANUFACTURERS; AND THUS THE TOBACCO SO BOUGHT, AS WELL AS THE REST, IS
DESTINED FOR INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN SHIPMENT.  HELD THAT, IF IT BE
ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS HAS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CHARGES OF THE
WAREHOUSEMEN, SUCH AUTHORITY HAS NOT BEEN EXERCISED BY THE TOBACCO
INSPECTION ACT OF AUGUST 23, 1935.  P. 452. 

5.  CONGRESS MAY CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND OCCUPY A LIMITED FIELD; AND THE INTENT TO SUPERSEDE THE EXERCISE BY
THE STATE OF ITS POLICE POWER AS TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION IS NOT TO BE IMPLIED UNLESS THE LATTER, FAIRLY INTERPRETED,
IS IN ACTUAL CONFLICT WITH THE STATE LAW.  P. 454. 

6.  THE GEORGIA STATUTE HERE IN QUESTION, FIXING REASONABLE MAXIMUM
CHARGES FOR THE SERVICES OF WAREHOUSEMEN, IN AID OF THE TOBACCO GROWERS
BUT NOT ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE PRICES FOR WHICH THE TOBACCO IS SOLD AT
AUCTION IN GEORGIA OR TO REGULATE THE ACTIVITIES OF PURCHASERS, LAYS NO
ACTUAL BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE IN THE TOBACCO.  P.
455. 

7.  FEDERAL POWER OVER A FIELD OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE
EXCLUSIVE, THOUGH UNEXERCISED, WHEN THE SUBJECT IS SUCH AS TO DEMAND
UNIFORMITY OF REGULATION; BUT IN MATTERS ADMITTING OF DIVERSITY OF
LOCAL TREATMENT ACCORDING TO LOCAL REQUIREMENTS, THE STATES, IN THE
ABSENCE OF CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION, ARE AT LIBERTY TO ACT.  P. 455. 

TOWNSEND ET AL. V. YEOMANS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES,
DISMISSING A BILL IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE
FIXING MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR HANDLING AND SELLING LEAF TOBACCO. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY TOBACCO WAREHOUSEMEN TO RESTRAIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE OF GEORGIA, APPROVED MARCH 28, 1935, FIXING
MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR HANDLING AND SELLING LEAF TOBACCO.  GA. L. 1935,
PP. 476-8. 

THE STATUTE WAS ASSAILED AS AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS EXERCISE OF
STATE POWER, REPUGNANT TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, AND AS PLACING A DIRECT BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE HEARING IN THE DISTRICT COURT
WAS BY THREE JUDGES (28 U.S.C. 380) AND, UPON FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, A FINAL DECREE WAS ENTERED DISMISSING THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL. 

THE FACTS FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE TOBACCO
INDUSTRY IN GEORGIA AND THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS AT THE
WAREHOUSES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  IT APPEARS THAT THIS INDUSTRY IS
RELATIVELY NEW, BEGINNING IN 1917, BUT BY THE YEAR 1925 IT WAS BECOMING
WELL ESTABLISHED.  THE TYPE OF TOBACCO GROWN IN GEORGIA IS THE "BRIGHT
LEAF" WHICH IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
CIGARETTES.  THIS VARIETY IS GROWN EXTENSIVELY IN NORTH CAROLINA, TO A
MUCH LESS EXTENT IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA, AND TO SOME EXTENT IN
VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE.  THE ACREAGE PLANTED BY THE
INDIVIDUAL FARMER IN GEORGIA IS COMPARATIVELY SMALL BUT THE AGGREGATE
ACREAGE IS NOW NOT ONLY VERY CONSIDERABLE BUT IS WIDELY DISTRIBUTED
OVER A LARGE AREA IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE STATE. 

THE NECESSITY FOR MARKETS AND THE EARLY MATURITY OF THE TOBACCO IN
GEORGIA PRESENTED AN OPPORTUNITY WHICH WAS EARLY RECOGNIZED BY
EXPERIENCED AND SKILLED WAREHOUSEMEN WHO WERE OPERATING IN THE TOBACCO
BELTS OF NORTH CAROLINA AND OTHER STATES, WHERE SELLING SEASONS BEGIN
SOMETIME AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE SELLING SEASON IN GEORGIA.  WITH
FEW EXCEPTIONS, COMPETENT WAREHOUSEMEN, AND EXPERIENCED AND SKILLED
AUCTIONEERS AND HELPERS IN HANDLING AND SELLING TOBACCO ARE NOT FOUND
IN GEORGIA AND MUST BE OBTAINED FROM OTHER STATES.  THERE WERE FORTY
FIVE WAREHOUSES OPERATED IN 1935, THIRTY-NINE OF WHICH WERE CONNECTED
IN SOME CAPACITY WITH WAREHOUSES IN NORTH CAROLINA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA
OR TENNESSEE. 

THE PRINCIPAL PURCHASERS OF THE BRIGHT LEAF TOBACCO GROWN IN GEORGIA
AND ELSEWHERE ARE LIMITED TO A FEW LARGE MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARETTES. 
THESE ARE CALLED "THE COMPANIES."  THEY PURCHASE TOBACCO ONLY AT
WAREHOUSE AUCTION SALES TO WHICH THEY SEND OR FURNISH "BUYERS."  EACH
BUYER IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF THE COMPETING PURCHASERS AND A
"SET OF BUYERS," USUALLY FROM EIGHT TO TWELVE IN NUMBER, IS MADE UP OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH OF THE PURCHASING CIGARETTE MANUFACTURERS. 
THE PRESENCE OF A "SET OF BUYERS" IS ESSENTIAL AT AN AUCTION SALE.  A
TOWN HAVING ONE OR MORE WAREHOUSES IS KNOWN AS A "MARKET."  BY SENDING
A SET OF BUYERS TO A NEW WAREHOUSE, THE MANUFACTURERS MAY RECOGNIZE A
NEW MARKET, AND BY REFUSING TO SEND ONE TO AN OLD MARKET MAY CAUSE ITS
ABANDONMENT; AND BY SENDING EITHER ONE OR TWO SETS OF BUYERS TO A GIVEN
MARKET THE MANUFACTURERS MAY DETERMINE THE RAPIDITY WITH WHICH THE
ACCUMULATED TOBACCO MAY BE DISPOSED OF. THERE IS ANOTHER CLASS OF
PURCHASERS KNOWN AS "SPECULATORS."  THESE ON RARE OCCASIONS BUY TOBACCO
FROM A GROWER AND HAVE IT TRANSPORTED TO A WAREHOUSE FOR SALE.  AT
AUCTION SALES SPECULATORS TO A LIMITED EXTENT, AS COMPARED WITH BUYERS,
PURCHASE TOBACCO FOR A LATER SALE.  THERE IS STRENUOUS AND EXPENSIVE
COMPETITION BETWEEN WAREHOUSEMEN IN SECURING TOBACCO FROM GROWERS TO BE
HANDLED AND SOLD, BUT IN THE SALE OF TOBACCO THERE IS NO COMPETITION
EXCEPT SUCH AS EXISTS BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE BUYERS AND SPECULATORS AT
THE AUCTION SALES, AND THE BIDS OF THE WAREHOUSEMEN THEMSELVES. 

THE TOBACCO BELT IN GEORGIA COMPRISES ABOUT TWENTY COUNTIES IN THE
SOUTHERN PART OF THE STATE, AND IN 1935 THERE WERE FIFTEEN TOWNS KNOWN
AS "MARKETS."  SEVEN OF THE MARKETS WERE SUPPLIED WITH ONE SET OF
BUYERS AND EIGHT WERE FURNISHED TWO SETS.  THE "TWO SET MARKETS" HAD A
TOTAL OF THIRTY AND THE "ONE SET MARKETS" A TOTAL OF FIFTEEN WAREHOUSES
IN OPERATION.  THE QUANTITY OF TOBACCO SOLD IN THE WAREHOUSES AND THE
AVERAGE PRICES RANGED FROM 106,483,019 POUNDS AT 9.86 CENTS PER POUND
IN 1930, TO 71,826,352 POUNDS AT 18.91 CENTS PER POUND IN 1935. 

AFTER THE TOBACCO HAS BEEN CURED AND IS READY FOR THE MARKET, THE
GROWER GRADES IT AS BEST HE CAN AND THE RESULTING "PILES" OF LOOSE
LEAVES ARE PLACED IN SHEETS WHICH ARE THEN TIED AND THE TOBACCO IS SO
TRANSPORTED TO THE SELECTED WAREHOUSE FOR SALE.  AUCTION SALES ARE HELD
DAILY DURING FIVE DAYS OF THE WEEK, AND IN ANY PARTICULAR WAREHOUSE AS
OFTEN AS SUFFICIENT TOBACCO ACCUMULATES.  IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THERE BE
PRESENT THE WAREHOUSEMAN, AN AUCTIONEER AND OTHER SKILLED HELP, AND ONE
SET OF BUYERS.  THE WAREHOUSEMAN MAKES THE OPENING BID.  IF THIS IS NOT
TAKEN OR RAISED BY ANOTHER, THE WAREHOUSEMAN GENERALLY BECOMES THE
PURCHASER OF THE TOBACCO FOR HIS OWN ACCOUNT.  IF NOT SOLD IN THAT
FASHION THE BIDDING CONTINUES UNTIL THE SALE IS ANNOUNCED.  THE GROWER
OR OTHER OWNER MAY TURN DOWN THE SALE AND IN SUCH CASE HE MAY HOLD THE
TOBACCO FOR A LATER SALE OR REMOVE IT.  AFTER THE SALE HAS BEEN
COMPLETED THE TOBACCO IS DELIVERED TO THE PURCHASER WHO REMOVES IT FROM
THE FLOOR.  THE PURCHASER HAS IT REWEIGHED AND PAYS THE WAREHOUSEMAN. 
THE WAREHOUSEMAN THEN PAYS THE SELLER THE PURCHASE PRICE, LESS
WAREHOUSE CHARGES.  TOBACCO PURCHASED BY THE WAREHOUSEMAN IS AFTERWARDS
SOLD BY HIM AT AUCTION. 

THE TOBACCO IS READY FOR THE MARKET IN THE LATTER PART OF JULY OR
EARLY IN AUGUST.  THE EXACT DATE FOR OPENING THE SELLING SEASON IS
FIXED BY THE MANUFACTURERS, WHO ARE THE PRINCIPAL BUYERS, AND THE
WAREHOUSEMEN.  THE SELLING SEASON IS FROM THREE TO FIVE WEEKS IN
LENGTH.  THE SHORT TOBACCO SEASON CAUSES GROWERS TO RUSH TOBACCO TO THE
MARKET AND DOES NOT GIVE THEM A FAIR OPPORTUNITY "TO PROPERLY GRADE,
STORE, BUNDLE, AND ORDERLY MARKET THEIR TOBACCO."  THE SHORT SEASON IS
IN LARGE PART OCCASIONED BY THE EFFORTS OF THE MANUFACTURERS TO
TRANSFER THEIR BUYERS TO THE NORTH CAROLINA BELTS, IN SOME OF WHICH THE
SELLING SEASONS BEGIN EARLY IN SEPTEMBER, AND THE EFFORTS OF THE
WAREHOUSEMEN TO DISPOSE OF THE TOBACCO IN GEORGIA SO THAT THEY AND
THEIR AUCTIONEERS AND OTHER SKILLED EMPLOYEES MAY PROCEED TO THE LATER
AND LARGER SEASONS OF NORTH CAROLINA AND OTHER STATES. 

WHEN THE ACT IN QUESTION WAS PASSED, THE WAREHOUSE CHARGES, BASED
UPON THREE ELEMENTS, THE SALE VALUE, THE NUMBER OF PILES HANDLED AND
THE WEIGHT OF THE QUANTITY SOLD, WERE AS FOLLOWS: 

COMMISSIONS:  2 1/2 PER CENT. ON GROSS SALES. 

AUCTION FEES:  25 CENTS PER PILE UP TO 200 POUNDS; 50 CENTS PER PILE
ABOVE 200 POUNDS. 

WEIGHING AND HANDLING FEES:  25 CENTS PER PILE UP TO 100 POUNDS, AND
25 CENTS FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 100 POUNDS. 

THE ACT OF 1935 PRESCRIBED THE FOLLOWING MAXIMUM CHARGES: 

COMMISSIONS:  2 1/2 PER CENT. ON GROSS SALES. 

AUCTION FEES:  15 CENTS ON ALL PILES OF 100 POUNDS OR LESS; 25 CENTS
ON ALL PILES OVER 100 POUNDS. 

WEIGHING AND HANDLING FEES:  10 CENTS PER PILE OF 100 POUNDS OR LESS,
AND 10 CENTS FOR EACH ADDITIONAL 100 POUNDS. 

IT WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE STATUTORY REDUCTION IS CONFINED TO THE
AUCTION FEES AND THE CHARGES FOR WEIGHING AND HANDLING.  THE PERCENTAGE
REDUCTION IS DIFFICULT OF EXACT DETERMINATION.  COMPLAINANTS SAY THAT
THE GROSS INCOME OF THE WAREHOUSEMEN WILL BE REDUCED ABOUT 20 PER CENT.
THE DIFFERENCE IN DOLLARS BETWEEN THE AMOUNT WHICH COMPLAINANTS WOULD
HAVE RECEIVED IN 1935 UNDER THE FORMER SCHEDULE AND THE AMOUNT TO WHICH
THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED UNDER THE ACT IS FOUND TO BE $115,920.90, AND
THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT.  STATUTES IN NORTH
CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA FIX THE SAME SCALE OF CHARGES AS THOSE
PRESCRIBED BY THE GEORGIA ACT.  NO ATTACK HAS BEEN MADE UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THESE STATUTES.  THE SCALE HERETOFORE IN EFFECT IN
GEORGIA "IS NOT SO HIGH AS THE NON-STATUTORY TENNESSEE OR KENTUCKY
CHARGES." 

THE DISTRICT COURT MADE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS, WHICH APPELLANTS
CHALLENGE, WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTROL EXERCISED BY THE WAREHOUSEMEN
OVER THE CHARGES MADE FOR THEIR SERVICES AND THEIR COMMON AGREEMENT AS
TO THE AMOUNT OF THESE CHARGES.  THE COURT FOUND THAT BY REASON OF
THEIR CONTROL OF THE WAREHOUSES "WAREHOUSEMEN HAVE, UNLESS REGULATED BY
LAW, AN UNDULY COERCIVE CONTROL OVER THE PRICES CHARGED THE GROWERS FOR
SERVICES"; THAT BEGINNING WITH THE TOBACCO SELLING SEASON OF 1927 ALL
WAREHOUSEMEN IN GEORGIA HAVE UNIFORMLY MAINTAINED "A HARD AND FAST
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES"; THAT, WHILE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EXCEPTIONS, THEY
ARE "SO INSIGNIFICANT AS TO BE IMMATERIAL"; THAT PRIOR TO 1927 THE
WAREHOUSEMEN IN GEORGIA FOR MANY YEARS, IF NOT FROM THE BEGINNING OF
THE INDUSTRY, "HAD MAINTAINED AND EXACTED FROM SELLERS OF TOBACCO A
UNIFORM SCHEDULE OF CHARGES SUBSTANTIALLY, IF NOT IDENTICALLY, THE SAME
AS THE SCHEDULE FIXED BY THE ACT OF 1935." 

THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE PROPRIETY OF CHARGING MORE FOR HANDLING
TOBACCO IN GEORGIA THAN IN THE CAROLINAS HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED; THAT
IT HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE GEORGIA ACT "WAS PASSED WITHOUT ANY
KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF THE LEGISLATURE AS TO ACTUAL CONDITIONS UNDER
WHICH THE BUSINESS WAS, AND IS, BEING CARRIED ON IN GEORGIA"; THAT IT
HAD NOT BEEN PROVED "WHAT EACH OR ANY WAREHOUSEMAN, INDIVIDUAL OR
CORPORATE, LOST IN REVENUE BY REASON OF THE SCALE OF CHARGES PRESCRIBED
BY THE ACT"; THAT IT WAS NOT DENIED "THAT SOME WAREHOUSEMEN EARNED A
SATISFACTORY PROFIT" AND IT HAD NOT BEEN PROVED THAT WHERE A LOSS
OCCURRED IT WAS NOT DUE "TO EXCESSIVE COMPETITION, ILL-ADVISED LOANS,
UNNECESSARY EXPENSES IN BUYING INFLUENCE OR HAULING CUSTOMERS' TOBACCO,
OR OTHER CAUSES THAN THE REDUCTION IN CHARGES."  THE COURT OBSERVED
THAT THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE EFFECTS OF THE ACT WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE
"GROUP OF WAREHOUSEMEN WHO ARE COMPLAINANTS, RATHER THAN TO THE EFFECT
ON EACH ONE, AND EVEN THEN IT WAS NOT PROVEN THAT ALL THE LOSSES ARE
TRACEABLE TO THE REDUCTION IN CHARGES RATHER THAN TO OTHER CAUSES." 

THE COURT MADE FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE
"TOBACCO WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION" OF WHICH ALL THE COMPLAINANTS WERE
MEMBERS.  THE COURT SAID THAT THE PROSECUTION OF THE SUIT WAS "AN
ORGANIZED FIGHT THROUGH THE WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION"; THAT THE
GROWERS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THAT ORGANIZATION; THAT "THE
ASSOCIATION AND THE BUYERS DETERMINE THE DATE THE MARKET IN GEORGIA
OPENS AND SUBSTANTIALLY DETERMINE THE DATE ON WHICH IT CLOSES"; THAT
THE ASSOCIATION UNDERTAKES TO DEAL WITH SUCH PRACTICES AS AFFECT THE
INTEREST OF THE MEMBERS AND ADOPTS RULES WHICH THEY ARE TO OBSERVE. 
THE COURT QUOTED FROM THE MINUTES OF MEETINGS CERTAIN ACTION TENDING TO
SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A COMMON AGREEMENT AS TO WAREHOUSE
CHARGES AND A CONCERT OF ACTION IN RELATION TO THE PRESENT SUIT.  THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT "THROUGH THE WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND THEIR
COMMON AGREEMENT" AS TO CHARGES THE COMPLAINANTS "MAINTAIN AND ENJOY A
VIRTUAL MONOPOLY IN THE FIELD COVERED BY THEIR OPERATIONS"; THAT THE
BUSINESS OF TOBACCO WAREHOUSEMEN IN GEORGIA IN 1935, AND FOR SOME YEARS
PRIOR THERETO, WAS SUCH AS TO CAUSE IT TO BE "AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC
INTEREST"; THAT THE SCALE OF CHARGES PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT WAS "NOT
UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY, AND CAPRICIOUS" BUT WAS "REASONABLY ADAPTED TO
ACCOMPLISH THE DESIRED RESULT"; AND THAT THE FIXING OF CHARGES FOR THE
SERVICES RENDERED BY THE WAREHOUSEMEN DID "NOT BURDEN OR INTERFERE WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

FIRST.  UNLESS THERE IS CONFLICT WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS
OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE WAS CLEARLY
WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.  WHILE APPELLANTS'
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS CHALLENGE THE CONCLUSION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE TOBACCO WAREHOUSES WAS ONE "AFFECTED WITH A
PUBLIC INTEREST," THEIR COUNSEL CONCEDED IN THE ARGUMENT AT BAR THAT
THE CHALLENGE COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED.  THAT CONCESSION WAS APPROPRIATE
IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE FINDINGS.  THE UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY, THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF MARKETS FOR PUBLIC SALES, AND THE DEPENDENCE OF THE
INDUSTRY UPON THE SERVICES OF THE WAREHOUSEMEN IN CONNECTION WITH THESE
SALES, SHOW BEYOND CAVIL THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THESE MARKETS AND IN
THE MAINTENANCE OF REASONABLE CHARGES FOR THE SERVICES THERE RENDERED. 

A SIMILAR CONCEPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST, REENFORCED BY ABUNDANT
EXPERIENCE, IS REFLECTED IN THE LEGISLATION OF OTHER TOBACCO GROWING
STATES.  IN VIRGINIA THE SALE OF TOBACCO IN PUBLIC WAREHOUSES HAS LONG
BEEN REGULATED BY STATUTE AND MAXIMUM CHARGES HAVE BEEN FIXED.  CODE OF
VIRGINIA, 1887, SECS. 1819-1825; 1924, SECS. 1376-1381.  IN NORTH
CAROLINA SUCH REGULATION GOES BACK TO AN EARLY DAY.  SEE CONSOLIDATED
STATUTES OF NORTH CAROLINA, SECS. 5124 ET SEQ. IN GRAY V. CENTRAL
WAREHOUSE CO., 181 N.C. 166; 106 S.E. 657, THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT
STATE, AFTER SUMMARIZING THE LOCAL LEGISLATION UPON THAT SUBJECT SINCE
1895, GOES ON TO SAY:    "INDEED, AS FAR BACK AS THE HISTORY OF THE
STATE EXTENDS, THE BUSINESS OF TOBACCO WAREHOUSES HAS BEEN, IF NOT A
PUBLIC DUTY, ALWAYS 'AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC USE.'  THE LAWS OF NORTH
CAROLINA FROM 1669 TO 1790 HAVE BEEN COMPILED AS STATE RECORDS, VOLS. 
23, 24 AND 25, BY THE WRITER OF THIS OPINION (CHIEF JUSTICE CLARK), AND
IN THE INDEX THERETO, IN THE LAST NAMED VOLUME, IT APPEARS THAT NO LESS
THAN 75 STATUTES WERE ENACTED PRIOR TO 1790 IN REGARD TO TOBACCO
WAREHOUSES REQUIRING INSPECTION, REGULATION, AND FIXING CHARGES IN SUCH
BUSINESS.  TO THE FULLEST EXTENT, THEREFORE, THEIR REGULATION AND
CONTROL BY THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AND ENFORCED IN THIS STATE. 
- IN FACT, THERE IS NO SUBJECT IN WHICH THE PROTECTION OF THE PRODUCERS
AGAINST EXTORTION AND COMBINATIONS TO REDUCE PRICES IS MORE
IMPORTANT." 

IN SOUTH CAROLINA MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR SELLING LEAF TOBACCO UPON THE
FLOOR OF TOBACCO WAREHOUSES ARE FIXED.  CODE, SOUTH CAROLINA, 1932,
SEC. 7197, AND EARLIER STATUTES THERE CITED.  THE STATUTE OF GEORGIA,
HERE UNDER ATTACK, COPIES ALMOST EXACTLY THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATUTE. 
SEE, ALSO, AS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, NASH V. PAGE, 80 KY. 539;
PANNELL V. LOUISVILLE TOBACCO WAREHOUSE CO., 113 KY. 630. 

SO FAR AS THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY TURNS UPON THE POWER OF THE STATE
TO GIVE THIS SORT OF PROTECTION TO THIS INDUSTRY, PROVIDED ITS
REGULATION IS NOT ARBITRARY OR CONFISCATORY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF
CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL POWER OVER COMMERCE, OUR RULINGS ARE DECISIVE
IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE ACTION.  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113; BUDD V.
NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517; BRASS V. STOESER, 153 U.S. 391; GERMAN ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO. V. LEWIS, 233 U.S. 389; O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD
INSURANCE CO., 282 U.S. 251; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502. 

CONFISCATION IS NOT SHOWN.  THE PRESUMPTION OF REASONABLENESS HAS NOT
BEEN OVERTHROWN.  O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD INSURANCE CO., SUPRA.
IT IS APPARENT THAT THE RETURN TO THE WAREHOUSEMEN WILL LARGELY BE
GOVERNED BY THE VOLUME AND VALUE OF THE TOBACCO CROP.  THE EVIDENCE
RELATES CHIEFLY TO THE YEARS OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND AFFORDS NO
APPROPRIATE CRITERION FOR A MORE NORMAL PERIOD.  MOREOVER, WE FIND NO
SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR DISTURBING THE FINDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISH WHAT ANY WAREHOUSEMAN,
INDIVIDUAL OR CORPORATE, LOST BY REASON OF THE PRESCRIBED SCALE OF
CHARGE IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO ITS EFFECT UPON THE WAREHOUSEMEN AS A
GROUP.  SEE AETNA INSURANCE CO. V. HYDE, 275 U.S. 440, 447, 448.  THE
BURDEN RESTING UPON APPELLANTS TO MAKE A CONVINCING SHOWING THAT THE
STATUTORY RATES WOULD OPERATE SO SEVERELY AS TO DEPRIVE THEM,
RESPECTIVELY, OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WAS NOT
SUSTAINED.  AETNA INSURANCE CO. V. HYDE, SUPRA; LOS ANGELES GAS &
ELECTRIC CORP. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 287, 304, 305;
LINDHEIMER V. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO., 292 U.S. 151, 164; DAYTON
POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290, 298. 

APPELLANTS CONTEND THAT THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN WITHOUT
INVESTIGATION AND HENCE MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE ARBITRARY AND BEYOND
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER.  THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
WHICH NULLIFIES ACTION TAKEN BY A LEGISLATURE, OTHERWISE COMPETENT, IN
THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION.  THE RESULT OF PARTICULAR
LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES THROUGH COMMISSIONS OR OTHERWISE MAY BE MOST
HELPFUL IN PORTRAYING THE EXIGENCIES TO WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION
HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AND IN FORTIFYING CONCLUSIONS AS TO REASONABLENESS. 
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, PP. 516 ET SEQ. BUT THE LEGISLATURE, ACTING
WITHIN ITS SPHERE, IS PRESUMED TO KNOW THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE.  WHETHER OR NOT SPECIAL INQUIRIES SHOULD BE MADE IS A MATTER FOR
THE LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION.  HERE, THE EXISTENCE OF THE INDUSTRY,
HIGHLY IMPORTANT TO THE STATE, THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE TOBACCO MARKETS,
THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING THE GROWERS FROM EXORBITANT WAREHOUSE
CHARGES, MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN FULLY KNOWN TO THE MEMBERS OF
THE LEGISLATURE AND THIS PRESUMPTION CANNOT BE OVERTHROWN, AS IT HAS
BEEN SOUGHT TO BE OVERTHROWN, BY TESTIMONY OF INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS. 

SECOND.  THE MAIN CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS IS THAT THE STATE HAD NO
POWER TO ENACT THE REGULATION AS IT ATTEMPTED TO GOVERN TRANSACTIONS IN
THE COURSE OF INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.  APPELLANTS URGE THAT
PRACTICALLY ALL THE TOBACCO GROWN IN GEORGIA IS SHIPPED OUT OF THE
STATE, ABOUT FORTY PER CENT. IN FOREIGN, AND THE REMAINING SIXTY PER
CENT. IN INTERSTATE, COMMERCE; THAT THE PURCHASERS AT THE "MARKETS" IN
GEORGIA FOR THE MOST PART ARE MANUFACTURERS OF CIGARETTES WHO
IMMEDIATELY HAVE THE TOBACCO TRANSPORTED TO THEIR PLANTS OUTSIDE THE
STATE; THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY SPECULATORS AND WAREHOUSEMEN ARE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF RESALE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO THE CIGARETTE
MANUFACTURERS, AND THUS THAT THE TOBACCO SO BOUGHT, AS WELL AS THE
REST, "IS DESTINED FOR INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN SHIPMENT." 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO PASS UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS TO
REGULATE THE CHARGES OF THE WAREHOUSEMEN, FOR WE ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT, IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT CONGRESS HAS THAT AUTHORITY, IT HAS NOT
BEEN EXERCISED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EXERCISE THE STATE MAY IMPOSE
THE REGULATION IN QUESTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ITS PEOPLE. 

THE FEDERAL STATUTE, TO WHICH APPELLANTS REFER, IS THE "TOBACCO
INSPECTION ACT" OF AUGUST 23, 1935.  49 STAT. 731.  THAT STATUTE, WHILE
DECLARING THE TRANSACTIONS IN TOBACCO AT AUCTION MARKETS TO BE
"AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST" (SEC. 2) HAD A LIMITED OBJECTIVE.  IT
DID NOT UNDERTAKE TO REGULATE THE CHARGES OF WAREHOUSEMEN OR IN ANY WAY
TO DEROGATE FROM THE EXISTING STATE LEGISLATION UPON THAT SUBJECT.  IT
SOUGHT TO AID TOBACCO GROWERS BY ESTABLISHING AND PROMOTING THE USE OF
STANDARDS OF CLASSIFICATION AND BY MAINTAINING AN OFFICIAL INSPECTION
SERVICE.  IT WAS FOUND THAT THE FARMER HAD "NO DEFINITE SYSTEM OF
GRADES OF HIS OWN," THAT THE PRIVATE GRADING SYSTEMS USED BY THE BUYERS
WERE KEPT "STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL" SO THAT "WITHOUT GOVERNMENT STANDARDS
THE FARMER HAS NO DEFINITE GUIDE FOR SORTING HIS TOBACCO," AND THAT
HENCE "FARMERS GENERALLY ARE UNABLE TO CLASS THEIR TOBACCO CORRECTLY TO
MEET THE TRADE'S DEMANDS."  FN1  TO MEET THIS NEED, THE ACT AUTHORIZED
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO MAKE INVESTIGATIONS AND TO ESTABLISH
STANDARDS FOR TOBACCO "BY WHICH ITS TYPE, GRADE, SIZE, CONDITION, OR
OTHER CHARACTERISTICS" MIGHT BE DETERMINED (SEC. 3).  IT AUTHORIZED THE
SECRETARY TO DESIGNATE AUCTION MARKETS, ON DETERMINING "BY REFERENDUM
THE DESIRE OF TOBACCO GROWERS," BUT IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE ACT
SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS PREVENTING TRANSACTIONS IN TOBACCO AT
MARKETS NOT SO DESIGNATED (SEC. 5).  IT AUTHORIZED THE SECRETARY,
INDEPENDENTLY OR IN COOPERATION WITH OTHER BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT,
STATE AGENCIES, OR OTHERS, TO EMPLOY AND LICENSE COMPETENT PERSONS AS
SAMPLERS OR WEIGHERS BUT IT WAS ADDED THAT THIS PROVISION WAS "INTENDED
MERELY TO PROVIDE FOR THE FURNISHING OF SERVICES UPON REQUEST OF THE
OWNER OR OTHER PERSON FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN TOBACCO TO BE SAMPLED,
INSPECTED, OR WEIGHED," AND SHOULD "NOT BE CONSTRUED OTHERWISE" (SEC.
6).  AND THE SECRETARY WAS FURTHER AUTHORIZED, IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT
THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, TO "COOPERATE WITH ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT OR
AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT; ANY STATE, TERRITORY, DISTRICT OR
POSSESSION," AS WELL AS WITH PURCHASING AND CONSUMING ORGANIZATIONS,
BOARDS OF TRADE, ETC. (SEC. 14). 

THE CONGRESS, AS THE REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES IN BOTH HOUSES SHOW,
FN2  WAS FULLY CONVERSANT WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE TRANSACTIONS IN
TOBACCO WERE CARRIED ON.  IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE CONGRESS WAS
WELL AWARE OF THE LONG-ESTABLISHED LEGISLATION IN VIRGINIA, NORTH
CAROLINA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND THE MORE RECENT LEGISLATION IN GEORGIA,
PRESCRIBING MAXIMUM CHARGES FOR THE SERVICES OF WAREHOUSEMEN.  WE DEEM
IT TO BE HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT THAT, IN THE LIGHT OF EXISTING PRACTICES
AND STATUTORY REGULATIONS, THE CONGRESS CAREFULLY RESTRICTED ITS OWN
REQUIREMENTS AND DID NOT ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION OF
STATE LAWS AS TO THE AMOUNTS WHICH WAREHOUSEMEN MIGHT CHARGE.  THE
PURPOSE AND TERMS OF THE FEDERAL STATUTE NEGATIVE ANY SUCH INTENTION. 
IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE CONGRESS IN ENDEAVORING TO AID THE TOBACCO
GROWERS IN SORTING OR "GRADING," AND THUS TO FACILITATE THE MARKETING
OF THEIR TOBACCO, INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THEM OF THE PROTECTION THEY
ALREADY HAD AGAINST EXTORTIONATE CHARGES OF THE WAREHOUSEMEN UPON WHOM
THEY DEPENDED IN MAKING THEIR SALES.  INSTEAD OF FRUSTRATING THE
OPERATION OF SUCH STATE LAWS, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY
AFFORDED AND EMPHASIZED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COOPERATION WITH THE STATES
IN PROTECTING THE FARMERS' INTERESTS.  IN THIS VIEW WE FIND NO GROUND
FOR THE CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE FIELD OF
REGULATION TO THE EXCLUSION OF STATE LAWS WHICH DO NOT CONFLICT WITH
ITS OWN REQUIREMENTS. 

THE CASE CALLS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE
THAT CONGRESS MAY CIRCUMSCRIBE ITS REGULATION AND OCCUPY A LIMITED
FIELD, AND THAT THE INTENT TO SUPERSEDE THE EXERCISE BY THE STATE OF
ITS POLICE POWER AS TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION
IS NOT TO BE IMPLIED UNLESS THE LATTER FAIRLY INTERPRETED IS IN ACTUAL
CONFLICT WITH THE STATE LAW.  SAVAGE V. JONES, 225 U.S. 501, 533;
ATLANTIC COAST LINE V. GEORGIA, 234 U.S. 280, 293, 294; ILLINOIS
CENTRAL R. CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 245 U.S. 493, 510; CAREY V.
SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 118, 122; LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N, 278 U.S. 24, 35; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V.
RAILROAD  COMM'RS, 283 U.S. 380, 392, 393; HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V.
ILLINOIS, 298 U.S. 155, 158. 

LAYING ON ONE SIDE THE FEDERAL STATUTE, AS IN NO WAY INCONSISTENT, WE
FIND NO GROUND FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE STATE REQUIREMENTS LAY ANY
ACTUAL BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  THE GEORGIA ACT
DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO FIX THE PRICES AT THE AUCTION SALES OR TO REGULATE
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PURCHASERS.  THE FIXING OF REASONABLE MAXIMUM
CHARGES FOR THE SERVICES OF THE WAREHOUSEMEN IN AID OF THE TOBACCO
GROWERS DOES NOT MILITATE AGAINST ANY INTEREST OF THOSE WHO BUY.  THEY
PAY THE BID PRICE, AS ACCEPTED, AND THE WAREHOUSEMAN PAYS THE SELLER,
DEDUCTING FROM THE PURCHASE PRICE THE WAREHOUSE CHARGES. 

WE ARE THUS BROUGHT TO THE FINAL CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS THAT THE
STATE LAW, ALTHOUGH NOT IN CONFLICT WITH ANY EXERTION OF FEDERAL
AUTHORITY, MUST FALL AS BEING REPUGNANT TO THE EXISTENCE OF AN
EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL POWER ALTHOUGH UNEXERCISED.  THE CONTENTION IGNORES
THE PRINCIPLE THAT THIS GROUND OF INVALIDITY IS TO BE FOUND ONLY WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH MATTERS AS DEMAND A GENERAL SYSTEM OR UNIFORMITY OF
REGULATION; THAT IN OTHER MATTERS, ADMITTING OF DIVERSITY OF TREATMENT
ACCORDING TO THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LOCAL CONDITIONS, THE STATES
MAY ACT WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS UNTIL CONGRESS SEES FIT
TO ACT.  COOLEY V. BOARD OF WARDENS, 12 HOW.  299, 319; MINNESOTA RATE
CASES, 230 U.S. 352, 399, 400; HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, 235 U.S. 610, 622;
MORRIS V. DUBY, 274 U.S. 135, 143; SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374,
390. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE GEORGIA STATUTE DEALS WITH A LOCAL NEED,
EXERCISING THE STATE'S PROTECTIVE POWER WITH RESPECT TO ITS OWN
INDUSTRY.  A SIMILAR CONTENTION TO THAT NOW ADVANCED WAS HELD UNTENABLE
IN MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113, WHERE STATE REGULATION OF CHARGES BY
THE PROPRIETORS OF GRAIN ELEVATORS WAS SUSTAINED DESPITE THE FACT THAT
THE ELEVATORS WERE USED AS INSTRUMENTALITIES BY THOSE WHO ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ID., P. 135.  THE POINT WAS AGAIN RAISED AND
OVERRULED IN BUDD V. NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517, IN UPHOLDING THE NEW YORK
STATUTE REGULATING CHARGES FOR "ELEVATING, TRIMMING, RECEIVING,
WEIGHING AND DISCHARGING GRAIN BY MEANS OF FLOATING AND STATIONARY
ELEVATORS AND WAREHOUSES."  IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT, IN THE ACTUAL STATE
OF THE BUSINESS, THE PASSAGE OF THE GRAIN TO THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND
OTHER PLACES ON THE SEABOARD WITHOUT THE USE OF ELEVATORS WOULD BE
PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.  THE ELEVATOR AT BUFFALO WAS A LINK IN THE
CHAIN OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE GRAIN FROM THE PLACES WHERE IT WAS GROWN
TO THE SEABOARD, BUT THE COURT SAID:  "SO FAR AS THE STATUTE IN
QUESTION IS A REGULATION OF COMMERCE, IT IS A REGULATION OF COMMERCE
ONLY ON THE WATERS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  IT OPERATES ONLY WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF THAT STATE, AND IS NO MORE OBNOXIOUS AS A REGULATION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN WAS THE STATUTE OF ILLINOIS IN RESPECT TO
WAREHOUSES, IN MUNN V. ILLINOIS.  IT IS OF THE SAME CHARACTER WITH
NAVIGATION LAWS IN RESPECT TO NAVIGATION WITHIN THE STATE, AND LAWS
REGULATING WHARFAGE RATES WITHIN THE STATE, AND OTHER KINDRED LAWS." 
ID., PP. 544, 545.  AGAIN, IN BRASS V. NORTH DAKOTA, 153 U.S. 391, THE
STATUTE OF THAT STATE "REGULATING GRAIN WAREHOUSES AND WEIGHING AND
HANDLING OF GRAIN" WAS HELD NOT TO AMOUNT TO A REGULATION OF COMMERCE
BETWEEN THE STATES IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL
LEGISLATION, UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE MUNN AND BUDD CASES. 

IN CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452, 470, THE REQUIREMENT OF A
STATE LICENSE FOR GRAIN WAREHOUSES ON RAILROAD RIGHTS OF WAY WAS FOUND
TO BE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS, ALTHOUGH THE
WAREHOUSE COMPANY PURCHASED THE GRAIN, HANDLED IN OR SHIPPED FROM ITS
WAREHOUSE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING IT AS ITS PROPERTY TO ITS
TERMINAL ELEVATORS IN WISCONSIN AND ILLINOIS AND THENCE TO OTHER POINTS
IN THE EASTERN STATES.  ID., P. 462.  THE COURT THUS STATED THE REASONS
FOR THIS CONCLUSION:  "THE STATUTE PUTS NO OBSTACLE IN THE WAY OF THE
PURCHASE BY THE DEFENDANT COMPANY OF GRAIN IN THE STATE OR THE SHIPMENT
OUT OF THE STATE OF SUCH GRAIN AS IT PURCHASED.  THE LICENSE HAS
REFERENCE ONLY TO THE BUSINESS OF THE DEFENDANT AT ITS ELEVATOR AND
WAREHOUSE.  THE STATUTE ONLY REQUIRES A LICENSE IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS
CONDUCTED AT AN ESTABLISHED WAREHOUSE IN THE STATE BETWEEN THE
DEFENDANT AND THE SELLERS OF GRAIN....  IN NO REAL OR SUBSTANTIAL SENSE
IS SUCH COMMERCE OBSTRUCTED BY THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE."  SEE,
ALSO, MERCHANTS EXCHANGE V. MISSOURI, 248 U.S. 365, 368.    EVEN WHERE
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS INTERVENED, AS IN THE UNITED STATES
WAREHOUSING ACT OF AUGUST 11, 1916, 7 U.S.C., C. 10, IN PROVIDING FOR
LICENSES FOR WAREHOUSES WHERE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ARE "STORED FOR
INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE," WE HELD THAT THE LICENSE DID NOT
CONVERT THE WAREHOUSEMAN INTO AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND, WHILE BY MEANS OF THE LICENSING PROVISIONS A MEASURE OF
CONTROL OVER THOSE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS WAS SECURED TO THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, STILL THE LICENSE DID NOT CONFER UPON THE WAREHOUSEMAN
IMMUNITY FROM STATE TAXATION.  FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S.
17, 22, 23.  THAT CASE WAS FOLLOWED BY OUR DECISION IN CHASSANIOL V.
GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND
SELLING COTTON LOCALLY PRODUCED, PROCESSED AND WAREHOUSED, WAS LOCAL IN
CHARACTER, AND THAT A LOCAL OCCUPATION TAX UPON THE BUYER DID NOT
CONTRAVENE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ALTHOUGH THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS WAS
SUCH THAT ALL THE COTTON SO BOUGHT WAS ULTIMATELY SHIPPED BY THE BUYER
IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  ON SIMILAR GROUNDS WE HELD IN
MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1, 8, THAT BECAUSE THERE WAS "A FLOW OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATING POWER OF THE
CONGRESS, IT DID NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A
CONFLICT WITH THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER, A STATE MIGHT NOT LAY A NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON PROPERTY WHICH "ALTHOUGH CONNECTED WITH THAT
FLOW AS A GENERAL COURSE OF BUSINESS" HAD COME TO REST AND ACQUIRED A
SITUS WITHIN THE STATE. 

ALL THESE DECISIONS BUT ILLUSTRATE THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE MERE
EXISTENCE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER, NO CONFLICT WITH ITS EXERCISE
BEING SHOWN, DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE STATES OF THEIR AUTHORITY TO
SAFEGUARD THEIR LOCAL INTERESTS BY LEGISLATION WHICH DOES NOT DIRECTLY
BURDEN TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

THE CASES UPON WHICH APPELLANTS RELY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE.  IN DAHNKE
WALKER CO. V. BONDURANT, 257 U.S. 282, THE STATUTE HELD TO BE INVALID
IMPOSED BURDENSOME CONDITIONS UPON THE ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS ARISING
FROM TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN LEMKE V. FARMERS GRAIN
CO., 258 U.S. 50, THE NORTH DAKOTA STATUTE OF 1919 DISCLOSED A
COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME TO REGULATE THE BUYING OF GRAIN IN THE COURSE OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SUCH PURCHASES COULD BE MADE ONLY BY THOSE WHO
HELD LICENSES FROM THE STATE, PAID STATE CHARGES FOR THE SAME, AND
ACTED UNDER A SYSTEM OF GRADING, INSPECTING AND WEIGHING FULLY DEFINED
IN THE ACT.  THE GRAIN COULD ONLY BE PURCHASED SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF
THE STATE GRAIN INSPECTOR TO DETERMINE THE MARGIN OF PROFIT WHICH THE
BUYER COULD REALIZE UPON HIS PURCHASE.  THAT MARGIN OF PROFIT WAS
DEFINED TO BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE PAID AT THE NORTH DAKOTA
ELEVATOR AND THE MARKET PRICE, WITH AN ALLOWANCE FOR FREIGHT, AT THE
MINNESOTA POINTS TO WHICH THE GRAIN WAS SHIPPED AND SOLD.  THE STATE
OFFICER WAS THUS AUTHORIZED TO "FIX AND DETERMINE THE PRICE" TO BE PAID
FOR GRAIN WHICH WAS "BOUGHT, SHIPPED, AND SOLD IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  THAT THE PROVISION WAS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE
WAS SAID TO BE "OBVIOUS FROM ITS MERE STATEMENT."  ID., PP. 56-58.  THE
LATER NORTH DAKOTA STATUTE OF 1923 FELL UNDER A LIKE CONDEMNATION IN
SHAFER V. FARMERS GRAIN CO., 268 U.S. 189, AS THE STATUTE SUBJECTED THE
BUYING FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT TO CONDITIONS AND A MEASURE OF CONTROL
WHICH CAUSED A DIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

HERE, THE GEORGIA ACT LAYS NO CONSTRAINT UPON PURCHASES IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO FIX THE PRICES OR CONDITIONS OF
PURCHASES, OR THE PROFIT OF THE PURCHASERS.  IT SIMPLY SEEKS TO PROTECT
THE TOBACCO GROWERS FROM UNREASONABLE CHARGES OF THE WAREHOUSEMEN FOR
THEIR SERVICES TO THE GROWERS IN HANDLING AND SELLING THE TOBACCO FOR
THEIR ACCOUNT.  WHATEVER RELATION THESE TRANSACTIONS HAD TO INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, THE EFFECT IS MERELY INCIDENTAL AND IMPOSES NO
DIRECT BURDEN UPON THAT COMMERCE.  THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO AFFORD ITS
INDUSTRY THIS MEASURE OF PROTECTION UNTIL ITS REQUIREMENT IS SUPERSEDED
BY VALID FEDERAL REGULATION.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, H.R. REP. NO.
1102, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.; REPORT OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
AND FORESTRY, SEN. REP. NO. 1211, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN2  SEE NOTE 1. 
..END :



HARTFORD CO. V. HARRISON, 301 U.S. 459 


NO. 355.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1937.  - 183 GA. 1
- 187 S.E. 648, REVERSED. 


A STATUTORY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN THE MUTUAL COMPANIES AND THE STOCK
COMPANIES WHICH WRITE FIRE, CASUALTY, ETC., INSURANCE IN THE STATE,
FORBIDDING STOCK COMPANIES TO ACT THROUGH AGENTS WHO ARE THEIR SALARIED
EMPLOYEES BUT PERMITTING THIS TO MUTUAL COMPANIES, IS REPUGNANT TO THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 463. 

GEORGIA LS., 1935, ACT OF MAR. 28, 1935, SEC. 1, HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE DISCRIMINATION HAS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSES OF COMPANIES.  IT IS ARBITRARY. 

HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION & INSURANCE CO. ET AL. V. HARRISON,
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A DECISION OF A TRIAL COURT
DIRECTING THAT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS ISSUE REQUIRING THE ABOVE-NAMED
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO LICENSE ONE OF THE APPELLANTS AS GENERAL
AGENT OF THE OTHER, THE INSURANCE COMPANY. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE HARTFORD STEAM BOILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE COMPANY, A STOCK
CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF CONNECTICUT, CARRYING ON
CASUALTY INSURANCE BUSINESS IN GEORGIA, AND ITS SALARIED EMPLOYEE W. M.
FRANCIS, CITIZEN OF THAT STATE, ASKED THE SUPERIOR COURT, FULTON
COUNTY, FOR A MANDAMUS REQUIRING THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER TO LICENSE
HIM AS RESIDENT AGENT.  THE COMMISSIONER CLAIMED THAT WHILE DULY
QUALIFIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, THE EMPLOYEE COULD NOT BE SO LICENSED
BECAUSE OF THE INHIBITION IN SEC. 1, ACT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
APPROVED MARCH 28, 1935.  GEORGIA LAWS, 1935, P. 140: 

"NO LICENSED FIRE OR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OR COMPANY WRITING
FIDELITY OR SURETY BONDS, SHALL WRITE OR ISSUE ANY POLICY OR INDEMNITY
CONTRACT ON ANY RISK IN THIS STATE EXCEPT THROUGH A RESIDENT AGENT
LICENSED BY THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER:  PROVIDED  ...  THE WORDS
'RESIDENT AGENT' AS USED IN THIS SECTION ARE DEEMED TO MEAN RESIDENT
AGENTS ENGAGED IN THE SOLICITATION OF SUCH BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
GENERALLY AND SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY SALARIED EMPLOYEE OF ANY INSURANCE
COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE; BUT SHALL INCLUDE ANY AGENTS OF
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES HOWEVER COMPENSATED...." 

APPELLANTS CLAIMED THAT ENFORCEMENT OF THE QUOTED INHIBITION WOULD
DEPRIVE THEM OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, CONTRARY TO THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE TRIAL COURT RULED "THAT SAID ACT, IN DISCRIMINATING AGAINST STOCK
COMPANIES AND THE AGENTS THEREOF, AND IN FAVOR OF MUTUAL COMPANIES AND
THE AGENTS THEREOF, SETS UP AN ARBITRARY CLASSIFICATION BEARING NO
REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE LEGISLATION, AND
IS DISCRIMINATORY, DEPRIVING BOTH PETITIONER, THE HARTFORD STEAM BOILER
INSPECTION AND INSURANCE COMPANY, AS AN INSURANCE COMPANY, AND
PETITIONER, W. M. FRANCIS, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS."  ACCORDINGLY, IT DIRECTED THAT MANDAMUS ISSUE. 

IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT COUNSEL AGREED THAT THE SOLE QUESTION
INVOLVED WAS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE.  THAT COURT, BEING
OF OPINION THAT THE ACT PRESCRIBED NO UNDUE DISCRIMINATION AND DID NOT
OTHERWISE CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, REVERSED THE TRIAL
COURT.  THE CAUSE IS HERE BY APPEAL. 

THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE IN RESPECT OF CLASSIFICATION HAS OFTEN BEEN
ANNOUNCED.  IT WILL SUFFICE TO QUOTE A PARAGRAPH FROM LOUISVILLE GAS &
ELECTRIC CO. V. COLEMAN, 277 U.S. 32, 37, 38. 

"...  IT MAY BE SAID GENERALLY THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE MEANS
THAT THE RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS MUST REST UPON THE SAME RULE UNDER
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, KENTUCKY RAILROAD TAX CASES, 115 U.S. 321, 337;
MAGOUN V. ILLINOIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, 170 U.S. 283, 293, AND THAT IT
APPLIES TO THE EXERCISE OF ALL THE POWERS OF THE STATE WHICH CAN AFFECT
THE INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE POWER OF TAXATION. 
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA V. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 18 FED. 385, 388-399;
THE RAILROAD TAX CASES, 13 FED. 722, 733.  IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, FORBID
CLASSIFICATION; AND THE POWER OF THE STATE TO CLASSIFY FOR PURPOSES OF
TAXATION IS OF WIDE RANGE AND FLEXIBILITY, PROVIDED ALWAYS, THAT THE
CLASSIFICATION 'MUST BE REASONABLE, NOT ARBITRARY, AND MUST REST UPON
SOME GROUND OF DIFFERENCE HAVING A FAIR AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE
OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION, SO THAT ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY CIRCUMSTANCED
SHALL BE TREATED ALIKE.'  ROYSTER GUANO CO. V. VIRGINIA, 253 U.S. 412,
415; AIR-WAY CORP. V. DAY, 266 U.S. 71, 85; SCHLESINGER V. WISCONSIN,
270 U.S. 230, 240.  THAT IS TO SAY, MERE DIFFERENCE IS NOT ENOUGH:  THE
ATTEMPTED CLASSIFICATION 'MUST ALWAYS REST UPON SOME DIFFERENCE WHICH
BEARS A REASONABLE AND JUST RELATION TO THE ACT IN RESPECT TO WHICH THE
CLASSIFICATION IS PROPOSED, AND CAN NEVER BE MADE ARBITRARILY AND
WITHOUT ANY SUCH BASIS.'  GULF, COLORADO & SANTA FE RY. V. ELLIS, 165
U.S. 150, 155.  DISCRIMINATIONS OF AN UNUSUAL CHARACTER ESPECIALLY
SUGGEST CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ARE OBNOXIOUS
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  COMPARE MARTIN V. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, 205 U.S. 135, 139; BELL'S GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 134
U.S. 232, 237." 

DESPITE THE BROAD RANGE OF THE STATE'S DISCRETION, IT HAS A LIMIT
WHICH MUST BE MAINTAINED IF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD IS NOT TO BE
OVERTHROWN.  DISCRIMINATIONS ARE NOT TO BE SUPPORTED BY MERE FANCIFUL
CONJECTURE.  BORDEN'S CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, 209.  THEY CANNOT
STAND AS REASONABLE IF THEY OFFEND THE PLAIN STANDARDS OF COMMON
SENSE.  IN THIS INSTANCE, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD BEEN LICENSED TO DO
BUSINESS IN THE STATE AND WAS ENTITLED TO EQUAL PROTECTION IN
CONDUCTING THAT BUSINESS.  THE ANSWER OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "ENTIRELY SATISFIED AS TO THE CHARACTER, STANDING,
RESPONSIBILITY, ABILITY, AND KNOWLEDGE" OF THE PROPOSED AGENT, AND THAT
THE LICENSE WAS REFUSED SOLELY BECAUSE HE WAS A "SALARIED" EMPLOYEE. 
IT IS PLAIN THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RESIDENT AGENTS OF STOCK
COMPANIES SHOULD NOT WORK ON A SALARY HAS NO RELATION TO ECONOMY OR
EFFICIENCY IN MANAGEMENT.  THE ANSWER OF THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
STATES THAT ALL OF THE CONTRACTS OF MUTUAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANIES ARE "NEGOTIATED BY SALARIED EMPLOYEES" AND THAT THIS METHOD
OF DOING BUSINESS WAS ADOPTED "IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE EXPENSES OF
OPERATION AND THUS BENEFIT THE POLICYHOLDERS THEMSELVES." 

IT IS IDLE TO ELABORATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MUTUAL AND STOCK
COMPANIES.  THESE ARE MANIFEST AND ADMITTED.  BUT THE STATUTORY
DISCRIMINATION HAS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THESE DIFFERENCES.  WE CAN
DISCOVER NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR PERMITTING MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES
TO ACT THROUGH SALARIED RESIDENT EMPLOYEES AND EXCLUDE STOCK COMPANIES
FROM THE SAME PRIVILEGE.  IF THERE WERE ANY SUCH BASIS, IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE STATE COURTS.  THE TRIAL COURT SAID THERE WAS
NONE.  TWO JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT WERE OF THE SAME OPINION.  THE
PREVAILING OPINION IN THAT COURT FAILS TO DISCLOSE ANY GOOD REASON FOR
THE DISCRIMINATION.  THE DILIGENCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE HAS NOT BEEN
MORE SUCCESSFUL.  THUS THE EFFORTS IN THE STATE COURTS, AND HERE, TO
FIND SUPPORT FOR THE STATUTE HAVE CONSPICUOUSLY FAILED.  STATEMENTS AS
TO THE EXTENT OF THE BUSINESS WRITTEN BY STOCK COMPANIES ARE OBVIOUSLY
BESIDE THE MARK. 

FOR THE ERROR INDICATED, THE QUESTIONED JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED AND
THE CAUSE RETURNED TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING. 

THE APPELLANTS PETITIONED THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY,
GEORGIA, FOR A MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE APPELLEE AS INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER REQUIRING HIM TO ISSUE A LICENSE TO FRANCIS, A SALARIED
EMPLOYE OF THE HARTFORD COMPANY, AS AN INSURANCE AGENT FOR THE WRITING
OF CASUALTY INSURANCE IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARCH 28, 1935.  THE PETITION ALLEGED THAT
FRANCIS POSSESSED ALL THE STATUTORY QUALIFICATIONS FOR A LICENSE SAVE
ONLY THAT HE WAS A SALARIED EMPLOYE OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THAT
THE PROVISION OF THE STATUTE EXCLUDING SALARIED EMPLOYES OF INSURANCE
COMPANIES FROM LICENSURE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM WRITING OR ISSUING ANY POLICY OR
INDEMNITY CONTRACT ON ANY RISK IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA EXCEPT THROUGH A
RESIDENT AGENT LICENSED BY THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.  THE SECTION
REQUIRES THE APPLICANT FOR A LICENSE TO BE A BONA FIDE RESIDENT OF THE
STATE, OF GOOD CHARACTER AND COMPETENT TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF AN
AGENT.  IT FURTHER PROVIDES:  "THE WORDS 'RESIDENT AGENT' AS USED IN
THIS SECTION ARE DEEMED TO MEAN RESIDENT AGENTS ENGAGED IN THE
SOLICITATION OF SUCH BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC GENERALLY AND SHALL NOT
INCLUDE ANY SALARIED EMPLOYE OF ANY INSURANCE COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN
THIS STATE; BUT SHALL INCLUDE ANY AGENTS OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES
HOWEVER COMPENSATED." 

THE GROUND UPON WHICH THE ACT IS HELD INVALID IS THAT IT UNREASONABLY
DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN SALARIED EMPLOYES OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES
AND SIMILAR EMPLOYES OF STOCK COMPANIES. 

THE ANSWER ALLEGES THAT THERE IS A WELL RECOGNIZED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
STOCK AND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THAT, IN THE CASE OF THE
FORMER, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND ITS POLICY-HOLDERS IS
ONE OF CONTRACT MERELY, THEY DEALING AT ARM'S LENGTH, WHEREAS IN THE
LATTER THE POLICY-HOLDERS ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COMPANY AND CONSTITUTE
ITS MEMBERSHIP.  OTHER WELL KNOWN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MUTUAL AND STOCK
INSURANCE ARE DETAILED IN THE ANSWER AND WILL BE REFERRED TO
HEREINAFTER. 

THE CASE WAS HEARD UPON THE PETITION AND ANSWER AND THE TRIAL COURT,
IN THE VIEW THAT THE ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ORDERED THAT A MANDAMUS
ISSUE.  UPON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA REVERSED THE
JUDGMENT.  I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ITS DECISION WAS RIGHT AND SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED. 

FIRST.  ON ITS FACE THE STATUTE IS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S
POLICE POWER.  THE PROVISION FOR LICENSING ONLY BONA FIDE RESIDENTS OF
THE STATE IS VALID.  FN2  REGULATION OF THE RATES CHARGED FOR
INSURANCE, OF THE RELATIONS OF THOSE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AND OF THE
AMOUNT OF AGENTS' COMPENSATION FALL WITHIN THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER. 
FN3  THE CLAIM HERE IS THAT THE PARTICULAR REGULATION IS UNREASONABLE
AND DISCRIMINATORY.  THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY MUST
PREVAIL UNLESS THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, OR WHAT WE JUDICIALLY KNOW, OR
FACTS PROVED BY THE APPELLANTS, OVERTHROW THAT PRESUMPTION.  AS IT IS
CONCEIVABLE THAT CONDITIONS EXISTED IN GEORGIA WHICH JUSTIFIED THE
DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT OF THE AGENTS OF THE TWO SORTS OF COMPANIES,
AND AS NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ALLEGED OR PROVED OR ARE OF JUDICIAL
KNOWLEDGE WHICH NEGATIVE THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE CONDITIONS THE ATTACK
UPON THE STATUTE SHOULD FAIL.  FN4 

SECOND.  THE APPELLANT FRANCIS ASSERTS HE IS DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION
BECAUSE AGENTS OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES MAY BE LICENSED EVEN
THOUGH THEIR COMPENSATION CONSISTS OF A SALARY RATHER THAN
COMMISSIONS.  THE ANSWER SETS UP THAT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE
ORGANIZED ON A DIFFERENT BASIS FROM STOCK COMPANIES, DO BUSINESS IN A
WHOLLY DIFFERENT WAY AND SUSTAIN AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT RELATION TO
THEIR POLICY-HOLDERS THAN DO STOCK COMPANIES.  THIS IS MATTER OF COMMON
KNOWLEDGE.  SECTION 56-1401 OF THE GEORGIA CODE 1933 IS:  "THE CONTRACT
OF INSURANCE IS SOMETIMES UPON THE IDEA OF MUTUALITY, BY WHICH EACH OF
THE INSURED BECOMES ONE OF THE INSURERS, THEREBY BECOMING INTERESTED IN
THE PROFITS AND LIABLE FOR THE LOSSES; WITHOUT A CHARTER, SUCH AN
ORGANIZATION WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE GENERAL LAW OF PARTNERSHIP; WHEN
INCORPORATED, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THEIR CHARTERS." 
GOVERNMENT OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES SETTING UP FOR THEM A SYSTEM
QUITE APART FROM THAT PRESCRIBED FOR THE INCORPORATION AND REGULATION
OF STOCK COMPANIES.  THE DECISION LAW OF THE STATE ALSO RECOGNIZES THE
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO KINDS OF COMPANY.  FN5 THE
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA QUOTED AND RELIED UPON ITS EARLIER DECISION AS
TO THE RADICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STOCK AND MUTUAL COMPANIES AND THEIR
METHODS OF TRANSACTING BUSINESS, AND REFUSED TO HOLD THE CLASSIFICATION
OF THE STATUTE ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE. 

THE LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT SHOWS THAT AT ITS INCEPTION THE FIRE
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES WAS MODELLED UPON THE MUTUAL
COMPANIES OF GREAT BRITAIN.  FN6  STOCK COMPANIES, HOWEVER, WERE SOON
ORGANIZED AND RAPIDLY GREW TO SUCH PROPORTIONS THAT TO-DAY THEY
TRANSACT ABOUT SEVENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE NATION'S FIRE INSURANCE
BUSINESS.  LOCAL AND STATE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES NOW WRITE ABOUT
TEN PER CENT OF THE TOTAL OF FIRE INSURANCE AND ARE STRONGEST IN
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS AND THE SMALLER CITIES; ANOTHER TEN PER CENT OF
THE TOTAL BUSINESS IS WRITTEN BY SO-CALLED FACTORY MUTUALS; THE BALANCE
IS CARED FOR BY LLOYD'S ASSOCIATIONS.  FN7 

THE PRINCIPLE OF ASSESSMENT UPON WHICH MUTUAL COMPANIES PROCEED IS
PRACTICAL ONLY FOR CARRYING RISKS CLOSELY UNIFORM IN KIND AND DEGREE,
ITS CHIEF ADVANTAGE BEING LOW OPERATING COST DUE TO SIMPLICITY OF
ORGANIZATION, AND IT IS SAID THAT THE SALES STAFFS OF SUCH COMPANIES
WORK EITHER "ON A SALARIED BASIS OR ON A LOWER SCALE OF COMMISSIONS
THAN DO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF STOCK COMPANIES."  FN8  THERE ARE
APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-FIVE HUNDRED MUTUAL FIRE AND CASUALTY INSTITUTIONS
OPERATING THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH
CONCENTRATE THEIR OPERATIONS LOCALLY WITHIN ONE OR MORE COUNTIES OR
WITHIN A SINGLE STATE.  "THESE COMPANIES RARELY COMPETE WITH AGENCY
REPRESENTED STOCK COMPANIES AND THERE HAS BEEN NO APPARENT INCLINATION
ON THEIR PART TO ALTER THE SCOPE OF ACTIVITY OR PLAN OF OPERATION.  OF
THE MANY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES PROBABLY NO MORE THAN TEN PER
CENT EXTEND THEIR FIELDS OF OPERATION BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR
HOME STATE."  FN9    REFERENCE TO THE REPORT OF THE INSURANCE
COMMISSIONER OF GEORGIA FOR 1934, THE YEAR PRECEDING THE ADOPTION OF
THE STATUTE UNDER REVIEW, FURNISHES INTERESTING DATA ON THE RELATIVE
BUSINESS OF STOCK AND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE STATE OF
GEORGIA.  FOR THAT YEAR THE TOTAL OF RISKS CARRIED BY STOCK FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE STATE WAS $1,512,181,296.  FOREIGN MUTUAL
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES CARRIED ONLY $82,727,816.  TWO DOMESTIC MUTUAL
COMPANIES DOING A STATE-WIDE BUSINESS CARRIED $73,370,177, AND FOURTEEN
SMALL LOCAL MUTUALS CARRIED $10,893,603.  THUS, MUTUAL COMPANIES
CARRIED ABOUT TEN PER CENT OF THE TOTAL FIRE INSURANCE BUSINESS OF THE
STATE AND, OF THAT TEN PER CENT, OVER ONE-HALF WAS WRITTEN BY GEORGIA
MUTUAL COMPANIES. 

WHILE GEORGIA DOES NOT EXCLUDE FOREIGN MUTUALS AND REQUIRES THEM,
LIKE FOREIGN STOCK COMPANIES, TO REGISTER AND COMPLY WITH CERTAIN
STATUTORY RULES IN ORDER TO WRITE BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE, IT IS
EVIDENT THAT THE TOTAL MUTUAL BUSINESS WRITTEN IN GEORGIA IS OF MINOR
IMPORTANCE WHEN COMPARED WITH THE VAST AMOUNT WRITTEN BY STOCK
COMPANIES.  THIS FACT IN ITSELF MAY WELL BE A PERSUASIVE REASON FOR NOT
EXTENDING TO AGENTS OF MUTUAL COMPANIES THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY SHALL
NOT WORK UPON A SALARY.  FN10  WHEN TO THIS IS ADDED THE FACT THAT
ORDINARILY SUCH AGENTS WORK ON SALARY BECAUSE, IN EFFECT, THEY ARE THE
AGENTS OF THE POLICY-HOLDERS RATHER THAN OF INDEPENDENT OWNERS OF A
STOCK CORPORATION, IT IS PLAIN THAT THERE IS REASON FOR CLASSIFYING
THEM DIFFERENTLY FROM AGENTS OF STOCK COMPANIES.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FACTS THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE AGENTS OF THE TWO SORTS OF COMPANY
CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE, AND SO TO DENY THE
AGENTS OF THE STOCK COMPANIES THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 28, 1935.  GEORGIA ACTS 1935, P. 140. 

FN2  LA TOURETTE V. MCMASTER, 248 U.S. 465. 

FN3  O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD INSURANCE CO., 282 U.S. 251, 257. 

FN4  O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD INSURANCE CO., SUPRA, 257-258;
BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, 208, 209. 

FN5  CARLTON V. SOUTHERN MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., 72 GA. 371. 

FN6  ENC.  OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. VI, 255; YALE READINGS IN
INSURANCE, PROPERTY, CHAPTER IV. 

FN7  ENC.  OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. VI, 258. 

FN8  ENC.  OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. VIII, P. 100. 

FN9  BEST'S INSURANCE NEWS, OCTOBER 1935, P. 314. 

FN10  COMPARE CITIZENS' TELEPHONE CO. V. FULLER, 229 U.S. 322. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, MR. JUSTICE STONE, AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO
CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :




















SENN V. TILE LAYERS UNION, 301 U.S. 468 


NO. 658.  ARGUED MARCH 31, APRIL 1, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1937.  -
222 WIS. 383, 400 - 268 N.W. 270, 872, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE QUESTIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF WISCONSIN LABOR CODE, SEC. 103.62, AND WHAT ACTS DONE BY A
LABOR UNION ARE AMONG THOSE DECLARED LAWFUL BY SEC. 103.53, ARE
QUESTIONS OF STATE LAW.  P. 477. 

2.  IF THE END SOUGHT BY A LABOR UNION IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, THE STATE MAY AUTHORIZE THE UNION MEMBERS TO SEEK
TO ATTAIN IT BY COMBINING AS PICKETS.  P. 478. 

3.  IN ITS APPLICATION TO THIS CASE, WISCONSIN LABOR CODE, SEC.
103.53, MAKING LAWFUL THE GIVING OF PUBLICITY TO THE EXISTENCE AND
FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE BY PEACEFUL PICKETING IN THE STREET, WITHOUT
INTIMIDATION OR COERCION, FRAUD, VIOLENCE, BREACH OF THE PEACE, OR
THREAT THEREOF, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 480. 

4.  A CONTRACTOR WHO CARRIED ON A SMALL BUSINESS OF TILE SETTING,
PERFORMING HIS CONTRACTS PARTLY BY THE AID OF A FEW NON-UNION WORKMEN
BUT LARGELY BY THE LABOR OF HIS OWN HANDS WITH THE TOOLS OF HIS TRADE,
AND WHO, NOT HAVING SERVED AN APPRENTICESHIP, WAS INELIGIBLE TO BECOME
A MEMBER OF THE TILE LAYERS' UNION UNDER ITS RULES, WAS CALLED UPON BY
THE UNION TO UNIONIZE HIS SHOP AND WAS WILLING TO DO SO BUT FOR A
CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT PROFFERED TO HIM, (FOUND IMPORTANT FOR THE
PROTECTION OF UNION WORKMEN) WHICH WOULD PREVENT HIM AS A UNION
EMPLOYER FROM PARTICIPATING LONGER IN THE MANUAL LABOR.  UPON HIS
REFUSAL TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH THIS STIPULATION, THE UNION SENT TWO
MEN TO HIS HOME, WHICH WAS ALSO HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS, AND THERE THEY
PATROLLED BEFORE IT IN THE STREET CARRYING TWO BANNERS WITH
INSCRIPTIONS, ONE OF WHICH DECLARED THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS "UNFAIR" TO
THE UNION, WHILE THE OTHER APPEALED TO ITS READERS TO LET THE UNION
INSTALL THEIR TILE WORK.  HELD THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE CONTRACTOR UNDER
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE NOT INFRINGED BY A STATE LAW AUTHORIZING
SUCH PICKETING.  P. 481. 

SENN V. TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE SUSTAINING THE DISMISSAL OF THE BILL IN A SUIT
AGAINST TWO LABOR UNIONS AND THEIR AGENTS TO RESTRAIN PICKETING, ETC. 

THE WISCONSIN LABOR CODE, IN SO FAR AS IT DENIES RELIEF AGAINST
PICKETING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES ENGAGED IN FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COMPELLING AN EMPLOYER TO GIVE UP HIS RIGHT TO WORK IN HIS OWN
BUSINESS, CONTRAVENES THE GUARANTY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AGAINST
DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.  SUCH ACTIVITIES, WHEN
ENGAGED IN BY LABOR UNIONS REPRESENTING NONE OF THE EMPLOYER'S
EMPLOYEES, CANNOT BE RENDERED LAWFUL BY ANY STATUTE. 

THE STATUTE BEARS NO RELATION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR TO THE SAFETY
OR GOOD ORDER OF THE PUBLIC.  SO FAR AS IT HAS ANY EFFECT ON SAFETY AND
GOOD ORDER, THE TENDENCY IS ADVERSE.  THE WELFARE SERVED IS NOT THAT OF
THE PUBLIC BUT THAT OF A PARTICULAR CLASS TO THE DETRIMENT OF OTHER
CLASSES. 

THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO WORK IN A LAWFUL BUSINESS IN A LAWFUL
MANNER, THE RIGHT TO FOLLOW ANY OF THE ORDINARY CALLINGS OF LIFE, IS AN
INALIENABLE RIGHT.  A STATE LEGISLATURE CANNOT DEPRIVE CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF THIS RIGHT, AND, A FORTIORI, IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY
BY LABOR UNIONS UNDER COLOR OF A STATUTE.  IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF
COURTS TO PROTECT THIS RIGHT.  A MAN MAY NOT BARTER AWAY HIS LIFE OR
FREEDOM, NOR BE FORCED BY LABOR UNIONS TO RELINQUISH THEM.  TRUAX V.
CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312; BUTCHERS' UNION V. CRESCENT CITY LIVE STOCK
CO., 111 U.S. 746; HITCHMAN COAL & COKE CO. V. MITCHELL, 245 U.S. 229;
COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1; TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33; ADAIR V.
UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161. 

APPELLANT WAS DENIED A REMEDY AND WAS REFUSED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTS WHICH HE SOUGHT TO HAVE RESTRAINED
WERE ACTS CARRIED ON IN THE COURSE OF A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE WISCONSIN LABOR CODE.  APPELLANT, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF WISCONSIN AND THE STATUTES PROMULGATED PURSUANT THERETO, BUT FOR THE
WISCONSIN LABOR CODE AS CONSTRUED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN,
WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCORDED THE RELIEF THAT HE SOUGHT.  HE IS DENIED THAT
RELIEF BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT APPELLEES HAPPEN TO BE LABOR UNIONS
HAVING IN THEIR MEMBERSHIP EMPLOYEES OF OTHERS IN THE SAME LINE OF
BUSINESS, AND BECAUSE HE HAPPENS TO BE AN EMPLOYER. 

HAD THE APPELLEES NOT BEEN LABOR UNIONS REPRESENTING WORKERS IN THE
INDUSTRY AND HAD APPELLANT NOT BEEN AN EMPLOYER, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
APPELLEES WOULD HAVE BEEN RESTRAINED. 

NO DISPUTE WAS HERE INVOLVED CONCERNING WAGES, HOURS OR WORKING
CONDITIONS OF ANY OF APPELLANT'S EMPLOYEES.  THE SOLE DISPUTE WAS
CONCERNING THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO WORK IN HIS OWN BUSINESS WITH HIS
OWN HANDS. 

THE CLASSIFICATION ESTABLISHED BY THE LABOR CODE, WHEREBY RELIEF IS
DENIED AGAINST LABOR UNIONS WHICH WOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST OTHERS, AND
WHEREBY RELIEF IS DENIED TO AN EMPLOYER WHICH WOULD BE GRANTED TO AN
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYING NO ONE, IS WHOLLY ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND
UNREASONABLE. 

NO CLASSIFICATIONS CAN REASONABLY BE MADE AND SUSTAINED WHICH WILL
GIVE ANY GROUP THE RIGHT TO PICKET, BOYCOTT AND MOLEST AN INDIVIDUAL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF FORCING HIM, AGAINST HIS WILL, TO AGREE NOT TO WORK
WITH HIS OWN HANDS IN HIS OWN BUSINESS.  NO STATUTE SANCTIONING SUCH
ACTIVITY FOR SUCH A PURPOSE, BY A GROUP NEITHER EMPLOYEES NOR FORMER
EMPLOYEES OF THE EMPLOYER AND NOT REPRESENTING ANY OF THEM, CAN BE
SUSTAINED UNDER ANY THEORY OF THE POLICE POWER.  TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257
U.S. 312; OPINION OF THE JUSTICES, 275 MASS. 580; OPINION OF THE
JUSTICES, 86 N.H. 597. 

EVEN IF THE DISPUTE CONCERNED WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS OF
APPELLANT'S OWN EMPLOYEES, THE STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED, WOULD
NEVERTHELESS VIOLATE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IF IT DENIED RELIEF
AGAINST SUCH ACTIVITIES, UPON THE PART OF PERSONS WHO WERE NEITHER THE
APPELLANT'S EMPLOYEES NOR HIS FORMER EMPLOYEES, NOR THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES. 

AS TO THERE HAVING BEEN A "LABOR DISPUTE," SEE AMERICAN FURNITURE CO.
V. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS & HELPERS UNION, 222 WIS. 338; LAUF V. SKINNER
& CO., 82 F.(2D) 68; UNITED ELECTRIC COAL COS.  V. RICE, 80 F.(2D) 1;
SAFEWAY STORES, INC. V. RETAIL CLERK'S UNION, 184 WASH. 322; 218-220
MARKET STREET CORP. V. DELICATESSEN UNION, 118 N.J. EQ. 448. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
WISCONSIN LABOR CODE WHICH AUTHORIZE GIVING PUBLICITY TO LABOR
DISPUTES, DECLARE PEACEFUL PICKETING AND PATROLLING LAWFUL AND PROHIBIT
GRANTING OF AN INJUNCTION AGAINST SUCH CONDUCT, VIOLATE, AS HERE
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OR EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE LABOR CODE OCCUPIES SECS. 103.51 TO 103.63 OF THE WISCONSIN
STATUTES, 1935(WIS.  LAWS, 1931, C. 376; LAWS, 1935, C. 551, SEC. 5). 
BUT ONLY THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 103.53 ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED
ON THIS APPEAL: 

"(1)  THE FOLLOWING ACTS, WHETHER PERFORMED SINGLY OR IN CONCERT,
SHALL BE LEGAL: 

     .         .   .         .         . 

"(E)  GIVING PUBLICITY TO AND OBTAINING OR COMMUNICATING INFORMATION
REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF, OR THE FACTS INVOLVED IN, ANY DISPUTE,
WHETHER BY ADVERTISING, SPEAKING, PATROLLING ANY PUBLIC STREET OR PLACE
WHERE ANY PERSON OR PERSONS MAY LAWFULLY BE, WITHOUT INTIMIDATION OR
COERCION, OR BY ANY OTHER METHOD NOT INVOLVING FRAUD, VIOLENCE, BREACH
OF THE PEACE, OR THREAT THEREOF." 

     .         . .         .         . 

"(1)  PEACEFUL PICKETING OR PATROLLING, WHETHER ENGAGED IN SINGLY OR
IN NUMBERS, SHALL BE LEGAL.  FN1 

"(2)  NO COURT, NOR ANY JUDGE OR JUDGES THEREOF, SHALL HAVE
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE ANY RESTRAINING ORDER OR TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION WHICH, IN SPECIFIC OR GENERAL TERMS, PROHIBITS ANY PERSON OR
PERSONS FROM DOING, WHETHER SINGLY OR IN CONCERT, ANY OF THE FOREGOING
ACTS." 

ON DECEMBER 28, 1935, SENN BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, AGAINST TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION, LOCAL NO. 5,
TILE LAYERS HELPERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 47, AND THEIR BUSINESS AGENTS,
SEEKING AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN PICKETING, AND PARTICULARLY
"PUBLISHING, STATING OR PROCLAIMING THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS UNFAIR TO
ORGANIZED LABOR OR TO THE DEFENDANT UNIONS"; AND ALSO TO RESTRAIN SOME
OTHER ACTS WHICH HAVE SINCE BEEN DISCONTINUED, AND ARE NOT NOW
MATERIAL.  THE DEFENDANTS ANSWERED; AND THE CASE WAS HEARD UPON
EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE.  THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE FOLLOWING FACTS. 

THE JOURNEYMEN TILE LAYERS AT MILWAUKEE WERE, TO A LARGE EXTENT,
MEMBERS OF TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION, LOCAL NO. 5, AND THE HELPERS,
MEMBERS OF TILE LAYERS HELPERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 47.  SENN WAS ENGAGED
AT MILWAUKEE IN THE TILE CONTRACTING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF "PAUL
SENN & CO., TILE CONTRACTING."  HIS BUSINESS WAS A SMALL ONE,
CONDUCTED, IN THE MAIN, FROM HIS RESIDENCE, WITH A SHOWROOM ELSEWHERE. 
HE EMPLOYED ONE OR TWO JOURNEYMEN TILE LAYERS AND ONE OR TWO HELPERS,
DEPENDING UPON THE AMOUNT OF WORK HE HAD CONTRACTED TO DO AT THE TIME. 
BUT, WORKING WITH HIS OWN HANDS WITH TOOLS OF THE TRADE, HE PERFORMED
PERSONALLY ON THE JOBS MUCH WORK OF A CHARACTER COMMONLY DONE BY A TILE
LAYER OR A HELPER.  NEITHER SENN, NOR ANY OF HIS EMPLOYEES, WAS AT THE
TIME THIS SUIT WAS BEGUN A MEMBER OF EITHER UNION, AND NEITHER HAD ANY
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS WITH THEM.  INDEED, SENN COULD NOT BECOME A
MEMBER OF THE TILE LAYERS UNION, SINCE ITS CONSTITUTION AND RULES
REQUIRE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT A JOURNEYMAN TILE SETTER SHALL HAVE
ACQUIRED HIS PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE THROUGH AN APPRENTICESHIP OF NOT LESS
THAN THREE YEARS, AND SENN HAD NOT SERVED SUCH AN APPRENTICESHIP. 

FOR SOME YEARS THE TILE LAYING INDUSTRY HAD BEEN IN A DEMORALIZED
STATE BECAUSE OF LACK OF BUILDING OPERATIONS; AND MEMBERS OF THE UNION
HAD BEEN IN COMPETITION WITH NON-UNION TILE LAYERS AND HELPERS IN THEIR
EFFORT TO SECURE WORK.  THE TILE CONTRACTORS BY WHOM MEMBERS OF THE
UNIONS WERE EMPLOYED HAD ENTERED INTO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
WITH THE UNIONS GOVERNING WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS.  THE
WAGES PAID BY THE UNION CONTRACTORS HAD FOR SOME TIME BEEN HIGHER THAN
THOSE PAID BY SENN TO HIS EMPLOYEES. 

BECAUSE OF THE PECULIAR COMPOSITION OF THE INDUSTRY, WHICH CONSISTS
OF EMPLOYERS WITH SMALL NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES, THE UNIONS HAD FOUND IT
NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF THEIR MEMBERS
IN THE PROSECUTION OF THEIR TRADE TO REQUIRE ALL EMPLOYERS AGREEING TO
CONDUCT A UNION SHOP TO ASSENT TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISION: 

"ARTICLE III.  IT IS DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD THAT NO INDIVIDUAL, MEMBER
OF A PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE TILE CONTRACTING
BUSINESS SHALL WORK WITH THE TOOLS OR ACT AS HELPER BUT THAT THE
INSTALLATION OF ALL MATERIALS CLAIMED BY THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART
AS LISTED UNDER THE CAPTION 'CLASSIFICATION OF WORK' IN THIS AGREEMENT,
SHALL BE DONE BY JOURNEYMEN MEMBERS OF TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION
LOCAL #5." 

THE UNIONS ENDEAVORED TO INDUCE SENN TO BECOME A UNION CONTRACTOR;
AND REQUESTED HIM TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT IN FORM SUBSTANTIALLY
IDENTICAL WITH THAT ENTERED INTO BY THE MILWAUKEE CONTRACTORS WHO
EMPLOY UNION MEN.  SENN EXPRESSED A WILLINGNESS TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT PROVIDED ARTICLE III WAS ELIMINATED.  THE UNION DECLARED THAT
THIS WAS IMPOSSIBLE; THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE PROVISION WAS ESSENTIAL
TO THE UNIONS' INTEREST IN MAINTAINING WAGE STANDARDS AND SPREADING
WORK AMONG THEIR MEMBERS; AND, MOREOVER, THAT TO ELIMINATE ARTICLE III
FROM THE CONTRACT WITH SENN WOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EXISTING UNION
CONTRACTORS, ALL OF WHOM HAD SIGNED AGREEMENTS CONTAINING THE ARTICLE. 
AS THE UNIONS DECLARED ITS ELIMINATION IMPOSSIBLE, SENN REFUSED TO SIGN
THE AGREEMENT AND UNIONIZE HIS SHOP.  BECAUSE OF HIS REFUSAL, THE
UNIONS PICKETED HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS.  THE PICKETING WAS PEACEFUL,
WITHOUT VIOLENCE, AND WITHOUT ANY UNLAWFUL ACT.  THE EVIDENCE WAS THAT
THE PICKETS CARRIED ONE BANNER WITH THE INSCRIPTION "P. SENN TILE
COMPANY IS UNFAIR TO THE TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION," ANOTHER WITH
THE INSCRIPTION "LET THE UNION TILE LAYER INSTALL YOUR TILE WORK." 
FN2 

THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE BILL.  ON THE
FINDINGS MADE, IT RULED THAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS "A LABOR DISPUTE"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 103.62; THAT THE PICKETING, DONE SOLELY IN
FURTHERANCE OF THE DISPUTE, WAS "LAWFUL" UNDER SEC. 103.53; THAT IT WAS
NOT UNLAWFUL FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

"TO ADVISE, NOTIFY OR PERSUADE, WITHOUT FRAUD, VIOLENCE OR THREAT
THEREOF, ANY PERSON OR PERSONS, OF THE EXISTENCE OF SAID LABOR
DISPUTE;... 

"THAT THE AGREEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO THE PLAINTIFF,
SETTING FORTH TERMS AND CONDITIONS PREVAILING IN THAT PORTION OF THE
INDUSTRY WHICH IS UNIONIZED, IS SOUGHT BY THE DEFENDANTS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THEIR WELFARE AND ENHANCING THEIR OWN INTERESTS IN
THEIR TRADE AND CRAFT AS WORKERS IN THE INDUSTRY. 

"THAT ARTICLE III OF SAID AGREEMENT IS A REASONABLE AND LAWFUL RULE
ADOPTED BY THE DEFENDANTS OUT OF THE NECESSITIES OF EMPLOYMENT WITHIN
THE INDUSTRY AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEMSELVES AS WORKERS AND
CRAFTSMEN IN THE INDUSTRY." 

SENN APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, WHICH AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND DENIED A MOTION FOR REHEARING, TWO
JUDGES DISSENTING.  (222 WIS. 383, 400; 268 N.W. 270, 872.)  THE CASE
IS HERE ON APPEAL. 

FIRST. THE DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.  THEY CONTEND THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION PRESENTED IS NOT
SUBSTANTIAL.  AND FRIENDS OF THE COURT SUGGEST THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD
BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DECISION BELOW WAS BASED UPON NON-FEDERAL
GROUNDS, OR THAT THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE, INDEPENDENT NON-FEDERAL
GROUND BROAD ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT; THAT THE CHALLENGE HERE IS
NOT TO A STATUTE, BUT TO A JUDICIAL DECISION BASED UPON PRINCIPLES OF
GENERAL LAW WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY SOME JUDGES AND DISAPPROVED BY
OTHERS; FN3  AND THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE WISCONSIN LABOR CODE HERE QUESTIONED ARE NOT MERELY DECLARATORY OF
THE COMMON LAW OF WISCONSIN AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE STATUTE.  BUT IT
SUFFICIENTLY APPEARS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR CODE WERE RELIED
UPON; THAT THEIR VALIDITY UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS DULY
CHALLENGED BELOW; AND THAT THE RULINGS BY THE STATE COURTS WERE BASED
ULTIMATELY ON THE LABOR CODE.  WHETHER THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRESENTS ISSUES NEVER
EXPRESSLY PASSED UPON BY THIS COURT.  WE DENY THE MOTION TO DISMISS. 

SECOND.  THE HEARINGS BELOW WERE CONCERNED MAINLY WITH QUESTIONS OF
STATE LAW.  SENN INSISTED THERE THAT THE STATUTE WAS NO DEFENSE,
BECAUSE THE CONTROVERSY WAS NOT A "LABOR DISPUTE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 103.62.  FN4  THE COURTS RULED THAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS A "LABOR
DISPUTE"; AND THAT THE ACTS DONE BY THE DEFENDANT WERE AMONG THOSE
DECLARED "LAWFUL" BY SEC. 103.53.  SEE ALSO AMERICAN FURNITURE CO. V.
CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS & HELPERS UNION, 228 WIS. 338; 268 N.W. 250. 
THOSE ISSUES INVOLVED THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE.  AS TO THEM THE JUDGMENT OF ITS
HIGHEST COURT IS CONCLUSIVE.  THE QUESTION FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER
THE STATUTE, AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS FOUND, TOOK SENN'S LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY OR DENIED HIM EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SENN DOES NOT CLAIM BROADLY THAT THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS A STATE FROM AUTHORIZING PUBLICITY AND PEACEFUL
PICKETING.  HIS CLAIM OF INVALIDITY IS RESTED ON THE FACT THAT HE
REFUSED TO UNIONIZE HIS SHOP SOLELY BECAUSE THE UNION INSISTED UPON THE
RETENTION OF ARTICLE III.  HE CONTENDS THAT THE RIGHT TO WORK IN HIS
BUSINESS WITH HIS OWN HANDS IS A RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT AND THAT THE STATE MAY NOT AUTHORIZE UNIONS TO EMPLOY
PUBLICITY AND PICKETING TO INDUCE HIM TO REFRAIN FROM EXERCISING IT. 

THE UNIONS CONCEDE THAT SENN, SO LONG AS HE CONDUCTS A NONUNION SHOP,
HAS THE RIGHT TO WORK WITH HIS HANDS AND TOOLS.  HE MAY DO SO, AS
FREELY AS HE MAY WORK HIS EMPLOYEES LONGER HOURS AND AT LOWER WAGES
THAN THE UNION RULES PERMIT.  HE MAY BID FOR CONTRACTS AT A LOW FIGURE
BASED UPON LOW WAGES AND LONG HOURS.  BUT THE UNIONS CONTEND THAT,
SINCE SENN'S EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO DO SO IS HARMFUL TO THE INTERESTS
OF THEIR MEMBERS, THEY MAY SEEK BY LEGAL MEANS TO INDUCE HIM TO AGREE
TO UNIONIZE HIS SHOP AND TO REFRAIN FROM EXERCISING HIS RIGHT TO WORK
WITH HIS OWN HANDS.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE
ESTABLISHES THAT BOTH THE MEANS EMPLOYED AND THE END SOUGHT BY THE
UNIONS ARE LEGAL UNDER ITS LAW.  THE QUESTION FOR OUR DETERMINATION IS
WHETHER EITHER THE MEANS OR THE END SOUGHT IS FORBIDDEN BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

THIRD.  CLEARLY THE MEANS WHICH THE STATUTE AUTHORIZES - PICKETING
AND PUBLICITY - ARE NOT PROHIBITED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
MEMBERS OF A UNION MIGHT, WITHOUT SPECIAL STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION BY A
STATE, MAKE KNOWN THE FACTS OF A LABOR DISPUTE, FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH
IS GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE STATE MAY, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER, REGULATE THE METHODS AND MEANS OF
PUBLICITY AS WELL AS THE USE OF PUBLIC STREETS.  IF THE END SOUGHT BY
THE UNIONS IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THE STATE MAY
AUTHORIZE WORKING MEN TO SEEK TO ATTAIN IT BY COMBINING AS PICKETS,
JUST AS IT PERMITS CAPITALISTS AND EMPLOYERS TO COMBINE IN OTHER WAYS
TO ATTAIN THEIR DESIRED ECONOMIC ENDS.  THE LEGISLATURE OF WISCONSIN
HAS DECLARED THAT "PEACEFUL PICKETING AND PATROLLING" ON THE PUBLIC
STREETS AND PLACES SHALL BE PERMISSIBLE "WHETHER ENGAGED IN SINGLY OR
IN NUMBERS" PROVIDED THIS IS DONE "WITHOUT INTIMIDATION OR COERCION"
AND FREE FROM "FRAUD, VIOLENCE, BREACH OF THE PEACE OR THREAT
THEREOF."  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE PICKETING MUST BE PEACEFUL;
AND THAT TERM AS USED IMPLIES NOT ONLY ABSENCE OF VIOLENCE BUT ABSENCE
OF ANY UNLAWFUL ACT.  IT PRECLUDES THE INTIMIDATION OF CUSTOMERS.  IT
PRECLUDES ANY FORM OF PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE
PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS.  IT AUTHORIZES GIVING PUBLICITY TO THE EXISTENCE
OF THE DISPUTE "WHETHER BY ADVERTISING, PATROLLING ANY PUBLIC STREETS
OR PLACES WHERE ANY PERSON OR PERSONS MAY LAWFULLY BE"; BUT PRECLUDES
MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CONTROVERSY.  AND IT DECLARES
THAT "NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO LEGALIZE A SECONDARY
BOYCOTT."  SEE DUPLEX PRINTING CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 466. 
INHERENTLY, THE MEANS AUTHORIZED ARE CLEARLY UNOBJECTIONABLE.  IN
DECLARING SUCH PICKETING PERMISSIBLE WISCONSIN HAS PUT THIS MEANS OF
PUBLICITY ON A PAR WITH ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE PRESS. 

THE STATE COURTS FOUND THAT THE UNIONS OBSERVED THE LIMITATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE.  THE CONDUCT COMPLAINED OF IS PATROL WITH
BANNERS BY TWO OR FOUR PICKETS.  COMPARE AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V.
TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 207.  THE PICKETING WAS
PEACEFUL.  THE PUBLICITY DID NOT INVOLVE A MISREPRESENTATION OF FACT;
NOR WAS ANY CLAIM MADE BELOW THAT RELEVANT FACTS WERE SUPPRESSED.  SENN
DID NOT CONTEND THAT IT WAS UNTRUTHFUL TO CHARACTERIZE HIM AS "UNFAIR,"
IF THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE REFRAIN FROM WORKING WITH HIS OWN HANDS WAS
A LAWFUL ONE.  HE DID NOT ASK THAT THE BANNERS BE REQUIRED TO CARRY A
FULLER STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.  COMPARE AMERICAN FURNITURE CO. V.
CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS & HELPERS UNION, 222 WIS. 338, 340, 347; 268 N.W.
250, 251, 255.  MOREOVER, IT WAS CONFESSEDLY OPEN TO SENN TO DISCLOSE
THE FACTS IN SUCH MANNER AND IN SUCH DETAIL AS HE DEEMED DESIRABLE, AND
ON THE STRENGTH OF THE FACTS TO SEEK THE PATRONAGE OF THE PUBLIC. 

TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, IS NOT APPLICABLE.  THE STATUTE
THERE IN QUESTION WAS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO LEGALIZE CONDUCT
WHICH WAS NOT SIMPLY PEACEFUL PICKETING, NOT "LAWFUL PERSUASION OR
INDUCING," NOT "A MERE APPEAL TO THE SYMPATHETIC AID OF WOULD-BE
CUSTOMERS BY A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF THE FACT OF THE STRIKE AND A REQUEST
TO WITHHOLD PATRONAGE."  IT CONSISTED OF LIBELOUS ATTACKS AND ABUSIVE
EPITHETS AGAINST THE EMPLOYER AND HIS FRIENDS; LIBELOUS AND DISPARAGING
STATEMENTS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF'S BUSINESS; THREATS AND INTIMIDATION
DIRECTED AGAINST CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEES.  THE MEANS EMPLOYED, IN OTHER
WORDS, WERE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE "AN ADMITTED TORT," CONDUCT UNLAWFUL
PRIOR TO THE STATUTE CHALLENGED.  SEE PP. 327-8, 337, 346.  IN THE
PRESENT CASE THE ONLY MEANS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE AND IN FACT
RESORTED TO BY THE UNIONS HAVE BEEN PEACEFUL AND ACCOMPANIED BY NO
UNLAWFUL ACT.  IT FOLLOWS, THAT IF THE END SOUGHT IS CONSTITUTIONAL -
IF THE UNIONS MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY INDUCE SENN TO AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM
EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO WORK IN HIS BUSINESS WITH HIS OWN HANDS, THEIR
ACTS WERE LAWFUL. 

FOURTH.  THE END SOUGHT BY THE UNIONS IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
ARTICLE III, WHICH THE UNIONS SEEK TO HAVE SENN ACCEPT, WAS FOUND BY
THE STATE COURTS TO BE NOT ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, BUT A REASONABLE
RULE "ADOPTED BY THE DEFENDANTS OUT OF THE NECESSITIES OF EMPLOYMENT
WITHIN THE INDUSTRY AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEMSELVES AS WORKERS AND
CRAFTSMEN IN THE INDUSTRY."  THAT FINDING IS AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE
EVIDENCE.  THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A SUGGESTION THAT THE UNIONS' REQUEST
THAT SENN REFRAIN FROM WORKING WITH HIS OWN HANDS, OR THEIR EMPLOYMENT
OF PICKETING AND PUBLICITY, WAS MALICIOUS; OR THAT THERE WAS A DESIRE
TO INJURE SENN.  THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE PICKETING WAS TO ACQUAINT THE
PUBLIC WITH THE FACTS AND, BY GAINING ITS SUPPORT, TO INDUCE SENN TO
UNIONIZE HIS SHOP.  THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO INDUCE SENN TO DO AN
UNLAWFUL THING.  THERE WAS NO VIOLENCE, NO FORCE WAS APPLIED, NO
MOLESTATION OR INTERFERENCE, NO COERCION.  THERE WAS ONLY THE
PERSUASION INCIDENT TO PUBLICITY.  AS THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
SAID: 

"EACH OF THE CONTESTANTS IS DESIROUS OF THE ADVANTAGE OF DOING
BUSINESS IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE HE OR THEY OPERATE.  HE IS NOT
OBLIGATED TO YIELD TO THE PERSUASION EXERCISED UPON HIM BY
RESPONDENTS....  THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT QUESTION THAT IT IS APPELLANTS'
RIGHT TO OWN HIS OWN BUSINESS AND EARN HIS LIVING IN ANY LAWFUL MANNER
WHICH HE CHOOSES TO ADOPT.  WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS ASSERTING THEIR
RIGHTS UNDER THE ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING
THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUIRE WORK FOR THEMSELVES AND THOSE WHOM THEY
REPRESENT....  THE RESPONDENTS' ACT OF PEACEFUL PICKETING IS A LAWFUL
FORM OF APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC TO TURN ITS PATRONAGE FROM APPELLANT TO
THE CONCERNS IN WHICH THE WELFARE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE UNIONS IS BOUND
UP." 

THE UNIONS ACTED, AND HAD THE RIGHT TO ACT AS THEY DID, TO PROTECT
THE INTERESTS OF THEIR MEMBERS AGAINST THE HARMFUL EFFECT UPON THEM OF
SENN'S ACTION.  COMPARE AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY CENTRAL
TRADES COUNCIL, SUPRA, 208, 209.  BECAUSE HIS ACTION WAS HARMFUL, THE
FACT THAT NONE OF SENN'S EMPLOYEES WAS A UNION MEMBER, OR SOUGHT THE
UNION'S AID, IS IMMATERIAL. 

THE LAWS OF WISCONSIN, AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT, PERMITS
UNIONS TO ENDEAVOR TO INDUCE AN EMPLOYER, WHEN UNIONIZING HIS SHOP, TO
AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM WORKING IN HIS BUSINESS WITH HIS OWN HANDS - SO
TO ENDEAVOR ALTHOUGH NONE OF HIS EMPLOYEES IS A MEMBER OF A UNION. 
WHETHER IT WAS WISE FOR THE STATE TO PERMIT THE UNIONS TO DO SO IS A
QUESTION OF ITS PUBLIC POLICY - NOT OUR CONCERN.  THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROHIBIT IT. 

FIFTH.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHICH FORBIDS
UNIONS FROM COMPETING WITH NON-UNION CONCERNS FOR CUSTOMERS BY MEANS OF
PICKETING AS FREELY AS ONE MERCHANT COMPETES WITH ANOTHER BY MEANS OF
ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE PRESS, BY CIRCULARS, OR BY HIS WINDOW DISPLAY. 
EACH MEMBER OF THE UNIONS, AS WELL AS SENN, HAS THE RIGHT TO STRIVE TO
EARN HIS LIVING.  SENN SEEKS TO DO SO THROUGH EXERCISE OF HIS
INDIVIDUAL SKILL AND PLANNING.  THE UNION MEMBERS SEEK TO DO SO THROUGH
COMBINATION.  EARNING A LIVING IS DEPENDENT UPON SECURING WORK; AND
SECURING WORK IS DEPENDENT UPON PUBLIC FAVOR.  TO WIN THE PATRONAGE OF
THE PUBLIC EACH MAY STRIVE BY LEGAL MEANS.  EXERCISING ITS POLICE
POWER, WISCONSIN HAS DECLARED THAT IN A LABOR DISPUTE PEACEFUL
PICKETING AND TRUTHFUL PUBLICITY ARE MEANS LEGAL FOR UNIONS.  IT IS
TRUE THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS OF THE LABOR DISPUTE MAY BE ANNOYING
TO SENN EVEN IF THE METHOD AND MEANS EMPLOYED IN GIVING THE PUBLICITY
ARE INHERENTLY UNOBJECTIONABLE.  BUT SUCH ANNOYANCE, LIKE THAT OFTEN
SUFFERED FROM PUBLICITY IN OTHER CONNECTIONS, IS NOT AN INVASION OF THE
LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  COMPARE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD
CO. V. UNITED STATES RAILROAD LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S. 72.  FN5  IT IS
TRUE, ALSO, THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS MAY PREVENT SENN FROM SECURING
JOBS WHICH HE HOPED TO GET.  BUT A HOPED-FOR JOB IS NOT PROPERTY
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  AND THE DIVERSION OF IT TO A
COMPETITOR IS NOT AN INVASION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. 

SIXTH.  IT IS CONTENDED THAT IN PROHIBITING AN INJUNCTION THE STATUTE
DENIED TO SENN EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND TRUAX V. CORRIGAN,
SUPRA, IS INVOKED.  BUT THE ISSUE SUGGESTED BY PLAINTIFF DOES NOT
ARISE.  FOR WE HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE WISCONSIN STATUTE WHICH
AUTHORIZED THE CONDUCT OF THE UNIONS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.  ONE HAS NO
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A "REMEDY" AGAINST THE LAWFUL CONDUCT OF
ANOTHER.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SUBSECTIONS (H), (I) AND (K) ARE LIKEWISE RELEVANT TO THE
PRESENT ISSUE, AS SUPPLEMENTING SUBSECTIONS (E) AND (L), BUT DO NOT
REQUIRE SPECIAL DISCUSSION. 

FN2  THE COMPLAINT AS TO CERTAIN ACTION OF DEFENDANTS OTHER THAN THE
PICKETING WAS DISPOSED OF BY DEFENDANTS' AGREEMENT TO DISCONTINUE THE
SAME, AND IS NOT NOW IN QUESTION.  IT HAD BEEN SHOWN THAT, WITH A VIEW
TO PICKETING SENN'S JOBS, THE UNIONS HAD CAUSED HIS AUTOMOBILE TO BE
FOLLOWED FROM HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS TO THE JOBS WHERE HE AND HIS MEN
WERE WORKING.  IT HAD ALSO BEEN SHOWN THAT, SOME MONTHS EARLIER, THE
UNIONS HAD SENT LETTERS TO LOCAL ARCHITECTS AND CONTRACTORS REQUESTING
THEM NOT TO PATRONIZE SENN BECAUSE HE WAS CONDUCTING A NON-UNION SHOP
AND THREATENING TO PICKET THEM IF THEY DID SO; BUT THAT THERE HAD BEEN
NO PICKETING OF ANY ARCHITECT OR CONTRACTOR AND NO SUCH STEPS HAD BEEN
TAKEN BY THE UNIONS.  THROUGH COUNSEL, THE UNIONS AGREED:  (1) THAT
THEREAFTER THEY WOULD NOT PURSUE PLAINTIFF'S AUTOMOBILE FROM HIS
RESIDENCE TO HIS JOBS; AND (2) THAT THEY WOULD REFRAIN FROM SENDING ANY
FURTHER LETTERS TO ARCHITECTS OR CONTRACTORS, AND WOULD NOT INDULGE IN
ANY ACTS OR CONDUCT REFERRED TO IN THE LETTERS THERETOFORE SENT.  THE
COURT TREATED THIS AGREEMENT BY COUNSEL AS DISPOSING OF THE CLAIM FOR
RELIEF ON THIS GROUND. 

FN3  COMPARE ZAAT V. BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, 172 WASH. 445; 20
P.(2D) 589; RORABACK V. MOTION PICTURE OPERATORS UNION, 140 MINN. 481;
168 N.W. 766; HUGHES V. MOTION PICTURE OPERATORS UNION, 282 MO. 304;
221 S.W. 95; FINK V. SCHWARTZ, 28 OHIO (N.P.)  407.  SEE THOMPSON V.
BOEKHOUT, 249 APP. DIV. 77; 291 N.Y. SUPP. 572. 

FN4  THAT SECTION PROVIDES: 

"THE TERM 'LABOR DISPUTE' INCLUDES ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING TERMS
OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR CONCERNING THE ASSOCIATION OR
REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS IN NEGOTIATING, FIXING, MAINTAINING,
CHANGING, OR SEEKING TO ARRANGE TERMS OR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR
CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS, OR ANY OTHER CONTROVERSY ARISING OUT
OF THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER OR NOT THE DISPUTANTS STAND IN THE PROXIMATE RELATION OF
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE." 

FN5  THE STATE HAS, OF COURSE, POWER TO AFFORD PROTECTION TO
INTERESTS OF PERSONALITY, SUCH AS "THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY."  THE
PROTECTION BY DECISION OR STATUTE OF SUCH INTERESTS OF PERSONALITY,
RESTS ON OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAN ARE HERE INVOLVED.  SEE MORELAND,
THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY TODAY (1931) 19 KY. L.J. 101; LISLE, THE RIGHT OF
PRIVACY, ID., 137; GREEN, THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY (1932) 27 ILL. L. REV.
237, 238. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

PLAINTIFF IS A TILE LAYER AND HAS LONG BEEN ACCUSTOMED TO WORK AS A
HELPER AND MECHANIC IN THAT TRADE.  THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER,
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE STATE MAY BY STATUTE AUTHORIZE OR MAKE IT
LAWFUL FOR LABOR UNIONS TO ADOPT AND CARRY INTO EFFECT MEASURES
INTENDED AND CALCULATED TO PREVENT HIM FROM OBTAINING OR DOING THAT
WORK.  THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED ANSWERS THAT QUESTION IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE.  THE FACTS ARE NOT IN CONTROVERSY.  LET THEM DISCLOSE THE
CONCRETE APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATION NOW HELD VALID. 

PLAINTIFF LIVES AND WORKS IN MILWAUKEE.  SINCE THE LATTER PART OF
1931 HE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN PERFORMING SMALL TILE LAYING JOBS.  HE HAS
PERSONALLY PERFORMED ALMOST HALF THE MANUAL LABOR REQUIRED.  HE USUALLY
EMPLOYS A TILE SETTER AND HELPER; OCCASIONALLY HE HAS MORE THAN ONE OF
EACH.  HE HAS NEVER BEEN A MEMBER OF THE TILE LAYERS UNION.  THOUGH A
COMPETENT MECHANIC IN THAT TRADE, HE IS EXCLUDED FROM MEMBERSHIP
BECAUSE HE TAKES CONTRACTS AND BECAUSE HE HAS NOT SERVED THE
APPRENTICESHIP REQUIRED BY UNION RULES.  IN 1935 HE HAD ABOUT 40 JOBS. 
HIS NET INCOME WAS $1,500 OF WHICH $750 WAS ATTRIBUTED TO HIS OWN
LABOR.  THE BALANCE, CONSTITUTING HIS PROFIT AS CONTRACTOR, WAS NOT
ENOUGH TO SUPPORT HIM AND FAMILY.    DEFENDANT LOCAL NO. 5 IS COMPOSED
OF TILE LAYERS.  ITS MEMBERSHIP, 112 IN 1929, HAD FALLEN TO 41 AT THE
TIME OF THE TRIAL IN JANUARY, 1936.  EARLY IN 1935 IT PROFFERED TO ALL
LOCAL CONTRACTORS INCLUDING PLAINTIFF A CONTRACT FIXING WAGES, HOURS
AND THE LIKE.  ABOUT HALF OF THEM SIGNED; THE OTHERS DID NOT.  IT
CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING:  "IT IS DEFINITELY UNDERSTOOD THAT NO
INDIVIDUAL, MEMBER OF A PARTNERSHIP OR CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE TILE
CONTRACTING BUSINESS SHALL WORK WITH THE TOOLS OR ACT AS HELPER, BUT
THAT THE INSTALLATION OF ALL MATERIALS CLAIMED BY THE PARTY OF THE
SECOND PART (LOCAL NO. 5) AS LISTED UNDER THE CAPTION 'CLASSIFICATION
OF WORK' IN THIS AGREEMENT, SHALL BE DONE BY JOURNEYMEN MEMBERS OF TILE
LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION LOCAL #5."  BECAUSE OF THAT PROVISION PLAINTIFF
DECLINED TO SIGN.  BUT REPEATEDLY HE DECLARED TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
UNION THAT HE WAS WILLING TO EMPLOY ITS MEMBERS AND TO COMPLY WITH ITS
RULES AS TO WAGES, HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS; HE ASSURED THEM THAT,
WHEN HIS BUSINESS WAS SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT, HE WOULD REFRAIN FROM
MANUAL LABOR, AND EXPLAINED THAT WITHOUT PERSONALLY WORKING HE COULD
NOT NOW CONTINUE IN BUSINESS.  CONCEDING THE TRUTH OF THAT STATEMENT,
THE UNION NEVERTHELESS PERSISTENTLY DECLINED TO MODIFY ITS DEMANDS. 

THE PRESIDENT OF LOCAL NO. 5 TESTIFIED THAT, IF PLAINTIFF DID NOT
SIGN THE CONTRACT, IT WOULD DO EVERYTHING "TO HARASS AND PUT THINGS IN
HIS WAY"; THAT IT INTENDED TO ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD THAT HE IS A NON
UNION CONTRACTOR AND ON THAT ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE PATRONIZED, TO
PICKET HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS, TO ASCERTAIN WHERE HE HAD JOBS AND TO
PICKET THEM AND IN THAT WAY BRING PRESSURE TO BEAR UPON HIM TO BECOME A
UNION CONTRACTOR, TO PUT HIM IN THE CATEGORY OF A NON-UNION CONTRACTOR
UNLESS HE AGREES TO LAY ASIDE THE TOOLS OF THE TRADE.  THE PROGRAM SO
DECLARED CORRESPONDS WITH WHAT THE UNIONS HAD ALREADY DONE AGAINST
HIM. 

IN JULY, 1935, LOCAL NO. 5 SENT TO ALL CONTRACTORS AND ARCHITECTS
LETTERS STATING:  "SOME TIME AGO WE PRESENTED TO EACH INDIVIDUAL TILE
CONTRACTOR IN THE CITY A COPY OF OUR NEW AGREEMENT (THIS REFERS TO THE
ONE PLAINTIFF WAS CALLED ON TO SIGN) IN WHICH WE SPECIFIED WHAT
CONSTITUTES A BONA FIDE CONTRACTOR AND WHO SHOULD INSTALL THE WORK. 
NOT HAVING HEARD FROM SOME OF THESE SO CALLED TILE CONTRACTORS IN A
GIVEN TIME, WE BEG OF YOU TO CONTACT THE LIST OF FAIR CONTRACTORS
LISTED BELOW IN AWARDING THE TILE WORK IN YOUR BUILDING OPERATIONS.  IF
IN TWO WEEKS TIME ANYONE OUTSIDE THIS LIST IS AWARDED TILE WORK WE WILL
THEN PICKET SUCH JOBS, CONTRACTORS' OR ARCHITECTS' OFFICES, OR EMPLOY
OTHER LAWFUL MEANS TO HELP US IN OUR FIGHT TO BETTER THE CONDITIONS OF
OUR TRADE."  PLAINTIFF'S NAME WAS NOT ON THE LIST APPROVED BY THE
UNION.  THEREFORE THE LETTER MEANT THAT, IN ORDER TO PREVENT HIM FROM
WORKING, THE UNION WOULD APPLY THE DESCRIBED PRESSURE TO HIM, HIS WORK,
THE JOBS OF WHICH HIS TILE LAYING WAS A PART, THE CONTRACTORS AND THE
ARCHITECTS FROM WHOM HE GOT WORK. 

COMMENCING DECEMBER 6, 1935, IT PUT IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE TWO MEN
CARRYING SIGNS, ONE BEING: "P. SENN TILE COMPANY (MEANING THE
PLAINTIFF) IS UNFAIR TO THE TILE LAYERS PROTECTIVE UNION," AND THE
OTHER:  "LET THE UNION TILE LAYERS INSTALL YOUR TILE WORK."  AND
REGULARLY FROM EIGHT IN THE MORNING UNTIL NOON AND FROM ONE TO FOUR IN
THE AFTERNOON IT CARRIED ON PICKETING OF THAT SORT, SOMETIMES USING
FOUR MEN.  THEY REFRAINED FROM SPEAKING TO PLAINTIFF OR OTHERS AND
COMMITTED NO BREACH OF THE PEACE.  IN THAT SENSE THEY CARRIED ON
"PEACEFUL PICKETING."  THE UNION SENT MEN IN AUTOMOBILES TO FOLLOW
PLAINTIFF WHEN GOING FROM HIS HOME TO HIS WORK, AND INSTRUCTED ALL ITS
MEMBERS TO DISCOVER WHERE HE HAD JOBS IN ORDER TO PICKET THEM. 

TO JUSTIFY THE ELIMINATION OF PLAINTIFF, COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT THAT
"BECAUSE OF THE DEMORALIZED CONDITION OF THE TRADE, THE UNION DECIDES
IT DOES NOT WANT A CONTRACTOR, WHETHER HE BE SKILLED IN THE TRADE OR
UNSKILLED, TO WORK WITH THE TOOLS OF THE TRADE WITH THE MEN BECAUSE
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH WORK TO GO AROUND."  AND ON THE WITNESS STAND THE
PRESIDENT OF LOCAL NO. 5 EXPRESSED THE IDEA THAT, IF THE CONTRACTORS
DID NOT WORK, MEMBERS OF THE UNION WOULD BE TAKEN OFF RELIEF. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE PICKETING PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL; IT DID NOT
PASS ON OTHER ACTS CONSTITUTING PRESSURE PUT ON PLAINTIFF.  BUT THE
UNIONS THEMSELVES DEEMED UNLAWFUL MUCH THAT THEY HAD THREATENED AND
DONE TO COERCE HIM.  THE FINDINGS SAY THAT "THE DEFENDANTS, BY THEIR
COUNSEL, HAVE STATED IN OPEN COURT THAT THEY WILL NOT PURSUE THE
AUTOMOBILE OF THE PLAINTIFF FROM HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS TO HIS JOBS;
THAT THEY WILL REFRAIN FROM SENDING ANY FURTHER LETTERS TO ARCHITECTS
OR CONTRACTORS, AND WILL NOT INDULGE IN ANY ACTS OR CONDUCT REFERRED TO
IN SAID LETTERS TOWARDS SAID CONTRACTORS AND ARCHITECTS."  THE TRIAL
COURT HELD PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF.  THE SUPREME COURT
AFFIRMED.  222 WIS. 383; 268 N.W. 270.  FOLLOWING ITS DECISION IN
AMERICAN FURNITURE CO. V. CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS & HELPERS UNION, 222
WIS. 338; 268 N.W. 250, CONSTRUING SEC. 103.62, IT HELD THAT WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THAT SECTION A "LABOR DISPUTE" EXISTED BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND
DEFENDANTS AND THAT UNDER SEC. 103.53 THE PICKETING WAS LEGAL. 

THE CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT INVOKED BY PLAINTIFF ARE:
"NO STATE SHALL  ...  DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS."  OUR DECISIONS HAVE
MADE IT EVERYWHERE KNOWN THAT THESE PROVISIONS FORBID STATE ACTION
WHICH WOULD TAKE FROM THE INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN COMMON
OCCUPATIONS OF LIFE, AND THAT THEY ASSURE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY TO
ALL UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES.  LEST THE IMPORTANCE OR WISDOM OF THESE
GREAT DECLARATIONS BE FORGOTTEN OR NEGLECTED, THERE SHOULD BE FREQUENT
RECURRENCE TO DECISIONS OF THIS COURT THAT EXPOUND AND APPLY THEM. 

"WHILE THIS COURT HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO DEFINE WITH EXACTNESS THE
LIBERTY THUS GUARANTEED, THE TERM HAS RECEIVED MUCH CONSIDERATION AND
SOME OF THE INCLUDED THINGS HAVE BEEN DEFINITELY STATED.  WITHOUT
DOUBT, IT DENOTES NOT MERELY FREEDOM FROM BODILY RESTRAINT BUT ALSO THE
RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO CONTRACT, TO ENGAGE IN ANY OF THE COMMON
OCCUPATIONS OF LIFE, TO ACQUIRE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE, TO MARRY, ESTABLISH A
HOME AND BRING UP CHILDREN, TO WORSHIP GOD ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF
HIS OWN CONSCIENCE, AND GENERALLY TO ENJOY THOSE PRIVILEGES LONG
RECOGNIZED AT COMMON LAW AS ESSENTIAL TO THE ORDERLY PURSUIT OF
HAPPINESS BY FREE MEN."  MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390, 399. 

"THE RIGHT TO FOLLOW ANY OF THE COMMON OCCUPATIONS OF LIFE IS AN
INALIENABLE RIGHT.  IT WAS FORMULATED AS SUCH UNDER THE PHRASE 'PURSUIT
OF HAPPINESS' IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, WHICH COMMENCED WITH
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION THAT 'ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY
ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS; THAT
AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.'  ...  I
HOLD THAT THE LIBERTY OF PURSUIT - THE RIGHT TO FOLLOW ANY OF THE
ORDINARY CALLINGS OF LIFE - IS ONE OF THE PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF
THE UNITED STATES."  CONCURRING OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY IN
BUTCHERS' UNION CO. V. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746, 762,
APPROVINGLY QUOTED IN ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578, 589. 

"INCLUDED IN THE RIGHT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY AND THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY - PARTAKING OF THE NATURE OF EACH - IS THE RIGHT TO MAKE
CONTRACTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY.  CHIEF AMONG SUCH CONTRACTS
IS THAT OF PERSONAL EMPLOYMENT BY WHICH LABOR AND OTHER SERVICES ARE
EXCHANGED FOR MONEY OR OTHER FORMS OF PROPERTY.  IF THIS RIGHT BE
STRUCK DOWN OR ARBITRARILY INTERFERED WITH, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL
IMPAIRMENT OF LIBERTY IN THE LONG-ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE. 
THE RIGHT IS AS ESSENTIAL TO THE LABORER AS TO THE CAPITALIST, TO THE
POOR AS TO THE RICH; FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF PERSONS HAVE NO OTHER
HONEST WAY TO BEGIN TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY, SAVE BY WORKING FOR MONEY." 
COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, 14. 

"IT REQUIRES NO ARGUMENT TO SHOW THAT THE RIGHT TO WORK FOR A LIVING
IN THE COMMON OCCUPATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY IS OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF
THE PERSONAL FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY THAT IT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO SECURE."  TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 U.S. 33, 41. 

"UNDER THAT AMENDMENT, NOTHING IS MORE CLEARLY SETTLED THAN THAT IT
IS BEYOND THE POWER OF A STATE, 'UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING THE
PUBLIC, ARBITRARILY (TO) INTERFERE WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS OR PROHIBIT
LAWFUL OCCUPATIONS OR IMPOSE UNREASONABLE AND UNNECESSARY RESTRICTIONS
UPON THEM.'"  NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIEBMANN, 285 U.S. 262, 278. 

"THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT  ...  UNDOUBTEDLY INTENDED NOT ONLY THAT
THERE SHOULD BE NO ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION OF LIFE OR LIBERTY, OR
ARBITRARY SPOLIATION OF PROPERTY, BUT THAT EQUAL PROTECTION AND
SECURITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO ALL UNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE
ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PERSONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS; THAT ALL PERSONS SHOULD
BE EQUALLY ENTITLED TO PURSUE THEIR HAPPINESS AND ACQUIRE AND ENJOY
PROPERTY; THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE LIKE ACCESS TO THE COURTS OF THE
COUNTRY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THE
PREVENTION AND REDRESS OF WRONGS, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS;
THAT NO IMPEDIMENT SHOULD BE INTERPOSED TO THE PURSUITS OF ANY ONE
EXCEPT AS APPLIED TO THE SAME PURSUITS BY OTHERS UNDER LIKE
CIRCUMSTANCES; THAT NO GREATER BURDENS SHOULD BE LAID UPON ONE THAN ARE
LAID UPON OTHERS IN THE SAME CALLING AND CONDITION...."  BARBIER V.
CONNOLLY, 113 U.S. 27, 31. 

"FOR, THE VERY IDEA THAT ONE MAN MAY BE COMPELLED TO HOLD HIS LIFE,
OR THE MEANS OF LIVING, OR ANY MATERIAL RIGHT ESSENTIAL TO THE
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, AT THE MERE WILL OF ANOTHER, SEEMS TO BE INTOLERABLE
IN ANY COUNTRY WHERE FREEDOM PREVAILS, AS BEING THE ESSENCE OF SLAVERY
ITSELF."  YICK WO V. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356, 370. 

THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATE CAN ONLY BE EXERTED IN
SUBORDINATION TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT AND JUSTICE WHICH
THE GUARANTIES OF THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ARE INTENDED TO PRESERVE.  ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS
EXERCISE OF THAT POWER WHEREBY A WRONGFUL AND HIGHLY INJURIOUS INVASION
OF RIGHTS OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY IS SANCTIONED, STRIPPING ONE OF ALL
REMEDY, IS WHOLLY AT VARIANCE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES.  TRUAX V.
CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 327. 

IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE PICKETING, UPHELD IN VIRTUE OF THE
CHALLENGED STATUTE, LAWFULLY MIGHT BE EMPLOYED IN A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERSUADING THE EMPLOYER TO
INCREASE PAY, ETC., AND DISSUADING NON-UNION WORKERS FROM DISPLACING
UNION MEMBERS.  THE RIGHT OF WORKERS, PARTIES TO A LABOR DISPUTE, TO
STRIKE AND PICKET PEACEFULLY TO BETTER THEIR CONDITION DOES NOT
INFRINGE ANY RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER.  AMERICAN FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY
COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 209.  UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO.,
259 U.S. 344, 386.  WOLFF CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COURT, 262 U.S. 522, 540,
541.  DORCHY V. KANSAS, 264 U.S. 286, 289.  BUT STRIKES OR PEACEFUL
PICKETING FOR UNLAWFUL PURPOSES ARE BEYOND ANY LAWFUL SANCTION.  THE
OBJECT BEING UNLAWFUL, THE MEANS AND END ARE ALIKE CONDEMNED.  DORCHY
V. KANSAS, 272 U.S. 306, 311.  TOLEDO, A.A. & N.M. RY. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA CO., 54 FED. 730, 737-739.  AND SEE TRUAX V. CORRIGAN,
SUPRA, 327; EXCHANGE BAKERY & RESTAURANT V. RIFKIN, 245 N.Y. 260, 262
263; 157 N.E. 130. 

THE OBJECT THAT DEFENDANTS SEEK TO ATTAIN IS AN UNLAWFUL ONE. 

ADMITTEDLY, IT IS TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO QUIT WORK AS HELPER OR TILE
LAYER.  THEIR PURPOSE IS NOT TO ESTABLISH ON HIS JOBS BETTER WAGES,
HOURS, OR CONDITIONS.  IF PERMITTED, PLAINTIFF WOULD EMPLOY UNION MEN
AND ADHERE TO UNION REQUIREMENTS AS TO PAY AND HOURS.  BUT, SOLELY
BECAUSE HE WORKS, THE UNIONS REFUSE TO ALLOW HIM TO UNIONIZE AND CARRY
ON HIS BUSINESS.  BY PICKETING, THE UNIONS WOULD PREVENT HIM WORKING ON
JOBS HE OBTAINED FROM OTHERS AND SO DESTROY THAT BUSINESS.  THEN, BY
ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR RULES THEY WOULD PREVENT HIM FROM WORKING AS A
JOURNEYMAN FOR EMPLOYERS APPROVED BY THE UNION OR UPON ANY JOB
EMPLOYING UNION MEN.  ADHERING TO THE THOUGHT THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH
WORK TO GO AROUND, UNQUESTIONABLY THE UNION PURPOSE IS TO ELIMINATE HIM
FROM ALL TILE LAYING WORK.  AND HIGHLY CONFIRMATORY OF THAT PURPOSE IS
THE FAILURE OF THE CONTRACT PROPOSED BY THE UNION TO PERMIT PLAINTIFF
PERSONALLY TO DO WORK IN THE PERFORMANCE OF JOBS UNDERTAKEN BY HIM FOR
PRICES BASED UPON UNION RATES OF PAY FOR ALL LABOR, INCLUDING HIS OWN. 

THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COMPETITION BETWEEN RIVAL INDIVIDUALS
SEEKING CONTRACTS OR OPPORTUNITY TO WORK AS JOURNEYMEN CANNOT
REASONABLY BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE.  NEITHER THE UNION NOR ITS MEMBERS
TAKE TILE LAYING CONTRACTS.  THEIR INTERESTS ARE CONFINED TO EMPLOYMENT
OF HELPERS AND LAYERS, THEIR WAGES, HOURS OF SERVICE, ETC.  THE CONTEST
IS NOT BETWEEN UNIONIZED AND OTHER CONTRACTORS OR BETWEEN ONE EMPLOYER
AND ANOTHER.  THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE IS BETWEEN THE UNIONS AND PLAINTIFF
IN RESPECT OF HIS RIGHT TO WORK IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OWN JOBS.  IF
AS TO THAT THEY SHALL SUCCEED, THEN WILL COME THE ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR
RULES WHICH MAKE HIM INELIGIBLE TO WORK AS A JOURNEYMAN.  IT CANNOT BE
SAID THAT, IF HE SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM LABORING AS HELPER OR LAYER,
THE WORK FOR UNION MEN TO DO WOULD BE INCREASED.  THE UNIONS EXCLUDE
THEIR MEMBERS FROM JOBS TAKEN BY NON-UNION EMPLOYERS.  ABOUT HALF THE
TILE CONTRACTORS ARE NOT UNIONIZED.  MORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF THE TILE
LAYERS ARE NON-UNION MEN.  THE VALUE OF PLAINTIFF'S LABOR AS HELPER AND
TILE LAYER IS VERY SMALL - ABOUT $750 PER YEAR.  BETWEEN UNION MEMBERS
AND PLAINTIFF THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE OR DIRECT COMPETITION.  IF UNDER
EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES THERE EVER CAN BE ANY, IT MUST COME ABOUT
THROUGH A CHAIN OF UNPREDICTABLE EVENTS MAKING ITS OCCURRENCE A MERE
MATTER OF SPECULATION.  THE INTEREST OF THE UNIONS IN THE MANUAL LABOR
DONE BY PLAINTIFF IS SO REMOTE, INDIRECT AND MINUTE THAT THEY HAVE NO
STANDING AS COMPETITORS.  BERRY V. DONOVAN, 188 MASS. 353, 358; 74 N.E.
603.  UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DISCLOSED, THE CONDUCT OF THE UNIONS
WAS ARBITRARY AND OPPRESSIVE.  RORABACK V. MOTION PICTURE OPERATORS
UNION, 140 MINN. 481, 486; 168 N.W. 766.  HUGHES V. MOTION PICTURE
OPERATORS UNION, 282 MO. 304; 221 S.W. 95. 

MOREOVER, THE PICKETING WAS UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THE SIGNS USED
CONSTITUTE A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS.  ONE OF THEM DECLARED
PLAINTIFF "UNFAIR" TO THE TILE LAYERS UNION AND, UPON THE BASIS OF THAT
STATEMENT, THE OTHER SIGN SOLICITED TILE WORK FOR UNION TILE LAYERS. 
THERE WAS GIVEN NEITHER DEFINITION OF THE WORD NOR ANY FACT ON WHICH
THE ACCUSATION WAS BASED.  BY THE CHARGE MADE, THERE WAS IMPLIED
SOMETHING UNJUST OR INEQUITABLE IN HIS ATTITUDE TOWARD LABOR UNIONS. 
BUT THERE WAS NO FOUNDATION OF FACT FOR ANY SUCH ACCUSATION.  THERE WAS
NO WARRANT FOR CHARACTERIZING HIM AS "UNFAIR" OR OPPOSED TO ANY
LEGITIMATE PURPOSE OF THE TILE LAYERS UNION OR AS UNJUST TO UNION MEN. 
THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT THE UNIONS INTENDED BY THE
PICKETING THEY CARRIED ON TO MISREPRESENT PLAINTIFF IN RESPECT OF HIS
RELATION TO, OR DEALING WITH, THE TILE LAYERS UNION AND BY THAT MEANS
TO DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS OCCUPATION.  THE BURDEN MAY NOT JUSTLY BE HELD TO
BE ON HIM, BY COUNTER-PICKETING OR OTHERWISE, TO REFUTE OR EXPLAIN THE
BASELESS CHARGE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT, HERE AFFIRMED, VIOLATES A PRINCIPLE
OF FUNDAMENTAL LAW:  THAT NO MAN MAY BE COMPELLED TO HOLD HIS LIFE OR
THE MEANS OF LIVING AT THE MERE WILL OF OTHERS.  YICK WO V. HOPKINS,
UBI SUPRA.  THE STATE STATUTE, CONSTRUED TO MAKE LAWFUL THE EMPLOYMENT
OF THE MEANS HERE SHOWN TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF OF HIS RIGHT TO WORK OR TO
MAKE LAWFUL THE PICKETING CARRIED ON IN THIS CASE, IS REPUGNANT TO THE
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, SUPRA, 328. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, AND MR. JUSTICE
SUTHERLAND JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :























DUKE V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 492 


NO. 907.  ARGUED MAY 4, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1937. 


1.  A MISDEMEANOR FOR WHICH THE PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED IS NOT INFAMOUS
BUT MAY EXCEED $500 FINE AND SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT HARD
LABOR, MAY BE PROSECUTED BY INFORMATION.  P. 493. 

2.  SO HELD OF CRIM. CODE, SEC. 137, PRESCRIBING A FINE OF NOT MORE
THAN $1,000, OR IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BOTH, FOR
THE OFFENSE OF ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE A JUROR BY A WRITTEN
COMMUNICATION.  P. 493. 

3.  THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE BY INFORMATION IS NOT LIMITED TO
OFFENSES PUNISHABLE AS DEFINED IN THE PROVISO ADDED TO CR. CODE, SEC.
335 BY ACT OF DEC. 16, 1930.  P. 494. 

DUKE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS CERTIFIED BY THE COURT BELOW WITH RESPECT TO A
CASE ON APPEAL FROM A CRIMINAL CONVICTION. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE COURT BELOW, BEING DIVIDED AND IN DOUBT, AND DESIRING THE
INSTRUCTION AND ADVICE OF THIS COURT, HAS CERTIFIED THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS OF LAW: 

"1.  MAY A MISDEMEANOR, FOR WHICH NO INFAMOUS PUNISHMENT IS
PRESCRIBED, BE PROSECUTED BY INFORMATION, WHERE THE PUNISHMENT THEREFOR
MAY EXCEED $500 FINE OR SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT, WITHOUT HARD LABOR,
OR BOTH? 

"2.  MAY AN OFFENSE UNDER SEC. 137 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE BE PROSECUTED
BY INFORMATION?" 

THE CERTIFICATE CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

"THIS WAS A PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATION OF SEC. 137 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE, 18 U.S.C.A. 243, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"'WHOEVER SHALL ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE ACTION OR DECISION OF ANY
GRAND OR PETIT JUROR OF ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPON ANY ISSUE
OR MATTER PENDING BEFORE SUCH JUROR, OR BEFORE THE JURY OF WHICH HE IS
A MEMBER, OR PERTAINING TO HIS DUTIES, BY WRITING OR SENDING TO HIM ANY
LETTER OR ANY COMMUNICATION, IN PRINT OR WRITING, IN RELATION TO SUCH
ISSUE OR MATTER, SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR IMPRISONED NOT
MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BOTH.' 

"THE PROSECUTION WAS BY INFORMATION FILED UNDER OATH BY THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY.  THE APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED
AND FROM JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE THEREON APPEALS TO THIS COURT.  ONE OF
THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE APPEAL IS WHETHER THE OFFENSE CHARGED,
WHICH IS PUNISHABLE BY SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT OR FINE OF $1,000, OR
BOTH, MAY BE PROSECUTED BY INFORMATION, IN VIEW OF SEC. 335 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE.... 

"NOTWITHSTANDING THE DECISION IN THORM V. UNITED STATES (C.C.A. 3D)
59 FED.(2D) 419, CERT. DENIED 287 U.S. 624, THIS COURT IS DIVIDED AND
IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER A MISDEMEANOR MAY BE PROSECUTED BY INFORMATION
WHERE THE PUNISHMENT THEREFOR, ALTHOUGH NOT INFAMOUS, MAY EXCEED A FINE
OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, OR SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT HARD
LABOR, OR BOTH.  AS THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF SUCH MISDEMEANORS
DENOUNCED BY THE CRIMINAL CODE (SEE HEARINGS BEFORE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, SEVENTIETH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, JANUARY 17, 1928, ON
H.R. 5608, H.R. 8230, H.R. 8555, H.R. 8556, SERIAL 1, PAGE 31) THE
COURT DEEMS THE QUESTION OF SUFFICIENT IMPORTANCE TO CERTIFY TO THE
SUPREME COURT." 

BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT, PROVIDED: "ALL OFFENSES WHICH MAY BE PUNISHED BY
DEATH, OR IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM EXCEEDING ONE YEAR, SHALL BE DEEMED
FELONIES.  ALL OTHER OFFENSES SHALL BE DEEMED MISDEMEANORS." 

THIS SECTION WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF DECEMBER 16, 1930, C. 15, 46
STAT. 1029, 18 U.S.C. SEC. 541, BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING PROVISO:
"PROVIDED, THAT ALL OFFENSES THE PENALTY FOR WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED
CONFINEMENT IN A COMMON JAIL, WITHOUT HARD LABOR FOR A PERIOD OF SIX
MONTHS, OR A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $500, OR BOTH, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE
PETTY OFFENSES; AND ALL SUCH PETTY OFFENSES MAY BE PROSECUTED UPON
INFORMATION OR COMPLAINT." 

APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THIS LANGUAGE LIMITS THE AUTHORITY TO
PROSECUTE BY INFORMATION STRICTLY TO THOSE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE AS THE
PROVISO PRESCRIBES.  UNDER THE ORIGINAL SECTION, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT
THE OFFENSE WITH WHICH APPELLANT IS CHARGED WAS A MISDEMEANOR WHICH
COULD BE PROSECUTED BY INFORMATION.  IT WILL BE ENOUGH TO CITE AS
EXAMPLES SUPPORTING THIS CONCLUSION FALCONI V. UNITED STATES, 280 FED.
766, AND HUNTER V. UNITED STATES, 272 FED. 235, 238, WHERE OTHER CASES
ARE COLLECTED.  WE THINK THE PROVISO RELIED UPON DID NOT CHANGE THIS
RULE. 

THE ORIGINAL SECTION DIVIDES CRIMES INTO FELONIES AND MISDEMEANORS. 
THE EVIDENT OBJECT OF THE PROVISO WAS TO BRING ABOUT A SUBDIVISION OF
MISDEMEANORS BY CREATING A CLASS OF MISDEMEANORS OF MINOR GRAVITY TO BE
KNOWN AS PETTY OFFENSES; TO BE TRIED, AS PROPOSED BY OTHER LEGISLATION
(WHICH FAILED), BY UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS.  THE ADDITION OF THE
WORDS THAT "SUCH PETTY OFFENSES MAY BE PROSECUTED UPON INFORMATION OR
COMPLAINT" DID NOT WORK A CHANGE OF THE THEN WELL-SETTLED RULE THAT ANY
MISDEMEANOR NOT INVOLVING INFAMOUS PUNISHMENT MIGHT BE PROSECUTED BY
INFORMATION INSTEAD OF BY INDICTMENT.  THE QUOTED WORDS PROBABLY WERE
INSERTED, AS THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
INDICATES, MERELY TO SUPPLEMENT AND AID THE OTHER PROPOSED LEGISLATION
THEN PENDING TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED; BUT, IN ANY EVENT, THEY ARE
AFFIRMATIVE WORDS AND DO NOT IN TERMS OR BY REASONABLE IMPLICATION
NEGATIVE THE BROADER LONG-STANDING RULE IN RESPECT OF MISDEMEANORS OF
THE OTHER CLASS.  THORM V. UNITED STATES, 59 F.(2D) 419.  THE OFFENSE
WITH WHICH APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WAS NOT A PETTY OFFENSE WITHIN THE
PROVISO, BUT IT WAS A MISDEMEANOR OF A KIND, AS THE CERTIFICATE
RECITES, NOT SUBJECT TO INFAMOUS PUNISHMENT - THEREFORE OPEN TO
PROSECUTION BY INFORMATION. 

BOTH INTERROGATORIES MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.  QUESTION
NO. 1, YES.  QUESTION NO. 2, YES. 
..END :






















CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL CO., 301 U.S. 495 


NO. 724.  ARGUED APRIL 7, 8, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1937.  - 17
F.SUPP.  225, REVERSED. 


THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT OF ALABAMA SETS UP A SCHEME FOR
PROVIDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR WORKERS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE
BY DESIGNATED CLASSES OF EMPLOYERS.  THESE INCLUDE ALL WHO EMPLOY EIGHT
OR MORE PERSONS FOR TWENTY OR MORE WEEKS IN THE YEAR, EXCEPT THOSE
ENGAGED IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED EMPLOYMENTS.  THE EMPLOYERS ARE TO PAY
CERTAIN PERCENTAGES OF THEIR TOTAL MONTHLY PAYROLLS INTO THE STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND, AND EACH EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUND A PERCENTAGE OF HIS WAGES.  THE FUND IS TO BE
DEPOSITED IN THE "UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND" OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AND IS TO BE
USED AS REQUISITIONED BY THE STATE COMMISSION TO PAY UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE, BUT WITHOUT ANY LIABILITY ON THE
PART OF THE STATE BEYOND AMOUNTS PAID INTO OR EARNED BY THE FUND. 
BENEFITS ARE PAYABLE FROM THE FUND TO THE EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE ACT,
IN THE EVENT OF THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT, UPON PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS AND AT
PRESCRIBED RATES.  THE ACT SATISFIES THE CRITERIA WHICH, BY SEC. 903(A)
OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, ARE MADE PREREQUISITE TO ITS APPROVAL BY
THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD CREATED BY THAT ACT, AND IT HAS BEEN APPROVED
BY THE BOARD AS THAT SECTION DIRECTS.  BY SEC. 902 OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT, CONTRIBUTORS TO THE STATE FUND ARE ENTITLED TO CREDIT
THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS IN SATISFACTION OF THE TAX IMPOSED ON EMPLOYERS BY
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, TO THE EXTENT OF 90% OF THE TAX.  HELD: 

1.  THE ACT AS AN ACT TAXING EMPLOYERS IS WITHIN THE STATE TAXING
POWER.  P. 508. 

TAXES ARE THE MEANS OF DISTRIBUTING THE BURDEN OF THE COST OF
GOVERNMENT, COMMONLY LEVIED ON PROPERTY OR ITS USE, BUT LIKEWISE
LEVIABLE ON THE EXERCISE OF PERSONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES, INCLUDING
THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY OR TO BE EMPLOYED. 

2.  THE TAX ON EMPLOYERS IS VALID UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P.
508. 

(1)  INEQUALITIES WHICH RESULT FROM A SINGLING OUT OF ONE PARTICULAR
CLASS FOR TAXATION OR EXEMPTION, INFRINGE NO CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATION.  P. 509. 

(2)  A LEGISLATURE IS NOT BOUND TO TAX EVERY MEMBER OF A CLASS OR
NONE.  IT MAY MAKE DISTINCTIONS OF DEGREE HAVING A RATIONAL BASIS, AND
WHEN SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY THEY MUST BE PRESUMED TO REST ON
SUCH A BASIS IF SUCH WOULD EXIST UNDER ANY CONCEIVABLE STATE OF FACTS. 
P. 509. 

(3)  EXCLUSION FROM THE TAX OF EMPLOYERS OF LESS THAN EIGHT IS A
DISTINCTION OF DEGREE, SUCH AS THE LAW IS OFTEN CALLED UPON TO MAKE,
AND IS FURTHERMORE JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND OF ADMINISTRATIVE
CONVENIENCE AND EXPENSE.  P. 510. 

(4)  THE EXEMPTION OF PARTICULAR CLASSES OF EMPLOYERS,  - THOSE WHO
EMPLOY AGRICULTURAL LABORERS, DOMESTIC SERVANTS, SEAMEN, INSURANCE
AGENTS, OR CLOSE RELATIVES - AND THE EXCLUSION OF CHARITABLE
INSTITUTIONS, INTERSTATE RAILWAYS, OR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES OR OF ANY STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, WHEREBY THE SUBJECT OF
THE TAX IS CONFINED TO THOSE WHO EMPLOY LABOR IN THE PROCESSES OF
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION, IS NOT ARBITRARY.  P. 512. 

WHERE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS SERVED, ONE BUSINESS MAY BE LEFT UNTAXED
AND ANOTHER TAXED, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE ONE OR TO RESTRICT OR
SUPPRESS THE OTHER. 

SEVERAL OF THE EXEMPTIONS MAY REST UPON ADMINISTRATIVE
CONSIDERATIONS. 

THE BURDEN RESTS UPON THOSE WHO COMPLAIN, OF SHOWING THAT THERE ARE
NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EXEMPT EMPLOYERS AND THE INDUSTRIAL
EMPLOYERS WHO ARE TAXED, SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY DIFFERENCES IN
TAXATION. 

(5) THE PROVISION FOR TAXING EMPLOYEES IS SEPARABLE AND THEREFORE NOT
SUBJECT TO OBJECTION BY EMPLOYERS.  P. 513. 

(6)  DISTINCT TAXES IMPOSED BY A SINGLE STATUTE ARE NOT TO BE DEEMED
INSEPARABLE UNLESS THAT CONCLUSION IS UNAVOIDABLE.  P. 513. 

(7) UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, THE STATE TAXING POWER CAN BE
EXERTED ONLY TO EFFECT A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND DOES NOT EMBRACE THE
RAISING OF REVENUE FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES.  P. 514. 

(8)  THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS LEAVE FREE SCOPE FOR THE
EXERCISE OF A WIDE LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHAT
EXPENDITURES WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  P. 514. 

(9)  THE PUBLIC PURPOSES OF A STATE, FOR WHICH IT MAY RAISE FUNDS BY
TAXATION, EMBRACE EXPENDITURES FOR ITS GENERAL WELFARE.  P. 514. 

(10)  WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE ACT SERVES A PUBLIC PURPOSE
IS A PRACTICAL QUESTION ADDRESSED TO THE LAW-MAKING DEPARTMENT, AND IT
WOULD REQUIRE A PLAIN CASE OF DEPARTURE FROM EVERY PUBLIC PURPOSE WHICH
COULD REASONABLY BE CONCEIVED TO JUSTIFY THE INTERVENTION OF A COURT. 
P. 515. 

(11)  RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT IS A PUBLIC PURPOSE.  P. 515. 

(12)  WHEN PUBLIC EVILS ENSUE FROM INDIVIDUAL MISFORTUNES OR NEEDS,
THE LEGISLATURE MAY STRIKE AT THE EVIL AT ITS SOURCE.  IF THE PURPOSE
IS LEGITIMATE BECAUSE PUBLIC, IT WILL NOT BE DEFEATED BECAUSE THE
EXECUTION OF IT INVOLVES PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS.  P. 518. 

(13)  THE SCHEME OF THE ACT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL
INFIRMITY IN NOT BEING LIMITED TO THE INDIGENT OR BECAUSE IT IS
EXTENDED TO SOME LESS DESERVING THAN OTHERS, SUCH AS THOSE DISCHARGED
FOR MISCONDUCT.  P. 518. 

(14)  THE FACT THAT THE ACT RESTRICTS ITS BENEFITS TO EMPLOYEES OF
THE CLASS OF EMPLOYERS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO THE TAX DOES NOT RENDER IT
ARBITRARY OR DISCRIMINATORY IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
P. 519. 

(15)  IT IS NOT A VALID OBJECTION TO THE TAX ON EMPLOYERS THAT THE
BENEFITS PAID AND THE PERSONS TO WHOM THEY ARE PAID ARE UNRELATED TO
THE PERSONS TAXED AND THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX WHICH THEY PAY - IN SHORT,
THAT THOSE WHO PAY THE TAX MAY NOT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT
AND MAY NOT BE BENEFITED BY THE EXPENDITURE.  P. 521. 

THE TAX IS A MEANS OF DISTRIBUTING THE BURDEN OF THE COST OF
GOVERNMENT.  THIS COURT HAS REPUDIATED THE SUGGESTION THAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE EXPENDITURE OF
PUBLIC MONEYS TO BE APPORTIONED TO THE BURDENS OF THE TAXPAYER, OR THAT
HE CAN RESIST THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX BECAUSE IT IS NOT EXPENDED FOR
PURPOSES WHICH ARE PECULIARLY BENEFICIAL TO HIM.  P. 522. 

(16)  THE ACT IS NOT THE INVALID PRODUCT OF THE COERCIVE OPERATION OF
THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AND INVOLVES NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL
SURRENDER OF STATE POWER.  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, POST, P. 548. 
P. 525. 

CARMICHAEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, ET AL. V. SOUTHERN COAL &
COKE CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 797, CARMICHAEL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, ET
AL. V. GULF STATES PAPER CORP.  APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF ALABAMA. 

APPEALS FROM DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES,
RESTRAINING THE PRESENT PETITIONERS, OFFICIALS OF ALABAMA, FROM
COLLECTING THE MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS EXACTED OF THEM BY THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ALABAMA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT. 

THE ALABAMA ACT IS DEPENDENT UPON THE VALIDITY OF TITLES IX AND III
OF THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  THESE TITLES BEING
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE STATE ACT MUST FALL. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA HAS SO CONSTRUED THE STATE ACT AS TO
HOLD THAT BY ITS TERMS IT IS INVALID IF TITLE IX OR TITLE III OF THE
FEDERAL ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

TITLES IX AND III OF THE FEDERAL ACT ARE BEYOND THE CONGRESSIONAL
POWER; THEY ARE INVALID BECAUSE (A) THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE IS TO CONSTRAIN
THE SEVERAL STATES, THROUGH COERCION AND PURCHASE, TO ENACT
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAWS CONFORMABLE TO THE PATTERN PRESCRIBED BY
CONGRESS; AND (B) THEY CONSTITUTE AN EFFORT ON THE PART OF CONGRESS,
THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF ITS SPENDING AND ITS TAXING POWERS, TO CONTROL
THE SEVERAL STATES IN MATTERS EXPRESSLY RESERVED TO THE STATES AND TO
THE PEOPLE BY THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE FEDERAL ACT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT CONTAINS AN ILLEGAL DELEGATION
OF LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL POWERS TO THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY
BOARD. 

THE EXACTIONS IMPOSED ON EMPLOYERS BY SEC. 4(A), (B), (C), AND (D) OF
THE STATE ACT ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE STATE ACT TAKES PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM ONE CLASS FOR THE USE OF
ANOTHER; ITS PURPOSE IS NOT A "PUBLIC PURPOSE," IN THE SENSE IN WHICH
THOSE WORDS ARE USED AS JUSTIFYING THE TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. 

THE EXACTIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATE ACT ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE IN THEIR CLASSIFICATION AND OTHER FEATURES
THEY ARE UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. 

THE ACT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHT OF FREE CONTRACT OF BOTH EMPLOYERS
AND EMPLOYEES. 

THE EXACTION TAKES MONEY FROM ONE ARBITRARILY SELECTED GROUP FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ANOTHER. 

THE DOCTRINE OF OFF-SETTING BENEFITS DOES NOT SUSTAIN THE EXACTION
LEVIED UPON APPELLEE AND EMPLOYERS SIMILARLY SITUATED OR JUSTIFY THEIR
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SUPPORT OF UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF. 

SUCH BENEFIT AS WILL ACCRUE TO THE TAXED EMPLOYERS WILL BE MERELY THE
GENERAL BENEFIT WHICH MAY RESULT TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE FROM GENERAL
SPENDING BY THE DETACHED UNEMPLOYED WHO DRAW THE MONEY. 

THE STATE'S ARGUMENT AS TO OFF-SETTING BENEFITS IN A WAITING LABOR
POOL WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA AND IS DISPROVEN
AND UNTENABLE. 

THE UNAVOIDABLE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ALABAMA EXACTION PROVE IT
UNTENABLE.  AN EXACT ANALOGY WOULD BE A PROPOSAL TO TAX ALL HUSBANDS
FOR A FUND OUT OF WHICH TO PAY ALIMONY TO DIVORCED WIVES, REGARDLESS OF
THEIR NEED, IN ORDER TO ASSURE THEM OF SPENDING MONEY DURING A WAITING
PERIOD, BOTH AS AN AID TO TRADE AND TO PRESERVE THEIR SOCIAL MORALE.  A
LIKE ANALOGY WOULD BE A WIDOWS' FUND, LEVIED DIRECTLY UPON HUSBANDS
OVER FORTY-FIVE AND DISBURSED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE NEED OF THOSE
WHO BECOME WIDOWED AFTER 1937. 

THE SCHEME IS NOT ONLY REVOLUTIONARY AND ARBITRARY BUT DENIES TO THE
TAXED GROUP THE EQUAL PROTECTION ENJOYED BY THOSE WHO PAY TAXES INTO
THE TREASURY. 

THE FACT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT, AS ASSERTED BY THE ALABAMA COURT,
THIS ACT IS PART OF A FEDERAL ENFORCED PLAN DIRECTLY RELATED TO AND
INTENDED TO "CUSHION" A NATION-WIDE ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.  THE
CONCEPTION OF THE PLAN, ITS ENACTMENT, PROMULGATION AND ADMINISTRATION
LEAVE NO DOUBT WHATEVER AS TO ITS INTENTION.  NOR DOES THE OPINION OF
THE ALABAMA COURT.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR THE FEDERAL BOARD, CAN
AT ANY TIME IT MAY SEE FIT WITHDRAW ITS APPROVAL OF A STATE SCHEME
WHICH DOES NOT ADVANCE ITS TAX UPON THE SELECTED GROUPS TO PROVIDE FOR
MORE EXTENSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF BENEFITS, SHOULD THE FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION CONSIDER THAT COURSE NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH CONTINUED
UNEMPLOYMENT. 

THE STATE LEGISLATURE MAY AT WILL ENLARGE THE TAX AND THE PAYMENTS. 
THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT OCCURRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BRITISH
ACT. 

THE MECHANISM EMPLOYED IN THIS ACT IS INTRINSICALLY SUBJECT TO ABUSE
AND WITHDRAWS OR WITHHOLDS FROM THE EMPLOYER TAXED:  (1) THE SAFEGUARD
OF A JUDICIAL HEARING AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FUND ACTUALLY REQUIRED,
AS TO THE BENEFIT OR APPORTIONMENT OF THE BURDEN; (2) THE SAFEGUARDS
SURROUNDING THE LEVY, BUDGETING AND APPROPRIATION OF TAXES FOR THE
PUBLIC REVENUE; (3) THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST OF ALL WHO PAY TAXES INTO
THE TREASURY AGAINST ARBITRARY APPROPRIATIONS OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR
INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, INCLUDING ALL EXISTING PRACTICAL CHECKS UPON PUBLIC
SPENDING. 

A NOVEL AND DANGEROUS MECHANISM FOR DIRECT SOCIAL TAXATION, STRIPPED
OF CONVENTIONAL SAFEGUARDS BY THE BYPASS PROCESS HERE EMPLOYED, CANNOT
BE REGARDED AS CONSTITUTIONAL FAIR PLAY. 

IT IS A REVOLUTIONARY DEVICE UNDER WHICH THE EMPLOYER GROUP TAXED IS
EXPOSED TO INDEFINITE EXPLOITATION AND BY WHICH THAT GROUP WILL BE
FORCED TO IMPORTUNE EACH LEGISLATURE FOR PROTECTION. 

THE EMPLOYER IS, IN FACT, DENIED THE TRADITIONAL BENEFITS OF
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT IN THAT THE CUSTOMARY FORMS OF APPROPRIATION
AND EXPENDITURE OF HIS FUNDS ARE DENIED HIM. 

AGAIN, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THE CONSTANT THREAT OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT STANDING OVER THIS SCHEME, TO WITHDRAW APPROVAL, PROVIDES A
CONSTANT "SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF A PENALTY," TO INDUCE THE STATE TO
ALLOW THIS SCHEME, AS SO APPROVED, TO STAND UNADJUSTED AND THE TAXED
EMPLOYERS UNHEARD. 

DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND THE EQUALITY
OF PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
REQUIRE, IN FAVOR OF THOSE WHO ARE COMPELLED TO MEET PUBLIC OBJECTIVES
BY DIRECT EXPENDITURES OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS, THE FAIR EQUIVALENT OF
THOSE FEATURES OF TAXATION NECESSARY TO FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE AND TO FREE
INSTITUTIONS; CERTAINLY THE EQUIVALENT OF THE SAFEGUARDS ASSURED TO ALL
WHO PAY TAXES DIRECTLY INTO THE TREASURY. 

THE STATE COULD NOT, CONSISTENTLY WITH DUE PROCESS, IMPOSE UPON
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYERS THE DUTY OF INSURING THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES AGAINST
UNEMPLOYMENT. 

THIS IS A STATUTE DICTATING AN ADDITION TO A FINAL WAGE, REACHED
AFTER NEGOTIATION, WHICH MUST ON THIS RECORD BE PRESUMED TO BE FAIR AND
IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ENLARGE.  WE DO NOT
UNDERSTAND THAT ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161, IS OVERRULED BY
THE VIRGINIAN RAILWAY COMPANY CASE, 300 U.S. 515, OR BY THE RAILWAY
CLERKS CASE, 281 U.S. 548.  SEE ALSO WOLFF PACKING CO. V. INDUSTRIAL
COURT, 262 U.S. 522; S.C., 267 U.S. 522.  NOR DO WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE
WEST COAST HOTEL CO. CASE, 300 U.S. 379, WAS INTENDED IN ANY SENSE TO
SUGGEST THAT A STATE LEGISLATURE MAY BY STATUTE ADD AN ARBITRARY
EXACTION TO ALL WAGES, AS THIS STATUTE, IN EFFECT, PROPOSES. 

OWING NO DUTY TO INSURE ITS OWN EMPLOYEES AGAINST UNEMPLOYMENT, NONE
CAN BE IMPOSED UPON APPELLEE AS TO EMPLOYEES OF OTHERS. 

THE LEVY OF A FLAT TAX FOR FIVE YEARS WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF
ADJUSTMENT TO APPELLEE'S BUSINESS IS ARBITRARY. 

THE PROXIMATE AND CONTROLLING EFFECT OF THE LAW IS THE EXACTION OF
MONEY FOR PRIVATE DONATIONS. 

THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFITS REGARDLESS OF NEED IS
ARBITRARY. 

THE STATE ACT AND THE ALABAMA OPINION ERRONEOUSLY ASSUME THAT THE
RIGHT TO EMPLOY OR BE EMPLOYED IS A FRANCHISE THAT MAY BE GRANTED ON
CONDITION THAT THE PARTIES ASSUME EXTRANEOUS OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATE. 

THE TAX UPON EMPLOYEES LEVIED BY SEC. 4(D) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS A
SCHEME FOR COMPULSORY SELF-INSURANCE. 

THE TAX CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS TO THE EMPLOYER AND IS VOID AS TO
EMPLOYEE, AND VICE VERSA, SINCE THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO
HAVE LEVIED A TAX FOR A SUPPOSEDLY RATIONAL OBJECTIVE IN DOUBLE THE
AMOUNT OF THE PUBLIC NEED, WHICH ALONE IS SAID TO JUSTIFY THE
CLASSIFICATION OR BENEFIT. 

THE NUMBER AND WEEKS CLASSIFICATION OF THE STATE ACT, WHICH EXCLUDES
MORE THAN SEVENTY PER CENT. OF THE EMPLOYEE POPULATION OF ALABAMA, IS
PLAINLY ARBITRARY AS RELATED TO THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ACT. 

A STATE MAY NOT CONTRACT OR DELEGATE AWAY ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER NOR
ANY FUNCTION OF ITS SOVEREIGNTY, EVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; NOR
LAWFULLY CONNIVE AT THE ASSUMPTION OF NON-FEDERAL POWERS BY THE
LATTER. 

THE USURPATION OF STATE FUNCTION INTRINSIC IN THE FEDERAL SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT AND THE ILLEGAL ACQUIESCENCE BY THE STATE BY THE ADOPTION
OF THE STATE ACT ARE DESTRUCTIVE OF THE FEDERAL BALANCE AND VOID. 

TITLES III AND IX OF THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY ACT CONSTITUTE A
SCHEME FOR THE CONTROL OF FUNCTIONS BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ARE VOID. 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT WAS CONCEIVED AND FINALLY DRAFTED AND ITS
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE FULLY PROCLAIMED BEFORE RECENT CONTROLLING
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ADVERSE TO THE USE OF THE TAX-CREDIT DEVICE TO
INDUCE LOCAL ACTION.  UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1; CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238; RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R.
CO., 295 U.S. 330. 

THE DOMINANT PURPOSE, CHARACTERISTIC AND EFFECT OF THE TAX-REBATE
DEVICE OF TITLE IX ARE MANIFESTLY COERCIVE TO FORCE THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEMS WITHIN ALL THE STATES, PARTICIPATED
IN, AND IN SUBSTANTIAL RESPECTS CONTROLLED BY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

THE CREDITS ALLOWABLE UNDER TITLE IX FOR GOOD CONDUCT UNDER A STATE
LAW ARE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE DOMINANT PURPOSE OF THE TITLE IS
NOT REVENUE BUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SYSTEMS
WITHIN THE STATES. 

THE REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY, WHICH
DETERMINED THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ACT, ACCOMPANYING THE MESSAGE
OF JANUARY 17, 1936, LEAVES NO DOUBT AS TO THE DOMINANT PURPOSE AND
RATIONALE OF TITLE IX, AS AN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AND NOT A TAX
MEASURE. 

NOT ONLY DOES THE FEDERAL ACT BY TITLE IX COERCE, BUT BY TITLE III IT
PURCHASES THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
APPROVAL, OF STATE COMPENSATION SYSTEMS AND THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF
STATE FUNDS. 

THE OBJECTIVES OF THE FEDERAL ACT, NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH IS
PENALIZED BY THE TAX-CREDIT DEVICE OF TITLE IX AND COMPLIANCE WITH
WHICH IS PURCHASED BY THE APPROPRIATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO TITLE III,
ARE BEYOND THE ORBIT OF FEDERAL POWER. 

THE TAX LEVIED BY TITLE IX IS IN VIOLATION OF ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 4,
AND ART. I, SEC. 2, CL. 3, OF THE CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE TAX IS A
DIRECT TAX LEVIED WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT UPON THE BASIC NATURAL RIGHT OF
HAVING PERSONS IN ONE'S EMPLOY. 

THE APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY TITLE III ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO NON
FEDERAL OBJECTIVES AND ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE WHETHER THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
ACT OF ALABAMA INFRINGES THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND WHETHER IT IS INVALID BECAUSE ITS
ENACTMENT WAS COERCED BY THE ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN
ADOPTING THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AND BECAUSE IT INVOLVES AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SURRENDER TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE SOVEREIGN
POWER OF THE STATE. 

APPELLEE, THE SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., IS A DELAWARE CORPORATION
EMPLOYING MORE THAN EIGHT PERSONS IN ITS BUSINESS OF COAL MINING IN
ALABAMA.  APPELLEE, GULF STATES PAPER CORPORATION, IS A DELAWARE
CORPORATION EMPLOYING MORE THAN EIGHT PERSONS IN ITS BUSINESS OF
MANUFACTURING PAPER WITHIN THE STATE.  THEY BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUITS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, TO RESTRAIN
APPELLANTS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
COMMISSION OF ALABAMA, FROM COLLECTING THE MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS EXACTED
OF THEM BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ALABAMA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
ACT.  FROM THE DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THREE JUDGES SITTING
(JUD.  CODE, SEC. 266, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 380), GRANTING THE RELIEF PRAYED,
THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL.  JUD.  CODE, SEC. 238(3), 28 U.S.C.,
SEC. 345(3). 

THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, ALA. ACTS 1935, NO. 447; ALA. CODE
OF 1928(1936 CUM. SUPP.) SECS. 7597(1) ET SEQ., AS AMENDED BY ACTS OF
1936, NOS. 156, 194, 195, AND ACTS OF FEB. 10, 1937, AND MARCH 1, 1937,
SPEC. SESS. 1937, SETS UP A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR PROVIDING
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR WORKERS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE BY
EMPLOYERS DESIGNATED BY THE ACT.  THESE EMPLOYERS INCLUDE ALL WHO
EMPLOY EIGHT OR MORE PERSONS FOR TWENTY OR MORE WEEKS IN THE YEAR, SEC.
2(F), EXCEPT THOSE ENGAGED IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED EMPLOYMENTS.  FN1  IT
IMPOSES ON THE EMPLOYERS THE OBLIGATION TO PAY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF
THEIR TOTAL MONTHLY PAYROLLS INTO THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
FUND, ADMINISTERED BY APPELLANTS.  FOR 1936 THE LEVY IS .9 OF 1%; FOR
1937 IT IS 1.8% AND FOR 1938 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS IT IS 2.7%.  SEC.
4(B).  IN 1941 AND THEREAFTER THE RATES OF CONTRIBUTION BY EMPLOYERS
ARE TO BE REVISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXPERIENCE, BUT IN NO CASE ARE
THEY TO BE LESS THAN 1 1/2 OR MORE THAN 4% OF THE PAYROLL.  SEC. 4(C). 
AFTER MAY 1, 1936, EACH EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE 1% OF HIS
WAGES TO THE FUND.  SEC. 4(D).  THE FUND IS TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE
"UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND" OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, SEC. 3(D),
CF. SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, SEC. 904(A), AND IS TO BE USED AS
REQUISITIONED BY THE STATE COMMISSION, TO PAY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE, SECS. 3(B), 3(D), BUT WITHOUT ANY LIABILITY
ON THE PART OF THE STATE BEYOND AMOUNTS PAID INTO OR EARNED BY THE
FUND.  BENEFITS ARE PAYABLE FROM THE FUND TO THE EMPLOYEES COVERED BY
THE ACT, IN THE EVENT OF THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT, UPON PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS
AND AT PRESCRIBED RATES. 

THE ACT SATISFIES THE CRITERIA WHICH, BY SEC. 903(A) OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT OF AUGUST 14, 1935, C. 531, 49 STAT. 620, 640, 42 U.S.C.
SEC. 1103(A), ARE MADE PREREQUISITE TO ITS APPROVAL BY THE SOCIAL
SECURITY BOARD CREATED BY THAT ACT, AND IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE
BOARD AS THAT SECTION DIRECTS.  BY SEC. 902 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT,
CONTRIBUTORS TO THE STATE FUND ARE ENTITLED TO CREDIT THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS IN SATISFACTION OF THE TAX IMPOSED ON EMPLOYERS BY THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, TO THE EXTENT OF 90% OF THE TAX.  SEE CHAS. C.
STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, DECIDED THIS DAY, POST, P. 548. 

IN THE COURT BELOW, THE STATUTE WAS ASSAILED AS REPUGNANT TO VARIOUS
PROVISIONS OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  THESE CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN PUT
AT REST BY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA IN BEELAND
WHOLESALE CO. V. KAUFMAN, 174 SO. 516, HOLDING THE STATE ACT VALID
UNDER BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.  THE STATUTE WAS ALSO
ATTACKED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT IS INVALID UNDER
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, SINCE THE STATE ACT DECLARES THAT IT "SHALL
BECOME VOID" IF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL HOLD THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT INVALID.  THE ALABAMA COURT INTERPRETED THE STATUTE
AS HAVING OPERATIVE EFFECT ONLY IF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT WERE
CONSTITUTIONAL - EVEN IN ADVANCE OF A DECISION BY THIS COURT.  WE NEED
NOT DECIDE WHETHER THE STATE COURT'S RULING THAT THE FEDERAL STATUTE IS
VALID IS CONCLUSIVE UPON US FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE
STATE LAW IS PRESENTLY IN FORCE, MILLER'S EXECUTORS V. SWANN, 150 U.S.
132; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. WESTERN UNION, 237 U.S. 300,
BECAUSE ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE FEDERAL ACT AGREES
WITH OUR OWN, ANNOUNCED IN CHAS. C. STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS,
SUPRA. 

ATTACKS WERE LEVELED AT THE STATUTE ON NUMEROUS OTHER GROUNDS, WHICH
ARE URGED HERE,  - AS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
SURRENDER TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE
STATE, AND AS A MEASURE OWING ITS PASSAGE TO THE COERCIVE ACTION OF
CONGRESS IN THE ENACTMENT OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 

IN BEELAND WHOLESALE CO. V. KAUFMAN, SUPRA, THE SUPREME COURT OF
ALABAMA HELD THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS WHICH THE STATUTE EXACTS OF
EMPLOYERS ARE EXCISE TAXES LAID IN CONFORMITY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND
LAWS OF THE STATE.  WHILE THE PARTICULAR NAME WHICH A STATE COURT OR
LEGISLATURE MAY GIVE TO A MONEY PAYMENT COMMANDED BY ITS STATUTE IS NOT
CONTROLLING HERE WHEN ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY IS IN QUESTION, CF.
EDUCATIONAL FILMS CO. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, 387; STORAASLI V.
MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 57, 62; WAGNER V. COVINGTON, 251 U.S. 95, 102;
STANDARD OIL CO. V. GRAVES, 249 U.S. 389, 394, WE SEE NO REASON TO
DOUBT THAT THE PRESENT STATUTE IS AN EXERTION OF THE TAXING POWER OF
THE STATE.  CF. CARLEY & HAMILTON V. SNOOK, 281 U.S. 66, 71. 

TAXES, WHICH ARE BUT THE MEANS OF DISTRIBUTING THE BURDEN OF THE COST
OF GOVERNMENT, ARE COMMONLY LEVIED ON PROPERTY OR ITS USE, BUT THEY MAY
LIKEWISE BE LAID ON THE EXERCISE OF PERSONAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.  AS
HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE OPINION IN THE CHAS. C. STEWARD MACHINE CO.
CASE, SUCH LEVIES, INCLUDING TAXES ON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO
EMPLOY OR TO BE EMPLOYED, WERE KNOWN IN ENGLAND AND THE COLONIES BEFORE
THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND MUST BE TAKEN TO BE EMBRACED
WITHIN THE WIDE RANGE OF CHOICE OF SUBJECTS OF TAXATION, WHICH WAS AN
ATTRIBUTE OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE STATES AT THE TIME OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND WHICH WAS RESERVED TO THEM BY THAT
INSTRUMENT.  AS THE PRESENT LEVY HAS ALL THE INDICIA OF A TAX, AND IS
OF A TYPE TRADITIONAL IN THE HISTORY OF ANGLO-AMERICAN LEGISLATION, IT
IS WITHIN STATE TAXING POWER, AND IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER IT IS CALLED
AN EXCISE OR BY ANOTHER NAME.  SEE BARWISE V. SHEPPARD, 299 U.S. 33,
36.  ITS VALIDITY UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS TO BE DETERMINED IN
THE LIGHT OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO STATE TAXATION. 

VALIDITY OF THE TAX UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

FIRST.  VALIDITY OF THE TAX QUA TAX.  IT IS INHERENT IN THE EXERCISE
OF THE POWER TO TAX THAT A STATE BE FREE TO SELECT THE SUBJECTS OF
TAXATION AND TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS.  NEITHER DUE PROCESS NOR EQUAL
PROTECTION IMPOSES UPON A STATE ANY RIGID RULE OF EQUALITY OF
TAXATION.  SEE BELL'S GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 134 U.S. 232, 237;
LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276, 284.  THIS COURT HAS
REPEATEDLY HELD THAT INEQUALITIES WHICH RESULT FROM A SINGLING OUT OF
ONE PARTICULAR CLASS FOR TAXATION OR EXEMPTION, INFRINGE NO
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION.  MAGOUN V. ILLINOIS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK,
170 U.S. 283, 293; AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. V. LOUISIANA, 179 U.S.
89, 94; ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. LACY, 200 U.S. 226, 235; BROWN-FORMAN CO.
V. KENTUCKY, 217 U.S. 563, 573; QUONG WING V. KIRKENDALL, 223 U.S. 59,
62, 63; ARMOUR & CO. V. VIRGINIA, 246 U.S. 1, 6; ALASKA FISH CO. V.
SMITH, 255 U.S. 44, 48; STATE BOARD OF TAX COMM'RS V. JACKSON, 283 U.S.
527, 537; BROAD RIVER POWER CO. V. QUERY, 288 U.S. 178, 180; FOX V.
STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87, 97; CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED
STATES, ANTE, P. 308; GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN,
ANTE, P. 412. 

LIKE CONSIDERATIONS GOVERN EXEMPTIONS FROM THE OPERATION OF A TAX
IMPOSED ON THE MEMBERS OF A CLASS.  A LEGISLATURE IS NOT BOUND TO TAX
EVERY MEMBER OF A CLASS OR NONE.  IT MAY MAKE DISTINCTIONS OF DEGREE
HAVING A RATIONAL BASIS, AND WHEN SUBJECTED TO JUDICIAL SCRUTINY THEY
MUST BE PRESUMED TO REST ON THAT BASIS IF THERE IS ANY CONCEIVABLE
STATE OF FACTS WHICH WOULD SUPPORT IT.  RAST V. VAN DEMAN & LEWIS CO.,
240 U.S. 342, 357; HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S. 245, 255;
SWISS OIL CORP. V. SHANKS, 273 U.S. 407, 413; LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX
COMM'N, SUPRA; CF. METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. V. BROWNELL, 294
U.S. 580, 584. 

THIS RESTRICTION UPON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION, IN PASSING ON THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTES, IS NOT ARTIFICIAL OR IRRATIONAL.  A
STATE LEGISLATURE, IN THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS, HAS THE WIDEST POSSIBLE
LATITUDE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN THE NATURE OF THE
CASE IT CANNOT RECORD A COMPLETE CATALOGUE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH
MOVE ITS MEMBERS TO ENACT LAWS.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A RECORD COURTS
CANNOT ASSUME THAT ITS ACTION IS CAPRICIOUS, OR THAT, WITH ITS INFORMED
ACQUAINTANCE WITH LOCAL CONDITIONS TO WHICH THE LEGISLATION IS TO BE
APPLIED, IT WAS NOT AWARE OF FACTS WHICH AFFORD REASONABLE BASIS FOR
ITS ACTION.  ONLY BY FAITHFUL ADHERENCE TO THIS GUIDING PRINCIPLE OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATION IS IT POSSIBLE TO PRESERVE TO THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ITS RIGHTFUL INDEPENDENCE AND ITS ABILITY TO
FUNCTION. 

(A)  EXCLUSION OF EMPLOYERS OF LESS THAN EIGHT.  DISTINCTIONS IN
DEGREE, STATED IN TERMS OF DIFFERENCES IN NUMBER, HAVE OFTEN BEEN THE
TARGET OF ATTACK, SEE BOOTH V. INDIANA, 237 U.S. 391, 397.  IT IS
ARGUED HERE, AND IT WAS RULED BY THE COURT BELOW, THAT THERE CAN BE NO
REASON FOR A DISTINCTION, FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION, BETWEEN THOSE WHO
HAVE ONLY SEVEN EMPLOYEES AND THOSE WHO HAVE EIGHT.  YET, THIS IS THE
TYPE OF DISTINCTION WHICH THE LAW IS OFTEN CALLED UPON TO MAKE.  FN2 IT
IS ONLY A DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS WHICH MARKS THE MOMENT WHEN DAY ENDS
AND NIGHT BEGINS, WHEN THE DISABILITIES OF INFANCY TERMINATE AND THE
STATUS OF LEGAL COMPETENCY IS ASSUMED.  IT SEPARATES LARGE INCOMES
WHICH ARE TAXED FROM THE SMALLER ONES WHICH ARE EXEMPT, AS IT MARKS
HERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPRIETORS OF LARGER BUSINESSES WHO
ARE TAXED AND THE PROPRIETORS OF SMALLER BUSINESSES WHO ARE NOT. 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE AND EXPENSE IN THE COLLECTION OR
MEASUREMENT OF THE TAX ARE ALONE A SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TREATMENT OF SMALL INCOMES OR SMALL TAXPAYERS
AND THAT METED OUT TO OTHERS.  CITIZENS' TELEPHONE CO. V. FULLER, 229
U.S. 322, 332; HATCH V. REARDON, 204 U.S. 152, 159; NEW YORK V.
LATROBE, 279 U.S. 421, 428; AERO TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N, 295 U.S. 285, 289.  CF. FLORIDA CENTRAL & PENINSULAR R. CO. V.
REYNOLDS, 183 U.S. 471, 480; PACKER CORP. V. UTAH, 285 U.S. 105, 110,
FOOTNOTE 6.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE OF
COLLECTING THE TAX FROM SMALL EMPLOYERS WOULD NOT BE DISPROPORTIONATE
TO THE REVENUE OBTAINED.  FOR IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE LEGISLATURE
COULD NOT RIGHTLY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT GENERALLY THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
BEARS A RELATIONSHIP TO THE SIZE OF THE PAYROLL AND THEREFORE TO THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX, AND THAT THE LARGE NUMBER OF SMALL EMPLOYERS AND THE
PAUCITY OF THEIR RECORDS OF EMPLOYMENT WOULD ENTAIL GREATER
INCONVENIENCE IN THE COLLECTION AND VERIFICATION OF THE TAX THAN IN THE
CASE OF LARGER EMPLOYERS. 

IT WOULD HARDLY BE CONTENDED THAT THE STATE, IN ORDER TO TAX
PAYROLLS, IS BOUND TO ASSUME THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST AND BURDEN OF
TAXING ALL EMPLOYERS HAVING A SINGLE EMPLOYEE.  BUT IF FOR THAT OR ANY
OTHER REASON IT MAY EXEMPT SOME, WHETHER IT SHOULD DRAW THE LINE AT
ONE, THREE, OR SEVEN, IS PECULIARLY A QUESTION FOR LEGISLATIVE
DECISION.  THE DECISION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ARBITRARY BECAUSE IT FALLS
IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE BETWEEN THOSE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHICH PLAINLY
CAN AND THOSE WHICH PLAINLY CANNOT EXPEDIENTLY BE TAXED. 

(B)  EXEMPTION OF PARTICULAR CLASSES OF EMPLOYERS.  IT IS ARBITRARY,
APPELLEES CONTEND, TO EXEMPT THOSE WHO EMPLOY AGRICULTURAL LABORERS,
DOMESTIC SERVANTS, SEAMEN, INSURANCE AGENTS, OR CLOSE RELATIVES, OR TO
EXCLUDE CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, INTERSTATE RAILWAYS, OR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF ANY STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION.  A
SUFFICIENT ANSWER IS AN APPEAL TO THE PRINCIPLE OF TAXATION ALREADY
STATED, THAT THE STATE IS FREE TO SELECT A PARTICULAR CLASS AS A
SUBJECT FOR TAXATION.  THE CHARACTER OF THE EXEMPTIONS SUGGESTS SIMPLY
THAT THE STATE HAS CHOSEN, AS THE SUBJECT OF ITS TAX, THOSE WHO EMPLOY
LABOR IN THE PROCESSES OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION. 

REASONS FOR THE SELECTIONS, IF DESIRED, READILY SUGGEST THEMSELVES. 
WHERE THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS SERVED ONE BUSINESS MAY BE LEFT UNTAXED
AND ANOTHER TAXED, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE ONE, AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING
CO. V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA; HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., SUPRA; AERO
TRANSIT CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, SUPRA, OR TO RESTRICT OR
SUPPRESS THE OTHER, MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40; FOX V.
STANDARD OIL CO., SUPRA; QUONG WING V. KIRKENDALL, SUPRA; SINGER SEWING
MACHINE CO. V. BRICKELL, 233 U.S. 304; ALASKA FISH CO. V. SMITH, SUPRA,
48; GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, SUPRA.  THE
LEGISLATURE MAY WITHHOLD THE BURDEN OF THE TAX IN ORDER TO FOSTER WHAT
IT CONCEIVES TO BE A BENEFICENT ENTERPRISE.  THIS COURT HAS OFTEN
SUSTAINED THE EXEMPTION OF CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, BELL'S GAP R. CO.
V. PENNSYLVANIA, SUPRA, 237; CF. BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ILLINOIS, 203
U.S. 553, 563, AND EXEMPTION FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. V. LOUISIANA, SUPRA, 95; AERO TRANSIT CO.
V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, SUPRA, 291.  SIMILARLY, THE
LEGISLATURE IS FREE TO AID A DEPRESSED INDUSTRY SUCH AS SHIPPING.  THE
EXEMPTION OF BUSINESS OPERATING FOR LESS THAN TWENTY WEEKS IN THE YEAR
MAY REST UPON SIMILAR REASONS, OR UPON THE DESIRE TO ENCOURAGE SEASONAL
OR UNSTABLE INDUSTRIES. 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS MAY EXPLAIN SEVERAL EXEMPTIONS. 
RELATIVELY GREAT EXPENSE AND INCONVENIENCE OF COLLECTION MAY JUSTIFY
THE EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION OF DOMESTIC EMPLOYERS, FARMERS, AND FAMILY
BUSINESSES, NOT LIKELY TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT RECORDS, WHICH
ARE AN IMPORTANT AID IN THE COLLECTION AND VERIFICATION OF THE TAX. 
THE STATE MAY REASONABLY WAIVE THE FORMALITY OF TAXING ITSELF OR ITS
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.  FEAR OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS, AND A
WHOLESOME RESPECT FOR THE PROPER POLICY OF ANOTHER SOVEREIGN, WOULD
EXPLAIN EXEMPTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND OF THE INTERSTATE RAILWAYS,
COMPARE PACKER CORP. V. UTAH, SUPRA, 109.  IN NO CASE DO APPELLEES
SUSTAIN THE BURDEN WHICH RESTS UPON THEM OF SHOWING THAT THERE ARE NO
DIFFERENCES, BETWEEN THE EXEMPT EMPLOYERS AND THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS
WHO ARE TAXED, SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY DIFFERENCES IN TAXATION. 

(C)  TAX ON EMPLOYEES.  APPELLEES EXTEND THEIR ATTACK ON THE STATUTE
FROM THE TAX IMPOSED ON THEM AS EMPLOYERS TO THE TAX IMPOSED ON
EMPLOYEES.  BUT THEY CANNOT OBJECT TO A TAX WHICH THEY ARE NOT ASKED TO
PAY, AT LEAST IF IT IS SEPARABLE, AS WE THINK IT IS, FROM THE TAX THEY
MUST PAY.  THE STATUTE CONTAINS THE USUAL SEPARABILITY CLAUSE.  SEC.
19.  THE TAXATION OF EMPLOYEES IS NOT PREREQUISITE TO ENJOYMENT OF THE
BENEFITS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF
THE TAX ON EMPLOYERS DO NOT DEPEND UPON TAXING THE EMPLOYEES, AND WE
FIND NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE OR ITS APPLICATION TO
SUGGEST THAT THE TAX ON EMPLOYEES IS SO ESSENTIAL TO THE OPERATION OF
THE STATUTE AS TO RESTRICT THE EFFECT OF THE SEPARABILITY CLAUSE. 
DISTINCT TAXES IMPOSED BY A SINGLE STATUTE ARE NOT TO BE DEEMED
INSEPARABLE UNLESS THAT CONCLUSION IS UNAVOIDABLE.  SEE FIELD V. CLARK,
143 U.S. 649, 697; SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506.    FROM
WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE TAX QUA TAX CONFORMS TO
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT OUR INQUIRY AS TO ITS VALIDITY
WOULD END AT THIS POINT IF THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX WERE TO BE COVERED
INTO THE STATE TREASURY, AND THUS MADE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION BY THE
LEGISLATURE. 

SECOND.  VALIDITY OF THE TAX AS DETERMINED BY ITS PURPOSES.  THE
DEVOTION OF THE TAX TO THE PURPOSES SPECIFIED BY THE ACT REQUIRES OUR
CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIONS PRESSED UPON US THAT THE TAX IS INVALID
BECAUSE THE PURPOSES ARE INVALID, AND BECAUSE THE METHODS CHOSEN FOR
THEIR EXECUTION TRANSGRESS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.  IT IS NOT
DENIED THAT SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT STATE TAXING
POWER CAN BE EXERTED ONLY TO EFFECT A PUBLIC PURPOSE AND DOES NOT
EMBRACE THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES.  SEE GREEN V.
FRAZIER, 253 U.S. 233, 238; MILHEIM V. MOFFAT TUNNEL DIST., 262 U.S.
710, 717; FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DIST. V. BRADLEY, 164 U.S. 112, 158;
JONES V. PORTLAND, 245 U.S. 217, 221.  THE STATES, BY THEIR
CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS, MAY SET THEIR OWN LIMITS UPON THEIR SPENDING
POWER, SEE LOAN ASSOCIATION V. TOPEKA, 20 WALL.  655; CF. PARKERSBURG
V. BROWN, 106 U.S. 487; COLE V. LA GRANGE, 113 U.S. 1, BUT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS LEAVE FREE SCOPE FOR THE EXERCISE OF A WIDE
LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHAT EXPENDITURES WILL SERVE THE
PUBLIC INTEREST. 

THIS COURT HAS LONG AND CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE PUBLIC
PURPOSES OF A STATE, FOR WHICH IT MAY RAISE FUNDS BY TAXATION, EMBRACE
EXPENDITURES FOR ITS GENERAL WELFARE.  FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DIST. V.
BRADLEY, SUPRA, 161; GREEN V. FRAZIER, SUPRA, 240, 241.  THE EXISTENCE
OF LOCAL CONDITIONS WHICH, BECAUSE OF THEIR NATURE AND EXTENT, ARE OF
CONCERN TO THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE, THE MODES OF ADVANCING THE PUBLIC
INTEREST BY CORRECTING THEM OR AVOIDING THEIR CONSEQUENCES, ARE
PECULIARLY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND TO IT, AND NOT
TO THE COURTS, IS COMMITTED THE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING
CHOICE OF THE POSSIBLE METHODS.  SEE FALLBROOK IRRIGATION DIST. V.
BRADLEY, SUPRA, 160; JONES V. PORTLAND, SUPRA, 221, 224, 225; GREEN V.
FRAZIER, SUPRA, 239, 240.  AS WITH EXPENDITURES FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE
OF THE UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 67;
HELVERING V. DAVIS, POST, P. 619, WHETHER THE PRESENT EXPENDITURE
SERVES A PUBLIC PURPOSE IS A PRACTICAL QUESTION ADDRESSED TO THE LAW
MAKING DEPARTMENT, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE A PLAIN CASE OF DEPARTURE FROM
EVERY PUBLIC PURPOSE WHICH COULD REASONABLY BE CONCEIVED TO JUSTIFY THE
INTERVENTION OF A COURT.  SEE CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA; CF. JONES V. PORTLAND, SUPRA.  THE PRESENT CASE EXHIBITS NO SUCH
DEPARTURE. 

(A)  RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT AS A PUBLIC PURPOSE.  SUPPORT OF THE POOR
HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A PUBLIC PURPOSE, SEE KELLY V. PITTSBURGH,
104 U.S. 78, 81.  WE NEED NOT LABOR THE POINT THAT EXPENDITURES FOR THE
RELIEF OF THE UNEMPLOYED, CONDITIONED ON UNEMPLOYMENT ALONE, WITHOUT
PROOF OF INDIGENCE OF RECIPIENTS OF THE BENEFITS, IS A PERMISSIBLE USE
OF STATE FUNDS.  FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS THE NATION, UNHAPPILY, HAS BEEN
PLACED IN A POSITION TO LEARN AT FIRST HAND THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
THE PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT, AND TO APPRECIATE ITS PROFOUND INFLUENCE
UPON THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  DETAILED ACCOUNTS OF THE PROBLEM AND ITS
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES, TO BE FOUND IN PUBLIC REPORTS OF THE
EXPENDITURES OF RELIEF FUNDS, AND IN THE STUDIES OF MANY OBSERVERS,
AFFORD A BASIS FOR THE LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.  IT SUFFICES TO SAY THAT
THEY SHOW THAT UNEMPLOYMENT APPARENTLY HAS BECOME A PERMANENT INCIDENT
OF OUR INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM; THAT IT VARIES, IN EXTENT AND INTENSITY, WITH
FLUCTUATIONS IN THE VOLUME OF SEASONAL BUSINESSES AND WITH THE BUSINESS
CYCLE.  IT IS DEPENDENT, WITH SPECIAL AND UNPREDICTABLE MANIFESTATIONS,
UPON TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AND ADVANCES IN METHODS OF MANUFACTURE, UPON
CHANGING DEMANDS FOR MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS - DICTATED BY CHANGES IN
FASHION OR THE CREATION OF DESIRABLE SUBSTITUTES, AND UPON THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW SOURCES OF COMPETITION. 

THE EVILS OF THE ATTENDANT SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC WASTAGE PERMEATE THE
ENTIRE SOCIAL STRUCTURE.  APART FROM POVERTY, OR A LESS EXTREME
IMPAIRMENT OF THE SAVINGS WHICH AFFORD THE CHIEF PROTECTION TO THE
WORKING CLASS AGAINST OLD AGE AND THE HAZARDS OF ILLNESS, A MATTER OF
INESTIMABLE CONSEQUENCE TO SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, AND APART FROM THE LOSS
OF PURCHASING POWER, THE LEGISLATURE COULD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
UNEMPLOYMENT BRINGS IN ITS WAKE INCREASE IN VAGRANCY AND CRIMES AGAINST
PROPERTY,  FN3 REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF MARRIAGES,  FN4
DETERIORATION OF FAMILY LIFE, DECLINE IN THE BIRTH RATE,  FN5  INCREASE
IN ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS,  FN6  IMPAIRMENT OF THE HEALTH OF THE
UNEMPLOYED AND THEIR FAMILIES  FN7  AND MALNUTRITION OF THEIR
CHILDREN.  FN8 

ALTHOUGH EMPLOYMENT IN ALABAMA IS PREDOMINANTLY IN AGRICULTURE, AND
THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT AGRICULTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT IS NOT AN ACUTE
PROBLEM, THE CENSUS REPORTS DISCLOSE THE STEADILY INCREASING PERCENTAGE
OF THOSE EMPLOYED IN INDUSTRIAL PURSUITS IN ALABAMA.  FN9  THE TOTAL
AMOUNT SPENT FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF IN ALABAMA, IN THE YEARS 1933 TO 1935
INCLUSIVE, EXCEEDED $47,000,000, OF WHICH $312,000 CAME FROM STATE
FUNDS, $2,243,000 FROM LOCAL SOURCES, AND THE BALANCE FROM RELIEF FUNDS
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  FN10  THESE FIGURES BEAR ELOQUENT WITNESS
TO THE INABILITY OF LOCAL AGENCIES TO COPE WITH THE PROBLEM WITHOUT
STATE ACTION AND RESORT TO NEW TAXING LEGISLATION.  EXPENDITURE OF
PUBLIC FUNDS UNDER THE PRESENT STATUTE, FOR RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT,
WILL AFFORD SOME PROTECTION TO A SUBSTANTIAL GROUP OF EMPLOYEES,  FN11
AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS NOT FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE. 

THE END BEING LEGITIMATE, THE MEANS IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO
CHOOSE.  WHEN PUBLIC EVILS ENSUE FROM INDIVIDUAL MISFORTUNES OR NEEDS,
THE LEGISLATURE MAY STRIKE AT THE EVIL AT ITS SOURCE.  IF THE PURPOSE
IS LEGITIMATE BECAUSE PUBLIC, IT WILL NOT BE DEFEATED BECAUSE THE
EXECUTION OF IT INVOLVES PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS.  KELLY V. PITTSBURGH,
SUPRA; KNIGHTS V. JACKSON, 260 U.S. 12, 15; CF. MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219, 239-240.  "INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS ARE AIDED
ONLY AS THE COMMON INTEREST IS SAFEGUARDED."  SEE COCHRAN V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION, 281 U.S. 370, 375; CF. CLARK V. NASH, 198 U.S. 361, 367;
HAIRSTON V. DANVILLE & WESTERN RY. CO., 208 U.S. 598, 608; NOBLE STATE
BANK V. HASKELL, 219 U.S. 104, 110. 

(B)  EXTENSION OF BENEFITS.  THE PRESENT SCHEME OF UNEMPLOYMENT
RELIEF IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY, AS RESPONDENTS
ARGUE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE INDIGENT OR BECAUSE IT IS
EXTENDED TO SOME LESS DESERVING THAN OTHERS, SUCH AS THOSE DISCHARGED
FOR MISCONDUCT.  WHILE WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE STATE COULD HAVE LIMITED
ITS AWARD OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO THE INDIGENT AND TO THOSE WHO HAD
NOT BEEN RIGHTFULLY DISCHARGED FROM THEIR EMPLOYMENT, IT WAS NOT BOUND
TO DO SO.  POVERTY IS ONE, BUT NOT THE ONLY EVIL CONSEQUENCE OF
UNEMPLOYMENT.  AMONG THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY RELIEF IS THE AVOIDANCE OF
DESTITUTION, AND OF THE GATHERING CLOUD OF EVILS WHICH BESET THE
WORKER, HIS FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY AFTER WAGES CEASE AND BEFORE
DESTITUTION BEGINS.  WE ARE NOT UNAWARE THAT INDUSTRIAL WORKERS ARE NOT
AN AFFLUENT CLASS, AND WE CANNOT SAY THAT A SCHEME FOR THE AWARD OF
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, TO BE MADE ONLY AFTER A SUBSTANTIAL "WAITING
PERIOD" OF UNEMPLOYMENT, AND THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF HALF WAGES AND
NOT MORE THAN $15 A WEEK FOR AT MOST 16 WEEKS A YEAR, DOES NOT EFFECT A
PUBLIC PURPOSE, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ALSO SET UP AN ELABORATE MACHINERY
FOR EXCLUDING THOSE FROM ITS BENEFITS WHO ARE NOT INDIGENT.  MOREOVER,
THE STATE COULD RIGHTFULLY DECIDE NOT TO DISCOURAGE THRIFT.  MOUNTAIN
TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA, 240.  AND AS THE INJURIOUS EFFECTS OF
UNEMPLOYMENT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE UNEMPLOYED WORKER, THERE IS SCOPE
FOR LEGISLATION TO MITIGATE THOSE EFFECTS, EVEN THOUGH UNEMPLOYMENT
RESULTS FROM HIS DISCHARGE FOR CAUSE. 

(C)  RESTRICTION OF BENEFITS.  APPELLEES AGAIN CHALLENGE THE TAX BY
ATTACKING AS ARBITRARY THE CLASSIFICATION ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE
FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.  ONLY THE EMPLOYEES OF
THOSE SUBJECT TO THE TAX SHARE IN THE BENEFITS.  APPELLEES COMPLAIN
THAT THE RELIEF IS WITHHELD FROM MANY AS DESERVING AS THOSE WHO RECEIVE
BENEFITS.  THE CHOICE OF BENEFICIARIES, LIKE THE SELECTION OF THE
SUBJECTS OF THE TAX, IS THUS SAID TO BE SO ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY
AS TO INFRINGE THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND DEPRIVE THE STATUTE OF ANY
PUBLIC PURPOSE. 

WHAT WE HAVE SAID AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE CHOICE OF THE SUBJECTS OF
THE TAX IS APPLICABLE IN LARGE MEASURE TO THE CHOICE OF BENEFICIARIES
OF THE RELIEF.  IN ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS THE
LEGISLATURE IS NOT BOUND TO OCCUPY THE WHOLE FIELD.  IT MAY STRIKE AT
THE EVIL WHERE IT IS MOST FELT, OTIS V. PARKER, 187 U.S. 606, 610;
CARROLL V. GREENWICH INSURANCE CO., 199 U.S. 401, 411; LINDSLEY V.
NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61, 81; CENTRAL LUMBER CO. V. SOUTH
DAKOTA, 226 U.S. 157, 160; ROSENTHAL V. NEW YORK, 226 U.S. 260, 270;
PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138, 144; KEOKEE COKE CO. V. TAYLOR,
234 U.S. 224, 227; SILVER V. SILVER, 280 U.S. 117, 123; HARDWARE
DEALERS MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. V. GLIDDEN CO., 284 U.S. 151, 159, OR
WHERE IT IS MOST PRACTICABLE TO DEAL WITH IT, DOMINION HOTEL V.
ARIZONA, 249 U.S. 265, 268-269.  IT MAY EXCLUDE OTHERS WHOSE NEED IS
LESS, NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. NEW YORK, 165 U.S. 628, 634; ST.
LOUIS CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. V. ILLINOIS, 185 U.S. 203, 208; ENGEL V.
O'MALLEY, 219 U.S. 128, 138; N.Y. CENTRAL R. CO. V. WHITE, 243 U.S.
188, 208; RADICE V. NEW YORK, 264 U.S. 292, 294; WEST COAST HOTEL CO.
V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379, OR WHOSE EFFECTIVE AID IS ATTENDED BY
INCONVENIENCE WHICH IS GREATER, DOMINION HOTEL V. ARIZONA, SUPRA;
ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. STATE, 135 GA. 545, AT 555-556; 69 S.E.
725, AS AFFIRMED AND APPROVED, ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. GEORGIA,
234 U.S. 280, 289. 

AS WE CANNOT SAY THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS DID NOT LEAD TO THE
SELECTION OF THE CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS, AND AS A STATE OF FACTS MAY REASONABLY BE CONCEIVED WHICH
WOULD SUPPORT THE SELECTION, ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE SUSTAINED. 
THERE IS A BASIS, ON GROUNDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE AND EXPENSE,
FOR ADOPTING A CLASSIFICATION WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE USE OF RECORDS,
KEPT BY THE TAXPAYER AND OPEN TO THE TAX GATHERER, AS AN AID TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF BENEFIT AWARDS, AS IS THE CASE HERE, WHERE THE
RECIPIENTS OF BENEFITS ARE SELECTED FROM THE EMPLOYEES OF THOSE WHO PAY
THE TAX.  SPECIAL COMPLAINT IS MADE OF THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THOSE
WITH ONLY SIX CO-WORKERS, AS CONTRASTED WITH THOSE WHO HAVE MORE.  WE
HAVE ALREADY SHOWN THAT A DISTINCTION IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES IS NOT ON ITS FACE INVALID.  FN12  HERE THE LEGISLATIVE
CHOICE FINDS SUPPORT IN THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY STUDENTS OF THE
PROBLEM,  FN13  THAT UNEMPLOYMENT IS LESS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN BUSINESSES
HAVING A SMALL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES. 

THIRD.  WANT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECTS AND BENEFITS OF THE
TAX.  IT IS NOT A VALID OBJECTION TO THE PRESENT TAX, CONFORMING IN
OTHER RESPECTS TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND DEVOTED TO A PUBLIC
PURPOSE, THAT THE BENEFITS PAID AND THE PERSONS TO WHOM THEY ARE PAID
ARE UNRELATED TO THE PERSONS TAXED AND THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX WHICH THEY
PAY - IN SHORT, THAT THOSE WHO PAY THE TAX MAY NOT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO
THE UNEMPLOYMENT AND MAY NOT BE BENEFITED BY THE EXPENDITURE. 
APPELLEES' CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE IS ARBITRARY, IN SO FAR AS IT
FAILS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER WITH A LOW UNEMPLOYMENT
EXPERIENCE AND THE EMPLOYER WITH A HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE, RESTS
UPON THE MISCONCEPTION THAT THERE MUST BE SUCH A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX (THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY) AND THE
EVIL TO BE MET BY THE APPROPRIATION OF THE PROCEEDS (UNEMPLOYMENT).  WE
HAVE RECENTLY STATED THE APPLICABLE DOCTRINE.  "BUT IF THE TAX, QUA
TAX, BE GOOD, AS WE HOLD IT IS, AND THE PURPOSE SPECIFIED BE ONE WHICH
WOULD SUSTAIN A SUBSEQUENT AND SEPARATE APPROPRIATION MADE OUT OF THE
GENERAL FUNDS OF THE TREASURY, NEITHER IS MADE INVALID BY BEING BOUND
TO THE OTHER IN THE SAME ACT OF LEGISLATION."  CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V.
UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  NOTHING IS MORE FAMILIAR IN TAXATION THAN THE
IMPOSITION OF A TAX UPON A CLASS OR UPON INDIVIDUALS WHO ENJOY NO
DIRECT BENEFIT FROM ITS EXPENDITURE, AND WHO ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE CONDITION TO BE REMEDIED.  FN14 

A TAX IS NOT AN ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS.  IT IS, AS WE HAVE SAID, A
MEANS OF DISTRIBUTING THE BURDEN OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT.  THE ONLY
BENEFIT TO WHICH THE TAXPAYER IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED IS THAT
DERIVED FROM HIS ENJOYMENT OF THE PRIVILEGES OF LIVING IN AN ORGANIZED
SOCIETY, ESTABLISHED AND SAFEGUARDED BY THE DEVOTION OF TAXES TO PUBLIC
PURPOSES.  SEE CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  ANY OTHER
VIEW WOULD PRECLUDE THE LEVYING OF TAXES EXCEPT AS THEY ARE USED TO
COMPENSATE FOR THE BURDEN ON THOSE WHO PAY THEM, AND WOULD INVOLVE THE
ABANDONMENT OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF GOVERNMENT - THAT IT
EXISTS PRIMARILY TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON GOOD.  A CORPORATION CANNOT
OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE TAXES WHICH IT PAYS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF
SCHOOLS BECAUSE IT HAS NO CHILDREN.  THOMAS V. GAY, 169 U.S. 264, 280. 
THIS COURT HAS REPUDIATED THE SUGGESTION, WHENEVER MADE, THAT THE
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE EXPENDITURE OF
PUBLIC MONEYS TO BE APPORTIONED TO THE BURDENS OF THE TAXPAYER, OR THAT
HE CAN RESIST THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX BECAUSE IT IS NOT EXPENDED FOR
PURPOSES WHICH ARE PECULIARLY BENEFICIAL TO HIM.  FN15  CINCINNATI SOAP
CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; CARLEY & HAMILTON V. SNOOK, SUPRA, 72;
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 268; SEE UNION
REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, 203.    EVEN IF A
LEGISLATURE SHOULD UNDERTAKE, WHAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE,
TO PLACE THE BURDEN OF A TAX FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UPON THOSE WHO
CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO UNEMPLOYMENT, IT MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT THE BURDEN
CANNOT JUSTLY BE APPORTIONED AMONG EMPLOYERS ACCORDING TO THEIR
UNEMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE.  UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE PLANT OF ONE EMPLOYER MAY
BE DUE TO COMPETITION WITH ANOTHER, WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE, WHOSE
FACTORY IS RUNNING TO CAPACITY; OR TO TARIFFS, INVENTIONS, CHANGES IN
FASHIONS OR IN MARKET OR BUSINESS CONDITIONS, FOR WHICH NO EMPLOYER IS
RESPONSIBLE, BUT WHICH MAY STIMULATE THE BUSINESS OF ONE AND IMPAIR OR
EVEN DESTROY THAT OF ANOTHER.  MANY BELIEVE THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE BUSINESS CYCLE, THE CHIEF CAUSE OF UNEMPLOYMENT, CANNOT BE
APPORTIONED TO INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR EMPLOYMENT
EXPERIENCE; THAT A BUSINESS MAY BE LEAST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEPRESSION
FROM WHICH IT SUFFERS THE MOST. 

THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE MAY HAVE PROCEEDED UPON THE VIEW, FOR WHICH
THERE IS ABUNDANT AUTHORITY, THAT THE CAUSES OF UNEMPLOYMENT ARE TOO
COMPLEX TO ADMIT OF A METICULOUS APPRAISAL OF EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY. 
FN16  IT MAY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT UNEMPLOYMENT IS AN INSEPARABLE
INCIDENT OF MODERN INDUSTRY, WITH ITS MOST SERIOUS MANIFESTATIONS IN
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION; THAT EMPLOYEES WILL BE BEST PROTECTED, AND THAT
THE COST OF THE REMEDY, AT LEAST UNTIL MORE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE DATA
ARE AVAILABLE, MAY BEST BE DISTRIBUTED, BY IMPOSING THE TAX EVENLY UPON
ALL INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION,  FN17  AND IN SUCH FORM THAT IT WILL BE
ADDED TO LABOR COSTS WHICH ARE ULTIMATELY ABSORBED BY THE PUBLIC IN THE
PRICES WHICH IT PAYS FOR CONSUMABLE GOODS. 

IF THE QUESTION WERE OURS TO DECIDE, WE COULD NOT SAY THAT THE
LEGISLATURE, IN ADOPTING THE PRESENT SCHEME RATHER THAN ANOTHER, HAD NO
BASIS FOR ITS CHOICE, OR WAS ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE IN ITS ACTION. 
BUT, AS THE STATE IS FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THE BURDEN OF A TAX WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS TO BE USED, THERE IS
NO WARRANT IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR SETTING THE TAX ASIDE BECAUSE A
COURT THINKS THAT IT COULD HAVE DRAWN A BETTER STATUTE OR COULD HAVE
DISTRIBUTED THE BURDEN MORE WISELY.  THOSE ARE FUNCTIONS RESERVED FOR
THE LEGISLATURE. 

SINCE THE APPELLEES MAY NOT COMPLAIN IF THE EXPENDITURE HAS NO
RELATION TO THE TAXED CLASS OF WHICH THEY ARE MEMBERS, THEY OBVIOUSLY
MAY NOT COMPLAIN BECAUSE THE EXPENDITURE HAS SOME RELATION TO THAT
CLASS, THAT THOSE BENEFITED ARE EMPLOYEES OF THOSE TAXED; OR BECAUSE
THE LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED THE EXPEDIENT OF SPREADING THE BURDEN OF
THE TAX TO THE CONSUMING PUBLIC BY IMPOSING IT UPON THOSE WHO MAKE AND
SELL COMMODITIES.  IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PERMISSIBLE EXERCISE OF THE
POWER TO TAX THAT SOME PAY THE TAX WHO HAVE NOT OCCASIONED ITS
EXPENDITURE, OR THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE USE OF ITS PROCEEDS FOR A
PUBLIC PURPOSE THE LEGISLATURE HAS BENEFITED INDIVIDUALS, WHO MAY OR
MAY NOT BE RELATED TO THOSE WHO ARE TAXED. 

RELATIONSHIP OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES. 

THERE REMAIN FOR CONSIDERATION THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE STATE ACT IS
INVALID BECAUSE ITS ENACTMENT WAS COERCED BY THE ADOPTION OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT, AND THAT IT INVOLVES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL SURRENDER OF
STATE POWER.  EVEN THOUGH IT BE ASSUMED THAT THE EXERCISE OF A
SOVEREIGN POWER BY A STATE, IN OTHER RESPECTS VALID, MAY BE RENDERED
INVALID BECAUSE OF THE COERCIVE EFFECT OF A FEDERAL STATUTE ENACTED IN
THE EXERCISE OF A POWER GRANTED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH
COERCION IS LACKING HERE.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REPEAT NOW THOSE
CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE LED TO OUR DECISION IN THE CHAS. C. STEWARD
MACHINE CO. CASE, THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAS NO SUCH COERCIVE
EFFECT.  AS THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT IS NOT COERCIVE IN ITS OPERATION,
THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT CANNOT BE SET ASIDE AS AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRODUCT OF COERCION.  THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATE
OF ALABAMA ARE NOT ALIEN GOVERNMENTS.  THEY COEXIST WITHIN THE SAME
TERRITORY.  UNEMPLOYMENT WITHIN IT IS THEIR COMMON CONCERN.  TOGETHER
THE TWO STATUTES NOW BEFORE US EMBODY A COOPERATIVE LEGISLATIVE EFFORT
BY STATE AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, FOR CARRYING OUT A PUBLIC PURPOSE
COMMON TO BOTH, WHICH NEITHER COULD FULLY ACHIEVE WITHOUT THE
COOPERATION OF THE OTHER.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT SUCH
COOPERATION. 

AS THE STATE LEGISLATION IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF A PROHIBITED COERCION,
THERE IS LITTLE ELSE TO WHICH APPELLEES CAN POINT AS INDICATING A
SURRENDER OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY.  AS THE OPINION IN THE CHAS. C. STEWARD
MACHINE CO. CASE POINTS OUT, FULL LIBERTY OF ACTION IS SECURED TO THE
STATE BY BOTH STATUTES.  THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND IS
ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW BY THE STATE COMMISSION.  THE
STATUTE MAY BE REPEALED AT THE WILL OF THE LEGISLATURE, AND IN THAT
CASE THE STATE WILL BE FREE TO WITHDRAW AT ANY TIME ITS UNEXPENDED
SHARE OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND FROM THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED
STATES, AND TO USE IT FOR ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE.  AND, FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE OPINION IN THE CHAS. C. STEWARD MACHINE CO. CASE, WE
CONCLUDE THAT THE DEPOSIT BY THE STATE OF ITS COMPENSATION FUND IN THE
UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND INVOLVES NO MORE OF A SURRENDER OF SOVEREIGNTY
THAN DOES THE CHOICE OF ANY OTHER DEPOSITORY FOR STATE FUNDS.  THE
POWER TO CONTRACT AND THE POWER TO SELECT APPROPRIATE AGENCIES AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES FOR THE EXECUTION OF STATE POLICY ARE ATTRIBUTES OF
STATE SOVEREIGNTY.  THEY ARE NOT LOST BY THEIR EXERCISE. 

MANY OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE PRESSED UPON US.  THEY REQUIRE NO DISCUSSION
SAVE AS THEIR ANSWER IS IMPLICIT IN WHAT WE HAVE SAID.  THE STATE
COMPENSATION ACT, ON ITS FACE, AND AS APPLIED TO APPELLEES, IS SUBJECT
TO NO CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY, AND THE DECREE BELOW IS REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE SEC. 2(G).  "EMPLOYMENT" IS DEFINED TO EXCLUDE: 

(1)  AGRICULTURAL LABOR; 

(2)  DOMESTIC SERVICE IN A PRIVATE HOME; 

(3)  SERVICE PERFORMED AS AN OFFICER, BAR PILOT, OR MEMBER OF THE
CREW OF A VESSEL ON THE NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES; 

(4)  SERVICE PERFORMED BY AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE EMPLOY OF HIS SON,
DAUGHTER, OR SPOUSE, AND SERVICE PERFORMED BY A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF
TWENTY-ONE IN THE EMPLOY OF HIS FATHER OR MOTHER; 

(5)  SERVICE PERFORMED IN THE EMPLOY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
OR OF AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES; 

(6)  SERVICE PERFORMED IN THE EMPLOY OF A CARRIER ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SUBJECT TO THE ACT OF CONGRESS KNOWN AS THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT; AS AMENDED OR AS HEREAFTER AMENDED.  SERVICE
PERFORMED BY THOSE ENGAGED AS SOLICITORS OR AGENTS FOR INSURANCE
COMPANIES; 

(7)  SERVICE PERFORMED IN THE EMPLOY OF A STATE, OR POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF ONE OR MORE STATES OR
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS; 

(8)  SERVICE PERFORMED IN THE EMPLOY OF A CORPORATION, COMMUNITY
CHEST, FUND, OR FOUNDATION, ORGANIZED AND OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR
RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES,
OR FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN OR ANIMALS, NO PART OF THE
NET EARNINGS OF WHICH INURES TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY PRIVATE SHAREHOLDER
OR INDIVIDUAL. 

FN2  ST. LOUIS CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. V. ILLINOIS, 185 U.S. 203,
207(COAL MINES EMPLOYING FIVE OR MORE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION); MCLEAN V.
ARKANSAS, 211 U.S. 539, 551(MINES EMPLOYING TEN OR MORE REQUIRED TO
MEASURE COAL FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES BEFORE SCREENING); BOOTH V. INDIANA,
237 U.S. 391, 397(MINES REQUIRED TO SUPPLY WASH-HOUSES UPON DEMAND OF
TWENTY EMPLOYEES); JEFFREY MFG. CO. V. BLAGG, 235 U.S. 571, 576;
MIDDLETON V. TEXAS POWER & L. CO., 249 U.S. 152, 159(EMPLOYERS OF FIVE
OR MORE INCLUDED WITHIN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT). 

FN3  SEE, E.G., NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
(1931), REPORT ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME, NO. 13, ESPECIALLY P. 312. 

FN4  FROM 1924 TO 1932, INCLUSIVE, THE MARRIAGE RATE IN ALABAMA,
DETERMINED BY MARRIAGES PER 1,000 POPULATION, WAS AS FOLLOWS:  11.4;
11.9; 11.9; 11.6; 11.2; 11.2; 10.4; 9.7; 9.4(DERIVED FROM STATISTICAL
ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1926, TABLE 90; ID., 1928, TABLE 95;
ID., 1930, TABLE 99 ID., 1932, TABLE 80; ID., 1936, TABLE 92).  THE
FIRST SIZEABLE DECLINE CAME IN 1930. 

FN5  SEE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS, REPORT
RELATING TO THE REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS IN THE STATE OF
ALABAMA FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31ST DECEMBER, 1935, P. XXXVII: "BETWEEN
1910 AND 1927, THE TREND IN THE BIRTH RATE WAS UPWARD, EXCEPT IN 1918,
THE YEAR IN WHICH THE OUTBREAK OF INFLUENZA OCCURRED AND THE FOLLOWING
YEAR.  FROM 1927 TO 1935, THE TREND HAS BEEN DOWNWARD, THE RATE OF
DECLINE HAVING BEEN PRACTICALLY CONSTANT SINCE 1928 FORWARD, WITH THE
SINGLE EXCEPTION IN 1934.  THE RISE IN 1934 WAS DUE TO A NUMBER OF
FACTORS, INCLUDING AN INCREASE IN BIRTH REGISTRATION FOLLOWING THE
REGISTRATION CAMPAIGN AND MARRIAGES." 

FN6  SEE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE STATE BOARD OF HEALTH OF ALABAMA, 1933,
P. 166, TABLE XXV.  THE RATE OF ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS PER 1,000 LIVE
BIRTHS, FOR THE YEARS 1929 THROUGH 1933, WERE 70.4; 74.6; 81.6; 88.7;
95.1. 

FN7  A SURVEY OF 4,137 PEOPLE IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, AND COVERING
THREE MONTHS IN THE SPRING OF 1933, SHOWED THAT THE RATE OF ILLNESS
(DISABLING ILLNESS PER 1,000 PERSONS) WAS 165 IN FAMILIES WITH NO
EMPLOYED WORKERS; 148 IN FAMILIES WITH AT LEAST ONE PART-TIME WORKER,
BUT NO FULL-TIME WORKERS; AND 140 IN FAMILIES WITH AT LEAST ONE
FULLTIME WORKER.  SEE PERROTT AND COLLINS, RELATION OF SICKNESS TO
INCOME AND INCOME CHANGE IN 10 SURVEYED COMMUNITIES, PUBLIC HEALTH
REPORTS (UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE), VOL. 50, P. 595, AT 606,
TABLE 6. 

FN8  SEE ELIOT, MARTHA M., SOME EFFECTS OF THE DEPRESSION ON THE
NUTRITION OF CHILDREN, HOSPITAL SOCIAL SERVICE, VOL. 28, P. 585;
PALMER, CARROLL E., HEIGHT AND WEIGHT OF CHILDREN OF THE DEPRESSION
POOR, PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS, VOL. 50, P. 1106. 

FN9  OF THOSE EMPLOYED IN ALABAMA THE PER CENT. EMPLOYED IN INDUSTRY
WERE 19.5% IN 1900; 21.4% IN 1910; 30.7% IN 1920; 33.6% IN 1930; 24.3%
IN 1935.  (LAST FIGURE ESTIMATED AT THE TRIAL BY GIST, FORMERLY
STATISTICIAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND SINCE FEB. 1, 1936,
ECONOMIC ADVISER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE OF ALABAMA.)  THE
DECLINE IN 1935 MAY BE TAKEN TO CORROBORATE THE GREATER SUSCEPTIBILITY
OF EMPLOYMENT IN INDUSTRY TO THE DEPRESSION. 

FN10  FIGURES OBTAINED FROM FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION,
AS STATED IN APPENDIX TO THE BRIEF OF RESPONDENT, NO. 837, CHAS. C.
STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, PP. 74-75, TABLE 17. 

FN11  APPELLEES POINT TO AN ESTIMATE THAT, LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE
LARGE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION, ONLY 26.81% OF THOSE EMPLOYED IN ALABAMA
AS OF OCTOBER 14, 1936, WERE COVERED BY THE ACT. 

BUT IT WAS ESTIMATED AT THE TRIAL BY GIST (FORMERLY STATISTICIAN OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND SINCE FEB. 1, 1936, ECONOMIC ADVISER
TO THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE OF ALABAMA), THAT IF IN 1941 THERE
SHOULD BE A RECURRENCE OF UNEMPLOYMENT "SOMEWHAT EQUIVALENT TO THE
PERIOD WE HAVE JUST COME THROUGH, AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE INDUSTRIAL
GROUPS UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD DROP TO, SAY 170,000(APPROXIMATELY
THE NUMBER EMPLOYED IN 1932), WE WOULD FIND ALABAMA WITH SOMETHING LIKE
64,000 UNEMPLOYED PERSONS WHO WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THIS
ACT." 

FN12  SEE SUPRA, FOOTNOTE 2. 

FN13  W. I. KING, EMPLOYMENT HOURS AND EARNINGS IN PROSPERITY AND
DEPRESSION; HANSEN, BJORNARAA, AND SOGGE, DECLINE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE
1930-1931 DEPRESSION IN ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS AND DULUTH, U. OF MINN.,
EMPLOYMENT STABILIZATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, VOL. 1, NO. 5, P. 20-25. 

FN14  CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAXES ARE EARMARKED, IN SOME STATES, FOR
SCHOOL FUNDS AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, ALA. ACTS 1927, NO. 163, SECS.
2(J), (K); ACTS 1932, NO. 113, SEC. 15; ARK. ACTS 1933, NOS. 135, 140,
SEC. 2; TENN. CODE (1932), SEC. 1242; TEX. LAWS 1935, C. 241, SEC. 3,
AND IN GEORGIA FOR PENSIONS FOR CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS, GA. LAWS 1923,
PP. 39, 41. 

LIQUOR LICENSE FEES AND TAXES ARE PAID INTO OLD AGE PENSION FUNDS,
COLO. LAWS 1933, SP. SESS., C. 12, SEC. 27; POLICE PENSION FUNDS, N.Y.
TAX LAW (1934) SEC. 435, SUBDS. 4, 4-A; AND SCHOOL FUNDS, N.M. LAWS
1933, C. 159, SEC. 10(B); WIS. LAWS SP. SESS. 1933-34, CHS.  3, 14. 

CHAIN STORE TAXES ARE SOMETIMES EARMARKED FOR SCHOOL FUNDS, ALA. ACTS
1935, NO. 194, SEC. 348, SCHEDULE 155.9; FLA. LAWS 1935, C. 16848, SEC.
15; IDAHO LAWS 1933, C. 113, SEC. 10. 

LICENSE AND PARI-MUTUEL TAXES IN STATES AUTHORIZING HORSE RACING ARE
DEVOTED TO FAIRS AND AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, CAL. STAT. 1933, C. 769,
SEC. 13; ILL. REV. STAT. (CAHILL, 1933) C. 38, SEC. 316(6); MICH. ACTS
1933, NO. 199, SEC. 10; TO HIGHWAY FUNDS, NEV. COMP. LAWS (HILLYER,
1929) SEC. 6223; AND TO AN OLD AGE PENSION FUND IN WASHINGTON, LAWS
1933, C. 55, SEC. 9. 

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, THOUGH FINANCED IN MOST STATES BY SPECIAL BOND
ISSUES, HAS IN SOME INSTANCES BEEN FINANCED BY GASOLINE TAXES, OHIO
LAWS 1933, FILE NO. 8, SECS. 1, 2; FILE NO. 28; OKLA. LAWS 1931, C. 66,
ARTICLE 10, SECS. 2, 3; SALES TAXES, ILL. LAWS 1933, PP. 924, 926;
MICH. ACTS 1933, NO. 167, SEC. 25(B); UTAH LAWS 1933, C. 63, SEC. 21;
INCOME TAXES, WIS. LAWS 1933, C. 363, SEC. 2; MISCELLANEOUS EXCISE
TAXES, OHIO GEN. CODE (PAGE SUPP. 1935) SEC. 6212-49(BEER); SEC. 5543
2(COSMETICS); SEC. 5544-2(ADMISSIONS); UTAH REV. STAT. SEC. 46-0
47(BEER). 

FN15  SIMILARLY, SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF
ROADS OR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED,
WITHOUT PROOF OF THE NATURE OR AMOUNT OF SPECIAL BENEFITS.  SEE ST.
LOUIS & S.W. RY. CO. V. NATTIN, 277 U.S. 157, 159; MEMPHIS & C. RY. CO.
V. PACE, 282 U.S. 241, 248, 249; CF. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. ROAD
DISTRICT, 266 U.S. 187.  A DIFFERENT QUESTION IS PRESENTED WHEN A STATE
UNDERTAKES TO LEVY LOCAL ASSESSMENTS APPORTIONED TO LOCAL BENEFITS.  IN
THAT CASE, IF IT FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE STANDARD OF APPORTIONMENT
ADOPTED, ITS ACTION IS ARBITRARY, SEE GEORGIA RY. & ELEC.  CO. V.
DECATUR, 295 U.S. 165, 170, BECAUSE THERE IS A DENIAL OF EQUAL
PROTECTION.  ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 274
U.S. 188, 191-194; CF. GEORGIA RY. & ELEC.  CO. V. DECATUR, 297 U.S.
620.  BUT IF THE ASSESSMENT IS APPORTIONED TO BENEFITS IT IS NOT
CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT EXCEEDS THE
BENEFITS.  ROBERTS V. RICHLAND IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 289 U.S. 71, 75. 

FN16  REPORT OF PRESIDENT HOOVER'S COMMITTEE ON RECENT SOCIAL TRENDS
(1933) 807 FF; J.M. CLARK, ECONOMICS OF OVERHEAD COSTS (1929) PP. 366
367; DOUGLAS, HITCHCOCK, AND ATKINS, THE WORKER IN MODERN ECONOMIC
SOCIETY (1925) P. 491 ET SEQ.; BEVERIDGE, UNEMPLOYMENT, A PROBLEM OF
INDUSTRY (1930) PP. 100-103; W.C. MITCHELL, BUSINESS CYCLES; THE
PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING (1927) PP. 87, 210, 238. 

FN17  SEE E. M. BURNS, TOWARD SOCIAL SECURITY (1936) PP. 70-73; P.
DOUGLAS, SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE UNITED STATES (1936) PP. 253-355; A.
EPSTEIN, INSECURITY - A CHALLENGE TO AMERICA (3D ED. 1936) PP. 311-312,
317; HANSEN, MURRAY, STEVENSON, AND STEWART, A PROGRAM FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE AND RELIEF IN THE UNITED STATES (1934) PP. 16, 65-73. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS THINKS THAT THE DECREE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, DISSENTING. 

THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT BY THE ALABAMA STATUTE HERE IN QUESTION, NAMELY,
THE RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT, I DO NOT DOUBT IS ONE WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF THE STATE.  BUT IT IS AN OBJECTIVE WHICH MUST
BE ATTAINED BY LEGISLATION WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS OR
THE EQUALPROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THIS STATUTE,
IN MY OPINION, DOES BOTH, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A COMPARATIVELY
SIMPLE MATTER FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO AVOID BOTH. 

THE STATUTE LAYS A PAYROLL TAX UPON EMPLOYERS, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH
GO INTO A COMMON FUND TO BE DISTRIBUTED FOR THE RELIEF OF SUCH EX
EMPLOYEES, COMING WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, AS SHALL HAVE
LOST THEIR EMPLOYMENT IN ANY OF A DESIGNATED VARIETY OF INDUSTRIES
WITHIN THE STATE.  SOME OF THESE EMPLOYERS ARE ENGAGED IN INDUSTRIES
WHERE WORK CONTINUES THE YEAR ROUND.  OTHERS ARE ENGAGED IN SEASONAL
OCCUPATIONS, WHERE THE WORK IS DISCONTINUED FOR A PART OF THE YEAR. 
SOME OF THE EMPLOYERS ARE ENGAGED IN INDUSTRIES WHERE THE NUMBER OF MEN
EMPLOYED REMAINS STABLE, OR FAIRLY SO, WHILE OTHERS ARE ENGAGED IN
INDUSTRIES WHERE THE NUMBER OF THE MEN EMPLOYED FLUCTUATES GREATLY FROM
TIME TO TIME.  PLAINLY, A DISPROPORTIONATELY HEAVY BURDEN WILL BE
IMPOSED BY THE TAX UPON THOSE WHOSE OPERATIONS CONTRIBUTE LEAST TO THE
EVILS OF UNEMPLOYMENT, AND, CORRESPONDINGLY, THE BURDEN WILL BE
LESSENED IN RESPECT OF THOSE WHOSE OPERATIONS CONTRIBUTE MOST. 

AN EXAMPLE WILL MAKE THIS CLEAR.  LET US SUPPOSE THAT A, AN EMPLOYER
OF A THOUSAND MEN, HAS RETAINED ALL OF HIS EMPLOYEES.  B, AN EMPLOYER
OF A THOUSAND MEN, HAS DISCHARGED HALF OF HIS EMPLOYEES.  THE TAX IS
UPON THE PAYROLL OF EACH.  A, WHO HAS NOT DISCHARGED A SINGLE WORKMAN,
IS TAXED UPON HIS PAYROLL TWICE AS MUCH AS B, ALTHOUGH THE OPERATION OF
B'S ESTABLISHMENT HAS CONTRIBUTED ENORMOUSLY TO THE EVIL OF
UNEMPLOYMENT WHILE THAT OF A HAS CONTRIBUTED NOTHING AT ALL.  IT THUS
RESULTS THAT THE EMPLOYER WHO HAS KEPT ALL HIS MEN AT WORK PAYS TWICE
AS MUCH TOWARD THE RELIEF OF THE EMPLOYEES DISCHARGED BY B AS B HIMSELF
PAYS.  MOREOVER, WHEN WE CONSIDER THE LARGE NUMBER AND THE MANY KINDS
OF INDUSTRIES, THEIR DIFFERING CHARACTERISTICS AND THE VARIED
CIRCUMSTANCES BY WHICH THEIR OPERATIONS ARE CONDITIONED, THE GROSS
UNFAIRNESS OF THIS UNEQUAL BURDEN OF THE TAX BECOMES PLAIN BEYOND
PERADVENTURE.  IT IS THE SAME UNFAIRNESS, IN AN AGGRAVATED FORM, AS
THAT WHICH WE SO RECENTLY CONDEMNED AS FATALLY ARBITRARY IN RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330.  THAT CASE DEALT WITH A
FEDERAL STATUTE WHICH ESTABLISHED A PENSION PLAN REQUIRING PAYMENTS TO
BE MADE BY ALL INTERSTATE RAILROAD CARRIERS INTO A POOLED FUND TO BE
USED FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANNUITIES INDISCRIMINATELY TO RAILROAD
EMPLOYEES, OF WHATEVER COMPANY, WHEN THEY HAD REACHED THE AGE OF 65
YEARS.  THIS COURT, BECAUSE OF THIS POOLING FEATURE, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, HELD THE ACT TO BE BAD.  WE SAID (P. 357) - 

"THIS COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HAD OCCASION TO SAY THAT THE RAILROADS,
THOUGH THEIR PROPERTY BE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC USE, REMAIN THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THEIR OWNERS, AND THAT THEIR ASSETS MAY NOT BE
TAKEN WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.  THE CARRIERS HAVE NOT CEASED TO BE
PRIVATELY OPERATED AND PRIVATELY OWNED, HOWEVER MUCH SUBJECT TO
REGULATION IN THE INTEREST OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THERE IS NO WARRANT
FOR TAKING THE PROPERTY OR MONEY OF ONE AND TRANSFERRING IT TO ANOTHER
WITHOUT COMPENSATION, WHETHER THE OBJECT OF THE TRANSFER BE TO BUILD UP
THE EQUIPMENT OF THE TRANSFEREE OR TO PENSION ITS EMPLOYEES....  THE
ARGUMENT IS THAT SINCE THE RAILROADS AND THE PUBLIC HAVE A COMMON
INTEREST IN THE EFFICIENT PERFORMANCE OF THE WHOLE TRANSPORTATION
CHAIN, IT IS PROPER AND NECESSARY TO REQUIRE ALL CARRIERS TO CONTRIBUTE
TO THE COST OF A PLAN DESIGNED TO SERVE THIS END.  IT IS SAID THAT THE
POOLING PRINCIPLE IS DESIRABLE BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY SMALL CARRIERS
WHOSE EMPLOYEES ARE TOO FEW TO JUSTIFY MAINTENANCE OF A SEPARATE
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EACH."  IN SUPPORT OF THAT VIEW, SEVERAL CASES HAD
BEEN CITED.  THOSE CASES WERE REVIEWED AND DISTINGUISHED, AND WE
CONCLUDED, P. 360, "THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH DISREGARD THE
PRIVATE AND SEPARATE OWNERSHIP OF THE SEVERAL RESPONDENTS, TREAT THEM
ALL AS A SINGLE EMPLOYER, AND POOL ALL THEIR ASSETS REGARDLESS OF THEIR
INDIVIDUAL OBLIGATIONS AND THE VARYING CONDITIONS FOUND IN THEIR
RESPECTIVE ENTERPRISES, CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED AS CONSISTENT WITH DUE
PROCESS." 

CASES WHICH ARE RELIED UPON HERE TO SUSTAIN THE ALABAMA STATUTE WERE
RELIED UPON THERE TO SUSTAIN THE RETIREMENT ACT, MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219, AMONG OTHERS.  THAT CASE DEALT WITH THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, REQUIRING DESIGNATED PAYMENTS
TO BE MADE BY EMPLOYERS INTO A STATE FUND FOR COMPENSATING INJURED
WORKMEN.  BUT WE POINTED OUT (295 U.S. 359) THAT ALTHOUGH THE PAYMENTS
WERE MADE INTO A COMMON FUND, ACCOUNTS WERE TO BE KEPT WITH EACH
INDUSTRY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLASSIFICATION, AND NO CLASS WAS TO BE
LIABLE FOR THE DEPLETION OF THE FUND BY REASON OF ACCIDENTS HAPPENING
IN ANOTHER CLASS.  AND WE SAID, "THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT, ON THE
CONTRARY, MAKES NO CLASSIFICATION, BUT, AS ABOVE SAID, TREATS ALL THE
CARRIERS AS A SINGLE EMPLOYER, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR SEVERAL
CONDITIONS." 

IF THE ALABAMA ACT HAD FOLLOWED THE PLAN OF THE WASHINGTON ACT IN
RESPECT OF CLASSIFICATION, WE SHOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION TO
CONSIDER.  THE VICE OF THE ALABAMA ACT IS PRECISELY THAT WHICH WAS
CONDEMNED IN THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD CASE.  INDEED, THE VICE IS
MORE PRONOUNCED, SINCE THE FEDERAL ACT, RELATING AS IT DID TO RAILROADS
ONLY, DEALT WITH A HOMOGENEOUS GROUP OF EMPLOYERS, WHILE THE ALABAMA
ACT SEEKS TO IMPOSE THE CHARACTER OF "A SINGLE EMPLOYER" UPON A LARGE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYERS SEVERALLY ENGAGED IN ENTIRELY DISSIMILAR
INDUSTRIES. 

IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A GENERAL TAX,
THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH ARE TO BE APPROPRIATED FOR ANY PUBLIC PURPOSE
WHICH THE LEGISLATURE THEREAFTER MAY SELECT, BUT WITH A TAX EXPRESSLY
LEVIED FOR A SPECIFIED PURPOSE.  THE TAX AND THE USE OF THE TAX ARE
INSEPARABLY UNITED; AND IF THE PROPOSED USE CONTRAVENES THE
CONSTITUTION, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT THE TAX DOES THE SAME. 
CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, PP. 308, 313. 

OTHER STATES HAVE NOT FOUND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ADJUST THEIR
UNEMPLOYMENT LAWS TO MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFICULTIES THUS
PRESENTED BY THE ALABAMA ACT.  THE PIONEER AMONG THESE STATES IS
WISCONSIN.  THAT STATE PROVIDES (ACT OF JANUARY 29, 1932, C. 20, LAWS
OF WIS., SPEC. SESS., 1931, P. 57, AS AMENDED) THAT WHILE THE PROCEEDS
OF THE TAX SHALL BE PAID INTO A COMMON FUND, AN ACCOUNT SHALL BE KEPT
WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYER, TO WHICH ACCOUNT HIS PAYMENTS ARE TO BE
CREDITED AND AGAINST WHICH ONLY THE AMOUNTS PAID TO HIS FORMER
EMPLOYEES ARE TO BE CHARGED.  IF HE MAINTAINS HIS ROLL OF EMPLOYEES
INTACT, HE WILL BE CHARGED NOTHING, AND IN ANY EVENT ONLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT HIS EMPLOYMENT ROLL IS DIMINISHED.  WHEN HIS TAX CONTRIBUTIONS
HAVE REACHED A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF HIS PAYROLL, THE AMOUNT OF HIS TAX
IS REDUCED, AND WHEN THEY REACH 10%, THE TAX IS DISCONTINUED AS LONG AS
THAT PERCENTAGE REMAINS.  THE RESULT IS THAT EACH EMPLOYER BEARS HIS
OWN BURDENS, AND NOT THOSE OF HIS COMPETITOR OR OF OTHER EMPLOYERS. 
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WISCONSIN AND THE ALABAMA ACTS IS THUS
SUCCINCTLY STATED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD IN ITS INFORMATIONAL
SERVICE CIRCULAR NO. 5, ISSUED NOVEMBER, 1936, PP. 8-9: 

"(1)  THE PLAN FOR INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYER ACCOUNTS PROVIDES FOR EMPLOYER
RESERVE ACCOUNTS IN THE STATE FUND.  EACH EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTIONS ARE
CREDITED TO HIS SEPARATE ACCOUNT, AND BENEFITS ARE PAID FROM HIS
ACCOUNT ONLY TO HIS FORMER EMPLOYEES.  IF HE IS ABLE TO BUILD UP A
SPECIFIED RESERVE IN HIS ACCOUNT, HIS CONTRIBUTION RATE IS REDUCED." 

SUCH IS THE WISCONSIN PLAN; WHILE UNDER THE ALABAMA STATUTE - 

"(2)  THE POOLED-FUND PLAN PROVIDES FOR A POOLING OF ALL
CONTRIBUTIONS IN A SINGLE UNDIVIDED FUND FROM WHICH BENEFITS ARE PAID
TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR FORMER EMPLOYERS." 

WHICH OF THESE PLANS IS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FROM A PURELY ECONOMIC
STANDPOINT DOES NOT PRESENT A JUDICIAL QUESTION.  BUT FROM THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF VIEW, IN SO FAR AS IT INVOLVES THE GROUND UPON
WHICH I THINK THE ALABAMA ACT SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, I ENTERTAIN NO DOUBT
THAT THE WISCONSIN PLAN IS SO FAIR, REASONABLE AND JUST AS TO MAKE
PLAIN ITS CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY; AND THAT THE ALABAMA STATUTE, LIKE
THE NEW YORK STATUTE INVOLVED IN CHAMBERLIN, INC. V. ANDREWS, 299 U.S.
515, AFFIRMED BY AN EQUALLY-DIVIDED COURT DURING THE PRESENT TERM, IS
SO ARBITRARY AS TO RESULT IN A DENIAL BOTH OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. 

I AM AUTHORIZED TO SAY THAT MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER AND MR. JUSTICE
BUTLER CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :
















STONE V. WHITE, 301 U.S. 532 


NO. 202 (OCTOBER TERM, 1935).  - ARGUED APRIL 29, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY
24, 1937.  - 78 F.(2D) 136, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATUTORY ACTION FOR A REFUND OF TAXES ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED IS
IN THE NATURE OF A COMMON LAW ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED AND
LIKE IT IS GOVERNED BY EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES.  P. 534. 

2.  WHERE THE INCOME FROM A TRUST, BELONGING TO THE SOLE BENEFICIARY,
WAS ERRONEOUSLY TAXED TO AND COLLECTED FROM THE TRUSTEES WHEN IT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN TAXED TO THE BENEFICIARY, IN AN ACTION BY THE TRUSTEES FOR A
REFUND THE COLLECTOR MAY SET UP IN DEFENSE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE
RIGHT TO RETAIN THE MONEY, BY WAY OF EQUITABLE RECOUPMENT, ALTHOUGH
COLLECTION FROM THE BENEFICIARY IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS.  P. 535. 

3.  SECTIONS 275(A), 607 AND 609, REVENUE ACT, 1928, LIMIT THE
COLLECTION OF A TAX, AND PREVENT THE RETENTION OF ONE PAID AFTER IT IS
BARRED BY THE STATUTE.  THEY PRECLUDE, IN A SUIT BY THE TAXPAYER
AGAINST THE COLLECTOR OR THE GOVERNMENT, RELIANCE ON A CLAIM AGAINST
THE TAXPAYER, BARRED BY STATUTE, AS A SET-OFF OR COUNTERCLAIM; BUT THEY
DO NOT DEPRIVE THE GOVERNMENT OF DEFENSES BASED ON SPECIAL EQUITIES
ESTABLISHING ITS RIGHT TO WITHHOLD A REFUND FROM THE DEMANDING
TAXPAYER.  P. 538. 

STONE ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. WHITE, FORMER COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A RECOVERY BY THE
PRESENT PETITIONERS IN THEIR ACTION AGAINST THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE PETITIONERS, TESTAMENTARY
TRUSTEES, WHO HAVE PAID A TAX ON THE INCOME OF THE TRUST ESTATE, WHICH
SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE BENEFICIARY, ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE
TAX, ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM AGAINST THE BENEFICIARY HAS BEEN
BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THE PRESENT SUIT TO RECOVER THE
TAX, BROUGHT BY PETITIONERS AGAINST RESPONDENT, THE COLLECTOR, IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS, RESULTED IN A JUDGMENT FOR
PETITIONERS, 8 F.SUPP.  354, WHICH WAS REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT, 78 F.(2D) 136.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
THE CONFLICT OF THE DECISION BELOW WITH THAT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, UNITED STATES V. ARNOLD, 89 F.(2D) 246. 

TESTATOR, BY HIS WILL, LEFT PROPERTY IN TRUST, TO PAY OVER THE NET
INCOME TO HIS WIFE AS SOLE BENEFICIARY, AT SUCH TIMES AND IN SUCH
AMOUNTS AS SHE SHOULD DEEM BEST, DURING HER NATURAL LIFE.  SHE ELECTED
TO TAKE THE BEQUEST UNDER THE WILL IN LIEU OF HER DOWER OR STATUTORY
INTEREST.  AT THAT TIME SEVERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAD HELD THAT
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INCOME PAYMENTS TO THE WIDOW ARE ANNUITIES
PURCHASED BY SURRENDER OF THE DOWER INTEREST AND NOT TAXABLE AS INCOME
TO HER, UNTIL THEY EQUAL THE VALUE OF THE DOWER INTEREST.  WARNER V.
WALSH, 15 F.(2D) 367; UNITED STATES V. BOLSTER, 26 F.(2D) 760; ALLEN V.
BRANDEIS, 29 F.(2D) 363.  IN CONFORMITY TO THE RULING OF THESE
DECISIONS, THE BENEFICIARY DID NOT INCLUDE, IN HER 1928 TAX RETURN, ANY
PORTION OF THE INCOME RECEIVED BY HER FROM THE TRUST.  A DEFICIENCY
AGAINST THE TRUSTEES WAS ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE, AND WAS
PAID BY THEM, UNDER PROTEST, FROM INCOME OF THE TRUST, AFTER COLLECTION
FROM THE BENEFICIARY HAD BEEN BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 
AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN, THIS COURT HELD IN HELVERING V. BUTTERWORTH,
290 U.S. 365(INTERPRETING SEC. 219, REVENUE ACT OF 1924, C. 234, 43
STAT. 253, 275, CORRESPONDING TO SECS. 161, 162 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928, C. 852, 45 STAT. 791, 838, UNDER WHICH THE PRESENT TAX WAS
ASSESSED) THAT THE INCOME WAS TAXABLE TO THE BENEFICIARY AND NOT TO THE
TRUSTEES. 

IN THE PRESENT SUIT, BROUGHT BY THE TRUSTEES TO RECOVER THE TAX AS
ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED, THE COLLECTOR INTERPOSED THE DEFENSE, SUSTAINED
BY THE COURT BELOW, THAT THE TAX WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE
BENEFICIARY EXCEEDED THAT PAID BY PETITIONERS, AND THAT, AS ANY
RECOVERY WOULD INURE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE BENEFICIARY, THE DEFENDANT
COULD SET OFF THE TAX DEBT DUE FROM HER.  ONE JUDGE CONCURRED, DENYING
THE RIGHT OF SET OFF IN VIEW OF THE BAR OF THE STATUTE, BUT HOLDING THE
PETITIONERS NOT ENTITLED, IN EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, TO RECOVER. 

THE ACTION, BROUGHT TO RECOVER A TAX ERRONEOUSLY PAID, ALTHOUGH AN
ACTION AT LAW, IS EQUITABLE IN ITS FUNCTION.  IT IS THE LINEAL
SUCCESSOR OF THE COMMON COUNT IN INDEBITATUS ASSUMPSIT FOR MONEY HAD
AND RECEIVED.  ORIGINALLY AN ACTION FOR THE RECOVERY OF DEBT, FAVORED
BECAUSE MORE CONVENIENT AND FLEXIBLE THAN THE COMMON LAW ACTION OF
DEBT, IT HAS BEEN GRADUALLY EXPANDED AS A MEDIUM FOR RECOVERY UPON
EVERY FORM OF QUASI-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION IN WHICH THE DUTY TO PAY
MONEY IS IMPOSED BY LAW, INDEPENDENTLY OF CONTRACT, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
IN FACT.  AMES, THE HISTORY OF ASSUMPSIT, 2 HARV. L. REV. 53; WOODWARD,
LAW OF QUASI-CONTRACTS, SEC. 2. 

ITS USE TO RECOVER UPON RIGHTS EQUITABLE IN NATURE TO AVOID UNJUST
ENRICHMENT BY THE DEFENDANT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PLAINTIFF, AND ITS
CONTROL IN EVERY CASE BY EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES, ESTABLISHED BY LORD
MANSFIELD IN MOSES V. MACFERLAN, 2 BURR.  1005(K.B. 1750), HAVE LONG
BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THIS COURT.  SEE NASH V. TOWNE, 5 WALL.  689, 702;
GAINES V. MILLER, 111 U.S. 395, 397; ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V.
FLORIDA, 295 U.S. 301, 309.  IT IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR THE
RECOVERY OF TAXES ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED, ELLIOTT V. SWARTWOUT, 10 PET.
137, 156; CARY V. CURTIS, 3 HOW.  236, 246-250.  THE STATUTES
AUTHORIZING TAX REFUNDS AND SUITS FOR THEIR RECOVERY ARE PREDICATED
UPON THE SAME EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES THAT UNDERLIE AN ACTION IN ASSUMPSIT
FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED.  UNITED STATES V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
291 U.S. 386, 402.  SINCE, IN THIS TYPE OF ACTION, THE PLAINTIFF MUST
RECOVER BY VIRTUE OF A RIGHT MEASURED BY EQUITABLE STANDARDS, IT
FOLLOWS THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE DEFENDANT TO SHOW ANY STATE OF FACTS
WHICH, ACCORDING TO THOSE STANDARDS, WOULD DENY THE RIGHT, MOSES V.
MACFERLAN, SUPRA, AT 1010; MYERS V. HURLEY MOTOR CO., 273 U.S. 18, 24;
CF. WINCHESTER V. HACKLEY, 2 CRANCH 342, EVEN WITHOUT RESORT TO THE
MODERN STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR PLEADING EQUITABLE DEFENSES IN ACTIONS
WHICH ARE MORE STRICTLY LEGAL, JUD.  CODE, SEC. 274B; 28 U.S.C. SEC.
398. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS EVIDENT THAT BUT A SINGLE TAX WAS DUE UPON
THE PARTICULAR INCOME ASSESSED AND THAT PETITIONERS' DEMAND ARISES FROM
THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE TAX WAS PAID FROM THE INCOME BY THE TRUSTEES
WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE BENEFICIARY.  IF THE COURT MAY
HAVE REGARD TO THE FACT THAT SO FAR AS THE EQUITABLE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES ARE CONCERNED PETITIONERS, IN SEEKING RECOVERY OF THE TAX, ARE
ACTING FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE BENEFICIARY, IT WOULD SEEM CLEAR THAT THE
CASE IS NOT ONE IN WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER EX
AEQUO ET BONO; FOR UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILL BY THE COURT
BELOW, WHICH WE ADOPT, ANY RECOVERY IN THIS ACTION WILL BE INCOME TO
THE BENEFICIARY, AND WILL DEPRIVE THE GOVERNMENT OF A TAX TO WHICH IT
IS JUSTLY ENTITLED AND ENABLE THE BENEFICIARY TO ESCAPE A TAX WHICH SHE
SHOULD HAVE PAID. 

IT IS SAID THAT AS THE REVENUE LAWS TREAT THE TRUSTEE AND THE
BENEFICIARY AS DISTINCT TAX-PAYING ENTITIES, A COURT OF EQUITY MUST
SHUT ITS EYES TO THE FACT THAT IN THE REALM OF REALITY IT WAS THE
BENEFICIARY'S MONEY WHICH PAID THE TAX AND IT IS HER MONEY WHICH THE
PETITIONERS ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO RETURN.  FORMERLY, TRUSTEE AND CESTUI
QUE TRUST WERE LIKEWISE DISTINCT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, AS THEY ARE
TODAY FOR MANY PURPOSES.  BUT WHENEVER THE TRUSTEE BRINGS SUIT IN A
COURT WHICH IS FREE TO CONSIDER EQUITABLE RIGHTS AND DUTIES, HIS RIGHT
TO MAINTAIN THE SUIT MAY BE ENLARGED OR DIMINISHED BY REFERENCE TO THE
FACT THAT THE SUIT, THOUGH MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE TRUSTEE ALONE,
IS FOR THE BENEFIT AND IN THE EQUITABLE INTEREST OF THE CESTUI. 

HE CAN SUE TO SET ASIDE HIS OWN VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCE AND IMPEACH IT
AS A BREACH OF TRUST KNOWN TO THE TRANSFEREE, BECAUSE THE ACTION,
BROUGHT TO RECOVER PROPERTY FOR THE TRUST ESTATE, WILL INURE TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THE INNOCENT BENEFICIARY.  WETMORE V. PORTER, 92 N.Y. 76;
ZIMMERMAN V. KINKLE, 108 N.Y. 282, 15 N.E. 407; ATWOOD V. LESTER, 20
R.I. 660, 665, PARTICULARLY AT 669; 40 ATL. 866, 868, 870; FRANCO V.
FRANCO, 3 VES.  JR. 75; AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW
OF TRUSTS, SEC. 294.  FN1  HIS SUIT TO RECOVER A DEBT DUE HIM AS
TRUSTEE, AND PAYABLE BY HIM OVER TO THE CESTUI, IS SUBJECT TO THE
EQUITABLE DEFENSE THAT THE CESTUI HAS DISCHARGED THE CLAIM, MCBRIDE V.
WRIGHT, 46 MICH. 265(COOLEY, J.); 9 N.W. 275; SMITH V. BROWN, 5 RICH. 
EQ. (S.C.)  291; AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW OF
TRUSTS, SEC. 328.  THAT THE CESTUI OWES A LIKE AMOUNT CAN BE SHOWN BY
WAY OF EQUITABLE PLEA IN SET-OFF, CAMPBELL V. HAMILTON, FED. CAS. NO.
2,359; WADDLE V. HARBECK, 33 IND. 231, 234; WARD V. MARTIN, 3 T.B.
MON.  (19 KY.)  18; DRIGGS V. ROCKWELL, 11 WEND.  (N.Y.)  504, 508;
WOLF V. BEALES, 6 SERG.  & R. (PA.)  242, 243; AGRA & MASTERMAN'S BANK
V. LEIGHTON, L.R. 2 EX. 56, 65; AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF
THE LAW OF TRUSTS, SEC. 329.  IN AN ACTION IN GENERAL ASSUMPSIT, THIS
DEFENSE MAY BE SHOWN UNDER THE PLEA OF NON-ASSUMPSIT, COMPARE
WINCHESTER V. HACKLEY, SUPRA. 

IN SUCH CASES EQUITY DOES NOT COUNTENANCE THE IDLE CEREMONY OF
ALLOWING RECOVERY BY THE TRUSTEE ONLY TO COMPEL HIM TO ACCOUNT TO THE
BENEFICIARY WHO WOULD THEN HAVE TO PAY THE PROCEEDS TO THE ORIGINAL
DEFENDANT.  TO AVOID THIS CIRCUITY OF ACTION A COURT OF EQUITY TAKES
COGNIZANCE OF THE IDENTITY IN INTEREST OF TRUSTEE AND CESTUI QUE
TRUST.  LIKEWISE HERE, THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR
BENEFICIARY MUST BE REGARDED AS DISTINCT LEGAL ENTITIES FOR PURPOSES OF
THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TAXES DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE COURT OF
ITS EQUITY POWERS OR ALTER THE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES WHICH GOVERN THE
TYPE OF ACTION WHICH PETITIONERS HAVE CHOSEN FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEIR
CLAIM. 

EQUITABLE CONCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
RETENTION OF THE TAX MONEY WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF
THE GOVERNMENT.  ALL AGREE THAT A TAX ON THE INCOME SHOULD BE PAID, AND
THAT IF THE TRUSTEES ARE PERMITTED TO RECOVER NO ONE WILL PAY IT.  IT
IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAT NO ONE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO AVOID HIS
JUST SHARE OF THE TAX BURDEN EXCEPT BY POSITIVE COMMAND OF LAW, WHICH
IS LACKING HERE.  NO INJUSTICE IS DONE TO THE TRUSTEES OR THE
BENEFICIARY BY WITHHOLDING FROM THE TRUSTEES MONEY WHICH IN EQUITY IS
THE BENEFICIARY'S, AND WHICH THE GOVERNMENT RECEIVED IN PAYMENT OF A
TAX WHICH WAS HERS TO PAY.  A SINGLE ERROR ON THE PART OF THE TAXING
AUTHORITIES, EXCUSABLE IN VIEW OF PERSISTENT JUDICIAL DECLARATIONS, HAS
CAUSED BOTH THE UNDERASSESSMENT OF ONE TAXPAYER AND THE OVERASSESSMENT
OF THE OTHER.  BUT THE ERROR HAS NOT INCREASED THE TAX BURDEN OF
EITHER, FOR WHETHER THE TAX IS PAID BY ONE OR THE OTHER, ITS SOURCE IS
THE FUND WHICH SHOULD PAY THE TAX, AND ONLY THE EQUITABLE OWNER OF THE
FUND IS ULTIMATELY BURDENED.  CF. UNITED STATES PAPER ASSN. V. BOWERS,
80 F.(2D) 82.  SINCE IN EQUITY THE ONE TAXPAYER REPRESENTS AND ACTS FOR
THE OTHER, IT IS NOT FOR EITHER TO COMPLAIN THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS
TAKEN FROM ONE WITH ITS RIGHT HAND, WHEN IT HAS, BECAUSE OF THE SAME
ERROR, GIVEN TO THE OTHER WITH ITS LEFT. 

PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT RECOVERY IS PRECLUDED BY SEC. 275(A) OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928, WHICH BARS A "PROCEEDING IN COURT  ...  FOR THE
COLLECTION" OF A TAX AFTER THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, AND BY SECS. 607,
609, WHICH ARE SAID TO PROHIBIT "CREDIT OF AN OVERPAYMENT AGAINST A
BARRED DEFICIENCY."  SECTION 607 PROVIDES THAT ANY TAX ASSESSED OR PAID
AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED AN
OVERPAYMENT, AND SEC. 609 DECLARES THAT A CREDIT AGAINST A LIABILITY,
IN RESPECT OF ANY TAXABLE YEAR, SHALL BE VOID "IF ANY PAYMENT IN
RESPECT OF SUCH LIABILITY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN OVERPAYMENT UNDER

THESE PROVISIONS LIMIT THE COLLECTION OF A TAX, AND PREVENT THE
RETENTION OF ONE PAID AFTER IT IS BARRED BY THE STATUTE.  THEY
PRECLUDE, IN A SUIT BY THE TAXPAYER AGAINST THE COLLECTOR OR THE
GOVERNMENT, RELIANCE ON A CLAIM AGAINST THE TAXPAYER, BARRED BY
STATUTE, AS A SET-OFF, OR COUNTERCLAIM.  BUT THE DEMAND MADE UPON THE
TRUSTEES WAS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION AND IT WOULD BE AN UNREASONABLE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE, NOT CALLED FOR BY ITS WORDS, TO HOLD THAT
IT IS INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THE GOVERNMENT OF DEFENSES BASED ON SPECIAL
EQUITIES ESTABLISHING ITS RIGHT TO WITHHOLD A REFUND FROM THE DEMANDING
TAXPAYER.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT OVERRIDE A DEFENSE BASED ON THE
ESTOPPEL OF THE TAXPAYER.  R.H. STEARNS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S.
54, 61, 62.  THE STATUTORY BAR TO THE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE
COLLECTION OF THE TAX DOES NOT PREVENT RELIANCE UPON A DEFENSE WHICH IS
NOT A SET-OFF OR A COUNTERCLAIM, BUT IS AN EQUITABLE REASON, GROWING
OUT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ERRONEOUS PAYMENT, WHY PETITIONERS
OUGHT NOT TO RECOVER. 

HERE THE DEFENSE IS NOT A COUNTER DEMAND ON PETITIONERS, BUT A DENIAL
OF THEIR EQUITABLE RIGHT TO UNDO A PAYMENT WHICH, THOUGH EFFECTED BY AN
ERRONEOUS PROCEDURE, HAS RESULTED IN NO UNJUST ENRICHMENT TO THE
GOVERNMENT, AND IN NO INJURY TO PETITIONERS OR THEIR BENEFICIARY.  THE
GOVERNMENT, BY RETAINING THE TAX PAID BY THE TRUSTEES, IS NOT REVIVING
A STALE CLAIM.  ITS DEFENSE, WHICH INHERES IN THE CAUSE OF ACTION, IS
COMPARABLE TO AN EQUITABLE RECOUPMENT OR DIMINUTION OF PETITIONERS'
RIGHT TO RECOVER.  "SUCH A DEFENSE IS NEVER BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS SO LONG AS THE MAIN ACTION ITSELF IS TIMELY."  BULL V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 247, 262; WILLIAMS V. NEELY, 134 FED. 1, 13. 
FN2  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. MACDANIEL, 7 PET. 1, 16, 17; UNITED
STATES V. RINGGOLD, 8 PET. 150, 163, 164, WHERE EQUITABLE RECOUPMENT
AGAINST A CLAIM BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS ALLOWED NOTWITHSTANDING THE
IMMUNITY OF THE GOVERNMENT FROM SUIT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN SUCH A SUIT EQUITY WILL NOT PERMIT THE
GRANTEE TO SET UP THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ORDINARILY APPLICABLE TO A
SUIT BY THE TRUSTEE IF THE TRUSTEE CAN SHOW THAT THE BENEFICIARY,
BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE OF THE BREACH OF TRUST OR BECAUSE OF DISABILITY,
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BARRED BY LACHES HAD HE BROUGHT SUIT DIRECTLY. 
BRIDGMAN V. GILL, 24 BEAV.  302; DUCKETT V. MECHANICS BANK, 86 MD. 400,
411; 38 ATL. 983.    FN2  "...  ADMITTING THAT THE STATUTE APPLIES
STRICTLY TO MATTERS OF SET-OFF AND COUNTERCLAIM ...  STILL, AS IS WELL
KNOWN, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE MERITS OF THE CONTROVERSY."  AULTMAN &
TAYLOR CO. V. MEADE, 121 KY. 241, 247; 89 S.W. 137.  ACCORD:  HART V.
CHURCH, 126 CAL. 471, 479; 58 PAC. 910; WILHITE V. HAMRICK, 92 IND.
594, 599; BUTLER V. CARPENTER, 163 MO. 597, 604; 63 S.W. 823; EVANS V.
YONGUE, 8 RICH.  LAW (S.C.)  113; STATE V. TANNER, 45 WASH. 348; 88
PAC. 321. 

REPORTER'S NOTE.  - THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN THE FOREGOING CASE IS
PRINTED AS AMENDED BY ORDER OF OCTOBER 11, 1937.    MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :
















U.S. EX REL. GIRARD CO. V. HELVERING, 301 U.S. 540 


NO. 285.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1937.  - 66 APP.
D.C. 64 - 85 F.(2D) 230, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ORDER A REFUND OR
CREDIT OF TAX OVERPAYMENTS; ITS JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO THE
DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY OR OVERPAYMENT.  P. 542. 

2.  IN A SUIT FOR A TAX REFUND, THE COMMISSIONER MAY SECURE A FINAL
ADJUDICATION OF HIS RIGHT TO WITHHOLD THE OVERPAYMENT, DETERMINED BY
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, ON THE GROUND THAT OTHER TAXES ARE DUE FROM
THE TAXPAYER, OR THAT THE TAXPAYER IS NOT EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO A
REFUND.  PP. 542-543. 

3.  MANDAMUS WILL NOT LIE WHERE THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER IS NOT
CLEAR, AND THE DUTY OF THE OFFICER, PERFORMANCE OF WHICH IS TO BE
COMMANDED, IS NOT PLAINLY DEFINED AND PEREMPTORY.  P. 543. 

4.  MANDAMUS WILL NOT LIE TO COMPEL THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE TO REFUND TAXES, PAID BY A TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEE ON INCOME OF
THE TRUST, WHEN THE AMOUNT REFUNDED WOULD INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE
CESTUI QUE TRUST, WHO SHOULD HAVE PAID THE TAX, NOW BARRED BY THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THE CASE IS ONE FOR AN ORDINARY ACTION FOR
REFUND.  PP. 543-544. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. GIRARD TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, V. HELVERING,
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 643, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER MANDAMUS IS THE PROPER
REMEDY TO COMPEL THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO REFUND TAXES,
PAID BY A TESTAMENTARY TRUSTEE ON INCOME OF THE TRUST WHEN THE AMOUNT
REFUNDED WOULD INURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE CESTUI QUE TRUST, WHO SHOULD
HAVE PAID THE TAX, NOW BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 

THE TESTATOR BY HIS WILL CREATED A TRUST TO PAY OVER NET INCOME TO
HIS WIDOW DURING HER LIFE.  SHE ELECTED TO TAKE UNDER THE WILL IN LIEU
OF THE INTEREST OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW.  THE REFUND
DEMANDED IS FOR TAXES ASSESSED AGAINST PETITIONER, THE TRUSTEE, AND
PAID BY IT UPON THE NET INCOME PAID OVER TO THE BENEFICIARY FOR THE
YEARS 1924 TO 1926, INCLUSIVE, AND FOR THE YEAR 1928. 

AS A RESULT OF DEFICIENCY PROCEEDINGS THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HAS
ENTERED FINAL ORDERS DETERMINING THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE TRUSTEE
AS TAXES FOR THOSE YEARS ARE OVERPAYMENTS.  THE BENEFICIARY PAID TAXES
ON THE INCOME PAID OVER TO HER BY THE TRUSTEE FOR THE YEARS 1924 TO
1927 INCLUSIVE, BUT THESE WERE AFTERWARD REFUNDED TO HER IN RECOGNITION
OF THE RULE THEN FOLLOWED BY SEVERAL COURTS OF APPEALS THAT IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE INCOME PAYMENTS TO THE WIDOW ARE ANNUITIES PURCHASED
BY HER SURRENDER OF HER DOWER INTEREST WHICH ARE NOT TAXABLE AS INCOME
TO HER, UNTIL THEY EQUAL THE VALUE OF THE DOWER INTEREST.  WARNER V.
WALSH, 15 F.(2D) 367; UNITED STATES V. BOLSTER, 26 F.(2D) 760; ALLEN V.
BRANDEIS, 29 F.(2D) 363.  SEE STONE V. WHITE, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE,
P. 532.  SHE PAID NO TAX ON THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR 1928. 

BY OUR DECISION IN HELVERING V. BUTTERWORTH, 290 U.S. 365, IT WAS
ESTABLISHED THAT THE INCOME PAID OVER TO THE WIDOW IS TAXABLE TO HER
AND NOT TO THE TRUSTEE, AND IN CONSEQUENCE THAT THE TAX, WHICH IN THIS
CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE BENEFICIARY, HAD BEEN ERRONEOUSLY
COLLECTED FROM THE TRUSTEE.  IT APPEARS THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE
TAXES WHICH THE BENEFICIARY SHOULD HAVE PAID EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF THE
REFUND DEMANDED OF THE COMMISSIONER, AND THAT THE REFUND, IF ALLOWED,
WILL BECOME A PART OF THE INCOME OF THE BENEFICIARY. 

THE PRESENT PETITION FOR MANDAMUS TO COMPEL RESPONDENT, THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, TO REFUND TO PETITIONER THE TAXES
ERRONEOUSLY COLLECTED, WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
DISTRICT.  THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER
WAS NOT EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO THE REFUND WHICH, IF ALLOWED, WOULD INURE
TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WIDOW, WHOSE LIABILITY FOR THE TAX IS BARRED BY
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  66 APP. D.C. 64; 85 F.(2D) 230.  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, THE QUESTIONS DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS BEING
COGNATE TO THOSE CONSIDERED IN STONE V. WHITE, SUPRA. 

THE GOVERNMENT, WHILE SUPPORTING THE DECISION OF THE COURT BELOW ON
THE MERITS, INSISTS THAT THE CASE IS NOT A PROPER ONE FOR THE USE OF
THE EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND THAT THE SUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND.  THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS IS PREDICATED UPON
THE DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS THAT PETITIONER HAS MADE
OVERPAYMENTS OF TAXES FOR THE SPECIFIED YEARS.  THE BOARD HAS NOT
ORDERED A REFUND.  IT COULD NOT RIGHTLY DO SO, FOR ITS JURISDICTION IS
LIMITED TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCY OR
OVERPAYMENT, REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SECS. 272, 322(D), 507, UPON THE
PETITION OF THE TAXPAYER TO REVIEW A DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT BY THE
COMMISSIONER.  THE BOARD IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ORDER A REFUND OR A
CREDIT, ALTHOUGH ITS DECISION IS RES ADJUDICATA AS TO THE QUESTIONS
INVOLVED IN THE COMPUTATION AND ASSESSMENT OF TAXES FOR WHICH A
DEFICIENCY IS CLAIMED.  CF. OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279
U.S. 716, 726-727.  WHEN THE DETERMINATION OF OVERPAYMENT BY THE BOARD
BECOMES FINAL, THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT SUCH AMOUNTS SHALL BE REFUNDED
OR CREDITED, SEC. 322(D), AND UPON THE COMMISSIONER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE STATUTE, A PLENARY SUIT WILL LIE IN THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE
COURT OF CLAIMS, FOR THE RECOVERY OF ANY REFUND TO WHICH HE IS
ENTITLED.  SEE NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 52 F.(2D)
1011, 1013-1014; JAMES V. UNITED STATES, 38 F.(2D) 140, 143; OHIO STEEL
FOUNDRY CO. V. UNITED UNITED STATES, 38 F.(2D) 144, 148-149.  AND IN
SUCH A SUIT THE COMMISSIONER MAY SECURE A FINAL ADJUDICATION OF HIS
RIGHT TO WITHHOLD THE OVERPAYMENT DETERMINED BY THE BOARD, ON THE
GROUND THAT OTHER TAXES ARE DUE FROM THE TAXPAYER, OR THAT UPON OTHER
GROUNDS HE IS NOT EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO THE REFUND.  SEE STONE V.
WHITE, SUPRA; WELCH V. OBISPO OIL CO., ANTE, P. 190; LEWIS V. REYNOLDS,
284 U.S. 281; CROCKER V. MALLEY, 249 U.S. 223. 

IN VIEW OF WHAT WE HAVE JUST DECIDED IN STONE V. WHITE, SUPRA, IT IS
EVIDENT THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE THERE IS NO CLEAR DUTY
OF THE COMMISSIONER TO REFUND THE TAX WITHOUT SECURING A FINAL
ADJUDICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO RETAIN IT, AS HE MAY DO BY
INTERPOSING AN APPROPRIATE DEFENSE IN A SUIT FOR THE REFUND.  WHERE THE
RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER IS NOT CLEAR, AND THE DUTY OF THE OFFICER,
PERFORMANCE OF WHICH IS TO BE COMMANDED, IS NOT PLAINLY DEFINED AND
PEREMPTORY, MANDAMUS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY.  U.S. EX REL. GREAT
WESTERN R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 294 U.S. 50, 61; U.S. EX
REL. MCLENNAN V. WILBUR, 283 U.S. 414, 419-420; WILBUR V. U.S. EX REL.
KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218-219; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. NEW YORK,
N.H. & H.R. CO., 287 U.S. 178, 203; U.S. EX REL. REDFIELD V. WINDOM,
137 U.S. 636, 644.  THE OFFICER MUST BE LEFT FREE, IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF OFFICIAL DUTY, TO DECIDE WHETHER HE WILL PERFORM THE ACT DEMANDED OR
SECURE BY APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE A JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT
OF HIS DUTY.  HIS DECISION "IS REGARDED AS INVOLVING THE CHARACTER OF
JUDGMENT OR DISCRETION," THE EXERCISE OF WHICH WILL NOT BE COMPELLED BY
MANDAMUS, WILBUR V. U.S. EX REL. KADRIE, SUPRA, 219.  U.S. EX REL. HALL
V. PAYNE, 254 U.S. 343, 347; U.S. EX REL. RIVERSIDE OIL CO. V.
HITCHCOCK, 190 U.S. 316, 324, 325; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. NEW
YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., SUPRA. 

IT IS TRUE THAT THE RIGHT TO A WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAY TURN ON EQUITABLE
CONSIDERATIONS, AS THE COURT BELOW HELD.  U.S. EX REL. GREATHOUSE V.
DERN, 289 U.S. 352.  BUT TO TRY PETITIONER'S EQUITABLE RIGHT TO THE
REFUND HERE IS TO MAKE THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS SERVE THE PURPOSE OF AN
ORDINARY SUIT AND TO DEPART FROM THE SETTLED RULE THAT THE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS MAY NOT BE EMPLOYED TO SECURE THE ADJUDICATION OF A DISPUTED
RIGHT FOR WHICH AN ORDINARY SUIT AFFORDS A REMEDY EQUALLY ADEQUATE, AND
COMPLETE.  SEE EX PARTE BALDWIN, 291 U.S. 610, 619; REESIDE V. WALKER,
11 HOW.  272, 292; UNITED STATES V. DUELL, 172 U.S. 576, 582. 

AS WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT ONE WHICH SHOULD BE ADJUDICATED
IN A PROCEEDING FOR MANDAMUS IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE MERITS
AND THE JUDGMENT WILL BE AFFIRMED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING FOR THE REFUND OF THE TAX.  AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 
..END :











MANTLE LAMP CO. V. ALUMINUM CO., 301 U.S. 544 


NO. 765.  ARGUED MAY 3, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1937.  - 86 F.(2D) 509,
AFFIRMED. 


PATENT NO. 1,435,199, TO BLAIR, CLAIM 1, FOR "A HEAT-INSULATED VESSEL
OF THE NON-VACUUM TYPE HAVING AN OUTER JACKET OF NON-FRANGIBLE
MATERIAL, AN INNER CONTAINER OF FRANGIBLE MATERIAL, SAID INNER
CONTAINER BEING BONDED TO AND PENDENTLY SUPPORTED FROM SAID JACKET, AND
HEAT-INSULATING AND SHOCK-ABSORBING MEANS SURROUNDING SAID CONTAINER
FOR LIMITING OSCILLATIONS OF SAID CONTAINER WHILE PERMITTING EXPANSION
THEREOF BY CHANGES OF TEMPERATURE," IS VOID FOR WANT OF INVENTION.  P.
546. 

MANTLE LAMP CO. V. ALUMINUM PRODUCTS CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 651, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
DISMISSING A BILL IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIMS 1, 3 TO 14, INCLUSIVE, 17,
18, AND 21 TO 24, INCLUSIVE, OF THE BLAIR PATENT NO. 1,435,199 FOR A
HEAT-INSULATED RECEPTACLE.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD ALL OF THE CLAIMS
INVALID BY REASON OF LACK OF INVENTION, PRIOR INVENTION, ANTICIPATION,
AS BEING FOR AN AGGREGATION AND AS INVOLVING ONLY MECHANICAL SKILL. 
THAT COURT FURTHER LIMITED THE CLAIMS TO THE PARTICULAR STRUCTURE
DISCLOSED IN THE APPLICATION, AND, SO LIMITED, HELD THEM NOT
INFRINGED.  IT ALSO FOUND THAT UNREASONABLE DELAY IN FILING DISCLAIMERS
VOIDED ALL THE CLAIMS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED A DECREE
DISMISSING THE BILL.  FN1  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT
OF DECISION. 

IN 1927 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT HELD ALL
OF THE CLAIMS HERE IN SUIT, EXCEPT CLAIM 3, BAD FOR WANT OF INVENTION. 
FN2  IN 1931 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HELD
CLAIM 1 VALID AND INFRINGED "WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY RIGHTS OF THE
PLAINTIFF UNDER ANY OTHER CLAIM."  FN3  INASMUCH AS THE CONFLICT IS
LIMITED TO CLAIM 1 WE RESTRICT OUR CONSIDERATION TO THAT CLAIM.  THE
CLAIM IS: 

"A HEAT-INSULATED VESSEL OF THE NON-VACUUM TYPE HAVING AN OUTER
JACKET OF NON-FRANGIBLE MATERIAL, AN INNER CONTAINER OF FRANGIBLE
MATERIAL, SAID INNER CONTAINER BEING BONDED TO AND PENDENTLY SUPPORTED
FROM SAID JACKET, AND HEAT-INSULATING AND SHOCK-ABSORBING MEANS
SURROUNDING SAID CONTAINER FOR LIMITING OSCILLATIONS OF SAID CONTAINER
WHILE PERMITTING EXPANSION THEREOF BY CHANGES OF TEMPERATURE." 

OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO CONTAINERS FOR KEEPING THEIR CONTENTS HOT OR
COLD BY THE USE OF A VACUUM CAME INTO GENERAL USE.  IT WAS FOUND
IMPRACTICAL TO MAKE SUCH CONTAINERS OF A CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF ONE
QUART OR PERHAPS TWO QUARTS.  FOR SOME YEARS THEREAFTER THERE WERE NO
SATISFACTORY INSULATED CONTAINERS OF LARGER SIZE.  IN 1919 BLAIR FILED
APPLICATION FOR A PATENT FOR A HEAT INSULATED RECEPTACLE OF THE NON
VACUUM TYPE, HIS OBJECT BEING ECONOMICALLY TO PRODUCE RELATIVELY LARGE
RECEPTACLES WHICH WOULD BE SANITARY AND EASY TO CLEAN, TO IMPROVE THEIR
INSULATION, TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSMISSION OF SHOCKS TO THE INNER
CONTAINER WHICH WAS OF GLASS OR OTHER FRAGILE SUBSTANCE.  AS DISCLOSED
BY THE CLAIM IN QUESTION HE PROPOSED TO MAKE A JUG OR PAILLIKE
CONTAINER THE OUTER JACKET OF WHICH WOULD BE OF IRON OR SIMILAR RIGID
MATERIAL.  WITHIN THIS THERE WAS AN INNER CONTAINER OF GLASS (OR, AS IN
THE COMMERCIAL ARTICLE, OF EARTHENWARE) BONDED TO AND PENDENTLY
SUPPORTED FROM THE OUTER JACKET.  BETWEEN THE INNER AND OUTER MEMBERS
COMMINUTED MATERIAL, SUCH AS GROUND CORK, WAS TO BE INSERTED FOR
INSULATING THE INNER CONTAINER, LIMITING ITS OSCILLATIONS AND
PERMITTING ITS EXPANSION DUE TO CHANGES OF TEMPERATURE. 

WE PASS THE QUESTIONS OF INFRINGEMENT AND FAILURE PROMPTLY TO
DISCLAIM AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT HAD
HELD THE CLAIMS INVALID IN 1927, SINCE WE HOLD THAT THE PATENT DOES NOT
DISCLOSE INVENTION. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE PATENT WERE OLD AND
AGGREGATION OF THEM DID NOT INVOLVE THE EXERCISE OF INVENTIVE GENIUS
BUT OF MECHANICAL ADAPTATION CONTAINERS COMPRISING AN INNER RECEPTACLE
AND AN OUTER CASING, THE INTERSPACE FILLED WITH COMMINUTED MATERIAL,
WERE OLD.  THE PACKING OF THE SPACE HAD BEEN PRACTICED BOTH TO PROTECT
THE INNER CONTAINER FROM SHOCK AND TO INSULATE IT.  THE PENDULANT
SUPPORT OF THE INNER MEMBER BY THE CASING WAS OLD.  SUCH PENDULANT
SUPPORT HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY SCREWING THE THREADED NECK OF THE GLASS
CONTAINER INTO THE THREADED NECK OF THE CASING, BY SUPERIMPOSING AN
ANNULAR FLANGE ON THE ONE OVER A CORRESPONDING FLANGE ON THE OTHER, AND
BY OTHER MECHANICAL MEANS.  THE PETITIONER SAYS, HOWEVER, THAT NOVELTY
AND INVENTION ARE FOUND IN THE USE OF A BOND TO UNITE THE INNER AND
OUTER MEMBERS.  AS TO THIS ITS BRIEF STATES:  "THE PATENTEE SAYS IN HIS
PATENT THAT HE PREFERS TO USE THE ADHERENT BOND DESCRIBED BUT THE
DISCLOSURE OF THE PATENT IS NOT SO LIMITED AND IS BROAD ENOUGH TO
INCLUDE ANY BOND EITHER A MECHANICAL OR AN ADHERENT BOND."  IT IS ALSO
SAID THAT THE BOND SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS AND DESCRIBED IN THE
SPECIFICATIONS ACTS AS A SEAL AT THE NECK OF THE CONTAINER TO PREVENT
LIQUIDS FROM SEEPING INTO THE INSULATING MATERIAL AND IMPAIRING ITS
USEFULNESS.  ACCEPTING THE VIEW THAT TO BOND TWO ARTICLES CAN SIGNIFY
NO MORE THAN TO UNITE THEM FIRMLY BY ANY MEANS, WE FIND IN THE PRIOR
ART THE BONDING OF CONTAINER AND CASING BY MECHANICAL MEANS AND BY THE
USE OF CEMENT AND PLASTER OF PARIS.  INVENTION CANNOT INHERE IN BLAIR'S
EMPLOYMENT OF EITHER MODE OF UNION.  THE CLAIM SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE
SEALING EFFECT OF THE BOND, BUT IF INTERPRETATION OF THE CLAIM BY
REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFICATION MIGHT SUPPLY THIS ELEMENT, THE PRIOR ART
SHOWS INSTANCES OF SUCH SEALING BY THE USE OF AN IMPERVIOUS BINDING
MATERIAL SUCH AS CEMENT, AND EARLIER PATENTS CLAIM THIS SEALING AS AN
ELEMENT OF THE INVENTION DESCRIBED. 

IN SHORT, ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE PRIOR ART NEEDED ONLY BY EXERCISE
OF MECHANICAL SKILL TO COMBINE KNOWN METHODS AND STRUCTURES AND SO
ATTAIN THE COMBINATION EXHIBITED IN THE PATENT.  THE JUDGMENT IS
AFFIRMED. 

FN1  86 F.(2D) 509. 

FN2  MACOMB MFG. CO. V. MANTLE LAMP CO., 22 F.(2D) 93; MONARCH CO. V.
MANTLE LAMP CO., 22 F.(2D) 95. 

FN3  MANTLE LAMP CO. V. GEORGE H. BOWMAN CO., 53 F.(2D) 441. 
..END :
























STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 


NO. 837.  ARGUED APRIL 8, 9, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1937.  - 89 F.(2D)
207, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE TAX IMPOSED BY TITLE IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF AUGUST
14, 1935, UPON THE EMPLOYER OF LABOR, DESCRIBED AS "AN EXCISE TAX WITH
RESPECT TO HAVING INDIVIDUALS IN HIS EMPLOY," AND WHICH IS MEASURED BY
PRESCRIBED PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL WAGES PAYABLE BY THE EMPLOYER
DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR, IS EITHER AN "EXCISE," A "DUTY," OR AN
"IMPOST," WITHIN THE INTENT OF ART. I, SEC. 8, OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND
COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF UNIFORMITY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES.  PP. 578, 583. 

2.  THE ENJOYMENT OF COMMON RIGHTS, SUCH AS THE RIGHT TO EMPLOY
LABOR, MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE TAXED.  P. 578. 

SUCH TAXATION WAS PRACTICED IN ENGLAND AND AMONG THE COLONIES BEFORE
THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 579. 

3.  THE FACT THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, TITLE IX, SUPRA, EXEMPTS
FROM THE TAX EMPLOYERS OF LESS THAN EIGHT, AND DOES NOT APPLY IN
RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LABOR, DOMESTIC SERVICE IN PRIVATE HOMES, AND
SOME OTHER CLASSES OF EMPLOYMENT DOES NOT RENDER IT OBNOXIOUS TO THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 584. 

A CLASSIFICATION SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND
PRACTICAL CONVENIENCE, WHICH WOULD BE VALID UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IF ADOPTED BY A STATE, IS LAWFUL, A
FORTIORI, IN THE LEGISLATION OF CONGRESS, SINCE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
CONTAINS NO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. 

4.  THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX IMPOSED ON EMPLOYERS BY TITLE IX OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, SUPRA, GO INTO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES
WITHOUT EARMARK, LIKE INTERNAL REVENUE COLLECTIONS GENERALLY.  THE
TAXPAYER IS ENTITLED TO CREDIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL TAX (UP TO 90%
THEREOF) WHAT HE HAS CONTRIBUTED DURING THE TAX YEAR UNDER A STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT LAW, PROVIDED THAT THE STATE LAW SHALL HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED
BY THE FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
AS SATISFYING CERTAIN CONDITIONS DESIGNED TO ASSURE THAT THE STATE LAW
IS GENUINELY AN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW AND THAT CONTRIBUTIONS
WILL BE USED SOLELY IN THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND BE PROTECTED
AGAINST LOSS AFTER THE PAYMENT TO THE STATE.  TO THESE ENDS, TITLE IX
PROVIDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT, TO BE APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL
COMMISSION, THE STATE LAW SHALL DIRECT THAT ALL MONEY RECEIVED IN THE
STATE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND SHALL IMMEDIATELY UPON SUCH RECEIPT BE PAID
OVER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO THE CREDIT OF AN "UNEMPLOYMENT
TRUST FUND," AND THAT ALL MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST
FUND BY THE STATE AGENCY SHALL BE USED SOLELY IN THE PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION, EXCLUSIVE OF EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION.  THE SECRETARY
IS EMPOWERED TO INVEST IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES ANY PORTION OF THIS
FUND WHICH, IN HIS JUDGMENT, IS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET CURRENT
WITHDRAWALS; AND OUT OF IT HE IS DIRECTED TO PAY TO ANY COMPETENT STATE
AGENCY SUCH SUMS AS IT MAY DULY REQUISITION FROM THE AMOUNT STANDING TO
ITS CREDIT.  THE TAXPAYER'S CREDIT AGAINST THE FEDERAL TAX DEPENDS ON
COMPLIANCE WITH THESE STATUTORY CONDITIONS; THE STATE, HOWEVER, IS
UNDER NO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO COMPLY, BUT AT ITS PLEASURE MAY
REPEAL ITS UNEMPLOYMENT LAW, AND WITHDRAW ITS DEPOSIT FROM THE FEDERAL
TREASURY.  HELD: 

(1)  ASSUMING THAT THE FEDERAL TAX CANNOT BE TREATED AS A REVENUE
PROVISION STANDING APART, BUT MUST BE TESTED IN COMBINATION WITH THE
90% CREDIT PROVISION, THE TAX IS NOT VOID AS INVOLVING AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ATTEMPT TO COERCE THE STATES TO ADOPT UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION LEGISLATION APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  P. 585. 

(2)  THE PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT IS NATIONAL AS WELL AS LOCAL; AND IN
PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE MONEYS OF THE NATION MAY BE USED TO
RELIEVE THE UNEMPLOYED AND THEIR DEPENDENTS IN ECONOMIC DEPRESSIONS AND
TO GUARD AGAINST SUCH DISASTERS.  P. 586. 

(3)  TITLE IX MAY BE SUSTAINED AS A COOPERATIVE PLAN WHEREBY STATES
MAY BE SET FREE TO PROVIDE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION WITHOUT SUBJECTING
THEMSELVES TO ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES RESULTING FROM THE ABSENCE OF SUCH
PROVISION IN OTHER STATES; AND WHEREBY, THROUGH THE ASSUMPTION OF SUCH
BURDENS BY THE STATES GENERALLY, THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF THE NATION DUE
TO UNEMPLOYMENT MAY BE CORRESPONDINGLY DECREASED.  P. 587. 

DUPLICATED TAXES, OR BURDENS THAT APPROACH THEM, ARE HARDSHIPS THAT
GOVERNMENT, STATE OR NATIONAL, MAY PROPERLY AVOID.  P. 589. 

(4)  EVERY REBATE FROM A TAX, WHEN CONDITIONED UPON CONDUCT, IS IN
SOME MEASURE A TEMPTATION; BUT MOTIVE OR TEMPTATION IS NOT EQUIVALENT
TO COERCION.  P. 589. 

(5)  IF IT BE TRUE TO SAY THAT A POWER AKIN TO UNDUE INFLUENCE MAY BE
EXERTED BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT ON THE STATES, THE LOCATION OF THE
POINT AT WHICH PRESSURE TURNS INTO COMPULSION, AND CEASES TO BE
INDUCEMENT, WOULD BE A QUESTION OF DEGREE,  - AT TIMES, PERHAPS, OF
FACT.  THE POINT HAD NOT BEEN REACHED WHEN ALABAMA BY PASSING HER
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW EVINCED HER CHOICE TO HAVE RELIEF
ADMINISTERED UNDER LAWS OF HER OWN MAKING, BY AGENTS OF HER OWN
SELECTION, INSTEAD OF UNDER FEDERAL LAWS, ADMINISTERED BY FEDERAL
OFFICERS.  P. 589. 

IT IS ONE THING TO IMPOSE A FEDERAL TAX DEPENDENT UPON THE CONDUCT OF
THE TAXPAYERS, OR OF THE STATE IN WHICH THEY LIVE, WHERE THE CONDUCT TO
BE STIMULATED OR DISCOURAGED IS UNRELATED TO THE FISCAL NEED SUBSERVED
BY THE TAX IN ITS NORMAL OPERATION, OR TO ANY OTHER END LEGITIMATELY
NATIONAL.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO SAY THAT A TAX WILL BE ABATED
UPON THE DOING OF AN ACT THAT WILL SATISFY THE FISCAL NEED, THE TAX AND
THE ALTERNATIVE BEING APPROXIMATE EQUIVALENTS.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES,
IF IN NO OTHERS, INDUCEMENT OR PERSUASION DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE BOUNDS
OF POWER.  P. 591. 

5.  NO SURRENDER OF POWERS ESSENTIAL TO THE QUASI-SOVEREIGN EXISTENCE
OF STATES IS REQUIRED BY SEC. 903 OF TITLE IX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ACT, WHICH DEFINES THE MINIMUM CRITERIA TO WHICH A STATE COMPENSATION
SYSTEM IS REQUIRED TO CONFORM IF IT IS TO BE ACCEPTED BY THE SOCIAL
SECURITY BOARD AS THE BASIS FOR CREDITS AGAINST THE TAXES LAID ON
EMPLOYERS BY THAT TITLE; NOR BY SEC. 904, WHICH DEALS WITH THE DEPOSIT,
INVESTMENT AND WITHDRAWAL OF THE MONEYS CREDITED.  P. 593. 

6.  SEMBLE THAT THE STATES MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY MAKE WITH CONGRESS
SUCH AGREEMENTS AS DO NOT IMPAIR THE ESSENCE OF THEIR STATEHOOD.  P.
597. 

7.  TITLE III OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, WHICH APPROPRIATES NO MONEY
BUT AUTHORIZES THE MAKING OF FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASSISTING THE STATES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION LAWS, IS SEVERABLE FROM TITLE IX AND ITS VALIDITY IS NOT
IN ISSUE.  P. 598. 

STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

THIS WAS A REVIEW, ON CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 652, OF A JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT BELOW AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION FOR
THE RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID BY THE PLAINTIFF AS A TAX UNDER TITLE IX OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.  SUMMARY FROM THE BRIEF: 

THE FEDERAL ACT IS SO LACKING IN PRECEDENT THAT OUR ARGUMENT IS TO A
LARGE EXTENT DEVOTED TO THE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION IN ORDER TO SHOW
THAT CONGRESS SEIZED ON THE TAXING POWER MERELY AS A PRETEXT TO PROVIDE
THIS PLAN FOR UNEMPLOYMENT.  IN THE HISTORY OF THE ACT, FROM ITS
INCEPTION IN THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE TO ITS FINAL PASSAGE, NO IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS WERE OVERLOOKED. 

AS A DEVICE, THE TWO-WAY SYSTEM WAS ADOPTED.  NO ONE COULD RAISE THE
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX, OR CHALLENGE AN APPROPRIATION. 
AND THE TAX CLUB WAS SUFFICIENT TO DRIVE THE STATES INTO LINE.  THE FEW
STANDARDS SURROUNDING THE GRANTS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO ASSURE CONTROL
OF THE SYSTEM.  IF THE FEDERAL ACT SHOULD BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE
STATE ACTS WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE.  SO THE FEDERAL-STATE SYSTEM WAS
LAUNCHED, IN PREFERENCE TO THE NATIONAL SYSTEM BY WHICH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WOULD ADMINISTER THE ENTIRE PLAN, AND IN PREFERENCE TO THE
SUBSIDY PLAN, BY WHICH THE GOVERNMENT WOULD COLLECT ALL THE TAXES AND
SUBSIDIZE THE STATES. 

INDEED, ARGUED THE PROPONENTS OF THE MEASURE, THE COURT CANNOT LOOK
INTO THE MOTIVE OF CONGRESS, PROVIDED THE POWER EXERCISED BE
CONSTITUTIONAL.  AND CERTAINLY, THE IMPOSITION OF AN EXCISE TAX IS
CONSTITUTIONAL.  BUT HERE THE MOTIVE IS NOT CONCEALED.  IT STANDS OUT,
STARKLY REVEALING THE TAXING POWER AS A MERE PRETEXT. 

WHAT REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE TAXING POWER OF CONGRESS CAN THIS
MEASURE BE SAID TO SUSTAIN?  IT IS NOT INTENDED THAT ONE DOLLAR OF THE
PAYROLL TAXES SHALL BE USED FOR THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF GOVERNMENT.  IN
MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, THIS COURT SAID THAT THE
REQUIREMENT THAT A TAX BE FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE "HAS REGARD TO THE USE
WHICH IS TO BE MADE OF THE REVENUE DERIVED FROM THE TAX."  THE ENTIRE
TAX RESULTING FROM THE CHILD LABOR TAX ACT, WHICH IS PART OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1919(40 STAT. 1057), FOUND ITS WAY TO THE TREASURY TO BE
DISBURSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF GOVERNMENT; YET FROM THE OPINION OF THIS
COURT WE MAY WELL INFER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WERE NOT
NATURALLY AND REASONABLY ADAPTED TO THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX, BUT
"SOLELY TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF SOME OTHER PURPOSE PLAINLY WITHIN STATE
POWER."  259 U.S. 20, 43.  LIKEWISE IN THE FUTURE TRADING ACT (42 STAT.
187), THE TAX WENT INTO THE TREASURY.  IN HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44,
THIS COURT SAID THAT THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO COMPEL
BOARDS OF TRADE TO COMPLY WITH REGULATIONS "MANY OF WHICH CAN HAVE NO
RELEVANCY TO THE COLLECTION OF THE TAX AT ALL."  CF. LINDER V. UNITED
STATES, 268 U.S. 5, CONSIDERING THE HARRISON NARCOTIC ACT AS AMENDED BY
THE REVENUE ACT OF 1919(40 STAT. 1057, 1130).  OTHER CASES INVOLVING
REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP OF ACTS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER UNDER WHICH
THEY WERE CLAIMED TO ARISE ARE: NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S.
232, 258, REGULATING PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR UNITED STATES SENATORS;
HOWARD V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 207 U.S. 463, 502-503, FIRST
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT; KELLER V. UNITED STATES, 213 U.S. 138, 144,
IMMIGRATION LAW; AND CHILD LABOR CASE, 247 U.S. 251. 

THE DECLARATION THAT INVALIDITY OF ONE PART OF THE ACT SHALL NOT
AFFECT THE REMAINDER IS AN AID IN DETERMINING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT,
"BUT IS NOT AN INEXORABLE COMMAND."  RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON
R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, 362.  THIS COURT CANNOT REWRITE THE STATUTE AND
GIVE IT AN EFFECT ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FROM THAT SOUGHT BY THE MEASURE
VIEWED AS A WHOLE.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 239. 

IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE HISTORY OF THE ACT THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT
SEEKING TAXES FOR THE TREASURY; IT WAS PROVIDING A PLAN FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT.  WITHOUT THE PLAN THE TAX WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED. 
WITH THE PLAN THE ENTIRE ACT FALLS. 

GRANTS TO STATES CONTAINED IN PRIOR ACTS OF CONGRESS FURNISH NO
PRECEDENT FOR TITLE III OF THIS ACT. 

WHILE CONGRESS LATELY MAY HAVE SPENT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR RELIEF,
WHICH IS THE PRIMARY BURDEN AND DUTY OF THE STATES, THE QUESTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHICH IS DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO RAISE IN
THE COURTS, THIS SPENDING CANNOT NOW BE USED TO ARM CONGRESS WITH THE
POWER TO IMPOSE UNLAWFUL BURDENS ON THE STATES, IN ORDER TO COMPEL THEM
TO REFILL THE FEDERAL TREASURY AND IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO ASSUME
THEIR PROPER BURDENS IN THE FUTURE. 

IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT BY THIS LEGISLATION THE STATES WERE ACTUALLY
COMPELLED TO COMPLY WITH THE DEMANDS OF CONGRESS. 

NO GRANT BY CONGRESS IS JUSTIFIED IF ITS NON-ACCEPTANCE RESULTS IN A
PENALTY.  IF THE STATES DO NOT COMPLY, THEIR CITIZENS ARE COMPELLED TO
SUPPLY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BE USED FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
AGENCIES IN OTHER STATES THAT SUBMIT. 

THE SYSTEM DENIES DUE PROCESS OF LAW TO EMPLOYERS OF EIGHT OR MORE BY
REQUIRING THE STATES TO IMPOSE ON THIS GROUP A TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PAYING BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED. 

EXTRACTS FROM ORAL ARGUMENT OF MR. WYZANSKI: 

THE TAX IS COLLECTED IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER INTERNAL
REVENUE TAX.  IT IS PAID TO APPROPRIATE TREASURY OFFICIALS, AND THERE
ARE THE USUAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO PENALTIES, REFUNDS, AND
INTEREST.  AGAINST THE TAX THERE IS ALLOWED A CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT
WHICH THE TAXPAYER PAYS INTO A FUND CREATED UNDER STATE LAW. 

THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW, IN ORDER TO SERVE AS THE
BASIS FOR THE CREDIT, MUST MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS WHICH ARE ENUMERATED
IN SEC. 903A. 

THE STANDARDS DESCRIBE WHAT IS AN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW. 
THEY ARE DEFINITIONAL STANDARDS. 

THE AMOUNTS WHICH ARE COLLECTED BY STATES AS UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION CONTRIBUTIONS, AND WHICH ARE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIONS FROM
THE FEDERAL TAX, ARE COLLECTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE STATE
COLLECTORS, THEN DEPOSITED IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND IN THE UNITED
STATES TREASURY, AND THERE HELD SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE REGULAR
FUNDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.  HENCE IT MAY BE SAID THAT NONE OF THE MONEY
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS UTILIZED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION. 
THE MONEY WHICH THE STATES HAVE LEFT ON DEPOSIT IN A TRUST FUND IS
UTILIZED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION. 

NOW, TITLE IX IS THE ONLY TITLE WHICH IMPINGES ON THE PETITIONER IN
THIS CASE.  HE CLAIMS, HOWEVER, THAT TITLE III IS ALSO INVOLVED.  THAT
TITLE IS NOT AN APPROPRIATION STATUTE.  IT IS AN AUTHORITY TO
APPROPRIATE. 

THE MONEY WHICH IS APPROPRIATED UNDER THAT TITLE IS UTILIZED FOR
GRANTS IN AID OR SUBVENTIONS TO STATES FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH
ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES OF THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAWS. 
AGAIN, YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE MONEY IS NOT USED DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT-COMPENSATION BENEFITS.  IT IS A GRANT IN
AID OR A SUBVENTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION LAW. 

(FOLLOWED AN EXEGESIS OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH FURNISHED THE
OCCASION FOR THIS EXERCISE OF CONGRESSIONAL TAXING POWERS.) 

NO ONE CLAIMS THAT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION IS A COMPLETE PANACEA,
OR WILL MEET ALL THE NEEDS IN PERIODS OF CYCLICAL DEPRESSION; BUT AT
THE SAME TIME IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IF UNEMPLOYMENT-COMPENSATION
SYSTEMS ARE SET UP PROMPTLY THERE WILL NOT BE THE EXHAUSTION OF LOCAL
RESOURCES IN ADVANCE OF A CYCLICAL DEPRESSION.  SO THAT WHEN THE DAY OF
THE CYCLICAL DEPRESSION COMES, THE INDIVIDUAL WORKERS WILL HAVE FUNDS,
STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WILL HAVE FUNDS, AND WILL NOT BE FORCED IN
THE FACE OF A RESISTANT BOND MARKET, TAX DELINQUENCY, AND OTHER FACTORS
WHICH ARE ALWAYS PRESENT IN A DEPRESSION, TO RAISE THE SUMS WHICH ARE
NECESSARY TO TAKE CARE OF THE UNEMPLOYED. 

THE FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT SET UP UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, BUT IT
DOES ESTABLISH, AS A CONDITION FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF A STATE LAW,
THAT THE STATE LAW SHALL PROVIDE THAT BENEFITS SHALL BE PAID THROUGH
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.  NOW, IF A BENEFIT IS PAID IN THAT WAY, AS
IT IS IN ALL COUNTRIES ABROAD WHERE THERE IS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION,
THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT WHEN THE WORKER COMES TO THE OFFICE, HE IS
OFFERED A JOB.  IF HE TURNS DOWN THE JOB, HE DOES NOT GET A CHANCE TO
GET HIS BENEFIT.  IN OTHER WORDS, YOU IMMEDIATELY TEST HIS WILLINGNESS
TO WORK. 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION IS COMPENSATION FOR AN INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT,
JUST AS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION IS COMPENSATION FOR INDUSTRIAL
ACCIDENTS. 

THE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE STATE'S GOING ALONE WERE NUMEROUS.  IN THE
FIRST PLACE, IT WAS FELT THAT IF A STATE WENT ALONE, THE ECONOMIC
DISADVANTAGE WOULD BE MATERIAL FOR ITS OWN EMPLOYERS.  THAT POINT WAS
BROUGHT OUT AGAIN AND AGAIN BY THE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATIONS AND BY
VARIOUS GROUPS WHO HAD THE INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYERS AS WELL AS THE
GENERAL PUBLIC AT HEART. 

MOREOVER, IT WAS FELT THAT IF A STATE WENT AHEAD ALONE IT COULD NOT
PROTECT ITSELF BY AN EMBARGO, UNDER THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN
BALDWIN V. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, WHICH WELL ILLUSTRATES THE POINT.  IT
MIGHT NOT EVEN INCLUDE WITHIN ITS SYSTEM, IF IT WERE A TAX SYSTEM,
EMPLOYERS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR EMPLOYEES WHO WERE ENGAGED
IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT WAS ALSO FELT THAT IN THIS FIELD THE
TECHNICAL RESOURCES OF A SINGLE STATE WERE SO INADEQUATE THAT IT MIGHT
BE DANGEROUS TO PROCEED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF TECHNICAL ADVICE
FURNISHED BY SOME MORE WEALTHY GOVERNMENT THAN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS. 
TO SOLVE THIS DILEMMA, THREE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS WERE ACTUALLY BROUGHT
FORWARD.  ONE SUGGESTED THAT THE RELIEF SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES BE
TRANSMUTED INTO AN UNEMPLOYMENT-COMPENSATION SYSTEM, AND THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, INSTEAD OF GIVING OUT MONEY FOR RELIEF, GIVE OUT
MONEY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ON THE BASIS OF THE WILLINGNESS OF
THE WORKER TO TAKE A JOB. 

THE SECOND SUGGESTION WAS THAT THERE SHOULD BE LAID A SPECIAL TAX,
THE FUNDS TAKEN INTO THE FEDERAL TREASURY, AND THEN GIVEN TO THE STATES
BY SUBVENTIONS OR GRANTS-IN-AID. 

THE THIRD SUGGESTION WAS THAT A SPECIAL TAX BE IMPOSED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WITH A CREDIT AGAINST THE TAX FOR THE AMOUNTS WHICH
INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS HAD CONTRIBUTED TO STATE UNEMPLOYMENT-COMPENSATION
FUNDS.  NOW, IT IS THE THIRD METHOD THAT WAS ADOPTED BY CONGRESS, AND
THAT METHOD WAS CHOSEN FOR REASONS OF POLICY AND REASONS OF LAW.  IT
WAS FELT THAT THIS SYSTEM GAVE TO THE STATES IN A NEW FIELD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANTED AN UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION SYSTEM, FREE FROM THE FEAR OF COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. 
IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT IF THE STATES CHOSE TO GO AHEAD THEY MIGHT GO
AHEAD IN ANY ONE OF A NUMBER OF WAYS AND SERVE AS LABORATORIES FOR
SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION.  IT WAS FURTHER FELT THAT THESE LOCAL SYSTEMS
WOULD PROMOTE LOCAL INITIATIVE, LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND WOULD RESULT
IN VIGILANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE FUNDS; THAT IS, LOCAL PEOPLE WOULD
WATCH HOW LOCAL MONEY WAS BEING SPENT.  QUITE APART FROM THOSE
CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY, CONGRESS CHOSE THIS METHOD, FOR SOME REASONS
OF LAW. 

NOW, THE REASON IN LAW WHY THIS PARTICULAR METHOD WAS CHOSEN WAS THAT
THERE WAS A PRECEDENT IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, DEALING WITH THE
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX, CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273
U.S. 12.  (COUNSEL THEN DISCUSSED THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT DECISION.) 

THE TAX IS LAID UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF RECEIVING SERVICES,  - ON THE
"FUNCTION OF EMPLOYMENT."  REGARDED AS A TAX UPON THE RECEIPT OF
SERVICES, IT IS QUITE ANALOGOUS TO THE TAX ON THE RECEIPT OF PROPERTY,
CONSIDERED IN KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41.  REGARDED AS A TAX ON
DOING BUSINESS IN A CERTAIN FORM, IT IS QUITE ANALOGOUS TO THE
CORPORATE TAX SUSTAINED IN FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107. 

THERE IS AN ENGLISH PRECEDENT FOR THIS TAX ANTEDATING THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN 1777 PARLIAMENT PASSED A TAX
LEVYING UPON EMPLOYERS OF DOMESTIC SERVANTS A TAX OF 21 SHILLINGS PER
DOMESTIC SERVANT, AS DESCRIBED IN CERTAIN CATEGORIES, AND THAT TAX OF
1777 WAS REENACTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM, IN 1803, 1812, 1853,
AND 1869, AND IS STILL ON THE BOOKS IN ENGLAND; AND THE TAX IS
SPECIFICALLY DENOMINATED AN EXCISE TAX, IN SOME OF THOSE STATUTES. 

THIS TAX SATISFIED THE CONSTITUTIONAL CANON OF UNIFORMITY AS LAID
DOWN IN FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12; POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101;
AND KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41. 

THE TAX ON ITS FACE HAS ALL THE INDICIA OF A TAX, AND AS IT RAISES
SUBSTANTIAL REVENUE, IT SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AS A REVENUE MEASURE
WITHOUT FURTHER INQUIRY.  ALL THE CASES, FROM VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8
WALL.  533, TO THE SONZINSKY CASE, 300 U.S. 506, SUPPORT THIS
POSITION.  IF AN INQUIRY IS MADE INTO THE POLICIES OF THIS TAX, THEY
ARE REASONABLE, RELATE TO THE POWER CONFERRED, AND HAVE BEEN EXECUTED
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
CONGRESS HAD TWO POLICIES IN MIND, ONE OF AVOIDING DOUBLE TAXATION IN A
STATE WHICH BY A LAW WAS TAXING EMPLOYERS, AND THIS IS A POLICY WHICH
IS REASONABLY RELATED TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.  DOUBLE
TAXATION WAS INDEED REFERRED TO BY HAMILTON, IN THE THIRTY-THIRD PAPER
IN THE FEDERALIST, AND ALSO BY EDMUND RANDOLPH IN THE VIRGINIA
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.  EACH SAID THAT THEY EXPECTED THE UNION
WOULD SO APPLY ITS TAXES AS NOT TO DOUBLE UP ON THE SAME SUBJECT WHICH
HAD BEEN SELECTED, OR MIGHT BE SELECTED, BY A STATE.  CF. HENNEFORD V.
SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577; FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12.    THE
OTHER POLICY, RELATED TO THE TAXING AND SPENDING POWERS, WHICH SUPPORTS
THIS LEGISLATION, CONCERNS THE GENERAL WELFARE.  THE POWER GRANTED IS
THE POWER "TO TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR PAYMENT OF THE
NATION'S DEBTS AND MAKING PROVISION FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE."  BUTLER
CASE.  "MAKING PROVISION" MEANS TO MAKE A FINANCIAL PROVISION, AND THAT
IS WHAT THIS STATUTE DOES. 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION WILL MEET THE BREAKDOWN WHICH TAKES PLACE
IN THE FAMILY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WORKER WHO IS UNEMPLOYED, THE
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF UNEMPLOYMENT UPON HIS HEALTH AND UPON THE HEALTH
OF HIS FAMILY.  THE EFFECT OF UNEMPLOYMENT UPON CRIME AND VAGRANCY IS
OBVIOUS; SO IS THE EFFECT UPON THE TAXPAYER.  WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379, 399.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS STILL SPENDING
VAST SUMS FOR RELIEF, AND WE SAY THAT SINCE THIS ACT WILL OPERATE TO
RELIEVE THE DRAIN UPON THE FEDERAL TREASURY, AND WILL PROVIDE FUNDS FOR
THE GENERAL WELFARE, IT IS REASONABLY RELATED TO THE POLICIES AND
PURPOSES OF THE TAXING CLAUSE. 

BUT THE QUESTION MAY BE RAISED, CAN THESE POLICIES BE CARRIED OUT BY
A TAX AND CREDIT?  TO THAT WE CITE AS AN ANSWER FLORIDA V. MELLON, FOR
THERE THE POLICIES WHICH CONGRESS HAD IN MIND WERE CARRIED OUT BY A TAX
AND CREDIT SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE THE ONE HERE INVOLVED, AND A TAX AND
CREDIT WHICH WAS IN THE MIND OF CONGRESS WHEN THIS LEGISLATION WAS
ENACTED. 

WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED THE FRAMERS HAD IN MIND THREE
DIFFERENT METHODS OF RAISING REVENUE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE FIRST WAS DIRECT FEDERAL TAXATION COLLECTED BY
FEDERAL OFFICERS.  THE SECOND WAS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LAY THE
TAX BUT THE COLLECTION BE BY THE STATE OFFICERS.  THE THIRD METHOD IS
THAT THE STATES RAISE THE REVENUE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THAT METHOD IS DESCRIBED BY HAMILTON.  FEDERALIST NO. 36. 
OLIVER ELLSWORTH AND ROGER SHERMAN POINTED OUT THAT THE COLLECTING
AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES NEED NOT BE EXERCISED IF EACH STATE WILL
FURNISH ITS QUOTA. 

THIS METHOD OF WHICH I AM SPEAKING WAS IN FACT UTILIZED BY CONGRESS
IN THE AMENDMENT WHICH WAS PASSED ON MAY 13, 1862, TO THE ACT OF AUG.
5, 1861, PROVIDING FOR DIRECT TAXES. 

THE DIRECT TAX IS, OF COURSE, A TAX UPON THE INDIVIDUAL.  BUT THE
1862 AMENDMENT TO THE 1861 DIRECT TAX PROVIDED THAT THE DIRECT TAX UPON
THE INDIVIDUAL MIGHT BE ASSUMED BY THE STATE IN WHICH HE LIVED, AND
MIGHT BE PAID BY THE STATE, NOT TO THE TREASURY DIRECTLY BUT BY
PAYMENTS TOWARD RAISING TROOPS AND SUPPLYING TROOPS WITH THEIR
EQUIPMENT - IN OTHER WORDS, AS A CREDIT AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DIRECT
TAXES, THERE WAS ALLOWED THE AMOUNT WHICH THE STATE EXPENDED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ENROLLING AND SUPPLYING TROOPS.  THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO
THIS SITUATION WHERE, AS A CREDIT AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON'S TAX,
THERE IS ALLOWED THE AMOUNT WHICH HE CONTRIBUTES TO THE STATE FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, WHICH TAKES CARE OF THE GENERAL WELFARE OF
THE UNITED STATES. 

WE POINT OUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY WHO SHALL PROVIDE FOR
THE GENERAL WELFARE.  OF COURSE, IT MEANS THAT FUNDS SHALL BE PROVIDED
FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE, BUT IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE UNITED STATES
SHALL PROVIDE THE FUNDS, AND THERE IS NO MORE REASON FOR READING IN THE
WORDS "UNITED STATES" IN THAT CLAUSE THAN THERE WAS IN MASSACHUSETTS V.
MELLON FOR READING IN A RESTRICTION WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE
APPLICATION OF THE FUNDS TO BE BY THE UNITED STATES. 

I TURN NOW FROM THAT FIRST MAJOR INQUIRY AS TO THE POWER HERE
EXERCISED, TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER MEETS THE
STANDARDS LAID DOWN IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AND I BEGIN BY POINTING OUT
THAT THIS COURT HAS SAID, IN MAGNANO V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, AND AT
OTHER TIMES, THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS RARELY APPLIED TO RESTRAIN THE
EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER.  IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THERE
ARE THREE DIFFERENT ATTACKS WHICH MIGHT BE MADE UPON THIS TAX UNDER THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  FIRST, IT IS SAID IT IS TAKING MONEY FROM ONE GROUP
AND GIVING IT TO ANOTHER.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS TAX DOES NOT WORK
THAT WAY AT ALL.  THIS TAX COLLECTS MONEY FROM INDIVIDUALS AND PUTS IT
INTO THE FEDERAL TREASURY, TO BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. 
MOREOVER, EVEN IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE 90 PER CENT. CREDIT, AND
SAY THAT ALL THE MONEY RAISED IS USED TO PAY FOR THOSE WHO ARE OUT OF
JOBS, TO PAY BENEFITS TO THEM, WE SAY THAT THAT PAYMENT IS PROPER UNDER
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. 

IT IS SAID IN THE SECOND PLACE THAT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT IS VIOLATED BY THE SELECTIONS OF THE TAX.  FLINT V.
STONE TRACY CO. LAYS DOWN THE FAMILIAR RULE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
HAS A LARGE MEASURE OF CHOICE WITH RESPECT TO SELECTION OF TAXABLE
SUBJECTS.  IT IS SAID, HOWEVER, THAT WE HAD NO RIGHT TO SELECT
EMPLOYERS OF EIGHT OR MORE, WHILE LEAVING EMPLOYERS OF LESS THAN EIGHT
UNTAXED.  JEFFREY MFG. CO. V. BLAGG, 235 U.S. 571, INVOLVED THE OHIO
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, WHICH APPLIED ONLY TO EMPLOYERS OF FIVE OR
MORE, AND QUONG WING V. KIRKENDALL, 223 U.S. 59, RELATED TO LAUNDRY
WORKERS WHERE MORE THAN TWO WERE EMPLOYED.  ST. LOUIS CONSOLIDATED COAL
CO. V. ILLINOIS, 185 U.S. 203, RELATED TO REGULATION OF MINES WHERE
MORE THAN FIVE WERE INVOLVED.  THE POWER OF CLASSIFICATION WHICH EXISTS
WITH RESPECT TO TAXES IS CERTAINLY BROADER THAN THAT WHICH EXISTS WITH
RESPECT TO THE POLICE POWER, AS YOUR HONORS HAVE POINTED OUT IN
CONNALLY V. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CO., 269 U.S. 385.  BUT QUITE APART
FROM THAT GENERAL DOCTRINE, I REFER TO A TABLE WHICH WILL BE FOUND AT
PAGE 66 OF OUR BRIEF, WHICH SHOWS THAT UNEMPLOYMENT OCCURS TO A GREATER
EXTENT IN LARGE THAN IN SMALL ESTABLISHMENTS.  IN ESTABLISHMENTS WHERE
1 TO 20 ARE EMPLOYED THE FIGURES SHOW THAT THE MAN-HOURS WORKED FELL
OFF ONLY ABOUT 3 PER CENT.; WHEREAS IN THOSE WHICH EMPLOYED FROM 20 TO
100 WORKERS THEY FELL OFF SOME 13.8 PER CENT. AND THEY FELL OFF EVEN
MORE IN ESTABLISHMENTS LARGER THAN 100.  MOREOVER, THERE ARE CERTAIN
ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS WHICH WOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED TAXING EMPLOYERS OF
EIGHT OR MORE AND NOT TAXING EMPLOYERS OF LESS THAN EIGHT.  THE
BOOKKEEPING RECORDS AND WHAT NOT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE BOTH FOR THE
TREASURY AND FOR THE PERSON AFFECTED. 

THE OTHER EXEMPTIONS FROM THE TAX ARE NOT REALLY ATTACKED BY THOSE
WHO OPPOSE US IN THE CASES AT BAR.  THE 90 PER CENT. CREDIT IS A VALID
CLASSIFICATION ON SEVERAL GROUNDS, FIRST, TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION;
SECOND, VALID CLASSIFICATION TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THOSE WHO PROVIDE
FUNDS FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES AND OTHERS WHO LEAVE
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PREDICAMENT IN WHICH IT HAS FOUND ITSELF IN THE
LAST 3 YEARS. 

EXTRACTS FROM ORAL ARGUMENT OF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JACKSON: 

THE CHALLENGE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IS BEING ANSWERED AT THIS TIME BY A
COMBINATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL POWER.  UNDER THIS PLAN, THE STATE IS
BRINGING TO THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM ITS TAXING POWER AND WHATEVER
OF LOCAL REGULATORY POWER IT MAY REQUIRE, SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO ITS
CONSTITUTION AND TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IS BRINGING TO BEAR UPON THE SAME PROBLEM ITS TAXING POWER AND ITS
SPENDING POWER.  WE DO NOT CLAIM THAT NEW POWERS EXIST BY VIRTUE OF THE
CONDITIONS WHICH MR. WYZANSKI HAS DETAILED, OR THAT THIS IS AN
EMERGENCY-POWER MATTER.  WE CLAIM THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE
STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE COOPERATING BY EACH CONTRIBUTING WHAT IT MAY OF
ITS OWN POWER TO THE SOLUTION OF A COMMON PROBLEM. 

ALTHOUGH THE COMBINATION IN THIS PARTICULAR ACT IS NEW, THE DEVICES
OR METHODS WHICH ARE USED HERE ARE DEVICES AND METHODS WHICH SEPARATELY
HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THIS COURT.  THE DEVICES USED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CONSIST, FIRST, OF A GRANT IN AID, TO PAY THE STATES THE
COST OF ADMINISTRATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAWS.  THAT WE
THINK WAS APPROVED IN MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON.  A SECOND DEVICE IS THE
TAX WITH A CREDIT, A LARGE CREDIT, A CREDIT DESIGNED TO ENABLE THE
STATES TO FREE THEMSELVES OF THE COMPETITION OF NEIGHBORS, AND TO GO
AHEAD WITH THEIR OWN PLANS; AND THAT DEVICE FOR THAT PURPOSE WE THINK
WAS APPROVED IN FLORIDA V. MELLON. 

THE RELATION OF THIS TAX TO THE APPROPRIATION IS ENTIRELY
UNESTABLISHED, EITHER BY THE ACT ITSELF OR BY THE FACTS IN THE CASE. 
IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE APPROPRIATION UNDER SEC. 301 IF IT BE CONSTRUED
AS AN APPROPRIATION, BEGAN BEFORE THE TAX WAS PAYABLE.  THE
APPROPRIATION IS NOT MEASURED BY THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX.  THE TAX IS
NOT EARMARKED FOR THIS PURPOSE.  THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE
AMOUNTS SET ASIDE BY THIS SECTION AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX. 

NOW, IT IS APPARENT ON THE VERY FACE OF IT THAT THERE COULD NOT BE AN
EQUIVALENCE, BECAUSE THE MORE STATE LAWS ARE ENACTED THE MORE MONEY
WOULD HAVE TO BE EXPENDED UNDER SEC. 301 FOR AID IN THEIR
ADMINISTRATION.  BUT THE MORE STATE LAWS ARE ENACTED THE LESS REVENUE
WOULD BE PRODUCED, BECAUSE OF THE EFFECTS OF THE CREDIT.  THE MAXIMUM
PRODUCTIVITY OF THE FEDERAL TAX WOULD BE ATTAINED IF NO STATE ENACTED A
COMPENSATION LAW.  THE MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE WOULD BE IF ALL STATES
ENACTED THEM; SO THAT THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE AND NO RELATIONSHIP. 

THIS SECTION IS BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT MADE SEPARABLE, AND WE
THINK THAT THE SEPARABILITY PRESUMED FROM THIS SECTION OF THE ACT IS
NOT OVERCOME, AS IT WAS IN THE BUTLER CASE, BY ANY RELATION BETWEEN THE
TAX AND THE APPROPRIATION OBJECTS.  SO, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THERE
IS NO STANDING TO CHALLENGE THIS GRANT-IN-AID, EXCEPT AS THE WHOLE
OPERATION OF THE ACT INCLUDING THE GRANT-IN-AID MAY BE CONSIDERED HERE
UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 

BUT, IF THE COMPLAINT BE ENTERTAINED, WE THINK THE PURPOSE OF
SPENDING IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE GENERAL WELFARE, AS HAS BEEN POINTED
OUT, AND THAT THE FORM OF SPENDING BY THE GRANT-IN-AID IS VALIDATED BY
HISTORY, SINCE IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY RESORTED TO AND RESORTED TO UPON
CONDITION. 

COMING TO THE TAX CREDIT AND CONDITIONS FOUND IN SEC. 902, THE CREDIT
BEING THE SECOND DEVICE IN THIS ACT WHICH OPERATES, AS IT IS CLAIMED,
ON THE FEDERAL AND STATE RELATIONSHIP. 

UNEMPLOYMENT IS A CONCERN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT IF YOUR
HONORS DO NOT GO ALONG WITH US UPON THAT ARGUMENT, THERE IS STILL A
RIGHT TO GIVE A CREDIT, EVEN THOUGH THE PURPOSE SERVED BY THAT CREDIT
IS NOT A FEDERAL PURPOSE.  ALWAYS THERE HAS BEEN THE RIGHT IN THE
ADJUSTMENT OF A TAX STRUCTURE TO RECOGNIZE EQUITIES, TO RECOGNIZE THE
EXTENT TO WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS ASSUMED AND PERFORMED OTHER
OBLIGATIONS, THE EXTENT TO WHICH HE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO PURPOSES WHICH
WERE WHOLLY UNRELATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  (INSTANCING THE
CREDIT CONSIDERED IN FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12; AND VARIOUS
DEDUCTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS ALLOWED IN GENERAL TAX LAWS.) 

THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHETHER IT MAY LAY DOWN CONDITIONS UPON WHICH
THAT CREDIT WILL BE GRANTED.  I TAKE IT THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS A
RIGHT TO GIVE A MAN A CREDIT IT HAS A RIGHT TO SEE THAT THAT CREDIT IS
A GENUINE CREDIT FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED.  THIS CREDIT GOES BEYOND
THOSE CREDITS WHICH SERVE PURELY PERSONAL PURPOSES.  IT SERVES THE
FISCAL PURPOSE OF THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THIS PERSON WHO
HAS CONTRIBUTED 90 PER CENT. OF THIS TAX TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND OF
HIS STATE HAS TO THAT EXTENT RELIEVED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF WHAT IS
ASSUMED TO BE AN OBLIGATION TO TAKE UP CERTAIN DUTIES, WHEN
UNEMPLOYMENT PASSES THE CAPACITY OF THE STATE TO HANDLE IT.  AND, IF IT
IS TO SERVE SUCH A PURPOSE, WE CLEARLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LAY DOWN THE
TESTS WHICH WILL SEE THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT PURPOSE HAS BEEN HONESTLY
SERVED. 

PROVISION 1, WHICH MUST BE CONTAINED IN THE STATE LAW, IS THAT ALL
COMPENSATION IS TO BE PAID THROUGH PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT OFFICES IN THE
STATE, OR SUCH OTHER AGENCIES AS THE BOARD MAY APPROVE.  THE PURPOSE OF
THAT PROVISION IS TO STOP THE "CRACKER-BARREL LOAFER," WHO HAS BEEN
REFERRED TO HERE, FROM GETTING RELIEF OR GETTING A DOLE IN THE FORM OF
RELIEF.  THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROVISION IS TO ASSURE THAT WHEN THE
CREDIT IS TAKEN AGAINST FEDERAL TAX THE MONEY WHICH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT LOSES GOES TO PEOPLE WHO ARE IN GOOD FAITH OUT OF
EMPLOYMENT. 

IT WAS CONCEIVED BY CONGRESS THAT IF THESE UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVES WERE
BUILT UP IN THE SEPARATE STATE TREASURIES, AND WE THEN FACED ANOTHER
PERIOD OF UNEMPLOYMENT, AND ALL OF THOSE STATE TREASURIES WERE REQUIRED
TO RUSH TO LIQUIDATION WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD, IT WOULD NOT ONLY PRODUCE
GREAT LOSS TO THE STATES, BUT IT WOULD PRODUCE ALSO A GREAT DISLOCATION
TO OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY.  IT WAS DESIRED TO PLACE THESE RESERVES IN A
POSITION WHERE THEY WOULD ALWAYS BE LIQUID AND AVAILABLE, IN A POSITION
WHERE THE STATES WOULD SUFFER NO LOSS THROUGH LIQUIDATION, AND WHERE
THEY COULD BE LIQUIDATED IN AN ORDERLY FASHION BY THE TREASURY, WITH
THE AID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, AND IN A WAY THAT WOULD NOT
DISTURB THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

SOME OF THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR OF THE
STATE GOVERNMENTS, ARE ABSOLUTE AND PRECISELY MEASURED RIGHTS, AND AS
DUE PROCESS IS A TEST BY WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MAY BE MEASURED
(NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502), SO THE TENTH AMENDMENT HAS TO BE
INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF A REASONABLE CONSIDERATION OF THOSE THINGS
WHICH THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO.  I
ADDRESS MY ARGUMENT TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EXERCISE OF POWER
UNDERTAKEN IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, TO SHOW THAT IT IS NOT AN ATTEMPT
TO INVADE THE POWERS OF THE STATE, TO UNDERTAKE TO REGULATE ITS
INDUSTRY, OR TO DO THOSE THINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN GENERALLY HELD TO BE
PROHIBITED ENDS; BECAUSE IF BY REASONABLE EXAMINATION OF THE STATUTES
IN QUESTION THE END IS FOUND TO BE PROHIBITED, THEN IT HAS BEEN HELD BY
THIS COURT THAT ALL ROADS TO IT ARE CLOSED.    IN THE FIRST PLACE IT
SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT IN THIS FEDERAL ACT THERE IS NO COMPULSION UPON
THE STATE TO ADOPT ANY KIND OF LEGISLATION WHATEVER.  THIS LAW DOES NOT
OPERATE UPON THE STATES.  THIS LAW OPERATES UPON THE TAXPAYERS WHO ARE
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO ITS TAXATION.  IT OPERATES
BY GIVING THEM A CREDIT, PROVIDED THOSE TAXPAYERS HAVE PAID TO THE
STATE CERTAIN SUMS OF MONEY.  IT IS PURELY FISCAL AND NOT REGULATORY IN
ITS OPERATION.  WHILE THE OPERATION OF THE TAX MAY DEPEND UPON AN
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTING, THERE ARE NO OBLIGATIONS
CREATED AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, NO RIGHTS CREATED AND NONE
DENIED.  THE SCHEME SETS UP NO COMPETITION WITH THE INDUSTRY OF THE
STATE, NO REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY OF THE STATE.  THE STATE IS
ENTIRELY FREE TO TAKE ANY OF THE KNOWN TYPES OF WORKABLE COMPENSATION
FUNDS, AND STILL OBTAIN ITS CREDIT.  THE COVERAGE OF THE LAW THAT THE
STATE SHALL PASS IS TO BE DETERMINED BY ITSELF. 

THE BENEFITS ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE STATE, WITHOUT
IMPAIRING ITS CREDIT. 

THESE CONDITIONS ARE ENTIRELY SEPARABLE FROM THE TAXING PROVISIONS. 
I SHALL NOT GO INTO DETAIL EXCEPT TO POINT OUT THAT THE TAX AND THE
CREDIT MAY STAND AND OPERATE EVEN THOUGH THESE CONDITIONS BE FOUND TO
BE OUTSIDE THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE. 

FURTHERMORE, ANY ONE OF THESE CONDITIONS IS SEPARABLE FROM ALL OF THE
OTHERS, AND IT IS CONTENDED IN OUR BRIEF THAT THE TAX AND THE CREDIT
MAY STAND EVEN IF SOME OF THE CONDITIONS BE FOUND TO STEP BEYOND THE
DOMAIN PROPERLY OCCUPIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER, IN THIS DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVITIES
BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, EVEN IF WE ARE WITHIN
THE TECHNICAL WORD OF THE CONSTITUTION, THERE HAS BEEN SUCH A PLAN
ATTEMPTED AS WILL UPSET AND UNBALANCE OUR DUAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  THE
PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT FACED LOCALLY, AS WELL AS BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, AND THE DISTRESS AND COMMERCIAL DEMORALIZATION DUE TO IT,
WERE NOT CONFINED TO ANY ONE OF OUR SOVEREIGNTIES.  THESE TWO
SOVEREIGNTIES, THE STATE AND NATION, HAVE SOUGHT UNDER THIS PLAN, AND
IN THE CASE BEFORE YOUR HONORS, TO LAY THEIR POWERS TOGETHER SO THAT
THE POWERS OF THE TWO MAY BE EQUAL TO THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS PROBLEM. 
SO FAR AS THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
CONCERNED, OUR ADVERSARIES WOULD MAINTAIN THAT BALANCE BY DENYING BOTH
SOVEREIGNTIES THE RIGHT TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM; AND WE SUBMIT THAT
THAT IS NOT THE ANSWER, AND THAT IT IS UNTHINKABLE, IN THE FACE OF A
PROBLEM WHICH THREATENED THE PEACE AND SOLVENCY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OF
THE STATE GOVERNMENTS, AND OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, THAT THERE IS POWER
NOWHERE IN OUR SYSTEM TO DEAL WITH IT. 

CLEARLY BOTH SOVEREIGNTIES HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS PROBLEM, AN
OVERLAPPING INTEREST PERHAPS.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SURELY HAS AN
INTEREST IN MAINTAINING ITS NATIONAL ECONOMY AND ITS SOCIAL ORDER.  IT
HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE MEASURES TO PROTECT ITS TREASURY FROM UNUSUAL
DRAINS.  IT HAS A RIGHT TO PREPARE FOR THE UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM BEFORE
IT OCCURS, AS WELL AS TO APPROPRIATE MONEY TO DEAL WITH IT AFTERWARD. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEEKS A SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF
UNEMPLOYMENT; AND JUST WHAT THE SOLUTION SHALL BE IS NOT SO MATERIAL,
PROVIDED THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED.  BUT THE STATES HAVE SEPARATE INTERESTS
IN THIS PROBLEM.  THEREFORE THE TWO SOVEREIGNTIES MAY CONCUR, AS WE SEE
IT, IN REACHING A REMEDY. 

BUT THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS EACH HAVE THEIR POWERS AND
DISABILITIES.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AN ECONOMIC AS WELL AS A
POLITICAL UNIT.  IT MAY CONTROL ITS FRONTIERS, AND IF IT BURDENS AN
INDUSTRY IT MAY ALSO PROTECT IT AGAINST OUTSIDE COMPETITION.  IT CAN
LAY AN EQUAL AND NOT DISCRIMINATORY DUTY UPON ALL OF ITS CITIZENS, IN
THE FORM OF A TAX LAW, AND IT MAY LAY SUCH A DUTY THAT IT MAY BE PASSED
ON AND ULTIMATELY BE ABSORBED BY ALL OF THE CONSUMING PUBLIC, AS I
SUSPECT THIS TAX WILL BE. 

THE STATES, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE DECIDED LIMITATIONS UPON THEIR
COMPETENCY TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM.  THEY ARE POLITICAL BUT NOT
ECONOMIC UNITS.  THEY MAY NOT CONTROL THEIR MARKET PLACES AGAINST
COMPETITION FROM OUTSIDE THEIR OWN BORDERS, AS THIS COURT HAS HELD. 
THEY MAY BURDEN THEIR INDUSTRIES WITH CERTAIN REGULATIONS, BUT THEY MAY
NOT PROTECT THEM AGAINST THE OUTSIDE COMPETITOR, AND THE FREEDOM OF THE
STATES IN SOME OF THESE ECONOMIC MATTERS IS THE FREEDOM TO COMMIT
INDUSTRIAL SUICIDE. 

THEREFORE EACH OF THESE SOVEREIGNTIES HAS BROUGHT TO THIS PROBLEM
WHAT IT HAS OF POWER - THE STATE TO SUPPLY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, LOCAL
CONTROL, LOCAL BURDENS AND BENEFITS, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS - THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LAY A UNIFORM TAX WITH A CREDIT WHICH WILL ASSURE
TO THE CITIZENS OF A STATE THAT ITS CITIZENS WILL NOT LOSE THEIR
INDUSTRIES BY VIRTUE OF ITS EFFORT TO MEET THIS PROBLEM IN A HUMANE AND
PROPER WAY. 

EXTRACTS FROM ORAL ARGUMENT OF MR. STERNE. 

THE SITUATION CONFRONTING THESE STATES IS THAT UNLESS THEY THEMSELVES
LEVY A TAX INVOLVING LARGE SUMS OF MONEY, AND TURN THOSE SUMS OVER TO
THE UNEMPLOYED, THEY SEE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKE OUT OF THE STATE
THE SAME AMOUNT - AND I SAY "THE SAME AMOUNT" BECAUSE I FIND A
COMPENSATING EQUATION IN THE ONE-TENTH. 

IN REALISTIC TERMS, IN ALABAMA IT MEANS THIS:  IN 1929 THE PAY ROLLS
SUBJECT TO TAX UNDER THE FEDERAL PLAN AMOUNTED TO SOMETHING OVER
$333,000,000, WHICH MEANS CLOSE TO $10,000,000 OF TAXES LEVIED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WITH $9,000,000 WHICH WE CAN GET BACK FOR THE
UNEMPLOYED IF CERTAIN LOCAL FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA ARE
COMMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  NOW, IN 1929, A
PERIOD OF HIGH RETURN IN ALABAMA, THE TOTAL REVENUES OF THE STATE WERE
SOMETHING UNDER $40,000,000, SO THAT THE DEGREE AND THE WEIGHT OF THE
COMPULSION MAY BE EVALUATED WHEN IT IS SEEN THAT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE
FOURTH OF THE TOTAL REVENUE OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA IS TAKEN OUT OF THE
STATE AND CAN BE RETURNED TO THE STATE NOT MERELY FOR SPENDING, BUT TO
THE EMPLOYEES IF, AND ONLY IF, CERTAIN STATE FUNCTIONS ARE ABANDONED OR
PLACED WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  AND THAT IN THE
FACE OF REPEATED ADJUDICATIONS OF THIS COURT THAT IN NO WAY CAN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACQUIRE, BY TREATY, CONSENT, SUBMISSION, PETITION,
OR WHAT NOT, ANY FUNCTION OF A STATE. 

FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12, INVOLVED ONLY AN ABANDONMENT BY ONE
SOVEREIGN OF A RECOGNIZED FIELD OF TAXATION IN WHICH THE EVIL OF DOUBLE
TAXATION EXISTED. 

IN THE PRESENT SITUATION THERE IS NEITHER HISTORICAL, NOR DO I
BELIEVE REAL, DOUBLE TAXATION, NOR THREAT NOR POSSIBILITY OF DOUBLE
TAXATION.  SO FAR AS MY RESEARCHES HAVE ENABLED ME TO ASCERTAIN, THERE
HAS BEEN NO RECOGNIZED FIELD OF TAXATION AS TO PAY ROLLS, IN THE UNITED
STATES, AND THE SITUATION HERE PRESENTED APPARENTLY IS THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CREATES THE EVIL IN ORDER TO CURE IT, AND THEN CLAIMS THAT
IT IS ACTING WITHIN SOME CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT OF POWER IN CURING AN
EVIL OF DUPLICITY OF TAXATION. 

THE SECOND DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC, AS I SEE IT, IS THAT IN
FLORIDA V. MELLON THERE WAS A MERE EXIT OF THE DOMINANT SOVEREIGN -
THAT WAS THE END, IN ITSELF, ITS EXIT.  HERE, THE EXIT IS MADE THE
MEANS OF A MOST MASSIVE INCURSION INTO THE STATE REALM.  THE COMPULSION
OF THE TAX SEEMS MANIFEST.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS AN EAGERNESS
FOR THIS TAX ON THE PART OF THE STATES, AND THAT THAT IS EVIDENCED BY
THE FACT THAT MANY BILLS HAD BEEN INTRODUCED IN OTHER STATES, WHICH
FAILED OF PASSAGE FOR FEAR OF ECONOMIC COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.  I DO
NOT KNOW WHAT WEIGHT CAN BE ATTACHED TO THE FACT THAT MANY BILLS WERE
INTRODUCED IN THE LEGISLATURE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A COUNTERVAILING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF NO LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE IS THIS:  THAT WHEN THESE
QUALIFYING STATUTES WERE ENACTED, 35 OF THE 43 ENACTING STATES PROVIDED
AN AUTOMATIC EXIT.  THEY ENACTED PROVISIONS THAT IF AND WHEN THE
FEDERAL ACT FAILED, INSTANTLY THE STATE ACT SHOULD CEASE TO OPERATE. 

THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS A LEGITIMATE COMPULSION LAID UPON A
STATE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THE FACT THAT A REASONABLE END IS
SOUGHT, THAT A MOST ADMIRABLE PLAN FOR RELIEVING UNEMPLOYMENT MAY HAVE
BEEN EVOKED, WOULD SEEM IN NO WAY TO DEROGATE FROM THE PROPOSITION THAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST BE CONFINED TO ITS CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS
AND NOT BE PERMITTED TO MAKE THE TAXING POWER AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF
COMPULSION AGAINST A STATE. 

THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED IN BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT APPEARS TO SUGGEST
THAT THE MONEYS RAISED BY THE 90 PER CENT. SHOULD REALLY BE CONSIDERED
AS HAVING THEIR ORIGIN IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND AS BEING MONEYS OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  THAT IS NOT OUR CONCEPTION OF THE TRUE
SITUATION.  BUT IF IT BE - IF THAT ALTERNATIVE BE A CORRECT ONE - THEN
IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE TAXING MEASURE MUST FAIL IMMEDIATELY, FOR THE
UNDENIABLE REASON THAT WHATEVER MAY BE THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
EXPROPRIATE FROM CLASS TO CLASS IN PURSUANCE OF REGULATORY LEGISLATION,
THE TAXING POWER CANNOT BE SO USED; AND SURELY IT WILL NEVER BE
CONTENDED BY ANYONE THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL
POWER TO REGULATE THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  YET ONLY AS
AN INCIDENT OF REGULATION, AS WE SEE IT, CAN THERE BE A TAXATION OF THE
EMPLOYER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYED. 

(COUNSEL THEN ARGUED THAT TO TAX EMPLOYERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN, NOT INDIGENT, IS A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A
PRIVATE USE - LOAN ASS'N V. TOPEKA, 20 WALL.  655 - SAYING THIS "WITH
FULL RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT VERY
LARGELY COINCIDES WITH THE PROBLEM OF INDIGENCY, AND THAT THE AVERAGE
WORKMAN OUT OF EMPLOYMENT LONG ENOUGH TO QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS UNDER ANY
SYSTEM IS PROBABLY QUALIFIED FOR INDIGENT RELIEF, BUT THE MEN WHO HAVE
ACCUMULATED A SUFFICIENT COMPETENCY TO TIDE OVER SEVERAL PERIODS OF
COMPENSABLE IDLENESS UNDER ANY OF THESE PLANS ARE NOT BY ANY MEANS
EXCEPTIONAL.") 

IF, UNDER THE GUISE OF FORESTALLING A FUTURE DEMAND, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MAY TAKE OVER ANY LOCAL CONCERNS OF THE STATE, I CONFESS I
CAN SEE NO LIMIT. 

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT UNDER OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS EMPOWERED EVER TO DISPENSE DIRECT RELIEF, EXCEPT IN THE
FACE OF AN IMMEDIATELY EXISTING, IMPERIOUS NECESSITY.  IT IS ONLY AS
THE RESULT OF A BREAKDOWN OF ALL ELSE AND A THREAT TO THE EXISTENCE OF
THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF AND ITS PEOPLE, THAT THAT POWER COMES INTO
EXISTENCE, EX NECESSITATE REI; AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED
OR PROVIDED AGAINST FURTHER THAN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IF IT SEES
FIT, ACCUMULATING A TREASURER'S RESERVE FOR THAT PURPOSE. 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PREPAREDNESS THAT IN ANY WAY EXTENDS THE
POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

IT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE GENERAL WELFARE FOR WHICH FISCAL
PROVISION MAY BE MADE THROUGH THE TAXING POWER IS THE GENERAL WELFARE
OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT WOULD SEEM TO ME
UNTHINKABLE THAT, MEANING THE INHABITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
FOUNDERS SPOKE OF THE WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE SELFSAME
WORDS IN WHICH THEY SPOKE OF PAYING THE DEBTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

WE SUBMIT THAT TITLE IX IS UNWORKABLE WITHOUT TITLE III, AND TITLE
III IS UNWORKABLE WITHOUT TITLE IX.  SINCE WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO USE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATION ANY PART OF THE FUND WHICH IS RAISED FOR
THE RELIEF, IX CANNOT OPERATE WITHOUT III, AND CERTAINLY IT WAS NEVER
INTENDED TO OPERATE WITHOUT III, IF THE STATUTE AND THE PLAN ARE SEEN
AS A WHOLE AND NOT MERELY ITS SEVERED PARTS. 

NOW, THERE IS ONE QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS STATUTE, WHEREIN
WE DIFFER WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL, AND THAT IS AS TO WHETHER, UNDER THE
STATUTE AS DRAWN, THE STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW THE FUNDS AND USE
THEM FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  IT IS REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF OUR
RECEIVING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND AS A CONDITION OF OUR QUALIFYING
FOR THE CREDIT THAT WE STIPULATE IN OUR LAW THAT WE WILL WITHDRAW FUNDS
ONLY FOR BENEFIT PAYMENTS, AND WHILE THERE IS A PROVISION THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL HONOR THE REQUISITION OF THE STATE, IT IS
QUALIFIED BY SAYING THAT IT MUST BE DULY REQUISITIONED. 

THE SUGGESTION IS MADE, THAT AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT REGULATING
ANYTHING IN ALABAMA AND IN THE OTHER STATES, THEY MUST NOT BE HELD TO
HAVE INTRUDED THEMSELVES INTO STATE AFFAIRS, THAT THE BUTLER CASE IS
NOT APPLICABLE, BECAUSE THERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGULATED THE
SOWING OF CROPS.  HERE THEY SAY THERE IS NO REGULATION - THEY ARE JUST
CONDITIONING THE GRANT; BUT THE VICE OF THAT AND THE ALTERNATIVE WHICH
CONFRONTS THEM, AS WE SEE IT, IS THIS:  IF THIS IS A GRANT OF FEDERAL
FUNDS, IT IS AN EXPROPRIATIVE TAXATION, AND, THERE BEING NO POWER OF
REGULATION, IS VOID.  IF IT IS OUR OWN FUNDS, THEN THEY HAVE NO POWER
TO REQUIRE US TO DO ANYTHING WITH THEM. 

I WOULD HAVE ASSUMED THAT WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - AND BY "WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION" WE ALL MEAN COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES - WOULD BE AS
CLASSICAL AN INSTANCE OF A MATTER OF PURELY LOCAL CONCERN AS COULD BE
CONCEIVED OF.  BUT IF THIS IS VALID LEGISLATION, THEN I SEE NO
INHIBITION AGAINST CONGRESS ENACTING A 3-, 6-, 9-, OR 10-PER CENT. PAY
ROLL TAX, OR WHATEVER AMOUNT IT MAY CONSIDER NECESSARY, AND CONFRONTING
US WITH THE ALTERNATIVE OF SEEING HUGE SUMS DRAINED OUT OF ALABAMA, OR
INSTALLING A SYSTEM OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION DEVISED IN WASHINGTON,
HEDGED AROUND WITH SUCH LIMITATIONS AS THE AUTHORS HERE MAY CONSIDER
NECESSARY TO MAKE IT WHAT THEY WOULD CALL A BONA-FIDE, GENUINE
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SYSTEM.    I VISUALIZE THIS IN THE FIELD OF
MINIMUM WAGES FOR WOMEN, THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEED NOT LEAVE IT
TO THE STATES TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM, BUT, BY HEAVY TAX AND CREDIT
PROVISIONS, PERCHANCE IT MAY REQUIRE THAT WE IN ALABAMA, AS A CONDITION
OF MONEY REMAINING IN ALABAMA, SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM-WAGE FUND TO BE
ADMINISTERED UNDER SUCH REMNANTS OF LIBERTY AS THE MINIMUM-WAGE BOARD
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY SEE FIT TO LEAVE TO US. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.    THE
VALIDITY OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT ON EMPLOYERS OF
EIGHT OR MORE IS HERE TO BE DETERMINED. 

PETITIONER, AN ALABAMA CORPORATION, PAID A TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STATUTE, FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, AND SUED TO RECOVER THE PAYMENT ($46.14), ASSERTING A CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE STATUTE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  UPON
DEMURRER THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT DISMISSING
THE COMPLAINT, AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED.  89 F.(2D) 207.  THE DECISION IS IN ACCORD WITH JUDGMENTS OF
THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS (HOWES BROTHERS CO. V.
MASSACHUSETTS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMM'N, DECEMBER 30, 1936, 5
N.E.(2D) 720), THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA (GILLUM V. JOHNSON, 7
CAL.(2D) 744; 62 P.(2D) 1037), AND THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
(BEELAND WHOLESALE CO. V. KAUFMAN, 174 SO. 516).  IT IS IN CONFLICT
WITH A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT,
FROM WHICH ONE JUDGE DISSENTED.  DAVIS V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., 89
F.(2D) 368.  AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BEING
INVOLVED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT (ACT OF AUGUST 14, 1935, C. 531, 49 STAT.
620, 42 U.S.C., C. 7(SUPP.))  IS DIVIDED INTO ELEVEN SEPARATE TITLES,
OF WHICH ONLY TITLES IX AND III ARE SO RELATED TO THIS CASE AS TO STAND
IN NEED OF SUMMARY. 

THE CAPTION OF TITLE IX IS "TAX ON EMPLOYERS OF EIGHT OR MORE." 
EVERY EMPLOYER (WITH STATED EXCEPTIONS) IS TO PAY FOR EACH CALENDAR
YEAR "AN EXCISE TAX, WITH RESPECT TO HAVING INDIVIDUALS IN HIS EMPLOY,"
THE TAX TO BE MEASURED BY PRESCRIBED PERCENTAGES OF THE TOTAL WAGES
PAYABLE BY THE EMPLOYER DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR WITH RESPECT TO SUCH
EMPLOYMENT.  SEC. 901.  ONE IS NOT, HOWEVER, AN "EMPLOYER" WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ACT UNLESS HE EMPLOYS EIGHT PERSONS OR MORE.  SEC.
907(A).  THERE ARE ALSO OTHER LIMITATIONS OF MINOR IMPORTANCE.  THE
TERM "EMPLOYMENT" TOO HAS ITS SPECIAL DEFINITION, EXCLUDING
AGRICULTURAL LABOR, DOMESTIC SERVICE IN A PRIVATE HOME AND SOME OTHER
SMALLER CLASSES.  SEC. 907(C).  THE TAX BEGINS WITH THE YEAR 1936, AND
IS PAYABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON JANUARY 31, 1937.  DURING THE CALENDAR
YEAR 1936 THE RATE IS TO BE ONE PER CENT, DURING 1937 TWO PER CENT, AND
THREE PER CENT THEREAFTER.  THE PROCEEDS, WHEN COLLECTED, GO INTO THE
TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES LIKE INTERNALREVENUE COLLECTIONS
GENERALLY.  SEC. 905(A).  THEY ARE NOT EARMARKED IN ANY WAY.  IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, CREDITS ARE ALLOWABLE.  SEC. 902.  IF
THE TAXPAYER HAS MADE CONTRIBUTIONS TO AN UNEMPLOYMENT FUND UNDER A
STATE LAW, HE MAY CREDIT SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS AGAINST THE FEDERAL TAX,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE TOTAL CREDIT ALLOWED TO ANY TAXPAYER SHALL
NOT EXCEED 90 PER CENTUM OF THE TAX AGAINST WHICH IT IS CREDITED, AND
PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE STATE LAW SHALL HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD AS SATISFYING
CERTAIN MINIMUM CRITERIA.  SEC. 902.  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 903
DEFINING THOSE CRITERIA ARE STATED IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  SOME OF THE
CONDITIONS THUS ATTACHED TO THE ALLOWANCE OF A CREDIT ARE DESIGNED TO
GIVE ASSURANCE THAT THE STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW SHALL BE
ONE IN SUBSTANCE AS WELL AS NAME.  OTHERS ARE DESIGNED TO GIVE
ASSURANCE THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST LOSS AFTER
PAYMENT TO THE STATE.  TO THIS LAST END THERE ARE PROVISIONS THAT
BEFORE A STATE LAW SHALL HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD IT MUST DIRECT
THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE STATE FUND BE PAID OVER IMMEDIATELY TO
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO THE CREDIT OF THE "UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST
FUND."  SECTION 904 ESTABLISHING THIS FUND IS QUOTED BELOW.  FN2  FOR
THE MOMENT IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE FUND IS TO BE HELD BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, WHO IS TO INVEST IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES
ANY PORTION NOT REQUIRED IN HIS JUDGMENT TO MEET CURRENT WITHDRAWALS. 
HE IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO PAY OUT OF THE FUND TO ANY COMPETENT
STATE AGENCY SUCH SUMS AS IT MAY DULY REQUISITION FROM THE AMOUNT
STANDING TO ITS CREDIT.  SEC. 904(F). 

TITLE III, WHICH IS ALSO CHALLENGED AS INVALID, HAS THE CAPTION
"GRANTS TO STATES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION."  UNDER
THIS TITLE, CERTAIN SUMS OF MONEY ARE "AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED"
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE STATES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAWS, THE MAXIMUM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
JUNE 30, 1936 TO BE $4,000,000, AND $49,000,000 FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR
THEREAFTER.  SEC. 301.  NO PRESENT APPROPRIATION IS MADE TO THE EXTENT
OF A SINGLE DOLLAR.  ALL THAT THE TITLE DOES IS TO AUTHORIZE FUTURE
APPROPRIATIONS.  ACTUALLY ONLY $2,250,000 OF THE $4,000,000 AUTHORIZED
WAS APPROPRIATED FOR 1936(ACT OF FEB. 11, 1936, C. 49, 49 STAT. 1109,
1113) AND ONLY $29,000,000 OF THE $49,000,000 AUTHORIZED FOR THE
FOLLOWING YEAR.  ACT OF JUNE 22, 1936, C. 689, 49 STAT. 1597, 1605. 
THE APPROPRIATIONS WHEN MADE WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY OUT OF THE PROCEEDS
OF THE EMPLOYMENT TAX, BUT OUT OF ANY MONEYS IN THE TREASURY.  OTHER
BE MADE TO THE STATE (SEC. 302) AND ALSO CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO BE
ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD BEFORE
CERTIFYING THE PROPRIETY OF A PAYMENT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY.  SEC. 303.  THEY ARE DESIGNED TO GIVE ASSURANCE TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT THE MONEYS GRANTED BY IT WILL NOT BE EXPENDED
FOR PURPOSES ALIEN TO THE GRANT, AND WILL BE USED IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF GENUINE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAWS. 

THE ASSAULT ON THE STATUTE PROCEEDS ON AN EXTENDED FRONT.  ITS
ASSAILANTS TAKE THE GROUND THAT THE TAX IS NOT AN EXCISE; THAT IT IS
NOT UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AS EXCISES ARE REQUIRED TO BE;
THAT ITS EXCEPTIONS ARE SO MANY AND ARBITRARY AS TO VIOLATE THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT; THAT ITS PURPOSE WAS NOT REVENUE, BUT AN UNLAWFUL INVASION
OF THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES; AND THAT THE STATES IN SUBMITTING
TO IT HAVE YIELDED TO COERCION AND HAVE ABANDONED GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTIONS WHICH THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SURRENDER. 

THE OBJECTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED SERIATIM WITH SUCH FURTHER
EXPLANATION AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO MAKE THEIR MEANING CLEAR. 

FIRST.  THE TAX, WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN THE STATUTE AS AN EXCISE, IS
LAID WITH UNIFORMITY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AS A DUTY, AN IMPOST
OR AN EXCISE UPON THE RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT. 

1.  WE ARE TOLD THAT THE RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT IS ONE SO ESSENTIAL
TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS THAT IT MAY NOT BE BURDENED WITH A TAX. 
APPEAL IS MADE TO HISTORY.  FROM THE PRECEDENTS OF COLONIAL DAYS WE ARE
SUPPLIED WITH ILLUSTRATIONS OF EXCISES COMMON IN THE COLONIES.  THEY
ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN BOUND UP WITH THE ENJOYMENT OF PARTICULAR
COMMODITIES.  APPEAL IS ALSO MADE TO PRINCIPLE OR THE ANALYSIS OF
CONCEPTS.  AN EXCISE, WE ARE TOLD, IMPORTS A TAX UPON A PRIVILEGE;
EMPLOYMENT, IT IS SAID, IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE, FROM WHICH IT
FOLLOWS THAT EMPLOYMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO AN EXCISE.  NEITHER THE ONE
APPEAL NOR THE OTHER LEADS TO THE DESIRED GOAL. 

AS TO THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY:  DOUBTLESS THERE WERE MANY EXCISES
IN COLONIAL DAYS AND LATER THAT WERE ASSOCIATED, MORE OR LESS
INTIMATELY, WITH THE ENJOYMENT OR THE USE OF PROPERTY.  THIS WOULD NOT
PROVE, EVEN IF NO OTHERS WERE THEN KNOWN, THAT THE FORMS THEN ACCEPTED
WERE NOT SUBJECT TO ENLARGEMENT.  CF. PENSACOLA TELEGRAPH CO. V.
WESTERN UNION, 96 U.S. 1, 9; IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S. 564, 591; SOUTH
CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437, 448, 449.  BUT IN TRUTH OTHER
EXCISES WERE KNOWN, AND KNOWN SINCE EARLY TIMES.  THUS IN 1695(6 & 7
WM. III, C. 6), PARLIAMENT PASSED AN ACT WHICH GRANTED "TO HIS MAJESTY
CERTAIN RATES AND DUTIES UPON MARRIAGE, BIRTHS AND BURIALS," ALL FOR
THE PURPOSE OF "CARRYING ON THE WAR AGAINST FRANCE WITH VIGOUR."  SEE
OPINION OF THE JUSTICES, 196 MASS. 603, 609; 85 N.E. 545.  NO COMMODITY
WAS AFFECTED THERE.  THE INDUSTRY OF COUNSEL HAS SUPPLIED US WITH AN
APTER ILLUSTRATION WHERE THE TAX WAS NOT DIFFERENT IN SUBSTANCE FROM
THE ONE NOW CHALLENGED AS INVALID.  IN 1777, BEFORE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION, PARLIAMENT LAID UPON EMPLOYERS AN ANNUAL "DUTY" OF 21
SHILLINGS FOR "EVERY MALE SERVANT" EMPLOYED IN STATED FORMS OF WORK. 
FN3  REVENUE ACT OF 1777, 17 GEORGE III, C. 39.  FN4  THE POINT IS MADE
AS A DISTINCTION THAT A TAX UPON THE USE OF MALE SERVANTS WAS THOUGHT
OF AS A TAX UPON A LUXURY.  DAVIS V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., SUPRA.  IT
DID NOT TOUCH EMPLOYMENTS IN HUSBANDRY OR BUSINESS.  THIS IS TO THROW
OVER THE ARGUMENT THAT HISTORICALLY AN EXCISE IS A TAX UPON THE
ENJOYMENT OF COMMODITIES.  BUT THE ATTEMPTED DISTINCTION, WHATEVER MAY
BE THOUGHT OF ITS VALIDITY, IS INAPPLICABLE TO A STATUTE OF VIRGINIA
PASSED IN 1780.  THERE A TAX OF THREE POUNDS, SIX SHILLINGS AND EIGHT
PENCE WAS TO BE PAID FOR EVERY MALE TITHABLE ABOVE THE AGE OF TWENTY
ONE YEARS (WITH STATED EXCEPTIONS), AND A LIKE TAX FOR "EVERY WHITE
SERVANT WHATSOEVER, EXCEPT APPRENTICES UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY ONE
YEARS."  10 HENING'S STATUTES OF VIRGINIA, P. 244.  OUR COLONIAL
FORBEARS KNEW MORE ABOUT WAYS OF TAXING THAN SOME OF THEIR DESCENDANTS
SEEM TO BE WILLING TO CONCEDE.  FN5 

THE HISTORICAL PROP FAILING, THE PROP OR FANCIED PROP OF PRINCIPLE
REMAINS.  WE LEARN THAT EMPLOYMENT FOR LAWFUL GAIN IS A "NATURAL" OR
"INHERENT" OR "INALIENABLE" RIGHT, AND NOT A "PRIVILEGE" AT ALL.  BUT
NATURAL RIGHTS, SO CALLED, ARE AS MUCH SUBJECT TO TAXATION AS RIGHTS OF
LESS IMPORTANCE.  FN6  AN EXCISE IS NOT LIMITED TO VOCATIONS OR
ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE PROHIBITED ALTOGETHER.  IT IS NOT LIMITED TO
THOSE THAT ARE THE OUTCOME OF A FRANCHISE.  IT EXTENDS TO VOCATIONS OR
ACTIVITIES PURSUED AS OF COMMON RIGHT.  WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL DOES IN THE
OPERATION OF A BUSINESS IS AMENABLE TO TAXATION JUST AS MUCH AS WHAT HE
OWNS, AT ALL EVENTS IF THE CLASSIFICATION IS NOT TYRANNICAL OR
ARBITRARY.  "BUSINESS IS AS LEGITIMATE AN OBJECT OF THE TAXING POWERS
AS PROPERTY."  NEWTON V. ATCHISON, 31 KAN. 151, 154(PER BREWER, J.); 1
PAC. 288.  INDEED, OWNERSHIP ITSELF, AS WE HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT
THE OTHER DAY, IS ONLY A BUNDLE OF RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES INVESTED WITH
A SINGLE NAME.  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577.  "A STATE
IS AT LIBERTY, IF IT PLEASES, TO TAX THEM ALL COLLECTIVELY, OR TO
SEPARATE THE FAGGOTS AND LAY THE CHARGE DISTRIBUTIVELY."  IBID.
EMPLOYMENT IS A BUSINESS RELATION, IF NOT ITSELF A BUSINESS.  IT IS A
RELATION WITHOUT WHICH BUSINESS COULD SELDOM BE CARRIED ON
EFFECTIVELY.  THE POWER TO TAX THE ACTIVITIES AND RELATIONS THAT
CONSTITUTE A CALLING CONSIDERED AS A UNIT IS THE POWER TO TAX ANY OF
THEM.  THE WHOLE INCLUDES THE PARTS.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V.
WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 267, 268. 

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF TAXATION OPEN TO THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS IS
AS COMPREHENSIVE AS THAT OPEN TO THE POWER OF THE STATES, THOUGH THE
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT MAY AT TIMES BE DIFFERENT.  "THE CONGRESS SHALL
HAVE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES." 
ART. 1, SEC. 8.  IF THE TAX IS A DIRECT ONE, IT SHALL BE APPORTIONED
ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OR ENUMERATION.  IF IT IS A DUTY, IMPOST, OR
EXCISE, IT SHALL BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  TOGETHER,
THESE CLASSES INCLUDE EVERY FORM OF TAX APPROPRIATE TO SOVEREIGNTY. 
CF. BURNET V. BROOKS, 288 U.S. 378, 403, 405; BRUSHABER V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1, 12.  WHETHER THE TAX IS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS
AN "EXCISE" IS IN TRUTH NOT OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE.  IF NOT THAT, IT IS
AN "IMPOST" (POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601, 622,
625; PACIFIC INSURANCE CO. V. SOULE, 7 WALL.  433, 445), OR A "DUTY"
(VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8 WALL.  533, 546, 547; POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN
& TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, 570; KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 46).  A
CAPITATION OR OTHER "DIRECT" TAX IT CERTAINLY IS NOT.  "ALTHOUGH THERE
HAVE BEEN FROM TIME TO TIME INTIMATIONS THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME TAX
WHICH WAS NOT A DIRECT TAX NOR INCLUDED UNDER THE WORDS 'DUTIES,
IMPOSTS AND EXCISES,' SUCH A TAX FOR MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF
NATIONAL EXISTENCE HAS AS YET REMAINED UNDISCOVERED, NOTWITHSTANDING
THE STRESS OF PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS INVITED THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION INTO SOURCES OF POWERS."  POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN &
TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, 557.  THERE IS NO DEPARTURE FROM THAT THOUGHT
IN LATER CASES, BUT RATHER A NEW EMPHASIS OF IT.  THUS, IN THOMAS V.
UNITED STATES, 192 U.S. 363, 370, IT WAS SAID OF THE WORDS "DUTIES,
IMPOSTS AND EXCISES" THAT "THEY WERE USED COMPREHENSIVELY TO COVER
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES IMPOSED ON IMPORTATION, CONSUMPTION,
MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF CERTAIN COMMODITIES, PRIVILEGES, PARTICULAR
BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, VOCATIONS, OCCUPATIONS AND THE LIKE."  AT TIMES
TAXPAYERS HAVE CONTENDED THAT THE CONGRESS IS WITHOUT POWER TO LAY AN
EXCISE ON THE ENJOYMENT OF A PRIVILEGE CREATED BY STATE LAW.  THE
CONTENTION HAS BEEN PUT ASIDE AS BASELESS.  CONGRESS MAY TAX THE
TRANSMISSION OF PROPERTY BY INHERITANCE OR WILL, THOUGH THE STATES AND
NOT CONGRESS HAVE CREATED THE PRIVILEGE OF SUCCESSION.  KNOWLTON V.
MOORE, SUPRA, P. 58.  CONGRESS MAY TAX THE ENJOYMENT OF A CORPORATE
FRANCHISE, THOUGH A STATE AND NOT CONGRESS HAS BROUGHT THE FRANCHISE
INTO BEING.  FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 155.  THE STATUTE
BOOKS OF THE STATES ARE STREWN WITH ILLUSTRATIONS OF TAXES LAID ON
OCCUPATIONS PURSUED OF COMMON RIGHT.  FN7  WE FIND NO BASIS FOR A
HOLDING THAT THE POWER IN THAT REGARD WHICH BELONGS BY ACCEPTED
PRACTICE TO THE LEGISLATURES OF THE STATES, HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE
CONSTITUTION TO THE CONGRESS OF THE NATION.    2.  THE TAX BEING AN
EXCISE, ITS IMPOSITION MUST CONFORM TO THE CANON OF UNIFORMITY.  THERE
HAS BEEN NO DEPARTURE FROM THIS REQUIREMENT.  ACCORDING TO THE SETTLED
DOCTRINE THE UNIFORMITY EXACTED IS GEOGRAPHICAL, NOT INTRINSIC. 
KNOWLTON V. MOORE, SUPRA, P. 83; FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., SUPRA, P.
158; BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261, 282; STELLWAGEN V. CLUM,
245 U.S. 605, 613; LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 377,
392; POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101, 117; WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH
MOUNTAIN TRUST BANK, 300 U.S. 440.  "THE RULE OF LIABILITY SHALL BE THE
SAME IN ALL PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES."  FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S.
12, 17. 

SECOND.  THE EXCISE IS NOT INVALID UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT BY FORCE OF ITS EXEMPTIONS. 

THE STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY, AS WE HAVE SEEN, TO EMPLOYERS OF LESS
THAN EIGHT.  IT DOES NOT APPLY TO AGRICULTURAL LABOR, OR DOMESTIC
SERVICE IN A PRIVATE HOME OR TO SOME OTHER CLASSES OF LESS IMPORTANCE. 
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE EFFECT OF THESE RESTRICTIONS IS AN
ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION VITIATING THE TAX. 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT UNLIKE THE FOURTEENTH HAS NO EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE.  LABELLE IRON WORKS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; BRUSHABER V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., SUPRA, P. 24.  BUT EVEN THE STATES, THOUGH SUBJECT TO
SUCH A CLAUSE, ARE NOT CONFINED TO A FORMULA OF RIGID UNIFORMITY IN
FRAMING MEASURES OF TAXATION.  SWISS OIL CORP. V. SHANKS, 273 U.S. 407,
413.  THEY MAY TAX SOME KINDS OF PROPERTY AT ONE RATE, AND OTHERS AT
ANOTHER, AND EXEMPT OTHERS ALTOGETHER.  BELL'S GAP R. CO. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 134 U.S. 232; STEBBINS V. RILEY, 268 U.S. 137, 142; OHIO
OIL CO. V. CONWAY, 281 U.S. 146, 150.  THEY MAY LAY AN EXCISE ON THE
OPERATIONS OF A PARTICULAR KIND OF BUSINESS, AND EXEMPT SOME OTHER KIND
OF BUSINESS CLOSELY AKIN THERETO.  QUONG WING V. KIRKENDALL, 223 U.S.
59, 62; AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. V. LOUISIANA, 179 U.S. 89, 94;
ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. LACY, 200 U.S. 226, 235; BROWN-FORMAN CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 217 U.S. 563, 573; HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO., 260 U.S.
245, 255; STATE BOARD OF TAX COMM'RS V. JACKSON, 283 U.S. 527, 537,
538.  IF THIS LATITUDE OF JUDGMENT IS LAWFUL FOR THE STATES, IT IS
LAWFUL, A FORTIORI, IN LEGISLATION BY THE CONGRESS, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO
RESTRAINTS LESS NARROW AND CONFINING.  QUONG WING V. KIRKENDALL,
SUPRA. 

THE CLASSIFICATIONS AND EXEMPTIONS DIRECTED BY THE STATUTE NOW IN
CONTROVERSY HAVE SUPPORT IN CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY AND PRACTICAL
CONVENIENCE THAT CANNOT BE CONDEMNED AS ARBITRARY.  THE CLASSIFICATIONS
AND EXEMPTIONS WOULD THEREFORE BE UPHELD IF THEY HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY A
STATE AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WERE INVOKED TO
ANNUL THEM.  THIS IS HELD IN TWO CASES PASSED UPON TODAY IN WHICH
PRECISELY THE SAME PROVISIONS WERE THE SUBJECT OF ATTACK, THE
PROVISIONS BEING CONTAINED IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW OF THE
STATE OF ALABAMA.  CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., AND
CARMICHAEL V. GULF STATES PAPER CORP., ANTE, P. 495.  THE OPINION
RENDERED IN THOSE CASES COVERS THE GROUND FULLY.  IT WOULD BE USELESS
TO REPEAT THE ARGUMENT.  THE ACT OF CONGRESS IS THEREFORE VALID, SO FAR
AT LEAST AS ITS SYSTEM OF EXEMPTIONS IS CONCERNED, AND THIS THOUGH WE
ASSUME THAT DISCRIMINATION, IF GROSS ENOUGH, IS EQUIVALENT TO
CONFISCATION AND SUBJECT UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO CHALLENGE AND
ANNULMENT. 

THIRD.  THE EXCISE IS NOT VOID AS INVOLVING THE COERCION OF THE
STATES IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT OR OF RESTRICTIONS
IMPLICIT IN OUR FEDERAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 

THE PROCEEDS OF THE EXCISE WHEN COLLECTED ARE PAID INTO THE TREASURY
AT WASHINGTON, AND THEREAFTER ARE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION LIKE PUBLIC
MONEYS GENERALLY.  CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 308. 
NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE INDULGED THAT THEY WILL BE MISAPPLIED OR WASTED. 
FN8  EVEN IF THEY WERE COLLECTED IN THE HOPE OR EXPECTATION THAT SOME
OTHER AND COLLATERAL GOOD WOULD BE FURTHERED AS AN INCIDENT, THAT
WITHOUT MORE WOULD NOT MAKE THE ACT INVALID.  SONZINSKY V. UNITED
STATES, 300 U.S. 506.  THIS INDEED IS HARDLY QUESTIONED.  THE CASE FOR
THE PETITIONER IS BUILT ON THE CONTENTION THAT HERE AN ULTERIOR AIM IS
WROUGHT INTO THE VERY STRUCTURE OF THE ACT, AND WHAT IS EVEN MORE
IMPORTANT THAT THE AIM IS NOT ONLY ULTERIOR, BUT ESSENTIALLY UNLAWFUL. 
IN PARTICULAR, THE 90 PER CENT CREDIT IS RELIED UPON AS SUPPORTING THAT
CONCLUSION.  BUT BEFORE THE STATUTE SUCCUMBS TO AN ASSAULT UPON THESE
LINES, TWO PROPOSITIONS MUST BE MADE OUT BY THE ASSAILANT.  CINCINNATI
SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.  THERE MUST BE A SHOWING IN THE FIRST
PLACE THAT SEPARATED FROM THE CREDIT THE REVENUE PROVISIONS ARE
INCAPABLE OF STANDING BY THEMSELVES.  THERE MUST BE A SHOWING IN THE
SECOND PLACE THAT THE TAX AND THE CREDIT IN COMBINATION ARE WEAPONS OF
COERCION, DESTROYING OR IMPAIRING THE AUTONOMY OF THE STATES.  THE
TRUTH OF EACH PROPOSITION BEING ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE
ASSAULT, WE PASS FOR CONVENIENCE TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND,
WITHOUT PAUSING TO INQUIRE WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A DEMONSTRATION OF
THE FIRST. 

TO DRAW THE LINE INTELLIGENTLY BETWEEN DURESS AND INDUCEMENT THERE IS
NEED TO REMIND OURSELVES OF FACTS AS TO THE PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT
THAT ARE NOW MATTERS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE.  WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V.
PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379.  THE RELEVANT STATISTICS ARE GATHERED IN THE
BRIEF OF COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT.  OF THE MANY AVAILABLE FIGURES A
FEW ONLY WILL BE MENTIONED.  DURING THE YEARS 1929 TO 1936, WHEN THE
COUNTRY WAS PASSING THROUGH A CYCLICAL DEPRESSION, THE NUMBER OF THE
UNEMPLOYED MOUNTED TO UNPRECEDENTED HEIGHTS.  OFTEN THE AVERAGE WAS
MORE THAN 10 MILLION; AT TIMES A PEAK WAS ATTAINED OF 16 MILLION OR
MORE.  DISASTER TO THE BREADWINNER MEANT DISASTER TO DEPENDENTS. 
ACCORDINGLY THE ROLL OF THE UNEMPLOYED, ITSELF FORMIDABLE ENOUGH, WAS
ONLY A PARTIAL ROLL OF THE DESTITUTE OR NEEDY.  THE FACT DEVELOPED
QUICKLY THAT THE STATES WERE UNABLE TO GIVE THE REQUISITE RELIEF.  THE
PROBLEM HAD BECOME NATIONAL IN AREA AND DIMENSIONS.  THERE WAS NEED OF
HELP FROM THE NATION IF THE PEOPLE WERE NOT TO STARVE.  IT IS TOO LATE
TODAY FOR THE ARGUMENT TO BE HEARD WITH TOLERANCE THAT IN A CRISIS SO
EXTREME THE USE OF THE MONEYS OF THE NATION TO RELIEVE THE UNEMPLOYED
AND THEIR DEPENDENTS IS A USE FOR ANY PURPOSE NARROWER THAN THE
PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE.  CF. UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297
U.S. 1, 65, 66, HELVERING V. DAVIS, DECIDED HEREWITH, POST, P. 619. 
THE NATION RESPONDED TO THE CALL OF THE DISTRESSED.  BETWEEN JANUARY 1,
1933 AND JULY 1, 1936, THE STATES (ACCORDING TO STATISTICS SUBMITTED BY
THE GOVERNMENT) INCURRED OBLIGATIONS OF $689,291,802 FOR EMERGENCY
RELIEF; LOCAL SUBDIVISIONS AN ADDITIONAL $775,675,366.  IN THE SAME
PERIOD THE OBLIGATIONS FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF INCURRED BY THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT WERE $2,929,307,125, OR TWICE THE OBLIGATIONS OF STATES AND
LOCAL AGENCIES COMBINED.  ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET MESSAGE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1938, THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDED FOR PUBLIC
WORKS AND UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF FOR THE THREE FISCAL YEARS 1934, 1935,
AND 1936, THE STUPENDOUS TOTAL OF $8,681,000,000.  THE PARENS PATRIAE
HAS MANY REASONS - FISCAL AND ECONOMIC AS WELL AS SOCIAL AND MORAL -
FOR PLANNING TO MITIGATE DISASTERS THAT BRING THESE BURDENS IN THEIR
TRAIN. 

IN THE PRESENCE OF THIS URGENT NEED FOR SOME REMEDIAL EXPEDIENT, THE
QUESTION IS TO BE ANSWERED WHETHER THE EXPEDIENT ADOPTED HAS OVERLEPT
THE BOUNDS OF POWER.  THE ASSAILANTS OF THE STATUTE SAY THAT ITS
DOMINANT END AND AIM IS TO DRIVE THE STATE LEGISLATURES UNDER THE WHIP
OF ECONOMIC PRESSURE INTO THE ENACTMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
LAWS AT THE BIDDING OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.  SUPPORTERS OF THE
STATUTE SAY THAT ITS OPERATION IS NOT CONSTRAINT, BUT THE CREATION OF A
LARGER FREEDOM, THE STATES AND THE NATION JOINING IN A COOPERATIVE
ENDEAVOR TO AVERT A COMMON EVIL.  BEFORE CONGRESS ACTED, UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION INSURANCE WAS STILL, FOR THE MOST PART, A PROJECT AND NO
MORE.  WISCONSIN WAS THE PIONEER.  HER STATUTE WAS ADOPTED IN 1931.  AT
TIMES BILLS FOR SUCH INSURANCE WERE INTRODUCED ELSEWHERE, BUT THEY DID
NOT REACH THE STAGE OF LAW.  IN 1935, FOUR STATES (CALIFORNIA,
MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE AND NEW YORK) PASSED UNEMPLOYMENT LAWS ON
THE EVE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AND TWO OTHERS DID
LIKEWISE AFTER THE FEDERAL ACT AND LATER IN THE YEAR.  THE STATUTES
DIFFERED TO SOME EXTENT IN TYPE, BUT WERE DIRECTED TO A COMMON END.  IN
1936, TWENTY-EIGHT OTHER STATES FELL IN LINE, AND EIGHT MORE THE
PRESENT YEAR.  BUT IF STATES HAD BEEN HOLDING BACK BEFORE THE PASSAGE
OF THE FEDERAL LAW, INACTION WAS NOT OWING, FOR THE MOST PART, TO THE
LACK OF SYMPATHETIC INTEREST.  MANY HELD BACK THROUGH ALARM LEST, IN
LAYING SUCH A TOLL UPON THEIR INDUSTRIES, THEY WOULD PLACE THEMSELVES
IN A POSITION OF ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE AS COMPARED WITH NEIGHBORS OR
COMPETITORS.  SEE HOUSE REPORT, NO. 615, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P.
8; SENATE REPORT, NO. 628, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 11.  FN9  TWO
CONSEQUENCES ENSUED.  ONE WAS THAT THE FREEDOM OF A STATE TO CONTRIBUTE
ITS FAIR SHARE TO THE SOLUTION OF A NATIONAL PROBLEM WAS PARALYZED BY
FEAR.  THE OTHER WAS THAT IN SO FAR AS THERE WAS FAILURE BY THE STATES
TO CONTRIBUTE RELIEF ACCORDING TO THE MEASURE OF THEIR CAPACITY, A
DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN, AND A MOUNTAINOUS ONE, WAS LAID UPON THE
RESOURCES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NATION. 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT IS AN ATTEMPT TO FIND A METHOD BY WHICH ALL
THESE PUBLIC AGENCIES MAY WORK TOGETHER TO A COMMON END.  EVERY DOLLAR
OF THE NEW TAXES WILL CONTINUE IN ALL LIKELIHOOD TO BE USED AND NEEDED
BY THE NATION AS LONG AS STATES ARE UNWILLING, WHETHER THROUGH TIMIDITY
OR FOR OTHER MOTIVES, TO DO WHAT CAN BE DONE AT HOME.  AT LEAST THE
INFERENCE IS PERMISSIBLE THAT CONGRESS SO BELIEVED, THOUGH RETAINING
UNDIMINISHED FREEDOM TO SPEND THE MONEY AS IT PLEASED.  ON THE OTHER
HAND FULFILMENT OF THE HOME DUTY WILL BE LIGHTENED AND ENCOURAGED BY
CREDITING THE TAXPAYER UPON HIS ACCOUNT WITH THE TREASURY OF THE NATION
TO THE EXTENT THAT HIS CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE LAWS OF THE LOCALITY
HAVE SIMPLIFIED OR DIMINISHED THE PROBLEM OF RELIEF AND THE PROBABLE
DEMAND UPON THE RESOURCES OF THE FISC.  DUPLICATED TAXES, OR BURDENS
THAT APPROACH THEM, ARE RECOGNIZED HARDSHIPS THAT GOVERNMENT, STATE OR
NATIONAL, MAY PROPERLY AVOID.  HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., SUPRA;
KIDD V. ALABAMA, 188 U.S. 730, 732; WATSON V. STATE COMPTROLLER, 254
U.S. 122, 125.  IF CONGRESS BELIEVED THAT THE GENERAL WELFARE WOULD
BETTER BE PROMOTED BY RELIEF THROUGH LOCAL UNITS THAN BY THE SYSTEM
THEN IN VOGUE, THE COOPERATING LOCALITIES OUGHT NOT IN ALL FAIRNESS TO
PAY A SECOND TIME. 

WHO THEN IS COERCED THROUGH THE OPERATION OF THIS STATUTE?  NOT THE
TAXPAYER.  HE PAYS IN FULFILMENT OF THE MANDATE OF THE LOCAL
LEGISLATURE.  NOT THE STATE.  EVEN NOW SHE DOES NOT OFFER A SUGGESTION
THAT IN PASSING THE UNEMPLOYMENT LAW SHE WAS AFFECTED BY DURESS.  SEE
CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., AND CARMICHAEL V. GULF STATES
PAPER CORP., SUPRA.  FOR ALL THAT APPEARS SHE IS SATISFIED WITH HER
CHOICE, AND WOULD BE SORELY DISAPPOINTED IF IT WERE NOW TO BE
ANNULLED.  THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION IS THAT IT
CONFUSES MOTIVE WITH COERCION.  "EVERY TAX IS IN SOME MEASURE
REGULATORY.  TO SOME EXTENT IT INTERPOSES AN ECONOMIC IMPEDIMENT TO THE
ACTIVITY TAXED AS COMPARED WITH OTHERS NOT TAXED."  SONZINSKY V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  IN LIKE MANNER EVERY REBATE FROM A TAX WHEN CONDITIONED
UPON CONDUCT IS IN SOME MEASURE A TEMPTATION.  BUT TO HOLD THAT MOTIVE
OR TEMPTATION IS EQUIVALENT TO COERCION IS TO PLUNGE THE LAW IN ENDLESS
DIFFICULTIES.  THE OUTCOME OF SUCH A DOCTRINE IS THE ACCEPTANCE OF A
PHILOSOPHICAL DETERMINISM BY WHICH CHOICE BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE.  TILL NOW
THE LAW HAS BEEN GUIDED BY A ROBUST COMMON SENSE WHICH ASSUMES THE
FREEDOM OF THE WILL AS A WORKING HYPOTHESIS IN THE SOLUTION OF ITS
PROBLEMS.  THE WISDOM OF THE HYPOTHESIS HAS ILLUSTRATION IN THIS CASE. 
NOTHING IN THE CASE SUGGESTS THE EXERTION OF A POWER AKIN TO UNDUE
INFLUENCE, IF WE ASSUME THAT SUCH A CONCEPT CAN EVER BE APPLIED WITH
FITNESS TO THE RELATIONS BETWEEN STATE AND NATION.  EVEN ON THAT
ASSUMPTION THE LOCATION OF THE POINT AT WHICH PRESSURE TURNS INTO
COMPULSION, AND CEASES TO BE INDUCEMENT, WOULD BE A QUESTION OF DEGREE,
- AT TIMES, PERHAPS, OF FACT.  THE POINT HAD NOT BEEN REACHED WHEN
ALABAMA MADE HER CHOICE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT SHE WAS ACTING, NOT OF HER
UNFETTERED WILL, BUT UNDER THE STRAIN OF A PERSUASION EQUIVALENT TO
UNDUE INFLUENCE, WHEN SHE CHOSE TO HAVE RELIEF ADMINISTERED UNDER LAWS
OF HER OWN MAKING, BY AGENTS OF HER OWN SELECTION, INSTEAD OF UNDER
FEDERAL LAWS, ADMINISTERED BY FEDERAL OFFICERS, WITH ALL THE ENSUING
EVILS, AT LEAST TO MANY MINDS, OF FEDERAL PATRONAGE AND POWER.  THERE
WOULD BE A STRANGE IRONY, INDEED, IF HER CHOICE WERE NOW TO BE ANNULLED
ON THE BASIS OF AN ASSUMED DURESS IN THE ENACTMENT OF A STATUTE WHICH
HER COURTS HAVE ACCEPTED AS A TRUE EXPRESSION OF HER WILL.  BEELAND
WHOLESALE CO. V. KAUFMAN, SUPRA. WE THINK THE CHOICE MUST STAND. 

IN RULING AS WE DO, WE LEAVE MANY QUESTIONS OPEN.  WE DO NOT SAY THAT
A TAX IS VALID, WHEN IMPOSED BY ACT OF CONGRESS, IF IT IS LAID UPON THE
CONDITION THAT A STATE MAY ESCAPE ITS OPERATION THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF
A STATUTE UNRELATED IN SUBJECT MATTER TO ACTIVITIES FAIRLY WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF NATIONAL POLICY AND POWER.  NO SUCH QUESTION IS BEFORE US.  IN
THE TENDER OF THIS CREDIT CONGRESS DOES NOT INTRUDE UPON FIELDS FOREIGN
TO ITS FUNCTION.  THE PURPOSE OF ITS INTERVENTION, AS WE HAVE SHOWN, IS
TO SAFEGUARD ITS OWN TREASURY AND AS AN INCIDENT TO THAT PROTECTION TO
PLACE THE STATES UPON A FOOTING OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.  DRAINS UPON ITS
OWN RESOURCES ARE TO BE CHECKED; OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREEDOM OF THE
STATES ARE TO BE LEVELED.  IT IS ONE THING TO IMPOSE A TAX DEPENDENT
UPON THE CONDUCT OF THE TAXPAYERS, OR OF THE STATE IN WHICH THEY LIVE,
WHERE THE CONDUCT TO BE STIMULATED OR DISCOURAGED IS UNRELATED TO THE
FISCAL NEED SUBSERVED BY THE TAX IN ITS NORMAL OPERATION, OR TO ANY
OTHER END LEGITIMATELY NATIONAL.  THE CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S.
20, AND HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44, WERE DECIDED IN THE BELIEF THAT
THE STATUTES THERE CONDEMNED WERE EXPOSED TO THAT REPROACH.  CF. UNITED
STATES V. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287.  IT IS QUITE ANOTHER THING TO SAY
THAT A TAX WILL BE ABATED UPON THE DOING OF AN ACT THAT WILL SATISFY
THE FISCAL NEED, THE TAX AND THE ALTERNATIVE BEING APPROXIMATE
EQUIVALENTS.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IF IN NO OTHERS, INDUCEMENT OR
PERSUASION DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF POWER.  WE DO NOT FIX THE
OUTERMOST LINE.  ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT WHEREVER THE LINE MAY
BE, THIS STATUTE IS WITHIN IT. DEFINITION MORE PRECISE MUST ABIDE THE
WISDOM OF THE FUTURE. 

FLORIDA V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12, SUPPLIES US WITH A PRECEDENT, IF
PRECEDENT BE NEEDED.  WHAT WAS IN CONTROVERSY THERE WAS SEC. 301 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1926, WHICH IMPOSES A TAX UPON THE TRANSFER OF A
DECEDENT'S ESTATE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PERMITTING A CREDIT, NOT
EXCEEDING 80 PER CENT, FOR "THE AMOUNT OF ANY ESTATE, INHERITANCE,
LEGACY, OR SUCCESSION TAXES ACTUALLY PAID TO ANY STATE OR TERRITORY." 
FLORIDA CHALLENGED THAT PROVISION AS UNLAWFUL.  FLORIDA HAD NO
INHERITANCE TAXES AND ALLEGED THAT UNDER ITS CONSTITUTION IT COULD NOT
LEVY ANY.  273 U.S. 12, 15.  INDEED, BY ABOLISHING INHERITANCE TAXES,
IT HAD HOPED TO INDUCE WEALTHY PERSONS TO BECOME ITS CITIZENS.  SEE 67
CONG. REC., PART 1, PP. 735, 752.  IT ARGUED AT OUR BAR THAT "THE
ESTATE TAX PROVISION WAS NOT PASSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING FEDERAL
REVENUE" (273 U.S. 12, 14), BUT RATHER "TO COERCE STATES INTO ADOPTING
ESTATE OR INHERITANCE TAX LAWS."  273 U.S. 12, 13.  IN FACT, AS A
RESULT OF THE 80 PER CENT CREDIT, MATERIAL CHANGES OF SUCH LAWS WERE
MADE IN 36 STATES.  FN10  IN THE FACE OF THAT ATTACK WE UPHELD THE ACT
AS VALID.  CF. MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 482; ALSO ACT OF
AUGUST 5, 1861, C. 45, 12 STAT. 292; ACT OF MAY 13, 1862, C. 66, 12
STAT. 384. 

UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, SUPRA, IS CITED BY PETITIONER AS A DECISION
TO THE CONTRARY.  THERE A TAX WAS IMPOSED ON PROCESSORS OF FARM
PRODUCTS, THE PROCEEDS TO BE PAID TO FARMERS WHO WOULD REDUCE THEIR
ACREAGE AND CROPS UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,
THE PLAN OF THE ACT BEING TO INCREASE THE PRICES OF CERTAIN FARM
PRODUCTS BY DECREASING THE QUANTITIES PRODUCED.  THE COURT HELD (1)
THAT THE SO-CALLED TAX WAS NOT A TRUE ONE (PP. 56, 61), THE PROCEEDS
BEING EARMARKED FOR THE BENEFIT OF FARMERS COMPLYING WITH THE
PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS, (2) THAT THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE
PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE STATE IN WHICH PRODUCTION WAS
AFFECTED, AND (3) THAT THE PAYMENTS TO FARMERS WERE COUPLED WITH
COERCIVE CONTRACTS (P. 73), UNLAWFUL IN THEIR AIM AND OPPRESSIVE IN
THEIR CONSEQUENCES.  THE DECISION WAS BY A DIVIDED COURT, A MINORITY
TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE OBJECTIONS WERE UNTENABLE.  NONE OF THEM IS
APPLICABLE TO THE SITUATION HERE DEVELOPED. 

(A)  THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX IN CONTROVERSY ARE NOT EARMARKED FOR A
SPECIAL GROUP. 

(B)  THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW WHICH IS A CONDITION OF THE
CREDIT HAS HAD THE APPROVAL OF THE STATE AND COULD NOT BE A LAW WITHOUT
IT. 

(C)  THE CONDITION IS NOT LINKED TO AN IRREVOCABLE AGREEMENT, FOR THE
STATE AT ITS PLEASURE MAY REPEAL ITS UNEMPLOYMENT LAW, SEC. 903(A)(6),
TERMINATE THE CREDIT, AND PLACE ITSELF WHERE IT WAS BEFORE THE CREDIT
WAS ACCEPTED. 

(D)  THE CONDITION IS NOT DIRECTED TO THE ATTAINMENT OF AN UNLAWFUL
END, BUT TO AN END, THE RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT, FOR WHICH NATION AND
STATE MAY LAWFULLY COOPERATE. 

FOURTH.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT CALL FOR A SURRENDER BY THE STATES OF
POWERS ESSENTIAL TO THEIR QUASI-SOVEREIGN EXISTENCE. 

ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY HAS ITS SOURCE IN TWO SECTIONS OF THE ACT. 
ONE SECTION (903)  FN11 DEFINES THE MINIMUM CRITERIA TO WHICH A STATE
COMPENSATION SYSTEM IS REQUIRED TO CONFORM IF IT IS TO BE ACCEPTED BY
THE BOARD AS THE BASIS FOR A CREDIT.  THE OTHER SECTION (904)  FN12
ROUNDS OUT THE REQUIREMENT WITH COMPLEMENTARY RIGHTS AND DUTIES.  NOT
ALL THE CRITERIA OR THEIR INCIDENTS ARE CHALLENGED AS UNLAWFUL.  WE
WILL SPEAK OF THEM FIRST GENERALLY, AND THEN MORE SPECIFICALLY IN SO
FAR AS THEY ARE QUESTIONED. 

A CREDIT TO TAXPAYERS FOR PAYMENTS MADE TO A STATE UNDER A STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT LAW WILL BE MANIFESTLY FUTILE IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME
ASSURANCE THAT THE LAW LEADING TO THE CREDIT IS IN TRUTH WHAT IT
PROFESSES TO BE.  AN UNEMPLOYMENT LAW FRAMED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE
UNEMPLOYED WHO LOOK TO IT WILL BE DEPRIVED OF REASONABLE PROTECTION IS
ONE IN NAME AND NOTHING MORE.  WHAT IS BASIC AND ESSENTIAL MAY BE
ASSURED BY SUITABLE CONDITIONS.  THE TERMS EMBODIED IN THESE SECTIONS
ARE DIRECTED TO THAT END.  A WIDE RANGE OF JUDGMENT IS GIVEN TO THE
SEVERAL STATES AS TO THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF STATUTE TO BE SPREAD UPON
THEIR BOOKS.  FOR ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT THEY MAY USE THE POOLED UNEMPLOYMENT FORM, WHICH IS IN EFFECT WITH
VARIATIONS IN ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN, NEW YORK, AND ELSEWHERE. 
THEY MAY ESTABLISH A SYSTEM OF MERIT RATINGS APPLICABLE AT ONCE OR TO
GO INTO EFFECT LATER ON THE BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT EXPERIENCE.  CF. SECS.
909, 910.  THEY MAY PROVIDE FOR EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS AS IN ALABAMA
AND CALIFORNIA, OR PUT THE ENTIRE BURDEN UPON THE EMPLOYER AS IN NEW
YORK.  THEY MAY CHOOSE A SYSTEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVE ACCOUNTS BY
WHICH AN EMPLOYER IS PERMITTED AFTER HIS RESERVE HAS ACCUMULATED TO
CONTRIBUTE AT A REDUCED RATE OR EVEN NOT AT ALL.  THIS IS THE SYSTEM
WHICH HAD ITS ORIGIN IN WISCONSIN.  WHAT THEY MAY NOT DO, IF THEY WOULD
EARN THE CREDIT, IS TO DEPART FROM THOSE STANDARDS WHICH IN THE
JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS ARE TO BE RANKED AS FUNDAMENTAL.  EVEN IF OPINION
MAY DIFFER AS TO THE FUNDAMENTAL QUALITY OF ONE OR MORE OF THE
CONDITIONS, THE DIFFERENCE WILL NOT AVAIL TO VITIATE THE STATUTE.  IN
DETERMINING ESSENTIALS CONGRESS MUST HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A FAIR MARGIN
OF DISCRETION.  ONE CANNOT SAY WITH REASON THAT THIS MARGIN HAS BEEN
EXCEEDED, OR THAT THE BASIC STANDARDS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED IN ANY
ARBITRARY FASHION.  IN THE EVENT THAT SOME PARTICULAR CONDITION SHALL
BE FOUND TO BE TOO UNCERTAIN TO BE CAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT, IT MAY BE
SEVERED FROM THE OTHERS, AND WHAT IS LEFT WILL STILL BE VALID. 

WE ARE TO KEEP IN MIND STEADILY THAT THE CONDITIONS TO BE APPROVED BY
THE BOARD AS THE BASIS FOR A CREDIT ARE NOT PROVISIONS OF A CONTRACT,
BUT TERMS OF A STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE ALTERED OR REPEALED.  SEC.
903(A)(6).  THE STATE DOES NOT BIND ITSELF TO KEEP THE LAW IN FORCE. 
IT DOES NOT EVEN BIND ITSELF THAT THE MONEYS PAID INTO THE FEDERAL FUND
WILL BE KEPT THERE INDEFINITELY OR FOR ANY STATED TIME.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY WILL HONOR A REQUISITION FOR
THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE FUND WHENEVER ONE IS MADE
BY THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS.  THE ONLY CONSEQUENCE OF THE REPEAL OR
EXCESSIVE AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE, OR THE EXPENDITURE OF THE MONEY,
WHEN REQUISITIONED, FOR OTHER THAN COMPENSATION USES OR ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES, IS THAT APPROVAL OF THE LAW WILL END, AND WITH IT THE
ALLOWANCE OF A CREDIT, UPON NOTICE TO THE STATE AGENCY AND AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING.  SEC. 903(B)(C). 

THESE BASIC CONSIDERATIONS ARE IN TRUTH A SOLVENT OF THE PROBLEM. 
SUBJECTED TO THEIR TEST, THE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS ON THE SCORE OF
ABDICATION ARE FOUND TO BE UNREAL. 

THUS, THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT BY FORCE OF AN AGREEMENT THE MONEYS
WHEN WITHDRAWN MUST BE "PAID THROUGH PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT OFFICES IN THE
STATE OR THROUGH SUCH OTHER AGENCIES AS THE BOARD MAY APPROVE."  SEC.
903(A)(1).  BUT IN TRUTH THERE IS NO AGREEMENT AS TO THE METHOD OF
DISBURSEMENT.  THERE IS ONLY A CONDITION WHICH THE STATE IS FREE AT
PLEASURE TO DISREGARD OR TO FULFILL.  MOREOVER, APPROVAL IS NOT
REQUISITE IF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT OFFICES ARE MADE THE DISBURSING
INSTRUMENTS.  APPROVAL IS TO BE A CHECK UPON RESORT TO "OTHER AGENCIES"
THAT MAY, PERCHANCE, BE IRRESPONSIBLE.  A STATE LOOKING FOR A CREDIT
MUST GIVE ASSURANCE THAT HER SYSTEM HAS BEEN ORGANIZED UPON A BASE OF
RATIONALITY. 

THERE IS ARGUMENT AGAIN THAT THE MONEYS WHEN WITHDRAWN ARE TO BE
DEVOTED TO SPECIFIC USES, THE RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT, AND THAT BY
AGREEMENT FOR SUCH PAYMENT THE QUASI-SOVEREIGN POSITION OF THE STATE
HAS BEEN IMPAIRED, IF NOT ABANDONED.  BUT AGAIN THERE IS CONFUSION
BETWEEN PROMISE AND CONDITION.  ALABAMA IS STILL FREE, WITHOUT BREACH
OF AN AGREEMENT, TO CHANGE HER SYSTEM OVER NIGHT.  NO OFFICER OR AGENCY
OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CAN FORCE A COMPENSATION LAW UPON HER OR
KEEP IT IN EXISTENCE.  NO OFFICER OR AGENCY OF THAT GOVERNMENT, EITHER
BY SUIT OR OTHER MEANS, CAN SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE APPLICATION OF THE
PAYMENTS. 

FINALLY AND CHIEFLY, ABDICATION IS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW FROM SEC. 904
OF THE STATUTE AND THE PARTS OF SEC. 903 THAT ARE COMPLEMENTARY
THERETO.  SEC. 903(A)(3).  BY THESE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IS
AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO RECEIVE AND HOLD IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST
FUND ALL MONEYS DEPOSITED THEREIN BY A STATE AGENCY FOR A STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT FUND AND TO INVEST IN OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
SUCH PORTION OF THE FUND AS IS NOT IN HIS JUDGMENT REQUIRED TO MEET
CURRENT WITHDRAWALS.  WE ARE TOLD THAT ALABAMA IN CONSENTING TO THAT
DEPOSIT HAS RENOUNCED THE PLENITUDE OF POWER INHERENT IN HER
STATEHOOD. 

THE SAME PERVASIVE MISCONCEPTION IS IN EVIDENCE AGAIN.  ALL THAT THE
STATE HAS DONE IS TO SAY IN EFFECT THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF A STATUTE
THAT HER AGENTS SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO DEPOSIT THE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX
RECEIPTS IN THE TREASURY AT WASHINGTON.  ALABAMA UNEMPLOYMENT ACT OF
SEPTEMBER 14, 1935, SEC. 10(I).  THE STATUTE MAY BE REPEALED.  SEC.
903(A)(6).  THE CONSENT MAY BE REVOKED.  THE DEPOSITS MAY BE
WITHDRAWN.  THE MOMENT THE STATE COMMISSION GIVES NOTICE TO THE
DEPOSITARY THAT IT WOULD LIKE THE MONEYS BACK, THE TREASURER WILL
RETURN THEM.  TO FIND STATE DESTRUCTION THERE IS TO FIND IT ALMOST
ANYWHERE.  WITH NEARLY AS MUCH REASON ONE MIGHT SAY THAT A STATE
ABDICATES ITS FUNCTIONS WHEN IT PLACES THE STATE MONEYS ON DEPOSIT IN A
NATIONAL BANK. 

THERE ARE VERY GOOD REASONS OF FISCAL AND GOVERNMENTAL POLICY WHY A
STATE SHOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY THE
CUSTODIAN OF THE FUND.  HIS POSSESSION OF THE MONEYS AND HIS CONTROL OF
INVESTMENTS WILL BE AN ASSURANCE OF STABILITY AND SAFETY IN TIMES OF
STRESS AND STRAIN.  A REPORT OF THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, QUOTED IN THE MARGIN, DEVELOPS THE SITUATION
CLEARLY.  FN13  NOR IS THERE RISK OF LOSS OR WASTE.  THE CREDIT OF THE
TREASURY IS AT ALL TIMES BACK OF THE DEPOSIT, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE
RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL WILL BE UNAFFECTED BY THE FATE OF ANY INTERMEDIATE
INVESTMENTS, JUST AS IF A CHECKING ACCOUNT IN THE USUAL FORM HAD BEEN
OPENED IN A BANK. 

THE INFERENCE OF ABDICATION THUS DISSOLVES IN THINNEST AIR WHEN THE
DEPOSIT IS CONCEIVED OF AS DEPENDENT UPON A STATUTORY CONSENT, AND NOT
UPON A CONTRACT EFFECTIVE TO CREATE A DUTY.  BY THIS WE DO NOT INTIMATE
THAT THE CONCLUSION WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF A CONTRACT WERE DISCOVERED. 
EVEN SOVEREIGNS MAY CONTRACT WITHOUT DEROGATING FROM THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY.  PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330, 353; 1 OPPENHEIM,
INTERNATIONAL LAW, 4TH ED., SECS. 493, 494; HALL, INTERNATIONAL LAW,
8TH ED., SEC. 107; 2 HYDE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, SEC. 489.  THE STATES ARE
AT LIBERTY, UPON OBTAINING THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, TO MAKE AGREEMENTS
WITH ONE ANOTHER.  CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 10, PAR. 3.  POOLE V.
FLEEGER, 11 PET. 185, 209; RHODE ISLAND V. MASSACHUSETTS, 12 PET. 657,
725.  WE FIND NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT THEY MAY DO THE LIKE WITH CONGRESS
IF THE ESSENCE OF THEIR STATEHOOD IS MAINTAINED WITHOUT IMPAIRMENT. 
FN14  ALABAMA IS SEEKING AND OBTAINING A CREDIT OF MANY MILLIONS IN
FAVOR OF HER CITIZENS OUT OF THE TREASURY OF THE NATION.  NOWHERE IN
OUR SCHEME OF GOVERNMENT - IN THE LIMITATIONS EXPRESS OR IMPLIED OF OUR
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION - DO WE FIND THAT SHE IS PROHIBITED FROM ASSENTING
TO CONDITIONS THAT WILL ASSURE A FAIR AND JUST REQUITAL FOR BENEFITS
RECEIVED.  BUT WE WILL NOT LABOR THE POINT FURTHER.  AN UNREAL
PROHIBITION DIRECTED TO AN UNREAL AGREEMENT WILL NOT VITIATE AN ACT OF
CONGRESS, AND CAUSE IT TO COLLAPSE IN RUIN. 

FIFTH.  TITLE III OF THE ACT IS SEPARABLE FROM TITLE IX, AND ITS
VALIDITY IS NOT AT ISSUE. 

THE ESSENTIAL PROVISIONS OF THAT TITLE HAVE BEEN STATED IN THE
OPINION.  AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE TITLE DOES NOT APPROPRIATE A
DOLLAR OF THE PUBLIC MONEYS.  IT DOES NO MORE THAN AUTHORIZE
APPROPRIATIONS TO BE MADE IN THE FUTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING
STATES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THEIR LAWS, IF CONGRESS SHALL DECIDE
THAT APPROPRIATIONS ARE DESIRABLE.  THE TITLE MIGHT BE EXPUNGED, AND
TITLE IX WOULD STAND INTACT.  WITHOUT A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE WE SHOULD
STILL BE LED TO THAT CONCLUSION.  THE PRESENCE OF SUCH A CLAUSE (SEC.
1103) MAKES THE CONCLUSION EVEN CLEARER.  WILLIAMS V. STANDARD OIL CO.,
278 U.S. 235, 242; UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PFOST, 286 U.S. 165, 184;
CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 312. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.    FN1  SEC. 903.  (A)  THE SOCIAL SECURITY
BOARD SHALL APPROVE ANY STATE LAW SUBMITTED TO IT, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
OF SUCH SUBMISSION, WHICH IT FINDS PROVIDES THAT - 

(1)  ALL COMPENSATION IS TO BE PAID THROUGH PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT OFFICES
IN THE STATE OR SUCH OTHER AGENCIES AS THE BOARD MAY APPROVE: 

(2)  NO COMPENSATION SHALL BE PAYABLE WITH RESPECT TO ANY DAY OF
UNEMPLOYMENT OCCURRING WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF THE
FIRST PERIOD WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS ARE REQUIRED; 

(3)  ALL MONEY RECEIVED IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT FUND SHALL IMMEDIATELY
UPON SUCH RECEIPT BE PAID OVER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO THE
CREDIT OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 904; 

(4)  ALL MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND BY THE
STATE AGENCY SHALL BE USED SOLELY IN THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION,
EXCLUSIVE OF EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION; 

(5)  COMPENSATION SHALL NOT BE DENIED IN SUCH STATE TO ANY OTHERWISE
ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL FOR REFUSING TO ACCEPT NEW WORK UNDER ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (A)  IF THE POSITION OFFERED IS VACANT DUE
DIRECTLY TO A STRIKE, LOCKOUT, OR OTHER LABOR DISPUTE; (B) IF THE
WAGES, HOURS, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF THE WORK OFFERED ARE SUBSTANTIALLY
LESS FAVORABLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAN THOSE PREVAILING FOR SIMILAR WORK
IN THE LOCALITY; (C) IF AS A CONDITION OF BEING EMPLOYED THE INDIVIDUAL
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO JOIN A COMPANY UNION OR TO RESIGN FROM OR REFRAIN
FROM JOINING ANY BONA FIDE LABOR ORGANIZATION; 

(6)  ALL THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES CONFERRED BY SUCH LAW
OR BY ACTS DONE PURSUANT THERETO SHALL EXIST SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF
THE LEGISLATURE TO AMEND OR REPEAL SUCH LAW AT ANY TIME. 

THE BOARD SHALL, UPON APPROVING SUCH LAW, NOTIFY THE GOVERNOR OF THE
STATE OF ITS APPROVAL. 

(B)  ON DECEMBER 31 IN EACH TAXABLE YEAR THE BOARD SHALL CERTIFY TO
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY EACH STATE WHOSE LAW IT HAS PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED, EXCEPT THAT IT SHALL NOT CERTIFY ANY STATE WHICH, AFTER
REASONABLE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING TO THE STATE AGENCY, THE
BOARD FINDS HAS CHANGED ITS LAW SO THAT IT NO LONGER CONTAINS THE
PROVISIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A) OR HAS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH
TAXABLE YEAR FAILED TO COMPLY SUBSTANTIALLY WITH ANY SUCH PROVISION. 

(C)  IF, AT ANY TIME DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR, THE BOARD HAS REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT A STATE WHOSE LAW IT HAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, MAY NOT BE
CERTIFIED UNDER SUBSECTION (B), IT SHALL PROMPTLY SO NOTIFY THE
GOVERNOR OF SUCH STATE. 

FN2  SEC. 904.  (A)  THERE IS HEREBY ESTABLISHED IN THE TREASURY OF
THE UNITED STATES A TRUST FUND TO BE KNOWN AS THE "UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST
FUND," HEREINAFTER IN THIS TITLE CALLED THE "FUND."  THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO RECEIVE AND HOLD IN THE FUND
ALL MONEYS DEPOSITED THEREIN BY A STATE AGENCY FROM A STATE
UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.  SUCH DEPOSIT MAY BE MADE DIRECTLY WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OR WITH ANY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OR MEMBER
BANK OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM DESIGNATED BY HIM FOR SUCH PURPOSE. 

(B)  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO INVEST
SUCH PORTION OF THE FUND AS IS NOT, IN HIS JUDGMENT, REQUIRED TO MEET
CURRENT WITHDRAWALS.  SUCH INVESTMENT MAY BE MADE ONLY IN INTEREST
BEARING OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OR IN OBLIGATIONS GUARANTEED
AS TO BOTH PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST BY THE UNITED STATES.  FOR SUCH
PURPOSE SUCH OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ACQUIRED (1) ON ORIGINAL ISSUE AT PAR,
OR (2) BY PURCHASE OF OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS AT THE MARKET PRICE.  THE
PURPOSES FOR WHICH OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAY BE ISSUED UNDER
THE SECOND LIBERTY BOND ACT, AS AMENDED, ARE HEREBY EXTENDED TO
AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE AT PAR OF SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE
FUND.  SUCH SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT A RATE EQUAL TO
THE AVERAGE RATE OF INTEREST, COMPUTED AS OF THE END OF THE CALENDAR
MONTH NEXT PRECEDING THE DATE OF SUCH ISSUE, BORNE BY ALL INTEREST
BEARING OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES THEN FORMING PART OF THE
PUBLIC DEBT; EXCEPT THAT WHERE SUCH AVERAGE RATE IS NOT A MULTIPLE OF
ONE-EIGHTH OF 1 PER CENTUM, THE RATE OF INTEREST OF SUCH SPECIAL
OBLIGATIONS SHALL BE THE MULTIPLE OF ONE-EIGHTH OF 1 PER CENTUM NEXT
LOWER THAN SUCH AVERAGE RATE.  OBLIGATIONS OTHER THAN SUCH SPECIAL
OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ACQUIRED FOR THE FUND ONLY ON SUCH TERMS AS TO
PROVIDE AN INVESTMENT YIELD NOT LESS THAN THE YIELD WHICH WOULD BE
REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS IF ISSUED TO THE FUND UPON
THE DATE OF SUCH ACQUISITION. 

(C)  ANY OBLIGATIONS ACQUIRED BY THE FUND (EXCEPT SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS
ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE FUND) MAY BE SOLD AT THE MARKET PRICE, AND
SUCH SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS MAY BE REDEEMED AT PAR PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST. 

(D)  THE INTEREST ON, AND THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OR REDEMPTION
OF, ANY OBLIGATIONS HELD IN THE FUND SHALL BE CREDITED TO AND FORM A
PART OF THE FUND. 

(E)  THE FUND SHALL BE INVESTED AS A SINGLE FUND, BUT THE SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY SHALL MAINTAIN A SEPARATE BOOK ACCOUNT FOR EACH STATE
AGENCY AND SHALL CREDIT QUARTERLY ON MARCH 31, JUNE 30, SEPTEMBER 30,
AND DECEMBER 31, OF EACH YEAR, TO EACH ACCOUNT, ON THE BASIS OF THE
AVERAGE DAILY BALANCE OF SUCH ACCOUNT, A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE
EARNINGS OF THE FUND FOR THE QUARTER ENDING ON SUCH DATE. 

(F)  THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY IS AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO PAY
OUT OF THE FUND TO ANY STATE AGENCY SUCH AMOUNT AS IT MAY DULY
REQUISITION, NOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT STANDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SUCH
STATE AGENCY AT THE TIME OF SUCH PAYMENT. 

FN3  THE LIST OF SERVICES IS COMPREHENSIVE.  IT INCLUDED:  "MAITRE
D'HOTEL, HOUSE-STEWARD, MASTER OF THE HORSE, GROOM OF THE CHAMBER,
VALET DE CHAMBRE, BUTLER, UNDER-BUTLER, CLERK OF THE KITCHEN,
CONFECTIONER, COOK, HOUSE-PORTER, FOOTMAN, RUNNING-FOOTMAN, COACHMAN,
GROOM, POSTILLION, STABLE-BOY, AND THE RESPECTIVE HELPERS IN THE
STABLES OF SUCH COACHMAN, GROOM, OR POSTILLION, OR IN THE CAPACITY OF
GARDENER (NOT BEING A DAY-LABOURER), PARK-KEEPER, GAMEKEEPER, HUNTSMAN,
WHIPPER-IN  ..." 

FN4 THE STATUTE, AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT WITH ITS BASIC
STRUCTURE UNAFFECTED, IS ON THE STATUTE BOOKS TODAY.  ACT OF 1803, 43
GEORGE III, C. 161; ACT OF 1812, 52 GEORGE III, C. 93; ACT OF 1853, 16
& 17 VICT., C. 90; ACT OF 1869, 32 & 33 VICT., C. 14.  24 HALSBURY'S
LAWS OF ENGLAND, 1ST ED., PP. 692 ET SEQ. 

FN5  SEE ALSO THE FOLLOWING LAWS IMPOSING OCCUPATION TAXES:  12
HENING'S STATUTES OF VIRGINIA, P. 285, ACT OF 1786; CHANDLER, THE
COLONIAL RECORDS OF GEORGIA, VOL. 19, PART 2, P. 88, ACT OF 1778; 1
POTTER, TAYLOR AND YANCEY, NORTH CAROLINA REVISED LAWS, P. 501, ACT OF
1784. 

FN6  THE CASES ARE BROUGHT TOGETHER BY PROFESSOR JOHN MACARTHUR
MAGUIRE IN AN ESSAY, "TAXING THE EXERCISE OF NATURAL RIGHTS" (HARVARD
LEGAL ESSAYS, 1934, PP. 273, 322). 

THE MASSACHUSETTS DECISIONS MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THE
PARTICULAR DEFINITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS
CONSTITUTION.  OPINION OF THE JUSTICES, 282 MASS. 619, 622; 186 N.E.
490; 266 MASS. 590, 593; 165 N.E. 904.  AND SEE HOWES BROTHERS CO. V.
MASSACHUSETTS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMM'N, SUPRA, PP. 730, 731. 

FN7  ALABAMA GENERAL ACTS, 1935, C. 194, ART. XIII (FLAT LICENSE TAX
ON OCCUPATIONS); ARIZONA REVISED CODE, SUPPLEMENT (1936) SEC. 3138A ET
SEQ. (GENERAL GROSS RECEIPTS TAX); CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES,
SUPPLEMENT (1935) SECS. 457C, 458C (GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ON
UNINCORPORATED BUSINESSES); REVISED CODE OF DELAWARE (1935) SECS. 192
197(FLAT LICENSE TAX ON OCCUPATIONS); COMPILED LAWS OF FLORIDA,
PERMANENT SUPPLEMENT (1936) VOL. I, SEC. 1279(FLAT LICENSE TAX ON
OCCUPATIONS); GEORGIA LAWS, 1935, P. 11(FLAT LICENSE TAX ON
OCCUPATIONS); INDIANA STATUTES ANN. (1933) SEC. 64-2601 ET SEQ.
(GENERAL GROSS RECEIPTS TAX); LOUISIANA LAWS, 3RD EXTRA SESSION, 1934,
ACT NO. 15, 1ST EXTRA SESSION, 1935, ACTS NOS. 5, 6(GENERAL GROSS
RECEIPTS TAX); MISSISSIPPI LAWS, 1934, C. 119(GENERAL GROSS RECEIPTS
TAX); NEW MEXICO LAWS, 1935, C. 73(GENERAL GROSS RECEIPTS TAX); SOUTH
DAKOTA LAWS, 1933, C. 184(GENERAL GROSS RECEIPTS TAX, EXPIRED JUNE 30,
1935); WASHINGTON LAWS, 1935, C. 180, TITLE II (GENERAL GROSS RECEIPTS
TAX); WEST VIRGINIA CODE, SUPPLEMENT (1935) SEC. 960(GENERAL GROSS
RECEIPTS TAX). 

FN8  THE TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE 90
PER CENT DEDUCTION, RANGE FROM $225,000,000 IN THE FIRST YEAR TO OVER
$900,000,000 SEVEN YEARS LATER.  EVEN IF THE MAXIMUM CREDITS ARE
AVAILABLE TO TAXPAYERS IN ALL STATES, THE MAXIMUM ESTIMATED RECEIPTS
FROM TITLE IX WILL RANGE BETWEEN $22,000,000, AT ONE EXTREME, TC
$90,000,000 AT THE OTHER.  IF SOME OF THE STATES HOLD OUT IN THEIR
UNWILLINGNESS TO PASS STATUTES OF THEIR OWN, THE RECEIPTS WILL BE STILL
LARGER. 

FN9  THE ATTITUDE OF MASSACHUSETTS IS SIGNIFICANT.  HER ACT BECAME A
LAW AUGUST 12, 1935, TWO DAYS BEFORE THE FEDERAL ACT.  EVEN SO, SHE
PRESCRIBED THAT ITS PROVISIONS SHOULD NOT BECOME OPERATIVE UNLESS THE
FEDERAL BILL BECAME A LAW, OR UNLESS ELEVEN OF THE FOLLOWING STATES
(ALABAMA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA,
MAINE, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW
JERSEY, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA,
TENNESSEE, VERMONT) SHOULD IMPOSE ON THEIR EMPLOYERS BURDENS
SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT.  ACTS OF 1935, C. 479, P. 655.  HER FEAR OF
COMPETITION IS THUS FORCEFULLY ATTESTED.  SEE ALSO CALIFORNIA LAWS,
1935, C. 352, ART. I, SEC. 2; IDAHO LAWS, 1936(THIRD EXTRA SESSION) C.
12, SEC. 26; MISSISSIPPI LAWS, 1936, C. 176, SEC. 2-A. 

FN10  PERKINS, STATE ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX CREDIT
CLAUSE, 13 NORTH CAROLINA L. REV. 271, 280. 

FN11  SEE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN13  "THIS LAST PROVISION WILL NOT ONLY AFFORD MAXIMUM SAFETY FOR
THESE FUNDS BUT IS VERY ESSENTIAL TO INSURE THAT THEY WILL OPERATE TO
PROMOTE THE STABILITY OF BUSINESS RATHER THAN THE REVERSE. 
UNEMPLOYMENT RESERVE FUNDS HAVE THE PECULIARITY THAT THE DEMANDS UPON
THEM FLUCTUATE CONSIDERABLY, BEING HEAVIEST WHEN BUSINESS SLACKENS. 
IF, IN SUCH TIMES, THE SECURITIES IN WHICH THESE FUNDS ARE INVESTED ARE
THROWN UPON THE MARKET FOR LIQUIDATION, THE NET EFFECT IS LIKELY TO BE
INCREASED DEFLATION.  SUCH A RESULT IS AVOIDED IN THIS BILL THROUGH THE
PROVISION THAT ALL RESERVE FUNDS ARE TO BE HELD BY THE UNITED STATES
TREASURY, TO BE INVESTED AND LIQUIDATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY IN A MANNER CALCULATED TO PROMOTE BUSINESS STABILITY.  WHEN
BUSINESS CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT INVESTMENT IN SECURITIES PURCHASED ON
THE OPEN MARKET IS UNWISE, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY MAY ISSUE
SPECIAL NONNEGOTIABLE OBLIGATIONS EXCLUSIVELY TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST
FUND.  WHEN A REVERSE SITUATION EXISTS AND HEAVY DRAINS ARE MADE UPON
THE FUND FOR PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, THE TREASURY DOES NOT
HAVE TO DISPOSE OF THE SECURITIES BELONGING TO THE FUND IN OPEN MARKET
BUT MAY ASSUME THEM ITSELF.  WITH SUCH A METHOD OF HANDLING THE RESERVE
FUNDS, IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS BILL WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM OFTEN
RAISED IN DISCUSSIONS OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, REGARDING THE
POSSIBILITY OF TRANSFERRING PURCHASING POWER FROM BOOM PERIODS TO
DEPRESSION PERIODS.  IT WILL IN FACT OPERATE TO SUSTAIN PURCHASING
POWER AT THE ONSET OF A DEPRESSION WITHOUT HAVING ANY COUNTERACTING
DEFLATIONARY TENDENCIES."  HOUSE REPORT, NO. 615, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST
SESSION, P. 9. 

FN14  CF. 12 STAT. 503; 26 STAT. 417. 

SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS. 

THAT PORTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION HERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION, I THINK, EXCEEDS THE POWER GRANTED TO CONGRESS.  IT
UNDULY INTERFERES WITH THE ORDERLY GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE BY HER OWN
PEOPLE AND OTHERWISE OFFENDS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

IN TEXAS V. WHITE, 7 WALL.  700, 725(1869), A CAUSE OF MOMENTOUS
IMPORTANCE, THIS COURT, THROUGH CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE, DECLARED - 

"BUT THE PERPETUITY AND INDISSOLUBILITY OF THE UNION, BY NO MEANS
IMPLIES THE LOSS OF DISTINCT AND INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE, OR OF THE RIGHT
OF SELF-GOVERNMENT, BY THE STATES.  UNDER THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
EACH STATE RETAINED ITS SOVEREIGNTY, FREEDOM, AND INDEPENDENCE, AND
EVERY POWER, JURISDICTION, AND RIGHT NOT EXPRESSLY DELEGATED TO THE
UNITED STATES.  UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THOUGH THE POWERS OF THE STATES
WERE MUCH RESTRICTED, STILL, ALL POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED
STATES, NOR PROHIBITED TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES
RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.  AND WE HAVE ALREADY HAD OCCASION TO
REMARK AT THIS TERM, THAT 'THE PEOPLE OF EACH STATE COMPOSE A STATE,
HAVING ITS OWN GOVERNMENT, AND ENDOWED WITH ALL THE FUNCTIONS ESSENTIAL
TO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE,' AND THAT 'WITHOUT THE STATES IN
UNION, THERE COULD BE NO SUCH POLITICAL BODY AS THE UNITED STATES.' 
(LANE COUNTY V. OREGON, 7 WALL.  71, 76.)  NOT ONLY, THEREFORE, CAN
THERE BE NO LOSS OF SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT AUTONOMY TO THE STATES,
THROUGH THEIR UNION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IT MAY BE NOT
UNREASONABLY SAID THAT THE PRESERVATION OF THE STATES, AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS, ARE AS MUCH WITHIN THE DESIGN AND
CARE OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNION AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  THE CONSTITUTION, IN ALL ITS
PROVISIONS, LOOKS TO AN INDESTRUCTIBLE UNION, COMPOSED OF
INDESTRUCTIBLE STATES."    THE DOCTRINE THUS ANNOUNCED AND OFTEN
REPEATED, I HAD SUPPOSED WAS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.  APPARENTLY THE STATES
REMAINED REALLY FREE TO EXERCISE GOVERNMENTAL POWERS, NOT DELEGATED OR
PROHIBITED, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH
THREATS OF PUNITIVE MEASURES OR OFFERS OF SEDUCTIVE FAVORS. 
UNFORTUNATELY, THE DECISION JUST ANNOUNCED OPENS THE WAY FOR PRACTICAL
ANNIHILATION OF THIS THEORY; AND NO CLOUD OF WORDS OR OSTENTATIOUS
PARADE OF IRRELEVANT STATISTICS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO OBSCURE THAT
FACT.    THE INVALIDITY, ALSO THE DESTRUCTIVE TENDENCY, OF LEGISLATION
LIKE THE ACT BEFORE US WERE FORCEFULLY POINTED OUT BY PRESIDENT
FRANKLIN PIERCE IN A VETO MESSAGE SENT TO THE SENATE MAY 3, 1854.  FN1
HE WAS A SCHOLARLY LAWYER OF DISTINCTION AND ENJOYED THE ADVICE AND
COUNSEL OF A RARELY ABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL - CALEB CUSHING OF
MASSACHUSETTS.  THIS MESSAGE CONSIDERS WITH UNUSUAL LUCIDITY POINTS
HERE SPECIALLY IMPORTANT.  I VENTURE TO SET OUT PERTINENT PORTIONS OF
IT WHICH MUST APPEAL TO ALL WHO CONTINUE TO RESPECT BOTH THE LETTER AND
SPIRIT OF OUR GREAT CHARTER. 

"TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES: 

"THE BILL ENTITLED 'AN ACT MAKING A GRANT OF PUBLIC LANDS TO THE
SEVERAL STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF INDIGENT INSANE PERSONS,' WHICH WAS
PRESENTED TO ME ON THE 27TH ULTIMO, HAS BEEN MATURELY CONSIDERED, AND
IS RETURNED TO THE SENATE, THE HOUSE IN WHICH IT ORIGINATED, WITH A
STATEMENT OF THE OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE REQUIRED ME TO WITHHOLD FROM IT
MY APPROVAL. 

     .    .         .         .         . 

"IF IN PRESENTING MY OBJECTIONS TO THIS BILL I SHOULD SAY MORE THAN
STRICTLY BELONGS TO THE MEASURE OR IS REQUIRED FOR THE DISCHARGE OF MY
OFFICIAL OBLIGATION, LET IT BE ATTRIBUTED TO A SINCERE DESIRE TO
JUSTIFY MY ACT BEFORE THOSE WHOSE GOOD OPINION I SO HIGHLY VALUE AND TO
THAT EARNESTNESS WHICH SPRINGS FROM MY DELIBERATE CONVICTION THAT A
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE TERMS AND PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL COMPACT
OFFERS THE BEST, IF NOT THE ONLY, SECURITY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OUR
BLESSED INHERITANCE OF REPRESENTATIVE LIBERTY. 

"THE BILL PROVIDES IN SUBSTANCE: 

"FIRST.  THAT 10,000,000 ACRES OF LAND BE GRANTED TO THE SEVERAL
STATES, TO BE APPORTIONED AMONG THEM IN THE COMPOUND RATIO OF THE
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AND REPRESENTATION OF SAID STATES IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. 

"SECOND.  THAT WHEREVER THERE ARE PUBLIC LANDS IN A STATE SUBJECT TO
SALE AT THE REGULAR PRICE OF PRIVATE ENTRY, THE PROPORTION OF SAID
10,000,000 ACRES FALLING TO SUCH STATE SHALL BE SELECTED FROM SUCH
LANDS WITHIN IT, AND THAT TO THE STATES IN WHICH THERE ARE NO SUCH
PUBLIC LANDS LAND SCRIP SHALL BE ISSUED TO THE AMOUNT OF THEIR
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES, RESPECTIVELY, SAID SCRIP NOT TO BE ENTERED BY SAID
STATES, BUT TO BE SOLD BY THEM AND SUBJECT TO ENTRY BY THEIR ASSIGNEES:
PROVIDED, THAT NONE OF IT SHALL BE SOLD AT LESS THAN $1 PER ACRE, UNDER
PENALTY OF FORFEITURE OF THE SAME TO THE UNITED STATES. 

"THIRD.  THAT THE EXPENSES OF THE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERINTENDENCE OF
SAID LANDS AND OF THE MONEYS RECEIVED THEREFROM SHALL BE PAID BY THE
STATES TO WHICH THEY MAY BELONG OUT OF THE TREASURY OF SAID STATES. 

"FOURTH.  THAT THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF THE SALES OF SUCH LANDS OR LAND
SCRIP SO GRANTED SHALL BE INVESTED BY THE SEVERAL STATES IN SAFE
STOCKS, TO CONSTITUTE A PERPETUAL FUND, THE PRINCIPAL OF WHICH SHALL
REMAIN FOREVER UNDIMINISHED, AND THE INTEREST TO BE APPROPRIATED TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE INDIGENT INSANE WITHIN THE SEVERAL STATES. 

"FIFTH.  THAT ANNUAL RETURNS OF LANDS OR SCRIP SOLD SHALL BE MADE BY
THE STATES TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, AND THE WHOLE GRANT BE
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE BILL,
TO BE ASSENTED TO BY LEGISLATIVE ACTS OF SAID STATES. 

"THIS BILL THEREFORE PROPOSES THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE
PROVISION TO THE AMOUNT OF THE VALUE OF 10,000,000 ACRES OF LAND FOR AN
ELEEMOSYNARY OBJECT WITHIN THE SEVERAL STATES, TO BE ADMINISTERED BY
THE POLITICAL AUTHORITY OF THE SAME; AND IT PRESENTS AT THE THRESHOLD
THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY SUCH ACT ON THE PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IS WARRANTED AND SANCTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE PROVISIONS AND
PRINCIPLES OF WHICH ARE TO BE PROTECTED AND SUSTAINED AS A FIRST AND
PARAMOUNT DUTY. 

"IT CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED THAT IF CONGRESS HAS POWER TO MAKE
PROVISION FOR THE INDIGENT INSANE WITHOUT THE LIMITS OF THIS DISTRICT
IT HAS THE SAME POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE INDIGENT WHO ARE NOT INSANE,
AND THUS TO TRANSFER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE CHARGE OF ALL THE
POOR IN ALL THE STATES.  IT HAS THE SAME POWER TO PROVIDE HOSPITALS AND
OTHER LOCAL ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE CARE AND CURE OF EVERY SPECIES OF
HUMAN INFIRMITY, AND THUS TO ASSUME ALL THAT DUTY OF EITHER PUBLIC
PHILANTHROPY OR PUBLIC NECESSITY TO THE DEPENDENT, THE ORPHAN, THE
SICK, OR THE NEEDY WHICH IS NOW DISCHARGED BY THE STATES THEMSELVES OR
BY CORPORATE INSTITUTIONS OR PRIVATE ENDOWMENTS EXISTING UNDER THE
LEGISLATION OF THE STATES.  THE WHOLE FIELD OF PUBLIC BENEFICENCE IS
THROWN OPEN TO THE CARE AND CULTURE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
GENEROUS IMPULSES NO LONGER ENCOUNTER THE LIMITATIONS AND CONTROL OF
OUR IMPERIOUS FUNDAMENTAL LAW; FOR HOWEVER WORTHY MAY BE THE PRESENT
OBJECT IN ITSELF, IT IS ONLY ONE OF A CLASS.  IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY
WORTHY OF BENEVOLENT REGARD.  WHATEVER CONSIDERATIONS DICTATE SYMPATHY
FOR THIS PARTICULAR OBJECT APPLY IN LIKE MANNER, IF NOT IN THE SAME
DEGREE, TO IDIOCY, TO PHYSICAL DISEASE, TO EXTREME DESTITUTION.  IF
CONGRESS MAY AND OUGHT TO PROVIDE FOR ANY ONE OF THESE OBJECTS, IT MAY
AND OUGHT TO PROVIDE FOR THEM ALL.  AND IF IT BE DONE IN THIS CASE,
WHAT ANSWER SHALL BE GIVEN WHEN CONGRESS SHALL BE CALLED UPON, AS IT
DOUBTLESS WILL BE, TO PURSUE A SIMILAR COURSE OF LEGISLATION IN THE
OTHERS?  IT WILL OBVIOUSLY BE VAIN TO REPLY THAT THE OBJECT IS WORTHY,
BUT THAT THE APPLICATION HAS TAKEN A WRONG DIRECTION.  THE POWER WILL
HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY ASSUMED, THE GENERAL OBLIGATION WILL BY THIS ACT
HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED, AND THE QUESTION OF MEANS AND EXPEDIENCY WILL
ALONE BE LEFT FOR CONSIDERATION.  THE DECISION UPON THE PRINCIPLE IN
ANY ONE CASE DETERMINES IT FOR THE WHOLE CLASS.  THE QUESTION
PRESENTED, THEREFORE, CLEARLY IS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND
PROPRIETY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSUMING TO ENTER INTO A NOVEL AND
VAST FIELD OF LEGISLATION, NAMELY, THAT OF PROVIDING FOR THE CARE AND
SUPPORT OF ALL THOSE AMONG THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES WHO BY ANY
FORM OF CALAMITY BECOME FIT OBJECTS OF PUBLIC PHILANTHROPY. 

"I READILY AND, I TRUST, FEELINGLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE DUTY INCUMBENT ON
US ALL AS MEN AND CITIZENS, AND AS AMONG THE HIGHEST AND HOLIEST OF OUR
DUTIES, TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE WHO, IN THE MYSTERIOUS ORDER OF
PROVIDENCE, ARE SUBJECT TO WANT AND TO DISEASE OF BODY OR MIND; BUT I
CAN NOT FIND ANY AUTHORITY IN THE CONSTITUTION FOR MAKING THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT THE GREAT ALMONER OF PUBLIC CHARITY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES.  TO DO SO WOULD, IN MY JUDGMENT, BE CONTRARY TO THE LETTER AND
SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND SUBVERSIVE OF THE WHOLE THEORY UPON
WHICH THE UNION OF THESE STATES IS FOUNDED.  AND IF IT WERE ADMISSIBLE
TO CONTEMPLATE THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER FOR ANY OBJECT WHATEVER, I
CAN NOT AVOID THE BELIEF THAT IT WOULD IN THE END BE PREJUDICIAL RATHER
THAN BENEFICIAL IN THE NOBLE OFFICES OF CHARITY TO HAVE THE CHARGE OF
THEM TRANSFERRED FROM THE STATES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  ARE WE NOT
TOO PRONE TO FORGET THAT THE FEDERAL UNION IS THE CREATURE OF THE
STATES, NOT THEY OF THE FEDERAL UNION?  WE WERE THE INHABITANTS OF
COLONIES DISTINCT IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT ONE FROM THE OTHER BEFORE THE
REVOLUTION.  BY THAT REVOLUTION THE COLONIES EACH BECAME AN INDEPENDENT
STATE.  THEY ACHIEVED THAT INDEPENDENCE AND SECURED ITS RECOGNITION BY
THE AGENCY OF A CONSULTING BODY, WHICH, FROM BEING AN ASSEMBLY OF THE
MINISTERS OF DISTINCT SOVEREIGNTIES INSTRUCTED TO AGREE TO NO FORM OF
GOVERNMENT WHICH DID NOT LEAVE THE DOMESTIC CONCERNS OF EACH STATE TO
ITSELF, WAS APPROPRIATELY DENOMINATED A CONGRESS.  WHEN, HAVING TRIED
THE EXPERIMENT OF THE CONFEDERATION, THEY RESOLVED TO CHANGE THAT FOR
THE PRESENT FEDERAL UNION, AND THUS TO CONFER ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
MORE AMPLE AUTHORITY, THEY SCRUPULOUSLY MEASURED SUCH OF THE FUNCTIONS
OF THEIR CHERISHED SOVEREIGNTY AS THEY CHOSE TO DELEGATE TO THE GENERAL
GOVERNMENT.  WITH THIS AIM AND TO THIS END THE FATHERS OF THE REPUBLIC
FRAMED THE CONSTITUTION, IN AND BY WHICH THE INDEPENDENT AND SOVEREIGN
STATES UNITED THEMSELVES FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIED OBJECTS AND PURPOSES,
AND FOR THOSE ONLY, LEAVING ALL POWERS NOT THEREIN SET FORTH AS
CONFERRED ON ONE OR ANOTHER OF THE THREE GREAT DEPARTMENTS - THE
LEGISLATIVE, THE EXECUTIVE, AND THE JUDICIAL - INDUBITABLY WITH THE
STATES.  AND WHEN THE PEOPLE OF THE SEVERAL STATES HAD IN THEIR STATE
CONVENTIONS, AND THUS ALONE, GIVEN EFFECT AND FORCE TO THE
CONSTITUTION, NOT CONTENT THAT ANY DOUBT SHOULD IN FUTURE ARISE AS TO
THE SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF THIS ACT, THEY INGRAFTED THEREON THE
EXPLICIT DECLARATION THAT 'THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED
STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES ARE
RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY OR TO THE PEOPLE.' 

"CAN IT BE CONTROVERTED THAT THE GREAT MASS OF THE BUSINESS OF
GOVERNMENT - THAT INVOLVED IN THE SOCIAL RELATIONS, THE INTERNAL
ARRANGEMENTS OF THE BODY POLITIC, THE MENTAL AND MORAL CULTURE OF MEN,
THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL RESOURCES OF WEALTH, THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIMES
IN GENERAL, THE PRESERVATION OF ORDER, THE RELIEF OF THE NEEDY OR
OTHERWISE UNFORTUNATE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY - DID IN PRACTICE REMAIN WITH
THE STATES; THAT NONE OF THESE OBJECTS OF LOCAL CONCERN ARE BY THE
CONSTITUTION EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY PROHIBITED TO THE STATES, AND THAT
NONE OF THEM ARE BY ANY EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION
TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES?  CAN IT BE CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE
FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION ARE VESTED IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY ANY IMPLICATION?  I HAVE NEVER FOUND ANYTHING IN
THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF SUCH A CONSTRUCTION.  NO ONE
OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS TOUCHES THE SUBJECT OR HAS EVEN A REMOTE
ANALOGY TO IT.  THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON THE UNITED STATES HAVE
REFERENCE TO FEDERAL RELATIONS, OR TO THE MEANS OF ACCOMPLISHING OR
EXECUTING THINGS OF FEDERAL RELATION.  SO ALSO OF THE SAME CHARACTER
ARE THE POWERS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE STATES BY ENUMERATION.  IN EITHER
CASE THE POWERS GRANTED AND THE POWERS RESTRICTED WERE SO GRANTED OR SO
RESTRICTED ONLY WHERE IT WAS REQUISITE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND
HARMONY BETWEEN THE STATES OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THEIR
COMMON INTERESTS AND DEFENDING THEIR COMMON SOVEREIGNTY AGAINST
AGGRESSION FROM ABROAD OR INSURRECTION AT HOME. 

"I SHALL NOT DISCUSS AT LENGTH THE QUESTION OF POWER SOMETIMES
CLAIMED FOR THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE CLAUSE OF THE EIGHTH
COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS, AND EXCISES, TO PAY DEBTS AND PROVIDE
FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES,'
BECAUSE IF IT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN SETTLED UPON SOUND REASON AND
AUTHORITY IT NEVER WILL BE.  I TAKE THE RECEIVED AND JUST CONSTRUCTION
OF THAT ARTICLE, AS IF WRITTEN TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, DUTIES,
IMPOSTS, AND EXCISES IN ORDER TO PAY THE DEBTS AND IN ORDER TO PROVIDE
FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE.  IT IS NOT A SUBSTANTIVE
GENERAL POWER TO PROVIDE FOR THE WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT IS A
LIMITATION ON THE GRANT OF POWER TO RAISE MONEY BY TAXES, DUTIES, AND
IMPOSTS.  IF IT WERE OTHERWISE, ALL THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION,
CONSISTING OF CAREFULLY ENUMERATED AND CAUTIOUSLY GUARDED GRANTS OF
SPECIFIC POWERS, WOULD HAVE BEEN USELESS, IF NOT DELUSIVE.  IT WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE IN THAT VIEW TO ESCAPE FROM THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE WERE
INSERTED ONLY TO MISLEAD FOR THE PRESENT, AND, INSTEAD OF ENLIGHTENING
AND DEFINING THE PATHWAY OF THE FUTURE, TO INVOLVE ITS ACTION IN THE
MAZES OF DOUBTFUL CONSTRUCTION.  SUCH A CONCLUSION THE CHARACTER OF THE
MEN WHO FRAMED THAT SACRED INSTRUMENT WILL NEVER PERMIT US TO FORM. 
INDEED, TO SUPPOSE IT SUSCEPTIBLE OF ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE TO
CONSIGN ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES AND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES TO
THE MERE DISCRETION OF CONGRESS, AND THUS TO CLOTHE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WITH AUTHORITY TO CONTROL THE SOVEREIGN STATES, BY WHICH
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN DWARFED INTO PROVINCES OR DEPARTMENTS AND ALL
SOVEREIGNTY VESTED IN AN ABSOLUTE CONSOLIDATED CENTRAL POWER, AGAINST
WHICH THE SPIRIT OF LIBERTY HAS SO OFTEN AND IN SO MANY COUNTRIES
STRUGGLED IN VAIN. 

"IN MY JUDGMENT YOU CAN NOT BY TRIBUTES TO HUMANITY MAKE ANY ADEQUATE
COMPENSATION FOR THE WRONG YOU WOULD INFLICT BY REMOVING THE SOURCES OF
POWER AND POLITICAL ACTION FROM THOSE WHO ARE TO BE THEREBY AFFECTED. 
IF THE TIME SHALL EVER ARRIVE WHEN, FOR AN OBJECT APPEALING, HOWEVER
STRONGLY, TO OUR SYMPATHIES, THE DIGNITY OF THE STATES SHALL BOW TO THE
DICTATION OF CONGRESS BY CONFORMING THEIR LEGISLATION THERETO, WHEN THE
POWER AND MAJESTY AND HONOR OF THOSE WHO CREATED SHALL BECOME
SUBORDINATE TO THE THING OF THEIR CREATION, I BUT FEEBLY UTTER MY
APPREHENSIONS WHEN I EXPRESS MY FIRM CONVICTION THAT WE SHALL SEE 'THE
BEGINNING OF THE END.' 

"FORTUNATELY, WE ARE NOT LEFT IN DOUBT AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION ANY MORE THAN AS TO ITS EXPRESS LANGUAGE, FOR ALTHOUGH THE
HISTORY OF ITS FORMATION, AS RECORDED IN THE MADISON PAPERS, SHOWS THAT
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN ITS PRESENT FORM EMERGED FROM THE CONFLICT OF
OPPOSING INFLUENCES WHICH HAVE CONTINUED TO DIVIDE STATESMEN FROM THAT
DAY TO THIS, YET THE RULE OF CLEARLY DEFINED POWERS AND OF STRICT
CONSTRUCTION PRESIDED OVER THE ACTUAL CONCLUSION AND SUBSEQUENT
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION.  PRESIDENT MADISON, IN THE FEDERALIST,
SAYS:    "'THE POWERS DELEGATED BY THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION ARE FEW
AND DEFINED.  THOSE WHICH ARE TO REMAIN IN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS ARE
NUMEROUS AND INDEFINITE....  ITS (THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT'S)
JURISDICTION EXTENDS TO CERTAIN ENUMERATED OBJECTS ONLY, AND LEAVES TO
THE SEVERAL STATES A RESIDUARY AND INVIOLABLE SOVEREIGNTY OVER ALL
OTHER OBJECTS.' 

"IN THE SAME SPIRIT PRESIDENT JEFFERSON INVOKES 'THE SUPPORT OF THE
STATE GOVERNMENTS IN ALL THEIR RIGHTS AS THE MOST COMPETENT
ADMINISTRATIONS FOR OUR DOMESTIC CONCERNS AND THE SUREST BULWARKS
AGAINST ANTI-REPUBLICAN TENDENCIES;' AND PRESIDENT JACKSON SAID THAT
OUR TRUE STRENGTH AND WISDOM ARE NOT PROMOTED BY INVASIONS OF THE
RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, BUT THAT, ON THE CONTRARY,
THEY CONSIST 'NOT IN BINDING THE STATES MORE CLOSELY TO THE CENTER, BUT
IN LEAVING EACH MORE UNOBSTRUCTED IN ITS PROPER ORBIT.' 

"THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, IN REFUSING TO CONFER ON THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANY JURISDICTION OVER THESE PURELY LOCAL OBJECTS, IN
MY JUDGMENT MANIFESTED A WISE FORECAST AND BROAD COMPREHENSION OF THE
TRUE INTERESTS OF THESE OBJECTS THEMSELVES.  IT IS CLEAR THAT PUBLIC
CHARITIES WITHIN THE STATES CAN BE EFFICIENTLY ADMINISTERED ONLY BY
THEIR AUTHORITY.  THE BILL BEFORE ME CONCEDES THIS, FOR IT DOES NOT
COMMIT THE FUNDS IT PROVIDES TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ANY OTHER
AUTHORITY. 

"I CAN NOT BUT REPEAT WHAT I HAVE BEFORE EXPRESSED, THAT IF THE
SEVERAL STATES, MANY OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY LAID THE FOUNDATION OF
MUNIFICENT ESTABLISHMENTS OF LOCAL BENEFICENCE, AND NEARLY ALL OF WHICH
ARE PROCEEDING TO ESTABLISH THEM, SHALL BE LED TO SUPPOSE, AS, SHOULD
THIS BILL BECOME A LAW, THEY WILL BE, THAT CONGRESS IS TO MAKE
PROVISION FOR SUCH OBJECTS, THE FOUNTAINS OF CHARITY WILL BE DRIED UP
AT HOME, AND THE SEVERAL STATES, INSTEAD OF BESTOWING THEIR OWN MEANS
ON THE SOCIAL WANTS OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE, MAY THEMSELVES, THROUGH THE
STRONG TEMPTATION WHICH APPEALS TO STATES AS TO INDIVIDUALS, BECOME
HUMBLE SUPPLIANTS FOR THE BOUNTY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, REVERSING
THEIR TRUE RELATIONS TO THIS UNION. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DISCOVER ANY DISTINCTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS OR GROUNDS OF EXPEDIENCY BETWEEN AN APPROPRIATION OF
$10,000,000 DIRECTLY FROM THE MONEY IN THE TREASURY FOR THE OBJECT
CONTEMPLATED AND THE APPROPRIATION OF LANDS PRESENTED FOR MY SANCTION,
AND YET I CAN NOT DOUBT THAT IF THE BILL PROPOSED $10,000,000 FROM THE
TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE INDIGENT INSANE IN
THE SEVERAL STATES THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE ACT
WOULD HAVE ATTRACTED FORCIBLY THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS. 

"I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL POINT OF VIEW IT IS
WHOLLY IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE APPROPRIATION BE IN MONEY OR IN LAND. 

     .      .         .         .         . 

"TO ASSUME THAT THE PUBLIC LANDS ARE APPLICABLE TO ORDINARY STATE
OBJECTS, WHETHER OF PUBLIC STRUCTURES, POLICE, CHARITY, OR EXPENSES OF
STATE ADMINISTRATION, WOULD BE TO DISREGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF THE VALUE
OF THE PUBLIC LANDS ALL THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
CONFOUND TO THAT EXTENT ALL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE RIGHTS AND POWERS
OF THE STATES AND THOSE OF THE UNITED STATES; FOR IF THE PUBLIC LANDS
MAY BE APPLIED TO THE SUPPORT OF THE POOR, WHETHER SANE OR INSANE, IF
THE DISPOSAL OF THEM AND THEIR PROCEEDS BE NOT SUBJECT TO THE ORDINARY
LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THEN CONGRESS POSSESSES UNQUALIFIED
POWER TO PROVIDE FOR EXPENDITURES IN THE STATES BY MEANS OF THE PUBLIC
LANDS, EVEN TO THE DEGREE OF DEFRAYING THE SALARIES OF GOVERNORS,
JUDGES, AND ALL OTHER EXPENSES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND INTERNAL
ADMINISTRATION WITHIN THE SEVERAL STATES. 

"THE CONCLUSION FROM THE GENERAL SURVEY OF THE WHOLE SUBJECT IS TO MY
MIND IRRESISTIBLE, AND CLOSES THE QUESTION BOTH OF RIGHT AND OF
EXPEDIENCY SO FAR AS REGARDS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE APPROPRIATION
PROPOSED IN THIS BILL.  WOULD NOT THE ADMISSION OF SUCH POWER IN
CONGRESS TO DISPOSE OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WORK THE PRACTICAL ABROGATION
OF SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION? 

     .    .         .         .         . 

"THE GENERAL RESULT AT WHICH I HAVE ARRIVED IS THE NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE VIEWS OF THE RELATIVE RIGHTS, POWERS, AND DUTIES
OF THE STATES AND OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHICH I HAVE LONG
ENTERTAINED AND OFTEN EXPRESSED AND IN REFERENCE TO WHICH MY
CONVICTIONS DO BUT INCREASE IN FORCE WITH TIME AND EXPERIENCE." 

NO DEFENSE IS OFFERED FOR THE LEGISLATION UNDER REVIEW UPON THE BASIS
OF EMERGENCY.  THE HYPOTHESIS IS THAT HEREAFTER IT WILL CONTINUOUSLY
BENEFIT UNEMPLOYED MEMBERS OF A CLASS.  FOREVER, SO FAR AS WE CAN SEE,
THE STATES ARE EXPECTED TO FUNCTION UNDER FEDERAL DIRECTION CONCERNING
AN INTERNAL MATTER.  BY THE SANCTION OF THIS ADVENTURE, THE DOOR IS
OPEN FOR PROGRESSIVE INAUGURATION OF OTHERS OF LIKE KIND UNDER WHICH IT
CAN HARDLY BE EXPECTED THAT THE STATES WILL RETAIN GENUINE INDEPENDENCE
OF ACTION.  AND WITHOUT INDEPENDENT STATES A FEDERAL UNION AS
CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONSTITUTION BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE. 

AT THE BAR COUNSEL ASSERTED THAT UNDER THE PRESENT ACT THE TAX UPON
RESIDENTS OF ALABAMA DURING THE FIRST YEAR WILL TOTAL $9,000,000.  ALL
WOULD REMAIN IN THE FEDERAL TREASURY BUT FOR THE ADOPTION BY THE STATE
OF MEASURES AGREEABLE TO THE NATIONAL BOARD.  IF CONTINUED, THESE WILL
BRING RELIEF FROM THE PAYMENT OF $8,000,000 TO THE UNITED STATES. 

ORDINARILY, I MUST THINK, A DENIAL THAT THE CHALLENGED ACTION OF
CONGRESS AND WHAT HAS BEEN DONE UNDER IT AMOUNT TO COERCION AND IMPAIR
FREEDOM OF GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE WOULD BE REGARDED AS
CONTRARY TO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE.  UNQUESTIONABLY OUR FEDERATE PLAN OF
GOVERNMENT CONFRONTS AN ENLARGED PERIL. 

SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND. 

WITH MOST OF WHAT IS SAID IN THE OPINION JUST HANDED DOWN, I CONCUR. 
I AGREE THAT THE PAYROLL TAX LEVIED IS AN EXCISE WITHIN THE POWER OF
CONGRESS; THAT THE DEVOTION OF NOT MORE THAN 90% OF IT TO THE CREDIT OF
EMPLOYERS IN STATES WHICH REQUIRE THE PAYMENT OF A SIMILAR TAX UNDER SO
CALLED UNEMPLOYMENT-TAX LAWS IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USE OF THE
PROCEEDS OF THE FEDERAL TAX; THAT THE PROVISION MAKING THE ADOPTION BY
THE STATE OF AN UNEMPLOYMENT LAW OF A SPECIFIED CHARACTER A CONDITION
PRECEDENT TO THE CREDIT OF THE TAX DOES NOT RENDER THE LAW INVALID.  I
AGREE THAT THE STATES ARE NOT COERCED BY THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION INTO
ADOPTING UNEMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL LAW
MAY OPERATE TO INDUCE THE STATE TO PASS AN EMPLOYMENT LAW IF IT REGARDS
SUCH ACTION TO BE IN ITS INTEREST.  BUT THAT IS NOT COERCION.  IF THE
ACT STOPPED HERE, I SHOULD ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT THAT THE
LEGISLATION IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

BUT THE QUESTION WITH WHICH I HAVE DIFFICULTY IS WHETHER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INVADE THE GOVERNMENTAL
ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OF THE SEVERAL STATES RESERVED BY THE TENTH
AMENDMENT.  A STATE MAY ENTER INTO CONTRACTS; BUT A STATE CANNOT, BY
CONTRACT OR STATUTE, SURRENDER THE EXECUTION, OR A SHARE IN THE
EXECUTION, OF ANY OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL POWERS EITHER TO A SISTER STATE
OR TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ANY MORE THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN
SURRENDER THE CONTROL OF ANY OF ITS GOVERNMENTAL POWERS TO A FOREIGN
NATION.  THE POWER TO TAX IS VITAL AND FUNDAMENTAL, AND, IN THE HIGHEST
DEGREE, GOVERNMENTAL IN CHARACTER.  WITHOUT IT, THE STATE COULD NOT
EXIST.  FUNDAMENTAL ALSO, AND NO LESS IMPORTANT, IS THE GOVERNMENTAL
POWER TO EXPEND THE MONEYS REALIZED FROM TAXATION, AND EXCLUSIVELY TO
ADMINISTER THE LAWS IN RESPECT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE TAX AND THE
METHODS OF LAYING AND COLLECTING IT AND EXPENDING THE PROCEEDS. 

THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, BY THEIR CONSTITUTION, HAVE AFFIRMED
A DIVISION OF INTERNAL GOVERNMENTAL POWERS BETWEEN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES - COMMITTING TO
THE FIRST ITS POWERS BY EXPRESS GRANT AND NECESSARY IMPLICATION; TO THE
LATTER, OR TO THE PEOPLE, BY RESERVATION, "THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO
THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE
STATES."  THE CONSTITUTION THUS AFFIRMS THE COMPLETE SUPREMACY AND
INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATE WITHIN THE FIELD OF ITS POWERS.  CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 295.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO MORE
AUTHORITY TO INVADE THAT FIELD THAN THE STATE HAS TO INVADE THE
EXCLUSIVE FIELD OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL POWERS; FOR, IN THE OFT
REPEATED WORDS OF THIS COURT IN TEXAS V. WHITE, 7 WALL.  700, 725, "THE
PRESERVATION OF THE STATES, AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS,
ARE AS MUCH WITHIN THE DESIGN AND CARE OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE
PRESERVATION OF THE UNION AND THE MAINTENANCE OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT."  THE NECESSITY OF PRESERVING EACH FROM EVERY FORM OF
ILLEGITIMATE INTRUSION OR INTERFERENCE ON THE PART OF THE OTHER IS SO
IMPERATIVE AS TO REQUIRE THIS COURT, WHEN ITS JUDICIAL POWER IS
PROPERLY INVOKED, TO VIEW WITH A CAREFUL AND DISCRIMINATING EYE ANY
LEGISLATION CHALLENGED AS CONSTITUTING SUCH AN INTRUSION OR
INTERFERENCE.  SEE SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437, 448. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION, THEREFORE, WHICH WE ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER BY
AN APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES IS WHETHER THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT
CONTEMPLATES A SURRENDER BY THE STATE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, OF ANY STATE GOVERNMENTAL POWER TO ADMINISTER ITS OWN
UNEMPLOYMENT LAW OR THE STATE PAYROLL-TAX FUNDS WHICH IT HAS COLLECTED
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT LAW.  AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION,
I THINK, MUST BE MADE. 

I DO NOT, OF COURSE, DOUBT THE POWER OF THE STATE TO SELECT AND
UTILIZE A DEPOSITORY FOR THE SAFEKEEPING OF ITS FUNDS; BUT IT IS QUITE
ANOTHER THING TO AGREE WITH THE SELECTED DEPOSITORY THAT THE FUNDS
SHALL BE WITHDRAWN FOR CERTAIN STIPULATED PURPOSES, AND FOR NO OTHER. 
NOR DO I DOUBT THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND A STATE
GOVERNMENT TO COOPERATE TO A COMMON END, PROVIDED EACH OF THEM IS
AUTHORIZED TO REACH IT.  BUT SUCH COOPERATION MUST BE EFFECTUATED BY AN
EXERCISE OF THE POWERS WHICH THEY SEVERALLY POSSESS, AND NOT BY AN
EXERCISE, THROUGH INVASION OR SURRENDER, BY ONE OF THEM OF THE
GOVERNMENTAL POWER OF THE OTHER. 

AN ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT I REGARD AS PERMISSIBLE COOPERATION IS TO BE
FOUND IN TITLE I OF THE ACT NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.  BY THAT TITLE,
FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE
TO ANY STATE WHICH SHALL HAVE ADOPTED A PLAN FOR OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE
CONFORMING TO DESIGNATED REQUIREMENTS.  BUT THE STATE IS NOT OBLIGED,
AS A CONDITION OF HAVING THE FEDERAL BOUNTY, TO DEPOSIT IN THE FEDERAL
TREASURY FUNDS RAISED BY THE STATE.  THE STATE KEEPS ITS OWN FUNDS AND
ADMINISTERS ITS OWN LAW IN RESPECT OF THEM, WITHOUT LET OR HINDRANCE OF
ANY KIND ON THE PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; SO THAT WE HAVE SIMPLY
THE FAMILIAR CASE OF FEDERAL AID UPON CONDITIONS WHICH THE STATE,
WITHOUT SURRENDERING ANY OF ITS POWERS, MAY ACCEPT OR NOT AS IT
CHOOSES.  MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 480, 482-483. 

BUT THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION WITH WHICH WE ARE CALLED UPON TO DEAL
IN THE PRESENT CASE.  FOR HERE, THE STATE MUST DEPOSIT THE PROCEEDS OF
ITS TAXATION IN THE FEDERAL TREASURY, UPON TERMS WHICH MAKE THE DEPOSIT
SUSPICIOUSLY LIKE A FORCED LOAN TO BE REPAID ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY FEDERAL LAW.  TITLE IX, SECS. 903(A)(3),
904(A), (B), (E).  ALL MONEYS WITHDRAWN FROM THIS FUND MUST BE USED
EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION.  SEC. 903(A)(4).  AND THIS
COMPENSATION IS TO BE PAID THROUGH PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT OFFICES IN THE
STATE OR SUCH OTHER AGENCIES AS A FEDERAL BOARD MAY APPROVE.  SEC.
903(A)(1).  THE ACT, IT IS TRUE, RECOGNIZES (SEC. 903(A)(6)) THE POWER
OF THE LEGISLATURE TO AMEND OR REPEAL ITS COMPENSATION LAW AT ANY
TIME.  BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT, AS I READ IT, WHICH JUSTIFIES
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE STATE MAY, IN THAT EVENT, UNCONDITIONALLY
WITHDRAW ITS FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL TREASURY.  SECTION 903(B) PROVIDES
THAT THE BOARD SHALL CERTIFY IN EACH TAXABLE YEAR TO THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY EACH STATE WHOSE LAW HAS BEEN APPROVED.  BUT THE BOARD IS
FORBIDDEN TO CERTIFY ANY STATE WHICH THE BOARD FINDS HAS SO CHANGED ITS
LAW THAT IT NO LONGER CONTAINS THE PROVISIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION
(A), "OR HAS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH TAXABLE YEAR FAILED TO COMPLY
SUBSTANTIALLY WITH ANY SUCH PROVISION."  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
THEREFORE, IN THE PERSON OF ITS AGENT, THE BOARD, SITS NOT ONLY AS A
PERPETUAL OVERSEER, INTERPRETER AND CENSOR OF STATE LEGISLATION ON THE
SUBJECT, BUT, AS LORD PARAMOUNT, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATE IS
FAITHFULLY EXECUTING ITS OWN LAW - AS THOUGH THE STATE WERE A
DEPENDENCY UNDER PUPILAGE*  AND NOT TO BE TRUSTED.  THE FOREGOING,
TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT MONEY WITHDRAWN CAN BE
USED ONLY IN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND THAT IT MUST BE PAID THROUGH
AN AGENCY APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL BOARD, LEAVES IT, TO SAY THE LEAST,
HIGHLY UNCERTAIN WHETHER THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO WITHDRAW ANY PART OF
ITS OWN FUNDS EXISTS, UNDER THE ACT, OTHERWISE THAN UPON THESE VARIOUS
STATUTORY CONDITIONS.  IT IS TRUE ALSO THAT SUBSECTION (F) OF SEC. 904
AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY TO PAY TO ANY STATE AGENCY
"SUCH AMOUNT AS IT MAY DULY REQUISITION, NOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT
STANDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF SUCH STATE AGENCY AT THE TIME OF SUCH
PAYMENT."  BUT IT IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE TO
THE STATE AGENCY, AND ONLY SUCH AMOUNT AS THAT AGENCY MAY DULY
REQUISITION.  IT IS HARD TO FIND IN THIS PROVISION ANY EXTENSION OF THE
RIGHT OF THE STATE TO WITHDRAW ITS FUNDS EXCEPT IN THE MANNER AND FOR
THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT.    *COMPARE SNOW V. UNITED
STATES, 18 WALL.  317, 319-320. 

BY THESE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE
AUTHORIZED TO SUPERVISE AND HAMPER THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OF THE
STATE TO A DEGREE WHICH NOT ONLY DOES NOT COMPORT WITH THE DIGNITY OF A
QUASI-SOVEREIGN STATE - A MATTER WITH WHICH WE ARE NOT JUDICIALLY
CONCERNED - BUT WHICH DENIES TO IT THAT SUPREMACY AND FREEDOM FROM
EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE IN RESPECT OF ITS AFFAIRS WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
CONTEMPLATES - A MATTER OF VERY DEFINITE JUDICIAL CONCERN.  I REFER TO
SOME, THOUGH BY NO MEANS ALL, OF THE CASES IN POINT.    IN THE LICENSE
CASES, 5 HOW.  504, 588, MR. JUSTICE MCLEAN SAID THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WAS SUPREME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ITS DELEGATED POWERS, AND
THE STATE GOVERNMENTS EQUALLY SUPREME IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS NOT
DELEGATED BY NOR INHIBITED TO THEM; THAT THE STATES EXERCISE THEIR
POWERS OVER EVERYTHING CONNECTED WITH THEIR SOCIAL AND INTERNAL
CONDITION; AND THAT OVER THESE SUBJECTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO
POWER.  "THEY APPERTAIN TO THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY AS EXCLUSIVELY AS
POWERS EXCLUSIVELY DELEGATED APPERTAIN TO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT." 

IN TARBLE'S CASE, 13 WALL.  397, MR. JUSTICE FIELD, AFTER POINTING
OUT THAT THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
SOVEREIGNTIES, ACTING SEPARATELY AND INDEPENDENTLY OF EACH OTHER WITHIN
THEIR RESPECTIVE SPHERES, SAID THAT, EXCEPT IN ONE PARTICULAR, THEY
STOOD IN THE SAME INDEPENDENT RELATION TO EACH OTHER AS THEY WOULD IF
THEIR AUTHORITY EMBRACED DISTINCT TERRITORIES.  THE ONE PARTICULAR
REFERRED TO IS THAT OF THE SUPREMACY OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED
STATES IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO. 

IN FARRINGTON V. TENNESSEE, 95 U.S. 679, 685, THIS COURT SAID, "YET
EVERY STATE HAS A SPHERE OF ACTION WHERE THE AUTHORITY OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT MAY NOT INTRUDE.  WITHIN THAT DOMAIN THE STATE IS AS IF THE
UNION WERE NOT.  SUCH ARE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN OUR COMPLICATED
BUT WISE SYSTEM OF STATE AND NATIONAL POLITY." 

"THE POWERS EXCLUSIVELY GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT," IT WAS SAID
IN WORCESTER V. GEORGIA, 6 PET. 515, 570, "ARE LIMITATIONS UPON THE
STATE AUTHORITIES.  BUT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THESE LIMITATIONS, THE
STATES ARE SUPREME; AND THEIR SOVEREIGNTY CAN BE NO MORE INVADED BY THE
ACTION OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, THAN THE ACTION OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENTS CAN ARREST OR OBSTRUCT THE COURSE OF THE NATIONAL POWER." 

THE FORCE OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IS NOT BROKEN BY AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE
VIEW THAT THE STATE IS NOT COERCED BY THE FEDERAL LAW.  THE EFFECT OF
THE DUAL DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS IS COMPLETELY TO DENY TO THE STATES
WHATEVER IS GRANTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE NATION, AND, CONVERSELY, TO DENY
TO THE NATION WHATEVER IS RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE STATES.  "THE
DETERMINATION OF THE FRAMERS CONVENTION AND THE RATIFYING CONVENTIONS
TO PRESERVE COMPLETE AND UNIMPAIRED STATE SELF-GOVERNMENT IN ALL
MATTERS NOT COMMITTED TO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IS ONE OF THE PLAINEST
FACTS WHICH EMERGE FROM THE HISTORY OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS.  AND
ADHERENCE TO THAT DETERMINATION IS INCUMBENT EQUALLY UPON THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES.  STATE POWERS CAN NEITHER BE APPROPRIATED ON
THE ONE HAND NOR ABDICATED ON THE OTHER."  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.,
SUPRA, P. 295.  THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THAT REGARD DOES NOT
ADMIT OF DOUBT OR QUALIFICATION; AND IT CAN BE THWARTED NO MORE BY
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER FROM WITHIN THAN BY INVASION FROM WITHOUT. 

NOR MAY THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION SUGGESTED BE OVERCOME BY THE
EXPECTATION OF PUBLIC BENEFIT RESULTING FROM THE FEDERAL PARTICIPATION
AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  SUCH EXPECTATION, IF VOICED IN SUPPORT OF A
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENT, WOULD BE QUITE PROPER FOR THE
CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.  BUT, AS WE SAID IN THE CARTER
CASE, SUPRA, P. 291 - "NOTHING IS MORE CERTAIN THAN THAT BENEFICENT
AIMS, HOWEVER GREAT OR WELL DIRECTED, CAN NEVER SERVE IN LIEU OF
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER."  MOREOVER, EVERYTHING WHICH THE ACT SEEKS TO DO
FOR THE RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, AS IS DONE
BY THIS SAME ACT FOR THE RELIEF OF THE MISFORTUNES OF OLD AGE, WITHOUT
OBLIGING THE STATE TO SURRENDER, OR SHARE WITH ANOTHER GOVERNMENT, ANY
OF ITS POWERS. 

IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE AS THE UNITED STATES, THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE
POWERS OF THE NATION AND THOSE OF THE STATES MUST BE MAINTAINED.  THERE
IS GRAVE DANGER IN PERMITTING IT TO DIP IN EITHER DIRECTION, DANGER -
IF THERE WERE NO OTHER - IN THE PRECEDENT THEREBY SET FOR FURTHER
DEPARTURES FROM THE EQUIPOISE.  THE THREAT IMPLICIT IN THE PRESENT
ENCROACHMENT UPON THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE STATES IS THAT
GREATER ENCROACHMENTS, AND ENCROACHMENTS UPON OTHER FUNCTIONS, WILL
FOLLOW. 

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, I THINK THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE
REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

I THINK THAT THE OBJECTIONS TO THE CHALLENGED ENACTMENT EXPRESSED IN
THE SEPARATE OPINIONS OF MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE
SUTHERLAND ARE WELL TAKEN.  I AM ALSO OF OPINION THAT, IN PRINCIPLE AND
AS APPLIED TO BRING ABOUT AND TO GAIN CONTROL OVER STATE UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION, THE STATUTORY SCHEME IS REPUGNANT TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT:
"THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION,
NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES
RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE."  THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS TO THE UNITED
STATES NO POWER TO PAY UNEMPLOYED PERSONS OR TO REQUIRE THE STATES TO
ENACT LAWS OR TO RAISE OR DISBURSE MONEY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE
PROVISIONS IN QUESTION, IF NOT AMOUNTING TO COERCION IN A LEGAL SENSE,
ARE MANIFESTLY DESIGNED AND INTENDED DIRECTLY TO AFFECT STATE ACTION IN
THE RESPECTS SPECIFIED.  AND, IF VALID AS SO EMPLOYED, THIS "TAX AND
CREDIT" DEVICE MAY BE MADE EFFECTIVE TO ENABLE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO
INDUCE, IF NOT INDEED TO COMPEL, STATE ENACTMENTS FOR ANY PURPOSE
WITHIN THE REALM OF STATE POWER, AND GENERALLY TO CONTROL STATE
ADMINISTRATION OF STATE LAWS. 

THE ACT CREATES A SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD AND IMPOSES UPON IT THE DUTY
OF STUDYING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO LEGISLATION AND AS TO
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES CONCERNING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AND
RELATED SUBJECTS.  SEC. 702.  IT AUTHORIZES GRANTS OF MONEY BY THE
UNITED STATES TO STATES FOR OLD AGE ASSISTANCE, FOR ADMINISTRATION OF
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, FOR AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN, FOR MATERNAL
AND CHILD WELFARE AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH.  EACH GRANT DEPENDS UPON STATE
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITY.  THE
AMOUNTS GIVEN BEING WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE CONGRESS, IT MAY AT
ANY TIME MAKE AVAILABLE FEDERAL MONEY SUFFICIENT EFFECTIVELY TO
INFLUENCE STATE POLICY, STANDARDS AND DETAILS OF ADMINISTRATION. 

THE EXCISE LAID BY SEC. 901 IS LIMITED TO SPECIFIED EMPLOYERS.  IT IS
NOT IMPOSED TO RAISE MONEY TO PAY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.  BUT IT IS
IMPOSED HAVING REGARD TO THAT SUBJECT; FOR, UPON ENACTMENT OF STATE
LAWS FOR THAT PURPOSE IN CONFORMITY WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED
IN THE ACT, EACH OF THE EMPLOYERS SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL TAX BECOMES
ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT HE PAYS INTO AN UNEMPLOYMENT FUND
UNDER A STATE LAW UP TO 90 PER CENT. OF THE FEDERAL TAX.  THE AMOUNTS
YIELDED BY THE REMAINING 10 PER CENT., NOT ASSIGNED TO ANY SPECIFIC
PURPOSE, MAY BE APPLIED TO PAY THE FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENSES
IN RESPECT OF STATE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.  IT IS NOT YET POSSIBLE
TO DETERMINE MORE CLOSELY THE SUMS THAT WILL BE NEEDED FOR THESE
PURPOSES. 

WHEN THE FEDERAL ACT WAS PASSED WISCONSIN WAS THE ONLY STATE PAYING
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.  THOUGH HER PLAN THEN IN FORCE IS BY
STUDENTS OF THE SUBJECT GENERALLY DEEMED THE BEST YET DEVISED, SHE
FOUND IT NECESSARY TO CHANGE HER LAW IN ORDER TO SECURE FEDERAL
APPROVAL.  IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, WISCONSIN EMPLOYERS SUBJECT TO THE
FEDERAL TAX WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ANY DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF
THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE FUND.  ANY STATE WOULD BE MOVED TO
CONFORM TO FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, NOT UTTERLY OBJECTIONABLE, IN ORDER TO
SAVE ITS TAXPAYERS FROM THE FEDERAL TAX IMPOSED IN ADDITION TO THE
CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER STATE LAWS. 

FEDERAL AGENCIES PREPARED AND TOOK DRAFT BILLS TO STATE LEGISLATURES
TO ENABLE AND INDUCE THEM TO PASS LAWS PROVIDING FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, AND THUS TO
OBTAIN RELIEF FOR THE EMPLOYERS FROM THE IMPENDING FEDERAL EXACTION. 
OBVIOUSLY THE ACT CREATES THE PERIL OF FEDERAL TAX NOT TO RAISE REVENUE
BUT TO PERSUADE.  OF COURSE, EACH STATE WAS FREE TO REJECT ANY MEASURE
SO PROPOSED.  BUT, IF IT FAILED TO ADOPT A PLAN ACCEPTABLE TO FEDERAL
AUTHORITY, THE FULL BURDEN OF THE FEDERAL TAX WOULD BE EXACTED.  AND,
AS FEDERAL DEMANDS SIMILARLY CONDITIONED MAY BE INCREASED FROM TIME TO
TIME AS CONGRESS SHALL DETERMINE, POSSIBLE FEDERAL PRESSURE IN THAT
FIELD IS WITHOUT LIMIT.  ALREADY AT LEAST 43 STATES, YIELDING TO THE
INDUCEMENT RESULTING IMMEDIATELY FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL
TAX AND CREDIT DEVICE, HAVE PROVIDED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION IN
FORM TO MERIT APPROVAL OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD.  PRESUMABLY THE
REMAINING STATES WILL COMPLY WHENEVER CONVENIENT FOR THEIR LEGISLATURES
TO PASS THE NECESSARY LAWS. 

THE TERMS OF THE MEASURE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE TAX AND CREDIT DEVICE
WAS INTENDED TO ENABLE FEDERAL OFFICERS VIRTUALLY TO CONTROL THE
EXERTION OF POWERS OF THE STATES IN A FIELD IN WHICH THEY ALONE HAVE
JURISDICTION AND FROM WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS BY THE CONSTITUTION
EXCLUDED. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE REVERSED. 
..END :







HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 


NO. 910.  ARGUED MAY 5, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 24, 1937.  - 89 F.(2D) 393,
REVERSED. 


1.  THE COURT ABSTAINS FROM DISMISSING, SUA SPONTE, AS NOT PROPERLY
WITHIN EQUITY JURISDICTION, A BILL BY A SHAREHOLDER TO RESTRAIN HIS
CORPORATION FROM MAKING THE TAX PAYMENTS AND THE DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES
REQUIRED BY TITLE VIII OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF AUGUST 14, 1935,
THE BILL ALLEGING THAT THE EXACTIONS ARE VOID AND THAT COMPLIANCE WILL
SUBJECT THE CORPORATION AND ITS SHAREHOLDERS TO IRREPARABLE DAMAGE.  P.
639. 

THE CORPORATION ACQUIESCED.  THE COLLECTOR AND COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE INTERVENED IN THE COURT BELOW, DEFENDED ON THE MERITS,
BROUGHT THE CASE TO THIS COURT BY CERTIORARI, AND HERE EXPRESSLY WAIVED
A DEFENSE UNDER R.S. SEC. 3224 AND ANY OBJECTION UPON THE GROUND OF
ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY, AND URGED THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE TAXES BE
DETERMINED. 

2.  THE SCHEME OF "FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS" SET UP BY TITLE II OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
TENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 640. 

3.  CONGRESS MAY SPEND MONEY IN AID OF THE "GENERAL WELFARE."  P.
640. 

4.  IN DRAWING THE LINE BETWEEN WHAT IS "GENERAL" WELFARE, AND WHAT
IS PARTICULAR, THE DETERMINATION OF CONGRESS MUST BE RESPECTED BY THE
COURTS, UNLESS IT BE PLAINLY ARBITRARY.  P. 640. 

5.  THE CONCEPT OF "GENERAL WELFARE" IS NOT STATIC BUT ADAPTS ITSELF
TO THE CRISES AND NECESSITIES OF THE TIMES.  P. 641. 

6.  THE PROBLEM OF SECURITY FOR THE AGED, LIKE THE GENERAL PROBLEM OF
UNEMPLOYMENT, IS NATIONAL AS WELL AS LOCAL.  CF. STEWARD MACHINE CO. V.
DAVIS, ANTE P. 548.  P. 644. 

THERE IS GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT LAWS AND RESOURCES OF THE SEPARATE
STATES UNAIDED, CAN NOT DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM EFFECTIVELY.  STATE
GOVERNMENTS ARE RELUCTANT TO PLACE SUCH HEAVY BURDENS UPON THEIR
RESIDENTS LEST THEY INCUR ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGES AS COMPARED WITH
NEIGHBORS OR COMPETITORS; AND A SYSTEM OF OLD AGE PENSIONS ESTABLISHED
IN ONE STATE ENCOURAGES IMMIGRATION OF NEEDY PERSONS FROM OTHER STATES
WHICH HAVE REJECTED SUCH SYSTEMS.  P. 644. 

7.  WHEN MONEY IS SPENT TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, THE CONCEPT
OF WELFARE OR THE OPPOSITE IS SHAPED BY CONGRESS, NOT THE STATES.  P.
645. 

8.  TITLE II OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT PROVIDES FOR "FEDERAL OLD-AGE
BENEFITS" FOR PERSONS WHO HAVE ATTAINED THE AGE OF 65.  IT CREATES AN
"OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT" IN THE TREASURY AND AUTHORIZES FUTURE
APPROPRIATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIRED OLD-AGE PAYMENTS, BUT IN
ITSELF NEITHER APPROPRIATES MONEY NOR BRINGS ANY MONEY INTO THE
TREASURY.  TITLE VIII IMPOSES AN "EXCISE" TAX ON EMPLOYERS, TO BE PAID
"WITH RESPECT TO HAVING INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR EMPLOY," MEASURED ON THE
WAGES, AND AN "INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES," MEASURED ON THEIR WAGES, TO BE
COLLECTED BY THEIR EMPLOYERS BY DEDUCTION FROM WAGES.  THESE TAXES ARE
NOT APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN KINDS OF EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL
LABOR, DOMESTIC SERVICE, SERVICE FOR THE NATIONAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS,
AND SERVICE PERFORMED BY PERSONS WHO HAVE ATTAINED THE AGE OF 65
YEARS.  HELD: 

(1)  TITLE II BEING VALID, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO INQUIRE WHETHER
TITLE VIII MUST FALL IF TITLE II WERE VOID.  P. 645. 

(2)  THE TAX UPON EMPLOYERS IS A VALID EXCISE OR DUTY UPON THE
RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT.  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, ANTE P. 548.  P.
645. 

(3)  THE TAX IS NOT INVALID AS A RESULT OF ITS EXEMPTIONS.  STEWARD
MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, ANTE, P. 548.  P. 646. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. V. DAVIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 674, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT DENYING AN INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT
BY DAVIS, A SHAREHOLDER OF THE EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY OF
BOSTON, TO ENJOIN THE CORPORATION FROM COMPLYING WITH TAX REQUIREMENTS
OF TITLE VIII OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT. 

SINCE THE EMPLOYER IS MERELY A WITHHOLDING AGENT WITH RESPECT TO THE
EMPLOYEE TAX, NEITHER CORPORATION NOR STOCKHOLDER MAY ASK FOR RELIEF
FROM IT. 

BOTH THE EMPLOYEE TAX (A SPECIAL INCOME TAX, UNITED STATES V. HUDSON,
299 U.S. 498) AND THE EMPLOYER TAX (AN EXCISE) COMPLY WITH THE
REQUIREMENT OF UNIFORMITY. 

THESE ARE TRUE TAXES, THEIR PURPOSE BEING SIMPLY TO RAISE REVENUE. 
NO COMPLIANCE WITH ANY SCHEME OF FEDERAL REGULATION IS INVOLVED.  THE
PROCEEDS ARE PAID UNRESTRICTED INTO THE TREASURY AS INTERNAL REVENUE
COLLECTIONS, AVAILABLE FOR THE GENERAL SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
ALTHOUGH CONGRESS MAY HAVE ANTICIPATED THAT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS THE
TAXES WOULD ROUGHLY OFFSET THE DRAIN UPON THE TREASURY TO BE OCCASIONED
BY THE WHOLLY INDEPENDENT APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE II,
SUCH ROUGH BUDGETARY EQUIVALENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEPRIVE TITLE
VIII OF ITS QUALITY AS A TRUE TAXING MEASURE. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UNDERTAKING TO PASS UPON THE
VALIDITY OF TITLE II. FROTHINGHAM V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447.  A TAXPAYER
HAS NO STANDING TO QUESTION THE PROPRIETY OF ANY EXPENDITURES FROM THE
FEDERAL TREASURY.  THAT RULE HAS BEEN RELAXED ONLY WHERE THE TAX AVAILS
ARE EARMARKED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. 

THE EMPLOYEE TAX IS A WITHHOLDING AT THE SOURCE, THE EMPLOYER BEING A
COLLECTING AGENT OR STAKEHOLDER.  THE WITHHOLDING PROVISIONS THEMSELVES
ARE NOT CHALLENGED, NOR COULD THEY BE SUCCESSFULLY ATTACKED.  BRUSHABER
V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1, 21; PIERCE OIL CORP. V. HOPKINS,
264 U.S. 137; BELL'S GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 134 U.S. 232, 239. 
THE EMPLOYER, AS STAKEHOLDER, HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO CHALLENGE THIS
TAX.  UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN EXCHANGE CO., 43 F.(2D) 829; UNITED
STATES V. FIRST CAPITAL BANK, 98 F.(2D) 116; MIAMI VALLEY FRUIT CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 45 F.(2D) 303; UNITED STATES V. ERB, 8 F.SUPP.  947. 

THE CORPORATION CAN COMPLAIN ONLY OF THE INFRINGEMENT OF ITS OWN
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY.  VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, 300
U.S. 515.  NO EMPLOYEE IS COMPLAINING.  JEFFREY MFG. CO. V. BLAGG, 235
U.S. 571, 576.  SEE ERIE R. CO. V. WILLIAMS, 233 U.S. 685, 697; RAIL
COAL CO. V. OHIO INDUSTRIAL COMM'N, 236 U.S. 338, 349; HAWKINS V.
BLEAKLY, 243 U.S. 210, 214.  THE STANDING OF THE STOCKHOLDER CANNOT BE
ANY BETTER THAN THAT OF HIS CORPORATION. 

THE POWER TO APPROPRIATE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE GRANTED BY ART. I,
SEC. 8, CL. 1, IS NOT LIMITED BY OR TO THE OTHER ENUMERATED POWERS OF
CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1.  WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR
EXPENDITURE IS FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE IS A MATTER COMPLETELY WITHIN
THE DETERMINATION OF CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES V. TELLER, 107 U.S. 64,
68.  THE DECISION OF CONGRESS IS NOT REVIEWABLE BY THE COURTS IF BY ANY
"REASONABLE POSSIBILITY IT IS FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE."  UNITED STATES
V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, 65. 

THE EXPENDITURES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE CLEARLY WELL WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS.  THE NUMBER OF AGED PERSONS IN THIS
COUNTRY IS RAPIDLY INCREASING; WORKERS IN URBAN INDUSTRIALIZED
CIVILIZATION USUALLY ARRIVE AT OLD AGE WITHOUT ADEQUATE MEANS FOR SELF
SUPPORT, AS IS DEMONSTRATED NOT ONLY BY THEIR EARNING POWERS DURING
THEIR WORKING LIFETIME BUT BY VARIOUS STUDIES WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE OF
THE EXTENT OF DEPENDENCY OF PEOPLE OVER 65 YEARS OF AGE.  THOSE WHO ARE
ABLE TO CALL UPON THEIR CHILDREN FOR SUPPORT ONLY AGGRAVATE THE EVIL BY
DEPRIVING THE YOUNGER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF THE RESOURCES WHICH THEY
NEED.  VOLUNTARY INDUSTRIAL PENSION PLANS COVER BUT A FEW.  PRIVATE
CHARITY IS INADEQUATE TO COPE WITH THE PROBLEM.  EVEN STATE OLD AGE
BENEFIT LAWS PRESENT GRAVE ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL PROBLEMS. 

THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURES CONTEMPLATED BY TITLE II ARE FOR THE
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES.  MOREOVER, THE FORM OF THE
EXPENDITURES IS SOUNDLY DESIGNED TO PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE.  THE
STATUTE EXCLUDES EMPLOYED AGED PERSONS, THEREBY PROVIDING A SIMPLE AND
EASILY ADMINISTERED MEANS TEST WHICH IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT.  MOUNTAIN
TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219, 230.  THE PAYMENTS THEMSELVES
ARE GRADUATED BOTH BY WAGES AND LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT, SO AS TO PROVIDE
AN INCENTIVE TO WORK AND AT THE SAME TIME ROUGHLY TO RELATE BENEFITS TO
PAST STANDARDS OF LIVING.  THE INCIDENTAL LUMP SUM PAYMENTS UNDER SECS.
203 AND 204 ACCORD WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE PLAN AND ALSO SERVE
TO SIMPLIFY ITS ADMINISTRATION.  THE EXCLUSIONS FROM BENEFITS ARE BASED
UPON SOUND ADMINISTRATIVE AND ECONOMIC REASONS. 

SINCE TITLES II AND VIII SEVERALLY CONSTITUTE VALID EXERCISES OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER, THEY CANNOT BE INVALID WHEN CONSIDERED JOINTLY. 
IF IT BE SAID THAT THE AVAILS OF THE TAXES ARE EARMARKED, THAT FACT
DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE TAXES OF THEIR QUALITY AS TRUE TAXES, EVEN THOUGH
THE PROCEEDS BE EARMARKED FOR THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO A PARTICULAR
GROUP.  IF THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS UNDER TITLE II IS AN EXPENDITURE FOR
THE GENERAL WELFARE, THEN A LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR
SUCH EXPENDITURE MUST BE A TAX WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
TO DETERMINE THAT THE EXPENDITURES ARE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE IS TO
DETERMINE THAT THEY ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TAXPAYERS AS WELL AS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE DIRECT RECIPIENTS OF THE EXPENDITURES.  A TAX DOES
NOT CEASE TO BE ONE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE BECAUSE THE IMMEDIATE
APPLICATION OF THE PROCEEDS IS TO ONE GROUP OF THE POPULATION.  CLARK
V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554; GILLUM V. JOHNSON, 62 P.(2D) 1037, 1044; BEELAND
WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. V. KAUFMAN (ALA.), 174 SO. 516.  "THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO LEVY TAXES DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE ENJOYMENT
BY THE TAXPAYER OF ANY SPECIAL BENEFIT FROM THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS
RAISED BY TAXATION."  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S.
249, 268; CARLEY & HAMILTON V. SNOOK, 281 U.S. 66; KNIGHTS V. JACKSON,
260 U.S. 12, 15. 

TITLES II AND VIII DO NOT, WHEN CONSIDERED TOGETHER, CONSTITUTE A
REGULATORY SCHEME.  THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE RETIREMENT FROM EMPLOYMENT
AND HAS NO TENDENCY TO INDUCE IT.  IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PLAN FOR
COMPULSORY INSURANCE WITHIN THE ACCEPTED MEANING OF THE TERM
"INSURANCE."  CF. LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571, 576-577. 
WHETHER THE PLAN OF THE ACT MAY PROPERLY BE DESIGNATED AS OLD-AGE
INSURANCE IS IMMATERIAL SINCE IT INVOLVES ONLY A VALID EXERCISE OF THE
TAXING POWER AND VALID EXPENDITURES FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE WITHOUT
REGULATORY INCIDENTS.  CF. MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  315.  THERE
IS NO ENFORCED ADDITION TO WAGES, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ACT DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE A REGULATION OF THE WAGE RELATIONSHIP.  THE TENTH AMENDMENT
HAS NO APPLICATION, SINCE CONGRESS HAS ONLY EXERCISED ITS GRANTED
POWERS.  ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 330. 
THE TAX AND EXPENDITURES ARE NOT FORBIDDEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
MERELY BECAUSE THE STATES THEMSELVES MIGHT LEGITIMATELY LAY SIMILAR
TAXES AND MAKE SIMILAR EXPENDITURES.  HOKE V. UNITED STATES, 227 U.S.
308, 322.  UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, AND RAILROAD RETIREMENT
BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, DISTINGUISHED. 

THE TAXES DO NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  NOT ONLY ARE THE
VARIOUS SELECTIONS OF EMPLOYMENTS FOR TAXATION WELL WITHIN THE POWER OF
CONGRESS (SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506), BUT THEY ARE OF
THE TYPE LONG SANCTIONED. 

THE PROVISION LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF TAXABLE WAGES TO $3,000 IS
LIKEWISE VALID.  CONGRESS HAS AS FULL DISCRETION IN DETERMINING HOW FAR
IT WILL EXERCISE THE TAXING POWER AS IT HAS IN SELECTING THE SUBJECTS
FOR TAXATION.  THIS PROVISION WILL BE FOUND JUSTIFIED BY PRECEDENT AS
WELL AS BY ITS REASONABLE TENDENCY TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION. 

TITLE VIII IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER "TO LAY AND COLLECT
TAXES, DUTIES, IMPOSTS AND EXCISES, TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR
THE COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES."  CONST.,
ART. I, SEC. 8.  THE AUTHORITY SO CONFERRED "IS EXHAUSTIVE AND EMBRACES
EVERY CONCEIVABLE POWER OF TAXATION."  BRUSHABER V. UNION PAC. R. CO.,
240 U.S. 1, 12. 

1.  THE TITLE OF AN ACT AND ITS WHOLE CONTENT MAY BE EXAMINED TO SEE
THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THE IMPOSITION TO BE FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
AND NOT MERELY TO PRODUCE GENERAL REVENUE FOR THE UNITED STATES.  HILL
V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44; CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20; CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238(SEMBLE); UNITED STATES V. CONSTANTINE,
296 U.S. 287, 294(SEMBLE); GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S.
233; TRUSLER V. CROOKS, 269 U.S. 475; AND UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297
U.S. 1. 

2.  THE IMPOSITION IS NOT AN "EXCISE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT WORD
AS USED IN THE ONLY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EMPOWERS THE
CONGRESS TO LEVY TAXES.  SEE DAVIS V. BOSTON & MAINE R.R., 89 F.(2D)
368. 

"EXCISE," IN ENGLAND AND IN THE COLONIES, FOR AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED
AND FORTY YEARS BEFORE IT WAS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION, MEANT AN INLAND
LEVY ON SELECTED TANGIBLE PROPERTY, OR UPON THE OWNERS OF IT, BECAUSE
OF THE ACTIVITY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS MOVING, AS IN THE
MANUFACTURE, IN INTERMEDIATE SALE, OR IN THE ULTIMATE SALE COMMONLY
AMOUNTING TO CONSUMPTION.  THE ANTITHESIS WAS THE DIRECT TAX UPON
PROPERTY IN GENERAL, CERTAINLY LAND, WHEN TAXED ON A RATE FIXED BY ITS
STATIC APPRAISED CAPITAL VALUE, POSSIBLY WHEN MEASURED BY ITS ANNUAL
UNWROUGHT RETURN IN RENT, INCOME, OR PRODUCTS, AND, DEBATABLY, UPON
PERSONAL PROPERTY SO APPRAISED OR JUDGED.  BOTH THE DIRECT TAX AND THE
EXCISE WERE PREEMINENTLY PROPERTY TAXES,  - ONE REGARDLESS OF ITS
ACTIVITY OR INACTIVITY, AND THE OTHER TAKING THAT ACTIVITY INTO
CONSIDERATION.  IN 1766 DR. JOHNSON DEFINED "EXCISE" AS "A HATEFUL TAX
LEVIED UPON COMMODITIES, AND ADJUDGED NOT BY THE COMMON JUDGES OF
PROPERTY."  DICT.  (3D ED., 1766).  HE DEFINED "COMMODITY" AS
"INTEREST, ADVANTAGE, PROFIT, CONVENIENCE OF TIME OR PLACE, WARES,
MERCHANDISE."  ID. "COMMODITY" SUGGESTS, AS THE PRINCIPAL THOUGHT,
MERCHANDISE.  IN 1776 ADAM SMITH IN HIS "THE WEALTH OF NATIONS" SAID,
"THE DUTIES OF EXCISE ARE IMPOSED CHIEFLY UPON GOODS OF HOME PRODUCE
DESTINED FOR HOME CONSUMPTION.  THEY ARE IMPOSED ONLY UPON A FEW SORTS
OF GOODS OF THE MOST GENERAL USE."  IN 1780 THE MASSACHUSETTS
CONSTITUTION INDICATED DIRECT TAXES TO BE THE NORMAL SOURCE OF REVENUE,
BUT GAVE THE LEGISLATURE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE "REASONABLE DUTIES AND
EXCISES, UPON ANY PRODUCE, GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE, AND COMMODITIES,
WHATSOEVER."  IN 1788 THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF NEW YORK URGED
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION "THAT THE CONGRESS DO NOT IMPOSE ANY
EXCISE ON ANY ARTICLE (ARDENT SPIRITS EXCEPTED) OF THE GROWTH,
PRODUCTION, OR MANUFACTURE OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY OF THEM."  1
ELLIOT'S DEBATES 72; LUTHER MARTIN SAID "BY THE POWER TO LAY EXCISES, -
A POWER VERY ODIOUS IN ITS NATURE, SINCE IT AUTHORIZES OFFICERS TO GO
INTO YOUR HOUSES, YOUR KITCHENS, YOUR CELLARS, AND TO EXAMINE INTO YOUR
PRIVATE CONCERNS,  - THE CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE DUTIES ON EVERY ARTICLE OF
USE OR CONSUMPTION, ON THE FOOD THAT WE EAT, ON THE LIQUORS THAT WE
DRINK, ON THE CLOTHES THAT WE WEAR, THE GLASS WHICH ENLIGHTENS OUR
HOUSES, OR THE HEARTHS NECESSARY FOR OUR WARMTH AND COMFORT."  CF.
CHANCELLOR LIVINGSTON IN THE NEW YORK CONVENTION, 2 ID. 341; NICHOLAS
IN THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, 3 ID. 243; ALSO 5 ID. 40; HAMILTON,
FEDERALIST, NO. 21, P. 182; ELLSWORTH, CONNECTICUT CONVENTION, 2 ELLIOT
192; WRITINGS OF GALLATIN, P. 73. 

SEE ALSO:  HIST. OF ENGLAND, 5 HUME, ED. 1861, P. 269; CLARENDON, THE
HIST. OF REBELLION IN ENGLAND, VOL. II, P. 453; 1 BLACKSTONE COMM. 308;
AND ENCY.  BRIT.  THIRD ED. 1797; BRITISH EXCISE ACT, MARCH 28, 1643;
JANUARY, 1644.  THE TAX LAID BY THE REVENUE ACT OF 1777(17 GEO. III, C.
39) OF ONE SHILLING PER ANNUM FOR EVERY MALE SERVANT OF THE KINDS
DESCRIBED WAS A LUXURY TAX LIKE THE WINDOW TAX. 

EXCISES IN NEW YORK BEFORE 1788:  SEE "THE COLONIAL LAWS OF NEW YORK
FROM THE YEAR 1644 TO THE REVOLUTION, TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURE BY
THE COMMISSIONERS OF STATUTORY REVISION, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 125 OF THE
LAWS OF 1891," VOL. I, PP. 248, 789; VOL. IV, ID. 1, 105; LAWS OF NEW
YORK, 1775 TO 1788, VOL. I, PP. 109, 660.  IN PENNSYLVANIA:  IX STAT.
AT L. 1776-1799, P. 55.  IN MASSACHUSETTS:  1646, PLYMOUTH COLONY LAW,
1836, P. 85; JUNE 24, 1692, ACTS AND RESOLVES OF THE PROVINCE OF
MASSACHUSETTS BAY, VOL. 1, C. 5, P. 32; I. ID. 57, 272, 391, 475, 527,
662, 738; II. ID. 203, 849; III.  ID. 495, 568, 750; IV.  ID. 219; ACTS
OF NOV. 1, 1781, C. 17, I. LAWS OF MASS. 60; 1782, 1783; I. ID. 62, 78,
85; LAWS AND RESOLVES OF 1782, C. 33, P. 92. 

HISTORICALLY, AN EXCISE WAS IN CHARACTER AN INLAND DUTY OR IMPOST ON
A TANGIBLE COMMODITY IN MANUFACTURE OR IN SALE EITHER IN THE COURSE OF
TRADE OR FOR CONSUMPTION.  IT WAS NOT "CUT OUT" OF THE ACTIVITY, BUT
OUT OF THE GOODS.    IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE
THIRTEEN STATES COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE WORD "EXCISE" INCLUDED
AN IMPOSITION ON THE STATE OF BEING OF EXERCISING THE UNIVERSAL NATURAL
RIGHT TO EMPLOY, FOR WAGES, OTHER MEN WHO CONSENTED TO THAT EMPLOYMENT,
IN A MANNER NOT INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. 

SUPPORTERS OF THIS TAX HAVE URGED THAT IT IS A TAX UPON PRIVILEGE. 
THERE IS NO PRIVILEGE.  THE STATE OF BEING ON WHICH THE IMPOSITION IS
MADE IS NOT DERIVED FROM GOVERNMENT OR FROM PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN ANY
MANNER.  PRIVILEGE CONTRASTS WITH COMMON NATURAL OPPORTUNITY.  CONTRAST
THE PRIVILEGE TO DO BUSINESS WITHOUT LIABILITY FOR DEBTS, AS IN
CORPORATE FORM.  ANY DICTIONARY OF THE COMMON MEANINGS WILL SHOW THAT
"PRIVILEGE" AS USED IN THIS CONTEXT MEANS SOMETHING NOT OF COMMON
RIGHT. 

UNDOUBTEDLY PROPERTIES OF MODERN TIMES - AS, FOR EXAMPLE, AUTOMOBILES
- NEVER THOUGHT OF IN 1788, MAY COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD
"EXCISE" IN 1788.  BUT, IF THE STATE OF BEING, OF HAVING INDIVIDUALS IN
A MAN'S EMPLOY,  - A THING OF CHARACTER WHICH EXISTED IN 1788,  - DID
NOT THEN COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD, IT IS NOT THERE NOW. 

AN ATTEMPTED ACT MAY BE CLEARLY WITHOUT THE POWERS OF THE CONGRESS,
AND A PARTICULAR LITIGANT NEVERTHELESS MAY HAVE NO RIGHT TO INVOKE THE
JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT.  MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447; FLORIDA
V. MELLON, 273 U.S. 12.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE FACT THAT THE VALIDITY OF
APPROPRIATION OF THE MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES IN QUESTIONABLE WAYS
HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BEFORE THIS COURT, CARRIES NO IMPLICATION THAT
THE APPROPRIATIONS WERE LAWFUL, OR APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE. 

IT IS ONLY IN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS THAT INLAND TAXES OF THE UNITED
STATES HAVE BECOME SO BURDENSOME THAT IT HAS BEEN WORTH THE EXTENSIVE
EFFORT OF MANY PEOPLE TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL APPROPRIATIONS. 

A PERSON IN TERMS OBLIGED BY AN ATTEMPTED INVALID ACT TO PAY MONEY TO
GO INTO THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, HAS A RIGHT TO A DECISION. 
UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1. 

AN IMPOSITION ON A PARTICULAR CLASS OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY, IN
MANUFACTURE, USE, GIFT, BEQUEST, OR SALE, MAY BE SUSTAINED AS AN EXCISE
IF IT MEETS THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THAT THE
END IS TO PROVIDE REVENUE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THAT THE SELECTION IS NOT CAPRICIOUS OR VIOLATIVE OF THE
RULE OF UNIFORMITY.  MAGNANO V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40; BROMLEY V.
MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124; N.Y. TRUST CO. V. EISNER, 256 U.S. 345;
BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 232 U.S. 261; MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, 195
U.S. 27; THOMAS V. UNITED STATES, 192 U.S. 363; CORNELL V. COYNE, 192
U.S. 418; SPRECKELS SUGAR CO. V. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397; PATTON V.
BRADY, 184 U.S. 608; TREAT V. WHITE, 181 U.S. 264; KNOWLTON V. MOORE,
178 U.S. 41, 84; NICOL V. AMES, 173 U.S. 609; SPRINGER V. UNITED
STATES, 102 U.S. 586; RAILROAD CO. V. COLLECTOR, 100 U.S. 595; SCHOLEY
V. REW, 23 WALL.  331; VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8 WALL.  533; PACIFIC INS.
CO. V. SOULE, 7 WALL.  433; LICENSE CASES, 5 WALL.  462; HYLTON V.
UNITED STATES, 3 DALL.  171.  IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS, AND PAPER,
PARTICULARLY COMMERCIAL PAPER, ARE TANGIBLE AND VALUABLE BECAUSE OF
THAT FACT.  PATTON V. BRADY, 184 U.S. 608, 617; COOK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
97 U.S. 566.  IN AT LEAST ONE CASE THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT A FRANCHISE
IS A SUFFICIENTLY PALPABLE KIND OF PROPERTY TO PERMIT AN EXCISE IN
RESPECT OF IT, FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 155, 162; BUT IT
HAS NEVER HELD THAT THE NATURAL, HARMLESS, STATE OF BEING, OR NATURAL,
HARMLESS CONDUCT PRIVILEGED OR UNPRIVILEGED, IS SUBJECT TO EXCISE. 

SEE:  OPINIONS OF THE JUSTICES, 282 MASS. 219; 266 MASS. 592, 595;
196 MASS. 624. 

PROPERTY MAY NOT BE TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT FROM ONE FOR ANOTHER, EVEN
FOR PUBLIC ADVANTAGE OR WELFARE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, LOUISVILLE
BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, 601, 602; UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297
U.S. 1; RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330; AND IT
MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THAT IT IS DONE UNDER THE GUISE OF A TAX OR IS THE
PRODUCT OF A TAX, LOAN ASSOCIATION V. TOPEKA, 20 WALL.  655; CALDER V.
BULL, 3 DALL.  386; MILES PLANTING CO. V. CARLISLE, 5 APP. D.C. 138,
146. 

EVEN IF A TAX IS LEVIED EXPRESSLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING
GENERAL REVENUE, WHEN IT APPEARS, "IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY AND OF
ITS PRESENT SETTING," THAT IT IS FOR A PURPOSE WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT PERMIT THE LAWMAKING BODY TO ACCOMPLISH, THE TAX IS INVALID. 
GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., INC., 297 U.S. 233, 250. 
DISTINGUISHING SPRECKELS SUGAR REF. CO. V. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397. 

3.  IN TESTING THE VALIDITY OF THE LEVY ATTEMPTED IN SECS. 804 AND
802, AN UNCHANGING DECISION MUST BE MADE FOR ALL PURPOSES, AS TO
WHETHER THE LEVY IS FOR GENERAL REVENUE ONLY OR IS FOR OLD AGE BENEFITS
SUCH AS ARE DESCRIBED IN TITLE II.  THE LEVY SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED TO BE
FOR SUCH BENEFITS AT ONE STAGE OF ARGUMENT IN ORDER TO MEET THE CHARGE
OF CAPRICIOUSNESS, AND FOR GENERAL REVENUE AT ANOTHER STAGE IN ORDER TO
MEET THE CHARGE OF ABSENCE OF FEDERAL PURPOSE. 

4.  WHETHER FOR GENERAL REVENUE OR NOT, THE ATTEMPTED LEVY IS SO
CAPRICIOUS AND SO LACKING IN UNIFORMITY AS NOT TO BE IN CHARACTER A
TAX.  IF THE PURPOSE IS GENERAL REVENUE, THERE IS NO BASIS IN REASON
FOR SELECTING CERTAIN FAULTLESS EMPLOYERS TO BEAR THE ENTIRE BURDEN AND
THEREBY RELIEVE WEALTH GENERALLY FROM TAXATION TO FURNISH THE REVENUE. 
IF THE PURPOSE IS OLD-AGE BENEFITS, THERE IS NO MORE REASON FOR
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF A TAX ON WEALTH TO THE SHOULDERS OF POSSIBLY
POOR EMPLOYERS WHO ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF THE OLD AGE.  THERE IS NO
ATTEMPT TO COVER ALL IN THE SAME CLASS.  IF MEN OVER SIXTY-FIVE YEARS
OF AGE OUGHT TO HAVE AN ANNUITY OR OLD-AGE BENEFIT, IT SHOULD BE ON
ACCOUNT OF THAT FACT, NOT BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT IN WHICH
THEY HAVE BEEN ENGAGED, AND IF EMPLOYERS OUGHT TO PAY AN EXCISE FOR THE
STATE OF BEING OF HAVING EMPLOYEES, THEY OUGHT TO PAY IT WHEN THEY HAVE
THAT STATE OF BEING.  IT IS THE KNOWN FACT THAT IMPOSITION UPON NON
AGRICULTURAL LABOR IS EQUIVALENT TO CONFINING THE IMPOSITION TO CERTAIN
STATES TO THE APPROXIMATELY COMPLETE EXCLUSION OF OTHER STATES.  IT IS
CAPRICIOUS TO DENY THE "OVER-SIXTY-FIVE" BENEFITS TO FARM LABORERS, AND
TO RELIEVE THEIR EMPLOYERS FROM AN IMPOSITION PLACED ON OTHER
EMPLOYERS. 

ONLY 56%, OR LESS, OF THE GAINFUL WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE
POTENTIALLY TO BE BENEFITED.  THE EMPLOYERS OF ONLY THIS 56%, (OR
LESS), ARE SUBJECTED TO THE IMPOSITION. 

THE EMPLOYERS OF THE 56% BEAR NOT ONLY THE BURDEN OF CARING BY SO
MUCH FOR THE AGED AMONG THE 56%, BUT ALSO THE BURDEN OF THEIR SHARE OF
TAXES TO MEET THE PUBLIC EXPENSE FOR POOR RELIEF AND ASSISTANCE TO THE
REMAINING 44%, AND OF THE UNPROVIDED FOR BALANCE OF THE 56%. 

SENATE REPORT NO. 628, (74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESS. 1935) INDICATES THAT
WHEN THE IMPOSITIONS UNDER TITLES VIII AND IX ARE IN FULL SWAY, SO THAT
9% ON THE PAY ROLLS MUST BE PAID, THE IMPOSITION IS EQUIVALENT TO A
GENERAL SALES TAX OF 3%.  AS THE TAX IS ON EMPLOYERS IN TRADE AS WELL
AS IN INDUSTRY, (EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF IMPORTED MERCHANDISE SOLD), THEY
ARE TAXED TWICE.  THE EMPLOYERS IN THE PRODUCTION AND TRADE IN DOMESTIC
INDUSTRY IN THIS WAY PAY TWO TAXES INEVITABLY; AND WHERE THE PRODUCTS
PASS THROUGH BOTH WHOLESALE AND RETAIL TRADE, THREE TAXES.  WHAT PASSES
FROM WHOLESALE TRADE INTO THE HANDS OF THE MANUFACTURERS, AS THE RAW
MATERIAL OF THOSE MANUFACTURERS, CALLS FOR ANOTHER PAYMENT.  IT IS
BEYOND THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCURATE MATHEMATICAL STATEMENT.  IN MANY
CASES THE LEVY CANNOT BE PASSED ON WITHOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF THE
TRADE; AND IF NOT PASSED ON, THE EMPLOYER INEVITABLY MEETS FINANCIAL
RUIN WHEN SUBJECTED TO SUCH A HUGE TAX. 

IF GAINFUL WORKERS OUGHT TO HAVE AN ANNUITY AFTER AGE SIXTY-FIVE, SO
SHOULD ALL OTHER PERSONS.  THERE IS NO REASON FOR FAVORING THOSE WHO
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET AND PERFORM WORK, TO THE EXCLUSION OF THOSE WHO
HAVE NOT.  THE NUMBER OF WORKERS POTENTIALLY TO BENEFIT AND
PREFERENTIALLY TREATED IS LESS THAN 22% OF THE POPULATION. 

CAPRICIOUS SELECTION OF CLASS OF PROPERTY, CLASS OF PERSONS, OR RATE
GRADATION, CONVERTS AN ATTEMPTED EXCISE INTO A NONUNIFORM CONFISCATION,
WITHOUT TAX CHARACTER.  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233,
251; COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404, 422, 424; CONCORDIA FIRE INS. CO.
V. ILLINOIS, 292 U.S. 535; STEBBINS V. RILEY, 268 U.S. 137; LOUISVILLE
GAS CO. V. COLEMAN, 277 U.S. 32; SCHLESINGER V. WISCONSIN, 270 U.S.
230; BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124, 139; MAYFLOWER FARMS V. TEN
EYCK, 297 U.S. 266, 272(SEMBLE) OF A REGULATION; IN RE OPINION OF THE
JUSTICES, 85 N.H. 562, (SEMBLE).  CF. BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC R.
CO., 240 U.S. 1, 24. 

5.  TO PROVIDE OLD AGE BENEFITS SUCH AS ARE DESCRIBED IN TITLE II IS
NOT A PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS POWER TO TAX.  SUCH A PURPOSE
IS NOT FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, OR TO PAY THE DEBTS OF, OR TO PROVIDE
FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF, THE GOVERNMENT. 

APART FROM TAXES TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE
OF THE GOVERNMENT, NO TAX BY CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED UNLESS IT IS TO
PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.  THE LIMITS UPON THE TAXING POWER ARE NOT SET BY "WELFARE"
ONLY, BUT BY THE LIMITS UPON THE KIND OF WELFARE FOR WHICH THE TAX MAY
BE LEVIED.  IT MUST BE THE LIMITED KIND OF WELFARE WHICH IS "GENERAL,"
AND IT MUST BE THE LIMITED KIND OF WELFARE WHICH IS "OF THE UNITED
STATES."  IN THIS LIMITATION, "OF THE UNITED STATES" EVIDENTLY IS USED
IN THE SENSE OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  IT IS NOT TO BE
SUPPOSED THAT A CONSTITUTION WOULD GRANT TO CONGRESS A POWER TO TAX TO
PROVIDE REVENUE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED
STATES WHEN THAT CONGRESS HAD BEEN GIVEN NO POWER TO LEGISLATE FOR THE
GENERAL WELFARE OF THAT TERRITORY.  THE WORDS "GENERAL" AND "OF THE
UNITED STATES" ARE WORDS OF RESTRICTION UPON THE KIND OF WELFARE TO
PROVIDE REVENUE FOR WHICH CONGRESS MAY LEVY A TAX.  THEY STAND OPPOSITE
TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF "STATE" OR "LOCAL" IN DEFINING THE WELFARE FOR
WHICH A STATE MAY LEVY A TAX. 

AS FAR AS IT MAY BE DONE BY LEGISLATION, THE CONTROL OF THE RELATION
BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, THE RATE OF WAGES, THE WITHHOLDING OF
WAGES TO BUILD RESERVES, THE INSURANCE AGAINST ACCIDENTS, THE MAKING OF
RESERVES FOR THE EMPLOYEE WHEN HE NO LONGER, OR NOT FOR A TIME, CAN
EARN WAGES, IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE. 

THE SUPPORT OF MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE COME TO BE SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OLD
IN THE RESPECTIVE STATES, OR WHO CANNOT GET EMPLOYMENT, IS NO MORE FOR
THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAN IS THE
KEEPING OF THE CITIZENRY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM BECOMING DRUG
ADDICTS, AND THEREBY LIKELY TO BE UNABLE TO EARN A LIVING OR TO FIGHT
FOR THE UNITED STATES, OR TO VOTE INTELLIGENTLY FOR A PRESIDENT OR
SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES.  CF. LINDER V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 5,
17; UNITED STATES V. DOREMUS, 249 U.S. 86, 95; UNITED STATES V. JIN
FUEY MOY, 241 U.S. 394, 401.  LOCAL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AND
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMPLETED WHOLLY WITHIN A STATE, HOWSOEVER COMMON
THEY MAY BE IN EVERY STATE, ARE NOT A PART OF THE GENERAL WELFARE OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, 295 U.S. 495; UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1; RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330(A FORTIORI); CHILD LABOR
TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20; HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44; HAMMER V.
DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251.  CF. REMARKS OF HUGHES, C.J., IN CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 317. 

THE STATE WHERE THIS LOCAL EMPLOYMENT OCCURS MAY DEEM IT WISER TO
REGULATE THE RELATION IN A DIFFERENT WAY, TO PROVIDE A SMALLER ANNUITY
WITH A SMALLER COMPULSORY CONTRIBUTION, OR NONE AT ALL.  THE SAME THING
CANNOT BE DONE BY CONGRESS AND BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE.  IF IT IS A
SUBJECT FOR LEGISLATIVE REGULATION AT ALL, THE TENTH AMENDMENT SAYS
THAT IT IS TO BE REGULATED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND NOT BY
CONGRESS.  CF. CHAMBERLIN V. ANDREWS, 299 U.S. 515; COLLECTOR V. DAY,
11 WALL.  113. 

IMPOSITIONS FOR OLD-AGE BENEFITS DO NOT DIFFER IN THIS RESPECT FROM
THOSE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.  THE PARTICULAR LIMIT TO "GENERAL
WELFARE," AS TO WHICH HAMILTON AND MADISON DIFFERED, AND MONROE
VACILLATED, IS NOT INVOLVED.  NONE OF THEM SUGGESTED THAT ANY SUCH
REGULATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATIONS AND RELATIONS WITHIN A STATE COME
WITHIN THIS PHRASE.  NONE OF THEM, IT SEEMS, WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED A
POWER IN CONGRESS TO COMPEL EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES IN PURELY LOCAL
EMPLOYMENT TO CONTRIBUTE TO A FUND FOR OLD-AGE ANNUITIES FOR OTHERS. 
CF. VETO MESSAGES OF PRESIDENTS JACKSON, MAY 27, 1830, 2 RICHARDSON,
483, 492, 639; BUCHANAN, FEBRUARY 24, 1859, 5 ID. 547; CLEVELAND IN
1887, 8 ID. 557. 

6.  IN FACT AND IN LAW, IN THE SECTIONS 804 AND 802 UNDER
CONSIDERATION, THIS IS NOT A TAXING STATUTE, BUT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE WAGE RELATION WITHIN THE SEVERAL STATES.  WEST
COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379; ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR CANADA
V. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO, (1937) A.C. 355, AFFIRMING (1936)
CAN.  S.C.R. 427. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT (ACT OF AUGUST 14, 1935, C. 531, 49 STAT.
620, 42 U.S.C., C. 7, (SUPP.)) IS CHALLENGED ONCE AGAIN. 

IN STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE, P. 548, WE
HAVE UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF TITLE IX OF THE ACT, IMPOSING AN EXCISE
UPON EMPLOYERS OF EIGHT OR MORE.  IN THIS CASE TITLES VIII AND II ARE
THE SUBJECT OF ATTACK.  TITLE VIII LAYS ANOTHER EXCISE UPON EMPLOYERS
IN ADDITION TO THE ONE IMPOSED BY TITLE IX (THOUGH WITH DIFFERENT
EXEMPTIONS).  IT LAYS A SPECIAL INCOME TAX UPON EMPLOYEES TO BE
DEDUCTED FROM THEIR WAGES AND PAID BY THE EMPLOYERS.  TITLE II PROVIDES
FOR THE PAYMENT OF OLD AGE BENEFITS, AND SUPPLIES THE MOTIVE AND
OCCASION, IN THE VIEW OF THE ASSAILANTS OF THE STATUTE, FOR THE LEVY OF
THE TAXES IMPOSED BY TITLE VIII.  THE PLAN OF THE TWO TITLES WILL NOW
BE SUMMARIZED MORE FULLY.    TITLE VIII, AS WE HAVE SAID, LAYS TWO
DIFFERENT TYPES OF TAX, AN "INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES," AND "AN EXCISE
TAX ON EMPLOYERS."  THE INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES IS MEASURED BY WAGES
PAID DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR.  SEC. 801.  THE EXCISE TAX ON THE
EMPLOYER IS TO BE PAID "WITH RESPECT TO HAVING INDIVIDUALS IN HIS
EMPLOY," AND, LIKE THE TAX ON EMPLOYEES, IS MEASURED BY WAGES.  SEC.
804.  NEITHER TAX IS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN TYPES OF EMPLOYMENT, SUCH AS
AGRICULTURAL LABOR, DOMESTIC SERVICE, SERVICE FOR THE NATIONAL OR STATE
GOVERNMENTS, AND SERVICE PERFORMED BY PERSONS WHO HAVE ATTAINED THE AGE
OF 65 YEARS.  SEC. 811(B).  THE TWO TAXES ARE AT THE SAME RATE.  SECS.
801, 804.  FOR THE YEARS 1937 TO 1939, INCLUSIVE, THE RATE FOR EACH TAX
IS FIXED AT ONE PER CENT.  THEREAFTER THE RATE INCREASES 1/2 OF 1 PER
CENT EVERY THREE YEARS, UNTIL AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1948, THE RATE FOR
EACH TAX REACHES 3 PER CENT.  IBID.  IN THE COMPUTATION OF WAGES ALL
REMUNERATION IS TO BE INCLUDED EXCEPT SO MUCH AS IS IN EXCESS OF $3,000
DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR AFFECTED.  SEC. 811(A).  THE INCOME TAX ON
EMPLOYEES IS TO BE COLLECTED BY THE EMPLOYER, WHO IS TO DEDUCT THE
AMOUNT FROM THE WAGES "AS AND WHEN PAID."  SEC. 802(A).  HE IS
INDEMNIFIED AGAINST CLAIMS AND DEMANDS OF ANY PERSON BY REASON OF SUCH
PAYMENT.  IBID.  THE PROCEEDS OF BOTH TAXES ARE TO BE PAID INTO THE
TREASURY LIKE INTERNAL-REVENUE TAXES GENERALLY, AND ARE NOT EARMARKED
IN ANY WAY.  SEC. 807(A).  THERE ARE PENALTIES FOR NON-PAYMENT.  SEC.
807(C). 

TITLE II HAS THE CAPTION "FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS."  THE BENEFITS
ARE OF TWO TYPES, FIRST, MONTHLY PENSIONS, AND SECOND, LUMP SUM
PAYMENTS, THE PAYMENTS OF THE SECOND CLASS BEING RELATIVELY FEW AND
UNIMPORTANT. 

THE FIRST SECTION OF THIS TITLE CREATES AN ACCOUNT IN THE UNITED
STATES TREASURY TO BE KNOWN AS THE "OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT."  SEC.
201.  NO PRESENT APPROPRIATION, HOWEVER, IS MADE TO THAT ACCOUNT.  ALL
THAT THE STATUTE DOES IS TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS ANNUALLY
THEREAFTER, BEGINNING WITH THE FISCAL YEAR WHICH ENDS JUNE 30, 1937. 
HOW LARGE THEY SHALL BE IS NOT KNOWN IN ADVANCE.  THE "AMOUNT
SUFFICIENT AS AN ANNUAL PREMIUM" TO PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIRED PAYMENTS
IS "TO BE DETERMINED ON A RESERVE BASIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED
ACTUARIAL PRINCIPLES, AND BASED UPON SUCH TABLES OF MORTALITY AS THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME ADOPT, AND UPON AN
INTEREST RATE OF 3 PER CENTUM PER ANNUM COMPOUNDED ANNUALLY."  SEC.
201(A).  NOT A DOLLAR GOES INTO THE ACCOUNT BY FORCE OF THE CHALLENGED
ACT ALONE, UNAIDED BY ACTS TO FOLLOW. 

PRINCIPAL TYPE IS A MONTHLY PENSION PAYABLE TO A PERSON AFTER HE HAS
ATTAINED THE AGE OF 65.  THIS BENEFIT IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO ONE WHO HAS
WORKED FOR AT LEAST ONE DAY IN EACH OF AT LEAST FIVE SEPARATE YEARS
SINCE DECEMBER 31, 1936, WHO HAS EARNED AT LEAST $2,000 SINCE THAT
DATE, AND WHO IS NOT THEN RECEIVING WAGES "WITH RESPECT TO REGULAR
EMPLOYMENT."  SECS. 202(A), (D), 210(C).  THE BENEFITS ARE NOT TO BEGIN
BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1942.  SEC. 202(A).  IN NO EVENT ARE THEY TO EXCEED
$85 A MONTH.  SEC. 202(B).  THEY ARE TO BE MEASURED (SUBJECT TO THAT
LIMIT) BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE WAGES, THE PERCENTAGE DECREASING AT
STATED INTERVALS AS THE WAGES BECOME HIGHER.  SEC. 202(A).  IN ADDITION
TO THE MONTHLY BENEFITS, PROVISION IS MADE IN CERTAIN CONTINGENCIES FOR
"LUMP SUM PAYMENTS" OF SECONDARY IMPORTANCE.  A SUMMARY BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE FOUR SITUATIONS CALLING FOR SUCH PAYMENTS IS PRINTED
IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 

THIS SUIT IS BROUGHT BY A SHAREHOLDER OF THE EDISON ELECTRIC
ILLUMINATING COMPANY OF BOSTON, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, TO
RESTRAIN THE CORPORATION FROM MAKING THE PAYMENTS AND DEDUCTIONS CALLED
FOR BY THE ACT, WHICH IS STATED TO BE VOID UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES.  THE BILL TELLS US THAT THE CORPORATION HAS DECIDED
TO OBEY THE STATUTE, THAT IT HAS REACHED THIS DECISION IN THE FACE OF
THE COMPLAINANT'S PROTESTS, AND THAT IT WILL MAKE THE PAYMENTS AND
DEDUCTIONS UNLESS RESTRAINED BY A DECREE.  THE EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES
ARE INDICATED SUBSTANTIALLY AS FOLLOWS:  THE DEDUCTIONS FROM THE WAGES
OF THE EMPLOYEES WILL PRODUCE UNREST AMONG THEM, AND WILL BE FOLLOWED,
IT IS PREDICTED, BY DEMANDS THAT WAGES BE INCREASED.  IF THE EXACTIONS
SHALL ULTIMATELY BE HELD VOID, THE COMPANY WILL HAVE PARTED WITH MONEYS
WHICH AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO RECOVER.  NOTHING
IS SAID IN THE BILL ABOUT THE PROMISE OF INDEMNITY.  THE PREDICTION IS
MADE ALSO THAT SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES WILL ENSUE IF THERE IS A SUBMISSION
TO THE EXCISE.  THE CORPORATION AND ITS SHAREHOLDERS WILL SUFFER
IRREPARABLE LOSS, AND MANY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WILL BE SUBTRACTED FROM
THE VALUE OF THE SHARES.  THE PRAYER IS FOR AN INJUNCTION AND FOR A
DECLARATION THAT THE ACT IS VOID. 

THE CORPORATION APPEARED AND ANSWERED WITHOUT RAISING ANY ISSUE OF
FACT.  LATER THE UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND THE
UNITED STATES COLLECTOR FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, PETITIONERS
IN THIS COURT, WERE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE.  THEY MOVED TO STRIKE SO MUCH
OF THE BILL AS HAS RELATION TO THE TAX ON EMPLOYEES, TAKING THE GROUND
THAT THE EMPLOYER, NOT BEING SUBJECT TO TAX UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS, MAY
NOT CHALLENGE THEIR VALIDITY, AND THAT THE COMPLAINANT SHAREHOLDER,
WHOSE RIGHTS ARE NO GREATER THAN THOSE OF HIS CORPORATION, HAS EVEN
LESS STANDING TO BE HEARD ON SUCH A QUESTION.  THE INTERVENING
DEFENDANTS ALSO FILED AN ANSWER WHICH RESTATED THE POINT RAISED IN THE
MOTION TO STRIKE, AND MAINTAINED THE VALIDITY OF TITLE VIII IN ALL ITS
PARTS.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE TAX UPON EMPLOYEES WAS NOT
PROPERLY AT ISSUE, AND THAT THE TAX UPON EMPLOYERS WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. 
IT THEREUPON DENIED THE PRAYER FOR AN INJUNCTION, AND DISMISSED THE
BILL.  ON APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT,
THE DECREE WAS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  89 F.(2D) 393.  THE
COURT HELD THAT TITLE II WAS VOID AS AN INVASION OF POWERS RESERVED BY
THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE STATES OR TO THE PEOPLE, AND THAT TITLE II
IN COLLAPSING CARRIED TITLE VIII ALONG WITH IT.  AS AN ADDITIONAL
REASON FOR INVALIDATING THE TAX UPON EMPLOYERS, THE COURT HELD THAT IT
WAS NOT AN EXCISE AS EXCISES WERE UNDERSTOOD WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS
ADOPTED.  CF. DAVIS V. BOSTON & MAINE R. CO., 89 F.(2D) 368, DECIDED
THE SAME DAY. 

A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FOLLOWED.  IT WAS FILED BY THE INTERVENING
DEFENDANTS, THE COMMISSIONER AND THE COLLECTOR, AND BROUGHT TWO
QUESTIONS, AND TWO ONLY, TO OUR NOTICE.  WE WERE ASKED TO DETERMINE:
(1) "WHETHER THE TAX IMPOSED UPON EMPLOYERS BY SEC. 804 OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION,"
AND (2) "WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX IMPOSED UPON EMPLOYEES BY SEC.
801 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT IS PROPERLY IN ISSUE IN THIS CASE, AND
IF IT IS, WHETHER THAT TAX IS WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION."  THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION GAVE NOTICE TO THE CLERK THAT
IT JOINED IN THE PETITION, BUT IT HAS TAKEN NO PART IN ANY SUBSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS.  A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED. 

FIRST.  QUESTIONS AS TO THE REMEDY INVOKED BY THE COMPLAINANT
CONFRONT US AT THE OUTSET. 

WAS THE CONDUCT OF THE COMPANY IN RESOLVING TO PAY THE TAXES A
LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTORS?  HAS PETITIONER
A STANDING TO CHALLENGE THAT RESOLVE IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ADEQUATE
SHOWING OF IRREPARABLE INJURY?  DOES THE ACQUIESCENCE OF THE COMPANY IN
THE EQUITABLE REMEDY AFFECT THE ANSWER TO THOSE QUESTIONS?  THOUGH
POWER MAY STILL BE OURS TO TAKE SUCH OBJECTIONS FOR OURSELVES, IS
ACQUIESCENCE EFFECTIVE TO RID US OF THE DUTY?  IS DUTY MODIFIED STILL
FURTHER BY THE ATTITUDE OF THE GOVERNMENT, ITS WAIVER OF A DEFENSE
UNDER SEC. 3224 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, ITS WAIVER OF A DEFENSE THAT
THE LEGAL REMEDY IS ADEQUATE, ITS EARNEST REQUEST THAT WE DETERMINE
WHETHER THE LAW SHALL STAND OR FALL?  THE WRITER OF THIS OPINION
BELIEVES THAT THE REMEDY IS ILL CONCEIVED, THAT IN A CONTROVERSY SUCH
AS THIS A COURT MUST REFUSE TO GIVE EQUITABLE RELIEF WHEN A CAUSE OF
ACTION IN EQUITY IS NEITHER PLEADED NOR PROVED, AND THAT THE SUIT FOR
AN INJUNCTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED UPON THAT GROUND.  HE THINKS THIS
COURSE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN ADHERENCE TO THE GENERAL RULE THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE NOT TO BE DETERMINED IN THE ABSENCE OF
STRICT NECESSITY.  IN THAT VIEW HE IS SUPPORTED BY MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS, MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS.  HOWEVER, A
MAJORITY OF THE COURT HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  THEY FIND
IN THIS CASE EXTRAORDINARY FEATURES MAKING IT FITTING IN THEIR JUDGMENT
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BENEFITS AND THE TAXES ARE VALID OR INVALID. 
THEY DISTINGUISH NORMAN V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 89 F.(2D) 619,
RECENTLY DECIDED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, ON THE
GROUND THAT IN THAT CASE, THE REMEDY WAS CHALLENGED BY THE COMPANY AND
THE GOVERNMENT AT EVERY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING, THUS WITHDRAWING FROM
THE COURT ANY MARGINAL DISCRETION.  THE RULING OF THE MAJORITY REMOVES
FROM THE CASE THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AS TO THE NATURE OF THE REMEDY
WHICH WE TOOK OF OUR OWN MOTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARGUMENT. 
UNDER THE COMPULSION OF THAT RULING, THE MERITS ARE NOW HERE. 

SECOND.  THE SCHEME OF BENEFITS CREATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE II
IS NOT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 

CONGRESS MAY SPEND MONEY IN AID OF THE "GENERAL WELFARE." 
CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SECTION 8; UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1,
65; STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA.  THERE HAVE BEEN GREAT
STATESMEN IN OUR HISTORY WHO HAVE STOOD FOR OTHER VIEWS.  WE WILL NOT
RESURRECT THE CONTEST.  IT IS NOW SETTLED BY DECISION.  UNITED STATES
V. BUTLER, SUPRA.  THE CONCEPTION OF THE SPENDING POWER ADVOCATED BY
HAMILTON AND STRONGLY REINFORCED BY STORY HAS PREVAILED OVER THAT OF
MADISON, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN LACKING IN ADHERENTS.  YET DIFFICULTIES ARE
LEFT WHEN THE POWER IS CONCEDED.  THE LINE MUST STILL BE DRAWN BETWEEN
ONE WELFARE AND ANOTHER, BETWEEN PARTICULAR AND GENERAL.  WHERE THIS
SHALL BE PLACED CANNOT BE KNOWN THROUGH A FORMULA IN ADVANCE OF THE
EVENT.  THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND OR CERTAINLY A PENUMBRA IN WHICH
DISCRETION IS AT LARGE.  THE DISCRETION, HOWEVER, IS NOT CONFIDED TO
THE COURTS.  THE DISCRETION BELONGS TO CONGRESS, UNLESS THE CHOICE IS
CLEARLY WRONG, A DISPLAY OF ARBITRARY POWER, NOT AN EXERCISE OF
JUDGMENT.  THIS IS NOW FAMILIAR LAW.  "WHEN SUCH A CONTENTION COMES
HERE WE NATURALLY REQUIRE A SHOWING THAT BY NO REASONABLE POSSIBILITY
CAN THE CHALLENGED LEGISLATION FALL WITHIN THE WIDE RANGE OF DISCRETION
PERMITTED TO THE CONGRESS."  UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, SUPRA, P. 67. 
CF. CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 308; UNITED STATES
V. REALTY CO., 163 U.S. 427, 440; HEAD MONEY CASES, 112 U.S. 580, 595. 
NOR IS THE CONCEPT OF THE GENERAL WELFARE STATIC.  NEEDS THAT WERE
NARROW OR PAROCHIAL A CENTURY AGO MAY BE INTERWOVEN IN OUR DAY WITH THE
WELL-BEING OF THE NATION.  WHAT IS CRITICAL OR URGENT CHANGES WITH THE
TIMES. 

THE PURGE OF NATION-WIDE CALAMITY THAT BEGAN IN 1929 HAS TAUGHT US
MANY LESSONS.  NOT THE LEAST IS THE SOLIDARITY OF INTERESTS THAT MAY
ONCE HAVE SEEMED TO BE DIVIDED.  UNEMPLOYMENT SPREADS FROM STATE TO
STATE, THE HINTERLAND NOW SETTLED THAT IN PIONEER DAYS GAVE AN AVENUE
OF ESCAPE.  HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398,
442.  SPREADING FROM STATE TO STATE, UNEMPLOYMENT IS AN ILL NOT
PARTICULAR BUT GENERAL, WHICH MAY BE CHECKED, IF CONGRESS SO
DETERMINES, BY THE RESOURCES OF THE NATION.  IF THIS CAN HAVE BEEN
DOUBTFUL UNTIL NOW, OUR RULING TODAY IN THE CASE OF THE STEWARD MACHINE
CO., SUPRA, HAS SET THE DOUBT AT REST.  BUT THE ILL IS ALL ONE, OR AT
LEAST NOT GREATLY DIFFERENT, WHETHER MEN ARE THROWN OUT OF WORK BECAUSE
THERE IS NO LONGER WORK TO DO OR BECAUSE THE DISABILITIES OF AGE MAKE
THEM INCAPABLE OF DOING IT.  RESCUE BECOMES NECESSARY IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE CAUSE.  THE HOPE BEHIND THIS STATUTE IS TO SAVE MEN AND WOMEN FROM
THE RIGORS OF THE POOR HOUSE AS WELL AS FROM THE HAUNTING FEAR THAT
SUCH A LOT AWAITS THEM WHEN JOURNEY'S END IS NEAR. 

CONGRESS DID NOT IMPROVISE A JUDGMENT WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE AWARD OF
OLD AGE BENEFITS WOULD BE CONDUCIVE TO THE GENERAL WELFARE.  THE
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY MADE AN INVESTIGATION AND
REPORT, AIDED BY A RESEARCH STAFF OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES,
AND BY AN ADVISORY COUNCIL AND SEVEN OTHER ADVISORY GROUPS.  FN2
EXTENSIVE HEARINGS FOLLOWED BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND
MEANS, AND THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.  FN3  A GREAT MASS OF
EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TOGETHER SUPPORTING THE POLICY WHICH FINDS
EXPRESSION IN THE ACT.  AMONG THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THESE:  THE NUMBER
OF PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER IS INCREASING
PROPORTIONATELY AS WELL AS ABSOLUTELY.  WHAT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THE
NUMBER OF SUCH PERSONS UNABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES IS GROWING AT
A THREATENING PACE.  MORE AND MORE OUR POPULATION IS BECOMING URBAN AND
INDUSTRIAL INSTEAD OF RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL.  FN4  THE EVIDENCE IS
IMPRESSIVE THAT AMONG INDUSTRIAL WORKERS THE YOUNGER MEN AND WOMEN ARE
PREFERRED OVER THE OLDER.  FN5  IN TIMES OF RETRENCHMENT THE OLDER ARE
COMMONLY THE FIRST TO GO, AND EVEN IF RETAINED, THEIR WAGES ARE LIKELY
TO BE LOWERED.  THE PLIGHT OF MEN AND WOMEN AT SO LOW AN AGE AS 40 IS
HARD, ALMOST HOPELESS, WHEN THEY ARE DRIVEN TO SEEK FOR REEMPLOYMENT. 
STATISTICS ARE IN THE BRIEF.  A FEW ILLUSTRATIONS WILL BE CHOSEN FROM
MANY THERE COLLECTED.  IN 1930, OUT OF 224 AMERICAN FACTORIES
INVESTIGATED, 71, OR ALMOST ONE THIRD, HAD FIXED MAXIMUM HIRING AGE
LIMITS; IN 4 PLANTS THE LIMIT WAS UNDER 40; IN 41 IT WAS UNDER 46.  IN
THE OTHER 153 PLANTS THERE WERE NO FIXED LIMITS, BUT IN PRACTICE FEW
WERE HIRED IF THEY WERE OVER 50 YEARS OF AGE.  FN6  WITH THE LOSS OF
SAVINGS INEVITABLE IN PERIODS OF IDLENESS, THE FATE OF WORKERS OVER 65,
WHEN THROWN OUT OF WORK, IS LITTLE LESS THAN DESPERATE.  A RECENT STUDY
OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD INFORMS US THAT "ONE-FIFTH OF THE AGED IN
THE UNITED STATES WERE RECEIVING OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE, EMERGENCY RELIEF,
INSTITUTIONAL CARE, EMPLOYMENT UNDER THE WORKS PROGRAM, OR SOME OTHER
FORM OF AID FROM PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FUNDS; TWO-FIFTHS TO ONE-HALF WERE
DEPENDENT ON FRIENDS AND RELATIVES, ONE-EIGHTH HAD SOME INCOME FROM
EARNINGS; AND POSSIBLY ONE-SIXTH HAD SOME SAVINGS OR PROPERTY. 
APPROXIMATELY THREE OUT OF FOUR PERSONS 65 OR OVER WERE PROBABLY
DEPENDENT WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY ON OTHERS FOR SUPPORT."  FN7  WE
SUMMARIZE IN THE MARGIN THE RESULTS OF OTHER STUDIES BY STATE AND
NATIONAL COMMISSIONS.  FN8  THEY POINT THE SAME WAY. 

THE PROBLEM IS PLAINLY NATIONAL IN AREA AND DIMENSIONS.  MOREOVER,
LAWS OF THE SEPARATE STATES CANNOT DEAL WITH IT EFFECTIVELY.  CONGRESS,
AT LEAST, HAD A BASIS FOR THAT BELIEF.  STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARE OFTEN LACKING IN THE RESOURCES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO FINANCE AN
ADEQUATE PROGRAM OF SECURITY FOR THE AGED.  THIS IS BROUGHT OUT WITH A
WEALTH OF ILLUSTRATION IN RECENT STUDIES OF THE PROBLEM.  FN9  APART
FROM THE FAILURE OF RESOURCES, STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE AT
TIMES RELUCTANT TO INCREASE SO HEAVILY THE BURDEN OF TAXATION TO BE
BORNE BY THEIR RESIDENTS FOR FEAR OF PLACING THEMSELVES IN A POSITION
OF ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE AS COMPARED WITH NEIGHBORS OR COMPETITORS.  WE
HAVE SEEN THIS IN OUR STUDY OF THE PROBLEM OF UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION.  STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA.  A SYSTEM OF OLD
AGE PENSIONS HAS SPECIAL DANGERS OF ITS OWN, IF PUT IN FORCE IN ONE
STATE AND REJECTED IN ANOTHER.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A SYSTEM IS A
BAIT TO THE NEEDY AND DEPENDENT ELSEWHERE, ENCOURAGING THEM TO MIGRATE
AND SEEK A HAVEN OF REPOSE.  ONLY A POWER THAT IS NATIONAL CAN SERVE
THE INTERESTS OF ALL. 

WHETHER WISDOM OR UNWISDOM RESIDES IN THE SCHEME OF BENEFITS SET
FORTH IN TITLE II, IT IS NOT FOR US TO SAY.  THE ANSWER TO SUCH
INQUIRIES MUST COME FROM CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.  OUR CONCERN HERE,
AS OFTEN, IS WITH POWER, NOT WITH WISDOM.  COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT HAS
RECALLED TO US THE VIRTUES OF SELF-RELIANCE AND FRUGALITY.  THERE IS A
POSSIBILITY, HE SAYS, THAT AID FROM A PATERNAL GOVERNMENT MAY SAP THOSE
STURDY VIRTUES AND BREED A RACE OF WEAKLINGS.  IF MASSACHUSETTS SO
BELIEVES AND SHAPES HER LAWS IN THAT CONVICTION, MUST HER BREED OF SONS
BE CHANGED, HE ASKS, BECAUSE SOME OTHER PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNMENT FINDS
FAVOR IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS?  BUT THE ANSWER IS NOT DOUBTFUL.  ONE
MIGHT ASK WITH EQUAL REASON WHETHER THE SYSTEM OF PROTECTIVE TARIFFS IS
TO BE SET ASIDE AT WILL IN ONE STATE OR ANOTHER WHENEVER LOCAL POLICY
PREFERS THE RULE OF LAISSEZ FAIRE.  THE ISSUE IS A CLOSED ONE.  IT WAS
FOUGHT OUT LONG AGO.  FN10  WHEN MONEY IS SPENT TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL
WELFARE, THE CONCEPT OF WELFARE OR THE OPPOSITE IS SHAPED BY CONGRESS,
NOT THE STATES.  SO THE CONCEPT BE NOT ARBITRARY, THE LOCALITY MUST
YIELD.  CONSTITUTION, ART. VI, PAR. 2. 

THIRD.  TITLE II BEING VALID, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO INQUIRE WHETHER
TITLE VIII WOULD HAVE TO FALL IF TITLE II WERE SET AT NAUGHT. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE TWO
TITLES DOVETAIL IN SUCH A WAY AS TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT
CONGRESS WOULD HAVE BEEN UNWILLING TO PASS ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.  THE
ARGUMENT FOR PETITIONERS IS THAT THE TAX MONEYS ARE NOT EARMARKED, AND
THAT CONGRESS IS AT LIBERTY TO SPEND THEM AS IT WILL.  THE USUAL
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE IS EMBODIED IN THE ACT.  SEC. 1103. 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN THE ARGUMENTS, AND SO
LEAVE THE QUESTION OPEN. 

FOURTH.  THE TAX UPON EMPLOYERS IS A VALID EXCISE OR DUTY UPON THE
RELATION OF EMPLOYMENT. 

AS TO THIS WE NEED NOT ADD TO OUR OPINION IN STEWARD MACHINE CO. V.
DAVIS, SUPRA, WHERE WE CONSIDERED A LIKE QUESTION IN RESPECT OF TITLE
IX. 

FIFTH.  THE TAX IS NOT INVALID AS A RESULT OF ITS EXEMPTIONS. 

HERE AGAIN THE OPINION IN STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, SUPRA, SAYS
ALL THAT NEED BE SAID. 

SIXTH.  THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD BE REVERSED AND
THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  (1)  IF THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR OR DELAY A PERSON WHO IS
RECEIVING A MONTHLY PENSION DIES BEFORE HE RECEIVES THE CORRECT AMOUNT,
THE AMOUNT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID TO HIM IS PAID IN A LUMP SUM TO
HIS ESTATE (SEC. 203(C)). 

(2)  IF A PERSON WHO HAS EARNED WAGES IN EACH OF AT LEAST FIVE
SEPARATE YEARS SINCE DECEMBER 31, 1936, AND WHO HAS EARNED IN THAT
PERIOD MORE THAN $2,000, DIES AFTER ATTAINING THE AGE OF 65, BUT BEFORE
HE HAS RECEIVED IN MONTHLY PENSIONS AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 3 1/2 PERCENT OF
THE "WAGES" PAID TO HIM BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1937, AND THE TIME HE
REACHES 65, THEN THERE IS PAID IN A LUMP SUM TO HIS ESTATE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAID 3 1/2 PERCENT AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID TO HIM
DURING HIS LIFE AS MONTHLY PENSIONS (SEC. 203(B)). 

(3)  IF A PERSON WHO HAS EARNED WAGES SINCE DECEMBER 31, 1936, DIES
BEFORE ATTAINING THE AGE OF 65, THEN THERE IS PAID TO HIS ESTATE 3 1/2
PERCENT OF THE "WAGES" PAID TO HIM BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1937, AND HIS
DEATH (SEC. 203(A)). 

(4)  IF A PERSON HAS, SINCE DECEMBER 31, 1936, EARNED WAGES IN
EMPLOYMENT COVERED BY TITLE II, BUT HAS ATTAINED THE AGE OF 65 EITHER
WITHOUT WORKING FOR AT LEAST ONE DAY IN EACH OF 5 SEPARATE YEARS SINCE
1936, OR WITHOUT EARNING AT LEAST $2,000 BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1937, AND
THE TIME HE ATTAINS 65, THEN THERE IS PAID TO HIM (OR TO HIS ESTATE,
SEC. 204(B)), A LUMP SUM EQUAL TO 3 1/2 PERCENT OF THE "WAGES" PAID TO
HIM BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1937, AND THE TIME HE ATTAINED 65(SEC. 
204(A)). 

FN2  REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY,
1935. 

FN3  HEARINGS BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS ON H.R.
4120, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION; HEARINGS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON FINANCE ON S. 1130, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION. 

FN4  SEE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON RECENT SOCIAL TRENDS, 1932, VOL.
1, PP. 8, 502; THOMPSON AND WHELPTON, POPULATION TRENDS IN THE UNITED
STATES, PP. 18, 19. 

FN5  SEE THE AUTHORITIES COLLECTED AT PP. 54-62 OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
BRIEF. 

FN6  HIRING AND SEPARATION METHODS IN AMERICAN INDUSTRY, 35 MONTHLY
LABOR REVIEW, PP. 1005, 1009. 

FN7  ECONOMIC INSECURITY IN OLD AGE (SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, 1937), P.
15. 

FN8  THE SENATE COMMITTEE ESTIMATED, WHEN INVESTIGATING THE PRESENT
ACT, THAT OVER ONE HALF OF THE PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES OVER 65
YEARS OF AGE ARE DEPENDENT UPON OTHERS FOR SUPPORT.  SENATE REPORT, NO.
628, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 4.  A SIMILAR ESTIMATE WAS MADE IN
THE REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC SECURITY,
1935, P. 24. 

A REPORT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA COMMISSION ON OLD AGE PENSIONS MADE IN
1919(P. 108) AFTER A STUDY OF 16,281 PERSONS AND INTERVIEWS WITH MORE
THAN 3,500 PERSONS 65 YEARS AND OVER SHOWED TWO FIFTHS WITH NO INCOME
BUT WAGES AND ONE FOURTH SUPPORTED BY CHILDREN; 1.5 PER CENT HAD
SAVINGS AND 11.8 PER CENT HAD PROPERTY. 

A REPORT ON OLD AGE PENSIONS BY THE MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION ON
PENSIONS (SENATE NO. 5, 1925, PP. 41, 52) SHOWED THAT IN 1924 TWO
THIRDS OF THOSE ABOVE 65 HAD, ALONE OR WITH A SPOUSE, LESS THAN $5,000
OF PROPERTY, AND ONE FOURTH HAD NONE.  TWO THIRDS OF THOSE WITH LESS
THAN $5,000 AND INCOME OF LESS THAN $1,000 WERE DEPENDENT IN WHOLE OR
IN PART ON OTHERS FOR SUPPORT. 

A REPORT OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION MADE IN 1930(LEGIS.  DOC. 
NO. 67, 1930, P. 39) SHOWED A CONDITION OF TOTAL DEPENDENCY AS TO 58
PER CENT OF THOSE 65 AND OVER, AND 62 PER CENT OF THOSE 70 AND OVER. 

THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT HAS FOUND IN CONNECTION WITH GRANTS TO STATES
FOR OLD AGE ASSISTANCE UNDER ANOTHER TITLE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
(TITLE I) THAT IN FEBRUARY, 1937, 38.8 PER CENT OF ALL PERSONS OVER 65
IN COLORADO RECEIVED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; IN OKLAHOMA THE PERCENTAGE WAS
44.1, AND IN TEXAS 37.5.  IN 10 STATES OUT OF 40 WITH PLANS APPROVED BY
THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD MORE THAN 25 PER CENT OF THOSE OVER 65 COULD
MEET THE RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS AND QUALIFY UNDER A MEANS TEST AND WERE
ACTUALLY RECEIVING PUBLIC AID.  ECONOMIC INSECURITY IN OLD AGE, SUPRA,
P. 15. 

FN9  ECONOMIC INSECURITY IN OLD AGE, SUPRA, CHAP. VI, P. 184. 

FN10  IV CHANNING, HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, P. 404(SOUTH
CAROLINA NULLIFICATION); 8 ADAMS, HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (NEW
ENGLAND NULLIFICATION AND THE HARTFORD CONVENTION). 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT HERE CHALLENGED ARE REPUGNANT TO THE TENTH
AMENDMENT, AND THAT THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD
BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :








ANNISTON MFG. CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 337 


NO. 667.  ARGUED APRIL 2, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1937.  - 87 F.(2D)
773, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE RIGHT TO SUE THE COLLECTOR FOR RECOVERY OF TAXES EXACTED UNDER
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE MAY, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT,
BE ABOLISHED IF A FAIR AND ADEQUATE REMEDY DIRECTLY AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT BE SUBSTITUTED.  P. 341. 

2.  WITH RESPECT TO THE REFUNDING OF "FLOOR STOCK TAXES" COLLECTED
UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936,
TITLE VII, SEC. 905, PRESERVES TO THE TAXPAYER THE REMEDY BY SUIT
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OR THE COURT OF
CLAIMS.  P. 343. 

3.  WITH RESPECT TO THE REFUNDING OF PROCESSING TAXES COLLECTED UNDER
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, TITLE
VII, SEC. 906, ESTABLISHES A SPECIAL AND EXCLUSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE BEFORE A BOARD OF REVIEW IN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, AND
PROVIDES FOR A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DECISIONS IN WHICH MAY BE
DETERMINED EVERY QUESTION OF LAW WHICH THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO
RAISE, WHETHER GENERAL, STATUTORY, OR CONSTITUTIONAL, INCLUDING
QUESTIONS AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ANY PART OF TITLE VII ITSELF, AND IN
WHICH THE REVIEWING COURT IS EMPOWERED TO DIRECT THE BOARD TO ENTER ANY
DESIGNATED JUDGMENT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE BEING
REQUIRED TO REFUND ANY AMOUNT WHICH MAY THUS BE FOUND DUE THE
CLAIMANT.  P. 343. 

4.  WITH RESPECT TO THE REFUNDING OF SUCH PROCESSING TAXES, THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1936, SUPRA, PROVIDES, TITLE VII, SEC. 902(2), THAT NO
REFUND SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS THE CLAIMANT ESTABLISHES TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW THAT HE BORE THE BURDEN OF THE
AMOUNT PAID AS TAX AND "HAS NOT BEEN RELIEVED THEREOF NOR REIMBURSED
THEREFOR NOR SHIFTED SUCH BURDEN, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY" THROUGH THE
INCLUSION OF THE AMOUNT PAID IN THE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT, THROUGH
REDUCTION OF THE PRICE PAID FOR THE RAW MATERIAL, OR "IN ANY MANNER
WHATSOEVER."  HELD: 

(1)  IF THE TAXPAYER HAS THUS SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF THE TAX, HE IS NO
LONGER IN A POSITION TO CLAIM AN ACTUAL INJURY AND THE REFUSAL OF A
REFUND IN SUCH A CASE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT.  P 348. 

(2)  THE FACT THAT THE ACT MAKES NO PROVISION FOR REFUNDING TO
PARTICULAR PERSONS, TO WHOM THE BURDEN OF THE INVALID EXACTION MAY BE
FOUND TO HAVE BEEN SHIFTED, IS NO CONCERN OF THE TAXPAYER.  P. 350. 

(3)  THE STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS DENYING A REFUND WHERE,
FROM THE NATURE OF THE CASE, PROOF THAT THE TAX BURDEN WAS NOT SHIFTED
IS INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE; BUT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH IMPOSSIBILITY IS A
QUESTION OF FACT WHICH THE CLAIMANT MAY RAISE BEFORE THE BOARD; THE
CLAIMANT IS REQUIRED TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD THE FACTS PERTAINING TO
THE SUBJECT, AND THEREUPON IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE BOARD, UPON
FINDINGS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, TO MAKE ITS DETERMINATION IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE CLAIMANT, SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR
REVERSAL BY THE REVIEWING COURT IF NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.  P.
351. 

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE NOT TO BE DECIDED HYPOTHETICALLY.  WHEN
PARTICULAR FACTS CONTROL THE DECISION THEY MUST BE SHOWN. 

(4)  OF TWO POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A STATUTE, THAT ONE SHOULD BE
ADOPTED WHICH WILL SAVE AND NOT DESTROY IT.  AN INTENT TO DEFY THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT OR EVEN TO COME SO NEAR TO DOING SO AS TO RAISE A
SERIOUS QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO
CONGRESS.  P. 351. 

(5)  SECTION 902 IS NOT TOO VAGUE; IT LAYS DOWN THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE
GOVERNING THE REMEDY AFFORDED, LEAVING ITS APPLICATIONS TO BE
DETERMINED BY FACTS AS THEY APPEAR IN PARTICULAR INSTANCES.  P. 353. 

5.  SECTION 907(A), OF TITLE VII, OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936,
PROVIDES THAT, IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ABOVE MENTIONED, THE
FACT THAT THE AVERAGE MARGIN PER UNIT OF COMMODITY PROCESSED WAS LOWER
DURING THE TAX PERIOD THAN THE AVERAGE MARGIN DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE
AND AFTER IT, SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE BURDEN OF THE
PROCESSING TAX WAS BORNE BY THE CLAIMANT TAXPAYER; AND THAT IF THE
AVERAGE MARGIN DURING THE TAX PERIOD WAS NOT LOWER, IT SHALL BE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE THAT NONE OF THE BURDEN OF SUCH AMOUNT WAS BORNE BY THE
CLAIMANT BUT THAT IT WAS SHIFTED TO OTHERS.  "TAX PERIOD" AND "PERIOD
BEFORE AND AFTER THE TAX" ARE DEFINED.  SECTION 907(E) PROVIDES THAT
EITHER THE CLAIMANT OR THE COMMISSIONER MAY REBUT THE PRESUMPTIONS "BY
PROOF OF THE ACTUAL EXTENT TO WHICH THE CLAIMANT SHIFTED TO OTHERS THE
BURDENS OF THE PROCESSING TAX."  HELD THAT THE WORDS "ACTUAL EXTENT"
ARE USED IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE PRESUMED EXTENT, ACCORDING TO THE
PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION TO WHICH THE PROOF IN REBUTTAL IS ADDRESSED,
AND THAT COMPLETE OPPORTUNITY IS AFFORDED THE CLAIMANT TO PRESENT ANY
EVIDENCE WHICH MAY BE PERTINENT TO THE QUESTIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY
THE BOARD OF REVIEW AND WHICH MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO OVERCOME ANY
PRESUMPTION WHICH MIGHT BE INDULGED EITHER UNDER SEC. 907(A) OR
OTHERWISE.  P. 354. 

6.  SECTION 906(B) OF THE ACT OF 1936, TITLE VII, SUPRA, PROVIDES
THAT THE HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD IS TO BE CONDUCTED BY A PRESIDING
OFFICER WHO IS EITHER A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
AND SEC. 906(E) THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER IS TO RECOMMEND TO THE
BOARD, OR A DIVISION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND A DECISION; BUT THE BOARD,
OR A DIVISION OF IT, IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AND MAKE THE
FINDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION; AND THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING PRESUPPOSES HEARING AND DETERMINATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEMANDS OF DUE PROCESS.  P. 356. 

ANNISTON MANUFACTURING CO. V. DAVIS, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 649, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, DISMISSING, ON DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT, AN ACTION
AGAINST THE COLLECTOR TO RECOVER AMOUNTS PAID AS COTTON "PROCESSING"
TAXES AND AS COTTON "FLOOR STOCK" TAXES UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL
ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1933, WHICH WAS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY THIS COURT
IN UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER BROUGHT THIS SUIT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1935, AGAINST THE
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE TO RECOVER THE AMOUNTS PAID AS COTTON
"PROCESSING" TAXES (FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION) AND AS COTTON "FLOOR STOCK"
TAXES (SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION) UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF
1933.  48 STAT. 31, 35, 40.  PETITIONER ALLEGED THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
OF THE STATUTE IMPOSING THE TAX (UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1)
AND THAT CLAIM FOR REFUND HAD BEEN REJECTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE ON AUGUST 16, 1935.  AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF TITLE VII
OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, SECS. 901-917(49 STAT. 1747), PETITIONER
AMENDED ITS COMPLAINT, ASSERTING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THESE
PROVISIONS.  DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT (15 F.SUPP. 
257) AND ITS JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS UPON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT BELOW WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
TO ENTERTAIN THE ACTION.  87 F.(2D) 773.  IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE QUESTIONS RAISED, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

TITLE VII, SECS. 901-917, OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1936, PROVIDED A NEW
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE RECOVERY OF AMOUNTS COLLECTED UNDER
THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.  SECTION 901 REPEALED SECS. 21(D),
21(E), AND 21(G), OF THE AMENDMENTS OF 1935(49 STAT. 771-773).  SECTION
902 PRESCRIBED THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH REFUNDS SHOULD BE MADE.  SECTION
903 RELATED TO THE FILING OF CLAIMS.  SECTIONS 904 AND 905 PRESCRIBED
PERIODS OF LIMITATION AND PROVIDED FOR THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURTS, CONCURRENT WITH THE COURT OF CLAIMS, FOR THE RECOVERY OF
AMOUNTS COLLECTED AS FLOOR STOCK AND COMPENSATING TAXES.  SECTION 906
PRESCRIBED THE PROCEDURE ON CLAIMS FOR REFUNDS OF PROCESSING TAXES. 
OBSERVED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.  SECTION 908 RELATED TO
ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST.  SECTION 909 DENIED REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
RULING BY ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE OR ACCOUNTING OFFICER.  SECTION 910
UNDERTOOK TO FREE THE COLLECTOR FROM LIABILITY FOR MONEYS COLLECTED BY
HIM AND PAID INTO THE TREASURY IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES. 
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES NOT REQUIRING ATTENTION IN THE PRESENT
DISCUSSION. 

FIRST.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT AT THE TIME IT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IT
HAD A VESTED RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE COLLECTOR TO RECOVER THE
AMOUNTS EXACTED UNDER STATUTORY PROVISIONS HELD TO BE INVALID; THAT
THIS RIGHT OF ACTION COULD NOT BE DESTROYED WITHOUT VIOLATING THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT; THAT THE COLLECTOR WAS PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR THE AMOUNTS
COLLECTED AND THAT SEC. 910 WHICH ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY THAT LIABILITY
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

THE GOVERNMENT ANSWERS THAT THE INSTANT CASE "DOES NOT REQUIRE A
DECISION AS TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO WITHDRAW SUIT ENTIRELY, BOTH
AGAINST THE COLLECTOR AND AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT"; THAT CONGRESS "HAS
LEFT A REMEDY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS FAIR AND ADEQUATE IN
EVERY RESPECT."  WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTION THAT IF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY IS FAIR AND ADEQUATE, OTHER QUESTIONS WITH
RESPECT TO THE LIABILITY OF THE COLLECTOR AND THE VALIDITY OF SEC. 910
NEED NOT NOW BE CONSIDERED.  WE HAD OCCASION TO DEAL WITH A COGNATE
QUESTION IN BURRILL V. LOCOMOBILE CO., 258 U.S. 34.  THAT DECISION WAS
RENDERED IN SUITS BROUGHT BY FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN THE FEDERAL COURT
TO RECOVER TAXES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE DEFENDANT, THE
TREASURER OF MASSACHUSETTS, UNDER DURESS AND IN OBEDIENCE TO STATUTES
HELD BY THIS COURT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S. 135, AND LOCOMOBILE CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 246
U.S. 146.  A STATUTE OF MASSACHUSETTS PROVIDED THAT ANY CORPORATION
AGGRIEVED BY THE EXACTION OF THE TAX COULD APPLY BY PETITION TO THE
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT AND THAT THE REMEDY SO PROVIDED SHOULD BE
EXCLUSIVE.  AS THE STATUTE CONTAINED A PROVISION FOR REPAYMENT OF ANY
SUM ADJUDGED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY EXACTED, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT
CONSTITUTED A BAR TO A PERSONAL SUIT AGAINST THE TREASURER WHO HAD
COLLECTED THE TAX.  THIS COURT AGREED WITH THE DEFENDANT UPON THAT
POINT.  THE STATE HAD SUBSTITUTED AN EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST ITSELF
FOR THE REMEDY AGAINST THE TREASURER AND HAD GUARANTEED PAYMENT OF THE
AMOUNT FOUND TO BE DUE.  THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE WAS SUSTAINED.  WE
SAID THAT WE DID "NOT PERCEIVE WHY THE STATE MAY NOT PROVIDE THAT ONLY
THE AUTHOR OF THE WRONG SHALL BE LIABLE FOR IT, AT LEAST WHEN, AS HERE,
THE REMEDY OFFERED IS ADEQUATE AND BACKED BY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
STATE." 

THE SAME REASONING IS APPLICABLE HERE.  THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT DENIED
ITS OBLIGATION TO REFUND THE AMOUNTS FOUND IN THE AUTHORIZED PROCEEDING
TO BE RECOVERABLE, BUT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT OBLIGATION.  IN SUCH A CASE,
THE SUBSTITUTION OF AN EXCLUSIVE REMEDY DIRECTLY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
IS NOT AN INVASION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.  NOR DOES THE REQUIREMENT
OF RECOURSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ESTABLISH INVALIDITY IF LEGAL
RIGHTS ARE STILL SUITABLY PROTECTED.  THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION IS WHETHER
THE AUTHORIZED PROCEEDING AFFORDS A FAIR AND ADEQUATE REMEDY.  WE
ACCORDINGLY INQUIRE WHETHER THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE GIVES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR A FULL AND FAIR HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF ALL
QUESTIONS OF FACT AND ADEQUATELY PROVIDES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE CLAIMANT, EMBRACING WHATEVER RIGHT OF REFUND THE
CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO ASSERT UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

SECOND.  WITH RESPECT TO FLOOR STOCK TAXES, NO SERIOUS QUESTION IS
PRESENTED AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THE REMEDY.  THE REMEDY BY SUIT IS
EXPRESSLY PRESERVED.  IF THE COMMISSIONER REFUSES REFUND, SUIT MAY BE
BROUGHT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OR IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN
ILLEGALLY EXACTED.  SEC. 905. 

THIRD.  WITH RESPECT TO THE REFUNDING OF PROCESSING TAXES, A SPECIAL
AND EXCLUSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE IS PROVIDED.  SEC. 906. 
DISALLOWANCE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF A CLAIM OF REFUND, IN WHOLE OR
PART, IS MADE FINAL UNLESS WITHIN THREE MONTHS THE CLAIMANT FILES A
PETITION FOR HEARING UPON THE MERITS BY A BOARD OF REVIEW WHICH THE ACT
ESTABLISHES IN THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT.  THE BOARD IS COMPOSED OF NINE
MEMBERS WHO ARE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ARE
DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  THE BOARD IS "TO
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE ANY CLAIMANT WITH RESPECT TO SUCH
CLAIM."  THE COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED TO "MAKE REFUND OF ANY SUCH
AMOUNT DETERMINED BY A DECISION OF THE BOARD WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL." 
SEC. 906(B).  THE HEARING, UPON NOTICE, BEFORE THE BOARD IS TO BE OPEN
TO THE PUBLIC AND IS TO BE CONDUCTED BY A PRESIDING OFFICER WHO IS
EITHER A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.  THE
PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF
THE TREASURY SAVE WITH RESPECT TO RULES OF EVIDENCE, WHICH ARE TO BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE APPLICABLE IN COURTS OF EQUITY OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.  THE CLAIMANT AND THE COMMISSIONER ARE ENTITLED "TO BE
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, TO HAVE WITNESSES SUBPOENAED, AND TO EXAMINE
AND CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES."  PROVISION IS MADE TO COMPEL THE
ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES AND THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS AND
PAPERS FROM ANY PLACE IN THE UNITED STATES AND TO REQUIRE THE TAKING OF
DEPOSITIONS.  SEC. 906(C)(D).  THE PRESIDING OFFICERS ARE TO RECOMMEND
FINDINGS OF FACT AND A DECISION TO THE BOARD OR THE PROPER DIVISION
THEREOF WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING.  BRIEFS
WITH RESPECT TO SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS MAY BE SUBMITTED WITHIN A
SPECIFIED TIME.  THE BOARD OR A DIVISION IS TO MAKE ITS FINDINGS OF
FACT AND DECISION IN WRITING AS QUICKLY AS PRACTICABLE.  THE FINDINGS
AND DECISION OF A DIVISION ARE TO BECOME THOSE OF THE BOARD WITHIN
THIRTY DAYS UNLESS THE CHAIRMAN HAS DIRECTED THAT THEY BE REVIEWED BY
THE BOARD.  COPIES OF THE FINDINGS AND DECISION ARE TO BE MAILED TO THE
CLAIMANT AND THE COMMISSIONER.  SEC. 906(E).  THERE IS A FURTHER
PROVISION AS TO COSTS AND FEES.  SEC. 906(F).  THE DECISION OF THE
BOARD IS TO BECOME FINAL IN THE SAME MANNER AS DECISIONS OF THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS UNDER SEC. 1005 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 AS AMENDED. 
SEC. 906(G); 26 U.S.C. 640. 

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD IS PROVIDED.  THAT
REVIEW MAY BE HAD BY A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR BY THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCORDING TO THE
RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE CLAIMANT, OR BY ANY SUCH COURT AS
MAY BE DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE CLAIMANT BY STIPULATION. 
UPON PETITION FOR REVIEW THE BOARD IS TO CERTIFY AND FILE IN THE
APPROPRIATE COURT A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD UPON WHICH THE FINDINGS
AND DECISION WERE BASED.  THEREUPON, THE COURT OF APPEALS IS TO HAVE
"EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, OR TO
MODIFY OR REVERSE SUCH DECISION, IF IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW,
WITH OR WITHOUT REMANDING THE CAUSE FOR A REHEARING, AS JUSTICE MAY
REQUIRE."  SEC. 906(G).  IF THE CLAIMANT OR THE COMMISSIONER APPLIES TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE COURT
MAY ORDER IT TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER IF THE COURT IS
SATISFIED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR FAILURE TO ADDUCE IT AT THE HEARING.  THE BOARD
MAY MODIFY ITS FINDINGS AND DECISION BY REASON OF SUCH ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE, FILING ITS MODIFIED OR NEW DETERMINATION WITH THE COURT.  THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS TO BE FINAL, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY
THIS COURT UPON CERTIFICATION OR CERTIORARI AS PROVIDED IN SECS. 239
AND 240 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 

WE THINK THAT THIS PLAN OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES FOR THE JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF EVERY QUESTION OF LAW WHICH THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED
TO RAISE.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE STATUTE WHICH LIMITS THE JUDICIAL
REVIEW TO QUESTIONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION OR OF MERE REGULARITY OF
PROCEDURE.  THE "LAW," WITH WHICH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD MAY BE IN
CONFLICT, MAY BE THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW.  QUESTIONS OF VALIDITY AS WELL AS
OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY OR REGULARITY MAY BE DETERMINED.  THESE MAY
RELATE TO DUE PROCESS IN THE HEARING OR IN THE REFUSAL OF A REFUND. 
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEST THIS CONSTRUCTION BUT ON THE CONTRARY
AFFIRMS IT.  THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES AND URGES THAT THE JURISDICTION
GIVEN TO THE COURT OF APPEALS "TO MODIFY OR REVERSE" THE DECISION OF
THE BOARD "IF IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW" INCLUDES THE POWER TO
REVIEW ALL QUESTIONS OF GENERAL AND STATUTORY LAW AND ALL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.  THUS EVERY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WHICH THE
PETITIONER HERE IS ENTITLED TO INVOKE WITH RESPECT TO THE REFUND OF THE
TAXES WHICH IT HAS PAID MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND ULTIMATELY BY THIS COURT UPON A REVIEW OF A DECISION
REACHED IN THE COURSE OF THE PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.  THE
GOVERNMENT URGES, AND WE THINK CORRECTLY, THAT IF ON SUCH A REVIEW ANY
PART OF TITLE VII WERE HELD TO BE INVALID, "THE TAXPAYER MAY RECOVER
ALL OF THE TAXES TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER SUCH A DECISION."  UPON
THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD, THE COURT OF APPEALS
AND THIS COURT WOULD HAVE POWER "TO DIRECT THE BOARD TO ENTER ANY
DESIGNATED JUDGMENT" AND THE COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED TO MAKE REFUND OF
ANY AMOUNT WHICH MAY THUS BE DETERMINED TO BE DUE THE CLAIMANT.  FN1 

FOURTH.  THE QUESTION THEN IS WHETHER, DESPITE THIS BROAD RIGHT OF
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE BOARD, THE ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEME
HAS SUCH INHERENT CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS THAT THE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT
BE REMITTED TO THAT PROCEDURE.  THE INQUIRY HAS PARTICULAR RELATION TO
THE PROVISIONS (1) AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF, SEC. 902, (2) AS TO
PRESUMPTIONS, SEC. 907, AND (3) AS TO CERTAIN MATTERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DETAIL. 

THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  - SECTION 902, THE FULL TEXT OF WHICH IS SET
OUT IN THE MARGIN,  FN2 PROVIDES THAT NO REFUND SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS
THE CLAIMANT ESTABLISHES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER, OR OF
THE TRIAL COURT, OR OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW IN CASES UNDER SEC. 906,
THAT THE CLAIMANT BORE THE BURDEN OF THE AMOUNT PAID AS TAX AND "HAS
NOT BEEN RELIEVED THEREOF NOR REIMBURSED THEREFOR NOR SHIFTED SUCH
BURDEN, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY" (1) THROUGH THE INCLUSION OF THE AMOUNT
PAID IN THE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT, (2) THROUGH REDUCTION OF THE PRICE
PAID FOR THE RAW MATERIAL, OR (3) "IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER." 
ACCORDING TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, THE PETITIONER INITIALLY
DID BEAR THE BURDEN OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX, AS PETITIONER PAID IT.
THE QUESTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE BURDEN OF
THAT PAYMENT HAS BEEN SHIFTED.  SO FAR AS PETITIONER'S CONTENTION MAY
BE TAKEN TO BE THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER BY REASON OF THE
INVALIDITY OF THE TAX, ALTHOUGH IN FACT ITS BURDEN HAS BEEN "PASSED ON"
TO ANOTHER, THE CONTENTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  WHILE THE TAXPAYER WAS
UNDOUBTEDLY HURT WHEN HE PAID THE TAX, IF HE HAS OBTAINED RELIEF
THROUGH THE SHIFTING OF ITS BURDEN, HE IS NO LONGER IN A POSITION TO
CLAIM AN ACTUAL INJURY AND THE REFUSAL OF A REFUND IN SUCH A CASE
CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. 

THAT QUESTION WAS DECIDED IN UNITED STATES V. JEFFERSON ELECTRIC CO.,
291 U.S. 386, AND THE CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE AS TO BURDEN OF PROOF WAS
DECLARED.  THERE, ACTIONS AT LAW HAD BEEN BROUGHT, ONE AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES AND OTHERS AGAINST A REVENUE COLLECTOR, TO RECOVER MONEY
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY EXACTED AS AN EXCISE TAX.  THE GROUND OF
ILLEGALITY WAS THAT THE SALES, WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE TAXES WERE
LAID, WERE NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE TAX STATUTE.  THE QUESTION
CONCERNED THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE ACTIONS IN VIEW
OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 424 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928 RELATING TO
REFUNDS.  PROPERLY CONSTRUED, THAT PROVISION WAS TAKEN "AS
SUBSTANTIVELY LIMITING THE RIGHT TO A REFUND OF TAXES OF THE DESIGNATED
CLASS TO INSTANCES WHERE THE TAXPAYER EITHER HAS NOT DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY COLLECTED THE TAX FROM THE PURCHASER OR HAVING SO COLLECTED
IT HAS RETURNED IT TO HIM."  THIS "SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATION" WAS DEEMED
TO BE "AN ELEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO A REFUND OF SUCH TAXES," ALTHOUGH
THEY WERE WHOLLY INVALID AND NOT MERELY LAID IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS
LAWFUL, AND HENCE THE STATUTE REQUIRED THAT THIS ELEMENT, LIKE OTHERS,
"BE SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISHED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS WHERE AN ASSERTED
RIGHT TO A REFUND IS PRESENTED FOR EXAMINATION AND DETERMINATION."  WE
HELD THAT THE PROVISION WAS APPLICABLE TO JUDICIAL AS WELL AS TO
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS FOR REFUNDS UNDER THE ACT.  ID., P. 395.  WE
RECOGNIZED THAT, UNDER THE SYSTEM THEN IN FORCE, IN VIEW OF THE
ILLEGALITY OF THE TAX, "THERE ACCRUED TO THE TAXPAYER WHEN HE PAID THE
TAX A RIGHT TO HAVE IT REFUNDED WITHOUT ANY SHOWING AS TO WHETHER HE
BORE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX OR SHIFTED IT TO THE PURCHASERS."  AND IT
WAS FURTHER CONCEDED THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 424 OF THE REVENUE ACT
OF 1928 APPLIED "TO RIGHTS ACCRUED THERETOFORE AND STILL SUBSISTING,"
AND SUBJECTED THEM TO THE RESTRICTION "THAT THE TAXPAYER (A) MUST SHOW
THAT HE ALONE HAS BORNE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX, OR (B) IF HE HAS SHIFTED
THE BURDEN TO THE PURCHASERS, MUST GIVE A BOND PROMPTLY TO USE THE
REFUNDED SUM IN REIMBURSING THEM."  ID., P. 401.  BUT WE WERE UNABLE TO
CONCLUDE THAT IN IMPOSING THIS RESTRICTION THE SECTION STRUCK DOWN
PRIOR RIGHTS OR DID MORE "THAN TO REQUIRE THAT IT BE SHOWN OR MADE
CERTAIN THAT THE MONEY WHEN REFUNDED WILL GO TO THE ONE WHO HAS BORNE
THE BURDEN OF THE ILLEGAL TAX, AND THEREFORE IS ENTITLED IN JUSTICE AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE TO SUCH RELIEF."  WE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO
INFRINGEMENT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN THAT RESTRICTION OR IN PLACING
UPON THE CLAIMANT THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  WE SAID (ID., P. 402): 

"IF THE TAXPAYER HAS BORNE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX, HE READILY CAN SHOW
IT; AND CERTAINLY THERE IS NOTHING ARBITRARY IN REQUIRING THAT HE MAKE
SUCH A SHOWING.  IF HE HAS SHIFTED THE BURDEN TO THE PURCHASERS, THEY
AND NOT HE HAVE BEEN THE ACTUAL SUFFERERS AND ARE THE REAL PARTIES IN
INTEREST; AND IN SUCH A SITUATION THERE IS NOTHING ARBITRARY IN
REQUIRING, AS A CONDITION TO REFUNDING THE TAX TO HIM, THAT HE GIVE A
BOND TO USE THE REFUNDED MONEY IN REIMBURSING THEM." 

THE OPPOSING CONTENTION WAS FOUND TO BE PARTICULARLY FAULTY IN THAT
IT OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE STATUTES PROVIDING FOR REFUNDS PROCEED
ON THE SAME EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES THAT UNDERLIE AN ACTION IN ASSUMPSIT
FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED.  THAT ACTION "AIMS AT THE ABSTRACT JUSTICE
OF THE CASE, AND LOOKS SOLELY TO THE INQUIRY, WHETHER THE DEFENDANT
HOLDS MONEY, WHICH EX AEQUO ET BONO BELONGS TO THE PLAINTIFF."  ID., P.
403. 

THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT UNDER TITLE VII, HERE INVOLVED, THERE IS NO
PROVISION FOR MAKING A REFUND TO PARTICULAR PERSONS, TO WHOM THE BURDEN
OF THE INVALID EXACTION MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN SHIFTED, PRESENTS NO
SOUND DISTINCTION SO FAR AS THE CLAIMANT IS CONCERNED.  THE CONTROLLING
PRINCIPLE IS THAT THERE IS NO DENIAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN
REQUIRING THE CLAIMANT TO SHOW, WHERE IT CAN BE SHOWN, THAT HE ALONE
HAS BORNE THE BURDEN OF THE INVALID TAX AND HAS NOT SHIFTED IT TO
OTHERS. 

APART FROM THIS QUESTION, THE GRAVAMEN OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT IS
THAT SEC. 902 DEMANDS THE IMPOSSIBLE; THAT IT SETS UP A CONDITION OF
RECOVERY WHICH IN PETITIONER'S CASE CANNOT POSSIBLY BE MET.  THAT IS,
THAT THE STATUTE NOT ONLY REQUIRES THE CLAIMANT TO SHOW THAT THE BURDEN
OF THE TAX HAS NOT BEEN SHIFTED, WHERE THAT CAN BE SHOWN, BUT BARS
RECOVERY WHERE IN THE NATURE OF THE CASE THAT CANNOT BE SHOWN. 
PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT IT IS WITHIN THE LATTER CLASS.  IN ITS AMENDED
COMPLAINT, PETITIONER SETS FORTH AT LENGTH THE FEATURES OF THE
OPERATION OF A COTTON MILL SUCH AS ITS OWN.  BY REASON OF THE NATURE OF
THESE OPERATIONS PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THERE IS "AN INHERENT
IMPOSSIBILITY" OF PROVING WHETHER OR TO WHAT EXTENT THE BURDEN OF THE
TAXES PAID HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO OTHERS. 

THIS ALLEGATION IS AT BEST BUT A STATEMENT OF A LEGAL CONCLUSION
WHICH MUST DEPEND UPON THE FACTS AS THEY APPEAR WHEN PROOF IS TAKEN. 
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO INSIST AS A
MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UPON TRYING OUT THE QUESTION OF
IMPOSSIBILITY IN THIS SUIT RATHER THAN IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
WHERE ALL THE PERTINENT FACTS AS TO THE COURSE OF BUSINESS MAY BE
PRESENTED AND THE CONCLUSIONS THEY REQUIRE BOTH OF FACT AND LAW MAY BE
REACHED.  THIS ASSERTION OF SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT RESTS UPON A
CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 902 TO THE EFFECT THAT IF THE FACTS, FULLY
DISCLOSED, AFFORDED NO BASIS FOR ANY DETERMINATION AS TO THE SHIFTING
OF THE BURDEN OF THE TAX, AND HENCE GAVE NO WARRANT FOR A FINDING THAT
THE BURDEN HAD BEEN SHIFTED FROM THE CLAIMANT TO OTHERS, STILL THE
STATUTE WOULD REQUIRE A DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO A REFUND.  THE CLAIMANT
WOULD THEN STAND, BY VIRTUE OF THE INJURY CAUSED BY THE PAYMENT OF THE
TAX, NOT AS ONE SEEKING RELIEF WHEN HE HAD NOT BEEN HURT, BUT AS ONE
WHO HAD BEEN HURT BY A PAYMENT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED AND WHOSE
PROVED INJURY COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN REDRESSED.  IT IS IN THAT
ASPECT THAT THE STATUTE IS ASSAILED AS LEAVING THE CLAIMANT WITHOUT
REMEDY FOR A DEPRIVATION OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

DESPITE THE BROAD LANGUAGE OF SEC. 902, WE DO NOT THINK THAT IT
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS INTENDED TO DENY A REFUND IN ANY CASE WHERE A
CLAIMANT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ENTITLED TO IT.  WE APPLY THE FAMILIAR
CANNON WHICH MAKES IT OUR DUTY, OF TWO POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTIONS, TO ADOPT
THE ONE WHICH WILL SAVE AND NOT DESTROY.  WE CANNOT ATTRIBUTE TO
CONGRESS AN INTENT TO DEFY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OR "EVEN TO COME SO NEAR
TO DOING SO AS TO RAISE A SERIOUS QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW." 
FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298, 307; PANAMA
R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375, 390; BLODGETT V. HOLDEN, 275 U.S. 142,
148.  WHEN THE CONGRESS REQUIRES THE CLAIMANT, WHO HAS PAID THE INVALID
TAX, TO SHOW THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN REIMBURSED OR HAS NOT SHIFTED ITS
BURDEN, THE PROVISION SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS DEMANDING THE
PERFORMANCE OF A TASK, IF ULTIMATELY FOUND TO BE INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE,
AS A CONDITION OF RELIEF TO WHICH THE CLAIMANT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
ENTITLED.  THERE IS AMPLE ROOM FOR THE PLAY OF THE STATUTE WITHIN THE
RANGE OF POSSIBLE DETERMINATIONS.  IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROOF MAY NOT BE
ASSUMED.  IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THE REQUIREMENT HAS APPROPRIATE AND
VALID EFFECT IN PLACING UPON THE CLAIMANT THE DUTY TO PRESENT FULLY ALL
THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE QUESTION OF THE SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF
THE TAX AND IN DENYING RELIEF WHERE THE FACTS JUSTIFY A CONCLUSION THAT
THE BURDEN HAS BEEN SHIFTED FROM THE CLAIMANT TO OTHERS.  WHEN THE
FACTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW TO
MAKE ITS DETERMINATION ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE CLAIMANT. 
THAT IS THE NECESSARY IMPORT OF THE PROVISION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW,
GIVING AUTHORITY TO THE REVIEWING COURT TO MODIFY OR REVERSE THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD "IF IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."  FINDINGS
THAT CAN PROPERLY BE MADE UPON THE EVIDENCE MUST THUS SUPPORT A
DECISION ACCORDING TO LEGAL RIGHT.  AND, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE REVIEWING
COURT, AND FINALLY THIS COURT, MAY DIRECT THE BOARD "TO ENTER ANY
DESIGNATED JUDGMENT"  FN3 TO WHICH THE CLAIMANT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
ENTITLED AND THE COMMISSIONER MUST REFUND THE AMOUNT THUS DETERMINED TO
BE DUE. 

IN SAYING THIS, WE ARE NOT PASSING UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF
PETITIONER TO A REFUND OR UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER IN ITS CASE THE
SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF THE TAX IS OR IS NOT "SUSCEPTIBLE OF PROOF." 
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE NOT TO BE DECIDED HYPOTHETICALLY.  WHEN
PARTICULAR FACTS CONTROL THE DECISION THEY MUST BE SHOWN.  BORDEN'S
FARM PRODUCTS CO. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194, 208-210.  PETITIONER'S
CONTENTION AS TO IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROOF IS PREMATURE.  MANIFESTLY THERE
IS NO IMPOSSIBILITY SO FAR AS THE PRODUCTION OF PROOF OF PETITIONER'S
OPERATIONS OR COURSE OF BUSINESS IS CONCERNED.  WHAT IS MEANT BY
IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROOF IS IMPOSSIBILITY OF DETERMINATION AFTER THESE
FACTS ARE IN.  WHETHER OR NOT ANY SUCH IMPOSSIBILITY OF DETERMINATION
WILL EXIST IS A QUESTION WHICH PROPERLY SHOULD AWAIT THE ASCERTAINMENT
OF THE FACTS.  FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE IT IS SUFFICIENT TO HOLD, AND WE
DO HOLD, THAT THE PETITIONER MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE REQUIRED TO
PRESENT ALL THE PERTINENT FACTS IN THE PRESCRIBED ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING AND MAY THERE RAISE, AND ULTIMATELY MAY PRESENT FOR JUDICIAL
REVIEW, ANY LEGAL QUESTION WHICH MAY ARISE AS THE FACTS ARE DEVELOPED. 

THESE CONSIDERATIONS ALSO DISPOSE OF THE CONTENTION THAT SEC. 902 "IS
SO VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN THAT IT IS MEANINGLESS, AND THEREFORE AFFORDS NO
REMEDY."  IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CONGRESS, IN INSISTING THAT A
CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT RECOVER WHERE IT APPEARED THAT HE HAD NOT BORNE THE
BURDEN OF THE TAX, TO ATTEMPT TO FORMULATE THE CONCLUSIONS WHICH WOULD
BE APPROPRIATE UPON VARYING STATES OF FACT.  PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT,
DRAWN FROM THE WRITINGS OF ECONOMISTS, IS ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE
FUTILITY OF SUCH AN EFFORT.  THE CONGRESS COULD, AND DID, LAY DOWN A
GENERAL PRINCIPLE AND LEAVE ITS APPLICATION TO THE FACTS AS THEY WOULD
APPEAR IN PARTICULAR INSTANCES IN A PROCEEDING ADAPTED TO THEIR FULL
DISCLOSURE.  THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THUS LAID DOWN IS NO MORE VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE THAN THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE WHICH GOVERNS THE RIGHT OF
RECOVERY IN ACTIONS FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED. 

THE PRESUMPTIONS UNDER SEC. 907.  - PETITIONER ALSO CONTESTS THE
VALIDITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BECAUSE OF THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS WHICH THE STATUTE ESTABLISHES.  SECTION 907
PROVIDES, WITH RESPECT TO PROCESSING TAXES, THAT IT "SHALL BE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE BURDEN OF SUCH AMOUNT WAS BORNE BY THE CLAIMANT
TO THE EXTENT (NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX) THAT THE AVERAGE
MARGIN PER UNIT OF THE COMMODITY PROCESSED WAS LOWER DURING THE TAX
PERIOD THAN THE AVERAGE MARGIN WAS DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE AND AFTER
THE TAX"; AND THAT "IF THE AVERAGE MARGIN DURING THE TAX PERIOD WAS NOT
LOWER, IT SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT NONE OF THE BURDEN OF SUCH
AMOUNT WAS BORNE BY THE CLAIMANT BUT THAT IT WAS SHIFTED TO OTHERS." 

THE "TAX PERIOD" IS DEFINED AS THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT
ACTUALLY PAID THE TAX TO A COLLECTOR AND ENDS WITH THE LAST PAYMENT. 
THE "PERIOD BEFORE AND AFTER THE TAX" IS DEFINED AS "THE TWENTY-FOUR
MONTHS (EXCEPT THAT IN THE CASE OF TOBACCO IT SHALL BE THE TWELVE
MONTHS) IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROCESSING TAX,
AND THE SIX MONTHS, FEBRUARY TO JULY, 1936, INCLUSIVE."  PROVISION IS
MADE FOR THE COMPUTATION OF WHAT IS CALLED THE "AVERAGE MARGIN" FOR THE
RESPECTIVE PERIODS, THE "MARGIN" BEING DETERMINED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE
GROSS SALES VALUE OF ARTICLES PROCESSED THE COST OF THE COMMODITY
PROCESSED AND THE PROCESSING TAX. 

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE PRESUMPTIONS ARE ENTIRELY ARBITRARY AND
THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THERE IS A GENERAL ALLEGATION TO THAT
EFFECT IN PETITIONER'S AMENDED COMPLAINT.  BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT
THE COMPARISONS SET UP BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF OPERATIONS DURING THE
"TAX PERIOD" AND THE "PERIOD BEFORE AND AFTER THE TAX" ARE WHOLLY
IRRELEVANT.  NOR CAN IT NOW BE DETERMINED WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF
THE PRESUMPTIONS.  WHILE PETITIONER ASSAILS THEM, ITS COMPLAINT
CONTAINS NO ALLEGATION AS TO THEIR ACTUAL EFFECT IN RELATION TO
PETITIONER'S OPERATIONS.  NON CONSTAT BUT THAT THEY MAY WORK TO
PETITIONER'S ADVANTAGE.  FOR ALL THAT WE KNOW THE PRESUMPTION MAY
ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE THAT PETITIONER HAS BORNE THE BURDEN OF THE TAX. 
PETITIONER INVITES US TO ENTER INTO A PURELY SPECULATIVE INQUIRY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN
TRIED OUT AND THE EFFECT OF WHICH CANNOT NOW BE DEFINITELY PERCEIVED. 
WE MUST DECLINE THAT INVITATION AND ADHERE TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
WHICH GOVERNS OUR DETERMINATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. 
LIVERPOOL, NEW YORK & PHILADELPHIA STEAMSHIP CO. V. COMMISSIONERS, 113
U.S. 33, 39; CINCINNATI V. VESTER, 281 U.S. 439, 448, 449; ASHWANDER V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 324.    THE STATED
PRESUMPTIONS ARE REBUTTABLE.  IF THEY WORK ADVERSELY TO ITS INTERESTS,
PETITIONER WILL HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE ALL THE REBUTTING
FACTS.  SECTION 907(E) PROVIDES THAT EITHER THE CLAIMANT OR THE
COMMISSIONER MAY REBUT THE PRESUMPTIONS "BY PROOF OF THE ACTUAL EXTENT
TO WHICH THE CLAIMANT SHIFTED TO OTHERS THE BURDENS OF THE PROCESSING
TAX."  THERE FOLLOWS A DETAILED PROVISION AS TO WHAT SUCH PROOF MAY
INCLUDE.  BUT THAT PROVISION IS NOT EXCLUSIVE.  IT IS EXPRESSLY STATED
THAT THE PROOF IN REBUTTAL SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO WHAT IS THUS
DESCRIBED.  PETITIONER URGES THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT THIS PROOF
SHALL BE OF THE "ACTUAL EXTENT" TO WHICH THE BURDEN OF THE TAX HAS BEEN
SHIFTED, AND RECURS TO THE ARGUMENT AS TO THE INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF
PRODUCING SUCH PROOF.  WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID WITH RESPECT TO THAT
ARGUMENT IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CONNECTION.  WE DO NOT THINK THAT
CONGRESS WAS ATTEMPTING TO REQUIRE THE IMPOSSIBLE.  THE PERMISSIBLE,
AND WE THINK THE TRUE, CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 907(E) IS THAT THE WORDS
"ACTUAL EXTENT" ARE USED IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE PRESUMED EXTENT,
ACCORDING TO THE PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION TO WHICH THE PROOF IN REBUTTAL
IS ADDRESSED.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONTEXT, AND OF THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISION
WAS INTENDED TO AFFORD, AND DOES AFFORD, FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE
CLAIMANT TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE WHICH MAY BE PERTINENT TO THE
QUESTIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF REVIEW AND WHICH MAY BE
APPROPRIATE TO OVERCOME ANY PRESUMPTION WHICH MIGHT BE INDULGED EITHER
UNDER SEC. 907(A) OR OTHERWISE. 

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN THE CONDUCT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING. 
- PETITIONER ALSO COMPLAINS THAT UNDER SEC. 906(D) THE HEARING IS TO BE
CONDUCTED, NOT BY THE BOARD OF REVIEW, OR A DIVISION THEREOF, BUT BY A
"PRESIDING OFFICER" DESIGNATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY; AND
THAT UNDER SEC. 906(E) THE PRESIDING OFFICER IS TO RECOMMEND TO THE
BOARD, OR A DIVISION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND A DECISION.  PETITIONER
URGES THAT THE BOARD, OR ITS DIVISION, IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE
TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AND HENCE THAT THE PROCEDURE CONTEMPLATED BY
SEC. 906 DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS.  WE FIND NO
MERIT IN THESE CONTENTIONS.  THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE STATUTE WHICH
IS NECESSARILY INCONSISTENT WITH THE OBSERVANCE OF THE DUE PROCESS
REQUIRED IN HEARINGS BY ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 91; UNITED STATES V.
ABILENE & SOUTHERN RY. CO., 265 U.S. 274, 288; MORGAN V. UNITED STATES,
298 U.S. 468, 480, 481; OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMM'N, ANTE, P. 292.  "THE PROVISION FOR A HEARING IMPLIES BOTH THE
PRIVILEGE OF INTRODUCING EVIDENCE AND THE DUTY OF DECIDING IN
ACCORDANCE WITH IT."  CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 265. 
WHATEVER THE PRIVILEGE OR DUTY OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, AND WHATEVER
MAY BE HIS RECOMMENDATION, THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT "THE BOARD OR A
DIVISION SHALL MAKE ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN WRITING" AND
SHALL CERTIFY AND FILE WITH THE COURT ON JUDICIAL REVIEW A TRANSCRIPT
OF THE RECORD UPON WHICH ITS FINDINGS AND DECISION ARE BASED.  THE
COURT HAS JURISDICTION "TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OR TO
MODIFY OR REVERSE SUCH DECISION."  IF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS TAKEN "THE
BOARD MAY MODIFY ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION" BY REASON OF SUCH
EVIDENCE.  THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
PRESUPPOSES HEARING AND DETERMINATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEMANDS OF
DUE PROCESS.  THE BOARD WHICH MAKES ITS FINDINGS AND RENDERS ITS
DECISION MUST CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AND BASE ITS FINDINGS AND DECISION
UPON IT, AND UNTIL THE CONTRARY APPEARS WE MUST ASSUME THAT THE BOARD
WILL DO SO.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE AUTHORIZED PROCEDURE PROVIDES FOR A FULL AND
FAIR HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF ALL MATTERS OF FACT AND THAT, THROUGH
JUDICIAL REVIEW, IT PROVIDES FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL THE LEGAL RIGHTS
OF THE PETITIONER INCLUDING ANY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WHICH IT MAY BE
ENTITLED TO INVOKE WITH RESPECT TO THE REFUND WHICH IT SEEKS.  THE
PETITIONER MAY THUS OBTAIN THROUGH THIS PROCEEDING WHATEVER JUDGMENT
ITS CASE WARRANTS, A JUDGMENT WHICH THE GOVERNMENT, BY VIRTUE OF THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHALL MAKE REFUND ACCORDINGLY, BINDS
ITSELF TO PAY. 

THE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL IS AFFIRMED, BUT UPON THE GROUNDS STATED IN
THIS OPINION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  UPON THIS POINT THE GOVERNMENT STATES IN ITS BRIEF (PP. 104,
105): 

"THE ESTABLISHED RULE AS TO THE PROPER SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
LITIGATION CAN BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE WITH NO DANGER OF INJURY TO
PETITIONER.  IF, UPON AN APPROPRIATE RECORD AND IN THE LIGHT OF AN
ACTUAL ATTEMPT BY THE TAXPAYER TO SHOW THE INCIDENCE OF THE PROCESSING
TAX, THIS COURT SHOULD HOLD ANY PART OF TITLE VII INVALID, THE TAXPAYER
MAY RECOVER ALL OF THE TAXES TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED UNDER SUCH A
DECISION, WITH INTEREST AT 6 PER CENT PER ANNUM (SEC. 908(A); SEC.
614(A) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, C. 852, 45 STAT. 791).  FOR, WHETHER
OR NOT SECTION 902 AND SECTION 907 BE HELD INVALID, THE BOARD OF REVIEW
WOULD STILL REMAIN AS A MECHANICAL MEANS BY WHICH TO ENFORCE THE
DECISION OF A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR OF THIS COURT.  EVEN IF
PAYMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT TAXES, THE BOARD OF REVIEW WOULD
STILL HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF ANY
CLAIM, AND THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THIS COURT WOULD STILL
HAVE POWER TO DIRECT THE BOARD TO ENTER ANY DESIGNATED JUDGMENT.  AND
SUCH AMOUNT DETERMINED BY A DECISION OF THE BOARD WHICH HAS BECOME
FINAL.'" 

FN2  SEC. 902.  CONDITIONS ON ALLOWANCE OF REFUNDS. 

"NO REFUND SHALL BE MADE OR ALLOWED, IN PURSUANCE OF COURT DECISIONS
OR OTHERWISE, OF ANY AMOUNT PAID BY OR COLLECTED FROM ANY CLAIMANT AS
TAX UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT, UNLESS THE CLAIMANT
ESTABLISHES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH
REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY HIM, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, OR
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TRIAL COURT, OR THE BOARD OF REVIEW IN CASES
PROVIDED FOR UNDER SECTION 906, AS THE CASE MAY BE - 

"(A)  THAT HE BORE THE BURDEN OF SUCH AMOUNT AND HAS NOT BEEN
RELIEVED THEREOF NOR REIMBURSED THEREFOR NOR SHIFTED SUCH BURDEN,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, (1) THROUGH INCLUSION OF SUCH AMOUNT BY THE
CLAIMANT, OR BY ANY PERSON DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY UNDER HIS CONTROL, OR
HAVING CONTROL OVER HIM, OR SUBJECT TO THE SAME COMMON CONTROL, IN THE
PRICE OF ANY ARTICLE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH A TAX WAS IMPOSED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF SUCH ACT, OR IN THE PRICE OF ANY ARTICLE PROCESSED FROM
ANY COMMODITY WITH RESPECT TO WHICH A TAX WAS IMPOSED UNDER SUCH ACT,
OR IN ANY CHARGE OR FEE FOR SERVICES OR PROCESSING; (2) THROUGH
REDUCTION OF THE PRICE PAID FOR ANY SUCH COMMODITY; OR (3) IN ANY
MANNER WHATSOEVER; AND THAT NO UNDERSTANDING OR AGREEMENT, WRITTEN OR
ORAL, EXISTS WHEREBY HE MAY BE RELIEVED OF THE BURDEN OF SUCH AMOUNT,
BE REIMBURSED THEREFOR, OR MAY SHIFT THE BURDEN THEREOF, OR 

"(B)  THAT HE HAS REPAID UNCONDITIONALLY SUCH AMOUNT TO HIS VENDEE
(1) WHO BORE THE BURDEN THEREOF, (2) WHO HAS NOT BEEN RELIEVED THEREOF
NOR REIMBURSED THEREFOR, NOR SHIFTED SUCH BURDEN, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, AND (3) WHO IS NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANY REIMBURSEMENT
THEREFOR FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE, OR TO BE RELIEVED OF SUCH BURDEN IN ANY
MANNER WHATSOEVER." 

FN3  SEE NOTE 1. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO CONCUR IN THE OPINION SAVE
THAT THEY RESERVE THEIR VOTE AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY
RIGHTS OF THE TAXPAYER IN THE EVENT THAT IT SHALL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO
ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A SHIFTING OF THE TAX, AN EXAMINATION
OF THOSE RIGHTS, IN THEIR JUDGMENT, BEING UNNECESSARY NOW, SINCE
"IMPOSSIBILITY OF PROOF," IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE OPINION, "MAY NOT BE
ASSUMED." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DISSENTS. 
..END :






















CHIPPEWA INDIANS V. U.S., 301 U.S. 358 


NO. 228.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1937.  - 80 CT.
CLS. 410, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A SUIT UNDER PERMISSIVE LEGISLATION BY THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF
MINNESOTA AGAINST THE UNITED STATES, TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF 663,421
ACRES OF LAND, COMPRISING THE "DIMINISHED RED LAKE RESERVATION,"
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE ACT OF
JANUARY 14, 1889, IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND
SUBSEQUENTLY DISPOSED OF OR APPROPRIATED BY THE UNITED STATES IN
DISREGARD OF THE TRUST AND OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS, HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE QUESTION WHO HAD THE INDIAN TITLE TO THE LANDS IN THE
RED LAKE RESERVATION PRIOR TO AND AT THE TIME OF THE CESSION WAS
MATERIAL.  P. 372. 

(2)  THE INDIAN TITLE TO THE LANDS IN THE RED LAKE RESERVATION PRIOR
TO AND AT THE TIME OF THE CESSION WAS IN THE RED LAKE BANDS.  A
CONTRARY OPINION IN A REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ACCOMPANYING THE BILL WHICH, WITH AMENDMENTS, BECAME
THE ACT OF JANUARY 14, 1889, WAS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF THE
SITUATION.  P. 372. 

(3)  THE ACT OF JANUARY 14, 1889, THOUGH DECLARING THAT AS TO THE RED
LAKE RESERVATION THE CESSION SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT IF MADE BY "TWO
THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OF ALL THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN MINNESOTA,"
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, AS REQUIRING IN ADDITION THE
CONSENT OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OF THE BANDS OCCUPYING THAT
PARTICULAR RESERVATION.  P. 375. 

(4)  THE CESSION BY THE RED LAKE BANDS RESERVED ALL OF THE LANDS
DESCRIBED IN THEIR INSTRUMENT OF CESSION AS RESERVED FOR ALLOTMENTS,
NOT MERELY THE PART OF THE LANDS SO DESCRIBED WHICH WAS ACTUALLY
REQUIRED TO MAKE AND FILL ALLOTMENTS AT THE TIME.  P. 377. 

(5)  LANDS OF THE RED LAKE RESERVATION WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE
RESERVED FOR ALLOTMENTS BUT BY MUTUAL MISTAKE WERE INCLUDED IN THE
CESSION UNDER THE ACT OF 1889 AND WHICH WERE LATER ADDED TO THE
RESERVED LANDS BY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, ARE NOT, IN EQUITY, A PART OF THE
CEDED AREAS.  P. 378. 

(6)  AN ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1904, ADOPTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE RED LAKE INDIANS CEDING IN TRUST A PORTION OF
THEIR DIMINISHED RESERVATION,  - HELD OF NO AID TO THE PLAINTIFFS'
CLAIM IN THIS CASE.  P. 379. 

2.  THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL AND MANAGE THE PROPERTY OF
ITS INDIAN WARDS IS SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS; THE LANDS OF
ONE TRIBE MAY NOT BE GIVEN TO ANOTHER, NOR MAY THE GOVERNMENT DEAL WITH
THE LANDS AS ITS OWN.  P. 375. 

3.  AN ACT OF CONGRESS SHOULD NOT BE SO CONSTRUED AS TO IMPERIL ITS
VALIDITY, IF THIS MAY REASONABLY BE AVOIDED.  P. 376. 

CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS DISMISSING THE PETITION
IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF LANDS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN HELD
IN TRUST FOR THE PLAINTIFFS AND TO HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF OR
APPROPRIATED IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIANS.  THE RED LAKE
BAND OF CHIPPEWAS INTERVENED IN OPPOSITION TO THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WAS A SUIT BY THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF 663,421 ACRES OF LAND ALLEGED TO
HAVE BEEN CEDED TO THE DEFENDANT UNDER AN EXPRESS TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT
OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND SUBSEQUENTLY DISPOSED OF OR APPROPRIATED BY THE
DEFENDANT IN DISREGARD OF THE TRUST AND OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
PLAINTIFFS.  THIS 663,421 ACRES COMPRISED WHAT IS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED
AS THE DIMINISHED RED LAKE RESERVATION. 

THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT AND CONDUCTED UNDER PERMISSIVE LEGISLATION.  FN1
THE DEFENDANT TRAVERSED THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS' PETITION;
AND BY LEAVE OF COURT, AND IN VIRTUE OF AUTHORITY GIVEN IN THE
PERMISSIVE LEGISLATION, THE RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWAS INTERVENED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF OPPOSING THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM AND OF PROTECTING ITS OWN
INTERESTS.  AFTER A FULL HEARING THE COURT MADE SPECIAL FINDINGS OF
FACT AND RENDERED A JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT.  80 CT. CLS. 410.  THE
PLAINTIFFS WERE ALLOWED AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT UNDER A SPECIAL
SUPPLEMENT TO THE PERMISSIVE LEGISLATION. 

THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA, PLAINTIFFS BELOW AND APPELLANTS
HERE, COMPRISE THOSE WHO ARE DESIGNATED IN THE ACT OF JANUARY 14, 1889,
INFRA, AS "ALL THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA," OTHERWISE DESCRIBED
IN THE PERMISSIVE LEGISLATION ALREADY MENTIONED,  FN2  AS ALL WHO ARE
"ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE FINAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PERMANENT FUND"
PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 7 OF THE ACT OF 1889. 

THE FINDINGS BELOW ARE TOO LONG TO BE REPEATED HERE AND WILL BE MUCH
SUMMARIZED. 

ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE LAST CENTURY THE CHIPPEWAS CONSTITUTED ONE
OF THE LARGER INDIAN TRIBES IN THE NORTHERLY PART OF THE UNITED
STATES.  IN EARLY TREATIES THEY WERE DEALT WITH AS A SINGLE TRIBE AND
WERE SHOWN TO BE OCCUPYING A LARGE AREA REACHING FROM LAKE HURON ON THE
EAST TO AND BEYOND LAKE SUPERIOR ON THE WEST.  FN3  IN LATER TREATIES
THEY WERE REGARDED AS DIVIDED INTO DISTINCT BANDS; AND PARTICULAR BANDS
- IN SOME INSTANCES A SINGLE BAND AND IN OTHERS A LIMITED PLURALITY OF
BANDS - WERE RECOGNIZED AS OCCUPYING SEPARATE AREAS IN MICHIGAN,
WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA AND EASTERN DAKOTA, AND AS ENTITLED TO HOLD OR
CEDE THE SAME INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER BANDS AND OF THE CHIPPEWAS AS A
WHOLE.  FN4  SOME OF THE BANDS BECAME PERMANENTLY SETTLED IN MICHIGAN
AND WISCONSIN.  OTHERS - USUALLY AS A SINGLE BAND AND EXCEPTIONALLY AS
A GROUP OF A FEW BANDS - BECAME THE RECOGNIZED OCCUPANTS AND HOLDERS OF
TWELVE SEPARATE RESERVATIONS IN MINNESOTA.  IT IS TO THESE MINNESOTA
BANDS AND RESERVATIONS THAT THIS SUIT RELATES. 

ONE OF THE BANDS IN MINNESOTA WAS THE RED LAKE WHICH HAD COME TO
INCLUDE OR BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PEMBINA BAND.  FOR A LONG PERIOD
THESE TWO BANDS HAD BEEN THE EXCLUSIVE OCCUPANTS OF THE RED LAKE
RESERVATION, THE LARGEST OF ALL.  THE NEXT LARGEST RESERVATION WAS THE
WHITE EARTH.  ITS OCCUPANTS WERE MOSTLY MEMBERS OF THE MISSISSIPPI
BANDS; BUT SOME MEMBERS OF THE LATTER WERE OCCUPYING OLDER RESERVATIONS
WHICH THE WHITE EARTH HAD BEEN DESIGNED TO DISPLACE.  THIS RESERVATION
CONTAINED AN UNUSUAL PROPORTION OF LAND WELL SUITED FOR INDIVIDUAL
INDIAN ALLOTMENTS; AND A SMALL PART OF IT HAD BEEN ALLOTTED TO
INDIVIDUAL INDIANS.  THE TEN SMALLER RESERVATIONS REQUIRE NO OTHER
SPECIAL MENTION THAN THAT SOME OF THE INDIANS BELONGING TO THEM HAD
RECEIVED INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENTS IN THEM. 

BY AN ACT OF JANUARY 14, 1889, C. 24, 25 STAT. 642, CONGRESS PROPOSED
TO ALL BANDS OF CHIPPEWAS IN MINNESOTA A PLAN FOR THEIR RELIEF AND
CIVILIZATION THROUGH ALLOTMENTS IN SEVERALTY, CESSION AND SALE OF LANDS
NOT REQUIRED FOR ALLOTMENTS, PLACING THE PROCEEDS OF SALES, LESS
VARIOUS EXPENSES, IN A PERMANENT INTEREST BEARING FUND AS HEREINAFTER
STATED, USING THE INTEREST FOR THE SUPPORT AND EDUCATION OF THESE
INDIANS, AND ULTIMATELY DISTRIBUTING PER CAPITA THE PRINCIPAL OF THE
FUND. 

THE ACT CREATED A COMMISSION TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE DIFFERENT BANDS
FOR A COMPLETE CESSION TO THE UNITED STATES OF THEIR TITLE AND RIGHT TO
ALL OF EACH RESERVATION, "EXCEPT THE WHITE EARTH AND RED LAKE
RESERVATIONS, AND TO ALL AND SO MUCH OF THESE TWO RESERVATIONS AS IN
THE JUDGMENT OF SAID COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE AND FILL THE
ALLOTMENTS REQUIRED BY THIS AND EXISTING ACTS, AND SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN
RESERVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS FOR SAID PURPOSES." 

THE CESSION WAS TO BE MADE FOR THE PURPOSES AND UPON THE TERMS STATED
IN THE ACT AND WAS TO BE SUFFICIENT AS TO EACH RESERVATION, EXCEPT THE
RED LAKE, IF MADE IN WRITING BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OVER
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE IN THE BAND OCCUPYING AND BELONGING TO SUCH
RESERVATION, AND AS TO THE RED LAKE WAS TO BE SUFFICIENT IF MADE IN
LIKE MANNER "BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OF ALL THE CHIPPEWA
INDIANS IN MINNESOTA."  ALL CESSION AGREEMENTS WERE TO BECOME EFFECTIVE
IF AND WHEN APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT. 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING WHETHER THE PROPER NUMBER OF INDIANS
JOINED IN THE CESSION, AND FOR THE FURTHER PURPOSE OF MAKING ALLOTMENTS
AND PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUAL INDIANS, THE ACT REQUIRED THE COMMISSIONERS
TO MAKE AN ACCURATE CENSUS OF EACH BAND, CLASSIFYING THE MEMBERS AS
MALE AND FEMALE ADULTS AND MALE AND FEMALE MINORS, AND FURTHER
CLASSIFYING THE MINORS INTO THOSE WHO WERE AND THOSE WHO WERE NOT
ORPHANS. 

AS SOON AS THE CENSUS WAS TAKEN AND THE CESSION OBTAINED AND
APPROVED, ALL OF THE CHIPPEWAS IN MINNESOTA, EXCEPT THOSE ON THE RED
LAKE RESERVATION, WERE TO BE REMOVED TO THE WHITE EARTH RESERVATION;
AND AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE ALLOTMENTS IN SEVERALTY WERE TO BE MADE ON
THE RED LAKE RESERVATION TO THE INDIANS BELONGING TO THAT RESERVATION,
AND ON THE WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TO ALL OF THE OTHER CHIPPEWA INDIANS
IN MINNESOTA - ALL ALLOTMENTS TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ACT AND WITH
ANOTHER DESIGNATED STATUTE.  FN5  THESE PROVISIONS FOR ALLOTMENTS WERE
QUALIFIED BY OTHER PROVISIONS TO THE EFFECT, FIRST, THAT NO EXISTING
ALLOTMENT IN ANY OF THE RESERVATIONS SHOULD BE DISTURBED, EXCEPT WITH
THE ALLOTTEE'S INDIVIDUAL CONSENT; SECONDLY, THAT EXISTING ALLOTMENTS
IN THE WHITE EARTH RESERVATION WERE RATIFIED AND SHOULD BE ADJUSTED IN
TENURE, CONDITIONS AND QUANTITY TO THE ALLOTMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN THE
ACT; AND, THIRDLY, THAT ANY INDIAN ON ANY OF THE RESERVATIONS MIGHT IN
HIS DISCRETION TAKE HIS ALLOTMENT UNDER THE ACT ON THE RESERVATION
WHERE HE WAS SO RESIDING, INSTEAD OF BEING REMOVED TO AND TAKING AN
ALLOTMENT ON THE WHITE EARTH RESERVATION. 

AS SOON AS THE CESSION WAS OBTAINED AND APPROVED THE LANDS CEDED TO
THE UNITED STATES WERE TO BE SURVEYED; AND AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER
THE SURVEY THE LANDS SO CEDED WERE TO BE EXAMINED AND CLASSIFIED AS
PINE LANDS OR AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AND SUCH AS WERE CLASSIFIED AS PINE
LANDS WERE TO BE APPRAISED WITH PARTICULAR REGARD TO THE QUANTITY AND
QUALITY OF THE PINE, AND WERE TO BE SOLD BY THE UNITED STATES AT PUBLIC
AUCTION, FOR CASH, AT NOT LESS THAN THE APPRAISED VALUE, IN FORTY-ACRE
OR SMALLER PARCELS. 

THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS "NOT ALLOTTED UNDER THIS ACT NOR RESERVED FOR
THE FUTURE USE OF SAID INDIANS" WERE TO BE DISPOSED OF BY THE UNITED
STATES TO ACTUAL SETTLERS UNDER THE HOMESTEAD LAW AT ONE DOLLAR AND
TWENTY-FIVE CENTS AN ACRE, TO BE PAID IN FIVE EQUAL ANNUAL
INSTALMENTS. 

AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 7 OF THE ACT, ALL MONEY ACCRUING FROM THE
DISPOSAL OF THE CEDED LANDS, AFTER DEDUCTING ENUMERATED EXPENSES, WAS
TO BE PLACED IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE CREDIT OF "ALL
THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA" AS A PERMANENT INTEREST
BEARING FUND FOR THE PERIOD OF FIFTY YEARS.  THE INTEREST WAS TO BE
USED FOR THE SUPPORT AND EDUCATION OF SUCH INDIANS, AND AT THE END OF
THE FIFTY YEARS THE PERMANENT FUND WAS TO BE DIVIDED AND PAID TO "ALL
OF SAID CHIPPEWA INDIANS AND THEIR ISSUE THEN LIVING" IN CASH AND EQUAL
SHARES, SUBJECT TO A RESERVED POWER IN CONGRESS TO MAKE LIMITED
APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE FUND DURING THE FIFTY YEAR PERIOD FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROMOTING CIVILIZATION AND SELF-SUPPORT AMONG THESE
INDIANS. 

UNDER THE ACT OF 1889 THE COMMISSION, BESIDES MAKING THE REQUIRED
CENSUS, CONDUCTED SEPARATE NEGOTIATIONS WITH EACH OF THE BANDS WITH THE
FOLLOWING RESULTS: 

1.  THE RED LAKE AND PEMBINA BANDS (SOMETIMES SPOKEN OF COLLECTIVELY
AS THE RED LAKE BAND OR RED LAKE INDIANS), OCCUPYING AND BELONGING TO
THE RED LAKE RESERVATION, CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES, FOR THE PURPOSES
AND UPON THE TERMS STATED IN THE ACT, THEIR TITLE AND RIGHT TO ALL OF
THAT RESERVATION, SAVE A DESIGNATED TRACT CONTAINING 661,118 ACRES
WHICH THE COMMISSION "RESERVED" FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AND FILLING
ALLOTMENTS TO THEM.  THE CESSION WAS MADE BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT
SHOWING WHAT LANDS WERE RESERVED, AND BEARING THE ASSENT OF MORE THAN
TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OVER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE IN THOSE
BANDS. 

2.  THE BANDS OCCUPYING AND BELONGING TO THE WHITE EARTH RESERVATION,
BY A LIKE INSTRUMENT BEARING A LIKE ASSENT, CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES
THEIR TITLE AND RIGHT TO ALL OF THAT RESERVATION, SAVE A SPECIFIED
TRACT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD RESERVED FOR ALLOTMENTS.  THE INSTRUMENT
MAKING THIS CESSION CONTAINED A FURTHER CESSION BY SUCH BANDS OF THEIR
TITLE AND RIGHT TO "ALL AND SO MUCH OF THE RED LAKE RESERVATION AS IS
NOT REQUIRED AND RESERVED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SAID ACT TO MAKE AND
FILL THE ALLOTMENTS TO THE RED LAKE INDIANS IN QUANTITY AND MANNER AS
THEREIN PROVIDED." 

3.  AS TO EACH OF THE OTHER TEN RESERVATIONS THE BAND OCCUPYING AND
BELONGING TO IT, BY A LIKE INSTRUMENT BEARING A LIKE ASSENT, CEDED THE
WHOLE OF SUCH RESERVATION TO THE UNITED STATES, AND INCLUDED IN THE
INSTRUMENT A FURTHER CESSION RESPECTING THE RED LAKE RESERVATION SUCH
AS WAS INCLUDED IN THE CESSION BY THE INDIANS OF THE WHITE EARTH
RESERVATION. 

4.  THE CESSION OF SO MUCH OF THE RED LAKE RESERVATION AS WAS NOT
REQUIRED AND RESERVED FOR ALLOTMENTS HAD THE WRITTEN ASSENT NOT ONLY OF
TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OVER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE IN THE BANDS
OF THAT RESERVATION, BUT ALSO OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OF SUCH
AGE OF ALL THE CHIPPEWAS IN MINNESOTA. 

AFTER MAKING THE CENSUS AND OBTAINING THE CESSIONS THE COMMISSION
TRANSMITTED, THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR A REPORT ACCOMPANIED BY THE CENSUS, THE
INSTRUMENTS OF CESSION, AND A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE SEVERAL BANDS AS STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED.  IN ITS REPORT THE
COMMISSION STATED THAT THE TRACT RESERVED BY IT FROM THE RED LAKE
RESERVATION FOR ALLOTMENTS TO THE RED LAKE INDIANS, OF WHICH THERE WERE
THEN 1,168, CONTAINED 661,118 ACRES, AND THAT "THIS IS LARGER THAN THEY
WILL EVENTUALLY REQUIRE, BUT AS THERE ARE SWAMPS AND OTHER UNTILLABLE
LANDS THEREIN, IT CANNOT BE REDUCED UNTIL AFTER SURVEY AND ALLOTMENTS
SHALL BE MADE." 

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TRANSMITTED THE COMMISSION'S REPORT AND
THE ACCOMPANYING PAPERS TO THE PRESIDENT FOR CONSIDERATION BY HIM; AND
ON MARCH 4, 1890, THE PRESIDENT APPROVED EACH INSTRUMENT OF CESSION AND
ON THE SAME DAY TRANSMITTED TO THE CONGRESS FOR ITS INFORMATION A
STATEMENT OF HIS APPROVAL, TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THE COMMISSION'S
REPORT AND OF ALL ACCOMPANYING PAPERS EXCEPT THE CENSUS ROLLS.  FN6 

BY AN ACT OF AUGUST 19, 1890, C. 807, 26 STAT. 336, 357, CONGRESS
RECOGNIZED THE CESSIONS, AS SO APPROVED, BY MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO
CARRY OUT SUCH PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1889 AS WERE TO BE GIVEN EFFECT
IF AND WHEN THE CESSIONS WERE OBTAINED AND APPROVED. 

IN INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED TO THE COMMISSION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
INDIAN AFFAIRS, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,
BEFORE THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION WAS BEGUN, IT WAS SAID: 

"IT HAS NOT HERETOFORE BEEN CLAIMED BY ANYONE, AND SO FAR AS THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THIS OFFICE EXTENDS, AND CERTAINLY NOT BY THE INDIANS
THEMSELVES, THAT THE RED LAKE RESERVATION IS THE COMMON PROPERTY OF ALL
THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN MINNESOTA.  NONE BUT THE RED LAKE AND PEMBINA
BANDS HAVE EVER CLAIMED AN INTEREST IN SAID RESERVATION, AND SAID BANDS
HAVE ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED AND REGARDED AS THE SOLE OWNERS BY RIGHT OF
ORIGINAL INDIAN OCCUPANCY, THE LANDS HAVING NEVER BEEN CEDED TO THE
UNITED STATES."  AND THE COMMISSION WAS FURTHER INSTRUCTED THAT IT WAS
"NECESSARY TO EXERCISE GREAT CARE TO RESERVE A SUFFICIENT AREA OF LAND
TO MAKE THE REQUIRED ALLOTMENTS"; AND ALSO THAT "THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
TRACTS SO RESERVED  ...  MUST BE DEFINITELY DETERMINED AND FIXED AND
ACCURATELY DESCRIBED SO THAT THE INDIANS  ...  (WILL KNOW) JUST WHAT
AND HOW MUCH LAND THEY ARE PARTING WITH."   THE MINUTES OF THE
NEGOTIATIONS BY THE COMMISSION WITH THE INDIANS OF THE RED LAKE
RESERVATION SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION ASSURED THESE INDIANS THAT THE
LAND WHICH IT WOULD RESERVE OUT OF THAT RESERVATION WOULD BELONG TO
THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN; THAT ENOUGH LAND WOULD BE RESERVED FOR THEM
AND THEIR DESCENDANTS FOR ALL PURPOSES; THAT NO OTHER INDIANS WOULD
HAVE ANY RIGHT THEREIN; AND THAT NO ALLOTMENTS WOULD BE MADE
IMMEDIATELY OUT OF THE LAND RESERVED.  THE MINUTES FURTHER SHOW THAT A
LINE WAS DRAWN ON PAPER WHICH THE INDIANS SAID MARKED THE RESERVATION
WHICH THEY WISHED TO HAVE; THAT AFTER FURTHER CONSULTATIONS BETWEEN THE
COMMISSIONERS AND THE INDIANS THE LINE MARKING THE PART TO BE RESERVED
WAS AGREED UPON; AND ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS THEN SAID THERE WAS SOME
DOUBT WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WOULD APPROVE OF THEIR YIELDING SO MUCH,
BUT "WE WILL DO THE BEST WE CAN."  FROM THE EVIDENCE AS A WHOLE THE
COURT BELOW FOUND THAT "THE STATEMENTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS AT THE
COUNCIL MEETING PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT (INSTRUMENT OF
CESSION) WERE SUCH THAT THE RED LAKE INDIANS WOULD AND DID UNDERSTAND
THEREFROM THAT THEY WERE NOT CEDING ANY PORTION OF THEIR LANDS WHICH IN
THE AGREEMENT WAS SPECIFIED AS RESERVED." 

NOVEMBER 8, 1892, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION, IN A LETTER TO THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, STATED IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE COMMISSION
HAD USED AN UNOFFICIAL MAP TO GUIDE IT AND THE INDIANS IN BOUNDING AND
DESCRIBING THE LAND WHICH WAS BEING RESERVED FROM THE RED LAKE
RESERVATION; THAT THIS MAP WAS FAULTY AND MISLEADING IN RESPECT OF THE
LOWER RED LAKE AROUND WHICH PART OF THE TRACT INTENDED TO BE RESERVED
WAS LOCATED; AND THAT TO "PRESERVE FAITH WITH THE INDIANS" HE
RECOMMENDED THAT CERTAIN DESCRIBED LANDS OMITTED FROM THE RESERVATION
MADE BY THE COMMISSION "BE RESERVED FROM SALE AND ADDED TO SAID
RESERVATION."  IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HIS RECOMMENDATION HE SAID "IT WAS
WITH GREAT RELUCTANCE THAT THEY (THE INDIANS) GAVE UP ANY PART OF THE
UPPER LAKE, AND IF ANY PART OF THE LOWER LAKE SHALL BE TAKEN FROM THEM
THEY WILL THINK THEY WERE DECEIVED OR ADVANTAGE TAKEN OF THEIR
IGNORANCE."  THIS LETTER WAS LAID BEFORE THE PRESIDENT WITH APPROVING
LETTERS FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR, AND ON NOVEMBER 21, 1892, THE PRESIDENT MADE AN EXECUTIVE
ORDER RESERVING THE DESCRIBED LANDS FROM SALE AND ADDING THEM TO THE
RESERVATION MADE BY THE COMMISSION.  THE ADDED LANDS COMPRISED 2,303
ACRES THERETOFORE INCLUDED, APPARENTLY UNINTENTIONALLY, IN THE CESSION
BY THE RED LAKE INDIANS. 

CONTINUOUSLY SINCE THE MAKING OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THE LANDS
THEREBY ADDED TO THE RESERVATION MADE BY THE COMMISSION HAVE BEEN
TREATED BY THE UNITED STATES AS A PART OF THAT RESERVATION, AND THE
RESERVATION AS THUS CHANGED OR CORRECTED HAS BEEN KNOWN AS THE
DIMINISHED RED LAKE RESERVATION. 

NO ALLOTMENTS IN SEVERALTY HAVE AS YET BEEN MADE ON THIS DIMINISHED
RESERVATION, BECAUSE THE RED LAKE INDIANS HAVE THUS FAR OPPOSED THE
PRESENT MAKING OF SUCH ALLOTMENTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS HAVE
NOT AS YET CONSIDERED IT PRACTICABLE TO MAKE THEM. 

BY AN ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1904, C. 161, 33 STAT. 46, 48, CONGRESS
MODIFIED AND ADOPTED AN AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BY AN UNITED STATES INDIAN
INSPECTOR WITH THE RED LAKE INDIANS WHEREBY THE LATTER CEDED TO THE
UNITED STATES A TRACT CONTAINING 256,152 ACRES OUT OF THE DIMINISHED
RED LAKE RESERVATION.  THIS CESSION WAS IN TRUST THAT THE LANDS BE SOLD
BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE PROCEEDS BE PLACED IN THE TREASURY OF THE
UNITED STATES IN A TRUST FUND TO THE CREDIT OF THE RED LAKE INDIANS AND
BE PAID TO THEM IN STATED INSTALLMENTS.  ARTICLES 4 AND 5 OF THE
AGREEMENT DECLARED: 

"IT IS FURTHER AGREED THAT THE SAID INDIANS BELONGING ON THE SAID RED
LAKE INDIAN RESERVATION, MINNESOTA, SHALL POSSESS THEIR DIMINISHED
RESERVATION INDEPENDENT OF ALL OTHER BANDS OF THE CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF
INDIANS AND SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALLOTMENTS THEREON OF ONE HUNDRED AND
SIXTY ACRES EACH, OF EITHER AGRICULTURAL OR PINE LAND, THE DIFFERENT
CLASSES OF LAND TO BE APPORTIONED AS EQUITABLY AS POSSIBLE AMONG THE
ALLOTTEES." 

"IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED
TO DEPRIVE THE SAID INDIANS BELONGING ON THE RED LAKE INDIAN
RESERVATION, MINNESOTA, OF ANY BENEFITS TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED
UNDER EXISTING TREATIES OR AGREEMENTS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.  IT IS THE INTENTION OF THIS AGREEMENT
THAT THE UNITED STATES SHALL ACT AS TRUSTEE FOR SAID INDIANS TO DISPOSE
OF SAID LAND AND TO EXPEND AND PAY OVER THE PROCEEDS AS RECEIVED FROM
THE SALE THEREOF ONLY AS RECEIVED, AS HEREIN PROVIDED." 

THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN HOLDING AND NOW HOLDS THE DIMINISHED RED
LAKE RESERVATION AND ALL MONIES DERIVED THEREFROM, FOR THE SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF THE RED LAKE INDIANS, AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA, WHO BROUGHT THIS SUIT. 

THE TRACT RESERVED BY THE COMMISSION OUT OF THE RED LAKE RESERVATION
AT THE TIME OF THE CESSION UNDER THE ACT OF 1889 CONTAINED 661,118
ACRES.  THE LANDS ADDED TO THIS RESERVED TRACT BY THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
OF NOVEMBER 21, 1892, COMPRISED 2,303 ACRES, MAKING THE SO-CALLED
DIMINISHED RED LAKE RESERVATION CONTAIN 663,421 ACRES.  THE TRACT CEDED
FROM THIS DIMINISHED RESERVATION BY THE RED LAKE INDIANS IN THE
AGREEMENT EMBODIED IN THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1904, CONTAINED 256,152
ACRES. 

THE NUMBER OF RED LAKE INDIANS BELONGING TO THE RED LAKE RESERVATION
WAS, ON MARCH 4, 1890, 1,168; ON FEBRUARY 20, 1904, 1,418; ON FEBRUARY
26, 1927, THE DATE OF SUIT, 1,736; AND, IN 1932, 1,881. 

IN MANY ACTS PASSED SINCE MARCH 4, 1890, AND CITED IN FINDINGS 34, 35
AND 36 OF THE COURT BELOW (80 CT. CLS. 410, 455-458), CONGRESS HAS
RECOGNIZED THE RED LAKE INDIANS AS ENTITLED, EXCLUSIVE OF OTHER
CHIPPEWAS, TO THE DIMINISHED RED LAKE RESERVATION AND TO ALL PROCEEDS
THEREFROM. 

OTHER MATTERS SHOWN IN THE FINDINGS WILL BE MENTIONED LATER ON. 

THE CLAIMS PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS' PETITION AND PRESSED IN THE
COURT BELOW WERE OVERLAPPING IN PART AND SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE EFFECT,
FIRST, THAT THE LANDS RESERVED BY THE COMMISSION OUT OF THE RED LAKE
RESERVATION WERE ONLY TEMPORARILY RESERVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING
ALLOTMENTS TO THE RED LAKE INDIANS AT THE TIME, IN THE QUANTITY AND OF
THE CHARACTER SPECIFIED IN THE ACT OF 1889; THAT SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH
FILLING OF THESE ALLOTMENTS THE LANDS RESERVED WERE INCLUDED IN THE
CESSION AND BECAME PART OF THE ESTATE WHICH THE UNITED STATES WAS TO
HOLD IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN MINNESOTA;
AND THAT BY SUBSEQUENTLY FAILING TO MAKE ANY ALLOTMENTS FROM THE
RESERVED LANDS AND PERMANENTLY APPROPRIATING ALL OF THEM, THROUGH THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1904, TO THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE RED LAKE
INDIANS, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER CHIPPEWAS, THE UNITED STATES
WRONGFULLY DISPOSED OF THE LANDS IN DISREGARD OF ITS TRUST OBLIGATIONS
AND OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS, AND THEREBY BECAME LIABLE TO THE
PLAINTIFFS FOR THE VALUE OF THE LANDS, OR AT LEAST FOR THE VALUE OF
SUCH OF THEM AS WERE NOT NEEDED TO FILL THE ALLOTMENTS WHICH WERE TO BE
MADE FROM THEM; SECONDLY, THAT BY ADDING TO THE RESERVED LANDS, THROUGH
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, 2,303 ACRES WHICH HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE
CESSION, THE UNITED STATES WRONGFULLY WITHDREW THE ADDED LANDS FROM THE
TRUST ESTATE AND APPROPRIATED THEM TO THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE RED
LAKE INDIANS, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER CHIPPEWAS, THEREBY BECOMING
LIABLE TO THE PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR VALUE; AND, THIRDLY, THAT BY THE ACT
OF FEBRUARY 20, 1904, THE UNITED STATES WRONGFULLY TOOK 256,152 ACRES
OF THE RESERVED LANDS FROM THE TRUST ESTATE AND APPLIED THEM TO A NEW
AND DIFFERENT TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RED LAKE INDIANS, TO THE
EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER CHIPPEWAS, AND THEREBY BECAME LIABLE TO THE
PLAINTIFFS FOR THE VALUE OF SUCH OF THEM AS WERE NOT SOLD AND FOR THE
PROCEEDS FROM SUCH AS WERE SOLD. 

FROM THE FINDINGS MADE AND FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF
CESSION AND OF THE TREATIES, STATUTES AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO
IN THE FINDINGS, THE COURT BELOW REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT UP TO THE
TIME OF THE CESSION UNDER THE ACT OF 1889 THE RED LAKE INDIANS HAD THE
FULL INDIAN TITLE TO THE RED LAKE RESERVATION, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL
OTHER CHIPPEWAS; THAT THE LANDS RESERVED BY THE COMMISSION WERE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE CESSION, BUT EXPLICITLY RESERVED THEREFROM, AND
THEREFORE THE INDIAN TITLE TO THEM REMAINED IN THE RED LAKE INDIANS;
THAT THE LANDS WHICH THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ADDED TO THOSE WHICH WERE SO
RESERVED WERE BY MUTUAL MISTAKE INCLUDED IN THE CESSION INSTEAD OF
BEING INCLUDED IN THOSE RESERVED, AND THEREFORE THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
SHOULD BE REGARDED AS HAVING APPROPRIATELY CORRECTED THAT MISTAKE AND
MADE EFFECTIVE THE TRUE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES; AND THAT IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES THE PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT INJURED OR ENTITLED TO RECOVER BY
REASON OF ANY OF THE MATTERS COMPLAINED OF, AND THEIR PETITION SHOULD
BE DISMISSED. 

1.  COMPLAINT IS MADE OF THE ACTION OF THE COURT IN REGARDING THE
INDIAN TITLE TO THE LANDS IN THE RED LAKE RESERVATION PRIOR TO AND AT
THE TIME OF THE CESSION AS MATERIAL.  PLAINLY THE COMPLAINT IS WITHOUT
MERIT.  WHETHER THE TITLE WAS IN THE RED LAKE BANDS ALONE OR IN ALL OF
THE MINNESOTA BANDS HAS A MATERIAL BEARING ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND
EFFECT OF THE CESSION, AND ALSO ON THE QUESTION OF WHO, AFTER THE
CESSION, HAD THE TITLE TO THE LANDS RESERVED. 

2.  COMPLAINT IS NEXT MADE OF THE HOLDING THAT THE INDIAN TITLE PRIOR
TO AND AT THE TIME OF THE CESSION WAS IN THE RED LAKE BANDS.  WHILE
THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN SOME DIVERSITY OF OPINION ON THIS QUESTION,
WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE COURT'S SOLUTION OF IT IS RIGHT.  FOR A LONG
PERIOD THE RED LAKE BANDS HAD BEEN IN THE EXCLUSIVE OCCUPANCY OF THE
LANDS IN THE RED LAKE RESERVATION.  NONE OF THE OTHER MINNESOTA BANDS
DISPUTED THIS OCCUPANCY OR THE RIGHT TO IT.  SOME HAD IN TREATIES
RELINQUISHED ALL RIGHT TO AREAS WHICH INCLUDED THAT RESERVATION,  FN7
AND OTHERS HAD RECOGNIZED THE OCCUPANCY AND TITLE OF THE RED LAKE BANDS
BY BOTH CEDING AND ACCEPTING ADJACENT LANDS EXPRESSLY DESCRIBED AS
BOUNDED ON "THE LINE OF THE RED LAKE RESERVATION."  FN8  THE OFFICERS
OF THE UNITED STATES CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
ALSO HAD RECOGNIZED, REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY, THE OCCUPANCY AND
TITLE OF THE RED LAKE BANDS.  TYPICAL OF SUCH RECOGNITIONS IS A LETTER
OF JANUARY 8, 1889, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WHICH WAS
WRITTEN WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR THE
INFORMATION OF THE PRESIDENT.  IN THE LETTER IT WAS SAID:  "NONE OF THE
INDIANS IN THAT STATE, EXCEPT THE RED LAKE INDIANS, HAVE ANY RIGHT,
TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE RED LAKE RESERVATION." 

THE RECOGNITION OF A CHIPPEWA BAND AS HAVING TITLE TO A RESERVATION
OCCUPIED BY IT WAS NOT CONFINED TO THE RED LAKE BANDS OR TO THE RED
LAKE RESERVATION.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT HAD LONG BEEN THE SETTLED RULE
IN RESPECT OF THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN MINNESOTA THAT A BAND OR BANDS
OCCUPYING A SEPARATE RESERVATION SHOULD BE REGARDED AND DEALT WITH AS
HAVING THE FULL INDIAN TITLE TO THE LANDS THEREIN.  THE INDIANS BOTH
RECOGNIZED AND GAVE EFFECT TO THE RULE.  MANY CESSIONS WERE NEGOTIATED
AND CARRIED OUT IN CONFORMITY WITH IT.  THE BAND OR BANDS OCCUPYING A
RESERVATION CEDED IT IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT ANY PARTICIPATION BY
OTHER BANDS AND RECEIVED AND ENJOYED THE COMPENSATION WITHOUT SHARING
IT WITH OTHERS.  UNDER THE RULE EACH OF THE BANDS EXISTING IN 1889 HAD
THERETOFORE MADE CESSIONS AND RECEIVED PAY THEREFOR QUITE INDEPENDENTLY
OF THE OTHER BANDS.  BY A TREATY OF OCTOBER 2, 1863, 13 STAT. 667, THE
UNITED STATES NEGOTIATED A TREATY WITH THE RED LAKE AND PEMBINA BANDS
WHEREBY THESE BANDS CEDED TO THE UNITED STATES A DESCRIBED PART OF THE
LANDS THEN "OWNED AND CLAIMED BY THEM," AND THE UNITED STATES, IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE CESSION, AGREED TO PAY "TO THE SAID RED LAKE AND
PEMBINA BANDS" A STATED SUM PER ANNUM FOR A LIMITED PERIOD.  IN ARTICLE
6 OF THE TREATY THE LANDS NOT CEDED WERE CALLED "THE RESERVATION," AND
THEREAFTER WERE REGARDED BY THE UNITED STATES AND THE INDIANS AS
CONSTITUTING THE RED LAKE RESERVATION.  FN9  THE TREATY OF 1863 WAS
CONFIRMED, WITH MODIFICATIONS NOT MATERIAL HERE, BY A TREATY OF APRIL
12, 1864, WITH THE SAME INDIANS, 13 STAT. 689.  NO OTHER BAND
PARTICIPATED IN THAT CESSION OR SHARED, OR SOUGHT TO SHARE, IN THE
COMPENSATION. 

THIS ARRAY OF MATTERS MAKING STRONGLY FOR FULL INDIAN TITLE IN THE
RED LAKE BANDS PRIOR TO AND AT THE TIME OF THE CESSION OF 1889
ENCOUNTERS DIRECT CONTRADICTION IN THE REPORT MADE TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES BY ITS COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS WHEN PRESENTING THE
BILL WHICH, AFTER MANY AMENDMENTS, BECAME THE ACT OF 1889.  FN10  IN
THAT REPORT IT WAS SAID: 

"ALL OF THE INDIANS IN MINNESOTA ARE MEMBERS OF THE GREAT CHIPPEWA
FAMILY, WHICH HAS FOR GENERATIONS OCCUPIED THE NORTHERN AND
NORTHEASTERN HALF OF THE STATE.  THERE ARE NOW IN ALL ABOUT 7,500 OF
THESE INDIANS, WHO OCCUPY RESERVATIONS AND UNCEDED LANDS AMOUNTING IN
THE AGGREGATE TO ABOUT 4,700,000 ACRES OF LAND. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE SO-CALLED RED LAKE RESERVATION IS SIMPLY A REMNANT OF UNCEDED
INDIAN TERRITORY OCCUPIED AT PRESENT BY THE RED LAKE BAND, BUT REALLY
THE COMMON PROPERTY, SO FAR AS THE INDIAN TITLE IS CONCERNED, OF ALL
THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN MINNESOTA. 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"ALL THE CHIPPEWAS IN MINNESOTA REALLY BELONG TO ONE FAMILY, AND THIS
RED LAKE RESERVATION IS REALLY A REMNANT OF ALL THAT COUNTRY ONCE
OCCUPIED BY THEM IN COMMON, AND THUS A SORT OF COMMON PROPERTY." 

IN SO FAR AS THE COMMITTEE REPORT STATES THAT THE TITLE TO THE LANDS
IN THE RED LAKE RESERVATION WAS HELD IN COMMON BY ALL OF THE CHIPPEWA
INDIANS IN MINNESOTA, RATHER THAN BY THE RED LAKE BANDS, IT IS AT
VARIANCE WITH WHAT IS OTHERWISE INDUBITABLY SHOWN, AND EVIDENTLY IS
BASED ON A SERIOUS MISAPPREHENSION OF THE REAL SITUATION.  IT OVERLOOKS
TREATIES WHEREIN MOST OF THE OTHER BANDS RELINQUISHED AREAS WHICH
INCLUDED THE LANDS IN THE RED LAKE RESERVATION; TAKES NO ACCOUNT OF THE
RULE, LONG APPLIED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS, WHEREBY
A BAND OR BANDS OCCUPYING A SEPARATE RESERVATION WERE REGARDED AS
HAVING THE TITLE TO THE LANDS THEREIN AND ENTITLED TO HOLD OR CEDE THEM
INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER BANDS; PUTS ASIDE THE TREATIES OF 1863 AND 1864
WHICH RECOGNIZED THE RED LAKE AND PEMBINA BANDS AS OWNING THE LANDS
OCCUPIED BY THEM, AND ALSO AS ENTITLED TO MAKE CESSIONS THEREFROM
WITHOUT CONSULTING OTHER BANDS; FAILS TO CONSIDER THE ABSENCE OF ANY
CLAIM BY OTHER BANDS TO AN INTEREST IN THE LANDS OF THE RED LAKE
RESERVATION; AND GIVES NO EFFECT TO A FORMIDABLE BODY OF LEGISLATIVE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND OPINION WHEREBY THE RED LAKE BANDS, AND
THEY ALONE, WERE UNIFORMLY RECOGNIZED AS BOTH OCCUPYING AND HAVING THE
INDIAN TITLE TO THE LANDS IN THAT RESERVATION.  IT THEREFORE IS PLAIN
THAT THE REPORT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS OVERCOMING THE FACTS OTHERWISE
INDUBITABLY SHOWN. 

3.  NEXT IT IS INSISTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE INDIAN TITLE WAS IN THE
RED LAKE BANDS, CONGRESS IN SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF 1889, DECLARED THAT AS
TO THE RED LAKE RESERVATION THE CESSION SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT IF MADE BY
"TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OF ALL THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN
MINNESOTA," AND THEREBY ENABLED THE CHIPPEWAS AS A WHOLE TO CEDE THAT
RESERVATION, EVEN OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE RED LAKE BANDS.  TO THIS WE
DO NOT AGREE.  OUR DECISIONS, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS
POWER TO CONTROL AND MANAGE THE PROPERTY AND AFFAIRS OF ITS INDIAN
WARDS IN GOOD FAITH FOR THEIR WELFARE, SHOW THAT THIS POWER IS SUBJECT
TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS AND DOES NOT ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO
GIVE THE LANDS OF ONE TRIBE OR BAND TO ANOTHER, OR TO DEAL WITH THEM AS
ITS OWN.  FN11  AND, OF COURSE, AN ACT OF CONGRESS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN
A CONSTRUCTION WHICH WILL IMPERIL ITS VALIDITY WHERE IT IS REASONABLY
OPEN TO A CONSTRUCTION FREE FROM SUCH PERIL.  FN12  THE PROVISION IN
SEC. 1 OF THE ACT OF 1889, ON WHICH THE APPELLANTS RELY, IS, IN OUR
OPINION, REASONABLY OPEN TO A CONSTRUCTION CERTAINLY CONSISTENT WITH
ITS VALIDITY.  THE SECTION DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO NEGOTIATE WITH
"ALL THE DIFFERENT BANDS" FOR A CESSION OF ALL OF THE RESERVATIONS,
EXCEPT PARTS OF TWO, AND THEN PROVIDES THAT THE CESSION SHALL BE
SUFFICIENT "AS TO EACH AND ALL OF SAID SEVERAL RESERVATIONS, EXCEPT AS
TO THE RED LAKE RESERVATION," IF MADE BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS
OF THE BAND OCCUPYING AND BELONGING TO SUCH RESERVATION, AND "AS TO THE
RED LAKE RESERVATION" SHALL BE SUFFICIENT IF MADE "BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE
MALE ADULTS OF ALL THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN MINNESOTA."  A FAIRLY
ADMISSIBLE MEANING OF THIS IS THAT NEGOTIATIONS WERE TO BE HAD WITH
EACH AND ALL OF THE BANDS, INCLUDING THOSE OCCUPYING THE RED LAKE
RESERVATION; THAT THE CESSION AS TO EACH RESERVATION WAS TO BE BY AT
LEAST TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OF THE BAND OCCUPYING THE SAME; AND
THAT AS TO THE RED LAKE RESERVATION THE CESSION WAS TO BE NOT ONLY BY
TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OF THE BANDS OCCUPYING THAT RESERVATION
BUT ALSO BY TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OF ALL THE CHIPPEWA INDIANS
IN MINNESOTA.  TO SAVE THE SECTION FROM QUESTIONABLE VALIDITY, THIS
MEANING SHOULD BE PREFERRED TO ONE INVOLVING A PURPOSE TO AUTHORIZE A
CESSION AS TO THAT RESERVATION WITHOUT THE ASSENT OF THE BANDS
OCCUPYING IT.  THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT AS TO IT THAT THE CESSION
HAVE THE ASSENT OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE MALE ADULTS OF ALL THE CHIPPEWA
INDIANS OF MINNESOTA MAY WELL BE REGARDED AS PRECAUTIONARY AND
INTENDED, IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENTS IN THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT, TO
ACCOMPLISH A CESSION WHICH WOULD BE EFFECTIVE WHETHER THE TITLE WAS IN
THE RED LAKE BANDS, AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS WERE HOLDING, OR WAS
HELD IN COMMON BY ALL THE MINNESOTA CHIPPEWAS, AS THE COMMITTEE
STATED.  IN THIS VIEW OF THE SECTION - WHICH WE THINK THE RIGHT ONE -
THE ACT CANNOT BE HELD TO EVINCE A PURPOSE TO TAKE FROM ONE BAND
WITHOUT ITS ASSENT AND GIVE TO OTHERS.  THE COMMISSION EVIDENTLY
UNDERSTOOD THE PROVISION AS WE DO, FOR THEY WENT FIRST TO THE RED LAKE
BANDS AND THERE ANNOUNCED THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS, IF NOT RESULTING IN
THE REQUISITE ASSENT OF THOSE BANDS, WOULD BE ABANDONED. 

4.  IT IS FURTHER INSISTED THAT THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NONE
OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUMENT OF CESSION AS RESERVED BY THE
COMMISSION FOR ALLOTMENTS WAS CEDED, INSTEAD OF HOLDING THAT ALL WERE
CEDED, SAVE THOSE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO MAKE AND FILL ALLOTMENTS AT THE
TIME, IN THE QUANTITY AND OF THE CHARACTER DESCRIBED IN THE ACT OF
1889.  WE REGARD THE HOLDING AS RIGHT.  THE ACT WAS NOT INTENDED TO
SECURE A CESSION OF ALL OF THE RED LAKE RESERVATION, BUT ONLY OF SO
MUCH OF IT AS "IN THE JUDGMENT OF SAID COMMISSION" WAS NOT REQUIRED TO
MAKE AND FILL THE INTENDED ALLOTMENTS, AND WAS NOT "RESERVED BY THE
COMMISSIONERS" FOR THAT PURPOSE.  AND THE ALLOTMENTS WERE TO BE MADE,
NOT WITHIN ANY DEFINITE PERIOD, BUT "AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE."  THE
INSTRUMENT OF CESSION DECLARED THAT THE RED LAKE BANDS CEDED ALL OF
THEIR RESERVATION NOT INCLUDED WITHIN DESIGNATED BOUNDARIES AND THAT
THE LANDS EMBRACED WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES HAD BEEN RESERVED BY THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AND FILLING ALLOTMENTS.  THUS
IT SHOWED WHAT LANDS WERE CEDED AND WHAT WERE RESERVED.  THE ACT
COMMITTED TO THE "JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSION" THE DETERMINATION OF HOW
MUCH AND WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ALLOTMENTS, AND LAID ON THE
COMMISSIONERS THE DUTY OF RESERVING LANDS ACCORDINGLY.  THE INSTRUMENT
OF CESSION SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSION ATTENDED TO THESE TASKS.  WHETHER
THE TASKS WERE PERFORMED WITH APPROPRIATE WISDOM IS NOT OPEN TO INQUIRY
IN THIS SUIT.  THE INSTRUMENT OF CESSION, SHOWING THE LANDS CEDED AND
THE LANDS RESERVED, WAS EXAMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND WAS THEN SUBMITTED TO AND
APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT.  WITH THAT APPROVAL IT BECAME EFFECTIVE. 
THE LANDS WHICH WERE RESERVED WERE NOT CEDED, EITHER BY THE TERMS OF
THE INSTRUMENT OF CESSION OR THROUGH THE OPERATION OF THE ACT.  THE
INDIAN TITLE TO THEM REMAINED AFTER THE CESSION, AS BEFORE, IN THE RED
LAKE BANDS.  THE ACT CONTEMPLATED THEIR USE IN MAKING ALLOTMENTS TO
MEMBERS OF THOSE BANDS; BUT, AS THEY WERE NOT CEDED BUT RESERVED FROM
THE CESSION, THE MATTER OF WHETHER AND WHEN THEY SHALL BE ALLOTTED
RESTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND THOSE BANDS AND IS NOT OF ANY CONCERN, IN
THE SENSE OF THE LAW, TO THE OTHER BANDS. 

THE CESSION OF THE RED LAKE RESERVATION BY THE INDIANS OF THE OTHER
RESERVATIONS DIFFERS IN WORDS FROM THAT BY THE RED LAKE BANDS, BUT WE
REGARD THEM AS IN SUBSTANCE IDENTICAL AND AS CONFORMING TO THE ACT. 

5.  ERROR IS ALSO ASSIGNED ON THE COURT'S RULING RESPECTING THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1892, WHEREBY 2,303 ACRES OF THE LANDS
CEDED UNDER THE ACT OF 1889 WERE ADDED TO THE LANDS RESERVED FOR
ALLOTMENTS.  THE BASIS FOR THIS ORDER, SHORTLY STATED, IS THAT THE
LANDS SO ADDED WERE INTENDED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE INDIANS TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE LANDS RESERVED AND WERE BY MUTUAL MISTAKE, INCIDENT TO
THE USE OF AN UNOFFICIAL AND FAULTY MAP, INCLUDED AMONG THOSE CEDED. 
EVIDENTLY THE RED LAKE BANDS WERE EQUITABLY ENTITLED TO HAVE THE
MISTAKE CORRECTED.  NO INTERVENING RIGHT STOOD IN THE WAY.  THE
MISTAKEN CESSION WAS TO THE UNITED STATES, IN TRUST FOR THE ULTIMATE
BENEFIT OF INDIAN WARDS.  IN THIS SITUATION WE SHOULD HESITATE A GOOD
DEAL BEFORE HOLDING THAT THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN AFFAIRS
IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH TO WARRANT A CORRECTION OF THE MISTAKE BY AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER.  FN13  BUT, THIS ASIDE, THE APPELLANTS ARE WITHOUT
RIGHT TO RECOVER IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE
MISTAKE.  SAVE FOR IT THE LANDS WOULD HAVE BEEN RESERVED, NOT INCLUDED
IN THE CESSION.  THEREFORE, THE APPELLANTS' INTEREST IN THEM THROUGH
THE CESSION AND TRUST WAS COLORABLE ONLY, AND IN AN APPROPRIATE
PROCEEDING, BROUGHT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE MISTAKE
COULD AND DOUBTLESS WOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.  SO, IN NO ADMISSIBLE
VIEW OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER CAN IT BE SAID TO HAVE WORKED ANY REAL
INJURY TO THE APPELLANTS. 

6.  SO MUCH OF THE APPELLANTS' CLAIM AS IS GROUNDED ON WHAT WAS DONE
BY AND UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20, 1904, IS DISPOSED OF ADVERSELY TO
THEM BY WHAT ALREADY HAS BEEN SAID RESPECTING THE TITLE TO THE LANDS
RESERVED FROM THE CESSION OF 1889. 

IT RESULTS THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST STAND.  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT MAY 14, 1926, C. 300, 44 STAT. 555, AS SPECIALLY
SUPPLEMENTED MAY 18, 1928, C. 623, 45 STAT. 601; JUNE 18, 1934, C. 568,
48 STAT. 979; JUNE 22, 1936, C. 714, 49 STAT. 1826. 

FN2  ACT JUNE 18, 1934, C. 568, 48 STAT. 979. 

FN3  TREATIES AUG. 3, 1795, 7 STAT. 49; JULY 4, 1805, 7 STAT. 87;
NOV. 17, 1807, 7 STAT. 105; SEPT. 24, 1819, 7 STAT. 203; JUNE 16, 1820,
7 STAT. 206; JULY 6, 1820, 7 STAT. 207; AUG. 29, 1821, 7 STAT. 218;
APRIL 19, 1825, 7 STAT. 272; AUG. 5, 1826, 7 STAT. 290; AUG. 11, 1827,
7 STAT. 303. 

FN4  TREATIES MAY 9, 1836, 7 STAT. 503; JAN. 14, 1837; 7 STAT. 528;
DEC. 20, 1837, 7 STAT. 547; OCT. 4, 1842, 7 STAT. 591; AUG. 2, 1847, 9
STAT. 904; AUG. 21, 1847, 9 STAT. 908; SEPT. 30, 1854, 10 STAT. 1109;
FEB. 22, 1855, 10 STAT. 1165; OCT. 2, 1863, 13 STAT. 667; APRIL 12,
1864, 13 STAT. 689; MAY 7, 1864, 13 STAT. 693; APRIL 7, 1866, 14 STAT.
765; MAR. 19, 1867, 16 STAT. 719. 

FN5  FOR PROVISIONS FOR ENLARGED ALLOTMENTS ON WHITE EARTH
RESERVATION SEE ACT OF APRIL 28, 1904, C. 1786, 33 STAT. 539, AND
FAIRBANKS V. UNITED STATES, 223 U.S. 215.  AND FOR PROVISION FOR
ENLARGED ALLOTMENTS ON RED LAKE RESERVATION SEE ACT OF FEBRUARY 20,
1904, C. 161, 33 STAT. 46, 48, ARTICLE IV. 

FN6  HOUSE EX. DOC. NO. 247, 51ST CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN7  TREATIES SEPTEMBER 30, 1854, 10 STAT. 1109; FEBRUARY 22, 1855,
10 STAT. 1165; AUGUST 7, 1866, 14 STAT. 765. 

FN8  TREATY MAY 7, 1864, 13 STAT. 693; EXECUTIVE ORDER MARCH 18,
1879, CONCERNING WHITE EARTH RESERVATION.  EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATING TO
INDIAN RESERVATIONS (1912), P. 87. 

FN9  MINNESOTA V. HITCHCOCK, 185 U.S. 373, 389-390; UNITED STATES V.
HOLT STATE BANK, 270 U.S. 49, 58. 

FN10  HOUSE REPORT NO. 789, 50TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESS.; CONG. REC.,
50TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESS., VOL. 19, PT. 9, PP. 9130-9131. 

FN11  LANE V. SANTA ROSA, 249 U.S. 110, 113; UNITED STATES V. CREEK
NATION, 295 U.S. 103, 109-110; SHOSHONE TRIBE V. UNITED STATES, 299
U.S. 476, 497. 

FN12  PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264 U.S. 375, 390; ANNISTON MFG. CO.
V. DAVIS, (THIS DAY DECIDED), ANTE, P. 337. 

FN13  REV. STATS. SECS. 463, 465; WEST V. HITCHCOCK, 205 U.S. 80, 84
85; WILLIAMS V. UNITED STATES, 138 U.S. 514, 524; KNIGHT V. U.S. LAND
ASSN., 142 U.S. 161, 177, ET SEQ.; UNITED STATES V. MID WEST OIL CO.,
236 U.S. 459, 469, ET SEQ.
..END :







OLD COLONY CO. V. COMM'R., 301 U.S. 379 


NO. 703.  ARGUED APRIL 29, 30, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1937.  - 87
F.(2D) 131, REVERSED. 


1.  IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE NET INCOME OF A TRUST, SEC. 162 OF THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1928 ALLOWS DEDUCTION OF ANY PART OF THE GROSS INCOME,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHICH "PURSUANT TO" THE TERMS OF THE DEED CREATING
THE TRUST IS DURING THE TAX YEAR PAID TO CHARITIES, ETC.  HELD THAT
PAYMENTS ARE "PURSUANT TO" THE DEED WHEN AUTHORIZED, THOUGH NOT
IMPERATIVELY DIRECTED, BY IT.  P. 383. 

2.  "PURSUANT TO" IS DEFINED.  P. 383. 

3.  IN ORDER THAT DEDUCTION MAY BE ALLOWED, THE TRUST NEED NOT SHOW
AFFIRMATIVELY THAT CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME WERE
ACTUALLY PAID OUT OF INCOME OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THEY WERE MADE.  P.
384. 

4.  IT IS THE POLICY OF CONGRESS TO ENCOURAGE CHARITABLE
CONTRIBUTIONS.  P. 384. 

OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 650, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING, UPON
APPEAL, A DECISION (33 B.T.A. 311) WHICH HAD IN PART SUSTAINED, AND IN
PART OVERRULED, A DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UNDER TRUST DEED OF JULY 19, 1922, THE OLD COLONY TRUST COMPANY CAME
INTO POSSESSION OF VALUABLE INCOME PRODUCING PROPERTY FROM WHICH TO PAY
CERTAIN SUMS AND SATISFY SPECIFIED ANNUITIES.  THE DEED CONTINUES: 

"13.  I AUTHORIZE MY SAID TRUSTEES TO PAY TO CHARITIES AS HEREINAFTER
DESCRIBED SUCH SUMS AS IN THEIR JUDGMENT MAY BE PAID WITHOUT
JEOPARDIZING THE ANNUITIES HEREIN PROVIDED FOR, WHENEVER FOR A PERIOD
OF ONE YEAR THE TRUST FUND HELD BY THEM AS THEN INVESTED SHALL HAVE
YIELDED A NET INCOME EQUAL TO TWICE THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUITIES WHICH
THEY ARE THEN REQUIRED TO PAY, AND UPON THE DEATH OF THE SURVIVOR OF
THOSE PERSONS, WHO UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS INSTRUMENT ARE TO RECEIVE
ANNUAL INCOMES UNDER THE TRUST HEREBY CREATED, I DIRECT MY SAID
TRUSTEES TO DISTRIBUTE THE REST AND RESIDUE REMAINING IN THEIR HANDS
AMONG CORPORATIONS AND TRUSTEES ORGANIZED, OPERATING AND HOLDING
EXCLUSIVELY FOR RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY OR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF ART AND THE
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN OR ANIMALS, THE SUM PAID OVER BY SAID
TRUSTEES TO SUCH CORPORATIONS OR BOARDS OF TRUSTEES TO BE HELD BY SUCH
CORPORATIONS AND BOARDS OF TRUSTEES IN TRUST, AND THE INCOME THEREOF TO
BE EXPENDED FOR THE GENERAL PURPOSES FOR WHICH SUCH CORPORATIONS AND
BOARDS OF TRUSTEES ARE ORGANIZED, AND I REQUEST THAT SAID FUNDS BE
DESIGNATED BY EACH CORPORATION OR BOARD OF TRUSTEES AS THE HENRY CLAY
JACKSON FUND." 

EACH YEAR AFTER 1923 THE ESTATE'S INCOME WAS MORE THAN TWICE THE
AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR THE ANNUITIES.  THE TRUSTEE HAS KEPT SEPARATE
PRINCIPAL AND INCOME ACCOUNTS.  FROM 1925 TO 1933 ALL ANNUITIES WERE
DULY PAID AND CONSIDERABLE SUMS WENT TO CHARITIES; NONE OF THESE
PAYMENTS WAS CHARGED TO THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT.  TAX RETURNS HAVE BEEN
BASED UPON ACTUAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS. 

JANUARY 1, 1931, THE INCOME ACCOUNT SHOWED UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF
$187,999.43.  DURING THAT YEAR THE INCOME RECEIVED AMOUNTED TO
$164,339.39; THE TRUSTEE EXPENDED AND CHARGED AGAINST INCOME ACCOUNT
$212,862.80, OF WHICH $190,000.00 WENT TO CHARITIES.  THE 1931 TAX
RETURN CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS FOR CHARITY PAYMENTS UP TO THE AMOUNT OF THE
YEAR'S INCOME.  THE COMMISSIONER DISALLOWED THIS BECAUSE "IT IS NOT
DISCLOSED THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF INCOME OF THE TAXABLE YEAR TO
THE CHARITIES NOR THAT ANY PORTION OF THE INCOME WAS CREDITED TO ANY
CHARITY." 

THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD THE TRUSTEE MUST AFFIRMATIVELY PROVE
THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION WERE FROM INCOME RECEIVED DURING 1931; ALSO,
THAT EXCEPT AS TO A SMALL SUM, IT HAD NOT SUSTAINED THE NECESSARY
BURDEN OF PROOF. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT NONE OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS WAS
DEDUCTIBLE BECAUSE NOT IMPERATIVELY DIRECTED BY THE TRUST DEED.  IT
TOOK THE VIEW THAT AS THE TRUSTEE EXERCISED DISCRETION AS TO PAYMENT
THEY WERE NOT MADE "PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE  ...  DEED CREATING
THE TRUST."  ACCORDINGLY, IT APPROVED THE COMMISSIONER'S ASSESSMENT AND
REMANDED THE CAUSE TO THE BOARD. 

THE MATTER IS HERE BY CERTIORARI.  ANNUITY PAYMENTS ARE NOT NOW IN
CONTROVERSY.  TWO QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED AND BOTH MUST BE ANSWERED IN
THE NEGATIVE. 

I. UNDER SEC. 162, REVENUE ACT, 1928, 45 STAT. 838, COPIED IN THE
MARGIN, IS IT NECESSARY THAT THE WILL OR DEED CREATING A TRUST
DEFINITELY DIRECT THE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS WHICH ARE CLAIMED AS
DEDUCTIONS?  FN1 

CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS BY INDIVIDUALS DOES NOT CONFINE THEM TO
PAYMENTS ACTUALLY MADE FROM INCOME, BUT DOES LIMIT THEIR AMOUNT TO 15%
OF THE NET RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR.  FN2  IN LIEU OF THESE DEDUCTIONS,
SEC. 162A PERMITS TRUST ESTATES TO DEDUCT CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO
THE FULL EXTENT OF GROSS INCOME WHEN MADE PURSUANT TO THE TRUST DEED. 

WE ARE ASKED TO HOLD THAT THE WORDS "PURSUANT TO" MEAN DIRECTED OR
DEFINITELY ENJOINED.  AND THIS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADMISSION THAT
CONGRESS INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS BY RELIEVING
THEM FROM TAXATION.  LEDERER V. STOCKTON, 260 U.S. 3; UNITED STATES V.
PROVIDENT TRUST CO., 291 U.S. 272, 285. 

"PURSUANT TO" IS DEFINED AS "ACTING OR DONE IN CONSEQUENCE OR IN
PROSECUTION (OF ANYTHING); HENCE, AGREEABLE; CONFORMABLE; FOLLOWING;
ACCORDING."  FN3 

THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE ARE PLAIN AND SHOULD BE ACCORDED THEIR USUAL
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE ABSENCE OF SOME DOMINANT REASON TO THE CONTRARY. 
WE FIND NOTHING IN THE REGULATIONS OR PRACTICE OF THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENT OR IN THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES THE
NARROW MEANING ADVOCATED BY RESPONDENT.  NEITHER THE COMMISSIONER NOR
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS ACCEPTED OR MENTIONED WITH FAVOR THE
INTERPRETATION WHICH HIS COUNSEL NOW ADVANCE; AND THIS IS HARDLY
COMPATIBLE WITH THE THEORY OF CONTROLLING RULINGS OR PRACTICE BY THE
BUREAU. 

THE QUESTIONED DONATIONS WERE MADE BY THE PETITIONERS IN PURSUANCE OF
THE TRUST DEED. 

II.  IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS IS IT NECESSARY
AFFIRMATIVELY TO SHOW THAT CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS BY A TRUST ESTATE
WERE ACTUALLY PAID OUT OF INCOME RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR IN WHICH THEY
WERE MADE? 

LANGUAGE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED WITH THE VIEW OF CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSE
OF CONGRESS - EVIDENTLY THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DONATIONS BY TRUST
ESTATES.  THERE ARE NO WORDS LIMITING THESE TO SOMETHING ACTUALLY PAID
FROM THE YEAR'S INCOME.  AND SO TO INTERPRET THE ACT COULD SERIOUSLY
INTERFERE WITH THE BENEFICENT PURPOSE.  ONE CREATING A TRUST MIGHT BE
UNWILLING TO BIND IT ABSOLUTELY TO PAY SOMETHING TO CHARITY BUT WOULD
AUTHORIZE HIS TRUSTEE SO TO DO AFTER CONSIDERING THEN EXISTING
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

CAPITAL AND INCOME ACCOUNTS IN THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF ESTATES
ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD.  CONGRESS SOUGHT TO ENCOURAGE DONATIONS OUT OF
GROSS INCOME, AND WE FIND NO REASON FOR SAYING THAT IT INTENDED TO
LIMIT THE EXEMPTION TO SUMS WHICH THE TRUST COULD SHOW WERE ACTUALLY
PAID OUT OF RECEIPTS DURING A PARTICULAR TAX YEAR.  THE DESIGN WAS TO
FOREGO SOME POSSIBLE REVENUE IN ORDER TO PROMOTE AID TO CHARITY.  HERE
THE TRUSTEE RESPONDED TO AN IMPLIED INVITATION AND THE ESTATE OUGHT NOT
TO BE BURDENED IN CONSEQUENCE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
RETURNED THERE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN HARMONY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACT, 1928, SEC. 162, 45 STAT. 838. 

"SEC. 162.  NET INCOME. 

"THE NET INCOME OF THE ESTATE OR TRUST SHALL BE COMPUTED IN THE SAME
MANNER AND ON THE SAME BASIS AS IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL, EXCEPT
THAT - 

"(A)  THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION (IN LIEU OF THE DEDUCTION
FOR CHARITABLE, ETC., CONTRIBUTIONS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 23(N)) ANY
PART OF THE GROSS INCOME, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WHICH PURSUANT TO THE
TERMS OF THE WILL OR DEED CREATING THE TRUST, IS DURING THE TAXABLE
YEAR PAID OR PERMANENTLY SET ASIDE FOR THE PURPOSES AND IN THE MANNER
SPECIFIED IN SECTION 23(N), OR IS TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR RELIGIOUS,
CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, OR FOR THE
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN OR ANIMALS, OR FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT,
ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION OF A PUBLIC CEMETERY NOT OPERATED
FOR PROFIT;...  (B) AND (C)." 

FN2  REVENUE ACT, 1928, SEC. 23, 45 STAT. 799. 

"SEC. 23.  DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME. 

IN COMPUTING NET INCOME THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS:...
(A), (B), ETC. 

(N)  CHARITABLE AND OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS.   - IN THE CASE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL, CONTRIBUTIONS OR GIFTS MADE WITHIN THE TAXABLE YEAR TO OR
FOR THE USE OF: 

(1)  THE UNITED STATES, ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR ANY POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION THEREOF, OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FOR EXCLUSIVELY
PUBLIC PURPOSES; 

(2)  ANY CORPORATION, OR TRUST, OR COMMUNITY CHEST, FUND, OR
FOUNDATION, ORGANIZED AND OPERATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR RELIGIOUS,
CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, OR FOR THE
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN OR ANIMALS, NO PART OF THE NET
EARNINGS OF WHICH INURES TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY PRIVATE SHAREHOLDER OR
INDIVIDUAL; 

(3)  THE SPECIAL FUND FOR VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AUTHORIZED BY

(4)  POSTS OR ORGANIZATIONS OF WAR VETERANS, OR AUXILIARY UNITS OR
SOCIETIES OF ANY SUCH POSTS OR ORGANIZATIONS, IF SUCH POSTS,
ORGANIZATIONS, UNITS, OR SOCIETIES ARE ORGANIZED IN THE UNITED STATES
OR ANY OF ITS POSSESSIONS, AND IF NO PART OF THEIR NET EARNINGS INURES
TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY PRIVATE SHAREHOLDER OR INDIVIDUAL; OR 

(5)  A FRATERNAL SOCIETY, ORDER, OR ASSOCIATION, OPERATING UNDER THE
LODGE SYSTEM, BUT ONLY IF SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS OR GIFTS ARE TO BE USED
EXCLUSIVELY FOR RELIGIOUS, CHARITABLE, SCIENTIFIC, LITERARY, OR
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, OR FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN OR
ANIMALS; TO AN AMOUNT WHICH IN ALL THE ABOVE CASES COMBINED DOES NOT
EXCEED 15 PER CENTUM OF THE TAXPAYER'S NET INCOME AS COMPUTED WITHOUT
THE BENEFIT OF THIS SUBSECTION.  SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS OR GIFTS SHALL BE
ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTIONS ONLY IF VERIFIED UNDER RULES AND REGULATIONS
PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY. 
(FOR UNLIMITED DEDUCTION IF CONTRIBUTIONS AND GIFTS EXCEED 90 PER
CENTUM OF THE NET INCOME, SEE SECTION 120.)" 

FN3  WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED, 2ND ED.,
1935. 
..END :










LEWIS & CO. V. COMM'R., 301 U.S. 385 


NO. 743.  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1937.  - 87 F.(2D)
1000, REVERSED. 


A LANDOWNER MADE A DECLARATION PLACING TITLE IN A TRUSTEE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF HERSELF AND AN AGENT EMPOWERED BY HER TO SUBDIVIDE AND SELL
THE LAND, WHOSE COMPENSATION WAS TO BE A FIXED PERCENTAGE OF PAYMENTS
MADE BY PURCHASERS.  THE FUNCTION OF THE TRUSTEE WAS TO HOLD THE TITLE,
EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND CONVEYANCES AT THE DIRECTION OF THE AGENT, AND TO
MAKE COLLECTIONS.  HELD THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT AN "ASSOCIATION" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 701(A)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, AND THEREFORE
NOT TAXABLE AS A CORPORATION.  PP. 386, 389. 

A.A. LEWIS & CO. ET AL. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 651, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECISION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS DISAPPROVING AN INCOME TAX DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ON JANUARY 3, 1934, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE ASSESSED A
DEFICIENCY OF INCOME TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1931 AGAINST PETITIONERS IN THE
SUM OF $512.30.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, UPON PETITION AND AFTER
HEARING, DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO DEFICIENCY.  UPON REVIEW, THE
COURT BELOW, WITHOUT OPINION, REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS. 

THE CASE INVOLVES THE RELATIONS OF PETITIONERS UNDER A DECLARATION OF
TRUST AND AN AGREEMENT ATTACHED THERETO.  AND THE QUESTION FOR DECISION
IS WHETHER THE TRUST CONSTITUTES AN ASSOCIATION, TO BE TAXED AS A
CORPORATION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 701(A)(2) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1928, WHICH PROVIDES THAT, WHEN USED IN THE ACT, "THE TERM
'CORPORATION' INCLUDES ASSOCIATIONS, JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES, AND
INSURANCE COMPANIES."  THE COMMISSIONER, WHOSE ACTION WAS AFFIRMED BY
THE LOWER COURT, RULED THAT UPON THE FACTS STATED BELOW THERE WAS A
TAXABLE "ASSOCIATION" WITHIN THE REACH OF THIS STATUTORY PROVISION. 
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD TO THE CONTRARY. 

MINERVA S. MELIDONES, HEREAFTER CALLED THE GRANTOR, IN 1925, IN ORDER
TO SUBDIVIDE AND SELL A TRACT OF LAND WHICH SHE OWNED, MADE THE
DECLARATION OF TRUST HERE IN QUESTION, PLACING THE TITLE IN THE
PREDECESSOR OF THE CENTRAL REPUBLIC TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
USE AND BENEFIT OF HERSELF AND A. A. LEWIS, BOTH OF WHOM SIGNED THE
INSTRUMENT AS BENEFICIARIES.  THE TRUSTEE WAS GIVEN POWER TO DEAL WITH
THE REAL ESTATE SO FAR AS THE PUBLIC WAS CONCERNED, BUT WAS TO DO SO
ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO THE TRUST
INSTRUMENT.  THAT AGREEMENT, BEARING THE SAME DATE AS THE DECLARATION
OF TRUST, WAS EXECUTED BY THE GRANTOR, LEWIS AND THE TRUSTEE.  THE
GRANTOR, BY THE AGREEMENT, APPOINTED LEWIS, AN EXPERIENCED REAL-ESTATE
OPERATOR, AS EXCLUSIVE SELLING AGENT AND AS "MANAGER OF THE TRUST
CREATED BY SAID DEED IN TRUST AND TRUST AGREEMENT AFORESAID"; AND HE
WAS GIVEN "SUCH POWERS AND DUTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE TRUST AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THE SALE OF THE SAID
LAND."  HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE
PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SALE; AT HIS OWN EXPENSE TO EMPLOY A SALES
ORGANIZATION; TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH PURCHASERS AS MANAGER OF THE
TRUST; AND TO REQUEST THE TRUSTEE TO EXECUTE DEEDS AND OTHER NECESSARY
INSTRUMENTS.  CONTRACTS WERE TO BE MADE, AND TITLE WAS TO BE CONVEYED
BY THE TRUSTEE TO PURCHASERS, UPON LEWIS' WRITTEN DIRECTIONS.  HE WAS
TO RECEIVE AS SOLE COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES COMMISSIONS BASED UPON
THE PRICE FOR WHICH THE LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION WERE SOLD.  THE TRUSTEE
WAS TO COLLECT AND DISTRIBUTE PAYMENTS AFTER THE INITIAL PAYMENT; BUT
WAS TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SALES OF LOTS OR NEGOTIATIONS
RELATING THERETO. 

THE GRANTOR SUBSEQUENTLY ASSIGNED HER BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE
TRUST TO BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ, TO WHICH HIS ESTATE HAS SUCCEEDED AS SOLE
BENEFICIARY.  THE TRUST INSTRUMENT PROVIDES THAT TRANSFERRABLE
CERTIFICATES MAY BE ISSUED BY THE TRUSTEE; BUT NONE WAS EVER ISSUED. 

IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE DECLARATION OF TRUST, WE SHOULD HAVE HERE THE
SIMPLE CASE OF AN APPOINTMENT BY A LAND OWNER OF AN AGENT TO SUBDIVIDE
THE LAND AND SELL IT, RECEIVING AS COMPENSATION FOR HIS SERVICES A
FIXED PERCENTAGE OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PURCHASERS.  IT IS QUITE
EVIDENT THAT SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT HAS NO ELEMENT OF SUBSTANCE OR METHOD
WHICH WOULD WARRANT ITS DESIGNATION AS AN ASSOCIATION UNDER THE
STATUTORY PROVISION IN QUESTION.  NOR CAN WE SEE THAT THE INTERVENTION
OF A TRUSTEE TO HOLD TITLE, EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND CONVEYANCES AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE REAL-ESTATE AGENT AND MAKE COLLECTIONS ALTERS THE
SITUATION. 

THE QUESTION RECENTLY HAS RECEIVED FULL CONSIDERATION IN MORRISSEY V.
COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 344, AND THREE OTHER CASES WHICH IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOW IN THE SAME VOLUME.*THE TRUST REVIEWED IN THE MORRISSEY CASE WAS
ESSENTIALLY UNLIKE THAT NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.  THERE, THE TRUST WAS
A MEDIUM FOR THE CARRYING ON OF A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE BY THE TRUSTEES
AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PROFITS BY NUMEROUS BENEFICIARIES WHOSE
INTERESTS WERE REPRESENTED BY TRANSFERRABLE SHARE CERTIFICATES, THUS
PERMITTING THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW PARTICIPANTS WITHOUT AFFECTING THE
CONTINUITY OF THE PLAN.  THE CERTIFICATES REPRESENTED BOTH PREFERRED
AND COMMON SHARES.  WE POINTED OUT THAT THE CORPORATE ANALOGY WAS
EVIDENCED BY CENTRALIZED CONTROL, CONTINUITY AND LIMITED LIABILITY, AS
WELL AS BY THE ISSUE OF TRANSFERRABLE CERTIFICATES; AND WE SAID (P.
356) THAT THE WORD "ASSOCIATION" IMPLIES ASSOCIATES.  "IT IMPLIES THE
ENTERING INTO A JOINT ENTERPRISE, AND, AS THE APPLICABLE (DEPARTMENTAL)
REGULATION IMPORTS, AN ENTERPRISE FOR THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS. 
THIS IS NOT THE CHARACTERISTIC OF AN ORDINARY TRUST - WHETHER CREATED
BY WILL, DEED, OR DECLARATION - BY WHICH PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS
CONVEYED TO A TRUSTEE OR IS TO BE HELD BY THE SETTLOR, ON SPECIFIED
TRUSTS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF NAMED OR DESCRIBED PERSONS.  SUCH
BENEFICIARIES DO NOT ORDINARILY, AND AS MERE CESTUIS QUE TRUSTENT, PLAN
A COMMON EFFORT OR ENTER INTO A COMBINATION FOR THE CONDUCT OF A
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE." 

*SWANSON V. COMMISSIONER, 296 U.S. 362; HELVERING V. COMBS, 296 U.S.
365; HELVERING V. COLEMAN-GILBERT ASSOCIATES, 296 U.S. 369. 

THE ARRANGEMENT HERE ANSWERS THE FOREGOING DESCRIPTION OF AN ORDINARY
TRUST - THAT IS, IT WAS CREATED IN VIRTUE OF A DECLARATION BY WHICH A
DESIGNATED PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY WAS CONVEYED TO THE TRUSTEE ON
SPECIFIED TRUSTS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEFINITELY NAMED PERSONS, ONE OF
WHOM WAS THE GRANTOR OF THE LAND AND THE OTHER AN AGENT OF THE GRANTOR
FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SUBDIVIDING AND SELLING THE LAND.  THE AGENT
WAS DESIGNATED BY NAME, AND HIS POWERS DEFINITELY FIXED IN ADVANCE OF
THEIR EXERCISE.  HE POSSESSED NO AUTHORITY BEYOND THAT EXPRESSLY
DELEGATED BY HIS PRINCIPAL.  THE TRUST WAS ADOPTED MERELY AS A
CONVENIENT MEANS OF MAKING EFFECTIVE THE SALES OF THE AGENT UNDER THE
CONTRACT.  THE DUTIES OF THE TRUSTEE WERE PURELY MINISTERIAL, WITH NO
POWER TO CONTROL, DIRECT, OR PARTICIPATE IN, THE CONDUCT OF THE SELLING
ENTERPRISE CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONTRACT.  THERE IS TO BE FOUND IN THE
OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS NO ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF CORPORATE
CONTROL - NOTHING ANALOGOUS TO A BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR SHAREHOLDERS, NO
EXEMPTION FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY, NO ISSUE OF TRANSFERRABLE
CERTIFICATES OF INTEREST.  THERE IS SIMPLY THE COMMON RELATION OF
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, COUPLED WITH THE COLLATERAL INCIDENTS OF AN
ORDINARY TRUST.  WE ARE NOT ABLE TO FIND IN THE SITUATION AN
"ASSOCIATION" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION,
BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ASSOCIATES AND NO FEATURE "MAKING (THE TRUST)
ANALOGOUS TO A CORPORATE ORGANIZATION."  296 U.S. AT P. 359.  JUDGMENT
REVERSED. 
..END :






AETNA INS. CO. V. KENNEDY, 301 U.S. 389 


NO. 753.  ARGUED APRIL 30, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1937.  - 87 F.(2D)
684, MODIFIED. 


1.  EVERY REASONABLE PRESUMPTION IS INDULGED AGAINST WAIVER OF THE
RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.  P. 393. 

2.  A CASE IS NOT TAKEN FROM THE JURY AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR
DECISION OF FACT AS WELL AS OF LAW, IF, ACCOMPANYING THE REQUEST OF THE
PARTIES FOR PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTIONS, THERE ARE OTHER REQUESTS IN WHICH
ARE REASONABLY TO BE IMPLIED REQUESTS TO GO TO THE JURY IF A PEREMPTORY
INSTRUCTION BE DENIED.  P. 393. 

3.  WHERE THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR DIRECTED
VERDICTS WITHOUT RESERVING ANY QUESTION OF LAW, AND UNCONDITIONAL
VERDICTS WERE RETURNED FOR DEFENDANTS, HELD THAT NEITHER THAT COURT NOR
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO FIND OR ADJUDGE THAT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICTS PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER.  SLOCUM
V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 228 U.S. 364, 387.  BALTIMORE & C. LINE V.
REDMAN, 295 U.S. 364, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 394. 

4.  UNDER THE CONFORMITY ACT, THE DISTRICT COURTS FOLLOW THE PRACTICE
AUTHORIZED BY STATE STATUTES IF THERE BE NOTHING IN THEM THAT IS
INCONGRUOUS WITH THE ORGANIZATION OR THE FUNDAMENTAL PROCEDURE OF THOSE
COURTS, OR IN CONFLICT WITH CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT.  P. 394. 

5.  THE CONFORMITY ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  P. 395. 

6.  IN PENNSYLVANIA, A PARTY WHO WOULD INVOKE THE POWER OF THE TRIAL
COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO UNDER ACT OF APRIL 22,
1905, P.L. 286, SHOULD MOVE FOR SUCH A JUDGMENT, NOT MERELY FOR A NEW
TRIAL.  P. 394. 

7.  A MORTGAGEE CLAUSE IN A FIRE POLICY CREATES A CONTRACT OF
INSURANCE BETWEEN THE MORTGAGEE AND THE INSURER UPON THE MORTGAGEE'S
SEPARATE INTEREST.  P. 395. 

8.  POLICIES OF FIRE INSURANCE, TAKEN OUT BY A SECOND MORTGAGEE BUT
INSURING ALSO THE FIRST MORTGAGEE, WERE SURRENDERED BY THE FORMER, AND
CANCELED WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE LATTER.  EVIDENCE HELD INSUFFICIENT TO
PROVE THAT THIS WAS DONE WITH THE LATTER'S CONSENT.  P. 396. 

AETNA INSURANCE CO. V. KENNEDY TO THE USE OF BOGASH.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 754, SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO. V.
KENNEDY TO THE USE OF BOGASH; AND NO. 755, LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE
INSURANCE CO. V. KENNEDY TO THE USE OF BOGASH.  ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 651, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS WHICH REVERSED JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE INSURERS
IN ACTIONS ON POLICIES OF FIRE INSURANCE, AND WHICH REMANDED THE CASES
TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENTS FOR THE
INSURED.  SEE ALSO 87 F.(2D) 683. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

KENNEDY HAD A FIRST MORTGAGE, AND A BANK A SECOND MORTGAGE, ON OLD
BREWERY PROPERTY IN PENNSYLVANIA OWNED BY A DISTILLING COMPANY.  THE
BANK PROCURED FROM PETITIONERS FIRE INSURANCE POLICIES COVERING THE
BUILDING.  EACH POLICY STATES IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INSURED
BUILDING IS UNDER FORECLOSURE BY THE BANK; THE PREMIUM BEING PAID BY
THE BANK, IT IS AGREED THAT, IN EVENT OF LOSS, SAME WILL BE ADJUSTED
WITH THE BANK AND PAID TO IT AND KENNEDY, MORTGAGEE, AS INTEREST MAY
APPEAR.  EACH PROVIDES FOR CANCELATION UPON REQUEST OF THE INSURED AND
THAT THE COMPANY MAY CANCEL BY GIVING INSURED FIVE DAYS' WRITTEN
NOTICE.  IT INCLUDES THE STANDARD MORTGAGEE CLAUSE WHICH PROVIDES:
LOSS OR DAMAGE SHALL BE PAYABLE TO KENNEDY AS MORTGAGEE AS INTEREST MAY
APPEAR; INSURANCE AS TO THE INTEREST OF THE MORTGAGEE SHALL NOT BE
INVALIDATED BY ANY ACT OF THE MORTGAGOR OR OWNER; IN CASE THE MORTGAGOR
OR OWNER SHALL NEGLECT TO PAY PREMIUM THE MORTGAGEE SHALL, ON DEMAND,
PAY THE SAME.  THE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE POLICY AT
ANY TIME AS PROVIDED BY ITS TERMS, BUT IN SUCH CASE THE POLICY IS TO
CONTINUE IN FORCE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORTGAGEE FOR TEN DAYS AFTER
NOTICE TO HIM. 

AFTER THE BID AT SHERIFF'S SALE IN THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, THE
BANK ABANDONED ITS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AS WORTHLESS, NOTIFIED
KENNEDY THAT IT INTENDED TO CANCEL THE POLICIES AND SUGGESTED THAT HE
BUY THEM.  HE DECLINED TO DO SO OR TO PAY THE BANK ANY PART OF THE
PREMIUMS AND EXPRESSED INTENTION NOT TO ADVANCE ANY MONEY IN RESPECT OF
THE INSURED BUILDING.  THE BANK SURRENDERED THE POLICIES FOR
CANCELATION; PETITIONERS PAID IT THE UNEARNED PREMIUMS.  LATER, AND
WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR WHICH PETITIONERS HAD INSURED IT, THE BUILDING
BURNED.  BOGASH ACQUIRED KENNEDY'S INTEREST AND, TO RECOVER ON THE
POLICIES, BROUGHT THESE SUITS.  UPON THE STATEMENTS OF CLAIM AND
AFFIDAVITS OF DEFENSE, THERE AROSE QUESTIONS WHETHER KENNEDY CONSENTED
TO OR ACQUIESCED IN THE SURRENDER AND CANCELATION OF THE POLICIES AND
WHETHER THEY WERE IN FORCE WHEN THE LOSS OCCURRED OR HAD BEEN
SURRENDERED AND CANCELED BEFORE THAT TIME. 

THE PARTIES, HAVING INTRODUCED THEIR EVIDENCE AND AGREED THAT THE
AMOUNT OF THE LOSS WAS $11,000, SUBMITTED THEIR POINTS FOR CHARGE TO
THE JURY.  PLAINTIFF REQUESTED THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IN
RESPECT OF NOTICE TO KENNEDY OF CANCELATION AND SURRENDER OF THE
POLICIES, AND CONSENT BY HIM THAT THEY BE CANCELED, AND TO DIRECT
VERDICTS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF FOR THE AGREED AMOUNT.  DEFENDANTS
REQUESTED THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE JURY IN RESPECT OF THE RIGHT OF
CANCELATION UNDER THE POLICIES; THAT, IF THE JURY SHOULD FIND FACTS
SPECIFIED IN THE PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS, ITS VERDICTS SHOULD BE FOR
DEFENDANTS, AND TO DIRECT THE JURY THAT, UPON THE PLEADINGS AND
EVIDENCE, THE VERDICTS MUST BE FOR DEFENDANTS.  THE COURT REFUSED TO
DIRECT FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANTS AND, WITHOUT RESERVING FOR LATER
CONSIDERATION THE REQUESTS FOR DIRECTED VERDICTS OR ANY QUESTION OF
LAW, SUBMITTED THE CASES TO THE JURY.  IT FOUND FOR DEFENDANTS. 
PLAINTIFF FILED MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL BUT DID NOT MOVE FOR JUDGMENTS
NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO.  THE COURT DENIED THE MOTIONS AND ENTERED
JUDGMENTS FOR DEFENDANTS. 

PLAINTIFF APPEALED; THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN REFUSING TO CHARGE ON POINTS CONCERNING NOTICE OF CANCELATION
TO KENNEDY, REVERSED THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND ORDERED
NEW TRIALS.  87 F.(2D) 683.  BUT ON PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR
REHEARING IT HELD THAT, BY THEIR REQUESTS FOR PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTIONS,
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS ASSUMED THE FACTS TO BE UNDISPUTED AND
SUBMITTED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE THE DETERMINATION OF THE INFERENCES TO BE
DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE AND SO TOOK THE CASES FROM THE JURY.  THE COURT
ALSO HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN VERDICTS FOR
DEFENDANTS, DENIED THE PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REMANDED THE CASES TO
THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO GIVE PLAINTIFF JUDGMENTS FOR THE
AGREED AMOUNT OF THE LOSS.  87 F.(2D) 684. 

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE:  WHETHER, BY THEIR REQUEST FOR DIRECTED
VERDICTS, THE PARTIES WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY; WHETHER, BY
REVERSING THE JUDGMENTS FOR DEFENDANTS AND DIRECTING JUDGMENTS FOR
PLAINTIFF, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DEPRIVED DEFENDANTS OF THAT
RIGHT; AND WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING
THAT KENNEDY CONSENTED TO THE CANCELATION OF THE POLICIES. 

1.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT, BY THEIR
REQUESTS FOR PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTIONS, THE PARTIES TOOK THE CASES FROM
THE JURY AND APPLIED TO THE JUDGE FOR DECISION OF THE ISSUES OF FACT AS
WELL AS OF LAW.  THE ESTABLISHED RULE IS THAT WHERE PLAINTIFF AND
DEFENDANT RESPECTIVELY REQUEST PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTIONS, AND DO NOTHING
MORE, THEY THEREBY ASSUME THE FACTS TO BE UNDISPUTED AND IN EFFECT
SUBMIT TO THE TRIAL JUDGE THE DETERMINATION OF THE INFERENCES PROPERLY
TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM.  AND UPON REVIEW A FINDING OF FACT BY THE TRIAL
COURT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES MUST STAND IF THE RECORD DISCLOSES
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.  FN1  BUT, AS THE RIGHT OF JURY
TRIAL IS FUNDAMENTAL, COURTS INDULGE EVERY REASONABLE PRESUMPTION
AGAINST WAIVER.  FN2  AND UNQUESTIONABLY THE PARTIES RESPECTIVELY MAY
REQUEST A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION AND, UPON REFUSAL OF THE COURT TO
DIRECT A VERDICT, HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY ALL ISSUES AS TO WHICH
OPPOSING INFERENCES MAY BE DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE.  FN3  HERE NEITHER
THE PLAINTIFF NOR THE DEFENDANTS APPLIED FOR DIRECTED VERDICTS WITHOUT
MORE.  WITH THEIR REQUESTS FOR PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTIONS THEY SUBMITTED
OTHER REQUESTS THAT REASONABLY MAY BE HELD TO AMOUNT TO APPLICATIONS
THAT, IF A PEREMPTORY INSTRUCTION WERE NOT GIVEN, THE CASES BE
SUBMITTED TO THE JURY.  INDEED, WE FIND NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO
SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE PARTIES WAIVED THEIR RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY
OR AUTHORIZED THE JUDGE TO DECIDE ANY ISSUE OF FACT. 

2.  THE VERDICTS WERE TAKEN UNCONDITIONALLY.  PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR NEW
TRIALS BUT NOT FOR JUDGMENTS.  THE COURT DENIED HER MOTIONS AND ENTERED
JUDGMENTS FOR DEFENDANTS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD
JURISDICTION TO REVERSE AND REMAND FOR NEW TRIALS BUT WAS WITHOUT
POWER, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, TO DIRECT THE TRIAL
COURT TO GIVE JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFF.  AND, AS BEFORE SUBMISSION OF
THE CASE TO THE JURY THE TRIAL COURT DENIED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
DIRECTED VERDICTS WITHOUT RESERVING ANY QUESTION OF LAW, NEITHER THAT
COURT NOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD JURISDICTION TO FIND OR
ADJUDGE THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICTS PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO
RECOVER.  SLOCUM V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 228 U.S. 364, 387.  OUR
DECISION IN BALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE V. REDMAN, 295 U.S. 654, IS NOT
APPLICABLE. 

THERE IS ANOTHER REASON WHY THE DIRECTION OF JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFF
CANNOT STAND.  UNDER THE CONFORMITY ACT, 28 U.S.C., SEC. 724, FEDERAL
COURTS FOLLOW THE PRACTICE AUTHORIZED BY STATE STATUTES IF THERE BE
NOTHING IN THEM THAT IS INCONGRUOUS WITH THEIR ORGANIZATION OR THEIR
FUNDAMENTAL PROCEDURE OR IN CONFLICT WITH CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENT.  FN4
THE APPLICABLE PENNSYLVANIA STATUTE PROVIDES THAT WHENEVER, UPON THE
TRIAL OF ANY CAUSE, A POINT REQUESTING BINDING INSTRUCTIONS HAS BEEN
RESERVED OR DECLINED, THE PARTY PRESENTING THE POINT MAY MOVE THE COURT
FOR JUDGMENT NON OBSTANTE VEREDICTO; WHEREUPON IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF
THE COURT, IF IT DOES NOT GRANT A NEW TRIAL, TO ENTER SUCH JUDGMENT AS
SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED UPON THE EVIDENCE.  FROM THE JUDGMENT THUS
ENTERED EITHER PARTY MAY APPEAL TO THE SUPREME OR SUPERIOR COURT, WHICH
SHALL REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE COURT BELOW, AND ENTER SUCH JUDGMENT AS
SHALL BE WARRANTED BY THE EVIDENCE TAKEN IN THAT COURT.  FN5  AS
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE APPROPRIATE MOTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PENNSYLVANIA PRACTICE, THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN FAILING TO
GIVE PLAINTIFF JUDGMENTS NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICTS.  FN6  THE
CONFORMITY ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  FN7
IN THE ABSENCE OF MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENTS NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT IN
THE LOWER COURT, THE APPELLATE COURT WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DIRECT
ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFF. 

3.  WAS THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT, AS TO
KENNEDY'S INTEREST, THE INSURANCE TERMINATED BEFORE THE FIRE?  AS THE
PERIOD FOR WHICH THE POLICIES WERE WRITTEN HAD NOT EXPIRED WHEN THE
LOSS OCCURRED, DEFENDANTS HAD THE BURDEN TO SHOW THAT THE INSURANCE WAS
NOT IN FORCE AT THAT TIME.  KENNEDY WAS NOT MERELY A DESIGNATED
BENEFICIARY TO WHOM WAS PAYABLE, AS SPECIFIED, INSURANCE OBTAINED BY
THE BANK.  THE MORTGAGEE CLAUSE CREATED A CONTRACT OF INSURANCE BETWEEN
HIM AND THE COMPANY AND EFFECTED SEPARATE INSURANCE UPON HIS INTEREST. 
FN8  DEFENDANTS DO NOT CLAIM THAT THEY GAVE KENNEDY ANY NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO CANCEL HIS INSURANCE OR THAT THE POLICIES HAD BEEN
SURRENDERED BY THE BANK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR TERMS OR OTHERWISE. 

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS:  AFTER BIDS WERE RECEIVED AT FORECLOSURE SALE THE
BANK'S ATTORNEY ASKED KENNEDY TO TAKE OVER THE POLICIES AND, UPON HIS
REFUSAL SO TO DO OR TO PAY THE BANK ANYTHING ON ACCOUNT OF UNEARNED
PREMIUMS, INFORMED HIM THAT THE BANK INTENDED TO SURRENDER THE
POLICIES.  HE EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION, AUTHORIZATION OR CONSENT.  THERE
IS NO EVIDENCE THAT BEFORE THE FIRE KENNEDY HAD BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE
BANK OR BY THE DEFENDANTS, OR KNEW, THAT THE BANK HAD SURRENDERED THE
POLICIES OR RECEIVED RETURN PREMIUMS OR THAT DEFENDANTS ATTEMPTED TO
CANCEL HIS INSURANCE.  THE EVIDENCE IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A FINDING
THAT HE INTENDED THE BUILDING TO BECOME OR REMAIN UNINSURED OR
AUTHORIZE THE BANK TO ACT FOR HIM IN RESPECT OF HIS INSURANCE, OR THAT
HE CONSENTED TO, ACQUIESCED IN OR RATIFIED THE SURRENDER OR CANCELATION
OF THE POLICIES.  DEFENDANTS DO NOT CLAIM THAT THEY CANCELED KENNEDY'S
INSURANCE BY GIVING HIM NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICIES.  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RIGHTLY REVERSED THE JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT
COURT BUT ERRONEOUSLY DIRECTED JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFF. 

THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY
MODIFIED BY ELIMINATING THE DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENTS FOR PLAINTIFF
AND BY SUBSTITUTING ORDERS FOR NEW TRIALS.  JUDGMENTS MODIFIED. 

FN1  BEUTELL V. MAGONE, 157 U.S. 154, 157.  SENA V. AMERICA TURQUOISE
CO., 220 U.S. 497, 501.  AMERICAN NAT. BANK V. MILLER, 229 U.S. 517,
520.  WILLIAMS V. VREELAND, 250 U.S. 295, 298.  OPPENHEIMER V. HARRIMAN
NAT. BANK, ANTE, PP. 206, 208. 

FN2  HODGES V. EASTON, 106 U.S. 408, 412.  SLOCUM V. NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO., 228 U.S. 364, 385.  PATTON V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276,
312.  DIMICK V. SCHIEDT, 293 U.S. 474, 486.  FOUST V. MUNSON S.S. LINE,
299 U.S. 77, 84. 

FN3  EMPIRE STATE CATTLE CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 210 U.S.
1, 8.  SAMPLINER V. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO., 254 U.S. 233, 239. 

FN4  HENDERSON V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 123 U.S. 61, 64.  AMY V.
WATERTOWN, NO. 1., 130 U.S. 301, 304.  BARRETT V. VIRGINIAN RY. CO.,
250 U.S. 473, 475.  BALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE V. REDMAN, 295 U.S. 654,
658.  CF. NUDD V. BURROWS, 91 U.S. 426, 441.  INDIANAPOLIS & ST. L.R.
CO. V. HORST, 93 U.S. 291, 300. 

FN5  ACT OF APRIL 22, 1905, P.L. 286; 12 PURDON'S PENNA.  STATUTES
ANNOTATED, SEC. 681.  QUOTED IN SLOCUM V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 228
U.S. 364, 375-376. 

FN6 WEST V. MANATAWNY MUT. F. & S. INS. CO., 277 PA. 102; 120 ATL.
763.  COX V. ROEHLER, 316 PA. 417, 419-420; 175 ATL. 417. 

FN7  CAMP V. GRESS, 250 U.S. 308, 318. 

FN8  SYNDICATE INS. CO. V. BOHN, 65 FED. 165, 178.  INSURANCE CO. V.
INTERNATIONAL TRUST CO., 71 FED. 88, 91.  NEWARK FIRE INS. CO. V. TURK,
6 F.(2D) 533, 535.  WESTCHESTER FIRE INS. CO. V. NORFOLK BUILDING &
LOAN ASSN., 14 F.(2D) 524, 526.  QUEEN INS. CO. V. PEOPLE'S UNION SAV.
BANK, 50 F.(2D) 63, 64.  KIMBERLEY & CARPENTER V. FIREMAN'S FUND INS.
CO., 78 F.(2D) 62, 64.  4 JOYCE, LAW OF INSURANCE, 2ND ED., SEC. 2795,
P. 4776.  RICHARDS, LAW OF INSURANCE, 4TH ED., SEC. 279, P. 478.  VANCE
ON INSURANCE, 2ND ED., SEC. 170, P. 657. 
..END :










LINDSEY V. WASHINGTON, 301 U.S. 397 


NO. 660.  ARGUED MAY 3, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1937.  - 187 WASH. 364
61 P.(2D) 293, REVERSED. 


A STATE STATUTE MAKING MORE ONEROUS THE STANDARD OF PUNISHMENT IS EX
POST FACTO AND VOID AS APPLIED TO A CRIME COMMITTED BEFORE ITS
ENACTMENT.  P. 401. 

UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED
OFFENSE, IMPRISONMENT OF THE ACCUSED COULD HAVE BEEN FIXED BY THE JUDGE
AT LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM OF 15 YEARS.  BY THE LAW AS AMENDED AND
APPLIED (C. 114, L. WASH., 1935), SENTENCE FOR 15 YEARS WAS MADE
MANDATORY; A PAROLE BOARD WAS EMPOWERED TO FIX THE DURATION OF
CONFINEMENT WITHIN THAT PERIOD AND TO FIX IT ANEW WITHIN THAT PERIOD
FOR INFRACTIONS OF THE RULES; EVEN IF PAROLED, THE PRISONER WOULD
REMAIN SUBJECT TO SURVEILLANCE AND UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE 15 YEARS
HIS PAROLE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE
BOARD OR THE GOVERNOR. 

LINDSEY ET AL. V. WASHINGTON. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 652, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A CONVICTION OF
GRAND LARCENY. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON, 187 WASH. 346; 61 P.(2D) 293, THAT CHAPTER
114 OF THE LAWS OF WASHINGTON, 1935, UNDER WHICH PETITIONERS WERE
SENTENCED TO TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT, IS NOT AN EX POST FACTO LAW
PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

PETITIONERS WERE CONVICTED IN THE STATE COURT OF THE CRIME OF GRAND
LARCENY, MADE A FELONY BY STATE LAW, SEC. 2601(2), REMINGTON REV.
STAT., AND SENTENCED TO BE PUNISHED BY CONFINEMENT IN THE STATE
PENITENTIARY AND REFORMATORY RESPECTIVELY FOR TERMS OF NOT MORE THAN
FIFTEEN YEARS.  ON APRIL 15, 1935, THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE, THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY FOR GRAND LARCENY WAS IMPRISONMENT "FOR
NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS."  NO MINIMUM TERM WAS PRESCRIBED. 
REMINGTON REV. STAT., SEC. 2605.  ON THAT DATE, THE STATUTES ALSO
PROVIDED, REMINGTON REV. STAT., SEC. 2281, FOR INDETERMINATE SENTENCES
FOR ANY FELONY "FOR WHICH NO FIXED PERIOD OF CONFINEMENT IS IMPOSED BY
LAW."  ALL SUCH SENTENCES WERE REQUIRED TO BE "FOR A TERM NOT LESS THAN
THE MINIMUM NOR GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT
PRESCRIBED BY LAW FOR THE OFFENSE  ...  AND WHERE NO MINIMUM TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT IS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, THE COURT SHALL FIX THE SAME IN HIS
DISCRETION AT NOT LESS THAN SIX MONTHS NOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS;..." 
WHICH COULD "AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE MINIMUM TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT  ...  DIRECT THAT ANY PRISONER  ...  SHALL BE RELEASED ON
PAROLE...." 

THE ACT OF JUNE 12, 1935, ENACTED AFTER PETITIONERS' COMMISSION OF
THE OFFENSE AND BEFORE SENTENCE, MODIFIES THE SECTIONS RELATING TO
INDETERMINATE SENTENCES AND PAROLES AND PROVIDES, SO FAR AS NOW
RELEVANT, SEC. 2, PARAGRAPH 1, THAT UPON CONVICTION OF A FELONY "THE
COURT  ...  SHALL FIX THE MAXIMUM TERM OF SUCH PERSON'S SENTENCE ONLY. 
THE MAXIMUM TERM TO BE FIXED BY THE COURT SHALL BE THE MAXIMUM PROVIDED
BY LAW FOR THE CRIME OF WHICH SUCH PERSON WAS CONVICTED, IF THE LAW
PROVIDES FOR A MAXIMUM TERM."  IT ALSO PROVIDES, SEC. 2, PARAGRAPH 4,
THAT WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ADMISSION OF A CONVICTED PERSON TO THE
PLACE OF CONFINEMENT, THE BOARD OF PRISON, TERMS AND PAROLES "...
SHALL FIX THE DURATION OF HIS OR HER CONFINEMENT.  THE TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT SO FIXED SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PROVIDED BY LAW FOR
THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH HE OR SHE WAS CONVICTED OR THE MAXIMUM FIXED BY
THE COURT, WHERE THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM TERM." 

BY SEC. 2, PARAGRAPH 6, IF THE PERSON UNDERGOING SENTENCE COMMITS ANY
INFRACTION OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE PLACE OF CONFINEMENT,
THE BOARD  "...  MAY REVOKE ANY ORDER THERETOFORE MADE DETERMINING THE
LENGTH OF THE TIME SUCH CONVICTED PERSON SHALL BE IMPRISONED AND MAKE A
NEW ORDER DETERMINING THE LENGTH OF TIME HE OR SHE SHALL SERVE, NOT
EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW FOR THE CRIME FOR WHICH
HE OR SHE WAS CONVICTED."  IT IS PROVIDED, SEC. 4, THAT A CONVICTED
PERSON MAY BE RELEASED ON PAROLE BY THE BOARD AFTER HE HAS SERVED THE
PERIOD OF CONFINEMENT FIXED BY THE BOARD, LESS TIME CREDITS FOR GOOD
BEHAVIOR AND DILIGENCE WHICH MAY NOT EXCEED "ONE-THIRD OF HIS SENTENCE
AS FIXED BY THE BOARD," AND THAT THE BOARD SHALL HAVE POWER "...  TO
RETURN SUCH PERSON TO THE CONFINES OF THE INSTITUTION FROM WHICH HE OR
SHE WAS PAROLED, AT ITS DISCRETION."  THE GOVERNOR IS AUTHORIZED TO
CANCEL AND REVOKE PAROLES GRANTED BY THE BOARD, AND THE PERIOD
FOLLOWING CANCELLATION OR REVOCATION OF PAROLE, AND PRIOR TO THE
CONVICTED PERSON'S RETURN TO CUSTODY, IS NOT A "PART OF HIS TERM." 

THE SENTENCES OF NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS IMPOSED ON PETITIONERS
WERE THE MAXIMUM PROVIDED BY LAW, AND WERE MADE MANDATORY BY THE ACT OF
1935.  IN OBEDIENCE TO ITS COMMAND THE COURT FIXED NO MINIMUM.  IT DOES
NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD WHETHER THE BOARD OF PRISON, TERMS AND
PAROLES HAS FIXED THE "DURATION" OF PETITIONERS'"CONFINEMENT." 
NUMEROUS GROUNDS ARE URGED BY PETITIONERS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
CONTENTION THAT THE SENTENCE AUTHORIZED BY THE LATER STATUTE IS EX POST
FACTO AS APPLIED TO THEIR OFFENSE, COMMITTED BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT.  WE
FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ONLY ONE. 

IN SUSTAINING THE SENTENCE THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON, WITHOUT
ANALYSIS OR COMPARISON OF THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE TWO STATUTES,
DECLARED "THE AMENDING ACT DOES NOT CHANGE OR INFLICT A GREATER
PUNISHMENT THAN THE LAW IN FORCE WHEN THE ALLEGED CRIME WAS COMMITTED
FOR THE COURT COULD UNDER THE LAW IN FORCE AT THAT TIME PRONOUNCE A
MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS.  THE MINIMUM AND
MAXIMUM PUNISHMENTS REMAIN THE SAME AS BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT
OF 1935."  THIS COURT, IN APPLYING THE EX POST FACTO PROHIBITION OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO STATE LAWS, ACCEPTS THE MEANING ASCRIBED TO
THEM BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  BUT WHEN THEIR MEANING IS THUS
ESTABLISHED, WHETHER THE STANDARDS OF PUNISHMENT SET UP BEFORE AND
AFTER THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE DIFFER, AND WHETHER THE LATER
STANDARD IS MORE ONEROUS THAN THE EARLIER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION, ARE FEDERAL QUESTIONS WHICH THIS COURT WILL
DETERMINE FOR ITSELF.  CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, 4 WALL.  277, 320, REV'G,
STATE V. CUMMINGS, 36 MO. 263, 273; KRING V. MISSOURI, 107 U.S. 221,
223-224, 231-232.  TO ANSWER THEM WE COMPARE THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF
THE TWO STATUTES AS APPLIED TO PETITIONERS' OFFENSE. 

UNDER THE EARLIER SEC. 2281, AS THE STATE CONCEDES, THE PRISONERS
COULD HAVE BEEN SENTENCED FOR A MAXIMUM TERM LESS THAN THE FIFTEEN YEAR
PENALTY AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE.  UNDER THE LATER STATUTE, THE
SENTENCE BY THE COURT, AS COMMANDED BY SEC. 2, WAS FOR FIFTEEN YEARS,
AND THE "DURATION OF CONFINEMENT" TO BE FIXED BY THE BOARD OF PRISON,
TERMS AND PAROLES MAY BE FOR ANY NUMBER OF YEARS NOT EXCEEDING
FIFTEEN. 

THE EFFECT OF THE NEW STATUTE IS TO MAKE MANDATORY WHAT WAS BEFORE
ONLY THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE.  UNDER IT THE PRISONERS MAY BE HELD TO
CONFINEMENT DURING THE ENTIRE FIFTEEN YEAR PERIOD.  EVEN IF THEY ARE
ADMITTED TO PAROLE, TO WHICH THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE AFTER THE EXPIRATION
OF THE TERMS FIXED BY THE BOARD, THEY REMAIN SUBJECT TO ITS
SURVEILLANCE AND THE PAROLE MAY, UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE FIFTEEN
YEARS, BE REVOKED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD OR CANCELLED AT THE
WILL OF THE GOVERNOR.  IT IS TRUE THAT PETITIONERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN
SENTENCED TO FIFTEEN YEARS UNDER THE OLD STATUTE.  BUT THE EX POST
FACTO CLAUSE LOOKS TO THE STANDARD OF PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED BY A
STATUTE, RATHER THAN TO THE SENTENCE ACTUALLY IMPOSED.  THE
CONSTITUTION FORBIDS THE APPLICATION OF ANY NEW PUNITIVE MEASURE TO A
CRIME ALREADY CONSUMMATED, TO THE DETRIMENT OR MATERIAL DISADVANTAGE OF
THE WRONGDOER.  KRING V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, 228-229; IN RE MEDLEY, 134
U.S. 160, 171; THOMPSON V. UTAH, 170 U.S. 343, 351.  IT IS FOR THIS
REASON THAT AN INCREASE IN THE POSSIBLE PENALTY IS EX POST FACTO,
CALDER V. BULL, 3 DALL.  386, 390; CUMMINGS V. MISSOURI, SUPRA, 326;
MALLOY V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 237 U.S. 180, 184, REGARDLESS OF THE LENGTH
OF THE SENTENCE ACTUALLY IMPOSED, SINCE THE MEASURE OF PUNISHMENT
PRESCRIBED BY THE LATER STATUTE IS MORE SEVERE THAN THAT OF THE
EARLIER, STATE V. CALLAHAN, 109 LA. 946; 33 SO. 931; STATE V. SMITH, 56
ORE.  21; 107 PAC. 980. 

REMOVAL OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A SENTENCE OF LESS THAN FIFTEEN YEARS,
AT THE END OF WHICH PETITIONERS WOULD BE FREED FROM FURTHER CONFINEMENT
AND THE TUTELAGE OF A PAROLE REVOCABLE AT WILL, OPERATES TO THEIR
DETRIMENT IN THE SENSE THAT THE STANDARD OF PUNISHMENT ADOPTED BY THE
NEW STATUTE IS MORE ONEROUS THAN THAT OF THE OLD.  IT COULD HARDLY BE
THOUGHT THAT, IF A PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT OR DEATH
WERE CHANGED TO DEATH ALONE, THE LATTER PENALTY COULD BE APPLIED TO
HOMICIDE COMMITTED BEFORE THE CHANGE.  MARION V. STATE, 16 NEB. 349; 20
N.W. 289.  YET THIS IS ONLY A MORE STRIKING INSTANCE OF THE DETRIMENT
WHICH ENSUES FROM THE REVISION OF A STATUTE PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM AND
MINIMUM PUNISHMENT BY MAKING THE MAXIMUM COMPULSORY.  WE NEED NOT
INQUIRE WHETHER THIS IS TECHNICALLY AN INCREASE IN THE PUNISHMENT
ANNEXED TO THE CRIME, SEE CALDER V. BULL, SUPRA, 390.  IT IS PLAINLY TO
THE SUBSTANTIAL DISADVANTAGE OF PETITIONERS TO BE DEPRIVED OF ALL
OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE A SENTENCE WHICH WOULD GIVE THEM FREEDOM FROM
CUSTODY AND CONTROL PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE 15-YEAR TERM. 

PETITIONERS WERE WRONGLY SENTENCED UNDER THE ACT OF 1935.  WHETHER,
IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE LATER ACT, AS APPLIED TO
PETITIONERS, THEY MAY BE SENTENCED UNDER THE EARLIER, IS A QUESTION FOR
THE STATE COURT. 

THE CAUSE WILL BE REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :












U.S. V. AM. TIN PLATE CO., 301 U.S. 402 


NO. 734.  ARGUED APRIL 9, 12, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1937.  - 15
F.SUPP.  711, REVERSED. 


1.  ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REQUIRING CARRIERS TO
DESIST FROM SPOTTING CARS ON INDUSTRIAL PLANT TRACKS AS PART OF THE
SERVICE RENDERED UNDER INTERSTATE LINE-HAUL RATES AND FROM GRANTING
ALLOWANCES OUT OF THE LINE-HAUL RATES TO INDUSTRIES DOING SUCH
SPOTTING, HELD ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS IN
EACH CASE THAT THE INTERCHANGE TRACKS OF THE RESPECTIVE INDUSTRIES ARE
REASONABLY CONVENIENT POINTS FOR THE RECEIPT AND DELIVERY OF INTERSTATE
SHIPMENTS AND THAT THE INDUSTRY PERFORMS NO SERVICE BEYOND THOSE POINTS
OF INTERCHANGE FOR WHICH THE CARRIER IS COMPENSATED UNDER ITS
INTERSTATE LINE-HAUL RATES.  P. 406. 

THESE FINDINGS ARE AN ADJUDICATION BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE
SPOTTING SERVICE WITHIN THE PLANTS IS NOT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE WHICH
THE CARRIERS ARE BOUND TO RENDER IN RESPECT OF RECEIPT AND DELIVERY OF
FREIGHT. 

2.  THE COMMISSION IS NOT FORECLOSED BY ITS EARLIER DECISIONS FROM
INVESTIGATING THE VARIED PRACTICE OF MAKING ALLOWANCES FOR PLANT
SWITCHING AND FROM MAKING PROPER ORDERS TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE AND
PREVENT PERFORMANCE OF A SERVICE NOT WITHIN THE CARRIERS'
TRANSPORTATION OBLIGATION.  P. 407. 

3.  UPON FINDING THAT THE CARRIERS' SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION IS
COMPLETE UPON DELIVERY TO THE INDUSTRIES' INTERCHANGE TRACKS, AND THAT
SPOTTING WITHIN THE PLANTS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SERVICE FOR WHICH THE
LINE-HAUL RATES WERE FIXED, THERE IS POWER IN THE COMMISSION TO ENJOIN
THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT ADDITIONAL SERVICE OR THE MAKING AN ALLOWANCE
TO THE INDUSTRY WHICH PERFORMS IT.  P. 408. 

4. THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS ARE SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE.  P. 409. 

UNITED STATES ET AL. V. AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE CO. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES, SETTING
ASIDE ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CONCERNING THE
SPOTTING OF CARS.  THE CASE WAS A CONSOLIDATION OF SEVERAL CASES, EACH
BROUGHT BY A DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, WHICH WERE TRIED
TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY ONE DECREE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM DECREES OF A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED DISTRICT
COURT  FN1  OF THREE JUDGES ENJOINING AND SETTING ASIDE ORDERS OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WHICH REQUIRED CERTAIN CARRIERS TO CEASE
AND DESIST FROM SPOTTING CARS ON INDUSTRIAL PLANT TRACKS AS PART OF THE
SERVICE RENDERED UNDER INTERSTATE LINE-HAUL RATES AND FROM GRANTING
ALLOWANCES OUT OF THE LINE-HAUL RATES TO INDUSTRIES DOING SUCH
SPOTTING.  THE APPELLEES ARE FIVE INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS AFFECTED BY THE
ORDERS.  THEY CONTEND THAT THE SPOTTING SERVICE IN QUESTION IS
TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT; THAT
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE, OR THE PAYMENT OF AN ALLOWANCE TO AN
INDUSTRY WHICH ITSELF PERFORMS IT, IS SANCTIONED BY CUSTOM AND PRACTICE
AND BY PREVIOUS ADJUDICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION; AND THAT LINE-HAUL
RATES WERE FIXED IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE RENDITION OF SUCH SERVICE. 
THEY FURTHER CHARGE THE ORDERS ARE VOID BECAUSE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OR THE EVIDENCE. 

UPON ITS OWN MOTION THE COMMISSION INSTITUTED AN INVESTIGATION KNOWN
AS "EX PARTE NO. 104, PRACTICES OF CARRIERS AFFECTING OPERATING
REVENUES OR EXPENSES."  PART II OF THAT PROCEEDING HAD TO DO WITH
TERMINAL SERVICES.  FN2  VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED LARGELY
CONSISTING OF TESTIMONY BY OPERATING OFFICIALS OF CARRIERS AND TRAFFIC
REPRESENTATIVES OF SHIPPERS TOUCHING THE SERVICE OF SPOTTING CARS AT
POINTS UPON THE SYSTEMS OF PLANT TRACKAGE MAINTAINED BY LARGE
INDUSTRIES.  THE COMMISSION'S REPORT SUMMARIZED ITS CONCLUSIONS BASED
ON THE EVIDENCE AS TO CONDITIONS AT APPROXIMATELY TWO HUNDRED
INDUSTRIAL PLANTS WHERE SPOTTING ALLOWANCES WERE PAID BY THE CARRIERS
AND NUMEROUS PLANTS WHERE SUCH SERVICES WERE PERFORMED BY THE CARRIER. 
THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT LINE-HAUL RATES HAD NOT BEEN FIXED TO
COMPENSATE THE CARRIERS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE IN QUESTION
AND THAT THE RAILROADS, AFTER FIXING THEIR RATES, HAD ASSUMED A BURDEN
NOT PREVIOUSLY BORNE BY THEM.  IT FOUND THAT SEC. 15(13) OF THE ACT
PERMITTING ALLOWANCES BY CARRIERS TO THOSE PERFORMING A PORTION OF THE
SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION HAD BEEN MADE THE INSTRUMENT OF ABUSE BY THE
PAYMENT OF UNWARRANTED ALLOWANCES AND ADDED:  "WHEN A CARRIER IS
PREVENTED AT ITS ORDINARY OPERATING CONVENIENCE FROM REACHING POINTS OF
LOADING OR UNLOADING WITHIN A PLANT, WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR
INTERFERENCE BY THE DESIRES OF AN INDUSTRY OR THE DISABILITIES OF ITS
PLANT, SUCH AS THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS ARE
CONDUCTED, THE ARRANGEMENT OR CONDITION OF ITS TRACKS, WEIGHING
SERVICE, OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES,  ...  THE SERVICE BEYOND THE POINT
OF INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE IS IN EXCESS OF THAT PERFORMED IN
SIMPLE SWITCHING OR TEAM-TRACK DELIVERY."  IN CONCLUSION, THE REPORT
STATES THAT PAYMENT FOR OR EXEMPTION OF THE COST OF SERVICE PERFORMED
BEYOND SUCH POINTS OF INTERRUPTION OR INTERFERENCE IS IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 6, PROVIDES THE MEANS BY WHICH THE INDUSTRY ENJOYS A PREFERENTIAL
SERVICE NOT ACCORDED TO SHIPPERS GENERALLY, DISSIPATES THE CARRIER'S
FUNDS AND REVENUES, IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EFFICIENT OR
ECONOMICAL MANAGEMENT CONTEMPLATED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AND
IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  NO ORDERS WERE MADE UPON THE FOOTING OF
THE MAIN REPORT, BUT THEREAFTER, DIVISION 6 PROMULGATED SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORTS RECAPITULATING THE TESTIMONY TOUCHING PARTICULAR PLANTS AND
MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH AND THE SERVICE RENDERED THEREAT. 
UPON THE BASIS OF THESE SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS ORDERS TO CEASE AND
DESIST WERE ENTERED.  FN3 THE CARRIERS THEREUPON GAVE NOTICE OF A
REVISION OF THE APPLICABLE TARIFFS, CANCELLING ALLOWANCES OR
WITHDRAWING THE SPOTTING SERVICE.  EACH APPELLEE FILED A BILL PRAYING
THAT THE ORDER AFFECTING IT BE SET ASIDE AND ENFORCEMENT BE
RESTRAINED.  THE CAUSES WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING AND WERE DISPOSED
OF UPON A SINGLE RECORD IN ONE OPINION.  SEPARATE DECREES WERE ENTERED
IN THE RESPECTIVE CAUSES GRANTING THE REQUESTED RELIEF.  THE APPELLANTS
TOOK A SINGLE APPEAL FROM ALL THE DECREES.  WE HOLD THE COMMISSION'S
ORDERS WERE LAWFUL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE. 

FIRST.  THE APPELLEES URGE THAT THE ORDERS ARE FATALLY DEFECTIVE
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION FAILED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY QUASI-JUDICIAL
FINDINGS.  THEY POINT OUT THAT THE COMMISSION HELD THAT AN ALLOWANCE
FURNISHED A MEANS WHEREBY AN INDUSTRY ENJOYED A PREFERENTIAL SERVICE
NOT ACCORDED TO SHIPPERS GENERALLY, AND CONSTITUTED A REFUND OR
REMISSION OF A PORTION OF THE RATE FOR TRANSPORTATION IN VIOLATION OF
SEC. 6(7) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  THEY ASSERT THESE
CONCLUSIONS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS NOT FOUND, AS IT MUST TO BOTTOM AN ORDER ON
SECS. 2, 3 AND 15(1) OF THE ACT,  FN4  THAT THE PRACTICE WAS
UNREASONABLE, UNJUSTLY PREFERENTIAL, UNDULY DISCRIMINATORY, OR
OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL.  RESPECTING SEC. 6(7)  FN5  THEY SAY THAT AS, BY
THAT SECTION AND SEC. 15(13),  FN6  ALLOWANCES TO SHIPPERS WHO PERFORM
A PART OF THE SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION ARE PERMISSIBLE IF TARIFFS
SETTING FORTH THE NATURE AND AMOUNT OF THE ALLOWANCE ARE DULY FILED, AS
THEY WERE IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, IT CANNOT BE AN UNLAWFUL REFUND OR
REBATE FOR THE CARRIERS TO MAKE THE ALLOWANCES WHICH THE TARIFFS
SPECIFY.  IF THE FINDINGS WERE LIMITED TO THE PRACTICES SPECIFIED IN
THE SECTIONS MENTIONED THE POSITION OF THE APPELLEES WOULD NO DOUBT BE
SOUND, BUT THE COMMISSION HAS, IN EACH CASE, FOUND THAT THE INTERCHANGE
TRACKS OF THE RESPECTIVE INDUSTRIES ARE REASONABLY CONVENIENT POINTS
FOR THE RECEIPT AND DELIVERY OF INTERSTATE SHIPMENTS AND THAT THE
INDUSTRY PERFORMS NO SERVICE BEYOND THOSE POINTS OF INTERCHANGE FOR
WHICH THE CARRIER IS COMPENSATED UNDER ITS INTERSTATE LINE-HAUL RATES. 
THESE FINDINGS ARE AN ADJUDICATION BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE SPOTTING
SERVICE WITHIN THE APPELLEES' PLANTS IS NOT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
WHICH THE CARRIERS ARE BOUND TO RENDER IN RESPECT OF RECEIPT AND
DELIVERY OF FREIGHT.  THE STATUTE CONTAINS THIS DEFINITION:  "THE TERM
'TRANSPORTATION' SHALL INCLUDE  ...  ALL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH
THE RECEIPT, DELIVERY, ELEVATION, AND TRANSFER IN TRANSIT  ...  OF
PROPERTY TRANSPORTED."  FN7  THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS
AUTHORIZED AND REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT  FN8  AND,
AFTER HEARING, IF IT BE OF OPINION THAT ANY REGULATION OR PRACTICE OF A
CARRIER BE UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE, OR UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY, "OR
OTHERWISE IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT," TO DETERMINE
WHAT PRACTICE IS OR WILL BE JUST, FAIR AND REASONABLE TO BE THEREAFTER
FOLLOWED AND TO MAKE AN ORDER THAT THE CARRIER CEASE AND DESIST FROM
VIOLATION TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMMISSION FINDS VIOLATION DOES OR
WILL EXIST.  FN9 

SECOND.  THE COMMISSION, SO IT IS SAID, HAS APPROVED ALLOWANCES IN
INSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE UNDER REVIEW AND BY A LONG COURSE OF DECISION
HAS SANCTIONED THE PRACTICE; AND THE CLAIM IS THAT THE CARRIERS HAVE
RELIED UPON THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IN DOING PLANT SPOTTING OR MAKING
ALLOWANCE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT SERVICE BY INDUSTRIES.  WE CANNOT
AGREE EITHER THAT THE COMMISSION HAS SO DECIDED OR THAT IF IT HAD IT
WOULD BE CONCLUDED FROM RE-EXAMINING THE QUESTION IN THE LIGHT OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS.  THE COMMISSION HAS REPEATEDLY DEALT WITH THE
MATTER.  FN10  IN NUMEROUS INSTANCES, UPON APPLICATION OF AN INDUSTRY
FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF SPOTTING SERVICE ON ITS PLANT TRACK SYSTEM, OR
FOR AN ALLOWANCE FROM THE CARRIER FOR ITSELF PERFORMING THE SERVICE,
THE COMMISSION, IN THE VIEW THAT LIKE SERVICE WAS PERFORMED OR AN
ALLOWANCE PAID FOR IT AT OTHER SIMILAR PLANTS, HAS ORDERED THE REMOVAL
OF DISCRIMINATION AS BETWEEN SHIPPERS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IN SOME
CASES THE COMMISSION HAS HELD THAT THE SERVICE DEMANDED WAS NOT A
SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION AND HAS REFUSED TO ORDER THE CARRIER TO
PERFORM IT.  FN11  BUT WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN THE PAST, IT
IS EVIDENT THAT THE GROWTH OF THE PRACTICE OF MAKING ALLOWANCES FOR
PLANT SWITCHING AND THE LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN THE PRACTICE OF THE
CARRIERS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SERVICE PROPERLY CALLED FOR AN
INVESTIGATION OF THE ENTIRE SITUATION AND THE PROMULGATION OF
APPROPRIATE ORDERS TO REGULATE THE PRACTICE AND PREVENT PERFORMANCE OF
A SERVICE NOT WITHIN THE CARRIER'S TRANSPORTATION OBLIGATION.  THE
INVESTIGATION AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE NOT
FORECLOSED BY ITS EARLIER DECISIONS.  THE COMMISSION IS CLEARLY
EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS EMBRACED WITHIN THE SERVICE OF
TRANSPORTATION AND WHAT LIES OUTSIDE THAT SERVICE.  FN12  SINCE THE
COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE CARRIERS' SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION IS
COMPLETE UPON DELIVERY TO THE INDUSTRIES' INTERCHANGE TRACKS, AND THAT
SPOTTING WITHIN THE PLANTS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SERVICE FOR WHICH THE
LINEHAUL RATES WERE FIXED, THERE IS POWER TO ENJOIN THE PERFORMANCE OF
THAT ADDITIONAL SERVICE OR THE MAKING OF AN ALLOWANCE TO THE INDUSTRY
WHICH PERFORMS IT. 

THIRD.  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID MAKES IT UNNECESSARY FURTHER TO DISCUSS
THE QUESTION OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE COMMISSION'S FINDINGS.  IF
SUPPORTED, THEY ARE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE ORDERS MADE. 

FOURTH.  THE CASES WERE HEARD BY THE DISTRICT COURT ON THE RECORD
MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSION.  THE APPELLEES CHALLENGE THE ORDERS AS
WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD DISCLOSES
THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN THE COMMISSION'S
FINDINGS. 

IT IS CONCEDED THAT THE LINE-HAUL RATE COVERS DELIVERY.  SUCH RATES
ARE USUALLY MADE TO OR FROM AN AREA, SOMETIMES DESIGNATED A "SWITCHING
DISTRICT" OR "SWITCHING LIMITS."  WITHIN THAT AREA THE CARRIER HOLDS
ITSELF OUT AS AGREEING TO DELIVER FREIGHT IN ITS FREIGHT DEPOT OR AT
TEAM TRACKS OR ON SIDINGS OR SPUR-TRACKS OWNED BY AN INDUSTRY.  THE
PRACTICE HAS COME TO BE UNIFORM THAT IN DELIVERING A CAR ON A TEAM
TRACK THE CARRIER WILL SPOT THE CAR AT A POINT WHERE MERCHANDISE OF THE
CLASS CONTAINED IN THE CAR IS USUALLY AND MOST CONVENIENTLY UNLOADED;
THUS THERE ARE PARTICULAR TEAM TRACKS OR POINTS WHERE FRUIT AND
VEGETABLES, FURNITURE, ETC., ETC., ARE CONSTANTLY LOADED AND UNLOADED
AND CARS ARE SPOTTED ACCORDINGLY.  IN THE ANALOGOUS SITUATION WHERE AN
INDUSTRY'S WAREHOUSES OR OTHER FACILITIES ARE LOCATED AT GIVEN POINTS
ON A SPUR OR SIDE-TRACK, THE CARRIER HOLDS ITSELF OUT TO SPOT THE CAR
AT THE POINT WHERE IT IS NEEDED FOR LOADING OR UNLOADING, AS A
WAREHOUSE DOOR, A SCRAP PILE, ETC., ETC. 

IN THE CASE OF A LARGE INDUSTRY HAVING MANY POINTS OF LOADING AND
UNLOADING THROUGHOUT ITS PLANT, THE USUAL ARRANGEMENT IS TO HAVE LEAD
TRACKS OR INTERCHANGE TRACKS ON WHICH THE CARS ARE, IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, SHIFTED; THENCE THEY ARE TAKEN OVER PLANT TRACKS TO VARIOUS
BUILDINGS AND POINTS AND ARE SPOTTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEEDS AND
CONVENIENCE OF THE INDUSTRY.  IT IS ASSERTED BY THE APPELLEES THAT IT
HAS BECOME CUSTOMARY TO DO THIS SPOTTING ON PLANT TRACKS AS PART OF THE
DELIVERY SERVICE WHICH THE CARRIER HOLDS ITSELF OUT AS AGREEING TO
PERFORM WITHOUT A CHARGE ADDITIONAL TO THE LINE-HAUL RATE.  THE RECORD
FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY SUCH CUSTOM.  CARRIERS IN OFFICIAL TERRITORY
HAVE, FOR PERHAPS THIRTY YEARS, MADE ALLOWANCES TO CERTAIN INDUSTRIES
FOR DOING SPOTTING WITHIN THEIR PLANTS.  NO UNIFORM RULE AS TO WHEN
SUCH AN ALLOWANCE WOULD BE MADE HAS BEEN ADOPTED ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE
BEEN EFFORTS TO AGREE UPON A RULE.  APPARENTLY THE PLANTS MOST FAVORED
HAVE BEEN STEEL PLANTS AND SOME CARRIERS HAVE REFUSED TO EXTEND THE
SYSTEM OF ALLOWANCES TO OTHER THAN STEEL PLANTS.  IT APPEARS FROM THE
RECORD THAT THE MAKING OF ALLOWANCES HAS NOT BEEN GOVERNED BY ANY
PRINCIPLE AND THE CASES FALL INTO THREE GENERAL CLASSES:  (1) WHERE THE
PLANT DOES ITS OWN SPOTTING AND RECEIVES AN ALLOWANCE; (2) WHERE THE
RAILROAD DOES PLANT SPOTTING; (3) WHERE THE INDUSTRY DOES ITS OWN
SPOTTING AND RECEIVES NO ALLOWANCE. 

NO ALLOWANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN NEW ENGLAND TERRITORY, IN THE
SOUTHEAST, OR IN THE EXTREME SOUTHWEST.  THE PRACTICE OF GRANTING
ALLOWANCES HAS SPREAD, TO SOME EXTENT, FROM OFFICIAL TERRITORY ACROSS
THE MISSISSIPPI AND TO THE NORTHWEST BUT HERE AGAIN THERE IS NO UNIFORM
RULE ABOUT THE MATTER.  THERE IS NO CUSTOM OR PRACTICE WHICH HAS THE
FORCE OF A RULE OF LAW THAT THE LINE-HAUL RATE INCLUDES PLANT SPOTTING
SERVICE. 

THE TESTIMONY OF OPERATING OFFICIALS OF THE CARRIERS AND
TRANSPORTATION OFFICERS OF INDUSTRIES WAS NOT ENTIRELY CONSISTENT. 
SOME TOOK THE POSITION THAT IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF A CARRIER TO SPOT A
CAR ON PLANT TRACKS IF THE SPOTTING INVOLVES BUT A SINGLE UNINTERRUPTED
MOVEMENT WHICH CAN BE MADE AT THE CARRIER'S CONVENIENCE.  MANY TOOK A
BROADER VIEW AND INDICATED THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE LARGE AMOUNT OF
TRAFFIC EMANATING FROM AND TERMINATING AT A GIVEN PLANT THE SPOTTING OF
CARS, IN COOPERATION WITH THE NEEDS OF THE PLANT, WOULD NOT INVOLVE A
BURDEN GREATER THAN THE DELIVERY OF SIMILAR CARS ON TEAM TRACKS.  THERE
WAS MUCH OPINION EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE COST OF SPOTTING A CAR
ON PLANT TRACKS IS NO GREATER THAN THAT OF PLACING A CAR ON TEAM
TRACKS.  THERE WAS, HOWEVER, OPINION EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, AND
FACTS WERE DEVELOPED WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF ENGINE TIME INVOLVED
IN SOME OF THE OPERATIONS UNDER EXAMINATION FROM WHICH IT MAY FAIRLY BE
DEDUCED THAT THE INDUSTRY SWITCHING INVOLVED GREATER EXPENSE THAN TEAM
TRACK SWITCHING.    THE COMMISSION PROPERLY HELD THAT EACH CASE MUST BE
DECIDED UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED.  IT ACCORDINGLY EXAMINED THE
EVIDENCE RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS AT THE PLANT OF EACH OF THE
APPELLEES AND MADE ITS FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH UPON THE EVIDENCE
IN THE RECORD.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DETAIL THAT EVIDENCE SINCE IT
IS SUMMARIZED IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORTS.  IT IS SUFFICIENT NOW TO SAY
THAT IN EVERY CASE THE COMMISSION FOUND, UPON SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, THAT
THE CARS WERE, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, PLACED UPON LEAD TRACKS,
INTERCHANGE TRACKS OR SIDINGS AND SUBSEQUENTLY SPOTTED FROM THESE
TRACKS; IN EACH INSTANCE THE SPOTTING SERVICE INVOLVED ONE OR MORE
OPERATIONS IN ADDITION TO THE PLACING OF THE CAR ON INTERCHANGE TRACKS,
SUCH AS MOVING IT TO PLANT SCALES FOR WEIGHING, OR SOME ADDITIONAL
BURDEN, SUCH AS CONFORMANCE TO THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PLANT, SUPPLY OF
SPECIAL MOTIVE POWER REQUIRED BY THE PLANT'S LAYOUT OR TRACKAGE OR SOME
OTHER ELEMENT WHICH CALLED FOR EXCESSIVE SERVICE GREATER THAN THAT
INVOLVED IN TEAM TRACK SPOTTING OR SPOTTING ON AN ORDINARY INDUSTRIAL
SIDING OR SPUR.  WE ARE UNABLE TO SAY THAT THE FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF
THE INDIVIDUAL PLANTS LACKED SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  WE ARE,
THEREFORE, BOUND TO ACCEPT THEM AND TO HOLD THE ORDERS LAWFUL. 

THE DECREES WILL BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER IS OF OPINION THAT THE COMMISSION'S RULING THAT
THE CARRIERS' SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION IS COMPLETE UPON DELIVERY TO
THE INDUSTRIES' INTERCHANGE TRACKS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS FOUND OR BY THE EVIDENCE; THAT THE ORDERS HERE
INVOLVED ARE BASED UPON A MISCONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT, AND THAT THE
DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  15 F.SUPP.  711. 

FN2  209 I.C.C. 11. 

FN3  THE REPORTS AND ORDERS AFFECTING THE APPELLEES ARE THE
FOLLOWING:  AMERICAN SHEET & TIN PLATE COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 209
I.C.C. 719; ALLEGHENY STEEL COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 209 I.C.C. 273;
PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 209 I.C.C. 467;
WEIRTON STEEL COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 209 I.C.C. 445; WEST
LEECHBURG STEEL COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 210 I.C.C. 213; PITTSBURGH
PLATE GLASS COMPANY TERMINAL ALLOWANCE, 210 I.C.C. 527. 

FN4  49 U.S.C. SECS. 2, 3(1), 15(1). 

FN5  49 U.S.C. SEC. 6(7). 

FN6  49 U.S.C. SEC. 15(13). 

FN7  ACT OF JUNE 29, 1906, C. 3591, SEC. 1, 34 STAT. 584; 49 U.S.C.
SEC. 1(3). 

FN8  49 U.S.C., SEC. 12(1). 

FN9  49 U.S.C., SEC. 15(1). 

FN10  ASSOCIATED JOBBERS OF LOS ANGELES V. A.T. & S.F. RY. CO., 18
I.C.C. 310; CAR SPOTTING CHARGES, 34 I.C.C. 609; NATIONAL MALLEABLE
CASTINGS CO. V. PITTSBURGH & L.E.R. CO., 51 I.C.C. 537, AND MANY
OTHERS. 

FN11  GENERAL ELECTRIC CASE, 14 I.C.C. 237; CRANE IRON WORKS CASE, 17
I.C.C. 514, 209 FED. 238.  COMPARE N.Y.C. & H.R.R. CO. V. GENERAL
ELECTRIC CO., 219 N.Y. 227, 114 N.E. 115. 

FN12  LOS ANGELES SWITCHING CASE, 234 U.S. 294, 311; MERCHANTS
WAREHOUSE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 501, 508. 
..END :














ATL. & PAC. TEA CO. V. GROSJEAN, 301 U.S. 412 


NO. 652.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 31, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1937.  - 16
F.SUPP.  499, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WITHOUT CONTRAVENING THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, A STATE MAY SEPARATELY CLASSIFY FOR TAXATION THE CONDUCT OF
A CHAIN STORE, AND MAY INCREASE THE RATE IN PROPORTION TO THE INCREASE
IN THE NUMBER OF STORES WITHIN THE STATE, SINCE THE OPPORTUNITIES AND
POWERS OF A CHAIN STORE OPERATOR BECOME GREATER WITH THE GROWTH OF THE
NUMBER OF UNITS MAINTAINED.  FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87,
100.  P. 419. 

2.  IN ADJUSTING THE RATE FOR A CHAIN STORE WITHIN THE STATE, THE
LEGISLATURE MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SIZE OF THE CHAIN TO WHICH THE
STORE BELONGS, BY COUNTING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ITS UNITS WHEREVER
LOCATED.  P. 419. 

3.  ACT NO. 51, OF LOUISIANA, 1934, WHICH LAYS A PROGRESSIVELY
INCREASING RATE OF TAXATION ON THE OPERATION OF CHAIN STORES WITHIN THE
STATE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE STORES IN THE CHAIN, WHETHER WITHIN
THE STATE OR OUTSIDE, DOES NOT ARBITRARILY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST

THE FINDINGS ON EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF
CHAINS INCREASED WITH THE NUMBER OF COMPONENT LINKS, AND THAT THE
ADDITION OF UNITS TO A CHAIN INCREASED THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF
EACH STORE IN THE CHAIN. 

4.  THAT THE STATUTE, BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL UNITS
INDISCRIMINATELY IN FIXING THE RATE, MAY FAIL ACCURATELY TO ADJUST THE
FEE CHARGED TO THE VALUE OF THE LOCAL PRIVILEGE TAXED, IS NOT A GOOD
REASON FOR ADJUDGING IT ARBITRARY.  P. 423. 

5.  THE SUBJECT OF THE LOUISIANA TAX IS THE PROSECUTION OF A DEFINED
BUSINESS ACTIVITY WITHIN THAT STATE, VIZ., THE CONDUCT OF A RETAIL
STORE WHICH IS PART OF A CHAIN UNDER A SINGLE MANAGEMENT, OWNERSHIP OR
CONTROL; THE MEASURE OF THE TAX IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS OF THE CHAIN
WITHIN THE STATE; THE FACT THAT THE RATE OF TAX FOR EACH SUCH UNIT IS
FIXED BY REFERENCE TO ALL THE UNITS OF THE CHAIN, INCLUDING THOSE
OPERATED ELSEWHERE, DOES NOT, IN LEGAL EFFECT, RESULT IN TAXATION OF
PROPERTY OR PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY THE TAXPAYER BEYOND THE BORDERS OF
THE STATE.  P. 424. 

6.  THE LOUISIANA TAX, SUPRA, MAY BE FURTHER UPHELD AS TAXATION IN
AID OF A POLICY OF THE STATE TO MITIGATE EVILS OF COMPETITION AS
BETWEEN SINGLE STORES AND CHAINS, OR A POLICY TO NEUTRALIZE
DISADVANTAGES OF SMALL CHAINS IN THEIR COMPETITION WITH LARGER ONES, OR
TO DISCOURAGE MERCHANDISING WITHIN THE STATE BY CHAINS GROWN SO LARGE
AS TO BECOME A MENACE TO THE GENERAL WELFARE.  P. 425. 

7.  WITHIN ITS POLICE POWER, THE STATE MAY FORBID THE PROSECUTION OF
A PARTICULAR TYPE OF BUSINESS INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE, OR
REGULATE SUCH BUSINESS TO ABATE EVILS ARISING FROM ITS PURSUIT.  P.
425. 

8.  WHATEVER A STATE MAY FORBID OR REGULATE IT MAY PERMIT UPON
CONDITION THAT A FEE BE PAID IN RETURN FOR THE PRIVILEGE, AND SUCH A
FEE MAY BE EXACTED TO DISCOURAGE THE PROSECUTION OF A BUSINESS OR TO
ADJUST COMPETITIVE OR ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES.  P. 426. 

9.  THE POLICY A STATE IS FREE TO ADOPT WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS
ACTIVITIES OF HER OWN CITIZENS SHE MAY APPLY TO THE CITIZENS OF OTHER
STATES WHO CONDUCT THE SAME BUSINESS WITHIN HER BORDERS, AND THIS
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE EVILS REQUIRING REGULATION ARISE SOLELY
FROM OPERATIONS IN THE STATE OR ARE IN PART THE RESULT OF EXTRA-STATE
TRANSACTIONS.  P. 427. 

10.  A PARTY SUBJECTED TO A STATE TAX ONLY IN RESPECT OF LOCAL
ACTIVITIES CANNOT HAVE AN ADVISORY DECREE AGAINST A POSSIBLE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAXING ACT WHICH WOULD BURDEN OR REGULATE HIS
RELATED ACTIVITIES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  PP. 427, 429. 

GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. ET AL. V. GROSJEAN, SUPERVISOR OF
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES,
DISMISSING A BILL TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A TAX ON CHAIN STORES. 
THE ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF.  OTHER
CHAIN STORE OPERATORS INTERVENED. 

THE LOUISIANA STATUTE TAXES OPERATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE. 

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PRECLUDES THE STATE FROM IMPOSING A TAX ON
OPERATIONS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  SAFETY DEPOSIT TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA,
280 U.S. 83, 92; PROVIDENT SAVINGS ASSN. V. KENTUCKY, 239 U.S. 103,
112; LOUISVILLE FERRY CO. V. KENTUCKY, 188 U.S. 385, 395, 396; DELAWARE
L. & W.R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 198 U.S. 341, 356; UNION TRANSIT CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, 204; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. HEAD, 234 U.S.
149, 162, 163. 

A STATE CANNOT BY LANGUAGE OR INDIRECTION ACCOMPLISH AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE.  FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. TAFOYA, 270 U.S.
426, 434, 435; NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 508;
MISSOURI V. GEHNER, 281 U.S. 313; SCHUYLKILL TRUST CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA,
296 U.S. 13; BETHLEHEM MOTORS CORP. V. FLYNT, 256 U.S. 421; COLGATE V.
HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404.  DISTINGUISHING: MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250 U.S. 525
AND FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473. 

THE STATUTE CANNOT BE SUPPORTED ON THE THEORY THAT LOUISIANA TAXES
ONLY WHAT IS IN LOUISIANA BY ANALOGY TO ALLOCATION.  WESTERN UNION V.
KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1; LUDWIG V. WESTERN UNION, 216 U.S. 146; PULLMAN CO.
V. KANSAS, 216 U.S. 56; ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. V. O'CONNOR, 223 U.S.
280; LOONEY V. CRANE, 245 U.S. 178; INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. V.
MASSACHUSETTS, 246 U.S. 135, 142; AIRWAY CORP. V. DAY, 266 U.S. 71;
CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. HINKLE, 278 U.S. 400; HANS REES' SONS V. NORTH
CAROLINA, 283 U.S. 123.  DISTINGUISHING:  WALLACE V. HINES, 253 U.S.
66; BALTIC MINING CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 231 U.S. 68. 

THE STATUTE INCREASES THE LOUISIANA TAX WHEN LOUISIANA OPERATIONS
DECREASE IF OUTSIDE OPERATIONS INCREASE.  THIS COULD NEVER HAPPEN UNDER
AN ALLOCATION STATUTE.  CF. FARGO V. HART, 193 U.S. 490; UNION TANK
LINE V. WRIGHT, 249 U.S. 275. 

THE STATUTE PLACES ALL STORES EVERYWHERE IN THE HIGHEST APPLICABLE
BRACKET.  IF LOUISIANA HAS A RIGHT TO DO THIS, THEN EVERY STATE HAS A
SIMILAR RIGHT, AND ALTHOUGH A CORPORATION OWNED ONLY ONE STORE IN EVERY
STATE, THAT STORE WOULD BE IN THE HIGHEST BRACKET EVERYWHERE. 

THE STATUTE DENIES THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS TO CHAINS
OPERATING BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT LOUISIANA.  IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO,
AND DOES NOT, PROTECT INDEPENDENTS AGAINST CHAINS, BUT DISCRIMINATES
AMONG CHAINS.  BUT THE STATE CANNOT CONSISTENTLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION
UNDERTAKE TO BENEFIT OR GIVE ADVANTAGE TO ITS CITIZENS OR THOSE DOING
BUSINESS ONLY WITHIN ITS BORDERS BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THOSE WHO
ALSO DO BUSINESS ELSEWHERE.  WARD V. MARYLAND, 12 WALL.  418, 430;
COLGATE V. HARVEY, 296 U.S. 404. 

IF THIS STATUTE IS UPHELD, A STATE MAY MAKE ITS TAX RATES APPLICABLE
TO INCOME AND OPERATIONS WITHIN THE STATE DEPEND UPON FACTORS OUTSIDE
THE STATE.  THE RESULT WOULD BE TO PERMIT THE STATE, IN EFFECT, TO
EXCLUDE FROM THE STATE PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS OPERATING OUTSIDE THE
STATE, AND TO CONVERT THE UNION INTO A CONFEDERATION OF STATES.  SEE
BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC., 294 U.S. 511.  A TAX BASED UPON SIZE
ALONE, AS E.G. A GRADUATED TAX UPON GROSS SALES, IS ARBITRARY AND
INVALID.  SEE STEWART DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294 U.S. 550, 560. 

THE RIGHT OF LOUISIANA TO EXCLUDE A FOREIGN CORPORATION CANNOT BE
USED AS A BASIS FOR TAXING IT UPON PROPERTY THAT, BY ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLES, THE STATE HAS NO POWER TO TAX.  FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V.
TAFOYA, 270 U.S. 426; QUAKER CITY CAB CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 277 U.S.
389. 

PROHIBITION OF SIZE EXTENDING TO OPERATIONS OUTSIDE THE STATE MAY
PROPERLY BE ACCOMPLISHED ONLY BY NATIONAL LEGISLATION.  UNITED STATES
V. BENNETT, 232 U.S. 299, 306. 

IF THE STATUTE IS VALID, MUNICIPALITIES MAY ADOPT CORRESPONDING
ORDINANCES BASED ON OPERATIONS OUTSIDE THE STATE, FURTHER ASSURING
EXCLUSION OF FOREIGN CHAINS. 

EVERY LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF LOUISIANA TO LAY TRIBUTE UPON OPERATIONS
WITHIN ITS BORDERS IS ATTAINED UNDER THE STATE INCOME AND FRANCHISE TAX
LAWS, THE 1932 CHAIN STORE ACT, AND THE GENERAL LICENSE TAX LAWS. 

THE INVALIDITY OF THE 1934 STATUTE WILL LEAVE THE 1932 STATUTE IN
EFFECT. 

ACT 51 OF 1934 LEVIES A LICENSE OR PRIVILEGE TAX ON THE PRIVILEGE OF
OPERATING RETAIL STORES IN MULTIPLE FORM IN LOUISIANA, AND IS CLEARLY
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE LOUISIANA LEGISLATURE.  LA. CONST., 1921,
ART. 10, SEC. 8. 

THE STATUTE CLASSIFIES BUSINESSES ACCORDING TO TYPE OF BUSINESS DONE
AND THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE TO DO BUSINESS IN LOUISIANA; THE MEASURE
OF THE TAX IS THE NUMBER OF RETAIL STORES IN THE STATE; THE TYPE OF
BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN LOUISIANA AND THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE TO DO
BUSINESS IN LOUISIANA ARE DETERMINED BY THE NUMBER OF RETAIL STORES
UNDER THE SAME GENERAL MANAGEMENT, SUPERVISION, OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL;
THE GREATER THE NUMBER OF RETAIL UNITS IN A CHAIN, THE GREATER THE MANY
ADVANTAGES ACCRUING TO THE OPERATORS OF THE CHAIN, AND THE GREATER THE
ADVANTAGES ACCRUING TO EACH RETAIL UNIT IN THE CHAIN, THEREBY
DETERMINING THE TYPE OF BUSINESS THE RETAIL UNIT OR UNITS ARE ENGAGED
IN, AND THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN LOUISIANA. 

THE TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND OFFERINGS IN THIS CASE
INCLUDE PRACTICALLY THE SAME PROOF FOUND IN STATE BOARD OF TAX COMM'RS
V. JACKSON, 283 U.S. 527.  SEE ALSO LIGGETT CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. 517,
AND FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87. 

THE STATUTE INVOLVED TREATS ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED ALIKE.  THAT IS
ALL THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL AND
STATE CONSTITUTIONS.  OHIO OIL CO. V. CONWAY, 281 U.S. 146. 

UNDER ACT 51 OF 1934, THE RATE OF TAX ALONE IS AFFECTED BY THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF RETAIL STORES IN A CHAIN.  CF. MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250 U.S.
525; FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473. 

THE STATE CAN LOOK BEYOND ITS BORDERS TO DETERMINE TRUE VALUE OF
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE STATE WHEN ALL ARE PART OF A SYSTEM.  WALLACE V.
HINES, 253 U.S. 66; 61 C.J., P. 694; UNION TANK LINE V. WRIGHT, 249
U.S. 275; WESTERN UNION V. TAGGART, 163 U.S. 1; FARGO V. HART, 193 U.S.
490; EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379; FLINT V. STONE
TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107; BALTIC MINING CO. V. MASSACHUSETTS, 231 U.S.
68. 

THE STATUTE SHOULD BE SUSTAINED ON THE FURTHER GROUND THAT ALL
APPELLANTS ARE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS DOING INTRASTATE BUSINESS IN
LOUISIANA, LIGGETT CO. V. LEE, 288 U.S. 517. 

THE PRIVILEGE OF ENGAGING IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE IN LOUISIANA IN
CORPORATE FORM IS ONE WHICH THE STATE MAY CONFER OR WITHHOLD AS IT SEES
FIT.  RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY V. VIRGINIA, 282 U.S. 440. 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE STATUTE, IN EFFECT, CLASSIFIES CHAIN
OPERATORS IN LOUISIANA AS LOCAL, SECTIONAL AND NATIONAL.  SEE LIGGETT
CO. V. LEE, SUPRA. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CAUSE PRESENTS THE QUESTIONS WHETHER THE METHOD PRESCRIBED BY A
CHAIN STORE TAX ACT FOR ASCERTAINING THE RATE OF TAXATION OFFENDS THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION. 

IN 1932 THE LEGISLATURE OF LOUISIANA ADOPTED AN ACT LEVYING AN
OCCUPATION OR LICENSE TAX UPON CHAIN STORES,  FN1  UNDER WHICH THE
EXACTION WAS FIFTEEN DOLLARS UPON EACH OF TWO OR MORE STORES, NOT IN
EXCESS OF FIVE; UPON EACH STORE IN EXCESS OF FIVE, BUT NOT EXCEEDING
TEN, TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS; AND THE AMOUNT INCREASED IN BRACKETS FOR
ADDITIONAL STORES, THE LAST BRACKET EMBRACING STORES IN EXCESS OF FIFTY
UPON EACH OF WHICH THE TAX WAS TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS. 

BY ACT 51 OF 1934  FN2  THE EARLIER LAW WAS AMENDED TO LAY THE TAX ON
"PERSONS, FIRMS, PARTNERSHIPS, CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF PERSONS
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING TWO OR MORE STORES OR MERCANTILE
ESTABLISHMENTS, ONE OR MORE OF WHICH IS LOCATED IN THIS STATE ... UNDER
THE SAME GENERAL MANAGEMENT, SUPERVISION, OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL  ..." 
OR MERCANTILE ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED UNDER THE SAME GENERAL
MANAGEMENT, SUPERVISION, OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL, WHETHER OPERATED IN THIS
STATE OR NOT, AND SHALL BE FIXED AND GRADED AS FOLLOWS TO WIT:  (1)
UPON STORES OR MERCANTILE ESTABLISHMENTS OPERATED IN THIS STATE AND
BELONGING TO A CHAIN OR GROUP HAVING A TOTAL OF NOT MORE THAN TEN
STORES, THE ANNUAL LICENSE SHALL BE TEN ($10.00) DOLLARS FOR EACH SUCH
STORE OPERATED IN THIS STATE."  THERE ARE FIFTEEN ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPHS
PROGRESSIVELY INCREASING THE RATE PER STORE IN LOUISIANA OF LARGER
CHAINS, THE LAST FIXING THE RATE FOR A STORE BELONGING TO A CHAIN OF
MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED AT $550. 

THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION,
OWNING, OPERATING OR CONTROLLING 15,082 STORES IN THE UNITED STATES,
CANADA, AND ELSEWHERE, 106 OF WHICH ARE IN LOUISIANA, FILED ITS BILL IN
THE DISTRICT COURT TO RESTRAIN THE APPELLEES, STATE OFFICERS, FROM
ENFORCING THE STATUTE.  OTHER CORPORATIONS OPERATING CHAINS, SOME UNITS
OF WHICH ARE LOCATED IN LOUISIANA, INTERVENED AS PLAINTIFFS.  A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED, THE APPELLEES ANSWERED THE BILL,
AND THE CASE WAS HEARD UPON PLEADINGS AND PROOFS BY A SPECIALLY
CONSTITUTED COURT OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH UPHELD THE STATUTE AND
DISMISSED THE BILL.  FN3 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY OF THE ACT IS SAID TO CONSIST IN
ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF LOCAL AS AGAINST NATIONAL CHAINS,
IN THE ATTEMPT TO TAX PROPERTY AND ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE BEYOND THE
STATE'S JURISDICTION, AND IN BURDENING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE HOLD
THE LEGISLATION IMPREGNABLE TO ATTACK ON THESE GROUNDS. 

FIRST.  THE EXACTION IS AN OCCUPATION OR LICENSE TAX.  THE SUBJECT IS
THE CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS WITHIN LOUISIANA.  WITHOUT CONTRAVENING THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A STATE MAY
SEPARATELY CLASSIFY FOR TAXATION THE CONDUCT OF A CHAIN STORE,  FN4
AND MAY INCREASE THE RATE IN PROPORTION TO THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER
OF STORES WITHIN THE STATE, SINCE THE OPPORTUNITIES AND POWERS OF A
CHAIN STORE OPERATOR BECOME GREATER WITH THE GROWTH OF THE NUMBER OF
UNITS MAINTAINED.  FN5  THE APPELLANTS ASSERT THAT IN ADJUSTING THE
RATE FOR A CHAIN STORE IN LOUISIANA THE LEGISLATURE MAY NOT TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE SIZE OF THE CHAIN TO WHICH THE STORE BELONGS, BY COUNTING
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ITS UNITS WHEREVER LOCATED.  SO TO DO, IT IS
CLAIMED, IS ARBITRARILY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SECTIONAL OR NATIONAL
CHAINS IN FAVOR OF INTRASTATE CHAINS. 

THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE TESTIMONY OFFERED BY THE STATE WAS
SIMILAR TO THAT IN TAX COMMISSIONERS V. JACKSON, SUPRA; ESTABLISHED THE
DIFFERENCE IN TYPE OF OPERATION BETWEEN THE OPERATOR OF ONE STORE AND
THE OPERATOR OF MANY, AND THE VARIANCE IN ADVANTAGE AND MODE OF
OPERATION WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE CHAIN.  IN ADDITION, THE
COURT FOUND THAT ALL THE STORES OF A RETAIL CHAIN CONTRIBUTE TO THE
CENTRAL PURCHASING POWER OF THE CHAIN IRRESPECTIVE OF STATE LINES AND
LOCATION OF STORES, AND INCREASE THE PER UNIT MULTIPLE ADVANTAGE
ENJOYED BY THE OPERATOR OF THE SYSTEM; THAT THE GREATER THE NUMBER OF
UNITS THE GREATER THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE CHAIN, THE GREATER THE
REBATES AND ALLOWANCES, THE GREATER THE ADVANTAGES IN ADVERTISING, THE
GREATER THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED, THE GREATER THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES, AND THE LOWER THE COST OF DISTRIBUTION AND OVERHEAD.  "IN
FINE, THE RECORD IN THIS CASE SHOWS THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE ADVANTAGES
MADE BY EACH UNIT IN THE CHAIN, AND THE PER UNIT ADVANTAGE MADE
POSSIBLE BY THE WHOLE SYSTEM, AND IN THAT RESPECT ONLY DOES IT DIFFER
MATERIALLY FROM THE PROOF WHICH WAS BEFORE THE COURT IN THE JACKSON
CASE."  THESE FINDINGS ARE ASSIGNED AS ERROR, BUT THEY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL
SUPPORT IN THE RECORD AND WE THEREFORE ACCEPT THEM. 

IF THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OF A CHAIN INCREASE WITH THE NUMBER OF
ITS COMPONENT LINKS, IT IS HARD TO SEE HOW THESE ADVANTAGES CEASE AT
THE STATE BOUNDARY.  UNDER THE FINDINGS A STORE BELONGING TO A CHAIN OF
ONE HUNDRED, ALL LOCATED IN LOUISIANA, HAS NOT THE SAME COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGES AS ONE OF ONE HUNDRED LOUISIANA STORES BELONGING TO A
NATIONAL CHAIN OF ONE THOUSAND.  THE APPELLANTS LEAN HEAVILY ON THE
FINDINGS OF THE COURT RESPECTING THE RELATIVE BUSINESS IN NEW ORLEANS
OF THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC COMPANY AND THE H.G. HILL STORES,
INC., A LOUISIANA CORPORATION.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE OPERATIONS OF
THE TWO ARE GENERALLY OF THE SAME CHARACTER; THE FORMER CONDUCTS ONE
HUNDRED AND SIX STORES IN THE STATE, SIXTY-TWO OF WHICH ARE IN THE CITY
OF NEW ORLEANS; THE LATTER NINETY-TWO IN THE STATE, OF WHICH EIGHTY
SEVEN ARE IN THE CITY.  EACH CONCERN CONDUCTS GROCERY AND MEAT STORES
WITH SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME LINE OF MERCHANDISE AND THEIR SALES METHODS
ARE PRACTICALLY THE SAME.  THE GROSS VOLUME OF SALES OF HILL IN NEW
ORLEANS IS MUCH GREATER; IT HAS MORE STORES, AND DOES MORE BUSINESS PER
STORE IN THAT CITY THAN THE ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC.  THE COURT FURTHER
FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT THE TOTAL PURCHASING POWER OF THE ATLANTIC AND
PACIFIC IS MUCH GREATER THAN THAT OF HILL; THAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC
HAS FIELD OFFICES LOCATED AT PRIMARY MARKETS, WHICH ARE IN CHARGE OF
SPECIALISTS AND SUPERVISED BY CENTRAL PURCHASING OFFICES IN NEW YORK,
AND MAINTAINS DIVISIONAL WAREHOUSES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHEREAS THE
OPERATIONS OF HILL ARE CONFINED TO LOUISIANA, AND CHIEFLY TO NEW
ORLEANS.  UNDER THE STATUTE HILL IS TAXABLE AT THE RATE OF $30 PER
STORE AS AGAINST $550 ASSESSABLE AGAINST ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC.  THESE
FACTS ARE SAID TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACT DENIES THE APPELLANT AND
OTHER INTERVENORS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS BY ARBITRARILY
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST NATIONAL IN FAVOR OF LOCAL CHAINS.  BUT THE
CONTENTION IS ANSWERED NOT ONLY BY THE SPECIFIC FINDING RESPECTING THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES' METHODS BUT BY THE GENERAL
FINDING THAT ADDITION OF UNITS TO A CHAIN INCREASES THE COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE OF EACH STORE IN THE CHAIN. 

THE COURT'S FINDINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE BEARING UPON A VARIETY
OF ADVANTAGES ENJOYED BY LARGE CHAINS WHICH ARE UNAVAILABLE TO SMALLER
CHAINS.  ONE STRIKING ILLUSTRATION IS FURNISHED BY THE UNCONTRADICTED
PROOF THAT THE ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC COMPANY RECEIVED, IN THE YEAR 1934,
FROM ITS VENDORS, SECRET REBATES, ALLOWANCES, AND BROKERAGE FEES
AMOUNTING TO $8,105,000 WHICH WERE DEMANDED BY THE COMPANY AS A
CONDITION OF PURCHASING FROM THE VENDORS IN QUESTION.  THE LEVERAGE
WHICH ACCOMPLISHED THIS WAS THE ENORMOUS PURCHASING POWER OF THE
COMPANY.  THE AMOUNT THUS OBTAINED EQUALS $530 FOR EACH OF THE ATLANTIC
AND PACIFIC COMPANY'S STORES OR NEARLY THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX EXACTED BY
THE STATUTE.  THE APPELLANTS INSIST THAT THESE FACTS ARE NOT
SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THERE IS TESTIMONY THAT, IN THE DRUG TRADE,
QUANTITY DISCOUNTS USUALLY DO NOT INCREASE AFTER A CERTAIN VOLUME OF
PURCHASES IS REACHED, BUT THE TESTIMONY DOES NOT SPECIFY THE POINT
WHERE QUANTITY DISCOUNTS CEASE TO GROW.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES WHAT
WOULD BE PLAIN ENOUGH WITHOUT EVIDENCE, THAT GENERALLY VOLUME OF
PURCHASING POWER SPELLS LOWER PRICES, SPECIAL TERMS, AND OTHER
ADVANTAGES.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE
FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER FACILITIES ENJOYED ONLY, OR IN INCREASED
MEASURE, BY THE LARGER CHAINS. 

THE APPELLANTS URGE THAT THE ACT ARBITRARILY DISCRIMINATES IN FAVOR
OF LOCAL CHAINS BECAUSE IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT A CHAIN OPERATING
WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE WOULD HAVE FIVE HUNDRED STORES, NOT TO MENTION
UPWARDS OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND, THE NUMBER MAINTAINED BY THE ATLANTIC AND
PACIFIC.  THE ARGUMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FINDING THAT ADDITIONAL
UNITS, WHEREVER SITUATE, INCREASE THE ADVANTAGES AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS
OF THE CHAIN AS A WHOLE AND OF EACH UNIT; AND IGNORES THE POSSIBILITY
THAT A CHAINSTORE COMPANY OF NATIONAL SCOPE MIGHT WELL BE INCORPORATED
IN LOUISIANA, WHOSE STORES IN THAT STATE WOULD BE RATED FOR TAXATION
ACCORDING TO ITS TOTAL STORES WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE STATE. 

OTHER INSTANCES OF THE WORKING OF THE ACT ARE CITED TO SHOW THAT IT
ARBITRARILY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NATIONAL CHAINS AND IN FAVOR OF LOCAL
ONES SOLELY BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH.  THUS, IT IS SAID, IF A NATIONAL
CHAIN OWNING 501 STORES IN OTHER STATES, ESTABLISHES A SINGLE STORE IN
A LOUISIANA CITY WHERE THERE IS A LOCAL CHAIN OF TWO OR THREE LIKE
ESTABLISHMENTS, THE NATIONAL CONCERN MUST PAY A LICENSE OF $550 FOR ITS
ONE STORE WHILE THE STORES OF THE LOCAL CHAIN ARE TAXED BUT $10 EACH. 
THE APPELLEES RETORT THAT SINCE THE EARLIER LAW IMPOSED A TAX OF $15 ON
EACH STORE IN THE LOCAL CHAIN AND NONE UPON THE ONE LOUISIANA STORE OF
THE NATIONAL CHAIN IT WAS MORE VULNERABLE TO THE CHARGE OF
ARBITRARINESS THAN THE ACT UNDER REVIEW.  WHATEVER THE PERTINENCE OF
THE REPLY, THE FACTS FOUND RESPECTING THE ADVANTAGES OF A LARGER CHAIN
AS COMPARED WITH A SMALLER JUSTIFY AS NOT UNREASONABLE OR ARBITRARY THE
IMPOSITION OF A HIGHER LICENSE TAX ON THE UNITS OF THE FORMER WHICH ARE
MAINTAINED WITHIN THE STATE.  EVEN ONE UNIT OF SUCH A NATIONAL CHAIN
LOCATED IN LOUISIANA ENJOYS COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES OVER THE STORES OF
THE LOCAL PROPRIETOR CONSEQUENT UPON ITS RELATION TO THE FAR-FLUNG
ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES OF THE CHAIN. 

THE ACT UNDER REVIEW IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE FLORIDA STATUTE
CONSIDERED IN LIGGETT CO. V. LEE, SUPRA, WHICH INCREASED THE TAX IF THE
CHAIN HAPPENED TO HAVE STORES IN TWO COUNTIES OF THE STATE RATHER THAN
IN ONE.  THE INCREASE OF RATE WAS HELD ARBITRARY BECAUSE IT WAS
UNRELATED TO THE SIZE OR CHARACTER OF THE CHAIN AND WAS CONDITIONED
SOLELY UPON THE LOCATION OF ONE OR MORE OF ITS UNITS.  THE LOUISIANA
ACT ADOPTS NO SUCH BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION.  A SMALL CHAIN OF THREE
STORES, ONE OF WHICH IS IN LOUISIANA AND TWO IN MISSISSIPPI, WILL PAY
EXACTLY THE SAME TAX AS A SIMILAR ORGANIZATION HAVING THE SAME NUMBER
OF STORES ALL IN LOUISIANA.  A CONCERN HAVING NINETY-TWO STORES
SCATTERED OVER TEN STATES, SEVEN OF WHICH ARE IN LOUISIANA, WILL PAY
EXACTLY THE SAME TAX PER LOUISIANA STORE AS THE H.G. HILL STORES, INC.,
ALL OF WHOSE NINETY-TWO STORES ARE IN LOUISIANA.  THUS IT APPEARS THAT
THE CLASSIFICATION IS NOT BASED UPON THE LOCATION OF THE STORES WITHIN
OR WITHOUT THE STATE BUT UPON THE TYPE OF BUSINESS CONDUCTED, THE SCALE
OF THAT BUSINESS, ITS ACCOMPANYING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES AND ECONOMIC
RESULTS. 

FINALLY, SINCE THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT THE SALES AND EARNINGS OF
THE INDIVIDUAL STORES OF A CHAIN DIFFER IN VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE
COUNTRY AND THOSE OF THE LOUISIANA STORES HAVE BEEN BELOW THE AVERAGE
FOR ALL STORES OF MANY OF THE APPELLANTS, THE CLAIM IS THAT THE
STATUTE, BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL UNITS INDISCRIMINATELY IN FIXING
THE RATE, ARBITRARILY DISREGARDS THE VALUE OF THE LOCAL PRIVILEGE FOR
WHICH THE LICENSE FEE IS CHARGED.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT CLASSIFICATION OF
CHAINS ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS MUST BE CONDEMNED BECAUSE
ANOTHER METHOD MORE NICELY ADJUSTED TO REPRESENT THE DIFFERENCES IN
EARNING POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL STORES MIGHT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, FOR THE
LEGISLATURE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE METICULOUS ADJUSTMENTS IN AN EFFORT
TO AVOID INCIDENTAL HARDSHIPS.  FN6  IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE
CLASSIFICATION HAS REASONABLE RELATION TO THE DIFFERENCES IN THE
PRACTICES OF SMALL AND LARGE CHAINS.  THE STATUTE BEARS EQUALLY UPON
ALL WHO FALL INTO THE SAME CLASS, AND THIS SATISFIES THE GUARANTY OF
EQUAL PROTECTION.  FN7 

SECOND.  THE APPELLANTS CONTEND THE ACT DEPRIVES THEM OF PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE THE TAX IS IMPOSED, AT LEAST IN
PART, UPON THINGS WHICH ARE BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF LOUISIANA.  THE
STATE MAY NOT TAX REAL PROPERTY OR TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY LYING
OUTSIDE HER BORDERS; FN8  NOR MAY SHE LAY AN EXCISE OR PRIVILEGE TAX
UPON THE EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT OF A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE IN ANOTHER STATE
DERIVED FROM THE LAWS OF THAT STATE AND THEREIN EXERCISED AND ENJOYED. 
FN9  BUT, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX IN QUESTION IS THE
PROSECUTION OF A DEFINED BUSINESS ACTIVITY WITHIN THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA,  - THE CONDUCT OF A RETAIL STORE WHICH IS A PART OF A CHAIN
UNDER A SINGLE MANAGEMENT, OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL,  - A LEGITIMATE
SUBJECT OF A LICENSE OR OCCUPATION TAX.  THE MEASURE OF THE EXACTION IS
THE NUMBER OF UNITS OF THE CHAIN WITHIN THE STATE,  - A MEASURE
SANCTIONED BY OUR DECISIONS.  THE RATE OF TAX FOR EACH SUCH UNIT IS
FIXED BY REFERENCE TO THE SIZE OF THE ENTIRE CHAIN.  IN LEGAL
CONTEMPLATION THE STATE DOES NOT LAY A TAX UPON PROPERTY LYING BEYOND
HER BORDERS NOR DOES SHE TAX ANY PRIVILEGE EXERCISED AND ENJOYED BY THE
TAXPAYER IN OTHER STATES.  THE LAW RATES THE PRIVILEGE ENJOYED IN
LOUISIANA ACCORDING TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THAT PRIVILEGE IN THE
LIGHT OF THE ADVANTAGES, THE CAPACITY, AND THE COMPETITIVE ABILITY OF
THE CHAIN'S STORES IN LOUISIANA CONSIDERED NOT BY THEMSELVES, AS IF
THEY CONSTITUTED THE WHOLE ORGANIZATION, BUT IN THEIR SETTING AS
INTEGRAL PARTS OF A MUCH LARGER ORGANIZATION.  WE CANNOT HOLD THAT THIS
PRIVILEGE IS UNAFFECTED BY THE STATUS OF THE LOUISIANA STORES AS
MEMBERS OF SUCH A CHAIN OR THAT RECOGNITION OF THE ADVANTAGES AND
CAPACITIES ENJOYED BY THEM AS A RESULT OF THAT MEMBERSHIP IS FORBIDDEN
IN CLASSIFYING THEM FOR PROGRESSIVE INCREASE OF RATE.  SUCH
CLASSIFICATION IS NOT IN LEGAL EFFECT THE TAXATION OF PROPERTY OR
PRIVILEGES POSSESSED OR ENJOYED BY THE TAXPAYER BEYOND THE BORDERS OF
THE STATE. 

MAXWELL V. BUGBEE, 250 U.S. 525, GOES FAR TO SUSTAIN THE VALIDITY OF
THE ACT.  FN10  THE EXACTION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS EVEN LESS OPEN TO
THE ACCUSATION OF EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY THAN THE ONE THERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE HERE IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED, AS IT WAS THERE, THAT
NOT ALONE THE RATE, BUT TO SOME EXTENT, THE MEASURE OF THE TAX, IS
AFFECTED BY THE ENJOYMENT OF EXTRA-STATE PRIVILEGES. 

OUR DECISION NEED NOT, HOWEVER, REST ON CONCEPTIONS OF SUBJECT,
MEASURE AND RATE OF TAX.  MUCH BROADER CONSIDERATIONS TOUCHING THE
STATE'S INTERNAL POLICY OF POLICE SUSTAIN THE EXACTION.  THE TAX IS
LAID SOLELY UPON INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  FN11  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
POLICE POWER THE STATE MAY FORBID, AS INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE,
THE PROSECUTION OF A PARTICULAR TYPE OF BUSINESS, FN12  OR REGULATE A
BUSINESS IN SUCH MANNER AS TO ABATE EVILS DEEMED TO ARISE FROM ITS
PURSUIT.  FN13  WHATEVER A STATE MAY FORBID OR REGULATE IT MAY PERMIT
UPON CONDITION THAT A FEE BE PAID IN RETURN FOR THE PRIVILEGE,  FN14
AND SUCH A FEE MAY BE EXACTED TO DISCOURAGE THE PROSECUTION OF A
BUSINESS OR TO ADJUST COMPETITIVE OR ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES.  FN15
TAXATION MAY BE MADE THE IMPLEMENT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S
POLICE POWER; FN16  AND PROPER AND REASONABLE DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN
CLASSES TO PROMOTE FAIR COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS AND TO EQUALIZE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGES IS THEREFORE LAWFUL.  FN17 

IF, IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, THE LEGISLATURE
DEEMED IT NECESSARY EITHER TO MITIGATE EVILS OF COMPETITION AS BETWEEN
SINGLE STORES AND CHAINS OR TO NEUTRALIZE DISADVANTAGES OF SMALL CHAINS
IN THEIR COMPETITION WITH LARGER ONES, OR TO DISCOURAGE MERCHANDISING
WITHIN THE STATE BY CHAINS GROWN SO LARGE AS TO BECOME A MENACE TO THE
GENERAL WELFARE, IT WAS AT LIBERTY TO REGULATE THE MATTER DIRECTLY OR
TO RESORT TO THE TYPE OF TAXATION EVIDENCED BY THE ACT OF 1934 AS A
MEANS OF REGULATION.  THE APPELLANTS, BY INCORPORATING IN SOME OTHER
STATE, OR BY SPREADING THEIR BUSINESS AND ACTIVITIES OVER OTHER STATES,
CANNOT SET AT NAUGHT THE PUBLIC POLICY OF LOUISIANA.  THE CLAIM IS,
ESSENTIALLY, THAT EVEN IF LOCAL EVILS FLOW FROM THE APPELLANT'S METHODS
THE STATE CANNOT CONTROL THOSE EVILS BECAUSE ITS POWER IS LIMITED TO
CONDITIONS CREATED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CHAIN FOUND WITHIN THE STATE. 
THE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE STATE MUST TREAT THESE STORES AS IF THEY
WERE SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, SINCE TO DO
OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO REACH BEYOND THE BORDERS OF LOUISIANA FOR THE
MEASURE OF THE TAX.  THE ARGUMENT ANSWERS ITSELF.  THE POLICY LOUISIANA
IS FREE TO ADOPT WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF HER OWN
CITIZENS SHE MAY APPLY TO THE CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES WHO CONDUCT THE
SAME BUSINESS WITHIN HER BORDERS, AND THIS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE
EVILS REQUIRING REGULATION ARISE SOLELY FROM OPERATIONS IN LOUISIANA OR
ARE IN PART THE RESULT OF EXTRA-STATE TRANSACTIONS.  IT IS NOT A DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS TO ADJUST SUCH LICENSE TAXES AS ARE HERE INVOLVED TO
MEET THE LOCAL EVIL RESULTING FROM BUSINESS PRACTICES AND SUPERIOR
ECONOMIC POWER EVEN THOUGH THOSE ADVANTAGES AND THAT POWER ARE LARGELY
DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYER DOES BUSINESS NOT ONLY IN LOUISIANA
BUT IN OTHER STATES. 

THIRD.  MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, ONE OF THE APPELLANTS, FILED A
BILL OF INTERVENTION.  IN ADDITION TO THE OBJECTIONS ALREADY CONSIDERED
IT CONTENDS THAT, AS APPLIED TO ITS BUSINESS, THE ACT OF 1934
CONSTITUTES AN INTERFERENCE WITH AND A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE FORBIDDEN BY ART. I, SEC. 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  THE
ALLEGATION IS THAT THIS APPELLANT OWNS AND OPERATES FIVE STORES IN
LOUISIANA AND FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIX OTHERS SPREAD OVER FORTY-FIVE
STATES; OWNS AND OPERATES NINE MAIL ORDER HOUSES LOCATED IN STATES
OTHER THAN LOUISIANA AND NINETEEN SO-CALLED ORDER STATIONS LOCATED AT
VARIOUS POINTS OUTSIDE LOUISIANA, THE MAIL ORDER HOUSES AND ORDER
STATIONS ALL BEING EXCLUSIVELY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
ORDER STATIONS ARE INSTALLED IN RENTED SPACES WITH ONE REGULAR EMPLOYE
AT EACH AND WITH A STOCK OF SAMPLES, THE ONLY BUSINESS TRANSACTED IN
THEM BEING THE TAKING OF ORDERS WHICH ARE TRANSMITTED TO, AND FILLED
BY, THE MAIL ORDER HOUSES.  WITH RESPECT TO THE OPERATION OF THE ACT
THE BILL STATES:  "INTERVENOR ALLEGES THAT WHILE THE PRESENT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION OF SAID ACT 51 OF THE LOUISIANA
LEGISLATURE OF 1934 APPARENTLY LIMITS THE OPERATION OF SAID ACT TO THE
INTERVENOR'S RETAIL STORES, THE WORDS 'MERCANTILE ESTABLISHMENTS' USED
IN SAID ACT APPARENTLY INCLUDE THE AFORESAID MAIL ORDER HOUSES AND
ORDER STATIONS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE INTERVENOR.  SAID ACT DOES NOT
BY ITS TERMS EXCLUDE FROM ITS OPERATION SAID ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND, THEREFORE, VIOLATES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ..." 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE FACTS AS FOLLOWS: 

"MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, OPERATES 9 MAIL
ORDER ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGED IN FILLING ORDERS RECEIVED FROM POINTS IN
THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES THROUGH THE MAIL.  NONE OF
THESE MAIL ORDER ESTABLISHMENTS ARE SITUATED IN LOUISIANA.  THE COMPANY
ALSO HAS 19 MAIL ORDER OFFICES, NONE OF WHICH ARE SITUATED IN
LOUISIANA; 17 CLASS A DEPARTMENT STORES CARRYING A COMPLETE LINE OF
GENERAL MERCHANDISE, NONE OF WHICH ARE SITUATED IN LOUISIANA; 456 CLASS
B RETAIL STORES OF LIMITED SIZE AND CARRYING A LIMITED LINE OF
MERCHANDISE, OF WHICH 5 ARE LOCATED IN LOUISIANA; AND 16 CLASS C STORES
DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE SALE OF HARDWARE, HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES,
AUTOMOBILE TIRES AND TUBES, OF WHICH NONE ARE LOCATED IN LOUISIANA. 
THE 5 LOUISIANA CLASS B STORES TAKE ORDERS TO BE FILLED BY MAIL FROM
THE COMPANY'S MAIL ORDER ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED AT FORTH WORTH, IN
ADDITION TO SELLING MERCHANDISE AT RETAIL AT ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS TO
THE PUBLIC."    AS A CONCLUSION OF LAW THE COURT HELD "THE CLAIM (OF
THE INTERVENOR) DOES NOT MERIT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.  THE STATUTE BY
ITS EXPRESS TERMS APPLIES ONLY 'WHERE GOODS, WARES, MERCHANDISE OR
COMMODITIES OF EVERY DESCRIPTION WHATSOEVER ARE SOLD OR OFFERED FOR
SALE AT RETAIL.'"    ERROR IS ASSIGNED TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S
CONCLUSION AND THE APPELLANT INSISTS THAT THE STATUTE IS BAD BECAUSE IT
IMPOSES A SINGLE AND INDIVISIBLE TAX FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF CONDUCTING A
BUSINESS BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE, PARTLY MEASURED BY INTERSTATE
OPERATIONS WHOLLY EXTRASTATE. 

AS RESPECTS THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE THE INTERVENOR'S
BILL IS PREMATURE AND WITHOUT EQUITY.  THE STATUTE WAS APPROVED JULY
12, 1934, AND BECAME EFFECTIVE FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1935 AND
SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  FEBRUARY 27, 1935, BOTH THE BILL OF THE GREAT
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY AND MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY'S
INTERVENING BILL WERE FILED.  THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO RULES OR
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE APPELLEE SUPERVISOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
AND NO RULING BY ANY RESPONSIBLE STATE OFFICIAL AS TO WHICH OF
MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY'S ESTABLISHMENTS ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN
RECKONING THE TOTAL OF ITS RETAIL STORES.  FOR ALL THAT APPEARS NEITHER
ITS MAIL ORDER HOUSES, NOR ITS ORDER STATIONS, NOR ITS DEPARTMENT
STORES, WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION. 

IT IS MANIFEST THAT MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY CANNOT UPON MERE
SUPPOSITION THAT THE ACT WILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED IN RESPECT OF ITS FIVE STORES IN LOUISIANA OBTAIN AN ADVISORY
DECREE THAT THE ACT MUST NOT BE SO ADMINISTERED AS TO BURDEN OR
REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  FN18 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  NO. 19 OF 1932; ACTS OF LOUISIANA, 1932, P. 125. 

FN2  ACTS OF LOUISIANA 1934, P. 251. 

FN3  16 F.SUPP.  499. 

FN4  TAX COMMISSIONERS V. JACKSON, 283 U.S. 527; LIGGETT CO. V. LEE,
288 U.S. 517. 

FN5  FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87, 100. 

FN6  COMPARE LINDSLEY V. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61, 78;
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. V. CONLEY, 230 U.S. 513, 522; CONTINENTAL BAKING
CO. V. WOODRING, 286 U.S. 352, 371; FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., SUPRA,
101, 102. 

FN7  TAX COMMISSIONERS V. JACKSON, SUPRA, P. 542; FOX V. STANDARD OIL
CO., SUPRA, 101. 

FN8  LOUISVILLE & J. FERRY CO. V. KENTUCKY, 188 U.S. 385; DELAWARE L.
& W.R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 198 U.S. 341; UNION REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT
CO. V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194. 

FN9  FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473. 

FN10  SEE THE COMMENT ON MAXWELL V. BUGBEE IN FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
268 U.S. AT P. 495. 

FN11  NATHAN V. LOUISIANA, 8 HOW.  73, 80-81; RAST V. VAN DEMAN &
LEWIS CO., 240 U.S. 342, 360. 

FN12  LICENSE CASES, 5 HOW.  504; MUGLER V. KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623, 662
663; WILLIAMS V. ARKANSAS, 217 U.S. 79; CENTRAL LUMBER CO. V. SOUTH
DAKOTA, 226 U.S. 157, 162. 

FN13  OZAN LUMBER CO. V. UNION COUNTY BANK, 207 U.S. 251; ENGEL V.
O'MALLEY, 219 U.S. 128, 137. 

FN14  WIGGINS FERRY CO. V. EAST ST. LOUIS, 107 U.S. 365, 373, 374
376. 

FN15  AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING CO. V. LOUISIANA, 179 U.S. 89, 92-95;
REYMANN BREWING CO. V. BRISTER, 179 U.S. 445, 453; WILLIAMS V. FEARS,
179 U.S. 270, 276; W.W. CARGILL CO. V. MINNESOTA, 180 U.S. 452, 469;
MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, 60; BROWN-FORMAN CO. V. KENTUCKY,
217 U.S. 563, 573; QUONG WING V. KIRKENDALL, 223 U.S. 59, 62; BRAZEE V.
MICHIGAN, 241 U.S. 340, 342; ALASKA FISH CO. V. SMITH, 255 U.S. 44;
LIBERTY WAREHOUSE COMPANY V. TOBACCO GROWERS ASSN., 276 U.S. 71, 96;
SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 394; MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292
U.S. 40, 43, 44; FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294 U.S. 87, 100; SONZINSKY
V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506. 

FN16  GUNDLING V. CHICAGO, 177 U.S. 183, 188, 189; RAST V. VAN DEMAN
& LEWIS CO., SUPRA, 368; COMPANIA GENERAL V. COLLECTOR, 275 U.S. 87,
95, 96; SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

FN17  BRADLEY V. RICHMOND, 227 U.S. 477, 480, 484; HAMMOND PACKING
CO. V. MONTANA, 233 U.S. 331, 333-334; RAST V. VAN DEMAN & LEWIS CO.,
SUPRA; P. 368; TANNER V. LITTLE, 240 U.S. 369, 382-383; ST. LOUIS
POSTER ADVERTISING CO. V. ST. LOUIS, 249 U.S. 269, 274. 

FN18  COMPARE HODGE CO. V. CINCINNATI, 284 U.S. 335, 338; CONTINENTAL
BAKING CO. V. WOODRING, 286 U.S. 352, 369; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE
VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288, 324. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER AND MR. JUSTICE STONE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND I ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE STATUTE HERE INVOLVED IS INVALID AS CONSTITUTING A DENIAL OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND AN ATTEMPTED EXERTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE STATE WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTIES AND
BUSINESSES LOCATED BEYOND ITS TERITORIAL BORDERS. 

IN TAX COMMISSIONERS V. JACKSON, 283 U.S. 527, THIS COURT SUSTAINED
THE VALIDITY OF AN INDIANA STATUTE IMPOSING A CHAIN-STORE TAX GRADUATED
ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF STORES UNDER THE SAME GENERAL MANAGEMENT. 
BUT THERE, THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX IN RESPECT OF EACH STORE WAS GRADUATED
ACCORDING TO THE WHOLE NUMBER OF STORES WITHIN THE STATE.  HERE, THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX IS NOT LIMITED BY THE NUMBER OF STORES OPERATED
WITHIN THE STATE, BUT IS INCREASED BY INCLUDING STORES OPERATED IN
OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OWNER OF A
SINGLE STORE IN LOUISIANA HAS FEWER THAN TEN STORES OUTSIDE THE STATE,
HE PAYS A TAX OF $10; BUT IF HE OPERATES AS MANY AS TEN STORES IN OTHER
STATES OR IN CANADA, HE IS REQUIRED TO PAY UPON HIS STORE IN LOUISIANA
$15 ANNUALLY.  AND AS THE STORES OUTSIDE THE STATE FURTHER INCREASE IN
NUMBER, THE TAX UPON THE SINGLE STORE IN LOUISIANA RISES BY SUCCESSIVE
STEPS UNTIL IT REACHES, IN THE HIGHEST BRACKET, WHERE THE STORES
OUTSIDE EXCEED 500 IN NUMBER, THE SUM OF $550 UPON THE SINGLE LOUISIANA
STORE. 

WE THOUGHT THE CLASSIFICATION IN THE JACKSON CASE, ALTHOUGH CONFINED
TO STORES WITHIN THE STATE, WAS SO ARBITRARY AS TO RENDER THE TAX
INVALID UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
AND, TOGETHER WITH MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, WHO TAKES NO PART IN THIS
CASE, SET FORTH OUR VIEWS AT LENGTH IN A DISSENTING OPINION.  283 U.S.
543 ET SEQ. WE REST UPON WHAT WAS THERE SAID, WITHOUT REPEATING IT, NOT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGAIN CHALLENGING THE DECISION IN THE JACKSON CASE,
BUT BECAUSE WHAT WE SAID APPLIES MORE PLAINLY TO THE VARIANT FACTS OF
THE CASE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION.  WE THOUGHT THEN THAT THE JACKSON
CASE WAS WRONGLY DECIDED, BUT, ACCEPTING IT AS AUTHORITATIVE, IT SEEMS
TO US CERTAIN THAT IT GOES TO THE EXTREME VERGE OF THE LAW, AND, FOR
THE REASONS GIVEN IN OUR DISSENTING OPINION, EQUALLY CERTAIN THAT THE
PRESENT DECISION GOES FAR BEYOND THE VERGE.  WE ADD A FEW WORDS IN
SUPPORT OF THAT VIEW. 

THE INDIANA LAW EFFECTED A DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN TWO CLASSES -
NAMELY, OPERATORS OF CHAIN STORES AND OPERATORS OF INDEPENDENT STORES
WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY STORES
OUTSIDE.  THE LOUISIANA LAW EFFECTS A DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN TWO
MEMBERS OF THE SAME CLASS - NAMELY, CHAIN-STORE OPERATORS WITHIN THE
STATE, WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IS THAT ONE ALSO OPERATES
STORES IN OTHER STATES AND IN CANADA, WHILE THE OTHER DOES NOT.  THUS,
FOR ILLUSTRATION, IF A OPERATES ELEVEN STORES IN LOUISIANA, DOING A
BUSINESS OF $10,000,000 PER YEAR, AND HAS NONE OUTSIDE, HE PAYS $15 FOR
EACH STORE, OR A TOTAL OF $165, WHILE IF B OPERATES ELEVEN STORES IN
LOUISIANA, AND HAPPENS TO HAVE 490 STORES DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE
REMAINING 47 STATES OF THE UNION AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES, DOING A TOTAL
BUSINESS OF $5,000,000 PER YEAR, HE IS COMPELLED TO PAY $550 UPON EACH
OF HIS ELEVEN STORES, OR A TOTAL OF $6,050 - 36 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF THE
TAX PAID BY A. THIS ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE IS BASED UPON A STATE OF
AFFAIRS WHOLLY EXTERNAL TO THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, THE EFFECT OF WHICH
UPON THE LOUISIANA BUSINESS IS A MATTER OF BALD CONJECTURE, VARYING
WIDELY, AS IT MUST, WITH THE LOCALITIES IN WHICH THE FOREIGN STORES ARE
TO BE FOUND AND THE LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES BY WHICH THEIR OPERATIONS ARE
AFFECTED. 

MOREOVER, IF THE LOUISIANA STATUTE BE VALID, OTHER STATES IN THE
UNION MAY PASS SIMILAR ACTS; AND IT IS NOT IMPROBABLE THAT THEY WILL. 
AND IF THEY DO SO, A REMARKABLE SITUATION WILL BE BROUGHT ABOUT.  LET
US SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT TEN ADDITIONAL STATES, RANGING FROM MAINE
TO CALIFORNIA, ADOPT THE LOUISIANA FORM OF LEGISLATION.  IN EACH OF THE
STATES, INCLUDING LOUISIANA, A GIVEN OPERATOR HAS TEN STORES, MAKING
110 IN ALL.  IN THAT CASE HE WILL PAY IN EACH STATE A TAX BASED NOT
UPON THE OPERATION OF TEN STORES, BUT ON THE OPERATION OF 110. 
INSTEAD, THEREFORE, OF PAYING IN EACH STATE $100 UPON THE BASIS OF $10
FOR EACH OF THE TEN STORES, HE WILL PAY $500 UPON THE BASIS OF $50 FOR
EACH OF THE TEN STORES.  IF HE SHOULD THEN PUT INTO OPERATION SIXTEEN
ADDITIONAL STORES, LET US SAY IN CANADA OR NORWAY, HE WOULD IMMEDIATELY
BRING HIMSELF INTO THE BRACKET WHERE THE TAX UPON EACH STORE IS FIXED
AT $100 - THUS INCREASING HIS TOTAL TAXATION IN THE ELEVEN STATES FROM
$5,500 TO $11,000, IN VIRTUE OF THESE COMPARATIVELY SMALL OPERATIONS IN
A FOREIGN COUNTRY, THE EFFECT OF WHICH, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES IN ANY ONE OF THE ELEVEN STATES COULD HARDLY BE
DESCRIBED OTHERWISE THAN AS PURELY SPECULATIVE. 

THE EXACTION HERE INVOLVED IS NOT A TAX UPON LOUISIANA PROPERTY OR
BUSINESS, BUT IS ESSENTIALLY A PENALTY IMPOSED UPON AN OPERATOR OF
BUSINESS WHOLLY BEYOND THE REACH OF THE LAW OF THAT STATE.  WE ARE NOT
ABLE TO CONCEDE THAT IT LIES WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF ONE STATE TO THUS
INDIRECTLY PENALIZE A METHOD OF DOING BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE, WHICH
IT MAY BE THE POLICY OF THE LATTER TO PERMIT OR, INDEED, ENCOURAGE. 
COMPARE BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, 294 U.S. 511, 521-524.  THE FOREGOING
ILLUSTRATIONS, AND OTHERS WHICH MIGHT BE SUPPLIED, IN OUR OPINION
EXPOSE THE ARBITRARY CHARACTER OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND THE CONSEQUENT
INVALIDITY OF THE EXACTION IMPOSED IN VIRTUE OF IT. 

THE SOLE FACT THAT A LOUISIANA OPERATOR HAS OPENED ADDITIONAL STORES
IN OTHER STATES OR IN CANADA OR NORWAY, AFFORDS, WE THINK, NO VALID
BASIS FOR IMPOSING UPON HIM AN ENORMOUSLY-INCREASED TAX FROM WHICH HIS
COMPETITORS, SIMILARLY CIRCUMSTANCED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, ARE
EXEMPT.  THE CLAIM THAT THEREBY THE BALANCE OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
HAS BEEN DISTURBED, IS SO FANCIFUL AS TO FURNISH NO BASIS FOR SUCH
LEGISLATION GROUNDED IN ANY POLICY OR OBJECT OF STATE TAXATION.  THE
COURT BELOW THOUGHT THAT TO CONSIDER THE NUMBER OF STORES OUTSIDE THE
STATE WAS COMPETENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING EACH STORE WITHIN THE STATE.  BUT THE FALLACY OF
THAT VIEW AS APPLIED TO THE PRESENT CASE IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACTS
AS FOUND BY THAT COURT - NAMELY, THAT OPERATIONS OF CHAIN STORES "VARY
GREATLY FROM SECTION TO SECTION AND FROM STATE TO STATE BECAUSE OF
DIFFERENCES IN LOCAL CONDITIONS, ECONOMIC AND OTHERWISE, FREIGHT RATES
ADDED TO COST, REMOTENESS FROM HEADQUARTERS AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT,
INCREASE IN DIFFICULTY OF SUPERVISION, LOCAL COMPETITION AND OTHER
FACTORS.  CONDITIONS AS TO SALES AND PROFITS VARY GREATLY IN ALL
CLASSES OF STORES ACCORDING TO THE SECTION OF THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THEY
ARE LOCATED."  AN ATTEMPT TO FIX THE EXTENT OF THE COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE WHICH WILL INURE IN FAVOR OF A BUSINESS IN LOUISIANA OR THE
VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING IT UPON A BASIS SO SHIFTING AND
UNCERTAIN, SEEMS TO US AN UTTERLY FUTILE UNDERTAKING.  IT IS NOTHING
MORE THAN AN EFFORT TO REACH A CONCLUSION UPON AN ASSUMED MAJOR
PREMISE, WHERE THE MINOR PREMISE IS UNKNOWN. 

IN STEWART DRY GOODS CO. V. LEWIS, 294 U.S. 550, THIS COURT HELD
INVALID A STATE ACT IMPOSING A GRADUATED TAX MEASURED BY THE AMOUNT OF
GROSS SALES.  WE HELD THAT IT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AS AN EXCISE ON
THE PRIVILEGE OF MERCHANDISING, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REASONABLE
RELATION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX AND THE VALUE OF THE PRIVILEGE,
AND NO SUCH RELATION BETWEEN GROSS SALES AND NET PROFITS AS WOULD
JUSTIFY THE CLASSIFICATION.  THE TAX WAS DENOUNCED (P. 557) AS BEING
"WHIMSICAL AND ARBITRARY, AS MUCH SO AS WOULD BE A TAX ON TANGIBLE
PERSONAL PROPERTY, SAY CATTLE, STEPPED UP IN RATE ON EACH ADDITIONAL
ANIMAL OWNED BY THE TAXPAYER, OR A TAX ON LAND SIMILARLY GRADUATED
ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF PARCELS OWNED."  WE SAID (PP. 558-559) "THAT
THE GROSS SALES OF A MERCHANT DO NOT BEAR A CONSTANT RELATION TO HIS
NET PROFITS; THAT NET PROFITS VARY FROM YEAR TO YEAR IN THE SAME
ENTERPRISE; THAT DIVERSE KINDS OF MERCHANDISE YIELD DIFFERING RATIOS OF
PROFIT; AND THAT GROSS AND NET PROFITS VARY WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE
BUSINESS AS WELL AS ITS VOLUME."  IT APPEARED FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT
GREAT VARIATIONS EXISTED WITHIN EACH CLASS SELECTED FOR COMPARISON;
THAT IN SOME CLASSES, REPRESENTING A GREATER AMOUNT OF SALES, THERE WAS
A SMALLER NET PROFIT THAN IN OTHERS HAVING LESS AGGREGATE SALES.  TO
THE CONTENTION THAT THE TAX WAS A ROUGH AND READY METHOD OF TAXING
GAINS, LESS COMPLICATED AND MORE CONVENIENT OF ADMINISTRATION THAN AN
INCOME TAX, WE ANSWERED (P. 560), "THE ARGUMENT IS IN ESSENCE THAT IT
IS DIFFICULT TO BE JUST, AND EASY TO BE ARBITRARY.  IF THE COMMONWEALTH
DESIRES TO TAX INCOMES IT MUST TAKE THE TROUBLE EQUITABLY TO DISTRIBUTE
THE BURDEN OF THE IMPOST." 

THESE OBSERVATIONS APPLY TO THE CASE IN HAND; FOR ALTHOUGH THE TAXES
IMPOSED BY THE STATUTES INVOLVED ARE DIFFERENT, THE VICES ARE THE
SAME. 
..END :



















FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. BEACH, 301 U.S. 435 


NO. 621.  ARGUED APRIL 27, 28, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 17, 1937.  - 86
F.(2D) 88, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SECTION 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT DEFINED A "FARMER" AS ANY
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PERSONALLY BONA FIDE "ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN FARMING
OPERATIONS," OR "THE PRINCIPAL PART OF WHOSE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM
FARMING OPERATIONS."  HELD THAT THESE TWO BRANCHES OF THE DEFINITION
ARE NOT EQUIVALENTS BUT ARE USED IN CONTRAST, AND NEITHER IS A TERM OF
ART, BUT IN THEIR APPLICATION THE QUESTION OF FARMER VEL NON MUST BE
DETERMINED BY CONSIDERING AND APPRAISING ALL THE FACTS.  P. 438. 

2.  RESPONDENT OWNED A FARM, OF WHICH HE OCCUPIED A PART, LIVING
THERE AND DEVOTING MOST OF HIS TIME TO CULTIVATION AND OTHER FARM
ACTIVITIES, THE PRODUCTS OF WHICH WERE THE FOOD FOR HIMSELF AND HIS
DEPENDANTS; THE REMAINDER AND GREATER PORTION OF THE FARM HE LET OUT TO
TENANTS, WHO PUT IT TO GRAZING AND CULTIVATION, YIELDING HIM RENTALS
WHICH CONSTITUTED THE GREATER PART OF HIS INCOME.  HELD A "FARMER"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  P. 439. 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, V. BEACH. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 650, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A PETITION BY THE
PRESENT RESPONDENT FOR RELIEF UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT,
WHICH WAS OPPOSED BY THE PRESENT PETITIONER, A BANK HOLDING A MORTGAGE
ON HIS FARM. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER RESPONDENT, WHO HAS FILED A PETITION UNDER
SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT (11 U.S.C. SEC. 203) FOR THE COMPOSITION
OR EXTENSION OF HIS DEBTS, IS A FARMER AS THERE DEFINED. 

THE FACTS ARE STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:  BEACH WAS THE OWNER OF A FARM
WITH FIVE HOUSES AND A BARN ON IT WHERE HE HAD LIVED FROM HIS BIRTH,
OCCUPYING ONE OF THE HOUSES WITH HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN AS HIS
HOMESTEAD.  THE FARM HAD BEEN IN THE OWNERSHIP OF HIS FAMILY FOR TWO
CENTURIES AND OVER.  FOR A TIME HE HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN MERCANTILE
PURSUITS, BUT IN 1930 OWING TO HEAVY FINANCIAL LOSSES HE BEGAN WORKING
ON THE FARM AGAIN, AND HAS GIVEN MOST OF HIS TIME TO IT EVER SINCE. 
THE LAND HAD AN APPLE ORCHARD OF TWO HUNDRED TREES WHICH GAVE HIM 1500
BUSHELS OF CHOICE APPLES IN 1931.  HE GOT LITTLE OUT OF THE ORCHARD
FROM 1933 TO 1935, THE TREES DURING THOSE YEARS BEING AFFECTED BY A
BLIGHT.  HE SOLD PEARS FROM A FEW PEAR TREES, AND CULTIVATED A LARGE
GARDEN OF ABOUT ONE ACRE, PLANTING AND RAISING ALL KINDS OF VEGETABLES,
FRUITS AND FLOWERS, MORE THAN ENOUGH TO PROVIDE FOR HIS FAMILY.  HE
RAISED HAY AND SOLD IT, REPAIRED THE HOUSES, CLEANED OUT ONE OF THE
WELLS, LAID SEVERAL MILES OF STONE WALLS AND TWO MILES OF BARBED WIRE
FENCE, CARTED STONE FROM TIME TO TIME TO ENABLE HIM TO REBUILD HIS
FENCES, AND RAISED AND SOLD POTATOES.  HE WAS OCCUPIED PRINCIPALLY IN
RAISING POULTRY AND EGGS, HAVING TWO HUNDRED CHICKENS IN 1933, AND
ABOUT FIFTY FROM 1935 TO THE TIME OF THE TRIAL.  HE KEPT THREE SHEEP
FOR FOOD; ONE HORSE FOR CARTING AND HAULING; AND A MISCELLANEOUS
ASSORTMENT OF FARM TOOLS, NONE PURCHASED SINCE 1921.  HIS TOTAL INCOME
PER ANNUM FROM 1930 TO 1935 WAS $4,000, OF WHICH $2200 WAS DERIVED FROM
RENTING THREE-QUARTERS OF THE FARM TO VARIOUS PERSONS FOR GRAZING AND
CULTIVATION.  ONE OF THESE TENANTS CONDUCTED A DAIRY, AND BRED, GRAZED
AND MILKED A HERD OF COWS.  THE EARNINGS FROM THE SALE OF POULTRY AND
EGGS WERE $200, FROM THE SALE OF HAY $75, AND $25 FROM THE SALE OF
VEGETABLES AND FLOWERS.  RENTALS FROM OTHER REAL ESTATE, NOT CLAIMED TO
BE FARM PROPERTY, MADE UP THE REMAINDER OF HIS INCOME, $1500.  THE FARM
IN ITS ENTIRETY WAS SUBJECT TO A MORTGAGE OF $100,000, HELD BY A BANK,
AND NOW UNDER FORECLOSURE. 

WHEN SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS ADOPTED IN MARCH, 1933,
SUBSECTION (R) DEFINED A FARMER AS FOLLOWS:  "FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS
PERSONALLY BONA FIDE ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN FARMING OPERATIONS OR THE
PRINCIPAL PART OF WHOSE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM FARMING OPERATIONS, AND
INCLUDES THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A DECEASED FARMER; AND A FARMER
SHALL BE DEEMED A RESIDENT OF ANY COUNTY IN WHICH SUCH FARMING
OPERATIONS OCCUR."  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, C. 204, 47 STAT. 1467, 1470,
1473; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 203(R). 

THE DEFINITION WAS AMPLIFIED ON MAY 15, 1935 BY THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENT:  "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, SECTION 4(B), AND
PRIMARILY BONA FIDE PERSONALLY ENGAGED IN PRODUCING PRODUCTS OF THE
SOIL, BUT ALSO ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PRIMARILY BONA FIDE PERSONALLY
ENGAGED IN DAIRY FARMING, THE PRODUCTION OF POULTRY OR LIVESTOCK, OR
THE PRODUCTION OF POULTRY PRODUCTS OR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS IN THEIR
UNMANUFACTURED STATE, OR THE PRINCIPAL PART OF WHOSE INCOME IS DERIVED
FROM ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOREGOING OPERATIONS, AND INCLUDES THE
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A DECEASED FARMER; AND A FARMER SHALL BE
DEEMED A RESIDENT OF ANY COUNTY IN WHICH SUCH OPERATIONS OCCUR."  ACT
OF MAY 15, 1935, C. 114, SEC. 3, 49 STAT. 246; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 203(R). 

A PETITION FOR RELIEF UNDER THE SECTION AS THUS AMENDED WAS FILED BY
THE DEBTOR ON NOVEMBER 14, 1935, AND WAS OPPOSED BY THE MORTGAGEE, THE
PETITIONER HERE.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE DEBTOR WAS NOT A
FARMER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE, AND SO DISMISSED THE
PROCEEDING.  AN APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT, WHICH REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING.  86 F.(2D) 88.  THE REVERSAL WENT UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
PRINCIPAL INCOME OF THE DEBTOR WAS DERIVED FROM FARMING OPERATIONS, IF
RENTS FROM THE FARM TENANTS ($2200) WERE INCLUDED IN THE RECKONING, AS
THE COURT HELD THAT THEY SHOULD BE.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION BEING INVOLVED AS TO THE MEANING OF AN ACT OF
CONGRESS. 

THE ONLY EFFECT OF THE 1935 AMENDMENTS OF THE STATUTE, IN SO FAR AS
THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE DEFINITION OF A FARMER, WAS TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT FARMING OPERATIONS INCLUDE DAIRY FARMING AND THE PRODUCTION OF
POULTRY AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS IN THEIR UNMANUFACTURED STATE AS WELL AS
THE CULTIVATION OF THE PRODUCTS OF THE SOIL.  THERE HAD BEEN DECISIONS
TO THE CONTRARY.  IN RE PALMA BROS., 8 F.SUPP.  920; IN RE STUBBS, 281
FED. 568; HOUSE REPORT, NO. 455, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 2;
SENATE REPORT, NO. 498, 74TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, P. 4.  FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE CASE AT HAND THE AMENDMENTS MAY BE LAID ASIDE AND THE
SIMPLER PHRASEOLOGY OF THE SECTION AS IT STOOD AT THE BEGINNING MAY BE
ACCEPTED AS THE TEST.  WAS RESPONDENT A FARMER BECAUSE "PERSONALLY BONA
FIDE ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN FARMING OPERATIONS" OR BECAUSE "THE PRINCIPAL
PART OF HIS INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM FARMING OPERATIONS"? 

WE DO NOT TRY TO FIX THE MEANING OF EITHER OF THE TWO BRANCHES OF
THIS DEFINITION, CONSIDERED IN THE ABSTRACT.  THE TWO ARE NOT
EQUIVALENTS.  THEY WERE USED BY WAY OF CONTRAST.  OCCASIONS MUST HAVE
BEEN IN VIEW WHEN THE RECEIPT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM FARMING OPERATIONS
WOULD MAKE A FARMER OUT OF SOME ONE WHO PERSONALLY OR PRIMARILY WAS
ENGAGED IN DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES.  A CATALOGUE OF SUCH OCCASIONS MIGHT
ERR FOR EXCESS OR FOR DEFECT IF MADE UP IN ADVANCE.  HYPOTHETICAL
SITUATIONS ARE LAID BEFORE US, AND THE ARGUMENT IS PRESSED THAT THE
DEFINITION WILL BREED ABSURDITY IF APPLIED TO THIS ONE OF THEM OR
THAT.  WE REFUSE TO BE LED AWAY FROM THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONCRETE
CASE.  THE WORDS "PRIMARILY ENGAGED," AS WE FIND THEM IN THE FIRST
BRANCH OF THE DEFINITION, DO NOT CONSTITUTE A TERM OF ART. THE WORDS
"INCOME DERIVED FROM FARMING OPERATIONS" DO NOT CONSTITUTE SUCH A
TERM.  IN EVERY CASE THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS IS TO BE CONSIDERED AND
APPRAISED.  WE PASS TO THAT APPRAISAL HERE. 

1.  BEACH, THE RESPONDENT, MUST BE HELD, WHEN THE FACTS ARE VIEWED IN
COMBINATION, TO HAVE BEEN "PERSONALLY" AND "PRIMARILY" ENGAGED IN
FARMING OPERATIONS. 

HE WAS IN THAT BUSINESS OR IN NONE.  HE WAS EITHER A FARMER OR A MAN
OF LEISURE.  CF. IN RE GLICK, 26 F.(2D) 398, 400.  BUT THE STIPULATION
MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THIS LAST HE CERTAINLY WAS NOT.  HE WAS IN DIRECT
OR PERSONAL POSSESSION OF FORTY-EIGHT ACRES, ONE-FOURTH OF THE LARGE
FARM WHICH HAD BEEN IN HIS FAMILY FOR YEARS.  A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF
THIS ACREAGE HE CULTIVATED WITH HIS OWN LABOR, OR APPLIED, AGAIN WITH
HIS OWN LABOR, TO OTHER AGRICULTURAL USES.  HE DID THIS, NOT FOR
DIVERSION OR ONLY IN SPARE HOURS, BUT AS AN ENGROSSING OCCUPATION,
CONSUMING, IN THE WORDS OF THE STIPULATION, "THE MAJOR PORTION OF HIS
TIME."  THE PRODUCTS OF HIS TOIL WERE FOOD FOR HIM AND HIS DEPENDENTS,
AND THE FARMHOUSE WAS A HOME.  TRUE, THE MONEY RETURNS WERE SCANTY.  TO
SOME EXTENT THIS WAS SO BECAUSE OF THE BLIGHT WHICH FELL UPON HIS APPLE
ORCHARD IN 1932 OR LATER, CUTTING DOWN THE REVENUES YIELDED FROM THAT
SOURCE.  THE SCANTINESS OF THE YIELD MAY HAVE TURNED HIM INTO A
BANKRUPT, BUT IT DID NOT CHANGE HIS OCCUPATION.  ONE DOES NOT CEASE TO
BE A FARMER BECAUSE DROUGHT OR WIND OR PEST MAY HAVE RENDERED THE FARM
BARREN.  THE CRITICAL FACT IS THAT THE DEBTOR WORKED AN ACREAGE LARGE
ENOUGH TO COUNT, THAT HE DID NOT WORK AT ANYTHING ELSE, AND THAT HE
GAVE TO THIS WORK, WHETHER PROFITABLE OR UNPROFITABLE, "THE MAJOR
PORTION OF HIS TIME." 

2.  IF BEACH WAS A FARMER BECAUSE HE CULTIVATED A SUBSTANTIAL FARM,
HE DID NOT STEP INTO ANOTHER BUSINESS BY LEASING OTHER ACRES OF THE
TRACT TO TENANTS WHO WERE TO USE WHAT THEY HIRED FOR GRAZING OR
CULTIVATION AND OTHER FARMING OPERATIONS.  WE SHALL POINT OUT IN A
MOMENT THAT THE ACRES PERSONALLY CULTIVATED AND THOSE OCCUPIED BY
TENANTS ARE PHASES AND ASPECTS OF A UNITARY CALLING.  THE RESULT WILL
BE THE SAME, HOWEVER, THOUGH THE FARMING AND THE LEASING BE VIEWED AS
DISCONNECTED, AND NOT AS PARTS OF A COMPOSITE WHOLE.  IN THAT VIEW, THE
FARMING IS STILL THE BUSINESS; THE LEASES ARE THEN INVESTMENTS, MORE
PROFITABLE THAN THE BUSINESS, BUT LEAVING IT UNCHANGED.  A FARMER
REMAINS A FARMER, JUST AS A LAWYER REMAINS A LAWYER, THOUGH THE RETURNS
ON HIS INVESTMENTS, WHILE NOT ENOUGH TO KEEP HIM GOING, ARE LARGER,
NONE THE LESS, THAN THE PROFITS OF HIS LABOR. 

3.  THE PICTURE, HOWEVER, IS DISTORTED IF BEACH IS LOOKED UPON AS A
LANDLORD WITH RENTALS UNRELATED TO HIS PRIMARY VOCATION.  HIS RENTALS
LIKE HIS LABOR SMACKED OF THE SOIL, AND MADE HIM NOT LESS, BUT MORE A
FARMER THAN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT THEM.  HOW THE CASE WOULD STAND
IF HE HAD BEEN A MERCHANT OR A DOCTOR AND HAD LEASED A TRACT OF FARMING
LAND TO TENANTS, WE DO NOT HAVE TO SAY.  WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE IS
DIFFERENT.  THE FARMING AND THE LEASING MUST BE VIEWED IN COMBINATION
IF WE ARE TO GAIN A TRUE PERSPECTIVE, THE TWO TIED TOGETHER AS
PRINCIPAL AND INCIDENT.  A SINGLE TRACT OF LAND BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR
HAS BEEN WORKED BY HIM IN PART, AND IN PART WORKED BY OTHERS TO WHOM A
INTO ANOTHER BUSINESS, HE HAS BEEN FAITHFUL TO THE OLD ONE IN THUS
DIVIDING UP THE TILLAGE.  TO GET A LIVING OUT OF THE LAND IN ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER IS THE THREAD OF COMMON PURPOSE THAT BINDS THE LABOR AND THE
LEASES, AND ENABLES US TO FIND IN THEM THE TOKENS OF THE SAME
VOCATION.  IN BRIEF THE MAN IS SEEN TO BE A FARMER BY EVERY TEST OF
COMMON SPEECH, THOUGH HIS INCOME HAS BEEN GARNERED IN RENTS AS WELL AS
PRODUCTS.  WE EMPHASIZE THE FACT AFRESH THAT THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE
TO WHICH MEANING IS TO BE GIVEN ARE NOT PHRASES OF ART WITH A
CHANGELESS CONNOTATION.  THEY HAVE A COLOR AND A CONTENT THAT MAY VARY
WITH THE SETTING.  CF. SURACE V. DANNA, 248 N.Y. 18, 21; 161 N.E. 315;
TOWNE V. EISNER, 245 U.S. 418, 425; INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING CO. V.
HAVERTY, 272 U.S. 50.  IN THE SETTING OF THIS ENTERPRISE, THE TOTALITY
OF ITS CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ROOTS OF THE RESPONDENT'S INCOME GO DOWN INTO
THE SOIL. 

4.  CASES IN OTHER COURTS RELIED UPON BY THE PETITIONER AS EXCLUDING
THE RESPONDENT FROM THE CATEGORY OF FARMERS ARE CONSISTENT FOR THE MOST
PART WITH THE RULING NOW MADE WHEN THE OPINIONS ARE READ WITH DUE
RELATION TO THE FACTS. 

EITHER THE DEBTOR POSING AS A FARMER WAS ENGAGED AT THE SAME TIME IN
SOME OTHER LINE OF BUSINESS OR THE PLOTS IN CULTIVATION WERE TOO SMALL
TO MAKE A FARM.  SWIFT V. MOBLEY, 28 F.(2D) 610; IN RE SPENGLER, 238
FED. 862; IN RE MCMURRAY, 8 F.SUPP.  449; IN RE WEIS, 10 F.SUPP.  227. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 
..END :


















CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. U.S., 301 U.S. 308 


NO. 659.  ARGUED APRIL 1, 2, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1937.  - JUDGMENTS
AFFIRMED. 


PER POUND UPON THE FIRST DOMESTIC PROCESSING OF COCONUT OIL, AND
PROVIDES THAT ALL SUCH TAXES COLLECTED WITH RESPECT TO COCONUT OIL
WHOLLY OF PHILIPPINE PRODUCTION, ETC., "SHALL BE HELD AS A SEPARATE
FUND AND PAID TO THE TREASURY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, BUT IF AT ANY
TIME THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES BY ANY LAW FOR ANY SUBSIDY TO
BE PAID TO THE PRODUCERS OF COPRA, COCONUT OIL, OR ALLIED PRODUCTS, NO
FURTHER PAYMENTS TO THE PHILIPPINE TREASURY SHALL BE MADE UNDER THIS
SUBSECTION."  HELD: 

1.  THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX IN ITSELF IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE
TAXING POWER, CONSISTENT WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 312. 

2.  A VALID TAX MAY BE BOUND TO A VALID APPROPRIATION OF THE MONEYS
SO REALIZED, IN THE SAME ACT OF CONGRESS.  P. 313. 

3.  WHETHER A TAX SERVES ANY OF THE PURPOSES ENUMERATED IN THE
CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 1,  - "TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE
FOR THE COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES,"  - IS
A PRACTICAL QUESTION ADDRESSED TO THE LAW-MAKING POWER, WHOSE
CONCLUSION MUST BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURTS UNLESS PLAINLY WITHOUT
JUSTIFICATION.  P. 313. 

4.  OWING TO THE PECULIAR RELATION OF DEPENDENCY OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS AND THEIR INHABITANTS ON THE UNITED STATES, IT IS A MORAL
OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES TO PROTECT, DEFEND AND PROVIDE FOR
THEIR GENERAL WELFARE.  P. 313. 

5.  THE TAX AND APPROPRIATION MAY BE SUSTAINED AS A DISCHARGE OF A
MORAL OBLIGATION AMOUNTING TO A "DEBT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TAXING
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 314. 

6.  CONGRESS, FROM THE BEGINNING, HAS ACTED UPON THE VIEW THAT THE
TERM "DEBTS" INCLUDES MORAL OBLIGATIONS.  ID. 

7.  QUAERE WHETHER THE TAX AND APPROPRIATION IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE
MIGHT NOT BE JUSTIFIED AS AN EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER TO PROVIDE,
IN A BROAD SENSE, FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENSE OR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE
UNITED STATES.  P. 315. 

8.  THE DETERMINATION OF CONGRESS TO RECOGNIZE THE MORAL OBLIGATION
OF THE NATION TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION AS A REQUIREMENT OF JUSTICE AND
HONOR, IS OBVIOUSLY A MATTER OF POLICY AND DISCRETION NOT OPEN TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW, UNLESS IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS ARE NOT PRESENT IN
THIS CASE.  P. 317. 

9.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE A FEDERAL TAX LEVIED FOR THE
EXPRESS PURPOSE OF PAYING THE DEBTS OR PROVIDING FOR THE WELFARE OF A
STATE MIGHT BE INVALID, SUCH A TAX FOR THE USES OF A TERRITORY OR
DEPENDENCY, OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS PLENARY POWER, WOULD
LIKEWISE BE INVALID.  P. 317. 

10.  THE PASSAGE OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE ACT OF MARCH 24,
1934, AND THE ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, DID NOT WITHDRAW THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE ISLANDS, NOR MAKE THEM
FOREIGN TO THE UNITED STATES.  P. 319. 

11.  CONGRESS HAS POWER TO LEVY A TAX WITH THE COLLATERAL PURPOSE OF
PROTECTING INDUSTRIES OF THE UNITED STATES.  P. 320. 

12.  ASSUMING THE PRESENT TAX LEVIED FOR THAT PURPOSE, IT WAS FOR
CONGRESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS A MORAL DUTY TO OFFSET THE
BURDEN OF IT ON THE PHILIPPINE PRODUCTION BY AN EQUIVALENT
APPROPRIATION TO THE PHILIPPINE TREASURY.  P. 320. 

14.  THE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 7, THAT
"NO MONEY SHALL BE DRAWN FROM THE TREASURY BUT IN CONSEQUENCE OF
APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW" WAS INTENDED AS A RESTRICTION UPON THE
DISBURSING AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, AND IS WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANCE HERE.  IT MEANS SIMPLY THAT NO MONEY CAN BE PAID OUT OF
THE TREASURY UNLESS IT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  P.
321. 

15.  THE CONTENTION OF THE TAXPAYERS IN THIS CASE THAT THERE HAS BEEN
NO CONSTITUTIONAL APPROPRIATION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX, AND THAT
ANY ATTEMPTED APPROPRIATION IS BAD, BECAUSE THE PARTICULAR USES TO
WHICH THE APPROPRIATED MONEY IS TO BE PUT HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFIED, IS
WITHOUT MERIT.  P. 321. 

16.  PAYMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX TO THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT,
WITH NO DIRECTION AS TO THE EXPENDITURE THEREOF, WAS NOT AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  P. 321. 

17.  IN DEALING WITH THE TERRITORIES, POSSESSIONS AND DEPENDENCIES OF
THE UNITED STATES, THIS NATION HAS ALL THE POWERS OF OTHER SOVEREIGN
NATIONS, AND CONGRESS IN LEGISLATING IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME
RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF LAWS FOR THE UNITED STATES
CONSIDERED AS A POLITICAL BODY OF STATES IN UNION.  P. 323. 

CINCINNATI SOAP CO. V. UNITED STATES.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 687, HASKINS BROS. & CO. V. O'MALLEY, COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 649, TO REVIEW TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE DISTRICT
COURTS SUSTAINING DEMURRERS TO THE PETITIONS FILED BY THE SOAP COMPANY
AND ANOTHER IN ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEYS EXACTED AS TAXES.  THE CASES
HAD BEEN APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, BUT HAD NOT BEEN
HEARD OR SUBMITTED WHEN THE WRITS OF CERTIORARI ISSUED. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

763, IMPOSES A TAX OF 3 CENTS PER POUND UPON THE FIRST DOMESTIC
PROCESSING OF COCONUT OIL, AND PROVIDES THAT ALL SUCH TAXES COLLECTED
WITH RESPECT TO COCONUT OIL WHOLLY OF PHILIPPINE PRODUCTION, ETC.,
"SHALL BE HELD AS A SEPARATE FUND AND PAID TO THE TREASURY OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, BUT IF AT ANY TIME THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT
PROVIDES BY ANY LAW FOR ANY SUBSIDY TO BE PAID TO THE PRODUCERS OF
COPRA, COCONUT OIL, OR ALLIED PRODUCTS, NO FURTHER PAYMENTS TO THE
PHILIPPINE TREASURY SHALL BE MADE UNDER THIS SUBSECTION." 

BOTH PETITIONERS ARE ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING SOAP AND, AT TIMES
STATED IN THEIR PETITIONS, USED IN ITS MANUFACTURE LARGE QUANTITIES OF
COCONUT OIL WHOLLY THE PRODUCT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  IN PURSUANCE
OF SEC. 602 1/2, THEY MADE RETURNS AND PAID THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX AS
REQUIRED BY THAT SECTION.  SUBSEQUENTLY, EACH OF THEM FILED WITH THE
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE A CLAIM FOR THE REFUND OF THE TAX, ON THE
GROUND THAT THE IMPOSITION WAS NOT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF
CONGRESS.  BOTH CLAIMS WERE DENIED, AND PETITIONS AT LAW WERE FILED IN
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO RECOVER THE SUMS PAID.  DEMURRERS WERE
INTERPOSED ATTACKING THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PETITIONS, AND THESE
DEMURRERS WERE SUSTAINED BY THE TRIAL COURTS.  APPEALS WERE TAKEN TO
THE RESPECTIVE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL NAMED IN THE TITLE; AND WE
GRANTED WRITS OF CERTIORARI BEFORE A HEARING OR SUBMISSION IN THOSE
COURTS, BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE TO THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OF AN EARLY
FINAL DECISION OF THE QUESTION. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE TAX IS ASSAILED BY PETITIONERS UPON A VARIETY OF
GROUNDS, DEVELOPED AT LENGTH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BRIEFS AND BY THE ORAL
ARGUMENTS AT THE BAR.  SO FAR AS WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE
VARIOUS CONTENTIONS, THEY MAY BE STATED IN GENERAL TERMS AS FOLLOWS:
THAT THE TAX IS NOT IMPOSED FOR ANY PURPOSE CONTEMPLATED BY THE TAXING
CLAUSE OF SEC. 8, ART. I, OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION - THAT IS TO SAY,
IT IS NOT IMPOSED TO PAY THE DEBTS OR PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE OR
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES; THAT, ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS
IMPOSED FOR A PURELY LOCAL PURPOSE, IN VIOLATION OF THE TENTH
AMENDMENT; THAT THE EXACTION VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, BECAUSE IT IS AN ARBITRARY EXACTION FROM ONE GROUP OF
PERSONS FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER; THAT THE ACT DOES NOT
IMPOSE A TRUE TAX, BUT IS A REGULATORY MEASURE OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF
FEDERAL POWER; THAT IT VIOLATES CLAUSE 7, SEC. 9, OF ART. I OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO MONEY SHALL BE DRAWN FROM THE
TREASURY, BUT IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW"; THAT THE
PAYMENT IN BULK OF THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX TO THE PHILIPPINES,
WITH NO DIRECTION AS TO THE EXPENDITURE THEREOF, CONSTITUTES AN
UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  IN DEALING WITH THESE
CONTENTIONS, WE FIND IT CONVENIENT TO DO SO WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE
PRECISE ORDER IN WHICH THEY HAVE JUST BEEN STATED.  AND CERTAIN OF THEM
ARE SO INTERRELATED THAT THEY MAY BE JOINED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE
SAME SUBDIVISION OF THE OPINION WHICH FOLLOWS. 

FIRST.  PLAINLY, THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX IN ITSELF IS A VALID
EXERCISE OF THE TAXING POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IT IS PURELY
AN EXCISE TAX UPON A MANUFACTURING PROCESS FOR REVENUE PURPOSES, AND IN
NO SENSE A REGULATION OF THE PROCESS ITSELF.  THE TENTH AMENDMENT IS
WITHOUT APPLICATION, SINCE THE POWERS OF THE SEVERAL STATES OVER LOCAL
AFFAIRS ARE NOT INVADED OR INVOLVED.  THIS IS DISCLOSED UPON THE FACE
OF THE ACT SO CLEARLY THAT DISCUSSION COULD NOT MAKE IT PLAINER. 
UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1, RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER, IS NOT
IN POINT.  THERE, WE HELD THAT THE SOLE AIM OF THE STATUTE, AS SHOWN BY
ITS TERMS, WAS TO REGULATE A LOCAL SITUATION, A MATTER WHOLLY WITHIN
THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES; AND MOREOVER THAT IT AMOUNTED TO A
NAKED TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OF ONE GROUP OF PERSONS FOR BESTOWAL UPON
ANOTHER GROUP.  THE CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20, AND OTHER CASES
CITED, BEAR STILL MORE REMOTELY UPON THE CONTENTION.  IT IS ENOUGH TO
SAY THAT THE FEATURE OF THE PRESENT CASE WHICH DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM
ALL THOSE CITED IS THAT THE EXACTION HERE, BOTH IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE,
IS A TRUE TAX, IMPOSED, AS WE PRESENTLY SHALL SHOW, FOR A FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE.  IN THAT VIEW THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT IS NOT INVOLVED. 

SECOND.  STANDING APART, THEREFORE, THE TAX IS UNASSAILABLE.  IT IS
SAID TO BE BAD BECAUSE IT IS EARMARKED AND DEVOTED FROM ITS INCEPTION
TO A SPECIFIC PURPOSE.  BUT IF THE TAX, QUA TAX, BE GOOD, AS WE HOLD IT
IS, AND THE PURPOSE SPECIFIED BE ONE WHICH WOULD SUSTAIN A SUBSEQUENT
AND SEPARATE APPROPRIATION MADE OUT OF THE GENERAL FUNDS OF THE
TREASURY, NEITHER IS MADE INVALID BY BEING BOUND TO THE OTHER IN THE
SAME ACT OF LEGISLATION.  THE ONLY CONCERN WHICH WE HAVE IN THAT ASPECT
OF THE MATTER IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PURPOSE SPECIFIED IS ONE FOR
WHICH CONGRESS CAN MAKE AN APPROPRIATION WITHOUT VIOLATING THE
FUNDAMENTAL LAW.  IF CONGRESS, FOR REASONS DEEMED BY IT TO BE
SATISFACTORY, CHOSE TO ADOPT THE QUANTUM OF RECEIPTS FROM THIS
PARTICULAR TAX AS THE MEASURE OF THE APPROPRIATION, WE PERCEIVE NO
VALID BASIS FOR CHALLENGING ITS POWER TO DO SO. 

WE INQUIRE FIRST - IS THE PROPOSED APPROPRIATION TO THE PHILIPPINE
TREASURY FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE?  SINCE AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO
THAT QUESTION WILL ESTABLISH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE OF THE TAX. 
THE PERTINENT TAXING CLAUSE PROVIDES IN GENERAL TERMS (ART. I, SEC. 8,
CL. 1) THAT TAXES MAY BE LAID "TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE
COMMON DEFENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES."  PRIMARILY,
AND IN A VERY HIGH DEGREE, WHETHER A TAX SERVES ANY OF THESE PURPOSES
IS A PRACTICAL QUESTION ADDRESSED TO THE LAW-MAKING DEPARTMENT.  AND IT
WILL REQUIRE A VERY PLAIN CASE TO WARRANT THE COURTS IN SETTING ASIDE
THE CONCLUSION OF CONGRESS IN THAT REGARD.  COMPARE NICOL V. AMES, 173
U.S. 509, 514-516.  NEVERTHELESS, SUCH PLAIN CASES MAY EXIST; AND THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS IS ONE OF THEM. 

THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND THEIR INHABITANTS, FROM THE BEGINNING OF
OUR OCCUPATION, HAVE BORNE A PECULIAR RELATION TO THE UNITED STATES. 
THE ISLANDS CONSTITUTE A DEPENDENCY OVER WHICH THE UNITED STATES, FOR
MORE THAN A GENERATION, HAS HAD AND EXERCISED SUPREME POWER OF
LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION, POSADAS V. NATIONAL CITY BANK, 296 U.S.
497, 502, A POWER LIMITED ONLY BY THE TERMS OF THE TREATY OF CESSION
AND THOSE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH BY THEIR NATURE ARE
INHERENTLY INVIOLABLE.  THE POSSESSION OF THIS WELL-NIGH ABSOLUTE POWER
OVER A DEPENDENT PEOPLE CARRIES WITH IT GREAT OBLIGATIONS, AS WAS
POINTED OUT BY MR. ROOT AS SECRETARY OF WAR IN 1899.  AFTER REFERRING
TO THE PRACTICALLY UNLIMITED POWER WHICH WE HAD OVER THE PHILIPPINES,
HE SAID: "I ASSUME, ALSO, THAT THE OBLIGATIONS CORRELATIVE TO THIS
GREAT POWER ARE OF THE HIGHEST CHARACTER, AND THAT IT IS OUR
UNQUESTIONED DUTY TO MAKE THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OVER WHOM WE
ASSERT SOVEREIGNTY THE FIRST AND CONTROLLING CONSIDERATION IN ALL
LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION WHICH CONCERNS THEM, AND TO GIVE THEM,
TO THE GREATEST POSSIBLE EXTENT, INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, SELF-GOVERNMENT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR CAPACITY, JUST AND EQUAL LAWS, AND OPPORTUNITY
FOR EDUCATION, FOR PROFITABLE INDUSTRY, AND FOR DEVELOPMENT IN
CIVILIZATION."  MILITARY AND COLONIAL POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES, 161
162. 

AMONG THESE CORRELATIVE DUTIES IS THE MORAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT,
DEFEND, AND PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF, THE INHABITANTS.  AND
SUCH AN OBLIGATION WELL MAY REQUIRE THE APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE
OF MONEY FROM THE NATIONAL PURSE - IN WHICH CASE THE OBLIGATION FAIRLY
COMES WITHIN THE TERM "DEBTS" AS USED IN THE TAXING CLAUSE.  UNITED
STATES V. REALTY CO., 163 U.S. 427, 440-441.  CONGRESS, FROM THE
BEGINNING OF ITS EXISTENCE, HAS ACCEPTED AND LEGISLATED UPON THAT VIEW
OF THE BROAD MEANING OF THE TERM.  IN INNUMERABLE INSTANCES, IT HAS
MADE APPROPRIATIONS TO RELIEVE NEEDS CAUSED BY EARTHQUAKES, FIRE, AND
OTHER EVENTS, NOT ONLY IN LOCALITIES WITHIN OR POSSESSED BY THE UNITED
STATES, BUT IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AS WELL.  GOVERNMENT COUNSEL HAS
FURNISHED US AN IMPRESSIVE LIST OF APPROPRIATIONS OF THIS CHARACTER;
AND IN ADDITION HAS CALLED ATTENTION TO THE MANY INSTANCES OF
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SUPPORT AND WELFARE OF THE INDIANS, AND FOR THE
USES OF THE TERRITORIES.  LEGISLATION OF THIS CHARACTER HAS BEEN SO
LONG CONTINUED AND ITS VALIDITY SO LONG UNQUESTIONED THAT, AS WE SAID
IN UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 322, 327-328,
"A LEGISLATIVE PRACTICE SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE, EVIDENCED NOT BY ONLY
OCCASIONAL INSTANCES, BUT MARKED BY THE MOVEMENT OF A STEADY STREAM FOR
A CENTURY AND A HALF OF TIME, GOES A LONG WAY IN THE DIRECTION OF
PROVING THE PRESENCE OF UNASSAILABLE GROUND FOR THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF THE PRACTICE, TO BE FOUND IN THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE POWER
INVOLVED, OR IN ITS NATURE, OR IN BOTH COMBINED." 

IT MAY BE THAT THE TAX AND THE APPROPRIATION OF THE PROCEEDS
THEREFROM IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE COULD BE JUSTIFIED AS AN EXERCISE OF
THE TAXING POWER TO PROVIDE, IN A BROAD SENSE, FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENSE
OR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE DO NOT PAUSE TO
CONSIDER THAT VIEW; FOR PLAINLY, WE THINK, THE LAW MAY BE SUSTAINED AS
AN ACT IN DISCHARGE OF A HIGH MORAL OBLIGATION, AMOUNTING TO A "DEBT"
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN
PRACTICALLY CONSTRUED.  THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT CONCLUSION HAS BEEN
SO FULLY STATED BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES V. REALTY
CO., SUPRA, THAT FURTHER CITATION BECOMES UNNECESSARY.  "UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, (ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8)," WE THERE SAID,
"CONGRESS HAS POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, ETC., 'TO PAY THE DEBTS'
OF THE UNITED STATES.  HAVING POWER TO RAISE MONEY FOR THAT PURPOSE, IT
OF COURSE FOLLOWS THAT IT HAS POWER WHEN THE MONEY IS RAISED TO
APPROPRIATE IT TO THE SAME OBJECT.  WHAT ARE THE DEBTS OF THE UNITED
STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION?  IT IS
CONCEDED AND INDEED IT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED THAT THE DEBTS ARE NOT
LIMITED TO THOSE WHICH ARE EVIDENCED BY SOME WRITTEN OBLIGATION OR TO
THOSE WHICH ARE OTHERWISE OF A STRICTLY LEGAL CHARACTER.  THE TERM
'DEBTS' INCLUDES THOSE DEBTS OR CLAIMS WHICH REST UPON A MERELY
EQUITABLE OR HONORARY OBLIGATION, AND WHICH WOULD NOT BE RECOVERABLE IN
A COURT OF LAW IF EXISTING AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.  THE NATION, SPEAKING
BROADLY, OWES A 'DEBT' TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHEN HIS CLAIM GROWS OUT OF
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT AND JUSTICE; WHEN, IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS
BASED UPON CONSIDERATIONS OF A MORAL OR MERELY HONORARY NATURE, SUCH AS
ARE BINDING ON THE CONSCIENCE OR THE HONOR OF AN INDIVIDUAL, ALTHOUGH
THE DEBT COULD OBTAIN NO RECOGNITION IN A COURT OF LAW.  THE POWER OF
CONGRESS EXTENDS AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE RECOGNITION AND PAYMENT OF
CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WHICH ARE THUS FOUNDED.  TO NO OTHER
BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT THAN CONGRESS COULD ANY APPLICATION BE
SUCCESSFULLY MADE ON THE PART OF THE OWNERS OF SUCH CLAIMS OR DEBTS FOR
THE PAYMENT THEREOF.  THEIR RECOGNITION DEPENDS SOLELY UPON CONGRESS,
AND WHETHER IT WILL RECOGNIZE CLAIMS THUS FOUNDED MUST BE LEFT TO THE
DISCRETION OF THAT BODY.  PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT OF RIGHT OR OF A
MERELY LEGAL CLAIM, BUT PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE OF A GRATUITY, YET
HAVING SOME FEATURE OF MORAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT THEM, HAVE BEEN MADE
BY THE GOVERNMENT BY VIRTUE OF ACTS OF CONGRESS, APPROPRIATING THE
PUBLIC MONEY, EVER SINCE ITS FOUNDATION.  SOME OF THE ACTS WERE BASED
UPON CONSIDERATIONS OF PURE CHARITY.  A LONG LIST OF ACTS DIRECTING
PAYMENTS OF THE ABOVE GENERAL CHARACTER IS APPENDED TO THE BRIEF OF ONE
OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.  THE ACTS ARE REFERRED TO
NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSERTING THEIR VALIDITY IN ALL CASES, BUT AS
EVIDENCE OF WHAT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF CONGRESS SINCE THE ADOPTION
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE, ALSO, AMONG OTHER CASES IN THIS COURT,
EMERSON V. HALL, 13 PET. 409; UNITED STATES V. PRICE, 116 U.S. 43;
WILLIAMS V. HEARD, 140 U.S. 529.  THE LAST CITED CASE AROSE UNDER AN
ACT OF CONGRESS IN RELATION TO THE ALABAMA CLAIMS." 

LATER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT HAVE FOLLOWED THAT VIEW.  UNITED STATES
V. COOK, 257 U.S. 523; MARION & R.V. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S.
280, 284.  THE DETERMINATION OF CONGRESS TO RECOGNIZE THE MORAL
OBLIGATION OF THE NATION TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION AS A REQUIREMENT OF
JUSTICE AND HONOR, IS OBVIOUSLY A MATTER OF POLICY AND DISCRETION NOT
OPEN TO JUDICIAL REVIEW UNLESS IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HERE WE ARE NOT
ABLE TO FIND.  UNITED STATES V. REALTY CO., SUPRA, P. 444.    IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE A FEDERAL TAX LEVIED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF
PAYING THE DEBTS OR PROVIDING FOR THE WELFARE OF A STATE MIGHT BE
INVALID (PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOW.  283, 446) THAT SUCH A TAX FOR THE
USES OF A TERRITORY OR DEPENDENCY WOULD LIKEWISE BE INVALID.  A STATE,
EXCEPT AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OTHERWISE REQUIRES, IS SUPREME AND
INDEPENDENT.  IT HAS ITS OWN GOVERNMENT, WITH FULL POWERS OF TAXATION
AND FULL POWER TO APPROPRIATE THE REVENUES DERIVED THEREFROM.  A
DEPENDENCY HAS NO GOVERNMENT BUT THAT OF THE UNITED STATES, EXCEPT IN
SO FAR AS THE UNITED STATES MAY PERMIT.  THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT MAY DO
FOR ONE OF ITS DEPENDENCIES WHATEVER A STATE MIGHT DO FOR ITSELF OR ONE
OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS, SINCE OVER SUCH A DEPENDENCY THE NATION
POSSESSES THE SOVEREIGN POWERS OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT PLUS THE
POWERS OF A LOCAL OR A STATE GOVERNMENT IN ALL CASES WHERE LEGISLATION
IS POSSIBLE.  COMPARE STOUTENBURGH V. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141, 147;
NATIONAL BANK V. COUNTY OF YANKTON, 101 U.S. 129, 133; MORMON CHURCH V.
UNITED STATES, 136 U.S. 1, 42; UTTER V. FRANKLIN, 172 U.S. 416, 423. 
TO SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WITH SUCH PRACTICALLY UNLIMITED
POWERS OF LEGISLATION IN RESPECT OF A DEPENDENCY, IS YET POWERLESS TO
APPROPRIATE MONEY FOR ITS NEEDS, IS TO DENY - WHAT THE FOREGOING
CONSIDERATIONS FORBID US TO DENY - THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS, IN THAT
REGARD, THE EQUIVALENT POWER OF A STATE IN COMPARABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THIRD.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS PLENARY POWERS, THE UNITED STATES
BEGAN BY GOVERNING THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS UNDER THE WAR POWER. 
FOLLOWING THE TREATY OF PARIS, A CONDITION OF ARMED INSURRECTION
PERSISTED FOR SOME TIME.  IN 1900, MILITARY GOVERNMENT WAS SUCCEEDED BY
A SPECIES OF EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT.  THE SPOONER AMENDMENT TO THE ARMY
APPROPRIATION BILL OF MARCH 2, 1901, C. 803, 31 STAT. 895, 910,
PROVIDED THAT "ALL MILITARY, CIVIL, AND JUDICIAL POWERS NECESSARY TO
GOVERN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS  ...  SHALL, UNTIL OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY
CONGRESS, BE VESTED IN SUCH PERSON AND PERSONS AND SHALL BE EXERCISED
IN SUCH MANNER AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL DIRECT, FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT AND FOR MAINTAINING AND
PROTECTING THE INHABITANTS OF SAID ISLANDS IN THE FREE ENJOYMENT OF
THEIR LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND RELIGION." 

THIS WAS FOLLOWED, MARCH 5, 1901, BY A CABLE FROM THE SECRETARY OF
WAR TO THE PHILIPPINE COMMISSION CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING LACONIC
ORDER, "UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS GOVERNMENT WILL CONTINUE UNDER EXISTING
INSTRUCTIONS AND ORDERS."  REPORT, SECRETARY OF WAR, 1901, P. 54.  THE
COMPREHENSIVE SPOONER AMENDMENT, AND THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND ORDERS,
VIRTUALLY CONSTITUTED FOR MANY MONTHS THE CHARTER OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.  IN 1902, CONGRESS PROVIDED FOR A COMPLETE SYSTEM
OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ORIGINAL PHILIPPINE ORGANIC ACT.  BY
DEGREES, THE ACTIVE POWERS OF THE DEPENDENCY HAVE BEEN ENLARGED, AND
THOSE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DECREASED.  BUT THE AUTHORITY WHICH
CONFERRED ADDITIONAL POWER MIGHT AT ANY TIME HAVE WITHDRAWN IT.  THIS
BRIEF RESUME DEMONSTRATES BOTH THE COMPLETENESS AND FLEXIBILITY OF THE
NATIONAL POWER OVER THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE HIGH CHARACTER OF THE
MORAL OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE POSSESSION OF SUCH POWER CORRELATIVELY
IMPOSES.  WITH THE EXTENSION OF POWER TO THE ISLANDS, OUR MORAL
OBLIGATIONS MAY HAVE GROWN LESS; BUT WHETHER, OR TO WHAT EXTENT, THIS
HAS BEEN THE CASE IS A QUESTION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE POLITICAL
DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

BUT IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PASSAGE OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE
ACT OF MARCH 24, 1934, C. 84, 48 STAT. 456, AND THE ADOPTION AND
APPROVAL OF A CONSTITUTION FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS HAVE CREATED A DIFFERENT SITUATION; AND THAT SINCE THEN,
WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE CASE BEFORE, THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN
UNDER NO DUTY TO MAKE ANY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE ISLANDS. 
UNDOUBTEDLY, THESE ACTS HAVE BROUGHT ABOUT A PROFOUND CHANGE IN THE
STATUS OF THE ISLANDS AND IN THEIR RELATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES; BUT
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT BEEN, AND, FOR A LONG
TIME, MAY NOT BE, FINALLY WITHDRAWN.  SO FAR AS THE UNITED STATES IS
CONCERNED, THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS ARE NOT YET FOREIGN TERRITORY.  BY
EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE INDEPENDENCE ACT, WE STILL RETAIN POWERS WITH
RESPECT TO OUR TRADE RELATIONS WITH THE ISLANDS, WITH CERTAIN
EXCEPTIONS SET FORTH PARTICULARLY IN THE ACT.  WE RETAIN POWERS WITH
RESPECT TO THEIR FINANCIAL OPERATIONS AND THEIR CURRENCY; AND WE
CONTINUE TO CONTROL THEIR FOREIGN RELATIONS.  THE POWER OF REVIEW BY
THIS COURT OVER PHILIPPINE CASES, AS NOW PROVIDED BY LAW, IS NOT ONLY
CONTINUED, BUT IS EXTENDED TO ALL CASES INVOLVING THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

THUS, WHILE THE POWER OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN MODIFIED, IT HAS
NOT BEEN ABOLISHED.  MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES WELL MAY ACCOMPANY THE
PROCESS OF SEPARATION FROM THIS COUNTRY; AND, INDEED, THEY MAY HAVE
BEEN INTENSIFIED BY THE NEW AND PERPLEXING PROBLEMS WHICH THE
PHILIPPINE PEOPLE NOW WILL BE CALLED UPON TO MEET AS ONE OF ITS
RESULTS.  THE EXISTENCE AND CHARACTER OF THE CONSEQUENT OBLIGATIONS AND
THE EXTENT OF THE RELIEF, IF ANY, WHICH SHOULD BE AFFORDED BY THE
UNITED STATES IN RESPECT OF THEM, ARE MATTERS, NOT FOR JUDICIAL BUT FOR
CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION. 

IT IS NOT IMPROBABLE THAT A FAILURE TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER IMPORTS
FROM THE PHILIPPINES WOULD INJURIOUSLY AFFECT THE INDUSTRIES OF THIS
COUNTRY; AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO TAX
IMPORTS MIGHT PROVE INJURIOUS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE ISLANDS.  CONGRESS,
IN PASSING THE LEGISLATION HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, IS NOT FORBIDDEN
TO BALANCE THESE RESPECTIVE PROBABILITIES.  THE TAX ITSELF, IT IS SAID,
WAS IMPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING CERTAIN INDUSTRIES IN THIS
COUNTRY; AND IT IS CHALLENGED ON THAT GROUND.  THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER
TO LEVY A TAX WITH THE COLLATERAL PURPOSE OF THEREBY PROTECTING THE
INDUSTRIES OF THE UNITED STATES IS NO LONGER OPEN TO DOUBT.  HAMPTON &
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 394, 411.  BUT, IN EXERCISING THE POWER
HERE WITH THAT PURPOSE, CONGRESS MAY HAVE CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD
THEREBY IMPOSE A HARDSHIP UPON THE PHILIPPINES WHICH IT WAS THE MORAL
DUTY OF CONGRESS TO REDRESS SO FAR AS POSSIBLE.  IN THAT SITUATION, WE
SEE NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION TO A DISCHARGE OF THE DUTY BY THE
APPROPRIATION OF AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE TAX IN ORDER TO OFFSET THE
ANTICIPATED BURDEN.  CERTAINLY, THIS COURT CANNOT JUDICIALLY DECLARE
THAT JUSTICE AND FAIR DEALING IN RESPECT OF A PEOPLE, NOT YET
COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF OUR AUTHORITY, DOES NOT WARRANT SUCH ACTION. 

NOR DO WE SEE ANY OBJECTION TO THE PLAN BECAUSE THE PAYMENT OF THE
FUNDS IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT SHALL
NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SUBSIDY TO BE PAID TO THE PHILIPPINE PRODUCERS OF
COCONUT OIL AND THE OTHER PRODUCTS NAMED IN SEC. 602 1/2 OF THE ACT. 
IT IS PERFECTLY PLAIN THAT SINCE CONGRESS MAY LEVY THE TAX WITH THE
COLLATERAL PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE INDUSTRIES OF THIS COUNTRY, IT MAY
IN APPROPRIATING THE PROCEEDS PUT SUCH RESTRICTION UPON THEIR USE AS
WILL PREVENT THE PURPOSE FROM BEING NULLIFIED.  THIS, WE THINK, IS THE
AIM AND THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISO. 

FOURTH.  THE CONTENTION THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO CONSTITUTIONAL
APPROPRIATION, OR THAT ANY ATTEMPTED APPROPRIATION IS BAD, BECAUSE THE
PARTICULAR USES TO WHICH THE APPROPRIATED MONEY IS TO BE PUT HAVE NOT
BEEN SPECIFIED, IS WITHOUT MERIT.  THE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION
(CL. 7, SEC. 9, ART. I) THAT "NO MONEY SHALL BE DRAWN FROM THE
TREASURY, BUT IN CONSEQUENCE OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE BY LAW" WAS
INTENDED AS A RESTRICTION UPON THE DISBURSING AUTHORITY OF THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, AND IS WITHOUT SIGNIFICANCE HERE.  IT MEANS
SIMPLY THAT NO MONEY CAN BE PAID OUT OF THE TREASURY UNLESS IT HAS BEEN
APPROPRIATED BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS.  REESIDE V. WALKER, 11 HOW.  272,
291; 2 STORY ON THE CONSTITUTION (4TH ED.), SECS. 1348, 1349; 1
WILLOUGHBY ON THE CONSTITUTION, SEC. 63, P. 105.  WE DEEM IT
UNNECESSARY TO ELABORATE THE POINT.  THE PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI,
FILED IN JANUARY OF THE PRESENT YEAR, INFORM US THAT NONE OF THE
PROCEEDS OF THE TAX IN QUESTION HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED TO THE PHILIPPINE
TREASURY.  EVIDENTLY THE MONEYS IN THE FORM OF A TRUST FUND, AS THE
GOVERNMENT ASSERTS, ARE STILL IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES.  IF
CONGRESS HAS NOT MADE AN APPROPRIATION, IT MAY STILL DO SO (HEAD MONEY
CASES, 112 U.S. 580, 599-600); AND, ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ASIDE, THE
INTERJECTION OF THE QUESTION INTO THE PRESENT CASES IS PREMATURE. 

THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT DISPOSING OF THE TAX IS ALSO ATTACKED AS
CONSTITUTING AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  THAT
CONGRESS HAS WIDE DISCRETION IN THE MATTER OF PRESCRIBING DETAILS OF
EXPENDITURES FOR WHICH IT APPROPRIATES MUST, OF COURSE, BE PLAIN. 
APPROPRIATION AND OTHER ACTS OF CONGRESS ARE REPLETE WITH INSTANCES OF
GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS OF LARGE AMOUNTS, TO BE ALLOTTED AND EXPENDED AS
DIRECTED BY DESIGNATED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.  A STRIKING AND PERTINENT
EXAMPLE IS AFFORDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 17, 1902, C. 1093, 32 STAT. 388,
WHERE ALL MONEYS RECEIVED FROM THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC LANDS IN
A LARGE NUMBER OF STATES AND TERRITORIES ARE SET ASIDE AS A SPECIAL
FUND TO BE EXPENDED FOR THE RECLAMATION OF ARID AND SEMI-ARID LANDS
WITHIN THOSE STATES AND TERRITORIES.  THE EXPENDITURES ARE TO BE MADE
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR UPON SUCH PROJECTS
AS HE MAY DETERMINE TO BE PRACTICABLE AND ADVISABLE.  THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY HAS NEVER BEEN
SERIOUSLY QUESTIONED.  SEE UNITED STATES V. HANSON, 167 FED. 881, 884
885.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISPOSITION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX
FINDS PRECEDENT IN MANY PREVIOUS ACTS OF CONGRESS PROVIDING FOR
PAYMENTS INTO THE PHILIPPINE TREASURY.* 

*ACT OF MARCH 8, 1902, C. 140, 32 STAT. 54; ACT OF AUGUST 5, 1909, C.
6, 36 STAT. 11, 84-85; ACT OF OCTOBER 3, 1913, C. 16, 38 STAT. 114,
193; ACT OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1922, C. 356, 42 STAT. 858, 935; ACT OF JUNE
17, 1930, C. 497, 46 STAT. 590, 686. 

BUT ALL THIS ASIDE, THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT CONGRESS WAS HERE
DEALING WITH A DEPENDENCY FOR WHICH IT HAD PROVIDED A COMPLETE SYSTEM
OF GOVERNMENT TO ADMINISTER THE AFFAIRS OF A POPULATION FOR WHOSE
WELFARE THE UNITED STATES WAS UNDER A HIGH DEGREE OF MORAL
RESPONSIBILITY, AS WE ALREADY HAVE SEEN.  THE PROCEEDS OF THE TAX UNDER
CONSIDERATION ARE TO BE PAID INTO THE TREASURY OF A GOVERNMENT WHICH
CONGRESS ITSELF THUS CREATED, TO BE EXPENDED BY THAT GOVERNMENT, EXCEPT
AS THE ACT OTHERWISE DIRECTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS JUDGMENT AS TO
SPECIFIC NECESSITIES.  THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OF DELEGATION TO SUCH A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS AND MUST BE AS COMPREHENSIVE AS THE NEEDS.  COMPARE
UNITED STATES V. HEINSZEN & CO., 206 U.S. 370, 384-385.  IN DEALING
WITH THE TERRITORIES, POSSESSIONS AND DEPENDENCIES OF THE UNITED
STATES, THIS NATION HAS ALL THE POWERS OF OTHER SOVEREIGN NATIONS, AND
CONGRESS IN LEGISLATING IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS WHICH
ARE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF LAWS FOR THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERED AS A
POLITICAL BODY OF STATES IN UNION.  DORR V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S.
138, 140, 142. 

CONGRESS HAS POWER TO CREATE A LOCAL LEGISLATURE FOR THE PHILIPPINES;
AND IT HAS DONE SO. CONGRESS HAS POWER TO AUTHORIZE THE LEGISLATURE TO
IMPOSE TAXES FOR ALL THE LAWFUL NEEDS OF THE ISLANDS, AND TO
APPROPRIATE THE PROCEEDS FOR SUCH USES AND IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS THE
LEGISLATURE MAY DETERMINE (COMPARE LEITENSDORFER V. WEBB, 20 HOW.  176,
182); AND THIS IT HAS DONE.  CONGRESS HAS POWER TO APPROPRIATE THE
MONEYS HERE IN QUESTION, AND CAUSE THEM TO BE PAID FROM THE NATIONAL
TREASURY INTO THE TREASURY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; AND FOR THIS IT
HAS PROVIDED.  IT WOULD RESULT IN A STRANGE ANOMALY NOW TO HOLD THAT
CONGRESS HAD POWER TO DEVOLVE UPON THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT THE
AUTHORITY TO APPROPRIATE REVENUE DERIVED FROM LOCAL TAXATION AS THE
GOVERNMENT SAW FIT, BUT THAT CONGRESS WAS WITHOUT POWER TO CONFER
SIMILAR AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF MONEYS WHICH LAWFULLY WILL COME INTO
THE PHILIPPINE TREASURY FROM THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES OR FROM
OTHER SOURCES APART FROM TAXATION.  IT IS TRUE, AS ALREADY APPEARS,
THAT THE USES TO WHICH THE MONEY IS TO BE PUT ARE NOT SPECIFIED.  BUT
IN ALL INSTANCES WHERE FUNDS SHALL COME INTO THE PHILIPPINE TREASURY,
WE MAY INDULGE THE PRESUMPTION, IN FAVOR OF A RESPONSIBLE AND DULY
CONSTITUTED LEGISLATIVE BODY, THAT THE FUNDS WILL BE APPROPRIATED FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PRIVATE USES. 

WHETHER THE PAYMENT TO THE PHILIPPINES OF THE LARGE SUMS OF MONEY
WHICH WILL FLOW FROM THIS TAX IS UNWARRANTED IN FACT; WHETHER THE
PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE NEEDS OF THE ISLANDS REQUIRE IT; AND OTHER
QUERIES DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CHALLENGING THE WISDOM OR NECESSITY OF
THE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, ARE ALL MATTERS, AS WE REPEATEDLY HAVE
POINTED OUT, WITH WHICH THE COURTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO.  WE FIND THE
LEGISLATION TO BE FREE FROM CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY; AND THERE BOTH
OUR POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY END.  JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED. 
..END :

















UNITED STATES V. BELMONT, 301 U.S. 324 


NO. 532.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 1937.  - DECIDED MAY 3, 1937.  - 85 F.(2D)
542, REVERSED. 


1.  A DECREE OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT DISSOLVED A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
AND EXPROPRIATED ALL OF ITS ASSETS, INCLUDING A DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH A
BANK IN NEW YORK.  SUBSEQUENTLY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
RECOGNIZED, AND ESTABLISHED DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH, THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING ABOUT A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF
CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS BETWEEN THAT GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED STATES,
IT WAS THEREUPON AGREED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT
WOULD TAKE NO STEPS TO ENFORCE CLAIMS AGAINST AMERICAN NATIONALS, BUT
ALL SUCH CLAIMS, INCLUDING THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, WERE ASSIGNED TO THE
UNITED STATES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT WOULD
BE NOTIFIED OF ALL AMOUNTS SO REALIZED BY THE UNITED STATES.  HELD
THAT, AS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE DEPOSITARY, THE DEPOSIT, IN
VIRTUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMPACT, BELONGED TO THE UNITED STATES,
WHATEVER THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK TOUCHING THE ENFORCEMENT
OF ACTS OF CONFISCATION.  P. 327. 

2.  JUDICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN OF THE FACTS THAT COINCIDENTALLY WITH
THE ASSIGNMENT THE PRESIDENT RECOGNIZED THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND
NORMAL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WERE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE TWO
GOVERNMENTS, FOLLOWED BY AN EXCHANGE OF AMBASSADORS.  P. 330. 

3.  THE EFFECT OF THIS WAS TO VALIDATE, SO FAR AS THIS COUNTRY IS
CONCERNED, ALL ACTS OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT HERE INVOLVED FROM THE
COMMENCEMENT OF ITS EXISTENCE.  P. 330. 

4.  THE INTERNATIONAL COMPACT WAS WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF THE
PRESIDENT, AND PARTICIPATION BY THE SENATE WAS UNNECESSARY.  P. 330. 

5.  THE EXTERNAL POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE TO BE EXERCISED
WITHOUT REGARD TO STATE LAWS OR POLICIES.  P. 331. 

6.  WHAT ANOTHER COUNTRY HAS DONE IN THE WAY OF TAKING OVER PROPERTY
OF ITS NATIONALS, AND ESPECIALLY OF ITS CORPORATIONS, IS NOT
QUESTIONABLE IN OUR COURTS.  P. 332. 

UNITED STATES V. BELMONT ET AL., EXECUTORS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 531, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN AN ACTION BY THE UNITED
STATES TO RECOVER FROM EXECUTORS A SUM OF MONEY WHICH HAD BEEN
DEPOSITED WITH THEIR DECEDENT BY A RUSSIAN CORPORATION AND ASSIGNED BY
THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, AFTER EXPROPRIATION, TO THE UNITED STATES. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION AT LAW BROUGHT BY PETITIONER AGAINST RESPONDENTS IN
A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT TO RECOVER A SUM OF MONEY DEPOSITED BY A
RUSSIAN CORPORATION (PETROGRAD METAL WORKS) WITH AUGUST BELMONT, A
PRIVATE BANKER DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY UNDER THE NAME OF AUGUST
BELMONT & CO. AUGUST BELMONT DIED IN 1924; AND RESPONDENTS ARE THE DULY
APPOINTED EXECUTORS OF HIS WILL.  A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR
FAILURE TO STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION WAS
SUSTAINED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, AND ITS JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE
COURT BELOW.  85 F.(2D) 542.  THE FACTS ALLEGED, SO FAR AS NECESSARY TO
BE STATED, FOLLOW. 

THE CORPORATION HAD DEPOSITED WITH BELMONT, PRIOR TO 1918, THE SUM OF
MONEY WHICH PETITIONER SEEKS TO RECOVER.  IN 1918, THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT DULY ENACTED A DECREE BY WHICH IT DISSOLVED, TERMINATED AND
LIQUIDATED THE CORPORATION (TOGETHER WITH OTHERS), AND NATIONALIZED AND
APPROPRIATED ALL OF ITS PROPERTY AND ASSETS OF EVERY KIND AND WHEREVER
SITUATED, INCLUDING THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH BELMONT.  AS A RESULT, THE
DEPOSIT BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, AND SO REMAINED
UNTIL NOVEMBER 16, 1933, AT WHICH TIME THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT RELEASED
AND ASSIGNED TO PETITIONER ALL AMOUNTS DUE TO THAT GOVERNMENT FROM
AMERICAN NATIONALS, INCLUDING THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT OF THE CORPORATION
WITH BELMONT.  RESPONDENTS FAILED AND REFUSED TO PAY THE AMOUNT UPON
DEMAND DULY MADE BY PETITIONER. 

THE ASSIGNMENT WAS EFFECTED BY AN EXCHANGE OF DIPLOMATIC
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED STATES. 
THE PURPOSE WAS TO BRING ABOUT A FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIMS AND
COUNTERCLAIMS BETWEEN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AND THE UNITED STATES; AND
IT WAS AGREED THAT THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT WOULD TAKE NO STEPS TO ENFORCE
CLAIMS AGAINST AMERICAN NATIONALS; BUT ALL SUCH CLAIMS WERE RELEASED
AND ASSIGNED TO THE UNITED STATES, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
SOVIET GOVERNMENT WAS TO BE DULY NOTIFIED OF ALL AMOUNTS REALIZED BY
THE UNITED STATES FROM SUCH RELEASE AND ASSIGNMENT.  THE ASSIGNMENT AND
REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE ARE PARTS OF THE LARGER PLAN TO BRING ABOUT A
SETTLEMENT OF THE RIVAL CLAIMS OF THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES.  THE
CONTINUING AND DEFINITE INTEREST OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT IN THE
COLLECTION OF ASSIGNED CLAIMS IS EVIDENT; AND THE CASE, THEREFORE,
PRESENTS A QUESTION OF PUBLIC CONCERN, THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH WELL
MIGHT INVOLVE THE GOOD FAITH OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE EYES OF A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.  THE COURT BELOW HELD THAT THE ASSIGNMENT THUS
EFFECTED EMBRACED THE CLAIM HERE IN QUESTION; AND WITH THAT WE AGREE. 

THAT COURT, HOWEVER, TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE SITUS OF THE BANK DEPOSIT
WAS WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THAT IN NO SENSE COULD IT BE REGARDED
AS AN INTANGIBLE PROPERTY RIGHT WITHIN SOVIET TERRITORY; AND THAT THE
NATIONALIZATION DECREE, IF ENFORCED, WOULD PUT INTO EFFECT AN ACT OF
CONFISCATION.  AND IT HELD THAT A JUDGMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES COULD
NOT BE HAD, BECAUSE, IN VIEW OF THAT RESULT, IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO
THE CONTROLLING PUBLIC POLICY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.  THE FURTHER
CONTENTION IS MADE BY RESPONDENTS THAT THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED
STATES WOULD LIKEWISE BE INFRINGED BY SUCH A JUDGMENT.  THE TWO
QUESTIONS THUS PRESENTED ARE THE ONLY ONES NECESSARY TO BE CONSIDERED. 

FIRST.  WE DO NOT PAUSE TO INQUIRE WHETHER IN FACT THERE WAS ANY
POLICY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO BE INFRINGED, SINCE WE ARE OF
OPINION THAT NO STATE POLICY CAN PREVAIL AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL
COMPACT HERE INVOLVED. 

THIS COURT HAS HELD, UNDERHILL V. HERNANDEZ, 168 U.S. 250, THAT EVERY
SOVEREIGN STATE MUST RECOGNIZE THE INDEPENDENCE OF EVERY OTHER
SOVEREIGN STATE; AND THAT THE COURTS OF ONE WILL NOT SIT IN JUDGMENT
UPON THE ACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANOTHER, DONE WITHIN ITS OWN
TERRITORY. 

THAT GENERAL PRINCIPLE WAS APPLIED IN OETJEN V. CENTRAL LEATHER CO.,
246 U.S. 297, TO A CASE WHERE AN ACTION IN REPLEVIN HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN
A NEW JERSEY STATE COURT TO RECOVER A CONSIGNMENT OF HIDES PURCHASED IN
MEXICO FROM GENERAL VILLA.  THE TITLE OF THE PURCHASER WAS ASSAILED ON
THE GROUND THAT VILLA HAD CONFISCATED THE HIDES.  VILLA, IT APPEARED,
HAD SEIZED THE HIDES WHILE CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT OPERATIONS UNDER THE
CARRANZA GOVERNMENT, WHICH AT THE TIME OF THE SEIZURE HAD MADE MUCH
PROGRESS IN ITS REVOLUTION IN MEXICO.  THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, AFTER THE TRIAL OF THE CASE IN THE STATE COURT, HAD RECOGNIZED
THE GOVERNMENT OF CARRANZA, FIRST AS THE DE FACTO GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF MEXICO, AND LATER AS THE GOVERNMENT DE JURE.  THIS COURT
HELD THAT THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS WAS COMMITTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION TO THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE
PROPRIETY OF WHAT MAY BE DONE IN THE EXERCISE OF THIS POLITICAL POWER
WAS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL INQUIRY OR DECISION; THAT WHO IS THE
SOVEREIGN OF A TERRITORY IS NOT A JUDICIAL QUESTION, BUT ONE THE
DETERMINATION OF WHICH BY THE POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS CONCLUSIVELY BINDS
THE COURTS; AND THAT RECOGNITION BY THESE DEPARTMENTS IS RETROACTIVE
AND VALIDATES ALL ACTIONS AND CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT SO RECOGNIZED
FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS EXISTENCE.  "THE PRINCIPLE," WE SAID, P.
303, "THAT THE CONDUCT OF ONE INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE
SUCCESSFULLY QUESTIONED IN THE COURTS OF ANOTHER IS AS APPLICABLE TO A
CASE INVOLVING THE TITLE TO PROPERTY BROUGHT WITHIN THE CUSTODY OF A
COURT, SUCH AS WE HAVE HERE, AS IT WAS HELD TO BE TO THE CASES CITED,
IN WHICH CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES WERE BASED UPON ACTS DONE IN A FOREIGN
COUNTRY, FOR IT RESTS AT LAST UPON THE HIGHEST CONSIDERATIONS OF
INTERNATIONAL COMITY AND EXPEDIENCY.  TO PERMIT THE VALIDITY OF THE
ACTS OF ONE SOVEREIGN STATE TO BE REEXAMINED AND PERHAPS CONDEMNED BY
THE COURTS OF ANOTHER WOULD VERY CERTAINLY 'IMPERIL THE AMICABLE
RELATIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS AND VEX THE PEACE OF NATIONS.'"  RICAUD
V. AMERICAN METAL CO., 246 U.S. 304, 308-309, 310, IS TO THE SAME
EFFECT. 

IN A. M. LUTHER V. JAMES SAGOR & CO., L.R. (1921) 3 K.B. 532, THE
ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL EXPRESSLY APPROVED AND FOLLOWED OUR DECISION IN
THE OETJEN CASE.  THE ENGLISH CASE INVOLVED THAT PART OF THE SAME
DECREE OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH DECLARED
CERTAIN PRIVATE WOODWORKING ESTABLISHMENTS TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE
REPUBLIC.  UNDER THAT DECREE THE GOVERNMENT SEIZED PLAINTIFF'S FACTORY
IN RUSSIA TOGETHER WITH A STOCK OF WOOD THEREIN.  AGENTS OF THE
REPUBLIC SOLD A QUANTITY OF THE STOCK SO SEIZED TO THE DEFENDANTS, WHO
IMPORTED IT INTO ENGLAND.  THEREAFTER, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
RECOGNIZED THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AS THE DE FACTO GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA. 
UPON THESE FACTS, THE COURT HELD THAT, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAVING
THUS RECOGNIZED THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, EXISTING AT A DATE BEFORE THE
DECREE IN QUESTION, THE VALIDITY OF THAT DECREE AND THE SALE OF THE
WOOD TO THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT BE IMPUGNED, AND GAVE JUDGMENT FOR
DEFENDANTS ACCORDINGLY.  THE COURT REGARDED THE DECREE AS ONE OF
CONFISCATION, BUT WAS UNABLE TO SEE (BANKES, L.J., P. 546) HOW THE
COURTS COULD TREAT THE DECREE "OTHERWISE THAN AS THE EXPRESSION BY THE
DE FACTO GOVERNMENT OF A CIVILIZED COUNTRY OF A POLICY WHICH IT
CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THAT COUNTRY.  IT MUST BE
QUITE IMMATERIAL FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THE SAME VIEWS ARE NOT
ENTERTAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THIS COUNTRY, ARE REPUDIATED BY THE
VAST MAJORITY OF ITS CITIZENS, AND ARE NOT RECOGNIZED BY OUR LAWS." 
LORD JUSTICE SCRUTTON, IN HIS OPINION, DISCUSSES (PP. 557-559) THE
CONTENTION THAT THE COURTS SHOULD REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE THE DECREE AND
THE TITLES DERIVED UNDER IT AS CONFISCATORY AND UNJUST, AND CONCLUDES
THAT THE QUESTION IS ONE NOT FOR THE JUDGES BUT FOR THE ACTION OF THE
SOVEREIGN THROUGH HIS MINISTERS.  "I DO NOT FEEL ABLE," HE SAID, "TO
COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LEGISLATION OF A STATE RECOGNIZED BY MY
SOVEREIGN AS AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN STATE IS SO CONTRARY TO MORAL
PRINCIPLE THAT THE JUDGES OUGHT NOT TO RECOGNIZE IT.  THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOGNITION OR NONRECOGNITION WITH THE CONSEQUENCES
OF EACH RESTS ON THE POLITICAL ADVISERS OF THE SOVEREIGN AND NOT ON THE
JUDGES."  FURTHER CITATION OF AUTHORITY SEEMS UNNECESSARY. 

WE TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT COINCIDENT WITH THE
ASSIGNMENT SET FORTH IN THE COMPLAINT, THE PRESIDENT RECOGNIZED THE
SOVIET GOVERNMENT, AND NORMAL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WERE ESTABLISHED
BETWEEN THAT GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
FOLLOWED BY AN EXCHANGE OF AMBASSADORS.  THE EFFECT OF THIS WAS TO
VALIDATE, SO FAR AS THIS COUNTRY IS CONCERNED, ALL ACTS OF THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT HERE INVOLVED FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS EXISTENCE.  THE
RECOGNITION, ESTABLISHMENT OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS, THE ASSIGNMENT, AND
AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO, WERE ALL PARTS OF ONE TRANSACTION,
RESULTING IN AN INTERNATIONAL COMPACT BETWEEN THE TWO GOVERNMENTS. 
THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS, ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSIGNMENT AND AGREEMENTS AND
UNDERSTANDINGS IN RESPECT THEREOF WERE WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE
PRESIDENT MAY NOT BE DOUBTED.  GOVERNMENTAL POWER OVER INTERNAL AFFAIRS
IS DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND THE SEVERAL STATES. 
GOVERNMENTAL POWER OVER EXTERNAL AFFAIRS IS NOT DISTRIBUTED, BUT IS
VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  AND IN RESPECT OF WHAT
WAS DONE HERE, THE EXECUTIVE HAD AUTHORITY TO SPEAK AS THE SOLE ORGAN
OF THAT GOVERNMENT.  THE ASSIGNMENT AND THE AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH DID NOT, AS IN THE CASE OF TREATIES, AS THAT TERM IS USED IN
THE TREATY MAKING CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION (ART. II, SEC. 2), REQUIRE
THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE. 

A TREATY SIGNIFIES "A COMPACT MADE BETWEEN TWO OR MORE INDEPENDENT
NATIONS WITH A VIEW TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE."  ALTMAN & CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 224 U.S. 583, 600.  BUT AN INTERNATIONAL COMPACT, AS THIS WAS,
IS NOT ALWAYS A TREATY WHICH REQUIRES THE PARTICIPATION OF THE SENATE. 
THERE ARE MANY SUCH COMPACTS, OF WHICH A PROTOCOL, A MODUS VIVENDI, A
POSTAL CONVENTION, AND AGREEMENTS LIKE THAT NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE
ILLUSTRATIONS.  SEE 5 MOORE, INT. LAW DIGEST, 210-221.  THE DISTINCTION
WAS POINTED OUT BY THIS COURT IN THE ALTMAN CASE, SUPRA, WHICH AROSE
UNDER SEC. 3 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1897, AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO
CONCLUDE COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN CERTAIN
SPECIFIED MATTERS.  WE HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THIS MIGHT NOT BE A TREATY
REQUIRING RATIFICATION BY THE SENATE, IT WAS A COMPACT NEGOTIATED AND
PROCLAIMED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT, AND AS SUCH WAS A
"TREATY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ACT, THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH MIGHT BE REVIEWED UPON DIRECT APPEAL TO THIS
COURT. 

PLAINLY, THE EXTERNAL POWERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE TO BE EXERCISED
WITHOUT REGARD TO STATE LAWS OR POLICIES.  THE SUPREMACY OF A TREATY IN
THIS RESPECT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FROM THE BEGINNING.  MR. MADISON, IN
THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, SAID THAT IF A TREATY DOES NOT SUPERSEDE
EXISTING STATE LAWS, AS FAR AS THEY CONTRAVENE ITS OPERATION, THE
TREATY WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE.  "TO COUNTERACT IT BY THE SUPREMACY OF THE
STATE LAWS, WOULD BRING ON THE UNION THE JUST CHARGE OF NATIONAL
PERFIDY, AND INVOLVE US IN WAR."  3 ELLIOT'S DEBATES 515.  AND SEE WARE
V. HYLTON, 3 DALL.  199, 236-237.  AND WHILE THIS RULE IN RESPECT OF
TREATIES IS ESTABLISHED BY THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE OF CL. 2, ART. VI, OF
THE CONSTITUTION, THE SAME RULE WOULD RESULT IN THE CASE OF ALL
INTERNATIONAL COMPACTS AND AGREEMENTS FROM THE VERY FACT THAT COMPLETE
POWER OVER INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS IS IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AND IS
NOT AND CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY CURTAILMENT OR INTERFERENCE ON THE
PART OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT
EXPORT CORP., 299 U.S. 304, 316, ET SEQ. IN RESPECT OF ALL
INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS AND COMPACTS, AND IN RESPECT OF OUR FOREIGN
RELATIONS GENERALLY, STATE LINES DISAPPEAR.  AS TO SUCH PURPOSES THE
STATE OF NEW YORK DOES NOT EXIST.  WITHIN THE FIELD OF ITS POWERS,
WHATEVER THE UNITED STATES RIGHTFULLY UNDERTAKES, IT NECESSARILY HAS
WARRANT TO CONSUMMATE.  AND WHEN JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IS INVOKED IN AID
OF SUCH CONSUMMATION, STATE CONSTITUTIONS, STATE LAWS, AND STATE
POLICIES ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE INQUIRY AND DECISION.  IT IS
INCONCEIVABLE THAT ANY OF THEM CAN BE INTERPOSED AS AN OBSTACLE TO THE
EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  CF. MISSOURI V.
HOLLAND, 252 U.S. 416; ASAKURA V. SEATTLE, 265 U.S. 332, 341. 

SECOND.  THE PUBLIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES RELIED UPON AS A BAR
TO THE ACTION IS THAT DECLARED BY THE CONSTITUTION, NAMELY, THAT
PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.  BUT THE
ANSWER IS THAT OUR CONSTITUTION, LAWS AND POLICIES HAVE NO
EXTRATERRITORIAL OPERATION, UNLESS IN RESPECT OF OUR OWN CITIZENS. 
COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CURTISS-WRIGHT EXPORT CORP., SUPRA, AT P.
318.  WHAT ANOTHER COUNTRY HAS DONE IN THE WAY OF TAKING OVER PROPERTY
OF ITS NATIONALS, AND ESPECIALLY OF ITS CORPORATIONS, IS NOT A MATTER
FOR JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION HERE.  SUCH NATIONALS MUST LOOK TO THEIR OWN
GOVERNMENT FOR ANY REDRESS TO WHICH THEY MAY BE ENTITLED.  SO FAR AS
THE RECORD SHOWS, ONLY THE RIGHTS OF THE RUSSIAN CORPORATION HAVE BEEN
AFFECTED BY WHAT HAS BEEN DONE; AND IT WILL BE TIME ENOUGH TO CONSIDER
THE RIGHTS OF OUR NATIONALS WHEN, IF EVER, BY PROPER JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING, IT SHALL BE MADE TO APPEAR THAT THEY ARE SO AFFECTED AS TO
ENTITLE THEM TO JUDICIAL RELIEF.  THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT TO THE MONEYS,
AS NOW DISCLOSED, BECAME VESTED IN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT AS THE
SUCCESSOR TO THE CORPORATION; AND THIS RIGHT THAT GOVERNMENT HAS PASSED
TO THE UNITED STATES.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE ANY
INTEREST IN THE MATTER BEYOND THAT OF A CUSTODIAN.  THUS FAR NO
QUESTION UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDEMNT IS INVOLVED. 

IT RESULTS THAT THE COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION AND THAT THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW TO THE CONTRARY IS ERRONEOUS.  IN SO
HOLDING, WE DEAL ONLY WITH THE CASE AS NOW PRESENTED AND WITH THE
PARTIES NOW BEFORE US.  WE DO NOT CONSIDER THE STATUS OF ADVERSE
CLAIMS, IF THERE BE ANY, OF OTHERS NOT PARTIES TO THIS ACTION.  AND
NOTHING WE HAVE SAID IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS FORECLOSING THE ASSERTION OF
ANY SUCH CLAIM TO THE FUND INVOLVED, BY INTERVENTION OR OTHER
APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING.  WE DECIDE ONLY THAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES
FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE
RESPONDENTS.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE, CONCURRING. 

I AGREE WITH THE RESULT, BUT I AM UNABLE TO FOLLOW THE PATH BY WHICH
IT IS REACHED.  UPON THE RECORD BEFORE US THERE IS, I THINK, NO
QUESTION OF REEXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF ACTS OF A FOREIGN STATE, AND NO
QUESTION OF THE UNITED STATES' DECLARING AND ENFORCING A POLICY
INCONSISTENT WITH ONE THAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK MIGHT OTHERWISE ADOPT
IN CONFORMITY TO ITS OWN LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION. 

THE UNITED STATES, BY AGREEMENT WITH THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, HAS
ACQUIRED AN ASSIGNMENT OF ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE LATTER IN A CHOSE IN
ACTION, AGAINST AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, FORMERLY BELONGING TO A RUSSIAN
NATIONAL, AND CONFISCATED BY DECREE OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.  IF THE
SUBJECT OF THE TRANSFER WERE A CHATTEL BELONGING TO AN AMERICAN, BUT
LOCATED IN RUSSIA, WE MAY ASSUME THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE SEIZURE WOULD
BE RECOGNIZED HERE, OETJEN V. CENTRAL LEATHER CO., 246 U.S. 297; RICAUD
V. AMERICAN METAL CO., 246 U.S. 304, 308-310; SALIMOFF & CO. V.
STANDARD OIL CO., 262 N.Y. 220; 186 N.E. 679.  SIMILARLY, THE
CONFISCATION OF THE PRESENT CLAIM, BEING LAWFUL WHERE MADE, IS UPON
FAMILIAR PRINCIPLES TO BE REGARDED AS EFFECTIVE IN NEW YORK, EXCEPT IN
SO FAR AS THAT STATE, BY REASON OF THE PRESENCE OF THE DEBTOR THERE,
MAY ADOPT AND ENFORCE A POLICY BASED UPON NON-RECOGNITION OF THE
TRANSFER. 

BUT THIS COURT HAS OFTEN RECOGNIZED THAT A STATE MAY REFUSE TO GIVE
EFFECT TO A TRANSFER, MADE ELSEWHERE, OF PROPERTY WHICH IS WITHIN ITS
OWN TERRITORIAL LIMITS, IF THE TRANSFER IS IN CONFLICT WITH ITS PUBLIC
POLICY.  GREEN V. VAN BUSKIRK, 5 WALL.  307, 311-312; HERVEY V. RHODE
ISLAND LOCOMOTIVE WORKS, 93 U.S. 664; SECURITY TRUST CO. V. DODD, MEAD
& CO., 173 U.S. 624; CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112, 122; CLARK V.
WILLIARD, 294 U.S. 211.  IT IS LIKEWISE FREE TO DISREGARD THE TRANSFER
WHERE THE SUBJECT OF IT IS A CHOSE IN ACTION DUE FROM A DEBTOR WITHIN
THE STATE TO A FOREIGN CREDITOR, ESPECIALLY WHERE, AS IN THE PRESENT
CASE, THE DEBTOR'S ONLY OBLIGATION IS TO PAY WITHIN THE STATE, ON
DEMAND.  HARRISON V. STERRY, 5 CRANCH 289; DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT V.
UMBREIT, 208 U.S. 570; BARTH V. BACKUS, 140 N.Y. 230; 35 N.E. 425;
VLADIKAVKAZSKY RY. CO. V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., 263 N.Y. 369, 378-379;
189 N.E. 456.  THE CHOSE IN ACTION IS SO FAR WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE
STATE AS TO BE REGARDED AS LOCATED THERE FOR MANY PURPOSES.  WYMAN V.
HALSTEAD, 109 U.S. 654, 656; CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. STURM, 174
U.S. 710; HARRIS V. BALK, 198 U.S. 215; PENNINGTON V. FOURTH NATIONAL
BANK, 243 U.S. 269; SECURITY SAVINGS BANK V. CALIFORNIA, 263 U.S. 282,
285; CORN EXCHANGE BANK V. COLER, 280 U.S. 218; IN RE RUSSIAN BANK FOR
FOREIGN TRADE, L.R. 1933, CH. DIV. 745, 767; AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE,
RESTATEMENT, CONFLICT OF LAWS, SECS. 108, 213. 

IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AT LEAST SINCE OUR
DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, HAS ANY POLICY WHICH
WOULD PERMIT A NEW YORK DEBTOR TO QUESTION THE TITLE OF THAT GOVERNMENT
TO A CLAIM OF THE CREDITOR ACQUIRED BY ITS CONFISCATORY DECREE, AND NO
REASON IS APPARENT FOR ASSUMING THAT SUCH IS ITS POLICY.  PAYMENT OF
THE DEBT TO THE UNITED STATES AS TRANSFEREE WILL DISCHARGE THE DEBTOR
AND IMPOSE ON HIM NO BURDEN WHICH HE DID NOT UNDERTAKE WHEN HE ASSUMED
THE POSITION OF DEBTOR.  BEYOND THIS HE HAS NO INTEREST FOR THE STATE
TO PROTECT.  BUT IT IS A RECOGNIZED RULE THAT A STATE MAY RIGHTLY
REFUSE TO GIVE EFFECT TO EXTERNAL TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN ITS
BORDERS SO FAR AS THEY WOULD OPERATE TO EXCLUDE CREDITORS SUING IN ITS
COURTS.  HARRISON V. STERRY, SUPRA; SECURITY TRUST CO. V. DODD, MEAD &
CO., SUPRA; DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT V. UMBREIT, SUPRA; CLARK V. WILLIARD,
SUPRA; BARTH V. BACKUS, SUPRA. 

WE RECENTLY HELD, IN CLARK V. WILLIARD, SUPRA, THAT THE FULL FAITH
AND CREDIT CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY WITHIN
THE STATE, BY A LOCAL CREDITOR OF A FOREIGN CORPORATION, ALL OF WHOSE
PROPERTY HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY TRANSFERRED, IN THE STATE OF ITS
INCORPORATION, TO A STATUTORY SUCCESSOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS. 
DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, THE BENEFITS OF WHICH EXTEND TO
ALIEN FRIENDS, AS WELL AS TO CITIZENS, RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 481, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY DIFFERENT RESULT. 
DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT V. UMBREIT, SUPRA, 579, 580.  THE CONSTITUTION
HAS NO DIFFERENT APPLICATION WHERE THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IS A CHOSE
IN ACTION, LATER SEIZED BY A CREDITOR IN THE STATE OF THE DEBTOR. 
DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT V. UMBREIT, SUPRA.  SEE HARRISON V. STERRY,
SUPRA.  IN CONFORMITY TO THIS DOCTRINE, NEW YORK WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE
TO ENFORCE A LOCAL POLICY, SUBORDINATING THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT, AS THE
SUCCESSOR OF ITS NATIONAL, TO LOCAL SUITORS.  ITS JUDICIAL DECISIONS
INDICATE THAT SUCH MAY BE ITS POLICY FOR THE PROTECTION OF CREDITORS OR
OTHERS CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN THE SUM DUE.  JAMES & CO. V. SECOND
RUSSIAN INSURANCE CO., 239 N.Y. 248, 257; 146 N.E. 369; MATTER OF
PEOPLE (CITY EQUITABLE FIRE INSURANCE CO.), 238 N.Y. 147, 152; 144 N.E.
484; MATTER OF WAITE, 99 N.Y. 433, 448; 2 N.E. 440.  SEE VLADIKAVKAZSKY
RY. CO. V. NEW YORK TRUST CO., SUPRA. 

IT SEEMS PLAIN THAT, SO FAR AS NOW APPEARS, THE UNITED STATES DOES
NOT STAND IN ANY BETTER POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSIGNED CLAIM
THAN DID ITS ASSIGNOR, OR ANY OTHER TRANSFEREE OF THE SOVIET
GOVERNMENT.  WE MAY, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, ASSUME THAT THE UNITED
STATES, BY TREATY WITH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO A SUBJECT
IN WHICH THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HAS SOME INTEREST OR CONCERN, COULD
ALTER THE POLICY WHICH A STATE MIGHT OTHERWISE ADOPT.  IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PRESENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO
GOVERNMENTS CAN RIGHTLY BE GIVEN THE SAME EFFECT AS A TREATY WITHIN
THIS RULE, FOR NEITHER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT, NOR
THE DIPLOMATIC EXCHANGES, SUGGEST THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS EITHER
RECOGNIZED OR DECLARED THAT ANY STATE POLICY IS TO BE OVERRIDDEN. 

SO FAR AS NOW RELEVANT, THE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT,
AS PREPARATORY TO A MORE GENERAL SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS
BETWEEN THE TWO GOVERNMENTS, ASSIGNS AND RELEASES TO THE UNITED STATES
ALL AMOUNTS "DUE OR THAT MAY BE FOUND TO BE DUE IT" FROM AMERICAN
NATIONALS, AND PROVIDES THAT THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT IS "TO BE DULY
NOTIFIED IN EACH CASE OF ANY AMOUNT REALIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES FROM SUCH RELEASE AND ASSIGNMENT."  THE RELEVANT PORTION
OF THE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT IS EXPRESSED IN THE FOLLOWING
PARAGRAPH: 

"I AM GLAD TO HAVE THESE UNDERTAKINGS BY YOUR GOVERNMENT AND I SHALL
BE PLEASED TO NOTIFY YOUR GOVERNMENT IN EACH CASE OF ANY AMOUNT
REALIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE RELEASE AND
ASSIGNMENT TO IT OF THE AMOUNTS ADMITTED TO BE DUE OR THAT MAY BE FOUND
TO BE DUE." 

THERE IS NOTHING IN EITHER DOCUMENT TO SUGGEST THAT THE UNITED STATES
WAS TO ACQUIRE OR EXERT ANY GREATER RIGHTS THAN ITS TRANSFEROR, OR THAT
THE PRESIDENT, BY MERE EXECUTIVE ACTION, PURPORTED OR INTENDED TO ALTER
THE LAWS AND POLICY OF ANY STATE IN WHICH THE DEBTOR OF AN ASSIGNED
CLAIM MIGHT RESIDE, OR THAT THE UNITED STATES, AS ASSIGNEE, IS TO DO
MORE THAN THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE DONE AFTER DIPLOMATIC
RECOGNITION - THAT IS, COLLECT THE CLAIMS IN CONFORMITY WITH THOSE
LAWS.  CF. TODOK V. UNION STATE BANK, 281 U.S. 449. 

AS RESPONDENT DEBTOR MAY NOT CHALLENGE THE EFFECT OF THE ASSIGNMENT
TO THE UNITED STATES, THE JUDGMENT IS RIGHTLY REVERSED.  BUT AS THE
REVERSAL IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF ANY OTHER PARTIES TO
INTERVENE, THEY SHOULD BE LEFT FREE TO ASSERT, BY INTERVENTION OR OTHER
APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE, SUCH CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT DUE AS
ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS AND POLICY OF NEW YORK.  THERE IS NO
OCCASION TO SAY ANYTHING NOW WHICH CAN BE TAKEN TO FORECLOSE THE
ASSERTION BY SUCH CLAIMANTS OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER NEW YORK LAW. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO CONCUR IN THIS OPINION. 

..END :












SOUTHERN GAS CORP. V. ALABAMA, 301 U.S. 148 


NO. 570.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 233 ALA.
81 -  170 SO. 178, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A TAX ON A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING LOCAL
BUSINESS AND MEASURED ON ITS PROPERTY OWNED IN THE STATE, IS NOT
INVALID BECAUSE A PART OF THAT PROPERTY IS USED BY IT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THERE BEING NO DIRECT BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE
EFFECT THEREON BEING INCIDENTAL AND REMOTE.  P. 156. 

2.  AN ALABAMA LAW IMPOSES ON FOREIGN CORPORATIONS DOING BUSINESS IN
THE STATE AN ANNUAL "FRANCHISE TAX" OF $2.00 ON EACH $1,000 OF THE
CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN THE STATE.  HELD CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE AND VALID, AS APPLIED TO A DELAWARE CORPORATION QUALIFIED TO DO
BUSINESS IN ALABAMA AND MAINTAINING ITS COMMERCIAL DOMICILE THERE, AND
WHOSE BUSINESS CONSISTED IN PURCHASING NATURAL GAS IN LOUISIANA AND
MISSISSIPPI GAS FIELDS, TRANSPORTING IT THROUGH ITS PIPE LINE SYSTEM,
PART OF WHICH WAS IN ALABAMA, AND SELLING IT IN ALABAMA AND OTHER
STATES.  THE GAS MOVED CONTINUOUSLY FROM THE GAS FIELDS UNDER NATURAL
PRESSURE TO THE POINTS OF DELIVERY.  OF THE GAS DELIVERED IN ALABAMA,
PART WENT TO PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRIBUTORS, BUT THE REST WAS SOLD FOR
CONSUMPTION IN DIVERS INDUSTRIAL PLANTS, DELIVERY TO THEM BEING MADE
UPON ORDERS, AS REQUIRED, THROUGH SERVICE LINES INSTALLED AND
MAINTAINED BY THE CORPORATION, AFTER IT HAD REDUCED THE PRESSURE OF THE
GAS AND HAD METERED IT.  P. 153. 

SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CORP. ET AL. V. ALABAMA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING A TAX AND REVERSING THE STATE
CIRCUIT COURT, WHICH HAD HELD OTHERWISE ON AN APPEAL FROM THE
ASSESSMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF A FRANCHISE TAX
ASSESSED PURSUANT TO A STATUTE OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA UPON THE
SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS CORPORATION.  THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX WAS
ASSAILED AS A DIRECT BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND AS ALSO
DEPRIVING THE CORPORATION OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW
AND DENYING IT THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS CONTRARY TO THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE SUSTAINED THE TAX (170 SO. 178) AND THE CASE COMES HERE ON
APPEAL. 

THE STATUTE, ENACTED IN PURSUANCE OF SEC. 232 OF THE STATE
CONSTITUTION, IS SEC. 54 OF ACT NO. 163, GENERAL ACTS OF ALABAMA, 1927,
PAGE 176, AND PROVIDES: 

"THAT EVERY CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF ANY OTHER STATE,
NATION, OR TERRITORY, AND DOING BUSINESS IN THIS STATE, EXCEPT STRICTLY
BENEVOLENT, EDUCATIONAL OR RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS, SHALL PAY ANNUALLY
TO THE STATE AN ANNUAL FRANCHISE TAX OF TWO DOLLARS ($2.00) ON EACH ONE
THOUSAND DOLLARS OF THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN THIS
STATE." 

THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE STATE TAX COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1931
IN THE SUM OF $11,047.43 AND WAS SAID TO BE BASED UPON CAPITAL EMPLOYED
IN ALABAMA AMOUNTING TO $5,523,715.  APPELLANT RESISTED THE ASSESSMENT
UPON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT DOING BUSINESS AND DID NOT PROPOSE TO
DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA EXCEPT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
THAT THE PROPERTY BY WHICH THE TAX WAS MEASURED WAS USED EXCLUSIVELY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED UPON AN AGREED STATEMENT FROM WHICH THE
FOLLOWING FACTS APPEAR: 

APPELLANT WAS ORGANIZED PRIOR TO MAY 12, 1928, UNDER THE LAWS OF
DELAWARE AND ON THAT DATE IT QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN ALABAMA.  IT
NAMED A STATUTORY AGENT AND FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
STATE A COPY OF ITS CHARTER WHICH COVERED A WIDE RANGE OF ACTIVITIES. 
FN1  IT HAS PAID ANNUALLY THE REQUIRED PERMIT FEE.  AT THE TIME OF THE
ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION APPELLANT MAINTAINED ITS OFFICE AND CHIEF PLACE
OF BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA.  THE ENTIRE MANAGEMENT,
CONTROL AND CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED FROM THAT OFFICE. 

APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GAS
WHICH IT PURCHASES FROM THE PRODUCERS IN THE LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI
FIELDS.  IN MAY, 1929, IT BEGAN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS PIPE LINES AND
BY JANUARY, 1931, IT HAD CONSTRUCTED ITS MAIN LINES FROM THE LOUISIANA
FIELDS TO ATLANTA AND COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, THE COLUMBUS LINE TURNING
SOUTH FROM THE ATLANTA LINE AT A POINT NEAR TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA.  IN
1931, APPELLANT OWNED APPROXIMATELY 564 MILES OF PIPE AND VARIOUS ITEMS
OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN ALABAMA, ALL CONSTITUTING
PART OF ITS GENERAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM.  IT WAS AGREED THAT IN THE
EVENT THAT IT SHOULD BE HELD THAT ALL OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE STATE WAS SUBJECT TO THE ASSESSMENT OF A FRANCHISE TAX, THE
VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY AS OF JANUARY 1 TO MAY 13, 1931, THE DATE OF THE
FINAL ASSESSMENT, WAS $5,500,000. 

APPELLANT HAD CONTRACTS FOR THE DELIVERY OF NATURAL GAS IN ALABAMA TO
ONLY FOUR PURCHASERS.  THREE WERE INTRASTATE UTILITIES IN ALABAMA, THE
ALABAMA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION, THE SOUTHERN CITIES PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANY AND THE BIRMINGHAM GAS COMPANY.  THESE COMPANIES WERE NOT
CONSUMERS BUT WERE ENGAGED, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH SUBSIDIARIES, IN
THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL GAS AS PUBLIC UTILITIES IN THE STATE OF
ALABAMA.  THE FOURTH PURCHASER WAS THE TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & RAILROAD
COMPANY, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, WHICH
PURCHASED GAS FOR ITSELF AND AFFILIATED COMPANIES OPERATING STEEL AND
INDUSTRIAL PLANTS IN THE BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT AND WHICH WERE NOT PUBLIC
UTILITIES BUT CONSUMERS.  A MAJORITY OF ORDERS FOR GAS WERE RECEIVED BY
AND CLEARED THROUGH THE BIRMINGHAM OFFICE; ALL COLLECTIONS FOR SALES
WERE RECEIVED AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR EXPENSES WERE MADE OR AUTHORIZED AT
THAT OFFICE.  THE SALES TO THE TENNESSEE COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES
WERE MADE FROM TIME TO TIME UPON ORDERS GIVEN BY THE BIRMINGHAM OFFICE
AS THE NEEDS OF THE PURCHASERS REQUIRED. 

THE GAS SOLD TO THE ABOVE-NAMED PURCHASERS WAS DELIVERED IN
CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT FROM THE GAS FIELDS IN LOUISIANA OR MISSISSIPPI
WITHOUT BREAK OR INTERRUPTION, TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS DELIVERED,
VIZ., THE METER HOUSE AT WHICH THE GAS SO SOLD WAS MEASURED FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PAYMENT.  THE GAS WAS MOVED UNDER UNREGULATED GAS PRESSURE,
AS PRODUCED BY THE NATURAL PRESSURE OF THE GAS WELLS, TO THE DESIGNATED
POINTS OF DELIVERY.  THE STIPULATION OF FACTS ALSO STATES THAT IN THE
SALES TO THE TENNESSEE COMPANY AND ITS AFFILIATES THE PRESSURE IS
REDUCED AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY FOR THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE PURCHASER
TO MEET ITS NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS.  THE GENERAL PRACTICE IS THUS
DESCRIBED IN APPELLANT'S BRIEF:  "ALL GAS DELIVERED IN ALABAMA MOVED
UNDER MAIN LINE PRESSURE IN CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT FROM THE WELLS IN
LOUISIANA TO THE IMMEDIATE POINT OF DELIVERY IN ALABAMA, WHERE IT WAS
REDUCED IN PRESSURE AND MEASURED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF EFFECTING
DELIVERY."  FN2 

THE AGREED STATEMENT SET FORTH APPELLANT'S CONTRACTS WITH THE ALABAMA
NATURAL GAS CORPORATION AND THE TENNESSEE COMPANY, RESPECTIVELY.  THESE
CONTAINED DETAILED PROVISIONS AS TO DELIVERY, PRESSURE, MEASUREMENT,
ETC.  IN THE CONTRACT WITH THE TENNESSEE COMPANY PROVISION WAS MADE FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVICE LINES TO THE CONSUMING PLANTS, AS FOLLOWS,
APPELLANT BEING DESCRIBED AS "SELLER": 

"SELLER SHALL AT ITS OWN EXPENSE PROVIDE IN ADVANCE OF THE INITIAL
DELIVERY DATE OF MARCH 1, 1930, SERVICE LINES OF SUITABLE SIZE TO A
POINT MUTUALLY AGREED UPON ON THE PROPERTY OF BUYER'S BESSEMER PLANT. 
TO REACH BUYER'S FAIRFIELD PLANT SELLER SHALL PROVIDE A SERVICE LINE
THAT WILL CROSS BUYER'S ENSLEY PROPERTY AND RUN IN A SOUTHWESTERLY
DIRECTION ON THE PROPERTY OF BUYER TO SOME POINT MUTUALLY AGREED UPON,
ON BUYER'S FAIRFIELD PREMISES.  BUYER AGREES THAT IT WILL MAKE NO
CHARGE FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR ANY PART OF THE SERVICE LINES TRAVERSING
ITS PROPERTY.  A SUITABLE METER WILL BE PROVIDED FOR METERING GAS THAT
MAY BE USED IN THE BESSEMER PLANT, IN THE ENSLEY PLANT AND IN THE
FAIRFIELD PLANT OF THE BUYER AND THE PLANTS OF OTHER SUBSIDIARY
COMPANIES." 

THESE PLANTS, THE STATE COURT SAID, WERE "WIDELY SEPARATED."  THE
CONTRACT ALSO PROVIDES: 

"THE NATURAL GAS SHALL BE DELIVERED AT A PRESSURE OF NOT LESS THAN 30
POUNDS GAUGE AT SOME MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY LOCATION OR LOCATIONS UPON
THE PREMISES OF BUYER, AND SELLER SHALL THERE FURNISH, INSTALL, OPERATE
AND MAINTAIN AT ITS OWN EXPENSE REGULATING AND MEASURING STATION OR
STATIONS PROPERLY EQUIPPED WITH ORIFICE METERS AND RECORDING GAUGES OR
OTHER TYPE OF METER OR METERS OF STANDARD STYLE AS MAY BE MUTUALLY
AGREED UPON CONFORMABLE TO THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF GAS
MEASUREMENTS COMMITTEE OF AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION, THE MEASUREMENT BY
WHICH SHALL FIX THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF NATURAL GAS DELIVERED BY SELLER TO
BUYER. 

"THE MEASURING EQUIPMENT SO INSTALLED BY SELLER, TOGETHER WITH ANY
BUILDING ERECTED BY IT FOR SUCH EQUIPMENT, SHALL BE AND REMAIN ITS
PROPERTY." 

FIRST.   - THE STATUTE, WHICH IS CHALLENGED AS HERE APPLIED, WAS
UNDER CONSIDERATION IN ANGLO-CHILEAN NITRATE SALES CORP. V. ALABAMA,
288 U.S. 218.  IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE, THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE TAX WAS LAID "NOT UPON THE
AUTHORIZATION, RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE TO DO BUSINESS IN ALABAMA, BUT UPON
THE ACTUAL DOING OF BUSINESS."  ID., P. 223.  THE TAX WAS HELD INVALID
AS APPLIED TO A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHOSE SOLE BUSINESS IN THE STATE
CONSISTED IN THE LANDING, STORAGE AND SALE IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES, OF
GOODS IMPORTED FROM ABROAD.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE HAS REVIEWED ITS RULINGS AND HAS EXPOUNDED THE MEANING OF THE
STATUTE.  THE STATE COURT HOLDS THAT THE TAX IS A FRANCHISE TAX LAID
"UPON THE RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS."  IT IS A TAX LEVIED "ON FOREIGN
CORPORATIONS AS A PREROGATIVE TO THE RIGHT OF EXERCISE OF ITS CORPORATE
FUNCTIONS IN THE STATE."  IT "IS NOT ON ANY BASIS A TAX ON BUSINESS"
BUT IS LAID "ON THE EXERCISE OF CORPORATE FUNCTIONS, OR ON THE
PRIVILEGE OF EXERCISING CORPORATE FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE STATE AND ITS
EMPLOYMENT OF ITS CAPITAL IN ALABAMA." 

BY COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE APPELLANT OBTAINED THE PRIVILEGE OF
ENGAGING WITHIN THE STATE IN ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES WHICH ITS CHARTER
AUTHORIZED. 

SECOND.   - APPELLANT MADE BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, ITS HEADQUARTERS FOR
THE TRANSACTION OF BUSINESS.  THE "ENTIRE MANAGEMENT" WAS CONDUCTED
FROM ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT THAT PLACE.  THERE, AS THE STATE COURT
SAID, WAS "THE CONTROL OF THE BUSINESS IN ALL OF ITS ASPECTS."  THERE
ORDERS FOR DELIVERIES OF GAS UNDER ITS CONTRACTS AND ALL COLLECTIONS
FROM SALES WERE RECEIVED AND ALL DISBURSEMENTS WERE MADE OR
AUTHORIZED.  WHILE DELAWARE WAS THE STATE OF INCORPORATION, APPELLANT'S
COMMERCIAL DOMICILE WAS IN ALABAMA.  WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298
U.S. 193, 211. 

FROM THE AGREED FACTS WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE BUSINESS
THUS CONDUCTED IN ALABAMA WAS ENTIRELY AN INTERSTATE BUSINESS.  WHILE
THE GAS WHICH APPELLANT SOLD WAS BROUGHT INTO THE STATE FROM LOUISIANA,
IT APPEARS THAT APPELLANT CARRIED ON IN ALABAMA ACTIVITIES OF AN
INTRASTATE CHARACTER.  WE HAD OCCASION IN EAST OHIO GAS CO. V. TAX
COMMISSION, 283 U.S. 465, 470, TO CONSIDER THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF GAS INTO A STATE AND THE FURNISHING OF THE GAS SO
TRANSPORTED TO CONSUMERS WITHIN THE STATE.  WE OBSERVED IN THAT CASE
THAT "WHEN THE GAS PASSES FROM THE DISTRIBUTION LINES INTO THE SUPPLY
MAINS, IT NECESSARILY IS RELIEVED OF NEARLY ALL THE PRESSURE PUT UPON
IT AT THE STATIONS OF THE PRODUCING COMPANIES," ITS VOLUME IS EXPANDED,
AND IT IS DIVIDED INTO THE SMALLER STREAMS THAT ENTER THE SERVICE LINES
CONNECTING SUCH MAINS WITH THE PIPES ON THE CONSUMER'S PREMISES.  IN
THAT CASE, THE OHIO COMPANY FURNISHED GAS TO CONSUMERS IN
MUNICIPALITIES BY MEANS OF DISTRIBUTION PLANTS AND THAT ACTIVITY WAS
HELD TO BE NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT A BUSINESS OF PURELY LOCAL
CONCERN EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE.  THE COURT
QUOTED WITH APPROVAL THE STATEMENT IN MISSOURI V. KANSAS GAS CO., 265
U.S. 298, 309, THAT "THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING, ON DEMAND, LOCAL
CONSUMERS IS A LOCAL BUSINESS, EVEN THOUGH THE GAS BE BROUGHT FROM
ANOTHER STATE AND DRAWN FOR DISTRIBUTION PLANTS DIRECTLY FROM
INTERSTATE MAINS; AND THIS IS SO WHETHER THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION BE MADE
BY THE TRANSPORTING COMPANY OR BY INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTING COMPANIES. 
IN SUCH CASE THE LOCAL INTEREST IS PARAMOUNT, AND THE INTERFERENCE WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IF ANY, INDIRECT AND OF MINOR IMPORTANCE." 

WHILE THE FACTS OF THE TWO CASES ARE NOT THE SAME, THERE IS A CLEAR
ANALOGY.  FOR HERE UNDER ITS CONTRACT WITH THE TENNESSEE COMPANY, WHICH
BOUGHT FOR CONSUMPTION BY ITSELF AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES IN INDUSTRIAL
PLANTS, APPELLANT AGREED NOT SIMPLY TO INSTALL METERING STATIONS, FOR
MEASURING THE AMOUNT OF GAS DELIVERED, BUT TO ESTABLISH THE REQUISITE
SERVICE LINES RUNNING TO THE DESCRIBED PLANTS IN ORDER THAT THE GAS
MIGHT BE FURNISHED IN A MANNER SUITED TO THE CONSUMERS' NEEDS.  THE GAS
WAS SUPPLIED THROUGH THESE SERVICE LINES ON THE ORDERS RECEIVED FROM
TIME TO TIME AT THE BIRMINGHAM OFFICE.  WE PERCEIVE NO ESSENTIAL
DISTINCTION IN LAW BETWEEN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH A LOCAL ACTIVITY
TO MEET THE NEEDS OF CONSUMERS IN INDUSTRIAL PLANTS AND THE SERVICE TO
CONSUMERS IN THE MUNICIPALITIES WHICH WAS FOUND IN THE OHIO CASE TO
CONSTITUTE AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS.  AS WAS SAID IN THAT CASE:  "THE
TREATMENT AND DIVISION OF THE LARGE COMPRESSED VOLUME OF GAS IS LIKE
THE BREAKING OF AN ORIGINAL PACKAGE, AFTER A SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, IN ORDER THAT ITS CONTENTS MAY BE TREATED, PREPARED FOR SALE
AND SOLD AT RETAIL." 

THE FACTS THUS DISTINGUISH THE INSTANT CASE FROM THAT OF OZARK PIPE
LINE CORP. V. MONIER, 266 U.S. 555.  THERE THE CORPORATION OPERATED A
PIPE LINE EXTENDING FROM OKLAHOMA THROUGH MISSOURI TO A POINT IN
ILLINOIS.  MISSOURI SOUGHT TO TAX THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS
WITHIN THE STATE.  BUT NOTHING WAS DONE IN MISSOURI EXCEPT IN
FURTHERANCE OF TRANSPORTATION.  OIL WAS NEITHER RECEIVED NOR DELIVERED
IN THAT STATE.  THE BUSINESS ACTUALLY CARRIED ON "WAS EXCLUSIVELY IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE" AND WHATEVER WAS DONE WITHIN MISSOURI IN THE
MAINTENANCE OF AN OFFICE OR OTHERWISE WAS "ALL EXCLUSIVELY IN
FURTHERANCE OF ITS INTERSTATE BUSINESS."  ID., P. 565.  IN MISSOURI V.
KANSAS GAS CO., SUPRA, AS NOTED ABOVE, THE DISTINCTION WAS POINTED
OUT.  THERE "THE TRANSPORTATION, SALE AND DELIVERY" OF THE GAS
CONSTITUTED AN "UNBROKEN CHAIN, FUNDAMENTALLY INTERSTATE FROM BEGINNING
TO END."  SO, THE CASE OF STATE TAX COMMISSION V. INTERSTATE NATURAL
GAS CO., 284 U.S. 41, RESTED UPON THE CONCLUSION THAT WHAT WAS DONE WAS
WHOLLY INCIDENTAL TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE BETWEEN LOUISIANA AND
MISSISSIPPI.  THERE WERE NO SUCH LOCAL ACTIVITIES AS ARE PRESENT HERE
TO CARRY THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE COMPANY INTO THE FIELD OF STATE
AUTHORITY.    THAT AUTHORITY WAS HELD TO BE PROPERLY EXERTED IN THE
CASE OF ATLANTIC LUMBER CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 298 U.S. 553.  THE
CORPORATION WAS ORGANIZED IN DELAWARE BUT IT DID NOT "FUNCTION THERE"
BUT IN MASSACHUSETTS.  THERE IT ESTABLISHED ITS OFFICE FOR THE EXERCISE
OF ITS CORPORATE POWERS.  THAT WAS THE HEADQUARTERS FOR SALESMEN WHO
SOLICITED ORDERS IN THAT AND OTHER STATES.  THERE ORDERS WERE ACCEPTED
AND REMITTANCES RECEIVED.  THE CORPORATION WAS ENGAGED IN THE WHOLESALE
LUMBER BUSINESS AND OWNED PRACTICALLY ALL THE STOCK OF THREE
SUBSIDIARIES, TWO OF WHICH WERE ENGAGED IN CUTTING TIMBER AND
MANUFACTURING LUMBER IN OTHER STATES, AND A THIRD HELD TITLE TO TIMBER
LANDS IN LOUISIANA.  THE COURT SAID THAT IF APPELLANT DID NOTHING BUT
TRANSACT INTERSTATE BUSINESS, THE EXCISE TAX SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED WITH
RESPECT TO THE DOING OF BUSINESS IN MASSACHUSETTS COULD NOT STAND, BUT
IN VIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED IN MASSACHUSETTS AND THE CORPORATE
FUNCTIONS THERE EXERCISED, THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE PRIVILEGE TAX WAS
VALID AND THAT THE EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SO FAR AS THERE WAS
ANY, WAS "REMOTE AND INCIDENTAL."  BECAUSE OF THE LOCAL ACTIVITIES, THE
DECISION IN THE OZARK CASE WAS HELD TO BE INAPPLICABLE. 

THIRD.   - AS ALABAMA WAS COMPETENT TO LAY A FRANCHISE TAX UPON
APPELLANT FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING AN INTRASTATE BUSINESS, IT WAS
COMPETENT TO MEASURE THE TAX BY THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE
PROVIDED THE TAX WAS NOT SO LAID AS TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR OTHERWISE LAY A DIRECT BURDEN UPON IT.  POSTAL TELEGRAPH
CABLE CO. V. ADAMS, 155 U.S. 688, 696; ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO.
V. ARKANSAS, 235 U.S. 350, 364-367; UNDERWOOD TYPEWRITER CO. V.
CHAMBERLAIN, 254 U.S. 113, 119, 120; ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. V.
MIDDLEKAMP, 256 U.S. 226, 231; HUMP HAIRPIN CO. V. EMMERSON, 258 U.S.
290, 294; INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V. SHARTEL, 279 U.S. 429, 433; WESTERN
CARTRIDGE CO. V. EMMERSON, 281 U.S. 511, 513, 514; ATLANTIC LUMBER CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, SUPRA. 

THERE IS HERE NO ATTEMPT TO TAX PROPERTY THAT IS BEYOND THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE STATE.  THE TAX WAS LAID ONLY UPON PROPERTY EMPLOYED
WITHIN THE STATE AND ENFORCEMENT IS LEFT TO THE ORDINARY MEANS OF
COLLECTING TAXES.  THE RULE WAS THUS STATED IN INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO.
V. SHARTEL, SUPRA: "A FRANCHISE TAX IMPOSED ON A CORPORATION, FOREIGN
OR DOMESTIC, FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF DOING A LOCAL BUSINESS, IF
APPORTIONED TO BUSINESS DONE OR PROPERTY OWNED WITHIN THE STATE, IS NOT
INVALID UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE MERELY BECAUSE A PART OF THE PROPERTY
OR CAPITAL INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE TAX IS USED BY IT IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE."  THERE IS NO SHOWING OF ANY DIRECT BURDEN UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, THE EFFECT UPON THAT COMMERCE BEING INCIDENTAL AND REMOTE,
NOT DIFFERING IN THIS RESPECT FROM THE EFFECT OF ORDINARY AD VALOREM
TAXATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE.  POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE CO. V.
ADAMS, SUPRA; ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. V. ARKANSAS, SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE CHARTER AUTHORIZED APPELLANT TO STORE, TRANSPORT, BUY AND
SELL OIL, GAS, SALT, BRINE AND OTHER MINERAL SOLUTIONS; TO MANUFACTURE,
ACQUIRE, DISTRIBUTE, USE AND SELL ARTIFICIAL GAS, WITH BY-PRODUCTS; TO
MINE, PRODUCE, BUY, USE, SELL AND DISTRIBUTE NATURAL GAS, WITH BY
PRODUCTS; TO PRODUCE, BUY, USE, SELL AND DISTRIBUTE A MIXTURE OF
ARTIFICIAL AND NATURAL GAS; TO CONSTRUCT, ACQUIRE AND OPERATE ALL WORKS
AND ALL PIPE LINES, MAINS, PLANTS, SYSTEMS, ETC. FOR THE ABOVE
PURPOSES, WITH THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN; TO ACQUIRE, MANUFACTURE AND
DEAL IN ICE. 

FN2  APPELLANT MAKES AN EXPLANATORY STATEMENT IN A FOOT NOTE AS
FOLLOWS:  "IT IS A MATTER OF GENERAL KNOWLEDGE THAT LONG DISTANCE
TRANSMISSION OF NATURAL GAS (APPELLANT'S SYSTEM COMPRISING ABOUT 1000
MILES) MOVES UNDER LINE PRESSURE OF APPROXIMATELY 400 POUNDS, GREATLY
IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIREMENT OR REQUIRED TENSILE STRENGTH OF THE
DISTRIBUTION PIPES OF THE UTILITY OR OTHER PURCHASERS FROM THE LONG
DISTANCE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY." 
..END :














RAY V. UNITED STATES, 301 U.S. 158 


NO. 604.  ARGUED MARCH 30, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 86 F.(2D)
942, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A CRIMINAL CASE, WHEN THE TIME FOR FILING A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS
IS EXTENDED BY THE JUDGE TO A DATE WHICH IS A SUNDAY, THAT DAY IS TO BE
EXCLUDED AND THE BILL MAY BE FILED ON THE DAY FOLLOWING.  CRIMINAL
APPEALS RULE XIII.  P. 161. 

RULE XIII PROVIDES:  "FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING TIME AS SPECIFIED
IN THE FOREGOING RULES, SUNDAYS AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS (WHETHER UNDER
FEDERAL LAW OR UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE CASE WAS BROUGHT)
SHALL BE EXCLUDED." 

2.  THE LIMITATION IMPOSED UPON THE TRIAL JUDGE BY CRIMINAL APPEALS
RULE IX WITH RESPECT TO EXTENSION OF THE TIME FOR FILING A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OR TO THE
TRIAL JUDGE ACTING UNDER DIRECTION OF THAT COURT.  P. 161. 

3.  THE FUNDAMENTAL POLICY OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES IS THAT AS
SPEEDILY AS POSSIBLE, UPON THE TAKING OF THE APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS SHALL BE INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO SEE THAT THE APPEAL
IS PROPERLY EXPEDITED AND TO SUPERVISE AND CONTROL ALL PROCEEDINGS ON
THE APPEAL "INCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF
THE RECORD ON APPEAL."  P. 163. 

4.  THE DUTY OF THE CLERK OF THE TRIAL COURT, UNDER RULE IV, UPON THE
FILING OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL, IMMEDIATELY TO FORWARD THE DUPLICATE
NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT, TOGETHER WITH A STATEMENT
FROM THE DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE CASE SUBSTANTIALLY AS PROVIDED IN THE
FORM ANNEXED TO THE RULES, IS A MINISTERIAL DUTY.  P. 163. 

5.  UNDER RULE IV, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS EMPOWERED TO
VACATE OR MODIFY ANY ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT OR JUDGE IN RELATION TO
THE PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL, AND THIS EMBRACES THE PROCEEDINGS
RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL, INCLUDING AN ORDER
OF THE TRIAL JUDGE FIXING THE TIME FOR FILING THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. 
P. 163. 

6.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS AUTHORITY TO RETURN A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS TO THE TRIAL JUDGE FOR APPROPRIATE CORRECTIONS, INCLUDING
THE SETTING FORTH OF THE EVIDENCE IN CONDENSED AND NARRATIVE FORM. 
RULE IX.  P. 164. 

7.  SUPERVISION AND CONTROL BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES CALLS FOR THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION, WHICH WILL NOT BE REVIEWED UNLESS ABUSED.  A REFUSAL TO
EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS BEYOND THAT FIXED BY
THE TRIAL JUDGE, - HELD, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, NOT AN
ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  P. 166. 

RAY V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 647, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS OVERRULING A MOTION TO AMEND THE RECORD AND DISMISSING THE
APPEAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED TO DETERMINE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE
ARISEN IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES PROMULGATED
MAY 7, 1934.  292 U.S. PP. 660 ET SEQ. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF THE MAIL FRAUD AND
CONSPIRACY STATUTES.  HIS TIMELY APPEAL WAS TAKEN ON JUNE 30, 1936. 
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS THEREAFTER THE TRIAL JUDGE EXTENDED THE TIME TO FILE
A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS TO AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER 1, 1936, WHICH WAS A
SUNDAY.  THE TRIAL HAD BEEN LONG AND THE TESTIMONY WAS VOLUMINOUS.  ON
OCTOBER 20, 1936, AFTER UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO OBTAIN AN AGREEMENT AS
TO THE CONDENSATION OF THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER APPLIED TO THE TRIAL
JUDGE FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SETTLE AND FILE THE BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS.  AS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY
TO GRANT THAT EXTENSION, PETITIONER SOUGHT AN EXTENSION FROM THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, BUT HIS MOTION WAS DENIED ON OCTOBER 27TH. 
HE THEN ASKED THE TRIAL JUDGE TO SETTLE THE STENOGRAPHER'S MINUTES AS
THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.  THAT MOTION WAS FIRST DENIED ON OCTOBER 29TH,
BUT ON THE FOLLOWING DAY THE TRIAL JUDGE EXPRESSED HIS WILLINGNESS TO
RECEIVE A SIMILAR APPLICATION IF THE COLLOQUY OF COUNSEL WAS STRICKEN
FROM THE TRANSCRIPT, THAT APPLICATION TO BE MADE ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER
2D.  ON THAT DAY THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, SO PREPARED, WAS SETTLED AND
FILED.  ON NOVEMBER 16, 1936, THE GOVERNMENT MOVED TO DOCKET AND
DISMISS THE APPEAL UPON THE GROUND THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO COMPLY
WITH RULES VIII AND IX OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES.  THE MOTION WAS
GRANTED.  PETITIONER ASKED FOR A REHEARING AND WAS HEARD.  INSISTING
THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME TO SET FORTH THE
EVIDENCE IN CONDENSED AND NARRATIVE FORM, PETITIONER REQUESTED THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETIONARY POWER UNDER RULE
IX TO THE END THAT THE DEFECT IN THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS MIGHT BE
CURED.  THAT REQUEST WAS MADE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE MOTION TO
DISMISS.  IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO AMEND THE
RECORD AND IT WAS DENIED.  THE COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT AS, BY THE
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS FILED WITH THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, THE QUESTION
WAS RAISED AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
CONVICTION, IT WAS NECESSARY UNDER THE RULE THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE
PROPERLY PRESENTED IN CONDENSED AND NARRATIVE FORM.  THE COURT HELD
THAT THE TIME FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS COULD NOT BE
ENLARGED, AND THAT IF THE BILL WERE RETURNED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE HE
WOULD BE POWERLESS TO CORRECT, AMEND OR RESETTLE IT AS THE TIME FOR
SUCH ACTION HAD EXPIRED. 

FINALLY THE COURT DECIDED THAT PETITIONER WAS INEXCUSABLY
DELINQUENT.  THE COURT SAID:  "THIS APPELLANT HAD FOUR MONTHS AND HAS
OFFERED INSUFFICIENT EXCUSES FOR HIS DELINQUENCY.  THE BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS WAS INSUFFICIENT."  THE MOTION TO AMEND THE RECORD WAS
DENIED AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL WAS GRANTED.  86 F.(2D)
942. 

FIRST.   - THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS FILED
ON NOVEMBER 2D WAS TOO LATE.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY
HELD THE CONTRARY.  THE TRIAL JUDGE, BY VALID ORDER, HAD EXTENDED THE
TIME "TO AND INCLUDING THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1936."  THAT DAY BEING
SUNDAY, ON WHICH THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS COULD NOT BE FILED, THE TRIAL
JUDGE CONSTRUED HIS ORDER AS PERMITTING THE SETTLEMENT AND FILING ON
THE FOLLOWING DAY.  RULE XIII OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES PROVIDES: 

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING TIME AS SPECIFIED IN THE FOREGOING
RULES, SUNDAYS AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS (WHETHER UNDER FEDERAL LAW OR UNDER
THE LAW OF THE STATE WHERE THE CASE WAS BROUGHT) SHALL BE EXCLUDED." 

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THIS RULE REFERS TO A "COMPUTATION," AS
WHERE THE EXTENSION IS FOR A CERTAIN TERM OR PERIOD, AND NOT TO A CASE
WHERE A SPECIFIC DATE IS FIXED.  THE LATTER CASE IS SAID TO LIE OUTSIDE
THE RULE AND WE ARE REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISIONS WHICH ARE DEEMED TO
FURNISH ANALOGIES FOR OUR GUIDANCE IN REACHING A CONCLUSION UPON A
POINT LEFT OPEN.  BUT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON WHY RULE XIII
SHOULD BE SO NARROWLY CONSTRUED.  THE PHRASE "FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COMPUTING TIME" WAS PLAINLY INTENDED TO BE OF GENERAL APPLICATION AND
"COMPUTING" NATURALLY EMBRACES WHATEVER RECKONING IS NECESSARY TO FIX
THE TIME ALLOWED.  WHEN A SPECIFIC DATE IS FIXED AND THAT DATE FALLS ON
SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY, THE RULE FOR THE RECKONING REQUIRES THAT THAT DAY
BE EXCLUDED AND HENCE THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, IN THIS CASE, APART FROM
OTHER QUESTIONS, WAS SETTLED AND FILED IN TIME. 

SECOND.   - THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE
TIME FOR FILING THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.  RULE IX DOES LIMIT THE POWER
OF THE TRIAL JUDGE TO GRANT EXTENSIONS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE BEING
TO EXPEDITE APPEALS IN CRIMINAL CASES, IT WAS SOUGHT TO PUT AN END TO
THE INORDINATE DELAYS DUE TO EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO PREPARE BILLS OF
EXCEPTIONS.  SUCH EXTENSIONS HAD BEEN ONE OF THE MOST PROLIFIC CAUSES
OF THE DELAYS IN THE DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.  ACCORDINGLY RULE
IX PROVIDES: 

"IN CASES OTHER THAN THOSE DESCRIBED IN RULE VIII (WHICH REFERS TO
THE RECORD ON APPEAL WITHOUT BILL OF EXCEPTIONS), THE APPELLANT, WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE TAKING OF THE APPEAL, OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER
TIME AS WITHIN SAID PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS MAY BE FIXED BY THE TRIAL
JUDGE, SHALL PROCURE TO BE SETTLED, AND SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK OF
THE COURT IN WHICH THE CASE WAS TRIED, A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS SETTING
FORTH THE PROCEEDINGS UPON WHICH THE APPELLANT WISHES TO RELY IN
ADDITION TO THOSE SHOWN BY THE CLERK'S RECORD AS DESCRIBED IN RULE
VIII." 

THE RULE PRESUPPOSES THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE, WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH THE
PROCEEDINGS ON THE TRIAL, IS IN A POSITION TO ESTIMATE THE LENGTH OF
TIME THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF THE BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS, AND HE IS PERMITTED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE TAKING OF
THE APPEAL TO FIX THAT TIME.  THAT IS THE LIMIT OF HIS AUTHORITY,  FN1
SAVE AS HE MAY ACT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  BUT WHILE THIS LIMIT IS PLACED UPON THE POWER OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE, THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES GIVE FULL AUTHORITY TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS TO SET ASIDE OR MODIFY HIS ORDER WHENEVER IT APPEARS
THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR THAT THE INTERESTS OF
JUSTICE REQUIRE IT. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL POLICY OF THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES IS THAT AS
SPEEDILY AS POSSIBLE, UPON THE TAKING OF THE APPEAL, THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS SHALL BE INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION TO SEE THAT THE APPEAL
IS PROPERLY EXPEDITED AND TO SUPERVISE AND CONTROL ALL PROCEEDINGS ON
THE APPEAL "INCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF
THE RECORD ON APPEAL."  FOR THIS PURPOSE THE RULES PROVIDE THAT THE
NOTICE OF THE APPEAL SHALL BE FILED IN DUPLICATE WITH THE CLERK OF THE
TRIAL COURT AND A COPY OF THE NOTICE SHALL BE SERVED UPON THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY.  RULE III.  BY RULE IV IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE
CLERK OF THE TRIAL COURT IMMEDIATELY TO FORWARD THE DUPLICATE NOTICE OF
APPEAL TO THE CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT, TOGETHER WITH A STATEMENT
FROM THE DOCKET ENTRIES IN THE CASE SUBSTANTIALLY AS PROVIDED IN THE
FORM ANNEXED TO THE RULES.  THIS IS A MINISTERIAL DUTY WHICH THE CLERK
OF THE TRIAL COURT MUST PERFORM.  WITH RESPECT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, RULE IV PROVIDES: 

"FROM THE TIME OF THE FILING WITH ITS CLERK OF THE DUPLICATE NOTICE
OF APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT SHALL, SUBJECT TO THESE RULES, HAVE
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE APPEAL, INCLUDING THE
PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL. 

"THE APPELLATE COURT MAY AT ANY TIME, UPON FIVE (5) DAYS' NOTICE,
ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL, OR FOR DIRECTIONS TO THE
TRIAL COURT, OR TO VACATE OR MODIFY ANY ORDER MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT
OR BY ANY JUDGE IN RELATION TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL, INCLUDING
ANY ORDER FOR THE GRANTING OF BAIL." 

THESE PROVISIONS ARE COMPREHENSIVE.  THE CLAUSE THAT THE APPELLATE
COURT'S SUPERVISION AND CONTROL SHALL BE "SUBJECT TO THESE RULES"
REFERS TO THE RULES GOVERNING THE ACTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT.  TO
MAKE EFFECTIVE THIS SUPERVISION AND CONTROL, ANY MATTER REQUIRING
CORRECTION MAY BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT UPON THE SHORT
NOTICE OF FIVE DAYS.  THUS THERE MAY BE NOT ONLY A MOTION TO DISMISS
THE APPEAL BUT "FOR DIRECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT" AND "TO VACATE OR
MODIFY ANY ORDER MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT OR BY ANY JUDGE IN RELATION TO
THE PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL."  AS THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE
PROCEEDINGS ON THE APPEAL EXPRESSLY EMBRACES THE PROCEEDINGS "RELATING
TO THE PREPARATION OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL," IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AN
ORDER MADE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE FIXING THE TIME FOR THE SETTLEMENT AND
FILING OF A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IS EXCLUDED.  IT IS, OF COURSE, ASSUMED
THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL NOT LIGHTLY INTERFERE WITH THE
ACTION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.  BUT THE RULES APPROPRIATELY PROVIDE FOR THE
CORRECTION OF ANY MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN THIS RESPECT, AND THE
LODGING OF THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL WITH THE APPELLATE COURT GIVES
THE HIGHEST ASSURANCE THAT ON THE ONE HAND THE ACTION OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE WILL NOT BE INTERFERED WITH UNNECESSARILY AND ON THE OTHER THAT
NEITHER PARTY WILL BE REMEDILESS WHEN CORRECTIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED. 
FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAY CLEARLY APPEAR ON A SHOWING BY THE GOVERNMENT THAT
THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE FOR THE FILING OF A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS IS ALTOGETHER TOO LONG AND THAT, IN THE INTERESTS OF A
REASONABLY PROMPT DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL, IT SHOULD BE SHORTENED; OR
IT MAY CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE TIME ALLOWED IS UNREASONABLY SHORT AND
THAT JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT AN EXTENSION SHOULD BE GRANTED.  TO GIVE A
DESIRABLE FLEXIBILITY, THE RULES DO NOT ATTEMPT TO LAY DOWN SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS TO MEET VARIOUS SITUATIONS BUT PLACE UPON THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXERCISE OF A REASONABLE
CONTROL OVER ALL PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE APPEAL AND ALL THE
ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT OR JUDGE IN THAT RELATION. 

THIRD.   - THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD AUTHORITY TO RETURN THE
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE TRIAL JUDGE AND TO REQUIRE SUCH CORRECTION AS
MIGHT BE FOUND TO BE APPROPRIATE, INCLUDING THE SETTING FORTH OF THE
EVIDENCE IN CONDENSED AND NARRATIVE FORM.  RULE IX PROVIDES: 

"BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8 OF THE
RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

"UPON THE FILING OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AND ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS,
THE CLERK OF THE TRIAL COURT SHALL FORTHWITH TRANSMIT THEM, TOGETHER
WITH SUCH MATTERS OF RECORD AS ARE PERTINENT TO THE APPEAL, WITH HIS
CERTIFICATE, TO THE CLERK OF THE APPELLATE COURT, AND THE PAPERS SO
FORWARDED SHALL CONSTITUTE THE RECORD ON APPEAL. 

"THE APPELLATE COURT MAY AT ANY TIME, ON FIVE (5) DAYS' NOTICE,
ENTERTAIN A MOTION BY EITHER PARTY FOR THE CORRECTION, AMPLIFICATION,
OR REDUCTION OF THE RECORD FILED WITH THE APPELLATE COURT, AND MAY
ISSUE SUCH DIRECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT, OR TRIAL JUDGE, IN RELATION
THERETO, AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE." 

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THUS EXTENDS TO THE
"CORRECTION, AMPLIFICATION, OR REDUCTION" OF THE RECORD ON APPEAL OF
WHICH THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IS A PART.  THE APPELLATE COURT IS
AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE A PROPER BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AND TO GIVE ANY
DIRECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT OR TRIAL JUDGE THAT MAY BE NECESSARY TO
ATTAIN THAT END. 

RULE 8 OF THE RULES OF THIS COURT TO WHICH RULE IX REFERS, PROVIDES
(RULE 8, PAR. 2): 

"ONLY SO MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE SHALL BE EMBRACED IN A BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO PRESENT CLEARLY THE QUESTIONS OF LAW
INVOLVED IN THE RULINGS TO WHICH EXCEPTIONS ARE RESERVED, AND SUCH
EVIDENCE AS IS EMBRACED THEREIN SHALL BE SET FORTH IN CONDENSED AND
NARRATIVE FORM, SAVE AS A PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTIONS
PRESENTED MAY REQUIRE THAT PARTS OF IT BE SET FORTH OTHERWISE.  SEE
EQUITY RULE 75B, 226 U.S. APPENDIX, P. 23, AS AMENDED, 286 U.S. 570." 

UNDER EQUITY RULE 75B WE HAVE HELD THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
IS AUTHORIZED, WHEN A BILL OF EXCEPTIONS IS PRESENTED TO IT SHOWING
THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR CONDENSATION OR NARRATION HAS BEEN
TRANSGRESSED, TO REMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE DISTRICT COURT SO THAT A
FURTHER OPPORTUNITY MAY BE HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE EQUITY RULE.  WE ALSO
SAID THAT, IN SUCH A REMISSION, CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO REQUIRE THAT
THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE RULE BE CONDUCTED WITH REASONABLE DISPATCH. 
BARBER ASPHALT CO. V. STANDARD ASPHALT CO., 275 U.S. 372, 387.  IN THAT
CASE THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAD PASSED
THE BOUNDS OF SOUND DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE DECREE APPEALED FROM,
BECAUSE OF THE VIOLATION OF THE EQUITY RULE, AND UPON PROPER TERMS,
SHOULD HAVE REMITTED THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
APPROPRIATE REVISION.  NOTHING IN THE CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES, IN
INCORPORATING THE REQUIREMENT OF RULE 8 OF THE RULES OF THIS COURT,
DEPRIVES THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OF LIKE AUTHORITY IN DEALING WITH
BILLS OF EXCEPTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES.  ON THE CONTRARY, RULE IX GIVES
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT AUTHORITY.  THE RULING IN THE
INSTANT CASE THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD "NO LONGER ACT TO PUT THE
EVIDENCE IN NARRATIVE FORM" AND THAT THE APPELLATE COURT HAD "NO POWER
TO ORDER HIM TO DO SO" IS ERRONEOUS.  THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD ACT UNDER
THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT AND THAT COURT COULD GIVE WHATEVER
DIRECTION THE CASE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE RULE AS TO
THE PROPER PREPARATION OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.    FOURTH.   - THE
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER THE
CRIMINAL APPEALS RULES CALLS FOR THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND JUDICIAL
DISCRETION, AND ITS ACTION WILL NOT BE REVIEWED UNLESS IT APPEARS THAT
ITS DISCRETION HAS BEEN ABUSED.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, DESPITE THE
MISTAKEN VIEW OF ITS AUTHORITY, THE COURT APPEARS TO HAVE RESTED ITS
FINAL CONCLUSION UPON THE GROUND THAT, EVEN IF THE COURT HAD THE POWER
TO GRANT PETITIONER'S REQUEST, THE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED ITS DENIAL. 
THE COURT POINTED TO THE FACT THAT PETITIONER HAD FOUR MONTHS TO
PROCURE THE SETTLEMENT OF THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS AND THE COURT THOUGHT
HIS EXCUSES INSUFFICIENT.  WHILE PETITIONER STRONGLY INSISTS UPON THE
AUTHORITY OF THE APPELLATE COURT, HE APPARENTLY TOOK NO STEPS TO HAVE
THAT AUTHORITY EXERCISED IN HIS FAVOR UNTIL TOWARD THE END OF OCTOBER. 
HE COMPLAINS THAT AT THAT TIME, UPON HIS MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME OR OTHER RELIEF, THE COURT ITSELF SUGGESTED THAT AN APPLICATION
SHOULD BE MADE TO THE TRIAL JUDGE FOR AN ORDER SETTLING THE
STENOGRAPHER'S MINUTES AS THE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS, AND THAT THE CIRCUIT
JUDGES INTIMATED TO THE GOVERNMENT'S COUNSEL THAT OPPOSITION TO THAT
COURSE SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN.  THIS, IT IS SAID, TOOK PLACE ON OCTOBER
27TH.  PETITIONER URGES THAT IN DIRECTING THE SETTLEMENT OF THE BILL OF
EXCEPTIONS IN ITS INAPPROPRIATE FORM HE WAS BUT FOLLOWING THE
SUGGESTION OF THE APPELLATE COURT IN VIEW OF HIS EXIGENCY AND WITH THE
IDEA THAT THE CONDENSATION AND NARRATION OF THE EVIDENCE COULD LATER BE
OBTAINED.  BUT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS FULLY ACQUAINTED WITH
ALL THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE.  WHEN THE LATER MOTIONS CAME BEFORE THE
COURT, IT WAS CLEARLY ENTITLED TO REVIEW THE WHOLE MATTER AND REACH A
CONCLUSION AS TO THE PROPER EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION.  IT WAS THE
PROVINCE OF THE COURT TO WEIGH THE PETITIONER'S EXCUSES.  IT DID SO AND
FOUND THEM TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.  IN THE LIGHT OF ITS STATEMENT AS TO
THE ULTIMATE GROUND OF ITS ACTION WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE COURT FAILED
TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION OR THAT ITS ACTION WAS AN ABUSE OF
DISCRETION.  IN THAT VIEW THE ORDER IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE WHITE V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A.4TH, 80 F.(2D) 515, 516; YEP
V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A. 10TH, 81 F.(2D) 637; UNITED STATES V.
ADAMOWICZ, C.C.A.2D, 82 F.(2D) 288; GALLAGHER V. UNITED STATES,
C.C.A.8TH, 82 F.(2D) 721; WOLPA V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A.8TH, 84 F.(2D)
829; CUSAMANO V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A.8TH, 85 F.(2D) 132; SPERO V.
UNITED STATES, C.C.A.8TH, 85 F.(2D) 134; SLADE V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A.
10TH, 85 F.(2D) 786; CARY V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A.9TH, 86 F.(2D) 461;
ST. CHARLES V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A.9TH, 86 F.(2D) 463; GODDARD V.
UNITED STATES, C.C.A. 10TH, 86 F.(2D) 884; IN RE LEE, C.C.A.5TH, 87
F.(2D) 142; WAINER V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A.7TH, 87 F.(2D) 77;
FITZPATRICK V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A.7TH, 87 F.(2D) 471; MILLER V.
UNITED STATES, C.C.A.9TH, 88 F.(2D) 102; HIGHTOWER V. UNITED STATES,
C.C.A.9TH, 88 F.(2D) 302; YOUNG V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A. 10TH, 88
F.(2D) 305.  COMPARE FIERMAN V. UNITED STATES, C.C.A. 3D, 84 F.(2D)
968. 
..END :



MUMM V. DECKER & SONS, 301 U.S. 168 


NO. 627.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 86 F.(2D)
77, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUIT, THE BILL SHOULD CONTAIN "A SHORT
AND SIMPLE STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS UPON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF
ASKS RELIEF, OMITTING ANY MERE STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE...."  EQ. RULE
25.  P. 170. 

2.  IN A SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT IT IS NOT A PART OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S CASE TO NEGATIVE PRIOR PUBLICATION OR PRIOR USE OR THE
OTHER MATTERS TO WHICH R.S., SECS. 4886 AND 4887 REFER.  P. 171. 

3.  THE ISSUE OF THE PATENT IS ENOUGH TO SHOW, UNTIL THE CONTRARY
APPEARS, THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A DISCOVERY IS PATENTABLE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTES HAVE BEEN MET.  THE BURDEN OF PROVING
WANT OF NOVELTY RESTS UPON THE DEFENDANT, AND IS A HEAVY ONE.  ID. 

MUMM V. JACOB E. DECKER & SONS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 646, TO REVIEW A DECREE AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL
OF THE BILL IN A SUIT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS A QUESTION OF EQUITY PLEADING IN PATENT SUITS. 

THE SUIT IS FOR INFRINGEMENT AND THE QUESTION IS AS TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF WHAT IS CALLED THE "SHORT" BILL OF COMPLAINT.  THAT IS,
THE BILL ALLEGES THE ISSUE AND OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN PATENTS, OF WHICH
PROFERT IS MADE, COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE
AND RULES OF PRACTICE OF THE PATENT OFFICE, AND INFRINGEMENT.  THE BILL
DOES NOT ALLEGE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF R.S. 4886 AND
4887(35 U.S.C. 31, 32), THAT IS, THAT THE INVENTION, OF EACH OF THE
PATENTS IN SUIT, WAS NOT KNOWN OR USED BY OTHERS IN THIS COUNTRY BEFORE
THE INVENTOR'S INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF, WAS NOT PATENTED OR
DESCRIBED IN ANY PRINTED PUBLICATION IN THIS OR ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY
BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY, OR FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO
HIS APPLICATION, AND WAS NOT IN PUBLIC USE OR ON SALE IN THIS COUNTRY
FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO HIS APPLICATION, THAT THE INVENTION
HAD NOT BEEN ABANDONED, AND THAT NO APPLICATION FOR FOREIGN PATENTS HAD
BEEN FILED MORE THAN TWELVE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE
APPLICATION IN THIS COUNTRY. 

THE DEFENDANT MOVED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT UPON THE
GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF FACT TO CONSTITUTE A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION
IN EQUITY.  EQUITY RULE 29.  THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED THE MOTION AND
DIRECTED DISMISSAL SUBJECT TO LEAVE TO AMEND AND, AMENDMENT NOT HAVING
BEEN MADE, A FINAL DECREE WAS ENTERED, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS AFFIRMED.  86 F.(2D) 77.  BECAUSE OF CONFLICT OF DECISIONS IN
THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  SEE MOELLER V.
SCRANTON GLASS CO., C.C.A. 3D, 19 F.(2D) 14, SUSTAINING THE "SHORT"
BILL, AND INGRASSIA V. A.C.W. MANUFACTURING CORP., C.C.A.2D, 24 F.(2D)
703, TO THE CONTRARY.  FN1 

PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE EQUITY RULES IN 1912, IT WAS NECESSARY
FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO ALLEGE NOT ONLY THAT HE WAS THE FIRST, ORIGINAL
AND SOLE INVENTOR BUT ALSO COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEGATIVE REQUIREMENTS OF
R.S. 4886 AND 4887.  SULLIVAN V. REDFIELD, 23 FED. CAS. 357; BLESSING
V. TRAGESER COPPER WORKS, 34 FED. 753; AMERICAN GRAPHOPHONE CO. V.
NATIONAL PHONOGRAPH CO., 127 FED. 349, 350, 351, AND CASES THERE
CITED.  THE PRESENT DIVERSITY OF OPINION HAS ARISEN IN RELATION TO THE
TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF EQUITY RULE 25, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"HEREAFTER IT SHALL BE SUFFICIENT THAT A BILL IN EQUITY SHALL
CONTAIN, IN ADDITION TO THE USUAL CAPTION: 

"FIRST, THE FULL NAME, WHEN KNOWN, OF EACH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT,
AND THE CITIZENSHIP AND RESIDENCE OF EACH PARTY.  IF ANY PARTY BE UNDER
ANY DISABILITY THAT FACT SHALL BE STATED. 

"SECOND, A SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION DEPENDS. 

"THIRD, A SHORT AND SIMPLE STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS UPON WHICH
THE PLAINTIFF ASKS RELIEF, OMITTING ANY MERE STATEMENT OF
EVIDENCE...." 

THE PURPOSE OF THE EQUITY RULES WAS TO SIMPLIFY EQUITY PLEADING AND
PRACTICE, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMER TO DISPENSE WITH PROLIX AND
REDUNDANT AVERMENTS WHICH HAD MADE EQUITY PLEADING AN OUTSTANDING
EXAMPLE OF UNNECESSARY ELABORATION.  THE NEEDED IMPROVEMENT IN THE
INTEREST OF SIMPLICITY AND CONCISENESS MADE THE TEST NOT WHAT WAS TIME
HONORED IN THE VERBIAGE OF THE PAST BUT WHAT WAS ESSENTIAL TO SET FORTH
THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE.  HIS STATEMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE "SHORT AND
SIMPLE."  THE "ULTIMATE FACTS" WHICH ARE TO BE STATED ARE MANIFESTLY
DISTINGUISHED FROM EVIDENTIARY FACTS.  WHAT ARE THESE "ULTIMATE
FACTS"?  THEY ARE THE FACTS WHICH THE PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE, THE FACTS
"UPON WHICH THE PLAINTIFF ASKS RELIEF," NOT THE FACTS WHICH THE
DEFENDANT MUST PROVE IN ESTABLISHING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCE.  NO
ANALYSIS OF EQUITY RULE 25 CAN MAKE IT OTHER THAN A REQUIREMENT THAT
THE PLAINTIFF MUST CONCISELY SET FORTH THE ULTIMATE FACTS WHICH ARE
SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE HIS CAUSE OF ACTION. 

THIS CONSTRUCTION IS DECISIVE OF THE PRESENT QUESTION.  IN A SUIT FOR
INFRINGEMENT OF A PATENT IT IS NOT A PART OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE TO
NEGATIVE PRIOR PUBLICATION OR PRIOR USE OR THE OTHER MATTERS TO WHICH
R.S. 4886 AND 4887 REFER.  THESE ARE MATTERS OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. 
AS THIS COURT SAID IN CANTRELL V. WALLICK, 117 U.S. 689, 695, 696:
"FOR THE GRANT OF LETTERS PATENT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE
PATENTEE IS THE FIRST INVENTOR OF THE DEVICE DESCRIBED IN THE LETTERS
PATENT AND OF ITS NOVELTY.  SMITH V. GOODYEAR DENTAL VULCANITE CO., 93
U.S. 486; LEHNBEUTER V. HOLTHAUS, 105 U.S. 94."  THE ISSUE OF THE
PATENT IS ENOUGH TO SHOW, UNTIL THE CONTRARY APPEARS, THAT ALL THE
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH A DISCOVERY IS PATENTABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STATUTES HAVE BEEN MET.  HENCE, THE BURDEN OF PROVING WANT OF NOVELTY
IS UPON HIM WHO AVERS IT.  WALKER ON PATENTS, SEC. 116.  NOT ONLY IS
THE BURDEN TO MAKE GOOD THIS DEFENSE UPON THE PARTY SETTING IT UP, BUT
HIS BURDEN IS A HEAVY ONE, AS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT "EVERY REASONABLE
DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED AGAINST HIM."  ID., CANTRELL V. WALLICK,
SUPRA; COFFIN V. OGDEN, 18 WALL.  120, 124; BARBED WIRE PATENT, 143
U.S. 275, 284, 285; ADAMSON V. GILLILAND, 242 U.S. 350, 353.  WHAT MUST
BE SO COMPLETELY ESTABLISHED BY THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A
PART OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE WHICH IS TO BE SET FORTH IN HIS BILL UNDER
THE EQUITY RULE. 

THE ARGUMENT IS ADVANCED THAT IT MAY BE SALUTARY AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER TO COMPEL THE PLAINTIFF TO NEGATIVE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES UNDER
R.S. 4886 AND 4887, AS IT MAY SOMETIMES HAPPEN THAT HE MAY NOT BE ABLE
TO MAKE OATH TO THAT EFFECT.  A SIMILAR REQUIREMENT AS TO POSSIBLE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES MIGHT PROVE TO BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO A DEFENDANT IN
OTHER SUITS THAN THOSE FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, BUT THAT POSSIBILITY OF
BENEFIT DOES NOT JUSTIFY A DEPARTURE FROM THE STANDARDS OF CORRECT
PLEADING.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE EQUITY RULE WHICH INDICATES AN
INTENTION TO PRESERVE THE ANOMALOUS PRACTICE OF COMPELLING A PLAINTIFF
IN A PATENT SUIT TO ALLEGE WHAT HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH HIS CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FOR THE DIVERSE RULINGS OF DISTRICT COURTS, SEE ZENITH
CARBURETOR CO. V. STROMBERG CO., 205 FED. 158; MAXWELL STEEL VAULT CO.
V. NATIONAL CASKET CO., 205 FED. 515; GENERAL BAKELITE CO. V. NIKOLAS,
207 FED. 111; PITTSBURGH WATER HEATER CO. V. BELER WATER HEATER CO.,
222 FED. 950; BAYLEY & SONS V. BRAUNSTEIN CO., 237 FED. 671; SCHAUM &
UHLINGER CO. V. COPLEY PLAZA CO., 243 FED. 924; JOST V. BORDEN CO., 262
FED. 163; AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY CO. V. PROSPERITY CO., 294 FED.
144; ALUMINUM CORPORATION V. ALLIED CORPORATION, 15 F.(2D) 880; DAVIS
V. MOTIVE PARTS CORP., 16 F.(2D) 148; WHITE V. STUDEBAKER CORPORATION,
30 F.(2D) 835; MCCULLOUGH CO. V. POULTRY PRODUCERS, 50 F.(2D) 945. 
..END :
















SHULMAN V. HOTEL CO., 301 U.S. 172 


NO. 688.  ARGUED APRIL 5, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 86 F.(2D)
898, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ALLOWANCE BY A STATE COURT FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN FORECLOSURE
PROCEEDINGS, "TO BE PAID IN DUE COURSE OF ADMINISTRATION," BUT WITHOUT
ANY DIRECTION TO PAY, REMAINS SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THAT COURT AND
BECOMES SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL AND REVISION OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B.  P. 173. 

2.  AN ORDER OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT DISALLOWING THE FEE, IS NOT
APPEALABLE UNDER SEC. 25A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS FROM A JUDGMENT
REJECTING A CLAIM, NOR UNDER SEC. 24A, AS FROM A DETERMINATION OF A
CONTROVERSY ARISING IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, BUT ONLY UNDER SEC. 24B,
IN THE DISCRETION OF THE APPELLATE COURT.  P. 173. 

SHULMAN ET AL. V. WILSON-SHERIDAN HOTEL CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 649, TO REVIEW AN ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN
A CASE UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

PER CURIAM. 

IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR THE
REORGANIZATION OF THE WILSON-SHERIDAN HOTEL COMPANY, PETITIONERS FILED
A CLAIM FOR $1750.  THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM WAS A BALANCE ALLEGED TO BE
DUE PURSUANT TO AN ALLOWANCE OF $2250 BY A DECREE OF THE STATE COURT IN
A FORECLOSURE SUIT ANTEDATING THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. 
THAT ALLOWANCE WAS STATED TO BE FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED BY
PETITIONERS AND THE AMOUNT WAS "TO BE PAID IN DUE COURSE OF
ADMINISTRATION."  OF THIS AMOUNT PETITIONERS RECEIVED $500 UNDER A
LATER ORDER OF THE STATE COURT, LEAVING $1750 UNPAID.  UPON THE
CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, THE DISTRICT COURT RESERVED
JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE PETITIONERS' CLAIM AT THE TIME OF THE
ALLOWANCE OF FEES AND EXPENSES; AND, ON THE SUBSEQUENT HEARING OF THE
APPLICATION FOR SUCH ALLOWANCES TO BE CHARGED AS COSTS OF
ADMINISTRATION, THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED.  AN APPEAL FROM THE ORDER,
NOT HAVING BEEN ALLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WAS DISMISSED
FOR THE WANT OF JURISDICTION.  86 F.(2D) 898.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED
MARCH 1, 1937. 

PETITIONERS URGE THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED UNDER
SEC. 25A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT REJECTING A
CLAIM OF OVER $500, OR UNDER SEC. 24A AS AN APPEAL FROM A DETERMINATION
OF A CONTROVERSY ARISING IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.  NEITHER CONTENTION
IS SOUND.  THE ALLOWANCE BY THE STATE COURT FOR LEGAL SERVICES FIXED AN
AMOUNT BUT WITHOUT DIRECTION TO PAY, AND THE ALLOWANCE REMAINED SUBJECT
TO THE SUPERVISING CONTROL OF THE COURT UNTIL PAYMENT WAS DIRECTED. 
COMPARE PEOPLE V. ILLINOIS STATE BANK, 312 ILL. 613, 616; 144 N.E. 327;
HUME V. MYERS, 242 FED. 827, 830.  THERE WAS NO FINALITY OF ACTION IN
THIS RESPECT PRIOR TO THE PROCEEDING IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT AND THE
ALLOWANCE WAS A PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER UPON WHICH THE LATTER
COURT WAS ENTITLED TO PASS.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PETITIONERS' CLAIM
WAS PRESSED, HEARD AND DETERMINED AS ONE BELONGING IN THAT CATEGORY. 

THE CASE OF DUPARQUET CO. V. EVANS, 297 U.S. 216, IS NOT IN POINT. 
THERE IS NO QUESTION HERE AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
TO ENTERTAIN THE PROCEEDING FOR REORGANIZATION.  THE ORDER WAS MADE IN
THE EXERCISE OF THE GENERAL JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY SEC. 77 BA) WHICH
EMBRACED THE AUTHORITY TO PASS UPON FEES AND EXPENSES INCIDENT TO
ADMINISTRATION, INCLUDING CLAIMS SUCH AS THE PRESENT ONE FOR LEGAL
SERVICES RENDERED IN THE PRIOR SUIT IN THE STATE COURT.  COMPARE GROSS
V. IRVING TRUST CO., 289 U.S. 342, 345. 

APPEAL COULD BE TAKEN ONLY UNDER SEC. 24B, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
APPELLATE COURT.  SEE WINGERT V. SMEAD, 70 F.(2D) 351; IN RE NEW YORK
INVESTORS, INC., 79 F.(2D) 179; MEYER V. KENMORE HOTEL CO., 297 U.S.
160, 166.  THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 
..END :
























ALASKA PACKERS V. PILLSBURY, 301 U.S. 174 


NO. 558.  ARGUED MARCH 9, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 78 F.(2D)
587, REVERSED. 


1.  THE RULE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WHICH WOULD PERMIT AN APPEAL TO BE TAKEN IN ADMIRALTY BY SIMPLY FILING
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND SERVING ON THE
PROCTOR FOR THE ADVERSE PARTY, A NOTICE OF APPEAL, IS IN CONFLICT WITH
SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925; 28 U.S.C. 230, WHICH, IN
ADMIRALTY AS IN EQUITY CASES, REQUIRES AN APPLICATION AND JUDICIAL
ALLOWANCE.  P. 175. 

2.  A RULE OF COURT IN CONFLICT WITH A STATUTE IS VOID.  P. 177. 

ALASKA PACKERS ASSN. V. PILLSBURY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 538, TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS OVERRULING A MOTION TO DISMISS AN APPEAL IN ADMIRALTY.  THAT
COURT'S DECISION ON THE MERITS WAS NOT INCLUDED FOR CONSIDERATION IN
THE ORDER GRANTING CERTIORARI. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED IS WHETHER AN APPEAL TO A CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS FROM A DECREE IN ADMIRALTY IN A DISTRICT COURT MAY BE TAKEN
BY SIMPLY FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND
SERVING ON THE PROCTOR OF THE ADVERSE PARTY, A NOTICE OF APPEAL.  IN
THIS CASE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, IN DEFERENCE TO A RULE ADOPTED
BY IT IN 1900 AND READOPTED IN 1928, SUSTAINED AN APPEAL SO TAKEN AND
OVERRULED THE APPELLEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE RULE IS IN CONFLICT WITH
SEC. 8(C) OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, C. 229, 43 STAT. 936, 940;
28 U.S.C. SEC. 230; WHICH PROVIDES: 

"NO WRIT OF ERROR OR APPEAL INTENDED TO BRING ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE
BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR REVIEW SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS
APPLICATION THEREFOR BE DULY MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ENTRY
OF SUCH JUDGMENT OR DECREE." 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE STATUTE IS BOTH APPLICABLE AND
CONTROLLING. 

PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS THE RECOGNIZED
MODE OF TAKING AN APPEAL FROM A DECREE IN ADMIRALTY, AS WELL AS FROM A
DECREE IN EQUITY, WAS BY MAKING APPLICATION TO THE COURT RENDERING THE
DECREE, OR TO A JUDGE OR JUSTICE, AND OBTAINING AN ALLOWANCE OF AN
APPEAL.  THE AUTHORIZED PROCEDURE IN THIS REGARD IS SHOWN IN BARREL V.
TRANSPORTATION CO., 3 WALL.  44, WHERE AN APPEAL IN ADMIRALTY WAS
SOUGHT TO BE TAKEN BY SIMPLY FILING A PETITION IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK OF THE COURT.  THIS COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL, SAYING: 

"THE PROCEEDING IN THE CASE IS NOT WARRANTED BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS,
AND WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ACT ON SUCH A PETITION.  THE FILING OF IT
IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE, EVEN IF IT COULD BE REGARDED AS ADDRESSED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT, WOULD BE OF NO AVAIL, UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY AN ALLOWANCE
OF AN APPEAL BY THAT COURT; AND IN THE CASE BEFORE US THERE WAS NO
ALLOWANCE." 

THE ACT CREATING THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS  FN1 AND INVESTING
THEM WITH STATED APPELLATE JURISDICTION, INCLUDING APPEALS IN
ADMIRALTY, MADE NO CHANGE IN THE PRIOR PROCEDURE.  ON THE CONTRARY,
SEC. 11 OF THAT ACT PROVIDED: 

"AND ALL PROVISIONS OF LAW NOW IN FORCE REGULATING THE METHODS AND
SYSTEM OF REVIEW, THROUGH APPEALS OR WRITS OF ERROR, SHALL REGULATE THE
METHODS AND SYSTEM OF APPEALS AND WRITS OF ERROR PROVIDED FOR IN THIS
ACT IN RESPECT OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, INCLUDING ALL
PROVISIONS FOR BONDS OR OTHER SECURITIES TO BE REQUIRED AND TAKEN ON
SUCH APPEALS AND WRITS OF ERROR, AND ANY JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS, IN RESPECT OF CASES BROUGHT OR TO BE BROUGHT TO THAT COURT,
SHALL HAVE THE SAME POWERS AND DUTIES AS TO THE ALLOWANCE OF APPEALS OR
WRITS OF ERROR, AND THE CONDITIONS OF SUCH ALLOWANCE, AS NOW BY LAW
BELONG TO THE JUSTICES OR JUDGES IN RESPECT OF THE EXISTING COURTS OF
THE UNITED STATES RESPECTIVELY."  FN2 

THE REASONS FOR REQUIRING THAT AN APPEAL BE DULY APPLIED FOR AND
ALLOWED ARE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ASSURANCE THAT THE SUIT IS ONE IN
WHICH THERE MAY BE A REVIEW IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; THAT THE
DECREE IS OF SUCH FINALITY OR CHARACTER THAT IT MAY BE REEXAMINED ON
APPEAL; AND THAT APPROPRIATE SECURITY FOR COSTS MAY BE TAKEN WHERE THE
APPELLANT IS NOT BY LAW EXEMPTED FROM GIVING SUCH SECURITY.  FN3  IN
THIS WAY IMPROVIDENT AND UNAUTHORIZED APPEALS ARE PREVENTED.  WHILE AN
APPEAL IN A PROPER CASE IS MATTER OF RIGHT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE
CASE IS A PROPER ONE UNDER THE LAW REGULATING APPEALS IS NOT LEFT TO
THE APPELLANT, BUT IS TO BE EXAMINED AND PRIMARILY DETERMINED BY THE
COURT OR JUDGE TO WHOM THE APPLICATION IS TO BE MADE.  THE REASONS FOR
THUS CONDITIONING THE RIGHT OF APPEAL HAVE THE SAME APPLICATION TO
DECREES IN ADMIRALTY THAT THEY HAVE TO DECREES IN EQUITY AND JUDGMENTS
AT LAW; AND THE ACT OF 1925 INCLUDES ONE AS MUCH AS ANOTHER, FOR IT
SAYS:  "NO  ...  APPEAL INTENDED TO BRING ANY JUDGMENT OR DECREE BEFORE
A CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR REVIEW SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS
APPLICATION THEREFOR BE DULY MADE."  IN ALL OF THE CIRCUITS OTHER THAN
THE ONE IN WHICH THE DECISION NOW UNDER REVIEW WAS MADE FULL EFFECT IS
GIVEN TO THIS REQUIREMENT.  IN THE ONE CIRCUIT A RULE EXISTS WHEREBY
APPEALS IN ADMIRALTY ARE EXCEPTED.  BUT THAT RULE CONTRAVENES THE
STATUTE AND HAS NO FORCE, FOR THE POWER OF A COURT TO MAKE RULES
NECESSARILY IS CONFINED TO SUCH AS ARE CONSISTENT WITH CONTROLLING
LAWS. 

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
TO ENTERTAIN THE ATTEMPTED APPEAL.  DECREE REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF MARCH 3, 1891, C. 517, 26 STAT. 826. 

FN2  SEE TITLE 28, U.S.C., SEC. 228. 

FN3  SEE BARTEMEYER V. IOWA, 14 WALL.  26, 27; HAVNOR V. NEW YORK,
170 U.S. 408, 410; IRELAND V. WOODS, 246 U.S. 323, 328. 
..END :







NAT. FERTILIZER ASSN. V. BRADLEY, 301 U.S. 178 


NO. 731.  ARGUED APRIL 5, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 18
F.SUPP.  263, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A FEDERAL COURT WILL NOT ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE LAW
WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE ENFORCING OFFICERS NOR BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, AND WHICH IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF A CONSTRUCTION
THAT WOULD BRING IT WITHIN THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE.  P. 180. 

2.  THE RIGHT OF A MANUFACTURER TO MAINTAIN SECRECY AS TO HIS
COMPOUNDS AND PROCESSES IS SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE STATE, IN THE
EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER AND IN PROMOTION OF FAIR DEALING, TO
REQUIRE THAT THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCT OFFERED FOR SALE BE FAIRLY SET
FORTH.  P. 182. 

3.  THE REQUIREMENT MAY BE EXTENDED TO THE SALE OF PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE LEGISLATION.  P. 182. 

NATIONAL FERTILIZER ASSN., INC. ET AL. V. BRADLEY ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES, DENYING
AN INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT BY AN ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTING MANUFACTURERS OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF A STATE LAW REQUIRING THAT ON THE CONTAINERS IN WHICH
MIXED FERTILIZER IS SOLD THERE SHALL BE DISCLOSED THE POUNDAGES AND
ANALYSES OF MATERIALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE.  THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE
MEMBERS OF A STATE BOARD AND THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PRIOR TO 1936 THE LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA REQUIRED THAT MANUFACTURERS,
BEFORE OFFERING MIXED COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER FOR SALE, SHOULD AFFIX TO
EACH CONTAINER A TAG DISCLOSING CERTAIN FACTS CONCERNING THE CONTENTS. 
CODE OF LAWS, 1932, SECS. 6363-6385.  AN ACT APPROVED APRIL 6, 1936,
ADDED TO SEC. 6367 THE FOLLOWING SO-CALLED "OPEN FORMULA" AMENDMENT, TO
BECOME EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1936. 

"(B)  THE AMOUNT AND ANALYSIS OF EACH MATERIAL, OR SOURCE, OF EACH
PLANT FOOD ELEMENT USED IN MANUFACTURE, OF A FERTILIZER MIXTURE
CONTAINING TWO OR MORE PLANT FOOD ELEMENTS BE STATED ON A TAG ATTACHED
TO EACH SACK OR CONTAINER, SUCH AMOUNT OF MATERIAL TO BE STATED IN
POUNDS PER HUNDRED POUNDS OF MIXTURE CONTAINED IN THE SACK OR OTHER
CONTAINER.  THIS STATEMENT OF POUNDS OF MATERIALS USED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF A FERTILIZER MIXTURE SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO THE
STATEMENT OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION NO. 6366 OF THE
CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1932." 


JULY 22, 1936, BEFORE THE OFFICERS CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF
STATUTES RELATING TO FERTILIZERS FORMULATED ANY RULE OR INSTRUCTION
REGARDING THE "OPEN FORMULA" AMENDMENT, AND BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
HAD CONSIDERED OR CONSTRUED IT, MANY MANUFACTURERS FILED THEIR JOINT
BILL IN THE COURT BELOW, WHEREIN THEY ALLEGED THE AMENDMENT OFFENDED
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND ASKED FOR AN
INJUNCTION.  AFTER ANSWER, TESTIMONY WAS PRESENTED BY BOTH SIDES. 
THREE JUDGES HEARD THE CAUSE; FOUND THE FACTS; POINTED OUT A POSSIBLE
CONSTRUCTION UNDER WHICH THEY HELD THE ACT WOULD NOT BE ARBITRARY OR
OPPRESSIVE; AND DISMISSED THE BILL.  THE MATTER IS HERE BY APPEAL. 

AS THE ENACTMENT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE ENFORCING OFFICERS NOR
INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY
WHAT ULTIMATELY WILL BE DEMANDED OF THE COMPLAINANTS.  THE COURT BELOW
WAS OF THE OPINION THAT, REASONABLY CONSTRUED, THE ACT WOULD BE
SATISFIED IF THE TAG UPON A GIVEN CONTAINER REVEALED THE GENERAL
AVERAGE OF THE DESIGNATED ITEMS WHICH WENT INTO THE STORAGE OR CURING
PILE OF FERTILIZER AT THE FACTORY FROM WHICH SUCH CONTAINER WAS
FILLED.  "THESE PILES RANGE FROM 100 TONS UP TO 5,000 TONS."  THIS
INTERPRETATION IS, AT LEAST, PERMISSIBLE.  SO CONSTRUED, WE CANNOT SAY
THAT THE ACT IS CLEARLY ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE AND BEYOND THE POLICE
POWER OF THE STATE.  APPARENTLY IT CAN BE COMPLIED WITH WITHOUT
PROHIBITIVE EXPENSE.  FN2 

IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSERTION THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE "OPEN FORMULA"
AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE COMPLAINANTS TO REVEAL SECRET FORMULAS AND THUS
UNLAWFULLY DEPRIVE THEM OF PROPERTY, IT IS ENOUGH TO REFER TO CORN
PRODUCTS REFINING CO. V. EDDY, 249 U.S. 427, 431-432.  "THE RIGHT OF A
MANUFACTURER TO MAINTAIN SECRECY AS TO HIS COMPOUNDS AND PROCESSES MUST
BE HELD SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE STATE, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
POLICE POWER AND IN PROMOTION OF FAIR DEALING, TO REQUIRE THAT THE
NATURE OF THE PRODUCT BE FAIRLY SET FORTH."  AND THE SAME PRINCIPLE IS
BROAD ENOUGH TO MEET THE FURTHER CLAIM OF RIGHT TO SELL PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE AMENDING ACT OF 1936. 

WE FIND NO MATERIAL ERROR.  THE CHALLENGED DECREE MUST BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEC. 6366.  CONTENTS OF LABELS.  - EVERY PERSON OR CORPORATION,
BEFORE SELLING OR OFFERING FOR SALE IN THIS STATE ANY COMMERCIAL
FERTILIZER OR FERTILIZING MATERIAL SHALL BRAND ON EACH BAG OR PACKAGE
THE BRAND NAME OF THE FERTILIZER, THE WEIGHT OF THE PACKAGE, THE NAME
AND ADDRESS OF THE MANUFACTURER, AND THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE ONLY
GUARANTEED TO BE PRESENT OF AVAILABLE PHOSPHORIC ACID, OF NITROGEN
(AMMONIA EQUIVALENT), AND OF POTASH SOLUBLE IN WATER.  THE ITEMS SHALL
BE PRINTED ON THE PACKAGE IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 

WEIGHT OF EACH PACKAGE. 

BRAND NAME OR TRADE-MARK. 

GUARANTEED ANALYSIS:

AVAILABLE PHOSPHORIC ACID........................PER CENT.

AMMONIA EQUIVALENT OF NITROGEN...................PER CENT.

POTASH SOLUBLE IN WATER..........................PER CENT. 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE MANUFACTURER. 

IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE THERE MUST BE PRINTED ON THE PACKAGE, OR ON
A TAG ATTACHED THERETO, THE PER CENT. OF WATER SOLUBLE NITROGEN
(AMMONIA EQUIVALENT), GUARANTEED, WITHIN SUCH LIMITS AS THE SAID BOARD
OF TRUSTEES, OR A COMMITTEE THEREOF, MAY PRESCRIBE.  AND, IN ADDITION,
FURTHER, IT MUST BE STATED WHETHER THE POTASH IS DERIVED FROM MURIATE
OR SULPHATE.  AND, IN ADDITION, FURTHER, THE PER CENT. OF BORAX OR
OTHER SUBSTANCE, OR SUBSTANCES, INJURIOUS TO PLANTS MUST BE STATED, IF
IN EXCESS OF LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, OR A COMMITTEE
THEREOF:  PROVIDED, THE SAID BOARD OF TRUSTEES, OR A COMMITTEE THEREOF,
SHALL HAVE POWER TO DIRECT IN WHAT MANNER THE BRANDING AND LABELING
SHALL BE DONE. 

SEC. 6367.  CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS - LABELING - SUBSTITUTION -
SPECIAL CONTRACTS - DAMAGES AND PENALTY.  - (A)  THE MATERIALS USED IN
THE MANUFACTURE AND MIXING OF ALL FERTILIZERS SUPPLYING NITROGEN OR
AMMONIA, AND OFFERED FOR SALE IN THIS STATE, SHALL BE DIVIDED INTO TWO
CLASSES, NAMELY, WATER-SOLUBLE AND AVAILABLE WATER-INSOLUBLE; AND THE
PERCENTAGE OF NITROGEN OR AMMONIA COMING FROM EITHER OF THESE TWO
CLASSES SHALL BE GUARANTEED, BUT ALLOWING A VARIABILITY OF ONE-FOURTH
OF ONE PER CENT. FOR GOODS CONTAINING TWO PER CENT. OF AMMONIA OR
UNDER, AND A VARIABILITY OF ONE-THIRD OF ONE PER CENT FOR GOODS
CONTAINING TWO AND THREE PER CENT. AMMONIA, AND A VARIABILITY OF ONE
HALF OF ONE PER CENT. FOR GOODS CONTAINING OVER THREE PER CENT.
AMMONIA, AND THE SEVERAL MATERIALS IN EACH OF THESE TWO CLASSES SHALL
BE NAMED ON THE BAG OR ON A TAG ATTACHED THERETO, AND IT SHALL BE
PERMISSIBLE FOR THE MANUFACTURER TO SUBSTITUTE ONE OR MORE MATERIALS IN
EITHER CLASS OF APPROXIMATELY EQUAL AGRICULTURAL VALUE FOR OTHER
MATERIALS OF THE SAME CLASS: PROVIDED:  THAT WHERE THERE IS A CONTRACT
OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN A MANUFACTURER AND A PURCHASER OF FERTILIZER THAT
THE FERTILIZER WILL BE MANUFACTURED BY THE USE OF CERTAIN DEFINITE
SOURCES AND AMOUNTS OF AMMONIA AND POTASH, THE FERTILIZER MUST BE
MANUFACTURED FROM THESE MATERIALS WITHOUT SUBSTITUTION OF OTHER
MATERIALS AND FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE MANUFACTURER TO COMPLY WITH
THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL RENDER THE MANUFACTURER LIABLE TO THE PURCHASER
FOR DAMAGES AS IT IS NOW PRESCRIBED BY LAW, AND IN ADDITION THERETO THE
MANUFACTURER SHALL PAY TO THE PURCHASER A PENALTY EQUAL TO ONE-FOURTH
OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF SUCH FERTILIZER. 

(B)  THE AMOUNT AND ANALYSIS OF EACH MATERIAL, OR SOURCE, OF EACH
PLANT FOOD ELEMENT USED IN MANUFACTURE, OF A FERTILIZER MIXTURE
CONTAINING TWO OR MORE PLANT FOOD ELEMENTS BE STATED ON A TAG ATTACHED
TO EACH SACK OR CONTAINER, SUCH AMOUNT OF MATERIAL TO BE STATED IN
POUNDS PER HUNDRED POUNDS OF MIXTURE CONTAINED IN THE SACK OR OTHER
CONTAINER.  THIS STATEMENT OF POUNDS OF MATERIALS USED IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF A FERTILIZER MIXTURE SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO THE
STATEMENT OF CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION NO. 6366 OF THE
CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1932. 

FN2  FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO REASONABLENESS OF REGULATIONS - NO. VI. 

"WITH THE FOREGOING ILLUSTRATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW LAW TO THE ACTUAL FACTS OF AGRICULTURE, WE HAVE
NO HESITATION IN FINDING AS A FACT THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1936
AMENDMENT DO MOST POSITIVELY TEND TO MEET AN ACTUALLY EXISTING NEED AND
TO SERVE THE PURPOSE WHICH THE LEGISLATURE CLEARLY HAD IN MIND; NAMELY,
TO SO REGULATE THE FERTILIZER BUSINESS AS TO GIVE THE FARMER THAT
INFORMATION WHICH WOULD TEND TO AID IN THE CARRYING ON OF THE MAJOR
INDUSTRY OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA." 

FINDINGS OF FACT AS TO INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE ACT, &C. - NO.
II. 

"THE WORD 'MIXTURE' HAS UNDER THE TESTIMONY COME TO HAVE A RATHER
DEFINITE MEANING IN THE FERTILIZER BUSINESS.  IT RELATES NOT SO MUCH TO
THE FINISHED PRODUCT IN THE SACK AS IT DOES TO THE ACTUAL PILE OF
FERTILIZER AS MIXED IN THE MANUFACTURING PLANT AND LEFT TO CURE BEFORE
BEING FINALLY GROUND UP AND PUT INTO SACKS.  THE TESTIMONY DEALS FULLY
WITH THE ACTUAL PROCESSES FOLLOWED IN THE MIXING OF THE FERTILIZER, AND
THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY SUGGESTS THAT THE AVERAGE UNIT OF
MIXTURE AS ACTUALLY MADE BY THE LARGER FERTILIZER COMPANIES WHEN MAKING
A TYPICAL FERTILIZER FOR SALE IN LARGE QUANTITIES IS ABOUT FIVE
THOUSAND TONS.  UNDER THE TESTIMONY WE FIND THAT IN SOME CASES A STRICT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE WILL PROBABLY CALL FOR A LARGE WAREHOUSE
AND THE INAUGURATION OF A MORE ELABORATE SYSTEM OF BOOKKEEPING AS TO
THE EXACT MATERIALS PUT INTO EACH MIXTURE BUT THESE INCREASED EXPENSES
WILL NOT BE SO GREAT AS TO RENDER THE COST OF THE MANUFACTURE OF THE
FINISHED PRODUCT PROHIBITIVE AND OUT OF LINE WITH THE PROBABLE INCREASE
OF PRICES WHICH THE ACTUAL TRADE WOULD BEAR." 
..END :














BOURJOIS, INC. V. CHAPMAN, 301 U.S. 183 


NO. 534.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE LAW REQUIRING, AS A HEALTH MEASURE, THAT COSMETIC
PREPARATIONS BE REGISTERED BEFORE BEING OFFERED FOR SALE IN THE STATE,
WHICH APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE WHO DEAL IN OR APPLY THE PREPARATIONS
WITHIN THE STATE, AND WHICH DOES NOT DEMAND THAT THE APPLICATION FOR
REGISTRATION BE MADE BY THE MANUFACTURER OR PROPRIETOR BUT PERMITS ANY
PERSON INTERESTED TO MAKE IT, DOES NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS, UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE, OF ONE WHOSE PREPARATIONS ARE MANUFACTURED IN ANOTHER
STATE AND THERE SOLD TO CUSTOMERS WHO DEAL IN OR APPLY THEM IN THE
STATE REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION.  P. 186. 

2.  A STATE INSPECTION FEE WILL NOT BE ADJUDGED A DIRECT BURDEN ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHERE NOT UNREASONABLE ON ITS FACE AND WHERE,
BECAUSE OF THE RECENT ADOPTION OF THE REGULATION INVOLVED, IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER IT WILL YIELD IN EXCESS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT.  P. 187. 

3.  WHERE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ONLY INDIRECTLY AFFECTED, THE BURDEN
OF PROVING THAT STATE INSPECTION FEES WILL ACTUALLY BURDEN SUCH
COMMERCE RESTS UPON HIM WHO CHALLENGES THE LEGISLATION.  THE MERE FACT
THAT THE FEES IMPOSED MIGHT EXCEED THE COST OF INSPECTION IS
IMMATERIAL.  P. 187. 

4.  A STATE STATUTE IMPOSING FEES FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A REGULATION
AFFECTING BUT ONE CLASS OF ACTIVITY, THE FEES AND EXPENDITURES BEING
ENTERED IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT, PRESENTS NO QUESTION UNDER THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 188. 

5.  A MAINE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT COSMETICS OFFERED FOR SALE IN THE
STATE BE REGISTERED, PENALIZES SALE WITHOUT REGISTRATION, AND EMPOWERS
A BOARD TO "REGULATE OR TO REFUSE THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF
REGISTRATION OR TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF COSMETIC PREPARATIONS WHICH IN
ITS JUDGMENT CONTAIN INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS TO BE
POISONOUS, INJURIOUS OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE PERSON."  HELD: 

(1)  IT WILL NOT BE ASSUMED, AS A BASIS FOR ATTACK UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OR THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THAT ONE WHO HAS NOT
APPLIED FOR IT WILL BE REFUSED A CERTIFICATE, OR THAT THE BOARD WILL
DENY ANY RIGHT TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED.  P. 188. 

(2)  THE DELEGATION OF POWER TO THE BOARD IS NOT OBNOXIOUS TO THE
STATE CONSTITUTION OR THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  P. 189. 

(3)  DUE PROCESS IS SAFEGUARDED BY A PROVISION OF THE STATUTE FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW WHEN THE BOARD REFUSES A CERTIFICATE.  ID. 

(4)  THE QUESTION WHETHER PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE CONCERNING
SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF UNREGISTERED COSMETICS VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION OF MAINE DOES NOT ARISE IN THE CASE OF A MANUFACTURER
WHOSE GOODS ARE DISPOSED OF TO OTHERS IN ANOTHER STATE BEFORE THEY
ENTER MAINE.  P. 190. 

BOURJOIS, INC. V. CHAPMAN ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MAINE. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES,
DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF A STATUTE
REQUIRING REGISTRATION OF COSMETIC PREPARATIONS OFFERED FOR SALE, ETC. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BOURJOIS, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, BROUGHT, IN THE FEDERAL COURT
FOR MAINE, THIS SUIT SEEKING TO ENJOIN, BOTH TEMPORARILY AND
PERMANENTLY, THE ENFORCEMENT OF CHAPTER 109 OF THE PUBLIC LAWS OF
MAINE, 1935, ENTITLED "AN ACT FOR THE REGULATION OF COSMETICS."  THE
BILL WAS FILED BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1936, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MAINE, THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH WERE MADE DEFENDANTS.  THE ANSWERS
DENIED THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL.  THE CASE WAS HEARD BEFORE
THREE JUDGES; THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS DENIED, ON
THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS WERE PREMATURELY RAISED; AND
LEAVE WAS GRANTED TO RENEW ITS MOTION IF IN ENFORCING THE ACT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHOULD BE INTERFERED WITH OR DUE PROCESS DENIED. 
THEREAFTER, A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL AND ANSWER WERE FILED; THE CASE WAS
AGAIN HEARD; THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS BOTH FEDERAL AND
EQUITABLE JURISDICTION; DENIED A MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION; AND
ENTERED A FINAL DECREE DISMISSING THE BILL.  THE CASE IS HERE ON
APPEAL. 


"REGISTRATION OF COSMETICS.  ON AND AFTER JANUARY 1, 1936 NO PERSON,
FIRM, CORPORATION OR COPARTNERSHIP SHALL HOLD FOR SALE, SELL, OFFER FOR
SALE, IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE, GIVE AWAY, DEAL IN, WITHIN THIS STATE,
SUPPLY OR APPLY IN THE CONDUCT OF A BEAUTY SHOP, BARBER SHOP,
HAIRDRESSING ESTABLISHMENT OR SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENT, ANY COSMETIC
PREPARATION UNLESS THE SAID PREPARATION HAS BEEN REGISTERED WITH AND A
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION SECURED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
WELFARE." 

PUBLIC HEALTH; AND PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUE OF CERTIFICATES OF
REGISTRATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE "TO THE
MANUFACTURER, PROPRIETOR, OR PRODUCER OF ANY COSMETIC PREPARATION." 
OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT CONTAIN ELABORATE PROVISIONS FOR THE SEIZURE
AND FORFEITURE OF "COSMETIC PREPARATIONS KEPT OR DEPOSITED WITHIN THE
STATE INTENDED FOR UNLAWFUL SALE OR USE"; AND FOR IMPOSITION OF FINES
UPON VIOLATORS OF THE STATUTE. 

THE PLAINTIFF MANUFACTURES COSMETICS IN NEW YORK; HAS NO PLACE OF
BUSINESS IN MAINE; AND DOES NOT HOLD, USE, APPLY, OR SELL COSMETICS
WITHIN THAT STATE.  AMONG ITS MANY CUSTOMERS ARE SOME WHOSE PLACES OF
BUSINESS ARE IN MAINE; AND THEIR PURCHASES ARE MADE IN PART ON ORDERS
GIVEN IN MAINE TO TRAVELLING SALESMEN OF THE PLAINTIFF.  BUT NO ORDER
SO GIVEN IS BINDING UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK.  ALL
SHIPMENTS TO MAINE CUSTOMERS ARE MADE FROM NEW YORK; AND THE SALES OF
THE COSMETICS IN MAINE ARE NOT MADE IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES, THE LARGE
CONTAINERS IN WHICH THE COSMETICS ARE SHIPPED FROM NEW YORK.  COMPARE
PURITY EXTRACT CO. V. LYNCH, 226 U.S. 192, 201; HEBE CO. V. SHAW, 248
U.S. 297, 304. 

THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT APPLIED FOR A CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
ANY OF ITS PREPARATIONS; AND IT ANNOUNCES THAT IT WILL REFUSE TO DO SO,
BECAUSE THE STATUTE IS VOID UNDER THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS. 
SIXTEEN DISTINCT GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY ARE URGED WITH GREAT
EARNESTNESS.  NONE IS WELL FOUNDED.  ONLY A FEW NEED TO BE DISCUSSED. 

FIRST.  MOST PROMINENT IS THE CLAIM THAT THE LEGISLATION VIOLATES THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  BY ITS TERMS, THE STATUTE IS LIMITED IN OPERATION TO
INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  IT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO PROHIBIT OR REGULATE THE
INTRODUCTION OF COSMETICS INTO THE STATE.  IT IS NOT DIRECTED TO
MANUFACTURERS.  IT APPLIES ONLY TO PERSONS WHO DEAL IN COSMETICS, OR
APPLY THEM, WITHIN THE STATE; AND THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DO SO.  NO
DOUBT THE PLAINTIFF WILL LOSE ITS MAINE CUSTOMERS UNLESS ITS
PREPARATIONS MAY BE SOLD THERE; AND THEIR SALE WILL BE PROHIBITED
WITHIN THE STATE UNLESS THE PREPARATIONS ARE REGISTERED.  BUT THE STATE
DOES NOT DEMAND THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BE MADE BY THE
MANUFACTURER OR PROPRIETOR OF THE PREPARATION.  THE DEFENDANTS WHO
ADMINISTER THE STATUTE HAVE CONSTRUED IT AS PERMITTING ANY ONE
INTERESTED TO MAKE THE APPLICATION.  AS SOME COSMETICS MAY BE OF A
CHARACTER TO INJURE THE HEALTH OF THE USERS, THE STATE MAY PROHIBIT THE
SALE IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE OF A PREPARATION UNLESS IT HAS BEEN FOUND,
UPON DUE ENQUIRY, TO BE HARMLESS.  THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF'S PRODUCTS
ARE MADE IN NEW YORK DOES NOT CONFER IMMUNITY FROM SUCH REGULATION IN
MAINE.  COMPARE MUTUAL FILM CORP. V. HODGES, 236 U.S. 248, 258; ARMOUR
& CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 240 U.S. 510, 517; PACIFIC STATES BOX & BASKET
CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 184.  THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, SINCE THE REGULATION APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL
PREPARATIONS, WHETHER MANUFACTURED WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE OF
MAINE. 

SECOND.  THE PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT ITS INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
DIRECTLY BURDENED, BECAUSE REGISTRATION, WHICH IS INDISPENSABLE TO THE
MAINTENANCE OF ITS TRADE IN MAINE, INVOLVES PAYMENT OF A FEE; THAT ONLY
AN INSPECTION FEE CAN BE JUSTIFIED; AND THAT THE STATE HAS FAILED TO
SHOW THAT THE FEE CHARGED IS NOT IN EXCESS OF THE COST OF INSPECTION. 
PREPARATION, WITH A SIMILAR ANNUAL RENEWAL FEE; AND STIPULATES THAT: 

"FEES RECEIVED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE USED BY SAID
DEPARTMENT FOR CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." 

EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN NECESSARY, UNDER THE RULES APPLIED IN FOOTE & CO.
V. STANLEY, 232 U.S. 494, AND GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. WASHINGTON, 300
U.S. 154, FOR THE STATE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FEES HERE CHARGED ARE NOT
EXCESSIVE, THE STATE MUST BE DEEMED TO HAVE SUSTAINED THAT BURDEN.  THE
FACT THAT THE FEE FOR REGISTRATION IS ONLY 50 CENTS SUGGESTS THAT IT
MAY PROVE INADEQUATE RATHER THAN EXCESSIVE.  THE CASE WAS HEARD SHORTLY
AFTER THE STATUTE BECAME OPERATIVE.  IT WAS OBVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE THEN
TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FEES WOULD PROVE TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT, AND IN THIS SITUATION IT IS SUFFICIENT IF
IT IS SHOWN THAT THE CHARGES ARE NOT UNREASONABLE ON THEIR FACE.  AS
WAS SAID IN PATAPSCO GUANO CO. V. BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, 171 U.S. 345,
354, "IF THE RECEIPTS ARE FOUND TO AVERAGE LARGELY MORE THAN ENOUGH TO
PAY THE EXPENSES, THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THE LEGISLATURE WOULD
MODERATE THE CHARGE."  SEE RED "C" OIL CO. V. BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, 222
U.S. 380, 393.  HERE, THE STATUTE OPERATES DIRECTLY ONLY UPON
INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  WHERE INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS ONLY INDIRECTLY
AFFECTED, IT RESTS UPON ONE CHALLENGING THE LEGISLATION TO SHOW ACTUAL
UNDUE BURDEN UPON SUCH COMMERCE.  SEE PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.
V. TAX COMMISSION, 297 U.S. 403.  THE MERE FACT THAT THE FEES IMPOSED
MIGHT EXCEED THE COST OF INSPECTION IS IMMATERIAL.  SEE GENERAL OIL CO.
V. CRAIN, 209 U.S. 211, 231; TEXAS CO. V. BROWN, 258 U.S. 466, 475,
476. 

THE MAINE STATUTE PRESENTS NO QUESTION UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SUCH AS WAS DEALT WITH IN GREAT
NORTHERN RY. CO. V. WASHINGTON, SUPRA.  THE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE
FEES COLLECTED SHALL BE DEVOTED SOLELY TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT;
AND THE ACT DIRECTLY REGULATES BUT ONE CLASS OF ACTIVITY.  THE RECORD
SHOWS THAT THE STATE TREASURER HAS SET UP A SEPARATE ACCOUNT TO WHICH
ALL COSMETIC FEES ARE CREDITED, AND AGAINST WHICH ARE TO BE CHARGED
ONLY THE EXPENSE OF ENFORCEMENT.  COMPARE GUNDLING V. CHICAGO, 177 U.S.
183, 189; MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219, 237; TEXAS
CO. V. BROWN, 258 U.S. 466, 479. 

THIRD.  THE PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT IN OTHER RESPECTS THE STATUTE
VIOLATES RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE.  IT OBJECTS THAT THE POWER CONFERRED UPON
THE BOARD TO GRANT OR DENY A CERTIFICATE IS UNLIMITED; THAT THE BOARD
HAS ISSUED NO REGULATIONS; AND THAT NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE BOARD
HAS PROVIDED FOR HEARING AN APPLICANT.  THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT APPLIED
FOR A CERTIFICATE; AND IT IS NOT TO BE ASSUMED THAT, IF IT CONCLUDES TO
DO SO, ITS APPLICATION WILL BE REFUSED, OR THAT THE BOARD WILL DENY ANY
RIGHT TO WHICH IT IS ENTITLED.  SEE GUNDLING V. CHICAGO, 177 U.S. 183,
186; LEHON V. ATLANTA, 242 U.S. 53, 56; SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553,
562; HIGHLAND FARMS DAIRY V. AGNEW, 300 U.S. 608.  FN1  THERE ARE ALSO
OTHER ANSWERS TO THIS CONTENTION.  SECTION 2 DEFINES THE DEPARTMENT'S
CONTROL OF REGISTRATION: 

"THE SAID DEPARTMENT IS AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE OR TO REFUSE THE
ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF REGISTRATION OR TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF
COSMETIC PREPARATIONS WHICH IN ITS JUDGMENT CONTAIN INJURIOUS
SUBSTANCES IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS TO BE POISONOUS, INJURIOUS OR DETRIMENTAL
TO THE PERSON."  DELEGATION OF THE POWER TO EXERCISE THAT JUDGMENT IS
NOT OBNOXIOUS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF MAINE.  COMPARE BANGOR RAILWAY &
ELECTRIC CO. V. ORONO, 109 ME. 292, 296; 84 ATL. 385; IN RE KNOX COUNTY
ELECTRIC CO., 119 ME. 179, 182; 109 ATL. 898; MCKENNEY V. FARNSWORTH,
121 ME. 450, 452-454; 118 ATL. 237.  AND OBVIOUSLY, IT CONTRAVENES NO
PROVISION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V.
GRIMAUD, 220 U.S. 506, 517; MUTUAL FILM CORP. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION,
236 U.S. 230, 246; HALL V. GEIGER-JONES CO., 242 U.S. 539, 554;
HIGHLAND FARMS DAIRY V. AGNEW, SUPRA.  NEITHER CONSTITUTION REQUIRES
THAT EXERCISE OF SUCH A POWER BE PRECEDED BY THE ADOPTION OF
REGULATIONS.  AND NEITHER CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT THERE MUST BE A
HEARING OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE BOARD MAY EXERCISE A JUDGMENT UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND OF THE CHARACTER HERE INVOLVED.  THE REQUIREMENT
OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS AMPLY SAFEGUARDED BY SEC. 2 OF THE STATUTE,
WHICH PROVIDES: 

"FROM THE REFUSAL OF SAID DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION FOR ANY COSMETIC PREPARATION APPEAL SHALL LIE TO THE
SUPERIOR COURT IN THE COUNTY OF KENNEBEC OR ANY OTHER COUNTY IN THE
STATE FROM WHICH THE SAME WAS OFFERED FOR REGISTRATION." 

COMPARE HAGAR V. RECLAMATION DISTRICT NO. 108, 111 U.S. 701, 711,
712; HALL V. GEIGER-JONES CO., 242 U.S. 539, 554; BRAGG V. WEAVER, 251
U.S. 57, 59; PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 597; STATE V.
MCCANN, 59 ME. 383, 385; BENNETT V. DAVIS, 90 ME. 102, 106; 37 ATL.
864; MCINNES V. MCKAY, 127 ME. 110, 116; 141 ATL. 699 279 U.S. 820. 

FOURTH.  PLAINTIFF URGES THAT RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE CONCERNING SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF
UNREGISTERED COSMETICS VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OF MAINE.  TO THAT
CLAIM IT IS A SUFFICIENT ANSWER THAT IF THERE IS A WRONGFUL SEIZURE, IT
WILL BE OF GOODS BELONGING TO OTHERS.  FOR, AS THE BILL AND FINDINGS
REVEAL, NO GOODS OF THE PLAINTIFF WILL EVER BE LIABLE TO SEIZURE, SINCE
THE PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE NONE IN MAINE.  IF UNDER THIS STATUTE THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS ARE VIOLATED BY AN UNLAWFUL SEIZURE AND
FORFEITURE, THEY, AND NOT THE PLAINTIFF, MUST SEEK THE REDRESS. 
COMPARE TYLER V. JUDGES, 179 U.S. 405, 409, 410; STANDARD STOCK FOOD
CO. V. WRIGHT, 225 U.S. 540, 550; DIER V. BANTON, 262 U.S. 147, 149
150.  HENCE, WE INTIMATE NO OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE POINT RAISED
BY PLAINTIFF.  AFFIRMED 

FN1  COMPARE DALTON ADDING MACHINE CO. V. STATE CORPORATION COMM'N,
236 U.S. 699; LEHMANN V. STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, 263 U.S. 394, 398;
CONTINENTAL BAKING CO. V. WOODRING, 286 U.S. 352, 368, 369. 
..END :


















WELCH V. OBISPO OIL CO., 301 U.S. 190 


NO. 602.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 11, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 860, REVERSED. 


WHERE A TAXPAYER'S PROFITS TAX HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER
UNDER SECS. 327 AND 328 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, THE DISTRICT COURT
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN
AN ACTION FOR A REFUND OF PART OF THE ACCOMPANYING INCOME TAX ON THE
GROUND THAT THE INCOME WAS ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED.  P. 194. 

WELCH, FORMER COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. OBISPO OIL CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 647, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING
JURISDICTION OVER A SUIT TO RECOVER MONEY EXACTED AS INCOME TAX, AND
INCREASING THE AMOUNT ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, C. 18, 40 STAT. 1057, LAID UPON
CORPORATIONS, IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME TAX, A WAR PROFITS AND EXCESS
PROFITS TAX AT VERY HIGH RATES.  BECAUSE THE PROFITS TAX MIGHT PROVE
UNDULY BURDENSOME, CONGRESS PROVIDED BY SECS. 327 AND 328 FOR A SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT OF THE PROFITS TAX BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IN THIS CASE IS
WHETHER, WHEN A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE OF THE PROFITS TAX, A
COURT MAY ENTERTAIN AN ACTION FOR REFUND OF AN AMOUNT PAID ON THE
ACCOMPANYING INCOME TAX ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME WAS ERRONEOUSLY
DETERMINED. 

OBISPO OIL COMPANY BROUGHT, IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, THIS ACTION TO RECOVER AN AMOUNT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
ILLEGALLY EXACTED AS INCOME TAX FOR THE YEAR 1920.  UPON FINAL
ASSESSMENT, THE COMMISSIONER HAD ASSESSED ITS NET INCOME FOR THAT YEAR
AT $1,476,330.52.  UNDER SEC. 236(B), IT WAS NECESSARY TO DEDUCT THE
PROFITS TAX AND OTHER AMOUNTS FROM THE NET INCOME IN ORDER TO DETERMINE
THE AMOUNT OF THE TAXABLE NET INCOME.  BECAUSE THE NET INCOME OF THAT
YEAR INCLUDED LARGE FUNDS THERETOFORE LONG IN LITIGATION, THE
COMMISSIONER MADE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 327(D) TO DETERMINE
THE PROFITS TAX.  FN1  WHERE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IS MADE, SEC. 328
COMMANDS THAT "THE TAX SHALL BE THE AMOUNT WHICH BEARS THE SAME RATIO
TO THE NET INCOME OF THE TAXPAYER  ...  FOR THE TAXABLE YEAR, AS THE
AVERAGE TAX OF REPRESENTATIVE CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN A LIKE OR SIMILAR
TRADE OR BUSINESS, BEARS TO THEIR AVERAGE NET INCOME  ...  FOR SUCH
YEAR."  THE COMMISSIONER FIXED THAT RATIO AS 9.67 PER CENT; AND,
APPLYING IT TO THE OBISPO COMPANY'S NET INCOME OF $1,476,330.52,
COMPUTED THE PROFITS TAX AT $142,765.73.  WHEN THIS AND OTHER ALLOWABLE
SUMS WERE DEDUCTED, THE TAXABLE NET INCOME WAS FOUND TO BE
$1,245,430.63. 

THE STATUTORY TAX RATE ON NET INCOME BEING 10 PER CENT., THE INCOME
TAX WAS DETERMINED TO BE $124,543.06.  THE COMPANY PAID THE INCOME TAX
SO ASSESSED; FILED THEN A CLAIM FOR REFUND THEREOF, SETTING UP SEVERAL
GROUNDS OF RECOVERY; AND, THE REFUND BEING REFUSED, BROUGHT THIS SUIT
AGAINST THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE SIXTH COLLECTION
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FOR ALLEGED OVERPAYMENT.  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
ALLEGED THAT THE SUM HAD BEEN "ILLEGALLY EXACTED FROM THE PLAINTIFF ON
ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME AND PROFITS TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1920."  IN
A TRIAL HELD IN 1931, THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE COMPANY WAS
ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE FULL AMOUNT CLAIMED.  48 F.(2D) 872.  THE
COLLECTOR APPEALED TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; BUT
BEFORE THE APPEAL WAS DETERMINED THERE, THE CASE WAS, UPON AGREEMENT OF
THE PARTIES, REFERRED BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR CORRECTION, TO
ACCORD WITH OUR DECISION IN NORTH AMERICAN OIL CONSOLIDATED V. BURNET,
286 U.S. 417, WHICH HAD MEANWHILE BEEN RENDERED.  THEN THE COLLECTOR
MOVED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR JUDGMENT, CLAIMING THAT THE COMPANY WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ANY PART OF THE SUM SUED FOR; AND,
SPECIFICALLY, THAT THE COURT HAD "NO JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER
OF THIS ACTION, THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE RECOVERED HAVING BEEN ASSESSED
UNDER THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 327 AND 328 OF THE
REVENUE ACTS OF 1918 AND 1921." 

THE DISTRICT COURT OVERRULED THE COLLECTOR'S MOTION TO DISMISS; RULED
THAT THE NET INCOME AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER WAS EXCESSIVE IN
THE NET AMOUNT OF $40,102.44; AND ENTERED JUDGMENT FOR THE COMPANY IN
THE SUM OF $4,010.24 WITH INTEREST AND COSTS.  THE COMPANY APPEALED TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, CLAIMING CHIEFLY THAT THE 1920 NET INCOME
SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY AN ADDITIONAL DEPLETION ALLOWANCE OF
$516,598.10.  THE COLLECTOR FILED A CROSS-APPEAL, CLAIMING, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THAT THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION, "THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE RECOVERED HAVING
BEEN DETERMINED AND ASSESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER  ...  UNDER THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 327 AND 328 OF THE REVENUE
ACTS OF 1918 AND 1921."  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE
DISTRICT COURT IN HOLDING THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER; BUT REVERSED THE JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD
OVERSTATED THE NET INCOME BY THE NET AMOUNT OF $556,700.54, SO THAT
THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED THE SUM OF $516,598.10 FOR DEPLETION,
IN ADDITION TO THE SUM FOUND BY THE DISTRICT COURT.  85 F.(2D) 860. 
CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED UPON PETITION OF THE COLLECTOR BECAUSE OF THE
PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION PRESENTED.  FN2 

THE COMMISSIONER'S ACTION IN APPLYING OR REJECTING THE PROCEDURE OF
SECS. 327 AND 328, AND HIS COMPUTATION OF THE PROFITS TAX THEREUNDER
AND OF THE REGULAR INCOME TAX ARE REVIEWABLE BY THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS.  WHEN NO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE OF THE PROFITS TAX,
AN ACTION WILL LIE TO RECOVER AN AMOUNT ERRONEOUSLY EXACTED EITHER FOR
INCOME OR FOR PROFITS TAXES.  BUT NO COURT HAS POWER TO REVIEW THE
GRANT OR DENIAL OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OR THE CORRECTNESS OF THE
COMPUTATION MADE THEREON.  WILLIAMSPORT WIRE ROPE CO. V. UNITED STATES,
277 U.S. 551; HEINER V. DIAMOND ALKALI CO., 288 U.S. 502.  THE COMPANY
CONCEDES THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS TAXES, BEING THE SUBJECT OF A
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECS. 327 AND 328, COULD NOT BE REVIEWED BY
THE COURT; BUT IT INSISTS THAT RECOVERY MAY BE HAD OF THE SUM ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY EXACTED FOR INCOME TAX. 

IN HEINER V. DIAMOND ALKALI CO., 288 U.S. 502, 503, WHERE A SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE OF PROFITS TAXES UNDER SECS. 327 AND 328, THE
TAXPAYER SUED TO RECOVER A PART OF THE PROFITS TAX, ALLEGING ERROR IN
THE DETERMINATION OF THE NET INCOME ON WHICH IT WAS BASED.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS ALLOWED RECOVERY (60 F.(2D) 505, 513, 514).  WE
REVERSED ITS JUDGMENT, HOLDING THAT THE COURT MAY NOT, IN AN ACTION FOR
A REFUND OF PROFITS TAX, RECALCULATE THE TAXPAYER'S NET INCOME AND
RECOMPUTE THE PROFITS TAX BY APPLYING TO THE CORRECTED NET INCOME THE
RATIO FIXED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX.  WE DID
NOT PASS UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SAME RULE SHOULD BE APPLIED IF
THE TAXPAYER SEEKS A REFUND OF THE INCOME TAX BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED
ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE NET INCOME.  BUT THE REASONING OF THE
OPINION LEADS TO THAT CONCLUSION. 

THE COMPANY INSISTS THAT, AS IT WOULD, IN VIEW OF THE LARGE
DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, BE ENTITLED TO A
SUBSTANTIAL REFUND EVEN IF IT WERE DENIED THE DEDUCTION OF THE WHOLE OF
THE PROFITS TAX FROM THE NET INCOME, CONGRESS COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED
THAT THE DEDUCTION PROVISION SHOULD DEPRIVE THE COURTS OF JURISDICTION
TO CORRECT ERRORS IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME FROM WHICH
THE INCOME TAX IS COMPUTED; THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE
TAXPAYER WHEN IT DIRECTED THAT BEFORE COMPUTING THE 10 PER CENT. INCOME
TAX THE NET INCOME FUND SHOULD BE REDUCED BY DEDUCTING THE PROFITS TAX
THEREFROM; AND THAT, THEREFORE, IT IS UNREASONABLE TO ADOPT A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW UNDER WHICH THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PROFITS TAX
CREDIT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS SO ESSENTIAL AN ELEMENT IN THE
COMPUTATION OF THE TAX THAT THE TAXPAYER WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ALL OTHER
ADJUSTMENTS IN THE EVENT THERE IS UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE PARTICULAR
ITEMS. 

BY THE STATUTE THE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX PAYABLE IS DEPENDENT UPON
THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS TAX; AND THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS TAX IS
DEPENDENT UPON THE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME.  IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE
CORPORATE INCOME TAX PAYABLE AT THE STATUTORY RATE OF 10 PER CENT., OF
THE TAXABLE NET INCOME, THERE MUST FIRST BE DEDUCTED FROM THE NET
INCOME THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS TAX.  SEC. 236(B).  THUS, TO COMPUTE
THE INCOME TAX IN THE CASE AT BAR, IT WAS NECESSARY FIRST TO DEDUCT
FROM THE NET INCOME ASCERTAINED AS BEING $1,476,330.52, THE PROFITS TAX
WHICH BY APPLYING, UNDER SEC. 328(A), THE RATIO OF 9.67 PER CENT. TO
THE NET INCOME, WAS DETERMINED TO BE $142,765.73. 

A CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF NET INCOME TO WHICH THE RATE WAS APPLIED
WOULD, OF COURSE, PRODUCE A CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE PROFITS TAX. 
INDEED, A DIFFERENT COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME MIGHT HAVE MADE IT PROPER
TO COMPARE THE TAXPAYER WITH A WHOLLY DIFFERENT GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVE
CORPORATIONS, AND HENCE MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN THE DETERMINATION OF A
DIFFERENT RATE FOR THE PROFITS TAX.  AND MOREOVER, THE COMMISSIONER,
HAVING AUTHORITY, IN HIS DISCRETION, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE SHOULD
BE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, MIGHT HAVE REFUSED TO MAKE ONE.  IT IS NO LESS
TRUE IN THE PRESENT SITUATION THAN IN HEINER V. DIAMOND ALKALI CO.,
SUPRA, 506, THAT THE TAXPAYER'S TRUE NET INCOME IS AN ESSENTIAL FACTOR
IN THE DETERMINATION OF HIS LIABILITY UNDER SECS. 327 AND 328; AND IT
FOLLOWS THAT THE MAKING OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PRECLUDES REVIEW BY A
COURT OF THE INCOME TAX DETERMINED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT SECS. 327 AND 328 WERE
APPLIED "DUE TO THE ABNORMALITY RESULTING FROM THE INCLUSION IN
PLAINTIFF'S INCOME FOR THAT YEAR (1920) OF SAID IMPOUNDED FUNDS." 

FN2  THE QUESTION WAS PRESENT IN UNITED STATES V. SUPPLEE-BIDDLE
HARDWARE CO., 265 U.S. 189, AND IN HEINER V. DIAMOND ALKALI CO., 288
U.S. 502, BUT WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR DECISION. 
..END :













BOSEMAN V. INSURANCE CO., 301 U.S. 196 


NO. 531.  ARGUED MARCH 4, 5, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 701, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN A SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT IN TEXAS, BROUGHT BY AN EMPLOYEE OF
AN OIL COMPANY UPON A POLICY OF GROUP INSURANCE, ISSUED TO THE COMPANY
IN PENNSYLVANIA BY A CONNECTICUT INSURER - IT APPEARING THAT THE
INSURER HAD NEVER EXECUTED OR DELIVERED ANY CONTRACT OF INSURANCE OF
ANY KIND IN TEXAS; THAT NONE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE POLICY HAD
TAKEN PLACE IN TEXAS; THAT ALL OF THE INSURER'S DEALINGS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE POLICY WERE WITH THE OIL COMPANY AND NOT WITH ANY OF ITS
EMPLOYEES; THAT THE COMPANY AND THE INSURER INTENDED THE LAW OF
PENNSYLVANIA TO APPLY, AND THE POLICY EXPRESSLY SO PROVIDED; AND THAT
THE EMPLOYEE IN HIS APPLICATION FOR THE INSURANCE, MADE TO AND FILED
WITH THE OIL COMPANY, AGREED TO BE BOUND BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE
POLICY - HELD, THAT THE VALIDITY OF A PROVISION OF THE POLICY REQUIRING
AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO PAYMENT, AFTER THE TERMINATION OF
EMPLOYMENT, OF ANY CLAIM FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY INCURRED DURING
THE PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT, NOTICE WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE TERMINATION
OF THE EMPLOYMENT, WAS GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA.  PP. 202,
206. 

2.  THE LAW OF TEXAS, WHICH FORBIDS NOTICE OF LESS THAN 90 DAYS AS A
CONDITION PRECEDENT TO SUIT UPON ANY CONTRACT REQUIRING NOTICE, HELD
NOT RENDERED APPLICABLE TO THE POLICY IN QUESTION BY 

(A)  THE FACT THAT THE INSURER WAS AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN TEXAS
- IT ACTUALLY HAD NO QUALIFIED AGENTS THERE AND HAD NEVER EXECUTED OR
DELIVERED ANY CONTRACT OF INSURANCE OF ANY KIND IN THAT STATE.  P.
204. 

(B)  THE DELIVERY TO THE EMPLOYEE IN TEXAS OF A CERTIFICATE, ISSUED
BY THE INSURER TO THE OIL COMPANY, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS
INSURED UNDER THE POLICY.  THE CERTIFICATE WAS NO PART OF THE CONTRACT
OF INSURANCE.  P. 203. 

(C)  THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE BECAME ONE OF THE INSURED GROUP
THROUGH THE EXECUTION IN TEXAS OF A PAYROLL DEDUCTION ORDER APPROVED BY
THE EMPLOYER, TO COMPENSATE THE EMPLOYER IN PART FOR ITS PAYMENT OF THE
PREMIUM.  P. 202. 

(D)  THE ACTS OF THE OIL COMPANY IN OBTAINING THE INSURANCE,
RECEIVING APPLICATIONS THEREFOR FROM ITS EMPLOYEES, TAKING PAYROLL
DEDUCTION ORDERS, REPORTING CHANGES IN THE INSURED GROUP, PAYING
PREMIUMS, ETC.,  - ALL OF WHICH WERE DONE BY THE OIL COMPANY NOT AS
AGENT OF THE INSURER BUT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS
EMPLOYEES.  P. 204. 

(E)  ARTS. 5054 AND 5056, REV. CIV. STATS. OF TEXAS - WHICH ARE
INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN THIS CASE.  P.
205. 

3.  IN DETERMINING A QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INSURANCE
POLICY, INVOLVING ONLY GENERAL LAW, THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE NOT BOUND TO
FOLLOW THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE
CONTROVERSY ARISES, BUT MAY EXERCISE THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. 
P. 203. 

BOSEMAN V. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 537, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A JUDGMENT OF
THE DISTRICT COURT IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANT IN A SUIT AGAINST THE
INSURANCE COMPANY UPON A POLICY OF GROUP INSURANCE.  THE SUIT HAD BEEN
REMOVED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FROM A STATE COURT OF TEXAS. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT OF TEXAS, BROUGHT THIS ACTION
AGAINST RESPONDENT, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, IN A TEXAS COURT TO
RECOVER $4,000 WITH INTEREST AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.  RESPONDENT REMOVED
THE CASE TO THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

THE SUIT WAS TO RECOVER FOR PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY UNDER A POLICY
OF GROUP INSURANCE ISSUED IN PENNSYLVANIA BY RESPONDENT TO THE GULF OIL
CORPORATION.  IT COVERS EMPLOYEES OF THAT CORPORATION AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES, OF WHICH THE GULF REFINING COMPANY IS ONE.  PETITIONER,
AN EMPLOYEE OF THAT COMPANY, BY THAT POLICY WAS INSURED IN RESPECT OF
LIFE AND DISABILITY.  IT PROVIDES THAT "NO CLAIM FOR PERMANENT TOTAL
DISABILITY INCURRED BY ANY EMPLOYEE DURING HIS PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT
SHALL BE PAID AFTER THE TERMINATION OF SUCH EMPLOYMENT UNLESS SUCH
EMPLOYEE GAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF SUCH DISABILITY TO THE COMPANY DURING
THE SAID PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT OR WITHIN 60 DAYS THEREAFTER."  THAT
PROVISION IS CONCEDED TO BE VALID UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW.  PETITIONER
FAILED TO GIVE THE NOTICE WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED.  ARTICLE 5546,
REVISED CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS, DECLARES THAT NO STIPULATION IN A
CONTRACT REQUIRING NOTICE AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE RIGHT TO SUE
THEREON SHALL BE VALID UNLESS REASONABLE.  "ANY SUCH STIPULATION FIXING
THE TIME WITHIN WHICH SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN AT A LESS PERIOD THAN
NINETY DAYS SHALL BE VOID  ..."  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THE TEXAS LAW
CONTROLLING AND REFUSED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE QUOTED POLICY PROVISION. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLICABLE, THE
POLICY PROVISION VALID, AND THAT PETITIONER, HAVING FAILED TO GIVE THE
REQUIRED NOTICE, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER.  84 F.(2D) 701.  THE SOLE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PENNSYLVANIA LAW OR THE TEXAS LAW GOVERNS. 

IN 1916 PETITIONER BECAME AN EMPLOYEE OF THE REFINING COMPANY AND
THEREAFTER WORKED FOR IT UNTIL OCTOBER 8, 1932.  DURING PARTS OF THAT
PERIOD HE WAS INSURED BY TWO GROUP POLICIES ISSUED BY DEFENDANT TO THE
OIL CORPORATION.  BOTH COVERED EMPLOYEES OF THE REFINING COMPANY.  ONE,
NO. G5039, BECAME EFFECTIVE IN 1919; THE EMPLOYER PAID THE PREMIUMS;
THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO REIMBURSE THE EMPLOYER OR TO
PROCURE THE INSURANCE OR TO KEEP THE POLICIES IN FORCE.  THE OTHER, NO.
G5545, BECAME EFFECTIVE IN 1925; EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTED PART OF THE
PREMIUMS THEREON.  BOTH TERMINATED AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING EFFECT,
APRIL 1, 1932, OF THE ONE, NO. G5039R, UNDER WHICH PETITIONER BROUGHT
THIS ACTION. 

MARCH 7, 1932, PLAINTIFF MADE AN APPLICATION UNDER THE LAST MENTIONED
POLICY - THEN IN CONTEMPLATION - FOR THE AMOUNT APPLICABLE ON AND AFTER
APRIL 1, 1932, ACCORDING TO HIS SALARY CLASSIFICATION AND CONTINUOUS
SERVICE AS PROVIDED IN THE POLICY.  IN HIS APPLICATION HE AGREED TO BE
BOUND BY THE RULES GOVERNING THE INSURANCE, AUTHORIZED HIS EMPLOYER TO
DEDUCT IN ADVANCE THE PROPER AMOUNT PER MONTH FROM HIS PAY TO COVER A
PART OF THE PREMIUMS TO BE PAID BY THE OIL CORPORATION TO DEFENDANT ON
THE POLICY TO BE ISSUED, ACCEPTED CANCELATION OF HIS INSURANCE AND
RELEASED CLAIMS UNDER THE EARLIER POLICIES AND, IN LIEU OF THAT
PROTECTION, TOOK THE BENEFITS GRANTED BY THE NEW POLICY.  THE
APPLICATION WAS NOT ADDRESSED, MADE OR SENT TO DEFENDANT.  IT WAS
DELIVERED TO, AND BECAME AND REMAINED A PART OF THE PERMANENT RECORDS
OF, THE REFINING COMPANY. 

MARCH 15, 1932, THE OIL CORPORATION MADE WRITTEN APPLICATION, WHICH
WAS SIGNED BY IT AND DELIVERED TO DEFENDANT IN PENNSYLVANIA, FOR THE
POLICY OF INSURANCE, AND IN THE SAME INSTRUMENT ASKED CANCELATION OF
THE EARLIER POLICIES.  IT REQUESTED THAT THE POLICY BE ISSUED IN
PENNSYLVANIA AND THAT IT BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THAT STATE.  FINAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND THE OIL CORPORATION FOR EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF THE POLICY WAS REACHED IN PENNSYLVANIA.  ON OR ABOUT THE
SAME DAY DEFENDANT ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION; IT SIGNED THE POLICY IN
CONNECTICUT AND ISSUED AND DELIVERED IT TO THE OIL CORPORATION IN
PENNSYLVANIA.  IN THAT STATE THE OIL CORPORATION PAID THE BINDING
PREMIUM REQUIRED BY THE POLICY.  NONE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE
POLICY AND NO ACT DONE FOR ITS EXECUTION OR DELIVERY TOOK PLACE IN
TEXAS OR IN ANY STATE OTHER THAN PENNSYLVANIA AND CONNECTICUT. 

THE POLICY ALSO PROVIDES:  IT IS ISSUED FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE EMPLOYER, THE PAYMENT OF A
BINDING PREMIUM AND OF OTHER PREMIUMS PROVIDED FOR.  EACH EMPLOYEE IN
SERVICE APRIL 1, 1932, INSURED UP TO THAT DATE UNDER POLICY G5545
BECOMES ELIGIBLE ON APRIL 1, 1932.  AN EMPLOYEE MAY ELECT INSURANCE
UNDER THE POLICY BY COMPLETING ANY FORM OF PAYROLL DEDUCTION ORDER
APPROVED BY THE EMPLOYER.  EACH EMPLOYEE ELECTING THE INSURANCE BEFORE
BECOMING ELIGIBLE WILL BE INSURED AUTOMATICALLY ON THE DAY HE BECOMES
ELIGIBLE.  ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE POLICY AND ON EACH ANNUAL
RENEWAL DATE AN AVERAGE ANNUAL PREMIUM RATE WILL BE ESTABLISHED.  THE
EMPLOYER SHALL GIVE THE INSURER NOTICE OF TERMINATIONS OF INSURANCE AND
ADDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES BECOMING ELIGIBLE.  THE CHANGES SHALL BE
CONSIDERED AS HAVING TAKEN EFFECT AS IF NOTICE THEREOF HAD BEEN GIVEN
IN ADVANCE.  UPON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF ANY INSURED EMPLOYEE HIS
INSURANCE SHALL BE CANCELED.  "THE COMPANY WILL ISSUE TO THE EMPLOYER
FOR EACH INSURED EMPLOYEE AN INDIVIDUAL CERTIFICATE.  THIS CERTIFICATE
WILL IN NO WAY VOID ANY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE
POLICY BUT WILL SHOW THE INSURANCE PROTECTION TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE IS
ENTITLED  ...  THE POLICY AND THE APPLICATION OF THE EMPLOYER  ...  AND
THE APPLICATIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES, IF ANY, SHALL CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES  ...  THIS CONTRACT IS ISSUED AND
DELIVERED  ...  IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND IS GOVERNED BY
THE LAWS OF THAT COMMONWEALTH." 

DEFENDANT WAS NOT WRITING DISABILITY, LIFE OR GROUP INSURANCE IN
TEXAS IN 1918, 1925 OR 1932, THE YEARS RESPECTIVELY IN WHICH IT ISSUED
TO THE OIL CORPORATION THE ABOVE MENTIONED POLICIES, NOS. G5039, G5545
AND G5039R.  MARCH 21, 1932, THE TEXAS BOARD OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS
ISSUED ITS CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING DEFENDANT TO PURSUE THE BUSINESS OF
LIFE, HEALTH AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE WITHIN THAT STATE FOR THE YEAR
ENDING FEBRUARY 28, 1933.  BUT SINCE 1917 DEFENDANT HAS NOT WRITTEN ANY
CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE NOR HAS IT HAD THERE ANY AGENT QUALIFIED SO TO
DO.  IT HAS NO LICENSED AGENT, HAS NOT QUALIFIED TO WRITE INSURANCE
CONTRACTS IN TEXAS OR SINCE 1917 ACCEPTED ANY APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE
ORIGINATING IN THAT STATE.  THE EVIDENCE IS THAT RESPONDENT "HAS NEVER
WRITTEN OR DELIVERED A CONTRACT OR POLICY OF INSURANCE OF ANY KIND OR
CHARACTER IN THE STATE OF TEXAS." 

ON APRIL 1, 1932, PETITIONER AUTOMATICALLY BECAME INSURED UNDER THE
POLICY.  THE MONTHLY PREMIUM FOR HIS INSURANCE WAS $3; MONTHLY
DEDUCTIONS OF $2.40 WERE MADE BY THE REFINING COMPANY AND SENT BY IT TO
THE OIL CORPORATION AT PITTSBURGH.  DEFENDANT CHARGED THE PREMIUMS TO
THE OIL CORPORATION AND THE LATTER PAID THEM BY CHECK SENT FROM
PITTSBURGH TO DEFENDANT AT HARTFORD. 

ABOUT MAY 1, 1932, RESPONDENT ISSUED AND DELIVERED TO THE OIL
CORPORATION AN INDIVIDUAL CERTIFICATE STATING THAT IT WAS ISSUED
PURSUANT TO THE POLICY AND THAT SUBJECT TO ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PETITIONER, JOHN BOSEMAN, AN EMPLOYEE WAS INSURED UNDER SCHEDULE B OF
THE POLICY.  THE CERTIFICATE CONTAINED THE ABOVE QUOTED POLICY
PROVISION REQUIRING NOTICE OF DISABILITY.  THE OIL CORPORATION SENT THE
CERTIFICATE TO PETITIONER'S EMPLOYER AND JULY 20, 1932, THE LATTER
DELIVERED IT TO PETITIONER IN TEXAS.  THE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEAL WITH
THE PLAINTIFF OR ANY OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE REFINING COMPANY WITH
REFERENCE TO THE INSURANCE, CERTIFICATES ISSUED UNDER THE POLICY OR
PREMIUMS.  ALL ITS DEALINGS WERE WITH THE OIL CORPORATION.  PETITIONER
BECAME TOTALLY DISABLED PRIOR TO TERMINATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHICH
ENDED OCTOBER 8, 1932.  HIS INSURANCE WAS CANCELED AS OF THAT DATE. 

1.  THE OIL CORPORATION AND RESPONDENT INTENDED, AND THE POLICY
DEFINITELY DECLARES, THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW SHOULD GOVERN.  UNDOUBTEDLY,
AS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND INSURER, PENNSYLVANIA LAW CONTROLS."  FN1  IN
EVERY FORUM A CONTRACT IS GOVERNED BY THE LAW WITH A VIEW TO WHICH IT
WAS MADE."  FN2  BUT THE PRECISE ISSUE FOR DECISION IS WHETHER, AS
BETWEEN PETITIONER AND INSURER, THE POLICY PROVISION REQUIRING NOTICE
OF CLAIM IS GOVERNED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW OR TEXAS LAW.  PETITIONER AND
OTHER INSURED EMPLOYEES WERE NOT PARTIES TO, NOR DID THEY HAVE ANY
VOICE IN, THE NEGOTIATION OR CONSUMMATION OF THE CONTRACT.  THE TERMS
OF THE POLICY WERE SETTLED BY THE OIL CORPORATION AND RESPONDENT. 
ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WERE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY UPON SPECIFIED CONDITIONS TO
HAVE INSURANCE BY GIVING PAYROLL DEDUCTION ORDERS APPROVED BY THEIR
EMPLOYER.  THE POLICY DID NOT OF ITSELF INSURE PETITIONER OR ANY OTHER
PERSON.  IT MERELY MADE AVAILABLE SPECIFIED INSURANCE TO CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES.  FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS THE INSURER LOOKED ONLY TO THE
CORPORATION.  THE LATTER, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS INSURED EMPLOYEES,
ASSUMED THE BURDEN OF PAYING TO THE INSURER PREMIUMS TO WHICH THEY BY
THE DEDUCTION ORDERS HAD CONTRIBUTED.  FN3  BY HIS APPLICATION
PETITIONER ACCEPTED THE PROVISIONS OF THE POLICY INCLUDING THE
AGREEMENT OF THE OIL CORPORATION AND RESPONDENT THAT THE POLICY IS
GOVERNED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW. 

2.  PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE DELIVERY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN TEXAS
MADE THE LAW OF THAT STATE, ART. 5546, APPLICABLE.  BUT THE CERTIFICATE
IS NOT A PART OF THE CONTRACT OF, OR NECESSARY TO, THE INSURANCE.  FN4
IT IS NOT INCLUDED AMONG THE DOCUMENTS DECLARED "TO CONSTITUTE THE
ENTIRE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE."  PETITIONER WAS INSURED ON THE TAKING
EFFECT OF THE POLICY LONG BEFORE THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE.  IT DID
NOT AFFECT ANY OF THE TERMS OF THE POLICY.  IT WAS ISSUED TO THE END
THAT THE INSURED EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE THE INSURER'S STATEMENT OF
SPECIFIED FACTS IN RESPECT OF PROTECTION TO WHICH HE HAD BECOME
ENTITLED UNDER THE POLICY.  IT SERVED MERELY AS EVIDENCE OF THE
INSURANCE OF THE EMPLOYEE.  PETITIONER'S RIGHTS AND RESPONDENT'S
LIABILITY WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME IF THE POLICY HAD NOT PROVIDED FOR
ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATE.  AND PLAINLY DELIVERY OF THE CERTIFICATE BY
THE REFINING COMPANY TO PETITIONER IN TEXAS HAS NO BEARING UPON THE
QUESTION WHETHER PENNSYLVANIA LAW OR TEXAS LAW GOVERNS IN RESPECT OF
THE NOTICE OF CLAIM.  WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH DECISIONS OF THE
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF TEXAS IN CASES SIMILAR TO THIS THAT THE
CERTIFICATE IS A PART OF THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE OR THAT ITS DELIVERY
IS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE POLICY EFFECTIVE.  FN5  NOR ARE WE REQUIRED TO
FOLLOW THEIR CONSTRUCTION.  FN6 

3.  IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT TEXAS LAW APPLIES PETITIONER
SUGGESTS THAT THE INSURER, ACTING THROUGH THE EMPLOYER AS ITS AGENT IN
THAT STATE, SOLICITED AND PROCURED HIM TO TAKE INSURANCE UNDER THE
POLICY.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE INSURER EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED THE
OIL CORPORATION OR ANY OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO ACT FOR IT IN
CONSUMMATING INSURANCE UNDER THE POLICY.  PETITIONER'S ELECTION AND THE
EMPLOYER'S APPLICATION FOR THE POLICY WERE MADE BEFORE THE TEXAS BOARD
AUTHORIZED THE INSURER TO DO BUSINESS IN THAT STATE.  BY UNCONTRADICTED
EVIDENCE IT IS SHOWN THAT THE INSURER DID NOT QUALIFY TO SOLICIT OR
WRITE INSURANCE OR ACCEPT ANY APPLICATION ORIGINATING THERE.  EMPLOYERS
REGARD GROUP INSURANCE NOT ONLY AS PROTECTION AT LOW COST FOR THEIR
EMPLOYEES BUT ALSO AS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEMSELVES IN THAT IT MAKES FOR
LOYALTY, LESSENS TURN-OVER AND THE LIKE.  FN7  WHEN PROCURING THE
POLICY, OBTAINING APPLICATIONS OF EMPLOYEES, TAKING PAYROLL DEDUCTION
ORDERS, REPORTING CHANGES IN THE INSURED GROUP, PAYING PREMIUMS AND
GENERALLY IN DOING WHATEVER MAY SERVE TO OBTAIN AND KEEP THE INSURANCE
IN FORCE, EMPLOYERS ACT NOT AS AGENTS OF THE INSURER BUT FOR THEIR
EMPLOYEES OR FOR THEMSELVES.  FN8  AND WHOLLY IN ACCORD WITH THAT VIEW
ARE THE ACTS DONE IN TEXAS THAT ARE CLAIMED BY PETITIONER TO BE
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE REFINING COMPANY OR ITS AGENTS.  THEY ARE:  THE
TERMINATION OF THE EARLIER POLICIES; ACCEPTANCE OF PETITIONER'S RELEASE
OF CLAIMS UNDER THEM AND HIS APPLICATION UNDER THE NEW POLICY BY THE
GIVING OF PAYROLL DEDUCTION ORDERS; DELIVERY OF THE CERTIFICATE TO
PETITIONER; THE FORWARDING TO THE OIL CORPORATION OF THE AMOUNTS
DEDUCTED FROM HIS PAY ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUMS.  NONE OF THESE WAS DONE
FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE INSURER.  THE UNDISPUTED CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS
REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EMPLOYER ACTED NOT AS AGENT OF THE
INSURER BUT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER AND OTHER INSURED EMPLOYEES
AND IN ITS OWN INTEREST.  FN9    4.  PETITIONER CITES ARTS. 5054 AND
5056, REVISED CIVIL STATUTES, AS OPPOSED TO THE LOWER COURT'S RULING:
"IF EMPLOYES IN TEXAS DESIRE TO JOIN IN AN INSURANCE PLAN ABOUT TO BE
SET UP OR ALREADY IN OPERATION IN PENNSYLVANIA, AND EITHER IN PERSON OR
THROUGH THEIR EMPLOYER TAKE STEPS IN PENNSYLVANIA TO DO SO, THE LAWS OF
TEXAS DO NOT CONTROL IT."  ARTICLE 5054 APPLIES ONLY TO CONTRACTS OF
INSURANCE MADE BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN TEXAS.  FN10
THE RESPONDENT DID NO BUSINESS IN THAT STATE.  FN11  ARTICLE 5056
MERELY DECLARES THAT ONE WHO IN TEXAS DOES SPECIFIED THINGS IN RESPECT
OF INSURANCE SHALL BE HELD TO BE THE AGENT OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR
WHICH THE ACT IS DONE OR THE RISK TAKEN "AS FAR AS RELATES TO ALL THE
LIABILITIES, DUTIES, REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES SET FORTH IN THIS
CHAPTER."  CLEARLY THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT ARTICLE AS EXPOUNDED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS (INSURANCE CO. V. WALKER, 94 TEX. 473; 61 S.W.
711) THAT HAS ANY BEARING ON THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION.  THE
CHALLENGED RULING IS SOUND AND WELL SUPPORTED BY OUR DECISIONS.  FN12 

5.  THE CONCLUSION THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW GOVERNS THE POLICY PROVISION
REQUIRING NOTICE OF CLAIM IS SUPPORTED NOT ONLY BY THE MAKING AND
DELIVERY OF THE CONTRACT OF INSURANCE IN THAT STATE, THE DECLARATION IN
THE POLICY THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW SHALL GOVERN AND PETITIONER'S
ACCEPTANCE OF THE INSURANCE ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF THE POLICY BUT
ALSO BY THE PURPOSE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT THAT EVERYWHERE IT
SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AND GIVE THE SAME PROTECTION AND THAT
INEQUALITIES AND CONFUSION LIABLE TO RESULT FROM APPLICATIONS OF
DIVERSE STATE LAWS SHALL BE AVOIDED.  FN13  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  EQUITABLE LIFE SOCIETY V. CLEMENTS, 140 U.S. 226, 232.  MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO. V. COHEN, 179 U.S. 262, 264-265, 267.  NORTHWESTERN
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. MCCUE, 223 U.S. 234, 246-247.  NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO. V. DODGE, 246 U.S. 357, 372 ET SEQ. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
LIEBING, 259 U.S. 209, 214.  HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V. DELTA CO., 292
U.S. 143, 150.  CF. SEEMAN V. PHILADELPHIA WAREHOUSE CO., 274 U.S. 403,
408-409.  HOME INSURANCE CO. V. DICK, 281 U.S. 397, 408.  JOHN HANCOCK
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. YATES, 299 U.S. 178. 

FN2  WAYMAN V. SOUTHARD, 10 WHEAT.  1, 48.  PRITCHARD V. NORTON, 106
U.S. 124, 136. 

FN3  SEE MEYERSON V. NEW IDEA HOSIERY CO., 217 ALA. 153, 157; 115 SO.
94. 

FN4  ALL STATES LIFE INS. CO. V. TILLMAN, 226 ALA. 245, 248; 146 SO.
393.  EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. AUSTIN, 255 KY. 23, 26; 72
S.W.(2D) 716.  SEAVERS V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 132 MISC. 719,
722; 230 N.Y.S. 366.  THULL V. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, 40
OHIO APP. 486, 488.  METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. LEWIS (LA. APP.) 142
SO. 721, 722.  HARDIE V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. (MO. APP.) 7
S.W.(2D) 746, 747.  MCBRIDE V. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO., 14
F.SUPP.  240, 241. 

FN5  CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. MOORE, 75 S.W.(2D) 329. 
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. DENT, 84 S.W.(2D) 250. 
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. LOCKWOOD, 84 S.W.(2D) 245. 
METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. WORTON, 70 S.W.(2D) 216.  METROPOLITAN
LIFE INS. CO. V. WANN, 81 S.W.(2D) 298. 

FN6  CARPENTER V. PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE CO., 16 PET. 495,
511-512.  WASHBURN & MOEN MFG. CO. V. RELIANCE INS. CO., 179 U.S. 1,
15.  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. MOORE, 231 U.S. 543, 559.  SEE SWIFT V.
TYSON, 16 PET. 1, 19.  B. & W. TAXI CO. V. B. & Y. TAXI CO., 276 U.S.
518, 530, AND CASES CITED. 

FN7  NOHL V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 27 N.M. 232, 234 ET SEQ.; 199 PAC.
373.  STATE EX REL. THOMPSON V. MEMPHIS, 147 TENN. 658, 663 ET SEQ.;
251 S.W. 46.  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. LEMBRIGHT, 32 OHIO APP. 10, 14;
166 N.E. 586.  ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. 7, GROUP
INSURANCE, PP. 182, 185. 

FN8  DUVAL V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 82 N.H. 543, 548; 136 ATL.
400.  PEOPLE EX REL. KIRKMAN V. VAN AMRINGE, 266 N.Y. 277, 282; 194
N.E. 754.  CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. SPEER, 185 ARK. 615,
617; 48 S.W.(2D) 553.  LEACH V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 124 KAN.
584, 589; 261 PAC. 603.  EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY V. HALL, 253
KY. 450, 452-453; 69 S.W.(2D) 977.  DEWEASE V. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO.,
208 N.C. 732, 734; 182 S.E. 447. 

FN9  SEE NOTE 8. 

FN10  ART. 5054(THEN ART. 4950, REV. CIV. STAT. 1911) IS QUOTED IN
AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. DUNKEN, 266 U.S. 389, 390-391. 

FN11  CF. MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION V. BENN, 261 U.S. 140, 145. 

FN12  ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578, 588.  MINNESOTA
ASSOCIATION V. BENN, 261 U.S. 140, 145.  AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. DUNKEN,
266 U.S. 389, 399.  HARTFORD INDEMNITY CO. V. DELTA CO., 292 U.S. 143,
149. 

FN13  SEE NOTE 11.  CF. ROYAL ARCANUM V. GREEN, 237 U.S. 531, 542. 
MODERN WOODMEN V. MIXER, 267 U.S. 544, 551. 
..END :






















OPPENHEIMER V. HARRIMAN BANK, 301 U.S. 206 


NO. 588.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 12, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 582, REVERSED. 


1.  A FRAUDULENT SALE OF ITS OWN STOCK BY A NATIONAL BANK MAY BE
RESCINDED BY THE DEFRAUDED PURCHASER.  U.S.C., TITLE 12, SECS.
24(SEVENTH), 56, 59, AND 83, DO NOT PREVENT.  P. 211. 

2.  WHERE, THROUGH MISREPRESENTATION BY ITS OFFICERS, A NATIONAL BANK
MAKES A FRAUDULENT SALE OF ITS OWN STOCK BELONGING TO AN UNDISCLOSED
PRINCIPAL, IT IS LIABLE TO THE PURCHASER JUST AS THOUGH IT HAD ACTED
FOR ITSELF.  P. 212. 

3.  THE LIABILITY OF A NATIONAL BANK TO A PURCHASER WHO WAS DEFRAUDED
IN A FRAUDULENT SALE BY THE BANK OF ITS OWN STOCK, IS COVERED BY THE
PHRASE "CONTRACTS, DEBTS AND ENGAGEMENTS" FOR WHICH STOCKHOLDERS ARE
INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE (U.S.C., TITLE 12, SEC. 64), AND THE PROCEEDS
OF ASSESSMENTS AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS, AS ASSETS OF THE RECEIVERSHIP, MAY
BE CHARGED WITH SUCH LIABILITY.  P. 212. 

4.  A CLAIM AGAINST A NATIONAL BANK BY A STOCKHOLDER WHO RESCINDED,
ON ACCOUNT OF FRAUD, A SALE TO HIM BY THE BANK OF ITS OWN STOCK - THE
STOCKHOLDER HAVING PAID THE COMPTROLLER'S ASSESSMENT LEVIED ON HIM
AFTER THE BANK'S INSOLVENCY - HELD ENTITLED TO RANK ON A PARITY WITH
THE CLAIMS OF OTHER UNSECURED CREDITORS IN THE RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE.  P.
213. 

OPPENHEIMER V. HARRIMAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 670, HARRIMAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. V.
OPPENHEIMER, ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 647, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT AGAINST THE BANK TO RECOVER
THE PURCHASE PRICE OF SHARES OF THE BANK'S STOCK, THE SALE OF WHICH TO
THE PLAINTIFF WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INDUCED BY FRAUD. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

FOR SOME YEARS PRIOR TO THE OCCURRENCES OUT OF WHICH THIS LITIGATION
AROSE THE DEFENDANT BANK WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CITY.  BEING
UNABLE TO MEET CURRENT DEMANDS, IT CLOSED MARCH 3, 1933.  MARCH 13 A
CONSERVATOR WAS APPOINTED; FN1  OCTOBER 16 THE COMPTROLLER DECLARED IT
INSOLVENT AND APPOINTED A RECEIVER.  FN2  LATER, HE ASSESSED THE
STOCKHOLDERS PAR VALUE OF THEIR STOCK.  FN3  MAY 31, OPPENHEIMER
BROUGHT THIS ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK TO RECOVER DAMAGES UPON AN EXECUTED RESCISSION OF A SALE TO
HIM OF STOCK OF THE BANK BY MEANS OF FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
ITS PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT.  AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE, THE
PARTIES RESPECTIVELY SOUGHT A DIRECTED VERDICT, AND, NO REQUEST FOR
SUBMISSION OF ANY ISSUE TO THE JURY HAVING BEEN MADE,  FN4  THE COURT
FOUND THE BANK NOT ENRICHED BY THE SALE, AND THE PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT WITHOUT ACTUAL OR APPARENT AUTHORITY TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE, AND DIRECTED A VERDICT AND ENTERED
JUDGMENT FOR THE BANK.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED AND
ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT FOR THE AMOUNT DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT BE
ENTERED AGAINST THE BANK COLLECTIBLE OUT OF ASSETS OF THE RECEIVERSHIP
AFTER PAYMENT IN FULL OF ALL WHO WERE CREDITORS WHEN THE BANK BECAME
INSOLVENT.  85 F.(2D) 582. 

PLAINTIFF APPLIED FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, CONTENDING THAT THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT HIS JUDGMENT IS NOT
ENTITLED TO RANK WITH OTHER UNSECURED CREDITORS' CLAIMS AND THAT ITS
RULING CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF OTHER CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS. 
FN5  DEFENDANT PRESENTED ITS CROSS-PETITION ASSERTING THAT THE COURT
ERRED IN HOLDING:  THAT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF PROCEEDS OF ASSESSMENTS ON STOCKHOLDERS COLLECTED UNDER
12 U.S.C., SEC. 64; THAT IT MAY BE COMPELLED TO TAKE AND PAY FOR SHARES
OF ITS OWN CAPITAL STOCK IN A MANNER NOT AUTHORIZED BY 12 U.S.C., SEC.
83; THAT IT IS LIABLE FOR FRAUD OF ITS OFFICERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SALE OF SHARES WHICH WERE THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER, THE BANK NOT BEING
ENRICHED BY THE TRANSACTION; AND THAT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT
AGAINST DEFENDANT.  THIS COURT GRANTED BOTH PETITIONS. 

NOVEMBER 1, 1930, PLAINTIFF PURCHASED 10 SHARES OF THE BANK'S STOCK
FOR $15,120.  HE WAS INDUCED TO BUY THE STOCK BY FALSE AND FRAUDULENT
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK.  IT
SENT HIM A BILL FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE.  HAVING CONSIDERABLY MORE ON
DEPOSIT IN THE BANK, PLAINTIFF SENT HIS CHECK FOR THAT AMOUNT DRAWN ON
IT AND PAYABLE TO ITS ORDER.  A VICE PRESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT OF
THE CHECK AND SENT PLAINTIFF A STOCK CERTIFICATE FOR THE SHARES
PURCHASED.  HIS CHECK MARKED PAID AND THE BILL RECEIPTED WERE RETURNED
TO HIM.  PLAINTIFF RECEIVED DIVIDENDS ON THE STOCK AMOUNTING TO $525
AND SOLD TWO SHARES FOR $2,408.  LATER, MAY 6, 1933, HE GAVE THE BANK
NOTICE OF RESCISSION, TENDERED IT THE CERTIFICATE AND DEMANDED THAT HIS
ACCOUNT BE CREDITED WITH THE AMOUNT OF HIS PAYMENT LESS THE SUMS HE HAD
RECEIVED AS DIVIDENDS AND FROM THE SALE OF THE TWO SHARES.  THE BANK
REJECTED HIS DEMAND; HE BROUGHT THIS SUIT FOR $12,187 WITH INTEREST AND
COSTS.  IN ADDITION TO A GENERAL DENIAL, DEFENDANT'S ANSWER SET UP
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF RATIFICATION AFTER KNOWLEDGE OF THE FRAUD AND
OF LACHES BUT AT THE TRIAL THESE WERE ABANDONED. 

DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE TENDED TO PROVE THAT THE STOCK WAS NOT OWNED BY
IT BUT BY HARRIMAN SECURITIES CORPORATION, THE SHARES OF WHICH WERE
HELD IN TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STOCK OF THE BANK.  THE BANK
MAINTAINED IN ITS BOND DEPARTMENT A "SUSPENSE ACCOUNT" IN WHICH WERE
REFLECTED PURCHASES AND SALES OF ITS OWN STOCK MADE BY IT FOR ACCOUNT
OF THAT CORPORATION.  THE BANK LENT THE AFFILIATE THE SUMS REQUIRED FOR
PURCHASING THE STOCK AND THE AMOUNTS WERE CHARGED TO THE LATTER.  WHEN
THE STOCK WAS SOLD THE PROCEEDS WERE CREDITED TO THE AFFILIATE.  STOCK
SO PURCHASED WAS TAKEN IN THE NAME OF KELLY, NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
BANK, AS NOMINEE OF THE AFFILIATE.  THE SHARES IN QUESTION WERE SO
HELD.  OF THE AMOUNT PAID BY PLAINTIFF $100 WAS RETAINED BY THE BANK AS
ITS COMMISSION FOR MAKING THE SALE; THE BALANCE WAS ENTERED IN THE
SUSPENSE ACCOUNT.  PLAINTIFF HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY TRANSACTIONS
BETWEEN THE BANK AND ITS AFFILIATE; HE BELIEVED HE WAS DEALING WITH THE
BANK AS PRINCIPAL.  HE HAS PAID THE ASSESSMENT THAT THE COMPTROLLER
MADE AGAINST HIM AS STOCKHOLDER AND HAS NOT CHALLENGED ITS VALIDITY OR
SOUGHT REPAYMENT OF ANY PART OF IT. 

1.  DEFENDANT MAINTAINS THAT A NATIONAL BANK MAY NOT INCUR LIABILITY
TO RETAKE SHARES OF ITS STOCK SOLD BY IT EITHER AS PRINCIPAL OR AGENT. 

IT CITES PROVISIONS OF TITLE 12, U.S.C., GOVERNING NATIONAL BANKING
ASSOCIATIONS, THE SUBSTANCE OF WHICH FOLLOWS.  SECTION 24(SEVENTH)
LIMITS THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN SECURITIES AND STOCK TO PURCHASING
AND SELLING WITHOUT RECOURSE.  SECTION 56 PROHIBITS WITHDRAWAL OF
CAPITAL BY DIVIDENDS OR OTHERWISE.  SECTION 59 PERMITS REDUCTION OF
CAPITAL BY VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE STOCK.  SECTION 83 DECLARES THAT
NO SUCH ASSOCIATION SHALL MAKE ANY LOAN OR DISCOUNT ON THE SECURITY OF
ITS OWN CAPITAL STOCK NOR BE A PURCHASER OR HOLD ITS SHARES UNLESS THE
SECURITY OR PURCHASE SHALL BE NECESSARY TO PREVENT LOSS UPON A DEBT
PREVIOUSLY CONTRACTED; IT REQUIRES THAT THE STOCK SO OBTAINED SHALL BE
SOLD WITHIN SIX MONTHS. 

DEFENDANT SUGGESTS THAT, SAVE AS OTHERWISE DEFINITELY AUTHORIZED,
THESE PROVISIONS REQUIRE THAT THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF A NATIONAL BANK
SHALL NOT BE REDUCED WHILE ITS BANKING OPERATIONS CONTINUE.  ON THAT
BASIS IT MAINTAINS THAT TO ENFORCE RESCISSION WOULD IN EFFECT ALLOW A
NATIONAL BANK TO REPURCHASE ITS STOCK AND SO TO ACCOMPLISH BY
INDIRECTION WHAT IT MAY NOT DO DIRECTLY. 

THE BANK HAD POWER TO SELL THE STOCK IN QUESTION WHETHER ACQUIRED BY
IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH OR CONTRARY TO SEC. 83,  FN6  AND WHETHER THE
STOCK BELONGED TO IT, THE AFFILIATE OR A THIRD PARTY.  FN7  AS THE
STOCK WAS FULLY PAID IN WHEN ORIGINALLY ISSUED, RECOVERY BY THE
PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT VIOLATE STATUTORY PROVISIONS PROHIBITING REDUCTION
OF CAPITAL.  FN8  IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT PLAINTIFF HAS FULLY PAID
HIS STATUTORY LIABILITY.  THE BANK'S LIABILITY DOES NOT DIFFER FROM
WHAT IT WOULD BE IF, INSTEAD OF SHARES OF ITS OWN STOCK, IT HAD
FRAUDULENTLY SOLD TO PLAINTIFF BONDS OR OTHER INVESTMENT SECURITIES. 
FN9  IT CITES SEC. 24(SEVENTH) AS CONSTRUED IN AWOTIN V. ATLAS EXCHANGE
BANK, 295 U.S. 209.  BUT THAT DECISION DOES NOT SUPPORT ITS
CONTENTION.  THERE THE BANK SOLD BONDS AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE
AGREED WITH THE BUYER THAT AT MATURITY IT WOULD REPURCHASE AT PAR VALUE
AND ACCRUED INTEREST.  WE HELD THE AGREEMENT REPUGNANT TO SEC.
24(SEVENTH) REQUIRING SALES TO BE WITHOUT RECOURSE.  THE SALE WAS A
VALID EXECUTED CONTRACT; THE BANK'S PROMISE TO REPURCHASE WAS FORBIDDEN
BY LAW AND THEREFORE VOID.  THE PURCHASER, CHARGEABLE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF
THE STATUTE, COULD NOT INVOKE ESTOPPEL.  THE STATUTES RELIED ON BY
DEFENDANT CANNOT REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED TO FORBID RESCISSION OF
FRAUDULENT SALES BY NATIONAL BANKS OF THEIR OWN STOCK.  IN THE ABSENCE
OF LANGUAGE UNQUESTIONABLY DISCLOSING THAT PURPOSE, CONGRESS MAY NOT BE
HELD TO HAVE SO INTENDED.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT INTENTION. 
DEFRAUDED PURCHASERS MAY RESCIND FRAUDULENT SALES BY NATIONAL BANKS OF
THEIR OWN CAPITAL STOCK. 

2.  DEFENDANT MAINTAINS THAT IT MAY NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR
MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE BY ITS OFFICERS WHEN MAKING THE SALE TO
PLAINTIFF.  IT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF ITS PRESIDENT OR
VICE PRESIDENT TO ACT FOR IT IN MAKING SALES OF INVESTMENT SECURITIES
OR STOCK.  THROUGH THEM IT REPRESENTED TO PLAINTIFF THAT THE SHARES
OFFERED HIM BELONGED TO AN ESTATE, MADE THE SALE, OBTAINED HIS CHECK
FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE, TOOK THE AMOUNT FROM HIS DEPOSIT, ISSUED AND
SENT HIM A STOCK CERTIFICATE.  IF, AS IT CLAIMED AT THE TRIAL, THE
SHARES BELONGED TO ITS AFFILIATE, THE LATTER WAS AN UNDISCLOSED
PRINCIPAL, AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO LOOK TO THE BANK AS IF ACTING
FOR ITSELF.  FN10  IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER, AS BETWEEN THE BANK AND
ITS AFFILIATE, THE AMOUNT OBTAINED FROM PLAINTIFF BELONGED TO THE
FORMER OR WAS RECEIVED BY IT AS AGENT FOR THE LATTER. 

3.  DEFENDANT MAINTAINS THAT THE PROCEEDS OF ASSESSMENTS MAY NOT BE
CHARGED WITH THE CLAIM OF A RESCINDING SHAREHOLDER. 

IT ARGUES THAT, THE BANK BEING INSOLVENT AND IN RECEIVERSHIP, THE
RECOVERY CANNOT BE HAD FROM THE ASSETS OF THE BANK AND WILL OF
NECESSITY COME OUT OF THE MONEY PAID BY SHAREHOLDERS.  IT CALLS
ATTENTION TO SEC. 64 WHICH DECLARES THAT STOCKHOLDERS SHALL BE HELD
INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL "CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS" OF
THE BANK. 

BUT THAT CONTENTION MISCONSTRUES THE JUDGMENT DIRECTED BELOW.  IT IS
TO BE "COLLECTIBLE OUT OF THE ASSETS OF THE RECEIVERSHIP AFTER PAYMENT
IN FULL" OF OTHERS.  MANIFESTLY THE ASSETS REFERRED TO ARE NOT LIMITED
TO ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED FROM STOCKHOLDERS BUT INCLUDE ASSETS PASSING
FROM THE BANK TO THE RECEIVER.  THE PHRASE QUOTED FROM SEC. 64 RELATES
TO THE LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS ENFORCEABLE UPON FINDING OF
INSOLVENCY, APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER AND ASSESSMENT BY THE COMPTROLLER,
AND NOT TO PROVABILITY OR RANK OF CLAIMS.  HIS DETERMINATION AS TO THE
NECESSITY AND AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENTS AGAINST SHAREHOLDERS IS CONCLUSIVE
UPON THEM AND IMMUNE FROM COLLATERAL ATTACK.  FN11 THE BANK MAY NOT IN
THIS SUIT INVOKE THE RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM
AGAINST IT. 

MOREOVER, THE QUOTED PROVISION WAS ENACTED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
PUBLIC DEALING WITH NATIONAL BANKS AND SHOULD BE REASONABLY CONSTRUED
IN FAVOR OF CLAIMANTS AGAINST THEM.  TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO THE PURPOSE
OF CONGRESS A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION IS REQUIRED.  A TECHNICAL OR NARROW
VIEW WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRUE INTENT AND MEANING OF THE
MEASURE.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PURPOSE OR CONTEXT OF THE STATUTE TO
DETRACT AUGHT FROM THE SIGNIFICANCE THAT FAIRLY MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO
THE WORDS USED.  THEY ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE ALL PECUNIARY
LIABILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE BANK.  INDEED, THAT IS A WELL
RECOGNIZED MEANING OF THE WORD "ENGAGEMENT."  PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM IS FOR
THE MONEY THE BANK FRAUDULENTLY GOT FROM HIM AND USED IN ITS BUSINESS. 
CLEARLY THAT LIABILITY IS COVERED BY THE PHRASE "CONTRACTS, DEBTS AND
ENGAGEMENTS."  FN12  THE CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

4.  THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION WHETHER PLAINTIFF'S JUDGMENT IS
ENTITLED TO SHARE EQUALLY IN THE RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE WITH OTHER
UNSECURED CREDITORS' CLAIMS. 

IN 1930 WHEN THE BANK BY FALSE REPRESENTATIONS SOLD HIM THE STOCK AND
BY THAT MEANS OBTAINED THE PRICE OUT OF HIS DEPOSIT IT IMMEDIATELY
BECAME BOUND TO MAKE RESTITUTION.  FN13  THE FRAUDULENT SALE WAS
SUBJECT TO RESCISSION BY THE PLAINTIFF AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE BANK
CLOSED.  NEITHER LAPSE OF TIME WHILE PLAINTIFF REMAINED IGNORANT OF THE
FRAUD NOR INSOLVENCY OF THE BANK DETRACTED FROM ITS LIABILITY.  WE
ASSUME THAT AFTER MARCH 3, 1933, THE BANK WAS WITHOUT MEANS SUFFICIENT
TO MEET CURRENT DEMANDS AND THAT ITS DEBTS EXCEEDED THE VALUE OF ITS
ASSETS PLUS THE STATUTORY LIABILITY OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS.  AFTER THE
APPOINTMENT OF A CONSERVATOR, BUT SOME MONTHS BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER
DECLARED THE BANK INSOLVENT, PLAINTIFF RESCINDED AND BROUGHT THIS
SUIT.  HE CLAIMS NO LIEN, PREFERENCE, OR PRIORITY BUT MERELY SEEKS TO
SHARE IN THE ESTATE AS DO OTHER UNSECURED CREDITORS. 

WHILE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY MAY NOT BE ENFORCED BEFORE INSOLVENCY
AND ASSESSMENT BY THE COMPTROLLER, WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT
PLAINTIFF'S POSITION IS THE SAME AS IF THE BANK'S INSOLVENCY HAD BEEN
DECLARED AND A RECEIVER APPOINTED BEFORE HE RESCINDED.  PLAINTIFF
APPEARED BY THE BANK'S RECORDS TO BE A STOCKHOLDER AND, AS AGAINST
CREDITORS FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE STATUTORY LIABILITY WAS CREATED, WAS
ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT STATUS.  FN14  RECOGNIZING THAT THE BANK'S
FRAUD AND HIS RESCISSION AVAILED NOTHING AGAINST THE COMPTROLLER'S
ASSESSMENT, PLAINTIFF PAID THE AMOUNT LAID AGAINST HIM.  THE JUDGMENT
HE SEEKS WOULD ESTABLISH HIS RIGHT TO HAVE THE BANK PAY, BECAUSE
WRONGFULLY OBTAINED FROM HIS DEPOSIT, THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THIS SUIT IS
BROUGHT.  AND, HAVING FULLY PAID HIS LIABILITY TO THE CREDITORS, THERE
IS NO REASON WHY HIS CLAIM SHOULD BE SUBORDINATED TO CLAIMS OF
STOCKHOLDERS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR DEPOSIT BALANCES WHEN THE BANK
FAILED.  THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PLAINTIFF THEN HAD A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT
ON DEPOSIT.  THE BANK DOES NOT CLAIM THAT, IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS OR
OTHER INDEBTEDNESS, STOCKHOLDERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DISTRIBUTION ON
THE SAME BASIS AS ARE NON-STOCKHOLDING CREDITORS.  THERE IS NO
FOUNDATION FOR ANY SUCH RULE.  SUBSCRIPTION PRICE HAVING BEEN FULLY
PAID TO THE BANK, THE MAXIMUM FOR WHICH STOCKHOLDERS MAY BE HELD FOR
THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS IS THE PAR VALUE OF THEIR SHARES.  BY PAYMENT
OF THE COMPTROLLER'S ASSESSMENTS THEY FULLY DISCHARGE THEIR LIABILITY
AS STOCKHOLDERS.  AND AS CLAIMANTS THEY STAND ON THE SAME FOOTING AS
OTHER CREDITORS.  FN15  DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEIR CLAIMS IS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE.  IT FOLLOWS THAT PLAINTIFF'S JUDGMENT IS
ENTITLED TO RANK ON A PARITY WITH OTHER UNSECURED CREDITORS' CLAIMS. 
FN16    THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE REVERSED
AND THE CASE WILL BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  12 U.S.C., SEC. 203. 

FN2  12 U.S.C., SEC. 191. 

FN3  12 U.S.C., SECS. 63, 64; SEE ALSO SEC. 192. 

FN4  BEUTTELL V. MAGONE, 157 U.S. 154, 157.  EMPIRE STATE CATTLE CO.
V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO., 210 U.S. 1, 8.  SENA V. AMERICAN
TURQUOISE CO., 220 U.S. 497, 498.  AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK V. MILLER,
229 U.S. 517, 520.  WILLIAMS V. VREELAND, 250 U.S. 295, 298. 

FN5  SALTER V. WILLIAMS, (C.C.A. 3RD) 244 FED. 126, 129.  FLORIDA
LAND & IMP.  CO. V. MERRILL, (C.C.A.5TH), 52 FED. 77, 80; MERRILL V.
FLORIDA LAND & IMP.  CO., 60 FED. 17.  WILLIAMS V. GREEN, (C.C.A.4TH)
23 F.(2D) 796, 797.  CLARK V. BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NAT. BANK, (C.C.A.
1ST) 84 F.(2D) 605, 607.  AND SEE LANTRY V. WALLACE, 182 U.S. 536,
555. 

FN6  LANTRY V. WALLACE, 182 U.S. 536, 553.  SCOTT V. DEWEESE, 181
U.S. 202, 211.  NATIONAL BANK OF XENIA V. STEWART, 107 U.S. 676. 
NATIONAL BANK V. MATTHEWS, 98 U.S. 621, 629. 

FN7  12 U.S.C. SEC. 24(SEVENTH).  AWOTIN V. ATLAS EXCHANGE BANK, 295
U.S. 209, 212. 

FN8  SALTER V. WILLIAMS, 244 FED. 126, 130. 

FN9  CF. NATIONAL BANK & LOAN CO. V. PETRIE, 189 U.S. 423, 425. 

FN10  MCCLURE V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 165 N.Y. 108, 128; 58 N.E. 777. 

FN11  SEE FORREST V. JACK, 294 U.S. 158, 162, AND CASES CITED. 

FN12  SEE E.G. CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL CO. V. KNAPP, 9 PET. 541,
566.  UNITED STATES V. STATE BANK, 96 U.S. 30, 35-36.  THOMAS V.
MATTHIESSEN, 232 U.S. 221, 235.  HAVILAND V. CHACE, 39 BARB.  283,
287. 

FN13  CF. BRIGGS V. BRUSHABER, 43 MICH. 330, 332; 5 N.W. 383. 
NORTHROP V. HILL, 57 N.Y. 351, 355.  TRAYNE V. BOARDMAN, 207 MASS. 581,
582; 93 N.E. 846.  SOLLUND V. JOHNSON, 27 MINN. 455, 456; 8 N.W. 271. 
UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. SCHIDLER, 130 IND. 214, 216; 29
N.E. 1071.  GRIFFIN V. LUMBER CO., 140 N.C. 514, 517; 53 S.E. 307. 
MCKAY V. MCCARTHY, 146 IA. 546, 550-551; 123 N.W. 755. 

FN14  SOCTT V. DEWEESE, 181 U.S. 202, 213.  LANTRY V. WALLACE, 182
U.S. 536, 553. 

FN15  RICHARDSON V. OLIVIER, 105 FED. 277, 280. 

FN16  SALTERS V. WILLIAMS, 244 FED. 126, 129.  FLORIDA LAND & IMP. 
CO. V. MERRILL, 52 FED. 77, 80.  WILLIAMS V. GREEN, 23 F.(2D) 796,
797.  CLARK V. BOSTON-CONTINENTAL NAT. BANK, 84 F.(2D) 605, 607. 
..END :























SMITH V. HALL, 301 U.S. 216 


NO. 35.  ARGUED OCTOBER 20, 21, 1936.  REARGUED APRIL 5, 6, 1937.  -
DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 83 F.(2D) 217, 221, AFFIRMED. 


1.  TWO SUITS IN WHICH DIFFERENT DEFENDANTS, CHARGED AS INFRINGERS,
SET UP THE SAME GROUND OF INVALIDITY AGAINST A PATENT, AND WHICH WERE
TRIED BY THE COURT BELOW ON A JOINT RECORD, MAY BE PRESENTED TO THIS
COURT JOINTLY.  P. 218. 

2.  PATENT NO. 1,262,860, FOR A METHOD OF HATCHING EGGS, HELD INVALID
BECAUSE OF ANTICIPATION.  CF. SMITH V. SNOW, 294 U.S. 1; WAXHAM V.
SMITH, 294 U.S. 20.  P. 219. 

3.  ORAL EVIDENCE HELD INSUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO ESTABLISH PRIOR USE
OF A PATENTED METHOD, BUT CORROBORATED SUFFICIENTLY BY DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE.  P. 222. 

4.  ANTICIPATION OF A PATENTED METHOD IS SHOWN BY KNOWLEDGE OF THE
METHOD, AND ITS USE WITH OPERATIVE SUCCESS, ALTHOUGH WITHOUT FULL AND
PRECISE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES INVOLVED, AS OUTLINED IN
THE PATENT.  P. 226. 

5.  WHILE, IN ATTACKING A PATENT, A PATENT OFFICE FILE ON AN
ABANDONED APPLICATION MAY NOT BE RELIED ON AS A PRIOR PUBLICATION, IT
MAY BE COMPETENT AND COGENT EVIDENCE OF THE NATURE AND DATE OF AN
EARLIER INVENTION REDUCED TO PRACTICE.  P. 227. 

6.  THE SMITH PATENT WAS SUSTAINED IN THE SNOW AND WAXHAM CASES,
SUPRA, ONLY BY ESTABLISHING THAT NEITHER THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE EGGS,
NOR THE PARTICULAR ORDER IN WHICH THE PROPELLED AIR CURRENT SHOULD
REACH THE EGGS, NOR THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS GUIDED OR CONTROLLED, IS
PART OF THE PATENT CLAIMED.  P. 231. 

7.  A PATENTEE WHO HAS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED A BROAD CONSTRUCTION OF
HIS CLAIM, CANNOT NARROW IT SO AS TO AVOID ANTICIPATION BY SHOWING THAT
THE CLAIMED METHOD WAS USED IN A PARTICULAR FORM OF STRUCTURE NOT
CLAIMED.  P. 232. 

8.  IN DETERMINING ANTICIPATION OF A PATENTED METHOD IT IS IMMATERIAL
THAT THE STRUCTURE EMPLOYED IN THE EARLIER USE WAS NEITHER THE BEST
POSSIBLE NOR AS SKILFULLY DESIGNED OR USED AS THAT LATER EMPLOYED BY
THE PATENTEE.  P. 232. 

9.  COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IS NOT A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF A PRIOR USE
ANTICIPATING AND INVALIDATING A PATENT.  P. 233. 

SMITH, EXECUTOR, V. HALL ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 36, SMITH, EXECUTOR, V. JAMES MANUFACTURING CO.,
ALSO ON CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 298 U.S. 652, TO REVIEW TWO DECREES OF THE COURT BELOW
HOLDING A PATENT INVALID UPON THE GROUND OF ANTICIPATION, AND THEREUPON
REVERSING DECISIONS OF TWO DISTRICT COURTS WHICH HAD HELD THE PATENT
VALID AND INFRINGED.  NO. 35 WAS BROUGHT BY SMITH IN CONNECTICUT FOR
ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 1 AGAINST DEFENDANTS OPERATING A LARGE
COMMERCIAL HATCHERY IN THAT STATE.  NO. 36 WAS A LIKE SUIT BY HIM IN
NEW YORK AGAINST A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING
AND SELLING INCUBATORS AND A COMMERCIAL HATCHERIES COMPANY WHICH IT
CONTROLLED. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE CASES INVOLVE THE VALIDITY OF THE SMITH PATENT NO. 1,262,860,
OF APRIL 16, 1918, AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE QUESTION WHETHER SMITH WAS
ANTICIPATED BY THE PRIOR USE OF THE PATENTED INVENTION BY HASTINGS. 

IN SMITH V. SNOW, 294 U.S. 1(1935), WE HELD THE PATENT VALID AND
INFRINGED.  BUT IN THAT CASE THE HASTINGS PRIOR USE WAS NOT PRESENTED
OR CONSIDERED.  AT THAT TIME THE PRESENT INFRINGEMENT SUITS BROUGHT BY
PETITIONER AGAINST RESPONDENTS HALL AND JAMES WERE PENDING IN THE
DISTRICT COURTS FOR CONNECTICUT AND FOR WESTERN NEW YORK,
RESPECTIVELY.  IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION GIVEN TO THE PATENT BY OUR
DECISION, THE HASTINGS DEFENSE ASSUMED AN IMPORTANCE IN THESE SUITS
APPARENTLY NOT ATTRIBUTED TO IT IN EARLIER LITIGATION, AND IT HAS BEEN
DEVELOPED IN THE RECORDS NOW BEFORE US MORE FULLY THAN IN ANY EARLIER
CASE.  FN1 

THE DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURTS REJECTING THE DEFENSE WERE
REVERSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 83 F.(2D) 217,
221, WHICH FOUND PRIOR USE BY HASTINGS.  WE BROUGHT THE CASES HERE ON
CERTIORARI, TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICT IN THE RESULT OF THE DECISIONS
BELOW WITH THAT OF OUR DECISION IN SMITH V. SNOW, SUPRA.  THE TWO SUITS
CAME TO THE COURT BELOW, AS THEY DO HERE, UPON DIFFERENT RECORDS.  THE
COURT TREATED THE CASES AS THOUGH THE TWO RECORDS CONSTITUTED A JOINT
RECORD APPLICABLE TO BOTH CASES, AND PETITIONER PRESENTS THE CASES HERE
JOINTLY.  SEE BUTLER V. EATON, 141 U.S. 240, 243, 244; DIMMICK V.
TOMPKINS, 194 U.S. 540, 548; WASHINGTON & IDAHO R. CO. V. COEUR D'ALENE
RY. CO., 160 U.S. 101, 103; DEBEARN V. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO., 233
U.S. 24, 32; WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 294 U.S. 63,
70-71; CF. REED V. ALLEN, 286 U.S. 191, 198, 199. 

THE HALL SUIT IS FOR AN INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 1 OF THE PATENT, AND
THE JAMES SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 3 AND 5.  CLAIMS 1, 2
AND 3 ARE CLAIMS FOR A METHOD OF INCUBATION OF A PLURALITY OF EGGS. 
CLAIM 5 IS A CLAIM FOR AN APPARATUS ADAPTED TO THE USE OF THE METHOD
AND IS OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE PRESENT LITIGATION ONLY IF A METHOD CLAIM
IS SUSTAINED.  CLAIM 1 MAY BE TAKEN AS TYPICAL OF THE OTHER METHOD
CLAIMS.  IN SMITH V. SNOW, SUPRA, ITS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS WERE STATED TO
BE (P. 8): 

"(A) THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE EGGS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS IN STAGED
INCUBATION IN A CLOSED CHAMBER, HAVING RESTRICTED OPENINGS OF
SUFFICIENT CAPACITY FOR THE ESCAPE OF FOUL AIR WITHOUT UNDUE LOSS OF
MOISTURE; (B) THE APPLICATION TO THE EGGS OF HEATED AIR IN A CURRENT
CREATED BY MEANS OTHER THAN VARIATION OF TEMPERATURE; AND (C), AS
MARKING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLAIM, THE CURRENT OF AIR IS TO BE OF
SUFFICIENT VELOCITY TO CIRCULATE, DIFFUSE AND MAINTAIN THE AIR
THROUGHOUT THE CHAMBER AT SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TEMPERATURE WHEREBY
THE AIR WILL BE VITALIZED, MOISTURE CONSERVED, AND THE UNITS OF HEAT
CARRIED FROM THE EGGS IN THE MORE ADVANCED STAGE TO THOSE IN THE LESS
ADVANCED." 

STAGED INCUBATION IS THE SUCCESSIVE SETTING OF EGGS IN THE SAME
INCUBATOR AT BRIEF INTERVALS.  AT DIFFERENT STAGES IN THE COURSE OF THE
THREE WEEKS PERIOD OF INCUBATION THE EGGS HAVE DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES,
THOSE IN THE EARLIER HAVING LOWER TEMPERATURES THAN THOSE IN THE LATER
STAGES.  WHEN SUBJECTED TO A TEMPERATURE APPROXIMATING THAT OF BODY
HEAT, THE EGGS OF THE EARLIER STAGES ABSORB HEAT AND THOSE OF THE LATER
STAGES GIVE OFF HEAT.  IT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE OPINION IN THE SNOW
CASE THAT A DEMONSTRATED ADVANTAGE OF THE SMITH METHOD OVER THAT OF THE
EARLIER TYPE OF INCUBATOR, IN WHICH THERE WAS NO PROPELLED CURRENT OF
AIR, IS THAT IT FACILITATES THE CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF THE INCUBATOR
THROUGH STAGED INCUBATION, AND MAKES IT POSSIBLE IN THE PROCESS OF
INCUBATION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EGGS IN A SINGLE INCUBATOR FROM A
FEW HUNDRED TO MANY THOUSANDS. 

TO AVOID INFRINGEMENT, IT WAS INSISTED IN THE SNOW CASE THAT THE
CLAIM WAS RESTRICTED, BY THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS OF THE PATENT,
TO USE OF THE METHOD IN AN APPARATUS BY WHICH THE PROPELLED CURRENT OF
HEATED AIR WAS FIRST BROUGHT IN CONTACT WITH THE MORE ADVANCED EGGS. 
IN REJECTING THAT CONTENTION THE OPINION POINTED OUT THAT NEITHER THE
CLAIM ITSELF, CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, NOR THE
SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF THE METHOD, REQUIRED THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE
EGGS IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER; THAT THE CONTINUOUS CIRCULATION OF AIR OF
APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE IN A CLOSED CHAMBER, CALLED FOR BY THE CLAIM,
SERVED TO EQUALIZE THE TEMPERATURE AT THE DESIRED DEGREE BY CARRYING
HEAT UNITS FROM THE MORE ADVANCED EGGS OF HIGH TEMPERATURE TO THE LESS
ADVANCED EGGS OF LOWER TEMPERATURE, REGARDLESS OF THE PARTICULAR ORDER
IN WHICH IT PASSED THE EGGS OF DIFFERENT STAGES.  WE SAID (P. 14): 

"THE CLAIM DOES NOT CALL FOR A PARTICULAR ORDER OR ARRANGEMENT OF THE
EGGS IN STAGED INCUBATION IN THE INCUBATOR, OR THAT THE PROPELLED
CURRENT SHOULD REACH THEM IN ANY PARTICULAR ORDER, OR THAT IT SHOULD BE
GUIDED, CONTROLLED OR DIRECTED BY ANY PARTICULAR MEANS, OR IN ANY
PARTICULAR MANNER OTHER THAN THAT IT SHOULD BE OF SUFFICIENT VELOCITY
TO PRODUCE THE RESULTS PRESCRIBED BY THE CLAIM." 

THUS CONSTRUED, INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENTED METHOD COULD NOT BE
AVOIDED NOR ANTICIPATION OF IT DENIED BY SHOWING THAT THE CHALLENGED
USE WAS WITH DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENTS OF THE EGGS OR WITH A DIFFERENT
STRUCTURE, FOR GUIDING OR CONTROLLING THE PROPELLED CURRENT OF AIR
WITHIN THE CLOSED CHAMBER, FROM ANY EXHIBITED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND
DRAWINGS OF THE PATENT. 

TO ESTABLISH THE HASTINGS PRIOR USE RESPONDENTS RELY ON THE PROOF OF
HIS CONSTRUCTION OF AN INCUBATOR IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, EARLY IN 1911,
AND ITS USE IN THE HATCHING SEASON IN THE EARLY MONTHS OF THAT YEAR AND
OF 1912, AND ON PROOF OF HIS CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER IN MUSKOGEE,
OKLAHOMA, IN 1911, AND ITS USE IN 1912 AND 1913.  THEY OFFER
DOCUMENTARY CORROBORATION IN MORE OR LESS CONTEMPORARY ARTICLES IN
PUBLISHED JOURNALS AND IN A PATENT APPLICATION WITH ITS SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS, FILED IN THE PATENT OFFICE IN 1911. 

WITHOUT STOPPING TO STATE THE EVIDENCE IN DETAIL, IT IS ESTABLISHED
BY THE TESTIMONY OF HASTINGS, ABUNDANTLY CORROBORATED, AND NOT
SERIOUSLY DENIED, THAT, APART FROM THE SETTING OF EGGS IN STAGED
INCUBATION, WHICH WILL BE PRESENTLY DISCUSSED, THESE INCUBATORS
EMPLOYED ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE SMITH METHOD, AND THAT THEIR OPERATION
WAS SUCCESSFUL IN THE SENSE THAT THEY WERE EACH USED FOR HATCHING EGGS
FOR TWO SUCCESSIVE SEASONS AND THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE HATCHES WAS
COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE SMALLER STILL AIR INCUBATORS THEN IN USE. 
HASTINGS' INCUBATORS WERE CLOSED CHAMBERS, WITH RESTRICTED OPENINGS.  A
CURRENT OF HEATED AIR WAS PROPELLED BY A MOTOR DRIVEN FAN IN SUCH
MANNER AS TO COME IN CONTACT WITH THE EGGS PLACED WITHIN THE CHAMBER IN
STACKS OF TRAYS, AND TO RETURN TO THE FAN BY MEANS OF WHICH IT WAS
CONTINUOUSLY RECIRCULATED.  SEE SMITH V. SNOW, SUPRA, 19, 20; WAXHAM V.
SMITH, 294 U.S. 20, 22.  BOTH INCUBATORS WERE OF LARGE CAPACITY.  THAT
IN BROOKLYN WAS BUILT FOR 6,000 EGGS, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT
IT EVER CONTAINED MORE THAN 2,000 EGGS AT ANY ONE TIME, AND THAT IN
MUSKOGEE WAS FOR 30,000 EGGS.  IT IS PLAIN THAT HASTINGS BUILT AND
OPERATED INCUBATORS SUITABLE FOR THE USE OF THE SMITH METHOD, BUT
PETITIONER SHARPLY CHALLENGES THE CONTENTION THAT HE DID USE THAT
METHOD IN EITHER OF THEM.  IT IS SAID THAT THERE IS NO CONVINCING PROOF
THAT EGGS WERE EVER PLACED IN THE BROOKLYN INCUBATOR IN STAGED
INCUBATION, AND THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE OTHER AND THE MANNER OF ITS
USE WERE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE SMITH METHOD AS WE HAVE DESCRIBED IT
WAS NOT EMPLOYED.  THESE ARE THE CRUCIAL ISSUES. 

HASTINGS BUILT AND OPERATED THE BROOKLYN INCUBATOR FOR DAVIS, WHO
CONDUCTED A POULTRY FARM AS THE MEANS OF SUPPLYING CHICKENS FOR A
RESTAURANT WHICH HE ALSO OPERATED.  AFTER HASTINGS LEFT DAVIS' EMPLOY
IN MAY, 1911, THE LATTER OPERATED THE INCUBATOR DURING THE SEASON OF
1912.  SUBSEQUENTLY HE WENT OUT OF THE POULTRY BUSINESS AND DISMANTLED
THE INCUBATOR.  HASTINGS TESTIFIED, SPECIFICALLY AND IN DETAIL, THAT
THE EGGS WERE PLACED IN THE BROOKLYN INCUBATOR IN STAGED INCUBATION. 
DAVIS, CORROBORATED TO SOME EXTENT BY HIS WIFE, TESTIFIED THAT THE EGGS
WERE PLACED IN THE INCUBATOR AT TWICE A WEEK INTERVALS, WHEN THEY WERE
DELIVERED, AT THE RATE OF ONE OR TWO CRATES A WEEK, BY THE POULTRYMAN
FROM WHOM THEY WERE PURCHASED.  THE EGGS WERE PLACED IN TRAYS IN THE
INCUBATOR CHAMBER WHERE THEY WERE EXPOSED TO A CURRENT OF HEATED AIR
UNDER THERMOSTATIC CONTROL.  THE AIR, MAINTAINED AT A PRACTICALLY
UNIFORM TEMPERATURE, WAS CONTINUOUSLY CIRCULATED THROUGHOUT THE CHAMBER
BY MEANS OF AN ELECTRIC FAN.  THIS ORAL TESTIMONY, IF TAKEN AT ITS FACE
VALUE, WOULD SHOW THAT THE SMITH METHOD WAS USED IN THE BROOKLYN
INCUBATOR WITH EGGS IN STAGED INCUBATION.  BUT WITHOUT CORROBORATION,
IT IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PRIOR USE, BARBED WIRE PATENT, 143 U.S.
275, 284; DEERING V. WINONA HARVESTER WORKS, 155 U.S. 286, 300; EIBEL
PROCESS CO. V. MINNESOTA & ONTARIO PAPER CO., 261 U.S. 45, 60, AND WE
TURN TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT HASTINGS KNEW THE METHOD OF THE
PATENT AND USED IT IN HIS BROOKLYN STRUCTURE. 

BEFORE 1908 HASTINGS HAD HAD AN EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN POULTRY
CULTURE.  IN 1908 AND 1909 HE WAS IN THE SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES HE INSPECTED MANY POULTRY
PLANTS AND EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS OPERATING INCUBATORS.  HE WAS THE
AUTHOR OF A BOOK, "THE DOLLAR HEN," PUBLISHED IN 1909, IN WHICH HE
DESCRIBED A PROCEDURE FOR THE INCUBATION OF EGGS.  IT SPOKE OF AN
INCUBATOR IN WHICH "AT HATCHING TIME THE EGGS ARE SPREAD OUT IN TRAYS
IN A SPECIAL HATCHING ROOM, WHICH IS ONLY LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE
CHICKS TO THE AMOUNT OF ONE-SIXTH OF THE INCUBATOR CAPACITY, FOR TWICE
A WEEK DELIVERINGS OR ONE-THIRD IF WEEKLY DELIVERIES ARE DESIRED."  IT
ALSO DESCRIBED AN INCUBATOR IN WHICH "ALL TEMPERATURE REGULATION IS BY
MEANS OF AIR HEATED (OR COOLED AS THE CASE MAY BE) OUTSIDE OF THE EGG
ROOMS AND FORCED INTO THE EGG ROOMS BY A MOTOR DRIVEN CONE FAN,
MAINTAINING A STEADY CURRENT OF AIR, THE RATE OF MOVEMENT OF WHICH MAY
BE VARIED AT WILL.  THE AIR MOVEMENT MAINTAINED WILL ALWAYS BE
SUFFICIENTLY BRISK, HOWEVER, TO PREVENT AN UNEVENNESS OF TEMPERATURE IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE ROOM."  THE REFERENCE TO AN INCUBATOR IN
CONTINUOUS OPERATION, FOR DELIVERIES ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK, AND TO
TEMPERATURE REGULATION OF THE EGG CHAMBER BY A PROPELLED CURRENT OF
HEATED AIR, MOVING AT A VELOCITY SUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN AN EVEN
TEMPERATURE, SHOWS THAT HASTINGS HAD THE CONCEPTION OF STAGED
INCUBATION LONG BEFORE HE BUILT THE BROOKLYN INCUBATOR. 

ON MAY 3, 1911, WHILE HE WAS IN DAVIS' EMPLOY, AND WHEN THE BROOKLYN
INCUBATOR WAS IN OPERATION, HASTINGS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR A PATENT,
SERIAL NO. 624,885.  DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FILED AS
LATE AS JULY 1911, GIVE HASTINGS' ADDRESS AS THAT OF DAVIS IN
BROOKLYN.  THE APPLICATION DISCLOSES A CHAMBER WITH RESTRICTED OPENINGS
IN WHICH THE EGGS ARE PLACED AND THROUGH WHICH A STEADY CURRENT OF AIR,
HEATED TO A UNIFORM TEMPERATURE, IS PROPELLED BY A CONSTANTLY MOVING
ELECTRIC FAN, SO AS TO CIRCULATE THROUGHOUT THE CHAMBER.  ALTHOUGH THE
APPLICATION TAUGHT THE USE OF FABRIC OR PERFORATED PARTITIONS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CAUSING AN EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF THE CURRENT OF AIR, IT
SPECIFIED THAT THE INVENTION WAS "NOT LIMITED TO ANY PARTICULAR
CIRCULATION OR MOVEMENT OF THE AIR AND BY THE USE OF THE FAN THE
GRAVITY DRAFTS MAY BE OVERCOME AND THE AIR CAUSED TO MOVE IN ANY
DESIRED DIRECTION."  THE APPLICATION WAS PREPARED BY HASTINGS, BUT UPON
ITS REJECTION BY THE EXAMINER, HE SOUGHT THE AID OF COUNSEL WHO, ON MAY
24, 1912, AMENDED THE CLAIM AND FILED A STATEMENT IN EXPLANATION OF IT,
STATING THAT THEY HAD DERIVED DATA AND INFORMATION FROM A PRACTICAL
HATCHERY OF LARGE CAPACITY THEN BEING OPERATED BY THE APPLICANT. 

IN THIS STATEMENT IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT "THE TEMPERATURE OF THE
EGGS THEMSELVES VARIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAGE OF THEIR
DEVELOPMENT AND THE GASEOUS EMANATIONS TEND TO PRODUCE VITIATED
CONDITIONS WHICH EXERT A MARKED INFLUENCE UPON THE EGGS THEMSELVES AND
ESPECIALLY UPON ADJACENT EGGS, IF THE EGGS ARE AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF
THEIR DEVELOPMENT"; THAT "IN A LARGE HATCHERY WHERE MANY HUNDREDS AND
EVEN THOUSANDS OF EGGS ARE BEING CONTINUALLY ADVANCED IN THE PROCESS OF
INCUBATION THE ORDINARY MEANS FOR CAUSING THE CIRCULATION OF AIR BY
CONVEXION CURRENTS THROUGH AND IN THE INCUBATING CHAMBER HAS BEEN
DEMONSTRATED AS BEING TOTALLY INADEQUATE, AND THIS IS BELIEVED TO BE
ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL REASONS WHY, UP TO THE PRESENT TIME, HATCHERIES OF
LARGE CAPACITY HAVE PROVEN TO BE PRACTICAL FAILURES."  AND FINALLY IT
WAS STATED THAT HASTINGS HAD "DISCOVERED THAT THE TEMPERATURE AND
GASEOUS STRATIFICATION IN THE INCUBATING CHAMBER MUST BE OVERCOME BY A
MECHANICALLY FORCED CIRCULATION OF THE AIR WHICH WILL INSURE A CORRECT
AND UNIFORM INFLUENCE OF THE AIR UPON ALL OF THE EGGS IN THE INCUBATING
CHAMBER, AND THIS FORCED CIRCULATION MUST BE SUCH AS TO OVERCOME THE
COUNTERACTING INFLUENCE OF THE EGGS UPON THE AIR WHEN SAID EGGS ARE IN
THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF INCUBATION." 

IN THE BRIEF OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS-IN-CHIEF,
DATED DECEMBER 30, 1912, THESE POINTS WERE ELABORATED AND EXPLAINED. 
IT WAS STATED:  "THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN TO ENABLE THE INCUBATING
OPERATIONS TO BE CARRIED ON CONTINUOUSLY, IF SO DESIRED, WITH EGGS AT
ALL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, AND WITH ALL OF A VAST NUMBER OF EGGS
SUBJECTED TO THE SAME TEMPERATURE AND ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS BEST
ADAPTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMBRYO."  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT
"DURING THE INITIAL STAGE OF INCUBATION THE EGGS ABSORB HEAT WHEREBY
THEIR TEMPERATURE IS RAISED, BUT DURING THE FINAL STAGES THE VITAL
PROCESSES GENERATE HEAT, AND IN PRACTICE IT IS FOUND THAT WITH VAST
NUMBERS OF EGGS ASSEMBLED IN A SINGLE COMPARTMENT AND WITH EGGS AT ALL
STAGES OF INCUBATION BUT VERY LITTLE EXTRANEOUS HEAT NEED BE SUPPLIED,
BECAUSE THE EGGS IN THE LATER STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT SUPPLY THE
NECESSARY HEAT FOR THE EGGS IN THE EARLIER STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT.  IN
PRACTICE, HOWEVER, A SOURCE OF HEAT IS ALWAYS MAINTAINED IN ORDER TO
PERMIT OF PROPER REGULATION." 

IT WAS THEN EXPLAINED THAT THE "TEMPERATURE STRATIFICATION IN THE EGG
CHAMBER" IS OVERCOME "THROUGH THE PROVISION OF A MECHANICALLY OPERATED
AIR FORCING MEANS WHICH WOULD FORCE A RAPID CIRCULATION OF AIR THROUGH
THE WHOLE COLLECTION OF EGGS IN THE CHAMBER AND PAST THE HEATER.  THE
MECHANICAL AIR FORCING MEANS IS AN ESSENTIAL FACTOR, IF HEAT IS TO BE
CONSERVED AND THE CONDITIONS MAINTAINED UNIFORM."  AND LATER IT WAS
SAID:  "IT IS THROUGH THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT THE
TEMPERATURE AND GASEOUS STRATIFICATION OF THE AIR IN THE CHAMBER IS
OVERCOME AND THE EGGS ARE UNIFORMLY SUBJECTED TO THE INFLUENCE OF AIR
OF THE SAME TEMPERATURE AND COMPOSITION." 

THE BRIEF ALSO QUOTED FROM A STATEMENT OF HASTINGS, WHICH, AFTER
OBSERVING THAT TEMPERATURE STRATIFICATION MAY BE OVERCOME IN A HATCHING
CHAMBER HOLDING MANY THOUSANDS OF EGGS BY APPLYING TO THEM A
MECHANICALLY IMPELLED BLAST OF AIR, SAYS: 

"IN THE HASTINGS HATCHERY, A CURRENT OF AIR IS BLOWN PAST EACH AND
EVERY EGG AT THE RATE OF THIRTY FEET PER MINUTE AND THIS RAPIDLY MOVING
AIR QUICKLY BRINGING THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EGG TO APPROXIMATELY THAT
OF THE AIR.  THIS METHOD OF HEATING KEEPS THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EGGS
IN THE ADVANCED STATE OF INCUBATION DOWN WITHIN A FEW DEGREES OF THAT
OF THE AIR, THE EXACT DIFFERENCE BEING REGULATED AT WILL BY ADJUSTING
THE SPEED OF THE FAN.  WHEN PROPERLY ADJUSTED THE SAME BLAST OF AIR
USED TO HEAT FRESH EGGS DOES EQUALLY WELL FOR EGGS IN THE ADVANCED
STAGES JUST AS THE SAME TEMPERATURE OF THE BODY OF THE HEN INCUBATES
THE EGGS AT ALL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, WITHOUT RECOURSE ON THE HEN'S
PART TO THE 'HATCHING FEVER,' ERRONEOUSLY SUPPOSED TO EXPLAIN THE HIGH
TEMPERATURE OF EGGS AT A MORE ADVANCED STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT.  OWING TO
THIS FACT EGGS AT ALL STAGES MAY BE HANDLED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH
UNIFORMLY GOOD RESULTS." 

HE ALSO MENTIONED THE INTRODUCTION OF MOISTURE INTO THE CURRENT OF
AIR BY THE USE OF A SPRAY OR THE INTRODUCTION OF OUTSIDE AIR AT THE
FAN. 

WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT AT THE TIME THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED THE
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR HATCHING EGGS IN STAGED INCUBATION, AS THEY WERE
LATER CLAIMED IN THE SMITH PATENT, WERE KNOWN TO HASTINGS, AND THAT HE
WAS FAMILIAR WITH A STRUCTURE CAPABLE OF EMPLOYING THAT METHOD.  THEY
AFFORD CONVINCING CORROBORATION OF THE ORAL TESTIMONY THAT THE
INCUBATOR IN USE IN BROOKLYN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FILING OF THE
APPLICATION, AND BOTH INCUBATORS IN USE DURING ITS PENDENCY, EMPLOYED
THE METHOD OF THE SMITH CLAIM.  WHETHER HASTINGS KNEW FULLY AND
PRECISELY THE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN THE PROCEDURE THUS
OUTLINED IS IMMATERIAL.  IT IS ENOUGH IF HE KNEW AND USED THE METHOD
WITH OPERATIVE SUCCESS.  DEFOREST RADIO CO. V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
283 U.S. 664, 686.  HE DID KNOW THE METHOD OF SETTING EGGS IN STAGED
INCUBATION IN A CLOSED CHAMBER AND CONTINUOUSLY CIRCULATING THROUGH
THEM A CURRENT OF MOISTENED AIR AT AN APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE, AND HE
KNEW THAT THE ADVANTAGES OF THE USE OF THIS METHOD OVER THE TYPE OF
INCUBATOR IN WHICH THERE WERE NO MECHANICALLY PROPELLED CURRENTS OF
AIR, WERE THAT IT FACILITATED THE CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF THE INCUBATOR
AND THE SIMULTANEOUS INCUBATION IN A SINGLE CHAMBER OF A GREATLY
INCREASED NUMBER OF EGGS. 

THE DISCLOSURES MADE IN THE HASTINGS BRIEF WERE SO COMPLETE THAT THEY
MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN USED IN SUPPORT OF THE SMITH CLAIM.  PRESSED TO
THEIR CONCLUSION, THEY WOULD HAVE WARRANTED AWARD OF THE PATENT LATER
GRANTED TO SMITH.  SEE SMITH V. SNOW, SUPRA, 14-16.  WHILE THE PATENT
OFFICE FILE ON THE ABANDONED CLAIM IS NOT RELIED ON AS A PRIOR
PUBLICATION, SEE THE CORN-PLANTER PATENT, 23 WALL.  181, 210-211; CF.
ALEXANDER MILBURN CO. V. DAVIS CO., 270 U.S. 390, 400, 402, IT IS
COMPETENT AND COGENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE THE NATURE AND DATE OF THE
INVENTION WHICH THE INVENTOR CLAIMS TO HAVE EMBODIED IN WORKING FORM,
SEE CORN-PLANTER PATENT, SUPRA, 211; UNITED STATES BLIND STITCH MACHINE
CORP. V. RELIABLE MACHINE WORKS, 67 F.(2D) 327, 328(C.C.A.2D); WALKER,
PATENTS (6TH ED., 1929), SECS. 97, 98. 

IN 1911, HASTINGS INDUCED LIEBER, A LOCAL LAWYER AND BUSINESS MAN OF
MUSKOGEE, OKLAHOMA, AND ANOTHER, TO ORGANIZE A CORPORATION FOR THE
PROMOTION OF THE HASTINGS METHOD OF INCUBATION.  UNDER ITS AUSPICES
HASTINGS CONSTRUCTED THERE AN INCUBATOR OF 30,000 EGG CAPACITY IN THE
LATTER PART OF 1911 AND DIRECTED ITS OPERATION DURING THE 1912 HATCHING
SEASON.  ITS OPERATION WAS CONTINUED BY AN ASSOCIATE IN THE SEASON OF
1913.  THE GENERAL PLAN OF ITS CONSTRUCTION AND MECHANICAL OPERATION AS
TESTIFIED TO BY HASTINGS IS ABUNDANTLY CORROBORATED BY DISINTERESTED
WITNESSES AND CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHS AND PUBLICATIONS DESCRIBING IT.
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES ARE LIEBER, WHO FURNISHED THE MONEY FOR THE
ENTERPRISE, PEABODY, THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR WHO INSTALLED THE FAN
AND OTHER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT OF THE INCUBATOR, AND HICKOX, MANAGER OF
THE LOCAL ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY WHICH SUPPLIED THE CURRENT FOR THE
INCUBATOR.  IN 1912, HICKOX TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INCUBATOR IN
OPERATION, AND PREPARED A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF IT.  THESE WERE
PRODUCED AT THE TRIAL. 

THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE IS THAT THE INCUBATOR CONSISTED OF A
LARGE ROOM IN WHICH THERE WERE A SERIES OF STACKS OF EGG TRAYS WITH
WIRE MESH BOTTOMS.  EACH STACK, HAVING A CAPACITY OF 5,000 EGGS, WAS
PLACED IN A SEPARATE COMPARTMENT.  THERE WAS A CORRIDOR IN FRONT OF THE
TRAYS GIVING ACCESS TO THE STACKS, WHICH, IN OPERATION, WERE CLOSED ON
THE CORRIDOR SIDE BY REMOVABLE SHUTTERS.  A MOTOR-DRIVEN FAN, PLACED AT
ONE END OF THE INCUBATOR, PROPELLED A CURRENT OF AIR OVER A MOISTURE
PAN, THENCE THROUGH A PASSAGE AT THE BACK OF THE EGG TRAYS INTO CONTACT
WITH A HEATING PIPE UNDER THERMOSTATIC CONTROL.  FROM THAT POINT IT
PASSED INTO A PASSAGEWAY DIRECTLY ABOVE THE STACKS OF EGG TRAYS, THENCE
DOWNWARD THROUGH THE TRAYS TO A PASSAGE BENEATH THEM, THROUGH WHICH THE
CURRENT WAS RETURNED TO THE FAN IN CONTINUOUS CIRCULATION.  A NUMBER OF
OTHER WITNESSES, HAVING NO CONNECTION WITH THE HASTINGS ENTERPRISE,
INCLUDING THREE CALLED BY PETITIONER, SAW THE INCUBATOR IN OPERATION
AND CORROBORATE THE TESTIMONY AS TO ITS MAIN FEATURES; THE PRESENCE
WITHIN THE INCUBATOR OF THOUSANDS OF EGGS, PLACED IN STACKS OR TRAYS,
HATCHED BY THE CIRCULATION THROUGH THEM OF A FANPROPELLED HEATED
CURRENT OF AIR. 

AN ARTICLE GIVING SOME ACCOUNT OF THE HASTINGS INCUBATOR, PREPARED BY
AN EDITOR OF POULTRY CULTURE AND PUBLISHED IN THAT JOURNAL FOR
FEBRUARY, 1912, MENTIONS THE USE OF TWO FLUMES CARRYING THE CURRENT OF
AIR FROM THE FAN, ONLY ONE OF WHICH BROUGHT THE AIR INTO CONTACT WITH
THE HEATER.  IT SPEAKS OF A USE OF A MEANS FOR CONTROLLING TEMPERATURE
OF THE AIR PASSING TO EACH EGG COMPARTMENT, BY MIXING IN PROPER
PROPORTIONS THE FLOW OF AIR FROM THE TWO FLUMES.  THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH
A DOUBLE CONDUIT IS NOT CORROBORATED BY ANY WITNESS OR ANY DOCUMENT,
AND IS EXPLICITLY DENIED BY LIEBER, TESTIFYING IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER
IN THE STONE CASE, MADE A PART OF THE PRESENT RECORD, AND BY HASTINGS. 
PEABODY, WHO INSTALLED THE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, AND HICKOX, WHO
PREPARED A CONTEMPORARY WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THE INCUBATOR, MAKE NO
MENTION OF IT.  DRAWINGS SHOWING A SINGLE PASSAGEWAY CARRYING THE
CURRENT OF AIR TO THE EGG STACKS WERE IDENTIFIED AS ACCURATE BY
HASTINGS, LIEBER AND PEABODY.  WE CONCLUDE THAT, WHATEVER EXPERIMENTAL
PROPOSALS OR INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE BEEN MADE, THE INCUBATOR WAS USED
WITH A SINGLE AIR PASSAGE ABOVE THE EGG COMPARTMENTS. 

ALL THE WITNESSES AGREE THAT THE INCUBATOR WAS COMMERCIALLY OPERATED
DURING THE HATCHING SEASONS OF 1912 AND 1913, AND THAT IT HATCHED
DIFFERENT BATCHES OF EGGS PLACED IN IT, WITH VARYING SUCCESS.  THE
HATCHES OF THE EGGS FURNISHED BY SOME CUSTOMERS WERE FAILURES.  OTHERS
WERE SUCCESSFUL.  ONE OF PETITIONER'S WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE
HATCHES NEVER EXCEEDED 50%.  LIEBER ESTIMATED THAT 50% WAS THE AVERAGE,
WITH SOME PEOPLE GETTING NONE AND OTHERS GETTING 80%. HASTINGS, WHO IN
THE CANADIAN SUIT TESTIFIED THAT THE AVERAGE WAS 40%, STATED THAT SOME
SETTINGS RAN UP TO 70%.  THERE IS NO TESTIMONY OF ANY MECHANICAL
FAILURE OF THE INCUBATOR AFTER THE INITIAL TRIALS OF IT, AS A RESULT OF
WHICH AN ELECTRIC BLOWER WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE FAN OF LESSER POWER. 
IN 1912, HASTINGS DEPARTED FOR TEXAS, WHERE HE STARTED ANOTHER
INCUBATOR.  AFTER OPERATING THE INCUBATOR THROUGH ANOTHER HATCHING
SEASON, LIEBER, HIS FINANCIAL BACKER, ABANDONED THE ENTERPRISE. 

AS WITH THE BROOKLYN INCUBATOR, THE CRITICAL ISSUE IS WHETHER THAT IN
MUSKOGEE WAS USED WITH EGGS IN STAGED INCUBATION IN THE MANNER OF THE
SMITH CLAIM.  IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT EGGS IN DIFFERENT
STAGES WERE IN PROCESS OF INCUBATION THERE AT THE SAME TIME.  THE
INCUBATOR WAS USED IN LARGE MEASURE FOR "CUSTOM HATCHING."  AT FREQUENT
INTERVALS, PATRONS BROUGHT THEIR EGGS IN RELATIVELY SMALL QUANTITIES TO
BE PLACED IN THE INCUBATOR FOR HATCHING, AND RECEIVED AT THE END OF THE
HATCHING PERIOD THEIR SHARE OF THE NEWLY HATCHED CHICKS. 

THE TESTIMONY OF HASTINGS THAT STAGED INCUBATION WAS EMPLOYED IN THE
MUSKOGEE STRUCTURE IS CORROBORATED BY THIS COURSE OF BUSINESS AND BY
THE CONTEMPORANEOUS STATEMENTS AND BRIEF FILED WITH HIS PATENT
APPLICATION.  HE TESTIFIED THAT EGGS OF DIFFERENT STAGES WERE
SOMETIMES, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS, PLACED IN THE SAME COMPARTMENT OF THE
INCUBATOR.  THE POULTRY CULTURE ARTICLE OF FEBRUARY, 1912, STATES,
AFTER DESCRIBING THE USE OF THE FAN-PROPELLED CURRENT OF HEATED AIR IN
THE INCUBATOR:  "EGGS AT ALL STAGES CAN BE PLACED IN THE SAME TRAYS OF
THE HASTINGS HATCHERY, WITH LITTLE OR NO INJURY.  MR. HASTINGS HATCHED
SEVERAL THOUSAND EGGS UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS IN HIS BROOKLYN PLANT LAST
YEAR." 

PETITIONER STRESSES THE POINT THAT IN THE MUSKOGEE INCUBATOR, THE
STACKS OF EGG TRAYS WERE CONCEDEDLY PLACED IN SEPARATE COMPARTMENTS,
WITH OPENINGS AT THE TOP HAVING SLIDE DOORS WHICH COULD BE USED LIKE A
VALVE FOR REGULATING THE VOLUME OF AIR FLOWING INTO EACH COMPARTMENT. 
HASTINGS TESTIFIED THAT THE SLIDE DOORS WERE USED TO CUT DOWN THE
SUPPLY OF AIR WHEN THERE WERE FEW OR NO EGGS IN A COMPARTMENT AND THAT
THEY WERE LEFT OPEN WHEN THE COMPARTMENT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY FULL OF
EGGS.  PETITIONER POINTS TO THIS AND TO SOME TESTIMONY BY HASTINGS AND
LIEBER THAT THE SLIDE DOORS COULD BE USED TO REGULATE THE TEMPERATURE
IN EACH COMPARTMENT THROUGH CONTROL OF THE VOLUME OF AIR PASSING
THROUGH THEM, AND TO TESTIMONY BY LIEBER THAT THE EGGS, AS RECEIVED,
WERE FIRST PLACED IN ONE COMPARTMENT AND THEN AT INTERVALS, AS OTHER
EGGS CAME IN, WERE MOVED FROM ONE COMPARTMENT TO ANOTHER, AND THAT THE
DOORS WERE USED TO CONTROL VARIATIONS OF TEMPERATURE IN THE DIFFERENT
COMPARTMENTS. 

FROM THIS THE INFERENCE IS DRAWN THAT ONLY EGGS OF THE SAME STAGE
WERE PLACED IN ANY ONE COMPARTMENT, AND FROM THE INFERENCE IT IS ARGUED
THAT THEY WERE NOT SET IN STAGED INCUBATION.  BUT EVEN IF THE INFERENCE
IS CORRECT, IT ESTABLISHES ONLY THAT A SPECIAL METHOD OR DEVICE TO
GUIDE AND CONTROL THE AIR CURRENT WAS USED, NOT THAT STAGED INCUBATION
WAS WANTING.  THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF A DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING THE
CURRENT OF AIR WITHIN THE INCUBATOR IS NO PART OF THE SMITH CLAIM.  OUR
OPINIONS IN SMITH V. SNOW, SUPRA, AND WAXHAM V. SMITH, SUPRA, WERE
CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THAT INFRINGEMENT OF THE METHOD COULD NOT BE
AVOIDED BY USING IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUCH A DEVICE.  THE PRESENCE OF
THE DEVICE IN THE MUSKOGEE INCUBATOR DID NOT FORECLOSE ANTICIPATION IF
THE METHOD WAS USED.  SINCE THE CIRCULATING CURRENT OF AIR PASSED
REPEATEDLY INTO THE COMPARTMENTS IN THE MUSKOGEE STRUCTURE AND CAME IN
CONTACT WITH THE HEATING PIPE AND WITH THE EGGS IN THE SEVERAL STACKS
OF TRAYS, THE TENDENCY OF THE OPERATION WAS TO EQUALIZE THE TEMPERATURE
AND TO CARRY HEAT UNITS FROM THE MORE ADVANCED TO THE LESS ADVANCED
EGGS.  THIS IS THE METHOD OF THE PATENT AND IT WAS EMPLOYED IN THE
MUSKOGEE STRUCTURE WHETHER THE TRAYS OF EGGS OF DIFFERENT STAGES WERE
PLACED IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT COMPARTMENTS.    THE PATENT WAS
SUSTAINED IN THE SNOW AND WAXHAM CASES, SUPRA, ONLY BY ESTABLISHING
THAT NEITHER THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE EGGS, NOR THE PARTICULAR ORDER IN
WHICH THE PROPELLED CURRENT SHOULD REACH THE EGGS, NOR THE MANNER IN
WHICH IT WAS GUIDED OR CONTROLLED, IS PART OF THE PATENT CLAIMED.  IT
WAS THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE CLAIM WHICH GAVE A NEW SIGNIFICANCE TO THE
HASTINGS INCUBATORS, DIFFERENT FROM ANY RECOGNIZED BY PREVIOUS
DECISIONS.  THE PETITIONER, HAVING SOUGHT AND OBTAINED A BROAD
CONSTRUCTION OF HIS CLAIM, CANNOT NOW NARROW IT SO AS TO AVOID
ANTICIPATION BY SHOWING THAT THE CLAIMED METHOD WAS USED IN A
PARTICULAR FORM OF STRUCTURE NOT CLAIMED.  IT WAS THE METHOD THUS
DEFINED WHICH HASTINGS USED, REGARDLESS OF THE PARTICULAR STRUCTURE
WHICH HE DEVISED TO GUIDE AND CONTROL THE CURRENT OF AIR IN HIS
INCUBATOR, OR THE ORDER IN WHICH IT CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THE HEATER
AND EGGS OF DIFFERENT STAGES.  IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT HIS STRUCTURE FOR
USING THE METHOD WAS NEITHER THE BEST POSSIBLE NOR AS SKILFULLY
DESIGNED OR USED AS THAT LATER EMPLOYED BY SMITH.  PICKERING V.
MCCULLOUGH, 104 U.S. 310, 319; CF. TELEPHONE CASES, 126 U.S. 1, 531,
536. 

IN VIEW OF THIS CONCLUSION IT IS UNIMPORTANT WHETHER HASTINGS USED
THE METHOD IN HIS BROOKLYN INCUBATOR.  BUT WE THINK THE TESTIMONY OF
ITS USE THERE IS SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.  HIS STATEMENT IN "THE
DOLLAR HEN," ALREADY QUOTED, PUBLISHED BEFORE THE BROOKLYN STRUCTURE
WAS ERECTED, SHOWS CLEARLY THAT HE CONTEMPLATED THE CONTINUOUS
OPERATION OF AN INCUBATOR WITH THE EGGS SET IN STAGED INCUBATION SO
THAT THEY WOULD BE HATCHED FOR DELIVERIES ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK, BY A
PROCEDURE SUBSTANTIALLY THAT OF THE SMITH CLAIM.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES
ATTENDING THE BROOKLYN USE, WHICH CALLED FOR THE SETTING OF EGGS AT
FREQUENT INTERVALS IN AN INCUBATOR OF LARGE CAPACITY, THE STRUCTURE
EXHIBITED IN HASTINGS' PATENT APPLICATION, THE SUBSEQUENT COURSE OF THE
APPLICATION IN THE PATENT OFFICE, AND FINALLY THE RENEWED EFFORT AT
MUSKOGEE EMBODYING THE SAME PRINCIPLES, ALTHOUGH WITH AN IMMATERIAL
VARIATION IN STRUCTURE, AND THE FACT THAT BOTH INCUBATORS FUNCTIONED,
ARE CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HASTINGS KNEW AND USED IN APPROPRIATE
COMBINATION, BOTH IN BROOKLYN AND IN MUSKOGEE, THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
OF THE SMITH CLAIM.  THEY SUPPORT THE HEAVY BURDEN OF PERSUASION WHICH
RESTS UPON ONE WHO SEEKS TO NEGATIVE NOVELTY IN A PATENT BY SHOWING
PRIOR USE.  SEE RADIO CORPORATION V. RADIO ENGINEERING LABORATORIES,
293 U.S. 1, 7, AND CASES CITED. 

PETITIONER URGES, AND WE HAVE CONSIDERED, NUMEROUS OTHER OBJECTIONS
TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF OF THE HASTINGS PRIOR USE.  THE ONLY ONE
CALLING FOR ANY COMMENT IS THE SUGGESTION THAT THE BROOKLYN AND
MUSKOGEE ENTERPRISES WERE NOT COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL.  COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS MAY TURN THE SCALE WHEN INVENTION IS IN DOUBT, PARAMOUNT PUBLIX
CORP. V. AMERICAN TRI-ERGON CORP., 294 U.S. 464, 474; DEFOREST RADIO
CO. V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA, 685, AND THE WANT OF IT MAY, IN
SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, BE EVIDENCE OF WANT OF OPERATIVE SUCCESS.  BUT HERE
HASTINGS BY THE USE OF A METHOD WHICH WE HAVE SUSTAINED AS AN
INVENTION, SMITH V. SNOW, SUPRA, HAS ATTAINED THE PARTICULAR RESULTS
DESCRIBED BY THE PATENT.  HE KNEW THE METHOD AND USED IT IN A DEVICE
CAPABLE OF EMPLOYING IT.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WANT OF COMMERCIAL
SUCCESS, WHICH THE RECORD SUGGESTS MAY HAVE BEEN DUE TO LACK OF
TECHNICAL AND BUSINESS SKILL, IS NOT AN INDICATION THAT THERE WAS NO
PRIOR USE. 

UPON THE RECORDS NOW BEFORE US WE MUST CONCLUDE, AS DID THE SUPREME
COURT OF CANADA UPON A SIMILAR RECORD (FOOTNOTE 1, SUPRA), THAT
HASTINGS ANTEDATED SMITH.  THE SMITH METHOD WAS "KNOWN OR USED BY
OTHERS IN THIS COUNTRY BEFORE HIS INVENTION OR DISCOVERY THEREOF."  35
U.S.C., SEC. 31.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  BEFORE THE DECISION IN SMITH V. SNOW, 294 U.S. 1, THE HASTINGS
DEFENSE HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN BUCKEYE INCUBATOR CO. V.
WOLF, 291 FED. 253, AFF'D, 296 FED. 680(C.C.A.6TH), IN BUCKEYE
INCUBATOR CO. V. COOLEY, 17 F.(2D) 453(C.C.A. 3RD), AND IN BUCKEYE
INCUBATOR CO. V. STONE, A SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR OREGON, BY A
SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY
THE COURT.  IN THE NUMEROUS OTHER LITIGATIONS OF THE SMITH PATENT WHICH
PRECEDED THE DECISION IN SMITH V. SNOW, SUPRA, SEE 294 U.S. AT 3, NOTE
1, THE HASTINGS DEFENSE WAS NOT URGED.  SINCE THE DECISION IN THE SNOW
CASE THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN INTERPOSED IN SUITS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS,
SMITH V. STREET (DIST. CT. FOR MINN.), SMITH V. SIMS (DIST. CT. FOR
INDIANA) AND IT HAS RECENTLY BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
CANADA, IN THE KING V. SMITH INCUBATOR CO. (1937). 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THESE CASES. 
..END :













FIRST BANK CORP. V. MINNESOTA, 301 U.S. 234 


NO. 647.  ARGUED MARCH 31, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 197 MINN.
544 - 267 N.W. 519, AFFIRMED. 


A DELAWARE CORPORATION TRANSACTED ITS CORPORATE AND FISCAL BUSINESS IN
MINNESOTA, MAINTAINING IN THAT STATE A BUSINESS OFFICE AND HOLDING
THERE ITS MEETINGS OF STOCKHOLDERS, DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
IT OWNED A CONTROLLING INTEREST IN THE STOCK OF A NUMBER OF BANKS OF
SEVERAL STATES.  STOCK CERTIFICATES OF THE SUBSIDIARIES WERE KEPT IN
MINNESOTA AND THERE IT RECEIVED THE DIVIDENDS THEREON, AND DECLARED AND
DISBURSED THE DIVIDENDS UPON ITS OWN SHARES.  THROUGH A WHOLLY-OWNED
SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION, ORGANIZED AND DOING BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA, IT
MAINTAINED A COMPENSATED SERVICE FOR THE BANKS WHICH IT CONTROLLED,
OFFERING ADVICE AS TO THEIR ACCOUNTING PRACTICES, MAKING
RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING LOANS, COMMERCIAL PAPER AND INTEREST RATES,
AND MAKING SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THEIR PURCHASE AND SALE OF
SECURITIES.  IT PLANNED FOR THEM ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS, AND SUPPLIED
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.  THUS IT MAINTAINED WITHIN THE STATE AN
INTEGRATED BUSINESS OF PROTECTING ITS INVESTMENTS IN BANK SHARES, AND
ENHANCING THEIR VALUE, BY THE ACTIVE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF CONTROL
THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP OF ITS SUBSIDIARY BANKS. 

HELD, THAT THE CORPORATION'S COMMERCIAL DOMICILE WAS IN MINNESOTA AND
THAT ITS SHARES OF STOCK IN NORTH DAKOTA AND MONTANA BANKING
CORPORATIONS WERE TAXABLE BY MINNESOTA.  P. 237. 

WHETHER THE SAME SHARES COULD, CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, BE TAXED ALSO IN NORTH DAKOTA AND MONTANA, IS A QUESTION NOT
DECIDED. 

FIRST BANK STOCK CORP. V. MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IN
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE COLLECTIONS OF DELINQUENT TAXES. 

THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT ONLY ONE STATE CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY
IMPOSE A PROPERTY TAX ON INTANGIBLES IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK SHARES. 
IT IS THE STATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE BANK WHICH CAN IMPOSE THE TAX
AND NOT THE STATE OF THE DOMICILE OF THE SHAREHOLDER OR OF THE BUSINESS
SITUS OF THE SHARES.  APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE SHARES OF
STOCK IT HOLDS IN STATE BANKS LOCATED WITHOUT MINNESOTA HAVE A BUSINESS
SITUS, IF ANY, AT THE LOCATION OF THE BANKS AND NOT IN MINNESOTA. 

IT IS THE POSITION OF APPELLANT THAT THE MINNESOTA STATUTE, AS
CONSTRUED BY THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT TO IMPOSE A PROPERTY TAX UPON
APPELLANT'S SHARES OF STOCK IN BANKS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
FOREIGN STATES, IS, FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  APPELLANT DOES NOT HERE CONTEND THAT THE
MINNESOTA STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN IN ITS
APPLICATION TO SHARES OF STOCK IN FOREIGN STATE BANKS. 

THE RIGHT OF A STATE TO TAX PROPERTY WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION IS INHERENT AND AN ATTRIBUTE OF SOVEREIGNTY. 

THIS COURT, IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A SYMMETRICAL SYSTEM OF
PREVENTING MULTI-STATE TAXATION OF THE SAME ECONOMIC INTEREST, HAS LAID
DOWN CERTAIN RULES BY WHICH THE RIGHT OF A GIVEN STATE TO TAX
INTANGIBLES IS TO BE DETERMINED. 

THE FACTS IN THIS CASE BRING THE PROPERTY HERE IN QUESTION, UNDER THE
RULES AS FORMULATED, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA.  THE OWNER HAS A "COMMERCIAL DOMICILE" IN MINNESOTA; THE
PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THAT STATE; AND THE OWNER HAS GIVEN
THE PROPERTY A BUSINESS SITUS THERE BY EMPLOYING IT WITHIN THAT STATE
IN THE CONDUCT OF A SUPER BANKING BUSINESS, WHICH IS A NEW AND
IMPORTANT ECONOMIC UNIT. 

MINNESOTA HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TAX THE PROPERTY IN
QUESTION. 

APPELLANT'S POSITION IS UNTENABLE IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT. 

THE RIGHT TO TAX STOCK IN STATE BANKS RESTS ON FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS FROM THE RIGHT TO TAX NATIONAL BANK STOCK. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA,
JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 237, INVOLVES THE QUESTION WHETHER APPELLANT, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA, MAY BE REQUIRED,
CONSISTENTLY WITH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
TO PAY A PROPERTY TAX LAID BY MINNESOTA UPON APPELLANT'S SHARES OF
STOCK IN MONTANA AND NORTH DAKOTA STATE BANKING CORPORATIONS. 

THE TRIAL COURT CONCLUDED THAT, AS THE SHARES ARE LAWFULLY TAXED BY
MONTANA AND NORTH DAKOTA, IT WOULD BE A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS TO TAX
THEM IN MINNESOTA.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE REVERSED, HOLDING
THAT AS APPELLANT HAS ACQUIRED A COMMERCIAL DOMICIL WITHIN THE STATE,
AND AS ITS SHARES IN THE MONTANA AND NORTH DAKOTA BANKS ARE ASSETS OF
THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY APPELLANT IN MINNESOTA, THEY ARE RIGHTLY
TAXED THERE RATHER THAN IN MONTANA OR NORTH DAKOTA.  197 MINN. 544; 267
N.W. 519. 

APPELLANT IS QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA, AND IN FACT
TRANSACTS ITS CORPORATE BUSINESS AND FISCAL AFFAIRS THERE.  IT
MAINTAINS A BUSINESS OFFICE WITHIN THE STATE AND HOLDS THERE ITS
MEETINGS OF STOCKHOLDERS, DIRECTORS AND THEIR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.  IT
IS THE OWNER OF A CONTROLLING INTEREST IN THE STOCK OF A LARGE NUMBER
OF BANKS, TRUST COMPANIES AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, LOCATED IN
THE NINTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT.  THE STOCK CERTIFICATES ARE KEPT IN
MINNESOTA, WHERE APPELLANT RECEIVES DIVIDENDS DECLARED BY ITS
SUBSIDIARIES, AND WHERE IT DECLARES AND DISBURSES DIVIDENDS UPON ITS
OWN STOCK. 

THROUGH A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION, ORGANIZED AND DOING
BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA, IT MAINTAINS A COMPENSATED SERVICE FOR THE BANKS
WHICH IT CONTROLS.  IT OFFERS ADVICE AS TO THEIR ACCOUNTING PRACTICES,
MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING LOANS, COMMERCIAL PAPER AND INTEREST
RATES, AND MAKES SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THEIR PURCHASE AND SALE OF
SECURITIES.  IT ALSO PLANS FOR THEM ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS, AND SUPPLIES
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.  APPELLANT THUS MAINTAINS WITHIN THE STATE AN
INTEGRATED BUSINESS OF PROTECTING ITS INVESTMENTS IN BANK SHARES, AND
ENHANCING THEIR VALUE, BY THE ACTIVE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF CONTROL
THROUGH STOCK OWNERSHIP OF ITS SUBSIDIARY BANKS. 

APPELLANT IS TO BE REGARDED AS LEGALLY DOMICILED IN DELAWARE, THE
PLACE OF ITS ORGANIZATION, AND AS TAXABLE THERE UPON ITS INTANGIBLES,
SEE CREAM OF WHEAT CO. V. GRAND FORKS, 253 U.S. 325, 328; JOHNSON OIL
REFINING CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 290 U.S. 158, 161; VIRGINIA V. IMPERIAL COAL
SALES CO., 293 U.S. 15, 19, AT LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF ACTIVITIES
IDENTIFYING THEM WITH SOME OTHER PLACE AS THEIR "BUSINESS SITUS."  BUT
IT IS PLAIN THAT THE BUSINESS WHICH APPELLANT CARRIES ON IN MINNESOTA,
OR DIRECTS FROM ITS OFFICES MAINTAINED THERE, IS SUFFICIENTLY
IDENTIFIED WITH MINNESOTA TO ESTABLISH A "COMMERCIAL DOMICIL" THERE,
AND TO GIVE A BUSINESS SITUS THERE, FOR PURPOSES OF TAXATION, TO
INTANGIBLES WHICH ARE USED IN THE BUSINESS OR ARE INCIDENTAL TO IT, AND
HAVE THUS "BECOME INTEGRAL PARTS OF SOME LOCAL BUSINESS."  WHEELING
STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298 U.S. 193, 210; SEE FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204, 213; BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 282
U.S. 1, 8; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312, 331. 

THE DOCTRINE THAT INTANGIBLES MAY BE TAXED AT THEIR BUSINESS SITUS,
AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE LEGAL DOMICIL OF THEIR OWNER, HAS USUALLY
BEEN APPLIED TO OBLIGATIONS TO PAY MONEY, ACQUIRED IN THE COURSE OF A
LOCALIZED BUSINESS.  NEW ORLEANS V. STEMPEL, 175 U.S. 309; BRISTOL V.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, 177 U.S. 133; BOARD OF ASSESSORS V. COMPTOIR
NATIONAL, 191 U.S. 388; METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 205
U.S. 395; WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, SUPRA, 212, 213.  BUT IT IS
EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO SHARES OF CORPORATE STOCK WHICH, BECAUSE OF THEIR
USE IN A BUSINESS OF THE OWNER, MAY BE TREATED AS LOCALIZED, FOR
PURPOSES OF TAXATION, AT THE PLACE OF THE BUSINESS, SEE FIRST NATIONAL
BANK V. MAINE, SUPRA, 331; CF. DE GANAY V. LEDERER, 250 U.S. 376, 382. 
APPELLANT'S ENTIRE BUSINESS IN MINNESOTA IS FOUNDED ON ITS OWNERSHIP OF
THE SHARES OF STOCK AND THEIR USE AS INSTRUMENTS OF CORPORATE CONTROL. 
THEY ARE AS MUCH "INTEGRAL PARTS" OF THE LOCAL BUSINESS AS ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE IN A MERCHANDISING BUSINESS, OR THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH
THE PROCEEDS OF THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE DEPOSITED UPON COLLECTION. 
COMPARE WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, SUPRA, 212-214.  THUS IDENTIFIED
WITH THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED BY APPELLANT IN MINNESOTA, THEY ARE AS
SUBJECT TO LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES AS THEY WOULD BE IF THE OWNER WERE A
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL DOMICILED IN THE STATE. 

APPELLANT DOES NOT DENY THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION IN MINNESOTA
ON SOME INTANGIBLES.  IN MAKING ITS 1934 RETURN OF "MONEYS AND CREDITS"
FOR TAXATION UNDER MINN. STAT. 1927(MASON) SEC. 2337 ET SEQ., WHICH
IMPOSES THE PRESENT TAX, APPELLANT INCLUDED BANK DEPOSITS WITHIN AND
WITHOUT THE STATE, PROMISSORY NOTES, BONDS AND OTHER EVIDENCES OF
INDEBTEDNESS.  IT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE TAX IMPOSED ON ITS SHARES OF
STOCK IN CORPORATIONS ORGANIZED AND DOING BUSINESS WITHOUT THE STATE,
OTHER THAN THOSE IN THE MONTANA AND NORTH DAKOTA BANKS.  IT SAYS THAT
THESE STATES HAVE ADOPTED THE ONLY FEASIBLE SCHEME OF TAXATION OF THE
SHARES OF STATE BANKS WHICH WILL ADMIT OF A STATE PROPERTY TAX ON
NATIONAL BANK SHARES, SINCE R.S. SEC. 5219(12 U.S.C. SEC. 548), PERMITS
SHARES OF NATIONAL BANKS TO BE TAXED ONLY BY THE STATE WHERE THE BANK
DOES BUSINESS, AND THEN ONLY IF THEY ARE NOT ASSESSED "AT A GREATER
RATE THAN  ...  OTHER MONEYED CAPITAL IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL
CITIZENS  ...  COMING INTO COMPETITION WITH THE BUSINESS OF NATIONAL
BANKS."  SEE FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. ANDERSON, 269 U.S. 341, 348;
MINNESOTA V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 273 U.S. 561.  BOTH STATES ASSESS FOR
PROPERTY TAXATION THE SHARES OF NATIONAL BANKS DOING BUSINESS WITHIN
THEIR LIMITS AND ASSESS IN LIKE MANNER THE SHARES OF STATE BANKS, AND
THUS AVOID DISCRIMINATION IN TAXATION BETWEEN THE SHARES OF NATIONAL
AND OF STATE BANKS. 

APPELLANT ARGUES THAT EVERY STATE MAY ESTABLISH A TAX SITUS WITHIN
THE STATE FOR SHARES OF STOCK IN ITS OWN BANKING CORPORATIONS, AND THAT
MONTANA AND NORTH DAKOTA HAVE DONE SO BY PROVIDING, IN PURSUANCE OF
THEIR SCHEME FOR THE LOCAL TAXATION OF BANKING CORPORATIONS, THAT THE
SHARES SHALL BE TAXABLE THERE.  CORRY V. BALTIMORE, 196 U.S. 466; SEE
NATIONAL BANK V. COMMONWEALTH, 9 WALL.  353; TAPPAN V. MERCHANTS'
NATIONAL BANK, 19 WALL.  490; RHODE ISLAND TRUST CO. V. DOUGHTON, 270
U.S. 69, 81.  IT INSISTS THAT AS THE SHARES ARE PROPERLY TAXABLE BY THE
RESPECTIVE STATES OF THEIR ORIGIN, AND AS DUE PROCESS FORBIDS THE
IMPOSITION OF A PROPERTY TAX UPON INTANGIBLES IN MORE THAN ONE STATE,
THEY CANNOT BE TAXED IN MINNESOTA. 

THE LOGIC IS INEXORABLE IF THE PREMISES ARE ACCEPTED.  BUT WE DO NOT
FIND IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER TAXATION OF THE SHARES IN MONTANA
OR NORTH DAKOTA IS FORECLOSED BY SUSTAINING THE MINNESOTA TAX.  NOR
NEED WE INQUIRE WHETHER A NON-RESIDENT SHAREHOLDER, BY ACQUIRING STOCK
IN A LOCAL CORPORATION, SO FAR SUBJECTS HIS INVESTMENT TO THE CONTROL
AND LAWS OF THE STATE WHICH HAS CREATED THE CORPORATION AS TO PRECLUDE
ANY OBJECTION, ON GROUNDS OF DUE PROCESS, TO THE TAXATION OF THE SHARES
THERE, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE SUBJECT TO TAXATION ELSEWHERE, AT THEIR
BUSINESS SITUS.  FN1  WE LEAVE THOSE QUESTIONS OPEN.  IT IS ENOUGH FOR
PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THIS COURT HAS OFTEN UPHELD AND NEVER DENIED THE
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO TAX SHARES OF STOCK AT THE PLACE OF THE DOMICIL
OF THE OWNER.  HAWLEY V. MALDEN, 232 U.S. 1, 11, 12; KLEIN V. BOARD OF
TAX SUPERVISORS, 282 U.S. 19, 24; WRIGHT V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R.
CO., 195 U.S. 219; KIDD V. ALABAMA, 188 U.S. 730; DARNELL V. INDIANA,
226 U.S. 390.  AND IT HAS FULLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE BUSINESS SITUS OF
AN INTANGIBLE AFFORDS AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR FIXING A PLACE OF
TAXATION.  SEE WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, SUPRA; DE GANAY V. LEDERER,
SUPRA; CF. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83, 91. 

THE RULE THAT PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION AT ITS SITUS, WITHIN
THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE TAXING STATE, READILY UNDERSTOOD
AND APPLIED WITH RESPECT TO TANGIBLES, IS IN ITSELF MEANINGLESS WHEN
APPLIED TO INTANGIBLES WHICH, SINCE THEY ARE WITHOUT PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS, CAN HAVE NO LOCATION IN SPACE.  SEE WHEELING STEEL
CORP. V. FOX, SUPRA, 209.  THE RESORT TO A FICTION BY THE ATTRIBUTION
OF A TAX SITUS TO AN INTANGIBLE IS ONLY A MEANS OF SYMBOLIZING, WITHOUT
FULLY REVEALING, THOSE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH ARE PERSUASIVE GROUNDS FOR
DECIDING THAT A PARTICULAR PLACE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF
THE TAX.  MOBILIA SEQUUNTUR PERSONAM, WHICH HAS WON UNQUALIFIED
ACCEPTANCE WHEN APPLIED TO THE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES, BLODGETT V.
SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1, 9-10, STATES A RULE WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE
REASONS FOR IT.  BUT WE HAVE RECENTLY HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT THAT
ENJOYMENT BY THE RESIDENT OF A STATE OF THE PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS IS
INSEPARABLE FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHARING THE COSTS OF ITS
GOVERNMENT, AND THAT A TAX MEASURED BY THE VALUE OF RIGHTS PROTECTED IS
BUT AN EQUITABLE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING THE BURDENS OF GOVERNMENT AMONG
THOSE WHO ARE PRIVILEGED TO ENJOY ITS BENEFITS.  SEE NEW YORK EX REL.
COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308. 

THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES REALIZED THROUGH THE PROTECTION, AT THE PLACE
OF DOMICIL, OF THE OWNERSHIP OF RIGHTS IN INTANGIBLES, THE VALUE OF
WHICH IS MADE THE MEASURE OF THE TAX, BEAR A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE
DISTRIBUTION OF BURDENS WHICH THE TAX EFFECTS.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS
SUPPORT THE TAXATION OF INTANGIBLES AT THE PLACE OF DOMICIL, AT LEAST
WHERE THEY ARE NOT SHOWN TO HAVE ACQUIRED A BUSINESS SITUS ELSEWHERE,
AS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT.  LIKE CONSIDERATIONS
SUPPORT THEIR TAXATION AT THEIR BUSINESS SITUS, FOR IT IS THERE THAT
THE OWNER IN EVERY PRACTICAL SENSE INVOKES AND ENJOYS THE PROTECTION OF
THE LAWS, AND IN CONSEQUENCE REALIZES THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF HIS
OWNERSHIP.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS ANY WANT OF DUE PROCESS IN THE
TAXATION OF THE CORPORATE SHARES IN MINNESOTA, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
EXTENT OF THE CONTROL OVER THEM WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE MAY SAVE
TO THE STATES OF INCORPORATION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  SEE CORRY V. BALTIMORE, 196 U.S. 466, 476, 477; TAPPAN V.
MERCHANTS' NATIONAL BANK, 19 WALL.  490, 499, 500; FLASH V. CONN, 109
U.S. 371, 377; WHITMAN V. OXFORD NATIONAL BANK, 176 U.S. 559, 564;
HANCOCK NATIONAL BANK V. FARNUM, 176 U.S. 640, 643; NASHUA SAVINGS BANK
V. ANGLO-AMERICAN CO., 189 U.S. 221, 230; CANADA SOUTHERN RY. CO. V.
GEBHARD, 109 U.S. 527, 537; RELFE V. RUNDLE, 103 U.S. 222, 226;
BERNHEIMER V. CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516, 533; CONVERSE V. HAMILTON, 224
U.S. 243, 260; CLARK V. WILLIARD, 292 U.S. 112, 121; ROYAL ARCANUM V.
GREEN, 237 U.S. 531, 542; MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA V. MIXER, 267 U.S.
544, 551; BRODERICK V. ROSNER, 294 U.S. 629, 643.   MR. JUSTICE BUTLER
TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :
















HERNDON V. LOWRY, 301 U.S. 242 


NOS. 474 AND 475.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937. 
182 GA. 582 - 186 S.E. 429, REVERSED. 


1.  A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION GOING TO THE VALIDITY OF A
CONVICTION OF CRIME UNDER A STATE STATUTE WAS NOT DECIDED ON AN APPEAL
TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE NOT PROPERLY RAISED (SEE HERNDON V.
GEORGIA, 295 U.S. 441).  AFTERWARDS THAT COURT CONSIDERED THE QUESTION
AND DECIDED IT AGAINST THE CONVICT, IN A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING. 
HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF HABEAS CORPUS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS A LOCAL
QUESTION AND THAT THE RULING ON THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS OPEN TO REVIEW
BY THIS COURT.  P. 247. 

2.  A STATE STATUTE PUNISHING AS A CRIME THE ACTS OF SOLICITING
MEMBERS FOR A POLITICAL PARTY AND CONDUCTING MEETINGS OF A LOCAL UNIT
OF THAT PARTY, WHERE ONE OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE PARTY, ESTABLISHED BY
REFERENCE TO A DOCUMENT NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED TO ANYONE BY
THE ACCUSED, MAY BE SAID TO BE ULTIMATE RESORT TO VIOLENCE IN THE
INDEFINITE FUTURE AGAINST ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT, UNWARRANTABLY INVADES
THE LIBERTY OF FREE SPEECH AND SO VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 
P. 260. 

3.  THE POWER OF A STATE TO ABRIDGE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY
IS THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE; AND THE PENALIZING EVEN OF
UTTERANCES OF A DEFINED CHARACTER MUST FIND ITS JUSTIFICATION IN A
REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF DANGER TO ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT.  THE
LIMITATION UPON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY MUST HAVE APPROPRIATE RELATION TO
THE SAFETY OF THE STATE.  LEGISLATION WHICH GOES BEYOND THIS NEED
VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 258. 

4.  THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF A STATE OF A CONVICTION
UNDER A STATUTE AS HAVING SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE, NECESSARILY
CONSTRUES THE STATUTE AS AUTHORIZING PUNISHMENT FOR THE ACT SO PROVEN. 
P. 255. 

5.  SECTION 56 OF THE PENAL CODE OF GEORGIA, AS CONSTRUED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, PUNISHES, AS AN ATTEMPT TO INCITE TO
INSURRECTION, ANY ATTEMPT TO INDUCE OTHERS TO JOIN IN ANY COMBINED
RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE.  AS AN ELEMENT, THE
ACCUSED MUST HAVE CONTEMPLATED RESISTANCE BY FORCE, BUT IN THIS RESPECT
HE MAY BE FOUND GUILTY IF HE INTENDED THAT AN INSURRECTION "SHOULD
HAPPEN DURING ANY TIME WITHIN WHICH HE MIGHT REASONABLY EXPECT HIS
INFLUENCE TO CONTINUE TO BE DIRECTLY OPERATIVE IN CAUSING SUCH ACTION
BY THOSE WHOM HE SOUGHT TO INDUCE."  HELD THAT THE STATUTE, AS
CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THIS CASE, IS REPUGNANT TO THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT IN THAT IT FURNISHES NO SUFFICIENTLY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD
OF GUILT AND INTERFERES UNDULY WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY. 
PP. 253, 261. 

HERNDON V. LOWRY, SHERIFF. 

APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS, RENDERED ON CROSS-APPEALS, IN A HABEAS CORPUS
PROCEEDING.  THE COURT BELOW SUSTAINED THE TRIAL COURT IN DECIDING THAT
THE CRIMINAL STATUTE INVOLVED DID NOT INFRINGE LIBERTY OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY, BUT DIFFERED WITH ITS HOLDING THAT THE STATUTE WAS TOO VAGUE
AND INDEFINITE, AND REVERSED ITS DECISION DISCHARGING THE APPELLANT
HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE APPELLANT CLAIMS HIS CONVICTION IN A STATE COURT DEPRIVED HIM OF
HIS LIBERTY CONTRARY TO THE GUARANTEES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  HE
ASSIGNS AS ERROR THE ACTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA IN
OVERRULING HIS CLAIM AND REFUSING HIM A DISCHARGE UPON HABEAS CORPUS. 
THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT, PRESENTED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON
COUNTY, ASSERTED THE APPELLANT WAS UNLAWFULLY DETAINED BY THE APPELLEE
AS SHERIFF UNDER THE SUPPOSED AUTHORITY OF A JUDGMENT PRONOUNCING HIM
GUILTY OF ATTEMPTING TO INCITE INSURRECTION, AS DEFINED IN SEC. 56 OF
THE PENAL CODE, AND SENTENCING HIM TO IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT LESS THAN
EIGHTEEN NOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS.  ATTACHED WERE COPIES OF THE
JUDGMENT AND THE INDICTMENT AND A STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH
THE VERDICT AND JUDGMENT WERE FOUNDED.  THE PETITION ALLEGED THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE WERE VOID AND APPELLANT'S DETENTION ILLEGAL
BECAUSE THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED DENIES AND ILLEGALLY
RESTRAINS HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY AND IS TOO VAGUE AND
INDEFINITE TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENTLY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT,
AND FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO ADJUDICATION BY ANY COURT OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO APPELLANT'S
CONDUCT.  A WRIT ISSUED.  THE APPELLEE ANSWERED, DEMURRED SPECIALLY TO,
AND MOVED TO STRIKE, SO MUCH OF THE PETITION AS INCORPORATED THE
EVIDENCE TAKEN AT THE TRIAL.  AT THE HEARING THE STATEMENT OF THE
EVIDENCE WAS IDENTIFIED AND WAS CONCEDED BY THE APPELLEE TO BE FULL AND
ACCURATE.  THE COURT DENIED THE MOTION TO STRIKE, OVERRULED THE SPECIAL
DEMURRER AND AN OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION OF THE TRIAL RECORD, DECIDED
THAT THE STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THE TRIAL OF THE
APPELLANT, DID NOT INFRINGE HIS LIBERTY OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY BUT
RAN AFOUL OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE TOO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE
TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENTLY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT, AND ORDERED
THE PRISONER'S DISCHARGE FROM CUSTODY.  THE APPELLEE TOOK THE CASE TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, ASSIGNING AS ERROR THE RULING UPON HIS
DEMURRER, MOTION, AND OBJECTION, AND THE DECISION AGAINST THE VALIDITY
OF THE STATUTE.  THE APPELLANT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE PRACTICE,
ALSO APPEALED, ASSIGNING AS ERROR THE DECISION WITH RESPECT TO HIS
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY.  THE TWO APPEALS WERE SEPARATELY
DOCKETED BUT CONSIDERED IN A SINGLE OPINION WHICH REVERSED THE JUDGMENT
ON THE APPELLEE'S APPEAL AND AFFIRMED ON THAT OF THE APPELLANT,  FN1
CONCLUDING:  "UNDER THE PLEADINGS AND THE EVIDENCE, WHICH EMBRACED THE
RECORD ON THE TRIAL THAT RESULTED IN THE CONVICTION, THE COURT ERRED,
IN THE HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING, IN REFUSING TO REMAND THE PRISONER TO
THE CUSTODY OF THE OFFICERS." 

THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARISE,
APPEAR FROM THE RECORD OF APPELLANT'S TRIAL AND CONVICTION EMBODIED IN
THE PETITION, AND FROM THE OPINIONS OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT IN THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING. 

AT THE JULY TERM 1932 OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY AN
INDICTMENT WAS RETURNED CHARGING AGAINST THE APPELLANT AN ATTEMPT TO
INDUCE OTHERS TO JOIN IN COMBINED RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF
THE STATE WITH INTENT TO DENY, TO DEFEAT, AND TO OVERTHROW SUCH
AUTHORITY BY OPEN FORCE, VIOLENT MEANS, AND UNLAWFUL ACTS; ALLEGING
THAT INSURRECTION WAS INTENDED TO BE MANIFESTED AND ACCOMPLISHED BY
UNLAWFUL AND VIOLENT ACTS.  THE INDICTMENT SPECIFIED THAT THE ATTEMPT
WAS MADE BY CALLING AND ATTENDING PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES AND BY MAKING
SPEECHES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ORGANIZING AND ESTABLISHING GROUPS AND
COMBINATIONS OF WHITE AND COLORED PERSONS UNDER THE NAME OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY OF ATLANTA FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNITING, COMBINING, AND
CONSPIRING TO INCITE RIOTS AND TO EMBARRASS AND IMPEDE THE ORDERLY
PROCESSES OF THE COURTS AND OFFERING COMBINED RESISTANCE TO, AND, BY
FORCE AND VIOLENCE, OVERTHROWING AND DEFEATING THE AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE; THAT BY SPEECH AND PERSUASION, THE APPELLANT SOLICITED AND
ATTEMPTED TO SOLICIT PERSONS TO JOIN, CONFEDERATE WITH, AND BECOME
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE AND
INTRODUCED INTO THE STATE AND CIRCULATED, AIDED AND ASSISTED IN
INTRODUCING AND CIRCULATING, BOOKLETS, PAPERS, AND OTHER WRITINGS WITH
THE SAME INTENT AND PURPOSE.  THE CHARGE WAS FOUNDED ON SEC. 56 OF THE
PENAL CODE, ONE OF FOUR RELATED SECTIONS.  SECTION 55 DEFINES
INSURRECTION, SEC. 56 DEFINES AN ATTEMPT TO INCITE INSURRECTION, SEC.
57 PRESCRIBES THE DEATH PENALTY FOR CONVICTION OF THE OFFENSES
DESCRIBED IN THE TWO PRECEDING SECTIONS UNLESS THE JURY SHALL RECOMMEND
MERCY, AND SEC. 58 PENALIZES, BY IMPRISONMENT, THE INTRODUCTION AND
CIRCULATION OF PRINTED MATTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCITING INSURRECTION,
RIOT, CONSPIRACY, ETC.  THE SECTIONS ARE COPIED IN THE MARGIN.  FN2 

THE APPELLANT WAS BROUGHT TO TRIAL AND CONVICTED.  HE APPEALED ON THE
GROUND THAT, UNDER THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN ITS
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT OF
GUILTY.  THE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT UPON A BROADER AND
DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT.  FN3  THE APPELLANT MOVED FOR A
REHEARING, CONTENDING, INTER ALIA, THAT, AS SO CONSTRUED, THE STATUTE
VIOLATED THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE COURT REFUSED TO PASS UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS THUS RAISED, ELABORATED AND EXPLAINED ITS
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IN ITS ORIGINAL OPINION, AND DENIED A
REHEARING.  FN4  THE APPELLANT PERFECTED AN APPEAL TO THIS COURT
CLAIMING THAT HE HAD TIMELY RAISED THE FEDERAL QUESTIONS AND WE,
THEREFORE, HAD JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THEM.  WE HELD WE WERE WITHOUT
JURISDICTION.  FN5  UPON HIS COMMITMENT TO SERVE HIS SENTENCE HE SOUGHT
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDING THE SUPERIOR COURT AND SUPREME COURT OF
GEORGIA HAVE CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OF THE CONTENTIONS BASED UPON THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE SCOPE OF A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED IS A STATE AND NOT A FEDERAL QUESTION AND SINCE
THE STATE COURTS TREATED THE PROCEEDING AS PROPERLY RAISING ISSUES OF
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, WE HAVE JURISDICTION AND ALL SUCH ISSUES
ARE OPEN HERE.  WE MUST, THEN, INQUIRE WHETHER THE STATUTE AS APPLIED
IN THE TRIAL DENIED APPELLANT RIGHTS SAFEGUARDED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT RESTS CONSISTS OF APPELLANT'S
ADMISSIONS AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION.  THE
APPELLANT TOLD THE STATE'S OFFICERS THAT SOME TIME PRIOR TO HIS ARREST
HE JOINED THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN KENTUCKY AND LATER CAME TO ATLANTA AS
A PAID ORGANIZER FOR THE PARTY, HIS DUTIES BEING TO CALL MEETINGS, TO
EDUCATE AND DISSEMINATE INFORMATION RESPECTING THE PARTY, TO DISTRIBUTE
LITERATURE, TO SECURE MEMBERS, AND TO WORK UP AN ORGANIZATION OF THE
PARTY IN ATLANTA; AND THAT HE HAD HELD OR ATTENDED THREE MEETINGS
CALLED BY HIM.  HE MADE NO FURTHER ADMISSION AS TO WHAT HE DID AS AN
ORGANIZER, OR WHAT HE SAID OR DID AT THE MEETINGS.  WHEN ARRESTED HE
CARRIED A BOX CONTAINING DOCUMENTS.  AFTER HE WAS ARRESTED HE CONDUCTED
THE OFFICERS TO HIS ROOM WHERE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND BUNDLES OF
NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS WERE FOUND, WHICH HE STATED WERE SENT HIM
FROM THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN NEW YORK.  HE GAVE THE
NAMES OF PERSONS WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE ORGANIZATION IN ATLANTA, AND
STATED HE HAD ONLY FIVE OR SIX ACTUAL MEMBERS AT THE TIME OF HIS
APPREHENSION.  THE STUBS OF MEMBERSHIP BOOKS FOUND IN THE BOX INDICATED
HE HAD ENROLLED MORE MEMBERS THAN HE STATED.  THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
THAT HE HAD DISTRIBUTED ANY OF THE MATERIAL CARRIED ON HIS PERSON AND
FOUND IN HIS ROOM, OR HAD TAKEN ANY OF IT TO MEETINGS, SAVE TWO
CIRCULARS OR APPEALS RESPECTING COUNTY RELIEF WHICH ARE CONFESSEDLY
INNOCUOUS. 

THE NEWSPAPERS, PAMPHLETS, PERIODICALS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FOUND IN
HIS ROOM WERE, SO HE STATED, INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION AT HIS
MEETINGS.  THESE THE APPELLEE CONCEDES WERE NOT INTRODUCED IN
EVIDENCE.  CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED
WERE PLACED IN EVIDENCE.  THEY FALL INTO FIVE CLASSES:  FIRST, RECEIPT
BOOKS SHOWING RECEIPTS OF SMALL SUMS OF MONEY, PADS CONTAINING
CERTIFICATES OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY'S PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUND, RECEIPTS FOR RENT OF A POST OFFICE BOX, AND
COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERSHIP BOOKS; SECONDLY, PRINTED MATTER CONSISTING
OF MAGAZINES, PAMPHLETS, AND COPIES OF THE "DAILY WORKER," STYLED THE
"CENTRAL ORGAN OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY," AND THE "SOUTHERN WORKER,"
ALSO, APPARENTLY, AN OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF THE PARTY; THIRDLY, TWO
BOOKS, ONE "LIFE AND STRUGGLES OF NEGRO TOILERS," BY GEORGE PADMORE,
AND THE OTHER "COMMUNISM AND CHRISTIANISM ANALYZED AND CONTRASTED FROM
THE MARXIAN AND DARWINIAN POINTS OF VIEW" BY RT. REV. WILLIAM
MONTGOMERY BROWN, D.D.; FOURTHLY, TRANSCRIPTS OF MINUTES OF MEETINGS
APPARENTLY HELD IN ATLANTA; FIFTHLY, TWO CIRCULARS, ONE OF WHICH WAS
PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT AND BOTH OF WHICH HAD BEEN CIRCULATED BY HIM
IN FULTON COUNTY.  ALL OF THESE MAY BE DISMISSED AS IRRELEVANT EXCEPT
THOSE FALLING WITHIN THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUPS.  NO INFERENCE CAN BE
DRAWN FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE BOOKS MENTIONED, EITHER THAT THEY
EMBODIED THE DOCTRINES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR THAT THEY REPRESENTED
VIEWS ADVOCATED BY THE APPELLANT.  THE MINUTES OF MEETINGS CONTAIN
NOTHING INDICATING THE PURPOSES OF THE ORGANIZATION OR ANY INTENT TO
OVERTHROW ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT; ON THE CONTRARY, THEY INDICATE MERELY
DISCUSSION OF RELIEF FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.  THE TWO CIRCULARS, ADMITTEDLY
DISTRIBUTED BY THE APPELLANT, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMMUNIST
PARTY, ITS AIMS OR PURPOSES, AND WERE NOT APPEALS TO JOIN THE PARTY BUT
WERE CONCERNED WITH UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF IN THE COUNTY AND INCLUDED
APPEALS TO THE WHITE AND NEGRO UNEMPLOYED TO ORGANIZE AND REPRESENT THE
NEED FOR FURTHER COUNTY AID.  THEY WERE CHARACTERIZED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF GEORGIA AS "MORE OR LESS HARMLESS." 

THE DOCUMENTS OF THE FIRST CLASS DISCLOSE THE ACTIVITY OF THE
APPELLANT AS AN ORGANIZER BUT, IN THIS RESPECT, ADD NOTHING TO HIS
ADMISSIONS. 

THE MATTER APPEARING UPON THE MEMBERSHIP BLANKS IS INNOCENT UPON ITS
FACE HOWEVER FOOLISH AND PERNICIOUS THE AIMS IT SUGGESTS.  UNDER THE
HEADING "WHAT IS THE COMMUNIST PARTY?"  THIS APPEARS: 

"THE PARTY IS THE VANGUARD OF THE WORKING CLASS AND CONSISTS OF THE
BEST, MOST CLASS CONSCIOUS, MOST ACTIVE, THE MOST COURAGEOUS MEMBERS OF
THAT CLASS.  IT INCORPORATES THE WHOLE BODY OF EXPERIENCE OF THE
PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE, BASING ITSELF UPON THE REVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF
MARXISM AND REPRESENTING THE GENERAL AND LASTING INTERESTS OF THE WHOLE
OF THE WORKING CLASS, THE PARTY PERSONIFIES THE UNITY OF PROLETARIAN
PRINCIPLES, OF PROLETARIAN WILL AND OF PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONARY
ACTION. 

"WE ARE THE PARTY OF THE WORKING CLASS.  CONSEQUENTLY, NEARLY THE
WHOLE OF THAT CLASS (IN TIME OF WAR AND CIVIL WAR, THE WHOLE OF THAT
CLASS) SHOULD WORK UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF OUR PARTY, SHOULD CREATE THE
CLOSEST CONTACTS WITH OUR PARTY." 

THIS VAGUE DECLARATION FALLS SHORT OF AN ATTEMPT TO BRING ABOUT
INSURRECTION EITHER IMMEDIATELY OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME BUT AMOUNTS
MERELY TO A STATEMENT OF ULTIMATE IDEALS.  THE BLANKS, HOWEVER,
INDICATE MORE SPECIFIC AIMS FOR WHICH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
ARE TO VOTE.  THEY ARE TO VOTE COMMUNIST FOR 

"1.  UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE STATE
AND EMPLOYERS. 

"2.  AGAINST HOOVER'S WAGE-CUTTING POLICY. 

"3.  EMERGENCY RELIEF FOR THE POOR FARMERS WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS BY
THE GOVERNMENT AND BANKS; EXEMPTION OF POOR FARMERS FROM TAXES AND FROM
FORCED COLLECTION OF RENTS OR DEBTS. 

"4.  EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE NEGROES AND SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE
BLACK BELT. 

"5.  AGAINST CAPITALISTIC TERROR:  AGAINST ALL FORMS OF SUPPRESSION
OF THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF THE WORKERS. 

"6.  AGAINST IMPERIALIST WAR; FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE CHINESE PEOPLE
AND OF THE SOVIET UNION." 

NONE OF THESE AIMS IS CRIMINAL UPON ITS FACE.  AS TO ONE, THE 4TH,
THE CLAIM IS THAT CRIMINALITY MAY BE FOUND BECAUSE OF EXTRINSIC FACTS. 
THOSE FACTS CONSIST OF POSSESSION BY APPELLANT OF BOOKLETS AND OTHER
LITERATURE OF THE SECOND CLASS ILLUSTRATING THE PARTY DOCTRINES.  THE
STATE CONTENDS THESE SHOW THAT THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY WERE
FORCIBLE SUBVERSION OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA.  THEY CONTAIN,
INTER ALIA, STATEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PARTY BASES ITSELF UPON
THE REVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF MARXISM, OPPOSES "BOSSES' WARS," APPROVES
OF THE SOVIET UNION, AND DESIRES THE "SMASHING" OF THE NATIONAL GUARD,
THE C.M.T.C., AND THE R.O.T.C. BUT THE STATE ESPECIALLY RELIES UPON A
BOOKLET ENTITLED "THE COMMUNIST POSITION ON THE NEGRO QUESTION," ON THE
COVER OF WHICH APPEARS A MAP OF THE UNITED STATES HAVING A DARK BELT
ACROSS CERTAIN SOUTHERN STATES AND THE PHRASE "SELF-DETERMINATION FOR
THE BLACK BELT." THE BOOKLET AFFIRMS THAT THE SOURCE OF THE COMMUNIST
SLOGAN "RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF THE NEGROES IN THE BLACK BELT"
IS A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL ON THE NEGRO QUESTION IN
THE UNITED STATES ADOPTED IN 1930, WHICH STATES THAT THE COMMUNIST
PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN ACTIVELY ATTEMPTING TO WIN
INCREASING SYMPATHY AMONG THE NEGRO POPULATION, THAT CERTAIN THINGS
HAVE BEEN ADVOCATED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEGROES IN THE NORTHERN
STATES, BUT THAT IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE UNITED STATES THE
COMMUNIST SLOGAN MUST BE "THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF THE
NEGROES IN THE BLACK BELT."  THE RESOLUTION DEFINES THE MEANING OF THE
SLOGAN AS 

"(A)  CONFISCATION OF THE LANDED PROPERTY OF THE WHITE LANDOWNERS AND
CAPITALISTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NEGRO FARMERS  ...  WITHOUT THIS
REVOLUTIONARY MEASURE, WITHOUT THE AGRARIAN REVOLUTION, THE RIGHT OF
SELF-DETERMINATION OF THE NEGRO POPULATION WOULD BE ONLY A UTOPIA OR,
AT BEST, WOULD REMAIN ONLY ON PAPER WITHOUT CHANGING IN ANY WAY THE
ACTUAL ENSLAVEMENT." 

"(B)  ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE UNITY OF THE BLACK BELT  ...  IF THE
RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF THE NEGROES IS TO BE PUT INTO FORCE, IT
IS NECESSARY WHEREVER POSSIBLE TO BRING TOGETHER INTO ONE GOVERNMENTAL
UNIT ALL DISTRICTS OF THE SOUTH WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE SETTLED
POPULATION CONSISTS OF NEGROES  ..." 

"(C)  RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION.  THIS MEANS COMPLETE AND UNLIMITED
RIGHT OF THE NEGRO MAJORITY TO EXERCISE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY IN THE
ENTIRE TERRITORY OF THE BLACK BELT, AS WELL AS TO DECIDE UPON THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN THEIR TERRITORY AND OTHER NATIONS, PARTICULARLY THE
UNITED STATES  ...  FIRST OF ALL, TRUE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
MEANS THAT THE NEGRO MAJORITY AND NOT THE WHITE MINORITY IN THE ENTIRE
TERRITORY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVELY UNITED BLACK BELT EXERCISES THE RIGHT
OF ADMINISTERING GOVERNMENTAL, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.  AT
THE PRESENT TIME ALL THIS POWER IS CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF THE
WHITE BOURGEOISIE AND LANDLORDS.  IT IS THEY WHO APPOINT ALL OFFICIALS,
IT IS THEY WHO DISPOSE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY, IT IS THEY WHO DETERMINE THE
TAXES, IT IS THEY WHO GOVERN AND MAKE THE LAWS.  THEREFORE, THE
OVERTHROW OF THIS CLASS RULE IN THE BLACK BELT IS UNCONDITIONALLY
NECESSARY IN THE STRUGGLE FOR THE NEGROES' RIGHT TO SELF
DETERMINATION.  THIS, HOWEVER, MEANS AT THE SAME TIME THE OVERTHROW OF
THE YOKE OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM IN THE BLACK BELT ON WHICH THE FORCES
OF THE LOCAL WHITE BOURGEOISIE DEPEND.  ONLY IN THIS WAY, ONLY IF THE
NEGRO POPULATION OF THE BLACK BELT WINS ITS FREEDOM FROM AMERICAN
IMPERIALISM EVEN TO THE POINT OF DECIDING ITSELF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN
ITS COUNTRY AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS, ESPECIALLY THE UNITED STATES, WILL
IT WIN REAL AND COMPLETE SELF-DETERMINATION.  ONE SHOULD DEMAND FROM
THE BEGINNING THAT NO ARMED FORCES OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM SHOULD
REMAIN ON THE TERRITORY OF THE BLACK BELT." 

FURTHER STATEMENTS APPEARING IN THE PAMPHLET ARE: 

"EVEN IF THE SITUATION DOES NOT YET WARRANT THE RAISING OF THE
QUESTION OF UPRISING, ONE SHOULD NOT LIMIT ONESELF AT PRESENT TO
PROPAGANDA FOR THE DEMAND, 'RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION,' BUT SHOULD
ORGANIZE MASS ACTIONS, SUCH AS DEMONSTRATIONS, STRIKES, TAX BOYCOTT
MOVEMENTS, ETC." 

"ONE CANNOT DENY THAT IT IS JUST POSSIBLE FOR THE NEGRO POPULATION OF
THE BLACK BELT TO WIN THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION DURING
CAPITALISM; BUT IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR AND INDUBITABLE THAT THIS IS
POSSIBLE ONLY THROUGH SUCCESSFUL REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE FOR POWER
AGAINST THE AMERICAN BOURGEOISIE, THROUGH WRESTING THE NEGROES' RIGHT
OF SELF-DETERMINATION FROM AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.  THUS, THE SLOGAN OF
RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION IS A REAL SLOGAN OF NATIONAL REBELLION
WHICH, TO BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH, NEED NOT BE SUPPLEMENTED BY
PROCLAIMING STRUGGLE FOR THE COMPLETE SEPARATION OF THE NEGRO ZONE, AT
LEAST NOT AT PRESENT." 

THERE IS MORE OF THE SAME PURPORT, PARTICULARLY REFERENCES TO THE
"REVOLUTIONARY TRADE UNIONS IN THE SOUTH," "REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE
AGAINST THE RULING WHITE BOURGEOISIE," AND "REVOLUTIONARY PROGRAM OF
THE COMMUNIST PARTY." 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE APPELLANT DISTRIBUTED ANY WRITINGS OR
PRINTED MATTER FOUND IN THE BOX HE CARRIED WHEN ARRESTED, OR ANY OTHER
ADVOCATING FORCIBLE SUBVERSION OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THE APPELLANT ADVOCATED, BY SPEECH OR WRITTEN WORD, AT
MEETINGS OR ELSEWHERE, ANY DOCTRINE OR ACTION IMPLYING SUCH FORCIBLE
SUBVERSION.  THERE IS EVIDENCE TENDING TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HELD
MEETINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECRUITING MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
AND SOLICITED CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE SUPPORT OF THAT PARTY AND THERE IS
PROOF OF THE DOCTRINES WHICH THAT PARTY ESPOUSES.  APPELLANT'S INTENT
TO INCITE INSURRECTION, IF IT IS TO BE FOUND, MUST REST UPON HIS
PROCURING MEMBERS FOR THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND HIS POSSESSION OF THAT
PARTY'S LITERATURE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED. 

"COMBINED RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, WITH INTENT
TO THE DENIAL THEREOF, WHEN THE SAME IS MANIFESTED OR INTENDED TO BE
MANIFESTED BY ACTS OF VIOLENCE."  FN6  THE APPELLANT WAS NOT INDICTED
UNDER THIS SECTION.  SECTION 58 DENOUNCES THE INTRODUCTION, PRINTING,
OR CIRCULATION, OR ASSISTING TO PRINT OR CIRCULATE ANY DOCUMENT "FOR
THE PURPOSE OF INCITING INSURRECTION."  THE APPELLANT WAS NOT INDICTED
UNDER THIS SECTION. 

FORCE OR VIOLENCE EXCEPT BY THE PHRASE "COMBINED RESISTANCE TO THE
LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE."  THE SUPREME COURT EVIDENTLY IMPORTING
FROM THE SIMILAR PHRASEOLOGY IN SEC. 55 THE ADDITIONAL ELEMENT
CONTAINED IN THAT SECTION, NAMELY, "MANIFESTED OR INTENDED TO BE
MANIFESTED BY ACTS OF VIOLENCE," HAS DECIDED THAT INTENDED RESORT TO
FORCE IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE DEFINED BY SEC. 56. 

TO ASCERTAIN HOW THE ACT IS HELD TO APPLY TO THE APPELLANT'S CONDUCT
WE TURN TO THE RULINGS OF THE STATE COURTS IN HIS CASE.  THE TRIAL
COURT INSTRUCTED THE JURY:  "IN ORDER TO CONVICT THE DEFENDANT,  ...
IT MUST APPEAR CLEARLY BY THE EVIDENCE THAT IMMEDIATE SERIOUS VIOLENCE
AGAINST THE STATE OF GEORGIA WAS TO BE EXPECTED OR ADVOCATED."  THE
JURY RENDERED A VERDICT OF GUILTY.  IN THE SUPREME COURT THE APPELLANT
URGED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS WHOLLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT
UNDER THE LAW AS THUS CONSTRUED.  THAT COURT SUSTAINED THE CONVICTION
BY CONSTRUING THE STATUTE THUS: 

"FORCE MUST HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED, BUT, AS SAID ABOVE, THE STATUTE
DOES NOT INCLUDE EITHER ITS OCCURRENCE OR ITS IMMINENCE AS AN
INGREDIENT OF THE PARTICULAR OFFENSE CHARGED....  NOR WOULD IT BE
NECESSARY TO GUILT THAT THE ALLEGED OFFENDER SHOULD HAVE INTENDED THAT
AN INSURRECTION SHOULD FOLLOW INSTANTLY OR AT ANY GIVEN TIME, BUT IT
WOULD BE SUFFICIENT THAT HE INTENDED IT TO HAPPEN AT ANY TIME, AS A
RESULT OF HIS INFLUENCE, BY THOSE WHOM HE SOUGHT TO INCITE."  FN7 

UPON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING THE COURT FURTHER ELABORATED ITS VIEWS
AS TO THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE: 

"FORCE MUST HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED, BUT THE STATUTE DOES NOT INCLUDE
EITHER ITS OCCURRENCE OR ITS IMMINENCE AS AN INGREDIENT OF THE
PARTICULAR OFFENSE CHARGED.  NOR WOULD IT BE NECESSARY TO GUILT THAT
THE ALLEGED OFFENDER SHOULD HAVE INTENDED THAT AN INSURRECTION SHOULD
FOLLOW INSTANTLY OR AT ANY GIVEN TIME, BUT AS TO THIS ELEMENT IT WOULD
BE SUFFICIENT IF HE INTENDED THAT IT SHOULD HAPPEN AT ANY TIME WITHIN
WHICH HE MIGHT REASONABLY EXPECT HIS INFLUENCE TO CONTINUE TO BE
DIRECTLY OPERATIVE IN CAUSING SUCH ACTION BY THOSE WHOM HE SOUGHT TO
INDUCE...."  FN8 

THE AFFIRMANCE OF CONVICTION UPON THE TRIAL RECORD NECESSARILY GIVES
SEC. 56 THE CONSTRUCTION THAT ONE WHO SEEKS MEMBERS FOR OR ATTEMPTS TO
ORGANIZE A LOCAL UNIT OF A PARTY WHICH HAS THE PURPOSES AND OBJECTS
DISCLOSED BY THE DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE MAY BE FOUND GUILTY OF AN
ATTEMPT TO INCITE INSURRECTION. 

THE QUESTIONS ARE WHETHER THIS CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF THE
STATUTE DEPRIVES THE ACCUSED OF THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF
ASSEMBLY GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND WHETHER THE
STATUTE SO CONSTRUED AND APPLIED FURNISHES A REASONABLY DEFINITE AND
ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT. 

THE APPELLANT, WHILE ADMITTING THAT THE PEOPLE MAY PROTECT THEMSELVES
AGAINST ABUSES OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH SAFEGUARDED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT BY PROHIBITING INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE AND CRIME, INSISTS THAT
LEGISLATIVE REGULATION MAY NOT GO BEYOND MEASURES FOREFENDING AGAINST
"CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER" OF THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST THE STATE.  FOR
THIS POSITION HE RELIES UPON OUR DECISIONS UNDER THE FEDERAL ESPIONAGE
ACTS  FN9  AND COGNATE STATE LEGISLATION.  THESE MADE IT CRIMINAL
WILFULLY TO CAUSE OR TO ATTEMPT TO CAUSE, OR INCITE OR ATTEMPT TO
INCITE, INSUBORDINATION, DISLOYALTY, MUTINY OR REFUSAL OF DUTY IN THE
MILITARY OR NAVAL FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OR WILFULLY TO OBSTRUCT
OR ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT THE RECRUITING OR ENLISTMENT SERVICE OF THE
UNITED STATES OR TO CONSPIRE FOR THESE PURPOSES.  WE SUSTAINED THE
POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT OR A STATE TO PROTECT THE WAR OPERATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES BY PUNISHING INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH THEM.  WE
RECOGNIZED, HOWEVER, THAT WORDS MAY BE SPOKEN OR WRITTEN FOR VARIOUS
PURPOSES AND THAT WILFUL AND INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
DESCRIBED OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE INFERRED FROM THE TIME,
PLACE, AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACT.  "THE QUESTION IN EVERY CASE IS
WHETHER THE WORDS USED ARE USED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARE OF SUCH A
NATURE AS TO CREATE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER THAT THEY WILL BRING
ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVILS THAT CONGRESS HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT.  IT
IS A QUESTION OF PROXIMITY AND DEGREE."  FN10 

THE LEGISLATION UNDER REVIEW DIFFERS RADICALLY FROM THE ESPIONAGE
ACTS IN THAT IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH A WILFUL ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT A
DESCRIBED AND DEFINED ACTIVITY OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

THE STATE, ON THE OTHER HAND, INSISTS THAT OUR DECISIONS UPHOLD STATE
STATUTES MAKING CRIMINAL UTTERANCES WHICH HAVE A "DANGEROUS TENDENCY"
TOWARDS THE SUBVERSION OF GOVERNMENT.  IT RELIES PARTICULARLY UPON
GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652.  THERE, HOWEVER, WE DEALT WITH A
STATUTE WHICH, QUITE UNLIKE SEC. 56 OF THE GEORGIA CRIMINAL CODE,
DENOUNCED AS CRIMINAL CERTAIN ACTS CAREFULLY AND ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED. 
WE SAID: 

"AND A STATE MAY PENALIZE UTTERANCES WHICH OPENLY ADVOCATE THE
OVERTHROW OF THE REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE SEVERAL STATES, BY VIOLENCE OR OTHER
UNLAWFUL MEANS."  (P. 668.) 

"BY ENACTING THE PRESENT STATUTE THE STATE HAS DETERMINED, THROUGH
ITS LEGISLATIVE BODY, THAT UTTERANCES ADVOCATING THE OVERTHROW OF
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT BY FORCE, VIOLENCE AND UNLAWFUL MEANS, ARE SO
INIMICAL TO THE GENERAL WELFARE AND INVOLVE SUCH DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE
EVIL THAT THEY MAY BE PENALIZED IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER. 
THAT DETERMINATION MUST BE GIVEN GREAT WEIGHT.  EVERY PRESUMPTION IS TO
BE INDULGED IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE.  MUGLER V. KANSAS,
123 U.S. 623, 661.  AND THE CASE IS TO BE CONSIDERED 'IN THE LIGHT OF
THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE STATE IS PRIMARILY THE JUDGE OF REGULATIONS
REQUIRED IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE;' AND THAT ITS
POLICE 'STATUTES MAY ONLY BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHERE THEY ARE
ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE ATTEMPTS TO EXERCISE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE
STATE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.'"  (P. 668.)  AND IT WAS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE STATUTE THERE INVOLVED THAT THE COURT QUOTED LANGUAGE RELIED
UPON BELOW AND IN ARGUMENT HERE FROM PEOPLE V. LLOYD, 304 ILL. 23; 136
N.E. 505, TO THE EFFECT THAT A STATE IS NOT COMPELLED TO DELAY ADOPTION
OF SUCH PREVENTIVE MEASURES UNTIL THE APPREHENDED DANGER BECOMES
CERTAIN.  OUT OF EXCESS OF CAUTION THE DISTINCTION WAS AGAIN CLEARLY
DRAWN BETWEEN ACTS OF THE ORDER OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT AND THE NEW YORK
ACT UNDER REVIEW. 

"...  WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE BODY HAS DETERMINED GENERALLY, IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION, THAT UTTERANCES OF A CERTAIN
KIND INVOLVE SUCH DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL THAT THEY MAY BE PUNISHED,
THE QUESTION WHETHER ANY SPECIFIC UTTERANCE COMING WITHIN THE
PROHIBITED CLASS IS LIKELY, IN AND OF ITSELF, TO BRING ABOUT THE
SUBSTANTIVE EVIL, IS NOT OPEN TO CONSIDERATION.  IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT
THE STATUTE ITSELF BE CONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT THE USE OF THE LANGUAGE
COMES WITHIN ITS PROHIBITION. 

"IT IS CLEAR THAT THE QUESTION IN SUCH CASES IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
FROM THAT INVOLVED IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE STATUTE MERELY PROHIBITS
CERTAIN ACTS INVOLVING THE DANGER OF SUBSTANTIVE EVIL, WITHOUT ANY
REFERENCE TO LANGUAGE ITSELF, AND IT IS SOUGHT TO APPLY ITS PROVISIONS
TO LANGUAGE USED BY THE DEFENDANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING ABOUT THE
PROHIBITED RESULTS.  THERE, IF IT BE CONTENDED THAT THE STATUTE CANNOT
BE APPLIED TO THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF ITS
PROTECTION BY THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR PRESS, IT MUST NECESSARILY BE
FOUND, AS AN ORIGINAL QUESTION, WITHOUT ANY PREVIOUS DETERMINATION BY
THE LEGISLATIVE BODY, WHETHER THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE USED INVOLVED SUCH
LIKELIHOOD OF BRINGING ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIL AS TO DEPRIVE IT OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION."  (PP. 670-671.) 

IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DECISION SUSTAINING THE NEW YORK STATUTE
FURNISHES NO WARRANT FOR THE APPELLEE'S CONTENTION THAT UNDER A LAW
GENERAL IN ITS DESCRIPTION OF THE MISCHIEF TO BE REMEDIED AND EQUALLY
GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE INTENT OF THE ACTOR, THE STANDARD OF GUILT
MAY BE MADE THE "DANGEROUS TENDENCY" OF HIS WORDS.    THE POWER OF A
STATE TO ABRIDGE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF ASSEMBLY IS THE EXCEPTION
RATHER THAN THE RULE AND THE PENALIZING EVEN OF UTTERANCES OF A DEFINED
CHARACTER MUST FIND ITS JUSTIFICATION IN A REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF
DANGER TO ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT
UNFETTERED.  THE LIMITATION UPON INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY MUST HAVE
APPROPRIATE RELATION TO THE SAFETY OF THE STATE.  LEGISLATION WHICH
GOES BEYOND THIS NEED VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IF,
THEREFORE, A STATE STATUTE PENALIZE INNOCENT PARTICIPATION IN A MEETING
HELD WITH AN INNOCENT PURPOSE MERELY BECAUSE THE MEETING WAS HELD UNDER
THE AUSPICES OF AN ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP IN WHICH, OR THE ADVOCACY OF
WHOSE PRINCIPLES, IS ALSO DENOUNCED AS CRIMINAL, THE LAW, SO CONSTRUED
AND APPLIED, GOES BEYOND THE POWER TO RESTRICT ABUSES OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND ARBITRARILY DENIES THAT FREEDOM.  FN11  AND, WHERE A STATUTE
IS SO VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN AS TO MAKE CRIMINAL AN UTTERANCE OR AN ACT
WHICH MAY BE INNOCENTLY SAID OR DONE WITH NO INTENT TO INDUCE RESORT TO
VIOLENCE OR ON THE OTHER HAND MAY BE SAID OR DONE WITH A PURPOSE
VIOLENTLY TO SUBVERT GOVERNMENT, A CONVICTION UNDER SUCH A LAW CANNOT
BE SUSTAINED.  UPON THIS VIEW WE HELD BAD A STATUTE OF CALIFORNIA
PROVIDING THAT "ANY PERSON WHO DISPLAYS A RED FLAG,  ...  IN ANY PUBLIC
PLACE OR IN ANY MEETING PLACE OR PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, OR FROM OR ON ANY
HOUSE, BUILDING OR WINDOW AS A SIGN, SYMBOL OR EMBLEM OF OPPOSITION TO
ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT  ...  IS GUILTY OF A FELONY."  FN12 

AFTER POINTING OUT THAT PEACEFUL AGITATION FOR A CHANGE OF OUR FORM
OF GOVERNMENT IS WITHIN THE GUARANTEED LIBERTY OF SPEECH, WE SAID OF
THE ACT IN QUESTION:  "A STATUTE WHICH UPON ITS FACE, AND AS
AUTHORITATIVELY CONSTRUED, IS SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE AS TO PERMIT THE
PUNISHMENT OF THE FAIR USE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY IS REPUGNANT TO THE
GUARANTY OF LIBERTY CONTAINED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."  (P. 369.) 

1.  THE APPELLANT HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ADDRESS MEETINGS AND
ORGANIZE PARTIES UNLESS IN SO DOING HE VIOLATED SOME PROHIBITION OF A
VALID STATUTE.  THE ONLY PROHIBITION HE IS SAID TO HAVE VIOLATED IS
THAT OF SEC. 56 FORBIDDING INCITEMENT OR ATTEMPTED INCITEMENT TO
INSURRECTION BY VIOLENCE.  IF THE EVIDENCE FAILS TO SHOW THAT HE DID SO
INCITE, THEN, AS APPLIED TO HIM, THE STATUTE UNREASONABLY LIMITS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE REQUISITE PROOF IS LACKING. 
FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE WITH RESPECT TO THE EVIDENCE OFFERED AT
THE TRIAL IT IS APPARENT THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND UPON THE APPELLANT'S
PERSON WERE CERTAINLY, AS TO SOME OF THE AIMS STATED THEREIN, INNOCENT
AND CONSISTENT WITH PEACEFUL ACTION FOR A CHANGE IN THE LAWS OR THE
CONSTITUTION.  THE PROOF WHOLLY FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD
READ THESE DOCUMENTS; THAT HE HAD DISTRIBUTED ANY OF THEM; THAT HE
BELIEVED AND ADVOCATED ANY OR ALL OF THE PRINCIPLES AND AIMS SET FORTH
IN THEM, OR THAT THOSE HE HAD PROCURED TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE PARTY
KNEW OR APPROVED OF ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS. 

THUS, THE CRUCIAL QUESTION IS NOT THE FORMAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
STATUTE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA BUT THE APPLICATION GIVEN IT.
IN ITS APPLICATION THE OFFENSE MADE CRIMINAL IS THAT OF SOLICITING
MEMBERS FOR A POLITICAL PARTY AND CONDUCTING MEETINGS OF A LOCAL UNIT
OF THAT PARTY WHEN ONE OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE PARTY, ESTABLISHED BY
REFERENCE TO A DOCUMENT NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED TO ANYONE BY
THE ACCUSED, MAY BE SAID TO BE ULTIMATE RESORT TO VIOLENCE AT SOME
INDEFINITE FUTURE TIME AGAINST ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT.  IT IS TO BE BORNE
IN MIND THAT THE LEGISLATURE OF GEORGIA HAS NOT MADE MEMBERSHIP IN THE
COMMUNIST PARTY UNLAWFUL BY REASON OF ITS SUPPOSED DANGEROUS TENDENCY
EVEN IN THE REMOTE FUTURE.  THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER GEORGIA MIGHT,
IN ANALOGY TO WHAT OTHER STATES HAVE DONE, SO DECLARE.  FN13  THE
APPELLANT INDUCED OTHERS TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.  DID
HE THUS INCITE TO INSURRECTION BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THEY AGREED
TO ABIDE BY THE TENETS OF THE PARTY, SOME OF THEM LAWFUL, OTHERS, AS
MAY BE ASSUMED, UNLAWFUL, IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF THAT HE BROUGHT THE
UNLAWFUL AIMS TO THEIR NOTICE, THAT HE APPROVED THEM, OR THAT THE
FANTASTIC PROGRAM THEY ENVISAGED WAS CONCEIVED OF BY ANYONE AS MORE
THAN AN ULTIMATE IDEAL?  DOUBTLESS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MIGHT AFFECT
THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IF APPELLANT HAD BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE SAID
THAT THE BLACK BELT SHOULD BE ORGANIZED AT ONCE AS A SEPARATE STATE AND
THAT THAT OBJECTIVE WAS ONE OF HIS PRINCIPAL AIMS.  BUT HERE
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS ALL TO THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.  THE ONLY
OBJECTIVES APPELLANT IS PROVED TO HAVE URGED ARE THOSE HAVING TO DO
WITH UNEMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY RELIEF WHICH ARE VOID OF CRIMINALITY. 
HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND HIS SOLICITATION OF A FEW
MEMBERS WHOLLY FAILS TO ESTABLISH AN ATTEMPT TO INCITE OTHERS TO
INSURRECTION.  INDEED, SO FAR AS APPEARS, HE HAD BUT A SINGLE COPY OF
THE BOOKLET THE STATE CLAIMS TO BE OBJECTIONABLE; THAT COPY HE
RETAINED.  THE SAME MAY BE SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER BOOKS AND
PAMPHLETS, SOME OF THEM OF MORE INNOCENT PURPORT.  IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES, TO MAKE MEMBERSHIP IN THE PARTY AND SOLICITATION OF
MEMBERS FOR THAT PARTY A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, PUNISHABLE BY DEATH, IN THE
DISCRETION OF A JURY, IS AN UNWARRANTED INVASION OF THE RIGHT OF
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 

2.  THE STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IN THE APPELLANT'S TRIAL,
DOES NOT FURNISH A SUFFICIENTLY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT.  THE
ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT INCITEMENT TO VIOLENT INTERFERENCE WITH ANY GIVEN
ACTIVITY OR OPERATION OF THE STATE.  BY FORCE OF IT, AS CONSTRUED, THE
JUDGE AND JURY TRYING AN ALLEGED OFFENDER CANNOT APPRAISE THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT'S UTTERANCES OR ACTIVITIES
AS BEGETTING A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF FORCIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF A
PARTICULAR STATE FUNCTION.  NOR IS ANY SPECIFIED CONDUCT OR UTTERANCE
OF THE ACCUSED MADE AN OFFENSE. 

THE TEST OF GUILT IS THUS FORMULATED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE.  FORCIBLE ACTION MUST HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED BUT IT WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION IF THE ACCUSED INTENDED THAT AN
INSURRECTION "SHOULD HAPPEN AT ANY TIME WITHIN WHICH HE MIGHT
REASONABLY EXPECT HIS INFLUENCE TO CONTINUE TO BE DIRECTLY OPERATIVE IN
CAUSING SUCH ACTION BY THOSE WHOM HE SOUGHT TO INDUCE."  IF THE JURY
CONCLUDE THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE CONTEMPLATED THAT ANY ACT OR
UTTERANCE OF HIS IN OPPOSITION TO THE ESTABLISHED ORDER OR ADVOCATING A
CHANGE IN THAT ORDER, MIGHT, IN THE DISTANT FUTURE, EVENTUATE IN A
COMBINATION TO OFFER FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO THE STATE, OR AS THE STATE
SAYS, IF THE JURY BELIEVE HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT HIS WORDS WOULD
HAVE "A DANGEROUS TENDENCY" THEN HE MAY BE CONVICTED.  TO BE GUILTY
UNDER THE LAW, AS CONSTRUED, A DEFENDANT NEED NOT ADVOCATE RESORT TO
FORCE.  HE NEED NOT TEACH ANY PARTICULAR DOCTRINE TO COME WITHIN ITS
PURVIEW.  INDEED, HE NEED NOT BE ACTIVE IN THE FORMATION OF A
COMBINATION OR GROUP IF HE AGITATE FOR A CHANGE IN THE FRAME OF
GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER PEACEFUL HIS OWN INTENT.  IF, BY THE EXERCISE OF
PROPHESY, HE CAN FORECAST THAT, AS A RESULT OF A CHAIN OF CAUSATION,
FOLLOWING HIS PROPOSED ACTION A GROUP MAY ARISE AT SOME FUTURE DATE
WHICH WILL RESORT TO FORCE, HE IS BOUND TO MAKE THE PROPHESY AND
ABSTAIN, UNDER PAIN OF PUNISHMENT, POSSIBLY OF EXECUTION.  EVERY PERSON
WHO ATTACKS EXISTING CONDITIONS, WHO AGITATES FOR A CHANGE IN THE FORM
OF GOVERNMENT, MUST TAKE THE RISK THAT IF A JURY SHOULD BE OF OPINION
HE OUGHT TO HAVE FORESEEN THAT HIS UTTERANCES MIGHT CONTRIBUTE IN ANY
MEASURE TO SOME FUTURE FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT
HE MAY BE CONVICTED OF THE OFFENSE OF INCITING INSURRECTION.  PROOF
THAT THE ACCUSED IN FACT BELIEVED THAT HIS EFFORT WOULD CAUSE A VIOLENT
ASSAULT UPON THE STATE WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO CONVICTION.  IT WOULD
BE SUFFICIENT IF THE JURY THOUGHT HE REASONABLY MIGHT FORETELL THAT
THOSE HE PERSUADED TO JOIN THE PARTY MIGHT, AT SOME TIME IN THE
INDEFINITE FUTURE, RESORT TO FORCIBLE RESISTANCE OF GOVERNMENT.  THE
QUESTION THUS PROPOSED TO A JURY INVOLVES PURE SPECULATION AS TO FUTURE
TRENDS OF THOUGHT AND ACTION.  WITHIN WHAT TIME MIGHT ONE REASONABLY
EXPECT THAT AN ATTEMPTED ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THE
UNITED STATES WOULD RESULT IN VIOLENT ACTION BY THAT PARTY?  IF A JURY
RETURNED A SPECIAL VERDICT SAYING TWENTY YEARS OR EVEN FIFTY YEARS THE
VERDICT COULD NOT BE SHOWN TO BE WRONG.  THE LAW, AS THUS CONSTRUED,
LICENSES THE JURY TO CREATE ITS OWN STANDARD IN EACH CASE.  IN THIS
ASPECT WHAT WAS SAID IN UNITED STATES V. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255 U.S.
81, IS PARTICULARLY APPOSITE: 

"OBSERVE THAT THE SECTION FORBIDS NO SPECIFIC OR DEFINITE ACT.  IT
CONFINES THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION WHICH IT AUTHORIZES TO
NO ELEMENT ESSENTIALLY INHERING IN THE TRANSACTION AS TO WHICH IT
PROVIDES.  IT LEAVES OPEN, THEREFORE, THE WIDEST CONCEIVABLE INQUIRY,
THE SCOPE OF WHICH NO ONE CAN FORESEE AND THE RESULT OF WHICH NO ONE
CAN FORESHADOW OR ADEQUATELY GUARD AGAINST.  IN FACT, WE SEE NO REASON
TO DOUBT THE SOUNDNESS OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE COURT BELOW, IN ITS
OPINION, TO THE EFFECT THAT, TO ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE THE SECTION WOULD BE
THE EXACT EQUIVALENT OF AN EFFORT TO CARRY OUT A STATUTE WHICH IN TERMS
MERELY PENALIZED AND PUNISHED ALL ACTS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WHEN UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE IN THE ESTIMATION OF THE COURT
AND JURY  ..."  (P. 89.) 

THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE STATE HELD THE SHERMAN LAW FURNISHED A
REASONABLE STANDARD OF GUILT BECAUSE IT MADE A STANDARD LONG RECOGNIZED
BY THE COMMON LAW THE STATUTORY TEST.  FN14 

THE STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED, AMOUNTS MERELY TO A DRAGNET
WHICH MAY ENMESH ANYONE WHO AGITATES FOR A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT IF A
JURY CAN BE PERSUADED THAT HE OUGHT TO HAVE FORESEEN HIS WORDS WOULD
HAVE SOME EFFECT IN THE FUTURE CONDUCT OF OTHERS.  NO REASONABLY
ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD OF GUILT IS PRESCRIBED.  SO VAGUE AND
INDETERMINATE ARE THE BOUNDARIES THUS SET TO THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
ASSEMBLY THAT THE LAW NECESSARILY VIOLATES THE GUARANTEES OF LIBERTY
EMBODIED IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  182 GA. 582; 186 S.E. 429. 

FN2  "55.  INSURRECTION SHALL CONSIST IN ANY COMBINED RESISTANCE TO
THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, WITH INTENT TO THE DENIAL THEREOF,
WHEN THE SAME IS MANIFESTED OR INTENDED TO BE MANIFESTED BY ACTS OF
VIOLENCE. 

"56.  ANY ATTEMPT, BY PERSUASION OR OTHERWISE, TO INDUCE OTHERS TO
JOIN IN ANY COMBINED RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE
SHALL CONSTITUTE AN ATTEMPT TO INCITE INSURRECTION. 

"57.  ANY PERSON CONVICTED OF THE OFFENSE OF INSURRECTION, OR AN
ATTEMPT TO INCITE INSURRECTION, SHALL BE PUNISHED WITH DEATH; OR, IF
THE JURY RECOMMEND TO MERCY, CONFINEMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY FOR NOT
LESS THAN FIVE NOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. 

"58.  IF ANY PERSON SHALL BRING, INTRODUCE, PRINT, OR CIRCULATE, OR
CAUSE TO BE INTRODUCED, CIRCULATED, OR PRINTED, OR AID OR ASSIST, OR BE
IN ANY MANNER INSTRUMENTAL IN BRINGING, INTRODUCING, CIRCULATING, OR
PRINTING WITHIN THIS STATE ANY PAPER, PAMPHLET, CIRCULAR, OR ANY
WRITING, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCITING INSURRECTION, RIOT, CONSPIRACY, OR
RESISTANCE AGAINST THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, OR AGAINST THE
LIVES OF THE INHABITANTS THEREOF, OR ANY PART OF THEM, HE SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY CONFINEMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY FOR NOT LESS THAN FIVE NOR
LONGER THAN 20 YEARS."  (GEORGIA CODE, 1933, SECS. 26-901 TO 26-904,
INCLUSIVE.) 

FN3  HERNDON V. STATE, 178 GA. 832; 174 S.E. 597. 

FN4  HERNDON V. STATE, 179 GA. 597; 176 S.E. 620. 

FN5  HERNDON V. GEORGIA, 295 U.S. 441. 

FN6  NOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN7  178 GA. 855, 174 S.E. 597. 

FN8  179 GA. 600, 176 S.E. 622. 

FN9  ACT OF JUNE 15, 1917, C. 30, 40 STAT. 217, 219; AMENDED BY ACT
OF MAY 16, 1918, C. 75, 40 STAT. 553. 

FN10  SEE SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 52; FROHWERK V.
UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 204; DEBS V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 211;
ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616; SCHAEFER V. UNITED STATES, 251
U.S. 466; PIERCE V. UNITED STATES, 252 U.S. 239; O'CONNELL V. UNITED
STATES, 253 U.S. 142; STATE V. HOLM, 139 MINN. 267; 166 N.W. 181;
GILBERT V. MINNESOTA, 254 U.S. 325. 

FN11  DEJONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353. 

FN12  STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359. 

FN13  SEE THE STATUTES DRAWN IN QUESTION IN GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268
U.S. 652, AT 654, AND IN WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 359. 

FN14  WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. V. TEXAS, 212 U.S. 86; NASH V. UNITED
STATES, 229 U.S. 373. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, DISSENTING. 

I AM OF OPINION THAT THE GEORGIA STATUTE, AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE IN HERNDON'S CASE, PRESCRIBES A
REASONABLY DEFINITE AND ASCERTAINABLE STANDARD BY WHICH TO DETERMINE
THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED, AND DOES NOT ENCROACH ON HIS
RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF ASSEMBLY.    IT PLAINLY APPEARS, I
THINK, THAT THE OFFENSE DEFINED IN THE STATUTE, AND OF WHICH HERNDON
WAS CONVICTED, WAS NOT THAT OF ADVOCATING A CHANGE IN THE STATE
GOVERNMENT BY LAWFUL MEANS, SUCH AS AN ORDERLY EXERTION OF THE ELECTIVE
FRANCHISE OR OF THE POWER TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION, BUT WAS THAT
OF ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE AND INCITE OTHERS TO JOIN IN COMBINED FORCIBLE
RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE. 

INSURRECTION, ATTEMPTS TO INCITE INSURRECTION, AND THE PUNISHMENT
THEREFOR, AND ARE SO CLOSELY RELATED THAT ALL EVIDENTLY HAVE A BEARING
ON THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF ANY ONE OF THEM.  SECTION 55 DENOUNCES
INSURRECTION AND DEFINES IT AS "ANY COMBINED RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, WITH INTENT TO THE DENIAL THEREOF, WHEN THE
SAME IS MANIFESTED OR INTENDED TO BE MANIFESTED BY ACTS OF VIOLENCE." 
AS "ANY ATTEMPT, BY PERSUASION OR OTHERWISE, TO INDUCE OTHERS TO JOIN
IN ANY COMBINED RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE." 

WHILE SEC. 56 DOES NOT IN DIRECT TERMS INCLUDE FORCE OR VIOLENCE AS A
FEATURE OF THE "COMBINED RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE" THE ATTEMPT TO INDUCE WHICH IT DENOUNCES, THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE HAS CONSTRUED THE SECTION, DOUBTLESS BY REASON OF ITS
RELATION TO THE OTHERS, AS MAKING INTENDED RESORT TO FORCE OR VIOLENCE
AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF SUCH "COMBINED RESISTANCE."  FN2  THEREFORE THE
WAS UNDER SEC. 56 THAT HERNDON WAS INDICTED, TRIED AND CONVICTED. 

BY THE INDICTMENT HE WAS CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE OTHERS TO
JOIN IN COMBINED RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE "BY
OPEN FORCE AND BY VIOLENT MEANS, AND BY UNLAWFUL ACTS," THE MODES OF
ATTEMPTED INDUCEMENT BEING SPECIFIED.  UPON THE TRIAL THE COURT
INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT NEITHER "POSSESSION OF LITERATURE
INSURRECTIONARY IN ITS NATURE" NOR "ENGAGING IN ACADEMIC OR
PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION OF ABSTRACT PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMICS OR
POLITICAL OR OTHER SUBJECTS, HOWEVER RADICAL OR REVOLUTIONARY IN THEIR
NATURE," WOULD WARRANT A CONVICTION; AND THAT A VERDICT OF GUILT COULD
NOT BE GIVEN UNLESS IT CLEARLY APPEARED FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT
"IMMEDIATE SERIOUS VIOLENCE AGAINST THE STATE" WAS EXPECTED OR
ADVOCATED BY THE ACCUSED. 

IN AFFIRMING THE CONVICTION THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE HELD THAT
UNDER THE STATUTE "FORCE MUST HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED," BUT THAT IT IS
NOT NECESSARY TO GUILT THAT THE ACCUSED "SHOULD HAVE INTENDED THAT AN
INSURRECTION SHOULD FOLLOW INSTANTLY OR AT ANY GIVEN TIME, BUT IT WOULD
BE SUFFICIENT THAT HE INTENDED IT TO HAPPEN AT ANY TIME, AS A RESULT"
OF HIS PERSUASION - THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE BEING "TO ARREST AT ITS
INCIPIENCY ANY EFFORT TO OVERTHROW THE STATE GOVERNMENT, WHERE IT TAKES
THE FORM OF AN ACTUAL ATTEMPT TO INCITE OTHERS TO INSURRECTION." 

THEN, COMING TO CONSIDER THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE, THE SUPREME
COURT STATED:  "FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, THE QUESTION HERE IS SIMPLY
THIS:  DID THE EVIDENCE SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO
INDUCE OTHERS TO COME TOGETHER IN ANY COMBINED FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO
THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE?"  AND THE COURT CONCLUDED ITS
CONSIDERATION OF THIS QUESTION BY SAYING, "THE JURY WERE AMPLY
AUTHORIZED TO INFER THAT VIOLENCE WAS INTENDED AND THAT THE DEFENDANT
DID ATTEMPT TO INDUCE OTHERS TO COMBINE IN SUCH RESISTANCE TO THE
LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE."  FN3 

THE ACCUSED SOUGHT A REHEARING, LARGELY BECAUSE OF HIS UNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT WAS SAID IN THE COURT'S OPINION RESPECTING THE EXPECTED TIME OF
THE INTENDED RESORT TO FORCE.  A REHEARING WAS DENIED, AND IN THAT
CONNECTION THE COURT SAID:  FN4 

"THE LANGUAGE USED BY THIS COURT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH THE USUAL
REASONABLE IMPLICATIONS.  THE PHRASE 'AT ANY TIME,' AS CRITICIZED IN
THE MOTION FOR REHEARING, WAS NOT INTENDED TO MEAN AT ANY TIME IN THE
INDEFINITE FUTURE, OR AT ANY POSSIBLE LATER TIME, HOWEVER REMOTE.  AN
ACTIVITY NOW COULD HARDLY BE EXPECTED TO BE THE DIRECT PRODUCING CAUSE
OF AN INSURRECTION AFTER THE LAPSE OF A GREAT PERIOD OF TIME, AND IT
WAS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THIS COURT TO SUGGEST THAT AS TO THE MENTAL
REQUISITE ANY SUCH INTENT WOULD BE A SUFFICIENT INGREDIENT OF AN
ATTEMPT TO INCITE AN INSURRECTION.  ON THE CONTRARY THE PHRASE 'AT ANY
TIME' WAS NECESSARILY INTENDED, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD, TO
MEAN WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME; THAT IS, WITHIN SUCH TIME AS ONE'S
PERSUASION OR OTHER ADOPTED MEANS MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE
DIRECTLY OPERATIVE IN CAUSING AN INSURRECTION.  ACCORDINGLY, THE
STATEMENTS BY THIS COURT AS QUOTED IN THE MOTION FOR REHEARING ARE TO
BE ACCEPTED IN THE FOLLOWING SENSE:  FORCE MUST HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED,
BUT THE STATUTE DOES NOT INCLUDE EITHER ITS OCCURRENCE OR ITS IMMINENCE
AS AN INGREDIENT OF THE PARTICULAR OFFENSE CHARGED.  NOR WOULD IT BE
NECESSARY TO GUILT THAT THE ALLEGED OFFENDER SHOULD HAVE INTENDED THAT
AN INSURRECTION SHOULD FOLLOW INSTANTLY OR AT ANY GIVEN TIME, BUT AS TO
THIS ELEMENT IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT IF HE INTENDED THAT IT SHOULD
HAPPEN AT ANY TIME WITHIN WHICH HE MIGHT REASONABLY EXPECT HIS
INFLUENCE TO CONTINUE TO BE DIRECTLY OPERATIVE IN CAUSING SUCH ACTION
BY THOSE WHOM HE SOUGHT TO INDUCE.  THIS STATEMENT, CONSIDERED WITH
WHAT WAS SAID IN THE ORIGINAL DECISION, REPRESENTS THE VIEW OF THIS
COURT AS TO THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UNDER CONSIDERATION;
AND UNDER THE STATUTE AS THUS INTERPRETED, WE SAY, AS BEFORE, THAT THE
EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE THE CONVICTION.  IN VIEW OF WHAT
HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE, IT WOULD SEEM THAT ALL CONTENTIONS MADE IN THE
MOTION FOR REHEARING SHOULD NECESSARILY FAIL, BASED, AS THEY ARE, UPON
AN ERRONEOUS CONSTRUCTION OF OUR DECISION." 

IT THUS IS MADE QUITE PLAIN THAT THE CASE PROCEEDED FROM BEGINNING TO
END, AND IN BOTH STATE COURTS, UPON THE THEORY THAT THE OFFENSE
DENOUNCED BY THE STATUTE AND CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT WAS THAT OF
ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE AND INCITE OTHERS TO JOIN IN COMBINED FORCIBLE
RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE; THAT THE JURY RETURNED
A VERDICT OF GUILTY UPON THAT THEORY; AND THAT IT WAS UPON THE SAME
THEORY THAT THE SUPREME COURT HELD THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS SUPPORTED BY
THE EVIDENCE, AND AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION. 

THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT FROM THAT JUDGMENT OF AFFIRMANCE BUT FROM A
JUDGMENT DENYING A SUBSEQUENT PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS.  FN5 

IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT ON THIS APPEAL THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED ON THE
TRIAL IN THE CRIMINAL CASE MAY BE EXAMINED TO ASCERTAIN HOW THE STATUTE
WAS APPLIED, I AM OF OPINION, AFTER SUCH AN EXAMINATION, THAT THE
STATUTE WAS APPLIED AS IF THE WORDS "COMBINED RESISTANCE" THEREIN WERE
IN LETTER AND MEANING "COMBINED FORCIBLE RESISTANCE." 

THE EVIDENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS EMBODIED IN THE PRESENT RECORD, WILL BE
HERE STATED IN REDUCED VOLUME WITHOUT OMITTING ANYTHING MATERIAL. 

HERNDON IS A NEGRO AND A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE U.S.A.,
WHICH IS A SECTION OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL.  HE WAS SENT FROM
KENTUCKY TO ATLANTA, GEORGIA, AS A PAID ORGANIZER FOR THE PARTY. 
ATLANTA IS WITHIN AN AREA WHERE THERE IS A LARGE NEGRO POPULATION, AND
THE COMMUNIST PARTY HAS BEEN ENDEAVORING TO EXTEND ITS ACTIVITIES AND
MEMBERSHIP TO THAT POPULATION AMONG OTHERS.  HERNDON'S DUTIES AS AN
ORGANIZER WERE TO CALL AND CONDUCT MEETINGS, TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION
RESPECTING THE PARTY, TO DISTRIBUTE ITS LITERATURE, TO EDUCATE
PROSPECTS AND SECURE MEMBERS, TO RECEIVE DUES AND CONTRIBUTIONS, AND TO
WORK UP A SUBORDINATE ORGANIZATION OF THE PARTY.  HE CALLED AND
CONDUCTED MEETINGS WHICH EVIDENTLY WERE SECRET, SOLICITED AND SECURED
MEMBERS, AND RECEIVED DUES AND CONTRIBUTIONS.  HE AND OTHERS, WHEN
BECOMING MEMBERS, SUBSCRIBED TO AN OBLIGATION SAYING "THE UNDERSIGNED
DECLARES HIS ADHERENCE TO THE PROGRAM AND STATUTES OF THE COMMUNIST
INTERNATIONAL AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE U.S.A., AND AGREES TO
SUBMIT TO THE DISCIPLINE OF THE PARTY AND TO ENGAGE ACTIVELY IN ITS
WORK." 

WHEN ARRESTED HE HAD UNDER HIS ARM A BOX IN WHICH HE WAS CARRYING
MEMBERSHIP AND COLLECTION BOOKS WHICH HE HAD BEEN USING AND VARIOUS
PAMPHLETS, BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS, ALL PERTAINING TO THE STRUCTURE,
PURPOSES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PARTY.  TWO OR THREE OF THE PAPERS HAD
BEEN PREPARED BY HIM AND DISCLOSED THAT HE WAS AN ACTIVE SPIRIT IN THE
"SECTION COMMITTEE" AND THE "UNEMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE," BOTH SUBORDINATE
LOCAL AGENCIES OF THE PARTY.  THE MEMBERSHIP BOOKS, BESIDES SHOWING
NAMES OF THOSE WHOM HE HAD INDUCED TO BECOME MEMBERS AND DATES OF THEIR
ADMISSION, CONTAINED EXTRACTS FROM THE PARTY STATUTES, SOME OF WHICH
READ: 

"A MEMBER OF THE PARTY CAN BE EVERY PERSON FROM THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN
UP WHO ACCEPTS THE PROGRAM AND STATUTES OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL
AND THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE U.S.A., WHO BECOMES A MEMBER OF A BASIC
ORGANIZATION OF THE PARTY, WHO IS ACTIVE IN THIS ORGANIZATION, WHO
SUBORDINATES HIMSELF TO ALL DECISIONS OF THE COMINTERN AND OF THE
PARTY, AND REGULARLY PAYS HIS MEMBERSHIP DUES." 

"THE STRICTEST PARTY DISCIPLINE IS THE MOST SOLEMN DUTY OF ALL PARTY
MEMBERS AND ALL PARTY ORGANIZATIONS.  THE DECISIONS OF THE CI AND THE
PARTY CONVENTION OF THE CC AND OF ALL LEADING COMMITTEES OF THE PARTY,
MUST BE PROMPTLY CARRIED OUT.  DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS OVER WHICH THERE
HAVE BEEN DIFFERENCES MUST NOT CONTINUE AFTER THE DECISION HAS BEEN
MADE." 

"THE PARTY IS THE VANGUARD OF THE WORKING CLASS AND CONSISTS OF THE
BEST, MOST CLASS CONSCIOUS, MOST ACTIVE, THE MOST COURAGEOUS MEMBERS OF
THAT CLASS.  IT INCORPORATES THE WHOLE BODY OF EXPERIENCE OF THE
PROLETARIAN STRUGGLE, BASING ITSELF UPON THE REVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF
MARXISM AND REPRESENTING THE GENERAL AND LASTING INTERESTS OF THE WHOLE
OF THE WORKING CLASS.  THE PARTY PERSONIFIES THE UNITY OF PROLETARIAN
PRINCIPLES, OF PROLETARIAN WILL AND OF PROLETARIAN REVOLUTIONARY
ACTION." 

THE COLLECTION BOOKS CONTAINED THE STATEMENT "EVERY DOLLAR COLLECTED
IS A BULLET FIRED INTO THE BOSS CLASS." 

THE MEMBERSHIP AND COLLECTION BOOKS HAD BEEN SENT TO HERNDON FROM THE
MAIN OFFICE OF THE PARTY IN NEW YORK FOR USE BY HIM, AND HE HAD BEEN
USING THEM IN SECURING MEMBERS AND IN COLLECTING DUES AND
CONTRIBUTIONS.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO OR THREE PAPERS PREPARED BY
HIM AND HERETOFORE MENTIONED, THE LITERATURE WHICH HE WAS CARRYING
UNDER HIS ARM WHEN ARRESTED HAD BEEN SENT TO HIM FROM THE SAME OFFICE,
TOGETHER WITH MANY PAMPHLETS, BOOKS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, FOR USE AND
DISTRIBUTION BY HIM IN HIS WORK AS AN ORGANIZER.  THE LITERATURE WHICH
HE HAD WITH HIM WHEN ARRESTED WAS PRODUCED IN EVIDENCE AND WILL NOW BE
DESCRIBED, CHIEFLY BY TITLES AND EXTRACTS 

"APPEAL TO SOUTHERN YOUNG WORKERS." 

"THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE IS THE CHAMPION NOT ONLY OF THE YOUNG
WHITE WORKERS BUT ESPECIALLY OF THE DOUBLY OPPRESSED NEGRO YOUNG
WORKERS.  THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE FIGHTS AGAINST THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF
RACE DISCRIMINATION AND STANDS FOR FULL RACIAL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND
SOCIAL EQUALITY OF ALL WORKERS.... 

"THE CHIEF AIM OF THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE IS TO ORGANIZE THE YOUNG
WORKERS FOR A STRUGGLE AGAINST THE BOSSES AND AGAINST THE WHOLE PROFIT
SYSTEM. 

.         .         .         .         . 

"THE YOUNG COMMUNIST LEAGUE FIGHTS FOR: 

     .         .         .    .         . 

"FULL POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND RACIAL EQUALITY FOR THE NEGRO WORKERS. 

"AGAINST BOSSES' WARS.  DEFEND THE SOVIET UNION. 

"SMASH THE NATIONAL GUARD, THE C.M.T.C. AND R.O.T.C." 

"LIFE AND STRUGGLES OF NEGRO TOILERS." 

"IN NO OTHER SO-CALLED CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ARE HUMAN
BEINGS TREATED AS BADLY AS THESE 15 MILLION NEGROES (IN THE UNITED
STATES).  THEY LIVE UNDER A PERPETUAL REGIME OF WHITE TERROR.... THEY
ARE ABSOLUTELY AT THE MERCY OF EVERY FIENDISH MOB INCITED BY THE WHITE
LANDLORDS AND CAPITALISTS." 

"COMMUNISM AND CHRISTIANISM." 

"BANISH THE GODS FROM THE SKIES AND CAPITALISTS FROM THE EARTH AND
MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR INDUSTRIAL COMMUNISM. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THE TROUBLE WITH EVERY REFORMATORY SOCIALISM OF MODERN TIMES IS,
THAT IT UNDERTAKES THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF CHANGING THE FRUIT OF THE
CAPITALIST STATE INTO THAT OF THE COMMUNISTIC ONE, WITHOUT CHANGING THE
POLITICAL ORGANISM; BUT TO DO THAT IS AS IMPOSSIBLE AS TO GATHER GRAPES
FROM THORNS OR FIGS FROM THISTLES.  HENCE AN UPROOTING AND REPLANTING
ARE NECESSARY (A REVOLUTION NOT A REFORMATION) WHICH WILL GIVE THE
WORLD A NEW TREE OF STATE. 

"CAPITALISM NO LONGER GROWS THE FRUITS (FOODS, CLOTHES AND HOUSES)
WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ALL THE WORLD.  HENCE IT MUST
BE DUG UP BY THE ROOTS IN ORDER THAT A TREE WHICH IS SO ORGANIZED THAT
IT WILL BEAR THESE NECESSITIES FOR THE WHOLE WORLD MAY BE PLANTED IN
ITS PLACE. 

"THE PEOPLE OF RUSSIA HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THIS UPROOTING AND REPLANTING
(THIS REVOLUTION) IN THE CASE OF THEIR STATE, AND THOSE OF EVERY NATION
ARE DESTINED TO DO THE SAME IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, EACH ACCORDING TO
ITS HISTORICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SOME WITH MUCH VIOLENCE, MOST,
I HOPE, WITH BUT LITTLE." 

"COMMUNIST POSITION ON THE NEGRO QUESTION." 

THIS IS A BOOKLET OF SEVERAL PAGES AND BEARS ON THE FRONT OF ITS
COVER A MAP OF THE UNITED STATES SHOWING A DARK BELT STRETCHING ACROSS
CONSIDERABLE PORTIONS OF GEORGIA AND EIGHT OTHER SOUTHERN STATES. 
PARTS OF THE TEXT ARE HERE COPIED. 

"THE SLOGAN OF THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION OCCUPIES THE CENTRAL
PLACE IN THE LIBERATION STRUGGLE OF THE NEGRO POPULATION IN THE BLACK
BELT AGAINST THE YOKE OF AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.  BUT THIS SLOGAN, AS WE
SEE IT, MUST BE CARRIED OUT ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH TWO OTHER BASIC
DEMANDS.  THUS, THERE ARE THREE BASIC DEMANDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND IN THE
BLACK BELT, NAMELY, THE FOLLOWING:    "(A)  CONFISCATION OF THE LANDED
PROPERTY OF THE WHITE LANDOWNERS AND CAPITALISTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
NEGRO FARMERS.  THE LAND PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE WHITE AMERICAN
EXPLOITERS CONSTITUTES THE MOST IMPORTANT MATERIAL BASIS OF THE ENTIRE
SYSTEM OF NATIONAL OPPRESSION AND SERFDOM OF THE NEGROES IN THE BLACK
BELT.  MORE THAN THREE-QUARTERS OF ALL NEGRO FARMERS HERE ARE BOUND IN
ACTUAL SERFDOM TO THE FARMS AND PLANTATIONS OF THE WHITE EXPLOITERS BY
THE FEUDAL SYSTEM OF 'SHARE CROPPING.' 

  .         .         .         .         .    "WITHOUT THIS
REVOLUTIONARY MEASURE, WITHOUT THE AGRARIAN REVOLUTION, THE RIGHT OF
SELF-DETERMINATION OF THE NEGRO POPULATION WOULD BE ONLY A UTOPIA OR,
AT BEST, WOULD REMAIN ONLY ON PAPER WITHOUT CHANGING IN ANY WAY THE
ACTUAL ENSLAVEMENT. 

"(B)  ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE UNITY OF THE BLACK BELT.  AT THE
PRESENT TIME THIS NEGRO ZONE - PRECISELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FACILITATING NATIONAL OPPRESSION - IS ARTIFICIALLY SPLIT UP AND DIVIDED
INTO A NUMBER OF VARIOUS STATES WHICH INCLUDE DISTANT LOCALITIES HAVING
A MAJORITY OF WHITE POPULATION.  IF THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF
THE NEGROES IS TO BE PUT INTO FORCE, IT IS NECESSARY WHEREVER POSSIBLE
TO BRING TOGETHER INTO ONE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT ALL DISTRICTS OF THE SOUTH
WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE SETTLED POPULATION CONSISTS OF NEGROES. 
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THIS STATE THERE WILL OF COURSE REMAIN A FAIRLY
SIGNIFICANT WHITE MINORITY WHICH MUST SUBMIT TO THE RIGHT OF SELF
DETERMINATION OF THE NEGRO MAJORITY.... 

"(C)  RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION.  THIS MEANS COMPLETE AND UNLIMITED
RIGHT OF THE NEGRO MAJORITY TO EXERCISE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY IN THE
ENTIRE TERRITORY OF THE BLACK BELT, AS WELL AS TO DECIDE UPON THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN THEIR TERRITORY AND OTHER NATIONS, PARTICULARLY THE
UNITED STATES." 

  .         .         .         .         . 

"EVEN IF THE SITUATION DOES NOT YET WARRANT THE RAISING OF THE
QUESTION OF UPRISING, ONE SHOULD NOT LIMIT ONESELF AT PRESENT TO
PROPAGANDA FOR THE DEMAND, 'RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION,' BUT SHOULD
ORGANIZE MASS ACTIONS, SUCH AS DEMONSTRATIONS, STRIKES, TAX BOYCOTT
MOVEMENTS, ETC." 

     .         .         .         .       . 

"A DIRECT QUESTION OF POWER IS ALSO THE DEMAND OF CONFISCATION OF THE
LAND OF THE WHITE EXPLOITERS IN THE SOUTH, AS WELL AS THE DEMAND OF THE
NEGROES THAT THE ENTIRE BLACK BELT BE AMALGAMATED INTO A STATE UNIT. 

"HEREBY, EVERY SINGLE FUNDAMENTAL DEMAND OF THE LIBERATION STRUGGLE
OF THE NEGROES IN THE BLACK BELT IS SUCH THAT - IF ONCE THOROUGHLY
UNDERSTOOD BY THE NEGRO MASSES AND ADOPTED AS THEIR SLOGAN - IT WILL
LEAD THEM INTO THE STRUGGLE FOR THE OVERTHROW OF THE POWER OF THE
RULING BOURGEOISIE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT SUCH REVOLUTIONARY
STRUGGLE.  ONE CANNOT DENY THAT IT IS JUST POSSIBLE FOR THE NEGRO
POPULATION OF THE BLACK BELT TO WIN THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
DURING CAPITALISM; BUT IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR AND INDUBITABLE THAT THIS
IS POSSIBLE ONLY THROUGH SUCCESSFUL REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE FOR POWER
AGAINST THE AMERICAN BOURGEOISIE, THROUGH WRESTING THE NEGROES' RIGHT
OF SELF-DETERMINATION FROM AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.  THUS, THE SLOGAN OF
RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION IS A REAL SLOGAN OF NATIONAL REBELLION
WHICH, TO BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH, NEED NOT BE SUPPLEMENTED BY
PROCLAIMING STRUGGLE FOR THE COMPLETE SEPARATION OF THE NEGRO ZONE, AT
LEAST NOT AT PRESENT. 

"(D)  COMMUNISTS MUST FIGHT IN THE FOREFRONT OF THE NATIONAL
LIBERATION MOVEMENT AND MUST DO THEIR UTMOST FOR THE PROGRESS OF THIS
MASS MOVEMENT AND ITS REVOLUTIONIZATION.  NEGRO COMMUNISTS MUST CLEARLY
DISSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM ALL BOURGEOIS CURRENTS IN THE NEGRO
MOVEMENT, MUST INDEFATIGABLY OPPOSE THE SPREAD OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE
BOURGEOIS GROUPS ON THE WORKING NEGROES." 

     .         .         .         .         . 

"THEIR CONSTANT CALL TO THE NEGRO MASSES MUST BE:  REVOLUTIONARY
STRUGGLE AGAINST THE RULING WHITE BOURGEOISIE, THROUGH A FIGHTING
ALLIANCE WITH THE REVOLUTIONARY WHITE PROLETARIAT. 

  .         .         .         .         . 

"WE ARE BOLSHEVIKS, MEMBERS OF A FIGHTING PARTY OF THE WORKING CLASS,
WHO KNOW THAT THE ONLY ROAD TO THE REVOLUTIONARY OVERTHROW OF
CAPITALISM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNISM IS THROUGH WELDING
TOGETHER THE IRON UNITY OF CLASS IDEALOGY WHICH PENETRATES INTO OUR
RANKS, AS THE PREREQUISITE TO THE EFFECTIVE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE CLASS
ENEMY PHYSICALLY." 

THERE WAS NO DIRECT TESTIMONY THAT HERNDON DISTRIBUTED THE LITERATURE
JUST DESCRIBED.  NO MEMBER OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY CAME FORWARD TO TELL
WHAT HE DID IN THEIR MEETINGS OR IN INDUCING THEM TO BECOME MEMBERS. 
NOR DOES THIS SEEM STRANGE WHEN REGARD IS HAD TO THE OBLIGATION TAKEN
BY MEMBERS AND TO THE DISCIPLINE IMPOSED.  NEVERTHELESS THERE WAS
EVIDENCE FROM WHICH DISTRIBUTION BY HIM REASONABLY COULD BE INFERRED. 
IT WAS SHOWN THAT HE WAS AN ACTIVE MEMBER, WAS SENT TO ATLANTA AS A
PAID ORGANIZER, AND WAS SUBJECT TO PARTY DISCIPLINE; ALSO THAT HE
RECEIVED THE LITERATURE FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE COURSE OF HIS WORK AND
HAD COPIES OF IT, TOGETHER WITH CURRENT MEMBERSHIP AND COLLECTION
BOOKS, UNDER HIS ARM WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED; AND FURTHER THAT HE HAD BEEN
SOLICITING AND SECURING MEMBERS, WHICH WAS PART OF THE WORK IN WHICH
THE LITERATURE WAS TO BE USED.  HE HAD DECLARED HIS "ADHERENCE TO THE
PROGRAM AND STATUTES" OF THE PARTY AND HAD TAKEN LIKE DECLARATIONS FROM
THOSE WHOM HE SECURED AS MEMBERS; AND THIS TENDED STRONGLY TO SHOW NOT
ONLY THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE PARTY PROGRAM AND STATUTES AS OUTLINED IN
THE LITERATURE BUT ALSO THAT HE BROUGHT THEM TO THE ATTENTION OF OTHERS
WHOM HE SECURED AS MEMBERS.  BESIDES, AT THE TRIAL HE MADE AN EXTENDED
STATEMENT TO THE COURT AND JURY IN HIS DEFENSE,  FN6  BUT DID NOT REFER
IN ANY WISE TO THE LITERATURE OR DENY THAT HE HAD BEEN USING OR
DISTRIBUTING IT.  THUS THERE WAS IN THE EVIDENCE NOT MERELY SOME BUT
ADEQUATE AND UNDISPUTED BASIS FOR INFERRING THAT HE HAD BEEN USING THE
LITERATURE FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH HE RECEIVED IT.  EVIDENTLY, AND
WITH REASON, THE JURY DREW THIS INFERENCE. 

IT SHOULD NOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT HERNDON WAS A NEGRO MEMBER AND
ORGANIZER IN THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND WAS ENGAGED ACTIVELY IN INDUCING
OTHERS, CHIEFLY SOUTHERN NEGROES, TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THE PARTY AND
PARTICIPATE IN EFFECTING ITS PURPOSES AND PROGRAM.  THE LITERATURE
PLACED IN HIS HANDS BY THE PARTY FOR THAT PURPOSE WAS PARTICULARLY
ADAPTED TO APPEAL TO NEGROES IN THAT SECTION, FOR IT PICTURED THEIR
CONDITION AS AN UNHAPPY ONE RESULTING FROM ASSERTED WRONGS ON THE PART
OF WHITE LANDLORDS AND EMPLOYERS, AND SOUGHT BY ALLURING STATEMENTS OF
RESULTING ADVANTAGES TO INDUCE THEM TO JOIN IN AN EFFORT TO CARRY INTO
EFFECT THE MEASURES WHICH THE LITERATURE PROPOSED.  THESE MEASURES
INCLUDED A REVOLUTIONARY UPROOTING OF THE EXISTING CAPITALIST STATE, AS
IT WAS TERMED; CONFISCATION OF THE LANDED PROPERTY OF WHITE LANDOWNERS
AND CAPITALISTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF NEGROES; ESTABLISHMENT IN THE BLACK
BELT OF AN INDEPENDENT STATE, POSSIBLY FOLLOWED BY SECESSION FROM THE
UNITED STATES; ORGANIZATION OF MASS DEMONSTRATIONS, STRIKES AND TAX
BOYCOTTS IN AID OF THIS MEASURE; ADOPTION OF A FIGHTING ALLIANCE WITH
THE REVOLUTIONARY WHITE PROLETARIAT; REVOLUTIONARY OVERTHROW OF
CAPITALISM AND ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNISM THROUGH EFFECTIVE PHYSICAL
STRUGGLES AGAINST THE CLASS ENEMY.  PROPOSING THESE MEASURES WAS
NOTHING SHORT OF ADVISING A RESORT TO FORCE AND VIOLENCE, FOR ALL KNOW
THAT SUCH MEASURES COULD NOT BE EFFECTED OTHERWISE.  NOT ONLY SO, BUT
THE LITERATURE MAKES SUCH REPELLING USE OF THE TERMS "REVOLUTION,"
"NATIONAL REBELLION," "REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE," "REVOLUTIONARY
OVERTHROW," "EFFECTIVE PHYSICAL STRUGGLE," "SMASH THE NATIONAL GUARD,"
"MASS STRIKES," AND "VIOLENCE," AS TO LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE USE OF
FORCE IN AN UNLAWFUL SENSE IS INTENDED. 

THE PURPOSE AND PROBABLE EFFECT OF SUCH LITERATURE, WHEN UNDER
CONSIDERATION IN A PROSECUTION LIKE THAT AGAINST HERNDON, ARE TO BE
TESTED AND DETERMINED WITH APPROPRIATE REGARD TO THE CAPACITY AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THOSE WHO ARE SOUGHT TO BE INFLUENCED.  FN7  IN THIS
INSTANCE THE LITERATURE IS LARGELY DIRECTED TO A PEOPLE WHOSE PAST AND
PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD LEAD THEM TO GIVE UNUSUAL CREDENCE TO ITS
INFLAMING AND INCITING FEATURES. 

AND SO IT IS THAT EXAMINATION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE
CONVINCE ME THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE APPLIED THE STATUTE,
CONFORMABLY TO ITS OPINION, AS MAKING CRIMINAL AN ATTEMPT TO INDUCE AND
INCITE OTHERS TO JOIN IN COMBINED FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL
AUTHORITY OF THE STATE. 

THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY
DOES NOT SHIELD OR AFFORD PROTECTION FOR ACTS OF INTENTIONAL INCITEMENT
TO FORCIBLE RESISTANCE TO THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF A STATE IS SETTLED BY
REPEATED DECISIONS OF THIS COURT; FN8  AND THE GEORGIA DECISIONS ARE TO
THE SAME EFFECT.  FN9 

UNDER THE STATUTE AS CONSTRUED AND APPLIED IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE
ACCUSED INTENDED TO INDUCE COMBINED FORCIBLE RESISTANCE.  THE PRESENCE
OF THE INTENT AGGRAVATES THE INDUCEMENT AND BRINGS IT MORE CERTAINLY
WITHIN THE POWER OF THE STATE TO DENOUNCE IT AS A CRIME THAN OTHERWISE
IT WOULD BE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE IN BOTH OF ITS OPINIONS
WAS DEALING WITH A STATUTE AND A CHARGE IN WHICH THE INTENT OF THE
ACCUSED WAS AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE.  IN THE ORIGINAL OPINION THE
COURT INCAUTIOUSLY SAID "IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT THAT HE INTENDED IT
(THE COMBINED AND FORCIBLE RESISTANCE) TO HAPPEN AT ANY TIME."  IN ITS
OPINION ON REHEARING IT SAID THE PHRASE "AT ANY TIME" HAD NOT BEEN
INTENDED TO MEAN ANY TIME IN THE INDEFINITE FUTURE; AND BY WAY OF
AVOIDING SUCH A MEANING THE COURT CHANGED THAT PART OF THE ORIGINAL
OPINION BY MAKING IT READ "AT ANY TIME WITHIN WHICH HE MIGHT REASONABLY
EXPECT HIS INFLUENCE TO CONTINUE TO BE DIRECTLY OPERATIVE IN CAUSING
SUCH ACTION BY THOSE WHOM HE SOUGHT TO INDUCE."  I DO NOT PERCEIVE THAT
THIS PUTS THE STANDARD OF GUILT AT LARGE OR RENDERS IT INADMISSIBLY
VAGUE.  THE ACCUSED MUST INTEND THAT COMBINED FORCIBLE RESISTANCE SHALL
PROXIMATELY RESULT FROM HIS ACT OF INDUCEMENT.  THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY
IN THAT.  THE INTENDED POINT OF TIME MUST BE WITHIN THE PERIOD DURING
WHICH HE "MIGHT REASONABLY EXPECT" HIS INDUCEMENT TO REMAIN DIRECTLY
OPERATIVE IN CAUSING THE COMBINED FORCIBLE RESISTANCE.  THE WORDS
"MIGHT REASONABLY EXPECT" HAVE AS MUCH PRECISION AS IS ADMISSIBLE IN
SUCH A MATTER, ARE NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND, AND CONFORM TO
DECISIONS HERETOFORE GIVEN BY THIS COURT IN RESPECT OF RELATED
QUESTIONS.  FN10  I THEREFORE AM OF OPINION THAT THERE IS NO
OBJECTIONABLE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE STANDARD OF GUILT AND THAT THE
STATUTE DOES NOT IN THAT REGARD INFRINGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW. 

BELIEVING THAT THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE CONVICTION WAS HAD IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTIONS LEVELED AGAINST IT, I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE DENYING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  GEORGIA CODE 1933, SECS. 26-901, 26-902, 26-903. 

FN2  CARR V. STATE, 176 GA. 747; 169 S.E. 201; HERNDON V. STATE, 178
GA. 832, 855; 174 S.E. 597. 

FN3  HERNDON V. STATE, 178 GA. 832, 855, 867; 174 S.E. 597. 

FN4  HERNDON V. STATE, 179 GA. 597, 599; 176 S.E. 620. 

FN5  LOWRY V. HERNDON, 182 GA. 582; 186 S.E. 429. 

FN6  SEE GEORGIA CODE 1933, SEC. 38-415. 

FN7  BURNS V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 328, 335. 

FN8  GITLOW V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 652, 666, ET SEQ.; WHITNEY V.
CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 371; FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380, 385;
STROMBERG V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 359, 368; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S.
697, 708. 

FN9  CARR V. STATE, 176 GA. 55; 166 S.E. 827, 167 S.E. 103; CARR V.
STATE, 176 GA. 747; 169 S.E. 201. 

FN10  WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. V. TEXAS, 212 U.S. 86, 108-111; NASH V.
UNITED STATES, 229 U.S. 373, 376-378. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER
JOIN IN THIS DISSENT. 
..END :



STEELMAN V. ALL CONTINENT CO., 301 U.S. 278 


NO. 638.  ARGUED MARCH 29, 30, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 86
F.(2D) 913, REVERSED. 


1.  JURISDICTION OF A BANKRUPTCY COURT TO ADMINISTER A BANKRUPT ESTATE
DRAWS TO ITSELF, WHEN ONCE IT HAS ATTACHED, AN INCIDENTAL OR ANCILLARY
JURISDICTION TO GIVE PROTECTION TO THE ESTATE AGAINST WASTE OR
DISINTEGRATION WHILE FRAUDS UPON ITS INTEGRITY ARE IN PROCESS OF
DISCOVERY.  P. 289. 

2.  PENDING BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS IN NEW JERSEY IN WHICH
EXAMINATIONS WERE BEING CARRIED ON UNDER SEC. 21(A) OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE TRUSTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPOSING THE
RELATIONS OF THE BANKRUPT TO A CORPORATION FORMED AND CONTROLLED BY
HIM, TO WHICH HE HAD TRANSFERRED VALUABLE SECURITIES AND WHICH, THERE
WAS GROUND TO BELIEVE, WAS A MERE INSTRUMENT FOR DEFRAUDING HIS
CREDITORS, THE CORPORATION, HAVING ALREADY FILED A CLAIM IN THE
BANKRUPTCY CASE, BROUGHT SUIT IN A FEDERAL COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR
THE ALLEGED PURPOSE OF QUIETING ITS TITLE TO PART OF THE SECURITIES
THEN IN CUSTODY OF BROKERS IN THAT STATE, AND SERVED THE TRUSTEE, UNDER
JUD.  CODE, SEC. 57, AS AN ABSENT PARTY.  THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO
BELIEVE THAT THE SUIT WAS A STEP IN A FRAUDULENT CONSPIRACY OF THE
BANKRUPT, HIS RELATIVES AND THE CORPORATION, IMPEDING AND PERHAPS
FRUSTRATING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSETS, AND THAT ONLY BY A
PLENARY SUIT TO BE BROUGHT (AND WHICH LATER WAS BROUGHT) BY THE
TRUSTEE, IN NEW JERSEY, COULD THE DANGER OF OBSTRUCTION BE AVERTED AND
THE ESTATE BE KEPT INTACT, PENDING INQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGED FRAUD. 
HELD THAT THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAD POWER TO ENJOIN THE CORPORATION
FROM PROSECUTING THE SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA.  PP. 285, 288. 

3.  RESTRAINT OF A PLAINTIFF FROM PROSECUTING HIS CASE IS NOT
RESTRAINT OF THE COURT.  P. 290. 

STEELMAN, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. ALL CONTINENT CORP. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 300 U.S. 648, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A DECREE OF THE
DISTRICT COURT, IN BANKRUPTCY, 16 F.SUPP.  949, WHICH RESTRAINED THE
PROSECUTION AGAINST THE TRUSTEE OF A SUIT IN ANOTHER FEDERAL COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION IS ONE AS TO THE POWER OF A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, IN THE
SITUATION DEVELOPED IN THE RECORD, TO ENJOIN THE PROSECUTION OF A SUIT
IN ANOTHER FEDERAL COURT UPON THE GROUND THAT THE SUIT, IF PRESSED TO A
DECREE, MAY THWART AN INQUIRY INTO FRAUDS CHARGED AGAINST THE BANKRUPT,
OR MAKE RELIEF AGAINST THEM DIFFICULT. 

WILLIAM FOX WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT ON MAY 29, 1936, IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.  ON THE PETITION
OF TWO CREDITORS AN ORDER WAS MADE UNDER SEC. 21A OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
(11 U.S.C. SEC. 44A) FOR THE EXAMINATION OF ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION
(A DELAWARE CORPORATION), ITS PRESIDENT EVA FOX, WHO WAS ALSO THE
BANKRUPT'S WIFE, HIS DAUGHTERS, AND OTHER WITNESSES.  THE WIFE REFUSED
TO SUBMIT TO EXAMINATION, AND WAS CITED FOR CONTEMPT.  WHEN THIS RECORD
WAS MADE UP, THE PROCEEDING TO PUNISH HER WAS STILL UNDETERMINED. 
MEANWHILE THE EXAMINATION PROCEEDED WITH THE AID OF THE WITNESSES
RESPONDING TO THE ORDER.  AFTER SEVENTEEN OR MORE HEARINGS THE REFEREE
MADE AN ORDER ON AUGUST 18, 1936, WHEREBY ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION WAS
DIRECTED TO DELIVER ALL ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS TO THE TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY (PETITIONER IN THIS COURT) FOR EXAMINATION AND AUDIT.  AS A
BASIS FOR THE ORDER, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COURT WITH UNIMPORTANT
CHANGES (IN RE FOX, 16 F.SUPP.  950), THE REFEREE CERTIFIED THE FACTS
AS THEY HAD BEEN DEVELOPED THROUGH THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM.  BY THIS IT
APPEARED THAT ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION WAS THE CREATION OF THE
BANKRUPT HIMSELF, WHO HAD SUPPLIED EVERY DOLLAR OF ITS CAPITAL; THAT IN
DOING THIS HE HAD DIVESTED HIMSELF OF A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF HIS
PROPERTY; THAT THE ENTIRE CAPITAL STOCK, THEN CLAIMED BY HIS WIFE, HAD
BEEN KEPT IN HIS NAME UPON THE CORPORATE BOOKS; THAT HE HAD RETAINED IN
HIS POSSESSION AND UNDER HIS CONTROL THE ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION,
MADE UP OF SECURITIES, AND HAD DEALT WITH THEM ON MANY OCCASIONS AS IF
THEY WERE HIS OWN; THAT HE HELD A POWER OF ATTORNEY, BROAD IN ITS
TERMS, AUTHORIZING HIM TO ACT FOR THE CORPORATION IN THE TRANSACTION OF
ITS BUSINESS; THAT SUCH BOOKS AND RECORDS AS WERE ALREADY IN EVIDENCE
DISCLOSED DISBURSEMENTS FOR HIS ACCOUNT, DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE
ENTRIES AND THOSE IN HIS PRIVATE BOOKS, AND ALSO ERASURES, CORRECTIONS
AND INTERLINEATIONS AFFECTING THE SCRUTINIZED TRANSACTIONS, AS WELL AS
SALES TO THE CORPORATION ON THE EVE OF BANKRUPTCY.  IN THE VIEW OF THE
REFEREE, THIS CHAIN OF FACTS, COMBINED WITH MANY OTHERS IN THE
TESTIMONY BEFORE HIM, WAS PROOF "THAT THE AFFAIRS OF THE ALL CONTINENT
CORPORATION WERE SO RELATED TO AND INTERTWINED WITH THE PROPERTY AND
AFFAIRS OF THE BANKRUPT" AS TO SHOW THE NEED FOR AN EXHAUSTIVE
EXAMINATION AND AUDIT OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE. 

THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE BOOKS AND
RECORDS WAS STAYED BY THE DISTRICT COURT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9, 1936.  ON
THAT DAY THE TRUSTEE WAS SERVED IN NEW JERSEY WITH A SUBPOENA AND BILL
OF COMPLAINT IN A SUIT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.  THE COMPLAINANT NAMED IN THE BILL
WAS THE ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION, WHICH HAD ALREADY FILED A PROOF OF
CLAIM AGAINST FOX IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING; THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE
MEMBERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP OF J.W. SPARKS & COMPANY, WITH WHOM WERE
JOINED AS ABSENTEE DEFENDANTS, CAPITAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE
PETITIONER IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE.  THE SUIT WAS
BROUGHT UNDER SEC. 57 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 118) TO
REMOVE A CLOUD UPON THE TITLE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY CLAIMED BY THE
COMPLAINANT.  THE TRUSTEE NOT BEING "AN INHABITANT OF OR FOUND WITHIN"
THE DISTRICT OF THE SUIT, AN ORDER DIRECTING HIM TO PLEAD WAS SERVED
UPON HIM IN NEW JERSEY AFTER THE SERVICE OF THE BILL.  JUDICIAL CODE,
SEC. 57; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 118.  THE CLOUD TO BE REMOVED HAD ITS ORIGIN IN
A THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA ISSUED OUT OF A FEDERAL COURT IN NEW YORK IN
PROCEEDINGS SUPPLEMENTARY TO JUDGMENT.  CAPITAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION,
HAD RECOVERED A JUDGMENT AGAINST FOX BEFORE HE BECAME BANKRUPT.  A
PROCEEDING SUPPLEMENTARY TO JUDGMENT WAS BEGUN, AND WE KNOW FROM OUR
RECORDS THAT FOX REFUSED TO APPEAR AND WAS FINED FOR CONTEMPT.  FOX V.
CAPITAL CO., 299 U.S. 105.  IN AID OF THE SAME JUDGMENT, A THIRD PARTY
SUBPOENA WAS SERVED UPON SPARKS & CO., STOCKBROKERS RESIDING IN
PHILADELPHIA AND THERE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS.  THESE BROKERS HAD UPON
THEIR BOOKS AN ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION, IN
WHICH FOX WAS BELIEVED TO HAVE AN INTEREST AS OWNER.  THE SECURITIES
HELD IN THAT ACCOUNT HAD A VALUE IN EXCESS OF HALF A MILLION DOLLARS,
SUBJECT TO A DEBIT BALANCE.  TO ENABLE THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR TO REACH
ANY EQUITY IN THOSE SECURITIES BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR, THE SUBPOENA
SERVED UPON THE BROKERS WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A NOTICE, WHICH IN EFFECT
WAS AN INJUNCTION (NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT SEC. 781), RESTRAINING
THEM FROM DISPOSING OF THE PROPERTY OF WILLIAM FOX UNTIL THE FURTHER
ORDER OF THE COURT.  THE VALIDITY OF THE INJUNCTION, THOUGH CHALLENGED
BY THE BROKERS, WAS UPHELD UPON APPEAL.  CAPITAL CO. V. FOX, 85 F.(2D)
97.  BECAUSE OF THAT RESTRAINT, SPARKS & CO. REFUSED TO PERMIT ANY
SECURITIES TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM THEIR CUSTODY OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF,
HAVING NOTICE OF THE CLAIM THAT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FORM OF THE
ACCOUNT, THE SECURITIES BELONGED TO FOX.  ANXIOUS TO RESUME THE CONTROL
OF THE SECURITIES, ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION SUED IN PENNSYLVANIA TO
ESTABLISH TITLE TO THE RES.  CAPITAL COMPANY WAS STATED IN THE BILL TO
HAVE CREATED A CLOUD UPON THE TITLE BY ISSUING THE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENA
WITH THE ACCOMPANYING INJUNCTION.  THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY WAS STATED
TO HAVE HELPED TO CREATE THE CLOUD BY JOINING WITH CAPITAL COMPANY IN A
REQUEST THAT THE SUBPOENA BE CONTINUED AFTER THE BANKRUPTCY PETITION. 
RELIEF WAS DEMANDED DECREEING ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION TO BE THE OWNER
OF THE SECURITIES AND ENTITLED TO POSSESSION UPON PAYMENT OF THE DEBIT
BALANCE OWING TO THE BROKERS. 

THE TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY UPON SERVICE OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
PETITIONED THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY THAT IT STAY THE PROSECUTION OF THE
SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA.  THE PETITION FOR A STAY WAS GRANTED.  THE
OPINION OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE (16 F.SUPP.  949) STATES THAT A GRAVE
QUESTION HAS ARISEN AS TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS AND SHARES OF ALL
CONTINENT CORPORATION.  LITIGATION AS TO SUCH OWNERSHIP "OUGHT TO BE
CONDUCTED BY TRUSTEE AFTER THERE HAS BEEN A FULL AND COMPLETE
DISCLOSURE OF THE FACTS IN THE 21(A) EXAMINATIONS."  "TO REQUIRE THE
TRUSTEE TO APPEAR AND DEFEND THAT SUIT (I.E., THE SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA)
...  WOULD INTERFERE MATERIALLY WITH PROPER ADMINISTRATION."  FURTHER
PROSECUTION AGAINST HIM WAS ACCORDINGLY RESTRAINED. 

FROM THAT DECREE ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION APPEALED TO THE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.  BY CONSENT OF
THE PARTIES THE COURT MADE AN ORDER INCLUDING THREE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORD:  (1) THE BILL OF COMPLAINT
IN A SUIT IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN NEW JERSEY; (2) AN ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDENTE LITE AND THE APPOINTMENT OF A
RECEIVER; AND (3) THE ANSWER OF SPARKS & CO. IN THE SUIT IN
PENNSYLVANIA.  THE SUIT IN THE NEW JERSEY CHANCERY WAS BROUGHT BY THE
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AGAINST THE BANKRUPT WILLIAM FOX, HIS WIFE, HIS
DAUGHTERS, HIS GRANDCHILDREN, AND THE ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION.  THE
BILL WAS FILED WITHIN A WEEK FROM THE DATE OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER. 
IT CHARGES FRAUD IN THE TRANSFER OF SECURITIES AND OTHER ASSETS TO THE
CORPORATION AT THE TIME OF ITS CREATION AND ALSO AT LATER DATES.  IT
CHARGES FRAUD IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE SHARES OF THE CORPORATION BY FOX
TO HIS WIFE, PARTLY FOR HER OWN BENEFIT AND PARTLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF
CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.  IT CHARGES FRAUD IN THE OPENING OF
ACCOUNTS WITH STOCKBROKERS, OSTENSIBLY FOR THE USE OF THE CORPORATION
ITSELF, BUT REALLY FOR THE USE OF FOX ALONE.  ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS
ARE STATED TO HAVE OCCURRED IN EXECUTION OF A UNITARY SCHEME, TO WHICH
FOX, HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN AND THE CORPORATION WERE PARTIES IN ITS
SEVERAL MANIFESTATIONS, FOR THE HINDRANCE OF CREDITORS IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.  A DECREE IS PRAYED ENJOINING
THE CORPORATION FROM DISPOSING OF ITS ASSETS, APPOINTING A RECEIVER TO
MANAGE AND PRESERVE THEM DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT, ANNULLING ALL
THE TRANSFERS TAINTED BY THE FRAUD, AND DECREEING A TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE BANKRUPT AND THROUGH HIM FOR THE TRUSTEE.  UPON THE
FILING OF THE BILL THE CHANCELLOR MADE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A
RECEIVER SHOULD NOT BE APPOINTED, AND HE ENJOINED IN THE INTERIM ANY
TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS.  ONE OTHER DOCUMENT, AS WE HAVE INDICATED, WAS
ADDED TO THE TRANSCRIPT.  THIS WAS THE ANSWER OF SPARKS & CO. IN THE
SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA.  IN THAT ANSWER THEY STATE THE ACCEPTANCE OF
SECURITIES FROM ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION WITHOUT NOTICE THAT FOX OR
OTHERS HAD ANY INTEREST THEREIN; THE EXISTENCE OF A DEBIT BALANCE OF
$308,764.97; THE READINESS OF THE CUSTOMER TO PAY THE DEBIT BALANCE ON
THE RETURN OF THE SECURITIES; AND THE HARDSHIP TO THE BROKERS INVOLVED
IN CONTINUING THE ACCOUNT WITH ALL THE RISKS INCIDENTAL TO FUTURE
CHANGES IN THE MARKET. 

UPON THE RECORD THUS SUPPLEMENTED THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED THE
APPEAL.  86 F.(2D) 913.  IT SAID THAT "THE REAL QUESTION IN ISSUE HERE
IS WHETHER OR NOT THE NEW JERSEY COURT (I.E., THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY
IN NEW JERSEY) HAD THE POWER TO ENJOIN THE APPELLANT FROM PROSECUTING
ITS SUIT, UNDER THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, IN THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT."  IT
RULED THAT "THE PENNSYLVANIA COURT, HAVING FIRST ACQUIRED JURISDICTION
OF THE PROPERTY AND CONTROVERSY, IS ENTITLED TO EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION,
AND THE INSTITUTION OF THE SUIT IN CHANCERY WAS AN ATTEMPT TO OUST THE
PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF THE JURISDICTION WHICH IT HAD PREVIOUSLY AND
VALIDLY ACQUIRED."  IT COUPLED THAT RULING WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE
CORPORATION WOULD BE ENTITLED "UPON PROPER APPLICATION" TO "RESTRAIN
THE TRUSTEE FROM LITIGATING THE CONTROVERSY ELSEWHERE."  IT FOUND IN
THE SUIT IN THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF CHANCERY TWO SEPARABLE
CONTROVERSIES, ONE BETWEEN THE TRUSTEE AND ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION,
THE OTHER BETWEEN THE TRUSTEE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE FOX FAMILY, THE
CORPORATION BEING STATED TO BE THE ONLY NECESSARY PARTY DEFENDANT TO
THE FIRST CONTROVERSY AND THE FOX FAMILY THE ONLY NECESSARY PARTIES
DEFENDANT TO THE OTHER.  IT CONCLUDED THAT UPON THE FACTS EXHIBITED
"THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO RESTRAIN
THE SUIT WHICH THE STATUTE CLEARLY AUTHORIZED TO BE BROUGHT IN THE
PENNSYLVANIA COURT."  THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY WAS
ACCORDINGLY REVERSED.  THE QUESTION OF POWER BEING IMPORTANT, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION, IF THERE IS TRUTH IN THE CHARGES MADE BY
THE TRUSTEE, IS A PARTY TO A CONSPIRACY TO COVER UP THE BANKRUPT'S
ASSETS AND KEEP THEM FROM HIS CREDITORS.  IN THAT VIEW OF THE FACTS,
THE SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA WILL BE A STEP IN FULFILLING THE CONSPIRACY,
AND MAY EVEN CROWN IT WITH SUCCESS.  THE INQUIRY INTO THE FRAUD, AN
INQUIRY GOING FORWARD IN ORDERLY FASHION UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER JURISDICTION WITH
THE SUPPOSED FRAUDULENT GRANTEE AS DOMINUS LITIS.  IN SUCH A SUIT THERE
IS DANGER THAT THE ISSUES TO BE TRIED MAY BE SO NARROWLY RESTRICTED AS
TO SHUT OUT THE LIGHT.  ALL CONTINENT CORPORATION MAY BE SHOWN TO HAVE
THE LEGAL TITLE TO THE SECURITIES IN THE KEEPING OF ITS BROKERS.  IF
SO, IT MAY BE ADJUDGED IN A CONTROVERSY WITH THE BROKERS TO BE ENTITLED
TO POSSESSION, THOUGH ITS OWN SHARES ARE SUBJECT TO A SECRET TRUST FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE BANKRUPT.  THERE WILL BE AN ABSENCE OF THE PARTIES
WITHOUT WHOM THE ADJUDICATION OF SUCH A TRUST WILL BE INDECISIVE AND
PERHAPS IMPOSSIBLE.  IF ASSIGNMENTS OF THE SHARES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE
BANKRUPT TO HIS WIFE FOR HIS OWN USE OR FOR HERS OR FOR THE USE OF
CHILDREN AND OTHER RELATIVES, THE INVALIDITY OF SUCH ASSIGNMENTS MAY
NOT BE OPEN TO DECISION UNLESS THE ASSIGNEES OF THE SHARES ARE BROUGHT
BEFORE THE COURT.  CHOSES IN ACTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE ASSETS, EVEN
THOUGH FRAUDULENTLY TRANSFERRED, ARE NOT SUBJECT AT COMMON LAW TO
SEIZURE UNDER EXECUTION AT THE INSTANCE OF A CREDITOR, BUT THE TRANSFER
MUST BE AVOIDED BY A DECREE IN EQUITY.  STEPHENS V. CADY, 14 HOW.  528,
531; FREEDMAN'S SAVINGS & TRUST CO. V. EARLE, 110 U.S. 710, 712;
ANTHONY V. WOOD, 96 N.Y. 180, 185; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. CONNER, 251
N.Y. 1, 5, 6; 166 S.E. 783.  THE NEED FOR A DECREE IS NO LESS OBVIOUS
AND SETTLED WHEN TITLE IS TO BE RECLAIMED AT THE SUIT OF A TRUSTEE. 
THERE ARE TIMES, IT IS TRUE, WHEN A TRUSTEE MAY HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A
SUMMARY ORDER FOR TRANSFER OR SURRENDER, BUT THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AS
TO PROPERTY OUT OF HIS POSSESSION UNLESS THE ADVERSE CLAIM OF TITLE IS
COLORABLE ONLY.  TAUBEL CO. V. FOX, 264 U.S. 426, 431, 433, 434; MAY V.
HENDERSON, 268 U.S. 111, 115; GALBRAITH V. VALLELY, 256 U.S. 46, 50;
TAYLOR V. STERNBERG, 293 U.S. 470, 473.  QUITE AS MUCH AS ANY CREDITOR,
THE TRUSTEE MAY THUS BE HELPLESS TO VINDICATE HIS EQUITIES IN THE SUIT
IN PENNSYLVANIA, THE PARTIES BEING WHAT THEY ARE.  OTHER DIFFICULTIES
WILL REMAIN IF THESE CAN BE SURMOUNTED.  THE BANKRUPT'S WIFE MAY ABSENT
HERSELF FROM THE TRIAL, JUST AS SHE HAS REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO
EXAMINATION IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE
INVESTIGATION OF THE EQUITIES MAY BE PARTIAL OR ABORTIVE.  OTHER
WITNESSES MAY DO THE LIKE.  THE DANGER OF FRUSTRATION BY SUCH MEANS
WILL BE MUCH GREATER IN A SUIT BY ALL CONTINENT THAN IN ONE BY THE
TRUSTEE, AN OFFICER OF THE COURT.  IN THE END A FRAUDULENT GRANTEE MAY
GAIN POSSESSION OF THE SECURITIES WITH POWER TO DISTRIBUTE THEM AMONG
THE MEMBERS OF THE BANKRUPT'S FAMILY, AND TO DO THIS, MOREOVER, UNDER
COVER OF A DECISION WHICH WILL BREED CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY IN OTHER
SUITS TO FOLLOW. 

ALL THESE EMBARRASSMENTS AND OBSTACLES WILL BE REMOVED AT A SINGLE
STROKE IF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IS FREE FROM VEXATIOUS INTERFERENCE IN
ITS TASK OF SUPERVISING AND CONTROLLING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
ASSETS.  THE FACTS MAY THEN BE UNCOVERED WITHOUT HASTE OR IMPEDIMENT BY
CONTINUING THE EXAMINATION UNDER SEC. 21A.  A PLENARY SUIT MAY BE
BROUGHT WITH THE TRUSTEE IN CONTROL TO ASCERTAIN THE LEGAL AND THE
EQUITABLE INTERESTS IN ALL CONTINENT'S ASSETS AND ALSO IN ITS SHARES OF
STOCK.  ALL PERSONS WHOSE INTERESTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY AN APPROPRIATE
DECREE, AND PARTICULARLY THE MEMBERS OF THE BANKRUPT'S FAMILY, ADVERSE
CLAIMANTS TO THE SHARES, MAY BE JOINED AS DEFENDANTS, AS INDEED THEY
HAVE BEEN JOINED ALREADY IN THE NEW JERSEY COURT OF CHANCERY.  TO AVOID
THE FRAUDULENT OR IMPROVIDENT EXERCISE OF DOMINION BY THE HOLDER OF THE
LEGAL TITLE, AN INJUNCTION MAY BE GRANTED RESTRAINING THE TRANSFER OF
THE ASSETS UNTIL THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DETERMINED.  TO AVOID LOSS OR
HARDSHIP EITHER TO STOCKBROKERS OR TO OTHERS BY TYING UP ACCOUNTS
WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY FOR RELEASE A RECEIVER MAY BE APPOINTED WITH POWER
TO MANAGE SUCH ACCOUNTS AND PRESERVE THE ASSETS GENERALLY.  ALL THESE
FORMS OF RELIEF AND OTHERS ANCILLARY THERETO WILL BE WELL WITHIN THE
POWERS OF A COURT OF EQUITY IF A SUIT IS MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE
TRUSTEE WITH THE CORPORATION, THE BANKRUPT AND HIS FAMILY PARTIES TO
THE RECORD.  THE SUGGESTION WILL NOT HOLD THAT THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
THE TRUSTEE AND THE CORPORATION HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN THE TRUSTEE, THE BANKRUPT AND HIS RELATIVES.  CF. GRAVES V.
CORBIN, 132 U.S. 571.  ON THE CONTRARY, THE REMEDY AGAINST THE BANKRUPT
AND HIS RELATIVES IS LIKELY TO BE TRUNCATED AND INADEQUATE UNLESS
ACCOMPANIED BY AN INJUNCTION AND A RECEIVERSHIP WHICH WILL BIND THE
CORPORATION, ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS.  THE SUIT IN THE NEW JERSEY COURT
OF CHANCERY, WHICH THE COURT BELOW HAS ERRONEOUSLY CHARACTERIZED AS ONE
THAT SHOULD BE RESTRAINED BECAUSE BROUGHT AFTER NOTICE OF THE SUIT IN
PENNSYLVANIA, WILL SUPPLY AN APPROPRIATE AND CONVENIENT MEDIUM FOR THE
LITIGATION OF THESE ISSUES IF IT IS PERMITTED TO GO FORWARD. 

THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW, WHICH GIVES FREE REIN TO THE PROSECUTION
OF THE SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA, IS BUILT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES EXHIBITED THERE IS NO POWER TO APPLY A CURB.  THE COURT
HAS NOT FOUND THAT DISCRETION WAS ABUSED OR IMPROVIDENTLY EXERCISED IF
POWER WAS NOT LACKING.  THIS IS PLAIN FROM THE OPINION.  IT IS MADE
PLAINER, IF THAT BE POSSIBLE, BY THE ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL FOR THE
CORPORATION, THE RESPONDENT IN THIS COURT, DISCLAIMING ANY EFFORT TO
UPHOLD THE DECISION IN HIS FAVOR IN THE ABSENCE OF DEFECT OF POWER. 
WITH THE CONTROVERSY THUS NARROWED THE PATH IS CLEARED TO A
CONCLUSION.  FOR REASONS ALREADY INDICATED THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR
THE BELIEF THAT THE SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA WOULD BE A STEP IN THE
EXECUTION OF A FRAUDULENT CONSPIRACY, IMPEDING AND PERHAPS FRUSTRATING
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSETS.  THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE
BELIEF THAT ONLY THROUGH A SUIT UPON THE LINES OF THE ONE IN THE NEW
JERSEY CHANCERY COULD THE DANGER OF OBSTRUCTION BE AVERTED AND THE
ESTATE BE KEPT INTACT UNTIL THE ENTRY OF A DECREE ADJUDGING THE GUILT
OR INNOCENCE OF THE PUTATIVE CONSPIRATORS.  WHETHER THEY ARE INNOCENT
OR GUILTY IS A QUESTION NOT BEFORE US NOW.  THE DATA FOR THE FORMATION
OF ANY OPINION ON THE SUBJECT HAVE NOT YET BEEN SUPPLIED.  AT PRESENT
OUR INQUIRY HALTS WITH THE DISCOVERY OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PRESERVING
THE ESTATE FROM DISMEMBERMENT OR WASTE THROUGH A PRECIPITATE DECISION. 
IF SUCH CAUSE HAS BEEN MADE OUT, WE THINK THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAS
BEEN ARMED WITH ABUNDANT POWER TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO UNTIL THERE
CAN BE AN ADEQUATE TRIAL WITH ALL THE NECESSARY PARTIES AND A JUDGMENT
ON THE MERITS. 

THE JUDICIAL CODE PROVIDES (SEC. 262; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 377) THAT THE
UNITED STATES COURTS "SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE ALL WRITS NOT
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY STATUTE, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS AND AGREEABLE TO THE USAGES
AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW."  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT REINFORCES THAT AUTHORITY
BY PROVIDING (SEC. 2(15); 11 U.S.C. SEC. 11(15)) THAT COURTS OF
BANKRUPTCY ARE INVESTED WITH JURISDICTION "AT LAW AND IN EQUITY" TO
"MAKE SUCH ORDERS, ISSUE SUCH PROCESS AND ENTER SUCH JUDGMENTS IN
ADDITION TO THOSE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE."  REFERRING TO THESE
STATUTES, THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT "THE POWER TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION
WHEN NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE DEFEAT OR IMPAIRMENT OF ITS JURISDICTION
IS  ...  INHERENT IN A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, AS IT IS IN A DULY
ESTABLISHED COURT OF EQUITY."  CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.
RY., 294 U.S. 648, 675.  CF. LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S. 234, 240,
241; KLINE V. BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 229; LOONEY V.
EASTERN TEXAS R. CO., 247 U.S. 214, 221.  JURISDICTION TO ADMINISTER
THE ESTATE DRAWS TO ITSELF, WHEN ONCE IT HAS ATTACHED, AN INCIDENTAL OR
ANCILLARY JURISDICTION TO GIVE PROTECTION TO THE ESTATE AGAINST WASTE
OR DISINTEGRATION WHILE FRAUDS UPON ITS INTEGRITY ARE IN PROCESS OF
DISCOVERY.  THIS POWER SO OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN EXERCISED BY THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS IN A
GREAT VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES.  THERE HAVE BEEN ORDERS DIRECTING
PAYMENT OF MONEYS INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT UNTIL A PLENARY SUIT
CAN BE BROUGHT TO RECOVER THEM (IN RE MITCHELL, 278 FED. 707),
RESTRAINING AN ADVERSE CLAIMANT FROM DISPOSING OF PROPERTY IN ADVANCE
OF A DECREE (IN RE NORRIS, 177 FED. 598; PYLE V. TEXAS TRANSPORT &
TERMINAL CO., 185 FED. 309), AND ENJOINING POSSESSORY ACTIONS THAT
MIGHT JEOPARDIZE RELIEF IN EQUITY.  IN RE REPUBLIC PLUMBING SUPPLY
CORP., 295 FED. 573; CF. BLAKE V. NESBET, 144 FED. 279; IN RE BLAKE,
171 FED. 298; IN RE NATHAN TURIM, INC., 55 F.(2D) 672.  IF SUITS CAN BE
ENJOINED WHEN THEY ARE FOUND TO HAVE A TENDENCY TO EMBARRASS
ADMINISTRATION, A FORTIORI THIS MAY BE DONE WHEN THERE IS A BASIS FOR
THE FEAR THAT THEY WILL BE USED AS INSTRUMENTS OR DEVICES TO RENDER
FRAUD TRIUMPHANT.  NOT IMPROBABLY THE ORDER IN THIS CASE MIGHT BETTER
HAVE IMPOSED A CONDITION THAT A PLENARY SUIT MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME.  THIS DEFECT, IF IT BE ONE, IS NOW OF NO IMPORTANCE,
FOR BY CONCESSION SUCH A SUIT WAS BROUGHT WITHIN A WEEK.  THERE WILL BE
NO OCCASION FOR DELAY IF THE CORPORATION, THE BANKRUPT AND HIS FAMILY
WILL COOPERATE IN WORKING FOR A QUICK DECISION.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
THERE CAN BE NO WRONG OR PREJUDICE TO ALL CONTINENT BY POSTPONING ITS
SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA TO A MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND EFFICIENT REMEDY THAT
WILL PUT CONFLICTING CLAIMS AT REST.  CF. WEHRMAN V. CONKLIN, 155 U.S.
314, 329.  DELAY AND EXPEDITION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF
EQUITY.  "IN THAT PREDICAMENT THE MALLEABLE PROCESSES OF COURTS OF
BANKRUPTCY GIVE ASSURANCE OF A REMEDY THAT CAN BE MOULDED AND ADAPTED
TO THE NEEDS OF THE OCCASION."  BROWN V. O'KEEFE, 300 U.S. 598. 

MUCH OF THE ARGUMENT FOR THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO A
SHOWING THAT THE SUIT IN PENNSYLVANIA IS NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRAINT FOR
DEFECT OF JURISDICTION, AND THIS FOR THE REASON THAT THE RES TO BE
AFFECTED - THE SECURITIES HELD BY SPARKS & CO. IN THEIR OFFICE IN
PHILADELPHIA - HAD NOT COME WITHIN THE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE
POSSESSION OF THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IN NEW JERSEY WHEN THE SUIT WAS
BEGUN TO REMOVE THE CLOUD UPON TITLE.  CF. FORT DEARBORN TRUST &
SAVINGS BANK V. SMALLEY, 298 FED. 45; MOLINA V. MURPHY, 71 F.(2D) 605;
IN RE ADOLF GOBEL, INC., 80 F.(2D) 849.  THE ARGUMENT MISCONCEIVES THE
GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE TRUSTEE LOOKS TO US FOR AID.  THE TRUSTEE DOES
NOT CHALLENGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT IN PENNSYLVANIA, IF
THE WORD JURISDICTION BE TAKEN IN ITS STRICT AND PROPER SENSE.  CF.
STRATON V. NEW, 283 U.S. 318, 321; ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & TIMBER CO.,
282 U.S. 734, 737, 738.  HE IS NOT SEEKING A WRIT OF PROHIBITION
DIRECTED TO THE COURT ITSELF.  HE IS NOT SEEKING AN INJUNCTION TO
VINDICATE HIS EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER A RES IN HIS POSSESSION, OR IN THE
POSSESSION, ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE, OF THE COURT THAT APPOINTED HIM. 
ISAACS V. HOBBS TIE & TIMBER CO., SUPRA; MURPHY V. JOHN HOFMAN CO., 211
U.S. 562, 568, 569; MORAN V. STURGES, 154 U.S. 256, 274.  WHAT HE SEEKS
IS AN INJUNCTION DIRECTED TO A SUITOR, AND NOT TO ANY COURT, UPON THE
GROUND THAT THE SUITOR IS MISUSING A JURISDICTION WHICH BY HYPOTHESIS
EXISTS, AND CONVERTING IT BY SUCH MISUSE INTO AN INSTRUMENT OF WRONG. 
GAGE V. RIVERSIDE TRUST CO., 86 FED. 984, 998, 999; HIGGINS V.
CALIFORNIA PRUNE & APRICOT GROWERS, 282 FED. 550, 557; COLE V.
CUNNINGHAM, 133 U.S. 107, 112, 117, 118.  SUITS AS WELL AS TRANSFERS
MAY BE THE PROTECTIVE COVERINGS OF FRAUD.  SHAPIRO V. WILGUS, 287 U.S.
348, 355.  WE ARE UNABLE TO YIELD ASSENT TO THE STATEMENT OF THE COURT
BELOW THAT "THE RESTRAINT OF A PROPER PARTY IS LEGALLY TANTAMOUNT TO
THE RESTRAINT OF THE COURT ITSELF."  THE REALITY OF THE DISTINCTION HAS
ILLUSTRATION IN A HOST OF CASES.  2 STORY, EQ. JUR., 14TH ED., SEC.
1195; 5 POMEROY, EQ. JUR., SEC. 2091; COLE V. CUNNINGHAM, SUPRA;
MADISONVILLE TRACTION CO. V. MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239, 245; KESSLER V.
ELDRED, 206 U.S. 285; RICKEY LAND & CATTLE CO. V. MILLER & LUX, 218
U.S. 258; TOLEDO SCALE CO. V. COMPUTING SCALE CO., 261 U.S. 399, 426;
SMITH V. APPLE, 264 U.S. 274, 279.  CF. JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 265; 28
U.S.C. SEC. 379; BROWN V. PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 62 F.(2D) 711,
713; CHICAGO TITLE & TRUST CO. V. FOX THEATRES CORP., 69 F.(2D) 60, 61,
62. 

THE DECREE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THAT OF THE
DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 
..END :























OHIO BELL TEL. CO. V. COMM'N., 301 U.S. 292 


NO. 539.  ARGUED APRIL 6, 7, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 26, 1937.  - 131 OH.
ST. 539 -  3 N.E.(2D) 475, REVERSED. 


1.  AS BASES FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING A TELEPHONE COMPANY TO REFUND TO
ITS PATRONS "EXCESS" EARNINGS COLLECTED DURING A SERIES OF YEARS, A
STATE COMMISSION VALUED THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY FOR EACH OF THOSE YEARS
BY APPLYING TO THE VALUE IN AN EARLIER YEAR, WHICH IT HAD DETERMINED ON
HEARINGS, PRICE TREND PERCENTAGES SAID TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM
EVIDENCE OF WHICH THE COMMISSION TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE BUT WHICH IT
WITHHELD FROM ITS RECORDS AND REFUSED TO REVEAL.  - HELD A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 300. 

2.  A FAIR HEARING IS ESSENTIAL TO DUE PROCESS; WITHOUT IT, THERE IS
CONDEMNATION WITHOUT TRIAL.  P. 300. 

3. JUDICIAL NOTICE MAY BE TAKEN OF THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN
ECONOMIC DEPRESSION, WITH DECLINE OF MARKET VALUES; BUT JUDICIAL NOTICE
CANNOT BE TAKEN OF THE VALUES OF LAND, LABOR, BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT,
WITH THEIR YEARLY FLUCTUATIONS.  P. 300. 

4.  THIS DISTINCTION IS THE MORE IMPORTANT IN CASES WHERE THE EXTENT
OF THE FLUCTUATIONS IS NOT COLLATERALLY INVOLVED BUT IS THE VERY POINT
IN ISSUE.  P. 301. 

5.  TAKING OF JUDICIAL NOTICE HAS NO OTHER EFFECT THAN TO RELIEVE ONE
OF THE PARTIES TO A CONTROVERSY OF THE BURDEN OF RESORTING TO THE USUAL
FORMS OF EVIDENCE; HIS OPPONENT IS AT LIBERTY TO DISPUTE THE MATTER BY
EVIDENCE.  P. 301. 

6.  TO PRESS THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THE EXTENT ATTEMPTED
IN THIS CASE AND TO DO THAT RETROACTIVELY AFTER THE CASE HAD BEEN
SUBMITTED, WOULD BE TO TURN THE DOCTRINE INTO A PRETEXT FOR DISPENSING
WITH A TRIAL.  P. 302. 

7.  FROM THE STANDPOINT OF DUE PROCESS - THE PROTECTION OF THE
INDIVIDUAL AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION - A DEEPER VICE THAN THE
UNREASONABLE EXTENSION OF JUDICIAL NOTICE IS IN THIS CASE THE
CONCEALMENT FROM THE PARTY AFFECTED OF THE PARTICULAR OR EVIDENTIAL
FACTS OF WHICH JUDICIAL NOTICE WAS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION AND ON WHICH
IT RESTED ITS CONCLUSION.  P. 302. 

8.  UNDER THE STATUTES OF OHIO NO PROVISION IS MADE FOR A REVIEW OF
THE ORDER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION BY A SEPARATE OR
INDEPENDENT SUIT.  THE SOLE METHOD OF REVIEW IS BY PETITION IN ERROR TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, WHICH CONSIDERS BOTH THE LAW AND THE
FACTS UPON THE RECORD MADE BELOW, AND NOT UPON NEW EVIDENCE.  IF, AS IN
THIS CASE, THAT COURT MERELY ACCEPTS FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION
ATTRIBUTED TO JUDICIAL NOTICE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY KNOWN OR KNOWABLE
EVIDENCE, JUDICIAL REVIEW IS DENIED.  P. 303. 

9.  IN VIEW OF THE POWER AND DISCRETION REPOSED IN REGULATORY
COMMISSIONS, THE INEXORABLE SAFEGUARD OF A FAIR AND OPEN HEARING MUST
BE MAINTAINED IN ITS INTEGRITY IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS.  P. 304. 

10.  THE RIGHT TO SUCH A HEARING IS ONE OF THE RUDIMENTS OF FAIR PLAY
ASSURED TO EVERY LITIGANT BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A MINIMAL
REQUIREMENT.  THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE ON THE FOOTING OF CONVENIENCE
OR EXPEDIENCY, OR BECAUSE OF A NATURAL DESIRE TO BE RID OF HARASSING
DELAY, WHEN THAT MINIMAL REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED OR IGNORED.  P.
304. 

11.  THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE HAS NOT ESTOPPED ITSELF FROM
OBJECTING TO THE USE OF PRICE TRENDS GATHERED IN ITS ABSENCE.  P. 306. 

OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT SUSTAINING ON APPEAL AN ORDER OF THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO REQUIRING THE TELEPHONE COMPANY TO REFUND
"EXCESS EARNINGS" TO ITS PATRONS. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RATES CHARGEABLE BY THE APPELLANT, THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY, FOR INTRASTATE TELEPHONE SERVICE TO SUBSCRIBERS AND PATRONS IN
OHIO ARE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THIS CONTROVERSY. 

APPELLANT WAS REORGANIZED IN SEPTEMBER, 1921, BY CONSOLIDATION WITH
THE OHIO STATE TELEPHONE COMPANY, TILL THEN A COMPETITOR.  SOON
AFTERWARDS IT FILED WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE
SCHEDULES OF NEW RATES TO BE CHARGED IN THOSE COMMUNITIES WHERE AN
INCREASE WAS DESIRED FOR THE UNIFIED SERVICE.  EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF
TOLL CHARGES THE RATES WERE NOT STATE-WIDE, BUT WERE SEPARATELY STATED
FOR EACH OF THE COMPANY'S EXCHANGES, OF WHICH THERE WERE MANY.  BY THE
STATUTES THEN IN FORCE (THE ROBINSON LAW, PASSED DECEMBER 19, 1919, 108
OHIO LAWS 1094, AS AMENDED BY THE PENCE LAW, PASSED APRIL 4, 1923, 110
OHIO LAWS 366), THE OPERATION OF AN INCREASE MIGHT BE SUSPENDED FOR 120
DAYS, AT THE END OF WHICH TIME THE RATE WAS TO GO INTO EFFECT UPON THE
FILING OF A BOND FOR THE REPAYMENT TO CONSUMERS OF SUCH PORTION OF THE
INCREASED RATE AS THE COMMISSION UPON FINAL HEARING SHOULD DETERMINE TO
HAVE BEEN EXCESSIVE, WITH INTEREST THEREON.  CONSTRUING THESE STATUTES
THE OHIO COURTS HAVE HELD THAT A REFUND MUST BE LIMITED TO RATES
COLLECTED UNDER A BOND, JURISDICTION BEING DISCLAIMED WHEN THAT
CONDITION WAS NOT SATISFIED.  LIMA V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 106 OHIO
ST. 379, 386; 140 N.E. 147; GREAT MIAMI VALLEY TAXPAYERS ASSN. V.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 131 OHIO ST. 285, 286; 2 N.E.(2D) 777.  SOME
OF THE NEW EXCHANGE SCHEDULES WERE THE SUBJECT OF PROTESTS, AND IN
PROCEEDINGS TO REVISE THEM (KNOWN AS PENCE LAW PROCEEDINGS) WERE MADE
EFFECTIVE BY BONDS, A SEPARATE ONE FOR EACH EXCHANGE.  PROTEST WAS ALSO
AIMED AT THE NEW SCHEDULE FOR TOLL SERVICE WHICH WAS TO APPLY
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, SCHEDULES FOR OTHER EXCHANGES
BECAME EFFECTIVE WITHOUT PROTEST AND THEREFORE WITHOUT BOND, AND ARE
NOT NOW AT ISSUE. 

BY OCTOBER 1924, THIRTY-ONE PENCE LAW PROCEEDINGS AIMED AT SEPARATE
EXCHANGES HAD BEEN BEGUN, BUT HAD NOT BEEN FULLY TRIED.  ALREADY
SEVERAL THOUSAND PAGES OF TESTIMONY HAD BEEN TAKEN AND MANY EXHIBITS
RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.  SOON AFTERWARDS, TWELVE ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS
WERE BEGUN, MAKING THE TOTAL NUMBER FORTY-THREE, EXCLUSIVE OF THE TOLL
CASE.  TWO OTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE STARTED LATER ON.  WHILE THE NUMBER
STOOD AT FORTY-THREE, THE COMMISSION OF ITS OWN MOTION, BY ORDER DATED
OCTOBER 14, 1924, DIRECTED A COMPANY-WIDE INVESTIGATION OF APPELLANT'S
PROPERTY AND RATES, AND CONSOLIDATED THE BOND CASES THEREWITH.  THE
ORDER RECITES THAT IN ALL THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS THE IMPORTANT ISSUES
ARE IDENTICAL, AND THAT A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED CASE WILL ENABLE RATES TO
BE DETERMINED FOR ALL SERVICES WITHIN THE STATE AT A MINIMUM
EXPENDITURE OF TIME AND MONEY.  ACCORDINGLY, THE COMPANY WAS REQUIRED
TO FILE WITH THE COMMISSION ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 1, 1924, A COMPLETE
INVENTORY OF ALL ITS PROPERTY, USED AND USEFUL IN ITS BUSINESS, AND
UPON THE FILING OF SUCH INVENTORY, THE CONSOLIDATED CASE WAS TO
"PROCEED TO A HEARING FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR VALUE OF SAID
PROPERTY AND OF THE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES FOR THE SERVICE THEREBY
TO BE FURNISHED BY SAID COMPANY TO ITS PATRONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
OHIO."  THE STATEWIDE INVESTIGATION THUS INITIATED, AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM THE PENCE LAW PROCEEDINGS CONSOLIDATED THEREWITH, HAD ITS LEGAL
BASIS IN PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL CODE OF OHIO (SEC. 499-8, 499-9),
AND ITS SCOPE WAS CONFINED TO THE RATES CHARGEABLE IN THE FUTURE (SEC.
614-23), THE PENCE LAW BEING THE BASIS FOR ANY REFUND OF RATES
COLLECTED IN THE PAST.  THE STATUTE (SEC. 499-9) MAKES IT MANDATORY
THAT IN FIXING RATES FOR THE FUTURE, THE COMMISSION SHALL ASCERTAIN THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS "OF A DATE CERTAIN" TO BE NAMED.  THE DATE
ADOPTED FOR THAT PURPOSE WAS JUNE 30, 1925. 

THE COMPANY FILED AN INVENTORY AS REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION WITH
SUPPLEMENTAL INVENTORIES EVERY SIX MONTHS THEREAFTER SHOWING ADDITIONS
AND RETIREMENTS.  A LONG INVESTIGATION FOLLOWED, THE EVIDENCE BEING
DIRECTED IN THE MAIN TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF
HISTORICAL COST AND COST OF REPRODUCTION, AND TO THE DEDUCTIONS
CHARGEABLE TO GROSS REVENUES FOR DEPRECIATION RESERVE AND OPERATING
EXPENSES GENERALLY.  AS EARLY AS FEBRUARY, 1927, THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED
TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE FIXING OF A TENTATIVE VALUE AS OF THE DATE
CERTAIN, A TENTATIVE VALUE BEING SUBJECT UNDER THE OHIO CODE TO PROTEST
AND READJUSTMENT.  AT THE REQUEST OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HOWEVER, THE
PROCEEDING WAS REOPENED AND NEW EVIDENCE INTRODUCED.  AT LAST, ON
JANUARY 10, 1931, THE COMMISSION ANNOUNCED ITS TENTATIVE CONCLUSION. 
THE VALUATION THEN ARRIVED AT WAS $104,282,735, FOR ALL THE PROPERTY
WITHIN THE STATE, WHETHER USED IN INTERSTATE OR IN INTRASTATE
BUSINESS.  PROTESTS WERE FILED BOTH BY THE COMPANY AND BY THE STATE AND
MUNICIPALITIES.  THEY WERE FOLLOWED BY NEW HEARINGS.  ON JANUARY 16,
1934, THE COMMISSION MADE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER SETTING FORTH WHAT
PURPORTS TO BE A FINAL VALUATION.  THE INTRASTATE PROPERTY AS OF JUNE
30, 1925, WAS VALUED AT $93,707,488; THE TOTAL PROPERTY, INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE, AT $96,422,276. 

THE COMMISSION DID NOT CONFINE ITSELF, HOWEVER, TO A VALUATION OF THE
PROPERTY AS OF THE DATE CERTAIN.  IT UNDERTOOK ALSO TO FIX A VALUATION
FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1926 TO 1933 INCLUSIVE.  FOR THIS PURPOSE IT TOOK
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PRICE TRENDS DURING THOSE YEARS, MODIFYING THE VALUE
WHICH IT HAD FOUND AS OF THE DATE CERTAIN BY THE PERCENTAGE OF DECLINE
OR RISE APPLICABLE TO THE YEARS THEREAFTER.  THE FIRST WARNING THAT IT
WOULD DO THIS CAME IN 1934 WITH THE FILING OF ITS REPORT.  "THE TREND
OF LAND VALUATION WAS ASCERTAINED," ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS, "FROM
EXAMINATION OF THE TAX VALUE IN COMMUNITIES WHERE THE COMPANY HAD ITS
LARGEST REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS."  "FOR BUILDING TRENDS RESORT WAS HAD TO
PRICE INDICES OF THE ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD, A RECOGNIZED MAGAZINE IN
THE FIELD OF ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION."  "LABOR TRENDS WERE DEVELOPED
FROM THE SAME SOURCES."  REFERENCE WAS MADE ALSO TO THE FINDINGS OF A
FEDERAL COURT IN ILLINOIS (ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. GILBERT, 3
F.SUPP.  595, 603) AS TO THE PRICE LEVELS UPON SALES OF APPARATUS AND
EQUIPMENT BY WESTERN ELECTRIC, AN AFFILIATED CORPORATION.  THE FINDINGS
WERE NOT IN EVIDENCE, THOUGH MUCH OF THE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS ON
WHICH THEY RESTED HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY STIPULATION FOR CERTAIN LIMITED
PURPOSES, AND MAINLY TO DISCOVER WHETHER THE PRICES PAID TO THE
AFFILIATE WERE SWOLLEN BEYOND REASON.*CF. DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, 292 U.S. 290, 295.  THE COMMISSION CONSULTED
THESE FINDINGS AS INDICATIVE OF MARKET TRENDS AND LEANED UPON THEM
HEAVILY.  BY RESORT TO THESE AND COGNATE SOURCES, THE VALUE AT THE
BEGINNING OF 1926 WAS FIXED AT 98.73% OF THE VALUE AT THE DATE CERTAIN;
THE 1927 VALUE AT 95.7%; THE 1928 VALUE AT 95%; THE 1929 VALUE AT
96.3%; 1930 VALUE AT 92.2%; THE 1931 VALUE AT 86.6%; THE 1932 VALUE AT
76.8%; THE 1933 VALUE AT 79.1%.  UPON THAT BASIS THE COMPANY WAS FOUND
TO HAVE BEEN IN RECEIPT OF EXCESS EARNINGS OF $13,289,172, DISTRIBUTED
AS FOLLOWS:  FOR 1925, $1,822,647; FOR 1926, $2,041,483; FOR 1927,
$1,986,610; FOR 1928, $1,925,301; FOR 1929, $1,463,347; FOR 1930,
$1,481,689; FOR 1931, $1,659,760; FOR 1932, $908,335; FOR 1933,
NOTHING.  THE EXCESS WAS ARRIVED AT BY FIGURING A RETURN OF 7% UPON THE
VALUE AS A REASONABLE RATE FOR THE YEARS 1925 TO 1929, INCLUSIVE; 6.5%
FOR THE YEARS 1930 AND 1931; AND 5.5% FOR THE YEARS 1932 AND 1933. 
THERE BEING NO EXCESS REVENUE FOR THE YEAR 1933, THE LAST YEAR COVERED
BY THE REPORT, THE COMMISSION DID NOT FIX ANY PERCENTAGE OF REDUCTION
FOR THE RATES IN FUTURE YEARS.  IT DID, HOWEVER, PRESCRIBE A REFUND OF
THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE EXCESS FOR THE YEARS IN WHICH EXCESS EARNINGS
WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN REALIZED.  THE STATEWIDE PROCEEDING TO FIX
RATES FOR THE FUTURE ON THE BASIS OF A DATE CERTAIN WAS THUS
TRANSFORMED FINALLY INTO A REFUND PROCEEDING, SIMILAR IN FUNCTION TO
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PENCE LAW FOR THE REFUND OF CHARGES COLLECTED
UNDER BONDS.  THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DETERMINING THE EXCESS WAS
SIGNED BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS, THE CHAIRMAN DISSENTING.  IT WAS
ACCOMPANIED BY AN ORDER SIMILAR IN TENOR. 

*THE STIPULATION STATES THAT THE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS "SHALL,
HOWEVER, BE CONSIDERED UPON FOUR ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CAUSE AND FOUR
ONLY, VIZ: 

"1.  THE EARNINGS OF THE WESTERN ELECTRIC AND THE REASONABLENESS OF
SUCH EARNINGS. 

"2.  THE COST TO THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF
RENDERING SERVICES UNDER THE LICENSE CONTRACT AND THE REASONABLE AMOUNT
WHICH SHOULD BE ALLOCATED IN THAT RESPECT TO THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE
COMPANY. 

"3.  THE SEPARATION AND APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY, REVENUES AND
EXPENSES OF THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY AS BETWEEN ITS INTRASTATE
AND INTERSTATE PROPERTY, REVENUES AND EXPENSES. 

"4.  RATE OF RETURN." 

THE COMPANY PROTESTED AND MOVED FOR A REHEARING.  IN ITS PROTEST IT
STATED THAT THE TREND PERCENTAGES ACCEPTED IN THE FINDINGS AS MARKING A
DECLINE IN VALUES DID NOT COME FROM ANY OFFICIAL SOURCES WHICH THE
COMMISSION HAD THE RIGHT TO NOTICE JUDICIALLY; THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN
INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE; THAT THE COMPANY HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN AN
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN OR REBUT THEM; AND THAT BY THEIR USE THE
COMMISSION HAD DENIED A FAIR HEARING IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  DEMAND WAS MADE THAT AN
OPPORTUNITY BE CONCEDED FOR EXPLANATION AND REBUTTAL; DEMAND WAS MADE
ALSO THAT THE COMPANY BE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE SHOWING
SEPARATELY FOR EACH YEAR THE FAIR VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY, ITS REVENUES,
EXPENSES AND NET INCOME IN EACH OF THE SEVERAL CASES WHEREIN RATES HAD
BEEN COLLECTED UNDER BOND.  THIS LAST WAS A RENEWAL OF A DEMAND WHICH
HAD BEEN MADE SEVERAL TIMES IN THE COURSE OF THE INQUIRY, AS THE
COMMISSION IN ITS REPORT CONCEDES.  BY ORDER DATED MARCH 1, 1934, THE
PROTESTS WERE OVERRULED, AND THE DEMANDS REJECTED.  BY ORDER DATED JULY
5 OF THE SAME YEAR THE COMMISSION MODIFIED TO SOME EXTENT ITS FINDINGS
AS TO THE EXCESS INCOME REFERABLE TO BONDED RATES, AND DIRECTED THE
COMPANY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY REFUNDS OF THE EXCESS SHOULD NOT BE MADE UPON
THAT BASIS.  AGAIN THERE WAS PROTEST WITH A RENEWAL OF THE REQUEST THAT
EVIDENCE BE RECEIVED ALONG THE LINES ALREADY INDICATED.  AGAIN THE
COMMISSION REAFFIRMED ITS PREVIOUS POSITION. 

THE OUTCOME OF THESE MANOEUVRES WAS THE FILING OF A FINAL ORDER,
DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 1934, APPORTIONING THE EXCESS INCOME BETWEEN BONDED
AND NON-BONDED RATES BY ALLOCATING TO THE FORMER CLASS A TOTAL OF
$11,423,137 FOR EXCHANGE SUBSCRIBERS AND $409,127 FOR TOLL PATRONS (IN
ALL $11,832,264) AND DIRECTING PAYMENT ACCORDINGLY.  DISTRIBUTION WAS
TO BE MADE AMONG THE SEVERAL EXCHANGES UPON THE BASIS OF THE PERCENTAGE
RELATION OF THE GROSS EXCHANGE REVENUES IN THE EXCHANGES WHERE BONDS
WERE IN EFFECT TO THE TOTAL GROSS EXCHANGE REVENUES, BONDED AND
UNBONDED.  IF EVEN A SINGLE RATE IN A PARTICULAR EXCHANGE, E.G., IN THE
CITY OF CLEVELAND, HAD BEEN COLLECTED UNDER BOND, ALL THE REVENUES OF
THAT EXCHANGE WERE INCLUDED IN RECKONING THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
THAT SHOULD GO TO THE CLEVELAND CUSTOMERS.  SO MUCH OF THE EXCESS AS
WAS NOT USED UP IN THAT WAY WAS APPORTIONED TO THE TOLLS.  THIS METHOD
OF ALLOCATION WAS MADE THE SUBJECT OF ANOTHER PROTEST, THE COMPANY
INSISTING THAT IT WAS ARBITRARY AND UNEQUAL AND A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  PETITIONS IN ERROR WERE FILED WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE PRACTICE (GENERAL CODE, SEC. 544 ET SEQ.)
TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1934, AND THE SEVERAL
INTERMEDIATE ORDERS SUPPORTING IT.  THERE WAS TIMELY AND ADEQUATE
ASSERTION OF THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO AFFIRMED WITH AN
OPINION PER CURIAM.  131 OHIO ST. 539; 3 N.E.(2D) 475.  THE CASE IS
HERE UPON APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 237, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344. 

FIRST:  THE FUNDAMENTALS OF A TRIAL WERE DENIED TO THE APPELLANT WHEN
RATES PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED WERE ORDERED TO BE REFUNDED UPON THE
STRENGTH OF EVIDENTIAL FACTS NOT SPREAD UPON THE RECORD. 

THE COMMISSION HAD GIVEN NOTICE THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD
BE FIXED AS OF A DATE CERTAIN.  EVIDENCE DIRECTED TO THE VALUE AT THAT
TIME HAD BEEN LAID BEFORE THE TRIERS OF THE FACTS IN THOUSANDS OF
PRINTED PAGES.  TO MAKE THE PICTURE MORE COMPLETE, EVIDENCE HAD BEEN
GIVEN AS TO THE VALUE AT COST OF ADDITIONS AND RETIREMENTS.  WITHOUT
WARNING OR EVEN THE HINT OF WARNING THAT THE CASE WOULD BE CONSIDERED
OR DETERMINED UPON ANY OTHER BASIS THAN THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, THE
COMMISSION CUT DOWN THE VALUES FOR THE YEARS AFTER THE DATE CERTAIN
UPON THE STRENGTH OF INFORMATION SECRETLY COLLECTED AND NEVER YET
DISCLOSED.  THE COMPANY PROTESTED.  IT ASKED DISCLOSURE OF THE
DOCUMENTS INDICATIVE OF PRICE TRENDS, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE
THEM, TO ANALYZE THEM, TO EXPLAIN AND TO REBUT THEM.  THE RESPONSE WAS
A CURT REFUSAL.  UPON THE STRENGTH OF THESE UNKNOWN DOCUMENTS REFUNDS
HAVE BEEN ORDERED FOR SUMS MOUNTING INTO MILLIONS, THE COMMISSION
REPORTING ITS CONCLUSION, BUT NOT THE UNDERLYING PROOFS.  THE PUTATIVE
DEBTOR DOES NOT KNOW THE PROOFS TODAY.  THIS IS NOT THE FAIR HEARING
ESSENTIAL TO DUE PROCESS.  IT IS CONDEMNATION WITHOUT TRIAL.    AN
ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE COMMISSION AND AGAIN BY THE STATE COURT TO
UPHOLD THIS DECISION WITHOUT EVIDENCE AS AN INSTANCE OF JUDICIAL
NOTICE.  INDEED, DECISIONS OF THIS COURT WERE CITED (ATCHISON, T. &
S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 248, 260; DAYTON POWER & LIGHT
CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N, SUPRA, P. 311; CENTRAL KENTUCKY NATURAL
GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 290 U.S. 264, 274, 275) AS GIVING
SUPPORT TO THE NEW DOCTRINE THAT THE VALUES OF LAND AND LABOR AND
BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT, WITH ALL THEIR YEARLY FLUCTUATIONS, NO LONGER
CALL FOR EVIDENCE.  OUR OPINIONS HAVE BEEN MUCH MISREAD IF THEY HAVE
BEEN THOUGHT TO POINT THAT WAY.  COURTS TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF MATTERS
OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE.  5 WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, SECS. 2571, 2580, 2583;
THAYER, PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON EVIDENCE, PP. 277, 302.  THEY TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DEPRESSION, AND THAT A DECLINE OF
MARKET VALUES IS ONE OF ITS CONCOMITANTS.  ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO.
V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMM'N, SUPRA; CENTRAL KENTUCKY NATURAL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION,
SUPRA.  HOW GREAT THE DECLINE HAS BEEN FOR THIS INDUSTRY OR THAT, FOR
ONE MATERIAL OR ANOTHER, IN THIS YEAR OR THE NEXT, CAN BE KNOWN ONLY TO
THE EXPERTS, WHO MAY EVEN DIFFER AMONG THEMSELVES.  FOR ILLUSTRATION, A
COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT CONFEDERATE MONEY
DEPRECIATED IN VALUE DURING THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES (WOOD V. COOPER,
2 HEISK.  (TENN.)  441, 447; HIX V. HIX, 25 W. VA. 481, 484, 485), BUT
NOT OF THE EXTENT OF THE DEPRECIATION AT A GIVEN TIME AND PLACE. 
MODAWELL V. HOLMES, 40 ALA. 391, 405.  CF. FEEMSTER V. RINGO, 5 T.B.
MUNROE (KY.)  336, 337; BAXTER V. MCDONNELL, 155 N.Y. 83, 93; 49 N.E.
667.  THE DISTINCTION IS THE MORE IMPORTANT IN CASES WHERE AS HERE THE
EXTENT OF THE FLUCTUATIONS IS NOT COLLATERALLY INVOLVED BUT IS THE VERY
POINT IN ISSUE.  MOREOVER, NOTICE, EVEN WHEN TAKEN, HAS NO OTHER EFFECT
THAN TO RELIEVE ONE OF THE PARTIES TO A CONTROVERSY OF THE BURDEN OF
RESORTING TO THE USUAL FORMS OF EVIDENCE.  WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, SEC.
2567; 1 GREENLEAF, EVIDENCE, 16TH ED., P. 18.  "IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THE OPPONENT IS PREVENTED FROM DISPUTING THE MATTER BY EVIDENCE IF HE
BELIEVES IT DISPUTABLE."  IBID.  CF. SHAPLEIGH V. MIER, 299 U.S. 468. 
SUCH AT LEAST IS THE GENERAL RULE, TO BE ADHERED TO IN THE ABSENCE OF
EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS.  HERE THE CONTENTION WOULD BE FUTILE THAT THE
PRECISE AMOUNT OF THE DECLINE IN VALUES WAS SO DETERMINATE OR NOTORIOUS
IN EACH AND EVERY YEAR BETWEEN 1925 AND 1933 AS TO BE BEYOND THE RANGE
OF QUESTION.  SO MUCH IS INDEED CONCEDED ON THE FACE OF THE REPORT
ITSELF.  NO RATIONAL CONCEPT OF NOTORIETY WILL INCLUDE THESE VARIABLE
ELEMENTS.  TRUE, THE CATEGORY IS NOT A CLOSED ONE.  "THE PRECEDENTS OF
FORMER JUDGES, IN DECLINING TO NOTICE OR ASSENTING TO NOTICE SPECIFIC
FACTS, DO NOT RESTRICT THE PRESENT JUDGE FROM NOTICING A NEW FACT,
PROVIDED ONLY THAT THE NEW FACT IS NOTORIOUS TO THE COMMUNITY."  5
WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, SEC. 2583.  EVEN SO, TO PRESS THE DOCTRINE OF
JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THE EXTENT ATTEMPTED IN THIS CASE AND TO DO THAT
RETROACTIVELY AFTER THE CASE HAD BEEN SUBMITTED, WOULD BE TO TURN THE
DOCTRINE INTO A PRETEXT FOR DISPENSING WITH A TRIAL. 

WHAT WAS DONE BY THE COMMISSION IS SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO AN OBJECTION
EVEN DEEPER.  CF. BROWN V. NEW JERSEY, 175 U.S. 172, 174, 175; WEST V.
LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258, 262, 263.  THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN AN
EXPANSION OF THE CONCEPT OF NOTORIETY BEYOND REASONABLE LIMITS.  FROM
THE STANDPOINT OF DUE PROCESS - THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL
AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION - A DEEPER VICE IS THIS, THAT EVEN NOW WE DO
NOT KNOW THE PARTICULAR OR EVIDENTIAL FACTS OF WHICH THE COMMISSION
TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE AND ON WHICH IT RESTED ITS CONCLUSION.  NOT ONLY
ARE THE FACTS UNKNOWN; THERE IS NO WAY TO FIND THEM OUT.  WHEN PRICE
LISTS OR TRADE JOURNALS OR EVEN GOVERNMENT REPORTS ARE PUT IN EVIDENCE
UPON A TRIAL, THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THEY ARE OFFERED MAY SEE THE
EVIDENCE OR HEAR IT AND PARRY ITS EFFECT.  EVEN IF THEY ARE COPIED IN
THE FINDINGS WITHOUT PRELIMINARY PROOF, THERE IS AT LEAST AN
OPPORTUNITY IN CONNECTION WITH A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION TO
CHALLENGE THE DEDUCTIONS MADE FROM THEM.  THE OPPORTUNITY IS EXCLUDED
HERE.  THE COMMISSION, WITHHOLDING FROM THE RECORD THE EVIDENTIAL FACTS
THAT IT HAS GATHERED HERE AND THERE, CONTENTS ITSELF WITH SAYING THAT
IN GATHERING THEM IT WENT TO JOURNALS AND TAX LISTS, AS IF A JUDGE WERE
TO TELL US, "I LOOKED AT THE STATISTICS IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, AND
THEY TEACH ME THUS AND SO."  THIS WILL NEVER DO IF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
ARE TO BE MORE THAN EMPTY FORMS. 

WE HAVE POINTED OUT ELSEWHERE THAT UNDER THE STATUTES OF OHIO NO
PROVISION IS MADE FOR A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION BY A
SEPARATE OR INDEPENDENT SUIT.  WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMM'N (NO. 1), 294 U.S. 63, 68.  A DIFFERENT QUESTION WOULD BE HERE IF
SUCH A SUIT COULD BE MAINTAINED WITH AN INTERMEDIATE SUSPENSION OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING.  PORTER V. INVESTORS SYNDICATE, 286 U.S. 461,
470, 471; UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 291 U.S. 457, 463;
NICKEY V. MISSISSIPPI, 292 U.S. 393, 396; WELLS, FARGO & CO. V. NEVADA,
248 U.S. 165, 168.  CF. NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288
U.S. 294, 318, 319.  IN OHIO THE SOLE METHOD OF REVIEW IS BY PETITION
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, WHICH CONSIDERS BOTH THE
LAW AND THE FACTS UPON THE RECORD MADE BELOW, AND NOT UPON NEW
EVIDENCE.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE NO LONGER A
REALITY IF THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE WERE TO RECEIVE THE STAMP
OF REGULARITY.  TO PUT THE PROBLEM MORE CONCRETELY:  HOW WAS IT
POSSIBLE FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO REVIEW THE LAW AND THE FACTS AND
INTELLIGENTLY DECIDE THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION WERE SUPPORTED
BY THE EVIDENCE WHEN THE EVIDENCE THAT IT APPROVED WAS UNKNOWN AND
UNKNOWABLE?  IN EXPRESSING THAT APPROVAL THE COURT DID NOT MEAN THAT,
TRAVELING BEYOND THE RECORD, IT HAD CONSULTED PRICE LISTS FOR ITSELF
AND HAD REACHED ITS OWN CONCLUSION AS TO THE PERCENTAGE OF DECLINE IN
VALUE FROM 1925 ONWARDS.  IT DID NOT EVEN MEAN THAT IT HAD LOOKED AT
THE PARTICULAR LISTS MADE USE OF BY THE COMMISSION, FOR NO ONE KNOWS
WHAT THEY WERE IN ANY PRECISE OR CERTAIN WAY.  NOWHERE IN THE OPINION
IS THERE EVEN THE HINT OF SUCH A SEARCH.  WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF
OHIO DID WAS TO TAKE THE WORD OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE OUTCOME OF A
SECRET INVESTIGATION, AND LET IT GO AT THAT.  "A HEARING IS NOT
JUDICIAL, AT LEAST IN ANY ADEQUATE SENSE, UNLESS THE EVIDENCE CAN BE
KNOWN."  WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N (NO. 1), SUPRA,
P. 69.  CF. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 227
U.S. 88, 91; UNITED STATES V. ABILENE & SOUTHERN RY. CO., 265 U.S. 274,
288; CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 263, 264, 265. 

REGULATORY COMMISSIONS HAVE BEEN INVESTED WITH BROAD POWERS WITHIN
THE SPHERE OF DUTY ASSIGNED TO THEM BY LAW.  EVEN IN QUASI-JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS THEIR INFORMED AND EXPERT JUDGMENT EXACTS AND RECEIVES A
PROPER DEFERENCE FROM COURTS WHEN IT HAS BEEN REACHED WITH DUE
SUBMISSION TO CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS.  WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N (NO. 1), SUPRA, P. 70; WEST OHIO GAS CO. V. PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMM'N (NO. 2), 294 U.S. 79; LOS ANGELES GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 289 U.S. 287, 304.  INDEED, MUCH THAT THEY DO
WITHIN THE REALM OF ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IS EXEMPT FROM
SUPERVISION IF THOSE RESTRAINTS HAVE BEEN OBEYED.  ALL THE MORE
INSISTENT IS THE NEED, WHEN POWER HAS BEEN BESTOWED SO FREELY, THAT THE
"INEXORABLE SAFEGUARD" (ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES,
298 U.S. 38, 73) OF A FAIR AND OPEN HEARING BE MAINTAINED IN ITS
INTEGRITY.  MORGAN V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 468, 480, 481; INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., SUPRA.  THE RIGHT TO SUCH A
HEARING IS ONE OF "THE RUDIMENTS OF FAIR PLAY" (CHICAGO, M. & ST. P.
RY. CO. V. POLT, 232 U.S. 165, 168) ASSURED TO EVERY LITIGANT BY THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AS A MINIMAL REQUIREMENT.  WEST OHIO GAS CO. V.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N (NO. 1), (NO. 2), SUPRA; BRINKERHOFF-FARIS CO.
V. HILL, 281 U.S. 673, 682.  CF. NORWEGIAN NITROGEN CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE ON THE FOOTING OF
CONVENIENCE OR EXPEDIENCY, OR BECAUSE OF A NATURAL DESIRE TO BE RID OF
HARASSING DELAY, WHEN THAT MINIMAL REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED OR
IGNORED. 

IN AN ENDEAVOR TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT THE STATE SHIFTS ITS LINE OF
ARGUMENT FROM THE COURSE PURSUED BELOW, SO FAR, AT LEAST, AS THE COURSE
THEN FOLLOWED IS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD.  BOTH THE COMMISSION AND THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO TELL US THAT THEY HAVE APPLIED THE PRICE TRENDS
TO THE VALUE ON THE DAY CERTAIN BY RESORT TO JUDICIAL NOTICE.  THE
STATE NOW SUGGESTS THAT WHATEVER THE COURT OR THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE
PROFESSED TO BE DOING, THERE WAS A BASIS IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
CONCLUSION ULTIMATELY REACHED.  TO GIVE AID TO THAT SUGGESTION
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FINDINGS OF A FEDERAL COURT AS TO THE PRICES
CHARGED BY WESTERN ELECTRIC FOR TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT, WHICH FINDINGS
WERE NOT IN EVIDENCE, THOUGH THEY WERE FOUNDED UPON EVIDENCE RECEIVED
BY STIPULATION FOR PURPOSES NARROWLY DEFINED AND EXCLUSIVE OF ANY
OTHERS.  THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED IN THIS
OPINION.  EVEN IF WE ASSUME IN FAVOR OF THE STATE THAT THE EVIDENCE,
WHEN IN, COULD BE CONSIDERED AS INDICATIVE OF THE TREND OF MARKET
VALUES GENERALLY, THE JUDGMENT IS NOT HELPED.  THE COMMISSION DID NOT
TAKE THE PRICES PAID BY APPELLANT TO THE AFFILIATED CORPORATION AS THE
ONLY EVIDENCE OF MARKET TRENDS, BUT MERELY AS ONE FACTOR ALONG WITH
MANY OTHERS.  WHAT WEIGHTING IT GAVE THEM THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE,
AND THE COMMISSION DENIED THE APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO INQUIRE. 
ACCORDING TO APPELLANT'S COMPUTATION, TELEPHONE APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT
MAKE UP LESS THAN 30% OF THE VALUE OF APPELLANT'S PLANT.  EVEN FOR THAT
PORTION OF THE PLANT, THE WESTERN ELECTRIC PRICES WERE NOT ACCEPTED AS
DECISIVE, BUT WERE SUPPLEMENTED AND CORRECTED FROM SOURCES DEHORS THE
RECORD.  FOR THE OTHER 70%, THEY WERE WITHOUT PROBATIVE SIGNIFICANCE,
AT ALL EVENTS UNTIL SUPPLEMENTED BY EVIDENCE THAT THE DECLINE IN THE
VALUE OF APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT WAS LESS THAN THAT IN THE VALUE OF
LAND OR BUILDINGS OR OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE PLANT.  TO FIX THE VALUE
OF THESE COMPONENTS THE COMMISSION HAD RECOURSE TO STATISTICS WHICH IT
COLLECTED FOR ITSELF.  "THERE WAS NO SUITABLE OPPORTUNITY THROUGH
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT  ...  TO CHALLENGE THE RESULT."  WEST OHIO GAS
CO. V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (NO. 1), SUPRA, P. 90. 

SECOND:  THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTOPPED ITSELF FROM OBJECTING TO THE
USE OF PRICE TRENDS GATHERED IN ITS ABSENCE. 

THE COMPANY DID NOT OPPOSE THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATE-WIDE
INVESTIGATION WITH THE PENCE LAW PROCEEDINGS.  THIS DID NOT AMOUNT,
HOWEVER, TO A WAIVER OF ITS RIGHT TO HAVE THE VALUE OF ITS PROPERTY
DETERMINED UPON EVIDENCE.  AT NO STAGE OF THE INQUIRY WAS THERE ANY
SUGGESTION BY THE COMMISSION THAT A DIFFERENT COURSE WOULD BE PURSUED. 
WE HAVE NO NEED TO CONSIDER HOW THE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS WOULD HAVE
BEEN AFFECTED BY A VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL
INVESTIGATION IF THE EVIDENCE OF VALUE HAD BEEN GATHERED IN THE USUAL
WAY.  IN THE THOUGHT OF THE STATE SUCH A COURSE WOULD HAVE OBVIATED THE
NECESSITY FOR SEPARATE EVIDENCE OF VALUE AS TO THE EXCHANGES UNDER
BOND, BUT THE COMPANY CONTENDED OTHERWISE AND MADE OFFERS OF PROOF IN
SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION.  THE MERITS OF THE OPPOSING VIEWS IN THAT
REGARD MAY BE PUT ASIDE AS IRRELEVANT UPON THE RECORD NOW BEFORE US.
WHAT IS CERTAIN IN ANY EVENT IS THIS, THAT NOTHING IN THE COURSE OF THE
TRIAL GAVE WARNING OF THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION, WHILE REJECTING
EVIDENCE OF VALUE IN RESPECT OF EXCHANGES UNDER BOND, TO WANDER AFIELD
AND FIX THE COMPOSITE VALUE OF THE SYSTEM WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY
EVIDENCE, UPON PROOFS DRAWN FROM THE CLOUDS.  AS THERE WAS NO WARNING
OF SUCH A COURSE, SO ALSO THERE WAS NO CONSENT TO IT.  WE DO NOT
PRESUME ACQUIESCENCE IN THE LOSS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. 

THIRD:  THE ALLOCATION OF EXCESS INCOME AMONG THE SUBSCRIBERS TO
EXCHANGES AND ALSO AMONG TOLL PATRONS IS CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT,
THE STATE RETORTING WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DENIAL
OF DUE PROCESS IN THE MANNER OF PARTITION, WHATEVER MAY BE SAID AS TO
THE POSSIBILITY OF INACCURACY OR ERROR. 

WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY AT THIS TIME TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THESE TWO
CONTENTIONS.  A COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DEFINE THE PROPER METHOD OF
ALLOCATION UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A PROPER ASCERTAINMENT OF THE THING TO
BE ALLOCATED.  WHEN THAT HAS BEEN DONE, THERE MAY BE AGREEMENT OR
ACQUIESCENCE IN RESPECT OF THE MANNER OF DIVISION.  MOREOVER, UPON
ANOTHER HEARING THE PROBLEM MAY BE ELIMINATED IF VALUE, REVENUES AND
EXPENSES ARE PROVED FOR EACH EXCHANGE. 

FOURTH:  THE SAME REASONS THAT MAKE IT UNNECESSARY TO FIX THE METHOD
OF ALLOCATION RELIEVE US OF THE DUTY OF PASSING UPON OTHER PROBLEMS,
SUCH AS THOSE OF GOING CONCERN VALUE AND DEPRECIATION RESERVE, WHICH
CANNOT BE DISPOSED OF ADEQUATELY UNTIL THE VALUE OF THE PHYSICAL PLANT
HAS FIRST BEEN ASCERTAINED.    THE DECREE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 
..END :


















NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN, 301 U.S. 1 


NO. 419.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 11, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 12, 1937.  - 83
F.(2D) 998, REVERSED. 


1.  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS NATIONAL AND WHAT IS LOCAL IN THE
ACTIVITIES OF COMMERCE IS VITAL TO THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR FEDERAL FORM
OF GOVERNMENT.  P. 29. 

2.  THE VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS WHICH, CONSIDERED BY THEMSELVES, ARE
CONSTITUTIONAL, HELD NOT AFFECTED BY GENERAL AND AMBIGUOUS DECLARATIONS
IN THE SAME STATUTE.  P. 30. 

3.  AN INTERPRETATION WHICH CONFORMS A STATUTE TO THE CONSTITUTION
MUST BE PREFERRED TO ANOTHER WHICH WOULD RENDER IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR
OF DOUBTFUL VALIDITY.  P. 30. 

4.  ACTS WHICH DIRECTLY BURDEN OR OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, OR ITS FREE FLOW, ARE WITHIN THE REACH OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
POWER; AND THIS INCLUDES ACTS, HAVING THAT EFFECT, WHICH GROW OUT OF
LABOR DISPUTES.  P. 31. 

5.  EMPLOYEES IN INDUSTRY HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND
SELECT REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING;
AND DISCRIMINATION OR COERCION UPON THE PART OF THEIR EMPLOYER TO
PREVENT THE FREE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT IS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR
CONDEMNATION BY COMPETENT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY P. 33. 

6.  THE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM
BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS IS NOT LIMITED TO TRANSACTIONS WHICH CAN BE
DEEMED TO BE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A "FLOW" OF SUCH COMMERCE.  PP. 34
36. 

7.  ALTHOUGH ACTIVITIES MAY BE INTRASTATE IN CHARACTER WHEN
SEPARATELY CONSIDERED, IF THEY HAVE SUCH A CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL
RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT THEIR CONTROL IS ESSENTIAL, OR
APPROPRIATE, TO PROTECT THAT COMMERCE FROM BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS,
CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO EXERCISE THAT CONTROL.  P. 37. 

8.  THIS POWER MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT AND MAY NOT BE EXTENDED SO AS TO EMBRACE EFFECTS UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO INDIRECT AND REMOTE THAT TO EMBRACE THEM WOULD,
IN VIEW OF OUR COMPLEX SOCIETY, EFFECTUALLY OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN WHAT IS NATIONAL AND WHAT IS LOCAL AND CREATE A COMPLETELY
CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.  THE QUESTION IS NECESSARILY ONE OF DEGREE.  P.
37. 

9.  WHATEVER AMOUNTS TO MORE OR LESS CONSTANT PRACTICE, AND THREATENS
TO OBSTRUCT OR UNDULY TO BURDEN THE FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS
WITHIN THE REGULATORY POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE; AND
IT IS PRIMARILY FOR CONGRESS TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE FACT OF THE
DANGER AND MEET IT.  P. 37. 

10.  THE CLOSE AND INTIMATE EFFECT WHICH BRINGS THE SUBJECT WITHIN
THE REACH OF FEDERAL POWER MAY BE DUE TO ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO
PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRY, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRY WHEN SEPARATELY VIEWED IS
LOCAL.  P. 38. 

11.  THE RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE MANUFACTURING
ENTERPRISE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WAS SUCH THAT A STOPPAGE OF ITS
OPERATIONS BY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WOULD HAVE AN IMMEDIATE, DIRECT AND
PARALYZING EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THEREFORE CONGRESS HAD
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, FOR THE PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, TO
SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE MANUFACTURING PLANT TO SELF
ORGANIZATION AND FREE CHOICE OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  P. 41. 

JUDICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN OF THE FACTS THAT THE RECOGNITION OF THE
RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF
THEIR OWN CHOOSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS OFTEN AN
ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE, AND THAT REFUSAL TO CONFER AND
NEGOTIATE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST PROLIFIC CAUSES OF STRIFE. 

12.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF JULY 5, 1935, EMPOWERS THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES "AFFECTING COMMERCE"; ITS DEFINITION OF
"COMMERCE" (ASIDE FROM COMMERCE WITHIN A TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA) IS SUCH AS TO INCLUDE ONLY INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE;
AND THE TERM "AFFECTING COMMERCE" IT DEFINES AS MEANING "IN COMMERCE,
OR BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, OR
HAVING LED OR TENDING TO LEAD TO A LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING OR
OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE."  THE "UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES," AS DEFINED BY THE ACT AND INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, ARE
RESTRAINT OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES IN THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF-ORGANIZATION
AND TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN
CHOOSING, AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE
OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING OR DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP
IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION.  SECS. 7 AND 8.  THE ACT (SEC. 9A) DECLARES
THAT REPRESENTATIVES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, OF THE
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN THAT UNIT; BUT THAT ANY
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE OR A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY
TIME TO PRESENT GRIEVANCES TO THEIR EMPLOYER.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT IN SAFEGUARDING RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES AND EMPOWERING THE
BOARD, THE STATUTE, IN SO FAR AS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE, CONFINES
ITSELF TO SUCH CONTROL OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIP AS MAY BE
CONSTITUTIONALLY EXERCISED BY CONGRESS TO PREVENT BURDEN OR OBSTRUCTION
TO INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE ARISING FROM INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.  P.
43. 

(2)  THE ACT IMPOSES UPON THE EMPLOYER THE DUTY OF CONFERRING AND
NEGOTIATING WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING A LABOR DISPUTE; BUT IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUCH
INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AS THE EMPLOYER MAY ELECT TO MAKE DIRECTLY WITH
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES.  P. 44. 

(3)  THE ACT DOES NOT COMPEL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES.  ITS THEORY IS THAT FREE OPPORTUNITY FOR NEGOTIATION WITH
ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES IS LIKELY TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL
PEACE AND MAY BRING ABOUT THE ADJUSTMENTS AND AGREEMENTS WHICH THE ACT
IN ITSELF DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO COMPEL.  P. 45. 

(4)  THE ACT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER
TO HIRE, OR WITH THE RIGHT OF DISCHARGE WHEN EXERCISED FOR OTHER
REASONS THAN INTIMIDATION AND COERCION; AND WHAT IS THE TRUE REASON IN
THIS REGARD IS LEFT THE SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION IN EACH CASE WITH FULL
OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE FACTS.  P. 45. 

13.  A CORPORATION WHICH MANUFACTURED IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS IN ITS
FACTORIES IN PENNSYLVANIA FROM RAW MATERIALS MOST OF WHICH IT BROUGHT
IN FROM OTHER STATES, AND WHICH SHIPPED 75% OF THE MANUFACTURED
PRODUCTS OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA AND DISPOSED OF THEM THROUGHOUT THIS
COUNTRY AND IN CANADA, WAS REQUIRED BY ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD TO TENDER REINSTATEMENT TO MEN WHO HAD BEEN EMPLOYED IN
ONE OF THE FACTORIES BUT WERE DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION
ACTIVITIES AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCOURAGING UNION MEMBERSHIP.  THE
ORDERS FURTHER REQUIRED THAT THE COMPANY MAKE GOOD THE PAY THE MEN HAD
LOST THROUGH THEIR DISCHARGE, AND THAT IT DESIST FROM DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE UNION, WITH REGARD TO HIRE AND TENURE OF
EMPLOYMENT, AND FROM INTERFERING BY COERCION WITH THE SELF-ORGANIZATION
OF ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE PLANT.  HELD THAT THE ORDERS WERE AUTHORIZED BY
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND THAT THE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL AS
THUS APPLIED TO THE COMPANY.  PP. 30, 32, 34, 41. 

14.  THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYERS TO CONDUCT THEIR OWN BUSINESS IS NOT
ARBITRARILY RESTRAINED BY REGULATIONS THAT MERELY PROTECT THE
CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF THEIR EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SECURING THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES AND OF PROMOTING AGREEMENTS WITH
EMPLOYERS RELATING TO RATES OF PAY AND CONDITIONS OF WORK.  P. 43. 

15.  THE FACT THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT SUBJECTS THE
EMPLOYER TO SUPERVISION AND RESTRAINT AND LEAVES UNTOUCHED THE ABUSES
FOR WHICH EMPLOYEES MAY BE RESPONSIBLE, AND FAILS TO PROVIDE A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH BETTER ASSURANCE OF FAIRNESS TO BOTH SIDES AND
WITH INCREASED CHANCES OF SUCCESS IN BRINGING ABOUT EQUITABLE SOLUTIONS
OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DOES NOT AFFECT
ITS VALIDITY.  THE QUESTION IS AS TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS, NOT AS TO
ITS POLICY; AND LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, EXERTED WITHIN ITS PROPER FIELD,
NEED NOT EMBRACE ALL THE EVILS WITHIN ITS REACH.  P. 46. 

16.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ESTABLISHES STANDARDS TO WHICH
THE BOARD MUST CONFORM.  THERE MUST BE COMPLAINT, NOTICE AND HEARING. 
THE BOARD MUST RECEIVE EVIDENCE AND MAKE FINDINGS.  THESE FINDINGS AS
TO THE FACTS ARE TO BE CONCLUSIVE, BUT ONLY IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. 
THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE DESIGNATED COURT;
AND ONLY WHEN SUSTAINED BY THE COURT MAY THE ORDER BE ENFORCED.  UPON
THAT REVIEW ALL QUESTIONS OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD AND THE
REGULARITY OF ITS PROCEEDINGS, ALL QUESTIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR
STATUTORY AUTHORITY, ARE OPEN TO EXAMINATION BY THE COURT.  THESE
PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS AFFORD ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE JUDICIAL
PROTECTION AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELLSETTLED
RULES APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES SET UP BY CONGRESS TO AID
IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF VALID LEGISLATION.  P. 47. 

17.  THE PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, SEC. 10(C),
AUTHORIZING THE BOARD TO REQUIRE THE REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES FOUND
TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION ACTIVITY OR FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION, IS VALID.  P. 47. 

18.  THE PROVISION OF THE ACT, SEC. 10(C), THAT THE BOARD, IN
REQUIRING REINSTATEMENT, MAY DIRECT THE PAYMENT OF WAGES FOR THE TIME
LOST BY THE DISCHARGE, LESS AMOUNTS EARNED BY THE EMPLOYEE DURING THAT
PERIOD, DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT
WITH RESPECT TO JURY TRIAL IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW.  P. 48. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.* 

*NO. 419, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORP.; NOS. 420 AND 421, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRUEHAUF
TRAILER CO., POST, P. 49; NOS. 422 AND 423, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO., POST, P. 58; NO. 365,
ASSOCIATED PRESS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, POST, P. 103; AND
NO. 469, WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA & MARYLAND COACH CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, POST, P. 142, WHICH ARE KNOWN AS THE "LABOR BOARD
CASES," WERE DISPOSED OF IN FIVE SEPARATE OPINIONS.  THE DISSENTING
OPINION, POST, P. 76, APPLIES TO NOS. 419, 420 AND 421, AND 422 AND
423.  THE DISSENTING OPINION, POST, P. 133, APPLIES TO NO. 365.  THE
OPINION IN NO. 469 WAS UNANIMOUS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 534, TO REVIEW A DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS DECLINING TO ENFORCE AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM INJURIES CAUSED BY
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE. 

BEFORE THIS STATUTE WAS ENACTED EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN THAT INDUSTRIAL
STRIFE WAS A RECURRENT BURDEN UPON THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE
NATION.  NOT ONLY IN ITS TOTALITY HAD SUCH STRIFE PRODUCED OBSTRUCTIONS
TO COMMERCE, BUT ALSO IN MANY INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES SUCH STRIFE
EVENTUATED IN CONSPIRACIES TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE OR IMPOSED SUCH
SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS UPON IT THAT PENALTIES OR INJUNCTIONS WERE APPLIED
UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT.  THESE FACTS ARE CLEARLY SHOWN BY A SURVEY OF
THE RESULTS OF INDIVIDUAL DISPUTES, THE STATISTICS WITH REGARD TO THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF SUCH DISPUTES, AND REPEATED FEDERAL ACTIVITIES IN
CONNECTION WITH INDUSTRIAL STRIFE. 

CONGRESS, IN DEALING WITH THIS EVIL OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE, MIGHT HAVE
APPROACHED THE PROBLEM IN EITHER OF TWO WAYS.  IT MIGHT HAVE ENACTED A
STATUTE DESIGNED TO REMOVE THE BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE AFTER IT
HAD EVINCED ITSELF IN A PARTICULAR CASE, AS THE SHERMAN ACT DID; OR, IT
MIGHT HAVE ENACTED A STATUTE TO DEAL WITH THE CAUSES OF THE BURDEN IN
ANTICIPATION OF THEIR PROBABLE EFFECT, AS THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
ACT DID.  CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO ENACT THIS SECOND TYPE OF STATUTE
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE PREVENTIVE POWER) EXTENDS AT LEAST AS FAR AS
THE POWER TO ENACT A STATUTE TO CONTROL THE BURDEN AFTER ITS APPEARANCE
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CONTROL POWER).  STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S.
495, 525. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, WHICH IS AN EXERCISE OF THIS
PREVENTIVE POWER, DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE CAUSES OF STRIFE IN ALL
ENTERPRISES.  THE STATUTE AND THE MANDATE ADDRESSD TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD ARE SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO THE ELIMINATION OF
THE PROSCRIBED PRACTICES ONLY WHEN THEY ARE FOUND TO BE "AFFECTING
COMMERCE."  SEC. 10(A).  THIS PHRASE "AFFECTING COMMERCE" IS DEFINED IN
SEC. 2(7) OF THE STATUTE AS "IN COMMERCE, OR BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING
COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, OR HAVING LED OR TENDING TO LEAD
TO A LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW
OF COMMERCE."  THESE WORDS ARE PLAINLY PATTERNED UPON LANGUAGE USED IN
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN CASES ARISING UNDER OTHER STATUTES ENACTED
BY CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE POWER.  THIS JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATION
IS MANIFESTLY A DIRECTION TO THE BOARD TO EXERCISE THE NATIONAL POWER
WITHIN THE LIMITS PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  IN OTHER WORDS,
CONGRESS HAS TAKEN AS THE AMBIT OF THIS PARTICULAR PREVENTIVE STATUTE
THE BOUNDARIES TO WHICH IT WOULD BE RESTRICTED WERE IT EXERCISING TO
THE FULL ITS CONTROL POWER UNDER APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION. 

OF COURSE, IN ELIMINATING THESE PROSCRIBED PRACTICES IN SITUATIONS
WHICH ARE LIKELY TO COME WITHIN THE CONTROL POWER OF CONGRESS, THE
APPLICATION OF THE ACT WILL UPON OCCASION RESULT IN THE PROHIBITION OF
ACTIVITIES WHICH, EVEN IF ALLOWED TO SPEND THEIR FORCE, WOULD NOT
RESULT IN INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WHICH DID IN FACT COME WITHIN THE FEDERAL
CONTROL POWER.  BUT, PROVIDED THAT WHEN THE PRACTICE WAS INDULGED IN
THERE WAS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT ANY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WHICH
RESULTED WOULD BE WITHIN THE CONTROL POWER, THE BOARD MAY APPLY THE
PREVENTIVE MEASURE.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD DEPRIVE CONGRESS OF ANY
PREVENTIVE POWER, SINCE NO ONE CAN PREDICT WITH ABSOLUTE ACCURACY, IN
ADVANCE OF THE COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF A CAUSE, EXACTLY
WHAT THOSE EFFECTS WILL BE.  COMPARE STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495;
CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1.  THIS LACK OF
PREDICTABILITY IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE.  MOREOVER, IN
ELIMINATING THE CAUSE OF AN EVIL WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS, THE ACT
MAY ON OCCASION ELIMINATE THE CAUSE OF PURELY LOCAL EVILS.  INDEED,
THIS IS ALMOST INEVITABLE, SINCE A SINGLE EVENT HAS MULTIPLE
CONSEQUENCES.  YET PLAINLY THE EXISTENCE OF A GRANTED FEDERAL POWER
CANNOT BE LIMITED BY THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF ITS EXERCISE. 
ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288. 

THE FOREGOING EPITOME OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE
QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF A SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
DEPENDS UPON WHETHER INDUSTRIAL STRIFE RESULTING FROM THE PRACTICES IN
THE PARTICULAR ENTERPRISE UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD BE OF THE CHARACTER
WHICH THE FEDERAL POWER COULD CONTROL IF IT OCCURRED.  THE QUESTION OF
PRIMARY IMPORTANCE THEREFORE IS THE EXTENT OF THE FEDERAL POWER OF
CONTROL.  SINCE THE LANGUAGE OF THIS STATUTE DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE
AMBIT OF THIS POWER, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, THE STATUTE IS CLEARLY
CONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, AND THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER IT HAS BEEN
CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED. 

THIS COURT HAS NEVER HAD OCCASION TO DEFINE THE FULL EXTENT TO WHICH
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN THE MANUFACTURING, PRODUCING, OR PROCESSING
DIVISIONS OF AN ENTERPRISE ENGAGED EXTENSIVELY IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE EXERCISE OF THE CONTROL POWER OF CONGRESS.  IT
HAS, HOWEVER, HELD THAT CERTAIN SITUATIONS IN THESE DIVISIONS ARE
CLEARLY WITHIN THE CONTROL POWER, AND HAS FURTHER LAID DOWN GENERAL
PRINCIPLES WHICH FURNISH STANDARDS FOR THE PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE
FULL SCOPE OF THAT POWER. 

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE IN SUCH AN ENTERPRISE
INVOLVING AN INTENT TO AFFECT COMMERCE IS WITHIN THE CONTROL POWER OF
CONGRESS.  UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344;
BEDFORD CUT STONE CO. V. STONE CUTTERS' ASSN., 274 U.S. 37; DUPLEX
PRINTING CO. V. DEERING, 254 U.S. 443; LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S. 274. 
CONSEQUENTLY, WHERE THE SITUATION IN A PARTICULAR ENTERPRISE PRESENTS A
REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT INDUSTRIAL STRIFE, IF IT OCCURRED, WOULD
INVOLVE AN INTENT TO AFFECT COMMERCE, THE BOARD CAN APPLY THE STATUTE
TO THAT ENTERPRISE. 

THIS COURT HAS ALSO RECOGNIZED THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTE HAVING THE NECESSARY EFFECT OF SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENING COMMERCE
WOULD BE WITHIN THE CONTROL POWER OF CONGRESS.  INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION
V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 64, 81; UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL
CO., 259 U.S. 344, 410-411.  HENCE, THE STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO AN
ENTERPRISE WHICH IS SHOWN BY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BOARD TO BE OF SUCH A
CHARACTER THAT STRIFE, IF IT OCCURRED, WOULD HAVE SUCH A NECESSARY
EFFECT.  THE PROPER APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO SUCH SITUATIONS
DEPENDS, OF COURSE, ON THE PRECISE SCOPE OF THE "NECESSARY EFFECT"
PRINCIPLE.  ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE PRINCIPLE IT HAS NOT
HERETOFORE HAD OCCASION TO DEFINE IT. 

LASTLY, THE SCOPE OF THE CONTROL POWER EXTENDS TO RECURRING EVILS
WHICH IN THEIR TOTALITY CONSTITUTE A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
THIS COURT HAS STATED THAT SUCH RECURRENT EVILS MAY, AFTER APPROPRIATE
FINDINGS, BE SUBJECTED BY CONGRESS TO NATIONAL SUPERVISION AND
RESTRAINT.  STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE
V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1.  THIS PRINCIPLE EXTENDS TO INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN
ENTERPRISES WHICH RECEIVE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR RAW MATERIAL
FROM, OR SHIP A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THEIR PRODUCTS IN, INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344, 408;
UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT & MEISEL TRUNK CO., 265 U.S. 457,
469; TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY CLERKS, 281
U.S. 548.  HERE CONGRESS HAS FOUND, AND EXPERIENCE SHOWS, THAT
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN SUCH ENTERPRISES CONSTITUTES SUCH A RECURRING
EVIL.  UNDER THIS VIEW OF THE CONTROL POWER THE STATUTE MAY BE APPLIED
TO THE INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF THIS RECURRING BURDEN - THAT IS, TO ANY
ENTERPRISE WHICH RECEIVES A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS MATERIALS FROM, OR
SHIPS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS PRODUCTS IN, INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
IS DEPENDENT UPON SUCH COMMERCE FOR THE SUCCESSFUL CONDUCT OF ITS
BUSINESS. 

WE BELIEVE THAT THE INSTANT CASE FALLS WITHIN EACH OF THESE THREE
SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE CONTROL POWER OF CONGRESS MAY BE EXERCISED. 

THE REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF A CONTROVERSY WITH THE INTENT TO AFFECT
COMMERCE MIGHT BE DEMONSTRATED IN EITHER OF TWO WAYS: FIRST, EVIDENCE
MIGHT BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD THAT IN A PARTICULAR SITUATION THE
INTENT ALREADY EXISTS; OR SECOND, EVIDENCE MIGHT BE PRESENTED TO THE
BOARD THAT THE SITUATION WAS COMPARABLE TO, AND OF THE SAME GENERAL
TYPE AS, OTHERS OUT OF WHICH IN THE PAST THERE HAD EVOLVED
CONTROVERSIES WITH INTENT TO AFFECT COMMERCE, OR THAT IN THE PARTICULAR
SITUATION CONFRONTING THE BOARD, SUCH DEFINITE INTENTION MIGHT
REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP.  IN THE CASE AT BAR IT IS NOT
CLAIMED THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF THE FIRST SORT; BUT THERE IS ABUNDANT
EVIDENCE THAT THE SITUATION IS FRAUGHT WITH THE RISK THAT AFTER STRIFE
DEVELOPED IT WOULD INVOLVE THE PURPOSE TO CURTAIL THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS
IN COMMERCE. 

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE COURT HAS NOT YET DETERMINED THE EXACT
SCOPE OF THE PHRASE "NECESSARY EFFECT OF SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENING
COMMERCE."  IT UNDENIABLY INCLUDES SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE PARTICIPANTS
CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CONSCIOUS SPECIFIC DESIRE TO INTERRUPT
COMMERCE.  UNITED STATES V. PATTEN, 226 U.S. 525.  THE STATEMENTS OF
THIS COURT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE MAY
DEPEND UPON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EFFECT ON COMMERCE.  THE POSSIBLE USE
OF SUCH A STANDARD IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH CARTER V. CARTER COAL
CO., 298 U.S. 238.  THREE POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS OF THE SCOPE OF THE
"NECESSARY EFFECT" PRINCIPLE MAY BE ADVANCED:  (1) A NECESSARY EFFECT
ON COMMERCE RESULTS FROM INDUSTRIAL STRIFE OCCURRING IN AN ENTERPRISE
WHICH LIES WITHIN A WELL-DEFINED STREAM OR FLOW OF COMMERCE, OR (2) A
NECESSARY EFFECT ON COMMERCE RESULTS FROM INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WHICH
RESTRAINS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ALL THE COMMERCE IN A PARTICULAR
COMMODITY, OR (3) A NECESSARY EFFECT ON COMMERCE RESULTS FROM
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE WHICH RESTRAINS THE MOVEMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME
OF GOODS WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE MOVE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
INSTANT CASE FALLS WITHIN ALL THREE OF THESE ASPECTS OF THE PRINCIPLE,
BUT THIS BRIEF ADDRESSES PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE FIRST AND SECOND. 

NEITHER SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, NOR CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, IS HERE APPLICABLE.  IN THE SCHECHTER
CASE IT WAS URGED THAT WAGES AND HOURS IN LOCAL INDUSTRY BORE A
RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY REASON OF AN INTRICATE CHAIN OF
ECONOMIC CAUSES AND EFFECTS.  AN EFFECT ON COMMERCE WHICH OCCURRED IN
SUCH A MANNER THE COURT CHARACTERIZED AS INDIRECT.  THE ACT INVOLVED IN
THE CARTER CASE HAD AS ITS PURPOSE THE "STABILIZING" OF THE BITUMINOUS
COAL INDUSTRY THROUGH REGULATION OF PRICES AND WAGES.  THE EFFECT OF
WAGE CUTTING ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS HELD TO BE INDIRECT ON THE
BASIS OF THE SCHECHTER CASE.  THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROVISIONS OF
THAT ACT WERE, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE FACE OF THE STATUTE AND FROM THE
OPINION OF THE COURT, ANCILLARY TO THE WAGE FIXING PROVISIONS AND
FURNISHED THE MEANS THROUGH WHICH REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO WAGES
HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW WERE TO BE ARRIVED AT.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS DESIGNED SOLELY TO ELIMINATE THE BURDEN
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE CAUSED BY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE.  SUCH STRIFE
CONSTITUTES AN INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE OPERATING DIRECTLY WITHOUT "AN
EFFICIENT INTERVENING AGENCY OR CONDITION."  THUS IT DEALS WITH MATTERS
CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH COMMERCE, DOES NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY
FOR THE PROTECTION OF COMMERCE, AND DOES NOT ATTEMPT "A BROAD
REGULATION OF INDUSTRY WITHIN THE STATE." 

THE RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS, IN
REALITY, A REGULATION OF LABOR RELATIONS, AND NOT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND THAT, AS A CONSEQUENCE, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT.  EVEN IF IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A TRUE REGULATION
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT STILL HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE RESPONDENT'S
RELATIONS WITH ITS PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT
TO REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  IN ADDITION, THE PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT WHICH THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASES ARE
INVALID, BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE SEC. 2 OF ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION,
AS WELL AS THE FIFTH AND SEVENTH AMENDMENTS.    THE RESPONDENT IS A
CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS.  IN
THIS CONNECTION, IT OWNS AND OPERATES A LARGE STEEL PLANT AT ALIQUIPPA,
PENNSYLVANIA, IN WHICH ARE EMPLOYED APPROXIMATELY TEN THOUSAND MEN. 
THE PRESENT CASE IS, IN REALITY, A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TEN INDIVIDUALS
WHO WERE FORMERLY EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT IN PRODUCTION WORK AT THIS
PLANT, AND THE RESPONDENT.  THESE INDIVIDUALS, WITH THREE OTHERS, FILED
A COMPLAINT WITH THE PETITIONER, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
CHARGING THAT THEY HAD BEEN DISCHARGED OR DEMOTED BY THE RESPONDENT
BECAUSE OF UNION AFFILIATIONS.  THE RESPONDENT OBJECTED TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE PETITIONER, BUT ITS MOTION TO DISMISS WAS OVERRULED
AND THE PETITIONER, AFTER HEARING, DETERMINED THAT THE COMPLAINANTS HAD
BEEN WRONGFULLY DISCHARGED AND ORDERED THEIR IMMEDIATE RESTORATION,
WITH COMPENSATION FOR LOST PAY. 

THE PETITIONER HAS ENDEAVORED TO JUSTIFY ITS ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION OVER THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS, BY MAKING A
FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
"AFFECTING COMMERCE" WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT.  THE RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE FACTS UPON WHICH THIS
"FINDING" PRETENDS TO BE BASED ARE, IN LAW, INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY ANY
SUCH CONCLUSION, AND THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO REEXAMINE THE FACTS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE.  CROWELL V.
BENSON, 285 U.S. 22; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S.
38. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS NOT A TRUE REGULATION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS IS CLEARLY DEFINED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF
THE CONSTITUTION, AND CONSIDERATIONS OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY HAVE NO
WEIGHT IN FIXING THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN THE POWERS OF CONGRESS AND
THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.  THE ARGUMENT OF THE
PETITIONER IS, IN THE LAST ANALYSIS, A PLEA THAT, FROM AN ECONOMIC
STANDPOINT, CONGRESS SHOULD HAVE POWER TO APPLY ITS LEGISLATION TO THE
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS.  THIS, WE SUBMIT, IS ENTIRELY BESIDE
THE POINT IF THE EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER WOULD RUN COUNTER TO THE
CONSTITUTION. 

THE JURISDICTION OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE INCLUDES THE
POWER TO REGULATE, RESTRICT AND PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE; BUT NOT
THE RIGHT TO USE SUCH JURISDICTION AS A PRETEXT FOR LEGISLATION WHICH
INTERFERES WITH THE LOCAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE SEPARATE STATES.  GIBBONS
V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1.  THE USE OF AN ADMITTED POWER OF CONGRESS AS A
PRETEXT TO INTERFERE WITH LOCAL ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ITS
JURISDICTION, IS TO BE CONDEMNED.  THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WILL NOT SERVE
AS AN EXCUSE FOR LEGISLATING WITH RESPECT TO LABOR RELATIONS, WHICH DO
NOT CONSTITUTE A PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP.
V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495; RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R.
CO., 295 U.S. 330; UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND ITS
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACT,
ALTHOUGH DISGUISED AS A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS, IN
ACTUALITY, A REGULATION OF LABOR.  THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE APPLY TO
ALMOST EVERY EMPLOYER AND EVERY EMPLOYEE (SEC. 2), ALTHOUGH THE
JURISDICTION OF THE PETITIONER TO ENFORCE IT IS SOMEWHAT
CIRCUMSCRIBED. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE, IF CAREFULLY ANALYZED, WILL INDICATE
THAT CONGRESS IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE PROTECTION AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  THE PROVISIONS CONDEMNING PLANT
UNIONS AND SANCTIONING "CLOSED SHOP" AGREEMENTS, BEAR NO REASONABLE
RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SIMILARLY, THE EXPRESS PRESERVATION
OF THE RIGHT TO STRIKE INDICATES THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT INTERESTED IN
PREVENTING INTERRUPTIONS TO THE MOVEMENT OF COMMERCE.  THE INTERFERENCE
WITH THE EMPLOYER'S DISCRETION TO HIRE AND FIRE IS ANOTHER REASON FOR
BELIEVING THAT EFFICIENCY IN THE SHIPMENT OF PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE HAS NOT BEEN THE OBJECT OF THE STATUTE. 

CONGRESS HAS ENDEAVORED TO SAVE THE STATUTE FROM THE TAINT OF
INVALIDITY BY CONFINING ITS ENFORCEMENT TO TRANSACTIONS "AFFECTING
COMMERCE," WHICH THE ACT DEFINES AS TRANSACTIONS WHICH BURDEN COMMERCE
OR LEAD OR TEND TO LEAD TO A LABOR DISPUTE WHICH BURDENS COMMERCE. 
SEC. 2.  DESPITE THIS LIMITATION ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT, THE
SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS MAKE NO SUCH EXCEPTION AND ARE, IN FACT, BROAD
ENOUGH TO COVER ALMOST EVERY EMPLOYMENT RELATION. 

THE PETITIONER HAS FOLLOWED THE SAME INVOLVED LINE OF REASONING IN
ENDEAVORING TO "FIND" THAT THE RESPONDENT'S OPERATIONS "AFFECT
COMMERCE."  LIKE CONGRESS, IT HAS FOUND ITSELF FACED WITH THE TASK OF
PILING PREMISE UPON PREMISE AND HYPOTHESIS UPON HYPOTHESIS TO REACH THE
CONCLUSION THAT THE DISCHARGE OF A FEW PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES AT THE
RESPONDENT'S PLANT HAS A VITAL BEARING UPON THE MOVEMENT OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  WE SUBMIT THAT THE ULTIMATE FACT REMAINS THAT CONGRESS HAS
ENACTED A LABOR LAW, AND NOT A REGULATION OF COMMERCE, AND IT DOES NOT
HELP TO SUSTAIN THE PRETEXT THAT THERE MAY BE AN INDIRECT CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE TWO.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE
RESPONDENT'S RELATIONS WITH ITS PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES. 

ALTHOUGH THE RESPONDENT PURCHASES RAW MATERIALS, WHICH HAVE A POINT
OF ORIGIN IN OTHER STATES, AND SHIPS A LARGE PORTION OF ITS FINISHED
PRODUCTS ACROSS STATE LINES, ITS PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING ITS
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS, ARE NOT THEREBY SUBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF
CONGRESS.  HOWARD V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO., 207 U.S. 463.  THERE IS
NO LOGICAL OR LEGAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT'S LIMITED
PARTICIPATION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THE UNION AFFILIATIONS OF ITS
PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES.  ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161; HAMMER V.
DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251; RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295
U.S. 330. 

THE PRINCIPLE WHICH IMPEACHES THE VALIDITY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT, VIZ., THAT FEDERAL POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE MUST
BE CONFINED TO BONA FIDE REGULATION OF THE MOVEMENTS OF COMMERCE,
LIKEWISE PREVENTS THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 
AN UNBROKEN LINE OF DECISIONS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS ESTABLISHED
THAT MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE NOT IN OR A PART OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE PRECEDED OR FOLLOWED BY
THE MOVEMENT OF MATERIALS BETWEEN STATES.  KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1;
ARKADELPHIA MILLING CO. V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 249 U.S.
134; OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172; UTAH LIGHT & POWER CO. V.
PFOST, 286 U.S. 165; CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584; INDUSTRIAL
ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 64.  ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE
DECISIONS HAVE DEALT WITH THE POLICE OR TAXING POWERS OF THE STATES,
THEY ARE BASED UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT MANUFACTURING
ACTIVITIES ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURSDICTION OF THE SEPARATE
STATES.  BACON V. ILLINOIS, 227 U.S. 504; SUSQUEHANNA COAL CO. V. SOUTH
AMBOY, 228 U.S. 665; PACKER CORP. V. UTAH, 285 U.S. 105; NASHVILLE, C.
& ST. L. RY. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249; EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT,
289 U.S. 249; MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1; FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V.
MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17; CORNELL V. COYNE, 192 U.S. 418; CRESCENT COTTON
OIL CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 251 U.S. 129; HEISLER V. THOMAS COLLIERY CO.,
260 U.S. 245; OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD, 262 U.S. 172; CHAMPLIN REFINING
CO. V. CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210; UNITED MINE WORKERS V.
CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344; UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT &
MEISEL TRUNK CO., 265 U.S. 457; DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V. YURKONIS,
238 U.S. 439. 

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LOCAL MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES OF A
BUSINESS AND ITS SUBSEQUENT OR PRECEDENT PARTICIPATION IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN THE FIELD OF LABOR RELATIONS.  HAMMER
V. DAGENHART, 247 U.S. 251; INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N V. DAVIS, 259
U.S. 182.  EVEN THOUGH AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE EMPLOYED IN DIRECTLY
ASSISTING THE MOVEMENT OF PRODUCTS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, HIS
RELATIONSHIP TO HIS EMPLOYER IS A STATUS EXISTING WHOLLY WITHIN THE
STATE, WHOSE INCIDENTS, SUCH AS WAGES, HOURS OF LABOR AND THE LIKE, ARE
PURELY DOMESTIC IN CHARACTER.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S.
238. 

CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF THE LABOR RELATIONS OF INTERSTATE
CARRIERS FURNISHES NO PRECEDENT FOR THE PRESENT ACT.  BECAUSE
INTERSTATE CARRIERS ARE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE MOVEMENT OF COMMERCE,
AND BECAUSE THEY ARE PUBLIC UTILITIES, CONGRESS HAS SUBJECTED THEM TO
AN EXHAUSTIVE SCHEME OF REGULATION, OF WHICH THE LABOR LEGISLATION IS
MERELY AN INCIDENT.  AS A RESULT, THE DECISION IN TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V.
RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, IS NOT CONTROLLING. 

DECISIONS SUCH AS STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495, AND CHICAGO
BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1, WHICH SUSTAIN FEDERAL REGULATION
OF STOCKYARDS AND GRAIN EXCHANGES, HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT
CASE.  GRAIN EXCHANGES AND STOCKYARDS ARE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN MUCH THE SAME SENSE AS THE ACTUAL CARRIERS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THEY ARE FOCAL POINTS THROUGH WHICH THE STREAM OF
COMMERCE IN GRAINS AND CATTLE SWEEPS ON ITS WAY FROM PRODUCER TO THE
ULTIMATE CONSUMER.  THE ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE REGULATED IN BOTH CASES
WERE ACTIVITIES IN THE STREAM OF COMMERCE AND EXERTED A DIRECT EFFECT
UPON ITS FLOW.  NEITHER CASE SANCTIONS THE EXTENSION OF THE DOCTRINE TO
PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY INDIRECTLY AFFECT THE STREAM OF
COMMERCE.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238.  CF. SWIFT & CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 376; HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44; TAGG BROS. &
MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420; TYSON & BRO. V. BANTON, 273
U.S. 418. 

THE PETITIONER RELIES UPON DECISIONS WHICH HAVE UPHELD THE
APPLICATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS TO INDUSTRIAL CONSPIRACIES, SUCH AS
CORONADO COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295.  THESE WERE
CASES INVOLVING CONSPIRACIES TO RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY MEANS
OF LOCAL COMBINATIONS.  THE ELEMENT OF AN INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
THE MOVEMENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS ESSENTIAL IN THESE CASES, NOT
ONLY BECAUSE AN INTENT TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE WAS A PART OF THE
PROSCRIBED OFFENSE, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH AN INTENT
MADE THE EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE NECESSARILY DIRECT.  THIS IS
SHOWN BY A COMPARISON OF THE FIRST CORONADO CASE, 259 U.S. 344, WHERE
THERE WAS NO INTENT, WITH THE SECOND CORONADO CASE, 268 U.S. 295, WHERE
THERE WAS BOTH DIRECT AND INFERENTIAL EVIDENCE OF INTENT.  CF. UNITED
LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT & MEISEL TRUNK CO., 265 U.S. 457. 

THE PETITIONER'S EFFORTS TO SHOW AN INTENDED RESTRAINT IN THE PRESENT
CASE ARE FUTILE.  EVEN IF A STRIKE SHOULD OCCUR AT THE RESPONDENT'S
PLANT, THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VOLUNTARY
INTERVENING ACT OF OUTSIDE AGENCIES.  THE SUGGESTION THAT THE
RESPONDENT MIGHT BE CHARGED WITH AN IMPLIED INTENT TO DESTROY
INTERSTATE TRADE, IF A LABOR DISPUTE SHOULD OCCUR, IS OBVIOUSLY
UNSOUND. 

THE CONSPIRACY CASES, SUCH AS UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL
CO., 259 U.S. 344, AND LOCAL 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293,
ALTHOUGH PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE ANTI-TRUST
LAWS, PROVE THE FALLACY OF THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT, BECAUSE THEY
ESTABLISH THAT CONGRESS CANNOT REGULATE LOCAL TRANSACTIONS OR RELATIONS
UNLESS THEY EXERT A DIRECT EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
DEFINITION OF "AFFECTING COMMERCE" IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
IS A CONFESSION OF THE INDIRECTNESS OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
RESPONDENT'S LABOR RELATIONS AND THE MOVEMENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
SEE SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495; INDUSTRIAL
ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 64.  THE PETITIONER CALLS
ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT STRIKES MAY AND FREQUENTLY DO PRODUCE AN
INHIBITORY EFFECT ON THE MOVEMENT OF INTERSTATE TRADE TO AND FROM THE
AFFECTED AREA.  THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR IN THE PETITIONER'S
ARGUMENT, IN THAT IT ASSUMES THAT IT NEED ONLY ESTABLISH THE CONNECTION
BETWEEN STRIKES AND THE STOPPAGE OF COMMERCE.  THERE HAS BEEN NO STRIKE
OR LABOR DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE.  IN ACTUALITY, THE PETITIONER
MEANS THAT THE RESPONDENT'S DISCHARGE OF TEN EMPLOYEES MIGHT HAVE LED
TO DISSATISFACTION, WHICH MIGHT HAVE LED TO A LABOR DISPUTE, WHICH
MIGHT HAVE LED TO A STRIKE AND A CONSEQUENT INTERRUPTION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

THE FINDINGS OF CONGRESS THAT DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES MAY LEAD TO
AN INTERRUPTION OF COMMERCE, ARE UNAVAILING.  A DECLARATION BY CONGRESS
OF THE NEED OF REGULATION WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFY ITS ACTION,
WHERE ITS LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS RUN COUNTER TO ESTABLISHED RULES OF
CONSTRUCTION, WHICH HOLD THAT THERE IS NO NECESSARY AND DIRECT
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE RELATIONS OF AN EMPLOYER AND HIS EMPLOYEES AND
THE MOVEMENT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN THIS RESPECT, THE PRESENT CASE
IS CLEARLY CONTROLLED BY THE DECISION IN CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298
U.S. 238. 

THERE ARE DANGEROUS IMPLICATIONS IN THE PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT.  IF IT
BE ACCEPTED, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON WHY CONGRESS SHOULD NOT USE ITS
POWER OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS A PRETEXT TO STIFLE THE SOVEREIGNTY
OF THE STATES.  WE THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT THE COURT WILL NOT SUFFER THE
POWERS OF THE STATES TO BE WHITTLED AWAY BY A STATUTE WHICH PILES
SPECULATION UPON SPECULATION TO ATTAIN ITS ENDS.  UNITED STATES V.
BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT CONFERS UPON THE PETITIONER
EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN AN EMPLOYEE
AND HIS EMPLOYER AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF THE EMPLOYEE'S DISCHARGE, AND
THE BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO RENDER AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF TO THE EMPLOYEE,
INCLUDING THE RESTORATION OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION FOR LOST
WAGES.  THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE BOARD ARE CONCLUSIVE AND ONLY
OBJECTIONS MADE BEFORE THE BOARD WILL BE HEARD.  THE ACT DOES NOT MAKE
ANY PROVISION FOR A TRIAL DE NOVO IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS ON
CONSTITUTIONAL OR JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.    WE SUBMIT THAT THE ACT IS
INVALID BECAUSE IT AUTHORIZES THE BOARD TO AWARD A MONEY JUDGMENT,
DEPRIVING THE EMPLOYER OF HIS RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN CASES INVOLVING
MORE THAN TWENTY DOLLARS.  IF, AS THE PETITIONER CONTENDS, THE ACTION
OF THE BOARD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE NATURE OF A SUIT IN EQUITY,
WITH AUTHORITY IN THE BOARD TO AWARD A MANDATORY INJUNCTION RESTORING
EMPLOYMENT, WITH INCIDENTAL DAMAGES FOR BACK PAY, THEN THE ACT VIOLATES
THE PROVISION OF ART. III OF THE CONSTITUTION, FOR IT DEPRIVES THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS OF THEIR AUTHORITY TO TRY CONSTITUTIONAL AND
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES. 

THE PRESENT CASE PRESENTS A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND THE
RESPONDENT, IN WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS DIRECTED THE RESTORATION TO
EMPLOYMENT OF THE COMPLAINING EMPLOYEES, WITH BACK PAY.  THIS BEING THE
CASE, IT IS A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN PRIVATE CITIZENS, ENFORCING PRIVATE
RIGHTS.  THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANS FOR A TRIAL DE NOVO OF
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES IN SUCH A CASE IS FATAL.  CROWELL V. BENSON, 285
U.S. 22. 

THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO THOSE OF THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 

THE PETITIONER'S ORDER CONSTITUTES AN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT TO MANAGE ITS OWN BUSINESS. 

THE LAW HAS ALWAYS BEEN HESITANT TO INTERFERE IN QUESTIONS OF
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS.  FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE EMPLOYEE,
THE LAW HAS RECOGNIZED THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE FORCED INTO A RELATIONSHIP
WHICH MAY BE DISTASTEFUL, AND FROM THE EMPLOYER'S VIEWPOINT, THE COURTS
HAVE HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO JUDGE THE CAPABILITIES OF EMPLOYEES IS
ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF THE EMPLOYER'S
BUSINESS.  THE QUESTION OF RETAINING OR DISCHARGING AN EMPLOYEE
INVOLVES DELICATE CONSIDERATIONS OF DISCRETION WHICH THE LAW IS LOATH
TO ATTEMPT TO WEIGH.  THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SHOW THE DANGERS OF
BUREAUCRATIC INTERFERENCE, IN THAT EACH DISCHARGE INVOLVED SOME
ADMITTED FAULT ON THE PART OF THE COMPLAINING EMPLOYEE, BUT THE
PETITIONER DETERMINED THAT IT WAS BETTER QUALIFIED TO DECIDE AND THAT
THE RESPONDENT'S ACTION HAD BEEN TOO DRASTIC.  THIS IS CLEARLY AN
INTERFERENCE WITH THE NORMAL RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT TO MANAGE ITS OWN
BUSINESS, BECAUSE IT IS A DICTATORIAL USURPATION OF THE RESPONDENT'S
DISCRETION TO DETERMINE THE CAPABILITIES OF ITS EMPLOYEES. 

ANOTHER DANGEROUS IMPLICATION OF THE LAW AND OF THE PETITIONER'S
DECISION IS THAT IT CONFERS A KIND OF CIVIL SERVICE STATUS UPON UNION
EMPLOYEES, WHICH WILL INEVITABLY ENCOURAGE LAZINESS, INSOLENCE, AND
INEFFICIENCY.  THIS IS CONFIRMED BY A NOTICE WHICH THE PETITIONER, IN
ITS DECISION, HAS ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO POST IN ITS PLANTS, TO THE
EFFECT THAT IT WILL NOT DISCHARGE MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  IT WOULD BE
THE EQUIVALENT OF INFORMING THE EMPLOYEES THAT IF THEY BECOME
AFFILIATED WITH THE UNION, THEY WILL BE THENCEFORTH IMMUNE FROM
DISCHARGE. 

WE SUBMIT THAT THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT IS A CONSTANT THREAT TO THE RESPONDENT'S NORMAL RIGHT TO
MANAGE ITS OWN BUSINESS.  NOT ONLY DOES THE ACT PROVIDE, IN EFFECT,
THAT AN UNQUALIFIED BUREAU WILL SIT AS A HIGHER COURT OVER THE
RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYMENT OFFICE, BUT IT ALSO ORDAINS THAT THE RESPONDENT
MUST DEAL WITH WHATEVER UNION MAY BE SELECTED BY A MAJORITY OF ITS
EMPLOYEES AND REFUSE TO NEGOTIATE WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES OR THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES.  THE POWER WHICH IT DELEGATES TO A MAJORITY OF THE
EMPLOYEES TO BIND THE MINORITY IS ARBITRARY AND UNFAIR AND WILL
NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE SUFFOCATION OF MINORITIES AND TO THE CLOSED
SHOP, FORCING THE EMPLOYER TO HERD HIS EMPLOYEES INTO AN ORGANIZATION
WHICH IS NOT OF THEIR OWN CHOICE.  THIS WILL IN TURN SERIOUSLY DISTURB
THE DISCIPLINE AND MORALE OF THE RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES, WITH OBVIOUS
INJURY TO THEM AND TO THE RESPONDENT.  CF. CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.,
298 U.S. 238. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN A PROCEEDING UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT OF 1935,  FN1
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT, JONES &
LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION, HAD VIOLATED THE ACT BY ENGAGING IN UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING COMMERCE.  THE PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED BY
THE BEAVER VALLEY LODGE NO. 200, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMALGAMATED
ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN WORKERS OF AMERICA, A LABOR
ORGANIZATION.  THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES CHARGED WERE THAT THE
CORPORATION WAS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE UNION WITH REGARD
TO HIRE AND TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT, AND WAS COERCING AND INTIMIDATING ITS
EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR SELF-ORGANIZATION.  THE
DISCRIMINATORY AND COERCIVE ACTION ALLEGED WAS THE DISCHARGE OF CERTAIN
EMPLOYEES. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUSTAINING THE CHARGE, ORDERED
THE CORPORATION TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM SUCH DISCRIMINATION AND
COERCION, TO OFFER REINSTATEMENT TO TEN OF THE EMPLOYEES NAMED, TO MAKE
GOOD THEIR LOSSES IN PAY, AND TO POST FOR THIRTY DAYS NOTICES THAT THE
CORPORATION WOULD NOT DISCHARGE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEMBERS, OR
THOSE DESIRING TO BECOME MEMBERS, OF THE LABOR UNION.  AS THE
CORPORATION FAILED TO COMPLY, THE BOARD PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS TO ENFORCE THE ORDER.  THE COURT DENIED THE PETITION, HOLDING
THAT THE ORDER LAY BEYOND THE RANGE OF FEDERAL POWER.  83 F.(2D) 998. 
WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE SCHEME OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT - WHICH IS TOO LONG TO
BE QUOTED IN FULL - MAY BE BRIEFLY STATED.  THE FIRST SECTION SETS
FORTH FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE INJURY TO COMMERCE RESULTING FROM
THE DENIAL BY EMPLOYERS OF THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE AND FROM
THE REFUSAL OF EMPLOYERS TO ACCEPT THE PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING.  THERE FOLLOWS A DECLARATION THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO ELIMINATE THESE CAUSES OF OBSTRUCTION TO THE FREE FLOW
OF COMMERCE.  FN2  THE ACT THEN DEFINES THE TERMS IT USES, INCLUDING
THE TERMS "COMMERCE" AND "AFFECTING COMMERCE."  SEC. 2.  IT CREATES THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AND PRESCRIBES ITS ORGANIZATION.  SECS.
3-6.  IT SETS FORTH THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING. 
SEC. 7.  IT DEFINES "UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES."  SEC. 8.  IT LAYS DOWN
RULES AS TO THE REPRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  SEC. 9.  THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO PREVENT THE
DESCRIBED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING COMMERCE AND THE ACT
PRESCRIBES THE PROCEDURE TO THAT END.  THE BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO
PETITION DESIGNATED COURTS TO SECURE THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDERS. 
THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE,
ARE TO BE CONCLUSIVE.  IF EITHER PARTY ON APPLICATION TO THE COURT
SHOWS THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL AND THAT THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR THE FAILURE TO ADDUCE SUCH EVIDENCE IN THE
HEARINGS BEFORE THE BOARD, THE COURT MAY ORDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
TO BE TAKEN.  ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD MAY
OBTAIN A REVIEW IN THE DESIGNATED COURTS WITH THE SAME PROCEDURE AS IN
THE CASE OF AN APPLICATION BY THE BOARD FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS
ORDER.  SEC. 10.  THE BOARD HAS BROAD POWERS OF INVESTIGATION.  SEC.
11.  INTERFERENCE WITH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR ITS AGENTS IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES IS PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND IMPRISONMENT. 
SEC. 12.  NOTHING IN THE ACT IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO INTERFERE WITH THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE.  SEC. 13.  THERE IS A SEPARABILITY CLAUSE TO THE
EFFECT THAT IF ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT OR ITS APPLICATION TO ANY
PERSON OR CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL BE HELD INVALID, THE REMAINDER OF THE ACT
OR ITS APPLICATION TO OTHER PERSONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL NOT BE
AFFECTED.  SEC. 15.  THE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN
THE INSTANT CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED MORE IN DETAIL IN THE COURSE OF THE
DISCUSSION. 

THE PROCEDURE IN THE INSTANT CASE FOLLOWED THE STATUTE.  THE LABOR
UNION FILED WITH THE BOARD ITS VERIFIED CHARGE.  THE BOARD THEREUPON
ISSUED ITS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ALLEGING THAT ITS ACTION IN
DISCHARGING THE EMPLOYEES IN QUESTION CONSTITUTED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES AFFECTING COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 8, SUBDIVISIONS
(1) AND (3), AND SEC. 2, SUBDIVISIONS (6) AND (7) OF THE ACT. 
RESPONDENT, APPEARING SPECIALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTING TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD, FILED ITS ANSWER.  RESPONDENT ADMITTED THE
DISCHARGES, BUT ALLEGED THAT THEY WERE MADE BECAUSE OF INEFFICIENCY OR
VIOLATION OF RULES OR FOR OTHER GOOD REASONS AND WERE NOT ASCRIBABLE TO
UNION MEMBERSHIP OR ACTIVITIES.  AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE RESPONDENT
CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AND ITS
APPLICABILITY IN THE INSTANT CASE.  NOTICE OF HEARING WAS GIVEN AND
RESPONDENT APPEARED BY COUNSEL.  THE BOARD FIRST TOOK UP THE ISSUE OF
JURISDICTION AND EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED BY BOTH THE BOARD AND THE
RESPONDENT.  RESPONDENT THEN MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION; AND, ON DENIAL OF THAT MOTION, RESPONDENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ITS SPECIAL APPEARANCE WITHDREW FROM FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THE
HEARING.  THE BOARD RECEIVED EVIDENCE UPON THE MERITS AND AT ITS CLOSE
MADE ITS FINDINGS AND ORDER. 

CONTESTING THE RULING OF THE BOARD, THE RESPONDENT ARGUES (1) THAT
THE ACT IS IN REALITY A REGULATION OF LABOR RELATIONS AND NOT OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; (2) THAT THE ACT CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE
RESPONDENT'S RELATIONS WITH ITS PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY ARE
NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; AND (3) THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ACT VIOLATE SEC. 2 OF ARTICLE III AND THE FIFTH AND
SEVENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE FACTS AS TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE JONES &
LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION HAVE BEEN FOUND BY THE LABOR BOARD AND, SO
FAR AS THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE DETERMINATION OF THIS CONTROVERSY,
THEY ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE LABOR BOARD HAS FOUND:  THE CORPORATION
IS ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND HAS ITS PRINCIPAL
OFFICE AT PITTSBURGH.  IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING
IRON AND STEEL IN PLANTS SITUATED IN PITTSBURGH AND NEARBY ALIQUIPPA,
PENNSYLVANIA.  IT MANUFACTURES AND DISTRIBUTES A WIDELY DIVERSIFIED
LINE OF STEEL AND PIG IRON, BEING THE FOURTH LARGEST PRODUCER OF STEEL
IN THE UNITED STATES.  WITH ITS SUBSIDIARIES - NINETEEN IN NUMBER - IT
IS A COMPLETELY INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE, OWNING AND OPERATING ORE, COAL
AND LIMESTONE PROPERTIES, LAKE AND RIVER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND
TERMINAL RAILROADS LOCATED AT ITS MANUFACTURING PLANTS.  IT OWNS OR
CONTROLS MINES IN MICHIGAN AND MINNESOTA.  IT OPERATES FOUR ORE
STEAMSHIPS ON THE GREAT LAKES, USED IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF ORE TO ITS
FACTORIES.  IT OWNS COAL MINES IN PENNSYLVANIA.  IT OPERATES TOWBOATS
AND STEAM BARGES USED IN CARRYING COAL TO ITS FACTORIES.  IT OWNS
LIMESTONE PROPERTIES IN VARIOUS PLACES IN PENNSYLVANIA AND WEST
VIRGINIA.  IT OWNS THE MONONGAHELA CONNECTING RAILROAD WHICH CONNECTS
THE PLANTS OF THE PITTSBURGH WORKS AND FORMS AN INTERCONNECTION WITH
THE PENNSYLVANIA, NEW YORK CENTRAL AND BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD
SYSTEMS.  IT OWNS THE ALIQUIPPA AND SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY WHICH
CONNECTS THE ALIQUIPPA WORKS WITH THE PITTSBURGH AND LAKE ERIE, PART OF
THE NEW YORK CENTRAL SYSTEM.  MUCH OF ITS PRODUCT IS SHIPPED TO ITS
WAREHOUSES IN CHICAGO, DETROIT, CINCINNATI AND MEMPHIS,  - TO THE LAST
TWO PLACES BY MEANS OF ITS OWN BARGES AND TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT.  IN
LONG ISLAND CITY, NEW YORK, AND IN NEW ORLEANS IT OPERATES STRUCTURAL
STEEL FABRICATING SHOPS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WAREHOUSING OF SEMI
FINISHED MATERIALS SENT FROM ITS WORKS.  THROUGH ONE OF ITS WHOLLY
OWNED SUBSIDIARIES IT OWNS, LEASES AND OPERATES STORES, WAREHOUSES AND
YARDS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES FOR DRILLING AND
OPERATING OIL AND GAS WELLS AND FOR PIPE LINES, REFINERIES AND PUMPING
STATIONS.  IT HAS SALES OFFICES IN TWENTY CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
AND A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY WHICH IS DEVOTED EXCLUSIVELY TO
DISTRIBUTING ITS PRODUCT IN CANADA.  APPROXIMATELY 75 PER CENT. OF ITS
PRODUCT IS SHIPPED OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 

SUMMARIZING THESE OPERATIONS, THE LABOR BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE
WORKS IN PITTSBURGH AND ALIQUIPPA "MIGHT BE LIKENED TO THE HEART OF A
SELF-CONTAINED, HIGHLY INTEGRATED BODY.  THEY DRAW IN THE RAW MATERIALS
FROM MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, WEST VIRGINIA, PENNSYLVANIA IN PART THROUGH
ARTERIES AND BY MEANS CONTROLLED BY THE RESPONDENT; THEY TRANSFORM THE
MATERIALS AND THEN PUMP THEM OUT TO ALL PARTS OF THE NATION THROUGH THE
VAST MECHANISM WHICH THE RESPONDENT HAS ELABORATED." 

TO CARRY ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ENTIRE STEEL INDUSTRY, 33,000 MEN
MINE ORE, 44,000 MEN MINE COAL, 4,000 MEN QUARRY LIMESTONE, 16,000 MEN
MANUFACTURE COKE, 343,000 MEN MANUFACTURE STEEL, AND 83,000 MEN
TRANSPORT ITS PRODUCT.  RESPONDENT HAS ABOUT 10,000 EMPLOYEES IN ITS
ALIQUIPPA PLANT, WHICH IS LOCATED IN A COMMUNITY OF ABOUT 30,000
PERSONS. 

RESPONDENT POINTS TO EVIDENCE THAT THE ALIQUIPPA PLANT, IN WHICH THE
DISCHARGED MEN WERE EMPLOYED, CONTAINS COMPLETE FACILITIES FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF FINISHED AND SEMI-FINISHED IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS FROM
RAW MATERIALS; THAT ITS WORKS CONSIST PRIMARILY OF A BY-PRODUCT COKE
PLANT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF COKE; BLAST FURNACES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
PIG IRON; OPEN HEARTH FURNACES AND BESSEMER CONVERTERS FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF STEEL; BLOOMING MILLS FOR THE REDUCTION OF STEEL INGOTS
INTO SMALLER SHAPES; AND A NUMBER OF FINISHING MILLS SUCH AS STRUCTURAL
MILLS, ROD MILLS, WIRE MILLS AND THE LIKE.  IN ADDITION THERE ARE OTHER
BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT, STORAGE YARDS, DOCKS AND AN INTRA
PLANT STORAGE SYSTEM.  RESPONDENT'S OPERATIONS AT THESE WORKS ARE
CARRIED ON IN TWO DISTINCT STAGES, THE FIRST BEING THE CONVERSION OF
RAW MATERIALS INTO PIG IRON AND THE SECOND BEING THE MANUFACTURE OF
SEMI-FINISHED AND FINISHED IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS; AND IN BOTH CASES
THE OPERATIONS RESULT IN SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGING THE CHARACTER, UTILITY
AND VALUE OF THE MATERIALS WROUGHT UPON, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PROCESSES TO WHICH THEY ARE SUBJECTED AND
WHICH RESPONDENT FULLY DESCRIBES.  RESPONDENT ALSO DIRECTS ATTENTION TO
THE FACT THAT THE IRON ORE WHICH IS PROCURED FROM MINES IN MINNESOTA
AND MICHIGAN AND TRANSPORTED TO RESPONDENT'S PLANT IS STORED IN STOCK
PILES FOR FUTURE USE, THE AMOUNT OF ORE IN STORAGE VARYING WITH THE
SEASON BUT USUALLY BEING ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN OPERATIONS FROM NINE TO TEN
MONTHS; THAT THE COAL WHICH IS PROCURED FROM THE MINES OF A SUBSIDIARY
LOCATED IN PENNSYLVANIA AND TAKEN TO THE PLANT AT ALIQUIPPA IS THERE,
LIKE ORE, STORED FOR FUTURE USE, APPROXIMATELY TWO TO THREE MONTHS'
SUPPLY OF COAL BEING ALWAYS ON HAND; AND THAT THE LIMESTONE WHICH IS
OBTAINED IN PENNSYLVANIA AND WEST VIRGINIA IS ALSO STORED IN AMOUNTS
USUALLY ADEQUATE TO RUN THE BLAST FURNACES FOR A FEW WEEKS.  VARIOUS
DETAILS OF OPERATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISTRIBUTION ARE ALSO
MENTIONED WHICH FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DETAIL. 

PRACTICALLY ALL THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, EXCEPT THAT WHICH
DEALT WITH THE NATURE OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS, CONCERNED ITS RELATIONS
WITH THE EMPLOYEES IN THE ALIQUIPPA PLANT WHOSE DISCHARGE WAS THE
SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT.  THESE EMPLOYEES WERE ACTIVE LEADERS IN THE
LABOR UNION.  SEVERAL WERE OFFICERS AND OTHERS WERE LEADERS OF
PARTICULAR GROUPS.  TWO OF THE EMPLOYEES WERE MOTOR INSPECTORS; ONE WAS
A TRACTOR DRIVER; THREE WERE CRANE OPERATORS; ONE WAS A WASHER IN THE
COKE PLANT; AND THREE WERE LABORERS.  THREE OTHER EMPLOYEES WERE
MENTIONED IN THE COMPLAINT BUT IT WAS WITHDRAWN AS TO ONE OF THEM AND
NO EVIDENCE WAS HEARD ON THE ACTION TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER
TWO. 

WHILE RESPONDENT CRITICISES THE EVIDENCE AND THE ATTITUDE OF THE
BOARD, WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS BEING HOSTILE TOWARD EMPLOYERS AND
PARTICULARLY TOWARD THOSE WHO INSISTED UPON THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, RESPONDENT DID NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ITS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THAT WHICH WAS OFFERED TO SHOW DISCRIMINATION AND
COERCION.  IN THIS SITUATION, THE RECORD PRESENTS NO GROUND FOR SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE BOARD SO FAR AS THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AND PURPOSE OF THE DISCHARGE OF THE EMPLOYEES ARE
CONCERNED.  UPON THAT POINT IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE
SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD THAT RESPONDENT DISCHARGED THESE MEN
"BECAUSE OF THEIR UNION ACTIVITY AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCOURAGING
MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION."  WE TURN TO THE QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH
RESPONDENT URGES IN CONTESTING THE VALIDITY AND APPLICATION OF THE
ACT. 

FIRST.  THE SCOPE OF THE ACT.  - THE ACT IS CHALLENGED IN ITS
ENTIRETY AS AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE ALL INDUSTRY, THUS INVADING THE
RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES OVER THEIR LOCAL CONCERNS.  IT IS
ASSERTED THAT THE REFERENCES IN THE ACT TO INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE ARE COLORABLE AT BEST; THAT THE ACT IS NOT A TRUE REGULATION
OF SUCH COMMERCE OR OF MATTERS WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECT IT BUT ON THE
CONTRARY HAS THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECT OF PLACING UNDER THE COMPULSORY
SUPERVISION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALL INDUSTRIAL LABOR RELATIONS
WITHIN THE NATION.  THE ARGUMENT SEEKS SUPPORT IN THE BROAD WORDS OF
THE PREAMBLE (SECTION ONE)  FN3  AND IN THE SWEEP OF THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT, AND IT IS FURTHER INSISTED THAT ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWS
AN ESSENTIAL UNIVERSAL PURPOSE IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH ITS SCOPE CANNOT
BE LIMITED BY EITHER CONSTRUCTION OR BY THE APPLICATION OF THE
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE. 

IF THIS CONCEPTION OF TERMS, INTENT AND CONSEQUENT INSEPARABILITY
WERE SOUND, THE ACT WOULD NECESSARILY FALL BY REASON OF THE LIMITATION
UPON THE FEDERAL POWER WHICH INHERES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT, AS
WELL AS BECAUSE OF THE EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT. 
SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 549, 550, 554.  THE
AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BE PUSHED TO SUCH AN
EXTREME AS TO DESTROY THE DISTINCTION, WHICH THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ITSELF
ESTABLISHES, BETWEEN COMMERCE "AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES" AND THE
INTERNAL CONCERNS OF A STATE.  THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS
NATIONAL AND WHAT IS LOCAL IN THE ACTIVITIES OF COMMERCE IS VITAL TO
THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  ID. 

BUT WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO DENY EFFECT TO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS,
WHICH CONGRESS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ENACT, BY SUPERIMPOSING UPON
THEM INFERENCES FROM GENERAL LEGISLATIVE DECLARATIONS OF AN AMBIGUOUS
CHARACTER, EVEN IF FOUND IN THE SAME STATUTE.  THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE
OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IS TO SAVE AND NOT TO DESTROY.  WE HAVE
REPEATEDLY HELD THAT AS BETWEEN TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF A
STATUTE, BY ONE OF WHICH IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND BY THE OTHER
VALID, OUR PLAIN DUTY IS TO ADOPT THAT WHICH WILL SAVE THE ACT.  EVEN
TO AVOID A SERIOUS DOUBT THE RULE IS THE SAME.  FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
AMERICAN TOBACCO CO., 264 U.S. 298, 307; PANAMA R. CO. V. JOHNSON, 264
U.S. 375, 390; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. BOONE, 270 U.S. 466, 472;
BLODGETT V. HOLDEN, 275 U.S. 142, 148; RICHMOND SCREW ANCHOR CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 275 U.S. 331, 346. 

WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT MAY BE
CONSTRUED SO AS TO OPERATE WITHIN THE SPHERE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY.  THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON THE BOARD, AND INVOKED IN
THIS INSTANCE, IS FOUND IN SEC. 10(A), WHICH PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 10(A).  THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED, AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, TO
PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE (LISTED
IN SECTION 8) AFFECTING COMMERCE." 

THE CRITICAL WORDS OF THIS PROVISION, PRESCRIBING THE LIMITS OF THE
BOARD'S AUTHORITY IN DEALING WITH THE LABOR PRACTICES, ARE "AFFECTING
COMMERCE."  THE ACT SPECIFICALLY DEFINES THE "COMMERCE" TO WHICH IT
REFERS (SEC. 2(6)): 

"THE TERM 'COMMERCE' MEANS TRADE, TRAFFIC, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION,
OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR BETWEEN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA OR ANY TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES AND ANY STATE OR OTHER
TERRITORY, OR BETWEEN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY AND ANY STATE, TERRITORY, OR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR ANY
TERRITORY, OR BETWEEN POINTS IN THE SAME STATE BUT THROUGH ANY OTHER
STATE OR ANY TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR ANY FOREIGN
COUNTRY." 

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT THE COMMERCE THUS CONTEMPLATED BY THE
ACT (ASIDE FROM THAT WITHIN A TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) IS
INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  THE ACT
ALSO DEFINES THE TERM "AFFECTING COMMERCE" (SEC. 2(7)): 

"THE TERM 'AFFECTING COMMERCE' MEANS IN COMMERCE, OR BURDENING OR
OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, OR HAVING LED OR
TENDING TO LEAD TO A LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR
THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE." 

THIS DEFINITION IS ONE OF EXCLUSION AS WELL AS INCLUSION.  THE GRANT
OF AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD DOES NOT PURPORT TO EXTEND TO THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS.  ITS TERMS
DO NOT IMPOSE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UPON ALL INDUSTRY REGARDLESS OF
EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.  IT PURPORTS TO REACH ONLY
WHAT MAY BE DEEMED TO BURDEN OR OBSTRUCT THAT COMMERCE AND, THUS
QUALIFIED, IT MUST BE CONSTRUED AS CONTEMPLATING THE EXERCISE OF
CONTROL WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS.  IT IS A FAMILIAR PRINCIPLE THAT
ACTS WHICH DIRECTLY BURDEN OR OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE,
OR ITS FREE FLOW, ARE WITHIN THE REACH OF THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER. 
ACTS HAVING THAT EFFECT ARE NOT RENDERED IMMUNE BECAUSE THEY GROW OUT
OF LABOR DISPUTES.  SEE TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S.
548, 570; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, PP. 544, 545;
VIRGINIAN RAILWAY V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515.  IT IS
THE EFFECT UPON COMMERCE, NOT THE SOURCE OF THE INJURY, WHICH IS THE
CRITERION.  SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1, 51.  WHETHER
OR NOT PARTICULAR ACTION DOES AFFECT COMMERCE IN SUCH A CLOSE AND
INTIMATE FASHION AS TO BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL, AND HENCE TO LIE
WITHIN THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE BOARD, IS LEFT BY THE STATUTE
TO BE DETERMINED AS INDIVIDUAL CASES ARISE.  WE ARE THUS TO INQUIRE
WHETHER IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARY HAS BEEN
PASSED. 

SECOND.  THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IN QUESTION.  - THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES FOUND BY THE BOARD ARE THOSE DEFINED IN SEC. 8, SUBDIVISIONS
(1) AND (3).  THESE PROVIDE: 

SEC. 8.  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER - 

"(1)  TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7." 

"(3)  BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR
ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:..."  FN4 


"SEC. 7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION." 

THUS, IN ITS PRESENT APPLICATION, THE STATUTE GOES NO FURTHER THAN TO
SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO SELECT
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR
OTHER MUTUAL PROTECTION WITHOUT RESTRAINT OR COERCION BY THEIR
EMPLOYER. 

THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.  EMPLOYEES HAVE AS CLEAR A RIGHT TO
ORGANIZE AND SELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES AS THE
RESPONDENT HAS TO ORGANIZE ITS BUSINESS AND SELECT ITS OWN OFFICERS AND
AGENTS.  DISCRIMINATION AND COERCION TO PREVENT THE FREE EXERCISE OF
THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND REPRESENTATION IS A
PROPER SUBJECT FOR CONDEMNATION BY COMPETENT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. 
LONG AGO WE STATED THE REASON FOR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.  WE SAID THAT
THEY WERE ORGANIZED OUT OF THE NECESSITIES OF THE SITUATION; THAT A
SINGLE EMPLOYEE WAS HELPLESS IN DEALING WITH AN EMPLOYER; THAT HE WAS
DEPENDENT ORDINARILY ON HIS DAILY WAGE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF HIMSELF
AND FAMILY; THAT IF THE EMPLOYER REFUSED TO PAY HIM THE WAGES THAT HE
THOUGHT FAIR, HE WAS NEVERTHELESS UNABLE TO LEAVE THE EMPLOY AND RESIST
ARBITRARY AND UNFAIR TREATMENT; THAT UNION WAS ESSENTIAL TO GIVE
LABORERS OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL ON AN EQUALITY WITH THEIR EMPLOYER. 
AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL, 257 U.S.
184, 209.  WE REITERATED THESE VIEWS WHEN WE HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926.  FULLY RECOGNIZING THE LEGALITY OF
COLLECTIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THEIR
PROPER INTERESTS, WE SAID THAT CONGRESS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO IGNORE THIS
RIGHT BUT COULD SAFEGUARD IT.  CONGRESS COULD SEEK TO MAKE APPROPRIATE
COLLECTIVE ACTION OF EMPLOYEES AN INSTRUMENT OF PEACE RATHER THAN OF
STRIFE.  WE SAID THAT SUCH COLLECTIVE ACTION WOULD BE A MOCKERY IF
REPRESENTATION WERE MADE FUTILE BY INTERFERENCE WITH FREEDOM OF
CHOICE.  HENCE THE PROHIBITION BY CONGRESS OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE
SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATION AND
CONFERENCE BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, "INSTEAD OF BEING AN
INVASION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF EITHER, WAS BASED ON THE
RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHTS OF BOTH."  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY
CLERKS, SUPRA.  WE HAVE REASSERTED THE SAME PRINCIPLE IN SUSTAINING THE
APPLICATION OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AS AMENDED IN 1934.  VIRGINIAN
RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, NO. 40, SUPRA. 

THIRD.  THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
PRODUCTION.  - THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.  - RESPONDENT SAYS THAT WHATEVER
MAY BE SAID OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT OF
RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION.  THE
ARGUMENT RESTS UPON THE PROPOSITION THAT MANUFACTURING IN ITSELF IS NOT
COMMERCE.  KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1, 20, 21; UNITED MINE WORKERS V.
CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344, 407, 408; OLIVER IRON CO. V. LORD, 262
U.S. 172, 178; UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT & MEISEL TRUNK CO.,
265 U.S. 457, 465; INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S.
64, 82; CORONADO COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295, 310;
SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 547; CARTER V. CARTER COAL
CO., 298 U.S. 238, 304, 317, 327. 

THE GOVERNMENT DISTINGUISHES THESE CASES.  THE VARIOUS PARTS OF
RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE ARE DESCRIBED AS INTERDEPENDENT AND AS THUS
INVOLVING "A GREAT MOVEMENT OF IRON ORE, COAL AND LIMESTONE ALONG WELL
DEFINED PATHS TO THE STEEL MILLS, THENCE THROUGH THEM, AND THENCE IN
THE FORM OF STEEL PRODUCTS INTO THE CONSUMING CENTERS OF THE COUNTRY -
A DEFINITE AND WELL-UNDERSTOOD COURSE OF BUSINESS."  IT IS URGED THAT
THESE ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTE A "STREAM" OR "FLOW" OF COMMERCE, OF WHICH
THE ALIQUIPPA MANUFACTURING PLANT IS THE FOCAL POINT, AND THAT
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE AT THAT POINT WOULD CRIPPLE THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT. 
REFERENCE IS MADE TO OUR DECISION SUSTAINING THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
ACT.  FN5  STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495.  THE COURT FOUND THAT THE
STOCKYARDS WERE BUT A "THROAT" THROUGH WHICH THE CURRENT OF COMMERCE
FLOWED AND THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH THERE OCCURRED COULD NOT BE SEPARATED
FROM THAT MOVEMENT.  HENCE THE SALES AT THE STOCKYARDS WERE NOT
REGARDED AS MERELY LOCAL TRANSACTIONS, FOR WHILE THEY CREATED "A LOCAL
CHANGE OF TITLE" THEY DID NOT "STOP THE FLOW," BUT MERELY CHANGED THE
PRIVATE INTERESTS IN THE SUBJECT OF THE CURRENT.  DISTINGUISHING THE
CASES WHICH UPHELD THE POWER OF THE STATE TO IMPOSE A NON
DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON PROPERTY WHICH THE OWNER INTENDED TO TRANSPORT
TO ANOTHER STATE, BUT WHICH WAS NOT IN ACTUAL TRANSIT AND WAS HELD
WITHIN THE STATE SUBJECT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE OWNER, THE COURT
REMARKED:  "THE QUESTION, IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED, IS NOT WITH RESPECT TO
THE EXTENT OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
BUT WHETHER A PARTICULAR EXERCISE OF STATE POWER IN VIEW OF ITS NATURE
AND OPERATION MUST BE DEEMED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THIS PARAMOUNT
AUTHORITY."  ID., P. 526.  SEE MINNESOTA V. BLASIUS, 290 U.S. 1, 8. 
APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF STAFFORD V. WALLACE, SUPRA, THE COURT
SUSTAINED THE GRAIN FUTURES ACT OF 1922  FN6 WITH RESPECT TO
TRANSACTIONS ON THE CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE, ALTHOUGH THESE TRANSACTIONS
WERE "NOT IN AND OF THEMSELVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE."  CONGRESS HAD
FOUND THAT THEY HAD BECOME "A CONSTANTLY RECURRING BURDEN AND
OBSTRUCTION TO THAT COMMERCE."  CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, 262
U.S. 1, 32; COMPARE HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44, 69.  SEE, ALSO, TAGG
BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE INSTANT CASE PRESENTS MATERIAL
DISTINCTIONS.  RESPONDENT SAYS THAT THE ALIQUIPPA PLANT IS EXTENSIVE IN
SIZE AND REPRESENTS A LARGE INVESTMENT IN BUILDINGS, MACHINERY AND
EQUIPMENT.  THE RAW MATERIALS WHICH ARE BROUGHT TO THE PLANT ARE
DELAYED FOR LONG PERIODS AND, AFTER BEING SUBJECTED TO MANUFACTURING
PROCESSES, "ARE CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY AS TO CHARACTER, UTILITY AND
VALUE."  THE FINISHED PRODUCTS WHICH EMERGE "ARE TO A LARGE EXTENT
MANUFACTURED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PRE-EXISTING ORDERS AND CONTRACTS AND
ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE RAW MATERIALS WHICH ENTER AT THE OTHER
END."  HENCE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT "IF IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE DO NOT SINGLY TRANSFER PURELY LOCAL ACTIVITIES INTO
THE FIELD OF CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION, IT SHOULD FOLLOW THAT THEIR
COMBINATION WOULD NOT ALTER THE LOCAL SITUATION."  ARKADELPHIA MILLING
CO. V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO., 249 U.S. 134, 151; OLIVER IRON
CO. V. LORD, SUPRA. 

WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE FEATURES OF
DEFENDANT'S BUSINESS DISPOSE OF THE ASSERTED ANALOGY TO THE "STREAM OF
COMMERCE" CASES.  THE INSTANCES IN WHICH THAT METAPHOR HAS BEEN USED
ARE BUT PARTICULAR, AND NOT EXCLUSIVE, ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE
POWER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT INVOKES IN SUPPORT OF THE PRESENT ACT.  THE
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM BURDENS AND
OBSTRUCTIONS IS NOT LIMITED TO TRANSACTIONS WHICH CAN BE DEEMED TO BE
AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A "FLOW" OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 
BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS MAY BE DUE TO INJURIOUS ACTION SPRINGING FROM
OTHER SOURCES.  THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE POWER TO REGULATE
COMMERCE IS THE POWER TO ENACT "ALL APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION" FOR "ITS
PROTECTION AND ADVANCEMENT" (THE DANIEL BALL, 10 WALL.  557, 564); TO
ADOPT MEASURES "TO PROMOTE ITS GROWTH AND INSURE ITS SAFETY" (MOBILE
COUNTY V. KIMBALL, 102 U.S. 691, 696, 697); "TO FOSTER, PROTECT,
CONTROL AND RESTRAIN."  SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, SUPRA, P.
47.  SEE TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, SUPRA.  THAT POWER IS
PLENARY AND MAY BE EXERTED TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE "NO MATTER
WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE DANGERS WHICH THREATEN IT."  SECOND EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, P. 51; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA.
ALTHOUGH ACTIVITIES MAY BE INTRASTATE IN CHARACTER WHEN SEPARATELY
CONSIDERED, IF THEY HAVE SUCH A CLOSE AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAT THEIR CONTROL IS ESSENTIAL OR APPROPRIATE TO
PROTECT THAT COMMERCE FROM BURDENS AND OBSTRUCTIONS, CONGRESS CANNOT BE
DENIED THE POWER TO EXERCISE THAT CONTROL.  SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA.  UNDOUBTEDLY THE SCOPE OF THIS POWER MUST BE CONSIDERED
IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DUAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND MAY NOT BE EXTENDED
SO AS TO EMBRACE EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE SO INDIRECT AND
REMOTE THAT TO EMBRACE THEM, IN VIEW OF OUR COMPLEX SOCIETY, WOULD
EFFECTUALLY OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS NATIONAL AND
WHAT IS LOCAL AND CREATE A COMPLETELY CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.  ID.  THE
QUESTION IS NECESSARILY ONE OF DEGREE.  AS THE COURT SAID IN CHICAGO
BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSEN, SUPRA, P. 37, REPEATING WHAT HAD BEEN SAID IN
STAFFORD V. WALLACE, SUPRA:  "WHATEVER AMOUNTS TO MORE OR LESS CONSTANT
PRACTICE, AND THREATENS TO OBSTRUCT OR UNDULY TO BURDEN THE FREEDOM OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS WITHIN THE REGULATORY POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND IT IS PRIMARILY FOR CONGRESS TO CONSIDER AND
DECIDE THE FACT OF THE DANGER AND MEET IT." 

THAT INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES, BY REASON OF CLOSE AND INTIMATE RELATION
TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, MAY FALL WITHIN FEDERAL CONTROL IS DEMONSTRATED
IN THE CASE OF CARRIERS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN BOTH INTERSTATE AND
INTRASTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THERE FEDERAL CONTROL HAS BEEN FOUND
ESSENTIAL TO SECURE THE FREEDOM OF INTERSTATE TRAFFIC FROM INTERFERENCE
OR UNJUST DISCRIMINATION AND TO PROMOTE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
INTERSTATE SERVICE.  SHREVEPORT CASE, 234 U.S. 342, 351, 352; WISCONSIN
RAILROAD COMM'N V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., 257 U.S. 563, 588.  IT IS
MANIFEST THAT INTRASTATE RATES DEAL PRIMARILY WITH A LOCAL ACTIVITY. 
BUT IN RATE-MAKING THEY BEAR SUCH A CLOSE RELATION TO INTERSTATE RATES
THAT EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THE ONE MUST EMBRACE SOME CONTROL OVER THE
OTHER.  ID. UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920,  FN7  CONGRESS WENT SO
FAR AS TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO ESTABLISH A
STATE-WIDE LEVEL OF INTRASTATE RATES IN ORDER TO PREVENT AN UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMM'N
V. CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO., SUPRA; FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 282 U.S.
194, 210, 211.  OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS ARE FOUND IN THE BROAD REQUIREMENTS
OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT AND THE HOURS OF SERVICE ACT.  SOUTHERN
RAILWAY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 222 U.S. 20; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612.  IT IS SAID THAT THIS
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POWER HAS RELATION TO THE MAINTENANCE OF ADEQUATE
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT THE AGENCY IS NOT
SUPERIOR TO THE COMMERCE WHICH USES IT.  THE PROTECTIVE POWER EXTENDS
TO THE FORMER BECAUSE IT EXISTS AS TO THE LATTER. 

THE CLOSE AND INTIMATE EFFECT WHICH BRINGS THE SUBJECT WITHIN THE
REACH OF FEDERAL POWER MAY BE DUE TO ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO
PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRY ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRY WHEN SEPARATELY VIEWED IS
LOCAL.  THIS HAS BEEN ABUNDANTLY ILLUSTRATED IN THE APPLICATION OF THE
FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST ACT.  IN THE STANDARD OIL AND AMERICAN TOBACCO
CASES, 221 U.S. 1, 106, THAT STATUTE WAS APPLIED TO COMBINATIONS OF
EMPLOYERS ENGAGED IN PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRY.  COUNSEL FOR THE OFFENDING
CORPORATIONS STRONGLY URGED THAT THE SHERMAN ACT HAD NO APPLICATION
BECAUSE THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF WERE NOT ACTS OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN
COMMERCE, NOR DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE IN THEIR EFFECT ON INTERSTATE OR
FOREIGN COMMERCE, BUT PRIMARILY AFFECTED MANUFACTURING AND NOT
COMMERCE.  221 U.S. PP. 5, 125.  COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN
UNITED STATES V. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1.  THE COURT STATED THEIR
CONTENTION AS FOLLOWS:  "THAT THE ACT, EVEN IF THE AVERMENTS OF THE
BILL BE TRUE, CANNOT BE CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLIED, BECAUSE TO DO SO
WOULD EXTEND THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO SUBJECTS DEHORS THE REACH OF ITS
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE COMMERCE, BY ENABLING THAT BODY TO DEAL WITH MERE
QUESTIONS OF PRODUCTION OF COMMODITIES WITHIN THE STATES."  AND THE
COURT SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE CONTENTION IN THESE WORDS:  "BUT ALL THE
STRUCTURE UPON WHICH THIS ARGUMENT PROCEEDS IS BASED UPON THE DECISION
IN UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1.  THE VIEW, HOWEVER,
WHICH THE ARGUMENT TAKES OF THAT CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS BASED UPON THAT
VIEW HAVE BEEN SO REPEATEDLY PRESSED UPON THIS COURT IN CONNECTION WITH
THE INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTI-TRUST ACT, AND HAVE BEEN
SO NECESSARILY AND EXPRESSLY DECIDED TO BE UNSOUND AS TO CAUSE THE
CONTENTIONS TO BE PLAINLY FORECLOSED AND TO REQUIRE NO EXPRESS NOTICE"
(CITING CASES).  221 U.S. PP. 68, 69. 

UPON THE SAME PRINCIPLE, THE ANTI-TRUST ACT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THE
CONDUCT OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION.  LOEWE V. LAWLOR, 208 U.S.
274; CORONADO COAL CO. V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, SUPRA; BEDFORD CUT STONE
CO. V. STONE CUTTERS' ASSN., 274 U.S. 37.  SEE, ALSO, LOCAL 167 V.
UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293, 397; SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES,
SUPRA.  THE DECISIONS DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF THAT APPLICATION
ILLUSTRATE BOTH THE PRINCIPLE AND ITS LIMITATION.  THUS, IN THE FIRST
CORONADO CASE, THE COURT HELD THAT MINING WAS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
THAT THE POWER OF CONGRESS DID NOT EXTEND TO ITS REGULATION AS SUCH,
AND THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT THE ACTIVITIES THERE INVOLVED - A
LOCAL STRIKE - BROUGHT THEM WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANTI-TRUST
ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE BROAD TERMS OF THAT STATUTE.  A SIMILAR
CONCLUSION WAS REACHED IN UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT & MEISEL
TRUNK CO., SUPRA, INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND
LEVERING & GARRIGUES CO. V. MORRIN, 289 U.S. 103, 107.  BUT IN THE
FIRST CORONADO CASE THE COURT ALSO SAID THAT "IF CONGRESS DEEMS CERTAIN
RECURRING PRACTICES, THOUGH NOT REALLY PART OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
LIKELY TO OBSTRUCT, RESTRAIN OR BURDEN IT, IT HAS THE POWER TO SUBJECT
THEM TO NATIONAL SUPERVISION AND RESTRAINT."  259 U.S. P. 408.  AND IN
THE SECOND CORONADO CASE THE COURT RULED THAT WHILE THE MERE REDUCTION
IN THE SUPPLY OF AN ARTICLE TO BE SHIPPED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY THE
ILLEGAL OR TORTIOUS PREVENTION OF ITS MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION IS
ORDINARILY AN INDIRECT AND REMOTE OBSTRUCTION TO THAT COMMERCE,
NEVERTHELESS WHEN THE "INTENT OF THOSE UNLAWFULLY PREVENTING THE
MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION IS SHOWN TO BE TO RESTRAIN OR CONTROL THE
SUPPLY ENTERING AND MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR THE PRICE OF IT
IN INTERSTATE MARKETS, THEIR ACTION IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE ANTI
TRUST ACT."  268 U.S. P. 310.  AND THE EXISTENCE OF THAT INTENT MAY BE
A NECESSARY INFERENCE FROM PROOF OF THE DIRECT AND SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT
PRODUCED BY THE EMPLOYEES' CONDUCT.  INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION V. UNITED
STATES, 268 U.S. P. 81.  WHAT WAS ABSENT FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THE FIRST
CORONADO CASE APPEARED IN THE SECOND AND THE ACT WAS ACCORDINGLY
APPLIED TO THE MINING EMPLOYEES. 

IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEES HERE CONCERNED
WERE ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION IS NOT DETERMINATIVE.  THE QUESTION REMAINS
AS TO THE EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF THE LABOR PRACTICE
INVOLVED.  IN THE SCHECHTER CASE, SUPRA, WE FOUND THAT THE EFFECT THERE
WAS SO REMOTE AS TO BE BEYOND THE FEDERAL POWER.  TO FIND "IMMEDIACY OR
DIRECTNESS" THERE WAS TO FIND IT "ALMOST EVERYWHERE," A RESULT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.  IN THE CARTER
CASE, SUPRA, THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATUTE RELATING TO PRODUCTION WERE INVALID UPON SEVERAL GROUNDS,  -
THAT THERE WAS IMPROPER DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER, AND THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS NOT ONLY WENT BEYOND ANY SUSTAINABLE MEASURE OF PROTECTION
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BUT WERE ALSO INCONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS. 
THESE CASES ARE NOT CONTROLLING HERE. 

FOURTH.  EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE IN RESPONDENT'S
ENTERPRISE.  - GIVING FULL WEIGHT TO RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION WITH
RESPECT TO A BREAK IN THE COMPLETE CONTINUITY OF THE "STREAM OF
COMMERCE" BY REASON OF RESPONDENT'S MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS, THE FACT
REMAINS THAT THE STOPPAGE OF THOSE OPERATIONS BY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE
WOULD HAVE A MOST SERIOUS EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN VIEW OF
RESPONDENT'S FAR-FLUNG ACTIVITIES, IT IS IDLE TO SAY THAT THE EFFECT
WOULD BE INDIRECT OR REMOTE.  IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT WOULD BE IMMEDIATE
AND MIGHT BE CATASTROPHIC.  WE ARE ASKED TO SHUT OUR EYES TO THE
PLAINEST FACTS OF OUR NATIONAL LIFE AND TO DEAL WITH THE QUESTION OF
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS IN AN INTELLECTUAL VACUUM.  BECAUSE THERE
MAY BE BUT INDIRECT AND REMOTE EFFECTS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN
CONNECTION WITH A HOST OF LOCAL ENTERPRISES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, IT
DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT OTHER INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES DO NOT HAVE SUCH A
CLOSE AND INTIMATE RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS TO MAKE THE
PRESENCE OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE A MATTER OF THE MOST URGENT NATIONAL
CONCERN.  WHEN INDUSTRIES ORGANIZE THEMSELVES ON A NATIONAL SCALE,
MAKING THEIR RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE THE DOMINANT FACTOR IN
THEIR ACTIVITIES, HOW CAN IT BE MAINTAINED THAT THEIR INDUSTRIAL LABOR
RELATIONS CONSTITUTE A FORBIDDEN FIELD INTO WHICH CONGRESS MAY NOT
ENTER WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM THE
PARALYZING CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIAL WAR?  WE HAVE OFTEN SAID THAT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE ITSELF IS A PRACTICAL CONCEPTION.  IT IS EQUALLY
TRUE THAT INTERFERENCES WITH THAT COMMERCE MUST BE APPRAISED BY A
JUDGMENT THAT DOES NOT IGNORE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. 

EXPERIENCE HAS ABUNDANTLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE RECOGNITION OF THE
RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF
THEIR OWN CHOOSING FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS OFTEN AN
ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.  REFUSAL TO CONFER AND
NEGOTIATE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST PROLIFIC CAUSES OF STRIFE.  THIS IS
SUCH AN OUTSTANDING FACT IN THE HISTORY OF LABOR DISTURBANCES THAT IT
IS A PROPER SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE AND REQUIRES NO CITATION OF
INSTANCES.  THE OPINION IN THE CASE OF VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION, NO. 40, SUPRA, POINTS OUT THAT, IN THE CASE OF CARRIERS,
EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT BEFORE THE AMENDMENT, OF 1934, OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT "WHEN THERE WAS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE ORGANIZATIONS AUTHORIZED
TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES AND WHEN THERE WAS A WILLINGNESS OF THE
EMPLOYER TO MEET SUCH REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DISCUSSION OF THEIR
GRIEVANCES, AMICABLE ADJUSTMENT OF DIFFERENCES HAD GENERALLY FOLLOWED
AND STRIKES HAD BEEN AVOIDED."  THAT, ON THE OTHER HAND, "A PROLIFIC
SOURCE OF DISPUTE HAD BEEN THE MAINTENANCE BY THE RAILROAD OF COMPANY
UNIONS AND THE DENIAL BY RAILWAY MANAGEMENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF
REPRESENTATIVES CHOSEN BY THEIR EMPLOYEES."  THE OPINION IN THAT CASE
ALSO POINTS TO THE LARGE MEASURE OF SUCCESS OF THE LABOR POLICY
EMBODIED IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RECOGNITION OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND
REPRESENTATION IN THE PROMOTION OF PEACE, THE QUESTION IS NOT
ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYEES IN INDUSTRIES OF SUCH A
CHARACTER THAT INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS PUT IN JEOPARDY FROM THE CASE OF
EMPLOYEES OF TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES.  AND OF WHAT AVAIL IS IT TO
PROTECT THE FACILITY OF TRANSPORTATION, IF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
THROTTLED WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMODITIES TO BE TRANSPORTED. 

THESE QUESTIONS HAVE FREQUENTLY ENGAGED THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESS AND
HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MANY INQUIRIES.  FN8  THE STEEL INDUSTRY IS
ONE OF THE GREAT BASIC INDUSTRIES OF THE UNITED STATES, WITH REMIFYING
ACTIVITIES AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT EVERY POINT.  THE
GOVERNMENT APTLY REFERS TO THE STEEL STRIKE OF 1919-1920 WITH ITS FAR
REACHING CONSEQUENCES.  FN9  THE FACT THAT THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
NO MAJOR DISTURBANCE IN THAT INDUSTRY IN THE MORE RECENT PERIOD DID NOT
DISPOSE OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF FUTURE AND LIKE DANGERS TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WHICH CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO FORESEE AND TO EXERCISE ITS
PROTECTIVE POWER TO FORESTALL.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY AGAIN TO DETAIL THE
FACTS AS TO RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE.  INSTEAD OF BEING BEYOND THE PALE,
WE THINK THAT IT PRESENTS IN A MOST STRIKING WAY THE CLOSE AND INTIMATE
RELATION WHICH A MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY MAY HAVE TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE
AND WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO
SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT OF RESPONDENT'S EMPLOYEES TO SELF-ORGANIZATION AND
FREEDOM IN THE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. 

FIFTH.  THE MEANS WHICH THE ACT EMPLOYS.  - QUESTIONS UNDER THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS.  - RESPONDENT
ASSERTS ITS RIGHT TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS IN AN ORDERLY MANNER WITHOUT
BEING SUBJECTED TO ARBITRARY RESTRAINTS.  WHAT WE HAVE SAID POINTS TO
THE FALLACY IN THE ARGUMENT.  EMPLOYEES HAVE THEIR CORRELATIVE RIGHT TO
ORGANIZE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES AND TO
PROMOTE AGREEMENTS WITH EMPLOYERS RELATING TO RATES OF PAY AND
CONDITIONS OF WORK.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, SUPRA;
VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, NO. 40.  RESTRAINT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PREVENTING AN UNJUST INTERFERENCE WITH THAT RIGHT CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 9(A)  FN10
THAT REPRESENTATIVES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, OF THE
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN AN APPROPRIATE UNIT SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE
REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN THAT UNIT, IMPOSES UPON THE
RESPONDENT ONLY THE DUTY OF CONFERRING AND NEGOTIATING WITH THE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING
A LABOR DISPUTE.  THIS PROVISION HAS ITS ANALOGUE IN SEC. 2, NINTH, OF
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT WHICH WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN VIRGINIAN
RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, NO. 40, SUPRA.  THE DECREE WHICH WE
AFFIRMED IN THAT CASE REQUIRED THE RAILWAY COMPANY TO TREAT WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVE CHOSEN BY THE EMPLOYEES AND ALSO TO REFRAIN FROM
ENTERING INTO COLLECTIVE LABOR AGREEMENTS WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN THEIR
TRUE REPRESENTATIVE AS ASCERTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT.  WE SAID THAT THE OBLIGATION TO TREAT WITH THE TRUE
REPRESENTATIVE WAS EXCLUSIVE AND HENCE IMPOSED THE NEGATIVE DUTY TO
TREAT WITH NO OTHER.  WE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT, AS CONCEDED BY THE
GOVERNMENT,  FN11  THE INJUNCTION AGAINST THE COMPANY'S ENTERING INTO
ANY CONTRACT CONCERNING RULES, RATES OF PAY AND WORKING CONDITIONS
EXCEPT WITH A CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVE WAS "DESIGNED ONLY TO PREVENT
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH ANYONE PURPORTING TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEES"
OTHER THAN THE REPRESENTATIVE THEY HAD SELECTED.  IT WAS TAKEN "TO
PROHIBIT THE NEGOTIATION OF LABOR CONTRACTS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO
EMPLOYEES" IN THE DESCRIBED UNIT WITH ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIVE THAN THE
ONE SO CHOSEN, "BUT NOT AS PRECLUDING SUCH INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS" AS THE
COMPANY MIGHT "ELECT TO MAKE DIRECTLY WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES."  WE
THINK THIS CONSTRUCTION ALSO APPLIES TO SEC. 9(A) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS ACT. 

THE ACT DOES NOT COMPEL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES. 
IT DOES NOT COMPEL ANY AGREEMENT WHATEVER.  IT DOES NOT PREVENT THE
EMPLOYER "FROM REFUSING TO MAKE A COLLECTIVE CONTRACT AND HIRING
INDIVIDUALS ON WHATEVER TERMS" THE EMPLOYER "MAY BY UNILATERAL ACTION
DETERMINE."  FN12 THE ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES IN SEC. 9(A) THAT ANY
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE OR A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY
TIME TO PRESENT GRIEVANCES TO THEIR EMPLOYER.  THE THEORY OF THE ACT IS
THAT FREE OPPORTUNITY FOR NEGOTIATION WITH ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVES
OF EMPLOYEES IS LIKELY TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND MAY BRING ABOUT
THE ADJUSTMENTS AND AGREEMENTS WHICH THE ACT IN ITSELF DOES NOT ATTEMPT
TO COMPEL.  AS WE SAID IN TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, SUPRA,
AND REPEATED IN VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, NO. 40,
SUPRA, THE CASES OF ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161, AND COPPAGE
V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, ARE INAPPLICABLE TO LEGISLATION OF THIS
CHARACTER.  THE ACT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL EXERCISE OF THE
RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYER TO SELECT ITS EMPLOYEES OR TO DISCHARGE THEM. 
THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT, UNDER COVER OF THAT RIGHT, INTIMIDATE OR COERCE
ITS EMPLOYEES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR SELF-ORGANIZATION AND
REPRESENTATION, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BOARD IS NOT ENTITLED TO
MAKE ITS AUTHORITY A PRETEXT FOR INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT OF
DISCHARGE WHEN THAT RIGHT IS EXERCISED FOR OTHER REASONS THAN SUCH
INTIMIDATION AND COERCION.  THE TRUE PURPOSE IS THE SUBJECT OF
INVESTIGATION WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE FACTS.  IT WOULD SEEM
THAT WHEN EMPLOYERS FREELY RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THEIR EMPLOYEES TO
THEIR OWN ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR UNRESTRICTED RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION
THERE WILL BE MUCH LESS OCCASION FOR CONTROVERSY IN RESPECT TO THE FREE
AND APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF SELECTION AND DISCHARGE. 

THE ACT HAS BEEN CRITICISED AS ONE-SIDED IN ITS APPLICATION; THAT IT
SUBJECTS THE EMPLOYER TO SUPERVISION AND RESTRAINT AND LEAVES UNTOUCHED
THE ABUSES FOR WHICH EMPLOYEES MAY BE RESPONSIBLE; THAT IT FAILS TO
PROVIDE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,  - WITH BETTER ASSURANCES OF
FAIRNESS TO BOTH SIDES AND WITH INCREASED CHANCES OF SUCCESS IN
BRINGING ABOUT, IF NOT COMPELLING, EQUITABLE SOLUTIONS OF INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTES AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT WE ARE DEALING WITH THE
POWER OF CONGRESS, NOT WITH A PARTICULAR POLICY OR WITH THE EXTENT TO
WHICH POLICY SHOULD GO.  WE HAVE FREQUENTLY SAID THAT THE LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY, EXERTED WITHIN ITS PROPER FIELD, NEED NOT EMBRACE ALL THE
EVILS WITHIN ITS REACH.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT FORBID "CAUTIOUS
ADVANCE, STEP BY STEP," IN DEALING WITH THE EVILS WHICH ARE EXHIBITED
IN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE RANGE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  CARROLL V.
GREENWICH INSURANCE CO., 199 U.S. 401, 411; KEOKEE COKE CO. V. TAYLOR,
234 U.S. 224, 227; MILLER V. WILSON, 236 U.S. 373, 384; SPROLES V.
BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 396.  THE QUESTION IN SUCH CASES IS WHETHER THE
LEGISLATURE, IN WHAT IT DOES PRESCRIBE, HAS GONE BEYOND CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITS. 

THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE ASSAILED.  BUT THESE
PROVISIONS, AS WE CONSTRUE THEM, DO NOT OFFEND AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING THE CREATION AND ACTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES.  SEE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. LOUISVILLE &
NASHVILLE R. CO., 227 U.S. 88, 91.  THE ACT ESTABLISHES STANDARDS TO
WHICH THE BOARD MUST CONFORM.  THERE MUST BE COMPLAINT, NOTICE AND
HEARING.  THE BOARD MUST RECEIVE EVIDENCE AND MAKE FINDINGS.  THE
FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS ARE TO BE CONCLUSIVE, BUT ONLY IF SUPPORTED BY
EVIDENCE.  THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE
DESIGNATED COURT, AND ONLY WHEN SUSTAINED BY THE COURT MAY THE ORDER BE
ENFORCED.  UPON THAT REVIEW ALL QUESTIONS OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BOARD AND THE REGULARITY OF ITS PROCEEDINGS, ALL QUESTIONS OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OR STATUTORY AUTHORITY, ARE OPEN TO EXAMINATION BY
THE COURT.  WE CONSTRUE THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS AS AFFORDING ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE JUDICIAL PROTECTION AGAINST ARBITRARY ACTION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELL-SETTLED RULES APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES SET UP BY CONGRESS TO AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF VALID
LEGISLATION.  IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REPEAT THESE RULES WHICH HAVE
FREQUENTLY BEEN DECLARED.  NONE OF THEM APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
TRANSGRESSED IN THE INSTANT CASE.  RESPONDENT WAS NOTIFIED AND HEARD. 
IT HAD OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CHARGE OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
THE MERITS, AND BY WITHDRAWING FROM THE HEARING IT DECLINED TO AVAIL
ITSELF OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.  THE FACTS FOUND BY THE BOARD SUPPORT ITS
ORDER AND THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS.  RESPONDENT HAS NO JUST
GROUND FOR COMPLAINT ON THIS SCORE. 

THE ORDER OF THE BOARD REQUIRED THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES
WHO WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF THEIR "UNION
ACTIVITY" AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF "DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN THE
UNION."  THAT REQUIREMENT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  SEC. 10(C).  IN
TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, SUPRA, A SIMILAR ORDER FOR
RESTORATION TO SERVICE WAS MADE BY THE COURT IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
FOR THE VIOLATION OF AN INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE COURT TO RESTRAIN AN
INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES AS GUARANTEED BY THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT OF 1926.  THE REQUIREMENT OF RESTORATION TO SERVICE, OF
EMPLOYEES DISCHARGED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT, WAS
THUS A SANCTION IMPOSED IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF A JUDICIAL DECREE.  WE DO
NOT DOUBT THAT CONGRESS COULD IMPOSE A LIKE SANCTION FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ITS VALID REGULATION.  THE FACT THAT IN THE ONE CASE IT
WAS A JUDICIAL SANCTION, AND IN THE OTHER A LEGISLATIVE ONE, IS NOT AN
ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE IN DETERMINING ITS PROPRIETY. 

RESPONDENT COMPLAINS THAT THE BOARD NOT ONLY ORDERED REINSTATEMENT
BUT DIRECTED THE PAYMENT OF WAGES FOR THE TIME LOST BY THE DISCHARGE,
LESS AMOUNTS EARNED BY THE EMPLOYEE DURING THAT PERIOD.  THIS PART OF
THE ORDER WAS ALSO AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT.  SEC. 10(C).  IT IS ARGUED
THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS EQUIVALENT TO A MONEY JUDGMENT AND HENCE
CONTRAVENES THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO TRIAL BY JURY.  THE
SEVENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES THAT "IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE
VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY
JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED."  THE AMENDMENT THUS PRESERVES THE RIGHT WHICH
EXISTED UNDER THE COMMON LAW WHEN THE AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED.  SHIELDS
V. THOMAS, 18 HOW.  253, 262; IN RE WOOD, 210 U.S. 246, 258; DIMICK V.
SCHIEDT, 293 U.S. 474, 476; BALTIMORE & CAROLINA LINE V. REDMAN, 295
U.S. 654, 657.  THUS IT HAS NO APPLICATION TO CASES WHERE RECOVERY OF
MONEY DAMAGES IS AN INCIDENT TO EQUITABLE RELIEF EVEN THOUGH DAMAGES
MIGHT HAVE BEEN RECOVERED IN AN ACTION AT LAW.  CLARK V. WOOSTER, 119
U.S. 322, 325; PEASE V. RATHBUN-JONES ENGINEERING CO., 243 U.S. 273,
279.  IT DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE PROCEEDING IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF A
SUIT AT COMMON LAW.  GUTHRIE NATIONAL BANK V. GUTHRIE, 173 U.S. 528,
537. 

THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT A SUIT AT COMMON LAW OR IN THE NATURE OF SUCH
A SUIT.  THE PROCEEDING IS ONE UNKNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW.  IT IS A
STATUTORY PROCEEDING.  REINSTATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE AND PAYMENT FOR
TIME LOST ARE REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED FOR VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE AND ARE
REMEDIES APPROPRIATE TO ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THE CONTENTION UNDER THE
SEVENTH AMENDMENT IS WITHOUT MERIT. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD WAS WITHIN ITS
COMPETENCY AND THAT THE ACT IS VALID AS HERE APPLIED.  THE JUDGMENT OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  ACT OF JULY 5, 1935, 49 STAT. 449, 29 U.S.C. 151. 

FN2  THIS SECTION IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"SECTION 1.  THE DENIAL BY EMPLOYERS OF THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO
ORGANIZE AND THE REFUSAL BY EMPLOYERS TO ACCEPT THE PROCEDURE OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LEAD TO STRIKES AND OTHER FORMS OF INDUSTRIAL
STRIFE OR UNREST, WHICH HAVE THE INTENT OR THE NECESSARY EFFECT OF
BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE BY (A) IMPAIRING THE EFFICIENCY,
SAFETY, OR OPERATION OF THE INSTRUMENTALITIES OF COMMERCE; (B)
OCCURRING IN THE CURRENT OF COMMERCE; (C) MATERIALLY AFFECTING,
RESTRAINING, OR CONTROLLING THE FLOW OF RAW MATERIALS OR MANUFACTURED
OR PROCESSED GOODS FROM OR INTO THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE, OR THE PRICES
OF SUCH MATERIALS OR GOODS IN COMMERCE; OR (D) CAUSING DIMINUTION OF
EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES IN SUCH VOLUME AS SUBSTANTIALLY TO IMPAIR OR
DISRUPT THE MARKET FOR GOODS FLOWING FROM OR INTO THE CHANNELS OF
COMMERCE. 

"THE INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER BETWEEN EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT
POSSESS FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION OR ACTUAL LIBERTY OF CONTRACT, AND
EMPLOYERS WHO ARE ORGANIZED IN THE CORPORATE OR OTHER FORMS OF
OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS AND AFFECTS THE FLOW OF
COMMERCE, AND TENDS TO AGGRAVATE RECURRENT BUSINESS DEPRESSIONS, BY
DEPRESSING WAGE RATES AND THE PURCHASING POWER OF WAGE EARNERS IN
INDUSTRY AND BY PREVENTING THE STABILIZATION OF COMPETITIVE WAGE RATES
AND WORKING CONDITIONS WITHIN AND BETWEEN INDUSTRIES. 

"EXPERIENCE HAS PROVED THAT PROTECTION BY LAW OF THE RIGHT OF
EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY SAFEGUARDS COMMERCE FROM
INJURY, IMPAIRMENT, OR INTERRUPTION, AND PROMOTES THE FLOW OF COMMERCE
BY REMOVING CERTAIN RECOGNIZED SOURCES OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE AND UNREST,
BY ENCOURAGING PRACTICES FUNDAMENTAL TO THE FRIENDLY ADJUSTMENT OF
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF DIFFERENCES AS TO WAGES, HOURS, OR
OTHER WORKING CONDITIONS, AND BY RESTORING EQUALITY OF BARGAINING POWER
BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.    "IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE THE
POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO ELIMINATE THE CAUSES OF CERTAIN
SUBSTANTIAL OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE AND TO MITIGATE
AND ELIMINATE THESE OBSTRUCTIONS WHEN THEY HAVE OCCURRED BY ENCOURAGING
THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND BY PROTECTING
THE EXERCISE BY WORKERS OF FULL FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SELF
ORGANIZATION, AND DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION." 

FN3  SEE NOTE 2, SUPRA, P. 23.    FN4  WHAT IS QUOTED ABOVE IS
FOLLOWED BY THIS PROVISO - NOT HERE INVOLVED - "PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING
IN THIS ACT, OR IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT (U.S.C., SUPP.
VII, TITLE 15, SECS. 701-712), AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, OR IN ANY
CODE OR AGREEMENT APPROVED OR PRESCRIBED THEREUNDER, OR IN ANY OTHER
STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER FROM MAKING AN
AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION (NOT ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR
ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THIS ACT AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE)
TO REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP THEREIN, IF SUCH
LABOR ORGANIZATION IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 9(A), IN THE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT COVERED
BY SUCH AGREEMENT WHEN MADE." 

FN5  42 STAT. 159. 

FN6  42 STAT. 998. 

FN7  SECS. 416, 422, 41 STAT. 484, 488; INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SEC.
13(4). 

FN8  SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, FINAL REPORT OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
(1902), VOL. 19, P. 844; REPORT OF THE ANTHRACITE COAL STRIKE
COMMISSION (1902), SEN. DOC. NO. 6, 58TH CONG., SPEC. SESS.; FINAL
REPORT OF COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (1916), SEN. DOC. NO. 415,
64TH CONG., 1ST SESS., VOL. I; NATIONAL WAR LABOR BOARD, PRINCIPLES AND
RULES OF PROCEDURE (1919), P. 4; BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULLETIN
NO. 287(1921), PP. 52-64; HISTORY OF THE SHIPBUILDING LABOR ADJUSTMENT
BOARD, U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULLETIN NO. 283. 

FN9  SEE INVESTIGATING STRIKE IN STEEL INDUSTRIES, SEN. REP. NO. 289,
66TH CONG., 1ST SESS. 

FN10  THE PROVISION IS AS FOLLOWS:  "SEC.  9(A) REPRESENTATIVES
DESIGNATED OR SELECTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE
MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES,
SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH
UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN RESPECT TO RATES OF
PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:
PROVIDED, THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE OR A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES SHALL
HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO PRESENT GRIEVANCES TO THEIR EMPLOYER." 

FN11  SEE VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, NO. 40, 300
U.S. 515. 

FN12  SEE NOTE 11. 
..END :














NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRUEHAUF CO., 301 U.S. 49 


NOS. 420 AND 421.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 12, 1937. 
- 85 F.(2D) 391, REVERSED. 


THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND ORDERS MADE UNDER IT BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUSTAINED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., ANTE,
P. 1, AS APPLIED TO A MANUFACTURER OF COMMERCIAL "TRAILERS," (VEHICLES
DESIGNED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF MERCHANDISE), HAVING ITS FACTORY IN
MICHIGAN, BUT WHICH OBTAINED FROM OUTSIDE OF MICHIGAN MORE THAN 50% IN
VALUE OF THE MATERIALS AND PARTS USED IN THE PLANT, AND SHIPPED TO
STATES OTHER THAN MICHIGAN AND TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES MORE THAN 80% OF
ITS FINISHED PRODUCTS.  P. 53. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 534, TO REVIEW TWO DECREES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, ONE DISMISSING A PETITION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER MADE BY IT UNDER THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT, THE OTHER SETTING THE ORDER ASIDE AT THE PETITION
OF THE TRAILER COMPANY. 

RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE IS THE FOCAL POINT FOR A STREAM OR FLOW OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  OVER 50% BY VALUE OF THE RAW, UNFINISHED AND
OTHER MATERIALS WHICH ARE USED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF
TRAILERS ARE SHIPPED TO IT FROM OTHER STATES. 

MORE THAN 80% OF RESPONDENT'S SALES ARE TO CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE OF
MICHIGAN.  EFFICIENCY IN RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE REQUIRES THE
MAINTENANCE OF A STEADY FLOW OF MATERIALS INTO AND THROUGH ITS PLANT,
AND A STEADY STREAM OF TRAILERS OUT TO ITS PURCHASERS. 

THUS WE HAVE A LARGE AND CONSTANT MOVEMENT OF GOODS INTO THE DETROIT
PLANT; THE BRIEFEST POSSIBLE PAUSE THERE, IN PART FOR MANUFACTURE, AND
IN PART MERELY FOR THE ASSEMBLY OF COMPLETED PARTS, AND IMMEDIATE
SHIPMENT TO ALL PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES.  WE SUBMIT, THEREFORE, THAT
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN RESPONDENT'S DETROIT PLANT WOULD HAVE THE
NECESSARY EFFECT OF BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IT IS APPARENT THAT INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN RESPONDENT'S PLANT, THE
LARGEST OF ITS KIND IN THE UNITED STATES, WOULD IMMEDIATELY CURTAIL THE
MOVEMENT FROM AND INTO THE CHANNELS OF COMMERCE, NOT ONLY OF A
SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF GOODS, BUT ALSO OF A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE TRAILER INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE.  CONSEQUENTLY,
WE SUBMIT THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT INDUSTRIAL STRIFE
IN RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE WOULD, IF IT OCCURRED, HAVE THE NECESSARY
EFFECT OF SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENING INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

IF, AS WE CONTEND, THE CONTROL POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS TO RECURRENT
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN THESE INTERSTATE ENTERPRISES, THERE CAN BE NO
DOUBT THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION. 

THEY MADE THE FOLLOWING POINTS: 

I. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS NOT A REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BUT OF (A) INDUSTRY IN GENERAL, AND (B) LABOR RELATIONSHIPS
GENERALLY (BY IMPOSING "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING"), AND IS IN EXCESS OF
THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND VIOLATIVE OF THE
TENTH AMENDMENT, AND HENCE IS VOID IN ITS ENTIRETY. 

II.  IN ITS MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS RESPONDENT AND ITS PRODUCTION
EMPLOYEES ARE NOT (A) IN COMMERCE, (B) IN THE "STREAM," "CURRENT," OR
"FLOW" OF COMMERCE; AND THEY (C) DO NOT "AFFECT COMMERCE," AND HENCE
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL. 

THE ORDERS OF THE BOARD HERE BEFORE THE COURT EXCEED ANY POWER WHICH
CONGRESS DID OR COULD CONFER UPON SAID BOARD AND CONTRAVENE THE TENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD IN RELATION TO THE RESPONDENT AND ITS
DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES (WHICH ARE AT ALL OF MATERIAL CONSEQUENCE) ARE
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN THE
EVIDENCE. 

III.  THE ACT IS REPUGNANT TO AND IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
BOTH IN RESPECT OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS. 

IV.  THE ACT DENIES THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY IN VIOLATION OF THE
SEVENTH AMENDMENT. 

V. THE ACT VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH GUARANTEES TO CITIZENS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN OCTOBER, 1935, CHARGES AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, FRUEHAUF TRAILER
COMPANY, WERE FILED WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  THE BOARD
ISSUED ITS COMPLAINTS (IN TWO CASES) ALLEGING THAT THE COMPANY WAS
ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AS DESCRIBED IN SEC. 8, SUBDIVISIONS
(1) AND (3) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  49 STAT. 449; 29
U.S.C. 151 ET SEQ. THE PRACTICES WERE SAID TO CONSIST IN THE DISCHARGE
OF, AND THREATS TO DISCHARGE, EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR AFFILIATION
WITH, AND ACTIVITY IN, THE LABOR ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS UNITED
AUTOMOBILE WORKERS FEDERAL LABOR UNION NO. 19375. 

NOTICE OF HEARING WAS GIVEN AND THE COMPLAINTS WERE CONSOLIDATED. 
RESPONDENT APPEARED SPECIALLY AND FILED MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINTS UPON THE GROUND THAT THE BOARD WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND
THAT THE ACT AS APPLIED TO RESPONDENT VIOLATED ARTICLE I, SEC. 1, AND
THE FIRST, FIFTH, SEVENTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES.  ANSWERS WERE ALSO FILED, DENYING THE CHARGES AND
RESERVING THE SAME JURISDICTIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS. 
HEARING WAS HAD.  THE BOARD RECEIVED EVIDENCE UPON THE JURISDICTIONAL
ISSUE AND, REAFFIRMING AN EARLIER RULING, DENIED THE MOTIONS TO
DISMISS.  HEARING UPON THE MERITS PROCEEDED, AND IN DECEMBER, 1935, THE
BOARD MADE ITS FINDINGS AND ENTERED ITS ORDER. 

THE ORDER REQUIRED THE RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
DISCHARGING, OR THREATENING TO DISCHARGE, ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES BECAUSE
OF THEIR JOINING THE UNION; FROM EMPLOYING DETECTIVES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ESPIONAGE WITHIN THE UNION; AND FROM INTERFERING IN ANY OTHER MANNER
WITH OR COERCING ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF
ORGANIZATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL
AID OR PROTECTION AS GUARANTEED IN SEC. 7 OF THE ACT.  THE ORDER ALSO
REQUIRED THE RESPONDENT TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCOURAGING
MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION OR, IN ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF
EMPLOYMENT.  RESPONDENT WAS DIRECTED TO OFFER REINSTATEMENT TO THE
EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN DISCHARGED, TO MAKE GOOD THEIR LOSSES IN PAY,
AND TO POST FOR THIRTY DAYS NOTICES THAT IT HAD COMPLIED WITH THE ORDER
IN CEASING THE INTERFERENCES SET FORTH. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE PETITION OF THE BOARD TO
ENFORCE ITS ORDER AND SET THE ORDER ASIDE.  85 F.(2D) 391.  THIS COURT
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS THE BOARD MADE
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: RESPONDENT IS A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE
LAWS OF MICHIGAN AND IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLY, SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL TRAILERS AND OF TRAILER PARTS AND
ACCESSORIES.  THE TRAILERS ARE VEHICLES DESIGNED FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
OF MERCHANDISE.  RESPONDENT'S PLANT IS LOCATED IN DETROIT AND IS THE
LARGEST CONCERN OF ITS KIND IN THE UNITED STATES.  RESPONDENT MAINTAINS
31 BRANCH SALES OFFICES IN 12 DIFFERENT STATES AND HAS DISTRIBUTORS AND
DEALERS IN THE PRINCIPAL CITIES OF THE COUNTRY.  A WHOLLY-OWNED
SUBSIDIARY OPERATES IN TORONTO, CANADA, WHERE SALES ARE MADE AND
CONSIDERABLE ASSEMBLY WORK IS DONE WITH MATERIALS OBTAINED FROM THE
DETROIT PLANT AND IN CANADA.  MORE THAN 50 PER CENT. IN VALUE OF THE
MATERIALS USED BY THE RESPONDENT IN MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLY AND SHIPPING
DURING THE YEAR 1934 WERE TRANSPORTED TO ITS DETROIT PLANT FROM OHIO,
ILLINOIS, INDIANA AND OTHER STATES.  MOST OF THE LUMBER WAS TRANSPORTED
FROM SOUTHERN STATES AND MOST OF THE FINISHED PARTS WERE TRANSPORTED
FROM STATES OTHER THAN MICHIGAN.  IN 1934, RESPONDENT'S SALES AMOUNTED
TO $3,318,000.  ITS NEAREST COMPETITOR SOLD ONLY 37 PER CENT. OF THAT
AMOUNT.  MORE THAN 80 PER CENT. OF ITS SALES ARE OF PRODUCTS SHIPPED
OUTSIDE THE STATE OF MICHIGAN THROUGH AND TO OTHER STATES AND TO
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.  BETWEEN JANUARY 1 AND NOVEMBER 1, 1935, 112
CARLOADS OF RESPONDENT'S PRODUCTS WERE SHIPPED TO POINTS OUTSIDE THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN BY RAILROAD AND 400 TO 500 TRAILERS WITH ACCESSORIES
WERE HAULED OVER THE HIGHWAYS BY MOTOR TRUCKS OR TRACTORS TO POINTS
OUTSIDE THE STATE.  ABOUT 30 CHASSIS A DAY ARE FINISHED AT THE DETROIT
PLANT OF WHICH 80 PER CENT. ARE STARTED ON THEIR WAY TO DESTINATIONS
OUTSIDE MICHIGAN.  IN CONNECTION WITH ITS INTERSTATE SALES, RESPONDENT
FURNISHES SERVICE IN THE DETERMINATION OF CUSTOMERS' NEEDS AND ASSISTS
IN THE LAYING OUT OF SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.  RESPONDENT'S
SALES OF TRAILERS IN CANADA ARE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH ITS CANADIAN
SUBSIDIARY, AND ITS SALES IN STATES OTHER THAN MICHIGAN ARE MADE
THROUGH ITS BRANCH SALES OFFICES AND ITS DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS.  IT
IS A PRACTICE OF RESPONDENT TO CONSIGN TRAILERS AND PARTS TO
DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS IN VARIOUS STATES WITH TITLE RETAINED IN
RESPONDENT UNTIL PAYMENT IS MADE.  THE MANUFACTURING AND ASSEMBLY
OPERATIONS AT THE DETROIT PLANT ARE ESSENTIALLY CONNECTED WITH AND
DEPENDENT UPON THE PURCHASE, SALES AND DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS WITHOUT
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.  THE FINDINGS ALSO DESCRIBE VARIOUS FEATURES OF
RESPONDENT'S MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTING ACTIVITIES. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, THE BOARD FOUND
IN SUBSTANCE AS FOLLOWS: THE UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS FEDERAL LABOR
UNION NO. 19375 HAD BEEN ORGANIZED AMONG THE PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT'S DETROIT PLANT AND, AT THE TIME OF THE
OCCURRENCES DESCRIBED, INCLUDED 177 ACTIVE MEMBERS AND ABOUT 100
MEMBERS WHO AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER PAID DUES AND DID NOT USUALLY ATTEND
MEETINGS.  THE PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE MEN AT RESPONDENT'S FACTORY
AT THAT TIME NUMBERED ABOUT 400.  EARLY IN 1934, RESPONDENT HIRED A
DETECTIVE WHOSE DUTY IT WAS "TO FERRET OUT THE UNION ACTIVITIES OF THE
MEN" AND TO KEEP THE RESPONDENT INFORMED.  THIS, AS THE RESPONDENT'S
VICE PRESIDENT STATED, WAS TO AVOID TROUBLE AND "TO KEEP A STEADY FLOW
OF BUSINESS."  FOR PURPOSES OF DECEPTION, AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THE
DETECTIVE ELIGIBLE FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNION, RESPONDENT GAVE HIM
EMPLOYMENT.  HE JOINED THE UNION AND BECAME ITS TREASURER.  HE THUS
OBTAINED A LIST OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  HE MADE FREQUENT
REPORTS TO RESPONDENT AND WITH THE LISTS THUS OBTAINED RESPONDENT'S
SUPERINTENDENT WENT ABOUT THE FACTORY FROM TIME TO TIME AND WARNED
VARIOUS EMPLOYEES AGAINST UNION ACTIVITIES.  THE RESULT OF THESE
MEASURES "CAUSED SUSPICION, UNREST AND CONFUSION AMONG THE EMPLOYEES." 
A SUB-FOREMAN, WHO WAS LATER DISCHARGED, WAS URGED BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT TO RESIGN HIS OFFICE IN THE UNION AND WORK WITH THE
SUPERINTENDENT "TO SEE THAT THE UNION DID NOT GAIN STRENGTH IN THE
PLANT."  THE SUB-FOREMAN, WHO INTERVIEWED APPLICANTS FOR WORK, WAS ALSO
INSTRUCTED BY HIS FOREMAN TO LEARN WHETHER THEY BELONGED TO A UNION OR
BELIEVED IN UNIONISM AND WAS TOLD THAT, IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD BE
OBJECTIONABLE.  RESPONDENT "DETERMINED TO PUT A STOP TO ALL ATTEMPTS ON
THE PART OF ITS FACTORY WORKERS TO FORM AN EFFICIENT INDEPENDENT
BARGAINING AGENCY AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT PURPOSE SUMMARILY
DISCHARGED NINE MEN AND THREATENED THREE OTHERS WITH DISCHARGE."  TWO
OF THE MEN WERE DISCHARGED BEFORE THE ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE. 

THE BOARD FOUND:  "AS TO THE REMAINING SEVEN MEN WHO WERE DISCHARGED,
THE EVIDENCE IS FOUND PRINCIPALLY IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE DISCHARGED
MEN AND OTHER EMPLOYEES.  THERE WAS NO CREDIBLE OR SUBSTANTIAL
CONTRADICTION OF THIS TESTIMONY.  OUR CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES CHARGED ARE REACHED AFTER A CONSIDERATION OF SUCH
EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT AS WERE OFFERED BY THE RESPONDENT, WHO FAILED TO
PRODUCE WITNESSES IN ITS OWN EMPLOY OBVIOUSLY HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE
FACTS SURROUNDING THESE DISCHARGES, AND WHO IN ITS BRIEF DOES NOT ARGUE
THAT ITS CONDUCT DID NOT CONSTITUTE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES." 

THE BOARD REVIEWED THE PARTICULAR CASES OF DISCHARGE AND FOUND THAT,
IN EACH, THE EMPLOYEE WAS DISCHARGED BECAUSE HE JOINED AND ASSISTED THE
UNION.  THE BOARD FOUND THAT AS A RESULT OF THE DISCHARGES THE MEMBERS
OF THE UNION WERE COERCED AND RESTRAINED FROM ANY ATTEMPT TO ORGANIZE
FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING; THAT RESPONDENT'S ACTS "LED TO CONFUSION,
RESENTMENT, AND BITTERNESS AMONG THE EMPLOYEES, AND TENDED TO LEAD TO A
LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE" BETWEEN MICHIGAN AND OTHER STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES. 

RESPONDENT, ON ITS PART, TRACES THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS
BUSINESS FROM ITS SMALL BEGINNINGS, EMPHASIZING THE OUTSTANDING SUCCESS
OF ITS ENTERPRISE.  RESPONDENT CRITICISES THE FINDING AS TO THE NUMBER
OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHO WERE MEMBERS OF THE UNION AND STATES THERE WAS NO
PROPER BASIS FOR THE FINDING THAT THERE WERE ONLY 400 EMPLOYEES IN THE
MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTION DEPARTMENTS.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE
TESTIMONY NEGATIVED ANY SHOWING OF LABOR DIFFICULTIES AND THAT SINCE
ITS FIRST OPERATIONS THERE HAD NOT BEEN A STRIKE AT THE PLANT WHICH
HAMPERED ITS OPERATIONS.  IT IS ALSO URGED THAT IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT
THE DISCHARGES CAUSED A STRIKE AT THE PLANT OR DELAY IN OPERATIONS. 
RESPONDENT POINTS TO EVIDENCE THAT ONLY 35 MEN VOTED FOR A STRIKE OUT
OF A TOTAL OF 700 PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURING EMPLOYEES; THAT ONLY 67
EMPLOYEES VOTED AT THE UNION MEETING AND THAT THE SUGGESTION OF A
STRIKE WAS VOTED DOWN.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE TESTIMONY OF ITS
VICE-PRESIDENT SHOWED THAT, IN DISCHARGING AND LAYING OFF MEN DURING A
SLACK PERIOD OF PRODUCTION, THE SAME STANDARD WAS APPLIED TO UNION AND
NON-UNION MEN, THE DETERMINING FACTORS "BEING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
WORKMAN, HIS COOPERATION AND WHETHER OR NOT HE APPEARED TO HAVE THE
COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS AT HEART IN PERFORMING HIS DUTIES."    COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT IN THEIR BRIEF STATE THAT "RESPONDENT CALLED NO
WITNESSES AND OFFERED NO PROOF ON THE QUESTION OF ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES, EXCEPT THAT BROUGHT OUT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DISCHARGED
EMPLOYEES AND FROM WITNESS VOSLER (ITS VICE PRESIDENT), CALLED BY THE
BOARD ON THIS PHASE OF THE CASE.  THE COMPANY AT ALL TIMES RELIED UPON
ITS POSITION THAT THE BOARD HAD NEITHER JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS, NOR OVER THE PERSON OF RESPONDENT, THAT
THE ACT, AS A WHOLE, WAS INVALID AND THE ATTEMPTED APPLICATION THEREOF
BY THE BOARD TO RESPONDENT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL." 

THE BOARD IN ITS FINDINGS STATED THAT RESPONDENT'S WITNESS, VOSLER,
TESTIFIED THAT "HE KNEW NONE OF THE FACTS" SURROUNDING ANY OF THE
DISCHARGES "OF HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE" AND THE BOARD COMMENTED UPON THE
FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE THE FOREMAN, OR THE SUPERINTENDENT,
WHO WERE IN A POSITION TO CONTRADICT THE STATEMENTS OF EMPLOYEES, IF
THEY COULD BE CONTRADICTED, WITH RESPECT TO THE REASONS FOR THE
DISCHARGE. 

WE HAVE EXAMINED RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION
THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD, WITH RESPECT TO THE NATURE OF THE
RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DISCHARGES
COMPLAINED OF, ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 

THE QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDITY OF THE ACT
HAVE BEEN FULLY DISCUSSED IN OUR OPINION IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN CORP., ANTE, P. 1.  WE HOLD THAT THE
PRINCIPLES THERE STATED ARE APPLICABLE HERE.  THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :



NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. CLOTHING CO., 301 U.S. 58 


NOS. 422 AND 423.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 12, 1937. 
- 85 F.(2D) 1, REVERSED. 


THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AND ORDERS MADE UNDER IT BY THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SUSTAINED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., ANTE,
P. 1, AS APPLIED TO A MANUFACTURER OF GARMENTS, HAVING ITS FACTORY IN
VIRGINIA BUT WHICH IMPORTED ITS CLOTH FROM OTHER STATES AND SOLD ALMOST
ALL OF THE FINISHED PRODUCTS IN OTHER STATES.  P. 72. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 535, TO REVIEW DECREES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS REFUSING TO ENFORCE ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD. 

I. WHERE THE SITUATION IN A PARTICULAR ENTERPRISE PRESENTS THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT A LABOR DISPUTE, IF IT OCCURRED, WOULD INVOLVE AN
INTENT TO RESTRAIN COMMERCE, THEN THE BOARD CAN APPLY THE PREVENTIVE
MEASURES OF THIS STATUTE TO THAT ENTERPRISE.  IT IS NOT CLAIMED IN THE
PRESENT CASE THAT THERE IS ANY PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL
INTENT TO AFFECT COMMERCE.  HOWEVER, RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE PRESENTS A
SITUATION IN WHICH A LABOR CONTROVERSY OVER EMPLOYEES' BASIC RIGHTS OF
SELF-ORGANIZATION AND FREEDOM FROM INTERFERENCE IN CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVES FOR PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WOULD BE LIKELY
TO INVOLVE THE PURPOSE NOT MERELY BY STOPPING PRODUCTION, BUT ALSO BY
INTERRUPTING OR HINDERING ACTUAL SALES AND SHIPMENTS IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. 

OVER 125,000 EMPLOYEES IN THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY ARE MEMBERS OF
THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, THE LARGEST COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGENCY IN THE INDUSTRY.  ACTING THROUGH THAT REPRESENTATIVE
THOSE EMPLOYEES HAVE SECURED COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS WHICH COVER THE
GREATER PART OF THE INDUSTRY.  BY THOSE AGREEMENTS, WAGES HAVE BEEN
INCREASED, HOURS SHORTENED, AND OTHER AMELIORATING STANDARDS OF
EMPLOYMENT OBTAINED AND MAINTAINED.  BY THEM, ALSO, THE PROCESSES OF
NEGOTIATION AND ARBITRATION HAVE BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR THE STRIKE AND
LOCK-OUT AS A PEACEFUL METHOD OF SOLVING INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. 

EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THIS ORGANIZATION WILL NOT LIGHTLY YIELD
TO INFLUENCES ENDANGERING THE FAVORABLE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT NOW
ESTABLISHED AND EXISTING IN THE PRINCIPAL CENTERS OF THE INDUSTRY.  ON
THE CONTRARY, IT IS ONLY REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD ENDEAVOR
EFFECTIVELY TO COUNTERACT ANY SUCH DANGERS.  DANGERS OF THE CHARACTER
SUGGESTED IN FACT EXIST TODAY. 

WITH EFFECTIVE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE INDUSTRY'S ENTERPRISES AN
ACCEPTED FACT REGARDLESS OF LOCATION, AND BEARING IN MIND THE PURPOSE
AND EFFECT OF THE MIGRATION OF ENTERPRISES, IT SEEMS UNAVOIDABLE THAT
THE MEMBERS OF THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS SHOULD, AS THEY DO,
REGARD THE INDUSTRY AS ONE WHOSE ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION IS NOT BASED ON
THE INTERESTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL ENTERPRISE, BUT IS ONE IN WHICH UNION
CONDITIONS, TO BE MAINTAINED AT ALL, MUST PREVAIL GENERALLY. 
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE WOULD, THEREFORE, BE
LIKELY TO HAVE AS ITS OBJECT, NOT MERELY THE APPLICATION OF ECONOMIC
PRESSURE UPON RESPONDENT, BUT THE CESSATION OF SHIPMENTS FROM
RESPONDENT'S PLANT INTO THE NATIONAL MARKET, IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THE
ORGANIZATION AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS IN COMPETING ENTERPRISES
AND AREAS BEYOND THE STATE OF VIRGINIA.  CF. CORONADO COAL CO. V.
UNITED MINE WORKERS, 268 U.S. 295, 310. 

WE ARE NOT HERE CONTENDING THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED ABOVE
ESTABLISH A VALID BASIS FOR WAGE STABILIZATION LEGISLATION UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE.  WE DO CONTEND THAT SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES GIVE RISE TO A
REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE INVOLVING THE PURPOSE TO
RESTRAIN ACTUAL SALES AND SHIPMENTS IN THE CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AND THAT THEY DO ESTABLISH A VALID BASIS FOR A STATUTE SUCH
AS THIS, DEALING SOLELY WITH THE PROBLEM OF LABOR DISPUTES AS THEY
AFFECT THE NATIONAL INTEREST. 

II.  IT IS TRUE THAT RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE IS NOT SO CLEARLY WITHIN
A STREAM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS THAT OF THE JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORPORATION, ANTE, P. 1.  NEVERTHELESS, WE SUBMIT THAT RESPONDENT'S
ENTERPRISE MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF A STREAM OF
COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES. 

THIS STREAM OR FLOW BEGINS WITH THE MOVEMENT OF THE RAW WOOL FROM THE
WEST TO THE NEW ENGLAND STATES.  MOST OF THE CLOTH MOVES ON IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO THE CENTERS OF THE INDUSTRY, SUCH AS NEW YORK
(50.2% OF THE ENTERPRISES), PENNSYLVANIA (10.4%), AND MARYLAND
(10.2%). 

THIS INTERSTATE FLOW OF GOODS FROM MILL TO MANUFACTURER IS LIKEWISE
TRUE TO A SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT OF MANY OTHER MATERIALS ESSENTIAL TO
CLOTHING. 

LARGE INTERSTATE MOVEMENTS OCCUR EVEN DURING THE ACTUAL FABRICATION
OF THE GARMENTS.  THE PURCHASER OF THE CLOTH COMMONLY CUTS THE FABRIC
TO SHAPE AND SIZE, BUT THE ACTUAL SEWING, FINISHING, AND PRESSING ARE
FREQUENTLY DONE IN OTHER STATES. 

THE INTERSTATE MOVEMENT IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS IS, OF
COURSE, A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE. 

THE BOARD WAS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE PREVENTIVE MEASURES OF THE
ACT TO RESPONDENT IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE CAUSES OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE
WHICH WOULD BE APT TO SPREAD, BY SYMPATHETIC ACTION, UNTIL A
SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ALL THE COMMERCE IN MEN'S CLOTHING HAD BEEN
RESTRAINED. 

RESPONDENT IS, COMPARED TO OTHER FIRMS IN THE CLOTHING INDUSTRY, OF
RELATIVELY LARGE SIZE, BEING AMONG THE FIFTY LARGEST OF THE THREE
THOUSAND FIRMS WHICH MAKE UP THE INDUSTRY.  INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN ITS
PLANT WOULD CAUSE THE CESSATION OF THIS LARGE VOLUME OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE EVEN IF CONFINED TO RESPONDENT'S ENTERPRISE.  EVEN IF IT WERE
SO LIMITED, HOWEVER, IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT CONGRESS IS
POWERLESS TO PREVENT A BURDEN ON COMMERCE OF THAT MAGNITUDE.  AS WE
HAVE SHOWN IN THE BRIEF FOR THE BOARD IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., ANTE, P. 1, THE EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL
STRIFE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EVEN THOUGH ARISING OUT OF LOCAL
ACTIVITY, IS IMMEDIATE AND WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL HERE.  CERTAINLY THE
CESSATION OF PURCHASES AND SHIPMENTS BY AN ENTERPRISE OF THE SIZE OF
RESPONDENT'S CANNOT BE REGARDED AS WITHOUT NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.  NOR
CAN THE FACT THAT OTHER UNITS OF THE INDUSTRY COULD PROBABLY INCREASE
PRODUCTION SUFFICIENTLY TO SUPPLY THE DEFICIENCY CAUSED BY RESPONDENT
BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE POWER OF CONGRESS, FOR THE DISRUPTION OF THE
CHANNELS OF COMMERCE, EVEN WITH NO CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL
SHIPPED, IS IN ITSELF A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN OF CONGRESS. 

III.  WHERE CONGRESS, AFTER INVESTIGATION, DIRECTS ITS LEGISLATION TO
THE PREVENTION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WHICH, EVEN THOUGH USUALLY ONLY OF
LOCAL CONCERN, RECUR WITH SUCH FREQUENCY AS TO CONSTITUTE AN UNDUE
BURDEN ON COMMERCE, THOSE ACTIVITIES MAY BE SUBJECTED TO THE CONTROL OF
CONGRESS. 

IF, AS WE CONTEND, THE CONTROL POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS TO RECURRENT
INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN THESE INTERSTATE ENTERPRISES, THERE CAN BE NO
DOUBT THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION.  RESPONDENT IS DEPENDENT UPON THE PRODUCTS OF STATES
OTHER THAN VIRGINIA FOR ALMOST 100% OF THE WOOLEN AND WORSTED GOODS
WHICH IT USES.  THE SAME CONDITION PREVAILS WITH RESPECT TO COTTON,
RAYON AND SILK LININGS, FELT, WIGAN AND COTTON TAPE, HYMO AND UNDER
COLLAR CLOTH.  IT CAN FAIRLY BE SAID THAT THE CONTRIBUTION OF VIRGINIA
ENTERPRISES TO THE OPERATIONS CONDUCTED AT RESPONDENT'S PLANT IS
NEGLIGIBLE. 

THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  ITS REAL PURPOSE IS SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC, AND TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN AN ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND
DISCRIMINATORY MANNER THROUGH UNIONIZATION OF ALL INDUSTRY BY FIAT. 

THE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION DEPENDS UPON ITS TRUE SUBSTANCE, NOT UPON
ITS FORM OR ITS DECLARATION OF "FINDINGS AND POLICY."  RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, 363, 371, 374; UNITED
STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1; UNITED STATES V. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S.
287, 296; ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 38, 51,
52; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 289, 291. 

THE "FINDINGS AND POLICY" OF SEC. 1 OF THE ACT ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE
REAL OBJECTIVES IN A VAIN EFFORT TO JUSTIFY ILLEGALITY.  THE OBJECTIVES
AVOWED IN THE TITLE ARE BELIED BY THE TERMS OF THE ACT ITSELF. 

THE ACT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.  THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FEATURE IS
ITS UTTER FAILURE TO REGULATE THE PRACTICES OF LABOR UNIONS OR TO MAKE
THEM RESPONSIBLE, IN ANY DEGREE, FOR THEIR ACTS OR FOR THE ACTS OF
THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.  IT GOES FARTHER IN ASSISTING UNIONIZATION AND
DISARMING EMPLOYERS THAN ANY PREVIOUS LEGISLATION EVER ENACTED IN ANY
COUNTRY OPERATING UNDER A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  IF STRIKES
AND INDUSTRIAL STRIFE BURDEN OR OBSTRUCT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND IF
CONGRESS REALLY INTENDS TO ELIMINATE THEM, MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS MUST BE
PLACED ON BOTH EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE. 

THE ACT ARBITRARILY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NON-UNION WORKERS, BY
PRACTICALLY REQUIRING EVERY WORKER TO JOIN A LABOR UNION, OR BE BOUND
BY ITS AGREEMENTS WITH HIS EMPLOYER, OR FORFEIT HIS JOB.  HE CANNOT
TURN TO HIS EMPLOYER, BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER IS FORBIDDEN BY SEC. 8 TO
TAKE ANY STEPS WHATEVER TO HELP HIM.  HE CANNOT TURN TO THE LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, BECAUSE THE ACT GIVES IT NO JURISDICTION OVER ANY
COMPLAINTS AGAINST LABOR UNIONS.  WHILE SEC. 8 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER
FROM DISCHARGING ANY EMPLOYEE BECAUSE HE IS A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION,
THE SAME SECTION GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO DISCHARGE HIS EMPLOYEE IF HE
REFUSES TO BECOME A MEMBER. 

THUS THE ACT FOSTERS AND GIVES STATUTORY SANCTION TO THE "CLOSED
SHOP," TRADITIONALLY THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVE AND PRIME DEMAND OF
EVERY UNION.  NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THIS SECTION 8 PLACES THE BEWILDERED
AND HELPLESS EMPLOYER AT THE MERCY OF RIVAL UNIONS, EACH OF WHICH MAY
BE DEMANDING, ON ITS OWN BEHALF, A CLOSED SHOP, ONE BEING IN THE
ASCENDANCY ONE DAY AND THE OTHER THE NEXT. 

LABOR ORGANIZATION, THE EMPLOYER MUST BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH IT, AND
THE TERMS OF THAT BARGAIN SHALL BE BINDING UPON NON-UNION WORKERS.  THE
ONLY RECOURSE OPEN TO NON-UNION WORKERS IS THAT FOUND IN SUBSECTION (A)
OF SEC. 9, THAT THEY "SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO PRESENT
GRIEVANCES TO THEIR EMPLOYER."  WHAT A MOCKERY THIS IS. 

THE ACT DISCRIMINATES IN FAVOR OF A SELECTED TYPE OF LABOR
ORGANIZATION AND ARBITRARILY OUTLAWS ALL OTHERS. 

SUBDIVISION 2 OF SEC. 8 REFERS TO "ANY" ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS, AND
MAKES IT UNLAWFUL FOR AN EMPLOYER TO CONTRIBUTE FINANCIAL "OR OTHER
SUPPORT" TO IT.  THEN, BY SUBDIVISION 3 OF SEC. 8, THE EMPLOYER IS
PROHIBITED FROM CONTRACTING WITH SUCH AN ORGANIZATION OF HIS WORKERS. 
ALL COMPANY UNIONS AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS OF WORKERS ARE THEREBY
ARBITRARILY OUTLAWED.  THIS INTOLERANT, BIGOTED AND PREJUDICED ATTITUDE
EXEMPLIFIED NOT ONLY IN THE ACT BUT BY THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD, IS
EMPHASIZED BY THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUBDIVISION 2 OF SEC. 8 AND
SUBDIVISION (A) OF SEC. 9, WHICH PROVIDE THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY "CONFER"
WITH HIS INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES AND THAT THEY MAY "PRESENT GRIEVANCES" TO
HIM, "SUBJECT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS MADE AND PUBLISHED BY THE
BOARD."  IN OTHER WORDS, THE EMPLOYER MAY TALK TO HIS EMPLOYEES ABOUT
THEIR WORK AND THEY, ON THEIR PART, MAY TALK TO HIM ABOUT IT, ONLY AT
THE TIMES AND UNDER THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD. 

THUS, THIS ACT ACTUALLY ERECTS A BARRIER BETWEEN THEIR FREE
INTERCOURSE AND RELATIONS, ATTRIBUTES IMPROPER MOTIVES BOTH TO ALL
EMPLOYERS AND THEIR WORKERS NOT HAVING UNION AGREEMENTS, PREVENTS EVEN
THE POSSIBILITY OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF MUTUAL PROBLEMS, AND FORCES
THEM TO DEAL WITH EACH OTHER AT ARMS' LENGTH. 

CERTAINLY, IT NEED NOT BE ARGUED THAT THE EFFICIENCY OF EMPLOYEES IS
ENHANCED, AND LABOR TURNOVER DECREASED, IN PROPORTION TO THE EMPLOYER'S
ABILITY TO INSPIRE AND HOLD THE GOODWILL, LOYALTY, CONFIDENCE, AND
COOPERATION OF HIS EMPLOYEES BY HIS FRIENDLY ASSOCIATION WITH AND
SYMPATHETIC ATTITUDE TOWARD THEM AND THEIR INTERESTS.  THIS IS
FUNDAMENTAL IN GOOD BUSINESS MANAGEMENT.  IT MUST BE OBVIOUS THAT NO
CONSIDERATIONS OF GENERAL PUBLIC WELFARE OR INDUSTRIAL PEACE, MUCH LESS
THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DICTATED THIS ARBITRARY
DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMPANY UNIONS AND NATIONAL LABOR UNIONS, BUT THAT
THE OUTLAWING OF COMPANY UNIONS WAS INSERTED IN THIS ACT SOLELY AT THE
BEHEST OF THE NATIONAL LABOR UNIONS, WHICH SOUGHT BY STATUTORY
ENACTMENT TO DESTROY ALL ORGANIZATIONS OF WORKERS IN INDUSTRY WHICH
THEY DID NOT OR COULD NOT CONTROL. 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN THE ACT, AND THE PROCEDURE
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD IN ITS ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT, DEMONSTRATE ITS
DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, AND UNLAWFUL CHARACTER. 

MANUFACTURING IS A PURELY LOCAL ACTIVITY WHICH MAY NOT BE REGULATED
UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

IN THE SCHECHTER CASE THE ARTICLES WERE IMPORTED FROM OTHER STATES IN
ADVANCE OF THE ACTIVITY OVER WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO
IMPOSE LABOR REGULATIONS.  IN THE CARTER CASE THE CONDITIONS REGULATED
PRECEDED THE EXPORTATION OF THE COAL TO OTHER STATES.  IN THE PRESENT
CASE, RAW MATERIALS ARE IMPORTED INTO VIRGINIA BEFORE THE MANUFACTURING
OPERATIONS TAKE PLACE, AND THE FINISHED PRODUCT THEREAFTER FINDS ITS
WAY INTO OTHER STATES.  THIS FACTUAL DIFFERENCE HAS NO LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE.    THE DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT
AND ITS EMPLOYEES, WITH RESPECT TO AND IN THE COURSE OF MANUFACTURE OF
ITS PRODUCT, BEAR NO RELATIONSHIP TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

HERE THE BOARD IS DRIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING SOPHISTRY:  (1) MEN'S
CLOTHING IS AN IMPORTANT COMMODITY; (2) THE RAW MATERIALS NECESSARY
COME FROM VARIOUS STATES OF THE UNION AND FROM FOREIGN LANDS TO THE
POINT OF MANUFACTURE; (3) THE CLOTHING IS PRODUCED IN ONLY SOME OF THE
STATES, WHILE IT IS SHIPPED TO AND USED IN ALL OF THEM; (4) EMPLOYEES
IN THIS INDUSTRY ARE NOT ON A LEVEL WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS WITH RESPECT
TO BARGAINING POWERS; (5) TO SECURE AN EQUAL FOOTING FOR THEM IT IS
NECESSARY THAT THEY BE PERMITTED TO ORGANIZE AND EXERCISE THEIR
BARGAINING POWERS THROUGH ORGANIZATIONS; (6) LABOR ORGANIZATIONS MUST
BE PERMITTED COMPLETE FREEDOM, TO ATTEMPT TO UNIONIZE INDUSTRIES AND
BUSINESS, BECAUSE THEY OFFER THE BEST MEDIUM FOR REPRESENTATION OF
EMPLOYEES; (7) STRIKES, INDUSTRIAL STRIFE AND UNREST ARE THE INEVITABLE
RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF EMPLOYERS TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTS OF THEIR
EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY; (8) WHEN THESE
CONDITIONS EXIST THE MOVEMENT OF COMMERCE AMONG THE VARIOUS STATES MAY
BE AFFECTED AND IMPAIRED; (9) IF THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS
INTERFERED WITH, A DECREASE IN PURCHASING POWER MAY RESULT AND MAY LEAD
TO ECONOMIC DEPRESSION; AND (10) THAT THEREFORE AND THEREBY INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED. 

NOT ONLY IS THIS SOPHISTRY SPECIOUS AND FALLACIOUS, AND BEYOND THE
REALM OF ANY VALID LEGAL CONCEPT, BUT IT IS ESPECIALLY RIDICULOUS IN
THE LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS IN THIS CASE. 

WHEN IT IS SOUGHT TO APPLY IT HERE TO THIS CASE, THE GOVERNMENT IS
CONSTRAINED TO MAKE EVEN THESE ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS: 

(11) THAT THE DISCHARGE OF NINETEEN EMPLOYEES AND THE HOSTILITY OF
THE EMPLOYER TOWARD THE UNION MIGHT CAUSE OTHER EMPLOYEES TO BECOME
SUSPICIOUS OF AND DISSATISFIED WITH THEIR EMPLOYER; (12) UNREST MIGHT
BE CAUSED IN THE PLANT; (13) OTHER EMPLOYEES MIGHT JOIN THE UNION; (14)
MORE DISCHARGES MIGHT FOLLOW; (15) SUCH DISCHARGES MIGHT PRODUCE A
STRIKE; (16) RESPONDENT MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO OBTAIN NEW WORKERS TO
REPLACE STRIKERS; (17) RESPONDENT MIGHT NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FINISHED
PRODUCT ON HAND TO SUPPLY THE DEMANDS OF HIS CUSTOMERS DURING THE
STRIKE; (18) PRODUCTION OF MERCHANDISE MIGHT FALL BELOW DEMAND; (19)
THE AMOUNT OF RESPONDENT'S GOODS MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MIGHT
DECREASE; (20) SUCH DECREASE MIGHT SUFFICE TO "AFFECT THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE" IN MEN'S CLOTHING; AND (21) SUCH AN EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WOULD BE A "DIRECT" ONE. 

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE DIRECTLY BELIES SUCH HYPOTHESES.  RESPONDENT
DISCHARGED NINETEEN OF ITS EIGHT HUNDRED EMPLOYEES.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT THE GARMENTS UPON WHICH THEY WERE WORKING WERE DESTINED
TO BE SHIPPED TO CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE, RATHER THAN WITHIN, THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA.  THERE WAS AND HAS BEEN NO DISORDER, NO STRIFE, NO
INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT,
AND NO STRIKE RESULTING FROM THE DISCHARGE OF THESE WORKERS.  THE
ACTION OF RESPONDENT, UNDEFENDED IN THIS CASE, HAS NOT BURDENED,
OBSTRUCTED, OR AFFECTED THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NOR HAS IT
TENDED TO BURDEN, OBSTRUCT OR AFFECT THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
IT HAS NOT EVEN AFFECTED IN ANY WAY THE FLOW OF PRODUCTION IN
RESPONDENT'S OWN FACTORY, MUCH LESS THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
THE FLOW OF MEN'S CLOTHING INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

BUT THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS IT HAS THE RIGHT TO UTTERLY DISREGARD THE
FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THE PATENT ACTUALITY THAT THE ALLEGED UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES IN NO WISE BURDENED OR OBSTRUCTED INTERSTATE OR EVEN
INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  IT ARGUES THAT THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY IS AN
IMPORTANT NATIONAL INDUSTRY; THAT THE INDUSTRY WILL BE ABLE TO FUNCTION
BETTER AND WITH LESS STRIFE IF UNIONS ARE ENCOURAGED; THAT LABOR
DISPUTES BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES HAVE IN THE PAST CAUSED AND
WILL CONTINUE TO CAUSE STRIKES AND LABOR UNREST; AND THAT SUCH
RECURRENT CONTROVERSIES AND EVILS AFFECT PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND
THE FLOW OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY PREVENT AS WELL AS REMEDY SUCH
EVILS. 

EXACTLY THE SAME CONTENTION WAS MADE AND REJECTED IN THE CARTER
CASE. 

FIVE DIFFERENT CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS HAVE THUS FAR PASSED UPON
CASES INVOLVING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS ACT IS, UNDER THE COMMERCE
CLAUSE, APPLICABLE TO VARIOUS MANUFACTURING BUSINESSES.  WITHOUT A
DISSENTING VOICE THE PROPOSITION HAS BEEN REJECTED.  FOSTER BROTHERS
MFG. CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, CCA-4, 85 F.(2D) 984;
FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, CCA-6, 85
F.(2D) 391; PRATT V. STOUT, CCA-8, 85 F.(2D) 172; NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., CCA-5, 83 F.(2D) 998;
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO.,
CCA-2, 85 F.(2D) 1. 

THIS ACT VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN FOUR PARTICULARS: 

FIRST, SUBSECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF SEC. 8 ATTEMPT TO REGULATE THE
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH AN EMPLOYER MAY ENGAGE HIS WORKERS AND UNDER
WHICH HE MAY DISCHARGE THEM.  THIS ACTUALLY SUBSTITUTES MANAGEMENT BY
THE BOARD FOR THAT OF THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS. 

EVEN FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE EMPLOYEE, THESE SUBSECTIONS ARE AN
ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE WITH HIS RIGHTS.  MOREOVER,
THEY PLACE UNION EMPLOYEES IN A FAVORED STATUS OVER NON-UNION WORKERS
AS TO TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT AND ADVANCEMENT THEREIN.  CF. ROSENTHAL
ETTLINGER V. SCHLOSSBERG, 226 N.Y.S. 762. 

SECOND, SEC. 9(A) PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM DEALING INDIVIDUALLY
WITH HIS EMPLOYEES, AND FROM DEALING WITH MINORITY GROUPS OF HIS
EMPLOYEES, IN RESPECT OF RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OR OTHER CONDITIONS
OF EMPLOYMENT.  IT MAKES AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE MAJORITY GROUP AND THE
EMPLOYER, AS TO ALL CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, BINDING UPON ALL
INDIVIDUAL WORKERS AND UPON ALL MINORITY GROUPS, THEREBY DEPRIVING EACH
OF THEM OF HIS RIGHT TO MAKE HIS OWN TERMS WITH HIS EMPLOYER.  CF.
CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., SUPRA, P. 311. 

THIRD, SUBSECTION 5 OF SEC. 8 MAKES IT AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE FOR
AN EMPLOYER "TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF HIS EMPLOYEES, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9(A)." 

THE OLD NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SET UP UNDER THE TERMS OF THE
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT, AS WELL AS THE PRESENT NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, OPERATING UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, HAVE
UNIFORMLY AND CONSISTENTLY HELD IN NUMEROUS CASES THAT THIS
REQUIREMENT, THAT AN EMPLOYER COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN WITH HIS EMPLOYEES,
MEANS THAT THE EMPLOYER SHALL CONTINUE TO BARGAIN WITH HIS EMPLOYEES
UNTIL AN AGREEMENT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN REACHED. 

WITH THE INTENT OF THIS PROVISION THUS DISCLOSED, IT WILL BE SEEN
THAT THIS SECTION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT INTERFERES WITH
THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYER BY REQUIRING HIM TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTUAL
NEGOTIATIONS WITH PERSONS WITH WHOM HE MAY NOT CARE TO CONTRACT AND
COERCING HIM INTO AGREEING TO TERMS WHICH MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO
HIM. 

THE WORST FEATURE OF THIS SO-CALLED "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING" LIES IN
THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE BARGAINING BY BOTH PARTIES TO THE
CONTROVERSY.  THE EMPLOYER IS FORCED TO BARGAIN.  HE MUST RECEDE FROM
HIS ORIGINAL POSITION IN ORDER TO COMPROMISE WITH THE UNION DEMANDS;
AND THEN HE IS BOUND TO CARRY OUT HIS AGREEMENT.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
THE UNION CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO BARGAIN, EVEN IF THE EMPLOYER DESIRES
OR DEMANDS IT.  IT NEED NOT RETREAT FROM ITS ORIGINAL DEMANDS, HOWEVER
PREPOSTEROUS; AND IT AND THE EMPLOYEES IT REPRESENTS ARE NOT BOUND AND
CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO CARRY OUT ANY AGREEMENT IT MAKES. 

FOURTH, SUBSECTION 3 OF SEC. 8 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT AN EMPLOYER
MAY AGREE WITH THE MAJORITY OF HIS EMPLOYEES, THROUGH COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, TO EMPLOY ONLY UNION MEMBERS; WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME,
SECS. 7, 8, AND 9, MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR AN EMPLOYER TO AGREE TO EMPLOY
ONLY NON-UNION WORKERS.  THIS INVADES THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL WORKERS
AND EMPLOYERS BY PERMITTING UNIONS, THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF COMPULSORY
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, TO PRESCRIBE THAT NON-UNION EMPLOYEES SHALL JOIN
THEIR UNION AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO OBTAINING OR RETAINING THEIR
POSITIONS, AT THE SAME TIME MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES TO OBTAIN AN AGREEMENT FROM HIS OR THEIR
EMPLOYER NOT TO EMPLOY UNION WORKERS. 

CF. ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578, 589; ADAIR V. UNITED STATES,
208 U.S. 161; ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525; MOREHEAD V.
NEW YORK EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587; WOLFF V. KANSAS, 262 U.S. 522,
S.C., 267 U.S. 552.  DISTINGUISHING:  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY
CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548. 

THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE ACT IS TO ACCOMPLISH COMPULSORY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, BINDING UPON MINORITY EMPLOYEES; THIS BEING INVALID, THE
ENTIRE STATUTE MUST FALL. 

THE ACT GIVES TO THE BOARD, AND THE BOARD HAS ASSUMED, POWERS WHICH,
IF VALID AT ALL, MAY BE EXERCISED ONLY BY CONGRESS AND THE DULY
CONSTITUTED COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE ORDER OF THE BOARD REQUIRING THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES,
WITH BACK PAY, IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, BY ITS ORDERS OF MARCH 28, 1936,
REQUIRED THE RESPONDENT, FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING COMPANY, INC.,
TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCHARGING ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES OR OTHERWISE
DISCRIMINATING IN REGARD TO THE TENURE AND CONDITIONS OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT, AND FROM THREATENING SUCH ACTION, FOR THE REASON THAT SUCH
EMPLOYEES HAVE JOINED OR ASSISTED THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA OR OTHERWISE ENGAGED IN UNION ACTIVITY; FROM MAINTAINING
SURVEILLANCE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE LABOR ORGANIZATION AND OF THEIR
EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND FROM INTERFERING IN ANY MANNER
WITH, OR COERCING, ITS EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT TO SELF
ORGANIZATION AND REPRESENTATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION AS GUARANTEED IN SEC. 7 OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  THE ORDERS ALSO REQUIRED RESPONDENT
TO OFFER REINSTATEMENT TO CERTAIN DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES, TO MAKE GOOD
THEIR LOSS OF PAY, AND TO POST NOTICES FOR THIRTY DAYS THAT RESPONDENT
WOULD CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE PRACTICES RESTRAINED BY THE ORDERS. 
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REFUSED TO ENFORCE THE ORDERS, 85 F.(2D)
1, AND THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
UPON CHARGES THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD DISCHARGED CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
BECAUSE THEY HAD ENGAGED IN UNION ACTIVITIES.  THE BOARD ISSUED TWO
COMPLAINTS ALLEGING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  NOTICE OF HEARING WAS GIVEN.  RESPONDENT
APPEARED SPECIALLY AND MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS UPON THE GROUNDS
THAT THE ACT, AND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD, WERE IN
CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLES I AND III AND THE FIRST, FIFTH, SIXTH,
SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH AND THIRTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  RESERVING THESE OBJECTIONS,
RESPONDENT FILED ANSWERS DENYING ALL THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINTS
EXCEPT THAT RESPONDENT IS A VIRGINIA CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING MEN'S CLOTHING IN RICHMOND.  THE BOARD
OVERRULED THE OBJECTIONS TO ITS JURISDICTION AND THE VALIDITY OF THE
ACT.  FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESENTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS, AND
TO EXPEDITE THE PROCEEDINGS, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT ANNOUNCED AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE HEARINGS "THAT HE WOULD NOT CROSS-EXAMINE ANY OF THE
BOARD'S WITNESSES AND WOULD NOT OFFER ANY COUNTERVAILING EVIDENCE." 
THE BOARD RECEIVED EVIDENCE AND MADE ITS FINDINGS.  THERE WERE NUMEROUS
OBJECTIONS BY RESPONDENT TO THE COMPETENCY AND RELEVANCY OF CERTAIN
TESTIMONY. 

THE BOARD FOUND:  RESPONDENT, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, HAS ITS PLANT
AT RICHMOND, WHERE IT IS ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS AND
THE MANUFACTURE, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MEN'S CLOTHING.  THE
PRINCIPAL MATERIALS ARE WOOLEN AND WORSTED GOODS.  99.57 PER CENT. OF
THESE GOODS COME FROM STATES OTHER THAN VIRGINIA, 75 PER CENT. BEING
PURCHASED IN NEW YORK AND FABRICATED FOR THE MOST PART IN OTHER
STATES.  COTTON LININGS COME FROM SEVERAL SOUTHERN STATES.  PARTICULARS
AS TO THE SOURCES OF OTHER MATERIALS ARE SET FORTH.  OF THE GARMENTS
MANUFACTURED BY RESPONDENT, 82.8 PER CENT. ARE PURCHASED BY CUSTOMERS
OUTSIDE THE STATE, MAINLY BY DEPARTMENT STORES AND MEN'S CLOTHING
STORES IN THE LARGER CITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.  RESPONDENT
MAINTAINS A SALES OFFICE AND SHOWROOM IN NEW YORK CITY THROUGH WHICH 15
OR 20 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL SALES ARE MADE.  ORDERS ARE SENT TO THE
RICHMOND PLANT, THE GOODS BEING SOLD F.O.B. RICHMOND.  IN 1932, THE
VOLUME OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AMOUNTED TO $800,000 AND 80,000 UNITS,
INCREASING TO $1,750,000 AND 150,000 UNITS IN THE FIRST TEN MONTHS OF
1935. 

THE BOARD MADE ELABORATE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CLOTHING
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY AND ITS RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AMONG
THESE FINDINGS ARE THE FOLLOWING:  THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY IS AMONG
THE TWENTY MOST IMPORTANT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES IN THIS COUNTRY. 
FIFTY PER CENT. OF THE MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS ARE IN THE STATE OF
NEW YORK; MOST OF THE REMAINDER ARE IN PENNSYLVANIA, MARYLAND, NEW
JERSEY, ILLINOIS, MASSACHUSETTS, CALIFORNIA AND OHIO.  SINCE THE MEN'S
WEAR FABRICS ARE PRODUCED LARGELY IN THE NEW ENGLAND STATES, THE GOODS
MUST BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE MILLS ACROSS STATE LINES TO THE
FABRICATING ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE STATES ABOVE THE MANUFACTURED
CLOTHING IS SOLD THROUGHOUT THE NATION, ONLY ABOUT 48 PER CENT. OF THE
TOTAL SALES BEING MADE IN THE SEVEN STATES WHICH PRODUCE ABOUT 90 PER
CENT. OF THE TOTAL MEN'S CLOTHING.  THE FINDINGS DESCRIBE THE METHODS
OF SALES, THE NEW YORK MARKET BEING THE LARGEST IN THE COUNTRY.  THE
BOARD CONCLUDED:  "THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY IS THUS AN INDUSTRY
WHICH IS NEARLY ENTIRELY DEPENDENT IN ITS OPERATIONS UPON PURCHASES AND
SALES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND UPON INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THERE
IS A CONSTANT FLOW OF RAW WOOL FROM THE WESTERN STATES AND FOREIGN
COUNTRIES TO THE MILLS OF NEW ENGLAND WHERE IT IS TRANSFORMED INTO
MEN'S WEAR FABRICS, THENCE TO THE SPONGING AND SHRINKING PLANTS OF NEW
YORK AND PHILADELPHIA, THEN, JOINED BY THE OTHER NECESSARY RAW
MATERIALS, TO THE FABRICATING FACTORIES OF THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES
FOR MANUFACTURE INTO CLOTHING....  THE INDUSTRY ITSELF HAS NO DOUBT AS
TO ITS STATUS, FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK CLOTHING
MANUFACTURERS EXCHANGE, INC., WHICH REPRESENTS ABOUT 250 MANUFACTURERS
DOING 70 PER CENT. OF THE TOTAL BUSINESS IN THE NEW YORK MARKET, STATED
IN HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT THE INDUSTRY IS CONDUCTED AS AN INTERSTATE
BUSINESS AND IS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

THE BOARD ALSO MADE FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
HERE INVOLVED.  THE BOARD FOUND:  "THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION COMPOSED OF OVER 125,000 MEN AND WOMEN
EMPLOYED IN THE MEN'S AND BOYS' CLOTHING INDUSTRY....  THE PERIOD
BEFORE THE RECOGNITION BY THE EMPLOYERS OF THE AMALGAMATED WAS MARKED
BY LONG AND BITTER STRIKES.  IN 1921 THERE HAD BEEN A GENERAL STRIKE IN
NEW YORK CITY WHICH HAD LASTED FOR EIGHT MONTHS AND CAUSED LOSSES OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES.  A SIMILAR GENERAL
STRIKE IN NEW YORK IN 1924 LASTED FOR SIX WEEKS AND INVOLVED ALL OF THE
500 FIRMS IN THAT AREA AND THEIR 35,000 WORKERS.  THE WAGE LOSS TO THE
WORKERS WAS NEARLY $6,000,000, THE FINANCIAL LOSS TO THE MANUFACTURERS
RAN INTO THE MILLIONS....  THIS COSTLY INDUSTRIAL STRIFE RESULTED
FINALLY IN RECOGNITION OF THE AMALGAMATED BY THE EMPLOYERS....  THE NEW
YORK STRIKE OF 1924 WAS ENDED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COLLECTIVE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LEADING MANUFACTURERS AND THE AMALGAMATED WHICH
WAS SOON JOINED IN BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS IN THAT AREA.  FACTORIES IN
ROCHESTER, BALTIMORE, BOSTON, CINCINNATI, CLEVELAND, ST. LOUIS AND
PHILADELPHIA RECOGNIZED THE UNION AND ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH IT.
TODAY THE AMALGAMATED HAS COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS WITH CLOTHING
MANUFACTURERS AND CONTRACTORS EMPLOYING THE GREATER NUMBER OF THE
CLOTHING WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES.  THESE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS
HAVE BROUGHT PEACE TO THAT PORTION OF THE INDUSTRY THAT HAS ENTERED
SUCH AGREEMENTS....  SINCE THE SIGNING OF THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT FOR
THE NEW YORK AREA, THE NEW YORK CLOTHING MANUFACTURERS EXCHANGE, INC.
AND THE AMALGAMATED HAVE HANDLED JOINTLY A TOTAL OF 21,193 COMPLAINTS
AND DISPUTES.  IN ONLY 898 OF THESE CASES, OR SLIGHTLY OVER 4 PER
CENT., WAS A RESORT TO ARBITRATION REQUIRED BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO
AGREE.  OF THESE 898, 30 PER CENT. WERE SETTLED BY THE IMPARTIAL
CHAIRMAN ACTING AS A MEDIATOR; IN THE REMAINDER HE SAT AS AN ARBITRATOR
AND RENDERED A DECISION....  THE PRESIDENT OF THE NEW YORK CLOTHING
MANUFACTURERS EXCHANGE, INC....  HAS STATED THAT THE 'ORGANIZATION OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MACHINERY, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN IMPARTIAL
TRIBUNAL, AND THE FOUNDING OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ARE THE
OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS' IN THE INDUSTRY AND THAT THE AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS 'HAS BEEN PERHAPS THE LARGEST SINGLE CONTRIBUTING
FACTOR TO THE LASTING PEACE AND HARMONY THAT HAVE CHARACTERIZED THOSE
CLOTHING MARKETS WHERE THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA WAS
THE OTHER CONTRACTING PARTY TO THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT.'" 

WITH RESPECT TO UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES, THE BOARD FOUND THAT IN THE
SUMMER OF 1935 EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT HAD FORMED A LOCAL UNION OF THE
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA AND WERE SOLICITING MEMBERSHIP
THEREIN.  RESPONDENT'S MANAGEMENT "AT ONCE INDICATED HOSTILITY TO THE
UNION ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES AND DECLARED THAT IT WOULD NOT
PERMIT THEM TO JOIN THE AMALGAMATED."  STATEMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE RESPONDENT SHOWING HIS ANTAGONISM TO THE UNION WERE QUOTED BY THE
BOARD.  AT ONE TIME HE STATED TO A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES THAT HE WOULD
DISCHARGE EVERY ONE THAT ATTENDED THE UNION MEETING.  SIMILAR
STATEMENTS WERE MADE BY RESPONDENT'S SECRETARY.  RESPONDENT'S
MANAGEMENT "HAS MAINTAINED SURVEILLANCE OVER UNION MEETINGS AND
ACTIVITIES."  THE FINDINGS SET FORTH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DISCHARGE
OF EMPLOYEES.  THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THESE DISCHARGES WERE BECAUSE
OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE EMPLOYEES IN THE LABOR ORGANIZATION AND THEIR
ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH IT.  THE BOARD ALSO FOUND THAT
INTERFERENCE IN THE INDUSTRY WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES IN
JOINING AND ASSISTING LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND THE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE
PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HAD LED AND TENDS TO LEAD TO STRIKES
AND OTHER LABOR DISPUTES THAT BURDEN AND OBSTRUCT COMMERCE. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD BOTH AS TO THE NATURE OF RESPONDENT'S
BUSINESS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DISCHARGE OF ITS EMPLOYEES ARE
SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN OUR OPINION IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., ANTE, P. 1, WE HOLD THAT THE
OBJECTIONS RAISED BY RESPONDENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDITY OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ARE WITHOUT MERIT.  THE DECREES OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ARE REVERSED AND THE CAUSES ARE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING DISSENTING OPINION IN
THE CASES PRECEDING: 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER
AND I ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE DECISIONS JUST ANNOUNCED. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THESE CAUSES WERE RIGHTLY DECIDED BY THE THREE
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THAT THEIR JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
THE OPINIONS THERE GIVEN WITHOUT DISSENT ARE TERSE, WELL-CONSIDERED AND
SOUND.  THEY DISCLOSE THE MEANING ASCRIBED BY EXPERIENCED JUDGES TO
WHAT THIS COURT HAS OFTEN DECLARED, AND ARE SET OUT BELOW IN FULL. 

CONSIDERING THE FAR-REACHING IMPORT OF THESE DECISIONS, THE DEPARTURE
FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY RULED HERE, AND THE
EXTRAORDINARY POWER CONFIRMED TO A BOARD OF THREE,  FN1 THE OBLIGATION
TO PRESENT OUR VIEWS BECOMES PLAIN. 

THE COURT, AS WE THINK, DEPARTS FROM WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES
FOLLOWED IN SCHECHTER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495(MAY, 1935)
AND CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238(MAY, 1936).  UPON THE
AUTHORITY OF THOSE DECISIONS, THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS OF THE
FIFTH, SIXTH AND SECOND CIRCUITS IN THE CAUSES NOW BEFORE US HAVE HELD
THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES NOT EXTEND TO
RELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE,
AND THEREFORE THE ACT CONFERRED UPON THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NO AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF MATTERS COVERED BY THE QUESTIONED ORDERS. 
IN FOSTER BROS. MFG. CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 85 F.(2D)
984, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH CIRCUIT, HELD THE ACT
INAPPLICABLE TO MANUFACTURE AND EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT IF SO EXTENDED
IT WOULD BE INVALID.  SIX DISTRICT COURTS, ON THE AUTHORITY OF
SCHECHTER'S AND CARTER'S CASES, HAVE HELD THAT THE BOARD HAS NO
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE RELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES ENGAGED
IN LOCAL PRODUCTION.  FNA  NO DECISION OR JUDICIAL OPINION TO THE
CONTRARY HAS BEEN CITED, AND WE FIND NONE.  EVERY CONSIDERATION BROUGHT
FORWARD TO UPHOLD THE ACT BEFORE US WAS APPLICABLE TO SUPPORT THE ACTS
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN CAUSES DECIDED WITHIN TWO YEARS.  AND THE
LOWER COURTS RIGHTLY DEEMED THEM CONTROLLING. 

BY ITS TERMS THE LABOR ACT EXTENDS TO EMPLOYERS - LARGE AND SMALL -
UNLESS EXCLUDED BY DEFINITION,  FN2  AND DECLARES THAT IF ONE OF THESE
INTERFERES WITH, RESTRAINS, OR COERCES ANY EMPLOYEE REGARDING HIS LABOR
AFFILIATIONS, ETC., THIS SHALL BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. 
AND A "LABOR ORGANIZATION" MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND OR ANY
AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR PLAN WHICH EXISTS FOR
THE PURPOSE IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING
GRIEVANCES, LABOR DISPUTES, WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT OR
CONDITIONS OF WORK.  FNB 

THE THREE RESPONDENTS HAPPEN TO BE MANUFACTURING CONCERNS - ONE
LARGE, TWO RELATIVELY SMALL.  THE ACT IS NOW APPLIED TO EACH UPON
GROUNDS COMMON TO ALL.  OBVIOUSLY WHAT IS DETERMINED AS TO THESE
CONCERNS MAY GRAVELY AFFECT A MULTITUDE OF EMPLOYERS WHO ENGAGE IN A
GREAT VARIETY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISES - MERCANTILE, MANUFACTURING,
PUBLISHING, STOCK-RAISING, MINING, ETC.  IT PUTS INTO THE HANDS OF A
BOARD POWER OF CONTROL OVER PURELY LOCAL INDUSTRY BEYOND ANYTHING
HERETOFORE DEEMED PERMISSIBLE. 

                                 II. 

(NO. 419) CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (FIFTH CIRCUIT) OPINION JUNE 15,
1936, 83 F.(2D) 998 BEFORE FOSTER, SIBLEY, AND HUTCHESON, CIRCUIT
JUDGES 

"PER CURIAM.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS PETITIONED US TO
ENFORCE AN ORDER MADE BY IT, WHICH REQUIRES JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORPORATION, ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO REINSTATE
CERTAIN DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES IN ITS STEEL PLANT IN ALIQUIPPA, PA., AND
TO DO OTHER THINGS IN THAT CONNECTION. 

"THE PETITION MUST BE DENIED, BECAUSE, UNDER THE FACTS FOUND BY THE
BOARD AND SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE, THE BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER A
LABOR DISPUTE BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES TOUCHING THE DISCHARGE OF
LABORERS IN A STEEL PLANT WHO WERE ENGAGED ONLY IN MANUFACTURE.  THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT VEST IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO
REGULATE THE RELATION AS SUCH OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IN PRODUCTION OR
MANUFACTURE. 

"'ONE WHO PRODUCES OR MANUFACTURES A COMMODITY, SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD AND
SHIPPED BY HIM IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHETHER SUCH SALE AND SHIPMENT
WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDED OR NOT, HAS ENGAGED IN TWO DISTINCT AND
SEPARATE ACTIVITIES.  SO FAR AS HE PRODUCES OR MANUFACTURES A
COMMODITY, HIS BUSINESS IS PURELY LOCAL.  SO FAR AS HE SELLS AND SHIPS,
OR CONTRACTS TO SELL AND SHIP, THE COMMODITY TO CUSTOMERS IN ANOTHER
STATE, HE ENGAGES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN RESPECT OF THE FORMER, HE
IS SUBJECT ONLY TO REGULATION BY THE STATE; IN RESPECT OF THE LATTER,
TO REGULATION ONLY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  UTAH POWER & L. CO. V.
PFOST, 286 U.S. 165, 182.  PRODUCTION IS NOT COMMERCE BUT A STEP IN
PREPARATION FOR COMMERCE.  CHASSANIOL V. GREENWOOD, 291 U.S. 584-587. 

"'WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE WORD "COMMERCE" IS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE
PHRASE "INTERCOURSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRADE."  PLAINLY THE INCIDENTS
LEADING UP TO AND CULMINATING IN THE MINING OF COAL DO NOT CONSTITUTE
SUCH INTERCOURSE.  THE EMPLOYMENT OF MEN, THE FIXING OF THEIR WAGES,
HOURS OF LABOR AND WORKING CONDITIONS, THE BARGAINING IN RESPECT OF
THESE THINGS - WHETHER CARRIED ON SEPARATELY OR COLLECTIVELY - EACH AND
ALL CONSTITUTE INTERCOURSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRODUCTION, NOT OF
TRADE.  THE LATTER IS A THING APART FROM THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE, WHICH IN ALL PRODUCING OCCUPATIONS IS PURELY LOCAL IN
CHARACTER.  EXTRACTION OF COAL FROM THE MINE IS THE AIM AND THE
COMPLETED RESULT OF LOCAL ACTIVITIES.  COMMERCE IN THE COAL MINED IS
NOT BROUGHT INTO BEING BY FORCE OF THESE ACTIVITIES BUT BY
NEGOTIATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND CIRCUMSTANCES ENTIRELY APART FROM
PRODUCTION.  MINING BRINGS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF COMMERCE INTO
EXISTENCE.  COMMERCE DISPOSES OF IT.'  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298
U.S. 238, DECIDED MAY 18, 1936. 

"THAT THE EMPLOYER HAS A VERY LARGE BUSINESS, THE INTERRUPTION OF
WHICH BY A STRIKE OF EMPLOYEES WHICH MIGHT HAPPEN, AND THAT IN
CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH STRIKE PRODUCTION MIGHT BE STOPPED AND INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IN THE PRODUCTS AFFECTED, DOES NOT MAKE THE REGULATION OF THE
RELATION JUSTIFIED UNDER THE COMMERCE POWER OF CONGRESS, BECAUSE THE
POSSIBLE EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS TOO REMOTE TO WARRANT FEDERAL
INVASION OF THE STATE'S RIGHT TO REGULATE THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE
RELATION.  NOR IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE EMPLOYER IMPORTS PART OF HIS
RAW MATERIALS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND SELLS AND EXPORTS A LARGE PART
OF HIS PRODUCT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, WHICH IMPORTS AND EXPORTS WOULD
POSSIBLY BE STOPPED BY A POSSIBLE STRIKE.  THE EMPLOYERS' ENTIRE
BUSINESS THUS CONNECTED TOGETHER DOES NOT, AS RESPECTS FEDERAL POWER,
MAKE A CASE DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN WHICH IMPORTATION OF MATERIALS,
MANUFACTURE OF THEM, AND SALE AND EXPORT OF THE PRODUCT ARE CONDUCTED
BY THREE PERSONS.  THE EMPLOYER HERE BY DOING ALL THREE THINGS DOES NOT
ALTER THE RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL SPHERES OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS.  THE MAKING AND FABRICATION OF STEEL BY JONES & LAUGHLIN
STEEL CORPORATION IS PRODUCTION REGULABLE BY THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE CORPORATION ALSO ENGAGES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
REGULABLE BY CONGRESS IN BRINGING IN ITS RAW MATERIALS AND AGAIN IN
SELLING AND DELIVERING ITS PRODUCTS.  NO SPECIFIC PRESENT INTENT
APPEARS TO IMPEDE OR DESTROY INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY MEANS OF A STRIKE
IN A MANUFACTURING PLANT, OR OTHER LIKE DIRECT OBSTRUCTION TO OR BURDEN
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE ORDER WE ARE ASKED TO ENFORCE IS NOT SHOWN
TO BE ONE AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS. 
CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., SUPRA.    "THE PETITION IS DENIED." 

 III. 

(NOS. 420-421) CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH CIRCUIT) OPINION JUNE
30, 1936, 85 F.(2D) 391 BEFORE MOORMAN, HICKS, AND SIMONS, CIRCUIT
JUDGES. 

"PER CURIAM.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HAS FILED A PETITION
IN THIS COURT TO ENFORCE AN ORDER ISSUED BY IT IN PROCEEDINGS WHICH IT
INSTITUTED AGAINST THE FRUEHAUF TRAILER COMPANY.  THE ORDER DIRECTS THE
TRAILER COMPANY TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCHARGING OR THREATENING TO
DISCHARGE ANY OF ITS EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR ACTIVITIES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS FEDERAL LABOR UNION NO.
19,375, TO CEASE DISCOURAGING ITS EMPLOYEES FROM BECOMING MEMBERS OF
THAT UNION, TO OFFER TO CERTAIN OF ITS FORMER EMPLOYEES IMMEDIATE AND
FULL REINSTATEMENT IN THEIR FORMER POSITIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEIR
SENIORITY RIGHTS, TO MAKE SUCH EMPLOYEES WHOLE FOR ANY LOSSES OF PAY
THAT THEY HAVE SUFFERED BY REASON OF THEIR DISCHARGE BY PAYING THEM
WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE EARNED AS WAGES FROM THE DATES OF THEIR
DISCHARGES, AND TO POST NOTICES THROUGHOUT ITS DETROIT PLANT, IN
CONSPICUOUS PLACES, STATING THAT IT HAS CEASED AND DESISTED FROM
DISCHARGING OR THREATENING TO DISCHARGE ITS EMPLOYEES FOR JOINING THE
UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS FEDERAL LABOR UNION NO. 19,375.  THE FRUEHAUF
TRAILER COMPANY HAS FILED ITS PETITION SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER
AND PRAYING THAT THE COURT SET IT ASIDE.  THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE LABOR BOARD HAS BEEN FILED AND THE TWO PETITIONS HAVE BEEN
HEARD TOGETHER IN THIS COURT. 

"THE FRUEHAUF TRAILER COMPANY IS A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND IS ENGAGED IN THE
MANUFACTURE, ASSEMBLY, AND SALE OF AUTOMOBILE TRAILERS AT ITS PLANT IN
DETROIT, MICH.  THE MATERIAL AND PARTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND
PRODUCTION OF THE TRAILERS ARE SHIPPED TO THE PLANT.  AFTER THE
TRAILERS ARE MANUFACTURED, MANY OF THEM ARE SHIPPED TO OTHER STATES FOR
SALE AND USE.  THE ORDER IN QUESTION UNDERTAKES TO REGULATE AND CONTROL
THE TRAILER COMPANY'S RELATIONS AND DEALINGS WITH ITS EMPLOYEES ENGAGED
IN THE PRODUCTION AND MANUFACTURE OF TRAILERS AT THE COMPANY'S PLANT IN
DETROIT AND DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
TRAILER COMPANY IN THE PURCHASING AND TRANSPORTING TO ITS PLANT OF
MATERIALS AND PARTS FOR THE MANUFACTURE AND PRODUCTION OF TRAILERS OR
IN THE SHIPPING OR SELLING OF SUCH TRAILERS AFTER THEY ARE
MANUFACTURED.  IT WAS ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS
OF JULY 5, 1935, KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  (29
U.S.C.A., SEC. 151 ET SEQ.)  THE AUTHORITY FOR THE ACT IS CLAIMED UNDER
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.  SINCE THE ORDER IS DIRECTED
TO THE CONTROL AND REGULATION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TRAILER
COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES IN RESPECT TO THEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE
MANUFACTURE AND PRODUCTION OF TRAILERS AND DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT ANY
PHASE OF ANY INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN WHICH THE TRAILER COMPANY MAY BE
ENGAGED, AND SINCE, UNDER THE RULING OF CARTER V. CARTER COAL COMPANY,
298 U.S. 238, THE CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY OR POWER TO REGULATE OR
CONTROL SUCH RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TRAILER COMPANY AND ITS EMPLOYEES,
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE
ORDER.  SEE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORPORATION, 83 F.(2D) 998(C.C.A. 5), DECIDED JUNE 15, 1936. 

"THE PETITION OF THE BOARD IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AND THE ORDER IS
SET ASIDE." 

  IV. 

(NOS. 422-423) CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND CIRCUIT) OPINION JULY
13, 1936, 85 F.(2D) 1 BEFORE MANTON, SWAN, AND A. N. HAND, CIRCUIT
JUDGES. 

"PER CURIAM.  THE RESPONDENT, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION, IS A
MANUFACTURER OF MEN'S CLOTHING WITH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND ITS
FACTORY IN RICHMOND, VA.  PRACTICALLY ALL THE RAW MATERIALS USED ARE
BROUGHT FROM OTHER STATES DOWN INTO VIRGINIA WHERE RESPONDENT
MANUFACTURES THEM INTO MEN'S CLOTHING.  ABOUT 83% OF THE MANUFACTURED
PRODUCTS ARE SOLD F.O.B. RICHMOND, TO CUSTOMERS LOCATED IN STATES OTHER
THAN VIRGINIA. 

"TWO SETS OF CHARGES WERE FILED WITH PETITIONER'S LOCAL REGIONAL
DIRECTOR BY THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, A LABOR UNION
OF WORKERS IN THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY, IN WHICH IT WAS ALLEGED THAT
THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (29 U.S.C.A.,
SEC. 151 ET SEQ.) BY DISCHARGING FROM ITS EMPLOY AND DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST, 29 OUT OF 800 OF ITS EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE THEY HAD ENGAGED IN
UNION ACTIVITIES.  THE BOARD FILED COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 10(B) OF THE
ACT (29 U.S.C.A., SEC. 160(B)) AND AFTER A HEARING RESPONDENT WAS FOUND
TO HAVE VIOLATED THE ACT AND WAS ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. 

"PETITIONER'S THEORY IS THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BECAUSE OF THE SHIPMENT OF RAW MATERIALS TO IT FROM OTHER
STATES AND THE SHIPMENT OF ITS FINISHED PRODUCTS TO OTHER STATES, AND,
IN ADDITION, THAT THE FLOW OF COMMERCE DOCTRINE, AS EXEMPLIFIED IN
SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 196 U.S. 375, BRINGS THIS MANUFACTURER
WITHIN THE FEDERAL POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE.  RESPONDENT CONTENDS
THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AS APPLIED TO IT, IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREFORE INVALID AND THAT THE ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE
ITS PROVISIONS AGAINST IT IS ILLEGAL. 

"IT IS SHOWN THAT THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES COMPLAINED OF
OCCURRED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CLOTHING IN RICHMOND, VA.  NONE OF THE
WORKERS INVOLVED HAD TO DO WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE CLOTHING
AFTER ITS MANUFACTURE.  THEY WERE ENGAGED IN VARIOUS OPERATIONS IN THE
RICHMOND FACTORY. 

"THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND ITS EMPLOYEES IN THIS
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY WERE MERELY INCIDENTS OF PRODUCTION.  IN ITS
MANUFACTURING, RESPONDENT WAS IN NO WAY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
NOR DID ITS LABOR PRACTICES SO DIRECTLY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE AS
TO COME WITHIN THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO.,
298 U.S. 238; SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495. 
NO AUTHORITY WARRANTS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PERMIT THE REGULATION OF THE DEALINGS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS OR
EMPLOYEES WHEN ENGAGED IN THE PURELY LOCAL BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE. 

"THEREFORE THE ORDERS TO CEASE AND DESIST MAY NOT BE ENFORCED. 

"PETITIONS DENIED." 

                          V. 

IN EACH CAUSE THE LABOR BOARD FORMULATED AND THEN SUSTAINED A CHARGE
OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES TOWARDS PERSONS EMPLOYED ONLY IN PRODUCTION. 
IT ORDERED RESTORATION OF DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES TO FORMER POSITIONS WITH
PAYMENT FOR LOSSES SUSTAINED.  THESE ORDERS WERE DECLARED INVALID BELOW
UPON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENTS WHILE CARRYING ON PRODUCTION
OPERATIONS WERE NOT THEREBY ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THAT LABOR
PRACTICES IN THE COURSE OF SUCH OPERATIONS DID NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; CONSEQUENTLY RESPONDENTS' ACTIONS DID NOT COME
WITHIN CONGRESSIONAL POWER. 

RESPONDENT IN NO. 419 IS A LARGE, INTEGRATED MANUFACTURER OF IRON AND
STEEL PRODUCTS - THE FOURTH LARGEST IN THE UNITED STATES.  IT HAS TWO
PRODUCTION PLANTS IN PENNSYLVANIA WHERE RAW MATERIALS BROUGHT FROM
POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE ARE CONVERTED INTO FINISHED PRODUCTS, WHICH
ARE THEREAFTER DISTRIBUTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGHOUT MANY
STATES.  THE CORPORATION HAS ASSETS AMOUNTING TO $180,000,000, GROSS
INCOME $47,000,000, AND EMPLOYS 22,000 PEOPLE - 10,000 IN THE ALIQUIPPA
PLANT WHERE THE COMPLAINING EMPLOYEES WORKED.  SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO
ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES PRESENTLY IMPORTANT, THE ACTIVITIES OF THIS
CORPORATION, WHILE LARGE, DO NOT DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THOSE OF THE
OTHER RESPONDENTS AND VERY MANY SMALL PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTORS.  IT
HAS ATTAINED GREAT SIZE; OCCUPIES AN IMPORTANT PLACE IN BUSINESS; OWNS
AND OPERATES MINES OF ORE, COAL, AND LIME-STONE OUTSIDE PENNSYLVANIA,
THE OUTPUT OF WHICH, WITH OTHER RAW MATERIAL, MOVES TO THE PRODUCTION
PLANTS.  AT THE PLANTS THIS MOVEMENT ENDS.  HAVING COME TO REST THIS
MATERIAL REMAINS IN WAREHOUSES, STORAGE YARDS, ETC., OFTEN FOR MONTHS,
UNTIL THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE BEGINS.  AFTER THIS HAS BEEN
COMPLETED, THE FINISHED PRODUCTS GO INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE
DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES LABORED ONLY IN THE MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT. 
THEY TOOK NO PART IN THE TRANSPORTATION TO OR AWAY FROM THE PLANT; NOR
DID THEY PARTICIPATE IN ANY ACTIVITY WHICH PRECEDED OR FOLLOWED
MANUFACTURE. 

OUR CONCERN IS WITH THOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE COMMON TO THE THREE
ENTERPRISES.  SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AS ARE MERELY FORTUITOUS - SIZE,
CHARACTER OF PRODUCTS, ETC. - MAY BE PUT ON ONE SIDE.  THE WIDE SWEEP
OF THE STATUTE WILL MORE READILY APPEAR IF CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO
THE BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SMALLEST AND RELATIVELY LEAST
IMPORTANT - THE CLOTHING COMPANY.  IF THE ACT APPLIES TO THE RELATIONS
OF THAT COMPANY TO EMPLOYEES IN PRODUCTION, OF COURSE IT APPLIES TO THE
LARGER RESPONDENTS WITH LIKE BUSINESS ELEMENTS ALTHOUGH THE AFFAIRS OF
THE LATTER MAY PRESENT OTHER CHARACTERISTICS.  THOUGH DIFFERING IN SOME
RESPECTS, ALL RESPONDENTS PROCURE RAW MATERIALS OUTSIDE THE STATE WHERE
THEY MANUFACTURE, FABRICATE WITHIN AND THEN SHIP BEYOND THE STATE. 

IN NOS. 420-21 THE RESPONDENT, MICHIGAN CORPORATION, MANUFACTURES
COMMERCIAL TRAILERS FOR AUTOMOBILES FROM RAW MATERIALS BROUGHT FROM
OUTSIDE THAT STATE, AND THEREAFTER SELLS THESE IN MANY STATES.  IT HAS
A SINGLE MANUFACTURING PLANT AT DETROIT AND ANNUAL RECEIPTS AROUND
$3,000,000; 900 PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYED. 

IN NOS. 422-23 THE RESPONDENT IS A VIRGINIA CORPORATION ENGAGED IN
MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTING MEN'S CLOTHING.  IT HAS A SINGLE PLANT
AND CHIEF OFFICE AT RICHMOND, ANNUAL BUSINESS AMOUNTING PERHAPS TO
$2,000,000, EMPLOYS 800, BRINGS IN ALMOST ALL RAW MATERIAL FROM OTHER
STATES AND SHIPS THE OUTPUT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THERE ARE SOME
3,300 SIMILAR PLANTS FOR MANUFACTURING CLOTHING IN THE UNITED STATES,
WHICH TOGETHER EMPLOY 150,000 PERSONS AND ANNUALLY PUT OUT PRODUCTS
WORTH $800,000,000. 

                                 VI. 

THE CLOTHING COMPANY IS A TYPICAL SMALL MANUFACTURING CONCERN WHICH
PRODUCES LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF ONE PER CENT OF THE MEN'S CLOTHING
PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES AND EMPLOYS 800 OF THE 150,000 WORKMEN
ENGAGED THEREIN.  IF CLOSED TODAY, THE ULTIMATE EFFECT ON COMMERCE IN
CLOTHING OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE NEGLIGIBLE.  IT STANDS ALONE, IS NOT
SEEKING TO ACQUIRE A MONOPOLY OR TO RESTRAIN TRADE.  THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE OF A STRIKE BY ITS EMPLOYEES AT ANY TIME OR THAT ONE IS NOW
THREATENED, AND NOTHING TO INDICATE THE PROBABLE RESULT IF ONE SHOULD
OCCUR. 

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LABOR BOARD'S PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS COMPANY
WILL INDICATE THE AMBIT OF THE ACT AS PRESENTLY CONSTRUED. 

SEPTEMBER 28, 1935, THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER SEC. 10(B) OF THE NATIONAL RELATIONS ACT,  FN3
FILED WITH THE BOARD A "CHARGE" STATING THAT THE CLOTHING COMPANY HAD
ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT - SEC.
8(1)(3) - IN THAT IT HAD, ON STATED DAYS IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, 1935,
UNJUSTIFIABLY DISCHARGED, DEMOTED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST SOME TWENTY
NAMED MEMBERS OF THAT UNION AND, IN OTHER WAYS, HAD RESTRAINED,
INTERFERED WITH AND COERCED EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR RIGHT OF
FREE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  AND FURTHER
"THAT SAID LABOR PRACTICES ARE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SAID ACT." 

THIS "CHARGE" CONTAINED NO DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS, NO
WORD CONCERNING ANY STRIKE AGAINST IT PAST, PRESENT OR THREATENED.  THE
NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED OR HOW MANY OF THESE HAD JOINED THE UNION IS
NOT DISCLOSED. 

THEREUPON THE BOARD ISSUED A "COMPLAINT" WHICH RECITED THE
PARTICULARS OF THE "CHARGE," ALLEGED INCORPORATION OF THE COMPANY IN
VIRGINIA, AND OWNERSHIP OF A PLANT AT RICHMOND WHERE IT IS CONTINUOUSLY
ENGAGED IN THE "PRODUCTION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MEN'S CLOTHING";
THAT MATERIAL IS BROUGHT FROM OTHER STATES AND MANUFACTURED INTO
CLOTHING, WHICH IS SOLD AND SHIPPED TO MANY STATES, ETC., - "ALL OF
AFORESAID CONSTITUTING A CONTINUOUS FLOW OF COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES."  ALSO THAT WHILE OPERATING THE RICHMOND PLANT THE CLOTHING
COMPANY DISCHARGED, DEMOTED, LAID OFF OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST SOME
TWENTY PERSONS "EMPLOYED IN PRODUCTION AT THE SAID PLANT ...  FOR THE
REASON THAT ALL OF THE SAID EMPLOYEES, AND EACH OF THEM, JOINED AND
ASSISTED A LABOR ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS
OF AMERICA, AND ENGAGED IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND OTHER MUTUAL AID AND
PROTECTION," ETC.  FURTHER THAT THE COMPANY CIRCULATED AMONG ITS
EMPLOYEES AND UNDERTOOK TO COERCE THEM TO SIGN A WRITING EXPRESSING
SATISFACTION WITH CONDITIONS; INDUCED SOME MEMBERS OF THE UNION TO
WITHDRAW; DID OTHER SIMILAR THINGS, ETC. - ALL OF WHICH AMOUNTED TO
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
8(1)(3)(4)  FN4  AND SEC. 2(6)(7)  FN5  OF THE LABOR ACT.  "THE
AFORESAID UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES OCCUR IN COMMERCE AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES, AND ON THE BASIS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE AFORESAID PLANT AND
OTHERS IN THE SAME AND OTHER INDUSTRIES, BURDEN AND OBSTRUCT SUCH
COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW THEREOF AND HAVE LED AND TEND TO LEAD TO
LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING SUCH COMMERCE AND THE FREE
FLOW THEREOF." 

THE COMPLAINT SAYS NOTHING CONCERNING ANY STRIKE AGAINST THE CLOTHING
COMPANY PAST, PRESENT OR THREATENED; THERE IS NO ALLEGATION CONCERNING
THE NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED, HOW MANY JOINED THE UNION, OR THE VALUE
OF THE OUTPUT.    THE RESPONDENT FILED A SPECIAL APPEARANCE OBJECTING
TO THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, WHICH WAS OVERRULED; ALSO AN ANSWER
ADMITTING THE DISCHARGE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES, BUT OTHERWISE IT
GENERALLY DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE "COMPLAINT." 

THEREUPON THE BOARD DEMANDED ACCESS TO THE COMPANY'S PRIVATE RECORDS
OF ACCOUNTS, DISCLOSURE OF THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL INVESTED BY ITS
PRIVATE OWNERS, THE NAMES OF ALL OF ITS EMPLOYEES, ITS PAYROLLS, THE
AMOUNTS AND CHARACTER OF ALL PURCHASES AND FROM WHOM MADE, THE AMOUNTS
OF SALES AND TO WHOM MADE, INCLUDING THE NUMBER AND KIND OF UNITS, THE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE PLANT DURING EIGHT YEARS, THE NAMES AND
ADDRESSES OF THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY, THE NAMES AND
ADDRESSES OF ITS SALESMEN, THE STOCK OWNERSHIP OF THE COMPANY, THE
AFFILIATION, IF ANY, WITH OTHER COMPANIES, AND THE FORMER OCCUPATIONS
AND BUSINESSES OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS. 

DURING HEARINGS HELD AT RICHMOND AND WASHINGTON, UNFETTERED BY RULES
OF EVIDENCE, IT RECEIVED A MASS OF TESTIMONY - LARGELY IRRELEVANT. 
MUCH RELATED TO THE CHARACTER OF RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS, GENERAL METHODS
USED IN THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY, THE NUMBERS EMPLOYED AND THE
GENERAL EFFECT OF STRIKES THEREIN.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE
DISCHARGE OR DEMOTION OF THE SPECIFIED EMPLOYEES WERE BROUGHT OUT. 

FOLLOWING THIS THE BOARD FOUND - 

THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES RANKS SIXTEENTH IN
THE NUMBER OF WAGE EARNERS EMPLOYED, WITH MORE THAN 3,000 FIRMS AND
150,000 WORKERS ENGAGED.  THE STEPS IN THE TYPICAL PROCESS OF
MANUFACTURE ARE DESCRIBED.  RAW MATERIAL IS BROUGHT IN FROM MANY
STATES, AND AFTER FABRICATION THE GARMENTS ARE SOLD AND DELIVERED
THROUGH CANVASSERS AND RETAILERS.  "THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY IS THUS
AN INDUSTRY WHICH IS NEARLY ENTIRELY DEPENDENT IN ITS OPERATIONS UPON
PURCHASES AND SALES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND UPON INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION." 

THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA IS A LABOR ORGANIZATION
COMPOSED OF OVER 125,000 MEN AND WOMEN EMPLOYED IN MAKING CLOTHING. 
MEMBERS ARE ORGANIZED IN LOCAL UNIONS.  BEFORE RECOGNITION OF THIS
UNION BY EMPLOYERS LONG AND BITTER STRIKES OCCURRED, SOME OF WHICH ARE
DESCRIBED.  THE UNION HAS STRIVEN CONSISTENTLY TO IMPROVE THE GENERAL
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF MEMBERS.  BENEFITS THAT FLOW FROM
RECOGNIZING AND CO-OPERATING WITH IT ARE REALIZED BY MANUFACTURERS. 

DESCRIPTION IS GIVEN OF THE CLOTHING COMPANY'S OPERATIONS, THE
SOURCES OF ITS RAW MATERIAL (NEARLY ALL OUTSIDE VIRGINIA), AND THE
METHOD USED TO DISPOSE OF ITS OUTPUT.  EIGHTY-TWO PER CENT IS SOLD TO
CUSTOMERS BEYOND VIRGINIA.  IT IS AMONG THE FIFTY LARGEST FIRMS IN THE
INDUSTRY, AND AMONG THE TEN OF THAT GROUP PAYING THE LOWEST AVERAGE
WAGE. 

IN THE SUMMER OF 1935 THE EMPLOYEES AT THE RICHMOND PLANT FORMED A
LOCAL OF THE AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS AND SOLICITED MEMBERSHIPS. 
THE MANAGEMENT AT ONCE INDICATED OPPOSITION AND DECLARED IT WOULD NOT
PERMIT EMPLOYEES TO JOIN.  HOSTILE ACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
DISCHARGE OR DEMOTION OF COMPLAINING EMPLOYEES ARE DESCRIBED.  IT IS
SAID ALL WERE DISCHARGED OR DEMOTED BECAUSE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP.  AND
FURTHER THAT "INTERFERENCE BY EMPLOYERS IN THE MEN'S CLOTHING INDUSTRY
WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF EMPLOYEES IN JOINING AND ASSISTING LABOR
ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING HAS LED AND TENDS TO LEAD TO STRIKES AND OTHER LABOR
DISPUTES THAT BURDEN AND OBSTRUCT COMMERCE AND THE FREE FLOW THEREOF. 
IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO ORGANIZE
FREELY AND THE EMPLOYERS HAVE BEEN WILLING TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY,
STRIKES AND INDUSTRIAL UNREST HAVE GRADUALLY DISAPPEARED, AS SHOWN IN
FINDING 19.  BUT WHERE THE EMPLOYER HAS TAKEN THE CONTRARY POSITION,
STRIKES HAVE ENSUED THAT HAVE RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL OR TOTAL
CESSATION OF PRODUCTION IN THE FACTORIES INVOLVED AND OBSTRUCTION TO
AND BURDEN UPON THE FLOW OF RAW MATERIALS AND FINISHED GARMENTS IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE." 

THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO JOINED THE UNION DOES NOT APPEAR; THE
GENERAL ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYEES TOWARDS THE UNION OR THE COMPANY IS NOT
DISCLOSED; THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ARE NOT STATED - WHETHER AT WILL, BY
THE DAY OR BY THE MONTH.  WHAT THE LOCAL CHAPTER WAS ESPECIALLY SEEKING
AT THE TIME WE DO NOT KNOW. 

IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT, EITHER PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE
"COMPLAINT," THERE HAS BEEN ANY STRIKE, DISORDER OR INDUSTRIAL STRIFE
AT RESPONDENT'S FACTORY, OR ANY INTERFERENCE WITH OR STOPPAGE OF
PRODUCTION OR SHIPMENT OF ITS MERCHANDISE.  NOR THAT ALLEGED UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES AT ITS PLANT HAD MATERIALLY AFFECTED MANUFACTURE, SALE
OR DISTRIBUTION; OR MATERIALLY AFFECTED, BURDENED OR OBSTRUCTED THE
FLOW OF PRODUCTS; OR AFFECTED, BURDENED OR OBSTRUCTED THE FLOW OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, OR TENDED TO DO SO. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE CLOTHING COMPANY HAD DISCRIMINATED IN
RESPECT TO TENURE AND EMPLOYMENT AND THEREBY HAD DISCOURAGED MEMBERSHIP
IN THE UNION; THAT IT HAD INTERFERED WITH, RESTRAINED AND COERCED ITS
EMPLOYEES IN VIOLATION OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SEC. 7 OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS ACT; THAT THESE ACTS OCCURRED IN THE COURSE AND CONDUCT
OF COMMERCE AMONG THE STATES, IMMEDIATELY AFFECT EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
THE COURSE AND CONDUCT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND TEND TO LEAD TO
LABOR DISPUTES BURDENING AND OBSTRUCTING SUCH COMMERCE AND THE FREE
FLOW THEREOF. 

AN ORDER FOLLOWED, MARCH 28, 1936, WHICH COMMANDED IMMEDIATE
REINSTATEMENT OF EIGHT DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES AND PAYMENT OF THEIR
LOSSES; ALSO THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCHARGING
OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF CONNECTIONS WITH THE
UNION, SHOULD POST NOTICES, ETC.  ON THE SAME DAY THE BOARD FILED A
PETITION ASKING ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS (SECOND CIRCUIT) AT NEW YORK, WHICH WAS DENIED JULY
13, 1936. 

                                 VII. 

THE PRECISE QUESTION FOR US TO DETERMINE IS WHETHER IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED CONGRESS HAS POWER TO AUTHORIZE WHAT THE LABOR
BOARD COMMANDED THE RESPONDENTS TO DO.  STATED OTHERWISE, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HERE EXISTING COULD CONGRESS BY STATUTE DIRECT WHAT THE
BOARD HAS ORDERED?  GENERAL DISQUISITIONS CONCERNING THE ENACTMENT ARE
OF MINOR, IF ANY, IMPORTANCE.  CIRCUMSTANCES NOT TREATED AS ESSENTIAL
TO THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE BOARD MAY, OF COURSE, BE DISREGARDED. 
THE RECORD IN NOS. 422-23 - A TYPICAL CASE - PLAINLY PRESENTS THESE
ESSENTIALS AND WE MAY PROPERLY BASE FURTHER DISCUSSION UPON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES THERE DISCLOSED. 

A RELATIVELY SMALL CONCERN CAUSED RAW MATERIAL TO BE SHIPPED TO ITS
PLANT AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, CONVERTED THIS INTO CLOTHING, AND
THEREAFTER SHIPPED THE PRODUCT TO POINTS OUTSIDE THE STATE.  A LABOR
UNION SOUGHT MEMBERS AMONG THE EMPLOYEES AT THE PLANT AND OBTAINED
SOME.  THE COMPANY'S MANAGEMENT OPPOSED THIS EFFORT, AND IN ORDER TO
DISCOURAGE IT DISCHARGED EIGHT WHO HAD BECOME MEMBERS.  THE BUSINESS OF
THE COMPANY IS SO SMALL THAT TO CLOSE ITS FACTORY WOULD HAVE NO DIRECT
OR MATERIAL EFFECT UPON THE VOLUME OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN CLOTHING. 
THE NUMBER OF OPERATIVES WHO JOINED THE UNION IS NOT DISCLOSED; THE
WISHES OF OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE NOT SHOWN; PROBABILITY OF A STRIKE IS NOT
FOUND. 

THE ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE BOARD AFFIRMS:  "THUS THE VALIDITY OF
ANY SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE PREVENTIVE MEASURES OF THIS ACT DEPENDS
UPON WHETHER INDUSTRIAL STRIFE RESULTING FROM THE PRACTICES IN THE
PARTICULAR ENTERPRISE UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD BE OF THE CHARACTER
WHICH FEDERAL POWER COULD CONTROL IF IT OCCURRED.  IF STRIFE IN THAT
ENTERPRISE COULD BE CONTROLLED, CERTAINLY IT COULD BE PREVENTED." 

MANIFESTLY THAT VIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER WOULD EXTEND IT INTO
ALMOST EVERY FIELD OF HUMAN INDUSTRY.  WITH STRIKING LUCIDITY, FIFTY
YEARS AGO, KIDD V. PEARSON, 128 U.S. 1, 21, DECLARED: "IF IT BE HELD
THAT THE TERM (COMMERCE WITH FOREIGN NATIONS AND AMONG THE SEVERAL
STATES) INCLUDES THE REGULATION OF ALL SUCH MANUFACTURES AS ARE
INTENDED TO BE THE SUBJECT OF COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS IN THE FUTURE, IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY THAT IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE ALL PRODUCTIVE
INDUSTRIES THAT CONTEMPLATE THE SAME THING.  THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT
CONGRESS WOULD BE INVESTED, TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATES, WITH THE
POWER TO REGULATE, NOT ONLY MANUFACTURES, BUT ALSO AGRICULTURE,
HORTICULTURE, STOCK RAISING, DOMESTIC FISHERIES, MINING - IN SHORT,
EVERY BRANCH OF HUMAN INDUSTRY."  THIS DOCTRINE FOUND FULL APPROVAL IN
UNITED STATES V. E.C. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1, 12, 13; SCHECHTER POULTRY
CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., SUPRA,
WHERE THE AUTHORITIES ARE COLLECTED AND PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE HERE ARE
DISCUSSED. 

IN KNIGHT'S CASE CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, SAID:
"DOUBTLESS THE POWER TO CONTROL THE MANUFACTURE OF A GIVEN THING
INVOLVES IN A CERTAIN SENSE THE CONTROL OF ITS DISPOSITION, BUT THIS IS
A SECONDARY AND NOT THE PRIMARY SENSE; AND ALTHOUGH THE EXERCISE OF
THAT POWER MAY RESULT IN BRINGING THE OPERATION OF COMMERCE INTO PLAY,
IT DOES NOT CONTROL IT, AND AFFECTS IT ONLY INCIDENTALLY AND
INDIRECTLY.  COMMERCE SUCCEEDS TO MANUFACTURE, AND IS NOT A PART OF IT
...  IT IS VITAL THAT THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE COMMERCIAL POWER AND OF
THE POLICE POWER, AND THE DELIMITATION BETWEEN THEM, HOWEVER SOMETIMES
PERPLEXING, SHOULD ALWAYS BE RECOGNIZED AND OBSERVED, FOR WHILE THE ONE
FURNISHES THE STRONGEST BOND OF UNION, THE OTHER IS ESSENTIAL TO THE
PRESERVATION OF THE AUTONOMY OF THE STATES AS REQUIRED BY OUR DUAL FORM
OF GOVERNMENT; AND ACKNOWLEDGED EVILS, HOWEVER GRAVE AND URGENT THEY
MAY APPEAR TO BE, HAD BETTER BE BORNE, THAN THE RISK BE RUN, IN THE
EFFORT TO SUPPRESS THEM, OF MORE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES BY RESORT TO
EXPEDIENTS OF EVEN DOUBTFUL CONSTITUTIONALITY." 

IN SCHECHTER'S CASE WE SAID:  "IN DETERMINING HOW FAR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MAY GO IN CONTROLLING INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS UPON THE
GROUND THAT THEY 'AFFECT' INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THERE IS A NECESSARY AND
WELL-ESTABLISHED DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS.  THE
PRECISE LINE CAN BE DRAWN ONLY AS INDIVIDUAL CASES ARISE, BUT THE
DISTINCTION IS CLEAR IN PRINCIPLE  ... BUT WHERE THE EFFECT OF
INTRASTATE TRANSACTIONS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS MERELY INDIRECT,
SUCH TRANSACTIONS REMAIN WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF STATE POWER.  IF THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE WERE CONSTRUED TO REACH ALL ENTERPRISES AND
TRANSACTIONS WHICH COULD BE SAID TO HAVE AN INDIRECT EFFECT UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY WOULD EMBRACE PRACTICALLY
ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PEOPLE AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OVER
ITS DOMESTIC CONCERNS WOULD EXIST ONLY BY SUFFERANCE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.  INDEED, ON SUCH A THEORY, EVEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
STATE'S COMMERCIAL FACILITIES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL." 

CARTER'S CASE DECLARED - "WHETHER THE EFFECT OF A GIVEN ACTIVITY OR
CONDITION IS DIRECT OR INDIRECT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO DETERMINE.  THE
WORD 'DIRECT' IMPLIES THAT THE ACTIVITY OR CONDITION INVOKED OR BLAMED
SHALL OPERATE PROXIMATELY - NOT MEDIATELY, REMOTELY, OR COLLATERALLY -
TO PRODUCE THE EFFECT.  IT CONNOTES THE ABSENCE OF AN EFFICIENT
INTERVENING AGENCY OR CONDITION.  AND THE EXTENT OF THE EFFECT BEARS NO
LOGICAL RELATION TO ITS CHARACTER.  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A DIRECT
AND AN INDIRECT EFFECT TURNS, NOT UPON THE MAGNITUDE OF EITHER THE
CAUSE OR THE EFFECT, BUT ENTIRELY UPON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EFFECT
HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT.  IF THE PRODUCTION BY ONE MAN OF A SINGLE TON
OF COAL INTENDED FOR INTERSTATE SALE AND SHIPMENT, AND ACTUALLY SO SOLD
AND SHIPPED, AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE INDIRECTLY, THE EFFECT DOES
NOT BECOME DIRECT BY MULTIPLYING THE TONNAGE, OR INCREASING THE NUMBER
OF MEN EMPLOYED, OR ADDING TO THE EXPENSE OR COMPLEXITIES OF THE
BUSINESS, OR BY ALL COMBINED." 

ANY EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY THE DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES SHOWN
HERE, WOULD BE INDIRECT AND REMOTE IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE, AS
CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS WILL SHOW.  IN NO. 419 TEN MEN OUT OF TEN
THOUSAND WERE DISCHARGED; IN THE OTHER CASES ONLY A FEW.  THE IMMEDIATE
EFFECT IN THE FACTORY MAY BE TO CREATE DISCONTENT AMONG ALL THOSE
EMPLOYED AND A STRIKE MAY FOLLOW, WHICH, IN TURN, MAY RESULT IN
REDUCING PRODUCTION, WHICH ULTIMATELY MAY REDUCE THE VOLUME OF GOODS
MOVING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BY THIS CHAIN OF INDIRECT AND
PROGRESSIVELY REMOTE EVENTS WE FINALLY REACH THE EVIL WITH WHICH IT IS
SAID THE LEGISLATION UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDERTAKES TO DEAL.  A MORE
REMOTE AND INDIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR A MORE
DEFINITE INVASION OF THE POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES IS DIFFICULT, IF
NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO IMAGINE. 

THE CONSTITUTION STILL RECOGNIZES THE EXISTENCE OF STATES WITH
INDESTRUCTIBLE POWERS; THE TENTH AMENDMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO PUT THEM
BEYOND CONTROVERSY. 

WE ARE TOLD THAT CONGRESS MAY PROTECT THE "STREAM OF COMMERCE" AND
THAT ONE WHO BUYS RAW MATERIAL WITHOUT THE STATE, MANUFACTURES IT
THEREIN, AND SHIPS THE OUTPUT TO ANOTHER STATE IS IN THAT STREAM. 
THEREFORE IT IS SAID HE MAY BE PREVENTED FROM DOING ANYTHING WHICH MAY
INTERFERE WITH ITS FLOW. 

THIS, TOO, GOES BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS HERETOFORE
ENFORCED.  IF A MAN RAISES CATTLE AND REGULARLY DELIVERS THEM TO A
CARRIER FOR INTERSTATE SHIPMENT, MAY CONGRESS PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS
UNDER WHICH HE MAY EMPLOY OR DISCHARGE HELPERS ON THE RANCH?  THE
PRODUCTS OF A MINE PASS DAILY INTO INTERSTATE COMMERCE; MANY THINGS ARE
BROUGHT TO IT FROM OTHER STATES.  ARE THE OWNERS AND THE MINERS WITHIN
THE POWER OF CONGRESS IN RESPECT OF THE MINERS' TENURE AND DISCHARGE? 
MAY A MILL OWNER BE PROHIBITED FROM CLOSING HIS FACTORY OR
DISCONTINUING HIS BUSINESS BECAUSE SO TO DO WOULD STOP THE FLOW OF
PRODUCTS TO AND FROM HIS PLANT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE?  MAY EMPLOYEES
IN A FACTORY BE RESTRAINED FROM QUITTING WORK IN A BODY BECAUSE THIS
WILL CLOSE THE FACTORY AND THEREBY STOP THE FLOW OF COMMERCE?  MAY
ARSON OF A FACTORY BE MADE A FEDERAL OFFENSE WHENEVER THIS WOULD
INTEREFERE WITH SUCH FLOW?  IF THE BUSINESS CANNOT CONTINUE WITH THE
EXISTING WAGE SCALE, MAY CONGRESS COMMAND A REDUCTION?  IF THE RULING
OF THE COURT JUST ANNOUNCED IS ADHERED TO THESE QUESTIONS SUGGEST SOME
OF THE PROBLEMS CERTAIN TO ARISE.    AND IF THIS THEORY OF A CONTINUOUS
"STREAM OF COMMERCE" AS NOW DEFINED IS CORRECT, WILL IT BECOME THE DUTY
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HEREAFTER TO SUPPRESS EVERY STRIKE WHICH BY
POSSIBILITY MAY CAUSE A BLOCKADE IN THAT STREAM?  IN RE DEBS, 158 U.S.
564.  MOREOVER, SINCE CONGRESS HAS INTERVENED, ARE LABOR RELATIONS
BETWEEN MOST MANUFACTURERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES REMOVED FROM ALL CONTROL
BY THE STATE?  OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & N. CO. V. WASHINGTON, 270 U.S.
87(1926). 

TO THIS ARGUMENT ARKADELPHIA MILLING CO. V. ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN R.
CO., 249 U.S. 134, 150, AFFORDS AN ADEQUATE REPLY.  NO SUCH CONTINUOUS
STREAM IS SHOWN BY THESE RECORDS AS THAT WHICH COUNSEL ASSUME. 

THERE IS NO GROUND ON WHICH REASONABLY TO HOLD THAT REFUSAL BY A
MANUFACTURER, WHOSE RAW MATERIALS COME FROM STATES OTHER THAN THAT OF
HIS FACTORY AND WHOSE PRODUCTS ARE REGULARLY CARRIED TO OTHER STATES,
TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH EMPLOYEES IN HIS MANUFACTURING PLANT,
DIRECTLY AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN SUCH BUSINESS, THERE IS NOT
ONE BUT TWO DISTINCT MOVEMENTS OR STREAMS IN INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  THE FIRST BRINGS IN RAW MATERIAL AND THERE ENDS.  THEN
FOLLOWS MANUFACTURE, A SEPARATE AND LOCAL ACTIVITY.  UPON COMPLETION OF
THIS, AND NOT BEFORE, THE SECOND DISTINCT MOVEMENT OR STREAM IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEGINS AND THE PRODUCTS GO TO OTHER STATES.  SUCH
IS THE COMMON COURSE FOR SMALL AS WELL AS LARGE INDUSTRIES.  IT IS
UNREASONABLE AND UNPRECEDENTED TO SAY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE CONFERS UPON
CONGRESS POWER TO GOVERN RELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES IN
THESE LOCAL ACTIVITIES.  STOUT V. PRATT, 12 F.SUPP.  864.  IN
SCHECHTER'S CASE WE CONDEMNED AS UNAUTHORIZED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
ASSERTION OF FEDERAL POWER IN RESPECT OF COMMODITIES WHICH HAD COME TO
REST AFTER INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  AND, IN CARTER'S CASE, WE HELD
CONGRESS LACKED POWER TO REGULATE LABOR RELATIONS IN RESPECT OF
COMMODITIES BEFORE INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAS BEGUN. 

IT IS GRAVELY STATED THAT EXPERIENCE TEACHES THAT IF AN EMPLOYER
DISCOURAGES MEMBERSHIP IN "ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND" "IN WHICH
EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE, AND WHICH EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE IN WHOLE OR IN
PART OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES, LABOR DISPUTES,
WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT OR CONDITIONS OF WORK,"
DISCONTENT MAY FOLLOW AND THIS IN TURN MAY LEAD TO A STRIKE, AND AS THE
OUTCOME OF THE STRIKE THERE MAY BE A BLOCK IN THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  THEREFORE CONGRESS MAY INHIBIT THE DISCHARGE.  WHATEVER
EFFECT ANY CAUSE OF DISCONTENT MAY ULTIMATELY HAVE UPON COMMERCE IS FAR
TOO INDIRECT TO JUSTIFY CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION.  ALMOST ANYTHING -
MARRIAGE, BIRTH, DEATH - MAY IN SOME FASHION AFFECT COMMERCE. 

                               VIII. 

THAT CONGRESS HAS POWER BY APPROPRIATE MEANS, NOT PROHIBITED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, TO PREVENT DIRECT AND MATERIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE
CONDUCT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS SETTLED DOCTRINE.  BUT THE
INTERFERENCE STRUCK AT MUST BE DIRECT AND MATERIAL, NOT SOME MERE
POSSIBILITY CONTINGENT ON WHOLLY UNCERTAIN EVENTS; AND THERE MUST BE NO
IMPAIRMENT OF RIGHTS GUARANTEED.  A STATE BY TAXATION ON PROPERTY MAY
INDIRECTLY BUT SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION; IT MAY NOT
LAY A DIRECT TAX UPON THE RECEIPTS FROM INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THE
FIRST IS AN INDIRECT EFFECT, THE OTHER DIRECT. 

THIS POWER TO PROTECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS INVOKED IN STANDARD OIL
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, AND UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN TOBACCO
CO., 221 U.S. 106.  IN EACH OF THOSE CASES A COMBINATION SOUGHT TO
MONOPOLIZE AND RESTRAIN INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH PURCHASE AND
CONSEQUENT CONTROL OF MANY LARGE COMPETING CONCERNS ENGAGED BOTH IN
MANUFACTURE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COMBINATION WAS SUFFICIENTLY
POWERFUL AND ACTION BY IT SO PERSISTENT THAT SUCCESS BECAME A DANGEROUS
PROBABILITY.  HERE THERE IS NO SUCH SITUATION, AND THE CASES ARE
INAPPLICABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE
WITH COMMERCE UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID TO EXIST AMONG THE EMPLOYEES WHO
BECAME MEMBERS OF THE UNION.  THERE IS A SINGLE PLANT OPERATED BY ITS
OWN MANAGEMENT WHOSE ONLY OFFENSE, AS ALLEGED, WAS THE DISCHARGE OF A
FEW EMPLOYEES IN THE PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY BELONGED TO A
UNION, COMING WITHIN THE BROAD DEFINITION OF "LABOR ORGANIZATION"
PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 2(5) OF THE ACT.  THAT DEFINITION INCLUDES ANY
ORGANIZATION IN WHICH EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE AND WHICH EXISTS FOR THE
PURPOSE IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING
GRIEVANCES, WAGES, &C. 

CONSTRUED SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH OR IMPEDE OR DIMINISH IN ANY WAY THE
RIGHT TO STRIKE."  AND YET IT IS RULED THAT TO DISCHARGE AN EMPLOYEE IN
A FACTORY BECAUSE HE IS A MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION (ANY KIND) MAY
CREATE DISCONTENT WHICH MAY LEAD TO A STRIKE AND THIS MAY CAUSE A BLOCK
IN THE "STREAM OF COMMERCE"; CONSEQUENTLY THE DISCHARGE MAY BE
INHIBITED.  THUS THE ACT EXEMPTS FROM ITS AMBIT THE VERY EVIL WHICH
COUNSEL INSIST MAY RESULT FROM DISCONTENT CAUSED BY A DISCHARGE OF AN
ASSOCIATION MEMBER, BUT PERMITS COERCION OF A NON-MEMBER TO JOIN ONE. 

THE THINGS INHIBITED BY THE LABOR ACT RELATE TO THE MANAGEMENT OF A
MANUFACTURING PLANT - SOMETHING DISTINCT FROM COMMERCE AND SUBJECT TO
THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE.  AND THIS MAY NOT BE ABRIDGED BECAUSE OF
SOME VAGUE POSSIBILITY OF DISTANT INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE. 

IX. 

TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, IS NOT CONTROLLING.  THERE THE COURT, WHILE
CONSIDERING AN ACT DEFINITELY LIMITED TO COMMON CARRIERS ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OVER WHOSE AFFAIRS CONGRESS ADMITTEDLY HAS
WIDE POWER, DECLARED:  "THE PETITIONERS INVOKE THE PRINCIPLE DECLARED
IN ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161, AND COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236
U.S. 1, BUT THESE DECISIONS ARE INAPPLICABLE.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF
1926 DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE
CARRIER TO SELECT ITS EMPLOYEES OR TO DISCHARGE THEM.  THE STATUTE IS
NOT AIMED AT THIS RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYERS BUT AT THE INTERFERENCE WITH
THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING. 
AS THE CARRIERS SUBJECT TO THE ACT HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
INTERFERE WITH THE FREEDOM OF THE EMPLOYEES IN MAKING THEIR SELECTIONS,
THEY CANNOT COMPLAIN OF THE STATUTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS." 

ADAIR'S CASE, SUPRA, PRESENTED THE QUESTION - "MAY CONGRESS MAKE IT A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED STATES - AS BY THE TENTH SECTION OF
THE ACT OF 1898 IT DOES - FOR AN AGENT OR OFFICER OF AN INTERSTATE
CARRIER, HAVING FULL AUTHORITY IN THE PREMISES FROM THE CARRIER, TO
DISCHARGE AN EMPLOYEE FROM SERVICE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF HIS MEMBERSHIP IN
A LABOR ORGANIZATION?"  THE ANSWER WAS NO.  "WHILE, AS ALREADY
SUGGESTED, THE RIGHTS OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY GUARANTEED BY THE
CONSTITUTION AGAINST DEPRIVATION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, ARE
SUBJECT TO SUCH REASONABLE RESTRAINTS AS THE COMMON GOOD OR THE GENERAL
WELFARE MAY REQUIRE, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT - AT
LEAST IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES - TO COMPEL ANY
PERSON IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS AND AGAINST HIS WILL TO ACCEPT OR
RETAIN THE PERSONAL SERVICES OF ANOTHER, OR TO COMPEL ANY PERSON,
AGAINST HIS WILL, TO PERFORM PERSONAL SERVICES FOR ANOTHER.  THE RIGHT
OF A PERSON TO SELL HIS LABOR UPON SUCH TERMS AS HE DEEMS PROPER IS, IN
ITS ESSENCE, THE SAME AS THE RIGHT OF THE PURCHASER OF LABOR TO
PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH HE WILL ACCEPT SUCH LABOR FROM THE
PERSON OFFERING TO SELL IT.  SO THE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEE TO QUIT THE
SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYER, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IS THE SAME AS THE RIGHT
OF THE EMPLOYER, FOR WHATEVER REASON, TO DISPENSE WITH THE SERVICES OF
SUCH EMPLOYEE.  IT WAS THE LEGAL RIGHT OF THE DEFENDANT ADAIR - HOWEVER
UNWISE SUCH A COURSE MIGHT HAVE BEEN - TO DISCHARGE COPPAGE BECAUSE OF
HIS BEING A MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION, AS IT WAS THE LEGAL RIGHT
OF COPPAGE, IF HE SAW FIT TO DO SO - HOWEVER UNWISE SUCH A COURSE ON
HIS PART MIGHT HAVE BEEN - TO QUIT THE SERVICE IN WHICH HE WAS ENGAGED,
BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYED SOME PERSONS WHO WERE NOT MEMBERS OF A
LABOR ORGANIZATION.  IN ALL SUCH PARTICULARS THE EMPLOYER AND THE
EMPLOYEE HAVE EQUALITY OF RIGHT, AND ANY LEGISLATION THAT DISTURBS THAT
EQUALITY IS AN ARBITRARY INTERFERENCE WITH THE LIBERTY OF CONTRACT
WHICH NO GOVERNMENT CAN LEGALLY JUSTIFY IN A FREE LAND."  "THE
PROVISION OF THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED MUST
BE HELD TO BE REPUGNANT TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND AS NOT EMBRACED BY
NOR WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT
UNDER THE GUISE OF REGULATING INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND AS APPLIED TO
THIS CASE IT ARBITRARILY SANCTIONS AN ILLEGAL INVASION OF THE PERSONAL
LIBERTY AS WELL AS THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANT ADAIR." 

COPPAGE V. KANSAS, FOLLOWING THE ADAIR CASE, HELD THAT A STATE
STATUTE, DECLARING IT A MISDEMEANOR TO REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO AGREE NOT
TO BECOME A MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION DURING THE TIME OF HIS
EMPLOYMENT, WAS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT IS FUNDAMENTAL AND INCLUDES THE PRIVILEGE OF
SELECTING THOSE WITH WHOM ONE IS WILLING TO ASSUME CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONS.  THIS RIGHT IS UNDULY ABRIDGED BY THE ACT NOW UPHELD.  A
PRIVATE OWNER IS DEPRIVED OF POWER TO MANAGE HIS OWN PROPERTY BY FREELY
SELECTING THOSE TO WHOM HIS MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS ARE TO BE
ENTRUSTED.  WE THINK THIS CANNOT LAWFULLY BE DONE IN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
THOSE HERE DISCLOSED. 

IT SEEMS CLEAR TO US THAT CONGRESS HAS TRANSCENDED THE POWERS
GRANTED. 

FN1  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (ACT OF JULY 5, 1935, C. 372, 49
STAT. 449; U.S.C., SUP. I, TIT. 29, SECS. 151 ET SEQ.). 

FNA  STOUT V. PRATT, 12 F.SUPP.  864.  BENDIX PRODUCTS CORP. V.
BEMAN, 14 F.SUPP.  58.  EAGLE-PICHER LEAD CO. V. MADDEN, 15 F.SUPP. 
407.  BETHLEHEM SHIPBUILDING CORP. V. MEYERS, 15 F.SUPP.  915.  EL PASO
ELECTRIC CO. V. ELLIOTT, 15 F.SUPP.  81.  OBERMAN & CO. V. PRATT, 16
F.SUPP.  887. 

FN2  SEC. 2.  (2)  THE TERM "EMPLOYER" INCLUDES ANY PERSON ACTING IN
THE INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYER, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BUT SHALL NOT
INCLUDE THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY STATE OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
THEREOF, OR ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AMENDED FROM
TIME TO TIME, OR ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION (OTHER THAN WHEN ACTING AS AN
EMPLOYER), OR ANYONE ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF OFFICER OR AGENT OF SUCH
LABOR ORGANIZATION. 

SEC. 2.  (3)  THE TERM "EMPLOYEE" SHALL INCLUDE ANY EMPLOYEE, AND
SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO THE EMPLOYEES OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYER, UNLESS
THE ACT EXPLICITLY STATES OTHERWISE, AND SHALL INCLUDE ANY INDIVIDUAL
WHOSE WORK HAS CEASED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH, ANY
CURRENT LABOR DISPUTE OR BECAUSE OF ANY UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, AND WHO
HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY OTHER REGULAR AND SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT
EMPLOYMENT, BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED AS AN
AGRICULTURAL LABORER, OR IN THE DOMESTIC SERVICE OF ANY FAMILY OR
PERSON AT HIS HOME, OR ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYED BY HIS PARENT OR
SPOUSE. 

SEC. 7.  EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION, TO
FORM, JOIN OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER
MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION. 

FNB  SEC. 2.  (5) THE TERM "LABOR ORGANIZATION" MEANS ANY
ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR ANY AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION
COMMITTEE OR PLAN, IN WHICH EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATE AND WHICH EXISTS FOR
THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING
GRIEVANCES, LABOR DISPUTES, WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT,
OR CONDITIONS OF WORK. 

SEC. 3.  (A)  THERE IS HEREBY CREATED A BOARD, TO BE KNOWN AS THE
"NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
"BOARD"), WHICH SHALL BE COMPOSED OF THREE MEMBERS, WHO SHALL BE
APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE
SENATE.  ONE OF THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR A TERM OF
ONE YEAR, ONE FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS, AND ONE FOR A TERM OF FIVE
YEARS, BUT THEIR SUCCESSORS SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR TERMS OF FIVE YEARS
EACH, EXCEPT THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL CHOSEN TO FILL A VACANCY SHALL BE
APPOINTED ONLY FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF THE MEMBER WHOM HE SHALL
SUCCEED.  THE PRESIDENT SHALL DESIGNATE ONE MEMBER TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD.  ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD MAY BE REMOVED BY THE PRESIDENT,
UPON NOTICE AND HEARING, FOR NEGLECT OF DUTY OR MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE,
BUT FOR NO OTHER CAUSE. 

FN3  SEC. 10.  (B)  WHENEVER IT IS CHARGED THAT ANY PERSON HAS ENGAGED
IN OR IS ENGAGING IN ANY SUCH UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE, THE BOARD, OR ANY
AGENT OR AGENCY DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD FOR SUCH PURPOSES, SHALL HAVE
POWER TO ISSUE AND CAUSE TO BE SERVED UPON SUCH PERSON A COMPLAINT
STATING THE CHARGES IN THAT RESPECT, AND CONTAINING A NOTICE OF HEARING
BEFORE THE BOARD OR A MEMBER THEREOF, OR BEFORE A DESIGNATED AGENT OR
AGENCY, AT A PLACE THEREIN FIXED, NOT LESS THAN FIVE DAYS AFTER THE
SERVING OF SAID COMPLAINT.  ANY SUCH COMPLAINT MAY BE AMENDED BY THE
MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY CONDUCTING THE HEARING OR THE BOARD IN ITS
DISCRETION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER BASED
THEREON.  THE PERSON SO COMPLAINED OF SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE AN
ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL OR AMENDED COMPLAINT AND TO APPEAR IN PERSON OR
OTHERWISE AND GIVE TESTIMONY AT THE PLACE AND TIME FIXED IN THE
COMPLAINT.  IN THE DISCRETION OF THE MEMBER, AGENT, OR AGENCY
CONDUCTING THE HEARING OR THE BOARD, ANY OTHER PERSON MAY BE ALLOWED TO
INTERVENE IN THE SAID PROCEEDING AND TO PRESENT TESTIMONY.  IN ANY SUCH
PROCEEDING THE RULES OF EVIDENCE PREVAILING IN COURTS OF LAW OR EQUITY
SHALL NOT BE CONTROLLING.   FN4  SEC. 8.  IT SHALL BE AN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICE FOR AN EMPLOYER - 

(1)  TO INTERFERE WITH, RESTRAIN, OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SECTION 7. 

(2)  TO DOMINATE OR INTERFERE WITH THE FORMATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF
ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION OR CONTRIBUTE FINANCIAL OR OTHER SUPPORT TO IT:
PROVIDED, THAT SUBJECT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS MADE AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION 6(A), AN EMPLOYER SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED
FROM PERMITTING EMPLOYEES TO CONFER WITH HIM DURING WORKING HOURS
WITHOUT LOSS OF TIME OR PAY. 

(3)  BY DISCRIMINATION IN REGARD TO HIRE OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OR
ANY TERM OR CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT TO ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE
MEMBERSHIP IN ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION:  PROVIDED, THAT NOTHING IN THIS
ACT, OR IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY ACT (U.S.C., SUPP. VII,
TITLE 15, SECS. 701-712), AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, OR IN ANY CODE
OR AGREEMENT APPROVED OR PRESCRIBED THEREUNDER, OR IN ANY OTHER STATUTE
OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL PRECLUDE AN EMPLOYER FROM MAKING AN
AGREEMENT WITH A LABOR ORGANIZATION (NOT ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINED, OR
ASSISTED BY ANY ACTION DEFINED IN THIS ACT AS AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE)
TO REQUIRE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT MEMBERSHIP THEREIN IF SUCH
LABOR ORGANIZATION IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES AS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 9(A), IN THE APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT COVERED
BY SUCH AGREEMENT WHEN MADE. 

(4)  TO DISCHARGE OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATE AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE
BECAUSE HE HAS FILED CHARGES OR GIVEN TESTIMONY UNDER THIS ACT. 

(5)  TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
HIS EMPLOYEES, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(A). 

SEC. 9.  (A)  REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED OR SELECTED FOR THE PURPOSES
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES IN A UNIT
APPROPRIATE FOR SUCH PURPOSES, SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES
OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN SUCH UNIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IN RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, WAGES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR
OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:  PROVIDED, THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE
OR A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO PRESENT
GRIEVANCES TO THEIR EMPLOYER. 

FN5  SEC. 2(6)  THE TERM "COMMERCE" MEANS TRADE, TRAFFIC, COMMERCE,
TRANSPORTATION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, OR BETWEEN
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR ANY TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES AND ANY
STATE OR OTHER TERRITORY, OR BETWEEN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY AND ANY STATE,
TERRITORY, OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OR WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA OR ANY TERRITORY, OR BETWEEN POINTS IN THE SAME STATE BUT
THROUGH ANY OTHER STATE OR ANY TERRITORY OR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR
ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY. 

(7)  THE TERM "AFFECTING COMMERCE" MEANS IN COMMERCE, OR BURDENING OR
OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE, OR HAVING LED OR
TENDING TO LEAD TO A LABOR DISPUTE BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR
THE FREE FLOW OF COMMERCE. 
..END :










ASSOCIATED PRESS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 301 U.S. 103 


NO. 365.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 9, 10, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 12, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 56, AFFIRMED. 


1.  INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION OF A BUSINESS NATURE, WHATEVER THE MEANS
EMPLOYED, IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY CONGRESS.  P.
128. 

2.  THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, A NON-PROFIT-MAKING CORPORATION WHOSE
MEMBERS ARE THE OWNERS OF NEWSPAPERS PUBLISHED FOR PROFIT THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY, IS ENGAGED AS THEIR AGENCY IN EXCHANGING NEWS BETWEEN
THOSE PUBLICATIONS, USING THE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE AND OTHER MEANS
OF COMMUNICATION, AND IN SUPPLYING THEM IN LIKE MANNER WITH DOMESTIC
AND FOREIGN NEWS COLLECTED BY ITSELF.  HELD ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AND
CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. 8.  P. 125. 

3.  THIS CONCLUSION IS UNAFFECTED BY THE FACTS THAT THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS DOES NOT ITSELF SELL NEWS OR OPERATE FOR PROFIT AND THAT
TECHNICALLY IT RETAINS TITLE TO THE NEWS DURING INTERSTATE
TRANSMISSION.  P. 128. 

4.  PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT EMPOWERING THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, IN PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
TO REQUIRE THAT EMPLOYEES DISCHARGED FOR UNION ACTIVITIES AND ADVOCACY
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BE RESTORED TO EMPLOYMENT AND THEIR LOSSES OF
PAY MADE GOOD, HELD VALID AS APPLIED TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IN THE
CASE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE DUTIES WERE EDITORIAL, HAVING TO DO WITH THE
PREPARATION OF NEWS FOR TRANSMISSION RATHER THAN ITS ACTUAL
TRANSMISSION IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM
FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515; TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS,
281 U.S. 548.  P. 129. 

5.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS SO APPLIED IN THIS CASE,
DOES NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.  P. 130. 

THE ACT DOES NOT COMPEL THE ASSOCIATED PRESS TO EMPLOY ANYONE, OR TO
RETAIN AN INCOMPETENT EDITOR, OR ONE WHO FAILS FAITHFULLY TO EDIT THE
NEWS WITHOUT BIAS.  IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT TO DISCHARGE
ANY EMPLOYEE (INCLUDING ONE WHO HAS BEEN SO REINSTATED BY ORDER OF THE
LABOR BOARD) FOR ANY CAUSE DEEMED PROPER BY THE EMPLOYER, SAVE ONLY THE
FORBIDDEN REASONS OF UNION ACTIVITIES AND ADVOCACY OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING. 

6.  THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT DEPRIVES
PETITIONER OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS; THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD
REQUIRING RESTORATION OF LOST PAY DEPRIVES PETITIONER OF THE RIGHT TO
TRIAL BY JURY; AND THAT THE ACT IS INVALID ON ITS FACE BECAUSE IT SEEKS
TO REGULATE BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE COMMERCE, ARE REJECTED UPON
THE AUTHORITY OF TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548,
AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP.,
ANTE, P. 1.  P. 133. 

ASSOCIATED PRESS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 532, TO REVIEW A DECREE SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  THE CASE CAME BEFORE THE COURT
BELOW ON THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ITS ORDER. 

I. THE ACT IS VOID IN ITS ENTIRETY AS AN UNRESTRICTED ATTEMPT TO
REGULATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ALL INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES BY IMPOSING "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING" IN VIOLATION OF THE TENTH
AMENDMENT. 

THIS SWEEPING PURPOSE APPEARS IN THE PREAMBLE AND IS EVEN MORE
CLEARLY SHOWN BY THE VERY PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS IN THE ACT.  THE
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY LEAVES NO POSSIBLE DOUBT. 

IN THIS RESPECT THE ACT IS INSEVERABLE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
SEPARABILITY CLAUSE.  RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295
U.S. 330, 362. 

THE ENTIRE ACT, THEREFORE, IS A PATENT VIOLATION OF THE TENTH
AMENDMENT.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238; UNITED STATES V.
BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1; JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11, 22;
SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495; MCCULLOCH V.
MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316. 

II.  THE RELATION BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND ITS EDITORIAL
EMPLOYEES IS NOT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DOES NOT AFFECT SUCH COMMERCE,
AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL CONTROL. 

AN INTERRUPTION IN THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION OR MANUFACTURE, ALTHOUGH
IT MAY LESSEN THE SUPPLY OF GOODS AVAILABLE FOR COMMERCE, IS NOT, PER
SE, AN OBSTRUCTION TO COMMERCE NOR DOES IT DIRECTLY AFFECT IT. 

IT IS DIRECT CAUSES OPERATING DIRECTLY WITH WHICH CONGRESS IS
EMPOWERED TO DEAL.  THERE MAY BE BORDERLINE CASES, BUT THE PRINCIPLE IS
CLEAR.  UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344, 408;
UNITED LEATHER WORKERS V. HERKERT, 265 U.S. 457. 

THE ASSERTION THAT LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN THE EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES AND
THEIR EMPLOYER MIGHT OR WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IS
INCOMPREHENSIBLE IN THE LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S DECISIONS.  MANIFESTLY
THE EFFECT WOULD BE QUITE AS REMOTE AND NO MORE DIRECT THAN THAT
PRODUCED BY LABOR DISPUTES IN ANY PRODUCING INDUSTRY.  CARTER V. CARTER
COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238; SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 295
U.S. 495; UNITED MINE WORKERS V. CORONADO COAL CO., 259 U.S. 344. 

SO FAR AS THIS RECORD SHOWS, A WALKOUT IN THE NEW YORK OFFICE WOULD
NOT OF NECESSITY MATERIALLY AFFECT THE FLOW OF NEWS. 

IF CONGRESS CAN PASS A LAW TO COMPEL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND TO
FORBID THE DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES, AS PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 8, IT CAN,
WHEN IT CHOOSES, GO ON TO LAWS COMPELLING IN EXPRESS TERMS THE CLOSED
SHOP, THE OPEN SHOP, MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM WAGES, HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT,
SAFETY DEVICES, SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS, HOUSING, THE TIMES AND MANNER OF
PAYMENT - EVERYTHING IN SHORT WHICH BY ANY POSSIBILITY COULD BE THOUGHT
TO PROMOTE THE CONTENTMENT OF THE LABORER IN ANY AND EVERY INDUSTRY AND
THUS LEAD TO INDUSTRIAL PEACE. 

THE QUESTION OF POWER DOES NOT TURN UPON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE CAUSE
OR OF THE EFFECT, BUT ENTIRELY UPON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EFFECT HAS
BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 307-308. 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS IN NO SENSE AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  ITS EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THE COMPLAINANT MORRIS
WATSON, ARE NOT ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE. 

COMMERCE MEANS MORE THAN COMMUNICATION.  THE WORD "IS THE EQUIVALENT
OF THE PHRASE 'INTERCOURSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRADE.'"  CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 303. 

BASICALLY, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS AN EXCHANGE OF NEWS SYSTEM AND
NOTHING MORE.  EVEN IF THIS EXCHANGE WERE THE EQUIVALENT OF A SALE, IT
WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO "TRADE," BECAUSE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS DOES NOT
EXCHANGE NEWS WITH THE PUBLIC, BUT ONLY WITH ITS OWN MEMBERS AND OTHER
NEWS AGENCIES.  PRIVATE OR INTRACORPORATE EXCHANGE IS NOT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  SEE PIPE LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548, 561-562; HOPKINS V.
UNITED STATES, 171 U.S. 578, 603; ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES, 171 U.S.
604, 612.  DISTINGUISHING:  INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217
U.S. 91; INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUB. CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER PUBLISHING
CO., 293 U.S. 268, 276. 

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE REGULATION OF SO MUCH OF A BUSINESS AS
CONSTITUTES INTERSTATE COMMERCE CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO EMBRACE THE
REST.  FIRST EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S. 463, 502; RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330; UNITED STATES V.
CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 282 U.S. 311, 327; CF. WESTERN UNION V.
KANSAS, 216 U.S. 1. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IN ITS NEW YORK OFFICE CONSISTS
OF TWO DISTINCT FUNCTIONS, NAMELY, PRODUCTION AND TRANSMISSION. 
EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN PRODUCTION.  IN THIS
SENSE THE ANALOGY IS EXACT BETWEEN THESE EMPLOYEES AND THE EMPLOYEES OF
A MANUFACTURING PLANT ENGAGED IN TRANSFORMING THE RAW MATERIALS INTO
THE COMPLETED ARTICLE.  THE SPEED OF THEIR PRODUCTION, THE SHORTNESS OF
THE INTERVAL BETWEEN PRODUCTION AND TRANSMISSION, DO NOT CHANGE THE
ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF EITHER FUNCTION.  UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. V.
PFOST, 286 U.S. 165.  SEE FIRST EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S.
463, 502. 

IN THE SO-CALLED "THROAT," "CURRENT" OR "FLOW" OF COMMERCE CASES THE
PERSONS AND THINGS REGULATED WERE NECESSARY AGENCIES OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, AFFECTED WITH A NATIONAL PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THEREFORE
SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION, WHICH RELATED TO MATTERS IN,
DIRECTLY AFFECTING, OR INEXTRICABLY INTERMINGLED WITH, INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.  FURTHERMORE, THE "FLOW" CASES ADVANCE NO NEW DOCTRINE, BUT
ONLY HOLD THAT CONGRESS MAY PROPERLY KEEP CERTAIN PERSONS FROM
OBSTRUCTING OR CLOSING THE AVENUES OF COMMERCE TO OTHER PERSONS. 
LIKEWISE, EVEN WHEN CONGRESS DOES NOT ACT, THE INDIVIDUAL STATES ARE
THEMSELVES PROHIBITED FROM OBSTRUCTING, BURDENING, OR DISCRIMINATING
AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  CF. TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED
STATES, 280 U.S. 420; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, 305. 

THE RAILROAD CASES.  SUCH REGULATION AS CONGRESS HAS ATTEMPTED OF THE
RELATION BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE ON THE RAILROADS IS BOTTOMED ON
THE FACT THAT THE RAILROADS ARE THE ESSENTIAL INSTRUMENTALITIES BY
WHICH INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS CARRIED ON AND MAY BE COMPELLED TO FURNISH
SAFE AND CONTINUOUS SERVICE OF TRANSPORTATION.  RAILROAD RETIREMENT
BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, 376.  EXTENSIVE AS THE POWER OF
CONGRESS OVER THE RAILROADS MAY BE, THE REGULATION OF THE EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATION ON RAILROADS HAS NEVER BEEN PERMITTED TO REACH BEYOND
(A) THE REMOVAL OF ACTUAL OR IMMEDIATELY THREATENED OBSTRUCTIONS TO
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, OR (B) OBVIOUS MEASURES FOR THE
PROMOTION OF THE SAFETY OF SUCH SERVICE.  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES,
207 U.S. 463; ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161; MONDOU V. NEW YORK,
N.H. & H.R. CO., 223 U.S. 1; WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332. 

THE MERE CIRCUMSTANCE OF ENGAGING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE IS NOT
DECISIVE.  THE TWO ALL IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS ARE (1) THE DUTY OF
BOTH EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE TO RENDER THE PUBLIC REASONABLE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, AND (2) THE OBVIOUSLY DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN
THE ATTEMPTED REGULATION AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT DUTY.  CF.
PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S. 72, 85; PENNSYLVANIA
RAILROAD SYSTEM V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 267 U.S. 203, 217. 

IN TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, IT WAS HELD
THAT THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, UNLIKE ITS PREDECESSOR, IMPOSED
CERTAIN DEFINITE OBLIGATIONS ENFORCEABLE BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, THE
"OUTSTANDING FEATURE" BEING THE PROVISION FOR AN ENFORCEABLE AWARD. 
THE PROVISION FOR FREE DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES "FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THIS ACT," WAS UPHELD AS FORMING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ARBITRATION
SCHEME WHICH CONGRESS HAD DEVISED IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO
"FACILITATE THE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WHICH THREATEN THE
SERVICE OF THE NECESSARY AGENCIES OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION."  THE
REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES DISCHARGED DURING A PENDING CONTROVERSY WAS
REQUIRED, HOWEVER, NOT IN OBEDIENCE TO ANY EXPRESS MANDATE OF THE ACT,
BUT TO PURGE THE RAILROAD OF A CONTEMPT OF THE COURT'S INJUNCTION. 
THAT CASE HAS NO BEARING ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENFORCE COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING, OR TO COMPEL THE REINSTATEMENT OF DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES, IN
A PRIVATE BUSINESS. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ADAIR CASE WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE COURT IN THE
TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS CASE IN POINTING OUT THAT ITS PRINCIPLE WAS
INAPPLICABLE, BECAUSE THE ENFORCEMENT OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH THE "NORMAL" RIGHT OF AN EMPLOYER TO DISCHARGE HIS
EMPLOYEES AT WILL.  BY THE "NORMAL EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE CARRIER
TO SELECT ITS EMPLOYEES OR TO DISCHARGE THEM," THE COURT OBVIOUSLY
REFERRED TO THE DISCHARGE OR SELECTION OF EMPLOYEES (1) WHEN THERE WAS
NO ACTUAL DISPUTE, (2) WHEN THERE WAS NO CONTROVERSY PENDING BEFORE A
MEDIATION BOARD, AND (3) WHEN THE DISCHARGE WAS NOT IN FLAGRANT
DISOBEDIENCE OF AN INJUNCTION PROPERLY ISSUED BY A COURT OF EQUITY. 

THE DECISION IN THE RAILROAD PENSION CASE, 295 U.S. 330, REFERRED TO
THE FACT THAT THE TEXAS CASE DID NOT INTERFERE WITH "NORMAL" RIGHTS. 
FURTHERMORE, THE RAILROAD PENSION CASE LEAVES NO DOUBT ABOUT THE
LIMITED APPLICATION OF THE TEXAS CASE, AS WELL AS ALL CASES SUSTAINING
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO INFLUENCE OR CONTROL THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER
AND EMPLOYEE IN ANY MANNER.  THIS LIMITED APPLICATION IS CONCLUSIVELY
SHOWN, NOT ONLY BY THE MAJORITY OPINION, BUT ALSO BY THE DISSENTING
OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 

THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE RAILROAD PENSION CASE STANDS FOR
THE PROPOSITION, THEREFORE, THAT EVEN AS TO THE RAILROADS ANY
COMPULSORY CONTROL BY CONGRESS OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS, NO
MATTER WHAT IT MAY BE, IS VOID UNLESS IT HAS AN OBVIOUS AND DIRECT
BEARING ON THE OBLIGATIONS OF PUBLIC SERVICE INCIDENT TO THE CALLING OF
THE RAILROADS.  THE REGULATION IS TOO REMOTELY CONNECTED WITH
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE IF IT MERELY RELATES TO THE CAUSES OF
DISRUPTIONS, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MALCONTENT OF THE PERSONS
RENDERING THE SERVICE.  TO HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT UPON INTERSTATE
COMMERCE THE REGULATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATION MUST AT LEAST, AS
WAS THE CASE WITH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, FACILITATE THE
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WHICH THREATENED THE SERVICE OF THE
NECESSARY AGENCIES OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION AND TENDED TO PREVENT
INTERRUPTIONS OF SERVICE.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE DISPUTE MUST BE ACTUAL,
NOT CONJECTURAL; THE DISRUPTION OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE MUST BE
PRESENTLY THREATENED THEREBY, NOT REMOTELY POSSIBLE. 

THE STRIKE, OR ANTI-TRUST CASES.  ALL OF THE STRIKE CASES, FOLLOWING
THE SECOND CORONADO CASE, 268 U.S. 295, RELATED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE
REMOVAL OF EXISTING, INTENTIONAL OBSTRUCTIONS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE;
THE INJUNCTIONS WERE NOT GRANTED EXCEPT WHERE THE ACTUAL INTENT OR
PURPOSE OF THE STRIKERS WAS TO PREVENT THE FLOW OF GOODS ACROSS STATE
LINES.  THE SAME IS TRUE AS TO THE REGULATION OF ANY COMBINATION OR
CONSPIRACY UNDER THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  FOR THIS REASON THE STRIKE CASES
DO NOT PROPERLY FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF REGULATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER
EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, BUT RELATE SOLELY TO THE REMOVAL OF ACTUAL AND
EXISTING OBSTRUCTIONS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN THE FORM OF A
COMBINATION OR CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 

AS IN THE "FLOW" OF COMMERCE CASES, HERETOFORE DISCUSSED, IT SHOULD
BE NOTED THAT THE "STRIKE" CASES INVOLVE A REGULATION OF A IN ORDER TO
KEEP HIM FROM OBSTRUCTING B OR DEPRIVING HIM OF THE FACILITIES TO WHICH
HE IS ENTITLED.  THERE IS NO INDICATION WHATEVER IN THEM THAT AN
EMPLOYER MAY BE REGULATED TO KEEP HIM FROM OBSTRUCTING HIMSELF. 

THE ACT VIOLATES THE FIFTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE ITS TERMS ARE ARBITRARY,
UNREASONABLE AND CAPRICIOUS, HAVING NO REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO
THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF LEGITIMATE ENDS. 

THE ENFORCEMENT BY STATUTORY COMPULSION OF THE COLLECTIVE ACTION
WHICH THE ACT PRESCRIBES IS AN ARBITRARY ENCROACHMENT UPON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE UNWILLING EMPLOYER AND HIS NON-CONSENTING
EMPLOYEES. 

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES BEING ABSENT, THE STATUTORY COMPULSION IS
ARBITRARY PER SE. 

THE ACT EVEN GOES BEYOND THE COMPULSORY ENFORCEMENT OF COLLECTIVE
ACTION IN GENERAL IN THAT IT IS DESIGNED TO COMPEL THE UNIVERSAL
ACCEPTANCE, BY BOTH EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, OF A RIGID AND HITHERTO
UNACCEPTED CONCEPTION OF COLLECTIVE ACTION WHICH, CARRIED TO ITS
LOGICAL CONCLUSION, COMPLETELY DESTROYS THE RIGHTS OF THE EMPLOYER AND
HIS NON-CONSENTING EMPLOYEES.  INSTEAD OF SEEKING A REASONABLE BALANCE
BETWEEN EMPLOYER RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES ON THE
ONE HAND, AND THE COLLECTIVE RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES ON THE OTHER, THE ACT
FOSTERS THE DOMINATION OF ALL INDUSTRY BY LABOR UNIONS.  THIS
DOMINATION IS SOUGHT, IRRESPECTIVE OF HARSH, ONE-SIDED, AND
DISCRIMINATORY RESULTS, AS THE ONE AND ONLY METHOD OF ADJUSTING
INEQUALITY OF BARGAINING BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE.  THAT SUCH AN
ARBITRARY PROGRAM HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ACT WOULD SEEM TO BE APPARENT
FROM NO MORE THAN A CURSORY CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 8
AND 9.    THE ACT DELIBERATELY AND OPENLY FOSTERS THE CLOSED UNION
SHOP.  THE COMPANY UNION OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION IS
OUTLAWED.  THE UNREASONING SWEEP OF THE PROHIBITION IN SEC. 8(2) IS
MERELY EMPHASIZED BY THE PROVISO THAT THE EMPLOYER MAY CONFER WITH HIS
EMPLOYEES DURING WORKING HOURS "SUBJECT TO RULES AND REGULATIONS MADE
AND PUBLISHED BY THE BOARD," BUT NOT OTHERWISE.  IRRESPECTIVE OF
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY UNION IS INHERENTLY EVIL, IT WOULD SEEM ON
PRINCIPLE ALONE THAT NO LAW COULD REMAIN REASONABLE AND AT THE SAME
TIME DEPRIVE BOTH EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF
FRIENDSHIP, MUTUAL LOYALTY AND WISE COOPERATION. 

SUBDIVISION (3) OF SEC. 8 REENACTS THOSE VERY RESTRICTIONS UPON THE
EMPLOYER WHICH WERE DECLARED ARBITRARY AND INVALID IN THE ADAIR AND
COPPAGE CASES.  THE PROHIBITION HERE, MOREOVER, EXTENDS TO TENURE OF
EMPLOYMENT AS WELL AS TO ANY DISCRIMINATION IN HIRE, DISCHARGE, OR
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS.  ACCORDINGLY, AN EMPLOYER MUST ALWAYS FIND
REASONS WHICH WOULD SAFELY WITHSTAND THE SCRUTINY OF THE BOARD BEFORE
HE EVEN WENT SO FAR AS TO DEMOTE, REDUCE THE SALARY, OR EVEN CHANGE THE
ROUTINE EMPLOYMENT OF A UNION MAN.  BY THE SAME TOKEN, IT WOULD SEEM
THAT HE MUST CAREFULLY EXAMINE HIS CONSCIENCE AND HIS RECORDS BEFORE HE
PROMOTES OR ENCOURAGES A NON-UNION MAN.  THESE PROVISIONS AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION CONTAINED IN SEC. 8(3) VIRTUALLY PLACE UNION MEMBERS IN
A STATUS SECURE AGAINST DISCHARGE OR DEMOTION HOWEVER DESERVED.  SEE
ROSENTHAL-ETTLINGER CO. V. SCHLOSSBERG, 266 N.Y.S. 762. 

THE ACT EXPRESSLY SANCTIONS DISCRIMINATORY CLOSED UNION SHOP
AGREEMENTS. 

THE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT FREEDOM IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY
EMPLOYEES.  ON THE CONTRARY, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT
UPON RIGID CONDITIONS WHICH ARE BOTH RESTRICTIVE AND DISCRIMINATORY. 

THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE BARGAINING UNIT IS THE ONE SELECTED AS
APPROPRIATE BY THE BOARD, WHETHER IT BE "THE EMPLOYER UNIT, CRAFT UNIT,
PLANT UNIT, OR SUBDIVISION THEREOF."  SEC. 9(B).  THE BOARD'S
DISCRETION IN MAKING THIS SELECTION IS VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED.  THE
EMPLOYER AND THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES ARE UTTERLY HELPLESS EXCEPT IN SO
FAR AS THEY ARE ABLE TO INFLUENCE THE BOARD IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS
UNLIMITED POWER OF DISCRIMINATION. 

THE SELECTION OF THE UNIT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING IS, HOWEVER, OF THE UTMOST CONCERN TO BOTH EMPLOYEE AND
EMPLOYER, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THERE CAN BE BUT ONE, "EXCLUSIVE,"
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ENTIRE UNIT. 

FURTHERMORE, THE MINORITY IN THE DESIGNATED UNIT ARE NOT ONLY
DEPRIVED OF THE POWER TO CONTRACT WITH THEIR EMPLOYER, EITHER
INDIVIDUALLY OR THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, BUT THEY
ARE ALSO BOUND BY THE TERMS OF ANY AGREEMENT WHICH THE EMPLOYER MAKES
WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MAJORITY.  SEE CARTER V. CARTER COAL
CO., 298 U.S. 238, 311. 

UNDER THIS ACT IT IS POSSIBLE, EITHER BY GERRYMANDERING OF BARGAINING
UNITS, OR BY RULINGS ON ELECTIONS, TO SUBJECT THE MAJORITY EMPLOYEES TO
THE WILL OF THE MINORITY.  SEE BENDIX PRODUCTS CORP. V. BEMAN, 14
F.SUPP.  58, 66. 

EMPLOYER "TO REFUSE TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
HIS EMPLOYEES, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9(A)."  THE BOARD HAS
INTERPRETED THIS AS IMPOSING UPON THE EMPLOYER AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO
BARGAIN AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNIT
WHICH IT PRESCRIBES.  THUS, WHEN A LABOR ORGANIZATION, SUCH AS THE
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, DEMANDS A CLOSED SHOP, THE EMPLOYER MAY NOT
FLATLY REFUSE BUT MUST SEEK TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION.  AND,
IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT IS LEFT TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE FOR THE
EMPLOYER WHETHER OR NOT THE CLOSED SHOP DEMAND OF THE UNION IS TO BE
ACCEPTED. 

MUTUALITY OF CONTRACT IS TOTALLY LACKING IN THAT THE EMPLOYER, WHO IS
THE ONLY PARTY UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO "BARGAIN," IS LIKEWISE THE SOLE
PARTY BOUND BY AN AGREEMENT.  THE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT BOUND BY FORCE OF
ANY PROVISION IN THE ACT (WHICH SPECIFICALLY PRESERVES THE RIGHT TO
STRIKE); NOR ARE THEY BOUND AS A MATTER OF CONTRACT, SINCE THEY MAY
REFUSE TO WORK FROM THE INSTANT A "BARGAIN" IS REACHED. 

THE "COLLECTIVE BARGAIN" WHICH THE ACT COMMANDS IS NOTHING MORE THAN
"COMPULSORY UNILATERAL ARBITRATION."  SEE BENDIX PRODUCTS CORP. V.
BEMAN, 14 F.SUPP.  58.  THIS "COMPULSORY UNILATERAL ARBITRATION" IS,
THEREFORE, MUCH MORE ARBITRARY THAN THE COMPULSORY MUTUAL ARBITRATION
UNANIMOUSLY DECLARED INVALID IN WOLFF PACKING CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COURT,
262 U.S. 522, S.C., 267 U.S. 552. 

IT WOULD SEEM TO BE FULLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ACT DOES NOT SEEK TO
PROTECT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND COLLECTIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF
EMPLOYEES, BUT THAT IT UNQUESTIONABLY ATTEMPTS TO PLACE ALL LABOR
RELATIONS IN AN IRON VISE BY REDUCING EMPLOYMENT TO A CLOSED UNION SHOP
BASIS.  THIS IS SHOWN NOT ONLY BY EXPRESS SANCTION OF CLOSED UNION SHOP
AGREEMENTS, SEC. 8(3), BUT BY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE EMPLOYER MUST
BARGAIN, SEC. 8(5), WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNIT SELECTED BY
THE BOARD, SEC. 9(B), WHO, THOUGH HAVING THE POWER TO BIND OR EXCLUDE
ALL, SEC. 9(A), MAY NOT IN FACT REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE
EMPLOYEES IN SUCH UNIT. 

THE METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT WHICH THE ACT ADOPTS ARE THEMSELVES
ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLY INTRUSIVE.  INTRUSIVE AND UNLIMITED POWER IS
CONFERRED UPON THE BOARD. 

THE POWER TO COMPEL EMPLOYERS TO REINSTATE DISCHARGED EMPLOYEES WITH
BACK PAY VIOLATES THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT AS WELL AS THE FIFTH. 

IT HAS LONG BEEN A MAXIM OF COURTS OF EQUITY THAT CONTRACTS OF
PERSONAL SERVICE WILL NOT BE SPECIFICALLY ENFORCED.  THE REASON FOR
THIS HAS BEEN THE RECOGNITION THAT COMPULSORY PERSONAL SERVICE IS NOT
ONLY INTOLERABLE BUT THAT IT IS SELDOM SATISFACTORY FROM THE POINT OF
VIEW OF EITHER PARTY.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY
CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, REINSTATEMENT OF EMPLOYEES, DISCHARGED IN
DEFIANCE OF AN INJUNCTION, WAS ORDERED AS A PROPER METHOD OF PURGING
THE RAILROAD OF CONTEMPT.  THAT WAS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION WHERE THE
COURT DEEMED SUCH EXTREME ACTION NECESSARY IN ORDER TO RESTORE THE
STATUS QUO.  IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT LEGISLATION MAY SUPERSEDE COURT
ACTION.  YET THIS, IN SUBSTANCE, IS WHAT SEC. 10(C) ATTEMPTS TO
ACCOMPLISH. 

HERE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MUST EMPLOY A PERSON WHOM IT DOES NOT
WANT.  NEITHER THE SUBJECT, THE TERMS, NOR THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT
ARE OF ITS OWN CHOOSING.  THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MUST REFRAIN FROM
EMPLOYING OTHER PERSONS MORE TO ITS LIKING IN ORDER TO LEAVE ROOM FOR
WATSON, OR MAY EVEN BE COMPELLED TO DISCHARGE SOME NON-UNION EDITORIAL
EMPLOYEE IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR WATSON.  AND, PRESUMABLY, THE BOARD
WILL MAINTAIN A CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE OVER WATSON AND THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS, IF HE IS REINSTATED, TO BE SURE THAT HE HAS BEEN REINSTATED "TO
HIS FORMER POSITION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY RIGHTS OR PRIVILEGES
PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED BY HIM."  NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. MACKAY
RADIO & TELEGRAPH CO., 87 F.(2D) 611. 

IT WOULD SEEM THAT, EVEN IF THE DISCHARGE WERE WRONGFUL, THE PROPER
AND ONLY REASONABLE REPARATION WOULD BE TO PERMIT WATSON TO SUE IN A
COURT OF LAW FOR DAMAGES.  THE ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT, HOWEVER, WOULD
NOT ONLY COMPEL THE ASSOCIATED PRESS UNWILLINGLY TO ACCEPT AND PAY FOR
THE PERSONAL SERVICES OF WATSON AT THE RATE IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF HIS
DISCHARGE, BUT IT ALSO GRANTS WATSON, WITHOUT JURY TRIAL, AN AWARD OF
MONEY DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $2,000.  THIS IT WOULD SEEM IS DONE IN
FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES THE RIGHT
TO TRIAL BY JURY.  SEE CASE LAST CITED. 

THE ACT, IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, VIOLATES THE
FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES TO CITIZENS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. 

WATSON MUST BE REEMPLOYED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AGAINST ITS WILL,
AS AN EDITORIAL WORKER IN COMPILING AND EDITING NEWS FOR PUBLICATION IN
AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS.  THIS IS ORDERED IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS PRESENT
CAPACITY OR QUALIFICATION OR HIS ACCEPTABILITY BY HIS EMPLOYER AND
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHATEVER BIAS HE MAY HAVE ACQUIRED BY REASON OF HIS
DISCHARGE. 

IT IS ASSERTED AS THE BASIS OF JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE THAT THE
QUESTION OF WATSON'S DISCHARGE AND REINSTATEMENT IS A MATTER DIRECTLY
AFFECTING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
AND THAT, AS CONGRESS MAY REGULATE THOSE INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES, SO IT
MUST NECESSARILY HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE ANY MATTERS WHICH DIRECTLY
AFFECT THEM.  THE SOLE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION IN REGARD TO WATSON'S
EMPLOYMENT MUST, THEREFORE, STAND OR FALL UPON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
REGULATE THE ACTIVITIES IN WHICH THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS ENGAGED.  THAT
IS TO SAY, THE ORDER TO REINSTATE WATSON PRESUPPOSES, AND IS WHOLLY
DEPENDENT UPON, THE POWER TO REGULATE THE GATHERING, PRODUCTION, AND
DISSEMINATION OF NEWS FOR THE AMERICAN PRESS.  NEWS AND INTELLIGENCE
ARE, IN DISREGARD OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, TREATED AS ORDINARY ARTICLES
OF COMMERCE, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL SUPERVISION AND CONTROL.  LOGICALLY,
AND ON PRINCIPLE ALONE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT, AS APPLIED TO
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, IS THUS AN INFRINGEMENT UPON THAT FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION WHICH IS THE ESSENCE OF FREE SPEECH AND OF A FREE PRESS. 

FURTHERMORE, THE ACT, AS APPLIED IN THIS CASE, ACTUALLY DESTROYS THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRESS OF THIS COUNTRY.  CAN FREEDOM AND
INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRESS BE MAINTAINED IF A FEDERAL BUREAU MAY DICTATE
TO THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS THE PERSONS THEY EMPLOY TO PREPARE THEIR
NEWS REPORTS?  HOW CAN IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF REPORTING BE
MAINTAINED UNDER SUCH A SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION?  HOW CAN
ACCURACY, INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY SURVIVE A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT BY
THE GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE UPON THE ASSOCIATED PRESS A REQUIREMENT THAT
ITS NEWS EDITORS BE UNION MEN? 

INTERFERENCE WITH THE INTERNAL MANAGEMENT OF ANY PRIVATE CONCERN IS
INCONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  WHERE, HOWEVER, THE PRIVATE
CONCERN IS NOT DEALING IN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL COMMODITIES BUT IS
ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE FORMULATION AND DISSEMINATION OF NEWS FOR
THE PRESS, SUCH INTERFERENCE IS STILL MORE INTOLERABLE IN THAT IT
CONSTITUTES AN ENCROACHMENT UPON THE MANAGEMENT AND POLICY OF THE PRESS
ITSELF.  WHENEVER A UNION EDITORIAL EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS
DISCHARGED, A CASE IS AT ONCE MADE FOR THE LABOR BOARD BY THE CLAIM,
WHETHER RIGHTLY OR NOT, THAT MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR ORGANIZATION HAS
BEEN DISCOURAGED OR THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. 
THE QUESTION OF EDITORIAL PERSONNEL THEN BECOMES A QUESTION FOR THE
BOARD TO DETERMINE.  AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE EDITORIAL AFFAIRS OF
THIS GREAT NEWS SERVICE OF THE AMERICAN PRESS, IN THE GATHERING AND
PREPARATION OF NEWS, IS DISPLACED BY THE LABOR BOARD WHICH CONGRESS HAS
CREATED. 

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND OF SPEECH, AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, MEANS MORE THAN FREEDOM FROM CENSORSHIP BY GOVERNMENT; IT
MEANS THAT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION MUST BE JEALOUSLY PROTECTED FROM ANY
FORM OF GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OR INFLUENCE.  NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S.
697. 

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, IT WOULD SEEM, IS AS PRECIOUS AS EITHER DUE
PROCESS OR THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW.  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS
CO., 297 U.S. 233; DEJONGE V. OREGON, 299 U.S. 353. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS IS SUFFICIENT TO COPE WITH PROBLEMS RAISED BY
EACH NEW FORM OF INTERCOMMUNICATION AMONG THE STATES.  PENSACOLA
TELEGRAPH CO. V. WESTERN UNION, 96 U.S. 1, 9-10; GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9
WHEAT.  1, 189.  ASSUMING, ARGUENDO, THAT PETITIONER DOES NOT SELL
NEWS, THE FACT IS NOT MATERIAL ON THE QUESTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORITY.  CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470; UNITED STATES V.
CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 183. 

THE BOARD WAS CORRECT IN FINDING THAT THE EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES AT THE
NEW YORK OFFICE WERE EITHER IN, OR INTIMATELY AND DIRECTLY CONNECTED
WITH, INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (3) OF SEC. 8 BEAR A REASONABLE AND DIRECT
RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE FROM INDUSTRIAL
STRIFE, AND ARE, CONSEQUENTLY, VALID.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY
CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548; RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295
U.S. 330, 369.  DISTINGUISHING:  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S.
238, 308. 

CONGRESS MAY CONTROL EVEN LOCAL ACTIVITY TO ASSIST IN REMOVING A
BURDEN OR INJURY TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, 544. 

DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, INVESTIGATIONS OF NUMEROUS COMMISSIONS,
EXPERIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND FINDINGS OF CONGRESS IN THIS ACT, ARE
IN ACCORD IN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTIONS (1) AND
(3) OF SEC. 8, WILL NOT ONLY ELIMINATE THE CAUSES OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE
ARISING FROM ATTEMPTS OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE AND ESTABLISH THE
PROCEDURE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, BUT WILL ALSO, BY AFFORDING A BASIS
FOR AMICABLE ADJUSTMENT, REDUCE INDUSTRIAL STRIFE ARISING OUT OF THE
SUBSTANTIVE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. 

WE SUBMIT, THEREFORE, THAT THESE SUBSECTIONS WERE PROPERLY APPLIED TO
PETITIONER IN THIS CASE.  INDEED, THE DECISION IN TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V.
RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, SEEMS CONCLUSIVE.  MOREOVER, APART FROM
THAT CASE, INDUSTRIAL STRIFE IN PETITIONER'S NEW YORK CITY OFFICE WOULD
SERIOUSLY AND DIRECTLY BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND INVOLVE, AT
LEAST, DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE REROUTING OF NEWS, AND AT MOST, A
PARALYSIS OF MUCH OF PETITIONER'S SYSTEM.  FURTHERMORE, THE WORK IS
CARRIED ON AT A "THROAT" OF A WELL-DEFINED "FLOW" OR "STREAM" OF
COMMERCE, AND IS THEREFORE EVEN MORE CLEARLY WITHIN THE FEDERAL POWER
TO REGULATE AND CONTROL.  STAFFORD V. WALLACE, 258 U.S. 495; TAGG BROS.
& MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V.
OLSEN, 262 U.S. 1. 

FINALLY, EVEN IF IT BE ADMITTED, ARGUENDO, THAT EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES
IN THE NEW YORK OFFICE ARE ENGAGED IN SOME OCCUPATION ANALOGOUS TO
"PRODUCTION" OR "MANUFACTURING," WE SUBMIT THAT THE ACT WAS PROPERLY
APPLIED UNDER THE PRINCIPLES DISCUSSED IN THE BRIEF FOR THE BOARD IN
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., ANTE,
P. 1.    II.  THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT IS SETTLED BY TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S.
548.  DISTINGUISHING:  ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161; COPPAGE V.
KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1. 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE REASONABLE AND CONSONANT WITH DUE
PROCESS.  THE PROCEDURAL MACHINERY IS REASONABLE AND WELL ADAPTED TO
ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSE.  THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGES
IMPOSES NO RESTRICTION ON THE NORMAL EXERCISE OF THE EMPLOYER'S RIGHT
TO HIRE AND DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES.  EMPLOYEES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THEIR INTERESTS; SUCH ORGANIZATION IS A VITAL
NECESSITY.  AMERICAN FOUNDRIES V. TRI-CITY COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 209. 
THIS RIGHT IS DESTROYED BY THE UNRESTRICTED FREEDOM OF AN EMPLOYER TO
DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR UNION OR
PARTICIPATION IN ITS AFFAIRS.  THE PRESENT ACT MERELY SAFEGUARDS THE
RECOGNIZED AND ESSENTIAL LIBERTY OF EMPLOYEES BY A LIMITED RESTRICTION
ON THE EMPLOYER'S POWER OF DISCHARGE.  SIMILAR CURTAILMENTS OF
EMPLOYER'S LIBERTY HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN SUSTAINED BY THIS COURT.  THE
PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH THIS ACT IS BASED HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FROM OVER A
HALF CENTURY OF EXPERIENCE.  IT IS THE ESTABLISHED POLICY OF BOTH
CONGRESS AND MANY OF THE STATES.  THE ACT IS, IN FACT, VERY LIMITED. 
IT DOES NOT COMPEL ORGANIZATION, OR THE "CLOSED SHOP."  IT DOES NOT
INTERFERE WITH THE EMPLOYER'S NORMAL CONDUCT OF HIS BUSINESS.  IT DOES
NOT FIX WAGES OR HOURS, OR PROVIDE FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION OF LABOR
DISPUTES.  AND IT DOES NOT WEAKEN ANY OF THE EXISTING LAWS PROTECTING
EMPLOYERS AGAINST ILLEGAL ACTION OF EMPLOYEES OR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. 
CF. LOCAL NO. 167 V. UNITED STATES, 291 U.S. 293. 

III.  THAT PART OF THE ORDER WHICH REQUIRES RESTITUTION OF LOST PAY
DOES NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF A JURY TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE SEVENTH
AMENDMENT.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548.  THE
SEVENTH AMENDMENT APPLIES ONLY TO RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AS THEY WERE
GENERALLY KNOWN AND ENFORCED AT COMMON LAW, SHIELDS V. THOMAS, 18 HOW. 
253, 262, AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS NO APPLICATION HERE.  PENNSYLVANIA
FEDERATION V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 267 U.S. 203, 210.  THE ORDER FOR
BACK PAY IS MERELY A SUPPLEMENT TO A DECREE ESSENTIALLY INJUNCTIVE IN
CHARACTER.  CF. CLARK V. WOOSTER, 119 U.S. 232. 

IV.  THE ORDER DOES NOT VIOLATE THE GUARANTEE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS.  A VALID STATUTE OF GENERAL APPLICATION DOES NOT BECOME INVALID
WHEN APPLIED TO THE PRESS.  ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 281;
INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUBLISHING CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER PUBLISHING CO.,
293 U.S. 268.  THE ACT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE PRESS, NOR
CONSTITUTE A DEVICE TO LIMIT ITS FREEDOM UNDER THE GUISE OF A
REGULATION OF COMMERCE.  NOR DOES IT CURTAIL THE PRIVILEGE OF
PETITIONER TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEES WHO EXHIBIT ACTUAL BIAS IN EDITING
THE NEWS.  PETITIONER IS ACCORDINGLY REDUCED TO THE CONTENTION THAT A
MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION MUST BE CONCLUSIVELY PRESUMED TO BE
BIASED, A PROPOSITION WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY UNSOUND. 

V. THE APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO PERSONS OTHER THAN PETITIONER, AND
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OTHER THAN THOSE HERE APPLIED TO
PETITIONER, ARE NOT IN ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE.  CONSEQUENTLY, THE
VALIDITY OF THE PRESENT ORDER IS NOT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE VALIDITY
OF THOSE OTHER PROVISIONS OR APPLICATIONS.  IN ANY EVENT, THE
APPLICATIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO WHICH PETITIONER OBJECTS ARE
CLEARLY SEPARABLE. 

THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD IS LIMITED BY SEC. 10(A) TO UNFAIR
LABOR PRACTICES "AFFECTING COMMERCE," AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(7) OF THE
ACT.  SHOULD THE BOARD ERR IN APPLYING THE ACT, THE COURTS WILL CORRECT
THE ERROR BY HOLDING THAT THE ORDER WAS UNAUTHORIZED.  IT IS CLEAR FROM
THE TERMS OF THE ACT AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT IT WAS NOT
INTENDED TO APPLY BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE COMMERCE POWER AS JUDICIALLY
DEFINED.  IT CANNOT BE URGED THAT THE ACT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT HAS
BEEN, IN PRACTICE, APPLIED TO ALL INDUSTRY.  THAT CONTENTION IS BASED
UPON A COMPLETE MISAPPREHENSION OF THE FACTS.  UNLIKE THE STATUTES IN
THE TRADE MARK CASES, 100 U.S. 82, AND THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES,
207 U.S. 463, THE PRESENT ACT IS APPLICABLE ON ITS FACE ONLY TO MATTERS
THAT ARE WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS. 

NOR IS THE ACT INVALID BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGED INVALIDITY OF SEC.
8(5).  THAT SUBSECTION, DEALING WITH THE REFUSAL OF AN EMPLOYER TO
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY, IS NOT "INSEPARABLY CONNECTED" WITH THE FIRST
FOUR SUBSECTIONS.  CONGRESS WOULD NOT HAVE INTENDED THAT THE WHOLE ACT
SHOULD FALL IF SEC. 8(5) WERE TO BE DECLARED UNENFORCIBLE.  THE
PRESUMPTION OF SEPARABILITY ARISING FROM THE SEPARABILITY PROVISION IS
BUTTRESSED NOT ONLY BY THE SEPARATE LISTING OF THE FIVE PROSCRIBED
LABOR PRACTICES, BUT ALSO BY THE FACT THAT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
PROTECTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING MAY BE OBTAINED BY PROHIBITION
AGAINST INTERFERENCE WITH ORGANIZATION AND FREE CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, EVEN IF THE OBLIGATION TO BARGAIN MAY NOT ITSELF BE
ENFORCED.  THE DECISION IN CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, IS,
THEREFORE, NOT IN POINT HERE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE WE ARE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT,  FN1  AS APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER BY AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, EXCEEDS THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE
COMMERCE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE I, SEC. 8, ABRIDGES THE FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND DENIES TRIAL BY JURY IN
VIOLATION OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

IN OCTOBER, 1935, THE PETITIONER DISCHARGED MORRIS WATSON, AN
EMPLOYEE IN ITS NEW YORK OFFICE.  THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, A LABOR
ORGANIZATION, FILED A CHARGE WITH THE BOARD ALLEGING THAT WATSON'S
DISCHARGE WAS IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, WHICH CONFERS ON EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, TO FORM, JOIN,
OR ASSIST LABOR ORGANIZATIONS, TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED
ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID
OR PROTECTION; THAT THE PETITIONER HAD ENGAGED IN UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES CONTRARY TO SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (3) OF SEC. 8 BY INTERFERING
WITH, RESTRAINING OR COERCING WATSON IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS
GUARANTEED HIM BY SEC. 7 AND BY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST HIM IN RESPECT
OF HIS TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT AND DISCOURAGING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN A LABOR
ORGANIZATION.  THE BOARD SERVED A COMPLAINT UPON THE PETITIONER
CHARGING UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE STATUTE.  THE PETITIONER ANSWERED ADMITTING WATSON'S DISCHARGE
BUT DENYING THAT IT WAS DUE TO HIS JOINING OR ASSISTING THE GUILD OR
ENGAGING IN UNION ACTIVITIES, AND DENYING, ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS,
THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT AND THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD. 

AT A HEARING BEFORE A TRIAL EXAMINER THE PETITIONER APPEARED
SPECIALLY AND MOVED TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON CONSTITUTIONAL
GROUNDS.  THE MOTION WAS OVERRULED ON ALL GROUNDS EXCEPT UPON THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE PROCEEDING WAS WITHIN THE FEDERAL COMMERCE POWER. 
COUNSEL THEREUPON UPON WITHDREW FROM THE HEARING AND THE MATTER WAS
FURTHER HEARD WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PETITIONER OR ITS
COUNSEL.  AFTER RECEIVING VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE AS TO THE CHARACTER OF
THE PETITIONER'S BUSINESS, THE EXAMINER OVERRULED THE CONTENTION THAT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE WAS NOT INVOLVED AND PROCEEDED TO HEAR THE MERITS. 
AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING HE RECOMMENDED THAT AN ORDER BE ENTERED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.  NOTICE OF THE FILING OF THIS REPORT AND OF
HEARING THEREON BY THE BOARD WAS GIVEN THE PETITIONER BUT IT FAILED TO
APPEAR.  BASED UPON THE EXAMINER'S REPORT THE BOARD MADE FINDINGS OF
FACT, STATED ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ENTERED AN ORDER THAT THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCOURAGING MEMBERSHIP IN THE
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD OR ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, BY DISCHARGING, THREATENING TO DISCHARGE, OR REFUSING TO
REINSTATE ANY OF THEM FOR JOINING THE GUILD OR ANY OTHER LABOR
ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, AND FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ANY
EMPLOYEE IN RESPECT OF HIRE, OR TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT, OR ANY TERM OR
CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR JOINING THE GUILD OR ANY OTHER SUCH
ORGANIZATION, AND FROM INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR COERCING ITS
EMPLOYEES IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN SEC. 7 OF THE
ACT.  IT FURTHER ENJOINED THE ASSOCIATED PRESS TO OFFER WATSON
REINSTATEMENT TO HIS FORMER POSITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY RIGHTS
AND PRIVILEGES PREVIOUSLY ENJOYED BY HIM; TO MAKE HIM WHOLE FOR ANY
LOSS OF PAY SUFFERED BY REASON OF HIS DISCHARGE; TO POST NOTICES IN ITS
NEW YORK OFFICE STATING IT WOULD CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE ENJOINED
PRACTICES, AND TO KEEP SUCH NOTICES POSTED FOR THIRTY DAYS.  FN2 

THE PETITIONER REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, AND THE BOARD,
PURSUANT TO SEC. 10(E) OF THE ACT, PETITIONED THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR ENFORCEMENT.  THE PETITIONER ANSWERED, AGAIN SETTING UP ITS
CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT AS APPLIED
TO IT. AFTER ARGUMENT, THE COURT MADE A DECREE ENFORCING THE ORDER. 
FN3 

IN ITS ANSWER TO THE BOARD'S PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT, THE PETITIONER
DID NOT CHALLENGE THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF FACT, AND NO ERROR IS
ASSIGNED IN THIS COURT TO THE ACTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN
ADOPTING THEM.  WE, THEREFORE, ACCEPT AS ESTABLISHED THAT THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS DID NOT, AS CLAIMED IN ITS ANSWER BEFORE THE BOARD,
DISCHARGE WATSON BECAUSE OF UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE, BUT, ON THE
CONTRARY, AS FOUND BY THE BOARD, DISCHARGED HIM FOR HIS ACTIVITIES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE NEWSPAPER GUILD.  IT FOLLOWS THAT SEC. 8,
SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (3) AUTHORIZE THE ORDER, AND THE ONLY ISSUES OPEN
HERE ARE THOSE INVOLVING THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
TO EMPOWER THE BOARD TO MAKE IT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 

FIRST.  DOES THE STATUTE, AS APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER, EXCEED THE
POWER OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE?  THE SOLUTION OF
THIS ISSUE DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF THE PETITIONER'S ACTIVITIES, AND
WATSON'S RELATION TO THEM.  THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD IN THIS ASPECT
ARE UNCHALLENGED, AND THE QUESTION BECOMES, THEREFORE, SOLELY ONE OF
LAW TO BE ANSWERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNCONTRADICTED FACTS. 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS A MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF
NEW YORK WHICH DOES NOT OPERATE FOR PROFIT BUT IS A COOPERATIVE
ORGANIZATION WHOSE MEMBERS ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF NEWSPAPERS.  IT HAS
ABOUT 1350 MEMBERS IN THE UNITED STATES AND PRACTICALLY ALL THE
NEWSPAPERS REPRESENTED IN ITS MEMBERSHIP ARE CONDUCTED FOR PROFIT.  ITS
BUSINESS IS THE COLLECTION OF NEWS FROM MEMBERS AND FROM OTHER SOURCES
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND THE COMPILATION,
FORMULATION, AND DISTRIBUTION THEREOF TO ITS MEMBERS.  IN THE PROCESS,
THE NEWS IS PREPARED FOR MEMBERS' USE BY EDITING, REWRITING, SELECTING,
OR DISCARDING, THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  THE
PRODUCT IS TRANSMITTED TO MEMBER NEWSPAPERS AND ALSO TO FOREIGN
AGENCIES PURSUANT TO MUTUAL EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS.  THE SERVICE IS NOT
SOLD BUT THE ENTIRE COST IS APPORTIONED AMONGST THE MEMBERS BY
ASSESSMENT. 

PETITIONER MAINTAINS ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN NEW YORK CITY BUT HAS
ALSO DIVISION POINTS SCATTERED OVER THE UNITED STATES EACH OF WHICH IS
CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF COLLECTING INFORMATION FROM A DEFINED
TERRITORY AND PREPARING AND DISTRIBUTING IT TO NEWSPAPERS WITHIN THE
ASSIGNED AREA AND TO OTHER DIVISION POINTS FOR USE WITHIN THEIR
RESPECTIVE AREAS.  EACH MEMBER NEWSPAPER FORWARDS NEWS DEEMED IMPORTANT
TO THE DIVISIONAL HEADQUARTERS OF ITS AREA.  IN ADDITION, EMPLOYEES OF
THE PETITIONER OBTAIN NEWS WHICH IS TRANSMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE
DIVISION HEADQUARTERS TO BE EDITED AND FORWARDED TO MEMBERS WITHIN THE
AREA REPRESENTED BY THAT HEADQUARTERS AND TO OTHER DIVISIONS FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO MEMBER NEWSPAPERS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS.  THE
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION COMMONLY USED IN RECEIVING AND TRANSMITTING NEWS
CONSISTS OF WIRES LEASED FROM TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES, BUT
MESSENGER SERVICE, THE WIRELESS, AND THE MAIL ARE ALSO EMPLOYED.  EACH
DIVISION POINT IS CONNECTED WITH EVERY OTHER BY TELEGRAPH WIRES FOR
EXCHANGE OF NEWS.  REGIONAL CIRCUITS SUPPLEMENT THESE PRIMARY
CIRCUITS.  ALL THESE LINES OF COMMUNICATION ARE UTILIZED THROUGHOUT THE
TWENTY-FOUR HOURS OF EVERY DAY. 

CONSIDERATION OF THE RELATION OF WATSON'S ACTIVITIES TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE MAY BE CONFINED TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE NEW YORK OFFICE WHERE
HE WAS EMPLOYED.  THIS OFFICE IS THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE EASTERN
DIVISION AND, THROUGH IT OPERATES THE PETITIONER'S FOREIGN SERVICE,
WITH OFFICES, STAFFS, AND CORRESPONDENTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.  NEWS
RECEIVED IN NEW YORK FROM FOREIGN PARTS, FROM NEWSPAPER MEMBERS WITHIN
THE EASTERN DIVISION, AND FROM OTHER DIVISION POINTS, IS EDITED BY
EMPLOYEES ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF SUPERVISING EDITORS AND, IN ITS
EDITED FORM, IS TRANSMITTED THROUGHOUT THE DIVISION AND TO THE
HEADQUARTERS OF OTHER DIVISIONS.  THE DISTRIBUTEES OF ANY GIVEN ITEM
ARE SELECTED BY THOSE EMPLOYED FOR THE PURPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
JUDGMENT AS TO THE USEFULNESS OF THAT ITEM TO THE MEMBERS OR THE
DIVISIONS TO WHICH IT IS TRANSMITTED.  THUS THE NEW YORK OFFICE
RECEIVES AND DISPATCHES NEWS FROM AND TO ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD, IN
ADDITION TO THAT FROM NEW YORK STATE AND OTHER NORTHEASTERN AND MIDDLE
ATLANTIC STATES WHICH COMPRISE THE EASTERN DIVISION.  THE WORK OF THE
OFFICE IS DIVIDED INTO TWO DEPARTMENTS KNOWN AS THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT
AND THE NEWS DEPARTMENT.  ALL THOSE EMPLOYED IN THE ACTUAL RECEIPT AND
TRANSMISSION OF NEWS ARE IN THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT; ALL OTHERS,
INCLUDING EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES, ARE GROUPED IN THE NEWS DEPARTMENT. 
WATSON, AT THE TIME OF HIS DISCHARGE, WAS IN THE LATTER CLASS, WHOSE
DUTY IS TO RECEIVE, REWRITE, AND FILE FOR TRANSMISSION NEWS COMING INTO
THE OFFICE.  AN EXECUTIVE NEWS EDITOR, ASSISTED BY SUPERVISING EDITORS
AND EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES, HAS GENERAL CHARGE OF THE REVISION OF NEWS
RECEIVED FROM SO-CALLED FILING EDITORS WHO ARE IN IMMEDIATE CHARGE OF
THE TELEGRAPH WIRES CONNECTING WITH THE SOURCES AND DESTINATION OF
NEWS.  THESE FILING EDITORS SUPERVISE THE NEWS AS IT GOES OUT FROM NEW
YORK CITY; THEY DETERMINE WHAT NEWS, FROM THE TOTAL COPY DELIVERED TO
THEM, IS TO BE SENT OVER THE WIRES OF WHICH THEY HAVE CHARGE TO THE
AREA REACHED BY THOSE WIRES, AND THEY HAVE CHARGE OF REWRITING SUCH
COPY AS IT COMES FROM THE OTHER EDITORS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR USE
IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CIRCUITS AND THE DELIVERY OF THE SELECTED AND
REWRITTEN NEWS TO TELETYPE OPERATORS FOR TRANSMISSION OVER THEIR
WIRES.  THE FUNCTION OF EDITORS AND EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES SUCH AS WATSON
IS TO DETERMINE THE NEWS VALUE OF ITEMS RECEIVED AND SPEEDILY AND
ACCURATELY TO REWRITE THE COPY DELIVERED TO THEM, SO THAT THE REWRITTEN
MATTER SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE VARIOUS FILING EDITORS WHO ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS TRANSMISSION, IF APPROPRIATE, TO THE AREAS REACHED
BY THEIR CIRCUITS. 

UPON THE BASIS OF THESE FACTS THE BOARD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSOCIATED
PRESS WAS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE; THAT WATSON'S SERVICES BORE A
DIRECT RELATION TO PETITIONER'S INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACTIVITIES; AND
THAT LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN PETITIONER AND EMPLOYEES OF HIS CLASS, AND
LABOR DISTURBANCES OR STRIKES AFFECTING THAT CLASS OF EMPLOYEES, TEND
TO HINDER AND IMPEDE INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE
CHALLENGED BY THE PETITIONER. 

"TRADE, TRAFFIC, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION, OR COMMUNICATION AMONG THE
SEVERAL STATES  ...  OR BETWEEN ANY FOREIGN COUNTRY AND ANY STATE
..."  SUBSECTION (7) PROVIDES:  "THE TERM 'AFFECTING COMMERCE' MEANS IN
COMMERCE, OR BURDENING OR OBSTRUCTING COMMERCE OR THE FREE FLOW OF
COMMERCE." 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WITHIN THE
DEFINITION OF THE STATUTE AND THE MEANING OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  IT IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY SET UP BY CONSTITUENT MEMBERS
WHO ARE ENGAGED IN A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS FOR PROFIT, AND AS SUCH
INSTRUMENTALITY ACTS AS AN EXCHANGE OR CLEARING HOUSE OF NEWS AS
BETWEEN THE RESPECTIVE MEMBERS, AND AS A SUPPLIER TO MEMBERS, OF NEWS
GATHERED THROUGH ITS OWN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN ACTIVITIES.  THESE
OPERATIONS INVOLVE THE CONSTANT USE OF CHANNELS OF INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMUNICATION.  THEY AMOUNT TO COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE, AND SUCH
INTERCOURSE IS COMMERCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN4
INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION OF A BUSINESS NATURE, WHATEVER THE MEANS OF
SUCH COMMUNICATION, IS INTERSTATE COMMERCE REGULABLE BY CONGRESS UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION.  FN5  THIS CONCLUSION IS UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT
THE PETITIONER DOES NOT SELL NEWS AND DOES NOT OPERATE FOR PROFIT,  FN6
OR THAT TECHNICALLY THE TITLE TO THE NEWS REMAINS IN THE PETITIONER
DURING INTERSTATE TRANSMISSION.  FN7  PETITIONER BEING SO ENGAGED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE CONGRESS MAY ADOPT APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS OF
ITS ACTIVITIES FOR THE PROTECTION AND ADVANCEMENT, AND FOR THE
INSURANCE OF THE SAFETY OF, SUCH COMMERCE. 

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT SEEKS TO PROTECT THE EMPLOYEES'
RIGHT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND PROHIBITS ACTS OF THE EMPLOYER
DISCRIMINATING AGAINST EMPLOYEES FOR UNION ACTIVITIES AND ADVOCACY OF
SUCH BARGAINING, BY DENOMINATING THEM UNFAIR PRACTICES TO BE ABATED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  AS IS SHOWN IN THE OPINION IN
VIRGINIAN RY. CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515, THE
EXPERIENCE UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT HAS DEMONSTRATED THE EFFICACY OF
SUCH LEGISLATION IN PREVENTING INDUSTRIAL STRIKES AND OBVIATING
INTERFERENCE WITH THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE PETITIONER,
HOWEVER, INSISTS THAT EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES SUCH AS WATSON ARE REMOTE
FROM ANY INTERSTATE ACTIVITY AND THEIR EMPLOYMENT AND TENURE CAN HAVE
NO DIRECT OR INTIMATE RELATION WITH THE COURSE OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
WE THINK, HOWEVER, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT STRIKES OR LABOR DISTURBANCES
AMONGST THIS CLASS OF EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE AS DIRECT AN EFFECT UPON THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONER AS SIMILAR DISTURBANCES AMONGST THOSE WHO
OPERATE THE TELETYPE MACHINES OR AS A STRIKE AMONGST THE EMPLOYEES OF
TELEGRAPH LINES OVER WHICH PETITIONER'S MESSAGES TRAVEL. 

IN TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
281 U.S. 548, 570, WE HELD A STATUTE PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY RAILWAY EMPLOYEES WAS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF
CONGRESS UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THAT ITS PROVISIONS EXTENDED TO
CLERKS WHO HAD NO DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE ACTUAL FACILITIES OF RAILWAY
TRANSPORTATION.  WE THERE SAID: 

"EXERCISING THIS AUTHORITY, CONGRESS MAY FACILITATE THE AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WHICH THREATEN THE SERVICE OF THE NECESSARY
AGENCIES OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  IN SHAPING ITS LEGISLATION TO
THIS END, CONGRESS WAS ENTITLED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF ACTUAL CONDITIONS
AND TO ADDRESS ITSELF TO PRACTICABLE MEASURES.  THE LEGALITY OF
COLLECTIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF EMPLOYEES IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THEIR
PROPER INTERESTS IS NOT TO BE DISPUTED.  IT HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED
THAT EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO ORGANIZE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECURING THE
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES AND TO PROMOTE AGREEMENTS WITH EMPLOYERS RELATING
TO RATES OF PAY AND CONDITIONS OF WORK.  AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES V.
TRI-CITY CENTRAL TRADES COUNCIL, 257 U.S. 184, 209.  CONGRESS WAS NOT
REQUIRED TO IGNORE THIS RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEES BUT COULD SAFEGUARD IT
AND SEEK TO MAKE THEIR APPROPRIATE COLLECTIVE ACTION AN INSTRUMENT OF
PEACE RATHER THAN OF STRIFE." 

IN VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, SUPRA, WE HAVE
HELD AN AMENDMENT OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS
ANALOGOUS TO THE STATUTE HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION, APPLICABLE TO SO
CALLED BACK-SHOP EMPLOYEES OF RAILROADS DESPITE THE CONTENTION THAT
THEIR EMPLOYMENT IS REMOTE FROM INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION. 

THESE DECISIONS FORECLOSE THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT WATSON'S
EMPLOYMENT HAD NO RELATION TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND COULD NOT BE
SUBJECTED TO THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT. 

SECOND.  DOES THE STATUTE, AS APPLIED TO THE PETITIONER, ABRIDGE THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR OF THE PRESS, SAFEGUARDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT? 
WE HOLD THAT IT DOES NOT.  IT IS INSISTED THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS
IN SUBSTANCE THE PRESS ITSELF, THAT THE MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS SOLELY OF
PERSONS WHO OWN AND OPERATE NEWSPAPERS, THAT THE NEWS IS GATHERED
SOLELY FOR PUBLICATION IN THE NEWSPAPERS OF MEMBERS.  STRESS IS LAID
UPON THE FACTS THAT THIS MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF PERSONS OF EVERY
CONCEIVABLE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, AND RELIGIOUS VIEW, THAT THE ONE THING
UPON WHICH THE MEMBERS ARE UNITED IS THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SHALL BE
WHOLLY FREE FROM PARTISAN ACTIVITY OR THE EXPRESSION OF OPINIONS, THAT
IT SHALL LIMIT ITS FUNCTION TO REPORTING EVENTS WITHOUT BIAS IN ORDER
THAT THE CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTRY, IF GIVEN THE FACTS, MAY BE ABLE TO
FORM THEIR OWN OPINIONS RESPECTING THEM.  THE CONCLUSION WHICH THE
PETITIONER DRAWS IS THAT WHATEVER MAY BE THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO
EMPLOYEES IN ITS MECHANICAL DEPARTMENTS IT MUST HAVE ABSOLUTE AND
UNRESTRICTED FREEDOM TO EMPLOY AND TO DISCHARGE THOSE WHO, LIKE WATSON,
EDIT THE NEWS, THAT THERE MUST NOT BE THE SLIGHTEST OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY
BIAS OR PREJUDICE PERSONALLY ENTERTAINED BY AN EDITORIAL EMPLOYEE TO
COLOR OR TO DISTORT WHAT HE WRITES, AND THAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
CANNOT BE FREE TO FURNISH UNBIASED AND IMPARTIAL NEWS REPORTS UNLESS IT
IS EQUALLY FREE TO DETERMINE FOR ITSELF THE PARTIALITY OR BIAS OF
EDITORIAL EMPLOYEES.  SO IT IS SAID THAT ANY REGULATION PROTECTIVE OF
UNION ACTIVITIES, OR THE RIGHT COLLECTIVELY TO BARGAIN ON THE PART OF
SUCH EMPLOYEES, IS NECESSARILY AN INVALID INVASION OF THE FREEDOM OF
THE PRESS. 

WE THINK THE CONTENTION NOT ONLY HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE BUT IS AN UNSOUND GENERALIZATION. 
THE OSTENSIBLE REASON FOR WATSON'S DISCHARGE, AS EMBODIED IN THE
RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER, IS "SOLELY ON THE GROUNDS OF HIS WORK NOT
BEING ON A BASIS FOR WHICH HE HAS SHOWN CAPABILITY."  THE PETITIONER
DID NOT ASSERT AND DOES NOT NOW CLAIM THAT HE HAD SHOWN BIAS IN THE
PAST.  IT DOES NOT CLAIM THAT BY REASON OF HIS CONNECTION WITH THE
UNION HE WILL BE LIKELY, AS THE PETITIONER HONESTLY BELIEVES, TO SHOW
BIAS IN THE FUTURE.  THE ACTUAL REASON FOR HIS DISCHARGE, AS SHOWN BY
THE UNATTACKED FINDING OF THE BOARD, WAS HIS GUILD ACTIVITY AND HIS
AGITATION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT PRECLUDE A
DISCHARGE ON THE OSTENSIBLE GROUNDS FOR THE PETITIONER'S ACTION; IT
FORBIDS DISCHARGE FOR WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE THE REAL MOTIVE OF THE
PETITIONER.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS ANSWER THE SUGGESTION WAS LIKELY TO
BE SUBVERTED BY WATSON'S CONTINUED SERVICE, CONGRESS WAS WITHOUT POWER
TO INTERDICT HIS DISCHARGE.  NO SUCH QUESTION IS HERE FOR DECISION. 
NEITHER BEFORE THE BOARD, NOR IN THE COURT BELOW, NOR HERE HAS THE
PETITIONER PROFESSED SUCH BELIEF.  IT SEEKS TO BAR ALL REGULATION BY
CONTENDING THAT REGULATION IN A SITUATION NOT PRESENTED WOULD BE
INVALID.  COURTS DEAL WITH CASES UPON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED,
NEVER WITH NONEXISTENT AND ASSUMED CIRCUMSTANCES. 

THE ACT DOES NOT COMPEL THE PETITIONER TO EMPLOY ANYONE; IT DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT THE PETITIONER RETAIN IN ITS EMPLOY AN INCOMPETENT EDITOR
OR ONE WHO FAILS FAITHFULLY TO EDIT THE NEWS TO REFLECT THE FACTS
WITHOUT BIAS OR PREJUDICE.  THE ACT PERMITS A DISCHARGE FOR ANY REASON
OTHER THAN UNION ACTIVITY OR AGITATION FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH
EMPLOYEES.  THE RESTORATION OF WATSON TO HIS FORMER POSITION IN NO
SENSE GUARANTEES HIS CONTINUANCE IN PETITIONER'S EMPLOY.  THE
PETITIONER IS AT LIBERTY, WHENEVER OCCASION MAY ARISE, TO EXERCISE ITS
UNDOUBTED RIGHT TO SEVER HIS RELATIONSHIP FOR ANY CAUSE THAT SEEMS TO
IT PROPER SAVE ONLY AS A PUNISHMENT FOR, OR DISCOURAGEMENT OF, SUCH
ACTIVITIES AS THE ACT DECLARES PERMISSIBLE. 

THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS NOT IMMUNE FROM REGULATION
BECAUSE IT IS AN AGENCY OF THE PRESS.  THE PUBLISHER OF A NEWSPAPER HAS
NO SPECIAL IMMUNITY FROM THE APPLICATION OF GENERAL LAWS.  HE HAS NO
SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO INVADE THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.  HE
MUST ANSWER FOR LIBEL.  FN8  HE MAY BE PUNISHED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. 
FN9  HE IS SUBJECT TO THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.  FN10  LIKE OTHERS HE MUST
PAY EQUITABLE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY TAXES ON HIS BUSINESS.  FN11 THE
REGULATION HERE IN QUESTION HAS NO RELATION WHATEVER TO THE IMPARTIAL
DISTRIBUTION OF NEWS.  THE ORDER OF THE BOARD IN NOWISE CIRCUMSCRIBES
THE FULL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF THE PETITIONER TO PUBLISH THE NEWS AS
IT DESIRES IT PUBLISHED OR TO ENFORCE POLICIES OF ITS OWN CHOOSING WITH
RESPECT TO THE EDITING AND REWRITING OF NEWS FOR PUBLICATION, AND THE
PETITIONER IS FREE AT ANY TIME TO DISCHARGE WATSON OR ANY EDITORIAL
EMPLOYEE WHO FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE POLICIES IT MAY ADOPT. 

THIRD.  THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE ACT DEPRIVES THE PETITIONER OF
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, THAT THE ORDER OF THE BOARD DEPRIVES
PETITIONER OF THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY, AND THAT THE ACT IS INVALID
ON ITS FACE BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO REGULATE BOTH INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE
COMMERCE, ARE SUFFICIENTLY ANSWERED IN THE OPINION IN TEXAS AND N.O.R.
CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, SUPRA, AND IN
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., ANTE,
P. 1, AND NEED NO FURTHER DISCUSSION HERE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  JULY 5, 1935, C. 372, 49 STAT. 449; U.S.C. SUPP. I, TIT. 29,
SECS. 151, ETC.  THE TERMS OF THE ACT, THE PROCEDURE THEREUNDER, AND
THE RELIEF WHICH MAY BE GRANTED PURSUANT THERETO, ARE SET FORTH IN THE
OPINION IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORP., ANTE, P. 1. 

FN2  1 N.L.R.B. 788. 

FN3  85 F.(2D) 56. 

FN4  GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 189. 

FN5  PENSACOLA TELEGRAPH CO. V. WESTERN UNION, 96 U.S. 1, 9, 10;
FEDERAL RADIO COMM'N V. NELSON BROS. CO., 289 U.S. 266, 279;
INTERNATIONAL TEXTBOOK CO. V. PIGG, 217 U.S. 91, 107; INDIANA FARMER'S
GUIDE PUBLISHING CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER PUBLISHING CO., 293 U.S. 268,
276. 

FN6  UNITED STATES V. HILL, 248 U.S. 420; UNITED STATES V. SIMPSON,
252 U.S. 465. 

FN7  PIPE LINE CASES, 234 U.S. 548, 560. 

FN8  ROBERTSON V. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275, 281. 

FN9  TOLEDO NEWSPAPER CO. V. UNITED STATES, 247 U.S. 402. 

FN10  INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUBLISHING CO. V. PRAIRIE FARMER
PUBLISHING CO., SUPRA. 

FN11  GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233, 250. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, DISSENTING. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER
AND I THINK THE JUDGMENT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

ONE OF THE POINTS MADE IN THE COURT BELOW, AND ASSIGNED AS ERROR HERE
IS THAT THE STATUTE INVOLVED, AS APPLIED, ABRIDGES THE FREEDOM OF THE
PRESS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IS ENGAGED IN COLLECTING, EDITING AND
DISTRIBUTING NEWS TO ITS MEMBERS, PUBLISHERS OF SOME 1300 NEWSPAPERS
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  THESE NEWSPAPERS REPRESENT MANY DIVERSE
POLICIES AND MANY DIFFERENCES IN POINT OF VIEW.  IT, OBVIOUSLY, IS
ESSENTIAL THAT THE NEWS FURNISHED SHOULD NOT ONLY BE WITHOUT
SUPPRESSION BUT THAT IT SHOULD BE, AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, FREE FROM COLOR,
BIAS OR DISTORTION.  SUCH IS THE LONG-ESTABLISHED POLICY OF THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS.  IF THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT HERE INVOLVED, UPON ITS
FACE OR IN ITS PRESENT APPLICATION, ABRIDGES THE FREEDOM OF PETITIONER
TO CARRY ITS POLICY INTO EFFECT, THE ACT TO THAT EXTENT FALLS UNDER THE
CONDEMNATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  WE SHALL CONFINE OURSELVES TO
THAT QUESTION, THE GRAVITY OF WHICH IS EVIDENT; BUT WE DO NOT MEAN
THEREBY TO RECORD OUR ASSENT TO ALL THAT HAS BEEN SAID WITH REGARD TO
OTHER QUESTIONS IN THE CASE.    THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION SAFEGUARD THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS THEREIN MENTIONED FROM
EVERY FORM OF UNPERMITTED FEDERAL LEGISLATION.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE PERSON AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF LIFE,
LIBERTY OR PROPERTY EXCEPT BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  "LIBERTY" IS A WORD
OF WIDE MEANING, AND, WITHOUT MORE, WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE VARIOUS
LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.  DE JONGE V. OREGON, 299
U.S. 353, 364, AND CASES CITED; GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297
U.S. 233, 243-245; NEAR V. MINNESOTA, 283 U.S. 697, 707; PIERCE V.
SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535. 

BUT THE FRAMERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, REGARDING CERTAIN LIBERTIES AS
SO VITAL THAT LEGISLATIVE DENIAL OF THEM SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY
FORECLOSED, PROVIDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT: 

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION,
OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO
ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AMENDMENTS IS AN EMPHATIC ONE AND
READILY APPARENT.  DEPRIVATION OF A LIBERTY NOT EMBRACED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT, AS FOR EXAMPLE THE LIBERTY OF CONTRACT, IS QUALIFIED BY THE
PHRASE "WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW"; BUT THOSE LIBERTIES ENUMERATED IN
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARE GUARANTEED WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, THE OBJECT
AND EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO PUT THEM IN A CATEGORY APART AND MAKE THEM
INCAPABLE OF ABRIDGMENT BY ANY PROCESS OF LAW.  THAT THIS IS INFLEXIBLY
TRUE OF THE CLAUSE IN RESPECT OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CANNOT
BE DOUBTED; AND IT IS TRUE OF THE OTHER CLAUSES SAVE AS THEY MAY BE
SUBJECT IN SOME DEGREE TO RARE AND EXTREME EXIGENCIES SUCH AS, FOR
EXAMPLE, A STATE OF WAR.  LEGISLATION WHICH CONTRAVENES THE LIBERTIES
OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT MIGHT NOT CONTRAVENE LIBERTIES OF ANOTHER KIND
FALLING ONLY WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THUS, WE HAVE
HELD THAT THE GOVERNMENTAL POWER OF TAXATION, ONE OF THE LEAST
LIMITABLE OF THE POWERS, MAY NOT BE EXERTED SO AS TO ABRIDGE THE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS (GROSJEAN V. AMERICAN PRESS CO., SUPRA), ALBEIT
THE SAME TAX MIGHT BE ENTIRELY VALID IF CHALLENGED UNDER THE "LIBERTY"
GUARANTY OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, APART FROM THOSE LIBERTIES EMBRACED BY
THE FIRST.  COMPARE LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 219 U.S.
467, 482-483. 

NO ONE CAN READ THE LONG HISTORY WHICH RECORDS THE STERN AND OFTEN
BLOODY STRUGGLES BY WHICH THESE CARDINAL RIGHTS WERE SECURED, WITHOUT
REALIZING HOW NECESSARY IT IS TO PRESERVE THEM AGAINST ANY
INFRINGEMENT, HOWEVER SLIGHT.  FOR, AS MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY SAID IN BOYD
V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, 635, "ILLEGITIMATE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PRACTICES GET THEIR FIRST FOOTING IN THAT WAY, NAMELY, BY SILENT
APPROACHES AND SLIGHT DEVIATIONS FROM LEGAL MODES OF PROCEDURE....  IT
IS THE DUTY OF COURTS TO BE WATCHFUL FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF
THE CITIZEN, AND AGAINST ANY STEALTHY ENCROACHMENTS THEREON.  THEIR
MOTTO SHOULD BE OBSTA PRINCIPIIS."  "EXPERIENCE SHOULD TEACH US," IT
WAS SAID IN ANOTHER CASE, "TO BE MOST ON OUR GUARD TO PROTECT LIBERTY
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT'S PURPOSES ARE BENEFICENT.  MEN BORN TO FREEDOM ARE
NATURALLY ALERT TO REPEL INVASION OF THEIR LIBERTY BY EVIL-MINDED
RULERS.  THE GREATEST DANGERS TO LIBERTY LURK IN INSIDIOUS ENCROACHMENT
BY MEN OF ZEAL, WELL-MEANING BUT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING."  OLMSTEAD V.
UNITED STATES, (DISSENT), 277 U.S. 471, 479.  A LITTLE WATER, TRICKLING
HERE AND THERE THROUGH A DAM, IS A SMALL MATTER IN ITSELF; BUT IT MAY
BE A SINISTER MENACE TO THE SECURITY OF THE DAM, WHICH THOSE LIVING IN
THE VALLEY BELOW WILL DO WELL TO HEED. 

THE DESTRUCTION OR ABRIDGMENT OF A FREE PRESS - WHICH CONSTITUTES ONE
OF THE MOST DEPENDABLE AVENUES THROUGH WHICH INFORMATION OF PUBLIC AND
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES MAY BE TRANSMITTED TO THE PEOPLE - WOULD BE AN
EVENT SO EVIL IN ITS CONSEQUENCES THAT THE LEAST APPROACH TOWARD THAT
END SHOULD BE HALTED AT THE THRESHOLD. 

THE GRANTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ALWAYS ARE TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF
THE RESTRICTIONS.  THUS, THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS ON THE
SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES, THE EXERCISE OF THE WAR POWERS, OF THE POWER
TO TAX, OF THE POWER TO EXCLUDE ALIENS, OR OF THE POWER TO REGULATE
COMMERCE, IS EACH SUBJECT TO THE QUALIFIED RESTRICTIONS OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT (LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, 589); AS EACH,
ALSO, IS SUBJECT, SO FAR AS APPROPRIATE, TO THE UNQUALIFIED
RESTRICTIONS OF THE FIRST.  CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO REGULATE THE
RELATIONS OF PRIVATE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE AS AN END IN ITSELF, BUT
ONLY IF THAT BE AN APPROPRIATE AND LEGITIMATE MEANS TO A CONSTITUTIONAL
END, WHICH HERE IS THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ASSUMING
THAT THE STATUTE UPON ITS FACE SATISFIES THIS TEST, DOES THE PRESENT
APPLICATION OF IT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED? 

FREEDOM IS NOT A MERE INTELLECTUAL ABSTRACTION; AND IT IS NOT MERELY
A WORD TO ADORN AN ORATION UPON OCCASIONS OF PATRIOTIC REJOICING.  IT
IS AN INTENSELY PRACTICAL REALITY, CAPABLE OF CONCRETE ENJOYMENT IN A
MULTITUDE OF WAYS DAY BY DAY.  WHEN APPLIED TO THE PRESS, THE TERM
FREEDOM IS NOT TO BE NARROWLY CONFINED; AND IT OBVIOUSLY MEANS MORE
THAN PUBLICATION AND CIRCULATION.  IF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS DOES NOT
INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND PURSUE A POLICY WITHOUT GOVERNMENTAL
RESTRICTION, IT IS A MISNOMER TO CALL IT FREEDOM.  AND WE MAY AS WELL
DENY AT ONCE THE RIGHT OF THE PRESS FREELY TO ADOPT A POLICY AND PURSUE
IT, AS TO CONCEDE THAT RIGHT AND DENY THE LIBERTY TO EXERCISE AN
UNCENSORED JUDGMENT IN RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYMENT AND DISCHARGE OF THE
AGENTS THROUGH WHOM THE POLICY IS TO BE EFFECTUATED. 

IN A MATTER OF SUCH CONCERN, THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS - OR, STILL
LESS, THE JUDGMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENSOR - CANNOT, UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT OF THE PRESS MANAGEMENT IN
RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYMENT OR DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN
EDITORIAL WORK.  THE GOOD WHICH MIGHT COME TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
THE BENEFIT WHICH MIGHT RESULT TO A SPECIAL GROUP, HOWEVER LARGE, MUST
GIVE WAY TO THAT HIGHER GOOD OF ALL THE PEOPLE SO PLAINLY CONTEMPLATED
BY THE IMPERATIVE REQUIREMENT THAT "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW  ...
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM  ...  OF THE PRESS." 

THE PRESENT CASE ILLUSTRATES THE NECESSITY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THESE PRINCIPLES.  THE BOARD FOUND, IN EFFECT, THAT THE ACTUAL REASON
FOR WATSON'S DISCHARGE WAS HIS ACTIVITY AS A MEMBER OF A LABOR
ORGANIZATION IN THE FURTHERANCE OF ITS AIMS.  ACCEPTING THIS AS A TRUE
STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR THE DISCHARGE, LET US CONSIDER THE QUESTION
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THAT FINDING; ALTHOUGH, AS ALREADY INDICATED, WE
ARE OF OPINION THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY OF THE PRESS DOES NOT
PERMIT ANY LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTION OF THE AUTHORITY OF A PUBLISHER,
ACTING UPON HIS OWN JUDGMENT, TO DISCHARGE ANYONE ENGAGED IN THE
EDITORIAL SERVICE.  SUCH A RESTRICTION OF ITSELF WOULD BE AN ABRIDGMENT
OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NO LESS THAN A LAW RESTRICTING THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY OF ONE TO SPEAK WOULD BE AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 

FOR MANY YEARS THERE HAS BEEN CONTENTION BETWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL. 
LABOR HAS BECOME HIGHLY ORGANIZED IN A WIDE EFFORT TO SECURE AND
PRESERVE ITS RIGHTS.  THE DAILY NEWS WITH RESPECT TO LABOR DISPUTES IS
NOW OF VAST PROPORTIONS; AND CLEARLY A CONSIDERABLE PART OF
PETITIONER'S EDITORIAL SERVICE MUST BE DEVOTED TO THAT SUBJECT.  SUCH
NEWS IS NOT ONLY OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST; BUT AN UNBIASED VERSION OF
IT IS OF THE UTMOST PUBLIC CONCERN.  TO GIVE A GROUP OF EMPLOYERS ON
THE ONE HAND, OR A LABOR ORGANIZATION ON THE OTHER, POWER OF CONTROL
OVER SUCH A SERVICE IS OBVIOUSLY TO ENDANGER THE FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY
OF THE SERVICE.  STRONG SYMPATHY FOR OR STRONG PREJUDICE AGAINST A
GIVEN CAUSE OR THE EFFORTS MADE TO ADVANCE IT HAS TOO OFTEN LED TO
SUPPRESSION OR COLORATION OF UNWELCOME FACTS.  IT WOULD SEEM TO BE AN
EXERCISE OF ONLY REASONABLE PRUDENCE FOR AN ASSOCIATION ENGAGED IN PART
IN SUPPLYING THE PUBLIC WITH FAIR AND ACCURATE FACTUAL INFORMATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE CONTESTS BETWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL, TO SEE THAT THOSE
WHOSE ACTIVITIES INCLUDE THAT SERVICE ARE FREE FROM EITHER EXTREME
SYMPATHY OR EXTREME PREJUDICE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.  AND IT WOULD BE NO
ANSWER TO SAY THAT DEALING WITH NEWS OF THIS CHARACTER CONSTITUTES ONLY
A PART OF THE DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL FORCE.  THE INTEREST OF A JUROR,
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE RESULT, WHICH EXCLUDES HIM FROM SITTING IN A CASE,
MAY BE SMALL AND THE ADVERSE EFFECT UPON HIS VERDICT BY NO MEANS
CERTAIN.  NEVERTHELESS, THE PARTY AFFECTED CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO
ASSUME THE HAZARD.  IN THE PRESENT CASE, BY A PARITY OF REASONING, THE
HOPE OF BENEFIT TO A CHERISHED CAUSE WHICH MAY BIAS THE EDITORIAL
EMPLOYEE IS A CONTINGENCY THE RISK OF WHICH THE PRESS IN THE EXERCISE
OF ITS UNCHALLENGEABLE FREEDOM UNDER THE CONSTITUTION MAY TAKE OR
DECLINE TO TAKE, WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO ANY FORM OF LEGISLATIVE
COERCION. 

WHAT, THEN, ARE THE FACTS HERE INVOLVED?  MORRIS WATSON WAS EMPLOYED
BY PETITIONER FIRST IN 1928 AS A REPORTER AND REWRITE EDITOR IN
PETITIONER'S CHICAGO OFFICE.  IN 1930, HE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW
YORK OFFICE, AND THERE SERVED AS EDITORIAL EMPLOYEE UNTIL HIS DISCHARGE
ON OCTOBER 18, 1935.  ONE OF HIS DUTIES WAS TO REWRITE AND SUPERVISE
THE NEWS RECEIVED AT THE NEW YORK OFFICE AND DETERMINE WHAT PORTION OF
IT SHOULD BE SENT TO POINTS OUTSIDE.  AS THE COURT ALREADY HAS POINTED
OUT, HE HAD AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE NEWS VALUE OF ITEMS RECEIVED AND
WAS REQUIRED TO SPEEDILY AND ACCURATELY REWRITE THE COPY DELIVERED TO
HIM. 

IN NOVEMBER, 1933, WATSON WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN ORGANIZING THE
ASSOCIATED PRESS UNIT OF THE NEW YORK NEWSPAPER GUILD, A LABOR
ORGANIZATION, CONSTITUTING A PART OF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD; AND
HE WAS, FROM THE BEGINNING, RECOGNIZED AS THE OUTSTANDING UNION
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESS ASSOCIATIONS.  HE SERVED SUCCESSIVELY AS
CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS UNIT AND AS TREASURER AND SECRETARY OF
THE NEW YORK GUILD, AND AT THE TIME OF HIS DISCHARGE WAS VICE-PRESIDENT
FOR WIRING SERVICES OF THE AMERICAN GUILD.  HIS GUILD ACTIVITIES WERE
IMMEDIATELY OBJECTED TO BY PETITIONER; AND THEREAFTER, ON NUMEROUS
OCCASIONS, THESE ACTIVITIES WERE OBJECTED TO BY PETITIONER'S EXECUTIVES
AND INDUCEMENTS WERE HELD OUT TO HIM TO ABANDON THEM.  THE FINDINGS OF
THE BOARD DISCLOSE THAT WATSON CONTINUED IN VARIOUS WAYS TO PROMOTE THE
INTERESTS OF THE GUILD; AND THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT HIS SYMPATHIES WERE
STRONGLY ENLISTED IN SUPPORT OF THE GUILD'S POLICIES, WHETHER THEY
CLASHED WITH THE POLICIES OF PETITIONER OR NOT.  WE DO NOT QUESTION HIS
RIGHT TO ASSUME AND MAINTAIN THAT ATTITUDE.  BUT, IF PETITIONER
CONCLUDED, AS IT WELL COULD HAVE DONE, THAT ITS POLICY TO PRESERVE ITS
NEWS SERVICE FREE FROM COLOR, BIAS OR DISTORTION WAS LIKELY TO BE
SUBVERTED BY WATSON'S RETENTION, WHAT POWER HAS CONGRESS TO INTERFERE
IN THE FACE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT? 

AND THAT QUESTION MAY NOT BE DETERMINED BY CONSIDERING WATSON ONLY;
FOR THE POWER TO COMPEL HIS CONTINUANCE IN THE SERVICE INCLUDES THE
POWER TO COMPEL THE CONTINUANCE OF ALL GUILD MEMBERS ENGAGED IN
EDITORIAL WORK, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
HERE MADE, IF CARRIED TO THE LOGICAL EXTREME, WOULD GIVE OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE GUILD TO EXERCISE A HIGH DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER THE CHARACTER
OF THE NEWS SERVICE.  DUE REGARD FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY
REQUIRES THAT THE PUBLISHER OR AGENCY OF THE PUBLISHER OF NEWS SHALL BE
FREE FROM RESTRAINT IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE EDITORIAL FORCE. 
AND WE ARE DEALING HERE NOT WITH GUILD MEMBERS EMPLOYED IN THE
MECHANICAL OR PURELY CLERICAL WORK OF THE PRESS BUT WITH THOSE ENGAGED
AS WATSON WAS IN ITS EDITORIAL WORK AND HAVING THE POWER THEREBY TO
AFFECT THE EXECUTION OF ITS POLICIES. 

AN ILLUSTRATION MAY BE HELPFUL:  THE RIGHT TO BELONG TO A LABOR UNION
IS ENTITLED TO THE SHIELD OF THE LAW, BUT NO MORE SO THAN THE RIGHT NOT
TO BELONG.  NEITHER CAN BE PROSCRIBED.  SO MUCH MUST BE TRUE, OR WE DO
NOT LIVE IN A FREE LAND.  LET US SUPPOSE THE PASSAGE OF A STATUTE OF
LIKE CHARACTER WITH THAT UNDER REVIEW, HAVING THE SAME OBJECTIVE, BUT
TO BE EFFECTED BY FORBIDDING THE DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES ON THE GROUND
NOT THAT THEY ARE BUT THAT THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS OF A LABOR
ASSOCIATION.  LET US SUPPOSE FURTHER THAT A LABOR ASSOCIATION IS
ENGAGED IN PUBLISHING AN INTERSTATE-CIRCULATED JOURNAL DEVOTED TO
FURTHERING THE INTERESTS OF LABOR, AND THAT MEMBERS OF ITS EDITORIAL
STAFF, RESIGNING THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION, TRANSFER THEIR
ALLEGIANCE FROM THE CAUSE OF THE WORKINGMAN TO THAT OF THE EMPLOYER. 
CAN IT BE DOUBTED THAT AN ORDER REQUIRING THE REINSTATEMENT OF AN
EDITORIAL WRITER WHO HAD BEEN DISCHARGED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
WOULD ABRIDGE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST
AMENDMENT? 

AND IF THAT VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT MAY BE AFFIRMED IN THE CASE OF A
PUBLICATION ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING A PARTICULAR CAUSE, HOW
CAN IT BE DENIED IN THE CASE OF A PRESS ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED TO GATHER
AND EDIT THE NEWS FAIRLY AND WITHOUT BIAS OR DISTORTION FOR THE USE OF
ALL CAUSES?  TO HOLD THAT THE PRESS ASSOCIATION MUST AWAIT A CONCRETE
INSTANCE OF MISINTERPRETATION OF THE NEWS BEFORE IT CAN ACT IS TO
COMPEL IT TO EXPERIMENT WITH A DOUBT WHEN IT REGARDS CERTAINTY AS
ESSENTIAL.    THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS HERE INFRINGED
DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE, TO BARGAIN
COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS ABOUT WAGES AND OTHER MATTERS
RESPECTING EMPLOYMENT, OR TO REFUSE TO WORK EXCEPT UPON CONDITIONS THEY
ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT.  NOR, THE FIRST AMENDMENT ASIDE, DOES IT
CHALLENGE THE ACT IN SO FAR AS IT IS AN ALLOWABLE REGULATION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  ALL AFFIRMATIONS IN RESPECT OF THESE MATTERS MAY
BE FULLY CONCEDED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR VERY DEFINITE VIEW THAT THE
APPLICATION OF THE ACT HERE HAS RESULTED IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ABRIDGMENT OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. 

DO THE PEOPLE OF THIS LAND - IN THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD, FAVORED, AS
THEY SOMETIMES BOAST, ABOVE ALL OTHERS IN THE PLENITUDE OF THEIR
LIBERTIES - DESIRE TO PRESERVE THOSE SO CAREFULLY PROTECTED BY THE
FIRST AMENDMENT:  LIBERTY OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
OF THE PRESS, AND THE RIGHT AS FREEMEN PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND
PETITION THEIR GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES?  IF SO, LET THEM
WITHSTAND ALL BEGINNINGS OF ENCROACHMENT.  FOR THE SADDEST EPITAPH
WHICH CAN BE CARVED IN MEMORY OF A VANISHED LIBERTY IS THAT IT WAS LOST
BECAUSE ITS POSSESSORS FAILED TO STRETCH FORTH A SAVING HAND WHILE YET
THERE WAS TIME. 
..END :















WASHINGTON COACH CO. V. LABOR BD., 301 U.S. 142 


NO. 469.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 10, 1937.  - DECIDED APRIL 12, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 990, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A CORPORATION ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTING PASSENGERS
AND EXPRESS, FOR HIRE, BETWEEN POINTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
POINTS IN VIRGINIA, HELD AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND
SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AGAINST
DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN A UNION AND THEIR
ADVOCACY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.  P. 146. 

2.  THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT LIMITS THE JURISDICTION OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO INSTANCES WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER,
AND ITS ORDERS IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION MAY BE CHALLENGED BY ANY
PARTY AGGRIEVED.  P. 146. 

3.  CLAIMS NOT MADE IN THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI ARE NOT OPEN FOR
DECISION.  P. 146. 

4.  FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UPON MATTERS
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION WILL NOT BE REVERSED OR MODIFIED UNLESS CLEARLY
IMPROPER OR UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 147. 

5.  AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REQUIRING A COMMON
CARRIER BY MOTOR TO REINSTATE IN ITS EMPLOYMENT SEVERAL DRIVERS AND
GARAGE MECHANICS FOUND BY THE BOARD TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF
THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN A UNION, AND TO MAKE GOOD THE LOSSES OF PAY DUE TO
THEIR DISCHARGE, AND DIRECTING THE CARRIER TO POST NOTICES OF ITS
INTENTION TO COMPLY WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER,  - HELD VALID UPON THE
AUTHORITY OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL
CORP., ANTE, P. 1.  P. 147. 

WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA & MARYLAND COACH CO. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 533, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN
ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ENTERED BY THE COURT BELOW
UPON PETITION OF THE BOARD UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT. 

THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS. 

WHERE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, THE
FEDERAL COURTS CAN MAKE THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF ALL
QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT. 

THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS ENTIRETY. 

PETITIONER HAS THE NECESSARY STANDING TO ARGUE INSEPARABILITY. 

THE STATUTE SHOWS ON ITS FACE A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME TO REGULATE
INTRASTATE AS WELL AS INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES, WITH AN OBJECT IN VIEW
WHICH COULD NOT BE ATTAINED THROUGH THE REGULATION OF INTERSTATE
RELATIONSHIPS ALONE.  HENCE IT APPEARS AFFIRMATIVELY THAT CONGRESS
WOULD NEVER HAVE PASSED THE STATUTE TO REGULATE THE FEW REMAINING LINES
OF INTERSTATE ACTIVITY IF IT COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATE LABOR
RELATIONS IN INTRASTATE INDUSTRY AS WELL.  IN THIS ASPECT THE QUESTION
IS ONE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, I.E., HAVING ALREADY IN THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT OF 1934 REGULATED THE RAILROADS AND ALLIED TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO LABOR, CAN IT BE FAIRLY ARGUED THAT, THE
"COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME" AND THE "OBJECT" OF THE ACT BEING OUTLAWED,
CONGRESS INTENDED IN THE PRESENT ACT TO REGULATE THE FEW REMAINING
INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS BUS COMPANIES AND COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS.  IN THIS RESPECT THE PRESENT CASE SEEMS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO
THE TRADE-MARK CASES, 100 U.S. 82. 

THIS COURT HAVING BEFORE IT A NUMBER OF CASES INVOLVING THE
INTRASTATE APPLICATION OF THE ACT, IT IS PROPER FOR THE PRESENT
PETITIONER TO ARGUE THE LACK OF INTENTION ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO
APPLY THE ACT TO PETITIONER IF THE ACT IS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
BEYOND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE IN AN INTRASTATE CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THIS CASE THE PETITIONER, AN OPERATOR OF MOTOR BUSES FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS AND EXPRESS FOR HIRE BETWEEN POINTS IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, CHALLENGES THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT AGAINST IT AS IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FIFTH AND SEVENTH
AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

PURSUANT TO A WRITTEN CHARGE FILED WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD BY LOCAL NO. 1079 OF THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET,
ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, A LABOR
ORGANIZATION, THE BOARD ISSUED A COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT THE PETITIONER
HAD DISCHARGED AND REFUSED TO REINSTATE CERTAIN DRIVERS AND GARAGE
WORKMEN BECAUSE OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITY IN LOCAL NO. 1079 AND
THAT THIS CONSTITUTED ENGAGING IN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AFFECTING
COMMERCE WITHIN THE INTENT OF SEC. 8, SUBSECTIONS (1) AND (3), AND SEC.
2, SUBSECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.  FN1
THE PETITIONER APPEARED SPECIALLY AND FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS, AND, WITHOUT WAIVING ITS
OBJECTIONS TO THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION, FILED AN ANSWER SUBSTANTIALLY
ADMITTING THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT WITH RESPECT TO THE
INTERSTATE CHARACTER OF ITS BUSINESS, ADMITTING THE DISCHARGE AND
REFUSAL TO REINSTATE THE EMPLOYEES MENTIONED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND
ALLEGING THAT ITS ACTION WAS MOTIVATED BY THE EMPLOYEES' INEFFICIENCY
AND NOT AFFECTED BY THEIR MEMBERSHIP OR ACTIVITY IN THE UNION.  THE
BOARD OVERRULED THE OBJECTIONS TO ITS JURISDICTION, FULLY HEARD THE
CASE, RECEIVED EVIDENCE OFFERED BY BOTH PARTIES, AND AT THE CONCLUSION
OF THE HEARING DENIED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING ON THE GROUND
THAT THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT,
EXCEPT AS TO THREE OF THE TWENTY-ONE EMPLOYEES CONCERNED AS TO WHOM THE
COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE.  THE BOARD RENDERED A
DECISION SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS OF FACT AND ENTERED AN ORDER
PROHIBITING THE PETITIONER FROM DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ITS EMPLOYEES
BASED UPON MEMBERSHIP IN A UNION OR ADVOCACY OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING,
AND REQUIRING THE PETITIONER TO RESTORE EIGHTEEN OF THE DISCHARGED
EMPLOYEES TO THEIR FORMER POSITIONS WITH COMPENSATION FOR LOSS DUE TO
THEIR DISCHARGE AND TO POST NOTICES TO THE EFFECT THAT IT WOULD COMPLY
WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER.  FN2 

BECAUSE OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER THE BOARD FILED A PETITION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT.  THAT COURT
REFUSED TO DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE BOARD, OVERRULED
THE CONTENTIONS AS TO UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT AS APPLIED TO
PETITIONER AND PASSED A DECREE ENFORCING THE ORDER.  FN3 

WHILE THE PETITIONER, IN ITS SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR, ATTACKS THE
HOLDING OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE ACT AS APPLIED DOES
NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AND SEVENTH AMENDMENTS, THE ARGUMENT IN BRIEF AND
AT THE BAR WAS CONFINED TO TWO PROPOSITIONS:  FIRST, THAT THE ACT IS AN
ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF CONGRESS TO REGULATE LABOR RELATIONS IN ALL
EMPLOYMENTS WHETHER INTERSTATE OR INTRASTATE AND AS IT IS VOID AS AN
ATTEMPTED REGULATION OF INTRASTATE COMMERCE THE WHOLE MUST FALL BECAUSE
ITS PROVISIONS ARE INSEVERABLE; SECONDLY, THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT
SUSTAIN THE FINDINGS AND THE BOARD COMMITTED SUBSTANTIAL ERROR IN THE
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE. 

FIRST.  NO CONTENTION IS MADE THAT THE PETITIONER IS OTHER THAN AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION FOR HIRE.  OUR DECISIONS IN TEXAS AND N.O.R. CO. V.
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, AND
VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, 300 U.S. 515, PUT
BEYOND DEBATE THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE AS APPLIED TO THE
PETITIONER.  THE CONTENTION THAT THE ACT ON ITS FACE SEEKS TO REGULATE
LABOR RELATIONS IN ALL EMPLOYMENTS, WHETHER IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR
NOT, IS PLAINLY UNTENABLE.  AS WE HAVE HAD OCCASION TO POINT OUT IN
DECISIONS RENDERED THIS DAY THE ACT LIMITS THE JURISDICTION OF THE
BOARD TO INSTANCES WHICH FALL WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER, AND IF THE
BOARD SHOULD EXCEED THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON IT, ANY PARTY
AGGRIEVED IS AT LIBERTY TO CHALLENGE ITS ACTION. 

SECOND.  THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI MADE NO MENTION OF ANY CLAIM
WITH RESPECT TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE
FINDINGS.  IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACT THE QUESTION IS NOT OPEN FOR
DECISION HERE.  FN4  BUT, WERE THIS NOT SO, WE SHOULD NOT REVIEW THE
FACTS, SINCE SEC. 10(E) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT "THE FINDINGS OF THE
BOARD AS TO THE FACTS, IF SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE,"
AND THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS. 

THIS IS NOT A CASE OF ALLEGED CONFISCATION,  FN5  NOR IS IT ONE WHERE
THE BOARD LACKED JURISDICTION,  FN6  FOR ADMITTEDLY THE PETITIONER'S
ACTIVITIES ARE IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE COMPLAINT IS MERELY OF
ERROR IN APPRECIATING AND WEIGHING EVIDENCE.  IN THE CASE OF STATUTORY
PROVISIONS LIKE SEC. 10(E), APPLICABLE TO OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNALS, WE HAVE REFUSED TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE OR WEIGH THE
TESTIMONY AND HAVE DECLARED WE WILL REVERSE OR MODIFY THE FINDINGS ONLY
IF CLEARLY IMPROPER OR NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  FN7  THE
CONTENTIONS RESPECTING THE REJECTION OF EVIDENCE ARE NOT WELL FOUNDED. 

THIRD.  THE SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR ADDRESSED TO OTHER QUESTIONS ARE
ANSWERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., ANTE, P. 1. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  JULY 5, 1935, C. 372, 49 STAT. 449; U.S.C. SUPP. I, TIT. 29,
SECS. 151, FF. 

FN2  1 N.L.R.B. 769. 

FN3  85 F.(2D) 990. 

FN4  ALICE STATE BANK V. HOUSTON PASTURE CO., 247 U.S. 240, 242;
HELVERING V. TAYLOR, 293 U.S. 507, 511; CLARK V. WILLIARD, 294 U.S.
211, 216; MOREHEAD V. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587, 605. 

FN5  COMPARE ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S.
38; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 349, 368. 

FN6  COMPARE CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22. 

FN7  FLORIDA V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 1, 12; FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N
V. ALGOMA LUMBER CO., 291 U.S. 67, 73; DEL VECCHIO V. BOWERS, 296 U.S.
280; ACKER V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 426, 433, 434. 
..END :

















DIST. OF COLUMBIA V. CLAWANS, 300 U.S. 617 


NO. 103.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 1936.  REARGUED MARCH 1, 1937.  - DECIDED
APRIL 5, 1937.  - 66 APP. D.C. 11 - 84 F.(2D) 265, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE OFFENSE OF ENGAGING, WITHOUT A LICENSE, IN THE BUSINESS OF A
DEALER IN SECOND-HAND PERSONAL PROPERTY, DEFINED BY THE CODE OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $300 OR
IMPRISONMENT OF NOT MORE THAN 90 DAYS, IS TO BE CLASSED AS A PETTY
OFFENSE WHICH, CONSISTENTLY WITH ART. III, SEC. 2, CL. 3, OF THE
CONSTITUTION, MAY BE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY.  P. 624. 

2.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN OFFENSE IS A PETTY OFFENSE THAT
CONSTITUTIONALLY MAY BE TRIED WITHOUT A JURY, THE SEVERITY OF THE
PENALTY INFLICTABLE, AS WELL AS THE MORAL QUALITY OF THE ACT AND ITS
RELATION TO COMMON LAW CRIMES, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.  P. 625. 

3.  ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING SECOND-HAND PROPERTY WITHOUT
A LICENSE WAS NOT INDICTABLE AT COMMON LAW.  TODAY IT IS AT MOST BUT AN
INFRINGEMENT OF LOCAL POLICE REGULATIONS, AND ITS MORAL QUALITY IS
RELATIVELY INOFFENSIVE.  P. 625. 

4.  IN ENGLAND AND IN THE AMERICAN STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, CONFINEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS OR
MORE WAS NOT AN UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR PETTY OFFENSES, TRIED WITHOUT A
JURY.  P. 626. 

5.  THE QUESTION WHETHER AN OFFENSE IS TRIABLE WITHOUT A JURY IS
UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN APPEAL
AS OF RIGHT; IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT, IN A PROPER CASE, AUTHORITY IN
THE APPELLATE COURT TO ALLOW AN APPEAL WILL BE EXERCISED.  P. 627. 

6.  ASSUMING THAT, WITH CHANGE OF THE COMMON ATTITUDE TOWARDS
SEVERITY OF PUNISHMENT, A PETTY OFFENSE WHICH, AT THE TIME OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, WOULD HAVE BEEN TRIABLE WITHOUT A JURY
MAY COME WITHIN THE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRING JURY TRIAL,
THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CHANGE MUST BE DETERMINED BY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS
SUCH AS MAY BE SEEN IN THE LAWS AND PRACTICES OF THE COMMUNITY TAKEN AS
A GAUGE OF ITS SOCIAL AND ETHICAL JUDGMENTS.  P. 627. 

THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE, AND STATUTES IN FORCE IN
THE STATES AND IN ENGLAND, TOGETHER WITH NUMEROUS STATE COURT
DECISIONS, ARE EXAMINED AND ARE PERSUASIVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO SUCH
CHANGE IN THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF PUNISHMENT AS WOULD
OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT A SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF 90 DAYS'
IMPRISONMENT, PERMISSIBLE WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED, IS
PERMISSIBLE NOW. 

7.  COMMON EXPERIENCE TEACHES THAT TESTIMONY DELIVERED AGAINST A
DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE BY PRIVATE POLICE OR DETECTIVES, ACTING IN
THE COURSE OF THEIR PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT, IS OPEN TO THE SUSPICION OF
BIAS, ESPECIALLY WHEN UNCORROBORATED; AND THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SUCH
WITNESSES, BEARING DIRECTLY ON SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES, SHOULD NOT BE
SUMMARILY CURTAILED.  P. 630. 

8.  WHILE THE EXTENT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION RESTS IN THE SOUND
DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, IN THIS CASE DISCRETION WAS ABUSED, AND
THE ERROR PREJUDICIAL.  P. 632. 

THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL, RULINGS OF THE JUDGE PREVENTED CROSS
EXAMINATION IN APPROPRIATE FIELDS AND EXCLUDED QUESTIONS BEARING ON THE
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION AND ON THE COMMISSION BY
THE ACCUSED OF THE ACTS CHARGED. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. CLAWANS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 524, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A CONVICTION
IN THE POLICE COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE OPINION
DISAPPROVES OF THE REASON GIVEN BY THE COURT BELOW BUT AFFIRMS THE
REVERSAL UPON ANOTHER GROUND WHICH THAT COURT DEEMED UNSUBSTANTIAL. 

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE TRIAL OF PETTY OFFENSES BY
JURY.  THE CHARACTER OF SUCH OFFENSES IS DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO THE
PROCEDURE AT COMMON LAW.  SCHICK V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 65; COLTS
V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 282 U.S. 63, 73; CALLAN V. WILSON, 127 U.S.
540; STATE V. BUCHANAN, 5 H. & J. (MD.)  317, 360; UNITED STATES V.
MARSHALL, 17 D.C. 34; PALMER V. LENOVITZ, 34 APP. D.C. 303, 305; PATTON
V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 276, 312; EX PARTE GROSSMAN, 267 U.S. 87,
108. 

AT COMMON LAW, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, THERE WERE
MANY OFFENSES, BOTH IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA, IN THE TRIAL OF WHICH NO
JURY WAS ALLOWED.  THESE INCLUDED NOT ONLY OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY
FINES, BUT OTHERS IN WHICH CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OR IMPRISONMENT MIGHT BE
IMPOSED.  (GIVING NUMEROUS INSTANCES.)  PEOPLE EX REL. COSGRIFF V.
CRAIG, 195 N.Y. 190; JOHNSON V. BARCLAY, 1 HARRISON 1, 6; UNITED STATES
V. MORLAND, 258 U.S. 433, 445; EX PARTE WILSON, 114 U.S. 417, 427. 

THE DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS, WHERE SIMILAR CONSTITUTIONAL
RESTRICTIONS ARE PROVIDED, SUPPORT THE POSITION THAT AN OFFENSE SUCH AS
IS HERE INVOLVED MAY BE TRIED BY SUMMARY PROCEDURE.  CITING THE
FOLLOWING CASES IN ADDITION TO CASES CITED IN THE OPINION:  LANCASTER
V. STATE, 90 MD. 211; STATE V. LODEN, 117 MD. 373; STATE V. RUHE, 24
NEV. 251; DUFFY V. PEOPLE, 6 HILL'S REP. 75; COOLEY V. WILDER, 234 APP.
DIV. 256; PEOPLE V. STEIN, 80 APP. DIV. 357; STATE V. RODGERS, 91
N.J.L. 212; KATZ V. ELDRIDGE, 97 N.J.L. 123. 

THE LICENSE LAW IS IN THE NATURE OF A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE AND
CONGRESS HAS PROPERLY TREATED A VIOLATION OF THE LAW AS A PETTY
OFFENSE.  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. COLTS, 282 U.S. 63, 72; STATE V.
RODGERS, 91 N.J.L. 212, 214. 

THE ABSENCE OF AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF APPEAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT
OF TRIAL BY JURY. 

THE OPINION OF THE LOWER COURT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT.  DIMICK V. SCHIEDT, 293 U.S. 475, 487; CONTINENTAL BANK V.
CHICAGO, R.I. & P.RY., 294 U.S. 648, 669. 

THIS COURT MAY CONSIDER ALL CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT DULY PRESENTED
BELOW, EVEN THOUGH THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS BASED ON A SINGLE
PROPOSITION, AS SUCH ADDITIONAL CONTENTIONS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUSTAINING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.  JUD.  CODE, SECS.
240, 269. 

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL. 

THE NUMEROUS STATUTES CITED BY PETITIONER SHOW THAT A SPECIAL ACT WAS
NECESSARY TO AUTHORIZE ADMINISTRATION OF SUMMARY PUNISHMENT EVEN AT
COMMON LAW.  LICENSE VIOLATIONS DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH
BY THE COMMON LAW. 

EVER SINCE THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN SCHICK V. UNITED STATES, 195
U.S. 65, IT HAS BEEN PLAIN THAT EITHER THE NATURE OF AN OFFENSE OR THE
PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENT MIGHT DETERMINE THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY A JURY. 
IT IS THUS REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT, EVEN WITH RESPECT TO AN OFFENSE
DENOMINATED AS PETTY UNDER THE COMMON LAW, AND WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO
SUMMARY PUNISHMENT AT COMMON LAW, IF, IN MORE MODERN TIMES, THE
PUNISHMENT SHALL HAVE BEEN INCREASED FROM A PETTY DEGREE TO A
SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE, THE RULE OF SUMMARY PUNISHMENT AT COMMON LAW WOULD
NO LONGER APPLY.  THE OFFENSE WOULD, BECAUSE OF THE SEVERITY OF THE
PUNISHMENT, BE ENTITLED TO A CLASSIFICATION AS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, AND
THEREFORE COME WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION GRANTING THE RIGHT
TO A JURY TRIAL. 

IN 1871, A LICENSING ACT WAS PASSED BY THE DISTRICT ASSEMBLY, WHICH
FIXED THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION AT A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $5.00 OR
MORE THAN $50.00, WITHOUT IMPRISONMENT.  A JURY TRIAL WAS PERMITTED. 
LASLEY V. DISTRICT, 14 APP. D.C. 407.  IN 1902, THE OFFENSE WAS MADE
PUNISHABLE BY NOT TO EXCEED $500.00 FINE AND THIRTY DAYS IN JAIL, IN
DEFAULT OF PAYMENT.  AT THIS PERIOD, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO
APPEAL, AND SECURE A JURY TRIAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT. 
DIST. OF COL. REV. STATS., SECS. 1073-7, 773.  IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1925,
THAT RIGHT OF APPEAL WAS WITHDRAWN, AND RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY WAS
LIKEWISE LIMITED TO CASES INVOLVING PUNISHMENT IN EXCESS OF 90 DAYS'
IMPRISONMENT AND $300.00 FINE. 

WE THINK IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE VARIOUS STATE DECISIONS SEEM QUITE
IRRECONCILABLE, AND NOT UNNATURALLY SO, SINCE JURY PROVISIONS IN THE
VARIOUS STATE CONSTITUTIONS DIFFER WIDELY.  BUT THESE CASES DO,
GENERALLY, ESTABLISH THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS:  (A) THAT SUMMARY
PUNISHMENT AT COMMON LAW USUALLY DEPENDED ON A SPECIFIC STATUTE; (B)
THAT THE PUNISHMENTS USUALLY VIEWED AS "TRIVIAL" ARE NOT COMPARABLE IN
SEVERITY WITH THE PUNISHMENT HERE INVOLVED; (C) THAT SEVERITY OF
SENTENCE IS A CONTROLLING FEATURE IN DETERMINING RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL;
(D) THAT IN LICENSE CASES IN THE STATE COURTS, JURY TRIALS ARE COMMONLY
AFFORDED. 

IN CALLAN V. WILSON, 127 U.S. 540, THE COURT DID NOT CONCEDE THAT
THERE WAS A CLASS OF "PETTY" OR MINOR OFFENSES NOT USUALLY EMBRACED IN
CRIMINAL STATUTES, WHICH, IF COMMITTED IN THIS DISTRICT, MAY UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS BE TRIED BY THE COURT AND WITHOUT A JURY.  IT
MERELY ASSUMED THIS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DECISION.  THE ONLY ISSUE
INVOLVED WAS THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT TO WAIVE A JURY IN A CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION. 

NO POLICY OF CONVENIENCE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO DESTROY THE
SAFEGUARDS OF LIBERTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.  SUCH A POLICY HAS
FREQUENTLY BEEN COMMENTED UPON AND DISCOURAGED BY THIS COURT.  SEE
DIMICK V. SCHIEDT, 293 U.S. 486; 4 BLACKSTONE, C. 27, P. 350. 

THE RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A JUDGMENT THAT THE DEFENDANT
WAS "ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALER IN SECOND-HAND PERSONAL
PROPERTY." 

DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PROSECUTING WITNESSES
WERE PREJUDICIALLY CURTAILED. 

THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A FAIR TRIAL. 

THE FACT THAT A RIGHT OF AN APPEAL IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ONE IS A POTENT
REASON WHY ONE CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNDER A LAW WHICH DOES
NOT ALLOW THIS RIGHT, SHOULD HAVE A JURY PASS UPON THE FACT OF GUILT OR
INNOCENCE AS PROVIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION.  SEE DIMICK V. SCHIEDT, 293
U.S., P. 486, AND AUTHORITIES CITED. 

THE OPINION OF THE LOWER COURT IS IN ACCORD WITH THE DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT AND THE BEST CONSIDERED CASES IN THE HIGHEST COURTS OF THE
STATES, AS WELL AS NUMEROUS DECISIONS IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF
APPEALS.  FRANK V. UNITED STATES, 192 FED. 864; CALLAN V. WILSON, 127
U.S. 540; SCHICK V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 65. 

THERE IS NOT A DECISION OF THIS COURT OR OF ANY FEDERAL COURT
DEFINING CLEARLY WHAT IS OR WHAT IS NOT A "PETTY OFFENSE." 

THE PETITIONER CITES SEVERAL CASES, TO-WIT, PATTON V. UNITED STATES,
281 U.S. 276; CALLAN V. WILSON, 127 U.S. 540; DIMICK V. SCHIEDT, 293
U.S. 486; AND WEST V. GAMMON, 98 FED. 426, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
GUARANTEE OF A TRIAL BY JURY HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSTRUED TO MEAN A TRIAL
IN THE MODE AND ACCORDING TO THE SETTLED RULES OF THE COMMON LAW,
INCLUDING ALL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS RECOGNIZED IN THIS COUNTRY AND
ENGLAND, WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED.  THIS MEANS NOTHING MORE
THAN THAT THE WORD JURY, WHEN USED IN THE CONSTITUTION, MEANS A JURY OF
12 MEN AND THAT ANY LESS NUMBER IS NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
CONSTITUTION.  THE LOGICAL RESULT OF PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT IS THAT
CONGRESS COULD PROVIDE A TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY IN ANY CASE WHERE, BEFORE
THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH A CASE HAD BEEN TRIED EITHER
UNDER AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT OR IN THE COLONIES SUMMARILY WITHOUT A JURY,
REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE OR THE PUNISHMENT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT WAS CONVICTED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE COURT OF
ENGAGING, WITHOUT A LICENSE, IN THE BUSINESS OF A DEALER IN SECOND-HAND
PERSONAL PROPERTY, TO-WIT, THE UNUSED PORTIONS OF RAILWAY EXCURSION
TICKETS, IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 7, PAR. 39, OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS,
APPROVED JULY 1, 1902, 32 STAT. 622, C. 1352, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
JULY 1, 1932, 47 STAT. 550, C. 356.  ON ARRAIGNMENT SHE DEMANDED A JURY
TRIAL, WHICH WAS DENIED, AND ON CONVICTION SHE WAS SENTENCED TO PAY A
FINE OF $300 OR TO BE CONFINED IN JAIL FOR SIXTY DAYS.  THE CASE WAS
BROUGHT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY WRIT OF
ERROR TO REVIEW THE DENIAL OF THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR A JURY, AND
OTHER RULINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH, IT WAS CLAIMED, HAD DEPRIVED
HER OF A FAIR TRIAL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT,
HOLDING THAT A JURY TRIAL WAS GUARANTEED TO PETITIONER BY THE
CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT THE TRIAL HAD BEEN FAIR IN OTHER RESPECTS.  66
APP. D.C. 11; 84 F.(2D) 265.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED PROVIDES THAT THE
OFFENSE MAY BE PROSECUTED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE COURT AND
IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $300 OR IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT
MORE THAN NINETY DAYS.  THE CODE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1929)
TIT. 18, SEC. 165, PROVIDES THAT PROSECUTIONS IN THE POLICE COURT SHALL
BE ON INFORMATION AND THAT THE TRIAL SHALL BE BY JURY IN ALL CASES "IN
WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ACCUSED
WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL," AND THAT, "IN ALL CASES WHERE THE
ACCUSED WOULD NOT BY FORCE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES BE
ENTITLED TO A TRIAL BY JURY, THE TRIAL SHALL BE BY THE COURT WITHOUT A
JURY, UNLESS IN  ...  CASES WHEREIN THE FINE OR PENALTY MAY BE MORE
THAN $300, OR IMPRISONMENT AS PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENSE MAY BE MORE
THAN NINETY DAYS, THE ACCUSED SHALL DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY, IN WHICH
CASE THE TRIAL SHALL BE BY JURY."  ARTICLE III, SEC. 2, CLAUSE 3, OF
THE CONSTITUTION, PROVIDES THAT "THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES, EXCEPT IN
CASES OF IMPEACHMENT, SHALL BE BY JURY...."  THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
DECLARES THAT "IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY
THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE
STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED,  ..." 

IT IS SETTLED BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, WHICH NEED NOT NOW BE
DISCUSSED IN DETAIL, THAT THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY, THUS SECURED,
DOES NOT EXTEND TO EVERY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.  AT THE TIME OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION THERE WERE NUMEROUS OFFENSES, COMMONLY
DESCRIBED AS "PETTY," WHICH WERE TRIED SUMMARILY WITHOUT A JURY, BY
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IN ENGLAND, AND BY POLICE MAGISTRATES OR
CORRESPONDING JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN THE COLONIES, AND PUNISHED BY
COMMITMENT TO JAIL, A WORKHOUSE, OR A HOUSE OF CORRECTION.  FN1  WE
THINK, AS THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD AND RESPONDENT CONCEDES, THAT,
APART FROM THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY, THE OFFENSE OF WHICH PETITIONER WAS
CONVICTED IS, BY ITS NATURE, OF THIS CLASS, AND THAT WERE IT NOT FOR
THE SEVERITY OF THE PUNISHMENT, THE OFFENDER COULD NOT, UNDER OUR
DECISIONS, CLAIM A TRIAL BY JURY AS OF RIGHT.  SCHICK V. UNITED STATES,
195 U.S. 65; AND SEE CALLAN V. WILSON, 127 U.S. 540, 552, 555; NATAL V.
LOUISIANA, 139 U.S. 621, 624; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. COLTS, 282 U.S.
63, 72, 73. 

ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING SECOND-HAND PROPERTY WITHOUT A
LICENSE WAS NOT INDICTABLE AT COMMON LAW.  TODAY IT IS AT MOST BUT AN
INFRINGEMENT OF LOCAL POLICE REGULATIONS, AND ITS MORAL QUALITY IS
RELATIVELY INOFFENSIVE.  BUT THIS COURT HAS REFUSED TO FORECLOSE
CONSIDERATION OF THE SEVERITY OF THE PENALTY AS AN ELEMENT TO BE
CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER A STATUTORY OFFENSE, IN OTHER
RESPECTS TRIVIAL AND NOT A CRIME AT COMMON LAW, MUST BE DEEMED SO
SERIOUS AS TO BE COMPARABLE WITH COMMON LAW CRIMES, AND THUS TO ENTITLE
THE ACCUSED TO THE BENEFIT OF A JURY TRIAL PRESCRIBED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.  SEE SCHICK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 67-68. 

WE ARE THUS BROUGHT TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PENALTY, WHICH MAY BE
IMPOSED FOR THE PRESENT OFFENSE, OF NINETY DAYS IN A COMMON JAIL, IS
SUFFICIENT TO BRING IT WITHIN THE CLASS OF MAJOR OFFENSES, FOR THE
TRIAL OF WHICH A JURY MAY BE DEMANDED.  THE COURT BELOW THOUGHT, AS WE
DO, THAT THE QUESTION IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT, BUT CONCLUDED, IN VIEW OF
THE FACT THAT THE STATUTE ALLOWS NO APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE
CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENSE, AND IN VIEW OF ITS OWN ESTIMATE OF THE
SEVERITY OF THE PENALTY, THAT THREE MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT IS A
PUNISHMENT SUFFICIENTLY RIGOROUS TO PLACE RESPONDENT'S DELINQUENCY IN
THE CATEGORY OF MAJOR OFFENSES. 

IF WE LOOK TO THE STANDARD WHICH PREVAILED AT THE TIME OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION, WE FIND THAT CONFINEMENT FOR A PERIOD OF
NINETY DAYS OR MORE WAS NOT AN UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT FOR PETTY OFFENSES,
TRIED WITHOUT A JURY.  LAYING ASIDE THOSE FOR WHICH THE PUNISHMENT WAS
OF A TYPE NO LONGER COMMONLY EMPLOYED, SUCH AS WHIPPING, CONFINEMENT IN
STOCKS AND THE LIKE, AND OTHERS, PUNISHED BY COMMITMENT FOR AN
INDEFINITE PERIOD, WE KNOW THAT THERE WERE PETTY OFFENSES, TRIABLE
SUMMARILY UNDER ENGLISH STATUTES, WHICH CARRIED POSSIBLE SENTENCES OF
IMPRISONMENT FOR PERIODS FROM THREE TO TWELVE MONTHS.  FN2  AT LEAST
SIXTEEN STATUTES, PASSED PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
BY THE COLONIES, OR SHORTLY AFTER BY THE NEWLYCREATED STATES,
AUTHORIZED THE SUMMARY PUNISHMENT OF PETTY OFFENSES BY IMPRISONMENT FOR
THREE MONTHS OR MORE.  FN3  AND AT LEAST EIGHT OTHERS WERE PUNISHABLE
BY IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS.  FN4    IN THE FACE OF THIS HISTORY, WE
FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY THAT A NINETY DAY PENALTY FOR A PETTY
OFFENSE, METED OUT UPON A TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY, DOES NOT CONFORM TO
STANDARDS WHICH PREVAILED WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED, OR WAS NOT
THEN CONTEMPLATED AS APPROPRIATE NOTWITHSTANDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
GUARANTEE OF A JURY TRIAL.  THIS CONCLUSION IS UNAFFECTED BY THE FACT
THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN APPEAL AS OF RIGHT.  CODE OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (1929) TIT. 18, SEC. 28.  THE SAFEGUARDS OF AN
APPEAL ARE DIFFERENT IN NATURE AND PURPOSE FROM THOSE OF A JURY TRIAL. 
AT COMMON LAW THERE WAS NO REVIEW OF CRIMINAL CASES AS OF RIGHT.  DUE
PROCESS DOES NOT COMPREHEND THE RIGHT OF APPEAL, MCKANE V. DURSTON, 153
U.S. 684, 687.  THE EARLY STATUTES PROVIDING FOR SUMMARY TRIAL OFTEN
DID NOT ALLOW IT.  AND IN ANY CASE IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE
AUTHORITY TO ALLOW AN APPEAL, GIVEN TO THE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS BY THE DISTRICT LAWS, WILL NOT BE EXERCISED IN A PROPER CASE. 

WE ARE AWARE THAT THOSE STANDARDS OF ACTION AND OF POLICY WHICH FIND
EXPRESSION IN THE COMMON AND STATUTE LAW MAY VARY FROM GENERATION TO
GENERATION.  SUCH CHANGE HAS LED TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THE LASH AND THE
STOCKS, AND WE MAY ASSUME, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THAT COMMONLY ACCEPTED
VIEWS OF THE SEVERITY OF PUNISHMENT BY IMPRISONMENT MAY BECOME SO
MODIFIED THAT A PENALTY ONCE THOUGHT TO BE MILD MAY COME TO BE REGARDED
AS SO HARSH AS TO CALL FOR THE JURY TRIAL, WHICH THE CONSTITUTION
PRESCRIBES, IN SOME CASES WHICH WERE TRIABLE WITHOUT A JURY WHEN THE
CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED.  SEE SCHICK V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 67, 68;
COMPARE WEEMS V. UNITED STATES, 217 U.S. 349, 373; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
V. COLTS, SUPRA, 74; POWELL V. ALABAMA, 287 U.S. 45, 71-73; UNITED
STATES V. WOOD, 299 U.S. 123, 141 ET SEQ. BUT WE MAY DOUBT WHETHER
SUMMARY TRIAL WITH PUNISHMENT OF MORE THAN SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT,
PRESCRIBED BY SOME PRE-REVOLUTIONARY STATUTES,  FN5  IS ADMISSIBLE
WITHOUT CONCLUDING THAT A PENALTY OF NINETY DAYS IS TOO MUCH.  DOUBTS
MUST BE RESOLVED, NOT SUBJECTIVELY BY RECOURSE OF THE JUDGE TO HIS OWN
SYMPATHY AND EMOTIONS, BUT BY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS SUCH AS MAY BE
OBSERVED IN THE LAWS AND PRACTICES OF THE COMMUNITY TAKEN AS A GAUGE OF
ITS SOCIAL AND ETHICAL JUDGMENTS. 

CONGRESS ITSELF, BY MEASURING THE PUNISHMENT IN THIS CASE IN
CONFORMITY TO THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED STANDARD WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS
ADOPTED, AND DECLARING THAT IT SHOULD BE APPLIED TODAY UNLESS FOUND TO
TRANSGRESS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, HAS EXPRESSED ITS DELIBERATE
JUDGMENT THAT THE PUNISHMENT IS NOT TOO GREAT TO BE SUMMARILY
ADMINISTERED.  A NUMBER OF STATES HAVE CONTINUED IN FORCE STATUTES
PROVIDING FOR TRIAL, WITHOUT A JURY, OF VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL
ORDINANCES, AND SUNDRY PETTY STATUTORY OFFENSES, PUNISHABLE BY
COMMITMENT FOR THREE MONTHS OR MORE.  FN6 CONVICTIONS UNDER SUCH
LEGISLATION HAVE BEEN UPHELD MANY TIMES IN THE STATE COURTS, DESPITE
OBJECTIONS TO THE DENIAL OF A JURY TRIAL.  FN7  IN ENGLAND MANY ACTS OF
PARLIAMENT NOW IN FORCE, AUTHORIZING NINETY DAY PUNISHMENTS, CALL FOR
SUMMARY TRIALS.  FN8 

THIS RECORD OF STATUTE AND JUDICIAL DECISION IS PERSUASIVE THAT THERE
HAS BEEN NO SUCH CHANGE IN THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF
PUNISHMENT AS WOULD OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT A SUMMARY PUNISHMENT
OF NINETY DAYS' IMPRISONMENT, PERMISSIBLE WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS
ADOPTED, IS PERMISSIBLE NOW.  RESPONDENT POINTS TO NO CONTRARY
EVIDENCE.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT THIS PENALTY, WHEN ATTACHED TO THE
OFFENSE OF SELLING SECOND-HAND GOODS WITHOUT A LICENSE, GIVES IT THE
CHARACTER OF A COMMON LAW CRIME OR OF A MAJOR OFFENSE, OR THAT IT SO
OFFENDS THE PUBLIC SENSE OF PROPRIETY AND FAIRNESS AS TO BRING IT
WITHIN THE SWEEP OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION WHICH IT DID NOT
PREVIOUSLY ENJOY. 

ALTHOUGH WE CONCLUDE THAT RESPONDENT'S DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL WAS
RIGHTLY DENIED, THERE MUST BE A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE PREJUDICIAL
RESTRICTION, BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, OF CROSS-EXAMINATION BY RESPONDENT. 
THE TESTIMONY OF FIVE PROSECUTION WITNESSES WAS THE SOLE EVIDENCE OF
THE ACTS OF RESPONDENT RELIED ON TO ESTABLISH THE DOING OF BUSINESS
WITHOUT A LICENSE.  THESE ACTS WERE THE SALE BY HER, ON EACH OF THREE
OCCASIONS, TO ONE OR ANOTHER OF THE WITNESSES, OF THE UNUSED PORTION OF
A ROUND TRIP RAILWAY PASSENGER TICKET FROM NEW YORK TO WASHINGTON. 
THREE OF THE FIVE, A MAN AND HIS WIFE AND ANOTHER, WERE EMPLOYED BY THE
RAILROAD INSPECTION COMPANY AS INVESTIGATORS.  THE OTHER TWO WERE
COMPANY POLICE OF THE BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD.  ALL WERE PRIVATE
POLICE OR DETECTIVES, APPARENTLY ACTING IN THE COURSE OF THEIR PRIVATE
EMPLOYMENT.  COMMON EXPERIENCE TEACHES US THAT THE TESTIMONY OF SUCH
WITNESSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN UNCORROBORATED, IS OPEN TO THE SUSPICION OF
BIAS, SEE GASSENHEIMER V. UNITED STATES, 26 APP. D.C. 432, 446; MOLLER
V. MOLLER, 115 N.Y. 466, 468; 22 N.E. 169; PEOPLE V. LORIS, 131 APP.
DIV. 127, 130; 115 N.Y.S. 236; SOPWITH V. SOPWITH, 4.  SW. & TR. 243,
246-7; WIGMORE, EVIDENCE (2D ED. 1923) SECS. 949, 969, 2062, AND THAT
THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION SHOULD NOT BE CURTAILED SUMMARILY, SEE STATE V.
DIEDTMAN, 58 MONT. 13, 24; 190 PAC. 117, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT HAS A
DIRECT BEARING ON THE SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES OF THE CASE. 

THE DEFENSE WAS A SUGGESTED MISTAKEN IDENTITY OF RESPONDENT AND AN
ALIBI, THAT AT THE TIMES MENTIONED SHE WAS CONFINED TO HER BED BY
ILLNESS, AT HER HOME IN NEWARK, NEW JERSEY.  A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ON
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY RESPONDENT WERE AIMED AT SHOWING MISTAKEN IDENTITY
AND AT TESTING CREDIBILITY.  SHE ASKED ONE WITNESS WHETHER RESPONDENT
HAD BEEN POINTED OUT TO HIM.  SHE ASKED ANOTHER WHETHER HE HAD ANY
TROUBLE IN "KNOWING" THE RESPONDENT AT THE TRIAL, AND WHETHER HE HAD
SEEN HER BEFORE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SALE OF TICKETS TO WHICH HE
TESTIFIED.  ALL THESE QUESTIONS WERE EXCLUDED, AS WERE OTHERS WHICH
WERE PROPER, SINCE THEY MIGHT HAVE ESTABLISHED CONTRADICTION IN THE
TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION. 

OTHER QUESTIONS, WHICH WERE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AND OBVIOUSLY
PROPER TESTS OF CREDIBILITY, WERE EXCLUDED.  THE WOMAN WITNESS HAD
TESTIFIED THAT ONE OF THE SALES TOOK PLACE IN THE PRESENCE OF HER
HUSBAND, AND OF THE TWO RAILROAD POLICE WITNESSES.  ON CROSS
EXAMINATION SHE COULD NOT REMEMBER WHETHER ANYONE BESIDE HER HUSBAND
WAS PRESENT.  YET RESPONDENT WAS NOT PERMITTED TO ASK THE HUSBAND
WHETHER THE RAILROAD POLICE WITNESSES WERE KNOWN TO HIM OR TO ASK ONE
OF THE LATTER WHETHER HE KNEW THE HUSBAND AND WIFE BEFORE THE DATE OF
THE ALLEGED SALE.  THE COURT INSTRUCTED ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS NOT
TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER THE HUSBAND HAD COME TO WASHINGTON BY
PREARRANGEMENT.  LIKE QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO THE HUSBAND AND HIS WIFE
WERE EXCLUDED.  THE RESPONDENT WAS SIMILARLY PREVENTED FROM MAKING
INQUIRIES AS TO CORROBORATIVE DETAIL, SUCH AS THE TIME OF DAY WHEN THE
WITNESSES ARRIVED IN WASHINGTON ON THE DATES OF THE ALLEGED SALES, AND
THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF A WITNESS, SEE ALFORD V. UNITED STATES, 282
U.S. 687.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THESE QUESTIONS MAY HAVE
HAD AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE ACCURACY AND TRUTHFULNESS OF THE
TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTING WITNESSES.  WE DO NOT STOP TO GIVE OTHER
EXAMPLES OF THE SUMMARY CURTAILMENT OF ALL INQUIRY AS TO MATTERS WHICH
ARE THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

THE EXTENT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION RESTS IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE
TRIAL JUDGE.  REASONABLE RESTRICTION OF UNDUE CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND
THE MORE RIGOROUS EXCLUSION OF QUESTIONS IRRELEVANT TO THE SUBSTANTIAL
ISSUES OF THE CASE, AND OF SLIGHT BEARING ON THE BIAS AND CREDIBILITY
OF THE WITNESSES, ARE NOT REVERSIBLE ERRORS.  BUT THE PREVENTION,
THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE, OF ALL INQUIRY IN FIELDS WHERE
CROSS-EXAMINATION IS APPROPRIATE, AND PARTICULARLY IN CIRCUMSTANCES
WHERE THE EXCLUDED QUESTIONS HAVE A BEARING ON CREDIBILITY AND ON THE
COMMISSION BY THE ACCUSED OF THE ACTS RELIED UPON FOR CONVICTION,
PASSES THE PROPER LIMITS OF DISCRETION AND IS PREJUDICIAL ERROR.  SEE
ALFORD V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WILL BE AFFIRMED, THAT OF THE
POLICE COURT REVERSED, AND THE CASE WILL BE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
FOR A NEW TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  4 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, 280-281; MCNAMARA'S PALEY ON SUMMARY
CONVICTIONS (4TH ED. 1856), 10-12; DILLON, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, SEC.
433(5TH ED. 1911, SEC. 750).  A COMPREHENSIVE COLLECTION OF THE
STATUTES, ENGLISH AND AMERICAN, WILL BE FOUND IN PETTY FEDERAL OFFENSES
AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY OF TRIAL BY JURY, 39 HARV. L. REV. 917,
922-965, 983-1019. 

FN2  THREE MONTHS:  5 ANNE, C. 14, IV; 1 GEO. I, C. 48, II. SIX
MONTHS:  17 GEO. II, C. 5, IX. ONE YEAR:  5 ELIZ., C. 4, XXI; 5 ELIZ.,
C. 15, II; 7 JAC.  I, C. 4, VII; 8 GEO. I, C. 2, XXXVI; 15 GEO. II, C.
33, VI. 

FN3  GEORGIA:  18 COLONIAL RECORDS (CANDLER) 588(1764).  MARYLAND:
LAWS 1768(KILTY) C. 29, SEC. 16.  MASSACHUSETTS:  PROVINCE LAWS 1764
1765, C. 30, SECS. 2, 5, 4 ACTS AND RESOLVES OF MASS. PROVINCE 763. 
NEW HAMPSHIRE:  LAWS 1696(8 WM. III) C. 1, SEC. 1.  NEW JERSEY:
PATERSON'S LAWS OF NEW JERSEY, AT 410, SEC. 3(ACT OF JUNE 10, 1799). 
NEW YORK:  3 COLONIAL LAWS 318(1743); 3 ID. 855(1751); 4 ID. 304(1758);
4 ID. 349(1759); 4 ID. 748(1763); 4 ID. 925(1766).  NORTH CAROLINA:
LAWS 1778, C. 2, 24 STATE RECORDS 158.  PENNSYLVANIA:  7 STATUTES AT
LARGE OF PENNSYLVANIA FROM 1682 TO 1801, C. 534, SEC. 12(1766); 8 ID.,
C. 623, SEC. 2(1771).  VIRGINIA:  29 GEO. II, C. 4, SEC. 4(1756); LAWS
1787, C. 48, SEC. 13.  SEE ALSO CONNECTICUT, 1786 STAT. 36(FOUR
MONTHS). 

FN4  MARYLAND:  LAWS 1715(KILTY) C. 44, SEC. 34.  MASSACHUSETTS:
PROVINCE LAWS 1752-1753, C. 16, SEC. 1, 3 ACTS AND RESOLVES OF MASS.
PROVINCE 645.  NEW HAMPSHIRE:  3 LAWS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (METCALF)
72(1754); 4 ID. 75(1777).  NEW JERSEY:  27 & 28 GEO. II, C. 261, SEC.
11, ACTS OF PROVINCE OF NEW JERSEY (ALLINSON) 198, 201(1754).  NEW
YORK:  3 COLONIAL LAWS 1096(1755); LAWS 1785, C. 40, SEC. 3; LAWS 1785,
C. 47, SEC. 2. 

FN5  SEE FOOTNOTE 2, SUPRA. 

FN6  (A)  STATUTES EMBRACING VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
GENERALLY.  E. G.: ARIZ. REV. CODE (STRUCKMEYER, 1928) SECS. 382, 442,
(THREE MONTHS); NEB. COMP. STAT. (1929) SECS. 18-201, 18-205(THREE
MONTHS); NEW MEX.  STAT.  (COURTRIGHT, 1929) SECS. 90-402(66), 90-901,
90-910, 79-322, (THREE MONTHS); NEV. COMP. LAWS (HILLYER, 1929) SECS.
1128(1), 1167, (SIX MONTHS); WYO. REV. STAT. (COURTRIGHT, 1931) SECS.
22-402, 22-409, (THREE MONTHS). 

(B)  STATUTES COMMANDING SUMMARY TRIAL FOR SPECIFIED OFFENSES.  E.G.:
N.J. COMP. LAWS (1924 SUPP.), SECS. 135-63(3), 135-76(OPERATING MOTOR
VEHICLE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR; SIX MONTHS; SEE KLINGES V. COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, 130 ATL. 601); N.J. COMP. LAWS (1930 SUPP.) SEC. 160-222,
3(DISORDERLY PERSONS ACT; THREE MONTHS PENALTY, SEE N.J. LAWS 1898, P.
954, INCREASED TO ONE YEAR BY LAWS 1910, P. 37); PA. STAT. ANN.
(PURDON, 1931), SEC. 18-2033(VAGRANCY; SIX MONTHS); SEC. 18
2832(FREQUENTING OF PUBLIC PLACES BY THIEVES, FOR UNLAWFUL PURPOSE;
THREE MONTHS). 

THE MOST EXTENSIVE ELIMINATION OF THE JURY PREVAILS IN NEW YORK.  THE
THREE-JUDGE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS, SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, HAS
JURISDICTION TO TRY ALL MISDEMEANORS (I.E., OFFENSES PUNISHABLE WITH
ONE YEAR'S IMPRISONMENT, N.Y. PENAL LAW (1909), SEC. 1937) COMMITTED IN
NEW YORK CITY.  INFERIOR CRIMINAL COURTS ACT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
N.Y. LAWS 1910, C. 659, SEC. 31(1), (4).  A CITY MAGISTRATE SITTING
ALONE MAY TRY CERTAIN MISDEMEANORS, INCLUDING VIOLATIONS OF N.Y. PENAL
LAW (1909), SEC. 1566, PROSCRIBING THE SALE OF STREET RAILROAD TRANSFER
TICKETS, INFERIOR CRIMINAL COURTS ACT, SEC. 43(D), ADDED BY LAWS 1915,
C. 531.  OTHER LEGISLATION, STATE-WIDE IN APPLICATION, PROVIDES FOR
SUMMARY TRIAL AND CONVICTION OF PERSONS GUILTY OF DISORDERLY CONDUCT
(SIX MONTHS), N.Y. PENAL LAW (1923), SECS. 723, 724; OF PERSONS
FREQUENTING A PUBLIC PLACE FOR PURPOSES OF CRIME (100 DAYS), N.Y. CODE
CRIM. PROC., SEC. 898-A; OF "VAGRANTS" (ONE YEAR IN JAIL; THREE YEARS
IN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION), N.Y. CODE CRIM. PROC., SECS. 891, 891-A. 

FN7  IN WILMARTH V. KING, 74 N.H. 512; 69 ATL. 889(1908), THE COURT
APPROVED A STATUTE AUTHORIZING SIX MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT AS NOT
EXCEEDING IN MAGNITUDE THE PRE-REVOLUTIONARY PUNISHMENTS.  IN THE
FOLLOWING CASES CONVICTIONS UNDER STATUTES AUTHORIZING COMMITMENT FOR
THREE MONTHS OR MORE WERE UPHELD AND THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL HELD
PROPERLY DENIED.  BRAY V. STATE, 140 ALA. 172; 37 SO. 250(1903); STATE
V. PARKER, 87 FLA. 181; 100 SO. 260(1924); STATE V. GLENN, 54 MD.
572(1880); STATE V. BROMS, 139 MINN. 402; 166 N.W. 771(1918); STATE V.
ANDERSON, 165 MINN. 150; 206 N.W. 51(1925); BELL V. STATE, 104 NEB.
203; 176 N.W. 544(1920); STATE V. KACIN, 123 NEB. 64; 241 N.W.
785(1932); PEOPLE EX REL. ST. CLAIR V. DAVIS, 143 APP. DIV. 579; 127
N.Y.S. 1072(1911); PEOPLE V. HARDING, 115 MISC. 298; 189 N.Y.S.
657(1921); BYERS V. COMMONWEALTH, 42 PA. ST. 89(1862). 

FN8  THIRTY-SEVEN OFFENSES ARE LISTED IN STONE'S JUSTICES' MANUAL
(66TH ED. 1934), APPENDIX OF TABLE OF PUNISHMENTS FOR OFFENCES
COGNIZABLE UNDER THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION, PP. 1904-1945.  E. G. FRAUDS
BY WORKMEN ACT, 1777, 17 GEO. III, C. 56, SEC. 1; MERCHANDISE MARKS
ACT, 1887, 50 & 51 VICT., C. 28, SEC. 2; AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT,
1933, 23 & 24 GEO. V, C. 31, SEC. 6(5). 

SEVERAL OF THE STATUTES SPECIFY LARGER PENALTIES, BUT BY SEC. 17 OF
THE SUMMARY JUDICATURE ACT, 1879, 42-43 VICT., C. 49, EXCEPT IN CASES
OF ASSAULT, SENTENCES EXCEEDING THREE MONTHS CANNOT BE ADMINISTERED
UNLESS THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN OFFERED THE CHOICE OF TRIAL BY JURY. 
SEPARATE OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER AND I APPROVE THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS CONCERNING RESPONDENT'S RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY; ALSO WE ACCEPT
THE SUPPORTING OPINION ANNOUNCED THERE AS ENTIRELY ADEQUATE. 

THE SIXTH AMENDMENT - IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL
ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY, AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF
THE STATE AND DISTRICT WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED,
WHICH DISTRICT SHALL HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, AND TO BE
INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED
WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; TO HAVE COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR
OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
FOR HIS DEFENSE. 

THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT - IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN
CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY
SHALL BE PRESERVED AND NO FACT TRIED BY A JURY SHALL BE OTHERWISE RE
EXAMINED IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES
OF THE COMMON LAW. 

WE CANNOT AGREE THAT WHEN A CITIZEN IS PUT ON TRIAL FOR AN OFFENSE
PUNISHABLE BY 90 DAYS IN JAIL OR A FINE OF $300.00, THE PROSECUTION IS
NOT CRIMINAL WITHIN THE SIXTH AMENDMENT.  IN A SUIT AT COMMON LAW TO
RECOVER ABOVE $20.00, A JURY TRIAL IS ASSURED.  AND TO US, IT SEEMS
IMPROBABLE THAT WHILE PROVIDING FOR THIS PROTECTION IN SUCH A TRIFLING
MATTER THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED THAT IT MIGHT BE DENIED
WHERE IMPRISONMENT FOR A CONSIDERABLE TIME OR LIABILITY FOR FIFTEEN
TIMES $20.00 CONFRONTS THE ACCUSED. 

IN VIEW OF THE OPINION JUST ANNOUNCED, IT SEEMS PERMISSIBLE TO
INQUIRE WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE OTHER SOLEMN DECLARATIONS OF THE
AMENDMENT.  CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OUGHT NOT TO BE SUBORDINATED TO
CONVENIENCE, NOR DENIED UPON QUESTIONABLE PRECEDENTS OR UNCERTAIN
REASONING.  SEE BOYD V. UNITED STATES, 116 U.S. 616, 635; IN RE DEBS,
158 U.S. 564, 594. 

WE CONCUR IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT CONCERNING UNFAIRNESS OF THE
TRIAL AND THE NECESSITY FOR A NEW ONE. 

THIS CAUSE SHOWS THE GRAVE DANGER TO LIBERTY WHEN THE ACCUSED MUST
SUBMIT TO THE UNCERTAIN JUDGMENT OF A SINGLE MAGISTRATE. 
..END :







WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, 300 U.S. 379 


NO. 293.  ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 17, 1936.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  -
185 WASH. 581 - 55 P.(2D) 1083, AFFIRMED. 


1.  DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY TO CONTRACT IS FORBIDDEN BY THE
CONSTITUTION IF WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; BUT RESTRAINT OR REGULATION
OF THIS LIBERTY, IF REASONABLE IN RELATION TO ITS SUBJECT AND IF
ADOPTED FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMUNITY AGAINST EVILS MENACING THE
HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE, IS DUE PROCESS.  P.
391. 

2.  IN DEALING WITH THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYED, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS NECESSARILY A WIDE FIELD OF DISCRETION IN ORDER THAT
THERE MAY BE SUITABLE PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND THAT PEACE
AND GOOD ORDER MAY BE PROMOTED THROUGH REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO INSURE
WHOLESOME CONDITIONS OF WORK AND FREEDOM FROM OPPRESSION.  P. 393. 

3.  THE STATE HAS A SPECIAL INTEREST IN PROTECTING WOMEN AGAINST
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS WHICH THROUGH POOR WORKING CONDITIONS, LONG HOURS
OR SCANT WAGES MAY LEAVE THEM INADEQUATELY SUPPORTED AND UNDERMINE
THEIR HEALTH; BECAUSE: 

(1)  THE HEALTH OF WOMEN IS PECULIARLY RELATED TO THE VIGOR OF THE
RACE; 

(2)  WOMEN ARE ESPECIALLY LIABLE TO BE OVERREACHED AND EXPLOITED BY
UNSCRUPULOUS EMPLOYERS; AND 

(3)  THIS EXPLOITATION AND DENIAL OF A LIVING WAGE IS NOT ONLY
DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF THE WOMEN AFFECTED BUT
CASTS A DIRECT BURDEN FOR THEIR SUPPORT UPON THE COMMUNITY.  PP. 394,
398, ET SEQ. 

4.  JUDICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN OF THE UNPARALLELED DEMANDS FOR RELIEF
WHICH AROSE DURING THE RECENT PERIOD OF DEPRESSION AND STILL CONTINUE
TO AN ALARMING EXTENT DESPITE THE DEGREE OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY WHICH HAS
BEEN ACHIEVED.  P. 399. 

5.  A STATE LAW FOR THE SETTING OF MINIMUM WAGES FOR WOMEN IS NOT AN
ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXTEND TO MEN.  P. 400. 

6.  A STATUTE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON (LAWS, 1913, C. 174;
REMINGTON'S REV. STATS., 1932, SEC. 7623 ET SEQ.) PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM WAGES FOR WOMEN, HELD VALID.  ADKINS V.
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525, IS OVERRULED; MOREHEAD V. NEW YORK
EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 400. 

WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

THIS WAS AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT FOR MONEY DIRECTED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF WASHINGTON, REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT, IN AN ACTION BY A
CHAMBERMAID AGAINST A HOTEL COMPANY TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE AMOUNT OF WAGES PAID OR TENDERED TO HER AS PER CONTRACT, AND A
LARGER AMOUNT COMPUTED ON THE MINIMUM WAGE FIXED BY A STATE BOARD OR
COMMISSION. 

THE STATUTE WAS PASSED IN 1913, LONG BEFORE THE DECISION OF THIS
COURT IN THE ADKINS CASE.  IT IS IN NO SENSE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE. 

IT SETS UP BUT ONE STANDARD, THAT IS, THE WAGE MUST BE ADEQUATE FOR
THE MAINTENANCE OF THE ADULT WOMAN WORKER.  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT
THE WAGE HAVE ANY RELATION TO THE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE WORKER'S
SERVICES.  THE ADKINS CASE, 261 U.S. 525, AND LIKE CASES DECIDED
SUBSEQUENTLY, CONDEMN SUCH LEGISLATION.  MURPHY V. SARDELL, 269 U.S.
530; DONHAM V. WEST-NELSON MFG. CO., 273 U.S. 657; MOREHEAD V. NEW YORK
EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587. 

THE COURT BELOW BASED ITS DECISION ON TWO POINTS:  (1) THAT THE
ADKINS CASE WAS NOT BINDING SINCE THE ACT THERE INVOLVED WAS AN ACT OF
CONGRESS; AND (2) THAT THE LEGISLATURE AND THE STATE COURT HAVE
CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED THAT THE ACT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

THE POWER OF CONGRESS WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS AS BROAD AS
THAT OF THE STATE WITHIN ITS OWN TERRITORY. 

IN ANY EVENT, THE SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT DEALING WITH
STATE LEGISLATION ARE DIRECTLY IN POINT. 

THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT CANNOT DEPRIVE A
PERSON OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY MERELY STATING THAT THE
ENACTMENT IS MADE AS AN EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER FOR THE CORRECTION
OF AN EXISTING EVIL.  MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 399; MINNESOTA V.
BARBER, 136 U.S. 313, 319; BUCHANAN V. WARLEY, 245 U.S. 60, 74. 

THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THIS LEGISLATIVE ACT IS A VALID AND REASONABLE
EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE.  THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
PROHIBIT STATES FROM REGULATING MATTERS FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE, BUT
SIMPLY REQUIRES THAT REGULATIONS BE REASONABLE AND ADAPTED TO THAT
END.  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 592.  THE BURDEN RESTS UPON HIM WHO
ASSAILS THE ACT TO SHOW AN IMPROPER EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER. 
MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. NORWOOD, 283 U.S. 249; BORDEN'S FARM
PRODUCTS V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 194. 

IT IS WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE LEGISLATURE TO DETERMINE WHAT
MATTERS AND CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE REQUIRE
ATTENTION, AND THE REMEDY.  RADICE V. NEW YORK, 264 U.S. 292.  IN
PASSING THE MINIMUM WAGE LAW, THE LEGISLATURE HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION
THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE - THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE
PEOPLE; AND IN CONSTRUING THAT LAW THE SUPREME COURT APPROVED THE
FINDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE AND DETERMINED THAT THE ACT PASSED WAS IN
THE INTEREST OF THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.  LARSEN V. RICE,
100 WASH. 642. 

THIS COURT DOES NOT INQUIRE INTO THE WISDOM OF THE ACT, NOR THE
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE STATE WHICH INDUCED ITS PASSAGE; AND UNLESS
THE ACT IS ENTIRELY BEYOND THE LEGISLATIVE POWER, IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; NORTHERN
SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197; ATKINS V. KANSAS, 191
U.S. 297; O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 282 U.S. 251,
257, 258. 

THIS LAW WAS PASSED BY VIRTUE OF THE RESERVED POLICE POWER OF THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND HAVING RECEIVED THE APPROVAL OF THE HIGHEST
COURT OF THE STATE IS ENTITLED TO APPROVAL BY THIS COURT.  THE ADKINS
CASE CONSTRUED AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH HAD RECEIVED THE DISAPPROVAL OF
THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND WE, OF COURSE, DRAW
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACT OF CONGRESS, NOT HAVING RECEIVED THE
APPROVAL OF THAT COURT, WAS NOT A REASONABLE AND PROPER REMEDY FOR A
CONDITION EXISTING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  IF THE ACT OF CONGRESS
SO CONSTRUED HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, THEN THIS COURT WOULD ACCEPT THAT JUDGMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY FACTS TO SUPPORT A CONTRARY CONCLUSION.  ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525; BUNTING V. OREGON, 243 U.S. 426. 

THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY MUST PREVAIL IN THE ABSENCE OF
ANY FACTUAL FOUNDATION IN THE RECORD FOR DECLARING THE ACT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THAT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.  SEE BUNTING V. OREGON, 243 U.S.
426; O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 282 U.S. 251. 

MURPHY V. SARDELL, 269 U.S. 530; DONHAM V. WEST-NELSON MFG. CO., 273
U.S. 657, FOLLOW WITH APPROVAL THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURTS OF
ARIZONA AND ARKANSAS.  SO, IN NEW YORK, A LAW SIMILAR TO THIS ONE
FAILED TO RECEIVE THE APPROVAL OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THAT
JURISDICTION, AND THIS COURT APPROVED, SUSTAINING THE COURT OF NEW YORK
(MOREHEAD V. NEW YORK EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587); BUT IN NO CASE
HAS A DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE UPON A LOCAL MINIMUM
WAGE REGULATION BEEN REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

IT SEEMS VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHY MINIMUM WAGES MAY NOT BE
FIXED WITHOUT VIOLATING DUE PROCESS, IF PRICES CAN BE FIXED WITHOUT
VIOLATING DUE PROCESS.  BOTH INTERFERE WITH LIBERTY TO CONTRACT.  THE
LEGISLATIVE FIXING OF A MINIMUM WAGE IS NOT REALLY DIFFERENT IN
PRINCIPLE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATION OF HOURS OF SERVICE, WHICH
IS CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL.  MILLER V. WILSON, 236 U.S. 373; MULLER V.
OREGON, 208 U.S. 412; BUNTING V. OREGON, 243 U.S. 426. 

IT IS THE SAME LIBERTY TO CONTRACT THAT IS INVADED, AND THE SAME
LEGISLATIVE POLICY THAT IS INVOLVED.  THE AIM OF BOTH TYPES OF
LEGISLATION IS TO CREATE AN EQUALITY WHERE NONE EXISTED TO PREVENT
EMPLOYERS FROM MAKING AN UNFAIR USE OF THEIR SUPERIOR BARGAINING
POWER.  MISUSE OF BARGAINING POWER LEADS TO EXTORTION, AND SURELY A
STATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEGISLATE AGAINST EXTORTION UNDER ITS POLICE
POWER. 

WHETHER THERE ARE ADEQUATE REASONS FOR SUBMITTING CERTAIN TYPES OF
CONTRACTS TO THE PUBLIC CONTROL DEPENDS UPON THE ECONOMIC POLICIES OF
THE STATES.  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 537. 

TO SAY THAT THE FIXING OF A MINIMUM WAGE BY THE STATE IN ANY INDUSTRY
IS IPSO FACTO ARBITRARY OR DISCRIMINATORY IS TO BEG THE QUESTION. 
COURTS ARE TO DECIDE CONCRETE CASES.  IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE IS ONE
ARISING OUT OF AN IMPLIED CONTRACT.  A GENERAL PRINCIPLE MAY BE DEDUCED
FROM PARTICULAR LINES OF DECISION, BUT THE CATEGORICAL ASSERTION THAT
ANY ATTEMPT TO FIX A MINIMUM WAGE IN INDUSTRY, DUE CONSIDERATION BEING
GIVEN TO THE TYPE INVOLVED, IS ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY, PALPABLY
INVADES THE POWER OF THE STATES.  FURTHER, IT IS AN ASSERTION BY THE
COURT OF A POWER NOT FOUND IN THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION NOR GIVEN
THEREIN BY INFERENCE. 

IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REGULATE HOURS AND WORKING
CONDITIONS WITHOUT VESTING IN THE COMMISSION SOME POWER WITH REFERENCE
TO THE FIXING OF WAGES, OTHERWISE THE WHOLE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT IN
CONDITIONS OR ANY RESTRICTIONS AS TO HOURS OF SERVICE MIGHT BE BORNE BY
THE EMPLOYEE. 

THE ORDER IN QUESTION CONTAINS REGULATIONS UPON BOTH HOURS AND
CONDITIONS, AND WAGES.  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHETHER OR NOT THE WELFARE
COMMISSION BASED THE WAGES ON WHAT WAS REASONABLE AS BETWEEN THE
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; AND CONSIDERING THE LAW, IT MUST BE THAT THE
REASONABLE RATE WAS ALSO SUFFICIENT FOR THE DECENT MAINTENANCE OF THE
WORKER.  OTHERWISE, THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE HAD TO FIX A HIGHER
MINIMUM.  WHETHER IT DID OR DID NOT HAVE TO FIX A MINIMUM HIGHER THAN
THAT SUFFICIENT FOR DECENT MAINTENANCE DOES NOT APPEAR. 

THE LAWS APPLIED IN SIMILAR CASES SUSTAIN REGULATIONS OF SIMILAR
IMPORT, THE CONTRACT CLAUSE FORMING THE SOLE LEGITIMATE BASIS OF
APPELLANT'S ATTACK UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE.  HOLDEN
V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366. 

THE STATE HAS VARIOUS FIELDS IN WHICH IT HAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO
FIX WAGES.  IT IS AN EMPLOYER ITSELF ON A VAST SCALE.  IT EXERCISES
SUPERVISION OVER MANY TYPES OF PUBLIC SERVICE CONCERNS, AND LIMITS THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF WAGES THAT MAY BE CHARGED TO THE PUBLIC WITHOUT
QUESTION.  ACKER V. UNITED STATES, 298 U.S. 426. 

IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE THAT WATER AND LIGHT,
TRANSPORTATION, HEALTH, AND SANITARY SERVICES SHOULD BE CONTINUED; AND
IF WAGE DISPUTES ARE TO BE PERMITTED TO INTERRUPT THE SERVICE, OR TO
EMBARRASS THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, IT WOULD HARDLY BE OPEN TO QUESTION
THAT THE STATE WOULD HAVE POWER TO TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES ARE NECESSARY
TO INSURE CONTINUATION OF THE SERVICES. 

THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS APPLY IN A LARGE MEASURE TO HOTELS.  THE
COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC REQUIRE CERTAIN
STANDARDS.  HOTELS ARE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY PUBLIC OFFICERS.  THE
WOMEN WHO WORK FOR THE HOTELS COME IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE GUESTS,
AND THE HOTELS COMPLY WITH MANY STANDARDS OF SANITATION AND CLEANLINESS
THROUGH THE MAIDS AND HOUSEKEEPERS IN THEIR EMPLOY. 

INNS AND INNKEEPERS HAD BEEN REGULATED BY THE LAW LONG BEFORE THE
BUSINESS OF INSURANCE WAS CONSIDERED. 

THE STATUTE OF WASHINGTON IS WITHIN THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE
WHEN APPLIED TO FIXING A MINIMUM WAGE FOR WOMEN EMPLOYEES IN A HOTEL. 

THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED A WIDE LATITUDE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO
DETERMINE THE NECESSITY FOR PROTECTING THE PEACE, HEALTH, SAFETY,
MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE.  WHERE THERE IS NO REASONABLE
GROUND FOR SUPPOSING THAT THE LEGISLATURE'S DETERMINATION IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS, OR THAT ITS JUDGMENT IS ONE OF SPECULATION
RATHER THAN FROM EXPERIENCE, ITS FINDINGS ARE NOT REVIEWABLE.  POWELL
V. PENNSYLVANIA, 127 U.S. 678; LAWTON V. STEELE, 152 U.S. 133; HOLDEN
V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366; JACOBSON V. MASSACHUSETTS, 197 U.S. 11; MULLER
V. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412; MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS, 211 U.S. 539; TANNER V.
LITTLE, 240 U.S. 369; RADICE V. NEW YORK, 264 U.S. 292; BLOCK V.
HIRSCH, 256 U.S. 135; O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., 282
U.S. 251; MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO. V. NORWOOD, 283 U.S. 249; MOUNTAIN
TIMBER CO. V. WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219; STEPHENSON V. BINFORD, 287 U.S.
251, 272; HIGHLAND V. RUSSELL CAR CO., 279 U.S. 253, 258. 

THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF WOMEN IN THE PERFORMANCE OF PHYSICAL LABOR
ARE HELD SO FUNDAMENTALLY TO AFFECT THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND TO BE SO
MUCH MORE OF AN OBJECT OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND CONCERN, THAT LEGISLATION
DESIGNED FOR THEIR SPECIAL PROTECTION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED EVEN WHEN LIKE
LEGISLATION FOR MEN MIGHT NOT BE.  MULLER V. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412;
RILEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 232 U.S. 671; HAWLEY V. WALKER, 232 U.S. 718;
BOSLEY V. MCLAUGHLIN, 236 U.S. 385; RADICE V. NEW YORK, 264 U.S. 292. 

WHAT STANDING HAS THIS APPELLANT, IN THIS CASE, TO ATTACK THE STATUTE
AS VIOLATING THE CONTRACT RIGHTS OF THE WOMAN? 

KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THAT A HOTEL OR AN INN IS A BUSINESS
IMPRESSED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST; THAT THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY IS A
PRIVATE DISPUTE REGARDING THE WAGES TO BE PAID BY A CORPORATION
INNKEEPER TO A DOMESTIC; THAT THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY IS ONLY
$216.19; THAT NO SHOWING IS MADE THAT PAYMENT AT THE RATE PRESCRIBED BY
THE WELFARE COMMITTEE IS UNFAIR OR UNREASONABLE, OR THAT IT IMPOSES ANY
HARDSHIP ON THE EMPLOYER, OR THAT ITS BUSINESS WILL BE MADE
UNPROFITABLE; AND THAT NO EXPRESS CONTRACT WAS SHOWN FOR A RATE OF
WAGES DIFFERENT FROM THAT PRESCRIBED IN THE RULES OF THE WELFARE
COMMISSION, WE SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR A GENERAL
ATTACK UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE
MINIMUM WAGE LAW OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 

THE ACT, ENTITLED "MINIMUM WAGES FOR WOMEN," AUTHORIZES THE FIXING OF
MINIMUM WAGES FOR WOMEN AND MINORS.  LAWS OF 1913(WASHINGTON) CHAP.
174; REMINGTON'S REV. STAT. (1932), SECS. 7623 ET SEQ.  IT PROVIDES: 

"SECTION 1.  THE WELFARE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEMANDS THAT
WOMEN AND MINORS BE PROTECTED FROM CONDITIONS OF LABOR WHICH HAVE A
PERNICIOUS EFFECT ON THEIR HEALTH AND MORALS.  THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
THEREFORE, EXERCISING HEREIN ITS POLICE AND SOVEREIGN POWER DECLARES
THAT INADEQUATE WAGES AND UNSANITARY CONDITIONS OF LABOR EXERT SUCH
PERNICIOUS EFFECT. 

"SEC. 2.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO EMPLOY WOMEN OR MINORS IN ANY
INDUSTRY OR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON UNDER CONDITIONS
OF LABOR DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HEALTH OR MORALS; AND IT SHALL BE
UNLAWFUL TO EMPLOY WOMEN WORKERS IN ANY INDUSTRY WITHIN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON AT WAGES WHICH ARE NOT ADEQUATE FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE. 

"SEC. 3.  THERE IS HEREBY CREATED A COMMISSION TO BE KNOWN AS THE
'INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION' FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, TO
ESTABLISH SUCH STANDARDS OF WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF LABOR FOR WOMEN AND
MINORS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AS SHALL BE HELD
HEREUNDER TO BE REASONABLE AND NOT DETRIMENTAL TO HEALTH AND MORALS,
AND WHICH SHALL BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE DECENT MAINTENANCE OF WOMEN." 

FURTHER PROVISIONS REQUIRED THE COMMISSION TO ASCERTAIN THE WAGES AND
CONDITIONS OF LABOR OF WOMEN AND MINORS WITHIN THE STATE.  PUBLIC
HEARINGS WERE TO BE HELD.  IF AFTER INVESTIGATION THE COMMISSION FOUND
THAT IN ANY OCCUPATION, TRADE OR INDUSTRY THE WAGES PAID TO WOMEN WERE
"INADEQUATE TO SUPPLY THEM NECESSARY COST OF LIVING AND TO MAINTAIN THE
WORKERS IN HEALTH," THE COMMISSION WAS EMPOWERED TO CALL A CONFERENCE
OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES TOGETHER WITH
DISINTERESTED PERSONS REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC.  THE CONFERENCE WAS TO
RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSION, ON ITS REQUEST, AN ESTIMATE OF A MINIMUM
WAGE ADEQUATE FOR THE PURPOSE ABOVE STATED, AND ON THE APPROVAL OF SUCH
A RECOMMENDATION IT BECAME THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO ISSUE AN
OBLIGATORY ORDER FIXING MINIMUM WAGES.  ANY SUCH ORDER MIGHT BE
REOPENED AND THE QUESTION RECONSIDERED WITH THE AID OF THE FORMER
CONFERENCE OR A NEW ONE.  SPECIAL LICENSES WERE AUTHORIZED FOR THE
EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN WHO WERE "PHYSICALLY DEFECTIVE OR CRIPPLED BY AGE
OR OTHERWISE," AND ALSO FOR APPRENTICES, AT LESS THAN THE PRESCRIBED
MINIMUM WAGE. 

BY A LATER ACT THE INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMISSION WAS ABOLISHED AND
ITS DUTIES WERE ASSIGNED TO THE INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMMITTEE CONSISTING
OF THE DIRECTOR OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, THE SUPERVISOR OF INDUSTRIAL
INSURANCE, THE SUPERVISOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, THE INDUSTRIAL
STATISTICIAN AND THE SUPERVISOR OF WOMEN IN INDUSTRY.  LAWS OF
1921(WASHINGTON) C. 7; REMINGTON'S REV. STAT. (1932), SECS. 10840,
10893. 

THE APPELLANT CONDUCTS A HOTEL.  THE APPELLEE ELSIE PARRISH WAS
EMPLOYED AS A CHAMBERMAID AND (WITH HER HUSBAND) BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO
RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAGES PAID HER AND THE MINIMUM WAGE
FIXED PURSUANT TO THE STATE LAW.  THE MINIMUM WAGE WAS $14.50 PER WEEK
OF 48 HOURS.  THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE ACT AS REPUGNANT TO THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, REVERSING THE TRIAL
COURT, SUSTAINED THE STATUTE AND DIRECTED JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. 
PARRISH V. WEST COAST HOTEL CO., 185 WASH. 581; 55 P.(2D) 1083.  THE
CASE IS HERE ON APPEAL. 

THE APPELLANT RELIES UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN ADKINS V.
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525, WHICH HELD INVALID THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA MINIMUM WAGE ACT, WHICH WAS ATTACKED UNDER THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  ON THE ARGUMENT AT BAR, COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLEES ATTEMPTED TO DISTINGUISH THE ADKINS CASE UPON THE GROUND THAT
THE APPELLEE WAS EMPLOYED IN A HOTEL AND THAT THE BUSINESS OF AN
INNKEEPER WAS AFFECTED WITH A PUBLIC INTEREST.  THAT EFFORT AT
DISTINCTION IS OBVIOUSLY FUTILE, AS IT APPEARS THAT IN ONE OF THE CASES
RULED BY THE ADKINS OPINION THE EMPLOYEE WAS A WOMAN EMPLOYED AS AN
ELEVATOR OPERATOR IN A HOTEL.  ADKINS V. LYONS, 261 U.S. 525, AT P.
542. 

THE RECENT CASE OF MOREHEAD V. NEW YORK EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S.
587, CAME HERE ON CERTIORARI TO THE NEW YORK COURT, WHICH HAD HELD THE
NEW YORK MINIMUM WAGE ACT FOR WOMEN TO BE INVALID.  A MINORITY OF THIS
COURT THOUGHT THAT THE NEW YORK STATUTE WAS DISTINGUISHABLE IN A
MATERIAL FEATURE FROM THAT INVOLVED IN THE ADKINS CASE, AND THAT FOR
THAT AND OTHER REASONS THE NEW YORK STATUTE SHOULD BE SUSTAINED.  BUT
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK HAD SAID THAT IT FOUND NO MATERIAL
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO STATUTES, AND THIS COURT HELD THAT THE
"MEANING OF THE STATUTE" AS FIXED BY THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT
"MUST BE ACCEPTED HERE AS IF THE MEANING HAD BEEN SPECIFICALLY
EXPRESSED IN THE ENACTMENT."  ID., P. 609.  THAT VIEW LED TO THE
AFFIRMANCE BY THIS COURT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE MOREHEAD CASE, AS THE
COURT CONSIDERED THAT THE ONLY QUESTION BEFORE IT WAS WHETHER THE
ADKINS CASE WAS DISTINGUISHABLE AND THAT RECONSIDERATION OF THAT
DECISION HAD NOT BEEN SOUGHT.  UPON THAT POINT THE COURT SAID:  "THE
PETITION FOR THE WRIT SOUGHT REVIEW UPON THE GROUND THAT THIS CASE
(MOREHEAD) IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THAT ONE (ADKINS).  NO APPLICATION
HAS BEEN MADE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THERE
DECIDED.  THE VALIDITY OF THE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THAT DECISION RESTS
IS NOT CHALLENGED.  THIS COURT CONFINES ITSELF TO THE GROUND UPON WHICH
THE WRIT WAS ASKED OR GRANTED  ...  HERE THE REVIEW GRANTED WAS NO
BROADER THAN THAT SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER  ...  HE IS NOT ENTITLED AND
DOES NOT ASK TO BE HEARD UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ADKINS CASE
SHOULD BE OVERRULED.  HE MAINTAINS THAT IT MAY BE DISTINGUISHED ON THE
GROUND THAT THE STATUTES ARE VITALLY DISSIMILAR."  ID., PP. 604, 605. 

WE THINK THAT THE QUESTION WHICH WAS NOT DEEMED TO BE OPEN IN THE
MOREHEAD CASE IS OPEN AND IS NECESSARILY PRESENTED HERE.  THE SUPREME
COURT OF WASHINGTON HAS UPHELD THE MINIMUM WAGE STATUTE OF THAT STATE. 
IT HAS DECIDED THAT THE STATUTE IS A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE
POWER OF THE STATE.  IN REACHING THAT CONCLUSION THE STATE COURT HAS
INVOKED PRINCIPLES LONG ESTABLISHED BY THIS COURT IN THE APPLICATION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  THE STATE COURT HAS REFUSED TO REGARD THE
DECISION IN THE ADKINS CASE AS DETERMINATIVE AND HAS POINTED TO OUR
DECISIONS BOTH BEFORE AND SINCE THAT CASE AS JUSTIFYING ITS POSITION. 
WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS RULING OF THE STATE COURT DEMANDS ON
OUR PART A REEXAMINATION OF THE ADKINS CASE.  THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION, IN WHICH MANY STATES HAVING SIMILAR LAWS ARE CONCERNED, THE
CLOSE DIVISION BY WHICH THE DECISION IN THE ADKINS CASE WAS REACHED,
AND THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE SUPERVENED, AND IN THE LIGHT OF
WHICH THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EXERCISE OF THE PROTECTIVE POWER OF THE
STATE MUST BE CONSIDERED, MAKE IT NOT ONLY APPROPRIATE, BUT WE THINK
IMPERATIVE, THAT IN DECIDING THE PRESENT CASE THE SUBJECT SHOULD
RECEIVE FRESH CONSIDERATION. 

THE HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION OF THIS QUESTION MAY BE BRIEFLY
STATED.  THE MINIMUM WAGE STATUTE OF WASHINGTON WAS ENACTED OVER TWENTY
THREE YEARS AGO.  PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE IT HAD
TWICE BEEN HELD VALID BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE.  LARSEN V.
RICE, 100 WASH. 642; 171 PAC. 1037; SPOKANE HOTEL CO. V. YOUNGER, 113
WASH. 359; 194 PAC. 595.  THE WASHINGTON STATUTE IS ESSENTIALLY THE
SAME AS THAT ENACTED IN OREGON IN THE SAME YEAR.  LAWS OF 1913(OREGON)
CHAP. 62.  THE VALIDITY OF THE LATTER ACT WAS SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF OREGON IN STETTLER V. O'HARA, 69 ORE.  519; 139 PAC. 743, AND
SIMPSON V. O'HARA, 70 ORE.  261; 141 PAC. 158.  THESE CASES, AFTER
REARGUMENT, WERE AFFIRMED HERE BY AN EQUALLY DIVIDED COURT, IN 1917. 
243 U.S. 629.  THE LAW OF OREGON THUS CONTINUED IN EFFECT.  THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINIMUM WAGE LAW (40 STAT. 960) WAS ENACTED IN
1918.  THE STATUTE WAS SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT
IN THE ADKINS CASE.  UPON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT
FIRST AFFIRMED THAT RULING BUT ON REHEARING REVERSED IT AND THE CASE
CAME BEFORE THIS COURT IN 1923.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
HOLDING THE ACT INVALID WAS AFFIRMED, BUT WITH CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT, MR.
JUSTICE HOLMES AND MR. JUSTICE SANFORD DISSENTING, AND MR. JUSTICE
BRANDEIS TAKING NO PART.  THE DISSENTING OPINIONS TOOK THE GROUND THAT
THE DECISION WAS AT VARIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES WHICH THIS COURT HAD
FREQUENTLY ANNOUNCED AND APPLIED.  IN 1925 AND 1927, THE SIMILAR
MINIMUM WAGE STATUTES OF ARIZONA AND ARKANSAS WERE HELD INVALID UPON
THE AUTHORITY OF THE ADKINS CASE.  THE JUSTICES WHO HAD DISSENTED IN
THAT CASE BOWED TO THE RULING AND MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DISSENTED. 
MURPHY V. SARDELL, 269 U.S. 530; DONHAM V. WEST-NELSON CO., 273 U.S.
657.  THE QUESTION DID NOT COME BEFORE US AGAIN UNTIL THE LAST TERM IN
THE MOREHEAD CASE, AS ALREADY NOTED.  IN THAT CASE, BRIEFS SUPPORTING
THE NEW YORK STATUTE WERE SUBMITTED BY THE STATES OF OHIO, CONNECTICUT,
ILLINOIS, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY AND RHODE ISLAND. 
298 U.S., P. 604, NOTE.  THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PERIOD THE WASHINGTON
STATUTE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN IN FORCE. 

THE PRINCIPLE WHICH MUST CONTROL OUR DECISION IS NOT IN DOUBT.  THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOKED IS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GOVERNING THE STATES, AS THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
INVOKED IN THE ADKINS CASE GOVERNED CONGRESS.  IN EACH CASE THE
VIOLATION ALLEGED BY THOSE ATTACKING MINIMUM WAGE REGULATION FOR WOMEN
IS DEPRIVATION OF FREEDOM OF CONTRACT.  WHAT IS THIS FREEDOM?  THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SPEAK OF FREEDOM OF CONTRACT.  IT SPEAKS OF
LIBERTY AND PROHIBITS THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW.  IN PROHIBITING THAT DEPRIVATION THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
RECOGNIZE AN ABSOLUTE AND UNCONTROLLABLE LIBERTY.  LIBERTY IN EACH OF
ITS PHASES HAS ITS HISTORY AND CONNOTATION.  BUT THE LIBERTY
SAFEGUARDED IS LIBERTY IN A SOCIAL ORGANIZATION WHICH REQUIRES THE
PROTECTION OF LAW AGAINST THE EVILS WHICH MENACE THE HEALTH, SAFETY,
MORALS AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE.  LIBERTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION IS
THUS NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO THE RESTRAINTS OF DUE PROCESS, AND
REGULATION WHICH IS REASONABLE IN RELATION TO ITS SUBJECT AND IS
ADOPTED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY IS DUE PROCESS. 

THIS ESSENTIAL LIMITATION OF LIBERTY IN GENERAL GOVERNS FREEDOM OF
CONTRACT IN PARTICULAR.  MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO WE SET FORTH
THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE IN THESE WORDS, AFTER REFERRING TO THE CASES
WHERE THE LIBERTY GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAD BEEN
BROADLY DESCRIBED: FN1 

"BUT IT WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE CASES CITED, AS IN MANY OTHERS, THAT
FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IS A QUALIFIED AND NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT.  THERE IS
NO ABSOLUTE FREEDOM TO DO AS ONE WILLS OR TO CONTRACT AS ONE CHOOSES. 
THE GUARANTY OF LIBERTY DOES NOT WITHDRAW FROM LEGISLATIVE SUPERVISION
THAT WIDE DEPARTMENT OF ACTIVITY WHICH CONSISTS OF THE MAKING OF
CONTRACTS, OR DENY TO GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO PROVIDE RESTRICTIVE
SAFEGUARDS.  LIBERTY IMPLIES THE ABSENCE OF ARBITRARY RESTRAINT, NOT
IMMUNITY FROM REASONABLE REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS IMPOSED IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY."  CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. MCGUIRE, 219
U.S. 549, 567. 

THIS POWER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF CONTRACT HAS
HAD MANY ILLUSTRATIONS.  FN2  THAT IT MAY BE EXERCISED IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO CONTRACTS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IS
UNDENIABLE.  THUS STATUTES HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED LIMITING EMPLOYMENT IN
UNDERGROUND MINES AND SMELTERS TO EIGHT HOURS A DAY (HOLDEN V. HARDY,
169 U.S. 366); IN REQUIRING REDEMPTION IN CASH OF STORE ORDERS OR OTHER
EVIDENCES OF INDEBTEDNESS ISSUED IN THE PAYMENT OF WAGES (KNOXVILLE
IRON CO. V. HARBISON, 183 U.S. 13); IN FORBIDDING THE PAYMENT OF
SEAMEN'S WAGES IN ADVANCE (PATTERSON V. BARK EUDORA, 190 U.S. 169); IN
MAKING IT UNLAWFUL TO CONTRACT TO PAY MINERS EMPLOYED AT QUANTITY RATES
UPON THE BASIS OF SCREENED COAL INSTEAD OF THE WEIGHT OF THE COAL AS
ORIGINALLY PRODUCED IN THE MINE (MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS, 211 U.S. 539); IN
PROHIBITING CONTRACTS LIMITING LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO EMPLOYEES
(CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. MCGUIRE, SUPRA); IN LIMITING HOURS OF WORK
OF EMPLOYEES IN MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS (BUNTING V. OREGON, 243
U.S. 426); AND IN MAINTAINING WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS (NEW YORK
CENTRAL R. CO. V. WHITE, 243 U.S. 188; MOUNTAIN TIMBER CO. V.
WASHINGTON, 243 U.S. 219).  IN DEALING WITH THE RELATION OF EMPLOYER
AND EMPLOYED, THE LEGISLATURE HAS NECESSARILY A WIDE FIELD OF
DISCRETION IN ORDER THAT THERE MAY BE SUITABLE PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND
SAFETY, AND THAT PEACE AND GOOD ORDER MAY BE PROMOTED THROUGH
REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO INSURE WHOLESOME CONDITIONS OF WORK AND FREEDOM
FROM OPPRESSION.  CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. MCGUIRE, SUPRA, P. 570. 

THE POINT THAT HAS BEEN STRONGLY STRESSED THAT ADULT EMPLOYEES SHOULD
BE DEEMED COMPETENT TO MAKE THEIR OWN CONTRACTS WAS DECISIVELY MET
NEARLY FORTY YEARS AGO IN HOLDEN V. HARDY, SUPRA, WHERE WE POINTED OUT
THE INEQUALITY IN THE FOOTING OF THE PARTIES.  WE SAID (ID., 397): 

"THE LEGISLATURE HAS ALSO RECOGNIZED THE FACT, WHICH THE EXPERIENCE
OF LEGISLATORS IN MANY STATES HAS CORROBORATED, THAT THE PROPRIETORS OF
THESE ESTABLISHMENTS AND THEIR OPERATIVES DO NOT STAND UPON AN
EQUALITY, AND THAT THEIR INTERESTS ARE, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT,
CONFLICTING.  THE FORMER NATURALLY DESIRE TO OBTAIN AS MUCH LABOR AS
POSSIBLE FROM THEIR EMPLOYES, WHILE THE LATTER ARE OFTEN INDUCED BY THE
FEAR OF DISCHARGE TO CONFORM TO REGULATIONS WHICH THEIR JUDGMENT,
FAIRLY EXERCISED, WOULD PRONOUNCE TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HEALTH OR
STRENGTH.  IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROPRIETORS LAY DOWN THE RULES AND THE
LABORERS ARE PRACTICALLY CONSTRAINED TO OBEY THEM.  IN SUCH CASES SELF
INTEREST IS OFTEN AN UNSAFE GUIDE, AND THE LEGISLATURE MAY PROPERLY
INTERPOSE ITS AUTHORITY." 

AND WE ADDED THAT THE FACT "THAT BOTH PARTIES ARE OF FULL AGE AND
COMPETENT TO CONTRACT DOES NOT NECESSARILY DEPRIVE THE STATE OF THE
POWER TO INTERFERE WHERE THE PARTIES DO NOT STAND UPON AN EQUALITY, OR
WHERE THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEMANDS THAT ONE PARTY TO THE CONTRACT SHALL BE
PROTECTED AGAINST HIMSELF."  "THE STATE STILL RETAINS AN INTEREST IN
HIS WELFARE, HOWEVER RECKLESS HE MAY BE.  THE WHOLE IS NO GREATER THAN
THE SUM OF ALL THE PARTS, AND WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND
WELFARE ARE SACRIFICED OR NEGLECTED, THE STATE MUST SUFFER." 

IT IS MANIFEST THAT THIS ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE IS PECULIARLY
APPLICABLE IN RELATION TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN IN WHOSE PROTECTION
THE STATE HAS A SPECIAL INTEREST.  THAT PHASE OF THE SUBJECT RECEIVED
ELABORATE CONSIDERATION IN MULLER V. OREGON (1908), 208 U.S. 412, WHERE
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO LIMIT THE WORKING HOURS OF
WOMEN WAS SUSTAINED.  WE EMPHASIZED THE CONSIDERATION THAT "WOMAN'S
PHYSICAL STRUCTURE AND THE PERFORMANCE OF MATERNAL FUNCTIONS PLACE HER
AT A DISADVANTAGE IN THE STRUGGLE FOR SUBSISTENCE" AND THAT HER
PHYSICAL WELL BEING "BECOMES AN OBJECT OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND CARE IN
ORDER TO PRESERVE THE STRENGTH AND VIGOR OF THE RACE."  WE EMPHASIZED
THE NEED OF PROTECTING WOMEN AGAINST OPPRESSION DESPITE HER POSSESSION
OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS.  WE SAID THAT "THOUGH LIMITATIONS UPON PERSONAL
AND CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS MAY BE REMOVED BY LEGISLATION, THERE IS THAT IN
HER DISPOSITION AND HABITS OF LIFE WHICH WILL OPERATE AGAINST A FULL
ASSERTION OF THOSE RIGHTS.  SHE WILL STILL BE WHERE SOME LEGISLATION TO
PROTECT HER SEEMS NECESSARY TO SECURE A REAL EQUALITY OF RIGHT."  HENCE
SHE WAS "PROPERLY PLACED IN A CLASS BY HERSELF, AND LEGISLATION
DESIGNED FOR HER PROTECTION MAY BE SUSTAINED EVEN WHEN LIKE LEGISLATION
IS NOT NECESSARY FOR MEN AND COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED."  WE CONCLUDED
THAT THE LIMITATIONS WHICH THE STATUTE THERE IN QUESTION "PLACED UPON
HER CONTRACTUAL POWERS, UPON HER RIGHT TO AGREE WITH HER EMPLOYER AS TO
THE TIME SHE SHALL LABOR" WERE "NOT IMPOSED SOLELY FOR HER BENEFIT, BUT
ALSO LARGELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL."  AGAIN, IN QUONG WING V.
KIRKENDALL, 223 U.S. 59, 63, IN REFERRING TO A DIFFERENTIATION WITH
RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN, WE SAID THAT THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT DID NOT INTERFERE WITH STATE POWER BY CREATING A "FICTITIOUS
EQUALITY."  WE REFERRED TO RECOGNIZED CLASSIFICATIONS ON THE BASIS OF
SEX WITH REGARD TO HOURS OF WORK AND IN OTHER MATTERS, AND WE OBSERVED
THAT THE PARTICULAR POINTS AT WHICH THAT DIFFERENCE SHALL BE ENFORCED
BY LEGISLATION WERE LARGELY IN THE POWER OF THE STATE.  IN LATER
RULINGS THIS COURT SUSTAINED THE REGULATION OF HOURS OF WORK OF WOMEN
EMPLOYEES IN RILEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 232 U.S. 671(FACTORIES), MILLER V.
WILSON, 236 U.S. 373(HOTELS), AND BOSLEY V. MCLAUGHLIN, 236 U.S.
385(HOSPITALS). 

THIS ARRAY OF PRECEDENTS AND THE PRINCIPLES THEY APPLIED WERE THOUGHT
BY THE DISSENTING JUSTICES IN THE ADKINS CASE TO DEMAND THAT THE
MINIMUM WAGE STATUTE BE SUSTAINED.  THE VALIDITY OF THE DISTINCTION
MADE BY THE COURT BETWEEN A MINIMUM WAGE AND A MAXIMUM OF HOURS IN
LIMITING LIBERTY OF CONTRACT WAS ESPECIALLY CHALLENGED.  261 U.S., P.
564.  THAT CHALLENGE PERSISTS AND IS WITHOUT ANY SATISFACTORY ANSWER. 
AS CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT OBSERVED:  "IN ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT THE
ONE TERM IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE OTHER, FOR BOTH ENTER EQUALLY INTO THE
CONSIDERATION GIVEN AND RECEIVED, A RESTRICTION AS TO THE ONE IS NOT
GREATER IN ESSENCE THAN THE OTHER AND IS OF THE SAME KIND.  ONE IS THE
MULTIPLIER AND THE OTHER THE MULTIPLICAND."  AND MR. JUSTICE HOLMES,
WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT "THE DISTINCTIONS OF THE LAW ARE DISTINCTIONS OF
DEGREE," COULD "PERCEIVE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE KIND OR DEGREE OF
INTERFERENCE WITH LIBERTY, THE ONLY MATTER WITH WHICH WE HAVE ANY
CONCERN, BETWEEN THE ONE CASE AND THE OTHER.  THE BARGAIN IS EQUALLY
AFFECTED WHICHEVER HALF YOU REGULATE."  ID., P. 569. 

ONE OF THE POINTS WHICH WAS PRESSED BY THE COURT IN SUPPORTING ITS
RULING IN THE ADKINS CASE WAS THAT THE STANDARD SET UP BY THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA ACT DID NOT TAKE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT OF THE VALUE OF THE
SERVICES RENDERED.  IN THE MOREHEAD CASE, THE MINORITY THOUGHT THAT THE
NEW YORK STATUTE HAD MET THAT POINT IN ITS DEFINITION OF A "FAIR WAGE"
AND THAT IT ACCORDINGLY PRESENTED A DISTINGUISHABLE FEATURE WHICH THE
COURT COULD RECOGNIZE WITHIN THE LIMITS WHICH THE MOREHEAD PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI WAS DEEMED TO PRESENT.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, DID NOT TAKE
THAT VIEW AND THE NEW YORK ACT WAS HELD TO BE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS
THAT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THE STATUTE NOW BEFORE US IS LIKE
THE LATTER, BUT WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT IN ITS MINIMUM WAGE
REQUIREMENT THE STATE HAS PASSED BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF ITS BROAD
PROTECTIVE POWER. 

THE MINIMUM WAGE TO BE PAID UNDER THE WASHINGTON STATUTE IS FIXED
AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS, EMPLOYEES AND
THE PUBLIC.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT THE MINIMUM WAGE IS FIXED IN
CONSIDERATION OF THE SERVICES THAT ARE PERFORMED IN THE PARTICULAR
OCCUPATIONS UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS.  PROVISION IS MADE FOR SPECIAL
LICENSES AT LESS WAGES IN THE CASE OF WOMEN WHO ARE INCAPABLE OF FULL
SERVICE.  THE STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN THE ADKINS CASE IS
PERTINENT:  "THIS STATUTE DOES NOT COMPEL ANYBODY TO PAY ANYTHING.  IT
SIMPLY FORBIDS EMPLOYMENT AT RATES BELOW THOSE FIXED AS THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF HEALTH AND RIGHT LIVING.  IT IS SAFE TO ASSUME THAT
WOMEN WILL NOT BE EMPLOYED AT EVEN THE LOWEST WAGES ALLOWED UNLESS THEY
EARN THEM, OR UNLESS THE EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS CAN SUSTAIN THE BURDEN. 
IN SHORT THE LAW IN ITS CHARACTER AND OPERATION IS LIKE HUNDREDS OF SO
CALLED POLICE LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN UPHELD."  261 U.S., P. 570.  AND
CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT FORCIBLY POINTED OUT THE CONSIDERATION WHICH IS
BASIC IN A STATUTE OF THIS CHARACTER:  "LEGISLATURES WHICH ADOPT A
REQUIREMENT OF MAXIMUM HOURS OR MINIMUM WAGES MAY BE PRESUMED TO
BELIEVE THAT WHEN SWEATING EMPLOYERS ARE PREVENTED FROM PAYING UNDULY
LOW WAGES BY POSITIVE LAW THEY WILL CONTINUE THEIR BUSINESS, ABATING
THAT PART OF THEIR PROFITS, WHICH WERE WRUNG FROM THE NECESSITIES OF
THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND WILL CONCEDE THE BETTER TERMS REQUIRED BY THE LAW;
AND THAT WHILE IN INDIVIDUAL CASES HARDSHIP MAY RESULT, THE RESTRICTION
WILL ENURE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL CLASS OF EMPLOYEES IN WHOSE
INTEREST THE LAW IS PASSED AND SO TO THAT OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE." 
ID., P. 563. 

WE THINK THAT THE VIEWS THUS EXPRESSED ARE SOUND AND THAT THE
DECISION IN THE ADKINS CASE WAS A DEPARTURE FROM THE TRUE APPLICATION
OF THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE REGULATION BY THE STATE OF THE RELATION
OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYED.  THOSE PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN REENFORCED BY OUR
SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS.  THUS IN RADICE V. NEW YORK, 264 U.S. 292, WE
SUSTAINED THE NEW YORK STATUTE WHICH RESTRICTED THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
IN RESTAURANTS AT NIGHT.  IN O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD FIRE
INSURANCE CO., 282 U.S. 251, WHICH UPHELD AN ACT REGULATING THE
COMMISSIONS OF INSURANCE AGENTS, WE POINTED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE DEALING WITH A SUBJECT WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THE POLICE POWER AND TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY FACTUAL FOUNDATION OF
RECORD FOR DECIDING THAT THE LIMITS OF POWER HAD BEEN TRANSCENDED.  IN
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, DEALING WITH THE NEW YORK STATUTE
PROVIDING FOR MINIMUM PRICES FOR MILK, THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE
REGULATION OF THE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND OF THE MAKING OF PRIVATE
CONTRACTS RECEIVED AN EXHAUSTIVE EXAMINATION AND WE AGAIN DECLARED THAT
IF SUCH LAWS "HAVE A REASONABLE RELATION TO A PROPER LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE, AND ARE NEITHER ARBITRARY NOR DISCRIMINATORY, THE REQUIREMENTS
OF DUE PROCESS ARE SATISFIED"; THAT "WITH THE WISDOM OF THE POLICY
ADOPTED, WITH THE ADEQUACY OR PRACTICABILITY OF THE LAW ENACTED TO
FORWARD IT, THE COURTS ARE BOTH INCOMPETENT AND UNAUTHORIZED TO DEAL";
THAT "TIMES WITHOUT NUMBER WE HAVE SAID THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS
PRIMARILY THE JUDGE OF THE NECESSITY OF SUCH AN ENACTMENT, THAT EVERY
POSSIBLE PRESUMPTION IS IN FAVOR OF ITS VALIDITY, AND THAT THOUGH THE
COURT MAY HOLD VIEWS INCONSISTENT WITH THE WISDOM OF THE LAW, IT MAY
NOT BE ANNULLED UNLESS PALPABLY IN EXCESS OF LEGISLATIVE POWER."  ID.,
PP. 537, 538. 

WITH FULL RECOGNITION OF THE EARNESTNESS AND VIGOR WHICH CHARACTERIZE
THE PREVAILING OPINION IN THE ADKINS CASE, WE FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
RECONCILE THAT RULING WITH THESE WELL-CONSIDERED DECLARATIONS.  WHAT
CAN BE CLOSER TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST THAN THE HEALTH OF WOMEN AND THEIR
PROTECTION FROM UNSCRUPULOUS AND OVERREACHING EMPLOYERS?  AND IF THE
PROTECTION OF WOMEN IS A LEGITIMATE END OF THE EXERCISE OF STATE POWER,
HOW CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PAYMENT OF A MINIMUM
WAGE FAIRLY FIXED IN ORDER TO MEET THE VERY NECESSITIES OF EXISTENCE IS
NOT AN ADMISSIBLE MEANS TO THAT END?  THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE WAS
CLEARLY ENTITLED TO CONSIDER THE SITUATION OF WOMEN IN EMPLOYMENT, THE
FACT THAT THEY ARE IN THE CLASS RECEIVING THE LEAST PAY, THAT THEIR
BARGAINING POWER IS RELATIVELY WEAK, AND THAT THEY ARE THE READY
VICTIMS OF THOSE WHO WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR NECESSITOUS
CIRCUMSTANCES.  THE LEGISLATURE WAS ENTITLED TO ADOPT MEASURES TO
REDUCE THE EVILS OF THE "SWEATING SYSTEM," THE EXPLOITING OF WORKERS AT
WAGES SO LOW AS TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE BARE COST OF LIVING,
THUS MAKING THEIR VERY HELPLESSNESS THE OCCASION OF A MOST INJURIOUS
COMPETITION.  THE LEGISLATURE HAD THE RIGHT TO CONSIDER THAT ITS
MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT AID IN CARRYING OUT ITS
POLICY OF PROTECTION.  THE ADOPTION OF SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS BY MANY
STATES EVIDENCES A DEEPSEATED CONVICTION BOTH AS TO THE PRESENCE OF THE
EVIL AND AS TO THE MEANS ADAPTED TO CHECK IT.  LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO
THAT CONVICTION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, AND THAT
IS ALL WE HAVE TO DECIDE.  EVEN IF THE WISDOM OF THE POLICY BE REGARDED
AS DEBATABLE AND ITS EFFECTS UNCERTAIN, STILL THE LEGISLATURE IS
ENTITLED TO ITS JUDGMENT. 

THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL AND COMPELLING CONSIDERATION WHICH RECENT
ECONOMIC EXPERIENCE HAS BROUGHT INTO A STRONG LIGHT.  THE EXPLOITATION
OF A CLASS OF WORKERS WHO ARE IN AN UNEQUAL POSITION WITH RESPECT TO
BARGAINING POWER AND ARE THUS RELATIVELY DEFENCELESS AGAINST THE DENIAL
OF A LIVING WAGE IS NOT ONLY DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HEALTH AND WELL BEING
BUT CASTS A DIRECT BURDEN FOR THEIR SUPPORT UPON THE COMMUNITY.  WHAT
THESE WORKERS LOSE IN WAGES THE TAXPAYERS ARE CALLED UPON TO PAY.  THE
BARE COST OF LIVING MUST BE MET.  WE MAY TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE
UNPARALLELED DEMANDS FOR RELIEF WHICH AROSE DURING THE RECENT PERIOD OF
DEPRESSION AND STILL CONTINUE TO AN ALARMING EXTENT DESPITE THE DEGREE
OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY WHICH HAS BEEN ACHIEVED.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
CITE OFFICIAL STATISTICS TO ESTABLISH WHAT IS OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE
THROUGH THE LENGTH AND BREADTH OF THE LAND.  WHILE IN THE INSTANT CASE
NO FACTUAL BRIEF HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON HAS ENCOUNTERED THE SAME SOCIAL PROBLEM THAT IS
PRESENT ELSEWHERE.  THE COMMUNITY IS NOT BOUND TO PROVIDE WHAT IS IN
EFFECT A SUBSIDY FOR UNCONSCIONABLE EMPLOYERS.  THE COMMUNITY MAY
DIRECT ITS LAW-MAKING POWER TO CORRECT THE ABUSE WHICH SPRINGS FROM
THEIR SELFISH DISREGARD OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
LEGISLATION IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES AN ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION,
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXTEND TO MEN, IS UNAVAILING.  THIS COURT HAS
FREQUENTLY HELD THAT THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, ACTING WITHIN ITS
PROPER FIELD, IS NOT BOUND TO EXTEND ITS REGULATION TO ALL CASES WHICH
IT MIGHT POSSIBLY REACH.  THE LEGISLATURE "IS FREE TO RECOGNIZE DEGREES
OF HARM AND IT MAY CONFINE ITS RESTRICTIONS TO THOSE CLASSES OF CASES
WHERE THE NEED IS DEEMED TO BE CLEAREST."  IF "THE LAW PRESUMABLY HITS
THE EVIL WHERE IT IS MOST FELT, IT IS NOT TO BE OVERTHROWN BECAUSE
THERE ARE OTHER INSTANCES TO WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN APPLIED."  THERE
IS NO "DOCTRINAIRE REQUIREMENT" THAT THE LEGISLATION SHOULD BE COUCHED
IN ALL EMBRACING TERMS.  CARROLL V. GREENWICH INSURANCE CO., 199 U.S.
401, 411; PATSONE V. PENNSYLVANIA, 232 U.S. 138, 144; KEOKEE COKE CO.
V. TAYLOR, 234 U.S. 224, 227; SPROLES V. BINFORD, 286 U.S. 374, 396;
SEMLER V. OREGON BOARD, 294 U.S. 608, 610, 611.  THIS FAMILIAR
PRINCIPLE HAS REPEATEDLY BEEN APPLIED TO LEGISLATION WHICH SINGLES OUT
WOMEN, AND PARTICULAR CLASSES OF WOMEN, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S
PROTECTIVE POWER.  MILLER V. WILSON, SUPRA, P. 384; BOSLEY V.
MCLAUGHLIN, SUPRA, PP. 394, 395; RADICE V. NEW YORK, SUPRA, PP. 295
298.  THEIR RELATIVE NEED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE EVIL, NO LESS THAN THE
EXISTENCE OF THE EVIL ITSELF, IS A MATTER FOR THE LEGISLATIVE
JUDGMENT. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE CASE OF ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL,
SUPRA, SHOULD BE, AND IT IS, OVERRULED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ALLGEYER V. LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578; LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198
U.S. 45; ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161. 

FN2  MUNN V. ILLINOIS, 94 U.S. 113; RAILROAD COMMISSION CASES, 116
U.S. 307; WILLCOX V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 212 U.S. 19; ATKIN V.
KANSAS, 191 U.S. 207; MUGLER V. KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623; CROWLEY V.
CHRISTENSEN, 137 U.S. 86; GUNDLING V. CHICAGO, 177 U.S. 183; BOOTH V.
ILLINOIS, 184 U.S. 425; SCHMIDINGER V. CHICAGO, 226 U.S. 578; ARMOUR &
CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 240 U.S. 510; NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE CO. V.
WANBERG, 260 U.S. 71; RADICE V. NEW YORK, 264 U.S. 292; YEISER V.
DYSART, 267 U.S. 540; LIBERTY WAREHOUSE CO. V. BURLEY TOBACCO GROWERS'
ASSN., 276 U.S. 71, 97; HIGHLAND V. RUSSELL CAR CO., 279 U.S. 253, 261;
O'GORMAN & YOUNG V. HARTFORD INSURANCE CO., 282 U.S. 249, 251; HARDWARE
DEALERS INSURANCE CO. V. GLIDDEN CO., 284 U.S. 151, 157; PACKER CORP.
V. UTAH, 285 U.S. 95, 111; STEPHENSON V. BINFORD, 287 U.S. 251, 274;
HARTFORD ACCIDENT CO. V. NELSON MFG. CO., 291 U.S. 352, 360; PETERSEN
BAKING CO. V. BRYAN, 290 U.S. 570; NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502,
527-529. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, DISSENTING: 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE BUTLER
AND I THINK THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW SHOULD BE REVERSED. 

THE PRINCIPLES AND AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON TO SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT,
WERE CONSIDERED IN ADKINS V. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, 261 U.S. 525, AND
MOREHEAD V. NEW YORK EX REL. TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587; AND THEIR LACK OF
APPLICATION TO CASES LIKE THE ONE IN HAND WAS POINTED OUT.  A
SUFFICIENT ANSWER TO ALL THAT IS NOW SAID WILL BE FOUND IN THE OPINIONS
OF THE COURT IN THOSE CASES.  NEVERTHELESS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT
SEEMS WELL TO RESTATE OUR REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS. 

UNDER OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WHERE THE WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, BY ITS
OWN TERMS, IS THE SUPREME LAW, SOME AGENCY, OF NECESSITY, MUST HAVE THE
POWER TO SAY THE FINAL WORD AS TO THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE ASSAILED AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  THE CONSTITUTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE POWER HAS
BEEN INTRUSTED TO THIS COURT WHEN THE QUESTION ARISES IN A CONTROVERSY
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION; AND SO LONG AS THE POWER REMAINS THERE, ITS
EXERCISE CANNOT BE AVOIDED WITHOUT BETRAYAL OF THE TRUST. 

IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT MANY TIMES, AS IN THE ADKINS CASE, THAT THIS
JUDICIAL DUTY IS ONE OF GRAVITY AND DELICACY; AND THAT RATIONAL DOUBTS
MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTE.  BUT
WHOSE DOUBTS, AND BY WHOM RESOLVED?  UNDOUBTEDLY IT IS THE DUTY OF A
MEMBER OF THE COURT, IN THE PROCESS OF REACHING A RIGHT CONCLUSION, TO
GIVE DUE WEIGHT TO THE OPPOSING VIEWS OF HIS ASSOCIATES; BUT IN THE
END, THE QUESTION WHICH HE MUST ANSWER IS NOT WHETHER SUCH VIEWS SEEM
SOUND TO THOSE WHO ENTERTAIN THEM, BUT WHETHER THEY CONVINCE HIM THAT
THE STATUTE IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR ENGENDER IN HIS MIND A RATIONAL DOUBT
UPON THAT ISSUE.  THE OATH WHICH HE TAKES AS A JUDGE IS NOT A COMPOSITE
OATH, BUT AN INDIVIDUAL ONE.  AND IN PASSING UPON THE VALIDITY OF A
STATUTE, HE DISCHARGES A DUTY IMPOSED UPON HIM, WHICH CANNOT BE
CONSUMMATED JUSTLY BY AN AUTOMATIC ACCEPTANCE OF THE VIEWS OF OTHERS
WHICH HAVE NEITHER CONVINCED, NOR CREATED A REASONABLE DOUBT IN, HIS
MIND.  IF UPON A QUESTION SO IMPORTANT HE THUS SURRENDER HIS DELIBERATE
JUDGMENT, HE STANDS FORSWORN.  HE CANNOT SUBORDINATE HIS CONVICTIONS TO
THAT EXTENT AND KEEP FAITH WITH HIS OATH OR RETAIN HIS JUDICIAL AND
MORAL INDEPENDENCE. 

THE SUGGESTION THAT THE ONLY CHECK UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL
POWER, WHEN PROPERLY INVOKED, TO DECLARE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
SUPERIOR TO AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE IS THE JUDGE'S OWN FACULTY OF
SELF-RESTRAINT, IS BOTH ILL CONSIDERED AND MISCHIEVOUS.  SELF-RESTRAINT
BELONGS IN THE DOMAIN OF WILL AND NOT OF JUDGMENT.  THE CHECK UPON THE
JUDGE IS THAT IMPOSED BY HIS OATH OF OFFICE, BY THE CONSTITUTION AND BY
HIS OWN CONSCIENTIOUS AND INFORMED CONVICTIONS; AND SINCE HE HAS THE
DUTY TO MAKE UP HIS OWN MIND AND ADJUDGE ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HARD TO SEE
HOW THERE COULD BE ANY OTHER RESTRAINT.  THIS COURT ACTS AS A UNIT.  IT
CANNOT ACT IN ANY OTHER WAY; AND THE MAJORITY (WHETHER A BARE MAJORITY
OR A MAJORITY OF ALL BUT ONE OF ITS MEMBERS), THEREFORE, ESTABLISHES
THE CONTROLLING RULE AS THE DECISION OF THE COURT, BINDING, SO LONG AS
IT REMAINS UNCHANGED, EQUALLY UPON THOSE WHO DISAGREE AND UPON THOSE
WHO SUBSCRIBE TO IT.  OTHERWISE, ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
WOULD CEASE.  BUT IT IS THE RIGHT OF THOSE IN THE MINORITY TO DISAGREE,
AND SOMETIMES, IN MATTERS OF GRAVE IMPORTANCE, THEIR IMPERATIVE DUTY TO
VOICE THEIR DISAGREEMENT AT SUCH LENGTH AS THE OCCASION DEMANDS -
ALWAYS, OF COURSE, IN TERMS WHICH, HOWEVER FORCEFUL, DO NOT OFFEND THE
PROPRIETIES OR IMPUGN THE GOOD FAITH OF THOSE WHO THINK OTHERWISE. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE QUESTION INVOLVED SHOULD NOW RECEIVE FRESH
CONSIDERATION, AMONG OTHER REASONS, BECAUSE OF "THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
WHICH HAVE SUPERVENED"; BUT THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
CHANGE WITH THE EBB AND FLOW OF ECONOMIC EVENTS.  WE FREQUENTLY ARE
TOLD IN MORE GENERAL WORDS THAT THE CONSTITUTION MUST BE CONSTRUED IN
THE LIGHT OF THE PRESENT.  IF BY THAT IT IS MEANT THAT THE CONSTITUTION
IS MADE UP OF LIVING WORDS THAT APPLY TO EVERY NEW CONDITION WHICH THEY
INCLUDE, THE STATEMENT IS QUITE TRUE.  BUT TO SAY, IF THAT BE INTENDED,
THAT THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION MEAN TODAY WHAT THEY DID NOT MEAN
WHEN WRITTEN - THAT IS, THAT THEY DO NOT APPLY TO A SITUATION NOW TO
WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE APPLIED THEN - IS TO ROB THAT INSTRUMENT OF THE
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT WHICH CONTINUES IT IN FORCE AS THE PEOPLE HAVE MADE
IT UNTIL THEY, AND NOT THEIR OFFICIAL AGENTS, HAVE MADE IT OTHERWISE. 

THE WORDS OF JUDGE CAMPBELL IN TWITCHELL V. BLODGETT, 13 MICH. 127,
139-140, APPLY WITH PECULIAR FORCE.  "BUT IT MAY EASILY HAPPEN," HE
SAID, "THAT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS MAY, IN UNFORESEEN EMERGENCIES, TURN
OUT TO HAVE BEEN INEXPEDIENT.  THIS DOES NOT MAKE THESE PROVISIONS ANY
LESS BINDING.  CONSTITUTIONS CAN NOT BE CHANGED BY EVENTS ALONE.  THEY
REMAIN BINDING AS THE ACTS OF THE PEOPLE IN THEIR SOVEREIGN CAPACITY,
AS THE FRAMERS OF GOVERNMENT, UNTIL THEY ARE AMENDED OR ABROGATED BY
THE ACTION PRESCRIBED BY THE AUTHORITY WHICH CREATED THEM.  IT IS NOT
COMPETENT FOR ANY DEPARTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT TO CHANGE A
CONSTITUTION, OR DECLARE IT CHANGED, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT APPEARS ILL
ADAPTED TO A NEW STATE OF THINGS. 

"...  RESTRICTIONS HAVE, IT IS TRUE, BEEN FOUND MORE LIKELY THAN
GRANTS TO BE UNSUITED TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES  ...  BUT, WHERE
EVILS ARISE FROM THE APPLICATION OF SUCH REGULATIONS, THEIR FORCE
CANNOT BE DENIED OR EVADED; AND THE REMEDY CONSISTS IN REPEAL OR
AMENDMENT, AND NOT IN FALSE CONSTRUCTION."  THE PRINCIPLE IS REFLECTED
IN MANY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  SEE SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES,
199 U.S. 437, 448-449; LAKE COUNTY V. ROLLINS, 130 U.S. 662, 670;
KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 95; RHODE ISLAND V. MASSACHUSETTS, 12
PET. 657, 723; CRAIG V. MISSOURI, 4 PET. 410, 431-432; EX PARTE BAIN,
121 U.S. 1, 12; MAXWELL V. DOW, 176 U.S. 581, 602; JARROLT V. MOBERLY,
103 U.S. 580, 586. 

THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION IS THAT OF INTERPRETATION; IT DOES NOT INCLUDE
THE POWER OF AMENDMENT UNDER THE GUISE OF INTERPRETATION.  TO MISS THE
POINT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS TO MISS ALL THAT THE PHRASE
"SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" STANDS FOR AND TO CONVERT WHAT WAS INTENDED
AS INESCAPABLE AND ENDURING MANDATES INTO MERE MORAL REFLECTIONS. 

IF THE CONSTITUTION, INTELLIGENTLY AND REASONABLY CONSTRUED IN THE
LIGHT OF THESE PRINCIPLES, STANDS IN THE WAY OF DESIRABLE LEGISLATION,
THE BLAME MUST REST UPON THAT INSTRUMENT, AND NOT UPON THE COURT FOR
ENFORCING IT ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS.  THE REMEDY IN THAT SITUATION -
AND THE ONLY TRUE REMEDY - IS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.  JUDGE COOLEY,
IN THE FIRST VOLUME OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS (8TH ED.), P.
124, VERY CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT MUCH OF THE BENEFIT EXPECTED FROM
WRITTEN CONSTITUTIONS WOULD BE LOST IF THEIR PROVISIONS WERE TO BE BENT
TO CIRCUMSTANCES OR MODIFIED BY PUBLIC OPINION.  HE POINTED OUT THAT
THE COMMON LAW, UNLIKE A CONSTITUTION, WAS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION BY
PUBLIC SENTIMENT AND ACTION WHICH THE COURTS MIGHT RECOGNIZE; BUT THAT
"A COURT OR LEGISLATURE WHICH SHOULD ALLOW A CHANGE IN PUBLIC SENTIMENT
TO INFLUENCE IT IN GIVING TO A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION A CONSTRUCTION NOT
WARRANTED BY THE INTENTION OF ITS FOUNDERS, WOULD BE JUSTLY CHARGEABLE
WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD OF OFFICIAL OATH AND PUBLIC DUTY; AND IF ITS
COURSE COULD BECOME A PRECEDENT, THESE INSTRUMENTS WOULD BE OF LITTLE
AVAIL....  WHAT A COURT IS TO DO, THEREFORE, IS TO DECLARE THE LAW AS
WRITTEN, LEAVING IT TO THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES TO MAKE SUCH CHANGES AS
NEW CIRCUMSTANCES MAY REQUIRE.  THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION IS
FIXED WHEN IT IS ADOPTED, AND IT IS NOT DIFFERENT AT ANY SUBSEQUENT
TIME WHEN A COURT HAS OCCASION TO PASS UPON IT." 

THE ADKINS CASE DEALT WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH HAD PASSED THE
SCRUTINY BOTH OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  WE RECOGNIZED THAT THEREBY THESE DEPARTMENTS HAD AFFIRMED
THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE, AND PROPERLY DECLARED THAT THEIR
DETERMINATION MUST BE GIVEN GREAT WEIGHT, BUT WE THEN CONCLUDED, AFTER
THOROUGH CONSIDERATION, THAT THEIR VIEW COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED.  WE
THINK IT NOT INAPPROPRIATE NOW TO ADD A WORD ON THAT SUBJECT BEFORE
COMING TO THE QUESTION IMMEDIATELY UNDER REVIEW. 

THE PEOPLE BY THEIR CONSTITUTION CREATED THREE SEPARATE, DISTINCT,
INDEPENDENT AND COEQUAL DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT.  THE GOVERNMENTAL
STRUCTURE RESTS, AND WAS INTENDED TO REST, NOT UPON ANY ONE OR UPON ANY
TWO, BUT UPON ALL THREE OF THESE FUNDAMENTAL PILLARS.  IT SEEMS
UNNECESSARY TO REPEAT, WHAT SO OFTEN HAS BEEN SAID, THAT THE POWERS OF
THESE DEPARTMENTS ARE DIFFERENT AND ARE TO BE EXERCISED INDEPENDENTLY. 
THE DIFFERENCES CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION. 
EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS IS AN AGENT OF ITS CREATOR; AND ONE DEPARTMENT
IS NOT AND CANNOT BE THE AGENT OF ANOTHER.  EACH IS ANSWERABLE TO ITS
CREATOR FOR WHAT IT DOES, AND NOT TO ANOTHER AGENT.  THE VIEW,
THEREFORE, OF THE EXECUTIVE AND OF CONGRESS THAT AN ACT IS
CONSTITUTIONAL IS PERSUASIVE IN A HIGH DEGREE; BUT IT IS NOT
CONTROLLING. 

COMING, THEN, TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE WASHINGTON STATUTE, IT FIRST
IS TO BE OBSERVED THAT IT IS IN EVERY SUBSTANTIAL RESPECT IDENTICAL
WITH THE STATUTE INVOLVED IN THE ADKINS CASE.  SUCH VICES AS EXISTED IN
THE LATTER ARE PRESENT IN THE FORMER.  AND IF THE ADKINS CASE WAS
PROPERLY DECIDED, AS WE WHO JOIN IN THIS OPINION THINK IT WAS, IT
NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT THE WASHINGTON STATUTE IS INVALID. 

IN SUPPORT OF MINIMUM-WAGE LEGISLATION IT HAS BEEN URGED, ON THE ONE
HAND, THAT GREAT BENEFITS WILL RESULT IN FAVOR OF UNDERPAID LABOR, AND,
ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT THE DANGER OF SUCH LEGISLATION IS THAT THE
MINIMUM WILL TEND TO BECOME THE MAXIMUM AND THUS BRING DOWN THE
EARNINGS OF THE MORE EFFICIENT TOWARD THE LEVEL OF THE LESS-EFFICIENT
EMPLOYEES.  BUT WITH THESE SPECULATIONS WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO.  WE ARE
CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. 

THAT THE CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH FORBIDS A STATE TO
DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
LAW INCLUDES FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IS SO WELL SETTLED AS TO BE NO LONGER
OPEN TO QUESTION.  NOR REASONABLY CAN IT BE DISPUTED THAT CONTRACTS OF
EMPLOYMENT OF LABOR ARE INCLUDED IN THE RULE.  ADAIR V. UNITED STATES,
208 U.S. 161, 174-175; COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, 10, 14.  IN THE
FIRST OF THESE CASES, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, SPEAKING FOR THE COURT, SAID,
"THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO SELL HIS LABOR UPON SUCH TERMS AS HE DEEMS
PROPER IS, IN ITS ESSENCE, THE SAME AS THE RIGHT OF THE PURCHASER OF
LABOR TO PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH HE WILL ACCEPT SUCH LABOR
FROM THE PERSON OFFERING TO SELL....  IN ALL SUCH PARTICULARS THE
EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE HAVE EQUALITY OF RIGHT, AND ANY LEGISLATION THAT
DISTURBS THAT EQUALITY IS AN ARBITRARY INTERFERENCE WITH THE LIBERTY OF
CONTRACT WHICH NO GOVERNMENT CAN LEGALLY JUSTIFY IN A FREE LAND." 

IN THE ADKINS CASE WE REFERRED TO THIS LANGUAGE, AND SAID THAT WHILE
THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT, BUT THAT IT
WAS SUBJECT TO A GREAT VARIETY OF RESTRAINTS, NEVERTHELESS, FREEDOM OF
CONTRACT WAS THE GENERAL RULE AND RESTRAINT THE EXCEPTION; AND THAT THE
POWER TO ABRIDGE THAT FREEDOM COULD ONLY BE JUSTIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE
OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  THIS STATEMENT OF THE RULE HAS BEEN MANY
TIMES AFFIRMED; AND WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS QUESTIONED BY THE
PRESENT DECISION. 

WE FURTHER POINTED OUT FOUR DISTINCT CLASSES OF CASES IN WHICH THIS
COURT FROM TIME TO TIME HAD UPHELD STATUTORY INTERFERENCES WITH THE
LIBERTY OF CONTRACT.  THEY WERE, IN BRIEF, (1) STATUTES FIXING RATES
AND CHARGES TO BE EXACTED BY BUSINESSES IMPRESSED WITH A PUBLIC
INTEREST; (2) STATUTES RELATING TO CONTRACTS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF
PUBLIC WORK; (3) STATUTES PRESCRIBING THE CHARACTER, METHODS AND TIME
FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES; AND (4) STATUTES FIXING HOURS OF LABOR.  IT IS
THE LAST CLASS THAT HAS BEEN MOST RELIED UPON AS AFFORDING SUPPORT FOR
MINIMUM-WAGE LEGISLATION; AND MUCH OF THE OPINION IN THE ADKINS CASE
(261 U.S. 547-553) IS DEVOTED TO POINTING OUT THE ESSENTIAL DISTINCTION
BETWEEN FIXING HOURS OF LABOR AND FIXING WAGES.  WHAT IS THERE SAID
NEED NOT BE REPEATED.  IT IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES TO SAY THAT
STATUTES OF THE FORMER CLASS DEAL WITH AN INCIDENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT,
HAVING NO NECESSARY EFFECT UPON WAGES.  THE PARTIES ARE LEFT FREE TO
CONTRACT ABOUT WAGES, AND THEREBY EQUALIZE SUCH ADDITIONAL BURDENS AS
MAY BE IMPOSED UPON THE EMPLOYER AS A RESULT OF THE RESTRICTIONS AS TO
HOURS BY AN ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF WAGES.  THIS COURT,
WHEREVER THE QUESTION IS ADVERTED TO, HAS BEEN CAREFUL TO DISCLAIM ANY
PURPOSE TO UPHOLD SUCH LEGISLATION AS FIXING WAGES, AND HAS RECOGNIZED
AN ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.  E.G., BUNTING V. OREGON, 243
U.S. 426; WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 345-346, 353-354; AND SEE
FREUND, POLICE POWER, SEC. 318. 

WE THEN POINTED OUT THAT MINIMUM-WAGE LEGISLATION SUCH AS THAT HERE
INVOLVED DOES NOT DEAL WITH ANY BUSINESS CHARGED WITH A PUBLIC
INTEREST, OR WITH PUBLIC WORK, OR WITH A TEMPORARY EMERGENCY, OR WITH
THE CHARACTER, METHODS OR PERIODS OF WAGE PAYMENTS, OR WITH HOURS OF
LABOR, OR WITH THE PROTECTION OF PERSONS UNDER LEGAL DISABILITY, OR
WITH THE PREVENTION OF FRAUD.  IT IS, SIMPLY AND EXCLUSIVELY, A LAW
FIXING WAGES FOR ADULT WOMEN WHO ARE LEGALLY AS CAPABLE OF CONTRACTING
FOR THEMSELVES AS MEN, AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED UNLESS UPON PRINCIPLES
APART FROM THOSE INVOLVED IN CASES ALREADY DECIDED BY THE COURT. 

TWO CASES WERE INVOLVED IN THE ADKINS DECISION.  IN ONE OF THEM IT
APPEARED THAT A WOMAN 21 YEARS OF AGE, WHO BROUGHT THE SUIT, WAS
EMPLOYED AS AN ELEVATOR OPERATOR AT A FIXED SALARY.  HER SERVICES WERE
SATISFACTORY, AND SHE WAS ANXIOUS TO RETAIN HER POSITION, AND HER
EMPLOYER, WHILE WILLING TO RETAIN HER, WAS OBLIGED TO DISPENSE WITH HER
SERVICES ON ACCOUNT OF THE PENALTIES PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT.  THE WAGES
RECEIVED BY HER WERE THE BEST SHE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN FOR ANY WORK SHE
WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING; AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER DEPRIVED
HER, AS SHE ALLEGED, NOT ONLY OF THAT EMPLOYMENT, BUT LEFT HER UNABLE
TO SECURE ANY POSITION AT WHICH SHE COULD MAKE A LIVING WITH AS GOOD
PHYSICAL AND MORAL SURROUNDINGS AND AS GOOD WAGES AS SHE WAS RECEIVING
AND WAS WILLING TO TAKE.  THE WASHINGTON STATUTE, OF COURSE, ADMITS OF
THE SAME SITUATION AND RESULT, AND, FOR AUGHT THAT APPEARS TO THE
CONTRARY, THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE MAY HAVE BEEN THE SAME AS
THAT JUST DESCRIBED.  CERTAINLY, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE STATUTE APPLIES
TO SUCH CASES, IT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED AS A REASONABLE RESTRAINT UPON
THE FREEDOM OF CONTRACT.  ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS ESSENTIALLY
ARBITRARY. 

NEITHER THE STATUTE INVOLVED IN THE ADKINS CASE NOR THE WASHINGTON
STATUTE, SO FAR AS IT IS INVOLVED HERE, HAS THE SLIGHTEST RELATION TO
THE CAPACITY OR EARNING POWER OF THE EMPLOYEE, TO THE NUMBER OF HOURS
WHICH CONSTITUTE THE DAY'S WORK, THE CHARACTER OF THE PLACE WHERE THE
WORK IS TO BE DONE, OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR SURROUNDINGS OF THE
EMPLOYMENT.  THE SOLE BASIS UPON WHICH THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY RESTS
IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A SUM OF
MONEY SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A LIVING FOR HER, KEEP HER IN HEALTH AND
PRESERVE HER MORALS.  AND, AS WE POINTED OUT AT SOME LENGTH IN THAT
CASE (PP. 555-557), THE QUESTION THUS PRESENTED FOR THE DETERMINATION
OF THE BOARD CAN NOT BE SOLVED BY ANY GENERAL FORMULA PRESCRIBED BY A
STATUTORY BUREAU, SINCE IT IS NOT A COMPOSITE BUT AN INDIVIDUAL
QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL, CONSIDERED BY HERSELF. 
WHAT WE SAID FURTHER IN THAT CASE (PP. 557-559), IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE
HERE:    "THE LAW TAKES ACCOUNT OF THE NECESSITIES OF ONLY ONE PARTY TO
THE CONTRACT.  IT IGNORES THE NECESSITIES OF THE EMPLOYER BY COMPELLING
HIM TO PAY NOT LESS THAN A CERTAIN SUM, NOT ONLY WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE
IS CAPABLE OF EARNING IT, BUT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ABILITY OF HIS
BUSINESS TO SUSTAIN THE BURDEN, GENEROUSLY LEAVING HIM, OF COURSE, THE
PRIVILEGE OF ABANDONING HIS BUSINESS AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR GOING ON AT
A LOSS.  WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE MINIMUM SUM, HE IS PRECLUDED, UNDER
PENALTY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT, FROM ADJUSTING COMPENSATION TO THE
DIFFERING MERITS OF HIS EMPLOYEES.  IT COMPELS HIM TO PAY AT LEAST THE
SUM FIXED IN ANY EVENT, BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE NEEDS IT, BUT REQUIRES NO
SERVICE OF EQUIVALENT VALUE FROM THE EMPLOYEE.  IT THEREFORE UNDERTAKES
TO SOLVE BUT ONE-HALF OF THE PROBLEM.  THE OTHER HALF IS THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CORRESPONDING STANDARD OF EFFICIENCY, AND THIS FORMS
NO PART OF THE POLICY OF THE LEGISLATION, ALTHOUGH IN PRACTICE THE
FORMER HALF WITHOUT THE LATTER MUST LEAD TO ULTIMATE FAILURE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE INEXORABLE LAW THAT NO ONE CAN CONTINUE
INDEFINITELY TO TAKE OUT MORE THAN HE PUTS IN WITHOUT ULTIMATELY
EXHAUSTING THE SUPPLY.  THE LAW IS NOT CONFINED TO THE GREAT AND
POWERFUL EMPLOYERS BUT EMBRACES THOSE WHOSE BARGAINING POWER MAY BE AS
WEAK AS THAT OF THE EMPLOYEE.  IT TAKES NO ACCOUNT OF PERIODS OF STRESS
AND BUSINESS DEPRESSION, OF CRIPPLING LOSSES, WHICH MAY LEAVE THE
EMPLOYER HIMSELF WITHOUT ADEQUATE MEANS OF LIVELIHOOD.  TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE SUM FIXED EXCEEDS THE FAIR VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED, IT
AMOUNTS TO A COMPULSORY EXACTION FROM THE EMPLOYER FOR THE SUPPORT OF A
PARTIALLY INDIGENT PERSON, FOR WHOSE CONDITION THERE RESTS UPON HIM NO
PECULIAR RESPONSIBILITY, AND THEREFORE, IN EFFECT, ARBITRARILY SHIFTS
TO HIS SHOULDERS A BURDEN WHICH, IF IT BELONGS TO ANYBODY, BELONGS TO
SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. 

"THE FEATURE OF THIS STATUTE WHICH, PERHAPS MORE THAN ANY OTHER, PUTS
UPON IT THE STAMP OF INVALIDITY IS THAT IT EXACTS FROM THE EMPLOYER AN
ARBITRARY PAYMENT FOR A PURPOSE AND UPON A BASIS HAVING NO CAUSAL
CONNECTION WITH HIS BUSINESS, OR THE CONTRACT OR THE WORK THE EMPLOYEE
ENGAGES TO DO.  THE DECLARED BASIS, AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, IS NOT THE
VALUE OF THE SERVICE RENDERED, BUT THE EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE
EMPLOYEE NEEDS TO GET A PRESCRIBED SUM OF MONEY TO INSURE HER
SUBSISTENCE, HEALTH AND MORALS.  THE ETHICAL RIGHT OF EVERY WORKER, MAN
OR WOMAN, TO A LIVING WAGE MAY BE CONCEDED.  ONE OF THE DECLARED AND
IMPORTANT PURPOSES OF TRADE ORGANIZATIONS IS TO SECURE IT.  AND WITH
THAT PRINCIPLE AND WITH EVERY LEGITIMATE EFFORT TO REALIZE IT IN FACT,
NO ONE CAN QUARREL; BUT THE FALLACY OF THE PROPOSED METHOD OF ATTAINING
IT IS THAT IT ASSUMES THAT EVERY EMPLOYER IS BOUND AT ALL EVENTS TO
FURNISH IT.  THE MORAL REQUIREMENT IMPLICIT IN EVERY CONTRACT OF
EMPLOYMENT, VIZ, THAT THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID AND THE SERVICE TO BE
RENDERED SHALL BEAR TO EACH OTHER SOME RELATION OF JUST EQUIVALENCE, IS
COMPLETELY IGNORED.  THE NECESSITIES OF THE EMPLOYEE ARE ALONE
CONSIDERED AND THESE ARISE OUTSIDE OF THE EMPLOYMENT, ARE THE SAME WHEN
THERE IS NO EMPLOYMENT, AND AS GREAT IN ONE OCCUPATION AS IN ANOTHER. 
CERTAINLY THE EMPLOYER BY PAYING A FAIR EQUIVALENT FOR THE SERVICE
RENDERED, THOUGH NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE EMPLOYEE, HAS NEITHER
CAUSED NOR CONTRIBUTED TO HER POVERTY.  ON THE CONTRARY, TO THE EXTENT
OF WHAT HE PAYS HE HAS RELIEVED IT.  IN PRINCIPLE, THERE CAN BE NO
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CASE OF SELLING LABOR AND THE CASE OF SELLING
GOODS.  IF ONE GOES TO THE BUTCHER, THE BAKER OR GROCER TO BUY FOOD, HE
IS MORALLY ENTITLED TO OBTAIN THE WORTH OF HIS MONEY BUT HE IS NOT
ENTITLED TO MORE.  IF WHAT HE GETS IS WORTH WHAT HE PAYS HE IS NOT
JUSTIFIED IN DEMANDING MORE SIMPLY BECAUSE HE NEEDS MORE; AND THE
SHOPKEEPER, HAVING DEALT FAIRLY AND HONESTLY IN THAT TRANSACTION, IS
NOT CONCERNED IN ANY PECULIAR SENSE WITH THE QUESTION OF HIS CUSTOMER'S
NECESSITIES.  SHOULD A STATUTE UNDERTAKE TO VEST IN A COMMISSION POWER
TO DETERMINE THE QUANTITY OF FOOD NECESSARY FOR INDIVIDUAL SUPPORT AND
REQUIRE THE SHOPKEEPER, IF HE SELL TO THE INDIVIDUAL AT ALL, TO FURNISH
THAT QUANTITY AT NOT MORE THAN A FIXED MAXIMUM, IT WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY
FALL BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST.  THE FALLACY OF ANY ARGUMENT IN
SUPPORT OF THE VALIDITY OF SUCH A STATUTE WOULD BE QUICKLY EXPOSED. 
THE ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THAT NOW BEING CONSIDERED IS EQUALLY
FALLACIOUS, THOUGH THE WEAKNESS OF IT MAY NOT BE SO PLAIN.  A STATUTE
REQUIRING AN EMPLOYER TO PAY IN MONEY, TO PAY AT PRESCRIBED AND REGULAR
INTERVALS, TO PAY THE VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED, EVEN TO PAY WITH
FAIR RELATION TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT OBTAINED FROM THE SERVICE,
WOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE.  BUT A STATUTE WHICH PRESCRIBES PAYMENT
WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY OF THESE THINGS AND SOLELY WITH RELATION TO
CIRCUMSTANCES APART FROM THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, THE BUSINESS
AFFECTED BY IT AND THE WORK DONE UNDER IT, IS SO CLEARLY THE PRODUCT OF
A NAKED, ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER THAT IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." 

WHETHER THIS WOULD BE EQUALLY OR AT ALL TRUE IN RESPECT OF THE
STATUTES OF SOME OF THE STATES WE ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO SAY.  THEY ARE
NOT NOW BEFORE US; AND IT IS ENOUGH THAT IT APPLIES IN EVERY PARTICULAR
TO THE WASHINGTON STATUTE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

THE WASHINGTON STATUTE, LIKE THE ONE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
FIXES MINIMUM WAGES FOR ADULT WOMEN.  ADULT MEN AND THEIR EMPLOYERS ARE
LEFT FREE TO BARGAIN AS THEY PLEASE; AND IT IS A SIGNIFICANT AND AN
IMPORTANT FACT THAT ALL STATE STATUTES TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN
CALLED ARE OF LIKE CHARACTER.  THE COMMON-LAW RULES RESTRICTING THE
POWER OF WOMEN TO MAKE CONTRACTS HAVE, UNDER OUR SYSTEM, LONG SINCE
PRACTICALLY DISAPPEARED.  WOMEN TODAY STAND UPON A LEGAL AND POLITICAL
EQUALITY WITH MEN.  THERE IS NO LONGER ANY REASON WHY THEY SHOULD BE
PUT IN DIFFERENT CLASSES IN RESPECT OF THEIR LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE
CONTRACTS; NOR SHOULD THEY BE DENIED, IN EFFECT, THE RIGHT TO COMPETE
WITH MEN FOR WORK PAYING LOWER WAGES WHICH MEN MAY BE WILLING TO
ACCEPT.  AND IT IS AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO DO
SO.  IN THE TIPALDO CASE, 298 U.S. 587, 615, IT APPEARED THAT THE NEW
YORK LEGISLATURE HAD PASSED TWO MINIMUM-WAGE MEASURES - ONE DEALING
WITH WOMEN ALONE, THE OTHER WITH BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.  THE ACT WHICH
INCLUDED MEN WAS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR.  THE OTHER, APPLYING TO WOMEN
ALONE, WAS APPROVED.  THE "FACTUAL BACKGROUND" IN RESPECT OF BOTH
MEASURES WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.  IN POINTING OUT THE ARBITRARY
DISCRIMINATION WHICH RESULTED (PP. 615-617) WE SAID: 

"THESE LEGISLATIVE DECLARATIONS, IN FORM OF FINDINGS OR RECITALS OF
FACT, SERVE WELL TO ILLUSTRATE WHY ANY MEASURE THAT DEPRIVES EMPLOYERS
AND ADULT WOMEN OF FREEDOM TO AGREE UPON WAGES, LEAVING EMPLOYERS AND
MEN EMPLOYEES FREE SO TO DO, IS NECESSARILY ARBITRARY.  MUCH, IF NOT
ALL, THAT IN THEM IS SAID IN JUSTIFICATION OF THE REGULATIONS THAT THE
ACT IMPOSES IN RESPECT OF WOMEN'S WAGES APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE IN
SUPPORT OF THE SAME REGULATION OF MEN'S WAGES.  WHILE MEN ARE LEFT FREE
TO FIX THEIR WAGES BY AGREEMENT WITH EMPLOYERS, IT WOULD BE FANCIFUL TO
SUPPOSE THAT THE REGULATION OF WOMEN'S WAGES WOULD BE USEFUL TO PREVENT
OR LESSEN THE EVILS LISTED IN THE FIRST SECTION OF THE ACT.  MEN IN
NEED OF WORK ARE AS LIKELY AS WOMEN TO ACCEPT THE LOW WAGES OFFERED BY
UNSCRUPULOUS EMPLOYERS.  MEN IN GREATER NUMBER THAN WOMEN SUPPORT
THEMSELVES AND DEPENDENTS AND BECAUSE OF NEED WILL WORK FOR WHATEVER
WAGES THEY CAN GET AND THAT WITHOUT REGARD TO THE VALUE OF THE SERVICE
AND EVEN THOUGH THE PAY IS LESS THAN MINIMA PRESCRIBED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THIS ACT.  IT IS PLAIN THAT, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE
PORTRAYED IN THE 'FACTUAL BACKGROUND' PRESCRIBING OF MINIMUM WAGES FOR
WOMEN ALONE WOULD UNREASONABLY RESTRAIN THEM IN COMPETITION WITH MEN
AND TEND ARBITRARILY TO DEPRIVE THEM OF EMPLOYMENT AND A FAIR CHANCE TO
FIND WORK." 

AN APPEAL TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS FREE TO RECOGNIZE
DEGREES OF HARM AND CONFINE ITS RESTRICTIONS ACCORDINGLY, IS BUT TO BEG
THE QUESTION, WHICH IS - SINCE THE CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS OF MEN AND WOMEN
ARE THE SAME, DOES THE LEGISLATION HERE INVOLVED, BY RESTRICTING ONLY
THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN TO MAKE CONTRACTS AS TO WAGES, CREATE AN ARBITRARY
DISCRIMINATION?  WE THINK IT DOES.  DIFFERENCE OF SEX AFFORDS NO
REASONABLE GROUND FOR MAKING A RESTRICTION APPLICABLE TO THE WAGE
CONTRACTS OF ALL WORKING WOMEN FROM WHICH LIKE CONTRACTS OF ALL WORKING
MEN ARE LEFT FREE.  CERTAINLY A SUGGESTION THAT THE BARGAINING ABILITY
OF THE AVERAGE WOMAN IS NOT EQUAL TO THAT OF THE AVERAGE MAN WOULD LACK
SUBSTANCE.  THE ABILITY TO MAKE A FAIR BARGAIN, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, DOES
NOT DEPEND UPON SEX. 

IF, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS, THE STATE LEGISLATION, WITHOUT REASON
OR FOR REASONS OF MERE EXPEDIENCY, EXCLUDED MEN FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
THE LEGISLATION, THE POWER WAS EXERCISED ARBITRARILY.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, IF SUCH LEGISLATION IN RESPECT OF MEN WAS PROPERLY OMITTED ON THE
GROUND THAT IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE SAME CONCLUSION OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY IS INESCAPABLE IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR LEGISLATIVE
RESTRAINT IN THE CASE OF WOMEN, 261 U.S. 553. 

FINALLY, IT MAY BE SAID THAT A STATUTE ABSOLUTELY FIXING WAGES IN THE
VARIOUS INDUSTRIES AT DEFINITE SUMS AND FORBIDDING EMPLOYERS AND
EMPLOYEES FROM CONTRACTING FOR ANY OTHER THAN THOSE DESIGNATED, WOULD
PROBABLY NOT BE THOUGHT TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL.  IT IS HARD TO SEE WHY
THE POWER TO FIX MINIMUM WAGES DOES NOT CONNOTE A LIKE POWER IN RESPECT
OF MAXIMUM WAGES.  AND YET, IF BOTH POWERS BE EXERCISED IN SUCH A WAY
THAT THE MINIMUM AND THE MAXIMUM SO NEARLY APPROACH EACH OTHER AS TO
BECOME SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, THE RIGHT TO MAKE ANY CONTRACT IN
RESPECT OF WAGES WILL HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY ABROGATED. 

A MORE COMPLETE DISCUSSION MAY BE FOUND IN THE ADKINS AND TIPALDO
CASES CITED SUPRA.
..END :








DUGAS V. AMERICAN SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 414 


NO. 340.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 14, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 82
F.(2D) 953, AFFIRMED. 


IN A PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT BY A SURETY COMPANY
UNDER THE INTERPLEADER ACT OF MAY 8, 1926, TO INTERPLEAD THE SEVERAL
CLAIMANTS UPON A QUALIFYING BOND, THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND WAS PAID BY
THE SURETY INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT, AND TWO DECREES WERE
ENTERED, THE FIRST DISCHARGING THE SURETY FROM FURTHER LIABILITY ON THE
BOND AND ENJOINING THE SEVERAL CLAIMANTS FROM PROSECUTING ANY SUIT
AGAINST THE SURETY ON ACCOUNT OF ANY CLAIM OR RIGHT ARISING OUT OF THE
BOND; AND A LATER, DETERMINING THE RIGHTS OF THE SEVERAL CLAIMANTS IN
THE DEPOSITED FUND AND DIRECTING ITS DISTRIBUTION AMONG THEM ON A PRO
RATA BASIS.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM EITHER DECREE.  IN AN EARLIER
PROCEEDING IN A STATE COURT, ONE OF THE CLAIMANTS HAD OBTAINED A
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE SURETY UNDER THE QUALIFYING BOND, FROM WHICH
JUDGMENT AN APPEAL BY THE SURETY WAS PENDING, AN APPEAL BOND SUSPENDING
EXECUTION HAVING BEEN FILED.  HE OBJECTED TO BEING BROUGHT INTO THE
INTERPLEADER, BUT AGREED TO THE SECOND DECREE IN IT AND TOOK HIS SHARE
OF THE DISTRIBUTION.  HELD: 

1.  THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT HAD JURISDICTION OF
BOTH THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE PARTIES.  P. 425. 

2.  THE DECREES IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT COMPLETELY TERMINATED THE
LIABILITY OF THE SURETY ON THE QUALIFYING BOND AND FIXED THE FULL
MEASURE OF THE CLAIMANT'S RIGHT UNDER THAT BOND.  P. 425. 

3.  RULINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT ON THE
OBJECTION OF THE CLAIMANT TO BEING BROUGHT INTO THE SUIT, ON THE
BEARING AND EFFECT OF THE PRIOR JUDGMENT AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE
COURT, AND ON THE RIGHT OF THE SURETY TO BE DISCHARGED FROM FURTHER
LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM, WERE ALL MADE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
COURT'S JURISDICTION, WERE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE AND REEXAMINATION ONLY
ON APPEAL, AND BECAME CONCLUSIVE ON THE CLAIMANT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN
APPEAL.  P. 425. 

4.  THOUGH THE PAYMENT WAS INTO THE COURT'S REGISTRY, AND NOT
DIRECTLY TO THE CLAIMANTS, IT NEVERTHELESS WAS A LAWFUL AND EFFECTIVE
PAYMENT UNDER THE INTERPLEADER ACT.  P. 425. 

5.  AS THE JUDGMENT IN THE STATE COURT WAS BASED SOLELY ON THE
QUALIFYING BOND, THE PAYMENT OF THE BOND AND DISCHARGE OF THE SURETY,
AS EFFECTED IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT, OPERATED, UNDER RECOGNIZED
PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND EQUITY, TO EXTINGUISH THE CLAIMANT'S RIGHT UNDER
THE JUDGMENT.  P. 425. 

6.  IN SUBSEQUENTLY BRINGING SUIT IN THE STATE COURT ON THE APPEAL
BOND AND ATTEMPTING TO REALIZE ON THE PRIOR JUDGMENT, THE CLAIMANT
CONTRAVENED THE FAIR INTENDMENT OF THE DECREES IN THE INTERPLEADER
SUIT.  P. 426. 

7. AS THE CLAIMANT'S RIGHT UNDER THE STATE COURT JUDGMENT WAS
EXTINGUISHED, HE WAS NO MORE ENTITLED TO REALIZE ON THE JUDGMENT BY
SUING THE SURETY ON THE APPEAL BOND THAN BY SUING THE PRINCIPAL.  P.
428. 

8.  AND AS THE SURETY ON THE APPEAL BOND WOULD BE ENTITLED TO
REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE PRINCIPAL WERE JUDGMENT TO GO AGAINST THE
FORMER, THE PRINCIPAL MAY BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN.  P. 428. 

9.  THE DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A SUPPLEMENTAL
BILL IN AID OF AND TO EFFECTUATE ITS PRIOR DECREES.  P. 428. 

10.  SUCH A BILL IS ANCILLARY AND DEPENDENT, AND THE JURISDICTION
FOLLOWS THAT OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT, REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE
PARTIES TO THE BILL OR THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.  P. 428. 

11.  THE POWER OF THE DISTRICT COURT TO ENJOIN THE CLAIMANT FROM
FURTHER PROSECUTION OF HIS SUIT IN THE STATE COURT ON THE APPEAL BOND
FINDS SUPPORT IN SECS. 2 AND 3 OF THE INTERPLEADER ACT, AS WELL AS IN
SETTLED ADJUDICATIONS RESPECTING THE POWER OF A FEDERAL COURT TO
PROTECT ITS JURISDICTION AND DECREES.  P. 428. 

DUGAS V. AMERICAN SURETY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER.* 

*OPINION BEGINS ON P. 423, INFRA. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS A CONTROVERSY OVER THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF THE
DECREES OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY A SURETY
COMPANY UNDER THE INTERPLEADER ACT OF MAY 8, 1926,  FN1  AND OVER THE
PROPRIETY OF SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME COURT UPON A
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL BROUGHT IN AID OF AND TO EFFECTUATE THAT DECREE. 

IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO STATE THE FACTS WITH SOME DETAIL. 

FEBRUARY 12, 1930, THE LUMBERMEN'S RECIPROCAL ASSOCIATION, A TEXAS
INSURANCE CORPORATION, BY WAY OF QUALIFYING ITSELF TO ENGAGE IN WRITING
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND OTHER INSURANCE IN LOUISIANA, EXECUTED A
BOND, IN THE SUM OF $20,000.00, CONDITIONED FOR THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
LAWFULLY ARISING AGAINST IT BY REASON OF INSURANCE SO WRITTEN.  THE
BOND WAS GIVEN CONFORMABLY TO A LOUISIANA STATUTE,  FN2  AND WAS
EXECUTED BY THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AS
SURETY.  LATER IN 1930, AND AFTER WRITING A SUBSTANTIAL VOLUME OF
INSURANCE IN LOUISIANA, THE LUMBERMEN'S RECIPROCAL ASSOCIATION BECAME
EMBARRASSED AND WAS PLACED IN THE HANDS OF A RECEIVER BY A COURT IN
TEXAS. 

APRIL 14, 1931, IN A SUIT BROUGHT IN A LOUISIANA COURT, ETIENNE
DUGAS, WHO HAD A CLAIM AGAINST THE LUMBERMEN'S RECIPROCAL ASSOCIATION
ARISING OUT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE WRITTEN BY IT IN
LOUISIANA, RECOVERED AGAINST THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, AS SURETY ON
THE QUALIFYING BOND, A JUDGMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF $20.00 PER WEEK FOR
NOT MORE THAN 300 WEEKS COMMENCING MAY 15, 1930, SUBJECT TO
MODIFICATION AS TO FUTURE PAYMENTS IF HIS DISABILITY WAS RELIEVED OR
REDUCED, AND FOR $250.00 FOR MEDICAL BILLS, TOGETHER WITH COSTS. 

THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FROM THAT
JUDGMENT, AND, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUSPENDING EXECUTION PENDING THE
APPEAL, IT EXECUTED A BOND CONDITIONED THAT IT SHOULD DILIGENTLY
PROSECUTE ITS APPEAL AND SATISFY WHATEVER JUDGMENT MIGHT BE RENDERED
AGAINST IT IF CAST IN THE APPEAL.  THE APPEAL BOND WAS GIVEN
CONFORMABLY TO A LAW OF THE STATE,  FN3  WAS IN THE SUM OF $10,000.00
AND WAS EXECUTED BY THE NEW YORK CASUALTY COMPANY AS SURETY.  THE
APPEAL WAS PERFECTED AND THE RECORD DULY FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL,
BUT NOTHING FURTHER WAS DONE THEREIN FOR REASONS WHICH SOON WILL
APPEAR. 

MANY OTHER CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF INSURANCE WRITTEN IN LOUISIANA BY
THE LUMBERMEN'S RECIPROCAL ASSOCIATION WERE ASSERTED UNDER THE
QUALIFYING BOND.  IN THE AGGREGATE THESE CLAIMS WERE FAR IN EXCESS OF
THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND. 

JUNE 6, 1931, DESIRING TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
INTERPLEADER ACT OF MAY 8, 1926, THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, WITH THE
COURT'S LEAVE, PAID INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AT
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, THE SUM OF $20,000.00, BEING THE FULL AMOUNT OF
THE QUALIFYING BOND, AND THEREUPON FILED IN THAT COURT A DULY VERIFIED
BILL OF INTERPLEADER IN WHICH IT SET FORTH THE SEVERAL MATTERS HERE
RECITED, INCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS, JUDGMENT AND APPEAL IN DUGAS' SUIT
ON THE QUALIFYING BOND; STATED THE NAMES AND PLACES OF RESIDENCE OF THE
SEVERAL CLAIMANTS UNDER THAT BOND, SO FAR AS THEY WERE KNOWN TO IT; AND
FURTHER ALLEGED - 

"THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION BECAUSE THIS IS A BILL OF INTERPLEADER
IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY A SURETY COMPANY AGAINST BONA FIDE ADVERSE
CLAIMANTS AGAINST ITS BOND OF FEBRUARY 12, 1930, TWO OR MORE OF WHOM
ARE CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, AND ONE OR MORE OF SAID ADVERSE
CLAIMANTS RESIDES OR RESIDE WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THIS
COURT...." 

"PLAINTIFF DISCLAIMS ANY INTEREST IN THE AMOUNT OF ITS SAID BOND
EXCEPT TO PAY SAME TO THE PERSONS LAWFULLY ENTITLED THERETO...." 

"BY REASON OF THE CONFLICTING CLAIMS AGAINST THE SAID BOND, AND THE
FACT THAT CLAIMS ALREADY KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF GREATLY EXCEED THE AMOUNT
OF THE SAID BOND, PLAINTIFF IS IN GRAVE DANGER OF BEING GREATLY
HARASSED AND DAMAGED, AND CANNOT SAFELY MAKE PAYMENTS TO ANY CLAIMANT
WITHOUT THE AID OF THIS COURT." 

"PLAINTIFF, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THIS COURT FIRST OBTAINED, HAS
PAID INTO THE REGISTRY OF THIS COURT THE SAID SUM OF $20,000.00, THE
AMOUNT OF SAID BOND, TO ABIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT." 

THE BILL PRAYED THAT DUGAS AND THE OTHER CLAIMANTS BE CITED TO
INTERPLEAD AND SETTLE AMONG THEMSELVES THEIR CLAIMS TO THE AMOUNT OF
THE BOND DEPOSITED IN THE COURT'S REGISTRY; THAT EACH OF THEM BE
TEMPORARILY AND PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING IN
ANY STATE COURT OR IN ANY OTHER FEDERAL COURT ANY SUIT ON ACCOUNT OF
ANY RIGHT OR CLAIM GROWING OUT OF THE QUALIFYING BOND; THAT THE
PLAINTIFF BE RELEASED FROM ALL FURTHER LIABILITY ON THE QUALIFYING
BOND; AND THAT ANY OTHER OR FURTHER RELIEF DEEMED PROPER IN THE
PREMISES BE GRANTED. 

ALL CLAIMANTS UNDER THE QUALIFYING BOND, INCLUDING DUGAS, WERE CALLED
INTO THE SUIT AS DEFENDANTS. 

JUNE 24, 1931, THE COURT AFTER A HEARING GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION CONFORMING TO THE PRAYER IN THE BILL. 

DUGAS RESISTED THE BILL BY AN EXCEPTION OF NO CAUSE OF ACTION, A PLEA
OF ESTOPPEL AND AN ANSWER.  IN THE PLEA AND ANSWER HE SPECIFICALLY
RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF APRIL 14, 1931, IN THE STATE COURT AND THE
APPEAL THEREFROM, TOGETHER WITH THE APPEAL BOND, AS SHOWING THAT HE
SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT INTO THE INTERPLEADER SUIT. 

SEPTEMBER 19, 1932, AFTER A FULL HEARING, THE COURT RENDERED A DECREE
AS FOLLOWS: 

1.  DECLARING THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL OF
ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE QUALIFYING BOND BY DEPOSITING THE FULL AMOUNT
OF THE BOND IN THE COURT'S REGISTRY AT THE TIME OF BRINGING THE SUIT;
AND FURTHER DECLARING THAT COMPANY, BY REASON OF SUCH COMPLIANCE, TO BE
RELEASED AND DISCHARGED FROM ANY AND ALL FURTHER LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT
OF SUCH BOND; 

2.  ENJOINING EACH OF THE DEFENDANTS FROM INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING
IN ANY STATE COURT, OR IN ANY OTHER FEDERAL COURT, ANY SUIT AGAINST THE
AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF ANY RIGHT OR CLAIM GROWING OUT OF
SUCH BOND; AND 

3.  APPOINTING A SPECIAL MASTER AND CHARGING HIM WITH THE DUTY OF
HEARING THE CLAIMANTS AND REPORTING UPON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FUND
DEPOSITED IN THE REGISTRY, LESS SPECIFIED FEES AND COSTS, SHOULD BE
DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE CLAIMANTS. 

NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN THEN OR THEREAFTER FROM THAT DECREE; AND IT
REMAINED IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. 

IN DUE COURSE HEARINGS WERE HAD AND EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE
SPECIAL MASTER, AFTER WHICH HE SUBMITTED A REPORT CONTAINING HIS
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A
DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND, LESS FEES AND COSTS, AMONG THE SEVERAL
CLAIMANTS UPON A PRO RATA BASIS.  THE REPORT ALSO CONTAINED A STATEMENT
SHOWING WHAT HE FOUND TO BE THE TRUE AND FULL AMOUNT OF EACH CLAIM, THE
TOTAL BEING IN EXCESS OF $60,000.00, AND A FURTHER STATEMENT SHOWING
THE AMOUNT WHICH, ON A PRO RATA DISTRIBUTION WOULD BE PAYABLE ON EACH
CLAIM.  AS TO DUGAS' CLAIM THE MASTER REPORTED THE TRUE AND FULL AMOUNT
AS $4,160.68  FN4  AND THE PRO RATA SHARE OF THE FUND PAYABLE ON THE
CLAIM AS $1,141.29. 

SHORTLY AFTER THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT WAS SUBMITTED THE SEVERAL
CLAIMANTS, INCLUDING DUGAS, ENTERED INTO AND FILED IN THE SUIT A
WRITTEN STIPULATION DECLARING THAT THEY ACQUIESCED IN THE REPORT,
WAIVED THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS, AND REQUESTED THE COURT
TO CONFIRM THE REPORT AND MAKE IT THE COURT'S DECREE. 

APRIL 20, 1933, THE COURT, WITH THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND THE
STIPULATION BEFORE IT, RENDERED A DECREE CONFIRMING THE REPORT AND
DIRECTING THAT THE BALANCE OF THE FUND IN THE REGISTRY BE DISTRIBUTED
AMONG THE SEVERAL CLAIMANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASTER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM THIS DECREE. 

THE FUND WAS DISTRIBUTED AND PAID OUT ACCORDINGLY AND WAS THEREBY
EXHAUSTED.  DUGAS ACCEPTED THE PRO RATA SHARE ACCORDED TO HIM IN THE
MASTER'S REPORT AND THE CONFIRMING DECREE. 

MARCH 7, 1934, DUGAS BROUGHT A SUIT IN THE LOUISIANA COURT BEFORE
MENTIONED AGAINST THE NEW YORK CASUALTY COMPANY, THE SURETY ON THE
APPEAL BOND GIVEN IN HIS EARLIER SUIT ON THE QUALIFYING BOND.  IN THIS
NEW SUIT HE ASSERTED THAT THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN THE
EARLIER SUIT AND PRINCIPAL IN THE APPEAL BOND, HAD NOT DILIGENTLY
PROSECUTED ITS APPEAL, BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, HAD BROUGHT THE
INTERPLEADER SUIT IN THE FEDERAL COURT AND HAD OBTAINED THEREIN AN
INJUNCTION WHICH IN EFFECT PROHIBITED HIM FROM SECURING A DETERMINATION
OF THE APPEAL; AND THAT IT HAD THEREBY ABANDONED THE APPEAL AND
VIOLATED THE CONDITION OF THE APPEAL BOND. 

WHILE THE NEW SUIT WAS BASED ON AN ASSERTED BREACH OF THE APPEAL BOND
BY THE PRINCIPAL, IT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE SURETY ALONE.  THE RELIEF
PRAYED WAS A JUDGMENT IN DUGAS' FAVOR FOR $3,019.39, BEING THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF HIS WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION CLAIM AS
ASCERTAINED IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT AND THE SUM ALLOWED AND PAID TO
HIM IN THAT SUIT AS HIS PRO RATA SHARE OF THE FUND ARISING FROM THE
DEPOSIT IN COURT OF THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE QUALIFYING BOND.  BY AN
AMENDED PETITION THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH JUDGMENT WAS PRAYED WAS REDUCED
TO $2,999.00 TO FORESTALL A REMOVAL TO THE FEDERAL COURT. 

TO THE NEW SUIT THE NEW YORK CASUALTY COMPANY INTERPOSED THE
EXCEPTION OF PREMATURITY, AMONG OTHERS.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THAT
EXCEPTION, WITHOUT RULING ON THE OTHERS, AND DISMISSED THE SUIT.  DUGAS
APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE, WHICH, ON JANUARY 7, 1935,
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AND REMANDED THE SUIT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.  FN5 

JANUARY 29, 1935, THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY, WITH THE LEAVE OF THE
FEDERAL COURT, FILED IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL IN
WHICH IT SET FORTH THE MATTERS AND PROCEEDINGS OCCURRING AFTER THE
DECREE OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1932, IN THAT SUIT; ALLEGED THAT THE JUDGMENT
OF APRIL 14, 1931, AGAINST THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY AND IN FAVOR OF
DUGAS IN HIS EARLIER SUIT IN THE STATE COURT WAS BASED ENTIRELY ON THE
QUALIFYING BOND OF FEBRUARY 12, 1930, GIVEN BY THE LUMBERMEN'S
RECIPROCAL ASSOCIATION AS PRINCIPAL AND THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY AS
SURETY; THAT BY THE DECREE OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1932, IN THE INTERPLEADER
SUIT, TO WHICH DUGAS WAS A PARTY, THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY WAS
DECLARED TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
QUALIFYING BOND AND WAS RELEASED AND DISCHARGED FROM ANY AND ALL
FURTHER LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT THEREOF; THAT BY THAT DECREE DUGAS WAS
ENJOINED FROM INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING IN ANY OTHER COURT ANY SUIT
AGAINST THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF ANY RIGHT OR CLAIM
GROWING OUT OF SUCH BOND; THAT DUGAS' SUIT IN THE STATE COURT AGAINST
THE NEW YORK CASUALTY COMPANY WAS BROUGHT ON THE APPEAL BOND GIVEN BY
THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY AS PRINCIPAL AND THE NEW YORK CASUALTY
COMPANY AS SURETY ON THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE AMERICAN SURETY COMPANY
FROM THE JUDGMENT OF APRIL 14, 1931, ON THE QUALIFYING BOND; THAT IF
DUGAS SHOULD COLLECT ANY SUM FROM THE NEW YORK CASUALTY COMPANY IN HIS
SUIT AGAINST IT AS SURETY ON THE APPEAL BOND, THE AMERICAN SURETY
COMPANY, AS PRINCIPAL ON THAT BOND, WOULD BE BOUND TO REIMBURSE SUCH
SURETY; AND THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DUGAS' SUIT AGAINST THE NEW
YORK CASUALTY COMPANY WAS ESSENTIALLY AN EFFORT TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT
OF APRIL 14, 1931, WHICH WAS BASED SOLELY ON THE QUALIFYING BOND, AND
THEREFORE WAS AN ATTEMPT INDIRECTLY TO SUBJECT THE AMERICAN SURETY
COMPANY TO FURTHER LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF THAT BOND CONTRARY TO THE
DECREE OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1932.  ACCORDINGLY, AND IN AID OF THE DECREES
IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT, THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL CONTAINED PRAYERS FOR
AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DUGAS FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING HIS SUIT
AGAINST THE NEW YORK CASUALTY COMPANY AND FOR GENERAL RELIEF. 

TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL DUGAS FILED PLEAS CHALLENGING THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, ITS POWER TO ENJOIN PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE
COURT, AND THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE CASE STATED.  THE PLEAS WERE
OVERRULED AND DUGAS ANSWERED.  UPON THE FINAL HEARING THE COURT FOUND
THE FACTS TO BE AS ALLEGED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL AND HELD THAT
DUGAS' SUIT AGAINST THE NEW YORK CASUALTY COMPANY AS SURETY ON THE
APPEAL BOND WAS ESSENTIALLY AN EFFORT TO ENFORCE AGAINST THE AMERICAN
SURETY COMPANY THE JUDGMENT WHICH HE HAD OBTAINED AGAINST IT AS SURETY
ON THE QUALIFYING BOND, AND THEREFORE WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
SPIRIT, IF NOT THE LETTER, OF THE DECREES IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT; AND
ON THAT BASIS THE COURT GAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE SPECIFICALLY
ENJOINING DUGAS FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING HIS SUIT IN THE STATE COURT
AGAINST THE NEW YORK CASUALTY COMPANY.  DUGAS APPEALED AND THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE DECREE, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  82 F.(2D)
953.  THE CASE IS HERE ON CERTIORARI. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, AFTER MAKING THE FOREGOING STATEMENT,
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

1.  THE AMOUNT OR PENALTY OF THE QUALIFYING BOND WAS $20,000.00.  THE
SURETY'S OBLIGATION WAS NOT TO DUGAS ALONE, BUT TO THE OTHER CLAIMANTS
AS WELL; AND THIS OBLIGATION WAS NOT TO PAY ALL CLAIMS REGARDLESS OF
THEIR AGGREGATE, BUT TO PAY $20,000.00, OR SO MUCH THEREOF AS SHOULD BE
NEEDED, AND NO MORE.  BECAUSE THE CLAIMS EXCEEDED $20,000.00, THE
SURETY PAID THAT SUM INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE FEDERAL COURT, THERE TO
ABIDE THE COURT'S DECREE, AND AT THE SAME TIME BROUGHT IN THAT COURT
ITS INTERPLEADER SUIT AGAINST ALL CLAIMANTS, INCLUDING DUGAS, TO THE
END THAT ITS LIABILITY ON THE BOND MIGHT BE TERMINATED, AND THAT THE
RIGHTS OF THE SEVERAL CLAIMANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND SO PAID INTO
COURT MIGHT BE JUDICIALLY DETERMINED AND THE FUND DISTRIBUTED
ACCORDINGLY.   2.  THE INTERPLEADER ACT OF 1926, UNDER WHICH THAT SUIT
WAS BROUGHT, MAKES PROVISION FOR THE FILING IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
OF A BILL OF INTERPLEADER BY A SURETY COMPANY WHICH HAS EXECUTED A BOND
IN THE SUM OF $500.00 OR MORE, UNDER WHICH TWO OR MORE CLAIMANTS,
CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES, ASSERT ADVERSE RIGHTS TO THE PENALTY;
AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF THE BOND INTO THE REGISTRY OF
THE COURT, THERE TO AWAIT SUCH DISPOSAL AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT; AND
FURTHER PROVIDES IN THE LATTER PART OF SEC. 2 AND IN SEC. 3: 

"SEC. 2....  NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE TO
THE CONTRARY, SAID COURT SHALL HAVE POWER TO ISSUE ITS PROCESS FOR ALL
SUCH CLAIMANTS AND TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION AGAINST EACH OF
THEM, ENJOINING THEM FROM INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING ANY SUIT OR
PROCEEDING IN ANY STATE COURT OR IN ANY OTHER FEDERAL COURT  ...  ON
SUCH BOND  ...  UNTIL THE FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT; WHICH PROCESS AND
ORDER OF INJUNCTION SHALL BE RETURNABLE AT SUCH TIME AS THE SAID COURT
OR A JUDGE THEREOF SHALL DETERMINE AND SHALL BE ADDRESSED TO AND SERVED
BY THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS FOR THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS WHEREIN SAID
CLAIMANTS RESIDE OR MAY BE FOUND." 

"SEC. 3.  SAID COURT SHALL HEAR AND DETERMINE THE CAUSE AND SHALL
DISCHARGE THE COMPLAINANT FROM FURTHER LIABILITY; AND SHALL MAKE THE
INJUNCTION PERMANENT AND ENTER ALL SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND DECREES AS MAY
BE SUITABLE AND PROPER, AND ISSUE ALL SUCH CUSTOMARY WRITS AS MAY BE
NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT TO CARRY OUT AND ENFORCE THE SAME." 

BY PLEA AND ANSWER DUGAS OBJECTED TO BEING BROUGHT INTO THE
INTERPLEADER SUIT AND GROUNDED THE OBJECTION UPON THE JUDGMENT, APPEAL
AND APPEAL BOND IN HIS EARLIER SUIT IN THE STATE COURT; BUT THE
OBJECTION WAS OVERRULED, AND THE CAUSE PROCEEDED TO THE RENDITION OF
TWO RELATED DECREES. 

IN ONE DECREE, GIVEN SEPTEMBER 19, 1932, THE COMPLAINANT SURETY, BY
REASON OF ITS PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF THE QUALIFYING BOND INTO THE
COURT'S REGISTRY, WAS DISCHARGED FROM ANY AND ALL FURTHER LIABILITY ON
ACCOUNT OF THAT BOND, AND THE SEVERAL CLAIMANTS, INCLUDING DUGAS, WERE
ENJOINED FROM INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT
SURETY, SO DISCHARGED, ANY SUIT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY CLAIM OR RIGHT
GROWING OUT OF SUCH BOND.  IN THE OTHER DECREE, GIVEN APRIL 20, 1933,
THE COURT DETERMINED THE RIGHTS OF THE SEVERAL CLAIMANTS, INCLUDING
DUGAS, IN THE FUND PAID INTO THE REGISTRY, AND DIRECTED ITS
DISTRIBUTION AMONG THEM ON A PRO RATA BASIS - THIS DECREE BEING IN
EXACT ACCORD WITH A STIPULATED REQUEST BY ALL CLAIMANTS INCLUDING
DUGAS. 

TAKEN TOGETHER, THE TWO DECREES NOT ONLY COMPLETELY TERMINATED THE
LIABILITY OF THE COMPLAINANT SURETY ON THE QUALIFYING BOND, BUT ALSO
FIXED THE FULL MEASURE OF DUGAS' RIGHT OR CLAIM UNDER THE BOND, AND IN
NECESSARY EFFECT DETERMINED THAT THE JUDGMENT, APPEAL AND APPEAL BOND
IN HIS EARLIER SUIT IN THE STATE COURT DID NOT PUT HIS CLAIM BEYOND THE
REACH OF THE INTERPLEADER SUIT, OR REQUIRE THAT IT BE DEALT WITH
DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER CLAIMS. 

PLAINLY THE COURT HAD JURISDICTION OF BOTH THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE
PARTIES.  NO APPEAL WAS TAKEN FROM EITHER DECREE.  THEREFORE DUGAS WAS
BOUND BY BOTH DECREES.  HAD HE EXERCISED HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL HE COULD
HAVE OBTAINED A REVIEW OF THE RULINGS ON HIS OBJECTION TO BEING BROUGHT
INTO THE SUIT, ON THE BEARING AND EFFECT OF THE PRIOR JUDGMENT AND
PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT, AND ON THE RIGHT OF THE COMPLAINANT
SURETY TO BE DISCHARGED FROM FURTHER LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF HIS
CLAIM.  BUT THESE RULINGS WERE ALL MADE IN THE EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S
JURISDICTION, WERE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE AND REEXAMINATION ONLY ON
APPEAL, AND BECAME CONCLUSIVE ON HIM IN THE ABSENCE OF AN APPEAL. 

3.  IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT THERE WAS AN ACTUAL, COMPLETE AND
JUDICIALLY SANCTIONED PAYMENT OF THE QUALIFYING BOND BY THE SURETY, AND
IT WAS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE SURETY WAS DISCHARGED FROM ALL FURTHER
LIABILITY.  WHILE THE PAYMENT WAS INTO THE COURT'S REGISTRY, AND NOT
DIRECTLY TO THE CLAIMANTS, IT NEVERTHELESS WAS A LAWFUL AND EFFECTIVE
PAYMENT UNDER THE INTERPLEADER ACT.  IN EFFECT THE FIRST DECREE
CONVERTED THE CLAIMS UNDER THE BOND INTO CLAIMS AGAINST THE FUND PAID
INTO THE REGISTRY; AND THE SECOND DECREE, MADE AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH
ALL CLAIMANTS WERE HEARD, DIRECTED AND BROUGHT ABOUT A DISTRIBUTION OF
THE FUND AMONG THEM ACCORDING TO THEIR ASCERTAINED RIGHTS. 

AS DUGAS' JUDGMENT IN THE STATE COURT WAS BASED SOLELY ON THE
QUALIFYING BOND, THE PAYMENT OF THE BOND AND DISCHARGE OF THE SURETY,
AS EFFECTED IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT, OPERATED, UNDER RECOGNIZED
PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND EQUITY, TO EXTINGUISH HIS RIGHT UNDER THE
JUDGMENT.  HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT IN HIS SEVERAL PLEADINGS AND THE
DECREES FIXED THE MEASURE OF HIS CLAIM CONFORMABLY TO THE JUDGMENT. 
EVEN THE COSTS AWARDED TO HIM BY THE JUDGMENT WERE INCLUDED IN THE
COMPUTATION.  THUS IT IS PLAIN THAT THE INTERPLEADER SUIT AND THE
DECREES THEREIN DEALT WITH HIS CLAIM AS IT WAS EMBODIED IN AND
EVIDENCED BY THE JUDGMENT. 

4.  WHETHER, IN SUBSEQUENTLY BRINGING SUIT IN THE STATE COURT ON THE
APPEAL BOND, DUGAS CONTRAVENED THE FAIR INTENDMENT OF THE DECREES IN
THE INTERPLEADER SUIT IS THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION ARISING ON THE
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.  BOTH COURTS BELOW ANSWERED THE QUESTION IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE. 

THE APPEAL BOND WAS IN THE NATURE OF A SECURITY FOR THE SATISFACTION
OF THE JUDGMENT IN DUGAS' SUIT ON THE QUALIFYING BOND; AND IN
ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THIS SECURITY HE OBVIOUSLY WAS SEEKING TO REALIZE
ON THE JUDGMENT.  IF HIS RIGHT UNDER THE JUDGMENT WAS EXTINGUISHED HE
WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RESORT TO THE SECURITY; FOR THE RELATION OF ONE TO
THE OTHER WAS SUCH THAT THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF HIS RIGHT UNDER THE
JUDGMENT TERMINATED HIS RIGHT IN THE SECURITY.  FN6 

IT ALREADY HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THIS OPINION THAT HIS RIGHT UNDER THE
JUDGMENT WAS EXTINGUISHED BY THE PROCEEDINGS AND DECREES IN THE
INTERPLEADER SUIT. 

WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE OPERATION AND EFFECT OF THE DECREES IN
THAT SUIT, IT BECOMES PLAIN THAT DUGAS' ACTION IN BRINGING SUIT ON THE
APPEAL BOND AND THEREBY ATTEMPTING TO REALIZE ON THE PRIOR JUDGMENT,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER IT, WAS IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THOSE DECREES. 

HIS COUNSEL CONTENDS OTHERWISE, AND SEEKS TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION
BY POINTING OUT THAT THE INJUNCTION DID NOT DIRECTLY FORBID DUGAS FROM
SUING ON THE APPEAL BOND, BUT ONLY FROM INSTITUTING OR PROSECUTING ANY
SUIT AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT SURETY ON ACCOUNT OF A RIGHT OR CLAIM
GROWING OUT OF THE QUALIFYING BOND.  BUT THE INJUNCTION, BEING ONLY ONE
PART OF THE DECREES, IS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE CRITERION OF WHAT WAS
DETERMINED AND EFFECTED BY THEM.  ITS PURPOSE WAS TO FORESTALL
ANTICIPATED DEPARTURES, NOT TO LIMIT OTHER PROVISIONS OR RESTRICT THEIR
OPERATION AND EFFECT. 

BY THE OTHER PROVISIONS IT WAS ADJUDGED THAT THE COMPLAINANT SURETY
HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BOND BY PAYING THE
AMOUNT OF THE BOND INTO THE COURT'S REGISTRY; THAT, BY REASON OF THIS
COMPLIANCE, IT WAS DISCHARGED FROM ANY AND ALL FURTHER LIABILITY ON
ACCOUNT OF THE BOND; AND THAT THE SEVERAL CLAIMANTS UNDER THE BOND, ALL
OF WHOM HAD BEEN BROUGHT IN AND HEARD, WERE ENTITLED TO DESIGNATED
PORTIONS OF THE FUND SO PAID INTO THE REGISTRY.  UNDER THIS LAST
PROVISION EACH CLAIMANT WAS PAID HIS PORTION, THE FUND BEING THEREBY
EXHAUSTED.  IT ALSO WAS ADJUDGED THAT THE FACT THAT DUGAS' CLAIM WAS
EMBODIED IN AND EVIDENCED BY A JUDGMENT DID NOT MAKE IT OTHER THAN A
CLAIM UNDER THE BOND OR TAKE IT WITHOUT THE REACH OF THE INTERPLEADER
SUIT.  HE ACQUIESCED IN THAT AND OTHER RULINGS; AND THE AMOUNT OF HIS
CLAIM AND HIS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE FUND WERE FIXED CONFORMABLY TO
THE JUDGMENT.  HE ACQUIESCED ALSO IN THIS, AND ACCEPTED THE SHARE SO
ALLOTTED TO HIM.  IN THIS WAY THE OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE DECREES
ACCOMPLISHED AS THEY WERE INTENDED TO DO, THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF HIS
RIGHT UNDER THE JUDGMENT; AND THEY DID THIS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE
INJUNCTION. 

OF THE DECISIONS UNDER STATE INTERPLEADER STATUTES WHICH ARE CITED AS
IF MAKING FOR A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY, FIRST, THAT
IN NONE WAS THE STATUTE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE FEDERAL ACT OF
1926; AND, SECONDLY, THAT IN SUCH AS INVOLVED QUESTIONS APPROXIMATELY
LIKE THOSE PRESENTED TO THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT THERE
WERE LOCALLY APPROPRIATE APPLICATIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF APPELLATE
AUTHORITY BEFORE THE RULINGS BECAME CONCLUSIVE, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE
HERE. 

SOME RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FACT THAT THE SUIT ON THE APPEAL BOND
WAS AGAINST THE SURETY THEREON ALONE.  BUT THIS DOES NOT MAKE FOR A
DIFFERENT RESULT.  AS DUGAS' RIGHT UNDER THE JUDGMENT WAS EXTINGUISHED
HE WAS NO MORE ENTITLED TO REALIZE ON THE JUDGMENT BY SUING THE SURETY
ON THE APPEAL BOND THAN BY SUING THE PRINCIPAL.  BESIDES, THE SURETY,
IF CAST IN THE SUIT AND COMPELLED TO PAY, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO
REIMBURSEMENT BY THE PRINCIPAL.  THE LATTER, THEREFORE, MAY BE HEARD TO
COMPLAIN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN HERE. 

5.  THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILL IS FREE FROM
DOUBT.  SUCH A BILL MAY BE BROUGHT IN A FEDERAL COURT IN AID OF AND TO
EFFECTUATE ITS PRIOR DECREE TO THE END EITHER THAT THE DECREE MAY BE
CARRIED FULLY INTO EXECUTION OR THAT IT MAY BE GIVEN FULLER EFFECT, BUT
SUBJECT TO THE QUALIFICATION THAT THE RELIEF BE NOT OF A DIFFERENT KIND
OR ON A DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE.  FN7 SUCH A BILL IS ANCILLARY AND
DEPENDENT, AND THEREFORE THE JURISDICTION FOLLOWS THAT OF THE ORIGINAL
SUIT, REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE PARTIES TO THE BILL OR THE
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.  FN8 

6.  THE POWER OF THE COURT TO ENJOIN DUGAS FROM FURTHER PROSECUTING
HIS SUIT IN THE STATE COURT ON THE APPEAL BOND HAS FULL SUPPORT IN
SECS. 2 AND 3 OF THE INTERPLEADER ACT OF 1926 BEFORE QUOTED, AS ALSO IN
SETTLED ADJUDICATIONS RESPECTING THE POWER OF A FEDERAL COURT TO
PROTECT ITS JURISDICTION AND DECREES.  FN9  DECREE AFFIRMED. 

FN1  CH. 273, 44 STAT., PT. 2, 416.  REPEALED AND NEW ACT SUBSTITUTED
JANUARY 20, 1936, C. 13, 49 STAT. 1096, BUT WITH SAVING CLAUSE
RESPECTING ANY ACT DONE OR ANY RIGHT, ACCRUING OR ACCRUED, IN ANY SUIT
OR PROCEEDING HAD OR COMMENCED UNDER THE EARLIER ACT PRIOR TO ITS
REPEAL. 

FN2  ACT 172, LA. LAWS, 1908, P. 232. 

FN3  LA. CODE PRAC., ARTS. 575, 579. 

FN4  THE MASTER FOUND DUGAS' DISABILITY WAS MATERIALLY RELIEVED AT
THE TIME THE HEARING BEGAN (OCTOBER 26, 1932) AND RECOMMENDED THAT HIS
CLAIM BE ALLOWED AT $20.00 PER WEEK FOR THE 127 WEEKS PRECEDING THE
HEARING, AT $8.00 PER WEEK FOR 173 WEEKS, DISCOUNTED AT 8%, AND AT
$250.00 FOR MEDICAL BILLS AND $97.40 FOR COSTS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY,
MAKING A TOTAL OF $4,160.68. 

FN5 DUGAS V. NEW YORK CASUALTY CO., 181 LA. 322; 159 SO. 572. 

FN6  CAGE'S EXECUTORS V. CASSIDY, 23 HOW.  109, 116; CARPENTER V.
LONGAN, 16 WALL.  271, 275; DODGE V. FREEDMAN'S S. & T. CO., 93 U.S.
379, 382; UNITED STATES V. CHOUTEAU, 102 U.S. 603, 610-611.  AND SEE
ILLINOIS SURETY CO. V. PEELER, 240 U.S. 214, 225. 

FN7  STORY'S EQUITY PLEADING, 9TH ED., SEC. 338; ROOT V. WOOLWORTH,
150 U.S. 401, 410-412; LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT, 292 U.S. 234, 239. 

FN8  ROOT V. WOOLWORTH, SUPRA, P. 413; LOCAL LOAN CO. V. HUNT,
SUPRA. 

FN9  FRENCH V. HAY, 22 WALL.  250; ROOT V. WOOLWORTH, SUPRA, P. 411;
JULIAN V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 193 U.S. 93, 112; MADISONVILLE TRACTION
CO. V. SAINT BERNARD MINING CO., 196 U.S. 239, 245; LOONEY V. EASTERN
TEXAS R. CO., 247 U.S. 214, 221; WELLS FARGO & CO. V. TAYLOR, 254 U.S.
175, 183. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
DECREE SHOULD BE REVERSED FOR THE REASONS STATED BY SIBLEY, J., IN THE
COURT BELOW. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSIDERATION OR
DECISION OF THIS CASE. 
..END :



















MATOS V. ALONSO HERMANOS, 300 U.S. 429 


NO. 227.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 81 F.(2D)
930, REVERSED. 


UPON REVIEW OF A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, IN A
CASE CONTROLLED BY THE CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION OF LOCAL LAWS OF
REDHIBITION AND PRESCRIPTION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD
FOLLOW THE DECISION UNLESS THERE BE A SENSE OF CLEAR ERROR COMMITTED. 
P. 432. 

MATOS V. ALONSO HERMANOS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 527, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A JUDGMENT
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO, WHICH HAD REVERSED A JUDGMENT OF
THE TRIAL COURT AND DIRECTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, IN AN ACTION
BY A PURCHASER OF CATTLE TO HAVE THE SALE ANNULLED AND TO RECOVER THE
PURCHASE MONEY. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TWO SECTIONS OF THE REVISED CIVIL CODE OF PUERTO RICO FOLLOW: 

"1397.  ANIMALS AND CATTLE SUFFERING FROM CONTAGIOUS DISEASES SHALL
NOT BE THE OBJECT OF A CONTRACT OF SALE.  ANY CONTRACT MADE WITH REGARD
TO THE SAME SHALL BE VOID.  A CONTRACT OF SALE OF CATTLE AND ANIMALS
SHALL ALSO BE VOID, WHEN THE USE OR SERVICE FOR WHICH THEY ARE ACQUIRED
BEING STATED, THEY ARE FOUND TO BE USELESS THEREFOR." 

"1399. THE REDHIBITORY ACTION, BASED ON THE VICES OR DEFECTS OF
ANIMALS, MUST BE INSTITUTED WITHIN FORTY DAYS, COUNTED FROM THEIR
DELIVERY TO THE VENDEE, UNLESS, BY REASON OF THE CUSTOMS IN EACH
LOCALITY, LONGER OR SHORTER PERIODS ARE ESTABLISHED.  THIS ACTION IN
THE SALE OF ANIMALS MAY ONLY BE ENFORCED WITH REGARD TO THE VICES AND
DEFECTS OF THE SAME, DETERMINED BY LAW OR BY LOCAL CUSTOMS." 

SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE ISLAND'S PENAL CODE INTERDICT SALE OR
POSSESSION OF ANIMALS SUFFERING FROM A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE. 

A COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENTS, ALONSO HERMANOS, ET AL., IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN, DECEMBER 12, 1929, ALLEGED THAT THEY
PURCHASED MARCH 1, 1929, FROM PETITIONER, JOSE MATOS, A HERD OF CATTLE
122 HEAD - FOR THE LUMP SUM OF $18,000.00; ALTHOUGH APPARENTLY IN GOOD
CONDITION THE CATTLE WERE SUFFERING FROM TUBERCULOSIS, A CONTAGIOUS
DISEASE; PRIOR TO DECEMBER 6TH FORTY-THREE HAD DIED, TWENTY-NINE WERE
CONDEMNED AND DESTROYED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.  THEY FURTHER
DECLARED READINESS TO RETURN ALL SURVIVING CATTLE AND PRAYED THAT THE
SALE BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 1397 OF THE
CIVIL CODE, ALSO FOR JUDGMENT FOR THE PURCHASE PRICE. 

A DEMURRER INVOKING THE LIMITATION OF FORTY DAYS UPON REDHIBITORY
ACTIONS, PRESCRIBED BY CODE SEC. 1399, WAS OVERRULED.  AN ANSWER
FOLLOWED.  THIS ADMITTED EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT, RECEIPT OF THE
CONSIDERATION, DEATH AND CONDEMNATION OF THE CATTLE AS ALLEGED.  BUT IT
AFFIRMED THAT TUBERCULOSIS WAS CONTRACTED AFTER THE SALE THROUGH
IMPROPER CARE; ALSO RENEWED THE CLAIM OF PRESCRIPTION. 

THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THE FACTS SHOWN BY THE EVIDENCE; CONCLUDED THE
QUESTIONED CONTRACT WAS ILLEGAL AND VOID, THAT THE ACTION WAS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE PRESCRIPTION OF FORTY DAYS; AND ORDERED RETURN OF THE
ENTIRE PURCHASE PRICE. 

UPON APPEAL THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO RULED THE SALE CONTRACT
WAS NOT VOID BUT VOIDABLE AT THE PURCHASER'S ELECTION; ITS LEGAL EFFECT
AND THE REMEDY FOR VIOLATION WERE WITHIN THE CODE PROVISIONS RELATING
TO REDHIBITORY CONTRACTS; THE LIMITATION OF FORTY DAYS APPLIED; "THAT
THE FIELD OF WARRANTIES."  ALSO, THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE
HERD WAS "INDIVIDUAL" OR "DISTRIBUTIVE" - NOT UNITARY; AS TO THE DEAD
COWS THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS PRESCRIBED; AS TO
THOSE WHICH SURVIVED NO RIGHT OF RECOVERY EVER EXISTED.  IT ACCORDINGLY
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND DIRECTED DISMISSAL OF
THE COMPLAINT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE CONTRACT OF SALE ILLEGAL - NON
EXISTENT - AS TO COWS WHICH HAD DIED OR WERE CONDEMNED; AS TO THEM THE
ACTION WAS NOT REDHIBITORY; THE PRESCRIPTION OF FORTY DAYS HAD NO
APPLICATION; AND IT REVERSED THE QUESTIONED JUDGMENT.  WITH RESPECT TO
THE SURVIVING COWS IT ADOPTED THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 1397 APPROVED
BY THE SUPREME COURT.  IT SAID:  "TO SUMMARIZE:  IN THE TRIAL COURT THE
PLAINTIFFS PUT THEIR CLAIM ON THE HERD BASIS; THEY ENDEAVORED TO
RESCIND THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION AND GET BACK THE FULL CONSIDERATION
WHICH HAD BEEN PAID; AND THEY WERE HELD ENTITLED TO DO SO.  ON APPEAL
THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE SALE COULD NOT BE GIVEN THIS UNITARY
CHARACTER, BUT MUST BE CONSIDERED WITH RESPECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL
ANIMALS,  - AND THAT VIEW STANDS.  IN ITS DECISION THAT, AS TO THE
TUBERCULOUS CATTLE, A CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO AND THE PLAINTIFFS'
RIGHTS WERE OF REDHIBITORY CHARACTER AND SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATION OF

ACCORDINGLY THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT WAS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO PERMIT AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPLAINT.  A DISSENTING OPINION APPROVED THE SUPREME
COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF THE CODE, ALSO ITS JUDGMENT. 

THE MATTER IS HERE BY CERTIORARI.  MANIFESTLY THE SOLUTION OF THE
CONTROVERSY MUST TURN UPON THE MEANING AND EFFECT OF THE ABOVE QUOTED

CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT HERE, THE DIVERGENT VIEWS BELOW, THE
AUTHORITIES CITED, AND "RECOGNIZING THE DEFERENCE DUE TO THE
UNDERSTANDING OF LOCAL COURTS UPON MATTERS OF PURELY LOCAL CONCERN," IT
BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO ENTERTAIN "A SENSE OF CLEAR ERROR
COMMITTED" BY THE SUPREME COURT.  FOLLOWING THE VIEW SO OFTEN APPROVED,
WE THINK THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED AND AFFIRMED
THE RULING THERE ANNOUNCED AFTER MUCH CONSIDERATION.  NADAL V. MAY, 233
U.S. 447, 454; DE VILLANUEVA V. VILLANUEVA, 239 U.S. 293, 299; DIAZ V.
GONZALEZ, 261 U.S. 102, 105. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED; THE
JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 
..END :




GENERAL BAKING CO. V. HARR, 300 U.S. 433 


NO. 559.  ARGUED MARCH 5, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 85 F.(2D)
932, 934, REVERSED. 


DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP AND THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT BEING
PRESENT, A DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION OF A SUIT BY A DEPOSITOR TO
FASTEN A TRUST ON FUNDS IN AN INSOLVENT STATE BANK, NOTWITHSTANDING
THAT THE BANK HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY A STATE OFFICIAL FOR LIQUIDATION
PURSUANT TO THE STATE LAW.  COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. BRADFORD, 297
U.S. 613.  P. 434. 

GENERAL BAKING CO. V. HARR, SECRETARY OF BANKING OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET
AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 539, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND DIRECTED DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT FOR
THE WANT OF JURISDICTION.  SEE 9 F.SUPP.  210, 214. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

ACTING UNDER PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES, OCTOBER 5, 1931, WILLIAM D.
GORDON, SECRETARY OF BANKING, (RESPONDENT HARR IS HIS SUCCESSOR) CLOSED
THE FRANKLIN TRUST COMPANY, A BANKING INSTITUTION IN PHILADELPHIA, AND
TOOK CONTROL OF ITS BUSINESS AND ASSETS. 

THEREAFTER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA, PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, PRESENTED A BILL
AGAINST GORDON, SETTING UP AN AGREEMENT BY WHICH IT UNDERTOOK TO KEEP
ON DEPOSIT WITH THE TRUST COMPANY A SUM SPECIFIED, AND THE LATTER
UNDERTOOK EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH CORRESPONDENT BANKS TO ACCEPT
DEPOSITS OF CASH, CHECKS, ETC., AND TO FORWARD THE PROCEEDS THEREFROM
TO PETITIONER IN NEW YORK.  ALSO THAT WHEN CLOSED THE TRUST COMPANY HAD
IN ITS ASSETS $49,590.17 RECEIVED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, AND ITS
CORRESPONDENT BANKS HAD ON HAND DEPOSITS LIKEWISE ACQUIRED AMOUNTING TO
$32,403.26. 

THE BILL PRAYED FOR A DECREE DECLARING PETITIONER OWNER OF THE
$32,403.26 AND THAT A TRUST EXISTED IN ITS FAVOR IN RESPECT OF THE
$49,590.17 DEPOSIT; ALSO FOR GENERAL RELIEF.  THE ANSWER SUGGESTED SOME
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT AND DENIED THAT THERE WAS NO
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW.  OTHERWISE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL WERE
GENERALLY ADMITTED. 

THE DISTRICT COURT TOOK JURISDICTION OF THE CONTROVERSY; HELD
PETITIONER WAS NOT OWNER OF THE $32,403.26; ALSO THAT NO GROUND EXISTED
FOR IMPRESSING A TRUST UPON ASSETS BECAUSE OF THE $49,590.17 DEPOSIT;
AND DISMISSED THE BILL. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDED THE DISTRICT COURT HAD NO
JURISDICTION AND SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE BILL WITHOUT ADJUDICATING
OTHER QUESTIONS.  IT ACCORDINGLY APPROVED THE DISMISSAL BUT DIRECTED
THAT THE CAUSE BE REFERRED TO THE STATE COURT FOR PROPER PROCEDURE
THERE. 

ALTHOUGH ENTERED IN SEPTEMBER, 1936, THE OPINION BELOW DOES NOT REFER
TO COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. V. BRADFORD, 297 U.S. 613, DECIDED HERE MARCH
30, 1936.  NOTHING INDICATES THAT THIS OPINION WAS BROUGHT TO THE
COURT'S ATTENTION.  THE DOCTRINE THERE APPROVED, WE THINK, IS DECISIVE
OF THE ISSUE CONCERNING JURISDICTION NOW PRESENTED. 

IT WAS ERROR FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO HOLD THAT THE
DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OF THE CONTROVERSY.  IT SHOULD
HAVE PASSED ON ISSUES PROPERLY PRESENTED UPON THE APPEAL. 

THE QUESTIONED DECREE MUST BE REVERSED AND THE MATTER REMANDED TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  REVERSED. 
..END :




STROEHMANN V. MUTUAL LIFE CO., 300 U.S. 435 


NO. 599.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 86 F.(2D)
47, REVERSED.  DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED. 


WHERE, FROM THE LANGUAGE OF A POLICY OF LIFE INSURANCE, IT IS DOUBTFUL
WHETHER PROVISIONS FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS WERE EXCEPTED FROM THE
"INCONTESTABLE" CLAUSE, THE DOUBT WILL BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE
INSURED.  PP. 439-440. 

STROEHMANN ET AL. V. MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 646, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING A DECREE
DISMISSING THE BILL.  THE SUIT WAS BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO CANCEL
THE DISABILITY BENEFITS PROVISIONS OF A POLICY UPON THE GROUND OF
FRAUD, ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PRACTICED BY THE INSURED IN OBTAINING THE
INSURANCE.  THE DISTRICT COURT AT FIRST REFUSED TO DISMISS THE BILL, 6
F.SUPP.  953, BUT LATER RULED THE OTHER WAY WHEN THE MOTION WAS RENEWED
AFTER THE BILL HAD BEEN AMENDED. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

BY A POLICY DATED JUNE 30, 1930, RESPONDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW
YORK CORPORATION, AGREED TO PAY THE NAMED BENEFICIARY $40,000.00 UPON
DEATH OF CARL F. STROEHMANN, THE INSURED.  OR TO PAY $80,000.00 IF HIS
DEATH RESULTS FROM ACCIDENTAL BODILY INJURY, "ALL UPON THE CONDITIONS
SET FORTH IN SECTION 1."  "AND IF THE INSURED IS TOTALLY AND PRESUMABLY
PERMANENTLY DISABLED BEFORE AGE 60, WILL PAY TO THE INSURED $400.00
MONTHLY DURING SUCH DISABILITY, INCREASING AFTER FIVE AND TEN YEARS
CONTINUOUS DISABILITY, BESIDES WAIVING PREMIUM PAYMENTS, ALL UPON THE
CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3." 

THE POLICY IS A LONG AND COMPLICATED DOCUMENT.  IT INCORPORATES THE
APPLICATION AND THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S REPORT. 

OBLIGATION.  IT DEFINES THE INJURY TO WHICH THE INSURANCE APPLIES,
SPECIFIES THE NECESSARY PROOF, OPTIONAL MODES OF SETTLEMENT, ETC. 

BEFORE AGE 60," IS IN THE MARGIN.  FN1  IT DEFINES TOTAL AND PERMANENT
DISABILITY; STATES WHEN BENEFITS WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE; WHAT THEY SHALL
BE; WHEN PREMIUMS WILL BE WAIVED.  ALSO SPECIFIES WHAT WILL BE
CONSIDERED PERMANENT DISABILITY, WHEN PROOFS MAY BE DEMANDED, ETC.  AND
PROVIDES:  "DISABILITY BENEFITS SHALL NOT BE GRANTED IF DISABILITY IS
THE RESULT OF SELF-INFLICTED INJURY.  THE PROVISION FOR DISABILITY
BENEFITS SHALL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE IF THE INSURED SHALL AT ANY
TIME, VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY ENGAGE IN MILITARY OR NAVAL SERVICE
IN TIME OF WAR OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA AND THE DOMINION OF CANADA."  OTHER PROVISIONS RELATE TO
TERMINATION OF SUCH BENEFITS, REDUCTION OF PREMIUMS THEREAFTER, ETC. 

NEITHER SEC. 1 NOR SEC. 3 CONTAINS ANYTHING RELATIVE TO FRAUD IN
OBTAINING THE POLICY OR THE EFFECT OF FALSE STATEMENTS IN THE
APPLICATION. 

FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH: "INCONTESTABILITY.   - EXCEPT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF
PREMIUMS AND EXCEPT FOR THE RESTRICTIONS AND PROVISIONS APPLYING TO THE
DOUBLE INDEMNITY AND DISABILITY BENEFITS AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 1 AND
3 RESPECTIVELY, THIS POLICY SHALL BE INCONTESTABLE AFTER ONE YEAR FROM
ITS DATE OF ISSUE UNLESS THE INSURED DIES IN SUCH YEAR, IN WHICH EVENT
IT SHALL BE INCONTESTABLE AFTER TWO YEARS FROM ITS DATE OF ISSUE." 

IN OCTOBER, 1932, RESPONDENT FILED A BILL (AFTERWARDS AMENDED)
AGAINST STROEHMANN, THE INSURED, AND THE BENEFICIARY IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT, PENNSYLVANIA.  IT ALLEGED THAT
THE POLICY HAD BEEN OBTAINED UPON FALSE AND FRAUDULENT
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND CONCEALMENTS MATERIAL TO THE RISK.  IT ASKED
THAT THE DISABILITY BENEFITS PROVISIONS BE CANCELLED, ALSO FOR AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST SUIT AT LAW UPON THEM. 

RELYING UPON THE INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE THE PETITIONER MOVED THAT
THE BILL BE DISMISSED.  THE TRIAL COURT SUSTAINED THE MOTION, HOLDING
THAT AS MORE THAN A YEAR HAD ELAPSED SINCE THE POLICY TOOK EFFECT THE
LIMITATION WAS APPLICABLE AND CONTROLLING.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS THOUGHT OTHERWISE AND REVERSED THE CHALLENGED DECREE. 

THE MATTER IS HERE BY CERTIORARI LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE
APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF THE INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE. 

NO REASON APPEARS TO DOUBT THE POWER OF THE INSURER TO EXCEPT FROM
THE ORDINARY INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE ALL POLICY PROVISIONS RELATING TO
DISABILITY BENEFITS.  CH. 28, LAWS N.Y. (1923); STEINBERG V. N.Y. LIFE
INS. CO., 263 N.Y. 45; 188 N.E. 152.  BUT THE PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT
THE WORDS USED IN THE POLICY BEFORE US ARE INADEQUATE DEFINITELY TO
DISCLOSE A PURPOSE SO TO DO.  AND WE THINK THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN. 

IN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HURNI PACKING CO., 263 U.S. 167, 174,
THIS COURT SAID:  "THE RULE IS SETTLED THAT IN CASE OF AMBIGUITY THAT
CONSTRUCTION OF THE POLICY WILL BE ADOPTED WHICH IS MOST FAVORABLE TO
THE INSURED.  THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IS THAT OF THE COMPANY AND IT IS
CONSISTENT WITH BOTH REASON AND JUSTICE THAT ANY FAIR DOUBT AS TO THE
MEANING OF ITS OWN WORDS SHOULD BE RESOLVED AGAINST IT."  SEE ROYAL
INSURANCE CO. V. MARTIN, 192 U.S. 149, 162, 165; BERGHOLM V. PEORIA
LIFE INS. CO., 284 U.S. 489, 492. 

EXAMINATION OF THE WORDS RELIED UPON TO SHOW AN EXCEPTION TO THE
INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE OF THE POLICY DISCLOSES AMPLE CAUSE FOR DOUBT
CONCERNING THEIR MEANING.  THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL HAVE EMPHASIZED THE
UNCERTAINTY.  THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
REACHED DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS, AND ELSEWHERE THERE IS DIVERSITY OF
OPINION. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ACCEPTED THE VIEW APPROVED IN NESS V. MUTUAL LIFE
INS. CO. (FOURTH CIRCUIT), 70 F.(2D) 59, AND MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
MARKOWITZ, (NINTH CIRCUIT), 78 F.(2D) 396, WHICH PRESENTED FOR
INTERPRETATION LANGUAGE IDENTICAL WITH THAT NOW BEFORE US.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER OPINION IN N.Y. LIFE INS. CO. V.
GATTI, (OCT. 6, 1936), WHERE THE COMPANY EMPLOYED DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. 
CERTAIN LIFE COMPANIES UNDERTAKE TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE
INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE BY WORDS MORE PRECISE THAN THOSE NOW UNDER
CONSIDERATION, AND OPINIONS IN CASES ARISING UPON THEIR POLICIES MUST
BE APPRAISED ACCORDINGLY. 

WITHOUT DIFFICULTY RESPONDENT COULD HAVE EXPRESSED IN PLAIN WORDS THE
EXCEPTION FOR WHICH IT NOW CONTENDS.  IT HAS FAILED, WE THINK, SO TO
DO.  AND APPLYING THE SETTLED RULE, THE INSURED IS ENTITLED TO THE
BENEFIT OF THE RESULTING DOUBT. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED.  THE
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "SECTION 3.  - BENEFITS IN EVENT OF TOTAL AND PERMANENT
DISABILITY BEFORE AGE 60. 

"TOTAL DISABILITY.   - DISABILITY SHALL BE CONSIDERED TOTAL WHEN
THERE IS ANY IMPAIRMENT OF MIND OR BODY WHICH CONTINUOUSLY RENDERS IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE INSURED TO FOLLOW A GAINFUL OCCUPATION. 

"PERMANENT DISABILITY.  - TOTAL DISABILITY SHALL, DURING ITS
CONTINUANCE, BE PRESUMED TO BE PERMANENT; 

"(A)  IF SUCH DISABILITY IS THE RESULT OF CONDITIONS WHICH RENDER IT
REASONABLY CERTAIN THAT SUCH DISABILITY WILL CONTINUE DURING THE
REMAINING LIFETIME OF THE INSURED; OR, 

"(B)  IF SUCH DISABILITY HAS EXISTED CONTINUOUSLY FOR NINETY DAYS. 

"WHEN BENEFITS BECOME EFFECTIVE.   - IF, BEFORE ATTAINING THE AGE OF
SIXTY YEARS AND WHILE NO PREMIUM ON THIS POLICY IS IN DEFAULT, THE
INSURED SHALL FURNISH TO THE COMPANY DUE PROOF THAT HE IS TOTALLY AND
PERMANENTLY DISABLED, AS DEFINED ABOVE, THE COMPANY WILL GRANT THE
FOLLOWING BENEFITS DURING THE REMAINING LIFETIME OF THE INSURED SO LONG
AS SUCH DISABILITY CONTINUES. 

"BENEFITS.  (A)  INCREASING INCOME.   - THE COMPANY WILL PAY A
MONTHLY INCOME TO THE INSURED OF THE AMOUNT STATED ON THE FIRST PAGE
HEREOF ($10 PER $1,000 FACE AMOUNT OF POLICY), BEGINNING UPON RECEIPT
OF DUE PROOF OF SUCH DISABILITY AND INCREASING AFTER SIXTY CONSECUTIVE
MONTHLY PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO ONE AND ONE-HALF TIMES SUCH AMOUNT
AND AFTER SIXTY FURTHER CONSECUTIVE MONTHLY PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO
TWICE SUCH AMOUNT AT WHICH IT SHALL REMAIN WHILE TOTAL AND PERMANENT
DISABILITY CONTINUES. 

"(B)  WAIVER OF PREMIUM.   - THE COMPANY WILL ALSO, AFTER RECEIPT OF
SUCH DUE PROOF, WAIVE PAYMENT OF EACH PREMIUM AS IT THEREAFTER BECOMES
DUE DURING SUCH DISABILITY. 

"SPECIFIED DISABILITIES.   - THE ENTIRE AND IRRECOVERABLE LOSS OF THE
SIGHT OF BOTH EYES, OR OF THE USE OF BOTH HANDS OR BOTH FEET OR ONE
HAND AND ONE FOOT, WILL BE CONSIDERED TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY. 

"GENERAL PROVISIONS.   - THE COMPANY MAY, BEFORE MAKING ANY INCOME
PAYMENT OR WAIVING ANY PREMIUM, REQUIRE DUE PROOF OF THE CONTINUANCE OF
TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY, BUT SUCH PROOF SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED
OFTENER THAN ONCE A YEAR AFTER SUCH DISABILITY HAS CONTINUED FOR TWO
YEARS.  IF SUCH PROOF IS NOT FURNISHED ON DEMAND OR IF IT SHALL APPEAR
TO THE COMPANY THAT THE INSURED IS NO LONGER TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY
DISABLED, NO FURTHER INCOME PAYMENTS WILL BE MADE OR PREMIUMS WAIVED. 

"NEITHER THE DIVIDENDS NOR THE AMOUNT PAYABLE IN ANY SETTLEMENT
HEREOF SHALL BE DECREASED BECAUSE OF DISABILITY BENEFITS GRANTED. 

"IF THE INSURED SHALL AT ANY TIME SO RECOVER THAT THE PAYMENT OF
DISABILITY BENEFITS TERMINATES AND LATER SHALL FURNISH DUE PROOF THAT
HE HAS AGAIN BECOME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED, DISABILITY
BENEFITS SHALL BE THE SAME IN AMOUNT AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONDITIONS
AS IF NO PRIOR DISABILITY HAD EXISTED. 

"IF THE DISABILITY OF THE INSURED SHALL BE THE RESULT OF INSANITY,
INCOME PAYMENTS SHALL BE PAYABLE TO THE BENEFICIARY, IF ANY, INSTEAD OF
TO THE INSURED. 

"ANY DISABILITY INCOME PAYMENT WHICH MAY BECOME PAYABLE AND WHICH IS
UNPAID AT THE DEATH OF THE INSURED SHALL BE PAID TO THE BENEFICIARY. 

"DISABILITY BENEFITS SHALL NOT BE GRANTED IF DISABILITY IS THE RESULT
OF SELF-INFLICTED INJURY. 

"THE PROVISION FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS SHALL AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATE
IF THE INSURED SHALL AT ANY TIME, VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY, ENGAGE
IN MILITARY OR NAVAL SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL
LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE DOMINION OF CANADA. 

"IF REQUESTED IN WRITING BY THE INSURED, THE COMPANY WILL TERMINATE
THE PROVISION FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS BY ENDORSEMENT ON THIS POLICY. 

"IF THE INSURED ATTAINS THE AGE OF SIXTY YEARS OR IF THE PROVISION
FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS TERMINATES, THE PREMIUMS PAYABLE AFTER SUCH AGE
OR SUCH TERMINATION SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE PREMIUM FOR SUCH
BENEFITS." 
..END :























WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH, 300 U.S. 440 


NO. 530.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 4, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 973, REVERSED. 


1.  A MOTION TO DISMISS A PETITION UNDER SEC. 75(S), AS AMENDED, OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT UPON THE GROUND THAT, AS APPLIED TO THE OWNER OF A
FARM LOAN SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST, PROVISIONS OF THAT SUBSECTION ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, HELD NOT PREMATURE WHERE THE FARMER DEBTOR HAD TAKEN
ALL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIRED OF HIM UNDER THE SECTION TO INITIATE
PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO A STAY OF FORECLOSURE.  P. 456. 

LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, DID NOT
QUESTION THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO OFFER TO DISTRESSED FARMERS MEANS OF
REHABILITATION UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE. 

2.  WHEN THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF CONGRESS IS DRAWN IN QUESTION, AND
EVEN IF A SERIOUS DOUBT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS RAISED, IT IS A
CARDINAL PRINCIPLE THAT THIS COURT WILL FIRST ASCERTAIN WHETHER A
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IS FAIRLY POSSIBLE BY WHICH THE QUESTION
MAY BE AVOIDED.  P. 461. 

3.  SECTION 75(S) OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED, (THE NEW FRAZIER
LEMKE ACT) IS CONSTRUED WITH COMMITTEE REPORTS AND IS FOUND ADEQUATELY
TO PRESERVE THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF A FARM MORTGAGEE, WHICH
THIS COURT HELD IN LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295
U.S. 555, WERE NOT PROTECTED BEFORE THE AMENDMENT, VIZ., (A) THE RIGHT
TO RETAIN THE LIEN UNTIL THE INDEBTEDNESS THEREBY SECURED IS PAID; (B)
THE RIGHT TO REALIZE UPON THE SECURITY BY A JUDICIAL SALE; (C) THE
RIGHT TO PROTECT THE MORTGAGEE'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BY BIDDING AT
SUCH SALE WHENEVER HELD.  P. 458. 

4.  IN THE RADFORD CASE, SUPRA, IT WAS NOT HELD THAT DEPRIVATION OF
ANY ONE OF THE FIVE RIGHTS OF A MORTGAGEE ENUMERATED IN THE OPINION
(PP. 594, 595) WOULD RENDER THE ORIGINAL FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT INVALID, BUT
THAT THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE IN ITS ENTIRETY WAS TO DEPRIVE THE
MORTGAGEE OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  P. 457. 

5.  WHILE THE NEW ACT AFFORDS THE FARMER DEBTOR, ORDINARILY, A THREE
YEAR STAY OF FORECLOSURE, THE STAY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ONE; THE COURT
MAY TERMINATE IT EARLIER AND ORDER A SALE.  P. 460. 

6.  CONSTRUED IN THE LIGHT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND THE EXPOSITION
OF THE BILL MADE IN BOTH HOUSES BY ITS AUTHORS AND THOSE IN CHARGE OF
THE BILL AND ACCEPTED BY THE CONGRESS WITHOUT DISSENT, THE AMENDED ACT
GIVES THE COURT BROAD POWER TO CURTAIL THE STAY OF FORECLOSURE, FOR THE
PROTECTION OF MORTGAGEES.  THE PROPERTY OF WHICH THE DEBTOR RETAINS
POSSESSION IS AT ALL TIMES IN THE CUSTODY AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND
CONTROL OF THE COURT.  IF THE DEBTOR DEFAULTS AT ANY TIME IN HIS
OBLIGATION TO PAY A REASONABLE RENTAL FOR THE PART OF THE PROPERTY OF
WHICH HE RETAINS POSSESSION, OR FAILS AT ANY TIME TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS
OF THE COURT ISSUED UNDER ITS POWER TO REQUIRE INTERIM PAYMENTS ON
PRINCIPAL, OR OTHER ORDERS ISSUED IN THE COURSE OF THE COURT'S
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF HIS POSSESSION, OR IF AFTER A REASONABLE
TIME IT BECOMES EVIDENT TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE HOPE
THAT THE DEBTOR CAN REHABILITATE HIMSELF FINANCIALLY WITHIN THE THREE
YEAR PERIOD, OR IF WITHIN THAT PERIOD THE COURT FINDS THAT THE
EMERGENCY THAT GAVE RISE TO THE LEGISLATION HAS CEASED TO EXIST,  - THE
COURT MAY TERMINATE THE STAY AND ORDER A SALE.  P. 461. 

7.  THE AMENDED ACT IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO A MORTGAGEE
BECAUSE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE STAY OF FORECLOSURE IS IN
THE DEBTOR SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE ACT AND UNDER THE
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT, RATHER THAN IN A RECEIVER OR
TRUSTEE.  P. 465. 

8.  THE CLAUSE OF THE AMENDED ACT, SEC. 75(S), PAR. 2, PROVIDING THAT
THE FIRST PAYMENT OF RENTAL BY THE DEBTOR IN POSSESSION SHALL BE WITHIN
ONE YEAR OF THE DATE OF THE STAY ORDER, IS CONSTRUED, IN VIEW OF THE
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE PAYMENTS SHALL BE SEMI-ANNUAL, NOT AS
MEANING THAT THE DEBTOR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED BY THE COURT TO PAY ANY
RENT BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST YEAR, BUT AS FORBIDDING THE COURT TO
POSTPONE THE PAYMENT BEYOND ONE YEAR.  SO CONSTRUED, THE CLAUSE IS NOT
UNREASONABLE OR ARBITRARY.  P. 467. 

9.  THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AMENDED ACT THAT THE RENTS PAID INTO COURT
BY THE DEBTOR IN POSSESSION DURING STAY OF FORECLOSURE SHALL BE APPLIED
FIRST ON TAXES AND UPKEEP, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
OF THE MORTGAGEE.  P. 468. 

10.  THE OBJECTION THAT THE AMENDED ACT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY RESTRICTS
A LIENOR'S REMEDY UNDER THE STATE LAW BY DELAYS INTERPOSED TO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF HIS RIGHTS, IS TO BE TESTED NOT BY WHAT MIGHT BE
PERMITTED TO A STATE UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, BUT
BY WHETHER, AS AN EXERCISE OF THE BANKRUPTCY POWER, FOR THE
REHABILITATION OF THE FARMER MORTGAGOR, THE ACT SO FAR MODIFIES THE
LIENOR'S RIGHTS, REMEDIAL OR SUBSTANTIVE, AS TO DENY THE DUE PROCESS OF
LAW GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 468. 

WRIGHT V. VINTON BRANCH OF THE MOUNTAIN TRUST BANK OF ROANOKE ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 537, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
OF THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, 12 F.SUPP.  297, WHICH, ON THE MOTION OF A
SECURED CREDITOR, DISMISSED A PETITION FILED BY A FARMER UNDER SEC. 75,
SUBSECTION (S), AS AMENDED, OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED
STATES HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTIVELY CONSIDERED IN A NUMBER OF RECENT CASES IN
THIS COURT.  CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. V. CHICAGO,
R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648; LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V.
RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555; ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY, 298 U.S. 513. 

THE NEW FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT IS BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO ENACT
LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES, AND IS A REASONABLE EXERCISE OF
THAT POWER.  WHILE THE NEW ACT HAS FOR ITS OBJECT THE CONSERVATION AND
PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURE, AS DID THE ORIGINAL ACT, YET THE METHODS
AND MEANS EMPLOYED ARE ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT. 

WHEN THIS COURT HELD THE ORIGINAL ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN LOUISVILLE
JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, SUPRA, THE PRESENT ACT WAS INTRODUCED
IN BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE.  IT WAS REFERRED TO THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEES, WHICH REFERRED IT TO SUBCOMMITTEES FOR STUDY AND
CONSIDERATION WITH THE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH THE COURT'S DECISION. 
THE BILL WITH THE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SUBCOMMITTEES WAS
THEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE THE COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE OF BOTH THE SENATE
AND THE HOUSE, AND FURTHER AMENDMENTS WERE MADE.  THEREAFTER IT WAS
DEBATED ON THE FLOORS OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE AND PASSED WITHOUT A
DISSENTING VOTE IN EITHER HOUSE. 

THERE IS NOTHING NOVEL IN THE NEW ACT.  IT SIMPLY APPLIES WELL
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF BANKRUPTCY LAW TO AGRICULTURE.  THIS MAY
APPEAR NOVEL, BUT THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE ACT WHICH THE BANKRUPTCY
COURTS HAVE NOT ALREADY PASSED UPON. 

THE COURTS HAVE ALLOWED GOING CONCERNS TO REMAIN IN POSSESSION, AND
TO CONTINUE IN BUSINESS UNDER TRUSTEES, AND WITHOUT TRUSTEES.  THEY
HAVE PERMITTED POSSESSION AND THE PAYMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS OF SUCH
CONCERNS ON THE INSTALMENT PLAN, WITH OR WITHOUT INTEREST.  IN RE
REIMAN, FED. CAS. NO. 11,673; SPARHAWK V. YERKES, 142 U.S. 114; IN RE
SWOFFORD CO., 180 FED. 549; BURLINGHAM V. CROUSE, 228 U.S. 459. 

THE COURTS HAVE SCALED DOWN INDEBTEDNESS TO LESS THAN THE VALUE OF
THE PROPERTY, THROUGH COMPOSITION, AND THEY HAVE GIVEN EXTENSION OF
TIME IN WHICH PAYMENTS WERE TO BE MADE; AND THIS, AT TIMES, AGAINST THE
WISHES OF THE MINORITY.  WHAT CAN BE DONE TO A MINORITY CAN BE DONE TO
A MAJORITY OR TO ALL OF THEM, SECURED OR UNSECURED CREDITORS, AND STILL
BE CONSTITUTIONAL.  COURTS HAVE SOLD ENCUMBERED PROPERTY FREE OF LIEN,
AND UNINCUMBERED PROPERTY FOR CASH OR ON TIME.  CF. IN RE MERKUS, 289
FED. 732; TRAER V. CLEWS, 115 U.S. 528; IN RE WATERLOO ORGAN CO., 118
FED. 904; MATTER OF THEIBERG, 47 AM. B.R. 257; MATTER OF FRANKLIN
BREWING CO., 41 AM. B.R. 51; MATTER OF TUBE CO., 25 AM. B.R. 651; SHINN
V. KEMP & HERBERT, 73 WASH. 254; VAN HUFFEL V. HARKELRODE, 284 U.S.
225. 

FEDERAL. 

ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED,
HAVE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BEEN HELD CONSTITUTIONAL WHEN REENACTED IN
ALTERED FORM WITH THE DESIGN OF MEETING THE COURT'S OBJECTIONS.  CF.
HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44; CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE V. OLSON, 262 U.S.
1; EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S. 463; SECOND EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1. 

THE DUTY OF THE COURT IS TO SQUARE A NEW STATUTE WITH THE
CONSTITUTION.  UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1.  FORMER DECISIONS
ON THE VALIDITY OF OLDER STATUTES ARE NOT STARE DECISIS.  HERTZ V.
WOODMAN, 218 U.S. 205, 212; DISANTO V. PENNSYLVANIA, 273 U.S. 3, DIS. 
OP. 

THE NEW SUBSECTION (S) PROVIDES THAT ANY FARMERDEBTOR, WHO FAILS
UNDER SUBSECTIONS A-R OF SEC. 75 TO EFFECT A COMPOSITION WITH HIS
CREDITORS, MAY AMEND HIS PETITION OR ANSWER ASKING TO BE ADJUDGED A
BANKRUPT.  ALL THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY WHEREVER LOCATED IS THEN TO BE
APPRAISED AT ITS FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET VALUE.  HIS UNENCUMBERED
EXEMPTIONS ARE SET ASIDE TO HIM. 

THE DEBTOR IS ALLOWED TO RETAIN POSSESSION OF ANY PART OR ALL OF THE
REMAINDER OF HIS PROPERTY FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS UNDER SUPERVISION
AND CONTROL OF THE COURT.  THE DEBTOR IS REQUIRED TO PAY A REASONABLE
RENTAL INTO COURT FOR THE PART OF THE PROPERTY HE RETAINS.  THIS RENTAL
IS TO BE APPLIED FIRST TO PAY TAXES AND UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE
REMAINDER DISTRIBUTED AMONG CREDITORS, SECURED AND UNSECURED, AND
APPLIED ON THEIR CLAIMS AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR.  THE COURT IS
GIVEN POWER TO SELL UNEXEMPT AND PERISHABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IF DEEMED
NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF CREDITORS.  THE COURT MAY, IF IT
SEES FIT, REQUIRE PAYMENTS ON PRINCIPAL WITH A VIEW TO THE DEBTOR'S
ABILITY TO PAY. 

AFTER THREE YEARS HAVE ELAPSED, OR SOONER IF HE DESIRES, THE DEBTOR
MAY PAY INTO COURT THE AMOUNT OF THE APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH
HE HAS RETAINED POSSESSION, AND THE COURT WILL TURN OVER TO HIM FULL
TITLE TO AND POSSESSION OF THAT PROPERTY, FREE AND CLEAR OF
ENCUMBRANCES.  THIS PROCEDURE IS SUBJECT TO TWO PROVISOS:  1.  ON THE
REQUEST OF ANY CREDITOR, SECURED OR UNSECURED, OR OF THE DEBTOR, THE
COURT MAY ORDER A REAPPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY AND REQUIRE THE DEBTOR TO
PAY THAT PRICE.  2.  ON THE DEMAND OF ANY SECURED CREDITOR THE COURT
MUST ORDER THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE CREDITOR HAS A LIEN SOLD AT PUBLIC
AUCTION.  IF THE DEBTOR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,
OR ANY COURT ORDER MADE THEREUNDER, A TRUSTEE MAY BE APPOINTED AND THE
PROPERTY SOLD AS IN OTHER BANKRUPTCY CASES. 

IT IS AN ACT ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES.  SEE IN RE KLEIN
(REPORTED IN NOTE TO NELSON V. CARLAND, 1 HOW.  265); IN RE REIMAN,
FED. CAS. NO. 11,673; HANOVER NAT. BANK V. MOYSES, 186 U.S. 181;
LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555; IN RE
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 72 F.(2D) 443; CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS BANK V.
CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648. 

IT DOES NOT TAKE PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. 

IN LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, HOLDING
THE FIRST SEC. 75(S) VOID, THE COURT LISTED FIVE RIGHTS OF A SECURED
CREDITOR WHICH WERE SAID TO HAVE BEEN IMPAIRED.  IT DID NOT HOLD THE
ORIGINAL ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE OF THE INFRINGEMENT OF ALL OF
THESE RIGHTS.  THE COURT HELD THE ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT WAS
IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  IN
FACT, IN CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294
U.S. 648, THIS COURT, IN HOLDING SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
CONSTITUTIONAL, MUST HAVE FOUND THAT ALL OF THESE SO-CALLED RIGHTS
ENUMERATED IN THE RADFORD CASE WERE QUALIFIED AND SUBJECT TO THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  WE SAY THIS BECAUSE SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT, PROVIDING FOR REORGANIZATION OF RAILROAD CORPORATIONS, IS MUCH
MORE DRASTIC AND ARBITRARY AS FAR AS THE CREDITOR'S RIGHTS ARE
CONCERNED THAN SUBSECTION (S) OF SEC. 75. 

IT WAS HELD IN THE RADFORD CASE, SUPRA, THAT THE TAKING OF THESE FIVE
SO-CALLED RIGHTS AS A GROUP HAD THE EFFECT OF SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRING
THE MORTGAGEE'S SECURITY.  IT IS CLEAR FROM A READING OF THE NEW ACT
THAT RIGHTS NUMBERED (1), (2) AND (4) ARE FULLY AND COMPLETELY
PRESERVED. 

RIGHTS NUMBERED (3) AND (5), "THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHEN SUCH SALE
SHALL BE HELD, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT," AND "THE
RIGHT TO CONTROL MEANWHILE THE PROPERTY DURING THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT,
SUBJECT ONLY TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, AND TO HAVE THE RENTS AND
PROFITS COLLECTED BY A RECEIVER FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THE DEBT," ARE
NOT SUBSTANTIVE, BUT REMEDIAL, RIGHTS AND AS SUCH ARE SUBJECT TO
CONTROL UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY POWER.  THEY ARE ONLY RELATIVE OR REMEDIAL
RIGHTS WHICH MAY BE, AND HAVE BEEN, SUSPENDED OR TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT
VIOLATING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  CF.
CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294 U.S. 648,
HOLDING THE ORIGINAL SEC. 77 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CONSTITUTIONAL.  CF.
CAMPBELL V. ALLEGANY CORP., 75 F.(2D) 947, CERT. DEN., 296 U.S. 581,
HOLDING SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT CONSTITUTIONAL. 

IN NO CASE DOES SEC. 75(S) TREAT CREDITORS' RIGHTS MORE ARBITRARILY
THAN EITHER SEC. 77 OR SEC. 77B.  IN MOST SITUATIONS IT DOES NOT GO
NEARLY SO FAR. 

THE AMENDMENT IS A REASONABLE ADAPTATION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS TO
FARMERS' CONDITIONS. 

IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, THE COURT SHOULD BE INFLUENCED BY THE
CONSIDERATION THAT A MAN CAN ORDINARILY DO BETTER WITH HIS OWN PROPERTY
AND REALIZE MORE THEREFROM THAN CAN BE OBTAINED IN THE COURSE OF
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WITH COMPULSORY SALES AND EXPENSES OF
ADMINISTRATION.  IN RE ARRINGTON CO., 113 FED. 498; DALLAS JOINT STOCK
LAND BANK V. DAVIS, 83 F.(2D) 322. 

THE AMENDMENT IS REASONABLE AND THE NECESSITY FOR IT IS SHOWN BY
STATISTICS. 

DECLARATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY BY A LEGISLATIVE BODY
CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A SUBTERFUGE OR AS LACKING IN ADEQUATE BASIS. 
HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398; BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256
U.S. 135. 

RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN FARM CONDITIONS SHOW THAT SUSPENSION OF SALE
OF FARM PROPERTY WILL BENEFIT BOTH CREDITOR AND DEBTOR. 

WHILE THE VALUE OF FARM LANDS HAS INCREASED, THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT
STRUCTURE HAS REMAINED PRACTICALLY THE SAME, EXCEPT AS REDUCED BY
FORECLOSURES.  THE INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF FARM LANDS HAS IN FACT
STIMULATED FORECLOSURES.  THERE IS LITTLE MONEY AVAILABLE FOR FARM
LOANS.  THE TRUTH IS THAT THE FARMER WHO REALLY NEEDS HELP CANNOT GET
IT.  AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF FARM FORECLOSURES AND
EVICTIONS ARE TAKING PLACE IN PRACTICALLY EVERY PART OF THIS NATION. 

THE PURPOSE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT WAS TWO-FOLD:  FIRST, TO PROVIDE
FOR AN EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BANKRUPT'S ESTATE AMONG HIS
CREDITORS; SECOND, TO REHABILITATE THE BANKRUPT AND TO GIVE HIM A FRESH
START IN LIFE FREE FROM THE BURDEN OF HIS DEBTS. 

THE COURT HAS STRESSED THE FACT THAT THE BANKRUPTCY ACT IS FOUNDED ON
SOUND PUBLIC POLICY.  STELLWAGEN V. CLUM, 254 U.S. 605; IN RE KLEIN, 1
HOW.  279; CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294
U.S. 648; CANADA SOUTHERN R. CO. V. GEBHARD, 109 U.S. 527, 536. 

IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COURT TO TRANSFER THE CREDITOR'S LIEN
TO THE PROCEEDS OF A SALE OF THE PROPERTY, AND TO ALLOW THE BANKRUPT TO
REPURCHASE THE PROPERTY.  VAN HUFFEL V. HARKELRODE, 284 U.S. 225; TRAER
V. CLEWS, 115 U.S. 528; SPARHAWK V. YERKES, 142 U.S. 1. 

CONGRESS MAY, UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY POWER, STAY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
FOR THREE YEARS.  CF. SECS. 77, 77B; HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V.
BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398. 

THE EXPERIENCE WITH BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION SHOWS THAT, EVEN IN
NORMAL TIMES AND UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, DISTRIBUTION TAKES NOT MUCH
LESS THAN 3 YEARS.  IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY AND ECONOMIC DISTRESS IT
TAKES LONGER, BECAUSE THE PROBLEM OF LIQUIDATION IS MORE DIFFICULT AND
SLOW, DUE TO LACK OF BUYERS OF BANKRUPT ESTATES. 

IN THE FAMOUS RENT CASES, TENANTS WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN
POSSESSION OVER THE OBJECTION OF LANDLORDS, PROVIDED REASONABLE RENT
WAS PAID.  CF. LEVY LEASING CO. V. SIEGAL, 258 U.S. 242; MARCUS BROWN
HOLDING CO. V. FELDMAN, 256 U.S. 170; BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135. 

THE MORATORIUM IS A PROPER EXERCISE OF FEDERAL POLICE POWER WITHIN
THE RESPECTIVE FIELDS OF SOVEREIGNTY ENUMERATED IN ART. I, SEC. 8, OF
THE CONSTITUTION.  CONGRESS MAY EXERCISE FULL POLICE POWER TO THE SAME
EXTENT THAT A STATE LEGISLATURE MAY EXERCISE POLICE POWER WITHIN THE
FIELDS OF SOVEREIGNTY NOT GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  CF.
HAMILTON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES, 251 U.S. 146, 156; CHAMPION V. AMES,
188 U.S. 321, 357; MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, 59; HIPOLITE
EGG CO. V. UNITED STATES, 220 U.S. 45, 57, 58; HOKE V. UNITED STATES,
227 U.S. 308; CAMINETTI V. UNITED STATES, 242 U.S. 470, 492; SEVEN
CASES V. UNITED STATES, 239 U.S. 510, 514, 515; UNITED STATES V.
DOREMUS, 249 U.S. 86, 93, 94. 

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IMPOSES IN THIS RESPECT NO GREATER LIMITATION
UPON THE NATIONAL POWER THAN DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UPON STATE
POWER.  IN RE KEMMLER, 136 U.S. 436, 438; CARROLL V. GREENWICH
INSURANCE CO., 199 U.S. 401, 410; BROOKS V. UNITED STATES, 267 U.S.
432, 436; BLOCK V. HIRSH, 256 U.S. 135, 155. 

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER ART. I, SEC. 8, CL. 4, TO
"ESTABLISH UNIFORM LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES," IS AS
UNTRAMMELED AS ANY OF THE OTHER SIXTEEN COGNATE SOVEREIGNTIES GRANTED
IN THE SAME SECTION. 

THE MORATORIUM IN SUBSECTION (S) UNDER THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO
LEGISLATE UPON "THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES" IS A PROPER EXERCISE OF
THE FEDERAL POLICE POWER.  IT IS AS VALID AS THE POWER OF A STATE TO
ENACT A MORATORIUM DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE SAME EMERGENCY UNDER ITS
POLICE POWER. 

THE ACT DOES NOT DENY FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO STATE LAWS AND
JUDICIAL DECREES. 

THE ACT IS A UNIFORM LAW ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES.    EVEN IF
CLAUSE (6) OF THE ACT WERE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT CAN BE SEVERED
FROM THE REST OF THE ACT. 

IT SHOULD BE ESPECIALLY OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE VIRGINIA LAW NO
PROCEEDINGS IN COURT ARE NECESSARY TO ENFORCE A DEED OF TRUST.  UPON
NOTIFICATION BY THE HOLDER OF THE DEBT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DEFAULT,
THE TRUSTEE PROCEEDS TO SELL THE PROPERTY, AND PENDING SALE MAY RENT
THE PROPERTY FOR THE FUTURE PROTECTION OF THE CREDITOR.  THE SALE BY
THE TRUSTEE IS ABSOLUTE AND FINAL, AND THE SALE WILL NOT BE ENJOINED IN
VIRGINIA SO LONG AS THE TRUSTEE ACTS WITHIN THE POWERS GIVEN HIM BY THE
TRUST INSTRUMENT OR BY STATE LAW.  IT IS, THEREFORE, EVIDENT THAT THE
POSITIONS OF THE SECURED CREDITORS IN THIS CASE AND IN THE RADFORD CASE
ARE SIMILAR, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IN THIS CASE UNDER THE VIRGINIA
LAW THE RIGHTS OF THE CREDITORS ARE MORE ABSOLUTE IN FORM AND THE
EXERCISE OF THOSE RIGHTS IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT.  SEE IN RE SHERMAN, 12 F.SUPP.  297. 

UNDER THE OPERATION OF THIS ACT SOME TIME WILL BE OCCUPIED, PERHAPS
SEVERAL MONTHS, IN ATTEMPTING TO SECURE THE RELIEF PROVIDED FOR IN THE
EXTENSION OF THE DEBTOR'S OBLIGATION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CREDITORS;
THEN, WHEN A PETITION IS FILED PRAYING FOR THE RELIEF OUTLINED IN
SUBSECTION (S), A FURTHER PERIOD OF MONTHS WILL BE CONSUMED IN HAVING
THE PROPERTY APPRAISED AND PUTTING THE DEBTOR IN THE POSITION HE MUST
OCCUPY BEFORE THE STAY IS GRANTED.  THERE IS A FOUR MONTHS' PERIOD,
WHICH WOULD PROLONG THE DELAY, WHEREIN HE IS GIVEN TIME TO OBJECT TO
THE APPRAISEMENT.  THEN, SHOULD THE OFFICIAL AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE BE
STAYED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, NO RENT WILL BE PAID FOR ONE YEAR,
SINCE THE PAYMENT OF RENT IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE OPERATION
OF THE ACT.  IF WE COMPARE THE POSITION OF THE CREDITOR UNDER THE
VIRGINIA LAW PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THIS ACT WITH HIS POSITION
THEREAFTER, WE FIND THAT NOT ONLY IS THE APPLICATION OF THE SECURITY TO
THE PAYMENT OF THE DEBT DEFERRED FOR THREE OR MORE YEARS, BUT THE RENTS
AND PROFITS ARE DIVERTED FROM HIM FOR ONE YEAR OR MORE, AND EVEN THEN
THE RENTAL IS PAID ON TAXES AND UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY IN DEROGATION OF
HIS RIGHTS. 

PRACTICALLY, THEREFORE, THE CREDITOR SUFFERS A LOSS THAT MAY BE, AS
IN THIS CASE, VERY SUBSTANTIAL.  CF. W.B. WORTHEN CO. V. KAVANAUGH, 295
U.S. 250. 

IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS, GENERALLY, THE LAW GOVERNING THE VALIDITY
OF LIENS AND PROPERTY INTERESTS IS THE LAW OF THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED.  SEE COX V. WALLACE, 219 FED. 126. 

CONGRESS HAS NO POWER UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE TO MODIFY OR IMPAIR
THE INTERESTS OF MORTGAGEES.  CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS BANK V. CHICAGO,
R.I. & P. RY., 294 U.S. 648. 

THE CREDITOR, BY THE OPERATION OF THIS ACT, HAS SUFFERED A CHANGE OF
POSITION TO HIS DETRIMENT; AND THE ESTATE OF THE DEBTOR HAS BEEN
ENLARGED THEREBY.  WHILE THE PROPERTY IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE
DEBTOR UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT, THE NET AMOUNTS
RECEIVED BY THE CREDITOR THROUGH RENTAL WILL BE LESS THAN WHAT HE WOULD
RECEIVE WITH THE TRUSTEE IN POSSESSION; AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, SALE
IS DELAYED. 

SUBSECTION (S) IS SO ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE IN ITS OPERATION ON
THE VESTED RIGHTS OF CREDITORS AS TO VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

IN THIS CASE, THE DEBTOR ESTIMATES THE VALUE OF HIS ASSETS AT
$2,882.50.  THE SAME SCHEDULE SHOWS DEBTS OF $6,559.50, A LARGE PART OF
WHICH IS OWED TO THESE RESPONDENTS.  THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT THIS
DEBTOR FIRST PETITIONED FOR RELIEF UNDER THE ORIGINAL FRAZIER-LEMKE
ACT, SINCE INVALIDATED, BY FILING A PETITION MARCH 29, 1935.  HIS
PETITION ASKED THAT PROCEEDINGS FOR FORECLOSURE BY APPELLEES BE STAYED,
WHICH, AS SHOWN BY THE RECORD, WAS DONE.  THE ORDER OF REFERENCE WAS
ENTERED MARCH 30, 1935, BUT IT WAS NOT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27, 1935, THAT A
PROPOSAL WAS MADE TO THE CREDITORS.  THE ORIGINAL ACT HAVING BEEN
INVALIDATED AND A NEW LAW PASSED IN AUGUST, 1935, ON OCTOBER 8TH THIS
DEBTOR PETITIONED FOR FURTHER RELIEF, AND ON OCTOBER 12, 1935, THE
MATTER WAS AGAIN REFERRED TO THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER.  ON JANUARY
8, 1936, THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERED THE CASE TO BE DISMISSED ON THE
GROUNDS THAT SUBSECTION (S) WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THENCE IT HAS
COME HERE ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

SHOULD THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THIS LEGISLATION BE UPHELD, A FURTHER
ORDER WILL HAVE TO BE ENTERED STAYING FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS FOR A
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, AND THIS WILL BE DONE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT
THE BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE SHOWS NO POSSIBLE HOPE OF SOLVENCY AND CONTAINS
NO POSSIBLE BASIS FOR A FINANCIAL REHABILITATION, WHICH IS CLAIMED AS
THE GREAT OBJECTIVE OF THIS ACT.  FURTHERMORE, THERE WILL BE MORE THAN
ANOTHER YEAR BEFORE ANY RENTAL WILL BE PAID, AT WHICH TIME ADDITIONAL
TAXES WILL BE DUE, AND A STRONG PROBABILITY OF DIVERTING THE INCOME FOR
MAKING REPAIRS AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE ACT.  THE OPERATION OF THIS
LEGISLATION WILL POSTPONE ANY PAYMENT TO THE SECURED CREDITOR ALMOST
INDEFINITELY, WHEREAS UNDER THE LAW OF VIRGINIA THE TRUSTEE HAS AN
IMMEDIATE RIGHT OF POSSESSION, AND THE BENEFICIARY HAS AN ABSOLUTE AND
IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO DEMAND SALE OF THE PROPERTY FOR PAYMENT OF THE
DEBT. 

IF THE RULE LAID DOWN IN HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290
U.S. 398, AND IN THE RADFORD CASE, 295 U.S. 555, IS CORRECTLY
UNDERSTOOD, IT CLEARLY ASSERTS THAT, WHILE THE MORTGAGEE IS DEBARRED
FROM ACTUAL POSSESSION, HE SHOULD HAVE IN RENTS THE EQUIVALENT IN VALUE
OF POSSESSION DURING THE EXTENDED PERIOD; ALSO HIS INTEREST SHOULD BE
CAREFULLY SAFEGUARDED. 

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY SELL ENCUMBERED PROPERTY FREE OF LIENS, BUT
AS WAS OBSERVED IN THE RADFORD CASE, SUPRA, SUCH SALES ARE HELD WHEN IT
IS TO THE INTEREST OF OTHER CREDITORS, AND IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE
THAT SALE OF ENCUMBERED PROPERTY WILL NOT BE ORDERED BY THE COURT IF
THE AMOUNT OF THE LIENS EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 

THE CONTENTION BASED UPON SECS. 77 AND 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND
CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY., 294 U.S. 648, WAS
DISPOSED OF BY THIS COURT IN THE RADFORD CASE.  LARGE NUMBERS OF
CREDITORS MUST BE DEALT WITH AS A CLASS.  THESE SECTIONS OPERATE FOR
THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CREDITORS, AND UPON CONSENT OF A TWO-THIRDS
MAJORITY IN NUMBER AND AMOUNT.  THE RIGHTS OF SECURED CREDITORS, MAY
THUS BE MODIFIED OR SOMEWHAT RESTRICTED.  BUT SUBSECTION (S) OF SEC. 75
WORKS AGAINST THE CONSENT OF THE SECURED CREDITOR AND THE RESTRICTION
OF HIS RIGHTS IS AGAINST HIS WILL. 

IN A RAILROAD REORGANIZATION THE COURT IS CONCERNED WITH A PUBLIC
UTILITY, THE BONDS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE PUBLIC WITH FULL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS AND THE NEED FOR UNINTERRUPTED
OPERATION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

THE BANKRUPTCY POWER OF CONGRESS IS LIMITED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 
RADFORD CASE, SUPRA. CONGRESS HAS NO POLICE POWER EXCEPT AS INCIDENTAL
TO THE EXERCISE OF SOME POWER DELEGATED IN THE CONSTITUTION.  HAMILTON
V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES, 251 U.S. 246. 

THE FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT IS NOT AN EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER NOR
INCIDENTAL TO THE BANKRUPTCY POWERS OF CONGRESS.  HOME BLDG. & LOAN
ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, DISTINGUISHED. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER SEC. 75, SUBSECTION (S), OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE NEW FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT, AUGUST 28,
1935, C. 792, 49 STAT. 943-945, IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  IN THIS CASE, THE
FEDERAL COURT FOR WESTERN VIRGINIA (SEE IN RE SHERMAN, 12 F.SUPP.  297)
AND THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT (85 F.(2D) 973)
HELD IT INVALID.  LIKE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED IN OTHER CIRCUITS. 
LAFAYETTE LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. LOWMON, 79 F.(2D) 887(SEVENTH CIRCUIT);
UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA V. PAMP, 83 F.(2D) 493(EIGHTH
CIRCUIT).  IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT THE LEGISLATION WAS SUSTAINED.  DALLAS
JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. DAVIS, 83 F.(2D) 322.  BECAUSE OF THIS
CONFLICT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 
FN1 

WRIGHT, A VIRGINIA FARMER, GAVE IN 1929 A MORTGAGE DEED OF TRUST OF
HIS FARM TO SECURE A DEBT NOW HELD BY THE VINTON BRANCH OF THE MOUNTAIN
TRUST BANK.  IN MARCH, 1935, HE FILED A PETITION UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED JUNE 28, 1934, C. 869, 48 STAT. 1289.  WHEN
THE PROCEEDINGS WERE BEGUN, THE DEBT SECURED BY THE DEED OF TRUST HAD
MATURED AND WAS IN DEFAULT, AND THE TRUSTEE, AT THE REQUEST OF THE
BENEFICIARY, HAD ADVERTISED THE PROPERTY FOR SALE PURSUANT TO THE TERMS
OF THE DEED OF TRUST AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE VIRGINIA CODE.  THE
DEBTOR'S PETITION PRAYED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, "THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST HIM BY WAY OF PENDING AND ADVERTISED FORECLOSURES OF HIS
FARMING LANDS, OR BY OTHER METHODS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS" OF THE
ACT BE STAYED.  THE PETITION, "APPEARING TO BE IN PROPER FORM AND TO
HAVE BEEN FILED IN GOOD FAITH," WAS REFERRED TO THE CONCILIATION
COMMISSIONER AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 75.  ON JULY 27, 1935, THE DEBTOR MADE
A PROPOSAL FOR COMPOSITION; BUT IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE MORTGAGE
CREDITOR.  ON OCTOBER 8, 1935, WRIGHT FILED AN AMENDED PETITION UNDER
SUBSECTION (S) OF SEC. 75 AS AMENDED BY THE NEW FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT; AND
ASKED TO BE ADJUDGED A BANKRUPT AND TO HAVE ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE
PROVISIONS OF SAID SUBSECTION (S) AS SO AMENDED AND APPROVED AUGUST 28,
1935. 

AN ORDER WAS ENTERED ADJUDGING WRIGHT A BANKRUPT AND AGAIN REFERRING
THE MATTER TO THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER.  THEREAFTER, THE VINTON
BRANCH OF THE MOUNTAIN TRUST BANK MOVED IN THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER BE TERMINATED AND "THAT THIS CASE
BE DISMISSED UPON THE GROUND THAT SUBSECTION (S) OF SAID ACT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT IT DEPRIVES SAID CREDITOR OF ITS PROPERTY
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THAT THE DEBTOR IS NOT ENTITLED TO
PURSUE THE REMEDIES AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED THEREIN."  ON JANUARY 8,
1936, THAT MOTION WAS GRANTED; ALL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BANKRUPT'S
PETITION WERE TERMINATED; AND HIS PETITION WAS DISMISSED.  IT IS THAT
ORDER, AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH IS HERE FOR REVIEW. 
BOTH OF THE LOWER COURTS HELD THAT, SINCE THE APPLICABLE RIGHTS OF A
MORTGAGEE IN KENTUCKY AND OF THE BENEFICIARY UNDER A MORTGAGE DEED OF
TRUST IN VIRGINIA ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, OUR DECISION IN
LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, REQUIRED
THAT SUBSECTION (S) BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

FIRST.  THE MORTGAGEE CLAIMS THAT THE LEGISLATION IS VOID ON ITS
FACE.  IT CHALLENGES THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO CONFER UPON COURTS
AUTHORITY TO GRANT TO A MORTGAGOR, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ANY OF THE
RELIEF PROVIDED FOR IN SUBSECTION (S) OF THE NEW FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT. 
THERE HAS BEEN NO ORDER GRANTING A STAY UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF SUBSECTION
(S).  BUT THE MOTION IS NOT PREMATURE; FOR THE FACT THAT NO STAY ORDER
HAS BEEN ENTERED DOES NOT IMPLY THAT AN ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL
CONTROVERSY IS NOT PRESENTED.  THE PETITIONER ASSERTS A RIGHT TO PURSUE
PROCEEDINGS PROVIDED BY A FEDERAL STATUTE, AND THAT RIGHT HAS BEEN
DENIED HIM ON GROUNDS OF THE ALLEGED INVALIDITY OF THE STATUTE.  BEFORE
THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS MADE, THE DISTRICT COURT HAD ENTERED ITS
ORDER ADJUDGING PETITIONER A BANKRUPT, AND REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE
CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75(S). 
THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER OF REFERENCE INITIATED PROCEEDINGS DESIGNED TO
MOVE, THROUGH THE APPOINTMENT OF APPRAISERS, THE APPRAISAL, AND THE
REFEREE'S ORDER RECOGNIZING THE DEBTOR'S RIGHT TO POSSESSION, TO THE
GRANT OF THE STAY BY THE COURT.  UNDER THE ACT NO FURTHER AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION BY PETITIONER PRECEDENT TO HIS OBTAINING THE STAY WAS
NECESSARY.  THE MORTGAGEE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO DELAY HIS CHALLENGE TO THE
VALIDITY OF THE STAY AND ITS ESSENTIAL INCIDENTS UNTIL THESE OFFICIALS
HAD COMPLIED WITH THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.  BUT WHILE WE
MUST DECIDE WHETHER THE CHALLENGED SUBSECTION IS CONSTITUTIONAL, WE
REFRAIN FROM DECIDING QUESTIONS SUGGESTED WHICH MAY ARISE LATER IN THE
COURSE OF ITS ADMINISTRATION. 

SECOND.  THE DECISION IN THE RADFORD CASE DID NOT QUESTION THE POWER
OF CONGRESS TO OFFER TO DISTRESSED FARMERS THE AID OF A MEANS OF
REHABILITATION UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CLAUSE.  THE ORIGINAL FRAZIER-LEMKE
ACT WAS THERE HELD INVALID SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE BANKRUPTCY
POWER OF CONGRESS, LIKE ITS OTHER GREAT POWERS, IS SUBJECT TO THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT; AND THAT, AS APPLIED TO MORTGAGES GIVEN BEFORE ITS
ENACTMENT, THE STATUTE VIOLATED THAT AMENDMENT, SINCE IT EFFECTED A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT OF THE MORTGAGEE'S SECURITY.  THE OPINION
ENUMERATES FIVE IMPORTANT SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS IN SPECIFIC PROPERTY WHICH
HAD BEEN TAKEN.  IT WAS NOT HELD THAT THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY ONE OF
THESE RIGHTS WOULD HAVE RENDERED THE ACT INVALID, BUT THAT THE EFFECT
OF THE STATUTE IN ITS ENTIRETY WAS TO DEPRIVE THE MORTGAGEE OF HIS
PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  THE RIGHTS ENUMERATED WERE (PP.
594-595): 

"1.  THE RIGHT TO RETAIN THE LIEN UNTIL THE INDEBTEDNESS THEREBY
SECURED IS PAID. 

"2.  THE RIGHT TO REALIZE UPON THE SECURITY BY A JUDICIAL PUBLIC
SALE. 

"3.  THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHEN SUCH SALE SHALL BE HELD, SUBJECT
ONLY TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT. 

"4.  THE RIGHT TO PROTECT ITS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BY BIDDING AT
SUCH SALE WHENEVER HELD, AND THUS TO ASSURE HAVING THE MORTGAGED
PROPERTY DEVOTED PRIMARILY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DEBT, EITHER
THROUGH RECEIPT OF THE PROCEEDS OF A FAIR COMPETITIVE SALE OR BY TAKING
THE PROPERTY ITSELF. 

"5.  THE RIGHT TO CONTROL MEANWHILE THE PROPERTY DURING THE PERIOD OF
DEFAULT, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, AND TO HAVE THE
RENTS AND PROFITS COLLECTED BY A RECEIVER FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THE
DEBT."    IN DRAFTING THE NEW FRAZIER-LEMKE ACT, ITS FRAMERS SOUGHT TO
PRESERVE TO THE MORTGAGEE ALL OF THESE RIGHTS SO FAR AS ESSENTIAL TO
THE ENJOYMENT OF HIS SECURITY.  THE MEASURE RECEIVED CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE. 
AMENDMENTS WERE MADE THERE WITH A VIEW TO ENSURING THE
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED.  THE CONGRESS
CONCLUDED, AFTER FULL DISCUSSION, THAT THE BILL, AS ENACTED, WAS FREE
FROM THE OBJECTIONABLE FEATURES WHICH HAD BEEN HELD FATAL TO THE
ORIGINAL ACT. 

THIRD.  IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE NEW ACT ADEQUATELY PRESERVES THREE
OF THE FIVE ABOVE ENUMERATED RIGHTS OF A MORTGAGEE.  "THE RIGHT TO
RETAIN THE LIEN UNTIL THE INDEBTEDNESS THEREBY SECURED IS PAID" IS
SPECIFICALLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS IN PARAGRAPH 1, THAT THE
DEBTOR'S POSSESSION, "UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT,"
SHALL BE "SUBJECT TO ALL EXISTING MORTGAGES, LIENS, PLEDGES, OR
ENCUMBRANCES," AND THAT: 

"ALL SUCH EXISTING MORTGAGES, LIENS, PLEDGES, OR ENCUMBRANCES SHALL
REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, AND THE PROPERTY COVERED BY SUCH
MORTGAGES, LIENS, PLEDGES, OR ENCUMBRANCES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE
PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMS OF THE SECURED CREDITORS, AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY
APPEAR."  FN2 

"THE RIGHT TO REALIZE UPON THE SECURITY BY A JUDICIAL PUBLIC SALE" IS
COVERED BY THE PROVISION IN PARAGRAPH 3 THAT AT THE TERMINATION OF THE
STAY: 

"...  UPON REQUEST IN WRITING BY ANY SECURED CREDITOR OR CREDITORS,
THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH SUCH SECURED CREDITORS
HAVE A LIEN TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION."  FN3 

THE NEW ACT DOES NOT IN TERMS PROVIDE FOR "THE RIGHT TO PROTECT ITS
(THE MORTGAGEE'S) INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BY BIDDING AT SUCH SALE
WHENEVER HELD  ..."  BUT THE COMMITTEE REPORTS AND THE EXPLANATIONS
GIVEN IN CONGRESS MAKE IT PLAIN THAT THE MORTGAGEE WAS INTENDED TO HAVE
THIS RIGHT.  FN4  WE ACCEPT THIS VIEW OF THE STATUTE. 

FOURTH.  THE CLAIM THAT SUB-SECTION (S) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTS
MAINLY UPON THE CONTENTION THAT THE ACT DENIES TO A MORTGAGEE THE
"RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHEN SUCH SALE SHALL BE HELD, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT."  THE ASSERTION IS THAT THE NEW ACT IN EFFECT
GIVES TO THE MORTGAGOR THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO A THREE-YEAR STAY; AND
THAT A THREE-YEAR MORATORIUM CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED.  THE THREE-YEAR STAY
IS SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS: 

"WHEN THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION (SEC. 75) HAVE BEEN
COMPLIED WITH, THE COURT SHALL STAY ALL JUDICIAL OR OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT, OR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ANY OFFICIAL,
AGAINST THE DEBTOR OR ANY OF HIS PROPERTY, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE
YEARS."  (PAR. 2.) 

"AT THE END OF THREE YEARS, OR PRIOR THERETO, THE DEBTOR MAY PAY INTO
COURT THE AMOUNT OF THE APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH HE RETAINS
POSSESSION, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF ENCUMBRANCES ON HIS EXEMPTIONS, UP
TO THE AMOUNT OF THE APPRAISAL, LESS THE AMOUNT PAID ON PRINCIPAL." 
(PAR. 3.)  FN5 

WHETHER, IN VIEW OF THE EMERGENCY, AN ABSOLUTE STAY OF THREE YEARS
WOULD HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY POWER, WE HAVE NO
OCCASION TO DECIDE.  THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE STATUTE
AFFECTING THE MORTGAGOR'S RIGHT TO POSSESSION.  THEIR PHRASEOLOGY IS
LACKING IN CLARITY.  BUT WE ARE OF OPINION THAT, WHILE THE ACT AFFORDS
THE DEBTOR, ORDINARILY, A THREE-YEAR PERIOD OF REHABILITATION, THE STAY
PROVIDED FOR IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE ONE; AND THAT THE COURT MAY TERMINATE
THE STAY AND ORDER A SALE EARLIER.  IF WE WERE IN DOUBT AS TO THE
INTENTION OF CONGRESS, WE SHOULD STILL BE LED TO THAT CONSTRUCTION BY A
WELL SETTLED RULE:  "WHEN THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF THE CONGRESS IS
DRAWN IN QUESTION, AND EVEN IF A SERIOUS DOUBT OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS
RAISED, IT IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE THAT THIS COURT WILL FIRST ASCERTAIN
WHETHER A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IS FAIRLY POSSIBLE BY WHICH THE
QUESTION MAY BE AVOIDED."  CROWELL V. BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 62. 

THE MORTGAGOR'S RIGHT TO RETAIN POSSESSION DURING THE STAY IS
SPECIFICALLY LIMITED BY PARAGRAPH 3, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"IF, HOWEVER, THE DEBTOR AT ANY TIME FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, OR WITH ANY ORDERS OF THE COURT MADE
PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, OR IS UNABLE TO REFINANCE HIMSELF WITHIN
THREE YEARS, THE COURT MAY ORDER THE APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE, AND
ORDER THE PROPERTY SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED FOR IN
THIS ACT." 

THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEBTOR'S TENURE UNDER THE STAY IS SUBJECT TO
THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE PAY "A REASONABLE RENTAL SEMIANNUALLY FOR THAT
PART OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH HE RETAINS POSSESSION."  UNDER THE LAST
QUOTED PROVISION OF PARAGRAPH 3, IF THE DEBTOR DEFAULTS IN THIS
OBLIGATION "AT ANY TIME," THE COURT MAY THEREUPON ORDER THE PROPERTY
SOLD.  LIKEWISE, THE PROPERTY WHILE IN THE DEBTOR'S POSSESSION IS KEPT,
ACCORDING TO PARAGRAPH 2, AT ALL TIMES "IN THE CUSTODY AND UNDER THE
SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT"; AND, ALSO UNDER PARAGRAPH 2: 

"THE COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION, IF IT DEEMS IT NECESSARY TO PROTECT
THE CREDITORS FROM LOSS BY THE ESTATE, AND/OR TO CONSERVE THE SECURITY,
...  MAY, IN ADDITION TO THE RENTAL, REQUIRE PAYMENTS ON THE PRINCIPAL
DUE AND OWING BY THE DEBTOR TO THE SECURED OR UNSECURED CREDITORS, AS
THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT, AND MAY REQUIRE SUCH PAYMENTS TO BE MADE QUARTERLY, SEMIANNUALLY,
OR ANNUALLY, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
CREDITORS AND THE DEBTOR'S ABILITY TO PAY, WITH A VIEW TO HIS FINANCIAL
REHABILITATION." 

PARAGRAPH 3 AUTHORIZES THE COURT TO HAVE THE PROPERTY SOLD IF "AT ANY
TIME" THE DEBTOR SHOULD FAIL TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS OF THE COURT ISSUED
UNDER ITS POWER TO REQUIRE INTERIM PAYMENTS ON PRINCIPAL, OR OTHERWISE
IN THE COURSE OF ITS "SUPERVISION AND CONTROL" OF HIS POSSESSION. 
PARAGRAPH 3 ALSO PROVIDES THAT "IF  ...  THE DEBTOR AT ANY TIME  ...
IS UNABLE TO REFINANCE HIMSELF WITHIN THREE YEARS," THE COURT MAY CLOSE
THE PROCEEDINGS BY SELLING THE PROPERTY.  THIS CLAUSE MUST BE
INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE COURT MAY TERMINATE THE STAY IF AFTER A
REASONABLE TIME IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE HOPE
THAT THE DEBTOR CAN REHABILITATE HIMSELF WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD. 
FN6  FINALLY, THE INTENTION OF CONGRESS TO MAKE THE STAY TERMINABLE BY
THE COURT WITHIN THE THREE YEARS IS SHOWN ALSO BY PARAGRAPH 6, WHICH
DECLARES THE ACT AN EMERGENCY MEASURE, AND PROVIDES THAT:  "IF IN THE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT SUCH EMERGENCY CEASES TO EXIST IN ITS LOCALITY,
THEN THE COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION, MAY SHORTEN THE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
HEREIN PROVIDED FOR AND PROCEED TO LIQUIDATE THE ESTATE."  FN7 

SINCE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT IN THE
PARTICULARS MENTIONED, WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN SEEKING ENLIGHTENMENT FROM
REPORTS OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE BY THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE MEASURE.  FN8  WHEN
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BILL IS THUS SURVEYED, IT BECOMES CLEAR
THAT TO CONSTRUE THE ACT OTHERWISE THAN AS GIVING THE COURTS BROAD
POWER TO CURTAIL THE STAY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MORTGAGEE WOULD BE
INCONSISTENT NOT ONLY WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, BUT WITH THE
COMMITTEE REPORTS AND WITH THE EXPOSITION OF THE BILL MADE IN BOTH
HOUSES BY ITS AUTHORS AND THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE BILL AND ACCEPTED BY
THE CONGRESS WITHOUT DISSENT.  FN9  WE CONSTRUE IT AS GIVING THE COURTS
SUCH POWER. 

FIFTH.  IT IS URGED THAT SUBSECTION (S) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE
THERE IS TAKEN FROM THE MORTGAGEE "THE RIGHT TO CONTROL MEANWHILE THE
PROPERTY DURING THE PERIOD OF DEFAULT, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE DISCRETION
OF THE COURT, AND TO HAVE THE RENTS AND PROFITS COLLECTED BY A RECEIVER
FOR THE SATISFACTION OF THE DEBT." 

(A)  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT POSSESSION BY THE MORTGAGOR DURING THE STAY
IS NECESSARILY LESS FAVORABLE TO THE MORTGAGEE THAN POSSESSION BY A
RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE WOULD BE.  THIS IS NOT TRUE.  THE MORTGAGOR IS IN
DEFAULT, BUT IT IS NOT THEREFORE TO BE ASSUMED THAT HE IS A WRONGDOER,
OR INCOMPETENT TO CONDUCT FARMING OPERATIONS.  THE LEGISLATION IS
DESIGNED TO AID VICTIMS OF THE GENERAL ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.  THE
MORTGAGOR IS FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY, AND PRESUMABLY VITALLY
INTERESTED IN PRESERVING OWNERSHIP THEREOF AND READY TO EXERT HIMSELF
TO THE UTTERMOST TO THAT END.  IT IS NOT UNREASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT,
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INTERESTS OF ALL CONCERNED WILL BE
BETTER SERVED BY LEAVING HIM IN POSSESSION THAN BY INSTALLING A
DISINTERESTED RECEIVER OR TRUSTEE.  FOR THE MORTGAGOR HOLDS POSSESSION
CHARGED WITH OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MORTGAGEE AS
FULLY AS IF THE PROPERTY WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF A RECEIVER OR
TRUSTEE, AND THERE IS PROBABLY A SAVING OF EXPENSE.  IN ORDER TO
PROTECT THE CREDITOR'S INTERESTS, THE POSSESSION IS AT ALL TIMES
SUBJECT TO THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT; AND, IF THE
DEBTOR, "AT ANY TIME," FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS OF THE COURT ISSUED
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS SUPERVISORY POWER TO PROTECT THE MORTGAGEE
AGAINST WASTE OR OTHER ABUSE OF HIS POSSESSION BY THE MORTGAGOR, THE
COURT MAY ORDER THE PROPERTY SOLD.  THE FARMER'S PROCEEDING IN
BANKRUPTCY FOR REHABILITATION, RESEMBLES THAT OF A CORPORATION FOR
REORGANIZATION.  AS TO THE LATTER IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED THAT THE
DEBTOR MAY, TO SOME EXTENT, BE LEFT IN POSSESSION, U.S. CODE, TITLE 11,
SEC. 207(C); AND IT IS COMMON PRACTICE TO APPOINT AS RECEIVERS ONE OF
THE OFFICIALS OF THE CORPORATION. 

(B)  IT IS COMPLAINED THAT THE MORTGAGOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY THE
FIRST INSTALMENT OF RENT UNTIL THE END OF ONE YEAR.  THE PHRASEOLOGY OF
THE APPLICABLE PROVISION IS NOT CLEAR.  PARAGRAPH 2 PROVIDES: 

"DURING SUCH THREE YEARS THE DEBTOR SHALL BE PERMITTED TO RETAIN
POSSESSION OF ALL OR ANY PART OF HIS PROPERTY, IN THE CUSTODY AND UNDER
THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT, PROVIDED HE PAYS A REASONABLE
RENTAL SEMIANNUALLY FOR THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH HE RETAINS
POSSESSION.  THE FIRST PAYMENT OF SUCH RENTAL SHALL BE MADE WITHIN ONE
YEAR OF THE DATE OF THE ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS, THE AMOUNT AND KIND
OF SUCH RENTAL TO BE THE USUAL CUSTOMARY RENTAL IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, BASED UPON THE RENTAL VALUE, NET INCOME, AND
EARNING CAPACITY OF THE PROPERTY." 

THE CLAUSE PROVIDING THAT "THE FIRST PAYMENT OF SUCH RENTAL SHALL BE
MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR" IS OBVIOUSLY CAPABLE OF EITHER OF TWO
CONSTRUCTIONS.  ONE, THAT THE MORTGAGOR MAY NOT BE REQUIRED BY THE
COURT TO PAY BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR.  THE OTHER, THAT THE COURT
MAY NOT POSTPONE THE PAYMENT BEYOND ONE YEAR.  IN VIEW OF THE
REQUIREMENT OF SEMI-ANNUAL RENTAL, THE LATTER SEEMS TO US MORE
REASONABLE.  WE INTIMATE NO OPINION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THIS
PROVISION UNDER THE FIRST CONSTRUCTION.  AS HERE CONSTRUED, THE CLAUSE
CANNOT BE DEEMED ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE. 

(C)  THE DISPOSITION OF THE RENTAL REQUIRED TO BE MADE IS SAID TO
INVOLVE DENIAL OF THE MORTGAGEE'S RIGHTS.  PARAGRAPH 2 PROVIDES: 

"SUCH RENTAL SHALL BE PAID INTO COURT, TO BE USED, FIRST, FOR PAYMENT
OF TAXES AND UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE REMAINDER TO BE
DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE SECURED AND UNSECURED CREDITORS, AND APPLIED ON
THEIR CLAIMS, AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR." 

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT PAYMENT OF TAXES AND KEEPING THE PROPERTY IN
REPAIR TAKES THE INCOME FROM THE MORTGAGEE, AND THAT THE MORTGAGOR
ALONE MAY BE BENEFITED THEREBY; THAT IF THE MORTGAGOR EXERCISES THE
OPTION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT ITS APPRAISED VALUE, HE WILL SECURE
THE PROPERTY FREE OF TAX LIENS WHICH OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE ACCRUED
AGAINST IT.  BUT IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE MORTGAGOR WILL NOT GET THE
PROPERTY FOR LESS THAN ITS ACTUAL VALUE.  THE ACT PROVIDES THAT UPON
THE CREDITOR'S REQUEST THE PROPERTY MUST BE REAPPRAISED, OR SOLD AT
PUBLIC AUCTION; AND THE MORTGAGEE MAY BY BIDDING AT SUCH SALE FULLY
PROTECT HIS INTEREST.  NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES MAY IMPERIL THE TITLE. 
PAYMENTS FOR UPKEEP ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY. 
THESE PAYMENTS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMON
PRACTICE IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS IN THE HANDS
OF RECEIVERS.  FN10 

SIXTH.  IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT THE LEGISLATION IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE DELAY IN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE MORTGAGE UNDER SEC. 75 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED BY SUB
CONSUMED IN THE EFFORT TO OBTAIN A COMPOSITION OR EXTENSION OF THE
DEBTOR'S OBLIGATIONS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CREDITORS; THAT WHEN A
PETITION IS FILED PRAYING FOR THE RELIEF OUTLINED IN SUBSECTION (S) A
FURTHER PERIOD OF MONTHS MAY BE CONSUMED IN HAVING THE PROPERTY
APPRAISED AND PUTTING THE DEBTOR IN THE POSITION WHICH HE MUST OCCUPY
BEFORE THE STAY IS GRANTED; THAT "FOUR MONTHS FROM THE DATE THAT THE
REFEREE APPROVES THE APPRAISAL" IS GIVEN WITHIN WHICH "EITHER PARTY MAY
FILE OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND TAKE APPEALS" FROM THE APPRAISAL; AND
THAT UPON A SALE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER PARAGRAPH 3: 

"THE DEBTOR SHALL HAVE NINETY DAYS TO REDEEM ANY PROPERTY SOLD AT
SUCH SALE, BY PAYING THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH ANY SUCH PROPERTY WAS SOLD,
TOGETHER WITH 5 PER CENTUM PER ANNUM INTEREST, INTO COURT  ..."  IT IS
POINTED OUT, ALSO, THAT THE MORTGAGE HERE IN QUESTION IS IN THE FORM OF
A DEED OF TRUST.  FN11  IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE RIGHTS TO ENFORCE
PAYMENT BY SALE OF THE MORTGAGE PROPERTY, CONFERRED BY THE LAW OF
VIRGINIA UPON THE CREDITOR UNDER SUCH A DEED, ARE MORE PEREMPTORY THAN
THOSE UNDER THE LAW OF KENTUCKY DISCUSSED IN THE RADFORD CASE.  FN12
AND IT IS URGED THAT THE LIMITATIONS HERE PLACED UPON THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE MORTGAGE ARE NOT MERELY A MODIFICATION OF THE REMEDY RECOGNIZED
AS PERMISSIBLE.  COMPARE HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290
U.S. 398, 434.    BUT THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED IS NOT ONE OF STATE
ACTION UNDER THE POLICE POWER ALLEGED TO VIOLATE THE CONTRACT CLAUSE. 
THE POWER HERE EXERTED BY CONGRESS IS THE BROAD POWER "TO ESTABLISH ...
UNIFORM LAWS ON THE SUBJECT OF BANKRUPTCIES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES."  THE QUESTION WHICH THE OBJECTIONS RAISE IS NOT WHETHER THE
ACT DOES MORE THAN MODIFY REMEDIAL RIGHTS.  IT IS WHETHER THE
LEGISLATION MODIFIES THE SECURED CREDITOR'S RIGHTS, REMEDIAL OR
SUBSTANTIVE, TO SUCH AN EXTENT AS TO DENY THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW
GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY MAY AFFECT
THE INTERESTS OF LIEN HOLDERS IN MANY WAYS.  TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES
OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, IT MAY DIRECT THAT ALL LIENS UPON PROPERTY
FORMING PART OF A BANKRUPT'S ESTATE BE MARSHALLED; OR THAT THE PROPERTY
BE SOLD FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES AND THE RIGHTS OF ALL LIEN HOLDERS BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE.  VAN HUFFEL V. HARKELRODE, 284
U.S. 225, 227.  DESPITE THE PEREMPTORY TERMS OF A PLEDGE, IT MAY ENJOIN
SALE OF THE COLLATERAL, IF IT FINDS THAT THE SALE WOULD HINDER OR DELAY
PREPARATION OR CONSUMMATION OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  CONTINENTAL
ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO., 294
U.S. 648, 680-681.  IT MAY ENJOIN LIKE ACTION BY A MORTGAGEE WHICH
WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF SUBSECTION (S) TO EFFECT REHABILITATION OF
THE FARMER MORTGAGOR.  FOR THE REASONS STATED, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT
THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (S) MAKE NO UNREASONABLE MODIFICATION OF
THE MORTGAGEE'S RIGHTS; AND HENCE ARE VALID.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE ALSO STEVERSON V. CLARK, 86 F.(2D) 330, AND KNOTTS V. FIRST
CAROLINAS JOINT STOCK LAND BANK, ID., 551(FOURTH CIRCUIT), APPLYING THE
DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE; MCWILLIAMS V. BLACKARD, ID., 328, AND
PHOENIX JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. LEDWIDGE, ID., 355(EIGHTH CIRCUIT),
APPLYING THE DECISION IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA V. PAMP,
SUPRA; AND SCHAUER V. PRODUCERS WOOL & MOHAIR CO., ID., 576(FIFTH
CIRCUIT), APPLYING THE DECISION IN DALLAS JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V.
DAVIS, SUPRA.  THE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS ARE ALSO CONFLICTING. 
THE LEGISLATION WAS SUSTAINED IN IN RE SLAUGHTER, 12 F.SUPP.  206(N.D.
TEX.); IN RE REICHERT, 13 ID., 1(W.D. KY.); IN RE COLE, ID., 283(S.D.
OHIO); IN RE BENNETT, ID., 353(W.D. MO.); AND IN RE CHILTON, 16 ID.
14(D. COLO.).  COMPARE IN RE PAUL, 13 ID. 645(S.D. IOWA); IN RE
SLAUGHTER, ID., 893(N.D. TEX.).  IT WAS HELD INVALID IN IN RE YOUNG, 12
F.SUPP.  30(S.D. ILL.); IN RE LINDSAY, ID., 625(N.D. IOWA); IN RE
WEISE, ID., 871(W.D.N.Y.); IN RE DAVIS, 13 ID. 221(E.D.N.Y.); IN RE
DILLER, ID., 249(S.D. CAL.); IN RE TSCHOEPE, ID., 371(S.D. TEX.); IN RE
SCHOENLEBER, ID., 375(D. NEB.); IN RE WOGSTAD, 14 ID. 72(D. WYO.); AND
IN RE MAYNARD, 15 ID. 809(D. IDAHO).  COMPARE IN RE SHONKWILER, 17
F.SUPP.  697, 699(E.D. ILL.). 

FN2  AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL SUBSEQUENT TO ITS INTRODUCTION PLAINLY
DEMONSTRATE CAREFUL INTENTION TO LEAVE THE LIEN WHOLLY UNIMPAIRED.  AS
INTRODUCED, THE MEASURE PROVIDED FOR RETENTION OF THE LIEN 'UP TO THE
ACTUAL VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY, AS FIXED BY THE APPRAISALS PROVIDED FOR
IN THIS SECTION,' S. 3002, SEC. 6, P. 6(COMPARE ACT OF JUNE 28, 1934,
C. 869, SUBSEC.  (S), (2), 48 STAT. 1290); AND THERE WAS NO PROVISION
FOR A PUBLIC SALE AT THE REQUEST OF THE SECURED CREDITOR.  AS REPORTED
OUT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, AND AS SUBSEQUENTLY
ENACTED, THE MEASURE PROVIDED FOR RETENTION OF THE LIEN UNQUALIFIED BY
REFERENCE TO THE APPRAISAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  SEE S. 3002, AS
REPORTED, SEC. 6, P. 6; SEN. REP. NO. 985, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
3.  AS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE, THE BILL PROVIDED FOR A PUBLIC SALE
IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, UPON REQUEST OF THE SECURED CREDITOR,
AND LIMITED THE LIENHOLDER'S BID AT SUCH SALE TO 'THE APPRAISED VALUE
OR THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL, WHICHEVER IS THE HIGHER.'  S. 3002, SUPRA,
SEC. 6, P. 9; SEN. REP. NO. 985, SUPRA, PP. 4, 6.  SINCE THE LATTER
QUALIFICATION WAS THOUGHT TO RAISE SOME CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBT, IT WAS
ELIMINATED DURING THE SENATE'S CONSIDERATION OF THE MEASURE.  SEE
STATEMENTS OF SENATORS ASHURST AND BORAH, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, AND OF SENATOR FRAZIER, 79 CONG. REC. 13413, 13633, 13634,
13641.  THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY REPORTED THE BILL WITH
THIS CHANGE.  H.R. REP. NO. 1808, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1, 4, 6. 

FN3  AS INTRODUCED, S. 3002 CONTAINED THE PROVISION OF THE ACT BY
WHICH THE MORTGAGOR MIGHT PURCHASE AT THE APPRAISED VALUE, SUBJECT TO
THE MORTGAGEE'S RIGHT TO REQUIRE A RE-APPRAISAL; BUT IT DID NOT PROVIDE
THAT THE MORTGAGEE MIGHT, IN LIEU OF A RE-APPRAISAL, HAVE A PUBLIC
SALE.  THE BILL AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
INSERTED AFTER THE PROVISION FOR APPRAISAL A CLAUSE PROVIDING, "THAT
UPON REQUEST IN WRITING BY ANY SECURED CREDITOR OR CREDITORS, THE
COURT, IN ITS DISCRETION, IF IT DEEMS IT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
SECURED CREDITORS AND DEBTOR, MAY ORDER THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH SUCH
SECURED CREDITORS HAVE A LIEN, TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION;..."  S.
3002, AS REPORTED, SEC. 6, P. 9; SEE SEN. REP. NO. 985, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., P. 4.  "TO REMOVE A QUESTION AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
BILL," THIS PROVISION WAS ALTERED IN THE COURSE OF THE BILL'S PASSAGE
THROUGH THE HOUSE TO DEPRIVE THE COURT OF DISCRETION IN THE MATTER AND
TO GIVE THE SECURED CREDITOR AN UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO A PUBLIC SALE AS
THE ALTERNATIVE TO A TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE DEBTOR AT THE RE
APPRAISED VALUE.  SEE REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE SUMNERS, OF THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 79 CONG. REC. 14332-33. 

FN4  AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, S. 3002,
SEC. 6, P. 9, RECOGNIZED A RIGHT IN THE MORTGAGEE TO BID AT THE SALE
NOT IN EXCESS "OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OR THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL,
WHICHEVER IS THE HIGHER."  SEE SEN. REP. NO. 985, 74TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 4, 6.  IN STRIKING OUT THIS QUALIFICATION FOR THE EXPRESS
PURPOSE OF AVOIDING A CONSTITUTIONAL DOUBT, SENATORS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE MEASURE PLAINLY SHOWED THAT THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF RAISING A
FURTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY BY QUESTIONING THE MORTGAGEE'S
UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO BID.  SEE STATEMENTS OF SENATORS ASHURST, BORAH,
AND FRAZIER, 79 CONG. REC. 13413, 13633, 13634, 13641-42.  H.R. REP.
NO. 1808, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1, 5-6, UNEQUIVOCALLY DECLARED
THAT UNDER THE ACT THE SECURED CREDITORS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BID AT THE
SALE; AND THIS WAS MADE CLEAR ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE BY
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNERS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.  SEE 79
CONG. REC. 14333. 

THE BENEFICIARY UNDER A MORTGAGE DEED OF TRUST IN VIRGINIA IS
PERMITTED TO BID IN THE PROPERTY AT THE SALE.  SEE, E.G., ASHWORTH V.
TRAMWELL, 102 VA. 852, 858, 47 S.E. 1011; TITLE INSURANCE CO. V.
INDUSTRIAL BANK, 156 VA. 322, 327, 157 S.E. 710; EVERETTE V. WOODWARD,
162 VA. 419, 174 S.E. 864.  COMPARE EASTON V. GERMAN-AMERICAN BANK, 127
U.S. 532, 538. 

FN5  THIS CLAUSE IS QUALIFIED BY ALTERNATIVE PROVISOS, ONE FOR
PAYMENT AT A REAPPRAISED VALUE, THE OTHER FOR A PUBLIC SALE TO BE HELD
UPON THE MORTGAGEE'S REQUEST AT THE TIME WHEN THE STAY EXPIRES, WHETHER
BY LAPSE OF TIME OR BY THE MORTGAGOR'S PAYMENT INTO COURT OF THE
APPRAISED OR REAPPRAISED VALUE.  SEE NOTE 3, SUPRA. 

FN6  THIS CONSTRUCTION IS IN HARMONY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF GOOD
FAITH IN THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75.  RELIEF UNDER
SEC. 75(S) MAY BE OBTAINED ONLY BY ONE WHO HAS MADE A BONA FIDE
ATTEMPT, AND HAS FAILED, TO EFFECT A COMPOSITION UNDER SEC. 75, (A)
(R).  THE OFFER OF COMPOSITION MUST BE IN GOOD FAITH, (SEC. 75, (C),
(I), 47 STAT. 1471, 1472), AND IF THE DEBTOR IS BEYOND ALL REASONABLE
HOPE OF FINANCIAL REHABILITATION, AND THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 75
CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE ANY EFFECT BEYOND POSTPONING INEVITABLE
LIQUIDATION, THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE HALTED AT THE OUTSET.  THE
PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATION OF SEC. 75 IN THE LOWER COURTS ALREADY AFFORDS
AMPLE EVIDENCE OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTION AFFORDED THE CREDITOR BY
THIS REQUIREMENT OF GOOD FAITH IN THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SUBSECTIONS (A)-(R).  SEE IN RE BORGELT, 79 F.(2D) 929; DALLAS JOINT
STOCK LAND BANK V. DAVIS, 83 ID. 322, 323; STEVENSON V. CLARK, 86 ID.
330; KNOTTS V. FIRST CAROLINAS JOINT STOCK LAND BANK, ID. 551; IN RE
REICHERT, 13 F.SUPP.  1, 4, 5; IN RE PAUL, ID., 645, 647; IN RE
BUXTON'S ESTATE, 14 ID. 616; IN RE VATER, ID., 631; IN RE SCHAEFFER,
ID., 807; IN RE DUVALL, ID., 799; IN RE BYRD, 15 ID. 453; IN RE WYLIE,
16 ID. 193, 194; IN RE PRICE, ID., 836, 837.  COMPARE IN RE CHILTON, 16
F.SUPP.  14, 17; IN RE DAVIS, ID., 960.  IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE
SITUATION OF THE PRESENT DEBTOR WAS NOT BEYOND ALL REASONABLE HOPE OF
REHABILITATION, ELSE HE COULD NOT HAVE QUALIFIED TO FILE HIS PETITION
AT THE OUTSET.  COMPARE TENNESSEE PUBLISHING CO. V. AMERICAN NATIONAL
BANK, 299 U.S. 18, 22. 

FN7  THIS PROVISION IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT THAT LAWS ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS ON THE SUBJECT OF
BANKRUPTCIES SHALL BE UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.  ART. 1,
SEC. 8, CL. 4.  THE PROBLEM DEALT WITH MAY PRESENT SIGNIFICANT
VARIATIONS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.  BY PARAGRAPH 6 THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT ADJUSTS ITS OPERATION TO THESE VARIATIONS, AS UNDER
OTHER PROVISIONS IT HAS ADJUSTED ITS OPERATION TO THE DIFFERING LAWS OF
THE SEVERAL STATES AFFECTING DOWER, EXEMPTIONS, AND OTHER PROPERTY
RIGHTS.  COMPARE HANOVER NATIONAL BANK V. MOYSES, 186 U.S. 181, 189;
STELLWAGEN V. CLUM, 245 U.S. 605, 613.  THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY
PARAGRAPH 6 DOES NOT EXCEED LIMITS OF AUTHORITY FAMILIARLY EXERCISED BY
COURTS.  SEE STANDARD OIL CO. V. UNITED STATES, 221 U.S. 1, 69; COMPARE
CHASTLETON CORP. V. SINCLAIR, 264 U.S. 543. 

FN8  WHERE THE MEANING OF LEGISLATION IS DOUBTFUL OR OBSCURE, RESORT
MAY BE HAD IN ITS INTERPRETATION TO REPORTS OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES
WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED THE MEASURE, (MCLEAN V. UNITED STATES, 226 U.S.
374, 380; TAGG BROS. & MOORHEAD V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 420, 435);
TO EXPOSITION OF THE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS BY THOSE IN CHARGE
OF OR SPONSORING THE LEGISLATION, (DUPLEX PRINTING PRESS CO. V.
DEERING, 254 U.S. 443, 475; RICHBOURG MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 281
U.S. 528, 536); TO COMPARISON OF SUCCESSIVE DRAFTS OR AMENDMENTS OF THE
MEASURE, (UNITED STATES V. PFITSCH, 256 U.S. 547, 551; UNITED STATES V.
GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO., 287 U.S. 144, 155); AND TO THE DEBATES IN
GENERAL IN ORDER TO SHOW COMMON AGREEMENT ON PURPOSE AS DISTINGUISHED
FROM INTERPRETATION OF PARTICULAR PHRASEOLOGY, (FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V.
RALADAM CO., 283 U.S. 643, 650; HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES,
295 U.S. 602, 625). 

FN9  EMPHASIS UPON THE DELIBERATE INTENTION TO MEET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS RAISED IN LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V.
RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, DOMINATED THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL IN ALL
STAGES.  SEE E.G., SEN. REP. NO. 985, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 1, 3;
H.R. REP. NO. 1808, ID., PP. 1, 3; STATEMENTS OF SENATOR MCCARRAN, 79
CONG. REC. 11971; SENATOR ASHURST, IBID.; SENATOR BORAH, ID., 13411,
13632, 13642; REPRESENTATIVE LEMKE, ID., 14331, 14332; AND
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNERS, ID., 14333.  THERE WAS NO DISSENT ON
CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS APART FROM THE DOUBTS WHICH WERE DISPOSED OF AS
DESCRIBED IN NOTES 2, 3, AND 4, SUPRA.  COMPARING THE PRESENT MEASURE
WITH THE FORMER SEC. 75(S), SEN. REP. NO. 985, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 5, POINTED OUT THAT "THE AMENDED SUBSECTION (S) SHORTENS THE TIME OF
THE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FROM 5 TO 3 YEARS, AND  ...  GIVES THE COURT
POWER TO SHORTEN THAT STAY.  IT GIVES THE COURT COMPLETE JURISDICTION
AND CUSTODY OF THE PROPERTY, WITH AUTHORITY TO FIX THE RENTAL ANNUALLY,
AND TO SELL PERISHABLE PROPERTY AND PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT IS NOT
NECESSARY FOR THE DEBTOR'S FARMING OPERATIONS.  IT WILL ALSO BE NOTICED
THAT THE COURT CAN REQUIRE PAYMENTS OVER AND ABOVE THE RENTAL VALUE. 
IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE AMENDED SUBSECTION (S), THE PROPERTY IS
VIRTUALLY IN THE COMPLETE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE COURT, FOR ALL
PURPOSES OF LIQUIDATION...."  LIKEWISE, IT WAS SAID IN H.R. REP. NO.
1808, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P. 5, THAT "THE NEW SUBSECTION (S)
SHORTENS THE TIME OF THE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FROM 5 TO 3 YEARS, AND IN
ADDITION GIVES THE COURT POWER TO SHORTEN THAT PERIOD....  UNDER THE
NEW SUBSECTION (S) THE PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT IS IN THE COMPLETE
CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE COURT, FOR ALL THE PURPOSES OF
LIQUIDATION."  AND AT P. 6:  "THE SUPREME COURT INTIMATED THAT IN THE
ORIGINAL SUBSECTION, THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT
DISCRETION.  IN THIS SUBSECTION, THE DISTRICT COURT IS GIVEN COMPLETE
CONTROL AND DISCRETION." 

DISCUSSION OF THE BILL IN THE SENATE IS REPORTED IN 79 CONG. REC.
11970-71, 13348-49, 13411-13, 13632-45. 

IN THE SENATE DISCUSSION THERE OCCURRED THE FOLLOWING (79 CONG. REC.
13633): 

"MR. BORAH.  THE COURT IS GIVEN POWER IN THE BILL TO MAKE SALE OF THE
PROPERTY WHENEVER THE COURT DEEMS IT IN THE INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES TO
DO SO. 

"MR. HASTINGS.  DURING THE 3 YEARS? 

"MR. BORAH.  YES.  IN THE CASE OF PERISHABLE PROPERTY, OR PROPERTY
WHICH IS NOT BRINGING IN ANY INCOME, OR ANYTHING OF THAT KIND, THE
COURT HAS POWER TO MAKE SALE OF IT. 

     .         .         .  .         . 

"MR. FRAZIER.  THE BILL GIVES THE COURT AUTHORITY TO SELL THE
PROPERTY, IF IT DEEMS IT ADVISABLE, AT ANY TIME.  THE COURT MAY SELL
ANY PART OF IT OR ALL OF IT AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING OR AFTER THE 3
YEARS." 

DISCUSSION OF THE BILL IN THE HOUSE IS REPORTED IN 79 CONG. REC.
13831, 14331-34.  PRESENTING THE BILL, AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTATIVE LLOYD EXPLAINED:  "WE HAVE IN NO WAY REDUCED THE
SECURITY OF THE MORTGAGEE.  WE HAVE LEFT HIS SECURITY INTACT, BUT WE
HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTION
FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 3 YEARS."  79 CONG. REC. 13831.    THERE
ALSO OCCURRED IN THE HOUSE THE FOLLOWING (79 CONG. REC. 14332): 

"MR. FORD OF CALIFORNIA.  IS IT NOT DESIGNED TO GIVE TO THE FARMER A
BREATHING SPELL SO THAT HE MAY ORIENT HIMSELF IN SUCH A WAY AS TO GET
OUT OF HIS PRESENT DIFFICULTIES WITHOUT IN THE LEAST JEOPARDIZING THE
LIEN OF HIS CREDITORS? 

"MR. LEMKE.  ABSOLUTELY, AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE HAS COMPLETE CONTROL
ALL THE TIME OF THE FARMER'S PROPERTY. 

     . .         .         .         . 

"MR. ANDRESEN.  ALL IT DOES IS TO GIVE A 3-YEAR EXTENSION FOR THE
TIME OF THE REDEMPTION IF THE COURT SO DIRECTS. 

"MR. LEMKE.  UNDER THE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT." 

DESPITE SOME APPARENT SIMILARITY OF LANGUAGE, THE REMARKS QUOTED FROM
THE DISCUSSION IN THE SENATE DO NOT SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED TO THE
SECOND PROVISO OF PARAGRAPH 3 AS IT THEN STOOD, BUT TO HAVE BEEN
INTENDED MORE GENERALLY, EXPRESSING THE PLAN EMBODIED IN THE LAST
SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 3.  SEE S. 3002, AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE, SEC.
6, P. 9. 

FN10  SEE SHEPHERD V. PEPPER, 133 U.S. 626, 652; THOMPSON V. PHENIX
INSURANCE CO., 136 U.S. 287, 293; CAKE V. MOHUN, 164 U.S. 311, 316; 1
CLARK, LAW AND PRACTICE OF RECEIVERS (2D ED. 1929) SEC. 670; HIGH, LAW
OF RECEIVERS (4TH ED. 1910) SEC. 643; 1 WILTSIE, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
(4TH ED. 1927) SEC. 616.  COMPARE ATLANTIC TRUST CO. V. CHAPMAN, 208
U.S. 360, 371. 

FN11  SEE FRANKLIN PLANT FARM V. NASH, 118 VA. 98, 111, 86 S.E. 836,
840; DILLARD V. SERPELL, 138 VA. 694, 697, 123 S.E. 343; 3 JONES, LAW
OF MORTGAGES (8TH ED. REV. 1928) SECS. 1742, 2276. 

FN12  SEE CODE OF VA., 1918(MICHIE 1924) SEC. 5167, AS AMENDED, ACTS,
1926, C. 324, SUBSECS.  (1)-(6), (13); IN RE SHERMAN, 12 F.SUPP.  297,
298-299; COMPARE HOGAN V. DUKE, 20 GRATT.  244, 256, 259; MULLER'S
ADMINISTRATOR V. STONE, 84 VA. 834, 837, 6 S.E. 223; HUDSON V. BARHAM,
101 VA. 63, 67, 68, 43 S.E. 189.  SEE ALSO ASHWORTH V. TRAMWELL, 102
VA. 852, 858, 47 S.E. 1011; PETERSON V. HAYNES, 145 VA. 653, 661, 134
S.E. 675; NEFF'S ADMINISTRATOR V. NEWMAN, 150 VA. 203, 210, 142 S.E.
389. 
..END :
























A., T. & S.F. RY. V. SCARLETT, 300 U.S. 471 


NO. 505.  ARGUED MARCH 3, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 7 CAL.(2D)
181 - 60 P.(2D) 462, REVERSED. 


1.  A REGULATION PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN
PURSUANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTORY AUTHORITY, HAS THE SAME FORCE AS
THOUGH PRESCRIBED IN TERMS BY THE STATUTE.  P. 474. 

2.  IN AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT AGAINST A
RAILROAD COMPANY TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES RESULTING
FROM AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ACT, THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT
AND JURY CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
REGULATIONS.  P. 474. 

3.  THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT PROVIDES THAT CARS REQUIRING
"SECURE" LADDERS SHALL BE SO EQUIPPED.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE ACT, REQUIRES SUCH LADDERS
TO HAVE A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF TREADS OF "TWO, PREFERABLY TWO AND ONE
HALF INCHES."  HELD: 

(1)  A SIDE LADDER OF A FREIGHT CAR COMPLIED WITH THE ACT, THOUGH
BETWEEN IT AND THE SIDE OF THE CAR WAS A DIAGONAL BRACE ROD, WHICH THE
LADDER CLEARED BY TWO AND THREE-QUARTER INCHES.  P. 474. 

(2)  THE BRACE ROD WAS NOT A PART OF THE LADDER.  P. 474. 

(3)  LONG-CONTINUED USE OF BRACE RODS OF THE TYPE HERE INVOLVED, IN
THE SAME RELATION TO THE LADDER, WITHOUT CHANGE OF ITS ORDER BY THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IS PERSUASIVE THAT THE ACT AND THE
ORDER WERE NOT VIOLATED.  P. 474. 

(4)  THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY, IF ANY, IN THIS CASE MUST BE GOVERNED NOT
BY THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT BUT BY THE COMMON LAW RULE OF NEGLIGENCE. 
P. 475. 

ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. V. SCARLETT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 537, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE RAILROAD COMPANY IN AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL SAFETY
APPLIANCE ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN ACTION UNDER THE FEDERAL SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT (ACT OF
APRIL 14, 1910, C. 160, SECS. 2 AND 3, 36 STAT. 298*), BROUGHT BY
SCARLETT AGAINST THE RAILWAY COMPANY TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR A PERSONAL
INJURY RESULTING FROM AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  IT ALSO WAS
GENERALLY ALLEGED THAT THE INJURY WAS DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE
RAILWAY COMPANY.  SCARLETT WAS EMPLOYED AS A BRAKEMAN.  WHILE
DESCENDING FROM A BOX CAR BY MEANS OF A LADDER ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OF
THE CAR, HIS FOOT SLIPPED ON A ROUND BRACE ROD, ALSO ATTACHED TO THE
SIDE OF THE CAR IMMEDIATELY BEHIND THE LADDER, AND HE FELL TO THE
GROUND, THEREBY SUSTAINING THE INJURY FOR WHICH DAMAGES WERE SOUGHT. 

*SECTION 2, SO FAR AS PERTINENT, PROVIDES THAT  "...  ALL CARS
REQUIRING SECURE LADDERS AND SECURE RUNNING BOARDS SHALL BE EQUIPPED
WITH SUCH LADDERS AND RUNNING BOARDS, AND ALL CARS HAVING LADDERS SHALL
ALSO BE EQUIPPED WITH SECURE HAND HOLDS OR GRAB IRONS ON THEIR ROOFS AT
THE TOPS OF SUCH LADDERS:..." 

FIXED, TO DESIGNATE THE NUMBER, DIMENSIONS, LOCATION AND MANNER OF
APPLICATION OF THE APPLIANCES PROVIDED FOR IN THE FOREGOING SECTION. 
AND THESE DESIGNATIONS WERE TO "REMAIN AS THE STANDARDS OF EQUIPMENT TO
BE USED ON ALL CARS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, UNLESS
CHANGED BY AN ORDER OF SAID INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION  ..." 

THE LADDER ITSELF WAS NOT DEFECTIVE.  IN ITS STRUCTURE IT COMPLIED
WITH THE REGULATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION MADE IN
PURSUANCE OF THE ACT.  "UNITED STATES SAFETY-APPLIANCE STANDARDS" -
ORDER OF MARCH 13, 1911.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO SET FORTH THESE
REGULATIONS.  THE ONLY ONE IMPORTANT HERE PRESCRIBES - "MINIMUM
CLEARANCE OF TREADS, (SHALL BE) TWO (2), PREFERABLY TWO-AND-ONE-HALF (2
1/2), INCHES."  THE ROUND BRACE RODS WITH WHICH THE CAR WAS EQUIPPED
EXTENDED OUTWARD FROM THE WALL OF THE CAR A DISTANCE OF MORE THAN AN
INCH.  THESE BRACE RODS OPERATED TO STRENGTHEN THE WALLS OF THE CAR. 
THAT WAS THEIR ONLY PURPOSE; AND THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO THEIR
NECESSITY FOR THAT PURPOSE.  THE BRACE ROD IN QUESTION RAN DOWN THE
SIDE OF THE CAR AT AN ANGLE OF ABOUT 45 DEGREES.  THE LADDER OVERLAY
THE BRACE ROD, AND CLEARED ITS OUTERMOST SURFACE BY MORE THAN THE
PRESCRIBED 2 1/2 INCHES. 

SCARLETT'S CONTENTION IS THAT THE BRACE ROD IS A PART OF THE LADDER,
AND BY REASON OF ITS SLANT AND ROUNDED SHAPE MADE THE DESCENT OF THE
LADDER INSECURE.  AT THE TRIAL, HE ABANDONED HIS CLAIM BASED UPON
NEGLIGENCE, AND PUT HIS CASE WHOLLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ROUND
DIAGONAL BRACE ROD AND THE LADDER COMBINED TO CONSTITUTE AN UNSAFE
APPLIANCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT, AND THAT, IN CONSEQUENCE, THE
LIABILITY OF THE RAILWAY COMPANY WAS ABSOLUTE.  THE CASE WAS SUBMITTED
TO THE JURY BY THE TRIAL COURT UPON THAT THEORY, AND A VERDICT AND
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE COMPANY RESULTED.  THAT JUDGMENT THE COURT BELOW
AFFIRMED ON APPEAL.  7 CAL.(2D) 181; 60 P.(2D) 462. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BRACE RODS, GENERALLY FLAT IN SHAPE, ARE IN
PRACTICALLY UNIVERSAL USE ON BOX CARS.  THE COMPANY HERE FORMERLY USED
A FLAT ROD; BUT FINDING THAT SUCH A ROD FREQUENTLY BUCKLED, SOMETIMES
IMMEDIATELY UNDER THE LADDER, IT WAS ABANDONED AND THE STRONGER AND
LESS ELASTIC ROUND TYPE WAS ADOPTED IN ITS PLACE.  THIS WAS IN 1924;
AND THE PROOF SHOWS THAT FOR MANY YEARS CARS SO EQUIPPED HAVE BEEN IN
GENERAL AND CONSTANT OPERATION ON ITS LINES.  THE GENERAL FOREMAN OF
THE COMPANY, HAVING CHARGE OF ALL THE CAR REPAIRS AT ONE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SHOPS, AND WHO INSPECTED A THOUSAND CARS EACH MONTH,
TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF AN ACCIDENT ATTRIBUTABLE OR
CLAIMED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ROUND BRACE ROD, EXCEPT IN THE
PRESENT CASE.  THE RECORD SHOWS NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY. 

IN THE LIGHT OF THE LONG-CONTINUED USE OF BRACE RODS OF THE TYPE HERE
IN QUESTION IN THE SAME RELATION TO THE LADDER AS IS THE CASE HERE, WE
MAY FAIRLY PRESUME THAT THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTIES WAS AWARE OF THE SITUATION, AND KNOWINGLY
PERMITTED ITS RULE IN RESPECT OF THE LADDER CLEARANCE TO REMAIN WITHOUT
CHANGE.  COMPARE PENNELL V. PHILADELPHIA & READING RY., 231 U.S. 675,
680.  THE REGULATION HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE COMMISSION IN PURSUANCE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTORY AUTHORITY, IT HAS THE SAME FORCE AS THOUGH
PRESCRIBED IN TERMS BY THE STATUTE.  AND THE RAILWAY COMPANY HAVING
STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH THE REGULATION HAS DISCHARGED ITS FULL DUTY SO
FAR AS THE LADDER REQUIREMENT OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT IS
CONCERNED.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AND JURY CANNOT BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT OF THE COMMISSION.  SEE KANSAS CITY SO. RY. V.
UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 423, 456-457; NAPIER V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE,
272 U.S. 605, 611-612; MAHUTGA V. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S.S.M. RY. CO.,
182 MINN. 362, 366; 234 N.W. 474; AUSCHWITZ V. WABASH RY. CO., 346 ILL.
190, 204; 178 N.E. 403; FORD V. NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., 54 F.(2D)
342, 343. 

IN ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V. WILLIAMS, 242 U.S. 462, 466, WE HELD
THAT SEC. 2 OF THE ACT REQUIRING SECURE LADDERS, ETC., WAS OPERATIVE
PENDING ACTION BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION UNDER SEC. 3.  IN
THE INTERIM, WE SAID, SEC. 2 HAD THE EFFECT OF PRESCRIBING AN ABSOLUTE
AND IMPERATIVE DUTY, OF MAKING THE LADDERS AND OTHER APPLIANCES
"SECURE"; BUT THAT SEC. 3 CONTEMPLATED THAT THESE APPLIANCES "SHALL
ULTIMATELY CONFORM TO A STANDARD TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION, THAT IS, THAT THEY SHALL BE STANDARDIZED  ..." 

WE DO NOT SEE HOW IT REASONABLY CAN BE SAID THAT THE BRACE ROD
CONSTITUTES A PART OF THE LADDER.  IN ITSELF, IT WAS A CONTRIVANCE
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE LADDER, DESIGNED AND USED FOR A PURPOSE
ENTIRELY APART FROM THE USE OF THAT APPLIANCE.  THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY,
IF ANY, MUST, THEREFORE, REST UPON THE EFFECT OF THE NEAR PROXIMITY OF
THE LADDER TO THE ROD, NEITHER BEING IN ITSELF DEFECTIVE.  THE LAW TO
BE APPLIED TO THAT SITUATION IS THE COMMON-LAW RULE OF NEGLIGENCE, AND
NOT THE INFLEXIBLE RULE OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT; AND THE QUESTIONS
TO BE ANSWERED ARE WHETHER THE TWO APPLIANCES WERE MAINTAINED IN SUCH
RELATION TO ONE ANOTHER AS TO CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE
COMPANY AND, IF SO, WHETHER SCARLETT ASSUMED THE RISK.  FORD V. NEW
YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO., SUPRA; CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO. V. BENSON, 352
ILL. 195, 199; 185 N.E. 244; SLATER V. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY.
CO., 146 MINN. 390, 392-393; 178 N.W. 813.  IN THAT VIEW, SCARLETT IN
ABANDONING HIS CLAIM UNDER THE COMMON-LAW RULE OF NEGLIGENCE ABANDONED
THE ONLY POSSIBLE GROUND OF RECOVERY. 

JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 
..END :




AMERICAN PROPELLER CO. V. U.S., 300 U.S. 475 


NO. 605.  ARGUED MARCH 12, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 83 CT.
CLS. 100 - 14 F.SUPP.  168, REVERSED. 


1.  IN A SUIT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS, A RECOVERY BY THE UNITED STATES
ON A COUNTERCLAIM, WHICH IS CLEARLY UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE TO THE
CLAIMANT, SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNLESS UNDER PLAIN COMPULSION OF LAW. 
P. 478. 

2.  INTEREST UPON THE GOVERNMENT'S COUNTERCLAIM FOR TAXES, UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.  P. 478. 

IN 1924, THE GOVERNMENT WAS INDEBTED TO A CLAIMANT IN THE SUM OF
$119,413.04, AGAINST WHICH THERE WAS AT THE SAME TIME A JUST
COUNTERCLAIM OF $82,701.29.  THE INEQUITY OF ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT
INTEREST FOR 12 YEARS THEREAFTER, SO AS TO BRING THE CLAIMANT IN DEBT
TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUM OF OVER $21,000, IS SO GROSS AS TO BE
SHOCKING. 

3.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS MAY BE REFERRED TO IN ORDER TO
CLARIFY THE MEANING OF A FINDING WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD BE IN DOUBT.  P.
479. 

4.  IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REMAND A CASE TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CLARIFYING A FINDING AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS COMPLIANCE WITH
SEC. 250(E) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, MAKING "NOTICE AND DEMAND BY
THE COLLECTOR" PREREQUISITE TO THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON UNPAID
TAXES, WHERE THE FINDING, THE PLEADINGS, AND THE OPINION OF THE COURT,
TAKEN TOGETHER, CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE SECTION WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. 
P. 480. 

5.  NOR OUGHT THE CASE TO BE REMANDED ON THE MERE CHANCE THAT THE
GOVERNMENT MAY BE ABLE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE WHICH IT FAILED TO FURNISH
IN A DECADE OF LITIGATION, AND ESPECIALLY IN RESPECT OF A CLAIM WHICH
AT THE BAR THE GOVERNMENT FRANKLY CONCEDED TO BE INEQUITABLE.  P. 480. 

AMERICAN PROPELLER & MANUFACTURING CO. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 648, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CLAIMANT
IN A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES UPON CERTAIN CONTRACTS, WHEREIN THE
GOVERNMENT ASSERTED A COUNTERCLAIM FOR TAXES. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS BY PETITIONER TO
RECOVER A BALANCE OF $144,238.03 ALLEGED TO BE DUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT
UNDER CERTAIN DESIGNATED CONTRACTS.  THE GOVERNMENT FILED A GENERAL
TRAVERSE, AND A COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DEFICIENCY INCOME AND EXCESS-PROFITS
TAX ASSESSMENT IN THE SUM OF $191,403.77.  THE TAXES WERE FOR THE YEAR
1918, AND WERE ASSESSED ON THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 1924.  THE COURT BELOW
FOUND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS INDEBTED TO PETITIONER UPON THE CONTRACTS
IN THE SUM OF $119,413.04.  UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM THE COURT FOUND THAT
THE TAX LIABILITY OF PETITIONER WAS $82,701.29.  UPON THIS LATTER SUM,
IT ALLOWED INTEREST, AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF
ASSESSMENT, IN THE SUM OF $58,607.64, BRINGING THE TOTAL ALLOWANCE UPON
THE COUNTERCLAIM TO THE SUM OF $141,308.93.  JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN AGAINST
PETITIONER FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT SUM AND THE SUM DUE UNDER
THE CONTRACTS, NAMELY $21,895.89.  THE OPINION OF THE COURT WILL BE
FOUND IN 14 F.SUPP.  168; AND A SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION IN THE FORM OF A
MEMORANDUM WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 5, 1936.  (17 F.SUPP.  215.)  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE ALLOWANCE OF
INTEREST TO THE GOVERNMENT UPON ITS COUNTERCLAIM. 

IN THE ARGUMENT HERE, BOTH PARTIES PROCEED UPON THE THEORY THAT
INTEREST WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE REVENUE ACT OF 1918, C. 18, 40 STAT.
1057, 1083, SEC. 250(E).  FN1  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDED BELOW THAT
UNDER THAT SECTION IT WAS ENTITLED TO INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 1 PER
CENTUM PER MONTH INSTEAD OF 6 PER CENTUM PER ANNUM.  IT ABANDONS THAT
CONTENTION HERE, BUT INSISTS THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO AT LEAST THE
INTEREST ALLOWED BY THE COURT BELOW. 

IT WILL BE SEEN THAT UNDER THE FINDINGS, THE GOVERNMENT WAS INDEBTED
IN 1924 TO PETITIONER IN THE SUM OF $119,413.04, AGAINST WHICH THERE
WAS AT THE SAME TIME A JUST COUNTERCLAIM OF $82,701.29; SO THAT IF THE
ACCOUNT HAD BEEN ADJUSTED AT THAT TIME INSTEAD OF 12 YEARS LATER, THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN OBLIGED TO PAY PETITIONER THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THESE TWO SUMS, OR $36,711.75.  THE INEQUITY OF ALLOWING THE
GOVERNMENT INTEREST FOR 12 YEARS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, SO AS TO
BRING THE PETITIONER IN DEBT TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUM OF OVER
$21,000, IS SO GROSS AS TO BE SHOCKING. 

WE HAVE SAID (UNITED STATES V. THE THEKLA, 266 U.S. 328, 339-340,
341) - "WHEN THE UNITED STATES COMES INTO COURT TO ASSERT A CLAIM IT SO
FAR TAKES THE POSITION OF A PRIVATE SUITOR AS TO AGREE BY IMPLICATION
THAT JUSTICE MAY BE DONE WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.  THE
ABSENCE OF LEGAL LIABILITY IN A CASE WHERE BUT FOR ITS SOVEREIGNTY IT
WOULD BE LIABLE DOES NOT DESTROY THE JUSTICE OF THE CLAIM AGAINST IT
...  THE REASONS ARE STRONG FOR NOT OBSTRUCTING THE APPLICATION OF
NATURAL JUSTICE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT BY TECHNICAL FORMULAS WHEN
JUSTICE CAN BE DONE WITHOUT ENDANGERING ANY PUBLIC INTEREST."  IF THE
PRINCIPLE THUS STATED IS NOT STRICTLY APPLICABLE, IT AT LEAST SUGGESTS
THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT AFFIRM WHAT IS CLEARLY AN UNJUST AND
INEQUITABLE RESULT UNLESS UNDER PLAIN COMPULSION OF LAW. 

THE TAX REMAINS UNPAID AFTER THE DATE WHEN IT IS DUE AND "FOR TEN DAYS
AFTER NOTICE AND DEMAND BY THE COLLECTOR."  THE COURT BELOW FOUND THAT
ON JUNE 14, 1924, THE COMMISSIONER MADE THE ASSESSMENT "AND DULY
NOTIFIED PLAINTIFF WITH REGARD THERETO."  IT MADE NO OTHER FINDING IN
RESPECT OF THAT MATTER.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE FINDING WHICH
WAS MADE MEANS THAT THE COMMISSIONER SET IN MOTION THE NORMAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MACHINERY WHICH RESULTED IN A NOTICE DEMANDING PAYMENT,
AND RELIES UPON THE PRESUMPTION OF OFFICIAL REGULARITY AS BEING
SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THIS FINDING THE EQUIVALENT OF A FINDING OF NOTICE
AND DEMAND BY THE COLLECTOR.  PACIFIC STATES CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S.
176, 186. 

BUT WE ARE DEALING HERE NOT WITH A PRESUMPTION, BUT WITH A SPECIFIC
FINDING; AND THAT FINDING SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE
PLEADINGS.  LUCKENBACH S.S. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 533, 539. 
THE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM OF THE GOVERNMENT, FILED IN 1927, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, ALLEGES THAT "THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE MADE AN
ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT" OF WHICH THE PLAINTIFF (PETITIONER) WAS DULY
NOTIFIED.  THE COLLECTOR IS NOT MENTIONED AND NO DEMAND IS ALLEGED. 
CONSIDERING THE FINDING IN CONNECTION WITH THE ALLEGATION, THE FORMER
FAIRLY MAY BE CONSTRUED AS COMPREHENDING ALL THAT WAS DONE IN ATTEMPTED
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITION IMPOSED BY SEC. 250(E) AS A PREREQUISITE
TO THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST.  BUT THIS IS NOT ALL THAT APPEARS. 

IN THE MEMORANDUM SUPPLEMENTING THE ORIGINAL OPINION, THE COURT BELOW
SAID:  "THE RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT ANY DEMAND WAS MADE AND WE CAN
NOT PRESUME THAT IT WAS.  ON THE CONTRARY, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT
PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME WAS CLAIMING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS INDEBTED TO
IT IN A SUM LARGER THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX, IT IS MORE PROBABLE THAT
NO SUCH DEMAND WAS MADE."  WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THIS COURT IS NOT AT
LIBERTY TO REFER TO THE OPINION FOR THE PURPOSE OF EKING OUT,
CONTROLLING OR MODIFYING THE SCOPE OF THE FINDINGS,  FN2  THE RULE IS
NOT ABSOLUTE AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE REFERENCE TO THE OPINION FOR ALL
PURPOSES WHATSOEVER.  IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT IN CASE OF AMBIGUITY,
EXTRINSIC AID MAY BE SOUGHT IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE MEANING OF A STATUTE
OR A CONTRACT.  WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE PRINCIPLE OF THAT RULE DOES
NOT PERMIT REFERENCE TO THE OPINION OF THE COURT IN ORDER TO CLARIFY
THE MEANING OF A FINDING OTHERWISE IN DOUBT.  THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS
THAT IN SUCH CASE THE PROPER COURSE IS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE COURT
OF CLAIMS IN ORDER THAT THAT COURT MAY SUPPLEMENT AND CLARIFY THE
FINDING AND, IF NECESSARY, TAKE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THAT END.  OF
COURSE, THAT SOMETIMES HAS BEEN DONE; BUT WHERE, AS HERE, THE FINDING,
THE PLEADINGS AND THE OPINION OF THE COURT, TAKEN TOGETHER, CLEARLY
SHOW THAT SEC. 250(E) IN THE PARTICULAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT
COMPLIED WITH, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE. 

THIS PROCEEDING WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT IN 1922.  THE DEFICIENCY
ASSESSMENT WAS MADE WHILE THE CASE WAS PENDING.  THE COUNTERCLAIM OF
THE GOVERNMENT WAS FIRST FILED IN 1926, AND AN AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM IN
1927.  UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE SEE NO REASON FOR REMANDING THE
CASE UPON THE MERE CHANCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY BE ABLE TO FURNISH
EVIDENCE WHICH IT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH DURING MORE THAN A DECADE OF
LITIGATION, AND ESPECIALLY IN RESPECT OF A CLAIM WHICH AT THE BAR THE
GOVERNMENT FRANKLY CONCEDED TO BE INEQUITABLE. 

THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR
PETITIONER, WITHOUT AN ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UPON THE COUNTERCLAIM, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 250.(E)  IF ANY TAX REMAINS UNPAID AFTER THE DATE WHEN IT
IS DUE, AND FOR TEN DAYS AFTER NOTICE AND DEMAND BY THE COLLECTOR,
THEN, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF ESTATES OF INSANE, DECEASED, OR INSOLVENT
PERSONS, THERE SHALL BE ADDED AS PART OF THE TAX THE SUM OF 5 PER
CENTUM ON THE AMOUNT DUE BUT UNPAID, PLUS INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 1 PER
CENTUM PER MONTH UPON SUCH AMOUNT FROM THE TIME IT BECAME DUE:
PROVIDED, THAT AS TO ANY SUCH AMOUNT WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF A BONA
FIDE CLAIM FOR ABATEMENT SUCH SUM OF 5 PER CENTUM SHALL NOT BE ADDED
AND THE INTEREST FROM THE TIME THE AMOUNT WAS DUE UNTIL THE CLAIM IS
DECIDED SHALL BE AT THE RATE OF 1/2 OF 1 PER CENTUM PER MONTH.... 

FN2  STONE V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 380, 383; UNITED STATES V.
WELLS, 283 U.S. 102, 120; CROCKER V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 74, 78;
UNITED STATES V. ESNAULT-PELTERIE, 299 U.S. 201, 206. 
..END :












HELVERING V. TEX-PENN CO., 300 U.S. 481 


NO. 207.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 1936.  REARGUED FEBRUARY 1, 2, 1937.  -
DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 83 F.(2D) 518, AFFIRMED. 


1.  FINDINGS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS MUST
BE TAKEN AS ESTABLISHED IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  P. 490. 

2.  AN "ULTIMATE FINDING" BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, WHICH IS
REALLY A CONCLUSION OF LAW, OR A DETERMINATION OF MIXED LAW AND FACT,
BASED ON THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF PRIMARY, EVIDENTIARY OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL
FACTS, IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND, ON SUCH REVIEW, THE COURT
MAY SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE BOARD.  P. 491. 

3.  IN PURSUANCE OF A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, THE ASSETS OF AN OIL
COMPANY, AND UNDIVIDED INTERESTS IN OIL LEASES OWNED BY INDIVIDUALS,
WERE CONVEYED TO A NEW COMPANY, WHICH DELIVERED PART OF ITS SHARES AND
A SUM OF CASH TO THE OLD COMPANY (LATER DISSOLVED) AND PAID CASH TO THE
INDIVIDUALS.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, AFTER FINDING THE EVIDENTIAL
FACTS, MADE AN "ULTIMATE FINDING" THAT THE CONSIDERATION MOVING TO THE
OLD COMPANY FROM THE NEW ONE INCLUDED THE CASH DELIVERED TO THE FORMER
AS WELL AS THE SHARES, AND UPON THAT GROUND REFUSED TO APPLY THE NON
RECOGNITION OF GAINS PROVISION (REV. ACT, 1918, SEC. 202(B); TREAS.
REG. 45, ART. 1567), AND ALLOWED DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS.  HELD: 

(1)  THE VALIDITY OF THE "ULTIMATE FINDING" IS TO BE TESTED BY WHAT
IN FACT WAS DONE RATHER THAN BY THE MERE FORM OF WORDS USED IN THE
WRITINGS EMPLOYED.  P. 493. 

(2)  THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE SHOW THAT THE
MONEY ADVANCED TO THE OLD COMPANY WAS NO PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR
ITS ASSETS BUT WAS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED
LEASE INTERESTS, AND WAS SO ADVANCED, BY DIRECTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS,
TO PAY THE OLD COMPANY'S DEBTS, IN ORDER THAT ITS ASSETS MIGHT BE
CONVEYED FREE AND CLEAR, AS REQUIRED BY THE PLAN, AND WAS SO APPLIED
EXCEPT A PORTION WHICH WAS RETURNED TO THE INDIVIDUALS PRO RATA.  P.
491. 

4.  ANOTHER "ULTIMATE FINDING" OF THE BOARD, THAT THE CASH RECEIVED
BY THREE OF THE INDIVIDUALS FROM THE NEW COMPANY WAS CONSIDERATION FOR
BOTH THEIR STOCK IN THE OLD COMPANY AND THEIR INTERESTS IN THE LEASES,
IS CLEARLY NEGATIVED BY THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS FOUND BY THE BOARD,
SHOWING THAT THIS STOCK WAS ASSIGNED TO THE OTHER TWO INDIVIDUALS
BEFORE THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE INTERESTS WAS MADE.  THE FACT THAT
THE ASSIGNMENT OF STOCK WAS TO BE RETURNED IF PAYMENT FOR THE
ASSIGNORS' LEASE INTERESTS WAS NOT MADE BEFORE A CERTAIN DATE, DID NOT
MAKE THE TWO SALES A SINGLE OR INDIVISIBLE TRANSACTION.  P. 495. 

5.  A CONSTRUCTION OF REV. ACT, 1918, SEC. 202(B), AND T.R. 45, ART.
1567, CONTRARY TO PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION AND DECISION, NEVER MENTIONED
OR CONSIDERED IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER REVIEW, BUT ADVANCED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THIS COURT AFTER
CERTIORARI HAD BEEN GRANTED, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED HERE.  P. 497. 

6.  TAXPAYERS ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW THE BASIS OF LAW AND FACT ON WHICH
THE COMMISSIONER SEEKS TO SUSTAIN DEFICIENCY ASSESSMENTS.  P. 498. 

7.  WHERE SHARES OF STOCK EXCHANGED BY A CORPORATION FOR THE ASSETS
OF ANOTHER CORPORATION WERE HIGHLY SPECULATIVE AND WERE SUBJECT TO A
RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT PREVENTING THEIR SALE AND DID NOT HAVE A FAIR
MARKET VALUE, CAPABLE OF BEING ASCERTAINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY,
WHEN THEY WERE ACQUIRED BY THE TAXPAYERS, HELD THAT THEIR OWNERSHIP DID
NOT LAY THE BASIS FOR A COMPUTATION OF GAIN AT THE TIME THEY WERE
RECEIVED, OR FOR A TAX AS OF THAT DATE UNDER REV. ACT, 1918, SEC.
202(B); T.R. 45, ART. 1563.  P. 499. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. TEX-PENN OIL CO.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 208, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER, V. BENEDUM; AND NO.
209, HELVERING, COMMISSIONER, V. PARRIOTT.  CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 529, 530, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OVERRULING AN
ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 28 B.T.A. 917, REDETERMINING
DEFICIENCY TAX ASSESSMENTS. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THERE IS INVOLVED AN ITEM CLAIMED BY
PETITIONER TO BE TAXABLE INCOME OF RESPONDENT FOR 1919.  IN 1925 THE
COMMISSIONER GAVE NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES.  THESE CLAIMS WERE BASED ON A
TRANSACTION IN 1919 WHICH INCLUDED TRANSFER BY TEX-PENN OIL COMPANY OF
ALL ITS ASSETS TO TRANSCONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, THE ISSUE AND DELIVERY
BY THE LATTER OF 1,007,834 SHARES TO BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT, THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF TEX-PENN, AND THE DISSOLUTION OF THAT COMPANY.  THE
COMMISSIONER CLAIMS THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER INCLUDED
NOT ONLY THE STOCK BUT ALSO $350,000 IN CASH PAID BY TRANSCONTINENTAL
TO TEX-PENN.  RESPONDENTS PETITIONED THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS FOR
REDETERMINATIONS.  THE CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING; THE BOARD
MADE FINDINGS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT
CONCLUDED IN AN "ULTIMATE FINDING" THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE
TRANSFER BY TEX-PENN TO TRANSCONTINENTAL INCLUDED CASH, AND THAT
THEREFORE THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT ONE IN WHICH, UNDER REVENUE ACT OF
1918, SEC. 202(B), 40 STAT. 1060, "NO GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE DEEMED TO
OCCUR."  IT REDETERMINED DEFICIENCIES OF $2,871,085, $1,925,466, AND
$908,470, RESPECTIVELY.  28 B.T.A. 917.  RESPONDENTS PETITIONED THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR REVIEW.  IT REVERSED THE ORDERS WITH
DIRECTIONS THAT THE BOARD ENTER JUDGMENTS OF NO DEFICIENCIES.  83
F.(2D) 518. 

1.  THE FIRST ULTIMATE FINDING IS (P. 950):  "THE CONSIDERATION
RECEIVED BY TEX-PENN ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 1, 1919, IN EXCHANGE FOR ITS
ASSETS CONSISTED OF $350,000 IN CASH AND 1,007,834 SHARES OF
TRANSCONTINENTAL STOCK OF NO PAR VALUE." 

THE FIRST QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THAT CONCLUSION IS
SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  IF WELL GROUNDED, THE TRANSACTION IS NOT WITHIN
THE NON-RECOGNITION OF GAIN PROVISION OF SEC. 202(B).  THAT SECTION
DECLARES THAT "WHEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE REORGANIZATION, MERGER OR
CONSOLIDATION OF A CORPORATION A PERSON RECEIVES IN PLACE OF STOCK OR
SECURITIES OWNED BY HIM NEW STOCK OR SECURITIES OF NO GREATER AGGREGATE
PAR OR FACE VALUE, NO GAIN OR LOSS SHALL BE DEEMED TO OCCUR FROM THE
EXCHANGE, AND THE NEW STOCK OR SECURITIES RECEIVED SHALL BE TREATED AS
TAKING THE PLACE OF THE STOCK, SECURITIES, OR PROPERTY EXCHANGED." 

TREASURY REGULATIONS 45, ART. 1567,  FN1  CONTAINS AN INTERPRETATION
OF THAT PROVISION:  "IN GENERAL WHERE TWO (OR MORE) CORPORATIONS UNITE
THEIR PROPERTIES BY  ...  THE SALE OF ITS PROPERTY BY B TO A AND THE
DISSOLUTION OF B  ...  NO TAXABLE INCOME IS RECEIVED FROM THE
TRANSACTION  ... PROVIDED THE SOLE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY B AND ITS
STOCKHOLDERS  ...  IS STOCK  ...  OF A  ..." 

THE PERTINENT SUBSTANCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS FOUND FOLLOWS: 

IN 1917 AND EARLY 1918, RESPONDENTS BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT AND THREE
OTHERS, KIRKLAND, LANTZ AND WRATHER, ACQUIRED 31 TEXAS OIL AND GAS
LEASES CALLED THE "DUKE-KNOLES" GROUP.  THE LEASES RESERVED TO LESSORS
A ONE-EIGHTH ROYALTY.  THE INTERESTS OF THE FIVE IN WHAT THE FINDINGS
REFER TO AS THE REMAINING SEVEN-EIGHTHS INTEREST WERE BENEDUM SIX
SIXTEENTHS, PARRIOTT AND KIRKLAND THREE-SIXTEENTHS EACH, LANTZ AND
WRATHER TWO-SIXTEENTHS EACH. 

IN OCTOBER, 1918, THEY CAUSED TEX-PENN TO BE INCORPORATED.  ITS
AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK WAS $2,000,000, DIVIDED INTO 80,000 SHARES OF
$25 EACH.  IT ISSUED 4,000 SHARES FOR PAR TO THE FIVE LEASE OWNERS
RATABLY ACCORDING TO THEIR INTERESTS; THEY TRANSFERRED A FOURTH
INTEREST IN THE LEASES TO THE COMPANY.  IT AGREED TO DEVELOP THE
PROPERTIES AT ITS OWN EXPENSE; THEY AGREED THAT ONE-HALF OF THEIR
SHARES OF THE PROCEEDS MIGHT BE USED TO MAKE UP DEFICITS IN THE
COMPANY'S OPERATING EXPENSES. 

THEY AUTHORIZED PARRIOTT TO RECEIVE THEIR SHARES OF THE PROCEEDS, TO
CARRY OUT THE AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY, AND TO INVEST THE REMAINING
HALF OF THE PROCEEDS IN THE COMPANY'S STOCK.  ACCOUNTS OF TRANSACTIONS
BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND HIM, AS AGENT, WERE KEPT UNDER THE NAME OF
"PARRIOTT ATTORNEY."  PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT, HE FROM TIME TO TIME
PURCHASED AT PAR STOCK OF THE COMPANY AMOUNTING TO 9,120 SHARES; IT
USED THE MONEY IN DEVELOPING THE LEASED PROPERTIES. 

BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT WERE ALSO INTERESTED AS OWNERS IN THE RIVERSIDE
EASTERN OIL COMPANY, THE RIVERSIDE WESTERN OIL COMPANY, AND THE
PITTSBURGH-TEXAS OIL & GAS COMPANY.  IN EARLY 1919, THEY DECIDED TO
CAUSE TO BE ORGANIZED THE TRANSCONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY TO ACQUIRE AND
OPERATE THE PROPERTIES OF THESE COMPANIES AND OF TEX-PENN TOGETHER WITH
THE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED INTERESTS IN THE LEASES.  BENEDUM'S FOUR
ASSOCIATES, BY WRITING DATED JUNE 2, 1919, GAVE HIM AUTHORITY TO SELL
THE ASSETS OF TEX-PENN AND ALL INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS IN THE LEASES FOR
$12,000,000 AND AGREED TO ACCEPT THEIR PRO RATA SHARE OF THE NET
PROCEEDS OF THE SALE FOR THEIR HOLDINGS IN TEX-PENN AND THEIR
INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS IN THE LEASES. 

TO ARRANGE FOR MONEY WITH WHICH TO CARRY OUT THE PROJECT, BENEDUM
NEGOTIATED WITH BANKERS.  UNDER THE FIRST PLAN, THE BANKERS WERE TO PAY
TRANSCONTINENTAL $23,000,000 FOR A PART OF ITS STOCK, AND THAT AMOUNT
WAS TO BE USED TO PAY THE $12,000,000, AND $2,500,000 IN EQUAL PARTS TO
RIVERSIDE EASTERN AND RIVERSIDE WESTERN TO RETIRE PREFERRED STOCK.  THE
BALANCE, $8,500,000, WAS TO BE RETAINED BY TRANSCONTINENTAL FOR WORKING
CAPITAL.  BY A LATER ARRANGEMENT THE AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY THE BANKERS
WAS REDUCED TO $20,000,000 AND THAT TO BE RECEIVED BY THE FIVE
INDIVIDUALS TO $9,000,000.  BENEDUM'S ASSOCIATES DECLINED TO ACCEPT
LESS THAN THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF $12,000,000 AS ORIGINALLY
PLANNED.  IN ORDER THAT THE UNDERTAKING SHOULD NOT FAIL, BENEDUM AGREED
TO DIMINISH BY $3,000,000 THE AMOUNT HE WAS TO HAVE AND SO BORE THE
ENTIRE REDUCTION.  ON THAT BASIS, DISTRIBUTION OF THE $9,000,000 WOULD
BE $1,500,000 EACH TO BENEDUM, LANTZ AND WRATHER AND $2,250,000 EACH TO
PARRIOTT AND KIRKLAND. 

TRANSCONTINENTAL WAS ORGANIZED AND AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE 2,000,000 NO
PAR-VALUE SHARES, OF WHICH THE BANKERS AGREED TO BUY 500,000 AT $40 PER
SHARE.  THEY EXERCISED AN OPTION TO BUY 225,000 ADDITIONAL SHARES AT
$1.00 PER SHARE.  TEX-PENN'S ASSETS WERE TO PASS TO TRANSCONTINENTAL
FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL LIABILITIES.  JULY 12, KIRKLAND, LANTZ AND
WRATHER ASSIGNED AND DELIVERED THEIR TEX-PENN SHARES TO BENEDUM AND
PARRIOTT FOR $30.  FN2  JULY 15, THE STOCK WAS TRANSFERRED ON THE TEX
PENN STOCK BOOK.  JULY 22, NEW DIRECTORS WERE ELECTED TO TAKE THE
PLACES OF THE ASSIGNORS WHO, AS STATED IN THE MINUTES, HAD CEASED TO BE
STOCKHOLDERS. 

JULY 14, THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND TEX-PENN EXECUTED AN ASSIGNMENT TO
TRANSCONTINENTAL OF ALL THEIR INTEREST IN THE LEASES AND GAVE IT TO
PARRIOTT IN ESCROW FOR DELIVERY UPON PAYMENT OF $5,250,000 TO KIRKLAND,
LANTZ AND WRATHER, OR TO PARRIOTT FOR THEIR ACCOUNT.  THEY STIPULATED
THAT IF PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE BY AUGUST 1, THE ASSIGNMENT AND STOCK
WOULD BE RETURNED TO THEM.  AND, IN ORDER THAT TEX-PENN ASSETS MIGHT BE
FREE FROM LIABILITY, THEY AUTHORIZED PARRIOTT TO DEDUCT FROM THEIR
SHARES SEVEN-SIXTEENTHS OF NOT EXCEEDING $500,000 TO PAY DEBTS AND
OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY.  BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT WERE TO BEAR NINE
SIXTEENTHS.  THE AUDITOR OF TEX-PENN REPORTED THAT APPROXIMATELY
$350,000 WOULD BE REQUIRED. 

JULY 24, BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT MADE A CONTRACT WITH J. M. HOLLIDAY,
ACTING FOR THE BANKERS AND TRANSCONTINENTAL, IN WHICH THEY AGREED TO
TRANSFER TO TRANSCONTINENTAL THEIR INTERESTS IN THE LEASES FOR
$3,400,000 IN CASH, TO CAUSE TEX-PENN TO TRANSFER TO TRANSCONTINENTAL
ALL ITS ASSETS "FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF  ...  $350,000 IN CASH AND
...  1,007,834 SHARES OF THE CAPITAL STOCK OF  ...  TRANSCONTINENTAL,"
AND TO CAUSE KIRKLAND, LANTZ AND WRATHER TO TRANSFER TO
TRANSCONTINENTAL THEIR SEVEN-SIXTEENTHS OF THE FIVE-EIGHTS INTEREST IN
THE LEASES FOR $5,250,000 IN CASH. 

THE SAME DAY, HOLLIDAY ADDRESSED AN OFFER TO TEX-PENN TO PURCHASE ALL
ITS ASSETS "FOR ... $350,000 IN CASH AND  ...  1,007,834 SHARES" OF
TRANSCONTINENTAL.  BY RESOLUTION OF ITS DIRECTORS, TEX-PENN ACCEPTED
THE OFFER, REFERRING TO THE CONSIDERATION AS "$350,000 CASH AND  ...
1,007,834 SHARES" OF TRANSCONTINENTAL.  IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED THAT,
AFTER THE TRANSFER OF ITS PROPERTY, THE COLLECTION OF DEBTS DUE, AND
PAYMENT OF THOSE OWED BY, TEX-PENN, IT WOULD BE DISSOLVED AND ITS
ASSETS DISTRIBUTED TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS "AND THAT TO FACILITATE THIS,
THE  ...  OFFICERS  ... DIRECT MR. HOLLIDAY THAT  ...  $350,000  ...
SHALL BE PAID TO THE TREASURY OF THIS COMPANY, AND THAT THE  ...
SHARES  ...  BE ISSUED AND DELIVERED TO" BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT JOINTLY. 

JULY 30, TEX-PENN CONVEYED ITS ASSETS TO TRANSCONTINENTAL.  HOLLIDAY
DIRECTED THE LATTER TO DELIVER TO BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT JOINTLY
CERTIFICATES FOR 1,007,834 SHARES, TO DELIVER $5,250,000 TO PARRIOTT
ATTORNEY, $3,400,000 TO BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT AND $350,000 TO TEX-PENN. 
THE NEXT DAY, THESE DIRECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY TRANSCONTINENTAL. 

THERE WAS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY TEX-PENN IN PAYMENT OF ITS EXPENSES
$286,891.29, DERIVED FROM ONE-HALF OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE
INDIVIDUALLY OWNED FIVE-EIGHTHS INTEREST IN THE LEASES.  IT ALSO HAD
RECEIVABLES AND OIL AND THE $350,000 WITH WHICH TO DISCHARGE ITS
LIABILITIES.  THE $350,000 WAS DEDUCTED BY TRANSCONTINENTAL FROM THE
AMOUNT TO BE PAID BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT FOR THEIR INTEREST IN THE
LEASES.  BUT THAT DEDUCTION WAS IN FACT BORNE NOT BY THEM ALONE BUT
RATABLY BY THE FIVE OWNERS.  PAYMENT OF TEX-PENN'S LIABILITIES DID NOT
REQUIRE USE OF ALL THE $350,000.  THERE REMAINED $55,255.24.  AND THAT
SUM WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS ACCORDING TO THEIR
INTERESTS IN THE LEASES. 

DETAILS ARE REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF "PARRIOTT ATTORNEY." 
KIRKLAND WAS GIVEN CREDIT FOR $2,250,000 AND LANTZ AND WRATHER FOR
$1,500,000 EACH AS PURCHASE PRICES OF THEIR SHARES OF THE FIVE-EIGHTHS
INTEREST IN THE LEASES.  EACH OF THE FIVE, ACCORDING TO HIS INTEREST IN
THE LEASES, WAS CHARGED WITH HIS SHARE OF THE $350,000 WITH THE
EXPLANATION THAT "THIS AMOUNT WAS TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE SALE
PRICE RECEIVED BY ALL THE INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS."  FN3 

IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE TEX-PENN STOCK BY KIRKLAND, LANTZ
AND WRATHER TO BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT, THE LATTER WERE CHARGED $15 EACH
AND CORRESPONDINGLY EACH OF THE FORMER WAS CREDITED WITH $10.  AT THE
END OF THE YEAR, PARRIOTT FURNISHED ANNUAL STATEMENTS TO KIRKLAND,
LANTZ AND WRATHER, SHOWING THE SALE PRICES OF THEIR INTERESTS IN THE
LEASES REDUCED BY THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE $350,000.  THE SALES PRICE
OF THE STOCK SOLD BY THEM WAS SHOWN AT $30. 

ON PARTIAL DISTRIBUTIONS BY PARRIOTT BEFORE FINAL SETTLEMENT,
KIRKLAND, LANTZ AND WRATHER GAVE RECEIPTS SIMILAR IN FORM.  THAT OF
KIRKLAND RECITED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE
OF HIS INTEREST "IN AND TO  ...  THE LEASES  ... AND TO THE STOCK OF
THE TEX-PENN....  THE BALANCE  ...  IS TO BE RETAINED UNTIL THE FINAL
ADJUSTMENT OF THE TAXES AND THE AFFAIRS OF  ...  TEX-PENN  ...  AT THE
CONCLUSION OF WHICH THE SAID BALANCE IS TO BE PAID TO ME, LESS MY
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF SAID EXPENSES."  KIRKLAND AND LANTZ DIED BEFORE
THE HEARING.  WRATHER TESTIFIED THAT HE ATTACHED NO GREAT IMPORTANCE TO
THE FORM OF THE RECEIPT; THAT HE KNEW THERE HAD BEEN IN FORM SEPARATE
TRANSFERS OF THE LEASE INTERESTS AND THE TEX-PENN STOCK BUT THAT HE AND
HIS ASSOCIATES CONSIDERED ONLY THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE. 

BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT IN THEIR 1919 INCOME TAX RETURNS REPORTED THEIR
OWN PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF THEIR LEASE INTERESTS UPON THE BASIS OF
THE TOTAL PRICE OF $8,650,000.  TEX-PENN'S RETURN STATED THAT IT HAD
SOLD ITS ASSETS FOR $350,000 CASH AND SHARES OF STOCK.  IT ALSO STATED
THAT THE COST OF THE ASSETS SOLD WAS $2,359,205.69, FROM WHICH IT
DEDUCTED $350,000, LEAVING $2,009,205.69, AND THAT AMOUNT WAS
DESIGNATED "VALUE OF STOCK."  NEITHER THE $350,000 NOR THE STATED
"VALUE OF STOCK" RECEIVED WAS INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME.  A SCHEDULE
ATTACHED TO THE RETURN STATED THAT THE CASH CONSIDERATION WAS ACCOUNTED
FOR IN THE RETURN, AND THAT THE "NO PAR VALUE STOCK" RECEIVED WAS NOT
TAXABLE INCOME UNDER SEC. 202(B) AND T.D. 2924. 

THE FOREGOING INCLUDES THE SUBSTANCE OF ALL THE FINDINGS OF
CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS MATERIAL TO THE QUESTION UNDER CONSIDERATION. 
THEY MUST BE TAKEN AS ESTABLISHED IF SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.  HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S. 123, 131.  OLD MISSION CEMENT
CO. V. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 289, 294.  BURNET V. LEININGER, 285 U.S.
136, 138-139.  PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589, 600.  OLD COLONY
TRUST CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION THAT
THEY ARE NOT AMPLY SUSTAINED.  IN ADDITION TO AND PRESUMABLY UPON THE
BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS, THE BOARD MADE ITS "ULTIMATE FINDING."  AND
UPON THAT DETERMINATION IT RULED THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT WITHIN
THE NON-RECOGNITION PROVISIONS OF SEC. 202(B).  THE ULTIMATE FINDING IS
A CONCLUSION OF LAW OR AT LEAST A DETERMINATION OF A MIXED QUESTION OF
LAW AND FACT.  IT IS TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE FINDINGS OF PRIMARY,
EVIDENTIARY OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS.  IT IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND, ON SUCH REVIEW, THE COURT MAY SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF
THE BOARD.  HELVERING V. RANKIN, UBI SUPRA.    TREATING THE TRANSACTION
AS A PART OF REORGANIZATION, MERGER OR CONSOLIDATION, THE BOARD
CONCLUDED THAT CASH CONSTITUTED A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION.  THE
OPINION REFERS TO WRITINGS ABOVE MENTIONED AND EMPHASIZES THEIR
PROVISIONS THAT STATE OR INDICATE THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS OR DID
INCLUDE CASH AND STOCK.  THE DOCUMENTS CITED ARE THE AGREEMENT FOR THE
TRANSFER OF TEX-PENN'S ASSETS TO TRANSCONTINENTAL, THE OFFER TO TEX
PENN, THE RESOLUTION OF ITS DIRECTORS ACCEPTING THE OFFER AND DIRECTING
PAYMENT OF THE $350,000 TO ITS TREASURY.  HOLLIDAY'S LETTER DIRECTING
TRANSCONTINENTAL SO TO PAY, TRANSCONTINENTAL'S CHECK FOR THAT AMOUNT TO
TEX-PENN AND THE LATTER'S TAX RETURN. 

BUT THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE SHOW THAT,
PURSUANT TO DIRECTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS SELLING LEASE INTERESTS,
TRANSCONTINENTAL ADVANCED TO TEX-PENN $350,000 AND DEDUCTED THAT AMOUNT
FROM THE PRICE OF THE LEASE INTERESTS.  THE FINDINGS ALSO SHOW THAT,
FOR THE PART OF THAT AMOUNT REMAINING AFTER PAYMENT OF ITS DEBTS, TEX
PENN ACCOUNTED TO THE INDIVIDUALS. 

AS INDIRECTLY SHOWING THAT THE $350,000 CONSTITUTED PART OF THE
CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF TEX-PENN ASSETS, THE OPINION CITES THE
ENTRY IN THE "PARRIOTT ATTORNEY" ACCOUNTS SHOWING THAT THE EFFECT OF
THE PAYMENT OF THAT SUM TO TEX-PENN WAS TO REDUCE THE SALE PRICE OF THE
INTEREST IN THE LEASES FROM $9,000,000 TO $8,650,000, THE ENTRIES
DISTRIBUTING THAT AMOUNT TO THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS, AND THE TAX RETURNS
OF BENEDUM, PARRIOTT AND TEX-PENN. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT BRING FORWARD THESE ENTRIES OR THE TAX RETURNS OF
BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S ULTIMATE FINDING NOW UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  MANIFESTLY, THE ENTRIES REFERRED TO IN THE BOARD'S
OPINION ARE OPPOSED TO ITS CONCLUSION.  AS WILL MORE FULLY APPEAR, UPON
AN EXAMINATION OF THEM LATER TO BE MADE, THE FINDINGS OF DETAILS MAKE
IT PLAIN THAT THE $350,000 WAS A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR THE
INDIVIDUALLY OWNED LEASE INTERESTS AND LEAVE NO GROUND FOR ANY OTHER
INFERENCE. 

THE BOARD'S OPINION SHOWS THAT BOTH PARTIES RELIED ON ART. 1567 AS A
CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE.  THE BOARD HELD (P. 959) THAT IT
"REQUIRES, AS A CONDITION OF NONRECOGNITION OF GAIN, THAT THE SOLE
CONSIDERATION BE STOCK OR SECURITIES  ... THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS HEREIN
INDICATE CLEARLY THAT THERE WAS A CASH CONSIDERATION TO TEX-PENN OF
$350,000.  WE ARE NOT CONVINCED BY THE ORAL EVIDENCE THAT THAT WAS NOT
A FACT.  ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE PETITIONERS HAVE NOT BROUGHT
THEMSELVES WITHIN SECTION 202(B)  ...  AND ARTICLE 1567  ...  SO AS TO
ESCAPE RECOGNITION OF GAIN." 

THE OPINION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, AFTER DISCUSSION OF
PRIMARY OR EVIDENTIARY FACTS FOUND BY THE BOARD, STATES, 83 F.(2D) AT
P. 522:  "A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DRIVES US TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE $350,000 WAS NOT CONSIDERATION PASSING FROM
TRANSCONTINENTAL TO TEX-PENN, BUT WAS MONEY FURNISHED BY THE LESSEES AS
INDIVIDUALS TO PAY THE DEBTS OF TEX-PENN SO THAT THE TRANSACTION MIGHT
BE MADE ACCORDING TO AGREEMENT  ...  IN FORM THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS RELIED STATED THAT THE $350,000 WAS CORPORATE
CONSIDERATION PASSING FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL, BUT IN FACT, IT WAS NOT,
AND THE RULE IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN DETERMINING TAX LIABILITY, TAXING
AUTHORITIES MUST LOOK THROUGH FORM TO FACT AND SUBSTANCE.  IT HAS BEEN
A LONG TIME SINCE THESE TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE AND MOST OF THE PARTIES
WHO WERE INTERESTED IN THEM ARE DEAD, BUT EVERY LIVING PERSON WHO WAS
IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THEM TESTIFIED WITHOUT CONTRADICTION THAT THE
$350,000 WAS PAID BY THE FIVE LESSEES AND NOT BY TRANSCONTINENTAL." 

THE VALIDITY OF THE ULTIMATE FINDING ABOVE QUOTED IS TO BE TESTED BY
WHAT IN FACT WAS DONE RATHER THAN BY THE MERE FORM OF WORDS USED IN THE
WRITINGS EMPLOYED.  UNITED STATES V. PHELLIS, 257 U.S. 156, 168. 
CURRAN V. COMMISSIONER, 49 F.(2D) 129, 131.  THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF
CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS DEFINITELY SHOW THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION
AS ACTUALLY CONSUMMATED.  SUMMARILY STATED, THE DETAILS OF CONTROLLING
SIGNIFICANCE ARE THESE: 

THE BANKERS BOUGHT FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL 725,000 SHARES OF ITS STOCK
FOR $20,225,000.  TRANSCONTINENTAL PAID AND ISSUED ITS STOCK:

                            CASH  SHARES 

RIVERSIDE EASTERN..........  $1,250,000     41,666 

RIVERSIDE WESTERN..........   1,250,000     41,667 

PITTSBURG-TEXAS............                158,833 

BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT.......   3,400,000  1,007,834 

PARRIOTT, ATTORNEY.........   5,250,000 

TEX-PENN...................     350,000

                          ------------ ----------

                     $11,500,000  1,250,000 

INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL WAS $9,000,000 TO PAY FOR THE INDIVIDUALLY
OWNED FIVE-EIGHTHS INTEREST IN THE LEASES AND $2,500,000 TO RETIRE
PREFERRED STOCK OF RIVERSIDE EASTERN AND RIVERSIDE WESTERN, AND
$5,250,000 TO PAY FOR SEVEN-SIXTEENTHS OF THE FIVE-EIGHTHS INTEREST:
$2,250,000 TO KIRKLAND AND $1,500,000 EACH TO LANTZ AND WRATHER.  THE
REMAINING $3,750,000 WAS TO PAY BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT FOR THEIR NINE
SIXTEENTHS:  $1,500,000 TO BENEDUM FOR HIS SIX-SIXTEENTHS AND
$2,250,000 TO PARRIOTT FOR HIS THREE-SIXTEENTHS. 

THE $350,000 RECEIVED BY TEX-PENN FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL WAS TO BE
USED TO THE EXTENT NEEDED TO PAY TEX-PENN'S DEBTS IN ORDER THAT ITS
ASSETS SHOULD BE FREE AND CLEAR OF LIABILITIES.  BUT NO PART OF THAT
AMOUNT WAS BORNE BY TRANSCONTINENTAL.  UPON AUTHORIZATION OF BENEDUM
AND PARRIOTT, IT DEDUCTED THAT AMOUNT FROM THE $3,750,000 PAYABLE BY IT
TO THEM.  AND, BY ARRANGEMENT AMONG THEMSELVES, THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS
WERE CHARGEABLE WITH THE $350,000 ACCORDING TO THEIR INTERESTS IN THE
LEASES: 

BENEDUM.................................. $131,250 

PARRIOTT.................................   65,625 

KIRKLAND                       65,625 

LANTZ....................................   43,750 

WRATHER..................................   43,750

                                        ---------

                                        $350,000 

THE AMOUNT SO ADVANCED EXCEEDED WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO PAY TEX-PENN'S
DEBTS BY $55,255.24.  AND TO THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS THAT AMOUNT WAS
ACCOUNTED FOR: 

BENEDUM................................ $20,720.73 

PARRIOTT...............................  10,360.35 

KIRKLAND...............................  10,360.35 

LANTZ..................................   6,906.90 

WRATHER................................   6,906.90

                       -----------

               $55,255.23 

THE STATEMENT BELOW SHOWS IN COLUMN (1) THE AMOUNTS THAT, BUT FOR THE
ADVANCE OF $350,000 TO TEX-PENN, EACH OF THE INDIVIDUALS WOULD HAVE
RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL IN CASH FOR HIS INTEREST IN THE
LEASES; IT SHOWS IN COLUMN (2) THE AMOUNT THAT WAS RECEIVED BY EACH
AFTER DEDUCTING HIS SHARE OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY USED TO DISCHARGE
LIABILITIES OF TEX-PENN. 

                         (1)        (2) 

BENEDUM................. $1,500,000  $1,389,470.73 

PARRIOTT................  2,250,000   2,194,735.35 

KIRKLAND................  2,250,000   2,194,735.35 

LANTZ...................  1,500,000   1,463,156.90 

WRATHER.................  1,500,000   1,463,156.90

                       -----------    -----------

                       $9,000,000  $8,705,255.23 

THE BOARD'S FINDINGS OF EVIDENTIARY DETAILS NOT ONLY FAIL TO SUPPORT,
BUT DEFINITELY NEGATIVE, ITS CONCLUSION THAT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED
BY TEX-PENN IN EXCHANGE FOR ITS ASSETS INCLUDED $350,000 IN CASH. 

ESSENTIAL TO THE PROJECT WAS THE TRANSFER TO TRANSCONTINENTAL OF TEX
PENN ASSETS FREE FROM CLAIMS, AND EQUALLY INDISPENSABLE WAS THE
TRANSFER OF THE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED LEASE INTERESTS.  TEX-PENN NEEDED
MONEY TO SATISFY DEMANDS OF ITS CREDITORS.  SHOULD IT BE UNABLE TO FREE
ITS PROPERTY FROM LIABILITY, THE ENTIRE ENTERPRISE MIGHT FAIL.  IN THAT
EVENT, THE INDIVIDUALS WOULD LOSE THE SALE OF THEIR LEASE INTERESTS. 
AND SO, THEY DECIDED TO PROVIDE THE CASH NEEDED BY TEX-PENN TO CLEAR
ITS ASSETS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THEY CAUSED TRANSCONTINENTAL TO ADVANCE
TEX-PENN THE $350,000 AND DEDUCT IT FROM $9,000,000, THE PRICE IT WAS
TO PAY THEM FOR THEIR LEASE INTERESTS.  THE EXCESS, $55,255.24, WAS
RATABLY DISTRIBUTED AS SHOWN ABOVE.  NO PART OF THE $350,000 WAS
INCLUDED IN OR HAD ANY RELATION TO THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER
OF THE TEX-PENN ASSETS.  IN LEGAL EFFECT, THE DETAILS FOUND BY THE
BOARD TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT ARE NOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM A
DIRECT ADVANCE BY THE FIVE INDIVIDUALS TO TEX-PENN OF THE MONEY
REQUIRED TO PAY ITS DEBTS.  UNQUESTIONABLY, SUCH AN ADVANCE WOULD NOT
CONSTITUTE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY TEX-PENN.  AS AGAINST THE BOARD'S
FINDINGS SHOWING WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE IN CONSUMMATION OF THE
TRANSACTION, NO WEIGHT AS EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO MERE RECITALS,
DIRECTIONS, ENGAGEMENTS AND ADMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS CONTAINED IN THE
DOCUMENTS RELIED ON BY THE BOARD.  IT SHOULD HAVE HELD THAT THE
TRANSCONTINENTAL STOCK WAS THE SOLE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF
THE TEX-PENN ASSETS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RIGHTLY HELD THAT
THE RULING TO THE CONTRARY WAS ERRONEOUS. 

2.  THE BOARD'S SECOND ULTIMATE FINDING IS (P. 950).  "THE CASH
RECEIVED BY WRATHER, LANTZ AND KIRKLAND FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL WAS
CONSIDERATION FOR BOTH THEIR STOCK IN TEX-PENN AND THEIR INTERESTS IN
THE DUKE-KNOLES LEASES."  THE BOARD (P. 959) DEEMED THAT CONCLUSION AN
ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR ITS RULING THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT WITHIN THE
NON-RECOGNITION PROVISIONS OF SEC. 202(B).  IN SUPPORT OF THAT VIEW THE
COMMISSIONER MAINTAINS THAT "THE NOMINAL SALE OF STOCK, THE TRANSFER OF
THE ASSETS OF TEX-PENN, AND THE SALE OF THE INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS IN THE
LEASES, CONSTITUTED A SINGLE INDIVISIBLE TRANSACTION." 

BUT THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS CLEARLY NEGATIVE THIS ULTIMATE FINDING. 
KIRKLAND, LANTZ AND WRATHER SOLD THEIR TEX-PENN STOCK TO BENEDUM AND
PARRIOTT AND THEIR LEASE INTERESTS TO TRANSCONTINENTAL.  THE STOCK WAS
SOLD AND DELIVERED BEFORE THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE INTERESTS WAS
MADE.  THE TRANSFER ON THE COMPANY'S STOCK BOOK WAS EFFECTED, AND THEIR
CONNECTION AS STOCKHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS WAS TERMINATED, WHILE THE
LEASE INTERESTS WERE BEING HELD UNTIL PAID FOR BY TRANSCONTINENTAL. 
THE STIPULATION THAT, IF PAYMENT FOR THEIR LEASE INTERESTS WAS NOT MADE
BY AUGUST 1, THE ASSIGNMENT OF THEIR SHARES OF STOCK WOULD BE RETURNED,
DID NOT MAKE THE TWO SALES A SINGLE OR INDIVISIBLE TRANSACTION. 
ASSUMING THAT KIRKLAND, LANTZ AND WRATHER WOULD NOT HAVE SOLD THEIR TEX
PENN STOCK WITHOUT ALSO SELLING THEIR LEASE INTERESTS, THAT FACT WOULD
NOT CONVERT THE TWO SALES INTO ONE.  THE PURPOSE OF THE STIPULATION IS
PLAIN.  IF TRANSCONTINENTAL DID NOT PAY FOR AND TAKE THE LEASE
INTERESTS AND TEX-PENN CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE PROPERTIES, THEY WOULD
AGAIN BECOME STOCKHOLDERS AND HAVE A VOICE IN THE OPERATION. 

ON THE POINT UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE COMMISSIONER'S POSITION BEFORE
THE BOARD IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH HIS CONTENTION HERE.  THERE HE MADE
FOUR COMPUTATIONS:  TWO WERE OF TEX-PENN TAXES, THE OTHER TWO WERE
RESPECTIVELY THOSE OF THE OTHER RESPONDENTS.  IN ALL HIS CALCULATIONS,
HE ATTRIBUTED TO THE CONSIDERATION FOR TEX-PENN ASSETS THE 1,007,834
SHARES OF TRANSCONTINENTAL AND TO THE BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT LEASE
INTERESTS THEIR SHARES OF THE CASH, $9,000,000, LESS THE AMOUNT THEREOF
USED TO PAY TEX-PENN DEBTS.  ALL THESE SHARES WENT TO BENEDUM AND
PARRIOTT WHO OWNED ALL THE TEX-PENN STOCK.  THE DEFICIENCIES CLAIMED BY
THE COMMISSIONER AND THE AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD REST UPON THE
FACT THAT BENEDUM AND PARRIOTT AS THE ONLY STOCKHOLDERS OF TEX-PENN
BECAME THE OWNERS OF THE 1,007,834 TRANSCONTINENTAL SHARES.  AND, AS
SHOWN BY THE BOARD'S FINDINGS, THE BALANCE OF THE CASH WITHOUT MORE
WENT TO KIRKLAND, LANTZ AND WRATHER FOR THEIR LEASE INTERESTS. 

IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER $30 WAS SUFFICIENT FULLY TO COMPENSATE THEM
FOR THEIR TEX-PENN STOCK.  THE FINDINGS SHOW THE TRANSFER WAS VALID. 
INVALIDATING DISPARITY BETWEEN WORTH AND CONSIDERATION IS NOT
DISCLOSED, AND MAY NOT BE ASSUMED.  INDEED, THE COMMISSIONER'S BRIEF
STATES THAT TEX-PENN WAS ORGANIZED TO DEVELOP THE LEASES WHICH WERE THE
PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ITS FIVE STOCKHOLDERS; IT "WAS NOT EXPECTED TO
OPERATE AT A PROFIT  ...  AND ACTUALLY IT COULD NOT OPERATE AT A PROFIT
... IT WAS USEFUL CHIEFLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIVE-EIGHTHS
ROYALTIES IN THE DUKE-KNOLES FIELD HELD INDIVIDUALLY BY ITS
STOCKHOLDERS."  AND RESPONDENTS CALL ATTENTION TO FINDINGS DISCLOSING
OPERATING RESULTS THAT POINT IN THE SAME DIRECTION. 

WE FIND NOTHING IN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTS FOUND OR IN THE EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION THAT KIRKLAND, LANTZ AND WRATHER
RECEIVED FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL ANY CASH FOR THEIR STOCK IN TEX-PENN. 
IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 

3.  THE COMMISSIONER SEEKS REVERSAL UPON THE GROUNDS THAT THE
TRANSACTION WAS NOT A TAX-EXEMPT REORGANIZATION BECAUSE TEX-PENN SOUGHT
TO REALIZE A PROFIT RATHER THAN MERELY TO CHANGE THE FORM OF ITS
OWNERSHIP AND THAT SEC. 202(B) DOES NOT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION EXCHANGES
OF PROPERTY FOR STOCK.  SPECIFICALLY HE ARGUES THAT, ASSUMING THAT THE
TRANSCONTINENTAL STOCK WAS THE SOLE PROPERTY EXCHANGED FOR TEX-PENN
ASSETS, THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT WITHIN THE NON-RECOGNITION OF GAINS
PROVISION.  CONCEDEDLY, THIS CONTENTION IS CONTRARY TO THE
INTERPRETATION PUT UPON SEC. 202(B) BY ART. 1567 WHICH WAS PROMULGATED
SEPTEMBER 26, 1919 BY THE COMMISSIONER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND HAS SINCE BEEN FOLLOWED.  FN4  THE
PARTIES PRESENTED THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS TO THE BOARD AND TO THE LOWER
COURT ON THE THEORY THAT, IF NEITHER TEX-PENN NOR ITS STOCKHOLDERS AS
SUCH RECEIVED ANY CASH FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL, THE TRANSACTION WOULD BE
WITHIN SEC. 202(B).  THE COMMISSIONER'S NOTICES OF DEFICIENCY DO NOT
SUGGEST THE CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH HE NOW CONTENDS.  HE SOUGHT NO
RULING UPON THE QUESTION FROM THE BOARD OR THE LOWER COURT AND IS
THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE IT DECIDED HERE.  HELVERING V. MINNESOTA
TEA CO., 296 U.S. 378, 380.  THE TAXPAYERS WERE ENTITLED TO KNOW THE
BASIS OF LAW AND FACT ON WHICH THE COMMISSIONER SOUGHT TO SUSTAIN THE
DEFICIENCIES.  HIS FAILURE EARLIER TO PRESENT THE QUESTION LEAVES THIS
COURT WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF DECISION BELOW.  FN5  HIS PETITIONS FOR
THESE WRITS DID NOT PRESENT THE QUESTION TO THIS COURT.  WE ARE NOT
CALLED ON TO CONSIDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEC. 202(B) NOW PROPOSED. 
FN6 

4.  AS THE SOLE CONSIDERATION TO TEX-PENN WAS TRANSCONTINENTAL SHARES
AND AS KIRKLAND, LANTZ AND WRATHER RECEIVED FROM TRANSCONTINENTAL NO
CASH FOR THEIR TEX-PENN STOCK, THE TRANSACTION IS WITHIN THE NON
RECOGNITION OF GAINS PROVISIONS.  THE JUDGMENTS MUST THEREFORE BE
AFFIRMED. 

5.  THE COURT IS ALSO OF OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENTS MUST BE AFFIRMED
UPON THE GROUND THAT IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE
SHARES OF TRANSCONTINENTAL STOCK, REGARD BEING HAD TO THEIR HIGHLY
SPECULATIVE QUALITY AND TO THE TERMS OF A RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT MAKING
A SALE THEREOF IMPOSSIBLE, DID NOT HAVE A FAIR MARKET VALUE, CAPABLE OF
BEING ASCERTAINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, WHEN THEY WERE ACQUIRED BY
THE TAXPAYERS. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH VALUE, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES DID NOT LAY
THE BASIS FOR THE COMPUTATION OF A GAIN AT THE TIME THEY WERE RECEIVED,
OR FOR A TAX AS OF THAT DATE UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATUTE.  SEC.
202(B).  TREASURY REGULATIONS 45, ART. 1563.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "IN GENERAL, WHERE TWO (OR MORE) CORPORATIONS UNITE THEIR
PROPERTIES, BY EITHER (A) THE DISSOLUTION OF CORPORATION B AND THE SALE
OF ITS ASSETS TO CORPORATION A, OR (B) THE SALE OF ITS PROPERTY BY B TO
A AND THE DISSOLUTION OF B, OR (C) THE SALE OF THE STOCK OF B TO A AND
THE DISSOLUTION OF B, OR (D) THE MERGER OF B INTO A, OR (E) THE
CONSOLIDATION OF THE CORPORATIONS, NO TAXABLE INCOME IS RECEIVED FROM
THE TRANSACTION BY A OR B OR THE STOCKHOLDERS OF EITHER, PROVIDED THE
SOLE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY B AND ITS STOCKHOLDERS IN (A), (B), (C),
AND (D) IS STOCK OR SECURITIES OF A, AND BY A AND B AND THEIR
STOCKHOLDERS IN (E) IS STOCK OR SECURITIES OF THE CONSOLIDATED
CORPORATION, IN ANY CASE OF NO GREATER AGGREGATE PAR OR FACE VALUE THAN
THE OLD STOCK AND SECURITIES SURRENDERED...." 

FN2  THE TERMS OF THE TRANSFERS WERE EVIDENCED BY TWO LETTERS TO
PARRIOTT ACCOMPANYING DELIVERY OF THE ASSIGNMENTS.  WORDS WITHIN
BRACKETS WERE IN THE FIRST LETTER BUT NOT IN THE SECOND; WORDS IN
ITALICS WERE IN THE SECOND LETTER BUT NOT IN THE FIRST. 

"IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSIGNMENT WE HAVE EXECUTED TODAY,
TRANSFERRING TO  ... TRANSCONTINENTAL  ...  ALL OF OUR RIGHT, TITLE AND
INTEREST IN THE OIL AND GAS LEASES....  WE ARE ASSIGNING AND HAND YOU
HEREWITH OUR SHARES OF STOCK  ...  TEX-PENN  ...  WHICH WE HEREBY AGREE
TO SELL TO YOU AND M. L. BENEDUM JOINTLY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF $5.00
PAYABLE TO EACH OF US.  IF FOR ANY REASON THE PROPOSED ORGANIZATION OF
...  TRANSCONTINENTAL  ...  SHOULD NOT GO THROUGH, THIS STOCK IS TO BE
RETURNED TO US. 

"WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU AND MR. BENEDUM ARE TRANSFERRING TO ...
TRANSCONTINENTAL  ...  A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY THAT YOU AND
HE OWN  ...  INCLUDING YOUR INTERESTS IN THE TEX-PENN LEASES, AND THAT
YOU AND HE ARE TO BE PAID FOR ALL THESE PROPERTIES PARTLY IN CASH AND
PARTLY IN STOCK OF  ...  TRANSCONTINENTAL....  OUR ENTIRE INTERESTS IN
THE STOCK OF THE TEX-PENN COMPANY AND IN THE LEASES COVERED BY THE
ASSIGNMENT ABOVE REFERRED TO ARE PAID FOR IN FULL BY THE ($5,250,000
THAT IS TO BE PAID US IN THIS TRANSACTION.)  CONSIDERATIONS AGREED UPON
BETWEEN US." 

FN3  THIS CORRECTED AN ENTRY OF AUGUST 1 WHICH CHARGED TEX-PENN WITH
THE $350,000 AND CREDITED $140,000 TO BENEDUM AND $210,000 TO PARRIOTT
WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT THE $350,000 HAD BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THEIR
SHARE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE DUKE-KNOLES PROPERTIES.  THE
CORRECTING ENTRY (DECEMBER 31, 1919) IS AS FOLLOWS: 

W. E. WRATHER..............................  $43,750.00 

J. B. LANTZ................................ 43,750.00 

J. L. KIRKLAND.............................   65,625.00 

F. B. PARRIOTT.............................   65,625.00

                                          ------------

    TEX-PENN OIL CO...................... $350,000.00 

TO CORRECT  ...  ENTRY  ...  DISTRIBUTING AMOUNT PAID BY TEX-PENN BY
TRANSCONTINENTAL  ...  AND DEDUCTED FROM M.L.B. BY TRANSCONTINENTAL
...  AND DEDUCTED FROM M.L.B. (BENEDUM) AND F.B.P. (PARRIOTT) CASH
PROCEEDS OF SALE OF DUKE-KNOLES PROPERTY TO TRANSCONTINENTAL  ...  AS
THIS AMOUNT WAS TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE SALE PRICE RECEIVED BY
ALL THE INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS REDUCING SUCH SALE PRICE OF 5/8 INT. PER
AGREEMENT TO FOLLOWING: 

W. E. WRATHER............................ $1,456,250.00 

J. B. LANTZ..............................  1,456,250.00 

J. L. KIRKLAND...........................  2,184,375.00 

F. B. PARRIOTT...........................  2,184,375.00 

M. L. BENEDUM............................  1,368,750.00

                         --------------

   TOTAL............................... $8,650,000.00 

FN4  CF. BREWSTER V. GAGE, 280 U.S. 327, 336.  FAWCUS MACHINE CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 282 U.S. 375, 378.  FEDERAL LAND BANK V. WARNER, 292
U.S. 53, 55. 

FN5  CF. VIRGINIAN RY. V. UNITED STATES, 272 U.S. 658, 675.  LAWRENCE
V. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY., 274 U.S. 588, 596.  HAMMOND V. SCHAPPI
BUS LINE, 275 U.S. 164, 171-172.  BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 279 U.S. 781, 787.  BEAUMONT, S.L. & W. RY. V. UNITED STATES,
282 U.S. 74, 86.  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N V. WISCONSIN TELEPHONE CO., 289
U.S. 67, 69-70. 

FN6  ALICE STATE BANK V. HOUSTON PASTURE CO., 247 U.S. 240, 242. 
WEBSTER CO. V. SPLITDORF CO., 264 U.S. 463, 464.  STEELE V. DRUMMOND,
275 U.S. 199, 203.  GUNNING V. COOLEY, 291 U.S. 90, 98.  JOHNSON V.
MANHATTAN RY. CO., 289 U.S. 479, 494.  ZELLERBACH PAPER CO. V.
HELVERING, 293 U.S. 172, 182.  HELVERING V. TAYLOR, 293 U.S. 507, 511. 
CLARK V. WILLIARD, 294 U.S. 211, 216.  MOREHEAD V. N.Y. EX REL.
TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587, 605. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THESE CASES. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO CONCURS ON THE GROUND LAST STATED IN THE
OPINION. 
..END :















UNITED STATES V. MADIGAN, 300 U.S. 500 


NO. 562.  ARGUED MARCH 10, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 85 F.(2D)
609, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 305 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, AS
AMENDED, WHEREBY A POLICY WHICH HAS LAPSED WHILE THE INSURED WAS
SUFFERING FROM A COMPENSABLE DISABILITY FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS NOT
COLLECTED MAY BE REVIVED AND MATURED, PRO TANTO, IF THE INSURED HAS
BECOME PERMANENTLY DISABLED, BY APPLYING THE UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION
AS PREMIUMS, DO NOT EXTEND TO AN EARLIER POLICY WHICH WAS CONVERTED
INTO THE ONE THAT LAPSED.  P. 502. 

2.  IN THE CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT,
VETERANS' INSURANCE CHANGED FROM ONE FORM TO ANOTHER IS TERMED
"CONVERTED."  P. 503. 

3.  NEITHER THE WORDS NOR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 305 OF THE
ACT SUGGEST THAT THE PHRASE "CANCELED OR REDUCED INSURANCE" WAS
INTENDED TO INCLUDE INSURANCE ELSEWHERE DESCRIBED IN THE ACT AS
"CONVERTED," AT LEAST WHERE THE CONVERSION WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A
REDUCTION OF THE POLICY.  P. 505. 

4.  THE HOLDER OF A CONVERTED POLICY IS NOT "ENTITLED" TO TOTAL
DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE ORIGINAL POLICY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 307 OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED IN 1930, WHERE THE TOTAL DISABILITY DID
NOT OCCUR UNTIL AFTER THE CONVERSION.  P. 506. 

5.  SECTION 307 DOES NOT, EITHER BY ITS TERMS OR BY REASONABLE
IMPLICATION, EXTEND THE PRIVILEGES OF SEC. 305 TO CONVERTED INSURANCE. 
ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY PURPOSE TO AMEND, OR TO
DEPART FROM THE POLICY OF SEC. 305.  P. 506. 

6.  A CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SECTION ADDED TO AN EXISTING STATUTE, AS
BY IMPLICATION MODIFYING A SETTLED CONSTRUCTION OF AN EARLIER SECTION,
IS NOT FAVORED.  P. 506. 

UNITED STATES V. MADIGAN. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 538, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A RECOVERY
OF TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS IN A SUIT ON A CONTRACT OF WAR RISK TERM
INSURANCE. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

RESPONDENT BROUGHT THIS SUIT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA TO RECOVER TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER A
CONTRACT OF WAR RISK TERM INSURANCE.  WHILE IN THE MILITARY SERVICE OF
THE UNITED STATES IN THE WORLD WAR, HE ACQUIRED A TERM POLICY OF WAR
RISK INSURANCE.  ON NOVEMBER 1, 1919, AVAILING HIMSELF OF THE BENEFITS
OF SEC. 404 OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, C. 105,
40 STAT. 398, 410, HE CONVERTED HIS TERM INSURANCE INTO A TWENTY
PAYMENT LIFE POLICY OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT INSURANCE.  HE PAID
PREMIUMS ON THIS POLICY UNTIL JANUARY 31, 1920, WHEN IT WAS ALLOWED TO
LAPSE FOR NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS.  ON THE DATE OF THE CONVERSION OF
HIS FIRST POLICY, HE WAS SUFFERING FROM A "COMPENSABLE DISABILITY,"
AND, AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE SECOND, ON JUNE 6, 1925, HE WAS RATED BY
THE VETERANS' BUREAU AS TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.  AT THAT TIME
HE WAS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY COMPENSATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN THE
SUM OF $312.25. 

ON THE TRIAL IN THE DISTRICT COURT A JURY WAS WAIVED AND THE CASE WAS
HEARD ON AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS.  THE COURT GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
RESPONDENT FOR PERMANENT DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER HIS FIRST POLICY,
WITH RESPECT TO SO MUCH OF THE INSURANCE AS THE $312.25 OF DISABILITY
COMPENSATION, REMAINING UNCOLLECTED AT THE TIME OF TOTAL PERMANENT
DISABILITY, WOULD HAVE PURCHASED IF APPLIED TO THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS
DUE UPON THE ORIGINAL POLICY BETWEEN THE DATE OF ITS CONVERSION AND THE
DATE OF TOTAL DISABILITY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED, 85 F.(2D) 609, HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED, UNDER
SECS. 305, 307 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, TO REVIVE THE ORIGINAL
TERM INSURANCE AND TO RECOVER UNDER IT THE PERMANENT DISABILITY
BENEFITS AWARDED BY THE TRIAL COURT.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH CONFLICTS
WITH THE CONSISTENT RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS,
AND AFFECTS, ADVERSELY TO THE GOVERNMENT, A LARGE NUMBER OF PENDING
INSURANCE CLAIMS. 

43 STAT. 624, 626, AS AMENDED JULY 2, 1926, C. 723, 44 STAT. 790, 799,
38 U.S.C. SEC. 516, APPLIES TO LAPSED, CANCELLED OR REDUCED INSURANCE
POLICIES.  IT PROVIDES: 

"WHERE ANY PERSON HAS HERETOFORE ALLOWED HIS INSURANCE TO LAPSE, OR
HAS CANCELED OR REDUCED ALL OR ANY PART OF SUCH INSURANCE, WHILE
SUFFERING FROM A COMPENSABLE DISABILITY FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WAS NOT
COLLECTED AND DIES OR HAS DIED, OR BECOMES OR HAS BECOME PERMANENTLY
AND TOTALLY DISABLED AND AT THE TIME OF SUCH DEATH OR PERMANENT TOTAL
DISABILITY WAS OR IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION REMAINING UNCOLLECTED,
THEN AND IN THAT EVENT SO MUCH OF HIS INSURANCE AS SAID UNCOLLECTED
COMPENSATION,  ...  WOULD PURCHASE IF APPLIED AS PREMIUMS WHEN DUE,
SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS LAPSED, CANCELED OR REDUCED; AND THE UNITED
STATES VETERANS' BUREAU IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO PAY TO
SAID SOLDIER, OR HIS BENEFICIARIES, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE AMOUNT OF
SAID INSURANCE  ..." 

SEC. 518, RELATES TO ALL INSURANCE POLICIES "HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER
ISSUED, REINSTATED OR CONVERTED."  IT DECLARES THAT ALL SUCH POLICIES
SHALL BE INCONTESTABLE AND PROVIDES: 

"THAT THE INSURED UNDER SUCH CONTRACT OR POLICY MAY, WITHOUT
PREJUDICING HIS RIGHTS, ELECT TO MAKE CLAIM TO THE BUREAU OR TO BRING
SUIT UNDER SECTION 19 OF THIS ACT ON ANY PRIOR CONTRACT OR POLICY, AND
IF FOUND ENTITLED THERETO, SHALL, UPON SURRENDER OF ANY SUBSEQUENT
CONTRACT OR POLICY, BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENTS UNDER THE PRIOR CONTRACT OR
POLICY  ..." 

RESPONDENT ELECTED TO CLAIM UNDER HIS ORIGINAL POLICY, PRESUMABLY
BECAUSE THE RATE OF PREMIUMS FOR THE TERM INSURANCE WAS LOWER THAN FOR
THE TWENTY-PAYMENT LIFE POLICY, AND THE $312.25 OF DISABILITY
COMPENSATION WOULD PURCHASE A LARGER AMOUNT OF THE FORMER TYPE THAN OF
THE LATTER.  THE GOVERNMENT ADMITS THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED,
UNDER SEC. 305, TO REVIVE THE TWENTY-PAYMENT LIFE POLICY WHICH HAS
LAPSED, BUT CONTENDS THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO REVIVE THE EARLIER TERM
INSURANCE WHICH HE HAD CONVERTED, BECAUSE SEC. 305 OMITS ANY REFERENCE
TO CONVERTED INSURANCE, SUCH AS APPEARS IN SEC. 307. 

ALL WAR RISK POLICIES WERE REQUIRED TO BE FOR TERM INSURANCE BY SEC.
404 OF THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT, BUT THAT SECTION PERMITTED
CONVERSION OF THE INSURANCE INTO OTHER FORMS, AFTER TERMINATION OF THE
WAR.  WHEN CONGRESS DESIRED TO LEGISLATE ABOUT ONE FORM OF INSURANCE
THUS CHANGED INTO ANOTHER, IT EXPLICITLY USED THE DESCRIPTIVE TERM
"CONVERTED."  FN1  THE OMISSION OF ANY REFERENCE TO CONVERTED INSURANCE
IN SEC. 305 INDICATES THAT THE PRIVILEGE OF REVIVING A LAPSED,
CANCELLED OR REDUCED POLICY, WAS NOT INTENDED TO EXTEND TO AN EARLIER
POLICY CONVERTED INTO ANOTHER, WHOSE LAPSE IS THE CONDITION OF THE
REVIVAL.  SUCH MUST BE TAKEN TO BE THE MEANING IF IT IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE PURPOSES OF THE SECTION, DISCLOSED BY ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER SECTIONS. 

THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SUPPORTS THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THAT FROM
THE BEGINNING THE AIM OF THE LEGISLATION LATER EMBODIED IN SEC. 305 WAS
TO PERMIT THE VETERAN TO REVIVE HIS POLICY WHEN HE HAD ALLOWED IT TO
LAPSE, FOR WANT OF FUNDS, AT A TIME WHEN THERE WAS MONEY DUE HIM FROM
THE GOVERNMENT FOR A COMPENSABLE DISABILITY.  THE SUPPOSITION WAS THAT
HE WOULD HAVE PAID THE PREMIUMS ON THE LAPSED POLICY IF HE HAD THEN
RECEIVED THE SUM DUE FROM THE GOVERNMENT - A SUPPOSITION WHICH IS
INADMISSIBLE IF, AT THAT TIME, HE HAD CONVERTED LOW PREMIUM TERM
INSURANCE INTO ANY OF THE OTHER FORMS OF INSURANCE COMMANDING A HIGHER
PREMIUM, AS PERMITTED BY SEC. 404. 

IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM, SEC. 305 APPEARED AS A PART OF SEC. 408 OF THE
WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT, ADDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1921, SEC. 27, C.
57, 42 STAT. 147, 156-157.  THE BILL WHICH BECAME SEC. 408, AS
ORIGINALLY REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, PROVIDED FOR THE
REINSTATEMENT BY DISABLED VETERANS OF THEIR LAPSED AND CANCELLED
POLICIES.  IN RECOMMENDING THIS LEGISLATION THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
HAVING IT IN CHARGE POINTED OUT THAT MOST SUCH LAPSES AND CANCELLATIONS
OCCURRED AT A TIME WHEN DISABILITY COMPENSATION WAS DUE TO THE VETERAN,
AND WERE PROBABLY OCCASIONED BY LACK OF FUNDS.  FN2  THE BILL WAS
AMENDED ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE  FN3  SO AS TO INCLUDE THE PROVISIONS
LATER ELABORATED INTO SEC. 305.  THEY PERMITTED THE REVIVAL OF A LAPSED
POLICY IN FAVOR OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF A DECEASED VETERAN, IF, AT THE
TIME OF THE LAPSE, HE HAD BEEN ENTITLED TO MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT
FOR A COMPENSABLE DISABILITY.  FN4  THE PROVISO, UPON WHICH REVIVAL WAS
CONDITIONED, THAT AT THE TIME OF THE LAPSE COMPENSATION BE DUE FROM THE
GOVERNMENT TO THE VETERAN, MADE MORE EXPLICIT THE PURPOSE INDICATED IN
THE COMMITTEE REPORT.  FN5 

AS THEN ADOPTED, THE REVIVAL PROVISION APPLIED ONLY TO LAPSED
POLICIES, BUT AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, IT WAS EXTENDED TO
INCLUDE "CANCELLED OR REDUCED" INSURANCE.  THIS AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING A RULING OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL THAT
THE PHRASE "LAPSED INSURANCE" DID NOT EMBRACE CANCELLED OR REDUCED
INSURANCE, EVEN THOUGH THE CANCELLATION OR REDUCTION OCCURRED AT A TIME
WHEN COMPENSATION WAS OWING TO THE VETERAN.  SEE REPORT OF HOUSE
COMMITTEE, NO. 1217, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., PP. 7-8; HEARINGS BEFORE
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, 69TH CONG., 1ST SESS., ON H.R. 12175, PP. 50
51.  NEITHER THE WORDS NOR THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 305 SUGGEST
THAT THE PHRASE "CANCELED OR REDUCED INSURANCE" WAS INTENDED TO INCLUDE
INSURANCE ELSEWHERE DESCRIBED IN THE ACT AS "CONVERTED," AT LEAST
UNLESS THE CONVERSION WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A REDUCTION OF THE POLICY. 
THE LIKE ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN GIVEN
TO THE SECTION BY THE VETERANS' BUREAU  FN6  IS OF PERSUASIVE FORCE. 
NORWEGIAN PRODUCTS CO. V. UNITED STATES, 288 U.S. 294, 315; BROWN V.
UNITED STATES, 113 U.S. 568, 571. 

THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION
OF SEC. 305.  SECTION 307 PERMITS THE INSURED, IF TOTALLY DISABLED, TO
MAKE CLAIM UNDER HIS CONVERTED POLICY AND ENTITLES HIM TO THE BENEFITS
OF THAT POLICY "IF FOUND ENTITLED THERETO."  SEE UNITED STATES V.
ARZNER, 287 U.S. 470, 473.  BUT IT IS PLAIN THAT RESPONDENT IS NOT
"ENTITLED" TO TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE ORIGINAL POLICY,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 307, BECAUSE THE TOTAL DISABILITY DID NOT
OCCUR UNTIL AFTER ITS CONVERSION.  SECTION 307 DOES NOT, EITHER BY ITS
TERMS OR BY REASONABLE IMPLICATION, EXTEND THE PRIVILEGES OF SEC. 305
TO CONVERTED INSURANCE.  THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEC. 307 DOES NOT
DISCLOSE ANY PURPOSE TO AMEND SEC. 305, OR TO DEPART FROM ITS POLICY,
AND IN ANY CASE THE MODIFICATION BY IMPLICATION OF THE SETTLED
CONSTRUCTION OF AN EARLIER AND DIFFERENT SECTION IS NOT FAVORED. 
UNITED STATES V. MUNDAY, 222 U.S. 175, 182; IBANEZ V. HONGKONG BANKING
CORP., 246 U.S. 621, 626.  THE RIGHT OF RESPONDENT TO REVIVE HIS
INSURANCE IS LIMITED TO THE LAPSED TWENTY-PAYMENT LIFE POLICY. 
REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924, SEC. 307, AS AMENDED JULY 3,
1930, 46 STAT. 991, 1001, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 518.  COMPARE WORLD WAR
VETERANS' ACT, 1924, SEC. 310, 45 STAT. 970, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 512 A; SEC.
311, 45 STAT. 970, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 512 B; SEC. 302, 43 STAT. 625, 38
U.S.C. SEC. 513; SEC. 308, 44 STAT. 790, 800, 38 U.S.C. SEC. 516 A, FOR
LEGISLATION APPLYING THE TERM "CONVERTED" TO THE SUBSEQUENT, UNITED
STATES GOVERNMENT LIFE INSURANCE. 

FN2  REPORT OF HOUSE COMMITTEE, NO. 104, 67TH CONG., 1ST SESS., P.
10, STATES:  "IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE EQUITABLE AND FAIR WHEN IT IS
REMEMBERED THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN MOST OF THE INSTANCES, THE
REASON THE DISABLED SOLDIER FAILED TO KEEP UP HIS INSURANCE WAS THAT HE
WAS SHORT OF FUNDS AND IT TOOK THE GOVERNMENT SOME TIME TO INVESTIGATE
AND GRANT HIS COMPENSATION, AND THAT BECAUSE OF THIS FINANCIAL
STRINGENCY HE ALLOWED HIS INSURANCE TO LAPSE." 

FN3  61 CONG. REC. 2422. 

FN4  SECTION 408 WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, C. 291, 42
STAT. 1521, 1525-1526, TO PROVIDE THAT A LAPSED POLICY COULD BE REVIVED
BY ONE WHO BECAME PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED. 

FN5  SEE 34 OPINIONS, U.S. ATTORNEYS GENERAL, 369, 371. 

FN6  SEE COMMUNICATION OF ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS TO THE
SOLICITOR GENERAL, DECEMBER 5, 1936:  "...  IT HAS BEEN THE CONSISTENT
PRACTICE OF THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION AND ITS PREDECESSORS TO
ADMINISTER SECTION 305, WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924, AND THE
PRECEDING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 408, WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT, ON THE
THEORY THAT THEY CONTAINED NO PROVISIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FOR
REVIVAL OF INSURANCE UNDER A YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM CONTRACT AFTER IT
HAD BEEN CONVERTED TO A POLICY OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT LIFE
INSURANCE...." 
..END :


















SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 506 


NO. 614.  ARGUED MARCH 12, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 86 F.(2D)
486, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THAT PART OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT EVERY
DEALER IN FIREARMS SHALL REGISTER AND SHALL PAY AN ANNUAL TAX OF $200
OR BE SUBJECT TO FINE AND IMPRISONMENT, IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE
TAXING POWER OF CONGRESS.  PP. 511 ET SEQ. 

THE TERM "FIREARM" IS DEFINED BY SEC. 1 OF THE ACT AS MEANING A
SHOTGUN OR RIFLE HAVING A BARREL LESS THAN EIGHTEEN INCHES IN LENGTH,
OR ANY OTHER WEAPON, EXCEPT A PISTOL OR REVOLVER, FROM WHICH A SHOT IS
DISCHARGED BY AN EXPLOSIVE, IF CAPABLE OF BEING CONCEALED ON THE
PERSON, OR A MACHINE GUN, AND INCLUDES A MUFFLER OR SILENCER FOR ANY
FIREARM. 

2.  CONGRESS MAY SELECT THE SUBJECTS OF TAXATION, CHOOSING SOME AND
OMITTING OTHERS.  IT MAY IMPOSE EXCISE TAXES ON THE DOING OF BUSINESS. 
P. 512. 

3.  THE TAX UPON DEALERS, SUPRA, IS NOT IN THE CATEGORY OF PENALTIES
IMPOSED FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  P. 513. 

4.  A TAX MAY HAVE REGULATORY EFFECTS AND MAY BURDEN, RESTRICT OR
SUPPRESS THE THING TAXED, AND STILL BE WITHIN THE TAXING POWER.  P.
513. 

5.  COURTS MAY NOT INQUIRE INTO THE MOTIVES OF CONGRESS IN EXERCISING
ITS POWERS; THEY WILL NOT UNDERTAKE, BY COLLATERAL INQUIRY AS TO THE
MEASURE OF THE REGULATORY EFFECT OF A TAX, TO ASCRIBE TO CONGRESS AN
ATTEMPT, UNDER THE GUISE OF TAXATION, TO EXERCISE ANOTHER POWER DENIED
BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 513. 

6.  THE COURT DECLINES TO CONSIDER PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS NOT
SUPPORTED BY ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR.  P. 514. 

SONZINSKY V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 648, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A CONVICTION
UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT. 

CONGRESS IS NOT EMPOWERED TO TAX FOR THOSE PURPOSES WHICH ARE WITHIN
THE EXCLUSIVE PROVINCE OF THE STATES.  UNITED STATES V. BUTLER, 297
U.S. 1, 64; GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 9 WHEAT.  1, 199. 

BENEFICENT AIMS CAN NEVER SERVE IN LIEU OF CONSTITUTIONAL POWER. 
CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 38. 

AN EXACTION, CALLED A TAX, WHICH IS IN FACT AND EFFECT A PENALTY, IS
NOT A TAX.  WHILE THE LAWMAKER IS ENTIRELY FREE TO IGNORE THE ORDINARY
MEANING OF WORDS AND MAKE DEFINITIONS OF HIS OWN, THAT DEVICE MAY NOT
BE EMPLOYED SO AS TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF ACTS OR THINGS TO WHICH THE
WORDS ARE APPLIED.  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., SUPRA; BAILEY V. DREXEL
FURNITURE CO., 259 U.S. 20; UNITED STATES V. LAFRANCA, 282 U.S. 568,
572; UNITED STATES V. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287, 293; UNITED STATES V.
BUTLER, SUPRA. 

THE CONSTITUTION MADE NO GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO CONGRESS TO LEGISLATE
SUBSTANTIVELY FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS,
SAVE AS THE GENERAL WELFARE MAY BE PROMOTED BY THE EXERCISE OF THE
POWERS WHICH ARE GRANTED.  CASES SUPRA. 

THE POWER OF TAXATION WHICH IS EXPRESSLY GRANTED MAY BE ADOPTED AS A
MEANS TO CARRY INTO OPERATION ANOTHER POWER ALSO EXPRESSLY GRANTED, BUT
RESORT TO THE TAXING POWER TO EFFECTUATE AN END WHICH IS NOT
LEGITIMATE, NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTION, IS OBVIOUSLY
INADMISSIBLE.  CASES SUPRA. 

IF THE CONSTITUTION, IN ITS GRANT OF POWERS, IS TO BE SO CONSTRUED AS
TO CARRY INTO FULL EFFECT THE POWER GRANTED, IT IS EQUALLY IMPERATIVE
THAT, WHERE A PROHIBITION OR LIMITATION IS PLACED UPON THE POWER OF
CONGRESS, THAT PROHIBITION OR LIMITATION SHOULD BE ENFORCED IN ITS
SPIRIT AND TO ITS ENTIRETY.  FAIRBANKS V. UNITED STATES, 181 U.S. 312. 

A MERE READING OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT DISCLOSES THAT IT WAS
ENACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING OR SUPPRESSING TRAFFIC IN THE
FIREARMS DESCRIBED IN THE ACT; THAT IT WAS NOT ENACTED FOR THE PURPOSE
OF COLLECTING ANY TAXES; THAT IT WAS PASSED AS A POLICE MEASURE, AS AN
AID TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND NOT AS A REVENUE LAW.  WHILE IT IS
TRUE THAT, WHERE THE LAW MERELY IMPOSES THE TAX WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE
INDIRECT PURPOSE OF ITS IMPOSITION, THE COURTS MIGHT HESITATE TO
DECLARE THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE REAL
PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS DISCLOSED ON ITS FACE TO BE A PURPOSE THAT
INVADES THE POLICE POWERS RESERVED TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, THE COURTS
SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO DECLARE THE ACT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION
BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES BY THE TENTH
AMENDMENT.  COOLEY, CONST. L., PP. 56-60; CITIZENS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN.
V. TOPEKA, 20 WALL.  655; POWELL V. PENNSYLVANIA, 127 U.S. 678. 

UNDER THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM, THE POLICE POWER, BEING AN
ATTRIBUTE OF SOVEREIGNTY INHERENT IN THE ORIGINAL STATES, AND NOT
DELEGATED BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO THE UNITED STATES, REMAINS
WITH THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.  NEW ORLEANS GAS LIGHT CO. V. LOUISIANA
LIGHT CO., 115 U.S. 650; PLUMLEY V. MASSACHUSETTS, 155 U.S. 461; UNITED
STATES V. L.C. KNIGHT CO., 156 U.S. 1; CONNOLLY V. UNION SEWER PIPE
CO., 184 U.S. 540. 

WHATEVER MAY BE THE MOTIVE OR PRETEXT OF A STATUTE, OR IN WHATEVER
LANGUAGE IT MAY BE FRAMED, ITS REAL PURPOSE AND THE QUESTION OF ITS
VALIDITY MUST BE DETERMINED BY ITS NATURAL AND REASONABLE EFFECT TO BE
ASCERTAINED FROM ITS PRACTICAL OPERATION.  HENDERSON V. NEW YORK, 92
U.S. 259; MORGAN'S CO. V. BOARD OF HEALTH, 118 U.S. 455; COLLINS V. NEW
HAMPSHIRE, 171 U.S. 30; MUGLER V. KANSAS, 123 U.S. 623; FAIRBANKS V.
UNITED STATES, 181 U.S. 283; POSTAL TELEGRAPH CO. V. ADAMS, 155 U.S.
688. 

IT IS APPARENT FROM READING THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT THAT CONGRESS
HAD NO INTENTION OF FRAMING A LAW THAT WOULD PROCURE ANY REVENUE FOR
THE GOVERNMENT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE EFFECT OF THE APPLICATION OF
THE LAW TO PETITIONER IS TO REQUIRE HIM TO PAY A DEALER'S ANNUAL TAX OF
$200.00 AND TO PAY A TRANSFER TAX OF AN ADDITIONAL $200.00 FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF HANDLING AND SELLING A COMMODITY OF THE VALUE OF ONLY
$10.00.  THE ACT FURTHER SUBJECTS PETITIONER TO THE PAYMENT OF A FINE
AND TO IMPRISONMENT OF NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS IF HE SHOULD FAIL TO
PAY THE PENALTIES REQUIRED OF HIM.  THESE FACTS DEMONSTRATE, WITHOUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTRADICTION, THAT THE PURPOSE WAS NOT NOT TO TAX A
BUSINESS, BUT TO PROHIBIT IT.  IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT ANYONE WOULD
ANTICIPATE THAT A DEALER WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT
COULD POSSIBLY PAY THE PENALTY REQUIRED BY THE ACT.  THE AMOUNT OF A
LEVY THAT A STATUTE MAKES UPON BUSINESS FREQUENTLY FORMS THE BASIS OF
JURISDICTIONAL ACTION AND DETERMINES THE VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION.  THE
COURTS HAVE FOUND NO INSUPERABLE DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TAX AND A PENALTY.  BAILEY V. DREXEL FURNITURE
CO., 259 U.S. 20; ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TELEGRAPH CO. V. PHILADELPHIA, 190
U.S. 160; SMYTH V. AMES, 169 U.S. 466; LINDER V. UNITED STATES, 268
U.S. 5. 

THE CLASSIFICATION MADE BY THE ACT IS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE.  IT
DISCRIMINATES AGAINST ONE DEALER IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER, WITHOUT STATING
ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR SO DOING.  CONNOLLY V. UNION SEWER PIPE CO., 184
U.S. 540; OLIVER V. WASHINGTON MILLS, 11 ALLEN 265. 

IT IS THE DUTY OF A REVIEWING COURT TO REVIEW THE TESTIMONY AND
REVERSE THE CONVICTION IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER TO SUPPORT IT.
MILES V. UNITED STATES, 103 U.S. 304; DEGNAN V. UNITED STATES, 271 FED.
291; APPLEBAUM V. UNITED STATES, 274 FED. 43. 

THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THIS STATUTE IS FOUND IN ART. I,
SEC. 8, CL. 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

IT IS NO OBJECTION THAT THE SIZE OF THE TAX TENDS TO BURDEN AND
DISCOURAGE THE CONDUCT OF THE OCCUPATION OF PETITIONER.  CF. MAGNANO
CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40.  NOR IS IT MATERIAL THAT CONGRESS MAY
HAVE ANTICIPATED AND EVEN INTENDED SUCH AN EFFECT.  WHERE A TAX IS LAID
ON A PROPER SUBJECT AND DISCLOSES A REVENUE PURPOSE, IT IS OF NO
CONSEQUENCE THAT SOCIAL, OR MORAL, OR ECONOMIC FACTORS MAY HAVE BEEN
CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS IN ENACTING THE MEASURE.  MCCRAY V. UNITED
STATES, 195 U.S. 27; UNITED STATES V. DOREMUS, 249 U.S. 86; NIGRO V.
UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 332; HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S.
394.  THE CASES RELIED UPON BY PETITIONER ARE DISTINGUISHABLE.  THEY
INVOLVE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS DEEMED
TO BE BEYOND THE POWER OF CONGRESS. 

PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE INVOLVES AN UNREASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION IS MERELY AN ATTACK ON THE SELECTION BY CONGRESS OF THE
OBJECTS OF TAXATION, AND IS UNTENABLE.  HIS FURTHER INSISTENCE THAT THE
EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION PRESSES A
CONTENTION NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE ORDER GRANTING THE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER SEC. 2 OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS
ACT OF JUNE 26, 1934, C. 757, 48 STAT. 1236, 26 U.S.C., SECS. 1132-1132
Q, WHICH IMPOSES A $200 ANNUAL LICENSE TAX ON DEALERS IN FIREARMS, IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF CONGRESS. 

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN ILLINOIS
ON TWO COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT, THE FIRST CHARGING HIM WITH VIOLATION
OF SEC. 2, BY DEALING IN FIREARMS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE TAX.  ON
APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION ON THE SECOND
COUNT AND AFFIRMED ON THE FIRST.  86 F.(2D) 486.  ON PETITION OF THE
ACCUSED WE GRANTED CERTIORARI, LIMITED TO THE QUESTION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE IN ITS APPLICATION UNDER THE
FIRST COUNT IN THE INDICTMENT. 

FIREARMS TO REGISTER WITH THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE IN THE
DISTRICT WHERE HE CARRIES ON BUSINESS, AND TO PAY A SPECIAL EXCISE TAX
OF $200 A YEAR.  IMPORTERS OR MANUFACTURERS ARE TAXED $500 A YEAR. 
BY THE TRANSFEROR, AND SEC. 4 PRESCRIBES REGULATIONS FOR THE
IDENTIFICATION OF PURCHASERS.  THE TERM "FIREARM" IS DEFINED BY SEC. 1
AS MEANING A SHOTGUN OR A RIFLE HAVING A BARREL LESS THAN EIGHTEEN
INCHES IN LENGTH, OR ANY OTHER WEAPON, EXCEPT A PISTOL OR REVOLVER,
FROM WHICH A SHOT IS DISCHARGED BY AN EXPLOSIVE, IF CAPABLE OF BEING
CONCEALED ON THE PERSON, OR A MACHINE GUN, AND INCLUDES A MUFFLER OR
SILENCER FOR ANY FIREARM.  AS THE CONVICTION FOR NONPAYMENT OF THE TAX
EXACTED BY SEC. 2 HAS ALONE BEEN SUSTAINED, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO
INQUIRE WHETHER THE DIFFERENT TAX LEVIED BY SEC. 3 AND THE REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO IT ARE VALID.  SECTION 16 DECLARES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
THE ACT ARE SEPARABLE.  EACH TAX IS ON A DIFFERENT ACTIVITY AND IS
COLLECTIBLE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE OTHER.  FULL EFFECT MAY BE GIVEN TO
THE LICENSE TAX STANDING ALONE, EVEN THOUGH ALL OTHER PROVISIONS ARE
INVALID.  WELLER V. NEW YORK, 268 U.S. 319; FIELD V. CLARK, 143 U.S.
649, 697; CF. CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, 234. 

IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO LAY TAXES, CONGRESS
MAY SELECT THE SUBJECTS OF TAXATION, CHOOSING SOME AND OMITTING
OTHERS.  SEE FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 158; NICOL V.
AMES, 173 U.S. 509, 516; BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124.  ITS POWER
EXTENDS TO THE IMPOSITION OF EXCISE TAXES UPON THE DOING OF BUSINESS. 
SEE LICENSE TAX CASES, 5 WALL.  462; SPRECKLES SUGAR REFINING CO. V.
MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397, 412; UNITED STATES V. DOREMUS, 249 U.S. 86, 94. 
PETITIONER DOES NOT DENY THAT CONGRESS MAY TAX HIS BUSINESS AS A DEALER
IN FIREARMS.  HE INSISTS THAT THE PRESENT LEVY IS NOT A TRUE TAX, BUT A
PENALTY IMPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPRESSING TRAFFIC IN A CERTAIN
NOXIOUS TYPE OF FIREARMS, THE LOCAL REGULATION OF WHICH IS RESERVED TO
THE STATES BECAUSE NOT GRANTED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  TO
ESTABLISH ITS PENAL AND PROHIBITIVE CHARACTER, HE RELIES ON THE AMOUNTS
OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 2 ON DEALERS, MANUFACTURERS AND IMPORTERS,
AND OF THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 3 ON EACH TRANSFER OF A "FIREARM,"
PAYABLE BY THE TRANSFEROR.  THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT ON THE DISTRIBUTION
OF A LIMITED CLASS OF FIREARMS, OF RELATIVELY SMALL VALUE, BY THE
SUCCESSIVE IMPOSITION OF DIFFERENT TAXES, ONE ON THE BUSINESS OF THE
IMPORTER OR MANUFACTURER, ANOTHER ON THAT OF THE DEALER, AND A THIRD ON
THE TRANSFER TO A BUYER, IS SAID TO BE PROHIBITIVE IN EFFECT AND TO
DISCLOSE UNMISTAKABLY THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE TO REGULATE RATHER THAN
TO TAX. 

THE CASE IS NOT ONE WHERE THE STATUTE CONTAINS REGULATORY PROVISIONS
RELATED TO A PURPORTED TAX IN SUCH A WAY AS HAS ENABLED THIS COURT TO
SAY IN OTHER CASES THAT THE LATTER IS A PENALTY RESORTED TO AS A MEANS
OF ENFORCING THE REGULATIONS.  SEE CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, 259 U.S. 20,
35; HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S.
238.  NOR IS THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX DESCRIBED OR TREATED AS CRIMINAL BY
THE TAXING STATUTE.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S.
287.  HERE SEC. 2 CONTAINS NO REGULATION OTHER THAN THE MERE
REGISTRATION PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTABLE AS IN AID OF A
REVENUE PURPOSE.  ON ITS FACE IT IS ONLY A TAXING MEASURE, AND WE ARE
ASKED TO SAY THAT THE TAX, BY VIRTUE OF ITS DETERRENT EFFECT ON THE
ACTIVITIES TAXED, OPERATES AS A REGULATION WHICH IS BEYOND THE
CONGRESSIONAL POWER. 

EVERY TAX IS IN SOME MEASURE REGULATORY.  TO SOME EXTENT IT
INTERPOSES AN ECONOMIC IMPEDIMENT TO THE ACTIVITY TAXED AS COMPARED
WITH OTHERS NOT TAXED.  BUT A TAX IS NOT ANY THE LESS A TAX BECAUSE IT
HAS A REGULATORY EFFECT, UNITED STATES V. DOREMUS, SUPRA, 93, 94; NIGRO
V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 332, 353, 354; LICENSE TAX CASES, SUPRA; SEE
CHILD LABOR TAX CASE, SUPRA, 38; AND IT HAS LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT
AN ACT OF CONGRESS WHICH ON ITS FACE PURPORTS TO BE AN EXERCISE OF THE
TAXING POWER IS NOT ANY THE LESS SO BECAUSE THE TAX IS BURDENSOME OR
TENDS TO RESTRICT OR SUPPRESS THE THING TAXED.  VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, 8
WALL.  533, 548; MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, 195 U.S. 27, 60-61; CF.
ALASKA FISH CO. V. SMITH, 255 U.S. 44, 48. 

INQUIRY INTO THE HIDDEN MOTIVES WHICH MAY MOVE CONGRESS TO EXERCISE A
POWER CONSTITUTIONALLY CONFERRED UPON IT IS BEYOND THE COMPETENCY OF
COURTS.  VEAZIE BANK V. FENNO, SUPRA; MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA,
56-59; UNITED STATES V. DOREMUS, SUPRA, 93-94; SEE MAGNANO CO. V.
HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, 44, 45; CF. ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423,
455; SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE CO., 255 U.S. 180, 210; WEBER V. FREED,
239 U.S. 325, 329-330; FLETCHER V. PECK, 6 CRANCH 87, 130.  THEY WILL
NOT UNDERTAKE, BY COLLATERAL INQUIRY AS TO THE MEASURE OF THE
REGULATORY EFFECT OF A TAX, TO ASCRIBE TO CONGRESS AN ATTEMPT, UNDER
THE GUISE OF TAXATION, TO EXERCISE ANOTHER POWER DENIED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  MCCRAY V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; CF. MAGNANO CO. V.
HAMILTON, SUPRA, 45. 

HERE THE ANNUAL TAX OF $200 IS PRODUCTIVE OF SOME REVENUE.  FN1  WE
ARE NOT FREE TO SPECULATE AS TO THE MOTIVES WHICH MOVED CONGRESS TO
IMPOSE IT, OR AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT MAY OPERATE TO RESTRICT THE
ACTIVITIES TAXED.  AS IT IS NOT ATTENDED BY AN OFFENSIVE REGULATION,
AND SINCE IT OPERATES AS A TAX, IT IS WITHIN THE NATIONAL TAXING
POWER.  ALSTON V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 289, 294; NIGRO V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA, 352, 353; HAMPTON & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 276 U.S. 394,
411, 413.    WE DO NOT DISCUSS PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS WHICH HE FAILED
TO ASSIGN AS ERROR BELOW.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE $200 TAX WAS PAID BY 27 DEALERS IN 1934, AND BY 22 DEALERS
IN 1935.  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, FISCAL
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1935, PP. 129-131; ID., FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
1936, PP. 139-141. 
..END :
















VIRGINIAN RY. V. FEDERATION, 300 U.S. 515 


NO. 324.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 8, 9, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 641, AFFIRMED.  D.C., 11 F.SUPP.  621. 


1.  CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT, BY DISTRICT COURT AND CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, ARE CONCLUSIVE WHEN NOT PLAINLY ERRONEOUS.  PP. 542-545. 

2.  THE AMENDED RAILWAY LABOR ACT SEEKS TO AVOID INTERRUPTIONS OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE RESULTING FROM DISPUTES CONCERNING PAY, RULES, OR
WORKING CONDITIONS ON THE RAILROADS, BY THE PROMOTION OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS
EMPLOYEES, AND BY MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION WHEN SUCH BARGAINING DOES
NOT RESULT IN AGREEMENT.  TO FACILITATE AGREEMENT, IT GIVES TO
EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR OWN SELECTION, DOING AWAY WITH COMPANY
INTERFERENCE AND "COMPANY UNIONS."  SECTION 2, NINTH, MAKES IT THE DUTY
OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, WHEN ANY DISPUTE ARISES AMONG A
CARRIER'S EMPLOYEES "AS TO WHO ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH
EMPLOYEES," TO INVESTIGATE THE DISPUTE AND TO CERTIFY THE NAME OF THE
ORGANIZATION AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE EMPLOYEES; AND IT COMMANDS
THAT "UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH CERTIFICATION THE CARRIER SHALL TREAT WITH
THE REPRESENTATIVE SO CERTIFIED AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR
CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE DUTY TO "TREAT" WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE SO CERTIFIED IS
MANDATORY.  P. 547. 

(2)  THE STATUTE DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO COMPEL AGREEMENT AND DOES NOT
PRECLUDE THE EMPLOYER FROM ENTERING INTO INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS DIRECTLY
WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, BUT IT REQUIRES THE EMPLOYER TO "TREAT WITH"
THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES, THAT IS, TO MEET AND
CONFER WITH THEIR REPRESENTATIVE, TO LISTEN TO THEIR COMPLAINTS, AND TO
MAKE REASONABLE EFFORT TO COMPOSE DIFFERENCES.  P. 548. 

(3)  THE DUTY IS TO TREAT WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
EXCLUSIVELY.  P. 548. 

(4)  THIS DUTY IS ENFORCEABLE BY INJUNCTION.  P. 549. 

3.  A COURT OF EQUITY MAY REFUSE TO ACT WHEN IT CANNOT GIVE EFFECTIVE
RELIEF; BUT WHETHER A DECREE SHOULD BE REFUSED AS USELESS IS A MATTER
OF JUDGMENT ADDRESSED TO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.  P.
550. 

4.  IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE DUTY OF A CARRIER TO TREAT WITH THE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES IS ENFORCEABLE BY MANDATORY
INJUNCTION, WEIGHT IS ATTACHED TO THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS THAT
CONFERENCE BETWEEN CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES IS A POWERFUL AID TO
INDUSTRIAL PEACE; AND IT WILL NOT BE ASSUMED THAT SUCH NEGOTIATION WILL
NOT RESULT IN AGREEMENT OR LEAD TO SUCCESSFUL MEDIATION OR
ARBITRATION.  P. 551. 

5.  THE PEACEABLE SETTLEMENT OF LABOR CONTROVERSIES THAT MAY
SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF AN INTERSTATE CARRIER TO PERFORM ITS
SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC, IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  P. 552. 

6.  COURTS OF EQUITY GO MUCH FARTHER IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST THAN WHEN ONLY PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE INVOLVED.  P. 552. 

7.  THE FACT THAT, BY THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, CONGRESS HAS INDICATED
ITS PURPOSE TO MAKE NEGOTIATION BETWEEN CARRIER AND EMPLOYEES
OBLIGATORY IN CASE OF INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSY, IS IN ITSELF A
DECLARATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND POLICY.  P. 552. 

8.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE EXTENDS TO SUCH
REGULATIONS OF THE RELATIONS OF RAIL CARRIERS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES AS ARE
REASONABLY CALCULATED TO PREVENT THE INTERRUPTION OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BY STRIKES AND THEIR ATTENDANT DISORDERS.  P. 553. 

9.  IT WAS FOR CONGRESS TO CHOOSE THE MEANS BY WHICH ITS OBJECTIVE OF
SECURING THE UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE OF INTERSTATE RAILROADS WAS TO BE
SECURED, AND ITS JUDGMENT, EXPRESSED IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND
CONFIRMED BY THE HISTORY OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES AND OF RAILROAD LABOR
RELATIONS, IS NOT OPEN TO REVIEW HERE.  P. 553. 

10.  THE ACTIVITIES OF "BACK SHOP" EMPLOYEES ENGAGED ON HEAVY REPAIRS
ON LOCOMOTIVES AND CARS WITHDRAWN FROM SERVICE FOR LONG PERIODS, ARE
HELD TO BEAR SUCH RELATION TO THE INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES OF THE CARRIER
AS TO BE REGARDED AS PART OF THEM - (EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207
U.S. 463, DISTINGUISHED) - ALL SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  P. 554. 

11.  ALTHOUGH THE CARRIER IN THIS CASE MIGHT HAVE TURNED OVER ITS
BACK SHOP REPAIR WORK TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, ITS DETERMINATION TO
MAKE ITS OWN REPAIRS, AND THE NATURE OF THE WORK DONE, BROUGHT ITS
RELATIONS WITH THE BACK SHOP EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  P. 557. 

12.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT PROHIBITING COMPANY
UNIONS AND IMPOSING ON THE RAILWAY THE DUTY OF "TREATING WITH" THE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF
NEGOTIATING A LABOR DISPUTE, DO NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF THE CARRIER
UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  P. 557. 

13.  IN THIS REGARD, THE RAILWAY COULD COMPLAIN ONLY OF INFRINGEMENT
OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, NOT THAT OF THE EMPLOYEES.  P.
558. 

14.  UNDER SEC. 2, FOURTH, OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AT AN ELECTION
PARTICIPATED IN BY A MAJORITY OF THE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO VOTE, THE
VOTE OF A MAJORITY OF THE PARTICIPANTS DETERMINES THE CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVE.  P. 559. 

15.  A CERTIFICATE OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, CERTIFYING, IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, THAT AS THE RESULT OF AN
ELECTION A SPECIFIED UNION HAS BEEN DESIGNATED TO REPRESENT A CRAFT OF
EMPLOYEES, AND SHOWING ON ITS FACE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN
FAVOR OF EACH CANDIDATE, IS NOT VOID BECAUSE IT FAILS TO STATE THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS IN THE CRAFT, BUT IS PRIMA FACIE
SUFFICIENT, AND THE OMITTED FACT IS OPEN TO INQUIRY BY THE COURT ASKED
TO ENFORCE THE COMMAND OF THE STATUTE, SEC. 2, NINTH.  P. 561. 

16.  SECTION 9 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 23, 1932, C. 90, 47 STAT. 70,
WHICH PROVIDES THAT "EVERY RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION GRANTED IN A
CASE INVOLVING OR GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE SHALL INCLUDE ONLY A
PROHIBITION OF SUCH SPECIFIC ACT OR ACTS AS MAY BE EXPRESSLY COMPLAINED
OF IN THE BILL OF COMPLAINT OR PETITION FILED IN SUCH CASE AND AS SHALL
BE EXPRESSLY INCLUDED IN  ... FINDINGS OF FACT MADE AND FILED BY THE
COURT," IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE MANDATORY INJUNCTION IN THIS
CASE.  P. 562. 

17.  SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF A LATER ACT CANNOT BE RENDERED NUGATORY
BY MORE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF AN EARLIER ACT.  P. 563. 

VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES
DEPARTMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 529, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
RENDERED BY THE DISTRICT COURT AGAINST THE RAILWAY COMPANY IN A SUIT BY
THE FEDERATION.  THE DECREE COMMANDED THE COMPANY TO TREAT WITH THE
FEDERATION AS THE DULY ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPANY'S SHOP
CRAFT EMPLOYEES, IN RESPECT OF PAY, WORKING CONDITIONS, ETC., AND
RESTRAINED THE COMPANY FROM INTERFERING WITH, INFLUENCING, OR COERCING
SUCH EMPLOYEES IN THEIR FREE CHOICE OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, ETC. 

MR. JAMES PIPER OPENED, AND MR. H. T. HALL CONCLUDED, THE ARGUMENT
FOR PETITIONER.  MESSRS.  W.H.T. LOYALL AND JOHN C. DONNALLY WERE ALSO
ON THE PETITIONER'S BRIEF FROM WHICH THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY IS TAKEN. 

ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE.  IN REQUIRING THE RAILWAY TO
"EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN AGREEMENTS," ETC.,
THE DECREE USES THE VERY WORDS OF SEC. 2, FIRST, OF THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT OF 1926, WHICH WAS CONTINUED BY THE 1934 AMENDMENTS WITHOUT
CHANGE.  THE COURT BELOW HELD "TREAT WITH" IN SEC. 2, NINTH, TO MEAN
"NEGOTIATE WITH," AND PRESUMABLY THIS PORTION OF THE DECREE WAS UPHELD
AS A DEFINITION OF THE NEGOTIATIONS THE RAILWAY WAS REQUIRED TO
UNDERTAKE.  BUT IN MALONE V. GARDNER, 62 F.(2D) 15, 18-20, THE SAME
COURT HELD SEC. 2, FIRST, OF THE ACT TO BE A GENERAL ADMONITION OR
DECLARATION OF DUTY IMPOSING NO ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION, CITING TEXAS &
N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, AND PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD
SYSTEM V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 267 U.S. 203.  THE TWO DECISIONS OF THE
COURT BELOW ARE IRRECONCILABLE.  IT RESTS THE AUTHORITY TO AWARD SUCH A
MANDATORY INJUNCTION, NOT UPON ANY CHANGE IN SEC. 2, FIRST, BUT SOLELY
UPON THE ADDITION TO THE ACT OF THE PROVISION IN SEC. 2, NINTH,
REQUIRING CARRIERS TO "TREAT WITH" REPRESENTATIVES CERTIFIED, ETC.  IN
OTHER WORDS, IT HOLDS, IN EFFECT, THAT AN ADMITTEDLY UNENFORCEABLE DUTY
"TO EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN AGREEMENTS" HAS
BEEN TRANSFORMED INTO A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE ONE BY THE MERE ADDITION TO
THE STATUTE OF THIS REQUIREMENT TO "TREAT WITH" REPRESENTATIVES.  IT
SEEMS TO HAVE FELT THAT A DIRECTION TO NEGOTIATE FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES
(SEC. 2, FIRST), LEGALLY UNENFORCEABLE, WAS MADE LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE BY
THE ADDITION TO THE STATUTE OF (WHAT IT CONSTRUED TO BE) A DIRECTION TO
"NEGOTIATE" FOR ANY OF THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT (SEC. 2, NINTH). 

CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND TO MAKE ANY SUCH CHANGE IN THE LAW, AND DID
NOT USE "TREAT WITH" IN THE SENSE OF "NEGOTIATE WITH," BUT IN ITS VERY
USUAL SENSE OF "ACT TOWARDS" OR "REGARD."  THE DUTY IS TO TREAT WITH
THE CERTIFIED REPRESENTATIVE "AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR
CLASS."  IF CONGRESS HAD USED "TREAT WITH" IN THE SENSE OF "NEGOTIATE
WITH" IT WOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THIS QUOTED PHRASE. 

THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926 WAS
THAT IT PROVIDED A VOLUNTARY SCHEME FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN CARRIERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY
CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 569.  THE PURPOSE OF CONGRESS IN ADDING SEC. 2,
NINTH, IS APPARENT FROM THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
ACCOMPANYING H.R. 9861, THE BILL WHICH ENACTED THE 1934 AMENDMENTS TO
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  SECTION 2, NINTH, WAS TO PROVIDE MACHINERY FOR
DETERMINING THE REPRESENTATIVE OF EMPLOYEES IN CASES OF DISPUTES
BETWEEN THEM ON THAT SUBJECT. 

THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CARRIER SHALL "TREAT" MEANS ONLY THAT, AFTER
SUCH A DISPUTE AND A CERTIFICATION BY THE BOARD, IF THE CARRIER DESIRES
TO DEAL WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS INVOLVED, IT MUST
TREAT WITH THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION FOUND BY THE BOARD TO BE THE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, AND NOT
WITH SOMEONE ELSE.  IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A DISPUTE
AND CERTIFICATION (BUT NOT OTHERWISE) THE CARRIER IS UNDER A LEGALLY
ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS
EMPLOYEES.  TO SO HOLD IS NOT ONLY TO IGNORE THE "VOLUNTARY SCHEME" OF
THE ACT WHICH THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. CASE SAID WAS
ITS "ESSENCE," BUT TO IMPUTE TO CONGRESS THE UNLIKELY INTENTION OF
CREATING A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE CARRIER TO NEGOTIATE WITH A
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES ENFORCEABLE WHEN, BUT ONLY WHEN, ITS
EMPLOYEES HAVE HAD A DISPUTE AS TO WHO THAT REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE. 

EVEN IF CONGRESS USED THE PHRASE "TREAT WITH" IN THE SENSE OF
"NEGOTIATE WITH," IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT DID NOT INTEND THEREBY TO
CREATE A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE. 

A DUTY TO NEGOTIATE IS AN IMPERFECT OBLIGATION BEYOND THE POWER OF
COURTS OF EQUITY TO ENFORCE.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281
U.S. 548, 568. 

NEGOTIATION DEPENDS UPON THE FEELINGS, DESIRES AND MENTAL ATTITUDE OF
THOSE NEGOTIATING, AND THESE ARE COMPLETELY BEYOND JUDICIAL CONTROL. 
IN ORDER TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, ONE MUST HAVE THE DESIRE AND THE
WILL TO NEGOTIATE, AND THIS IMPLIES THE EXISTENCE OF A DESIRE TO MAKE
AN AGREEMENT UPON THE BEST TERMS POSSIBLE, AND TO MAKE COUNTER
PROPOSALS IF NECESSARY, AND DO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT CONSTITUTES
BARGAINING.  IT IS EASY TO IMAGINE DEMANDS, MADE UPON A CARRIER BY ITS
EMPLOYEES, SO UNREASONABLE THAT THE CARRIER COULD NOT FOR AN INSTANT
CONSIDER ACCEDING THERETO TO ANY EXTENT WHATSOEVER.  MAY THE CARRIER,
NEVERTHELESS, NEGOTIATE WITHOUT ANY GOOD FAITH INTENTION OF ACCEDING TO
SUCH DEMANDS TO ANY EXTENT?  THE ANSWER MUST BE IN THE NEGATIVE - ONE
CANNOT BE SAID, FOR EXAMPLE, TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HOUSE
IF HE HAVE A SETTLED DETERMINATION NEVER TO BUY A HOUSE ON ANY TERMS. 
SEE STORY, J., IN TOBEY V. BRISTOL, FED. CAS. NO. 14,065, AT P. 1321;
POMEROY'S EQ. JURIS., 4TH ED., SEC. 2180. 

IF SEC. 2, NINTH, OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, REQUIRES THE RAILWAY TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE FEDERATION, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT IT
DEPRIVES THE RAILWAY OF ITS LIBERTY AND PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  THE MANDATORY INJUNCTION DIRECTING THE RAILWAY TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE CERTIFIED BY THE MEDIATION BOARD AND
EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN AGREEMENTS AND TO
SETTLE DISPUTES, IS A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT. 

THIS COURT HAS LONG HELD THAT THE FREEDOM OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES
TO DEAL WITH EACH OTHER ON EQUAL AND VOLUNTARY TERMS, IS PROTECTED BY
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.  LOCHNER
V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45, 53; ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161,
173; HITCHMAN COAL CO. V. MITCHELL, 245 U.S. 229, 250; MOREHEAD V.
TIPALDO, 298 U.S. 587.  THE LIBERTY TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING INTO
CONTRACTS IS A PART OF LIBERTY OF CONTRACT; LEGISLATION WHICH COMPELS
THE MAKING OF AGREEMENTS IS A VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND IS
VOID.  COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S. 1, 20.  LIBERTY OF CONTRACT AS A
RIGHT IS, OF COURSE, NOT ABSOLUTE, BUT QUALIFIED.  NEBBIA V. NEW YORK,
291 U.S. 502, 523.  BUT "LEGISLATIVE ABRIDGMENT OF THAT FREEDOM CAN
ONLY BE JUSTIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. 
FREEDOM OF CONTRACT IS THE GENERAL RULE AND RESTRAINT THE EXCEPTION." 
MOREHEAD V. TIPALDO, SUPRA. 

THERE ARE HERE NO "EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES," NO IMMINENT
"DISASTER," (WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 342), NO UNUSUAL "DANGER"
(HOLDEN V. HARDY, 169 U.S. 366, 393), NO "DESPERATE" SITUATION (NEBBIA
V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 515), NO ELEMENT OF "DECEPTION" (HALL V.
GEIGER-JONES CO., 242 U.S. 539, 551).  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS
PERMANENT LEGISLATION.  ITS VALIDITY HAS BEEN SUSTAINED ONLY AS A
"VOLUNTARY SCHEME" INVOLVING NO INVASION OF CONTRACT RELATIONSHIPS. 
TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, SUPRA.  SEE ALSO PENNSYLVANIA R.
CO. V. U.S. RAILROAD LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S. 72; PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD
SYSTEM V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 267 U.S. 203. 

AS NOW CONSTRUED BY THE COURT BELOW, THE ACT HAS NOW LOST THAT
VOLUNTARY CHARACTER, WHICH THIS COURT DECLARED TO BE ITS "ESSENCE" AND
HAS BECOME A SYSTEM OF COMPULSION AGAINST THE EMPLOYER; YET NO SIMILAR
COMPULSION IS IMPOSED UPON THE EMPLOYEES. 

NEGOTIATION WITH RESPECT TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT IS A PART OF
THE CONTRACTUAL PROCESS; AND SINCE THE EMPLOYER CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO
TAKE THE ULTIMATE STEP (COPPAGE V. KANSAS, SUPRA), IT IS PLAIN THAT HE
CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO TAKE THE INITIAL STEPS.  AS VIEWED BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT, THE CONTRACTUAL PROCESS IS A SINGLE ONE; ALL OF ITS ELEMENTS
ENJOY THE SAME PROTECTION.  ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161, 173,
IN COOLEY ON TORTS; 3 WILLOUGHBY, CONST., 2D ED., 1802; ALLGEYER V.
LOUISIANA, 165 U.S. 578, 589. 

THE DOCTRINE THAT LIBERTY OF CONTRACT INCLUDES LIBERTY TO REFUSE TO
HAVE BUSINESS RELATIONS TO ANY EXTENT HAS BEEN EXEMPLIFIED IN THE CASES
UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF EVERY MAN TO DEAL WITH, OR REFUSE TO DEAL WITH,
ANY MAN, OR CLASS OF MEN, AS HE SEES FIT, WHATEVER HIS MOTIVE OR
WHATEVER THE RESULTING INJURY, WITHOUT BEING HELD IN ANY WAY
ACCOUNTABLE (FEDERAL TRADE COMM'N V. RAYMOND BROTHERS-CLARK CO., 263
U.S. 565; UNITED STATES V. COLGATE & CO., 250 U.S. 300; GRENADA LUMBER
CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 217 U.S. 433; GREAT A. & P. TEA CO. V. CREAM OF
WHEAT CO., 227 FED. 46), AND IN THE DECISIONS AGAINST SCHEMES OF
COMPULSORY ARBITRATION (WOLFF PACKING CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COURT, 267 U.S.
552, 569; DORCHY V. KANSAS, 264 U.S. 286). 

FURTHER, IN CONSTRUING THE TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1920, THIS COURT HAS
TWICE STRONGLY INTIMATED THAT LEGISLATION ESTABLISHING COMPULSORY
NEGOTIATION WOULD VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V.
RAILROAD LABOR BOARD, 261 U.S. 72, 84, 85; PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD SYSTEM
V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 267 U.S. 203, 217.  SEE SHERMAN V. ABELES, 265
N.Y. 383; HOLCOMBE V. CREAMER, 231 MASS. 99, 109. 

THE ABRIDGMENT OF LIBERTY OF CONTRACT HERE ATTEMPTED IS ARBITRARY AND
UNREASONABLE,  - BEYOND THE LIMITS OF EFFECTIVE FEDERAL STATUTORY
CONTROL,  - BEYOND THE POWERS OF A COURT OF EQUITY.  THE DIRECTION TO
"TREAT WITH," IF IT MEANS "NEGOTIATE WITH," IS UTTERLY FUTILE.  THE
DIRECTION TO NEGOTIATE IS ALSO FUTILE SINCE THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF ANY
CONFERENCE IS ADMITTEDLY WITHOUT THE SCOPE OF CONTROL. 

THE INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE RAILWAY FROM CONTRACTING WITH ANYONE
EXCEPT THE FEDERATION IS A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE CARRIER IS DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO BARGAIN OR
CONTRACT WITH THOSE OF ITS EMPLOYEES WHO DO NOT DESIRE SUCH
REPRESENTATION; AND THIS IS SO WHETHER THE CARRIER DESIRES TO CONTRACT
DIRECTLY WITH AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE MINORITY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH AN
ORGANIZATION BY WHICH THE MINORITY DESIRES TO BE REPRESENTED.  IF THE
ACT EMPOWERS THE MAJORITY TO SPEAK FOR THE MINORITY, IT IN EFFECT
DELEGATES TO THE MAJORITY THE RIGHT TO PREVENT THE CARRIER FROM MAKING
A CONTRACT WITH THE MINORITY WHICH THE MINORITY MAY BE WILLING TO
MAKE.  A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR DELEGATION TO THE MAJORITY OF POWER TO BIND
THE MINORITY WAS RECENTLY CONDEMNED BY THIS COURT IN CARTER V. CARTER
COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238. 

THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THAT IT ATTEMPTS TO
REGULATE LABOR RELATIONS BETWEEN CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES ENGAGED SOLELY
IN ACTIVITIES INTRASTATE IN CHARACTER WHICH DO NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT
INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

THE BACK-SHOP EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED SOLELY IN INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES,
AS WAS FOUND BY BOTH OF THE LOWER COURTS.  THEIR WORK IS NOT SO RELATED
TO THE INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES OF THE RAILWAY AS TO ADMIT OF FEDERAL
REGULATION OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP.  FIRST EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S. 463, 498; NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. BEZUE,
284 U.S. 415.  SEE ALSO INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMM'N V. DAVIS, 259 U.S.
182; MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS R. CO. V. WINTERS, 242 U.S. 353. 

FURTHERMORE, THE WORK OF THE BACK-SHOP EMPLOYEES AT THE RAILWAY'S
SHOP IS MANUFACTURE, WHICH IS NOT COMMERCE.  CRESCENT COTTON OIL CO. V.
MISSISSIPPI, 257 U.S. 129; CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238. 

THE PROPOSITION THAT BACK-SHOP EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
REGULATION BECAUSE IN THE EVENT OF A STRIKE BY SUCH WORKERS THE
INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES OF THE RAILWAY MAY BE INTERFERED WITH IS
UNTENABLE.  ACCORDING TO THAT TEST OR STANDARD, ALL ACTIVITIES, NO
MATTER HOW LOCAL, WOULD BE HELD TO DIRECTLY BURDEN OR AFFECT INTERSTATE
COMMERCE INASMUCH AS ANY INTERRUPTION OF THEM BY STRIKES TO SOME EXTENT
WOULD AFFECT THE STREAM OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THE BACK-SHOP WORK IS
JUST AS LOCAL AS SIMILAR WORK DONE BY OUTSIDE CONCERNS, WHICH CLEARLY
COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO FEDERAL REGULATION ON THE GROUND OF POSSIBLE
STRIKE DISTURBANCE.  CARTER CASE, SUPRA. 

THE STRIKE TEST IS ALSO UNTENABLE BECAUSE, AS IS MANIFEST FROM THE
TESTIMONY, THE RAILWAY COULD PERMANENTLY CLOSE ITS SHOP TOMORROW
WITHOUT OCCASIONING ANY INTERRUPTION TO ITS INTERSTATE SERVICE.  ALL
THE WORK DONE IN THE SHOP COULD BE HANDLED BY OUTSIDE SHOPS AND THE
MATERIAL MADE AT THE SHOP COULD BE PURCHASED IN THE MARKET. 
DISTINGUISHING:  UNITED STATES V. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' DEPARTMENT, 283
FED. 479; ID., 290 FED. 978.    AS AN ATTEMPTED REGULATION OF
INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES, THE ACT IS INSEPARABLE; IT CANNOT BE AIDED BY
CONSTRUCTION.  UNITED STATES V. REESE, 92 U.S. 214; TRADE-MARK CASES,
100 U.S. 82; JAMES V. BOWMAN, 190 U.S. 127; ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. V.
MCKENDREE, 203 U.S. 514; EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, SUPRA; CROWELL V.
BENSON, 285 U.S. 22, 76-77(DISSENTING OPINION). 

NOR DOES THE SEPARABILITY PROVISION SAVE THE ACT OR ANY PART OF IT.
HILL V. WALLACE, 259 U.S. 44, 70; RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R.
CO., 295 U.S. 330, 361. 

THE CERTIFICATION OF THE MEDIATION BOARD IS A NULLITY (A) BECAUSE IT
FAILS TO SHOW THAT A MAJORITY OF ANY CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES VOTED
IN FAVOR OF THE FEDERATION, OR EVEN THAT SUCH A MAJORITY PARTICIPATED
IN THE ELECTION, AND (B) BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL FROM IT WHAT
THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT THE VOTES OF THE
BACK-SHOP EMPLOYEES. 

THE INJUNCTION IS CONTRARY TO THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT. 

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AS AMENDED IN
1934, INDICATES THE INTENT TO IMPOSE AN ENFORCEABLE LEGAL OBLIGATION
UPON CARRIERS TO TREAT WITH THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY CRAFT OR
CLASS OF THEIR EMPLOYEES CERTIFIED AS SUCH BY THE NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD.  THE ACT WAS AMENDED TO REMEDY AN EXISTING EVIL.  CARRIERS WERE
AVOIDING ANY TREATING WITH THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES,
THROUGH THE SUBTERFUGE OF FOMENTING AND KEEPING IN EXISTENCE A
REPRESENTATION DISPUTE BETWEEN A COMPANY UNION AND THE STANDARD LABOR
ORGANIZATION WHICH THE EMPLOYEES DESIRED.  IN SO FAR AS THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED TO THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE DEMONSTRATED, NO CARRIER WAS
THEN REFUSING TO TREAT WITH THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES SAVE
UNDER THE CLOAK OF A CLAIMED REPRESENTATION DISPUTE.  THUS IF IT BE
TRUE THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE ACT ANY COMPULSORY PROVISIONS
REQUIRING CARRIERS TO "TREAT" WHERE NO SUCH DISPUTE EXISTED, NO
CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN FROM THAT FACT AS TO ITS INTENTION WITH REGARD
TO THE ENFORCEABILITY OF SUCH AN OBLIGATION IN SITUATIONS WHERE A
DISPUTE DID EXIST. 

STATUTES MUST BE CONSTRUED IN RELATION TO THE EVILS WHICH THEY WERE
DESIGNED TO CURE.  WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155. 

BUT THE ACT DOES IMPOSE COMPULSORY OBLIGATIONS UPON CARRIERS TO
"TREAT" IN SOME MEASURE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES
WHETHER A REPRESENTATION DISPUTE EXISTS OR NOT.  PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT
IN THIS CONNECTION RESTS SOLELY ON THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS FIRST
AND SECOND OF SEC. 2 OF THE ACT.  THESE ARE COPIED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, WHICH IN TURN TOOK THEM FROM SEC. 301 OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920.  AS A PART OF THE 1920 ACT THIS
LANGUAGE DID NOT IMPOSE AN ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION.  AS ADOPTED INTO THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, IT WAS ALSO HELD UNENFORCEABLE IN THE CASE
OF MALONE V. GARDNER, 62 F.(2D) 15.  THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THIS
LANGUAGE AS USED IN THE ACT OF 1934 PROVIDES AN UNENFORCEABLE
OBLIGATION UNDER THE FAMILIAR "COPIED STATUTE" RULE OF INTERPRETATION. 
THAT LANGUAGE WHICH CREATES AN UNENFORCEABLE OBLIGATION WHEN A PART OF
A GENERALLY UNENFORCEABLE STATUTE RETAINS ITS CHARACTER WHEN IT BECOMES
A PART OF AN ENFORCEABLE ACT IS NOT AN INEVITABLE CONCLUSION.  BUT,
REGARDLESS OF THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2, FIRST AND
SECOND, THERE ARE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS AMENDED STATUTE WHICH DO
CREATE ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS UPON ALL CARRIERS TO TREAT OR CONFER
WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES. 

REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT,"
WHICH MUST REFER TO THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN CARRIERS AND
EMPLOYEES.  TWO TYPES OF DISPUTES ARE CONTEMPLATED, THOSE INVOLVING THE
MAKING OR CHANGING OF AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RULES, RATES OF PAY, OR
WORKING CONDITIONS, AND THOSE INVOLVING LOCAL GRIEVANCES OR DISPUTES
CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS ALREADY
MADE. 

THE SYSTEM SET UP BY THE STATUTE FOR ALL CARRIERS REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER A REPRESENTATION DISPUTE EXISTS OR NOT, CONTEMPLATES A MEASURE
OF COMPULSION IN THE MATTER OF TREATING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF
EMPLOYEES IN THE SETTLEMENT OF BOTH TYPES OF DIFFERENCES. 

THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 6 OF THE ACT RELATING TO CONFERENCES BETWEEN
THE PARTIES ARE CERTAINLY ENFORCEABLE.  TO THIS EXTENT UNQUESTIONABLY
CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED A LEGAL OBLIGATION UPON ALL CARRIERS TO "TREAT"
WITH EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES. 

THE OTHER TYPE OF CASE, I.E., ARISING OUT OF GRIEVANCES OR OUT OF THE
INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION OF AGREEMENTS, IS TO BE HANDLED IN A
DIFFERENT MANNER.  THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, ARE AGAIN COMMANDED TO CONFER
WITH REGARD TO THE MATTER.  IF CONFERENCES FAIL, THEN THE DISPUTE MAY
BE REFERRED TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR
DETERMINATION. 

EITHER METHOD OF PROCEDURE AS OUTLINED BY THE STATUTE RESULTS
ULTIMATELY IN THE PARTIES COMING UNDER DEFINITE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. 
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD MAY BE ENFORCED BY
DEFINITELY OUTLINED PROCEDURE.  ACTS OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
ARE NOT THUS ENFORCEABLE, BUT A TAKING OF JURISDICTION BY THAT BOARD
PLACES THE PARTIES UNDER A CERTAIN LEGAL DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS
QUO UNTIL ITS FUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED. 

WHERE THE ULTIMATE END OF THE STATUTORY PROCESS IS THE UNDOUBTED
CREATION OF ENFORCEABLE OBLIGATIONS, GENERAL STATEMENTS OF DUTY ARE
GIVEN COLOR BY THE PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THEY ARE RELATED.  ACCORDINGLY,
THERE IS SPECIFICALLY IMPOSED UPON ALL CARRIERS AN OBLIGATION TO CONFER
OR TREAT WITH EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT,"
I.E., THE ADJUSTMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THEM. 

THE OBLIGATION TO "TREAT" IMPOSED BY SEC. 2, NINTH, IS SUFFICIENTLY
DEFINITE TO BE CAPABLE OF ENFORCEMENT BY INJUNCTION. 

COURTS ARE FREQUENTLY CALLED UPON TO PASS UPON THE GOOD FAITH OF A
PARTY AND TO ESTIMATE HIS STATE OF MIND BY HIS ACTS.  THAT BAD FAITH
MAY BE SUCCESSFULLY CONCEALED HAS NEVER BEEN ACCEPTED AS A VALID REASON
WHY COURTS SHOULD BE BARRED FROM INQUIRING INTO THE FACTS AND FROM
SEEKING TO ENFORCE THE LAW.  THE DIFFICULTY, IF ANY, IS ONE OF PROOF
AND NOT OF EQUITY JURISDICTION. 

IT MUST BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THE CARRIER WAS NOT ONLY ORDERED TO
TREAT WITH THE FEDERATION AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IN
QUESTION, BUT AS A NECESSARY COROLLARY WAS ALSO ORDERED NOT TO TREAT
WITH ANY OTHER PERSON OR ORGANIZATION CLAIMING TO BE SUCH
REPRESENTATIVE.  NOT ONLY IS THE NEGATIVE PHASE OF THIS DECREE
DEFINITELY ENFORCEABLE, BUT IT ALSO ASSISTS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
POSITIVE PHASE.  THIS ASSISTANCE GROWS OUT OF THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS OF
THE PARTIES.  IN DEALING WITH NUMEROUS EMPLOYEES SCATTERED OVER THE
MANY MILES OF TERRITORY THROUGH WHICH A RAILROAD SYSTEM EXTENDS, IT HAS
BEEN CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY CARRIERS THAT THEY NEGOTIATE GENERAL
AGREEMENTS DEFINING THE RIGHTS OF WHOLE CLASSES OR CRAFTS OF EMPLOYEES
AS UNITS.  IF THE CARRIER IS PREVENTED FROM TREATING WITH REGARD TO THE
NEGOTIATION OF SUCH AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER PARTIES, ITS OWN ECONOMIC
SELF-INTEREST DICTATES THAT IT TREAT FOR THAT PURPOSE WITH THE
CERTIFIED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES, AND IN GOOD FAITH. 

DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  DUNCAN V. MISSOURI, 152 U.S.
377; WAGNER V. LESER, 239 U.S. 207; CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 284 U.S. 79. 

IF THE STATUTE HAS A "REASONABLE RELATION TO A PROPER USE" (LIBERTY
WAREHOUSE CO. V. BURLEY TOBACCO ASSN., 276 U.S. 71); IS "REASONABLY
NECESSARY TO EFFECT ANY OF THE GREAT PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT WAS CREATED" (HIGHLAND V. RUSSELL CAR CO., 279 U.S. 253);
AND IS NOT "INAPPROPRIATE" TO REMEDY "THE EVIL AIMED AT" (PACKER CORP.
V. UTAH, 285 U.S. 104), THE STATUTE MUST BE HELD VALID WHETHER
CONTRACTS OR CONTRACT RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED OR NOT. 

CONGRESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION, DEEMED IT
NECESSARY TO THE SUCCESSFUL FUNCTIONING OF ITS PLAN TO DEFINE THE
NATURE OF THE EMPLOYEES' GROUPS THROUGH WHICH THE CONTEMPLATED
BARGAINING WAS TO BE CARRIED ON.  IN SELECTING THE "CRAFT OR CLASS OF
EMPLOYEES" AS SUCH GROUP, CONGRESS WAS MAKING NO ARBITRARY
DETERMINATION.  IT WAS MERELY RECOGNIZING BARGAINING GROUPS WHICH WERE
ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND FUNCTIONING AS SUCH ON VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE
NATION'S CARRIERS. 

IT IS FURTHER APPARENT THAT THE CRAFT OR CLASS, LIKE ANY OTHER GROUP
OF INDIVIDUALS, CAN ACT COLLECTIVELY ONLY THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES
SELECTED BY IT. THE NEXT STEP LOGICALLY, THEREFORE, WAS FOR CONGRESS TO
ESTABLISH THE MEANS BY WHICH SUCH REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BE CHOSEN.  IT
WAS NOT ONLY LOGICAL, BUT NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO PERFECT THE EXISTING
SYSTEM, THAT CONGRESS ESTABLISH A METHOD OF CHOOSING THE NECESSARY
REPRESENTATIVES. 

THE ACT DOES NOT REQUIRE A CARRIER TO ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT, BUT
MERELY THAT IT SHALL NEGOTIATE WITH REGARD TO THE MATTER.  THE CLAIMED
RIGHT OF FREEDOM TO ABSTAIN FROM NEGOTIATIONS IS ONE WHOSE EXISTENCE OR
NON-EXISTENCE CAN HAVE NO LEGAL OR PRACTICAL EFFECT UPON THE RIGHTS OF
THE PETITIONER.  THE PURPOSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT WAS TO PROVIDE A
PROTECTION FOR VALUABLE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.  UNTIL VALUABLE RIGHTS ARE
INFRINGED, PROTECTION OF THE AMENDMENT CANNOT BE INVOKED. 

THE CLAIM THAT THE CARRIER MUST BE FREE TO TREAT WITH ANY
REPRESENTATIVES OF ANY GROUP OF EMPLOYEES IT CHOOSES MEANS THAT THE
CARRIER, NOT THE CONGRESS, SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE
NATURE OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING GROUP OF EMPLOYEES, AND SHOULD BE
ABLE TO DEAL WITH GROUPS SMALLER IN SIZE THAN THE CRAFT OR CLASS, I.E.,
DISGRUNTLED OR FAVORED MINORITIES WITHIN THE CRAFT OR CLASS.  AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, THIS ASSERTED RIGHT IS ONE OF MERE ACADEMIC VALUE TO
THE PETITIONER, EXCEPT AS IT MAY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR
BREAKING DOWN THE REGULATORY SCHEME EXEMPLIFIED BY THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT, A RESULT WHICH WOULD CERTAINLY FOLLOW ITS SUCCESSFUL ASSERTION. 

BY VIRTUE OF THE PRACTICE LONG RECOGNIZED IN THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY,
LABOR AGREEMENTS SO NEGOTIATED BY AN ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE SELECTED
BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CLASS OR CRAFT, HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO ALL
THE EMPLOYEES CONSTITUTING THE CLASS OR CRAFT.  ANY DEPARTURE FROM THIS
ARRANGEMENT IN THE NATURE OF ANOTHER AGREEMENT APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE
INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING A MINORITY GROUP WOULD INEVITABLY BECOME
SUBVERSIVE OF THE AGREEMENT MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MAJORITY
GROUP. 

THE LABOR AGREEMENTS COVERING RATES OF PAY, RULES AND WORKING
CONDITIONS, WITH WHICH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS CONCERNED, ARE TO BE
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH EACH
EMPLOYEE.  THEY ARE THE GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY
THE EMPLOYER FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES OF A PARTICULAR CLASS;
BUT INSTEAD OF THE EMPLOYER ARBITRARILY ISSUING SUCH RULES WITHOUT
CONSULTING THE EMPLOYEES, THEY ARE FORMULATED IN JOINT CONFERENCES AND
ADOPTED BY MUTUAL AGREEMENT. 

FROM A SIMPLE RAILROAD OPERATING STANDPOINT, IT WOULD BE QUITE
IMPRACTICABLE FOR TWO GROUPS, MAJORITY AND MINORITY OF THE SAME CLASS
OR CRAFT OF EMPLOYEES, JOINTLY CONSTITUTING ONE OPERATING OR SERVICE
ORGANIZATION, TO FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY UNDER TWO DIVERGENT SETS OF LABOR
RULES. 

STILL OTHER COMPLICATIONS WOULD ARISE.  MORE THAN ONE AGREEMENT
APPLYING TO THE SAME CLASS OR CRAFT OF EMPLOYEES WOULD MAKE IT
NECESSARY AT THE OUTSET TO IDENTIFY THE VERY INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM THE
TERMS OF EACH AGREEMENT APPLIED.  THUS THE INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING THE
MAJORITY GROUP AND THOSE CONSTITUTING THE MINORITY GROUP WOULD HAVE TO
BE LISTED FOR PAYROLL AND OTHER ACCOUNTING NEEDS.  THE ACCOUNTING
COMPLICATIONS ARISING IN THEMSELVES WOULD BE EXPENSIVE.  THE MAJORITY
AND MINORITY EMPLOYEES WOULD BECOME KNOWN, WITH THE RESULT, CONSIDERING
THE CONTROVERSIAL NATURE OF THE SITUATION AS A WHOLE, THAT ALL KINDS OF
DISTURBANCES GROWING OUT OF PROSELYTING AND FAVORITISM WOULD ENSUE TO
IMPAIR THE MORALE OF THE LABOR FORCES. 

UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS IS THE EMPLOYEE TO WORK WHO ELECTS NEITHER THE
STANDARDS OF THE MAJORITY NOR THE MINORITY GROUP?  MAY HE MAKE STILL
ANOTHER AGREEMENT?  IF SO, WHERE IS THE PROCESS TO END?  SUCH IS THE
SITUATION WHICH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AND PRIOR RAILWAY LABOR
LEGISLATION SOUGHT TO CORRECT. 

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT AS LEGITIMATE
AND SALUTARY.  ITS FOSTERING AND PROTECTION OF THE NATION'S CARRIERS AS
A MEANS OF SETTLING DISPUTES BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR EMPLOYEES HAS BEEN
RECOGNIZED AS A LEGITIMATE CONGRESSIONAL FUNCTION.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO.
V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548. 

THE PETITIONER IS A COMMON CARRIER, A PUBLIC UTILITY, THE OPERATOR OF
A BUSINESS PECULIARLY CHARGED WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  ITS BUSINESS
MAY, THEREFORE, BE REGULATED TO A GREATER EXTENT THAN IS THE CASE WITH
OTHER INDUSTRIES WITHOUT INFRINGING UPON THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE
OF FREEDOM OF CONTRACT.  WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332. 

IN MANY RESPECTS, THE PRIVATE RIGHTS OF CARRIERS TO ENTER INTO
CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO UNIQUE RESTRICTIONS CONFORMING TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE SERVICES WHICH THEY PERFORM FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE
LIABILITY OF THE PUBLIC TO HARM IF THAT SERVICE IS NOT CONSTANTLY AND
JUSTLY RENDERED, ALL WITHOUT VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THAT
THE PUBLIC IS VITALLY CONCERNED IN LABOR DISPUTES INVOLVING CARRIERS
AND EMPLOYEES IS OBVIOUS.  THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS DESIGNED TO
SAFEGUARD THIS PUBLIC INTEREST. 

DISTINGUISHING:  CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238.  THE
DECISION IN THE CARTER CASE IS NOT BINDING UPON THE COURT IN THIS ONE
BECAUSE OF THE VAST AND FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE STATUTES
INVOLVED, BOTH AS TO SUBJECT MATTER AND AS TO THEIR LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES.    THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT IS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE POWER. 

THE CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER A PERSON OR THING IS DIRECTLY ENGAGED IN
OR BEING USED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AFFORDS AT BEST A SORT OF RULE OF
THUMB METHOD OF DETERMINING WHETHER HE OR IT COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
FEDERAL REGULATORY POWER.  IF SO ENGAGED OR USED, FEDERAL AUTHORITY MAY
DOUBTLESS BE APPLIED.  IF NOT, THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION DOES NOT
FOLLOW.  THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE EMPLOYMENT OF
PEOPLE OR THINGS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT BY THE EFFECTS UPON THAT
COMMERCE OF THE ACTS OR PRACTICES SOUGHT TO BE REGULATED.  INDEED, THE
AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN HELD TO EXTEND TO AT LEAST TWO CLASSES
OF CASES WHERE PURELY INTRASTATE MATTERS ARE OR MAY BE INVOLVED. 
FIRST, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAY EXERCISE ITS POWER TO PREVENT DIRECT
INJURY OR INTERRUPTION TO THE FLOW OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE WHATEVER MAY
BE THE SOURCE OF THAT INJURY OR INTERRUPTION.  SECOND, WHERE THE
OPERATIONS OF A CARRIER ARE SUCH THAT ITS INTERSTATE AND INTRASTATE
ACTIVITIES ARE SO INEXTRICABLY COMMINGLED THAT THEY CANNOT BE SEPARATED
FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATION, THE POWER OF CONGRESS HAS BEEN HELD TO
EXTEND TO BOTH. 

AS FOR INTERRUPTIONS TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE DISASTROUS RESULTS
OF STRIKES ON INTERSTATE RAILROADS IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE. 

IF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS THE POWER TO PREVENT SUCH
INTERRUPTIONS TO COMMERCE BY INJUNCTION AFTER THE INTERRUPTION HAS
BEGUN, IT HAS EQUAL POWER TO ELIMINATE THE SOURCE OF THE INTERRUPTION
BEFORE IT OCCURS. 

REASONING FROM PAST EXPERIENCES, THE CONGRESS CONCLUDED THAT THE
INTERRUPTIONS WHICH IT SOUGHT TO PREVENT MIGHT ARISE AS EASILY FROM
DISPUTES INVOLVING SHOP EMPLOYEES AS FROM ANY OTHER CLASS.  NICE
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND THOSE
NOT SO ENGAGED, OR BETWEEN BACK-SHOP EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS, WERE NOT
ATTEMPTED, FOR THE REASON THAT NO SUCH DISTINCTIONS HAVE EVER BEEN
APPARENT IN THE RESULTS OF THE DISPUTES INVOLVING THESE VARIOUS
GROUPS.  WHATEVER THE GROUP, THE ULTIMATE RESULT OF A SERIOUS DISPUTE
BETWEEN A CARRIER AND ITS EMPLOYEES HAS BEEN THE SAME - INTERRUPTION TO
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, DIRECT AND DISASTROUS.  ACCORDINGLY, CONGRESS
SOUGHT TO APPLY THE PROCEDURE SET UP IN THE STATUTE TO ALL CLASSES OF
CARRIERS' EMPLOYEES DEFINED AS SUCH BY THE RULINGS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  IN SO DOING, CONGRESS WAS APPLYING NO NOVEL
CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY, BUT WAS TREADING A PATH WELL MARKED BY THE
DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.  SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 222 U.S.
20; TEXAS & PACIFIC R. CO. V. RIGSBY, 241 U.S. 33; SECOND EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1; BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612; WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332; NEW ENGLAND
DIVISIONS CASE, 261 U.S. 184; DAYTON-GOOSE CREEK RY. V. UNITED STATES,
263 U.S. 456. 

THE DIFFICULTY EXPERIENCED BY THE COURTS IN DETERMINING WHETHER A
SINGLE EMPLOYEE IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE AT A SINGLE MOMENT OF
TIME (IN APPLYING THE SECOND FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT) IS
ATTESTED BY THE VAST NUMBER OF CASES ON THE POINT.  THE DECISIONS, BOTH
STATE AND FEDERAL, ARE HOPELESSLY CONTRADICTORY, AND MANY SITUATIONS
HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS COURT FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION.  THE
CONFUSION WHICH WOULD FOLLOW ANY ATTEMPT TO SEPARATE EMPLOYEES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REGULATION OF LABOR RELATIONS WITH THEIR EMPLOYING CARRIERS
WOULD BE SO GREAT AS TO RENDER ANY SUCH PLAN UNWORKABLE.  HERE WE WOULD
HAVE INVOLVED NOT A SINGLE EMPLOYEE, NOR A SINGLE MOMENT OF TIME, AS IN
A PERSONAL INJURY CASE, BUT NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES AND LONG COURSES OF
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR EMPLOYER EXTENDING OVER MANY
YEARS.  CONSIDER TWO GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME CARRIER PERFORMING
SIMILAR TASKS, E.G., THOSE PERFORMED BY MACHINISTS, THE ONE GROUP
MAKING RUNNING REPAIRS, THE OTHER WORKING IN THE BACK SHOP, THE ONE
THEREFORE WORKING IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE OTHER NOT.  BOTH GROUPS
BELONG TO THE SAME CRAFT, USUALLY BOTH BELONG TO THE SAME LABOR
ORGANIZATION.  THEIR COMMON INTERESTS ARE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL.  LABOR
UNREST MAY EASILY SPREAD FROM ONE TO THE OTHER.  NO PRACTICAL
DISTINCTION IS MAINTAINED BETWEEN THEM IN THE OPERATION OF A RAILROAD. 
NEITHER GROUP IS STATIC.  A GIVEN EMPLOYEE MAY BE IN ONE CATEGORY TODAY
AND THE OTHER TOMORROW, OR IN ANY ONE DAY HE MAY PERFORM TASKS
APPERTAINING TO BOTH.  ALL THIS IS STRIKINGLY ILLUSTRATED BY THE
SITUATION NOW EXISTING ON THE VIRGINIAN RAILROAD. 

THAT THIS CARRIER HAS ATTEMPTED NO SUCH DIVISION IN PRACTICE AS IT
SAYS EXISTS BETWEEN BACK-SHOP EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS, IN REGULATING ITS
OWN BUSINESS AFFAIRS, IS THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT SUCH A DIVISION IS
ENTIRELY IMPRACTICABLE. 

IN SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, AND CARTER V.
CARTER COAL CO., SUPRA, THIS COURT WAS CAREFUL TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH GOODS AS WOULD ULTIMATELY BE TRANSPORTED IN
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, THE HANDLING OF THOSE GOODS AFTER COMMERCE HAD
CEASED, AND THE COMMERCIAL PROCESS ITSELF.  LABOR DISPUTES IN
BUSINESSES WHOSE FUNCTION IS PRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION, THOUGH THEY
MIGHT BE EFFECTIVE TO PREVENT THE GOODS IN QUESTION FROM ENTERING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND BY INFERENCE THOUGH THEY MIGHT SO CLOG THE
MACHINERY OF DISTRIBUTION AS TO ULTIMATELY DAM UP THE COMMERCIAL
STREAM, WERE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT AS AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE
ONLY INDIRECTLY.  THOSE CASES ESTABLISH NO RULE OF LAW EXEMPTING THE
FIELD OF LABOR RELATIONS AS SUCH FROM THE SCOPE OF FEDERAL REGULATION. 
THEY MERELY DEFINE COMMERCE AND POINT OUT THOSE ACTS WHICH MAY BE SAID
TO DIRECTLY AFFECT IT.  THE DOCTRINE EXPRESSED IN TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V.
RAILWAY CLERKS HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED OR MODIFIED BY THESE LATER
DECISIONS. 

THE CERTIFICATION OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD IS VALID. 

THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE. 

THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED TO COVER
PERSONS EMPLOYED IN THE BACK SHOPS OF A CARRIER EVEN THOUGH SUCH
PERSONS ARE NOT THEMSELVES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  THIS COURT
HAS ALREADY UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT AS APPLIED TO CLERKS, WHOSE
WORK IS OBVIOUSLY INTRASTATE IN NATURE.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY
CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548.  THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT WAS TO PREVENT STRIKES
WHICH THREATENED THE SERVICE OF THE NECESSARY AGENCIES OF INTERSTATE
TRANSPORTATION.  LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN CARRIERS AND THEIR SHOP
EMPLOYEES WOULD BOTH ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
AND DIRECTLY OBSTRUCT ITS MOVEMENT.  MOREOVER, A DISPUTE BETWEEN A
CARRIER AND ITS BACK-SHOP EMPLOYEES WOULD NECESSARILY BE COMMUNICATED
TO EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INASMUCH AS THE MECHANICAL
DEPARTMENT OF A CARRIER, WHICH INCLUDES BOTH BACK-SHOP EMPLOYEES AND
THOSE ENGAGED IN MAKING RUNNING REPAIRS, IS OPERATED AND ORGANIZED AS A
UNIT.  THE PRINCIPLE OF THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S. 463,
DOES NOT APPLY HERE.  ALTHOUGH INTERSTATE COMMERCE MIGHT NOT BE
AFFECTED AT ALL BY THE RULE OF LIABILITY APPLICABLE TO SHOPMEN'S
INJURIES, IT WOULD BE DIRECTLY OBSTRUCTED IF SHOPMEN CEASED TO WORK AND
IF RAILROAD EQUIPMENT WAS NOT REPAIRED. 

IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER THERE ARE ANY RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WHOSE WORK IS
NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE EFFECTIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
OR AS TO WHOM IT MIGHT NOT BE SAID THAT LABOR DISPUTES BETWEEN THEM AND
THEIR EMPLOYERS WOULD INTERFERE WITH INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  BUT IF IT BE
ASSUMED THAT THERE IS A SMALL PROPORTION OF EMPLOYEES AS TO WHOM THE
ACT COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE APPLIED, IT IS CLEAR THAT CONGRESS
WOULD HAVE INTENDED THE ACT TO STAND AS TO THE REMAINDER. 

PETITIONER DOES NOT CHALLENGE THE ENFORCEABILITY OR LEGALITY OF
SUBDIVISIONS THIRD AND FOURTH OF SEC. 2, WHICH TOGETHER FORM ONE OF THE
ALTERNATIVE STATUTORY BASES FOR THE NEGATIVE PART OF THE DECREE, BUT
CLAIMS THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY IMPOSED UPON CARRIERS TO TREAT WITH
THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES IS NOT ENFORCEABLE.  A REVIEW OF
THE HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF THESE SECTIONS, HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT CONGRESS
INTENDED THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY PARAGRAPHS FIRST, SECOND, AND NINTH
OF SEC. 2, TO BE BOTH MANDATORY AND ENFORCEABLE. 

ENFORCEMENT OF PARAGRAPHS FIRST, SECOND, AND NINTH OF SEC. 2 IS IN
FACT ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE STATUTORY PLAN FOR AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES THROUGH CONFERENCES BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE PARTIES.  THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THESE PROVISIONS IS TO REQUIRE
CARRIERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES TO USE THE MACHINERY ESTABLISHED BY THE
ACT FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE; IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE ACT, WHICH RECOGNIZE THAT PEACE CAN BE ACHIEVED
ONLY THROUGH CONFERENCES AND VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS. 

THERE IS NO INHERENT DIFFICULTY IN THE WAY OF EQUITABLE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT CARRIERS CONFER WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO
COMPEL AGREEMENT, AND THE DECREE ONLY REQUIRES THE CARRIER TO MEET
REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES IN CONFERENCE. 

THE NEGATIVE REQUIREMENT IN THE DECREE THAT PETITIONER REFRAIN FROM
ENTERING INTO COLLECTIVE LABOR AGREEMENTS EXCEPT WITH RESPONDENT MAY BE
REGARDED AS ONE WAY IN WHICH A COURT OF EQUITY ENFORCES THE AFFIRMATIVE
STATUTORY OBLIGATION.  OR IT MAY REST UPON THE NEGATIVE STATUTORY
OBLIGATIONS INCLUDED IN SEC. 2, SECOND AND NINTH.  THESE PARAGRAPHS AND
COMPLEMENTARY PARTS OF THE STATUTE NOT ONLY EXPRESS AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY
TO TREAT WITH DULY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES BUT ALSO
IMPLY A NEGATIVE DUTY NOT TO TREAT WITH ANY ONE ELSE AS TO RATES OF
PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS.  THUS THE NEGATIVE PART OF THE
DECREE MAY BE IN EXECUTION OF THESE PARAGRAPHS.  OR IT MAY BE IN
EXECUTION OF PARAGRAPHS THIRD AND FOURTH, WHICH ARE UNQUESTIONABLY
ENFORCEABLE.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. RAILWAY CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548. 

THE AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATION DOES NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONER OF LIBERTY OR
PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT; THE OBLIGATION IS MERELY
TO CONFER, NOT NECESSARILY TO CONTRACT.  MOREOVER, IF SUCH A
REQUIREMENT WERE DEEMED TO INTERFERE WITH PETITIONER'S PROPERTY OR
CONTRACT RIGHTS, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AS A NECESSARY AND IMPORTANT
PART OF THE MACHINERY FOR THE PREVENTION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES. 
EVERY PORTION OF THE STATUTORY PLAN ULTIMATELY DEPENDS FOR ITS SUCCESS
ON THE WILLINGNESS OF CARRIERS TO CONFER WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF
THEIR EMPLOYEES. 

THE NEGATIVE OBLIGATION DOES NOT IN FACT DEPRIVE CARRIERS OF LIBERTY
OF CONTRACT, INASMUCH AS THE PRACTICE OF CARRIERS IS NOT TO CONTRACT
WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OR WITH MINORITIES.  IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY
IMPRACTICABLE FOR A CARRIER TO HAVE MINORITY GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES
WORKING UNDER DIFFERENT RULES THAN THE MAJORITY.  THE PRIVILEGE OF
CONTRACTING WITH MORE THAN ONE REPRESENTATIVE OF A SINGLE CLASS OF
EMPLOYEES IS PURELY THEORETICAL. 

IN ANY EVENT, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CONTRACTS WITH MINORITY GROUPS
IS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY IF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES ARE TO BE
PREVENTED.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MACHINERY OF THE ACT IS POSITED
UPON AGREEMENT BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES, AND
CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY CONFLICTING CONFERENCES BETWEEN A CARRIER AND
NUMEROUS REPRESENTATIVES OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OR MINORITY GROUPS
WORKING AT CROSS PURPOSES.  ANY ATTEMPT BY A CARRIER TO MAINTAIN TWO OR
MORE CONTRACTS APPLYING TO PERSONS DOING THE SAME WORK, WITH STANDARDS
NECESSARILY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ONE GROUP OR ANOTHER, WOULD RESULT
IN DISCORD AND DISSATISFACTION AND MAKE LABOR DISPUTES INEVITABLE. 

THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWER.  THE DOCTRINE OF CARTER V. CARTER COAL CO., 298 U.S. 238, IS
INAPPLICABLE. 

PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THE INJUNCTION BELOW VIOLATES SECS. 4(E), 6,
7(A), AND 9 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT IS OBVIOUSLY
UNSUPPORTED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTIONS TO WHICH PETITIONER
REFERS.  MOREOVER, IF THERE WERE AN INCONSISTENCY, THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT, WHICH WAS ENACTED AFTER THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT AND WHICH DEALS
WITH THE SPECIFIC PROBLEM AT BAR, WOULD PREVAIL. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS QUESTIONS AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF MAY 20, 1926, C. 347, 44
STAT. 577, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 21, 1934, C. 691, 48 STAT.
1185, 45 U.S.C. SECS. 151-163, AND AS TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE
RELIEF WHICH COURTS ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT TO GIVE. 

RESPONDENTS ARE SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, WHICH WILL BE REFERRED TO
AS THE FEDERATION, A LABOR ORGANIZATION AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR AND REPRESENTING SHOP CRAFT EMPLOYEES OF PETITIONER
RAILWAY, AND CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE
SYSTEM FEDERATION.  THEY BROUGHT THE PRESENT SUIT IN EQUITY IN THE
DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN VIRGINIA, TO COMPEL PETITIONER, AN
INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIER, TO RECOGNIZE AND TREAT WITH RESPONDENT
FEDERATION, AS THE DULY ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MECHANICAL
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES OF PETITIONER, AND TO RESTRAIN PETITIONER FROM IN
ANY WAY INTERFERING WITH, INFLUENCING OR COERCING ITS SHOP CRAFT
EMPLOYEES IN THEIR FREE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONTRACTING WITH PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO RULES, RATES OF PAY AND
WORKING CONDITIONS, AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING AND SETTLING
DISPUTES BETWEEN PETITIONER AND SUCH EMPLOYEES. 

THE HISTORY OF THIS CONTROVERSY GOES BACK TO 1922, WHEN, FOLLOWING
THE FAILURE OF A STRIKE BY PETITIONER'S SHOP EMPLOYEES AFFILIATED WITH
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, OTHER EMPLOYEES ORGANIZED A LOCAL
UNION KNOWN AS THE "MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE VIRGINIAN
RAILWAY."  THE ASSOCIATION THEREUPON ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
PETITIONER, PROVIDING FOR RATES OF PAY AND WORKING CONDITIONS, AND FOR
THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES WITH RESPECT TO THEM, BUT NO SUBSTANTIAL
GRIEVANCES WERE EVER PRESENTED TO PETITIONER BY THE ASSOCIATION.  IT
MAINTAINED ITS ORGANIZATION AND HELD BIENNIAL ELECTIONS OF OFFICERS,
BUT THE NOTICES OF ELECTION WERE SENT OUT BY PETITIONER AND ALL
ASSOCIATION EXPENSES WERE PAID BY PETITIONER.    IN 1927 THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR FORMED A LOCAL ORGANIZATION, WHICH, IN 1934,
DEMANDED RECOGNITION BY PETITIONER OF ITS AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THE
SHOP CRAFT EMPLOYEES, AND INVOKED THE AID OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AS AMENDED, TO ESTABLISH
ITS AUTHORITY.  THE BOARD, PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER, THE FEDERATION, AND THE ASSOCIATION, AND IN CONFORMITY TO
THE STATUTE, HELD AN ELECTION BY PETITIONER'S SHOP CRAFT EMPLOYEES, TO
CHOOSE REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH
PETITIONER.  AS THE RESULT OF THE ELECTION, THE BOARD CERTIFIED THAT
THE FEDERATION WAS THE DULY ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES IN THE SIX SHOP CRAFTS. 

UPON THIS AND OTHER EVIDENCE, NOT NOW NECESSARY TO BE DETAILED, THE
TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT THE FEDERATION WAS THE DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES OF PETITIONER,
EXCEPT THE CARMEN AND COACH CLEANERS; THAT THE PETITIONER, IN VIOLATION
OF SEC. 2 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, HAD FAILED TO TREAT WITH THE
FEDERATION AS THE DULY ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES; THAT PETITIONER HAD SOUGHT TO INFLUENCE ITS EMPLOYEES
AGAINST ANY AFFILIATION WITH LABOR ORGANIZATIONS OTHER THAN AN
ASSOCIATION MAINTAINED BY PETITIONER, AND TO PREVENT ITS EMPLOYEES FROM
EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVE; THAT FOR
THAT PURPOSE, FOLLOWING THE CERTIFICATION BY THE NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD, OF THE FEDERATION, AS THE DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF
PETITIONER'S MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, PETITIONER HAD ORGANIZED
THE INDEPENDENT SHOP CRAFT ASSOCIATION OF ITS SHOP CRAFT EMPLOYEES, AND
HAD SOUGHT TO INDUCE ITS EMPLOYEES TO JOIN THE INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION,
AND TO PUT IT FORWARD AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER'S
EMPLOYEES.  FN1 

UPON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS THE TRIAL COURT GAVE ITS DECREE
APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER'S MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES EXCEPT THE
CARMEN AND COACH CLEANERS.  IT DIRECTED PETITIONER TO "TREAT WITH" THE
FEDERATION AND TO "EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN
AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, AND
TO SETTLE ALL DISPUTES, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICATION OF SUCH
AGREEMENTS OR OTHERWISE,  ..."  IT RESTRAINED PETITIONER FROM "ENTERING
INTO ANY CONTRACT, UNDERTAKING OR AGREEMENT OF WHATSOEVER KIND
CONCERNING RULES, RATES OF PAY OR WORKING CONDITIONS AFFECTING ITS
MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES,  ...  EXCEPT  ... WITH THE
FEDERATION," AND FROM "INTERFERING WITH, INFLUENCING OR COERCING" ITS
EMPLOYEES WITH RESPECT TO THEIR FREE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES "FOR THE
PURPOSE OF MAKING AND MAINTAINING CONTRACTS" WITH PETITIONER "RELATING
TO RULES, RATES OF PAY, AND WORKING CONDITIONS OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSIDERING AND DECIDING DISPUTES BETWEEN THE MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES" AND PETITIONER.  THE DECREE FURTHER RESTRAINED THE
PETITIONER FROM ORGANIZING OR FOSTERING ANY UNION OF ITS MECHANICAL
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERFERING WITH THE FEDERATION
AS THE ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE OF SUCH EMPLOYEES.  11 F.SUPP.  621. 

ON APPEAL THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT APPROVED AND
ADOPTED THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND AFFIRMED ITS DECREE.  84
F.(2D) 641.  THIS COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE CAUSE AS ONE
OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE. 

PETITIONER HERE, AS BELOW, MAKES TWO MAIN CONTENTIONS:  FIRST, WITH
RESPECT TO THE RELIEF GRANTED, IT MAINTAINS THAT SEC. 2, NINTH, OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT A CARRIER SHALL TREAT WITH THOSE
CERTIFIED BY THE MEDIATION BOARD TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF A CRAFT
OR CLASS, IMPOSES NO LEGALLY ENFORCIBLE OBLIGATION UPON THE CARRIER TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE SO CERTIFIED, AND THAT IN ANY CASE
THE STATUTE IMPOSES NO OBLIGATION TO TREAT OR NEGOTIATE WHICH CAN BE
APPROPRIATELY ENFORCED BY A COURT OF EQUITY.  SECOND, THAT SEC. 2,
NINTH, IN SO FAR AS IT ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE LABOR RELATIONS BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND ITS "BACK SHOP" EMPLOYEES, IS NOT A REGULATION OF
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMERCE CLAUSE BECAUSE, AS IT
ASSERTS, THEY ARE ENGAGED SOLELY IN INTRASTATE ACTIVITIES; AND THAT SO
FAR AS IT IMPOSES ON THE CARRIER ANY OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH A
LABOR UNION AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT ITS EMPLOYEES, AND RESTRAINS IT
FROM MAKING AGREEMENTS WITH ANY OTHER LABOR ORGANIZATION, IT IS A
DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  OTHER MINOR
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECREE, SO FAR AS RELEVANT TO OUR DECISION, WILL BE
REFERRED TO LATER IN THE COURSE OF THIS OPINION. 

THE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TWO COURTS BELOW ARE NOT SHOWN
TO BE PLAINLY ERRONEOUS OR UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  WE ACCORDINGLY
ACCEPT THEM AS THE CONCLUSIVE BASIS FOR DECISION, TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V.
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & S. S. CLERKS, 281 U.S. 548, 558; PICK MFG. CO.
V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 299 U.S. 3, 4, AND ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THE
QUESTIONS OF LAW RAISED ON THE RECORD. 

FIRST.  THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE.  BY TITLE III OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1920, C. 91, 41 STAT. 456, 469,
CONGRESS SET UP THE RAILROAD LABOR BOARD AS A MEANS FOR THE PEACEFUL
SETTLEMENT, BY AGREEMENT OR BY ARBITRATION, OF LABOR CONTROVERSIES
BETWEEN INTERSTATE CARRIERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.  IT SOUGHT "TO
ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT WITHOUT STRIKES, FIRST BY CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE
PARTIES; FAILING THAT, BY REFERENCE TO ADJUSTMENT BOARDS OF THE
PARTIES' OWN CHOOSING, AND IF THIS IS INEFFECTIVE, BY A FULL HEARING
BEFORE A NATIONAL BOARD  ..."  PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. RAILROAD LABOR
BOARD, 261 U.S. 72, 79.  THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD WERE SUPPORTED BY
NO LEGAL SANCTIONS.  THE DISPUTANTS WERE NOT "IN ANY WAY TO BE FORCED
INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTE OR WITH THE JUDGMENTS PRONOUNCED BY
THE LABOR BOARD, EXCEPT THROUGH THE EFFECT OF ADVERSE PUBLIC OPINION." 
PENNSYLVANIA FEDERATION V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., 267 U.S. 203, 216. 

IN 1926 CONGRESS, AWARE OF THE IMPOTENCE OF THE BOARD, AND OF THE
FACT THAT ITS AUTHORITY WAS GENERALLY NOT RECOGNIZED OR RESPECTED BY
THE RAILROADS OR THEIR EMPLOYEES, MADE A FRESH START TOWARD THE
PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES AFFECTING RAILROADS, BY THE
REPEAL OF THE 1920 ACT AND THE ADOPTION OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT. 
REPORT, SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, NO. 222, 69TH CONG.,
1ST SESS.  TEXAS & N.O.R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & S. S. CLERKS,
SUPRA, 563.  BY THE NEW MEASURE CONGRESS CONTINUED ITS POLICY OF
ENCOURAGING THE AMICABLE ADJUSTMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES BY THEIR
VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO ARBITRATION BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL BOARD, BUT IT
SUPPORTED THAT POLICY BY THE IMPOSITION OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.  IT
PROVIDED MEANS FOR ENFORCING THE AWARD OBTAINED BY ARBITRATION BETWEEN
THE PARTIES TO LABOR DISPUTES.  SEC. 9.  IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT
PROHIBITED ANY CHANGE IN CONDITIONS, BY THE PARTIES TO AN UNADJUSTED
LABOR DISPUTE, FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY DAYS, EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT.  SEC.
10.  IT RECOGNIZED THEIR RIGHT TO DESIGNATE REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE ACT "WITHOUT INTERFERENCE, INFLUENCE OR COERCION
EXERCISED BY EITHER PARTY OVER THE SELF-ORGANIZATION OR DESIGNATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES BY THE OTHER."  SEC. 2, THIRD.  UNDER THE LAST
MENTIONED PROVISION THIS COURT HELD, IN THE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE, SUPRA,
THAT EMPLOYEES WERE FREE TO ORGANIZE AND TO MAKE CHOICE OF THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT THE "COERCIVE INTERFERENCE" AND "PRESSURE" OF A
COMPANY UNION ORGANIZED AND MAINTAINED BY THE EMPLOYER; AND THAT THE
STATUTE PROTECTED THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH WAS
AN ESSENTIAL OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME, WITH A LEGAL SANCTION WHICH IT
WAS THE DUTY OF COURTS TO ENFORCE BY APPROPRIATE DECREE. 

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST SUCH INTERFERENCE WAS CONTINUED AND MADE MORE
EXPLICIT BY THE AMENDMENT OF 1934.  FN2  PETITIONER DOES NOT CHALLENGE
THAT PART OF THE DECREE WHICH ENJOINS ANY INTERFERENCE BY IT WITH THE
FREE CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY ITS EMPLOYEES, AND THE FOSTERING, IN
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, OF THE COMPANY UNION.  THAT CONTENTION
IS NOT OPEN TO IT IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE,
SUPRA, AND OF THE UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF SEC. 2, THIRD, AND FOURTH, OF
THE ACT, AS AMENDED. 

BUT PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE STATUTE AFFORDS NO LEGAL SANCTION FOR
SO MUCH OF THE DECREE AS DIRECTS PETITIONER TO "TREAT WITH" RESPONDENT
FEDERATION "AND EXERT EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO MAKE AND MAINTAIN
AGREEMENTS CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, AND
TO SETTLE ALL DISPUTES WHETHER ARISING OUT OF THE APPLICATION OF SUCH
AGREEMENTS OR OTHERWISE."  IT POINTS OUT THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR
REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH AN AGREEMENT IS COUCHED IN THE VERY WORDS OF
SEC. 2, FIRST, WHICH WERE TAKEN FROM SEC. 301 OF THE TRANSPORTATION
ACT, AND WHICH WERE HELD TO BE WITHOUT LEGAL SANCTION IN THAT ACT. 
PENNSYLVANIA FEDERATION V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., SUPRA, 215.  IT IS
ARGUED THAT THEY CANNOT NOW BE GIVEN GREATER FORCE AS REENACTED IN THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, AND CONTINUED IN THE 1934 AMENDMENT.  BUT
THESE WORDS NO LONGER STAND ALONE AND UNAIDED BY MANDATORY PROVISION OF
THE STATUTE AS THEY DID WHEN FIRST ENACTED.  THE AMENDMENT OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT ADDED NEW PROVISIONS IN SEC. 2, NINTH, WHICH MAKES IT
THE DUTY OF THE MEDIATION BOARD, WHEN ANY DISPUTE ARISES AMONG THE
CARRIER'S EMPLOYEES, "AS TO WHO ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH
EMPLOYEES," TO INVESTIGATE THE DISPUTE AND TO CERTIFY, AS WAS DONE IN
THIS CASE, THE NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE
EMPLOYEES.  IT COMMANDS THAT "UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH CERTIFICATION THE
CARRIER SHALL TREAT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE SO CERTIFIED AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT." 

IT IS, WE THINK, NOT OPEN TO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THIS
REQUIREMENT BE MANDATORY UPON THE RAILROAD EMPLOYER, AND THAT ITS
COMMAND, IN A PROPER CASE, BE ENFORCED BY THE COURTS.  THE POLICY OF
THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF ENCOURAGING VOLUNTARY ADJUSTMENT OF LABOR
DISPUTES, MADE MANIFEST BY THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH CLEARLY
CONTEMPLATED THE MORAL FORCE OF PUBLIC OPINION AS AFFORDING ITS
ULTIMATE SANCTION, WAS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, ABANDONED BY THE ENACTMENT OF
THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  NEITHER THE PURPOSES OF THE LATER ACT, AS
AMENDED, NOR ITS PROVISIONS WHEN READ, AS THEY MUST BE, IN THE LIGHT OF
OUR DECISION IN THE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE, SUPRA, LEND SUPPORT TO THE
CONTENTION THAT ITS ENACTMENTS, WHICH ARE MANDATORY IN FORM AND CAPABLE
OF ENFORCEMENT BY JUDICIAL PROCESS, WERE INTENDED TO BE WITHOUT LEGAL
SANCTION.  FN3 

EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN, BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF 1934, THAT WHEN THERE
WAS NO DISPUTE AS TO THE ORGANIZATIONS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE
EMPLOYEES, AND WHEN THERE WAS WILLINGNESS OF THE EMPLOYER TO MEET SUCH
REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DISCUSSION OF THEIR GRIEVANCES, AMICABLE
ADJUSTMENT OF DIFFERENCES HAD GENERALLY FOLLOWED AND STRIKES HAD BEEN
AVOIDED.  FN4  ON THE OTHER HAND, A PROLIFIC SOURCE OF DISPUTE HAD BEEN
THE MAINTENANCE BY THE RAILROADS OF COMPANY UNIONS AND THE DENIAL BY
RAILWAY MANAGEMENT OF THE AUTHORITY OF REPRESENTATIVES CHOSEN BY THEIR
EMPLOYEES.  REPORT OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN
COMMERCE, NO. 1944, 73RD CONG., 2D SESS., PP. 1-2.  FN5  SECTION 2,
NINTH, OF THE AMENDED ACT, WAS SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT THIS PRACTICE.  IT
PROVIDED A MEANS FOR ASCERTAINING WHO ARE THE AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EMPLOYEES THROUGH INTERVENTION AND CERTIFICATION
BY THE MEDIATION BOARD, AND COMMANDED THE CARRIER TO TREAT WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVE SO CERTIFIED.  THAT THE COMMAND WAS LIMITED IN ITS
APPLICATION TO THE CASE OF INTERVENTION AND CERTIFICATION BY THE
MEDIATION BOARD INDICATES NOT THAT ITS WORDS ARE PRECATORY, BUT ONLY
THAT CONGRESS HIT AT THE EVIL "WHERE EXPERIENCE SHOWS IT TO BE MOST
FELT."  KEOKEE COKE CO. V. TAYLOR, 234 U.S. 224, 227. 

PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE PHRASE "TREAT WITH" MUST BE TAKEN AS
MEANING "REGARD" OR "ACT TOWARDS," SO THAT COMPLIANCE WITH ITS MANDATE
REQUIRES THE EMPLOYER TO MEET THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES ONLY IF AND WHEN HE SHALL ELECT TO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM.  THIS
SUGGESTION DISREGARDS THE WORDS OF THE SECTION, AND IGNORES THE PLAIN
PURPOSE MADE MANIFEST THROUGHOUT THE NUMEROUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 
ITS MAJOR OBJECTIVE IS THE AVOIDANCE OF INDUSTRIAL STRIFE, BY
CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE.  THE COMMAND TO THE EMPLOYER TO "TREAT WITH" THE AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES ADDS NOTHING TO THE 1926 ACT, UNLESS IT
REQUIRES SOME AFFIRMATIVE ACT ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYER.  COMPARE THE
RAILWAY CLERKS CASE, SUPRA.  AS WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT ITS ADDITION TO
THE STATUTE WAS PURPOSELESS, WE MUST TAKE ITS MEANING TO BE THAT WHICH
THE WORDS SUGGEST, WHICH ALONE WOULD ADD SOMETHING TO THE STATUTE AS IT
WAS BEFORE AMENDMENT, AND WHICH ALONE WOULD TEND TO EFFECT THE PURPOSE
OF THE LEGISLATION.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO COMPEL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEES, BUT IT DOES COMMAND THOSE
PRELIMINARY STEPS WITHOUT WHICH NO AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED.  IT AT
LEAST REQUIRES THE EMPLOYER TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THE AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS EMPLOYEES, TO LISTEN TO THEIR COMPLAINTS, TO MAKE
REASONABLE EFFORT TO COMPOSE DIFFERENCES - IN SHORT, TO ENTER INTO A
NEGOTIATION FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF LABOR DISPUTES SUCH AS IS
CONTEMPLATED BY SEC. 2, FIRST. 

PETITIONER'S INSISTENCE THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT WARRANT SO MUCH OF
THE DECREE AS FORBIDS IT TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT WITH ITS
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES IS BASED UPON A MISCONSTRUCTION OF THE DECREE. 
BOTH THE STATUTE AND THE DECREE ARE AIMED AT SECURING SETTLEMENT OF
LABOR DISPUTES BY INDUCING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE TRUE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES AND BY PREVENTING SUCH BARGAINING WITH
ANY WHO DO NOT REPRESENT THEM.  THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED ON THE EMPLOYER
BY SEC. 2, NINTH, TO TREAT WITH THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
EMPLOYEES AS DESIGNATED BY THE MEDIATION BOARD, WHEN READ IN THE LIGHT
OF THE DECLARED PURPOSES OF THE ACT, AND OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2,
THIRD AND FOURTH, GIVING TO THE EMPLOYEES THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE AND
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY THROUGH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR OWN SELECTION,
IS EXCLUSIVE.  IT IMPOSES THE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO TREAT ONLY WITH THE
TRUE REPRESENTATIVE, AND HENCE THE NEGATIVE DUTY TO TREAT WITH NO
OTHER.  WE THINK, AS THE GOVERNMENT CONCEDES IN ITS BRIEF,  FN6  THAT
THE INJUNCTION AGAINST PETITIONER'S ENTERING INTO ANY CONTRACT
CONCERNING RULES, RATES OF PAY AND WORKING CONDITIONS, EXCEPT WITH
RESPONDENT, IS DESIGNED ONLY TO PREVENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH
ANYONE PURPORTING TO REPRESENT EMPLOYEES, OTHER THAN RESPONDENT, WHO
HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED TO BE THEIR TRUE REPRESENTATIVE.  WHEN READ IN ITS
CONTEXT IT MUST BE TAKEN TO PROHIBIT THE NEGOTIATION OF LABOR
CONTRACTS, GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES IN THE MECHANICAL
DEPARTMENT, WITH ANY REPRESENTATIVE OTHER THAN RESPONDENT, BUT NOT AS
PRECLUDING SUCH INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS AS PETITIONER MAY ELECT TO MAKE
DIRECTLY WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES.  THE DECREE, THUS CONSTRUED,
CONFORMS, IN BOTH ITS AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS, TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 2. 

PROPRIETY OF RELIEF IN EQUITY.  PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT IF THE
STATUTE IS INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING THE EMPLOYER TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS EMPLOYEES, ITS OBLIGATION IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE
SUBJECT OF A DECREE IN EQUITY; THAT NEGOTIATION DEPENDS ON DESIRES AND
MENTAL ATTITUDES WHICH ARE BEYOND JUDICIAL CONTROL, AND THAT SINCE
EQUITY CANNOT COMPEL THE PARTIES TO AGREE, IT WILL NOT COMPEL THEM TO
TAKE THE PRELIMINARY STEPS WHICH MAY RESULT IN AGREEMENT. 

THERE IS NO WANT OF CAPACITY IN THE COURT TO DIRECT COMPLETE
PERFORMANCE OF THE ENTIRE OBLIGATION:  BOTH THE NEGATIVE DUTIES NOT TO
MAINTAIN A COMPANY UNION AND NOT TO NEGOTIATE WITH ANY REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN RESPONDENT AND THE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO
TREAT WITH RESPONDENT.  FULL PERFORMANCE OF BOTH IS COMMANDED BY THE
DECREE IN TERMS WHICH LEAVE IN NO UNCERTAINTY THE REQUISITES OF
PERFORMANCE.  IN COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH EITHER DUTY IT DOES FAR
LESS THAN HAS BEEN DONE IN COMPELLING THE DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACTUAL OR
STATUTORY OBLIGATION CALLING FOR A CONSTRUCTION OR ENGINEERING
ENTERPRISE, NEW ORLEANS, M. & T. RY. CO. V. MISSISSIPPI, 112 U.S. 12;
WHEELING TRACTION CO. V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 248 FED. 205; SEE GAS
SECURITIES CO. V. ANTERO & LOST PARK RESERVOIR CO., 259 FED. 423, 433;
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V. A.V. WILLS & SONS, 236 FED. 362, 380; JONES
V. PARKER, 163 MASS. 564; 40 N.E. 1044, OR IN GRANTING SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR THE JOINT USE OF A RAILROAD BRIDGE AND
TERMINALS, JOY V. ST. LOUIS, 138 U.S. 1; UNION PACIFIC RY. CO. V.
CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO., 163 U.S. 564; CF. PROSPECT PARK & CONEY
ISLAND R. CO. V. CONEY ISLAND & BROOKLYN R. CO., 144 N.Y. 152; 39 N.E.
17.  WHETHER AN OBLIGATION HAS BEEN DISCHARGED, AND WHETHER ACTION
TAKEN OR OMITTED IS IN GOOD FAITH OR REASONABLE, ARE EVERYDAY SUBJECTS
OF INQUIRY BY COURTS IN FRAMING AND ENFORCING THEIR DECREES. 

IT IS TRUE THAT A COURT OF EQUITY MAY REFUSE TO GIVE ANY RELIEF WHEN
IT IS APPARENT THAT THAT WHICH IT CAN GIVE WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE OR OF
BENEFIT TO THE PLAINTIFF.  EQUITY WILL NOT DECREE THE EXECUTION OF A
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT SINCE IT CANNOT COMPEL THE PARTIES TO REMAIN
PARTNERS, SEE HYER V. RICHMOND TRACTION CO., 168 U.S. 471, 482, OR
COMPEL ONE TO ENTER INTO PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF PERSONAL SERVICE
WHICH IT CANNOT ADEQUATELY CONTROL, MARBLE COMPANY V. RIPLEY, 10 WALL. 
339, 358; KARRICK V. HANNAMAN, 168 U.S. 328, 336; TOBEY V. BRISTOL,
FED. CAS. NO. 14,065; WEEKS V. PRATT, 43 F.(2D) 53, 57; RAILWAY LABOR
ACT, SEC. 2, TENTH.  BUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH EQUITY WILL GO TO GIVE
RELIEF WHERE THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF
FIXED RULE.  IT RESTS RATHER IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE COURT. 
WILLARD V. TAYLOE, 8 WALL.  557, 565; JOY V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA, 47;
MORRISON V. WORK, 266 U.S. 481, 490; CURRAN V. HOLYOKE WATER POWER CO.,
116 MASS. 90, 92.  WHETHER THE DECREE WILL PROVE SO USELESS AS TO LEAD
A COURT TO REFUSE TO GIVE IT, IS A MATTER OF JUDGMENT TO BE EXERCISED
WITH REFERENCE TO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE RATHER THAN TO
GENERAL RULES WHICH AT MOST ARE BUT GUIDES TO THE EXERCISE OF
DISCRETION.  IT IS A FAMILIAR RULE THAT A COURT MAY EXERCISE ITS EQUITY
POWERS, OR EQUIVALENT MANDAMUS POWERS, UNITED STATES EX REL. GREATHOUSE
V. DERN, 289 U.S. 352, 359, TO COMPEL COURTS, BOARDS, OR OFFICERS TO
ACT IN A MATTER WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THEY MAY HAVE JURISDICTION OR
AUTHORITY, ALTHOUGH THE COURT WILL NOT ASSUME TO CONTROL OR GUIDE THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR AUTHORITY.  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. HUMBOLDT
S.S. CO., 224 U.S. 474; LOUISVILLE CEMENT CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMM'N, 246 U.S. 638; SEE WORK V. UNITED STATES EX REL. RIVES, 267 U.S.
175, 184; WILBUR V. UNITED STATES EX REL. KADRIE, 281 U.S. 206, 218. 

IN CONSIDERING THE PROPRIETY OF THE EQUITABLE RELIEF GRANTED HERE, WE
CANNOT IGNORE THE JUDGMENT OF CONGRESS, DELIBERATELY EXPRESSED IN
LEGISLATION, THAT WHERE THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE COMPANY UNION IS
REMOVED, THE MEETING OF EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES AT THE CONFERENCE TABLE
IS A POWERFUL AID TO INDUSTRIAL PEACE.  MOREOVER, THE RESOURCES OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT ARE NOT EXHAUSTED IF NEGOTIATION FAILS IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE TO RESULT IN AGREEMENT.  IF DISPUTES CONCERNING CHANGES IN
RATES OF PAY, RULES OR WORKING CONDITIONS, ARE "NOT ADJUSTED BY THE
PARTIES IN CONFERENCE," EITHER PARTY MAY INVOKE THE MEDIATION SERVICES
OF THE MEDIATION BOARD, SEC. 5, FIRST, OR THE PARTIES MAY AGREE TO SEEK
THE BENEFITS OF THE ARBITRATION PROVISION OF SEC. 7.  WITH THE COERCIVE
INFLUENCE OF THE COMPANY UNION ENDED, AND IN VIEW OF THE INTEREST OF
BOTH PARTIES IN AVOIDING A STRIKE, WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT NEGOTIATION,
AS REQUIRED BY THE DECREE, WILL NOT RESULT IN AGREEMENT, OR LEAD TO
SUCCESSFUL MEDIATION OR ARBITRATION, OR THAT THE ATTEMPT TO SECURE ONE
OR ANOTHER THROUGH THE RELIEF WHICH THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE IS NOT
WORTH THE EFFORT. 

MORE IS INVOLVED THAN THE SETTLEMENT OF A PRIVATE CONTROVERSY WITHOUT
APPRECIABLE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PUBLIC.  THE PEACEABLE SETTLEMENT OF
LABOR CONTROVERSIES, ESPECIALLY WHERE THEY MAY SERIOUSLY IMPAIR THE
ABILITY OF AN INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIER TO PERFORM ITS SERVICE TO THE
PUBLIC, IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN.  THAT IS TESTIFIED TO BY THE
HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION NOW BEFORE US, THE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES OF
CONGRESS HAVING THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IN CHARGE, AND BY OUR COMMON
KNOWLEDGE.  COURTS OF EQUITY MAY, AND FREQUENTLY DO, GO MUCH FARTHER
BOTH TO GIVE AND WITHHOLD RELIEF IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST
THAN THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO GO WHEN ONLY PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE
INVOLVED.  PENNSYLVANIA V. WILLIAMS, 294 U.S. 176, 185; CENTRAL
KENTUCKY GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 290 U.S. 264, 270-273;
HARRISONVILLE V. W.S. DICKEY CLAY CO., 289 U.S. 334, 338; BEASLEY V.
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO., 191 U.S. 492, 497; JOY V. ST. LOUIS, SUPRA,
47; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. MARSHALL, 136 U.S. 393, 405-406; CONGER
V. NEW YORK, W.S. & B.R. CO., 120 N.Y. 29, 32, 33; 23 N.E. 983.  THE
FACT THAT CONGRESS HAS INDICATED ITS PURPOSE TO MAKE NEGOTIATION
OBLIGATORY IS IN ITSELF A DECLARATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND POLICY
WHICH SHOULD BE PERSUASIVE IN INDUCING COURTS TO GIVE RELIEF.  IT IS
FOR SIMILAR REASONS THAT COURTS, WHICH TRADITIONALLY HAVE REFUSED TO
COMPEL PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT TO SUBMIT TO ARBITRATION, TOBEY V.
BRISTOL, SUPRA, ENFORCE STATUTES COMMANDING PERFORMANCE OF ARBITRATION
AGREEMENTS.  RED CROSS LINE V. ATLANTIC FRUIT CO., 264 U.S. 109, 119,
121; MARINE TRANSIT CORP. V. DREYFUS, 284 U.S. 263, 278. 

THE DECREE IS AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE AND WAS GRANTED IN AN
APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE EQUITY POWERS OF THE COURT. 

SECOND.  CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC. 2 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.  (A)
VALIDITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.  THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER
INTERSTATE COMMERCE EXTENDS TO SUCH REGULATIONS OF THE RELATIONS OF
RAIL CARRIERS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES AS ARE REASONABLY CALCULATED TO
PREVENT THE INTERRUPTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY STRIKES AND THEIR
ATTENDANT DISORDERS.  WILSON V. NEW, 243 U.S. 332, 347-348.  THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT, SEC. 2, DECLARES THAT ITS PURPOSES, AMONG OTHERS,
ARE "TO AVOID ANY INTERRUPTION TO COMMERCE OR TO THE OPERATION OF ANY
CARRIER ENGAGED THEREIN," AND "TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROMPT AND ORDERLY
SETTLEMENT OF ALL DISPUTES CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES OR WORKING
CONDITIONS."  THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ITS HISTORY, TO WHICH
REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE, ESTABLISH THAT SUCH ARE ITS PURPOSES, AND THAT
THE LATTER IS IN AID OF THE FORMER.  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID INDICATES
CLEARLY THAT ITS PROVISIONS ARE AIMED AT THE SETTLEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTES BY THE PROMOTION OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BETWEEN EMPLOYERS
AND THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND BY MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION WHEN SUCH BARGAINING DOES NOT RESULT IN AGREEMENT.  IT
WAS FOR CONGRESS TO MAKE THE CHOICE OF THE MEANS BY WHICH ITS OBJECTIVE
OF SECURING THE UNINTERRUPTED SERVICE OF INTERSTATE RAILROADS WAS TO BE
SECURED, AND ITS JUDGMENT, SUPPORTED AS IT IS BY OUR LONG EXPERIENCE
WITH INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES, AND THE HISTORY OF RAILROAD LABOR RELATIONS,
TO WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED, IS NOT OPEN TO REVIEW HERE.  FN7  THE MEANS
CHOSEN ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE END SOUGHT AND HENCE ARE WITHIN THE
CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  SEE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE, SUPRA, 570; RAILROAD
RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330, 369. 

BUT PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE ACT AS APPLIED TO ITS "BACK SHOP"
EMPLOYEES IS NOT WITHIN THE COMMERCE POWER SINCE THEIR DUTIES HAVE NO
DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  OF THE 824 EMPLOYEES
IN THE SIX SHOP CRAFTS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE FOR A CHOICE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 322 WORK IN PETITIONER'S "BACK SHOPS" AT PRINCETON,
WEST VIRGINIA.  THEY ARE THERE ENGAGED IN MAKING CLASSIFIED REPAIRS,
WHICH CONSIST OF HEAVY REPAIRS ON LOCOMOTIVES AND CARS WITHDRAWN FROM
SERVICE FOR THAT PURPOSE FOR LONG PERIODS (AN AVERAGE OF 105 DAYS FOR
LOCOMOTIVES AND 109 DAYS FOR CARS).  THE REPAIR WORK IS UPON THE
EQUIPMENT USED BY PETITIONER IN ITS TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, 97% OF
WHICH IS INTERSTATE.  AT TIMES A CONTINUOUS STREAM OF ENGINES AND CARS
PASSES THROUGH THE "BACK SHOPS" FOR SUCH REPAIRS.  WHEN NOT ENGAGED IN
REPAIR WORK, THE BACK SHOP EMPLOYEES PERFORM "STORE ORDER WORK," THE
MANUFACTURE OF MATERIAL SUCH AS RIVETS AND REPAIR PARTS, TO BE PLACED
IN RAILROAD STORES FOR USE AT THE PRINCETON SHOP AND OTHER POINTS ON
THE LINE. 

THE ACTIVITIES IN WHICH THESE EMPLOYEES ARE ENGAGED HAVE SUCH A
RELATION TO THE OTHER CONFESSEDLY INTERSTATE ACTIVITIES OF THE
PETITIONER THAT THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS A PART OF THEM.  ALL TAKEN
TOGETHER FALL WITHIN THE POWER OF CONGRESS OVER INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 
BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612,
619; CF. PEDERSEN V. DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO., 229 U.S. 146, 151.  BOTH
COURTS BELOW HAVE FOUND THAT INTERRUPTION BY STRIKES OF THE BACK SHOP
EMPLOYEES, IF MORE THAN TEMPORARY, WOULD SERIOUSLY CRIPPLE PETITIONER'S
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.  THE RELATION OF THE BACK SHOP TO
TRANSPORTATION IS SUCH THAT A STRIKE OF PETITIONER'S EMPLOYEES THERE,
QUITE APART FROM THE LIKELIHOOD OF ITS SPREADING TO THE OPERATING
DEPARTMENT, WOULD SUBJECT PETITIONER TO THE DANGER, SUBSTANTIAL, THOUGH
POSSIBLY INDEFINABLE IN ITS EXTENT, OF INTERRUPTION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE.  THE CAUSE IS NOT REMOTE FROM THE EFFECT.  THE
RELATION BETWEEN THEM IS NOT TENUOUS.  THE EFFECT ON COMMERCE CANNOT BE
REGARDED AS NEGLIGIBLE.  SEE UNITED STATES V. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES'
DEPARTMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, 290 FED. 978, 981,
HOLDING PARTICIPATION OF BACK SHOP EMPLOYEES IN THE NATION-WIDE
RAILROAD SHOPMEN'S STRIKE OF 1922 TO CONSTITUTE AN INTERFERENCE WITH
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  AS THE REGULATION HERE IN QUESTION IS SHOWN TO BE
AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF AVOIDING THAT DANGER, IT IS WITHIN THE POWER OF
CONGRESS. 

IT IS NO ANSWER, AS PETITIONER SUGGESTS, THAT IT COULD CLOSE ITS BACK
SHOPS AND TURN OVER THE REPAIR WORK TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. 
WHETHER THE RAILROAD SHOULD DO ITS REPAIR WORK IN ITS OWN SHOPS, OR IN
THOSE OF ANOTHER, IS A QUESTION OF RAILROAD MANAGEMENT.  IT IS
PETITIONER'S DETERMINATION TO MAKE ITS OWN REPAIRS WHICH HAS BROUGHT
ITS RELATIONS WITH SHOP EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE RAILWAY
LABOR ACT.  IT IS THE NATURE OF THE WORK DONE AND ITS RELATION TO
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION WHICH AFFORD ADEQUATE BASIS FOR THE EXERCISE
OF THE REGULATORY POWER OF CONGRESS. 

THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 207 U.S. 463, 498, WHICH MENTIONED
RAILROAD REPAIR SHOPS AS A SUBJECT BEYOND THE POWER TO REGULATE
COMMERCE, ARE NOT CONTROLLING HERE.  WHATEVER ELSE MAY BE SAID OF THAT
PRONOUNCEMENT, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE COMMERCE POWER IS AS MUCH
DEPENDENT UPON THE TYPE OF REGULATION AS ITS SUBJECT MATTER.  IT IS
ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT THE FAILURE
TO SETTLE, BY PEACEFUL MEANS, THE GRIEVANCES OF RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WITH
RESPECT TO RATES OF PAY, RULES OR WORKING CONDITIONS, IS FAR MORE
LIKELY TO HINDER INTERSTATE COMMERCE THAN THE FAILURE TO COMPENSATE
WORKERS WHO HAVE SUFFERED INJURY IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT. 

(B)  VALIDITY OF SEC. 2 OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT APPLIED IN THIS
CASE, AS CONSTRUED BY THE COURT BELOW, AND AS WE CONSTRUE THEM, DO NOT
REQUIRE PETITIONER TO ENTER INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH ITS EMPLOYEES, AND
THEY DO NOT PROHIBIT ITS ENTERING INTO SUCH CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AS
IT CHOOSES, WITH ITS INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES.  THEY PROHIBIT ONLY SUCH USE
OF THE COMPANY UNION AS, DESPITE THE OBJECTIONS REPEATED HERE, WAS
ENJOINED IN THE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE, SUPRA, AND THEY IMPOSE ON
PETITIONER ONLY THE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY OF "TREATING WITH" THE AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVES OF ITS EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF NEGOTIATING A LABOR
DISPUTE.    EVEN THOUGH CONGRESS, IN THE CHOICE OF MEANS TO EFFECT A
PERMISSIBLE REGULATION OF COMMERCE, MUST CONFORM TO DUE PROCESS,
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. ALTON R. CO., SUPRA, 347; CHICAGO, R.I. &
P. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 284 U.S. 80, 97; SEE LOUISVILLE JOINT
STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, 589, IT IS EVIDENT THAT
WHERE, AS HERE, THE MEANS CHOSEN ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE PERMISSIBLE
END, THERE IS LITTLE SCOPE FOR THE OPERATION OF THE DUE PROCESS
CLAUSE.  THE RAILROAD CAN COMPLAIN ONLY OF THE INFRINGEMENT OF ITS OWN
CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY, NOT THAT OF ITS EMPLOYEES.  ERIE R. CO. V.
WILLIAMS, 233 U.S. 685, 697; JEFFREY MFG. CO. V. BLAGG, 235 U.S. 571,
576; RAIL & RIVER COAL CO. V. YAPLE, 236 U.S. 338, 349; CF. HAWKINS V.
BLEAKLY, 243 U.S. 210, 214.  AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, LIKE THE
FOURTEENTH, SEE WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH, DECIDED THIS DAY,
ANTE, P. 379, IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF UNTRAMMELED FREEDOM OF ACTION AND
OF CONTRACT.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE,
CONGRESS CAN SUBJECT BOTH TO RESTRAINTS NOT SHOWN TO BE UNREASONABLE. 
SUCH ARE THE RESTRAINTS OF THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, JOHNSON V.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 196 U.S. 1; OF THE ACT IMPOSING A WAGE SCALE ON
RAIL CARRIERS, WILSON V. NEW, SUPRA; OF THE RAILROAD EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY ACT, SECOND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY CASES, 223 U.S. 1; OF THE
ACT FIXING MAXIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE FOR RAILROAD EMPLOYEES WHOSE DUTIES
CONTROL OR AFFECT THE MOVEMENT OF TRAINS, BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. V.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, SUPRA; OF THE ACT PROHIBITING THE
PREPAYMENT OF SEAMEN'S WAGES, PATTERSON V. BARK EUDORA, 190 U.S. 169. 

EACH OF THE LIMITED DUTIES IMPOSED UPON PETITIONER BY THE STATUTE AND
THE DECREE DO NOT DIFFER IN THEIR PURPOSE AND NATURE FROM THOSE IMPOSED
UNDER THE EARLIER STATUTE AND ENFORCED IN THE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE,
SUPRA.  THE QUALITY OF THE ACTION COMPELLED, IS REASONABLENESS, AND
THEREFORE THE LAWFULNESS OF THE COMPULSION, MUST BE JUDGED IN THE LIGHT
OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE OCCASIONED THE EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL
POWER.  IF THE COMPULSORY SETTLEMENT OF SOME DIFFERENCES, BY
ARBITRATION, MAY BE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DUE PROCESS, SEE HARDWARE
DEALERS MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. V. GLIDDEN CO., 284 U.S. 151, IT SEEMS
PLAIN THAT THE COMMAND OF THE STATUTE TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE SETTLEMENT
OF LABOR DISPUTES, GIVEN IN THE APPROPRIATE EXERCISE OF THE COMMERCE
POWER, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SO ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE AS TO INFRINGE
DUE PROCESS. 

ADAIR V. UNITED STATES, 208 U.S. 161, AND COPPAGE V. KANSAS, 236 U.S.
1, HAVE NO PRESENT APPLICATION.  THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT INVOKED HERE NEITHER COMPEL THE EMPLOYER TO ENTER INTO ANY
AGREEMENT, NOR PRECLUDE IT FROM ENTERING INTO ANY CONTRACT WITH
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES.  THEY DO NOT "INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL EXERCISE
OF THE RIGHT OF THE CARRIER TO SELECT ITS EMPLOYEES OR TO DISCHARGE
THEM."  SEE THE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE, SUPRA, 571. 

THERE REMAINS TO BE CONSIDERED PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS THAT THE
CERTIFICATE OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD IS INVALID AND THAT THE
INJUNCTION GRANTED IS PROHIBITED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT, OF MARCH 23, 1932, C. 90, 47 STAT. 70; 29 U.S.C. SECS.
101-115. 

VALIDITY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.  IN EACH
CRAFT OF PETITIONER'S MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT A MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING
CAST BALLOTS FOR THE FEDERATION.  IN THE CASE OF THE BLACKSMITHS THE
FEDERATION FAILED TO RECEIVE A MAJORITY OF THE BALLOTS OF THOSE
ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, ALTHOUGH A MAJORITY OF THE CRAFT PARTICIPATED IN THE
ELECTION.  IN THE CASE OF THE CARMEN AND COACH CLEANERS, A MAJORITY OF
THE EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE TO VOTE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION. 
THERE HAS BEEN NO APPEAL FROM THE RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE
DESIGNATION OF THE FEDERATION AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CARMEN AND
COACH CLEANERS WAS INVALID.  PETITIONER ASSAILS THE CERTIFICATION OF
THE FEDERATION AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BLACKSMITHS BECAUSE LESS
THAN A MAJORITY OF THAT CRAFT, ALTHOUGH A MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING,
VOTED FOR THE FEDERATION. 

OF ANY CRAFT OR CLASS OF EMPLOYEES SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE
WHO SHALL BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CRAFT OR CLASS FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THIS ACT."  PETITIONER CONSTRUES THIS SECTION AS REQUIRING THAT A
REPRESENTATIVE BE SELECTED BY THE VOTES OF A MAJORITY OF ELIGIBLE
VOTERS.  IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE WORDS OF THE SECTION CONFER THE
RIGHT OF DETERMINATION UPON A MAJORITY OF THOSE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE, BUT
IS SILENT AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT RIGHT SHALL BE EXERCISED. 
ELECTION LAWS PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL BY A SPECIFIED
MAJORITY OF AN ELECTORATE HAVE BEEN GENERALLY CONSTRUED AS REQUIRING
ONLY THE CONSENT OF THE SPECIFIED MAJORITY OF THOSE PARTICIPATING IN
THE ELECTION.  CARROLL COUNTY V. SMITH, 111 U.S. 556; DOUGLASS V. PIKE
COUNTY, 101 U.S. 677; LOUISVILLE & NASHIVLLE R. CO. V. COUNTY COURT OF
DAVIDSON COUNTY, 1 SNEED (TENN.) 637; MONTGOMERY COUNTY FISCAL COURT V.
TRIMBLE, 104 KY. 629; 47 S.W. 773.  THOSE WHO DO NOT PARTICIPATE "ARE
PRESUMED TO ASSENT TO THE EXPRESSED WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THOSE
VOTING."  CASS COUNTY V. JOHNSTON, 95 U.S. 360, 369, AND SEE CARROLL
COUNTY V. SMITH, SUPRA. 

WE SEE NO REASON FOR SUPPOSING THAT SEC. 2, FOURTH, WAS INTENDED TO
ADOPT A DIFFERENT RULE.  IF, IN ADDITION TO PARTICIPATION BY A MAJORITY
OF A CRAFT, A VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OF THOSE ELIGIBLE IS NECESSARY FOR A
CHOICE, AN INDIFFERENT MINORITY COULD PREVENT THE RESOLUTION OF A
CONTEST, AND THWART THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT, WHICH IS DEPENDENT FOR ITS
OPERATION UPON THE SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES.  THERE IS THE ADDED
DANGER THAT THE ABSENCE OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS MAY BE DUE LESS TO THEIR
INDIFFERENCE THAN TO COERCION BY THE EMPLOYER.  THE OPINION OF THE
TRIAL COURT DISCLOSES THAT THE MEDIATION BOARD SCHEDULED AN ELECTION TO
BE DETERMINED BY A MAJORITY OF THE ELIGIBLE VOTERS, BUT THAT THE
FEDERATION'S SUBSEQUENT PROTEST THAT THE RAILWAY WAS INFLUENCING THE
MEN NOT TO VOTE CAUSED THE BOARD TO HOLD A NEW ELECTION TO BE DECIDED
BY THE BALLOTS OF A MAJORITY OF THOSE VOTING. 

IT IS SIGNIFICANT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT THE LANGUAGE OF
SEC. 2, FOURTH, WAS TAKEN FROM A RULE ANNOUNCED BY THE UNITED STATES
RAILROAD LABOR BOARD, ACTING UNDER THE LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1920, DECISION NO. 119, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY., 2 DEC. U.S. RAILROAD LABOR
BOARD, 87, 96, PAR. 15.  PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT, THIS RULE WAS INTERPRETED BY THE BOARD, IN DECISION NO. 1971,
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & S.S. CLERKS V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC LINES, 4 DEC.
U.S. RAILROAD LABOR BOARD 625, WHERE IT APPEARED THAT A MAJORITY OF THE
CRAFT PARTICIPATED IN THE ELECTION.  THE BOARD RULED, P. 639, THAT A
MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST WAS SUFFICIENT TO DESIGNATE A
REPRESENTATIVE.  A LIKE INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 2, FOURTH, WAS SUSTAINED
IN ASSOCIATION OF CLERICAL EMPLOYEES V. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & S.S.
CLERKS, 85 F.(2D) 152. 

THE PETITIONER ALSO CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT FAILS TO STATE THE
NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS IN EACH CRAFT OR CLASS.  THE CERTIFICATE
STATES THAT RESPONDENT "HAS BEEN DULY DESIGNATED AND AUTHORIZED TO
REPRESENT THE MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES" OF PETITIONER.  IT ALSO
SHOWS ON ITS FACE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN EACH CRAFT IN FAVOR
OF EACH CANDIDATE, BUT OMITS TO STATE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE
VOTERS IN EACH CRAFT.  PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THIS IS A FATAL DEFECT
IN THE CERTIFICATE, UPON THE BASIS OF THOSE CASES WHICH HOLD THAT WHERE
A FINDING OF FACT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OR TRIBUNAL IS
PREREQUISITE TO THE MAKING OF A RULE OR ORDER, THE FINDING MUST BE
EXPLICITLY SET OUT.  SEE PANAMA REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388;
UNITED STATES V. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & P.R. CO., 294 U.S. 499;
ATCHISON, T. & S.F. RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 193. 

THE PRACTICE CONTENDED FOR IS UNDOUBTEDLY DESIRABLE, BUT IT IS NOT
REQUIRED BY THE PRESENT STATUTE OR BY THE AUTHORITIES UPON WHICH
PETITIONER RELIES.  THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD MAKES NO ORDER.  THE
COMMAND WHICH THE DECREE OF THE COURT ENFORCES IS THAT OF THE STATUTE,
NOT OF THE BOARD.  ITS CERTIFICATE THAT THE FEDERATION IS THE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EMPLOYEES IS THE ULTIMATE FINDING OF
FACT PREREQUISITE TO ENFORCEMENT BY THE COURTS OF THE COMMAND OF THE
STATUTE.  THERE IS NO CONTENTION THAT THIS FINDING IS CONCLUSIVE IN THE
ABSENCE OF A FINDING OF THE BASIC FACTS ON WHICH IT RESTS - THAT IS TO
SAY, THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS, THE NUMBER PARTICIPATING IN THE
ELECTION AND THE CHOICE OF THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE. 
WHETHER THE CERTIFICATION, IF MADE AS TO THOSE FACTS, IS CONCLUSIVE, IT
IS UNNECESSARY NOW TO DETERMINE.  BUT WE THINK IT PLAIN THAT IF THE
BOARD OMITS TO CERTIFY ANY OF THEM, THE OMITTED FACT IS OPEN TO INQUIRY
BY THE COURT ASKED TO ENFORCE THE COMMAND OF THE STATUTE.  SEE DISMUKE
V. UNITED STATES, 297 U.S. 167, 171-173.  SUCH INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE
TRIAL COURT, WHICH FOUND THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS AND THUS
ESTABLISHED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE BOARD'S ULTIMATE CONCLUSION.  THE
CERTIFICATE, WHICH CONFORMED TO THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, WAS PRIMA
FACIE SUFFICIENT, AND WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE INVALID FOR WANT OF THE
REQUISITE SUPPORTING FACTS. 

VALIDITY OF THE INJUNCTION UNDER THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT. 
PETITIONER ASSAILS THE DECREE FOR ITS FAILURE TO CONFORM TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 9 OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, WHICH PROVIDES:
"EVERY RESTRAINING ORDER OR INJUNCTION GRANTED IN A CASE INVOLVING OR
GROWING OUT OF A LABOR DISPUTE SHALL INCLUDE ONLY A PROHIBITION OF SUCH
SPECIFIC ACT OR ACTS AS MAY BE EXPRESSLY COMPLAINED OF IN THE BILL OF
COMPLAINT OR PETITION FILED IN SUCH CASE AND AS SHALL BE EXPRESSLY
INCLUDED IN  ...  FINDINGS OF FACT MADE AND FILED BY THE COURT."  THE
EVIDENT PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, AS ITS HISTORY AND CONTEXT SHOW, WAS
NOT TO PRECLUDE MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS, BUT TO FORBID BLANKET
INJUNCTIONS AGAINST LABOR UNIONS, WHICH ARE USUALLY PROHIBITORY IN
FORM, AND TO CONFINE THE INJUNCTION TO THE PARTICULAR ACTS COMPLAINED
OF AND FOUND BY THE COURT.  WE DEEM IT UNNECESSARY TO COMMENT ON OTHER
SIMILAR OBJECTIONS, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THEY ARE BASED ON STRAINED AND
UNNATURAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE WORDS OF THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT, AND
CONFLICT WITH ITS DECLARED PURPOSE, SEC. 2, THAT THE EMPLOYEE "SHALL BE
FREE FROM THE INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYERS OF
LABOR, OR THEIR AGENTS, IN THE DESIGNATION OF SUCH REPRESENTATIVES OR
IN SELF-ORGANIZATION OR IN OTHER CONCERTED ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION." 

IT SUFFICES TO SAY THAT THE NORRIS-LAGUARDIA ACT CAN AFFECT THE
PRESENT DECREE ONLY SO FAR AS ITS PROVISIONS ARE FOUND NOT TO CONFLICT
WITH THOSE OF SEC. 2, NINTH, OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AUTHORIZING THE
RELIEF WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED.  SUCH PROVISIONS CANNOT BE RENDERED
NUGATORY BY THE EARLIER AND MORE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE NORRIS
LAGUARDIA ACT.  SEE THE RAILWAY CLERKS CASE, SUPRA, 571; CF. CALLAHAN
V. UNITED STATES, 285 U.S. 515, 518; WALLA WALLA V. WALLA WALLA WATER
CO., 172 U.S. 1, 22; INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE V. REX THEATRE CORP., 73
F.(2D) 92, 93.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COURT FOUND THAT AFTER THE CERTIFICATION BY THE MEDIATION
BOARD "THE DEFENDANT, BY AND THROUGH ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND SERVANTS,
UNDERTOOK BY MEANS OF THE CIRCULATION OF A PETITION OR PETITIONS
ADDRESSED TO THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD TO HAVE THE CERTIFICATION OF
THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD AFORESAID ALTERED, CHANGED OR REVOKED SO
AS TO DEPRIVE ITS MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES OF THE RIGHT TO
REPRESENTATION BY SAID SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, RAILWAY EMPLOYES
DEPARTMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, SO DESIGNATED AS
AFORESAID, AND THEREAFTER DID CAUSE TO BE ORGANIZED THE INDEPENDENT
SHOP CRAFTS ASSOCIATION BY INDIVIDUAL MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES BY
CIRCULATING OR CAUSING TO BE CIRCULATED APPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN
SAID INDEPENDENT SHOP CRAFTS ASSOCIATION NOTWITHSTANDING THE
CERTIFICATION AS AFORESAID BY THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD OF SAID
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, RAILWAY EMPLOYES DEPARTMENT OF THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS MECHANICAL
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYES,  ..." 

FN2 SECTION 2 OF THE ACT, AS AMENDED IN 1934, DECLARES THAT ITS
PURPOSES, AMONG OTHERS, ARE "(2) TO FORBID ANY LIMITATION UPON FREEDOM
OF ASSOCIATION AMONG EMPLOYEES OR ANY DENIAL, AS A CONDITION OF
EMPLOYMENT OR OTHERWISE, OF THE RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO JOIN A LABOR
ORGANIZATION" AND "(3) TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPLETE INDEPENDENCE OF
CARRIERS AND OF EMPLOYEES IN THE MATTER OF SELF-ORGANIZATION TO CARRY
OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT."  THE SECTION WAS ALSO AMENDED TO PROVIDE
THAT "NEITHER PARTY SHALL IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH, INFLUENCE, OR
COERCE THE OTHER IN ITS CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES," SEC. 2, THIRD, AND
THAT "IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CARRIER TO INTERFERE IN ANY WAY WITH
THE ORGANIZATION OF ITS EMPLOYEES, OR TO USE THE FUNDS OF THE CARRIER
IN MAINTAINING OR ASSISTING OR CONTRIBUTING TO ANY LABOR ORGANIZATION
...  OR TO INFLUENCE OR COERCE EMPLOYEES IN AN EFFORT TO INDUCE THEM TO
JOIN OR REMAIN OR NOT TO JOIN OR REMAIN MEMBERS OF ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION."  SEC. 2, FOURTH.    FN3  THE 1934 AMENDMENT IMPOSED
VARIOUS OTHER OBLIGATIONS UPON THE CARRIER, TO WHICH CRIMINAL PENALTIES
WERE ATTACHED (SEC. 2, TENTH) - E.G., PROHIBITIONS AGAINST HELPING
UNIONS, BY CONTRIBUTIONS OF FUNDS, OR ASSISTANCE IN THE COLLECTION OF
DUES, SEC. 2, FOURTH; AGAINST REQUIRING EMPLOYEES TO PROMISE TO JOIN OR
NOT TO JOIN A LABOR UNION, SEC. 2, FIFTH; AGAINST CHANGING RATES OF
PAY, ETC., WITHOUT SPECIFYING A CONFERENCE UPON THIRTY DAYS' NOTICE,
SEC. 2, SEVENTH; AND SEE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CARRIER POST NOTICES
THAT ALL DISPUTES WILL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT, SEC.
2, EIGHTH.    FN4  IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE
RAILWAY LABOR ACT OF 1926, 363 CASES CONCERNING RATES OF PAY, RULES OR
WORKING CONDITIONS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF
MEDIATION, AND ABOUT 25% OF THESE WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE PARTIES.  YET,
DURING THE SAME PERIOD, MORE THAN 600 DIRECT AND VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENTS
WERE NEGOTIATED.  SEE UNITED STATES BOARD OF MEDIATION, FIRST ANNUAL
REPORT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1927, PP. 10-11; SECOND
ANNUAL REPORT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1928, PP. 11, 58-59. 
COMPARE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, SECOND ANNUAL REPORT, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1936, AT P. 1:  "FOR EVERY DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO
...  THESE BOARDS, THERE WERE MANY OTHERS CONSIDERED AND SETTLED IN
CONFERENCES BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF CARRIERS AND OF THE EMPLOYEES AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 2, SECOND, OF THE ACT." 

SEE ALSO TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM M. LEISERSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD UNTIL FEBRUARY 1, 1937, AT HEARING BY NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD IN THE CASE OF JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION, 301
U.S. 1:  "IF WE HAVE A THREAT OF A STRIKE NOW (ON THE RAILROADS) IT
MIGHT BE ON A BIG FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, LIKE WAGES AND HOURS, AND WE
USUALLY FIND WE CAN SETTLE THOSE BY ARBITRATION OR OTHERWISE....  BUT
IF THE ISSUES INVOLVED WERE DISCRIMINATION OR DISCHARGE OF MEN BECAUSE
THEY HAD JOINED THE ORGANIZATION, OR THE QUESTION WOULD BE THE RIGHT OF
THE ORGANIZATION TO REPRESENT THEM, WE COULD NOT HAVE SETTLED THOSE
STRIKES."  SEE GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION OF LABOR'S RIGHT TO ORGANIZE,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, BULL. 
NO. 1, AUGUST, 1936, PP. 17-18. 

FN5  SEE ALSO STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE CROSSER, IN CHARGE OF THE
BILL ON THE FLOOR, IN HEARINGS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES, 73D CONG., 2D
SESS., ON H.R. 9861, PP. 10-11, 13:  "THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS  ...
(INTER ALIA) TO OUTLAW THE ATTEMPT THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN NUMEROUS
INSTANCES BY EMPLOYERS WHO CONTROL ALLEGED LABOR UNIONS, AND THEREBY,
TO USE A SLANG PHRASE, TO 'GUM UP THE WORKS'....  WE HAVE HAD 8 YEARS
OF OPERATION OF THIS ACT, AND WE HAVE PREVENTED ANY STRIKES.  BUT
STRIKES HAVE BEEN THREATENED BECAUSE OF THE DEFECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN
FOUND IN THIS BILL." 

UNDER THE 1926 ACT DISPUTES OVER THE DESIGNATION OF EMPLOYEE
REPRESENTATIVES COULD BE DEALT WITH BY THE OLD UNITED STATES MEDIATION
BOARD ONLY BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.  THE CARRIERS AGREED TO AN
ELECTION CONDUCTED BY THE BOARD BUT NINE TIMES IN SIX YEARS, SEE
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM M. LEISERSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION
BOARD UNTIL FEBRUARY 1, 1937, AT HEARING BY NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD IN THE CASE OF JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1;
GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION OF LABOR'S RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, BULL.  NO. 1, AUGUST,
1936, P. 50.  THE 1934 AMENDMENT WAS FOLLOWED BY A LARGE INCREASE IN
THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATION DISPUTES SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL
MEDIATION BOARD.  SEE INFRA, NOTE 7. 

FN6  (NOTE 35A.)  "THE GOVERNMENT INTERPRETS THE NEGATIVE OBLIGATIONS
IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE AND DECREE AS HAVING THE FOLLOWING EFFECT: 

"WHEN THE MAJORITY OF A CRAFT OR CLASS HAS (EITHER BY SECRET BALLOT
OR OTHERWISE) SELECTED A REPRESENTATIVE, THE CARRIER CANNOT MAKE WITH
ANYONE OTHER THAN THE REPRESENTATIVE A COLLECTIVE CONTRACT (I.E., A
CONTRACT WHICH SETS RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS),
WHETHER THE CONTRACT COVERS THE CLASS AS A WHOLE OR A PART THEREOF. 
NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR THE DECREE PREVENTS THE CARRIER FROM REFUSING
TO MAKE A COLLECTIVE CONTRACT AND HIRING INDIVIDUALS ON WHATEVER TERMS
THE CARRIER MAY BY UNILATERAL ACTION DETERMINE.  IN HIRINGS OF THAT
SORT THE INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT DEAL IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY WITH THE
CARRIER AND THE HIRING DOES NOT SET GENERAL RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR
WORKING CONDITIONS.  OF COURSE, AS A MATTER OF VOLUNTARY ACTION, NOT AS
A RESULT OF THE STATUTE OR THE DECREE, THE CARRIER MAY CONTRACT WITH
THE DULY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO HIRE INDIVIDUALS ONLY ON THE
TERMS OF A COLLECTIVE UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CARRIER AND THE
REPRESENTATIVE; BUT ANY SUCH AGREEMENT WOULD BE ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY ON
THE CARRIER'S PART AND WOULD IN NO SENSE BE COMPELLED. 

"IF THE MAJORITY OF A CRAFT OR CLASS HAS NOT SELECTED A
REPRESENTATIVE, THE CARRIER IS FREE TO MAKE WITH ANYONE IT PLEASES AND
FOR ANY GROUP IT PLEASES CONTRACTS ESTABLISHING RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR
WORKING CONDITIONS." 

FN7  THERE WAS EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS THAT THE LABOR POLICY
EMBODIED IN THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN CURBING
STRIKES.  IN THE EIGHT YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSAGE OF THE 1926 ACT,
THERE WERE ONLY TWO SMALL RAILROAD STRIKES.  SINCE THE 1934 AMENDMENT,
THERE HAS BEEN BUT ONE.  SEE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, FIRST ANNUAL
REPORT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1935, P. 8; SECOND ANNUAL
REPORT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1936, P. 1. 

IN THE WATER TRANSPORTATION AND MOTOR TRANSPORTATION FIELDS, THERE
WERE FREQUENT STRIKES.  A TABLE SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES (SEE
RESPONDENT'S BRIEF, ASSOCIATED PRESS V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
NO. 365, OCTOBER TERM 1936, P. 57), AND DERIVED FROM UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, BULLETINS NO. R
339(1936), P. 4; NO. R. 389(1936), P. 4; MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW (MAY
SEPTEMBER, 1936), MONTHLY "ANALYSIS OF STRIKES," SHOWS THE FOLLOWING:

                  MAN-DAYS OF IDLENESS DUE TO LABOR STRIKES -

                               1933        1934      1935     (1936
JAN.-MAY) 

WATER TRANSPORTATION.......   32,752   1,068,867   749,534
119,820 

MOTOR TRANSPORTATION.......           155,565     859,657   202,393
46,054 

RAILROADS..................                 0   0        56
0 

YET THERE WERE MANY DISPUTES BETWEEN RAIL CARRIERS AND THEIR
EMPLOYEES.  APART FROM THE MORE TRIVIAL GRIEVANCES AND DIFFERENCES OF
OPINION IN THE INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENTS, 876 DISPUTES, PRINCIPALLY
OVER CHANGES IN RATES OF PAY, RULES OR WORKING CONDITIONS, WERE
REFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF MEDIATION BETWEEN 1926 AND
1934.  THE FOLLOWING TABLE, DERIVED FROM ITS EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT, FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1934, PP. 4-5, INDICATES THE SUCCESS OF
THE MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION MACHINERY SET UP BY THE RAILWAY LABOR
ACT. 

MANNER OF DISPOSITION          FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, -

                        1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934
TOTAL 

MEDIATION AGREEMENTS.....   57   84   46   25   24   45   23   17
321 

WITHDRAWN BY PARTIES.....   24   45   43   20   21   69   20   26
268 

ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS...   27   14   10    4    2    4    3    9
73 

CLOSED ACCOUNT: 

REFUSAL TO ARBITRATE....    0    0    9    3    1   47   39   50
149 

RETIRED OR CLOSED, OTHER 

CAUSES..................    3    2   21   10    5    5   10    9
65 

BUT STATISTICS SHOW THAT MANY MORE LABOR DISPUTES WERE SETTLED BY
DIRECT NEGOTIATION, SUPRA, FOOTNOTE 4, AND CONGRESS MIGHT REASONABLY
HAVE FEARED THAT THE ACTION OF CERTAIN RAILROADS IN NEGOTIATING ONLY
WITH UNIONS DOMINATED BY THEM WOULD PREVENT SUCH SETTLEMENTS AND LEAD
TO STRIKES.  SEE SUPRA, FOOTNOTE 5.  THAT THERE WERE MANY DISPUTES,
APPARENT AND LATENT, FOR WHICH THE 1926 ACT HAD NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE
MACHINERY, IS SHOWN BY THE LARGE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATION DISPUTES
(MORE THAN 230) REFERRED TO THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD IN THE FIRST
TWO YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE, SEE FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1935, P. 9; SECOND ANNUAL REPORT, FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1936, PP. 5, 7. 

IT IS THE BELIEF OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD THAT PEACE IN THE
RAILROAD INDUSTRY IS LARGELY DUE TO THE 3,485 COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS
COVERING RATES OF PAY, RULES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, WHICH WERE FILED
BY JUNE 30, 1936(SEE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, SECOND ANNUAL REPORT,
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1936, P. 26).  IN ITS FIRST ANNUAL
REPORT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1935, IT CONCLUDED (P. 36):
"THE ABSENCE OF STRIKES IN THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY, PARTICULARLY DURING
THE LAST TWO YEARS WHEN WIDE-SPREAD STRIKES, THE USUAL ACCOMPANIMENT OF
BUSINESS RECOVERY, PREVAILED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, IS TO BE EXPLAINED
PRIMARILY NOT BY THE MEDIATION MACHINERY OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, BUT
BY THE EXISTENCE OF THESE COLLECTIVE LABOR CONTRACTS.  FOR, WHILE THEY
ARE IN EXISTENCE, THESE CONTRACTS PROVIDE ORDERLY, LEGAL PROCESSES OF
SETTLING ALL DISPUTES AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR STRIKES AND INDUSTRIAL
WARFARE." 
..END :

















UNITED STATES V. NORRIS, 300 U.S. 564 


NO. 600.  ARGUED MARCH 11, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 86 F.(2D)
379, REVERSED. 


1.  A RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE, RECITING THAT THE SENATE DESIRED FACTS
TO AID IT IN ENACTING REMEDIAL LEGISLATION AND IN DECIDING CONTESTS
INVOLVING SENATORIAL ELECTIONS, AUTHORIZED A COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
THE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES OF THE VARIOUS CANDIDATES FOR THE UNITED
STATES SENATE, THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS SUBSCRIBING, THE AMOUNT
CONTRIBUTED, THE METHOD OF EXPENDITURE, AND ALL FACTS IN RELATION
THERETO, WITH POWER TO CALL WITNESSES.  A PERSON WHO HAD ATTEMPTED TO
FILE IN A PRIMARY ELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF UNITED
STATES SENATOR, BUT WHOSE APPLICATION HAD BEEN REJECTED BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT AS TOO LATE, WAS CALLED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, AND BEING
SWORN TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED NO FINANCIAL SUPPORT, OR ASSURANCE
OF IT, FOR HIS CAMPAIGN.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE INQUIRY WAS WITHIN THE COMPETENCY OF CONGRESS AND THE
COMMITTEE.  P. 573. 

(2)  THAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PERJURY STATUTE (CRIMINAL CODE,
SEC. 125) IT WAS A CASE IN WHICH A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES (2 U.S.C.
191) AUTHORIZED THE OATH TO BE ADMINISTERED.  ID. 

(3)  THAT THE TESTIMONY WAS MATERIAL TO THE INQUIRY.  ID. 

2.  A WITNESS WHO COMMITS WILFUL PERJURY IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 125 OF
THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE CANNOT PURGE HIMSELF OF THE OFFENCE BY
APPEARING AT A LATER STAGE OF THE INQUIRY AND RECANTING THE FALSE
TESTIMONY.  P. 573. 

UNITED STATES V. NORRIS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, POST, P. 647, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A CONVICTION
FOR PERJURY IN AN INQUIRY BY A COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE. 

THE PERJURY STATUTE DOES NOT CREATE AN EXCEPTION OR IMMUNITY FOR A
WITNESS WHO RECANTS FALSE TESTIMONY WHICH HE HAS DELIBERATELY GIVEN,
AND WHICH HE HAS ALLOWED TO STAND UNTIL OTHER WITNESSES HAVE EXPOSED
HIS FALSEHOODS.  MOREOVER, IT WOULD BE AGAINST SOUND PUBLIC POLICY TO
READ SUCH AN EXCEPTION INTO THE STATUTE.  AN INSISTENCE UPON THE TRUTH
AT EVERY STAGE OF A LAWFUL INQUIRY IS NECESSARY NOT MERELY TO PROTECT
WHATEVER SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS MAY BE AT STAKE, BUT ALSO TO INSURE
EXPEDITIOUS PROCEDURE IN THE TRIBUNAL CONDUCTING THE INQUIRY.  THERE IS
NO LIKELIHOOD THAT THE GRANT OF AN IMMUNITY SUCH AS IS CLAIMED ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT WILL LEAD A WITNESS WHO HAS DELIBERATELY LIED
TO TELL THE TRUTH LATER.  INDEED SUCH GRANT IS MORE LIKELY TO TEMPT A
KNAVE TO TELL A FALSEHOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WAIT TO SEE IF HE IS
DETECTED. 

ON THE DOCTRINE OF AVOIDANCE OF PERJURY BY SUBSEQUENT RECANTATION
THERE IS NO DECISION OR DICTUM IN THIS COURT.  THE ENGLISH LAW DOES NOT
RECOGNIZE THIS DOCTRINE IN CASES WHERE THE ORIGINAL FALSE STATEMENT WAS
DELIBERATE AND UNEQUIVOCAL.  REGINA V. HOLL, 45 L.T. REP. 69(Q.B.D.,
1881); REGINA V. PHILPOTTS, 5 COX CR. CAS. 363(1851).  THE PREVAILING
VIEW IN THE AMERICAN STATE COURTS DOES NOT SUPPLY THE DOCTRINE UNLESS
THE ORIGINAL FALSEHOOD WAS DUE TO AMBIGUITY, INADVERTENCE, OR
ACCIDENTAL ERROR.  AND NO CASE HERE OR ABROAD REGARDS PERJURY AS UNDONE
WHERE NOT ONLY THE ORIGINAL FALSEHOOD WAS CLEAR AND DELIBERATE, BUT
ALSO WHERE THE RETRACTION DID NOT COME UNTIL AFTER THE WITNESS HAD LEFT
THE STAND AND OTHER WITNESSES HAD EXPOSED HIM.  MASAICHI ONO V. CARR,
56 F.(2D) 772. 

PERJURY UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE IS MERELY A STATUTORY ADOPTION OF THE
COMMON LAW OFFENSE. 

WHEN CONGRESS ADOPTS A COMMON LAW OFFENSE, THE COMMON LAW
INTERPRETATION ATTENDS IT. 

THE WHOLE OF THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS IS TO BE TAKEN TOGETHER AND IF
THE TESTIMONY BE ULTIMATELY TRUE, THERE IS NO PERJURY.  KING V. JONES,
1 PEAKES REP. 37. 

A CORRECTED MISSTATEMENT FORMS NO PART OF THE EVIDENCE AFTER THE
CORRECTION IS MADE.  IT IS NO LONGER THE ASSERTION OF A FACT. 

EVEN IF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS WAS INTENTIONALLY FALSE, YET IF
HE CORRECT IT WHILE THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING, HE IS NOT GUILTY OF
PERJURY.  THE LAW ENCOURAGES THE CORRECTION.  PEOPLE V. GILLETTE, 126
APP. DIV. 665; PEOPLE V. BRILL, 165 N.Y.S. 65; BRANNAN V. STATE, 94
FLA. 565; HENRY V. HAMILTON, 7 BLACKF.  (IND.)  506(NOV. TERM, 1845);
COMMONWEALTH V. IRVINE, 14 PA. DIST. & CO. REP. 275; KING V. CARR, 1
SIDERFIN'S REP. 418; KING V. JONES, 1 PEAKES REP. 37; BISHOP, CRIM. L.,
9TH ED., SEC. 1044A. 

IF A WITNESS DARE NOT CORRECT EITHER INADVERTENT OR INTENTIONAL
MISSTATEMENTS WITHOUT RUNNING THE RISK OF PUNISHMENT, THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WILL BE GREATLY HINDERED. 

A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS CAN HAVE NO GENERAL POWERS TO PROBE THE
AFFAIRS OF THE CITIZEN.  SINCLAIR V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 263;
KILBOURN V. THOMPSON, 103 U.S. 168; MCGRAIN V. DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S.
135. 

EVERY INCIDENT REFERRED TO IN THE EVIDENCE PERTAINED TO THE PRIMARY
ELECTION TO BE HELD IN NEBRASKA IN 1930.  IT IS SETTLED THAT CONGRESS
HAS NO POWER TO LEGISLATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING PRIMARY
ELECTIONS.  NEWBERRY V. UNITED STATES, 256 U.S. 231. 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPLICATION OF RESPONDENT WAS NOT FILED
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEBRASKA WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED BY
LAW, AND THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE ORDERED THAT HIS NAME BE
OMITTED FROM THE LIST OF CANDIDATES ON THE PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT.  AT
MOST IT WAS AN ABORTIVE EFFORT OF RESPONDENT TO BECOME A CANDIDATE. 
THERE COULD, THEREFORE, NEVER BE A CONTEST INVOLVING THE RIGHT TO A
SEAT IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE BECAUSE, MORE THAN TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO
THE TIME THAT RESPONDENT WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS BEFORE THIS SUB
COMMITTEE, THE NEBRASKA COURT HAD ORDERED HIS NAME OMITTED FROM THE
BALLOT; AND THE PRIMARY ELECTION, WITHOUT THE NAME OF RESPONDENT UPON
THE BALLOT, HAD BEEN HELD FORTY DAYS BEFORE RESPONDENT GAVE THE
TESTIMONY COMPLAINED OF IN THE INDICTMENT. 

THE POWER TO TAKE TESTIMONY TO AID THE SENATE IN DETERMINING A
CONTEST INVOLVING THE RIGHT TO A SEAT IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE
APPLIES NOT TO A REMOTELY ANTICIPATED CONTEST, AND PARTICULARLY IN A
CASE WHERE THE INQUIRY PERTAINS SOLELY TO ONE WHO WAS NOT EVEN
PERMITTED TO BE A CANDIDATE BEFORE THE PRIMARY ELECTION, BUT APPLIES TO
A CONTEST THEN EXISTING.  KILBOURN V. THOMPSON, 103 U.S. 168. 

THE SENATE RESOLUTION ONLY AUTHORIZED THE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
"THE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES OF THE VARIOUS CANDIDATES FOR THE UNITED
STATES SENATE."  THE RESPONDENT NEVER BECAME A CANDIDATE FOR THE UNITED
STATES SENATE.  AT MOST HE TRANSMITTED HIS REQUEST THAT HE BE PERMITTED
TO BECOME A CANDIDATE, AND ON JULY 18, 1930, THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEBRASKA DENIED THE REQUEST. 

NOT ONLY WAS THE RESPONDENT NOT A CANDIDATE, BUT THE EVIDENCE
DISCLOSES NO INCIDENT THAT COULD IN ANY WAY BE SAID TO BE A PART OF ANY
CAMPAIGN. 

THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT CONTAIN A WORD TO INDICATE THAT EITHER SENATOR
GEORGE W. NORRIS OR W. M. STEBBINS, WHO WERE THE ONLY CANDIDATES FOR
NOMINATION AT THIS PRIMARY ELECTION, HAD ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH
THE EVENTS SHOWN IN THE RECORD, OR WITH THE FUNDS PAID TO RESPONDENT. 
THE INDICTMENT WAS THEREFORE BASED UPON INQUIRIES THAT IN NO WISE
PERTAINED TO A CANDIDATE AND WERE THEREFORE WHOLLY IMMATERIAL. 

FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS NO CAMPAIGN NOR ANY PART OF A CAMPAIGN BY
RESPONDENT.  SO FAR AS RESPONDENT WAS CONCERNED, ANY CANDIDACY BY HIM,
OR ANY CAMPAIGN, WERE NON-EXISTING THINGS.  TO CONVICT ONE OF PERJURY
THE EVIDENCE "MUST BE STRONG AND CLEAR."  PHAIR V. UNITED STATES, 60
F.(2D) 953.  NOT HAVING ANY CAMPAIGN, THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO THE
QUESTIONS WERE LEGALLY TRUTHFUL AND HE THEREFORE CANNOT BE HELD FOR
PERJURY.  UNITED STATES V. SLUTZKI, 79 F.(2D) 504. 

TO MAKE OUT A CASE OF PERJURY, "THE GOVERNMENT MUST SHOW THE FALSE
TESTIMONY WAS RELEVANT TO A MATERIAL ISSUE IN A CONTROVERSY."  MORRIS
V. UNITED STATES, 261 FED. 175; UNITED STATES V. RHODES, 218 FED. 518. 

BUT THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE
INDICATED NOTHING RELEVANT OR MATERIAL TO ANY QUESTION IN WHICH THE
UNITED STATES SENATE COULD PROPERLY BE INTERESTED. 

TO CONSTITUTE PERJURY IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE OATH BE TAKEN IN A
"CASE IN WHICH A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZES AN OATH TO BE
ADMINISTERED."  THE CHARGE OF CRIME MUST HAVE CLEAR LEGISLATIVE BASIS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RECORD IN THIS CASE PRESENTS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF FEDERAL
CRIMINAL LAW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED BY OUR DECISIONS.  DOES
RETRACTION NEUTRALIZE FALSE TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY GIVEN AND EXCULPATE
THE WITNESS OF PERJURY?  FN1 

APRIL 10, 1930, THE UNITED STATES SENATE, BY RESOLUTION, EMPOWERED THE
VICE-PRESIDENT TO APPOINT A SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE CAMPAIGN
EXPENDITURES OF CANDIDATES FOR THE SENATE, THE COMMITTEE TO SIT AT SUCH
TIMES AND PLACES AS IT SHOULD DEEM PROPER, TO REQUIRE ATTENDANCE OF
WITNESSES AND PRODUCTION OF BOOKS AND PAPERS, AND TO ACT BY ANY
SUBCOMMITTEE.  FAILURE TO OBEY PROCESS OF THE COMMITTEE OR REFUSAL TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS PERTINENT TO THE INVESTIGATION WAS TO BE PUNISHED
ACCORDING TO LAW.  THE RESOLUTION RECITED THAT THE SENATE DESIRED FACTS
TO AID IT IN ENACTING REMEDIAL LEGISLATION AND IN DECIDING CONTESTS
INVOLVING SENATORIAL ELECTIONS.  FN2  THE COMMITTEE SO APPOINTED
AUTHORIZED SENATOR NYE, THE CHAIRMAN, TO ACT AS A SUBCOMMITTEE AND TO
NAME A SUBCOMMITTEE OF ONE OR MORE MEMBERS.  SUCH A SUBCOMMITTEE,
CONSISTING OF SENATORS NYE AND DALE, MET SEPTEMBER 22, 1930, AT
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA.  THE NEBRASKA PRIMARY ELECTION HAD BEEN HELD ON
AUGUST 12, 1930; THE GENERAL ELECTION AT WHICH THE NAMES OF SENATORIAL
CANDIDATES WERE TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOTS WAS TO BE HELD THE FOLLOWING
NOVEMBER.  SENATOR GEORGE W. NORRIS OF MCCOOK, NEBRASKA, HAD FILED FOR
THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES ON JANUARY 1, 1930, AND W. M. STEBBINS HAD, ON
NOVEMBER 12, 1929, FILED HIS ACCEPTANCE OF REPUBLICAN NOMINATING
PETITIONS IN HIS BEHALF.  THE RESPONDENT HAD ATTEMPTED TO FILE FOR THE
SAME PRIMARIES ON JULY 5, 1930, BUT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE HAD
RULED ON JULY 18TH THAT HIS APPLICATION WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE TIME
PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND HAD ORDERED THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO OMIT HIS
NAME FROM THE LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR TO BE
CERTIFIED TO COUNTY CLERKS AND ELECTION COMMISSIONERS.  FN3  IN THE
LIGHT OF THESE FACTS THE SUBCOMMITTEE SUMMONED THE RESPONDENT TO
TESTIFY ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1930.  HE WAS CALLED AND SWORN TO TELL THE
TRUTH AND THE WHOLE TRUTH.  HE NARRATED SOMETHING OF HIS PERSONAL
HISTORY AND SAID HIS ORIGINAL INTENTION WAS TO RUN FOR STATE RAILWAY
COMMISSIONER, BUT HE DID NOT FILE FOR THAT OFFICE BECAUSE HE THOUGHT
ABOUT FILING FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR.  HE GAVE THE FOLLOWING
TESTIMONY: 

"Q.  NOW WHAT ASSURANCE DID YOU HAVE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND
BACKING? 

A. NONE WHATEVER. 

Q. IN YOUR CAMPAIGN? 

A. NONE WHATEVER. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

Q. DID YOU GET ANY ASSURANCE FROM ANYBODY THAT THEY WOULD HELP YOU -
REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, INDEPENDENTS, OR ANYBODY SAY THEY WOULD HELP TO
FINANCE YOUR CAMPAIGN? 

A. NO, SIR. 

     .         .         .         .         . 

Q. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY MONEY FROM ANYBODY IN THE CAMPAIGN? 

A. I DID NOT." 

AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HIS TESTIMONY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ADJOURNED UNTIL
THE FOLLOWING DAY, WHEN SEVERAL WITNESSES WERE EXAMINED, AMONGST WHOM
WAS ONE JOHNSON.  THE RESPONDENT WAS PRESENT AND HEARD JOHNSON
TESTIFY.  AFTER CONSULTING HIS COUNSEL HE ASKED AND WAS GRANTED
PERMISSION TO RETURN TO THE STAND.  HE THEN ADMITTED THE RECEIPT FROM
JOHNSON OF $50 TO BE USED FOR HIS FILING FEE AND A $500 GOVERNMENT
BOND, AND STATED THAT HE HAD CASHED THE BOND THROUGH HIS BROTHER AT
NORTH PLATTE. 

JUNE 23, 1931, THE GRAND JURY FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA INDICTED
THE RESPONDENT FOR PERJURY UNDER SEC. 125 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.  FN4
ON HIS TRIAL THE GOVERNMENT PROVED THE FACTS AS ABOVE OUTLINED AND
CALLED JOHNSON AS A WITNESS WHO TESTIFIED THAT, PURSUANT TO A PLAN
DEVISED BY HIMSELF AND OTHERS, HE HAD APPROACHED THE RESPONDENT ON JUNE
30TH AND REQUESTED HIM NOT TO FILE AS A CANDIDATE FOR RAILWAY
COMMISSIONER BUT TO FILE FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR TELLING HIM THAT IF
HE WERE WILLING TO DO THIS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WOULD SUPPORT HIM AND
$50 WOULD AT ONCE BE PAID HIM FOR HIS FILING FEE AND $500, THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF HIS CAMPAIGN EXPENSES, WOULD ALSO BE PAID TO HIM. 
HE SWORE THAT, ON JULY 2ND, HE GAVE THE RESPONDENT $50 AND, ON THE NEXT
DAY, HANDED HIM A $500 BOND. 

THE RESPONDENT TOOK THE WITNESS STAND AND ADMITTED THAT HE "KNEW AT
THE TIME OF TESTIFYING (BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE) THAT HE HAD
RECEIVED $500 AND $50 AND WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS NOT TRUE." 

IN CHARGING THE JURY THE JUDGE STATED THAT THE RESPONDENT COULD NOT
BE CONVICTED IF HE TESTIFIED CARELESSLY, NEGLIGENTLY OR HASTILY BUT THE
JURY MUST FIND THAT HIS TESTIMONY WAS INTENTIONALLY UNTRUE AND THAT HE
DID NOT BELIEVE IT TRUE WHEN HE GAVE IT.  AND, RESPECTING THE
RETRACTION OF HIS FORMER TESTIMONY, THE JUDGE STATED THAT THE JURY
MIGHT CONSIDER THE RETRACTION ALONG WITH THE OTHER EVIDENCE "ON THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT CONSIDERING WHAT THE DEFENDANT TESTIFIED ON
THE DAY PRIOR AND HIS ACT OF TESTIFYING AGAIN THE FOLLOWING DAY AND
WHAT HE SAID IN HIS TESTIMONY, THE DEFENDANT WILFULLY, THAT IS,
INTENTIONALLY TESTIFIED FALSELY IN HIS TESTIMONY ON THE DAY BEFORE IN
THE MATTERS CHARGED AGAINST HIM." 

THE RESPONDENT REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS: 

"THE JURY ARE INSTRUCTED THAT EVEN IF YOU FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT IN
THIS CASE MADE FALSE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS WHICH WERE PUT TO HIM AT
THE HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE IN QUESTION, AND IF YOU ALSO
FIND THAT WHILE THIS HEARING WAS YET CONTINUING AND WHILE THE MATTER
WAS YET PENDING BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE, THE DEFENDANT CORRECTED
ANY ERRONEOUS OR FALSE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE, IF ANY, THEN YOU WILL
FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY." 

"THE JURY ARE INSTRUCTED THAT IF YOU FIND THE DEFENDANT, IN THE
LATTER PORTION OF HIS EXAMINATION BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE,
CORRECTED STATEMENTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INCORRECT OR EVEN INTENTIONALLY
FALSE, MADE PRIOR TO THE CORRECTION OF THE DEFENDANT, THEN YOU WILL
FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY." 

THESE WERE REFUSED AND AN EXCEPTION GRANTED.  THE JURY RENDERED A
VERDICT OF GUILTY, SENTENCE WAS IMPOSED, AND THE RESPONDENT APPEALED TO
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH REVERSED THE JUDGMENT,  FN5
HOLDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RESPONDENT HAD FULLY AND FAIRLY RETRACTED AND
CORRECTED HIS ORIGINAL FALSE STATEMENTS.  IN THE COURSE OF ITS OPINION
THE COURT STATED THE FOLLOWING WOULD HAVE BEEN A PROPER CHARGE, AND
FAILURE TO GIVE A CHARGE OF SUCH TENOR WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR:    "THE
JURY ARE CHARGED THAT THE LAW ENCOURAGES THE CORRECTION OF ERRONEOUS
AND EVEN INTENTIONALLY FALSE STATEMENTS MADE BY A WITNESS UPON A TRIAL
OR HEARING, AND SO, IF YOU SHALL FIND AND BELIEVE FROM THE EVIDENCE
THAT DEFENDANT MADE FALSE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS OR ANY OF THEM WHICH
WERE PUT TO HIM AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE (WHICH
QUESTIONS ARE SET OUT IN THE INDICTMENT AND WHICH QUESTIONS THE COURT
HAS ALREADY IN THIS CHARGE CALLED SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR ATTENTION), YET
THAT DEFENDANT, WHILE THE HEARING WAS CONTINUING AND UNFINISHED AGAIN
TOOK THE WITNESS STAND AND THEN AND THERE FULLY CORRECTED ALL ERRONEOUS
OR FALSE STATEMENTS, IF ANY, WHICH HAD THERETOFORE BEEN MADE BY HIM IN
ANSWER TO SAID QUESTIONS, YOU SHOULD FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY." 

THE RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT REVERSAL OF HIS CONVICTION WAS RIGHT
BECAUSE (1) CONGRESS EXCEEDED ITS POWER IN ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 215,
SINCE IT CANNOT LEGISLATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING PRIMARY
ELECTIONS; (2) PERJURY CAN ONLY BE COMMITTED IF AN OATH BE TAKEN IN A
CASE WHEREIN A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZES AN OATH TO BE
ADMINISTERED, AND THE COMMITTEE HEARING WAS NOT SUCH A CASE; (3) THE
FALSE TESTIMONY CONCERNED AN IMMATERIAL MATTER, AND (4) THE WHOLE OF A
WITNESS'S EVIDENCE MUST BE TAKEN TOGETHER AND, IF HIS TESTIMONY BE
ULTIMATELY TRUE, HIS INDICTMENT FOR PERJURY CANNOT BE PREDICATED
THEREON. 

LITTLE NEED BE SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST THREE PROPOSITIONS. 
THAT IT IS WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVINCE OF CONGRESS TO INSTITUTE
INVESTIGATIONS AND TO COMPEL EVIDENCE WITH A VIEW TO POSSIBLE EXERCISE
OF ITS LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION  FN6  OR POSSIBLE DISCHARGE OF ITS DUTY TO
DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE ELECTION OF ITS MEMBERS  FN7  IS
SETTLED.  R.S. SEC. 101,  FN8  IS A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES
AUTHORIZING ANY MEMBER OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS TO ADMINISTER OATHS
TO WITNESSES IN ANY MATTER PENDING IN EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS OR ANY
COMMITTEE THEREOF.  THE MATERIALITY OF THE RESPONDENT'S FALSE ANSWERS
IS CLEAR IN VIEW OF THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY.  THE RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZED THE COMMITTEE "TO INVESTIGATE THE CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES OF
THE VARIOUS CANDIDATES FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE, THE NAMES OF THE
PERSONS  ...  SUBSCRIBING, THE AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED, THE METHOD OF
EXPENDITURE, AND ALL FACTS IN RELATION THERETO  ..." 

WE COME TO THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION WHICH MOVED US TO GRANT THE WRIT
OF CERTIORARI.  WE HOLD THE DISTRICT JUDGE WAS RIGHT IN REFUSING TO
CHARGE AS REQUESTED BY THE RESPONDENT, AND THE JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN REVERSED ON ACCOUNT OF HIS FAILURE SO TO DO.  THE RESPONDENT
ADMITTED HE GAVE INTENTIONALLY FALSE TESTIMONY ON SEPTEMBER 22D.  HIS
RECANTATION ON THE FOLLOWING DAY CANNOT ALTER THIS FACT.  HE WOULD HAVE
US HOLD THAT SO LONG AS THE CAUSE OR PROCEEDING IN WHICH FALSE
TESTIMONY IS GIVEN IS NOT CLOSED, THERE REMAINS A LOCUS POENITENTIAE OF
WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED TO AND DID AVAIL HIMSELF.  THE IMPLICATIONS AND
RESULTS OF SUCH A DOCTRINE PROVE ITS UNSOUNDNESS.  PERJURY IS AN
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE; ITS PERPETRATION WELL MAY AFFECT THE DEAREST
CONCERNS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE A TRIBUNAL.  DELIBERATE MATERIAL
FALSIFICATION UNDER OATH CONSTITUTES THE CRIME OF PERJURY, AND THE
CRIME IS COMPLETE WHEN A WITNESS'S STATEMENT HAS ONCE BEEN MADE.  IT IS
ARGUED THAT TO ALLOW RETRACTION OF PERJURED TESTIMONY PROMOTES THE
DISCOVERY OF THE TRUTH AND, IF MADE BEFORE THE PROCEEDING IS CONCLUDED,
CAN DO NO HARM TO THE PARTIES.  THE ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS THE TENDENCY OF
SUCH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGE FALSE SWEARING IN THE BELIEF THAT IF THE
FALSITY BE NOT DISCOVERED BEFORE THE END OF THE HEARING IT WILL HAVE
ITS INTENDED EFFECT, BUT, IF DISCOVERED, THE WITNESS MAY PURGE HIMSELF
OF CRIME BY RESUMING HIS ROLE AS WITNESS AND SUBSTITUTING THE TRUTH FOR
HIS PREVIOUS FALSEHOOD.  IT IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE OATH ADMINISTERED
TO THE WITNESS CALLS ON HIM FREELY TO DISCLOSE THE TRUTH IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE AND NOT TO PUT THE COURT AND THE PARTIES TO THE DISADVANTAGE,
HINDRANCE, AND DELAY OF ULTIMATELY EXTRACTING THE TRUTH BY CROSS
EXAMINATION, BY EXTRANEOUS INVESTIGATION OR OTHER COLLATERAL MEANS. 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY ORIGINALLY GIVEN AND
ALLOWED THEN TO STAND AS HIS FINAL STATEMENT ON THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY
FALLS CLEARLY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SEC. 125 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
THE RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THE AUTHORITIES, ENGLISH AND AMERICAN,
DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS RETRACTION BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH HE TESTIFIED ABSOLVE HIM AND PRECLUDE A
CONVICTION.  PERJURY HAS BEEN A COMMON LAW CRIME SINCE AT LEAST THE
SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.  QUITE GENERALLY THE CONCEPTION EMBODIED IN THE
COMMON LAW DEFINITION OF PERJURY HAS BEEN EMBODIED IN STATUTES.  THIS
IS TRUE OF SEC. 125.  BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS ANY
RESPECTABLE BODY OF AUTHORITY UNDER THE COMMON LAW OR STATUTE IN
ENGLAND OR IN THE UNITED STATES TO SUPPORT THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION. 
ON THE CONTRARY, THE CASES IN WHICH THE COURTS HAVE DEALT DIRECTLY AND
SPECIFICALLY WITH THE QUESTION HERE FOR DECISION ARE SURPRISINGLY FEW. 
THE RESPONDENT PLANTS HIMSELF UPON ROY V. CARR, 1 SIDERFIN 418, 82 ENG.
REP. 1191, A CASE DECIDED IN 1669, WHICH HE CLAIMS ESTABLISHED THE
DOCTRINE FOR WHICH HE CONTENDS AND HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BOTH IN ENGLAND
AND IN THIS COUNTRY.  A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE CASE AROUSES GRAVE
DOUBT THAT IT HELD, OR WAS INTENDED TO HOLD, THAT A RETRACTION OF A
WITNESS'S FALSE TESTIMONY NEGATIVES THE COMMISSION OF PERJURY; AND IN
LATER CASES THE ENGLISH COURTS HAVE SO INTIMATED AND HAVE SAID THAT IF
IT STOOD FOR SUCH A PROPOSITION IT PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED.  FN9
SEVERAL LATER ENGLISH DECISIONS SQUINT IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, AND
SOME OF THEM COME NEAR TO REFUTE THE RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT
TO THE ENGLISH LAW.  FN10 

DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS OF LAST RESORT IN THIS COUNTRY DO NOT MAKE
A MUCH BETTER CASE FOR THE ARGUMENT.  ONE STATE SUPREME COURT SEEMS TO
HAVE HELD DIRECTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTENTION IN AN APPEAL FROM
A CONVICTION OF PERJURY.  FN11  ONE LOWER COURT CASE IS IN ACCORD. 
FN12  IN ONE STATE COURT OF LAST RESORT WHEREIN THE QUESTION AROSE IN A
SLANDER SUIT, WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE IMPROPERLY
CHARGED A WITNESS WITH HAVING COMMITTED PERJURY IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING,
THE COURT ANSWERED IT FAVORABLY TO RESPONDENT'S CLAIM.  FN13  THE
APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK HAS DEFINITELY HELD
WITH THE RESPONDENT UPON THE POINT, IN A CASE WHERE THE WITNESS
CORRECTED HIS FALSE TESTIMONY IMMEDIATELY AND TOLD THE TRUTH ALTHOUGH,
IN THAT CASE, THE CONVICTION WAS REVERSED ON SEVERAL GROUNDS ANY ONE OF
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ADEQUATE FOR REVERSAL.  FN14  THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF NEW YORK HAS NOT SPOKEN ON THE SUBJECT, AND IN A LATER CASE
A LOWER COURT HAS REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION MENTIONED WHERE THE
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENT WAS NOT PART OF THE SAME EXAMINATION AT WHICH
THE FALSE STATEMENT WAS MADE.  FN15 

WHILE WE SHOULD ACCORD RESPECTFUL CONSIDERATION TO DECISIONS OF THE
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN COURTS SUPPORTING THE RESPONDENT'S VIEW, THE
RESEARCH OF COUNSEL AND OUR OWN EXAMINATION DISCLOSE THAT THERE IS NO
SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF AUTHORITY FAVORING IT.  AS WILL APPEAR BY SCRUTINY
OF THE CASES CITED IN NOTE 1, THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOT DEALT
WITH THE QUESTION OFTEN, AND WHILE THEIR EXPRESSIONS MAY NOT BE
ENTIRELY CONSONANT, IT MAY BE SAID THAT THEY PREPONDERATE AGAINST THE
RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION.  WE ARE FREE, THEREFORE, TO GIVE SUCH MEANING
AND EFFECT TO SEC. 125 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE AS IN JUSTICE WE THINK
OUGHT TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO IT.  THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND THE
PUBLIC POLICY WHICH CALLED FOR ITS ENACTMENT ALIKE DEMAND WE SHOULD
HOLD THAT THE TELLING OF A DELIBERATE LIE BY A WITNESS COMPLETES THE
CRIME DEFINED BY THE LAW.  THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE CORRECTION OF AN
INNOCENT MISTAKE, OR THE ELABORATION OF AN INCOMPLETE ANSWER, MAY NOT
DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS NO WILFUL INTENT TO SWEAR FALSELY.  WE HAVE
HERE NO SUCH CASE. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED AND
THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  COMPARE LOUBRIEL V. UNITED STATES, 9 F.(2D) 807, 808; EX PARTE
CHIN CHAN ON, 32 F.(2D) 828; EX PARTE KEIZO SHIBATA, 35 F.(2D) 636;
JOHNSEN V. UNITED STATES, 41 F.(2D) 44, 46; MASAICHI ONO V. CARR, 56
F.(2D) 772; SEYMOUR V. UNITED STATES, 77 F.(2D) 577, 582. 

FN2  SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 215, 71ST CONG., 2D SESS., 72 CONG. REC
6841-6842. 

FN3  STATE EX REL. SMITH V. MARSH, 120 NEB. 287, 289; 232 N.W. 99. 

FN4  "WHOEVER, HAVING TAKEN AN OATH BEFORE A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL,
OFFICER, OR PERSON, IN ANY CASE IN WHICH A LAW OF THE UNITED STATES
AUTHORIZES AN OATH TO BE ADMINISTERED, THAT HE WILL TESTIFY, DECLARE,
DEPOSE, OR CERTIFY TRULY, OR THAT ANY WRITTEN TESTIMONY, DECLARATION,
DEPOSITION, OR CERTIFICATE BY HIM SUBSCRIBED, IS TRUE, SHALL WILLFULLY
AND CONTRARY TO SUCH OATH STATE OR SUBSCRIBE ANY MATERIAL MATTER WHICH
HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE, IS GUILTY OF PERJURY, AND SHALL BE
FINED NOT MORE THAN $2,000 AND IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS." 
R.S. SEC. 5392; 18 U.S.C. SEC. 231. 

FN5  86 F.(2D) 379. 

FN6  MCGRAIN V. DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S. 135. 

FN7  BARRY V. UNITED STATES, 279 U.S. 597. 

FN8  U.S.C. TIT. 2, SEC. 191. 

FN9  EDWARDS V. M'LEAY, 2 VESEY & D. 256, 258, 35 ENG. REP. 316; REG.
V. HOLL, 45 LAW TIMES REP. 69. 

FN10  REX V. THOROGOOD, 8 MOD. 179, 88 ENG. REP. 131; ALLEN V.
WESTLEY, HETLEY 97, 124 ENG. REP. 372; REG. V. PHILPOTTS, 5 COX'S CRIM.
CAS. 363; REG. V. HOLL, 45 LAW TIMES REP. 69. 

FN11  BRANNEN V. STATE, 94 FLA. 656, 114 SO. 429. 

FN12  COMMONWEALTH V. IRVINE, 14 PA. D. & C. REP. 275. 

FN13  HENRY V. HAMILTON, 7 BLACKF.  (IND.)  506. 

FN14  PEOPLE V. GILLETTE, 126 APP. DIV. 665; 111 N.Y.S. 133. 

FN15  PEOPLE V. MARKAN, 123 MISC. 689; 206 N.Y.S. 197. 
..END :











HENNEFORD V. SILAS MASON CO., 300 U.S. 577 


NO. 418.  ARGUED DECEMBER 14, 15, 1936.  REARGUED MARCH 1, 2, 1937.  -
DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 15 F.SUPP.  958, REVERSED. 


1.  WHEN GOODS IMPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE HAVE BECOME PART OF THE
COMMON MASS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE OF DESTINATION, THAT STATE MAY
SUBJECT THEM TO A PROPERTY TAX, OR TO A TAX UPON THEIR USE.  P. 582. 

THE PRIVILEGE OF USE IS ONLY ONE OF THE PRIVILEGES THAT MAKE UP
PROPERTY OR OWNERSHIP.  A STATE IS AT LIBERTY TO TAX THEM ALL
COLLECTIVELY OR TAX THEM SEPARATELY, AND CALLING A TAX ON THE USE ALONE
AN EXCISE DOES NOT AFFECT ITS VALIDITY UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. 

2.  A WASHINGTON STATUTE PROVIDES THAT AFTER MAY 1, 1935, EVERY
RETAIL SALE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY MADE IN THAT STATE (WITH SOME
ENUMERATED EXCEPTIONS) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A TAX OF 2% OF THE SELLING
PRICE; IT ALSO LAYS A TAX OR EXCISE, CALLED "COMPENSATION TAX," ON THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING WITHIN THE STATE ANY ARTICLE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY, PURCHASED AT RETAIL AFTER APRIL 30, 1935, AT THE RATE OF 2%
OF THE PURCHASE PRICE, INCLUDING IN SUCH PRICE THE COST OF
TRANSPORTATION FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE ARTICLE WAS PURCHASED; BUT THE
COMPENSATION TAX IS NOT TO APPLY TO THE USE OF ANY ARTICLE THE SALE OR
USE OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO A TAX EQUAL TO OR IN EXCESS
OF 2% WHETHER SUCH PRIOR TAX WAS UNDER THE LAWS OF WASHINGTON OR THOSE
OF SOME OTHER STATE; AND, IF THE RATE OF SUCH OTHER TAX IS LESS THAN
2%, THE WASHINGTON USE TAX RATE IS TO BE MEASURED BY THE DIFFERENCE. 
IN PRACTICAL EFFECT THE USE TAX HELPS RETAIL SELLERS IN WASHINGTON TO
COMPETE UPON TERMS OF EQUALITY WITH RETAIL DEALERS IN OTHER STATES WHO
ARE EXEMPT FROM A SALES TAX OR ANY CORRESPONDING BURDEN, AND TENDS TO
AVOID A DRAIN UPON THE REVENUES OF THE STATE THROUGH THE PLACING OF
ORDERS IN OTHER STATES TO ESCAPE THE TAXES ON LOCAL SALES.  HELD, AS
APPLIED TO MACHINERY AND OTHER THINGS PURCHASED IN OTHER STATES BUT
WHICH HAD HAD CONTINUOUS USE IN WASHINGTON LONG AFTER THE TIME WHEN
DELIVERY THERE WAS OVER: 

(1)  THAT THE USE TAX IS NOT UPON THE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE, BUT UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF USE AFTER COMMERCE IS AT AN END. 
P. 582. 

(2)  THE TAX UPON THE USE AFTER THE PROPERTY IS AT REST IS NOT SO
MEASURED OR CONDITIONED AS TO HAMPER THE TRANSACTIONS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM.  P. 583. 

(3)  READING THE STATUTE AS NOT TAXING THE USE OF ARTICLES
MANUFACTURED BY THE USERS, OR RECEIVED AS LEGACIES OR ACQUIRED IN ANY
OTHER WAY EXCEPT PURCHASE AT RETAIL, DOES NOT MAKE THE TAX ON USE IN
FACT A TAX ON THE FOREIGN SALES.  P. 587. 

3.  MOTIVES LEADING TO ITS ADOPTION CAN SELDOM, IF EVER, INVALIDATE A
TAX WHICH, APART FROM MOTIVES, WOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS LAWFUL.  P. 586. 

4.  A LEGISLATURE HAS A WIDE RANGE OF CHOICE IN CLASSIFYING AND
LIMITING THE SUBJECTS OF TAXATION.  THE CHOICE IS AS BROAD WHERE THE
TAX IS LAID UPON ONE OR A FEW OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF OWNERSHIP AS WHEN
LAID UPON THEM ALL.  P. 587. 

HENNEFORD ET AL. V. SILAS MASON CO., INC. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES, HOLDING
UNCONSTITUTIONAL A TAX ON THE USE OF CHATTELS BOUGHT IN OTHER STATES
AND BROUGHT INTO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND USED THERE.  THE SUIT WAS
BY THE TAXPAYER TO ENJOIN THE TAX COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON FROM
COLLECTING THE TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A STATUTE OF WASHINGTON TAXING THE USE OF CHATTELS IN THAT STATE IS
ASSAILED IN THIS SUIT AS A VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
(CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARTICLE I, SEC. 8) IN SO FAR AS THE
TAX IS APPLICABLE TO CHATTELS PURCHASED IN ANOTHER STATE AND USED IN
WASHINGTON THEREAFTER. 

PLAINTIFFS (APPELLEES IN THIS COURT) ARE ENGAGED EITHER AS
CONTRACTORS OR AS SUBCONTRACTORS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GRAND
COULEE DAM ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER.  IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT WORK THEY
HAVE BROUGHT INTO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON MACHINERY, MATERIALS AND
SUPPLIES, SUCH AS LOCOMOTIVES, CARS, CONVEYORS, PUMPS, AND TRESTLE
STEEL, WHICH WERE BOUGHT AT RETAIL IN OTHER STATES.  THE COST OF ALL
THE ARTICLES WITH TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES ADDED WAS $921,189.34. 
DEFENDANTS, THE TAX COMMISSION OF WASHINGTON (APPELLANTS IN THIS COURT)
GAVE NOTICE THAT PLAINTIFFS HAD BECOME SUBJECT THROUGH THE USE OF THIS
PROPERTY TO A TAX OF $18,423.78, TWO PER CENT OF THE COST, AND MADE
DEMAND FOR PAYMENT.  A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, ORGANIZED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 380),
ADJUDGED THE STATUTE VOID UPON ITS FACE, AND GRANTED AN INTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTION, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  15 F.SUPP.  958.  THE CASE IS HERE
UPON APPEAL.  28 U.S.C. SEC. 380. 

CHAPTER 180 OF THE LAWS OF WASHINGTON FOR THE YEAR 1935, CONSISTING
OF TWENTY TITLES, LAYS A MULTITUDE OF EXCISE TAXES ON OCCUPATIONS AND
ACTIVITIES.  ONLY TWO OF THESE TAXES ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THE CASE AT HAND, THE "TAX ON RETAIL SALES," IMPOSED BY TITLE III, AND
THE "COMPENSATING TAX," IMPOSED BY TITLE IV ON THE PRIVILEGE OF USE. 
TITLE III PROVIDES THAT AFTER MAY 1, 1935, EVERY RETAIL SALE IN
WASHINGTON, WITH A FEW ENUMERATED EXCEPTIONS,  FN1  SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
A TAX OF 2% OF THE SELLING PRICE.  TITLE IV, WITH THE HEADING
"COMPENSATING TAX," PROVIDES (SECS. 31, 35) THAT THERE SHALL BE
COLLECTED FROM EVERY PERSON IN THE STATE "A TAX OR EXCISE FOR THE
PRIVILEGE OF USING WITHIN THIS STATE ANY ARTICLE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY PURCHASED SUBSEQUENT TO APRIL 30, 1935," AT THE RATE OF 2% OF
THE PURCHASE PRICE, INCLUDING IN SUCH PRICE THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION
FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE ARTICLE WAS PURCHASED.  IF THOSE PROVISIONS
STOOD ALONE, THEY WOULD MEAN THAT RETAIL BUYERS WITHIN THE STATE WOULD
HAVE TO PAY A DOUBLE TAX, 2% UPON THE SALE AND 2% UPON THE USE.  RELIEF
FROM SUCH A BURDEN IS PROVIDED IN ANOTHER SECTION (SEC. 32) WHICH
QUALIFIES THE USE TAX BY ALLOWING FOUR EXCEPTIONS.  ONLY TWO OF THESE
EXCEPTIONS (B AND C) CALL FOR MENTION AT THIS TIME.  FN2  SUBDIVISION
(B) PROVIDES THAT THE USE TAX SHALL NOT BE LAID UNLESS THE PROPERTY HAS
BEEN BOUGHT AT RETAIL.  SUBDIVISION (C) PROVIDES THAT THE TAX SHALL NOT
APPLY TO THE "USE OF ANY ARTICLE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY THE SALE
OR USE OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO A TAX EQUAL TO OR IN
EXCESS OF THAT IMPOSED BY THIS TITLE WHETHER UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS
STATE OR OF SOME OTHER STATE OF THE UNITED STATES."  IF THE RATE OF
SUCH OTHER TAX IS LESS THAN 2%, THE EXEMPTION IS NOT TO BE COMPLETE
(SEC. 33), BUT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE RATE IS TO BE MEASURED BY THE
DIFFERENCE. 

THE PLAN EMBODIED IN THESE PROVISIONS IS NEITHER HIDDEN NOR
UNCERTAIN.  A USE TAX IS NEVER PAYABLE WHERE THE USER HAS ACQUIRED
PROPERTY BY RETAIL PURCHASE IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, EXCEPT IN THE
RARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RETAIL PURCHASES IN WASHINGTON ARE NOT
SUBJECTED TO A SALES TAX.  ON THE OTHER HAND, A USE TAX IS ALWAYS
PAYABLE WHERE THE USER HAS ACQUIRED PROPERTY BY RETAIL PURCHASE IN OR
FROM ANOTHER STATE, UNLESS HE HAS PAID A SALES OR USE TAX ELSEWHERE
BEFORE BRINGING IT TO WASHINGTON.  THE TAX PRESUPPOSES EVERYWHERE A
RETAIL PURCHASE BY THE USER BEFORE THE TIME OF USE.  IF HE HAS
MANUFACTURED THE CHATTEL FOR HIMSELF, OR HAS RECEIVED IT FROM THE
MANUFACTURER AS A LEGACY OR GIFT, HE IS EXEMPT FROM THE USE TAX,
WHETHER TITLE WAS ACQUIRED IN WASHINGTON OR ELSEWHERE.  THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF A SYSTEM THUS CONDITIONED IS READILY PERCEIVED.  ONE OF ITS
EFFECTS MUST BE THAT RETAIL SELLERS IN WASHINGTON WILL BE HELPED TO
COMPETE UPON TERMS OF EQUALITY WITH RETAIL DEALERS IN OTHER STATES WHO
ARE EXEMPT FROM A SALES TAX OR ANY CORRESPONDING BURDEN.  ANOTHER
EFFECT, OR AT LEAST ANOTHER TENDENCY, MUST BE TO AVOID THE LIKELIHOOD
OF A DRAIN UPON THE REVENUES OF THE STATE, BUYERS BEING NO LONGER
TEMPTED TO PLACE THEIR ORDERS IN OTHER STATES IN THE EFFORT TO ESCAPE
PAYMENT OF THE TAX ON LOCAL SALES.  DO THESE CONSEQUENCES WHICH MUST
HAVE BEEN FORESEEN, NECESSITATE A HOLDING THAT THE TAX UPON THE USE IS
EITHER A TAX UPON THE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE OR A
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SUCH COMMERCE OBSTRUCTING OR BURDENING IT
UNLAWFULLY? 

1.  THE TAX IS NOT UPON THE OPERATIONS OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE, BUT
UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF USE AFTER COMMERCE IS AT AN END. 

THINGS ACQUIRED OR TRANSPORTED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE MAY BE
SUBJECTED TO A PROPERTY TAX, NON-DISCRIMINATORY IN ITS OPERATION, WHEN
THEY HAVE BECOME PART OF THE COMMON MASS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE
OF DESTINATION.  WILOIL CORP. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 169, 175;
CUDAHY PACKING CO. V. MINNESOTA, 246 U.S. 450, 453; BROWN-FORMAN CO. V.
KENTUCKY, 217 U.S. 563, 575; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED, 192
U.S. 500, 519; WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, 8 WALL.  123, 137.  THIS IS SO,
INDEED, THOUGH THEY ARE STILL IN THE ORIGINAL PACKAGES.  SONNEBORN
BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S. 506; AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE CO. V. SPEED,
SUPRA; WOODRUFF V. PARHAM, SUPRA.  FOR LIKE REASONS THEY MAY BE
SUBJECTED, WHEN ONCE THEY ARE AT REST, TO A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON
USE OR ENJOYMENT.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S.
249, 267; EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, INC., 289 U.S. 249, 252;
MONAMOTOR OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, 292 U.S. 86, 93.  THE PRIVILEGE OF USE IS
ONLY ONE ATTRIBUTE, AMONG MANY, OF THE BUNDLE OF PRIVILEGES THAT MAKE
UP PROPERTY OR OWNERSHIP.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE,
SUPRA; BROMLEY V. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124, 136-138; BURNET V. WELLS, 289
U.S. 670, 678.  A STATE IS AT LIBERTY, IF IT PLEASES, TO TAX THEM ALL
COLLECTIVELY, OR TO SEPARATE THE FAGGOTS AND LAY THE CHARGE
DISTRIBUTIVELY.  IBID.  CALLING THE TAX AN EXCISE WHEN IT IS LAID
SOLELY UPON THE USE (VANCOUVER OIL CO. V. HENNEFORD, 183 WASH. 317; 49
P.(2D) 14) DOES NOT MAKE THE POWER TO IMPOSE IT LESS, FOR ANYTHING THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE HAS TO SAY OF ITS VALIDITY, THAN CALLING IT A PROPERTY
TAX AND LAYING IT ON OWNERSHIP.  "A NONDISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON LOCAL
SALES  ...  HAS NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS IMPOSING A DIRECT BURDEN UPON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE AND HAS NO GREATER OR DIFFERENT EFFECT UPON THAT
COMMERCE THAN A GENERAL PROPERTY TAX TO WHICH ALL THOSE ENJOYING THE
PROTECTION OF THE STATE MAY BE SUBJECTED."  EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT, INC.
V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 285 U.S. 147, 153.  A TAX UPON THE
PRIVILEGE OF USE OR STORAGE WHEN THE CHATTEL USED OR STORED HAS CEASED
TO BE IN TRANSIT IS NOW AN IMPOST SO COMMON THAT ITS VALIDITY HAS BEEN
WITHDRAWN FROM THE ARENA OF DEBATE.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V.
WALLACE, SUPRA; EDELMAN V. BOEING AIR TRANSPORT, INC., SUPRA; MONAMOTOR
OIL CO. V. JOHNSON, SUPRA.  CF. VANCOUVER OIL CO. V. HENNEFORD, SUPRA. 

THE CASE BEFORE US DOES NOT CALL FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE
DEFINITION OF USE OR ENJOYMENT IN THE RULES OF THE COMMISSION.  THOSE
RULES INFORM US THAT "PROPERTY IS PUT TO USE BY THE FIRST ACT AFTER
DELIVERY IS COMPLETED WITHIN THE STATE BY WHICH THE ARTICLE PURCHASED
IS ACTUALLY USED OR IS MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE WITH INTENT ACTUALLY TO
USE THE SAME WITHIN THE STATE.  THE TERM 'MADE AVAILABLE FOR USE' MEANS
AND INCLUDES THE EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT OR POWER OVER TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY PREPARATORY TO ACTUAL USE WITHIN THE STATE, SUCH AS KEEPING,
STORING, WITHDRAWING FROM STORAGE, MOVING, INSTALLING OR PERFORMING ANY
ACT BY WHICH DOMINION OR CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY IS ASSUMED BY THE
PURCHASER."  A TAX UPON A USE SO CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH DELIVERY AS TO
BE IN SUBSTANCE A PART THEREOF MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME OBJECTIONS
THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO A TAX UPON THE SALE ITSELF.  IF THE RULES
ARE TOO DRASTIC IN THAT RESPECT OR OTHERS, THE DEFECT IS UNIMPORTANT IN
RELATION TO THIS CASE.  HERE THE MACHINERY AND OTHER CHATTELS SUBJECTED
TO THE TAX HAVE HAD CONTINUOUS USE IN WASHINGTON LONG AFTER THE TIME
WHEN DELIVERY WAS OVER.  THE PLAINTIFFS ARE NOT THE CHAMPIONS OF ANY
RIGHTS EXCEPT THEIR OWN. 

2.  THE TAX UPON THE USE AFTER THE PROPERTY IS AT REST IS NOT SO
MEASURED OR CONDITIONED AS TO HAMPER THE TRANSACTIONS OF INTERSTATE
COMMERCE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM. 

EQUALITY IS THE THEME THAT RUNS THROUGH ALL THE SECTIONS OF THE
STATUTE.  THERE SHALL BE A TAX UPON THE USE, BUT SUBJECT TO AN OFFSET
IF ANOTHER USE OR SALES TAX HAS BEEN PAID FOR THE SAME THING.  THIS IS
TRUE WHERE THE OFFSETTING TAX BECAME PAYABLE TO WASHINGTON BY REASON OF
PURCHASE OR USE WITHIN THE STATE.  IT IS TRUE IN EXACTLY THE SAME
MEASURE WHERE THE OFFSETTING TAX HAS BEEN PAID TO ANOTHER STATE BY
REASON OF USE OR PURCHASE THERE.  NO ONE WHO USES PROPERTY IN
WASHINGTON AFTER BUYING IT AT RETAIL IS TO BE EXEMPT FROM A TAX UPON
THE PRIVILEGE OF ENJOYMENT EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT HE HAS PAID A USE
OR SALES TAX SOMEWHERE.  EVERY ONE WHO HAS PAID A USE OR SALES TAX
ANYWHERE, OR, MORE ACCURATELY, IN ANY STATE, IS TO THAT EXTENT TO BE
EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF ANOTHER TAX IN WASHINGTON. 

WHEN THE ACCOUNT IS MADE UP, THE STRANGER FROM AFAR IS SUBJECT TO NO
GREATER BURDENS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF OWNERSHIP THAN THE DWELLER WITHIN
THE GATES.  THE ONE PAYS UPON ONE ACTIVITY OR INCIDENT, AND THE OTHER
UPON ANOTHER, BUT THE SUM IS THE SAME WHEN THE RECKONING IS CLOSED. 
EQUALITY EXISTS WHEN THE CHATTEL SUBJECTED TO THE USE TAX IS BOUGHT IN
ANOTHER STATE AND THEN CARRIED INTO WASHINGTON.  IT EXISTS WHEN THE
IMPORTED CHATTEL IS SHIPPED FROM THE STATE OF ORIGIN UNDER AN ORDER
RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM THE STATE OF DESTINATION.  IN EACH SITUATION THE
BURDEN BORNE BY THE OWNER IS BALANCED BY AN EQUAL BURDEN WHERE THE SALE
IS STRICTLY LOCAL.  "THERE IS NO DEMAND IN  ...  (THE) CONSTITUTION
THAT THE STATE SHALL PUT ITS REQUIREMENTS IN ANY ONE STATUTE.  IT MAY
DISTRIBUTE THEM AS IT SEES FIT, IF THE RESULT, TAKEN IN ITS TOTALITY,
IS WITHIN THE STATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL POWER."  GREGG DYEING CO. V.
QUERY, 286 U.S. 472, 480.  IF THE SALES TAX WERE ABOLISHED, THE BUYER
IN WASHINGTON WOULD PAY AT ONCE UPON THE USE.  HE WOULD HAVE NO LONGER
AN OFFSETTING CREDIT.  WHILE THE SALES TAX IS IN FORCE, HE PAYS UPON
THE SALE, AND PAYS AT THE SAME RATE.  FOR THE OWNER WHO USES AFTER
BUYING FROM AFAR THE EFFECT IS ALL ONE WHETHER HIS COMPETITOR IS
TAXABLE UNDER ONE TITLE OR ANOTHER.  THIS COMMON SENSE CONCLUSION HAS
AMPLE PRECEDENT BEHIND IT.  ALABAMA LAID A TAX ON THE SALE OF
SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS, THE PRODUCTS OF SISTER STATES.  COMPARING THE TAX
WITH OTHERS APPLICABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS, THE COURT UPHELD THE
STATUTE.  THE METHODS OF COLLECTION WERE DIFFERENT, BUT THE TAXES WERE
COMPLEMENTARY AND WERE INTENDED TO EFFECT EQUALITY.  HINSON V. LOTT, 8
WALL.  148.  LOUISIANA LAID A TAX IN LIEU OF LOCAL TAXES ON ROLLING
STOCK OPERATED WITHIN THE STATE, BUT BELONGING TO CORPORATIONS
DOMICILED ELSEWHERE.  THE COURT COMPARED THE TAX WITH THE LOCAL TAXES
UPON RESIDENTS, AND FOUND DISCRIMINATION LACKING.  GENERAL AMERICAN
TANK CAR CORP. V. DAY, 270 U.S. 367, 372, 373.  SOUTH CAROLINA LAID A
TAX ON THE STORAGE OF GASOLINE BROUGHT FROM OTHER STATES AND HELD FOR
USE IN LOCAL BUSINESS.  THE STATUTE WAS INTERPRETED BY THE STATE COURT
AS COVERING "ALL GASOLINE STORED FOR USE AND CONSUMPTION UPON WHICH A
LIKE TAX HAS NOT BEEN PAID UNDER OTHER STATUTES."  UPON COMPARISON OF
ALL THE STATUTES, THE IMPOST WAS UPHELD.  THE TAXPAYERS HAD "FAILED TO
SHOW THAT WHATEVER DISTINCTION THERE EXISTED IN FORM, THERE WAS ANY
SUBSTANTIAL DISCRIMINATION IN FACT."  GREGG DYEING CO. V. QUERY,
SUPRA. 

BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC., 294 U.S. 511, IS INVOKED BY APPELLEES
AS DECISIVE OF THE CONTROVERSY, BUT THE CASE IS FAR APART FROM THIS
ONE.  THERE A STATUTE OF NEW YORK HAD MADE PROVISION FOR A MINIMUM
PRICE TO BE PAID BY DEALERS IN MILK TO PRODUCERS IN THAT STATE.  CF.
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502; HEGEMAN FARMS CORP. V. BALDWIN, 293
U.S. 163.  THE SAME STATUTE PROVIDED THAT WHEN MILK FROM ANOTHER STATE
HAD BEEN BROUGHT INTO NEW YORK, THE DEALER SHOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM
SELLING IT AT ANY PRICE UNLESS IN BUYING THE MILK FROM THE OUT-OF-STATE
PRODUCER HE HAD PAID THE PRICE THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY IF HE HAD BOUGHT
WITHIN THE STATE.  NEW YORK WAS ATTEMPTING TO PROJECT ITS LEGISLATION
WITHIN THE BORDERS OF ANOTHER STATE BY REGULATING THE PRICE TO BE PAID
IN THAT STATE FOR MILK ACQUIRED THERE.  SHE SAID IN EFFECT TO FARMERS
IN VERMONT:  YOUR MILK CANNOT BE SOLD BY DEALERS TO WHOM YOU SHIP IT IN
NEW YORK UNLESS YOU SELL IT TO THEM IN VERMONT AT A PRICE DETERMINED
HERE.  WHAT WASHINGTON IS SAYING TO SELLERS BEYOND HER BORDERS IS
SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT.  IN SUBSTANCE WHAT SHE SAYS IS THIS:  YOU MAY
SHIP YOUR GOODS IN SUCH AMOUNTS AND AT SUCH PRICES AS YOU PLEASE, BUT
THE GOODS WHEN USED IN WASHINGTON AFTER THE TRANSIT IS COMPLETED, WILL
SHARE AN EQUAL BURDEN WITH GOODS THAT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED HERE.    WE
ARE TOLD THAT A TAX UPON THE USE, EVEN THOUGH NOT UNLAWFUL BY FORCE OF
ITS EFFECTS ALONE, IS VITIATED BY THE MOTIVES THAT LED TO ITS
ADOPTION.  THESE MOTIVES CAUSE IT TO BE STIGMATIZED AS EQUIVALENT TO A
PROTECTIVE TARIFF.  BUT MOTIVES ALONE WILL SELDOM, IF EVER, INVALIDATE
A TAX THAT APART FROM ITS MOTIVES WOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS LAWFUL. 
MAGNANO CO. V. HAMILTON, 292 U.S. 40, 44; FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO., 294
U.S. 87, 100, 101.  LEAST OF ALL WILL THEY BE PERMITTED TO ACCOMPLISH
THAT RESULT WHEN EQUALITY AND NOT PREFERENCE IS THE END TO BE
ACHIEVED.  CATCH WORDS AND LABELS, SUCH AS THE WORDS "PROTECTIVE
TARIFF," ARE SUBJECT TO THE DANGERS THAT LURK IN METAPHORS AND SYMBOLS,
AND MUST BE WATCHED WITH CIRCUMSPECTION LEST THEY PUT US OFF OUR
GUARD.  A TARIFF, WHETHER PROTECTIVE OR FOR REVENUE, BURDENS THE VERY
ACT OF IMPORTATION, AND IF LAID BY A STATE UPON ITS COMMERCE WITH
ANOTHER IS EQUALLY UNLAWFUL WHETHER PROTECTION OR REVENUE IS THE MOTIVE
BACK OF IT.  BUT A TAX UPON USE, OR, WHAT IS EQUIVALENT FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES, A TAX UPON PROPERTY AFTER IMPORTATION IS OVER, IS NOT A CLOG
UPON THE PROCESS OF IMPORTATION AT ALL, ANY MORE THAN A TAX UPON THE
INCOME OR PROFITS OF A BUSINESS.  THE CONTENTION WOULD BE FUTILE THAT
WASHINGTON IN LAYING AN OWNERSHIP TAX WOULD BE DOING A WRONG TO NON
RESIDENTS IN ALLOWING A CREDIT FOR A SALES TAX ALREADY BORNE BY THE
OWNER AS A RESULT OF THE SAME OWNERSHIP.  TO CONTEND THIS WOULD BE TO
DENY THAT A STATE MAY DEVELOP ITS SCHEME OF TAXATION IN SUCH A WAY AS
TO RID ITS EXACTIONS OF UNNECESSARY OPPRESSION.  IN THE STATUTE IN
DISPUTE SUCH A SCHEME HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH SEDULOUS REGARD FOR EVERY
INTEREST AFFECTED.  YET A WORD OF CAUTION SHOULD BE ADDED HERE TO AVOID
THE CHANCE OF MISCONCEPTION.  WE HAVE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY BY ANYTHING
SAID IN THIS OPINION THAT ALLOWANCE OF A CREDIT FOR OTHER TAXES PAID TO
WASHINGTON MADE IT MANDATORY THAT THERE SHOULD BE A LIKE ALLOWANCE FOR
TAXES PAID TO OTHER STATES.  A STATE, FOR MANY PURPOSES, IS TO BE
RECKONED AS A SELF-CONTAINED UNIT, WHICH MAY FRAME ITS OWN SYSTEM OF
BURDENS AND EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT HEEDING SYSTEMS ELSEWHERE.  IF THERE ARE
LIMITS TO THAT POWER, THERE IS NO NEED TO MARK THEM NOW.  IT WILL BE
TIME ENOUGH TO MARK THEM WHEN A TAXPAYER PAYING IN THE STATE OF ORIGIN
IS COMPELLED TO PAY AGAIN IN THE STATE OF DESTINATION.  THIS STATUTE BY
ITS FRAMEWORK AVOIDS THAT POSSIBILITY.  THE OFFSETTING ALLOWANCE HAS
BEEN CONCEDED, WHETHER THE CONCESSION WAS NECESSARY OR NOT, AND THUS
THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN DIVESTED OF ANY SEMBLANCE OF INEQUALITY OR
PREJUDICE.  A TAXING ACT IS NOT INVALID BECAUSE ITS EXEMPTIONS ARE MORE
GENEROUS THAN THE STATE WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO MAKE THEM BY EXERTING
THE FULL MEASURE OF HER POWER. 

FINALLY, THERE IS ARGUMENT THAT THE TAX NOW IN QUESTION, THOUGH IN
FORM UPON THE USE, WAS IN FACT UPON THE FOREIGN SALE, AND NOT UPON THE
USE AT ALL, THE FORM BEING A SUBTERFUGE.  THE SUPPOSED BASIS FOR THAT
ARGUMENT IS A READING OF THE STATUTE WHEREBY THE USE SHALL NOT BE
TAXABLE IF THE CHATTEL WAS MANUFACTURED BY THE USER OR RECEIVED AS A
LEGACY OR ACQUIRED IN ANY WAY EXCEPT THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF PURCHASE,
AND A RETAIL ONE AT THAT.  BUT THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS CHOSEN
TO LAY A TAX UPON THE USE OF CHATTELS THAT HAVE BEEN BOUGHT DOES NOT
MAKE THE TAX UPON THE USE A TAX UPON THE SALE.  ONE COULD ARGUE WITH AS
MUCH REASON THAT THERE WOULD BE A TAX UPON THE SALE IF A PROPERTY TAX
WERE LIMITED TO CHATTELS SO ACQUIRED.  A LEGISLATURE HAS A WIDE RANGE
OF CHOICE IN CLASSIFYING AND LIMITING THE SUBJECTS OF TAXATION.  BELL'S
GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 134 U.S. 232, 237; OHIO OIL CO. V. CONWAY,
281 U.S. 146, 159.  THE CHOICE IS AS BROAD WHERE THE TAX IS LAID UPON
ONE OR A FEW OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF OWNERSHIP AS WHEN LAID UPON THEM
ALL.  FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 158, 159.  TRUE,
COLLECTIONS MIGHT BE LARGER IF THE USE WERE NOT DEPENDENT UPON A PRIOR
PURCHASE BY THE USER.  ON THE OTHER HAND, ECONOMY IN ADMINISTRATION OR
A FAIRER DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL BENEFITS AND BURDENS MAY HAVE BEEN
PROMOTED WHEN THE LINES WERE DRAWN AS THEY WERE.  SUCH QUESTIONS OF
FISCAL POLICY WILL NOT BE ANSWERED BY A COURT.  THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT
MAKE THE TAX BASE AS BROAD OR AS NARROW AS IT PLEASED. 

THE INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION WAS ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED, AND THE DECREE
MUST BE REVERSED. 

FN1  "SEC.  19.  THE TAX HEREBY LEVIED SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE
FOLLOWING SALES: 

"(A)  CASUAL AND ISOLATED SALES BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF SELLING TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AT RETAIL; 

"(B)  SALES MADE BY PERSONS IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITH
RESPECT TO WHICH TAX LIABILITY IS SPECIFICALLY IMPOSED UNDER TITLE V OF
THIS ACT, WHEN THE GROSS PROCEEDS FROM SUCH SALES MUST BE INCLUDED IN
THE MEASURE OF THE TAX IMPOSED UNDER SAID TITLE V; 

"(C)  THE DISTRIBUTION AND NEWS STAND SALE OF NEWSPAPERS; 

"(D)  SALES WHICH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IS PROHIBITED FROM TAXING
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS STATE OR THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES; 

"(E)  SALES OF MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAXABLE UNDER CHAPTER 58 OF THE
LAWS OF 1933, SECTION 5(BEING REM.  REV.  STAT., SECTION 8327-5); 

"(F)  SALES MADE ON RELIEF VOUCHERS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WELFARE OR BY ANY COUNTY OR CITY OR OTHER WELFARE AGENCY; 

"(G)  SALES OF FRESH SWEET MILK, RAW UNPROCESSED FRUITS AND
VEGETABLES, BUTTER, EGGS, CHEESE, CANNED MILK AND UNSWEETENED BREAD IN
LOAF FORM (INCLUDING ROLLS AND BUNS), SOLD FOR CONSUMPTION OFF THE
PREMISES." 

FN2  FOR GREATER CERTAINTY EXCEPTIONS (A) AND (D) ARE STATED IN THIS
NOTE: 

"THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE SHALL NOT APPLY: 

"(A)  IN RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY ARTICLE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL
PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY A NON-RESIDENT THEREOF
FOR HIS OR HER USE OR ENJOYMENT WHILE WITHIN THE STATE; 

"(D)  IN RESPECT TO THE USE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY PURCHASED
DURING ANY CALENDAR MONTH, THE TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE OF WHICH IS LESS
THAN TWENTY ($20.00) DOLLARS." 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DISSENT. 
..END :

















MARTIN V. NATIONAL SURETY CO., 300 U.S. 588 


NO. 500.  ARGUED MARCH 2, 3, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 135, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A PAYMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MONEY DUE ON A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT, MADE TO ONE WHO COLLECTED IT UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY AND
LETTER FROM THE CONTRACTOR INTENDED TO OPERATE AS AN ASSIGNMENT
(CONTRARY TO R.S., SEC. 3477), IS TO BE REGARDED AS PAYMENT TO THE
CONTRACTOR THROUGH HIS REPRESENTATIVE.  P. 594. 

2.  THE PROVISIONS OF R.S., SEC. 3477; 31 U.S.C. 203, DECLARING ALL
ASSIGNMENTS OF ANY CLAIM UPON THE UNITED STATES "ABSOLUTELY NULL AND
VOID" UNLESS MADE AFTER THE ALLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIM, THE ASCERTAINMENT
OF THE AMOUNT DUE, AND THE ISSUING OF A WARRANT FOR THE PAYMENT
THEREOF, ARE PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND NOT
FOR THE REGULATION OF THE EQUITIES OF CLAIMANTS GROWING OUT OF
IRREGULAR ASSIGNMENTS, WHEN COLLECTION IS COMPLETE AND THE GOVERNMENT'S
LIABILITY ENDED.  P. 594. 

3.  MONEYS DUE BY THE GOVERNMENT AS DEFERRED PAYMENTS UNDER A
BUILDING CONTRACT WERE PAID OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR,
ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACTOR HAD FAILED TO PERFORM THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED ON
HIM BY THE MATERIALMEN'S ACT, 40 U.S.C. 270, AND BY HIS BOND, TO PAY
PERSONS WHO SUPPLIED LABOR AND MATERIALS IN THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK. 
THE CONTRACTOR, IN OBTAINING HIS BOND, HAD PROMISED THE SURETY IN
WRITING THAT HE WOULD NOT ASSIGN ANY SUCH PAYMENTS TO ANY THIRD PERSON
AND HAD, ON THE CONTRARY, UNDERTAKEN TO ASSIGN THEM TO THE SURETY TO
THE END THAT, IN THE EVENT OF ANY BREACH OR DEFAULT IN THE GOVERNMENT
CONTRACT, SUCH MONEY MIGHT BE CREDITED UPON ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE
SUSTAINED BY THE SURETY UNDER THE BOND.  HELD THAT AN EQUITABLE LIEN
AROSE FROM THE ASSIGNMENT IN FAVOR OF THE SURETY TO HAVE THE MONEYS
RECEIVED BY THE CONTRACTOR FROM THE GOVERNMENT APPLIED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE CLAIMS OF LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN, AND THAT THIS
EQUITY WAS SUPERIOR TO THE CLAIM OF ONE WHO, WITH NOTICE, HAD LENT
MONEY TO THE CONTRACTOR AND, UNDER POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM THE
CONTRACTOR, HAD COLLECTED THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND
APPLIED THEM TO HIS LOAN.  P. 595. 

4.  FAILURE TO PAY MATERIALMEN, AS REQUIRED BY 40 U.S.C. 270, AND BY
THE CONTRACTOR'S BOND, IS A DEFAULT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, SINCE THE STATUTE COMMANDS THAT THE BOND,
CONDITIONED ON SUCH PAYMENTS, SHALL BE EXECUTED BY THE CONTRACTOR
BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, AND THE TERMS OF THE BOND ARE READ
INTO THE CONTRACT.  P. 597. 

MARTIN V. NATIONAL SURETY CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 536, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A FINAL DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN A SUIT BY THE SURETY ON A BOND SECURING A
PUBLIC BUILDING CONTRACT.  AT THE PRAYER OF THE SURETY, MONEY PAID THE
CONTRACTOR BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS IMPOUNDED AND APPLIED TO THE CLAIMS OF
MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS.  THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE, WHO HAD LENT
MONEY TO THE CONTRACTOR, HAD, BY THE CONTRACTOR'S AUTHORITY, RECEIVED
THE PAYMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND APPLIED IT TO HIS DEBT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A CONTROVERSY IS HERE AS TO THE INTERESTS OF RIVAL CLAIMANTS IN
MONEYS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO A BUILDING CONTRACT, THE ONE
CLAIM BEING FOUNDED ON AN ASSIGNMENT TO A SURETY, WHICH IS HELD FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS, THE OTHER ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY,
LATER THAN THE ASSIGNMENT, WHICH WAS GIVEN TO A CREDITOR AS SECURITY
FOR A LOAN. 

ON FEBRUARY 12, 1932, A CONTRACT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES AND TOBIN, A BUILDER, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POST
OFFICE AT CARLINVILLE, ILLINOIS.  THE STATUTE CALLED FOR A BOND WITH A
GOOD AND SUFFICIENT SURETY CONDITIONED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE
CONTRACTOR WOULD PROMPTLY MAKE PAYMENT TO ALL PERSONS SUPPLYING THE
PRINCIPAL WITH LABOR AND MATERIALS IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE WORK.  40
U.S.C. SEC. 270; AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO., 296
U.S. 133, 135.  SUCH A BOND WAS GIVEN IN THE SUM OF $25,000 BY THE
NATIONAL SURETY COMPANY, ACTING THROUGH GUY S. MARTIN, ITS AGENT. 
MARTIN, WHO IS THE PETITIONER IN THIS COURT, HAD BEEN ORDERED BY ONE OF
THE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY NOT TO EXECUTE THE BOND, AND IN SIGNING IT
DISOBEYED THE ORDER.  THE FACT OF DISOBEDIENCE WAS UNKNOWN TO THE
OBLIGEE, AND BY CONCESSION THE BOND IS BINDING ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS. 
IN A WRITTEN APPLICATION THE CONTRACTOR STATED TO THE SURETY THAT HE
HAD NOT ASSIGNED AND WOULD NOT ASSIGN TO THIRD PERSONS HIS PAYMENTS ON
THE CONTRACT OR ANY PART THEREOF.  IN FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE
EXECUTION OF THE BOND HE DID BY THE SAME INSTRUMENT ASSIGN THE PAYMENTS
TO THE SURETY IN THE EVENT OF ANY BREACH OR DEFAULT IN THE CONTRACT,
THE PROCEEDS TO BE CREDITED UPON ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE.*THERE WAS ALSO A
COVENANT OF INDEMNITY, AND A COVENANT THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE FILING
OF ANY LIENS THERE WOULD BE A DEPOSIT WITH THE SURETY SUFFICIENT TO
SECURE THEM. 

*THE ASSIGNMENT READS AS FOLLOWS:  "THAT IN FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF
THE EXECUTION OF SAID BOND, THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY ASSIGNS, TRANSFERS
AND CONVEYS TO THE COMPANY ALL THE DEFERRED PAYMENTS AND RETAINED
PERCENTAGES, AND ANY AND ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES THAT MAY BE DUE AND
PAYABLE TO THE UNDERSIGNED AT THE TIME OF ANY BREACH OR DEFAULT IN SAID
CONTRACT, OR THAT THEREAFTER MAY BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE TO THE
UNDERSIGNED ON ACCOUNT OF SAID CONTRACT, OR ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA WORK OR
MATERIALS SUPPLIED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, HEREBY AGREEING THAT SUCH
MONEY, AND THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH PAYMENTS AND PROPERTIES SHALL BE THE
SOLE PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY AND TO BE BY IT CREDITED UPON ANY LOSS,
COST, DAMAGE, CHARGE AND EXPENSE SUSTAINED OR INCURRED BY IT UNDER SAID
BOND." 

MARTIN'S AGENCY WAS CANCELED AFTER THE WRITING OF THE BOND IN BREACH
OF HIS INSTRUCTIONS.  WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPLICATION AND OF THE
DUTIES THERE ASSUMED, HE LOANED MONEYS TO THE CONTRACTOR FROM TIME TO
TIME UNDER AN AGREEMENT FOR THE DIVISION OF THE PROFITS OF THE
ENTERPRISE.  BY DECEMBER, 1932, WHEN THE BUILDING WAS NEAR COMPLETION,
THE TOTAL OF THESE LOANS WAS IN EXCESS OF $10,000, EXCLUSIVE OF ANY
INTEREST.  THE WORK HAD BEEN DONE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT BILLS FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS WERE LARGELY IN DEFAULT. 
THE SURETY BECAME ALARMED.  IN THE LATTER PART OF DECEMBER AN OFFICER
OF THE COMPANY GAVE NOTICE TO THE CONTRACTOR THAT THE COMPANY WOULD
INSIST UPON THE EXECUTION OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR THE COLLECTION OF
ANY PAYMENTS THEN OWING FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR FALLING DUE THEREAFTER. 
TOBIN TOOK THE DOCUMENT AWAY WITH HIM, PROMISING TO SHOW IT TO HIS
LAWYER.  INSTEAD HE SHOWED IT TO MARTIN, FOR WHOSE BENEFIT HE SIGNED
ANOTHER POWER OF ATTORNEY AS WELL AS A LETTER, ADDRESSED TO THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, DIRECTING THAT ALL CHECKS FOR TOBIN SHOULD
THEREAFTER GO TO MARTIN.  THESE DOCUMENTS WERE INTENDED TO HAVE THE
EFFECT OF AN ASSIGNMENT WHICH WOULD BE SECURITY TO MARTIN FOR THE
AMOUNT OF HIS ADVANCES.  BOTH DOCUMENTS WERE FORWARDED TO THE TREASURY
AS SOON AS THEY WERE SIGNED.  THE SURETY DID NOT KNOW OF THEM TILL FIVE
OR SIX WEEKS LATER.  AT LAST, ON FEBRUARY 4, 1933, TOBIN, PRESSED AGAIN
TO CARRY OUT HIS AGREEMENT, ADMITTED THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HAD
BEEN TURNED OVER TO MARTIN, BUT PROMISED TO TRY TO GET IT BACK.  EVEN
THEN THERE WAS DENIAL THAT IT WAS ON FILE IN THE TREASURY.  BUT THE
PROMISE, EVEN IF SINCERE, WAS NO LONGER SUSCEPTIBLE OF FULFILMENT.  ON
THE VERY DAY IT WAS MADE, MARTIN HAD GONE TO WASHINGTON, HAD VISITED
THE TREASURY, AND HAD RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT A WARRANT FOR
$10,448.10, THE PROGRESS OR DEFERRED PAYMENTS THEN DUE UPON THE
CONTRACT.  THIS SUM HE COLLECTED ON FEBRUARY 6, AND APPLIED UPON HIS
LOANS.  AT THAT TIME THE BUILDING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED, THOUGH
THERE WAS STILL OWING FROM THE GOVERNMENT $5,700, MADE UP OF A RETAINED
PERCENTAGE PLUS A SMALL ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO COVER UNFINISHED WORK. 

THE SURETY ASCERTAINED THE TRUTH A DAY OR TWO THEREAFTER.  ON
FEBRUARY 9, 1933, IT BROUGHT SUIT IN A DISTRICT COURT IN MISSOURI TO
PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS, JOINING TOBIN
AND MARTIN AS DEFENDANTS AS WELL AS CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  IT PRAYED INTER ALIA THAT THE MONEYS RECEIVED BY MARTIN BE
IMPOUNDED, AND THAT THE FUND, WHEN DEPOSITED IN COURT, BE DISBURSED IN
PAYMENT OF THE BILLS FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR, AND IN EXONERATION OF THE
BOND.  AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SUIT, TOBIN WAS ALREADY INSOLVENT.  THE
SURETY BECAME INSOLVENT LATER, AND RENOUNCED IN FAVOR OF THE
MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS ALL ITS RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE FUND IN
LITIGATION.  MARTIN, YIELDING TO THE COMPULSION OF INTERLOCUTORY
DECREES, PAID INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT WHAT HE HAD COLLECTED FROM
THE GOVERNMENT.  AFTER NOTICE TO MATERIALMEN AND LABORERS TO FILE THEIR
CLAIMS AGAINST THE FUND, THE COURT MADE A FINAL DECREE DISPOSING OF THE
CONTROVERSY.  MARTIN'S CLAIM WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS A
PARTNER WITH THE CONTRACTOR, AND COULD GAIN NOTHING BY HIS ASSIGNMENT
EXCEPT IN SUBORDINATION TO THE CREDITORS.  THE CLAIMS OF MATERIALMEN
AND LABORERS (HEREINAFTER, FOR CONVENIENCE, REFERRED TO AS MATERIALMEN)
WERE CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED, AND DISTRIBUTION WAS DECREED. 

THE CASE WENT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT UPON AN
APPEAL BY MARTIN.  THE DECREE WAS THERE AFFIRMED.  85 F.(2D) 135. 
WITHOUT DISPUTING THE FINDING THAT MARTIN WAS TO SHARE WITH TOBIN IN
THE PROFITS OF THE ENTERPRISE, THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT PASS UPON
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE RELATION WAS ONE OF PARTNERSHIP.  IT PLACED
ITS RULING UPON THE BROAD GROUND THAT, APART FROM ANY ASSIGNMENT OR ANY
STATUTE, THE PROCEEDS OF A BUILDING CONTRACT ARE CHARGEABLE IN FAVOR OF
MATERIALMEN WITH AN EQUITABLE LIEN, WHICH ATTACHES UPON COLLECTION,
EVEN IF NOT BEFORE, AND WHICH CANNOT BE OVERRIDDEN AT THE WILL OF THE
CONTRACTOR BY PAYMENT TO HIS OTHER CREDITORS, THOUGH THE PAYMENT BE
MADE IN FULFILMENT OF A PROMISE.  FOR THIS IT CITED BELKNAP HARDWARE &
MFG. CO. V. OHIO RIVER CONTRACT CO., 271 FED. 144, AND UNITED STATES
FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. V. SWEENEY, 80 F.(2D) 235, 238, CONCEDING THE
EXISTENCE OF OTHER CASES CONTRA.  THIRD NATIONAL BANK V. DETROIT
FIDELITY & SURETY CO., 65 F.(2D) 548; KANE V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EL
PASO, 56 F.(2D) 534; FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. V. UNION STATE BANK, 21
F.(2D) 102.  THE OPINION DWELLS UPON THE CONFUSION IN WHICH THE SUBJECT
IS ENVELOPED.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

OUR DECISION WILL BE KEPT WITHIN THE NECESSITIES OF THE SPECIFIC
CONTROVERSY HERE.  EVEN SO, THE GROUNDS CHOSEN, THOUGH NARROWER THAN
THOSE ASSIGNED BELOW, MAY BE EXPECTED TO BE HELPFUL AS A GUIDE IN OTHER
CASES.  THE PROCEEDS OF THE CONTRACT, WHEN COLLECTED BY MARTIN UNDER
HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, WERE RECEIVED BY HIM WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE SURETY WHEREBY SUCH PROCEEDS
BECAME A FUND TO BE DEVOTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO THE PAYMENT OF
MATERIALMEN AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED.  IN OUR VIEW OF THE LAW, THE
EQUITIES IN FAVOR OF MATERIALMEN GROWING OUT OF THAT AGREEMENT WERE
IMPRESSED UPON THE FUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE COURT. 

AN ACT OF CONGRESS TELLS US THAT ALL TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS "OF
ANY CLAIM UPON THE UNITED STATES  ...  AND ALL POWERS OF ATTORNEY,
ORDERS, OR OTHER AUTHORITIES FOR RECEIVING PAYMENT OF ANY SUCH CLAIM
...  SHALL BE ABSOLUTELY NULL AND VOID, UNLESS THEY ARE FREELY MADE AND
EXECUTED IN THE PRESENCE OF AT LEAST TWO ATTESTING WITNESSES, AFTER THE
ALLOWANCE OF SUCH A CLAIM, THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE, AND THE
ISSUING OF A WARRANT FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF."  R.S. SEC. 3477; 31
U.S.C. SEC. 203.  BY FORCE OF THAT PRONOUNCEMENT THE GOVERNMENT WAS AT
LIBERTY TO HOLD THE MONEY BACK TILL DEMANDED BY THE CONTRACTOR
PERSONALLY, DISREGARDING ANY ASSIGNMENT OR POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR ITS
PAYMENT TO ANOTHER.  BUT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT CHOOSE TO SHAPE ITS
COURSE ACCORDINGLY.  IT TURNED OVER THE MONEY TO MARTIN AS TOBIN'S
REPRESENTATIVE, THUS DISCHARGING ITS INDEBTEDNESS AS EFFECTIVELY AS IF
PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE DIRECTLY TO THE PRINCIPAL.  MCKNIGHT V. UNITED
STATES, 98 U.S. 179.  THE CASE IS TO BE VIEWED AS IF TOBIN HAD RECEIVED
THE WARRANT, HAD PUT THE PROCEEDS IN HIS BANK, AND HAD PAID THEM
AFTERWARDS TO MARTIN.  WILL MARTIN BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEM IN THE FACE
OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE EARLIER ASSIGNMENT TO THE SURETY AND OF THE
PROMISE THAT NO ASSIGNMENT WOULD BE MADE TO ANYONE ELSE? 

THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE MAKING VOID AN ASSIGNMENT OR POWER OF
ATTORNEY BY A GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR ARE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT.  HOBBS V. MCLEAN, 117 U.S. 567, 576; MCGOWAN V. PARISH, 237
U.S. 285, 294, 295.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A RULE, THE GOVERNMENT
WOULD BE IN DANGER OF BECOMING EMBROILED IN CONFLICTING CLAIMS, WITH
DELAY AND EMBARRASSMENT AND THE CHANCE OF MULTIPLE LIABILITY.  HOBBS V.
MCLEAN, SUPRA.  BUT AS APPLIED TO THE FUND IN CONTROVERSY, THAT PERIL
IS NOW PAST.  THE FUND IS IN COURT TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO RIVAL
CLAIMANTS, WITH THE GOVERNMENT DISCHARGED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OUTCOME. 
THE VERY FACT THAT AN ASSIGNMENT IS PERMITTED EVEN AS BETWEEN THE
CONTRACTOR AND THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF WHEN THE WARRANT IS OUTSTANDING,
IF THE TRANSFER BE EXECUTED WITH PRESCRIBED FORMALITIES, IS SIGNIFICANT
THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT CONCERNED TO REGULATE THE EQUITIES OF
CLAIMANTS GROWING OUT OF IRREGULAR ASSIGNMENTS WHEN COLLECTION IS
COMPLETE AND LIABILITY IS ENDED.  THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE "WAS NOT
TO DICTATE TO THE CONTRACTOR WHAT HE SHOULD DO WITH THE MONEY RECEIVED
ON HIS CONTRACT AFTER THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN PERFORMED."  HOBBS V.
MCLEAN, SUPRA.  A TRANSFER OF A WARRANT HAS NEED TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY
SAFEGUARDS LEST THE ASSIGNOR MAY AVOID IT AFTERWARDS FOR FORGERY OR
FRAUD.  A TRANSFER OF THE FUND AFTER PAYMENT IS PERFECTED IS OF NO
CONCERN TO ANY ONE EXCEPT THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION, AND THIS
QUITE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIME OF THE ASSIGNMENT OR THE MANNER OF ITS
MAKING. 

IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS ANY INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS CONTROVERSY
IT IS IN SUSTAINING THE ASSIGNMENT TO THE SURETY RATHER THAN DESTROYING
IT.  THE CONTRACTOR UNDERTOOK THAT MATERIALMEN WOULD RECEIVE THEIR
MONEY PROMPTLY WHILE THE WORK WAS GOING ON.  IN FAILING TO PAY THEM, HE
VIOLATED A DUTY TO THEM, BUT A DUTY ALSO TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOR THE
DEFAULT WAS A BREACH OF THE CONDITION OF THE BOND.  IF THE ASSIGNMENT
TO THE SURETY CREATES A LIEN UPON THE FUND, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE
COMPELLED TO FULFILL THE DUTY THUS ASSUMED.  A DIFFERENT QUESTION WOULD
BE PRESENT IF THE SURETY WERE SEEKING TO KEEP THE MONEY FOR ITSELF. 
CF. AMERICAN SURETY CO. V. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA; JENKINS V.
NATIONAL SURETY CO., 277 U.S. 258, 266.  THERE IS NO SUCH EFFORT HERE. 
ON THE CONTRARY, THE SURETY, CLAIMING NOTHING FOR ITSELF, IS DEVOTING
THE FULL PROCEEDS OF THE ASSIGNMENT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
LIABILITIES COVERED BY THE BOND.  HAS THE ASSIGNMENT BEEN SO
OBLITERATED THROUGH THE CONDEMNATION OF THE STATUTE THAT WHEN USED BY
THE SURETY IN AID OF SUCH A PURPOSE IT DOES NOT GENERATE AN EQUITY
WORTHY OF RECOGNITION? 

THE ADVOCATES OF LITERALISM FIND COLOR OF SUPPORT IN A LINE OF
DECISIONS MADE IN VERY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES FROM THESE, BUT TENDING
NONE THE LESS TO A STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  NATIONAL BANK
OF COMMERCE V. DOWNIE, 218 U.S. 345; NUTT V. KNUT, 200 U.S. 12;
SPOFFORD V. KIRK, 97 U.S. 484; UNITED STATES V. GILLIS, 95 U.S. 407. 
WE DO NOT PAUSE TO INQUIRE WITH REFERENCE TO ALL THE CASES WHETHER THE
NECESSITIES OF THE JUDGMENT WERE AS BROAD AS THE WORDS OF THE OPINION. 
THUS, IN NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE V. DOWNIE, SUPRA, TO GIVE A SINGLE
ILLUSTRATION, WHERE THE CONTROVERSY WAS BETWEEN THE TRUSTEE IN
BANKRUPTCY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND PRIOR ASSIGNEES, THE CLAIMS AGAINST
THE GOVERNMENT WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE ASSIGNMENT HAD NEVER BEEN
ALLOWED, MUCH LESS COLLECTED, THOUGH THE DECISION CANNOT BE SAID TO
HAVE BEEN PUT ON THAT GROUND.  ANOTHER LINE OF CASES EXHIBIT AN
OPPOSING TENDENCY.  LAY V. LAY, 248 U.S. 24; PORTUGUESE-AMERICAN BANK
V. WELLES, 242 U.S. 7, 11, 12; MCGOWAN V. PARISH, SUPRA; FREEDMAN'S
SAVING & T. CO. V. SHEPHERD, 127 U.S. 494, 506; HOBBS V. MCLEAN, SUPRA;
BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 109 U.S. 432, 439; GOODMAN V. NIBLACK, 102
U.S. 556, 559; MCKNIGHT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; ERWIN V. UNITED
STATES, 97 U.S. 392.  CF. YORK V. CONDE, 147 N.Y. 486; 42 N.E. 193,
DISMISSED 168 U.S. 642.  THESE CASES TEACH US THAT THE STATUTE MUST BE
INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF ITS PURPOSE TO GIVE PROTECTION TO THE
GOVERNMENT.  AFTER PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN COLLECTED AND ARE IN THE HANDS OF
THE CONTRACTOR OR SUBSEQUENT PAYEES WITH NOTICE, ASSIGNMENTS MAY BE
HEEDED, AT ALL EVENTS IN EQUITY, IF THEY WILL NOT FRUSTRATE THE ENDS TO
WHICH THE PROHIBITION WAS DIRECTED.  SEE LAY V. LAY, SUPRA, AFF'G 118
MISS.  549; 79 SO. 291.  TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TWO LINES OF CASES ARE
IN CONFLICT, THE SECOND MUST BE HELD TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE BETTER
REASON.  MANY AN ANALOGY FROM FIELDS UNCOVERED BY THE STATUTE
REINFORCES THAT CONCLUSION.  AN ASSIGNMENT INEFFECTIVE AT LAW MAY NONE
THE LESS AMOUNT TO THE CREATION OF AN EQUITABLE LIEN WHEN THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE ASSIGNMENT HAS BEEN REDUCED TO POSSESSION AND IS IN THE
HANDS OF THE ASSIGNOR OR OF PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER HIM WITH NOTICE. 
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. V. SHEPARD, 169 N.Y. 170; 62 N.E. 154;
WALKER V. BROWN, 165 U.S. 654; FOURTH STREET BANK V. YARDLEY, 165 U.S.
634; KETCHUM V. ST. LOUIS, 101 U.S. 306.  ALL THIS IS FAMILIAR LAW.  NO
REASON IS DISCOVERABLE IN THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE WHY THE ANALOGY
SHOULD BE REJECTED IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE CASE AT HAND.  FAR FROM
DEFEATING OR PREJUDICING THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE
RECOGNITION OF THE EQUITIES GROWING OUT OF THE RELATION BETWEEN THE
CONTRACTOR AND THE SURETY WILL TEND, AS ALREADY HAS BEEN SUGGESTED, TO
MAKE THOSE INTERESTS PREVAIL.  CF. EQUITABLE SURETY CO. V. MCMILLAN,
234 U.S. 448, 456.  IT WOULD BE A STRANGE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
THAT WOULD MAKE IT NECESSARY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DECLARE THE EQUITIES
ILLUSORY WHEN THEY SERVE ITS OWN GOOD. 

IN WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN WE HAVE ASSUMED THAT THE FAILURE TO PAY
MATERIALMEN WAS A DEFAULT OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO IMPOSE A DUTY ON THE
CONTRACTOR TO TURN OVER THE PAYMENTS TO THE SURETY UPON APPROPRIATE
DEMAND.  THERE IS ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY.  ACCORDING TO THAT ARGUMENT
THE MONEYS WERE TO BE ASSIGNED IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE GOVERNMENT,
AND NOT UPON THE FAILURE TO PAY PERSONS OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT WHO
HAD CLAIMS AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR FOR MATERIALS OR LABOR.  BUT THE
STATUTE DIRECTS THAT A BOND FOR THE PROMPT PAYMENT OF MATERIALMEN AND
LABORERS SHALL BE EXECUTED BY THE CONTRACTOR BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE WORK.  NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH
WAS DRAWN IN THE STANDARD FORM, IS A CONFIRMATION AND ADOPTION OF THE
STATUTORY DUTY.  THE TERMS OF THE BOND ARE READ INTO THE CONTRACT, AND
THERE IS DEFAULT UNDER THE CONTRACT WHEN THERE IS DEFAULT UNDER THE
BOND. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT MARTIN'S INTEREST IN THE FUND WAS CORRECTLY HELD TO
BE SUBORDINATE TO THE INTERESTS OF OTHER CLAIMANTS.  WITHOUT DENYING
THE POSSIBILITY OF ARRIVING AT THE SAME CONCLUSION THROUGH OTHER
AVENUES OF APPROACH, WE FOLLOW THE PATHWAY THAT HAS BEEN MARKED IN THIS
OPINION. 

THE DECREE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :





















BROWN V. O'KEEFE, 300 U.S. 598 


NO. 575.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 85 F.(2D)
885, REVERSED. 


1.  SHARES OF NATIONAL BANK STOCK, SCHEDULED BY THEIR REGISTERED OWNER
IN HIS VOLUNTARY PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY, WERE DISCLAIMED BY THE TRUSTEE
AS BURDENSOME ASSETS, BY DIRECTION OF THE COURT.  HELD THAT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADJUDICATION OF BANKRUPTCY, THEIR OWNERSHIP
REMAINED IN THE BANKRUPT, CONTINUOUSLY, OR BY RELATION, FROM THE DATE
OF FILING THE PETITION.  P. 602. 

2.  THE STATUTORY LIABILITY OF A SHAREHOLDER IN A NATIONAL BANK IN
COURSE OF VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION (12 U.S.C. 181, 182), IS ENFORCIBLE BY
A CREDITOR OR CREDITORS SUING FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED.  P. 603. 

3.  AN ASSESSMENT BY THE COMPTROLLER IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT, IN
CASES OF VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION, TO PROCEEDINGS BY CREDITORS.  P. 604. 

4.  CREDITORS OF A NATIONAL BANK WHICH IS IN COURSE OF VOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATION AND KNOWN TO BE INSOLVENT, MAY ENFORCE THE STATUTORY
LIABILITY OF A BANKRUPT SHAREHOLDER BY FILING THEIR CLAIMS IN THE COURT
OF BANKRUPTCY.  THAT COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO LIQUIDATE, OR TO DIRECT THE
LIQUIDATION OF, SUCH CLAIMS, WHEN, AS IN THIS CASE, THEIR AMOUNT IS
SUSCEPTIBLE OF PROMPT ASCERTAINMENT.  P. 604. 

5.  THE LIABILITY OF THE SHAREHOLDER OF A NATIONAL BANK TO CREDITORS,
THOUGH STATUTORY, IS A LIABILITY UPON QUASI OR IMPLIED CONTRACT, IN
KIND PROVABLE AND DISCHARGEABLE IN BANKRUPTCY.  P. 606. 

BROWN V. O'KEEFE, RECEIVER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 539, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER OF A NATIONAL BANK IN A SUIT BY THE RECEIVER OF
THE BANK BASED ON A COMPTROLLER ASSESSMENT.  THE SHAREHOLDER INTERPOSED
A DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN A SUIT FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PERSONAL LIABILITY IMPOSED BY
THE STATUTE THEN IN FORCE UPON SHAREHOLDERS IN NATIONAL BANKS,
PETITIONER, THE DEFENDANT IN THE SUIT, DISCLAIMED LIABILITY, FIRST,
UPON THE GROUND THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SHAREHOLDERS HIS
OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES WAS DIVESTED BY THE FILING OF A BANKRUPTCY
PETITION AND THE APPOINTMENT OF A TRUSTEE THEREUNDER, AND, SECOND, UPON
THE GROUND THAT IF OWNERSHIP CONTINUED, LIABILITY WAS EXTINGUISHED BY
VIRTUE OF A DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY.  WHETHER THE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE
PREVAILED IS NOW TO BE DETERMINED. 

PETITIONER WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT ON APRIL 21, 1933, AND ON JULY
31, 1933, WAS GRANTED A DISCHARGE.  AT THE FILING OF THE BANKRUPTCY
PETITION HE WAS THE OWNER OF TEN SHARES OF STOCK OF THE UNION NATIONAL
BANK OF ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY.  SINCE SEPTEMBER 30, 1931, THE UNION
BANK HAD BEEN IN COURSE OF VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION (UNDER R.S. SECS. 5220
AND 5221; 12 U.S.C. SECS. 181, 182), THE ATLANTIC CITY NATIONAL BANK
BEING THE LIQUIDATING AGENT.  THE TERMS OF LIQUIDATION ARE DEFINED BY
AN AGREEMENT.  UNION SOLD TO ATLANTIC ALL ITS ASSETS OF EVERY KIND FOR
$1,686,977.63, WHICH THE BUYER WAS TO PAY THROUGH AN ASSUMPTION OF THE
SELLER'S LIABILITIES.  THE SELLER COVENANTED THAT THE ASSETS HAD A
VALUE EQUAL TO THE PRICE, AND BOUND ITSELF TO PAY THE DEFICIENCY, IF
ANY SHOULD ENSUE.  TO THIS THERE WAS TO BE AN EXCEPTION IN THE CASE OF
THE BANKING HOUSE AND FIXTURES, WHICH WERE TO BE TAKEN AT A VALUATION
OF $353,000, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OUTCOME.  THE AMOUNT OF THE SELLER'S
LIABILITY WAS TO BE FIXED AT THE EXPIRATION OF TWO YEARS (I.E. ON
SEPTEMBER 30, 1933), AT WHICH TIME ALL NOTES THEN UNCOLLECTED WERE TO
BE RECKONED AS LOSSES.  BEFORE THAT TIME ARRIVED, THE LIQUIDATING BANK
MET WITH TROUBLES OF ITS OWN.  IN JANUARY 1933, IT WAS DECLARED TO BE
INSOLVENT BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, AND A RECEIVER WAS
APPOINTED TO WIND UP ITS AFFAIRS.  IN DECEMBER, 1933, UNION ALSO WAS
DECLARED INSOLVENT, AND THE RECEIVER THEN APPOINTED IS THE RESPONDENT
IN THIS COURT.  VALUING THE UNCOLLECTED ASSETS, THE COMPTROLLER FOUND
IT NECESSARY TO ENFORCE THE PERSONAL LIABILITY LAID UPON THE
SHAREHOLDERS (R.S. SEC. 5151; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 63; 38 STAT. 273; 12
U.S.C., SEC. 64), AND BY AN ORDER MADE AND FILED ON JANUARY 8, 1934,
ASSESSED THEM TO THE AMOUNT OF THE PAR VALUE OF THE SHARES.  THE
RECEIVER HAS SUED THE PETITIONER AS ONE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF UNION TO
RECOVER THAT ASSESSMENT. 

IN DEFENSE OF THE SUIT PETITIONER ASSERTS, AS WE HAVE SEEN, THAT THE
OWNERSHIP OF THE STOCK WAS DIVESTED BY THE BANKRUPTCY, AND ALSO THAT
LIABILITY WAS BARRED, IF OWNERSHIP REMAINED.  TO ESTIMATE CORRECTLY THE
WORTH OF THESE DEFENSES WE MUST HAVE SOME OTHER FACTS BEFORE US.  THE
RECORD SHOWS THAT ON OCTOBER 27, 1933, BY ORDER OF A REFEREE, THE
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY WAS "AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO ABANDON ALL TITLE
TO AND TO DISCLAIM ALL THE INTEREST OF THE BANKRUPT IN" THE TEN SHARES
OF UNION NATIONAL BANK, NOW THE SUBJECT OF THIS SUIT.  THERE IS NO
SUGGESTION THAT IN THE INTERVAL BETWEEN ADJUDICATION AND DISCLAIMER,
THE TRUSTEE HAD DONE ANYTHING BETOKENING ACCEPTANCE.  THE RECORD ALSO
SHOWS, IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, THAT THE
BANKRUPT IN HIS LIST OF LIABILITIES INCLUDED THE LIABILITY TO
ASSESSMENT ON HIS SHARES OF UNION STOCK, AND THAT IN HIS SCHEDULE OF
CREDITORS HE INCLUDED UNION AND ATLANTIC AS WELL AS THE RECEIVER FOR
ATLANTIC, THEN IN CHARGE OF ITS AFFAIRS.  THE SAME AFFIDAVIT TELLS US
THAT PROMPTLY UPON THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS IN SEPTEMBER, 1931, THE
LIABILITIES ASSUMED BY ATLANTIC WERE PAID TO THE LAST DOLLAR; THAT AT
THE TIME OF THE DEFENDANT'S BANKRUPTCY UNION HAD NO DEBTS OR
LIABILITIES EXCEPT THE DEBT OR LIABILITY TO THE LIQUIDATING AGENT; AND
THAT EVEN BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY THE FACT HAD BEEN DEFINITELY
ASCERTAINED THAT THE LIQUIDATION OF THE UNION ASSETS WOULD RESULT IN A
DEFICIENCY WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS UP TO
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THE PAR VALUE OF THE SHARES.  FN1  THE ESTIMATE
WAS NOT IMPRACTICABLE, FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND SEVEN MONTHS HAD PASSED
SINCE LIQUIDATION HAD BEGUN, AND ONLY ABOUT FIVE MONTHS WERE LEFT
BEFORE IT WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE. 

UPON THESE FACTS, ESTABLISHED BY THE PLEADINGS AND SUPPORTING
AFFIDAVITS, THE RECEIVER MOVED FOR JUDGMENT.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD
THE DEFENSES INSUFFICIENT, AND GAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FOR
THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT.  16 F.SUPP.  494.  THERE WAS AN APPEAL TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT WHERE THE JUDGMENT WAS
AFFIRMED.  85 F.(2D) 885.  AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF BANKRUPTCY LAW
BEING INVOLVED, A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED FROM THIS COURT. 

WE DISMISS WITH A FEW WORDS THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT AT THE
MOMENT OF THE BANKRUPTCY HE LOST THE TITLE TO THE SHARES, AND BECAME
RELIEVED THEREBY OF THE LIABILITIES ATTENDANT UPON OWNERSHIP, THOUGH
HIS NAME WAS LEFT CONTINUOUSLY ON THE STOCK BOOK OF THE BANK.  CF.
RICHMOND V. IRONS, 121 U.S. 27, 58; MATTESON V. DENT, 176 U.S. 521. 
WHATEVER TITLE OR INCHOATE INTEREST MAY HAVE PASSED TO THE TRUSTEE WAS
EXTINGUISHED BY RELATION AS OF THE FILING OF THE PETITION WHEN THE
TRUSTEE INFORMED THE COURT THAT THE SHARES WERE BURDENSOME ASSETS, AND
WAS DIRECTED BY THE COURT TO ABANDON AND DISCLAIM THEM.  AMERICAN FILE
CO. V. GARRETT, 110 U.S. 288, 295; SPARHAWK V. YERKES, 142 U.S. 1, 13;
SESSIONS V. ROMADKA, 145 U.S. 29, 39; DUSHANE V. BEALL, 161 U.S. 513;
FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. LASATER, 196 U.S. 115.  IN SUCH CASE "THE TITLE
STANDS AS IF NO ASSIGNMENT HAD BEEN MADE."  SESSIONS V. ROMADKA, SUPRA,
P. 52.  CF. MILLS NOVELTY CO. V. MONARCH TOOL & MFG. CO., 49 F.(2D) 28,
31; IN RE FRAZIN, 183 FED. 28, 32; KIRSTEIN HOLDING CO. V. BANGOR
VERITAS, INC., 131 ME. 421, 424; 163 ATL. 655.  A PRECISE ANALOGY IS
FOUND IN THE LAW OF GIFTS AND LEGACIES.  ACCEPTANCE IS PRESUMED, BUT
REJECTION LEAVES THE TITLE BY RELATION AS IF THE GIFT HAD NOT BEEN
MADE.  SEE ALBANY HOSPITAL V. ALBANY GUARDIAN SOCIETY, 214 N.Y. 435,
441, 442; 108 N.E. 812, COLLECTING MANY CASES.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
CASE AT HAND THE RESULT WILL BE THE SAME WHETHER TITLE IS CONCEIVED OF
AS REMAINING IN THE BANKRUPT OR AS AFTERWARDS REVERTING.  ALBANY
HOSPITAL V. ALBANY GUARDIAN SOCIETY, SUPRA, PP. 443, 445.  IN EITHER
VIEW IT IS HIS AFTER DISCLAIMER BY THE TRUSTEE, WHEREVER IT MAY HAVE
BEEN WHILE ACCEPTANCE WAS UNCERTAIN.  AMERICAN FILE CO. V. GARRETT,
SUPRA. 

THE PETITIONER BEING HELD TO BE THE OWNER OF THE SHARES, WE PASS TO
THE CLOSER QUESTION WHETHER THE EFFECT OF THE DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY
WAS TO EXTINGUISH THE PERSONAL LIABILITY THAT WAS ATTACHED TO HIS
OWNERSHIP AS A STATUTORY INCIDENT. 

LIABILITIES ARE NOT DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY UNLESS CLAIMS THEREON
EXIST IN FAVOR OF CLAIMANTS WHOSE IDENTITY IS DETERMINABLE AT THE DATE
OF THE PETITION.  ZAVELO V. REEVES, 227 U.S. 625, 631; EVERETT V.
JUDSON, 228 U.S. 474, 479.  IF THE UNION BANK AT THAT DATE HAD BEEN A
GOING CONCERN, THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MIGHT LATER BECOME INSOLVENT OR
RESORT TO LIQUIDATION, WOULD NOT HAVE FURNISHED AN OCCASION FOR
STRIPPING THE SHARES OF THEIR STATUTORY INCIDENTS BY THE DEVICE OF A
DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY.  IN SUCH A SITUATION THERE WOULD BE NO CLAIM
TO BE PROVED AND NO ONE CAPABLE OF PROVING IT.  BUT AT THE DATE OF THIS
PETITION, THE UNION BANK WAS NOT A GOING CONCERN WITH THE LIABILITY OF
SHAREHOLDERS A LATENT POSSIBILITY.  IT WAS IN COURSE OF LIQUIDATION BY
A VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATOR.  NOT ONLY WAS IT IN LIQUIDATION, BUT ACCORDING
TO THE EVIDENCE IT WAS ALREADY KNOWN TO BE INSOLVENT.  LIQUIDATION
COUPLED WITH INSOLVENCY IS THE CRITICAL EVENT WHICH IS CAPABLE OF
TRANSFORMING A POTENTIAL LIABILITY INTO ONE PRESENTLY ENFORCIBLE, AS
SOON AS A QUALIFIED CLAIMANT APPEARS UPON THE SCENE.  THE METHOD OF
WINDING UP DETERMINES WHO THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE CLAIM SHALL BE.  IF A
BANK IS IN COURSE OF LIQUIDATION BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY,
THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS IS ENFORCIBLE UPON THE DIRECTION
OF THE COMPTROLLER, AT THE SUIT OF A RECEIVER.  ACT OF JUNE 30, 1876,
C. 156, SEC. 1, 19 STAT. 63; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 191.  CF. 12 U.S.C. SECS.
63, 64.  IF THE BANK IS IN COURSE OF LIQUIDATION BY A VOLUNTARY
LIQUIDATOR, THE LIABILITY IS ENFORCIBLE BY A CREDITOR OR CREDITORS,
SUING FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED.  ACT OF JUNE
30, 1876, C. 156, SEC. 2, 19 STAT. 63; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 65.  CF. 12
U.S.C. SEC. 181.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO INQUIRE WHETHER IN THE ABSENCE
OF AN ASSESSMENT BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY THE STATUTORY
LIABILITY MAY BE ENFORCED BY A RECEIVER THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF A CLAIM
IN BANKRUPTCY.  CF. ERICKSON V. RICHARDSON, 86 F.(2D) 963.  THAT
QUESTION IS NOT HERE.  AN ASSESSMENT BY THE COMPTROLLER, EVEN IF A
NECESSARY PRELIMINARY TO A SUIT BY A RECEIVER WHEN A BANK IS IN THE
COURSE OF INVOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION, IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT, IN
CASES OF VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION, TO PROCEEDINGS IN BEHALF OF CREDITORS. 
NO ADEQUATE REASON OCCURS TO US, AND NONE, WE THINK, IS STATED IN THE
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, WHY A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY IS THEN INCOMPETENT TO
LIQUIDATE THE AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS EFFECTIVELY AND SPEEDILY, AND
GIVE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY.  CF. CUNNINGHAM V. COMMISSIONER OF BANKS, 249
MASS. 401, 426; 144 N.E. 447; UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS SURETY CO., 226
FED. 653, 662-663. 

IN SAYING THIS WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL THAT A COMPREHENSIVE SUIT IN
EQUITY IS COMMONLY THE PROPER REMEDY AGAINST SHAREHOLDERS WHERE
INSOLVENCY BECOMES MANIFEST IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION.  12 U.S.C. SEC.
65.  THE REMEDY DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE PRESENTATION OF A PROOF OF CLAIM
IN BANKRUPTCY, THE AMOUNT TO BE LIQUIDATED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
COURT BY BILL IN EQUITY OR OTHERWISE.  CUNNINGHAM V. COMMISSIONER OF
BANKS, SUPRA; UNITED STATES V. ILLINOIS SURETY CO., SUPRA; KING V.
POMEROY, 121 FED. 287; IRONS V. MANUFACTURER'S NAT. BANK, 17 FED. 308,
314; 27 FED. 591.  CF. HIGHTOWER V. AMERICAN NAT. BANK, 263 U.S. 351;
WYMAN V. WALLACE, 201 U.S. 230.  BY THE MANDATE OF THE STATUTE
(BANKRUPTCY ACT SEC. 63B; 11 U.S.C. SEC. 103B):  "UNLIQUIDATED CLAIMS
AGAINST THE BANKRUPT MAY, PURSUANT TO APPLICATION TO THE COURT, BE
LIQUIDATED IN SUCH MANNER AS IT SHALL DIRECT, AND MAY THEREAFTER BE
PROVED AND ALLOWED AGAINST THE ESTATE."  THE RESULT IS TO INVEST THE
COURT WITH A DISCRETIONARY POWER THAT CAN BE FITTED TO THE NEEDS OF
VARYING SITUATIONS.  MAYNARD V. ELLIOTT, 283 U.S. 273.  CF. FOUST V.
MUNSON S. S. LINES, 299 U.S. 77, 83.  A HOLDING THAT A CREDITOR IS
DISABLED FROM MAKING PROOF IN BANKRUPTCY TILL A SUIT IN EQUITY AGAINST
THE SHAREHOLDERS HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO A DECREE WOULD HAVE UNFORTUNATE
RESULTS.  TODAY IT IS THE BANKRUPT WHO IS ASSERTING THE PROVABLE
QUALITY OF SUCH A CLAIM IN ORDER TO PRESERVE FOR HIMSELF THE BENEFIT OF
A DISCHARGE.  TOMORROW IT MAY BE A CREDITOR WHO UNLESS HE IS GIVEN THAT
OPPORTUNITY MAY LOSE HIS DIVIDEND FROM THE ASSETS AND FIND HIS SUIT IN
EQUITY ILLUSORY.  IN THAT PREDICAMENT THE MALLEABLE PROCESSES OF COURTS
OF BANKRUPTCY GIVE ASSURANCE OF A REMEDY THAT CAN BE MOULDED AND
ADAPTED TO THE NEEDS OF THE OCCASION.  CUNNINGHAM V. COMMISSIONER OF
BANKS, SUPRA. 

LIQUIDATION BEING POSSIBLE, THE CLAIM IS NOT DEFEATED THOUGH THERE
WAS UNCERTAINTY AS TO ITS AMOUNT AT THE FILING OF THE PETITION. 
MAYNARD V. ELLIOTT, SUPRA.  YET EVEN THE AMOUNT WAS CERTAIN, IF WE ARE
TO CREDIT THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT.  BY THIS IT APPEARS THAT LONG
BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY THE NECESSITY FOR AN ASSESSMENT TO THE AMOUNT OF
THE PAR VALUE OF THE SHARES HAD BECOME OBVIOUS TO THE LIQUIDATING AGENT
AND INDEED TO ALL CONCERNED.  THE FACTS ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THOSE IN
MILLER V. IRVING TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 256, WHERE THE CLAIM HAD ITS
ORIGIN IN THE COVENANTS OF A LEASE.  FOR HISTORICAL CAUSES SUCH
COVENANTS ARE SUI GENERIS (MANHATTAN PROPERTIES V. IRVING TRUST CO.,
291 U.S. 320; GARDINER V. BUTLER & CO., 245 U.S. 603), BUT THE ANALOGY
IS STILL IMPERFECT IF THAT DISTINCTION BE IGNORED.  THERE THE ONLY
CAUSE OF ACTION BELONGING TO THE CLAIMANT WAS FOR A DEFICIENCY THAT WAS
DEPENDENT UPON UNPREDICTABLE EVENTS.  FN2  HERE THE PROGRESS OF THE
LIQUIDATION HAD ALREADY BROUGHT ABOUT A DEFICIENCY TOO GREAT TO BE
CORRECTED BY ANY UNEXPECTED WINDFALL.  THIS AT LEAST IS THE SITUATION
AS THE PETITIONER DESCRIBES IT.  WHAT INFUSION OF CONTINGENCY WILL
VITIATE A CLAIM IS AT BEST A QUESTION OF DEGREE (MAYNARD V. ELLIOTT,
SUPRA, P. 278), THOUGH THERE IS A LEANING TOWARD ALLOWANCE IN AID OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TO RELIEVE THE HONEST DEBTOR.  WILLIAMS V.
U.S. FIDELITY & G. CO., 236 U.S. 549, 554-555; CENTRAL TRUST CO. V.
CHICAGO AUDITORIUM ASSN., 240 U.S. 581, 591.  TO ALL THIS WE ADD THAT
THE UNCERTAINTY, IF THERE WAS ANY, AS TO THE EXACT AMOUNT OF THE
ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE DISPELLED AT THE FARTHEST BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1933,
LESS THAN SIX MONTHS LATER, FOR OBLIGATIONS THEN UNPAID WERE TO BE
CLASSIFIED AS LOSSES.  CF. BANKRUPTCY ACT, SEC. 57N; 11 U.S.C. SEC.
93N.  UPON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE THE IMPEDIMENTS TO A PROMPT
ASCERTAINMENT OF THE LIABILITY OF SHAREHOLDERS WERE UNSUBSTANTIAL, IF
NOT IMAGINARY.    OTHER OBJECTIONS ARE MADE TO THE OPERATION OF THE
DISCHARGE, BUT THEY NEED NOT DETAIN US LONG. 

THERE IS ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIM AGAINST A STOCKHOLDER IS NOT PROVABLE
IN BANKRUPTCY FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS FOUNDED ON A STATUTORY
LIABILITY NOT SUBJECT TO DISCHARGE.  BANKRUPTCY ACT SEC. 63; 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 103.  TRUE INDEED IT IS THAT THE LIABILITY IS CREATED BY A
STATUTE, AND NOT SOLELY BY AGREEMENT.  MCCLAINE V. RANKIN, 197 U.S.
154, 159, 161; CHRISTOPHER V. NORVELL, 201 U.S. 216, 225, 226.  NO
DISCLAIMER BY THE STOCKHOLDER WOULD BE EFFECTIVE TO AVOID IT.  EVEN SO,
THE LIABILITY, CREATED THOUGH IT IS BY STATUTE, IS QUASI-CONTRACTUAL IN
ITS ORIGIN AND BASIS.  CHISHOLM V. GILMER, 299 U.S. 99, 102; SHRIVER V.
WOODBINE BANK, 285 U.S. 467, 477; COFFIN BROTHERS & CO. V. BENNETT, 277
U.S. 29, 31; BERNHEIMER V. CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516, 529; CHRISTOPHER V.
NORVELL, SUPRA; MCCLAINE V. RANKIN, SUPRA, P. 159; MCDONALD V.
THOMPSON, 184 U.S. 71, 74.  CF. ERICKSON V. RICHARDSON, SUPRA.  IT IS
AN INCIDENT AFFIXED BY LAW TO THE CONTRACT OF MEMBERSHIP BETWEEN
SHAREHOLDER AND BANK.  IBID.  A LIABILITY UPON QUASI-CONTRACT IS ONE
UPON AN "IMPLIED CONTRACT," AND SO PROVABLE IN BANKRUPTCY (BANKRUPTCY
ACT SEC. 63(4); 11 U.S.C. SEC. 103(4); CRAWFORD V. BURKE, 195 U.S. 176;
TINDLE V. BIRKETT, 205 U.S. 183; DAVIS V. AETNA ACCEPTANCE CO., 293
U.S. 328, 331), IF THE OTHER CONDITIONS OF ALLOWANCE ARE FOUND TO BE
FULFILLED. 

FINALLY ARGUMENT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE DISCHARGE IS INEFFECTIVE
AGAINST THE CREDITORS OF THE BANK FOR THE REASON THAT ONLY A SINGLE
CREDITOR OF UNION WAS LISTED IN THE SCHEDULES.  THIS, HOWEVER, IS
UNIMPORTANT IF THE CREDITOR SO LISTED (THE LIQUIDATING AGENT) WAS IN
FACT THE ONLY CREDITOR, AS THE PETITIONER INSISTS IT WAS.  CF.
LONGFIELD V. MINNESOTA SAVINGS BANK, 95 MINN. 54; 103 N.W. 706.  IF IN
FACT THERE WERE OTHER CREDITORS WHOSE NAMES HAVE BEEN OMITTED, THE
BURDEN RESTS ON THE RESPONDENT TO MAKE PROOF OF SUCH OMISSION.  HILL V.
SMITH, 260 U.S. 592, 595.  THE CONCLUSION MAY WELL FOLLOW, IF THE
OMISSION SHALL BE PROVED, THAT AS TO ANY CREDITORS NOT LISTED THE
DISCHARGE IS WITHOUT EFFECT. 

WHETHER THE PETITIONER WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE GOOD THE ALLEGATIONS OF
HIS ANSWER, AMPLIFIED AND EXPLAINED BY THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS, IS
NOT TO BE PREDICTED NOW.  ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT THERE ARE
ISSUES TO BE TRIED. 

THE DECREE SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORD WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  "AT THE TIME THAT I WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT AS AFORESAID IT
HAD BEEN DETERMINED AND FROM THEN UNTIL NOW IT HAS BEEN DEFINITELY
DETERMINED AND KNOWN THAT SAID UNION NATIONAL BANK WAS INSOLVENT.  SAID
UNION NATIONAL BANK WAS THROUGHOUT ALL OF THAT TIME AND EVER SINCE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1931, HAD BEEN CLOSED TO BUSINESS.  ALSO AT SAID TIME IT
HAD BEEN DETERMINED AND THROUGHOUT SAID PERIOD IT WAS DEFINITELY KNOWN
THAT THE ASSETS OF SAID UNION NATIONAL BANK WERE INSUFFICIENT IN VALUE
TO LIQUIDATE AT A SUM EQUAL TO THE VALUE PLACED UPON THEM BY SAID
AGREEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1931. 

"ALSO AT THE TIME THAT I WAS ADJUDICATED A BANKRUPT AS AFORESAID IT
HAD BEEN DETERMINED AND FROM THEN UNTIL NOW IT HAS BEEN DEFINITELY
DETERMINED AND KNOWN THAT AN ASSESSMENT AND REQUISITION UPON THE
SHAREHOLDERS OF SAID UNION NATIONAL BANK TO THE TOTAL PAR VALUE OF THE
AMOUNT OF STOCK OUTSTANDING WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PAY THE DEBTS AND
CLAIMS OF SAID BANK."  EXTRACTS FROM PETITIONER'S AFFIDAVIT. 

FN2  "UNDER THE CLAUSE IN QUESTION, IT WAS, AT THE TIME THE PETITION
IN BANKRUPTCY WAS FILED, UNCERTAIN, A MERE MATTER OF SPECULATION,
WHETHER ANY LIABILITY EVER WOULD ARISE UNDER IT."  MILLER V. IRVING
TRUST CO., 296 U.S. 256, 258. 
..END :






HIGHLAND FARMS DAIRY V. AGNEW, 300 U.S. 608 


NO. 573.  ARGUED MARCH 8, 9, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 29, 1937.  - 16
F.SUPP.  575, AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE VIRGINIA MILK AND CREAM ACT CREATED A COMMISSION WITH POWER TO
ESTABLISH MARKET AREAS, AND TO DETERMINE, AFTER HEARINGS, THE NEED FOR
REGULATION OF MILK AND CREAM PRICES WITHIN EACH AREA AND, IF SATISFIED
OF THE NEED, TO FIX PRICES ACCORDINGLY.  HELD THAT THE OBJECTION OF
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER HAS NO BASIS UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND HAS BEEN DECIDED ADVERSELY AS TO THE STATE
CONSTITUTION BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE.  P. 611. 

2.  HOW POWER SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED BY A STATE AMONG ITS GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANS IS COMMONLY, IF NOT ALWAYS, A QUESTION FOR THE STATE ITSELF.  P.
612. 

3.  THE FEDERAL GUARANTY TO THE STATES OF A REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT, CONST., ART. IV, SEC. 4, IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND,
IN ANY EVENT, IS AN OBLIGATION OF CONGRESS, NOT OF THE COURTS.  ID. 

4.  A JUDGMENT BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE AS TO THE MEANING AND
EFFECT OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTION IS DECISIVE AND CONTROLLING.  P. 613. 

5.  THE VALIDITY OF A PROVISION IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED STATUTE FOR
THE CANCELLATION OF THE PRICES ESTABLISHED FOR A MARKET IF CANCELLATION
IS REQUESTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTORS IN THE
AREA AFFECTED, NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED, BECAUSE NO EXERCISE OF THE POWER
OF CANCELLATION HAS BEEN THREATENED.  P. 613. 

6.  A HOLDING OF INVALIDITY AS TO THIS PROVISION FOR CANCELLATION
WOULD NOT AFFECT THE REST OF THE STATUTE BECAUSE OF THE SAVING CLAUSE. 
P. 614. 

7.  THE PRICE-FIXING AND LICENSING PROVISIONS OF THE VIRGINIA MILK
AND CREAM ACT DO NOT APPLY TO TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE BROAD DEFINITION OF A "DISTRIBUTOR."  THIS VIEW IS
CONFIRMED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE UNDER IT AND BY ITS
DECLARATION THAT OPERATIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED
TO BE AFFECTED.  P. 614. 

8.  THIS STATUTE IS NOT INVALID FOR FAILING TO PRESCRIBE THE
STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED BY THE COMMISSION IN GRANTING LICENSES OR
REFUSING THEM.  P. 616. 

THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE LICENSE IS TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS WITH A RECORD OF THE DISTRIBUTORS AND
PRODUCERS SUBJECT TO THE ACT, AS AN AID TO SUPERVISION AND
ENFORCEMENT.  IT IS NOT TO BE INFERRED THAT ANY ONE WAS INTENDED TO BE
EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF FAVOR OR CAPRICE.  AN ORDER REFUSING TO ISSUE A
LICENSE, OR SUSPENDING OR REVOKING ONE, MAY BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS. 

9.  ONE WHO IS REQUIRED TO TAKE OUT A LICENSE WILL NOT BE HEARD TO
COMPLAIN, IN ADVANCE OF APPLICATION, THAT THERE IS DANGER OF REFUSAL. 
P. 616. 

HIGHLAND FARMS DAIRY, INC., ET AL. V. AGNEW ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES,
DENYING A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE BILL IN A SUIT TO
RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE VIRGINIA MILK AND CREAM ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

A STATUTE OF VIRGINIA, KNOWN AS THE "MILK AND CREAM ACT," IS ASSAILED
BY THE APPELLANTS AS INVALID BOTH UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA
AND UNDER THAT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

THE ACT IS CHAPTER 357 OF THE LAWS OF 1934.  IT RECITES THE EXISTENCE
OF DEMORALIZING TRADE PRACTICES IN THE DAIRY INDUSTRY, THREATENING TO
INTERRUPT THE SUPPLY OF PURE AND WHOLESOME MILK FOR THE INHABITANTS OF
THE COMMONWEALTH AND PRODUCING AN ECONOMIC EMERGENCY SO ACUTE AND
DESTRUCTIVE AS TO CALL FOR CORRECTIVE MEASURES.  IT ESTABLISHES A MILK
COMMISSION WITH POWER TO CREATE WITHIN THE STATE NATURAL MARKET AREAS,
AND TO FIX THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PRICES TO BE CHARGED FOR MILK AND
CREAM THEREIN.  IT AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO EXACT A LICENSE FROM
DISTRIBUTORS SUBJECT TO THE ACT, AND PROVIDES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF
SUCH A LICENSE SALES SHALL BE UNLAWFUL WITHIN THE MARKET AREAS.  IT
IMPOSES TAXES OR FEES FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE COMMISSION AND OF LOCAL
MILK BOARDS WHICH ARE TO BE CREATED TO COOPERATE WITH THE COMMISSION IN
MAKING THE PLAN EFFECTIVE.  IT WARNS (SEC. 14) THAT NONE OF ITS
PROVISIONS "SHALL APPLY OR BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO FOREIGN OR
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS THE SAME MAY BE EFFECTIVE
PURSUANT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND TO THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES ENACTED PURSUANT THERETO."  FINALLY IT PROVIDES (SEC. 16)
THAT "IF ANY SECTION, CLAUSE, OR SENTENCE OR PARAGRAPH SHALL BE
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR ANY REASON, THE REMAINDER OF THE ACT
SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED THEREBY."  A FULLER SUMMARY OF THE STATUTE IS
GIVEN IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT BELOW (16 F.SUPP.  575), TO WHICH
REFERENCE IS MADE.  OTHER PROVISIONS WILL BE NOTED IN THIS OPINION
LATER. 

THE SUIT IS FOR AN INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMISSION FROM ENFORCING THE STATUTE OR THE REGULATIONS MADE
THEREUNDER.  ONE OF THE TWO PLAINTIFFS (HIGHLAND FARMS DAIRY,
INCORPORATED), WHICH WILL BE SPOKEN OF AS "HIGHLAND," HAS A CREAMERY
FOR THE PASTEURIZING AND TREATMENT OF MILK AT WASHINGTON IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  FOR THAT PURPOSE IT BUYS MILK FROM FARMERS IN
VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND.  ITS ENTIRE OUTPUT OF BOTTLED MILK IT SELLS TO
THE OTHER PLAINTIFF, LUTHER W. HIGH, WHO HAS RETAIL STORES IN VIRGINIA
AND ELSEWHERE FOR THE SALE OF ICE CREAM, MILK AND OTHER DAIRY
PRODUCTS.  A REGULATION ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION ON MARCH 27, 1936,
SET UP A MARKET AREA, DESCRIBED AS THE ARLINGTON-ALEXANDRIA MILK
MARKET, WITHIN WHICH HIGH IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS.  MINIMUM PRICES
PRESCRIBED FOR THAT AREA ARE IN EXCESS OF THE PRICES AT WHICH HIGHLAND
HAD BEEN SELLING TO HIGH AND AT WHICH HIGH HAD SOLD TO THE CONSUMERS. 
EACH WENT ON SELLING AT THE OLD PRICES.  NEITHER MADE APPLICATION FOR A
LICENSE.  IN JUNE, 1936, THE COMMISSION GAVE NOTICE TO HIGH THAT IT
WOULD PROCEED AGAINST HIM FOR AN INJUNCTION IF HE REFUSED COMPLIANCE
WITH ITS ORDERS.  NO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIGHLAND WERE BEGUN OR EVEN
THREATENED, THE COMMISSION TAKING THE POSITION THAT HIGHLAND WAS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE STATUTE, ITS SALES AND PURCHASES IN
VIRGINIA BEING TRANSACTIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  IN SPITE OF THIS
DISCLAIMER, HIGHLAND JOINED WITH HIGH IN SUING TO ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT.  A DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, ORGANIZED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 266 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE (28 U.S.C. SEC. 380),
GAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS, WITH A COMPREHENSIVE OPINION TO WHICH
LITTLE CAN BE ADDED.  16 F.SUPP.  575.  THE CASE IS HERE UPON APPEAL. 
28 U.S.C. SEC. 380. 

THE POWER OF A STATE TO FIX A MINIMUM PRICE FOR MILK IN ORDER TO SAVE
PRODUCERS, AND WITH THEM THE CONSUMING PUBLIC, FROM PRICE CUTTING SO
DESTRUCTIVE AS TO ENDANGER THE SUPPLY, WAS AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT IN
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, AND IN OTHER CASES AFTERWARDS. 
HEGEMAN FARMS CORP. V. BALDWIN, 293 U.S. 163; BORDEN'S FARM PRODUCTS
CO. V. TEN EYCK, 297 U.S. 251.  APPELLANTS ARE NOT ASKING US TO UNDO
WHAT WAS THERE DONE.  THEY TAKE THE GROUND, HOWEVER, THAT THE STATUTE
OF VIRGINIA IS OPEN TO OBJECTIONS THAT WERE INAPPLICABLE TO THE STATUTE
OF NEW YORK.  THE PRESENT GROUNDS OF CRITICISM WILL BE CONSIDERED ONE
BY ONE. 

1.  THE STATUTE IS NOT INVALID AS AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER. 

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH IN SETTING UP THE MILK
COMMISSION DID NOT CHARGE IT WITH A DUTY TO PRESCRIBE A SCALE OF PRICES
IN EVERY PORTION OF THE STATE.  THE COMMISSION WAS TO ESTABLISH MARKET
AREAS, AND WITH REFERENCE TO EACH AREA WAS TO DETERMINE, AFTER A PUBLIC
HEARING, WHETHER THERE WAS NEED WITHIN SUCH AREA THAT PRICES SHOULD BE
REGULATED.  IF IT WAS SATISFIED OF THE NEED, IT WAS TO FIX A SCALE
ACCORDINGLY.  THE ARGUMENT FOR THE APPELLANTS IS THAT IN THIS THERE WAS
A GRANT OF DISCRETIONARY POWER OVERPASSING THE LIMITS OF LAWFUL
DELEGATION. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE CIRCUMTANCES HERE
EXHIBITED HAS NO VOICE UPON THE SUBJECT.  THE STATUTE CHALLENGED AS
INVALID IS ONE ADOPTED BY A STATE.  THIS REMOVES OBJECTIONS THAT MIGHT
BE WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION IF WE WERE DEALING WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS. 
HOW POWER SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED BY A STATE AMONG ITS GOVERNMENTAL ORGANS
IS COMMONLY, IF NOT ALWAYS, A QUESTION FOR THE STATE ITSELF.  NOTHING
IN THE DISTRIBUTION HERE ATTEMPTED SUPPLIES THE BASIS FOR AN
EXCEPTION.  THE STATUTE IS NOT A DENIAL OF A REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT.  CONSTITUTION, ART. IV, SEC. 4.  EVEN IF IT WERE, THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THAT GUARANTEE, ACCORDING TO THE SETTLED DOCTRINE, IS
FOR CONGRESS, NOT THE COURTS.  PACIFIC STATES TELEPHONE CO. V. OREGON,
223 U.S. 118; DAVIS V. HILDEBRANT, 241 U.S. 565; OHIO EX REL. BRYANT V.
AKRON PARK DISTRICT, 281 U.S. 74, 79, 80.  CASES SUCH AS PANAMA
REFINING CO. V. RYAN, 293 U.S. 388, AND SCHECHTER POULTRY CORP. V.
UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495, CITED BY APPELLANTS, ARE QUITE BESIDE THE
POINT.  WHAT WAS IN CONTROVERSY THERE WAS THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWER
BETWEEN PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS, OR BETWEEN CONGRESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICERS OR COMMISSIONS, A CONTROVERSY AFFECTING THE STRUCTURE OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL
CONSTITUTION. 

SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION TO DELEGATION IS FOUNDED ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF VIRGINIA, IT IS ANSWERED BY A DECISION OF THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE
STATE.  IN REYNOLDS V. MILK COMMISSION, 163 VA. 957; 179 S.E. 507, THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS PASSED UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE NOW IN
QUESTION.  THE COMMISSION SUED DISTRIBUTORS TO ENJOIN THEM FROM SELLING
MILK AT A PRICE LOWER THAN THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM, AND THE INJUNCTION
WAS GRANTED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION THAT THE STATUTE WAS
INVALID.  UPON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS THE JUDGMENT WAS
AFFIRMED.  TO ESCAPE THE FORCE OF THAT DECISION THE ARGUMENT IS MADE
THAT THE QUESTION OF UNLAWFUL DELEGATION WAS NOT CONSIDERED OR
DECIDED.  BUT THE CONTRARY IS PLAINLY INDICATED BOTH IN THE OPINION OF
THE COURT AND IN THAT OF ITS DISSENTING MEMBERS.  THE PREVAILING
OPINION SUMMARIZES THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACT, AND AMONG THEM IS
THIS (163 VA. AT P. 976), THAT THERE IS "THE DELEGATION TO THE
COMMISSION OF THE POWER TO ENACT LEGISLATION WHICH IS BOTH PROHIBITORY
AND PENAL IN CHARACTER AND WHICH WILL BE OPERATIVE ONLY IN SUCH AREAS
AS THE COMMISSION MAY DEFINE."  THE DISSENTING OPINION SAYS (P. 980):
"THE COMMISSION MAY ORDER MILK TO BE SOLD AT ONE PRICE IN STAUNTON, AT
ANOTHER IN HARRISONBURG AND MAY LEAVE WOODSTOCK TO SHIFT FOR ITSELF." 
THESE STATEMENTS ARE TOO CLEAR TO LEAVE ROOM FOR MISCONSTRUCTION.  A
JUDGMENT BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE AS TO THE MEANING AND EFFECT
OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTION IS DECISIVE AND CONTROLLING EVERYWHERE. 

2.  THE STATUTE IS NOT INVALID IN ITS PRESENT APPLICATION BY REASON
OF A PROVISION FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE PRICES ESTABLISHED FOR A
MARKET, IF CANCELLATION IS REQUESTED BY A MAJORITY OF THE PRODUCERS AND
DISTRIBUTORS IN THE AREA AFFECTED.  FN1 

THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT THE EFFECT OF THAT PROVISION IS TO VEST IN
UNOFFICIAL AGENCIES, CAPRICIOUSLY SELECTED, A POWER OF REPEAL TO BE
EXERCISED AT PLEASURE.  THE CASE OF EUBANK V. RICHMOND, 226 U.S. 137,
IS CITED FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THIS CANNOT BE DONE CONSISTENTLY WITH
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  DELEGATION TO
OFFICIAL AGENCIES IS ONE THING, THERE BEING NOTHING IN THE CONCEPT OF
DUE PROCESS TO REQUIRE THAT A PARTICULAR AGENCY SHALL HAVE A MONOPOLY
OF POWER; DELEGATION TO PRIVATE INTERESTS OR UNOFFICIAL GROUPS WITH
ARBITRARY CAPACITY TO MAKE THEIR WILL PREVAIL AS LAW MAY BE SOMETHING
VERY DIFFERENT.  CF., HOWEVER, CUSACK CO. V. CHICAGO, 242 U.S. 526,
531.  SUCH IS THE APPELLANTS' ARGUMENT WHEN ITS IMPLICATIONS ARE
DEVELOPED. 

WITHOUT ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF THE DISTINCTION IN ITS APPLICATION
TO THIS STATUTE, WE THINK IT IS ENOUGH TO SAY THAT THE POWER OF
CANCELLATION HAS NOT BEEN EXERCISED OR EVEN THREATENED.  THE
CONTROVERSY IN THAT REGARD IS ABSTRACT AND CONJECTURAL.  ABRAMS V. VAN
SCHAICK, 293 U.S. 188.  MOREOVER, IF A PROVISION SO SUBORDINATE WERE AT
ANY TIME TO FAIL, THE SAVING CLAUSE IN SEC. 16 WOULD CAUSE THE RESIDUE
TO STAND. 

3.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT LAY A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY IS BUILT UPON THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD
"DISTRIBUTOR" CONTAINED IN SEC. 1.  WE LEARN FROM THAT SECTION THAT
DISTRIBUTORS INCLUDE "PERSONS WHEREVER LOCATED OR OPERATING, WHETHER
WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, WHO PURCHASE, MARKET,
OR HANDLE MILK FOR RESALE AS FLUID MILK IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA."  THIS DEFINITION, WE ARE TOLD, TAKES IN THE PLAINTIFF
HIGHLAND, WHO BUYS MILK AND SELLS IT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND DOES
SO WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT UPON ARRIVAL IN VIRGINIA THE MILK WILL BE
RESOLD.  BUT HIGHLAND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND
SO THE MILK COMMISSION HAS RULED.  NO MATTER WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A
DISTRIBUTOR MAY BE, SALES ARE NOT AFFECTED BY ANY RESTRICTION AS TO
PRICE UNLESS MADE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A DESIGNATED MARKET AREA. 
THE SECTIONS QUOTED IN THE MARGIN POINT FAIRLY TO THAT CONCLUSION.  FN2
HIGHLAND IN WASHINGTON MAY SELL TO HIGH IN VIRGINIA, AND HIGH MAY BUY
FROM HIGHLAND, AT ANY PRICE THEY PLEASE.  NOT TILL THE MILK IS RESOLD
IN VIRGINIA WITHIN A MARKET AREA WILL THE PRICE MINIMUM APPLY, AND THEN
ONLY TO THE PRICE TO BE CHARGED ON THE RESALE.  CF. WILOIL CORP. V.
PENNSYLVANIA, 294 U.S. 169, 175; SONNEBORN BROS. V. CURETON, 262 U.S.
506; BALDWIN V. G.A.F. SEELIG, INC., 294 U.S. 511.  IF THERE COULD BE
ANY DOUBT ABOUT THIS AS A MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION, THE DOUBT WOULD BE
DISPELLED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND BY THE WARNING OF THE
STATUTE, EXPRESSED IN SEC. 14, THAT OPERATIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE
SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE AFFECTED.  SO ALSO AS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF A
LICENSE EXPRESSED IN SEC. 4.  FN3  HIGH NEEDS A LICENSE TO THE EXTENT
THAT HE SELLS AT RETAIL TO CONSUMERS IN VIRGINIA.  HIGHLAND DOES NOT
NEED ONE, AND THE COMMISSION IS NOT ASKING IT TO APPLY FOR ONE, BECAUSE
ITS BUSINESS AS NOW CONDUCTED WITH PERSONS IN VIRGINIA IS INTERSTATE
EXCLUSIVELY.  CLUMSY DRAFTSMANSHIP MAY HAVE SPREAD A FOG ABOUT THE
SCATTERS WHEN WE RECALL THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14 AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE.  APPELLANTS' FEARS ARE VISIONARY. 

4.  THE STATUTE IS NOT INVALID FOR FAILING TO PRESCRIBE THE STANDARDS
TO BE APPLIED BY THE COMMISSION IN GRANTING LICENSES OR REFUSING THEM. 

THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THE LICENSE IS TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE LOCAL BOARDS WITH A RECORD OF THE DISTRIBUTORS AND
PRODUCERS SUBJECT TO THE ACT.  SUPERVISION AND ENFORCEMENT ARE THUS
LIKELY TO BE EASIER.  NO INFERENCE IS PERMISSIBLE THAT ANY ONE WAS
INTENDED TO BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE OF FAVOR OR CAPRICE.  LIEBERMAN V. VAN
DE CARR, 199 U.S. 552.  INDEED THE STATUTE MAKES PROVISION (SEC. 6)
THAT AN ORDER REFUSING TO ISSUE A LICENSE, OR SUSPENDING OR REVOKING
ONE, MAY BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS.  THERE
IS SEDULOUS PROTECTION AGAINST OPPRESSION OR ABUSE OF POWER.  ONE WHO
IS REQUIRED TO TAKE OUT A LICENSE WILL NOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN, IN
ADVANCE OF APPLICATION, THAT THERE IS DANGER OF REFUSAL.  LEHON V.
ATLANTA, 242 U.S. 53, 56; SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553, 562.  HE
SHOULD APPLY AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. 

OTHER ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE ACT ARE IMPLICIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ALREADY
SUMMARIZED AND ANSWERED.  EXPANSION OF THE ANSWER WILL SERVE NO USEFUL
PURPOSE. 

THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE PROVISION (SEC. 3(I)) READS AS FOLLOWS:  "THE COMMISSION
SHALL WITHDRAW THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS FROM ANY MARKET UPON WRITTEN
APPLICATION OF A MAJORITY OF THE PRODUCERS (MEASURED BY VOLUME) OF MILK
PRODUCED AND A MAJORITY OF THE DISTRIBUTORS (MEASURED BY VOLUME OF MILK
DISTRIBUTED) IN SAID MARKET ACTING JOINTLY."    FN2  SEC. 3, SUBD. J:
"THE COMMISSION, AFTER PUBLIC HEARING AND INVESTIGATION, MAY FIX THE
PRICES TO BE PAID PRODUCERS AND/OR ASSOCIATIONS OF PRODUCERS BY
DISTRIBUTORS IN ANY MARKET OR MARKETS, MAY FIX THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRICES TO BE CHARGED FOR MILK IN ANY MARKET, AND
MAY ALSO FIX DIFFERENT PRICES FOR DIFFERENT GRADES OF MILK.  IN
DETERMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF PRICES TO BE PAID OR CHARGED IN ANY
MARKET OR MARKETS FOR ANY GRADE, QUANTITY, OR CLASS OF MILK, THE
COMMISSION SHALL BE GUIDED BY THE COST OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION,
INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH ALL SANITARY REGULATIONS IN FORCE IN SUCH
MARKET OR MARKETS, NECESSARY OPERATION, PROCESSING, STORAGE AND
DELIVERY CHARGES, THE PRICES OF OTHER FOODS, AND THE WELFARE OF THE
GENERAL PUBLIC." 

SEC. 3, SUBD. K:  "THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE ALL DISTRIBUTORS IN ANY
MARKET DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION TO BE LICENSED BY THE COMMISSION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  THE
COMMISSION MAY DECLINE TO GRANT A LICENSE, OR MAY SUSPEND OR REVOKE A
LICENSE ALREADY GRANTED UPON DUE NOTICE AND AFTER A HEARING.  THE
COMMISSION MAY CLASSIFY LICENSES, AND MAY ISSUE LICENSES TO
DISTRIBUTORS TO PROCESS OR STORE OR SELL MILK TO A PARTICULAR CITY OR
VILLAGE OR TO A PARTICULAR MARKET OR MARKETS WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH." 

SEC. 1, PAR. II:  "'MARKET' MEANS ANY CITY, TOWN OR VILLAGE OF THE
COMMONWEALTH, OR TWO OR MORE CITIES AND/OR TOWNS AND/OR VILLAGES AND
SURROUNDING TERRITORY DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION AS A NATURAL
MARKETING AREA." 

FN3  THE SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS:  "NO DISTRIBUTOR IN A MARKET IN
WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ARE IN EFFECT SHALL BUY MILK FROM
PRODUCERS, OR OTHERS, FOR SALE WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH, OR SELL OR
DISTRIBUTE MILK WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH, UNLESS SUCH DISTRIBUTOR IS
DULY LICENSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL
FOR A DISTRIBUTOR TO BUY MILK FROM OR SELL MILK TO A DISTRIBUTOR WHO IS
NOT LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY THIS ACT.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY
DISTRIBUTOR TO DEAL IN, OR HANDLE MILK IF SUCH DISTRIBUTOR HAS REASON
TO BELIEVE IT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DEALT IN, OR HANDLED, IN VIOLATION OF
THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT." 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE
SUTHERLAND AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DO NOT ASSENT TO SO MUCH OF THE
OPINION AS ATTRIBUTES TO THE STATE A POWER TO FIX MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM
PRICES TO BE CHARGED IN THE SALE OF MILK, THEIR VIEWS ON THIS QUESTION
BEING REFLECTED BY WHAT WAS SAID ON THEIR BEHALF BY MR. JUSTICE
MCREYNOLDS IN NEBBIA V. NEW YORK, 291 U.S. 502, 539-559.  IN OTHER
RESPECTS THEY CONCUR IN THE OPINION. 
..END :












BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 352 


NO. 451.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 15, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 32, REVERSED. 


1.  THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK WAS CREATED AND IS
CONDUCTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE CITY'S GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, AND THE
SALARY OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE CITY'S BUREAU OF WATER SUPPLY IS
IMMUNE FROM FEDERAL TAXATION.  PP. 360, 366. 

THE CHIEF ENGINEER HOLDS HIS OFFICE BY STATUTORY AUTHORITY WITH A
FIXED ANNUAL SALARY.  HE EXERCISES SUPERVISION OVER THE ENGINEERING
DETAILS CONNECTED WITH THE SUPPLYING OF WATER FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND
FOR CONSUMPTION BY THE INHABITANTS OF THE CITY; SUPERVISES THE
PROTECTION OF THE WATER SUPPLY FROM POLLUTION; AND GENERALLY EXERCISES
CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE WATER SYSTEM, ITS PERSONNEL,
EXPENDITURE OF MONEY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.  THE OPINION
SKETCHES THE HISTORY OF THE SYSTEM, DEVELOPED UNDER LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY, AND INDICATES ITS VITAL IMPORTANCE FROM BOTH PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE STANDPOINTS. 

2.  THIS ACTIVITY MAY BE DEEMED AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION OF
THE STATE.  P. 362. 

3.  THE RULE THAT FORBIDS THE UNITED STATES TO TAX THE GOVERNMENTAL
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE STATES, AND VICE VERSA, IS NECESSARILY IMPLIED
IN THE CONSTITUTION AS ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF OUR FORM OF
GOVERNMENT; ITS APPLICATION IS A QUESTION OF NATIONAL SCOPE TO BE
RESOLVED BY PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL APPLICATION.  P. 364. 

4.  LOCAL RULINGS ATTEMPTING TO SEPARATE GOVERNMENTAL FROM CORPORATE
ACTIVITIES IN DETERMINING WHETHER MUNICIPALITIES ARE SUABLE FOR THE
TORTS OF THEIR AGENTS, SHOULD BE APPLIED WITH CAUTION AS A TEST IN
DETERMINING WHAT MUNICIPAL ACTIVITIES ARE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TAXATION. 
P. 363. 

5.  THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A SUPPLY
OF WATER FOR THE NEEDS OF NEW YORK CITY INVOLVE THE EXERCISE OF
ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IS FORTIFIED BY A CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC USES TO WHICH THE WATER IS PUT, AND THE DEPENDENCY OF THE HEALTH
AND COMFORT OF THE INHABITANTS UPON AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PURE WATER. 
P. 370. 

6.  THE FACT THAT IN FORMER TIMES THE BUSINESS OF FURNISHING WATER TO
URBAN COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING NEW YORK, WAS LEFT LARGELY OR ENTIRELY TO
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IS NOT A REASON FOR HOLDING THAT THE FUNCTION, WHEN
PERFORMED BY THE CITY, IS NOT GOVERNMENTAL.  P. 371. 

7.  GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS NON-EXISTENT
BECAUSE THEY WERE HELD IN ABEYANCE AND HAVE BUT RECENTLY BEEN CALLED
INTO USE.  P. 371. 

8.  THE FACT THAT THE CITY MAKES A CHARGE FOR WATER SERVICE TO
PRIVATE CONSUMERS DOES NOT STAMP THE FUNCTION OF SUPPLYING WATER AS A
PRIVATE ONE.  P. 372. 

9.  SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437, 461, 462, AND
FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 172, DISTINGUISHED.  DICTA IN
AN OPINION BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION DO NOT CONTROL IN SUBSEQUENT CASES IN
WHICH THE PRECISE POINT IS PRESENTED FOR DECISION.  P. 373. 

BRUSH V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 536, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, WHICH SUSTAINED A DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX
ASSESSMENT ON THE SALARY OF THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED:  THE SUPPLYING OF WATER TO GREATER NEW YORK
FOR USE BY THE CITY ITSELF AND ITS INHABITANTS BEING A USUAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION AND AN UNDERTAKING WHICH CANNOT BE EFFICIENTLY OR
SAFELY LEFT TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, AND HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT FOR OVER A CENTURY, SHOULD NOT THE SALARY OF A MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEE SERVING AS ENGINEER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY BE
EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAXES?  THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THE COURT
BELOW ADOPTED AN ERRONEOUS CRITERION FOR IMMUNITY, IN THAT THE COURT
LAID DOWN THE TEST THAT THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION MUST BE "NECESSARY TO
ITS (THE MUNICIPALITY'S) EXISTENCE AS A GOVERNMENT." 

THE TEST TO BE APPLIED IS WHETHER SUPPLYING WATER IS A "USUAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION."  HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S. 214; FLINT V.
STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107; UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S.
175, 185. 

THE SUPPLY OF PURE WATER, IN ADEQUATE AMOUNTS, TO URBAN CENTERS OF
POPULATION HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY REGARDED AS A SOVEREIGN OR
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION FROM AN EARLY DATE.  NEW ORLEANS V. MORRIS, 105
U.S. 600; NEW ORLEANS WATER WORKS V. RIVERS, 115 U.S. 674, 681-682;
COLUMBUS V. MERCANTILE TRUST CO., 218 U.S. 645, 658.  DISTINGUISHING:
SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437; OHIO V. HELVERING, 292
U.S. 360, 369.  SEE ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, 298 U.S.
513; ROCHESTER V. RUSH, 80 N.Y. 302; LEONARD V. BROOKLYN, 71 N.Y. 498;
MASSENA V. ST. LAWRENCE CO., 126 MISC. 524. 

THE NECESSITY OF PUBLIC OPERATION OF WATERWORKS IS SO WIDELY
RECOGNIZED THAT SUCH OPERATION HAS BECOME USUAL, WITH PRIVATE OPERATION
RARE IN PRACTICE AND CONFINED TO THE SMALLER CITIES. 

IN DEFINING "USUAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION," THE COURTS SHOULD NOT
CONFINE THEIR ATTENTION TO THE SITUATION PREVAILING WHEN THE UNION WAS
FORMED.  HOSKINS V. COMMISSIONER, 84 F.(2D) 627. 

THE ANALOGY OF THE TORT CASES IS IMPERTINENT AND MISLEADING. 
EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY IN TORT MIGHT HAVE LED TO WIDESPREAD
INDIVIDUAL SUFFERING AND OTHER DEPLORABLE CONSEQUENCES.  THE COURTS
MIGHT WELL HAVE DECIDED THAT TO LEAVE UNCOMPENSATED ALL PERSONS INJURED
THROUGH THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF WATERWORKS WOULD PRODUCE MORE
WIDESPREAD SOCIAL EVILS THAN WOULD FLOW FROM HOLDING CITIES LIABLE TO
PERSONS INJURED. 

RADICALLY DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS ASSUME CONTROL WHEN THE DISCUSSION
SHIFTS TO THE MATTER OF TAX EXEMPTION OF WATERWORKS' EMPLOYEES FROM
FEDERAL TAXES.  TO DENY EXEMPTION HINDERS THE PERFORMANCE OF WHAT THIS
COURT REGARDED AS THE HIGHEST OF POLICE DUTIES (COLUMBUS V. MERCANTILE
TRUST CO., 218 U.S. 645) BY EITHER LEAVING EMPLOYEES DISSATISFIED WITH
REDUCED SALARIES OR CITIES BURDENED WITH THE DUTY OF INCREASING THOSE
SALARIES TO LEVELS ADEQUATE TO LEAVE A FAIR AND JUST NET SALARY AFTER
PAYING TAXES. 

THAT THE TRADITIONAL DICHOTOMY OF THE TORT CASES IS NOT UNIVERSALLY
VALID HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THIS COURT ITSELF.  TRENTON V. NEW
JERSEY, 262 U.S. 182. 

THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS DO NOT LEAD TO A WITHDRAWAL OF ANY FIELD
FROM FEDERAL TAXATION.  THE FIELD WE ARE CONCERNED WITH HAS NEVER
PREVIOUSLY BEEN INVADED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  CF. METCALF & EDDY
V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 519. 

THAT REVENUES ARE DERIVED FROM THE MUNICIPAL WATERWORKS IS OF NO
CONSEQUENCE.  COMMISSIONER V. TEN EYCK, 76 F.(2D) 515, 519; NEW YORK EX
REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401; UNITED STATES V. COGHLAN, 261 FED.
425, 426. 

THE TAXATION OF THE PETITIONER'S SALARY IMPEDES AND BURDENS THE
MUNICIPALITY IN PERFORMING GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  COLLECTOR V. DAY,
11 WALL.  113; NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S. 401; METCALF
& EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 524; MILLER V. MCCAUGHN, 27 F.(2D)
128. 

WE DISCERN FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES IF THE DECISION BELOW IS ALLOWED
TO STAND.  FOR, IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN TAX THE PETITIONER'S
SALARY, IT WILL PRESENTLY ASSERT THE RIGHT TO TAX THE BONDS ISSUED FOR
AQUEDUCT AND RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION AND, HAVING SUCCEEDED SO FAR, WILL
IMPOSE AN INCOME TAX ON THE REVENUES OF OPERATION.  IN ORDER TO ENJOY
THE PROTECTION WHICH AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PURE WATER GIVES AGAINST
FIRES AND AGAINST DISEASE, THE CITIZENS OF NEW YORK WILL BE COMPELLED
TO PAY TRIBUTE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

IF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTENTIONS ARE UPHELD, THE VARIOUS STATES IN
WHICH THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CARRIES ON ITS OPERATIONS MIGHT
WELL SEEK TO TAX ITS REVENUES AND ITS REAL ESTATE, ON THE GROUND THAT
TO DO SO WOULD NOT IMPEDE ANY ACTIVITY ESSENTIAL TO THE EXISTENCE OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS A GOVERNMENT. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY, GAS AND ELECTRICITY OF THE CITY OF
NEW YORK REPRESENTS AND PERFORMS A NORMAL AND NECESSARY GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION, MEETING THE STANDARDS LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT. 

THE FEDERAL TAXATION OF NEW YORK CITY'S WATER SUPPLY WILL CONSTITUTE
A DIRECT BURDEN ON THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 

IF THE WATER SUPPLY FUNCTION IS IMMUNE, THE SALARIES OF THE CITY'S
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ENGAGED THEREIN ARE LIKEWISE IMMUNE. 

SINCE THE RULE IS AIMED AT THE PROTECTION OF THE OPERATIONS OF
GOVERNMENT, THE IMMUNITY DOES NOT EXTEND "TO ANYTHING LYING OUTSIDE OR
BEYOND GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND THEIR EXERTIONS."  FOX FILM CORP. V.
DOYAL, 286 U.S. 123, 128; BOARD OF TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S.
48.  IT IS ENTIRELY CLEAR THAT THE OPERATION BY A MUNICIPALITY OF A
PUBLIC UTILITY SUCH AS A WATERWORKS SYSTEM IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION. 

A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACTS IN A DUAL CAPACITY.  IN THE ONE
CHARACTER IT IS A GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, AND EXERCISES,
BY DELEGATION, A PART OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.  IN THE OTHER
CHARACTER IT IS A MERE LEGAL ENTITY OR JURISTIC PERSON AND STANDS FOR
THE COMMUNITY IN ADMINISTRATION OF LOCAL AFFAIRS.  VILAS V. MANILA, 220
U.S. 345, 356; WINONA V. BOTZET, 169 FED. 321, 332; GALVESTON V. ROWAN,
20 F.(2D) 501, 502. 

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF A WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM,
THE MUNICIPALITY ACTS IN A CORPORATE OR PROPRIETARY AND NOT IN A
GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY.  MCQUILLIN, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, (2D ED.),
SECS. 1962, 2852; BORCHARD, GOVERNMENT LIABILITY IN TORT, 34 YALE L.
J., PP. 1, 252, 254.  WE HAVE FOUND NO AUTHORITY TO THE CONTRARY. 
(CITING MANY STATE CASES.)  THIS IS THE SETTLED RULE IN NEW YORK, THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THAT STATE HOLDING THAT THE VERY FUNCTION HERE
INVOLVED - THE OPERATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY WATER SYSTEM - IS A
PRIVATE AND NOT A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, AND HOLDING, MOREOVER, IN
APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE
CITY, ENGAGED IN SUCH PROPRIETARY ACTIVITY, IS NOT AN OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BUT AN AGENT OF THE CITY PERFORMING
SERVICES FOR THE LOCAL ADVANTAGE AND BENEFIT OF THE CITY AND NOT FOR
THE STATE AT LARGE.  (CITING NEW YORK CASES.) 

THAT THE RULE OF IMMUNITY HAS NO PLACE IN THIS PROCEEDING, SEE FLINT
V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 172; SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES,
199 U.S. 437, 461, 462; HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S. 214; BLAIR V.
BYERS, 35 F.(2D) 326; DENMAN V. COMMISSIONER, 73 F.(2D) 193. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON FOR DENYING FEDERAL AUTHORITY TO TAX IS FOUND
IN THE NECESSARY PROTECTION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE RESPECTIVE
GOVERNMENTS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE SPHERES UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. 
HELVERING V. POWERS, SUPRA; COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113, 125, 127;
AMBROSINI V. UNITED STATES, 187 U.S. 1, 7.  THESE REASONS OUTLINE THE
LIMITS OF THE RULE OF IMMUNITY.  BOARD OF TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES,
289 U.S. 48; INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570, 575,
576.  THE PRINCIPLE OF IMMUNITY HAS INHERENT LIMITATIONS.  HELVERING V.
POWERS, SUPRA; METCALF & EDDY V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 522-524;
WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282 U.S. 216, 225, 226; FOX FILM CORP. V. DOYAL, 286
U.S. 123, 128. 

THE SUCCESSFUL WORKING OF OUR DUAL GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM REQUIRES THAT
THE PRINCIPLE OF IMMUNITY BE APPLIED SO AS TO INTERFERE AS LITTLE AS
POSSIBLE WITH THE IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF FEDERAL TAXATION, AND,
THEREFORE, THE RULE IS TO BE APPLIED RESTRICTIVELY.  WILLCUTS V. BUNN,
282 U.S. 216; 225; EDUCATIONAL FILMS CORP. V. WARD, 282 U.S. 379, 391. 

THE NECESSARY INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATES REQUIRES THAT THE RULE BE
APPLIED ONLY TO THOSE FUNCTIONS "STRICTLY" OR "ESSENTIALLY"
GOVERNMENTAL IN CHARACTER.  SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P.
461; FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., SUPRA, PP. 157, 172.  JUST WHAT THOSE
FUNCTIONS ARE THAT ARE STRICTLY AND ESSENTIALLY GOVERNMENTAL AND
NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE SEPARATE INDEPENDENCE OF THE STATES IS
DIFFICULT TO STATE IN TERMS OF GENERAL APPLICATION.  SEE METCALF & EDDY
V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 523.  APPARENTLY THEY INCLUDE ONLY THE
OPERATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND JUDICIAL BRANCHES OF
STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE MAKING AND ENFORCING OF LAWS.  SEE FLINT V.
STONE TRACY CO., SUPRA, PP. 157, 172; LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 13 F.SUPP.  143, 145; AFF'D ON OTHER GROUNDS, 299 U.S.
383.  IT IS CLEAR THAT THE OPERATION BY A MUNICIPALITY OF A WATERWORKS
IS NOT A STRICTLY AND ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION, NECESSARY TO THE
PRESERVATION OF INDEPENDENT STATE GOVERNMENTS.  IN FACT, THE STATE HAS
NO INTEREST, GOVERNMENTAL OR OTHERWISE, IN THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION. 
BAILEY V. MAYOR, 3 HILL (N.Y.)  531, 539. 

THE RULE OF IMMUNITY IS FURTHER LIMITED BY THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT
THE STATES MAY NOT WITHDRAW SOURCES OF REVENUE FROM THE FEDERAL TAXING
POWER BY ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES TO WHICH, BY THEIR NATURE, THE FEDERAL
TAXING POWER WOULD NORMALLY EXTEND.  HELVERING V. POWERS, SUPRA; SOUTH
CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437; MURRAY V. WILSON DISTILLING
CO., 213 U.S. 151, 173; UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175, 184
185; OHIO V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360, 368, 369.  SEE ALSO UNITED STATES
BANK V. PLANTERS BANK, 9 WHEAT.  904, 907. 

IN THE PURVEYING OF WATER FOR A PRICE, THE CITY IS ENGAGED IN A
PROFITABLE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE.  IT IS ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY WHICH, AT
THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, WAS CARRIED ON BY PRIVATE
COMPANIES.  IN NEW YORK CITY AT THE PRESENT TIME WATER IS FURNISHED AND
SOLD BY PRIVATE COMPANIES IN CERTAIN AREAS. 

THE DUTIES OF THE TAXPAYER AS CHIEF ENGINEER ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM
THOSE OF SIMILAR ENGINEERS EMPLOYED BY PRIVATE CONCERNS ENGAGED IN A
SIMILAR ENTERPRISE.  WE SEE NO REASON FOR PUTTING THE SALE OF WATER IN
A DIFFERENT CATEGORY FROM THE SALE OF LIQUOR (SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED
STATES, 199 U.S. 437; OHIO V. HELVERING, 292 U.S. 360) OR FROM THE
OPERATION OF A STREET RAILWAY (HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S. 214). 
AND, IF A STATE MAY NOT, BY ENTERING INTO THESE ACTIVITIES, THUS
WITHDRAW SOURCES OF FEDERAL REVENUE, A FORTIORI A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
MAY NOT. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION BROUGHT HERE FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER THE SALARY OF
PETITIONER AS CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE BUREAU OF WATER SUPPLY OF THE CITY
OF NEW YORK IS A PART OF HIS TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
FEDERAL INCOME-TAX LAW.  THE ANSWER DEPENDS UPON WHETHER THE WATER
SYSTEM OF THE CITY WAS CREATED AND IS CONDUCTED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
CITY'S GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  IF SO, ITS OPERATIONS ARE IMMUNE FROM
FEDERAL TAXATION AND, AS A NECESSARY COROLLARY, "FIXED SALARIES AND
COMPENSATION PAID TO ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
SUCH ARE LIKEWISE IMMUNE."  NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S.
401, 408. 

PETITIONER HOLDS HIS OFFICE AS CHIEF ENGINEER BY STATUTORY AUTHORITY,
WITH A FIXED ANNUAL SALARY OF $14,000.  HE EXERCISES SUPERVISION OVER
THE ENGINEERING DETAILS CONNECTED WITH THE SUPPLYING OF WATER FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSES AND FOR CONSUMPTION BY THE INHABITANTS OF THE CITY;
SUPERVISES THE PROTECTION OF THE WATER SUPPLY FROM POLLUTION; AND
GENERALLY EXERCISES CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE WATER SYSTEM, ITS
PERSONNEL, EXPENDITURE OF MONEY AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. 

IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CITY, WATER WAS FURNISHED BY PRIVATE
COMPANIES; BUT A CENTURY OR MORE AGO, THE CITY ITSELF BEGAN TO TAKE
OVER THE DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION.  IN 1831, THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
DECLARED ITS DISSATISFACTION WITH THE PRIVATE CONTROL, AND RESOLVED
THAT THE POWERS THEN VESTED IN PRIVATE HANDS SHOULD BE REPEALED BY THE
LEGISLATURE AND VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
NEW YORK.  THIS, IN EFFECT, WAS INITIATED IN 1833(L. 1833, C. 36); AND,
SOON THEREAFTER, THE CITY CONSTRUCTED MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS, AND, WITH
SLIGHT EXCEPTIONS, PRIVATE CONTROL AND OPERATION CEASED.  THE SOURCES
OF WATER SUPPLY FURNISHED BY SUCH COMPANIES AS REMAIN ARE APPROACHING
EXHAUSTION, AND THE WATER FURNISHED IS OF A QUALITY INFERIOR TO THAT
SUPPLIED BY THE MUNICIPALITY.  FROM 1833 TO THE PRESENT TIME, ADDITIONS
TO THE WATER SUPPLY AND SYSTEM HAVE BEEN STEADILY MADE UNTIL THE COST
HAS MOUNTED TO MORE THAN $500,000,000; AND IT IS ESTIMATED THAT
ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES OF A QUARTER OF A BILLION DOLLARS WILL BE
NECESSARY.  THE COST OF BRINGING WATER FROM THE CATSKILLS ALONE
AMOUNTED TO APPROXIMATELY $200,000,000.  THE MUNICIPAL OUTSTANDING
BONDED INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED FOR SUPPLYING THE CITY WITH WATER AMOUNTS
TO AN ENORMOUS SUM.  MORE THAN HALF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE STATE
IS FOUND WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.  THE ACTION OF THE CITY FROM
THE BEGINNING HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.    THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE HAVING ASSESSED A DEFICIENCY TAX
AGAINST PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF HIS SALARY, PETITIONER SOUGHT A
REDETERMINATION AT THE HANDS OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  THAT BOARD
SUSTAINED THE COMMISSIONER AND DECREED A DEFICIENCY AGAINST PETITIONER
OF $256.27 FOR THE YEAR 1931.  UPON REVIEW, THE COURT BELOW AFFIRMED
THE DECREE OF THE BOARD.  85 F.(2D) 32.  WHILE THE SUM INVOLVED IS
SMALL, WE GRANTED THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF THE OBVIOUS
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION INVOLVED. 

THE PHRASE "GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS," AS IT HERE IS USED, HAS BEEN
QUALIFIED BY THIS COURT IN A VARIETY OF WAYS.  THUS, IN SOUTH CAROLINA
V. UNITED STATES, 199 U.S. 437, 461, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THE
EXEMPTION OF STATE AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES FROM FEDERAL TAXATION
WAS LIMITED TO THOSE WHICH WERE OF A STRICTLY GOVERNMENTAL CHARACTER,
AND DID NOT EXTEND TO THOSE USED BY THE STATE IN CARRYING ON AN
ORDINARY PRIVATE BUSINESS.  IN FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107,
172, THE IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION WAS RELATED TO THE ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS OF THE STATE.  IN HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S.
214, 225, WE SAID THAT THE STATE "CANNOT WITHDRAW SOURCES OF REVENUE
FROM THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER BY ENGAGING IN BUSINESSES WHICH
CONSTITUTE A DEPARTURE FROM USUAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND TO WHICH,
BY REASON OF THEIR NATURE, THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER WOULD NORMALLY
EXTEND."  AND IMMUNITY IS NOT ESTABLISHED BECAUSE THE STATE HAS THE
POWER TO ENGAGE IN THE BUSINESS FOR WHAT THE STATE CONCEIVES TO BE THE
PUBLIC BENEFIT.  IDEM.  IN UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, 297 U.S. 175,
185, THE SUGGESTED LIMIT OF THE FEDERAL TAXING POWER WAS IN RESPECT OF
ACTIVITIES IN WHICH THE STATES HAVE TRADITIONALLY ENGAGED. 

IN THE PRESENT CASE, UPON THE ONE SIDE, STRESS IS PUT UPON THE
ADJECTIVE "ESSENTIAL," AS USED IN THE FLINT V. STONE TRACY CASE, WHILE,
ON THE OTHER SIDE, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THIS QUALIFYING ADJECTIVE MUST
BE PUT ASIDE IN FAVOR OF WHAT IS THOUGHT TO BE THE GREATER REACH OF THE
WORD "USUAL," AS EMPLOYED IN THE POWERS CASE.  BUT THESE DIFFERENCES IN
PHRASEOLOGY, AND THE OTHERS JUST REFERRED TO, MUST NOT BE TOO LITERALLY
CONTRADISTINGUISHED.  IN NEITHER OF THE CASES CITED, WAS THE ADJECTIVE
USED AS AN EXCLUSIVE OR RIGID DELIMITATION.  FOR PRESENT PURPOSES,
HOWEVER, WE SHALL INQUIRE WHETHER THE ACTIVITY HERE IN QUESTION
CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION WITHIN THE PROPER
MEANING OF THAT TERM; AND IN THAT VIEW DECIDE THE CASE. 

THERE PROBABLY IS NO TOPIC OF THE LAW IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE
DECISIONS OF THE STATE COURTS ARE IN GREATER CONFLICT AND CONFUSION
THAN THAT WHICH DEALS WITH THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTAL
AND CORPORATE POWERS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.  THIS CONDITION OF
CONFLICT AND CONFUSION IS CONFINED IN THE MAIN TO DECISIONS RELATING TO
LIABILITY IN TORT FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF OFFICERS AND AGENTS OF THE
MUNICIPALITY.  IN THAT FIELD, NO DEFINITE RULE CAN BE EXTRACTED FROM
THE DECISIONS.  FN1  IT IS TRUE THAT IN MOST OF THE STATE COURTS,
INCLUDING THOSE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IT IS HELD THAT THE OPERATION
OF WATER WORKS FALLS WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF CORPORATE ACTIVITIES; AND
THE CITY'S LIABILITY IS AFFIRMED IN TORT ACTIONS ARISING FROM
NEGLIGENCE IN SUCH OPERATION.  BUT THE RULE IN RESPECT OF SUCH CASES,
AS WE POINTED OUT IN TRENTON V. NEW JERSEY, 262 U.S. 182, 192, HAS BEEN
"APPLIED TO ESCAPE DIFFICULTIES, IN ORDER THAT INJUSTICE MAY NOT RESULT
FROM THE RECOGNITION OF TECHNICAL DEFENSES BASED UPON THE GOVERNMENTAL
CHARACTER OF SUCH CORPORATIONS"; AND THE RULE IS HOPELESSLY INDEFINITE,
PROBABLY FOR THAT VERY REASON. 

THIS IS NOT, HOWEVER, AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES SOUNDING IN
TORT, BUT A PROCEEDING WHICH SEEKS IN EFFECT TO DETERMINE WHETHER
IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL TAXATION, IN RESPECT OF THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION,
ATTACHES IN FAVOR OF A STATE-CREATED MUNICIPALITY - AN OBJECTIVE SO
DIFFERENT IN CHARACTER FROM THAT SOUGHT IN A TORT ACTION AS TO SUGGEST
CAUTION IN APPLYING AS THE GUIDE TO A DECISION OF THE FORMER A LOCAL
RULE OF LAW JUDICIALLY ADOPTED IN ORDER TO AVOID SUPPOSED INJUSTICES
WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE RESULT IN THE LATTER.  WE HAVE HELD, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT THE SALE OF MOTORCYCLES TO A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR USE IN ITS
POLICE SERVICE IS NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TAXATION, BECAUSE THE
MAINTENANCE OF SUCH A SERVICE IS A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.  INDIAN
MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570, 579.  AND WHILE IT IS
TRUE THAT THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY IN TORT ACTIONS ACCORDS WITH THAT
VIEW, THERE ARE STATE DECISIONS WHICH AFFIRM THE LIABILITY OF A
MUNICIPALITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS
POLICE OFFICIALS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED IN THE RESPECTIVE
CASES DEALT WITH.  FN2  NEVERTHELESS, OUR DECISION IN THE INDIAN
MOTOCYCLE CASE DID NOT REST IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE UPON A
CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE RULE IN RESPECT OF TORT ACTIONS, BUT UPON A
BROAD CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL IMMUNITY ARISING FROM
THE DUAL CHARACTER OF OUR NATIONAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS. 

THE RULE IN RESPECT OF MUNICIPAL LIABILITY IN TORT IS A LOCAL MATTER;
AND WHETHER IT SHALL BE STRICT OR LIBERAL OR DENIED ALTOGETHER IS FOR
THE STATE WHICH CREATED THE MUNICIPALITY ALONE TO DECIDE (DETROIT V.
OSBORNE, 135 U.S. 492, 497-498) - PROVIDED, OF COURSE, THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION BE NOT INFRINGED.  BUT A FEDERAL TAX IN RESPECT OF THE
ACTIVITIES OF A STATE OR A STATE AGENCY IS AN IMPOSITION BY ONE
GOVERNMENT UPON THE ACTIVITIES OF ANOTHER, AND MUST ACCORD WITH THE
IMPLIED FEDERAL REQUIREMENT THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS
BE NOT BURDENED THEREBY.  SO LONG AS OUR PRESENT DUAL FORM OF
GOVERNMENT ENDURES, THE STATES, IT MUST NEVER BE FORGOTTEN, "ARE AS
INDEPENDENT OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AS THAT GOVERNMENT WITHIN ITS
SPHERE IS INDEPENDENT OF THE STATES."  COLLECTOR V. DAY, 11 WALL.  113,
124.  AND, AS IT WAS SAID IN TEXAS V. WHITE, 7 WALL.  700, 725, AND
OFTEN HAS BEEN REPEATED - "THE PRESERVATION OF THE STATES, AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS, ARE AS MUCH WITHIN THE DESIGN AND
CARE OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNION AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT."  THE UNIMPAIRED EXISTENCE OF
BOTH GOVERNMENTS IS EQUALLY ESSENTIAL.  IT IS TO THAT HIGH END THAT
THIS COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE RULE, WHICH RESTS UPON NECESSARY
IMPLICATION, THAT NEITHER MAY TAX THE GOVERNMENTAL MEANS AND
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE OTHER.  COLLECTOR V. DAY, SUPRA, P. 127.  IN
THE LIGHT OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE QUESTION HERE
PRESENTED IS NOT CONTROLLED BY LOCAL LAW BUT IS A QUESTION OF NATIONAL
SCOPE TO BE RESOLVED IN HARMONY WITH IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
OF GENERAL APPLICATION.  COMPARE WORKMAN V. NEW YORK CITY, 179 U.S.
552, 557.  THIS INDICATED DISSIMILARITY CONSTITUTES A DISTINCTION WHICH
IS FUNDAMENTAL; AND WE PUT ASIDE THE STATE DECISIONS IN TORT ACTIONS AS
INAPPOSITE.  COMPARE ATLANTIC CLEANERS & DYERS V. UNITED STATES, 286
U.S. 427, 433 ET SEQ. 

WE THUS COME TO A SITUATION, WHICH THE COURTS HAVE FREQUENTLY BEEN
CALLED UPON TO MEET, WHERE THE ISSUE CANNOT BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AN ESTABLISHED FORMULA, BUT WHERE POINTS ALONG THE LINE "ARE FIXED
BY DECISIONS THAT THIS OR THAT CONCRETE CASE FALLS ON THE NEARER OR
FARTHER SIDE."  HUDSON WATER CO. V. MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349, 355.  WE
ARE, OF COURSE, QUITE ABLE TO SAY THAT CERTAIN FUNCTIONS EXERCISED BY A
CITY ARE CLEARLY GOVERNMENTAL - THAT IS, LIE UPON THE NEARER SIDE OF
THE LINE - WHILE OTHERS ARE JUST AS CLEARLY PRIVATE OR CORPORATE IN
CHARACTER, AND LIE UPON THE FARTHER SIDE.  BUT BETWEEN THESE TWO
OPPOSITE CLASSES, THERE IS A ZONE OF DEBATABLE GROUND WITHIN WHICH THE
CASES MUST BE PUT UPON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER OF THE LINE BY WHAT THIS
COURT HAS CALLED THE GRADUAL PROCESS OF HISTORICAL AND JUDICIAL
"INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION."  CONTINENTAL BANK V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY.,
294 U.S. 648, 670, AND CASES CITED. 

WE THINK, THEREFORE, THAT IT WILL BE WISE TO CONFINE, AS STRICTLY AS
POSSIBLE, THE PRESENT INQUIRY TO THE NECESSITIES OF THE IMMEDIATE ISSUE
HERE INVOLVED, AND NOT, BY AN ATTEMPT TO FORMULATE ANY GENERAL TEST,
RISK EMBARRASSING THE DECISION OF CASES IN RESPECT OF MUNICIPAL
ACTIVITIES OF A DIFFERENT KIND WHICH MAY ARISE IN THE FUTURE.  CF.
EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY CO., 272 U.S. 365, 397; METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 523.  IN THE CASE LAST NAMED WE HAD OCCASION TO
POINT OUT THE DIFFICULTY, ALBEIT THE NECESSITY, AS CASES ARISE WITHIN
THE DOUBTFUL ZONE, OF DRAWING THE LINE WHICH SEPARATES THOSE ACTIVITIES
WHICH HAVE SOME RELATION TO GOVERNMENT BUT ARE SUBJECT TO TAXATION FROM
THOSE WHICH ARE IMMUNE.  "EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN," WE SAID, "THAT THERE
IS NO FORMULA BY WHICH THAT LINE MAY BE PLOTTED WITH PRECISION IN
ADVANCE.  BUT RECOURSE MAY BE HAD TO THE REASON UPON WHICH THE RULE
RESTS, AND WHICH MUST BE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE TO CONTROL ITS
OPERATION.  ITS ORIGIN WAS DUE TO THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST EXERCISE ITS
AUTHORITY WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATES; AND IT RESTS ON
THE CONVICTION THAT EACH GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER THAT IT MAY ADMINISTER
ITS AFFAIRS WITHIN ITS OWN SPHERE, MUST BE LEFT FREE FROM UNDUE
INTERFERENCE BY THE OTHER." 

THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE CONSERVATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER FOR
A GREAT VARIETY OF PURPOSES - RANGING FROM ORDINARY AGRICULTURAL,
DOMESTIC AND SANITARY USES, TO THE PRESERVATION OF HEALTH AND OF LIFE
ITSELF - IS OBVIOUS AND WELL SETTLED.  FOR THE MODERN CITY, SUCH
CONSERVATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF WATER IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY AND IN A
STATE OF PURITY IS AS VITAL AS AIR.  AND THIS VITAL NECESSITY BECOMES
MORE AND MORE APPARENT AND PRESSING AS CITIES INCREASE IN POPULATION
AND DENSITY OF POPULATION.  IT HAS FOUND, SO FAR, ITS CULMINATING POINT
IN THE VAST AND SUPREME NEEDS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 

ONE OF THE MOST STRIKING ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE
USE OF WATER AND THE GOVERNMENTAL POWER TO DEAL WITH IT IS SHOWN IN
LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE ARID-LAND
STATES OF THE FAR WEST.  IN SOME OF THEM, THE STATE CONSTITUTION
ASSERTS PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF ALL UNAPPROPRIATED NONNAVIGABLE WATERS.  IN
UTAH, WHILE IT WAS STILL A TERRITORY, A STATUTE CONFERRED THE RIGHT
UPON INDIVIDUAL LAND OWNERS TO CONDEMN RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS THE LANDS
OF OTHERS IN ORDER TO CONVEY WATER TO THE FORMER FOR IRRIGATION
PURPOSES, AND DECLARED THAT SUCH CONDEMNATION WAS FOR A "PUBLIC USE." 
THIS COURT UPHELD THE STATUTE.  CLARK V. NASH, 198 U.S. 361.  WE SAID
THAT WHAT IS A PUBLIC USE MAY DEPEND UPON THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE
SUBJECT; POINTED OUT THE VITAL NEED OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION IN THE ARID
LAND STATES, A NEED WHICH DID NOT EXIST IN THE STATES OF THE EAST AND
WHERE, CONSEQUENTLY, A DIFFERENT RULE OBTAINED; AND HELD THAT THE COURT
MUST RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE OF CLIMATE AND SOIL WHICH RENDERED
NECESSARY DIFFERING LAWS IN THE TWO GROUPS OF STATES. 

MANY YEARS AGO, CONGRESS, RECOGNIZING THIS DIFFERENCE, PASSED THE
DESERT LAND ACT (C. 107, 19 STAT. 377), BY WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
THE WATERS UPON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE ARID-LAND STATES AND
TERRITORIES WERE DEDICATED TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOR IRRIGATION AND
OTHER PURPOSES.  FOLLOWING THIS ACT, IF NOT BEFORE, ALL NONNAVIGABLE
WATERS THEN ON AND BELONGING TO THAT PART OF THE NATIONAL DOMAIN BECAME
PUBLICI JURIS, SUBJECT TO THE PLENARY CONTROL OF THE ARID-LAND STATES
AND TERRITORIES WITH THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE TO WHAT EXTENT THE RULE OF
APPROPRIATION OR THE COMMON-LAW RULE IN RESPECT OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS
SHOULD OBTAIN.  CALIFORNIA OREGON POWER CO. V. BEAVER CEMENT CO., 295
U.S. 142, 155 ET SEQ. AND IN KANSAS V. COLORADO, 206 U.S. 46, 94, THIS
COURT ENTERTAINED AND DECIDED A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO STATES
INVOLVING THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE APPROPRIATORS IN COLORADO TO DIVERT
WATERS FOR THE IRRIGATION OF LANDS IN THAT STATE FROM A RIVER NATURALLY
AND CUSTOMARILY FLOWING INTO THE STATE OF KANSAS.  IT WAS HELD (P. 99)
THAT SUCH A CONTROVERSY RISES "ABOVE A MERE QUESTION OF LOCAL PRIVATE
RIGHT AND INVOLVES A MATTER OF STATE INTEREST, AND MUST BE CONSIDERED
FROM THAT STANDPOINT."  CF. HUDSON WATER CO. V. MCCARTER, 209 U.S. 349,
355; NEW ORLEANS GAS CO. V. DRAINAGE COMM'N, 197 U.S. 453, 460; HOUCK
V. LITTLE RIVER DISTRICT, 239 U.S. 254, 261. 

IN NEW ORLEANS V. MORRIS, 105 U.S. 600, 602, THE CITY HAD CONVEYED
ITS WATER WORKS TO A CORPORATION FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING
AND ENLARGING THEM.  THE CITY RECEIVED AS CONSIDERATION SHARES OF
STOCK, WHICH A STATE STATUTE DECLARED SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO SEIZURE
FOR THE DEBTS OF THE CITY.  IT WAS HELD THE STATUTE DID NOT IMPAIR THE
OBLIGATION OF ANY CONTRACT, SINCE THE SHARES REPRESENTED THE CITY'S
OWNERSHIP IN THE WATER WORKS WHICH HAD, BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE
STATUTE, BEEN EXEMPTED FROM SEIZURE AND SALE.  THIS RULING WAS PUT UPON
THE GROUND THAT THE WATER WORKS WERE OF SUCH PUBLIC UTILITY AND
NECESSITY THAT THEY WERE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE USE OF THE CITIZENS THE
SAME AS PUBLIC PARKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS. 

WHILE THESE CASES DO NOT DECIDE, THEY PLAINLY SUGGEST, THAT MUNICIPAL
WATER WORKS CREATED AND OPERATED IN ORDER TO SUPPLY THE NEEDS OF A CITY
AND ITS INHABITANTS ARE PUBLIC WORKS AND THEIR OPERATION ESSENTIALLY
GOVERNMENTAL IN CHARACTER.  OTHER DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, HOWEVER,
MORE DIRECTLY SUPPORT THAT CONCLUSION.    WE RECENTLY HAVE HELD THAT
THE BANKRUPTCY STATUTES COULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO MUNICIPALITIES OR
OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF A STATE.  ASHTON V. CAMERON COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT, 298 U.S. 513.  THE RESPONDENT THERE WAS A WATER
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ORGANIZED BY LAW TO FURNISH WATER FOR IRRIGATION
AND DOMESTIC USES.  WE SAID (PP. 527-528) THAT RESPONDENT WAS A
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE "CREATED FOR THE LOCAL EXERCISE OF
HER SOVEREIGN POWERS,  ...  ITS FISCAL AFFAIRS ARE THOSE OF THE STATE,
NOT SUBJECT TO CONTROL OR INTERFERENCE BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT,
UNLESS THE RIGHT SO TO DO IS DEFINITELY ACCORDED BY THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION."  IN SUPPORT OF THAT HOLDING, FORMER DECISIONS OF THIS
COURT WITH RESPECT TO THE IMMUNITY OF STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES FROM
FEDERAL TAXATION WERE RELIED UPON AS APPOSITE.  THE QUESTION WHETHER
THE DISTRICT EXERCISED GOVERNMENTAL OR MERELY CORPORATE FUNCTIONS WAS
DISTINCTLY IN ISSUE.  THE PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY ALLEGED THAT THE
DISTRICT WAS CREATED WITH POWER TO PERFORM "THE PROPRIETARY AND/OR
CORPORATE FUNCTION OF FURNISHING WATER FOR IRRIGATION AND DOMESTIC USES
..."  THE DISTRICT JUDGE HELD THAT THE DISTRICT WAS CREATED FOR THE
LOCAL EXERCISE OF STATE SOVEREIGN POWERS; THAT IT WAS EXERCISING "A
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION"; THAT ITS PROPERTY WAS PUBLIC PROPERTY; THAT IT
WAS NOT CARRYING ON PRIVATE BUSINESS, BUT PUBLIC BUSINESS.  THAT COURT,
HAVING DENIED THE PETITION FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, THE DISTRICT
SUBMITTED A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IN WHICH IT ASSIGNED, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THAT THE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER WAS CREATED FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMING GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, "FOR THE REASON THAT
THE COURTS OF TEXAS, AS WELL AS THE OTHER COURTS IN THE NATION, HAVE
UNIFORMLY HELD THAT THE FURNISHING OF WATER FOR IRRIGATION WAS PURELY A
PROPRIETARY FUNCTION  ..."  SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME THING WAS REPEATED
IN OTHER ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR.  IN THE PETITION FOR REHEARING IN THIS
COURT, THE DISTRICT CHALLENGED OUR DETERMINATION THAT RESPONDENT WAS A
POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE "CREATED FOR THE LOCAL EXERCISE OF
HER SOVEREIGN POWERS," AND ASSERTED TO THE CONTRARY THAT THE FACTS
WOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT "RESPONDENT IS A CORPORATION ORGANIZED FOR
ESSENTIALLY PROPRIETARY PURPOSES."  IT IS NOT OPEN TO DISPUTE THAT THE
STATEMENTS QUOTED FROM OUR OPINION IN THE ASHTON CASE WERE MADE AFTER
DUE CONSIDERATION, AND THE CASE ITSELF DECIDED AND THE REHEARING DENIED
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUE THUS DEFINITELY PRESENTED.  COMPARE BINGHAM
V. UNITED STATES, 296 U.S. 211, 218-219. 

"NO HIGHER POLICE DUTY RESTS UPON MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY," THIS COURT
SAID IN COLUMBUS V. MERCANTILE TRUST CO., 218 U.S. 645, 658, "THAN THAT
OF FURNISHING AN AMPLE SUPPLY OF PURE AND WHOLESOME WATER FOR PUBLIC
AND DOMESTIC USES.  THE PRESERVATION OF THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY IS
BEST OBTAINED BY THE DISCHARGE OF THIS DUTY, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE
PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY FROM FIRE, SO CONSTANT AN ATTENDANT UPON
CROWDED CONDITIONS OF MUNICIPAL LIFE." 

IN DUNBAR V. NEW YORK CITY, 251 U.S. 516, WE SUSTAINED A CHARTER
PROVISION GIVING A LIEN FOR WATER CHARGES UPON A BUILDING IN WHICH THE
WATER HAD BEEN USED, ALTHOUGH THE CHARGES HAD BEEN INCURRED BY TENANTS
AND NOT BY THE OWNER, SAYING - "AND AS A SUPPLY OF WATER IS NECESSARY
IT IS ONLY AN ORDINARY AND LEGAL EXERTION OF GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE
MEANS FOR ITS COMPULSORY COMPENSATION." 

IN GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. HOME WATER CO., 226 U.S. 220, THE CITY
OF SPARTANBURG HAD ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE RESPONDENT BY WHICH
THE LATTER WAS EMPOWERED TO SUPPLY THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS WITH
WATER SUITABLE FOR FIRE, SANITARY AND DOMESTIC PURPOSES.  THE
PETITIONER HAD ISSUED A POLICY OF FIRE INSURANCE UPON CERTAIN PROPERTY,
WHICH WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE.  IT PAID THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS, AND TOOK
AN ASSIGNMENT FROM THE INSURED OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST ANY
PERSON ARISING FROM OR CONNECTED WITH THE LOSS.  IT BROUGHT SUIT
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE FIRE COULD EASILY HAVE
BEEN EXTINGUISHED IF RESPONDENT HAD COMPLIED WITH ITS CONTRACT.  THIS
COURT HELD THAT THE ACTION WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR REASONS WHICH
APPEAR IN THE OPINION.  THE CITY, IT WAS SAID, WAS UNDER NO LEGAL
OBLIGATION TO FURNISH WATER; AND IT DID NOT SUBJECT ITSELF TO A NEW OR
GREATER LIABILITY BECAUSE IT VOLUNTARILY UNDERTOOK TO DO SO (PP. 227
228).  "IT ACTED IN A GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY, AND WAS NO MORE
RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILURE IN THAT RESPECT THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR
FAILURE TO FURNISH ADEQUATE POLICE PROTECTION." 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A SUPPLY OF
WATER FOR THE NEEDS OF THE MODERN CITY INVOLVE THE EXERCISE OF
ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, AND THIS CONCLUSION IS FORTIFIED BY A
CONSIDERATION OF THE PUBLIC USES TO WHICH THE WATER IS PUT.  WITHOUT
SUCH A SUPPLY, PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PUBLIC SEWERS SO NECESSARY TO PRESERVE
HEALTH, FIRE DEPARTMENTS, STREET SPRINKLING AND CLEANING, PUBLIC
BUILDINGS, PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, AND PUBLIC BATHS, COULD NOT EXIST.  AND
THIS IS EQUIVALENT, IN A VERY REAL SENSE, TO SAYING THAT THE CITY
ITSELF WOULD THEN DISAPPEAR.  MORE THAN ONE-FOURTH OF THE WATER
FURNISHED BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK, WE ARE TOLD BY THE RECORD, IS
UTILIZED FOR THESE PUBLIC PURPOSES.  CERTAINLY, THE MAINTENANCE OF
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, A FIRE DEPARTMENT, A SYSTEM OF SEWERS, PARKS AND PUBLIC
BUILDINGS, TO SAY NOTHING OF OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND USES, CALLS
FOR THE EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS.  AND SO FAR AS THESE ARE
CONCERNED, THE WATER SUPPLY IS A NECESSARY AUXILIARY, AND, THEREFORE,
PARTAKES OF THEIR NATURE.  NEW YORK EX REL. ROGERS V. GRAVES, 299 U.S.
401, 406.  MOREOVER, THE HEALTH AND COMFORT OF THE CITY'S POPULATION OF
7,000,000 SOULS, AND IN SOME DEGREE THEIR VERY EXISTENCE, ARE DEPENDENT
UPON AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF PURE AND WHOLESOME WATER.  IT MAY BE, AS IT
IS SUGGESTED, THAT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS WOULD BE ABLE AND WILLING TO
UNDERTAKE TO PROVIDE A SUPPLY OF WATER FOR ALL PURPOSES; BUT IF THE
STATE AND CITY OF NEW YORK BE OF OPINION, AS THEY EVIDENTLY ARE, THAT
THE SERVICE SHOULD NOT BE ENTRUSTED TO PRIVATE HANDS BUT SHOULD BE
RENDERED BY THE CITY ITSELF AS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF DISCHARGING ITS
DUTY TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND LIVES OF ITS INHABITANTS, WE DO
NOT DOUBT THAT IT MAY DO SO IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS. 

WE FIND NOTHING THAT DETRACTS FROM THIS VIEW IN THE FACT THAT IN
FORMER TIMES THE BUSINESS OF FURNISHING WATER TO URBAN COMMUNITIES,
INCLUDING NEW YORK, IN FACT WAS LEFT LARGELY, OR EVEN ENTIRELY, TO
PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.  THE TENDENCY FOR MANY YEARS HAS BEEN IN THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION, UNTIL NOW IN NEARLY ALL THE LARGER CITIES OF THE
COUNTRY THE DUTY HAS BEEN ASSUMED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. 
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS ARE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS NON-EXISTENT BECAUSE
THEY ARE HELD IN ABEYANCE, OR BECAUSE THEY LIE DORMANT, FOR A TIME.  IF
THEY BE BY THEIR NATURE GOVERNMENTAL, THEY ARE NONE THE LESS SO BECAUSE
THE USE OF THEM HAS HAD A RECENT BEGINNING. 

THE PRINCIPLE FINDS ILLUSTRATION IN OUR DECISION IN SHOEMAKER V.
UNITED STATES, 147 U.S. 282, 297, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT LAND TAKEN BY
AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
ROCK CREEK PARK IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WAS TAKEN FOR A PUBLIC USE,
AND THAT THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO BE PAID WAS VALIDLY ASSESSED UPON LANDS
IN THE DISTRICT SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY.  AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
OPINION IN THAT CASE, THIS COURT SAID:  "IN THE MEMORY OF MEN NOW
LIVING, A PROPOSITION TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF
ITS OWNER, FOR A PUBLIC PARK, AND TO ASSESS A PROPORTIONATE PART OF THE
COST UPON REAL ESTATE BENEFITED THEREBY, WOULD HAVE BEEN REGARDED AS A
NOVEL EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER."  IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT CENTRAL
PARK IN NEW YORK WAS THE FIRST PLACE PROVIDED FOR THE INHABITANTS OF
ANY CITY OR TOWN IN THE UNITED STATES AS A PLEASURE GROUND FOR REST AND
EXERCISE IN THE OPEN AIR, BUT THAT IN 1892, WHEN THE OPINION WAS
WRITTEN, THERE WAS SCARCELY A CITY OF ANY CONSIDERABLE SIZE IN THE
COUNTRY THAT DID NOT HAVE, OR HAD NOT PROJECTED, SUCH PARKS. 

RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE MUNICIPALITY, IN SUPPLYING WATER TO ITS
INHABITANTS, IS ENGAGED IN SELLING WATER FOR PROFIT; AND SEEMS TO THINK
THAT THIS, IF TRUE, STAMPS THE OPERATION AS PRIVATE AND NOT
GOVERNMENTAL IN CHARACTER.  WE FIRST PAUSE TO OBSERVE THAT THE OVERHEAD
DUE TO THE ENORMOUS COST OF THE SYSTEM, AND THE FACT THAT SO LARGE A
PROPORTION OF THE WATER IS DIVERTED FOR PUBLIC USE, RATHER PLAINLY
SUGGESTS THAT NO REAL PROFIT IS LIKELY TO RESULT.  AND TO SAY THAT,
BECAUSE THE CITY MAKES A CHARGE FOR FURNISHING WATER TO PRIVATE
CONSUMERS, IT FOLLOWS THAT THE OPERATION OF THE WATER WORKS IS
CORPORATE AND NOT GOVERNMENTAL, IS TO BEG THE QUESTION.  WHAT THE CITY
IS ENGAGED IN DOING IN THAT RESPECT IS RATHER RENDERING A SERVICE THAN
SELLING A COMMODITY.  IF THAT SERVICE BE GOVERNMENTAL IT DOES NOT
BECOME PRIVATE BECAUSE A CHARGE IS MADE FOR IT, OR A PROFIT REALIZED. 
A STATE, FOR EXAMPLE, CONSTRUCTS AND OPERATES A HIGHWAY.  IT MAY, IF IT
CHOOSE, EXACT COMPENSATION FOR ITS USE FROM THOSE WHO TRAVEL OVER IT
(SEE BINGAMAN V. GOLDEN EAGLE LINES, 297 U.S. 626, 628); BUT THIS DOES
NOT DESTROY THE CLAIM THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE HIGHWAY IS A PUBLIC
AND GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.  THE STATE OR THE CITY MAY EXACT A TUITION
CHARGE FOR INSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS; BUT THEREBY THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS DOES NOT CEASE TO BE A FUNCTION OF
THE GOVERNMENT.  THE STATE EXACTS A FEE FOR ISSUING A LICENSE OR
GRANTING A PERMIT; FOR RECORDING A DEED; FOR RENDERING A VARIETY OF
SERVICES IN THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.  DO THESE VARIOUS SERVICES THEREBY
LOSE THEIR CHARACTER AS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS?  THE FEDERAL POST
OFFICE DEPARTMENT CHARGES FOR ITS SERVICES; BUT NO ONE WOULD QUESTION
THE FACT THAT ITS OPERATION CALLS INTO EXERCISE A GOVERNMENTAL
FUNCTION. 

THE CONTENTION IS MADE THAT OUR DECISIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED
STATES, 199 U.S. 437, 461, 462, AND FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S.
107, 172, ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SUPPLYING OF WATER IS NOT A
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION; BUT IN NEITHER CASE WAS THAT QUESTION IN ISSUE,
AND WHAT WAS SAID BY THE COURT WAS WHOLLY UNNECESSARY TO THE
DISPOSITION OF THE CASES AND MERELY BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION. 
EXPRESSIONS OF THAT KIND MAY BE RESPECTED, BUT DO NOT CONTROL IN A
SUBSEQUENT CASE WHEN THE PRECISE POINT IS PRESENTED FOR DECISION. 
OSAKA SHOSEN KAISHA LINE V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, PP. 98, 103, AND
AUTHORITIES CITED.  THE PRECISE POINT IS PRESENTED HERE, HAS BEEN FULLY
CONSIDERED, AND IS DECIDED OTHERWISE.  NEITHER OHIO V. HELVERING, 292
U.S. 360, NOR HELVERING V. POWERS, 293 U.S. 214, RELIED UPON BY
RESPONDENT, IS IN POINT.  WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID DISTINGUISHES
THOSE CASES FROM THE ONE NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION. 

WE HAVE NOT FAILED TO GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO BLAIR V. BYERS,
35 F.(2D) 326, AND DENMAN V. COMMISSIONER, 73 F.(2D) 193, BOTH OF WHICH
TAKE A VIEW CONTRARY TO THAT WHICH WE HAVE EXPRESSED.  TO THE EXTENT OF
THIS CONFLICT, THOSE CASES ARE DISAPPROVED.  BOTH RELY ON SOUTH
CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES AND FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., SUPRA, WHICH WE
HAVE ALREADY DISTINGUISHED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THIS IS BROUGHT OUT IN A CAREFUL AND DETAILED REVIEW BY
PROFESSOR BORCHARD IN THAT PORTION OF HIS GENERAL DISCUSSION OF
"GOVERNMENT LIABILITY IN TORT" DEALING WITH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, TO
BE FOUND IN (1924-5) 34 YALE L.J. 129-143, 229-258, IN THE COURSE OF
WHICH HE SAYS (P. 129): "DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE COURTS AS TO MANY
CUSTOMARY MUNICIPAL ACTS AND FUNCTIONS MAY ALMOST BE SAID TO BE MORE
COMMON THAN AGREEMENT AND THE ELABORATION OF THE VARYING JUSTIFICATIONS
FOR THEIR CLASSIFICATION IS EVEN LESS SATISFYING TO ANY DEMAND FOR
PRINCIPLE IN THE LAW.  INDEED, SO HOPELESS DID THE EFFORT OF THE COURTS
TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE CLASSIFICATION OF FUNCTIONS APPEAR TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA THAT THEY DETERMINED TO ABANDON THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOVERNMENTAL AND CORPORATE ACTS." 

FN2  SEE HERRON V. PITTSBURGH, 204 PA. 509, 513; 54 ATL. 311; JONES
V. SIOUX CITY, 185 IOWA 1178, 1185; 170 N.W. 445; TWIST V. ROCHESTER,
55 N.Y. SUPP. 850.  COMPARE KUNZ V. TROY, 104 N.Y. 344, 348; 10 N.E.
442, WITH ALTVATER V. MAYOR OF BALTIMORE, 31 MD. 462. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, CONCURRING IN THE RESULT: 

WE CONCUR IN THE RESULT UPON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAS
BROUGHT HIMSELF WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE EXEMPTION PRESCRIBED BY
TREASURY REGULATION 74, ARTICLE 643, WHICH FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS
CASE MAY BE ACCEPTED AS VALID, ITS VALIDITY NOT BEING CHALLENGED BY
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT. 

IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A CHALLENGE NO OPINION IS EXPRESSED AS TO THE
NEED FOR REVISION OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED IMMUNITIES DECLARED IN
EARLIER DECISIONS. 

WE LEAVE THAT SUBJECT OPEN. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS, DISSENTING: 

I REGRET THAT I AM UNABLE TO CONCUR IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  I
THINK THAT THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 

THERE IS NO OCCASION NOW TO DISCUSS THE DUAL CHARACTER OF OUR FORM OF
GOVERNMENT, AND THE CONSEQUENT DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF A CITIZEN OF A STATE
TO HIS STATE AND TO THE UNITED STATES, TO ELABORATE THE THESIS THAT THE
INTEGRITY OF EACH GOVERNMENT IS TO BE MAINTAINED AGAINST INVASIONS BY
THE OTHER, OR TO REITERATE THAT THE IMPLIED IMMUNITY OF THE ONE FROM
TAXATION BY THE OTHER SPRINGS FROM THE NECESSITY THAT NEITHER SHALL, BY
THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO TAX, BURDEN, HINDER OR DESTROY THE
OPERATION OR EXISTENCE OF THE OTHER.  THERE IS UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION OF
THE TRUTH OF THESE TENETS, AND OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RELATION TO THE
PRESERVATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK OF THE NATION.  OUR
DIFFICULTIES ARISE, NOT IN THEIR STATEMENT AS GUIDING PRINCIPLES, BUT,
AS IN THIS INSTANCE, IN THEIR APPLICATION TO SPECIFIC CASES. 

THE FRANK ADMISSIONS OF COUNSEL AT THE BAR CONCERNING THE CONFUSION
AND APPARENT INCONSISTENCY IN ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS AS TO THE
TAXABILITY OF COMPENSATION OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES SEEMS TO CALL FOR AN
EQUALLY CANDID STATEMENT THAT OUR DECISIONS IN THE SAME FIELD HAVE NOT
FURNISHED THE EXECUTIVE A CONSISTENT RULE OF ACTION.  THE NEED OF
EQUITABLE AND UNIFORM ADMINISTRATION OF TAX LAWS, NATIONAL AND STATE,
AND THE JUST DEMAND OF THE CITIZEN THAT THE RULES GOVERNING THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE LAWS SHALL BE ASCERTAINABLE REQUIRE AN ATTEMPT AT
RATIONALIZATION AND RESTATEMENT.    IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE RECIPROCAL
RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES OF THE NATIONAL AND A STATE GOVERNMENT MAY BE
SAFEGUARDED BY THE OBSERVANCE OF TWO LIMITATIONS UPON THEIR RESPECTIVE
POWERS OF TAXATION.  THESE ARE THAT THE EXACTIONS OF THE ONE MUST NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MEANS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE OTHER AND
MUST NOT DIRECTLY BURDEN THE OPERATIONS OF THAT OTHER.  TO STATE THESE
CANONS OTHERWISE:  AN EXACTION BY EITHER GOVERNMENT WHICH HITS THE
MEANS OR INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE OTHER INFRINGES THE PRINCIPLE OF
IMMUNITY IF IT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THEM AND IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE
CITIZENS OR IF THE BURDEN OF THE TAX BE PALPABLE AND DIRECT RATHER THAN
HYPOTHETIC AND REMOTE.  TESTED BY THESE CRITERIA THE IMPOSITION OF THE
CHALLENGED TAX IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS LAWFUL. 

THE PETITIONER IS A CITIZEN OF NEW YORK.  BY VIRTUE OF THAT STATUS HE
IS ALSO A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.  HE OWES ALLEGIANCE TO EACH
GOVERNMENT.  HE DERIVES INCOME FROM THE EXERCISE OF HIS PROFESSION. 
HIS OBLIGATION AS A CITIZEN IS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUPPORT OF THE
GOVERNMENTS UNDER WHOSE JOINT PROTECTION HE LIVES AND PURSUES HIS
CALLING.  HIS LIABILITY TO FULFILL THAT OBLIGATION TO THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT BY PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX UPON HIS SALARY WOULD BE
UNQUESTIONED WERE IT NOT FOR THE CHARACTER OF HIS EMPLOYER.  IF THE
WATER WORKS OF NEW YORK CITY WERE OPERATED BY A PRIVATE CORPORATION
UNDER A PUBLIC FRANCHISE AND IF THE PETITIONER HELD A LIKE POSITION
WITH THE CORPORATION, THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION THAT THE IMPOSITION OF
A FEDERAL INCOME TAX, MEASURED BY HIS COMPENSATION, WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED.  IF PETITIONER, INSTEAD OF HOLDING A SO-CALLED OFFICIAL
POSITION UNDER THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF NEW YORK CITY, WERE
CONSULTED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH RESPECT TO ITS WATER PROBLEMS HIS
COMPENSATION WOULD BE SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX.  (METCALF & EDDY V.
MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514.)  HE IS PUT INTO AN UNTAXABLE CLASS UPON THE
THEORY THAT AS AN OFFICIAL OF THE MUNICIPALITY, WHICH IN TURN IS AN ARM
OF THE STATE, HE IS AN "INSTRUMENTALITY" OF THE STATE, AND TO TAX HIM
UPON HIS SALARY IS TO LAY A BURDEN UPON THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHICH,
HOWEVER TRIFLING, IS FORBIDDEN BY THE IMPLIED IMMUNITY OF THE STATE
FROM BURDENS IMPOSED BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE PETITIONER SEEKS TO
SHOW THE REALITY OF THE SUPPOSED BURDEN BY THE SUGGESTION THAT IF HIS
SALARY AND THE COMPENSATION OF OTHERS EMPLOYED BY THE CITY IS SUBJECT
TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX, THE MUNICIPALITY WILL BE COMPELLED TO PAY HIGHER
SALARIES IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF SUCH PERSONS AND THE
CONSEQUENT AGGREGATE INCREASE IN OUTLAY WILL ENTAIL A HEAVY FINANCIAL
LOAD.  WE KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE OFFERED IN THE
INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS FIELD; AND THAT WHILE THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST
STANDARD OF COMPENSATION, AND MEN BARGAIN FOR THEIR REWARDS, SALARIES
DO BEAR SOME RELATION TO EXPERIENCE AND ABILITY.  THERE IS A MARKET IN
WHICH A PROFESSIONAL MAN OFFERS HIS SERVICES AND MUNICIPALITIES ARE
BIDDERS IN THAT MARKET.  WE KNOW FURTHER THAT THOSE IN PRIVATE
EMPLOYMENT HOLDING POSITIONS COMPARABLE TO THAT OF THE PETITIONER PAY A
TAX EQUAL TO THAT LEVIED UPON HIM.  IT IS CLEAR THAT ANY CONSIDERATION
OF THE PETITIONER'S IMMUNITY FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAX WOULD BE
ALTOGETHER REMOTE, IMPALPABLE AND UNASCERTAINABLE IN INFLUENCING HIM TO
ACCEPT A POSITION UNDER THE MUNICIPALITY RATHER THAN UNDER A PRIVATE
EMPLOYER. 

IN REASON AND LOGIC IT IS DIFFICULT TO DIFFERENTIATE THE PRESENT CASE
FROM THAT OF A PRIVATE CITIZEN WHO FURNISHES GOODS, PERFORMS WORK OR
RENDERS SERVICE TO A STATE OR A MUNICIPALITY UNDER A CONTRACT OR AN
OFFICER OR EMPLOYE OF A CORPORATION WHICH DOES THE SAME.  INCOME TAX ON
THE COMPENSATION PAID OR THE PROFIT REALIZED IS A NECESSARY COST
INCIDENT TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT AND AS SUCH MUST BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT IN FIXING THE CONSIDERATION DEMANDED OF THE CITY
GOVERNMENT.  IN QUITE AS REAL A SENSE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE TAXATION OF
INCOME OF SUCH PERSONS AND, AS WELL, THE TAXATION OF THE CORPORATION
ITSELF, LAYS A BURDEN UPON THE FUNDS OF THE STATE OR ITS AGENCY. 
NEVERTHELESS, THE COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY DECLARED THAT THE DOCTRINE OF
IMMUNITY WILL NOT SERVE TO EXEMPT SUCH PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS FROM THE
EXACTION. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE ARISES OUT OF THE FACT THAT THE CLAIMED
EXEMPTION MAY WELL EXTEND TO MILLIONS OF PERSONS (WHOSE WORK NOWISE
DIFFERS FROM THAT OF THEIR FELLOWS IN PRIVATE ENTERPRISE) WHO ARE
EMPLOYED BY MUNICIPAL SUBDIVISIONS AND DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE NATION
AND THAT, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POWERS OF THE STATES TO TAX MAY BE
INHIBITED IN THE CASE OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SIMILAR EMPLOYES OF
FEDERAL AGENCIES OF ONE SORT OR ANOTHER.  SUCH EXEMPTIONS FROM TAXATION
OUGHT TO BE STRICTLY LIMITED.  THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY UNFAIR.  THEY ARE
UNSOUND BECAUSE FEDERAL OR STATE BUSINESS OUGHT TO BEAR ITS
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF TAXATION IN ORDER THAT COMPARISON MAY BE MADE
BETWEEN THE COST OF CONDUCTING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUSINESS. 

WE ARE HERE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE QUESTION OF THE TAXATION OF
SALARIES OR COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THOSE RENDERING TO A MUNICIPALITY
SERVICES OF THE SAME KIND AS ARE RENDERED TO PRIVATE EMPLOYERS AND NEED
NOT GO BEYOND THE PRECISE ISSUE HERE PRESENTED.  WE HAVE NO CONCERN
WITH THE EXACTION OF A SALES TAX BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON SALES TO
A STATE GOVERNMENT OR ONE OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS, OR THE REVERSE; WE ARE
NOT CALLED UPON TO DEFINE THE POWER TO LEVY TAXES UPON REAL PROPERTY
OWNED BY A STATE OR BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.  WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO
DISCUSS THE POWER OF EITHER GOVERNMENT TO IMPOSE EXCISE TAXES UPON
TRANSACTIONS OF THE OTHER OR UPON THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. 
NOR ARE WE CALLED UPON HERE TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF A
NONDISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON THE SALARY OF A GOVERNMENTAL OFFICER WHOSE
DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS HAVE NO ANALOGUE IN THE CONDUCT OF A BUSINESS OR
THE PURSUIT OF A PROFESSION, BUT ARE BOTH PECULIAR TO AND ESSENTIAL TO
THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT.  THE SOLE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER ONE
PERFORMING WORK OR RENDERING SERVICE OF A TYPE COMMONLY DONE OR
RENDERED IN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL LIFE FOR GAIN IS EXEMPT FROM THE NORMAL
BURDEN OF A TAX ON THAT GAIN FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
BECAUSE HIS COMPENSATION IS PAID BY A STATE AGENCY INSTEAD OF A PRIVATE
EMPLOYER.  I THINK THE IMPOSITION OF A TAX UPON SUCH GAIN WHERE, AS
HERE, THE TAX FALLS EQUALLY UPON ALL EMPLOYED IN LIKE OCCUPATION, AND
WHERE THE SUPPOSED BURDEN OF THE TAX UPON STATE GOVERNMENT IS INDIRECT,
REMOTE, AND IMPONDERABLE, IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF
IMMUNITY INHERENT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL RELATION OF STATE AND NATION. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS JOINS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :










AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. HAWORTH, 300 U.S. 227 


NO. 446.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 695, REVERSED. 


1.  THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT DEALS WITH "CONTROVERSIES" IN
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE AND IS PROCEDURAL ONLY.  P. 239. 

2.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS CONTROL OVER PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, CONGRESS IS NOT LIMITED TO TRADITIONAL FORMS OR
REMEDIES BUT MAY CREATE AND IMPROVE AS WELL AS ABOLISH OR RESTRICT.  P.
240. 

3.  A CONTROVERSY, IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE AND IN THE SENSE OF
THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT, MUST BE JUSTICIABLE - IT MUST BE DEFINITE
AND CONCRETE, TOUCHING THE LEGAL RELATION OF PARTIES HAVING ADVERSE
LEGAL INTERESTS - IT MUST BE A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY
ADMITTING OF SPECIFIC RELIEF THROUGH A CONCLUSIVE DECREE, AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM AN OPINION ADVISING WHAT THE LAW WOULD BE UPON A
HYPOTHETICAL STATEMENT OF FACTS.  P. 240. 

4.  THERE MAY BE ADJUDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES WITHOUT AWARD
OF PROCESS OR PAYMENT OF DAMAGES AND WHERE NO ALLEGATION OF IRREPARABLE
INJURY IS MADE.  P. 241. 

5.  WHERE THE HOLDER OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES CLAIMS, UNDER
DISABILITY BENEFIT CLAUSES, THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING NONPAYMENT OF
PREMIUMS, THE POLICIES, BY REASON OF HIS TOTAL AND PERMANENT
DISABILITY, REMAIN IN FORCE AND ENTITLE HIM TO CASH BENEFITS, AND MAKES
REPEATED AND PERSISTENT DEMANDS UPON THE INSURER ACCORDINGLY; WHEREAS
THE INSURER DENIES THAT SUCH DISABILITY EXISTED AND INSISTS THAT THE
POLICIES HAVE LAPSED BECAUSE THE PREMIUMS WERE NOT PAID, THERE IS AN
"ACTUAL CONTROVERSY" ON WHICH SUIT MAY BE MAINTAINED BY THE INSURER
AGAINST THE INSURED UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT P. 242. 

AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. HAWORTH ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 536. 

THIS SUIT BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACT, WAS DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE GROUND THAT
THERE WAS NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.  11 F.SUPP.  1016.  THE DECREE
WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT BELOW. 

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.  ASHWANDER V.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V.
WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249. 

THE BRINGING OF THIS SUIT DOES NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENTS OF A JURY
TRIAL.  THE ACT MAKES EXPRESS PROVISION FOR SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS OF
FACT TO A JURY. 

THERE IS AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACT AND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION SHOW THERE IS A CONTROVERSY OF A
DEFINITE, SPECIFIC AND SUBSTANTIAL CHARACTER.  THE CLAIMS OF THE POLICY
HOLDER HAVE BEEN CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY ASSERTED IN WRITING, AND
PETITIONER'S DENIALS OF THESE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN EQUALLY SPECIFIC AND
CONSISTENT.  THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES DEPEND UPON A
DETERMINATION OF THE SINGLE CLEAR-CUT ISSUE - WHETHER DISABILITY
EXISTED WHEN PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS CEASED.  THE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER
TO TREAT THE POLICIES AS LAPSED BECAME COMPLETE WHEN PREMIUM PAYMENTS
CEASED, IF THE REQUISITE DISABILITY DID NOT THEN EXIST.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE RIGHT OF THE INSURED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS AND THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE POLICIES IN FORCE DURING THE CONTINUANCE OF
DISABILITY THEN BECAME COMPLETE IF SUCH DISABILITY DID EXIST. 

THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN AN OPINION BASED ON AN UNCERTAIN OR
HYPOTHETICAL STATE OF FACTS, AS IN LIBERTY WAREHOUSE CO. V. GRANNIS,
273 U.S. 70. 

THE CLAIMS OF THE INSURED ARE NOT MERE EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION IN
PRIVATE CONVERSATION, AS IN WILLING V. CHICAGO AUDITORIUM ASSN., 277
U.S. 274, 288, NOR INDEFINITE AND UNSPECIFIC AS IN NEW JERSEY V.
SARGENT, 269 U.S. 328.  ON THE CONTRARY, THEY ARE COUCHED IN FORMAL
LANGUAGE, ATTESTED BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC, AND ACCOMPANIED BY A
PHYSICIAN'S SWORN CERTIFICATE.  AT FREQUENT INTERVALS AND AT LEAST
THIRTEEN TIMES, BEGINNING IN 1930, THESE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN REASSERTED IN
SIMILAR FORM. 

THE PRESENT SUIT IS SIMILAR IN ITS ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS TO
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249.  SEE ALSO GULLY V.
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 82 F.(2D) 145, CERT. DEN., 298 U.S. 688;
TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. V. HELMER, 15 F.SUPP.  355; NEW YORK LIFE INS.
CO. V. LONDON, 15 F.SUPP.  586. 

THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PETITION DISCLOSE A SITUATION WHICH WOULD
ENABLE THE POLICYHOLDER TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER. 

A PARTY WHO WOULD NORMALLY BE DEFENDANT UNDER OTHER FORMS OF
PROCEDURE MAY SEEK A DECLARATION UNDER THE ACT.  FIDELITY NATIONAL BANK
& TRUST CO. V. SWOPE, 274 U.S. 123; TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. V. HELMER,
SUPRA; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. LONDON, SUPRA. 

THERE ARE OTHER DECISIONS BY THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS HOLDING THAT
SUITS MAY BE BROUGHT UNDER THE ACT BY THE PARTY TO THE CONTROVERSY WHO
WOULD NORMALLY OTHERWISE BE THE DEFENDANT.  OHIO CASUALTY CO. V.
PLUMMER, 13 F.SUPP.  169; COMMERCIAL CASUALTY CO. V. HUMPHREY, 13
F.SUPP.  174; BLACK V. LITTLE, 8 F.SUPP.  867; LIONEL CORP. V. DE
FILIPPIS, 11 F.SUPP.  712; ZENIE BROS. V. MISKEND, 10 F.SUPP.  779;
MCKESSON & ROBBINS V. CHARSKY, 15 F.SUPP.  209. 

LIKE HOLDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE IN NUMEROUS CASES UNDER STATE
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTS.  AMERICAN MOTORISTS INS. CO. V. CENTRAL
GARAGE, 86 N.H. 362; OWEN V. FLETCHER SAVINGS & TRUST CO., 99 IND. APP.
365; PULSIFER V. WALKER, 85 N.H. 434; HESS V. COUNTRY CLUB PARK, 213
CAL. 613; TOLLE V. STRUVE, 124 CAL. APP. 263; UTICA MUTUAL INS. CO. V.
GLENNIE, 132 MISC. REP. 899; WOODWARD V. FOX WEST COAST THEATERS, 36
ARIZ. 251.  ALSO IN ENGLAND.  GUARANTY TRUST CO. V. HANNAY & CO.,
(C.A.)  2 K.B. 536, 555(1915).  SEE FAULKNER V. KEENE, 85 N.H. 147,
155; BORCHARD IN CHICAGO LAW REVIEW, 1936, VOL. 4, NO. 1. 

THE REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ACCOMPANYING THE
BILL TO AMEND THE JUDICIAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION TO BE NUMBERED
274D, REPORT NO. 1005, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., MAY 10, 1934; BORCHARD,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS, P. 634, STATES THE ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR
RENDERING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.  IT IS NOT INDICATED THAT THERE MUST
BE EITHER A PENDING SUIT OR A THREAT OF IMMEDIATE SUIT BY THE PARTIES
AGAINST WHOM THE DECLARATION IS SOUGHT.  THE CASES DO NOT MAKE SUCH A
REQUIREMENT. 

ONE OF THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PROCEDURE IS TO
PROVIDE MEANS FOR THE PROMPT SETTLEMENT OF CONTROVERSIES.  THIS
OBJECTIVE WOULD NOT BE ATTAINED IF A PARTY ASSERTING A CLAIM COULD
PREVENT HIS ADVERSARY FROM INSTITUTING AN ACTION BY THE SIMPLE
EXPEDIENT OF NOT STATING WHEN HE PROPOSED TO SUE TO ENFORCE THE CLAIM. 

PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO PROMPT AND EFFICIENT RELIEF AND SHOULD NOT
BE COMPELLED TO WAIT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ITS ADVERSARIES CHOOSE TO BRING
SUIT.  BANK V. STONE, 88 FED. 383, 391, OPINION BY JUDGE TAFT WITH WHOM
SAT MR. JUSTICE HARLAN AND JUDGE LURTON; MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
PEARSON, 114 FED. 295; LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. HAMMER, 41
F.(2D) 12.  SEE TOLLE V. STRUVE, 124 CAL. APP. 263; PETITION OF
KARIHER, 284 PA. 455, 463. 

THE REPEATED, FORMAL ASSERTIONS OF CLAIM BY THE POLICYHOLDER IN THE
CASE AT BAR ARE FAR MORE CONCLUSIVE AS SHOWING A DETERMINATION TO
ENFORCE THESE CLAIMS BY COURT ACTION THAN WOULD BE A MERE THREAT TO
SUE. 

A DECISION IN THIS SUIT WILL BE A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE
CONTROVERSY.  FIDELITY NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO. V. SWOPE, 274 U.S.
123. 

THE FACT THAT RIGHTS WHICH MIGHT SUBSEQUENTLY ACCRUE CANNOT BE
DETERMINED IN THIS SUIT IS NO GROUND FOR REFUSING TO DETERMINE PRESENT
RIGHTS ASSERTED IN THE FORM OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. 

THE CASES CITED BY RESPONDENTS IN THIS CONNECTION SIMPLY LAY DOWN THE
RULE THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST FINALLY DISPOSE OF THE THEN EXISTING
CONTROVERSY.  CF. LEWIS V. GREENE, L.R. (1905), 2 CH. DIV. 340. 

THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENTS COULD OBTAIN A FINAL JUDGMENT IN THEIR
FAVOR ON THE CAUSE OF ACTION DISCLOSED IN THE PETITION FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WOULD SEEM TO BE CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RENDERED UNDER THE PETITION WOULD POSSESS ALL THE
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF FINALITY. 

THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM AN UNFOUNDED CLAIM, OR TO KNOW WHETHER A
CLAIM IS WELL FOUNDED, AND THE RIGHT TO TREAT A CONTRACT AS ENDED, MAY
WELL BE CONSIDERED RIGHTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. 

BUT THE ACT DOES NOT LIMIT DECLARATIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF RIGHTS. 
IT PROVIDES FOR A DECLARATION OF "RIGHTS AND OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS." 
RIGHTS MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED LEGAL RELATIONS BY THE CONGRESS, ELSE
THE WORD "OTHER" WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.  IF A RIGHT IS A LEGAL
RELATION, THEN THE CORRESPONDING OBLIGATION MUST NECESSARILY BE A LEGAL
RELATION.  THEREFORE, WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER HAS RIGHTS TO BE
DECLARED, IT IS ENTITLED TO COME INTO COURT AND ASK FOR A DECLARATION
AS TO ITS OBLIGATIONS. 

THERE IS AMPLE AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A DECLARATION OF
IMMUNITY FROM ASSERTED CLAIMS IS A PROPER ONE UNDER THE ACT.  SEN. REP.
NO. 1005, 73D CONG., 2D SESS., 1934.  SEE NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. V.
WALLACE, SUPRA; GULLY V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., SUPRA; GUARANTY
TRUST CO. V. HANNAY & CO., C.A. 2 K.B. 536(1915); SOCIETE MARITIME &
COMMERCIAL V. VENUS S.S. CO., 9 COMM. CAS. 289(1904); BORCHARD,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS, PP. 74 ET SEQ. 

HOWEVER, PETITIONER'S CLAIM THAT THERE ARE RIGHTS AND OTHER LEGAL
RELATIONS DISCLOSED BY THE PETITION WHICH ARE PROPERLY THE SUBJECT OF A
DECLARATION, DOES NOT NEED TO BE BASED ENTIRELY UPON THE PROPOSITION
THAT IMMUNITY FROM OBLIGATION COMES WITHIN THAT PHRASE OF THE ACT.  IF
IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE POLICYHOLDER HAS BEEN TOTALLY DISABLED, THEN
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE INSURED AND INSURER EXISTS BETWEEN HIM AND
PETITIONER, AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF CREDITOR AND DEBTOR ALSO.  IF A
DECLARATION IS GRANTED AS PRAYED BY PETITIONER, THEN NEITHER OF THESE
RELATIONSHIPS EXIST BETWEEN IT AND THE POLICYHOLDER.  CF. COLUMBIAN
NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. FOULKE, 13 F.SUPP.  350, 352. 

IRREPARABLE INJURY NEED NOT BE ALLEGED, BUT IS ALLEGED AND EXISTS IN
THIS CASE. 

THE PLAINTIFF IS REQUIRED ANNUALLY TO SET ASIDE SUBSTANTIAL RESERVES
FOR EACH OF THE POLICIES UNTIL IT IS JUDICIALLY DETERMINED THAT THEY
HAVE LAPSED AND ARE NULL AND VOID.  THE SETTING ASIDE OF THESE RESERVES
CONSTITUTES MORE THAN A BOOKKEEPING ENTRY, AND WE SUBMIT THAT THE COURT
OF APPEALS WAS IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE COMPANY'S "CONTROL OVER
SUCH FUNDS IS NEITHER MODIFIED NOR AFFECTED" BY THE NOTICES SERVED UPON
PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENTS. 

THE STATUS OF INSURANCE RESERVES WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IN
MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. V. UNITED STATES, 251 U.S. 342, 350. 

SO LONG AS THESE RESERVES ARE REQUIRED TO BE SET UP BY THE COMPANY,
THEY CONSTITUTE IN A VERY REAL SENSE BOTH A SEGREGATION OF ASSETS AND A
LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY. 

NOT ONLY THE COMPANY, BUT ALL OF ITS POLICYHOLDERS ARE INTERESTED IN
SEEING THAT PREMIUMS ARE PROMPTLY COLLECTED ON ALL OUTSTANDING
POLICIES, AND THAT IN ALL CASES OF DEFAULTED PREMIUMS THE POLICIES
SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORFEITED OR CANCELLED.  ALL MATTERS AFFECTING THE
RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THE POLICYHOLDER DIRECTLY AFFECT THE BUSINESS
OF THE COMPANY.  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. STATHAM, 93 U.S. 24, 29. 

THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WHY A DENIAL OF THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR AND THE
RESULTING DELAY IN THE DETERMINATION OF THIS CONTROVERSY WOULD BE
INJURIOUS TO PETITIONER.  BY SEC. 5929, REV. STATS., MISSOURI, 1929, AN
INSURER MAY BE SUBJECTED TO A PENALTY OF 10% OF THE CLAIM, AND THE
PAYMENT OF OPPOSING PARTY'S ATTORNEY'S FEE, FOR VEXATIOUS DELAY IN
CLAIMED PAYMENT.  THIS ADDED LIABILITY IS ORDINARILY HELD TO BE A
QUESTION FOR THE JURY.  GUERINGER V. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO., 184 S.W.
936.  IF SUIT SHOULD BE BROUGHT FOR ACCUMULATED DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
PETITIONER SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE THEREFOR, IT WOULD BE COMPELLED TO PAY
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE THAT THE RESPECTIVE
PAYMENTS WERE DUE, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2839, REV. STATS.,
MISSOURI, 1929. 

IT IS UNCONSCIONABLE THAT THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO
HOLD THIS CLAIM "AS A MENACE AND THREAT OVER THE HEAD OF THE
COMPLAINANT," WHILE IN THE MEANTIME EVIDENCE MAY BECOME "LOST OR
UNAVAILABLE."  SCHMIDT V. WEST, 104 FED. 272.  RELIEF IN EQUITY HAS
OFTEN BEEN GRANTED TO AVOID POSTPONEMENT OF LITIGATION TO A "TIME WHEN
THE FACTS ARE NO LONGER CAPABLE OF COMPLETE PROOF OR HAVE BECOME
INVOLVED IN THE OBSCURITIES OF TIME."  STORY, EQ. JURIS., SEC. 705. 

THE PETITION DOES NOT PRESENT AN ACTUAL OR JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY. 
THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT DOES NOT CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES
FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL POWER.  NOR DOES IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THE ACT MAKE THAT A CONTROVERSY WHICH BEFORE ITS ENACTMENT WAS NOT A
CONTROVERSY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE.  ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288. 

THE PETITIONER ASKS THE COURT TO DETERMINE A FACT, THE ONLY VALUE OF
WHICH DETERMINATION WOULD BE THAT IT COULD BE EMPLOYED BY THE
PETITIONER AS A DEFENSE IN THE EVENT OF A FUTURE SUIT ON ANY OF THE
POLICIES. 

WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED THERE WAS NO PRESENT RIGHT OF RECOVERY OF
AN AMOUNT SUFFICIENT TO GIVE A FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION.  THE
PETITION, THEREFORE, DOES NOT PRESENT A CASE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AS TO THE RIGHT OF EITHER TO A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OTHER
IN A FEDERAL COURT.  THE CONTROVERSY COGNIZABLE HERE, IF ANY THERE BE,
MUST, THEREFORE, BE ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN A PRESENT RIGHT TO A
JUDGMENT FOR MONEY. 

THE PETITIONER SAYS ITS PETITION PRESENTS A CONTROVERSY OF FACT, THE
ADJUDICATION OF WHICH IN ITS FAVOR WILL BE A GOOD DEFENSE TO A POSSIBLE
FUTURE SUIT UPON POLICIES WRITTEN IN THE FACE AMOUNT OF MORE THAN
$3,000.00.  IT ARGUES THEREFROM THAT THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH FACT
WOULD BE A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OR LEGAL RELATIONS INVOLVING THE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT. 

THE RESPONDENTS SAY NO CONTROVERSY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE IS
PRESENTED. 

A DISPUTE OUT OF COURT ABOUT THE PRESENT EXISTENCE OF A MUTABLE FACT,
WHICH MAY BECOME AN ELEMENT IN THE DETERMINATION OF AN ACTION AT LAW
THAT MAY BE COMMENCED AT SOME FUTURE TIME, IS NOT A CONTROVERSY IN THE
SENSE IN WHICH THAT WORD IS USED IN THE CONSTITUTION.  PIEDMONT &
NORTHERN RY. V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 469; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY.
V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249; FIDELITY NATIONAL BANK V. SWOPE, 274 U.S.
123; WILLING V. CHICAGO AUDITORIUM ASSN., 277 U.S. 274; ARIZONA V.
CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423; ALABAMA V. ARIZONA, 291 U.S. 286; UNITED
STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA, 295 U.S. 463; NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S.
328; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, SUPRA. 

IT IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED THAT DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS ARE NOT
APPLICABLE TO EVERY DIFFERENCE, OR TO EVERY CONTROVERSY, THAT MAY ARISE
BETWEEN PROSPECTIVE LITIGANTS.  IN ALL JURISDICTIONS IT HAS BEEN
DECLARED THAT THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHETHER UNDER
THE LAW IT SHOULD DECLARE A JUDGMENT AT ALL IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE. 
NEWSUM V. INTERSTATE REALTY CO., 152 TENN. 302; 3 FREEMAN ON JUDGMENTS,
5TH ED., PAR. 1356; ZIEGLER V. PICKETT, 46 WYO. 283.    THE PURPOSE OF
THE PROCEEDING IS NOT TO SETTLE ANY PRESENT "RIGHTS OR OTHER LEGAL
RELATIONS," BUT TO SETTLE ONE PARTICULAR FACT THAT MAY LATER BE CALLED
INTO QUESTION IN A POSSIBLE SUIT.  THE DISPUTE IS NOT EVEN AS TO A
COMPLETED FACT CAPABLE OF EXACT AND FINAL ASCERTAINMENT, BUT AS TO A
FACT PROBABLY CHANGING AND RESTING SOMEWHAT IN OPINION.  IF THE INSURED
SHOULD NOW ESTABLISH THE QUESTIONED FACT, HE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO A
PRESENT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY; IT WOULD NOT DETERMINE
FINALLY HIS RIGHT TO A JUDGMENT IN A FUTURE ACTION; THE ADJUDICATION
WOULD NOT BE SUSCEPTIBLE OF VIOLATION AND COULD NOT CALL FOR
ENFORCEMENT; IT WOULD NOT FINALLY ADJUDICATE THE STANDING OF THE
PARTIES. 

THE DECLARATORY PROCEDURE IS INAPPROPRIATE TO A JUDICIAL
INVESTIGATION OF DISPUTED FACTS, OR TO AN INQUIRY WHERE, AS HERE, IF
THE DECISION SHOULD GO IN ONE WAY IT MIGHT INVOLVE FURTHER LITIGATION,
OR TO AN INQUIRY, AS HERE, THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO A FINAL
DETERMINATION OF THE RIGHT OF ONE LITIGANT TO RECOVER AGAINST THE
OTHER.  THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT TO REFUSE TO DECLARE A JUDGMENT IN
SUCH CASES IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED.  LEWIS V. GREEN, L.R. (1905) 2 CH.
DIV. 340; ZIEGLER V. PICKETT, 46 WYO. 283; NEWSUM V. INTERSTATE REALTY
CO., 152 TENN. 302; 3 FREEMAN, JUDGMENTS, 5TH ED., PAR. 1356; LADNER V.
SIEGEL, 294 PA. 368; WASHINGTON DETROIT THEATER CO. V. MOORE, 249 MICH.
673; 41 YALE L.J., JUNE, 1932, P. 1195; 45 HARV. L. REV., P. 1089. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT HAD JURISDICTION
OF THIS SUIT UNDER THE FEDERAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT.  ACT OF JUNE
14, 1934, 48 STAT. 955; JUD.  CODE, SEC. 274D; 28 U.S.C. 400.  FN1 

THE QUESTION ARISES UPON THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WHICH WAS
DISMISSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT UPON THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT SET
FORTH A "CONTROVERSY" IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE AND HENCE DID NOT
COME WITHIN THE LEGITIMATE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE.  11 F.SUPP.  1016. 
THE DECREE OF DISMISSAL WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
84 F.(2D) 695.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  NOVEMBER 16, 1936. 

FROM THE COMPLAINT IT APPEARS THAT PLAINTIFF IS AN INSURANCE COMPANY
WHICH HAD ISSUED TO THE DEFENDANT, EDWIN P. HAWORTH, FIVE POLICIES OF
INSURANCE UPON HIS LIFE, THE DEFENDANT CORA M. HAWORTH BEING NAMED AS
BENEFICIARY.  THE COMPLAINT SET FORTH THE TERMS OF THE POLICIES.  THEY
CONTAINED VARIOUS PROVISIONS WHICH FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE IT IS
UNNECESSARY FULLY TO PARTICULARIZE.  IT IS SUFFICIENT TO OBSERVE THAT
THEY ALL PROVIDED FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS IN THE EVENT THAT THE INSURED
BECAME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED.  IN ONE POLICY, FOR $10,000,
ISSUED IN 1911, THE COMPANY AGREED, UPON RECEIVING THE REQUISITE PROOF
OF SUCH DISABILITY AND WITHOUT FURTHER PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, TO PAY THE
SUM INSURED, AND DIVIDEND ADDITIONS, IN TWENTY ANNUAL INSTALMENTS, OR A
LIFE ANNUITY AS SPECIFIED, IN FULL SETTLEMENT.  IN FOUR OTHER POLICIES
ISSUED IN 1921, 1928 AND 1929, RESPECTIVELY, FOR AMOUNTS AGGREGATING
$30,000, PLAINTIFF AGREED UPON PROOF OF SUCH DISABILITY TO WAIVE
FURTHER PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, PROMISING IN ONE OF THE POLICIES TO PAY A
SPECIFIED AMOUNT MONTHLY AND IN THE OTHER THREE TO CONTINUE THE LIFE
INSURANCE IN FORCE.  BY THESE FOUR POLICIES THE BENEFITS TO BE PAYABLE
AT DEATH, AND THE CASH AND LOAN VALUES TO BE AVAILABLE, WERE TO BE THE
SAME WHETHER THE PREMIUMS WERE PAID OR WERE WAIVED BY REASON OF THE
DESCRIBED DISABILITY. 

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT IN 1930 AND 1931 THE INSURED CEASED TO PAY
PREMIUMS ON THE FOUR POLICIES LAST MENTIONED AND CLAIMED THE DISABILITY
BENEFITS AS STIPULATED.  HE CONTINUED TO PAY PREMIUMS ON THE FIRST
MENTIONED POLICY UNTIL 1934 AND THEN CLAIMED DISABILITY BENEFITS. 
THESE CLAIMS, WHICH WERE REPEATEDLY RENEWED, WERE PRESENTED IN THE FORM
OF AFFIDAVITS ACCOMPANIED BY CERTIFICATES OF PHYSICIANS.  A TYPICAL
WRITTEN CLAIM ON THE FOUR POLICIES IS ANNEXED TO THE COMPLAINT.  IT
STATES THAT WHILE THESE POLICIES WERE IN FORCE, THE INSURED BECAME
TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED BY DISEASE AND WAS "PREVENTED FROM
PERFORMING ANY WORK OR CONDUCTING ANY BUSINESS FOR COMPENSATION OR
PROFIT"; THAT ON OCTOBER 7, 1930, HE HAD MADE AND DELIVERED TO THE
COMPANY A SWORN STATEMENT "FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSERTING AND CLAIMING
HIS RIGHT TO HAVE THESE POLICIES CONTINUED UNDER THE PERMANENT AND
TOTAL DISABILITY PROVISION CONTAINED IN EACH OF THEM"; THAT MORE THAN
SIX MONTHS BEFORE THAT DATE HE HAD BECOME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY
DISABLED AND HAD FURNISHED EVIDENCE OF HIS DISABILITY WITHIN THE STATED
TIME; THAT THE ANNUAL PREMIUMS PAYABLE IN THE YEAR 1930 OR IN
SUBSEQUENT YEARS WERE WAIVED BY REASON OF THE DISABILITY AND THAT HE
WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE POLICIES CONTINUED IN FORCE WITHOUT THE
PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS SO LONG AS THE DISABILITY SHOULD CONTINUE. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE POLICY FIRST MENTIONED, IT APPEARS THAT THE
INSURED CLAIMED THAT PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1934, WHEN HE CEASED TO PAY
PREMIUMS, HE HAD BECOME TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED; THAT HE WAS
WITHOUT OBLIGATION TO PAY FURTHER PREMIUMS AND WAS ENTITLED TO THE
STIPULATED DISABILITY BENEFITS INCLUDING THE CONTINUED LIFE OF THE
POLICY. 

PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT CONSISTENTLY AND AT ALL TIMES IT HAS REFUSED
TO RECOGNIZE THESE CLAIMS OF THE INSURED AND HAS INSISTED THAT ALL THE
POLICIES HAD LAPSED ACCORDING TO THEIR TERMS BY REASON OF THE NON
PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS, THE INSURED NOT BEING TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY
DISABLED AT ANY OF THE TIMES TO WHICH HIS CLAIMS REFERRED.  PLAINTIFF
FURTHER STATES THAT TAKING LOANS INTO CONSIDERATION FOUR OF THE
POLICIES HAVE NO VALUE AND THE REMAINING POLICY (THE ONE FIRST
MENTIONED) HAS A VALUE OF ONLY $45 AS EXTENDED INSURANCE.  IF, HOWEVER,
THE INSURED HAS BEEN TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED AS HE CLAIMS, THE
FIVE POLICIES ARE IN FULL FORCE, THE PLAINTIFF IS NOW OBLIGED TO PAY
THE ACCRUED INSTALMENTS OF CASH DISABILITY BENEFITS FOR WHICH TWO OF
THE POLICIES PROVIDE, AND THE INSURED HAS THE RIGHT TO CLAIM AT ANY
TIME CASH SURRENDER VALUES ACCUMULATING BY REASON OF THE PROVISIONS FOR
WAIVER OF PREMIUMS, OR AT HIS DEATH, CORA M. HAWORTH, AS BENEFICIARY,
WILL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE FACE OF THE POLICIES LESS THE LOANS
THEREON. 

PLAINTIFF THUS CONTENDS THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY WITH
DEFENDANTS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY OF
THE INSURED AND AS TO THE CONTINUANCE OF THE OBLIGATIONS ASSERTED
DESPITE THE NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS.  DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT INSTITUTED ANY
ACTION WHEREIN THE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE
ABSENCE OF THE ALLEGED DISABILITY AND PLAINTIFF POINTS TO THE DANGER
THAT IT MAY LOSE THE BENEFIT OF EVIDENCE THROUGH DISAPPEARANCE, ILLNESS
OR DEATH OF WITNESSES; AND MEANWHILE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A JUDICIAL
DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGED DISABILITY, THE PLAINTIFF IN
RELATION TO THESE POLICIES WILL BE COMPELLED TO MAINTAIN RESERVES IN
EXCESS OF $20,000. 

THE COMPLAINT ASKS FOR A DECREE THAT THE FOUR POLICIES BE DECLARED TO
BE NULL AND VOID BY REASON OF LAPSE FOR NONPAYMENT OF PREMIUMS AND THAT
THE OBLIGATION UPON THE REMAINING POLICY BE HELD TO CONSIST SOLELY IN
THE DUTY TO PAY THE SUM OF $45 UPON THE DEATH OF THE INSURED, AND FOR
SUCH FURTHER RELIEF AS THE EXIGENCIES OF THE CASE MAY REQUIRE. 

FIRST.  THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER TO
"CASES" AND "CONTROVERSIES."  "THE TERM 'CONTROVERSIES,' IF
DISTINGUISHABLE AT ALL FROM 'CASES,' IS SO IN THAT IT IS LESS
COMPREHENSIVE THAN THE LATTER, AND INCLUDES ONLY SUITS OF A CIVIL
NATURE."  PER MR. JUSTICE FIELD IN IN RE PACIFIC RAILWAY COMM'N, 32
FED. 241, 255, CITING CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA, 2 DALL.  419, 431, 432.  SEE
MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, 219 U.S. 346, 356, 357; OLD COLONY TRUST CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716, 723, 724.  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT
OF 1934, IN ITS LIMITATION TO "CASES OF ACTUAL CONTROVERSY," MANIFESTLY
HAS REGARD TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND IS OPERATIVE ONLY IN
RESPECT TO CONTROVERSIES WHICH ARE SUCH IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE. 
THE WORD "ACTUAL" IS ONE OF EMPHASIS RATHER THAN OF DEFINITION.  THUS
THE OPERATION OF THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT IS PROCEDURAL ONLY.  IN
PROVIDING REMEDIES AND DEFINING PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO CASES AND
CONTROVERSIES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE THE CONGRESS IS ACTING WITHIN
ITS DELEGATED POWER OVER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WHICH
THE CONGRESS IS AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH.  TURNER V. BANK OF NORTH
AMERICA, 4 DALL.  8, 10; STEVENSON V. FAIN, 195 U.S. 165, 167; KLINE V.
BURKE CONSTRUCTION CO., 260 U.S. 226, 234.  EXERCISING THIS CONTROL OF
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE THE CONGRESS IS NOT CONFINED TO TRADITIONAL
FORMS OR TRADITIONAL REMEDIES.  THE JUDICIARY CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION "DID NOT CRYSTALLIZE INTO CHANGELESS FORM THE PROCEDURE OF
1789 AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE MEANS FOR PRESENTING A CASE OR CONTROVERSY
OTHERWISE COGNIZABLE BY THE FEDERAL COURTS."  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.
RY. CO. V. WALLACE, 288 U.S. 249, 264.  IN DEALING WITH METHODS WITHIN
ITS SPHERE OF REMEDIAL ACTION THE CONGRESS MAY CREATE AND IMPROVE AS
WELL AS ABOLISH OR RESTRICT.  THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT MUST BE
DEEMED TO FALL WITHIN THIS AMBIT OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER, SO FAR AS IT
AUTHORIZES RELIEF WHICH IS CONSONANT WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION IN THE DETERMINATION OF CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION THE JUDICIAL POWER EXTENDS. 

A "CONTROVERSY" IN THIS SENSE MUST BE ONE THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR
JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  OSBORN V. UNITED STATES BANK, 9 WHEAT.  738,
819.  A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY IS THUS DISTINGUISHED FROM A DIFFERENCE
OR DISPUTE OF A HYPOTHETICAL OR ABSTRACT CHARACTER; FROM ONE THAT IS
ACADEMIC OR MOOT.  UNITED STATES V. ALASKA S.S. CO., 253 U.S. 113,
116.  THE CONTROVERSY MUST BE DEFINITE AND CONCRETE, TOUCHING THE LEGAL
RELATIONS OF PARTIES HAVING ADVERSE LEGAL INTERESTS.  SOUTH SPRING GOLD
CO. V. AMADOR GOLD CO., 145 U.S. 300, 301; FAIRCHILD V. HUGHES, 258
U.S. 126, 129; MASSACHUSETTS V. MELLON, 262 U.S. 447, 487, 488.  IT
MUST BE A REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY ADMITTING OF SPECIFIC RELIEF
THROUGH A DECREE OF A CONCLUSIVE CHARACTER, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN
OPINION ADVISING WHAT THE LAW WOULD BE UPON A HYPOTHETICAL STATE OF
FACTS.  SEE MUSKRAT V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; TEXAS V. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMM'N, 258 U.S. 158, 162; NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S.
328, 339, 340; LIBERTY WAREHOUSE CO. V. GRANNIS, 273 U.S. 70; NEW YORK
V. ILLINOIS, 274 U.S. 488, 490; WILLING V. CHICAGO AUDITORIUM ASSN.,
277 U.S. 274, 289, 290; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 283 U.S. 423, 463, 464;
ALABAMA V. ARIZONA, 291 U.S. 286, 291; UNITED STATES V. WEST VIRGINIA,
295 U.S. 463, 474, 475; ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297
U.S. 288, 324.  WHERE THERE IS SUCH A CONCRETE CASE ADMITTING OF AN
IMMEDIATE AND DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING UPON THE FACTS ALLEGED, THE JUDICIAL
FUNCTION MAY BE APPROPRIATELY EXERCISED ALTHOUGH THE ADJUDICATION OF
THE RIGHTS OF THE LITIGANTS MAY NOT REQUIRE THE AWARD OF PROCESS OR THE
PAYMENT OF DAMAGES.  NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, SUPRA,
P. 263; TUTUN V. UNITED STATES, 270 U.S. 568, 576, 577; FIDELITY
NATIONAL BANK V. SWOPE, 274 U.S. 123, 132; OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, SUPRA, P. 725.  AND AS IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE
EXERCISE OF THE JUDICIAL POWER THAT AN INJUNCTION BE SOUGHT,
ALLEGATIONS THAT IRREPARABLE INJURY IS THREATENED ARE NOT REQUIRED. 
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. V. WALLACE, SUPRA, P. 264. 

WITH THESE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT ACT, WE TURN TO THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY, THE RELATION
AND INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES, AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE INSTANT
CASE. 

SECOND.  THERE IS HERE A DISPUTE BETWEEN PARTIES WHO FACE EACH OTHER
IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING.  THE DISPUTE RELATES TO LEGAL RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM THE CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE.  THE DISPUTE IS
DEFINITE AND CONCRETE, NOT HYPOTHETICAL OR ABSTRACT.  PRIOR TO THIS
SUIT, THE PARTIES HAD TAKEN ADVERSE POSITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR
EXISTING OBLIGATIONS.  THEIR CONTENTIONS CONCERNED THE DISABILITY
BENEFITS WHICH WERE TO BE PAYABLE UPON PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS.  ON THE
ONE SIDE, THE INSURED CLAIMED THAT HE HAD BECOME TOTALLY AND
PERMANENTLY DISABLED AND HENCE WAS RELIEVED OF THE OBLIGATION TO
CONTINUE THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS AND WAS ENTITLED TO THE STIPULATED
DISABILITY BENEFITS AND TO THE CONTINUANCE OF THE POLICIES IN FORCE. 
THE INSURED PRESENTED THIS CLAIM FORMALLY, AS REQUIRED BY THE
POLICIES.  IT WAS A CLAIM OF A PRESENT, SPECIFIC RIGHT.  ON THE OTHER
SIDE, THE COMPANY MADE AN EQUALLY DEFINITE CLAIM THAT THE ALLEGED BASIC
FACT DID NOT EXIST, THAT THE INSURED WAS NOT TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY
DISABLED AND HAD NOT BEEN RELIEVED OF THE DUTY TO CONTINUE THE PAYMENT
OF PREMIUMS, THAT IN CONSEQUENCE THE POLICIES HAD LAPSED, AND THAT THE
COMPANY WAS THUS FREED FROM ITS OBLIGATION EITHER TO PAY DISABILITY
BENEFITS OR TO CONTINUE THE INSURANCE IN FORCE.  SUCH A DISPUTE IS
MANIFESTLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION.  IT CALLS, NOT FOR AN
ADVISORY OPINION UPON A HYPOTHETICAL BASIS, BUT FOR AN ADJUDICATION OF
PRESENT RIGHT UPON ESTABLISHED FACTS. 

THAT THE DISPUTE TURNS UPON QUESTIONS OF FACT DOES NOT WITHDRAW IT,
AS THE RESPONDENT SEEMS TO CONTEND, FROM JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE.  THE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FLOW FROM THE FACTS AND IT IS THE PROVINCE OF THE
COURTS TO ASCERTAIN AND FIND THE FACTS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES.  THAT IS EVERY DAY PRACTICE.  EQUALLY UNAVAILING IS
RESPONDENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE DISPUTE RELATES TO THE EXISTENCE OF A
"MUTABLE FACT" AND A "CHANGEABLE CONDITION - THE STATE OF THE INSURED'S
HEALTH."  THE INSURED ASSERTED A TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY
OCCURRING PRIOR TO OCTOBER, 1930, AND CONTINUING THEREAFTER.  UPON THAT
GROUND HE CEASED TO PAY PREMIUMS.  HIS CONDITION AT THE TIME HE STOPPED
PAYMENT, WHETHER HE WAS THEN TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED SO THAT
THE POLICIES DID NOT LAPSE, IS NOT A "MUTABLE" BUT A DEFINITE FACT.  IT
IS A CONTROLLING FACT WHICH CAN BE FINALLY DETERMINED AND WHICH FIXES
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE POLICIES.  IF IT WERE FOUND THAT THE
INSURED WAS NOT TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED WHEN HE CEASED TO PAY
PREMIUMS AND HENCE WAS IN DEFAULT, THE EFFECT OF THAT DEFAULT AND THE
CONSEQUENT RIGHT OF THE COMPANY TO TREAT THE POLICIES AS LAPSED COULD
BE DEFINITELY AND FINALLY ADJUDICATED.  IF IT WERE FOUND THAT HE WAS
TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED AS HE CLAIMED, THE DUTY OF THE COMPANY
TO PAY THE PROMISED DISABILITY BENEFITS AND TO MAINTAIN THE POLICIES IN
FORCE COULD LIKEWISE BE ADJUDICATED.  THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFICULTY IN
EITHER EVENT IN PASSING A CONCLUSIVE DECREE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS
FOUND AND TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES CORRESPONDING TO THOSE
FACTS.  IF THE INSURED MADE GOOD HIS CLAIM, THE DECREE ESTABLISHING HIS
RIGHT TO THE DISABILITY BENEFITS, AND TO THE CONTINUANCE OF THE
POLICIES IN FORCE DURING THE PERIOD OF THE PROVED DISABILITY, WOULD BE
NONE THE LESS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE MATTERS THUS DETERMINED
EVEN THOUGH A DIFFERENT SITUATION MIGHT LATER ARISE IN THE EVENT OF HIS
RECOVERY FROM THAT DISABILITY AND HIS FAILURE AFTER THAT RECOVERY TO
COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE POLICIES.  SUCH A CONTENTION WOULD
PRESENT A DISTINCT SUBJECT MATTER. 

IF THE INSURED HAD BROUGHT SUIT TO RECOVER THE DISABILITY BENEFITS
CURRENTLY PAYABLE UNDER TWO OF THE POLICIES THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO
QUESTION THAT THE CONTROVERSY WAS OF A JUSTICIABLE NATURE, WHETHER OR
NOT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WOULD HAVE PERMITTED ITS DETERMINATION IN A
FEDERAL COURT.  AGAIN, ON REPUDIATION BY THE INSURER OF LIABILITY IN
SUCH A CASE AND INSISTENCE BY THE INSURED THAT THE REPUDIATION WAS
UNJUSTIFIED BECAUSE OF HIS DISABILITY, THE INSURED WOULD HAVE "SUCH AN
INTEREST IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE CONTRACTS THAT HE MIGHT MAINTAIN A
SUIT IN EQUITY TO DECLARE THEM STILL IN BEING."  BURNET V. WELLS, 289
U.S. 670, 680; COHEN V. N.Y. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 50 N.Y. 610, 624;
FIDELITY NATIONAL BANK V. SWOPE, SUPRA.  BUT THE CHARACTER OF THE
CONTROVERSY AND OF THE ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME
WHETHER IT IS PRESENTED BY THE INSURED OR BY THE INSURER.  WHETHER THE
DISTRICT COURT MAY ENTERTAIN SUCH A SUIT BY THE INSURER, WHEN THE
CONTROVERSY AS HERE IS BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES OR
OTHERWISE IS WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER, IS FOR THE
CONGRESS TO DETERMINE.  IT IS THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY, NOT THE
METHOD OF ITS PRESENTATION OR THE PARTICULAR PARTY WHO PRESENTS IT,
THAT IS DETERMINATIVE.  SEE GULLY V. INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO., 82
F.(2D) 145, 149; TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. V. HELMER, 15 F.SUPP.  355,
356; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. LONDON, 15 F.SUPP.  586, 589. 

WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO DEAL WITH QUESTIONS THAT MAY ARISE IN THE
PROGRESS OF THE CAUSE, AS THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 
QUESTIONS OF BURDEN OF PROOF OR MODE OF TRIAL HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED
BY THE COURTS BELOW AND ARE NOT BEFORE US. 

OUR CONCLUSION IS THAT THE COMPLAINT PRESENTED A CONTROVERSY TO WHICH
THE JUDICIAL POWER EXTENDS AND THAT AUTHORITY TO HEAR AND DETERMINE IT
HAS BEEN CONFERRED UPON THE DISTRICT COURT BY THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
ACT.  THE DECREE IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE ACT PROVIDES: 

"(1)  IN CASES OF ACTUAL CONTROVERSY THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES
SHALL HAVE POWER UPON PETITION, DECLARATION, COMPLAINT, OR OTHER
APPROPRIATE PLEADINGS TO DECLARE RIGHTS AND OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS OF
ANY INTERESTED PARTY PETITIONING FOR SUCH DECLARATION, WHETHER OR NOT
FURTHER RELIEF IS OR COULD BE PRAYED, AND SUCH DECLARATION SHALL HAVE
THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE AND BE REVIEWABLE AS
SUCH. 

"(2)  FURTHER RELIEF BASED ON A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OR DECREE MAY BE
GRANTED WHENEVER NECESSARY OR PROPER.  THE APPLICATION SHALL BE BY
PETITION TO A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION TO GRANT THE RELIEF.  IF THE
APPLICATION BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT, THE COURT SHALL, ON REASONABLE
NOTICE, REQUIRE ANY ADVERSE PARTY, WHOSE RIGHTS HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED
BY THE DECLARATION, TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FURTHER RELIEF SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED FORTHWITH. 

"(3)  WHEN A DECLARATION OF RIGHT OR THE GRANTING OF FURTHER RELIEF
BASED THEREON SHALL INVOLVE THE DETERMINATION OF ISSUES OF FACT TRIABLE
BY A JURY, SUCH ISSUES MAY BE SUBMITTED TO A JURY IN THE FORM OF
INTERROGATORIES, WITH PROPER INSTRUCTIONS BY THE COURT, WHETHER A
GENERAL VERDICT BE REQUIRED OR NOT." 
..END :













LAWRENCE V. SHAW, 300 U.S. 245 


NO. 549.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 210
N.C. 352 - 186 S.E. 504, REVERSED. 


BANK CREDITS OF A VETERAN OF THE WORLD WAR, OR HIS GUARDIAN, WHICH DO
NOT REPRESENT OR FLOW FROM HIS INVESTMENTS, BUT RESULT FROM THE DEPOSIT
OF THE WARRANTS OR CHECKS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN PAYMENT OF
BENEFITS, ARE EXEMPTED FROM LOCAL TAXATION BY THE WORLD WAR VETERANS'
ACT, SEC. 22, AND THE ACT OF AUGUST 12, 1935, SECS. 3 AND 5, WHEN SUCH
DEPOSITS ARE MADE IN THE ORDINARY MANNER, SO THAT THE PROCEEDS OF
COLLECTION ARE SUBJECT TO DRAFT UPON DEMAND FOR THE VETERAN'S USE. 
TROTTER V. TENNESSEE, 290 U.S. 354, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 248. 

LAWRENCE, GUARDIAN, V. SHAW ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 537, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST LAWRENCE IN A PROCEEDING TO RECOVER A SUM PAID, UNDER PROTEST,
AS A TAX. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS CASE RELATES TO THE LIABILITY TO LOCAL
TAXATION OF CERTAIN BANK DEPOSITS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AS GUARDIAN OF
AN INCOMPETENT VETERAN OF THE WORLD WAR.  IMMUNITY WAS CLAIMED UNDER
THE FEDERAL STATUTES.  WORLD WAR VETERANS ACT, 1924, SEC. 22,  FN1  43
STAT. 606, 613, 38 U.S.C. 454; ACT OF AUGUST 12, 1935, SECS. 3 AND 5,
FN2  49 STAT. 607, 609.  THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA DENIED THE
IMMUNITY (210 N.C. 352; 186 S.E. 504) AND THIS COURT GRANTED A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI, JANUARY 4, 1937. 

THE CONTROVERSY WAS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE COURT UPON AN AGREED
CASE.  IT APPEARED THAT PETITIONER WAS APPOINTED GUARDIAN IN MAY, 1929,
AND THAT THE VETERAN THEN OWNED NO PROPERTY OTHER THAN CLAIMS AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES FOR UNPAID COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE.  THE TAX DATE
IN NORTH CAROLINA FOR PROPERTY TAXATION IS APRIL 1ST.  IN 1930 THE
GUARDIAN LISTED FOR TAXATION THE PROPERTY OF HIS WARD BUT THE TAX PAID
WAS REFUNDED UNDER A RULING OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE, AND
IN CONSEQUENCE NO PROPERTY OF THE WARD WAS LISTED AND NO TAX WAS PAID
IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS.  IN OCTOBER, 1935, HOWEVER, THE TAX OFFICIALS
ASSESSED THE WARD'S PROPERTY FOR EACH OF THE YEARS 1931 TO 1935,
INCLUSIVE.  THE PROPERTY CONSISTED OF DEPOSITS IN BANKS AND REAL ESTATE
LOANS.  NO QUESTION IS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE
TAXABILITY OF THE LATTER.  SEE TROTTER V. TENNESSEE, 290 U.S. 354. 

THE AGREED CASE SHOWED THE BANK DEPOSITS AS THEY STOOD ON APRIL 1ST
OF EACH YEAR.  FN3  IT DOES NOT APPEAR WHEN THE AMOUNTS MAKING UP THESE
ANNUAL BALANCES HAD BEEN DEPOSITED OR WHETHER THERE WAS ANY SPECIAL
AGREEMENT RELATING TO THEM.  THEY ARE SCHEDULED AS "DEPOSITS IN BANK,"
WITHOUT MORE.  THE STIPULATION STATES THAT THEY "REPRESENTED AND, IN
FACT, WERE THE COLLECTIONS FROM WARRANTS OR CHECKS DRAWN AND ISSUED BY
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE"
DUE TO THE WARD, THAT THESE WARRANTS OR CHECKS WERE DEPOSITED BY THE
GUARDIAN AND CREDITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, AND THAT THE ITEMS ASSESSED
WERE "THE UNEXPENDED AND UNINVESTED BALANCES," IN THE HANDS OF THE
GUARDIAN, OF THE PAYMENTS THUS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT.  FN4 PETITIONER
PAID THE TAXES UNDER PROTEST AND DEMANDED REFUND WHICH WAS REFUSED. 

WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE STATE COURT
UPON THE AGREED CASE SO FAR AS THEY RELATED TO THE AUTHORITY OF
OFFICIALS UNDER THE STATE LAW TO IMPOSE THE TAX IN 1935 FOR THE
PRECEDING YEARS.  THE PRESENT CONTENTION IS PRESENTED BY THE ANSWER TO
THE FIRST QUESTION WHICH WAS AS FOLLOWS: 

"WHERE A GUARDIAN OF A WORLD WAR VETERAN RECEIVES FROM THE VETERANS'
BUREAU OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, WARRANTS OR CHECKS ISSUED BY
SAID GOVERNMENT IN PAYMENT OF ADJUSTED COMPENSATION OR INSURANCE DUE
THE GUARDIAN'S WARD, AND SUCH WARRANTS OR CHECKS ARE DEPOSITED BY THE
GUARDIAN IN A DEPOSITORY, COLLECTED BY IT, AND THE PROCEEDS ARE
CREDITED IN THE GUARDIAN'S ACCOUNT CARRIED IN SUCH DEPOSITORY, ARE SUCH
DEPOSITS SUBJECT TO TAXATION BY COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES?" 

THE STATE COURT ANSWERED THIS QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, DENYING
THE FEDERAL RIGHT ASSERTED. 

IN TROTTER V. TENNESSEE, SUPRA, WE CONSIDERED THE PROVISION OF SEC.
22 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924,  FN5  IN RELATION TO
INVESTMENTS BY THE GUARDIAN OF AN INCOMPETENT VETERAN OF THE MONEYS
RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE.  WE HELD
THAT LAND PURCHASED BY THE GUARDIAN WITH SUCH MONEYS WAS NOT EXEMPT. 
WE SAID:  "THE STATUTE SPEAKS OF 'COMPENSATION, INSURANCE, AND
MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE PAYABLE' TO THE VETERAN, AND DECLARES
THAT THESE SHALL BE EXEMPT.  WE SEE NO TOKEN OF A PURPOSE TO EXTEND A
LIKE IMMUNITY TO PERMANENT INVESTMENTS OR THE FRUITS OF BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES.  VETERANS WHO CHOOSE TO TRADE IN LAND OR IN MERCHANDISE,
IN BONDS OR IN SHARES OF STOCK, MUST PAY THEIR TRIBUTE TO THE STATE." 
ID., PP. 356, 357. 

HAVING NO DOUBT THAT THE MONEYS PAYABLE BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE
VETERAN WERE EXEMPT UNTIL THEY CAME INTO HIS HANDS OR THOSE OF HIS
GUARDIAN, WE LEFT THE QUESTION OPEN "WHETHER THE EXEMPTION REMAINED IN
FORCE WHILE THEY CONTINUED IN THOSE HANDS OR ON DEPOSIT IN A BANK." 
THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924, PROVIDED THAT THE COMPENSATION AND
INSURANCE ALLOWANCES SHOULD BE "EXEMPT FROM ALL TAXATION."  THE ACT OF
1935  FN6  IS MORE SPECIFIC, PROVIDING THAT THE PAYMENTS SHALL BE
EXEMPT FROM TAXATION AND SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO PROCESS "EITHER BEFORE
OR AFTER RECEIPT BY THE BENEFICIARY."  THERE WAS ADDED THE
QUALIFICATION THAT THE EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT EXTEND "TO ANY PROPERTY
PURCHASED IN PART OR WHOLLY OUT OF SUCH PAYMENTS."  THIS MORE DETAILED
PROVISION WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THAT OF THE EARLIER ACT AND WAS EXPRESSLY
MADE APPLICABLE TO PAYMENTS THERETOFORE MADE.  WE THINK IT CLEAR THAT
THE PROVISION OF THE LATER ACT WAS INTENDED TO CLARIFY THE FORMER
RATHER THAN TO CHANGE ITS IMPORT AND IT WAS WITH THAT PURPOSE THAT IT
WAS MADE RETROACTIVE.  FN7 

THE STATE COURT FOUND NO DISTINCTION WITH RESPECT TO TAXABILITY
"BETWEEN STOCKS AND BONDS, AND NOTES AND BANK DEPOSITS AND OTHER
SOLVENT CREDITS."  AMPLIFYING THIS POSITION, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT AT
THIS BAR, WHILE CONCEDING THAT THE WARRANTS OR CHECKS ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT WOULD BE EXEMPT, AND THAT IF THEY WERE CASHED THE MONEYS
THUS RECEIVED WOULD LIKEWISE BE EXEMPT UNTIL THEY WERE INVESTED,
CONTENDED THAT IF THE GUARDIAN INSTEAD OF CASHING THE WARRANTS OR
CHECKS DEPOSITED THEM IN BANK, THE RESULTING BANK CREDITS WOULD BE
TAXABLE.  WE THINK THAT THIS CONTENTION IS INADMISSIBLE.  CONGRESS HAS
DECLARED THAT THE PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS BY THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE
EXEMPT NOT ONLY BEFORE BUT "AFTER RECEIPT BY THE BENEFICIARY."  WE
CANNOT CONCEIVE THAT IT WAS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS THAT THE VETERAN
SHOULD LOSE THE BENEFIT OF THIS IMMUNITY, WHICH WOULD ATTACH TO THE
MONEYS IN HIS HANDS, BY DEPOSITING THE GOVERNMENT WARRANTS OR CHECKS IN
BANK TO BE COLLECTED AND CREDITED IN THE USUAL MANNER.  THESE PAYMENTS
ARE INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE VETERAN. 
TO THAT END NEITHER HE NOR HIS GUARDIAN IS OBLIGED TO KEEP THE MONEYS
ON HIS PERSON OR UNDER HIS ROOF.  AS THE IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION IS
CONTINUED AFTER THE PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED, THE USUAL METHODS OF RECEIPT
MUST BE DEEMED AVAILABLE SO THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT MAY
BE PROPERLY SAFEGUARDED AND USED AS THE NEEDS OF THE VETERAN MAY
REQUIRE. 

THE PROVISION OF THE ACT OF 1935 THAT THE EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT APPLY
TO PROPERTY PURCHASED OUT OF THE MONEYS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT
SHOWS THE INTENT TO DENY EXEMPTION TO INVESTMENTS, AS WAS RULED IN THE
TROTTER CASE.  IT IS OF COURSE TRUE THAT DEPOSITS IN BANK MAY BE MADE
UNDER A SPECIAL AGREEMENT BY WHICH THE DEPOSITS ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF
INVESTMENTS AND WOULD LOSE IMMUNITY ACCORDINGLY.  NO SUCH AGREEMENT IS
SHOWN HERE.  NOR ARE THE BANK BALANCES SHOWN TO BE THE PROCEEDS OF
INVESTMENTS.  THEY ARE STIPULATED TO BE "UNINVESTED BALANCES" OF THE
GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS.  SOME REFERENCE WAS MADE AT THE BAR TO THE
POSSIBLE EFFECT OF AN ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UPON BANK DEPOSITS.  IT
DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE WAS SUCH AN ALLOWANCE IN THIS INSTANCE AND
WE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT A MERE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UPON DEPOSITS WOULD
BE ENOUGH TO DESTROY AN IMMUNITY WHERE IT WOULD OTHERWISE ATTACH.  WE
HOLD THAT THE IMMUNITY FROM TAXATION DOES ATTACH TO BANK CREDITS OF THE
VETERAN OR HIS GUARDIAN WHICH DO NOT REPRESENT OR FLOW FROM HIS
INVESTMENTS BUT RESULT FROM THE DEPOSIT OF THE WARRANTS OR CHECKS
RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT WHEN SUCH DEPOSITS ARE MADE IN THE
ORDINARY MANNER SO THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE COLLECTION ARE SUBJECT TO
DRAFT UPON DEMAND FOR THE VETERAN'S USE.  IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE
INTENT OF THE STATUTE, THE AVAILS OF THE GOVERNMENT WARRANTS OR CHECKS
MUST BE DEEMED EXEMPT UNTIL THEY ARE EXPENDED OR INVESTED. 

THE ANSWER BY THE STATE COURT IS BROAD ENOUGH TO COVER BANK DEPOSITS
OF THAT SORT AND WE CONSIDER THE RULING IN THAT APPLICATION TO BE
CONTRARY TO THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE
CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SECTION 22 PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 22.  THAT THE COMPENSATION, INSURANCE, AND MAINTENANCE AND
SUPPORT ALLOWANCE PAYABLE UNDER TITLES II, III, AND IV, RESPECTIVELY,
SHALL NOT BE ASSIGNABLE; SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAIMS OF
CREDITORS OF ANY PERSON TO WHOM AN AWARD IS MADE UNDER TITLES II, III,
OR IV; AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM ALL TAXATION:  PROVIDED, THAT SUCH
COMPENSATION, INSURANCE, AND MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO ANY CLAIMS WHICH THE UNITED STATES MAY HAVE, UNDER TITLES
II, III, IV, AND V, AGAINST THE PERSON ON WHOSE ACCOUNT THE
COMPENSATION, INSURANCE, OR MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT ALLOWANCE IS
PAYABLE...." 

FN2  SECTIONS 3 AND 5 OF THE ACT OF 1935 PROVIDE: 

"SEC. 3.  PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS DUE OR TO BECOME DUE SHALL NOT BE
ASSIGNABLE, AND SUCH PAYMENTS MADE TO, OR ON ACCOUNT OF, A BENEFICIARY
UNDER ANY OF THE LAWS RELATING TO VETERANS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM
TAXATION, SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE CLAIMS OF CREDITORS, AND SHALL NOT
BE LIABLE TO ATTACHMENT, LEVY, OR SEIZURE BY OR UNDER ANY LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE PROCESS WHATEVER, EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER RECEIPT BY THE
BENEFICIARY.  SUCH PROVISIONS SHALL NOT ATTACH TO CLAIMS OF THE UNITED
STATES ARISING UNDER SUCH LAWS NOR SHALL THE EXEMPTION HEREIN CONTAINED
AS TO TAXATION EXTEND TO ANY PROPERTY PURCHASED IN PART OR WHOLLY OUT
OF SUCH PAYMENTS.  SECTION 4747 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AND SECTION 22
OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924, ARE HEREBY REPEALED, AND ALL
OTHER ACTS INCONSISTENT HEREWITH ARE HEREBY MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY...." 

"SEC. 5.  THAT THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT AND BE IN FORCE FROM AND
AFTER ITS PASSAGE, BUT THE PROVISIONS HEREOF SHALL APPLY TO PAYMENTS
MADE HERETOFORE UNDER ANY OF THE ACTS MENTIONED HEREIN." 

FN3  THEY WERE $5787.72 IN 1931, $3868.42 IN 1932, $3704.76 IN 1933,
$987.48 IN 1934, AND $2730.93 IN 1935. 

FN4  THE PARAGRAPH OF THE AGREED CASE UPON THIS POINT IS AS FOLLOWS: 

"THAT EACH OF THE SAID ITEMS SET OUT AND SHOWN IN PARAGRAPH 16 AS
'DEPOSITS IN BANKS,' FOR EACH OF SAID YEARS, REPRESENTED AND, IN FACT,
WERE THE COLLECTIONS FROM WARRANTS OR CHECKS DRAWN AND ISSUED BY THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE DUE
BY IT TO PLAINTIFF'S WARD, WHICH SAID WARRANTS OR CHECKS WERE DEPOSITED
BY PLAINTIFF IN SUCH DEPOSITORIES AND CREDITED BY THEM IN THE
PLAINTIFF'S ACCOUNT AS GUARDIAN AFORESAID; AND THE AMOUNTS OF SAID
ASSESSMENTS AND LEVIES MADE UP BY SAID DEFENDANTS ON THE ITEMS
AFORESAID, AND SHOWN IN SAID PARAGRAPH, REPRESENTED AND WERE, IN FACT,
THE UNEXPENDED AND UNINVESTED BALANCES IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID
GUARDIAN OF PAYMENTS AFORESAID BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, OF WARRANTS OR
CHECKS ISSUED BY IT FOR COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE DUE BY IT TO THE
SAID VETERAN." 

FN5  SEE NOTE 1. 

FN6  SEE NOTE 2. 

FN7  SEE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE OF THE SENATE, SEN. REP.
NO. 1072, 74TH CONG., 1ST SESS.
..END :












SUMI V. YOUNG, 300 U.S. 251 


NO. 406.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 83
F.(2D) 752, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ALASKA INVOLVING NO STATUTE OR
TREATY OF THE UNITED STATES NOR ANY AUTHORITY EXERCISED THEREUNDER, NOR
ANY MONETARY VALUE IN EXCESS OF $1,000.00, IS NOT APPEALABLE TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS UNDER SEC. 128, JUD.  CODE, AS AMENDED BY THE
ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1925, NOR UNDER SEC. 943 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 6,
1900, THE ALASKA CODE, COMPILED LAWS OF ALASKA (1933), SEC. 4574.  P.
252. 

2.  PROVISIONS OF THE ALASKA CIVIL CODE ARE NOT LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES WITHIN THE INTENDMENT OF SEC. 128, JUD.  CODE.  THEY ARE SPECIAL
OR LOCAL LAWS DESIGNED TO MEET CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO THAT TERRITORY. 
P. 253. 

SUMI V. YOUNG. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 534, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT DISMISSING AN APPEAL
FROM A PROBATE ORDER MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT IN ALASKA. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THE PROBATE COURT, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA, - OCTOBER, 1934, - A CONTEST
AROSE OVER THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN FOR TWO MINOR CHILDREN. 
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FAILED.  RESPONDENT WAS DESIGNATED.  THE
DISTRICT COURT HEARD THE MATTER DE NOVO AND APPROVED THIS ACTION. 

UPON MOTION, THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.  THE MOTION AVERRED:
(1) THE CAUSE INVOLVES NO QUESTION ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION,
STATUTE OR TREATY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR ANY AUTHORITY EXERCISED
THEREUNDER; (2) NO MONETARY VALUE EXCEEDING $1,000.00 IS INVOLVED; (3)
THE PETITIONER WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE PROBATE COURT.  SECTION 128,
JUDICIAL CODE,  FN1  ALSO SEC. 943, ACT OF JUNE 6, 1900,  FN2  WERE
RELIED UPON IN OPPOSITION. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS COULD FIND NO QUESTION UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION, STATUTE OR TREATY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR AUTHORITY
EXERCISED THEREUNDER; NOR ANY CONTROVERSY CONCERNING MONEY, PROPERTY,
OR PROPERTY RIGHTS.  IT CONCLUDED THAT SEC. 128, JUDICIAL CODE, GAVE NO
JURISDICTION; ALSO THAT SEC. 943, ACT JUNE 6, 1900, CONFERS NONE SINCE
IT ONLY DIRECTS THAT ORDERS OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF ALASKA IN PROBATE
CASES SHALL BE DEEMED JUDGMENTS SUBJECT TO APPEAL AS PROVIDED BY SEC.
128. 

THE PETITIONER INSISTS THAT THE CAUSE INVOLVES CONSTRUCTION AND
APPLICATION OF SEVERAL SECTIONS ALASKA CIVIL CODE,  FN3  AND THAT
JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY SEC. 128; ALSO THAT SEC. 943, ACT JUNE 6,
1900, IS APPLICABLE. 

CONSIDERING SUMMERS V. UNITED STATES, 231 U.S. 92, WE CANNOT REGARD
PROVISIONS OF THE ALASKA CIVIL CODE AS LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN
THE INTENDMENT OF SEC. 128.  THEY ARE SPECIAL OR LOCAL LAWS DESIGNED TO
MEET CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO THAT TERRITORY.  IT FOLLOWS THAT THIS
IS AIDED BY THE WORDS "IN ALL OTHER CIVIL CASES WHEREIN THE VALUE IN
CONTROVERSY, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS, EXCEEDS $1,000 ...  AND
IN ALL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS."  IF EVERY CASE ARISING UNDER THE
CIVIL CODE INVOLVES A STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS CLAUSE IS
INAPPROPRIATE. 

MOREOVER, TO BRING WITHIN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS EVERY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF ALASKA CONCERNING
GUARDIANSHIP CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATES, DISTRIBUTIONS, ETC., WOULD HINDER
THE MANIFEST PURPOSE TO LIMIT AND DEFINITELY ESTABLISH THE JURISDICTION
OF THAT COURT DISCLOSED BY JUDICIAL CODE, 1911, AND THE AMENDING ACT OF
1925.  THE ALASKA CIVIL CODE IS AN ELABORATE ACT OF CONGRESS - 230
PRINTED PAGES - WHICH UNDERTAKES TO PRESCRIBE THE LAW ON A GREAT MANY
SUBJECTS. 

THE PROVISION OF SEC. 943, ACT OF JUNE 6, 1900, APPLICABLE TO APPEALS
IN PROBATE CASES IN ALASKA, APPEARS IN THE MARGIN, ANTE NOTE 2. 

COUNSEL MAINTAIN THAT THIS MUST BE INTERPRETED AS IF IT READ: 

"AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT MADE IN A PROBATE CASE ON APPEAL TO
IT, SHALL BE DEEMED A JUDGMENT.  SUCH JUDGMENT IS APPEALABLE.  THE
MANNER OR MODE OF TAKING AND PERFECTING SUCH APPEAL SHALL BE THE SAME
MANNER OR MODE WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR THE TAKING AND PERFECTING OF AN
APPEAL FROM OTHER APPEALABLE JUDGMENTS MADE AND ENTERED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT." 

THIS PROPOSAL IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE
LATER ACTS OF 1911 AND 1925.  THESE ARE OF GENERAL APPLICATION, AND ANY
PROVISION OF THE ALASKA CODE CONCERNING APPEALS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS INCONSISTENT WITH THEM IS INEFFECTIVE. 

MOREOVER, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE VIEW THAT THE WORDS "IN THE MANNER
PROVIDED" FOUND IN SEC. 943 WERE INTENDED TO PERMIT APPEALS IN PROBATE
MATTERS WITHOUT RESTRICTION - TO RELIEVE THEM OF REQUIREMENTS GENERALLY
APPLICABLE TO CAUSES IN THE COURTS OF THE TERRITORY. 

THE COURT BELOW REACHED THE PROPER CONCLUSION.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 128, 28 U.S.C. SEC. 225; ACT MARCH 3, 1911,
AMENDED FEB. 13, 1925, C. 229, 43 STAT. 936: 

"(A)  REVIEW OF FINAL DECISIONS.  THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL SHALL
HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BY APPEAL OR WRIT OF ERROR FINAL
DECISIONS - 

"... 

"THIRD.  IN THE DISTRICT COURTS FOR ALASKA OR ANY DIVISION THEREOF,
AND FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, IN ALL CASES, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, WHEREIN
THE CONSTITUTION OR A STATUTE OR TREATY OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY
AUTHORITY EXERCISED THEREUNDER IS INVOLVED; IN ALL OTHER CIVIL CASES
WHEREIN THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY, EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST AND COSTS,
EXCEEDS $1,000; IN ALL OTHER CRIMINAL CASES WHERE THE OFFENSE CHARGED
IS PUNISHABLE BY IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM EXCEEDING ONE YEAR OR BY
DEATH, AND IN ALL HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS; AND IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CANAL ZONE IN THE CASES AND MODE PRESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 1307,
1324, 1336, AND 1341 TO 1357 OF TITLE 48." 

FN2  ACT JUNE 6, 1900, C. 786, 31 STAT. 480.  (SEC. 943 CARTER'S
ANNOTATED CODES; SEC. 1775 COMPILED LAWS OF ALASKA 1913; SEC. 4574
COMPILED LAWS OF ALASKA 1933): 

"SEC. 943.  UPON SUCH HEARING THE DISTRICT COURT OR JUDGE THEREOF
SHALL DETERMINE THE ISSUES SO RAISED ACCORDING TO THE VERY RIGHT OF THE
MATTER AND MAKE SUCH ORDER IN THE PREMISES AS HE MAY SEE FIT, WHICH
ORDER SHALL BE ENTERED IN A DOCKET TO BE KEPT BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT
FOR THAT PURPOSE, PROPERLY INDEXED, AND A COPY OF THE SAME SHALL BE
FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE WHOM THE EXCEPTIONS WERE FILED,
WHO SHALL THEREUPON PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH ORDER.  SUCH ORDERS
SHALL BE DEEMED A JUDGMENT, SUBJECT TO APPEAL IN THE MANNER PROVIDED
FOR APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS IN THE DISTRICT COURT." 

FN3  31 STAT. 321. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE AND MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO CONCUR IN THE RESULT, BUT
AS THEY THINK THE CASE MADE ON THE RECORD IS NOT ONE "INVOLVING"
PROVISIONS OF THE ALASKA CODE IT SEEMS UNNECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE MORE
DOUBTFUL QUESTION WHETHER THEY ARE STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES. 
..END :






















HOFFMAN V. RAUCH, 300 U.S. 255 


NO. 563.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 1000, REVERSED. 


1.  BONDS HELD BY A NATIONAL BANK FOR SAFE KEEPING ONLY, WERE SOLD BY
THE CASHIER, WITHOUT AUTHORITY FROM THEIR OWNER, AND THE PRICE WAS
CHARGED TO THE BUYER'S DEPOSIT ACCOUNT IN THE BANK.  LATER, THE BANK
WAS DECLARED INSOLVENT AND A RECEIVER TOOK CHARGE.  HELD THAT THE OWNER
OF THE BONDS WAS NOT A PREFERRED CREDITOR.  P. 256. 

NOTHING OF VALUE WAS ADDED TO THE BANK'S PROPERTY.  NOTHING NEW CAME
INTO ITS TREASURY.  A CREDIT ENTRY AGAINST AN OUTSTANDING OBLIGATION
REPRESENTED THE ONLY POSSIBLE BENEFIT.  ITS TOTAL LIABILITIES WERE NOT
REDUCED SINCE A NEW OBLIGATION AROSE TO PAY TO THE OWNER THE VALUE OF
THE BONDS. 

2.  WHEN A CLAIM IS MADE FOR PREFERENCE AGAINST FUNDS HELD BY THE
RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK, THE BURDEN IS UPON THE CLAIMANT TO
ESTABLISH HIS TITLE; HE MUST DEFINITELY TRACE SOMETHING OF VALUE WHICH
BELONGED TO HIM, OR THE AVAILS THEREFROM, INTO THE RECEIVER'S
POSSESSION.  A MERE SHOWING THAT THE BANK WRONGLY USED PROPERTY OF
ANOTHER IN DISCHARGING ITS INDEBTEDNESS DOES NOT SUFFICE TO ESTABLISH A
PREFERRED CLAIM AGAINST THE RECEIVER.  P. 257. 

HOFFMAN V. RAUCH, ADMINISTRATOR. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 538, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED AGAINST THE RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
OF ONE WHOSE BONDS THE BANK, WHILE HOLDING FOR SAFE KEEPING, HAD
WRONGFULLY SOLD. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK, BOSWELL, PENNSYLVANIA, WAS DECLARED
INSOLVENT JANUARY 26, 1932.  SHORTLY THEREAFTER A RECEIVER TOOK
CHARGE. 

JANUARY 21, 1932, THE BANK'S CASHIER, WITHOUT HER CONSENT, SOLD FOUR
LIBERTY BONDS ($100.00 EACH), BELONGING TO MRS. RAUCH AND HELD BY IT
FOR SAFEKEEPING, TO THE LOHRS.  THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS CHARGED TO THEIR
DEPOSIT ACCOUNT. 

MRS. RAUCH DIED JUNE 2, 1932.  CLAIMING A PREFERENCE, RESPONDENT, HER
ADMINISTRATOR, REFUSED THE RECEIVER'S OFFER OF A GENERAL CLAIM AGAINST
THE ESTATE AND BROUGHT SUIT.  UPON A DIRECTED VERDICT THE ADMINISTRATOR
OBTAINED JUDGMENT AS A PREFERRED CREDITOR.  THE COURT WAS OF OPINION
"THAT THE ASSETS OF THE BANK WERE AUGMENTED WHEN THE BANK RECEIVED FROM
ITS CUSTOMER THE PRICE AGREED UPON FOR SAID BONDS AND, THEREFORE, THAT
THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
ASSETS OF THE DEFENDANT BANK AS A PREFERRED CREDITOR."  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED WITH AN OPINION WHICH STATES:  "WITH THE
DISTRICT JUDGE, WE THINK THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THESE BONDS AUGMENTED THE
ASSETS OF THE BANK.  THEY CERTAINLY REDUCED ITS LIABILITY TO OTHERS." 

PETITIONER MAINTAINS THAT THE BANK'S ASSETS WERE NOT INCREASED
THROUGH SALE OF THE BONDS; THAT NOTHING AROSE THEREFROM WHICH IN
ORIGINAL OR CHANGED FORM CAN BE TRACED INTO THE HANDS OF THE RECEIVER. 

RESPONDENT SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE BANK USED THE BONDS IN DISCHARGE OF
A LIABILITY IT "WAS THEREBY SAVED THE USE OF ITS OWN FUNDS FOR THAT
PURPOSE AND THE ASSETS OF THE BANK AT THE TIME OF CLOSING WERE
THEREFORE LARGER IN AMOUNT THAN THEY OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN.  A
DISCHARGE OR REDUCTION OF A LIABILITY PRODUCES A CORRESPONDING INCREASE
IN ASSETS.  FOR EVERY DEBIT THERE MUST BE A CREDIT." 

OBVIOUSLY, NOTHING OF VALUE WAS ADDED TO THE BANK'S PROPERTY. 
NOTHING NEW CAME INTO ITS TREASURY.  A CREDIT ENTRY AGAINST AN
OUTSTANDING OBLIGATION REPRESENTED THE ONLY POSSIBLE BENEFIT.  ITS
TOTAL LIABILITIES WERE NOT REDUCED SINCE A NEW OBLIGATION AROSE TO PAY
TO THE OWNER THE VALUE OF THE BONDS. 

HERE IT IS ACCEPTED DOCTRINE THAT WHEN A CLAIM IS MADE FOR PREFERENCE
AGAINST FUNDS HELD BY THE RECEIVER OF A NATIONAL BANK THE BURDEN IS
UPON THE CLAIMANT TO ESTABLISH HIS TITLE; HE MUST DEFINITELY TRACE
SOMETHING OF VALUE WHICH BELONGED TO HIM, OR THE AVAILS THEREFROM, INTO
THE RECEIVER'S POSSESSION.  SCHUYLER V. LITTLEFIELD, 232 U.S. 707, 713;
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, 291 U.S. 245, 261.  ALSO, A MERE
SHOWING THAT THE BANK WRONGLY USED PROPERTY OF ANOTHER IN DISCHARGING
ITS INDEBTEDNESS DOES NOT SUFFICE TO ESTABLISH A PREFERRED CLAIM
AGAINST THE RECEIVER. 

ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST HOLD THAT THE COURTS BELOW WERE IN ERROR AND
REVERSE THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT. 

THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES WERE MUCH DISCUSSED IN BLAKEY V.
BRINSON, 286 U.S. 254; TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. POTTORFF, SUPRA;
JENNINGS V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., 294 U.S. 216; OLD
COMPANY'S LEHIGH, INC. V. MEEKER, 294 U.S. 227; ADAMS V. CHAMPION, 294
U.S. 231; AND FARMERS' NATIONAL BANK V. PRIBBLE, 15 F.(2D) 175, 176. 

JENNINGS V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., SUPRA, PP. 224
225, SAID:  "BUT THE SITUATION IS VERY DIFFERENT WHEN WHAT HAS BEEN
RECEIVED BY THE COLLECTING AGENT IS NOT A THING AT ALL, BUT A REDUCTION
OF LIABILITIES BY SET-OFF OR RELEASE  ...  A DEBT DOES NOT FURNISH A
CONTINUUM UPON WHICH A TRUST CAN BE IMPOSED AFTER CANCELLATION OR
EXTINGUISHMENT HAS PUT THE DEBT OUT OF EXISTENCE  ...  THE DIVIDEND
THAT WOULD BE DUE UPON THE DEBTS CANCELED THROUGH THE SET-OFF IF THEY
WERE NOW TO BE REVIVED IS THE MEASURE OF ANY BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE
CREDITORS."  IN OLD COMPANY'S LEHIGH, INC. V. MEEKER, SUPRA, P. 229, WE
ASSERTED:  "WHAT WAS DONE BY THE MAMARONECK BANK ON JANUARY 14, 1933,
DID NOT INVOLVE IN ITS DOING THE CREATION OF A SPECIAL DEPOSIT OR AN
AUGMENTATION OF THE ASSETS.  WHAT WAS DONE HAD NO EFFECT EXCEPT TO
DIMINISH LIABILITIES BY REDUCING THE INDEBTEDNESS DUE TO A DEPOSITOR." 
AND ADAMS V. CHAMPION, SUPRA, DENIED PREFERENCE IN RESPECT OF SO MUCH
OF A BANK CREDIT ARISING FROM THE WRONGFUL DISPOSAL OF BONDS AS HAD
BEEN WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO THE RECEIVERSHIP.  ONLY THE BALANCE CAME TO THE
RECEIVER.  WE SAID, (239): "EVIDENCE IS LACKING THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWN
IN SUCH A FORM OR FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS TO BE REPRESENTED BY ANY ASSETS
FORMING PART OF THE ESTATE TODAY." 

RESPONDENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A PREFERENCE.  HIS RIGHT TO
PARTICIPATION AS A GENERAL CREDITOR IS CONCEDED. 

THE CAUSE MUST GO BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO
PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :





















HENDERSON CO. V. THOMPSON, 300 U.S. 258 


NO. 397.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 2, 3, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 14
F.SUPP.  328, AFFIRMED. 


UNDER A TEXAS STATUTE REGULATING PRODUCTION AND USE OF NATURAL GAS,
"SWEET" GAS, I.E., GAS CONTAINING NOT MORE THAN 1 1/2 GRAINS OF
HYDROGEN SULPHIDE PER 100 CUBIC FEET, AND THEREFORE SUITABLE FOR
HEATING AND LIGHTING, MAY NOT BE USED FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF CARBON
BLACK; BUT THAT SUBSTANCE MAY BE MANUFACTURED FROM "SOUR" GAS, I.E.,
GAS CONTAINING A GREATER PERCENT.  OF HYDROGEN SULPHIDE, NOT SUITABLE
IN ITS NATURAL STATE FOR HEATING AND LIGHTING.  AS APPLIED TO A COMPANY
PRODUCING OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRING "SWEET" GAS IN THE PANHANDLE FIELD FOR
WHICH IT HAD NO MARKET OTHER THAN TO SELL FOR MANUFACTURE OF CARBON
BLACK, HELD: 

1.  THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUSTAIN THE CONTENTION THAT THE PROHIBITION
WILL NOT OPERATE TO CONSERVE "SWEET" GAS, AS INTENDED, BUT WILL SERVE
ONLY TO DEPRIVE THE COMPLAINANT OF THE GAS TO WHICH IT IS ENTITLED,  -
SUCH CONTENTION BEING BASED ON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE GAS, IF NOT
EXTRACTED BY THE COMPANY WILL WANDER SUBTERRANEOUSLY TO A "SOUR" GAS
AREA OF THE FIELD AND BECOME "SOUR" GAS.  P. 264. 

2.  THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE EVIDENCE FOR HOLDING THE CLASSIFICATION
OF "SWEET" AND "SOUR" GAS ARBITRARY UPON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE
HYDROGEN SULPHIDE MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE LATTER AT TRIFLING EXPENSE. 
P. 264. 

3.  THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE CONTENTION THAT THE
STATUTE DISCRIMINATES UNREASONABLY BY PREVENTING THE PLAINTIFF AND
OTHERS IN LIKE POSITION FROM EXTRACTING "SWEET" GAS AND SELLING IT FOR
THE ONLY PURPOSE AVAILABLE, AND BY SUFFERING IT TO DRAIN AWAY MEANWHILE
ONLY TO AUGMENT THE SUPPLIES OF "SOUR" GAS PRODUCERS.  P. 265. 

4.  THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE OBJECTION THAT THE STATUTE
DISCRIMINATES ILLEGALLY BY PROHIBITING THE USE OF SWEET GAS IN CARBON
BLACK MANUFACTURE WHILE PERMITTING ITS USE AS FUEL BY MANUFACTURERS OF
OTHER ARTICLES.  P. 266. 

5.  THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTE UPON THE CONTRACTS OF THE COMPANY FOR
TAKING "SWEET" GAS FROM PRODUCERS AND DELIVERY TO A CARBON BLACK
MANUFACTURER IS MERELY INCIDENTAL AND DOES NOT VIOLATE THE TEXAS
CONSTITUTION.  TRAVELERS' INSURANCE CO. V. MARSHALL, 124 TEX. 45; 76
S.W.(2D) 1007, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 266. 

6.  IN CASE OF DOUBT, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF DEFINITIVE CONSTRUCTION
BY THE STATE COURTS, THIS COURT DEFERS TO THE LOWER FEDERAL COURT'S
UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.  P. 266. 

7.  THE NEEDS OF CONSERVING GAS IN A NATURAL GAS FIELD ARE TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE LEGISLATURE; THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF "SWEET"
GAS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK IS NOT SHOWN IN THIS CASE TO BE
AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.  WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON
CO., 254 U.S. 300.  PP. 264, 267. 

HENDERSON COMPANY V. THOMPSON ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DENYING A
PERMANENT INJUNCTION IN A SUIT TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF A TEXAS
STATUTE, C. 120, ACTS OF 1935, AND ORDERS OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION
THEREUNDER, RELATIVE TO THE USE OF NATURAL GAS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
CARBON BLACK.  THE LOWER COURT'S OPINION ON AN APPLICATION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS REPORTED IN 12 F.SUPP.  519.  SEE ALSO
THOMPSON V. GAS UTILITIES CORP., ANTE, P. 55. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTION FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE PROHIBITION BY TEXAS OF THE
USE OF SWEET NATURAL GAS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK IN THE
PANHANDLE FIELD IS VALID. 

THE SUIT IS BROUGHT IN THE FEDERAL COURT FOR WESTERN TEXAS BY THE
HENDERSON COMPANY, A MAINE CORPORATION.  IT CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF
THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 120 OF THE ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE
OF TEXAS, 1935, FORTY-FOURTH REGULAR SESSION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS HOUSE
BILL 266: SUBDIVISIONS (G) AND (H) OF SEC. 2, WHICH DEFINE SWEET AND
SOUR GAS; FN1  SUBDIVISION (J) OF SEC. 3, WHICH PROHIBITS THE USE OF
SWEET GAS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK; FN2  AND SUBDIVISION (1)
OF SEC. 7, WHICH DEFINES THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH SWEET GAS MAY BE USED. 
FN3  SEE THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES CORP., ANTE, P. 55. 
THE SUIT CHALLENGES, ALSO, THE VALIDITY OF ORDERS ENTERED BY THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE. 

THE HENDERSON COMPANY OWNS AND OPERATES IN THE PANHANDLE GAS FIELD A
CASINGHEAD GASOLINE PLANT WHICH IS CONNECTED WITH 21 GAS WELLS; HOLDS
OIL AND GAS LEASES UNDER WHICH SOME OF THESE WELLS ARE OPERATED; AND IS
UNDER CONTRACT TO TAKE GAS FROM THE OTHER WELLS.  PRIOR TO THE STATUTE,
IT RECEIVED AT ITS PLANT THE GAS FROM ALL THESE WELLS; EXTRACTED
THEREFROM THE GASOLINE CONTENT; AND HAD CONTRACTED TO SUPPLY THE
RESIDUE GAS TO THE COMBINED CARBON COMPANY.  THE ORDERS CHALLENGED
CLASSIFIED FOURTEEN OF THE WELLS AS SWEET GAS WELLS AND PROHIBITED BOTH
TAKING THE GAS THEREFROM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCESSING THE SAME FOR ITS
GASOLINE CONTENT AND DELIVERY OF THE RESIDUE FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF
CARBON BLACK.  THE SEVEN REMAINING WELLS, CLASSIFIED AS SOUR, CANNOT
FURNISH THE QUANTITY OF GAS REQUIRED BY THE COMPANY IN ITS GASOLINE
PLANT AND TO PERFORM ITS CONTRACT WITH THE CARBON COMPANY.  A SUPPLY
FROM OTHER SOUR GAS WELLS IS NOT AVAILABLE; AND FOR THE GAS FROM THE
FOURTEEN WELLS CLASSIFIED AS SWEET THERE IS NO OTHER USE. 

THE BILL CHARGES THAT THE STATUTE AND THE ORDERS ENTERED THEREUNDER
VIOLATE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION - THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE CONTRACT CLAUSE; ALSO
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TEXAS.  THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS ARE MADE DEFENDANTS.  THE RELIEF
SOUGHT IS TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATUTE, TEMPORARILY AND
PERMANENTLY. 

THE JURISDICTION, FEDERAL AND EQUITABLE, WAS NOT QUESTIONED.  ANSWERS
WERE FILED.  AN APPLICATION FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER WAS DENIED.  THAT
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, PROMPTLY HEARD BEFORE THREE JUDGES, WAS
ALSO DENIED, 12 F.SUPP.  519.  AND ON FINAL HEARING UPON AN EXTENSIVE
RECORD A DECREE WAS ENTERED DENYING THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND
DISMISSING THE BILL, 14 F.SUPP.  328.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW WERE FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH EQUITY RULE 70 1/2.  THE CASE IS
HERE ON APPEAL. 

THE FINDINGS CONTAIN, AS IN THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES
CORP., A DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARACTER AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PANHANDLE GAS FIELD.  IN THE WESTERN FIELD THE SWEET GAS ZONE LIES TO
THE SOUTH, OCCUPYING ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF IT; THE SOUR GAS ZONE LIES TO
THE NORTH AND OCCUPIES ABOUT ONE-THIRD.  PLANTS WHICH STRIP THE GAS OF
ITS GASOLINE CONTENT AND CARBON BLACK PLANTS WHICH USE THE RESIDUE ARE
APPARENTLY ACCESSIBLE TO BOTH ZONES.  FOR THOSE PURPOSES EITHER SWEET
OR SOUR GAS CAN BE USED.  FOR THE SWEET GAS OF THE PANHANDLE FIELD
THERE IS ALSO A LARGE DEMAND FOR FUEL AND LIGHT.  FOR THE SOUR GAS IN
ITS NATURAL STATE THERE IS PRACTICALLY NO USE OTHER THAN IN THE
STRIPPING AND THE CARBON BLACK PLANTS.  THERE ARE 29 CARBON BLACK
PLANTS IN THE PANHANDLE FIELD.  THESE PRODUCE MORE THAN 70 PER CENT. OF
ALL CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES; AND THEY CONSUME,
ON THE AVERAGE, ABOUT 550,000,000 CUBIC FEET PER DAY.  INTOLERABLE
WASTE HAD RESULTED BY USE OF SWEET GAS UNDER PERMITS ISSUED BY THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION UNDER CHAPTER 100, ACTS 1933, FORTY-THIRD
LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, WHICH ALLOWED THE USE OF SWEET GAS FOR
INFERIOR PURPOSES WHERE THERE WAS NO FUEL AND LIGHT MARKET.  IT WAS
PRIMARILY TO PREVENT SUCH WASTE THAT THE LEGISLATURE PROHIBITED BY
HOUSE BILL 266 THE USE OF SWEET GAS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CARBON
BLACK. 

THE COURT FOUND, AMONG OTHER THINGS: 

"THERE IS ENOUGH SOUR GAS IN RESERVE IN THE PANHANDLE FIELD TO
FULFILL THE WORLD'S REQUIREMENTS OF CARBON BLACK FOR MANY YEARS TO
COME.  THERE IS ALSO A TREMENDOUS SUPPLY OF CASINGHEAD GAS IN THE
PANHANDLE FIELD.  THERE IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF
CARBON BLACK SUFFICIENT ALLOTMENTS UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE RAILROAD
COMMISSION OF SOUR AND CASINGHEAD GAS TO SUPPLY ALL THE DEMANDS AND
NEEDS OF SUCH PLANTS WITH AN EXCESS OF 100,000,000 CUBIC FEET OF
CASINGHEAD GAS OVER AND ABOVE THE DEMAND OF THE CARBON BLACK PLANTS. 

"...  A PRODUCER OF SWEET GAS, IF HE IS ABLE TO MARKET THE SAME FOR
LIGHT AND FUEL PURPOSES, RECEIVES ABOUT THREE OR FOUR CENTS PER 1000
CUBIC FEET IN THE FIELD.  WHEN SUCH GAS IS DELIVERED AT THE BURNER TIPS
IT SELLS FOR VARIOUS GREATER AMOUNTS.  THE PRODUCERS OF GAS WHO SELL TO
THE COMPANIES WHO STRIP IT AND BURN IT FOR CARBON BLACK RECEIVE LESS
THAN A CENT PER 1000 CUBIC FEET." 

THE COMPANY CONTENDS THAT OUR DECISION IN WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON
CO., 254 U.S. 300, WHICH UPHELD CERTAIN ACTION OF WYOMING IN
PROHIBITING AS WASTEFUL THE USE OF NATURAL GAS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
CARBON BLACK, IS INAPPLICABLE TO THE ISSUES HERE PRESENTED.  THE
COMPANY CONCEDES THAT TEXAS MAY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING WASTE,
REGULATE BOTH THE PRODUCTION AND THE USE OF NATURAL GAS.  IT DOES NOT
DENY THAT WHEN ONE NATURAL RESOURCE IS FITTED FOR TWO USES AND ANOTHER
RESOURCE ONLY FOR ONE, THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE POWER TO MARSHAL THESE
RESOURCES BY CLASSIFYING THEM, AND DESIGNATING THE USES TO WHICH EACH
MAY BE PUT.  NOR DOES IT DENY THAT THE CLASSIFICATION AND THE
LIMITATION OF THE USE OF SWEET GAS MAY "WHEN CONSIDERING ALL OF THE GAS
FIELDS IN TEXAS AS A WHOLE, BEAR A REASONABLE RELATION TO THE PURPOSES
SOUGHT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED."  BUT IT INSISTS THAT AS APPLIED TO THE
PANHANDLE FIELD THE CLASSIFICATION AND PROHIBITION ARE VOID, BECAUSE,
THERE, THEY BEAR NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE
ATTAINED, AND ARE ARBITRARILY DISCRIMINATORY. 

FIRST.  THE CONTENTION THAT IN THE PANHANDLE FIELD THE PROHIBITION OF
THE USE OF SWEET GAS IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK IS ARBITRARY
AND UNREASONABLE RESTS PRIMARILY UPON THE FACT THAT THE SOUR AND THE
SWEET GAS WELLS ARE IN THE SAME RESERVOIR.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT
PRESSURES IN THE SOUR GAS AREA ARE LOWER THAN THOSE IN THE SWEET GAS
AREA; THAT, SINCE THERE IS NO FREE MARKET FOR SWEET GAS FOR FUEL AND
LIGHT, IT WILL, IF NOT USED IN CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURE, AND IF
WITHDRAWALS OF SOUR GAS ARE PERMITTED TO THE EXTENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE CARBON BLACK INDUSTRY, MIGRATE INTO LOWER PRESSURE AREAS AND
BECOME A PART OF THE SOUR GAS SUPPLY; THAT, THEREFORE, THE SUPPLY OF
SWEET GAS WILL NOT BE CONSERVED; AND THAT THE EFFECT OF THE PROHIBITION
OF ITS USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK WILL BE MERELY TO DEPRIVE
THE COMPANY, THROUGH THE MIGRATION, OF THE GAS TO WHICH IT IS
ENTITLED.  BUT THE LOWER COURT FOUND THAT THE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIRED
FOR SUCH MIGRATION IS NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN AND THAT THE DEMAND FOR
SWEET GAS FOR FUEL AND LIGHT IS INCREASING.  THE NEEDS OF CONSERVATION
ARE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LEGISLATURE.  SEE WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON
CO., 254 U.S. 300, 324.  THE LOSS OF SWEET GAS BY MIGRATION MAY BE
RELATIVELY NEGLIGIBLE.  THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS "AN ABUNDANCE
OF FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATIVE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE BURNING
OF SWEET GAS FOR CARBON BLACK."  NO FACTS HAVE BEEN FOUND, OR
ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE, WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY US IN PRONOUNCING THE
ACTION OF THE LEGISLATURE ARBITRARY. 

SECOND.  THE COMPANY INSISTS, ALSO, THAT THE PRESCRIBED PROHIBITION
IS VOID, BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SWEET GAS AND SOUR IS SOLELY
THE PRESENCE IN THE LATTER OF A QUANTITY OF HYDROGEN SULPHIDE; THAT BY
PROCESSING THE SULPHIDE CAN BE ERADICATED FROM SOUR GAS AT A SLIGHT
EXPENSE; AND THAT THE SOUR GAS WHEN SO PURIFIED IS FIT FOR USE FOR FUEL
AND LIGHT.  THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SWEET AND SOUR GAS FIXED BY THE
LEGISLATURE AT 1 1/2 GRAINS OF HYDROGEN SULPHIDE PER 100 CUBIC FEET, IS
FOUND BY THE COURT TO BE APT.  THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE COST OF PURIFYING
IS WIDELY CONFLICTING.  THE COST MIGHT DEPEND, AMONG OTHER THINGS, UPON
THE EXTENT OF THE SULPHUR CONTENT.  THE CLASSIFICATION MADE HAS AMPLE
SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE.  WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND IN THE REGULATION
ANYTHING ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE.  COMPARE LINDSLEY V. NATURAL
CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61, 78; WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON CO., SUPRA,
324. 

THIRD.  THE COMPANY CONTENDS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AS
APPLIED DISCRIMINATE UNREASONABLY BETWEEN IT AND OTHER PRODUCERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED.  THE STATUTE APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL SWEET GAS
WELLS.  THE DISCRIMINATION SUGGESTED IS IN FAVOR OF THE SOUR GAS WELL
OWNERS.  THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOW NO FUEL AND LIGHT
MARKET FOR ITS SWEET GAS; THAT GAS MAY DRAIN INTO A SOUR WELL; AND, IF
IT DOES, WILL BECOME SOUR AND BE USABLE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CARBON
BLACK.  IT IS NOT KNOWN WHEN THE EXPECTED DRAINAGE WILL OCCUR.  LONG
BEFORE THAT TIME THERE MAY BE A FUEL AND LIGHT MARKET FOR THE COMPANY'S
SWEET GAS.  IT IS ALSO URGED THAT THE STATUTE DISCRIMINATES ILLEGALLY
BY PROHIBITING THE USE OF SWEET GAS IN CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURE WHILE
PERMITTING ITS USE AS FUEL BY MANUFACTURERS OF OTHER ARTICLES.  THERE
ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENCES WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE CLASSIFICATION.  AMONG
THEM, THIS:  THE DAILY AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF THE 29 CARBON BLACK
PLANTS IS ONLY SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THE AVERAGE DAILY AMOUNT TAKEN BY THE
PIPE LINES FOR FUEL AND LIGHT PURPOSES.  FOR THE CARBON BLACK PLANTS IN
THE PANHANDLE FIELD THE SOUR GAS THERE AFFORDS AN AMPLE SUPPLY.  FOR
THE FUEL USES SERVED BY THE INTERSTATE PIPE LINES SWEET GAS IS
PRACTICALLY INDISPENSABLE.  COMPARE OHIO OIL CO. V. INDIANA (NO. 1),
177 U.S. 190, 211; WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON CO., SUPRA, 317, 322, 324. 

FOURTH.  THE COMPANY CLAIMS THAT THE STATUTE IMPAIRS THE OBLIGATION
OF CONTRACTS, SINCE IT PROHIBITS PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY'S CONTRACTS
WITH PRODUCERS TO TAKE SWEET GAS FOR ITS STRIPPING PLANT AND ITS
CONTRACT TO DELIVER THE RESIDUE AFTER STRIPPING TO THE COMBINED CARBON
COMPANY.  THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE TEXAS
CONSTITUTION, UNLIKE THAT OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, PREVENTS THE
STATE FROM ENACTING A POLICE MEASURE WHICH WILL RESULT IN IMPAIRING A
CONTRACT.  IN SUPPORT OF THAT PROPOSITION, THE COMPANY CITES TRAVELERS'
INS. CO. V. MARSHALL, 124 TEX. 45; 76 S.W.(2D) 1007, DECIDED BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN 1934.  BUT THAT CASE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE
PROPOSITION.  THE STATUTE THERE HELD VOID WAS A MORATORIUM STATUTE
SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED AGAINST THE TERMS OF CONTRACTS.  THE STATUTE HERE
CHALLENGED IS NOT DIRECTED AGAINST ANY TERM OF ANY CONTRACT.  IT DEALS
MERELY WITH THE USE OF AN ARTICLE OF COMMERCE; AND ITS EFFECT UPON
CONTRACTS IS INCIDENTAL.  THE DISTINCTION WAS POINTED OUT BY THE
DISTRICT COURT, WHICH SAID THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
"HAS NEVER BEEN HELD TO AVOID A POLICE STATUTE DEALING DIRECTLY WITH
PHYSICAL THINGS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE, AND TOUCHING
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS ONLY INCIDENTALLY AS THEY MAY HAVE ATTACHED
TO THOSE PHYSICAL THINGS PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE STATUTE."  14
F.SUPP.  328, 334.  THAT RULING ACCORDS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE
LONG ESTABLISHED IN THIS AND OTHER COURTS.  IF WE FELT ANY DOUBT AS TO
ITS APPLICATION HERE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITIVE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE BY ITS HIGHEST COURT, WE SHOULD DEFER TO
THE FEDERAL COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE LAW.  SEE THOMPSON V.
CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES CORP., SUPRA. 

FIFTH.  THE CONTENTION THAT OUR DECISION IN THE WALLS CASE IS
INAPPLICABLE IS RESTED IN PART ON THE DIFFERENCE, AS TO THE TITLE TO
GAS IN PLACE, BETWEEN THE LAW OF WYOMING AND THAT OF TEXAS.  IT IS
URGED THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF WASTE, THE LEGISLATURE LACKS POWER TO
REGULATE PRODUCTION IN TEXAS, SINCE THERE THE LAW GIVES THE OWNER OF
LAND TITLE TO THE GAS IN PLACE AND TO THAT WHICH MIGRATES TO FORMATIONS
UNDER HIS LAND; WHEREAS IN WYOMING REGULATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROTECTING CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF OTHER OWNERS IN A COMMON POOL IS
PERMISSIBLE.  UPON THIS ARGUMENT WE NEED NOT PASS.  ONE PRINCIPLE
ESTABLISHED BY THE WALLS CASE IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONSERVING NATURAL RESOURCES, REGULATE THEIR PRODUCTION AND
USE.  THE FINDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE SUPPORT THE
REASONABLENESS OF THE PRESENT STATUTE ON THAT BASIS.  IT IS ALSO URGED
THAT THERE IS THIS VITAL DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS: THAT IN THE PANHANDLE
FIELD THE CHALLENGED PROHIBITION WILL NOT PREVENT WASTE, OR CONSERVE
THE SUPPLY OF SWEET GAS, SINCE THE SWEET GAS, IF NOT USED, WILL DRAIN
INTO THE SOUR GAS AREA, BECAUSE OF THE LOWER PRESSURES THERE. 
MOREOVER, IT IS INSISTED THAT, UNLIKE THE WALLS CASE, THERE IS HERE IN
THE RECORD CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE USE OF SWEET GAS IN THE
MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK IS NOT WASTEFUL.  OUR DECISION IN THAT CASE
RESTED UPON NO PARTICULAR THEORY OF THE NATURE OF THE CARBON BLACK
INDUSTRY.  IT WAS BASED SIMPLY UPON THE DETERMINATION THAT THE STATUTE
IN QUESTION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER.  SUCH, LIKEWISE, IS OUR JUDGMENT HERE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  "SEC.  2. 

"(G)  THE TERM 'SOUR GAS' SHALL MEAN ANY NATURAL GAS CONTAINING MORE
THAN ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2) GRAINS OF HYDROGEN SULPHIDE PER ONE
HUNDRED (100) CUBIC FEET OR MORE THAN THIRTY (30) GRAINS OF TOTAL
SULPHUR PER ONE HUNDRED (100) CUBIC FEET, OR GAS WHICH IN ITS NATURAL
STATE IS FOUND BY THE COMMISSION TO BE UNFIT FOR USE IN GENERATING
LIGHT OR FUEL FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES. 

"(H)  THE TERM 'SWEET GAS' SHALL MEAN ALL NATURAL GAS EXCEPT 'SOUR
GAS' AND 'CASINGHEAD GAS.'" 

FN2  "SEC.  3.  THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, OR USE OF NATURAL GAS
IN SUCH MANNER, IN SUCH AMOUNT, OR UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AS TO
CONSTITUTE WASTE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL AND IS PROHIBITED. 
THE TERM 'WASTE' AMONG OTHER THINGS SHALL SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE:... 

"(J)  THE USE OF SWEET GAS PRODUCED FROM A GAS WELL FOR THE
MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK...." 

FN3  "SEC.  7.  AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE TIME OF
ENCOUNTERING GAS IN A GAS WELL, NO GAS FROM SUCH WELL SHALL BE
PERMITTED TO ESCAPE INTO THE AIR, AND ALL GAS PRODUCED THEREFROM SHALL
BE UTILIZED FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: 

"(1)  NO SWEET GAS SHALL BE UTILIZED EXCEPT FOR: 

"(A)  LIGHT OR FUEL. 

"(B)  EFFICIENT CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING, OTHER THAN THE MANUFACTURE OF
CARBON BLACK. 

"(C)  BONA FIDE INTRODUCTION OF GAS INTO OIL, OR GAS BEARING HORIZON,
IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OR INCREASE THE ROCK PRESSURE OR OTHERWISE
INCREASE THE ULTIMATE RECOVERY OF OIL OR GAS FROM SUCH HORIZON. 

"(D)  THE EXTRACTION OF NATURAL GASOLINE THEREFROM WHEN THE RESIDUE
IS RETURNED TO THE HORIZON FROM WHICH IT IS PRODUCED." 
..END :











FOUNDERS GENERAL CO. V. HOEY, 300 U.S. 268 


NO. 398.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 11, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 976, AFFIRMED.  - 84 F.(2D) 908, REVERSED.  - 83 CT. CLS. 593 -
15 F.SUPP.  70, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE THE CERTIFICATES FOR CORPORATE SHARES SUBSCRIBED FOR BY A
ARE, BY HIS DIRECTION AND FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE, ISSUED TO B, HIS
NOMINEE AND AGENT FOR THIS PURPOSE, THERE IS A TRANSFER FROM A TO B OF
THE "RIGHT TO RECEIVE" THE CERTIFICATES WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER SEC.
800, SCHEDULE A-3 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, ALTHOUGH THE ARRANGEMENTS
BETWEEN A AND B WERE SUCH THAT, AS AGAINST A, B COULD NOT HAVE
COMPELLED ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATES TO HIMSELF AND ACQUIRES NO
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE SECURITIES AND HAS NO PART IN THE MANAGEMENT
OR DISPOSAL OF THEM.  P. 273. 

2.  A NEW CORPORATION TOOK OVER THE ASSETS OF AN OLD ONE AND AGREED
TO ISSUE ITS SHARES TO THE OLD STOCKHOLDERS, BUT IN PURSUANCE OF AN
IRREVOCABLE AGREEMENT AND POWER OF ATTORNEY PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED BY THE
STOCKHOLDERS, PORTIONS OF THEIR NEW ALLOTMENTS, PRO RATA, WERE ISSUED
DIRECTLY TO THEIR ATTORNEY FOR PURPOSES OF SALE.  HELD THAT THERE WAS A
TAXABLE TRANSFER, FROM STOCKHOLDERS TO ATTORNEY, OF THE "RIGHT TO
RECEIVE" SHARES, UNDER SEC. 800, SCHEDULE A-3 OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926.  RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 296 U.S. 60.  P.
274. 

3.  A TAXPAYER WHOSE TRANSACTION IS WITHIN A TAXING STATUTE CANNOT BE
RELIEVED UPON THE GROUND THAT BY ADOPTING ANOTHER FORM OF DEALING HE
COULD HAVE ACHIEVED HIS ULTIMATE PURPOSE AND AVOIDED THE STATUTE.  P.
275. 

FOUNDERS GENERAL CORP. V. HOEY, COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 331, UNITED STATES V. A.B. LEACH & CO., CERTIORARI
TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT; AND NO. 330,
UNITED STATES V. AUTOMATIC WASHER CO., CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF
CLAIMS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 534, 531, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS IN SUITS FOR THE
RECOVERY OF MONEYS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRONGFULLY EXACTED AS TAXES ON
STOCK TRANSFERS, AND AS INTEREST AND PENALTIES.  IN NO. 398, THE
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT (12 F.SUPP.  290) DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT BELOW.  IN NO. 331 A RECOVERY IN
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE COURT BELOW.  IN NO. 330 THERE
WAS A JUDGMENT FOR THE TAXPAYER IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THESE THREE CASES PRESENT, IN THE MAIN, THE SAME QUESTION:  WHEN, AT
THE INSTANCE OF ONE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE STOCK, THE CERTIFICATES
THEREFOR ARE, AT HIS REQUEST AND FOR HIS CONVENIENCE, ISSUED BY THE
CORPORATION IN THE NAME OF A NOMINEE WHO RECEIVES NO BENEFICIAL
INTEREST THEREIN, DOES THE TRANSACTION INVOLVE A TRANSFER BY THE
BENEFICIAL OWNER REQUIRING A DOCUMENTARY STAMP PURSUANT TO SEC. 800,
SCHEDULE A-3, OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926, FEBRUARY 26, 1926, C. 27,
TITLE VIII, 44 STAT. 99, 101? 

THE TAXPAYERS SEEK TO RECOVER THE AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
WRONGFULLY EXACTED FOR THE TAX, WITH INTEREST AND PENALTIES.  IN NO.
398, THE CLAIM OF FOUNDERS GENERAL CORPORATION FOR $4,733.33, WAS
DENIED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, 12
F.SUPP.  290; 84 F.(2D) 976.  IN NO. 331, THE CLAIM OF A.B. LEACH &
CO., INC., FOR $16,526.40 WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.  84 F.(2D) 908.  IN NO. 330, THE CLAIM OF
AUTOMATIC WASHER COMPANY FOR $1,593.63 WAS ALLOWED BY THE COURT OF
CLAIMS, 83 CT. CLS. 593; 15 F.SUPP.  70.  BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT, WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

1.  IN THE SUIT BROUGHT BY THE FOUNDERS CORPORATION, THE COMPLAINT,
SETTING FORTH THE FOLLOWING FACTS, WAS DISMISSED:  ON SEPTEMBER 10,
1929, THAT CORPORATION AGREED WITH THE UNITED STATES ELECTRIC POWER
CORPORATION TO SUBSCRIBE FOR 100,000 SHARES OF ITS COMMON STOCK, TO BE
DELIVERED ON SEPTEMBER 17TH, EACH SHARE TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A WARRANT
ENTITLING THE HOLDER TO SUBSCRIBE BEFORE JANUARY 2, 1940 FOR AN
ADDITIONAL SHARE.  AFTER MAKING THE AGREEMENT AND BEFORE DELIVERY OF
THE SHARES, THE FOUNDERS CORPORATION DIRECTED THAT THE SECURITIES BE
ISSUED IN THE NAME OF BENTON & CO., AS ITS NOMINEE.  BENTON & CO. WAS A
PARTNERSHIP, ORGANIZED IN 1928 SOLELY TO HOLD IN ITS NAME SECURITIES
BELONGING TO THE PLAINTIFF, AND TO TRANSFER THEM AT PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST.  FOR ACTING AS NOMINEE, THE PARTNERSHIP RECEIVED FROM
PLAINTIFF AN ANNUAL FEE OF $1500.  BY CONTRACT BETWEEN BENTON & CO. AND
PLAINTIFF, NEITHER THE PARTNERSHIP NOR ANY MEMBER THEREOF COULD CLAIM
ANY BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN ANY SECURITIES HELD BY THE FIRM, AND
PLAINTIFF WAS APPOINTED AGENT OF BENTON & CO. FOR THE SALE AND TRANSFER
OF SECURITIES REGISTERED IN THE PARTNERSHIP NAME.  THE STOCK ISSUED BY
THE ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION IN THE NAME OF BENTON & CO. WAS
DELIVERED TO THE FOUNDERS CORPORATION. 

STAMP TAXES WERE CONFESSEDLY PAYABLE ON THE ORIGINAL ISSUE, AND ON
THE TRANSFER OF ANY SECURITIES FROM BENTON & CO. TO THE PUBLIC.  THE
ONLY TAX CHALLENGED IS THAT UPON THE ALLEGED TRANSFER BY PLAINTIFF TO
BENTON & CO. OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE STOCK OF THE ELECTRIC POWER
CORPORATION. 

2.  IN THE SUIT BROUGHT BY A.B. LEACH & CO., INC., THE DECLARATION
UPON DEMURRER TO WHICH THE RECOVERY WAS HAD, SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING
FACTS:  THAT CONCERN, BEING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING
SECURITIES TO THE PUBLIC, ORGANIZED FIVE CORPORATIONS; SUBSCRIBED FOR
ALL THEIR STOCK; AND DIRECTED THAT THE STOCK BE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF
VERCOUTER, AN EMPLOYEE.  IT IS CONCEDED THAT HE HAD NO BENEFICIAL
INTEREST IN THE STOCK; HAD NO AUTHORITY TO ACT EXCEPT AS DIRECTED BY
A.B. LEACH & CO., INC.; AND RECEIVED THE CERTIFICATES SOLELY FOR ITS
BENEFIT AND CONVENIENCE IN CONNECTION WITH FUTURE SALES TO THE PUBLIC. 

STAMP TAXES WERE CONFESSEDLY PAYABLE ON THE ORIGINAL ISSUE, BY THE
FIVE CORPORATIONS.  THE ONLY TAX CHALLENGED IS THAT UPON THE ALLEGED
TRANSFER BY THE TAXPAYER TO VERCOUTER OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE STOCK
OF THE FIVE CORPORATIONS. 

3.  IN THE SUIT BROUGHT BY AUTOMATIC WASHER COMPANY, THE FACTS FOUND
ON WHICH RECOVERY WAS ALLOWED ARE THESE:  AN AGREEMENT, DATED JUNE 22,
1928, BETWEEN FOLDS, BUCK & COMPANY, BANKERS, AND NELSON, A STOCKHOLDER
AND OFFICER OF THE WASHER COMPANY'S CORPORATE PREDECESSOR, PROVIDED
THAT NELSON PROPOSED TO CAUSE THE LATTER CONCERN TO BE REORGANIZED AS A
DELAWARE CORPORATION WHICH SHOULD ACQUIRE THE ASSETS AND ASSUME THE
LIABILITIES OF THE OLD COMPANY; THAT THE NEW COMPANY SHOULD ISSUE
THEREFOR 140,000 SHARES OF COMMON AND 40,000 SHARES OF PREFERRED; AND
THAT THE BANKERS SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF ACQUIRING FOR $1,000,000
40,000 SHARES OF THE COMMON AND 40,000 SHARES OF THE PREFERRED.  ON
SEPTEMBER 17, 1928, THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE OLD COMPANY AGREED WITH
NELSON TO CONTRIBUTE RATABLY THE SHARES IN THE NEW WHICH WERE TO BE
SOLD TO THE BANKERS.  TO THIS END, EACH IRREVOCABLY APPOINTED NELSON
AND ONE GALLAGHER ATTORNEYS IN FACT TO RECEIVE THE STOCK OF THE NEW
COMPANY AND TO MAKE SALE THEREOF TO THE BANKERS.  THE NEW COMPANY, THE
TAXPAYER, WAS ORGANIZED.  ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1928, THE TWO COMPANIES
AGREED THAT THE ASSETS SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEW IN
CONSIDERATION OF ITS ISSUING ITS COMMON AND PREFERRED STOCK TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS OF THE OLD.  THE AGREEMENT RECITED THE ARRANGEMENT WITH
THE BANKERS AND THAT: 

"IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THIS PLAN  ...  EACH OF THE STOCKHOLDERS OF
THE OLD COMPANY HAS IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTED AND APPOINTED H. E. NELSON
AND W. N. GALLAGHER HIS ATTORNEYS IN FACT TO RECEIVE THE RESPECTIVE
SECURITIES OF THE NEW COMPANY TO WHICH SUCH STOCKHOLDER MAY BE ENTITLED
AND TO MAKE SALE OF THAT PORTION THEREOF TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY SUCH
STOCKHOLDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT SAID AGREEMENT OF SALE WITH
THE BANKERS....  ACCORDINGLY, THE NEW COMPANY  ...  SHALL ISSUE SUCH
CERTIFICATES IN SUCH NAMES AND FOR SUCH AMOUNTS AS SHALL BE SPECIFIED
IN THE JOINT ORDER OF THE SAID H. E. NELSON AND W. N. GALLAGHER, THE
ATTORNEYS IN FACT  ...  AND DELIVER THE SAME TO SAID ATTORNEYS IN FACT
..." 

THE 74,538 SHARES DESIGNED TO BE SOLD TO THE BANKERS WERE ISSUED TO
NELSON.  FN1  OF THESE, 13,173 WERE THE PRO RATA CONTRIBUTION OF
NELSON. 

THE TAXPAYER CONCEDES NOW THAT STAMP TAXES WERE PAYABLE ON THE
ORIGINAL ISSUE OF ALL THE STOCK BY THE NEW COMPANY; ON THE OLD
COMPANY'S TRANSFER TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS (INCLUDING NELSON) OF ITS RIGHT
TO RECEIVE THE NEW COMPANY'S STOCK; ON NELSON'S TRANSFER TO THE
BANKERS; AND ON THE BANKERS' SALES TO THE PUBLIC.  THE GOVERNMENT
CONCEDES NOW THAT TAXES ARE NOT PAYABLE ON NELSON'S ALLEGED TRANSFER TO
HIMSELF OF HIS 13,173 SHARES WHICH WERE TO GO TO THE BANKER.  THE TAX
CHALLENGED IS THAT ON THE ALLEGED TRANSFER TO NELSON OF THE RIGHT TO
RECEIVE THE 61,365 SHARES WHICH THE OTHER STOCKHOLDERS CONTRIBUTED. 

THE APPLICABLE PART OF SEC. 800, SCHEDULE A - STAMP TAXES, IS AS
FOLLOWS: 

"3.  CAPITAL STOCK, SALES OR TRANSFERS:  ON ALL SALES, OR AGREEMENTS
TO SELL, OR MEMORANDA OF SALES OR DELIVERIES OF, OR TRANSFERS OF LEGAL
TITLE TO SHARES OR CERTIFICATES OF STOCK OR OF PROFITS OR OF INTEREST
IN PROPERTY OR ACCUMULATIONS IN ANY CORPORATION, OR TO RIGHTS TO
SUBSCRIBE FOR OR TO RECEIVE SUCH SHARES OR CERTIFICATES, WHETHER MADE
UPON OR SHOWN BY THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION, OR BY ANY ASSIGNMENT IN
BLANK, OR BY ANY DELIVERY, OR BY ANY PAPER OR AGREEMENT OR MEMORANDUM
OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF TRANSFER OR SALE, WHETHER ENTITLING THE HOLDER IN
ANY MANNER TO THE BENEFIT OF SUCH STOCK, INTEREST, OR RIGHTS, OR NOT,
ON EACH $100 OF FACE VALUE OR FRACTION THEREOF, 2 CENTS, AND WHERE SUCH
SHARES ARE WITHOUT PAR OR FACE VALUE, THE TAX SHALL BE 2 CENTS ON THE
TRANSFER OR SALE OR AGREEMENT TO SELL ON EACH SHARE:  PROVIDED, THAT IT
IS NOT INTENDED BY THIS TITLE TO IMPOSE A TAX UPON AN AGREEMENT
EVIDENCING A DEPOSIT OF CERTIFICATES AS COLLATERAL SECURITY FOR MONEY
LOANED THEREON, WHICH CERTIFICATES ARE NOT ACTUALLY SOLD, NOR UPON THE
DELIVERY OR TRANSFER FOR SUCH PURPOSE OF CERTIFICATES SO DEPOSITED, NOR
UPON MERE LOANS OF STOCK NOR UPON THE RETURN OF STOCK SO LOANED:
PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE TAX SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED UPON DELIVERIES OR
TRANSFERS TO A BROKER FOR SALE, NOR UPON DELIVERIES OR TRANSFERS BY A
BROKER TO A CUSTOMER FOR WHOM AND UPON WHOSE ORDER HE HAS PURCHASED
SAME, BUT SUCH DELIVERIES OR TRANSFERS SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
CERTIFICATE SETTING FORTH THE FACTS  ..." 

FIRST.  IN EACH CASE, THE PERSON ORIGINALLY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE
CERTIFICATE DIRECTED, FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE AND PURPOSES, THAT IT BE
ISSUED IN THE NAME OF A NOMINEE.  IT IS ARGUED IN THE AUTOMATIC WASHER
COMPANY CASE, THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE OLD COMPANY NEVER ACQUIRED
THE "RIGHT TO RECEIVE" THAT PORTION OF THEIR STOCK WHICH WAS DESIGNED
FOR TRANSFER TO THE BANKERS; THAT THEY DID NOT BECOME ENTITLED TO
RECEIVE SHARES IN THE NEW COMPANY UNTIL THE CONTRACT WITH IT WAS MADE
ON SEPTEMBER 27TH; THAT PRIOR THERETO, THEY HAD IRREVOCABLY AGREED THAT
NELSON SHOULD RECEIVE AND SELL THE SHARES WHICH WERE TO GO TO THE
BANKERS; AND THAT, THUS, THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE OLD COMPANY HAD, PRIOR
TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE OF THE STOCK IN THE NEW, RELINQUISHED "THE POWER
TO COMMAND THE DISPOSITION OF THE SHARES" AND, THEREFORE, NEVER
EXERCISED THAT POWER, HELD TAXABLE IN RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC. V.
UNITED STATES, 296 U.S. 60.  BUT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ARGUMENT WAS MADE
AND REJECTED IN THE RAYBESTOS CASE, PAGE 62.  THERE THE TRANSACTION WAS
HELD TO HAVE INVOLVED A TAXABLE TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO STOCK, THOUGH THE
OLD COMPANIES HAD NO RIGHT TO THE STOCK IN THE CONSOLIDATED COMPANY
PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT WHEREBY THE ISSUE TO THEIR
STOCKHOLDERS WAS DIRECTED.  "THE REACH OF A TAXING ACT WHOSE PURPOSE IS
AS OBVIOUS AS THE PRESENT IS NOT TO BE RESTRICTED BY TECHNICAL
REFINEMENTS."  ID., 63.  COMPARE HELVERING V. MIDLAND MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE CO., ANTE, P. 216.  THE SITUATION HERE IS IN SUBSTANCE THE
SAME AS IN THE RAYBESTOS CASE.  WHEN THE POWERS OF ATTORNEY WERE
EXECUTED, THERE WAS NOTHING UPON WHICH THEY COULD OPERATE.  THE RIGHTS
TO RECEIVE THE STOCK IN THE NEW COMPANY, AND THE TRANSFER THEREOF, WERE
EFFECTED AT ONE TIME BY THE SAME DOCUMENT. 

SECOND.  IT IS TRUE THAT IN NONE OF THE THREE CASES DID THE
TRANSACTION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF A BENEFICIAL INTEREST.  BUT THAT
FACT IS, IN VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT, WITHOUT LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE.  THE TAX IS EXACTED BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER TRANSFERRED "THE
RIGHT TO RECEIVE" THE CERTIFICATE.  LIKEWISE IT IS WITHOUT LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE THAT, UNDER POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM NOMINEE TO BENEFICIAL
OWNER, THE FORMER MAY HAVE NO PART IN THE MANAGEMENT OR DISPOSAL OF THE
SECURITIES.  NOR IS IT MATERIAL THAT IN NO CASE DID THE NOMINEE HAVE A
RIGHT, AT LEAST AS AGAINST THE TAXPAYER, TO COMPEL ISSUANCE OF THE
STOCK TO HIMSELF.  THE LEGAL TITLE TO THE SHARES WAS RECEIVED BY THE
NOMINEE FROM THE NEWLY FORMED CORPORATION; BUT THE AUTHORIZATION
RENDERING HIS HOLDING LAWFUL WAS RECEIVED FROM THE TAXPAYER.  THE
LEGALITY OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE STOCK IN THE NAMES OF THE NOMINEES
RESTS ON THE FACT THAT THE TAXPAYERS AUTHORIZED SUCH ISSUANCE AND
GRANTED THEIR NOMINEES THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE STOCKS ENTERED IN THEIR
NAMES.  THE GRANT OF THAT AUTHORITY IS A TRANSFER OF "THE RIGHT TO
RECEIVE" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT; AND WE ARE NOT TO LOOK BEYOND
THE ACT FOR FURTHER CRITERIA OF TAXABILITY.  SEE BURNET V. HARMEL, 287
U.S. 103, 110. 

THE STATUTE DEFINES THE SCOPE OF THE TAX IN TERMS WHOSE BREADTH IS
EMPHASIZED BY THE CAREFUL PARTICULARITY OF ITS PROVISOS.  ESPECIALLY
INDICATIVE OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION THAT NOMINEE TRANSACTIONS
GENERALLY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE TAX ARE THE PROVISOS ADDED BY THE
REVENUE ACT OF 1932, JUNE 6, 1932, C. 209, SEC. 723, 47 STAT. 273, AND
THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1936, C. 865, 49 STAT. 2029, WHICH EXCEPT CERTAIN
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED TRANSFERS TO NOMINEES. 

THIRD.  IT IS SUGGESTED THAT IN EACH CASE THE TAXPAYER MIGHT HAVE
ATTAINED HIS ULTIMATE PURPOSE BY A FORM OF TRANSACTION WHICH WOULD NOT
HAVE SUBJECTED HIM TO THE TAX.  THE SUGGESTION, IF TRUE, FURNISHES NO
REASON FOR RELIEVING HIM OF TAX WHEN, FOR WHATEVER REASON, HE CHOOSES A
MODE OF DEALING WITHIN THE TERMS OF THE ACT.  COMPARE UNITED STATES V.
ISHAM, 17 WALL.  496, 506; PROVOST V. UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 443, 457,
458.  TO MAKE THE TAXABILITY OF THE TRANSACTION DEPEND UPON THE
DETERMINATION WHETHER THERE EXISTED AN ALTERNATIVE FORM WHICH THE
STATUTE DID NOT TAX WOULD CREATE BURDEN AND UNCERTAINTY.  "THERE MUST
BE A FIXED AND INDISPUTABLE MODE OF ASCERTAINING A STAMP TAX."  HATCH
V. REARDON, 204 U.S. 152, 159.  IN NUMBER 398, JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  IN
NUMBER 331, JUDGMENT REVERSED.  IN NUMBER 330, JUDGMENT REVERSED. 
FN1  IN THE EVENTUAL DETERMINATION OF THE PRO RATA CONTRIBUTION BY THE
OLD COMPANY'S STOCKHOLDERS TO THE STOCK TO BE SOLD TO THE BANKERS, THE
AMOUNT OF PREFERRED TO BE SOLD WAS REDUCED TO 34,538 SHARES.  SEE 15
F.SUPP.  70, 74. 
..END :
















POWELL V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 276 


NO. 295.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 12
F.SUPP.  938, REVERSED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN PROCEEDINGS
BEGUN ON THE COMPLAINT OF A CARRIER, DIRECTED THAT THERE BE STRICKEN
FROM THE COMMISSION'S FILES A TARIFF FILED BY ANOTHER CARRIER
PURPORTING TO EXTEND THE SWITCHING LIMITS OF THE LATTER TO INCLUDE
RECEIVING AND DELIVERY TRACKS BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES AT A
MILITARY POST, AND TO OBLIGE THAT CARRIER TO FURNISH TRANSPORTATION TO
AND FROM THE POST UNDER OTHER TARIFFS APPLICABLE OVER ITS OWN LINES TO
AND FROM A JUNCTION.  HELD THAT, IN PURPOSE AND EFFECT THE ORDER WAS
AFFIRMATIVE, AND THAT A SUIT TO ANNUL IT, BROUGHT BY THE CARRIER WHOSE
TARIFF WAS THUS REJECTED, WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT
COURT OF THREE JUDGES UNDER 28 U.S.C. 47.  P. 284. 

2.  WITH THE CONSENT OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR, THE LESSEES OF A
RAILROAD OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES IN A MILITARY RESERVATION WERE
EMPLOYED BY A CONNECTING TRUNK-LINE CARRIER AS ITS AGENTS TO TRANSPORT
OVER THE LEASED TRACKS TO AND FROM THE MILITARY POST FREIGHT COMING
FROM OR DESTINED FOR THE TRUNK LINE; AND THE TRUNK LINE WAS GIVEN
PERMISSION TO PERFORM THE TRANSPORTATION WITH ITS OWN ENGINES AND
CREWS, THE LESSEES RESERVING THE RIGHT TO RENDER LIKE SERVICES TO OTHER
CARRIERS WHEN REQUIRED BY THE SECRETARY.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT, IN RESPECT OF THE TRAFFIC COVERED BY THE TRUNK LINE'S
TARIFF, THE LESSEES, AS ITS AGENTS, WERE COMMON CARRIERS, AND THEY AND
THE SERVICE PERFORMED BY THEM WERE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  P. 285. 

(2)  THAT WHETHER THE LEASED TRACKS WERE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
1(18) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, AN EXTENSION OR ADDITION, OR,
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 1(22), SPUR, INDUSTRIAL, TEAM, SWITCHING OR
SIDE TRACKS, THE TRANSPORTATION OVER THEM BY OR FOR THE TRUNK LINE MUST
BE COVERED BY A TARIFF FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 6(7) OF THE ACT. 
P. 286. 

(3)  THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR WAS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
PROPER EXERTION OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER SECS. 1(18) AND
1(20).  P. 286. 

(4)  THE LEASED TRACKS COVERED BY THE TARIFF WERE PART OF, AND
EXTENDED TO OR INCLUDED A STATION ON, THE LINE OF THE RAILROAD COMPANY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 6.  P. 286. 

3.  THE PURPOSE OF SECS. 1(18) TO 1(22) OF THE ACT WAS TO EMPOWER THE
COMMISSION IN PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY A CARRIER PROPOSING TO ENGAGE
IN TRANSPORTATION OVER OR BY MEANS OF AN ADDITIONAL OR EXTENDED LINE
AUTHORITATIVELY TO DECIDE WHETHER IT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
P. 286. 

4.  UPON PRESENTATION BY THE CARRIER OF APPLICATION FOR A
CERTIFICATE, THE COMMISSION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER IT
IS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT TO CONSIDER THE MERITS, MAY PASS INCIDENTALLY
UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROJECT IS ONE COVERED BY SEC. 1(18). 
BUT THE DECISION OF THAT QUESTION IS FOR THE COURT IN A SUIT TO SET
ASIDE AN ORDER GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OR IN A SUIT UNDER SEC. 1(20) TO
ENJOIN A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1(18).  P. 287. 

5. AN INTERESTED CARRIER IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT TO INITIATE
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE USE OF
LEASED TRACKS BY ANOTHER CARRIER WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, BUT
IT MAY INTERVENE BEFORE THE COMMISSION IF APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE
IS MADE, OR, NO SUCH APPLICATION HAVING BEEN MADE, IT MAY SUE UNDER
SEC. 1(20) TO ENJOIN CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION CONTRARY TO SEC. 1(18). 
P. 287. 

6.  THE REMEDY PROVIDED BY SEC. 1(20) IS INCONSISTENT WITH A
PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO ATTAIN THE SAME END; AND SUITS
UNDER THAT PARAGRAPH MAY NOT BE TRIED BEFORE THREE JUDGES; WHEREAS
THOSE UNDER THE URGENT DEFICIENCIES ACT (28 U.S.C. 47) TO SET ASIDE
ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE TRIED IN ANY OTHER COURT.  P. 288. 

7.  IN SUITS UNDER SEC. 1(20), APPEALS MUST BE TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS; WHEREAS APPEALS FROM DISTRICT COURTS OF THREE JUDGES
MUST BE TAKEN TO THIS COURT.  THE STATUTES CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO GIVE
THE COMMISSION, A CARRIER, OR OTHER PARTY SEEKING TO ENFORCE SEC. 1(18)
A CHOICE OF REMEDIES; I.E., BETWEEN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
TO INVALIDATE THE APPLICABLE TARIFF AND A SUIT UNDER SEC. 1(20).  THE
LATTER IS EXCLUSIVE.  P. 288. 

8.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT INCLUSION OF THE
GOVERNMENT LINE WITHIN THE TRUNK LINE'S TARIFF WITHOUT ADDITIONAL
CHARGES UNDULY IMPAIRED THE LINE-HAUL REVENUE.  P. 289. 

9.  FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION IN ANOTHER PROCEEDING IN WHICH IT
REJECTED AN APPLICATION BY ANOTHER CORPORATION, FORMED BY THE LESSEES,
FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, HAVE NO BEARING
ON THE VALIDITY OF THE TARIFF INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.  P. 289. 

10.  IN A SUIT BY A RAILROAD TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION STRIKING OUT A TARIFF, A COUNTERCLAIM BY AN
INTERVENING CARRIER SEEKING TO ENJOIN THE COMPLAINANT'S OPERATION OF
PART OF THE LINE COVERED BY THE TARIFF, UPON THE GROUND THAT IT IS AN
EXTENSION VIOLATIVE OF SEC. 1(18), IS NOT RELATED TO THE CAUSE OF
ACTION ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, IS NOT PLEADABLE UNDER EQUITY RULE 30,
AND IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT OF THREE JUDGES UNDER 28
U.S.C. 47.  P. 289. 

POWELL ET AL., RECEIVERS, V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES IN A SUIT
BROUGHT BY RECEIVERS OF THE SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY TO ANNUL AN ORDER
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION STRIKING OUT A TARIFF.  THE FINAL
DECREE OVERRULED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, SUSTAINED THE
ORDER, AND GRANTED AFFIRMATIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COUNTERCLAIM SET UP BY A COMPETING CARRIER. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON COMPLAINT OF THE RECEIVER OF THE CENTRAL
OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY, THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDERED
TO BE "STRICKEN FROM THE FILES" A TARIFF FILED BY THE RECEIVERS OF THE
SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY.  THE TARIFF EXTENDED FORT BENNING
JUNCTION SWITCHING LIMITS TO INCLUDE RECEIVING AND DELIVERY TRACKS AT
FORT BENNING MILITARY POST.  IT WAS STRICKEN ON THE GROUND THAT IT
EXTENDED TO A STATION AND COVERED TRANSPORTATION NOT ON THE LINE OF THE
SEABOARD IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 6(1) OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.  FN1
206 I.C.C. 362.  TO ANNUL THAT ORDER THE SEABOARD BROUGHT THIS SUIT. 
THE UNITED STATES ANSWERED THAT THE ORDER IS NOT REVIEWABLE AND PRAYED
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.  THE COMMISSION APPEARED AND BY ITS ANSWER
SUPPORTED THE ORDER.  THE CENTRAL INTERVENED; ITS ANSWER CONTAINED, IN
WHAT PURPORTS TO BE A COUNTERCLAIM UNDER EQUITY RULE 30, ALLEGATIONS
APPROPRIATE FOR A COMPLAINT IN A SUIT UNDER SEC. 1(20) OF THE ACT TO
PREVENT A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1(18).  FN2  THE SEABOARD MOVED TO STRIKE
OUT THE COUNTERCLAIM ON THE GROUNDS, AMONG OTHERS, THAT IT IS NOT
RELATED TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, IS NOT
PLEADABLE UNDER RULE 30, AND IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
OF THREE JUDGES UNDER 28 U.S.C., SEC. 47. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED BY A COURT OF THREE, A CIRCUIT JUDGE AND TWO
DISTRICT JUDGES.  AFTER HEARING THE EVIDENCE, THE COURT IN AN OPINION
FROM WHICH THE CIRCUIT JUDGE DISSENTED HELD THE ORDER VALID ON THE
GROUNDS THAT THE TARIFF AIDED THE SEABOARD TO VIOLATE SEC. 1(18) OF THE
ACT AND THAT IT UNDULY IMPAIRED THE SEABOARD'S LINE HAUL REVENUE IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 4(1) OF THE EMERGENCY RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION ACT,
1933, 48 STAT. 212.  12 F.SUPP.  938.  IT ENTERED A FINAL DECREE
DENYING THE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO DISMISS AND THE MOTION OF
THE SEABOARD TO STRIKE OUT THE COUNTERCLAIM, DECLARED THE ORDER VALID
AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRAYER OF THE COUNTERCLAIM, ENJOINED THE
SEABOARD FROM EXTENDING ITS LINE FROM THE JUNCTION TO THE RECEIVING AND
DELIVERY TRACKS AT FORT BENNING AND FROM OPERATING THE LINE BETWEEN
THESE POINTS WITHOUT OBTAINING FROM THE COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, AND FROM USING THE TARIFF AND
CARRYING OUT A CONTRACT FOR THE USE OF THE TRACKS BETWEEN THE JUNCTION
AND THE FORT AS DEVICES TO AVOID THE NEED OF SUCH A CERTIFICATE. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE: 

IS THE SEABOARD'S SUIT TO SET ASIDE THE COMMISSION'S ORDER WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER COURT?  IF SO, MAY ITS DECREE UPHOLDING THE
ORDER BE SUSTAINED? 

IS THE CENTRAL'S COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST THE SEABOARD WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES UNDER 28 U.S.C.,
SEC. 47? 

FORT BENNING IS A UNITED STATES MILITARY POST IN GEORGIA; THE
RESERVATION INCLUDES 98,000 ACRES AND HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN
7,500.  A RAILROAD 6.8 MILES LONG, BUILT AND OWNED BY THE UNITED
STATES, CONNECTS RECEIVING AND DELIVERY TRACKS AT THE POST, FORT
BENNING, WITH A STATION, FORT BENNING JUNCTION, AT THE INTERSECTION OF
THE LINES OF THE SEABOARD AND THE CENTRAL.  FOR MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS
PRIOR TO OCTOBER 16, 1932, THE LINE BETWEEN THE JUNCTION AND FORT
BENNING WAS OPERATED BY THE CENTRAL UNDER A LICENSE GRANTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF WAR.  THE CENTRAL MADE FORT BENNING A STATION ON ITS
SYSTEM.  FOR TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE JUNCTION AND THAT STATION THE
CENTRAL COLLECTED ARBITRARIES FIXED BY IT IN ADDITION TO THE TARIFF
CHARGES APPLICABLE BETWEEN THE JUNCTION AND POINTS OF ORIGIN OR
DESTINATION.  MOST OF THE FREIGHT HANDLED WAS INBOUND.  THE SEABOARD
CEASED TO USE ITS CONNECTION AT THE JUNCTION AND INTERCHANGED TRAFFIC
TO AND FROM FORT BENNING WITH THE CENTRAL AT COLUMBIA, ABOUT FOUR MILES
FROM THE JUNCTION. 

IN OCTOBER, 1932, THE SECRETARY OF WAR REVOKED THE CENTRAL'S LICENSE
AND ARRANGED TO HAVE THE RAILROAD OPERATED BY CONTRACTORS, PAGE AND
HARRIS.  HE LEASED TO THEM THE LINE IN QUESTION, AND THEY AGREED TO
TRANSPORT ALL FREIGHT TO AND FROM THE JUNCTION.  THEY UNDERTOOK TO
ORGANIZE A CORPORATION AND TO HAVE IT APPLY TO THE COMMISSION FOR A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE AND OPERATE
THE LINE AS A COMMON CARRIER AND THEN, BY AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER
CARRIERS, TO PUT IN EFFECT THROUGH ROUTES AND JOINT RATES TO AND FROM
FORT BENNING AS LOW AS THOSE TO AND FROM THE JUNCTION AND, OUT OF ITS
SHARE OF THE RATES SO ESTABLISHED, TO TAKE ITS PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION
PERFORMED BY IT. 

PAGE AND HARRIS ORGANIZED THE FORT BENNING RAILROAD COMPANY AND
CAUSED IT TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE.  THE SEABOARD GAVE ASSURANCES
THAT IT WOULD JOIN THE NEW COMPANY IN ESTABLISHING THROUGH RATES AND
DIVISIONS.  THE CENTRAL INTERVENED IN OPPOSITION.  THE APPLICATION WAS
GRANTED BY A DIVISION OF THE COMMISSION.  193 I.C.C. 223.  BUT, ON
REARGUMENT BEFORE THE ENTIRE COMMISSION, THE CERTIFICATE WAS RESCINDED
AND THE APPLICATION DENIED.  193 I.C.C. 517.  THE APPLICANT NEVER
OPERATED THE LINE. 

SHORTLY AFTER THE FAILURE OF THE CONTRACTORS' COMPANY TO ESTABLISH
ITSELF AS A COMMON CARRIER, THE SEABOARD FILED THE TARIFF IN QUESTION,
TO BECOME EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 4, 1933.  UNDER DATE OF JUNE 7, 1934, IT
MADE A CONTRACT WITH PAGE AND HARRIS, STIPULATED TO HAVE BEEN IN FORCE
SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TARIFF, WHEREBY THE LATTER AGREED TO
ACT AS ITS AGENTS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT BETWEEN THE JUNCTION
AND THE RECEIVING AND DELIVERY TRACKS NAMED IN THE TARIFF.  IT AGREED
TO PAY THEM $12.50 FOR EACH LOADED OR PARTLY LOADED CAR HANDLED IN
EITHER DIRECTION OR ONE-HALF OF THE GROSS REVENUE WHEN THE AMOUNT
EARNED BY THE CAR WAS LESS THAN $25. 

PARAGRAPH (8) OF THE CONTRACT PROVIDES THAT WHEN THE SEABOARD SO
DESIRES, BUT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY, IT SHALL HAVE THE
RIGHT, UPON PAYMENT OF REASONABLE COMPENSATION TO PAGE AND HARRIS, TO
PERFORM SWITCHING SERVICE WITH ITS OWN ENGINES AND CREWS OVER THE
LEASED TRACKS.  BY PARAGRAPH (14) OF THE CONTRACT PAGE AND HARRIS
RESERVE THE RIGHT, SUBJECT TO THE SECRETARY'S APPROVAL, TO RENDER LIKE
SERVICE FOR THE CENTRAL OR ANY OTHER COMMON CARRIER.  THE SECRETARY
APPROVED PARAGRAPH (8) SUBJECT TO THE RESERVATION IN PARAGRAPH (14) AND
TO THE CONDITION THAT PAGE AND HARRIS SHOULD EVER HOLD THEMSELVES OUT
AS WILLING AND READY TO CONTRACT ON SIMILAR TERMS WITH THE CENTRAL OR
ANY OTHER COMMON CARRIER RAILROAD. 

THE CENTRAL'S COMPLAINT INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH RESULTED IN
THE CHALLENGED ORDER ASSAILED THE TARIFF ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT AND THE
CONTRACT WITH PAGE AND HARRIS CONSTITUTE A DEVICE TO AVOID THE
COMMISSION'S REFUSAL TO GRANT THE FORT BENNING RAILROAD COMPANY A
CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY; THAT BY IT THE SEABOARD SEEKS
TO EXTEND ITS LINE TO FORT BENNING WITHOUT OBTAINING A CERTIFICATE AND
THAT IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SEC. 6(1) BECAUSE IT IS OBSCURE AND
AMBIGUOUS AND FAILS TO STATE THE CHARGES TO BE ABSORBED BY THE SEABOARD
OR THE COMPENSATION TO BE PAID TO PAGE AND HARRIS.  THE COMPLAINT
PRAYED CANCELATION OF THE TARIFF AND CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS AGAINST
THE SEABOARD AND PAGE AND HARRIS.  IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE ALLEGATIONS
AND PRAYER OF THE COMPLAINT, AS WELL AS FROM ITS CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE
COMMISSION, THAT THE CENTRAL SOUGHT TO HAVE THE COMMISSION PROHIBIT THE
USE BY THE SEABOARD OR ITS AGENTS OF THE LINE BETWEEN THE JUNCTION AND
THE FORT BECAUSE IN VIOLATION OF SEC. 1(18). 

THE COMMISSION'S REPORT STATES:  THE SEABOARD EMPLOYS PAGE AND HARRIS
AS ITS AGENTS AND PAYS THEM FOR PERFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION OVER THE
LEASED LINE AND THAT SERVICE IS COMMON CARRIER SERVICE WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION.  THE CENTRAL HAS NOT FILED A SIMILAR
TARIFF AND DOES NOT PERFORM OR BEAR THE COST OF SERVICE CORRESPONDING
TO THAT COVERED BY THE SEABOARD'S TARIFF.  BEFORE THE SEABOARD COULD
LAWFULLY OPERATE THE LINE FROM THE JUNCTION TO THE FORT, IT WOULD HAVE
TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY.  BUT THE
COMMISSION DID NOT DECIDE WHETHER, ON THAT GROUND, IT HAD JURISDICTION
TO ORDER THE SEABOARD OR PAGE AND HARRIS TO CEASE AND DESIST OR TO
SUSPEND OR SET ASIDE THE TARIFF.  IT SAID (206 I.C.C. AT P. 367):  "OUR
FINDING OF UNLAWFULNESS OF THE TARIFF  ...  IS NOT PREDICATED ON THE
FACT THAT THE SEABOARD HAS VIOLATED SECTION 1(18), BUT RATHER ON THE
FACT THAT IT HAS PUBLISHED RATES TO AND FROM FORT BENNING, A STATION
NOT ON ITS LINE AND WHICH CANNOT BE REACHED BY IT OR ANY OTHER COMMON
CARRIER, AND CONSEQUENTLY IT CANNOT PAY OUT OF ITS LINE-HAUL RATES FOR
A SERVICE WHICH IT IS NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PERFORM AND WHICH IT
CANNOT PERFORM EXCEPT THROUGH THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE CONTRACTORS WITH
THE GOVERNMENT."  IT ADDED THAT APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY OF WAR OF THE
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SEABOARD AND PAGE AND HARRIS "GRANTED NO RIGHTS TO
THE SEABOARD TO OPERATE OVER THE TRACK IN QUESTION.  MANIFESTLY THE WAR
DEPARTMENT COULD TAKE NO ACTION ON A SUBJECT MATTER WHICH THE CONGRESS
HAS PLACED UNDER OUR EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION."  THE COMMISSION DID NOT
FIND THAT THE TARIFF IMPOSED ANY UNREASONABLE BURDEN UPON THE REVENUES
OF THE SEABOARD OR CONNECTING CARRIERS OR THAT THE SERVICES COVERED BY
IT WOULD BE PERFORMED FOR LESS THAN REASONABLE COMPENSATION OR THAT ITS
USE WOULD RESULT IN ANY DISADVANTAGE TO SHIPPERS, CARRIERS OR THE
PUBLIC. 

1.  THE UNITED STATES AND THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION CONTEND
THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER IS NOT REVIEWABLE UNDER THE STATUTE.  FN3
THEY DO NOT SUGGEST THAT THE ORDER IS A NEGATIVE ONE OR THAT THE
COMMISSION DID NOT MAKE AN UTTERANCE WHICH IN FORM PURPORTED TO BE AN
ORDER.  BUT THEY SAY THAT IT IS NOT DIRECTED TO ANY PARTY; IT REQUIRES
NO ONE TO DO OR TO REFRAIN FROM DOING ANY ACT; IT COULD NOT BE
ENFORCED, OBEYED OR DISOBEYED; IT DID NOT SPEAK TO THE FUTURE OR
CONTEMPLATE ANY FUTURE EFFECT BECAUSE, ON AND AFTER THE DATE IT WAS
MADE, IT HAD NO SIGNIFICANCE "EXCEPT AS A RECORD OF A CERTAIN COMPLETED
ACT PERFORMED BY THE COMMISSION." 

BUT OVEREMPHASIS UPON THE MERE FORM OF THE ORDER MAY NOT BE PERMITTED
TO OBSCURE ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT.  BY IT THE COMMISSION MEANT TO PUT
AN END TO THE TARIFF IN QUESTION AND THE SERVICE OF THE SEABOARD
ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS.  THE TARIFF WAS A RULE BINDING THE SEABOARD TO
FURNISH TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THE FORT FOR CHARGES UNDER OTHER
TARIFFS APPLICABLE TO AND FROM THE JUNCTION.  THE ORDER WOULD ELIMINATE
THAT RULE AND SUBSTITUTE FOR IT TERMS OF THE TARIFFS APPLICABLE PRIOR
TO ITS EFFECTIVE DATE.  IN EFFECT THE ORDER GRANTS THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY
THE CENTRAL'S COMPLAINT; IT CONFINES THE SEABOARD'S SERVICE WITHIN THE
JUNCTION SWITCHING LIMITS, DENIES LEAVE TO THAT CARRIER TO FURNISH, AND
PREVENTS IT FROM FURNISHING, TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM FORT BENNING. 
INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO ITS PURPOSE, THE ORDER IS IN SUBSTANCE AND
EFFECT AN AFFIRMATIVE ONE AND THEREFORE REVIEWABLE UNDER THE STATUTE. 
CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U.S. 258, 263.  INTERMOUNTAIN RATE CASES,
234 U.S. 476, 490.  UNITED STATES V. NEW RIVER CO., 265 U.S. 533, 539
541.  ALTON R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 229, 237.  IT IS CLEAR
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN
THE SEABOARD'S SUIT. 

2.  AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER.  THE COMMISSION HELD THE TARIFF
VIOLATED SEC. 6 SOLELY BECAUSE IT COVERED SERVICE AND PUBLISHED RATES
TO AND FROM A STATION, FORT BENNING, FOUND NOT TO BE ON THE LINE OF THE
SEABOARD.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT, UNLESS THE RECORD CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS
THAT THE LEASED TRACKS CONSTITUTE A PART OF THE SEABOARD'S LINE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF SEC. 6, THE TARIFF WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINED.  IN SUBSTANCE, THE FACTS FOUND
ARE:  THE UNITED STATES LEASED THE LINE TO PAGE AND HARRIS.  WITH THE
APPROVAL OF THE SECRETARY, THE LESSEES WERE EMPLOYED BY THE SEABOARD AS
ITS AGENTS TO TRANSPORT FREIGHT OVER THE LEASED TRACKS, AND THE
SEABOARD WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO PERFORM THE TRANSPORTATION WITH ITS OWN
ENGINES AND CREWS.  PAGE AND HARRIS RESERVED THE RIGHT TO RENDER FOR
THE CENTRAL AND OTHER CARRIERS SERVICE LIKE THAT FURNISHED BY THEM AS
AGENT OF THE SEABOARD, AND WERE REQUIRED BY THE SECRETARY TO CONTRACT
WITH SUCH CARRIERS ON TERMS SIMILAR TO THOSE MADE WITH THE SEABOARD. 
THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY HELD THAT IN RESPECT OF THE TRAFFIC COVERED BY
THE TARIFF PAGE AND HARRIS AS THE SEABOARD'S AGENTS WERE COMMON
CARRIERS AND THEY AND THE SERVICE PERFORMED BY THEM WERE SUBJECT TO ITS
JURISDICTION.    WHETHER THE LEASED TRACKS BE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF
SEC. 1(18), AN EXTENSION OR ADDITION, OR, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.
1(22), SPUR, INDUSTRIAL, TEAM, SWITCHING OR SIDE TRACKS, IT IS CLEAR
THAT THE TRANSPORTATION OVER THEM BY OR FOR THE SEABOARD IS REQUIRED TO
BE COVERED BY A TARIFF FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACT.  SEC. 6(7). 
THE ACTION OF THE SECRETARY WAS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH PROPER EXERTION
OF THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY TO GRANT OR WITHHOLD A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE USE OF THE LEASED TRACKS BY OR
FOR THE SEABOARD AS REQUIRED BY SEC. 1(18) OR TO BRING SUIT UNDER SEC.
1(20) TO ENFORCE THAT PARAGRAPH.  IT FOLLOWS THAT, SEC. 1(18) ASIDE,
THE LEASED TRACKS COVERED BY THE TARIFF CONSTITUTE A PART OF, AND
EXTEND TO OR INCLUDE A STATION ON, THE LINE OF THE SEABOARD WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 6.  INDEED, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE COMMISSION'S REPORT
OR IN THE BRIEFS OF APPELLEES THAT TENDS TO GIVE SUPPORT TO THE VIEW
THAT, IF SEC. 1(18) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED, THE TARIFF WOULD NOT BE
VALID. 

AS TO THE BEARING OF SEC. 1(18) ON THE VALIDITY OF THE TARIFF.  THE
UNITED STATES AND THE COMMISSION ARGUE THAT THE SEABOARD CANNOT, BY THE
ARRANGEMENT FOR THE USE OF THE LEASED TRACKS, PLACE FORT BENNING ON ITS
LINE, BECAUSE THEREBY THE SEABOARD EXTENDS ITS LINE AND SEC. 1(18)
PROHIBITS AN EXTENSION WITHOUT THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL; THAT THE
TARIFF OFFERS A SERVICE THAT CANNOT LEGALLY BE PERFORMED BECAUSE THE
EXTENSION, NOT HAVING BEEN APPROVED, IS FORBIDDEN BY THAT PARAGRAPH. 
AND THEY SAY THAT, SINCE THE CARRIER IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH WHATEVER
SERVICE IS COVERED BY ITS TARIFFS, THE INCLUSION OF THAT WITHIN THE
SEABOARD'S EXTENDED SWITCHING LIMITS WOULD COMPEL THE CARRIER TO
PERFORM AN ACT PROHIBITED BY SEC. 1(18), AND THIS THE COMMISSION MAY
NOT PERMIT.  THE PURPOSE OF SECS. 1(18) TO 1(22) OF THE ACT WAS TO
EMPOWER THE COMMISSION IN PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY A CARRIER PROPOSING
TO ENGAGE IN TRANSPORTATION OVER OR BY MEANS OF AN ADDITIONAL OR
EXTENDED LINE AUTHORITATIVELY TO DECIDE WHETHER IT WOULD BE IN THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.  UNLESS THE PROJECT IS ONE COVERED BY SEC. 1(18), THE
COMMISSION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT IS IN
THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND, FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THAT
QUESTION, IT MUST DENY THE APPLICATION.  UPON PRESENTATION BY THE
CARRIER OF APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE, THE COMMISSION, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER IT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT TO CONSIDER
THE MERITS, MAY PASS INCIDENTALLY UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROJECT
IS ONE COVERED BY SEC. 1(18).  BUT THE DECISION OF THAT QUESTION IS FOR
THE COURT IN EITHER A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER GRANTING A CERTIFICATE
OR IN A SUIT UNDER SEC. 1(20) TO ENJOIN A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1(18).  THE
FUNCTION OF THE COURT IS TO CONSTRUE THAT PARAGRAPH; THAT OF THE
COMMISSION IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT, IF IT IS ONE COVERED BY
THE PARAGRAPH, IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  THE CENTRAL WAS NOT
AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT TO INITIATE A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE SEABOARD'S USE OF THE LEASED TRACKS WAS OR WOULD
BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.  IF APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN
MADE, THE CENTRAL COULD HAVE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.  THE SEABOARD NOT
HAVING MADE APPLICATION, THE CENTRAL'S SOLE REMEDY WAS A SUIT UNDER
SEC. 1(20).  THAT PARAGRAPH PROVIDES THE ONLY METHOD FOR ENFORCING SEC.
1(18).  IT DECLARES THAT ANY CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION CONTRARY TO SEC.
1(18) MAY BE ENJOINED AT THE SUIT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE COMMISSION,
THE REGULATING BODY OF THE STATE AFFECTED OR ANY PARTY IN INTEREST. 
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. V. GULF, C. & S.F. RY., 270 U.S. 266, 271-274. 
PIEDMONT & NORTHERN RY. V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 469, 476 ET SEQ.
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RY. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 35, 42.  WESTERN
PACIFIC CALIFORNIA R. CO. V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO., 284 U.S. 47.  ST.
LOUIS S.W. RY. V. MISSOURI PACIFIC R. CO., 289 U.S. 76, 81, 82. 
TRANSIT COMMISSION V. UNITED STATES, 289 U.S. 121.  UNITED STATES V.
IDAHO, 298 U.S. 105, 109. 

THE CONTENTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMISSION COMES TO THIS:
FORT BENNING IS NOT A STATION ON THE SEABOARD'S LINE BECAUSE BY USE OF
THE TARIFF AND THE LEASED TRACKS THE CARRIER VIOLATES SEC. 1(18). 
SINCE THE TARIFF EXTENDS TO A STATION NOT ON THE CARRIER'S LINE, IT
VIOLATES SEC. 6.  THEREFORE THE COMMISSION RIGHTLY ORDERED THE TARIFF
TO BE STRICKEN FROM ITS FILES.  PLAINLY THAT BEGS THE QUESTION.  IT
TAKES FOR GRANTED A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1(18), A FACT NOT ESTABLISHED AND
ONE WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE.  THE
CONTENTION IS FALLACIOUS AND MUST BE REJECTED. 

PLAINLY, THE CENTRAL MISTOOK ITS REMEDY.  BY ITS COMPLAINT AGAINST
THE TARIFF IT SOUGHT AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION EQUIVALENT TO A DECREE
OF COURT IN A SUIT UNDER SEC. 1(20) ENJOINING THE SEABOARD FROM
EXTENDING ITS SERVICE BECAUSE CONTRARY TO SEC. 1(18).  THE ORDER, AS
CONSTRUED AND SUPPORTED BY APPELLEES, IS THE PRACTICAL EQUIVALENT OF
SUCH A DECREE.  THE GOVERNING STATUTORY PROVISIONS DO NOT PERMIT
SUBSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION'S ORDER FOR A DECREE OF COURT.  THE
REMEDY PROVIDED BY SEC. 1(20) IS CLEARLY INCONSISTENT WITH A PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO ATTAIN THE SAME END.  SUITS UNDER THAT
PARAGRAPH MAY NOT BE TRIED BEFORE THREE JUDGES.  THOSE UNDER THE URGENT
DEFICIENCIES ACT (28 U.S.C., SEC. 47) TO SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE
COMMISSION CANNOT BE TRIED IN ANY OTHER COURT.  IN SUITS UNDER SEC.
1(20), APPEALS MUST BE TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  APPEALS
FROM DISTRICT COURTS OF THREE JUDGES MUST BE TAKEN TO THIS COURT.  THE
STATUTES CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO GIVE THE COMMISSION, A CARRIER OR OTHER
PARTY SEEKING TO ENFORCE SEC. 1(18) A CHOICE OF REMEDIES; I.E., BETWEEN
A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO INVALIDATE THE APPLICABLE TARIFF
AND A SUIT UNDER SEC. 1(20).  THE LATTER IS EXCLUSIVE. 

THE GRAVAMEN OF THE CENTRAL'S COMPLAINT IS NOT THAT THE SEABOARD IS
ENGAGING IN TRANSPORTATION LIKE THAT FURNISHED BY THE CENTRAL BEFORE
THE SECRETARY REVOKED ITS LICENSE.  BUT IT IS THAT THE SEABOARD DOES IT
WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CHARGES.  THERE IS NOTHING IN THE FINDINGS OF THE
COMMISSION TO SUGGEST THAT THE TARIFF UNDULY BURDENS THE SEABOARD'S
REVENUE OR THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE OR UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY.  ITS
FINDINGS ON THE FORT BENNING RAILROAD COMPANY'S APPLICATION ALTHOUGH
PUT IN EVIDENCE ARE NOT FINDINGS IN THE PROCEEDING IN WHICH WAS MADE
THE ORDER IN QUESTION AND HAVE NO BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE TARIFF
UNDER CONSIDERATION.  THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE "TARIFF UNDULY IMPAIRS THE
LINE HAUL REVENUE."  THE COMMISSION DID NOT SO FIND.  THE ORDER CANNOT
BE SUSTAINED. 

3.  THE COUNTERCLAIM WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT AND COULD NOT
BE ENTERTAINED AS AN INCIDENT TO OR PART OF THE SUIT TO SET ASIDE THE
COMMISSION'S ORDER RESPECTING THE TARIFF. 

THE SEABOARD'S BILL MERELY ASSAILS THE COMMISSION'S ORDER.  THE ISSUE
BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL PARTIES IS CONFINED TO ITS VALIDITY.  THE SUIT IS
A STATUTORY ONE TRIABLE ONLY IN A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED COURT.  THE
COUNTERCLAIM IS BASED ON A VIOLATION OF SEC. 1(18); THE FACTS ALLEGED
ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THAT COURT.  PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RY. V. UNITED
STATES, 281 U.S. 479, 488.  MOREOVER, THE COUNTERCLAIM DOES NOT ARISE
OUT OF THE TRANSACTION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE SUIT AND IS NOT
GERMANE OR RELATED TO IT. EQUITY RULE 30 CANNOT REASONABLY BE CONSTRUED
TO AUTHORIZE INTERVENING DEFENDANTS, IN A SUIT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF
THE COMMISSION, TO SET UP COUNTERCLAIMS NOT ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED
TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT.  THAT WOULD PERMIT COMPLICATIONS
LIKELY TO BURDEN AND IMPEDE AND WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSE AND
INTENT OF THE RULE.  CHANDLER & PRICE CO. V. BRANDTJEN & KLUGE, INC.,
296 U.S. 53, 59.  THE COUNTERCLAIM, NOT BEING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED COURT, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT
OF JURISDICTION.  PITTSBURGH & WEST VIRGINIA RY. V. UNITED STATES, UBI
SUPRA. 

COMPLAINANTS WERE ENTITLED TO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF THE
SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED COURT DECLARING THAT THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
STRIKING THE TARIFF FROM ITS FILES IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AND SETTING
ASIDE AND ANNULLING THE SAME.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 6(1)  "EVERY COMMON CARRIER  ...  SHALL FILE WITH THE
COMMISSION  ...  SCHEDULES SHOWING ALL  ...  CHARGES FOR TRANSPORTATION
BETWEEN DIFFERENT POINTS ON ITS OWN ROUTE AND BETWEEN POINTS ON ITS OWN
ROUTE AND POINTS ON THE ROUTE OF ANY OTHER CARRIER BY RAILROAD  ...
WHEN A THROUGH ROUTE AND JOINT RATE HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED....  THE
SCHEDULES  ...  SHALL PLAINLY STATE THE PLACES BETWEEN WHICH PROPERTY
...  WILL BE CARRIED  ...  AND  ...  STATE SEPARATELY ALL TERMINAL
CHARGES  ...  AND ALL OTHER CHARGES WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE,
ALL PRIVILEGES OR FACILITIES GRANTED OR ALLOWED, AND ANY RULES OR
REGULATIONS WHICH IN ANY WISE CHANGE, AFFECT, OR DETERMINE ANY PART OR
THE AGGREGATE OF SUCH  ...  CHARGES, OR THE VALUE OF THE SERVICE
RENDERED ..."  (49 U.S.C. 6(1)) 

SEC. 6(7)  "NO CARRIER  ...  SHALL ENGAGE OR PARTICIPATE IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF  ...  PROPERTY ...  UNLESS THE  ...  CHARGES  ...
HAVE BEEN FILED  ...  NOR SHALL ANY CARRIER  ...  COLLECT ...
DIFFERENT COMPENSATION FOR SUCH TRANSPORTATION  ...  OR FOR ANY SERVICE
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, BETWEEN THE POINTS NAMED IN SUCH TARIFFS THAN
THE  ...  CHARGES WHICH ARE SPECIFIED IN THE TARIFF FILED AND IN EFFECT
AT THE TIME  ..."  (49 U.S.C. 6(7)) 

FN2  1(18)  "NO CARRIER BY RAILROAD  ...  SHALL UNDERTAKE THE
EXTENSION OF ITS LINE OF RAILROAD, OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LINE OF
RAILROAD, OR SHALL ACQUIRE OR OPERATE ANY LINE OF RAILROAD, OR
EXTENSION THEREOF, OR SHALL ENGAGE IN TRANSPORTATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER
OVER OR BY MEANS OF SUCH ADDITIONAL OR EXTENDED LINE OF RAILROAD,
UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE SHALL FIRST HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE
COMMISSION A CERTIFICATE THAT THE PRESENT OR FUTURE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY REQUIRE OR WILL REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION, OR OPERATION,
OR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION, OF SUCH ADDITIONAL OR EXTENDED LINE OF
RAILROAD  ..."  (49 U.S.C. 1(18)) 

SEC. 1(20)  "...  ANY CONSTRUCTION, (OR) OPERATION  ...  CONTRARY TO
THE PROVISIONS OF  ... PARAGRAPH (18)  ...  MAY BE ENJOINED BY ANY
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION AT THE SUIT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
COMMISSION, ANY COMMISSION OR REGULATING BODY OF THE STATE OR STATES
AFFECTED, OR ANY PARTY IN INTEREST  ..."  (49 U.S.C. 1(20)) 

SEC. 1(22)  "THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION, CONFERRED BY PARAGRAPHS
(18) TO (21)  ...  SHALL NOT EXTEND TO THE CONSTRUCTION  ...  OF SPUR,
INDUSTRIAL, TEAM, SWITCHING OR SIDE TRACKS, LOCATED OR TO BE LOCATED
WHOLLY WITHIN ONE STATE  ..."  (49 U.S.C. 1(22)) 

FN3  SEE 28 U.S.C. SECS. 41(28), 43, 44, 45, 45A, 47, 47A, 345.  CF.
SEC. 380. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND MR. JUSTICE STONE TOOK NO PART IN THE
CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF THIS CASE. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECREE SHOULD BE
MODIFIED BY STRIKING THE COUNTERCLAIM OF THE INTERVENING DEFENDANT, AND
AS SO MODIFIED, AFFIRMED. 
..END :













INGELS V. MORF, 300 U.S. 290 


NO. 456.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 14
F.SUPP.  922, AFFIRMED. 


1.  TO JUSTIFY THE EXACTION BY A STATE OF A MONEY PAYMENT BURDENING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT MUST AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR THAT IT IS DEMANDED
AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE EXPENSE OF PROVIDING FACILITIES, OR OF
ENFORCING REGULATIONS OF THE COMMERCE WHICH ARE WITHIN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  THIS MAY APPEAR FROM THE STATUTE ITSELF, OR FROM
THE USE OF THE MONEY COLLECTED, TO DEFRAY SUCH EXPENSE.  P. 294. 

2.  THE CALIFORNIA "CARAVAN ACT," STATS., 1935, C. 402, DEFINES
"CARAVANING" AS THE TRANSPORTATION "FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, OF ANY
MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATED ON ITS OWN WHEELS OR IN TOW OF ANOTHER VEHICLE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING OR OFFERING THE SAME FOR SALE  ...  TO ANY
PURCHASER" LOCATED WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE; IT PROHIBITS CARAVANING
WITHOUT ATTACHING TO EACH VEHICLE A SPECIAL PERMIT, FOR WHICH A FEE OF
$15.00 IS EXACTED.  THE PERMIT IS VALID ONLY FOR A SPECIFIED TRIP OR
TRIPS AND FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS.  THE ACT DIRECTS THAT THE FEES
COLLECTED BE PAID INTO THE GENERAL FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY, AND
DECLARES THAT THEY ARE "INTENDED TO REIMBURSE THE STATE TREASURY FOR
THE ADDED EXPENSE WHICH THE STATE MAY INCUR IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT, AND THE ADDED EXPENSE OF POLICING THE HIGHWAYS
OVER WHICH SUCH CARAVANING MAY BE CONDUCTED, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE
SAFETY OF TRAFFIC ON SUCH HIGHWAYS WHERE CARAVANING IS BEING
CONDUCTED."  HELD: 

(1)  FROM A CONSIDERATION OF THE ACT, IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER
CALIFORNIA ENACTMENTS, IT APPEARS THAT THE COLLECTIONS ARE USED, NOT TO
MEET THE COST OF HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE, BUT TO REIMBURSE
THE STATE TREASURY FOR THE ADDED EXPENSE OF ADMINISTERING THE CARAVAN
ACT AND POLICING THE CARAVANING TRAFFIC.  P. 295. 

(2)  THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT, FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE EXACTION IS
EXCESSIVE RESTED UPON THE PERSON ATTACKING IT.  P. 296. 

(3)  FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE FEE IS EXCESSIVE WAS
SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  ID. 

(4)  THE LICENSING PROVISIONS THEREFORE IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407,
DISTINGUISHED.  PP. 294, 297. 

INGELS, DIRECTOR OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. V. MORF ET
AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES, ENJOINING
THE ENFORCEMENT OF PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CARAVAN ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY APPELLEE IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, THREE JUDGES SITTING, TO RESTRAIN APPELLANTS, STATE
OFFICERS, FROM ENFORCING THE PROVISIONS OF THE "CARAVAN" ACT, CAL.
STAT. 1935, C. 402, AS A FORBIDDEN BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND
AS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FROM A DECREE GRANTING THE RELIEF PRAYED,
THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SECS. 238(3), 266, JUDICIAL CODE. 

THE CHALLENGED STATUTE DEFINES "CARAVANING" AS THE TRANSPORTATION,
"FROM WITHOUT THE STATE, OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATED ON ITS OWN
WHEELS OR IN TOW OF ANOTHER VEHICLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELLING OR
OFFERING THE SAME FOR SALE  ...  TO ANY PURCHASER" LOCATED WITHIN OR
WITHOUT THE STATE.  SECTIONS 2 AND 3 PROHIBIT CARAVANING WITHOUT
ATTACHING TO EACH VEHICLE SO TRANSPORTED A SPECIAL PERMIT ISSUED BY THE
STATE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, FOR WHICH A FEE OF $15 IS EXACTED.  A
PERMIT IS VALID ONLY FOR THE TRIP OR TRIPS SPECIFIED IN IT, AND FOR A
PERIOD OF NINETY DAYS (SEC. 4).  SECTION 6 DIRECTS THAT THE FEES
COLLECTED BE PAID INTO THE GENERAL FUND IN THE STATE TREASURY, AND
DECLARES THAT THEY ARE "INTENDED TO REIMBURSE THE STATE TREASURY FOR
THE ADDED EXPENSE WHICH THE STATE MAY INCUR IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ACT, AND THE ADDED EXPENSE OF POLICING THE HIGHWAYS
OVER WHICH SUCH CARAVANING MAY BE CONDUCTED, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE
SAFETY OF TRAFFIC ON SUCH HIGHWAYS WHERE CARAVANING IS BEING
CONDUCTED." 

APPELLEE, A RESIDENT OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, CARRIES ON HIS
BUSINESS THERE AS A DEALER IN AUTOMOBILES.  HE PURCHASES USED
AUTOMOBILES IN OTHER STATES AND TRANSPORTS THEM FROM THE PLACE OF
PURCHASE TO POINTS ON THE CALIFORNIA BOUNDARY LINE, THENCE OVER STATE
HIGHWAYS TO LOS ANGELES, AND SOMETIMES TO OTHER PLACES, WHERE HE OFFERS
THEM FOR SALE.  HE CONDUCTS FROM 20 TO 25% OF THE TOTAL MOVEMENT IN
SUCH TRAFFIC.  SOME OF HIS VEHICLES ARE COUPLED TOGETHER IN TWOS, AND
MOVE IN CARAVANS OR FLEETS, SOMETIMES AGGREGATING MORE THAN 30 CARS. 
HE GAVE TESTIMONY, WHICH APPELLANTS SHARPLY CHALLENGE, THAT FROM 30 TO
40% MOVE SINGLY AND NOT IN COMPANY WITH ANY OTHER VEHICLE.  A PERMIT IS
REQUIRED FOR EACH CAR, WHETHER IT MOVES ALONE OR AS PART OF A FLEET. 
THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT SUCH MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES IN CARAVANS OF
MORE THAN FOUR CREATE SPECIAL TRAFFIC DIFFICULTIES, BUT THAT THE
MOVEMENT OF FOUR OR LESS "CONSTITUTES NO POLICE PROBLEM"; THAT THERE IS
CONSIDERABLE LIKE TRAFFIC CARRIED ON WHOLLY WITHIN THE STATE, FOR WHICH
THE FEE OF $15 IS NOT EXACTED AND FOR WHICH NO SIMILAR OR OTHER FEE IS
REQUIRED; AND THAT THE DEMANDED FEE FOR EACH CAR MOVING IN THE
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC IS EXCESSIVE AND BEARS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE
INCREASED COST OF POLICING.  IT CONCLUDED, AS THE APPELLEE CONTENDS
HERE, THAT THE STATUTE DENIES TO APPELLEE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION, AND PLACES A FORBIDDEN BURDEN ON, AND DISCRIMINATES
AGAINST, INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ONLY THE CONTENTION THAT THE
LICENSING PROVISIONS BURDEN INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  WE DO NOT DISCUSS
APPELLANTS' SUGGESTION THAT, CONTRARY TO THE FINDING BELOW, THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE OF COMPARABLE TRAFFIC MOVING INTRASTATE, AND HENCE NO
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY THE FAILURE OF THE ACT TO
EXACT A FEE OF THOSE ENGAGED IN INTRASTATE COMMERCE.  IT IS NOT DENIED
THAT THE PERMIT FEE, IMPOSED UPON THOSE ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE,
BURDENS THIS COMMERCE, BUT APPELLANTS URGE THAT IT IS A PERMISSIBLE
CHARGE FOR THE USE OF THE STATE HIGHWAYS AND FOR THE COST OF POLICING
THE TRAFFIC, INCLUDING THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THE ACT. 

IN MORF V. BINGAMAN, 298 U.S. 407, RECENTLY BEFORE THIS COURT, THE
CARAVANING ACT OF NEW MEXICO, CONTAINING SOME FEATURES SIMILAR TO THE
PRESENT ACT, WAS LIKEWISE ASSAILED AS BURDENING INTERSTATE COMMERCE BY
THE IMPOSITION OF A FEE, OF $7.50 FOR EACH VEHICLE MOVING BY ITS OWN
POWER, AND $5.00 FOR EACH VEHICLE TOWED BY ANOTHER WHEN MOVING IN
CARAVAN.  THE STATUTE MADE THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE HIGHWAY
CONDITIONAL UPON PAYMENT OF THE FEE.  THE FEES COLLECTED WERE DEVOTED
IN PART TO HIGHWAY PURPOSES.  WE HELD THAT THE FEES WERE A CHARGE FOR
THE USE OF THE HIGHWAYS, NOT SHOWN BY THE TAXPAYER TO BE UNREASONABLE,
WHICH THE STATE MIGHT LAWFULLY DEMAND.  COMPARE HENDRICK V. MARYLAND,
235 U.S. 610, 624; INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, 276 U.S. 245,
249, 250. 

TO JUSTIFY THE EXACTION BY A STATE OF A MONEY PAYMENT BURDENING
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, IT MUST AFFIRMATIVELY APPEAR THAT IT IS DEMANDED
AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE EXPENSE OF PROVIDING FACILITIES, OR OF
ENFORCING REGULATIONS OF THE COMMERCE WHICH ARE WITHIN ITS
CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.  SPROUT V. SOUTH BEND, 277 U.S. 163, 169, 170;
INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY, 283 U.S. 183, 186; POSTAL
TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. V. RICHMOND, 249 U.S. 252, 259; CLYDE MALLORY LINES
V. ALABAMA, 296 U.S. 261, 267.  THIS MAY APPEAR FROM THE STATUTE
ITSELF, MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA; CLARK V. POOR, 274 U.S. 554, 557, OR
FROM THE USE OF THE MONEY COLLECTED, TO DEFRAY SUCH EXPENSE.  HICKLIN
V. CONEY, 290 U.S. 169, 173; SEE KANE V. NEW JERSEY, 242 U.S. 160, 168,
169; AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT CO., V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 295
U.S. 285, 289; COMPARE INTERSTATE BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, SUPRA,
249. 

HERE APPELLANT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE FEES COLLECTED ARE USED TO MEET
THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE OF ITS HIGHWAYS.  SECTION 6
OF THE CHALLENGED ACT, WHICH DIRECTS THAT THE PERMIT FEES BE PAID INTO
THE GENERAL FUND OF THE STATE TREASURY, IS TO BE CONTRASTED WITH OTHER
CALIFORNIA STATUTES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES, WHICH EXACT LICENSE
FEES AND TAXES AND DIRECT THAT THEY BE PAID, AT LEAST IN PART, INTO
SPECIAL FUNDS DEVOTED TO HIGHWAY PURPOSES.  MOTOR FUEL LICENSE ACT,
SEC. 13, CAL. STAT. 1923, C. 267, AS AMENDED, CAL. STAT. 1935, C. 264;
VEHICLE CODE, SECS. 776, 781, CAL. STAT. 1935, C. 27; CAL. STAT. 1935,
C. 362, SECS. 9(A), 9(D).  SEE INTERSTATE TRANSIT, INC. V. LINDSEY,
SUPRA, 188-190.  APPELLANTS POINT TO NO STATUTE APPROPRIATING ANY PART
OF THE GENERAL FUND OF THE STATE TREASURY FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES, AND THE
STREET AND HIGHWAYS CODE, SEC. 183, CAL. STAT. 1935, C. 29, PROVIDES:
"WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MONEY AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE
STATE HIGHWAY GENERAL FUND, ALL MONEY AVAILABLE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
REAL PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN FOR STATE HIGHWAYS OR FOR
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE OR IMPROVEMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS, OR HIGHWAYS
IN STATE PARKS, SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE STATE HIGHWAY FUND." 

HENCE WE MUST LOOK TO THE STATUTE ITSELF TO ASCERTAIN THE PURPOSES
FOR WHICH THE PERMIT FEES ARE COLLECTED.  ON THIS POINT IT IS
EXPLICIT.  IT DECLARES (SEC. 6) THAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO REIMBURSE THE
STATE TREASURY FOR THE ADDED EXPENSE OF ADMINISTERING THE CARAVAN ACT
AND POLICING THE CARAVANING TRAFFIC.  THIS NEGATIVES ANY INFERENCE OF
THE PURPOSE OF THE COLLECTION WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE DRAWN FROM THE
STATUTE, AND FROM ITS PROVISION THAT THE PERMIT IS PREREQUISITE TO THE
USE OF THE HIGHWAYS.  COMPARE MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA.  IT IS TRUE THAT
THIS DECLARATION IS NOT AN APPROPRIATION OF THE MONEYS COLLECTED AND IT
DOES NOT FORECLOSE THE USE OF THE FUND FOR HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE, SHOULD
THE STATE ELECT TO DO SO.  BUT UNTIL SUCH APPROPRIATION IS MADE THE
STATUTE ITSELF STATES THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE, AND PRECLUDES STATE
OFFICIALS FROM ASSERTING THAT THE FEES ARE COLLECTED FOR ANY OTHER. 

THE BURDEN RESTS ON APPELLEE TO SHOW THAT THE FEE IS EXCESSIVE FOR
THE DECLARED PURPOSE.  HENDRICK V. MARYLAND, SUPRA, 624; INTERSTATE
BUSSES CORP. V. BLODGETT, SUPRA, 250; MORF V. BINGAMAN, SUPRA, 410. 
BUT THE TRIAL COURT HAS FOUND THAT IT IS EXCESSIVE AND THE FINDING IS
AMPLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  IN 1934, 9,663 CARS WERE CARAVANED, AND
IN THE FIRST ELEVEN MONTHS OF 1935, 14,000.  THIS SUPPORTS THE
INFERENCE OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT 15,000 CARS ARE BROUGHT INTO THE
STATE, ANNUALLY, FOR SALE UNDER THE CONDITIONS DEFINED IN THE ACT. 
THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT THE EXPENSE INVOLVED IN ISSUING CARAVANING
PERMITS IS "ABOUT $5.00 PER CAR," ALTHOUGH IT APPEARED THAT THE PERMIT
FEE FOR LOCAL PLEASURE CARS, NUMBERING 1,960,000 WAS $3.00 PER YEAR OF
WHICH ONLY 35% ($1.05) IS DEVOTED TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. 

THE CARAVAN ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15, 1935.  A PERMIT
GRANTED UNDER IT IS CONFINED TO A LIMITED MOVEMENT FROM THE STATE
BOUNDARY TO THE IMMEDIATE POINT OF DESTINATION.  THE UNDISPUTED
EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE MEASURE TWO NEW
DISTRICT INSPECTORS WERE APPOINTED SOLELY ON ACCOUNT OF CARAVANING, AND
FOURTEEN NEW HIGHWAY PATROLMEN WERE "ASSIGNED," PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF
CARAVANING AND ITS EFFECT ON TRAFFIC.  THE CHIEF OF THE CALIFORNIA
HIGHWAY PATROL, IN SUMMARIZING HIS TESTIMONY, SAID THAT HE HAD PUT ON
"APPROXIMATELY SIX ADDITIONAL MEN OVER THE WHOLE STATE BECAUSE THERE
WERE CARAVANS ON THE ROAD, AND I ANTICIPATE PUTTING ON MORE MEN."  THEY
RECEIVE A MONTHLY SALARY OF $170, WHICH MAY EVENTUALLY BE INCREASED TO
$225.  THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATED THAT A
TOTAL OF TEN MEN AT A SALARY OF $200 A MONTH, AND AT AN AGGREGATE COST
OF $24,000 A YEAR, WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO POLICE THE TRAFFIC, WHEREAS THE
PERMIT FEES FROM 15,000 CARS WOULD YIELD AN ANNUAL RETURN OF $225,000. 

WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION OF
THE TRIAL COURT THAT THE COST OF POLICING WOULD BE AMPLY MET BY A
LICENSE FEE OF ONE-THIRD OF THE AMOUNT SO CHARGED.  THE ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSE OF ISSUING THE PERMITS APPEARS NOT TO HAVE BEEN INCLUDED, BUT
THE TESTIMONY THAT THAT EXPENSE WAS ABOUT $5.00 PER CAR DOES NOT BRIDGE
THE ARITHMETICAL GAP, AND DOES NOT IMPEACH THE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT
THE PERMIT FEE BEARS NO REASONABLE RELATION TO THE TOTAL COST OF
REGULATION, TO DEFRAY WHICH IT IS COLLECTED.  IT RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE
LICENSING PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN
ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE. 

ON THIS RECORD WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PROVISIONS
OF SEC. 2 WHICH MAKE IT UNLAWFUL "TO OPERATE THREE OR MORE VEHICLES OR
GROUPS OF VEHICLES IN A CARAVAN UNLESS A SPACE OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY FEET SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN EACH VEHICLE OR
GROUP OF VEHICLES BEING SO CARAVANED" MAY BE ENFORCED IF APPLIED,
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LICENSING PROVISIONS, IN A STATUTE NON
DISCRIMINATORY IN ITS OPERATION.  AFFIRMED. 
..END :





SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. V. U.S., 300 U.S. 297 


NO. 494.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 11, 12, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 18
F.SUPP.  25, AFFIRMED. 


1.  ACTING UNDER THE SHIPPING ACT AND AN EXECUTIVE ORDER PURPORTING TO
TRANSFER THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SHIPPING BOARD TO THE SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE, THE SECRETARY, AFTER HEARINGS, FOUND THAT RATES FILED BY A
CERTAIN GROUP OF CARRIERS WERE UNDULY PREJUDICIAL TO SHIPPERS AND OTHER
CARRIERS AND ORDERED THEIR CANCELLATION.  HELD THAT THE EXERCISE OF
POWER, IF INITIALLY UNAUTHORIZED, WAS VALIDATED RETROACTIVELY BY ACTS
OF CONGRESS CITED.  ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO. V. UNITED STATES, ANTE, P.
139.  P. 300. 

2.  IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION, A
DISTINCTION IS DRAWN BETWEEN BARE ATTEMPTS TO CREATE LIABILITY FOR
TRANSACTIONS FULLY CONSUMMATED AND CURATIVE STATUTES DESIGNED TO
REMEDY, WITHOUT INJUSTICE, MISTAKES AND DEFECTS IN ADMINISTRATION OF
GOVERNMENT.  P. 302. 

3.  THE WANT OF IMPAIRMENT OF ANY SUBSTANTIAL EQUITY, THE
PRESERVATION OF THE RIGHT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND JUDICIAL
REVIEW, AND THE FACT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED BY THE
SECRETARY IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES, DEPRIVE THE VALIDATING
STATUTE OF THE ELEMENTS OF NOVELTY AND SURPRISE WHICH MAY CONDEMN
RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION.  P. 302. 

4.  TARIFFS ALLOWING REDUCED RATES TO SHIPPERS WHO AGREE TO SHIP
EXCLUSIVELY, AND FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD, BY VESSELS OF THE CARRIERS
OFFERING SUCH RATES, ARE DISCRIMINATORY, AND ARE UNLAWFUL UNDER SEC. 16
OF THE SHIPPING ACT IF THE DISCRIMINATION IS UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE.  P.
303. 

5.  THE SHIPPING ACT, LIKE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT, SETS UP AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, WHOSE DETERMINATIONS OF FACT, ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH ORDERS ARE MADE, WILL NOT BE SET ASIDE IN THE COURTS IF THERE IS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.  WHETHER A DISCRIMINATION IN RATES OR
SERVICES OF A CARRIER IS UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE IS PECULIARLY A QUESTION
COMMITTED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.  P. 303. 

6.  THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE IN THIS CASE WAS
ENOUGH TO SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSIONS THAT THE CONTRACT RATE SYSTEM HERE
INVOLVED WAS NOT NEEDED TO ASSURE STABILITY OF SERVICE AND THAT IT
TENDED TO GIVE THE PARTICIPATING CARRIERS A MONOPOLY BY EXCLUDING
COMPETITION OF NEW LINES.  P. 305. 

7.  THOUGH THE EVIDENCE MAY SUPPORT A DIFFERENT INFERENCE, THIS COURT
MAY NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE SECRETARY.  P. 307. 

SWAYNE & HOYT, LTD. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES DISMISSING
THE BILL IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY INTERCOASTAL MARINE CARRIERS TO SET ASIDE
AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE REQUIRING THE CANCELLATION OF
CERTAIN RATES. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

APPELLANTS ARE STEAMSHIP CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORTATION
OF FREIGHT THROUGH THE PANAMA CANAL BETWEEN UNITED STATES PORTS ON THE
GULF OF MEXICO AND ON THE PACIFIC COAST.  THEY CONSTITUTE THE GULF
INTERCOASTAL CONFERENCE, WHICH OPERATES UNDER AN AGREEMENT, APPROVED
MARCH 28, 1934, BY THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD BUREAU OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AS PROVIDED BY SEC. 15 OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF
1916, 39 STAT. 733, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 814.  ON MAY 25, 1933, THE
CONFERENCE, IN CONFORMITY TO THE INTERCOASTAL SHIPPING ACT OF 1932,
SEC. 2, 47 STAT. 1425, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 844, FILED WITH THE UNITED STATES
SHIPPING BOARD BUREAU A NEW TARIFF, EFFECTIVE JUNE 2, 1933, PUBLISHING
CERTAIN RATES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF FREIGHT, WESTBOUND FROM COAST
TO COAST. 

THE TARIFF, CONTINUING THE CONTRACT SYSTEM IN USE BY THE CONFERENCE,
PROVIDED FOR "CONTRACT RATES" FOR SPECIFIED COMMODITIES, TO BE ENJOYED
BY SHIPPERS WHO AGREE WITH THE CONFERENCE, BY WRITTEN CONTRACT, TO MAKE
ALL THEIR SHIPMENTS OF THOSE COMMODITIES BY VESSEL OF THE CONFERENCE
MEMBERS FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD.  THE TARIFF RATES ON THE SAME
COMMODITIES FOR SHIPPERS NOT ENTERING INTO CONTRACTS WERE $2.00 PER TON
HIGHER THAN THE CONTRACT RATES.  IN 1934, THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION BY THE SHIPPING BOARD BUREAU OF THE LAWFULNESS
OF THE CONTRACT RATE SYSTEM (SEE SEC. 22 OF THE SHIPPING ACT, 39 STAT.
736, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 821, AND SEC. 3 OF THE INTERCOASTAL SHIPPING ACT OF
1933, 47 STAT. 1426, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 845).  THE ENSUING REPORT CONDEMNED
THE DISCRIMINATION, AND ON JULY 3, 1935, THE SECRETARY ORDERED THE
APPELLANTS TO CEASE CHARGING THE HIGHER RATES TO SHIPPERS WHO HAD NOT
ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS. 

IN SEPTEMBER OF THAT YEAR APPELLANTS FILED NEW RATE SCHEDULES,
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 3, 1935, WHICH CONTINUED THE CONTRACT RATE SYSTEM. 
THEREUPON THE SECRETARY VACATED HIS ORDER OF JULY 3RD AND MADE AN ORDER
SUSPENDING THE SCHEDULES AND DIRECTING A SECOND HEARING CONCERNING THE
LAWFULNESS OF THE CONTRACT RATE SYSTEM.  ON THIS HEARING NEW EVIDENCE
WAS INTRODUCED, AND RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ON THE
PREVIOUS HEARING WERE SPREAD UPON THE RECORD.  IN A REPORT REVIEWING
THIS RECORD, THE SECRETARY FOUND THAT THE "REAL PURPOSE OF THE
SUSPENDED RATES  ...  IS TO PREVENT SHIPPERS FROM USING THE LINES OF
OTHER CARRIERS AND TO DISCOURAGE ALL OTHERS FROM ATTEMPTING TO ENGAGE
IN INTERCOASTAL TRANSPORTATION FROM AND TO THE GULF."  HE ACCORDINGLY
FOUND THE RATES UNDULY PREJUDICIAL AND ORDERED THEIR CANCELLATION. 

THE PRESENT SUIT WAS BROUGHT IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, THREE JUDGES SITTING, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY AS WITHOUT HIS STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND BECAUSE NOT SUPPORTED
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.  FROM THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
SUSTAINING THE SECRETARY'S ORDER, 18 F.SUPP.  25, THE CASE COMES HERE
ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 31 OF THE SHIPPING ACT, 39 STAT. 738, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 830, AND THE ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, 38 STAT. 220, 28 U.S.C.,
SEC. 47.  APPELLANTS HERE, AS IN THE COURT BELOW, HAVE ASSIGNED AS
ERROR THAT THE SECRETARY WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE ORDER UNDER
REVIEW BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JUNE 10, 1933, NO. 6166, SEC. 12,
WHICH ABOLISHED THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD AND TRANSFERRED ITS
FUNCTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WAS WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AND
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY, AND BECAUSE THE FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE
SECRETARY WERE WITHOUT SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE. 

FIRST.  SINCE THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN, THE CONTENTION THAT THE TRANSFER
TO THE SECRETARY, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER (NO. 6166, SEC. 12), OF POWERS
CONFERRED BY THE SHIPPING ACT ON THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD, WAS
UNAUTHORIZED BY THE TERMS OF TITLE 4 OF THE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION
ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932, 47 STAT. 413, AS AMENDED, 47 STAT. 1517, HAS BEEN
PUT AT REST BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO. V.
UNITED STATES, ANTE, P. 139.  THERE WE HELD THAT THE FAILURE OF
CONGRESS, IF ANY, TO EXPRESS ITS WILL IN THE EARLIER ACT HAD BEEN
REMEDIED BY VARIOUS LATER ACTS MENTIONING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR PAYMENT OF THE
EXPENSES OF CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHIPPING ACT,  FN1  AND
BY SEC. 204(A) OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1936, 49 STAT.
1985, WHICH REFERRED TO FUNCTIONS OF THE FORMER SHIPPING BOARD AS "NOW
VESTED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PURSUANT TO SEC. 12 OF THE
PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6166," AND TRANSFERRED THEM TO THE
NEWLY-CONSTITUTED UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION. 

TO DISPOSE OF FURTHER CONTENTIONS ALSO URGED HERE, THAT CONGRESS WAS
WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO DELEGATE TO THE PRESIDENT AUTHORITY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRANSFER SHOULD BE EFFECTED, AND THAT HE DID NOT
EXERCISE IT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL MANNER, THE COURT FOUND IT ENOUGH THAT
THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY, WHICH THE MARITIME COMMISSION HAD CONTINUED
IN EFFECT, HAD "DETERMINED NO RIGHTS AND PRESCRIBED NO DUTIES" OF THE
CARRIER.  THE RATE ORDER HERE IS OF A DIFFERENT SORT AND WE FACE THE
QUESTION PREVIOUSLY RESERVED.  IT IS UNNECESSARY NOW TO PASS ON THE
EFFICACY OF THE TRANSFER BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, FOR WE ARE OF OPINION THAT
AS CONGRESS ITSELF HAD POWER TO ABOLISH THE SHIPPING BOARD AND TO
REQUIRE ITS FUNCTIONS TO BE PERFORMED BY THE SECRETARY, IT HAD POWER TO
RECOGNIZE AND VALIDATE HIS PERFORMANCE OF THOSE FUNCTIONS EVEN THOUGH
THEIR ATTEMPTED TRANSFER BY EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS INEFFECTUAL. 

IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT CONGRESS MAY, BY ENACTMENT NOT OTHERWISE
INAPPROPRIATE, "RATIFY  ... ACTS WHICH IT MIGHT HAVE AUTHORIZED," SEE
MATTINGLY V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 97 U.S. 687, 690, AND GIVE THE FORCE
OF LAW TO OFFICIAL ACTION UNAUTHORIZED WHEN TAKEN.  WILSON V. SHAW, 204
U.S. 24, 32; UNITED STATES V. HEINSZEN & CO., 206 U.S. 370, 382;
HAMILTON V. DILLIN, 21 WALL.  73, 96; TIACO V. FORBES, 228 U.S. 549,
556; RAFFERTY V. SMITH, BELL & CO., 257 U.S. 226, 232; CHARLOTTE HARBOR
& NORTHERN RY. V. WELLES, 260 U.S. 8, 11; HODGES V. SNYDER, 261 U.S.
600, 603.  AND WE THINK THAT CONGRESS, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY DOCTRINE OF
RATIFICATION, HAS, BY THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTES MENTIONED, IN
EFFECT CONFIRMED AND APPROVED THE EXERCISE BY THE SECRETARY OF POWERS
ORIGINALLY CONFERRED ON THE SHIPPING BOARD. 

THE MERE FACT THAT THE VALIDATION IS RETROACTIVE IN ITS OPERATION IS
NOT ENOUGH, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, TO RENDER IT
INEFFECTIVE.  IN GRAHAM & FOSTER V. GOODCELL, 282 U.S. 409, 429, THIS
COURT RECOGNIZED THAT A DISTINCTION MUST BE TAKEN "BETWEEN A BARE
ATTEMPT OF THE LEGISLATURE RETROACTIVELY TO CREATE LIABILITIES FOR
TRANSACTIONS  ...  FULLY CONSUMMATED IN THE PAST  ...  AND THE CASE OF
A CURATIVE STATUTE APTLY DESIGNED TO REMEDY MISTAKES AND DEFECTS IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT WHERE THE REMEDY CAN BE APPLIED WITHOUT
INJUSTICE."  AND SEE HECHT V. MALLEY, 265 U.S. 144, 164.  HERE THE
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE CURATIVE ACT IMPAIRS NO SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHT OR EQUITY OF APPELLANTS; THEIR RIGHTS TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARING AND DETERMINATION, AND TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW, HAVE BEEN AS FULLY
PRESERVED AS IF THE ACT HAD BEEN ADOPTED AT THE DATE OF THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER.  THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED BY THE SECRETARY IN THE NAME OF
THE UNITED STATES, CF. UNITED STATES V. HEINSZEN & CO., SUPRA, AT 385,
BY VIRTUE OF THE 1932 ACT AND THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THE VALIDATING STATUTE ARE FREE OF THE ELEMENTS OF NOVELTY AND SURPRISE
WHICH HAVE LED TO CONDEMNATION, AS UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY, OF OTHER
RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION.  SEE MILLIKEN V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 15,
21; UNITED STATES V. HUDSON, 299 U.S. 498.  WE CONCLUDE THAT THE
SECRETARY'S EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE SHIPPING BOARD HAS
BEEN SANCTIONED BY CONGRESS. 

SECOND.  SECTION 16 OF THE SHIPPING ACT DECLARES THAT "IT SHALL BE
UNLAWFUL FOR A COMMON CARRIER BY WATER," SUBJECT TO THE ACT, "TO MAKE
OR GIVE ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE TO ANY
PARTICULAR PERSON, LOCALITY OR DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC IN ANY RESPECT
WHATSOEVER OR TO SUBJECT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, LOCALITY OR DESCRIPTION
OF TRAFFIC TO ANY UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE PREJUDICE OR DISADVANTAGE IN
ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER."  FN2  THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN APPELLANTS'
RATES ON COMMODITIES TRANSPORTED UNDER CONTRACT AND THE RATES ON THE
SAME COMMODITIES FOR NON-CONTRACT SHIPPERS WAS PRIMA FACIE
DISCRIMINATORY SINCE THE TWO RATES WERE CHARGED FOR IDENTICAL SERVICES
AND FACILITIES, AND THE NARROW ISSUE PRESENTED TO THE SECRETARY FOR
DECISION WAS WHETHER, IN THE CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE TRAFFIC INVOLVED,
THE DISCRIMINATION WAS UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE. 

AS POINTED OUT BY THIS COURT IN UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO. V.
CUNARD S.S. CO., 284 U.S. 474, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHIPPING ACT WHICH
CONFER UPON THE SHIPPING BOARD AUTHORITY OVER RATES AND PRACTICES OF
CARRIERS BY WATER, AND PRESCRIBE THE MODE OF ITS EXERCISE, CLOSELY
PARALLEL THOSE OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT ESTABLISHING THE
CORRESPONDING RELATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION TO
CARRIERS BY RAIL.  BOTH HAVE SET UP AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY TO WHOSE
INFORMED JUDGMENT AND DISCRETION CONGRESS HAS COMMITTED THE
DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS OF FACT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT IS
AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS. 

SUCH DETERMINATIONS WILL NOT BE SET ASIDE BY COURTS IF THERE IS
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM.  EVEN THOUGH, UPON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE
EVIDENCE, A COURT MIGHT REACH A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION, IT IS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT.  SEE
MANUFACTURERS RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 246 U.S. 457, 481; PENNSYLVANIA
CO. V. UNITED STATES, 236 U.S. 351; CF. UNITED STATES NAVIGATION CO. V.
CUNARD S.S. CO., SUPRA, 484.  WHETHER A DISCRIMINATION IN RATES OR
SERVICES OF A CARRIER IS UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN REGARDED
AS PECULIARLY A QUESTION COMMITTED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, BASED UPON AN APPRECIATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING THE TRAFFIC.  MANUFACTURERS RY. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, SUPRA; PENNSYLVANIA CO. V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 361; SEABOARD
AIR LINE RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 254 U.S. 57, 62; PENNSYLVANIA R. CO.
V. INTERNATIONAL COAL CO., 230 U.S. 184, 196; NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L.
RY. V. TENNESSEE, 262 U.S. 318, 322. 

IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PRESENT DISCRIMINATION WAS UNDUE OR
UNREASONABLE THE SECRETARY WAS CALLED UPON TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ITS
EFFECT WAS TO EXCLUDE OTHER CARRIERS FROM THE TRAFFIC, AND IF SO,
WHETHER, AS APPELLANTS URGE, IT OPERATED TO SECURE STABILITY OF RATES
WITH CONSEQUENT STABILITY OF SERVICE, AND, SO FAR AS EITHER EFFECT WAS
FOUND TO ENSUE, TO WEIGH THE DISADVANTAGES OF THE FORMER AGAINST THE
ADVANTAGES OF THE LATTER.  THIS WAS CLEARLY RECOGNIZED IN THE REPORT
UPON WHICH THE PRESENT ORDER IS BASED.  IT STATES THAT THE DANGER OF
CUT-THROAT COMPETITION WAS LESSENED BY SEC. 3 OF THE INTERCOASTAL
SHIPPING ACT OF 1933, AND THAT THE CONTRACT SYSTEM TENDS TO CREATE A
MONOPOLY.  IN VIEW OF THE ASSURANCE OF REASONABLE RATE STABILITY
AFFORDED BY THE ACT OF 1933, THE SECRETARY CONCLUDED THAT THIS WAS THE
REAL PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT RATE. 

BEFORE THE ENACTMENT OF THE SHIPPING ACT IN 1916, THERE WAS NO
CONGRESSIONAL REGULATION OF RATES AND PRACTICES OF WATER CARRIERS.  BY
SEC. 16 OF THE ACT, THE CARRIERS WERE REQUIRED TO FILE ONLY THEIR
MAXIMUM RATES, WHICH LEFT THEM FREE TO INDULGE IN RATE WARS.  UNDER
SECS. 2 AND 3 OF THE INTERCOASTAL SHIPPING ACT OF 1933, THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO FILE SCHEDULES SPECIFYING THEIR RATES, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO
CHANGE ONLY ON THIRTY DAYS' NOTICE, AND TO EXAMINATION BY THE BOARD AS
TO THEIR LAWFULNESS, WITH POWER IN IT TO SUSPEND THE RATE PENDING
INVESTIGATION.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT CUT-RATES FOR "TRAMP" AND
"DISTRESSED" TONNAGE, WHICH, ACCORDING TO APPELLANTS' WITNESSES, ARE
THE PRINCIPAL MENACE TO RATE STABILITY, WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY
DETERRED BY THESE REQUIREMENTS.  THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CONFERENCE
ADMITTED THAT THE 1933 STATUTE "HAS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT ELIMINATED THE
CONDITION NECESSITATING THE CONTRACT RATE SYSTEM."  IN ADDITION MAY BE
MENTIONED THE TESTIMONY OF SHIPPERS WHO FAVORED THE CONTRACT RATE
SYSTEM, BUT ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD HAD NO DIFFICULTY WITH THE STABILITY
OF THE SERVICE IN THEIR SHIPMENTS FROM ATLANTIC PORTS, WHERE THE
CONFERENCES HAVE NOT ADOPTED A CONTRACT SYSTEM.  WE THINK THERE WAS
EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE SECRETARY COULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT THERE
WAS LITTLE NEED FOR A CONTRACT RATE SYSTEM TO ASSURE STABILITY OF
SERVICE. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM WHICH THE
SECRETARY COULD INFER THAT THE CONTRACT RATE SYSTEM WOULD TEND TO GIVE
TO THE CONFERENCE CARRIERS A MONOPOLY BY EXCLUDING COMPETITION FROM NEW
LINES.  THE SECRETARY OF THE CONFERENCE TESTIFIED THAT APPROXIMATELY
64% OF THE WEST-BOUND PORT TO PORT TONNAGE MOVED UNDER THE CONTRACT
RATE.  REPRESENTATIVES OF LINES NOT MEMBERS OF THE CONFERENCE STATED
THAT THE TONNAGE LEFT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE OPERATION OF A NEW
LINE PROFITABLE, AND THAT THE CONTRACT SYSTEM PRECLUDED THE EMPLOYMENT
OF THEIR IDLE STEAMERS IN THE GULF TRADE.  THE CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN
ADMITTED THAT IT WOULD "NOT BE EASY" FOR A NEW LINE TO ENTER THE GULF
SERVICE BECAUSE IT "IS NOW ADEQUATELY TONNAGED," AND THAT THE CONTRACT
SYSTEM RESTRICTED THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE TONNAGE.  HE SUGGESTED THAT A
COMPETING LINE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET TONNAGE IF IT OFFERED AS MUCH AS A
10% RATE REDUCTION, BUT ADMITTED THAT IT PROBABLY COULD NOT OPERATE
SUCCESSFULLY AT SUCH A RATE. 

IT ALSO APPEARED, CONTRARY TO THE ASSERTION OF APPELLANTS, THAT
COMPETING LINES WERE NOT FREE TO ENTER THE CONFERENCE.  BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT, IT IS PREREQUISITE TO ADMISSION
THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL BE ENGAGED IN THE GENERAL CARGO TRADE FROM THE
GULF TO THE PACIFIC.  THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT THE CONFERENCE HAD
DENIED ADMISSION TO A LINE BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE AN ESTABLISHED
SERVICE IN THE GULF, ALTHOUGH AT THE TIME WHEN IT APPLIED FOR
MEMBERSHIP IT HAD IDLE VESSELS AND "OFFICES AND FACILITIES" FOR
CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS.  IT IS AN ADMISSIBLE INFERENCE FROM THE
EVIDENCE THAT A NEW LINE, TO SECURE ADMISSION TO THE CONFERENCE, MUST
EITHER BE ABLE SUCCESSFULLY TO COMPETE WITH THE CONFERENCE LINES AT THE
START, NOTWITHSTANDING THE RESTRICTION OF THE CONTRACT RATE, OR MUST
SUBJECT ITSELF TO A LOSS BEFORE IT CAN QUALIFY FOR ADMISSION. 

THERE WAS THUS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE SECRETARY WHICH TENDED TO SHOW
THAT THE CONTRACT RATE SYSTEM, BY REASON OF THE CONDITIONS PREVAILING
IN THE TRAFFIC, HAD ESTABLISHED A PRACTICAL MONOPOLY OF CARGOES MOVING
FROM THE GULF PORTS TO PORTS ON THE PACIFIC COAST, FROM WHICH COMPETING
CARRIERS WERE EXCLUDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT,
EXCEPT ON TERMS WHICH WERE PRACTICALLY PROHIBITIVE, AND THAT, SINCE THE
ADOPTION OF THE INTERCOASTAL SHIPPING ACT OF 1933, STABILITY OF
SERVICE, WHICH APPELLANTS URGE AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SYSTEM, COULD
BE SECURED WITHOUT A CONTRACT RATE.  AS THE SECRETARY HAS INTERPRETED
THE EVIDENCE, THE OPERATION OF THE CONTRACT SYSTEM, IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, DOES NOT DIFFER SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THAT OF
"DEFERRED REBATES" OUTLAWED IN BOTH FOREIGN AND COASTWISE SHIPPING BY
SEC. 14 OF THE SHIPPING ACT, 39 STAT. 733, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 812.  FN3 

EVEN THOUGH, AS APPELLANTS SEEM TO ARGUE, THE EVIDENCE MAY LEND
ITSELF TO SUPPORT A DIFFERENT INFERENCE, WE ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO
SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE SECRETARY THAT THE
DISCRIMINATION WAS UNREASONABLE.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ACT OF APRIL 7, 1934, 48 STAT. 529, 566; ACT OF MARCH 22, 1935,
49 STAT. 67, 99; ACT OF MAY 15, 1936, 49 STAT. 1309, 1345. 

FN2  SEE ALSO SHIPPING ACT, SEC. 15, 39 STAT. 733, 46 U.S.C. SEC.
814(THE SHIPPING BOARD MAY CANCEL OR MODIFY ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN A
CARRIER AND ANOTHER CARRIER OR PERSON SUBJECT TO THE ACT, WHICH IT
FINDS TO BE UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY); SEC. 17, 39 STAT. 734, 46 U.S.C.
SEC. 816(THE BOARD MAY ORDER DISCONTINUANCE OF DISCRIMINATORY RATES
CHARGED BY CARRIERS IN FOREIGN COMMERCE); SEC. 18, 39 STAT. 735, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 817(WHENEVER THE BOARD FINDS THAT ANY CLASSIFICATION IS
UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE, IT MAY ORDER A JUST AND REASONABLE ONE
ENFORCED). 

FN3  SECTION 14 OF THE SHIPPING ACT DEFINES THE TERM "DEFERRED
REBATE" AS "A RETURN OF ANY PORTION OF THE FREIGHT MONEY BY A CARRIER
TO ANY SHIPPER AS A CONSIDERATION FOR THE GIVING OF ALL OR ANY PORTION
OF HIS SHIPMENTS TO THE SAME OR ANY OTHER CARRIER, OR FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE, THE PAYMENT OF WHICH IS DEFERRED BEYOND THE COMPLETION OF THE
SERVICE FOR WHICH IT IS PAID, AND IS MADE ONLY IF, DURING BOTH THE
PERIOD FOR WHICH COMPUTED AND THE PERIOD OF DEFERMENT, THE SHIPPER HAS
COMPLIED WITH THE TERMS OF THE REBATE AGREEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT." 

THE REPORT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE & FISHERIES,
H.R. DOC. 805, 63RD CONG., 2D SESS. (1914), RECOMMENDED (P. 307) THE
PROHIBITION OF DEFERRED REBATES, ADOPTED IN SEC. 14 OF THE SHIPPING
ACT, BECAUSE IT OPERATED TO TIE SHIPPERS TO A GROUP OF LINES FOR
SUCCESSIVE PERIODS, AND BECAUSE THE SYSTEM "IS UNNECESSARY TO SECURE
EXCELLENCE AND REGULARITY OF SERVICE, A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF
CONFERENCES BEING OPERATED TODAY WITHOUT THIS FEATURE."  SEE, E.G., PP.
103-105, 200.  THE COMMITTEE RECOGNIZED THAT THE EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT
SYSTEM DOES NOT NECESSARILY TIE UP THE SHIPPER AS COMPLETELY AS
"DEFERRED REBATES," SINCE IT DOES NOT PLACE HIM IN "CONTINUAL
DEPENDENCE" ON THE CARRIER BY FORCING HIS EXCLUSIVE PATRONAGE FOR ONE
CONTRACT PERIOD UNDER THREATS OF FORFEIT OF DIFFERENTIALS ACCUMULATED
DURING A PREVIOUS CONTRACT PERIOD.  ACCORDINGLY THE COMMITTEE DID NOT
CONDEMN THE CONTRACT SYSTEM COMPLETELY.  CF. W.T. RAWLEIGH CO. V.
STOOMVAART, 1 U.S.S.B. 285.  THE POLICY OF THE STATUTE MAY PROPERLY BE
APPLIED WHERE, AS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE CONTRACT
SYSTEM MUST BE TAKEN AS ACTUALLY OPERATING TO EFFECT A MONOPOLY.  CF.
EDEN MINING CO. V. BLUEFIELDS FRUIT & S.S. CO., 1 U.S.S.B. 41. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DISSENTS. 
..END :







N.Y. EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES, 300 U.S. 308 


NO. 404.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 3, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 271 N.Y.
353 - 3 N.E.(2D) 508, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A STATE MAY TAX HER CITIZEN UPON THE INCOME HE RECEIVES BY WAY OF
RENTS FROM LANDS SITUATE IN ANOTHER STATE AND BY WAY OF INTEREST ON
BONDS SECURED BY MORTGAGE ON LANDS SITUATE IN ANOTHER STATE.  PP. 312,
316. 

2.  THE RECEIPT OF INCOME BY A RESIDENT IS A TAXABLE EVENT.  P. 312. 

3.  DOMICIL ITSELF AFFORDS A BASIS FOR SUCH TAXATION.  P. 313. 

4.  ENJOYMENT OF THE PRIVILEGES OF RESIDENCE IN THE STATE AND THE
ATTENDANT RIGHT TO INVOKE THE PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS ARE INSEPARABLE
FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHARING THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT.  ID. 

5.  NEITHER THE PRIVILEGE NOR THE BURDEN IS AFFECTED BY THE CHARACTER
OF THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED.  FOR THAT REASON INCOME
IS NOT NECESSARILY CLOTHED WITH THE TAX IMMUNITY ENJOYED BY ITS
SOURCE.  ID. 

6.  A TAX ON THE INCOME FROM LAND IS NOT A TAX ON THE LAND (POLLOCK
V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429, DISTINGUISHED), AND
TAXATION OF BOTH, BY THE SAME OR DIFFERENT STATES, IS NOT DOUBLE
TAXATION.  P. 314. 

7. IN REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT, THIS COURT WILL NOT
PASS UPON ANY FEDERAL QUESTION NOT SHOWN BY THE RECORD TO HAVE BEEN
RAISED IN THE STATE COURT OR CONSIDERED THERE, ALTHOUGH IT BE ONE
ARISING UNDER THE SAME CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT TO WHICH
OTHER QUESTIONS ARE PROPERLY PRESENTED.  P. 317. 

NEW YORK EX REL. COHN V. GRAVES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A JUDGMENT FAVORABLE TO THE
PRESENT APPELLANT, IN A PROCEEDING TO REVIEW A DETERMINATION OF THE
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF NEW YORK AND THUS SECURE A REFUND OF MONEY
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY EXACTED AS STATE INCOME TAXES. 

NO STATE MAY TAX LANDS LYING IN ANOTHER STATE.  HOYT V.
COMMISSIONERS, 23 N.Y. 224, 226; SENIOR V. BRADEN, 295 U.S. 422; SAFE
DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83; FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA,
268 U.S. 473; FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204;
BALDWIN V. MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586. 

A TAX UPON THE RENTS FROM REAL ESTATE IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT A
TAX UPON THE REAL ESTATE.  POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157
U.S. 429, 580, 581; 158 ID. 601, 630; NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.
V. WISCONSIN, 275 U.S. 136, 140; NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. UNITED
STATES, 277 U.S. 508, 521; OPINION OF THE JUSTICES, 84 N.H. 559, 573,
574; OPINION OF THE JUSTICES, 220 MASS. 613, 624.  SEE ALSO HARRISON V.
COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS, 272 MASS. 422; HART V. TAX COMMISSIONER,
240 MASS. 37; PIERSON V. LYNCH, 237 APP. DIV. 765, AFF'D, 263 N.Y.
533. 

THE GENERAL RULE HAS ALWAYS BEEN, IN THE LANGUAGE OF COKE:  "BUT IF A
MAN SEISED OF LANDS IN FEE BY HIS DEED GRANTETH TO ANOTHER THE PROFIT
OF THOSE LANDS, AND TO HAVE AND TO HOLD TO HIM AND HIS HEIRS, AND
MAKETH LIVERY SECUNDUM FORMAN CHARTAE, THE WHOLE LAND ITSELFE DOTH
PASSE; FOR WHAT IS THE LAND BUT THE PROFITS THEREOF;..."  CO. LIT. 
4B.  SEE ALSO KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 81; MCCOACH V. MINEHILL &
S.H.R. CO., 228 U.S. 295, 306; FLINT V. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107;
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, HAMILTON'S WORKS, PUTNAM'S ED., VOL. 3, P. 34;
JOSEPH H. CHOATE (POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. AT P.
540); METCALF V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514, 522; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA,
257 U.S. 501; BURNET V. CORONADO OIL & GAS CO., 285 U.S. 393. 

FOR THE STATE OF DOMICILE TO TAX THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY, INTANGIBLE
AS WELL AS TANGIBLE, WHICH IS PHYSICALLY LOCATED IN OR HAS ACQUIRED A
BUSINESS SITUS IN ANOTHER STATE, WOULD VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  SEE WHEELING STEEL CORP V. FOX, 298 U.S.
193, AND CASES SUPRA. 

LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276, IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH
THE RECENT DECISIONS OF THIS COURT AND PARTICULARLY SENIOR V. BRADEN,
SUPRA, AND WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, SUPRA.  IT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
ITS FACTS. 

MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION CONTRAVENES DUE PROCESS.  TAX CHAOS WILL
RESULT IF THE OTHER STATES FOLLOW THE OVERREACHING EXAMPLE OF NEW
YORK. 

INHERITANCE AND PROPERTY TAXES ARE BOTH DEPENDENT UPON JURISDICTION
OF THE PROPERTY.  SEE FRICK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 268 U.S. 473; FIRST
NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312; CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. V.
SCHNADER, 293 U.S. 112.  IN RECENT YEARS, AND PARTICULARLY SINCE 1930,
THIS COURT IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS HAS REPEATEDLY DECLARED AGAINST DOUBLE
AND MULTIPLE STATE TAXATION. 

THE NEW YORK STATUTE, PASSED MAY 16, 1935, IN SO FAR AS IT ATTEMPTS
TO LEVY A RETROACTIVE TAX ON INCOME RECEIVED PRIOR TO 1934, WAS
ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

DISTINGUISHING:  LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276; MAGUIRE
V. TREFRY, 253 U.S. 12; COOK V. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47; CENTRAL UNION TRUST
CO. V. WENDELL, 199 APP. DIV. 131; VAN RENSSELAER V. DENNISON, 8 BARB. 
23; AND KIRTLAND V. HOTCHKISS, 100 U.S. 491. 

MR. JUSTICE STONE DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION WHETHER A STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY
TAX A RESIDENT UPON INCOME RECEIVED FROM RENTS OF LAND LOCATED WITHOUT
THE STATE AND FROM INTEREST ON BONDS PHYSICALLY WITHOUT THE STATE AND
SECURED BY MORTGAGES UPON LANDS SIMILARLY SITUATED. 

627), IMPOSES A TAX UPON THE "ENTIRE NET INCOME" OF RESIDENTS OF THE
STATE.  BY SEC. 359 GROSS INCOME IS DEFINED AS INCLUDING INTEREST AND
RENT.  THE SAME SECTION, AS AMENDED BY N.Y. LAWS 1935, C. 933,
ENUMERATES AMONG THE ITEMS OF TAXABLE INCOME "RENT (INCLUDING RENT
DERIVED FROM REAL PROPERTY SITUATED OUTSIDE THE STATE)  ...  IT BEING
INTENDED TO INCLUDE ALL THE FOREGOING ITEMS WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
SOURCE THEREOF, LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED, OR ANY OTHER FACTOR
EXCEPT ONLY A CASE WHERE THE INCLUSION THEREOF WOULD BE VIOLATIVE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS." 

APPELLANT, A RESIDENT OF NEW YORK, BROUGHT THE PRESENT CERTIORARI
PROCEEDING IN THE COURTS OF NEW YORK TO REVIEW A DETERMINATION OF THE
STATE TAX COMMISSION, APPELLEES, DENYING HER APPLICATION FOR A REFUND
OF STATE INCOME TAXES ASSESSED AND PAID FOR THE YEARS 1931 AND 1932, SO
FAR AS THE TAXES WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO RENTS RECEIVED BY APPELLANT FROM
NEW JERSEY LAND, AND INTEREST PAID ON BONDS SECURED BY MORTGAGED REAL
ESTATE IN NEW JERSEY, WHERE THE BONDS AND MORTGAGES WERE PHYSICALLY
LOCATED.  A GROUND FOR RECOVERY OF THE TAX ASSIGNED BY APPELLANT'S
PETITION WAS THAT THE TAX WAS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT A TAX ON REAL
ESTATE AND TANGIBLE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHOUT THE STATE, IN VIOLATION OF
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 
JUDGMENT FOR APPELLANT (SEE 246 APP. DIV. 335; 286 N.Y.S. 485), WAS
REVERSED BY THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, 271 N.Y. 353; 3 N.E.(2D)
508.  THE CASE COMES HERE ON APPEAL UNDER SEC. 237(A) OF THE JUDICIAL
CODE. 

THE STIPULATION OF FACTS ON WHICH THE CASE WAS TRIED IN THE STATE
COURT DOES NOT INDICATE THAT APPELLANT'S INCOME HAS BEEN TAXED BY NEW
JERSEY, AND IT DOES NOT DEFINE THE PRECISE NATURE OF HER INTEREST IN
THE PROPERTIES PRODUCING THE INCOME.  IT SETS OUT THAT APPELLANT'S
HUSBAND DIED TESTATE, HIS WILL DULY PROBATED IN NEW JERSEY "DEVISING
AND BEQUEATHING TO SAID TAXPAYER THE ENTIRE NET INCOME FROM HIS ESTATE
FOR AND DURING HER WIDOWHOOD," AND THAT THE TAXED INCOME INCLUDED
"RENTS FROM TESTATOR'S REAL ESTATE" AND "INTEREST FROM TESTATOR'S REAL
ESTATE MORTGAGES," ALL LOCATED IN NEW JERSEY.  THE TERMS OF THE WILL
AND THE STATUS OF THE ESTATE DURING THE TAX YEARS DO NOT OTHERWISE
APPEAR.  THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME-PRODUCING PROPERTIES
WERE IN THOSE YEARS HELD UPON AN ACTIVE TRUST, OR THAT APPELLANT DID
NOT RECEIVE THE INCOME AS LIFE TENANT OF THE LEGAL INTEREST.  SEE
PALETZ V. CAMDEN SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO., 109 N.J. EQ. 344; 157 ATL.
456; CF. PASSMAN V. GUARANTEE TRUST & SAFE DEPOSIT CO., 57 N.J. EQ.
273; 41 ATL. 953; WESTFIELD TRUST CO. V. BEEKMAN, 97 N.J. EQ. 140; 128
ATL. 791.  ANY UNCERTAINTY ARISING FROM THE AMBIGUITY OF THE
STIPULATION, IF IT HAS ANY PRESENT SIGNIFICANCE, IS PUT AT REST BY THE
CONCESSION OF APPELLANT IN BRIEF, AND IN OPEN COURT ON THE ARGUMENT,
THAT SHE IS THE OWNER OF A LIFE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES,
AND THAT SHE RECEIVED, AS A PART OF HER INCOME IN THE TAX YEARS, THE
RENTS AND INTEREST WHICH HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY THE EXECUTORS ACTING,
NOT IN THEIR CAPACITY AS EXECUTORS, BUT AS HER AGENTS FOR AN ANNUAL
COMPENSATION. 

IN ANY CASE WE MAY ASSUME, FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THAT NEW YORK MAY
NOT LEVY A PROPERTY TAX UPON APPELLANT'S INTEREST, WHETHER IT BE LEGAL
OR EQUITABLE, SEE SENIOR V. BRADEN, 295 U.S. 422; SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST
CO. V. VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83.  WE ACCORDINGLY LIMIT OUR REVIEW TO THE
QUESTION CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE STATE COURT, WHETHER THERE IS
ANYTHING IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH PRECLUDES THE STATE OF NEW
YORK FROM TAXING THE INCOME MERELY BECAUSE IT IS DERIVED FROM SOURCES,
WHICH, TO THE EXTENT INDICATED, ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE STATE. 

INCOME FROM RENTS.  THAT THE RECEIPT OF INCOME BY A RESIDENT OF THE
TERRITORY OF A TAXING SOVEREIGNTY IS A TAXABLE EVENT IS UNIVERSALLY
RECOGNIZED.  DOMICIL ITSELF AFFORDS A BASIS FOR SUCH TAXATION. 
ENJOYMENT OF THE PRIVILEGES OF RESIDENCE IN THE STATE AND THE ATTENDANT
RIGHT TO INVOKE THE PROTECTION OF ITS LAWS ARE INSEPARABLE FROM
RESPONSIBILITY FOR SHARING THE COSTS OF GOVERNMENT.  "TAXES ARE WHAT WE
PAY FOR CIVILIZED SOCIETY  ..."  SEE COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS V.
COLLECTOR, 275 U.S. 87, 100.  A TAX MEASURED BY THE NET INCOME OF
RESIDENTS IS AN EQUITABLE METHOD OF DISTRIBUTING THE BURDENS OF
GOVERNMENT AMONG THOSE WHO ARE PRIVILEGED TO ENJOY ITS BENEFITS.  THE
TAX, WHICH IS APPORTIONED TO THE ABILITY OF THE TAXPAYER TO PAY IT, IS
FOUNDED UPON THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE STATE TO THE RECIPIENT OF
THE INCOME IN HIS PERSON, IN HIS RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INCOME AND IN HIS
ENJOYMENT OF IT WHEN RECEIVED.  THESE ARE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES WHICH
ATTACH TO DOMICIL WITHIN THE STATE.  TO THEM AND TO THE EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF THE TAX BURDEN, THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE REALIZED BY THE
RECEIPT OF INCOME AND REPRESENTED BY THE POWER TO CONTROL IT, BEARS A
DIRECT RELATIONSHIP.  SEE LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 286 U.S. 276;
MAGUIRE V. TREFRY, 253 U.S. 12, 14; VIRGINIA V. IMPERIAL COAL SALES
CO., 293 U.S. 15, 19; COMPARE SHAFFER V. CARTER, 252 U.S. 37, 50. 

NEITHER THE PRIVILEGE NOR THE BURDEN IS AFFECTED BY THE CHARACTER OF
THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED.  FOR THAT REASON INCOME IS
NOT NECESSARILY CLOTHED WITH THE TAX IMMUNITY ENJOYED BY ITS SOURCE.  A
STATE MAY TAX ITS RESIDENTS UPON NET INCOME FROM A BUSINESS WHOSE
PHYSICAL ASSETS, LOCATED WHOLLY WITHOUT THE STATE, ARE BEYOND ITS
TAXING POWER, LAWRENCE V. STATE TAX COMM'N, SUPRA; SEE SCHAFFER V.
CARTER, SUPRA, AT 50.  IT MAY TAX NET INCOME FROM BONDS HELD IN TRUST
AND ADMINISTERED IN ANOTHER STATE, MAGUIRE V. TREFRY, SUPRA, ALTHOUGH
THE TAXPAYER'S EQUITABLE INTEREST MAY NOT BE SUBJECTED TO THE TAX, SAFE
DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA, SUPRA. IT MAY TAX NET INCOME FROM
OPERATIONS IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH A TAX ON THE COMMERCE IS
FORBIDDEN, UNITED STATES GLUE CO. V. OAK CREEK, 247 U.S. 321; SHAFFER
V. CARTER, SUPRA.  CONGRESS MAY LAY A TAX ON NET INCOME DERIVED FROM
THE BUSINESS OF EXPORTING MERCHANDISE IN FOREIGN COMMERCE, ALTHOUGH A
TAX UPON ARTICLES EXPORTED IS PROHIBITED BY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
(ART. I, SEC. 9, CL. 5).  PECK & CO. V. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165; BARCLAY &
CO. V. EDWARDS, 267 U.S. 442, 447. 

NEITHER ANALYSIS OF THE TWO TYPES OF TAXES, NOR CONSIDERATION OF THE
BASES UPON WHICH THE POWER TO IMPOSE, THEM RESTS, SUPPORTS THE
CONTENTION THAT A TAX ON INCOME IS A TAX ON THE LAND WHICH PRODUCES IT.
THE INCIDENCE OF A TAX ON INCOME DIFFERS FROM THAT OF A TAX ON
PROPERTY.  NEITHER TAX IS DEPENDENT UPON THE POSSESSION BY THE TAXPAYER
OF THE SUBJECT OF THE OTHER.  HIS INCOME MAY BE TAXED, ALTHOUGH HE OWNS
NO PROPERTY, AND HIS PROPERTY MAY BE TAXED ALTHOUGH IT PRODUCES NO
INCOME.  THE TWO TAXES ARE MEASURED BY DIFFERENT STANDARDS, THE ONE BY
THE AMOUNT OF INCOME RECEIVED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, THE OTHER BY THE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT A PARTICULAR DATE.  INCOME IS TAXED BUT ONCE;
THE SAME PROPERTY MAY BE TAXED RECURRENTLY.  THE TAX ON EACH IS
PREDICATED UPON DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL BENEFITS; THE PROTECTION OFFERED
TO THE PROPERTY IN ONE STATE DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE RECEIPT AND
ENJOYMENT OF INCOME FROM IT IN ANOTHER. 

IT WOULD BE PRESSING THE PROTECTION WHICH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
THROWS AROUND THE TAXPAYER TOO FAR TO SAY THAT BECAUSE A STATE IS
PROHIBITED FROM TAXING LAND WHICH IT NEITHER PROTECTS NOR CONTROLS, IT
IS LIKEWISE PROHIBITED FROM TAXING THE RECEIPT AND COMMAND OF INCOME
FROM THE LAND BY ITS RESIDENT, WHO IS SUBJECT TO ITS CONTROL AND ENJOYS
THE BENEFITS OF ITS LAWS.  THE IMPOSITION OF THESE DIFFERENT TAXES, BY
THE SAME OR DIFFERENT STATES, UPON THESE DISTINCT AND SEPARABLE TAXABLE
INTERESTS, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTION OF DOUBLE TAXATION, WHICH
HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY URGED IN THOSE CASES WHERE TWO OR MORE STATES
HAVE LAID THE SAME TAX UPON THE SAME PROPERTY INTEREST IN INTANGIBLES
OR UPON ITS TRANSFER AT DEATH.  SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA,
SUPRA; FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO. V. MINNESOTA, 280 U.S. 204; BALDWIN V.
MISSOURI, 281 U.S. 586; BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 282 U.S.
1; FIRST NATIONAL BANK V. MAINE, 284 U.S. 312.  THESE CONSIDERATIONS
LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM REAL ESTATE MAY BE
TAXED TO THE RECIPIENT AT THE PLACE OF HIS DOMICIL, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
LOCATION OF THE LAND, AND THAT THE STATE COURT RIGHTLY UPHELD THE TAX. 

NOTHING WHICH WAS SAID OR DECIDED IN POLLOCK V. FARMERS LOAN & TRUST
CO., 157 U.S. 429, CALLS FOR A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.  THERE THE
QUESTION FOR DECISION WAS WHETHER A FEDERAL TAX ON INCOME DERIVED FROM
RENTS OF LAND IS A DIRECT TAX REQUIRING APPORTIONMENT UNDER ART. I,
SEC. 2, CL. 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION.  IN HOLDING THAT THE TAX WAS
"DIRECT," THE COURT DID NOT REST ITS DECISION UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
TAX WAS A TAX ON THE LAND, OR THAT IT WAS SUBJECT TO EVERY LIMITATION
WHICH THE CONSTITUTION IMPOSES ON PROPERTY TAXES.  IT DETERMINED ONLY
THAT FOR PURPOSES OF APPORTIONMENT THERE WERE SIMILARITIES IN THE
OPERATION OF THE TWO KINDS OF TAX WHICH MADE IT APPROPRIATE TO CLASSIFY
BOTH AS DIRECT, AND WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND.  SEE POLLOCK V.
FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO., SUPRA, PP. 580, 581; BRUSHABER V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1, 16.  AND IN UNION TRANSIT REFRIGERATOR CO.
V. KENTUCKY, 199 U.S. 194, 204, DECIDED TEN YEARS AFTER THE POLLOCK
CASE, THE PRESENT QUESTION WAS THOUGHT NOT TO BE FORECLOSED.   IT IS BY
A PARITY OF REASONING THAT THE IMMUNITY OF INCOME-PRODUCING
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF ONE GOVERNMENT, STATE OR NATIONAL, FROM TAXATION
BY THE OTHER, HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO THE INCOME.  IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE
TAX, WHETHER ON THE INSTRUMENTALITY OR ON THE INCOME PRODUCED BY IT,
WOULD EQUALLY BURDEN THE OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  SEE COLLECTOR V.
DAY, 11 WALL.  113, 124; POLLOCK V. FARMERS LOAN & TRUST CO., SUPRA,
583; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501.  BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, IT DOES
NOT FOLLOW THAT A TAX ON LAND AND A TAX ON INCOME DERIVED FROM IT ARE
IDENTICAL IN THEIR INCIDENCE OR REST UPON THE SAME BASIS OF TAXING
POWER, WHICH ARE CONTROLLING FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER EITHER TAX
INFRINGES DUE PROCESS. 

IN SENIOR V. BRADEN, SUPRA, ON WHICH APPELLANT RELIES, NO QUESTION OF
THE TAXATION OF INCOME WAS INVOLVED.  BY CONCESSION OF COUNSEL, ON
WHICH THE COURT RESTED ITS OPINION, IF THE INTEREST TAXED WAS "LAND OR
AN INTEREST IN LAND SITUATE WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE STATE," THE TAX WAS
INVALID, AND THE COURT HELD THAT THE INTEREST REPRESENTED BY THE
CERTIFICATES SUBJECTED TO THE TAX WAS AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE
LAND.  HERE THE SUBJECT OF THE TAX IS THE RECEIPT OF INCOME BY A
RESIDENT OF THE TAXING STATE, AND IS WITHIN ITS TAXING POWER, EVEN
THOUGH DERIVED FROM PROPERTY BEYOND ITS REACH. 

INCOME FROM BONDS SECURED BY NEW JERSEY MORTGAGES.  WHAT HAS BEEN
SAID OF THE POWER TO TAX INCOME FROM LAND WITHOUT THE STATE IS DECISIVE
OF THE OBJECTION TO THE TAXATION OF THE INCOME FROM INTEREST ON BONDS
BECAUSE THEY ARE SECURED BY MORTGAGES ON LAND WITHOUT THE STATE,
COMPARE KIRTLAND V. HOTCHKISS, 100 U.S. 491.  APPELLANT ALSO ARGUES
THAT THE INTEREST FROM THE BONDS IS IMMUNE FROM TAXATION BY NEW YORK
BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACQUIRED A BUSINESS SITUS IN NEW JERSEY WITHIN THE
DOCTRINE OF NEW ORLEANS V. STEMPEL, 175 U.S. 309; METROPOLITAN LIFE
INS. CO. V. NEW ORLEANS, 205 U.S. 395; WHEELING STEEL CORP. V. FOX, 298
U.S. 193.  THIS CONTENTION, IF PERTINENT TO THE PRESENT CASE, IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.  THE STIPULATION OF FACTS DISCLOSES ONLY THAT
THE BONDS AND MORTGAGES WERE LOCATED IN NEW JERSEY.  SEE BALDWIN V.
MISSOURI, SUPRA; BLODGETT V. SILBERMAN, 277 U.S. 1, 14, 15.  THE BURDEN
RESTED ON THE TAXPAYER TO PRESENT FURTHER FACTS WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A
"BUSINESS SITUS."  BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 282 U.S. 1,
8. 

RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE TAX.  APPELLANT INSISTS THAT IN
UPHOLDING THE TAX UPON HER INCOME FOR 1931 AND 1932 THE STATE COURT
INFRINGED DUE PROCESS BY GIVING RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO THE 1935
AMENDMENT OF SEC. 359 OF THE NEW YORK TAX LAW, WHICH SPECIFICALLY
DECLARED THAT RENTS, EMBRACED IN TAXABLE INCOME BY THE SECTION BEFORE
AMENDMENT, SHOULD INCLUDE RENT FROM REAL PROPERTY WITHOUT THE STATE. 
IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION APPELLANT POINTS TO THE DECISION IN
PEOPLE EX REL. PIERSON V. LYNCH, 266 N.Y. 431; 195 N.E. 141, AFFIRMING
237 APP. DIV. 763; 263 N.Y.S. 259, THAT RENTS FROM LAND OUTSIDE THE
STATE WERE NOT TAXED BY THAT SECTION BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT, AND TO THE
DISMISSAL BY THIS COURT OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT FOR WANT OF A PROPERLY PRESENTED FEDERAL QUESTION.  293 U.S.
52. 

IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR US TO DETERMINE WHETHER, OR TO WHAT EXTENT, THE
STATE COURT, IN SUSTAINING THE TAX IN THIS CASE, RESTED ITS DECISION ON
THE AMENDMENT OF 1935, OR WHETHER IT REGARDED IT AS ANYTHING MORE THAN
A CLARIFYING ACT POINTING OUT THE MEANING PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
RAISED IN THE STATE COURT THE OBJECTION, WHICH SHE PRESSES HERE, TO THE
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE.  IN REVIEWING THE JUDGMENT OF A
STATE COURT, THIS COURT WILL NOT PASS UPON ANY FEDERAL QUESTION NOT
SHOWN BY THE RECORD TO HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE STATE COURT OR
CONSIDERED THERE, WHETHER IT BE ONE ARISING UNDER A DIFFERENT OR THE
SAME CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION WITH RESPECT TO WHICH OTHER QUESTIONS
ARE PROPERLY PRESENTED.  BOLLN V. NEBRASKA, 176 U.S. 83; NEW YORK V.
KLEINERT, 268 U.S. 646; SALTONSTALL V. SALTONSTALL, 276 U.S. 260. 
AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER, DISSENTING. 

THE TAX IS ON INCOME.  I AM OF OPINION THAT THE RENTS RECEIVED BY
APPELLANT FOR THE USE OF REAL ESTATE IN NEW JERSEY MAY NOT BE INCLUDED
IN HER TAXABLE INCOME.  BY OUR DECISIONS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT A TAX
ON INCOME RECEIVED FOR THE USE OF LAND IS IN LEGAL EFFECT A TAX UPON
THE LAND ITSELF.  POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429,
580-581; 158 U.S. 601, 627-628, 637.  THOMAS V. GAY, 169 U.S. 264,
274.  KNOWLTON V. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41, 80-82.  MCCOACH V. MINEHILL &
S.H.R. CO., 228 U.S. 295, 306.  STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE V. HOWBERT, 231
U.S. 399, 414.  BRUSHABER V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1, 16. 
EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 205.  EVANS V. GORE, 253 U.S. 245,
260.  GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501, 505.  LAKE SUPERIOR IRON
MINES V. LORD, 271 U.S. 577, 581-582.  SENIOR V. BRADEN, 295 U.S. 422,
427, 429, 431-432. 

NEW JERSEY, IN ADDITION TO TAX ON THE LAND MEASURED BY ITS VALUE, MAY
LAY A TAX UPON THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE OWNER FOR ITS USE.  LAKE
SUPERIOR IRON MINES V. LORD, UBI SUPRA. 

APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO OWN, OR TO COLLECT RENTS IN NEW JERSEY FOR THE
USE OF, LANDS IN THAT STATE WAS NOT GIVEN AND IS NOT PROTECTED BY NEW
YORK LAW.  NEITHER OF THESE RIGHTS IS ENJOYED IN NEW YORK OR HAS ANY
RELATION TO APPELLANT'S PRIVILEGE OF RESIDENCE IN, OR TO THE PROTECTION
OF, THAT STATE.  ABILITY OF TAXPAYERS TO PAY MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
FOR APPORTIONMENT OF THE TAX BURDENS THAT IT IS AUTHORIZED TO IMPOSE. 
BUT THE FINANCIAL MEANS OF THOSE TO BE TAXED CANNOT BE MADE TO GENERATE
FOR THE STATE POWER TO TAX LANDS, OR RENTS PAID FOR USE OF LANDS,
BEYOND ITS BORDERS.  IT WOULD EXCLUDE THE ITEM. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS CONCURS IN THIS OPINION. 
..END :



PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 300 U.S. 319 


NO. 454.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 4, 5, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 116
N.J.L. 412, 185 ATL. 8 - 116 N.J.L. 416, 184 ATL. 737, AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE IT IS CLAIMED THAT A CONTRACTUAL RIGHT WAS CREATED BY A
STATE STATUTE AND IMPAIRED BY A LATER ONE, THIS COURT WILL GIVE MUCH
WEIGHT TO THE CONSTRUCTION PUT UPON THE EARLIER STATUTE BY THE STATE
COURT, THOUGH NOT BOUND BY IT.  P. 322. 

2.  THE PROVISIONS OF C. 243, NEW JERSEY LAWS, 1909, FORBIDDING
REMOVAL OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS WHO HAVE SERVED THREE YEARS, OR
REDUCTION OF THEIR SALARIES, EXCEPT FOR CAUSES SPECIFIED AND AFTER
NOTICE AND HEARING, DID NOT CREATE CONTRACTS WITH INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS
BUT WAS MERELY A LIMITATION UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARDS OF
EDUCATION WITH RESPECT TO THE TENURE AND SALARIES OF TEACHERS.  P.
323. 

3.  THE STIPULATED FACTS OF THIS CASE DO NOT SHOW CONTRACTS BETWEEN
THE BOARDS OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS FOR SERVICE OF THE TEACHERS BEYOND
THE CURRENT YEAR.  P. 323. 

4.  NO ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION, VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A METHOD OF
REDUCING THE SALARIES OF SCHOOL TEACHERS BY DIVIDING THE SALARIES INTO
SEVERAL GROUPS IN ORDER OF AMOUNTS, AND APPLYING REDUCTION PERCENTAGES,
ASCENDING FROM THE LOWEST GROUP TO THE HIGHEST, ALTHOUGH IT RESULT IN
SOME INSTANCES THAT A TEACHER RECEIVING THE LOWEST SALARY IN HIS GROUP
WILL HAVE HIS SALARY REDUCED TO A FIGURE LOWER THAN THE REDUCED
COMPENSATION OF ONE RECEIVING THE HIGHEST COMPENSATION IN THE NEXT
LOWER GROUP.  P. 323. 

PHELPS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WEST NEW YORK ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 455, ASKAM ET AL. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WEST
NEW YORK ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW
JERSEY. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF NEW JERSEY. 

APPEALS FROM THE AFFIRMANCE BY THE COURT BELOW OF JUDGMENTS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY (115 N.J.L. 310; 180 ATL. 220), WHICH HAD
AFFIRMED, ON CERTIORARI, THE ACTION OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION IN
A CONTROVERSY OVER REDUCTIONS IN THE PAY OF PRINCIPALS, TEACHERS AND
CLERKS, EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE PEOPLE OF NEW JERSEY HAVE ORDAINED BY THEIR CONSTITUTION THAT THE
LEGISLATURE "SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF A
THOROUGH AND EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF FREE PUBLIC SCHOOLS"...  FN1 IN
FULFILLMENT OF THIS COMMAND A COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL LAW WAS ADOPTED IN
1903 BY WHICH BOARDS OF EDUCATION WERE SET UP FOR CITIES, TOWNS, AND
SCHOOL DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.  FN2  SECTION 106 EMPOWERED
THESE BOARDS TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING ENGAGEMENT AND
EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS, TERMS AND TENURE OF SUCH
EMPLOYMENT, PROMOTION, AND DISMISSAL, SALARIES AND THEIR TIME AND MODE
OF PAYMENT, AND TO CHANGE AND REPEAL SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS FROM
TIME TO TIME.  FN3  THIS GENERAL SCHOOL LAW WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF
APRIL 21, 1909,  FN4  SEC. 1 OF WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THE SERVICE OF ALL TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, SUPERVISING PRINCIPALS OF
THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN ANY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THIS STATE SHALL BE DURING
GOOD BEHAVIOR AND EFFICIENCY, AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF A PERIOD OF
EMPLOYMENT OF THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS IN THAT DISTRICT, UNLESS A
SHORTER PERIOD IS FIXED BY THE EMPLOYING BOARD;...  NO PRINCIPAL OR
TEACHER SHALL BE DISMISSED OR SUBJECTED TO REDUCTION OF SALARY IN SAID
SCHOOL DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR INEFFICIENCY, INCAPACITY, CONDUCT UNBECOMING
A TEACHER OR OTHER JUST CAUSE, AND AFTER A WRITTEN CHARGE OF THE CAUSE
OR CAUSES SHALL HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST HIM OR HER,  ...  AND AFTER
THE CHARGE SHALL HAVE BEEN EXAMINED INTO AND FOUND TRUE IN FACT BY SAID
BOARD OF EDUCATION, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE PERSON CHARGED, WHO
MAY BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT THE HEARING...." 

AN ACT OF FEBRUARY 4, 1933,  FN5  PREMISING THAT EXISTING ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS REQUIRE THAT BOARDS OF EDUCATION BE ENABLED TO FIX AND
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SALARY TO BE PAID TO PERSONS HOLDING POSITIONS
IN THE RESPECTIVE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AUTHORIZES EACH BOARD TO FIX AND
DETERMINE SALARIES TO BE PAID OFFICERS AND EMPLOYES FOR THE PERIOD JULY
1, 1933, TO JULY 1, 1934, "NOTWITHSTANDING ANY SUCH PERSON BE UNDER
TENURE"; PROHIBITS INCREASE OF SALARIES WITHIN THE PERIOD NAMED;
FORBIDS DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN THE SAME CLASS OF SERVICE
IN THE FIXING OF SALARIES OR COMPENSATION; AND SETS A MINIMUM BEYOND
WHICH BOARDS MAY NOT GO IN THE REDUCTION OF SALARIES.  JUNE 23, 1933,
THE BOARD ADOPTED A RESOLUTION REDUCING SALARIES FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR
JULY 1, 1933, TO JULY 1, 1934, BY A PERCENTAGE OF THE EXISTING SALARIES
GRADED UPWARD IN STEPS AS THE SALARIES INCREASED IN AMOUNT, EXCEPT WITH
RESPECT TO CLERKS, THE COMPENSATION OF EACH OF WHOM WAS REDUCED TO A
NAMED AMOUNT. 

APPELLANTS, WHO WERE PRINCIPALS, TEACHERS, AND CLERKS EMPLOYED BY THE
APPELLEE, PETITIONED THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHOOL LAW, PRAYING THAT THE ACTION OF THE BOARD BE
SET ASIDE.  THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION DISMISSED THE PETITION AND,
UPON APPEAL FROM HIS ACTION, THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AFFIRMED THE
DECISION.  THE APPELLANTS APPLIED FOR CERTIORARI FROM THE SUPREME
COURT, ASSIGNING AMONG OTHER REASONS THAT THE DECISION VIOLATED ART. I,
SEC. 10, AND SEC. 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.  THE WRITS FN6  ISSUED AND, AFTER HEARING, THE COURT
AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.  FN7 THE COURT OF
ERRORS AND APPEALS AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT UPON THE OPINION OF THE
SUPREME COURT.  FN8 

THE POSITION OF THE APPELLANTS IS THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE ACT OF 1909
THREE YEARS OF SERVICE UNDER CONTRACT CONFER UPON AN EMPLOYE OF A
SCHOOL DISTRICT A CONTRACTUAL STATUS INDEFINITE IN DURATION WHICH THE
LEGISLATURE IS POWERLESS TO ALTER OR TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF
EDUCATION TO ALTER.  THE SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE ACT OF 1909
"ESTABLISHED A LEGISLATIVE STATUS FOR TEACHERS, BUT WE FAIL TO SEE THAT
IT ESTABLISHED A CONTRACTUAL ONE THAT THE LEGISLATURE MAY NOT
MODIFY....  THE STATUS OF TENURE TEACHERS, WHILE IN ONE SENSE PERHAPS
CONTRACTUAL, IS IN ESSENCE DEPENDENT ON A STATUTE, LIKE THAT OF THE
INCUMBENT OF A STATUTORY OFFICE, WHICH THE LEGISLATURE AT WILL MAY
ABOLISH, OR WHOSE EMOLUMENTS IT MAY CHANGE." 

THIS COURT IS NOT BOUND BY THE DECISION OF A STATE COURT AS TO THE
EXISTENCE AND TERMS OF A CONTRACT, THE OBLIGATION OF WHICH IS ASSERTED
TO BE IMPAIRED, BUT WHERE A STATUTE IS CLAIMED TO CREATE A CONTRACTUAL
RIGHT WE GIVE WEIGHT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE BY THE COURTS
OF THE STATE.  FN9  HERE THOSE COURTS HAVE CONCURRED IN HOLDING THAT
THE ACT OF 1909 DID NOT AMOUNT TO A LEGISLATIVE CONTRACT WITH THE
TEACHERS OF THE STATE AND DID NOT BECOME A TERM OF THE CONTRACTS
ENTERED INTO WITH EMPLOYES BY BOARDS OF EDUCATION.  UNLESS THESE VIEWS
ARE PALPABLY ERRONEOUS WE SHOULD ACCEPT THEM. 

IT APPEARS FROM A STIPULATION OF FACTS SUBMITTED IN LIEU OF EVIDENCE
THAT AFTER A TEACHER HAS SERVED IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT UNDER YEARLY
CONTRACTS FOR THREE YEARS IT HAS NOT BEEN CUSTOMARY TO ENTER INTO
FURTHER FORMAL CONTRACTS WITH SUCH TEACHER.  FROM TIME TO TIME,
HOWEVER, PROMOTIONS WERE GRANTED AND SALARY RAISED FOR THE ENSUING YEAR
BY ACTION OF THE BOARD.  IN THE CASE OF MANY OF THE APPELLANTS THERE
HAVE BEEN SEVERAL SUCH INCREASES IN SALARY. 

ALTHOUGH AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF SERVICE THE
EMPLOYE CONTINUED IN HIS THEN POSITION AND AT HIS THEN COMPENSATION
UNLESS AND UNTIL PROMOTED OR GIVEN AN INCREASE IN SALARY FOR A
SUCCEEDING YEAR, WE FIND NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE
BOARD WAS BOUND BY CONTRACT WITH THE TEACHER FOR MORE THAN THE CURRENT
YEAR.  THE EMPLOYE ASSUMED NO BINDING OBLIGATION TO REMAIN IN SERVICE
BEYOND THAT TERM.  ALTHOUGH THE ACT OF 1909 PROHIBITED THE BOARD, A
CREATURE OF THE STATE, FROM REDUCING THE TEACHER'S SALARY OR
DISCHARGING HIM WITHOUT CAUSE, WE AGREE WITH THE COURTS BELOW THAT THIS
WAS BUT A REGULATION OF THE CONDUCT OF THE BOARD AND NOT A TERM OF A
CONTINUING CONTRACT OF INDEFINITE DURATION WITH THE INDIVIDUAL
TEACHER. 

THE RESOLUTION OF JUNE 23, 1933, GROUPED THE EXISTING SALARIES PAID
BY THE BOARD INTO SIX CLASSES THE LOWEST OF WHICH COMPRISED SALARIES
BETWEEN TWELVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-NINE
DOLLARS; AND THE HIGHEST INCLUDED SALARIES RANGING BETWEEN FOUR
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND FIFTY-SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS.  THE REDUCTION IN THE
LOWEST CLASS FOR THE COMING YEAR WAS TEN PER CENT; THAT IN THE HIGHEST
CLASS FIFTEEN PER CENT.  SALARIES IN THE INTERMEDIATE CLASSES WERE
REDUCED ELEVEN, TWELVE, THIRTEEN, AND FOURTEEN PER CENT.  IT RESULTED
THAT IN SOME INSTANCES A TEACHER RECEIVING THE LOWEST SALARY IN A GIVEN
BRACKET WOULD HAVE HIS COMPENSATION REDUCED TO A FIGURE LOWER THAN THE
REDUCED COMPENSATION OF ONE RECEIVING THE HIGHEST SALARY IN THE NEXT
LOWER BRACKET.  FROM THIS CIRCUMSTANCE IT IS ARGUED THAT THE BOARD'S
ACTION ARBITRARILY DISCRIMINATED BETWEEN THE EMPLOYES AND SO DENIED
THEM THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. 

WE THINK IT WAS REASONABLE AND PROPER THAT THE TEACHERS EMPLOYED BY
THE BOARD SHOULD BE DIVIDED INTO CLASSES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE
PERCENTAGE REDUCTION.  ALL IN A GIVEN CLASS WERE TREATED ALIKE. 
INCIDENTAL INDIVIDUAL INEQUALITY RESULTING IN SOME INSTANCES FROM THE
OPERATION OF THE PLAN DOES NOT CONDEMN IT AS AN UNREASONABLE OR
ARBITRARY METHOD OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF GENERAL SALARY
REDUCTIONS OR DENY THE EQUALITY GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  ART. IV, SEC. VII, P 6, 1 N.J. COMP. ST. P. LXXV. 

FN2  ACT OF OCT. 19, 1903; LAWS OF N.J. 1904, 5; 4 N.J. COMP. ST.
4724. 

FN3  4 N.J. COMP. ST. 4762. 

FN4  CHAP. 243 N.J. LAWS 1909, PAMPH.  L. P. 398, 4 N.J. COMP ST.
4763, 4764. 

FN5  CHAP. 12, N.J. LAWS 1933, PAMPH.  L. P. 24. 

FN6  TWO WRITS WERE ISSUED.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO
CASES, WHICH WERE HEARD AS ONE, IS THAT IN THE PHELPS CASE THE EMPLOYE
REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE REDUCED SALARY.  IN THE CASE OF ASKAM ET AL., THE
EMPLOYES TOOK THE REDUCED SALARY UNDER PROTEST. 

FN7  115 N.J. LAW 310; 180 ATL. 220. 

FN8  116 N.J. LAW 412, 185 ATL. 8; 116 N.J. LAW 416, 184 ATL. 737. 

FN9  FREEPORT WATER CO. V. FREEPORT, 180 U.S. 587, 595; TAMPA WATER
WORKS CO. V. TAMPA, 199 U.S. 241, 243; MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC R. & L. CO.
V. RAILROAD COMM'N, 238 U.S. 174, 184; SETON HALL COLLEGE V. SOUTH
ORANGE, 242 U.S. 100, 103; COOMBES V. GETZ, 285 U.S. 434, 441. 
..END :









HOLYOKE POWER CO. V. PAPER CO., 300 U.S. 324 


NO. 180.  ARGUED DECEMBER 11, 1936.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 83
F.(2D) 398, AFFIRMED. 


LEASES OF WATER-POWER RIGHTS TO BE ENJOYED IN PERPETUITY PROVIDED THAT
THE GRANTEE SHOULD PAY AS RENT "A QUANTITY OF GOLD WHICH SHALL BE EQUAL
IN AMOUNT TO" A STATED NUMBER OF "DOLLARS OF THE GOLD COIN OF THE
UNITED STATES OF THE STANDARD OF WEIGHT AND FINENESS OF THE YEAR 1894,
OR THE EQUIVALENT OF THIS COMMODITY IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY."  IN
1894, AND CONTINUOUSLY THEREAFTER TILL JANUARY 31, 1934, THE STATUTORY
GOLD CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR WAS TWENTY-FIVE AND EIGHT-TENTHS GRAINS OF
GOLD, NINE-TENTHS FINE.  SINCE JANUARY 31, 1934, BY FORCE OF THE GOLD
RESERVE ACT OF THAT YEAR AND THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT THEREUNDER, THE
GOLD CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR HAS BEEN FIXED TO CONSIST OF FIFTEEN AND
FIVE TWENTY-FIRSTS GRAINS OF GOLD, NINE-TENTHS FINE.  THE JOINT
RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933, HAD DECLARED THAT EVERY OBLIGATION PAYABLE
IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER THERETOFORE OR THEREAFTER
INCURRED, SHOULD BE DISCHARGED UPON PAYMENT, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, IN ANY
COIN OR CURRENCY WHICH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT WAS LEGAL TENDER FOR
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE DEBTS, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY PROVISION CONTAINED
THEREIN WHEREBY THE OBLIGEE WAS GIVEN A RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT IN
GOLD OR IN A PARTICULAR KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY, OR IN AN AMOUNT IN
MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES MEASURED THEREBY.  HELD: 

1.  THE LESSEE'S OBLIGATION UNDER THE CONTRACT WAS FOR THE PAYMENT OF
MONEY, AND NOT FOR THE DELIVERY OF GOLD AS UPON SALE OF A COMMODITY. 
P. 335. 

2.  A CONTRACT FOR THE PAYMENT OF GOLD AS THE EQUIVALENT OF MONEY, AND
A FORTIORI A CONTRACT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY MEASURABLE IN GOLD, IS
WITHIN THE LETTER OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933, AND EQUALLY
WITHIN ITS SPIRIT, NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 294 U.S. 240.  P.
337. 

AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE DELIVERY UPON A BONA FIDE SALE IS NOT FAIRLY TO
BE CLASSIFIED AS AN OBLIGATION "PAYABLE IN MONEY," WITHIN THE MEANING
OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION, OR SO IT MAY BE ASSUMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THIS CASE.  BUT THE EVIL AIMED AT BY THE RESOLUTION DOES INCLUDE
TRANSACTIONS WHEREBY GOLD, COINED OR UNCOINED, IS TO BE DELIVERED IN
SATISFACTION OF A DEBT EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF DOLLARS, PAYMENT, NOT
SALE, BEING THEN THE END TO BE ACHIEVED, AND TRANSACTIONS WHEREBY A
DEBT IS TO BE DISCHARGED, NOT IN BULLION, BUT IN DOLLARS, IF THE NUMBER
OF THE DOLLARS IS TO BE INCREASED OR DIMINISHED IN PROPORTION TO THE
DIMINUTION OR THE INCREASE OF THE GOLD BASIS OF THE CURRENCY. 

HOLYOKE WATER POWER CO. V. AMERICAN WRITING PAPER CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 526, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT MADE IN A
PROCEEDING FOR REORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER COMPANY UNDER SEC. 77B OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  THE ORDER FIXED THE AMOUNTS DUE FROM THAT COMPANY
TO A WATER POWER COMPANY, THE PRESENT PETITIONER, UNDER SEVERAL
LEASES.  11 F.SUPP.  518.  SEE 9 ID. 451. 

THE QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION IS THE MEASURE OF THE DEBTOR'S
LIABILITY, ON THREE CERTAIN DATES AFTER THE DEVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR,
UNDER AN OBLIGATION IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO PAY EITHER A SPECIFIED
QUANTITY OF GOLD AS A COMMODITY OR ITS EQUIVALENT IN CURRENCY, AT THE
OPTION OF THE DEBTOR. 

THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT IN GOLD WAS IMPOSSIBLE OF PERFORMANCE
ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS, AND NO PROVISION FOR ITS DISCHARGE OTHER THAN
ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS WAS PROVIDED BY LAW (MORE PARTICULARLY, BY THE
JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933). 

THE PURPOSE OF THE PARTIES IN DRAWING THE RENTAL PROVISIONS IN THE
FORM IN DISPUTE WAS TO PROVIDE AGAINST THE EFFECT OF AN APPRECIATION OR
DEPRECIATION OF THE CURRENCY BY ADOPTING GOLD BULLION AS A MEDIUM OF
PAYMENT, OR, AT THE OPTION OF THE LESSEE, AS A MEASURE OF AN
INDETERMINATE AMOUNT OF CURRENCY ACCORDING TO THE RATIO OF EQUIVALENCE
BETWEEN GOLD BULLION AND CURRENCY ON THE VARIOUS RENTAL DATES. 
ACCORDING TO THE ORDINARY MEANING OF "EQUIVALENCE," WITH RESPECT TO
THIS RELATION, AND AS EVIDENT FROM VARIOUS LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS AND
EXECUTIVE ACTS, THE CURRENCY EQUIVALENT OF GOLD BULLION ON JULY 1 AND
OCTOBER 1, 1934, AND ON JANUARY 1, 1935, ACCORDING TO THE INTENT OF THE
REMAINING ALTERNATIVE PROVISION, WAS ONE DOLLAR FOR EACH 15 5/21 GRAINS
OF GOLD NINE-TENTHS FINE, OR $35 AN OUNCE. 

THE DEBTOR'S DUTY TO PERFORM THIS CONTRACTUAL PROVISION ACCORDING TO
ITS TERMS HAS NOT BEEN MODIFIED BY LAW (MORE PARTICULARLY, BY THE SAID
JOINT RESOLUTION), FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 

1.  THE PROVISION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION FOR THE DISCHARGE OF
CERTAIN CONTRACTS "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR" APPLIES ONLY TO OBLIGATIONS TO
PAY SUMS CERTAIN IN MONEY.  THIS IS APPARENT FROM THE TERMS OF THE
RESOLUTION ITSELF, WHETHER READ BY THEMSELVES OR IN CONNECTION WITH
RELEVANT EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THEIR MEANING. 

THE HISTORIC FACT THAT GOLD HAS FROM TIME TO TIME BEEN THE METALLIC
BASE OF THE MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES HAS NOT THE EFFECT OF
CONSTITUTING UNCOINED GOLD BULLION "MONEY."  THE TERMS OF THE EXPRESS
POWER GIVEN TO CONGRESS TO "COIN MONEY" INDICATE THE NECESSITY OF
COINAGE TO GIVE TO BULLION THE QUALITY OF LEGAL TENDER ATTRIBUTED BY
THE LAW, ASIDE FROM ITS BULLION VALUE (SEE NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO., 294 U.S. 240, 304). 

THE TERMS OF THE PROVISION FOR THE DISCHARGE OF CERTAIN MONEY
OBLIGATIONS "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR" THEMSELVES NECESSARILY RESTRICT THE
OPERATION OF THE RESOLUTION TO OBLIGATIONS PAYABLE IN DOLLARS. 

NOR IS THE QUESTION AFFECTED BY THE INCLUSION IN THE RENTAL PROVISION
OF THE WORDS "FIFTEEN HUNDRED ($1500) DOLLARS OF THE GOLD COIN OF THE
UNITED STATES."  IT WAS PLAINLY THE FUNCTION OF THIS PHRASE SIMPLY TO
RENDER THE MAGNITUDE OF THE QUANTITY OF GOLD BEING STIPULATED FOR MORE
READILY COMPREHENSIBLE TO THE CONTRACTING PARTIES.  IF THE PARTIES HAD
FOREGONE THE READY MEANS OF VISUAL COMPREHENSION AFFORDED BY THE
REFERENCE TO GOLD COINS, AND HAD CALCULATED IN THE BEGINNING (AS MUST
EVENTUALLY HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE PAYMENT IN ANY CASE) THE NUMBER OF
OUNCES OR GRAINS OF GOLD BEING CONTRACTED FOR, AND HAD WRITTEN THE
STIPULATION IN TERMS FOR "80.625 OUNCES OF GOLD .9 FINE, OR 72.5625
OUNCES OF GOLD 1000 FINE," THE SUBSTANCE OF THE UNDERTAKING WOULD HAVE
BEEN IN NO RESPECT DIFFERENT.  HOLYOKE WATER POWER CO. V. AMERICAN
WRITING PAPER CO., 9 F.SUPP.  451, 453; EMERY BIRD THAYER DRY GOODS CO.
V. WILLIAMS, 15 F.SUPP.  938, 941. 

2.  EVEN IF THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION BE EQUIVOCAL IN THIS RESPECT,
THEY ARE TO BE CONSTRUED AS NOT REFERRING TO CONTRACTS PAYABLE IN MONEY
MEASURED BY GOLD AS A COMMODITY, BECAUSE INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH
SUCH CONTRACTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO GRAVE DOUBTS AS TO ITS
CONSTITUTIONALITY.  CONTRACTS EMPLOYING A COMMODITY AS A STANDARD OF
VALUE ARE NOT WITHIN THE FIELD OF THE CURRENCY POWER OF CONGRESS;
ALTHOUGH, EVEN IF THEY BE WITHIN THAT FIELD, THEY DO NOT EXIST TO SUCH
EXTENT AS TO OBSTRUCT THE MONETARY POLICY OF CONGRESS. 

3.  THE OBLIGATION OF THE PARTICULAR CONTRACTS IN QUESTION MAY NOT BE
IMPAIRED, AS DECREED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE
ADDITIONAL REASON THAT THEY PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT FOR THE SUPPLY OF THE
POWER OF ARTIFICIALLY IMPOUNDED WATER WHICH YOUR PETITIONER IS
CONTRACTUALLY BOUND TO FURNISH, IN FIXED AMOUNTS, IN PERPETUITY. 
PAYMENT OF THE CURRENCY EQUIVALENT ACCORDING TO THE INTENT OF THE
UNDERTAKINGS WILL NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNJUST BURDEN UPON THE DEBTOR, AND
SO WILL NOT CREATE A DISLOCATION OF THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY TO ANY DEGREE
WHATEVER.  BY THE SAME TOKEN, THE TENDENCY OF THE RESULT WHICH IT WAS
THE DESIGN OF THE CONGRESS, IN ENACTING THE JOINT RESOLUTION, TO
PRODUCE, MUST BE, IF THE DECREE BE AFFIRMED, INEVITABLY TO REQUIRE THE
WATER POWER COMPANY TO PERFORM THAT WHICH IS ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. 

FOR THESE REASONS, INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE
INDENTURES WOULD DEPRIVE YOUR PETITIONER OF PROPERTY AND WOULD BEAR NO
REASONABLE RELATION TO ANY LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE CONGRESS
AND WOULD CONSTITUTE VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION. 

IF THE CURRENCY EQUIVALENT FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER CONTENDS MAY NOT
BE RECOVERED, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN NO EVENT SHOULD THAT EQUIVALENT
BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS,
BUT THAT THE DECREE BE MODIFIED SO AS NOT TO PRECLUDE RECOVERY BY THE
PETITIONER ACCORDING TO THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE WATER POWER FURNISHED
DURING THE RENTAL PERIODS IN QUESTION, AND TO BE FURNISHED IN THE
FUTURE. 

THE RENTAL PROVISIONS IN THESE INDENTURES ARE NOT REALLY COMMODITY
CONTRACTS.  THEY DO NOT REQUIRE THE OBLIGOR TO DELIVER A COMMODITY. 
THEY ARE GOLD VALUE CONTRACTS, BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT EITHER
IN GOLD OR IN THE EQUIVALENT OF GOLD IN CURRENCY AT THE OPTION OF THE
OBLIGOR.  SINCE THE PERFORMANCE OF EITHER ALTERNATIVE IS A FULL
PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACT MAY BE FULLY SATISFIED BY THE
PAYMENT OF MONEY WITHOUT THE DELIVERY OF A SINGLE OUNCE OF ANY
COMMODITY AT ANY TIME.  IF THIS WERE A COMMODITY CONTRACT, THE MONEY
PAYMENT WOULD BE DAMAGES FOR THE BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO DELIVER THE
GOLD, NOT, AS IT IS, THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ITS VERY TERMS.  PLAINLY IT IMPOSES NO OBLIGATION UPON THE OBLIGOR TO
DELIVER GOLD AS A COMMODITY OR OTHERWISE.  THE OBLIGATION IS TO DELIVER
THE VALUE OF GOLD, EITHER BY THE DELIVERY OF THE GOLD ITSELF OR OF ITS
EQUIVALENT IN MONEY.  SIMPLY CALLING THE MEASURE OF THE EQUIVALENT
MONEY A COMMODITY DOES NOT MAKE THE CONTRACT A COMMODITY CONTRACT. 

WE HAVE, THEREFOR, NOT A GOLD CONTRACT, BUT A GOLD VALUE CONTRACT. 

THE RECENT GOLD LEGISLATION OF 1933-1934, WHICH MUST BE TAKEN AS A
LEGISLATIVE UNIT, AND OF WHICH THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF 1933 WAS ONLY
ONE PART, DID TWO THINGS:  (1) IT ELIMINATED THE ALTERNATIVE OF GOLD BY
MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PAY IN GOLD; AND (2) IT RENDERED THE REMAINING
ALTERNATIVE OF MONEY DISCHARGEABLE DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR.  FOR THAT WAS AN
OBLIGATION TO PAY AN AMOUNT OF MONEY MEASURED BY GOLD, AND EXPRESSLY
COVERED BY THE JOINT RESOLUTION.  CONGRESS BANNED GOLD AS WELL AS GOLD
COINS, AND TOOK ACTION TO PUT ALL GOLD VALUE CONTRACTS ON A UNIFORM
BASIS OF PARITY. 

THE JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARES TO BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY ANY
OBLIGATION PURPORTING "TO GIVE THE OBLIGEE A RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT
IN GOLD OR A PARTICULAR KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY, OR IN AN AMOUNT OF
MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES MEASURED THEREBY."  THIS LANGUAGE EMBRACES
THE PRESENT CONTRACT, SINCE IT EXPRESSLY CALLS FOR GOLD OR AN AMOUNT OF
CURRENCY MEASURED THEREBY.  UNDER THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION,
THEREFORE, THIS CONTRACT IS DISCHARGEABLE DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR IN
CURRENCY. 

THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE JOINT RESOLUTION WAS NOT INTENDED TO
APPLY TO THE PRESENT CONTRACT BECAUSE THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED FOR THE
DISCHARGE OF CONTRACTS - I.E., BY PAYMENT "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR" - IS NOT
ADAPTED TO A CONTRACT WHICH REFERS TO DOLLARS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FIXING A QUANTITY OF GOLD WHICH, IN TURN, IS TO BE TAKEN AS THE MEASURE
OF PAYMENT IN CURRENCY.  THE PETITIONER ARGUES THAT THE REFERENCE TO
DOLLARS IN THIS INDENTURE WAS MERELY INCIDENTAL AND FORTUITOUS; THAT
THE PARTIES COULD HAVE ACHIEVED THE SAME RESULT BY PROVIDING FOR A
CERTAIN NUMBER OF OUNCES OF GOLD WITH NO MENTION OF DOLLARS WHATEVER;
AND THAT A FORMULA DISCHARGING THE CONTRACT "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR" DOES
NOT APPLY WHERE THE CONTRACT CONTAINED NO REFERENCE AT ALL TO DOLLARS. 

THIS ARGUMENT IS BASED ON A PRACTICAL INCONVENIENCE WHICH DOES NOT
EXIST IN THIS CASE.  FOR HERE THERE IS AN EXPRESS REFERENCE TO A FIXED
AMOUNT OF DOLLARS AND HERE THERE IS NO DIFFICULTY WHATEVER IN APPLYING
THE FORMULA FOR DISCHARGE "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR."  MOREOVER, THE
PETITIONER'S ARGUMENT, IF ACCEPTED, WOULD CONFINE THE RESOLUTION TO
CONTRACTS CALLING FOR A PARTICULAR KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY, OR THEIR
EQUIVALENT, AND WOULD READ OUT OF THE RESOLUTION ENTIRELY THE PROVISION
WHICH PROHIBITS CONTRACTS REQUIRING "PAYMENT IN GOLD  ...  OR IN AN
AMOUNT IN MONEY  ...  MEASURED THEREBY."  THIS PROVISION MUST MEAN THAT
THE RESOLUTION WAS INTENDED TO APPLY, NOT ONLY TO CONTRACTS WHICH
PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF CURRENCY IN THE EQUIVALENT OF GOLD COIN, BUT
ALSO TO CONTRACTS, LIKE THE PRESENT, PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF CURRENCY
IN THE EQUIVALENT OF GOLD. 

WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS AN EXPRESS GOLD VALUE CLAUSE.  IT IS WHAT THE
GOLD CLAUSE IN NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO. WAS CONSTRUED TO BE.
WHAT WAS THERE IMPLIED BY THE PARTIES AND CONSTRUED BY THE COURT IS
HERE EXPRESSED BY THE PARTIES.  THE DECISION IN THAT CASE IS DECISIVE
HERE. 

THE MONETARY POWER OF CONGRESS EXTENDS OVER MONEY CONTRACTS MEASURED
IN TERMS OF GOLD AS WELL AS OVER CONTRACTS FOR GOLD COIN.  WHETHER IT
WOULD EXTEND TO CONTRACTS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE OTHER COMMODITIES THE
MEASURE OF MONEY IS BESIDE THE POINT.  GOLD HAS BEEN USED AS MONEY AND
AS THE MEASURE OF MONEY TOO LONG TO RELIEVE IT OF THE PUBLIC BURDEN OF
REGULATION BY CONGRESS. 

NOR IS THE JOINT RESOLUTION AS APPLIED TO THESE RENTAL CLAUSES
INVALID BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SO FEW OF THEM THAT THEY ALONE MIGHT NOT
REASONABLY BE REGARDED AS AN OBSTACLE TO THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF
CONGRESSIONAL POWER.  THAT IS NOT THE POINT.  THE POINT IS WHETHER THEY
ARE TO BE MADE AN EXCEPTION TO AN EXERCISE OF THAT POWER WHICH
EXPRESSLY INCLUDES THEM.  THERE IS NO REASONABLE GROUND FOR SINGLING
THEM OUT AS AN EXCEPTION.  TO SINGLE THEM OUT WOULD STRIKE AT THE VERY
REASON FOR GIVING THE POWER TO CONGRESS, WHICH WAS UNIFORMITY. 
MOREOVER, IF THEY AND SUCH AS THEY WERE EXEMPTED, THE EXCEPTION WOULD
SOON BECOME THE RULE, AS THE ONLY WAY MEN WOULD HAVE TO FIX PROMISED
MONEY VALUES IN TERMS OF GOLD. 

BUT, EVEN IF THE JOINT RESOLUTION CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THESE RENTAL
CLAUSES, WHETHER AS INAPPLICABLE OR AS INVALID IF SO APPLIED - EVEN IF
THERE HAD BEEN NO JOINT RESOLUTION, YET THE EQUIVALENT IN MONEY WHICH
THESE INDENTURES CALL FOR IS AT THE RATE OF $20.67 PER OUNCE OF GOLD. 
THIS RESULT IS REACHED QUITE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE RESOLUTION.  THE
USUAL DOCTRINES OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS, APPLIED TO THE SITUATION
CREATED BY THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PAYING IN GOLD, REQUIRE IT. 

THE MEASURE OF THE EQUIVALENT OF THE GOLD IN MONEY IS WHAT THE GOLD
WOULD HAVE BEEN WORTH TO THE PETITIONER IF IT HAD BEEN PAID.  THAT IS
WHAT THE PETITIONER CONTRACTED FOR WITH THE WORD "EQUIVALENT."  IT
CANNOT MEAN MORE THAN THAT WITHOUT BELYING ITS OWN NAME. 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELEVANT TREASURY REGULATIONS SHOWS THAT, IF
THE GOLD HAD BEEN PAID, THE PETITIONER COULD HAVE GOT FOR IT $20.67 PER
OUNCE, NOT $35 PER OUNCE OR ANY OTHER SUM. 

THE REDUCTION OF THE GOLD CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR BY THE GOLD RESERVE
ACT OF 1933, AND THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO
THAT RESULT.  DEVALUATION MADE THE GOLD WORTH NO MORE TO THE
PETITIONER.  IT COULD HAVE GOT NO MORE DOLLARS FOR SUCH GOLD AFTER THE
DEVALUATION THAN BEFORE. 

THIS IS THE SAME RESULT WE REACH BY APPLYING THE JOINT RESOLUTION, AND
IT IS JUST THE RESULT WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM THE FACT THAT THE GOLD
RESERVE ACT, THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION, THE TREASURY REGULATIONS,
AND THE JOINT RESOLUTION ARE ALL OF THEM PARTS OF ONE WHOLE, ALL
DIRECTED TO THE SAME END. 

PERRY V. UNITED STATES HELD THAT THIS WAS SO FOR GOLD COIN, AND THERE
IS NO REASON TO GIVE MORE FOR GOLD BULLION THAN FOR GOLD COIN.  THE
DETERMINATION OF THE EQUIVALENT IN THAT CASE IS DECISIVE OF ITS
DETERMINATION HERE AT $20.67 PER OUNCE. 

THE PETITIONER HAS SHOWN NO LOSS TO IT HERE, ANY MORE THAN PERRY IN
THAT CASE SHOWED ANY LOSS TO HIM THERE.  WE HAVE ONLY THE CERTAINTY
THAT THE RESPONDENT IS BEING ASKED TO PAY 69 CENTS A DOLLAR MORE THAN
IT HAS BEEN PAYING - A GRATUITOUS LOSS TO IT AND A WINDFALL TO THE
PETITIONER.    MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CONTROVERSY IS ONE AS TO THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS IN PRESENT
CURRENCY THAT WILL DISCHARGE A COVENANT FOR RENT IN LEASES ANTEDATING
THE REDUCTION OF THE GOLD CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR, THE COVENANT BEING
PHRASED IN THE MANNER HEREINAFTER STATED. 

AT VARIOUS TIMES BETWEEN 1881 AND 1897 THIRTEEN LEASES WERE EXECUTED
BY THE HOLYOKE WATER COMPANY, THE PETITIONER, TO THE AMERICAN WRITING
PAPER COMPANY, INC., THE RESPONDENT, FOR THE ENJOYMENT IN PERPETUITY OF
WATERPOWER RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES IN CONSIDERATION OF AN ANNUAL RENTAL. 
WITH VARIATIONS IMMATERIAL FOR PRESENT PURPOSES, THE PROVISION FOR
RENTAL IS THE SAME IN ALL THE LEASES.  BY CONCESSION THE FOLLOWING FORM
HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS TYPICAL:  THE GRANTEE SHALL YIELD AND PAY UNTO THE
GRANTOR AS RENT "A QUANTITY OF GOLD WHICH SHALL BE EQUAL IN AMOUNT TO
FIFTEEN HUNDRED ($1500) DOLLARS OF THE GOLD COIN OF THE UNITED STATES
OF THE STANDARD OF WEIGHT AND FINENESS OF THE YEAR 1894, OR THE
EQUIVALENT OF THIS COMMODITY IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY."  IN 1894 AND
CONTINUOUSLY THEREAFTER TILL JANUARY 31, 1934, THE STATUTORY GOLD
CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR WAS TWENTY FIVE AND EIGHT TENTHS GRAINS OF GOLD,
NINE TENTHS FINE.  SINCE JANUARY 31, 1934, BY FORCE OF THE GOLD RESERVE
ACT OF THAT YEAR (48 STAT. 337) AND THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
THEREUNDER, THE GOLD CONTENT OF THE DOLLAR HAS BEEN FIXED TO CONSIST OF
FIFTEEN AND FIVE TWENTY-FIRSTS GRAINS OF GOLD, NINE TENTHS FINE. 
BEFORE THAT REDUCTION A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CONGRESS, DATED JUNE 5,
1933(48 STAT. 112), HAD DECLARED THAT EVERY OBLIGATION PAYABLE IN MONEY
OF THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER THERETOFORE OR THEREAFTER INCURRED,
SHOULD BE DISCHARGED UPON PAYMENT, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, IN ANY COIN OR
CURRENCY WHICH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT WAS LEGAL TENDER FOR PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE DEBTS, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY PROVISION CONTAINED THEREIN WHEREBY
THE OBLIGEE WAS GIVEN A RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT IN GOLD OR IN A
PARTICULAR KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY, OR IN AN AMOUNT IN MONEY OF THE
UNITED STATES MEASURED THEREBY.  THE PRECISE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION
AND ITS RECITALS WILL BE CONSIDERED MORE AT LENGTH HEREAFTER. 

IN JUNE, 1934, THE DOLLAR HAVING BEEN THEN DEVALUED, THE LESSEE
CORPORATION BECAME INSOLVENT OR UNABLE TO PAY ITS DEBTS AS THEY
MATURED.  TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, IT FILED
A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION WHICH THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY APPROVED. 
THE LESSOR (PETITIONER HERE) INTERVENED IN THAT PROCEEDING AND PRAYED
THAT THE AMOUNT DUE TO IT FOR RENT UNDER THE SEVERAL WATER-POWER LEASES
BE INQUIRED INTO AND DETERMINED.  ON BEHALF OF THE LESSEE THE
CONTENTION WAS THAT BY FORCE OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION THE DEBT WAS
DISCHARGEABLE, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, IN THE THEN PREVAILING CURRENCY.  ON
BEHALF OF THE LESSOR THE CONTENTION WAS THAT THE MARKET PRICE OF FINE
GOLD AT THE TIME OF THE DEFAULT AND LATER WAS $35 AN OUNCE, OR $31.50
FOR AN OUNCE NINE TENTHS FINE, AND THAT PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE UPON
THAT BASIS FOR AS MANY OUNCES OF SUCH GOLD AS WERE CONTAINED IN THE
STIPULATED DOLLARS AT THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASES.  IN PRESSING THAT
CONTENTION, THE LESSOR DID NOT DENY THAT THE LAW DECLINES TO GIVE
EFFECT TO CONTRACTS WHEREBY DEBTS ARE MADE PAYABLE IN GOLD COIN, OR IN
CURRENCY VARYING IN AMOUNT WITH THE GOLD BASIS OF THE DOLLAR.  NORMAN
V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 294 U.S. 240.  WHAT WAS ARGUED WAS RATHER
THIS, THAT THE COVENANT HERE IN QUESTION WAS NOT FOR THE PAYMENT OF A
DEBT, BUT FOR THE SALE OF A COMMODITY, OR IF VIEWED AS A COVENANT FOR
PAYMENT, THAT THE STANDARD WAS THE COMMODITY VALUE OF THE BULLION, NOT
THE VALUE OF THE COIN AS MONEY, THE DIFFERENCE BEING THOUGHT TO BE
SUFFICIENT TO CHANGE THE APPLICABLE RULE.  THE DISTRICT COURT HELD IN
FAVOR OF THE LESSEE, AND COMPUTED THE INDEBTEDNESS ACCORDINGLY.  11
F.SUPP.  518; SEE 9 F.SUPP.  451.  THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED.  83 F.(2D) 398.  BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
QUESTION WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

1.  THE OBLIGATION WAS ONE FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY, AND NOT FOR THE
DELIVERY OF GOLD AS UPON THE SALE OF A COMMODITY. 

THE LESSOR WAS A WATER POWER COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THAT BUSINESS AND
NOT IN ANY OTHER.  THERE IS NO PRETENSE THAT IT WAS STIPULATING FOR
GOLD TO BE USED IN ART OR INDUSTRY.  WHAT IT WISHED WAS CURRENCY, OR
BULLION SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING CONVERTED INTO CURRENCY, THE LESSEE TO
MAKE THE CHOICE.  THE ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF PAYMENT SHED LIGHT UPON EACH
OTHER.  THEY WILL BE CONSIDERED IN SUCCESSION. 

BY THE FIRST TERM OF THE ALTERNATIVE, THERE MAY BE PAYMENT OF THE
RENT IN THE FORM OF "A QUANTITY OF GOLD WHICH SHALL BE EQUAL IN AMOUNT
TO $1500 OF THE GOLD COIN OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE STANDARD OF
WEIGHT AND FINENESS OF THE YEAR 1894."  IN THIS FORM THERE IS NO CALL
FOR A STATED NUMBER OF OUNCES OF FINE GOLD, AS IF A GOLDSMITH WERE
PROVIDING FOR THE USES OF HIS BUSINESS.  THE CALL IS FOR GOLD THAT
SHALL BE AS HEAVY AND AS FINE AS A STATED NUMBER OF GOLD DOLLARS, WITH
THE RESULT THAT DELIVERY IN SUCH DOLLARS IS A PAYMENT IN STRICT
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LETTER OF THE CONTRACT.  WE MUST CONSIDER THE
SITUATION OF THE PARTIES, THEIR BUSINESS NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS, IN
GAUGING THEIR INTENTION.  WHEN THESE ARE KEPT IN VIEW, THE GOLD IS SEEN
TO BE A STANDARD WITH WHICH TO STABILIZE THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR; THE
DOLLAR NOT A YARDSTICK WITH WHICH TO MEASURE THE QUANTITY OF THE GOLD. 
TO READ THE LEASES OTHERWISE IS TO PERMIT THE REALITIES OF THE
TRANSACTION, ITS SUBSTANCE AND ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, TO BE OBSCURED BY
FORMS AND PHRASES.  LONG AGO IT WAS SAID BY A DISTINGUISHED MEMBER OF
THIS COURT, COMMENTING UPON A DIFFERENT STATUTE, BUT ONE ANALOGOUS IN
PURPOSE:  "IF THE CONTRACT IS FOR THE DELIVERY OF A CHATTEL OR A
SPECIFIC COMMODITY OR SUBSTANCE, THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY.  IF IT IS BONA
FIDE FOR SO MANY CARATS OF DIAMONDS OR SO MANY OUNCES OF GOLD AS
BULLION, THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT MUST BE PERFORMED (ASSUMING, OF COURSE,
THAT CONTRACTS FOR THE DELIVERY OF BULLION ARE NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW). 
BUT IF TERMS WHICH NATURALLY IMPORT SUCH A CONTRACT ARE USED BY WAY OF
EVASION, AND MONEY ONLY IS INTENDED, THE LAW REACHES THE CASE."  PER
BRADLEY, J., IN LEGAL TENDER CASES, 12 WALL.  457, 566.  HERE WHAT WAS
INTENDED WAS TO ASSURE THE PAYMENT OF A MONEY DEBT IN DOLLARS OF A
VALUE AS CONSTANT AS THAT OF GOLD.  NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO.,
SUPRA, P. 302; CF. FEIST V. SOCIETE INTERCOMMUNALE BELGE D'ELECTRICITE,
L.R. (1934) A.C. 161, 172, 173.  THE FACT IS OF LITTLE MOMENT THAT
CURRENCY IS CHARACTERIZED AS A COMMODITY IN THE VERBIAGE OF THE
COVENANT AS LONG AS IT IS CURRENCY.  CF. LIPKE V. LEDERER, 259 U.S.
557, 561, 562.  WEASEL WORDS WILL NOT AVAIL TO DEFEAT THE TRIUMPH OF
INTENTION WHEN ONCE THE WORDS ARE READ IN THE SETTING OF THE WHOLE
TRANSACTION.  SO READ, THE END TO BE ACHIEVED IS SHOWN FORTH
UNMISTAKABLY AS A PAYMENT, NOT A SALE. 

THIS CONCLUSION WOULD BE NECESSARY THOUGH THE FIRST OF THE
ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF PAYMENT STOOD ALONE IN THE INDENTURES.  THE
NECESSITY BECOMES EVEN PLAINER WHEN THE FIRST IS CONSIDERED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE SECOND.  THE LESSEE AT ITS OPTION MAY PAY THE
EQUIVALENT OF THE GOLD "IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY."  THE PRESENCE OF
THIS ALTERNATIVE GIVES A QUIETUS TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE LESSOR WAS
DESIROUS OF THE GOLD AS A COMMODITY AND WAS BARGAINING THEREFOR.  IF
THERE HAD BEEN ANY SUCH DESIRE, THE CHOICE AS TO THE FORMS OF PAYMENT
WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN LEFT TO THE LESSEE, AS BY IMPLICATION OF LAW IT
WAS, FOR A DEBTOR, IF METHODS OF PERFORMANCE ARE ALTERNATIVE, MAY
CHOOSE WHICHEVER ONE HE PLEASES.  3 WILLISTON, CONTRACTS, SEC. 1407;
RESTATEMENT, CONTRACTS, VOL. 1, P. 493.  IN POINT OF FACT, THERE WERE
STATUTES IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE DEFAULT IN PAYMENT THAT MADE
DELIVERY OF GOLD IMPOSSIBLE.  NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., SUPRA,
PP. 295, 296; NORTZ V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 317, 327, 328; PERRY V.
UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330, 355.  THE LESSEE WOULD PERFORCE HAVE HAD
TO AVAIL ITSELF OF THE SECOND TERM OF THE ALTERNATIVE, IF IT HAD BEEN
ABLE TO PAY AT ALL.  BUT IF BOTH MODES OF PAYMENT HAD BEEN PRESERVED,
THE SECOND EQUALLY WITH THE FIRST WOULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE TO
DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION.  PAYMENT IN CURRENCY, QUITE AS MUCH AS
PAYMENT IN COIN OR IN BULLION, WAS NOT ONLY PERFORMANCE UNDER THE LAW,
BUT PERFORMANCE UNDER THE CONTRACT, PROVIDED ONLY THAT THE VALUE OF THE
CURRENCY WAS EQUAL, WHEN PAID, TO THE VALUE OF THE GOLD.  WHETHER THAT
PROVISO HAS BEEN ABROGATED IS NEXT TO BE CONSIDERED. 

2.  A CONTRACT FOR THE PAYMENT OF GOLD AS THE EQUIVALENT OF MONEY,
AND A FORTIORI A CONTRACT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY MEASURABLE IN GOLD,
IS WITHIN THE LETTER OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF JUNE 5, 1933, AND
EQUALLY WITHIN ITS SPIRIT. 

THE RESOLUTION, FOR CONVENIENCE OF REFERENCE, IS PRINTED IN THE
MARGIN.*ITS HISTORY HAS BEEN TRACED IN NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R.
CO., SUPRA.  THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT WHAT HAS BEEN ALREADY DONE SO
THOROUGHLY.  THE RESOLUTION TOUCHES GOLD AS WELL AS COIN OR CURRENCY
WHENEVER TRANSACTIONS IN EITHER ARE WITHIN THE EVIL TO BE REMEDIED.  WE
LEARN FROM THE PREAMBLE THAT "PROVISIONS OF OBLIGATIONS WHICH PURPORT
TO GIVE THE OBLIGEE A RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT IN GOLD OR A PARTICULAR
KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, OR IN AN AMOUNT IN MONEY
OF THE UNITED STATES MEASURED THEREBY, OBSTRUCT THE POWER OF THE
CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE VALUE OF THE MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE CONGRESS TO MAINTAIN
AT ALL TIMES THE EQUAL POWER OF EVERY DOLLAR, COINED OR ISSUED BY THE
UNITED STATES, IN THE MARKETS AND IN THE PAYMENT OF DEBTS." 
ACCORDINGLY, ALL SUCH PROVISIONS ARE DECLARED TO BE AGAINST PUBLIC
POLICY, AND EVERY OBLIGATION, HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER INCURRED, THOUGH
IT CONTAIN SUCH PROVISIONS, SHALL BE PAYABLE, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, IN
LEGAL TENDER AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT.  TRANSACTIONS FOR THE SALE OR
DELIVERY OF GOLD FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES ARE NOT WITHIN THE EVIL TO BE
REMEDIED, AND SO ARE NOT WITHIN THE STATUTE.  CF. EXECUTIVE ORDER OF
APRIL 5, 1933, AND AUGUST 28, 1933; ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY, DECEMBER 28, 1933 AND JANUARY 15, 1934; EMERGENCY BANKING ACT
OF MARCH 9, 1933, 48 STAT. 1, 2, SEC. 3.  AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE
DELIVERY UPON A BONA FIDE SALE IS NOT FAIRLY TO BE CLASSIFIED AS AN
OBLIGATION "PAYABLE IN MONEY" (JOINT RESOLUTION, SUBDIVISION (B)), OR
SO WE NOW ASSUME.  BUT VERY DEFINITELY, THE EVIL DOES INCLUDE
TRANSACTIONS WHEREBY GOLD, COINED OR UNCOINED, IS TO BE DELIVERED IN
SATISFACTION OF A DEBT EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF DOLLARS, PAYMENT, NOT
SALE, BEING THEN THE END TO BE ACHIEVED.  AS DEFINITELY, INDEED MORE
OBVIOUSLY, THE EVIL INCLUDES TRANSACTIONS WHEREBY A DEBT IS TO BE
DISCHARGED, NOT IN BULLION, BUT IN DOLLARS, IF THE NUMBER OF THE
DOLLARS IS TO BE INCREASED OR DIMINISHED IN PROPORTION TO THE
DIMINUTION OR THE INCREASE OF THE GOLD BASIS OF THE CURRENCY.  BOTH
FORMS OF OBLIGATION ARE ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE VERY MISCHIEF THAT
CONGRESS SOUGHT TO HIT. 

*"JOINT RESOLUTION. 

"TO ASSURE UNIFORM VALUE TO THE COINS AND CURRENCIES OF THE UNITED
STATES. 

"WHEREAS THE HOLDING OF OR DEALING IN GOLD AFFECT THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, AND ARE THEREFORE SUBJECT TO PROPER REGULATION AND
RESTRICTION; AND 

"WHEREAS THE EXISTING EMERGENCY HAS DISCLOSED THAT PROVISIONS OF
OBLIGATIONS WHICH PURPORT TO GIVE THE OBLIGEE A RIGHT TO REQUIRE
PAYMENT IN GOLD OR A PARTICULAR KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY OF THE UNITED
STATES, OR IN AN AMOUNT IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES MEASURED THEREBY,
OBSTRUCT THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO REGULATE THE VALUE OF THE MONEY
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE DECLARED POLICY OF
THE CONGRESS TO MAINTAIN AT ALL TIMES THE EQUAL POWER OF EVERY DOLLAR,
COINED OR ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES, IN THE MARKETS AND IN THE
PAYMENT OF DEBTS.  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 

"RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, THAT (A) EVERY PROVISION
CONTAINED IN OR MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY OBLIGATION WHICH PURPORTS TO
GIVE THE OBLIGEE A RIGHT TO REQUIRE PAYMENT IN GOLD OR A PARTICULAR
KIND OF COIN OR CURRENCY, OR IN AN AMOUNT IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES
MEASURED THEREBY, IS DECLARED TO BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY; AND NO SUCH
PROVISION SHALL BE CONTAINED IN OR MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY OBLIGATION
HEREAFTER INCURRED.  EVERY OBLIGATION, HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER
INCURRED, WHETHER OR NOT ANY SUCH PROVISION IS CONTAINED THEREIN OR
MADE WITH RESPECT THERETO, SHALL BE DISCHARGED UPON PAYMENT, DOLLAR FOR
DOLLAR, IN ANY COIN OR CURRENCY WHICH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT IS LEGAL
TENDER FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEBTS.  ANY SUCH PROVISION CONTAINED IN
ANY LAW AUTHORIZING OBLIGATIONS TO BE ISSUED BY OR UNDER AUTHORITY OF
THE UNITED STATES, IS HEREBY REPEALED, BUT THE REPEAL OF ANY SUCH
PROVISION SHALL NOT INVALIDATE ANY OTHER PROVISION OR AUTHORITY
CONTAINED IN SUCH LAW. 

"(B)  AS USED IN THIS RESOLUTION, THE TERM 'OBLIGATION' MEANS AN
OBLIGATION (INCLUDING EVERY OBLIGATION OF AND TO THE UNITED STATES
EXCEPTING CURRENCY) PAYABLE IN MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES; AND THE TERM
'COIN OR CURRENCY' MEANS COIN OR CURRENCY OF THE UNITED STATES,
INCLUDING FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES AND CIRCULATING NOTES OF FEDERAL
RESERVE BANKS AND NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS. 

"SEC. 2.  THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBSECTION (B) OF
ECONOMIC EMERGENCY BY INCREASING AGRICULTURAL PURCHASING POWER, TO
RAISE REVENUE FOR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES INCURRED BY REASON OF SUCH
EMERGENCY, TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURAL
INDEBTEDNESS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY LIQUIDATION OF JOINT-STOCK
LAND BANKS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,' APPROVED MAY 12, 1933, IS AMENDED
TO READ AS FOLLOWS:    "'ALL COINS AND CURRENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES
(INCLUDING FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES AND CIRCULATING NOTES OF FEDERAL
RESERVE BANKS AND NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS) HERETOFORE OR
HEREAFTER COINED OR ISSUED, SHALL BE LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE, PUBLIC CHARGES, TAXES, DUTIES, AND DUES, EXCEPT THAT GOLD
COINS, WHEN BELOW THE STANDARD WEIGHT AND LIMIT OF TOLERANCE PROVIDED
BY LAW FOR THE SINGLE PIECE, SHALL BE LEGAL TENDER ONLY AT VALUATION IN
PROPORTION TO THEIR ACTUAL WEIGHT.' 

"APPROVED, JUNE 5, 1933, 4:40 P.M."    3.  THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT
IN THE CASE NOW BEFORE US THE CURRENCY CALLED FOR BY THE CONTRACT IS
STATED TOO INDEFINITELY TO BE TRANSLATED, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, AS
REQUIRED BY THE RESOLUTION, INTO THE LEGAL TENDER OF THE HOUR.  BUT THE
DIFFICULTY IS QUITE IMAGINARY.  THINGS THAT ARE EQUAL TO THE SAME THING
ARE EQUAL TO EACH OTHER.  THERE IS APPLICATION FOR THE MAXIM HERE.  IF
THE CURRENCY TO BE PAID BY THE LESSEE IS TO BE THE EQUIVALENT OF GOLD,
AND IF THE GOLD IS TO BE THE EQUIVALENT OF A STATED NUMBER OF GOLD
DOLLARS OF A PARTICULAR WEIGHT AND FINENESS, THEN THE COVENANT TO PAY
THE CURRENCY IS TANTAMOUNT TO A COVENANT TO PAY THE DOLLARS, AND
DOLLARS OF THE STATED STANDARD.  THIS IS THE OBLIGATION THAT RESPONDENT
TOOK UPON ITSELF WHEN IT BECAME A PARTY TO THESE LEASES.  IT IS,
HOWEVER, THE VERY OBLIGATION THAT HAS BEEN OUTLAWED BY THE STATUTE AS A
MENACE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF OUR MONETARY SYSTEM.  NORMAN V. BALTIMORE
& OHIO R. CO., SUPRA, PP. 306, 311.  "DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR," THE
OBLIGATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD OF THE
COVENANT IS TO BE DISCHARGED WITH MONEY OF THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY
THE LAW. 

4.  THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT COVENANTS OF THIS PARTICULAR FORM ARE
SO RARE AND EXCEPTIONAL THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE MONETARY SYSTEM DOES
NOT REQUIRE THEIR SUPPRESSION, AND THAT ARBITRARY SUPPRESSION IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  HOW EXCEPTIONAL OR RARE THEY
ARE, WE HAVE NO MEANS OF ASCERTAINING.  FOR ANYTHING PROVED IN THE
RECORD OR SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL NOTICE THEY MAY BE ILLUSTRATIONS, EVEN IF
VERBAL VARIANTS, OF A TYPE COMMON IN THE PETITIONER'S BUSINESS AND
INDEED IN MANY OTHERS.  BUT THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON THE RESULTS OF SUCH A CENSUS.  A PARTICULAR COVENANT, IF VIEWED IN
ISOLATION, MAY HAVE A SLIGHT, PERHAPS A TRIVIAL, INFLUENCE UPON THE
EFFECTIVENESS AND SYMMETRY OF A NEW MONETARY POLICY.  THE AGGREGATE OF
MANY COVENANTS, EACH CONTRIBUTING ITS MITE, MAY BRING THE SYSTEM TO
DESTRUCTION.  RIVULETS IN COMBINATION MAKE UP A STREAM OF TENDENCY THAT
MAY ATTAIN ENGULFING POWER.  NO PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, NO
DICTATE OF FAIR DEALING, LAYS A DUTY UPON THE CONGRESS TO SINGLE OUT
FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT AN INDIVIDUAL OR A FEW AMONG THE MEMBERS OF A
COMMON MASS.  CF. PURITY EXTRACT CO. V. LYNCH, 226 U.S. 192, 201.  ONE
CANNOT EVEN SAY WITH REASON THAT THE EFFECTS OF THIS PARTICULAR
COVENANT ARE TO BE CLASSIFIED AS NEGLIGIBLE.  THE LESSEE AS THE
RECIPIENT OF PRINCIPAL OR INCOME MUST ACCEPT PAYMENT FROM ITS DEBTORS
IN THE DEPRECIATED CURRENCY.  IT IS INJURED, AT LEAST APPRECIABLY, IF
IT IS REQUIRED TO PAY ITS CREDITORS IN DOLLARS OF A DIFFERENT
STANDARD.  NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., SUPRA, P. 315.  RECEIPTS
AND DISBURSEMENTS ARE NO LONGER ON A COMMON BASIS. 

5.  IN LAST ANALYSIS, THE CASE FOR THE PETITIONER AMOUNTS TO LITTLE
MORE THAN THIS, THAT THE EFFECT OF THE RESOLUTION IN ITS APPLICATION TO
THESE LEASES IS TO MAKE THE VALUE OF THE DOLLARS FLUCTUATE WITH
VARIATIONS IN THE WEIGHT AND FINENESS OF THE MONETARY STANDARD, AND
THUS DEFEAT THE EXPECTATION OF THE PARTIES THAT THE STANDARD WOULD BE
CONSTANT AND THE VALUE RELATIVELY STABLE.  SUCH, INDEED, IS THE EFFECT,
AND THE COVENANT OF THE PARTIES IS TO THAT EXENT ABORTIVE.  BUT THE
DISAPPOINTMENT OF EXPECTATIONS AND EVEN THE FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACTS
MAY BE A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF POWER WHEN EXPECTATION AND CONTRACT ARE IN
CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC WELFARE.  "CONTRACTS MAY CREATE RIGHTS OF
PROPERTY, BUT WHEN CONTRACTS DEAL WITH A SUBJECT MATTER WHICH LIES
WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE CONGRESS, THEY HAVE A CONGENITAL INFIRMITY." 
NORMAN V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., SUPRA, PP. 307, 308.  TO THAT
CONGENITAL INFIRMITY THIS COVENANT SUCCUMBS. 

THE DECREE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS ACCORDINGLY AFFIRMED. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, MR. JUSTICE
SUTHERLAND, AND MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DISSENT. 
..END :



VAN BEECK V. SABINE TOWING CO., 300 U.S. 342 


NO. 460.  ARGUED FEBRUARY 5, 8, 1937.  - DECIDED MARCH 1, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 478, REVERSED. 


1.  THE CAUSE OF ACTION PROVIDED BY THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 46 U.S.C.
688, IN CONNECTION WITH THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. 51, ON
BEHALF OF SURVIVORS OR DEPENDENTS OF A SEAMAN WHO HAS SUFFERED DEATH BY
REASON OF HIS EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE, IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH ANY
CAUSE OF ACTION THAT MAY HAVE ACCRUED TO THE SEAMAN HIMSELF BETWEEN THE
TIME OF HIS INJURY AND THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, BUT IS A NEW CAUSE OF
ACTION, ENFORCIBLE BY HIS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE BENEFICIARY
IN WHICH THE RECOVERY IS LIMITED TO THE PECUNIARY LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE
BENEFICIARY, THROUGH THE DEATH, AS CONTRASTED WITH THE PERSONAL LOSS
AND SUFFERING SUSTAINED BY THE DECEDENT BEFORE HIS DEATH.  PP. 344,
346. 

2.  A SUIT BROUGHT UNDER THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 46 U.S.C. 688, AND
THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT, 45 U.S.C. 51, BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF A
DECEASED MARINER TO COMPENSATE DECEDENT'S MOTHER FOR LOSS CAUSED TO HER
BY HIS INSTANTANEOUS DEATH THROUGH HIS EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE, DOES NOT
ABATE AT HER DEATH BUT MAY BE CONTINUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF HIS
ESTATE (OR BY THE ADMINISTRATOR DE BONIS NON IF SHE WAS THE
ADMINISTRATOR) FOR THE RECOVERY OF HER PECUNIARY LOSS UP TO THE MOMENT
OF HER DEATH, THE DAMAGES, WHEN COLLECTED, TO BE PAID TO HER ESTATE. 
CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V. WELLS-DICKEY TRUST CO., 275 U.S. 161,
DISTINGUISHED.  P. 347. 

3.  THIS CASE IS NOT AFFECTED BY STATUTES WHICH REGULATE THE
CONTINUANCE OF A PROCEEDING IN A COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE
SUBSTITUTION OF THE EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR OF A PARTY DYING WHILE
THE SUIT IS PENDING.  28 U.S.C. 778.  P. 350. 

VAN BEECK, ADMINISTRATOR, V. SABINE TOWING CO., INC., ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 535, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING AN ACTION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF A DECEASED SEAMAN TO
RECOVER FOR THE LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE DECEDENT'S MOTHER ON ACCOUNT OF
HIS DEATH. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920(JUNE 5, 1920, C. 250, SEC. 33, 41
STAT. 1007; 46 U.S.C. SEC. 688) GIVES A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES TO
THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A SEAMAN WHO HAS SUFFERED DEATH IN THE
COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT BY REASON OF HIS EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE.  THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE LIABILITY ABATES WHERE THE BENEFICIARY OF THE
CAUSE OF ACTION, IN THIS CASE THE MOTHER OF THE SEAMAN, DIES DURING THE
PENDENCY OF A SUIT IN HER BEHALF. 

THE STEAM TOW-BOAT, EDGAR F. CONEY, SANK ON JANUARY 28, 1930, WITH
THE LOSS OF ALL ON BOARD.  THE RESPONDENT, SABINE TOWING COMPANY, INC.,
THE OWNER OF THE BOAT, FILED A LIBEL IN A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN TEXAS FOR THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.  IN THAT PROCEEDING CLAIMS
FOR DAMAGES WERE FILED BY THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SEVERAL
MEMBERS OF THE CREW.  AMONG SUCH CLAIMS WAS ONE FOR THE PECUNIARY
DAMAGE SUFFERED THROUGH THE DEATH OF THE SECOND MATE OF THE VESSEL,
EDWARD C. VAN BEECK.  HE DIED UNMARRIED, LEAVING A MOTHER AND SEVERAL
BROTHERS.  THERE BEING NEITHER WIFE NOR CHILD NOR FATHER, THE MOTHER
WAS THE SOLE BENEFICIARY OF THE STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION.  THIS
RESULTS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (45 U.S.C.
SEC. 51), GOVERNING INJURIES TO RAILWAY EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS MADE
APPLICABLE BY THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT IN CASE OF INJURIES TO SEAMEN. 
CF. CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 376.  THE MOTHER
WAS APPOINTED ADMINISTRATRIX OF HER SON'S ESTATE, AND ACTING AS SUCH
ADMINISTRATRIX FILED HER CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.  SHE DIED IN JULY 1931, AND
THEREUPON THE PETITIONER, A BROTHER OF THE DEAD SEAMAN, SUCCEEDED TO
HER OFFICE BY APPOINTMENT DULY MADE, AND WAS SUBSTITUTED AS CLAIMANT IN
THE PENDING SUIT.  IN THAT SUIT A COMMISSIONER REPORTED THAT THE MOTHER
HAD SUFFERED LOSS UP TO THE TIME OF HER DEATH IN THE SUM OF $700, AND
THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN AWARD OF THAT AMOUNT FOR THE USE OF HER
ESTATE.  THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT AT
HER DEATH THE LIABILITY ABATED, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL.  85 F.(2D) 478.  TO SETTLE THE MEANING
OF AN IMPORTANT ACT OF CONGRESS, WE GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

THE STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR DEATH USHERED IN
A NEW POLICY AND BROKE WITH OLD TRADITIONS.  ITS MEANING IS LIKELY TO
BE MISREAD IF SHREDS OF THE DISCARDED POLICY ARE TREATED AS STILL
CLINGING TO IT AND NARROWING ITS SCOPE.  THE CASE OF HIGGINS V.
BUTCHER, NOY 18; YELV.  89, WHICH AROSE IN THE KING'S BENCH IN 1606, IS
THE STARTING POINT OF THE RULE, LONG ACCEPTED IN OUR LAW, THOUGH AT
TIMES WITH MUTTERINGS OF DISAPPROVAL,  FN1  THAT IN AN ACTION OF TORT
DAMAGES ARE NOT RECOVERABLE BY ANY ONE FOR THE DEATH OF A HUMAN BEING. 
FN2  THE RULE IS OFTEN VIEWED AS A DERIVATIVE OF THE FORMULA "ACTIO
PERSONALIS MORITUR CUM PERSONA," A MAXIM WHICH "IS ONE OF SOME
ANTIQUITY," THOUGH "ITS ORIGIN IS OBSCURE AND POST-CLASSICAL."  FN3
EVEN IN CLASSICAL TIMES, HOWEVER, THE ROMAN LAW ENFORCED THE PRINCIPLE
THAT "NO ACTION OF AN ESSENTIALLY CENAL CHARACTER COULD BE COMMENDED
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INJURY."  FN4
VENGEANCE, THOUGH PERMISSIBLE DURING LIFE, WAS NOT TO "REACH BEYOND THE
GRAVE."  FN5  THERE WAS ALSO AN ACCEPTED DOCTRINE THAT NO MONEY VALUE
COULD BE PUT ON THE LIFE OF A FREEMAN.  FN6  THE POST-CLASSICAL MAXIM,
TAKEN UP BY COKE AND HIS SUCCESSORS,  FN7  GAVE A NEW CURRENCY TO THESE
TEACHINGS OF THE DIGEST, AND, IT SEEMS, A NEW EXTENSION.  FN8  BUT THE
DENIAL OF A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGS PRODUCING DEATH HAS BEEN
ASCRIBED TO OTHER SOURCES ALSO.  THE EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FOUND AT
TIMES IN THE COMMON LAW NOTION THAT TRESPASS AS A CIVIL WRONG IS
DROWNED IN A FELONY.  FN9  AS TO THE ADEQUACY OF THIS EXPLANATION GRAVE
DOUBT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED.  FN10  NONE THE LESS, THE RULE AS TO FELONY
MERGER SEEMS TO HAVE COALESCED, EVEN IF IN A CONFUSED WAY, WITH THE
RULE AS TO ABATEMENT,  FN11  AND THE EFFECT OF THE TWO IN COMBINATION
WAS TO FASTEN UPON THE LAW A DOCTRINE WHICH IT TOOK A SERIES OF
STATUTES TO DISLODGE. 

THE ADOPTION OF LORD CAMPBELL'S ACT IN 1846(9 & 10 VICT.  C. 93),
GIVING AN ACTION TO THE EXECUTOR FOR THE USE OF WIFE, HUSBAND, PARENT
OR CHILD, MARKS THE DAWN OF A NEW ERA.  IN THIS COUNTRY, STATUTES
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IN TENOR FOLLOWED IN QUICK SUCCESSION IN ONE
STATE AFTER ANOTHER, TILL TODAY THERE IS NOT A STATE OF THE UNION IN
WHICH A REMEDY IS LACKING.  FN12 CONGRESS JOINED IN THE PROCESSION,
FIRST WITH THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT FOR RAILWAY EMPLOYEES (45
U.S.C. SECS. 51, 59), NEXT WITH THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1920 FOR
SEAMEN AND THEIR SURVIVORS (46 U.S.C. SEC. 688), AND AGAIN WITH AN ACT
OF THE SAME YEAR (MARCH 30, 1920, C. 111, SECS. 1, 2, 41 STAT. 537; 46
U.S.C. SECS. 761, 762), NOT LIMITED TO SEAMEN, WHICH STATES THE LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES OF DEATH UPON THE HIGH SEAS. 

AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF A SEAMAN
LAYING CLAIM TO DAMAGES UNDER THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT IS TO HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF "ALL STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERRING OR REGULATING
THE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR DEATH IN THE CASE OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES."  46
U.S.C. SEC. 688.  THE STATUTES THUS REFERRED TO AS A STANDARD DISPLAY A
DOUBLE ASPECT.  ONE OF THESE IS VISIBLE IN THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT
AS IT STOOD WHEN FIRST ENACTED IN 1908.  UNDER THE LAW AS THEN IN FORCE
(APRIL 22, 1908, C. 149, SEC. 1, 35 STAT. 65; 45 U.S.C. SEC. 51) THE
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE EMPLOYEE,
RECOVERING THE DAMAGES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS IF HE HAD LIVED.  ON
THE CONTRARY, BY SEC. 1 OF THE STATUTE A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION IS CREATED
FOR THE BENEFIT OF SURVIVORS OR DEPENDENTS OF DESIGNATED CLASSES, THE
RECOVERY BEING LIMITED TO THE LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THEM AS CONTRASTED
WITH ANY LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THE DECEDENT.  FN13  HOWEVER, WITH THE
ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT IN 1910(APRIL 5, 1910, C. 143, SEC. 2, 36
STAT. 291; 45 U.S.C. SEC. 59) A NEW ASPECT OF THE STATUTE EMERGES INTO
VIEW.  SECTION 2 AS THEN ENACTED CONTINUES ANY CAUSE OF ACTION
BELONGING TO THE DECEDENT, WITHOUT ABROGATING OR DIMINISHING THE THEN
EXISTING CAUSE OF ACTION FOR THE USE OF HIS SURVIVORS.  FN14  "ALTHOUGH
ORIGINATING IN THE SAME WRONGFUL ACT OR NEGLECT, THE TWO CLAIMS ARE
QUITE DISTINCT, NO PART OF EITHER BEING EMBRACED IN THE OTHER.  ONE IS
FOR THE WRONG TO THE INJURED PERSON AND IS CONFINED TO HIS PERSONAL
LOSS AND SUFFERING BEFORE HE DIED, WHILE THE OTHER IS FOR THE WRONG TO
THE BENEFICIARIES AND IS CONFINED TO THEIR PECUNIARY LOSS THROUGH HIS
DEATH."  FN15  IT IS LOSS OF THIS LAST ORDER, AND NO OTHER, THAT IS THE
SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT SUIT.  SO FAR AS THE RECORD SHOWS, THE SEAMAN
DIED AT ONCE UPON THE SINKING OF THE VESSEL.  IN ANY EVENT THERE IS NO
CLAIM THAT HIS INJURIES WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY FATAL.  FN16  TO WHAT
EXTENT THE PRESENT PROBLEM WOULD BE ALTERED, IF INTERMEDIATE LOSS AND
SUFFERING HAD BEEN MADE THE BASIS OF A RECOVERY, WE HAVE NO OCCASION TO
CONSIDER.  OUR DECISION MUST BE LIMITED TO THE NECESSITIES OF THE CASE
BEFORE US. 

VIEWING THE CAUSE OF ACTION AS ONE TO COMPENSATE A MOTHER FOR THE
PECUNIARY LOSS CAUSED TO HER BY THE NEGLIGENT KILLING OF HER SON, WE
THINK THE MOTHER'S DEATH DOES NOT ABATE THE SUIT, BUT THAT THE
ADMINISTRATOR MAY CONTINUE IT, FOR THE RECOVERY OF HER LOSS UP TO THE
MOMENT OF HER DEATH, THOUGH NOT FOR ANYTHING THEREAFTER,  FN17  THE
DAMAGES WHEN COLLECTED TO BE PAID TO HER ESTATE.  SUCH IS THE RULE IN
MANY OF THE STATE COURTS IN WHICH LIKE STATUTES ARE IN FORCE.  IT IS
THE RULE IN NEW YORK, IN PENNSYLVANIA, IN NEW JERSEY, IN OKLAHOMA, IN
GEORGIA, IN KENTUCKY, IN NORTH CAROLINA, AND UNDER STATUTES SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT IN CONNECTICUT AND MASSACHUSETTS.  FN18  IT IS ALSO THE RULE
IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, APPLYING THE STATUTE OF ILLINOIS AS WELL
AS THE ACT OF CONGRESS IN RESPECT OF DEATH UPON THE HIGH SEAS.  FN19
THESE CASES TAKE THE GROUND THAT "THE DAMAGES AWARDED FOR THE NEGLIGENT
ACT ARE SUCH AS RESULT TO THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS
FOR WHOSE BENEFIT THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS CREATED."  FN20  INDEED, EVEN
AT COMMON LAW, SINCE STATUTES ADOPTED IN THE REIGN OF EDWARD III (4
EDW.  III, C. 7; 25 EDW.  III, STAT. 5, C. 5), WHICH WERE EXTENDED
BEYOND THEIR LETTER BY AN EQUITABLE CONSTRUCTION, AN ADMINISTRATOR
MIGHT RECOVER WHERE THE WRONG WAS AN INJURY TO PROPERTY AND NOT AN
INJURY TO THE PERSON.  FN21  THE GENERAL RULE WAS SAID TO BE THAT
"EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS ARE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TEMPORAL
PROPERTY, THAT IS, THE DEBTS AND GOODS OF THE DECEASED, BUT NOT OF
THEIR WRONGS, EXCEPT WHERE THOSE WRONGS OPERATE TO THE TEMPORAL INJURY
OF THEIR PERSONAL ESTATE."  FN22  WHEN WE REMEMBER THAT UNDER THE DEATH
STATUTES AN INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION IS CREATED IN FAVOR OF THE
BENEFICIARIES FOR THEIR PECUNIARY DAMAGES, THE CONCLUSION IS NOT
DIFFICULT THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION ONCE ACCRUED IS NOT DIVESTED OR
EXTINGUISHED BY THE DEATH OF ONE OR MORE OF THE BENEFICIARIES
THEREAFTER, BUT SURVIVES, LIKE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INJURY TO A
PROPERTY RIGHT OR INTEREST, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ESTATE OF THE
DECEASED BENEFICIARY IS PROVED TO BE IMPAIRED.  TO THAT EXTENT, IF NO
FARTHER, A NEW PROPERTY RIGHT OR INTEREST, OR ONE ANALOGOUS THERETO,
HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO BEING THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTION.  TRUE, THERE
ARE DECISIONS UNDER THE DEATH STATUTES OF SOME STATES THAT TEACH A
DIFFERENT DOCTRINE, REFUSING TO PERMIT A RECOVERY BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
AFTER THE BENEFICIARY HAS DIED,  FN23  THOUGH THE RULING HAS BEEN MADE
AT TIMES WITH SCANT DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM.  INDEED, THE PROBLEM NOW
BEFORE US WAS NOT ALWAYS PRESENTED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT, FOR
AT TIMES THE DEATH OF THE BENEFICIARY FOLLOWED HARD UPON THE DEATH OF
THE PERSON NEGLIGENTLY KILLED OR THE CLAIM WAS NOT URGED THAT THERE HAD
BEEN DAMAGE IN THE INTERVAL.  WE THINK THE CASES FAVORING SURVIVAL
WITHIN THE LIMITS ALREADY INDICATED ARE SUPPORTED BY PREPONDERANT
AUTHORITY AND ALSO BY THE BETTER REASON. 

NOTHING AT WAR WITH THAT CONCLUSION WILL BE FOUND IN OUR OPINION IN
CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY R. CO. V. WELLS-DICKEY TRUST CO., 275 U.S.
161, ON WHICH THE COURT BELOW LEANT HEAVILY IN DECIDING AS IT DID.  THE
SUIT WAS UNDER THE EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT WHICH GIVES A CAUSE OF
ACTION (A) TO THE WIDOW OR CHILDREN; (B) TO THE PARENTS IF NO WIDOW OR
CHILDREN SURVIVE; OR (C) TO DEPENDENT NEXT OF KIN, IF THERE BE NO
SURVIVING WIDOW, CHILD OR PARENT.  A MOTHER SURVIVED THE EMPLOYEE, BUT
DIED BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATOR WAS APPOINTED.  THE HOLDING WAS THAT THE
BENEFICIAL INTEREST DID NOT SHIFT UPON HER DEATH TO MEMBERS OF CLASS
(C).  "THE FAILURE TO BRING THE ACTION IN THE MOTHER'S LIFETIME DID NOT
RESULT IN CREATING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION AFTER HER DEATH FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE SISTER."  275 U.S. AT P. 164.  FN24  THE QUESTION WAS
NOT RAISED WHETHER THE DAMAGES, IF ANY, SUFFERED BY THE MOTHER BETWEEN
THE SON'S DEATH AND HER OWN WOULD HAVE BEEN RECOVERABLE, IF PROVED. 
NOR IS THE CASE AT HAND AFFECTED BY STATUTES, INVOKED BY THE
RESPONDENT, WHICH REGULATE THE CONTINUANCE OF A PROCEEDING IN A COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE EXECUTOR OR
ADMINISTRATOR OF A PARTY DYING WHILE THE SUIT IS PENDING.  28 U.S.C.
SEC. 778.  THE PRESENT CLAIMANT IS NOT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
DECEASED BENEFICIARY, BUT AN ADMINISTRATOR DE BONIS NON WHO HAS
SUCCEEDED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ORIGINAL ADMINISTRATOR.  FN25  THE ORDER
SUBSTITUTING HIM AS A PARTY WAS MADE WITHOUT OBJECTION, AND HE
CONTINUED IN THE SUIT THEREAFTER AS IF HE HAD FILED A CLAIM ANEW. 

DEATH STATUTES HAVE THEIR ROOTS IN DISSATISFACTION WITH THE ARCHAISMS
OF THE LAW WHICH HAVE BEEN TRACED TO THEIR ORIGIN IN THE COURSE OF THIS
OPINION.  IT WOULD BE A MISFORTUNE IF A NARROW OR GRUDGING PROCESS OF
CONSTRUCTION WERE TO EXEMPLIFY AND PERPETUATE THE VERY EVILS TO BE
REMEDIED.  FN26  THERE ARE TIMES WHEN UNCERTAIN WORDS ARE TO BE WROUGHT
INTO CONSISTENCY AND UNITY WITH A LEGISLATIVE POLICY WHICH IS ITSELF A
SOURCE OF LAW, A NEW GENERATIVE IMPULSE TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGAL
SYSTEM.  "THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT THE POLICY OF
THE LAW SHALL BE, AND IF IT HAS INTIMATED ITS WILL, HOWEVER INDIRECTLY,
THAT WILL SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND OBEYED."  FN27  ITS INTIMATION IS
CLEAR ENOUGH IN THE STATUTES NOW BEFORE US THAT THEIR EFFECTS SHALL NOT
BE STIFLED, WITHOUT THE WARRANT OF CLEAR NECESSITY, BY THE PERPETUATION
OF A POLICY WHICH NOW HAS HAD ITS DAY.  FN28 

THE DECREE SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORD WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  TIFFANY, DEATH BY WRONGFUL ACT, SECS. 3, 6-11; POLLOCK, TORTS,
13TH ED., PP. 62-65. 

FN2  BAKER V. BOLTON, 1 CAMP.  493; INSURANCE CO. V. BRAME, 95 U.S.
754, 756; LINDGREN V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 38, 47; CORTES V.
BALTIMORE INSULAR LINE, 287 U.S. 367, 371; POLLOCK, TORTS, SUPRA;
TIFFANY, SUPRA.    FN3  BOWEN AND FRY, L.J.J., FINLAY V. CHIRNEY,
(1888) 20 Q.B.D. 494, 502; POLLOCK, SUPRA; GOUDY, TWO ANCIENT BROCARDS,
IN ESSAYS IN LEGAL HISTORY, ED. BY VINOGRADOFF, P. 215; RADIN, ANGLO
AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY, P. 413. 

FN4  FIFOOT, ENGLISH LAW AND ITS BACKGROUND, PP. 167, 168.  CF.
BUCKLAND, A TEXT-BOOK OF ROMAN LAW, 2ND ED., P. 685; BUCKLAND & MCNAIR,
ROMAN LAW AND COMMON LAW, P. 288; ALLEN, LAW IN THE MAKING, 2ND ED.,
PP. 196-198.    FN5  FIFOOT, SUPRA; GOUDY, SUPRA, P. 218. 

FN6  FIFOOT, SUPRA; GOUDY, SUPRA, P. 218, CITING DIG.  IX, 3, 3; IX,
3, 1, SEC. 5:  "LIBERUM CORPUS NULLAM RECIPIT AESTIMATIONEM." 

FN7  PINCHON'S CASE, 9 REP. 86 B; GOUDY, SUPRA, P. 226; ALLEN,
SUPRA. 

FN8  HOLDSWORTH, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LAW, VOL. 3, PP. 333, 334; VOL.
2, P. 363. 

FN9  ADMIRALTY COMMISSIONERS V. S.S. AMERIKA, (1917) A.C. 38, 43, 47,
60. 

FN10  HOLDSWORTH, SUPRA, VOL. 3, APPENDIX VIII; ALSO VOL. 3, PP. 332
336.  CF. POLLOCK, SUPRA; OSBORN V. GILLETT, L.R. 8 EX. 88, 96, 97;
CAREY V. BERKSHIRE R. CO., 1 CUSH.  475, 477, 478; SHIELDS V. YONGE, 15
GA. 349, 353; HYATT V. ADAMS, 16 MICH. 180, 187, 188; GROSSO V. D.L. &
W.R. CO., 50 N.J.L. 317, 320; 13 ATL. 233. 

FN11  HIGGINS V. BUTCHER, SUPRA; ADMIRALTY COMMISSIONERS V. S.S.
AMERIKA, SUPRA; TIFFANY, SUPRA; HOLDSWORTH, SUPRA, VOL. 3, PP. 332
336. 

FN12  TIFFANY, SUPRA, PP. XVIII TO XLIII; CF. 44 HARV. L. REV. 980. 

FN13  MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. CO. V. VREELAND, 227 U.S. 59, 68; GULF,
COLORADO & SANTA FE RY. CO. V. MCGINNIS, 228 U.S. 173, 175; NORTH
CAROLINA R. CO. V. ZACHARY, 232 U.S. 248, 256-257; CHESAPEAKE & OHIO
RY. CO. V. KELLY, 241 U.S. 485, 489. 

FN14  ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S. RY. CO. V. CRAFT, 237 U.S. 648, 657; GREAT
NORTHERN RY. CO. V. CAPITAL TRUST CO., 242 U.S. 144, 147. 

FN15  ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S. RY. CO. V. CRAFT, SUPRA, P. 658. 

FN16  CF. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. CAPITAL TRUST CO., SUPRA. 

FN17  COOPER V. SHORE ELECTRIC CO., 63 N.J.L. 558; 44 ATL. 633; SIDER
V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., 238 N.Y. 64; 143 N.E. 792. 

FN18  MEEKIN V. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., 164 N.Y. 145; 58 N.E. 50;
SIDER V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA; FITZGERALD V. EDISON ELECTRIC
ILLUMINATING CO., 207 PA. 118, 122; 56 ATL. 350; COOPER V. SHORE
ELECTRIC CO., SUPRA; SHAWNEE V. CHEEK, 41 OKLA. 227, 252; 137 PAC. 724;
FRAZIER V. GEORGIA R.R. & BANKING CO., 101 GA. 77, 78; 28 S.E.
662(SEMBLE); KENTUCKY UTILITIES CO. V. MCCARTY'S ADMR., 169 KY. 38, 46;
183 S.W. 237; NEILL V. WILSON, 146 N.C. 242; 59 S.E. 674; WALDO V.
GOODSELL, 33 CONN. 432; JOHNSTON V. BAY STATE ST. RY. CO., 222 MASS.
583, 584; 111 N.E. 91; DE MARCO V. PEASE, 253 MASS. 499, 508; 149 N.E.
208. 

FN19  UNION STEAMBOAT CO. V. CHAFFIN'S ADMRS., 204 FED. 412, 417; THE
CITY OF ROME, 48 F.(2D) 333, 341, 342. 

FN20  MEEKIN V. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., SUPRA, P. 153. 

FN21  WILLIAMS, EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 7TH AM. ED., VOL. 2,
PP. 4, 5; CHAMBERLAIN V. WILLIAMSON, 2 M. & S. 408, 412; LEGGOTT V.
GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO., (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 599, 606; PULLING V. GREAT
EASTERN RY. CO., (1882) 9 Q.B.D. 110. 

FN22  CHAMBERLAIN V. WILLIAMSON, SUPRA, P. 415; WHITFORD V. PANAMA R.
CO., 23 N.Y. 465, 476. 

FN23  SCHMIDT V. MENASHA WOODENWARE CO., 99 WIS. 300; 74 N.W. 797;
GILKESON V. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO., 222 MO. 173; 121 S.W. 138;
RAILROAD V. BEAN, 94 TENN. 388; 29 S.W. 370; HARVEY V. BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO., 70 MD. 319; 17 ATL. 88; DOYLE V. RAILROAD CO., 81 OHIO ST. 184;
90 N.E. 165; HUBERWALD V. ORLEANS R. CO., 50 LA. ANN. 477; 23 SO. 474;
TAYLOR V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO., 45 CAL. 323; WABASH R. CO. V.
GRETZINGER, 182 IND. 155; 104 N.E. 69(SEMBLE).  CF. SANDERS' ADMX.  V.
LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 111 FED. 708, 709; MCHUGH V. GRAND TRUNK RY.
CO., (1901) 2 ONT.  L. REP. 600. 

AT TIMES STATE DECISIONS HAVE DRAWN A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE DEATH
OF A BENEFICIARY BEFORE AND DURING SUIT.  SEE, E.G., FRAZIER V. GEORGIA
R.R. & BANKING CO., SUPRA.  THE VALIDITY OF THAT DISTINCTION IS
IRRELEVANT TO THE CASE AT HAND.  CF. HOWEVER, CHICAGO, B. & Q.R. CO. V.
WELLS-DICKEY TRUST CO., 275 U.S. 161, 163; READING CO. V. KOONS, 271
U.S. 58. 

FN24  CF. WILCOX V. BIERD, 330 ILL. 571; ROGERS V. FORT WORTH & D.C.
RY. CO., 91 S.W.(2D) 458(TEX.  CIV.  APP.). 

FN25  CF. THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES, 103 U.S. 480, 483. 

FN26  CF. THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, 298 U.S. 110, 123; BEADLE V.
SPENCER, 298 U.S. 124, 128. 

FN27  PER HOLMES, CIRCUIT JUSTICE, IN JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 163
FED. 30, 32.  CF. GOOCH V. OREGON SHORT LINE R. CO., 258 U.S. 22, 24;
SOUTH & CENTRAL AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CO. V. PANAMA R. CO., 237 N.Y.,
287, 291; 142 N.E. 666. 

FN28  THE ARIZONA V. ANELICH, SUPRA; CORTES V. BALTIMORE INSULAR
LINE, SUPRA; WARNER V. GOLTRA, 293 U.S. 155. 
..END :










HELVERING V. MIDLAND INS. CO., 300 U.S. 216 


NO. 257.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1937.  - 83
F.(2D) 629, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AT FORECLOSURE SALE, BID THE
PRINCIPAL OF ITS MORTGAGE LOAN PLUS ACCRUED INTEREST AND TOOK OVER THE
PROPERTY IN SATISFACTION OF THE WHOLE DEBT WITHOUT PAYMENT AND
REPAYMENT OF ANY CASH, HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST WAS TAXABLE
AS INCOME "RECEIVED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR FROM INTEREST," REVENUE ACT
1928, SEC. 202(A), EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY, WHEN SO ACQUIRED, WAS
WORTH LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL.  P. 222. 

THE BID WAS MADE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
APPARENTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING LOSS OF INVESTMENT IN CASE OF
REDEMPTION BY THE MORTGAGOR.  THE PROPERTY WAS CARRIED ON THE COMPANY'S
BOOKS AS AN ASSET, VALUED AT THE PRINCIPAL OF THE LOAN PLUS CERTAIN
EXPENSES.  THE INTEREST WAS NOT ENTERED EITHER AS ASSET OR AS INCOME. 

2.  THE TERM "INTEREST" IN THE ACT, SUPRA, IS USED GENERICALLY.  P.
223. 

3.  A RECEIPT OF INTEREST IS TAXABLE AS INCOME, WHETHER PAID IN CASH
OR BY CREDIT.  ID. 

4.  BOOKKEEPING ENTRIES, THOUGH IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES OF EVIDENTIAL
VALUE, ARE NOT DETERMINATIVE OF TAX LIABILITY.  ID. 

5.  A MORTGAGEE WHO, AT FORECLOSURE SALE, ACQUIRES THE PROPERTY BY
BID OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, ACQUIRES THE SAME RIGHTS QUA PURCHASER
AS THE STRANGER WHO BUYS FOR CASH, AND IN EITHER CASE THE DEBT,
INCLUDING THE INTEREST, IS PAID.  ID. 

6.  WHERE THE LEGAL EFFECT OF A TRANSACTION FITS THE PLAIN LETTER OF
A TAX ACT, THE TRANSACTION IS INCLUDED UNLESS A DEFINITE INTENT TO
EXCLUDE IT IS CLEARLY REVEALED IN THE ACT OR ITS HISTORY.  P. 224. 

7.  TAX LAWS ARE CONSTRUED WITH A VIEW TO THEIR EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION.  P. 225. 

8.  THE TAX IN THIS CASE IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH RIGHTS OF
MORTGAGEES AS DEFINED IN LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK V. RADFORD,
295 U.S. 555.  P. 226. 

HELVERING, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, V. MIDLAND MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 527, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINING AN INCREASED INCOME TAX
ASSESSMENT. 

THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AT THE TIME THE COMPANY
ACQUIRED IT, WAS ONLY $114,500, WHICH WAS ABOUT $9,000 LESS THAN THE
PRINCIPAL DEBT, EXCLUSIVE OF ALL INTEREST.  THIS EXPRESS FINDING OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, IN EXACT ACCORD WITH THE UNCONTRADICTED
TESTIMONY, WAS AN EXPRESS FINDING "UPON THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF FACT
UPON WHICH THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES DEPEND," BOTANY MILLS V. UNITED
STATES, 278 U.S. 282, 290, WHICH IS NOT OPEN TO REVIEW HERE.  BOTANY
MILLS V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA; PHILLIPS V. COMMISSIONER, 283 U.S. 589,
600; BURNET V. LEININGER, 285 U.S. 136, 138-9. 

THE COMPANY DID NOT "RECEIVE," IN CASH OR IN PROPERTY, THE ACCRUED
INTEREST OR ANY PART THEREOF AND, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT WAS NOT "GROSS
INCOME" UNDER SEC. 202, REVENUE ACT OF 1928. 

INDEED, THE COMPANY ACTUALLY LOST NEARLY $9,000 OF ITS PRINCIPAL AND
ITS ENTIRE $15,538.60 ACCRUED INTEREST - AN ACTUAL $24,462.17 TOTAL
MONEY LOSS ON ITS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT. 

THE COMPANY DID NOT CAPITALIZE ANY PART OF THE DELINQUENT INTEREST;
DID NOT TREAT IT AS INCOME IN ANY WAY; DID NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
CARRY IT AS ANY PART OF THE COST OF THE PROPERTIES OR AS AN ASSET; AND
DID NOT INCLUDE SUCH INTEREST AS AN ASSET, OR OTHERWISE, IN ITS ANNUAL
STATEMENT OR IN ITS REPORTS TO THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT. 

A "BID" PRICE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO "FAIR VALUE."  BALLENTYNE V.
SMITH, 205 U.S. 285.  THE BIDS OF A MORTGAGEE AND A THIRD PARTY OCCUPY
ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT RELATIONS TO THE PROPERTY'S "FAIR VALUE."  THE
TWO SITUATIONS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.  LOUISVILLE BANK V. RADFORD, 295
U.S. 555, 594. 

THE WHOLE POINT OF THE RADFORD CASE, SUPRA, WAS THAT NO MATTER WHAT
THE FAIR OR MARKET VALUE WAS, THE MORTGAGEE HAD THE RIGHT TO FULL CASH
PAYMENT, WITH INTEREST, OR TO TAKE THE PROPERTY ITSELF. 

SO HERE.  THE COMPANY WAS UNABLE TO COLLECT ITS DEBT WITH INTEREST IN
CASH.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT TOOK THE PROPERTY; BUT THE ACT OF TAKING DID
NOT ESTABLISH - CERTAINLY DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH - WHAT ITS
"FAIR VALUE" WAS. 

WHEN A MORTGAGEE "BUYS IN" PROPERTY, HE DOES NOT PAY IN CASH AS A
STRANGER DOES; NEITHER DOES HE PAY HIS BID WITH ANYTHING THAT IS WORTH
IN CASH EVEN THE AMOUNT OF THE BID - HE SIMPLY GETS THE THING PLEDGED,
THROUGH A JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE, INSTEAD OF BY A STRICT
FORECLOSURE. 

IF, IN ORDER TO AVOID FORECLOSURE EXPENSES, ETC., THE MORTGAGOR
VOLUNTARILY CONVEYS THE PROPERTY TO THE MORTGAGEE IN FULL SATISFACTION
OF THE DEBT AND INTEREST, AND THE PROPERTY IS WORTH LESS THAN THE DEBT,
THE COMMISSIONER NOW CONCEDES THAT NO INCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED, AND
THAT THE MORTGAGEE HAS NOT "RECEIVED" ANY INTEREST.  HELVERING V.
MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO., 78 F.(2D) 778, 780, REVERSING THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS' DECISION (29 B.T.A. 408) IN FAVOR OF THE COMMISSIONER
ON THAT POINT.  CF. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO., 33 B.T.A. 334; AMERICAN
CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO., 30 B.T.A. 1190(A). 

GAIN OR PROFIT IS THE ESSENTIAL IDEA OF "INCOME"; AND IN DETERMINING
WHAT CONSTITUTES "INCOME," SUBSTANCE AND FACT RATHER THAN FORM ARE TO
BE GIVEN CONTROLLING WEIGHT. 

THE STABILITY OF LIFE INSURANCE IS BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
COMPANY WILL EARN COMPOUND INTEREST AT THE RATE ASSUMED IN THE
CALCULATION OF THE PREMIUM. 

THE COMMISSIONER'S THEORY THAT A LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY "RECEIVES"
INTEREST, WHEN, IN POINT OF FACT, IT CANNOT COLLECT THE INTEREST FROM
THE MORTGAGORS AND HAS TO TAKE OVER REAL ESTATE OF A "FAIR MARKET
VALUE" GREATLY LESS THAN EVEN THE PRINCIPAL OF THE DEBT (THEREBY LOSING
ALL OF ITS INTEREST), IS OBVIOUSLY UNTENABLE, BECAUSE THE COMPANY COULD
NOT PAY ITS POLICY CLAIMS WITH SUCH NON-EXISTENT PURELY THEORETICAL
INTEREST. 

DISTINGUISHING:  MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 78
F.(2D) 778; AND NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 4 F.SUPP. 
1000. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

SINCE 1921, THE REVENUE ACTS HAVE MADE THIS PROVISION FOR TAXING THE
INCOME OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.  FN1  THE GROSS INCOME IS LIMITED
TO THAT "RECEIVED DURING THE TAXABLE YEAR FROM INTEREST, DIVIDENDS, AND
RENTS."  UPON THE NET INCOME, ASCERTAINED BY MAKING PRESCRIBED
DEDUCTIONS, THE TAX UNDER THE ACT HERE APPLICABLE IS 12 PER CENT.  FN2
THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACTS CONCERNING CAPITAL "GAINS
AND LOSSES" AND "BAD DEBTS" ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANIES.  FN3 

IN 1930, THE MIDLAND MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO CAUSED TO
BE FORECLOSED SEVERAL MORTGAGES ON REAL ESTATE GIVEN TO SECURE LOANS
WHICH WERE IN DEFAULT.  IT WAS THE ONLY BIDDER; ITS BID WAS ACCEPTED;
THE PROPERTY WAS CONVEYED TO IT; AND IN NO CASE WAS THERE REDEMPTION. 
AT EACH FORECLOSURE SALE THE COMPANY HAD BID AN AMOUNT WHICH INCLUDED
INTEREST AS WELL AS THE PRINCIPAL.  THE INTEREST SO BID, AGGREGATING ON
THE FORECLOSED MORTGAGES $5,456.99, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S
INCOME TAX RETURN.  THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE DECIDED THAT
THIS INTEREST WAS TAXABLE AND, ACCORDINGLY, DETERMINED A DEFICIENCY IN
THE COMPANY'S INCOME TAX FOR 1930.  HIS DETERMINATION WAS APPROVED BY
THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD, 83 F.(2D) 629.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI BECAUSE OF
CONFLICT WITH HELVERING V. MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO., 78 F.(2D) 778,
AND NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 4 F.SUPP.  1000. 

THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL FACTS STIPULATED WERE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
OF TAX APPEALS AS ITS FINDINGS:  THE COMPANY KEPT ITS BOOKS ON A
"CALENDAR YEAR" "CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS" BASIS, ENTERING ONLY
PAYMENTS OF INTEREST ACTUALLY MADE TO IT DURING THE YEAR.  UPON ITS
ACQUIRING TITLE TO THE FORECLOSED PROPERTIES, THE INVESTMENTS WERE
TRANSFERRED ON ITS BOOKS FROM THE MORTGAGE LOAN ACCOUNT TO THE REAL
ESTATE ACCOUNT AND WERE CARRIED THEREON AS ASSETS AT AMOUNTS WHICH WERE
EQUAL TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE LOANS SECURED BY THE MORTGAGES PLUS ANY
DISBURSEMENTS MADE FOR TAXES, COURT COSTS, ATTORNEYS FEES OR INSURANCE
PREMIUMS.  THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCLUDED IN THE BIDS ON FORECLOSURE
WAS NOT CARRIED ON THE BOOKS AS PART OF THE COST OF THE PROPERTIES OR
AS AN ASSET.  NOR WAS IT ENTERED ON THE BOOKS OR LIKEWISE TREATED AS
INCOME.  ALL OF THE PROPERTIES HERE INVOLVED WERE LOCATED IN STATES
WHERE A PERIOD OF REDEMPTION FROM FORECLOSURE IS ALLOWED.  THE COMPANY
ISSUED TO ITS REPRESENTATIVES HAVING CHARGE OF FORECLOSURES IN THOSE
STATES GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO BID ON ITS BEHALF SUCH SUMS AS WOULD
ENABLE THE COMPANY TO REALIZE NO LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF ITS INVESTMENT IN
CASE OF REDEMPTION.  THE BIDS HERE INVOLVED WERE MADE PURSUANT TO THOSE
INSTRUCTIONS, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE THEN ACTUAL VALUE OF THE MORTGAGE
PROPERTY.  FN4 

THE COMPANY INTRODUCED EVIDENCE THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
PROPERTIES WAS, AT THE DATES OF FORECLOSURE AND OF ACQUIRING TITLE,
LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL DUE ON THE MORTGAGES.  THIS
EVIDENCE WAS DEEMED BY THE BOARD IMMATERIAL; AND IT ACCORDINGLY MADE NO
FINDING AS TO FAIR MARKET VALUE.  FN5 

FIRST.  THE COMPANY CONTENDS THAT IT DID NOT "RECEIVE" THE
$5,456.99(OR ANY PART THEREOF) EITHER IN CASH OR IN PROPERTY; AND,
HENCE, THAT IT WAS NOT "GROSS INCOME."  CONFESSEDLY NO INTEREST WAS
RECEIVED IN CASH.  THE COMPANY INSISTS THAT NONE WAS RECEIVED IN
PROPERTY.  IT ARGUES THAT ITS BID MAY NOT BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, INVOKING BALLENTYNE V. SMITH,
205 U.S. 285; THAT THE BOARD'S REFUSAL TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AS TO
VALUE REQUIRES US TO HOLD THAT THE REAL ESTATE ACQUIRED ON FORECLOSURE
WAS OF A FAIR VALUE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE
MORTGAGE DEBT; THAT THE PROCEEDS OF A MORTGAGE SALE MUST BE APPLIED
FIRST TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PRINCIPAL BEFORE INCOME MAY BE HELD
RECEIVED, CITING DOYLE V. MITCHELL BROS. CO., 247 U.S. 179, 185; AND
THAT SINCE THE VALUE DID NOT EQUAL THE PRINCIPAL, THERE WERE NO
PROCEEDS OF THE SALES APPLICABLE TO THE INTEREST, HENCE, NO TAXABLE
INCOME.  IN SUPPORT OF THIS ARGUMENT, THE COMPANY POINTS TO THE FACT
THAT IT DID NOT, ON ITS BOOKS, TREAT THE DELINQUENT INTEREST AS INCOME;
DID NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, CARRY THE INTEREST AS PART OF THE COST
OF THE PROPERTIES OR AS AN ASSET; AND DID NOT INCLUDE THE INTEREST AS
AN ASSET IN ITS ANNUAL STATEMENT OR IN ITS REPORTS TO INSURANCE
DEPARTMENTS. 

THE ARGUMENTS REST UPON A MISCONCEPTION.  THE TERMS "INTEREST,"
"DIVIDENDS," AND "RENTS," EMPLOYED IN THE STATUTE SIMPLY AND WITHOUT
QUALIFICATION OR ELABORATION, WERE PLAINLY USED BY CONGRESS IN THEIR
GENERIC MEANINGS, AS BROADLY DESCRIPTIVE OF CERTAIN KINDS OF "INCOME." 
COMPARE LYNCH V. HORNBY, 247 U.S. 339, 344; HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS
ENSKILDA BANK, 293 U.S. 84, 86.  WE CANNOT SAY THAT CONGRESS DID NOT
INTEND TO INCLUDE IN ITS DEFINITION A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT MERELY
BECAUSE THE TAXPAYER RECEIVED A CREDIT RATHER THAN MONEY OR OTHER
TANGIBLE PROPERTY.  COMPARE RAYBESTOS-MANHATTAN, INC. V. UNITED STATES,
296 U.S. 60, 62, 64.  A RECEIPT OF INTEREST IS TAXABLE AS INCOME
WHETHER PAID IN CASH OR BY A CREDIT.  COMPARE OLD COLONY TRUST CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716; UNITED STATES V. BOSTON & MAINE R.R., ID.,
732.  THIS CREDIT, IT IS TRUE, WAS NOT ENTERED ON THE TAXPAYER'S BOOKS
AS INTEREST OR AS AN ASSET.  BUT BOOK-KEEPING ENTRIES, THOUGH IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EVIDENTIAL VALUE, ARE NOT DETERMINATIVE OF TAX
LIABILITY.  COMPARE DOYLE V. MITCHELL BROS. CO., 247 U.S. 179, 187. 
THE INTENT TO USE THE FULL EXTENT OF POWER BEING CLEARLY EVIDENT, WE
MUST NOT CONFINE THE LEGISLATION WITHIN NARROWER FORMS THAN THE
STATUTORY LANGUAGE WOULD INDICATE.  COMPARE IRWIN V. GAVIT, 268 U.S.
161, 166; HELVERING V. STOCKHOLMS ENSKILDA BANK, SUPRA, 89. 

SECOND.  THE COMPANY ARGUES THAT UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE SHOWS THE
FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTIES TO HAVE BEEN LESS THAN
THE PRINCIPAL OF THE DEBTS AND THAT THEREFORE THE INTEREST PAID WAS NOT
INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.  A MORTGAGEE WHO, AT FORECLOSURE
SALE, ACQUIRES THE PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A BID OF THE PRINCIPAL AND
ACCRUED INTEREST IS, AS PURCHASER AND GRANTEE, IN A POSITION NO
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A STRANGER WHO ACQUIRES THE PROPERTY ON A BID OF
LIKE AMOUNT.  IT IS TRUE THAT THE LATTER WOULD BE OBLIGED TO PAY IN
CASH THE AMOUNT OF HIS BID, WHILE THE FORMALITY OF PAYMENT IN CASH IS
ORDINARILY DISPENSED WITH WHEN THE MORTGAGEE ACQUIRES THE PROPERTY ON
HIS OWN BID.  BUT THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED QUA PURCHASER ARE THE SAME IN
EITHER CASE; AND, LIKEWISE, THE LEGAL EFFECT UPON THE MORTGAGE DEBT IS
THE SAME.  IN EACH CASE THE DEBT, INCLUDING THE INTEREST ACCRUED, IS
PAID.  WHERE THE STRANGER MAKES THE PURCHASE, THE DEBT IS DISCHARGED BY
A PAYMENT IN CASH; WHERE THE MORTGAGEE PURCHASES THE PROPERTY, THE DEBT
IS DISCHARGED BY MEANS OF A CREDIT.  THE AMOUNT SO CREDITED TO THE
MORTGAGOR AS INTEREST PAID WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO HIM AS A DEDUCTION IN
MAKING HIS OWN INCOME TAX RETURNS.  FN6  IT WOULD BE STRANGE IF THE SUM
DEDUCTIBLE BY THE MORTGAGOR DEBTOR WERE NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE MORTGAGE
CREDITOR AS INCOME RECEIVED.  WHERE THE LEGAL EFFECT OF A TRANSACTION
FITS THE PLAIN LETTER OF THE STATUTE, THE TAX IS HELD PAYABLE, UNLESS
THERE IS CLEARLY REVEALED IN THE ACT ITSELF OR IN ITS HISTORY A
DEFINITE INTENTION TO EXCLUDE SUCH TRANSACTIONS FROM THE OPERATION OF
ITS APPLICABLE LANGUAGE.  SEE CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK V. UNITED STATES,
137 U.S. 355, 364; FN7  TREAT V. WHITE, 181 U.S. 264, 268; PROVOST V.
UNITED STATES, 269 U.S. 443, 456, 457, 458; OLD COLONY R. CO. V.
COMMISSIONER, 284 U.S. 552, 560, 561.  RESPONDENT HERE MAKES NO SUCH
SHOWING. 

THIRD.  THE COMPANY ARGUES THAT TAXATION IS A PRACTICAL MATTER; THAT
WE SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY REALITIES; THAT THE REALITY IS, THAT ALL THE
COMPANY GOT WAS THE PROPERTY; AND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS WORTH LESS THAN
THE PRINCIPAL OF THE DEBT.  THE "REALITY" OF THE DEAL HERE INVOLVED
WOULD SEEM TO BE THAT RESPONDENT VALUED THE PROTECTION OF THE HIGHER
REDEMPTION PRICE AS WORTH THE DISCHARGE OF THE INTEREST DEBT FOR WHICH
IT MIGHT HAVE OBTAINED A JUDGMENT.  MOREOVER, THE COMPANY'S ARGUMENT
IGNORES THE NEEDS OF AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF TAXATION.  THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INCOME TAX LAW WOULD BE SERIOUSLY BURDENED IF IT
WERE HELD THAT WHEN A MORTGAGEE BIDS IN THE PROPERTY FOR A SUM
INCLUDING UNPAID INTEREST, HE MAY NOT BE TAXED ON THE INTEREST RECEIVED
EXCEPT UPON AN INQUIRY INTO THE PROBABLE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY."  FN8  AT BEST, EVIDENCE OF VALUE IS LARGELY A MATTER OF
OPINION, ESPECIALLY AS TO REAL ESTATE."  MONTANA RAILWAY CO. V. WARREN,
137 U.S. 348, 353.  THERE IS NOTHING UNFAMILIAR IN TAXING ON THE BASIS
OF THE LEGAL EFFECT OF A TRANSACTION.  INCOME MAY BE REALIZED UPON A
CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF LEGAL RIGHTS HELD, THOUGH THE PARTICULAR
TAXPAYER HAS ENJOYED NO ADDITION TO HIS ECONOMIC WORTH.  COMPARE LYNCH
V. HORNBY, 247 U.S. 339, 344, 346; UNITED STATES V. PHELLIS, 257 U.S.
156, 170, 171; MARR V. UNITED STATES, 268 U.S. 536, 540; BURNET V.
COMMONWEALTH IMPROVEMENT CO., 287 U.S. 415, 419, 420.  "THE INCOME TAX
LAWS DO NOT PROFESS TO EMBODY PERFECT ECONOMIC THEORY.  THEY IGNORE
SOME THINGS THAT EITHER A THEORIST OR A BUSINESS MAN WOULD TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING THE PECUNIARY CONDITION OF THE TAXPAYER."  WEISS
V. WIENER, 279 U.S. 333, 335.  COMPARE NICOL V. AMES, 173 U.S. 509,
516; TYLER V. UNITED STATES, 281 U.S. 497, 503.  FN9    FOURTH.  THE
COMPANY CONTENDS THAT TO TAX THE MORTGAGEE AS UPON INTEREST RECEIVED IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE RULE DECLARED IN LOUISVILLE JOINT STOCK LAND BANK
V. RADFORD, 295 U.S. 555, 594, THAT THE MORTGAGEE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE
"THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY DEVOTED PRIMARILY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
DEBT, EITHER THROUGH RECEIPT OF THE PROCEEDS OF A FAIR COMPETITIVE SALE
OR BY TAKING THE PROPERTY ITSELF."  THE CHARGE OF INCONSISTENCY IS
UNFOUNDED.  THE COMPANY EXERCISED ITS RIGHT TO HAVE A SALE.  AT THE
SALE, IT WAS FREE EITHER TO BID OR TO REFRAIN FROM BIDDING.  IF IT BID,
IT WAS FREE TO BID SUCH SUM AS IT PLEASED.  IT CHOSE TO BID THE FULL
AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST.  THUS IT OBTAINED, IN LEGAL
CONTEMPLATION, FULL PAYMENT OF THE INTEREST AS WELL AS THE PRINCIPAL. 
TO TAX THE COMPANY UPON THE FULL AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED AS A
RESULT OF ITS OWN BID IN NO WAY IMPAIRS ITS RIGHTS AS MORTGAGEE. 
COMPARE TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 286 U.S. 285, 289. 
IF THE BID HAD BEEN INSUFFICIENT TO YIELD FULL PAYMENT OF THE MORTGAGE
DEBT, PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, THE COMPANY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO A
JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFICIENCY.  IF THE COMPANY HAD REFRAINED FROM
BIDDING, AND A STRANGER HAD BID MORE THAN THE PRINCIPAL, THE COMPANY
WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN TAXABLE UPON THE EXCESS UP TO THE AMOUNT OF
THE INTEREST DUE.  PERHAPS IT WAS THE COMPANY'S CUSTOM OF BIDDING THE
FULL AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST WHICH DETERRED BIDDING BY
OTHERS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEE NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 508,
522. 

FN2  REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SEC. 201(B)(1), 45 STAT. 791, 842. 

FN3  COMPARE SECS. 244(A), 245(A), OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1921, 42
STAT. 227, 261; 1924, 43 STAT. 253, 289; 1926, 44 STAT. 9, 47; SECS.
202(A), 203(A), OF THE REVENUE ACTS OF 1928, 45 STAT. 791, 842; 1932,
47 STAT. 169, 224; 1934, 48 STAT. 680, 731, 732; 1936, 49 STAT. 1648,
1710.  SEE HELVERING V. INDEPENDENT LIFE INSURANCE CO., 292 U.S. 371,
377, 379; U.S. TREAS. REG. 74, ART. 951. 

FN4  A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES WERE LOCATED IN MICHIGAN.  BY
MICHIGAN LAW, IT IS SAID, THE MORTGAGOR IS ALLOWED ONE YEAR FROM THE
DATE OF THE FORECLOSURE SALE WITHIN WHICH HE MAY REDEEM THE PROPERTY BY
PAYING TO THE PURCHASER THE AMOUNT BID FOR THE PROPERTY PLUS INTEREST
FROM THE TIME OF THE SALE AT THE RATE BORNE BY THE MORTGAGE, EVEN
THOUGH THE AMOUNT OF SUCH BID BE LESS THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE
MORTGAGEE'S INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY.  SEE COMP. LAWS 1929, C. 266,
SECS. 14435, 14436; COMPARE VOSBURGH V. LAY, 45 MICH. 455; 8 N.W. 91. 
THE PURCHASER CANNOT, UNDER THE LOCAL LAW, ACQUIRE TITLE UNTIL AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD.  SEE COMP. LAWS 1929, C. 266,
SEC. 14434.  THE MORTGAGEE MAY, "FAIRLY AND IN GOOD FAITH," BID THE
PROPERTY IN, (ID., SEC. 14432), AND HE ENJOYS THE SAME RIGHTS AS
PURCHASER AS WOULD A THIRD PARTY.  SEE LEDYARD V. PHILLIPS, 47 MICH.
305, 308; 11 N.W. 170. 

FN5  THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH REVERSED THE DECISION
OF THE BOARD, REMANDED THE CAUSE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  WE ARE TOLD
BY COUNSEL FOR THE COMPANY THAT THEREAFTER THE BOARD FOUND, ON THE
EVIDENCE ABOVE REFERRED TO, THAT THE VALUES OF THE SEVERAL PROPERTIES
WERE LESS THAN THE PRINCIPAL OF THE LOANS.  THIS FINDING, MADE AFTER
THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THOUGH APPARENTLY BEFORE ITS
ALLOWANCE, WAS NOT MADE PART OF THE RECORD.  IT IS, THEREFORE,
DISREGARDED. 

FN6  SEE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, SEC. 23(B), 45 STAT. 791, 799. 

FN7  SEE ALSO KENTUCKY IMPROVEMENT CO. V. SLACK, 100 U.S. 648, 658,
659; BAILEY V. RAILROAD CO., 106 U.S. 109, 115, 116; COMPARE CARY V.
SAVINGS UNION, 22 WALL.  38, 41. 

FN8  COMPARE BELL'S GAP R. CO. V. PENNSYLVANIA, 134 U.S. 232, 236;
HATCH V. REARDON, 204 U.S. 152, 159; PADDELL V. NEW YORK, 211 U.S. 446,
449, 450; NEW YORK V. LATROBE, 279 U.S. 421, 427. 

FN9  TAXABILITY HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN DETERMINED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO
FACTORS WHICH THE ACCOUNTANT, ECONOMIST OR BUSINESS MAN MIGHT DEEM
RELEVANT TO THE COMPUTATION OF NET GAIN.  COMPARE BRUSHABER V. UNION
PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1; TYEE REALTY CO. V. ANDERSON, 240 U.S. 115;
WEISS V. WIENER, 279 U.S. 333; HELVERING V. INDEPENDENT LIFE INSURANCE
CO., 292 U.S. 371.  THE EXIGENCIES OF A TAX DETERMINED ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS MAY LEAD TO THE INCLUSION AS INCOME OF ITEMS WHICH MIGHT BE SHOWN
TO INVOLVE NO GAIN IF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE VIEWED AS A WHOLE OVER
SEVERAL YEARS.  COMPARE BURNET V. SANFORD & BROOKS CO., 282 U.S. 359,
364, 365; BROWN V. HELVERING, 291 U.S. 193, 199; SPRING CITY FOUNDRY
CO. V. COMMISSIONER, 292 U.S. 182, 189, 190. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS, DISSENTING. 

THE JUDGMENT BELOW, I THINK, IS CORRECT AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  A
WELL-CONSIDERED OPINION SUPPORTS IT. 

THE NOTION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO TAX THE MERE HOPE OF RECOUPING A
LOSS SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE SHOULD BE DEFINITELY REJECTED. 

TO SUPPORT THE ASSERTION THAT HERE THE COMPANY COLLECTED INTEREST,
WHEN IN FACT EVERYTHING RECEIVED WAS WORTH LESS THAN THE SUM LOANED,
REQUIRES RESORT TO THEORY AT WAR WITH PATENT FACTS.  THE COMPANY GOT
NOTHING OUT OF WHICH TO PAY THE EXACTMENT; ITS ASSETS WERE NOT
AUGMENTED.  LIKE IMAGINARY "RECEIPTS" OF INTEREST OFTEN REPEATED AND
SIMILARLY BURDENED WOULD HASTEN BANKRUPTCY. 

DIVORCED FROM REALITY TAXATION BECOMES SHEER OPPRESSION. 
..END :






TABER V. INDIAN TERRITORY CO., 300 U.S. 1 


NO. 280.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 177
OKLA. 67 - 57 P.(2D) 1167, REVERSED. 


A NON-DISCRIMINATORY STATE TAX, AD VALOREM, ON EQUIPMENT USED BY A
PRIVATE CORPORATION IN OPERATING FOR OIL AND GAS UNDER A LEASE TO IT OF
RESTRICTED INDIAN ALLOTMENTS, HELD VALID, AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT IT WAS
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL BURDEN ON A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY.  P. 3. 

TABER, TREASURER OF PAYNE COUNTY, V. INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL
CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 528, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT
AGAINST TABER, COUNTY TREASURER, IN AN ACTION BY THE OIL COMPANY TO
RECOVER MONEY PAID UNDER PROTEST AS TAXES. 

THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED IMMUNITY OF A FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITY FROM STATE TAXATION SHOULD HAVE REGARD TO THE
CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED.  WHILE IN ONE ASPECT THE EXTENT OF THE
EXEMPTION DEPENDS UPON THE EFFECT OF THE TAX, STILL THE NATURE OF THE
INSTRUMENTALITY AND THE PART IT PLAYS MAY NOT BE DISREGARDED, FOR IT
MAY BE OF SUCH A CHARACTER THAT ANY TAXATION OF IT WOULD IMPOSE A
DIRECT BURDEN UPON THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  METCALF V. MITCHELL,
269 U.S. 514; UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V. PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5; SAFE
DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. V. VIRGINIA, 280 U.S. 83; WRIGHT V. NAGLE, 101 U.S.
791. 

AN AGENCY CREATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ENABLE
IT TO DEVELOP RESTRICTED INDIAN LAND FOR OIL AND GAS IS OF SUCH A
CHARACTER, AND SO INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT, THAT IT IS IMMUNE FROM STATE TAXATION AND THE
IMMUNITY EXTENDS TO THE PROPERTY USED IN ITS OPERATIONS.  METCALF V.
MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501; CHOCTAW,
O. & G.R. CO. V. HARRISON, 235 U.S. 292; JAYBIRD MINING CO. V. WEIR,
271 U.S. 609; INDIAN TERRITORY OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 240 U.S. 522; LARGE
OIL CO. V. HOWARD, 248 U.S. 549; HOWARD V. GYPSY OIL CO., 247 U.S.
503. 

THE AD VALOREM TAX SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED BY THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA UPON
THE EQUIPMENT USED BY RESPONDENT IN ITS OPERATIONS WOULD IMPOSE A
DIRECT BURDEN UPON THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.  METCALF V. MITCHELL,
269 U.S. 514; BURNET V. JERGENS TRUST, 288 U.S. 508; LARGE OIL CO. V.
HOWARD, 248 U.S. 549; HOWARD V. GYPSY OIL CO., 247 U.S. 503. 

THE IMMUNITY OF A FEDERAL INSTRUMENTALITY FROM STATE TAXATION IS NOT
DEPENDENT ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX, OR THE EXTENT OF THE RESULTING
INTERFERENCE, BUT IS ABSOLUTE.  FOX FILM CORP. V. DOYAL, 286 U.S. 123;
INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 283 U.S. 570; TRINITYFARM
CONSTRUCTION CO. V. GROSJEAN, 291 U.S. 466; METCALF V. MITCHELL, 269
U.S. 514; GILLESPIE V. OKLAHOMA, 257 U.S. 501. 

DISTINGUISHING:  FEDERAL COMPRESS CO. V. MCLEAN, 291 U.S. 17;
SUSQUEHANNA POWER CO. V. STATE TAX COMM'N, 283 U.S. 291; ALWARD V.
JOHNSON, 282 U.S. 509; THOMAS V. GAY, 169 U.S. 264; WAGONER V. EVANS,
170 U.S. 588; BALTIMORE SHIPBUILDING CO. V. BALTIMORE, 195 U.S. 375;
CHOCTAW, O. & G.R. CO. V. MCKEY, 256 U.S. 531; INDIAN TERRITORY OIL CO.
V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 288 U.S. 325; UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V.
PENISTON, 18 WALL.  5; METCALF V. MITCHELL, 269 U.S. 514. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RESPONDENT, INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL COMPANY, HOLDS AN
OIL AND GAS LEASE COVERING LANDS OF RESTRICTED PAWNEE INDIANS.  THE
QUESTION RELATES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA TO TAX CERTAIN PROPERTY USED BY THE RESPONDENT IN ITS
OPERATIONS AS LESSEE.  THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA HELD THAT THE
PROPERTY WAS NOT TAXABLE BECAUSE THE LESSEE WAS A FEDERAL
INSTRUMENTALITY AND CONGRESS HAD NOT CONSENTED TO ITS TAXATION.  177
OKLA. 67; 57 P.(2D) 1167.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI.  OCTOBER 12, 1936. 

THE PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS "ONE DWELLING, PORTABLE, ONE GARAGE, ONE
TOOL HOUSE, ENGINES, PUMP, WATER WELL EQUIPMENT, TANKS, DERRICKS,
CASING, TUBING, RODS, PIPELINES, AND ONE TRAILER TRUCK, OF THE
AGGREGATE VALUE OF $15,869.23."  THE TAX IS AN AD VALOREM TAX FOR THE
YEAR 1933-34.  THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OR FINDING THAT THE TAX WAS
DISCRIMINATORY, THE SOLE CONTENTION BEING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT
SUBJECT TO AD VALOREM TAXATION BECAUSE OF ITS USE AS AN ADJUNCT TO THE
PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS FROM THE LEASEHOLD. 

OUR DECISIONS DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A NON-DISCRIMINATORY TAX UPON THE
PROPERTY OF AN AGENT OF GOVERNMENT AND ONE WHICH IMPOSES A DIRECT
BURDEN UPON THE EXERTION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS.  IN THE FORMER CASE
WHERE THERE IS ONLY A REMOTE, IF ANY, INFLUENCE UPON THE EXERCISE OF
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS, WE HAVE HELD THAT A NON-DISCRIMINATORY AD
VALOREM TAX IS VALID, ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY IS USED IN THE OPERATIONS
OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.  THIS DISTINCTION, RECOGNIZED BY CHIEF
JUSTICE MARSHALL IN MCCULLOCH V. MARYLAND, 4 WHEAT.  316, 436, WAS
STATED AND APPLIED AFTER FULL CONSIDERATION IN THOMSON V. PACIFIC
RAILROAD, 9 WALL.  579, 591, AND RAILROAD COMPANY V. PENISTON, 18
WALL.  5, 31-36.  RECENT ILLUSTRATIONS ARE FOUND IN ALWARD V. JOHNSON,
282 U.S. 509, 514, WHERE THE TAX WHICH WAS SUSTAINED WAS LAID UPON
PROPERTY USED IN OPERATING AN AUTOMOTIVE STAGE LINE BETWEEN POINTS IN
CALIFORNIA UNDER A MAIL CARRIER'S CONTRACT; AND IN TIRRELL V. JOHNSTON,
293 U.S. 533, WHERE A TAX KNOWN AS THE "GASOLINE ROAD TOLL" WAS HELD TO
BE PAYABLE BY A RURAL MAIL CARRIER WHO DELIVERED THE MAIL BY MEANS OF
HIS OWN MOTOR VEHICLE.  SEE, ALSO, THOMAS V. GAY, 169 U.S. 264, 273;
BALTIMORE SHIPBUILDING CO. V. BALTIMORE, 195 U.S. 375, 382; CHOCTAW, O.
& G.R. CO. V. MACKEY, 256 U.S. 531, 536, 537; WILLCUTS V. BUNN, 282
U.S. 216, 226; SUSQUEHANNA POWER CO. V. TAX COMMISSION (NO. 1), 283
U.S. 291, 294; EASTERN AIR TRANSPORT V. TAX COMMISSION, 285 U.S. 147,
153. 

IN INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
288 U.S. 325, AN AD VALOREM TAX UPON CRUDE OIL, HELD BY THE COMPANY IN
ITS STORAGE TANKS, WAS SUSTAINED AGAINST THE CLAIM THAT THE OIL WAS
EXEMPT BECAUSE IN ITS PRODUCTION THE TAXPAYER WAS OPERATING AS AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE UNITED STATES.  THERE THE TAXPAYER RELIED, AS
DOES THE STATE COURT HERE, UPON THE RULING IN JAYBIRD MINING CO. V.
WEIR, 271 U.S. 609, WHERE AN AD VALOREM TAX UPON ORES MINED UNDER A
LEASE OF RESTRICTED INDIAN LAND AND IN THE BINS ON THAT LAND WAS HELD
TO BE INVALID.  BUT WE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE JAYBIRD CASE THE TAX
"WAS ASSESSED ON THE ORES IN MASS; AND THE ROYALTIES AND EQUITABLE
INTERESTS OF THE INDIANS HAD NOT BEEN PAID OR SEGREGATED."  INDIAN
TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL CO. V. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, SUPRA, P.
327.  IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TAX WAS REGARDED AS AN ATTEMPT TO TAX
AN AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  EMPHASIZING THAT DISTINCTION, WE
SAID IN REFERENCE TO THE INDIAN TERRITORY ILLUMINATING OIL COMPANY:
"SUCH IMMUNITY AS PETITIONER ENJOYED AS A GOVERNMENTAL INSTRUMENTALITY
INHERED IN ITS OPERATIONS AS SUCH, AND BEING FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT IN ITS FUNCTION EXTENDED NO FARTHER THAN WAS NECESSARY FOR
THAT PURPOSE."  ID., P. 328. 

IN THAT VIEW, THE IMMUNITY CANNOT BE SAID TO EXTEND TO A
NONDISCRIMINATORY AD VALOREM TAX UPON THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER
WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE.  THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND
THE CAUSE IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :









BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER, 300 U.S. 5 


NO. 247.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 83
F.(2D) 655, 662, REVERSED. 


1.  A JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING A BENEFICIARY
NAMED IN A TRUST TAXABLE UPON TRUST INCOME NOTWITHSTANDING ASSIGNMENTS
PREVIOUSLY MADE BY HIM, AND BASING THIS CONCLUSION UPON THE GROUND
THAT, UNDER THE LOCAL LAW, THE TRUST WAS A SPENDTHRIFT TRUST GIVING THE
BENEFICIARY NO POWER TO ASSIGN,  - HELD INAPPLICABLE AS RES JUDICATA IN
FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT IN PROCEEDINGS TO COLLECT TAXES FROM THE SAME
PERSON, FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE SITUATION HAVING BEEN CHANGED
MEANWHILE BY A DECISION OF THE STATE COURT CONSTRUING THE TRUST AND
UPHOLDING THE ASSIGNMENTS.  TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 289 U.S.
620, DISTINGUISHED.  P. 8. 

2.  WHETHER A TESTAMENTARY TRUST IS A SPENDTHRIFT TRUST BARRING THE
VOLUNTARY ALIENATION OF HIS INTEREST BY THE BENEFICIARY DEPENDS UPON
THE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE DONOR RESIDED AND IN WHICH THE TRUST
WAS CREATED AND THE PROPERTY SITUATED.  P. 9. 

3.  A DECISION BY THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF THE LIFE BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST TO ASSIGN PARTS
OF HIS INTEREST, IN A SUIT BROUGHT BY THE TRUSTEES FOR INSTRUCTIONS AND
IMPLEADING THE BENEFICIARY AND HIS ASSIGNEES,  - HELD CONCLUSIVE OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE ASSIGNMENTS.  P. 10. 

4.  IN THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE ACTS, INCOME TAX
LIABILITY IS ATTACHED TO OWNERSHIP.  P. 11. 

5.  PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACTS (1921, SEC. 219(A)(D); 1924 AND
1926, SEC. 219(A)(B); 1928, SEC. 162(A)(B)) IMPOSING UPON THE
BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST LIABILITY FOR THE TAX UPON THE INCOME
"DISTRIBUTABLE" TO HIM, REFER TO THE OWNER OF THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST,
WHETHER HE WAS SUCH INITIALLY OR BECOMES SUCH BY AN ASSIGNMENT VALID
UNDER THE LOCAL LAW GOVERNING THE TRUST.  P. 12. 

6.  ASSIGNMENTS OF INTERESTS, OF SPECIFIED AMOUNTS EACH YEAR
THEREAFTER, IN THE NET INCOME WHICH THE ASSIGNOR WAS THEN OR MIGHT
THEREAFTER BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE DURING HIS LIFE UNDER A TRUST,  -
HELD ASSIGNMENTS NOT MERELY OF THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE INCOME, BUT OF
CORRESPONDING INTERESTS IN THE TRUST ESTATE.  P. 12. 

7.  A BENEFICIARY ENTITLED DURING LIFE TO THE INCOME OF PROPERTY HELD
IN TRUST IS THE OWNER, NOT OF A CHOSE IN ACTION MERELY, BUT OF AN
EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE CORPUS OF THE PROPERTY; AND THAT INTEREST, IN
THE ABSENCE OF A VALID RESTRAINT UPON ALIENATION, HE MAY ASSIGN IN
PART, OR AS A WHOLE.  P. 13. 

BLAIR V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 527, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 31 B.T.A. 1192, OVERRULING INCOME
TAX ASSESSMENTS. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION OF THE LIABILITY OF A BENEFICIARY OF
A TESTAMENTARY TRUST FOR A TAX UPON THE INCOME WHICH HE HAD ASSIGNED TO
HIS CHILDREN PRIOR TO THE TAX YEARS AND WHICH THE TRUSTEES HAD PAID TO
THEM ACCORDINGLY. 

THE TRUST WAS CREATED BY THE WILL OF WILLIAM BLAIR, A RESIDENT OF
ILLINOIS WHO DIED IN 1899, AND WAS OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THAT STATE. 
ONE-HALF OF THE NET INCOME WAS TO BE PAID TO THE DONOR'S WIDOW DURING
HER LIFE.  HIS SON, THE PETITIONER EDWARD TYLER BLAIR, WAS TO RECEIVE
THE OTHER ONE-HALF AND, AFTER THE DEATH OF THE WIDOW, THE WHOLE OF THE
NET INCOME DURING HIS LIFE.  IN 1923, AFTER THE WIDOW'S DEATH,
PETITIONER ASSIGNED TO HIS DAUGHTER, LUCY BLAIR LINN, AN INTEREST
AMOUNTING TO $6000 FOR THE REMAINDER OF THAT CALENDAR YEAR, AND TO
$9000 IN EACH CALENDAR YEAR THEREAFTER, IN THE NET INCOME WHICH THE
PETITIONER WAS THEN OR MIGHT THEREAFTER BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE DURING
HIS LIFE.  AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, HE MADE LIKE ASSIGNMENTS OF
INTERESTS, AMOUNTING TO $9000 IN EACH CALENDAR YEAR, IN THE NET INCOME
OF THE TRUST TO HIS DAUGHTER EDITH BLAIR AND TO HIS SON, EDWARD SEYMOUR
BLAIR, RESPECTIVELY.  IN LATER YEARS, BY SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS, HE
ASSIGNED TO THESE CHILDREN ADDITIONAL INTERESTS, AND TO HIS SON WILLIAM
MCCORMICK BLAIR OTHER SPECIFIED INTERESTS, IN THE NET INCOME.  THE
TRUSTEES ACCEPTED THE ASSIGNMENTS AND DISTRIBUTED THE INCOME DIRECTLY
TO THE ASSIGNEES. 

THE QUESTION FIRST AROSE WITH RESPECT TO THE TAX YEAR 1923 AND THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE RULED THAT THE INCOME WAS TAXABLE TO
THE PETITIONER.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS HELD THE CONTRARY.  18 B.T.A.
69.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE BOARD, HOLDING THAT
UNDER THE LAW OF ILLINOIS THE TRUST WAS A SPENDTHRIFT TRUST AND THE
ASSIGNMENTS WERE INVALID.  COMMISSIONER V. BLAIR, 60 F.(2D) 340.  WE
DENIED CERTIORARI.  288 U.S. 602. 

THEREUPON THE TRUSTEES BROUGHT SUIT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS, TO OBTAIN A CONSTRUCTION OF THE WILL WITH RESPECT TO
THE POWER OF THE BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST TO ASSIGN A PART OF HIS
EQUITABLE INTEREST AND TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSIGNMENTS HE
HAD MADE.  THE PETITIONER AND THE ASSIGNEES WERE MADE DEFENDANTS.  THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, AFTER A REVIEW OF THE
ILLINOIS DECISIONS, DECIDED THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT A SPENDTHRIFT TRUST
AND UPHELD THE ASSIGNMENTS.  BLAIR V. LINN, 274 ILL. APP. 23.  UNDER
THE MANDATE OF THE APPELLATE COURT, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COOK COUNTY
ENTERED ITS DECREE WHICH FOUND THE ASSIGNMENTS TO BE "VOLUNTARY
ASSIGNMENTS OF A PART OF THE INTEREST OF SAID EDWARD TYLER BLAIR IN
SAID TRUST ESTATE" AND AS SUCH ADJUDGED THEM TO BE VALID. 

AT THAT TIME THERE WERE PENDING BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR THE YEARS 1924, 1925,
1926 AND 1929.  THE BOARD RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE THE RECORD IN THE SUIT
IN THE STATE COURT AND, APPLYING THE DECISION OF THAT COURT, THE BOARD
OVERRULED THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION AS TO THE PETITIONER'S
LIABILITY.  31 B.T.A. 1192.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AGAIN
REVERSED THE BOARD.  THAT COURT RECOGNIZED THE BINDING EFFECT OF THE
DECISION OF THE STATE COURT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSIGNMENTS BUT
DECIDED THAT THE INCOME WAS STILL TAXABLE TO THE PETITIONER UPON THE
GROUND THAT HIS INTEREST WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE CORPUS OF THE ESTATE
AND THAT THE INCOME WAS NOT SUBJECT TO HIS DISPOSITION UNTIL HE
RECEIVED IT.  COMMISSIONER V. BLAIR, 83 F.(2D) 655, 662. 

BECAUSE OF AN ASSERTED CONFLICT WITH THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT,
AND ALSO WITH DECISIONS OF CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI.  OCTOBER 12, 1936. 

FIRST.  THE GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE JUDGMENT RELATING TO THE
INCOME FOR 1923 IS CONCLUSIVE IN THIS PROCEEDING AS RES JUDICATA.  TAIT
V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., 289 U.S. 620.  PETITIONER INSISTS THAT
THIS QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS AND HENCE
WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  GENERAL
UTILITIES CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S. 200, 206; HELVERING V. SALVAGE,
297 U.S. 106, 109.  THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDS THAT THE ANSWERS BEFORE THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD BEEN FILED BEFORE THE
FIRST DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WAS ENTERED, AND THAT,
WHILE THE CASE WAS HEARD BEFORE THE BOARD WITHOUT AMENDED PLEADINGS,
THE WHOLE MATTER WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE THE BOARD AND THE QUESTION OF RES
JUDICATA WAS RAISED BY AN ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ON THE PETITION FOR
REVIEW BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REVIEW THE RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS UPON THIS
POINT, AS WE THINK THAT THE RULING IN THE TAIT CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE. 
THAT RULING AND THE REASONING WHICH UNDERLIES IT APPLY WHERE IN THE
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH RELATING TO A DIFFERENT TAX YEAR, THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED UPON THE FACTS AND THE LAW ARE ESSENTIALLY THE
SAME.  TAIT V. WESTERN MARYLAND RY. CO., SUPRA, PP. 624, 626.  HERE,
AFTER THE DECISION IN THE FIRST PROCEEDING, THE OPINION AND DECREE OF
THE STATE COURT CREATED A NEW SITUATION.  THE DETERMINATION OF
PETITIONER'S LIABILITY FOR THE YEAR 1923 HAD BEEN RESTED ENTIRELY UPON
THE LOCAL LAW.  COMMISSIONER V. BLAIR, 60 F.(2D) 340, 342, 344.  THE
SUPERVENING DECISION OF THE STATE COURT INTERPRETING THAT LAW IN DIRECT
RELATION TO THIS TRUST CANNOT JUSTLY BE IGNORED IN THE PRESENT
PROCEEDING SO FAR AS IT IS FOUND THAT THE LOCAL LAW IS DETERMINATIVE OF
ANY MATERIAL POINT IN CONTROVERSY.  COMPARE FREULER V. HELVERING, 291
U.S. 35; HUBBELL V. HELVERING, 70 F.(2D) 668. 

SECOND.  THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSIGNMENTS IS A
QUESTION OF LOCAL LAW.  THE DONOR WAS A RESIDENT OF ILLINOIS AND HIS
DISPOSITION OF THE PROPERTY IN THAT STATE WAS SUBJECT TO ITS LAW.  BY
THAT LAW THE CHARACTER OF THE TRUST, THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE
INTEREST OF THE BENEFICIARY, AND THE POWER OF THE BENEFICIARY TO ASSIGN
THAT INTEREST IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ARE TO BE DETERMINED.  THE DECISION
OF THE STATE COURT UPON THESE QUESTIONS IS FINAL.  SPINDLE V. SHREVE,
111 U.S. 542, 547, 548; UTERHART V. UNITED STATES, 240 U.S. 598, 603;
POE V. SEABORN, 282 U.S. 101, 110; FREULER V. HELVERING, SUPRA, P. 45. 
IT MATTERS NOT THAT THE DECISION WAS BY AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT.  COMPARE GRAHAM V. WHITE-PHILLIPS CO., 296 U.S. 27.  IN THIS
INSTANCE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GO BEYOND THE OBVIOUS POINT THAT THE
DECISION WAS IN A SUIT BETWEEN THE TRUSTEES AND THE BENEFICIARY AND HIS
ASSIGNEES, AND THE DECREE WHICH WAS ENTERED IN PURSUANCE OF THE
DECISION DETERMINED AS BETWEEN THESE PARTIES THE VALIDITY OF THE
PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENTS.  NOR IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR A CHARGE THAT THE
SUIT WAS COLLUSIVE AND THE DECREE INOPERATIVE.  FREULER V. HELVERING,
SUPRA.  THE TRUSTEES WERE ENTITLED TO SEEK THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE
COURT HAVING SUPERVISION OF THE TRUST.  THAT COURT ENTERTAINED THE SUIT
AND THE APPELLATE COURT, WITH THE FIRST DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS BEFORE IT, REVIEWED THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE AND REACHED A DELIBERATE CONCLUSION.  TO DEROGATE FROM THE
AUTHORITY OF THAT CONCLUSION AND OF THE DECREE IT COMMANDED, SO FAR AS
THE QUESTION IS ONE OF STATE LAW, WOULD BE WHOLLY UNWARRANTED IN THE
EXERCISE OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION. 

IN THE FACE OF THIS RULING OF THE STATE COURT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE
GOVERNMENT TO ARGUE THAT THE TRUST "WAS, UNDER THE ILLINOIS LAW, A
SPENDTHRIFT TRUST."  THE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT, THE TRUST BEING
OF THAT CHARACTER, THE STATE LAW BARRED THE VOLUNTARY ALIENATION BY THE
BENEFICIARY OF HIS INTEREST.  THE STATE COURT HELD PRECISELY THE
CONTRARY.  THE RULING ALSO DETERMINES THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSIGNMENT BY
THE BENEFICIARY OF PARTS OF HIS INTEREST.  THAT QUESTION WAS
NECESSARILY PRESENTED AND EXPRESSLY DECIDED. 

THIRD.  THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER, TREATING THE ASSIGNMENTS AS
VALID, THE ASSIGNOR WAS STILL TAXABLE UPON THE INCOME UNDER THE FEDERAL
INCOME TAX ACT.  THAT IS A FEDERAL QUESTION. 

OUR DECISIONS IN LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U.S. 111, AND BURNET V.
LEININGER, 285 U.S. 136, ARE CITED.  IN THE LUCAS CASE THE QUESTION WAS
WHETHER AN ATTORNEY WAS TAXABLE FOR THE WHOLE OF HIS SALARY AND FEES
EARNED BY HIM IN THE TAX YEARS OR ONLY UPON ONE-HALF BY REASON OF AN
AGREEMENT WITH HIS WIFE BY WHICH HIS EARNINGS WERE TO BE RECEIVED AND
OWNED BY THEM JOINTLY.  WE WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASE TURNED
UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TAXING ACT.  WE SAID THAT "THE STATUTE
COULD TAX SALARIES TO THOSE WHO EARNED THEM AND PROVIDE THAT THE TAX
COULD NOT BE ESCAPED BY ANTICIPATORY ARRANGEMENTS AND CONTRACTS HOWEVER
SKILFULLY DEVISED TO PREVENT THE SAME WHEN PAID FROM VESTING EVEN FOR A
SECOND IN THE MAN WHO EARNED IT."  THAT WAS DEEMED TO BE THE MEANING OF
THE STATUTE AS TO COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE, AND THE ONE WHO
EARNED THE INCOME WAS HELD TO BE SUBJECT TO THE TAX.  IN BURNET V.
LEININGER, SUPRA, A HUSBAND, A MEMBER OF A FIRM, ASSIGNED FUTURE
PARTNERSHIP INCOME TO HIS WIFE.  WE FOUND THAT THE REVENUE ACT DEALT
EXPLICITLY WITH THE LIABILITY OF PARTNERS AS SUCH.  THE WIFE DID NOT
BECOME A MEMBER OF THE FIRM; THE ACT SPECIFICALLY TAXED THE
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF EACH PARTNER IN THE NET INCOME OF THE FIRM; AND
THE HUSBAND BY THE FAIR IMPORT OF THE ACT REMAINED TAXABLE UPON HIS
DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE.  THESE CASES ARE NOT IN POINT.  THE TAX HERE IS NOT
UPON EARNINGS WHICH ARE TAXED TO THE ONE WHO EARNS THEM.  NOR IS IT A
CASE OF INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO A TAXPAYER BY REASON OF THE APPLICATION
OF THE INCOME TO THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OBLIGATION.  OLD COLONY TRUST CO.
V. COMMISSIONER, 279 U.S. 716; DOUGLAS V. WILLCUTS, 296 U.S. 1, 9;
HELVERING V. STOKES, 296 U.S. 551; HELVERING V. SCHWEITZER, 296 U.S.
551; HELVERING V. COXEY, 297 U.S. 694.  SEE, ALSO, BURNET V. WELLS, 289
U.S. 670, 677.  THERE IS HERE NO QUESTION OF EVASION OR OF GIVING
EFFECT TO STATUTORY PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO FORESTALL EVASION; OR OF THE
TAXPAYER'S RETENTION OF CONTROL.  CORLISS V. BOWERS, 281 U.S. 376;
BURNET V. GUGGENHEIM, 288 U.S. 280. 

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TAX IS UPON INCOME AS TO WHICH, IN THE
GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE ACTS, THE TAX LIABILITY ATTACHES TO
OWNERSHIP.  SEE POE V. SEABORN, SUPRA; HOEPER V. TAX COMMISSION, 284
U.S. 206. 

THE GOVERNMENT POINTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVENUE ACTS IMPOSING
UPON THE BENEFICIARY OF A TRUST THE LIABILITY FOR THE TAX UPON THE
INCOME DISTRIBUTABLE TO THE BENEFICIARY.  FN1  BUT THE TERM IS MERELY
DESCRIPTIVE OF THE ONE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST.  THESE
PROVISIONS CANNOT BE TAKEN TO PRECLUDE VALID ASSIGNMENTS OF THE
BENEFICIAL INTEREST, OR TO AFFECT THE DUTY OF THE TRUSTEE TO DISTRIBUTE
INCOME TO THE OWNER OF THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST, WHETHER HE WAS SUCH
INITIALLY OR BECOMES SUCH BY VALID ASSIGNMENT.  THE ONE WHO IS TO
RECEIVE THE INCOME AS THE OWNER OF THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST IS TO PAY
THE TAX.  IF UNDER THE LAW GOVERNING THE TRUST THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST
IS ASSIGNABLE, AND IF IT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED WITHOUT RESERVATION, THE
ASSIGNEE THUS BECOMES THE BENEFICIARY AND IS ENTITLED TO RIGHTS AND
REMEDIES ACCORDINGLY.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE REVENUE ACTS WHICH DENIES
HIM THAT STATUS. 

THE DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TURNED UPON THE EFFECT
TO BE ASCRIBED TO THE ASSIGNMENTS.  THE COURT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER
HAD NO INTEREST IN THE CORPUS OF THE ESTATE AND COULD NOT DISPOSE OF
THE INCOME UNTIL HE RECEIVED IT.  HENCE IT WAS SAID THAT "THE INCOME
WAS HIS" AND HIS ASSIGNMENT WAS MERELY A DIRECTION TO PAY OVER TO
OTHERS WHAT WAS DUE TO HIMSELF.  THE QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED TO INVOLVE
"THE DATE WHEN THE INCOME BECAME TRANSFERABLE."  83 F.(2D), P. 662. 
THE GOVERNMENT REFERS TO THE TERMS OF THE ASSIGNMENT,  - THAT IT WAS OF
THE INTEREST IN THE INCOME "WHICH THE SAID PARTY OF THE FIRST PART NOW
IS, OR MAY HEREAFTER BE, ENTITLED TO RECEIVE DURING HIS LIFE FROM THE
TRUSTEES."  FROM THIS IT IS URGED THAT THE ASSIGNMENTS "DEALT ONLY WITH
A RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE INCOME" AND THAT "NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO ASSIGN
ANY EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE TRUST ITSELF."  THIS
CONSTRUCTION SEEMS TO US TO BE A STRAINED ONE.  WE THINK IT APPARENT
THAT THE CONVEYANCER WAS NOT SEEKING TO LIMIT THE ASSIGNMENT SO AS TO
MAKE IT ANYTHING LESS THAN A COMPLETE TRANSFER OF THE SPECIFIED
INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER AS THE LIFE BENEFICIARY OF THE TRUST, BUT
THAT WITH AMPLE CAUTION HE WAS USING WORDS TO EFFECT SUCH A TRANSFER. 
THAT THE STATE COURT SO CONSTRUED THE ASSIGNMENTS APPEARS FROM THE
FINAL DECREE WHICH DESCRIBED THEM AS VOLUNTARY ASSIGNMENTS OF INTERESTS
OF THE PETITIONER "IN SAID TRUST ESTATE," AND IT WAS IN THAT ASPECT
THAT PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO MAKE THE ASSIGNMENTS WAS SUSTAINED. 

THE WILL CREATING THE TRUST ENTITLED THE PETITIONER DURING HIS LIFE
TO THE NET INCOME OF THE PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST.  HE THUS BECAME THE
OWNER OF AN EQUITABLE INTEREST IN THE CORPUS OF THE PROPERTY.  BROWN V.
FLETCHER, 235 U.S. 589, 598, 599; IRWIN V. GAVIT, 268 U.S. 161, 167,
168; SENIOR V. BRADEN, 295 U.S. 422, 432, 433; MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST
CO. V. PATTERSON, 308 ILL. 519, 530; 139 N.E. 912.  BY VIRTUE OF THAT
INTEREST HE WAS ENTITLED TO ENFORCE THE TRUST, TO HAVE A BREACH OF
TRUST ENJOINED AND TO OBTAIN REDRESS IN CASE OF BREACH.  THE INTEREST
WAS PRESENT PROPERTY ALIENABLE LIKE ANY OTHER, IN THE ABSENCE OF A
VALID RESTRAINT UPON ALIENATION.  COMMISSIONER V. FIELD, 42 F.(2D) 820,
822; SHANLEY V. BOWERS, 81 F.(2D) 13, 15.  THE BENEFICIARY MAY THUS
TRANSFER A PART OF HIS INTEREST AS WELL AS THE WHOLE.  SEE RESTATEMENT
OF THE LAW OF TRUSTS, SECS. 130, 132 ET SEQ. THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE
BENEFICIAL INTEREST IS NOT THE ASSIGNMENT OF A CHOSE IN ACTION BUT OF
THE "RIGHT, TITLE AND ESTATE IN AND TO PROPERTY."  BROWN V. FLETCHER,
SUPRA; SENIOR V. BRADEN, SUPRA.  SEE BOGERT, "TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES,"
VOL. 1, SEC. 183, PP. 516, 517; 17 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW, 269, 273, 289,
290. 

WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSIGNMENTS WERE VALID, THAT THE ASSIGNEES
THEREBY BECAME THE OWNERS OF THE SPECIFIED BENEFICIAL INTERESTS IN THE
INCOME, AND THAT AS TO THESE INTERESTS THEY AND NOT THE PETITIONER WERE
TAXABLE FOR THE TAX YEARS IN QUESTION.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED WITH DIRECTION
TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS.  REVERSED. 

FN1  REVENUE ACTS OF 1921, SEC. 219(A)(D); 1924 AND 1926, SEC.
219(A)(B); 1928, SEC. 162(A)(B). 
..END :























HONEYMAN V. HANAN, 300 U.S. 14 


NO. 370.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 271
N.Y. 564 - 3 N.E.(2D) 186, JUDGMENT VACATED. 


1.  TO CONSTITUTE JURISDICTION OVER AN APPEAL FROM A STATE COURT, IT
MUST APPEAR, AFFIRMATIVELY FROM THE RECORD, NOT ONLY THAT A FEDERAL
QUESTION WAS PRESENTED FOR DECISION TO THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE
HAVING JURISDICTION, BUT THAT ITS DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS
NECESSARY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE CAUSE.  P. 18. 

2.  WHETHER THESE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET IS ITSELF A FEDERAL
QUESTION.  ID. 

3.  IN DECIDING WHETHER IT HAS JURISDICTION, THIS COURT MUST
DETERMINE WHETHER A FEDERAL QUESTION WAS NECESSARILY DECIDED BY THE
STATE COURT; THE DETERMINATION MUST REST UPON AN EXAMINATION OF THE
RECORD; AND WHILE A CERTIFICATE OR STATEMENT BY THE STATE COURT THAT A
FEDERAL QUESTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO IT AND NECESSARILY PASSED UPON
MAY AID THIS COURT IN SUCH EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, IT CANNOT AVAIL
TO FORECLOSE THE INQUIRY OR TO IMPORT A FEDERAL QUESTION INTO THE
RECORD.  ID. 

4.  IN THE EXERCISE OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION, THIS COURT MAY MAKE
SUCH DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AS JUSTICE SHALL REQUIRE.  A CASE MAY BE
REMANDED TO A STATE COURT TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY FOR AN AMENDMENT OF THE
RECORD APPROPRIATE TO SHOW DEFINITELY THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL
QUESTION, HOW IT WAS RAISED, AND THE GROUNDS OF ITS DISPOSITION BY THE
STATE COURT, TO THE END THAT THIS COURT MAY BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHETHER A
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION WAS NECESSARILY
DETERMINED.  P. 25. 

HONEYMAN V. HANAN, EXECUTOR. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM THE AFFIRMANCE OF A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW
YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION (246 APP. DIV. 781; 285 N.Y.S. 527), WHICH HAD
AFFIRMED A JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL TERM DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A
SUIT TO RECOVER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT ON A COLLATERAL BOND WHICH HAD
BEEN EXECUTED AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR A BOND AND MORTGAGE DEBT. 

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

UPON THE FILING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT, THE APPELLEE MOVED
TO DISMISS THE APPEAL UPON THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION OF THE FEDERAL
QUESTION NOW RAISED WAS NOT NECESSARY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE
CAUSE.  RULE 12, PAR. 3.  FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WAS
POSTPONED TO THE HEARING UPON THE MERITS. 

THE RECORD IS BRIEF.  THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF HERBERT W. HANAN, DECEASED, TO RECOVER A DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT UPON A BOND SECURED BY A MORTGAGE WHICH HAD BEEN FORECLOSED IN
AN EARLIER SUIT IN WHICH THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY HAD BEEN SOLD AND AN
APPLICATION FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT HAD BEEN REFUSED.  THE JUDGMENT
IN THE PRESENT SUIT DISMISSED THE AMENDED COMPLAINT UPON THE GROUND
THAT IT DID NOT STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF
ACTION. 

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGED THAT IN 1907 THE JOHN H. HANAN REALTY
COMPANY, WITH JOHN H. HANAN, HAD EXECUTED A BOND FOR $118,000, AND AS
COLLATERAL SECURITY THE JOHN H. HANAN REALTY COMPANY HAD MADE A
MORTGAGE COVERING CERTAIN PREMISES IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK; THAT LATER
THE BOND AND MORTGAGE WERE ASSIGNED TO JOHN H. HANAN; THAT IN 1920 JOHN
H. HANAN, TOGETHER WITH HERBERT W. HANAN (DEFENDANT'S TESTATOR) AND
ADDISON G. HANAN, HAD EXECUTED THEIR JOINT AND SEVERAL BOND TO THE
GUARDIANS OF THE ESTATES OF CERTAIN INFANTS IN THE SUM OF $60,000 AND
AS COLLATERAL SECURITY THEREFOR JOHN H. HANAN HAD ASSIGNED TO THE
OBLIGEES THE BOND AND MORTGAGE FIRST MENTIONED; AND THAT THEREAFTER THE
BOND OF JOHN H. HANAN, HERBERT W. HANAN AND ADDISON G. HANAN HAD BEEN
ASSIGNED, TOGETHER WITH THE BOND AND MORTGAGE FIRST MENTIONED, TO THE
PLAINTIFF. 

A COPY OF THE BOND IN SUIT WAS ANNEXED.  IT RECITED THAT IT WAS
EXECUTED AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE FIRST MENTIONED
BOND AND MORTGAGE, UPON WHICH THE PRINCIPAL SUM OF $60,000 REMAINED
UNPAID, AND THAT THE TIME FOR PAYMENT HAD BEEN EXTENDED AS PROVIDED IN
A CONTEMPORANEOUS AGREEMENT.  THE CONDITION OF THE OBLIGATION WAS THE
PAYMENT OF THAT SUM WITH INTEREST AS THE SAME SHOULD BECOME DUE AND
PAYABLE ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE BOND AND MORTGAGE
FIRST MENTIONED AND THE EXTENSION AGREEMENT. 

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE JOHN H. HANAN REALTY
COMPANY HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE BOND AND MORTGAGE
FIRST MENTIONED AND HAD FAILED TO PAY THE TAXES ON THE MORTGAGED
PREMISES OR THE INTEREST ON THE BOND; THAT THEREUPON, IN SEPTEMBER,
1933, THE PLAINTIFF HAD BROUGHT AN ACTION TO FORECLOSE THE MORTGAGE AND
THAT THE DEFENDANT HEREIN WAS A PARTY TO THAT ACTION; THAT PURSUANT TO
JUDGMENT THEREIN THE MORTGAGED PREMISES WERE SOLD AND THE PROCEEDS WERE
APPLIED ON ACCOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS DUE THE PLAINTIFF; THAT THE
REFEREE'S REPORT OF SALE WAS CONFIRMED; THAT THEREAFTER A MOTION WAS
"DULY MADE FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT" WHICH WAS DENIED AND THE
FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED AS TO THE DEFENDANT HEREIN BY THE
FILING OF A STIPULATION; THAT THE DEFICIENCY DUE THE PLAINTIFF WAS
$58,523.35, UPON WHICH $554.01 HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PLAINTIFF FROM
THE RECEIVER IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, LEAVING DUE $57,969.34, WHICH
THE DECEDENT, HERBERT W. HANAN, BECAME BOUND TO PAY. 

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR THE INSUFFICIENCY
OF ITS ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED NO MENTION OF A FEDERAL QUESTION.  THE
TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE MOTION WITH THE MERE STATEMENT THAT "THE
MORTGAGE MORATORIUM LAWS APPLY TO THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE SAID
COMPLAINT."  THE JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WAS AFFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE
DIVISION WITHOUT OPINION.  246 APP. DIV. 781; 285 N.Y.S. 527.  THE
COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED LEAVE TO APPEAL AND IN MAY, 1936, AFFIRMED THE
JUDGMENT, ALSO WITHOUT OPINION.  271 N.Y. 564; 3 N.E.(2D) 186.  IN THE
ENTIRE PROGRESS OF THE CAUSE TO THIS POINT OF DETERMINATION BY THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE, THE RECORD DISCLOSES NO REFERENCE TO A
FEDERAL QUESTION. 

IN JUNE, 1936, UPON MOTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS AMENDED ITS
REMITTITUR BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING: 

"A QUESTION UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WAS PRESENTED AND
NECESSARILY PASSED UPON BY THIS COURT.  THE PLAINTIFF CONTENDED THAT
CHAPTER 794 OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ENACTED IN 1933, AS
AMENDED (SECTIONS 1083-A AND 1083-B OF CIVIL PRACTICE ACT), IMPAIR THE
OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS, AND THUS VIOLATE ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  THIS COURT HELD THAT SUCH LAWS
DO NOT VIOLATE SAID PROVISION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES."  271 N.Y. 662; 3 N.E.(2D) 473. 

IT IS SOLELY UPON THIS STATEMENT IN THE AMENDED REMITTITUR THAT WE
ARE ASKED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND TO PASS UPON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY
OF THE STATE STATUTE.  WE ARE NOT AIDED BY ANY DISCUSSION BY THE STATE
COURT OF THE QUESTION THUS DESCRIBED, OR BY ITS EXPLICATION OR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE CITED, OR BY A STATEMENT OF THE PARTICULAR
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE TO WHICH THE PARAGRAPH IN THE AMENDED
REMITTITUR IS ADDRESSED. 

BEFORE WE MAY UNDERTAKE TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE COURT OF A STATE
IT MUST APPEAR AFFIRMATIVELY FROM THE RECORD, NOT ONLY THAT THE FEDERAL
QUESTION WAS PRESENTED FOR DECISION TO THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE STATE
HAVING JURISDICTION BUT THAT ITS DECISION OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS
NECESSARY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE CAUSE.  LYNCH V. NEW YORK EX REL.
PIERSON, 293 U.S. 52, 54, AND CASES THERE CITED.  WHETHER THESE
REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET IS ITSELF A FEDERAL QUESTION.  AS THIS COURT
MUST DECIDE WHETHER IT HAS JURISDICTION IN A PARTICULAR CASE, THIS
COURT MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS NECESSARILY
PASSED UPON BY THE STATE COURT.  THAT DETERMINATION MUST REST UPON AN
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD.  A CERTIFICATE OR STATEMENT BY THE STATE
COURT  FN1  THAT A FEDERAL QUESTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO IT AND
NECESSARILY PASSED UPON IS NOT CONTROLLING.  WHILE SUCH A CERTIFICATE
OR STATEMENT MAY AID THIS COURT IN THE EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, IT
CANNOT AVAIL TO FORECLOSE THE INQUIRY WHICH IT IS OUR DUTY TO MAKE OR
TO IMPORT INTO THE RECORD A FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH OTHERWISE THE RECORD
WHOLLY FAILS TO PRESENT. 

IN COMMERCIAL BANK OF CINCINNATI V. BUCKINGHAM'S EXECUTORS, 5 HOW. 
317, THIS COURT WAS ASKED TO DECIDE A QUESTION WHICH WAS SAID TO BE
PRESENTED UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF A
STATUTE OF OHIO.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THAT STATE ENTERED UPON ITS
RECORD AN ELABORATE CERTIFICATE STATING THAT THE VALIDITY OF THE
STATUTE WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION UPON THE GROUND THAT AS APPLIED TO THE
CHARTER OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR IT "IMPAIRED THE OBLIGATIONS
THEREOF, AND WAS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND THAT THE DECISION OF THIS COURT (THE OHIO COURT) WAS IN FAVOR OF
THE VALIDITY OF THE SAID ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE AS SO APPLIED." 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE CERTIFICATE, THE CASE WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF
JURISDICTION.  ID., P. 343.  THE COURT SAID: 

"IT IS NOT ENOUGH, THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT 'THE PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
CONTENDED AND CLAIMED' THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IMPAIRED THE
OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT, AND VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND 'THAT THIS CLAIM WAS OVERRULED
BY THE COURT'; BUT IT MUST APPEAR, BY CLEAR AND NECESSARY INTENDMENT,
THAT THE QUESTION MUST HAVE BEEN RAISED, AND MUST HAVE BEEN DECIDED, IN
ORDER TO INDUCE THE JUDGMENT.  LET US INQUIRE, THEN, WHETHER IT APPEARS
ON THE FACE OF THIS RECORD, THAT THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF OHIO, 'ON
THE GROUND OF ITS REPUGNANCY TO THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES' WAS DRAWN IN QUESTION IN THIS CASE."  ID., P. 341. 

PURSUING THAT ESSENTIAL INQUIRY, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE QUESTION
DECIDED BY THE STATE COURT WAS ONE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE
AND NOT OF ITS VALIDITY. 

IN LAWLER V. WALKER, 14 HOW.  149, THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
CERTIFIED THAT THE VALIDITY OF STATUTES OF THE STATE HAD BEEN DRAWN IN
QUESTION AS BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THAT THE
COURT HAD HELD THE STATUTES TO BE VALID.  THE CERTIFICATE IN THAT CASE
WAS FOUND TO BE VAGUE AND INDEFINITE BUT THE COURT ALSO RESTATED THE
ABOVE-QUOTED RULING OF COMMERCIAL BANK OF CINCINNATI V. BUCKINGHAM'S
EXECUTORS, SUPRA.  WHILE IN PARMELEE V. LAWRENCE, 11 WALL.  36, THE
CERTIFICATE WAS MADE BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE STATE COURT AND NOT
BY THE COURT ITSELF, WE TOOK OCCASION TO SAY: 

"WE WILL ADD, IF THIS COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN JURISDICTION UPON A
CERTIFICATE ALONE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF THE QUESTION IN THE
RECORD, THEN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE CAN GIVE THE JURISDICTION
IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE QUESTION IS MADE BY COUNSEL IN THE ARGUMENT. 
THE OFFICE OF THE CERTIFICATE, AS IT RESPECTS THE FEDERAL QUESTION, IS
TO MAKE MORE CERTAIN AND SPECIFIC WHAT IS TOO GENERAL AND INDEFINITE IN
THE RECORD, BUT IT IS INCOMPETENT TO ORIGINATE THE QUESTION WITHIN THE
TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 25TH SECTION (OF THE JUDICIARY ACT)."  ID., P.
39. 

THIS STATEMENT WAS QUOTED WITH APPROVAL IN POWELL V. BRUNSWICK
COUNTY, 150 U.S. 433, 439. 

THE CASE OF BROWN V. ATWELL, 92 U.S. 327, AFFORDS ANOTHER
ILLUSTRATION OF THE RULE.  THE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF NEW YORK AND AN ENTRY WAS MADE IN ITS RECORD THAT ON THE
ARGUMENT OF THE APPEAL IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE ACT OF
CONGRESS OF 1836, KNOWN AS THE PATENT ACT, GOVERNED THE EFFECT OF THE
SEVERAL TRANSFERS RELATING TO THE LETTERS PATENT APPEARING IN THE CASE,
AND THAT THE COURT HAD DECIDED AGAINST THE CLAIMS URGED UNDER THAT
ACT.  THIS COURT OBSERVED THAT, UNTIL THE CERTIFICATE OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS, IT NOWHERE APPEARED IN THE RECORD THAT ANY QUESTION WAS RAISED
AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE PATENT LAWS UPON THE TITLE UNDER
CONSIDERATION.  AND THE COURT SAID (ID., PP. 329, 330): 

"WE HAVE OFTEN DECIDED THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO GIVE US JURISDICTION
OVER THE JUDGMENTS OF THE STATE COURTS FOR THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT A
FEDERAL QUESTION WAS ARGUED OR PRESENTED TO THAT COURT FOR DECISION. 
IT MUST APPEAR THAT ITS DECISION WAS NECESSARY TO THE DETERMINATION OF
THE CAUSE, AND THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED, OR THAT THE JUDGMENT AS
RENDERED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT DECIDING IT.  COMMERCIAL
NATIONAL BANK OF CINCINNATI V. BUCKINGHAM'S EXECUTORS, 5 HOW.  341;
LAWLER ET AL. V. WALKER ET AL., 14 ID. 154; R.R. CO. V. ROCK, 4 WALL. 
180; PARMELEE V. LAWRENCE, 11 ID. 38. 

"THE SAME CASES ALSO ESTABLISH THE FURTHER RULE, THAT 'THE OFFICE OF
THE CERTIFICATE, AS IT RESPECTS THE FEDERAL QUESTION, IS TO MAKE MORE
SPECIFIC AND CERTAIN THAT WHICH IS TOO GENERAL AND INDEFINITE IN THE
RECORD, BUT IS INCOMPETENT TO ORIGINATE THE QUESTION'." 

THE COURT FOUND THAT THE RECORD DID NOT PRESENT THE FEDERAL QUESTION
TO WHICH THE CERTIFICATE REFERRED AND THE CASE WAS ACCORDINGLY
DISMISSED. 

THE RULE WAS SUCCINCTLY STATED IN RECTOR V. CITY DEPOSIT BANK CO.,
200 U.S. 405, 412, AS FOLLOWS: 

"IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF A COURT OF LAST RESORT OF A
STATE MAY NOT IMPORT A FEDERAL QUESTION INTO A RECORD WHERE OTHERWISE
SUCH QUESTION DOES NOT ARISE, IT IS EQUALLY ELEMENTARY THAT SUCH A
CERTIFICATE MAY SERVE TO ELUCIDATE THE DETERMINATION WHETHER A FEDERAL
QUESTION EXISTS." 

THUS THE TRUE FUNCTION OF A CERTIFICATE OR STATEMENT OF A STATE
COURT, BY WAY OF AMENDMENT OF, OR ADDITION TO, THE RECORD, IS TO AID IN
THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE RECORD, TO CLARIFY IT BY DEFINING THE FEDERAL
QUESTION WITH REASONABLE PRECISION AND BY SHOWING HOW THE QUESTION WAS
RAISED AND DECIDED, SO THAT THIS COURT UPON THE RECORD AS THUS
CLARIFIED MAY BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION WAS PROPERLY
RAISED AND WAS NECESSARILY DETERMINED.  OUR DECISIONS IN CASES WHERE
CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN FOUND USEFUL SHOULD BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF THAT
FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATION.  IN MARVIN V. TROUT, 199 U.S. 212, 223, AS
EXPLAINED IN CONSOLIDATED TURNPIKE CO. V. NORFOLK & OCEAN VIEW RY. CO.,
228 U.S. 596, 599, THERE WAS "A RECORD DISCLOSURE OF THE EXISTENCE OF
THE FEDERAL QUESTION," WHICH WAS ALSO CERTIFIED.  IN THE LATTER CASE IT
WAS ASSUMED THAT THE CERTIFICATE, MADE BY ORDER OF THE STATE COURT,
OPERATED TO SHOW THAT SOME FEDERAL QUESTION WAS DECIDED, BUT ON
EXAMINING THE RECORD THIS COURT FOUND THE QUESTION TO BE UNSUBSTANTIAL
AND DENIED REHEARING, THE CASE HAVING PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISMISSED FOR
WANT OF JURISDICTION.  ID., P. 603.  THE RECORD IN CINCINNATI PACKET
CO. V. BAY, 200 U.S. 179, 182, SHOWED THAT THE FEDERAL QUESTION HAD
BEEN RAISED AND THE CERTIFICATE AIDED IN DISCLOSING THAT THE QUESTION
WAS NOT TREATED AS HAVING BEEN RAISED TOO LATE UNDER THE LOCAL
PROCEDURE, A POINT UPON WHICH THE STATE COURT WAS THE JUDGE.  APPLYING
THE RULE, IN RECTOR V. CITY DEPOSIT BANK CO., SUPRA, THE COURT
CONCLUDED THAT AS THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT BY A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY BY
VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE ACT OF CONGRESS THE
CERTIFICATE MADE "CLEAR THE EFFECT, IF IT WERE OTHERWISE DOUBTFUL, THAT
RIGHTS UNDER THE BANKRUPT LAW WERE RELIED UPON AND PASSED UPON BELOW." 
SEE, ALSO, CAPITAL CITY DAIRY CO. V. OHIO, 183 U.S. 238, 243, 244.  IT
WAS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE DECISIONS THAT THE QUESTION WAS PRESENTED IN
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357, 360-362.  THE WRIT OF ERROR HAD
BEEN DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION (269 U.S. 530) AND A MOTION FOR
REHEARING WAS GRANTED.  ID., P. 538.  THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE,
AS AN ADDITION TO THE RECORD, ENTERED AN ORDER STATING THAT THE
QUESTION WHETHER THE CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM ACT AND ITS
APPLICATION WERE REPUGNANT TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION WAS CONSIDERED AND PASSED UPON BY THE COURT.  WHILE THIS
COURT SAID THAT THE RECORD DID NOT SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD RAISED
OR THE STATE COURT HAD DECIDED A FEDERAL QUESTION EXCEPT AS IT APPEARED
FROM THAT ORDER, THE RECORD DID DISCLOSE FACTS INDICATING THE PRESENCE
OF THE FEDERAL QUESTION WHICH THE ORDER OF THE STATE COURT SAID WAS
ACTUALLY PRESENTED AND DECIDED, AND ACCORDINGLY JURISDICTION WAS
ENTERTAINED.  AND IT HAS BEEN IN RECOGNITION OF THE ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLE GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF OUR JURISDICTION, AND NOT AS A
DEPARTURE FROM IT, THAT WE HAVE SAID THAT OPPORTUNITY MIGHT BE AFFORDED
UPON SEASONABLE APPLICATION TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE FROM THE STATE
COURT WHERE IT APPEARED THAT AN APPROPRIATE CERTIFICATE MIGHT LEAD TO A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE RECORD.  SEE LYNCH V. NEW YORK EX REL.
PIERSON, SUPRA; INTERNATIONAL STEEL CO. V. SURETY CO., 297 U.S. 657,
662. 

IN SOME OF THE CASES CITED ABOVE, WE FOUND FROM OUR EXAMINATION OF
THE RECORD THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CERTIFICATE, THE DECISION OF THE
STATE COURT RESTED UPON AN ADEQUATE NON-FEDERAL GROUND AND HENCE WE
WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.  SEE COMMERCIAL BANK OF CINCINNATI V.
BUCKINGHAM'S EXECUTORS, SUPRA; BROWN V. ATWELL, SUPRA; POWELL V.
BRUNSWICK COUNTY, SUPRA.  A SIMILAR RESULT FOLLOWS WHERE, EVEN ASSUMING
THAT THE STATE COURT HAS FORMALLY DETERMINED A FEDERAL QUESTION, IT
DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL ONE.  SEE CONSOLIDATED
TURNPIKE CO. V. NORFOLK & OCEAN VIEW RY. CO., SUPRA.  IN OTHER CASES AN
EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD HAS LEFT THE COURT IN DOUBT AS TO WHAT HAS
ACTUALLY BEEN DETERMINED.  THAT IS THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE. 

THE APPELLEE POINTS TO THE PROVISION OF SEC. 1078 OF THE CIVIL
PRACTICE ACT OF NEW YORK (ENACTED LONG BEFORE THE SO-CALLED MORATORIUM
ACTS) THAT, AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A FORECLOSURE
ACTION, NO OTHER ACTION SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO RECOVER ANY PART OF THE
MORTGAGE DEBT WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT IN WHICH THE FORMER ACTION WAS
BROUGHT.  IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AMENDED COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE
THAT SUCH LEAVE WAS OBTAINED.  WE ARE ALSO ADVISED OF DECISIONS BY THE
STATE COURT, PRIOR TO THE ONE HERE SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED, CONSTRUING
CHAPTER 794 OF THE LAWS OF NEW YORK OF 1933(SECS.  1083-A AND 1083-B OF
THE CIVIL PRACTICE ACT) TO WHICH THE AMENDED REMITTITUR REFERS.  THAT
ACT (SEC. 1083-A) FORBIDS A JUDGMENT FOR ANY RESIDUE OF THE DEBT,
REMAINING UNSATISFIED AFTER SALE OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY, EXCEPT AS
THEREIN PROVIDED.  PROVISION IS MADE FOR AN APPLICATION BY THE CREDITOR
IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, AND
THEREUPON THE COURT IS TO DETERMINE THE FAIR AND REASONABLE MARKET
VALUE OF THE MORTGAGED PREMISES AND IS TO MAKE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE
ENTRY OF A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, WHICH IS TO BE FOR AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
THAT REMAINING DUE LESS THE MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED OR THE SALE
PRICE OF THE PROPERTY WHICHEVER SHALL BE THE HIGHER; AND IF NO MOTION
FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT IS THUS MADE, THE PROCEEDS OF THE FORECLOSURE
SALE ARE TO BE REGARDED AS FULL SATISFACTION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT "AND
NO RIGHT TO RECOVER ANY DEFICIENCY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL
EXIST."  SECTION 1083-B PROVIDES THAT IN ACTIONS, OTHER THAN
FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, TO RECOVER FOR AN INDEBTEDNESS SECURED SOLELY BY A
MORTGAGE ON REAL PROPERTY AND ORIGINATING SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH SUCH
MORTGAGE AND SECURED THEREBY, AGAINST ANY ONE "DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
OR CONTINGENTLY LIABLE THEREFOR," THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM THE MONEY
JUDGMENT IS DEMANDED SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE REASONABLE MARKET
VALUE OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY LESS PRIOR LIENS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS
HAD SUSTAINED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THIS LEGISLATION WHICH
WOULD SEEM TO BE APPLICABLE TO AN ACTION UPON A COLLATERAL BOND SUCH AS
THAT DESCRIBED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT HEREIN.  SEE KLINKE V. SAMUELS,
264 N.Y. 144; CITY BANK FARMERS TRUST CO. V. ARDLEA INCORPORATION, 267
N.Y. 224. 

WITH THESE RECENT DECISIONS IN MIND, IT MAY BE, AS HAS BEEN
SUGGESTED, THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS CONSIDERED THE FEDERAL QUESTION,
WHICH IT DESCRIBED IN THE AMENDED REMITTITUR AS RELATING TO THE
VALIDITY OF SECS. 1083-A AND 1083-B, TO BE NO MORE THAN A CHALLENGE OF
THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE RIGHT TO A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE HEARD
AND DETERMINED IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, AND SUSTAINED THE VALIDITY OF
THAT REQUIREMENT, WITHOUT REVIEWING, OR DEEMING IT NECESSARY TO REVIEW,
THE QUESTIONS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED, AND IF PROPERLY RAISED
COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS COURT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION TO
WHICH BOTH THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT HEREIN HAD BEEN PARTIES. 
WHETHER THIS VIEW OF THE ACTION OF THE STATE COURT IS THE CORRECT ONE,
WE ARE UNABLE SATISFACTORILY TO DETERMINE.  IF ITS DECISION WAS IN
TRUTH BASED UPON THE THEORY THAT BY A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE
STATUTE OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON THE EXTENT OF THE DEFICIENCY OR THE
RIGHT TO RECOVER IT HAD BEEN FINALLY DETERMINED IN A PRIOR LITIGATION,
THERE WAS NO LONGER A NECESSITY TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE STATUTE WOULD BE
CONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS APPLICATION TO A DIFFERENT CASE - A CASE LACKING
THE FEATURE OF ANY PRIOR DETERMINATION - , AND AN ANSWER TO THAT
INQUIRY WOULD BE SUPERFLUOUS, EVEN IF ATTEMPTED. 

IN THE EXERCISE OF OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION WE HAVE POWER NOT ONLY
TO CORRECT ERRORS IN THE JUDGMENT UNDER REVIEW BUT TO MAKE SUCH
DISPOSITION OF THE CASE AS JUSTICE REQUIRES.  WE HAVE APPLIED THIS
PRINCIPLE TO CASES COMING FROM STATE COURTS WHERE SUPERVENING CHANGES
HAD OCCURRED SINCE THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT, AND WHERE THE RECORD
FAILED ADEQUATELY TO STATE THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE DECISION OF THE
FEDERAL QUESTION.  SEE PATTERSON V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 600, 607; VILLA
V. VAN SCHAICK, 299 U.S. 152.  WE HAVE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
APPROPRIATE PRESENTATION OF THE QUESTION BY AN AMENDMENT OF THE RECORD
AS THE STATE COURT MIGHT BE ADVISED.  VILLA V. VAN SCHAICK, SUPRA.  WE
THINK THAT A SIMILAR OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE ACCORDED HERE IN ORDER THAT
UNCERTAINTY MAY BE REMOVED AND THAT THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE FEDERAL
QUESTION, HOW IT WAS RAISED AND THE GROUNDS OF ITS DISPOSITION, MAY BE
DEFINITELY SET FORTH, SO THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHETHER A
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION HAS NECESSARILY BEEN
DETERMINED. 

FOR THAT PURPOSE THE JUDGMENT IS VACATED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  JUDGMENT VACATED. 

FN1  AS TO THE INSUFFICIENCY OF A CERTIFICATE BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OR
PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE STATE COURT, SEE RAILROAD CO. V. ROCK, 4
WALL.  177, 178, 180; POWELL V. BRUNSWICK COUNTY, 150 U.S. 433, 439;
SAYWARD V. DENNY, 158 U.S. 180, 183; HENKEL V. CINCINNATI, 177 U.S.
170, 171; HOME FOR INCURABLES V. NEW YORK, 187 U.S. 155, 158; FULLERTON
V. TEXAS, 196 U.S. 192, 194; LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. SMITH,
HUGGINS & CO., 204 U.S. 551, 561; SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. DUVALL, 225
U.S. 477, 481; CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. V. JOHNSON, 296 U.S.
535; PURCELL V. NEW YORK CENTRAL R. CO., 296 U.S. 545. 
..END :



















O'CONNOR V. MILLS, 300 U.S. 26 


NO. 442.  SUBMITTED JANUARY 12, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 85
F.(2D) 1017, REVERSED. 


1.  PARAGRAPH (K) OF SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT MAKES SECS. 24 AND
25 OF THE ACT APPLICABLE TO APPEALS FROM ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS ENTERED
IN REORGANIZATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B.  P. 27. 

2.  A JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT DISAPPROVING AND DISMISSING A
PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION OF A CORPORATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT IS IN THE SAME CATEGORY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPEAL, AS
A JUDGMENT REFUSING TO ADJUDGE THE DEFENDANT A BANKRUPT, AND UNDER SEC.
25(A), CL. (1) IS APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS.  P. 27. 

O'CONNOR ET AL. V. MILLS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 536, TO REVIEW AN ORDER DISMISSING AN APPEAL. 

PER CURIAM. 

PETITIONERS FILED A CREDITORS' PETITION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT PROPOSING THE REORGANIZATION OF WHITE & BLACK RIVERS
BRIDGE COMPANY, A CORPORATION.  THE DEBTOR ANSWERED, SEEKING APPROVAL
OF THE PETITION.  MEMBERS OF A BONDHOLDERS' PROTECTIVE COMMITTEE,
HOLDING BONDS ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION, FILED A RESPONSE TO THE
PETITION, ALLEGING THAT IT WAS NOT FILED IN GOOD FAITH AND ASKING THAT
IT BE DISAPPROVED AND DISMISSED.  PETITIONERS REPLIED.  AFTER ALLOWING
THIRTY DAYS TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASCERTAIN THE POSSIBILITY OF
THE SUBMISSION OF A FEASIBLE PLAN OF REORGANIZATION, THE DISTRICT
COURT, UPON HEARING, DISMISSED THE PETITION AS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 77B. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ALLOWED AN APPEAL UPON THE GIVING OF A BOND AND
THE APPEAL WAS PERFECTED ACCORDINGLY.  THE APPELLEES MOVED TO DISMISS
THE APPEAL UPON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS UNAUTHORIZED BY LAW AS IT HAD
NOT BEEN ALLOWED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  THAT COURT GRANTED
THE MOTION AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED.  WE ISSUED A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI.  NOVEMBER 16, 1936. 

PARAGRAPH (K) OF SEC. 77B PROVIDES THAT THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT SHALL APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B, UNLESS
INCONSISTENT WITH IT, AND THAT "THE DATE OF THE ORDER APPROVING THE
PETITION OR ANSWER UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE OF
ADJUDICATION, AND SUCH ORDER SHALL HAVE THE SAME CONSEQUENCES AND
EFFECT AS AN ORDER OF ADJUDICATION."  THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IS
TO MAKE SECS. 24 AND 25 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT APPLICABLE TO APPEALS
FROM ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS ENTERED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 77B. 

IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS FROM THE COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY TO THE CIRCUIT
COURTS OF APPEALS IN THE CASES ENUMERATED, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS -
"FROM A JUDGMENT ADJUDGING OR REFUSING TO ADJUDGE THE DEFENDANT A
BANKRUPT."  WHILE PARAGRAPH (K) REFERS TO "THE ORDER APPROVING THE
PETITION OR ANSWER" UNDER SEC. 77B, WHICH IS TO HAVE "THE SAME
CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECT AS AN ORDER OF ADJUDICATION," WE THINK THAT TO
CARRY OUT THE MANIFEST INTENT OF THE STATUTE, AN ORDER DISAPPROVING THE
PETITION OR ANSWER UNDER SEC. 77B SHOULD HAVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR THE
PURPOSE OF APPEAL AS AN ORDER REFUSING ADJUDICATION.  INTERPRETING THE
STATUTE IN THAT SENSE, WE SAID IN MEYER V. KENMORE HOTEL CO., 297 U.S.
160, 163, 164: 

"THE APPEAL PROVISIONS OF SECS. 24 AND 25 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT ARE
THUS MADE APPLICABLE TO ORDERS ENTERED IN THE COURSE OF A
REORGANIZATION PROCEEDING, AND AN ORDER APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING A
PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IS MADE THE EQUIVALENT, AT LEAST FOR
PURPOSES OF AN APPEAL UNDER SEC. 25(A), OF A JUDGMENT ADJUDGING OR
REFUSING TO ADJUDGE THE DEFENDANT A BANKRUPT.  BY SEC. 24(A) AND (B)
APPEALS IN 'PROCEEDINGS' IN BANKRUPTCY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM APPEALS
IN 'CONTROVERSIES ARISING IN BANKRUPTCY,' MAY BE TAKEN ONLY ON LEAVE
GRANTED IN THE DISCRETION OF THE APPELLATE COURT, EXCEPT THAT IN THE
CASES ENUMERATED IN SEC. 25(A), INCLUDING, IN CLAUSE (1), 'A JUDGMENT
ADJUDGING OR REFUSING TO ADJUDGE THE DEFENDANT A BANKRUPT,' AN APPEAL
MAY BE TAKEN AS OF RIGHT." 

THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT ONE WHERE THE PETITION HAD BEEN APPROVED AND
THE APPEAL WAS FROM A SUBSEQUENT ORDER DENYING AN APPLICATION TO
DISMISS THE PROCEEDING OR FROM AN ORDER CONFIRMING OR REFUSING TO
CONFIRM A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION.  SEE MEYER V. KENMORE HOTEL CO.,
SUPRA, PP. 161, 162, 164, 166; HUMPHREY V. BANKERS MORTGAGE CO., 79
F.(2D) 345, 349, 350.  THE APPEAL IS FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH DISAPPROVED
AND DISMISSED THE PETITION AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS IN THE SAME
CATEGORY AS AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT REFUSING TO ADJUDICATE THE
DEFENDANT A BANKRUPT AND HENCE AS APPEALABLE UNDER SEC. 25(A).  THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ENTERTAINED THE APPEAL AND
DISPOSED OF IT UPON THE MERITS. 

THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE
IS REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS OPINION. 
REVERSED. 
..END :
























WAYNE COUNTY V. GREAT LAKES CORP., 300 U.S. 29 


NO. 253.  ARGUED JANUARY 12, 13, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  -
12 F.SUPP.  55, AFFIRMED. 


A STATUTE OF MICHIGAN ESTABLISHING A COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW OF TAX
ASSESSMENTS, APPLICABLE ONLY TO COUNTIES HAVING A POPULATION IN EXCESS
OF 500,000, VIOLATES SEC. 30 OF ART. V OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION,
WHICH FORBIDS THE PASSING OF A LOCAL OR SPECIAL ACT IN ANY CASE WHERE A
GENERAL ACT CAN BE MADE APPLICABLE. 

WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW ET AL. V. GREAT LAKES STEEL CORP. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. 

PER CURIAM. 

APPELLEE BROUGHT THIS SUIT TO RESTRAIN THE ENFORCEMENT, IN RELATION
TO AN ASSESSMENT UPON ITS PROPERTY, OF A STATUTE OF MICHIGAN
ESTABLISHING A COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW.  ACT NO. 33, PUBLIC ACTS OF
MICHIGAN, FIRST EXTRA SESSION, 1934. 

THE ACT ESTABLISHED A COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
COUNTIES HAVING A POPULATION IN EXCESS OF 500,000.  THE ACT WAS
ATTACKED AS INVALID UNDER BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS. 
INTERLOCUTORY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS WERE SOUGHT.  THE DISTRICT
COURT, THREE JUDGES SITTING (28 U.S.C. 380), HELD THAT THE REQUISITE
JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT WAS IN CONTROVERSY AND THAT THERE WAS GROUND FOR
THE EXERCISE OF EQUITABLE JURISDICTION. 

WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION, APPELLEE CONTENDED THAT THE
STATUTE, BY REASON OF THE REQUIREMENT AS TO POPULATION, WAS LIMITED IN
EFFECT TO WAYNE COUNTY AND THUS WAS A LOCAL AND SPECIAL ACT IN A CASE
WHERE A GENERAL ACT COULD BE MADE APPLICABLE, AND VIOLATED SEC. 30 OF
ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PASS NO LOCAL OR SPECIAL ACT IN ANY CASE WHERE
A GENERAL ACT CAN BE MADE APPLICABLE, AND WHETHER A GENERAL ACT CAN BE
MADE APPLICABLE SHALL BE A JUDICIAL QUESTION." 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, COMPOSED OF
THREE JUDGES ESPECIALLY VERSED IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE STATE,
SUSTAINED THAT CONTENTION AND GRANTED A PERMANENT INJUNCTION.  12
F.SUPP.  55.  WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE COURT ERRED IN
DECIDING THIS QUESTION OF STATE LAW AND WE ACCORDINGLY AFFIRM ITS
DECREE.  DECREE AFFIRMED. 
..END :




U.S. EX REL. WILHELM V. CHAIN, 300 U.S. 31 


NO. 335.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 138, REVERSED - DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED. 


1.  A BOND, WITH SURETIES, GIVEN BY A NATIONAL BANK PURSUANT TO THE
BANKRUPTCY LAW AND ORDERS, TO INDUCE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE BANK AS A
DESIGNATED DEPOSITORY OF BANKRUPTCY FUNDS, IS NOT A MERE OFFER, LIKE A
CONTINUING GUARANTY OF FUTURE PERFORMANCES REVOCABLE UNTIL SOMETHING IS
DONE UNDER IT, BUT IS A CONTRACT GIVEN UPON PRESENT, ADEQUATE AND
INDIVISIBLE CONSIDERATION - I.E., THE DESIGNATION OF THE BANK AS
DEPOSITORY - WHICH BECOMES BINDING WHEN DELIVERED TO AND APPROVED BY
THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  P. 32. 

2.  THE OBLIGATION OF A SURETY ON SUCH A BOND, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
STIPULATION TO THE CONTRARY, SURVIVES HIS DEATH AND BINDS HIS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE FOR DEFAULTS COMMITTED BY THE DEPOSITORY AFTER THE DEATH
IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS MADE AFTER THE DEATH.  P. 34. 

UNITED STATES EX REL. WILHELM, TRUSTEE, ET AL. V. CHAIN, EXECUTRIX. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 531, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
RECOVERED BY A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY AGAINST THE EXECUTRIX OF A
DECEASED SURETY ON THE BOND GIVEN BY THE BANK AS A DEPOSITORY OF FUNDS
OF BANKRUPT ESTATES. 

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS WAS AN ACTION ON THE BOND OF A DESIGNATED DEPOSITORY FOR MONEY
OF BANKRUPT ESTATES.  THE CASE WILL BE STATED. 

JULY 22, 1924, A NATIONAL BANK AT KINGWOOD, WEST VIRGINIA, WAS
DESIGNATED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OF THAT DISTRICT AS A DEPOSITORY FOR
FUNDS OF BANKRUPT ESTATES, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE BANK
GIVE A BOND IN THE PENAL SUM OF $5,000 AND THAT THE BOND HAVE THE
COURT'S APPROVAL.  LATER IN THE SAME MONTH THE BOND WAS GIVEN BY THE
BANK AND APPROVED BY THE COURT.  THEREUPON THE BANK BECAME AN
AUTHORIZED DEPOSITORY, AND IT CONTINUED TO BE SUCH, WITHOUT GIVING ANY
FURTHER BOND, UNTIL JUNE 22, 1931, WHEN IT FAILED. 

THE BOND WAS UNDER SEAL; NAMED THE UNITED STATES AS OBLIGEE; WAS
SIGNED BY THE BANK AND TWO INDIVIDUAL SURETIES, AS OBLIGORS; DECLARED
THAT THE OBLIGORS WERE THEREBY BINDING THEMSELVES, THEIR HEIRS,
EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND SUCCESSORS, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY;
RECITED THE DESIGNATION OF THE BANK AS A DEPOSITORY; AND WAS
CONDITIONED FOR THE FAITHFUL DISCHARGE AND PERFORMANCE BY THE BANK OF
ALL DUTIES PERTAINING TO IT AS A DEPOSITORY. 

BETWEEN AUGUST 12, 1930, AND JUNE 22, 1931, CHARLES P. WILHELM, AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE ESTATE OF W. H. PENTONY, A BANKRUPT, DEPOSITED IN THE
BANK, AS A DESIGNATED DEPOSITORY, VARIOUS SUMS OF MONEY BELONGING TO
THAT ESTATE, AND MADE AUTHORIZED WITHDRAWALS, WITH THE RESULT THAT, OF
THE DEPOSITS SO MADE, THERE REMAINED IN THE BANK ON JUNE 22, 1931, A
BALANCE OF $3,190.72 TO THE CREDIT OF THE TRUSTEE.  ON THAT DAY THE
BANK BECAME INSOLVENT, CLOSED ITS DOORS, REFUSED TO PAY TO THE TRUSTEE
THE BALANCE SO OWING TO THE BANKRUPT ESTATE, AND THEREBY BROKE THE
CONDITION OF ITS BOND. 

IN MARCH, 1926, WHICH WAS AFTER THE BOND WAS GIVEN AND APPROVED AND
BEFORE WILHELM, TRUSTEE, MADE ANY DEPOSIT IN THE BANK, JAMES W. FLYNN,
ONE OF THE SURETIES ON THE BOND, DIED AND NELLIE FLYNN CHAIN BECAME
EXECUTRIX OF HIS ESTATE.  FLYNN DID NOT AT ANY TIME DURING HIS LIFE
SEEK TO REVOKE OR TERMINATE HIS SURETYSHIP; NOR DID HIS EXECUTRIX
SUBSEQUENTLY TAKE ANY STEP TO THAT END. 

THE ACTION ON THE BOND WAS IN THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
USE OF WILHELM, TRUSTEE, AND WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE BANK, THE
SURVIVING SURETY AND THE EXECUTRIX OF THE DECEASED SURETY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT GAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS FOR THE
BALANCE DUE WILHELM, TRUSTEE.  THE EXECUTRIX OF THE DECEASED SURETY
APPEALED, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE JUDGMENT AS TO THE
ESTATE OF THAT SURETY.  84 F.(2D) 138.  CERTIORARI WAS GRANTED BY THIS
COURT. 

PERTINENT STATUTES AND A RELATED GENERAL BANKRUPTCY ORDER ARE COPIED
IN THE MARGIN.  FN1 

THE CRUCIAL QUESTION FOR DECISION, AS WAS SAID BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS, IS WHETHER THE OBLIGATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL SURETY ON SUCH A
DEPOSITORY BOND TERMINATES WITH HIS DEATH.  THAT COURT ANSWERED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, ONE JUDGE DISSENTING.  IT LIKENED SUCH A BOND TO A
CONTINUING GUARANTY WHEREBY THE GUARANTOR, WITHOUT PRESENT
CONSIDERATION, GUARANTEES A SERIES OF FUTURE PERFORMANCES, SUCH AS
PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF GOODS TO BE SOLD, OR REPAYMENT OF
MONEY TO BE ADVANCED, FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE FUTURE; AND IT APPLIED
THE USUAL RULE THAT SUCH A GUARANTY IS MERELY AN OFFER AND DOES NOT
RIPEN INTO A CONTRACT IN RESPECT OF ANY SALE OR ADVANCE UNTIL THE SAME
IS MADE, AND THAT THE GUARANTY, IN SO FAR AS IT REMAINS MERELY AN
OFFER, MAY BE REVOKED BY THE GUARANTOR AND IS TERMINATED BY HIS DEATH. 
FN2 

THE COURT RIGHTLY RECOGNIZED THAT A CONTINUING GUARANTY, IF SUPPORTED
AT THE OUTSET BY A SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION, IS A BINDING CONTRACT
WHICH IS NEITHER REVOCABLE BY THE GUARANTOR NOR TERMINABLE BY HIS
DEATH, ALTHOUGH THE ACTS GUARANTEED MAY COVER A LONG OR INDEFINITE
PERIOD OF TIME.  FN3  BUT IT PRONOUNCED THIS RULE INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE
IT REGARDED THE BOND AS MORE NEARLY ANALOGOUS TO A CONTINUING GUARANTY
WITHOUT PRESENT CONSIDERATION. 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE BOND WAS NOT A MERE OFFER BUT WAS GIVEN
UPON A PRESENT AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION, AND THEREFORE BECAME A
BINDING CONTRACT WHEN IT WAS DELIVERED TO AND APPROVED BY THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT.  THE INDUCEMENT, AS ALSO THE OCCASION, FOR THE BOND
WAS THE DESIGNATION OF THE BANK AS A DEPOSITORY.  THIS WAS A PRESENT,
ADEQUATE AND INDIVISIBLE CONSIDERATION.  FN4 WITHOUT THE BOND THE BANK
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE ADVANTAGES OF THE DESIGNATION;
WHILE WITH THE BOND IT WAS ENTITLED TO THEM.  IN THIS REGARD THE BOND
WAS LIKE THAT OF A COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COUNTY TREASURER, SHERIFF,
CLERK OF COURT, ADMINISTRATOR, GUARDIAN OR CASHIER, AS TO WHICH IT IS
WELL SETTLED THAT THE SELECTION OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYE WHOSE
FIDELITY IS ASSURED CONSTITUTES A PRESENT CONSIDERATION AMPLY
SUPPORTING THE UNDERTAKING OF THE OBLIGORS - SURETIES AS WELL AS
PRINCIPALS.  FN5 

"IT IS A PRESUMPTION OF LAW THAT THE PARTIES TO A CONTRACT BIND NOT
ONLY THEMSELVES BUT THEIR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES.  EXECUTORS,
THEREFORE, ARE HELD TO BE LIABLE ON ALL CONTRACTS OF THE TESTATOR WHICH
ARE BROKEN IN HIS LIFETIME, AND, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONTRACTS IN
WHICH PERSONAL SKILL OR TASTE IS REQUIRED, ON ALL CONTRACTS BROKEN
AFTER HIS DEATH."  FN6 

THE BOND IN SUIT IS A CONTRACT FOR THE CONDITIONAL PAYMENT OF MONEY,
NOT THE EXERCISE OF PERSONAL SKILL OR TASTE, AND THEREFORE IS ONE TO
WHICH THE PRESUMPTION APPLIES.  NO DOUBT IT IS ADMISSIBLE TO RESTRICT
THE PRESUMPTION BY A STIPULATION LIMITING A SURETY'S OBLIGATION TO
DEFAULTS OCCURRING WITHIN HIS LIFETIME, BUT THE PRESENT BOND DOES NOT
CONTAIN SUCH A STIPULATION, OR ANYTHING INDICATING THAT SUCH A
LIMITATION WAS INTENDED.  ON THE CONTRARY, ITS TERMS ARE IN FULL ACCORD
WITH THE PRESUMPTION, FOR IN IT THE OBLIGORS EXPRESSLY DECLARE THEIR
PURPOSE TO BIND NOT ONLY THEMSELVES, BUT ALSO THEIR EXECUTORS,
ADMINISTRATORS AND SUCCESSORS, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, FOR THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATION SET FORTH. 

IN A LONG LINE OF DECISIONS RELATING TO BONDS NOT DISTINGUISHABLE
FROM THE ONE IN SUIT IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A SURETY'S OBLIGATION DOES
NOT TERMINATE WITH HIS DEATH BUT BINDS HIS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES FOR
PAST AND SUBSEQUENT DEFAULTS, AS IT WOULD BIND HIM IF LIVING.  FN7  THE
PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THESE DECISIONS IS THE SAME THAT PREVAILS IN
RESPECT OF OTHER RELATED CONTRACTS, AND WE REGARD IT AS WELL SUSTAINED
IN REASON AND SUPPORTED BY THE PREPONDERANT WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY. 

CASES ARE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT A SURETY
MAY TERMINATE HIS OBLIGATION AS RESPECTS FUTURE DEFAULTS BY GIVING
NOTICE TO THAT EFFECT TO THE OBLIGEE.  BUT THESE CASES ARE NOT
APPOSITE.  IN SOME THE INSTRUMENT SUED UPON WAS HELD TO BE ONLY A
CONTINUING OFFER WITHOUT A SUPPORTING CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE
REVOCABLE AS TO FUTURE TRANSACTIONS.  OTHERS REST UPON A POWER SO TO
TERMINATE EXPRESSLY RESERVED IN THE BOND OR IN THE APPLICABLE STATUTE. 
HERE THE BOND IS A BINDING CONTRACT SUPPORTED BY AN ADEQUATE
CONSIDERATION, AND THERE IS NO RESERVATION OF A RIGHT TO TERMINATE IN
THE BOND OR IN THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH IT WAS GIVEN.  NOR HAS THERE
BEEN ANY EFFORT TO EFFECT SUCH A TERMINATION. 

WHETHER THE BANKRUPTCY COURT MAY, UPON APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND
SHOWING, DISCHARGE A SURETY ON AN EXISTING BOND, AS RESPECTS POSSIBLE
FUTURE DEFAULTS, AND REQUIRE THE DEPOSITORY TO GIVE ANOTHER AND
SUBSTITUTED BOND, NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED, FOR NO SUCH APPLICATION OR
SHOWING APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED. 

WHILE THE BOND WAS UNDER SEAL WE NEED NOT CONSIDER THE EFFECT TO BE
GIVEN TO THIS UNDER THE LOCAL LAW, FOR IT AFFIRMATIVELY APPEARS THAT
THE BOND WAS GIVEN FOR A PRESENT AND ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION, WHICH
LEADS TO THE SAME RESULT AS IF THE SEAL WERE GIVEN THE EFFECT WHICH
WOULD BE ACCORDED TO IT AT COMMON LAW. 

IT RESULTS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED
AND THAT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1898. 

SEC. 47(A) TRUSTEES SHALL RESPECTIVELY  ...  (3) DEPOSIT ALL MONEY
RECEIVED BY THEM IN ONE OF THE DESIGNATED DEPOSITORIES; (4) DISBURSE
MONEY ONLY BY CHECK OR DRAFT ON SUCH DEPOSITORIES IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN
DEPOSITED;... 

SEC. 50(H) BONDS OF  ...  DESIGNATED DEPOSITORIES SHALL BE FILED OF
RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND MAY BE SUED UPON IN
THE NAME OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE USE OF ANY PERSON INJURED BY A
BREACH OF THEIR CONDITIONS. 

SEC. 61(A) COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY SHALL DESIGNATE, BY ORDER, BANKING
INSTITUTIONS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR THE MONEY OF BANKRUPT ESTATES, AS
CONVENIENT AS MAY BE TO THE RESIDENCES OF TRUSTEES, AND SHALL REQUIRE
BONDS TO THE UNITED STATES, SUBJECT TO THEIR APPROVAL, TO BE GIVEN BY
SUCH BANKING INSTITUTIONS, AND MAY FROM TIME TO TIME AS OCCASION MAY
REQUIRE, BY LIKE ORDER INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DEPOSITORIES OR THE
AMOUNT OF ANY BOND OR CHANGE SUCH DEPOSITORIES.  (C. 541, 30 STAT.
544.) 

GENERAL ORDER XXIX.  NO MONEYS DEPOSITED AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT SHALL
BE DRAWN FROM THE DEPOSITORY UNLESS BY CHECK OR WARRANT, SIGNED BY THE
CLERK OF THE COURT, OR BY A TRUSTEE, AND COUNTERSIGNED BY THE JUDGE OF
THE COURT, OR BY A REFEREE DESIGNATED FOR THAT PURPOSE, OR BY THE CLERK
OR HIS ASSISTANT UNDER AN ORDER MADE BY THE JUDGE  ...  (298 U.S.
697.) 

FN2  DAVIS SEWING MACHINE CO. V. RICHARDS, 115 U.S. 524, 527; JORDAN
V. DOBBINS, 122 MASS. 168; REST.  CONTRACTS, SECS. 35(E), (F), 44, 48. 

FN3  DAVIS V. WELLS, 104 U.S. 159, 165-167; ZIMETBAUM V. BERENSON,
267 MASS. 250, 254; 166 N.E. 719; NATIONAL EAGLE BANK V. HUNT, 16 R.I.
148, 151; 13 ATL. 115; KERNOCHAN V. MURRAY, 111 N.Y. 306, 308-309; 18
N.E. 868; BENNETT V. CHECOTAH STATE BANK, 176 OKLA. 518; 56 P.(2D) 848;
WILLISTON CONTRACTS, REV. ED. SEC. 1253; REST.  CONTRACTS, SEC. 46; 1
BRANDT SURETYSHIP AND GUARANTY, 2D ED., SEC. 133. 

FN4  LLOYD'S V. HARPER, L.R. 16 CH. DIV. 290, 314, 317, 319; IN RE
CRACE, L.R. 1902(1) CH. DIV. 733, 738; WILLISTON CONTRACTS, REV. ED.,
SEC. 1253. 

FN5  ESTATE OF RAPP V. PHOENIX INSURANCE CO., 113 ILL. 390, 395;
LLOYD'S V. HARPER, L.R. 16 CH. DIV. 290, 314, 317, 319; IN RE CRACE,
L.R. 1902(1) CH. DIV. 733, 738; WILLISTON CONTRACTS, REV. ED., SEC.
1253. 

FN6  1 CHITTY CONTRACTS, 11TH AM. ED., 138; 2 PARSONS CONTRACTS, 6TH
ED., 530-531. 

FN7  BROOME V. UNITED STATES, 15 HOW.  143; HECHT V. WEAVER, 34 FED.
111; UNITED STATES V. KEIVER, 56 FED. 422, 423; FEWLASS V. KEESHAN, 88
FED. 573, 574; POND V. UNITED STATES, 111 FED. 989, 997; IN RE CRACE,
L.R. 1902(1) CH. DIV. 733; CALVERT V. GORDON, 3 MAN.  & RY. 124; GREEN
V. YOUNG, 8 GREENL.  14; ROYAL INSURANCE CO. V. DAVIES, 40 IOWA 469;
MOORE V. WALLIS, 18 ALA. 458; KNOTTS V. BUTLER, 10 RICH.  EQ. 143;
HECHT V. SKAGG, 53 ARK. 291; 13 S.W. 930; SHACKAMAXON V. YARD, 150 PA.
351, 358; 124 ATL. 635; MUNDORFF V. WANGLER, 44 N.Y. SUP. CT. 495, 506;
VORIS V. STATE, 47 IND. 345; 349-350; EXCHANGE BANK V. BARNES, 7
ONTARIO 309, 320; SNYDER V. STATE, 5 WYO. 318, 323; 40 PAC. 441. 
..END :


















ELMHURST CEMETERY CO. V. COMM'R, 300 U.S. 37 


NO. 255.  ARGUED JANUARY 5, 6, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 83
F.(2D) 4, REVERSED - B.T.A. AFFIRMED. 


1.  WHERE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS UPON A QUESTION OF FACT, ITS DECISION OF SUCH
QUESTION IS CONCLUSIVE UPON REVIEW.  P. 40. 

2. HELD, THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE TO SUPPORT THE
FINDING OF THE BOARD IN RESPECT TO THE MARCH 1, 1913 VALUE OF CEMETERY
LOTS SUBSEQUENTLY DISPOSED OF, AND THE REVERSAL OF ITS DECISION OF THAT
QUESTION BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AMOUNTED TO AN UNWARRANTED
SUBSTITUTION OF THE COURT'S JUDGMENT CONCERNING FACTS FOR THAT OF THE
BOARD.  P. 40. 

ELMHURST CEMETERY COMPANY OF JOLIET V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 527, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A DECISION
OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (UNREPORTED) WHICH SET ASIDE AN ORDER OF
THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINING A DEFICIENCY OF INCOME TAX. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

PETITIONER, IN 1909, PURCHASED ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN ACRES OF
LAND NEAR JOLIET, ILLINOIS, FOR $60,000.00.  THIRTY-SEVEN ACRES WERE
DIVIDED INTO PLOTS AND DEVELOPED FOR CEMETERY PURPOSES BY GRADING,
CONSTRUCTING DRIVES, PLANTING SHRUBBERY, ETC., AT A COST OF
$35,000.00.  GRAVE PLOTS, VARYING IN AREA FROM 150 TO 1,500 SQUARE
FEET, WERE SOLD FROM TIME TO TIME UNDER CONTRACTS FOR PERPETUAL CARE. 

SOME 36,000 SQUARE FEET WERE DISPOSED OF DURING THE YEARS 1909 TO
1913 AT PRICES RANGING FROM 70.2 CENTS TO 79.5 CENTS.  THE AVERAGE
BETWEEN MARCH 1, 1912, AND MARCH 1, 1913, WAS 76.6 CENTS.  IN THE THREE
YEARS 1926, 1927, AND 1928, 42,000 SQUARE FEET WERE SOLD FOR $1.55 TO
$1.77.  TO DETERMINE THE TAXABLE GAINS REALIZED FROM THE LATTER SALES
IT BECAME NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN THE VALUE OF THE LOTS AS OF MARCH 1,
1913.  THE PETITIONER'S RETURN ESTIMATED THIS AT 76.6 CENTS.  THE
COMMISSIONER ADOPTED 23.96 CENTS AND ASSESSED DEFICIENCIES
ACCORDINGLY. 

UPON PETITION FOR REDETERMINATION THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, AFTER
CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE, APPROVED THE 76.6 CENT VALUATION AND FOUND NO
DEFICIENCIES.  THE EVIDENCE CONSISTED OF A STIPULATION BY COUNSEL
CONCERNING SALES IN 1909 TO 1913 AS DETAILED ABOVE, AND THE TESTIMONY
OF THE CEMETERY SUPERINTENDENT. 

HE STATED THE ORIGINAL COST OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SEVEN
ACRES, EXPENSE OF DEVELOPMENT, AREA SOLD IN 1926, 1927, 1928, AND
PRICES OBTAINED.  HE AFFIRMED FAMILIARITY WITH THE PROPERTY ON MARCH 1,
1913, PRICES THEN PREVAILING, AND STATED THAT THE SALES OF 1912 AND
1913 WERE IN NORMAL COURSE WITHOUT EXTRA EFFORT.  ALSO THAT "THE
PURCHASE PRICE WAS ESTABLISHED BY MY VISITING A GOOD MANY CEMETERIES
THAT I FIGURED WERE PRACTICALLY OF THE SAME CLASS AS THAT CEMETERY AND
SITUATED NEAR CITIES OF ABOUT THE SAME POPULATION, AND I ESTABLISHED A
PRICE FROM THE PRICE THEY WERE SELLING AT."  FURTHER THAT "EVERY GRAVE
AND LOT IN THE CEMETERY SOLD SINCE ITS ORGANIZATION IS UNDER PERPETUAL
CARE, AND WHEN PERPETUAL CARE IS PROVIDED, IT MEANS KEEPING THE ROADS
AND DRIVES IN PROPER REPAIR, KEEPING THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN PROPER
REPAIR, KEEPING THE FENCES IN REPAIR, CUTTING THE GRASS, PRUNING THE
TREES, SHRUBS, AND KEEPING IT IN GOOD CONDITION."  "WE HOPE FOR A
GRADUAL INCREASE IN SALES EVERY YEAR BECAUSE, AS A GENERAL RULE, FOR
EVERY HEAD OF A FAMILY THAT IS BURIED YOU SECURE FOUR NEW FAMILIES. 
THAT IS THE RULE CEMETERY COMPANIES HAVE ADOPTED."  HE THOUGHT IT MIGHT
TAKE SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS TO DISPOSE OF ALL LOTS. 

THE BOARD DECLARED "THE PARTIES ARE NOW CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE VALUE
AS OF MARCH 1, 1913, OF THAT THIRTY-SEVEN ACRES OF PETITIONER'S LANDS
WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPROVED AND FROM WHICH SALES HAVE BEEN MADE."  "BEYOND
STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL TO THE EFFECT THAT RESPONDENT (COMMISSIONER) HAS
ATTEMPTED BY FORMULA TO REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVED LAND AS OF
MARCH 1, 1913, TO PRESENT VALUE, WE ARE UNINFORMED AS TO THE METHOD BY
WHICH HE CHOSE THE FIGURES AT WHICH HE FIXES THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING
GAIN.  PETITIONER, HOWEVER, HAS CHOSEN AS THE FOOTAGE VALUATION AS OF
MARCH 1, 1913, THE SELLING PRICE OF ITS GRAVE LOTS DURING THE YEAR JUST
PRECEDING THAT DATE - 76.6 CENTS - WHICH IS LESS THAN THE AVERAGE SALES
PRICE DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1913.  WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE
VALUATION FOR WHICH PETITIONER CONTENDS IS REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE
ALLOWED.  IT IS BASED UPON ACTUAL SALES, AND CONSEQUENTLY COMES AS
CLOSELY AS MAY BE TO THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE, SO OFTEN JUDICIALLY
DEFINED AS THE PRICE WHICH PROPERTY WILL BRING WHEN OFFERED BY A
WILLING SELLER TO A WILLING BUYER, NEITHER BEING OBLIGATED TO BUY OR
SELL." 

LOTS DISPOSED OF IN 1912 AND 1913 WENT WITH AGREEMENTS FOR PERPETUAL
CARE; SO DID THOSE SOLD IN 1926, 1927, AND 1928; PRICES OBTAINED IN THE
LATTER YEARS MAY BE COMPARED WITH THOSE RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER ONES -
THEY WERE FOR LIKE THINGS. 

THE COMMISSIONER ASKED REVIEW BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  HE
THERE URGED THAT MARCH 1, 1913, VALUES SHOULD BE ASCERTAINED BY
DISCOUNTING SALE PRICES DURING THE PRECEDING TWELVE MONTHS BECAUSE OF
THE TIME WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OF THE WHOLE.  THE
COURT SAID: "THE FACTS IN THIS CASE NECESSITATE THE REJECTION OF THE
SELLING PRICE AS THE SOLE DETERMINATOR OF VALUE.  FAR MORE EQUITABLE IS
THE SELLING PRICE LESS DISCOUNT FOR YEARS REQUIRED TO REALIZE SAID
SELLING PRICE."  "THE COMMISSIONER WAS LIBERAL WITH THE TAXPAYER." 
ACCORDINGLY IT REVERSED THE BOARD AND DIRECTED AFFIRMANCE OF THE
COMMISSIONER'S ASSESSMENT. 

THIS ACTION, WE THINK, AMOUNTED TO AN UNWARRANTED SUBSTITUTION OF THE
COURT'S JUDGMENT CONCERNING FACTS FOR THAT OF THE BOARD.  THERE WAS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AS APPEARS ABOVE, TO SUPPORT THE LATTER'S
CONCLUSION, AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THIS MUST BE ACCEPTED.  IT IS THE
FUNCTION OF THE BOARD TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE AND DECLARE THE RESULT.  WE
UNDERTOOK TO STATE THE APPLICABLE RULE IN HELVERING V. RANKIN, 295 U.S.
123, 131, AND GENERAL UTILITIES & OPERATING CO. V. HELVERING, 296 U.S.
200, 206. 

THE JUDGMENT HERE COMPLAINED OF MUST BE REVERSED.  THE ACTION OF THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS IS AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 
..END :



UNITED STATES V. GILES, 300 U.S. 41 


NO. 329.  ARGUED JANUARY 13, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 943, REVERSED - D.C. AFFIRMED. 


1.  THE RULE THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED DOES
NOT REQUIRE THAT THE WORDS BE GIVEN THEIR NARROWEST MEANING OR THAT THE
EVIDENT INTENT BE DISREGARDED.  P. 48. 

2. A BANK TELLER WHO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING A SHORTAGE IN HIS
CASH, WITHHOLDS DEPOSIT SLIPS WHICH IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS
WILL GO TO THE BOOKKEEPING DEPARTMENT FOR ENTRY, AS A RESULT WHEREOF
THE LEDGER UNDERSTATES THE AMOUNT OF THE BANK'S LIABILITY TO THE
DEPOSITORS, VIOLATES R.S., SEC. 5209, AS AMENDED, WHICH DENOUNCES AS A
MISDEMEANANT "ANY OFFICER, DIRECTOR, AGENT, OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY FEDERAL
RESERVE BANK, OR A MEMBER BANK  ...  WHO MAKES ANY FALSE ENTRY IN ANY
BOOK, REPORT, OR STATEMENT OF SUCH  ...  BANK, WITH INTENT IN ANY CASE
TO INJURE OR DEFRAUD ..."  PP. 48-49. 

TO HOLD THE STATUTE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE DELIBERATE ACTION FROM
WHICH A FALSE ENTRY BY AN INNOCENT INTERMEDIARY NECESSARILY FOLLOWS,
GIVES TO THE WORDS EMPLOYED THEIR FAIR MEANING AND IS IN ACCORD WITH
THE EVIDENT INTENT OF CONGRESS.  TO HOLD THAT IT APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE
ACCUSED PERSONALLY WRITES THE FALSE ENTRY OR AFFIRMATIVELY DIRECTS
ANOTHER TO DO SO WOULD EMASCULATE THE STATUTE - DEFEAT THE VERY END IN
VIEW. 

UNITED STATES V. GILES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 531, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT REVERSING A JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF R.S., SEC. 5209. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

40 STAT. 967, 972(U.S.C., TITLE 12, SEC. 592) PROVIDES: 

"ANY OFFICER, DIRECTOR, AGENT, OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK, OR OF ANY MEMBER BANK ...  WHO MAKES ANY FALSE ENTRY IN ANY BOOK,
REPORT, OR STATEMENT OF SUCH FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OR MEMBER BANK, WITH
INTENT IN ANY CASE TO INJURE OR DEFRAUD SUCH FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OR
MEMBER BANK, OR ANY OTHER COMPANY, BODY POLITIC OR CORPORATE, OR ANY
INDIVIDUAL PERSON, OR TO DECEIVE ANY OFFICER OF SUCH FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OR MEMBER BANK, OR THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, OR ANY AGENT
OR EXAMINER APPOINTED TO EXAMINE THE AFFAIRS OF SUCH FEDERAL RESERVE
BANK OR MEMBER BANKS, OR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD  ...  SHALL BE
DEEMED GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF IN ANY
DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN $5,000
OR SHALL BE IMPRISONED FOR NOT MORE THAN FIVE YEARS, OR BOTH, IN THE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT." 

COUNT THREE OF AN INDICTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, CHARGED THAT RESPONDENT GILES, WHILE
EMPLOYED AS TELLER BY THE COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK OF SAN ANTONIO,
TEXAS, A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE NATIONAL BANK OF DALLAS, DID
"UNLAWFULLY, KNOWINGLY, WILFULLY, FRAUDULENTLY, AND FELONIOUSLY MAKE
AND CAUSE TO BE MADE IN A BOOK OF THE SAID THE COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK
OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, KNOWN AS THE INDIVIDUAL LEDGER, IN THE ACCOUNT
DESIGNATED 'S.A. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,' UNDER DATE OF 'JUL 25 '33' IN
THE COLUMN BEARING THE PRINTED HEADING 'BALANCE,' BEING THE FIFTH ENTRY
FROM THE TOP OF THE COLUMN AFORESAID, AND DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THE MACHINE
PRINTED DATE THEREON 'JULY 25 33,' A CERTAIN FALSE ENTRY IN THE
FOLLOWING FIGURES, TO WIT, '7,874.07,' WHICH SAID ENTRY SO MADE AS
AFORESAID, PURPORTS TO SHOW AND DOES IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT INDICATE
AND DECLARE THAT THE COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS,
WAS INDEBTED AND LIABLE TO THE SAN ANTONIO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY IN
THE AMOUNT OF SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND
SEVEN CENTS ($7,874.07) ON JULY 25, 1933, WHEREAS IN TRUTH AND IN FACT
SAID INDEBTEDNESS AND LIABILITY ON SAID DATE WAS A DIFFERENT AND MUCH
LARGER AMOUNT." 

COUNT FOUR MADE A LIKE CHARGE RELATIVE TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE NATIONAL
LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY. 

HE WAS TRIED, FOUND GUILTY, AND SENTENCED UNDER BOTH COUNTS.  THE
POINT FOR OUR DECISION IS WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO
DIRECT A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY.  THE ESSENTIAL FACTS ARE NOT IN
DISPUTE. 

FROM THE EVIDENCE IT APPEARS - 

GILES, ONCE BOOKKEEPER FOR THE COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK, BECAME FIRST
PAYING AND RECEIVING TELLER WITH CUSTODY EACH DAY OF SOME $35,000.00
CASH.  HIS DUTY WAS TO RECEIVE DEPOSITS AND PLACE ACCOMPANYING SLIPS OR
TICKETS WHERE THEY WOULD REACH THE BOOKKEEPERS FOR ENTRY.  EIGHTEEN
MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED OFFENSE, HE DISCOVERED SHORTAGE IN HIS CASH
BUT MADE NO REPORT TO HIS SUPERIORS.  TO COVER UP THE SHORTAGE HE
RESORTED TO THE PRACTICE OF WITHHOLDING SELECTED DEPOSIT SLIPS FOR
THREE OR FOUR DAYS BEFORE PERMITTING THEM TO REACH THE BOOKKEEPING
DEPARTMENT.  THIS CAUSED THE LEDGER TO SHOW FALSE BALANCES.  OTHER
SHORTAGES OCCURRED; JULY 25, 1933, THE TOTAL STOOD AT $2,650.00. 

ON THAT DAY HE ACCEPTED DEPOSITS WITH PROPER TICKETS FROM SAN ANTONIO
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY AND NATIONAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY
FOR $1,985.79 AND $663.27 RESPECTIVELY, ACCOMPANIED BY CASH AND
CHECKS.  TOGETHER THESE APPROXIMATED HIS SHORTAGE.  HE WITHHELD BOTH
TICKETS FROM THE PLACE WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE GONE AND SECRETED THEM. 
IF PLACED AS USUAL AND AS HIS DUTY REQUIRED, THEY WOULD HAVE REACHED
THE BOOKKEEPER DURING THE DAY.  ENTRIES ON THE LEDGER WOULD HAVE SHOWN
THE DEPOSITORS' TRUE BALANCES. 

THE BANK CLOSED JULY 29TH.  THE SLIPS NEVER REACHED THE BOOKKEEPER. 
THE INDIVIDUAL LEDGER ACCOUNTS AT THE END OF THE 25TH AND THEREAFTER
UNDERSTATED THE LIABILITY OF THE BANK TO THE DEPOSITORS. 

THE RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGED HIS PURPOSE IN WITHHOLDING THE DEPOSIT
TICKETS WAS TO PREVENT OFFICERS AND EXAMINERS FROM DISCOVERING HIS
SHORTAGE.  SOME EXCERPTS FROM HIS TESTIMONY ARE IN THE MARGIN.  FN2 

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE COUNSEL MOVED FOR A DIRECTED
VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY.  THIS WAS DENIED.  THE JURY FOUND GUILT UNDER
BOTH COUNTS; AN APPEAL, WITH MANY ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR, WENT TO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 

THAT COURT DECLARED:  "THE SERIOUS QUESTION PRESENTED FOR DECISION IS
WHETHER THE LAW WILL SUPPORT A CONVICTION ON AN INDICTMENT CHARGING
THAT DEFENDANT CAUSED THE FALSE ENTRIES TO BE MADE." 

"OF COURSE, IN A SENSE, ONE WHO MAKES A FALSE ENTRY CAUSES IT TO BE
MADE.  IF HE MAKES AN ENTRY HIMSELF OR DIRECTS ANOTHER TO MAKE IT, AN
ALLEGATION IN THE INDICTMENT THAT HE CAUSED IT TO BE MADE MAY BE
TREATED AS SURPLUSAGE AND HARMLESS, BUT WHERE THE DEFENDANT HAS NEITHER
MADE A FALSE ENTRY NOR DIRECTED ANOTHER TO DO SO, THE SAME ALLEGATION
IS MATERIAL AND INJURIOUS.  A CHARGE THAT ONE HAS CAUSED A FALSE ENTRY
TO BE MADE IS VERY MUCH BROADER THAN THE CHARGE THAT HE MADE IT."  "WE
CONSIDER THE ALLEGATION OF THE INDICTMENT THAT DEFENDANT DID 'CAUSE TO
BE MADE A CERTAIN FALSE ENTRY IN A BOOK OF THE BANK,' CHARGED A DEGREE
AND CLASSIFICATION OF THE OFFENSE NOT WITHIN THE LETTER OR INTENT OF
THE LAW."  "THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THAT
DEFENDANT NEITHER MADE THE FALSE ENTRIES NOR DID ANYTHING THAT COULD BE
CONSIDERED AS A DIRECTION TO THE BOOKKEEPER TO MAKE THEM.  WITHOUT THE
CHARGE THAT HE CAUSED THE ENTRIES TO BE MADE HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
CONVICTED.  IT FOLLOWS THAT IT WAS PREJUDICIAL ERROR TO OVERRULE THE
MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL." 

DISSENTING, ONE JUDGE SAID: 

"THIS STATUTE PLAINLY INTENDS TO PUNISH THE FALSIFICATION OF BANK
RECORDS WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE OR DEFRAUD.  IF FALSE ENTRIES ARE
DELIBERATELY PRODUCED, ALTHOUGH THROUGH AN IGNORANTLY INNOCENT AGENT,
THE BANK EMPLOYEE WHO CONCOCTS THE PLAN AND ACHIEVES THE RESULT IS, IN
MY OPINION, GUILTY.  THIS INNOCENT BOOKKEEPER WAS THE TELLER'S REAL
THOUGH UNCONSCIOUS AGENT IN MAKING THE ENTRIES; AS TRULY SO AS IF THE
FALSE ENTRIES HAD BEEN REQUESTED IN WORDS."  "...  THE PRESENT CASE IS
NOT ONE OF A MERE FAILURE TO PREVENT A CONSEQUENCE, BUT IS ONE OF
CONTRIVING THAT CONSEQUENCE AND SO FATHERING IT AS TO MAKE IT WHOLLY
THE CONTRIVER'S OWN.  THE BOOKKEEPER IN MAKING THESE FALSE ENTRIES WAS
DOING THE WILL OF THE TELLER, THOUGH HE DID NOT KNOW IT.  THE FALSE
ENTRIES ARE IN LAW THE ACTS OF THE TELLER WHO PLANNED THEM AND DID ALL
HE NEEDED TO DO TO PRODUCE THEM." 

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NOW AFFIRM:  "THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS TO
THE FACTS."  "THE ACT COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS THE WITHHOLDING BY
HIM AND THE FAILURE BY HIM TO TURN OVER TO THE BOOKKEEPING DEPARTMENT
IN THE USUAL COURSE OF THE BANK'S BUSINESS A DEPOSIT SLIP."  HE DID NOT
CAUSE ANY FALSE ENTRY TO BE MADE.  PERSONALLY HE MADE NO SUCH ENTRY; HE
DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DIRECT ONE.  BY WITHHOLDING THE TICKET HE
PREVENTED AN ENTRY; HE CAUSED NONE. 

THE RULE, OFTEN ANNOUNCED, THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES MUST BE STRICTLY
CONSTRUED DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE WORDS OF AN ENACTMENT BE GIVEN
THEIR NARROWEST MEANING OR THAT THE LAWMAKER'S EVIDENT INTENT BE
DISREGARDED.  UNITED STATES V. CORBETT, 215 U.S. 233, 242.  HERE THE
PURPOSE TO INSURE THE CORRECTNESS OF BANK RECORDS BY PRESCRIBING
PUNISHMENT FOR ANY EMPLOYEE WHO, WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE, ETC.,
DELIBERATELY BRINGS ABOUT THEIR FALSIFICATION IS PLAIN ENOUGH.  THE
STATUTE DENOUNCES AS CRIMINAL ONE WHO WITH INTENT, ETC., "MAKES ANY
FALSE ENTRY."  THE WORD "MAKE" HAS MANY MEANINGS, AMONG THEM "TO CAUSE
TO EXIST, APPEAR OR OCCUR," WEBSTER'S INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 2ND ED.
TO HOLD THE STATUTE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE DELIBERATE ACTION FROM
WHICH A FALSE ENTRY BY AN INNOCENT INTERMEDIARY NECESSARILY FOLLOWS,
GIVES TO THE WORDS EMPLOYED THEIR FAIR MEANING AND IS IN ACCORD WITH
THE EVIDENT INTENT OF CONGRESS.  TO HOLD THAT IT APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE
ACCUSED PERSONALLY WRITES THE FALSE ENTRY OR AFFIRMATIVELY DIRECTS
ANOTHER SO TO DO WOULD EMASCULATE THE STATUTE - DEFEAT THE VERY END IN
VIEW. 

MORSE V. UNITED STATES, 174 FED. 539, 547, 553 - CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT - GAVE MUCH CONSIDERATION TO AN INDICTMENT AND
CONVICTION UNDER R.S., SEC. 5209.  THE COURT SAID:  "IT IS TRUE THAT
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT MAKE ANY OF THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OR REPORTS
WITH HIS OWN PEN.  ALL OF THEM WERE MADE BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK
AS PART OF THEIR ROUTINE WORK.  IF IT WERE NECESSARY TO PROVE AGAINST A
DIRECTOR THAT HE ACTUALLY MADE THE ENTRY CHARGED TO BE FALSE,
CONVICTION UNDER THE STATUTE WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE, AS THESE ENTRIES ARE
INVARIABLY MADE BY SUBORDINATES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.  CONGRESS
WAS NOT SEEKING TO PUNISH THE IGNORANT BOOKKEEPER WHO COPIES ITEMS INTO
THE BOOKS AS PART OF HIS DAILY TASK, BUT THE OFFICERS WHO CONCEIVED AND
CARRIED OUT THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME WHICH THE FALSE ENTRY WAS DESIGNED TO
CONCEAL.  IT IS WHOLLY IMMATERIAL WHETHER SUCH OFFICER ACTS THROUGH A
PEN OR A CLERK CONTROLLED BY HIM."  "IT SEEMS TO US THAT DEFENDANT IS
AS FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FALSE ENTRIES WHICH NECESSARILY RESULT
FROM THE PRESENTATION OF THESE PIECES OF PAPER WHICH HE CAUSED TO BE
PREPARED AS HE WOULD IF HE HAD GIVEN ORAL INSTRUCTIONS IN REFERENCE TO
THEM OR HAD WRITTEN THEM HIMSELF." 

WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW SO EXPRESSED IN THAT OPINION.  UNITED STATES
V. MCCLARTY, 191 FED. 518 AND 523, APPARENTLY IS IN CONFLICT WITH OUR
CONCLUSION. 

THE RECORD LEAVES US IN NO DOUBT THAT THE FALSE ENTRIES ON THE LEDGER
WERE THE INTENDED AND NECESSARY RESULT OF RESPONDENT'S DELIBERATE
ACTION IN WITHHOLDING THE DEPOSIT TICKETS.  WITHIN THE STATUTE HE MADE
THEM. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED.  THE
DISTRICT COURT WILL BE AFFIRMED.  REVERSED. 

FN1  SEC. 5209 R.S., TITLE LXII, NATIONAL BANKS, CH. 3.  "EVERY
PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR, CASHIER, TELLER, CLERK, OR AGENT OF ANY
ASSOCIATION, WHO EMBEZZLES, ABSTRACTS, OR WILLFULLY MISAPPLIES ANY OF
THE MONEYS, FUNDS, OR CREDITS OF THE ASSOCIATION; OR WHO, WITHOUT
AUTHORITY FROM THE DIRECTORS, ISSUES OR PUTS IN CIRCULATION ANY OF THE
NOTES OF THE ASSOCIATION; OR WHO, WITHOUT SUCH AUTHORITY, ISSUES OR
PUTS FORTH ANY CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT, DRAWS ANY ORDER OR BILL OF
EXCHANGE, MAKES ANY ACCEPTANCE, ASSIGNS ANY NOTE, BOND, DRAFT, BILL OF
EXCHANGE, MORTGAGE, JUDGMENT, OR DECREE; OR WHO MAKES ANY FALSE ENTRY
IN ANY BOOK, REPORT, OR STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION, WITH INTENT, IN
EITHER CASE, TO INJURE OR DEFRAUD THE ASSOCIATION OR ANY OTHER COMPANY,
BODY POLITIC OR CORPORATE, OR ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON, OR TO DECEIVE ANY
OFFICER OF THE ASSOCIATION, OR ANY AGENT APPOINTED TO EXAMINE THE
AFFAIRS OF ANY SUCH ASSOCIATION; AND EVERY PERSON WHO WITH LIKE INTENT
AIDS OR ABETS ANY OFFICER, CLERK, OR AGENT IN ANY VIOLATION OF THIS
IMPRISONED NOT LESS THAN FIVE YEARS NOR MORE THAN TEN." 

FN2  "MY ACTUAL SHORTAGE WAS $2,650.00 THAT HAD SHOWN UP WITHOUT MY
HAVING ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.  THE ONLY WAY IT COULD BE CARRIED WAS
HOLDING OUT DEPOSIT TICKETS TO OFFSET THE SHORTAGE IN THE CASH, AND ON
THE 25TH OF JULY WITHHOLDING THESE TWO DEPOSITS, THE SAN ANTONIO PUBLIC
SERVICE AND THE NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT, AND DEPOSITING THE TWO
TICKETS THAT HAD BEEN HELD OVER FROM THE 21ST. 

"ASKED IF I SELECTED THOSE TWO DEPOSIT SLIPS THAT DAY TO WITHHOLD
THEM BECAUSE THEY, TOGETHER, MADE UP THE AMOUNT OF THE SHORTAGE, THAT
WAS THE REASON I SELECTED THOSE TWO, BECAUSE IT COVERED THE AMOUNT OF
THE SHORTAGE. 

"THE BANK GOT THE MONEY FOR BOTH OF THOSE DEPOSITS.  I DID NOT MAKE
ANY FALSE ENTRIES WITH REFERENCE TO THOSE ITEMS.  IT IS TRUE THAT ALL I
DID WAS SIMPLY PUT THE DEPOSIT SLIPS IN THE CIGAR BOX AND WITHHELD THEM
FOR THE TIME BEING, UNTIL I COULD RECOVER THE SHORTAGE.  I DID NOT MAKE
ANY REPORT TO ANY BOOKKEEPER.  AS TO HOW THE BOOKKEEPING DEPARTMENT
RECEIVED ITS INFORMATION ON WHICH THEY KEEP THEIR BOOKS, THE
BOOKKEEPERS CAME IN THREE OR FOUR TIMES A DAY AND LOTS OF DAYS OFTENER,
AND TOOK THE DEPOSIT TICKETS AND CHECKS OUT OF THE DRAWERS.  THE
BUSINESS OF THE DAY WAS REPRESENTED BY THE TICKETS AND CHECKS.  I WOULD
PUT THOSE IN THE DRAWERS; I HAD A SPECIAL DRAWER FOR THEM, DIVIDED INTO
THE DRAWERS WHENEVER THEY WANTED TO AND GET THEM - THEY CAME AND GOT
THEM WHETHER I WAS THERE OR NOT.  I HAD NO CONTROL OR DIRECTION
WHATEVER OVER THE BOOKKEEPING DEPARTMENT OR ANY BOOKKEEPER.  MR.
CROWTHER HAD CONTROL AND DIRECTION OVER THE BOOKKEEPERS; REALLY, MR.
ROBERTS HANDLED THEM, BUT MR. CROWTHER WAS OVER THE BOOKKEEPERS.  IF
THE ENTRIES WERE MADE ON ANY GIVEN DATE SHOWING THE BALANCE OF ANY
DEPOSITORS, ETC., I DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH MAKING
THE ENTRIES OR CAUSING THEM TO BE MADE.  THEY SIMPLY CAME TO THE
DRAWERS AND GOT THE CHECKS AND DEPOSIT SLIPS, AND FROM THAT MADE UP
THEIR ENTRIES.  THESE TWO DEPOSIT SLIPS THAT WERE WITHHELD AND STUCK IN
THE CIGAR BOX THAT DAY WOULD HAVE GONE RIGHT ON INTO THE BOOKS IN TIME
IF THE BANK HAD NOT CLOSED.... THEY WERE SIMPLY WITHHELD THAT WAY TO
MAKE MY CASH BALANCE; THAT WAS THE ONLY WAY I HAD OF DOING THAT....  I
WITHHELD DEPOSIT TICKETS FROM TIME TO TIME IN ORDER THAT MY CASH
SHORTAGE WOULD NOT BE DISCOVERED.    "WITH REGARD TO THE TWO DEPOSITS
THAT ARE DIRECTLY IN QUESTION IN THIS CASE, ONE TO THE NATIONAL LIFE &
ACCIDENT COMPANY AND ONE TO THE SAN ANTONIO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,
EACH ON THE 25TH OF JULY, 1933, I WITHHELD THOSE TWO DEPOSIT TICKETS
FROM THE BOOKKEEPERS.  ASKED IF INSTEAD OF PUTTING THEM IN THE DRAWER
WITH THE BALANCE OF THE DEPOSIT TICKETS FOR THAT DAY, I PUT THEM IN A
DIFFERENT PLACE WHERE I KNEW THE BOOKKEEPERS WOULD NOT LOOK FOR THEM,
YES, SIR, I PUT THEM IN THE CIGAR BOX.  THE BOOKKEEPERS HAD NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE CIGAR BOX.  THE BOOKKEEPERS WOULD GO TO THE REGULAR PLACE
WHERE THE DEPOSIT SLIPS WERE KEPT TO GET THEM.  THE REASON I PUT THE
TWO DEPOSIT TICKETS IN THE CIGAR BOX WAS FOR THE SOLE AND ONLY PURPOSE
OF KEEPING THEM FROM THE BOOKKEEPERS TO KEEP THEM FROM GOING THROUGH,
TO KEEP THEM FROM GOING ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITORS. 

"ASKED IF BY PUTTING DEPOSIT SLIPS IN A PLACE WHERE HE WOULD NOT GET
THEM AND I KNEW HE WOULD NOT GET THEM, I HAD THAT MUCH CONTROL OVER THE
BOOKKEEPERS, YES, SIR, BY HOLDING THEM OUT, OF COURSE, HE WOULD NOT GET
THEM. 

"Q.  NOW I SHOW YOU ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S EXHIBITS, WHICH IS THE
INDIVIDUAL LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SAN ANTONIO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY IN
THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN, THE 5TH LINE FROM THE TOP OF THE PAGE, AN ENTRY
UNDER DATE OF JULY 25TH, 1933, UNDER THE COLUMN HEAD 'NEW BALANCE'
WHICH IS THE LAST BALANCE OF THAT ACCOUNT SHOWN FOR JULY 25TH, 1933, OF
$7,874.07; WAS THAT THE TRUE BALANCE OF THAT ACCOUNT ON THAT DATE?  A.
THAT WAS THE TRUE BALANCE OF EVERYTHING THAT WENT THROUGH TO THE
ACCOUNT.  Q. THAT IS RIGHT, BUT WAS THAT A TRUE BALANCE ON THE ACCOUNT;
DO THE FIGURES, 7,874.07, REPRESENT THE LIABILITY OF THE COMMERCIAL
NATIONAL BANK TO THE SAN ANTONIO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF
BUSINESS ON JULY 25TH, 1933?  A. NO, SIR; THE DEPOSIT SLIP WAS IN MY
CAGE OF $1,985.79. 

"Q.  AND THEN THIS ENTRY OF $7,874.07 IS NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE YOU DID
NOT LET THE BOOKKEEPERS HAVE THE DEPOSIT TICKET?  A. WE OFTEN HELD
DEPOSIT TICKETS OVER.  Q. BUT YOU WITHHELD IT FOR A PURPOSE, DIDN'T
YOU?  A. YES, SIR.  Q. YOUR INTENTION IN WITHHOLDING IT WAS SO THAT IT
WOULD NOT GO ON THE LEDGER SHEET, WASN'T IT?  A. YES, SIR; I PUT IT IN
THE CIGAR BOX. 

"I DID NOT MAKE ANY ENTRIES OR FIGURES OF ANY SORT FROM WHICH THE
BOOKKEEPERS MIGHT HAVE GOT IT OFF THE ENTRIES.  THE ONLY ENTRY I EVER
MADE WAS IN THE DEPOSITOR'S PASS BOOK.  I THEREFORE MADE NO OTHER
ENTRIES." 
..END :







KELLY V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 50 


NO. 309.  SUBMITTED JANUARY 8, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 83
F.(2D) 783, 84 F.(2D) 541, REVERSED. 


1.  WHERE, UPON AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FROM A
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THE RECORD CONTAINS NO PROPERLY
AUTHENTICATED STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE OR AGREED STATEMENT OF THE CASE
AS REQUIRED BY EQUITY RULES 75(B) AND 77, AND THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED
ON THAT GROUND, ALTHOUGH THE CAUSE WAS HEARD WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE
RECORD, DENIAL BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, UPON A PETITION FOR
REHEARING, OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE PROPER AUTHENTICATION OF THE
RECORD IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.  P. 54. 

2.  WHILE ORDERLY PROCEDURE DEMANDS THAT THE EQUITY RULES BE ENFORCED
WITH THE STRICTNESS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE,
YET WHEN, AS HERE, THERE IS MERE OMISSION OF SOME STEP WHICH HAS
ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF BOTH PARTIES, AND WHEN RIGOROUS ENFORCEMENT
WITHOUT FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THE ERROR WOULD DEFEAT HEARING ON
THE MERITS AND ENTAIL UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, APPROPRIATE RELIEF PROMPTLY
ASKED FOR SHOULD BE AFFORDED.  P. 54. 

3.  IN THIS CASE, PERMISSION TO SUPPLY AUTHENTICATION OF THE RECORD
WOULD HAVE OCCASIONED NO MATERIAL INJURY TO ANY PARTY, NOR INTERFERED
SERIOUSLY WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE COURT.  P. 55. 

KELLY, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY, V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 528, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT,
12 F.SUPP.  11, WHICH DISAFFIRMED AN ORDER OF THE REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY
AND ALLOWED A CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES FOR INCOME TAXES AGAINST THE
ESTATE OF A BANKRUPT.  THE TAX LIABILITY HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SUSTAINED
BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, 29 B.T.A. 514. 

MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN A PROCEEDING BEGUN JANUARY 9, 1934, THE DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN
DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, ADJUDGED THE CARLISLE PACKING COMPANY BANKRUPT,
FEBRUARY 9, 1934.  THE UNITED STATES PRESENTED THEIR CLAIM FOR INCOME
TAXES FOR 1927, 1928, AND 1929, AND THE TRUSTEE FILED OBJECTIONS, JUNE
18, 1934.  HE ASSERTED THAT THE COMPANY RECEIVED NO TAXABLE INCOME
DURING 1927 BUT SUFFERED LOSS SUFFICIENT TO OFFSET ANY GAINS FOR 1928
AND 1929.  THE REFEREE RECEIVED COPY OF THE DULY AUTHENTICATED JUDGMENT
BY THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, WHICH SUSTAINED THE TAX IN QUESTION, TOOK
OTHER EVIDENCE, AND UPON THE WHOLE RECORD CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANY
LOST AS AVERRED DURING 1927.  HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AND EXPLAINED
THIS ACTION BY AN OPINION. 

EXCEPTIONS CHALLENGED THE REFEREE'S REFUSAL TO TREAT THE DECISION OF
THE TAX BOARD AS CONCLUSIVE AND HOLD THE BANKRUPTCY COURT LACKED POWER
TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE ASSESSMENTS.  A PETITION FOR REVIEW BY
THE DISTRICT COURT ALLEGED FINALITY OF THE BOARD'S JUDGMENT, LACK OF
POWER IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, AND ASKED DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM. 

FROM AN ABSTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS RETURNED BY THE REFEREE IT
APPEARS - 

THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY OBJECTED TO THE
INTRODUCTION OF ANY TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE MERITS OF THE QUESTIONED
TAX UPON THE GROUND THAT THE BOARD'S JUDGMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAME
MATTER HAD BECOME FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE. 

THAT THE BANKRUPT HAD BORROWED LARGE SUMS FROM THE BANK OF
CALIFORNIA, AND IN 1927 WHEN UNABLE OTHERWISE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS
HAD TRANSFERRED TO THE BANK MUCH PROPERTY AND RECEIVED THEREFOR ITS OWN
CANCELLED NOTES FOR $650,000.00.  THE COMPANY CLAIMED NO PROFIT AROSE
FROM THIS TRANSACTION AND THAT IT SUSTAINED LARGE LOSS DURING 1927. 
THE COLLECTOR RULED TO THE CONTRARY AND ASSESSED DELINQUENCIES FOR
THREE YEARS.  THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS SUSTAINED HIM, APPROVED THE
ASSESSMENTS, AND ADJUDGED ACCORDINGLY, JANUARY 4, 1934.  ON JANUARY 12,
1934, HE MADE SUMMARY ASSESSMENTS.  THE TIME FOR CONTESTING THE BOARD'S
JUDGMENT HAD NOT EXPIRED WHEN PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED BANKRUPT. 

UPON MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES THE DISTRICT COURT DIRECTED THAT THE
BANKRUPT'S TAX RETURNS BE MADE PARTS OF THE RECORD.  IT THEN HEARD THE
CAUSE, CONSIDERED WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE BOARD WAS CONCLUSIVE, AND
HELD:  "TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT A DEFICIENCY DETERMINED BY THE
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS MAY BE RE-EXAMINED AND RE-DECIDED BY THE JUDGE OF
A DISTRICT COURT OR A REFEREE IN BANKRUPTCY IS, ON ITS FACE,
INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE ON THE PART OF CONGRESS SHOWN
THAT A REVIEW OF THE BOARD'S DECISION SHOULD BE BY SUCH AN APPELLATE
COURT."  ACCORDINGLY IT RENDERED AN OPINION, DISAFFIRMED THE REFEREE'S
ACTION, AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM. 

THEREUPON THE TRUSTEE APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 
AMONG OTHER THINGS HE ASSIGNED AS ERROR THE RULING THAT THE BANKRUPTCY
COURT LACKED POWER TO DETERMINE ANEW QUESTIONS WHICH THE BOARD OF TAX
APPEALS HAD ADJUDICATED.  PORTIONS OF THE RECORD IN THE DISTRICT COURT,
CERTIFIED AS CORRECT BY THE CLERK, WERE FILED.  COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED
STATES OBTAINED LEAVE TO MAKE PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT THE DISTRICT
COURT'S OPINION.  THIS WAS OMITTED, HE SAID, THROUGH INADVERTENCE ONLY
RECENTLY DISCOVERED. 

IT IS ASSERTED AND NOT DENIED THAT THE CAUSE WAS HEARD BY THE COURT
WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE RECORD, AND THAT BOTH SIDES TREATED THE
STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AS CORRECT.  UNDOUBTEDLY, THE RECORD WAS NOT
PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF EQUITY RULES NUMBER
75(B)  FN1 AND 77.  FN2 

UPON ITS OWN MOTION THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RAISED THE POINT AND
DECIDED "APPELLANT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH EITHER OF THESE RULES, BUT HAS
DISREGARDED THEM BOTH.  THERE IS NO STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE, NOR IS
THERE ANY AGREED STATEMENT OF THE CASE.  IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH
STATEMENT, WE INDULGE THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE
JUDGMENT AND WARRANTS ITS AFFIRMANCE." 

THE TRUSTEE ASKED FOR A REHEARING, ALSO THAT THE RECORD BE RETURNED
TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR SETTLEMENT AND PROPER AUTHENTICATION.  BOTH
THINGS WERE DENIED.  ONE OF THE JUDGES DISSENTED, AND FROM HIS
UNQUESTIONED STATEMENT IT APPEARS:  "NEITHER PARTY RAISED THE POINT ON
WHICH THE OPINION WAS BASED.  THE POINT TOOK ITS ORIGIN FROM THE BENCH
WITHOUT SUGGESTION FROM OR REFERENCE TO EITHER PARTY AND IN THE FACE OF
EXTENDED ARGUMENT AND VOLUMINOUS BRIEFS BASED UPON THE STATEMENT OF
EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE ABSTRACT."  HE THOUGHT THE PETITION FOR
REHEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED TO SECURE
PROPER AUTHENTICATION OF THE RECORD. 

MANIFESTLY THE EQUITY RULES SHOULD BE ENFORCED WITH THE STRICTNESS
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE; ORDERLY PROCEDURE SO
DEMANDS.  BUT WHEN, AS HERE, THERE IS MERE OMISSION OF SOME STEP WHICH
HAS ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF BOTH PARTIES, AND WHEN RIGOROUS
ENFORCEMENT WITHOUT FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THE ERROR WOULD DEFEAT
HEARING ON THE MERITS AND ENTAIL UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, WE THINK
APPROPRIATE RELIEF PROMPTLY ASKED FOR SHOULD BE AFFORDED.  PERMISSION
TO SUPPLY AUTHENTICATION OF THE RECORD WOULD HAVE OCCASIONED NO
MATERIAL INJURY TO ANY PARTY, NOR INTERFERED SERIOUSLY WITH THE
BUSINESS OF THE COURT.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE MUST REGARD THE DENIAL
OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND AS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION - A VIOLATION OF
THE SPIRIT IF NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MUST BE REVERSED.  THE
CAUSE WILL BE REMANDED THERE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN HARMONY WITH
THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  EQUITY RULE 75(B), AS AMENDED, 286 U.S. 570, 28 U.S.C.A. SEC.
723: 

"THE EVIDENCE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD, EXCEPT EXPERT TESTIMONY,
SHALL NOT BE SET FORTH IN FULL, BUT SHALL BE STATED IN SIMPLE AND
CONDENSED FORM, ALL PARTS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE DECISION OF THE
QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE APPEAL BEING OMITTED AND THE TESTIMONY OF
WITNESSES BEING STATED ONLY IN NARRATIVE FORM, SAVE THAT IF EITHER
PARTY DESIRES IT, AND THE COURT OR JUDGE SO DIRECTS, ANY PART OF THE
TESTIMONY SHALL BE REPRODUCED IN THE EXACT WORDS OF THE WITNESS.  THE
DUTY OF SO CONDENSING AND STATING THE EVIDENCE SHALL REST PRIMARILY ON
THE APPELLANT, WHO SHALL PREPARE HIS STATEMENT THEREOF AND LODGE THE
SAME IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE OTHER PARTIES AT
OR BEFORE THE TIME OF FILING HIS PRAECIPE UNDER PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS
RULE.  HE SHALL ALSO NOTIFY THE OTHER PARTIES OR THEIR SOLICITORS OF
SUCH LODGMENT AND SHALL NAME A TIME AND PLACE WHEN HE WILL ASK THE
COURT OR JUDGE TO APPROVE THE STATEMENT, THE TIME SO NAMED TO BE AT
LEAST TEN DAYS AFTER SUCH NOTICE.  AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME NAMED
OR SUCH FURTHER TIME AS THE COURT OR JUDGE MAY ALLOW, THE STATEMENT,
TOGETHER WITH ANY OBJECTIONS MADE OR AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY ANY PARTY,
SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE COURT OR THE JUDGE, AND IF THE STATEMENTS BE
TRUE, COMPLETE AND PROPERLY PREPARED, IT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE COURT
OR JUDGE, AND IF IT BE NOT TRUE, COMPLETE, OR PROPERLY PREPARED, IT
SHALL BE MADE SO UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT OR JUDGE AND SHALL
THEN BE APPROVED.  WHEN APPROVED, IT SHALL BE FILED IN THE CLERK'S
OFFICE AND BECOME A PART OF THE RECORD FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
APPEAL." 

FN2  EQUITY RULE 77, 226 U.S. 672, 28 U.S.C.A. SEC. 723: 

"WHEN THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY AN APPEAL CAN BE DETERMINED BY THE
APPELLATE COURT WITHOUT AN EXAMINATION OF ALL THE PLEADINGS AND
EVIDENCE, THE PARTIES, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE
JUDGE THEREOF, MAY PREPARE AND SIGN A STATEMENT OF THE CASE SHOWING HOW
THE QUESTIONS AROSE AND WERE DECIDED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AND SETTING
FORTH SO MUCH ONLY OF THE FACTS ALLEGED AND PROVED, OR SOUGHT TO BE
PROVED, AS IS ESSENTIAL TO A DECISION OF SUCH QUESTIONS BY THE
APPELLATE COURT.  SUCH STATEMENT, WHEN FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
OF THE DISTRICT COURT, SHALL BE TREATED AS SUPERSEDING, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE APPEAL, ALL PARTS OF THE RECORD OTHER THAN THE DECREE
FROM WHICH THE APPEAL IS TAKEN, AND, TOGETHER WITH SUCH DECREE, SHALL
BE COPIED AND CERTIFIED TO THE APPELLATE COURT AS THE RECORD ON
APPEAL." 
..END :




THOMPSON V. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO., 300 U.S. 55 


NO. 89.  ARGUED NOVEMBER 18, 19, 1936.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  -
14 F.SUPP.  318, AFFIRMED. 


1.  UNDER THE COMMON LAW OF TEXAS (APART FROM STATUTE), THE OWNER OF
LAND HAS TITLE TO THE NATURAL GAS IN PLACE, INCLUDING THAT WHICH
MIGRATES THERE FROM OTHER LANDS OF THE GAS FIELD, AND MAY PRODUCE ALL
THAT WILL FLOW FROM HIS WELL, AND MAY DRILL OFF-SETS TO GET HIS FULL
SHARE FROM THE COMMON SUPPLY.  P. 68. 

2.  IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS PURPORTING TO BE MADE
UNDER LEGAL AUTHORITY, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF FACTS
JUSTIFYING THE SPECIFIC EXERCISE.  P. 69. 

3.  ORDERS LIMITING AND PRORATING THE PRODUCTION OF GAS BY THE
SEVERAL OWNERS OF LAND IN A GAS FIELD MUST BE HELD INVALID IF SHOWN TO
BEAR NO REASONABLE RELATION EITHER TO THE PREVENTION OF WASTE OR TO THE
PROTECTION OF CORRELATIVE RIGHTS, OR IF SHOWN TO BE OTHERWISE
ARBITRARY.  P. 69. 

4.  QUAERE WHETHER C. 120, TEXAS ACTS, 1935, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS
ATTEMPTING TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE RAILROAD COMMISSION TO REDUCE THE
PRODUCTION OF GAS FROM WELLS OWNED BY THE OWNERS OF PRIVATE PIPE-LINES,
FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MAKING THEM BUY GAS PRODUCED BY OTHERS WHO LACK
PIPE-LINE CONNECTIONS.  P. 73. 

5.  THIS COURT IS RELUCTANT TO PASS UPON A SERIOUSLY CONTROVERTED
QUESTION OF THE MEANING OF A STATE STATUTE, BECAUSE ITS DECISION,
ALTHOUGH DISPOSING OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, CANNOT SETTLE THE PROPER
CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  P. 74. 

6.  IN CONSTRUING, ON APPEAL, A STATE STATUTE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN
CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURTS, THIS COURT IS DISPOSED TO ACCEPT THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN IT BY THE LOWER FEDERAL COURT, PARTICULARLY WHEN
THAT COURT IS COMPOSED WHOLLY OF CITIZENS OF THE STATE.  P. 74. 

7.  WHERE ONE PARTY'S CASE DEPENDS UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE
STATUTE BRINGING IT PLAINLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION,
AND WHERE THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE HAS NOT BEEN SETTLED
BY THE STATE COURTS BUT IS GRAVELY DOUBTFUL, THIS COURT WILL REST ITS
DECISION ON THE CONSTITUTION, AND WILL NOT UNDERTAKE TO DECIDE THE
QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION, AS TO WHICH IT LACKS THE POWER TO GIVE A
DEFINITIVE ANSWER.  P. 75. 

8.  ONE PERSON'S PROPERTY MAY NOT BE TAKEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER
PRIVATE PERSON, EVEN THOUGH COMPENSATION BE PAID.  PP. 77-79. 

9.  SOME OF THE OWNERS OF WELLS IN A TEXAS GAS FIELD HAD ESTABLISHED
CONTRACT LIGHT AND FUEL MARKETS FOR THEIR GAS IN DISTANT PLACES BY
MEANS OF THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED PIPE-LINES.  THE OTHER OWNERS OF WELLS
COULD NOT OPERATE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LOCAL LIGHT AND FUEL MARKET FOR
GAS AND THEY HAD NO PIPE-LINES TO TRANSPORT IT ELSEWHERE, AND BECAUSE
TO EMPLOY IT IN THE MANUFACTURE OF NATURAL GASOLINE AND CARBON BLACK
WAS FORBIDDEN BY THE STATE AS WASTEFUL.  THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION,
CLAIMING AUTHORITY UNDER A STATUTE (C. 120, TEXAS ACTS, 1935), MADE AN
ORDER PURPORTING TO LIMIT THE TOTAL DAILY PRODUCTION OF THE FIELD AND
TO PRORATE THE ALLOWED PRODUCTION AMONG THE SEVERAL WELLS.  ALTHOUGH
THE PIPE-LINE OWNERS WERE OPERATING THEIR WELLS WITHOUT WASTE AND
WITHOUT INJURY TO OTHERS, AND ALTHOUGH THEIR SUPPLY WAS AMPLE TO SUPPLY
THEIR MARKET NEEDS, THE ORDER, IF ENFORCED, WOULD HAVE REDUCED THEIR
PRODUCTION SO DRASTICALLY THAT, TO FULFILL THEIR CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS
TO THEIR CUSTOMERS, THEY MUST PURCHASE GAS FROM THE OTHER WELL OWNERS
AND MUST SUFFER OTHER LOSSES THROUGH CURTAILMENT OF PLANT ACTIVITY AND
THROUGH MIGRATION OF GAS UNDERGROUND AWAY FROM THEIR WELLS TO OTHER
PARTS OF THE FIELD WHERE THE PRESSURE WAS LOWER.  THE PURPOSE OF THE
ORDER, AS PLAINLY SHOWN BY EVIDENCE AND COURT FINDINGS, WAS NEITHER TO
PREVENT WASTE NOR TO PREVENT UNDUE DRAINAGE FROM THE RESERVES OF OTHER
WELL OWNERS, BUT WAS SOLELY TO COMPEL THE PIPE-LINE OWNERS TO FURNISH A
MARKET TO THOSE WHO HAD NO PIPE-LINE CONNECTIONS.  HELD THE ORDER IS
VOID UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AS A TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR
PRIVATE BENEFIT.  PP. 76-79. 

10.  A PRIVATE PARTY IS NOT ESTOPPED TO ATTACK PROVISIONS OF A
STATUTE THAT ARE HARMFUL TO HIS INTERESTS MERELY BECAUSE HE SOUGHT THE
ENACTMENT OF OTHER AND SEPARABLE PROVISIONS IN IT, BENEFICIAL TO HIM IN
AN INCIDENTAL WAY, BUT NEITHER RELIED ON BY HIM NOR BROUGHT IN
QUESTION, IN THE LITIGATION.  P. 80. 

THOMPSON ET AL. V. CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES CORP. ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS. 

APPEAL FROM DECREES OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSION LIMITING
PRODUCTION OF GAS IN THE PANHANDLE FIELDS.  THE TWO CASES WERE
CONSOLIDATED FOR PURPOSE OF APPEAL.  SEE ALSO 12 F.SUPP.  462, A
DECISION ON MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS CASE CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF A GAS PRORATION ORDER ISSUED BY
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS FOR THE PANHANDLE FIELDS ON DECEMBER
10, 1935, AND CARRIED FORWARD IN SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS.  FN1  THE ORDERS
WERE ENTERED UNDER CHAPTER 120 OF THE TEXAS ACTS, 1935, FORTY-FOURTH
LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS HOUSE BILL 266.  UNDER
THE ORDERS THE PRODUCTION OF SWEET GAS FROM THE PLAINTIFFS' WELLS IS
LIMITED TO AN AMOUNT BELOW THEIR MARKET REQUIREMENTS UNDER EXISTING
CONTRACTS, BELOW THEIR PRESENT PRODUCTION, AND BELOW THE CAPACITY OF
THEIR TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING FACILITIES.  IT IS CHARGED THAT THE
PURPOSE OF SO LIMITING THE PRODUCTION IS NOT TO PREVENT WASTE, OR TO
PREVENT INVASION OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF CO-OWNERS IN THE COMMON
RESERVOIR, BUT SOLELY TO COMPEL THE PLAINTIFFS, AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, TO PURCHASE GAS FROM THOSE WELL OWNERS WHO HAVE NOT PROVIDED
THEMSELVES WITH A MARKET AND MARKETING FACILITIES - WELL OWNERS WHO
UNDER EXISTING LAW ARE OBLIGED TO STOP PRODUCTION, FOR WANT OF A
MARKET, UNLESS SOME MARKETING OUTLET IS FOUND. 

TWO SUITS TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER WERE BROUGHT IN THE
FEDERAL COURT FOR WESTERN TEXAS.  ONE WAS BY TEXAS PANHANDLE GAS
UTILITIES COMPANY, FOR WHICH CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES CORPORATION HAS
BEEN SUBSTITUTED AS PLAINTIFF; THE OTHER BY TEXOMA NATURAL GAS
COMPANY.  IN EACH SUIT THE MEMBERS OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE WERE MADE DEFENDANTS.  THE PROPERTIES FOR
WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS SEEK PROTECTION ARE THEIR SWEET GAS WELLS AND
RESERVES IN THE TEXAS PANHANDLE; THEIR PIPE LINES EXTENDING INTO OTHER
STATES; THEIR COMPRESSORS AND MARKETING FACILITIES FOR USE IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND CONTRACTS WHICH THEY HAVE MADE FOR THE SUPPLY
OF THE GAS TO DISTRIBUTORS IN OTHER STATES.  THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT
THE ORDER TAKES THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT WARRANT IN LAW.  THEY CONTEND
THAT THE ORDER IS IN EXCESS OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HOUSE BILL 266
CONFERS UPON THE COMMISSION; AND THAT IF THE STATUTE BE CONSTRUED AS
CONFERRING THE AUTHORITY EXERCISED, IT VIOLATES THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION AND THAT OF THE STATE.  THE DISTRICT JUDGE ISSUED A
RESTRAINING ORDER.  THE CASES WERE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.  THE COURT,
THREE JUDGES SITTING, GRANTED TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS, TEXAS PANHANDLE
GAS CO. V. THOMPSON, 12 F.SUPP.  462,  FN2  AND MADE THEM PERMANENT,
CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES CORP. V. THOMPSON, 14 F.SUPP.  318.  THE
CASES WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR PURPOSES OF APPEAL.  THE JURISDICTION,
FEDERAL AND EQUITABLE, WAS NOT QUESTIONED.  THE RECORD IS EXTENSIVE;
THE FINDINGS OF FACT EXPLICIT; THE BRIEFS IN THIS COURT OCCUPY OVER 500
PAGES. 

THE TEXAS PANHANDLE CONTAINS THE LARGEST NATURAL GAS FIELD IN THE
UNITED STATES, AN ENORMOUS RESERVOIR OF NATURAL GAS AND OIL EXTENDING
THROUGH SEVEN COUNTIES FOR A DISTANCE OF 125 MILES WITH A WIDTH OF FROM
10 TO 40 MILES.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAS INDUSTRY WHICH BEGAN THERE
IN 1926 HAS PROCEEDED AT A RAPID RATE SINCE 1933.  THE FIELD PRODUCES
BOTH SWEET AND SOUR GAS.  FN3  WASTEFUL USE OF SWEET GAS IS PROHIBITED
BY THE STATUTE; AND, WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEFINITION, PRACTICALLY THE
ONLY NON-WASTEFUL USE IS FOR HEAT AND LIGHT.  FOR SUCH USE THERE IS
SUBSTANTIALLY NO LOCAL MARKET,  FN4  AS THE REGION IS SPARSELY
SETTLED.  GAS CANNOT BE STORED.  TO UTILIZE THE SWEET GAS OF THE
PANHANDLE FIELD, IT MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER BY PIPE
LINES IN A CONTINUOUS FLOW FROM THE WELLS TO THE BURNER TIPS OF THE
CONSUMER.  PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF THE ORDERS CHALLENGED, THE OWNERS OF
APPROXIMATELY 80 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA IN THE PANHANDLE FIELDS
PROVEN PRODUCTIVE OF SWEET GAS HAD CONSTRUCTED SIX MAJOR PIPE LINES
FROM THE WEST PANHANDLE FIELD,  FN5  AND THREE FROM THE EAST PANHANDLE
FIELD, EXTENDING TO CHICAGO, DES MOINES, OMAHA, SIOUX CITY, KANSAS
CITY, ST. PAUL, INDIANAPOLIS, DENVER, MINNEAPOLIS, FORT WORTH, DALLAS,
AND OTHER DISTANT POINTS.  SIX OR SEVEN OF THESE MAJOR PIPE LINE
COMPANIES, INCLUDING THE PLAINTIFFS', HAVE PRODUCED AND TRANSPORTED TO
THE MARKETS ONLY GAS PRODUCED FROM THEIR OWN LEASES. 

UNDER THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PRESENT STATUTE, THERE IS
SUBSTANTIALLY NO MARKET OUTLET FOR THE SWEET GAS OF THESE FIELDS EXCEPT
SUCH AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY PIPE LINES.  THE OWNERS OF 180 WELLS IN THE
WEST PANHANDLE FIELD, AND OF 121 WELLS IN THE EAST PANHANDLE FIELD,
TOGETHER REPRESENTING ABOUT 20 PER CENT OF THE PROVEN RESERVES OF SWEET
GAS IN THE WHOLE FIELD, NEITHER OWN NOR CONTROL ANY PIPE LINE.  AND
THEY HAVE NO ACCESS TO ANY; FN6  SINCE NONE OF THE PIPE LINES HERE
INVOLVED IS A COMMON CARRIER.  THE PLAINTIFFS AND MOST OF THE OTHER
OWNERS OF PIPE LINES HAVE NO ECONOMIC OCCASION TO PURCHASE GAS FROM
WELLS OF THE NON-PIPE LINE PRODUCERS, AS THE POTENTIAL CAPACITY OF
THEIR OWN WELLS FAR EXCEEDS THEIR MARKET DEMAND.  FN7  THERE APPEARS NO
LEGAL OBSTACLE, UNDER THE LAW OF TEXAS, TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ADDITIONAL PIPE LINES TO SERVE THE OWNERS OF WELLS IN THE PANHANDLE
FIELDS NOW WITHOUT SUCH CONNECTIONS.  IT IS SAID THAT THERE ARE
COMMUNITIES IN OTHER STATES WHICH WOULD AFFORD MARKETS IF PIPE LINES
WERE CONSTRUCTED TO REACH THEM.  BUT THE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES ARE
OBVIOUS. 

PRIOR TO HOUSE BILL 266, SEVERAL EFFORTS, STATUTORY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE, HAD BEEN MADE TO COMPEL, OR INDUCE, THE OWNERS OF
EXISTING PIPE LINES TO PURCHASE THE SWEET GAS OF THOSE WELL OWNERS WHO
LACK PIPE LINE FACILITIES.  ORDERS ENTERED UNDER STATUTES ENACTED PRIOR
TO 1933 WERE ENJOINED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ULTRA VIRES.  FN8  BY
CHAPTER 100, ACTS 1933, FORTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION,  FN9
THE USE OF NATURAL GAS WAS PERMITTED FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAN LIGHT OR
FUEL, INCLUDING THE MANUFACTURE OF NATURAL GASOLINE, WHERE NO
REASONABLE MARKET FOR LIGHT OR FUEL WAS AVAILABLE TO THE OWNER. 
PRODUCTION UNDER AUTHORITY OF THIS STATUTE AND THE PERMITS ISSUED
THEREUNDER WAS FOUND TO INVOLVE INTOLERABLE WASTE.  FN10  SUCH WAS THE
SITUATION, WHEN ON MAY 1, 1935, THE LEGISLATURE ENACTED HOUSE BILL 266,
UNDER WHICH THE ORDER HERE CHALLENGED WAS ISSUED. 

THE ACT UNDERTAKES BY DRASTIC PROVISIONS TO END THE WASTE OF SWEET
GAS.  IT PROVIDES: 

"SEC. 3.  THE PRODUCTION, TRANSPORTATION, OR USE OF NATURAL GAS IN
SUCH MANNER, IN SUCH AMOUNT, OR UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AS TO CONSTITUTE
WASTE IS HEREBY DECLARED TO BE UNLAWFUL AND IS PROHIBITED.  THE TERM
'WASTE' AMONG OTHER THINGS SHALL SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE:  (THEN FOLLOW
SPECIFICATIONS (A) TO (M) INCLUSIVE). 

"(H)  THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS IN EXCESS OF TRANSPORTATION OR
MARKET FACILITIES, OR REASONABLE MARKET DEMAND FOR THE TYPE OF GAS
PRODUCED." 

THE DEFENDANTS CONTEND THAT THE ACT LIKEWISE REQUIRES RESTRICTION OF
PRODUCTION REGARDLESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF WASTE, FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF
RIGHTS OF OWNERS IN A COMMON RESERVOIR OF GAS.  AND AS WE READ THE
SUBSTANCE OF DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENT, THEY ALSO CONSTRUE THE STATUTE AS
AUTHORIZING GAS PRORATION ORDERS, TO PROVIDE A MARKET FOR THE SWEET GAS
OF THOSE WELLS WHICH, BECAUSE THEY LACK PIPE LINE CONNECTIONS, HAVE
HERETOFORE SOLD THEIR GAS FOR INFERIOR, WASTEFUL USES.  THESE CLAIMS
ARE RESTED PRIMARILY ON THE FOLLOWING PROVISION: 

"SEC. 10.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION TO PRORATE AND
REGULATE THE DAILY GAS WELL PRODUCTION FROM EACH COMMON RESERVOIR IN
THE MANNER AND METHOD HEREIN SET FORTH.  THE COMMISSION SHALL PRORATE
AND REGULATE SUCH PRODUCTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
INTERESTS: (A) IN THE PREVENTION OF WASTE AS 'WASTE' IS DEFINED HEREIN;
(B) IN THE ADJUSTMENT OF CORRELATIVE RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES OF EACH
OWNER OF GAS IN A COMMON RESERVOIR TO PRODUCE AND USE OR SELL SUCH GAS
AS PERMITTED IN THIS ARTICLE." 

THIS PROVISION IS SUPPLEMENTED BY OTHERS INCLUDING THOSE SET FORTH IN
THE MARGIN.  FN11 

ON DECEMBER 10, 1935, THE RAILROAD COMMISSION, AFTER HEARINGS HELD,
ISSUED THE BASIC ORDER HERE CHALLENGED, WHICH PROVIDES, AMONG OTHER
THINGS: 

"IT IS ORDERED, THAT EFFECTIVE, 7 O'CLOCK A.M., DECEMBER 11, 1935,
THE DAILY ALLOWABLE GAS PRODUCTION, COMPUTED ON THE BASIS SET FORTH IN
HOUSE BILL NO. 266, IS AS FOLLOWS: 

EAST PANHANDLE FIELD.................... 181,174,000 CUBIC FEET DAILY 

WEST SWEET PANHANDLE FIELD.............. 608,552,000 CUBIC FEET
DAILY 

WEST SOUR PANHANDLE FIELD............... 451,137,000 CUBIC FEET
DAILY 

"IT IS ORDERED, THAT THE DAILY ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION OF GAS FOR
INDIVIDUAL WELLS IN THE EAST AND WEST PANHANDLE FIELDS SHALL BE
DETERMINED BY DIVIDING THE REASONABLE MARKET DEMAND INTO TWO PARTS, AND
THAT THESE PARTS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED TO EACH WELL IN PROPORTION TO THE
RELATIVE PRODUCING ABILITY OF THESE INDIVIDUAL WELLS AND THE NUMBER OF
ACRES CONTAINING EACH OF THESE WELLS, BUT IN NO CASE SHALL MORE THAN
ONE HUNDRED SIXTY (160) ACRES IN THE EAST PANHANDLE FIELD AND NOT MORE
THAN SIX HUNDRED FORTY (640) ACRES IN THE WEST PANHANDLE FIELD, IN BOTH
SWEET AND SOUR ZONES, BE ALLOCATED TO ANY ONE WELL FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PRORATION. 

"IT IS ORDERED, THAT THE TOTAL DAILY ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION OF GAS FROM
GAS WELLS IN THE EAST AND WEST PANHANDLE FIELDS SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED
AND PRORATED AMONG THE INDIVIDUAL WELLS ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS AND IN
THE FOLLOWING MANNER, TO-WIT:  FIFTY (50%) PER CENT OF THE REASONABLE
MARKET DEMAND OF THE FIELD SHALL BE ALLOCATED ON THE RATIO OF THE
INDIVIDUAL WELL ACREAGE TO THE SUM OF THE TOTAL WELL ACREAGE IN THE
FIELD; AND FIFTY (50%) PER CENT OF THE REASONABLE MARKET DEMAND OF THE
FIELD SHALL BE ALLOCATED ON THE RATIO OF THE INDIVIDUAL WELL POTENTIAL
TO THE SUM OF THE TOTAL WELL POTENTIALS IN THE FIELD." 

THE ORDER REDUCES PLAINTIFFS' ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION TO A VOLUME FAR
BELOW THEIR REQUIREMENTS.  THE PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER PIPE LINE OWNERS
ACQUIRED, AT LARGE COST, THEIR MARKETS IN DISTANT STATES AND THEIR
TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING FACILITIES.  FN12  BY MEANS OF THEIR PIPE
LINES ALL THE SWEET GAS PRODUCED BY THE PLAINTIFFS (AND LIKEWISE ALL
PRODUCED BY OTHER PIPE LINE OWNERS) WAS, AND IS, MARKETED UNDER
CONTRACTS WITH DISTANT DISTRIBUTORS, CHIEFLY IN OTHER STATES.  THESE
MARKETS ARE NOT FREE MARKETS.  THE PLAINTIFFS NECESSARILY BOUND
THEMSELVES TO SUPPLY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRIBUTORS; AND THE
DISTRIBUTORS BOUND THEMSELVES TO TAKE THEIR REQUIREMENTS FROM THE
PLAINTIFFS.  IN ORDER TO FULFILL THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, THE
PLAINTIFFS DEVELOPED THE CAPACITY OF THEIR WELLS AND ACQUIRED LARGE
RESERVES TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR FUTURE NEEDS SO THAT THEY HAVE NO
OCCASION TO PURCHASE GAS FROM OTHER WELLS.  BY LIMITING THE PLAINTIFFS'
ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION, THE ORDER DISABLES THEM FROM PERFORMING THEIR
CONTRACTS UNLESS THEY PURCHASE GAS FROM NONPIPE-LINE WELLS.  SUCH
PURCHASES WOULD AT LEAST INVOLVE THE COST OF THE GAS AND THE LOSS
RESULTING FROM FAILURE TO MAKE FULLER USE OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY. 

THE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT CONTEST THAT THE STATE HAS POWER TO CONSERVE
ITS NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE PUBLIC, AS WELL AS TO PROTECT PRIVATE
RIGHTS,  FN13  OR THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS POWER TO CONFER UPON THE
RAILROAD COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO MAKE AND ENFORCE REGULATIONS TO THAT
END; OR THAT TO LIMIT PRODUCTION TO THE AGGREGATE REASONABLE MARKET
DEMAND IS, AS A CONSERVATION MEASURE, CLEARLY PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF
THE PUBLIC AND OF THE PRIVATE PERSONS OWNING THE RIGHT TO DRAW FROM A
COMMON RESERVOIR; OR THAT THE COMMISSION HAS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
REGULATIONS TO THAT END.  THE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT DENY THAT THE
LEGISLATURE MAY CONFER UPON THE RAILROAD COMMISSION ALSO AUTHORITY TO
PRORATE THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION AMONG ALL THE INDIVIDUAL WELLS
WHICH DRAW FROM THE COMMON RESERVOIR, PROVIDED THE PRORATION IS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE MARKET DEMANDS AND DUE CONSIDERATION
IS GIVEN TO EXISTING RESERVES.  BUT THEY INSIST THAT HOUSE BILL 266 HAS
NOT CONFERRED THAT AUTHORITY.  AND AS TO THE ORDER, THE PLAINTIFFS
ASSERT THAT, WHILE RESTRICTIVE IN FORM, IT IS IN FACT COERCIVE; THAT
ITS PURPOSE AND EFFECT ARE NOT TO PREVENT WASTE OF GAS IN THE COMMON
RESERVOIR NOR TO PRORATE THE OPPORTUNITIES OF PRODUCTION AS
DISTINGUISHED FROM MARKETING; THAT THE LIMITATION OF THE PRODUCTION OF
THE WELLS IS MERELY A DEVICE TO COMPEL THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS, AND
OTHER PIPE LINE OWNERS, TO PURCHASE GAS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE NO NEED;
THAT THE REAL PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF THE ORDER ARE TO PRORATE NOT
PRODUCTION, BUT DISTANT MARKETS AND THE FACILITIES FOR SERVING THEM;
AND THAT, THUS, THE ORDER TAKES THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT WARRANT IN LAW. 
FIRST.  PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF HOUSE BILL 266,  FN14  THE PROPERTY
RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY THOSE CONFERRED BY THE
COMMON LAW OF THE STATE.  UNDER IT, THE OWNER OF LAND HAS TITLE TO OIL
AND GAS IN PLACE AND, LIKEWISE, TO THE OIL AND GAS WHICH MIGRATE TO
FORMATIONS UNDER HIS LAND THROUGH DRAINAGE FROM OTHER LANDS.  FN15
UNDER THAT RULE, HE MAY PRODUCE ALL THE OIL AND GAS THAT WILL FLOW OUT
OF THE WELL ON HIS LAND, SUBJECT TO THE EXERCISE BY OTHER LANDOWNERS OF
THE SAME RIGHT OF CAPTURE THROUGH DRILLING OFFSETTING WELLS, SO AS TO
GET THEIR FULL SHARE.  FN16  THIS COMMON LAW RULE, DECLARED IN AN
UNBROKEN LINE OF AUTHORITIES, HAS BEEN WIDELY APPLIED.  FN17  WHILE A
PRODUCER WHO NEGLIGENTLY USES EXPLOSIVES IN HIS OPERATIONS WILL BE
LIABLE IF HE CAUSES PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO HIS NEIGHBORS' GAS AND OIL
BEARING STRATA AND THUS IMPAIRS THE PRODUCTIVITY THEREOF,  FN18  THE
COMMON LAW OF THE STATE DID NOT, APPARENTLY, AFFORD A REMEDY AGAINST
DEPLETING THE COMMON SUPPLY BY WASTEFUL TAKING OR USE OF OIL OR GAS
DRAWN FROM THE WELLS ON ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.  BUT SINCE 1899 THE
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE HAS PROHIBITED, OR CURBED, CERTAIN PRACTICES
IN THE PRODUCTION OF GAS AND OIL WHICH IT RECOGNIZED AS WASTEFUL. 
FN19 

SECOND.  THE DEFENDANTS CONTEND THAT THE ORDER ASSAILED IS A
REGULATION DULY PROMULGATED FOR THE PREVENTION OF WASTE, AND THE
PROTECTION OF CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF OWNERS IN THE COMMON POOL, AND WAS
SO APPLIED.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED THAT HOUSE BILL 266 SHOULD BE CONSTRUED
AS AUTHORIZING REGULATIONS TO PREVENT WASTE, AND TO CREATE AND PROTECT
CORRELATIVE RIGHTS OF OWNERS IN A COMMON RESERVOIR OF GAS TO THEIR
JUSTLY PROPORTIONATE SHARES THEREOF, FREE OF DRAINAGE TO NEIGHBORING
LANDS.  IT MAY BE ASSUMED, ALSO, THAT THE STATUTE, SO CONSTRUED, IS A
VALID EXERCISE OF THE STATE'S UNDOUBTED POWER TO LEGISLATE TO THOSE
ENDS; AND THAT IT VALIDLY DELEGATES TO THE RAILROAD COMMISSION
AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS THEREFOR.  IT IS SETTLED THAT TO
ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS PURPORTING TO BE MADE UNDER AUTHORITY
LEGALLY DELEGATED, THERE ATTACHES A PRESUMPTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF
FACTS JUSTIFYING THE SPECIFIC EXERCISE.  PACIFIC STATES BOX & BASKET
CO. V. WHITE, 296 U.S. 176, 185.  BUT, OBVIOUSLY, THE PRORATION ORDERS
WOULD NOT BE VALID IF SHOWN TO BEAR NO REASONABLE RELATION EITHER TO
THE PREVENTION OF WASTE OR THE PROTECTION OF CORRELATIVE RIGHTS, OR IF
SHOWN TO BE OTHERWISE ARBITRARY.  THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE ASSUMED THE HEAVY
BURDEN OF OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION AND OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE ORDER
IS AN ARBITRARY TAKING OF THEIR PROPERTY.  THEY ASSERT, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THAT THEY HAVE, AT ALL TIMES, CONDUCTED THEIR OPERATIONS
PRUDENTLY AND WITHOUT WASTE; THAT THEY HAVE, IN FACT, TAKEN ONLY A
SMALL PART OF THE GAS IN THE GROUND WHICH THEY OWN OR LEASE; AND THAT
THERE IS NO PRESENT DANGER THAT THE PIPE LINE OWNERS WILL, BY
CONTINUING TO OPERATE AS THEY HAVE DONE, CAUSE WASTE OR PREJUDICE
EITHER TO ANY PUBLIC INTEREST, OR TO A PROPERTY RIGHT OF ANY OTHER
PERSON.  WE THINK THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUSTAINED THE BURDEN RESTING UPON
THEM.  FOR THEIR ASSERTIONS ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING
SPECIAL FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT: 

1.  "THE OWNERS OF WELLS CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES, INCLUDING
COMPLAINANTS, HAVE ALWAYS PRODUCED THEIR WELLS IN A PRUDENT AND SKILFUL
MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOST APPROVED METHODS OF PRODUCTION,
WITHOUT COMMITTING OR CAUSING PHYSICAL WASTE." 

2.  "BEFORE HOUSE BILL 266 WENT INTO EFFECT, GROSSLY WASTEFUL
PRACTICES IN THE PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS IN THE PANHANDLE FIELD WERE
OCCURRING," BUT "MOST OF THIS WASTE WAS DUE TO THE EXTRAVAGANT
PRODUCTION OF NATURAL GAS FROM OIL WELLS AND TO THE PRODUCTION OF GAS
FROM GAS WELLS AND PROCESSING SUCH GAS FOR THE EXTRACTION OF A VERY
SMALL QUANTITY OF NATURAL GASOLINE THEREFROM AND POPPING OR WASTING TO
THE AIR THE RESIDUE GAS, WHICH CONSTITUTED 97% OF THE FUEL VALUE OF THE
GAS IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE....  NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED - INDEED, IT WAS
NOT EVEN SERIOUSLY CLAIMED - THAT ANYTHING COMPLAINANT HAD DONE OR
CONTEMPLATED DOING HAS, IN THE SLIGHTEST DEGREE, CONTRIBUTED OR WILL
CONTRIBUTE TO THAT WASTE." 

3.  EVEN IF THE EFFECT OF THE TEXAS LEGISLATION BE TO HALT PRODUCTION
BY OTHER WELL OWNERS, "THE PRODUCTION FROM THEIR OWN WELLS BY
COMPLAINANT AND OTHER PIPE LINES OF THE QUANTITY OF GAS REQUIRED FROM
TIME TO TIME TO FULFILL THEIR MARKETING CONTRACTS AND REQUIREMENTS WILL
CAUSE NO CONING OR CHANNELING OF WATER, NO TRAPPING OFF OF RECOVERABLE
OIL OR GAS, NO UNDERGROUND WASTE OF OIL, GAS OR RESERVOIR ENERGY OR
REDUCTION OF THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF RECOVERABLE GAS FROM THE FIELD, EVEN
THOUGH THE OTHER WELLS IN THE SWEET GAS AREA OF THE WEST PANHANDLE
FIELD BE PRODUCED AT A MUCH LOWER RATE OR BE NOT PRODUCED." 

4. LARGE AND WASTEFUL PRODUCTION OF GAS IN CONNECTION WITH PRODUCTION
OF OIL IN THE PANHANDLE FIELD, AND, MORE RECENTLY, IN CONNECTION WITH
THE OPERATIONS OF PLANTS "STRIPPING" THE GAS OF ITS NATURAL GASOLINE
CONTENT, "HAS RESULTED IN THE MIGRATION OF TREMENDOUS QUANTITIES OF
NATURAL GAS FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN SIDE OF THE FIELD TO THE NORTHEASTERN
SIDE OF THE FIELD.  MANY OF THESE AREAS OF LOW PRESSURE ARE SITUATED IN
THE SOUR GAS PRODUCING AREA, WITH THE RESULT THAT TREMENDOUS QUANTITIES
OF SWEET GAS HAVE MOVED OUT FROM THE SWEET GAS AREA INTO THE SOUR GAS
AREA," AND HAVE THUS BECOME UNFIT FOR USE AS FUEL FOR LIGHTING AND
HEATING PURPOSES.  DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE AREAS OF COMPLAINANTS'
HOLDINGS IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN INTENSIFIED BY DISPROPORTIONATE
PRODUCTION OF GAS FROM GAS WELLS NOT CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES.  IN THE
EAST PANHANDLE FIELD "THE LEASES ON WHICH THE WELLS CONNECTED TO PIPE
LINES ARE LOCATED HAVE PRODUCED AN AVERAGE - (OF) 8,116,000 CUBIC FEET
OF GAS PER ACRE, AND THOSE ON WHICH THE WELLS CONNECTED TO STRIPPING
PLANTS ARE LOCATED HAVE PRODUCED AN AVERAGE OF 16,662,000 CUBIC FEET
PER ACRE."  IN THE WEST PANHANDLE FIELD, PRODUCTION AT THE TIME OF
TRIAL OF THIS CASE HAD AGGREGATED 4,427,642,131,000 CUBIC FEET.  "OF
THIS TOTAL THE PIPE LINES, WITH AN OWNERSHIP OF 56% OF THE TOTAL
RESERVES, HAVE PRODUCED ONLY 529,545,454,000 CUBIC FEET, WHILE THE
OWNERS OF THE OTHER 44% HAVE PRODUCED 3,898,096,776,000 CUBIC FEET. 
COMPLAINANT, WITH AN OWNERSHIP OF APPROXIMATELY 20% OF THE TOTAL
RESERVES, HAD PRODUCED ONLY 98,808,409,000 CUBIC FEET, OR 2.25% OF THE
TOTAL WITHDRAWALS FROM THE WEST PANHANDLE FIELD."  THE AVERAGE ROCK
PRESSURE OF THE WELLS NOT CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES IS MATERIALLY LOWER
THAN THAT OF COMPLAINANTS' AND OTHER PIPE LINE COMPANIES' WELLS. 
HENCE, IN THE WEST PANHANDLE FIELD, "BY REASON OF THESE DIFFERENTIALS
IN PRESSURE BETWEEN THE WELLS CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES AND THOSE NOT
CONNECTED, THE MIGRATION OR DRAINAGE AS A WHOLE IS FROM THE WELLS
CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES, INCLUDING THOSE CONNECTED TO COMPLAINANT'S
PIPE LINES, TO THE WELLS NOT CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES."  LIKEWISE, "ALL
ALONG THE NORTHEAST SLOPE OF THE STRUCTURE IN THE EAST PANHANDLE FIELD
THERE IS AN EXTREMELY LOW PRESSURE AREA, WHERE TREMENDOUS QUANTITIES OF
GAS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF OIL WELLS
AND WELLS CONNECTED TO STRIPPING PLANTS.  THE GENERAL DRAINAGE IN THE
EAST PANHANDLE FIELD IS FROM THE AREAS OF HIGH PRESSURE TOWARD AND TO
THESE LOW PRESSURE AREAS.  THE MAJORITY OF THE WELLS NOT CONNECTED TO
PIPE LINES ARE SITUATED IN THESE LOW PRESSURE AREAS, OR BETWEEN THESE
LOW PRESSURE AREAS AND THE HIGH PRESSURE AREAS TO THE SOUTH AND WEST
THEREOF, IN WHICH AREAS OF HIGHER PRESSURE THE WELLS CONNECTED TO THE
PIPE LINES ARE SITUATED....  VERY LARGE QUANTITIES OF GAS HAVE MIGRATED
FROM THE RESERVES OF THE PIPE LINES, INCLUDING THE RESERVES OF
COMPLAINANTS, TO THE LOW PRESSURE AREAS IN AND AROUND THE OIL FIELDS ON
THE NORTHEAST SLOPE OF THE RESERVOIR AND TO THE AREAS ON WHICH MOST OF
THE 391 WELLS BELONGING TO OTHERS THAN THE PIPE LINES IN THE WEST
PANHANDLE FIELD ARE SITUATED."  FURTHER, PAST LOSSES DO NOT COMPLETE
THE STORY.  "WITHOUT REGARD TO THE RATE OF WITHDRAWAL IN THE EXISTING
AREAS OF LOW PRESSURE, THE MIGRATION OF GAS FROM THE RESERVES OF THE
PIPE LINES TO THOSE AREAS OF LOW PRESSURE WILL CONTINUE OVER A LONG
PERIOD OF TIME." 

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FINDINGS THE LOWER COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE
ORDER WAS NOT INTENDED TO PREVENT WASTE ATTRIBUTABLE TO PLAINTIFFS; AND
THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO ADJUST CORRELATIVE RIGHTS IN THE COMMON
RESERVOIR FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVERTING UNJUST DRAINAGE FROM THE RESERVES
OF THOSE WELLS LACKING PIPE LINE CONNECTIONS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE PRORATION ORDERED, WITH ITS DRASTIC LIMITATION
OF OUTPUT FROM WELLS NOW CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES, WILL OBVIOUSLY NOT
PROTECT THOSE WELLS AGAINST UNDUE DRAINAGE TO OTHER PARTS OF THE FIELD,
BUT WILL DEPRIVE THEIR OWNERS OF THE PROTECTION WHICH FULLER PRODUCTION
WOULD OFFER.  THESE FINDINGS ARE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. 

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSERTION OF THE DEFENDANTS THAT THE ORDER
WILL, BY REQUIRING A UNIFORM AND RATEABLE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION BY ALL
THE WELLS, RESULT IN THE ULTIMATE RECOVERY OF A LARGER AMOUNT OF GAS
THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE PRODUCED; AND, LIKEWISE, THE ASSERTION THAT THE
PLAINTIFFS, BY THEIR PRESENT PRODUCTION, ARE DEPRIVING, OR THREATEN TO
DEPRIVE, NON-PIPE-LINE OWNERS OF THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE RATEABLY IN
THE GAS IN THE COMMON RESERVOIR, ARE NOT SUSTAINED.  BY THE ASSIGNMENT
OF ERRORS IN THIS COURT, DEFENDANTS CHALLENGED THE CORRECTNESS OF MANY
OF THE FINDINGS.  BUT WE ARE OF OPINION THAT, SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL,
ALL THEIR CONTENTIONS, AND ALSO THE FINDINGS OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION
IN ITS ORDER OF DECEMBER 10, PROPHESYING "WASTE" IF THE PRORATION
ORDERED IS NOT CARRIED OUT, ARE UNFOUNDED. 

THIRD.  THE DEFENDANTS CONTEND, APPARENTLY, THAT HOUSE BILL 266
SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION TO REDUCE THE
PRODUCTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND OF OTHER PIPE LINE OWNERS, EVEN IF THE
SOLE PURPOSE OF DOING SO IS TO FURNISH A MARKET FOR THE SWEET GAS OF
THOSE WELLS NOW WITHOUT PIPE LINE CONNECTIONS.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THE
PLAINTIFFS INSIST THAT HOUSE BILL 266 SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS
AUTHORIZING THE PRORATION OF PRODUCTION ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH, AND AS
PART OF, WASTE PREVENTION; AND THAT SINCE THEIR OPERATIONS DO NOT
INVOLVE, OR THREATEN WASTE, THE ORDER WAS WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY. 
THAT CONTENTION THE LOWER COURT SUSTAINED.  IT DID SO, ON THE GROUND
THAT TO AUTHORIZE THE RESTRICTION OF NON-WASTEFUL PRODUCTION BY THE
PIPE LINE WELL OWNERS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPELLING THEM TO
FURNISH OTHER WELLS WITH A MARKET, WOULD BE A CHANGE OF THE COMMON LAW
OF TEXAS SO RADICAL THAT, IF THE LEGISLATURE HAD SO INTENDED, IT WOULD
HAVE EXPRESSED THAT INTENTION IN LANGUAGE MORE EXPLICIT THAN ANY USED
IN THE ACT.  MOREOVER, THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT, UNDER THE
ESTABLISHED RULE OF CONSTRUCTION, THE INTERPRETATION URGED BY
DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE AVOIDED BECAUSE THE STATUTE SO CONSTRUED WOULD BE
OF DOUBTFUL VALIDITY.  FN20 

WE ARE ALWAYS RELUCTANT TO PASS UPON A SERIOUSLY CONTROVERTED
QUESTION OF THE MEANING OF A STATE STATUTE, BECAUSE OUR DECISION,
ALTHOUGH DISPOSING OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, CANNOT SETTLE THE ISSUE OF
THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE.  FN21  NO COURT OF THE STATE
HAS CONSTRUED THE ACT.  THE DEFENDANTS MIGHT, PERHAPS, HAVE SECURED ITS
CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE COURT.  FOR THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 266 OF THE
JUDICIAL CODE MADE IN 1913, PROVIDES THAT UPON THE INSTITUTION OF AN
APPROPRIATE SUIT IN A STATE COURT, A STAY MAY BE HAD OF THE PROCEEDINGS
IN THE FEDERAL COURT TO AWAIT ADJUDICATION BY THE STATE COURT.  FN22
BUT NO SUIT IN A STATE COURT WAS INSTITUTED BY THE DEFENDANTS TO THAT
END.  WHEN NOT INSTRUCTED BY SOME DECISION OF A STATE COURT, WE ARE
DISPOSED, IN EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION, TO ACCEPT THE
CONSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THE LOWER FEDERAL COURT TO A STATUTE OF THE
STATE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THAT COURT IS COMPOSED, AS IN THIS INSTANCE,
WHOLLY OF CITIZENS OF THE STATE, FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY OF THE
STATUTE, THE LOCAL CONDITIONS TO WHICH IT APPLIES, AND THE CHARACTER OF
THE STATE'S LAWS.  FN23  BUT, BEING UNDER DUTY TO MAKE AN INDEPENDENT
STUDY OF THE QUESTION, WE HAVE DONE SO.  FN24  THAT STUDY LEAVES US IN
GRAVE DOUBT WHETHER THE LOWER COURT HAS CORRECTLY INTERPRETED THE
INTENTION OF THE LAWMAKERS.  FN25  ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ARE CLEARLY OF
OPINION THAT IF THE ACT WERE CONSTRUED AS THE DEFENDANTS CONTEND IT
SHOULD BE, AND AS THE COMMISSION HAS APPLIED IT, IT WOULD VIOLATE THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AS A GENERAL RULE IT IS NO LESS TRUE WITH
REFERENCE TO STATE THAN TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT THIS COURT WILL NOT
DECIDE AN ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IF THE CASE MAY JUSTLY AND
REASONABLY BE DECIDED UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH
THE ACT IS CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL.  COMPARE BRATTON V. CHANDLER, 260
U.S. 110, 114; SOUTH UTAH MINES & SMELTERS V. BEAVER COUNTY, 262 U.S.
325, 331; HOPKINS V. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO., 275 U.S. 393,
403.  BUT WHERE ONE PARTY'S CASE DEPENDS UPON A CONSTRUCTION OF A STATE
STATUTE UNDER WHICH IT PLAINLY MUST BE HELD TO VIOLATE THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION, AND WHERE THE PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATUTE IS A
MATTER OF GRAVE DOUBT, THIS COURT WILL REST ITS DECISION ON THE
CONSTITUTION, AND WILL NOT UNDERTAKE TO DECIDE THE QUESTION OF
CONSTRUCTION AS TO WHICH IT LACKS THE POWER TO GIVE A DEFINITIVE
ANSWER.  COMPARE PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. V. KUYKENDALL, 265
U.S. 196, 204; MICHIGAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. DUKE, 266 U.S. 570,
578; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378, 396.  WE, THEREFORE, ACCEPT,
FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR DECISION, THE DEFENDANTS' CONSTRUCTION; AND
PASS TO THE DISCUSSION OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. 

FOURTH.  EITHER PRODUCTION GREATER THAN THE DEMAND OR USE FOR AN
INFERIOR PURPOSE WOULD NECESSARILY INVOLVE OVERGROUND WASTE OF GAS. 
THE MANNER, PLACE, OR EXTENT OF PRODUCTION MIGHT LEAD TO UNDERGROUND
WASTE.  WE ASSUME THAT THE PROHIBITION OF ANY WASTEFUL CONDUCT, WHETHER
PRIMARILY IN BEHALF OF OTHER OWNERS OF GAS IN THE COMMON RESERVOIR, OR
BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC INTERESTS INVOLVED, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF TEXAS AND THAT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT TO
PREVENT WASTE PRODUCTION MAY BE PRORATED.  FN26  WE ASSUME, ALSO, THAT
THE STATE MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY PRORATE PRODUCTION IN ORDER TO PREVENT
UNDUE DRAINAGE OF GAS FROM THE RESERVES OF WELL OWNERS LACKING PIPE
LINE CONNECTIONS.  FN27  IF PRORATION WERE LAWFULLY APPLIED FOR ANY
SUCH PURPOSES, THE FACT THAT THEREBY OTHER PRIVATE PERSONS WOULD
INCIDENTALLY AND GRATUITOUSLY OBTAIN IMPORTANT BENEFITS WOULD PRESENT
NO CONSTITUTIONAL OBSTACLE.  AND THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFFS' GAS IS TO BE
SOLD IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE WOULD NOT PRECLUDE SUCH EXERCISE OF THE
STATE'S POWER.  COMPARE CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V. CORPORATION
COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210, 235. 

BUT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE LIMITATION WHICH THE ORDER IMPOSES UPON
THE PLAINTIFFS' PRODUCTION IS TO COMPEL THOSE WHO MAY LEGALLY PRODUCE,
BECAUSE THEY HAVE MARKET OUTLETS FOR PERMITTED USES, TO PURCHASE GAS
FROM POTENTIAL PRODUCERS WHOM THE STATUTE PROHIBITS FROM PRODUCING
BECAUSE THEY LACK SUCH A MARKET FOR THEIR POSSIBLE PRODUCT. 
PLAINTIFFS' OPERATIONS ARE NEITHER CAUSING NOR THREATENING ANY
OVERGROUND OR UNDERGROUND WASTE.  EVERY WELL OWNER IN THE FIELD IS FREE
TO PRODUCE THE GAS, PROVIDED HE DOES NOT DO SO WASTEFULLY.  HE IS
LEGALLY AND, SO FAR AS APPEARS, PHYSICALLY FREE TO PROVIDE HIMSELF WITH
A MARKET AND WITH TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING FACILITIES.  THERE IS NO
BASIS FOR A CLAIM THAT HIS RIGHT, OR OPPORTUNITY, WILL BE INTERFERED
WITH BY A DISPROPORTIONATE TAKING BY ANY ONE OF THOSE WHO MAY LEGALLY
PRODUCE. 

THE LOWER COURT FOUND SPECIFICALLY: 

"THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THE ORDERS ATTACKED, THE NECESSARY
OPERATION AND EFFECT OF SUCH ORDERS, THE HISTORY OF THE FIELD AND OTHER
PERTINENT FACTS AS DISCLOSED BY THIS RECORD CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH THAT
THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION UNDERLYING THE ORDERS WAS, UPON A THEORY
OF PROTECTING CORRELATIVE RIGHTS TO COERCE COMPLAINANT AND OTHER
(OTHERS) SIMILARLY SITUATED TO BUY GAS FROM, AND THUS TO SHARE THEIR
PRIVATE MARKETING CONTRACTS AND COMMITMENTS AND THE USE OF THEIR PIPE
LINES AND OTHER FACILITIES FOR TRANSMITTING THEIR GAS TO MARKET WITH,
THE OWNERS OF WELLS NOT NOW CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES, WHO HAVE NOT
CONTRIBUTED IN MONEY, SERVICES, NEGOTIATIONS, SKILL, FORETHOUGHT OR
OTHERWISE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH MARKETS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SUCH PIPE LINES AND OTHER FACILITIES.  IN SHORT TO COMPEL COMPLAINANTS
TO AFFORD MARKETS TO THOSE HAVING NONE. 

"THE NECESSARY OPERATION AND EFFECT OF SUCH ORDERS IS TO TAKE FROM
COMPLAINANT AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED SUBSTANTIAL AND VALUABLE
INTERESTS IN THEIR PRIVATE MARKETING CONTRACTS AND COMMITMENTS AND IN
THE USE OF THEIR PIPE LINES AND OTHER FACILITIES FOR TRANSMITTING THEIR
GAS TO THEIR MARKETS, WITHOUT COMPENSATION, AND TO CONFER SAME UPON THE
OWNERS OF THE APPROXIMATELY 180 SWEET GAS WELLS IN THE FIELD NOT
CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES." 

THE USE OF THE PIPE LINE OWNER'S WELLS AND RESERVES IS CURTAILED
SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHER PRIVATE WELL OWNERS.  THE PIPE LINE
OWNER, A PRIVATE PERSON, IS, IN EFFECT, ORDERED TO PAY MONEY TO ANOTHER
PRIVATE WELL OWNER FOR THE PURCHASE OF GAS WHICH THERE IS NO WISH TO
BUY.  FN28 MOREOVER, HE IS THUS PREVENTED FROM PROTECTING HIMSELF, TO
THE EXTENT THAT HE IS ABLE TO MARKET HIS GAS, AGAINST THE LOSSES WHICH
THE COURT BELOW FINDS ARE OCCURRING AND WILL CONTINUE TO OCCUR DUE TO
DRAINAGE FROM THE HIGH PRESSURE AREAS, WHEREIN PLAINTIFFS' WELLS ARE
LOCATED, TO THE EXISTING LOW PRESSURE AREAS, IN WHICH ARE LOCATED THE
MAJORITY OF THE WELLS NOT CONNECTED TO PIPE LINES.  THERE IS HERE NO
TAKING FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT; NOR IS PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
PROVIDED.  PLAINTIFFS' PIPE LINES ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY.  SO FAR AS
APPEARS, THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED ON PRIVATE LANDS.  THERE IS NO SUGGESTION
THAT ANY OF THEM IS A COMMON CARRIER OF GAS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE OWNERS
IN CONSTRUCTING THE PIPE LINES WAS FOR THE TRANSPORT OF GAS ONLY FROM
THEIR OWN LEASES, AND SUCH HAS BEEN THEIR CONSISTENT POLICY.  UNLIKE
THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE ASSIGNED CAR CASES, 274 U.S. 564, THE PIPE
LINES ARE NOT USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPERATION OF ANY PUBLIC
UTILITY IN TEXAS.  FN29 

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDER IS THE SAME AS THAT WHICH THE LEGISLATURE
SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE BY THE "COMMON PURCHASER ACT," OF AUGUST 12, 1931,
HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN TEXOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION,
59 F.(2D) 750.  THE EFFECT UPON THE PROPERTY OF THE PIPE LINE OWNERS OF
THE TWO STATUTES AND THE ORDERS ISSUED THEREUNDER IS, LIKEWISE, THE
SAME.  THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE MEANS EMPLOYED; BUT THE DIFFERENCE
IS NOT OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.  THE 1931 ACT ATTEMPTED TO COMPEL THE
PURCHASE BY FRANKLY COMMANDING IT, UNDER SANCTIONS CRIMINAL AND CIVIL. 
THE 1935 ACT OPERATES BY INDIRECTION.  ITS COMMAND IS NO LESS
COMPELLING; ITS PENALTIES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.  THE ORDER
DISABLES THE PLAINTIFFS FROM PERFORMING THEIR CONTRACTS EXCEPT BY MEANS
OF PURCHASES.  RESORT TO THOSE MEANS NECESSARILY RESULTS IN DEPRIVING
THE PLAINTIFFS OF PROPERTY.  UNDER EACH STATUTE, IF OBEYED, THE STATE
TAKES FROM THE PIPE LINE OWNER THE MONEY WITH WHICH THE PURCHASE IS
MADE, THE MONEY LOST THROUGH CURTAILED USE OF PROPERTIES DEVELOPED AT
LARGE EXPENSE, THE MONEY LOST BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM HIS
LAND OF THE GAS WHICH HE IS FORBIDDEN TO PRODUCE FOR HIMSELF, BUT MUST
BUY FROM THOSE TOWARDS WHOSE LANDS IT MIGRATES. 

OUR LAW REPORTS PRESENT NO MORE GLARING INSTANCE OF THE TAKING OF ONE
MAN'S PROPERTY AND GIVING IT TO ANOTHER.  IN MISSOURI PACIFIC RY CO. V.
NEBRASKA, 164 U.S. 403; MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. V. NEBRASKA, 217 U.S.
196; FN30  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. MINNESOTA, 238 U.S. 340; GREAT
NORTHERN RY. CO. V. CAHILL, 253 U.S. 71; DELAWARE, L. & W.R. CO. V.
MORRISTOWN, 276 U.S. 182; AND CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. V.
HOLMBERG, 282 U.S. 162, EXPENDITURES DIRECTED TO BE MADE FOR THE
BENEFIT OF A PRIVATE PERSON WERE HELD INVALID, ALTHOUGH THE PARTY
ORDERED TO PAY WAS A COMMON CARRIER.  IN LOAN ASSOCIATION V. TOPEKA, 20
WALL.  655, AND COLE V. LA GRANGE, 113 U.S. 1, THE PAYMENTS ORDERED FOR
THE BENEFIT OF A PRIVATE PERSON WERE DECLARED INVALID, ALTHOUGH THE
MONEY WAS TO BE RAISED BY GENERAL TAXATION.  IN MYLES SALT CO. V. BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, 239 U.S. 478, THE EXACTION WAS HELD UNLAWFUL, THOUGH
IMPOSED UNDER THE GUISE OF AN ASSESSMENT FOR ALLEGED BETTERMENTS. 
COMPARE GEORGIA RAILWAY & ELECTRIC CO. V. DECATUR, 295 U.S. 165.  AND
THIS COURT HAS MANY TIMES WARNED THAT ONE PERSON'S PROPERTY MAY NOT BE
TAKEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER PRIVATE PERSON WITHOUT A JUSTIFYING
PUBLIC PURPOSE, EVEN THOUGH COMPENSATION BE PAID.  SEE HAIRSTON V.
DANVILLE & WESTERN RY. CO., 208 U.S. 598, 605, 606; RINDGE CO. V.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 262 U.S. 700, 705.  COMPARE CINCINNATI V.
VESTER, 281 U.S. 439, 446, 449. 

FIFTH.  THE DEFENDANTS CONTEND THAT THE SITUATION IN THE PANHANDLE
FIELD PRESENTED A CONFLICT OF PRIVATE INTERESTS SO SERIOUS AS TO BECOME
A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN; AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS POWER TO ADOPT
MEASURES TO PREVENT THE HARMFUL DISCORD.  THEY INSIST, MOREOVER, THAT
THE PLAINTIFFS, HAVING INVOKED THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO STOP THE
WASTEFUL AND DISPROPORTIONATE DRAWING OF SWEET GAS BY OTHERS - A
PROHIBITION OF WHICH THEY ARE NOW REAPING THE BENEFITS - MAY NOT DENY
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER TO AUTHORIZE THE INCIDENTAL LIMITATIONS OF ITS
OWN PRODUCTION; SINCE THE LEGISLATURE WOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED THE
WASTE, OR INFERIOR USES OF THE GAS, WITHOUT PROVIDING FOR ITS PURCHASE
BY THE PIPE LINE COMPANIES.  WHETHER THE LATTER ASSERTION IS TRUE IN
FACT, WE DO NOT KNOW.  BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO BASIS IN LAW
FOR THE ARGUMENT, SINCE THERE IS NO CLAIM THAT PLAINTIFFS EVER
CONSENTED TO INSERTING ANY SUCH PROVISION IN THE ACT.  INDEED, THEY
INSIST, AS A MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION, THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT DONE
SO.  AND, HOUSE BILL 266 IS SO MUCH MORE DRASTIC A STATUTE THAN THE
RESTRICTIONS UPON INFERIOR USES OF GAS WHICH WERE APPARENTLY THE OBJECT
OF PLAINTIFFS' EFFORTS BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE, THAT IN THEIR PRESENT
SITUATION PLAINTIFFS CANNOT FAIRLY BE SAID TO BE RECEIVING THE BENEFITS
AND EVADING THE BURDENS OF A MEASURE WHICH THEY INITIATED.  MOREOVER,
PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ASSERT RIGHTS UNDER THE STATUTE WHICH THEY ASSAIL. 
THEY HAVE NOT TAKEN, AND ARE NOT OBLIGED TO TAKE, ANY AFFIRMATIVE STEPS
THEREUNDER TO OBTAIN WHATEVER BENEFITS MAY ACCRUE TO THEM BECAUSE OF
THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON PRODUCTION FOR INFERIOR USES.  COMPARE
DANIELS V. TEARNEY, 102 U.S. 415, 421; WALL V. PARROT SILVER & COPPER
CO., 244 U.S. 407, 411; BOOTH FISHERIES CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION,
271 U.S. 208, 211.  THOSE BENEFITS RESULT INCIDENTALLY FROM THE
ENACTMENT OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
WHICH IS NOT QUESTIONED, AND WHICH SEEM CLEARLY SEPARABLE FROM THE
257 U.S. 223; UNITED FUEL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 278 U.S. 300,
308.  FN31  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  THE COMPLAINANTS' ORIGINAL BILLS CHALLENGED EARLIER ORDERS
ISSUED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION UNDER THE ACT HERE IN QUESTION,
NOTABLY THE ORDERS OF AUGUST 28, AND SEPTEMBER 25, 1935.  THESE ORDERS
WERE THE SUBJECTS OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS GRANTED IN TEXAS PANHANDLE
GAS CO. V. THOMPSON, 12 F.SUPP.  462.  UPON THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER
OF DECEMBER 10, 1935, COMPLAINANTS AMENDED THEIR BILLS TO MAKE THAT
ORDER AND ITS SUPPLEMENTS THE OBJECT OF THEIR ATTACK. 

FN2  COMPARE NOTE 1, SUPRA. 

FN3  ONLY SWEET GAS IS FIT FOR LIGHTING AND HEATING.  SOUR GAS IS
THAT CONTAMINATED BY SULPHUR COMPOUNDS.  IT IS NOW USED IN THIS FIELD
PRINCIPALLY IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CARBON BLACK.  WHEN THE ACT WAS
PASSED, PLANTS SUPPLYING 70% OF THE CARBON BLACK MANUFACTURED IN THE
UNITED STATES WERE OPERATING IN THIS FIELD. 

FN4  THE SMALL MARKET FOR SWEET GAS WITHIN THE FIELD IS LIMITED TO
FUEL FOR THE DRILLING OF WELLS AND THE OPERATION OF INDUSTRIES INCIDENT
TO THE OIL AND GAS BUSINESS; TO SMALL PIPE LINES SUPPLYING GAS TO
COMMUNITIES NEAR THE FIELD; AND TO PURCHASES BY TWO COMPANIES WITH PIPE
LINES TO DISTANT CITIES.  THESE HAVE MADE 30 NEW CONNECTIONS WITH WELLS
OF OTHERS AND ARE TAKING RATEABLY FROM THESE WELLS. 

FN5  FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES THE TERRITORY IS DIVIDED INTO THE
EAST PANHANDLE AND THE WEST PANHANDLE ZONES.  THE WEST ZONE ALONE
CONTAINS ANY SOUR GAS AREA.  THE SWEET GAS AREA OF THE WEST PANHANDLE
FIELD EMBRACES 723,000 ACRES.  IN IT THERE ARE 517 WELLS, 180 OF WHICH
DO NOT HAVE AN OUTLET FOR LIGHT AND FUEL PURPOSES.  THE SWEET GAS AREA
OF THE EAST PANHANDLE FIELD EMBRACES 181,000 ACRES.  IN IT THERE ARE
322 WELLS, OF WHICH 121 DO NOT HAVE AN OUTLET FOR LIGHT AND FUEL
PURPOSES.  GAS FROM THE PANHANDLE FIELD IS SUPPLIED FOR DOMESTIC AND
INDUSTRIAL LIGHT AND FUEL PURPOSES TO APPROXIMATELY 10,000,000 PERSONS
IN THE UNITED STATES. 

FN6  THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS IN THE CASE OF THE FEW INDEPENDENT
WELLS WITH WHICH TWO OF THE PIPE LINE COMPANIES HAVE MADE CONNECTIONS. 
SEE NOTE 4, SUPRA. 

FN7  THUS AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING BELOW, TEXOMA NATURAL GAS CO.
WAS "PRODUCING" ITS WELLS AT THE RATE OF ABOUT 10 PER CENT OF THEIR
DAILY POTENTIAL CAPACITY, AND THE AVERAGE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, IT WAS
FOUND, HAD BEEN AND WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THIS FIGURE.  THE
HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF THE DAILY POTENTIAL EVER TAKEN OVER A PERIOD OF
ONE MONTH FOR ALL OF THE WELLS OF CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES
CORPORATION HAS BEEN 6.53 PER CENT.  THE WELLS OF OTHER PIPE LINE
OWNERS IN THESE FIELDS HAVE LIKEWISE BEEN "PRODUCED" AT LOW PERCENTAGES
OF CAPACITY. 

FN8  (A)  CHAPTER 28, ACTS 1931, FORTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE, FIRST
CALLED SESSION, KNOWN AS THE COMMON PURCHASER ACT, WAS CONSTRUED AND
APPLIED BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION AS REQUIRING PRIVATE PIPE LINE
COMPANIES ENGAGED THERETOFORE ONLY IN PRODUCING AND TRANSPORTING GAS
FROM THEIR OWN LEASES TO PURCHASE WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, UNDER
REGULATIONS OF THE COMMISSION, QUANTITIES OF GAS OFFERED THEM BY
PRODUCERS IN THE FIELD LACKING THEIR OWN PIPE LINES.  THE ACT WAS HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IN VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND COMMERCE
CLAUSES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDERS WAS
ENJOINED, IN TEXOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 59 F.(2D)
750. 

(B)  PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER THE GENERAL CONSERVATION LAWS OF THE
STATE, AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 26, ACTS 1931, FORTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE,
FIRST CALLED SESSION, THE RAILROAD COMMISSION SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED
ORDERS COMPLETELY CLOSING DOWN SOME PORTIONS OF THE PANHANDLE FIELD,
AND LIMITING PRODUCTION FROM PIPE LINE COMPANIES' WELLS IN OTHER
PORTIONS.  ENFORCEMENT OF THESE ORDERS WAS ENJOINED ON THE GROUND THAT
THE COMMISSION'S ACTION WAS ULTRA VIRES, IN TEXOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V.
TERRELL, 2 F.SUPP.  168. 

(C)  BY CHAPTER 2, ACTS 1932, FORTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE, FOURTH CALLED
SESSION, THE RAILROAD COMMISSION WAS MEANTIME AUTHORIZED, WHENEVER THE
FULL PRODUCTION FROM WELLS PRODUCING GAS FROM A COMMON RESERVOIR SHOULD
EXCEED REASONABLE MARKET DEMAND, TO LIMIT PRODUCTION TO SUCH DEMAND AND
ALLOCATE THE ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION.  ORDERS PURPORTING TO BE ISSUED
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS ACT WERE ENJOINED IN CANADIAN RIVER GAS CO.
V. TERRELL, 4 F.SUPP.  222, ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE ULTRA VIRES
BECAUSE THE STATUTE AUTHORIZED REGULATION ONLY TO PREVENT WASTE, AND
THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE ORDERS DID NOT BEAR ANY REASONABLE
RELATION TO THAT END. 

(D)  THEN FOLLOWED THE ENACTMENT OF THE STATUTE NOW UNDER
CONSIDERATION. 

FN9  AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 88, ACTS 1933, FORTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE,
FIRST CALLED SESSION.  COMPARE F. C. HENDERSON, INC. V. RAILROAD
COMMISSION, 56 F.(2D) 218; SNEED V. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO., 76 F.(2D)
785.    FN10  ACCORDING TO EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE STATE, IN JULY,
1935, BEFORE THE PROHIBITIONS OF HOUSE BILL 266 BECAME EFFECTIVE
AGAINST USES THEREIN DECLARED WASTEFUL, THERE WERE IN THE WEST
PANHANDLE FIELD 41 STRIPPING PLANTS PRODUCING NATURAL GASOLINE,
CONSUMING DAILY 1,847,339 M.C.F. SWEET GAS, FROM WHICH THE GASOLINE
PRODUCTION SAVED ONLY 3 PER CENT OF THE FUEL VALUE OF THE GAS IN ITS
ORIGINAL STATE.  BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1, 1933, AND AUGUST 1, 1935, 709
BILLION CUBIC FEET OF GAS WERE SAID TO HAVE BEEN BLOWN INTO THE AIR
AFTER THE NATURAL GASOLINE CONTENT HAD BEEN EXTRACTED.    FN11
"SECTION 1.  DECLARATION OF POLICY:  IN RECOGNITION OF PAST, PRESENT,
AND IMMINENT EVILS OCCURRING IN THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF NATUAL
(NATURAL) GAS, AS A RESULT OF WASTE IN THE PRODUCTION AND USE THEREOF
IN THE ABSENCE OF CORRELATIVE OPPORTUNITIES OF OWNERS OF GAS IN A
COMMON RESERVOIR TO PRODUCE AND USE THE SAME, THIS LAW IS ENACTED FOR
THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS AGAINST SUCH EVILS BY
PROHIBITING WASTE AND COMPELLING RATABLE PRODUCTION." 

"SEC. 11.  THE COMMISSION SHALL EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY TO ACCOMPLISH
THE PURPOSE DESIGNATED UNDER ITEM (A) OF SECTION 10 WHEN THE PRESENCE
OR IMMINENCE OF WASTE IS SUPPORTED BY A FINDING BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED AT A HEARING TO BE HELD AS HEREIN PROVIDED. 

"THE COMMISSION SHALL EXERCISE THE AUTHORITY TO ACCOMPLISH THE
PURPOSE DESIGNATED UNDER ITEM (B) OF SECTION 10 WHEN EVIDENCE
INTRODUCED AT A HEARING TO BE HELD AS HEREIN PROVIDED WILL SUPPORT A
FINDING MADE BY THE COMMISSION THAT THE AGGREGATE LAWFUL VOLUME OF THE
OPEN FLOW OR DAILY POTENTIAL CAPACITY TO PRODUCE OF ALL GAS WELLS
LOCATED IN A COMMON RESERVOIR, IS IN EXCESS OF THE DAILY REASONABLE
MARKET DEMAND FOR GAS FROM GAS WELLS THAT MAY BE PRODUCED FROM SUCH
COMMON RESERVOIR, TO BE UTILIZED AS PERMITTED IN THIS ARTICLE. 

"SEC. 12.  ON OR BEFORE THE TWENTIETH (20TH) DAY OF EACH CALENDAR
MONTH THE COMMISSION SHALL HOLD A HEARING  ...  FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DETERMINING THE AGGREGATE DAILY CAPACITY TO PRODUCE OF ALL GAS WELLS IN
A COMMON RESERVOIR, AND AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE, THE DAILY VOLUME OF GAS
FROM EACH COMMON RESERVOIR THAT WILL BE PRODUCED FROM GAS WELLS DURING
THE FOLLOWING MONTH TO BE UTILIZED AS PERMITTED IN THIS ARTICLE.  UPON
SUCH DETERMINATION, THE COMMISSION, BASED UPON EVIDENCE INTRODUCED AT
SUCH HEARING, SHALL ALLOCATE TO EACH GAS WELL PRODUCING GAS FROM SUCH
COMMON RESERVOIR A PERCENTAGE OF THE DAILY PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF EACH
WELL WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED DAILY DURING THE FOLLOWING MONTH FROM EACH
GAS WELL PRODUCING GAS FROM SUCH COMMON RESERVOIR.  SUCH PERCENTAGE OF
THE DAILY PRODUCING CAPACITY OF EACH WELL SHALL BE REGARDED AS ITS
DAILY ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION OF SUCH DAILY VOLUME REQUIRED FOR
UTILIZATION FROM SUCH COMMON RESERVOIR.... 

"SEC. 14.  IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE COMMISSION, AFTER NOTICE AND
HEARING, TO ASCERTAIN AND DETERMINE THE REASONABLE MARKET DEMAND FOR
GAS FROM GAS WELLS TO BE USED FOR LIGHT AND FUEL PURPOSES AND FOR ALL
OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES TO WHICH SWEET GAS MAY BE PUT UNDER THE TERMS OF
THIS ARTICLE AND BY PROPER ORDER TO RESTRICT THE PRODUCTION OF GAS FROM
ALL GAS WELLS IN SAID FIELD PRODUCING SUCH GAS TO AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
MARKET DEMAND OR TO AN AMOUNT WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED WITHOUT WASTE AS
OTHERWISE DEFINED; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH GAS SHALL
IN ANY EVENT BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE REASONABLE MARKET
DEMAND THEREFOR.  IN SUCH ORDER THE COMMISSION SHALL ALLOCATE,
DISTRIBUTE OR APPORTION THE TOTAL ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION FROM SUCH FIELD
AMONG THE VARIOUS GAS WELLS AFFECTED BY THE ORDER ON A REASONABLE
BASIS, AND AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 13.... 

"SEC. 16.  IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO PRODUCE GAS FROM A
GAS WELL AS HEREIN DEFINED IN EXCESS OF THE DAILY ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION
IN SUCH SCHEDULE OF ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION.... 

"SEC. 20.  IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE OWNER OF ANY
GAS WELL HAS FAILED OR REFUSED TO UTILIZE OR SELL THE ALLOWABLE
PRODUCTION FROM HIS WELL WHEN SUCH OWNER HAS BEEN OFFERED A CONNECTION
OR MARKET FOR SUCH GAS AT A REASONABLE PRICE, SUCH WELL SHALL BE
EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION IN ALLOCATING THE DAILY ALLOWABLE
PRODUCTION FROM THE RESERVOIR OR ZONE IN WHICH SAME IS LOCATED UNTIL
THE OWNER THEREOF SIGNIFIES TO THE COMMISSION HIS DESIRE TO UTILIZE OR
SELL SUCH GAS.  IN ALL OTHER CASES ALL GAS WELLS SHALL BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT IN ALLOCATING THE ALLOWABLE PRODUCTION AMONG WELLS PRODUCING
THE SAME TYPE OF GAS." 

FN12  THE TEXOMA NATURAL GAS COMPANY (WITH AN AFFILIATE) HAS, AT A
COST OF ABOUT $72,000,000, ACQUIRED 200,000 ACRES OF LEASES IN THE WEST
PANHANDLE FIELD KNOWN TO BE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING SWEET GAS; DRILLED
ABOUT 90 WELLS; ERECTED A COMPRESSOR PLANT; CONSTRUCTED A PIPE LINE TO
ITS CHICAGO MARKET; AND SECURED MARKETING CONTRACTS FOR DISTRIBUTION IN
OTHER STATES.  SIMILARLY, THE CONSOLIDATED GAS UTILITIES COMPANY (WITH
AFFILIATES) HAS EXPENDED A SMALLER SUM IN ACQUIRING AND DEVELOPING GAS
RESERVES IN THE EAST PANHANDLE FIELD AND IN CONSTRUCTING PIPE LINES TO,
AND SECURING CONTRACTS FOR MARKETING ITS GAS IN KANSAS. 

FN13  SECTION 59 OF ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TEXAS, WHICH
ARTICLE WAS PROCLAIMED OCTOBER 2, 1917, PROVIDES, IN PART: 

"THE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALL THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF
THIS STATE  ...  AND THE PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION OF SUCH NATURAL
RESOURCES OF THIS STATE ARE EACH AND ALL HEREBY DECLARED PUBLIC RIGHTS
AND DUTIES, AND THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PASS ALL SUCH LAWS AS ARE
APPROPRIATE THERETO...." 

FN14  HOUSE BILL 266 AMENDS ARTICLE 6008 OF THE REVISED CIVIL
STATUTES, WHICH IS THE STATUTE PARTICULARLY DEALING WITH THE PRODUCTION
AND USE OF NATURAL GAS.  THAT ARTICLE WAS AMENDED BY CHAP. 26 OF ACTS
OF 1931, FORTY-SECOND LEGISLATURE, FIRST CALLED SESSION, P. 46.  IT WAS
AGAIN AMENDED BY CHAP. 100 OF THE ACTS OF 1933, CALLED THE "SOUR GAS
LAW," FORTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, P. 222; ALSO BY CHAP.
88 OF THE ACTS OF 1933, FORTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, FIRST CALLED SESSION,
P. 229, WHICH REMAINED IN FORCE UNTIL AUGUST 1, 1935, WHEN HOUSE BILL
266 BECAME EFFECTIVE. 

FN15  SEE TEXAS CO. V. DAUGHERTY, 107 TEX. 226, 176 S.W. 717;
STEPHENS COUNTY V. MID-KANSAS OIL & GAS CO., 113 TEX. 160, 254 S.W.
290; GRAYBURG OIL CO. V. STATE, 50 S.W.(2D) 355. 

FN16  PRAIRIE OIL & GAS CO. V. STATE, 231 S.W. 1088(TEX.  COMM. 
APP.); COMPARE HOUSTON & TEXAS CENTRAL R. CO. V. EAST, 98 TEX. 146, 81
S.W. 279. 

FN17  COMPARE, E.G., HERMANN V. THOMAS, 143 S.W. 195(TEX.  CIV. 
APP.); UNITED NORTH & SOUTH OIL CO. V. MEREDITH, 258 S.W. 550(TEX. 
CIV.  APP.), AFFIRMED, 272 S.W. 124(TEX.  COMM.  APP.); HUNT V. STATE,
48 S.W.(2D) 466(TEX.  CIV.  APP.); MALONE V. BARNETT, 87 S.W.(2D)
523(TEX.  CIV.  APP.).  SEE BROWN V. HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO., 83
S.W.(2D) 935(TEX.  SUP.  CT.). 

FN18  SEE COMANCHE DUKE OIL CO. V. TEXAS PACIFIC COAL & OIL CO., 298
S.W. 554(TEX.  COMM.  APP.). 

FN19  SEE DANCIGER OIL & REFINING CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 49
S.W.(2D) 837, 840(TEX.  CIV.  APP.), REVERSED AND DISMISSED AS MOOT,
122 TEX. 243; 56 S.W.(2D) 1075(TEX.  COMM.  APP.); BROWN V. HUMBLE OIL
& REFINING CO., 83 S.W.(2D) 935, 940, 941(TEX.  SUP.  CT.). 

FN20  HARRIMAN V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 211 U.S. 407, 422;
UNITED STATES V. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO., 213 U.S. 366, 408. 

FN21  COMPARE PULLMAN CO. V. KNOTT, 235 U.S. 23, 27; LEE V. BICKELL,
292 U.S. 415, 425; FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY, 294 U.S. 87,
97. 

FN22  ACT OF MARCH 4, 1913, C. 160, 37 STAT., P. 1013.  COMPARE WELCH
POGUE, "STATE DETERMINATION OF STATE LAW AND THE JUDICIAL CODE," 41
HARV. L. REV. 623, 626, ET SEQ. 

FN23  COMPARE WILSON CYPRESS CO. V. DEL POZO Y MARCOS, 236 U.S. 635,
657; HAMMOND V. SCHAPPI BUS LINE, INC., 275 U.S. 164, 169.  SEE BOWMAN
V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 256 U.S. 642, 647; LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMM'N V. MORGAN'S LOUISIANA & TEXAS RAILROAD & STEAMSHIP CO., 264 U.S.
393, 397; WABASH VALLEY ELECTRIC CO. V. YOUNG, 287 U.S. 488, 497;
MARION V. SNEEDEN, 291 U.S. 262, 271.  THIS COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY
ACCORDED GREAT DEFERENCE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION
ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL COURTS, WHETHER THE PREVAILING SYSTEM WAS THE
COMMON OR THE CIVIL LAW, AND THIS THOUGH IN SUCH CASES THIS COURT
POSSESSES AUTHORITY TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IT LACKS IN
THE CASE OF THE LEGISLATION OF A STATE.  SEE FOX V. HAARSTICK, 156 U.S.
674, 679; KEALOHA V. CASTLE, 210 U.S. 149, 153; PHOENIX RY. CO. V.
LANDIS, 231 U.S. 578, 579; DIAZ V. GONZALEZ, 261 U.S. 102, 105, 106;
COMPARE REYNOLDS V. FEWELL, 236 U.S. 58, 67. 

FN24  SEE ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. V. MIDDLEKAMP, 256 U.S.
226, 230; BRATTON V. CHANDLER, 260 U.S. 110, 114; SOUTH UTAH MINES &
SMELTERS V. BEAVER COUNTY, 262 U.S. 325, 331; CORPORATION COMMISSION V.
LOWE, 281 U.S. 431, 438; FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY, 294
U.S. 87, 95, 96.  COMPARE PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT CO. V.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 247 U.S. 385, 390; YU CONG ENG V. TRINIDAD, 271
U.S. 500, 522, 523. 

FN25  COMPARE VAN DYKE V. GEARY, 244 U.S. 39, 46; PALMETTO FIRE
INSURANCE CO. V. CONN, 272 U.S. 295, 305; LEE V. BICKELL, 292 U.S. 415,
424; FOX V. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW JERSEY, 294 U.S. 87, 96. 

FN26  OHIO OIL CO. V. INDIANA (NO. 1), 177 U.S. 190; LINDSLEY V.
NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO., 220 U.S. 61; WEST V. KANSAS NATURAL GAS CO.,
221 U.S. 229; WALLS V. MIDLAND CARBON CO., 254 U.S. 300; BANDINI
PETROLEUM CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 284 U.S. 8; CHAMPLIN REFINING CO. V.
CORPORATION COMMISSION, 286 U.S. 210; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S.
378. 

FN27  COMPARE CASES CITED IN NOTE 26, SUPRA. 

FN28  PLAINTIFFS CLAIM THAT THEY WILL BE OBLIGED TO INCUR FURTHER
EXPENSE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF GATHERING LINES TO CONNECT THEIR PIPE
LINES WITH THE WELLS OF OTHERS.  THERE IS NO FINDING OF WILLINGNESS ON
THE PART OF NON-PIPE LINE WELL OWNERS TO ASSUME OR SHARE SUCH EXPENSE. 

FN29  COMPARE PRODUCERS TRANSPORTATION CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION,
251 U.S. 228, 230, 231; MICHIGN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM'N V. DUKE, 266
U.S. 570, 577, 578; SMITH V. CAHOON, 283 U.S. 553, 563. 

FN30  SEE CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO. V. OCHS, 249 U.S. 416, 421,
422. 

FN31  CASES ARE COLLECTED IN NOTES, 34 COL. L. REV. 1495; 48 HARV. L.
REV. 988. 
..END :













ICKES V. FOX ET AL., 300 U.S. 82 


NO. 266.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 66
APP. D.C. 128 - 85 F.(2D) 294, AFFIRMED. 


1.  SUITS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY
DEFENDANT MAY BE MAINTAINED ONLY WHEN THE CONGRESS HAS SO PROVIDED.  P.
96. 

2.  UPON THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE BILLS, HELD THAT, UNDER THE
RECLAMATION ACT, THE LAWS OF WASHINGTON, AND CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT AND OWNERS OF LAND IN AN IRRIGATION PROJECT, THE RIGHTS OF
LANDOWNERS TO USE THE WATER IN THE QUANTITY PER ACRE REQUIRED FOR
IRRIGATING THEIR RESPECTIVE LANDS WERE NOT MERE RIGHTS OF CONTRACT WITH
THE GOVERNMENT, BUT WERE VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS, APPURTENANT TO THEIR
LANDS AND WHOLLY DISTINCT FROM THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE
IRRIGATION WORKS.  P. 96. 

3.  THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS OWNER, HAD THE POWER TO DISPOSE OF THE
LAND AND WATER OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN TOGETHER OR SEPARATELY; AND BY THE
DESERT LAND ACT, IF NOT BEFORE, CONGRESS ESTABLISHED THE RULE THAT FOR
THE FUTURE THE LANDS SHOULD BE PATENTED SEPARATELY.  P. 95. 

4.  BY THE DESERT LAND ACT, ACQUISITION OF THE GOVERNMENT TITLE TO A
PARCEL OF LAND DID NOT CARRY WITH IT A WATER RIGHT; BUT ALL NON
NAVIGABLE WATERS WERE RESERVED FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE VARIOUS ARID-LAND STATES.  P. 95. 

5.  BY THE LAWS OF THE ARID-LAND STATES GENERALLY, AND OF THE STATE
OF WASHINGTON IN PARTICULAR, AND BY EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE
RECLAMATION ACT WITH RESPECT TO LANDS IN FEDERAL IRRIGATION PROJECTS,
THE RIGHT TO USE WATER FOR IRRIGATION, WHICH CAN ONLY BE ACQUIRED BY
PRIOR APPROPRIATION AND APPLICATION TO THAT BENEFICIAL USE, IS A
PROPERTY RIGHT AND PART AND PARCEL OF THE LAND UPON WHICH IT IS
APPLIED.  P. 95. 

6.  IN A SUIT AGAINST A GOVERNMENT OFFICER TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT
OF AN ORDER WHICH WOULD UNLAWFULLY DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFF OF VESTED
PROPERTY RIGHTS, THE TRUTH OF ALLEGATIONS AS TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE
RIGHTS IS CONCEDED BY A MOTION TO DISMISS; BUT EVEN IF THE ALLEGATIONS
WERE DENIED, A PRESUMPTION THAT THE PLAINTIFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROVE
THEM WILL BE INDULGED IN FAVOR OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT. 
P. 96. 

7.  THE UNITED STATES IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY TO SUITS BROUGHT
TO ENJOIN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FROM ENFORCING AN ORDER WHICH
WOULD WRONGFULLY DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFFS OF VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT
WERE NOT ONLY ACQUIRED UNDER ACTS OF CONGRESS, STATE LAWS AND
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS BUT SETTLED AND DETERMINED BY HIS PREDECESSORS IN
OFFICE.  PP. 96-97. 

ICKES, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, V. FOX ET AL.* 

FN*  TOGETHER WITH NO. 267, ICKES, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, V.
PARKS ET AL.; AND NO. 268, ICKES, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, V.
OTTMULLER.  ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

WRITS OF CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 528, TO REVIEW JUDGMENTS AFFIRMING,
UPON SPECIAL APPEALS, ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT DENYING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS AMENDED BILLS IN THREE SUITS AGAINST THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR. 

THE UNITED STATES IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY. 

IF THE UNITED STATES WAS THE APPROPRIATOR AND IS THE OWNER OF THE
WATER RIGHTS IN QUESTION, THE RESPONDENTS CAN HAVE NO CLAIM APART FROM
THEIR CONTRACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES.  THE SUITS ON SUCH CONTRACTS
WERE THEREFORE RIGHTLY DISMISSED.  WELLS V. ROPER, 246 U.S. 335;
TRANSCONTINENTAL & WESTERN AIR V. FARLEY, 71 F.(2D) 288, CERT. DEN.,
293 U.S. 603.  THE RELIEF SOUGHT WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, WHICH NO COURT HAS
JURISDICTION TO AWARD.  GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536, 546; UNITED
STATES EX REL. SHOSHONE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. ICKES, 70 F.(2D) 770,
773, CERT. DEN., 293 U.S. 571; BOEING AIR TRANSPORT V. FARLEY, 75
F.(2D) 765, CERT. DEN., 294 U.S. 728. 

WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVE THE RESPONDENTS ANY SORT OF A PROPERTY
RIGHT IN THE WATER MUST BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF STATE LAW, TO
WHICH THE RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE
EXPRESSLY MADE SUBJECT.  ACT OF JUNE 17, 1902, C. 1093, SEC. 8, 32
STAT. 390.  DOES THE MERE USE OF WATER SUPPLIED UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE
OPERATOR OF A STORAGE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM GIVE TITLE TO THE WATER
INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CONTRACT? 

SOME OF THE ARID STATES, BY STATUTE OR BY DECISION, HAVE MODIFIED THE
DOCTRINE OF FIRST APPROPRIATION TO REQUIRE THAT THERE BE ACTUAL
BENEFICIAL USE BY THE APPROPRIATOR.  SEE WIEL, WATER RIGHTS IN THE
WESTERN STATES, II, C. 57, PP. 1235-1248(3D ED.).  COLORADO SEEMS TO
HAVE GONE FARTHER IN THIS DIRECTION THAN HAS ANY OTHER STATE.  UNDER
THE LAW OF THAT STATE, THE FACT OF STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE APPROPRIATION, BUT MERELY MAKES THE CARRIER OF THE WATER A
TRUSTEE FOR THE CONSUMER, IN WHOM THE PROPERTY RIGHT RESTS.  HIGHLAND
DITCH CO. V. UNION RESERVOIR CO., 53 COLO. 483; PIONEER IRRIGATION CO.
V. UNION RESERVOIR CO., 53 COLO. 483; PIONEER IRRIGATION CO. V. BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS, 236 FED. 790, 792. 

UNDER THE APPLICABLE WASHINGTON LAW, THE ONE WHO DIVERTS WATER FOR
SALE OR DISTRIBUTION TO OTHERS HAS MADE A FULL APPROPRIATION AND HAS
FULL TITLE TO THE WATER. 

PRIOR TO 1917, THE APPROPRIATION OF WATER WAS GOVERNED BY THE ACT OF
1891(LAWS OF WASH., 1891, P. 327, SEC. 1; 2 REMINGTON'S CODE, 1915,
SEC. 6316).  UNDER THIS ACT ONE WHO IMPOUNDS WATER AND DISTRIBUTES IT
UNDER CONTRACT WITH AGRICULTURAL USERS IS THE APPROPRIATOR, AND THOSE
WHO CONTRACT WITH HIM HAVE NO PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE WATER FROM ITS
USE, BUT MERELY THEIR CONTRACT RIGHTS AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTOR.  LANHAM
V. WENATCHEE CANAL CO., 48 WASH. 337; SHAFFORD V. WHITE BLUFFS CO., 63
WASH. 10; BLACK V. BAKER, 126 WASH. 604.  OTHER WASHINGTON CASES HAVE
ASSUMED AS A MATTER OF COURSE THAT THE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO SUPPLY THE
AGREED WATER IS ONE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR FOR ITS SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE.  (CITING MANY WASHINGTON CASES.) 

ERGO THE UNITED STATES IS THE APPROPRIATOR AND RESPONDENTS HAVE
MERELY CONTRACT RIGHTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  UNITED STATES V.
UNION GAP IRRIGATION CO., 209 FED. 274, 276; WEST SIDE IRRIGATION CO.
V. UNITED STATES, 246 FED. 212, 217.  ANY DOUBTS AS TO THIS ARE SET AT
REST BY THE WASHINGTON STATUTE AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS OF WATER FOR
FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECTS.  LAWS OF 1905, C. 88, P. 180.  UNDER THE
RECLAMATION ACT THE UNITED STATES IS THE APPROPRIATOR OF WATER.  IDE V.
UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 497. 

OF THE WATER ACQUIRED UNDER ITS PROVISIONS SHALL BE APPURTENANT TO THE
LAND IRRIGATED, AND BENEFICIAL USE SHALL BE THE BASIS, THE MEASURE, AND
THE LIMIT OF THE RIGHT, WAS DESIGNED ONLY TO PREVENT SPECULATIVE
PROFITS, BY FORBIDDING ALIENATION OF THE WATER RIGHT FOR USE ON OTHER
LANDS OR FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  H. REP. NO. 1468, 57TH CONG., 1ST SESS.,
P. 7; 35TH CONG. REC. 1385, 6679. 

THE FOUNDATION OF THE BILLS IS THE ALLEGATION THAT THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR THREATENS TO INTERFERE WITH THE RESPONDENTS' WATER RIGHTS
WHICH ARE OWNED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CONTRACTS BY WHICH THE UNITED
STATES AGREES TO FURNISH THE WATER.  THE VERY CLAIM THAT THE UNITED
STATES IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY RESTS UPON A REQUEST THAT THE COURT
ADJUDICATE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE UNITED STATES TO OWNERSHIP OF THE
WATER MUST FALL BEFORE THE CLAIMS OF THE RESPONDENTS.  THE UNITED
STATES IS THEREFORE AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.  AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR
DISTRICT V. CRANDALL, 82 F.(2D) 973; ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, 298 U.S.
558; GOLDBERG V. DANIELS, 231 U.S. 218, 221-222. 

THESE SUITS SEEK ALSO TO INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT
OF THE RESERVOIRS AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES.  IN
EFFECT, THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS THAT RESPONDENTS BE RESTORED TO THEIR
FORMER "RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES" TO RECEIVE THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS OF
WATER.  THIS WOULD REQUIRE THAT WATER BE STORED IN THE RESERVOIRS, THAT
THE HEADGATES BE ADJUSTED, AND THAT WATER BE DELIVERED TO THE
RESPONDENTS IN THE AMOUNTS TO BE FIXED BY THE DECREE.  THESE BILLS
CONTEMPLATE A DIRECT INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND
MANAGEMENT WHICH ARE GUARANTEED BY SEC. 6 OF THE RECLAMATION ACT (43
U.S.C. 498). 

THIS CONCLUSION IS REINFORCED WHEN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
IS VIEWED NOT ONLY AS ONE RELATING TO ITS OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY BUT AS
ONE AFFECTING A BASIC ELEMENT OF ITS RECLAMATION POLICY.  THE ORDERS
ATTACKED BY THE RESPONDENTS RECITE THAT THE WATER FURNISHED THEM MUST
BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED IN THEIR CONTRACTS, IN ORDER TO
SUPPLY WATER TO THE KITTITAS DIVISION.  THE SITUATION THUS APPEARS TO
BE ONE IN WHICH RESPONDENTS SEEK TO HAVE ENFORCED A RIGHT IN OPPOSITION
TO THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IN (1) MAKING AN EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF A LIMITED SUPPLY OF WATER, AND (2) IN FULFILLING THE
TERMS OF ITS CONTRACTS WITH OTHER LANDOWNERS. 

THE EFFECT OF THE PUBLIC NOTICES AND ORDERS SOUGHT TO BE ANNULLED IS
ARBITRARILY TO REDUCE THE MEASURE OF RESPONDENTS' RIGHT TO MUCH LESS
THAN THE MEASURE OF "BENEFICIAL USE," AS FIXED BY THE RECLAMATION LAW,
BY THE CONTRACTS, BY THE LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF
WASHINGTON, BY PRACTICE ON ALL FEDERAL RECLAMATION PROJECTS AND BY THE
DETERMINATION OF A FORMER SECRETARY OF INTERIOR.  IN RE WATERS OF CRAB
CREEK, 134 WASH. 7, 14, 15; LONGMIRE V. SMITH, 26 WASH. 439; CALIFORNIA
OREGON POWER CO. V. BEAVER PORTLAND CEMENT CO., 295 U.S. 142; AMENT V.
BICKFORD, 139 WASH. 494, 495; MADISON V. MCNEAL, 171 WASH. 675; GEDDIS
V. PARISH, 1 WASH. 587, 591. 

DETERMINATION BY THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO AUGUST 13, 1914, OF
RESPONDENTS' RIGHT TO THE USE OF WATER ACQUIRED PURSUANT TO CONTRACT,
FIXED THE RIGHT AND CANNOT BE ANNULLED BY A SUCCESSOR.  WILBUR V.
BURLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 58 F.(2D) 871; NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING
CO., 147 U.S. 164, 176. 

THE PUBLIC NOTICES SOUGHT TO BE VACATED INCREASE THE CONSTRUCTION
CHARGES AFTER THEY WERE FIXED BY PUBLIC NOTICE; STRIKE DOWN AND DESTROY
WATER RIGHTS WHICH ARE APPURTENANT TO RESPONDENTS' LANDS; AND VIOLATE
THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE "FIRST IN TIME, FIRST IN RIGHT," WHICH THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IS REQUIRED TO OBSERVE IN CARRYING OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE RECLAMATION LAW. 

THE CASES OF WELLS V. ROPER; TRANSCONTINENTAL & WESTERN AIR V.
FARLEY; BOEING AIR TRANSPORT V. FARLEY; AND UNITED STATES EX REL.
SHOSHONE IRRIGATION DISTRICT V. ICKES, ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE.  IN
THOSE SUITS THE PLAINTIFFS SOUGHT TO CONTROL THE DISCRETION AND
JUDGMENT OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ON MATTERS ENTRUSTED THEM BY CONGRESS. 
FURTHERMORE, THOSE CASES INVOLVED BREACH OF A CONTRACT BY THE UNITED
STATES.  CONGRESS HAD ENTRUSTED THE MATTERS INVOLVED TO THE DISCRETION
OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL IN THE FIRST THREE CASES AND TO THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR IN THE LAST CASE; AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICIAL WAS ACTING
WITHIN THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION SO ENTRUSTED TO HIM IN
DISCRETIONARY MATTERS.  NONE OF THESE ELEMENTS EXIST IN THE SUITS AT
BAR.  THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY AND
CANCELLATION OF A CONTRACT IS CLEARLY POINTED OUT IN GOLTRA V. WEEKS,
271 U.S. 536.  SEE BALLINGER V. UNITED STATES, 216 U.S. 240; MIGUEL V.
MCCARL, 261 U.S. 442; AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING V. MCANNULTY,
187 U.S. 94; PAYNE V. CENTRAL PACIFIC RY. CO., 255 U.S. 228; ICKES V.
VIRGINIA-COLORADO DEVELOPMENT CO., 295 U.S. 639; UNITED STATES V. LEE,
106 U.S. 197; STERLING V. CONSTANTIN, 287 U.S. 378. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE SOLE QUESTION IN EACH OF THESE THREE CASES IS WHETHER THE UNITED
STATES IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY DEFENDANT.  THE SUITS WERE BROUGHT IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  THAT COURT, ON MOTION
OF PETITIONER, DEEMING THE PRESENCE OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE
INDISPENSABLE, DISMISSED THE BILLS AS AMENDED.  THEREUPON, BY
PERMISSION OF THE COURT, SECOND-AMENDED BILLS WERE FILED.  PETITIONER
RENEWED HIS MOTIONS TO DISMISS, WHICH THE COURT THEN DENIED.  A SPECIAL
APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE COURT BELOW, AND RESULTED IN AN AFFIRMANCE OF
THE DECREE OF THE TRIAL COURT.  66 APP. D.C. 128; 85 F.(2D) 294.  THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE THREE SECOND-AMENDED BILLS OF COMPLAINT DIFFER IN
SOME PARTICULARS; BUT WHETHER THESE DIFFERENCES WILL AFFECT THE EXTENT
OR MEASURE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE RESPECTIVE RESPONDENTS OR THE FINAL
DISPOSITION OF THE SUITS SO AS TO REQUIRE UNLIKE DECREES, WE DO NOT
DETERMINE.  THEY ARE NOT SUCH AS TO NECESSITATE DIVERSE RULINGS IN
RESPECT OF THE QUESTION WHICH NOW IS PRESENTED FOR DECISION.  IN THIS
VIEW, WE CONFINE OUR STATEMENT, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE NOTED, TO THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL OF COMPLAINT IN THE FOX CASE, NO. 266. 

PETITIONER, AS SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, HAS CHARGE OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE RECLAMATION ACT OF JUNE 17, 1902(32 STAT. 388),
AS AMENDED.  IN 1906, THE THEN SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR APPROVED A
RECLAMATION PROJECT KNOWN AS THE "SUNNYSIDE UNIT OF THE YAKIMA
PROJECT"; AND PURCHASED FROM THE WASHINGTON IRRIGATION COMPANY THE
SUNNYSIDE CANAL, TOGETHER WITH THE WATER APPROPRIATIONS AND IRRIGATION
SYSTEM CONNECTED THEREWITH.  AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE, CERTAIN ARID
AND UNIRRIGATED LANDS, DESCRIBED IN THE BILL, THEREAFTER AND NOW OWNED
BY RESPONDENTS, WERE WITHIN THE UNIT EMBRACED BY THE PROJECT. 

THE THEN OWNERS OF THE LANDS, PREDECESSORS OF RESPONDENTS IN TITLE,
AND OTHER OWNERS OF SIMILAR LANDS, INCORPORATED THE SUNNYSIDE WATER
USERS ASSOCIATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, PUT THEIR
LANDS WITHIN THE RECLAMATION PROJECT, AND AGREED TO TAKE WATER FROM THE
PROJECT TO IRRIGATE SUCH LANDS. 

THE ASSOCIATION, ON MAY 7, 1906, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE
UNITED STATES, THE RECITALS OF WHICH IN SUBSTANCE, SO FAR AS PERTINENT,
ARE THAT THESE LANDS ARE DESERT AND ARID IN CHARACTER AND WILL REMAIN
SO UNLESS THE WATERS OF THE YAKIMA RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES BE
IMPOUNDED AND THE FLOW REGULATED AND CONTROLLED; THAT THE SECRETARY
CONTEMPLATES THE CONSTRUCTION OF IRRIGATION WORKS UNDER THE RECLAMATION
ACT FOR THE IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION OF THESE LANDS; THAT THE
INCORPORATORS AND SHAREHOLDERS OF THE ASSOCIATION ARE REQUIRED TO BE
OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS OF LANDS WITHIN THE AREA TO BE IRRIGATED, AND
ALREADY ARE IN SOME CASES APPROPRIATORS OF WATER FOR THE IRRIGATION
THEREOF; THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO INITIATE RIGHTS TO THE USE OF WATER
FROM THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION WORKS AS SOON AS MAY BE, AND COMPLETE THE
ACQUISITION THEREOF AS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY, "WHICH RIGHTS SHALL
BE, AND THEREAFTER CONTINUE TO BE, FOREVER APPURTENANT TO DESIGNATED
LANDS OWNED BY SUCH SHAREHOLDERS." 

FOLLOWING THESE RECITALS, IT WAS AGREED THAT ONLY THOSE WHO BECAME
MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS APPLICANTS FOR RIGHTS
TO THE USE OF WATER; THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH RIGHTS SHOULD
NOT EXCEED THE NUMBER OF ACRES OF LAND CAPABLE OF IRRIGATION BY THE
TOTAL QUANTITY OF WATER AVAILABLE - NAMELY, THE QUANTITY NOW
APPROPRIATED BY SHAREHOLDERS OF THE ASSOCIATION AND THE QUANTITY TO BE
DELIVERED FROM ALL SOURCES IN EXCESS OF THE WATER NOW APPROPRIATED;
THAT THE SECRETARY SHOULD DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF ACRES CAPABLE OF SUCH
IRRIGATION, "TO BE BASED UPON AND MEASURED AND LIMITED BY THE
BENEFICIAL USE OF WATER"; THAT WATER RIGHTS SHOULD BE PAID FOR IN TEN
ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS; THAT THE ASSOCIATION GUARANTEES PAYMENT FOR THAT
PART OF THE COST OF THE IRRIGATION WORKS APPORTIONED TO ITS
SHAREHOLDERS - TIMES AND METHODS OF PAYMENT BEING STIPULATED IN DETAIL;
THAT RIGHTS TO WATER WHERE THE SAME HAVE VESTED WERE TO BE DEFINED,
DETERMINED, AND ENJOYED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECLAMATION ACT AND
OTHER ACTS OF CONGRESS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ACQUISITION AND ENJOYMENT
OF SUCH RIGHTS, AND BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.    SOME
TIME AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE FOREGOING CONTRACT, THE PREDECESSORS IN
TITLE OF RESPONDENTS, UPON OFFICIALLY-APPROVED FORMS, MADE APPLICATIONS
FOR WATER-RIGHTS FOR THE IRRIGATION OF THE LANDS HERE INVOLVED.  BY THE
TERMS OF THE APPLICATIONS, THE MEASURE OF THE WATER-RIGHT FOR THE LAND
WAS STATED TO BE THAT QUANTITY WHICH SHALL BE BENEFICIALLY USED FOR THE
IRRIGATION THEREOF, NOT EXCEEDING THE SHARE PROPORTIONATE TO IRRIGABLE
ACREAGE OF THE WATER SUPPLY ACTUALLY AVAILABLE, TO BE PAID FOR (IN TEN
ANNUAL INSTALMENTS) IN AN AMOUNT WHICH WAS FIXED IN EACH APPLICATION. 
FN1  THE APPLICANTS AGREED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION CHARGE AND THE ANNUAL
CHARGES FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SHOULD BE AND WERE MADE A LIEN
UPON THE LANDS AND ALL WATER-RIGHTS THEN OR THEREAFTER APPURTENANT OR
BELONGING THERETO, TOGETHER WITH ALL IMPROVEMENTS THEREON. 

IT FURTHER IS ALLEGED THAT A FORMER SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
DETERMINED THAT THE TOTAL COST OF THE WATER RIGHTS FOR ALL THE LANDS IN
THE UNIT WOULD BE $52 PER ACRE, AND THAT SUCH SUM WOULD BE SUFFICIENT
TO RETURN TO THE RECLAMATION FUND THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT; THAT,
PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE RECLAMATION ACT, HE FIXED THE CONSTRUCTION
CHARGE FOR THE LAND HERE INVOLVED AT THAT AMOUNT PER ACRE, AND ISSUED
PUBLIC NOTICE AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY; THAT THEREAFTER THE SUCCESSIVE
SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR UNIFORMLY CONSTRUED THE RECLAMATION ACT AND
THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE OWNERS OF THE LANDS
HAD PURCHASED A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF WATER TO BENEFICIALLY AND
SUCCESSFULLY IRRIGATE THEIR LANDS, TO BE DETERMINED BY REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE SECRETARY HAVING PHYSICAL CHARGE OF THE WATER DISTRIBUTION, FROM
A FACTUAL INVESTIGATION AND PERSONAL EXAMINATION OF THE LANDS AND THE
CROPS GROWING THEREON AND THE WATER REQUIREMENTS THEREOF. 

PURSUANT THERETO, IT WAS DETERMINED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
SUCCESSIVE SECRETARIES THAT 4.84 ACRE-FEET OF WATER PER ANNUM PER ACRE
WAS NECESSARY TO BENEFICIALLY AND SUCCESSFULLY IRRIGATE RESPONDENTS'
LANDS; THAT, THEREUPON, THE SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR, THROUGH THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES, HAVE, FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS,
DELIVERED TO SUCH LANDS THE NECESSARY QUANTITY OF WATER; THAT AFTER THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND RESERVOIRS OF SUFFICIENT
CAPACITY TO BENEFICIALLY AND SUCCESSFULLY IRRIGATE ALL LANDS WITHIN THE
UNIT, AN ACT OF CONGRESS WAS PASSED PROVIDING THAT NO INCREASE OF
CONSTRUCTION CHARGES COULD BE MADE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN FIXED BY PUBLIC
NOTICE AND ORDER, EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SECRETARY AND A
MAJORITY OF THE WATER-RIGHT APPLICANTS.  ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, 1914, THE
THEN SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ISSUED A PUBLIC NOTICE AND ORDER,
DECLARING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO INCREASE IN THE CONSTRUCTION CHARGES
AGAINST THE LANDS. 

RESPONDENTS AND THEIR PREDECESSORS, IT IS ALLEGED, HAVE FULLY
COMPLIED WITH THE TERMS OF THE RECLAMATION ACT AND ALL OBLIGATIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THEIR WATER-RIGHTS, AND HAVE PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT ALL
SUMS DUE ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION CHARGES, AND ALL OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE CHARGES, AND HAVE ACQUIRED VESTED WATER-RIGHTS SUFFICIENT
TO BENEFICIALLY AND SUCCESSFULLY IRRIGATE THEIR LANDS - NAMELY, 4.84
ACRE-FEET OF WATER PER ACRE PER ANNUM; AND THAT SUCH WATER-RIGHTS ARE
APPURTENANT TO THEIR LANDS. 

THE BILL FURTHER ALLEGES THAT IN 1930 THE COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION
DESIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE CLE ELUM RESERVOIR TO STORE WATER FOR THE
IRRIGATION OF LANDS IN THE KITTITAS RECLAMATION DISTRICT AND OTHER
LANDS, THE CANAL AND DISTRIBUTING SYSTEM IN THAT DISTRICT BEING THEN IN
PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION.  BUT FINDING THAT THE COST OF THE RESERVOIR
WOULD EXCEED, BY $1,000,000, THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD BE RETURNED TO THE
RECLAMATION FUND, AND WITHOUT CONSULTING RESPONDENTS OR OTHER WATER
USERS IN THE SUNNYSIDE UNIT OF THE YAKIMA PROJECT, THE COMMISSIONER
CHARGED THE SUM OF $1,000,000 TO THAT UNIT AND DISTRICT, AND INFORMED
THE SECRETARY TO THAT EFFECT.  NEITHER RESPONDENT NOR ANY OTHER WATER
USERS IN THAT UNIT OR DISTRICT EVER AGREED TO THIS ARRANGEMENT; BUT THE
THEN-SECRETARY CERTIFIED TO THE PRESIDENT THAT PROVISION HAD BEEN MADE
FOR THE REPAYMENT TO THE RECLAMATION FUND OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE
RESERVOIR, AND THAT $1,000,000 THEREOF WAS TO BE OBTAINED BY RENTALS
FROM THE SUNNYSIDE DIVISION OF THE YAKIMA PROJECT. 

THE BILL FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE SECRETARY AND OTHER OFFICIALS
AGREED WITH DESIGNATED PERSONS TO ATTEMPT TO FORCE AND COERCE
RESPONDENTS, AND OTHER WATER USERS IN THE DISTRICT, TO INDUCE THE
DISTRICT TO AGREE TO PAY THE ADDITIONAL SUM; OTHERWISE, TO FORCE AND
COERCE THEM TO SIGN WATER-RENTAL APPLICATIONS OR BE DEPRIVED OF A
PORTION OF THE WATER OWNED BY THEM.  IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, PUBLIC
NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND AN ORDER ISSUED LIMITING THEIR RIGHTS TO THREE
ACRE-FEET PER ACRE, AND EXACTING A SPECIFIED RENTAL CHARGE FOR
ADDITIONAL WATER.  RESPONDENTS AND THE OTHER WATER USERS WERE NOTIFIED
THAT THEY WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ALL WATER IN EXCESS OF THE THREE ACRE
FEET PER ACRE UNLESS THEY MADE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL WATER IN A
FORM AND MANNER PRESCRIBED.  RESPONDENTS AND THE OTHER WATER-RIGHT
USERS, HOWEVER, REFUSED TO MAKE SUCH APPLICATIONS. 

IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THREE ACRE-FEET OF WATER PER ACRE IS NOT,
NEVER HAS BEEN, AND WILL NOT IN THE FUTURE BE SUFFICIENT TO
BENEFICIALLY IRRIGATE RESPONDENTS' LANDS; BUT WOULD LEAVE A LARGE PART
THEREOF BARREN AND NONPRODUCTIVE, THEREBY FORCING ABOUT HALF OF THEIR
LANDS TO BEAR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES, TAXES AND
ASSESSMENTS UPON THE WHOLE THEREOF.  THE BILL SHOWS THAT IRREPARABLE
LOSS AND DAMAGE WILL RESULT IF THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY IS ENFORCED;
AND THAT RESPONDENTS HAVE NO ADEQUATE OR COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW, BUT
THAT EFFECTIVE RELIEF CAN BE ADMINISTERED ONLY BY A COURT OF EQUITY. 
THE PRAYER IS FOR A DECREE REQUIRING THE SECRETARY TO VACATE, SET ASIDE
AND HOLD FOR NAUGHT THE NOTICES AND ORDERS SET FORTH IN AND ATTACHED TO
THE BILL, AND THAT RESPONDENTS BE RESTORED TO THEIR FORMER RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES. 

THE BILL GOES INTO GREATER DETAIL IN RESPECT OF THE FACTS; BUT THE
FOREGOING GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE ALLEGATIONS IS ENOUGH FOR PRESENT
PURPOSES.  SUCCINCTLY STATED, THE CASE COMES TO THIS: THE UNITED
STATES, UNDER THE RECLAMATION ACT, CONSTRUCTED AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR
THE PURPOSE OF STORING AND DISTRIBUTING WATER FOR IRRIGATION OF ARID
LANDS.  RESPONDENTS OWN WATER-RIGHTS UNDER THE SYSTEM FOR LANDS OF THAT
KIND; AND THESE LANDS REQUIRE ARTIFICIAL IRRIGATION TO RENDER THEM
PRODUCTIVE.  SO FAR AS THESE RESPONDENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE GOVERNMENT
DID NOT BECOME THE OWNER OF THE WATER-RIGHTS, BECAUSE THOSE RIGHTS BY
ACT OF CONGRESS WERE MADE "APPURTENANT TO THE LAND IRRIGATED"; FN2  AND
BY A WASHINGTON STATUTE, IN FORCE AT LEAST SINCE 1917, WERE "TO BE AND
REMAIN APPURTENANT TO THE LAND."  FN3  MOREOVER, BY THE CONTRACT WITH
THE GOVERNMENT, IT WAS THE LAND OWNERS WHO WERE "TO INITIATE RIGHTS TO
THE USE OF WATER," WHICH RIGHTS WERE TO BE AND "CONTINUE TO BE FOREVER
APPURTENANT TO DESIGNATED LANDS OWNED BY SUCH SHAREHOLDERS." 

RESPONDENTS HAD MADE ALL STIPULATED PAYMENTS AND COMPLIED WITH ALL
OBLIGATIONS BY WHICH THEY WERE BOUND TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND, LONG PRIOR
TO THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICES AND ORDERS HERE ASSAILED, HAD ACQUIRED A
VESTED RIGHT TO THE PERPETUAL USE OF THE WATERS AS APPURTENANT TO THEIR
LANDS.  UNDER THE RECLAMATION ACT, SUPRA, AS WELL AS UNDER THE LAW OF
WASHINGTON, "BENEFICIAL USE" WAS "THE BASIS, THE MEASURE AND THE LIMIT
OF THE RIGHT."  AND BY THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE CONTRACT MADE BETWEEN
THE GOVERNMENT AND THE WATER USERS ASSOCIATION IN BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
AND OTHER SHAREHOLDERS, THE DETERMINATION OF THE SECRETARY AS TO THE
NUMBER OF ACRES CAPABLE OF IRRIGATION WAS "TO BE BASED UPON AND
MEASURED AND LIMITED BY THE BENEFICIAL USE OF WATER."  PREDECESSORS OF
PETITIONER, ACCORDINGLY, HAD DECIDED THAT 4.84 ACRE-FEET OF WATER PER
ANNUM PER ACRE WAS NECESSARY TO THE BENEFICIAL AND SUCCESSFUL
IRRIGATION OF RESPONDENTS' LANDS; AND UPON THAT DECISION, FOR A PERIOD
OF MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS PRIOR TO THE WRONGS COMPLAINED OF, THERE WAS
DELIVERED TO AND USED UPON THE LANDS THAT QUANTITY OF WATER.  FN4
ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT DIVERTED, STORED AND DISTRIBUTED THE WATER, THE
CONTENTION OF PETITIONER THAT THEREBY OWNERSHIP OF THE WATER OR WATER
RIGHTS BECAME VESTED IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT WELL FOUNDED. 
APPROPRIATION WAS MADE NOT FOR THE USE OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT, UNDER
THE RECLAMATION ACT, FOR THE USE OF THE LAND OWNERS; AND BY THE TERMS
OF THE LAW AND OF THE CONTRACT ALREADY REFERRED TO, THE WATER-RIGHTS
BECAME THE PROPERTY OF THE LAND OWNERS, WHOLLY DISTINCT FROM THE
PROPERTY RIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE IRRIGATION WORKS.  COMPARE
MURPHY V. KERR, 296 FED. 536, 544, 545.  THE GOVERNMENT WAS AND
REMAINED SIMPLY A CARRIER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF THE WATER (IBID.), WITH
THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE SUMS STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACTS AS
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ANNUAL CHARGES FOR
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE WORKS.  AS SECURITY THEREFOR, IT WAS
PROVIDED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIEN UPON THE LANDS AND THE
WATER-RIGHTS APPURTENANT THERETO - A PROVISION WHICH IN ITSELF IMPORTS
THAT THE WATER-RIGHTS BELONG TO ANOTHER THAN THE LIENOR, THAT IS TO
SAY, TO THE LAND OWNER. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, HAD THE POWER
TO DISPOSE OF THE LAND AND WATER COMPOSING IT TOGETHER OR SEPARATELY;
AND BY THE DESERT LAND ACT OF 1877(C. 107, 19 STAT. 377), IF NOT
BEFORE, CONGRESS HAD SEVERED THE LAND AND WATERS CONSTITUTING THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN AND ESTABLISHED THE RULE THAT FOR THE FUTURE THE LANDS
SHOULD BE PATENTED SEPARATELY.  ACQUISITION OF THE GOVERNMENT TITLE TO
A PARCEL OF LAND WAS NOT TO CARRY WITH IT A WATER-RIGHT; BUT ALL NON
NAVIGABLE WATERS WERE RESERVED FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC UNDER THE LAWS
OF THE VARIOUS ARID-LAND STATES.  CALIFORNIA POWER CO. V. BEAVER CEMENT
CO., 295 U.S. 142, 162.  AND IN THOSE STATES, GENERALLY, INCLUDING THE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, IT LONG HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED LAW THAT THE RIGHT TO
THE USE OF WATER CAN BE ACQUIRED ONLY BY PRIOR APPROPRIATION FOR A
BENEFICIAL USE; AND THAT SUCH RIGHT WHEN THUS OBTAINED IS A PROPERTY
RIGHT, WHICH, WHEN ACQUIRED FOR IRRIGATION, BECOMES, BY STATE LAW AND
HERE BY EXPRESS PROVISION OF THE RECLAMATION ACT AS WELL, PART AND
PARCEL OF THE LAND UPON WHICH IT IS APPLIED. 

WE ARE THUS BROUGHT TO THE DECISIVE QUESTION - IS THE UNITED STATES
AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY DEFENDANT?  IF SO, THE SUITS, HOWEVER
MERITORIOUS, MUST FAIL, SINCE NO RULE IS BETTER SETTLED THAN THAT THE
UNITED STATES CANNOT BE SUED EXCEPT WHEN CONGRESS HAS SO PROVIDED; AND
HERE THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE.  PETITIONER'S CONTENTION THAT THE UNITED
STATES IS AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY DEFENDANT AND, AS IT CANNOT BE SUED,
THE SUITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, IS BASED UPON THE PROPOSITIONS,
AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM, THAT THE UNITED STATES IS THE OWNER OF THE WATER
RIGHTS; THAT RESPONDENTS' CLAIMS REST ENTIRELY UPON EXECUTORY
CONTRACTS; AND THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS THE SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENT OF
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THESE CONTRACTS. 

THE FALLACY OF THE CONTENTION IS APPARENT, BECAUSE THE THUS-FAR
UNDENIED ALLEGATIONS OF THE BILL, AS ALREADY APPEARS, DEMONSTRATE THAT
RESPONDENTS HAVE FULLY DISCHARGED ALL THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS;
THAT THEIR WATER-RIGHTS HAVE BECOME VESTED; AND THAT OWNERSHIP IS IN
THEM AND NOT IN THE UNITED STATES.  THE MOTION TO DISMISS CONCEDES THE
TRUTH OF THESE ALLEGATIONS; BUT EVEN IF THEY WERE DENIED, WE SHOULD
STILL BE OBLIGED TO INDULGE THE PRESUMPTION, IN FAVOR OF THE
JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT, THAT RESPONDENTS MIGHT BE ABLE TO
PROVE THEM.  UNITED STATES V. LEE, 106 U.S. 196, 218, 219; CF. TINDAL
V. WESLEY, 167 U.S. 204, 213 ET SEQ. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION,
PETITIONER RELIES UPON AMERICAN FALLS RESERVOIR DISTRICT V. CRANDALL,
82 F.(2D) 973; BUT THAT DECISION, IN SO FAR AS IT IS NOT IN HARMONY
WITH THE VIEW WHICH WE HAVE JUST TAKEN, MUST BE DISAPPROVED. 

THE SUITS DO NOT SEEK SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF ANY CONTRACT.  THEY ARE
BROUGHT TO ENJOIN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FROM ENFORCING AN
ORDER, THE WRONGFUL EFFECT OF WHICH WILL BE TO DEPRIVE RESPONDENTS OF
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS NOT ONLY ACQUIRED UNDER CONGRESSIONAL ACTS,
STATE LAWS AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, BUT SETTLED AND DETERMINED BY HIS
PREDECESSORS IN OFFICE.  THAT SUCH SUITS MAY BE MAINTAINED WITHOUT THE
PRESENCE OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY MANY DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT, OF WHICH THE FOLLOWING ARE EXAMPLES:  NOBLE V. UNION RIVER
LOGGING R. CO., 147 U.S. 165, 171-2, 176; PHILADELPHIA CO. V. STIMSON,
223 U.S. 605, 619; GOLTRA V. WEEKS, 271 U.S. 536, 544; WORK V.
LOUISIANA, 269 U.S. 250, 254; PAYNE V. CENTRAL PACIFIC RY. CO., 255
U.S. 228, 238.  THESE DECISIONS CITE OTHER CASES TO THE SAME EFFECT. 
THE RECOGNIZED RULE IS MADE CLEAR BY WHAT IS SAID IN THE STIMSON CASE: 

"IF THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT CONSTITUTES AN UNWARRANTABLE
INTERFERENCE WITH PROPERTY OF THE COMPLAINANT, ITS RESORT TO EQUITY FOR
PROTECTION IS NOT TO BE DEFEATED UPON THE GROUND THAT THE SUIT IS ONE
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  THE EXEMPTION OF THE UNITED STATES FROM
SUIT DOES NOT PROTECT ITS OFFICERS FROM PERSONAL LIABILITY TO PERSONS
WHOSE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY THEY HAVE WRONGFULLY INVADED....  AND IN CASE
OF AN INJURY THREATENED BY HIS ILLEGAL ACTION, THE OFFICER CANNOT CLAIM
IMMUNITY FROM INJUNCTION PROCESS.... 

"THE COMPLAINANT DID NOT ASK THE COURT TO INTERFERE WITH THE OFFICIAL
DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR, BUT CHALLENGED HIS AUTHORITY TO DO
THE THINGS OF WHICH COMPLAINT WAS MADE.  THE SUIT RESTS UPON THE CHARGE
OF ABUSE OF POWER, AND ITS MERITS MUST BE DETERMINED ACCORDINGLY; IT IS
NOT A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES."    THE DECREE OF THE COURT BELOW
IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  IN THE PARKS CASE THE QUANTITY OF WATER APPLIED FOR WAS STATED
TO BE THREE ACRE-FEET OF WATER PER ANNUM PER ACRE, OR AS MUCH MORE AS
WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUCCESSFULLY IRRIGATE THE LAND.  IN THE OTTMULLER
CASE THE QUANTITY WAS STATED TO BE THREE ACRE-FEET OF WATER PER ANNUM
PER ACRE, OR SO MUCH THEREOF AS SHALL CONSTITUTE THE PROPORTIONATE
SHARE PER ACRE FROM THE WATER SUPPLY ACTUALLY AVAILABLE FOR THE LANDS
UNDER THE PROJECT. 

FN2  "THE RIGHT TO THE USE OF WATER ACQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE RECLAMATION LAW SHALL BE APPURTENANT TO THE LAND IRRIGATED, AND
BENEFICIAL USE SHALL BE THE BASIS, THE MEASURE, AND THE LIMIT OF THE
RIGHT."  ACT OF JUNE 17, 1902, C. 1093, SEC. 8, 32 STAT. 388, 390;
TITLE 43 U.S.C. SEC. 372. 

FN3  "THE RIGHT TO THE USE OF WATER WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED TO A
BENEFICIAL USE IN THE STATE SHALL BE AND REMAIN APPURTENANT TO THE LAND
OR PLACE UPON WHICH THE SAME IS USED:..."  LAWS OF WASH., 1917, C. 117,
SEC. 39, P. 465; LAWS OF WASH., 1929, C. 122, SEC. 6, P. 274; REM. 
REV.  STAT. SEC. 7391, VOL. 8, P. 425. 

FN4  IN THE PARKS CASE AND IN THE OTTMULLER CASE, THE QUANTITY OF
WATER THUS DETERMINED AND DELIVERED AND USED WAS 6 ACRE-FEET AND 5.56
ACRE-FEET OF WATER PER ACRE PER ANNUM, RESPECTIVELY. 
..END :














OSAKA SHOSEN LINE V. U.S., 300 U.S. 98 


NO. 224.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 482, AFFIRMED. 


1.  IN PENAL STATUTES, NO LESS THAN IN OTHERS, THE LANGUAGE, IF CLEAR,
IS CONCLUSIVE.  P. 101. 

2.  GENERAL EXPRESSIONS IN AN OPINION WHICH GO BEYOND THE CASE IN
WHICH THEY WERE USED, MAY BE RESPECTED, BUT OUGHT NOT TO CONTROL THE
JUDGMENT IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT PRESENTING THE VERY POINT FOR DECISION. 
P. 103. 

3.  SECTION 10(A) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1917, AS AMENDED, MAKES
IT THE DUTY OF EVERY PERSON, INCLUDING OWNERS, MASTERS, OFFICERS, AND
AGENTS OF VESSELS OR TRANSPORTATION LINES, "BRINGING AN ALIEN TO, OR
PROVIDING A MEANS FOR AN ALIEN TO COME TO, THE UNITED STATES, TO
PREVENT THE LANDING OF SUCH ALIEN IN THE UNITED STATES AT ANY TIME OR
PLACE OTHER THAN AS DESIGNATED BY THE IMMIGRATION OFFICERS."  PENALTIES
WERE PRESCRIBED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY.  HELD: 

(1)  THE WORD "ALIEN," AS USED IN THE SECTION, WAS NOT INTENDED TO
INCLUDE AN ALIEN SAILOR.  P. 103. 

(2)  TO CONSTITUTE THE ACT OF "BRINGING AN ALIEN TO THE UNITED
STATES," IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT THERE BE AN INTENT TO LEAVE HIM
HERE.  DECIDED THUS IN A CASE INVOLVING AN ALIEN PASSENGER, EN ROUTE
FROM BRAZIL TO JAPAN, WHO DEBARKED AT A PORT OF CALL IN THE UNITED
STATES.  TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 207 U.S. 120, LIMITED.  P. 104. 

(3)  UNDER SEC. 10 IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT A DETENTION ORDER BE
ISSUED BY THE IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS; THE LANDING OF AN ALIEN IS
FORBIDDEN UNLESS PERMITTED.  P. 101. 

(4)  THE MEANING OF SEC. 10(A) IS NOT RESTRICTED BY SUBDIVISION (B)
OF SEC. 10, WHICH SIMPLY PROVIDES A RULE OF EVIDENCE AFFECTING THE
BURDEN OF PROOF.  P. 104. 

OSAKA SHOSEN KAISHA LINE V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 526, TO REVIEW A DECREE REVERSING A DECREE OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, WHICH DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE A LIBEL BY THE
UNITED STATES TO RECOVER A PENALTY UNDER THE IMMIGRATION ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

TITLE 8 U.S.C. SEC. 146, MAKES IT THE DUTY OF EVERY PERSON, INCLUDING
OWNERS, MASTERS, OFFICERS, AND AGENTS OF VESSELS OR TRANSPORTATION
LINES, "BRINGING AN ALIEN TO, OR PROVIDING A MEANS FOR AN ALIEN TO COME
TO, THE UNITED STATES, TO PREVENT THE LANDING OF SUCH ALIEN IN THE
UNITED STATES AT ANY TIME OR PLACE OTHER THAN AS DESIGNATED BY THE
IMMIGRATION OFFICERS."  FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION
CONSTITUTES A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH. 
IF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR IS OF OPINION THAT A PROSECUTION IS
IMPRACTICABLE OR INCONVENIENT, A PENALTY OF $1,000 IS IMPOSED AND A
LIEN UPON THE VESSEL IS CREATED FOR WHICH SUCH VESSEL SHALL BE LIBELED
IN THE APPROPRIATE UNITED STATES COURT. 

BY SUBDIVISION (B) OF SEC. 10, PROOF THAT THE ALIEN FAILED TO PRESENT
HIMSELF AT THE TIME AND PLACE DESIGNATED BY THE IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE ALIEN HAS LANDED AT A TIME OR
PLACE OTHER THAN THAT DESIGNATED. 

ON JUNE 11, 1932, THE SANTOS MARU CAME INTO THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS
WITH SALVATORE SPROVIERI, AN ALIEN PASSENGER, ON BOARD.  THE PASSENGER
WAS EN ROUTE FROM BRAZIL TO JAPAN UPON A THROUGH TICKET; AND WAS NOT
ENTITLED TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES.  ON ARRIVAL OF THE STEAMSHIP, THE
IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AT NEW ORLEANS ISSUED A WRITTEN ORDER TO THE
STEAMSHIP TO HOLD THE ALIEN ON BOARD AT ALL PORTS OF THE UNITED STATES
AT WHICH THE SHIP MIGHT TOUCH - THE ORDER BEING DULY SERVED UPON THE
OFFICERS OF THE SHIP.  A FEW DAYS LATER, THE SHIP ARRIVED AT THE PORT
OF GALVESTON, TEXAS; AND THERE, BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE SHIP, ITS
OFFICERS AND CREW, THE ALIEN PASSENGER WAS ALLOWED TO ESCAPE AND LAND
IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND
IN VIOLATION OF THEIR ORDER.  OFFICERS OF THE SHIP NOTIFIED THE
IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES OF THE ESCAPE OF THE PASSENGER; BUT THE SHIP
SAILED BEFORE HIS ARREST.  SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PASSENGER WAS ARRESTED AND
DEPORTED ON ANOTHER VESSEL OF THE SAME LINE. 

THE SECRETARY OF LABOR WAS OF OPINION THAT IT WAS IMPRACTICABLE AND
INCONVENIENT TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER CRIMINALLY; AND A LIBEL WAS FILED
ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL DISTRICT
COURT, PRAYING A DECREE FOR THE $1,000 PENALTY AND TO ENFORCE THE LIEN
THEREFOR AGAINST THE SHIP. 

THE DISTRICT COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT, THE ALIEN PASSENGER NOT BEING
BOUND FOR THE UNITED STATES BUT EN ROUTE FROM BRAZIL TO JAPAN, THE SHIP
WAS NOT LIABLE, AND DISMISSED THE LIBEL WITH PREJUDICE.  THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS HELD OTHERWISE, REVERSED THE DECREE AND REMANDED THE
CAUSE WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER A DECREE FOR THE UNITED STATES.  84
F.(2D) 482. 

THE BASIC CONTENTION OF PETITIONER, IN ITS ASSAULT UPON THE LATTER
DECREE, IS THAT ONE WHO TRANSPORTS AN ALIEN PASSENGER FROM ONE FOREIGN
COUNTRY TO ANOTHER, DOES NOT BRING HIM TO THE UNITED STATES, WITHIN THE
MEANING OF SEC. 10, BY ENTERING, WITH THE ALIEN ON BOARD, AN AMERICAN
PORT OF CALL ON THE WAY.  IF IT WERE NOT FOR A SENTENCE CONTAINED IN
THE OPINION OF THIS COURT IN TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, INFRA, OF WHICH
WE SHALL SPEAK LATER, WE MIGHT DISPOSE OF THIS CONTENTION BY SIMPLY
SAYING THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS OF THE SECTION. 
NOTHING CAN BE PLAINER THAN THAT A SHIP WHICH ENTERS ONE OF OUR PORTS
HAS COME TO THE UNITED STATES; AND A PASSENGER ON BOARD OBVIOUSLY HAS
COME WITH THE SHIP, AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE SHIP TO
THE UNITED STATES.  AND THIS REMAINS NONE THE LESS THE FACT, ALTHOUGH
THE SHIP CONTINUE ON HER WAY TO A FOREIGN PORT, AND ALTHOUGH IT WAS
INTENDED THAT THE PASSENGER SHOULD GO WITH HER, AND NOT BE LEFT IN THE
UNITED STATES.  TO SAY THAT THE PASSENGER HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO THE
UNITED STATES UNLESS THE INTENT WAS TO LEAVE HIM HERE, IS NOT TO
CONSTRUE THE STATUTE BUT TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL AND QUALIFYING TERM TO
ITS PROVISIONS.  THIS WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO DO UNDER THE GUISE OF
CONSTRUCTION, BECAUSE, AS THIS COURT HAS SO OFTEN HELD, WHERE THE WORDS
ARE PLAIN THERE IS NO ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION.  UNITED STATES V.
WILTBERGER, 5 WHEAT.  76, 95-96; HAMILTON V. RATHBONE, 175 U.S. 414,
419, 421; UNITED STATES V. HARTWELL, 6 WALL.  385, 396; CROOKS V.
HARRELSON, 282 U.S. 55, 59-60. 

IT IS URGED THAT THE STATUTE IS HIGHLY PENAL IN CHARACTER AND SHOULD
THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY.  BUT THE OBJECT OF ALL CONSTRUCTION,
WHETHER OF PENAL OR OTHER STATUTES, IS TO ASCERTAIN THE LEGISLATIVE
INTENT; AND IN PENAL STATUTES, AS IN THOSE OF A DIFFERENT CHARACTER,
"IF THE LANGUAGE BE CLEAR, IT IS CONCLUSIVE."  UNITED STATES V.
HARTWELL, SUPRA, PP. 395-396; UNITED STATES V. CORBETT, 215 U.S. 233,
242; SACRAMENTO NAVIGATION CO. V. SALZ, 273 U.S. 326, 329-330. 

THE DUTY OF THE SHIP IS TO PREVENT THE LANDING OF THROUGH ALIEN
PASSENGERS EXCEPT BY PERMISSION.  THE UNITED STATES IS UNDER NO
OBLIGATION TO PERMIT THE TEMPORARY LANDING OF SUCH PASSENGERS AT ITS
PORTS AT ALL.  A DETENTION ORDER IS NOT NECESSARY, ALTHOUGH ONE WAS
ISSUED IN THIS INSTANCE; FOR THE CASE IS NOT ONE WHERE LANDING IS
PERMITTED IF NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS, BUT WHERE IT
IS FORBIDDEN UNLESS PERMITTED.  SECTION 10 IS NOT LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE,
SEC. 20 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1924, WHICH IMPOSES A FINE UPON THE
OWNER, CHARTERER, AGENT, CONSIGNEE, OR MASTER OF A VESSEL ARRIVING IN
THE UNITED STATES WHO FAILS, AFTER INSPECTION, TO DETAIN AN ALIEN
SEAMAN EMPLOYED ON THE VESSEL "IF REQUIRED" BY THE IMMIGRATION OFFICER
IN CHARGE OF THE PORT TO DO SO.  UNDER THAT PROVISION, "A DUTY SO TO
DETAIN DOES NOT ARISE UNLESS AND UNTIL SUCH DETENTION IS REQUIRED BY
THE IMMIGRATION OFFICER."  COMPAGNIE GENERALE V. ELTING, 298 U.S. 217,
223.  UNDER SEC. 10, HOWEVER, THE DUTY IS IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE AND
NOT BY REQUIREMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS.  THE MATTER IS TAKEN
CARE OF BY A REGULATION OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR (RULE 3, SUBDIVISION
H, P6, "IMMIGRATION LAWS AND RULES OF JANUARY 1, 1930," P. 125), WHICH
PROVIDES THAT THROUGH ALIEN PASSENGERS "MAY LAND TEMPORARILY WITHOUT
VISAED PASSPORTS, FOR THE LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME DURING WHICH THE
VESSEL LIES OVER IN PORT, IN CASES WHERE THE EXAMINING OFFICER IS
SATISFIED THAT THEY WILL DEPART ON THE VESSEL AT THE TIME IT PROCEEDS
ON THE SAME VOYAGE  ..." 

THE MAIN RELIANCE OF PETITIONER IS ON TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES, 207
U.S. 120, 124, 125.  THAT CASE AROSE UNDER SEC. 18 OF THE IMMIGRATION
ACT OF MARCH 3, 1903, WHICH IMPOSES THE DUTY UPON A SHIP BRINGING AN
ALIEN TO THE UNITED STATES TO ADOPT DUE PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT THE
LANDING OF SUCH ALIEN AT ANY TIME OR PLACE OTHER THAN THAT DESIGNATED
BY THE IMMIGRATION OFFICERS.  THIS COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISION DID
NOT APPLY "TO THE ORDINARY CASE OF A SAILOR DESERTING WHILE ON SHORE
LEAVE."  IN THE COURSE OF THE OPINION IT WAS SAID THAT THE PHRASE
"BRINGING AN ALIEN TO THE UNITED STATES" MEANT "TRANSPORTING WITH
INTENT TO LEAVE IN THE UNITED STATES AND FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPORT -
NOT TRANSPORTING WITH INTENT TO CARRY BACK, AND MERELY AS INCIDENT TO
EMPLOYMENT ON THE INSTRUMENT OF TRANSPORT."  "INTENT TO LEAVE" IS RIGHT
ENOUGH AS APPLIED TO A SEAMAN ON THE SHIP, BUT IT MAY NOT BE EXTENDED
TO INCLUDE AN ALIEN THROUGH PASSENGER. 

THE COURT THERE WAS DEALING WITH AND THINKING OF A SAILOR, AND NOT OF
AN ALIEN THROUGH PASSENGER; AND ITS LANGUAGE MUST BE READ ACCORDINGLY,
FOR - "IT IS A MAXIM, NOT TO BE DISREGARDED, THAT GENERAL EXPRESSIONS,
IN EVERY OPINION, ARE TO BE TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE IN WHICH
THOSE EXPRESSIONS ARE USED.  IF THEY GO BEYOND THE CASE, THEY MAY BE
RESPECTED, BUT OUGHT NOT TO CONTROL THE JUDGMENT IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT,
WHEN THE VERY POINT IS PRESENTED FOR DECISION."  COHENS V. VIRGINIA, 6
WHEAT.  264, 399; HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR V. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 602,
626-627.  THE POINT TO BE OBSERVED IN THE TAYLOR CASE IS THAT THE
TRANSPORTATION OF THE SAILOR WAS MERELY AS AN "INCIDENT TO EMPLOYMENT
ON THE INSTRUMENT OF TRANSPORT."  THAT IS TO SAY, THE SAILOR WAS ONE OF
THE AGENCIES WHICH BROUGHT THE SHIP IN, RATHER THAN AN ALIEN BROUGHT IN
BY THE SHIP.  "IT IS TRUE," CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL SAID IN THE WILSON
V. UNITED STATES, 1 BROCK.  423, 30 FED. CAS. 239, 244, "THAT A VESSEL
COMING INTO PORT, IS THE VEHICLE WHICH BRINGS IN HER CREW, BUT WE DO
NOT IN COMMON LANGUAGE SAY, THAT THE MARINERS ARE 'IMPORTED,' OR
BROUGHT IN BY A PARTICULAR VESSEL; WE RATHER SAY THEY BRING IN THE
VESSEL."  THE GENERALITY OF THE AFFIRMATIVE PHRASE, "TRANSPORTING WITH
INTENT TO LEAVE IN THE UNITED STATES," IS OBVIOUSLY QUALIFIED BY THE
NEGATIVE FORM OF EXPRESSION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, "NOT TRANSPORTING
WITH INTENT TO CARRY BACK AND MERELY AS INCIDENT TO EMPLOYMENT ON THE
INSTRUMENT OF TRANSPORT." 

WHEN WE CONSIDER THE RELATION OF THE SAILOR TO THE SHIP - THAT HE IS,
FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, A PART OF IT AND NOT, LIKE A PASSENGER,
APART FROM IT - IT IS QUITE APPARENT THAT THE WORD "ALIEN" AS USED IN
SEC. 10 DOES NOT, AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO, INCLUDE AN ALIEN SAILOR. 
SOME OF THOSE ENGAGED IN THE OPERATION OF A VESSEL MUST GO ASHORE. 
THEY MAY BE REQUIRED TO LOAD AND UNLOAD THE CARGO, TO COMMUNICATE WITH
THE LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LINE, AND NECESSARILY TO PERFORM A
VARIETY OF DUTIES WHICH REQUIRE THEIR PRESENCE ASHORE.  A DENIAL OF THE
PRIVILEGE WOULD BE SO LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT COMMERCE AS TO REQUIRE
MUCH PLAINER LANGUAGE THAN WE FIND IN SEC. 10 TO JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION
THAT CONGRESS HAD DENIED IT.  TO ADOPT THAT CONCLUSION WOULD BE TO
DECLARE THAT THE ACT WAS VIOLATED WHENEVER A MEMBER OF THE CREW WAS
SENT ASHORE TO PERFORM AN ACT IMPERATIVELY NECESSARY IN THE SERVICE OF
THE SHIP. 

PETITIONER CITES, ALSO IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, THE ALFONSO
XIII, 53 F.(2D) 124, 126; DOLLAR S.S. LINE V. ELTING, 51 F.(2D) 1035;
AND THE HABANA, 63 F.(2D) 812; BUT THOSE DECISIONS WERE EXPRESSLY BASED
UPON WHAT WAS REGARDED AS THE CONTROLLING EFFECT OF THE PHRASE WHICH WE
HAVE QUOTED FROM THE TAYLOR CASE; AND FROM A READING OF THE OPINIONS IT
SEEMS QUITE EVIDENT THAT BUT FOR THAT THE DECISIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN
OTHERWISE.  FOR EXAMPLE, JUDGE WOOLSEY, IN THE ALFONSO XIII, SAID THAT
IF HE WERE DEALING WITH THE MATTER DE NOVO, UNINSTRUCTED BY JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY ABOVE HIM, HE WOULD HAVE FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO GIVE THE WORDS
"BRINGING AN ALIEN TO THE UNITED STATES" A MEANING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT
THEY LITERALLY MEAN. 

WE REJECT THE NOTION THAT IN THE CASE WITH WHICH WE ARE NOW CONCERNED
IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE THE ACT OF BRINGING AN ALIEN TO THE
UNITED STATES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN INTENT TO LEAVE HIM HERE. 

WE SEE NOTHING IN THE SUGGESTION THAT SUBDIVISION (B) OF SEC. 10
SUSTAINS PETITIONER'S VIEW OF THE CASE.  THAT SUBDIVISION SIMPLY
PROVIDES A RULE OF EVIDENCE AFFECTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF, AND WE THINK
DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RESTRICT THE PLAIN MEANING OF SEC. 10(A) AS WE HAVE
FOUND IT.  DECREE AFFIRMED. 
..END :
























HILL V. U.S. EX REL. WEINER, 300 U.S. 105 


NO. 171.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 27, REVERSED. 


1.  THE PROVISION OF SEC. 22 OF THE CLAYTON ACT FIXING A TERM OF SIX
MONTHS AS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT, IS LIMITED
TO PROSECUTIONS ARISING OUT OF CASES INSTITUTED BY PRIVATE LITIGANTS,
AND IS INAPPLICABLE TO CONTEMPTS ARISING OUT OF SUITS BROUGHT OR
PROSECUTED IN THE NAME OF, OR ON BEHALF OF, THE UNITED STATES.  THESE,
BY SEC. 24, ARE EXCEPTED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECS. 21, 22, 23, AND
25.  P. 108. 

2.  THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT PRECLUDE
CONGRESS FROM PRESCRIBING A HEAVIER PENALTY FOR AN OFFENSE INVOLVING
THE RIGHTS AND PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES THAN FOR A SIMILAR OFFENSE
INVOLVING THE RIGHTS OR PROPERTY OF A PRIVATE PERSON.  P. 109. 

HILL, WARDEN, V. UNITED STATES EX REL. WEINER. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 526, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING AN ORDER OF
THE DISTRICT COURT, 11 F.SUPP.  195, DISCHARGING THE RELATOR UPON A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE RELATOR, WEINER, WAS CONVICTED IN A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF
VIOLATING A DECREE ENTERED AGAINST HIM AND NUMEROUS OTHERS BY THAT
COURT IN A SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE
SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT, TITLE 15 U.S.C., SECS. 1, 2, 4.  HE, WITH
OTHERS, WAS CHARGED BY INFORMATION WITH THE COMMISSION OF SEVERAL
SPECIFIED ACTS IN VIOLATION OF THE DECREE, CONSTITUTING CRIMINAL
CONTEMPTS.  UPON A TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT SITTING WITHOUT A JURY, HE
WAS FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED FOR CERTAIN OF THE CONTEMPTS TO
IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS IN THE HOUSE OF DETENTION, AND FOR OTHER
CONTEMPTS FOR TWO YEARS ADDITIONAL IN THE PENITENTIARY.  UPON HIS
APPLICATION AND CONSENT, THE FIRST PART OF THE SENTENCE WAS INCREASED
FROM SIX MONTHS IN THE HOUSE OF DETENTION TO A YEAR AND A DAY IN THE
PENITENTIARY, BUT TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE TWO YEARS'
IMPRISONMENT. 

ON JUNE 5, 1935, HE WAS COMMITTED TO THE PENITENTIARY.  AT THE END OF
ELEVEN MONTHS, HE APPLIED BY PETITION TO ANOTHER FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT
TO BE DISCHARGED ON HABEAS CORPUS, ON THE GROUND THAT THE FIRST COURT
WAS WITHOUT POWER TO SENTENCE HIM FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX MONTHS;
AND, HAVING SERVED THAT LONG, THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO BE SET AT
LIBERTY. 

THE DISTRICT COURT ACCEPTED THAT VIEW, GRANTED THE WRIT, AND ORDERED
THE RELATOR DISCHARGED.  11 F.SUPP.  195.  UPON APPEAL, THE COURT BELOW
AFFIRMED THE ORDER.  84 F.(2D) 27. 

THE CASE INVOLVES A CONSIDERATION OF SECS. 21, 22 AND 24 OF THE
CLAYTON ACT, TITLE 28 U.S.C. SECS. 386, 387 AND 389.*SECTION 21, SO FAR
AS PERTINENT, PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO SHALL WILLFULLY DISOBEY ANY
LAWFUL DECREE OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BY DOING ANY ACT OR THING
THEREBY FORBIDDEN TO BE DONE BY HIM, IF OF A CHARACTER TO CONSTITUTE
ALSO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNDER ANY STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES OR LAWS
OF ANY STATE IN WHICH THE ACT WAS COMMITTED, SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST
AS THEREAFTER PROVIDED.  SECTION 22 PROVIDES FOR TRIAL BY THE COURT OR,
UPON DEMAND OF THE ACCUSED, BY A JURY.  IF FOUND GUILTY, PUNISHMENT IS
TO BE EITHER BY FINE OR IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT, "BUT IN NO CASE SHALL THE FINE TO BE PAID TO THE UNITED STATES
EXCEED, IN CASE THE ACCUSED IS A NATURAL PERSON, THE SUM OF $1,000, NOR
SHALL SUCH IMPRISONMENT EXCEED THE TERM OF SIX MONTHS."  SECTION 24,
HOWEVER, PROVIDES THAT "NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED (SECS. 21, 22, 23, 25)
SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RELATE TO CONTEMPTS COMMITTED IN DISOBEDIENCE OF
ANY LAWFUL  ...  DECREE  ...  ENTERED IN ANY SUIT OR ACTION BROUGHT OR
PROSECUTED IN THE NAME OF, OR ON BEHALF OF, THE UNITED STATES, BUT THE
SAME, AND ALL OTHER CASES OF CONTEMPT NOT SPECIFICALLY EMBRACED WITHIN
LAW AND IN EQUITY PREVAILING ON OCTOBER 15, 1914."  IF SEC. 24 APPLIES,
THE SENTENCE WAS WITHIN THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE COURT. 

*SEC. 21.  ANY PERSON WHO SHALL WILLFULLY DISOBEY ANY LAWFUL WRIT,
PROCESS, ORDER, RULE, DECREE, OR COMMAND OF ANY DISTRICT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES OR ANY COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY DOING ANY ACT
OR THING THEREIN, OR THEREBY FORBIDDEN TO BE DONE BY HIM, IF THE ACT OR
THING SO DONE BY HIM BE OF SUCH CHARACTER AS TO CONSTITUTE ALSO A
CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNDER ANY STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER THE
LAWS OF ANY STATE IN WHICH THE ACT WAS COMMITTED, SHALL BE PROCEEDED
AGAINST FOR HIS SAID CONTEMPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED.  TITLE 28 U.S.C.
SEC. 386. 

SEC. 22....  IN ALL CASES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS ACT SUCH TRIAL
MAY BE BY THE COURT, OR, UPON DEMAND OF THE ACCUSED, BY A JURY;... 

IF THE ACCUSED BE FOUND GUILTY, JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED
ACCORDINGLY, PRESCRIBING THE PUNISHMENT, EITHER BY FINE OR
IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT.  SUCH FINE SHALL
BE PAID TO THE UNITED STATES OR TO THE COMPLAINANT OR OTHER PARTY
INJURED BY THE ACT CONSTITUTING THE CONTEMPT, OR MAY, WHERE MORE THAN
ONE IS SO DAMAGED, BE DIVIDED OR APPORTIONED AMONG THEM AS THE COURT
MAY DIRECT, BUT IN NO CASE SHALL THE FINE TO BE PAID TO THE UNITED
STATES EXCEED, IN CASE THE ACCUSED IS A NATURAL PERSON, THE SUM OF
$1,000, NOR SHALL SUCH IMPRISONMENT EXCEED THE TERM OF SIX MONTHS. 
TITLE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 387. 

SEC. 24.  NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED (THAT IS IN SECS. 21, 22, 23, 25)
SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO RELATE TO CONTEMPTS COMMITTED IN THE PRESENCE OF
THE COURT, OR SO NEAR THERETO AS TO OBSTRUCT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE, NOR TO CONTEMPTS COMMITTED IN DISOBEDIENCE OF ANY LAWFUL WRIT,
PROCESS, ORDER, RULE, DECREE, OR COMMAND ENTERED IN ANY SUIT OR ACTION
BROUGHT OR PROSECUTED IN THE NAME OF, OR ON BEHALF OF, THE UNITED
STATES, BUT THE SAME, AND ALL OTHER CASES OF CONTEMPT NOT SPECIFICALLY
EMBRACED WITHIN SECTION TWENTY-ONE OF THIS ACT, MAY BE PUNISHED IN
CONFORMITY TO THE USAGES AT LAW AND IN EQUITY PREVAILING ON OCTOBER 15,
1914.  TITLE 28 U.S.C. SEC. 389. 

FIRST.  THE COURT BELOW HELD, AND RELATOR HERE CONTENDS, THAT THE
LIMITATION OF IMPRISONMENT TO SIX MONTHS IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF SEC. 24.  A SIMILAR QUESTION WAS BEFORE THIS COURT IN
UNITED STATES V. GOLDMAN, 277 U.S. 229, AND WAS THERE DECIDED CONTRARY
TO THE VIEWS OF THE COURT BELOW.  IN THAT CASE, AN INFORMATION WAS
PRESENTED BY THE UNITED STATES TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, CHARGING
GOLDMAN AND OTHERS WITH CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS COMMITTED BY ACTS IN
VIOLATION OF AN INJUNCTION DECREED BY THAT COURT IN AN EQUITY SUIT
BROUGHT BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE INFORMATION WAS DISMISSED ON THE
GROUND THAT UNDER SEC. 25 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, THE PROSECUTION WAS
BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.  THIS COURT REVERSED.  SECTION 25
PROVIDES THAT NO PROCEEDING FOR CONTEMPT SHALL BE INSTITUTED UNLESS
BEGUN WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE ACT COMPLAINED OF; BUT WE HELD THAT THE
SPECIFIC EXCEPTION CONTAINED IN SEC. 24 - "NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED" -
APPLIED TO ALL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT RELATING TO PROSECUTIONS FOR
CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS, AND THEREFORE APPLIED TO SEC. 25, "AS WELL AS TO
THE OTHER SECTIONS," AND THAT THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY
SEC. 25 WAS WITHOUT APPLICATION TO A CASE BROUGHT FOR THE DISOBEDIENCE
OF A DECREE ENTERED IN A SUIT PROSECUTED BY THE UNITED STATES. 

THAT DECISION CONTROLS HERE.  THE OBJECT OF SEC. 24 CLEARLY WAS TO
LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 22, AND THE OTHER
INSTITUTED BY PRIVATE LITIGANTS. 

SECOND.  WE FIND NOTHING IN THE FURTHER CONTENTION THAT THIS VIEW OF
THE STATUTE RESULTS IN A DISCRIMINATION IN THE MATTER OF PUNISHMENT SO
ARBITRARY AS TO DENY DUE PROCESS OF LAW TO RELATOR.  WHATEVER MAY BE
THE RESTRAINT AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY LEGISLATION IMPOSED BY THE DUE
PROCESS OF LAW CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, IT IS NOT ENCOUNTERED BY
THE LEGISLATION HERE.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF CONGRESS TO
PRESCRIBE GREATER PUNISHMENT FOR AN OFFENSE INVOLVING THE RIGHTS AND
PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES THAN FOR A LIKE OFFENSE INVOLVING THE
RIGHTS OR PROPERTY OF A PRIVATE PERSON REASONABLY CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 
COMPARE PACE V. ALABAMA, 106 U.S. 583.  JUDGMENT REVERSED. 
..END :















MIDLAND CO. V. K.C. POWER CO., 300 U.S. 109 


NO. 217.  ARGUED DECEMBER 17, 1936.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 338
MO. 1141.  - 93 S.W.(2D) 954, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, WHICH CONSTRUCTION BINDS
THIS COURT UPON APPEAL, RATES ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION LAW OF MISSOURI (R.S., 1929, C. 33)
SUPERSEDE ALL EXISTING CONTRACT RATES.  P. 113. 

2.  A STATE HAS POWER TO ANNUL AND SUPERSEDE RATES PREVIOUSLY
ESTABLISHED BY CONTRACT BETWEEN PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS. 
P. 113. 

3.  THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION LAW OF MISSOURI DOES NOT VIOLATE
THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (ART. I, SEC. 10) OR
THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ALTHOUGH, AS
CONSTRUED BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT, EXISTING CONTRACT RATES ARE
ABROGATED THEREUNDER BY (1) THE MERE FILING, PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE,
OF A RATE SCHEDULE BY THE UTILITY; OR (2) THE FILING OF A SCHEDULE
PURSUANT TO A RATE ORDER PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION - IT APPEARING
THAT, UNDER THE STATUTE, THE PARTY NOW INSISTING ON ITS CONTRACT RATES
HAD OPPORTUNITY, OF WHICH IT DID NOT AVAIL ITSELF, TO SUPPORT THE
CONTRACT RATES AND TO TEST BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND IN THE STATE
SUPREME COURT THE VALIDITY OF THE FILED SCHEDULES.  PP. 112-114. 

4.  IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT THERE BE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IN
RESPECT OF EXISTING CONTRACT RATES IN ORDER THAT THESE MAY BE
SUSPERSEDED BY THE STATE IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER TO PRESCRIBE AND
ENFORCE REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY RATES.  P. 114. 

5.  THE FACT THAT THE MISSOURI LAW, AS CONSTRUED BY THE STATE SUPREME
COURT, PERMITS A UTILITY TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RATES FIXED
BY CONTRACT AND THE HIGHER RATES ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE,
EVEN THOUGH THE SERVICE HAD BEEN FURNISHED AND PAID FOR IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CONTRACT BEFORE THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT, THE CUSTOMER HAVING
REFUSED TO PAY THE LAWFUL RATE, HELD NOT TO RENDER THE STATUTE
VIOLATIVE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION.  P. 114. 

MIDLAND REALTY CO. V. KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT CO. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE POWER & LIGHT COMPANY IN ITS
SUIT TO RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RATES FIXED IN A CONTRACT WITH
THE REALTY COMPANY AND HIGHER RATES ESTABLISHED UNDER THE STATE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION LAW.  FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT WHICH
ALLOWED RECOVERY IN PART, BOTH PARTIES HAD APPEALED TO THE STATE
SUPREME COURT. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE WHETHER, AS CONSTRUED IN THIS CASE BY
THE HIGHEST COURT OF MISSOURI, THE STATUTES OF THAT STATE REGULATING
PUBLIC UTILITIES VIOLATE ART. I, SEC. 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, DECLARING THAT "NO STATE SHALL  ...  PASS ANY  ...  LAW
IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS  ...," OR SEC. 1 OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DECLARING "NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON
OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW." 

APPELLEE WAS PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT DEFENDANT BELOW.  THEY MADE A
CONTRACT WHEREBY THE FORMER FOR SPECIFIED RATES AGREED TO FURNISH THE
LATTER STEAM FOR HEATING ITS BUILDINGS IN KANSAS CITY FOR A TERM OF
FIVE YEARS ENDING AUGUST 31, 1913, WITH OPTION TO DEFENDANT TO EXTEND
THE CONTRACT FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS.  MARCH 17, 1913, THE STATE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION LAW WAS ENACTED.  FN1  MAY 29, FOLLOWING,
DEFENDANT EXERCISED ITS OPTION AND SO EXTENDED THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT
TO AUGUST 31, 1918. 

JUNE 28, 1917, PLAINTIFF IN PURSUANCE OF THE STATUTE  FN2  FILED WITH
THE COMMISSION A SCHEDULE OF STEAM HEATING RATES TO BECOME EFFECTIVE
AUGUST 1, 1917; THEY WERE HIGHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT. 
THE CITY AND NUMEROUS USERS OTHER THAN DEFENDANT OBJECTED; THE
COMMISSION, WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO APPORTION OPERATING EXPENSES AND
VALUES BETWEEN PLAINTIFF'S HEATING AND ELECTRIC SERVICE, FOUND THAT THE
RATES FILED WERE UNREASONABLY HIGH AND PRESCRIBED, AS JUST AND
REASONABLE, RATES LOWER THAN THOSE FILED BUT HIGHER THAN THE CONTRACT
RATES AND MADE THEM EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1918.  5 MO. P.S.C. 664. 
PLAINTIFF FILED A NEW SCHEDULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMISSION'S
ORDER. 

JUNE 11, 1918, IT COMPLAINED THAT THESE RATES WERE CONFISCATORY.  THE
COMMISSION, AFTER APPORTIONING OPERATING EXPENSES AND VALUES BETWEEN
THE ELECTRICAL AND STEAM SERVICES, FOUND THE RATES "INADEQUATE, UNJUST
AND UNREASONABLY LOW," THAT DURING NONE OF THE TIME WAS "HEATING
REVENUE SUFFICIENT TO EVEN MEET THE FUEL EXPENSE ALONE," AND THAT
"HERETOFORE THE STEAM HEATING BUSINESS HAS BEEN CARRIED AT A LOSS, AND
THIS LOSS HAS BEEN BORNE EITHER BY THE LIGHT AND POWER CONSUMERS OR BY
THE COMPANY."  THEREUPON, IT ORDERED NEW AND HIGHER RATES EFFECTIVE
DECEMBER 1, 1919.  8 MO. P.S.C. 223, 292, 296.  THE FINDINGS AND ORDER
OF THE COMMISSION WERE APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN STATE EX REL.
CASE V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 298 MO. 303; 249 S.W. 955. 

FOR STEAM FURNISHED DEFENDANT AFTER AUGUST 1, 1917, PLAINTIFF
REGULARLY SENT BILLS BASED ON THE RATES IT HAD FILED WITH THE
COMMISSION.  CLAIMING THE CONTRACT RATES STILL TO BE APPLICABLE,
DEFENDANT PAID AMOUNTS CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEM.  PLAINTIFF
GAVE DEFENDANT CREDIT FOR THE PAYMENTS IT MADE.  AFTER EXPIRATION OF
THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE CONTRACT AS EXTENDED, PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THIS
SUIT.  FOR STEAM FURNISHED AFTER AUGUST 1, 1917, AND BEFORE MARCH 1,
1918, IT SOUGHT TO RECOVER ON THE BASIS OF THE CHARGES SPECIFIED IN THE
FIRST SCHEDULE FILED.  FOR STEAM FURNISHED AFTER MARCH 1, 1918, TO THE
END OF THE CONTRACT TERM, IT SOUGHT TO RECOVER ON THE BASIS OF CHARGES
OF THE SCHEDULE PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION.  THE TRIAL COURT HELD
PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ON ITS CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST
PERIOD BUT GAVE JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ONE. 
BOTH PARTIES APPEALED.  THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT RULED THE CONTRACT
RATES NOT APPLICABLE, HELD PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER ON ITS CLAIM
IN RESPECT OF BOTH PERIODS AND DIRECTED THAT IT HAVE JUDGMENT FOR THE
SUMS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE SCHEDULES FILED WITH THE
COMMISSION. 

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTION IS NOT THAT THE STATE LACKED POWER BY
APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ESTABLISH AND ENFORCE JUST AND REASONABLE RATES
BUT THAT, AS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOKED, THE ACTION
TAKEN UNDER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION LAW WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
ABROGATE THE CONTRACT RATES. 

SPECIFICALLY, ITS COMPLAINTS ARE THAT THE COURT CONSTRUED THE STATUTE
(1) TO MAKE (A) MERE FILING OF PLAINTIFF'S SCHEDULE AND (B) THE LATER
PROMULGATION OF A SCHEDULE BY THE COMMISSION EFFECTIVE TO ABROGATE THE
CONTRACT RATES AND (2) TO REQUIRE THAT, ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT WAS IN
DUE TIME FULLY PERFORMED AND DEFENDANT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
SUIT HAD PAID PLAINTIFF THE CONTRACT RATES, IT WAS BOUND TO PAY
ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE HIGHER RATES
SPECIFIED IN PLAINTIFF'S PUBLISHED SCHEDULES.  IT IS UPON THESE GROUNDS
THAT DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE STATE LAW VIOLATES THE QUOTED CLAUSES
OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

THESE QUESTIONS ARE TO BE DECIDED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION THAT THE
STATE SUPREME COURT PUT UPON THE STATUTE.  AND THAT LAW IS TO BE TAKEN
AS IF IT DECLARED THAT RATES MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS
SHALL SUPERSEDE ALL EXISTING CONTRACT RATES.  FN3  THERE IS HERE
INVOLVED NO QUESTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE RATES PRIOR TO THE
PASSAGE OF THE STATUTE.  WITHOUT EXPRESSION OF OPINION, WE ASSUME THAT
THEN THE PARTIES WERE BOUND BY THE CONTRACT.  BUT THE STATE HAS POWER
TO ANNUL AND SUPERSEDE RATES PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY CONTRACT BETWEEN
UTILITIES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS.  FN4  IT HAS POWER TO REQUIRE SERVICE AT
NONDISCRIMINATORY RATES, TO PROHIBIT SERVICE AT RATES TOO LOW TO YIELD
THE COST RIGHTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT,  FN5  AND TO REQUIRE UTILITIES TO
PUBLISH THEIR RATES AND TO ADHERE TO THEM.  FN6  UNDER THE CHALLENGED
STATUTE, DEFENDANT HAD OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT THE CONTRACT RATES AND TO
TEST BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT - AS OTHERS
DID - THE VALIDITY OF THE FILED SCHEDULE.  FN7  IT FAILED TO DO SO.
AND IT HERE INSISTS THAT THE CONTRACTS COULD NOT BE ABROGATED "WITHOUT
A PROPER HEARING, FINDING AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT
THERETO."  IT DOES NOT, AND REASONABLY IT COULD NOT, CONTEND THAT
IMMEDIATE EXERTION BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE'S POWER TO PRESCRIBE
AND ENFORCE REASONABLE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY RATES DEPENDS UPON OR IS
CONDITIONED BY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IN RESPECT OF EXISTING CONTRACT
RATES.  FN8  IT IS CLEAR THAT, AS AGAINST THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE
CONTRACT HERE INVOLVED, THE RATES FIRST FILED BY PLAINTIFF AND THOSE
PROMULGATED BY THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE HAVE THE
SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS IF DIRECTLY PRESCRIBED BY THE LEGISLATURE. 
FN9 

LACKING IN MERIT IS DEFENDANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE STATUTE VIOLATES
THE CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION INVOKED BECAUSE HELD BY THE COURT TO
REQUIRE THAT, ALTHOUGH BEFORE THIS SUIT THE SERVICE HAD BEEN FURNISHED
AND PAID FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS BOUND TO
PAY MORE.  AS SHOWN ABOVE, THE RATES SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULES WERE
HELD APPLICABLE FROM AND AFTER THEIR RESPECTIVE EFFECTIVE DATES. 
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INJURED BY PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO WITHHOLD SERVICE OR
MORE PROMPTLY TO SUE FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITS LAWFUL CHARGES AND
THE AMOUNT PAID.  IT CANNOT DERIVE ANY ADVANTAGE FROM REFUSAL TO PAY. 
FN10 

PLAINLY, ENFORCEMENT OF THE RATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE DID
NOT VIOLATE EITHER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OR THE DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  AFFIRMED. 

FN1  MISSOURI R.S., 1929, C. 33, SECS. 5121 ET SEQ. 

FN2  MISSOURI R.S., 1929, SECS. 5190(12), 5209. 

FN3  FULTON V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 275 MO. 67; 204 S.W. 386;
SEDALIA V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 275 MO. 201, 209; 204 S.W. 497;
KANSAS CITY BOLT & NUT CO. V. KANSAS CITY LIGHT & POWER CO., 275 MO.
529; 204 S.W. 1074; AFFIRMED 252 U.S. 571.  STATE EX REL. WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 308 MO. 328, 342; 272 S.W. 971;
STATE EX REL. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N V. LATSHAW, 325 MO. 909, 917-918;
30 S.W.(2D) 105; STATE EX REL. KIRKWOOD V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 330
MO. 507, 521; 50 S.W.(2D) 114. 

FN4  UNION DRY GOODS CO. V. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE CORP., 248 U.S.
372.  PRODUCERS TRANSPORTATION CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 251 U.S.
228, 232.  KANSAS CITY BOLT & NUT CO. V. KANSAS CITY LIGHT & POWER CO.,
252 U.S. 571.  SUTTER BUTTE CANAL CO. V. RAILROAD COMMISSION, 279 U.S.
125, 137-138. 

FN5  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N V. UTILITIES CO., 289 U.S. 130, 135-136. 
CF. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585, 604. 

FN6  ARMOUR PACKING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 209 U.S. 56, 81. 
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. MAXWELL, 237 U.S. 94, 97. 

FN7  MISSOURI R.S., 1929, SECS. 5191, 5232-5237.  SEE STATE EX REL.
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N, 208 MO. 328; 272 S.W.
971. 

FN8  LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. MOTTLEY, 219 U.S. 467. 

FN9  PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N V. PAVILION NATURAL GAS CO., 232 N.Y. 146,
150-151; 133 N.E. 427; NORTH HEMPSTEAD V. PUBLIC SERVICE CORP., 231
N.Y. 447, 450; 132 N.E. 144. 

FN10  LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. CO. V. CENTRAL IRON CO., 265 U.S. 59,
65. 
..END :



















CUMMINGS V. DEUTSCHE BANK, 300 U.S. 115 


NO. 254.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 5, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 65
APP. D.C. 297 - 83 F.(2D) 554, REVERSED. 


1.  A SUIT UNDER SEC. 9 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED
BY SEC. 11 OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT, AGAINST THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL (SUCCESSOR TO THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN) AND THE TREASURER
OF THE UNITED STATES, TO RECOVER PROPERTY SEIZED FROM A FORMER ENEMY
OWNER, IS A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  P. 118. 

2.  THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE SO SUED WAS NOT WITHDRAWN
BY PUBLIC RESOLUTION NO. 53, OF JUNE 27, 1934.  ID. 

THIS PUBLIC RESOLUTION PROVIDES, INTER ALIA, THAT ALL DELIVERIES OF
MONEY OR PROPERTY AUTHORIZED OR DIRECTED BY THE STATUTES ABOVE CITED,
SHALL BE POSTPONED AND THE MONEY OR PROPERTY RESERVED, AS LONG AS
GERMANY REMAINS IN ARREARS IN PAYMENTS UNDER THE DEBT FUNDING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES, DATED JUNE 23, 1930, RESPECTING
GERMANY'S OBLIGATIONS ON ACCOUNT OF AWARDS OF THE MIXED CLAIMS
COMMISSION, ETC. 

3.  IN POSTPONING RESTORATION OF PROPERTY TO FORMER ENEMY OWNERS, AS
ALLOWED AND PROVIDED FOR BY THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT, PUBLIC
RESOLUTION NO. 53, SUPRA, DID NOT INFRINGE THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  P. 120. 

4.  SEIZURES UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT DIVESTED THE ENEMY
OWNERS OF ALL RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY SEIZED AND VESTED ABSOLUTE TITLE IN
THE UNITED STATES.  ID. 

5.  THE FACT THAT CONGRESS MANIFESTED FROM THE BEGINNING ITS
INTENTION AFTER THE WAR TO DEAL JUSTLY WITH FORMER OWNERS OF SEIZED
ENEMY PROPERTY, AND BY RESTITUTION OR COMPENSATION TO AMELIORATE
HARDSHIP RESULTING FROM SUCH SEIZURES, DETRACTED NOTHING FROM THE TITLE
ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ITS POWER TO RETAIN OR DISPOSE OF THE
PROPERTY UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS FROM TIME TO TIME CONGRESS
MIGHT DIRECT.  P. 120. 

6.  IN A SUIT UNDER THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT, A FORMER ENEMY
OWNER COULD NOT GAIN TITLE TO THE PROPERTY CLAIMED, PRIOR TO FINAL
JUDGMENT.  P. 121. 

7.  THE GRANT OF THE PRIVILEGE OF BECOMING REENTITLED TO SEIZED
PROPERTY, EXTENDED TO FORMER ENEMY OWNERS UPON SPECIFIED CONDITIONS BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT, WAS A MATTER OF GRACE AND WAS SUBJECT
TO WITHDRAWAL BY CONGRESS.  P. 122. 

CUMMINGS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. V. DEUTSCHE BANK UND
DISCONTOGESELLSCHAFT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 527, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING A SUIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF PROPERTY SEIZED AND HELD UNDER
THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE BUTLER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS A SUIT IN EQUITY BROUGHT OCTOBER 3, 1934, BY RESPONDENT IN
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  FN1  AGAINST PETITIONERS
PRAYING A DECREE DIRECTING DELIVERY OF PROPERTY SEIZED BY THE ALIEN
PROPERTY CUSTODIAN AND WITHHELD BY PETITIONERS UNDER THE TRADING WITH
THE ENEMY ACT FROM "DIRECTION DER DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT," AN ALIEN
ENEMY.  PETITIONERS MOVED TO DISMISS THE BILL UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN IT BECAUSE BY PUBLIC RESOLUTION
NO. 53 OF JUNE 27, 1934, 48 STAT. 1267, THE RETURN OF THE MONEY AND
PROPERTY SOUGHT HAS BEEN POSTPONED.  THE COURT SUSTAINED THE MOTION AND
DISMISSED THE BILL.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.  65 APP. D.C. 297;
83 F.(2D) 554.  THIS COURT GRANTED A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. 

IN SUBSTANCE THE BILL ALLEGES:  RESPONDENT, A GERMAN CORPORATION, WAS
CREATED IN 1929 BY CONSOLIDATION OF DEUTSCHE BANK AND DIRECTION DER
DISCONTO GESELLSCHAFT.  AFTER THE MERGER, THE ASSETS OF THE LATTER
BECAME RESPONDENT'S PROPERTY.  THE CUSTODIAN DETERMINED THE DISCONTO
GESELLSCHAFT TO BE AN ALIEN ENEMY AND SEIZED ITS MONEY AND PROPERTY IN
THIS COUNTRY, WHICH WAS HELD BY THE CUSTODIAN AND DEPOSITED IN THE
TREASURY.  RESPONDENT, ACTING UNDER THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT
AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTODIAN'S RULES AND REGULATIONS, FILED
NOTICE OF CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY AND APPLIED TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ITS
RETURN.  BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS SUIT, THE CUSTODIAN FOUND IT
ENTITLED TO THE PROPERTY.  IN MARCH, 1931, SPRUNT AND OTHERS BROUGHT AN
ACTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGAINST
RESPONDENT; A WARRANT OF ATTACHMENT ISSUED AND, PURSUANT TO IT, THE
MARSHAL LEVIED ON THE MONEY AND PROPERTY SO HELD; BECAUSE OF THE
ATTACHMENT PETITIONERS REFUSED TO DELIVER IT TO RESPONDENT AND RETAINED
CUSTODY.  IN MAY, 1934, THAT ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED BY PLAINTIFFS AND
THE ATTACHMENT WAS RELEASED.  JULY 1, 1934, THE OFFICE OF CUSTODIAN
CEASED; HIS POWERS AND DUTIES WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; ALL MONEY AND PROPERTY HELD BY OR IN TRUST FOR HIM WAS
TRANSFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.  BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS SUIT,
RESPONDENT DEMANDED AND PETITIONERS REFUSED DELIVERY OF THAT HERE IN
QUESTION.  THEIR REFUSAL WAS BASED ON PUBLIC RESOLUTION NO. 53. 

THE QUESTIONS FOR DECISION ARE WHETHER THAT RESOLUTION WITHDREW FROM
THE TRIAL COURT JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE BILL, AND WHETHER IT
DEPRIVES RESPONDENT OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN
CONTRAVENTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 

1.  THIS IS IN SUBSTANCE A SUIT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.  BANCO
MEXICANO V. DEUTSCHE BANK, 263 U.S. 591, 603.  BECKER STEEL CO. V.
CUMMINGS, 296 U.S. 74, 78.  BY THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917,
SEC. 9(A)(B)(C),  FN2  AS AMENDED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT,
SEC. 11,  FN3  THE UNITED STATES CONSENTED, IN RESPECT OF CLAIMS SUCH
AS THE ONE HERE IN QUESTION, TO BE SUED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  PETITIONERS MAINTAIN RESOLUTION NO. 53 WITHDREW
THAT CONSENT. 

THE RECITALS OF THAT RESOLUTION DISCLOSE REASONS FOR ITS ADOPTION. 
THEY ARE:  A JOINT RESOLUTION OF JULY 2, 1921,  FN4  DECLARED THAT
PROPERTY OF GERMAN NATIONALS HELD UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
SHOULD BE RETAINED AND NO DISPOSITION THEREOF MADE, EXCEPT AS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY LAW, UNTIL THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD MAKE
SUITABLE PROVISION FOR THE SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS OF AMERICAN NATIONALS
AGAINST IT.  THE TREATY OF BERLIN, AUGUST 25, 1921, FN5  ACCORDED TO
THE UNITED STATES ALL RIGHTS AND ADVANTAGES SPECIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION
OF JULY 2, 1921, INCLUDING THOSE STIPULATED FOR ITS BENEFIT IN THE
TREATY OF VERSAILLES,  FN6  NOT RATIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES.  THE
AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 10, 1922,  FN7  ESTABLISHED A MIXED CLAIMS
COMMISSION TO ADJUDICATE CLAIMS OF AMERICAN NATIONALS AGAINST GERMANY. 
AND, IN THE DEBT-FUNDING AGREEMENT OF JUNE 23, 1930,  FN8  GERMANY
AGREED TO PAY THE UNITED STATES ON ACCOUNT OF ITS AWARDS 40,800,000
REICHMARKS IN EACH YEAR UNTIL 1981.  GERMANY WAS IN ARREARS UNDER THAT
AGREEMENT AND HAD FAILED TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS
ESTABLISHED AGAINST IT. 

THEREFORE, THE RESOLUTION DECLARED:  SO LONG AS GERMANY IS IN ARREARS
IN RESPECT OF OBLIGATIONS MENTIONED, ALL DELIVERIES OF PROPERTY
AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917, AS
AMENDED, OR THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928 AS AMENDED,
"WHETHER OR NOT A JUDGMENT OR DECREE HAS BEEN ENTERED WITH RESPECT
THERETO, SHALL BE POSTPONED AND THE MONEY OR PROPERTY, OR THE INCOME,
ISSUES, PROFITS, AND/OR AVAILS THEREOF RESERVED  ...  PROVIDED  ...
THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY, IN HIS SOLE DISCRETION, REMOVE THE RESTRICTION
AS TO ANY OF THE CASES  ...  IN RELATION TO WHICH  ...  DELIVERIES HAVE
BEEN POSTPONED UNDER THIS RESOLUTION  ..." 

THE CONSENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE SUED WAS REVOCABLE AT ANY
TIME.  LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571, 581.  IT HAS NOT BEEN
EXPRESSLY RECALLED AND, UNLESS BY RESOLUTION NO. 53 IMPLIEDLY
WITHDRAWN, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT HAD JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN THE COMPLAINT.  CONTINUATION OF THE CONSENT WAS NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION.  THE MEASURE WAS
ADOPTED BECAUSE OF GERMANY'S DEFAULT WHICH, AS INDICATED BY THE
CONTEXT, WAS ASSUMED NOT TO BE PERMANENT.  IT WAS INTENDED ONLY
TEMPORARILY TO POSTPONE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE SEIZED PROPERTY,
MERELY TO STAY DELIVERIES WHETHER DIRECTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OR
JUDGMENT OF A COURT.  CLAIMANTS MAY HAVE DELIVERIES WHENEVER GERMANY
CEASES TO BE IN ARREARS.  FULFILLMENT OF HER PROMISES WILL END THE
RESTRAINT IMPOSED BY THE RESOLUTION.  POSTPONEMENT OF DELIVERIES DOES
NOT SUGGEST INTENTION TO WITHDRAW CONSENT TO BE SUED.  IT WAS GIVEN AND
LONG CONTINUED IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD FORMER OWNERS AGAINST ERRONEOUS
ADMINISTRATION OF MEASURES ENACTED FOR THEIR BENEFIT.  NEITHER NEED NOR
REASON HAS BEEN SUGGESTED FOR CHANGE OF POLICY IN THAT REGARD.  IN THE
ABSENCE OF UNMISTAKABLE EXPRESSION OF PURPOSE TO THAT END, IT MAY NOT
REASONABLY BE INFERRED THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO WITHDRAW THAT
PROTECTION.  CF. BECKER STEEL CO. V. CUMMINGS, SUPRA, 80.  WE FIND
NOTHING TO WARRANT THAT INFERENCE.  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. ESLIN, 183
U.S. 62, GIVES NO SUPPORT TO PETITIONERS' CONTENTION.  CLEARLY THE
TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE COMPLAINT. 

2.  PUBLIC RESOLUTION NO. 53 IS NOT REPUGNANT TO THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.  BY EXERTION OF THE WAR POWER, AND UNTRAMMELED BY THE DUE
PROCESS OR JUST COMPENSATION CLAUSE, CONGRESS ENACTED LAWS DIRECTING
SEIZURE, USE AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY IN THIS COUNTRY BELONGING TO
SUBJECTS OF THE ENEMY.  ALIEN ENEMY OWNERS WERE DIVESTED OF EVERY RIGHT
IN RESPECT OF THE MONEY AND PROPERTY SEIZED AND HELD BY THE CUSTODIAN
UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL
FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1, 9-11.  WOODSON V. DEUTSCHE, ETC. VORMALS, 292
U.S. 449, 454.  THE TITLE ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES WAS ABSOLUTE
AND UNAFFECTED BY DEFINITION OF DUTIES OR LIMITATIONS UPON THE POWER OF
THE CUSTODIAN OR THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES.  CONGRESS RESERVED
TO ITSELF FREEDOM AT ANY TIME TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY AS DEEMED
EXPEDIENT AND RIGHT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT ARISE DURING AND
AFTER THE WAR.  LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND TERMS OF MEASURES PASSED IN
RELATION TO ALIEN ENEMY PROPERTY CLEARLY DISCLOSE THAT FROM THE
BEGINNING CONGRESS INTENDED AFTER THE WAR JUSTLY TO DEAL WITH FORMER
OWNERS AND, BY RESTITUTION OR COMPENSATION IN WHOLE OR PART, TO
AMELIORATE HARDSHIPS FALLING UPON THEM AS A RESULT OF THE SEIZURE OF
THEIR PROPERTY.  FN9  BUT THAT INTENTION DETRACTED NOTHING FROM TITLE
ACQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ITS POWER TO RETAIN OR DISPOSE OF THE
PROPERTY UPON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS FROM TIME TO TIME CONGRESS
MIGHT DIRECT.  AS THE TAKING LEFT IN ENEMY OWNERS NO BENEFICIAL RIGHT
TO, OR INTEREST IN, THE PROPERTY, THE UNITED STATES DID NOT TAKE OR
HOLD AS TRUSTEE FOR THEIR BENEFIT. 

RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THAT SEC. 11 OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT
OF 1928, AMENDING SEC. 9 OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917 AS
AMENDED, VESTED IN FORMER OWNERS AN IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO THE RETURN OF
THEIR PROPERTY AND THAT, HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
ACT, THEY CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF THAT RIGHT.  IT ARGUES THAT ITS
INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TAKEN WAS NOT "COMPLETELY AND IRREVOCABLY
DESTROYED" AND THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT WAS AN ACT UNDER
WHICH IT "COULD AND DID OBTAIN A VESTED INTEREST IN ITS PROPERTY."  TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE ARGUMENT RESTS UPON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE TAKING
DID NOT DIVEST ENEMY OWNERS OF EVERY RIGHT OR THAT THE UNITED STATES
DID NOT ACQUIRE ABSOLUTE TITLE, IT IS FALLACIOUS AND NEED NOT BE
NOTICED. 

THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT WAS NOT A CONVEYANCE AND DID NOT
GRANT FORMER OWNERS ANY RIGHT OR TITLE TO, OR INTEREST IN, THE MONEY OR
PROPERTY TAKEN BY THE CUSTODIAN.  AS AMENDED BY IT, PERTINENT
PROVISIONS OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT ARE INDICATED IN THE
MARGIN.  FN10  NO CHANGE OF TITLE WAS EFFECTED BY THAT ACT; AND IN
PROCEEDINGS UNDER IT NONE TAKES PLACE BEFORE DELIVERY TO CLAIMANT.  AS
THE UNITED STATES OWNED ALL, CLAIMANT'S CONSENT TO POSTPONEMENT OF
DELIVERY OF PART DID NOT IMPROVE ITS POSITION AS TO THE REST.  THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT ORDER DELIVERY.  ACTION BY HIM WAS NEITHER A
CONDITION PRECEDENT NOR A BAR TO SUIT.  THE STATUTE, SEC. 9(A),
REQUIRED THE MONEY AND PROPERTY TO BE RETAINED BY THE CUSTODIAN OR
TREASURER UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT SHOULD BE SATISFIED BY
DELIVERY, OR UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST CLAIMANT.  IT IS CLEAR THAT
WHEN THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED RESPONDENT HAD NEITHER TITLE NOR VESTED
RIGHT TO HAVE DELIVERY. 

THE GRANT TO FORMER ALIEN ENEMY OWNERS OF THE PRIVILEGE OF BECOMING
ENTITLED UPON CONDITIONS SPECIFIED TO HAVE RETURNED TO THEM THE
PROPERTY OF WHICH THEY HAD BEEN DEPRIVED BY EXERTION OF THE WAR POWER
OF THE UNITED STATES WAS MADE BY THE CONGRESS IN MITIGATION OF THE
TAKING AND IN RECOGNITION OF "THE HUMANE AND WISE POLICY OF MODERN
TIMES."  BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 8 CRANCH 110, 123.  IN UNITED STATES
V. WHITE DENTAL CO., 274 U.S. 398, IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE WAR THE
GERMAN GOVERNMENT SEQUESTERED THE PROPERTY OF A GERMAN CORPORATION
WHICH, THROUGH OWNERSHIP OF ALL ITS CAPITAL STOCK, WAS CONTROLLED BY AN
AMERICAN CORPORATION.  SPEAKING OF THE TAKING WE SAID (PP. 402-403):
"WHAT WOULD ULTIMATELY COME BACK TO IT (THE AMERICAN OWNER), AS THE
EVENT PROVED, MIGHT BE SECURED NOT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, BUT AS A
MATTER EITHER OF GRACE TO THE VANQUISHED OR EXACTION BY THE VICTOR  ...
IT WOULD REQUIRE A HIGH DEGREE OF OPTIMISM TO DISCERN IN THE SEIZURE
OF ENEMY PROPERTY BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT IN 1918 MORE THAN A REMOTE
HOPE OF ULTIMATE SALVAGE FROM THE WRECK OF THE WAR."  WE THINK IT CLEAR
THAT THE GRANT BY THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT WAS MADE AS A MATTER
OF GRACE AND SO WAS SUBJECT TO WITHDRAWAL BY CONGRESS.  UNITED STATES
V. TELLER, 107 U.S. 64, 68.  FRISBIE V. UNITED STATES, 157 U.S. 160,
166.  LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, 577.  THE RESOLUTION DOES NOT
INFRINGE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.  REVERSED. 

FN1  NOW THE "DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA."  ACT OF JUNE 25, 1936, 49 STAT. 1921. 

FN2  ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, SEC. 9, 40 STAT. 419, AS AMENDED BY
ACTS:  JULY 11, 1919, 41 STAT. 35; JUNE 5, 1920, 41 STAT. 977; FEBRUARY
27, 1921, C. 76, 41 STAT. 1147; DECEMBER 21, 1921, C. 13, 42 STAT. 351;
DECEMBER 27, 1922, C. 13, 42 STAT. 1065; MARCH 4, 1923, SEC. 1, 42
STAT. 1511; MAY 7, 1926, C. 252, 44 STAT. 406. 

FN3  ACT OF MARCH 10, 1928, 45 STAT. 270. 

FN4  42 STAT. 105. 

FN5  42 STAT. 1939. 

FN6  SEN. DOC. NO. 348, 67TH CONG., 4TH SESS., P. 3329. 

FN7  42 STAT. 2200. 

FN8  REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, 1930, P. 341. 

FN9  SEN. REP. NO. 113, 65TH CONG., 1ST SESS. TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, SEC. 12, 40 STAT. 423.  PUBLIC RESOLUTION NO.
8, JULY 2, 1921, SEC. 5, 42 STAT. 106.  CONG. REC., VOL. 61, PART 4, P.
3249.  WINSLOW ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, SEC. 2, 42 STAT. 1516, ADDING SEC.
23 TO TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT.  SEN. REP. NO. 273, 70TH CONG., 1ST
SESS., PP. 12-13.  SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF MARCH 10, 1928, 45
STAT. 254. 

FN10  SECTION 9(B) OF THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT, AS AMENDED BY
SEC. 11 OF THE SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT, 45 STAT. 270 - IN
SUBSTANCE SO FAR AS PERTINENT HERE - DECLARES THAT IF THE PRESIDENT
SHALL DETERMINE THAT THE OWNER AT THE TIME OF THE TAKING WAS A GERMAN
CORPORATION AND THAT WRITTEN CONSENT (PROVIDED FOR IN SUBSECTION (M) OF
SEC. 9 AS AMENDED) TO POSTPONEMENT OF RETURN OF 20 PERCENT OF THE MONEY
OR PROPERTY HAS BEEN FILED, THEN THE PRESIDENT WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION
BEING MADE THEREFOR "MAY ORDER THE PAYMENT, CONVEYANCE, TRANSFER,
ASSIGNMENT, OR DELIVERY OF SUCH MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY HELD BY THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES" TO
THE OWNER FROM WHOM TAKEN.    SECTION 9(C) DECLARES THAT ANY PERSON
WHOSE PROPERTY THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO RETURN UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (B)(AND PLAINTIFF'S PREDECESSOR IS SUCH A
PERSON) MAY SERVE NOTICE OF CLAIM FOR THE RETURN OF THE MONEY OR
PROPERTY TAKEN FROM HIM AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION 9(A)(WHICH RELATES TO
CLAIMS BY OTHERS THAN ENEMIES FOR PROPERTY TAKEN FROM THEM BY THE
CUSTODIAN) AND THEREAFTER "MAY MAKE APPLICATION TO THE PRESIDENT FOR
ALLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIM AND/OR MAY INSTITUTE SUIT IN EQUITY TO RECOVER
SUCH MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY, AS PROVIDED IN SAID SUBSECTION, AND WITH
LIKE EFFECT.  THE PRESIDENT OR THE COURT, AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAY MAKE
THE SAME DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CITIZENSHIP AND OTHER RELEVANT
FACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
SUBSECTION (B) HEREOF." 

AND SEC. 9(A) PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON NOT AN ENEMY OR ALLY OF AN
ENEMY CLAIMING MONEY OR PROPERTY TAKEN BY THE CUSTODIAN MAY FILE WITH
HIM A NOTICE OF CLAIM UNDER OATH AND IN FORM AND SUBSTANCE AS REQUIRED;
AND THE PRESIDENT, IF APPLICATION IS MADE BY CLAIMANT, MAY ORDER THE
PAYMENT OR DELIVERY TO CLAIMANT OF THE MONEY OR PROPERTY SO HELD BY THE
CUSTODIAN OR TREASURER.  IF THE PRESIDENT SHALL NOT SO ORDER WITHIN 60
DAYS OR IF THE CLAIMANT SHALL HAVE FILED THE REQUIRED NOTICE AND MADE
NO APPLICATION, THEN CLAIMANT MAY INSTITUTE A SUIT IN EQUITY "TO
ESTABLISH THE INTEREST, RIGHT, TITLE  ...  SO CLAIMED, AND IF SO
ESTABLISHED THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE PAYMENT, CONVEYANCE, TRANSFER,
ASSIGNMENT, OR DELIVERY TO SAID CLAIMANT OF THE MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY
SO HELD BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN OR BY THE TREASURER OF THE
UNITED STATES OR THE INTEREST THEREIN TO WHICH THE COURT SHALL
DETERMINE SAID CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED.  IF SUIT SHALL BE SO INSTITUTED,
THEN SUCH MONEY OR PROPERTY SHALL BE RETAINED IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, OR IN THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES, AS
PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, AND UNTIL ANY FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE WHICH
SHALL BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE CLAIMANT SHALL BE FULLY SATISFIED BY
PAYMENT OR CONVEYANCE, TRANSFER, ASSIGNMENT, OR DELIVERY BY THE
DEFENDANT, OR BY THE ALIEN PROPERTY CUSTODIAN, OR TREASURER OF THE
UNITED STATES ON ORDER OF THE COURT, OR UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT OR DECREE
SHALL BE ENTERED AGAINST THE CLAIMANT OR SUIT OTHERWISE TERMINATED." 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS TOOK NO PART IN THE CONSIDERATION OR DECISION OF
THIS CASE. 
..END :





















RICHMOND CORP. V. WACHOVIA BANK, 300 U.S. 124 


NO. 235.  ARGUED JANUARY 4, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 210
N.C. 29 - 185 S.E. 482, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE PROVIDING THAT WHEN THE MORTGAGEE, PAYEE,
OR OTHER HOLDER OF AN OBLIGATION SECURED BY REAL ESTATE CAUSES A SALE
OF THE PROPERTY BY A TRUSTEE, BECOMES THE PURCHASER FOR A SUM LESS THAN
THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT AND AFTERWARDS BRINGS AN ACTION FOR THE
DEFICIENCY, THE DEFENDANT MAY SHOW, BY WAY OF DEFENSE AND SET-OFF, THAT
THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS FAIRLY WORTH THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT OR THAT THE
SUM BID WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE TRUE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AND
THUS DEFEAT THE CLAIM IN WHOLE OR IN PART, HELD VALID IN APPLICATION TO
NOTES SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST EXECUTED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE
LAW.  P. 129. 

2.  THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT IS NOT IMPAIRED BY A LAW LIMITING
THE REMEDY, IF A REMEDY ADEQUATE FOR ENFORCING THE OBLIGATION REMAINS
OR IS SUBSTITUTED.  P. 128. 

RICHMOND MORTGAGE & LOAN CORP. V. WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST CO. ET AL.,
EXECUTORS. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

IN AN ACTION TO COLLECT A BALANCE DUE ON A MORTGAGE DEBT, THE
PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT HERE, WAS DEFEATED IN A GENERAL COUNTY COURT IN
NORTH CAROLINA.  THE JUDGMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT, WHOSE
JUDGMENT WAS IN TURN AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE. 

THE PARTIES CONTRACTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAWS THEN IN EXISTENCE
AND SUCH LAWS ENTER INTO AND FORM PART OF THE CONTRACT.  THIS IS TRUE
OF THE LAWS PROVIDING REMEDIES TO ENFORCE PERFORMANCE.  HOME BLDG. &
LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398; UNITED STATES EX REL. VON
HOFFMAN V. QUINCY, 4 WALL.  535; STURGES V. CROWNINSHIELD, 4 WHEAT. 
122; GREEN V. BIDDLE, 8 WHEAT.  1; BATEMAN V. STERRETT, 201 N.C. 59;
GREEN V. ASHEVILLE, 199 N.C. 516; TRUST COMPANY V. HUDSON, 200 N.C.
688. 

THE ACT IN QUESTION CHANGED THE LAW OF NORTH CAROLINA, WHEREBY THE
BENEFICIARY IN A DEED OF TRUST, AFTER FORECLOSURE UNDER POWER OF SALE,
IS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE FAIR VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PAYMENT ON THE
INDEBTEDNESS IN LIEU OF RECOVERY OF MONEY JUDGMENT.  IN RE CRYSTAL ICE
& FUEL CO., 283 FED. 1007; RICHMOND MORTGAGE & LOAN CORP. V. BANK, 210
N.C. 29; JONES V. WILLIAMS, 155 N.C. 179; KOONCE V. FORT, 204 N.C. 426;
WOLTZ V. DEPOSIT CO., 206 N.C. 239; CHADBOURN V. JOHNSTON, 119 N.C.
282; DAVIS V. LIFE INSURANCE CO., 197 N.C. 617; HAYWOOD V. BANK, 207
N.C. 695; NORTH CAROLINA SESSION LAWS, 1933, C. 275; NORTH CAROLINA
CODE, SEC. 2593(B), (C), (D), (E), AND (F). 

THIS LAW, WHILE ACTING ONLY ON THE REMEDY, IMPAIRED SUBSTANTIAL
RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT, AND THEREFORE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED
TO THIS CASE.  STURGES V. CROWNINSHIELD, 4 WHEAT.  122; MCCRACKEN V.
HAYWARD, 2 HOW.  608; HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S.
398; PLANTERS BANK V. SHARP, 6 HOW.  301; HAYWOOD V. BANK, 207 N.C.
695; WORTHEN CO. V. KAVANAUGH, 295 U.S. 56; ANTONI V. GREENHOW, 107
U.S. 769; BRONSON V. KINZIE, 1 HOW.  311; HOWARD V. BUGBEE, 24 HOW. 
461; WALKER V. WHITEHEAD, 16 WALL.  314; EDWARDS V. KEARZEY, 96 U.S.
595; BARNITZ V. BEVERLY, 163 U.S. 118; ADAMS V. SPILLYARDS, 61 S.W.(2D)
686; VANDERBILT V. BRUTON PIANO CO., 169 ATL. 177; LANGEVER V. MILLER,
76 S.W.(2D) 1025. 

THE STATUTE DEALS SOLELY WITH THE REMEDY AND IS CONSTITUTIONAL. 
PUBLIC LAWS, NORTH CAROLINA, 1933, PP. 402, 403; WILSON V. STANDEFER,
184 U.S. 399, 416; BERNHEIMER V. CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516, 530; TENNESSEE
V. SNEED, 96 U.S. 69, 74; OSHKOSH WATER WORKS V. OSHKOSH, 187 U.S. 437,
439; NATIONAL SURETY CO. V. ARCHITECTURAL CO., 226 U.S. 276, 283;
WAGGONER V. FLACK, 188 U.S. 595, 602; NEW ORLEANS R. CO. V. LOUISIANA,
157 U.S. 219, 224; CRANE V. HAHLO, 258 U.S. 142, 147; STURGES V.
CROWNINSHIELD, 4 WHEAT.  122, 200. 

THE JUDGMENT IS FULLY SUSTAINED BY THE FACTS AND THE LAW OF THE
CASE.  GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. DONALDSON, 246 U.S. 121, 124; CAMPBELL
V. OLNEY, 262 U.S. 352, 354; UNITED STATES V. YUEN PAK SUNE, 183 FED.
260, 266; 191 FED. 825; HANES V. SHAPIRO, 168 N.C. 24, 27; BAKER V.
EDWARDS & SON, 176 N.C. 229, 234; ADAMS V. SPILLYARDS, 61 S.W.(2D) 686;
VANDERBILT V. BRUTON PIANO CO., 169 ATL. 177; NEWARK SAVINGS
INSTITUTION V. FORMAN, 33 N.J. EQ. 436; LANGEVER V. MILLER, 76 S.W.(2D)
1025. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH
CAROLINA  FN1  SUSTAINING THE VALIDITY OF A STATUTE CLAIMED TO IMPAIR
THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT, CONTRARY TO ARTICLE I, SEC. 10, OF THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHEN THE MORTGAGEE, PAYEE,
OR OTHER HOLDER OF AN OBLIGATION SECURED BY REAL ESTATE OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY CAUSES A SALE OF THE PROPERTY BY A TRUSTEE, BECOMES THE
PURCHASER FOR A SUM LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT AND AFTERWARDS
BRINGS AN ACTION FOR THE DEFICIENCY, THE DEFENDANT MAY SHOW, BY WAY OF
DEFENSE AND SET-OFF, THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS FAIRLY WORTH THE AMOUNT
OF THE DEBT OR THAT THE SUM BID WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE TRUE
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THUS DEFEAT THE CLAIM IN WHOLE OR IN PART. 
THE PROVISION IS COPIED IN FULL IN THE MARGIN.  FN2 

IN 1928 THE APPELLEES BORROWED $8,000 FROM THE APPELLANT FOR WHICH
THEY EXECUTED NEGOTIABLE PROMISSORY NOTES.  AS SECURITY THEY DELIVERED
A DEED OF TRUST PLEDGING REAL ESTATE.  UPON DEFAULT THE APPELLANT
DEMANDED THAT THE TRUSTEE DECLARE THE INDEBTEDNESS DUE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TERMS OF THE NOTES AND DEED OF TRUST, AND EXERCISE THE POWER
OF SALE GIVEN BY THE DEED.  THE TRUSTEE ADVERTISED THE PROPERTY, AS
REQUIRED BY THE DEED AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE, AND MADE SALE JUNE 19,
1933; AND ONE ACTING IN APPELLANT'S INTEREST PURCHASED THE LAND FOR
$3,000.  UPON EXPIRATION OF A TEN DAY PERIOD OF REDEMPTION THE PROPERTY
WAS CONVEYED TO THE PURCHASER.  THE APPELLANT CREDITED ON THE NOTES THE
SUM REALIZED BY THE SALE, WHICH LEFT $4,534.79, WITH INTEREST, DUE AND
UNPAID, AND ON JUNE 18, 1934, BROUGHT ACTION TO RECOVER THIS BALANCE. 
THE APPELLEES PLEADED THE STATUTE AND ALLEGED THAT THE PROPERTY, AT THE
TIME AND PLACE OF SALE, WAS FAIRLY WORTH THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT.  IN
REPLY THE APPELLANT ASSERTED THAT, AS THE NOTES AND DEED OF TRUST HAD
BEEN EXECUTED PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE OF THE LAW, THE STATUTE VIOLATED THE
CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  AT THE TRIAL EXCEPTION
WAS TAKEN TO THE COURT'S REFUSAL TO ENTER JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLANT ON
THE PLEADINGS.  THE COURT, OVER THE APPELLANT'S OBJECTION AND
EXCEPTION, SUBMITTED TO THE JURY THE QUESTION OF THE FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF SALE, AND THE JURY FOUND ITS VALUE TO
BE $8,000.  AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, AND THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE, AFFIRMED JUDGMENT FOR THE APPELLEES. 

ALTHOUGH ADMITTING THAT THE CHALLENGED LEGISLATION AFFECTS ONLY A
REMEDY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONTRACT, THE APPELLANT URGES THAT THE
ALTERATION IS SO SUBSTANTIAL AS TO IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THE
CONTRACT.  THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLE IS NOT IN DISPUTE.  THE LEGISLATURE
MAY MODIFY, LIMIT OR ALTER THE REMEDY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A CONTRACT
WITHOUT IMPAIRING ITS OBLIGATION, BUT IN SO DOING, IT MAY NOT DENY ALL
REMEDY OR SO CIRCUMSCRIBE THE EXISTING REMEDY WITH CONDITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS AS SERIOUSLY TO IMPAIR THE VALUE OF THE RIGHT.  FN3 THE
PARTICULAR REMEDY EXISTING AT THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT MAY BE
ALTOGETHER ABROGATED IF ANOTHER EQUALLY EFFECTIVE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT
OF THE OBLIGATION REMAINS OR IS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ONE TAKEN AWAY. 
FN4  THE MATTER IN DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE QUESTIONED ENACTMENT FALLS
BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF PERMISSIBLE REGULATION OF THE REMEDY FOR
ENFORCEMENT OF THE APPELLANT'S CONTRACT. 

THE LOAN RENDERED THE APPELLEES DEBTORS TO THE APPELLANT.  FOR THAT
DEBT THE BORROWER PLEDGED REAL ESTATE AS SECURITY.  THE CONTRACT
CONTEMPLATED THAT THE LENDER SHOULD MAKE ITSELF WHOLE, IF NECESSARY,
OUT OF THE SECURITY, BUT NOT THAT IT SHOULD BE ENRICHED AT THE EXPENSE
OF THE BORROWER OR REALIZE MORE THAN WOULD REPAY THE LOAN WITH
INTEREST.  THE STATE PROVIDED REMEDIES WHEREBY THE SECURITY COULD BE
MADE AVAILABLE FOR SOLUTION OF THE DEBT. 

WHEN THE LOAN WAS MADE TWO SUCH REMEDIES WERE AVAILABLE.  THE
MORTGAGEE COULD PROCEED BY BILL IN EQUITY TO FORECLOSE THE SECURITY. 
IF IT DID THE CHANCELLOR WHO CONTROLLED THE PROCEEDING COULD SET ASIDE
A SALE IF THE PRICE BID WAS INADEQUATE.  IN ADDITION, HE MIGHT AWARD A
MONEY DECREE FOR THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE AVAILS OF THE SALE FELL BELOW
THE AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS, BUT HIS DECREE IN THAT BEHALF WOULD BE
GOVERNED BY WELL UNDERSTOOD PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY.  AN ALTERNATIVE
REMEDY SANCTIONED BY STATE LAW WAS AVAILABLE IF THE DEED OF TRUST SO
PROVIDED.  THIS WAS THE SALE OF THE PLEDGED PROPERTY BY THE TRUSTEE. 
IF THIS WERE THE REMEDY AUTHORIZED BY THE CONTRACT, AND THE MORTGAGEE
HIMSELF BECAME THE PURCHASER AT THE TRUSTEE'S SALE, HE MIGHT
THEREAFTER, IN AN ACTION AT LAW, RECOVER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
PRICE HE HAD BID AND THE AMOUNT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS.  THE STATUTE UNDER
ATTACK EFFECTED CERTAIN ALTERATIONS OF THIS REMEDY.  SECTIONS 1 AND 2,
NOT HERE IN ISSUE, PROVIDE THAT IF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY BE SOLD UNDER
POWER OF SALE, AND THE SUM BID BE INADEQUATE SO THAT CONSUMMATION OF
THE SALE WOULD BE INEQUITABLE, THE MORTGAGOR MAY APPLY TO THE SUPERIOR
COURT FOR AN ORDER ENJOINING SUCH CONSUMMATION, AND THE JUDGE MAY
DIRECT A RESALE BY A TRUSTEE OR BY A COMMISSIONER APPOINTED FOR THE
PURPOSE, UPON TERMS HE MAY DEEM JUST AND EQUITABLE.  THESE SECTIONS
MODIFYING THE PROCEDURE UNDER A POWER OF SALE SO AS TO ASSIMILATE IT TO
THE PROCEDURE IN STRICT FORECLOSURE, HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED AS
CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE STATE SUPREME COURT.  FN5  THE SECTION WITH WHICH
WE ARE CONCERNED ADDS THAT IF THE MORTGAGEE BECOMES THE PURCHASER AT
THE TRUSTEE'S SALE, AND AFTERWARDS BRINGS AN ACTION AT LAW FOR A
DEFICIENCY, THE JURY SHALL DETERMINE THE ACTUAL AMOUNT NEEDED BY HIM TO
MAKE HIM WHOLE FOR HIS DEBT BY FINDING THE TRUE OR FAIR VALUE OF THE
PROPERTY AT THE DATE OF SALE, THE JUDGMENT BEING FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THAT VALUE AND THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT REMAINING UNPAID, OR, IF
THE VALUE FOUND EQUALS THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT, FOR THE DEFENDANT.  THE
STATUTE HAS NO APPLICATION IF THE PURCHASER AT THE TRUSTEE'S SALE BE
OTHER THAN THE MORTGAGEE.  THE ACT ALTERS AND MODIFIES ONE OF THE
EXISTING REMEDIES FOR REALIZATION OF THE VALUE OF THE SECURITY, BUT
CANNOT FAIRLY BE SAID TO DO MORE THAN RESTRICT THE MORTGAGEE TO THAT
FOR WHICH HE CONTRACTED, NAMELY, PAYMENT IN FULL.  IT RECOGNIZES THE
OBLIGATION OF HIS CONTRACT AND HIS RIGHT TO ITS FULL ENFORCEMENT BUT
LIMITS THAT RIGHT SO AS TO PREVENT HIS OBTAINING MORE THAN HIS DUE.  BY
THE OLD AND WELL KNOWN REMEDY OF FORECLOSURE A MORTGAGEE WAS SO LIMITED
BECAUSE OF THE CHANCELLOR'S CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDING.  THAT
PROCEEDING, AS HAS BEEN SAID, HAS ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE
MORTGAGEE IN NORTH CAROLINA.  GRANTING THAT BY THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
OF TRUSTEE'S SALE THE MORTGAGEE MIGHT PERCHANCE OBTAIN SOMETHING MORE,
OR MIGHT OBTAIN ONLY THAT WHICH WAS HIS DUE SOMEWHAT MORE
EXPEDITIOUSLY, THAN HE COULD IN CHANCERY, IT REMAINS THAT THE PROCEDURE
TO FORECLOSE IN EQUITY IS, AND HAS BEEN, THE CLASSICAL METHOD OF
REALIZATION UPON MORTGAGE SECURITY AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO BE
FAIR TO BOTH PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT AND TO AFFORD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY
TO THE MORTGAGEE.  IF, THEREFORE, THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE HAD
ELECTED ALTOGETHER TO ABOLISH THE REMEDY BY TRUSTEE'S SALE WE COULD NOT
SAY THAT IT HAD NOT LEFT THE MORTGAGEE AN ADEQUATE REMEDY FOR THE
ENFORCEMENT OF HIS CONTRACT.  BUT THE LEGISLATURE HAS BY NO MEANS GONE
SO FAR.  THE LAW HAS MERELY RESTRICTED THE EXERCISE OF THE CONTRACTUAL
REMEDY TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE WHICH, TO SOME EXTENT, RENDERS THE REMEDY
BY A TRUSTEE'S SALE CONSISTENT WITH THAT IN EQUITY.  THIS DOES NOT
IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF THE CONTRACT. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  210 N.C. 29, 185 S.E. 482. 

FN2  SECTION 3 OF CHAPTER 275, OF THE LAWS OF 1933: 

"WHEN ANY SALE OF REAL ESTATE OR PERSONAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN MADE BY A
MORTGAGEE, TRUSTEE, OR OTHER PERSON AUTHORIZED TO MAKE THE SAME, AT
WHICH THE MORTGAGEE, PAYEE OR OTHER HOLDER OF THE OBLIGATION THEREBY
SECURED BECOMES THE PURCHASER AND TAKES TITLE EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, AND THEREAFTER SUCH MORTGAGEE, PAYEE OR OTHER HOLDER OF THE
SECURED OBLIGATION, AS AFORESAID, SHALL SUE FOR AND UNDERTAKE TO
RECOVER A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE MORTGAGOR, TRUSTOR OR OTHER
MAKER OF ANY SUCH OBLIGATION WHOSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SO PURCHASED, IT
SHALL BE COMPETENT AND LAWFUL FOR THE DEFENDANT AGAINST WHOM SUCH
DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT IS SOUGHT TO ALLEGE AND SHOW AS MATTER OF DEFENSE
AND OFF-SET, BUT NOT BY WAY OF COUNTER-CLAIM, THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD
WAS FAIRLY WORTH THE AMOUNT OF THE DEBT SECURED BY IT AT THE TIME AND
PLACE OF SALE OR THAT THE AMOUNT BID WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN ITS
TRUE VALUE, AND, UPON SUCH SHOWING, TO DEFEAT OR OFF-SET ANY DEFICIENCY
JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM, EITHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART; PROVIDED, THIS
OF INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES, NOR SHALL IT BE HELD TO AFFECT OR DEFEAT THE
NEGOTIABILITY OF ANY NOTE, BOND OR OTHER OBLIGATION SECURED BY SUCH
MORTGAGE, DEED OF TRUST OR OTHER INSTRUMENT; PROVIDED, FURTHER, THIS
OR DECREE OF COURT NOR TO ANY JUDGMENT SOUGHT OR RENDERED IN ANY
FORECLOSURE SUIT NOR TO ANY SALE HERETOFORE MADE AND CONFIRMED." 

FN3  WORTHEN CO. V. KAVANAUGH, 295 U.S. 56, AND CASES CITED. 

FN4  HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSN. V. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398, 434, AND
CASES CITED, NOTE 13. 

FN5  WOLTZ V. ASHEVILLE SAFE DEPOSIT CO., 206 N.C. 239, 173 S.E. 587;
HOPKINS V. SWAIN, 206 N.C. 439, 174 S.E. 409; MILLER V. SHORE, 206 N.C.
732, 175 S.E. 133; BARRINGER V. WILMINGTON SAVINGS TRUST CO. 207 N.C.
505, 177 S.E. 795. 
..END :













WAYNE GAS CO. V. OWENS CO., 300 U.S. 131 


NO. 305.  ARGUED JANUARY 7, 8, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 965, REVERSED. 


1.  A CORPORATION INVOLVED IN FORECLOSURE AND LIQUIDATION PROCEEDINGS
IN A STATE COURT, IN WHICH A SALE OF ALL ITS PROPERTY HAD BEEN ORDERED,
APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL COURT BEFORE THE SALE WAS CONSUMMATED FOR A
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT.  CREDITORS WHO HAD
PARTICIPATED IN THE STATE CASE SECURED AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT
DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION, AND WHILE THE REVIEWABILITY
OF THE ORDER WAS BEFORE THIS COURT BY PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, THEY
WENT FORWARD WITH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT AND OBTAINED A
CONFIRMED SALE AND CONVEYANCE OF THE ASSETS TO THEIR NOMINEE.  HELD
THAT THEY HAD NOT THEREBY ACQUIRED A STATUS PRECLUDING FURTHER
EXAMINATION OF THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION IN THE FEDERAL COURT,
AND THAT A MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AS MOOT MUST
BE OVERRULED.  P. 134. 

2.  A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY HAS NO TERMS, BUT SITS CONTINUOUSLY.  P.
135. 

3.  THE RULE DENYING POWER TO A COURT OF EQUITY TO VACATE A DECREE
AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE TERM IN WHICH IT WAS ENTERED, IS, THEREFORE,
INAPPLICABLE TO A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.  ID. 

4.  A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT, HAS POWER, IN THE EXERCISE OF SOUND DISCRETION, TO
REOPEN AN ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION,
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TIME ALLOWED FOR APPEAL FROM THE ORDER HAS
EXPIRED.  P. 136. 

5.  THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION, IF
NO INTERVENING RIGHTS WILL BE PREJUDICED BY ITS ACTION, MAY GRANT A
REHEARING UPON APPLICATION DILIGENTLY MADE, AND REHEAR THE CASE UPON
THE MERITS; AND EVEN THOUGH IT REAFFIRM ITS FORMER ACTION AND REFUSE TO
ENTER A DECREE DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL ONE, THE ORDER ENTERED UPON
REHEARING IS APPEALABLE, AND THE TIME FOR APPEAL RUNS FROM ITS ENTRY. 
P. 137. 

WAYNE UNITED GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO. ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 528, TO REVIEW THE DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL FROM A
DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERED ON REHEARING AND DISMISSING, FOR
THE SECOND TIME, A PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE
BANKRUPTCY ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED THAT A DISTRICT COURT IS
WITHOUT POWER TO SET ASIDE ITS ORDER DISMISSING A PETITION FOR
REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AND TO REHEAR THE
CAUSE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE ACT FOR APPEAL
FROM THE ORDER.  FN1 TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT OF DECISIONS  FN2  WE
GRANTED CERTIORARI. 

NOVEMBER 25, 1935, THE PETITIONER FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA A PETITION AND, ON DECEMBER 10TH, AN AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION FOR CORPORATE REORGANIZATION UNDER SEC. 77B OF
THE BANKRUPTCY ACT AS AMENDED.  FN3  FEBRUARY 7, 1936, THE RESPONDENTS
FILED OBJECTIONS AND MOTIONS TO DISMISS.  MARCH 2ND THE PETITIONS WERE
DISMISSED.  MARCH 20TH THE PETITIONER PRESENTED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS A PETITION FOR APPEAL, PURSUANT TO SEC. 24(B) OF THE BANKRUPTCY
ACT.  FN4  APRIL 15TH THE COURT DENIED THE APPEAL,  FN5  HOLDING THAT
THE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED UNDER SEC. 25(A).  FN6  APRIL 17TH
PETITIONER NOTIFIED RESPONDENTS THAT ON APRIL 24TH IT WOULD PRESENT A
PETITION TO THE DISTRICT COURT PRAYING VACATION OF THE ORDER OF MARCH
2ND AND A REHEARING AND REVIEW OF ALL MATTERS ARISING IN THE
PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE COURT IN DISMISSING ITS
PETITIONS, AND THAT, UPON REHEARING, THE COURT WOULD BE ASKED TO ENTER
AN ORDER APPROVING THE ORIGINAL AND AMENDED PETITIONS.  AFTER
PRESENTATION OF THE PETITION FOR REHEARING AND ARGUMENT THEREON THE
COURT DIRECTED THAT IT BE FILED, TOOK THE MATTER UNDER ADVISEMENT, AND,
ON MAY 12TH, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF MARCH 2ND, GRANTED A REHEARING AND
REVIEW AND FIXED MAY 22ND FOR A HEARING ON ALL QUESTIONS ARISING ON THE
RECORD.  THE COURT FOUND THAT GOOD CAUSE EXISTED JUSTIFYING VACATION OF
ITS PREVIOUS ORDER AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE CAUSE.  IT FURTHER FOUND
THAT THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN SEASONABLY PRESENTED AND NO RIGHTS HAD
VESTED UNDER THE ORDER OF MARCH 2ND WHICH WOULD BE DISTURBED BY SETTING
THE ORDER ASIDE.  BY LEAVE OF COURT THE PETITIONER, ON MAY 22ND,
PRESENTED A SECOND AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION, WHICH
INCORPORATED THE EARLIER PETITIONS FOR REORGANIZATION, AND ASKED THE
COURT TO FIND THAT THE ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONS WERE FILED
IN GOOD FAITH AND COMPLIED WITH SEC. 77B.  THE RESPONDENTS OBJECTED. 
MAY 28TH THE COURT, AFTER A HEARING, SUSTAINED THE RESPONDENTS'
OBJECTIONS AND DISMISSED THE PETITIONS FOR REASONS SET FORTH IN
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.  JUNE 11TH PETITIONER'S
APPLICATION TO THE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, UNDER SEC. 25(A) OF THE
ACT, FOR AN APPEAL, WITH SUPERSEDEAS, WAS GRANTED.  THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS, ON RESPONDENTS' MOTION, DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 

1.  THE RESPONDENTS HAVE MOVED TO DISMISS THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON
THE GROUND THAT THE CONTROVERSY HAS BECOME MOOT.  IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION THEY SHOW THAT FOR SOME TIME PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE 77B
PROCEEDINGS THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY HAD BEEN IN POSSESSION OF A RECEIVER
APPOINTED BY A STATE COURT; THAT THE TRUSTEE OF A FIRST MORTGAGE HAD
INTERVENED IN THE RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDING AND SOUGHT FORECLOSURE; THAT
THE STATE COURT HAD ORDERED A SALE OF ALL THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY AND THE
DECREE OF SALE HAD BECOME FINAL BEFORE THE PRESENTATION OF THE PETITION
FOR REORGANIZATION.  THEY SHOW THAT SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE ORDER OF MARCH
2ND DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION FURTHER ACTION BY THE
STATE COURT RESULTED IN THE CONFIRMATION OF A COMMISSIONER'S SALE,
PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE PARTLY IN CASH AND PARTLY IN FIRST
MORTGAGE BONDS OF THE DEBTOR AND EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A DEED TO
THE PURCHASER, A NOMINEE OF RESPONDENTS.  IT APPEARS NOT ONLY THAT THE
RESPONDENTS WERE PARTIES TO THE 77B PROCEEDING BUT THAT, PRIOR TO THE
CONSUMMATION OF THE SALE, THE STATE COURT WAS FULLY ADVISED OF THE
STEPS TAKEN IN THE FEDERAL COURTS AND OF THE PENDENCY OF THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI IN THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 

THE RESPONDENTS WENT FORWARD WITH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATE COURT,
LOOKING TO A SALE OF THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT A
REHEARING MIGHT BE GRANTED AND THAT THE ORDER ENTERED THEREON MIGHT BE
APPEALED.  THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED, THEREFORE, TO RELY ON ANY STATUS
ACQUIRED IN THE STATE COURT SUIT AS PRECLUDING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF
THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION.  THE MOTION MUST ACCORDINGLY BE
OVERRULED. 

2.  THE PETITIONER ASSERTS THAT THE GRANT OR REFUSAL OF A REHEARING
RESTED IN THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT COURT, AND SINCE IN THE
PROPER EXERCISE OF THAT DISCRETION THE COURT ENTERTAINED THE
APPLICATION AND REHEARD THE CASE UPON THE MERITS, ITS ACTION AGAIN
DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REORGANIZATION WAS A FINAL ORDER AND THE
APPEAL THEREFROM WAS TIMELY.  THE RESPONDENTS CONTEND THAT THE FIRST
ORDER OF DISMISSAL HAVING TERMINATED THE CAUSE, AND THE THIRTY DAYS
ALLOWED BY THE BANKRUPTCY ACT FOR APPEAL FROM THE ORDER HAVING EXPIRED,
THE DISTRICT COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO ENTERTAIN A PETITION FOR
REHEARING AND ITS SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS A NULLITY.  WHEREFORE,
THEY SAY, THE APPEAL TAKEN MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE
ORIGINAL ORDER OF MARCH 2, 1936, IF CONSIDERED AS CHALLENGING THAT
ORDER, WAS OUT OF TIME, AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED
BY THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.  WE HOLD THE PETITIONER'S POSITION IS
SOUND AND THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED. 

THOUGH A COURT OF BANKRUPTCY SITS CONTINUOUSLY AND HAS NO TERMS,  FN7
RESPONDENTS URGE THAT, AS COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY ARE COURTS OF EQUITY,
THE RULES APPLICABLE TO THE REHEARING OF A SUIT IN EQUITY SHOULD BE
APPLIED IN BANKRUPTCY CASES, AND AS IT APPEARS THE TERM OF THE DISTRICT
COURT EXPIRED APRIL 20, 1936, THE COURT HAD LOST ITS POWER TO DISTURB
THE ORDER OF MARCH 2ND.  A COURT OF EQUITY MAY GRANT A REHEARING, AND
VACATE, ALTER, OR AMEND ITS DECREE, AFTER AN APPEAL HAS BEEN PERFECTED
AND AFTER THE TIME FOR APPEAL HAS EXPIRED, BUT NOT AFTER EXPIRATION OF
THE TERM AT WHICH THE DECREE WAS ENTERED.  FN8  IT IS TRUE THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT APPLIES THE DOCTRINES OF EQUITY, BUT THE FACT THAT
SUCH A COURT HAS NO TERMS, AND SITS CONTINUOUSLY, RENDERS INAPPLICABLE
THE RULES WITH RESPECT TO THE WANT OF POWER IN A COURT OF EQUITY TO
VACATE A DECREE AFTER THE TERM AT WHICH IT WAS ENTERED HAS ENDED. 

IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE RESPONDENTS ARGUE THAT WHERE, AS HERE, AN
ADJUDICATION IS REFUSED, AND THE CASE IS RETIRED FROM THE DOCKET, THE
REQUIREMENT THAT AN APPEAL SHALL BE PERFECTED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM
THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DEPRIVES THE COURT OF POWER TO REINSTATE AND
REHEAR THE CAUSE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME LIMITED FOR APPEAL. 
THEY INSIST THAT THE ACT CONTEMPLATES THE SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CAUSES
IN BANKRUPTCY AND THEREFORE FIXES A BRIEF PERIOD FOR APPEALING FROM
ORDERS THEREIN.  TO PERMIT THE COURT TO REHEAR A CAUSE AFTER THE TIME
FOR APPEAL HAS EXPIRED, AND TO ENTER A FRESH ORDER WHICH IS APPEALABLE,
WOULD, THEY URGE, TEND UNDULY TO EXTEND THE PROCEEDINGS, CREATE
UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEBTOR AND CREDITORS, AND IGNORE
THE INTENT OF CONGRESS.  BUT WE THINK THE COURT HAS THE POWER, FOR GOOD
REASON, TO REVISE ITS JUDGMENTS UPON SEASONABLE APPLICATION AND BEFORE
RIGHTS HAVE VESTED ON THE FAITH OF ITS ACTION.  COURTS OF LAW AND
EQUITY HAVE SUCH POWER, LIMITED BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM AT WHICH
THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE WAS ENTERED AND NOT BY THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR
APPEAL OR BY THE FACT THAT AN APPEAL HAS BEEN PERFECTED.  FN9  THERE IS
NO CONTROLLING REASON FOR DENYING A SIMILAR POWER TO A COURT OF
BANKRUPTCY OR FOR LIMITING ITS EXERCISE TO THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR
APPEAL.  THE GRANTING OF A REHEARING IS WITHIN THE COURT'S SOUND
DISCRETION, AND A REFUSAL TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION THEREFOR, OR THE
REFUSAL OF THE MOTION, IF ENTERTAINED, IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF APPEAL. 
FN10  A DEFEATED PARTY WHO APPLIES FOR A REHEARING AND DOES NOT APPEAL
FROM THE JUDGMENT OR DECREE WITHIN THE TIME LIMITED FOR SO DOING, TAKES
THE RISK THAT HE MAY LOSE HIS RIGHT OF APPEAL, AS THE APPLICATION FOR
REHEARING, IF THE COURT REFUSE TO ENTERTAIN IT, DOES NOT EXTEND THE
TIME FOR APPEAL.  FN11  WHERE IT APPEARS THAT A REHEARING HAS BEEN
GRANTED ONLY FOR THAT PURPOSE THE APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED.  FN12  THE
COURT BELOW EVIDENTLY THOUGHT THE CASE FELL WITHIN THIS CLASS.  ON THE
CONTRARY, THE RULE WHICH GOVERNS THE CASE IS THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT,
IN THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION, IF NO INTERVENING RIGHTS WILL BE
PREJUDICED BY ITS ACTION, MAY GRANT A REHEARING UPON APPLICATION
DILIGENTLY MADE AND REHEAR THE CASE UPON THE MERITS; AND EVEN THOUGH IT
REAFFIRM ITS FORMER ACTION AND REFUSE TO ENTER A DECREE DIFFERENT FROM
THE ORIGINAL ONE, THE ORDER ENTERED UPON REHEARING IS APPEALABLE AND
THE TIME FOR APPEAL RUNS FROM ITS ENTRY.  FN13  THE DISTRICT COURT'S
ACTION CONFORMED TO THESE CONDITIONS.  TWO DAYS AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL FROM THE
ORIGINAL ORDER OF MARCH 2, 1936, PETITIONER NOTIFIED RESPONDENTS OF ITS
INTENTION TO APPLY FOR REHEARING.  PROMPT APPLICATION WAS MADE AND THE
CAUSE WAS PROMPTLY HEARD.  A SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION WAS PRESENTED AND
ENTERED UPON THE FILES BY LEAVE OF COURT.  THE ORIGINAL, THE AMENDED,
AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL PETITIONS WERE CONSIDERED UPON THE MERITS, AND THE
COURT MADE FINDINGS AND ANNOUNCED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITH RESPECT
THERETO.  THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE PETITION FOR REHEARING WAS
NOT MADE IN GOOD FAITH OR THAT THE COURT RECEIVED IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
EXTENDING PETITIONER'S TIME FOR APPEAL.  THE COURT FOUND THAT NO RIGHTS
HAD INTERVENED WHICH WOULD RENDER IT INEQUITABLE TO RECONSIDER THE
MERITS.  THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF SOUND DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE MOTION
AND RECONSIDERING THE CAUSE. 

THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED AND THE CAUSE IS REMANDED TO THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONFORMITY TO THIS
OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  84 F.(2D) 965. 

FN2  SEE WEST V. MCLAUGHLIN'S TRUSTEE, 162 FED. 124; CAMERON V.
NATIONAL SURETY CO., 272 FED. 874.  THIS COURT HAS ADVERTED TO THE
QUESTION WITHOUT DECIDING IT.  CONBOY V. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, 203 U.S.
141, 146. 

FN3  ACT OF JUNE 7, 1934, 48 STAT. 911; ACT OF AUGUST 20, 1935, C.
577, 49 STAT. 664; ACT OF AUGUST 29, 1935, C. 809, 49 STAT. 965; 11
U.S.C. SEC. 207. 

FN4  ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, C. 541, SEC. 24(B), 30 STAT. 553; 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 47. 

FN5  WAYNE UNITED GAS CO. V. OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS CO., 83 F.(2D) 98. 
SEE O'CONNOR V. MILLS, DECIDED THIS DAY, ANTE, P. 26. 

FN6  ACT OF JULY 1, 1898, C. 541, SEC. 25(A), 30 STAT. 553, 11 U.S.C.
SEC. 48(A). 

FN7  SANDUSKY V. NATIONAL BANK, 23 WALL.  289, 293; IN RE LEMMON &
GALE CO., 112 FED. 296, 300; FREED V. CENTRAL TRUST CO., 215 FED.  873,
876; IN RE ROCHESTER SANITARIUM & BATHS CO., 222 FED. 22, 26. 

FN8  EQUITY RULE 69; ASPEN MINING CO. V. BILLINGS, 150 U.S. 31, 36;
VOORHEES V. NOYE MFG. CO., 151 U.S. 135; ZIMMERN V. UNITED STATES, 298
U.S. 167. 

FN9  UNITED STATES V. MAYER, 235 U.S. 55; UNITED STATES V. BENZ, 282
U.S. 304; AND CASES CITED IN NOTE 8. 

FN10  BROCKETT V. BROCKETT, 2 HOW.  238; STEINES V. FRANKLIN COUNTY,
14 WALL.  15; HARDIN V. BOYD, 113 U.S. 756; BOESCH V. GRAFF, 133 U.S.
697; SAN PEDRO CO. V. UNITED STATES, 146 U.S. 120. 

FN11  ROEMER V. BERNHEIM, 132 U.S. 103, 106; MORSE V. UNITED STATES,
270 U.S. 151, 154; CLARKE V. HOT SPRINGS ELEC.  L. & P. CO., 76 F.(2D)
918, 921. 

FN12  IN RE STEARNS & WHITE CO., 295 FED. 833; BONNER V. POTTERF, 47
F.(2D) 852, 855; UNITED STATES V. EAST, 80 F.(2D) 134, 135. 

FN13  COMPARE ASPEN MINING CO. V. BILLINGS, SUPRA, P. 37; VOORHEES V.
NOYE MFG. CO., SUPRA, P. 137; CITIZENS BANK V. OPPERMAN, 249 U.S. 448,
450; MORSE V. UNITED STATES, SUPRA, P. 154. 
..END :




















ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO. V. U.S., 300 U.S. 139 


NO. 307.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 14
F.SUPP.  407, AFFIRMED. 


1.  AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE REQUIRING A STEAMSHIP
COMPANY TO FILE A COPY OR SUMMARY OF ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS FOR A
SPECIFIED PERIOD, WHICH SHOULD SHOW EACH COMMODITY CARRIED FROM THE
UNITED STATES TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY, WITH POINT OF SHIPMENT, POINT OF
DESTINATION, AND RATE CHARGED OR COLLECTED, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
RATE, AND TRANS-SHIPMENT AND TERMINAL CHARGES AND RULES AFFECTING RATES
OR VALUE OF THE SERVICE RENDERED, HELD WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 21 OF
THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916.  P. 144. 

2.  AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER JUSTIFIED BY A LAWFUL PURPOSE IS NOT
RENDERED ILLEGAL BY THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER MOTIVE IN THE MIND OF THE
OFFICER ISSUING IT.  P. 145. 

3.  AN ORDER NOT CALLING FOR THE PRODUCTION, OR DEMANDING AN
INSPECTION, OF BOOKS OR DOCUMENTS, BUT CALLING FOR A COPY OR A SUMMARY,
IS NOT A SEARCH OR SEIZURE WITHIN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.  P. 145. 

4.  AN ORDER MADE UNDER SEC. 21 OF THE SHIPPING ACT OF 1916, DIRECTED
TO A SINGLE CARRIER, HELD NOT TO HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE DISCRIMINATORY
AGAINST THAT CARRIER IN FAVOR OF COMPETITORS.  P. 146. 

5.  ABOLITION OF THE SHIPPING BOARD AND TRANSFER OF ITS FUNCTIONS TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, IF NOT AUTHORIZED BY
TITLE IV OF THE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932, AS
AMENDED, WAS IMPLIEDLY RATIFIED BY THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936,
WHICH REFERS TO THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SHIPPING BOARD AS "NOW VESTED IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE PRESIDENT'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6166."  P. 146. 

6.  EVEN ASSUMING THAT AN ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
REQUIRING AN OCEAN CARRIER TO FURNISH DATA AS TO RATES, ETC., UNDER
SEC. 21 OF THE SHIPPING ACT, WAS INVALID UPON THE GROUND THAT THE
TRANSFER OF THE DUTIES OF THE SHIPPING BOARD TO THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
BY EXECUTIVE ORDER INVOLVED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE PRESIDENT, THE QUESTION IS RENDERED MOOT BY
SEC. 204(A) OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936, WHICH PROVIDES THAT ALL
FUNCTIONS, ETC., OF THE SHIPPING BOARD, "NOW VESTED IN THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE" BY THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER, ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED
STATES MARITIME COMMISSION, AND BY AN ORDER OF THAT COMMISSION
PROVIDING THAT SUCH ORDERS OF THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE SHALL CONTINUE
IN EFFECT, ETC.  P. 148. 

7.  SUCH AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, WHICH MERELY CALLS FOR DATA
CONCERNING THE CARRIER'S BUSINESS, NEED NOT BE PRECEDED BY NOTICE AND
HEARING.  P. 149. 

ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER CO., INC. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

APPEAL FROM A DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, OF THREE JUDGES, WHICH
DENIED AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSED THE BILL, IN A SUIT BY
AN OCEAN CARRIER TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER MADE BY THE
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE UNDER THE SHIPPING ACT. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DECREE OF A SPECIALLY CONSTITUTED
DISTRICT COURT OF THREE JUDGES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DENYING AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING THE APPELLANT'S BILL
FOR FAILURE TO STATE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A CAUSE OF ACTION. 
FN1 THE SUIT WAS BROUGHT TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER ISSUED
NOVEMBER 18, 1935, BY THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE PURSUANT TO SEC. 21 OF
THE SHIPPING ACT, 1916,  FN2  REQUIRING THE APPELLANT TO FILE WITH THE
SECRETARY ON DECEMBER 16, 1935, A COPY OR SUMMARY OF ITS BOOKS AND
RECORDS FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1 TO NOVEMBER 12, 1935, WHICH SHOULD
SHOW EACH COMMODITY CARRIED FROM THE UNITED STATES TO A FOREIGN
COUNTRY, WITH POINT OF SHIPMENT, POINT OF DESTINATION, AND RATE CHARGED
OR COLLECTED, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RATE, AND TRANS-SHIPMENT AND
TERMINAL CHARGES AND RULES AFFECTING RATES OR VALUE OF THE SERVICE
RENDERED.  THE ORDER RECITES THAT IT APPEARS FULL INFORMATION AS TO
RATES IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSPORTATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE
UNITED STATES TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES BY CARRIERS BY WATER IN FOREIGN
COMMERCE SUBJECT TO THE SHIPPING ACT 1916 IS NECESSARY TO THE PROPER
ADMINISTRATION OF THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THAT THE
APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN SUCH TRANSPORTATION. 

THE COMPLAINT SETS FORTH FIVE CAUSES OF ACTION.  THE FIRST IS THAT
THE ORDER IS INVALID BECAUSE CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND BY THE LEGISLATIVE
APPROPRIATION ACT OF 1932  FN3  TO AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO ABOLISH
THE SHIPPING BOARD AND TRANSFER ITS FUNCTIONS TO AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SUCH AS THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, AND THAT IF CONGRESS DID SO INTEND
THE ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THE HEAD OF AN
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ALSO A JUDICIAL OFFICER AND A LEGISLATIVE OFFICER
OF THE UNITED STATES AND IN FAILING TO SET UP AN ADEQUATE DECLARATION
OF POLICY OR STANDARD OF ACTION, AND, FURTHER, THAT THE PRESIDENT
PROMULGATED THE ORDER OF TRANSFER WITHOUT ADEQUATE HEARINGS OR FINDINGS
OF FACT ON WHICH TO BASE IT. 

THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION IS THAT THE SECRETARY'S ORDER IS INVALID
AS IN SUBSTANCE THE ATTEMPT OF A COMPETITOR TO REGULATE OR STABILIZE
THE APPELLANT'S RATES AND TO COMPEL IT TO CHARGE RATES FIXED BY A
SHIPPING MONOPOLY OF WHICH APPELLANT'S COMPETITOR IS A MEMBER.  THE
CHARGE IS THAT BEFORE THE ORDER WAS ISSUED THE SECRETARY HAD
TRANSFERRED ALL HIS SHIPPING BOARD FUNCTIONS TO ONE PEACOCK, WHO WAS
PRESIDENT OF A PRIVATE SHIPPING CORPORATION (THE UNITED STATES MERCHANT
FLEET CORPORATION) WHICH WAS ACTIVELY OPERATING VESSELS IN COMPETITION
WITH THOSE OF APPELLANT AND WAS A MEMBER OF A CONFERENCE OR SHIPPING
COMBINATION WHOSE INTERESTS WERE OPPOSED TO THOSE OF APPELLANT, WHICH
IS AN INDEPENDENT OR NON-CONFERENCE OPERATOR; AND THAT THE ORDER HAD
BEEN ISSUED FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF THE COMPETITOR.  THE FURTHER
ALLEGATION IS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEEN
LEGISLATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
OF THE CONSTITUTION FORBID THE EXERCISE OF REGULATORY OR QUASI-JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS SUCH AS WERE ENTRUSTED TO THE UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD,
BY PERSONS OR AGENCIES HAVING THE INTERESTS DESCRIBED, AND REQUIRE THAT
THE SECRETARY'S ORDER BE HELD FOR NAUGHT. 

THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION IS THAT THE ORDER WAS ISSUED NOT FOR A
PUBLIC PURPOSE AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS BUT IN FURTHERANCE OF A CONCERTED
PLAN TO COMPEL THE APPELLANT, AN INDEPENDENT NON-CONFERENCE CARRIER,
EITHER TO JOIN A CONFERENCE OR SHIPPING MONOPOLY, OR ELSE SUFFER DAMAGE
BY DISCLOSURE TO COMPETITORS OF CURRENT BUSINESS RECORDS SHOWING RATES
CHARGED AND COMMODITIES TRANSPORTED.  THE SECRETARY'S ORDER IS ALLEGED
TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO PROMOTE AND FOSTER A MONOPOLY OF APPELLANT'S
COMPETITORS. 

THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS THAT THE ORDER IS AN UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST APPELLANT WHICH IS FORBIDDEN BY THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES APPELLANT TO FILE A RECORD OF ACTUAL
TRANSACTIONS, WHEREAS THE SECRETARY REQUIRES APPELLANT'S COMPETITORS,
THE CONFERENCE LINES OR MEMBERS OF THE SHIPPING COMBINATION, MERELY TO
FILE GENERAL RATE SCHEDULES FOR THE FUTURE WHICH ARE NOT ALWAYS
OBSERVED AND NEED NOT BE OBSERVED.  FURTHER, THAT THE ORDER ISSUED
UNDER SEC. 21 ENTAILS PENALTIES FOR DISOBEDIENCE WHEREAS ORDERS ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY TO APPELLANT'S COMPETITORS WERE NOT ISSUED UNDER SEC.
21 OR ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE ACT, CARRIED NO PENALTIES FOR NON
OBSERVANCE, AND CALLED ONLY FOR INFORMATION WHICH THOSE COMPETITORS
WERE ALREADY REQUIRED BY LAW TO FILE UNDER SEC. 15 OF THE SHIPPING ACT
OF 1916  FN4  BECAUSE OF THEIR HAVING JOINED IN A CONFERENCE OR
SHIPPING COMBINATION. 

THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS THAT THE ORDER SHOULD BE ENJOINED
BECAUSE THE SECRETARY REJECTED APPELLANT'S OFFER TO FILE RECORDS ON
CONDITION THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE COMMUNICATED TO APPELLANT'S
COMPETITORS TO THE DAMAGE OF APPELLANT AND BECAUSE THE SECRETARY STATED
HIS PURPOSE WAS TO TURN THE RECORDS OVER TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH WOULD
RESULT IN FOSTERING UNFAIR COMPETITION AND RUIN APPELLANT'S BUSINESS. 
IT IS CHARGED THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER WITHOUT
PREJUDICE OR LOSING ITS EQUITABLE, LEGAL, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 

AN INJUNCTION AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND TWO REPLY
AFFIDAVITS BY THE UNITED STATES.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER
THEM AS WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE DECREE DISMISSING THE BILL MUST BE
AFFIRMED. 

THE GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT FALL INTO TWO GENERAL CLASSES.  UPON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SHIPPING BOARD WERE
EFFECTIVELY TRANSFERRED TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, THE CLAIM IS THAT
THE ORDER WAS BEYOND THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY CONFERRED BY THE SHIPPING
ACT, AMOUNTED TO AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE, AND WAS INVALID BECAUSE
ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE.  BUT, IN ADDITION, IT IS ASSERTED THAT
TRANSFER OF THE BOARD'S POWERS AND DUTIES TO THE SECRETARY WAS
UNAUTHORIZED BY ACTION OF CONGRESS AND, IF SO AUTHORIZED, WAS IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

FIRST.  THE ORDER IS PLAINLY WITHIN THE TERMS OF SEC. 21 OF THE
SHIPPING ACT, 1916, WHICH PROVIDES: 

"THE BOARD MAY REQUIRE ANY COMMON CARRIER BY WATER, OR OTHER PERSON
SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER, OR ANY OFFICER, RECEIVER, TRUSTEE, LESSEE,
AGENT, OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF, TO FILE WITH IT ANY PERIODICAL OR SPECIAL
REPORT, OR ANY ACCOUNT, RECORD, RATE, OR CHARGE, OR ANY MEMORANDUM OF
ANY FACTS AND TRANSACTIONS APPERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS OF SUCH CARRIER
OR OTHER PERSON SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER.  SUCH REPORT, ACCOUNT, RECORD,
RATE, CHARGE, OR MEMORANDUM SHALL BE UNDER OATH WHENEVER THE BOARD SO
REQUIRES, AND SHALL BE FURNISHED IN THE FORM AND WITHIN THE TIME
PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD.  WHOEVER FAILS TO FILE ANY REPORT, ACCOUNT,
RECORD, RATE, CHARGE, OR MEMORANDUM AS REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION SHALL
FORFEIT TO THE UNITED STATES THE SUM OF $100 FOR EACH DAY OF SUCH
DEFAULT." 

THE APPELLANT SUGGESTS THAT THE SECTION GRANTS POWER MERELY TO
SUBPOENA RECORDS, REPORTS, AND INFORMATION, TO BE EXERCISED ONLY IN
HEARINGS UPON COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATION OF THE ACT.  THIS VIEW IGNORES
THE FACT THAT SEC. 27 EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZES THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS,
FN5  INCLUDING SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM, FOR HEARINGS UPON ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS.  IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THIS IS MERE TAUTOLOGY.  THE
PURPOSE OF SEC. 21 IS NOT FAR TO SEEK.  OTHER SECTIONS FORBID ALLOWANCE
OF REBATES, REQUIRE THE FILING OF AGREEMENTS FIXING OR REGULATING
RATES, GRANTING SPECIAL RATES, ACCOMMODATIONS OR PRIVILEGES, WHICH MAY
BE DISAPPROVED, CANCELLED OR MODIFIED IF THE BOARD FINDS THEM UNJUSTLY
DISCRIMINATORY OR VIOLATIVE OF THE ACT, PROHIBIT UNDUE OR UNREASONABLE
PREFERENCES OR THE CUTTING OF ESTABLISHED RATES AND UNJUST
DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN SHIPPERS OR PORTS.  FN6  TO ENABLE IT TO PERFORM
ITS FUNCTIONS THE BOARD MAY WELL NEED SUCH INFORMATION AS THAT WHICH
THE SECTION GIVES IT POWER TO DEMAND.  INDEED THE ORDER RECITES THAT IN
THIS INSTANCE SUCH INFORMATION IS SO REQUIRED. 

DESPITE ITS RECITALS OF LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, THE ORDER, SO THE
COMPLAINT ALLEGES, SPRANG FROM ILLEGAL MOTIVES, NAMELY, TO REGULATE AND
STABILIZE FREIGHT RATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF CARRIERS BELONGING TO
STEAMSHIP CONFERENCES, TO COMPEL APPELLANT TO JOIN A CONFERENCE, AND TO
CREATE A MONOPOLY IN TRANS-OCEANIC SHIPPING. 

ASIDE FROM THE PRINCIPLE THAT IF THE ORDER IS JUSTIFIED BY A LAWFUL
PURPOSE, IT IS NOT RENDERED ILLEGAL BY SOME OTHER MOTIVE IN THE MIND OF
THE OFFICER ISSUING IT,  FN7  THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE MERE
CONCLUSIONS UNSUPPORTED BY ANY FACTS PLEADED AND ARE, THEREFORE,
INSUFFICIENT.  FN8 

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE ORDER AMOUNTS TO AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND
SEIZURE FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, IS ANSWERED BY THE FACT THAT
IT DOES NOT CALL FOR THE PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF ANY OF APPELLANT'S
BOOKS OR PAPERS.  FN9 

THE COMPLAINT ASSERTS THE APPELLANT IS THE ONLY CARRIER WHICH HAS
BEEN REQUIRED, PURSUANT TO SEC. 21, TO FILE A RECORD OF RATES ACTUALLY
CHARGED.  THE SECTION, HOWEVER, PLAINLY AUTHORIZES THE MAKING OF SUCH
AN ORDER DIRECTED TO A SINGLE CARRIER.  NEVERTHELESS, THE APPELLANT
CHARGES SUCH ACTION IS UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY AND VIOLATES THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT.  THE BILL ITSELF DISCLOSES THE CONFERENCE CARRIERS
HAVE FILED SCHEDULES OF THEIR RATES AND THE ACT REQUIRES THAT IF ANY
CONTRACT FOR A CHANGE OF THOSE RATES IS MADE THE NEW RATES MAY BE
CHARGED ONLY AFTER THE BOARD HAS APPROVED THE AGREEMENT.  FN10  THE
GRAVAMEN OF THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THAT THE APPELLANT IS
REQUIRED TO SUPPLY INFORMATION NOT FURNISHED BY THE CONFERENCE LINES,
OR DIFFERENT INFORMATION FROM THAT WHICH THE CONFERENCE LINES FILE WITH
THE SECRETARY, BUT THAT THE CONFERENCE LINES ARE NOT COMPELLED TO
ADHERE TO THE RATES NAMED IN THEIR SCHEDULES.  THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO
SHOWING THAT THIS CIRCUMSTANCE INJURES THE APPELLANT.  THE DATA CALLED
FOR RELATED TO RATES CHARGED IN THE PAST, - RATES FIXED BY THE
APPELLANT WITHOUT CONSTRAINT; AND THE BILL MAKES NO CHARGE THAT
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER WILL IN ANY WISE RESTRICT THE APPELLANT'S
FREEDOM TO DEVIATE FROM THOSE PAST RATES IN THE FUTURE.  THE CASE MADE
BY THE BILL FAILS TO EXHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN FACT AS BETWEEN
APPELLANT AND ITS COMPETITORS, MUCH LESS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIABLE
DISCRIMINATION. 

SECOND.  IT IS EARNESTLY CONTENDED THAT TITLE IV OF THE LEGISLATIVE
APPROPRIATION ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932, AS AMENDED,  FN11  DID NOT
AUTHORIZE THE ABOLITION OF THE SHIPPING BOARD AND THE TRANSFER OF ITS
FUNCTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BY EXECUTIVE ORDER.  TITLE III
OF THE ACT REORGANIZED THE SHIPPING BOARD; AND IT IS SAID THAT CONGRESS
WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THIS ACTION HAD IT INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE
SHIPPING BOARD WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SEC. 402 OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES
EXECUTIVE AGENCIES THE PRESIDENT MAY ABOLISH OR WHOSE FUNCTIONS HE MAY
TRANSFER AS "ANY COMMISSION, BOARD, BUREAU, DIVISION, SERVICE, OR
OFFICE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT."  THAT THIS IS TRUE
IS ATTESTED BY THE FACT THAT SEC. 406 WITHHELD FROM THE PRESIDENT THE
AUTHORITY TO ABOLISH OR TRANSFER THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SHIPPING BOARD. 
BUT WHEN THE ACT WAS AMENDED MARCH 3, 1933,  FN12  THE PROHIBITION WAS
OMITTED AND THE PHRASE "INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENT" WAS ADDED TO THE
ENUMERATION OF EXECUTIVE AGENCIES IN SEC. 402.  AFTER THESE CHANGES
WERE MADE THE PRESIDENT, BY EXECUTIVE ORDER DATED JUNE 10, 1933, MADE
THE TRANSFER.  AS REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932, HE TRANSMITTED
A COPY OF THE ORDER TO THE CONGRESS, WHICH ADJOURNED A FEW DAYS AFTER
ITS RECEIPT.  WHATEVER DOUBT MAY BE ENTERTAINED AS TO THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS THAT THE SHIPPING BOARD SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO TRANSFER BY THE
PRESIDENT, AND, IF SO, WHETHER THE ORDER LAY BEFORE CONGRESS THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF DAYS TO SATISFY THE STATUTORY MANDATE, CONGRESS
APPEARS TO HAVE RECOGNIZED THE VALIDITY OF THE TRANSFER AND RATIFIED
THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION BY THE APPROPRIATION ACTS OF APRIL 7, 1934,
FN13  MARCH 22, 1935,  FN14  AND MAY 15, 1936,  FN15  ALL OF WHICH MAKE
APPROPRIATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR SALARIES AND EXPENSES
TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SHIPPING ACT AS AMENDED AND REFER TO
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.  THE APPELLANT INSISTS THAT THESE REFERENCES WERE
CASUAL AND ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN AS RATIFYING THE PRESIDENT'S ACTION.  WE
NEED NOT STOP TO CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT SINCE, BY THE MERCHANT MARINE
ACT OF 1936,  FN16  SEC. 204(A), THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FORMER SHIPPING
BOARD ARE REFERRED TO AS "NOW VESTED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PURSUANT TO SEC. 12 OF THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 6166." 

IT REMAINS TO DEAL WITH THE CONTENTIONS THAT CONGRESS LACKED THE
POWER EITHER TO TRANSFER OR TO RATIFY THE TRANSFER OF THE DUTIES OF THE
SHIPPING BOARD TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE BY DELEGATING TO THE
PRESIDENT AUTHORITY SO TO DO BY EXECUTIVE ORDER, SUBJECT TO THE
APPROVAL OF CONGRESS, AND THAT THE PRESIDENT, IN EXERCISING THE POWER
DELEGATED TO HIM, EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY BECAUSE HE ACTED WITHOUT
NOTICE AND HEARING AND FAILED IN THE ORDER ADEQUATELY TO SPECIFY THE
GROUNDS FOR HIS ACTION.  WE FIND IT UNNECESSARY TO DECIDE THE QUESTIONS
SOUGHT TO BE RAISED IN THIS CONNECTION.  ON JUNE 29, 1936, CONGRESS
ADOPTED THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT.  BY SEC. 204(A) OF THAT STATUTE IT WAS
PROVIDED:    "ALL THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND DUTIES VESTED IN THE
FORMER UNITED STATES SHIPPING BOARD BY THE SHIPPING ACT, 1916,  ...
AND AMENDMENTS,  ...  AND NOW VESTED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER OF JUNE 10,
1933, ARE HEREBY TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION
..." 

THE COMMISSION IS CREATED BY THE ACT.  BY SEC. 204(B) IT IS
AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT ALL NECESSARY RULES AND REGULATIONS TO CARRY OUT
THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS VESTED IN IT BY THE ACT.  OCTOBER 21,
1936, AFTER ORGANIZATION, THE COMMISSION PROMULGATED AN ORDER (GENERAL
ORDER NO. 2) FN17  IN WHICH IT DECLARED: 

"...  ALL ORDERS,  ...  WHICH HAVE BEEN ISSUED OR AUTHORIZED BY  ...
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS,
AND DUTIES TRANSFERRED TO THIS COMMISSION BY THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT,
1936, AND WHICH ARE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF SUCH TRANSFER, SHALL
CONTINUE IN EFFECT, INSOFAR AS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH SAID ACT, UNTIL
MODIFIED, TERMINATED, SUPERSEDED, OR REPEALED BY THIS COMMISSION OR BY
OPERATION OF LAW;..." 

WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE ACT OF 1936 AND THE COMMISSION'S ORDER
RENDER MOOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE
APPELLANT EVEN THOUGH WE ASSUME, WITHOUT DECIDING, THAT THE SECRETARY
OF COMMERCE HAD NO POWER TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 18, 1935.  THAT
ORDER WAS ADMINISTRATIVE IN CHARACTER.  IT DETERMINED NO RIGHTS AND
PRESCRIBED NO DUTIES OF THE APPELLANT AS AN OCEAN CARRIER.  IT DEMANDED
THE FILING OF DATA.  NO NOTICE OR HEARING WAS PREREQUISITE TO ITS
ISSUE.  IT WAS STILL IN FIERI WHEN THE UNITED STATES MARITIME
COMMISSION CAME INTO EXISTENCE.  BY VIRTUE OF THE ACTION OF THAT
COMMISSION IT IS CONTINUED IN FORCE AND THE APPELLANT IS COMMANDED TO
OBEY IT.  THE APPELLANT CONCEDES THAT IF THE ORDER WAS WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY POWERS OF THE SHIPPING BOARD, AND HAD BEEN
MADE BY THAT BOARD, THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION OF ITS VALIDITY.  AS IT
HAS BECOME AN OUTSTANDING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OF A COMMISSION HAVING
THE POWERS AND DUTIES FORMERLY VESTED IN THE SHIPPING BOARD THE
APPELLANT IS IN NO POSITION TO CONTEND THAT, AS IT NOW AFFECTS THE
APPELLANT, THE ORDER IS VOID BECAUSE ISSUED IN THE ALLEGED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF THE SHIPPING BOARD BY THE
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE. 

THE DECREE IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  14 F.SUPP.  407. 

FN2  ACT OF SEPT. 7, 1916, C. 451, SEC. 21, 39 STAT. 728, 736, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 820.  THE SUIT WAS INSTITUTED UNDER SEC. 31 OF THE SHIPPING
ACT, 39 STAT. 738, 46 U.S.C. SEC. 830, WHEREBY THE VENUE AND PROCEDURE
IN SUITS TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF THE SHIPPING BOARD ARE
MADE THE SAME AS IN SIMILAR SUITS RESPECTING ORDERS OF THE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION.  (JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 208, 28 U.S.C. 46, AND THE
ACT OF OCTOBER 22, 1913, C. 32, 38 STAT. 219, 28 U.S.C. SECS. 43, 44,
45, AND 47, WHEREBY THE VENUE OF A SUIT BROUGHT TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER
OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION IS THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH
THE PETITIONER HAS ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE.)  THE COMPLAINANT NAMED AND
ATTEMPTED TO SERVE AS DEFENDANTS, IN ADDITION TO THE UNITED STATES, THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, THE SHIPPING BOARD BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, DANIEL C. ROPER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SECRETARY OF COMMERCE,
JAMES C. PEACOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF THE SHIPPING BOARD
BUREAU, AND LAMAR HARDY, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.  THE SUIT WAS DISMISSED AS TO MANY OF THESE
DEFENDANTS FOR WANT OF SERVICE OR FOR WANT OF PROPER JOINDER AS
DEFENDANTS BUT THE ACTION WAS MAINTAINABLE AS THE UNITED STATES IS, BY
THE STATUTES, MADE THE PROPER PARTY DEFENDANT IN SUCH CASES.  NO POINT
IS HERE MADE AS TO THE ACTION BELOW DISMISSING DEFENDANTS FROM THE
CAUSE. 

FN3  ACT OF JUNE 30, 1932, C. 314, 47 STAT. 382, 413. 

FN4  ACT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1916, SEC. 15, C. 451, 39 STAT. 728, 733, 46
U.S.C. SEC. 814. 

FN5  46 U.S.C. 826. 

FN6  46 U.S.C. 812-816. 

FN7  DAKOTA CENTRAL TELEPHONE CO. V. SOUTH DAKOTA, 250 U.S. 163,
184.  PHILADELPHIA & TRENTON R. CO. V. STIMPSON, 14 PET. 448, 458, 459;
UNITED STATES V. CHEMICAL FOUNDATION, 272 U.S. 1, 14, 15. 

FN8  MOORE V. GREENE, 19 HOW.  69, 72; ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RY.
CO. V. JOHNSTON, 133 U.S. 566, 577; GARRETT V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO.,
235 U.S. 308, 313; NORTZ V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 317, 324-5;
EINSTEIN V. SCHNEBLY, 89 FED. 540, 548. 

FN9  INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N V. BAIRD, 194 U.S. 25, 45, 46. 
COMPARE OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES, 277 U.S. 438, 463; BALTIMORE & OHIO
R. CO. V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 221 U.S. 612. 

FN10  46 U.S.C. 814. 

FN11  47 STAT. 413; 47 STAT. 1517. 

FN12  47 STAT. 1517. 

FN13  C. 104, TITLE III, 48 STAT. 529, 566. 

FN14  C. 39, TITLE III, 49 STAT. 67, 99. 

FN15  C. 405, 49 STAT. 1309, 1345. 

FN16  JUNE 29, 1936, C. 858, 49 STAT. 1985. 

FN17  THE FEDERAL REGISTER, NO. 159, OCTOBER 23, 1936, P. 1917. 
..END :




















DUPONT V. UNITED STATES, 300 U.S. 150 


NO. 332.  ARGUED JANUARY 11, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 83
F.(2D) 951, AFFIRMED. 


1.  A BROKER TRADING ON THE NEW YORK COTTON EXCHANGE WAS INSTRUCTED BY
A CUSTOMER, FOR WHOSE ACCOUNT COTTON FOR FUTURE DELIVERY WAS BEING
HELD, TO TRANSFER THE ACCOUNT TO OTHER BROKERS.  THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE
GIVEN AT THE REQUEST OF THE BROKER, WHO WISHED TO BE RELIEVED OF THE
ACCOUNT, AND NO COMMISSION WAS CHARGED ON THE TRANSACTION.  THE
TRANSFER WAS EFFECTED, ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM ON THE EXCHANGE IN
RESPECT OF ALL TRANSFERS FROM ONE MEMBER TO ANOTHER, BY THE BROKER'S
DELIVERING A "SOLD" MEMORANDUM TO THE TRANSFEREES, AND RECEIVING A
"BOUGHT" MEMORANDUM IN RETURN.  HELD: 

(1)  THE STAMP TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 800, SCHEDULE A(4) OF THE REVENUE
ACT OF 1926 UPON "EACH SALE, AGREEMENT OF SALE, OR AGREEMENT TO SELL
(NOT INCLUDING SO-CALLED TRANSFERRED OR SCRATCH SALES)  ...  AT, OR
UNDER THE RULES OR USAGES OF ANY EXCHANGE  ...  FOR FUTURE
DELIVERY...."  WAS APPLICABLE.  P. 153. 

(2)  THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT A "TRANSFERRED" OR "SCRATCH" SALE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE PRESCRIBED EXEMPTION.  P. 152. 

(3)  UNDER THE RULES AND PRACTICE OF THE COTTON EXCHANGE THE
TRANSACTION WAS AN ACTUAL SALE.  P. 153. 

2.  THE TAX IMPOSED BY SEC. 800, SCHEDULE A(4) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF
1926 IS NOT A TAX UPON THE BUSINESS TRANSACTED BUT IS AN EXCISE UPON
THE PRIVILEGE, OPPORTUNITY, OR FACILITY OFFERED AT EXCHANGES FOR THE
TRANSACTION OF THE BUSINESS.  P. 153. 

DUPONT ET AL. V. UNITED STATES. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 531, TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT IN A SUIT TO RECOVER TAXES PAID. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

STAMP TAX UPON "EACH SALE, AGREEMENT OF SALE, OR AGREEMENT TO SELL (NOT
INCLUDING SO-CALLED TRANSFERRED OR SCRATCH SALES) ...  AT, OR UNDER THE
RULES OR USAGES OF, ANY EXCHANGE  ...  FOR FUTURE DELIVERY."  WHETHER
THE TAX IS PAYABLE UPON A BROKER'S TRANSFER OF A CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT IN
COTTON FUTURES TO ANOTHER BROKER THROUGH THE COTTON EXCHANGE IS THE
MATTER IN CONTROVERSY.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD THE
TRANSACTION TAXABLE.  FN2  A CONFLICT OF DECISION MOVED US TO GRANT
CERTIORARI.  FN3 

PETITIONERS ARE MEMBERS OF A PARTNERSHIP TRADING ON THE NEW YORK
COTTON EXCHANGE.  ON BEHALF OF A CUSTOMER THEY PURCHASED COTTON FOR
FUTURE DELIVERY.  THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY THE CUSTOMER TO TRANSFER THE
ACCOUNT TO OTHER BROKERS.  TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PETITIONERS DELIVERED A
"SOLD" MEMORANDUM TO THE TRANSFEREE OF THE ACCOUNT, WHO, IN TURN,
DELIVERED A "BOUGHT" MEMORANDUM TO THE PETITIONERS.  NO COMMISSION WAS
CHARGED BECAUSE THE INSTRUCTIONS TO TRANSFER HAD BEEN GIVEN AT
PETITIONERS' REQUEST, AS THEY DESIRED TO BE RELIEVED OF THE ACCOUNT. 
IN ORDER TO RECORD SUCH A TRANSFER WITH THE EXCHANGE THE CUSTOM WAS TO
USE BOUGHT AND SOLD MEMORANDA IN THE FORM INVARIABLY EMPLOYED BY
MEMBERS OF THE EXCHANGE IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF COTTON FOR FUTURE
DELIVERY.  THE PETITIONERS AFFIXED TO THE SOLD MEMORANDUM STAMPS IN THE
PROPER AMOUNT AND AFTER DENIAL OF A REFUND, BROUGHT ACTION FOR THE
AMOUNT OF THE TAX. 

THE PETITIONERS CONTEND THAT NO SALE, AGREEMENT OF SALE OR AGREEMENT
TO SELL WAS IN FACT MADE, THOUGH FOR CONVENIENCE, AND BECAUSE OF LACK
OF OTHER MEDIUM TO EVIDENCE THE TRANSFER, PAPERS IN FORM AGREEMENTS OF
SALE WERE EMPLOYED.  THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS THAT THE TAX IS ESSENTIALLY
UPON THE PRIVILEGE OF USING THE FACILITIES OF AN EXCHANGE AND
PETITIONERS HERE EXERCISED THIS PRIVILEGE AND A SALE WAS IN FACT MADE. 
WE HOLD THE TAX WAS LAWFULLY IMPOSED AND THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF THE STAMPS. 

1.  THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT A "SCRATCH" OR "TRANSFERRED" SALE WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE EXEMPTION FOUND IN THE SECTION.  A SCRATCH OR
TRANSFERRED SALE IS ONE IN WHICH THERE IS AN OFFSETTING PURCHASE AND
SALE AT THE SAME PRICE ON THE SAME DAY.  WHERE A BROKER, IN ORDER TO
FILL A CUSTOMER'S ORDER, BUYS A LARGER AMOUNT AND SELLS THE EXCESS TO A
THIRD BROKER, DIRECTING THE SELLING BROKER TO DELIVER THE EXCESS TO THE
BROKER WHO HAS PURCHASED IT, AND DIRECTING THE BROKER WHO PURCHASES THE
EXCESS TO TAKE DELIVERY FROM THE SELLING BROKER, THE NAME OF THE
INTERMEDIATE BROKER IS ERASED FROM THE RECORDS OF THE EXCHANGE SO THAT
THE SALE OF THE EXCESS APPEARS AS A SALE DIRECT FROM THE ONE TO THE
OTHER OF THE TWO REMAINING BROKERS.  THE EXEMPTION ALSO COVERS TRADING
BY A SCALPING BROKER WHO MAKES HIS PROFIT IN FRACTIONAL MOVEMENTS ON
THE EXCHANGE, BUYING AND SELLING WITH GREAT RAPIDITY, THUS OFTEN
PURCHASING AND SELLING THE SAME AMOUNT OF THE COMMODITY AT THE SAME
PRICE WITHIN A FEW MOMENTS OR HOURS.  BY AGREEMENT AMONGST THE MEMBERS
HIS NAME IS SCRATCHED OUT OF THE RECORDS OF THE EXCHANGE AND HIS
TEMPORARY RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES DO NOT APPEAR UPON ITS RECORDS. 
ACCORDINGLY, THE TREASURY REGULATIONS IN FORCE SINCE 1918 REQUIRE THAT
PURCHASE AND SALE BE CONSUMMATED ON THE SAME DAY IF THE EXEMPTION IS TO
APPLY AND THAT THE INTERMEDIATE BROKER INSTRUCT THE BROKER WHO SOLD TO
HIM TO DELIVER TO THE OTHER WHO BOUGHT FROM HIM.  FN4 

2.  THE TAX IS NOT UPON THE BUSINESS TRANSACTED BUT IS AN EXCISE UPON
THE PRIVILEGE, OPPORTUNITY, OR FACILITY OFFERED AT EXCHANGES FOR THE
TRANSACTION OF THE BUSINESS.  IT IS AN EXCISE UPON THE FACILITIES USED
IN THE TRANSACTION OF THE BUSINESS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE BUSINESS
ITSELF.  FN5  IN THIS VIEW IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE TRANSFER OF THE
ACCOUNT CONSTITUTED A SALE.  UNQUESTIONABLY THE PETITIONERS USED THE
FACILITIES OF THE EXCHANGE FOR OFFSETTING THEIR OBLIGATION AS A
PURCHASING BROKER BY ARRANGING THAT ANOTHER BROKER SHOULD TAKE OVER
THAT OBLIGATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE EXCHANGE.  SUCH A TRANSACTION
COMES WITHIN THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE AND RENDERS PETITIONERS LIABLE
FOR THE TAX. 

3.  UNDER THE RULES AND PRACTICE OF THE COTTON EXCHANGE THE
TRANSACTION TAXED WAS AN ACTUAL SALE.  THE FACT THAT THE SALE WAS MADE
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFERRING A BROKERAGE ACCOUNT IS IRRELEVANT. 
WHEN THE PETITIONERS PURCHASED ON THE EXCHANGE THE FUTURE CONTRACTS FOR
THEIR CUSTOMER THE SELLING BROKER HANDED THE PETITIONERS A MEMORANDUM
AGREEING TO DELIVER AT THE DATE AND PRICE THEREIN SPECIFIED AND THE
PETITIONERS GAVE THE SELLING BROKER A SIMILAR PURCHASE MEMORANDUM. 
THIS EACH WAS REQUIRED TO DO BY THE BY-LAWS OF THE EXCHANGE.  AS A
RESULT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE CLEARING HOUSE THE PETITIONERS WOULD,
AT THE CLOSE OF THE DAY'S BUSINESS, BE UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY THE
CLEARING HOUSE UPON DELIVERY BEING MADE AT THE FUTURE DATE AND THEY
WOULD HAVE A CORRELATIVE RIGHT TO RECEIVE FROM THE CLEARING HOUSE THE
COTTON PURCHASED.  ALTHOUGH THE BROKER WHO MADE THE SALE TO THE
PETITIONERS WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO RECEIVE FROM HIS PRINCIPAL THE
NECESSARY COTTON TO MAKE DELIVERY ACCORDING TO THE SALE, AND ALTHOUGH
THE PETITIONERS WHO HAD BOUGHT THE COTTON WOULD BE UNDER AN OBLIGATION
TO THEIR CUSTOMER TO DELIVER TO HIM, BOTH BROKERS WERE, UNDER THE BY
LAWS OF THE EXCHANGE, PRINCIPALS IN THE TRANSACTION.  WHEN, THEREFORE,
THE CUSTOMER ORDERED THE TRANSFER OF THE ACCOUNT THE PETITIONERS COULD
ONLY EFFECT THIS BY SELLING THE FUTURES TO THE SUBSTITUTED BROKER WHO,
IN TURN, BECAME OBLIGATED, SO FAR AS THE EXCHANGE WAS CONCERNED, AS
PRINCIPAL, TO ACCEPT DELIVERY OF THE COTTON ACCORDING TO HIS PURCHASE
FROM THE PETITIONERS.  THE OBLIGATION ASSUMED BY THE PETITIONERS WHEN
THEY ENTERED INTO PURCHASE CONTRACTS COULD BE SATISFIED BY MAKING
PAYMENT TO THE CLEARING HOUSE OR OFFSET BY SELLING TO ANOTHER BROKER
AND SO OBTAINING THAT BROKER'S CONTRACT TO TAKE DELIVERY OF THE COTTON
FROM THE CLEARING HOUSE.  IN NO OTHER WAY COULD THE PETITIONERS RELIEVE
THEMSELVES OF THAT OBLIGATION. 

THE JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. 

FN1  26 U.S.C. 903. 

FN2  83 F.(2D) 951. 

FN3  SEE UNITED STATES V. UHLMANN GRAIN CO., 84 F.(2D) 901. 

FN4  TREASURY REGULATIONS 40 UNDER R.A. 1918, ARTICLES 23(A) AND
33(3)(C).  TREASURY REGULATIONS 71, ARTICLES 44(A) AND 125(3)(C). 

FN5  NICOL V. AMES, 173 U.S. 509, 519, 523. 
..END :











GT. NORTHERN RY. V. WASHINGTON, 300 U.S. 154 


NO. 20.  SUBMITTED OCTOBER 14, 1936.  RESTORED TO THE DOCKET OCTOBER 26,
1936.  ARGUED DECEMBER 7, 8, 1936.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 184
WASH. 648 - 52 P.(2D) 1274, REVERSED. 


1.  A STATE MAY REQUIRE A RAILROAD COMPANY ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE TO PAY A FEE, IN ADDITION TO GENERAL TAXATION OF ITS PROPERTY
IN THE STATE, TO COVER THE EXPENSE OF LOCAL INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION
WITHIN THE STATE'S POLICE POWER; BUT THE EXACTION VIOLATES BOTH THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IF, BEYOND THOSE
LEGITIMATE PURPOSES, IT IS MADE AND USED TO DEFRAY THE COST OF OTHER
ACTIVITIES OF THE STATE, SUCH AS LOCAL REPARATION PROCEEDINGS AND
LITIGATION BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, IN BEHALF OF
SHIPPERS.  P. 159. 

2.  A STATUTE (C. 107, L. WASH., 1929) REQUIRES PUBLIC UTILITIES
GENERALLY, INCLUDING RAILROADS, TO PAY INTO A COMMON FUND EACH YEAR A
FEE OF 1/10TH OF ONE PER CENT. OF GROSS OPERATING REVENUE OF THE YEAR
PRECEDING, FOR USE IN ADMINISTERING THE STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
LAW.  HELD: 

(1)  THAT THE STATUTE IS NOT VOID ON ITS FACE, AS APPLIED TO AN
INTERSTATE RAILROAD, MERELY BECAUSE IT EXACTS FEES AT THE SAME RATE
FROM THE RAILROAD AND OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES AS WELL, OR BECAUSE THE
PROCEEDS COMPOSE A COMMON FUND WHICH MAY BE USED NOT ONLY FOR EXPENSE
OF INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION, BUT FOR OTHER PURPOSES.  P. 161. 

(2)  BUT, TO SUSTAIN THE EXACTION IN THE CASE OF AN INTERSTATE
RAILROAD, THE BURDEN RESTS UPON THE STATE TO SHOW THAT THE SUMS
COLLECTED FROM THE RAILROAD DO NOT EXCEED WHAT IS REASONABLY NEEDED IN
ITS CASE FOR INSPECTION AND SUPERVISION SERVICE.  FOOTE & CO. V.
STANLEY, 232 U.S. 494.  P. 162. 

(3)  THIS BURDEN WAS NOT SUSTAINED BY THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.  P.
165. 

3.  WHEN A CLAIM OF FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN DENIED BY A STATE COURT
UPON THE BASIS OF A FINDING OF FACT OR OF MIXED FACT AND LAW, THIS
COURT MUST EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT SUPPORTS THE
DECISION AGAINST THE FEDERAL CLAIM.  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587. 
P. 165. 

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. V. WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. 

APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT WHICH REVERSED A JUDGMENT FOR THE RAILWAY
COMPANY IN ITS ACTION TO RECOVER FEES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY EXACTED BY THE STATE. 

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THIS IS AN APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
FN1  IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE APPELLANT TO RECOVER FEES FOR THE
YEARS 1929-1933 PAID UNDER PROTEST TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS.  THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS ARE:  FN2 

"SECTION 1.  THAT HEREAFTER EVERY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION ENGAGED
IN BUSINESS AS A PUBLIC UTILITY AND SUBJECT TO REGULATION AS TO RATES
AND CHARGES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, EXCEPT AUTO
TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES AND STEAMBOAT COMPANIES HOLDING CERTIFICATES
UNDER CHAPTER 248 OF THE LAWS OF 1927, SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE FIRST
DAY OF APRIL OF EACH YEAR, FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS A
STATEMENT ON OATH SHOWING ITS GROSS OPERATING REVENUE FOR THE PRECEDING
CALENDAR YEAR OR PORTION THEREOF AND PAY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS A FEE OF 1/10 OF ONE PER CENT OF SUCH GROSS OPERATING REVENUE:
PROVIDED, THAT THE FEE SO PAID SHALL IN NO CASE BE LESS THAN TEN
DOLLARS." 

"SEC. 2.  ALL SUMS COLLECTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER THEIR RECEIPT
BE PAID TO THE STATE TREASURER, AND BY HIM DEPOSITED IN A FUND TO BE
KNOWN AS THE PUBLIC SERVICE REVOLVING FUND." 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE HAS DEFINED THE EXACTION AS A
REGULATORY OR INSPECTION FEE, AND HAS DECLARED THAT THE FUND CREATED BY
THE SUMS COLLECTED MUST BE USED SOLELY FOR ADMINISTERING THE STATE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION LAW.  FN3 

THE COMPLAINT  FN4  ALLEGES THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
EXERCISES JURISDICTION AND SUPERVISION OVER SUNDRY PUBLIC UTILITIES,
INCLUDING COMMON CARRIERS BY RAIL, ELECTRIC AND STREET RAILWAYS, GAS,
ELECTRICAL AND WATER COMPANIES, TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES,
WHARFINGERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND CARRIERS BY WATER, ENGAGES IN MANY
ACTIVITIES DISCONNECTED FROM, AND UNRELATED TO, THE INSPECTION AND
SUPERVISION OF RAIL CARRIERS, AND HAS A VARIETY OF DUTIES IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE STATE'S POLICE POWER.  THE COMPLAINT AFFIRMS THAT
THE FEE IS NOT BASED UPON OR RESTRICTED TO THE COST OF LEGITIMATE
REGULATION OR SUPERVISION BUT IS USED TO DEFRAY THE COSTS OF OTHER
ACTIVITIES IN CONNECTION WITH RAILROADS AND ALSO OF SUPERVISING AND
INSPECTING UNRELATED PUBLIC UTILITIES AND OF PERFORMING OTHER DUTIES
THE EXPENSE OF WHICH CANNOT LEGITIMATELY BE IMPOSED UPON CARRIERS BY
RAIL; THAT THE FEE IS GROSSLY IN EXCESS OF THE REASONABLE COST OF
INSPECTION AND REGULATION OF RAILROADS; THAT, TO JANUARY 1, 1933, THERE
HAD ACCUMULATED FROM THE FEES COLLECTED MORE THAN $250,000 IN EXCESS OF
THE AMOUNT EXPENDED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE DISCHARGE OF ALL ITS
DUTIES; THAT THE STATUTE IS IN TRUTH A REVENUE MEASURE; THAT THE STATE
TAXES PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY AND OTHER LIKE PROPERTY ON AN AD VALOREM
BASIS.  THE COMPLAINT CHARGES THAT THE FEE IS A BURDEN ON, AND A
REGULATION OF, INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SEC. 8 OF
THE CONSTITUTION; IS SO ARBITRARY, EXCESSIVE, DISCRIMINATORY AND
UNEQUAL AS TO DENY THE PLAINTIFF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND TO
DEPRIVE IT OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 

THE ANSWER ADMITS PLAINTIFF'S PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST; ADMITS THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS EXERCISES JURISDICTION AND SUPERVISION OVER
MANY CLASSES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, INCLUDING COMMON CARRIERS, AND THAT
THE PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS ASSESSED ON AN AD VALOREM
BASIS FOR TAXES LIKE OTHER PROPERTY; ADMITS PLAINTIFF'S CAPACITY TO
SUE, BUT DENIES SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT. 

THE CASE WAS TRIED WITHOUT A JURY.  THE EVIDENCE LARGELY CONSISTED OF
THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT.  BY THE UNCONTRADICTED EVIDENCE
AND BY THE RELEVANT STATUTES THE FOLLOWING FACTS WERE ESTABLISHED.  THE
DEPARTMENT HAS JURISDICTION OF VARIOUS CLASSES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES,
INCLUDING RAILROADS, ELECTRIC AND STREET RAILWAYS, GAS, ELECTRIC AND
WATER COMPANIES, TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES, WHARFINGERS,
WAREHOUSEMEN, AND CARRIERS BY WATER, IN RESPECT OF WHICH IT EXERCISES
MANY REGULATORY AND SUPERVISORY DUTIES.  AS RESPECTS RAILROADS, THE
DEPARTMENT CONSTANTLY EXERCISES FUNCTIONS UNRELATED TO INSPECTION AND
SUPERVISION, INCLUDING THE STATUTORY DUTIES OF TAKING PART IN
LITIGATION BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION AFFECTING THE
CITIZENS OF THE STATE, AND OF ACTING JUDICIALLY IN DECREEING REFUNDS OF
OVERCHARGES.  THESE FUNCTIONS, UNRELATED TO THE INSPECTION AND
REGULATION OF RAILROADS, ENTAIL LARGE EXPENSE.  BETWEEN 1929 AND 1933
THE LEGISLATURE MADE NO APPROPRIATION FROM THE STATE'S GENERAL FUND FOR
THE EXPENSES OF THE DEPARTMENT'S ACTIVITIES, ALL BEING PAID
INDISCRIMINATELY OUT OF THE DEPARTMENT'S FUND DERIVED FROM THE FEES
COLLECTED FROM BUSINESSES SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION.  DURING THIS
PERIOD THE SURPLUS ACCUMULATED FROM SUCH RECEIPTS WAS $224,193.95,
WHICH WAS EXPENDED IN 1934 IN CARRYING ON INVESTIGATIONS OF, AND
LITIGATION WITH, PUBLIC UTILITY CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN RAILROADS.  NO
SEPARATE ACCOUNTS ARE KEPT, OR REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE KEPT, WITH RESPECT
TO THE EXPENSE OF THESE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES, AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
DETERMINE FROM THE RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE DEPARTMENT THE EXPENSE
OF INSPECTING AND REGULATING RAILROADS SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE
EXPENSE OF REGULATING OTHER UTILITIES OR OTHER FUNCTIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT. 

THE PLAINTIFF CALLED THE DEPARTMENT'S AUDITOR WHO TESTIFIED THAT THE
CHARGE OF ONE-TENTH OF ONE PER CENT OF GROSS INCOME COLLECTED FROM
UTILITIES GOES TO BUILD UP A FUND FROM WHICH ALL THE DEPARTMENT'S
EXPENSES ARE PAID; THAT HE HAD FIGURES CLASSIFYING THE EXPENDITURES
ACCORDING TO THE VARIOUS KINDS OF UTILITIES WITH WHICH THE DEPARTMENT
IS CONCERNED.  THESE CALCULATIONS HE HAD MADE FOR HIMSELF, THERE BEING
NO DUTY UNDER THE LAW TO KEEP ACCOUNTS ON THIS BASIS.  HE TESTIFIED
THAT, IN COMPUTING THE EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH RAILROADS, HE
LUMPED THEM AS RAILROAD CHARGES AND MADE NO SEPARATION OF THE COSTS OF
INSPECTION AND REGULATION, THE COSTS OF RATE HEARINGS, AND THE COSTS OF
REPARATION PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT MANY OF
THE RAILROAD CHARGES HAD TO DO WITH REPARATION CASES AND LITIGATION
BEFORE THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.  AT THE CLOSE OF PLAINTIFF'S
CASE, THE DEFENDANT RECALLED THE AUDITOR AS ITS OWN WITNESS.  HE
TESTIFIED THAT THE DISBURSEMENTS CHARGEABLE TO THE RAILROADS FOR THE
PERIOD 1929 TO 1933, INCLUSIVE, EXCEEDED THE RECEIPTS FROM RAILROADS IN
THE SAME PERIOD BY $37,833.  HE DID NOT, HOWEVER, QUALIFY WHAT HE HAD
PREVIOUSLY STATED, THAT, IN MAKING UP THESE FIGURES, HE HAD LUMPED ALL
RAILROAD CHARGES, WHETHER FOR INSPECTION AND REGULATION OR INTERSTATE
COMMERCE CASES OR REPARATION CASES.  UPON CROSS-EXAMINATION IT
DEVELOPED THAT THE FIGURES HE SUBMITTED WERE NOT OFFICIAL, AND, SO FAR
AS THEY COVERED SALARY ITEMS, HAD BEEN MADE UP FROM SLIPS WHICH THE
VARIOUS EMPLOYEES, AT HIS REQUEST, HAD TURNED IN MONTHLY ALLOCATING THE
TIME EACH EMPLOYEE SPENT IN THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THE WORK, AND THE
WITNESS HAD NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCURACY OF THESE SLIPS. 
PLAINTIFF OBJECTED TO THE TESTIMONY AND MOVED TO STRIKE IT ON THE
GROUND THAT IT WAS HEARSAY BUT THE COURT LET IT STAND, SUBJECT TO THE
OBJECTION.  A JUDGMENT AWARDED THE PLAINTIFF BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS
REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT. 

THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING DECISION HAVE REPEATEDLY BEEN ANNOUNCED AND
WERE NOT QUESTIONED BELOW.  IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER THE
STATE MAY PROVIDE FOR THE SUPERVISION AND REGULATION OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES, SUCH AS RAILROADS; MAY DELEGATE THE DUTY TO AN OFFICER OR
COMMISSION; AND MAY EXACT THE REASONABLE COST OF SUCH SUPERVISION AND
REGULATION FROM THE UTILITIES CONCERNED AND ALLOCATE THE EXACTION
AMONGST THE MEMBERS OF THE AFFECTED CLASS WITHOUT VIOLATING THE RULE OF
EQUALITY IMPOSED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  FN5  THE SUPERVISION AND
REGULATION OF THE LOCAL STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES OF A CORPORATION
ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND THE IMPOSITION OF THE REASONABLE
EXPENSE THEREOF UPON SUCH CORPORATION, IS NOT A BURDEN UPON, OR
REGULATION OF, INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
OF THE CONSTITUTION.  FN6  A LAW EXHIBITING THE INTENT TO IMPOSE A
COMPENSATORY FEE FOR SUCH A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE IS PRIMA FACIE
REASONABLE.  FN7  IF THE EXACTION BE SO UNREASONABLE AND
DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE SERVICE AS TO IMPUGN THE GOOD FAITH OF THE LAW
FN8  IT CANNOT STAND EITHER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OR THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.  FN9  THE STATE IS NOT BOUND TO ADJUST THE CHARGE AFTER THE
FACT, BUT MAY, IN ANTICIPATION, FIX WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DEEMS TO BE A
FAIR FEE FOR THE EXPECTED SERVICE, THE PRESUMPTION BEING THAT IF, IN
PRACTICE, THE SUM CHARGED APPEARS INORDINATE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY WILL
REDUCE IT IN THE LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE.  FN10  SUCH A STATUTE MAY, IN
SPITE OF THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY, SHOW ON ITS FACE THAT SOME PART
OF THE EXACTION IS TO BE USED FOR A PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE LEGITIMATE
ONE OF SUPERVISION AND REGULATION AND MAY, FOR THAT REASON, BE VOID. 
FN11 AND A STATUTE FAIR UPON ITS FACE MAY BE SHOWN TO BE VOID AND
UNENFORCEABLE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS ACTUAL OPERATION.  FN12  IF THE
EXACTION BE CLEARLY EXCESSIVE IT IS BAD IN TOTO AND THE STATE CANNOT
COLLECT ANY PART OF IT.  FN13 

THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE CHALLENGED STATUTE IS VOID ON ITS FACE
SINCE IT DISCLOSES THAT THE FEE CHARGED THE APPELLANT IS NOT IMPOSED
FOR, OR LIMITED BY, THE REASONABLE COST OF SUPERVISION OR REGULATION OF
ITS BUSINESS; AND, IF THIS IS NOT SO, THE CASE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE
ACT'S OPERATION CAST ON THE APPELLEE THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WHICH IT
FAILED TO CARRY. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE BASED ITS DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE
VALIDITY OF THE STATUTE ON TWO GROUNDS:  FIRST, THAT THE ACT IS NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE; SECONDLY, THAT, AS THE ANSWER DENIED THE
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE OPERATIVE EFFECT
OF THE ACT, THE PLAINTIFF HAD THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WHICH IT FAILED TO
SUSTAIN; AND, IF THE BURDEN WAS SHIFTED BY THE CASE MADE BY THE
PLAINTIFF, THE EVIDENCE PREPONDERATED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT. 

FIRST.  THE STATUTE DOES NOT EXHIBIT A FAILURE REASONABLY TO ADJUST
THE FEE TO THE EXPENSE OF THE SUPERVISION AND REGULATION OF RAILROADS. 
THE LEGISLATION IS TO BE ACCORDED THE PRESUMPTION OF FAIRNESS AND
REGULARITY.  IT CANNOT BE DEDUCED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THAT
THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED FROM THE RAILROADS GROSSLY EXCEED THOSE
LEGITIMATELY EXPENDED FOR INSPECTION AND REGULATION.  THE APPELLANT
INSISTS THAT SUCH IS THE NECESSARY INFERENCE FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT
THE SAME FEE IS EXACTED FROM PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERALLY, AND THE
COLLECTIONS GO INTO A SINGLE FUND AND ARE INDISCRIMINATELY DISBURSED
FOR THE MANY BRANCHES OF THE DEPARTMENT'S WORK.  BUT THESE FACTS,
WITHOUT MORE, DO NOT PROVE THAT THE AMOUNTS DERIVED FROM THE RAILROADS
ARE IN EXCESS OF THE LEGITIMATE EXPENSES OF INSPECTION AND REGULATION. 
IT MAY BE THAT, IN SPITE OF THIS LUMPING OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES,
THE FEES PAID BY THE RAILROADS ARE NO MORE THAN ENOUGH TO DEFRAY SUCH
EXPENSES.  THE COURT BELOW WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO
HOLD THE STATUTE VOID ON ITS FACE. 

SECOND.  THE COURT THOUGHT THE PLAINTIFF HAD THE BURDEN OF SHOWING
THAT THE SUMS EXACTED FROM RAIL CARRIERS SUBSTANTIALLY EXCEEDED THE
AMOUNTS EXPENDED FOR REGULATION AND SUPERVISION, AND THE PROOFS OFFERED
WERE INSUFFICIENT TO SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE DEFENDANT.  THIS VIEW WAS
ERRONEOUS.  FOOTE & CO. V. STANLEY, 232 U.S. 494. 

IN THAT CASE IT APPEARED THAT THE PLAINTIFFS WERE PACKERS OF OYSTERS
TAKEN FROM THE WATERS OF MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND NEW JERSEY, AND
SHIPPED TO BALTIMORE.  A STATUTE OF MARYLAND REQUIRED THAT THE OYSTERS
BE INSPECTED AT BALTIMORE.  IT IMPOSED A CHARGE OF ONE CENT A BUSHEL
"TO HELP DEFRAY THE EXPENSES OF SUCH INSPECTION AND THE OTHER EXPENSES
OF THE STATE FISHERY FORCE, UPON ALL OYSTERS UNLOADED FROM VESSELS AT
THE PLACE WHERE SAID OYSTERS ARE TO BE NO FURTHER SHIPPED IN BULK IN
VESSELS."  THE PLAINTIFFS REFUSED TO PAY THE EXACTION AND, UPON THREAT
OF ENFORCEMENT, FILED A BILL IN A STATE COURT FOR INJUNCTION ALLEGING
THE FEE WAS EXCESSIVE, A BURDEN ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND A VIOLATION
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT "NO STATE SHALL, WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR
EXPORTS EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR EXECUTING ITS
INSPECTION LAWS."  THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS (117 MD. 335; 82 ATL.
380) AFFIRMED A DECREE DISMISSING THE BILL AND THIS COURT REVERSED ITS
DECISION.  THE PLAINTIFF ASSERTED THAT AS THE ACT LAID THE FEE FOR THE
EXPENSE OF INSPECTION, "AND OTHER EXPENSES," IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE
STATE HAD PROVIDED FOR THE COLLECTION OF MORE THAN WAS NECESSARY FOR
INSPECTION.  TO THIS THE STATE ANSWERED THAT THE SECTION LEVYING THE
FEE WAS BUT A PART OF AN ELABORATE SYSTEM OF INSPECTION IMPOSED UPON
THE STATE FISHERY FORCE.  IT APPEARED FROM THE EVIDENCE, AS IT DOES
HERE, THAT THE FISHERY FORCE HAD DUTIES OTHER THAN THOSE OF INSPECTION
WHICH WERE TO BE PAID FOR OUT OF THE FUND PRODUCED BY THE FEES.  THIS
COURT SAID (P. 503):    "BUT WHILE THE TWO DUTIES MAY SOMETIMES
OVERLAP, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLICING AND INSPECTION, AND IF
THE STATE IMPOSES UPON ONE SET OF OFFICERS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TWO
DUTIES AND PAYS THE WHOLE OR A PART OF THE JOINT EXPENSES OUT OF
INSPECTION FEES, IT MUST BE MADE TO APPEAR THAT SUCH TAX DOES NOT
MATERIALLY EXCEED THE COST OF INSPECTION - THE BURDEN IN SUCH CASES
BEING ON THOSE SEEKING TO COLLECT THE COMBINED CHARGE."  AND SAID
FURTHER (P. 506):    "BUT THE COMMINGLING OF THESE VARIOUS DUTIES, PAID
FOR OUT OF A FUND RAISED FOR INSPECTION, DOES NOT NECESSARILY SHOW THAT
THE FEE IS EXCESSIVE.  FOR THE PRESUMPTION OF INVALIDITY ARISING FROM
SUCH INTERMINGLING MIGHT BE MET BY CARRYING THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT,
WHILE THE STATUTE REQUIRED PAYMENT OUT OF SUCH JOINT FUND, THE
COLLECTIONS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT, BUT ONLY HELPED, TO PAY THE DEFINITELY
ASCERTAINED EXPENSES OF INSPECTION.  THE QUESTION OF REASONABLENESS,
THEREFORE, MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRACTICAL OPERATION OF
THE LAW WITH A VIEW OF DETERMINING, WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, THE
PERMANENT RELATION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT COLLECTED AND THE COST OF
INSPECTING." 

THE COURT EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE OPERATION OF A PRIOR LAW
WHICH LEVIED THE SAME CHARGE PER BUSHEL AND WHICH THE CHALLENGED ACT
SUPERSEDED, CONSISTING OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE COMPTROLLER, AND
FOUND THEREFROM THAT ONE-THIRD OF THE AMOUNT COLLECTED WAS SUFFICIENT
TO PAY THE COST OF INSPECTION AND THE OTHER TWO-THIRDS HAD BEEN
APPROPRIATED TO "OTHER EXPENSES OF THE FISHERY FORCE."  IN THE LIGHT OF
THE OPERATION OF THE PREVIOUS ACT, AND THE FAILURE OF THE STATE TO SHOW
THAT THE AMOUNT COLLECTED UNDER THE NEW LAW WOULD NOT BE MORE THAN WAS
NECESSARY FOR THE EXPENSES OF INSPECTION PROPER, THE CHALLENGED STATUTE
WAS HELD VOID. 

THERE ARE FACTUAL DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE CITED CASE AND THE INSTANT
ONE, BUT THEY DO NOT AFFECT THE BINDING AUTHORITY OF THE FORMER.  THE
LAW UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE FOOTE CASE WAS PURELY AN INSPECTION
MEASURE.  THAT HERE UNDER REVIEW IS CHARACTERIZED BY THE STATE COURT AS
ONE FOR REGULATION AND INSPECTION.  THE SPECIFIC MANDATE OF THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION LIMITING STATE INSPECTION FEES TO AN AMOUNT ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY FOR EXECUTING A STATE'S INSPECTION LAWS WAS TREATED IN THE
FOOTE CASE AS RAISING THE SAME ISSUE AS WAS PRESENTED IN EARLIER
DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE BEARING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE UPON THE
IMPOSITION OF REGULATORY AND INSPECTION FEES IMPOSED UPON LOCAL
PROPERTY OF INTERSTATE ENTERPRISES.  AND THE CASES DECIDED UNDER THE
COMMERCE CLAUSE DEALING WITH THE REASONABLENESS OF REGULATION AND
INSPECTION FEES HAVE BEEN TREATED BY THIS COURT AS APPOSITE TO THE
GUARANTEES OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.  IN THE FOOTE CASE REFERENCE TO
THE ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS KEPT BY STATE AUTHORITY DISCLOSED THE EXTENT
OF THE EXCESS OF RECEIPTS OVER EXPENDITURES, WHEREAS HERE IT IS
DEMONSTRATED THAT WHILE EXPENSES OTHER THAN THOSE OF INSPECTION AND
REGULATION OF RAILROADS ARE PAID OUT OF THE FEES, THE AMOUNT OF THE
EXCESS OVER WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR REGULATION AND INSPECTION CANNOT BE
ASCERTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT'S ACCOUNTS.  THE FOOTE CASE IS
AUTHORITY THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE BURDEN IS ON THOSE SEEKING TO
COLLECT THE CHARGE. 

THE STATE SUPREME COURT, AFTER HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO
CARRY ITS BURDEN, AND THAT NO DUTY OF SHOWING THE AMOUNT NECESSARY FOR
INSPECTION AND REGULATION OF RAILROADS LAY UPON THE DEFENDANT,
PROCEEDED TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE AND REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
PROOF PREPONDERATED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT.  THIS CONCLUSION WAS
BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEPARTMENT AUDITOR THAT HE HAD FOUND
FROM MEMORANDA FURNISHED HIM, AND DATA COLLECTED BY HIM, WHAT HAD BEEN
EXPENDED IN CONNECTION WITH RAILROADS EXCEEDED WHAT THEY HAD PAID.  AS
ALREADY NOTED THE APPELLANT INSISTS THAT THIS EVIDENCE WAS INADMISSIBLE
AND LACKED VALUE BECAUSE HEARSAY. 

THE STATE COURT SAID: 

"WHILE THE ACCOUNT KEPT BY THE AUDITOR WAS NOT OFFICIAL, IN THE SENSE
THAT OF ITSELF IT WAS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, YET WHAT THE AUDITOR DID
IN THAT RESPECT QUALIFIED HIM TO TESTIFY AS TO THE ULTIMATE FACT. 
WITHOUT FURTHER DETAILING THE EVIDENCE, WE WILL SAY THAT IN OUR
OPINION, AND IN SO FAR AS THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT, IT
PREPONDERATED AGAINST THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE COURT AS TO THE COST OF
SUPERVISING AND REGULATING RAILROADS." 

PASSING THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT A FEDERAL RIGHT MAY NOT BE
DENIED UNDER THE GUISE OF THE APPLICATION OF A STATE RULE OF EVIDENCE,
FN14  WE COME TO THE QUESTION WHETHER, WHEN THE ASSERTED RIGHT HAS BEEN
DENIED, THIS COURT IS CONCLUDED BY A FINDING OF FACT OR A MIXED FINDING
OF LAW AND FACT MADE BY THE STATE COURT.  WE HAVE REPEATEDLY HELD THAT
IN SUCH CASE WE MUST EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT
SUPPORTS THE DECISION AGAINST THE CLAIM OF FEDERAL RIGHT.  A RECENT
EXPOSITION OF THE DOCTRINE IS FOUND IN NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S. 587,
A CASE COMING HERE FROM A STATE COURT, IN WHICH THE APPELLANT CLAIMED
THAT HE HAD BEEN DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE SYSTEMATIC AND INTENTIONAL
EXCLUSION OF NEGROES FROM THE JURY LISTS.  THE STATE COURT HELD THAT
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH SUCH EXCLUSION.  THIS COURT REVIEWED THE
EVIDENCE, REACHED A CONCLUSION CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE STATE COURT, AND
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT.  AT PP. 589-590 IT WAS SAID: 

"THE QUESTION IS OF THE APPLICATION OF THIS ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE TO
THE FACTS DISCLOSED BY THE RECORD.  THAT THE QUESTION IS ONE OF FACT
DOES NOT RELIEVE US OF THE DUTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN TRUTH A FEDERAL
RIGHT HAS BEEN DENIED.  WHEN A FEDERAL RIGHT HAS BEEN SPECIALLY SET UP
AND CLAIMED IN A STATE COURT, IT IS OUR PROVINCE TO INQUIRE NOT MERELY
WHETHER IT WAS DENIED IN EXPRESS TERMS BUT ALSO WHETHER IT WAS DENIED
IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT.  IF THIS REQUIRES AN EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE,
THAT EXAMINATION MUST BE MADE.  OTHERWISE, REVIEW BY THIS COURT WOULD
FAIL OF ITS PURPOSE IN SAFEGUARDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.  THUS,
WHENEVER A CONCLUSION OF LAW OF A STATE COURT AS TO A FEDERAL RIGHT AND
FINDINGS OF FACT ARE SO INTERMINGLED THAT THE LATTER CONTROL THE
FORMER, IT IS ENCUMBENT UPON US TO ANALYZE THE FACTS IN ORDER THAT THE
APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT OF THE FEDERAL RIGHT MAY BE ASSURED." 

IN BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 282 U.S. 1, THE VALIDITY OF
A STATE INHERITANCE TAX ACT WAS CHALLENGED IN A STATE COURT, THE CLAIM
BEING THAT THE ACT OPERATED TO TAKE PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS IF
HELD TO APPLY TO PROPERTY HAVING NO SITUS IN THE STATE.  THE STATE
COURT HELD THAT INTANGIBLE PROPERTY, THE TRANSFER OF WHICH WAS SOUGHT
TO BE TAXED, HAD ACQUIRED A BUSINESS SITUS IN SOUTH CAROLINA.  THIS
COURT REEXAMINED THE QUESTION, IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AND
OVERRULED THE STATE COURT'S DECISION, SAYING (P. 8): 

"BUT A CONCLUSION THAT DEBTS HAVE THUS ACQUIRED A BUSINESS SITUS MUST
HAVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT, AND IT IS OUR PROVINCE TO INQUIRE WHETHER
THERE IS SUCH EVIDENCE WHEN THE INQUIRY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE ENFORCEMENT
OF A RIGHT SUITABLY ASSERTED UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION." 

IN JOHNSON OIL CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 290 U.S. 158, THERE WAS DRAWN IN
QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF AD VALOREM TAXES LAID UNDER A STATE STATUTE
UPON THE ENTIRE FLEET OF THE APPELLANT'S TANK CARS.  IT WAS CHARGED
THAT THE CARS DID NOT HAVE A SITUS WITHIN THE STATE AND THERE WAS,
THEREFORE, NO JURISDICTION TO TAX THEM.  THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
HELD THAT ALL THE CARS HAD THEIR TAXABLE SITUS WITHIN THE STATE.  THIS
COURT EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE, REACHED A CONTRARY CONCLUSION, AND
REVERSED THE JUDGMENT, SAYING (PP. 159-160): 

"AS THE ASSERTED FEDERAL RIGHT TURNS UPON THE DETERMINATION OF THE
QUESTION OF SITUS, IT IS OUR PROVINCE TO ANALYZE THE FACTS IN ORDER TO
APPLY THE LAW, AND THUS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CONCLUSION OF THE
STATE COURT HAS ADEQUATE SUPPORT IN THE EVIDENCE." 

CITATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE SAME PRINCIPLE MIGHT BE MULTIPLIED
INDEFINITELY.  FN15 

WHILE HOLDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEPARTMENT AUDITOR COMPETENT, THE
STATE COURT OMITS TO REFER TO THE FACT THAT THE FIGURES HE PRESENTED
WERE NOT ALLOCATED SO AS TO SHOW THE AMOUNTS SPENT FOR INSPECTION AND
REGULATION AND THOSE EXPENDED FOR OTHER SO-CALLED RAILROAD CHARGES
WHICH COULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON THE RAILROADS.  AS HAS BEEN POINTED
OUT, THE EVIDENCE IS UNCONTRADICTED AND CONCLUSIVE THAT THE SUMS HE
MENTIONED AS HAVING BEEN EXPENDED FOR RAILROAD ACCOUNT DID INCLUDE
SUBSTANTIAL, AND APPARENTLY LARGE, AMOUNTS FOR ACTIVITIES IN THE
INTEREST OF INTERSTATE SHIPPERS AND FOR THE TRIAL OF REPARATION CASES. 
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SUSTAIN THE STATE COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT SUCH
TESTIMONY HAD ANY PROBATIVE VALUE UPON THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE CAUSE,
WHICH WAS WHETHER THE STATUTE SUBJECTS THE RAILROADS TO AN UNREASONABLY
EXCESSIVE CHARGE FOR INSPECTION AND REGULATION.  AS WAS SAID IN THE
FOOTE CASE, THE STATE IS AT LIBERTY TO INTERMINGLE DUTIES INVOLVING
COSTS PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE RAILROADS, WITH OTHERS INVOLVING COSTS
NOT SO CHARGEABLE, BUT IF IT DOES SO, AND THE EXACTION IS CHALLENGED,
IT MUST ASSUME THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE SUMS EXACTED FROM THE
APPELLANT DO NOT EXCEED WHAT IS REASONABLY NEEDED FOR THE SERVICE
RENDERED.  THE STATE FAILED TO CARRY THIS BURDEN. 

IT RESULTS THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  184 WASH. 648; 52 P.(2D) 1274. 

FN2  C. 107 WASHINGTON SESSION LAWS OF 1929.  (REMINGTON'S REVISED
STATUTES SECS. 10417, 10418.)  THIS ACT AMENDED SEC. 1 OF C. 113 OF THE
LAWS OF 1921, AS AMENDED BY SEC. 1, C. 107 OF THE LAWS OF 1923.  IT
LEFT SEC. 2 OF C. 113, LAWS OF 1921, IN EFFECT. 

FN3  PACIFIC T. & T. CO. V. SEATTLE, 172 WASH. 649; 21 P.(2D) 721;
AFFIRMED ON OTHER QUESTIONS, 291 U.S. 300.  SEE ALSO THE OPINION BELOW,
184 WASH., PP. 650, 651; 52 P.(2D) P. 1275. 

FN4  THE COMPLAINT AS FILED SOUGHT RECOVERY ALSO OF SUMS PAID
PURSUANT TO OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS.  THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER,
ABANDONED THESE ITEMS OF CLAIM. 

FN5  CHARLOTTE, C. & A.R. CO. V. GIBBES, 142 U.S. 386; NEW YORK V.
SQUIRE, 145 U.S. 175, 191. 

FN6  ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEL. CO. V. PHILADELPHIA, 190 U.S. 160;
MACKAY TELEGRAPH CO. V. LITTLE ROCK, 250 U.S. 94, 99. 

FN7 WESTERN UNION V. NEW HOPE, 187 U.S. 419, 425; PURE OIL CO. V.
MINNESOTA, 248 U.S. 158, 162. 

FN8  MCLEAN V. DENVER & R.G.R. CO., 203 U.S. 38, 55.  COMPARE RED "C"
OIL CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA, 222 U.S. 380, 393.  WESTERN UNION V. NEW
HOPE, SUPRA. 

FN9  BRIMMER V. REBMAN, 138 U.S. 78, 83; POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO.
V. TAYLOR, 192 U.S. 64; PURE OIL CO. V. MINNESOTA, SUPRA, P. 162. 

FN10  ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEL. CO. V. PHILADELPHIA, SUPRA, P. 164;
POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. V. TAYLOR, SUPRA, P. 69.  FOOTE & CO. V.
STANLEY, 232 U.S. 494, 503, 504. 

FN11  FOOTE & CO. V. STANLEY, SUPRA, P. 505; LUGO V. SUAZO, 59 F.(2D)
386. 

FN12  WESTERN UNION V. NEW HOPE, SUPRA, P. 425; FOOTE & CO. V.
STANLEY, SUPRA, P. 507. 

FN13  POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO. V. NEW HOPE, 192 U.S. 55; FOOTE &
CO. V. STANLEY, SUPRA, P. 508. 

FN14  COMPARE MACKAY V. DILLON, 4 HOW.  421, 447; DOWER V. RICHARDS,
151 U.S. 658, 667; CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. V. BACKUS, 154 U.S.
439, 443; CEDAR RAPIDS GAS CO. V. CEDAR RAPIDS, 223 U.S. 655, 668;
BAILEY V. ALABAMA, 219 U.S. 219, 239; CENTRAL VERMONT RY. V. WHITE, 238
U.S. 507, 512; HILL V. SMITH, 260 U.S. 592, 594. 

FN15  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. V. ALBERS COMMISSION CO., 223 U.S.
573, 591; CRESWILL V. KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, 225 U.S. 246, 261; NORTHERN
PACIFIC RY. V. NORTH DAKOTA, 236 U.S. 585, 593; INTERSTATE AMUSEMENT
CO. V. ALBERT, 239 U.S. 560, 566; TRUAX V. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 324;
WARD & GOW V. KRINSKY, 259 U.S. 503, 511; AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. V.
DUNKEN, 266 U.S. 389, 394; FISKE V. KANSAS, 274 U.S. 380, 385; ANCIENT
ORDER V. MICHAUX, 279 U.S. 737, 745; CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE CORP. V.
GREGORY, 289 U.S. 85, 86. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO, DISSENTING. 

TO SHOW THAT THE REVOLVING FUND WAS USED AS A COMMON POT FOR THE
REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERALLY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR SPECIAL
FUNCTION, DOES NOT MAKE OUT A CASE OF WRONG TO RAILROADS CONSIDERED AS
A SEPARATE CLASS OR TO APPELLANT IN PARTICULAR.  FOR THE PURPOSES OF
THIS CASE THERE IS NO NEED TO INQUIRE WHETHER ANYTHING IN THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT FORBIDS THE RECOGNITION OF A SINGLE AND ALL
INCLUSIVE CLASS OF PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS WITHOUT FURTHER
SUBDIVISION.  IF THE PROHIBITION BE ASSUMED, STILL THE BURDEN IS ON THE
RAILROADS TO SATISFY THE COURT THAT WHAT WAS CONTRIBUTED BY THEM WAS
MORE THAN WHAT WAS EXPENDED FOR THEIR ACCOUNT, SINCE OTHERWISE THE
COMMON POT MAY HAVE BEEN A HELP AND NOT A HURT.  THAT BURDEN WAS NOT
DISCHARGED.  FAR FROM BEING DISCHARGED, THERE WAS A DISCLAIMER OF ANY
ATTEMPT OR PURPOSE TO DISCHARGE IT.  AND SO THE CASE MUST FAIL. 
NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA, 297 U.S. 682, 688, 689,
690. 

THE DECISION IN FOOTE V. STANLEY, 232 U.S. 494, MUCH RELIED ON BY
APPELLANT, IS INAPPLICABLE HERE.  THAT WAS A CASE UNDER ARTICLE I, SEC.
10, OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "NO STATE SHALL, WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, LAY ANY IMPOSTS OR DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR
EXPORTS, EXCEPT WHAT MAY BE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR EXECUTING ITS
INSPECTION LAWS."  MARYLAND PASSED AN ACT FOR THE PAYMENT OF CHARGES,
CHARACTERIZED AS INSPECTION FEES, UPON IMPORTS OF OYSTERS FROM
NEIGHBORING STATES.  THE "INSPECTORS" DID MORE THAN INSPECT THE
OYSTERS; THEY POLICED THE WATERS OF CHESAPEAKE BAY, BEING THUS
POLICEMEN AS WELL AS INSPECTORS.  ON ITS FACE THE ACT PROVIDED THAT A
FEE OF ONE CENT PER BUSHEL SHOULD BE "LEVIED TO HELP PAY THE SALARY OF
THE INSPECTORS AND THE OTHER EXPENSES OF THE STATE FISHERY FORCE."  232
U.S. AT 505.  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RULING WAS THAT IN A SUIT FOR
AN INJUNCTION BROUGHT BY THE IMPORTERS THE STATE HAD THE BURDEN OF
SHOWING THAT THE FEE WAS NOT AN UNREASONABLE ONE FOR THE SERVICE OF
INSPECTION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OTHER SERVICES COVERED THEREBY. 
IMPOSTS UPON INTERSTATE COMMERCE BEING GENERALLY PROHIBITED, AND BEING
LAWFUL ONLY WHEN "ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY" FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTION,
A CHARGE COVERING THE SERVICE OF INSPECTION AND ALSO SOMETHING ELSE
MUST COLLAPSE IN ITS ENTIRETY UNLESS THE STATE IS IN A POSITION TO
BREAK IT UP INTO ITS ELEMENTS.  A POWER HAS BEEN GRANTED TO BE USED IN
EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS.  THE STATE MUST BRING ITSELF WITHIN THE
EXCEPTION IF IT SEEKS TO ACT WITHIN THE GRANT. 

A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION CONFRONTS US IN THE CASE AT HAND.  HERE
THE STATUTE OF THE STATE DOES NOT TRESPASS UPON A FIELD OF LEGISLATION
WHERE ENTRY IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE LICENSE OF THE NATION.  WHAT HAS
BEEN DONE IS WELL WITHIN THE FIELD OF GENERAL LEGISLATIVE POWER, WITH
EVERY PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY BACK OF IT.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE
BURDEN OF MAKING GOOD A CLAIM OF INVALIDITY AND THUS ESTABLISHING AN
EXCEPTION IS ON THE ASSAILANTS OF THE RULE, AND NOT ON ITS PROPONENTS. 
THE CONCLUSION BECOMES CLEARER WHEN THE STATUTE IS ANALYZED MORE
CLOSELY.  ALL THAT IT DOES IS TO EXACT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERALLY
(WITH PARTICULAR EXCEPTIONS) A FEE OF 1/10TH OF ONE PER CENT OF THEIR
GROSS REVENUES, CONFINED, HOWEVER, TO OPERATIONS IN INTRASTATE
COMMERCE, THE FEE WHEN COLLECTED TO BE PAID INTO A REVOLVING FUND. 
LAWS OF WASHINGTON, 1929, C. 107; LAWS OF 1923, C. 107; LAWS OF 1921,
C. 113.  ANOTHER STATUTE (LAWS OF WASHINGTON, 1929, C. 108) LAYS A
HEAVIER TAX (1%), TO BE PAID INTO THE SAME FUND, UPON THE RECEIPTS OF
AUTO-TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES.  STEAMSHIP COMPANIES OF A STATED CLASS
ARE SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL RULE, THE FEE IN THEIR CASE BEING 1/5TH OF ONE
PER CENT.  LAWS OF WASHINGTON, 1927, C. 248.  PLAINLY THERE IS NO
PRESUMPTION THAT THESE VARYING CONTRIBUTIONS ARE OUT OF PROPORTION TO
THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN SUPERVISING AND REGULATING THE SEVERAL CLASSES
OF CONTRIBUTORS.  ILLEGALITY, IF THERE IS ANY, IS TO BE FOUND IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATUTE, AND NOT IN ANYTHING INHERENT IN ITS
ESSENTIAL SCHEME AND FRAMEWORK.  THAT BEING SO, THE TAXPAYER MAY NOT
REST UPON A SHOWING OF POSSIBLE OVERPAYMENT.  THERE MUST BE A SHOWING
OF AN OVERPAYMENT NOT MERELY POSSIBLE BUT ACTUAL, AND ONE SUBSTANTIAL
IN AMOUNT.  NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. CO. V. NORTH CAROLINA, SUPRA; FOOTE
V. STANLEY, SUPRA.  TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO GO COUNTER TO THE
SETTLED RULE THAT "ONE WHO WOULD STRIKE DOWN A STATE STATUTE AS
OBNOXIOUS TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION MUST SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEATURE INJURES HIM."  PREMIER-PABST SALES CO. V.
GROSSCUP, 298 U.S. 226, 227.  ANALOGIES DRAWN FROM THE LAW OF TRUSTS
ARE INAPPOSITE AND MISLEADING.  THE STATE DOES NOT COLLECT THE TAXES OR
PLACE THEM IN THE FUND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CONTRIBUTOR OR FOR ANY ONE
ELSE.  IT RECEIVES THE MONEYS AND EXPENDS THEM AS AN OWNER, CHARGED
WITH NO OTHER DUTY TO A PARTICULAR GROUP OF TAXPAYERS THAN TO MEMBERS
OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY. 

THE BURDEN RESTING ON THE RAILROADS TO SHOW THAT THE USE OF THE
COMMON POT HAS RESULTED TO THEIR DAMAGE, THE RECORD MUST BE SCRUTINIZED
TO SEE WHETHER THE BURDEN HAS BEEN BORNE.  IN THAT SCRUTINY THERE IS NO
DENIAL OF A DUTY TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT,
IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS SURFACE PROTESTATIONS, AMOUNTS IN SUBSTANCE AND
REALITY TO THE DENIAL OF A FEDERAL RIGHT.  NORRIS V. ALABAMA, 294 U.S.
587, 589; BEIDLER V. SOUTH CAROLINA TAX COMM'N, 282 U.S. 1, 8.  THERE
IS A RECOGNITION OF THE DUTY, AND AN ENDEAVOR TO FULFILL IT. 

1.  THE TRIAL COURT SUGGESTED TO COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT THAT IT WOULD
BE INTERESTING TO KNOW WHETHER THE AMOUNT THAT HAD BEEN COLLECTED
THROUGH THE TAX UPON THE RAILROADS WAS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT EXPENDED
FOR THEIR BENEFIT.  COUNSEL RESPONDED THAT HE WOULD NOT EMBARK ON THAT
INQUIRY.  HIS POSITION WAS STATED TO BE THAT THE ACT WAS INVALID ON ITS
FACE, IN WHICH EVENT IT WOULD BE VAIN TO PURSUE THE SUBJECT FURTHER. 
THIS COURT BY ITS OPINION HAS REJECTED THAT CONTENTION.  THE ACT IS NOT
INVALID ON ITS FACE, WHETHER VALID OR INVALID OTHERWISE. 

2.  EXPLAINING OR AT LEAST SUPPLEMENTING THE REFUSAL TO COMPARE
DISBURSEMENTS AND RECEIPTS, COUNSEL STATED ON THE TRIAL THAT THERE WERE
NO RECORDS AVAILABLE.  BUT THE CONTRARY WAS CLEARLY PROVED.  THE
AUDITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CAUSED THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
DEPARTMENT TO SUBMIT VOUCHERS OR SLIPS DESCRIPTIVE OF THEIR SERVICES
WITH AN APPROPRIATE SEGREGATION AND APPORTIONMENT AMONG THE SEVERAL
CLASSES OF UTILITIES.  HE TESTIFIED ON THE BASIS OF THESE REPORTS,
WHICH WERE ON FILE IN HIS OFFICE, THAT DISBURSEMENTS FOR ACCOUNT OF THE
RAILROADS WERE IN EXCESS BY $37,833.14 OF THE RAILROADS'
CONTRIBUTIONS.  COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT EXPRESSES HIS BELIEF THAT
INSPECTION AND DISCOVERY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE VOUCHERS WOULD HAVE
YIELDED INADEQUATE INFORMATION.  HIS BUSINESS WAS TO LOOK AND SEE. 

3.  THE OBJECTION WILL NOT HOLD THAT THE DOCUMENTS MIGHT BE IGNORED
FOR THE REASON THAT, IF PRODUCED, THEY WOULD BE INCOMPETENT AS
EVIDENCE.  APART FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF EXAMINING THE MEN WHO MADE
THEM, IT IS THE LAW OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, DECLARED IN THIS VERY
CASE, THAT THE SLIPS AND VOUCHERS SO FILED IN THE COURSE OF THE
BUSINESS OF THE BUREAU WERE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE TESTIMONY OF THE
AUDITOR AS TO THE CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THEM.  REFERRING TO THAT
SUBJECT, THE COURT SAID:  "WHILE THE ACCOUNT KEPT BY THE AUDITOR WAS
NOT OFFICIAL, IN THE SENSE THAT OF ITSELF IT WAS ADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE, YET WHAT THE AUDITOR DID IN THAT RESPECT QUALIFIED HIM TO
TESTIFY AS TO THE ULTIMATE FACT.  WITHOUT FURTHER DETAILING THE
EVIDENCE, WE WILL SAY THAT IN OUR OPINION, AND IN SO FAR AS THERE WAS
ANY EVIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT, IT PREPONDERATED AGAINST THE FINDINGS MADE
BY THE (TRIAL) COURT AS TO THE COST OF SUPERVISING AND REGULATING
RAILROADS." 

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE THUS ACCEPTED AND RELIED UPON WOULD BE REJECTED
BY OTHER COURTS EITHER AS HEARSAY OR ON OTHER GROUNDS IS QUITE BESIDE
THE POINT.  THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT CONFINE THE STATES TO THE
COMMON LAW RULES OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER WELL ESTABLISHED.  WEST V.
LOUISIANA, 194 U.S. 258, 262, 263; BROWN V. NEW JERSEY, 175 U.S. 172,
174, 175; TWINING V. NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 101; LURIA V. UNITED
STATES, 231 U.S. 9, 25.  "THE STATE IS NOT TIED DOWN BY ANY PROVISION
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TO THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE WHICH EXISTED
AT THE COMMON LAW."  BROWN V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA.  THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
TESTIMONY OF THE AUDITOR DOES NOT TOUCH THE PRIVILEGE OF CONFRONTATION
IN A PROSECUTION FOR A CRIME.  SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97,
106.  IT DOES NOT SUBSTITUTE HEARSAY FOR DIRECT TESTIMONY GENERALLY OR
AS TO EVERY POSSIBLE ISSUE ARISING IN A CASE.  AT MOST IT IS AN
ENLARGEMENT OF THE COMMON LAW RULE AS TO ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR
IN PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.  CF. WIGMORE, EVIDENCE, VOL. 3, SEC.
1517 ET SEQ; SEC. 1630 ET SEQ. 

HEARSAY IS COMPETENT EVIDENCE BY THE LAW OF MANY ENLIGHTENED
COUNTRIES.  STUMBERG, GUIDE TO THE LAW AND LEGAL LITERATURE OF FRANCE,
PP. 148, 149; ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, TITLE "EVIDENCE";
VOL. V., PP. 646, 647.  EVEN AT COMMON LAW IT IS COMPETENT AT CERTAIN
TIMES AND FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES, THOUGH NARROWLY RESTRICTED.  WIGMORE,
EVIDENCE, VOL. 3, SEC. 1420 ET SEQ.; THAYER, A PRELIMINARY TREATISE ON
EVIDENCE AT THE COMMON LAW, P. 518.  THE RANGE OF ITS COMPETENCE HAS
BEEN GREATLY ENLARGED BY STATUTES IN MANY OF THE STATES, AS, E.G., IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS, AND BY THE
RELAXATION OF ANCIENT RULES AS TO ENTRIES IN ACCOUNTS.  DODD,
ADMINISTRATION OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, PP. 227-236; WIGMORE,
EVIDENCE, SUPPLEMENT, 1934, SECS. 1519, 1520; MORGAN AND OTHERS, THE
LAW OF EVIDENCE, P. 51; NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE ACT, SEC. 374 A; CF.
MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INSURANCE CO. V. NORWICH PHARMACAL CO., 18
F.(2D) 934; CUB FORK COAL CO. V. FAIRMONT GLASS CO., 19 F.(2D) 273;
UNITED STATES V. COTTER, 60 F.(2D) 689.  THE QUESTION MAY BE LAID ASIDE
WHETHER A CHANGE IN THE LAW OF EVIDENCE MIGHT BE SO RADICAL AND UNJUST
AS TO WORK A DESTRUCTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THUS A DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS.  BROWN V. NEW JERSEY, SUPRA, P. 175.  ASSUMING SUCH A
POSSIBILITY, THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS RULING TO MAKE IT A REALITY.  IF
THE LEGISLATURE OF WASHINGTON HAD PASSED A STATUTE TO THE EFFECT THAT
VOUCHERS IN A PUBLIC OFFICE, FILED BY THE EMPLOYEES AT THE BIDDING OF A
SUPERIOR, SHOULD BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH OF THEIR
CONTENTS, IT IS NOT OPEN TO DOUBT THAT SUCH A STATUTE WOULD BE VALID. 
IT WOULD NOT EVEN INVOLVE AN EXTREME DEPARTURE FROM COMMON LAW
ANALOGIES ROOTED IN THE PRESUMPTION OF OFFICIAL REGULARITY.  WHAT A
STATE MAY DO IN CHANGING THE RULES OF EVIDENCE THROUGH THE ACTION OF
ITS LEGISLATURE, IT MAY DO WITH EQUAL COMPETENCE THROUGH THE ACTION OF
ITS JUDGES, FOR ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES. 

4.  APPELLANT DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS BURDEN BY PROVING IN A VAGUE WAY
THAT SOME OF THE DISBURSEMENTS CLASSIFIED BY THE AUDITOR AS A CHARGE
AGAINST THE RAILROADS WERE INCIDENTAL TO PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BEFORE
THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION OR ELSEWHERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF
PRIVATE SHIPPERS AND WERE NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE EXPENSE OF LOCAL
REGULATION. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKES THE GROUND THAT DISBURSEMENTS FROM THE
REVOLVING FUND, IF MADE FOR THAT PURPOSE, WERE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF
LAW.  IF THAT BE SO, THEY CANNOT AVAIL TO INVALIDATE THE STATUTE,
THOUGH THEY MAY LAY THE BASIS FOR A REMEDY IN BEHALF OF THE STATE OR
OTHERS AGAINST THE OFFICERS OR AGENTS GUILTY OF UNINTENTIONAL
MISFEASANCE.  ASIDE, HOWEVER, FROM THAT OBJECTION, THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT
BY APPELLANT TO PROVE THE AMOUNT OF THESE OR LIKE WITHDRAWALS IN EVEN
THE ROUGHEST FASHION.  THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION, MUCH LESS EVIDENCE,
THAT THEY WOULD WIPE OUT THE EXCESS OF $37,833.14 STATED BY THE
AUDITOR.  AN INQUIRY DIRECTED TO THE POINT WOULD HAVE YIELDED IN ALL
LIKELIHOOD AN ESTIMATE AT LEAST APPROXIMATELY CORRECT.  IF SUCH INQUIRY
WAS INADEQUATE, THE SLIPS AND VOUCHERS WERE AVAILABLE FOR SCRUTINY AND
DISSECTION.  EXAMINATION OF THE AUDITOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DOCUMENTS WOULD HAVE SHOWN FORTH THE TRUTH. 

THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY WHICH SUSTAINS AN ACT OF LEGISLATION IS
UNBROKEN BY THE EVIDENCE. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS AND MR. JUSTICE STONE JOIN IN
THIS OPINION. 
..END :










STOCKHOLDERS V. STERLING, 300 U.S. 175 


NO. 298.  ARGUED JANUARY 6, 7, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 169
MD. 678, 182 ATL. 558 - 169 MD. 696, 182 ATL. 566, AFFIRMED. 


THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION, (1867) ART. III, SEC. 39, FORBIDS THE
CHARTERING OF BANKS EXCEPT UPON CONDITION THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS SHALL
BE LIABLE TO THE AMOUNT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES FOR THE DEBTS OF THE
BANK; AND AN EARLY STATUTE, COUCHED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE, WAS
CONSTRUED BY THE STATE COURTS AS CONFERRING UPON THE CREDITOR OF AN
INSOLVENT BANK A SUPPLEMENTARY RIGHT OF ACTION, EX CONTRACTU, AGAINST
ITS STOCKHOLDERS, BUT ONLY THOSE STOCKHOLDERS WHO WERE SUCH WHEN HIS
CREDIT WAS CONTRACTED,  - A LIABILITY WHICH FOLLOWED THE STOCKHOLDER
AFTER HE HAD CEASED TO BE SUCH, AND WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO ANY RIGHT OF
SET-OFF OR COUNTERCLAIM AVAILABLE TO THE STOCKHOLDER AGAINST THE BANK
AT THE TIME OF THE CREDITOR'S SUIT.  A LATER ENACTMENT ABOLISHED THIS
METHOD AND MADE THE STOCKHOLDERS' LIABILITY AN ASSET OF THE CORPORATION
FOR THE BENEFIT RATABLY OF ALL THE DEPOSITORS AND CREDITORS, AND
ENFORCIBLE ONLY AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS WHO WERE SUCH AT THE TIME OF THE
BANK'S LIQUIDATION, AND BY PROCEEDINGS BY A RECEIVER, ASSIGNEE OR
TRUSTEE OF THE CORPORATION ACTING UNDER THE ORDERS OF A COURT.  HELD
THAT THE LATER STATUTE DID NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHTS OF STOCKHOLDERS
UNDER THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE: 

(A)  THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FIXED THE SUBSTANTIVE
STOCKHOLDER LIABILITY; THE STATUTES MERELY AFFORDED REMEDIES FOR ITS
ENFORCEMENT.  PP. 178, 181. 

(B)  THE EFFECT UPON CONTRACTS, WROUGHT BY CHANGE IN JUDICIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF ANTECEDENT STATE LAWS OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, IS
NOT WITHIN THE CONTRACT CLAUSE OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.  P. 182. 

(C)  STOCKHOLDERS WHO BECAME SUCH WHILE THE FIRST STATUTE WAS IN
FORCE WERE CHARGEABLE WITH NOTICE THAT A NEW REMEDY MIGHT BE ADOPTED IF
THE ONE FIRST CHOSEN WAS INADEQUATE; AND THIS INDEPENDENTLY OF A POWER
OF ALTERATION OR REPEAL RESERVED IN THE BANK'S CHARTER.  P. 181. 

(D)  WHEN A CORPORATE CHARTER IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT IT MAY
BE ALTERED OR REPEALED BY THE LEGISLATURE, THERE IS NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL
CHANGE OF THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT BY A SUBSEQUENT ENLARGEMENT OF
THE LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS AS TO DEBTS AFTERWARDS CONTRACTED, THOUGH
THE SHARES SO AFFECTED WERE ACQUIRED BEFORE THE CHARTER WAS SO
AMENDED.  P. 183. 

(E)  THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTIONAL LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS IN BANKS
IS NOT A MAXIMUM, BUT A MINIMUM, AND THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT TRANSCEND
THE BOUNDS OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY INCREASING IT, AS TO EXISTING
STOCKHOLDERS, UNDER ITS RESERVED POWER TO ALTER OR AMEND CHARTERS.  P.
183. 

WHETHER THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE WOULD HAVE GONE
TOO FAR IF THEY HAD BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO DEBTS EXISTING AT DATE OF
ENACTMENT IS NOT DECIDED.  SEE SMITH V. SHERMAN, 1 BLACK 587, 594.  THE
BURDEN OF PROVING THAT SUCH DEBTS EXISTED WAS ON THE APPELLANTS, AND IN
THIS THEY FAILED. 

STOCKHOLDERS OF THE PEOPLES BANKING CO. V. STERLING, RECEIVER.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 299, STOCKHOLDERS OF THE HAGERSTOWN BANK & TRUST
CO. V. STERLING, RECEIVER.  APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND. 

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. 

APPEALS, IN TWO CASES, FROM DECREES REVERSING A LOWER COURT AND
SUSTAINING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PROTESTING STOCKHOLDERS, IN TWO
PROCEEDINGS TO LIQUIDATE BANKS. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

STOCKHOLDERS IN BANKING CORPORATIONS, CHARGED WITH PERSONAL
LIABILITY, CONTEND THAT A STATUTE OF MARYLAND DEFINING THE FORM OF
LIABILITY AND ITS MEASURE OFFENDS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES BY IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS PREVIOUSLY
MADE. 

IN NO. 298, THE LIABILITY IN CONTROVERSY IS THAT OF STOCKHOLDERS IN
THE PEOPLES BANKING COMPANY OF SMITHSBURG, WHICH WAS INCORPORATED UNDER
THE LAWS OF MARYLAND, JANUARY 24, 1910, AND CLOSED ITS DOORS JUNE 29,
1931.  THE BANK COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE, AFTER BEING APPOINTED
RECEIVER, FILED A PETITION WITH A CIRCUIT COURT IN MARYLAND FOR AN
ORDER ASSESSING THE STOCKHOLDERS OF RECORD IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 100%
OF THE PAR VALUE OF THEIR SHARES.  AN ORDER WAS MADE ACCORDINGLY IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ACTS, 1910, CHAPTER 219(CODE OF
MARYLAND, ARTICLE II, SEC. 72).  THEREAFTER THE APPELLANTS FILED
PETITIONS FOR THE REVOCATION OF THE ORDER, ALLEGING THE INVALIDITY OF
THE STATUTE IMPOSING LIABILITY, AND ALLEGING ALSO THAT THOSE OF THEM
WHO HAD PAID THE ASSESSMENTS BEFORE JOINING IN THE PETITIONS HAD DONE
SO BY MISTAKE.  AT THE DATE OF LIQUIDATION APPELLANTS WERE THE HOLDERS
OF OVER 2000 SHARES OF STOCK.  THIRTEEN APPELLANTS HAD BECOME THE
HOLDERS OF A RELATIVELY SMALL PORTION OF THESE SHARES (345) BEFORE THE
ENACTMENT OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTE.  NEARLY ALL THE APPELLANTS WERE
DEPOSITORS IN THE INSOLVENT BANK AND WERE THUS CREDITORS AS WELL AS
STOCKHOLDERS.  THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND,
GRANTED THE PETITIONS, HOLDING THE STATUTE VOID AS AN IMPAIRMENT OF
EXISTING CONTRACTS.  THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED, AND ADJUDGED THE
STATUTE VALID.  GHINGHER V. BACHTELL, 169 MD. 678; 182 ATL. 558.  THE
CASE IS HERE UPON APPEAL.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 237; 28 U.S.C. SEC.
344. 

IN NO. 299, THE LIABILITY IN CONTROVERSY IS THAT OF STOCKHOLDERS IN
THE HAGERSTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN 1902. 
THE TRUST COMPANY WAS CLOSED IN FEBRUARY, 1933, AND IN JANUARY, 1935,
AN ORDER WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ALL THE STOCKHOLDERS TO THE
EXTENT OF 100% OF THE PAR VALUE OF THEIR SHARES, PROVIDED THAT NO GOOD
CAUSE WAS SHOWN TO THE CONTRARY WITHIN A STATED TIME.  THE APPELLANTS
IN THIS CASE, UNLIKE SOME OF THE APPELLANTS IN NO. 298, ACQUIRED THEIR
SHARES AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1910 STATUTE.  EVEN SO, THEY APPEARED
WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT IN OPPOSITION TO THE ASSESSMENT, ASSERTING THAT
THE STATUTE WAS INVALID AS TO THEM.  THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINTGON
COUNTY SUSTAINED THEIR OPPOSITION, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED. 
GHINGHER V. KAUSLER, 169 MD. 696; 182 ATL. 566.  IN THIS CASE ALSO THE
CONTROVERSY IS HERE UPON APPEAL. 

THE QUESTIONS IN THE TWO CASES WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 

FIRST:  THE CASE OF THE PEOPLES BANKING COMPANY OF SMITHSBURG. 

THE CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND PROVIDES THAT "THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SHALL GRANT NO CHARTER FOR BANKING PURPOSES  ...  EXCEPT UPON THE
CONDITION THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE AMOUNT OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE SHARE OR SHARES OF STOCK IN SUCH BANKING INSTITUTION, FOR
ALL ITS DEBTS AND LIABILITIES UPON NOTE, BILL OR OTHERWISE."  MARYLAND
CONSTITUTION, 1867, ARTICLE III, SEC. 39.  THIS PROVISION WAS EFFECTIVE
WITHOUT MORE TO IMPOSE A SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITY UPON STOCKHOLDERS IN
BANKS.  GHINGHER V. BACHTELL, SUPRA, PP. 688, 690.  ON THE OTHER HAND,
IT DID NOT TAKE FROM THE LEGISLATURE THE POWER TO IMPLEMENT THE
LIABILITY WITH STATUTORY REMEDIES, NOR IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH STATUTES
DID IT TAKE THAT POWER FROM THE COURTS.  GHINGHER V. BACHTELL, SUPRA.
IN JANUARY, 1910, WHEN THE SMITHSBURG BANK WAS ORGANIZED, THE ONLY
APPLICABLE STATUTE WAS CHAPTER 206 OF THE ACTS OF 1870.  THE ACT SHOWS
BY ITS TITLE THAT IT IS ONE "TO CREATE STATE BANKING INSTITUTIONS TO
ENABLE THE SEVERAL BANKS IN THIS STATE - STATE AND NATIONAL - TO AVAIL
OF THE PROVISIONS THEREOF."  IT PROVIDES (SEC. 11) THAT "THE
CONTINUANCE OF THE SAID SEVERAL CORPORATIONS SHALL BE ON THE CONDITION
THAT THE STOCKHOLDERS AND DIRECTORS OF EACH OF SAID CORPORATIONS SHALL
BE LIABLE TO THE AMOUNT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARE OR SHARES OF STOCK IN
SUCH CORPORATION, FOR ALL ITS DEBTS AND LIABILITIES UPON NOTE, BILL OR
OTHERWISE, AND UPON THIS FURTHER CONDITION, THAT THIS ACT AND EVERY
PART OF IT MAY BE ALTERED FROM TIME TO TIME, OR REPEALED BY THE
LEGISLATURE."  THE MARYLAND COURTS HAVE HELD IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS
THAT THE LIABILITY THUS RECOGNIZED WAS NOT ENFORCIBLE BY THE BANK
ITSELF IN THE EVENT OF ITS INSOLVENCY, OR BY A LIQUIDATOR OR RECEIVER
SUING IN ITS BEHALF.  GHINGHER V. BACHTELL, SUPRA; MINERS BANK V.
SNYDER, 100 MD. 57, 67; 59 ATL. 707; COLTON V. MAYER, 90 MD. 711, 714;
45 ATL. 874.  THE RIGHT OF ACTION WAS NO PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE
INSOLVENT CORPORATION.  THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE WAS THOUGHT TO BE
THAT EVERY CREDITOR OF THE CORPORATION IN ASSUMING THAT RELATION
ACQUIRED FOR HIS INDIVIDUAL USE, AND NOT AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, A
SUPPLEMENTAL RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE HOLDERS OF THE SHARES.  TO
RATIONALIZE THIS RIGHT OF ACTION, IT WAS SAID TO REST UPON AN IMPLIED
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CREDITOR ON THE ONE SIDE AND ON THE OTHER THE
HOLDERS OF THE SHARES AT THE CREATION OF THE DEBT.  GHINGHER V.
BACHTELL, SUPRA.  CONTRACT BEING THE BASIS OF THE STATUTORY REMEDY, THE
COURTS DEDUCED THE CONSEQUENCE THAT THE LIABILITY DID NOT EXTEND TO
STOCKHOLDERS WHO BECAME SUCH AFTER THE DEBT WAS IN EXISTENCE.  FOR THE
SAME REASON ANY STOCKHOLDER WAS FREE TO REDUCE HIS LIABILITY BY THE USE
OF SET-OFFS OR COUNTERCLAIMS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SUIT AGAINST THE
PRIMARY OBLIGOR.  GHINGHER V. BACHTELL, SUPRA, P. 694; CAHILL V.
ORIGINAL BIG GUN ASSN., 94 MD. 353; 50 ATL. 1044. 

IN JUNE, 1910, LESS THAN FIVE MONTHS AFTER THE INCORPORATION OF THIS
BANK, A STATUTE WAS ENACTED, ABROGATING THE REMEDY UNDER THE THEN
EXISTING STATUTE AND SUBSTITUTING ANOTHER.  ACTS OF 1910, C. 219;
MARYLAND CODE, ARTICLE II, SEC. 72 "STOCKHOLDERS OF EVERY BANK AND
TRUST COMPANY SHALL BE HELD INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE, EQUALLY AND
RATABLY, AND NOT ONE FOR ANOTHER, FOR ALL CONTRACTS, DEBTS AND
ENGAGEMENTS OF EVERY SUCH CORPORATION, TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF
THEIR STOCK THEREIN, AT THE PAR VALUE THEREOF, IN ADDITION TO THE
AMOUNT INVESTED IN SUCH STOCK  ... AND THE LIABILITY OF SUCH
STOCKHOLDERS SHALL BE AN ASSET OF THE CORPORATION FOR THE BENEFIT
RATABLY OF ALL THE DEPOSITORS AND CREDITORS OF ANY SUCH CORPORATION, IF
NECESSARY TO PAY THE DEBTS OF SUCH CORPORATION, AND SHALL BE
ENFORCEABLE ONLY BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS BY A RECEIVER, ASSIGNEE OR
TRUSTEE OF SUCH CORPORATION ACTING UNDER THE ORDERS OF A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION."  A LIKE REMEDY HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN CREATED
AGAINST STOCKHOLDERS IN TRUST COMPANIES.  ACTS OF 1904, C. 101; ACTS OF
1908, C. 153.  THROUGH THESE AMENDATORY ACTS, THE CAUSE OF ACTION
FORMERLY ENFORCIBLE BY THE CREDITORS SEPARATELY, EACH SUING FOR
HIMSELF, BECAME ENFORCIBLE BY THE RECEIVER AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
ALL.  AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE NEW PROCEDURE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE
LAID UPON ALL THE HOLDERS OF SHARES AT THE TIME OF LIQUIDATION WITHOUT
REFERENCE TO THEIR RELATION TO THE BANK AT THE CREATION OF THE DEBTS,
THOUGH STOCKHOLDERS DROPPING OUT SOONER MIGHT ESCAPE A LIABILITY WHICH
UNDER THE EARLIER LAW WOULD HAVE CLUNG TO THEM INDEFINITELY.  MOREOVER,
OFFSETS AND COUNTERCLAIMS WERE NO LONGER TO BE AVAILABLE TO REDUCE THE
SEVERAL ASSESSMENTS AND THUS ESTABLISH INEQUALITY.  STOCKHOLDERS WHEN
SUED BY THE RECEIVER WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUND RATABLY, AND THEN
PROVE THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE BANK IN THE SAME WAY AS OTHER
CREDITORS.  SUCH IN OUTLINE IS THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTORY CHANGES AS
THE HIGHEST COURT OF MARYLAND HAS DEFINED THEM IN THIS VERY CASE. 

DO CHANGES OF THAT ORDER IMPAIR THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CORPORATION AND THE STOCKHOLDERS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES? 

THE ANSWER MUST BE "NO," AND THIS FOR TWO REASONS, FIRST, BECAUSE THE
CHANGES ARE DIRECTED TO THE IMPLEMENTING REMEDIES RATHER THAN THE
SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITY, AND SECOND, BECAUSE A CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE
LIABILITY WAS MADE PERMISSIBLE BY THE RESERVATION OF A POWER OF
ALTERATION OR REPEAL. 

(1)  THE OBLIGATION LAID UPON THE SHAREHOLDERS BY THE MARYLAND
CONSTITUTION, THOUGH SUSCEPTIBLE OF LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL REGULATION
IN RESPECT OF THE MODE OF ITS ENFORCEMENT, WAS A SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITY
TO WHICH EVERY STOCKHOLDER SUBJECTED HIMSELF UPON THE ACQUISITION OF
HIS STOCK.  THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT EXHAUST THE MEASURE OF THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL LIABILITY BY THE CREATION OF A PARTICULAR REMEDIAL
DEVICE.  THE REMEDY ADOPTED WAS INTERPRETED JUDICIALLY AS HAVING IN
VIEW A SUIT BY A CREDITOR AGAINST THE PARTICULAR GROUP OF STOCKHOLDERS
WHO HAD UNDERTAKEN BY IMPLICATION TO ANSWER FOR HIS DEBT.  THIS DOES
NOT MEAN THAT A DIFFERENT FORM OF REMEDY, FOR EXAMPLE A SUIT BY A
RECEIVER, WOULD HAVE BEEN A DEPARTURE FROM THE CONSTITUTION, IF THE
STATUTE HAD PRESCRIBED THAT METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT.  THE BROAD BUT
INDEFINITE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND GAVE PERMISSION TO THE
LEGISLATURE TO ESTABLISH ANY REMEDIES REASONABLY APPROPRIATE TO THE
GENERAL END IN VIEW.  CF. WHITMAN V. OXFORD NATIONAL BANK, 176 U.S.
559, 562; BERNHEIMER V. CONVERSE, 206 U.S. 516, 529.  SO, THE BROAD BUT
INDEFINITE WORDS OF THE LEGISLATION FIRST ADOPTED, THE ACT OF 1870,
GAVE FREEDOM TO THE COURTS TO DEVELOP THROUGH THE PROCESS OF
CONSTRUCTION A CAUSE OF ACTION ENFORCIBLE AT THE INSTANCE OF A CREDITOR
WITHOUT ASSERTING IN SO DOING THAT A DIFFERENT CAUSE OF ACTION,
ENFORCIBLE THROUGH A RECEIVER, WOULD HAVE BEEN AN INAPPROPRIATE
IMPLEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIABILITY, IN THE EVENT THAT THE
LEGISLATURE OR THE COURTS HAD CHOSEN TO ADOPT IT.  STOCKHOLDERS WHO
BECAME SUCH WHILE THE FIRST STATUTE WAS IN FORCE WERE CHARGEABLE WITH
NOTICE THAT A NEW REMEDY MIGHT BE ADOPTED IF THE ONE FIRST CHOSEN WAS
INADEQUATE.  THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE WITH SUCH NOTICE THOUGH
NOTHING HAD BEEN SAID.  THEY WERE CHARGEABLE, AS IT HAPPENS, BY THE
WORDING OF THE STATUTE, THE CHARTER BEING GRANTED UPON THE CONDITION
THAT THE ACT OR ANY PART OF IT MIGHT BE ALTERED OR REPEALED. 

THE REMEDY FIRST ESTABLISHED WAS FOUND TO BE UNWORKABLE.  GHINGHER V.
BACHTELL, SUPRA, AT P. 692; MURPHY V. WHEATLEY, 102 MD. 501, 515; 63
ATL. 62.  STILL ACTING WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMAND,
THE LEGISLATURE OF MARYLAND ANNOUNCED ANOTHER REMEDY, LESS UNWIELDY AND
CONFUSING.  IN THE VIEW OF THE STATE COURT, THE SUBSTANTIVE LIABILITY
AS THE CONSTITUTION HAD CREATED IT WAS THE SAME UNDER THE NEW PROCEDURE
AS IT HAD BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING.  GHINGHER V. BACHTELL, SUPRA.  THE
COURT WAS FAR FROM HOLDING THAT THE STATUTE HAD ENLARGED IT.  WHAT HAD
HAPPENED WAS MERELY THIS, THAT ANOTHER REMEDY HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED TO
IMPLEMENT A LIABILITY CREATED LONG AGO.  CF. PITTSBURGH STEEL CO. V.
BALTIMORE EQUITABLE SOCIETY, 226 U.S. 455; HILL V. MERCHANTS' MUTUAL
INS. CO., 134 U.S. 515; FOURTH NATIONAL BANK V. FRANCKLYN, 120 U.S.
747; 755; SHRIVER V. WOODBINE SAVINGS BANK, 285 U.S. 467, 474, 479.  WE
CANNOT SEE IN THIS AN ATTEMPT TO LAY UPON THE STOCKHOLDERS BY FORCE OF
LATER LEGISLATION A NEW AND DIFFERENT BURDEN FROM THAT ACCEPTED AT THE
OUTSET.  NOR WOULD IT HELP THE APPELLANTS ANYTHING TO ASSUME IN THEIR
BEHALF THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE HAS BEEN GIVEN A NEW MEANING,
IF THE NEW MEANING IS NOT DUE TO THE COMPULSION OF A STATUTE.  CHANGE
BY JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF ANTECEDENT LEGISLATION DOES NOT IMPAIR A
CONTRACT, AT LEAST IN THE FORBIDDEN SENSE, IF IT BE GRANTED ARGUENDO
THAT SUCH A CHANGE CAN BE DISCOVERED.  TIDAL OIL CO. V. FLANAGAN, 263
U.S. 444, 450; FLEMING V. FLEMING, 264 U.S. 29, 31; BRINKERHOFF-FARIS
CO. V. HILL, 281 U.S. 673, 680; GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. V. SUNBURST OIL
& REFINING CO., 287 U.S. 358, 364.  THE NEW MEANING, IF THERE IS ANY,
IS NOT ASCRIBED TO THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE A LATER STATUTE HAS SAID IT
MUST BE DONE.  THE NEW MEANING IS THE PRODUCT OF THE INDEPENDENT
JUDGMENT OF A COURT.  SO THE STATE COURT HAS TOLD US, AND THE GOOD
FAITH OF ITS DECLARATION IS NOT SUCCESSFULLY IMPEACHED.  BROAD RIVER
POWER CO. V. SOUTH CAROLINA, 281 U.S. 537, 540.  TO CHANGES THUS
WROUGHT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OFFER AN
IMPEDIMENT. 

(2)  THE RESULT WOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT IF THE EFFECT OF THE STATUTORY
AMENDMENTS WERE TO BE VIEWED AS AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE SUBSTANTIVE
LIABILITY FOR DEBTS AFTERWARDS CONTRACTED, THE ENLARGEMENT BEING
APPLICABLE TO STOCKHOLDERS WITHOUT EXCEPTION, PRESENT AS WELL AS
FUTURE.  THE CHARTER WAS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE
PERSONAL LIABILITY THEN PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE SHOULD BE SUBJECT
THEREAFTER TO REPEAL OR ALTERATION.  THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN SUCH
A CONDITION ATTACHES TO A CHARTER, THERE IS NO UNCONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
OF THE OBLIGATION OF A CONTRACT BY A SUBSEQUENT ENLARGEMENT OF THE
LIABILITY OF STOCKHOLDERS AS TO DEBTS AFTERWARDS CONTRACTED, THOUGH THE
SHARES SO AFFECTED WERE ACQUIRED BEFORE THE CHANGE WAS MADE.  SHERMAN
V. SMITH, 1 BLACK 587, AFFIRMING 21 N.Y. 9; LOOKER V. MAYNARD, 179 U.S.
46, 53; CF. MCGOWAN V. MCDONALD, 111 CAL. 57, 66; 43 PAC. 418; PERKINS
V. COFFIN, 84 CONN. 275, 295; 79 ATL. 1070; PATE V. BANK OF NEWTON, 116
MISS.  666, 686; 77 SO. 601.  STOCKHOLDERS WHO SUBSCRIBE TO STOCK
SUBJECT TO SUCH A CONDITION ASSUME THE RISK THAT THEIR RELATION TO THE
CORPORATION MAY BE ALTERED TO THEIR PREJUDICE.  NOR IS THEIR POSITION
ANY STRONGER BECAUSE THE NEW LIABILITY IS HEAVIER (IF SO IT BE ASSUMED
TO BE) THAN THAT IMPOSED UPON THEM DIRECTLY BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE.  THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIABILITY IS NOT A MAXIMUM, BUT A MINIMUM,
AND THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT TRANSCEND THE BOUNDS OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
BY INCREASING IT THEREAFTER.  MURPHY V. WHEATLEY, SUPRA, PP. 514, 515,
516; DAVIS V. MOORE, 130 ARK. 128, 135; 197 S.W. 295; PARKER V.
CAROLINA SAVINGS BANK, 53 S.C. 583, 592; 31 S.E. 673; DUKE V. FORCE,
120 WASH. 599, 606; 208 PAC. 67. 

SHERMAN V. SMITH, SUPRA, LEFT UNANSWERED AN INQUIRY (1 BLACK AT P.
594) WHETHER THE AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE GONE TOO FAR IF IT HAD BEEN MADE
APPLICABLE TO DEBTS EXISTING AT THE DATE OF ITS ENACTMENT AS WELL AS TO
EXISTING STOCKHOLDERS.  WE MAY LEAVE THE QUESTION OPEN NOW.  APPELLANTS
HAVE FAILED TO SHOW THAT ANY DEBTS OF THE CORPORATION TO BE ENFORCED IN
THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE DEBTS EXISTING ON JUNE 1, 1910, WHEN THE PRESENT
STATUTE BECAME LAW, STILL LESS THAT THE SUBTRACTION OF THOSE DEBTS
WOULD HAVE MADE THE ASSESSMENT LOWER THAN THE PAR VALUE OF THE SHARES. 
THE EXTENT OF THE DEFICIENCY IS PERSUASIVE, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
TO THE CONTRARY, THAT THE ASSESSMENT MUST HAVE BEEN THE SAME IF THE OLD
DEBTS HAD BEEN DISREGARDED.  SUCH OF THEM AS EXIST MUST HAVE BEEN
CONTRACTED IN THE BRIEF INTERVAL BETWEEN JANUARY 24, 1910 AND JUNE 1
FOLLOWING.  AT ALL EVENTS, THE BURDEN WAS ON THE APPELLANTS TO SHOW
THEMSELVES HARMED THROUGH THE OPERATION OF THE STATUTE CHALLENGED AS
UNLAWFUL.  PREMIER-PABST SALES CO. V. GROSSCUP, 298 U.S. 226, 227;
HATCH V. REARDON, 204 U.S. 152, 160, 161.  THIS THEY HAVE NOT DONE.  AS
TO DEBTS TO BE CONTRACTED AFTERWARDS, IF NOT ALSO AS TO OTHERS, THE
STATUTE IS IMPREGNABLE. 

WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IS NOT AT WAR WITH ANYTHING DECIDED OR EVEN
INTIMATED IN COOMBES V. GETZ, 285 U.S. 434, 441, 442, MUCH RELIED ON BY
APPELLANTS.  THERE CREDITORS WERE COMPLAINING OF THE DESTRUCTION OF A
CAUSE OF ACTION WHEREBY THEY WERE LEFT WITHOUT A REMEDY.  HERE THE
RECORD DOES NOT TELL US THAT ANY CREDITORS WHO WERE SUCH WHEN THE FIRST
STATUTE WAS REPEALED HAVE CLAIMS STILL OUTSTANDING FOR DEBTS CONTRACTED
THEN.  IN THE USUAL COURSE OF BUSINESS DEPOSITS MADE SO LONG AGO MUST
ALMOST CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN PAID THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE THAT THE FIRST DRAWINGS OUT ARE TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE FIRST
PAYMENTS IN.  CARSON V. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, 254 N.Y. 218, 232; 172
N.E. 475.  AT ANY RATE, THERE IS NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN THE PAGES
OF THIS RECORD.  THE FACT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE CONTRACT RIGHTS OF
CREDITORS ARE NOT INVOLVED AT ALL.  WHATEVER COMPLAINT IS HEARD AS TO
THE SUBSTITUTION OF A NEW REMEDY IN 1910 IS NOT FROM CREDITORS OF THAT
DATE, UNABLE TO COLLECT THEIR DEBTS.  THE COMPLAINT COMES TO US FROM
STOCKHOLDERS, WHO TOOK THEIR STOCK WITH NOTICE THAT THE REMEDIES
AGAINST THEM MIGHT BE CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME.* 

*"THE AUTHORITY OF A STATE UNDER THE SO-CALLED RESERVED POWER IS
WIDE; BUT IT IS NOT UNLIMITED.  THE CORPORATE CHARTER MAY BE REPEALED
OR AMENDED, AND, WITHIN LIMITS NOT NOW NECESSARY TO DEFINE, THE
INTERRELATIONS OF STATE, CORPORATION AND STOCKHOLDERS MAY BE CHANGED;
BUT NEITHER VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS NOR THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS OF
THIRD PERSONS MAY BE DESTROYED OR IMPAIRED."  COOMBES V. GETZ, SUPRA,
PP. 441, 442. 

SECOND:  THE CASE OF THE HAGERSTOWN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY. 

AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, ALL THE COMPLAINING STOCKHOLDERS IN THIS
COMPANY ACQUIRED THEIR SHARES AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE ACT OF 1910,
WITH ITS NEW REMEDIAL DEVICES.  WHAT HAS BEEN SAID AS TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS IN THE PEOPLES BANKING COMPANY OF SMITHSBURG APPLIES WITH
REDOUBLED FORCE TO THE STOCKHOLDERS IN THE TRUST COMPANY. 

THE DECREE IN EACH CASE SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. 
..END :















MORLEY CO. V. MD. CASUALTY CO., 300 U.S. 185 


NO. 325.  ARGUED JANUARY 8, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 84
F.(2D) 522, 526, REVERSED. 


1.  A WRONGFUL PURPOSE IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
EXONERATION.  P. 189. 

2.  THE RIGHT OF A SURETY TO BE EXONERATED FROM OBLIGATIONS OF THE
PRINCIPAL DOES NOT ENTITLE THE SURETY TO CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE FUND
DIRECTED TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE.  P. 192. 

3.  IN THE ABSENCE OF A CROSS-APPEAL, THE APPELLEE, TO SUPPORT THE
DECREE, MAY URGE ARGUMENT CONTRADICTORY OF THE REASONING OF THE LOWER
COURT, OR MAY ADDUCE MATTER IN THE RECORD WHICH THE COURT OVERLOOKED OR
IGNORED, BUT CANNOT ATTACK THE DECREE TO ENLARGE HIS OWN RIGHTS UNDER
IT OR TO LESSEN HIS ADVERSARY'S.  P. 191. 

4.  THE FACT THAT FINDINGS, IF AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE,
MAY BE REVISED ON APPEAL IN EQUITY AT THE INSTANCE OF AN APPELLANT,
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY MAY BE REVISED AT THE INSTANCE OF AN APPELLEE,
AT LEAST WHERE THEIR REVISION WOULD CARRY WITH IT AS AN INCIDENT A
REVISION OF THE JUDGMENT.  P. 191. 

5.  A SURETY ON A BOND TO SECURE THE PERFORMANCE OF A PUBLIC
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND PAYMENT OF LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN, MADE A
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRACT WITH THE CONTRACTOR TO ADVANCE MONEY FOR USE IN
CARRYING ON THE WORK, TO BE DEPOSITED IN A SPECIAL JOINT ACCOUNT, UNDER
THEIR JOINT CONTROL, IN WHICH ALSO THE CONTRACTOR WAS TO DEPOSIT ALL
PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT.  THE CONTRACTOR HAVING FAILED TO
DEPOSIT ITS FINAL PAYMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT (THE WARRANT FOR WHICH
WAS IMPOUNDED) THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE SURETY, BEING ITSELF
PARTLY IN DEFAULT, COULD NOT HAVE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT BUT WAS ENTITLED, APART FROM AGREEMENT, TO BE
EXONERATED FROM PRESENT LIABILITIES, AND IT THEREFORE DECREED THAT THE
PROCEEDS OF THE WARRANT BE PLACED IN A BANK TO BE CHOSEN BY THE
CONTRACTOR, AS A SPECIAL TRUST FUND FOR THE PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR LABOR
AND MATERIAL, NO PROVISION BEING MADE FOR ANY CONTROL IN THE SURETY. 
UPON THE CONTRACTOR'S APPEAL, THE COURT OF APPEALS MADE ITS OWN FINDING
THAT THE SURETY'S DEFAULT WAS INNOCENT AND UNSUBSTANTIAL AND DIRECTED
THAT A DECREE OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE DECREE OF
EXONERATION.  HELD THAT THE APPELLATE COURT HAD EXCEEDED ITS POWER.  P.
192. 

MORLEY CONSTRUCTION CO. ET AL. V. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 529, TO REVIEW A DECREE DIRECTING THAT A DECREE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR EXONERATION OF A SURETY BE MODIFIED TO A
DECREE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE SURETY AND ITS PRINCIPAL. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE POWER OF AN APPELLATE COURT TO MODIFY A DECREE IN EQUITY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF AN APPELLEE IN THE ABSENCE OF A CROSS-APPEAL IS HERE TO BE
ADMEASURED. 

MORLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A PETITIONER IN THIS COURT, MADE A
CONTRACT WITH THE UNITED STATES, ACTING BY THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A VETERANS' HOSPITAL AT BATAVIA,
NEW YORK.  IN CONFORMITY WITH STATUTE (40 U.S.C. SEC. 270) IT GAVE A
BOND FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL
BILLS FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR, THE RESPONDENT MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY
SIGNING THE BOND AS SURETY.  DURING THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK, THE
CONTRACTOR FOUND ITSELF IN NEED OF A LOAN OF MONEY TO ENABLE IT TO GO
ON.  ACCORDINGLY A SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE
CONTRACTOR AND THE SURETY TO RELIEVE THE SITUATION.  BY THAT AGREEMENT,
DATED APRIL 28, 1933, THE CONTRACTOR AGREED TO DEPOSIT IN A DESIGNATED
TRUST COMPANY IN BUFFALO $5,000 TO BE USED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
WORK AND TO DEPOSIT IN THE SAME ACCOUNT FOR THE SAME PURPOSE ALL MONEYS
RECEIVED FROM THE UNITED STATES AS PAYMENTS UPON THE CONTRACT.  THE
SURETY AGREED TO DEPOSIT IN THE SAME ACCOUNT $5,000 AS A LOAN TO BE
SECURED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S NOTE, AND ADDITIONAL MONEYS SUFFICIENT TO
PAY THE PRESENT AND FUTURE BILLS OF PLASTERERS, AMOUNTING, AS THE
EVIDENCE SHOWS, TO $5,700.  THE CONTRACTOR AND THE SURETY WERE TO HAVE
JOINT CONTROL OF THE ACCOUNT, AND NO MONEYS WERE TO BE WITHDRAWN
THEREFROM WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SURETY BY DESIGNATED
REPRESENTATIVES, THE APPROVAL TO BE INDICATED UPON THE CHECK OR DRAFT
IN WRITING. 

FOLLOWING THIS SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT, THE CONTRACTOR WENT ON WITH
THE WORK, AND BROUGHT IT TO COMPLETION.  THE SURETY MADE THE FIRST
PAYMENT OF $5,000 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PROMISE BUT REFUSED TO PAY THE
$5,700 OWING TO THE PLASTERERS.  IN THE MEANTIME A SERIES OF PAYMENTS
BECAME OWING FROM THE GOVERNMENT UPON ESTIMATES OF VALUE IN ADVANCE OF
COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE.  WARRANTS FOR THESE PAYMENTS WERE FORWARDED
BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE TRUST COMPANY IN BUFFALO TO BE PLACED IN THE
JOINT ACCOUNT, NOTICE HAVING BEEN GIVEN BY THE CONTRACTOR TO ISSUE THEM
ACCORDINGLY.  HOWEVER, A DIFFERENT COURSE WAS FOLLOWED WHEN THE FINAL
PAYMENT BECAME DUE.  APPARENTLY THROUGH INADVERTENCE, THE GOVERNMENT
SENT A WARRANT FOR THAT PAYMENT ($59,780.82) TO THE CONTRACTOR ITSELF
AT ITS OFFICE IN KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.  THE CONTRACTOR ENDORSED THE
WARRANT, DELIVERED IT TO THE MERCHANTS BANK OF KANSAS CITY, ONE OF THE
PETITIONERS IN THIS COURT, AND DIRECTED THE BANK TO ISSUE A CASHIER'S
CHECK FOR A LIKE AMOUNT TO THE ORDER OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PRESIDENT. 
THE BANK MADE OUT THE CHECK, BUT HELD IT TO AWAIT THE PAYMENT OF THE
WARRANT, WHICH IT DEPOSITED IN A FEDERAL RESERVE BANK TO BE FORWARDED,
IN THE USUAL COURSE OF COLLECTION, TO THE TREASURY AT WASHINGTON. 
NEITHER CHECK NOR WARRANT HAS BEEN PAID AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN
INJUNCTION OBTAINED BY THE RESPONDENT. 

UPON LEARNING FROM THE VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF THE
TRANSMISSION OF THE WARRANT, THE SURETY BEGAN TWO SUITS, ONE IN THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHERE THE PAYMENT OF THE WARRANT WAS STAYED BY AN
INJUNCTION, THE OTHER THE SUIT AT BAR.  IT RECOUNTS IN ITS COMPLAINT
THE FACTS OR MOST OF THEM ALREADY STATED IN THIS OPINION, ADDING
THERETO THAT OUTSTANDING BILLS FOR MORE THAN $100,000 ARE COVERED BY
ITS BOND.  IT SAYS THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT AND TO A DECREE DEPOSITING THE WARRANT IN
THE TRUST COMPANY AT BUFFALO TO BE APPLIED UPON THE JOINT ACCOUNT.  IT
SAYS ALSO THAT BY REASON OF THE UNPAID BILLS OF MATERIALMEN AND
LABORERS THERE IS A DUTY ON THE PART OF THE CONTRACTOR TO EXONERATE THE
SURETY FROM LOSS OR LIABILITY AND TO APPLY THE WARRANT TO THAT
PURPOSE.  FINALLY, IT MAKES CLAIM TO A RIGHT OF SUBROGATION TO THE
POSITION OF THE CONTRACTOR OVER AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, A CLAIM WHICH
APPARENTLY HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND WILL NOT ENGAGE US FURTHER.  THE BILL
OF COMPLAINT ENDS WITH A PRAYER FOR RELIEF APPROPRIATE TO THE SEVERAL
THEORIES OF LIABILITY PUT FORWARD BY THE PLEADER, THE THEORY OF
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, THE THEORY OF EXONERATION, AND THE THEORY OF
SUBROGATION.  TO RENDER THE RELIEF EFFECTUAL, THE BANK IN KANSAS CITY
WAS JOINED AS A DEFENDANT. 

THE DISTRICT JUDGE HELD THAT THE SURETY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, HAVING FAILED TO PAY THE
PLASTERERS AND BEING THEREFORE IN DEFAULT ITSELF.  HE HELD, HOWEVER,
THAT APART FROM ANY AGREEMENT THE CONTRACTOR WAS SUBJECT TO A DUTY TO
EXONERATE THE SURETY FROM PRESENT LIABILITIES.  TRUE, THERE WAS NO
PURPOSE ON THE PART OF THE CONTRACTOR TO DIVERT THE PROCEEDS OF THE
WARRANT FROM THE USES OF THE CONTRACT.  AS TO THIS THE FINDING IS
EXPLICIT.  EVEN SO, A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EXONERATION DOES NOT INCLUDE
AMONG ITS ELEMENTS THE PRESENCE OF A WRONGFUL PURPOSE.  GLADES COUNTY
V. DETROIT FIDELITY CO., 57 F.(2D) 449; WEST HUNTSVILLE COTTON MILLS V.
ALTER, 164 ALA. 305; 51 SO. 338; PAVARINI V. TITLE GUARANTY & SURETY
CO., 36 APP. D.C. 348; HUTCHINSON GROCER CO. V. BRAND, 79 KAN. 340; 99
PAC. 592.  THE DECREE CONFORMS TO THE FINDINGS IN ITS DISTRIBUTION OF
RELIEF.  IT ADJUDGES THE COMPLAINANT TO BE ENTITLED TO EXONERATION BUT
NOT TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.  THE PROCEEDS OF THE WARRANT ARE TO BE
PLACED IN A BANK TO BE CHOSEN BY THE CONTRACTOR, THE DEPOSIT TO BE
"DESIGNATED AS A SPECIAL TRUST FUND FOR THE PAYMENT OF BILLS FOR LABOR
AND MATERIAL USED ON THE UNITED STATES VETERANS HOSPITAL IN BATAVIA,
NEW YORK."  NO PROVISION IS MADE THAT THE SURETY, OR INDEED ANY ONE
OTHER THAN THE CONTRACTOR, SHALL HAVE ANY CONTROL THEREOF. 

FROM THAT DECREE THE CONTRACTOR APPEALED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.  THERE WAS NO CROSS-APPEAL BY THE
SURETY.  THE COURT OF APPEALS STATES IN ITS OPINION, "WE ARE IN GRAVE
DOUBT WHETHER EXONERATION CAN PROPERLY BE GRANTED."  PREFERRING BY
REASON OF THAT DOUBT TO PUT ITS DECISION ON SOME OTHER GROUND, IT
CONCLUDES THAT THERE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE
SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT.  IT CONCEDES THAT THE SURETY IS IN DEFAULT FOR
FAILING TO LIVE UP TO THE AGREEMENT STRICTLY, BUT IT FINDS THAT THE
DEFAULT WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE OR FRAUDULENT, AND THAT A COURT OF
EQUITY IN ITS DISCRETION MAY OVERLOOK AN UNSUBSTANTIAL WRONG. 
RECOGNIZING THE NECESSITY OF MODIFYING THE DECREE IF EXONERATION IS TO
BE EXCHANGED FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, THE OPINION STATES THAT "AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST USING THE MONEYS EXCEPT AS AGREED UPON, AND AN ORDER
TO PLACE SAID MONEYS WHEN RECEIVED IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT AND DISBURSE
THE SAME IN PAYMENT OF JUST CLAIMS FOR LABOR OR MATERIALS, WOULD MEET
THE REQUIREMENTS AND RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF AND WOULD NOT BE IMPOSSIBLE OF
PERFORMANCE" AND THAT "A DECREE ALONG SUCH LINES SHOULD BE GRANTED BY
THE TRIAL COURT."  84 F.(2D) 522, 526.  ACCORDINGLY, THE MANDATE OF THE
APPELLATE COURT PROVIDES THAT THE CAUSE BE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT
COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO MODIFY ITS DECREE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEWS
EXPRESSED IN THE OPINION.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO FIX THE MEASURE OF
RELIEF AVAILABLE TO A NON-APPEALING SUITOR. 

THE SUBSTITUTION OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FOR EXONERATION AT THE
INSTANCE OF THE SURETY WAS NOT AN AFFIRMANCE OF THE DECREE BELOW, AS IF
THE REASONS ONLY HAD BEEN CHANGED WITH THE DECISION STANDING FIRM. 
ALIKE IN SUBSTANCE AND IN FORM THERE WAS A MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE
ITSELF, THE FACTS BEING FOUND ANEW AND DIFFERENTLY, THE LAW DECLARED
ANEW AND DIFFERENTLY, AND THE RELIEF REMODELED AND ADAPTED TO THE NEW
LAW AND THE NEW FACTS.  WITHOUT A CROSS-APPEAL, AN APPELLEE MAY "URGE
IN SUPPORT OF A DECREE ANY MATTER APPEARING IN THE RECORD ALTHOUGH HIS
ARGUMENT MAY INVOLVE AN ATTACK UPON THE REASONING OF THE LOWER COURT OR
AN INSISTENCE UPON MATTER OVERLOOKED OR IGNORED BY IT."  UNITED STATES
V. AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO., 265 U.S. 425, 435.  WHAT HE MAY NOT DO
IN THE ABSENCE OF A CROSS-APPEAL IS TO "ATTACK THE DECREE WITH A VIEW
EITHER TO ENLARGING HIS OWN RIGHTS THEREUNDER OR OF LESSENING THE
RIGHTS OF HIS ADVERSARY, WHETHER WHAT HE SEEKS IS TO CORRECT AN ERROR
OR TO SUPPLEMENT THE DECREE WITH RESPECT TO A MATTER NOT DEALT WITH
BELOW."  IBID.  THE RULE IS INVETERATE AND CERTAIN.  CANTER V. AMERICAN
INSURANCE CO., 3 PET. 307, 318; CHITTENDEN V. BREWSTER, 2 WALL.  191,
196; THE MARIA MARTIN, 12 WALL.  31, 40, 41; FIELD V. BARBER ASPHALT
CO., 194 U.S. 618, 621; LANDRAM V. JORDAN, 203 U.S. 56, 62; UNION TOOL
CO. V. WILSON, 259 U.S. 107, 111; PEORIA & PEKIN UNION RY. CO. V.
UNITED STATES, 263 U.S. 528, 536; LANGNES V. GREEN, 282 U.S. 531, 538;
ALEXANDER V. COSDEN CO., 290 U.S. 484, 487.  FINDINGS MAY BE REVISED AT
THE INSTANCE OF AN APPELLANT, IF THEY ARE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF
EVIDENCE, WHERE THE CASE IS ONE IN EQUITY.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT
THEY ARE SUBJECT TO LIKE REVISION IN BEHALF OF APPELLEES, AT ALL EVENTS
IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A REVISION OF THE FINDINGS CARRIES WITH IT AS AN
INCIDENT A REVISION OF THE JUDGMENT.  THERE IS NO NEED AT THIS TIME TO
FIX THE LIMITS OF THE RULE MORE SHARPLY.  "WHERE EACH PARTY APPEALS
EACH MAY ASSIGN ERROR, BUT WHERE ONLY ONE PARTY APPEALS THE OTHER IS
BOUND BY THE DECREE IN THE COURT BELOW, AND HE CANNOT ASSIGN ERROR IN
THE APPELLATE COURT, NOR CAN HE BE HEARD IF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
APPEAL ARE CORRECT, EXCEPT IN SUPPORT OF THE DECREE FROM WHICH THE
APPEAL OF THE OTHER PARTY IS TAKEN."  THE MARIA MARTIN, SUPRA.* 

*STATE DECISIONS ON THE QUESTION OF THE REVIEW OF FINDINGS AT THE
INSTANCE OF AN APPELLEE WHO HAS NOT TAKEN A CROSS-APPEAL EXHIBIT A WIDE
VARIANCE OF PROCEDURE.  FOR CASES OF THE STRICTER TYPE, SEE TURNER V.
EAST SIDE CANAL CO., 168 CAL. 103, 108; 142 PAC. 69; CLARK V. CORSER,
154 MINN. 508; 191 N.W. 917; COX V. STOKES, 156 N.Y. 491; 51 N.E. 316;
WERDEBACH'S ESTATE, 280 PA. 26; 124 ATL. 268.  WITH THESE CONTRAST THE
FOLLOWING:  BULLMAN V. COOPER, 362 ILL. 469; 200 N.E. 173; WYATT V.
MANNING, 217 IOWA 929; 250 N.W. 141; OPPENHEIMER V. BANK, 97 TENN. 19;
36 S.W. 705; HUNTINGTON V. LOVE, 56 WASH. 674; 106 PAC. 185. 

THE SURETY LAID CLAIM TO RELIEF UPON THE BASIS OF A CONTRACT, AND TO
OTHER RELIEF BY FORCE OF AN EQUITABLE DOCTRINE INDEPENDENT OF
CONTRACT.  THE DECREE OF THE DISTRICT COURT REJECTED THE FIRST CLAIM
BECAUSE THE CONTRACT HAD BEEN BROKEN, AND ACCEPTED THE SECOND BECAUSE
THE BREACH WAS THEN IRRELEVANT.  THE DECREE WAS RESPONSIVE TO THE CLAIM
THAT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED, AND NOT TO ANY OTHER.  IF THERE WAS TO BE
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, THE SURETY, TOGETHER WITH THE
CONTRACTOR, WOULD CONTROL THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FUND, FOR SO THE
PARTIES HAD AGREED.  IF THERE WAS TO BE EXONERATION AND NOTHING MORE,
THE CONTRACTOR OR PERHAPS THE COURT WOULD CONTROL THE APPLICATION AND
THE SURETY WOULD STAND ASIDE.  STULZ-SICKLES CO. V. FREDBURN
CONSTRUCTION CORP., 114 N.J. EQ. 475, 478; 169 ATL. 27; CF. GLADES
COUNTY V. DETROIT FIDELITY CO., SUPRA; ARANT, SURETYSHIP, PP. 318, 319
AND CASES CITED.  EXONERATION "DOES NOT ENTITLE THE SURETY TO CUSTODY
OR CONTROL OF THE FUND."  STULZ-SICKLES CO. V. FREDBURN CONSTRUCTION
CORP., SUPRA.  THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS PUTS AN END TO THIS
NICE ADJUSTMENT OF THE RELIEF TO THE LAW AND OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS AS
FOUND.  A DECREE APPROPRIATE TO EXONERATION IS ANNULLED, AND ONE
APPROPRIATE TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IS GIVEN IN ITS PLACE.  THIS IS TO
FIND THE FACTS ANEW AND DIFFERENTLY, FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD HELD, AT
LEAST BY IMPLICATION, THAT THE BREACH BY THE SURETY, VIEWED IN THE
LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WAS SOMETHING MORE THAN UNSUBSTANTIAL. 
IT IS TO FIND THE LAW ANEW AND DIFFERENTLY, FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD
HELD THAT A SURETY CHARGEABLE WITH SUCH A BREACH WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A
DECREE UPON THE FOOTING OF THE CONTRACT.  EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, IT IS TO
GIVE A NEW MEASURE OF RELIEF, FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD RULED THAT THE
FUND WAS NOT TO BE HELD UPON THE RESTRICTIONS STATED IN THE CONTRACT,
BUT UPON DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS ORIGINATING IN THE CONSCIENCE OF THE
CHANCELLOR.  TRUE, THE RELIEF PROPER TO THE THEORY ACCEPTED AT THE
TRIAL IS ALMOST AS FAVORABLE FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE PROTECTION OF
THE SURETY AS THE ONE ADOPTED ON APPEAL, THOUGH DISTINCTLY LESS
BURDENSOME FROM THE VIEW-POINT OF THE PRINCIPAL.  EXONERATION IS NOT
THE SAME AS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, BUT IT IS NOT VERY DIFFERENT, AND MAY
BE NEARLY, IF NOT QUITE, AS GOOD.  THIS IS SURELY NOT A REASON WHY AN
APPELLATE COURT SHOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO TREAT THE TWO AS
INTERCHANGEABLE.  ONE MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT AT THE INSTANCE OF A NON
APPEALING PLAINTIFF A JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE COULD BE MADE
TO TAKE THE PLACE OF ONE FOR THE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.    THE DECREE
SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
PASS UPON THE QUESTION, NOT YET DEFINITIVELY ANSWERED, WHETHER RELIEF
IN THE FORM OF A DECREE FOR EXONERATION IS PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES,
AND FOR OTHER PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORD WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 
..END :

















KNOX LOAN ASSN. V. PHILLIPS, 300 U.S. 194 


NO. 389.  ARGUED JANUARY 14, 15, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  -
54 OH. APP. 334, REVERSED. 


1.  A JUDGMENT OF A STATE COURT AGAINST AN INSOLVENT ASSOCIATION FOR A
SUM OF MONEY IS FINAL, ALTHOUGH ACCOMPANIED BY PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE
DEBTOR TO TURN OVER ALL OF ITS PROPERTY TO A RECEIVER FOR LIQUIDATION
OF ITS BUSINESS AND PAYMENT OF THE DEBT.  P. 197. 

2.  UNDER THE FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, A NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION
CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO RETIRE, AND REPAY THE PAR VALUE OF, SHARES
SUBSCRIBED FOR AND PLEDGED WITH IT BY A MEMBER IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PROCUREMENT OF A LOAN FROM A FEDERAL LAND BANK, WHILE THE BANK REFUSES
TO RETIRE, AND MAKE RE-PAYMENT FOR, THE CORRESPONDING SHARES OF BANK
STOCK SUBSCRIBED FOR BY THE ASSOCIATION IN THAT CONNECTION AND PLEDGED
WITH THE BANK.  P. 198. 

3.  A SHAREHOLDER OF A FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION, SUBJECT BY STATUTE TO
AN EXTRA PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR ITS DEBTS, IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS
SHARES RETIRED AND HIS SUBSCRIPTION PAYMENT REPAID WHEN THE ASSOCIATION
IS INSOLVENT AND CORRESPONDING SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE STOCK OF THE
FEDERAL LAND BANK THAT MADE THE LOAN HAVE NOT BEEN CANCELED AND
REFUNDED.  P. 201. 

4.  A RECEIVERSHIP FOR THE PURPOSE OF SATISFYING A JUDGMENT, FALLS
WITH THE JUDGMENT.  P. 202. 

5.  A NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; THE TIME AND MANNER OF ITS LIQUIDATION ARE GOVERNED
BY THE FEDERAL STATUTE; AND JURISDICTION DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE
TRIBUNALS OF A STATE TO WIND UP THE BUSINESS OF THIS GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY EITHER BY A RECEIVERSHIP OR OTHERWISE.  P. 202. 

KNOX NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSN. ET AL. V. PHILLIPS. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 533, TO REVIEW THE AFFIRMANCE OF A DECREE
AGAINST THE NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE PAR VALUE OF CERTAIN
OF ITS SHARES, ACCOMPANIED BY PROVISIONS FOR PLACING THE ASSOCIATION IN
THE HANDS OF A RECEIVER FOR THE LIQUIDATION OF ITS BUSINESS. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS CASE MAKES IT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE
REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO A SHAREHOLDER IN AN INSOLVENT FARM LOAN
ASSOCIATION UPON THE REFUSAL OF A DEMAND FOR THE RETIREMENT OF HIS
SHARES. 

RESPONDENT IS THE OWNER OF A FARM IN KNOX COUNTY, OHIO.  HIS VENDORS
WERE MEMBERS OF THE KNOX NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION, A COOPERATIVE
MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION CHARTERED UNDER FEDERAL LAW.  FEDERAL FARM LOAN
ACT, JULY 7, 1916, C. 245, SEC. 7, 39 STAT. 365; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 711. 
THROUGH THAT ASSOCIATION THEY PROCURED A LOAN FROM THE FEDERAL LAND
BANK OF LOUISVILLE, GIVING A MORTGAGE AS SECURITY.  PART OF THE
PROCEEDS OF THE LOAN (I.E., 5% THEREOF) THEY USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF
STOCK IN THE COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, THERE BEING A REQUIREMENT OF THE
STATUTE THAT "ANY PERSON DESIRING TO BORROW ON FARM LAND MORTGAGE
THROUGH A NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION SHALL MAKE APPLICATION FOR
MEMBERSHIP AND SHALL SUBSCRIBE FOR SHARES OF STOCK IN SUCH FARM LOAN
ASSOCIATION TO AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 5 PER CENTUM OF THE FACE OF THE
DESIRED LOAN, SAID SUBSCRIPTION TO BE PAID IN CASH UPON THE GRANTING OF
THE LOAN."  FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, SEC. 8; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 733; CF. SEC.
9; 12 U.S.C. 745.  THE STATUTORY PLAN HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPOUNDED IN
OPINIONS OF THIS COURT.  SMITH V. KANSAS CITY TITLE & TRUST CO., 255
U.S. 180, 203; FEDERAL LAND BANK V. GAINES, 290 U.S. 247; FEDERAL LAND
BANK V. PRIDDY, 295 U.S. 229. 

UPON THE PURCHASE OF THE FARM BY RESPONDENT IN OCTOBER, 1927, HE
ASSUMED THE PAYMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT, SUCCEEDING AT THE SAME TIME
TO THE INTERESTS OF HIS VENDORS IN THE STOCK OF THE ASSOCIATION AND TO
THE ATTENDANT LIABILITIES.  THE SHARES WERE OF THE PAR VALUE OF $265. 
THEY HAD BEEN PLEDGED WITH THE ASSOCIATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTE (SEC. 8; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 733) AS SECURITY
FOR THE LOAN.  THE ASSOCIATION ON ITS PART HAD SUBSCRIBED FOR AN EQUAL
AMOUNT OF THE SHARES OF THE FEDERAL LAND BANK, THE LENDER OF THE MONEY,
LEAVING THE SHARES SO SUBSCRIBED FOR AS A PLEDGE FOR THE SECURITY OF
THE LENDER.  THIS TOO WAS A PROCEDURE CALLED FOR BY THE STATUTE. 
PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT WITH THE RESULT THAT THE LOAN HAD BEEN REDUCED BY
MARCH, 1933, TO $2122.46, AT WHICH TIME RESPONDENT MADE AN EFFORT TO
CLEAR THE FARM OF THE MORTGAGE AND TO PUT AN END ALSO TO HIS LIABILITY
AS SHAREHOLDER.  TO THAT END HE PAID THE ASSOCIATION $1857.46 TO BE
TRANSMITTED TO THE BANK, INSISTING THAT THE DEFICIENCY ($265) BE
SATISFIED THROUGH THE RETIREMENT OF THE SHARES.  THE BANK ACCEPTED THE
PAYMENT AS ONE UPON ACCOUNT, BUT REFUSED TO DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE.  AT THAT TIME, BY CONCESSION, THE
ASSOCIATION WAS INSOLVENT.  ITS CAPITAL WAS IMPAIRED; IT WAS INDEBTED
TO THE BANK UPON OTHER MORTGAGE LOANS, BEING LIABLE AS ENDORSER OR
OTHERWISE WHEN IT BORROWS FOR A MEMBER (FEDERAL LAND BANK V. GAINES,
SUPRA); IT HAD NO MONEYS IN ITS TREASURY WHEREWITH THE SHARES COULD BE
RETIRED. 

THE COURTS TOOK UP THE CONTROVERSY.  RESPONDENT JOINED THE BANK AND
THE ASSOCIATION AS DEFENDANTS IN A SUIT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
KNOX COUNTY, OHIO.  HE PRAYED FOR JUDGMENT AGAINST THE BANK THAT THE
MORTGAGE BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN CANCELLED AND EXTINGUISHED AND FOR
JUDGMENT AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION THAT THE SHARES OF STOCK BE PAID OFF
AND RETIRED, AND THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSOCIATION BE WOUND UP AND
LIQUIDATED.  FOR ANSWER, THE BANK AND THE ASSOCIATION TOOK THE GROUND
THAT THE PARTIAL PAYMENT MADE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE
MORTGAGE; THAT THERE COULD BE NO RETIREMENT OF THE SHARES WHILE THE
ASSOCIATION WAS INSOLVENT; THAT THE STATE COURT WAS WITHOUT
JURISDICTION TO LIQUIDATE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSOCIATION, AN
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THAT JURISDICTION IN
THAT BEHALF RESIDED IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXCLUSIVELY. 

TWO DECREES WERE RENDERED BY THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.  THE FIRST,
FILED OCTOBER 7, 1935, PROVIDES THAT THE MORTGAGE LIEN SHALL BE
CANCELED BY THE BANK UPON TENDER BY THE PLAINTIFF OF $265 IN ADDITION
TO THE PAYMENT PREVIOUSLY MADE, THE TENDER TO BE KEPT GOOD BY PAYMENT
INTO COURT.  THE SECOND, FILED NOVEMBER 18, 1935, DIRECTS THE FARM LOAN
ASSOCIATION TO RETIRE THE RESPONDENT'S SHARES, AND GIVES HIM JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE PAR VALUE THEREOF.  IT APPEARING THAT
THE ASSOCIATION WAS UNABLE TO PAY THE JUDGMENT BY REASON OF INSOLVENCY,
A RECEIVER WAS APPOINTED TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE ASSETS AND LIQUIDATE
THE BUSINESS, THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS OFFICERS BEING REQUIRED
FORTHWITH, UPON THE DEMAND OF THE RECEIVER, TO SURRENDER ANY PROPERTY
IN THEIR POSSESSION OR UNDER THEIR CONTROL.  FROM THE DECREE OF
NOVEMBER 18, THE DEFENDANTS PROSECUTED AN APPEAL TO THE OHIO COURT OF
APPEALS, WHICH AFFIRMED WITH AN OPINION.  A PETITION FOR REVIEW BY THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE WAS SUBMITTED AND DENIED.  WE GRANTED
CERTIORARI TO SET AT REST FAR-REACHING QUESTIONS AS TO THE MEANING AND
ADMINISTRATION OF AN IMPORTANT ACT OF CONGRESS. 

AT THE OUTSET A DOUBT AS TO OUR JURISDICTION CALLS FOR SCRUTINY AND
JUDGMENT.  THE CASE BEING HERE AFTER A DECISION OF A STATE COURT,
JURISDICTION IS NOT GIVEN US UNLESS THE DECREE TO BE REVIEWED IS
FINAL.  JUDICIAL CODE, SEC. 237; 28 U.S.C. SEC. 344.  RESPONDENT HAS
BEEN ADJUDGED ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF A SPECIFIC SUM OF MONEY, BUT
HE IS ALSO TO HAVE A RECEIVER WHO IS TO LIQUIDATE A BUSINESS, THE COURT
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF ITS OFFICER AND TO
RESCIND OR MODIFY ITS ORDER.  DOES THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER
POSTPONE THE STAGE OF FINALITY UNTIL HIS WORK IS AT AN END? 

THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE SUIT WAS THE RECOVERY OF A JUDGMENT FOR
THE PAR VALUE OF THE SHARES.  ANY OTHER RELIEF PRAYED FOR OR AWARDED
WAS TRIBUTARY TO THAT RECOVERY; IT WAS A FORM OF EQUITABLE EXECUTION TO
MAKE COLLECTION POSSIBLE.  WHEN THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE STOCK WAS
ADJUDGED TO CONSTITUTE A DEBT, WHATEVER FOLLOWED IN THE DECREE WAS
AUXILIARY AND MODAL.  THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS OFFICERS WERE NOT
DIRECTED TO ACCOUNT, AND TO SURRENDER WHAT WAS FOUND OWING AT THE CLOSE
OF THE ACCOUNTING.  THEY WERE DIRECTED TO MAKE DELIVERY AND TO MAKE
DELIVERY AT ONCE.  WE THINK THEY WERE SUBJECTED TO A PRESENT OBLIGATION
AS IMMEDIATE AND ABSOLUTE AS IF THE ASSETS WERE TO BE WRESTED FROM THEM
BY EXECUTION DIRECTED TO THE SHERIFF.  WINTHROP IRON CO. V. MEEKER, 109
U.S. 180, 183; ST. LOUIS, I.M. & S.R. CO. V. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO., 108
U.S. 24, 28, 29; THOMSON V. DEAN, 7 WALL.  342; MCGOURKEY V. TOLEDO &
OHIO CENTRAL RY. CO., 146 U.S. 536; COLLINS V. MILLER, 252 U.S. 364,
371; CHASE V. DRIVER, 92 FED. 780, 785; DES MOINES V. DES MOINES WATER
CO., 230 FED. 570, 573; VICTOR TALKING MACHINE CO. V. GEORGE, 69 F.(2D)
871, 879. 

ACCEPTING JURISDICTION, WE ARE BROUGHT TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE
MERITS. 

A NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION IS A COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE.  ITS
MEMBERS MUST SUBSCRIBE FOR ITS SHARES TO THE EXTENT OF FIVE PER CENT OF
THE LOAN TO BE PROCURED IN THEIR BEHALF.  FEDERAL FARM LOAN ACT, SEC.
8; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 733.  THE ASSOCIATION IN ITS TURN, UPON THE
PROCUREMENT OF THE LOAN, SUBSCRIBES TO STOCK OF THE LAND BANK TO AN
EQUIVALENT EXTENT.  SECTION 7; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 721.  WITH FEW
EXCEPTIONS, THE ONLY ASSETS WHICH A FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION HAS OR CAN
HAVE ARE THE SHARES WHICH IT TAKES IN THE FEDERAL LAND BANK TO
COUNTERBALANCE THE SHARES OF ITS OWN STOCK TAKEN BY THE BORROWER,
TOGETHER WITH DIVIDENDS DISTRIBUTED BY THE BANK, AND REASONABLE CHARGES
FOR NECESSARY EXPENSES, NOT IN EXCESS OF "1 PER CENTUM OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE LOAN APPLIED FOR."  BYRNE V. FEDERAL LAND BANK, 61 N.D. 265, 277;
237 N.W. 797; CF. SEC. 11; 12 U.S.C. 761, SUBD. 3.  TO ADD TO THE
PROTECTION OF THE BANK AND OTHER CREDITORS, THE SHAREHOLDERS IN THE
ASSOCIATION ARE CHARGEABLE UNDER THE LAW AS IT STOOD AT THE DATE OF
THESE TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONAL LIABILITY UP TO A DESIGNATED MAXIMUM. 
"SHAREHOLDERS OF EVERY NATIONAL FARM-LOAN ASSOCIATION SHALL BE HELD
INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE, EQUALLY AND RATABLY, AND NOT ONE FOR ANOTHER,
FOR ALL CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS OF SUCH ASSOCIATION TO THE
EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF STOCK OWNED BY THEM AT THE PAR VALUE THEREOF,
IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT PAID IN AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR SHARES." 
HAS FAILED TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION MAY
DECLARE IT INSOLVENT AND APPOINT A RECEIVER, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISO
THAT THIS SHALL NOT BE DONE UNTIL THE TOTAL DEFAULTS SHALL AMOUNT TO AT
LEAST $150,000 IN THE FEDERAL LAND BANK DISTRICT, UNLESS SUCH
ASSOCIATION SHALL HAVE BEEN IN DEFAULT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. 
LIQUIDATION WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE SUPERVISING FEDERAL AUTHORITY. 

THE BACKGROUND HAS NOW BEEN INDICATED AGAINST WHICH WE MUST VIEW THE
QUESTION WHETHER A MEMBER OF AN ASSOCIATION WHO HAS PAID HIS LOAN IN
FULL MAY HAVE HIS SHARES RETIRED AND RECOVER THEIR PAR VALUE WHEN THE
ASSOCIATION IS INSOLVENT.  IN SUPPORT OF SUCH A RECOVERY RESPONDENT
RELIES UPON TWO SECTIONS OF THE STATUTE.  BY SEC. 7(12 U.S.C. SEC. 721)
AN ASSOCIATION BORROWING FROM A LAND BANK "SHALL SUBSCRIBE FOR CAPITAL
STOCK OF SAID LAND BANK TO THE AMOUNT OF 5 PER CENTUM OF SUCH LOAN,"
THE STOCK TO BE HELD BY THE BANK AS COLLATERAL SECURITY.  BY THE SAME
OFF AND RETIRED UPON FULL PAYMENT OF THE MORTGAGE LOAN."  IF THAT IS
DONE, "THE NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION SHALL PAY OFF AT PAR AND
RETIRE THE CORRESPONDING SHARES OF ITS STOCK WHICH WERE ISSUED WHEN
SAID LAND BANK STOCK WAS ISSUED."  FN2 COMPLEMENTARY TO THAT SECTION IS
SEC. 8 OF THE ACT (12 U.S.C. SEC. 733), WHICH REGULATES THE RELATION
BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS.  UPON APPLYING FOR A LOAN, THE
APPLICANT "SHALL SUBSCRIBE FOR SHARES OF STOCK IN SUCH FARM LOAN
ASSOCIATION TO AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 5 PER CENTUM OF THE FACE OF THE
DESIRED LOAN," THE SUBSCRIPTION AT HIS ELECTION TO BE PAID OUT OF THE
PROCEEDS, AND THE STOCK TO BE HELD BY THE ASSOCIATION AS COLLATERAL
SECURITY.  "SAID CAPITAL STOCK SHALL BE PAID OFF AT PAR AND RETIRED
UPON FULL PAYMENT OF SAID LOAN."  IBID. 

THESE PROVISIONS FOR RETIREMENT, DESPITE THEIR APPARENT BREADTH, ARE
NOT TO BE EXTENDED TO A SITUATION SUCH AS THE ONE BEFORE US HERE, AND
THIS FOR TWO REASONS. 

IN THE FIRST PLACE, SEC. 8 OF THE STATUTE, AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, IS
COMPLEMENTARY TO SEC. 7.  WE ARE TO READ THE TWO TOGETHER.  THE
ASSOCIATION IS NOT TO RETIRE ITS OWN SHARES AND REPAY TO THE SUBSCRIBER
THE AMOUNT OF HIS SUBSCRIPTION UNTIL THE LAND BANK HAS RETIRED THE
CORRESPONDING SHARES OF BANK STOCK SUBSCRIBED FOR BY THE ASSOCIATION,
AND HAS PAID BACK TO THE ASSOCIATION THE PAR VALUE THEREOF.  ONLY THUS
CAN THE ASSOCIATION BE PUT IN FUNDS WHEREWITH TO MAKE PAYMENT TO ITS
OWN SUBSCRIBERS.  THE RECORD MAKES IT PLAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THIS
INDISPENSABLE CONDITION HAS NEVER BEEN FULFILLED.  THE BANK REFUSES TO
RETIRE THE SHARES OF BANK STOCK SUBSCRIBED FOR BY THE ASSOCIATION UPON
THE LOAN TO THE RESPONDENT, OR TO REFUND THE SUBSCRIPTIONS WHOLLY OR IN
PART.  THE SCHEME OF THE STATUTE WOULD BE FATALLY DISRUPTED IF THE
ASSOCIATION COULD BE HELD WHEN THE BANK REFUSED TO PAY. 

IN THE SECOND PLACE, NEITHER THE BANK NOR THE ASSOCIATION IS UNDER A
DUTY TO RETIRE STOCK WHEN THE ASSOCIATION IS INSOLVENT, AND THUS TO
GIVE TO THE WITHDRAWING MEMBER THROUGH THE RETURN OF HIS SUBSCRIPTION A
PREFERENCE OVER OTHERS.  THE STATUTE IS MISREAD IF THE SENTENCES
REGULATING WITHDRAWAL ARE TAKEN OUT OF THE SETTING OF A COOPERATIVE
SCHEME AND VIEWED IN ISOLATION.  UNDER THE LAW AS IT STOOD WHEN
RESPONDENT BECAME A MEMBER, THE SHAREHOLDERS WERE SUBJECTED TO A
PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR ALL THE CONTRACTS, DEBTS, AND ENGAGEMENTS OF THE
ASSOCIATION "TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF STOCK OWNED BY THEM AT THE
PAR VALUE THEREOF, IN ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT PAID IN AND REPRESENTED BY
THEIR SHARES."  SEC. 9; 12 U.S.C. 744.  THE ASSOCIATION IS ALREADY IN
DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF ITS MORTGAGE DEBTS, AND ALREADY ITS CAPITAL
IS IMPAIRED.  IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, TO RETURN TO RESPONDENT THE AMOUNT
PAID IN AND REPRESENTED BY HIS SHARES WOULD FRUSTRATE THE STATUTORY
MANDATE THAT THE AMOUNT SO PAID IN SHALL CONSTITUTE A FUND FOR THE
BENEFIT OF CREDITORS TO BE SUPPLEMENTED IN CASE OF NEED BY PERSONAL
LIABILITY FOR AS MUCH MORE AS THE INVESTMENT.  INDEED, ALTOGETHER APART
FROM ANY PLEDGE OF PERSONAL LIABILITY, THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE
ASSOCIATION IS BUILT UPON THE IMPLICATION OF EQUAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES ON
THE PART OF THE COOPERATING MEMBERS.  TO PERMIT A MEMBER TO WITHDRAW
WHEN THE ASSOCIATION IS INSOLVENT WOULD BE TO CAST UPON HIS FELLOW
MEMBERS THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFAULTS FOR WHICH ALL SHOULD ANSWER
RATABLY IN PROPORTION TO THEIR INTERESTS.  TO GUARD AGAINST THAT
INEQUITY THE STATUTE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SHARES IN THE ASSOCIATION
SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO RETIREMENT UNTIL THE CORRESPONDING
SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE LAND BANK HAVE BEEN CANCELED AND REFUNDED.  WE ARE
NOT REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A MEMBER OF AN ASSOCIATION WILL HAVE
RIGHTS ENFORCIBLE AGAINST THE BANK WHEN THE ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN WOUND
UP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL STATUTE.  CF. SEC. 29; 12 U.S.C. SEC.
966.  NO SUCH QUESTION IS BEFORE US.  ENOUGH FOR PRESENT PURPOSES THAT
IN THE EXISTING SITUATION, WITH INSOLVENCY CONCEDED, THE SHARES OF THE
ASSOCIATION ARE NOT SUBJECT TO WITHDRAWAL. 

THE CONCLUSION THUS ARRIVED AT IS IN ACCORD WITH WELL CONSIDERED
OPINIONS IN NORTH DAKOTA AND ARKANSAS WHERE THE SAME QUESTION WAS
INVOLVED.  BYRNE V. FEDERAL LAND BANK, SUPRA; WESTERN CLAY NATIONAL
FARM LOAN ASSN. V. LILLY, 189 ARK. 1004; 76 S.W.(2D) 55.  IT HAS THE
SUPPORT OF PERSUASIVE ANALOGIES IN THE LAW OF BUILDING AND LOAN
ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH HAVE MUCH IN COMMON WITH FARM LOAN ASSOCIATIONS
INCORPORATED BY ACT OF CONGRESS.  THE SETTLED RULE IS THAT THE SHARES
OF BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO RETIREMENT WHEN
THE ASSOCIATION IS INSOLVENT, AND THAT ANY REFUND MADE AT SUCH A TIME
MAY BE RECLAIMED BY A RECEIVER.  TOWLE V. AMERICAN BLDG., L. & I.
SOCIETY, 61 FED. 446; SULLIVAN V. STUCKY, 86 FED. 491, 493; COLTRANE V.
BLAKE, 113 FED. 785; ALDRICH V. GRAY, 147 FED. 453, 456; CHRISTIAN'S
APPEAL, 102 PA. 184; COLIN V. WELLFORD, 102 VA. 581; 46 S.E. 780; CF.
FIDELITY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSN. V. BURNET, 62 APP. D.C. 131; 65 F.(2D)
477, 479, 481. 

IN HOLDING THAT A JUDGMENT FOR THE PAR VALUE OF THE SHARES IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL STATUTE AND IMPLIEDLY FORBIDDEN, WE CUT
THE GROUND AWAY FROM THE AUXILIARY RECEIVERSHIP, WHICH MUST FALL WITH
THE JUDGMENT IT WAS INTENDED TO ENFORCE.  TO THIS WE ADD, HOWEVER, THAT
A NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT; THAT THE TIME AND MANNER OF LIQUIDATION ARE GOVERNED BY THE
FEDERAL STATUTE; AND THAT JURISDICTION DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE TRIBUNALS
OF A STATE TO WIND UP THE BUSINESS OF THIS GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY EITHER
BY A RECEIVERSHIP OR OTHERWISE.  12 U.S.C. SECS. 931, 961; FEDERAL LAND
BANK V. PRIDDY, SUPRA, PP. 231, 234; COOK COUNTY NATIONAL BANK V.
UNITED STATES, 107 U.S. 445, 448; EASTON V. IOWA, 188 U.S. 220, 233;
JENNINGS V. U.S.F. & G. CO., 294 U.S. 216, 226; BRUSSELBACK V. CHICAGO
JOINT STOCK LAND BANK, 69 F.(2D) 598; PARTRIDGE V. ST. LOUIS JOINT
STOCK LAND BANK, 76 F.(2D) 237; BOYD V. SCHNEIDER, 131 FED. 223, 227. 

WHETHER THE RESPONDENT MAY VOTE UPON HIS STOCK, AFTER HIS MORTGAGE
HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL, UNTIL THE SHARES HAVE BEEN REDEEMED, AND WHETHER
HE HAS A REMEDY TO COMPEL THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION TO LIQUIDATE
THE BUSINESS PROMPTLY, ARE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE
BRIEFS, BUT THAT DO NOT CALL FOR ANSWER UPON THE RECORD NOW BEFORE US. 

THE DECREE SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OHIO FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  THE LIABILITY HAS BEEN CHANGED IN RESPECT OF CONTRACTS, DEBTS OR
ENGAGEMENTS ENTERED INTO AFTER JUNE 16, 1933, WITHOUT AFFECTING
LIABILITIES INCURRED BEFORE THAT TIME.  ACT OF JUNE 16, 1933, C. 98,
SEC. 72, 48 STAT. 271; 12 U.S.C. SEC. 744A. 

FN2  THE FOLLOWING IS THE TEXT OF THE SECTION AS EMBODIED IN SEC. 721
OF THE UNITED STATES CODE: "WHENEVER ANY NATIONAL FARM LOAN ASSOCIATION
SHALL DESIRE TO SECURE FOR ANY MEMBER A LOAN ON FIRST MORTGAGE FROM THE
FEDERAL LAND BANK OF ITS DISTRICT IT SHALL SUBSCRIBE FOR CAPITAL STOCK
OF SAID LAND BANK TO THE AMOUNT OF 5 PER CENTUM OF SUCH LOAN, SUCH
SUBSCRIPTION TO BE PAID IN CASH UPON THE GRANTING OF THE LOAN BY SAID
LAND BANK.  SUCH CAPITAL STOCK SHALL BE HELD BY SAID LAND BANK AS
COLLATERAL SECURITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF SAID LOAN, BUT SAID ASSOCIATION
SHALL BE PAID ANY DIVIDENDS ACCRUING AND PAYABLE ON SAID CAPITAL STOCK
WHILE IT IS OUTSTANDING.  SUCH STOCK MAY, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE
DIRECTORS, AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION, BE
PAID OFF AT PAR AND RETIRED, AND IT SHALL BE SO PAID OFF AND RETIRED
UPON FULL PAYMENT OF THE MORTGAGE LOAN.  IN SUCH CASE THE NATIONAL FARM
LOAN ASSOCIATION SHALL PAY OFF AT PAR AND RETIRE THE CORRESPONDING
SHARES OF ITS STOCK WHICH WERE ISSUED WHEN SAID LAND BANK STOCK WAS
ISSUED."  (12 U.S.C. SEC. 721.) 
..END :














AMER. LIFE INS. CO. V. STEWART, 300 U.S. 203 


NO. 440.  ARGUED JANUARY 15, 1937.  - DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1937.  - 80
F.(2D) 600 - 85 ID. 791, REVERSED. 


1.  FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE IS PROVABLE AS A DEFENSE IN
AN ACTION AT LAW UPON THE POLICY.  P. 212. 

2.  A "CONTEST," WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF A PROVISION OF A LIFE
INSURANCE POLICY THAT IT SHALL BE INCONTESTABLE AFTER A PERIOD DEFINED,
HAS GENERALLY BEEN HELD TO MEAN A PRESENT CONTEST IN A COURT, NOT A
NOTICE OF REPUDIATION OR OF A CONTEST TO BE WAGED THEREAFTER.  P. 212. 

3.  NO ACTION AT LAW HAVING BEEN BROUGHT ON THE POLICY, AN INSURER
WHOSE ATTACK UPON THE GROUND OF FRAUD IS ENDANGERED BY THE RUNNING OF
THE TIME LIMITED BY THE POLICY FOR CONTEST MAY SUE IN EQUITY FOR
CANCELATION.  P. 212. 

IN THE PRESENT CASES THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR CONTEST WAS TWO YEARS
FROM THE DATE OF THE TWO POLICIES.  THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S SUITS FOR
CANCELATION WERE BROUGHT WHEN SIX MONTHS AND TEN DAYS OF THAT PERIOD
HAD PASSED. 

4.  WHERE EQUITY CAN GIVE RELIEF, PLAINTIFF OUGHT NOT TO BE COMPELLED
TO SPECULATE UPON HIS CHANCE OF OBTAINING RELIEF AT LAW, OR TO INCUR
THE DANGER THAT WITNESSES MAY DISAPPEAR AND EVIDENCE BE LOST IF HE
WAITS TO BE SUED BY HIS ANTAGONIST.  P. 213. 

5.  A REMEDY AT LAW DOES NOT EXCLUDE ONE IN EQUITY UNLESS IT IS
EQUALLY PROMPT AND CERTAIN AND IN OTHER WAYS EFFICIENT.  P. 214. 

6.  A REMEDY AT LAW IS NOT ADEQUATE IF ITS ADEQUACY DEPENDS UPON THE
WILL OF THE OPPOSING PARTY.  P. 214. 

7.  EQUITABLE JURISDICTION EXISTING AT THE FILING OF THE BILL IS NOT
DESTROYED BY THE SUBSEQUENT AVAILABILITY OF AN ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY. 
P. 215. 

IN THESE CASES THE EQUITY JURISDICTION WHICH ATTACHED ON THE FILING
OF THE BILLS BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY, WAS NOT LOST WHEN ACTIONS ON THE
POLICIES WERE BROUGHT IN THE SAME COURT; THOUGH THE COURT, IF
REQUESTED, MIGHT HAVE TRIED THE LAW SUITS FIRST. 

AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. REESE SMITH STEWART ET AL.* 

*TOGETHER WITH NO. 441, AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. ORA INEZ
STEWART ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. 

CERTIORARI, 299 U.S. 536, TO REVIEW THE REVERSAL OF DECREES FOR THE
CANCELATION AND SURRENDER OF POLICIES OF LIFE INSURANCE. 

CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS PROCURED BY FRAUD IS A WELL-SETTLED FIELD
OF EQUITY JURISDICTION.  THE INCONTESTABLE CLAUSE REQUIRED CONTEST IN
COURT TO PRESERVE PETITIONER'S RIGHTS, AND NO LAW ACTION WAS PENDING AT
THE TIME THE BILLS WERE FILED IN WHICH CONTEST COULD BE MADE BY
ANSWER.  THESE FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE ANY
REMEDY AT LAW, ADEQUATE OR OTHERWISE, AND PRESENTED A "SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE" AUTHORIZING PETITIONER TO BRING ITS BILLS TO CANCEL WHEN
AND AS THE BILLS WERE FILED.  MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. HURNI PACKING
CO., 263 U.S. 167, 174, 176; STORY, EQ. JURIS.  (13TH ED.), SEC. 995; 2
BLACK, RESCISSION & CANCELLATION, SEC. 655, P. 1497; 9 C.J. 1160. 

WHEN A COURT OF EQUITY PROPERLY ACQUIRES JURISDICTION IT WILL RETAIN
IT UNTIL COMPLETE JUSTICE IS DONE BETWEEN THE PARTIES.  MCGOWAN V.
PARISH, 237 U.S. 285, 296; ALEXANDER V. HILLMAN, 296 U.S. 222, 242; 21
C.J. 134, SEC. 117. 

WHETHER AN EQUITY COURT HAS JURISDICTION DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING AT THE TIME THE BILL IS FILED AND NOT ON THOSE
THAT MAY SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOP.  A REMEDY AT LAW CANNOT BE ADEQUATE IF
ITS ADEQUACY DEPENDS UPON THE WILL OF THE OPPOSING PARTY.  BOYCE'S
EXECUTORS V. GRUNDY, 3 PET. 210, 215; SULLIVAN V. PORTLAND R. CO., 94
U.S. 806, 811; DAWSON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 255 U.S. 288, 296;
BUSCH V. JONES, 184 U.S. 598, 600; CLARK V. WOOSTER, 119 U.S. 322, 325;
BANK OF KENTUCKY V. STONE, 88 FED. 383, 391. 

THE CASE IS CONTROLLED BY THE RULE ANNOUNCED BY THIS COURT IN DAWSON
V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES CO., 255 U.S. 288, 296, THAT EQUITABLE
JURISDICTION IS NOT "LOST BECAUSE SINCE THE FILING OF THE BILL AN
ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY MAY HAVE BECOME AVAILABLE."  SEE ALSO BUSCH V.
JONES, 184 U.S. 598, 600. 

THE FOREGOING POINTS HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION AND DECISION
IN POLICY CANCELLATION CASES, SIMILAR TO THE ONES AT BAR, IN OTHER
CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS, AND SUCH DECISIONS DECLARE THE PRINCIPLES
ABOVE STATED.  THIS DECISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
TENTH CIRCUIT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS IN OTHER CIRCUITS IN
LIKE CASES.  (FOURTH CIRCUIT) JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. V.
KEETON, 292 FED. 53, 54-56; JONES V. RELIANCE LIFE INS. CO., 11 F.(2D)
69, 70; BROWN V. PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 62 F.(2D) 711, 712; NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. TRUESDALE, 79 F.(2D) 481, 485; PACIFIC MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO. V. PARKER, 71 F.(2D) 872, 874.  (FIFTH CIRCUIT) JEFFERSON
STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. V. MCINTYRE, 294 FED. 886, 888.  (SIXTH CIRCUIT)
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. SEYMOUR, 45 F.(2D) 47, 48, 49; ROSE V. MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO., 19 F.(2D) 280, 282.  (SEVENTH CIRCUIT) HARNISCHFEGER
SALES CORP. V. NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO., 72 F.(2D) 921, 922, 923. 
(EIGHTH CIRCUIT) PEAKE V. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO., 15 F.(2D)
303, 305, 306; LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. HAMMER, 41 F.(2D) 12,
17.  (NINTH CIRCUIT) MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INS. CO. V. ANDEREGG, 83
F.(2D) 622, 624, CERT. DEN., 299 U.S. 567.  IT APPEARS ALSO TO BE IN
CONFLICT WITH ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379, 384, UPON
WHICH IT PROFESSES TO BE BASED. 

MAINTAINED IF PLAINTIFF HAS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW, MAY BE WAIVED BY
DEFENDANT, AND WAS WAIVED IN THESE CASES BOTH BY PLEADING TO THE MERITS
ONLY, BY STIPULATING IN WRITING FOR TRIAL OF THE EQUITY SUITS IN
ADVANCE OF THE LAW ACTIONS, AND BY PROCEEDING TO TRIAL WITHOUT
OBJECTING TO EQUITY JURISDICTION.  AMERICAN MILLS CO. V. AMERICAN
SURETY CO., 260 U.S. 360, 363; DUIGNAN V. UNITED STATES, 274 U.S. 195,
199; TWIST V. PRAIRIE OIL CO., 274 U.S. 684, 689-691; PEREGO V. DODGE,
163 U.S. 160, 164; REYNES V. DUMONT, 130 U.S. 354, 395; KILBOURN V.
SUNDERLAND, 130 U.S. 505, 514; TYLER V. SAVAGE, 143 U.S. 79, 96-97;
SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 200 U.S. 341, 349; BROWN V.
LAKE SUPERIOR IRON CO., 134 U.S. 530, 536; SINGER SEWING MACHINE CO. V.
BENEDICT, 229 U.S. 481, 484; LYONS MILLING CO. V. GOFFE & CARKENER, 46
F.(2D) 241, 245; SANDERS V. RIVERSIDE, 118 FED. 720, 722. 

THE DECREES CANCELLING THE POLICIES WERE JUSTIFIED AND SHOULD BE
AFFIRMED.  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. GRIFFITH, 35 F.(2D) 945, 946. 

THE CLAIMS WERE PURE LEGAL CLAIMS AND THE DEFENSES LEGAL DEFENSES. 
ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379; ADAMOS V. NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO., 293 U.S. 386.  THE BENEFICIARIES WERE GUARANTEED A RIGHT TO
TRIAL BY JURY.  CONST., SEVENTH AMENDMENT; JUDICIARY ACT, C. 20, SEC.
16, 1 STAT. 82; JUD.  CODE, SEC. 267; 28 U.S.C. 384. 

THE RIGHT OF THE COURT OF EQUITY TO INTERCEDE WAS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT
UPON THE POSSIBLE OR THREATENED LOSS OF COMPLAINANT'S DEFENSE, IF A
CONTROVERSY WAS NOT INSTITUTED WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED.  NECESSARILY,
THE RIGHT WAS DEPENDENT ENTIRELY UPON THE PROBABILITY OF LOSING IT.
SEE MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. HURNI PACKING CO., 263 U.S. 167, AND CASES
CITED IN ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379, 384. 

UNDER THE ALLEGATIONS, WE HAVE MERELY AN ABSTRACT QUESTION; AT MOST A
MERE APPREHENSION OR FEAR OF A REMOTE INJURY.  NO ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE
OR FACTS STATED TO JUSTIFY EVEN AN INFERENCE THAT THE BENEFICIARIES
WOULD NOT COMMENCE ACTIONS WITHIN THE PERIOD. 

THIS CASE IS OF THAT TYPE OF EQUITY JURISDICTION WHICH IS TO PREVENT
INJURY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE TYPES WHICH DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES
AND ADJUDICATE RIGHTS DEPENDENT UPON FACTS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED.  IT IS
A FIXED PRINCIPLE THAT THE OCCURRENCE OR CONTINUANCE OF THE INJURY MUST
BE PROBABLE AND IMMINENT.  CONNECTICUT V. MASSACHUSETTS, 282 U.S. 660;
NEW YORK V. ILLINOIS, 274 U.S. 488; NEW JERSEY V. SARGENT, 269 U.S.
328; TEXAS V. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMM'N, 258 U.S. 158; MARYE V.
PARSONS, 114 U.S. 325; FOSTER V. MANSFIELD C. & L.M.R. CO., 146 U.S.
88; STEARNS V. WOOD, 236 U.S. 75. 

PETITIONER, HAVING A PLAIN, ADEQUATE, AND COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW, WAS
NOT ENTITLED TO A STAY IN EQUITY.  SMITH V. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, 89
FED. 832, 838; GRIESA V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 169 FED. 509, CERT.
DEN., 215 U.S. 600. 

THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
IN THE LAW ACTIONS BY FILING MOTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS.  MOREOVER,
THE FOLLOWING WELL-CONSIDERED CASES HOLD THAT THE LEGAL REMEDY OF THE
INSURANCE COMPANY BECAME PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE NOTWITHSTANDING
THE PENDENCY OF THE EQUITY SUITS, UPON THE FILING OF THE LAW ACTIONS
WITHIN THE CONTEST PERIOD BY THE RESPONDENTS.  GREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INS.
CO. V. BURWELL, 12 F.(2D) 244, CERT. DEN., 271 U.S. 683; NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO. V. MCCARTHY, 22 F.(2D) 241; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V.
THOMPSON, 78 F.(2D) 946; ROHRBACH V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 82 F.(2D)
291.  AND SEE GRIESA V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 169 FED. 509, CERT. DEN.,
215 U.S. 600; ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379; ADAMOS V.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S. 386. 

THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS WERE CONSIDERED AS LEVELED AT BOTH THE
ORIGINAL AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS HEREIN, SINCE THE APPLICATION FOR
INJUNCTION AGAINST THE PROSECUTION OF THE LAW ACTIONS, WHICH CAME ON
FOR HEARING AT THE SAME TIME, IS FOUND ONLY IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS. 
THE SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS RECITE THAT THE LAW ACTIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS.  THEREFORE, THE PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONER SHOW UPON
THEIR FACE THAT PETITIONER HAD A PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE REMEDY AT
LAW WITHIN THE CONTESTABLE PERIOD, AT THE TIME THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS
WERE CONSIDERED.  UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS HELD THAT THE ACTIONS
TO CANCEL THE POLICIES FOR FRAUD WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED IN A COURT OF
EQUITY.  CABLE V. UNITED STATES LIFE INS. CO., 191 U.S. 288; PHOENIX
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. V. BAILEY, 13 WALL.  616; DI GIOVANNI V. CAMDEN
FIRE INS. CO., 296 U.S. 64; NICHOLS V. PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 84
F.(2D) 896; GRIESA V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 169 FED. 509, CERT. DEN.,
215 U.S. 600; RIGGS V. UNION LIFE INS. CO., 129 FED. 207; ROHRBACH V.
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 82 F.(2D) 291; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V.
THOMPSON, 78 F.(2D) 946. 

THE RECORDS SHOW THE ACTIONS AT LAW UPON THE POLICIES WERE AT ISSUE
TWO MONTHS AND TWENTY-THREE DAYS BEFORE THE TRIAL OF THESE EQUITY SUITS
IN THE SAME COURT, AND FOUR MONTHS AND THIRTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE
EXPIRATION OF THE CONTEST PERIOD.  THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAD THUS
INSTITUTED A CONTEST OF THE POLICIES IN ACTIONS AT LAW.  A DISMISSAL OF
THE LAW ACTIONS THEREAFTER WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE COMPANY OF THE BENEFIT
OF THAT CONTEST.  CABLE V. UNITED STATES LIFE INS. CO., 191 U.S. 288,
309; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. MILLER, 73 F.(2D) 350; NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO. V. HURT, 35 F.(2D) 92, 96; THOMAS V. LIFE INSURANCE CO., 135
KAN. 381. 

MOREOVER, THE INSURANCE COMPANY AFTER THE PENDENCY OF THE LAW ACTION
COULD PLEAD AS A COUNTERCLAIM OR CROSS-PETITION THE VERY SAME CAUSE OF
ACTION WHICH IS SET OUT IN THE BILL OF COMPLAINT TO CANCEL THE POLICY
FOR FRAUD.  BY THE KANSAS CODE OF PROCEDURE, THE DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION
BY THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT DISMISS ANY COUNTERCLAIM PLEADED BY THE
DEFENDANT.  SEE NORTHERN LIFE INS. CO. V. WALKER, 123 WASH. 203. 

RESPONDENTS DID NOT WAIVE THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. 

JURISDICTION IN EQUITY UPON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS
WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW, CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY CONSENT OR
WAIVER.  JUD.  CODE, SEC. 267; 28 U.S.C. 384. 

WHENEVER AT ANY STAGE IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A PLAIN, ADEQUATE AND
COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW, THE COURT MUST DISMISS THE SUIT AND LEAVE THE
PARTIES TO THEIR LEGAL REMEDY, EVEN THOUGH THE POINT IS NOT RAISED BY
THE PLEADINGS NOR SUGGESTED BY COUNSEL.  HIPP V. BABIN, 19 HOW.  279;
OELRICHS V. WILLIAMS, 15 WALL.  211; LEWIS V. COCKS, 23 WALL.  466;
BOISE WATER CO. V. BOISE CITY, 213 U.S. 276; PHOENIX LIFE INS. CO. V.
BAILEY, 14 WALL.  616; SINGER SEWING MACHINE CO. V. BENEDICT, 229 U.S.
481. 

TRIAL BY JURY IS A VALUABLE RIGHT; EVERY REASONABLE ASSUMPTION SHOULD
BE INDULGED AGAINST ITS WAIVER.  HODGES V. EASTON, 106 U.S. 408; BAYLIS
V. TRAVELERS INS. CO., 113 U.S. 316. 

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

IN THESE CASES SUITS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FOR THE CANCELLATION OF
POLICIES OF LIFE INSURANCE ON THE GROUND OF FRAUD IN THEIR PROCUREMENT,
THE POLICIES PROVIDING THAT THEY SHALL CEASE TO BE CONTESTABLE UNLESS
CONTEST SHALL BE BEGUN WITHIN A STATED TIME.  THE QUESTION TO BE
DETERMINED IS THE EXISTENCE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, OF A REMEDY IN
EQUITY. 

ON FEBRUARY 23, 1932, PETITIONER, A COLORADO CORPORATION, ISSUED TO
REESE SMITH STEWART, A CITIZEN OF KANSAS, TWO POLICIES OF LIFE
INSURANCE, EACH FOR $5,000, ONE PAYABLE TO HIS SON, WHO IS A RESPONDENT
IN NO. 440, AND THE OTHER PAYABLE TO HIS WIFE, WHO IS A RESPONDENT IN
NO. 441.  EACH POLICY CONTAINS A PROVISION THAT IT "SHALL BE
INCONTESTABLE, EXCEPT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM, AFTER ONE YEAR
FROM ITS DATE OF ISSUE IF THE INSURED BE THEN LIVING, OTHERWISE AFTER
TWO YEARS FROM ITS DATE OF ISSUE."  ON MAY 31, 1932, THREE MONTHS AND
EIGHT DAYS AFTER OBTAINING THE INSURANCE, THE INSURED DIED, HAVING MADE
IN HIS APPLICATION FRAUDULENT MISSTATEMENTS, OR SO THE INSURER CHARGES,
AS TO HIS HEALTH AND OTHER MATTERS MATERIAL TO THE RISK.  ON SEPTEMBER
3, 1932, THE INSURER BROUGHT SUIT TO CANCEL THE INSURANCE, A SEPARATE
SUIT FOR EACH POLICY, THE EXECUTRIX OF THE INSURED BEING JOINED AS A
DEFENDANT WITH THE RESPECTIVE BENEFICIARIES.  THE COMPLAINT IN EACH
SUIT REFERS IN A PARAGRAPH NUMBERED 8 TO THE PROVISION THAT THE POLICY
SHALL BE INCONTESTABLE AFTER THE LAPSE OF TWO YEARS.  IN THE SAME
PARAGRAPH IT STATES IN SUBSTANCE THAT THE BENEFICIARY MAY DELAY THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION AT LAW TILL THE TIME FOR CONTEST HAS GONE
BY, OR, BEGINNING SUCH AN ACTION WITHIN THE PERIOD, MAY AFTERWARDS
DISMISS IT AND THEN BEGIN ANEW.  THE INSURER ASKS THE COURT TO ACT
WHILE YET THE BARRIER IS DOWN. 

ON SEPTEMBER 26, 1932, THE DEFENDANTS MOVED IN EACH SUIT TO DISMISS
THE BILL FOR WANT OF EQUITY.  ON OCTOBER 11, 1932, THE BENEFICIARIES
BEGAN ACTIONS AT LAW IN THE SAME COURT TO RECOVER THE INSURANCE.  ON
OCTOBER 29, THE INSURER FILED ITS SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS SETTING FORTH THE
PENDENCY OF THE ACTIONS AT LAW, AND PRAYING AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THEIR
CONTINUED PROSECUTION.  ON JULY 28, 1933, THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE
MOTIONS TO DISMISS, WITHOUT PASSING, HOWEVER, ON MOTIONS MADE BY THE
INSURER TO ENJOIN THE ACTIONS AT LAW.  ON AUGUST 29, A STIPULATION WAS
SIGNED AND FILED IN EACH CASE THAT "THE SUIT IN EQUITY SHALL BE TRIED"
BY THE COURT "BEFORE SAID LAW ACTION IS TRIED, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
THE ISSUES IN SAID LAW ACTION SHALL IN THE MEANTIME BE MADE UP IN ORDER
THAT SAID LAW ISSUES THUS JOINED SHALL STAND READY FOR TRIAL, WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT SAID LAW ISSUES, IF ANY REMAIN FOR TRIAL, SHALL BE
TRIED AS SOON AFTER THE TRIAL OF THE SUIT IN EQUITY AS THE COURT SHALL
DETERMINE," AND THIS STIPULATION WAS APPROVED BY THE COURT AND AN ORDER
MADE ACCORDINGLY.  ON OCTOBER 10, 1933, THE DEFENDANTS IN EACH OF THE
EQUITY SUITS FILED THEIR ANSWERS TO THE BILLS, DENYING THE FRAUD,
ADMITTING THE MAKING OF THE "INCONTESTABILITY CLAUSE" AS STATED IN
PARAGRAPH 8, AND AS TO THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS OF THAT PARAGRAPH DENYING
ANY KNOWLEDGE OR INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO FORM A BELIEF.  THE ANSWERS
DID NOT STATE THAT THE REMEDY AT LAW WAS ADEQUATE.    UPON THE TRIAL OF
THE SUITS IN EQUITY, THE DISTRICT COURT FOUND THE FRAUDULENT
REPRESENTATIONS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINTS, AND DECREED THE CANCELLATION
AND SURRENDER OF THE POLICIES.  THERE WAS AN APPEAL TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, WHERE THE DECREE WAS REVERSED, ONE JUDGE
DISSENTING, THE COURT HOLDING THAT THE INSURER HAD AN ADEQUATE REMEDY
AT LAW.  80 F.(2D) 600; 85 F.(2D) 791.  WE GRANTED CERTIORARI TO SETTLE
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, AND ONE LIKELY TO RECUR, AS TO THE SCOPE OF
EQUITABLE REMEDIES. 

NO DOUBT IT IS THE RULE, AND ONE RECENTLY APPLIED IN DECISIONS OF
THIS COURT, THAT FRAUD IN THE PROCUREMENT OF INSURANCE IS PROVABLE AS A
DEFENSE IN AN ACTION AT LAW UPON THE POLICY, RESORT TO EQUITY BEING
UNNECESSARY TO RENDER THAT DEFENSE AVAILABLE.  ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO., 293 U.S. 379, 385; ADAMOS V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO., 293 U.S.
386; INSURANCE CO. V. BAILEY, 13 WALL.  616; CABLE V. UNITED STATES
LIFE INS. CO., 191 U.S. 288, 306.  THAT BEING SO, AN INSURER, THOUGH
THE VICTIM OF A FRAUD, MAY COMMONLY STAND ASIDE AND AWAIT THE HOUR OF
ATTACK.  BUT THIS ATTITUDE OF ALOOFNESS MAY AT TIMES BE FRAUGHT WITH
PERIL.  IF THE POLICY IS TO BECOME INCONTESTABLE SOON AFTER THE DEATH
OF THE INSURED, THE INSURER BECOMES HELPLESS IF HE MUST WAIT FOR A MOVE
BY SOME ONE ELSE, WHO MAY PREFER TO REMAIN MOTIONLESS TILL THE TIME FOR
CONTEST HAS GONE BY.  A "CONTEST" WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SUCH A CONTRACT
HAS GENERALLY BEEN HELD TO MEAN A PRESENT CONTEST IN A COURT, NOT A
NOTICE OF REPUDIATION OR OF A CONTEST TO BE WAGED THEREAFTER.  SEE,
E.G., KILLIAN V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 251 N.Y. 44, 48; 166 N.E.
798; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. HURT, 35 F.(2D) 92, 95; HARNISCHFEGER
SALES CORP. V. NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO., 72 F.(2D) 921, 922.  ACCORDINGLY
AN INSURER, WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE CONDEMNED TO LOSS THROUGH THE MERE
INACTION OF AN ADVERSARY, MAY ASSUME THE OFFENSIVE BY GOING INTO EQUITY
AND THERE PRAYING CANCELLATION.  THIS EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE HAS
BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS WITH IMPRESSIVE UNIFORMITY. 
FN1  IT HAS HAD ACCEPTANCE IN THE STATE COURTS.  FN2  IT WAS RECOGNIZED
ONLY RECENTLY IN AN OPINION OF THIS COURT, THOUGH THE FACTS WERE NOT
SUCH AS TO CALL FOR ITS ALLOWANCE.  ENELOW V. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.,
SUPRA, AT P. 384.  FN3 

THE ARGUMENT IS MADE, HOWEVER, THAT THE INSURER, EVEN IF PRIVILEGED
TO SUE IN EQUITY, SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE THERE QUITE SO QUICKLY.  SIX
MONTHS AND TEN DAYS HAD GONE BY SINCE THE POLICIES WERE ISSUED.  THERE
WOULD BE NEARLY A YEAR AND A HALF MORE BEFORE THE BAR WOULD BECOME
ABSOLUTE.  BUT HOW LONG WAS THE INSURER TO WAIT BEFORE ASSUMING THE
OFFENSIVE, AND HOW WAS IT TO KNOW WHERE THE BENEFICIARIES WOULD BE IF
IT OMITTED TO STRIKE SWIFTLY?  OFTEN A FAMILY BREAKS UP AND CHANGES ITS
ABODE AFTER THE GOING OF ITS HEAD.  THE LIKE MIGHT HAPPEN TO THIS
FAMILY.  TO SAY THAT THE INSURER SHALL KEEP WATCH OF THE COMING AND
GOING OF THE SURVIVORS IS TO CHARGE IT WITH A HEAVY BURDEN.  THE TASK
WOULD BE HARD ENOUGH IF BENEFICIARIES WERE ALWAYS HONEST.  THE
POSSIBILITY OF BAD FAITH, PERHAPS CONCEALED AND HARDLY PROVABLE,
ACCENTUATES THE DIFFICULTY.  THERE ARE STATEMENTS BY JUDGES OF REPUTE
WHICH SUGGEST A POSSIBILITY THAT THE CONTEST BARRIER MAY STAND THOUGH
THE HOLDER OF THE POLICY HAS GONE TO FOREIGN LANDS.  NEW YORK LIFE INS.
CO. V. PANAGIOTOPOULOS, 80 F.(2D) 136, 139.  THERE ARE STATEMENTS THAT
IT WILL STAND THOUGH AN ACTION AT LAW, BROUGHT WITHIN THE PERIOD, HAD
BEEN DISMISSED OR DISCONTINUED LATER.  SEE NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V.
SEYMOUR, 45 F.(2D) 47, 48; HARNISCHFEGER SALES CORP. V. NATIONAL LIFE
INS. CO., 72 F.(2D) 921, 925; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. TRUESDALE, 79
F.(2D) 481, 485, WITH WHICH CONTRAST NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. MILLER,
73 F.(2D) 350, 355; THOMAS V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO., 135 KAN. 381,
387; 10 P.(2D) 864, AND POWELL V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 313 ILL. 161,
170; 144 N.E. 825.  WHETHER SUCH STATEMENTS GO TOO FAR WE ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO DETERMINE, FOR A SLIGHT VARIANCE IN THE FACTS, AS, E.G., IN
THE RULE PREVAILING IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE THE FINAL SUIT IS
BROUGHT, MAY HAVE A BEARING ON THE CONCLUSION.  AT LEAST IN SUCH
WARNINGS THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES OF DANGER WHICH A CAUTIOUS INSURER
WOULD NOT PUT ASIDE AS VISIONARY.  "WHERE EQUITY CAN GIVE RELIEF
PLAINTIFF OUGHT NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO SPECULATE UPON THE CHANCE OF HIS
OBTAINING RELIEF AT LAW."  DAVIS V. WAKELEE, 156 U.S. 680, 688.  TO
THIS MUST BE ADDED THE DANGER THAT WITNESSES MAY DISAPPEAR AND EVIDENCE
BE LOST.  A REMEDY AT LAW DOES NOT EXCLUDE ONE IN EQUITY UNLESS IT IS
EQUALLY PROMPT AND CERTAIN AND IN OTHER WAYS EFFICIENT.  BOYCE'S
EXECUTORS V. GRUNDY, 3 PET. 210; DREXEL V. BERNEY, 122 U.S. 241; WALLA
WALLA V. WALLA WALLA WATER CO., 172 U.S. 1; UNION PACIFIC R. CO. V.
WELD COUNTY, 247 U.S. 282, 287.  "IT MUST BE A REMEDY WHICH MAY BE
RESORTED TO WITHOUT IMPEDIMENT CREATED OTHERWISE THAN BY THE ACT OF THE
PARTY."  CABLE V. UNITED STATES LIFE INS. CO., SUPRA, AT P. 303.  HERE
THE INSURER HAD NO REMEDY AT LAW AT ALL EXCEPT AT THE PLEASURE OF AN
ADVERSARY.  THERE WAS NEITHER EQUALITY IN EFFICIENCY NOR EQUALITY IN
CERTAINTY NOR EQUALITY IN PROMPTNESS.  "THE REMEDY AT LAW CANNOT BE
ADEQUATE IF ITS ADEQUACY DEPENDS UPON THE WILL OF THE OPPOSING PARTY." 
BANK OF KENTUCKY V. STONE, 88 FED. 383, 391; CF. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE
INS. CO. V. HAMMER, 41 F.(2D) 12, 16.  TO MAKE A CONTRACT INCONTESTABLE
AFTER THE LAPSE OF A BRIEF TIME IS TO CONFER UPON ITS HOLDER
EXTRAORDINARY PRIVILEGES.  WE MUST BE ON OUR GUARD AGAINST TURNING THEM
INTO WEAPONS OF OPPRESSION. 

THE ARGUMENT IS MADE THAT THE SUITS IN EQUITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED WHEN IT APPEARED UPON THE TRIAL THAT AFTER THE FILING OF THE
BILLS, AND IN OCTOBER, 1932, THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE POLICIES HAD SUED
ON THEM AT LAW.  BUT THE SETTLED RULE IS THAT EQUITABLE JURISDICTION
EXISTING AT THE FILING OF A BILL IS NOT DESTROYED BECAUSE AN ADEQUATE
LEGAL REMEDY MAY HAVE BECOME AVAILABLE THEREAFTER.  DAWSON V. KENTUCKY
DISTILLERIES CO., 255 U.S. 288, 296; LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V.
HAMMER, SUPRA; NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. SEYMOUR, SUPRA.  THERE IS
INDEED, A POSSIBILITY THAT THE BRINGING OF ACTIONS AT LAW MIGHT HAVE
BEEN USED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE IF THEY HAD NOT CHOSEN
BY A STIPULATION TO THROW THE POSSIBILITY AWAY.  A COURT HAS CONTROL
OVER ITS OWN DOCKET.  LANDIS V. NORTH AMERICAN CO., 299 U.S. 248.  IN
THE EXERCISE OF A SOUND DISCRETION IT MAY HOLD ONE LAWSUIT IN ABEYANCE
TO ABIDE THE OUTCOME OF ANOTHER, ESPECIALLY WHERE THE PARTIES AND THE
ISSUES ARE THE SAME.  IBID.  IF REQUEST HAD BEEN MADE BY THE
RESPONDENTS TO SUSPEND THE SUITS IN EQUITY TILL THE OTHER CAUSES WERE
DISPOSED OF, THE DISTRICT COURT COULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER JUSTICE
WOULD NOT BE DONE BY PURSUING SUCH A COURSE, THE REMEDY IN EQUITY BEING
EXCEPTIONAL AND THE OUTCOME OF NECESSITY.  CF. HARNISCHFEGER SALES
CORP. V. NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO., 72 F.(2D) 921, 922, 923.  THERE WOULD
BE MANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE WEIGHED, AS, FOR INSTANCE, THE CONDITION OF
THE COURT CALENDAR, WHETHER THE INSURER HAD BEEN PRECIPITATE OR ITS
ADVERSARIES DILATORY, AS WELL AS OTHER FACTORS.  IN THE END, BENEFIT
AND HARDSHIP WOULD HAVE TO BE SET OFF, THE ONE AGAINST THE OTHER, AND A
BALANCE ASCERTAINED.  LANDIS V. NORTH AMERICAN CO., SUPRA.  BUT
RESPONDENTS, AS ALREADY INDICATED, GAVE THAT POSSIBILITY AWAY.  THEY
STIPULATED THAT THE ISSUES IN EQUITY SHOULD BE TRIED IN ADVANCE OF
THOSE AT LAW, AND THAT ONLY SUCH ISSUES, IF ANY, AS WERE LEFT SHOULD BE
DISPOSED OF LATER ON.  THE CASES WERE ALLOWED TO STAND AS IF CHALLENGE
TO THE SUITS HAD BEEN MADE BY A DEMURRER ONLY.  SO CHALLENGED, THEY
PREVAIL. 

THE DECREE SHOULD BE REVERSED, AND THE CAUSE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF
APPEALS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS AND FOR OTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
ACCORD WITH THIS OPINION.  REVERSED. 

FN1  FROM THE FOURTH CIRCUIT:  JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. V.
KEETON, 292 FED. 53, 54-56; JONES V. RELIANCE LIFE INS. CO., 11 F.(2D)
69, 70; BROWN V. PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., 62 F.(2D) 711, 712; NEW
YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. TRUESDALE, 79 F.(2D) 481, 485; PACIFIC MUTUAL
LIFE INS. CO. V. PARKER, 71 F.(2D) 872, 874.  FROM THE FIFTH CIRCUIT:
JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. V. MCINTYRE, 294 FED. 886, 888.  FROM
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT:  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. SEYMOUR, 45 F.(2D) 47,
48, 49; ROSE V. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK, 19 F.(2D) 280, 282. 
FROM THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT:  HARNISCHFEGER SALES CORP. V. NATIONAL LIFE
INS. CO., 72 F.(2D) 921, 922, 923.  FROM THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT:  PEAKE V.
LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO., 15 F.(2D) 303, 305, 306; LINCOLN
NATIONAL LIFE INS. CO. V. HAMMER, 41 F.(2D) 12, 17.  FROM THE NINTH
CIRCUIT:  MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INS. CO. V. ANDEREGG, 83 F.(2D) 622,
625.  FROM THE TENTH CIRCUIT:  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. THOMPSON, 78
F.(2D) 946, 947(SEMBLE).  FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA:  DENSBY V.
ACACIA MUTUAL LIFE ASSN., 64 APP. D.C. 319; 78 F.(2D) 203, 206. 

FN2  NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. V. RIGAS, 117 CONN. 437; 168 ATL. 22;
EBNER V. OHIO STATE LIFE INS. CO., 69 IND. APP. 32; 121 N.E. 315; AETNA
LIFE INS. CO. V. DANIEL, 328 MO. 876; 42 S.W.(2D) 584; NEW YORK LIFE
INS. CO. V. COBB, 219 MO. APP. 609; 282 S.W. 494; NEW YORK LIFE INS.
CO. V. STEINMAN, 103 N.J. EQ. 403; 143 ATL. 529; AMERICAN TRUST CO. V.
LIFE INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA, 173 N.C. 558; 92 S.E. 706; PRUDENTIAL INS.
CO. V. TANENBAUM, 53 R.I. 355; 167 ATL. 147. 

FN3  "THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT ONE IN WHICH THERE IS RESORT TO EQUITY
FOR CANCELLATION OF THE POLICY DURING THE LIFE OF THE INSURED AND NO
OPPORTUNITY EXISTS TO CONTEST LIABILITY AT LAW.  NOR IS IT A CASE
WHERE, ALTHOUGH DEATH MAY HAVE OCCURRED, ACTION HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO
RECOVER UPON THE POLICY, AND EQUITABLE RELIEF IS SOUGHT TO PROTECT THE
INSURER AGAINST LOSS OF ITS DEFENSE BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD
AFTER WHICH THE POLICY BY ITS TERMS IS TO BECOME INCONTESTABLE." 
..END :














